Talk:Charlemagne

Karl der Grosse

Charlemagne is a historical figure specific to the monarchies of France and Germany, so his German name should be included in the introduction. Charlemagne's Roman Empire soon became the Holy Roman Empire which was ruled by German monarchs continuously from Otto I in 962 until Franz II in 1806. It was a German empire in all but name until the 16th century when it was officially named the Holy Roman Empire of the German Nation. On German Wikipedia he is referred to as Karl I, der Grosse, meaning that Germans officially regard him as their first monarch. --Hereward77 (talk) 16:36, 14 February 2008 (UTC)

Firstly, Charlemagne is a pivotal historical figure to all of Western Europe - not just France and Germany. Will the Letzeburgish translation be added? Secondly, it doesn't matter what the Frankish Empire became, Charlemagne didn't rule it. George Washington came from Virginia, but nobody's going to describe him as first President of the Confederacy. Thirdly, it wasn't a German Empire in all but name - just ask the Flemish, Swiss, Dutch, Poles, Czechs, Slovaks, Ruthenians, Danes, etc. etc. Forthly, Henry the Navigator was never king of England to my knowledge, but this is how the English-language Wikipedia refers to him. Fifthly, this is the English-language Wikipedia, not the German, or the Dutch, Lezteburgish, Danish, etc. etc. Sixthly, we've been over this already. Slac speak up! 01:20, 15 February 2008 (UTC)

Slac - most of what you just wrote is nonsensical and irrelevant. Following your logic (this is the English-language Wikipedia...), then ALL non-English names and terms should be removed. But they won't be, because this is an "Educational" tool. I've been following you and your anti-German attitude is very transparent. Of course it was a German Empire, and his German name should be referenced. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Barking1 (talk • contribs) 16:12, 20 August 2009 (UTC)

The Holy Roman Empire was a German empire ruled by German emperors from beginning to end, and Charlemagne was Karl I, der Grosse, of the Holy Roman Empire. Are you going to remove Pyotr Velikiy from the Peter the Great article for example? --Hereward77 (talk) 19:14, 16 February 2008 (UTC)

Simply not true. Charlemagne was not a German, and did not speak German. The Ru ssian language (and Russia) at least existed during the lifetime of Peter the Great. Slac speak up! 09:58, 17 February 2008 (UTC)

He didn't speak German? Surely that is wrong. (Obviously, he didn't speak modern German, but he spoke a Germanic dialect). john k (talk) 14:25, 17 February 2008 (UTC)

I don't see what harm would come from including his German name in the article. john k (talk) 14:26, 17 February 2008 (UTC)

Slac - here you go again with your anti-German attitude. He was a Frank, spoke a Frankish language, Franks, among other Germanic tribes, evolved into the Germans, and their Germanic languages evolved into modern German (and some others, such as Dutch). I know you don't dispute that. But just because some Germanic languages evolved into other languages doesn’t mean Frankish isn’t a German language. Yes, the egg isn't the chicken, but they are one and the same, just in different form. Anyone disputing that has an agenda (what's your’s Slac?), or is being pedantic. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Barking1 (talk • contribs) 16:28, 20 August 2009 (UTC)

In the simplest possible terms: the problem is that it's an anachronism. We don't know what Charlemagne's native language was, whether it was Frankish or Old Low Franconian; either way, it wasn't the ancestor of Modern Standard German. We might as well give Henry VIII's name in Dutch and say it was close enough. And to reiterate for the Nth time, Germans aren't the only people who claim heritage from Charlemagne: why are they, and not any one of half a dozen other peoples, singled out in the opening sentence of the article? Slac speak up! 00:46, 18 February 2008 (UTC)

Slac - you are truly amazing - the amount of obfuscation your generate is impressive. What does it matter if he spoke Frankish or Old Low Franconian? They are BOTH of Germanic origin. If you were a serious and unbiased contributor, you'd refrain from only knocking-down others arguments and present alternatives. How about starting with explaining what the Franks, and their language, evolved into? Hint - it wasn't the Italians, and though some of the Franks blended into the French, it wasn't the French either. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Barking1 (talk • contribs) 17:25, 20 August 2009 (UTC)

