Talk:Elizabeth of Luxembourg

Died of?

Well? She died after her husband. I'm sure that's good for him, but look at that portrait. Her arms are crossed, and she looks stern. What do we know of her that would prompt that portrait? I assume that the deaths were plague, but wouldn't it be part of an encyclopedist's duty to tell us so? Wouldn't it be good to know something about her own life, rather than merely the stakes riding on her womb? Utgard Loki (talk) 15:01, 21 May 2008 (UTC)

Move to Elisabeth of Luxembourg

Can someone move this to Elisabeth of Luxembourg? It's already redirected to current Princess Elisabeth, Duchess of Hohenberg.--Queen Elizabeth II's Little Spy (talk) 07:36, 24 June 2010 (UTC)

Could you explain why? Elizabeth of Luxembourg[1][2] is a name much more common than Elisabeth of Luxembourg.[3][4] Surtsicna (talk) 17:10, 24 June 2010 (UTC)

She was a monarch

Certainly, her position was not "secured" in any way, but it was common for female monarchs of that time. There was an election that elected her as ruler in 1437, there was a law that recognized her birth right and her status as co-ruler in 1439, she played a part (greater than many other queens regnant of the Medieval and Early Modern periods) in the government both before and after Albert's death.

She was not crowned by the Esztergom bishop, yes, but Barbara of Cilli was crowned by the Esztergom bishop (according to Dvořáková) and this did not make her queen regnant.

I think that listing her as monarch while noting there were unusual, problematic events/"details" that weakened her position as a ruling sovereign would be fair, and true to the sources (a similar approach is seen in the case of Margaret of Denmark/Kalmar Union (who was a stronger ruler in practice but with an even more problematic case concerning titles, at least for Norway and Sweden where she was not a daughter of a king and never called herself King or Queen regnant but used an elected, unprecedented title in a few years).

— Preceding unsigned comment added by Deamonpen (talk • contribs)

• The first source you've provided says: "This is the first biography of Barbara of Cilli (1392-1451), Hungarian, Roman-German and Bohemian queen through her marriage to King and later Emperor Sigismund of Luxembourg...", implying that Elizabeth was a consort. The second excerpt you've given likewise does not state that Elizabeth was a queen regnant, only that she was involved in government affairs. Unlimitedlead (talk) 18:01, 18 December 2022 (UTC)

The introduction sentence of Dvořáková's work is about Barbara of Cilli, not her daughter, who was " elected [...] as queen" and an "equivalent ruler" to her husband. See the sentence I quote. Burkhardt's description of Elizabeth is "the legitimate crowned queen". This is another excerpt from her article:

Despite Sigismund's diligent preparations, Albert's governmental takeover in the lands of the Crown of St Stephen did not go as smoothly as the candidate might have wished for. Though after Sigismund's death in December 1437, negotiations with the representatives of the nobility began relatively quickly, they turned out to be a true challenge for Albert and Elizabeth. In the run—up to its Hungarian coronation, the couple had had to endure significant conflicts with the local nobility in Hungary. Elizabeth and Albert finally had to consent to certain conditions for the kingship, including promises to respect and maintain the laws and privileges of the kingdom and the nobility. Calling themselves rex electus and regina electa, the couple, however, underlined that the nobles’ consent to their succession weighed higher than dynastic traditions. Some days later, Albert and Elizabeth were elected king and queen by the Hungarian nobles and took their oath of allegiance; in January 1438, they were crowned in Székesfehérvér with the Crown of St Stephen.

Source

-Deamonpen (talk) 18:15, 18 December 2022 (UTC)

@Deamonpen Ah, sorry that I misread. I do not lean either way in this debate, but I would like to monitor the discussion to see what happens. Good luck in working with this article. Unlimitedlead (talk) 18:18, 18 December 2022 (UTC)

User:Super20020917, please refrain from unnecessary new sections. Wikipedia does not require that a queen regnant should be fully legitimated or whatever according to your standard. It only requires sources. In Burgkhardt's work, what she is saying with "the legitimate crowned queen" is obviously queen regnant. The note for the sentence calls Sigismund "her father and predecessor".

If Elizebeth's claim to the throne as Sigismund's daughter was ridiculous, Albert's claim as his son-in-law and the former's husband was surely moreso.

