Talk:List of German monarchs/Archive 1

Archive 1

Old talk

There is a very basic misconception here. The Title "King of Germany" was an empty one almost from the begining. Much like Napoleon's calling his son "King of Rome". Germany was, as Prince von Metternich said of Italy in 1815, "merely a geographical concept". The Holy Roman Empire of the German nation was a loose confederation of territories, each with their own sovereign rulers, under the presidency of the Holy Roman Emperor, who was elected according to the rules set up by Charles IV in the Golden Bull and was pretty much a gilded figurehead. The emperor's power base was invariably his own territories, in the case of the Habsburgs, Austria and the Bohemian Crown Lands and later Hungary. The various Kings, Dukes, Archbishops, etc., ruling in the other territories were virtually independent of the Emperor---if he couldn't get them to agree to his program or force them to agree, he was out of luck. That's how the Electors of Saxony and Dukes of Hessen, for example, could defy the Imperial will in the Reformation and Charles V had to try to beat them back into line. And the more time passed, the more independent the constituent states of the Empire became. Louis XIV of France did his best to keep the German territories of the Empire un-united and fragmented in order to weaken the Habsburgs and solidify his own position. Although there were various attempts to unify the German lands after the Empire collapsed, the Confederation of the Rhein, the German Congress at Frankfurt in 1848, the North German Confederation, there was no "Germany" until 1871 when the sovereign princes proclaimed Wilhelm I Hohenzollern as Emperor of Germany. Even then the Kings, Princes, Dukes etc, remained remarkably independent within their own territories, the Kingdoms of Saxony, Bavaria, Wuerttemberg etc all continued right up unti lthe fall of the Hohenzollern "Second Empire" in 1918. As Emperoor, the King of Prussia was the First among equals as well. But to pretend that the 14th Century "Kings of Germany" had anything more than a title is to display a remarkable lack of historical understanding 70.242.158.133 (talk)Pastor R —Preceding comment was added at 15:07, 24 April 2008 (UTC)

Ok -- are these German Kings or Holy Roman Emperors? They are not the same thing. Could someone whose sum knowledge of the period is not gained from reading the LDS family history site please help here? JHK

They are German Kings. The German King was usually also the Holy Roman Emperor. In fact from Otto I onwards every Holy Roman Emperor was German.

Before Otto I the Holy Roman Emperor was either from West Francia (France),East Francia (Germany) or Middle Francia (Italy).

---

Is there any reason to list two Habsburgs as "Miscellaneous Houses" instead of "House of Habsburg"? JeLuF

Yep -- the person who constructed this page gets her history from dubious genealogical websites, and those of us who actually do history don't care as much about meaningless lists. Or at least that's my take on it. JHK

I think there should be two separte pages: 1 for Kings of Germany (only about 4) one for Emperors of the Holy Roman Empire.

I just tried to fix it up a little, to make things more clear. I'd also note that the articles on the Holy Roman Emperors named "Henry" are totally screwed up. Because "Henry I the Fowler" was never crowned Emperor, somebody has taken it into their heads that all of the later Emperors should be moved down an ordinal. So, if I wanted to look for Barbarossa's son, Henry VI, I'd instead come up with the article on the Emperor almost always called "Henry VII", and so forth. This is a serious problem, and one beyond my competence. john 01:16 Apr 29, 2003 (UTC)

The actual reason for Habsburgs being in the Misc section is, that this section covers a period when there actually was no one dynasty. The crown changed back and forth between different houses and in fact the electors did that one purpose, to keep royal authority as weak as possible. So you have from Habsburg to Nassau and back to Habsburg, to Luxemburg, to the double election of 1314, to Luxemburg to Rupprecht and back to the Luxemburgs. With Albrecht II the Habsburgs managed to secure a constant grip on the crown. This was in jeopardy at any election, but the Habsburgs managed to prevail until 1740. Hence we have now a Misc section until 1438 and a Habsburg section from 1438 to 1740. Str1977 29 June 2005 09:29 (UTC)

---

HI John -- my comments certainly weren't meant to insult -- only to point out that the French article was in relatively good shape by comparison. I'll certainly try to help out -- although not much until the quarter's over. The problems with France have seriously eaten into my weekend. CHeers! JHK

It's fine, I wasn't offended. My changes were made in the early days of my discover of wikipedia almost a month ago. I feel I've grown as a person since then. In any event, it was much worse before I got there, being full of confusing and wrong dates, and calling all the Emperors Henry by the wrong number. I think it's fairly adequate at the moment, in that it doesn't have any outright misinformation (although it did have some anachronisms that I neglected, but that you have just corrected), but it could definitely be improved to actually explain what the hell it's talking about. john 01:53 26 May 2003 (UTC)

---

Could somebody explain to me why there are two such lists, List of German Kings and Emperors and List of Holy Roman Emperors, and what future plans are WRT these two? Shall these eventually be merged? I wish they were, because the way it is now, things are confusing. Many people are already confused by the (rather irrelevant) distinction between German Kings and Emperors, when in fact one is a requisite for the other, and these two pages don't help. If you want my € 0.02, List of Holy Roman Emperors should go. I'll gladly help. -- Djmutex 11:50 31 May 2003 (UTC)

I concur. I came upon these lists in a really bad state when I first came on Wikipedia, and tried to improve them. (The dates and titles of each ruler are now accurate). But it remains confusing, especially with the two pages. So do what needs to be done. john 17:09 31 May 2003 (UTC)

Um, IIRC, some of this came from the first wars of nationhood at wikipedia, where someone sensible was working on one list, and our German T., HJ, was rying to come up with something that fit her understanding. But since there are in my estimation fewer than 10 people who belong on this list (because there is no Germany, so German doesn't work, I suggest we have a list of "Kings of the Germans and Holy Roman Emperors" and a short list for the modern guys called Kings and Emperors of Germany???JHK 17:17 31 May 2003 (UTC)

That sounds good, actually, except the latter page should just be "List of German Emperors", since there were no Kings of Germany, and the title was Deutscher Kaiser, not Kaiser von Deutschland. BTW, what exactly was the title of the non-crowned Holy Roman Emperors? I've heard King of Germany, King in Germany, German King, King of the Romans, simply "King", and now King of the Germans. john 17:29 31 May 2003 (UTC)

Well, my proposition would be to merge List of Holy Roman Emperors over and get rid of it. I find List of German Kings and Emperors good enough of a title for the moment, since any title would be incorrect for any given period of time. There was no Germany in the earlier centuries, nor was there a Holy Roman Empire; initially, it was the Eastern part of the former Frankish realm. Anyway, all Emperors were German Kings, but not the other way round, at least until 1508. Later things become even more complicated because there were several kings in Germany after the Prussians cheated to become kings themselves.

Anyway, I'd start merging the two lists then. We can always rename the page later, if somebody comes up with a better title. My first priority would be to get rid of one of the two lists. djmutex 17:39 31 May 2003 (UTC)

Hmm... so you're saying it's a list of "German Kings", and also "Emperors"? In any event, one should note that the emperors between 840 and 962 were not German Kings (save for Charles the Fat and Arnulf), but rather Kings of Italy... john 17:54 31 May 2003 (UTC)

I understood that at least the medieval emperors were "Kings of the Germans" not "German Kings, i.e. Kings of Germany" Analogous to the discussions re France. Aren't they called reges germanorum? or are they reges germaniae? I'm not trying to be difficult, but trying to make sure we maintain the idea that Germany as a country didn't exist until the 19th c. JHK

Actually, the title changes all the time, which is why I am saying that any heading for a "list of kings and emperors" page is wrong somehow.

I just looked up a few titles: The king is initially called rex Francorum. After he is crowned Emperor in Rome, he is called Imperator Augustus. The title changes in 982: the Emperor is Imperator Romanorum Augustus, and Henry III (r. 1039-1046) also calls himself rex Romanorum. At the end of the 11th century, "German" terminology emerges, and the realm is no longer the regnum Francorum, but also dubbed regnum Teutonicum. Things change again later when the various components of the title Holy Roman Empire are added (first "holy", later "of the German Nation", etc.).

In other words, it's a major mess. :-) djmutex 18:04 31 May 2003 (UTC)

Re JHK: I think nobody will be in doubt that Germany as a nation state did not exist until 1871. Otherwise we'd have to scrap the entire History of Germany page. :-) I believe we will run into no problems if we still dub the page something that includes "German". That would still be correct, at least from the High Middle Ages on, since the terminology begins to includes "German" in some shape or form. djmutex 18:07 31 May 2003 (UTC)

I would think Germany was a country (Land) and a nation (Nation) before the 19th century, although it was certainly not a state (Staat). The Holy Roman Empire was a weird creature, and in certain ways, it did provide a kind of German organization in which all (or most, at any rates) Germans could feel a certain unity. ("Holy Roman Empire of the German Nation" was a term used by contemporaries) Certainly the Germans had a much greater sense of common identity than the Italians, who had no comparable unifying body. As far as the terminology goes, I'm not comlpetely sure. I've definitely seen "Rex Germaniae". [This site] says they were called "German King" or simply "King", and also King of the Romans. But then in giving the titular of an Emperor, it gives the title "King in Germany" (König in Germanien, rex in Germania). I would, however, agree with Djmutex that there's nothing particularly wrong with associating the Holy Roman Empire with Germanness. john 18:10 31 May 2003 (UTC)

---

Alright, I merged the two under List of German Kings and Emperors. Wasn't as much work as I feared it would be. However, what is still left to be done is to fix the gazillion links to List of Holy Roman Emperors; the problem is that each of the "King" and "Emperor" pages link to both list pages and must therefore now be fixed. I'd be willing to do that, but we must really agree whether "List of German Kings and Emperors" would be the final name for the list. :-) I think it's not too wrong (as I said, any title is wrong somehow); two alternatives I can think of is a) "List of German monarchs" (which matches List of French monarchs, or, more correctly, b) "List of monarchs in Germany". What do you think? — djmutex 19:23 31 May 2003 (UTC)

I think "German Kings and Emperors" is good. For one thing, I like the ambiguity over the adjective "German" and whether it refers to both Kings and Emperors, or just Kings, because "German Emperor" is a somewhat dubious title for Holy Roman Emperors. Also, I changed the list around a bit, so as to 1) include Charlemagne and Louis the Pious as Emperors; and 2) give the full list of emperors between Louis the Pious and Otto the Great, and distinguish them from the German Kings in the same time period. What is thought of this? john 19:31 31 May 2003 (UTC)

Personally, I wouldn't mind to invite the Carolingians again, but I kicked those before 843 out to avoid an endless discussion like with Talk:List of French monarchs. Of course, if you want to have the same debate here, .... :-) djmutex 19:35 31 May 2003 (UTC)

Is the discussion regarding the carolingians from 843 still ongoing? They absolutly belong on this page. Sure anything prior to Verdun is debatable but I see no rational reason to leave out anything from then on. I will check back here in a couple of days and if theres no comment I will add them. kza 20:33 19 May 2005 (CEST)

No, but you risk starting it up again, so you'd better have a good rationale for what you are about to do. -- Derek Ross | Talk 18:40, May 19, 2005 (UTC)

Yeah, it's a bit problematic, but I think it's important to list the actual Emperors all together somewhere. john 19:37 31 May 2003 (UTC)

AS a Carolingianist, and for consistency, I'd say no to the Carolingians -- their title was Roman Emperor, and looked back to that tradition. The Ottonians are more of a grey area ... JHK

I know their title was Roman Emperor, and that's what the page said. Nevertheless, I think all emperors crowned by the Pope should be listed on this page. john 20:03 31 May 2003 (UTC)

Oh wait -- damn -- see, this is the problem of "German" -- one that I really want to make sure we clarify, so that there isn't a discrepency between "French" and "German" -- Louis the German, for example, still can't be called a German King. aargh!JHK

All the emperors were "Roman" emperors. Hey, the Empire called itself Roman. :-) I think it's OK the way it is now, and we have the clarification that the early rulers were Franks. djmutex 20:25 31 May 2003 (UTC)

If Charles the Bald is a French King, Louis the German can equally be called a German king. I don't see why that's a problem. I think that, perhaps, more clarification is in order, particularly of the earlier emperors. But I really do think that all of the, er, "post Charlemagnian western emperors" ought to be listed in one place, and that there would be needless duplication if it were on a separate list from the "post Louis the German East Francian or German Kings" list. john 20:28 31 May 2003 (UTC)

