Talk:Charles I of Austria

message: __TOC__
:The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposal
Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. No further edits should be made to this section. ''
The result of the debate was no consensus, leaning on don't move. —Nightstallion (?) Seen this already? 14:09, 22 April 2006 (UTC)

message: *Support I feel that this move with bring the title into consistency with the greater number of rulers of the Austrian and Holy Roman Empires. Charles 19:55, 17 April 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Survey

message: I removed following section: and the last king of The Czech Kingdom. His titles claimed of course that he was king of Bohemia, king of Croatia, duke of Carinthia asf, but he reigned in Cisleithania (which included Bohemia and Carinthia) in his right as emperor of Austria and in Transleithania (which included Croatia) in his right as king of Hungary. Either we add all of his titles or we just restrict ourselves in stating that he was the last emperor of Austria and last king of Hungary (since those were the constitutionally "important" ones). Gugganij 16:51, 10 Jul 2004 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree that this should be at Charles I of Austria. Charles 16:09, 26 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I don't know about this. How would you explain Wilhelm I of Germany and Ludwig II of Bavaria in that case? Gryffindor 16:50, 18 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Usage, for Ludwig. Wilhelm should be moved. Septentrionalis 02:06, 20 April 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Talk Material up to April 17, 2006 

message: At the bottom of the Mihály Károlyi infobox, it reads that Károlyi was preceded by Karl I of Austria as "Provisional President of Hungary". This thread completely gets lost in this article. Could somebody please add this infobox (completed) to the article?
Thanks, Adam78 00:03, 12 Apr 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Addition to the infobox about his being Provisional President of Hungary

message: Shouldn't the article's title be "Charles I of Austria", following the convention to anglisize the names? Karl is his german name, the translation of Charles into german.
Alex 12.220.157.93 10:46, 27 December 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree that this should be at Charles I of Austria. Charles 16:09, 26 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I don't know about this. How would you explain Wilhelm I of Germany and Ludwig II of Bavaria in that case? Gryffindor 16:50, 18 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Usage, for Ludwig. Wilhelm should be moved. Septentrionalis 02:06, 20 April 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Title Naming 

message: The article says "He reigned as Emperor Charles I of Austria, King Charles III of Bohemia and King Charles IV of Hungary from 1916 until 1918". Karl was certainly titular King of Bohemia but he did not reign as such as Bohemia was included in Austria. I'll remove the reference.Gerard von Hebel 20:29, 21 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: He was the last king and monarch of the kingdom fo Bohemia, founded as a princely state around 870, sure, that's not important . --93.185.50.19 (talk) 07:53, 12 August 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  King of Bohemia 

message: :Add  # Support  or  # Oppose  on a new line in the appropriate section followed by a brief explanation, then sign your opinion using ~~~~.  Please remember that this survey is not a vote, and please provide an explanation for your recommendation.
====Survey - in support of the move====
# Support As nominator. Charles 01:48, 6 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Survey

message: # Support As nominator. Charles 01:48, 6 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Survey - in support of the move

message: Since Charles can either be refered to as Charles of Austria or Charles I of Austria, his grandfather and great-grandfather ought to be refered to the same way. 
Since titles are generally not are used, for consistancy's sake, use titles for all entries in the chart.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by Cladeal832 (talk • contribs) 19:02, 13 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Incorrect, when the ancestry charts were first being implemented, they were being linked as the article titles did or should appear, according to WP:NC(NT) and also to avoid redirects. They are going to be changed back to that form for the sake of consistency with article titles and with WP:NC(NT), which is a standard for article titles. Wikipedia is not consistent for all royals and WP:NC(NT) only gives consistency for groups of royals, such as monarchs, consorts and other royals. Charles 20:20, 13 November 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Ancestry Section 