If other claimants have sources (meeting Wikipedia's standards) claiming that they were queens-regnant, then sure they should be listed as queens regnant, or if there are other legitimate sources claiming the opposite, the procedure should be "Such and such claim that they were queens regnant, such and such don't agree." When there are multiple claimants, Wikipedia tends to "recognize" both sides, with a note that their statuses are controversial. For example, Matthias Corvinus's infobox lists him as "King of Bohemia contested by George and Vladislaus II" and "Duke of Austria contested by Frederick V"; Empress Matilda is listed as "Lady of the English (disputed)". So why should this NOT apply to Elizabeth of Luxembourg?

Also, User:Norden1990, please leave your sources and reasoning here for contesting this.

-Deamonpen (talk) 02:11, 19 December 2022 (UTC)

Hi, just stopping in here. I'd like to point out that "the legitimate crowned queen" does not necessarily mean a queen regnant. In my readings, I've seen Catherine of Aragon described this way, and she certainly was not a queen regnant, but rather a consort. The part where you said "If Elizebeth's claim to the throne as Sigismund's daughter was ridiculous, Albert's claim as his son-in-law and the former's husband was surely moreso" is also questionable because this system of inheritance was actually fairly common in Europe, for example, with Maria of Jülich-Berg. Some cases are more difficult to access, such as Sancha of León, who despite having nothing in the way of being a queen regnant, is not recognized as such by historians; instead her inheritance was passed to her husband and son.

Elizabeth of Luxembourg is likely one of these cases of ambiguity. Both sides have made valid points, although the hostility probably needs to be toned down. While I understand why Elizabeth could be considered a monarch, I've never seen her referred to as one until this Wikipedia argument. If either side wants to advance their claims, they'll need to find reliable sources that just flat out state what exactly Elizabeth's title was:

• If you are of the mind that Elizabeth was a consort, a reliable source saying something along the lines of "consort", "queen consort", or "as the wife of" would need to be provided.
• If you think Elizabeth was a queen regnant, likewise. "Rex electus and regina electa", "their succession", "were elected king and queen", and "were crowned in Székesfehérvér with the Crown of St Stephen" are very ambiguous phrases that could be applied to a queen consort. For example, Anne Boleyn was crowned using St. Edward's Crown, which was reserved for ruling monarchs only.

Unlimitedlead (talk) 13:51, 19 December 2022 (UTC)

But her father being her predecessor is not ambiguous at all. If she had been a queen consort, her mother Barbara would have been her predecessor. Similarly, Dvořáková's "equivalent rulers" is enough to indicate what she was. Matilda's and Margaret's titles (Lady of the English, "Lord and Lady and Guardian...etc") are not "queens regnant", but they are currently listed as monarchs.

I totally don't understand User:Super20020917's reasoning regarding using other Wiki pages as the Holy Bible (above published and respected historians) or their self-imposed limit on the number of female monarchs a country is supposed to have. By the way, 元氏 (魏孝明帝女) was an Empress regnant according to Chinese Wikipedia - if that kind of standard should be applied at all. - 15:59, 19 December 2022 (UTC) Deamonpen (talk) 15:59, 19 December 2022 (UTC)

Right. The fact that one of the sources states that Elizabeth succeeded her father does shift the argument towards the side that argues that Elizabeth should be considered a monarch, but again, no one has yet to provide any reliable sources that plainly state Elizabeth's status. I hate to say this, but the odds are pretty stacked against your case. Elizabeth of Luxembourg has been considered a consort for a long time now (see this, for instance), and scholarship has rarely challenged this notion.

Regarding Matilda, she is only disputedly a monarch and is rarely counted in the list of official English monarchs. Even the monarchy's official website merely refers to her as "Matilda" or "Empress Matilda", never acknowledging Matilda's alleged monarchical status. As for Margaret I, the only reason she is counted as a monarch is because the current Danish monarchy recognizes her as such (see this discussion on my talk page), and even then, there are still doubts. Hungary no longer has any sort of monarchy that can speak on whether Elizabeth was a queen regnant or consort. Even if Elizabeth does end up "being" a queen regnant at the end of this Wikipedia discussion, at most, she would be considered a semi-monarch, similar to Matilda's situation.