You don't have an argument here, Henry VIII wasn't king of Holland. Charlemagne was officially numbered Karl I of the Holy Roman Empire (of the German Nation) and the Holy Roman Emperors named Karl were numbered after him. BTW, Germany was named by the Romans 2,000 years ago, and the Frankish people were from Germany. --Hereward77 (talk) 18:19, 18 February 2008 (UTC)

You're talking about the "Holy Roman Empire of the German Nation", and we're talking about Charlemagne. You're obviously missing the point. And I don't really see what the Romans naming Germany 2000 years ago has to do with it. The Romans were surely not talking of the Germany as Charlemagne knew it. No, Charlemagne was never officially numbered Karl blablabla in his lifetime. He was crowned Carolus, emperor of the Holy Roman Empire, period. This Empire became "of the Germans" 62 years after his death and is different of the Carolingian Empire, founded by Charles Martel. Slac has already answered your question. Anyway, I see there's an article about the names of Charlemagne, you should be happy, no ? Somwherelse 23:08, 18 February 2008 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 90.32.207.68 (talk)

Actually, he wasn't crowned Holy Roman Emperor at all - that title would not exist for centuries. Slac speak up! 05:05, 23 February 2008 (UTC)

There seems to be a very strong anti-German bias here. It doesn't seem to matter the Franks were a Germanic tribe, and that the Germanic tribes are the fore-fathers of the Germans (and French, btw). - History is written by the victor: Latin Proverb Barking1 (talk) 15:56, 18 April 2008 (UTC)

It's strange, in the proper meaning of that word, that English Wikipedia uses the French Charlemagne rather than the established Charles the Great or the documented Latin Carolus Magnus. I'm adding Karl der Große to the intro, and the etymology of the name, found at Churl. -- Matthead  Discuß   21:18, 2 May 2008 (UTC)

pretty sick all the arguments that are being brought up against Karl der Große could be also applied against Charlemagne. I mean it would be more logical to defend Charles the Great against Charlemagne and Karl der Große. But Charlemagne yes, Karl der Große not? That´s stupid. Why don´t you move it to Charles the Great and include his German and French name in the introduction? Everybody would be happy.--Tresckow (talk) 00:25, 26 June 2008 (UTC)

"Charlemagne" is his English name, see the English literature. The French and English conventions are the same. "Charlemagne" is not modern French for "Charles the Great", that would "Charles le Grand". Srnec (talk) 01:14, 26 June 2008 (UTC)

No, "Charlemagne" is his French name. He's called that in English-language popular writing . . . but the more scholarly sources generally refer to him as "Charles I." Personally, I would prefer that. It feels very peculiar to be talking about the early life of Charles "the Great" -- the implication being that he was born great. Also, referring to Charles (and the language he spoke) as either "French" OR "German" is entirely anachronistic. He was a Frank and he spoke Frankish. He would not be easily understood by modern Frenchmen or Germans. Most of the above arguments bickering is therefore a pointless exercise in nationalistic jingoism. --Michael K. Smith (talk) 01:43, 10 February 2009 (UTC)

i dont get the anti-German argument here. I get that he a is a figure head of Western Europe as a whole and thats fine but that would only validate an arguement to include his name in all of western Europe's languages not just French and Latin. He is very clearly an important figure in German history and it is actually very clear that the language of choice for the ruling class of the Frankish Kingdom, aside from Latin, is a GERMANIC, Old Frankish language. Now this is not modern German of course but i dont see what the big deal is about adding it in German afterall there are many articles on wikipedia that put what would probably be considered by those arguing against "Karl der Große" unnecessary languages. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Pacman7922 (talk • contribs) 20:26, 12 December 2008 (UTC)

We just don't need more clutter in the lead, that's all. The fact is, the German name is never seen in English literature, so there is no need to familiarise the English reader with it. If the English reader is going to read about Charlemagne in German, he might as well go to the German Wiki. The French name just happens, because of history, to be the English name. The Latin name is included because one is likely to encounter it in the English literature and it is the origin of his English name (Carolus Magnus → Charlemagne). Srnec (talk) 04:13, 13 December 2008 (UTC)

