Talk:Bohemian Crown Jewels

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search

Move page Czech Crown Jewels to Bohemian Crown Jewels[edit]

Absolutely disagree. I never heard about "Bohemian Crown Jewels", it is worldwide known as "Czech Crown Jewels", we Czechs call it "České korunovační klenoty". Bohemia is just an latin equivalent for Čechy. I will have to undo your edit. Jirka.h23 (talk) 13:13, 2 March 2013 (UTC)

What I don’t think understand is that these are not the "Czech Crown Jewels". They are the Crown Jewels of what is known in English as the Kingdom of Bohemia (České království). The Czech Republic, and previously Czechoslovakia did not have crown jewels, because they are republics. Bohemia is used in English to refer to the Kingdom of Bohemia, and also to Bohemia proper, the region. There was no "Kingdom of Czechia" or any such similar thing. This page began at Bohemian Crown Jewels, but someone moved it with no reason given. The page should remain here. Unless, of course, you can convince people that the Kingdom of Bohemia was not called that, but the Kingdom of Czechia. RGloucester (talk) 21:42, 2 March 2013 (UTC)
In addition, cut and paste moves are not allowed. You must go through the proper channels. RGloucester (talk) 21:48, 2 March 2013 (UTC)
Separate from the reasons for moving (and I see your point), the earlier move was performed 5 years ago (I do agree that it was done without explanation - but that's water under the bridge). I'm not convinced that reversal of that move, 5 years later, should be done without establishing consensus. Perhaps it could be done this way, but I suggest moving it back to Czech Crown Jewels and using the appropriate process for moving. There's no deadline, after all. -- Scray (talk) 23:19, 2 March 2013 (UTC)~
I agree.Jirka.h23 (talk) 06:04, 3 March 2013 (UTC)
To move it back to Czech Crown Jewels would require a requested move, as there is a redirect. There was nothing "inappropriate" about my move, and anyone can contest it. However, it is necessary for an argument to be put forth, not simply to say "we Czechs call it..." I'm perfectly happy to debate, however, and I appreciate your participation. If I may elaborate on my one knows, these are the crown jewels that were used by the Kingdom of Bohemia. No state that was not called "Bohemia" used these jewels, ever. Furthermore, to call them "Czech" implies that they are only connected with the Czech ethnicity, and not with the land itself (the Kingdom of of Bohemia was a multi-ethnic state). German Bohemians were just as much subjects of the Bohemian crown. Furthermore, there is the complex issue in the Czech language when dealing with the subject (which is why comparing English to Czech in this situation probably isn't a good idea).
The previous move went un-noticed, I'm assuming because this is a low-traffic page. But that doesn't excuse it now. I've restored the original title, which makes much more sense. If there really is disagreement, it should go to a requested move (back to CCJ). I'd be happy to present my arguments there. RGloucester (talk) 02:11, 3 March 2013 (UTC)
I dont understand your argument, the Duchy of Bohemia existed hundreds of years before any German Bohemians came. Jirka.h23 (talk) 06:15, 3 March 2013 (UTC)
You think this move went "unnoticed" during the 60+ edits since then? In any event, I think your rationale makes sense, but you could've allowed that to be established by concensus (being right, patient, and courteous would've been especially compelling). -- Scray (talk) 05:48, 3 March 2013 (UTC)
You should create a Reqested move, before a real move, because i am sure that you can't prove that they are called "Bohemian Crown Jewels". So please put it back to original and make a Reqested move. Jirka.h23 (talk) 06:01, 3 March 2013 (UTC)
I apologize, Scray, if I appear discourteous. That was not my intent. I have the power, as do many Wikipedians, to move pages as they see fit to meet Wikipedia’s title guidelines. I had assumed my move was un-controversial, because it was merely returning a page to where it was previously, and to a name that makes a great deal of sense. I provided a rationale. This is common practice, as far as I can tell, on Wikipedia. And yes, I think it did go un-noticed at the time. And eventually, it just lapsed into history, and people forgot (the page was merely a stub at the time). That’s not uncommon. Again, I am perfectly happy to have a requested move. But any requested move has to be directed back towards Czech Crown Jewels, because there is a redirect in place, and cut-and-paste moves are no good. I simply don’t think I was "impatient". I simply