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