Talk:Prince-elector

message: Is it appropriate to give "Electoral Prince" as an equivalent to "Prince-Elector"?  My understanding was that the former term was generally used for heirs to Prince-Electors, and not for prince-electors themselves. john k 06:48, 22 Dec 2004 (UTC)
thread_title: Electoral Prince

message: Link to Chamberlain is to a disambiguation page. It seems that term chamberlain in this context is not mentioned there. Can somebody even link chamberlain to a correct article or create it as red link? Can somebody confirm me that term chamberlain in this context is not mentioned on disambiguation page? --Jan.Smolik 09:34, 15 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Chamberlain 

message: The following passage (from Composition, 1st paragraph after bulleted lists) is both pedantic and poorly edited. 
:By the thirteenth century, the Franconian and Swabian ducal lines became extinct (both had been most recently been held by the Hohenstaufen, Swabia as their ancestral duchy and extinct in 1268, Franconia as a sort of secundogeniture, extinct much earlier, but Franconian ducal lands had been passed through inheritances to Count Palatine of the Rhine, heirs of Frederick Barbarossa's younger brother); their electoral claims passed to the Count Palatine of the Rhine, Imperial Arch-Stewards and holders of the ancient capital Aachen, and the Margrave of Brandenburg, Imperial Arch-Chamberlains since Albert the Bear. 
The passage implies, but does not clearly state, that electoral privileges used to reside in the Franconian and Swabian ducal lines, then later passed to the Count Palatine of the Rhine and the Margrave of Brandenburg. If that is the case, that is what we should state in the article. However no source is given, and the 1911 Britannica  doesn't mention it. Overall the contribution is of poor quality and likely to confuse readers. I have removed it. -- Rob C (Alarob) 17:22, 28 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Language tangle 

message: User:Fabartus was kind enough to add to the introduction of this article the following: "When the term "Elector" or "election of a king" is mentioned during the High Middle Ages and afterwards, the term almost certainly is refering to that curiously inept geopolitical entity that managed somehow to last century after century, usually to the detriment of the common people of Europe run over by the wars that ensued." Seems a bit... POV to me. 205.157.110.11 01:01, 11 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: no not really. just the usual bullshit of whose knowledge sucks big time.--Tresckow (talk) 03:24, 12 December 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  HRE Criticism Edit 

message: The table of contents template used for the article Imperial election —  — is currently nominated for deletion. If you have an opinion on the custom ToC layout used in this article, please contribute to the relevant TfD discussion. — OwenBlacker (Talk) 13:42, 16 July 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  Imperial election table of contents 

message: OK so when the Habsburgs took over the kingdom of Bohemia,  did it continue to be
an electorate ?   So did the Habsburgs get an automatic vote for themselves to be Emperor ?Eregli bob (talk) 13:14, 31 January 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes they did. They also 'bribed' a number of other electors to ensure their election as Emperor. Ds1994 (talk) 15:02, 25 May 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  Bohemia 

message: It should be noted that from early in the sixteenth century the formal and correct title of the Empire is the 'Holy Roman Empire of the German Nation'. 
Quite frankly I'm astonished this hasn't been mentioned.Ds1994 (talk) 15:05, 25 May 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: *:It is mentioned in the article on the Holy Roman Empire.  I suppose it is similar to using United Kingdom, versus United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland.  Cheers.  EricSerge (talk) 16:33, 25 May 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: The title is a substantive one, as suggested in the article, and referenced to many source materials I have read.Ds1994 (talk) 19:04, 29 May 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: The formal title was "Sacrum Romanum Imperium" or Holy Roman Empire. The "of German nation" occassionally appeared in 16th and 17th century meaning "those parts of the empire that are predominantly German-speaking". It was quite a common term in that time, see Luther's tract "To the Christian Nobility of the German nation" and the like.--MacX85 (talk) 07:43, 9 October 2013 (UTC)
thread_title:  Holy Roman Empire of the German Nation 

message: Why is the Bohemian king's title in Czech relevant in this Holy Roman / German context?It is even listed before the German. 99.238.134.143 (talk) 19:41, 2 August 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  král český 

message: The arms depicted for Regensburg are the present city arms. That's not right. I have a picture of the right arms but I'm not sure about the copyright situation.... Gerard von Hebel (talk) 15:48, 25 October 2015 (UTC)
replies: text: The arms itself may not be, but the artists depiction of it might. Gerard von Hebel (talk) 17:15, 26 October 2015 (UTC)
thread_title:  Regensburg arms 

message: It'd be good to get some clarity on the participation of the King of Bohemia. I found an old source (from 1716) which seems to suggest that it's only in the fifteenth century (the elections of 1400, 1410-11, 1438, 1440, and 1486) that Bohemia was excluded. I know that, until much later (1708, apparently), Bohemia did not participate in the non-electoral proceedings of the College of Electors. I'm fairly certain that Maria Theresa's representative was kicked out of the 1741-1742 election after the French and Bavarians took Prague, allowing for Charles VII's unanimous election. I *think* the King of Bohemia's representative did participate in the 1519 election. I'm not clear on the elections from 1531 to 1690, when the King of Bohemia was always the one elected. It appears to me that he sent a representative, but generally that representative did not himself participate in the vote? But I'm not clear on that. Any sources would be useful so that we can clarify this in the article. john k (talk) 13:24, 26 October 2015 (UTC)
replies: text: I can't answer your question, but I have a point of my own I want to clarify, when it's written "Meanwhile, the King of Bohemia, who held the ancient imperial office of Arch-Cupbearer, asserted his right to participate in elections. Sometimes he was challenged on the grounds that his kingdom was not German, though usually he was recognized, instead of Bavaria which after all was just a younger line of Wittelsbachs". I've added a citation needed tag, as this is an interesting claim but is unsourced. Mabandalone (talk) 11:33, 5 March 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  King of Bohemia 