Unlimitedlead (talk) 17:19, 19 December 2022 (UTC)

References

The case of Empress Matilda id different. The title "Lady of the English" itself holds a reason of just claiming the throne, and even that was disputed. She is therefore not called "queen regnant" because she was UNABLE to secure her own position like Elizabeth of Luxembourg herself. If you want to able the title "queen regnant" it technically already means that the person was legitimate which would be exaggerated in the case of Elizabeth. Super20020917 (talk) 05:06, 19 December 2022 (UTC)

• Sorry, add the title "queen regnant" Super20020917 (talk) 05:07, 19 December 2022 (UTC)

We can just add a note in the biography of Elizabeth of Luxembourg as a fully recognizable regent for her infant son and a DE FACTO not DE JURE ruler of the country but not a queen regnant itself Super20020917 (talk) 05:10, 19 December 2022 (UTC)

The position of queen regnant was itself almost unthinkable for the Hungary of that same period. Only Mary, daughter of Louis the Great, can be considered as such because she managed somehow to be crowned a "King" a fact which could not be ignored in any case. If you think that Elizabeth of Luxembourg was equal to that, sorry, but the reality was extremely different. Your very sources just specify her as a "fully legitimate queen,heiress" and so on, and that she was crowned a QUEEN together with her husband, the KING. So her position was undoubtablely much more unclear from the perspective of her contemporary Hungary. It DOES NOT matter how influental or how many strongholds, estates she had. Super20020917 (talk) 05:30, 19 December 2022 (UTC)

By the way, Mary is called "kiralyno" in the very page of the Hungarian section of wikipedia, while Elizabeth of Luxembourg is just called "kiralyne" like an ordinary consort, which once again reaffirms the fact. Super20020917 (talk) 05:35, 19 December 2022 (UTC)

After all, your sources show the opinions of few historians. So I don't think, with all respect to their works and career, we have to rewrite the whole history of Hungary and Wikipedia only because of their judgements. Super20020917 (talk) 05:49, 19 December 2022 (UTC)

The most renowned scientist of our times, Elon Musk says we may live in a simulation, but it DOES NOT mean that we sould unevitablely reconsider the official academic view and think as he approaches something. Super20020917 (talk) 06:13, 19 December 2022 (UTC)

We must follow only to orthodox historiography Super20020917 (talk) 06:32, 19 December 2022 (UTC)

I offer to leave the page of Elizabeth of Luxembourg as it is at the very moment, with all of the edits and additional sources with with the note above that she was "Queen consort of Hungary". Super20020917 (talk) 07:00, 19 December 2022 (UTC)

• But with the note Super20020917 (talk) 07:01, 19 December 2022 (UTC)

Or a CLAIMANT queen regnant but not more Super20020917 (talk) 07:02, 19 December 2022 (UTC)

By the way, if you study the history of China, you'll see that there were also other claimants to the throne, who were female, except We Zetian, even one was during her very lifetime. Wu Zetian (Chinese: 武則天) – Empress regnant of China, ruling from 690 to 705. She was the only orthodox reigning empress in the history of China. Although Wu Zetian is the only undisputed empress regnant recognized in orthodox Chinese historiography, there are two other documented cases of a woman holding the title of "Empress regnant" in Chinese history:

Daughter of Emperor Xiaoming of Northern Wei (Chinese: 元氏 (北魏孝明帝女); ruled 1–2 April 528) – during Northern Wei Dynasty, Empress Dowager Hu, after her son Emperor Xiaoming of Northern Wei's death, falsely declared Emperor Xiaoming's daughter to be a son and declared the daughter to be the new ruler, but almost immediately revealed that the child was in fact female, and thereafter declared Yuan Zhao, the young son of Emperor Xiaoming's cousin Yuan Baohui (元寶暉) emperor. Emperor Xiaoming's daughter is also therefore not usually considered a true monarch. Chen Shuozhen (ruled 653) – She led a peasant uprising in 653. During the rebellion, she declared herself Emperor. BUT ONLY WU ZETIAN CAN BE REGARDED AS A PASSABLE EMPRESS RULER. THERE WAS ONE WU ZETIAN IN ALL CHINA AND ONE MARY IN THE MEDIEVAL HUNGARY. If you have problems with that, then try to edit the pages of Wu Zetian and Margaret of Denmark. Super20020917 (talk) 07:19, 19 December 2022 (UTC)