message: Summary - I have removed the many un-needed & "space-waisting" info boxes, which are rather silly. I removed the section on the Emperor's issue, which is listed twice in the article. Should one need to see if his issue has issue of their own, one can access that partiocular subject's respective article.
In an affort to improve lay out, I put all images into a gallery - these images really didn't look right where they were placed.
I have always felt that one of the resons that wikipedia gets an occasional bad reputation is due to the complete disregard for layout. Many articles look horrible.
--Mrlopez2681 (talk) 10:57, 27 March 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Summary of my edits on March 27, 2008 

message: Since Charles was heir presumptive did he ever hold the title of Crown Prince-Croix 129
*No, that title was reserved for the eldest son of the Emperor.  It had been vacant ever since the death of Crown Prince Rudolf in 1889 -Lec CRP1 (talk) 13:14, 7 May 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: There were only ever three Crown Princes of Austria - the future Emperor Ferdinand, Rudolf, and Otto. john k (talk) 17:16, 7 May 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Is it known if a collateral agnate could have ever been Crown Prince of Hungary and/or Bohemia? Charles 17:35, 7 May 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: I wouldn't think anyone but an heir apparent would be called a crown prince, which is just an informal style, rather than a formal title, anyway. john k (talk) 21:19, 7 May 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Crown Prince 

message: Charles's reign as King of Hungary was 1916-18 (due to his abdication). But his reign as Emperor of Austria should be 1916-19 (as he didn't abdicate, but rather the Austrian monarchy was abolished, in 1919). GoodDay (talk) 16:10, 4 April 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: He withdrew from the throne, or something similar.  He was not the reigning emperor of Austria after November 11, 1918, at any rate. john k (talk) 05:01, 9 July 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Austrian & Hungarian reigns 

message: I notice in the sectin of Official Grand titles a lot of "etc.", as in King of Jerusalem, etc.  Is this for a formal reason or did the author not know what to put?
--Eddylyons (talk) 23:24, 10 April 2009 (UTC)
replies: text:  I removed the etc, etc. from the section.  --Eddylyons (talk) 16:24, 17 November 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Official Grand Titles 

message: This is pretty ridiculous.  In 2006 Charles tries a move from Karl I of Austria to Charles I of Austria.  It doesn't get too many votes, but there was obviously no consensus to move at all.  A year later, he tries again.  This time, nobody notices, he gets one other person to vote in favor of the move, and it gets moved.  That just isn't a consensus to move at all.  john k (talk) 05:01, 9 July 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: Well, I'll support it retroactively as usage; see for example Nicholson's history of WWI. But the real problem is that he is not Charles I of Austria; he is only the first Charles if the locator is the Dual Monarchy. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 19:06, 14 September 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: And if the locator is the Empire of Austria. Surtsicna (talk) 19:49, 14 September 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: More the Empire of Austria than the Dual Monarchy; he was Charles IV of Hungary.  Ferdinand I did not reign over the Dual Monarchy, and is still at Ferdinand I of Austria, in spite of the existence of numerous previous Ferdinands who were archduke of Austria.  As to usage, Hew Strachan and John Keegan's histories of World War I use "Karl I".  On the other hand, most of the general histories of the Habsburg Monarchy that I can find (e.g. Robin Okey, Alan Sked, Robert Kann, A.C. Macartney) use Charles.  I think both usages are in fact pretty common in English, and I'm no longer too worked up about this.  If we're going to have the anglicized form for every other Habsburg, though, we should probably go to Francis Joseph I of Austria, which has similar usage patterns (although Okey, puzzlingly, uses anglicized forms for every monarch except Franz Joseph, so I guess we're in good company). john k (talk) 20:10, 14 September 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Page location 

message: I check pages listed in :Category:Pages with incorrect ref formatting to try to fix reference errors. One of the things I do is look for content for orphaned references in wikilinked articles. I have found content for some of :Charles I of Austria's orphans, the problem is that I found more than one version. I can't determine which (if any) is correct for this article, so I am asking for a sentient editor to look it over and copy the correct ref content into this article.
Reference named "Brook-Shepherd":
From Rudolf Carl von Slatin: 
From Zita of Bourbon-Parma: Brook-Shepherd.
I apologize if any of the above are effectively identical; I am just a simple computer program, so I can't determine whether minor differences are significant or not. AnomieBOT⚡ 09:09, 9 April 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  Orphaned references in [[:Charles I of Austria]] 