If this is to be done the same way as it is in the other articles of the like, a French rendition of the pronunciation must be given, and the German name Karl der Große. The Franconian Empire was later divided into exactly two kingdoms, France, and Germany. It is inaccurate to call the Benelux States successors or Switzerland successors of this Empire, as they are successors of counties of these kingdoms, having become independent. I am not speaking of Italy, as it was indeed a somewhat independent part of the Holy Roman Empire, but then again, Charlemagne at least was a foreigner in Italy. Likewise, the question of Austria is one of its own (whether Germany or Austria is to be called successor of the German part of Charlemagne's Empire), but fortunately the Austrians speak German too. --84.154.98.67 (talk) 15:04, 24 June 2009 (UTC)

i don´t get the point of the discussion. "We just don't need more clutter in the lead, that's all. The fact is, the German name is never seen in English literature, so there is no need to familiarise the English reader with it. <" (Srnec, 13.12.08) is this thing here an encyclopedia? why do you decide if there´s a need for that or not?

btw, take a look at the disambiguation for Charlemagne: People: - * Charles the Great, (742/747 – 814), King of the Franks 78.50.51.229 (talk) 08:34, 14 July 2009 (UTC) 78.50.51.229 (talk) 08:36, 14 July 2009 (UTC)

Why not add the Chinese form of his name? Because it is irrelevant? Exactly. So is the German. Srnec (talk) 02:28, 15 July 2009 (UTC)

why are you so angry? life´s so sad? poor boy (: 78.50.51.239 (talk) 08:03, 15 July 2009 (UTC)

but i think i got it; there´s his name used in the english language, the "original" latin name and a propper translation (i can image there must have been a long struggle aganst your eiditing until you acceptet that one in your article); i won´t edit anything - you are allowed to resume playing wow. mfg 78.50.51.239 (talk) 08:12, 15 July 2009 (UTC)

Well, the German form is not irrelevant, and the French is neither.--84.154.56.188 (talk) 09:12, 15 July 2009 (UTC)

It is definitely not irrelevant. Besides that he presumably really was called Kar(e)l and not Charles or even Charlemagne or something else and this name does not even appear in the first stanza of the article, there's two major reasons why we should end this discussion and add these three words:

1. Charles definitely IS officially seen the founding father of Germany and

2. Charles palatinate and homestead is Aachen which is a city of Germany (where btw. people today speak German)

That is definitely enough reason to add his name Karl der Große.

I cannot see the reason for this long back-breaking discussion. Every other article mentions the name of the person in the language of the country for which the person is most important (we got French already). Take for example Alexander the Great. He was not even Greek! But every article in every language in Wikipedia, also the English one, mentions his Greek name, because of his importance of the Greek history. It would be ridiculous to delete his Greek name with the justification of he wasnt really Greek. LowerBavaria (talk)

Alexander's Greek name is mentioned because it is the origin of his English name. The sources are in Greek. The origins of Charlemagne's name are also mentioned. They are Latin, as are the sources, and Charlemagne's probable native Germanic name is mentioned at the appropriate point in the text. It is, after all, hypothetical. Charles spent a lot of time in a lot of places, Aachen being only one of them. And it wasn't in Germany then and they didn't speak modern German there. Charlemagne is not the "official" founding father of Germany any more than he is of Andorra, which actually calls itself the last daughter of Charlemagne in its anthem. So where's his Catalan name in the lead? Srnec (talk) 01:18, 15 August 2009 (UTC)

You still don't get the point. There's a difference between the importance of his German name and his name in other languages. You can argue as long as you want, but the fact will remain, that Aachen is the spot in Charlemagne's live for a lot of reasons that i already mentioned. Probably he wasn't born there, but definitely he died there, lived there, had his residence and homestead in Aachen and not to forget: He lies there since he's dead for 1.200 years in German soil, in a German city, his capital, where people since at least 1.500 years speak German or some kind of ancient German.

Charlemagne after all is a historical heritage that was important for all of Europe - but is (and is owned by) German(y), as you will realize when you once mabye will go "on-site" to Aachen - where people speak and ever spoke (modern or some kind of ancient) German (incl. Charlemagne himself).