I'm not sure of that. I really think it's important that we do not have a double standard here. We can't say the Frankish kings aren't French and then say that they are German. The questions about nationhood are the same. Also, there is a very good historical reason for not tying the Carolingians Emperors to the HRE -- there is no continuity. The Ottonians came in for the same reason that the Capetians did in the west -- they were considered not to be a threat. The revival of an imperial title was a conscious attempt to connect to Carolingian tradition, but there's a real break between them. In the case of Louis the German vs. Charles the Bald, the only commonality is the treaty of Verdun. The Carolingians die out in 911, the leading-men who have already been solidifying their claims to territories under their administration (and in Louis the German's time, relatively few actually hold lands where they hold offices) become rulers who are answerable to no one, which pretty much stays constant throughout the Middle Ages! JHK

Addendum to above -- John this is why so many historians like to use the 987/911 break, rather than 843. If those are the dates that are used, there are clear dynastic breaks, there's no bloody Lotharingia to worry about, and we have the establishment of clearly different governments that really can be seen to be the formations of France and "Germany" in the sense of a Kingdom of Germans later unified by those Prussians. Also, it removes the problem of a roving Carolingian Emperorship, which makes no sense at all to people who see the HRE and then expect consistency. JHK 20:55 31 May 2003 (UTC)

Yes, that's true. A page detailing the varying fortunes of the different carolingian kingdoms might be helpful. I'd note www.friesian.com/Francia.htm, which does a good job of laying out all the vicissitudes of "Francia" and its successor states, mostly using lists of rulers, genealogical tables, and maps, with some connecting text. Perhaps some sort of similar detailed accounting of how exactly the Carolingian realm broke up, and how the new Kingdom of France and "Empire" grew out of it would be a good idea, although not in this article. And Lotharingia/Italy/Burgundy is, indeed, quite a pain in the ass. The whole thing is a mess. Western Francia is actually the easiest part of the mess. After 843, with the exception of the brief rule of Charles the Fat, Western Francia was a separate kingdom. The rest of it is seriously messy. You have Lothar's realm getting partitioned and repartitioned. You have dubious Emperors in Italy (followed by even more dubious Kings of Italy up to 962). You have Lotharingia proper, you have the Kingdom of Arles, you have the succession to Louis the German in East Francia, which is itself divided up among his sons, and then reunited. It's all very messy. Being the Carolingian expert here, how do you think we should deal with it? john 07:05 1 Jun 2003 (UTC)

I hate to sound postmodern, but I think the problem lies purely in the fact that we're trying to impose an articifical structure on Frankish inheritance patterns. That said, people like lists. It helps put things into digestible form. Of course, the worst case scenario is that we get people like our recent friend, who can't see that lists are simplifications of a big picture.

I know this sounds a bit um, snotty, but oh those eons ago, when several of us started these lists (two of us specialists in Carolingian history, BTW -- friends from grad school, one who has gone on to become <a href="www.crankyprofessor.com">the Cranky Professor</a>, we kida, sorta, chose 987 (with the inclusion of the later Carolingians for numbering purposes) in France and 911 in "Germany" for a reason ... ;-) JHK

It does sound a bit snotty. ;-) I think that the problem is not so much "Germany", or East Francia, as it is the imperial title, and the Lotharingian realms. For East Francia you have

• Louis the German 843-876
• Louis the Younger (Saxony) 876-882
• Carloman (Bavaria) 876-880
• Charles the Fat (Swabia) 876-887
• Arnulf 887-899
• Louis the Child 899-911

That's not particularly complicated, or particularly hard to understand. What is hard to understand is a) the progress of the imperial title, from Lothar to his son Louis II (ruler of Italy) to Charles the Bald (of West Francia), to Charles the Fat (of East Francia), to two Dukes of Spoleto, to Arnulf (of East Francia), to Louis the Blind (of Provence), and thence to Berengar (of Friuli), along with the concurrent changes over control of Italy itself (up to 962), of Lotharingia, and of the Burgundian Kingdoms. The whole of it is a mess. Perhaps the "Lotharingian Realms", including the imperial title before 962 (being, as it was, tied to rule over Italy), could have their own page, covering the early emperors, the Kings of Italy up to 962, the King of Burgundy up to 1032, and the Kings of Lotharingia, such as there were (just Lothar II, really, no?) The East Frankish/German/post-962 (Holy) Roman Empire rulers could be on the "German Kings and Emperors" page. john 18:45 1 Jun 2003 (UTC)

That sounds pretty good. Although I might add that a list of the three continuations after the 843 splitup already exists at List of Frankish Kings, where the Eastern and Western branch have clear links to List of German Kings and Emperors and List of French monarchs, respectively. Maybe a couple of items should rather be added to that list; it is complicated already and clearly outside of a "French" or "German" context. :-) djmutex 18:57 1 Jun 2003 (UTC)

Re myself, I forgot to add also that a page for Lotharingia already exists, although it's more or less a stub. djmutex 19:01 1 Jun 2003 (UTC)

Well, since the Frankish Emperors go away with the Carolingians, and are gone until kind of revived under the Ottonians, how about:

• Frankish Roman Emperors under Frankish Monarchs (Where we could mention partible inheritance and titles passing around to the most able in the larger family)
• HRE and Kings of the Germans under HRE and Kings of Germans (may need to re-name the current page
• This page gets the post unification stuff, and links back to the Prussian Dukes/kings/monarchs thing

WHat do you think?  JHK

Mostly sounds good, but... were Guy and Lambert of Spoleto Franks? Was Berengar of Friuli? All were emperors. And what is to be done with the later Kings of Italy and Burgundy? A "Lotharingia" page might be useful for this purpose, but who knows? The whole thing is a mess. Also, if we are to do this, the post-1871 emperors could not be on this page, which would have to be "List of German Emperors". There were no post-1871 "Kings of Germany". john 21:19 1 Jun 2003 (UTC)

I think it would be an acceptable inaccuracy to add those three Italians on the Frankish page (with a remark that they were not Frankish), for the sake of having some order at the expense of correct terminology. Thus I'd agree with Julie, if I understood her correctly, but to be sure, let me rephrase:

1. Fill up List of Frankish Kings with the missing emperors after 843 and add a brief explanation that those Italians weren't Frankish.
2. Leave List of German Kings and Emperors as it is, except for adding an explanation about why the Prussians became kings too.
3. On renaming those list pages, my suggestion would be "List of Frankish kings and emperors" and "List of German kings and emperors" (that is, no change except no capitalization). If I understood Julie correctly, "king" and "emperor" should not be capitalized here.

Other than that, I think Burgundy and Italy are none of our business here and we're doing good. :-) djmutex 21:29 1 Jun 2003 (UTC)

I believe Julie's idea is have "List of Frankish Kings" include the emperors, "List of German kings and emperors" be only the modern German Emperors; and a new page on "List of German Kings and Holy Roman Emperors" to talk about the rulers from 911-1806. This seems workable. Perhaps an article on "Kings of Italy" could be created to deal with those guys. Certainly "Kings of Burgundy" would be a plausible article in its own right. john 22:45 1 Jun 2003 (UTC)

Adding, again, that "List of German kings and Emperors" would have to be changed to "List of German Emperors", in this case. john 22:45 1 Jun 2003 (UTC)

Oh, please, no. That would give us exactly the many lists again that I was trying to avoid when I merged the two Empereror/kings lists. I think there is no point in having a separate "emperors" list whatsoever. In my view, add those three italians to List of Frankish Kings to have the emperors until 900 something there, add a few explanations here and there, and be done. djmutex 23:20 1 Jun 2003 (UTC)

I don't think the problem is number of lists, so much as duplicated lists. If this were to be done, the German Emperors from 1871-1918 would have their own page, not duplicated anywhere else. And since it was indisputably a different state than the old reich, I think that would make a lot of sense. john 23:30 1 Jun 2003 (UTC)

Monkey wrench time -- I am unclear on this myself, but are Guy and Lambert definately Italian -- or are they people who married into the Lotharingian branch of the family -- and are possibly Frankish, but not Carolingian? I'd leave them out for now, but it's good to check. ALso, didn't some Prussian call himself King of Germany after the unification but before the German EMpire? Again, that's modern stuff; I have to teach it, but I haven't committed it to memory very well. JHK

I have no idea what exactly Guido and Lambert's background was, but checking it out on the university of Erlangen's genealogy site, they seem to have descended at least partially from Frankish nobles. They weren't Carolingians, certainly. Berengar would appear to have been a grandson of Louis the Pious on his mother's side, but his father's family seems to have been in Friuli for some time. No Prussian monarch ever called himself King of Germany. Until 1871 he was simply King of Prussia. (although also "President of the North German Confederation"). After 1871 he was German Emperor and King of Prussia. john 04:21 2 Jun 2003 (UTC)

The German Kings and Emperors of the Holy Roman Empire are one and the same. This is so becuase Atto 1, King of Germany appoints bishops to top government jobs because he thinks thats the best way to controll the church. Then in 962, the Pope says hey Atto I want to make you Emperor of the Catholic Church because your such a good Catholic. The Catholic Church are is called the Holy ROman Empire, so he was being made the Emperor of the Holy Roman Empire. The title then passes to Atto 2 and Atto 3. It then stops at Henry 2. Henry 2 (lets call him H2) goes to Rome to ask what was up. The Romans HATE ALL the Germans because they started appointing bishops who pretty much chose the Kings choice for Pope. The Romans gather up an army to fight H2. This is in 1004. In 1013 H2 says enough and goes down to Italy. In 1014 The Pope makes H2 King and Emporer. In 1018 H2 wins the war and its over. H2 dies and is replaced by Conrad 2. Conrad is never made emporer but is king for 3 years, then dies and is replaced by Henry 3. I am not sure what goes on from then because this is in a nutshell what i learned in world history today. Hope it helps -Hannah

Regents

I removed from the Salian Dynasty:

• Empress Agnes, regent 1056-1068

because she was neither King nor Emperor. If we want to include her, we should also include all other regents, e.g. Theophanu and Adelheid for Otto III. 29 June 2005 08:59 (UTC)

Some questions

What about rival kings?

Currently, only those are included that finally prevailed upon the legimate ruler, e.g. William of Holland, but not his predecessor Heinrich Raspe.

What about rulers' nicknames?

Currently we have Henry I the Fowler and Frederick I Barbarossa, but we don't have Louis the Bavarian, Frederick the Fair (both are more commonly used nowadays than Henry the Fowler) and Wenceslas the Lazy (not so common).

What about dynasty names?

Should we say Frederick of Austria or Frederick of Habsburg? The former is more accurate in relation to the usage then, the latter more clear in relation to the misc dynasty problem? Rupprecht/Rupert makes matters worse: Should we say Rupert of Wittelsbach, to clarify his dynasty, which would however blur the distinction of the two lines, or ... of Palatinate to emphasize this distinction and use the name commonly used for him. Maybe a solution would be to put the dynasty (Habsburg, Wittelsbach, Luxemburg etc) into brackets behind the name - and to include the more common name (e.g. of Palatinate, the Bavarian) in the name itself.

Any thoughts? Str1977 29 June 2005 09:10 (UTC)

In terms of anti-kings, I would agree that more could be listed, so long as they are distinguished. Junior monarchs like the eldest sons of Henry IV and Frederick II might also be listed. As to nicknames, I don't know about German, but in English Henry the Fowler is much more common than Louis the Bavarian or (certainly) Frederick the Fair, who is, I assume, Frederick III, but which nickname I have never heard. As to dynasty name, I'd suggest that your solution sounds good. john k 29 June 2005 15:09 (UTC)

Dear John, maybe anti-kings (or rival kings, which do you think better?) could be moved in like Frederick the Fair is. Frederick the Fair is the one you was both friends and rivals with Louis the Bavarian, he could be counted as F3, but then we have another Frederick in the 15th century (Maximilian's father). So in his case the nick-name is quite useful - it spares us another bracketed numeral (as in Henry (VII)) I don't know whether "Fair" is used in regard to Frederick in English, but I copied the term from the two "Philip the Fair"s (1 - French king; 2 - father of Charles V) - all three are called "der Schöne" in German (literally: the Beautiful) Str1977 29 June 2005 18:54 (UTC)

Dear John, what I did is this:

I included the anti-kings and marked them all with two asterisks , except those anti-kings that later succeeded in attaining the rule (Conrad III, William of Holland, Albrecht II, Charles IV)

The sons of reigning Emperors that had the title of King I included and marked them with two asterisks, except those that succeeded their fathers (I included notes "under his father")

I tried to distinguish these two by using three asterisks for the anti-kings, but that didn't work. If you know Wiki syntax better, please fix that.