Even the fact that Elizabeth of Luxembourg could not secure her supposed position as a "co-ruler" after her husband's death shows that she was more of a mere queen consort, as a queen regnant's position is normally held until the female ruler's demise, like with Mary, Queen of Hungary, whose position was not connected with the fact of a husband's or a co-reigning person. Super20020917 (talk) 08:36, 19 December 2022 (UTC)

Even the editor himself writes down indesicive dates about Elizabeth's supposed reign, 1437—1440/1442, mentioning that she had virtually no position as a head of state after her husband's death.PLEASE, just don't connect it with the statement that a woman was considered inappropriate or weak to rule, and that's why she was removed. IF SHE WAS indeed a normal queen regnant she couls marry once again and hold her status, not to be removed as an expired figure in politics. Super20020917 (talk) 08:41, 19 December 2022 (UTC)

For example, Anna Jagiellon of Poland herself renounced the position of queen regnant after her husband's Stephen Bathory's death in 1586, even though SHE WAS CONSIDERED TO MARRY ANOTHER MAN AND REIGN UNTIL HER OWN DEATH AS SHE WAS A FULLY RECOGNISED ELECTED "KING" OF POLAND. SO SHE DID IT VOLUNTEERLY, NOT BEING FACTUALLY REMOVED as the discussed character. Super20020917 (talk) 08:45, 19 December 2022 (UTC)

OH SORRY SHE EVEN WAS ABOUT TO REMAIM ON THE THRONE SOLELY. After her husband's death in December 1586, Anna had the opportunity to remain on the throne as the sole ruler, but instead promoted her nephew Sigismund III Vasa, whose reign established the House of Vasa on the Polish throne for the next eighty years (1587–1668). Super20020917 (talk) 08:48, 19 December 2022 (UTC)

Link:https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anna_Jagiellon Super20020917 (talk) 08:49, 19 December 2022 (UTC)

Link:https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_women_rulers Super20020917 (talk) 08:50, 19 December 2022 (UTC)

IF WE REWRITE THIS, IT WOULD BECOME VERY INCONCLUSIVE, AS I AM SURE THAT THERE CAN BE FOUND DOZENS OF OTHER INFLUENTIAL QUEENS IN HISTORY, who undirectly ruled the country but were never completely recognised as official heads of states by the orthodox history. Super20020917 (talk) 10:38, 19 December 2022 (UTC)

Her father, Sigismund, held his crown only as JURE UXORIS (by the right of his wife) Mary, "King" of Hungary, nothing more. Super20020917 (talk) 17:19, 19 December 2022 (UTC)

He did not inherit it, he just remained a sole ruler after his LEGITIMATE co-king's death in 1395 Super20020917 (talk) 17:21, 19 December 2022 (UTC)

Sorry, but I don't understand the opposing editor's reason for pushing so hard for Elizabeth of Luxembourg's case either. I mentioned SEVERAL times that I agree that their edits should be left as they are quite competent, but TO CHANGE A STATUS OR A POSITION OF A QUEEN WHO WAS ALWAYS CONSIDERED MERELY AS MEANS TO TRANSFER THE THRONE TO HER HUSBAND, THEN HER SON? That would be a disrespect to the traditional view of all of the other RESPECTABLE HISTORIANS AND EDITORS, just because of an alternative, not so much clear notions of few scholars' researches. Super20020917 (talk) 17:58, 19 December 2022 (UTC)

By the way, today is the day of her death. Let's have some respect and end up this futile argument. Super20020917 (talk) 18:10, 19 December 2022 (UTC)

Here is a source from the Hungarian wikipedia [1] L. Dümmerth (1982: 493). Super20020917 (talk) 20:36, 19 December 2022 (UTC)

Ahhoz, hogy nő létére elfoglalhassa a trónt, apjának, I. Lajosnak fiúsíttatni kellett leányát, így jogilag férfinak számított, ezért is használták rá jogosan a rex (király) megjelölést a regina (királyné, királynő) helyett, amely utóbbi kifejezés elsősorban a király hitvesét jelölte.[1] Super20020917 (talk) 20:36, 19 December 2022 (UTC)