For whatever reason you don't like this info about his person, please stop the deletion every time someone tries to add it. It's not your article, it's our's as well. LowerBavaria (talk)

wow!!Seriously ? Charlemagne after all is (and is owned by) German(y).Charlemagne was not german!! He was Frankish!!!German didn't exist, neither Germany or France or whatever, so please, it seems you relly like Germany and german people but don't get completely crazy and stay reasonable. Because it becomes nonsense.

I think Karl der Grosse should be added, as KdG is a central figure in German history and many a German would not know that the "English" name of KdG is Charlemagne. A simple translation would help many readers. Richard Tol (talk) 21:28, 24 August 2009 (UTC)

He is a central figure in the history of a lot of places where a lot of languages are spoken, but neither Germany nor the German language as it exists today existed in his time. What's so special about it? He probably spoke a low German dialect, making Dutch a better candidate to be his "modern mother tongue". For German readers we have the German Wikipedia. This is the English Wikipedia and his German name is not relevant. Aachen is important to an understanding of Charlemagne, but why should the language spoken in Aachen today have anymore bearing on what names we present in the lead than the language spoken today in Rome, where Charles was crowned emperor, arguably more important than anything he did in Aachen? Srnec (talk) 03:06, 25 August 2009 (UTC)

The people of Aachen in the year 800 do not read Wikipedia, so we do not need to accomodate their language preferences. The people of Aachen in the year 2009 do read Wikipedia and most of them would not get that their "Karl der Grosse" is one and the same as "Charlemagne".

Charlemagne affected a lot of places. However, his realm was by and large limited to modern-day France, Western Germany, Northern Italy, Belgium and the Netherlands. Given him a name that is comprehensible to the peoples of these countries is common courtesy.

We do not need to add "Karel de Grote", because every Dutch speaker would get "Karl der Grosse" (but not "Charlemagne"). Most people in the Netherlands and Belgium would know that their country was part of "Germany" until about 1500, and would therefore (grudgingly) accept that one of their national heroes is referred to by his German name on an English site. Richard Tol (talk) 05:50, 25 August 2009 (UTC)

We do not need to accomodate the language preferences of anybody not reading English. Whether they are in Aachen in 2009 or in Rome in 209 BC.

English Wikipedia does not deal in courtesies for non-English readers.

And every German speaker would "get" Karel de Grote. And they should know that "German" was not always synonymous in English with "High German". Srnec (talk) 01:29, 28 August 2009 (UTC)

I reverted your edit, and I will put this matter to a vote. Richard Tol (talk) 05:37, 28 August 2009 (UTC)

Wikipedia isn't run by votes, but by arguments. And you have none, which is why you haven't responded to my rebuttals but have instead tried to set up a poll. Srnec (talk) 05:27, 29 August 2009 (UTC)

Sorry, but I think the same about your "arguments". They are utterly unconvincing to me. I think that adding four words "German: Karl der Grosse" would greatly enhance the value of the article to those who want to read about Charlemagne in English but did not grow up in Germanic speaking environment. I think that four words is a small price to pay for a great return.

As to your latest "argument". Indeed, German-speakers would understand "Karel de Grote" just as easily as Dutch-speakers would understand "Karl der Grosse". So, there is no need to include both. As there more German speakers, that is the logical choice. Richard Tol (talk) 06:44, 29 August 2009 (UTC)

Replacing the content of the page with the words "The end" would greatly enhance the value of the article to those who do not want to read about Charlemagne in any language. I think that two words is a small price to pay for such a great return: after all, most peope on Earth probably do not want to read about Charlemagne. Srnec (talk) 22:40, 29 August 2009 (UTC)

Can we please keep this discussion serious? Richard Tol (talk) 06:16, 30 August 2009 (UTC)

You didn't get it. I am parodying your argument's form. If your argument goes through, why doesn't mine? The reason is that both neglect the very purpose of the encyclopedia. Srnec (talk) 03:17, 31 August 2009 (UTC)

Reductio ad absurdam is a valid debating technique, but I fail to see how it works in this case. Richard Tol (talk) 05:57, 31 August 2009 (UTC)