In some cases I retained the wording "rival king" instead of "anti-king". These kings did not rebell against a reigning monarch, but are claimants from a double election (Philip vs. Otto IV, Louis IV vs. Frederick the Fair) Str1977 29 June 2005 20:40 (UTC)

Hey, it looks pretty good to me, although a few of the dates look off - perhaps due to the January-March new year issue. john k 29 June 2005 22:47 (UTC)

--- I reccomend retitling this article to List of German Monarchs akin to List of French Monarchs. I've created Emperors of the Holy Roman Empire but want to retitle it to List of Holy Roman Emperors but unfortunately it links back here. Anyone agree? --67.49.149.91 7 July 2005 02:44 (UTC)

That would seem appropriate to me. We could also just delete the redirect at List of Holy Roman Emperors and move your article there. john k 7 July 2005 05:56 (UTC)

I am convinced that this article needs to be renamed List of German monarchs. It will correspond with List of French monarchs List of Belgian monarchs List of Swedish monarchs etc. The current title is too cumbersome.--67.49.149.91 7 July 2005 11:38 (UTC)

Renaming this page as you proposed should be o.k. - though I'm not so enthusiastic about the usage of "monarch", but since it is used in the French and Belgian and Swedish counterparts, it should be o.k. However, I'd ask you to not change Emperors of the Holy Roman Empire to "Holy Roman Emperor" - I know this title is all over the place, but I think it is very akward. I never heard aynone refer to an Emperor as "Holy ..." Str1977 7 July 2005 15:53 (UTC)

Str - given that all of our articles on Holy Roman Emperors are at Name, Holy Roman Emperor, I don't see how this is the place to draw the line. In terms of "monarch," I think there is a distinction to be made from the other places - unlike France or Sweden or Belgium, Germany is a place which, throughout its history as a monarchy, was composed of multiple monarchies. A King of Bavaria seems like he should be a German monarch, doesn't he? john k 7 July 2005 16:00 (UTC)

Dear John, yes, I guess you're right about not drawing the line here. (And as I was writing I hadn't realized it had already happened). But I still think it is awkward, especially to use it in the text (not so much in a entry headline)

The "monarch" I have accepted anyway - and in fact your arguments make the German king/Emperor much more of a monarch than the English one or the French one after 1500. I was referring to the definition of monarch as "one ruler reigning over a plurality of realms", e.g. Charles V.

Nominally the king of Germany ("King of the Romans") is no monarch, since it is one kingdom. He nominally is a monarch, if he's also crowned King of Italy, Burgundy and Emperor. Technically however, the king of Germany is a monarch, at least after 1250.

As for Bavaria: I wouldn't consider the king of Bavaria a monarch in the strict sense. Though I could argue that the kingdom of Bavaria (and now the free state) was/is a multi-ethnic state, but that's my own Frankish (Aschaffenburgian) emphasis.

But again, I accept the renaming completely, as I'm aware of the more commonly known meaning of monarch as just being a one-man-ruler. Str1977 7 July 2005 21:08 (UTC)

The only other suitable name I can think of is Monarch of Germany. This will correspond with King of Italy King of Bavaria etc.--67.49.149.91 7 July 2005 22:16 (UTC)

Please, go ahead with your initial proposal. I accept it. Str1977 7 July 2005 23:40 (UTC)

I cant move it, my account is too new, anyone want to do it? --Countakeshi 8 July 2005 00:07 (UTC)

Str - perhaps this is a language issue, but I've never heard of this definition of monarch which you are giving. Neither does the OED, which only gives this: In early use: a sole and absolute ruler of a state. Subsequently also: any ruler or sovereign bearing the title of king, queen, emperor, empress, or the equivalent of one of these. Typically used as a more or less rhetorical substitute for the specific designation of the ruler in question. john k 8 July 2005 00:12 (UTC)

John, No it's not a language issue, it's just that I got carried away with a special definition of monarch - opposed to king or prince. I accept the common defintion. But the OED is certainly wrong to include "absolute" (whatever they mean by that) in their definition. Str1977 8 July 2005 08:41 (UTC)

The absolute bit is a bit odd. john k 15:53, 11 July 2005 (UTC)

Requested move

Hiya, Countakeshi (talk · contribs) listed this on WP:RM today, but I'm not sure I can see consensus for this move. Since the target is a redlink any logged-in user who's more than few weeks old should be able to do it, but I don't want to do it unless I'm sure there's consensus here since I haven't been involved in the discussion. Does anyone object to this move? Talrias (t | e | c) 01:20, 10 July 2005 (UTC)

As stated above, I concur. Str1977 15:46, 11 July 2005 (UTC)

Start of Louis the German

Another question: how should we get Louis the German started? The list says he became king in 843 but that is not true - he had been king since 817, first of Bavaria, then increasingly of more territories, certainly since his father's death in 840. 843 only confirmed the borders of his kingdom in concord with his brother Charles. Any suggestions? Str1977 ^{(smile back)} 13:28, 18 July 2006 (UTC)

As to the Louis the German question: he can be considered King of East Francia or Germany from 843, but only of Bavaria from 817. This seems logical to me. Srnec 18:06, 18 July 2006 (UTC)

I believe history clearly shows that "Germany" as a separate political entity, the precursor of today's federal republic, begins with East Francia's split from the unified Carolingian Empire. Also, Henry the Fowler's being called "King of Germany" is a pretty clear signal historically that Germany as a political entity unquestionably existed. I personally consider Conrad I as the first King of Germany, but the fact is that the first monarch to use that specific title was Henry the Fowler. If you are going to use East Francia as the earliest "German" Realm, then the first King would be Louis the German. old windy bear 18:40, 18 July 2006 (UTC)

Hope you don't mind if I moved that posting up here. The thing is that he was "King of the Franks" way before 843, at least when his father died but actually much sooner. Don't get me wrong, the list should start with him and 843 but what's troubling me is that definite date for the start of his reign, including month and day. I don't think that's accurate. Str1977 ^{(smile back)} 18:50, 18 July 2006 (UTC)

I withdraw my objections. Case closed. Str1977 ^{(smile back)} 13:31, 19 July 2006 (UTC)

Intro

It's about time to put some discussion on the talk page. The reasoning behind my last edit is as follows:

• why is there a obsession (pardon the harsh term) with linking to "Federal Republic of Germany" (which is a redirect anyway)?
• I prefer keeping the "parts of France" vague in the intro, while being more specific in the Eastern Kingdom section.
• The Versailles treaty has nothing to do with ending the monarchy in Germany - for stylistic reasons I have moved the Verdun treaty into an "invisible" link.
• East Francia should not be used as a name for the Eastern Kingdom - East Francia denotes the eastern half of Francia, which is the original Frankish territory from the Rhine to the Seine. East Francia would not contain Allemannia, Saxony, Bavaria, Thuringia. Hence, we should avoid it.
• The sentence about the merging of the Kingdom and the Empire is misleading, since it was in fact a shrinking of the Empire to the size of the Kingdom. I have put in another wording.

Str1977 ^{(smile back)} 17:04, 18 July 2006 (UTC)

I'll answer in point form:

• I am obsessed with linking to Federal Republic of Germany so that it is understood that "Germany" in a historical context is not the same as "Germany" in modern political context.
• It seems unecessary to be vague about what parts of France: they were all eastern.
• I think that Versailles has a lot to do with the end of the monarchy, though it did not end the monarchy itself. It is best if we indicate what ended the monarchy: the abdicaton of the Kaiser.
• East Francia is a common name for the eastern kingdom created out of the Carolingian empire. East Francia is not used to denote Austrasia.
• You reworded it incorrectly (grammatical), but I know what you meant to say and I agree with that wording.

My whole beef with the attempts to reword it is that it makes the subject of the article much more vague than its needs to be. There is political continuity from 843-1806 and then from 1871-present, there is no need for such confusing language about what these monarchs were "of". Srnec 18:04, 18 July 2006 (UTC)

No, Srnec, not a grammar mistake. Just a typo (thinking two thoughts at the same time doesn't always turn out fine). But thanks for correcting me. Str1977 ^{(smile back)} 18:50, 18 July 2006 (UTC)

Why the intro written by Srnec is wrong

"This article lists the monarchs of Germany, who ruled or presided over the territory comprising modern Germany, Austria, Switzerland, the Low Countries, and parts of France, from its beginning as a separate kingdom (843) until the end of monarchic rule (1918). "

This is the intro as written by Srnec, and this is what it says:

• These are all people who ruled over Germany, eventhough the article mentions empires and federations who clearly were not germany.
• Austria, Germany, the Low countries and parts of France were ruled by a monarch of Germany from 843 until 1918.

Please Srnec I don't mind if you revert, but do it with reason.  Rex  19:08, 18 July 2006 (UTC)

Germanus, I don't fully understand your objection, but let me go through the elements of the intro bit by bit:

• "This article list the monarchs of Germany ..."

should be okay, as this is the title of the article.

• "... who ruled or presided over ..."

I made that distinction to properly included all of them. Until 1806 the Emperor ruled over the entire thing, though in the end only nominally, but after that, the individual princes were all sovereign. In 1866/67 this changed but only through a federation of the princes - in other words: the princes made the Emperor (while in the HRE it had been the other way round)

• "... the territory comprising modern Germany, Austria, Switzerland, the Low Countries and parts of France"

gives the extent of the territory covered here. We cannot give a single kingdom, as after 1806 there was no single kingdom anymore.

• "... from its beginning as a separate kingdom (843) until the end of monarchic rule (1918)"

gives the time covered in this article 843 to 1918.

I still don't see the problem. What would be your alternative? Str1977 ^{(smile back)} 19:20, 18 July 2006 (UTC)

The problem is that this intro claims that German monarchs ruled over a territory comprising of Austria, Germany, the Low countries and parts of France were ruled by a monarch of Germany from 843 until 1918.  Rex  19:48, 18 July 2006 (UTC)

And what exactly is the problem. Maybe I am missing something and taking into account that this is a subject hard to formulate but isn't that factually accurate - the only monarchs mentioned here that are not German are Napoleon and, in a different way, Charles V. But the intro doesn't say that there were German rulers but that they were monarchs "of Germany". And is it not accurate that they ruled the region mentioned at one point or another? I still don't see what your problem is - please state it clearly, if you want to in German. But please state what the problem is not just that what someone else wrote is the problem. Otherwise I will revert tomorrow. Str1977 ^{(smile back)} 19:58, 18 July 2006 (UTC)

But who cares who ruled what "area"? It must be stressed that this is a distinct and continuous polity, usually called Germany, but originally called Francia orientalis from 843 to 911, and existing down to 1806. It was reincarnated in another (monarchic) form later (shortly, in 1871) and still exists in republican form today. This is why I object to the rewordings. Srnec 20:12, 18 July 2006 (UTC)

Srnec, I agree. There is a continuous polity ending only in 1806 and starting (for our purposes) in 843 (of course, continuity goes back even further, to King Clovis). And after 1806, Germans saw the HRE as a focal point of their tradition and many imagined the Wilhelminian Reich to be a new version of the HRE (of course, forgetting about all the principles of the HRE). In 1843 Germans celebrated a millenium.

Except this there is no "real" continuity between the HRE (ending in 1806) and the state founded in 1870 (or rather 1867). However, there is continuity from 1870 until now.

But still the kingdom within the HRE wasd the Germany of its day.

Finally, having now perused Germanus' user page I understand his point better ... and agree with it less. He shouldn't push the same POV here as well. Str1977 ^{(smile back)} 21:32, 18 July 2006 (UTC)

Apart from personal views, I think the history is crystal clear that after 843 East Francia began the transition to the polity which was literally declared the Kingdom of Germany in 918 by Henry I, and which itself considers Conrad I as it's first King in 911. That unique polity continued unquestionably until 1806, and from 1867 till today as the Federal Republic. I am not sure how you deal with the years circa 1806-1867, but there is absolutely no question the polity we call Germany began with East Francia in 843, and began calling itself "Germany" in 911, with the Monarch calling himself King of GERMANY in 918. old windy bear 22:04, 18 July 2006 (UTC)

The period 1806-1867 is dealt with by the word "preside" in the intro, as the still was some German entity. I confess, the Rhine Confederation is a bit difficult in that regard (and I have already contemplated adding an explanation into the section), but the German Confederation is undoubtedly a German entity, presided over by its president, the Emperor of Austria. In 1867 a federal state was created under Prussian leadership, first comprising the lands north of the Main, since 1870 also those south. From there, the line is unbroken until today.