saw a problem, and decided to correct it as such. If it is contested, I was mistaken, and as I said, I am perfectly happy to go through the RM procedure. Jirka, the original was "Bohemian Crown Jewels" if you look through the page history. Someone made a move when this page was merely a stub, and did not provide any rationale whatsoever. I understand why this is confusing to Czech speakers. The whole thing is really rather a mess in both Czech and English, as I’m sure you know (the difference between Česko (modern Czech state) and Čechy (Bohemia), and how České can refer either to "Bohemian" (as in Bohemia proper) or "from the Czech lands" (Česko / Czechia)). It is a complex issue of translation. But regardless, the kingdom is known as "Bohemia". Hence, the jewels are also "Bohemian". Also, with regards to you not understanding the bit about German Bohemians. In English, Czech is usually limited to ethnic Czechs, for whatever reason. So, for example, one doesn’t refer to German Bohemians as "German Czechoslovaks" or "Czechoslovak Germans" (during the interwar period). They remained Bohemian Germans (or to nationalists, Sudeten Germans), because, for whatever reason, Bohemia (probably because it is also used in German as Böhmen, unlike Čechy) is not associated strictly with ethnic Czechs. I apologize for any offense, I sincerely do. RGloucester (talk) 17:25, 3 March 2013 (UTC)
Now i see that you dont understand what Bohemia means, it is Čechy not Česko, it is western part of the Czech Republic (nowadays excluding Moravia and Silesia from CR), or it was western part of the Kingdom, not the whole Kingdom. There could be Geman Bohemians same as German Silesians. Bohemia is just an latin or english equivalent for Čechy. Does it now make a better sence for you? I think i will put that request. Jirka.h23 (talk) 06:32, 4 March 2013 (UTC)
In English, "Bohemia" was used to refer to all the lands of the Bohemian Crown, including Czech Silesia and Moravia. It wasn’t just used to refer to what in English is termed "Bohemia proper" to differentiate it between the "whole Bohemia". This usage mimics the territories Upper Austria and Lower Austria, and Greater Poland and Lesser Poland. In each case, an integral part of the territory of the state gave the state its name, despite the fact that the state did not just possess that territory. This called synecdoche. Prior to creation of the Czecho-Slovak Republic, all of the Kingdom of Bohemia (which included all the Czech lands) was called "Bohemia" in English, and Czechs called "Bohemians". Bohemia is not just an English equivalent for Čechy, because it also refers traditionally to what is now known as Česko. RGloucester (talk) 19:17, 4 March 2013 (UTC)
No it does not refer to all of the Bohemian Crown lands. Please read the Bohemia article. Your knowledge of Czech lands are very poor. I dont understand your reason Czech Republic is also multi-etnic state, same as Great Britain does today. (Putting that request.) Jirka.h23 (talk) 04:27, 12 March 2013 (UTC)
In traditional and historical English language usage, yes it does refer to all the crown lands. Look at the Bohemia proper article that you just requested me to read, in the lead:"In a broader meaning, it often refers to the entire Czech territory, including Moravia and Czech Silesia, especially in historical contexts, such as the Kingdom of Bohemia". The Czech Republic is more than 95% Czech. That can hardly be called multi-ethnic. The United Kingdom has always been multi-ethnic, including the Irish, Scottish, Welsh, and English, among others like the Irish Travellers. The Czech Republic, now, is pretty much Czech. There are minorities, but they amount to very little in the grand scheme of things. Anyway, though, that was not what I was arguing. I’m arguing about English language usage of the words "Bohemian" and "Bohemia", which have nothing to do with Czech usage of Čechy. In ENGLISH, Bohemia can (and usually did, in the past) refer to all of the Czech lands, and their inhabitants. This was common up until the fall of the monarchy. In ENGLISH, Bohemian does not have the strong ethnic connotations that "Czech" does. There are historical reasons for this. During the time of the monarchy, when the Czech lands were referred to as Bohemia, the state was inherently multi-ethnic. Czechs may have made up a majority, but only narrowly. In 1910, there were 6.6 million Czechs and 3.3 million Germans in the Czech lands, not to mention the many Jews. That means Germans made up at least 29 % of the population of the Czech lands. So, when an English-speaker at that time, who knew the county as "Bohemia", thought of "Bohemians", he could just as well think of a German as a Czech. But, with the rise of ethnic nationalism, the use of the world Czech came about. And it was quite clear to English-speakers that Czechs were not Germans, and that Germans were not Czechs. So, Czech was associated with ethnic nationalism, because that’s when it came about. But Bohemian was associated with multi-ethnic meaning because the state of "Bohemia" was inherently multi-ethnic. RGloucester (talk) 03:02, 13 March 2013 (UTC)
