Talk:Charles V, Holy Roman Emperor/Archive 2

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
Archive 1 Archive 2

Minor Edits to Section Titles

I've changed the section titles "Wars with France" and "War with the Ottoman Empire" to "Conflicts with France" and "Conflicts with the Ottoman Empire", as Charles was not continually at war with these countries, but a major theme of his kingship was conflicts in a variety of means between himself and these two countries. I am writing up a major edit of this page, and will post a summary here after I make he change. Expect many more references, details on Charles' importance in the intro, a separate section for his lineage (which will be sucked out of the intro for the most part), greater detail on his actions early on in Spain, the low countries, and the Holy Roman Empire, along with a few other things. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Cronos2546 (talkcontribs) 03:07, 16 November 2007 (UTC)

Personally, I'd prefer if we discussed his life in chronological order, rather than topically. Separating out everything the way we do now gives a very poor sense of Charles's life as a life - interactions with France, the Ottomans, and the German princes were all closely related to each other, for instance. Obviously some topicalness is necessary, but I think it's excessive here. john k (talk) 18:23, 25 December 2007 (UTC)

I agree with John Kenney. Also I have no problem with the change Wars > Conflicts, anyhow. --Sugaar (talk) 12:03, 1 January 2008 (UTC)

Map needed

I'd say that this article needs a map to illustrate the domains of Charles V, at least the European ones. I've been searching the web for references and I think THIS ONE is a good reference - but, obviously needs to be recreated by someone for Wikipedia/Wikimedia. THIS OTHER MAP (in Spanish) is also good but only for inherited lands, not those joined by himself to the Habsburg Crown. Another map I found is THIS ONE (in Spanish): good ref. but the colors of Castile and the HRE are confusingly the same. --Sugaar (talk) 13:03, 3 January 2008 (UTC)

The two Spanish ones are no good as they seem to portray the Empire and Austria as two distinct entities when in fact Austria was part of the Empire. The same goes for Burgundy. Str1977 (talk) 10:18, 7 January 2008 (UTC)

Abdication

I thought he abdicated in the Netherlands on October 25, 1555. john k (talk) 06:11, 22 January 2008 (UTC)

Absolutely correct, John. Str1977 (talk) 19:54, 26 February 2008 (UTC)

"Formally abdicated"

For the benefit of other editors, I here repost an exchange between me and Emperor001 on my and his talk pages:

You said that Charles V did abdicate in 1556. Well, the Columbia Encyclopedia, Sixth Edition disagrees with you. From it, I draw the following quotation: "In 1556 also, he practically surrendered the empire to Ferdinand, and in 1558 he formally abdicated as emperor." You can look at it yourself at http://www.bartleby.com/65/ch/Charles5HRE.html. Emperor001 (talk) 18:42, 26 February 2008 (UTC)

Your source has it wrong.
According to the detailed timeline in Ernst Schulin, Kaiser Karl V. Geschichte eines übergroßen Wirkungsbereichs., Charles handed over the Netherlands to his son Philip on October 25, 1555, handed over Spain, Sicily and America to Philip on January 16,1556, and finally resigned the Imperial dignity in favour of his brother Ferdinand on August 3, 1556 with however leaving Ferdinand at liberty to decide when to assume that dignity himself (note only the dignity of an Emperor elect, as Ferdinand had already been King for more than twenty years). Ferinand entered into negotiations with the Electors and on March 14, 1558 he was formally declared Emperor elect (it took a few more years to get the Pope to recognize this however). Charles was still alive at that point - he died on September 21 - but had no part in the matter.
So in 1558 it was not Charles who laid down the Imperial dignity but Ferdinand who took it up. Charles formally resigned all his rule in 1555 and 1556.
Str1977 (talk) 19:22, 26 February 2008 (UTC)

Byzantine Claim

The sucession box has said two different things throughout its history. Who succeeded Charles as the titular Byzantine Emperor, Phillip or Ferdinand? Emperor001 (talk) 20:18, 27 February 2008 (UTC)

Philipp - the claim passed from the last Palaelogi to Ferdinand of Aragon, from him to Charles and from Charles to his son and heir Philip. Basically, Philip gets everything unless it is specified differently (and Ferdinand was already King (by election), ruler of Austria (as a liegeman of his brother) and King of Hungary and Bohemia (by election by these countries). Str1977 (talk) 01:39, 1 March 2008 (UTC)

