Talk:Wenceslaus IV of Bohemia

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


Did Wenceslaus ever claim the title "Holy Roman Emperor"? Srnec 20:00, 3 April 2006 (UTC)

The first man not crowned Emperor by the Pope who called himself Emperor was, I believe, Maximilian I, about a century after Wenceslaus. john k 21:46, 3 April 2006 (UTC)

Thankyou. I knew of Maximilian, but the article was a bit unclear to me in whether or not he claimed the imperial title but never was legally crowned. Srnec 01:48, 4 April 2006 (UTC)

I'm really confused when it comes to his family tree, as displayed in the says that St. Kinga was his great grandmother, yet her Wikipedia article specifically states that she "never consummated her marriage" and makes no mention that she ever had any children. I haven't been able to find any other mention of her giving birth either. Is the Wikipedia family tree accurate? IrisLaRue (talk) 02:52, 15 July 2008 (UTC)


 In 1389, the nearly entire Jewish community of Prague was wiped out during the "Easter Tumult"
 in the absence of the king. Returning from Cheb, Wenceslas, who was supposed to protect
 the life and properties of Bohemian Jews, got hold of parts of the robbery after the massacre.

1) "The nearly entire Jewish community" I presume is intended to mean "almost the entire Jewish population". As it stands, it reads as if almost the entire population was Jewish (and, almost as an aside, was massacred).

2) What robbery?? And what does "got hold of" mean there? He was receiver of stolen goods?!

--Michael Noel Jones 16:01, 2 January 2007 (UTC)

1402 Imprisonment Citation[edit]

I located what appears to be a reliable citation for this, which happens to be the website for the city of Prague. They say it happened in 1403, however. I'm unsure whether to list it, as they don't list their source. --Dulcimerist (talk) 06:54, 17 March 2009 (UTC)

Requested move[edit]

The following discussion is an archived discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the move request was: moved to "Wenceslaus IV of Bohemia". DrKiernan (talk) 15:55, 3 October 2012 (UTC)

Wenceslaus, King of the RomansWenceslaus IV – Wenceslaus IV was by inheritance and longer Bohemian King not only of Romans, so i suggest this move Jirka.h23 (talk) 16:21, 19 September 2012 (UTC)

  • Comment: What do sources call him? bobrayner (talk) 13:28, 23 September 2012 (UTC)
  • Strongly oppose. The title of King of the Romans was far more prestigious than that of a Bohemian king. In fact, Bohemian kings were vassals of (subordinate to) kings and emperors of the Romans. It would be equal to moving Charles IV, Holy Roman Emperor and Sigismund, Holy Roman Emperor to Charles I of Bohemia and Sigismund of Bohemia respectively on the grounds of their holding the Bohemian title longer than the "Roman" one. All that aside, articles about Bohemian (and other) kings would suggest the title Wenceslaus IV of Bohemia. Once again, I oppose the proposed move. Surtsicna (talk) 14:13, 23 September 2012 (UTC)
  • Reply to oppose. And for me is far more prestigious Bohemian King than that of Romans:) They werent any vassals of German kings, do you know that Charles IV. proclaimed hostility to Otto V. and invaded Brandenburg, then after two years of conflict in 1373 Brandenburg become part of the Czech lands? I am not saying to move it to "Wenceslaus, King of the Bohemia", but only suggest "Wenceslaus IV". Jirka.h23 (talk) 17:24, 23 September 2012 (UTC)
    • First of all (as I said before), Wenceslaus IV would be inconsistent with other articles in Category:Bohemian monarchs. Secondly, it doesn't matter what's more prestigious to you. It's a fact that a ruler of the Holy Roman Empire ranked higher than a ruler of Bohemia - which is natural, since Bohemia was only a part of the Empire. Yes, the Kingdom of Bohemia was a part of the Holy Roman Empire and its rulers were therefore vassals of (subordinate to) the rulers of the Holy Roman Empire. That fact can't possibly be any clearer; all these books (as well as these) confirm so. I've got no idea what you meant by giving me that lesson about Charles IV. Surtsicna (talk) 16:20, 23 September 2012 (UTC)
      • Yes it doesnt matter what is more prestigious you started it and yes they was vassals same as German Kings to Emperors. But he was NOT Holy Roman Emperor. I giving you a lesson because you said they are vassals to Roman (German) Kings. Even Britannica call him title: "Wenceslas (king of Bohemia and Germany)" look here Jirka.h23 (talk) 16:35, 23 September 2012 (UTC)
And why do you think it would be inconsistent in Category:Bohemian monarchs? So what could be more suitable for you? "Wenceslaus, King of Bohemia and Germany" or "Wenceslaus of Bohemia and Germany"? But i think Wenceslaus IV is ok. Jirka.h23 (talk) 17:24, 23 September 2012 (UTC)

=>So in that case i support Wenceslaus IV of Bohemia, because he was king by inheritance and till end of his life. This could be done thanks to Golden Bull of Sicily from 1212 a formal edict confirming hereditary kings title for Czech king and his descendants and they should be exempt from all future obligations to the Holy Roman Empire except for participation in the imperial councils (i think as the only Kingdom in Empire). But still do you have any reason to not support "Wenceslaus of Bohemia and Germany" ? Its same case like for example Vladislaus II of Bohemia and Hungary. Jirka.h23 (talk) 07:02, 24 September 2012 (UTC)

  • Hello? Surtsicna and The Emperor's New Spy, no talk anymore? Can we find consensus? Jirka.h23 (talk) 07:09, 26 September 2012 (UTC)
    • What is there left to say? The trend lately is that nobody care about these move requests and they are just not moved with one to two comments/votes. My three choices are in my last comment. I advise you to bring this to more people's attention if you want anything conclusive. Best wishes--The Emperor's New Spy (talk) 08:13, 26 September 2012 (UTC)
      • Ok so we both found consensus for Wenceslaus IV of Bohemia, but question was do you have any reason to not support "Wenceslaus of Bohemia and Germany" ? Its same case like for example Vladislaus II of Bohemia and Hungary, i still think its better move.. Jirka.h23 (talk) 09:03, 26 September 2012 (UTC)
        • Vladislaus II of Bohemia and Hungary is a weird case since there was already a Vladislaus II of Bohemia and a Ladislaus II of Hungary and a Vladislaus II Jagiellon; his brother title is Louis II of Hungary, ignoring Bohemia, and their father just ignores all his countries in the title altogether. Only exception to the double country name is Leon and Castile during the period when the two kingdoms had equal status and were united under one ruling family for many generation. Since Wenceslaus bears a regnal number for Bohemia, as the fourth, and none for Germany and Germany and Bohemia had no union of any sort other than the fact sometimes a King of Germany was also King of Bohemia, I don't think Wenceslaus of Bohemia and Germany will work.

Wenceslaus, King of the RomansWenceslaus IV of Bohemia – After "Wenceslaus IV" discussion, was only consensus found on "Wenceslaus IV of Bohemia" so now i am suggesting this sollution. Jirka.h23 (talk) 10:50, 26 September 2012 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page or in a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

link rot[edit]

the url to note 1, no longer loads - what's the procedure in this case? Stefflbw (talk) 08:39, 30 September 2015 (UTC)