Yes it is often refered to the entire Czech territory, but from somebody who dont know nothing about it, it is a historical region in central Europe, occupying the western two-thirds of the Czech Republic. The Czech Republic is now exactly 63.7% Czech, not more than 95%. And Bohemia were not allways multi-ethnic, some Germans came into it in mid-13th century. You are distorting the history how you like it. All i’m saying is that everything that came from Bohemia don’t have to be Bohemian, but can also be called Czech. Jirka.h23 (talk) 04:12, 13 March 2013 (UTC)
Anyway, i give up for now. But when will be the exhibition, i will take there a photo of english translation for you. Jirka.h23 (talk) 11:57, 13 March 2013 (UTC)

I give up too. Let’s finish with a flourish. No, it wasn’t just from someone who knew nothing about it. It was standard and common English usage. It may have been different from Czech usage, but it wasn’t wrong. The region you refer to was known as "Bohemia proper" to differentiate it. People were aware that it existed. The Republic is only "63.7% Czech" is you don’t included people who specified "Moravian nationality", regardless of your opinion on that subject, I think we can count them as Czechs for all intents and purposes. Then there are "Silesians". And then there are the 23% undeclared, who don’t know which one to mark because there is only one word for Czech, and it also means Bohemian (as in Bohemia proper). Either way, 95% of the population is Czech speaking, which is a better determining factor than self-identification. I’m not saying it can’t "also be called Czech", but that, in common English usage, this would be confusing and lead to misinformation. I’m aware that Prague Castle advertises them as the "Czech crown jewels", but in English, this is not strictly correct. Farewell! RGloucester (talk) 13:41, 13 March 2013 (UTC)

But think about it, what are you arguing. If Bohemia was used to refer to all the Lands of the Bohemian Crown, do you think that somebody living in Berlin lived also in Bohemia? Because Brandenburg was also part of it, or someone from Lusatia or Upper Palatinate? The other thing you arguing, is that word Czech came with some ethnic nationalism, but Czechs (Čechové,Češi) was an ancient Slavic peoples who came into Bohemia in the 6th century, it doesn’t came from nothing how you are trying to explain. Please think about it calmly and thank you for your reply. Jirka.h23 (talk) 04:30, 14 March 2013 (UTC)
I don't know what common English usage was during the period of the Luxembourg dynasty was, so I can't tell you if at that point Berlin was considered part of Bohemia. In fact, English from that time is very hard to decipher for modern speakers. But, I do know that during the Habsburg period (i.e. early modern and modern history until the early 20th century), the Bohemian crown lands were called Bohemia. I know that in the Czech language, the words are are derived from the ancient Čechové. In the Czech language, the equivalent of "Czech" is as ancient as can be. But, in English, the word "Czech" did not exist until the rise of ethnic nationalism, which forced English speakers (and everyone else) to pay more attention to what they called other peoples. "Czech" in English only came to prominence at the beginning of the 20th century, with all the nonsense that came about then. Prior, Czech-speakers were called Bohemians. Now, because of that historical weirdness, Czech and Bohemian don't mean the same thing. They should, and they are derived from exactly the same source, but they don't. It is an oddity of the historical evolution of the English language. It is all about nuance and connotation. RGloucester (talk) 16:37, 14 March 2013 (UTC)
The Jewels were created in Luxembourg dynasty not in Habsburgs:-) Czechia consists of three historic parts: Bohemia, Moravia, Silesia. Logically, Bohemia cannot designate the country as a whole. Czechs could be called Bohemians, but only incorrectly, its like you are saying that there was never such tribe that came into Bohemia>:( The word “Bohemian” is derived from the Latin name for a Celtic tribe called the Boii that lived in Bohemia in about 1th century.
