Talk:Henry the Fowler

Unsorted text

Fr. Jonat -- I think it would be a good idea to review how Michael Tinkler et al. have been adding the names of saints and kings, so that you don't accidentally create somebody twice or get people with the same name confused. I'm still trying to figure it all out, myself! I think (the last time I looked, that people were creating saints without the "St." -- like Benedict, Adalbert of Prague, etc. There are a bunch of important Matildas in the Middle Ages -- and when you talk about any of the French/German nobility and royalty, they use the same names over and over again. JHK

I've been wondering about this too, and have opened up discussion at talk:Naming conventions. -- Claudine

---

It does get confusing. I agree to creating the pages without saint . The first names were a very important part, they did not just name a person, because it was a pretty name. A name was like a royal title . Oftentimes the person had a different name in reality . But same first names were a family and continued the royal line. Only later last names were used . H. Jonat and yes JHK , the previous note signed H.J. was mine.

---

I think it needs to be more specific than "was associated with." Was she his mistress? Did she go to the French court and met him on the way to the loo? JHK

So, i guess by this last paragraph:

His son Otto succeeded him as Emperor Otto I ("the Great"). His second son, Henry, became duke of Bavaria. A third son, Brun (or Bruno), became archbishop of Cologne. His son from his first marriage, Thankmar, rebelled against his half-brother Otto and was killed in battle in 936. His daughter Gerberga married Duke Giselbert of Lorraine and subsequently King Louis IV of France. His youngest daughter Hedwige of Saxony married Duke (Hugh the Great) of France and was the mother of Hugh Capet, the first Capetian king of France.

......that, since Henry was a decendant of Charlemange, that through him, his daughter marrying in to what would soon after become the ruling family of France (the Capets) that the Capets are indeed in that way a long decendant of Charlemange? -Tate

Proper grammar please

The following sentence is grammatically incorrect:

He appears in Return to Castle Wolfenstein when the nazi tryning wake him from the death so we can win the war. He is the last boss.

Not to mention very biased. "We"? In addition, shouldn't the title be more formal, as "Henry I of Germany", just as Frederick Barbarossa's article is called "Frederick I, Holy Roman Emperor". -Alex, 12.220.157.93 07:55, 22 January 2006 (UTC)

Henry's Parents

Anyone have any insight into Henry's parents? This page says they were Otto the Illustrious and Hedwiga, a descendent of Charlemange, but Otto's page says he married Hathui, a daughter of a Duke of Austria. Was Hedwiga Otto's mistress, though that's not so likely, i suppose, if she were of "royal" blood. I'll question this on Otto's talk page too, since it's the same question for him, but backwards, i guess. Lindsay H. 08:45, 26 August 2006 (UTC)

He was the third son of Otto the Illustrious and Hathui (Hedwige), daughter of Henry of Franconia. Neither was of royal blood. Srnec 15:01, 16 May 2007 (UTC)

Wrong picture, again

The "Bamberg Horseman" or "Bambergian knight" seems to be a multiple personage: he portrays Henry I and his son Otto the Great at the same time. Wikipedia says so.

Indeed the historians don´t know exactly which person is depicted; maybe it is Henry II who founded the diocese Bamberg. Certainly neither Henry the Fowler nor Otto the Great are personified.

Alfred E. Neander 19:05, 27 November 2006 (UTC)

I´m from Franconia. I´ve never heard that the "Bamberger Reiter" should be Henry I. Most probable theories name german king Philipp of Schwaben or Stephen of Hungary; others say its not a real person but a symbol for Staufer Dynasty or a "universal king" or even the Messiah.Kleeblatt (talk) 19:38, 5 July 2010 (UTC)

Article moved

Henry I aka "the fowler" , "Heinrich der Vogler":

It is a legend that a delegation of German tribes met Henry in the woods to offer him the king´s crown while he was bird-hunting. The sport of catching birds in traps was regarded as a pleasure of the common man, not of noblemen. So the picture of Henry as "the fowler" shows him as a rustic, vital man, a future king of the common people, it became quite popular in the 19th century.

There are still several (!) places of the legendary event, e.g. the "Finkenherd" in Quedlinburg.

Maybe Henry I was busy with hunting birds when the delegation came, maybe he wasn´t. Maybe there never was a delegation, at least he was elected just by the Franconians and his own people, the Saxons.

As a matter of fact, Henry was the first king of his name to be king, and should be mentioned by his regnal name. Even in Germany he is better kown as Heinrich I., and less as Heinrich der Vogler.

Alfred E. Neander 19:04, 27 November 2006 (UTC)

Strangely enough, the most popular poem praising Henry as a fowler oder Vogler ("Herr Heinrich sitzt am Vogelherd") was written by Johann Nepomuk Vogl, and one of the pictures portraying him as bird-hunter was painted by Hermann Vogel. Coincidence?