It doesn't matter what some particular reader might want, but what certain readers need. An uninterested reader or a poor reader, a non-English speaker or even children are not our concern. The German does not help the competent English reader interested in learning about Charlemagne, because it says nothing about Charlemagne and the reader need no be familiaries with it to learn about Charlemagne in other English sources. Srnec (talk) 19:11, 3 September 2009 (UTC)

This argument would hold for many languages, but not for English. English is the prime language on the internet, and the prime secondary language in general. Articles in English therefore need occasional support for non-native speakers in much the same way as it common courtesy to translate American terms for English people. And that's all that we do. We use four words -- four words! -- to improve an article for a large group of people. Richard Tol (talk) 07:55, 4 September 2009 (UTC)

I reverted your edit, because at the moment the tally of the votes is in favour of including the German name. Richard Tol (talk) 06:47, 29 August 2009 (UTC)

"not important information about Charlemagne" I don't agree with that comment, as you know. My rationale above is still holding. --LowerBavaria (talk) 19:59, 9 September 2009 (UTC)

"Karl der Grosse" tells us about modern German language conventions, but not about Charlemagne, his reign, or his life and times. Srnec (talk) 01:22, 11 September 2009 (UTC)

I repeat from above:

1. Charles definitely IS officially seen the founding father of Germany and

2. Charles palatinate and homestead is Aachen which is a city of Germany (where btw. people today speak German)

and:

You can argue as long as you want, but the fact will remain, that Aachen is the spot in Charlemagne's live for a lot of reasons that i already mentioned. Probably he wasn't born there, but definitely he died there, lived there, had his residence and homestead in Aachen and not to forget: He lies there since he's dead for 1.200 years in German soil, in a German city, his capital, where people since at least 1.500 years speak German or some kind of ancient German.

Charlemagne after all is a historical heritage that was important for all of Europe - but is (and is owned by) German(y), as you will realize when you once mabye will go "on-site" to Aachen - where people speak and ever spoke (modern or some kind of ancient) German (incl. Charlemagne himself).

For whatever reason you don't like this info about his person, please stop the deletion every time someone tries to add it. It's not your article, it's our's as well.

Greetings, --LowerBavaria (talk) 08:15, 12 September 2009 (UTC)

Reverted Smec's edit again as no new arguments were offered. Richard Tol (talk) 11:17, 25 September 2009 (UTC)

LowerBavaria just repeated himself without addressing my last argument. You pointed to some "poll", which appears to be stuck at no consensus for change, so the original state of the article remains. Srnec (talk) 23:04, 25 September 2009 (UTC)

I note that Srnec again deleted "Karl der Grosse" without providing new arguments or support. Richard Tol (talk) 05:45, 4 October 2009 (UTC)

And again. I called for a third opinion. Richard Tol (talk) 07:12, 5 October 2009 (UTC)

I again reverted Srnec's revision. Counting the people above, its Slac, Somewhereelse and Srnec (3) against Hereward77, john k, Barking, Matthead, Tresckow, Pacman7922, two anons, and myself (9). The third opinion below also tends towards inclusion. Richard Tol (talk) 18:10, 5 October 2009 (UTC)

Third opinion

Seems pretty straightforward to me. Charlemagne is a major historical figure who is known throughout the English speaking world by that name. It appears that he is also a major historical figure in Germany, where he is known by the name Karl der Grosse (which I did not know - shows what they teach us in history this side of the Atlantic!). If there are reliable English sources that attest to his importance in Germany and to his Germany name, then the German name should be included in the article lead. If, however, there are no reliable English sources for his German name, then my suggestion would be to leave it out. Would, for example, an English language history of Germany refer to him as Charlemagne or as Karl der Grosse? (I see no sources at all in the discussion above.) --RegentsPark (sticks and stones) 18:00, 5 October 2009 (UTC)

Here's an English reference that shows that the German name of Charlemagne is indeed Karl der Grosse: http://books.google.com/books?id=8SQIAAAAQAAJ&q=%22Charlemagne+%28Karl+der+Grosse%29%22&dq=%22Charlemagne+%28Karl+der+Grosse%29%22