Benjamin Kuras:Events that made Czechs who they are now. Jirka.h23 (talk) 06:45, 17 March 2013 (UTC)
This is called synecdoche. It means a "part" referring to the "whole". It did designate the country as a whole, because the name of the state was Bohemia. This also occurs in Poland and Austria. In Poland, there are two territories, Lesser Poland and Greater Poland, which do not comprise the whole state. But despite the fact that historical Poland is much smaller than the state, that is what we refer to the state as. It is the same in Austria. There are two territories, Upper Austria and Lower Austria, which comprise the historical region of Austria. Despite that these two regions do not comprise the whole state, we call the state Austria. It is not uncommon for this to be the case, and it is also the case for Bohemia and the Czech lands. RGloucester (talk) 16:20, 17 March 2013 (UTC)
And England must be all Great Britain? :) As for Lesser Poland and Greater Poland, yep like South Bohemian Region + Central Bohemian Region + some others, comprise the Bohemia, but South Moravian Region + others comprise Moravia. Do you have any reliable sources for your claim? Because you dont showed any neither in conversation or in Request. Thanks for your reply. Jirka.h23 (talk) 05:52, 18 March 2013 (UTC)
I don't think you understand what I said. Lesser Poland and Greater Poland, which comprise historical region known as Poland, do NOT comprise the whole area of the Polish state, which includes much of Silesia, Pomerania and various other regions. Nevertheless, the state takes its name from this smaller region. Bohemia, a region of the Czech lands, was a historical region. Despite the fact that it did not comprise the whole area of the Czech state, the name of the state was derived from it. The Bohemia crown was not just the crown of Bohemia. The ruler was also possessed the Moravian Margraviate, along with the Duchy of Upper and Lower Silesia. RGloucester (talk) 13:47, 18 March 2013 (UTC)
Word Czech doesn´t exist? (picture).
Chronica Polonorum Lech & Czech.jpg
Jirka.h23 (talk) 12:45, 15 April 2013 (UTC)
You know as well as I do that that was written by a Pole, and uses Polish. Slavic languages have always used the Slavic words. In ENGLISH, it did not exist. RGloucester (talk) 13:25, 15 April 2013 (UTC)
Sure it does exist, i recommend you to read article Czechs, "Within the West Slavs, the Czechs form part of the Czech-Slovak group (together with the Slovaks), alongside the Lechites and the Sorbs". in ALL article it is Czechs not Bohemians, in that case you should all rewrite it. Czechs = somebody who speak primarily Czech, Bohemians = somebody living in Bohemia. Jirka.h23 (talk) 15:06, 15 April 2013 (UTC)
Also read this article Lech, Čech, and Rus what is English name for this guy?Jirka.h23 (talk) 15:18, 15 April 2013 (UTC)
In modern usage, English does have the word "Czech" refering to an ethno-linguistic group, yes. That did not exist at the time of the Kingdom, however. Furthermore, that is one of the reasons these jewels are not Czech. Czech is ethno-linguistic, and refers only to Czech-speakers. These jewels were mostly worn by Germans, and the Kingdom was multi-ethnic. Calling them Czech does not explain the nuance of the situation, whereby previously there were many German Bohemians. Bohemian is, in English, considered a multi-ethnic word, because at the time of the Kingdom, the state was predominately multi-ethnic. Czech, on the other hand, is not. As far as the legend is concerned, Praotec Čech was known as Bohemus in English versions of the story, which is readily available. Actually, though, that article is wrong in saying that Praotec Čech founded "Czechia", which he most certainly did not. He only is supposed to have founded Čechy, which later expanded to incorporate Moravia and Silesia.RGloucester (talk) 18:26, 15 April 2013 (UTC)
