Talk:List of Bohemian monarchs

The first two Habsburgs

Juro, I don't think that the rule of Albert and Ladislaus Posthumous can be described as dynastic Habsburg rule... the original writer separated them and it makes sense to me just after reading our articles. --Shallot 18:38, 21 Jul 2004 (UTC)

I have the Czech book he used for this list now in front of me. For reasons of space they do not list the dynasties if they ruled for a too short time... And those two ARE members of the Habsburg dynasty, so I do not quite understand the problem. If you suggest that it was not a dynasty in relation to Bohemia, then the Jagiellons and Luxembourgs too are not dynasties. Or maybe dynasty has another special meaning for you that I do not get now... Juro 18:33, 22 Jul 2004 (UTC)

It implies that the rule passed from one strong ruler to their next of kin who carries the royal family line, whereas in this case both rulers were reasonably successfully opposed by their adversaries and the succession barely managed to happen once, and failed the second time around. --Shallot 20:51, 22 Jul 2004 (UTC)

OK, so you are suggesting that they should be at least 3 (fathe-son-grandson)but I do not see any difference as compared to the Jagiellons - they were only two in a line. But, in fact, there was an interregnum between 1439-1452, so maybe that could be a reason.

Yes, it's not just an issue of bare numbers, it's how it all went on. The second Jagiello didn't seem to have any trouble acceeding to power which makes the period dynastic, although in a rather minor manner given that it ended so soon. --Shallot 12:25, 23 Jul 2004 (UTC)

But generally, (1) your definition (if there is a definition at all) of "dynastic rule" is not in the article Dynasty and (2) then you should call also the periods 1306-1310 and other in the list "non-dynastic". Juro 21:51, 22 Jul 2004 (UTC)

That's perfectly possible. I was merely concentrating on the exact matter at hand... The list of Hungarian rulers has the issue of dynasties solved in a more vague manner that avoids this problem, there are native dynasties listed for each ruler but it's not implied that the rule was dynastic in there too. --Shallot 12:25, 23 Jul 2004 (UTC)

The Hungarian list is better, of course, because I think people are primarily interested in the name of the rulers family and not whether one would define their rule as dynastic or not...Juro 15:03, 23 Jul 2004 (UTC)

Shouldn't dukes Vladislav I, II and Jindrich be renamed to Duke Ladislaus I of Bohemia, Duke Ladislaus II of Bohemia (to disambiguate them from Ladislaus Posthumus of Bohemia and Hungary and Ladislaus II of Bohemia) and Ladislaus Jindrich of Bohemia? The Wikipedia/English language convention for the name Władysław/Vladislav for monarchs is Ladislaus. Currently the list uses latin names for some dukes, and czech names for others. Ausir 02:33, 26 Jul 2004 (UTC)

Title of Article

This article was once called List of Dukes and Kings of Bohemia, which seems preferable to List of Czech monarchs to me. What is the rationale underlying its move? - Nunh-huh 06:54, 6 Aug 2004 (UTC)

The new title is more convenient, understandable for non-historians, and better corresponds with its counterparts (List of French monarchs, List of British monarchs, List of Danish monarchs etc.) Qertis 07:00, 6 Aug 2004 (UTC)

The list contains non-monarchs, such a presidents, and suggests a historical continuity (based simply on geography) that is misleading. Are non-historians more or less likely than historians to come to a list of Czech monarchs looking for a Duke of Bohemia?!?!? - Nunh-huh 07:06, 6 Aug 2004 (UTC)

The list contains NO presidents (sic!) and the continuity is factual (sic!). King of Bohemia = Czech King (both Česky´ král in Czech)! The only difference is in English language. Present-day English use Czech instead of Bohemian, otherwise it is the same country which has only replaced monarchy with republic. Dont confuse Bohemian (Czech) Kingdom and Bohemian (Czech) Crown! The article on the first one is here: Bohemia, the second one corresponds with Czech lands and present-day Czech Republic. King of Bohemia ruled not only over the Kingdom (present-day Bohemia), but the whole Crown (present-day Czech Republic)! Qertis 07:40, 6 Aug 2004 (UTC)

The list contains two "lists of presidents"; these might be moved to a "see also" and avoid the problem of seeming to label them as monarchs. As this is an English encyclopedia, English terms should be used, and no one would refer to any of the historical dukes or kings of Bohemia as "Czech Dukes" or "Czech Kings" in English. - Nunh-huh

The list only says: "The chronology continues on with non-monarchs", which is perfectly the same as here: List of French monarchs. I don't think it is confusing at all. "Czech King" (Česky´ král) is perfectly English term at least as well as "Czech President" (Česky´ prezident) since "Česky´" is no longer translated as "Bohemian", but "Czech". Both terms are equivalent in English, but the second one is much more common (Google: Bohemian - 447.000 results, Czech - 11.900.000 results). Qertis 06:26, 7 Aug 2004 (UTC)