The name "kingdom of Germany" is not as clear as you make it (and Conrad was certainly called King of the Franks - the problem started when the king wasn't a Frank) but the gist of your post is accurate. In the High Middle Ages the three Archbishop-Electors competed for the position of Archchancellor, resulting in the Archbishop of Trier being appointed Archchancellor of Burgundy, Archbishop of Cologne being appointed Archchancellor of Italy and the Archbishop of Mainz being appointed Archchancellor of .... Germany. Str1977 ^{(smile back)} 22:25, 18 July 2006 (UTC)

You still don't see the problem? This intro claims that German monarchs ruled over a territory comprising of Austria, Germany, the Low countries and parts of France were ruled by a monarch of Germany from 843 until 1918. It claims 'they' ruled over Austria, the Low countries and parts of France for over a 1000 years! Which is downright preposterous!  Rex  22:08, 18 July 2006 (UTC)

I have now seen your problem, though you obviously are unable or unwilling to explain it. But your user page does. BTW, the king of Germany/Emperor ruled over Austria all the years until 1866, when Austria was pushed out of Germany. He ruled over all the Low Countries until the Dutch rebellion, over the Southern Netherlands until 1794, and claimed rule over the Nothern provinces until 1648/54. He ruled over Switzerland until 1648. He ruled over parts of modern France until the early 18th century. Presposterous? Hardly! "Factually accurate" hits closer to home. Str1977 ^{(smile back)} 22:25, 18 July 2006 (UTC)

Hey Str1977 you are absolutely right that Conrad never called himself King of Germany, though interestingly, most historians consider him the first legimate King of the unique polity called Germany. You are also absolutely right concerning the Chancellor of Mainz being the Archcancellor of Germany, and it's vitality to the argument concerning the existence of a German polity throughout the middle ages. I think it fair to say you are also correct that the evolution was not as simple as my post made it seem - it was more of a gradual evolution into a purely German polity from a Frankish state. For myself, I think the lines of demarcation in the dark ages have to be 843 because East Francia became the separate entity on that date which did evolve into the Kingdom of Germany, 911 when the vast majority of historians consider the Reichstag to have evolved sufficiently to make Conrad I the first King of Germany though he used the Frankish title, and 918 because Henry I became the first Monarch to actually declare himself "King of Germany" (Rex Teutonicorum). I also note you are absolutely correct the King of Germany ruled Austria directly as part of the German state until 1866, Switzerland till 1648, and as to the Low Countries. I suppose I was trying to simplify a subject that cannot be subjectively simplified in assessing dates. old windy bear 23:07, 18 July 2006 (UTC)

There was no such thing as a "King of Germany" after 1806, so one can't have ruled over Austria after that date. The Emperor of Austria, however, was "President of the German Confederation" from 1815 to 1866 (with a break in 1848-1850). john k 02:24, 19 July 2006 (UTC)

You are right of course, John. But there was a German entity presided over by a ruler who also ruled over Austria, in two ways: a) he was the Emperor of Austria, b) Austria was a part of Germany. Str1977 ^{(smile back)} 06:00, 19 July 2006 (UTC)

john k Str1977 That is precisely what I meant about the attempting to simplify this subject. Yes, the title "King of Germany" did not exist from 1806 to 1866, but the Austrian/Austro-Hungarian Empire ruled the bulk of Germany during that period. Actually, if you want to be really technical, it ruled from 1804 over most of the Germanic peoples, since on that date Francis II, last Holy Roman Emperor, formed the Austrian/Austro-Hungarian Empire as a state comprising his personal lands, which included a large part of Germany, within the larger Holy Roman Empire. This was a reaction to Napoleon I's proclamation of the First French Empire in 1804. 1806 is generally used because on that date the Holy Roman Empire was disolved, and the Confederation of the Rhine was created by Napolean. So at least a portion of traditional and modern Germany was in the Confederation of the Rhine from 1806-1813, while the remainder remained under Hapsburg rule. My point being that we can all pick at each other endlessly on this subject, since it is quite complex, or we can agree on some basic historical parameters, dealing most specifically with the mediviel creation of the polity of Germany, and the generally accepted monarches to at least 1806.old windy bear 10:47, 19 July 2006 (UTC)

The Habsburg Hereditary lands + the lands of the Bohemian Crown = "the bulk of Germany"? It was, I suppose, the largest German state (although I would imagine that, after 1815, Prussia had a larger number of actual Germans in it, even if one only counts Prussian lands within the Bund). It is to be added that not a single part of post-1806 Austria was within the modern state of Germany, so your formulation seems highly misleading. The Holy Roman Emperors were certainly monarchs of Germany. The Austrian Emperors from 1815 to 1866 were the leading princes in Germany, and as such held a paramount position in the loose German Confederation, but they were not quite monarchs of Germany in the same way, nor, I think, can we call the King of Prussia from 1867 to 1871 in his role as President of the North German Confederation a monarch of Germany. In the latter case the exclusion of southern Germany, and in both cases the use of a distinctly non-monarchical title ("President") makes this hard to say. I think they should be listed here, but we shouldn't oversimplify. john k 16:50, 19 July 2006 (UTC)

I agree, Oldwindybear. The subject is complex and there are a lot of technical strings along our road, but the general issue should be clear. To illustrate that Rex's opposition is not based on these concerns for proper titulatur, let me quote from his user page:

"3 Things that piss me off"

"*People who think Dutch is a German dialect.

"*Germans who think they can claim the whole history of central and Western Europe from before the German unification.

"*Drugs.

"*People who think that Flemish is a separate language.

"*People who equal France and Germany to Europe.

"*Hippies.

"*Die Mannschaft.

"*The Portugal national football team, Luiz Felipe Scolari, and Valentin Valentinovich Ivanov."

Seems like a pretty clear picture to me. (Note, the contraditcion between grievance number 1 and grievance number 4. Also note that the Mannschaft is of course the 2nd runner up in the recent Football World Cup)

Str1977 ^{(smile back)} 11:10, 19 July 2006 (UTC)

My user page, Str1977 , is meant to be humorous, nothing else. Those things that are listed there do piss me off. Die Mannschaft and the Portuguese team, their coach and ref are pretty recent additions, if you like football and have an impression of the Dutch national trauma you 'll understand. As for those other things, those thing piss me off too, and I have encountered this behaviour and state of minds various times. Also, trying to demonise me or make it seem as if I'm some troll/vandal will not help you any further in this.  Rex  11:26, 19 July 2006 (UTC)

And this wil not help you either here or in trying to cope with your trauma. You lost against us in 1974, we lost against you in 1988 - so what? This time you cannot blame us. Str1977 ^{(smile back)} 12:12, 19 July 2006 (UTC)

by old windy bear: "and 918 because Henry I became the first Monarch to actually declare himself "King of Germany" (Rex Teutonicorum)" how come nobody responses to this? The first time anybody was called rex teutonicorum was during the investure controversy. Henry I did call himself "king of the eastern frank" (rex francorum orientalum). If you can prove else, please do so. --MacX85 (talk) 22:39, 2 January 2008 (UTC)

Wording

About my rewrite to the intro... It went thusly:

This article lists the monarchs of Germany, a state born (as East Francia) out of the Treaty of Verdun of 843 and which continued uninterrupted until 1806. Reunified in 1871, monarchic rule ended with the abdication of Kaiser Wilhelm II in 1918. Over it long history, its geographic extent varied considerably, including not only most of the modern Federal Republic of Germany (its descendant state), but much also of Austria, Switzerland, the Low Countries, and eastern France.

I think this wording is better than the present wording for the following reasons:

• It defines the state over which they ruled and not just the territory.
• Explicit mention of East Francia, the Treay of Verdun, and the abdication of the Kaiser makes it clear and informative.
• It notes the geography and that it "varied considerably" and it notes that modern Germany is a direct descendant of older, monarchich Germany.
• It defines what parts of France: the eastern ones.

It has one deficiency that I can see:

• It doesn't explain or deal with the period between 1806 and 1871.

The current version has two more deficiencies:

• The use of "presided" just confuses the uninformed reader. Don't monarchs rule? The page title and the term monarchs of Germany make little sense in terms of "presided".
• It implies that the geography in some way corresponded to modern borders, but it only ever approximated them.

Therefore, I propse this slightly modified form of my wording above to deal with its deficiencies:

This article lists the monarchs of Germany, a state born (as East Francia) out of the Treaty of Verdun of 843 and which continued uninterrupted until 1806. Thereafter, the German states formed several successive confederations until reunification as a monarchy in 1871. Monarchic rule finally ended with the abdication of Kaiser Wilhelm II in 1918. Over its long history, its geographic extent varied considerably, including not only most of the modern Federal Republic of Germany (its descendant state), but much also of Austria, Switzerland, the Low Countries, and eastern France.

Srnec 18:03, 19 July 2006 (UTC)

Looks mostly good. I would note, though, that "Northeastern France" or "Northern and Eastern France" would be more accurate - much of the Nord-Pas-de-Calais was part of the Holy Roman Empire. Would Savoy also count as part of Germany in the early modern period? The Duke had a seat in the Diet, and I believe in one of the Imperial Circle Estates (although perhaps not the latter)? What about the lands of the Bohemian Crown? While Bohemia was its own kingdom, my understanding was that it was also part of the Kingdom of Germany. Also, some parts of Poland were definitely in the Kingdom of Germany - certainly eastern Pomerania was, and possibly Prussian Silesia, depending on how you count the Bohemian Crown, and whether it was still part of the Bohemian Crown after 1742; as were some parts of Italy - the whole of Trentino-South Tyrol and the area around Trieste and Gorizia. Most of Slovenia, and possibly small parts of Croatia, would also have been included. I think we should try to be as exhaustive as possible, and say that at various times it included most or all of the Federal Republic (all save Southern Schleswig), Austria (all save the Burgenland), Slovenia (all save, I think, a small bit in the northeast), Switzerland (all, unless some parts are considered part of the Kingdom of Burgundy), Liechtenstein (all), the Low Countries (all, although Flanders was part of France until the 16th century), and maybe the Czech Republic (all), as well as parts of Poland (Further Pomerania, Silesia), France (Alsace, Lorraine, maybe Franche Comté and Savoy, although they might be part of the Kingdom of Burgundy throughout, much of the Nord-Pas-de-Calais), Italy (Trentino-South Tyrol, Trieste, Gorizia-Gradisca), and maybe Croatia (small part of Istria). john k 22:54, 19 July 2006 (UTC)

Perhaps:

This article lists the monarchs of Germany, a state born (as East Francia) out of the Treaty of Verdun of 843 and which continued uninterrupted until 1806. Thereafter, the German states formed several successive confederations until reunification as a monarchy in 1871. Monarchic rule finally ended with the abdication of Kaiser Wilhelm II in 1918. Over its long history, its geographic extent varied considerably.

We could be even more detailed, but only if it goes in a note (as above).Srnec 23:29, 19 July 2006 (UTC)

I agree, I think it addresses everyone's concerns that we trace the linege of the monarchs of the German Polity, a complex issue, with as much historical accuracy as possible without writing a dissertation. old windy bear 00:07, 20 July 2006 (UTC)

Ah, yes, North Schleswig was in the German Empire, but not the Holy Roman Empire. Slovenia should definitely be mentioned - the vast majority of it was part of Germany in exactly the same way that Austria was, since Slovenia, like Austria, was mostly part of the Habsburg Hereditary Lands. Also, it's either all of the Czech Republic or none of it. If the lands of the Bohemian Crown are considered part of the Kingdom of Germany (as I think they probably should be), then all of the Czech Republic was in it. If it is considered a separate kingdom which was also part of the Holy Roman Empire, then none of it was. It was certainly part of the German Confederation after 1815, though, so I'd suggest we include it (and Slovenia) in the "much also" part rather than the "parts of" part. john k 00:10, 20 July 2006 (UTC)

Agreed on both counts: Czechia and Slovenia. Does anybody else object to changeing this intro (besides Rex)? I don't want to make a change just to see it reverted. Srnec 00:13, 20 July 2006 (UTC)

I indeed have some objections:

• Again I ask: why this obsession with the wording "Federal Republic of Germany", especially since it's only a redirect to Germany?
• I don't like the phrase "Reunified in 1871", as it makes the German Kingdom and the state of 1871 too similar. The former however was a kingdom (further divided into various estates) whereas the latter was a federation of individual states.
• Also I would desist from using East Francia in that way (Eastern Frankish Kingdom is better, IMHO) and feel uneasy about "a state born" - apart from the word "state" being problematic, there was no new state born in 843 - it was a division of an existing entity, so the analogy should not be birth but cellular division.
• "Thereafter, the German states formed several successive confederations until reunification ..." is really overdoing it. We have the Rhine Confederation, the German Confederation and after that we already have a Federal State (the name "North German Confederation" is misleading)
• "presided" was originally used to denote just that period, when the Emperor of Austria presided over the German Confederation. In fact, this continued under Prussian dominance: the Prussian King was President of the North German Confederation (which was however a Federal state and not a mere Confederation). In 1870 this entity was enlarged by the Southern states joining. The Prussian King still was the president, only did he now adopt the fancier title of Emperor (William was quite unwilling to do that, fearing for his native Prussia).