message: Elector was an office of the Holy Roman Empire. All Electors, were also Duke's Princes, Prince-Bishops or Grand Dukes and Kings of their states. Hanover (or Brunswick-Luneburg) didn't stop being a Duchy upon gaining the Electorate, and the Elector did not stop being a Duke, taking the Electoral title instead. Same goes for all others. It was an additional title for the ruler of the specific territory. It didn't replace the titles they had before. The article doesn't reflect that. Gerard von Hebel (talk) 16:29, 14 May 2016 (UTC)
replies: text: I don't know the area so well, but are you sure? Maximilian I, Elector of Bavaria article, for example, distinguishes clearly that Maximilian I was Duke of Bavaria until he became an elector, being Prince Elector afterwards. Same with many other articles. Solid sources would be needed to change that everywhere. No longer a penguin (talk) 18:45, 17 May 2016 (UTC)
replies: text: That doesn't need to be a worry. Í don't think it is everywhere. I'd have to check specifically but most articles on Electoral states of the HRE that I've seen are not a problem, where this is concerned. Look here for instance, where it's very well explained (mark the word 'adittionally' in the second paragraph of the introduction). Even this one, that you have mentioned, says nothing that would be problematic versus this issue as far as I've read. A source must be easy to find I think, since this is basically common knowledge. Gerard von Hebel (talk) 19:27, 17 May 2016 (UTC)
replies: text: While I agree that an electorate was a high office in the Holy Roman Empire, it came with certain privileges which gradually brought it to be perceived as a title of suzerainty that was invariably used in place of any other title save those of king and emperor. That is why, after the abolition of the HRE in 1806, the ruler of Hesse-Kassel, recently elevated from landgrave, chose to reign as Elector, although there was no longer anything to which he had the right to "elect" anyone. Among an electorate's most important privileges was, aside from the right to vote to fill vacancies in the Imperial crown, the office and vote could only be held and wielded by one individual, which meant that it conferred primogeniture upon the main, defined Imperial fief of its possessor. This was important because German titles and lands did not descend by primogeniture and eldest sons had no unilateral right, without the consent of all male agnates, to impose primogeniture, resulting in the fragmentation that kept German dukelings and princelings petty and prevented German consolidation. But electors had other prerogatives appertaining to monarchs beyond those of other Imperial princes. So although technically correct that the hereditary title of the members of an elector's family derived from his territorial fief rather than from the Imperial office, in practice I'd say that the title and position came to be viewed as the title in HRE ranking between king and duke (grand dukes only proliferated in replacement of that title as the HRE was dissolving in the early 19th century). FactStraight (talk) 01:48, 18 May 2016 (UTC)

text: All of the articles on Bavaria seem to treat electorate as a title that replaced the Dutchy. See Duchy of Bavaria, Electorate of Bavaria and List of rulers of Bavaria. Old editions of Britanicca also have a way of referring to all rules of Bavaria as Electors (and kings, later) and not Dukes. Might it have been different in different electorates? No longer a penguin (talk) 13:26, 18 May 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  Elector was not the title of a ruler 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified one external link on Prince-elector. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20040604170137/http://www.heraldica.org/topics/national/reichsstande.htm to http://www.heraldica.org/topics/national/reichsstande.htm
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 16:00, 20 May 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: The page says that the new Electorates created by Napoleon were not approved by the Emperor. Is that correct? My understanding was that Franz II did in fact approve the reorganization in 1803. Emperor001 (talk) 15:15, 10 April 2018 (UTC)
replies: text: I believe he approved in this document.  https://de.m.wikisource.org/wiki/Hauptschluß_der_außerordentlichen_Reichsdeputation_vom_25._Februar_1803 Emperor001 (talk) 15:24, 10 April 2018 (UTC)
thread_title: Approved by the Emperor

message: The following Wikimedia Commons files used on this page have been nominated for deletion:
*  ()
*  ()
Participate in the deletion discussions at the nomination pages linked above. —Community Tech bot (talk) 02:50, 9 January 2020 (UTC)
thread_title:  Commons files used on this page have been nominated for deletion 

message: :The following is a closed 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 after discussing it on the closer's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion. 
The result of the move request was: not moved (non-admin closure)  Bada Kaji (talk • श्रीमान् गम्भीर) 15:42, 21 September 2021 (UTC)
replies: text: Prince-elector →  – The page name Prince-elector has been questioned since 2004, and I believe that the WP:COMMONNAME of the title is simply "elector", which can be disambiguated by adding "of the Holy Roman Empire". In Wikipedia the members of :Category:Electors of the Holy Roman Empire are disambiguated as elector rather than prince-elector and, as an example, "Elector of Brandenburg"  is used 984 times and "Prince-elector of Brandenburg" only 32 times. The context is a proposal to rename "Category:Electors of the Holy Roman Empire" as "Category:Prince-electors of the Holy Roman Empire". TSventon (talk) 06:35, 14 September 2021 (UTC)
replies: text: Oppose this variant: natural disambiguation is preferable to parenthetical disambiguation (WP:NATURALDIS). Opera hat (talk) 18:55, 17 September 2021 (UTC)
replies: text: It isn't common enough to be used, and annoying to type because there's no pipe trick for it. —Kusma (talk) 21:01, 19 September 2021 (UTC)
thread_title:  Requested move 14 September 2021