If we're to change "Dukes and Kings", I'd prefer the simple and ambiguous term "rulers" instead. --Shallot 00:17, 7 Aug 2004 (UTC)

I am game, but then also presidents must be listed here. Qertis 06:26, 7 Aug 2004 (UTC)

Not really, if they already have their own pages, and they do. --Shallot 17:28, 7 Aug 2004 (UTC)

There is not, was not, and has never been such a thing as a "Czech monarch". While the Duchy, later Kingdom, of Bohemia (as well as the Margraviate of Moravia) was largely inhabited by Czechs, the word "Czech" was never in its name, and from 1310-1918, every single monarch (with the exception of George Podiebrad) was not Czech at all. List of rulers of Bohemia would be the appropriate place for a list of dukes and kings of Bohemia. I've never heard them referred to as "Czech monarchs" before. The analogy to list of French monarchs is inaccurate - the parallel would be List of Bohemian monarchs, since the adjective for Bohemia is "Bohemian" not "Czech". Presidents of Czechoslovakia and the Czech Republic ought to be listed separately. - John k

Just to add that I wasn't aware that the term "Czech Crown" is used in Czech - but this is irrelevant, since it is not used in English. As to the Bohemian Crown, it was only identical to the present day Czech Republic between 1742 and 1918. Between 1620 and 1742 it also included most of Silesia, and before that, going back to the 14th century, it also included Lusatia. Before the 14th century, the small piece of Silesia now in the Czech Republic was, I believe, Polish. - John K

You are completely wrong. "Czech monarch" is nothing else than "Bohemian monarch", in Czech language both "Český panovník". As I stated before, Czech and Bohemian are equivalent terms, the first one replaced the latter when the First republic of Czechoslovakia emerged in 1918. The aim of Czech (and Slovak) politicians was to underline the new constitutional character of the state after almost 300 years within Habsburg monarchy. It is on par with such notorious renaming like Siam-Thailand or Persia-Iran. The Duchy and Kingdom and Crown was not only inhabited by Czechs, it was also created by Czechs and they (not very surprisingly) also named the country. The name is "Čechy" or "Czechy" (see http://pl.wikipedia.org/wiki/Czechy) from its very begining. This "native" form is widespread among other Eastern languages (Slovak, Hungarian, Lithuanian, Latvian, Estonian, Slovenian, Serbo-Croatian, Bulgarian, Russian, Ukrainian etc.), while the Western (Germanic and Romance) used the ancient latin name derived from the Celtic tribe Boii that inhabited the territory hundreds of years before Czechs. All this dispute is about the English language, not the Czech (Bohemian) history, and as I said before: "Czech King" (Český král) is perfectly English term at least as well as "Czech President" (Český prezident) since "Český" is no longer translated as "Bohemian", but "Czech". Both terms are equivalent in English, but the second one is much more common (Google: Bohemian - 447.000 results, Czech - 11.900.000 results).

I would agree with this, but it seems somewhat anachronistic to use Czech/Czechia when the standard old English term in this context seems to be Bohemian/Bohemia. --Joy [shallot]

Notes: 1) The ethnicity of European monarchs is very interesting topic on its own, but has nothing to do with the names of the European countries. 2) Every European country suffered some border-shifting (see Poland, Hungary, Russia etc.) and Bohemia/Czechia is no exception. 3) The adjective for Bohemia is "Bohemian" not "Czech", the adjective for the Netherlands is "Netherlandic" not "Dutch"...hmmm. Qertis 17:48, 11 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Hey, what happened to discussion? - John K - 11 August 2004

In the absence of further objection, perhaps it is time to move the article to List of rulers of Bohemia? - Nunh-huh 22:25, 23 Aug 2004 (UTC)

I did that now. Of course, this doesn't have to be final, others are welcome to submit further information regarding other possible names (though it was the Bohemian crown, one could also use the title "List of rulers of the Czech lands", for example). --Joy [shallot] 23:07, 23 Aug 2004 (UTC)

Qertis, in terms of border shifting, you were yourself saying that the Bohemian crown was identical to the current Czech Republic. I was just pointing out that this is only true for a limited period of time. As to your Netherlandic not Dutch thing, in certain contexts, it would certainly be incorrect to use "Dutch" in English. I'd suggest that the term "Dutch" should only be used with respect to the United Provinces and its successor states. Before that, when you have a united Habsburg or Burgundian Netherlands, one should use "Netherlandish". But that's beside the point. The basic point is that the Czech word "Cesky" is translated in different ways in English depending on context. When referring to the lands of the Crown of St. Wenceslas, in particular, the term "Bohemia" is always used. By the way, what is the Czech word for "Bohemia", i.e. the Czech region of Bohemia, as distinct from Moravia and Silesia? john k 18:30, 12 Sep 2004 (UTC)

