Talk:Frederick III, Holy Roman Emperor

message: This article was automatically  assessed because at least one article was rated and this bot brought all the other ratings up to at least that level. BetacommandBot 11:40, 27 August 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  WikiProject class rating

message: On the German version of this page ( http://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Friedrich_III._(HRR) ) the following source is cited regarding the cause of death: Paul-Joachim Heinig: Art.: Friedrich III. (1440–93) In: Höfe und Residenzen im spätmittelalterlichen Reich. Ein dynastisch-topographisches Handbuch, herausgegeben von Werner Paravicini (= Residenforschung, 15), Bd. I: Dynastien und Höfe, Ostfildern 2003, S. 341–351.
The section on "Death" could be amended to more accurately read:
On the 8th of June 1493, Frederick's left leg became gangrenous and was amputated. The amputation was successful. On 19th August 1493, he died at the age of 77 in Linz, Austria. The reason for his death was unclear, but it was rumored that after fasting, he ate too much watermelon causing extreme diarrhea and then death. 
 
His grave, built by Nikolaus Gerhaert von Leyden, in the Stephansdom in Vienna, is one of the most important works of sculptural art of the late Middle Ages. His amputed leg was buried with him. His heart and intestines were buried in the Linzer Stadtpfarrkirche (Linz parish church).  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 88.117.112.105 (talk) 20:32, 16 January 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  Cause of death 

message: Can anyone provide a source that calls him this? He is Frederick V of Austria and Emperor Frederick III. The other numeration is never used by anybody. john k (talk) 14:13, 21 September 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: It might be a case of one editor doing his own counting, but I found this which indicates that others have done this before him. It is about a 17th-century list of 13 concertos in honour of the Habsburg emperors up to that time. This too indicates the numeral IV was the Habsburg standard once upon a time, but not to the exclusion of the imperial numeral III. Srnec (talk) 18:32, 9 October 2013 (UTC)
thread_title:  German King as Frederick IV 

message: The second line of the section on his being Holy Roman Emperor says "Frederick III was crowned Holy Roman Emperor in 1452, following the death of his father." I believe this to be in error. He became Holy Roman Emperor in 1452, but his father died in 1424. The way that sentence is written seems to imply that he essentially inherited the Emperorship from his father, but this was not true, as his father was not Holy Roman Emperor. Can anyone provide clarification on this, and potentially tag this as an issue in the article itself? Serogers02 (talk) 16:14, 5 August 2020 (UTC)
thread_title:  Emperor 

message: The third paragraph under Emperor begins with the sentence,
"Mary soon made her choice among the many suitors for her hand by selecting Archduke Maximilian of Austria, the future Holy Roman Emperor Maximilian I, who became her co-ruler."
This is very confusing because there is no prior mention in the article of Mary and  Maximilian or what connection this information has to Frederick III. 
Apparently, this sentence was added to the article on May 10, 2020. Prior to that edit, the paragraph began with  "Still, in some ways his policies were astonishingly successful. In the Siege of Neuss (1474–75), he forced Charles the Bold of Burgundy to give up his daughter Mary of Burgundy as wife to Frederick's son Maximilian."
I prefer the pre-May 10, 2020 wording because
1) Frederick III is the subject instead of the previously unmentioned Mary.
2) It actually tells us who Mary and Maximilian are and their connection to the subject of the article.
2) it mentions Charles the Bold. The paragraph is preceded by an otherwise confusing picture of Frederick III meeting Charles the Bold, who is not currently mentioned in the article.
Despite all of these points in favor of the older text, I am hesitant to revert the to it because it was uncited, and a citation is given for the current text. I do not have access to the source cited to see if it would support the older text.
I would appreciate other opinions on whether to restore the old text or ways to reword it that are less confusing and can be supported with a citation. LordApofisu (talk) 15:51, 31 October 2021 (UTC)
thread_title:  Current wording extremely confusing but properly cited; older wording much clearer and detailed but lacking citation -thoughts? 

message: The article currently reads "Because the emperor had been unable to retrieve the Iron Crown of Lombardy from the cathedral of Monza where it was kept, nor be crowned King of Italy by the archbishop of Milan (on account of Frederick's dispute with Francesco Sforza, lord of Milan), he convinced the pope to crown him as such with the German crown, which had been brought for the purpose. This coronation took place on the morning of 16 March, in spite of the protests of the Milanese ambassadors, and in the afternoon Frederick and Eleanor were married by the pope. Finally, on 19 March, Frederick and Eleanor were anointed in St Peter's Basilica by the Vice-Chancellor of the Holy Roman Church, Cardinal Francesco Condulmer, and Frederick was then crowned with the Imperial Crown by the pope.M. Creighton, A History of the Papacy During the Period of the Reformation, Volume II: The Council of Basel to the Papal Restoration, 1418–1464 (London: Longmans, 1882), pp. 297–99.". This refers to the 'German crown' (not wikified) and to the Imperial Crown. Coronation_of_the_Holy_Roman_Emperor#Crowns says " Apparently, once Frankfurt had become the normal site for the German royal coronation [in 1562], the Imperial Crown was always used and thus eventually became identified as the Crown of Charlemagne.Twining (1960) - *"
I suggest that the article should clarify whether the 'German crown' and the 'Imperial crown' are the same crown or two separate crowns. If the latter, it should give more details about the 'German crown'. Alekksandr (talk) 22:56, 4 December 2022 (UTC)
thread_title: Coronations