So can we finally agree that word Czech and Bohemian are not same? Because only then we can continue to debate if they was Czech or Bohemian. It was not any Bohemians who came into Bohemia in 6th century, but tribe of Czechs. Word Bohemia is derivered from tribe Boii ("home of the Boii"). And they still exist as Czechs until present, same as ethnic Germans does. Jirka.h23 (talk) 19:40, 15 April 2013 (UTC)
In modern English usage, yes Czech and Bohemian do not have the same connotations. In English usage prior to the the end of the Kingdom of Bohemia, however, Bohemian was a murky term that was also used to refer to Czechs, the Czech language and various other things. The word "Czech", at that point, had not entered the English vocabulary. If I was writing this message in 1900, I would say that the Bohemians arrived in Bohemia in the 6th century. Now, however, one would say Czechs for those people, as they are were a coherent ethno-linguistic group that we now have a separate indigenous-based term for. RGloucester (talk) 21:10, 15 April 2013 (UTC)
Then i am really interested how you could translate census of ethnic groups in Bohemia of Austria-Hungary in 1880, well there live 62.5% of Bohemians, 35.8% of Bohemians, 1.0% of Bohemians and 0.7% of Bohemians ? :-)))) Jirka.h23 (talk) 06:00, 16 April 2013 (UTC)
In English, it would translated based on the "ethnic" meaning of Bohemian. So, it would refer to the Czech grouping as "Bohemian" and the German grouping as "German" and so forth. That does not change the fact that in other usage, they would all be called "Bohemians", usually with an ethnic clarifier like "German Bohemian". RGloucester (talk) 12:33, 16 April 2013 (UTC)
I find out that the oldest evidence of the English word "Czech" for inhabitant and language dates to 1850. So it is possible that the 1880 ethnic census could be translated as Czech, German, Polish and others, so you are right that it was not in use before. Now i agree, as you stated above, it is really an oddity of the historical evolution of the English language. The question is now, if Charles IV. named it for Czechs or for all inhabitants of Kingdom, English at that time dont saw a difference, but now in modern usage it does.. Jirka.h23 (talk) 14:21, 17 April 2013 (UTC)
Yeah, and even though English use of "Czech" first occurred in 1850 (I’m fairly certain that was a result of the revolutions of 1848), it was not common English usage until the foundation of the Czecho-Slovak Republic. The reason I advocate for "Bohemian" is because, in English, we pretty much always use "Bohemian" when referring to anything to do with the historical Kingdom of Bohemia. As far as what Charles IV would say, I’d have to say he’d use Bohemian. He was a Holy Roman Emperor, after all, and German was his native language. He was famous for learning five different languages, and also knew French as he was raised in the French court. He did not learn Czech, though, until later in his life, when he arrived in Bohemia to become King (though he supposedly learned the language in record time). RGloucester (talk) 02:43, 18 April 2013 (UTC)
On the other side, he was firstly Czech King, he was born to Czech princess of Přemyslid dynasty in Prague, until was sent to France he lived 7 years in Bohemia, where he forgot his native Czech language and learned French and Latin so his native language canot be German, some can say even he was French:-) but after he came back at his 17 he learned Czech again where found her mother dead, Karel his return to his homeland noted as follows: …A tak, když jsme byli přišli do Čech, nenalezli jsme ani otce, ani matky, ani bratra, ani sester, aniž koho známého. Také řeč českou jsme úplně zapomněli, ale později jsme se jí opět naučili, takže jsme mluvili a rozuměli jako každý jiný Čech… Charles confirmed Czech as kings language, one who wants to get citizenship must be able to speak Czech (this was applied until the Battle of White Mountain-1620), all Czech Kings must speak Czech including all Habsburgs. And why not to ask him? In his own autobiography "Vita Caroli" Karel stated that in addition to Czech, which he stated separately and in the first place, also spoke French, Italian and German, in this order (more to be added Latin, but for such intellectuals it was taken for granted). So i am still not sure enough, you said he was Holy Roman Emperor, but these jewels served for Czech Kings not for Emperors and were made before he was Crowned Emperor. Jirka.h23 (talk) 05:49, 18 April 2013 (UTC)