I'd add that the other nationality which inhabited the region for much of its history (that is, the Germans), clearly had completely different words for the geographic region (Böhmen) and the Slavic people who were the majority of its inhabitants (Tchechische). This distinction was carried into English, since it is through the German that this area is most familiar to English-speakers. As always, this may be unfortunate, but it is nevertheless the case. john k 18:34, 12 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Charles IV.

One of most famous czech king is missing?

Emperor Charles IV was King Charles I of Bohemia. john k 12:49, 19 August 2006 (UTC)

Maria Theresa and Charles VII

Did not Maria Theresa succeed her father without incident upon his death? Were there not Austrian garrisons that had to be conquered before the Duke of Bavaria could be proclaimed King of Bohemia? How is Charles's claim to being King of Bohemia any more credible than, say, Maria Theresa's father's claims to be King of Spain? At the very least, it seems to me that Maria Theresa should be listed for the whole 1740-1780 period, with Charles VII listed as a rival. john k 12:53, 19 August 2006 (UTC)

Inaccurate edit summary

User:Jklamo provided the following edit summary on 18:43, 2 May 2007:

see discussion, presidents were removed first on 18 april by RandomCritic without notice

This is quite false, and transparently so for anyone who will bother checking the history. I made no changes involving the list of Presidents on April 18 or any other date. The list of Presidents was removed on 17:47, 27 April 2007 by an anonymous editor using IP 89.216.210.117. That is not my IP. I do not know why User:Jklamo wishes to blame me for this change, but I object to it regardless of the reason. RandomCritic 13:42, 5 May 2007 (UTC)

joint rulers

Most of the Habsburg rulers were elected as king prior to their predecessors death, and were referred to as "Kings of Bohemia" (and often Hungary as well) at this time. Should this not be indicated somewhere? For instance, Maximilian became King of Bohemia in 1548; Rudolf II in 1575, Ferdinand II in 1617, Ferdinand III in 1627, Leopold I in 1656, and Ferdinand V in 1830. I notice that we do list Ferdinand IV, in spite of his situation being identical to that of these other rulers. Shouldn't this be noted? john k (talk) 19:03, 15 January 2008 (UTC)

Elective?

Different articles have said diffent things. One article once said that the throne of Bohemia became hereditary in the 1100's, but the House of Habsburg artice says that it was elective since the 1300's. Did the kingdom flip-flop on rules? Emperor001 (talk) 14:00, 4 March 2008 (UTC)

It was elective after the extinction of the Premyslid Dynasty, I think, and stayed elective until the Thirty Years War. I believe that at that point it was made hereditary in the Habsburg family. john k (talk) 14:57, 4 March 2008 (UTC)

From the 9th century till 1306 (extinction of male line of the Přemyslids) the throne automatically belonged to the members of this house. After this, the Czech noblemans usurped the right to vote the royal dynasty – and applied this right every time the next dynasty extincted "by the sword" (although king Karel IV. enacted in April 7, 1348 (and over again in January 10, 1356 in the Golden Bull) that Bohemian throne is hereditary also in female line) – i.e. in 1439, 1453, 1458, 1471 and 1526 – or when Zikmund Lucemburský or Habsburgs were dethronized (1421, 1618).

After the defeat of Bohemian estates in the battle of White Mountain (1st phase of the Thirty Years' War), Habsburgs – as the victorious dynasty – ended up the independence of the Czech lands and established themselves as hereditary rulers of Bohemia "for perpetuity". --Iaroslavvs (talk) 22:09, 5 March 2008 (UTC)

Why use Czech instead of English on en.wiki?

This Wikipedia is in English. Therefore, the principal names under which these people should be listed are the names used to refer to them in English language literature. It makes no sense whatsoever to mention a Marie Terezie when the woman is universally known in English as Maria Theresa. It makes no sense to say that a man reigned as II. Ulászló, for that is not the common English name for him nor the name he himself used (that being Ladislaus Secundus or something similar), not to mention that putting the ordinal with the full stop before the name can only severely confuse the reader. Furthermore, to see Ladislaus the Posthumous and John the Blind listed under the names Ladislav Pohrobek and Jan Lucemburský, with their proper names given in parentheses as if they were some kind of trivia, is ridiculous. Surtsicna (talk) 13:41, 28 September 2011 (UTC)