Here's an English reference to the importance of Charlemagne to German history: http://www.amazon.co.uk/France-Germany-Legacy-Charlemagne-Lauret/dp/B0007DF9TM/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1254766646&sr=8-1

Then I see no reason why a parenthetical reference to his german name should not be included in the article. --RegentsPark (sticks and stones) 18:25, 5 October 2009 (UTC)

(I've seen it on 3O too, but didn't take it first!) - My opinion is that it can be included, but given the nature of the above debate, I guess that one could try to find the name in the original language of the subject himself. Is there any idea on that? --Cycl^opia - ^talk 18:52, 5 October 2009 (UTC)

There is a discussion of Charlemagne's native language on the main page, under "language". We have a reasonable idea of the language spoken at the time in the region where he was born, but as part of the ruling elite he may well have been brought up in a different dialect. The records of the time are all in Latin, so we'll never know. Richard Tol (talk) 20:23, 5 October 2009 (UTC)

Let's not start an edit war on whether "Karl der Grosse" should be in the first or in the last sentence of the first paragraph. The difference is minor, and not worth figthing over. Richard Tol (talk) 10:30, 31 October 2009 (UTC)

When the Normans invaded England in 1066, the ruling class spoke French for many years. That's why many English words today sound French. In fact, in many cases, there is a romantic word and a germanic word for the same thing. For example ship is germanic, vessel is romantic. I believe that's why the English word for the first Holy Roman Emperor is Charlemagne. I'm convinced if they had not been conquered by the Normans, the English would be calling him Charles the Great, as do the Germans. Just my opinion. No reference to back that up. BTW, after reading the comments above, its interesting to see how many do not understand that the primary aboriginal inhabitants of Europe were germanic peoples, at leat in central and western Europe. Most of Europe is the result of the mixing of germanic tribes with invaders. For example, the French are primarily a mixture of germanic tribes and Romans. Charlemagne was germanic.Filipzik (talk) 01:26, 27 January 2010 (UTC)

really ?

Are the germans jealous that the "french name" ( in fact it's not even french, in french it would be charles le grand ) is used in english language and not the german equivalence ? Is it really important ? Because I really don't understand what all the fuss is about, if the english speaker call him "Charlemagne" it's because it's his "english name" we don't considere it "french", it just appears that the french and the english call Carlus Magnus the same way because of History ( 1066 etc...). —Preceding unsigned comment added by me 11:32, 21 April 2010 (UTC)

That's not what the discussion is about.

The point is: Charlemagne is a German historic person. So: should his todays German name be mentioned in the first line or not?

To answer this question we have to discuss the contentious point:

Does Germany has a special claim on Charlemagne? The different opinions about this are listed above (like the points i mentioned: his palatinate and homestead is in Germany, he was speaking a German dialect, founding father of Germany and France etc.)

LowerBavaria (talk)

I don't know what you mean by "special claim", but he was Frankish not German, and I think that if anyone has a "special claim" to the greatest Frankish ruler, it would be the people of Frankreich.Eregli bob (talk) 17:17, 29 May 2011 (UTC)

I´m a little bit concerned about this discussion. Is there an "anti-german resentiment" in some points - I don´t hope . Or just a not-knowing? Please keep in mind: There was no Germany or France at that time and there was neither a (modern) english, french nor german language at that time an no Germany and France. He was a king later emperor of Frankish Empire. Charlemagne is his common name in english and french language and literature. Ok, thats in use and english and french speaking people know him as Charlemagne. But thats a french/english transmogrify of "Carolus Magnus". That wasn´t his name and he wouldn`t knew who "Charlemagne" is. His latin name was "Carolus or Karolus Magnus" and that comes from the old germanic "Karl" or "Karal". We don´t no exactly, but very probably his language was frankish (an old germanic one) and he belonged to the Franks (an old germanic ethnic people). So his original name was Karl (or similar). Thats still a german prename and germans call him Karl (der Große). So I think it´s historically correct and a matter of fairness to mention not only the english/french and latin name, but also the german one.Kleeblatt (talk) 15:37, 23 June 2010 (UTC)).