I’m not sure Czech was his native language. His mother was Czech, yes, but his father was a Luxembourg, the first one, in fact. It is all rather confusing, though, because of the fact that he was in France, not dealing with either German or Czech, for the first part of his life. So, as much as he would affirm the Czech language, we don’t really know. Regardless, though, the problem is simple: in English, we don’t recognize "Czech kings", we call them Bohemian kings. This is because, as you know, he was King of Bohemia. We have two adjectives for Bohemia and Czechia (unlike Czech), and, really, it makes sense to use Bohemian…RGloucester (talk) 14:15, 18 April 2013 (UTC)
Why are you again arguing that he do not deal with Czech language for the first part of his life? Did you read my post? He lived until his 7 in Bohemia, in France he learned French and forgot Czech, at his 17 he came back and learned again Czech, in autobiography he stated Czech separately and in the first place, he was born in Prague, made Prague imperial seat and died in Prague, also he won television poll Největší Čech produced by BBC, do you still want to contest with he was not Czech? Jirka.h23 (talk) 07:01, 19 April 2013 (UTC)
But anyway, we are getting out of topic, this should goes to Charles IV article. Have a nice day. Jirka.h23 (talk) 13:44, 19 April 2013 (UTC)
I never said he wasn't Czech. He spoke Czech, I acknowledge all of that. What I meant to say is, just because he was born in Prague does not make him solely Czech. He was also a Luxembourg, and their origins are not Czech. His origins are indicative of how the multi-ethnic culture of Bohemia was formed, which indicates that one should not restrict him to the English word "Czech", which applies only to ethno-lingustic Czechs. RGloucester (talk) 16:52, 19 April 2013 (UTC)
Ok, enough about the Greatest Czech, as for Jewels i will keep it Bohemian (if i do not find any compromising actuality:), thanks for your discussion. Cheers. Jirka.h23 (talk) 17:45, 19 April 2013 (UTC)
  • Furthermore, I'd like to contest your removal of the wording "sometimes" from the Czech Crown Jewels in the lead. It is "sometimes", as they are not always called the Czech Crown Jewels. In fact, according to that Google book search they are much more likely to be called the Bohemian Crown Jewels. So, that does make it "sometimes". It is pretty standard Wikipedia lead language. RGloucester (talk) 21:56, 17 March 2013 (UTC)
It is not sometimes. Jirka.h23 (talk) 12:45, 15 April 2013 (UTC)
Why? RGloucester (talk) 13:25, 15 April 2013 (UTC)

Queen Victoria[edit]

Queen Victoria spoke english, but just because she was born in London does not make Queen Victoria solely English. She was also a German, and their origins are not English. Her origins are indicative of how the multi-ethnic culture of England and Great Brittain was formed, which indicates that one should not restrict her to the english word "English". — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 16:31, 31 May 2015 (UTC)

Opening old feud again? Then look at various charters granted by kings of Bohemia, how they styled themselves, or their seals. I don´t need master degree in Czech history (which I have) to see right name for this article is really "Bohemian Crown Jewels", not "Czech Crown Jewels". I would rather use more precise "Crown Jewels of Kingdom of Bohemia", but that doesn´t sound good. I read all above arguments of RGloucester and I must admit I share his opinion.Pavlor (talk) 14:54, 12 December 2015 (UTC)