Re some issues raised by John:

• I think Savoy had originally been part of the Burgundian kingdom (just as parts of Switzerland)
• AFAIK, the distinction between the German and the Burgundian kingdom is blurred after the loss of Italy. My historical Atlas (Putzger) in the map of 1378 contains a border within the HRE between Imperial Italy and the rest, but not between Burgundy and Germany.
• Bohemia was a separate kingdom, but it also was part of the German Kingdom.
• Slovenia, in the guise of the Duchy of Krain was also part of the German Kingdom.
• Trentino was part of the German Kingdom
• Pommerania and Silesia were part of the German Kingdom - the latter was also part of the kingdom of Bohemia since the 14th century until being stolen by "thieving Fred".
• Schleswig, Western Prussia, Eastern Prussia were not part of the HRE/German Kingdom, nor of the German Confederation.
• Görz and Triest is a bit difficile, but all in all they were part of the German Kingdom.

Str1977 ^{(smile back)} 08:11, 20 July 2006 (UTC)

Is the territorial limits bit meant to discuss the territorial limits of the Kingdom of Germany, or of the German Empire, or both? No parts of modern Denmark, Russia, or Lithuania were part of the Kingdom of Germany, but parts of these countries were part of the German Empire. No parts of Austria, the Czech Republic, Slovenia, Italy, Belgium, Luxembourg, Liechtenstein, Switzerland, or the Netherlands were in the German Empire, but parts were in the Kingdom of Germany. Perhaps we should distinguish the territorial limits of each separately - the Kingdom of Germany, before 1648, included most or all of modern Germany, Austria, the Czech Republic, Slovenia, Switzerland, Liechtenstein, Luxembourg, Belgium, and the Netherlands, large portions of northern and eastern France and western Poland, and parts of northeastern Italy, and perhaps tiny bits of northwestern Croatia. The German Empire included all of modern Germany, large parts of northern and western Poland, Alsace-Lorraine in France, North Schleswig in Denmark, the Kaliningrad Oblast of Russia, and the area around Klaipeda in Lithuania. john k 12:33, 20 July 2006 (UTC)

Just a minor note: since the Czech Republic was its own kingdom (Bohemia) as of 1198, it would not technically be part of the "Kingdom of Germany," but rather of the "Holy Roman Empire" in 1648. The older duchy of Bohemia may be another matter. Imladjov 12:48, 20 July 2006 (UTC)

Not true, Imladjov. The Kingdom of Bohemia was a kingdom, yes, but it also was a part of the German Kingdom. That sounds strange and contradictory but that is what it was.

John, I am not so convinced that we really need a whole list of countries sharing territory with the HRE and/or the German Empire, at least not in the intro. At least, I would gloss over the tiny bits (e.g. Croatian parts, Memel, Schleswig). For what it's worth, I think such a list should look unto the period prior to 1871. Since then there is a clearly defined nation state called Germany, whose borders change in 1919, in 1939/40, in 1945, in 1990. Before that the lack of a nation state makes the territorial extent more informative. Str1977 ^{(smile back)} 13:10, 20 July 2006 (UTC)

I'd suggest footnoting the list. john k 15:38, 20 July 2006 (UTC)

I don't know about footnoting: the list would have to extensive and exhaustive. In response to some of Str1977's objections:

• I tried to explain the obsession: to distinguish Germany in its modern sense from Germany in its historical sense. It makes little sense to say that "Germany included Germany, Austria, Switzerland, etc."
• East Francia, from Francia Orientalis, are accepted terms. The entire Frankish realm was divided and the eastern part was not very Frankish, so "Eastern Frankish Kingdom" is really no more descriptive than "East Francia" (which is not synonymous with Austrasia). I don't know why you think the one is better. Also, I'm trying to appease Rex and some of his more valid objections here.

I try to deal with the other objections in the revised version below:

This article lists the monarchs of Germany, a state created (as East Francia) by the Treaty of Verdun of 843 and which continued uninterrupted until 1806. Thereafter, the German states formed several confederations until the establishment of the German Empire in 1871. Monarchic rule finally ended with the abdication of Kaiser Wilhelm II in 1918. Over its long history, its geographic extent varied considerably, including not only most of the modern Federal Republic of Germany (its descendant state), but much also of Austria, Switzerland, the Low Countries, eastern France, and parts of Denmark, Italy, the Czech Republic, and Poland.

Srnec 15:41, 20 July 2006 (UTC)

Dear Srnec, Rex doesn't appreciate your patience.

• The preface "modern" before Germany already does the trick. Why include the lenghty name if we don't do this in case of the Republic or Austria, the Swiss Confedaracy etc.
• Also, I do have objections to simply stating that the FRG is the sucessor state.
• East Francia oringally refers to the Eastern parts of Francia, which is the core Frankish territory. I does not (strictly speaking) contain Saxony, Thuringia, Bavaria, Allemannia. Therefore I advocate referring to the "Kingdom", which contains these.
• I still don't like the "a state created ..." bit. Maybe we should reorganize the whole bit into:

This article lists the monarchs of Germany. Germany first emerged as the Eastern Frankish Kingdom) with the the Treaty of Verdun of 843 and continued uninterrupted until 1806, as the chief element of the Holy Roman Empire. Thereafter, the German states formed several confederations until the establishment of the German Empire in 1871. Monarchic rule finally ended with the abdication of all German princes in in 1918. Over its long history, its geographic extent varied considerably, including not only most of the modern Germany, but much also of Austria, Switzerland, the Low Countries, the Czech Republic, parts of eastern France and western Poland.

• Note, I have dropped Wilhelm, as he wasn't the sole abdicant.
• Also, I have clarified "Eastern France" into "parts of eastern France" and cut Denmark: no part of Denmark was ever part of the Kingdom of Germany. Only Nothern Schleswig during the German Empire. That's to little in my book.

Str1977 ^{(smile back)} 16:04, 20 July 2006 (UTC)

Taking your objections into account and these of my own:

• I think East Francia refers to the East Frankish Kingdom, not just Franconia or Austrasia. Francia is sometimes used to refer to the whole realm ruled by the Franks, including the German lands. Francia doesn't seem to have a precise usage in scholarly English.
• The FRG is the successor in so far as it represents the union of the German princedoms and other states which had formed Germany in times past. Austria is formed out of what was once a duchy w/i Germany, only the FRG can claim to be the successor of the entire old kingdom (in some sense).
• Can it be denied that Germany was created in 843? It tried to explain this in greater detail to Rex some time ago... see Talk:Charlemagne#What is Germany.
• While Wilhelm wasn't only the abdicant, he was the only monarch of the whole.

I propose this version:

This article lists the monarchs of Germany, a state created out of the eastern half of the Carolingian Empire by the Treaty of Verdun of 843 and which continued uninterrupted until 1806. Thereafter, the German states formed several confederations until the establishment of the German Empire in 1871. The central monarchy finally ended with the abdication of Kaiser Wilhelm II in 1918. Over its long history, its geographic extent varied considerably, including not only most of the modern Germany, but much also of Austria, Switzerland, the Low Countries, the Czech Republic, parts of eastern France and western Poland.

Srnec 16:26, 20 July 2006 (UTC)

Has poor Slovenia gotten lost again? john k 17:57, 20 July 2006 (UTC)

In deference to our Slovenian brethren:

This article lists the monarchs of Germany, a state created out of the eastern half of the Carolingian Empire by the Treaty of Verdun of 843 and which continued uninterrupted until 1806. Thereafter, the German states formed several confederations until the establishment of the German Empire in 1871. The central monarchy finally ended with the abdication of Kaiser Wilhelm II in 1918. Over its long history, its geographic extent varied considerably, including not only most of the modern Germany, but much also of Austria, Slovenia, Switzerland, the Low Countries, the Czech Republic, parts of eastern France and western Poland.

Srnec 16:26, 20 July 2006 (UTC)

Srnec I agree with that introduction. I think it reflects the concerns of our Slovenian brothers (and sisters, if any are involved!) while preserving basic historical accuracy. I would personally have preferred using the term East Francia, since when the Carolingian Polity shattered in 843, East Francia became a separate political entity which directly evolved into the German Kingdom -- but I can certainly live with language as is. old windy bear 19:12, 20 July 2006 (UTC)

In essence I agree with the version. However, I still don't like "state" and "create" and would prefer using "Frankish Kingdom"/"Empire" isntead of Carolingian Empire. Str1977 ^{(smile back)} 22:29, 21 July 2006 (UTC)

Another proposed changed:

... until 1806. Thereafter, the individual German states formed several confederations and were united in the German Empire of 1871. The monarchy finally ended ..."

This is more in line with the fact that the indicidual states did not end in 1871 (or 1867) but formed the German Empire. Str1977 ^{(smile back)} 07:16, 22 July 2006 (UTC)

I changed the intro. I did like the idea of using the term "central monarch", but it's no big deal. I do like the use of the term "unified", though. As to the terms "state created" and "Carolingian Empire":

• The Frankish Empire page is a mess and the term Carolingian Empire is just as accurate: the empire had no formal name. Perhaps a piped link?
• I think it is important to convey the notion of statehood, not modern statehood, but medieval statehood. Any other wording only confuses somebody asking "of what were they monarchs?" I think it is safe to say that this particular polity was created in 843 with Verdun. I presented a more detailed argument at Talk:Charlemagne#What is Germany.

Srnec 18:13, 22 July 2006 (UTC)

Lothair III and Conrad V

Hallo, Imladjov has posted on my talk page regarding two of his edits which I reverted:

• He claims that Lothair of Supplinburg should be numbered "II" and not "III", as there was no other Emperor since Lothair I. It is true that Lothair II was not Emperor but he is counted nonetheless. We have been through this in regard to the various Henries and Conrads. Lothair is always referred to as "III" and we should reflect that.
• He claims that there is a king called Conrad V inbetween Rudolf of Habsburg and Adolf of Nassau. He gives a lengthy bibliography on that obscure figure. However, I have never heard of Conrad or have seen him included in any list of German kings.

Could the other editors please comment on the Conrad situation (the Lothair situation is to obvious to warrant discussion). Has the existence of such a king found acceptance among historians (my ignorance suggests otherwise, as does this link: http://www.buecher.de/verteiler.asp?site=artikel_faz.asp&wea=1100485&artikelnummer=000000667126 Str1977 ^{(smile back)} 22:20, 21 July 2006 (UTC)

I have never heard of a Conrad V other than Conradin. However, there was a Conrad II of Teck who died on 2 May 1292: see http://ellone-loire.net/obsidian/gerT-Z.html and http://fmg.ac/Projects/MedLands/SWABIAN%20NOBILITY.htm. The questions for me are:

• Who elected him?
• When was he elected and where?

I still doubt that this person was ever a king any more than Egbert II of Meissen was. As to Lothair II/III, I have seen him many times as Lothair II, for he was without a doubt the second emperor of that name, but not the second rex Francorum. In a royal (not imperial) list, it really doesn't matter whether he is numbered II or III: you will be unable to locate another Lothair who ruled over the same royal polity regardless. Srnec 00:20, 22 July 2006 (UTC)

There's no doubt that Conrad of Teck existed, but his kingship is very doubtful indeed. Another link I have found is http://www.geschichtsforum.de/archive/index.php?t-1726.html (sorry, in German again). To sum up basic points: Grotefend has no king between Rudolf and Adolf. The claim goes back to Armin Wolf's "König für einen Tag". Opposing voices are Rolf Götz in "Herzog Konrad von der Teck und die Königswahl von 1292" and "Zur angeblichen Grabinschrift des "rex electus" Herzog Konrad von Teck". I gathered that the claim is solely based on Conrad's grave which is decorated with an Eagle and a Crown, imperial insignia. Narrative sources apparently do not mention this king. Str1977 ^{(smile back)} 07:11, 22 July 2006 (UTC)

The only thing I gathered from your previous German link was through the aid of an online translator; alas, all of which suck with German. There would seem to be innumerable better explanations of imperial insignia on a tomb than the existence of an elected, uncrowned king otherwise unattested. Srnec 16:35, 22 July 2006 (UTC)

You are exactly right, Srnec (in the first link only the first paragraph is of interest). The insignia might be explained by the proximity of Conrad to the Staufen heir Conradin, or to King Rudolf, especially since he died at a crucial moment of the kingdom (during the election process).