You should routed your categorical appeals mainly to another direction. Try apply them for example in the article List of Polish monarchs (and not only there but at all the names of Poland-related rulers, nobles and historical places). I would like to see how quickly you will collide with local united front of Polish nationalists - eh, sorry, our dear patriotic colleagues, I mean. :)

Yes, such Polonized form of name like e.g. "Świętosława of Poland" (instead of proper and more friendly "Swatawa") – it is a real delicacy for English-speaking reader... (How to pronounce it rightly?) In this perspective, I think it is not so great offense, that one list will be contain indigenous (in this case Czech) forms of the names. --Iaroslavvs (talk) 22:06, 16 May 2013 (UTC)

I am fully aware of the existence of the "local united front of Polish nationalists". I am also aware of how they managed to remain so united. What I don't understand is their persistence in advocating policies that obviously and undisputably hurt this project - including the EEML affair. Anyway, I have nothing against the inclusion of Czech names - in fact, they ought to be included, but not as primary names. The primary name should be Maria Theresa, with Marie Terezie as the alternative. Surtsicna (talk) 23:29, 16 May 2013 (UTC)

Monarchical ordinals

Maybe some of Monarchical ordinals are strange for someone, but regnal numbers in Bohemia followed line of Holy Roman Emperors, as highest dignity. Charles I was first Emperor of Austria with this name, and himself used number I. References were added.--Yopie (talk) 22:54, 17 December 2012 (UTC)

While I myself am not very convinced by those sources, I do not feel like disputing them. However, I do object to listing kings named Charles simply as Charles IV, Charles II and Charles I. A reader is bound to ask how on Earth Charles I came after Charles II who came after Charles IV. If they are truly never referred to as Charles I, Charles II and Charles III, then the article should list them as Holy Roman Emperor Charles IV, Holy Roman Emperor Charles VI and Emperor Charles I of Austria to make it clear that the ordinals were derived from their imperial titles. Surtsicna (talk) 23:00, 17 December 2012 (UTC)

By the way, here are a few English language sources which refer to Holy Roman Emperor Charles IV as Charles I of Bohemia: [1] Thus, referring to Charles I of Austria as Charles I of Bohemia can only severely confuse and mislead the readers. Surtsicna (talk) 23:07, 17 December 2012 (UTC)

• • I know, that these ordinals are strange. I agree with your proposal to list them as "Holy Roman Emperor Charles IV" etc. for clarity. Some books - Rough Guide to Czech Slovak Republics, Czechs by Hugh LeCaine Agnew--Yopie (talk) 23:20, 17 December 2012 (UTC)

Should the Carolingians be listed?

This article has recently seen the Carolingian dynasty listed as rulers of Bohemia, as has at least one related article (Charles the Younger). This appears to be largely the work of Carapakakar. I applaud the initiative and the effort that has been put into this, and I would hate to discourage it, but I do wonder: is it accurate? From what I've read across several articles, it appears that Charles the Younger subdued the Slavic tribes in the region, but did not conquer or establish Carolingian rule over them. (If he did, how then did the region emerge as a unified polity under Bořivoj, tied to Great Moravia rather than Francia?) -- Perey (talk) 16:30, 12 July 2016 (UTC)

I removed this:

==Bohemian tribal rulers== {{main|Bohemians (tribe)}} *[[Lech (Bohemian prince)|Lech]] (fl. 805), defeated by [[Charles the Younger]]. == Carolingian rulers == {{further|Carolingian dynasty}} * [[Charles the Younger]] (806 - 811) * [[Louis the Pious]] (811 - 817) * [[Louis the German]] (817 - 840) * [[Arnulf of Carinthia]] (888 - 899) * [[Louis the Child]] (900 - 911)".

Reason: There was neither historically documented duke Lech nor direct Carolingian reign between 806 - 911. Actually there are not know any historically documented rulers between 805 - 911. NOTE: Originally added by 90.178.145.73, reformatted. - Ryk72 ^'c.s.n.s.' 19:01, 26 December 2016 (UTC)

A Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for speedy deletion

The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for speedy deletion:

• JCKV Karel I.JPG

You can see the reason for deletion at the file description page linked above. —Community Tech bot (talk) 13:37, 18 October 2022 (UTC)

Bohemian monarchs Chart

Hello everyone. I had created a chart, a family tree to be more precise, of all the Bohemian monarchs from its creation to its end. I sincerely believe that this addition has brought an different encyclopaedic element to the article because users could see all the complex interconnections as well as be able to download a complete image and use it as a ressource. But perhaps was I wrong? It was removed after a year with no reasons whatsoever. So my question is: does it belong here or not, and if it does, in what way should it be modified to reappear here again? M F Gervais (talk) 13:54, 14 September 2024 (UTC)