Alfred E. Neander 19:40, 27 November 2006 (UTC)

first German king

"Henry I is therefore considered the first German king"

Why is that so? First East Frankish king after the Carolingian dynasty was Conrad I. In some German sources Conrad is considered first German king, in most English sources it is Henry. Is there a reason to pick Henry? --MacX85 (talk) 17:06, 4 October 2008 (UTC)

In old german empire (Holy Roman Empire of German Nation) they saw a direct line from Frankish Empire to Germany and therefore Karl der Große (eng. Charlemagne) was regarded as first Emperor and all after him (frankish and german) are one line; Karls was and is today counted als Karl I. In 19th century till Nazi time prussian and nationalist historians regarded Henry as first king, but in Southern Germany Konrad I was regarded as the first one (well, he was Duke of Frankonia and elected at Forchheim). Today modern german historians agree: There is no exact date or person when "Germany" started. It was a process of transforming East Frankish Empire to Germany. It started with treaty of Verdun 843 when Lothar, Karl and Ludwig divided the Empire. They didn´t want to create new states or nations, just wanted to divide their heritage among some guys of the same familiy, but in fact they made way for that what became Germany and France. And remember oaths of Straßburg 842. Ludwig "germanicus" got a territory that was similar to later Germany. Another date was 911, when after dead of Ludwig the Child east frankish princes decided not to elect a carolingian but Konrad I. He failed as king, but later Henry of Saxony was elected. Both Konrad and Henry were related to Carolingian dynasty and their voters didn´t have in mind to create a new "german nation", they just wanted a king more powerfull than this weak west-frankish carolingians. Another dates were 936 when Otto became king and at least 962 when Otto became emperor. At the latest since 962 we can talk about "Germany". So between 843 and 962 there was a time of change and transforming. All kings between Ludwig and Otto can be seen as "East Frankish Kings" and "German Kings". A similar process happened in the west transforming "West Frankish Kingdom" into "France". Please notice: In Germany this king is "Heinrich I" (Henry I). "Heinrich der Vogler/Finkler" (Henry the Fowler) is unhistoric and not common use in Germany. It was so in 19th century till nazi time, but not before and today.Kleeblatt (talk) 20:27, 5 July 2010 (UTC) (talk • contribs) 19:55, 5 July 2010 (UTC)

Actually "der Vogler" stems from 12th century documents which makes it more or less historic. I hear it from time to time but then again not many people do know him that well which is strange given his historical relevance.

What you said about continuity from the Carolingians over the Ottonians is right. However I think there are good reasons to call Henry the first king or founder of the medieval German kingdom. He got to be king of something which before was solely ruled by Franks (from differing dynasties). Even Conrad I. has been related to the Carolingians. Henry needed to wage war against different tribes in order to be acknowledged king over all of them and he succeeded and established one of the most powerful dynasties since Charlemagne.

Also the realm has been in a state of decay for quite some time due to inner struggles and invading magyars. Henry pretty much dealt with it and united the tribes under one king. (Bavarians had one of their one at that time)

There might be no clear break between Frankish and German kingdom in terms of nominal kingship but there is sure a qualitative one with and after Henry's reign.

I wouldn't say however that in 962 you can talk about "Germany" when before you couldn't. Otto I. did link the Roman imperial dignity to his Eastern Frankish kingdom which would get to be a tradition of its own. It didn't have a stronger impact upon the feeling of unity among German tribes, you might even say it was counterproductive in that regards. To speak of "Germany" as a kingdom of its own it needed to be seperated from France which have both been part of the Frankish kingdom before. You could say the progress of seperation has been completed with Henry's reign in the East (a Saxon on the Frankish throne) and Hugh Capet's in the West (who was Frank but no Carolingian).--MacX85 (talk) 16:16, 29 September 2013 (UTC)

Henry I and Himmler

Henry returned to public attention as a character in Richard Wagner's opera, Lohengrin (1850). There are indications that Heinrich Himmler imagined himself the reincarnation of the first king of Germany. Pretty dubious statement out of a pretty dubious book.--Tresckow (talk) 19:27, 27 June 2008 (UTC)

The following discussion is an archived discussion of the proposal. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the proposal was move. Thanks Srnec, I read your comments with interest. PeterSymonds (talk) 00:51, 18 August 2008 (UTC)

Requested move

The original title of this article was Henry the Fowler. It should be returned there; the relevant naming convention says If a monarch or prince is overwhelmingly known, in English, by a cognomen, it may be used, and there is then no need to disambiguate by adding Country. This is as overwhelmingly common, in English, as Henry the Lion, which is one of the examples. Let's move back. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 16:01, 6 August 2008 (UTC)

Survey

• Support as nom. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 16:03, 6 August 2008 (UTC)
• Support and agree that he is most commonly known as "Henry the Fowler". Olessi (talk) 21:37, 6 August 2008 (UTC)

