This article is within the scope of WikiProject Middle Ages, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of the Middle Ages 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.
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.
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Austria, an attempt to build a comprehensive and detailed guide to articles about Austria on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please join the project.
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.
Are you sure that in english language he is called Rudolph of Germany?? A country called Germany didnt even exist at that time! I can understand that he carries the title "german king" (since he never became roman emperor) but that doesnt mean he was king of germany or rudolph of Germany. Eromae (talk) 08:43, 13 July 2011 (UTC)
Rudolf was never duke of Austria and Styria (as the information box at the end indicates). He, as German king, just invested his sons Albert and Rudolph with the duchies of Austria and Styria (as the article states). I think the box has to be altered. 18.104.22.168 10:46, 17 August 2005 (UTC)
I believe it's common practice to list the king as the ruler of a duchy for periods during which he has not appointed a duke, even if he did not use the title of duke himself. --Chl 16:35, 26 December 2005 (UTC)
Rudolf was really never duke of Austria! On of his son was: Rudolf IV. of Austria. And I am an austrian, I know that!
So? He still ruled it with all the powers of a duke. That's enough for me. -Alex 22.214.171.124 05:54, 3 February 2006 (UTC).
The following discussion is an archived discussion of the proposal. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the proposal was No consensusParsecboy (talk) 01:01, 12 September 2008 (UTC)
Rudolph I of Germany → Rudolph of Habsburg —(Discuss)— Like Philip of Swabia, we should call the "Kings of the Romans" what most historians actually call them. SeptentrionalisPMAnderson 23:30, 23 August 2008 (UTC)
Oppose because current title is in line with conventions, is unambiguous, and is commonly used. "Rudolf of Habsburg" is ambiguous out of context, since everyone who knows anything about the Habsburgs would suspect there were many Rudolfs in the family and would not know which one has primacy for the family name. Srnec (talk) 05:27, 28 August 2008 (UTC)
Per a discussion at WT:NCNT, the present disambiguator is questionable; he was Romanorum rex. Rather than arguing that probably confusing fine point, I suggest we move to common names (where they exist) and then consider the remainder. SeptentrionalisPMAnderson 23:30, 23 August 2008 (UTC)
I'd prefer using Rudolph I, King of the Romans, and the like. "Rudolph of Habsburg" is a bit ambiguous, because there were others (most notably the Emperor Rudolph II, but also various dukes of Austria after Rudolph, and various counts of Habsburg before him). john k (talk) 23:50, 24 August 2008 (UTC)
What about Philip of Swabia? Gryffindor 00:07, 25 August 2008 (UTC)
He's not ambiguous - I think that would be okay. john k (talk) 03:13, 25 August 2008 (UTC)
I oppose any "King of the Romans" format precisely because I think it extremely rare. It is a formal title that is generally avoided. Can the nominator provide any evidence for the assertion that it is "what most historians actually call them"? With all due respect, Gryffindor, your considerations regarding the existence of Germany in the Middle Ages are irrelevant (and OR), since most historians are quite comfortable speaking about Germany as a kingdom. The Britannica is quite happy with using "Rudolf I (king of Germany)". The Columbia entitles it "Rudolf I" and follows with "or Rudolf of Hapsburg ... German king". Encarta has "Rudolf I of Habsburg", described as "German king and Holy Roman emperor". The horribly formatted but very well-referenced Foundation for Medieval Genealogy calls him "King of Germany". Many call him "Rudolf I" in reference either to his place in the German succession or the Habsburg. Published sources that call him Rudolf I of Germany or the like include Susan Reynolds' Fiefs and Vassals ("Rudolf I, king of Germany" in the index, he is simply "King Rudolf" in the chapter entitled "The Kingdom of Germany"), the same author in Kingdoms and Communities, Kenneth Setton in The Papacy and the Levant ("Rudolph I, Hapsburg king of Germany and claimant to empire" in index, but "Rudolph of Habsburg" admittedly in text), and Benjamin Arnold in German Knighthood ("Rudolf I, king of Germany" in the index, "King Rudolf I" in the text). Arnold call him "king of the Romans" in another work, however. How to interpret the references to him as Emperor in many works is a question I don't to address. "Habsburg" is common, but "Rudolf I of Habsburg" is, by my research, the best option after the current (and totally appropriate) title. "King of the Romans" is uncommon; "King of Germany" is more common; sadly "Holy Roman Emperor" is also frequent. Rudolf beats Rudolph, but I don't see that it matters. Srnec (talk) 05:27, 28 August 2008 (UTC)
It is a problem. I do think it should be "Rudolf" rather than "Rudolph," which seems archaic to me. As to "King of Germany" vs. "King of the Romans," I don't know which is more used for Rudolf, but both are used in different contexts for various rulers. Certainly the early modern heirs to the Empire are always called "King of the Romans" rather than "King of Germany." E.g., Emperor Ferdinand I was definitely "King of the Romans before 1556 (or 1558), not "King of Germany". So I do think we should have Ferdinand IV, King of the Romans. Other than that, I'm fairly open to different things, besides the Rudolph/Rudolf issue, which I think should be resolved in favor of the latter. john k (talk) 06:08, 29 August 2008 (UTC)
I'd support a move to Rudolf I of Germany, but I don't really care too much. I do not know about early modern historiographic practice, but I believe "King of Germany" is more typical than "King of the Romans" in a medieval context, probably b/c the Germany–Empire distinction is more important in the Middle Ages than it is after Maximilian. And the Roman title is a mere formality favoured by its holders (not necessarily by other observers): there was no "Kingdom of the Romans" with its capital at Rome, only political posturing that made the German kings the heirs of Rome. Srnec (talk) 17:33, 29 August 2008 (UTC)
If you say that most historians are comfortable with "Rudolph of Germany" because it existed (which I still doubt did in the modern sense), then why is it Wilhelm II, German Emperor and not "Wilhelm II of Germany"? We have to be consistent with Wiki rules of naming articles and persons and go with what is most correct in that circumstance. At this moment, we have German kings (or kings of Germany / King of the Romans if you will) named in all sorts of formats, see those I have mentioned above. Gryffindor 11:58, 1 September 2008 (UTC)
What about Henry VII of Germany (1211–1242)? This is in fact used in several sources that I could find online as a means of disambiguation. If you don't oppose it here, I will eventually just move it myself. Srnec (talk) 01:18, 3 September 2008 (UTC)
Please request a move instead. That does not seem a very good choice (it includes a parenthetical, it includes dates, and it includes of Germany which several editors dislike). I'm not sure at the moment what would be better; but I have taken all of these to RM, even when they could have been done as ordinary moves. SeptentrionalisPMAnderson 19:18, 3 September 2008 (UTC)
I always make a formal request when I foresee controversy, as I did with several moves recently [i.e. Jocelin (Bishop of Glasgow)]. I figured if you didn't object, the proposed destination could hardly be more controversial than the current one. I will put in a formal request if I can decide what destination I think is best. (As a parenthesis: I don't like parentheses in titles either, but the current title has them; I think dates are a standard in reference works to distinguish between identically named persons from different generations; and I think "of Germany" is entirely appropriate and academic, whatever the irrational "dislikes" of some editors around here—and I could provide sources to back it up, as I have so many times at Talk:Kingdom of Germany). Srnec (talk) 04:04, 4 September 2008 (UTC)
Is it Ottokar or Otakar of Bohemia? Needs consistency. John D. Croft (talk) 21:38, 13 April 2010 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the proposal. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.
Someone mixed up Rudolphs II's, Rudolph's I's son, the Duke of Austria is in the place of Rudolph, count of Habsburg. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 126.96.36.199 (talk) 20:03, 3 April 2014 (UTC)