I'd propose waiting a few more days - maybe John K can comment too. Str1977 ^{(smile back)} 18:19, 22 July 2006 (UTC)

I've never heard of Conrad of Teck, and certainly not of any German king elected between the death of Rudolf I and the election of Adolf. I think it's up to Imladjov to provide some evidence, at this point. john k 18:29, 22 July 2006 (UTC)

He has posted a lengthy bibliography at my talk page. I will paste it below (bold type by me):

"On Conrad of Teck and his ephemeral tenure in 1292, see the following:

"*Alpers, Karl-Otto: Ein Königsmord vor 700 Jahren ? Konrad II. von Teck, Indizien sprechen für Mord, in: Beiträge zur Heimatkunde des Bezirks Kirchheim unter Teck, 55, 1992, S. 17-22.

"*Benz, Eberhard: Herzog Konrad von Teck, in: Eberhard Benz und der Altkreis Nürtingen. Gesammelte Schriften, Nürtingen 1984, S. 231-238.

"*Gerlich, Alois: Rezension zu Armin Wolf: König für einen Tag. Konrad von Teck: gewählt, ermordet (?), vergessen, Kirchheim unter Teck 1993, in: Nassauische Annalen, 105, 1994, S. 420-421.

"*Götz, Rolf: Herzog Konrad von Teck und die Königswahl von 1292. Bemerkungen zu Armin Wolfs Arbeit "König für einen Tag: gewählt, ermordet (?) und vergessen", in: ZSWLG, 53, 1994, S. 27-40.

"*Götz, Rolf: Herzog Konrad und die Königswahl von 1292, in: Beiträge zur Heimatkunde des Bezirks Kirchheim unter Teck, 13, 1971, S. 51-58.

"*Gründer, Irene: Studien zur Geschichte der Herrschaft Teck, Stuttgart 1963 (= Schriften zur süddeutschen Landesgeschichte, Bd. 1).

"*Hoffmann, Frank: Konrad von Teck: "Ein König für einen Tag", in: Beiträge zur Heimatkunde des Bezirks Kirchheim unter Teck, 49, 1989, S. 21-24.

"*Klemm, Alfred: Der Grabstein der Herzöge von Teck, in: Blätter des Schwäbischen Albvereins, 1894, S. 11-12.

"*Locher, Rudolf: Die Grablege der Herzöge von Teck, in: Beiträge zur Heimatkunde des Bezirks Kirchheim unter Teck, 21, 1975, S. 57.

"*Pfaff, Karl: Geschichte der Herzöge von Teck, in: WJbVG, 1846, S. 93-154.

Wendt, Nadja: König für einen Tag (Buchrezension zur Arbeit Armin Wolfs), in: Damals, 27,2, 1995, S. 45-46.

"*Wolf, Armin: König für einen Tag: Konrad von Teck: gewählt, ermordet (?) und vergessen, Kirchheim unter Teck 1993 (= Schriftenreihe des Stadtarchivs Kirchheim unter Teck, Bd. 17).

"*Wolf, Armin: Die Entstehung des Kurfürstenkollegs 1198-1298. Zur 700-jährigen Wiederkehr der ersten Vereinigung der sieben Kurfürsten, Idstein 1998 (= Historisches Seminar, NF, Bd. 11), S. 59-66.

"*Wunder, Gerd: Herzog Konrad II. von Teck, in: ZSWLG, 27, 1968, S. 113-116.

"His obscurity is surely no reason for non-inclusion. The usage "Konrad V" has popped up here and there since the 1990s."

I have read none of these and can only say that Armin Wolf is the chief (if not sole) proponent of Conrad's kingship, while Rudolf Götz is his chief opponent. In how far the other books actually comment on or contribute much to the controversy I do not know. Str1977 ^{(smile back)} 18:41, 22 July 2006 (UTC)

Perhaps we could ask Imladjov to give us a quick summary of what all this literature actually says. I find nothing less useful than a long list of sources with no context or explanation. Well, I suppose it's more useful than nothing at all, but not greatly so. john k 19:35, 22 July 2006 (UTC)

Since Str1977 has posted the bibliography, I do not see it necessary to repost it. The bibliography was simply a response to the editing out of the obscure monarch merely because an editor (or for that matter most editors) had not heard of him. That so ephemeral (to say the least) a ruler has escaped general histories is not at all surprising. However, here we have as regular an election as could have been held in 1292 in the Holy Roman Empire, which is in marked contrast to the situation with Ekbert of Meissen (who, Str1977 was right, was never king -- I had been using some older literature which apparently equated his intention to rebel in 1088 with the formal installation of a Gegenkönig). A long while ago I actually read several of the articles listed above, including some of those by Wolf. The issue has naturally resonated only as much as something so minor could. But various sites, including genealogical and chronological ones now list Duke Conrad II of Teck as King Conrad V. While this is in some ways a technicality, it is not in any way problematic. There was no rival king to Conrad of Teck during the single day of his reign (if we can call it that), and there was no later king or emperor named Conrad. Therefore there should be no problem including this insignificant monarch as Conrad V. I suppose to some extent the issue is similar to the controversy over the numbering of Popes names Stephen, except that here we do not have the resulting problem with names and numbers. Conradin cannot be counted as Conrad V; he was never even associated by his father as German king, and his royal titles were to Sicily and Jerusalem (in both cases, as Conrad II). As duke of Swabia he was Conrad IV.

On the numbering of Emperors/German kings named Lothair, it seems to me that since both "Lothair III" and "Lothair II" are encountered for Lothar von Supplinburg, it would be most appropriate to retain that usage, which is actually correct. As Holy Roman emperors we have Lothair I (840-855) and Lothair II (1125-1137); as German kings we have at best the same pair (Lothair I started in 815-817 as king of Bavaria, the core of what we would retrospectively call the German kingdom), or at worst only Lothair of Supplinburg. The numbering of German monarchs is not fully consistent. It follows the imperial succession for rulers named Charles, Louis, Lothair, and the royal "German succession" for rulers names Conrad and Henry. However, it is impossible to legitimately intercalate King Lothair II of Italy into this sequence, as he was neither emperor nor German (East Frankish) king. Of five standard reference works on monarchical succession, Tapsell, Monarchs Rulers Dynasties and Kingdoms of the World (1983) has "Lothair III," while Stokvis, Manuel d'histoire, de généalogie et de chronologie de tous les états globe vol. 3 (1893), Ross, Rulers and Governments of the World vol. 1 (1978), Morby, Dynasties of the World (1989 and 2002), and Searns, The Encyclopedia of World History (2001) have "Lothair II." Best, Imladjov 19:46, 22 July 2006 (UTC)

Conradin was Conrad III of Jerusalem. He had two predecessors of the same name there: his own father, and his great-grandfather Conrad of Montferrat. Finlandais 07:10, 3 August 2006 (UTC)

Is the story with Conrad of Teck, then, that he was elected in 1292, but died immediately thereafter, before being crowned? It seems to me that in the time period under discussion, one had to be crowned (preferably at Aachen) to be considered properly King. At best, he should rate a footnote, not an actual place in the list. Did he even know that he was King at the time of his death?

In terms of Lothar II/III, I have no particular preferences, but it seems to me that it's better to avoid possible confusion by using Lothar III than to dogmatically insist on what the "correct" number is. That said, it is evident that sources use both forms. This is an issue which would be better taken up on the page for Lothar of Supplinburg, rather than here. john k 00:42, 23 July 2006 (UTC)

Conrad of Teck was elected but was murdered after one day. He knew of his election, but he was certainly not crowned. Since coronations could often take place a long time after an election or succession, I am not sure we should dismiss him on such grounds. If the list includes non-reigning associate kings and anti-kings, why exclude him?

I do not particularly insist on Lothair II, but one could say that using Lothair III could cause confusion by making one look for a non-existent Lothair among the emperors and the German kings. Best, Imladjov 15:05, 24 July 2006 (UTC)

Two comments:

To say that Lothair II and III are both used for our Supplingenburger is inaccurate. Overwhelmningly III is used in the literature. Sources might differ, but they also have the Henries one off etc.

Imladjov, the question is not whether Conrad is obscure. If it were that, I'd be fire and flame for including him. After all, I did include Günther von Schwarzburg. The issue is whether, by the consensus of historians, that man was king and from what I gathered (which is admittedly little) Wolf's view has found little accptance outside of Teck (local patriotism!). And no, it is not common for an obscure king to escape the sources. Just see some of the rival kings! And there apparently are different explanations for Conrad's grave. So this is the question we should answer: Do historians accept the existence of a King Conrad, elected and killed in 1292?

All the best, Str1977 ^{(smile back)} 15:24, 24 July 2006 (UTC)

Are you sure Lothair III is so overwhelmingly used? I was under the opposite impression and did a quick Google Book Search to check. I looked for Lothar and Lothair II and III in proximity to emperor and turned up: Lothair III (30) vs Lothair II (225) and Lothar III (202) vs Lothar II (303).

Of course this is not necessarily the best way of checking.

On whether Conrad of Teck has been accepted by historians, I think you are looking for a little too much a little too soon. I have not seen the Wolf thesis dismantled. Given the insignificance of the man and the recent date of his discovery, if we want to see acceptance, we would have to wait for a while. Perhaps it would be best to make him a footnote after all? Imladjov 20:51, 24 July 2006 (UTC)

I would prefer Lothair III, as I believe strongly in the "highest numeral" idea. Explain the lack of one (or two) monarch in that numbering sequence, for example by a footnote. Finlandais 07:05, 3 August 2006 (UTC)

One more thing: Could you please, Imladjov, give the long forms of the abbreviated titles? Cheers, Str1977 ^{(smile back)} 15:39, 24 July 2006 (UTC)

If you mean the Conrad of Teck bibliography, I just cut and pasted. To find the site, cut and paste one of the titles in google. The ones I have read are listed in full. Best, Imladjov 20:51, 24 July 2006 (UTC)

I'm confused - is Conrad of Teck not mentioned in the chronicles of the time? If so, we would presumably be able to gather whether or not he was considered to have been King by his near contemporaries. If he was not, a bunch of legalistic arguing on the part of modern scholars is irrelevant. You can't be king if nobody actually thinks you're king. john k 22:21, 24 July 2006 (UTC)

What about the minor issue of being elected king? Imladjov 22:27, 24 July 2006 (UTC)

Hallo guys, I have found and scanned an review of Wolf's book, so if you can read German, look here: [1] (Add. Unfortunately the scan has been deleted by deletionists - if you are interested drop me a line and I can provide it). The review also answers some of the questions: Conrad's kingship is mentioned in local sources from the 16th century, but not by any contemporary sources. Accounts say that he was elected by the Habsburg party but that his election was kept secret in order not to prejudice negotiations with the Nassau party. Actually, what is it that makes one a king? In an elective monarchy, we have four steps: Kür (=chosing of the King), election (the formal election), Proclamation, Coronation/Consecration/Annointing. From what I gather, Conrad at best has passed the first step. Str1977 ^{(smile back)} 17:12, 25 July 2006 (UTC)

I have created an article on our Conrad, largely based on the German article and the review I scanned. I have reduced his place on our list, based on evidence (even Wolf doesn't claim that he was openly proclaimed king) and historians' view, to that of a note to King Adolph. Str1977 ^{(smile back)} 14:12, 31 July 2006 (UTC)

Because Conrad of Teck is clearly written about in books/ scholarly articles as to possibly having been a king, he belongs to this list. As a mention. Not to be listed as a clear and uncontested king, but to mention him and the possibility that he was king for a day. Do not omit him altogether. Finlandais 07:03, 3 August 2006 (UTC)

The way Wolf seems to write about him (judging from the review, not having yet laid my hands on the actual book), Conrad doesn't qualify as King, in contradiction to the books' title, as he was only secretly elected by one party: no proclamation - no king. And a minority view anyway. Str1977 ^{(smile back)} 07:50, 3 August 2006 (UTC)

Article should be deleted/completly modified

This article is confusing, it is incomprehensible and vague. For instance, what does the title mean? German (as in nationality) monarchs, or monarchs of Germany?Both would be contradicting as it also lists federations, and eventhough the leaders of for example the North German confederation were of noble birth, they acted as presidents, not monarchs aand people who aren't considered to be German at all, Napoleon I being an obvious example. This article ought to be turned into a disambiguation page offering the following links:

• Kings of East Francia/Kings of Germany
• List of Holy Roman Emperors
• Monarchic rulers of Germany, 1806 onwards

 Rex  19:48, 22 July 2006 (UTC)

It has nothing to do with monarchs of German nationality, obviously. It is monarchs of Germany, and also includes those monarchs who presided over the various German federations of the 19th century, to bridge the gap between 1806 and 1871. This article is well developed, and I see no reason to move it - the various terminology is explained in the introduction. john k 00:35, 23 July 2006 (UTC)

Rex, if you object to Napoleon, we can always change the Rhine Federation's protector to its prince-primate, my dear neighbour Dalberg. However, his short time successor again was a French-man, Eugene Beauharnaise.