Please see the discussion above. We had to call in arbitration to solve an edit war. Please do not start all over again. Richard Tol (talk) 21:34, 24 June 2010 (UTC)

Finally

After the discussion still yielded no result and i see that the German name still is not added, but instead the French pronunciation was added, i propose to either add it now or delete the French pronunciation again.

Otherwise i really get the feeling that the importance for Germany compared to the one for France is beeing supressed and therefore i would charge this article as not objectiv.

If no objections are postet, i am going to edit the article by adding "Karl der Große" to the various expressions-bracket.

LowerBavaria (talk) 07:31, 12 May 2011 (UTC)

I agree, go for it. Don't let nuthin' stop you. Dutchman Schultz (talk) 18:32, 12 May 2011 (UTC)

I see no problems with adding his German name. After reading that long discussion (which was so contentious it was ridiculous) I did not see any VALID points for not including it. Germany is clearly tied into the history of Charlemagne (although not as much as the French) and "Karl der Große" is a valid name to put into the introduction. Vyselink (talk) 02:55, 13 May 2011 (UTC)

Done. LowerBavaria (talk) 14:40, 13 May 2011 (UTC)

_____

Srnec I agree with you that it's best to limit the title to Charlemagne and Charles the Great, but I think its inevitable that someone will add the german prononciation again. That's why I thought a solution might be to include all his names by the countries he ruled. As you mentioned it makes no sense to include a German name and then exclude the Dutch name. Grey Fox (talk) 17:31, 30 May 2011 (UTC)

The Founder of the modern royal families

Should references come from the fact that Charlemagne is the direct ancestor of the Capets, Bourbons, Valois, James I of England, Henry VIII and his tudors, The Plantagenet through Henry II, House of York, Lancaster, Windsors, Hapsburg and Savoy? And I think William the Conqueror's descendants through his wife Mathilde of Flanders. Or the fact that Charles Martel's wife was the descendant of Childeric and Clovis. Also I believe that the Oldenburgs and Portugese wife of Charles I's family.--Blood3 (talk) 12:20, 16 March 2010 (UTC)

See Familypedia. Charlemagne is the ancestor of all monarchs of France, Germany, Netherlands, Belgium, England, Luxemburg, Austria, Portugal, Brazil, Mexico, Romania; and most of Spain, Italy, Denmark, Norway, Sweden, Scotland, Poland, Hungary, Russia. I tried to make that point earlier, but others argued that this is irrelevant. Richard Tol (talk) 21:05, 22 April 2010 (UTC)

Statistically, with somewhere around forty generations to work with, just about anyone with European ancestry is likely to have Charlemagne as an ancestor. That alone would be a more interesting and noteworthy point to put in the article than mentioning anyone who can claim his ancestry. It's kind of funny that one person is mentioned in the article (Christopher Lee) as if it's worth noting, when there are potentially hundreds of millions. Rainfrog (talk) 17:45, 31 May 2010 (UTC)

Rainfrog: That is actually not true. The noble families of Europe all descended from Charlemagne, but their rate of intermarriage is such that the number of living descendants is counted in the hundreds of thousands. Over at Familypedia, we are trying to count them. Richard Tol (talk) 19:46, 31 May 2010 (UTC)

The rate of intermarriage of noble families is not a good backing point for your very low estimate, nor is a link that shows that the count of only the first 5 out of 45 generations are complete. Read this: [1] A complete count (if it were even feasible or practical) would show numbers that increase more along the lines of exponentially, even with conservative allowances for intermarriage and low birth rates. This would be especially true for the last 25 generations or so, by which time a majority of his descendants would likely be well outside the realm of noble families (the gap only widened by their marriages practices!)

Furthermore, considering only the marriage practices of nobility says nothing of their procreation practices. Illegitimate children are more of a rule than an exception in genealogical research, and just one of them enough generations back -- and among his descendants, there are far more than just one -- could have produced millions of living descendants. One child. In only 20 generations. That's far fewer generations than we have to work with in Charlemagne's case, never mind far fewer illegitimate children. Well over a billion living people (maybe twice that) are of at least some recent European ancestry. With over 40 generations it is highly unlikely that under one tenth of one percent of those billion-or-so, as your claim would mean, have no links to European noble families whatsoever, and in turn to Charlemagne.

