Talk:Philip of Swabia

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


Wait, since he was elected King of the Germans, shouldn't the title be "Philip of Germany"? -Alex, 06:56, 16 February 2006 (UTC).

It's messy - the "of X" appendage is primarily for sovereigns of nations with actual defined territory, but at this time there was no "Germany" as such, just German peoples. Category:German kings shows a few "of Germany"s, but IMHO that should be reserved for post-1870. Stan 13:42, 16 February 2006 (UTC)

Well, the primary constituent of the Holy Roman Empire was the "Kingdom of the Germans", as the title the Emperors were actually elected to was "King of the Germans", and became Emperors only after coronation, whether by the Pope or the Archbishop of Mainz. To put this in perspective, the reoyal title of Louis-Phillpe of France was actually "King of the French", but the article here is of "Louis Phillipe of France". The article of Philip should be retitled as "Philip of Germany". -Alex, 08:59, 18 February 2006 (UTC).

Despite all that, is he ever called anything but Philip of Swabia? This is just what we call him, so don't move it. Adam Bishop 20:25, 20 February 2006 (UTC)

Yes, in several sources and also in documents of his own era, he is called, and he himself calls himself, "Philip, king of Romans" - "rex Romanorum". This makes Philip, Roman King, Philip of Holy Roman Empire, Philip, King of Romans and even Philip, German King (Philip, rex Teutonicum...) quite acceptable names for the article. Shilkanni 14:20, 24 May 2006 (UTC)

Hmmm. I'm guessing you're a conservative, AB. You seem to not want to change anything, despite the fact that it would be more accurate for it to be "of Germany". I mean, look and Conrad III's or Rudolph I's articles. They are both "of Germany". -Alex, 06:11, 13 June 2006 (UTC).

Robert de Clari calls him Emperor of Germany. Gunther von Pairis calls him Philip of Swabia. Geoffrey of Villehardouin calls him King Philip of Germany. 'Of Swabia' is just the shortest and most established moniker, from his first title of nobility. That's the name he goes by in pretty much any secondary source you'll see. Umma Kynes 19:07, 28 November 2010 (UTC)

Uhh, it notes in the text for the Strassbourg page that King Phillip of Swabia granted the city of Strassbourg the status of Imperial Free City in 1262, but here it notes that he died in 1208. Since he would have been dead for 54 years by the time he granted Strassbourg that status, it seems unlikely that he was responsible. Voxexmachina (talk) 05:04, 8 February 2010 (UTC)

True. However the date of 1262 is correct, it wasn't Philipp who granted Strassbourg this status - in fact, there existed no real king of the romans at this period of time: there were two men elected: Richard of Cornwall and Alfons X. of Castile. While the latter was related to Philipp, he never set foot on imperial ground. Richard visited the empire at several ocasions, so it seems possible, that he granted this rights to Strassbourg. (talk) 18:26, 18 September 2010 (UTC)


Any note on his excommunication? Donald M. Nicol says in his "Byzantium and Venice: A Study in Diplomatic and Cultural Relations" that Philip was excommunicated, but does not say why. Umma Kynes 19:07, 28 November 2010 (UTC)