Discussion

Cursory Google Books scan:

• Henry I of Germany: ~50
• Henry the Fowler: ~600

Olessi (talk) 21:37, 6 August 2008 (UTC)

Did you check the searches for the relevance of the hits? Were they found in books on the appropraite subject matter (German history, medieval history, etc.)? Also, I think the real contest is between "Henry I" in reference to a certain German king and "Henry the Fowler" in reference to the same person. Both on their own are ambiguous; "of Germany" is just a disambiguator that conveniently avoids unnecessary punctuation. I don't think authorities on this period of German history, like Timothy Reuter, Karl Leyser, D. S. Bachrach, etc. use "the Fowler" but instead prefer the numeral. Srnec (talk) 02:22, 9 August 2008 (UTC)

I have not found "Henry I of Germany" to be a reference to anyone but "Henry the Fowler". Since "the Fowler" is used more commonly than "I of Germany", there is a variety of books using that designation to refer to him. I'm not sure of the need to focus on authorities, as "names of Wikipedia articles should be optimized for readers over editors, and for a general audience over specialists." Olessi (talk) 15:51, 9 August 2008 (UTC)

I think I was confusing. All I was saying was that "Henry I" and "Henry the Fowler" are both ambiguous (one more so). "of Germany" is just a disambiguator. The contest should not be between the full phrase" Henry I of Germany" and "Henry the Fowler" but only between "Henry I" and "Henry the Fowler", making sure that in all instances we are comparing references to the German king, not other kings or the minstrel. I'm not sure that readers of the general audience are going to be confused by Henry I of Germany, since I doubt that most of them have ever heard of this guy unless they are German (in which case they probably know his numeral about as well as his nickname). Srnec (talk) 16:01, 9 August 2008 (UTC)

I'm not German, and I've heard of him, and would expect him to be at Henry the Fowler. English speakers who have not heard of him should be introduced to him under the name they can repeat without literate anglophones looking oddly at them. Both benefit from the change. Searches under Henry I return large numbers of false positives; both Henry I of England and Henry I of France occur in many books that mention Germany. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 19:53, 10 August 2008 (UTC)

If an Anglophone could not understand who "Henry I of Germany" was but knew "Henry the Fowler", I would not call him literate. Srnec (talk) 05:24, 11 August 2008 (UTC)

A literate Anglophone can work out who Charles I of France is too; but will still look funny at those who do not call him Charlemagne. So here. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 16:27, 11 August 2008 (UTC)

• And I don't see why German readers should come here; de:Heinrich I. (Ostfrankenreich) seems a sound article, although we would not try to distinguish between Germany and East Francia in that manner, especially in this period. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 20:19, 11 August 2008 (UTC)

I can't work out who Charles I of France is. Charlemagne or Charles the Bald? "Henry I of Germany" is on the same level as William I of England or Frederick I, Holy Roman Emperor: it requires no "working-out" for the well-read. "Charles I of France" is almost never used, especially today. The same cannot be said of "Henry I of Germany": the Britannica uses it, the Columbia, and Encarta. Medieval Germany: An Encyclopedia by John M. Jeep use it. In a recent article on the "Saxon military revolution" by B. S. Bachrach and D. Bachrach, they use both, but he is introduced in the abstract by his ordinal. As an aside, how do you feel about moving Willy and Fred? Srnec (talk) 22:46, 11 August 2008 (UTC)

Charlemagne. Charles the Bald is Charles II, as his article says. I am shocked to find that we are not using Frederick Barbarossa; William I of England is a borderline case. If WP:NCNT did not insist, we would be using William the Conqueror, as you can see from its talk page. I supported the move. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 23:24, 11 August 2008 (UTC)

Charles the Bald is the second emperor Charles, but not the second Charles of France. Srnec (talk) 03:56, 12 August 2008 (UTC)

It should say so; who, do you suppose, intervened? Charles the Simple is the third Charles of France, and the fourth is Charles le Bel, whom we list, reasonably, as Charles IV of France. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 16:54, 12 August 2008 (UTC)

Charles the Fat, of course. If Charlemagne is Charles I, there is a problem with the enumeration. Srnec (talk) 17:43, 12 August 2008 (UTC)

There appears to be: We do not number Charles the Fat; the French WP uses Roman numerals, and calls both Charles III; presumably Charles le Gros is Emperor Charles III. If this is on topic, I would call it another reason to avoid numerals when epithets are conventional. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 13:24, 13 August 2008 (UTC)

Before the admin closes this as move, let me just go on record saying that I agree that epithets should be preferred when the enumeration is disputed or when they overwhelm other names by orders of magnitude. I do think that consistency in naming persons in a line of succession should not be discarded willy-nilly. In the case of the (early) Carolingians, the choice for nicknames is clearcut. In the case of Henry the Fowler it is not: the academic literature comes at least close to favouring the number, which cannot be described as obscure. I doubt that Henry is mentioned enough in the English literature for the nickname to truly "overhwelm" the ordinal, which is not disputed and is not confusing. It is not at all comparable to "Charles II of France". It is useful to remember that both "Henry I" and "Henry the Fowler" are ambiguous and that the nickname is neither contemporary nor accurate, but is the result of legend (probably the reason that academia does not like it).