THIS LITERALLY SAYS: In order for her to take the throne as a woman, her father, Louis I, had to make his daughter a boy, so she was legally considered a man, which is why she was rightly referred to as rex (king) instead of regina (queen), the latter term primarily referring to the consort of the king nominated.[1]. SO the case of Mary, Queen of Hungary is exceptional, as she was declared a MAN by the comperorary legal system, otherwise she would be unable to inherit the throne. Super20020917 (talk) 20:40, 19 December 2022 (UTC)

THIS LITERALLY IMPLIES THAT THERE WAS NO provision in law for a female ruler, so all of the other cases, including Elizabeth of Luxembourg, CANNOT be considered monarchs. Super20020917 (talk) 20:43, 19 December 2022 (UTC)

So Elizabeth was a wife of a king, Albert. She is noted to be crowned QUEEN with her husband, THE KING. IN HUNGARY'S CASE it means 100% that she was regarded by the contemporary law only as her husband's sidekick, which is normally called queen consort. Super20020917 (talk) 04:22, 20 December 2022 (UTC)

She was not a monarch

PLEASE, some attention. Hungary had only two queen regnants who can not be disputed anyway • Mary, Queen of Hungary(1382-85; 86-1395) • Maria Theresa(r.1740-1780) WHY? Because these two women officially held the title"king" which no other woman had in the whole course of Hungary, and they were officially CROWNED as such. There was no provision in the Hungarian law for a ruling queen, but there was no clarification that the King should be male. So even if Elizabeth of Luxembourg was crowned a queen, it means that she had an indesicive position and can be regarded only as a temporary claimant to the throne not a MONARCH. Because the terms"monarch" and "king" were mandatory and interchangable for anyone, be it a MAN or a WOMAN, to be considered a FULLY LEGITIMATE MONARCH in Hungary. Super20020917 (talk) 21:28, 18 December 2022 (UTC)

Burkhardt's description of Elizabeth is "the legitimate crowned queen" can just be considered anyway. It only says that she was a legitimate crowned queen which is closer to the idea of queen consort not a queen regnant in the case of the medieval Hungary. Super20020917 (talk) 22:02, 18 December 2022 (UTC)

SO there were only two women who can be fully regarded as rulers in the middle ages Hungary, MARY AND MARIA THERESA(although she lived in the 18th century). If we take into account all other claimants then we can have at least 20 potential queens regnant)) I am not talking about Margaret of Denmark, Wu Zetian, Kalmar Union, etc. that the editor left in the talk page. The discussed question now is the case of Hungary, with only two wholly legitimate female rulers, Mary and Maria Theresa Super20020917 (talk) 22:07, 18 December 2022 (UTC)

It does not matter who had how much influence as a female ruler, it is about a fully forged and undeniable position that a queen regnant("king") held. Super20020917 (talk) 22:14, 18 December 2022 (UTC)

• forged( I mean formal); fortified Super20020917 (talk) 22:17, 18 December 2022 (UTC)

Also, even her father, Sigismund of Luxembourg, held the crown only as the husband of Mary, King of Hungary, which makes Elizabeth's rights to the throne even more ephimerical. Super20020917 (talk) 22:26, 18 December 2022 (UTC)

• ephemeral Super20020917 (talk) 22:27, 18 December 2022 (UTC)

so you can't wishful thinking) Super20020917 (talk) 22:35, 18 December 2022 (UTC)

The case of Empress Matilda id different. The title "Lady of the English" itself holds a reason of just claiming the throne, and even that was disputed. She is therefore not called "queen regnant" because she was UNABLE to secure her own position like Elizabeth of Luxembourg herself. If you want to able the title "queen regnant" it technically already means that the person was legitimate which would be exaggerated in the case of Elizabeth. Super20020917 (talk) 05:06, 19 December 2022 (UTC)

Sorry, add the title "queen regnant" Super20020917 (talk) 05:07, 19 December 2022 (UTC) We can just add a note in the biography of Elizabeth of Luxembourg as a fully recognizable regent for her infant son and a DE FACTO not DE JURE ruler of the country but not a queen regnant itself Super20020917 (talk) 05:10, 19 December 2022 (UTC)