The presidents are no problem at all, as the President of the German Confed was created exactly along the lines of the Emperor in the last years of the HRE, only without the title. The President of the North German Federation was created in seeming parallel to that President, though his powers were greater. The German Kaiser was only the latter President with a fancy (and in my book usurped title - but that needn't concern us here).

PS. It is better to have only a single list page, if possible. We could split up German Chancellors as well, into three or even four articles. Str1977 ^{(smile back)} 15:16, 24 July 2006 (UTC)

merge prop

I, too, think that Rex's proposal is inferior to the satisfactory article we have here. I have reverted his redirecting to his newly-created pages in favour of this one. He should not continue to work in this unilateral manner against the clear will of the majority. Srnec 21:47, 24 July 2006 (UTC)

I have reverted you edits to many redirecting pages Snerc. The pages in question have been created to create a more clear view, when an article has an link to King of East Francia or King of Germany is it logical it redirects to page concerning just that, in this case the page about the monarchs of East Francia / the kingdom of Germany. The same thing goes for German Emperor. If people want to see a article like this one, they only have to click their way to the see also section where a link to this particular article can be found. It's as simple as that, why would anyone object to that (on a stricty factual basis of course) ?  Rex  22:46, 24 July 2006 (UTC)

Regardless of why, people have. I will present one simple reason: there is continuity between all the Germanies presented on this page and there is no difficulty in grasping what the page contains and where with the useful introduction and headers. Your reversions were, frankly, out-of-line and an attempt to seemingly hijack this project. Those pages you created are unecessary and ought to be deleted or redirected here. Srnec 22:51, 24 July 2006 (UTC)

That may very well be Snerc, but it isn't all Germany here, which you so often seem to forget. The pages I created are fitting. In nearly every case devoting specialist information to a specific subject is simply the best. People click on a link like King of East Francia, not because they want to know who Wilhelm II of Germany was, but because they want more information on the Kings of East Francia. If they want more of similar subjects, they simple scroll to See Also and their problems will be solved. It is truly as simple as that.

Also accusing me of hijacking a page, or any other way of insulting me as you've done so many times before, will not help you in receiving my cooperation or respect. I'd thought you'd learned this by now.

On a different note, I'm going to sleep now as it's getting late here. We'll most certainly continue this discussion in a relativly short while though. In the mean time, I advise you not to modify the redirects to the 2 articles I've created, if only for the further atmosphere in this debate.  Rex  23:02, 24 July 2006 (UTC)

Germanus, you are disrupting WP by creating pages and redirects nobody needs. Please stop it. Str1977 ^{(smile back)} 06:16, 25 July 2006 (UTC)

This is not disrupting Wikipedia by creating pages, this is improvement, and I will not stop it. I wonder if both of you will start providing arguments for the suggested merge soon ... instead of saying it's all just disruptive.  Rex  08:32, 25 July 2006 (UTC)

I don't suggest a merge. It is you who suggest a split up of a viable and coherent article for POV reasons. Actually, no, you did not suggest, you just created it without any discussion ... and that is disruptive. (Quite apart from the fact that no one will look for the articles you have created). Str1977 ^{(smile back)} 09:45, 25 July 2006 (UTC)

I never said you proposed a merge, where did I say this according to you? (Please do answer)

Disruptive? No, because as far as I know wikipedia hasn't got any rule saying one has to discuss before creating an article. That's not disruptive, but do you know what it? Changing accurate redirects.

Also, would you mind discussing this matter based on arguments rather than accusations of me being POV or disruptive?

 Rex  10:01, 25 July 2006 (UTC)

I never said you said I proposed a merge. I merely suggested that I don't suggested it and actually think it pointless, as there is nothing to merge into this article. Also, I cannot cite the paragraph, but I am sure that WP has a rule against creating another article on a topic already covered. If you want to do this, try this. Finally, I have not accused you of anything other than what is. You are disrupting WP all based on a very peculiar POV. Str1977 ^{(smile back)} 10:15, 25 July 2006 (UTC)

Still waiting for arguments rather than accusations Str1977, and I have all the time in the world.  Rex  10:18, 25 July 2006 (UTC)

And so am I! Where are your arguments?

Mine are, at the risk of repeating myself:

• This list is a viable and coherent article.
• There is continuity in the entire list.
• It has a sensible title, whereas anything containing "1806 onwards" isn't sensible - if you were consistent, you would have to split the latter one up into at least two articles, or even three.

And all this forgetting for a moment that you didn't wait for arguments before you wasted server space in the first place. Str1977 ^{(smile back)} 10:42, 25 July 2006 (UTC)

We, or at least I am, aren't looking for continuity, just answers. People click on a link and get the appropriate information, not a list, and article containing the specific information they want, and deserve. Are you going to deny them that right Str1977? Why would you do that? For your own personal national glory?

 Rex  11:21, 25 July 2006 (UTC)

Germanus, this is a list, so people coming here expect a list. And they will get a list ... one list. Str1977 ^{(smile back)} 12:43, 25 July 2006 (UTC)

Indeed, people who want a list, come here and get a list, people who want information on a king of East Francia get redirected. Excellent. I'm glad we've reached an agreement.  Rex  18:38, 25 July 2006 (UTC)

Rex, you are the only one who expresses any opposition to this list, which has existed in one form or another for a long time. Find someone else to agree with you and then come back. john k 19:31, 25 July 2006 (UTC)

No, how about you go and find some arguments. That's probably better for the both of us.  Rex  20:11, 25 July 2006 (UTC)

Practice what you preach, Germanus! I have done my share here. Str1977 ^{(smile back)} 22:01, 25 July 2006 (UTC)

You've done nothing really.  Rex  22:11, 25 July 2006 (UTC)

Rex, get a definition of argument which somebody other than yourself agrees on and then we can talk. Nevertheless, the argument goes as follows:

• A good Wikipedia article is concise (containing nothing more than necessary, but no less than makes it...), informative (which means that it accurately and factually describes its topic and covers everything which is direcly relevant to it while being...), precise (denoting the and nonvague, nonambiguous, noncontradictory definition it provides), and interesting (descriptive and written, not only in the good, grammatically correct Queen's English, but in a readable and attention-holding style which sustains the readers interest despite the...); many more things make an article excellent.
• A list makes a good article when it is concise, informative, precise, interesting, and aesthetically pleasing such that its content is happily accessible.
• A list must be relevant to other articles.
• This is a good article because it conforms to the definitions given above in all ways, is highly in demand (see What links here?), and is a relevant list as the subjects of its listing are naturally ordered in the way they are presented: that is, these monarchs appeared historically in the chronological order presented.
• If a good Wikipedia article on some topic already exists, other articles on the same exact topic should not be created.
• This is a good article on the monarchs of Germany and related German confederations.
• Therefore, no other articles on the monarchs of Germany and related German confederations ought to be created.
• Articles should only be split when they are simply too long (making reading difficult and finding the information you desire difficult), too imprecise (coverring subjects that are mostly unrelated), or a specific subsection suffices as its own article and may be removed to save space.
• This article is not too long, its tables are readable, and the headings maked finding exactly what is desired easy.
• This article is precise and the introduction and notes make it clear what exactly is coverred, so that nobody can be confused on exactly which monarchs of what are listed.
• This article has some subsections which do not completely satisfy the requirements for their own article space and all the subsections contain only information directly relevant to the article's purpose and are all related to its various other subsections.
• Therefore, this article ought not to be split.
• Therefore, Rex's edits in relation to this controversy ought to be reversed or negated in some way. ■

On another note, you said that "changing accurate redirects" is disruptive behaviour. However, the changes to the redirects were certainly no less accurate than those you had made. In many respects they were moreso as they gave context to the desired, limited information. Srnec 22:17, 25 July 2006 (UTC)

Snerc, please tell me which is more accurate, a link to King of East Francia redirecting to Kings of East Francia or the same link redirectiong to a list with all kinds of unrelated monarchs like Wilhelm II?  Rex  09:21, 26 July 2006 (UTC)

We can always have a redirect to another redirect ... to this article, which is the long-standing article on this subject. There are no reasons to split, while there are valid reasons to keep it together (especially since the distinction "Is it still East Francia, is it already Germany" is not that easy). But I guess these are no arguments, as they don't agree with you. Str1977 ^{(smile back)} 10:54, 26 July 2006 (UTC)

Note that what I did is not really a splitt, just a modification in which wikipedia now offers better coverage. But there's of course one big obstacle here as there are as I want to provide a better coverage where as you want everything to be linked to this page for the sake of nationalism.  Rex  11:06, 26 July 2006 (UTC)

Sorry if I take exception to this. I haven't proven to be nationalist on these pages. Neither have those other editors that agree with me, that actually came before me. Are they German nationalists without being German? Your record on the other hand show quite a link between your country and your contributions. Str1977 ^{(smile back)} 11:14, 26 July 2006 (UTC)

Indeed they do, but in a nationalistic way? I doubt it. As for your entire attitude ... I'm pretty confident my remark has the truth on its side.  Rex  11:39, 26 July 2006 (UTC)

I provided a long and syllogistic argument which you didn't even address, Rex. I didn't expect more, though.

You call the monarchs of this article unrelated, but, in fact, they are all related in some way or another, for they all acted as monarchs over unions of the German peoples and their states. These unions were successive and themselves related entities. As Str1977 said, the distinction between East Francia and Germany is a historiographical necessity, but this also means that it is partly arbitrary and "king of East Francia" is practically synonymous with "German monarch" for the time period in which East Francia is used. There is no reason to call the Emperor Francis II a king of East Francia and Wilhelm II a German monarch when there is plenty more in common between those two than between either of them and, say, Henry the Fowler, who ruled over a territory called the regnum Teutonicorum with the title of rex Francorum.

As to Rex's nationalism, the edit histories of no other disputants show any similar bent in any national direction. Srnec 03:29, 27 July 2006 (UTC)

Snerc, let me first just say this. One more comment resembling these:

• Rex. I didn't expect more, though
• As to Rex's nationalism

And I will report them as personal attacks.

As for the post, this article is a list, one with some serious flaws, but that it not the matter here. it's about accuracy when linking.In this way a link to East Francia does not lead to the History of Germany, and a King of East Francia should not link to a list of German monarchs. They should link to the appropriate articles, if thye exist (and they do) so that wikipedia user gets all the info he or she needs. Henry the Fowler doesn't even matter here. Rex  08:53, 27 July 2006 (UTC)

To clarify my point that the distinction is tricky:

• The eastern realm clearly began as the "Eastern Frankish Kingdom" (or East Francia, if you will) and that kingdom remained the same up until 1806.
• The problem is the kingdom's name - the first kings all were Franks, but with Henry I we have a Saxon mounting the throne - of course, in a way he is a Frank too, since Saxony has lived unter Frankish influence for over a century, but still there is a discrepancy. This is one of the factors that lead to the adoption of a different name (the "difficult names" mentioned by Germanus).
• So it's difficult to tell exactly when the switch takes place (and there probably is no such exact time, two names being used side by side for a while) but it certainly happened at some time in the 10th or 11th century ... way before Francis II. In the 12th century John of Salisbury complained about the Germans thinking themselves rulers of the world, and in the 14th century the HRE supplemented its name by "of the German Nation".
• France and Germany got their names through the thing that united them: France was united by being ruled by a Frankish King residing in Francia (formerly Neustria) - Germany was united by another common factor: language. The inhabitants of the Eastern Kingdom continued to speak the Germanic vernacular (different languages/dialects of course, but they had this in common), whereas the Western Kingdom had largely Romanized their language, resulting in Old French. In 911, the Eastern Kingdom preferred to elect a non-Carolingian to the one ruling in the West, partly because of the language issue.