Charles the Fat is without doubt the third Emperor Charles and the second Charles of West Francia (France), while Charles the Bald is the second Emperor Charles and the first Charles of West Francia (France), and Charlemagne is the first Emperor Charles and never ruled an entity known as West Francia (France), but was the first Charles to be king of the Franks (Francia). The English enumeration practices can be confusing and they do differ, but I don't think any scholar would ever use a numeral for the Great or the Bald, though the Fat as "Charles III" I have seen (the imperial enumeration is clearcut and best-known; note how the enumeration of later emperors Henry is actually a royal enumeration). Srnec (talk) 04:11, 16 August 2008 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the proposal. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

Additions

I added his place of birth and death. 24.31.169.252 (talk) 11:17, 28 December 2009 (UTC)

Heinrich or Henry?

Shouldn't this article be about Heinrich?Presidentbalut (talk) 22:02, 8 August 2013 (UTC)

• WP:COMMONNAME clearly states that articles should be named based on how the subject is generally referred to in reliable English-language sources. That would be Henry in this case. Oh, and I hope you have not spammed this question on too many talk pages. You would have gotten the same answer if you had just posted this on a single German Henry's talkpage. Indrian (talk) 22:30, 8 August 2013 (UTC)

I agree. I think his name is Heinrich. Not Henry.

So wikipedia's policy is to give people wrong names?68.45.174.58 (talk) 04:16, 5 July 2016 (UTC)

I find it odd to translate his name. You can see how confusing it is in this article. Heinrich der Vogler is "Henry". Whereas Heinrich Himmler is "Heinrich". Why?HeinrichMueller (talk) 22:31, 8 October 2016 (UTC)

If you go by the name given in the sources it would be "Heinricus" or "Henricus". "Heinrich" is a modern German form as well. Also it's a regnal name which is always translated even today.--MacX85 (talk) 08:55, 26 November 2016 (UTC)

Was Henry canonized?

The punctuation of this sentence--

  "Matilda bore him three sons, one called Otto, and two daughters, Hedwig and Gerberga, and founded many religious institutions, including the abbey of Quedlinburg where Henry is buried and was later canonized."
    --gives us to understand that Henry was canonized.  However, if one searches the internet data, it appears that Matilda is the only one who was canonized, having founded many religious institutions, including the abbey of Quedlinburg..."

 Question:  Is Henry a Saint, or is this just bad writing?  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.98.177.74 (talk) 04:08, 2 February 2014 (UTC) 

Godwin's Law?

'Nazi ideology referred to Henry as a founding father of the German nation, fighting both the Latin Western Franks and the Slavic tribes of the East, thereby a precursor of the German Drang nach Osten."

Do not most people hold Heinrich der Vogler to be the Founding Father of the German Nation? HeinrichMueller (talk) 22:29, 8 October 2016 (UTC)

He certainly is a founding father of the medieval German kingdom. The German nation however grew over the centuries into what it is today with many political breaks.--MacX85 (talk) 08:59, 26 November 2016 (UTC)

Recently, Someone has been changing Historical pages.

I am 70 years old. I have been a genealogist for 52 years. Lately (especially this past years, or so), someone has been changing historical pages on Wikipedia pages. Adding the wrong Houses, names, family, duplications, inaccuracies, and some are just shear fantasy. Leaving out children, and adding children that they do not have. It is hysterically sad, really. Many of these pages are lacking any sort of viable sources/ references, and the pages are not set up correctly. I pity anyone who visits Wikipedia looking for accurate/ factual answers.

Furthermore, I do not know who is responsible, because their are so many names listed on the talk pages. What I do know, is that Wikipedia is fast becoming utter rubbish. If something is not done about it, Wikipedia, will no longer be a viable resource for research. If it were just a few pages, then I would try to fix them myself. However, there are so many errors, that it has become completely overwhelming. I am too old, and have no time for this rubbish.

Originally, I used direct resources overseas for my research, while living in England. Wikipedia was great in the beginning, until they let every Tom, Dick, and Mary edit pages. In future, I will no longer use Wikipedia as a resource for my research. It is just becoming too inaccurate, and way to unorganized to be of any use to any serious genealogist.

Perhaps, in future, people will use Wikipedia to get a good laugh. What a mess. I am so gone.

S.M. Randall Randallratzancestry (talk) 12:38, 29 May 2024 (UTC)