Titles

Was Charles V a pretender to the throne of Hungary? I have noticed that some Habsburgs before Ferdinand ruled as Kings of Hungary and Bohemia and in The Life and Times of Martin Luther, Charles is styled as "King of Hungary, Croatia, Dalmatia, etc." Emperor001 (talk) 20:00, 29 February 2008 (UTC)

I don't think so. Yes there was a Habsburg claim stemming from Sigismund, Albert II and Ladislaus but no Habsburg specifically claimed the crown since King Ladislaus' death. The claim was settled by the agreement which saw Louis of Hungary mary a Habsburg woman and his sister marrying one of Maximilian I's grandsons. This was later specified to be Ferdinand but it could have been Charles instead. Any supposed pretense was ended by that agreement. Str1977 (talk) 01:44, 1 March 2008 (UTC)

Duke of Burgundy

If Duke of Burgundy was a just an in pretense title and not a reigning position, shouldn't it be moved from the reigning titles in the succession box to the pretense titles alongside Byzantine Emperor? Emperor001 (talk) 19:27, 4 March 2008 (UTC)

No because it was not just a pretense title. The claim to the actual Duchy of that name remained unfulfilled but it was real in regard to all those land coming in with the Burgundian heritage. Str1977 (talk) 08:24, 12 September 2008 (UTC)

The Chin

Worthy of note? This thing was of Lenoesque proportions. Il Castrato (talk) 18:08, 31 March 2008 (UTC)

Yes. Long and sharp enough to extract fluff from the Imperial belly button. Who says interbreeding produces chinless wonders? --OhNoPeedyPeebles (talk) 21:05, 12 May 2008 (UTC)

Byzantine Emperor

According to the article Charles V was the de jure Byzantine Emperor. Is there any evidence this title continued to exist in his time, or that he actually claimed it? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 128.208.36.71 (talk) 01:55, 1 June 2008 (UTC)

Frisian Peasants Rebellion

I made a section on the succesful Frisian peasants rebellion lead by Pier Gerlofs Donia and Wijerd Jelckama. -The Bold Guy- (talk) 09:41, 21 September 2008 (UTC)

This is what you added:

"Between 1515 and 1523 Pier Gerlofs Donia was a Frisian farmer who had his farm burned down by the Austrian and Dutch soldiers in Habsburgian service. He blaimed Charles V for this. He then formed an army of angry peasants from Frisia and Gelderland. This army was called The Arumer Zwarte Hoop or Arumer Black Heap. Lead by Donia (nicknamed Greate Pier), they had several major victories such as the succesful siege of two Hollandic castles and the city of Medemblik. Most succes however was received on sea, where Donia sank 28 Dutch ships in the biggest naval battle of his career, earning him the title "Cross of the Dutchmen". He also conquered pieces of the Low Countries belonging to Charles V. In 1519, Greate Pier retired and died the following year. His nephew Wijerd Jelckama took over the command of his armies. This was at the heigt of their succes, and the Arumer Black Heap then had over 4000 thousend members. Jelckama proved to be a less competent commander. He had some minor victories, but slowly the army began losing men. He was defeaten many times until he and the remainder of the Frisian army was captured in 1523. Jelckama was subsequently decapitated in 1523 together with the remaining Frisian and Gelderian rebels. After 8 yeard of battle however, Frisia recognised the Emperor Charles V as their overlord, though with no small measure of hidden anger and hurt pride."

  • To include this local rebellion in this length and breadth is a serious case of undue weight.
  • The section also suffers from several mistakes in orthography and grammar, sometimes unwittingly creating nonsense like "Between 1515 and 1523 Pier Gerlofs Donia was a Frisian farmer" - and what was he before 1515? Didn't he die in 1520?
  • It is also stylistically unfitting: We don't need a long sentence about the leader's nick name. Things like "with no small measure of hidden anger and hurt pride." are editorialising. Actual facts are under- or misrepresented (the identity of the soldiers that pillaged Pier's farm).

