Talk:United Duchies of Jülich-Cleves-Berg

Germany Low‑importance

	Germany portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Germany, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Germany on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.GermanyWikipedia:WikiProject GermanyTemplate:WikiProject GermanyGermany articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Former countries: Holy Roman Empire

	This article is within the scope of WikiProject Former countries, a collaborative effort to improve Wikipedia's coverage of defunct states and territories (and their subdivisions). If you would like to participate, please join the project.Former countriesWikipedia:WikiProject Former countriesTemplate:WikiProject Former countriesformer country articles
	This article is supported by the Holy Roman Empire task force.
	An editor has requested that a flag image be added to this article and placed within the infobox.

Untitled

Seems that parts of the Dutch province of Limburg are also part (so called Guelders overkwartier, Roermond, Montfort) were also part. Note that the province of Guelders and the Duchy of Guelders differ signifincantly here. Limburg was part of the Deutsche Bund for a while after the Belgian Revolution because of this.88.159.71.34 (talk) 18:51, 4 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Duchy of Julich-Berg

A separately conjoined Duchy of Julich-Berg existed as part of the Holy Roman Empire. It issued coins in the 1700s catalogued by both Moneta and NGC. The 1772 Silver Thaler of Karl Theodor http://www.ngccoin.com/price-guide/world/german-states-julich-berg-thaler-km-214-1772-cuid-80196-duid-219246. would seem to indicate an administrative district worthy of notice here. Coins from Thaler through 1/4 Stuber circulated.

Rulers of the conjoined Duchy of Julich und Berg include:

Charles III Philip, Elector Palatine

Charles Theodore, Elector of Bavaria

John5Russell3Finley (talk) 15:58, 13 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Assessment comment

The comment(s) below were originally left at Talk:United Duchies of Jülich-Cleves-Berg/Comments, and are posted here for posterity. Following several discussions in past years, these subpages are now deprecated. The comments may be irrelevant or outdated; if so, please feel free to remove this section.

The article states Philip Louis, Count Palatine of Neuberg as having married Anne of Cleves, Henry VIII of England's fourth wife; the article on the Count clarifies that he was actually married to Anna (possibly spelled "Anne" in German source texts), the niece of the aforementioned Anne of Cleves. This is especially interesting because this article describes the Count's wife as being Catholic, apparently mistaken for her aunt, although her father was Protestant.

Last edited at 06:39, 22 October 2009 (UTC). Substituted at 09:34, 30 April 2016 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on United Duchies of Jülich-Cleves-Berg. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

Added archive http://web.archive.org/web/20091213031103/http://www.library.tudelft.nl:80/Tresor/webpages/TRL_6_3_2_15.html to http://www.library.tudelft.nl/Tresor/webpages/TRL_6_3_2_15.html

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 22:03, 20 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]