The position of queen regnant was itself almost unthinkable for the Hungary of that same period. Only Mary, daughter of Louis the Great, can be considered as such because she managed somehow to be crowned a "King" a fact which could not be ignored in any case. If you think that Elizabeth of Luxembourg was equal to that, sorry, but the reality was extremely different. Your very sources just specify her as a "fully legitimate queen,heiress" and so on, and that she was crowned a QUEEN together with her husband, the KING. So her position was undoubtablely much more unclear from the perspective of her contemporary Hungary. It DOES NOT matter how influental or how many strongholds, estates she had. Super20020917 (talk) 05:30, 19 December 2022 (UTC)

By the way, Mary is called "kiralyno" in the very page of the Hungarian section of wikipedia, while Elizabeth of Luxembourg is just called "kiralyne" like an ordinary consort, which once again reaffirms the fact. Super20020917 (talk) 05:35, 19 December 2022 (UTC)

After all, your sources show the opinions of few historians. So I don't think, with all respect to their works and career, we have to rewrite the whole history of Hungary and Wikipedia only because of their judgements. Super20020917 (talk) 05:49, 19 December 2022 (UTC)

The most renowned scientist of our times, Elon Musk says we may live in a simulation, but it DOES NOT mean that we sould unevitablely reconsider the official academic view and think as he approaches something. Super20020917 (talk) 06:13, 19 December 2022 (UTC)

We must follow only to orthodox historiography Super20020917 (talk) 06:32, 19 December 2022 (UTC)

I offer to leave the page of Elizabeth of Luxembourg as it is at the very moment, with all of the edits and additional sources with with the note above that she was "Queen consort of Hungary". Super20020917 (talk) 07:00, 19 December 2022 (UTC)

But with the note Super20020917 (talk) 07:01, 19 December 2022 (UTC) Or a CLAIMANT queen regnant but not more Super20020917 (talk) 07:02, 19 December 2022 (UTC)

By the way, if you study the history of China, you'll see that there were also other claimants to the throne, who were female, except We Zetian, even one was during her very lifetime. Wu Zetian (Chinese: 武則天) – Empress regnant of China, ruling from 690 to 705. She was the only orthodox reigning empress in the history of China. Although Wu Zetian is the only undisputed empress regnant recognized in orthodox Chinese historiography, there are two other documented cases of a woman holding the title of "Empress regnant" in Chinese history:

Daughter of Emperor Xiaoming of Northern Wei (Chinese: 元氏 (北魏孝明帝女); ruled 1–2 April 528) – during Northern Wei Dynasty, Empress Dowager Hu, after her son Emperor Xiaoming of Northern Wei's death, falsely declared Emperor Xiaoming's daughter to be a son and declared the daughter to be the new ruler, but almost immediately revealed that the child was in fact female, and thereafter declared Yuan Zhao, the young son of Emperor Xiaoming's cousin Yuan Baohui (元寶暉) emperor. Emperor Xiaoming's daughter is also therefore not usually considered a true monarch. Chen Shuozhen (ruled 653) – She led a peasant uprising in 653. During the rebellion, she declared herself Emperor. BUT ONLY WU ZETIAN CAN BE REGARDED AS A PASSABLE EMPRESS RULER. THERE WAS ONE WU ZETIAN IN ALL CHINA AND ONE MARY IN THE MEDIEVAL HUNGARY. If you have problems with that, then try to edit the pages of Wu Zetian and Margaret of Denmark. Super20020917 (talk) 07:19, 19 December 2022 (UTC)

Even the fact that Elizabeth of Luxembourg could not secure her supposed position as a "co-ruler" after her husband's death shows that she was more of a mere queen consort, as a queen regnant's position is normally held until the female ruler's demise, like with Mary, Queen of Hungary, whose position was not connected with the fact of a husband's or a co-reigning person. Super20020917 (talk) 08:36, 19 December 2022 (UTC)

Even the editor himself writes down indesicive dates about Elizabeth's supposed reign, 1437—1440/1442, mentioning that she had virtually no position as a head of state after her husband's death.PLEASE, just don't connect it with the statement that a woman was considered inappropriate or weak to rule, and that's why she was removed. IF SHE WAS indeed a normal queen regnant she couls marry once again and hold her status, not to be removed as an expired figure in politics. Super20020917 (talk) 08:41, 19 December 2022 (UTC)