But while these points could actually be solved by working on the inserted section, the problem of undue weight cannot. Hence, I condensed the passage to the bare essentials, linking to the two leader's articlesm, and integrated it into the Netherlands section. Str1977 (talk) 12:46, 21 September 2008 (UTC)

That is good enough for now. They should stay in the Low Countries section and not much needs to be added. Thanks for your work on here. -The Bold Guy- (talk) 13:00, 21 September 2008 (UTC)

The names of the rebel leaders, however, should be linked here for they are important historical figures (at least the first leader, Pier Gerlofs Donia was). -The Bold Guy- (talk) 07:43, 29 September 2008 (UTC)

Title succession in infobox

What's with the successions in the infobox:

King of Germany; Archduke of Austria
Reign   1519–1556
Predecessor     Maximilian I
Successor       Ferdinand I
King of Castile and Aragon
Reign   1516–1556
Predecessor     Joanna
Successor       Philip II
Duke of Burgundy etc.
Reign   1506–1556
Predecessor     Philip IV
Successor       Philip V

The are several problems with that:

  1. Charles was succeeded in Austria by Ferdinand in the early twenties, as King of Germany in 1531.
  2. Charles was not preceded in Castile or Aragon by his mother Joanna - they ruled jointly until her death in 1555.
  3. It is confusing to use different numerals for the Burgundian succession - readers may not be awara that the Philip V of one box is the Philip II of another.

I know it is difficult to bring all these successions into one fold ... but do we need such successions in the infobox at all? Str1977 (talk) 07:56, 7 October 2008 (UTC)

  1. I've edited the infobox accordingly.
  2. Charles was indeed preceded in Castile and Aragon by his mother as a sole ruler. She "reigned" with her husband until he died, then she "reigned" alone until her regent died, and then Charles became her co-ruler. Surtsicna (talk) 09:46, 7 October 2008 (UTC)
1. Only that didn't help at all, since you turned it into Charles being HRE 1519-1521 which is of course nonsense. I dropped the rather inconsequential rule over Austria and focused on "HRE/King of the Romans".
2. Joanna did not precede Charles in Aragon at all and nowhere in any effective manner.
Str1977 (talk) 06:45, 9 October 2008 (UTC)
"Joanna did not precede Charles in Aragon at all and nowhere in any effective manner." Is this supposed to convince me that you are right? I explained why I think that Charles was preceded by Joanna and your response is "No, she didn't"? Wow, that's a really good arguement. Surtsicna (talk) 18:41, 9 October 2008 (UTC)
Joanna became Queen of Castile on her mother's death, she became Queen of Aragaon at her father's death. Her father's death also constitutes the coming to the throne of Charles in both countries. Joanna never effectively or solely reigned anything, but at best she came to the throne of Aragaon simultanously with her son. Str1977 (talk) 11:24, 18 January 2009 (UTC)

Inclusion of Cornelius Agrippa

I was just wondering if any of you considered it relevant to this article to add the mention that the famed 14th century occultist and philosopher, Cornelius Agrippa was one of his councillors. DYBoulet talk 19:21, 13 October 2008 (AST)

Must have been quite an old geezer then. --OhNoPeedyPeebles (talk) 08:22, 9 May 2009 (UTC)

"Incest" and "keep the blood "pure."" - exagerated, no ?

The article says: "... the family line's multiple years of incest, which was very common in royal families of that era and was practiced in order to keep the blood "pure.""

In most cases, this was not incest, except when it was first cousins (and even in this case, I would argue that "incest" is not the right word). It was never any other case of incest as listed on the Incest page. maybe "inbreeding" would be a better word ? "consanguinity" is also a candidate.

Also, the goal of such marriages had nothing to do with keeping blood "pure" (whatever that means...): it was mostly, I believe, for political reasons (preventing fiefs, kingdoms, etc. to be split; maintain alliances; etc.).

I think this should be corrected.

First cousin marriage is not incest, as far as I know. There were some uncle-niece marriages (as for instance Philip II's fourth marriage), which might qualify, but I agree that "inbreeding" would be better. john k (talk) 02:37, 26 September 2009 (UTC)
Incest applies only to sexual relations/contact between relatives too closely related to marry, therefore there is no definitive point where something is or isn't incest since it varies by jurisdiction. In the case of the House of Austria, the marriages were permitted and therefore are not incestuous; the marriages were consanguineous. 142.68.80.29 (talk) 16:18, 5 October 2009 (UTC)

Charles I, King of Castile, Aragon, Valencia, Majorca, Princep of Catalonia....Spain is a modern country