Finally, what actually was the name of the first King of the Eastern Kingdom: Louis the ...?

Str1977 ^{(smile back)} 08:56, 27 July 2006 (UTC)

PS. (after the edit conflict:) Germanus, could you please ensure that your signature is indented too. You mustn't place it in a new line. Str1977 ^{(smile back)} 08:56, 27 July 2006 (UTC)

Very nice Str1977, but you make one big mistake. because you assume, that "German" keeps it current meaning 1500 years ago ... which it doesn't. Therefore you claims on Louis the German, as if you want to say that says it all doesn't it, is worthless.Same goes for of the German nation.

But again, and again, and again, you deliberatly miss the point. Which does not connects to nobility, but to good old simple wikipedia, and the best service it can offer.  Rex  09:10, 27 July 2006 (UTC)

Yes, criticize my illustration and ignore the substantial arguments. Brilliant! Str1977 ^{(smile back)}

I'm not the one ignoring Str1977.  Rex  12:06, 27 July 2006 (UTC)

There are the ones who ignore, and then there are the ones who ignore that they ignore. Str1977 ^{(smile back)} 13:19, 27 July 2006 (UTC)

Bravo! Your selfreflection is admirable.  Rex  14:00, 27 July 2006 (UTC)

Thanks! Unfortunately, yours isn't! Str1977 ^{(smile back)} 14:08, 27 July 2006 (UTC)

Wrong again Str1977.  Rex  17:27, 27 July 2006 (UTC)

Kings of East Francia / Germany and Monarchic rulers of Germany, 1806 onwards have been nominated for deletion because they are redundant and have unencyclopaedic and indefinite titles. See their page at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Kings of East Francia / Germany.

Now, Rex, as to your allegation that I have personally attacked you, I never called you a nationalist. Read carefully. Even if I did, would that be an attack? There are plenty of people, left and right, who call themselves nationalists. Also, I did not attack you by stating my low expectations of your discursive abilities. My low expectations are my own and, if false, can only be a smear on my own personal character. Srnec 22:58, 27 July 2006 (UTC)

Article mixing up indipendent things

This article is a bad example of the way how some (!) germans pocket the history of some of their neighbour countries. Using the term of "German" monarchs for the emporers of the holy roman empire as well as for AUSTRIAN emporers (after the founding of the Austrian Empire in 1804!!!) is quite dubious. The holy roman empire covered (more or less) those parts of europe which are nowadays Austria and Germany. The general problem is, that the term "german" is used here without any limitation to its historical usage and context (since 1806 the holy roman empire was a loose federation of german-speaking countries - so a "german" federation) and its meaning today (Germany). Till 1871 there has been no national state of germany but a lot of indipendent german-speaking countries. While Austria was unified by the Habsburgs a lot earlier, lately in 1804 when founding the Austrian Empire. For the rest see also the discussion Template talk:Monarchs of Germany 1806-1918. So this article needs a relaunch! Nice greetings from Vienna, -- Rfortner 01:04, 10 June 2007 (UTC)

The holy roman empire covered MORE than nowadays Austria and Germany (e.g., nowadays Czech Republic and Slovenia). Nahabedere 20:51, 12 June 2007 (UTC)

Thats why I said "more or less", but for the discussion about calling Austrian emperors "German Monarchs" I didnt start a list with all the other states involved ;-) ... Your advice would also be very welcome here: Template talk:Monarchs of Germany 1806-1918 -- Rfortner 20:56, 12 June 2007 (UTC)

Useless article

I don't really see the point of this article. Is there any purpose in listing these various rulers on one page?. Also there are a few issues that need to be addressed:

1. Not all of these rulers were Kings of Germany. The title became redundant once the Emperor no longer needed papal coronation. The royal title was replaced with that of King of the Romans, which signified the heir apparent.

2. Not all these monarchs had German as their mother tongue. Charles V was not German and could not write in the language.

3.If you are going to list German monarchs then where are the Emeperors of Austria and the Kings of Bavaria?.

I really think this article should be deleted. Kings of Germany should be listed in the Kingdom of Germany article. The other monarchs already have seperate articles.

Robert (robertplunkett24@yahoo.oo.uk) 5 July 2007 —Preceding unsigned comment added by 89.242.193.194 (talk)

The German mother tongue thing was indeed an improper change redefining the entire article - fortunately without following this change through: it would indeed have required not just the Emperors of Austria (of which however only one is missing) and Kings of Bavaria but at least all rulers of Germany's 37 states in the 19th century, if not the the hundreds of petty (and not so petty) rulers before 1806) - the List originally set out to list the rulers of the monarchy existing in what today is Germany (and has been called Germany for centuries) from the Eastern Frankish Kingdom, the German Kingdom and the Holy Roman Empire (of the German Nation), the German Confederation and finally the German Empire.

So, with all due respect, Robert, I cannot accept such utterances from someone dropping by, not even signing with a username calling for the deletion of an article he knows nothing about. Str1977 ^{(smile back)} 08:23, 9 July 2007 (UTC)

German emperors

Lots of people really like denying the existence of a German nation before the year 1871. But, even if I have to disappoint them: There was a German nation. Walther von der Vogelweide wrote poems to his fatherland, Luther spoke from his "Fatherland Germany", Hutten fought against two French soldiers after they had said that Germany had quite been awful aso. And Ulrich von Hutten was it whom I'd like to mention now: Around the year 1500 he wrote his "Kurtzer Auszug wie bösliche die Bepste gegen den Deudschen Keyser jemals gehandlet". And in this work he often wrote: "Deudscher Keyser" (German Emperor). I think, this should be mentioned in the article. Around the year 1500 the emperors were called German emperors. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 84.145.175.60 (talk)

Party true, party false. The epithet "German Emperors" was only colloquial in 1500 - the official title was "Roman Emperor" - but nonetheless the colloquial usage (as well as the officially used name "Holy Roman Emperor of the German Nation"), even by ignoramuses like Ulrich von Hutten, should be evidence enough that the scope of the list is justified.

Ah, and place your postings at the bottom and sign them next time. Str1977 ^{(smile back)} 09:06, 9 July 2007 (UTC)

Prussian pretenders

I also deleted the "pretenders" section as, in contrast to other monarchies, cannot work - these people are pretenders to the Kingdom of Prussia - a proper pretender section would have to include the Kings of Bavaria, Württemberg, Saxony, the Grand Dukes of Hesse, Baden, Braunschweig, Oldenburg, the two Mecklenburgs etc. etc. as the German Empire was a Federation of different states with one of the princes being President (with the title Emperor). Str1977 ^{(smile back)} 08:23, 9 July 2007 (UTC)

They were not just pretenders to Prussia, they were pretenders to Germany itself. Were it not for WWI, these people would have been reigning German Emperors. All of those other pretenders claimed states within Germany. The Hohenzollerns claimed both a German state and Germany itself. Emperor001 01:15, 18 August 2007 (UTC)

I delted them because:

a) the German Empire was not a Kingdom like Prussia or Bavaria but a federation. The Emperor was President with a fancy title. So they were not "ruler of the entire country".

b) the Germany they could have been pretenders of doesn't exist anymore (since 1945)

c) it is questionable whether pretenders should be included in "list of XYZ monarchs" at all. Why don't we list all the pretenders to the Holy Roman Empire or the German Confederation. Why single out the Zollern and their "historical accident"? Str1977 ^(talk) 07:55, 18 August 2007 (UTC)

Though Germany wasn't a kingdom, it was an empire. Empires can be divided into various states and each state could have its own monarch. Since there was a centralized government with a hereditary monarch, there is a pretender to the throne of Germany. Even if the emperor acted more like a president, he still held a hereditary post over the entire country. Also, what do you mean the Germany they are pretenders to doesn't exist anymore? The country still exists, it's just smaller and has a different constitution with no monarchs. True, there are other German pretenders, but they claim thrones under the Imperial one (the thrones of individual states). The German Empire was not a federation; it was a centralized government. The only difference between Germany and other monarchies was that the individual states kept their monarch. By the way, the Holy Roman Empire and the German Confederation had emperor/president elected, it wasn't a hereditary position. Emperor001 16:49, 20 August 2007 (UTC)

The German Empire was a federation comprised of various sovereign states that had joined together, not an Empire subdivided into principalities (as the Holy Roman Empire had been). Your saying that the German Empire had a centralized government casts doubt on your knowledge about this whole issue.

The German Empire, created 1871 out of the North German Federation, turned republic in 1918 and dictarship in 1933, ended in 1945. There is no pretender to the throne of the Federal Republic of Germany. If we now accept pretenders to entities that do no longer exist, we don't we accept a Habsburg claim to the Holy Roman Empire? Oh, I see: it was elective (but that doesn't preclude pretenders at all). But you are wrong about the Confederation: no one elected the President of the German Confederation - it was by inheritance the Austrian Emperor. Always! Str1977 ^(talk) 16:01, 22 August 2007 (UTC)

The HR

I was always taught in school that in 1871, Germany became a nation state. I was also under the impression that there was a centralized government. The German Empire had a constitution that specifically said that the King of Prussia was also German Emperor. The constitution also provided for a congress (the Reichstag) and a chancellor. The existence of a constitution, congress, chancellor, emperor, etc. indicates the existance of a centralized government. Also, on the pretender's page, the head of the House of Hohenzollernis listed as the pretender to Germany. Emperor001 12:16, 24 August 2007 (UTC)

President v. Pretender

If the pretenders to the throne were deleted because they were not reigning monarchs, why are the Presidents of the German Confederation here? Presidents aren't monarchs. Also, why is Friedrich Wilhelm IV of Prussia on the list when he was elected Emperor of the Germans, but he refused the title. He technically wasn't a reigning monarch of Germany, but he's still on the list. We should either put the pretenders section back in or take Napoleon and the Presidents of the German Confederation out. Emperor001 17:46, 8 September 2007 (UTC)

And we don't have pretenders to the Presidency of the German Confederation either.

I think I placed Fr W IV originally because of his role in the Union 1849/50, not primarily because the refused crown. Str1977 ^(talk) 19:56, 26 February 2008 (UTC)

"Formally abdicated"

For the benefit of other editors, I here repost an exchange between me and Emperor001 on my and his talk pages:

You said that Charles V did abdicate in 1556. Well, the Columbia Encyclopedia, Sixth Edition disagrees with you. From it, I draw the following quotation: "In 1556 also, he practically surrendered the empire to Ferdinand, and in 1558 he formally abdicated as emperor." You can look at it yourself at http://www.bartleby.com/65/ch/Charles5HRE.html. Emperor001 (talk) 18:42, 26 February 2008 (UTC)

Your source has it wrong.

According to the detailed timeline in Ernst Schulin, Kaiser Karl V. Geschichte eines übergroßen Wirkungsbereichs., Charles handed over the Netherlands to his son Philip on October 25, 1555, handed over Spain, Sicily and America to Philip on January 16,1556, and finally resigned the Imperial dignity in favour of his brother Ferdinand on August 3, 1556 with however leaving Ferdinand at liberty to decide when to assume that dignity himself (note only the dignity of an Emperor elect, as Ferdinand had already been King for more than twenty years). Ferinand entered into negotiations with the Electors and on March 14, 1558 he was formally declared Emperor elect (it took a few more years to get the Pope to recognize this however). Charles was still alive at that point - he died on September 21 - but had no part in the matter.

So in 1558 it was not Charles who laid down the Imperial dignity but Ferdinand who took it up. Charles formally resigned all his rule in 1555 and 1556.

Str1977 ^(talk) 19:22, 26 February 2008 (UTC)

German Names

I noticed that the List of French monarchs has the French versions of everyone's name below the Anglicanized name. Should we do the same for this list by putting the German names of these people in parenthesis below their name? Emperor001 (talk) 02:43, 23 May 2008 (UTC)

Just added German Names to most monarchs. Thank you German Wikipedia. Emperor001 (talk) 17:51, 23 May 2008 (UTC)