Consider for example that 40 generations ago one person would have roughly 1.1 trillion thirty-eighth great-grandparents. This is enough to be a direct descendant of every living person on the planet at that time, a couple thousand times over. Obviously, that isn't the case, as your ancestors would more likely be confined to only a fraction of the Earth's regions. However, that only makes it much LESS likely to NOT be related to a given person within that geographic area, regardless of their nobility. So how likely is it that 99.9% of over a billion people have no links whatsoever to a given person 40 generations ago, when all 1.1 trillion of those slots have to be filled and a very limited number of people were available to fill them? Rainfrog (talk) 07:49, 1 June 2010 (UTC)

This is an empirical question. The only estimate to date (by Ton Deunhouwer) has thousands of living descendants. Our work on Familypedia (complete for the first 9 generations) suggests that Deunhouwer's estimates is too low. The growth rate between generation 8 and 9 was 41%. Extrapolating that to generation 35 makes 2 mln, and 11 mln for generation 40. The aristocracy in Europe is a largely isolated ethnic group. Anyway, I will not argue with you, as this is an empirical question. Time will tell who is right. You are welcome to join our project. Richard Tol (talk) 11:31, 1 June 2010 (UTC)

Are we talking legitimate descendants? Even article on German Kings, mentions they are all related(which is relative anyway) Of course by German Kings, do they mean every monarch with the title King, who has ruled a German speaking state? Anyway, while the fact that every modern monarch is related to him is not as relevant that many monarchies have been occupied by his descendants since his death. Has there been any ruling dynasty not descended from him that ruled in his former empire? 98.206.155.53 (talk) 18:22, 17 March 2011 (UTC)

His great grandmother

How likely is it that Betrada of Prum is a Merovingian and his great grandmother? If we accept her to be Caribert's mother and the daughter of Theuderic III is that the only was he can have Merovingian blood? I remember there was some other claim, but this one might be genuine. Any thoughts?--I am the Blood 11:32, 19 July 2010 (UTC)

sounds great, source? 98.206.155.53 (talk) 08:19, 18 March 2011 (UTC)

Enthroned after death?

I've read in one of the Horrible Histories books that Charlemagne was left sitting on the throne for a number of years after his death, but the article makes the apparently unreferenced claim that he was buried on the day that he died. Is there any reliable reference for either statement? 138.130.85.69 (talk) 10:03, 20 July 2010 (UTC)

I've never heard of that story. According to this source, which cites Einhard, he was indeed buried on the same day he died. Iblardi (talk) 12:03, 20 July 2010 (UTC)

This is interesting, if trivial: GERMANY: Imperial D.P., Time magazine June 11, 1945. -- Petri Krohn (talk) 15:41, 27 October 2010 (UTC)

Hibernicus Exul

he was burried on the same day as he died and he was never left on his thrown for years after he died.

King of the Romans?

I thought Charlemagne and the franks came after the fall of Rome, not during. That was how the Islamic caliphates, visigoths, ostrogoths, anglo-saxons and the Franks came to occupy the land previously owned by Rome. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Albertocs (talk • contribs) 22:34, 17 September 2010 (UTC)

He did come afterwards. However, like the Byzantines in the east, he held on to the glorious name of Roman, to raise his own prestige. The Sanity Inspector (talk) 19:11, 18 September 2010 (UTC)

Rome did not fall as much as popularly assumed. Even the Germanic Kings of Italy, for most of the time, did not even dare to act otherwise than on an Imperial mandate. What happend in 476 precisely speaking was, that Rome ceased to be an effective Imperial residence. Justinian the Great was not far from reestablishing the old unified Empire of Theodosius. When in 800 the throne was vacant, and it was since the constitution, which we may not like but which was in effect, didn't allow women to occupy it, the Pope reinstituted an Emperor in the old Residence. That of course may seem arbitrary but if we look on the effect of the thing, the very idea of an Empire governing though not really, but virtually all the world, under the Roman law, etc. etc. did indeed remain by 1806, and maybe even in some respect by 1918, speaking of the fall of Austria-Hungary. --84.154.84.103 (talk) 09:39, 15 October 2010 (UTC)