The first King of Spain was Felipe V (Philip V). Before 1707, Spain was not a country, there were two diferent crowns, Castile and Aragon, and the Crown of Aragon included the Kingdom of Aragon, Kingdom of Valencia, Kingdom of Majorca and Principality of Catalonia. I'm from Spain and I know about it. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Dabilopez (talkcontribs) 23:26, 25 January 2010 (UTC)

Then please take your soapbox back to Spain and leave this article alone. You are not the first to make a big fuss about this supposed "inaccuracy". Str1977 (talk) 17:09, 16 June 2010 (UTC)

The Crown of Aragon dissapeared in 1714 with the conquest of Catalonia, Spain as a country is born this year with Philip V. There is a big confusion in most articles of Wikipedia between "Spain" as a geographical term and "Spain" as a country, that just is 3 centuries old. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 77.228.183.8 (talk) 17:27, 22 August 2010 (UTC)

The language he spoke.

What languange did Charles V spoke? was it Old High German, Old Castilian or perhaps Flemish (given his birth in Ghent? --Oren neu dag (talk) 15:43, 19 April 2009 (UTC)

His "mother-tongues" seem to have been French and Flemish, as he grew up there and French was the language of the court. Spanish (Castilian) he learnt only after the Castilian cortes had demanded this from him (on his first trip to Spain, aged seventeen he knew no Spanish). He would presumably have learnt Latin (I am not sure in this respect). There is a nice anectote: he is supposed to have said that German (he meant Flemish, he did not speak "hochdeutsch") one speaks with the horses, French with the ladies and Castilian with God! Unfortunately I don't have the relevant books at hand. Buchraeumer (talk) 14:23, 25 June 2009 (UTC)
The most quoted form is Spanish to God, Italian to men, French to women, and German to his horse. I've no idea if it's a real quote, though. I've never heard that he could not speak Hochdeutsch - I assume his Hochdeutsch wasn't especially good, but I would be surprised if an obviously multi-lingual native speaker of Flemish who ruled over Germany was unable to pick up enough German to be passable at it. john k (talk) 20:02, 8 September 2009 (UTC)
And of course, Old High German as well as Middle High German were no longer spoken by anybody at that time. Str1977 (talk) 17:15, 16 June 2010 (UTC)
Unless some one provides a reference other than a link to answers.com the quote "[...]Spanish to God, Italian to men, French to women, and German to his horse." should not be mentioned here. Let aside the lack of relevance of this quote in the rather short section "Heritage and early life". —Preceding unsigned comment added by 78.42.128.144 (talk) 22:12, 7 August 2010 (UTC)
Looks like it'd be "German" and French. Concepts like Flemish, Dutch, "Middle High German", etc, are later inventions [well, not Flemish maybe], and would have meant nothing to him. Not even sure "high German" and "low German" [the old name for northern German and Dutch] were concepts in this time (they weren't earlier), but someone can correct me if they were. Deacon of Pndapetzim (Talk) 22:37, 7 August 2010 (UTC)
That's not true. Charles V lived during the time when Middle Dutch (also known as Diets) was replaced by modern Dutch. To call the Dutch / Frisian languages during this era German (deutsch) is ridiculous, unless you mean Germanic. It was also the time when Middle High German was replaced by modern German. The German language isn't older than Dutch if that's what you believe. Germanic languages were. Or do you seriously consider the Act of Abjuration to be written in German? Grey Fox-9589 (talk) 16:33, 31 March 2011 (UTC)
Deacon can you explain to me why you reverted my action. To say Charles V spoke "Dutch/German" looks very silly and confusing. Charles V spoke Dutch, just like all the dukes after the Philip the Bold learned Dutch. Dutch and High German were not mutually intelligible and required translation. The same goes for Dutch and Low German. Also the suppused quote form Charles V was actually a quote by Frederick the Great from the 18th century. You also restored a citation from "answers.com". Grey Fox (talk) 16:52, 5 May 2011 (UTC)
I see you've now turned it into German/Dutch (there was no contemporary distinction). We're supposed to mention which languages Charles V spoke and I'm sure nobody doubts he spoke, what we call today, Dutch. So why do you feel like adding "German"? That's as silly as saying that Charlemagne spoke German. Also just for your information I'll quote for you: All the dukes after Philip the Bold learned Dutch and even Charles V was supposedly brought up to speak ‘thiois’, and Yet no one supposed that Dutch and German were mutually intelligible: High German texts had to be translated to be fully understood in the Dutch region, and this even applied to texts in the Gelders (Low Saxon) vernacular. Grey Fox (talk) 21:54, 5 May 2011 (UTC)