For example, Anna Jagiellon of Poland herself renounced the position of queen regnant after her husband's Stephen Bathory's death in 1586, even though SHE WAS CONSIDERED TO MARRY ANOTHER MAN AND REIGN UNTIL HER OWN DEATH AS SHE WAS A FULLY RECOGNISED ELECTED "KING" OF POLAND. SO SHE DID IT VOLUNTEERLY, NOT BEING FACTUALLY REMOVED as the discussed character. Super20020917 (talk) 08:45, 19 December 2022 (UTC)

OH SORRY SHE EVEN WAS ABOUT TO REMAIM ON THE THRONE SOLELY. After her husband's death in December 1586, Anna had the opportunity to remain on the throne as the sole ruler, but instead promoted her nephew Sigismund III Vasa, whose reign established the House of Vasa on the Polish throne for the next eighty years (1587–1668). Super20020917 (talk) 08:48, 19 December 2022 (UTC)

Link:https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anna_Jagiellon Super20020917 (talk) 08:49, 19 December 2022 (UTC)

Link:https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_women_rulers Super20020917 (talk) 08:50, 19 December 2022 (UTC) Super20020917 (talk) 08:54, 19 December 2022 (UTC)

ONCE AGAIN I DON'T WANT TO REMOVE THE EDITS MADE ON THE PAGE OF ELIZABETH OF LUXEMBOURG. I JUST WANT THAT THE PAGE BE LEFT AS IT IS NOW AT THIS VERY MOMENT. WITH FRESH EDITIONS, BUT WITH THE NOTE ON THE ABOVE AND UNDER HER PICTURE THAT SHE IS GENERALLY REGARDED "Queen consort of Hungary" not more or less. Super20020917 (talk) 09:03, 19 December 2022 (UTC)

Sorry to admins for an edit warring Super20020917 (talk) 09:06, 19 December 2022 (UTC)

There were only two normal queens regnant in the history of Hungary: Mary I and Maria Theresa. Super20020917 (talk) 09:10, 19 December 2022 (UTC)

The only way to become a queen regnant in the royal Hungary was to be crowned "king" which is right with the case of Mary and Maria Theresa, no one else Super20020917 (talk) 09:24, 19 December 2022 (UTC)

This also seems to be the matter with the royal Poland too Super20020917 (talk) 09:26, 19 December 2022 (UTC)

IF WE REWRITE IT, IT WOULD BECOME VERY INCONCLUSIVE, AS I AM SURE THAT THERE CAN BE FOUND DOZENS OF OTHER INFLUENTIAL QUEENS IN HISTORY, who undirectly ruled the country but were never completely recognised as official heads of states by the orthodox history. Super20020917 (talk) 10:35, 19 December 2022 (UTC)

Here is a source from the Hungarian wikipedia [1] L. Dümmerth (1982: 493). Super20020917 (talk) 20:36, 19 December 2022 (UTC)

Ahhoz, hogy nő létére elfoglalhassa a trónt, apjának, I. Lajosnak fiúsíttatni kellett leányát, így jogilag férfinak számított, ezért is használták rá jogosan a rex (király) megjelölést a regina (királyné, királynő) helyett, amely utóbbi kifejezés elsősorban a király hitvesét jelölte.[1] Super20020917 (talk) 20:36, 19 December 2022 (UTC)

THIS LITERALLY SAYS: In order for her to take the throne as a woman, her father, Louis I, had to make his daughter a boy, so she was legally considered a man, which is why she was rightly referred to as rex (king) instead of regina (queen), the latter term primarily referring to the consort of the king nominated.[1]. SO the case of Mary, Queen of Hungary is exceptional, as she was declared a MAN by the contemporary legal system, otherwise she would be unable to inherit the throne. Super20020917 (talk) 20:40, 19 December 2022 (UTC)

THIS LITERALLY IMPLIES THAT THERE WAS NO provision in law for a female ruler, so all of the other cases, including Elizabeth of Luxembourg, CANNOT be considered monarchs. Super20020917 (talk) 20:52, 19 December 2022 (UTC)

Factual error

There is reference in the last paragraph of the "Queenship" section that indicates a law from 1939 plays a role in determining the type of role held by Elizabeth. Regardless of what anyone's opinion is on whether or not she was a queen regnant, a queen consort, or not a queen in any sense, I am certain that no law from 1939 is applicable to this situation. Please verify the information from the original source (or another quality source) and correct this when the article is no longer protected. Risker (talk) 19:03, 19 December 2022 (UTC)