In fact, even Old Dutch had already split of from what later became modern German (Old Dutch led to Middle Dutch in the 12th century): http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:West_Germanic_languages_(simplified).png. Clearly the comment that there was no distinction should be removed. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 83.84.39.146 (talk) 23:09, 5 May 2011 (UTC)

Firstly, Old and Middle Dutch are modern constructs, and the comment in the reference is not about modern constructs but contemporary points-of-view. Secondly, no-one denies that the continental Germanic dialect continuum was diverse, but the point of the reference is that Dutch/German wasn't how it was broken up. As the reference indicates, the arly modern period saw a crystallization of two prestige dialects, with the term nederduuts ('low German') used for a prestige dialect in the north "spoken from Dunkirk to Riga". Thirdly, maybe Charles V knew the nederduuts better than southern Germanic dialects, but the claim that Charles V couldn't speak the language of southern parts needs some referencing. The High German of upper Saxony was, incidentally, just as 'foreign' and as indeed 'native' in places like Swabia and Bavaria as in Zeeland, Flanders or indeed Oldenburg; the 'standard German' of today was not the language of all of Germany until mass literacy and modern education systems made it so. Deacon of Pndapetzim (Talk) 23:39, 5 May 2011 (UTC)
Why don't you leave this issue to its appropriate pages such as Dutch language or Low German? Nobody reading about Charles V is interested in reading this, the page should simply list the languages he spoke, just like how all other sources on Charles V do. "Nederduuts" may also refer to either just low German or Dutch, also in that time: "both were described as ‘lingua teutonica’ and ‘neder duutsche’ might mean either Low German or Dutch". Modern linguistic differentiate between Dutch and Low German and this also applies to the 16th century since Middle Dutch was already replaced. That Charles V did not have a name for this language should not matter whatsoever. Sir William Wallace probably did not refer to Gaelic as Gaelic, and perhaps Jesus did not refer to his language as Aramaic, should that forbid us from mentioning them? Indeed Germanic languages in the dialect continuum did not have names back then. People referred to the West-Germanic languages as a whole to differentiate them from the Romance or welsch languages. And Charles V possibly referred to his language as Flemish, since the languages were often named after the regions in which they were at the time.Grey Fox (talk) 12:38, 6 May 2011 (UTC)
And why would it need referencing how Charles V didn't speak High German? The page should list the languages Charles spoke, not the languages he didn't speak. But I'll tell your right now that its rather unlikely for Charles to have spoken High German, since the importance of High German in Germany was only emerging at the time when the Luther Bible came out, and Charles V remained in the Low Countries for most of his life. He also surrounded himself with people from Flanders even in Spain. Grey Fox (talk) 12:38, 6 May 2011 (UTC)
Perhaps a contemporary view (as Deacon) suggests is relevant, however, we should use a contemporary Low Countries view than, as the contemporary English most likely did not distinguish between Japanese and Chinese either, making these view irrelevant for all but their view on the English language area. Arnoutf (talk) 19:14, 6 May 2011 (UTC)
The only problem mentioned so far by Deacon is that Dutch did not have a name at the time that corresponded to only Dutch (even though a name such as Flemish was used as pars pro toto for Dutch). If we want to add this contemporary view on Dutch we would consequently have to do the same with the other languages spoken by Charles. In his era Spanish did not refer to Castilian only, but also to Portuguese and Catalan. In his era Italian probably did not just refer to modern Italian only but also languages such as Friulan (if the name Italian was even used back then since Italian was only recently codified). The same goes for French and Occitan. I'm pretty sure we aren't supposed to turn an article on the biography of Charles V into that. We should simply list the languages spoken by Charles as mentioned by reliable sources, which are French, Flemish/Dutch, Spanish and Italian. None of these biographies bothered to explain 16th century view on language and neither should this article. Grey Fox (talk) 01:19, 7 May 2011 (UTC)

The quote "Spanish to God, Italian to men, French to women, and German to his horse." was said by Charles V of France, not the Holy Roman Emperor. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 116.49.137.19 (talk) 14:55, 30 September 2010 (UTC)

This is clearly untrue, all sources attribute it to Charles V of the Holy Roman Empire not of France. Why would a native French King be interested in speaking all those languages. Charles V of the Holy Roman Empire ruled Spain, Italy, Germany and was brought up in Flanders therefore he is much more likely to have made such quote. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 212.219.116.67 (talk) 11:26, 15 November 2010 (UTC)


It would really make sense to delete the quote. With its wittiness it sounds very much like one that was fabricated long after his era (I should think presumably in France or in England), and it is of paramount importance to reveal the source exactly in order to give at least an idea of how authentic the quote may be. My guess is that he never said such a thing. The alleged quote can certainly not serve as a proof of what the paragraph is about, i. e. which languages Charles V spoke.(141.91.129.4 (talk) 15:10, 28 December 2010 (UTC)).

It may be better not to mention the languages he spoke at all. Though I might say he was undoubtedly fluent in Latin, as all monarchs of the time were, or should have been. He would have been understood in Latin by all rehions of his empire.Gazzster (talk)
It shouldn't be much of a problem if we simply list the languages he spoke as provided by most sources, and don't add anything controversial by ourselves. I haven't found anything on him speaking Latin, maybe it wasn't the lingua franca in the 16th century? I've done some further reading and it seems that charles spoke French and Flemish fluently, later learned (not so good)-spanish and according to a few sources "some german" (german mentioned alongside flemish). I can't find anything on him speaking some Italian so I think we can best rewrite it all as:
"Charles was born in the Flemish city of Ghent in 1500. The culture and courtly life of the Burgundian Low Countries were an important influence in his early life. He was tutored by William de Croÿ (who would later become his first prime minister), and also by Adrian of Utrecht (later Pope Adrian VI). Charles spoke several vernacular languages: He was fluent in French and Flemish (now known as [[Dutch Language|Dutch)[1], later adding an acceptable Spanish which was required by the Castilian Cortes Generales as a condition for becoming King of Castile. He is also said to have spoken some German.[2] An anacdote sometimes attributed to Charles is: "I speak Spanish to God, Italian to women, French to men and German to my horse." But this quote has many variants and is often attributed instead to Frederick the Great.[3]"
As you can see I also cleared up the supposed anacdote of "german to my horse". I hope we can all agree on the way it is now. Grey Fox (talk) 00:40, 9 May 2011 (UTC)

Still lacking a chronology

This article continues to lack a comprehensible chronology of Charles's life. The guy was all over the place, and this article ought to clarify where he was and what he was doing at different points. From a variety of sources, I've been able to cobble together some fixed reference points. See User:John K/Charles V. We should try to incorporate some kind of chronological narrative into the article. john k (talk) 16:35, 10 October 2010 (UTC)

posthumous portrait

Is it really van Dyck? Doesn't very much look like one to me, could rather be El Greco. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 141.91.129.4 (talk) 14:45, 28 December 2010 (UTC)

Clarification on abdication dates

Charles didn't give up all his throne in 1556. In fact he remained HRE until 1558, having only given up his powers & duties before that. I understand there's a note in the infobox concerning his reigns, but it can still lead to confusion. GoodDay (talk) 15:01, 7 May 2011 (UTC)

The article says after he abdicated, he retired to a monastery. How could he have remained HRE until 1558 when he had abdicated in favour of Ferdinand?--Jeanne Boleyn (talk) 15:20, 7 May 2011 (UTC)
We've got inconsitancies. GoodDay (talk) 20:15, 7 May 2011 (UTC)
Where are these inconsistancies?--Jeanne Boleyn (talk) 08:38, 8 May 2011 (UTC)
Charlie didn't abdicate as HRE, until 1558. He merely gave up his imperial duties in 1556. The succession boxes at the bottom of the article, shows the exact dates of his multiple abdications. GoodDay (talk) 04:15, 9 May 2011 (UTC)
My understanding is that Charles abdicated, including the Holy Roman Empire, in 1556. However, the Diet did not recognize his abdication and Ferdinand's accession as emperor until 1558. john k (talk) 14:11, 12 September 2011 (UTC)
    • ^ Congleton, "Perfecting Parliament", p. 414; Hilliam, "Philip II: King of Spain and leader of the Counter-Reformation", p. 68
    • ^ Slocum-Bradley, "Promoting conflict or peace through identity", p. 25; De Vries, "Brussels: a cultural and literary history" p. 84
    • ^ Burke, "Languages and communities in early modern Europe" p. 28; Holzberger, "The letters of George Santayana" p. 299