message: Most of the assessments have no references. Whereas I can trace Helmut Rumpler's statement back to an article in the British newspaper The Guardian , the quotes by Anatole France and Herbert Vivian have no source and are probably taken from the essay Why an Austrian Emperor should be canonized by Br. Nathan Cochran, O.S.B., published on Charles' beatification and canonization site, surely not a neutral source. Why should lengthy quotes by a French novelist and an obscure journalist (?) be pitted against a historian's assessment in the first place? Neither do I understand, what the significance of Paul von Hindenburg's statement from 1920 (!) might be. In short, the whole section is not based on reliable sources, but on primary sources, biased in its selection of quotes and unbalanced in as much critics are hardly represented.--Assayer (talk) 16:12, 15 January 2013 (UTC)
thread_title:  NPOV dispute ''Assessment'' 

message: I have a question that hopefully someone can answer.  Since Jerusalem was under the control of the Ottoman Empire, how was the monarch of Austria-Hungary the King of Jerusalem?  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 108.70.93.116 (talk) 22:47, 30 September 2013 (UTC)
thread_title:  King of jerusalem? 

message: 'Charles became heir presumptive after the assassination of Archduke Franz Ferdinand in Sarajevo in 1914...'
If Charles became Heir Presumptive, who was Heir Apparent? Valetude (talk) 13:56, 22 October 2013 (UTC)
thread_title:  Heir presumptive? 

message: 1. Why is he Charles I and not just Charles? There has been no Charles II.
2. Is he not much better known in English as Karl? The practice of calling European monarchs by English names has just about died out. Almost no-one refers to Francis Joseph anymore. Intelligent Mr Toad (talk) 17:05, 20 April 2014 (UTC)
thread_title: Two questions

message: What was he called before his succession? Archduke Karl? —Tamfang (talk) 00:35, 25 August 2014 (UTC)
thread_title:  styles 

message: The phrase "On 9 March 1922 he had caught a cold walking into town..." seems to employ the false notion that one catches a cold by being out in cold weather.
That should be rewritten into something more factual.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 23.119.204.117 (talk) 02:29, 17 August 2015 (UTC)
thread_title:  caught a cold? 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified  on Charles I of Austria. 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/20110905061421/http://www.vatican.va:80/holy_father/john_paul_ii/homilies/2004/documents/hf_jp-ii_hom_20041003_beatifications_en.html to http://www.vatican.va/holy_father/john_paul_ii/homilies/2004/documents/hf_jp-ii_hom_20041003_beatifications_en.html
When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at ).
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 03:10, 20 November 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page has been nominated for deletion:
* 
Participate in the deletion discussion at the . —Community Tech bot (talk) 03:38, 14 December 2018 (UTC)
thread_title:  A Commons file used on this page has been nominated for deletion 

message: Why is he Charles the First? He was the last Austro-Hungarian emperor, there was no Charles II - or rather there was a Charles II of Austria, but in the 16th century.Gymnophoria (talk) 13:52, 11 July 2019 (UTC)
replies: text: See #Requested move 3. Surtsicna (talk) 16:47, 11 July 2019 (UTC)
thread_title:  Why Charles I, when there's no Charles II? 

message: Wikipedia is not a genealogy database. The biographers of Charles I of Austria do not mention Gerard II of Metz, or Frederick I of Lorraine, or Anthony of Vaudémont, etc, and neither should Wikipedia. Surtsicna (talk) 21:52, 10 December 2019 (UTC)
thread_title:  Excessive genealogy 

message: The "Hymn" section does not appear to be notable or relevant to the life, legacy, and cultus of Charles I. An internet search shows the hymn neither to be in common usage nor to be an important part of Charles' cultus. I am happy to be contradicted on these points; however, unless its notability can be proven, I shall think it best to remove the section.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by CPClegg (talk • contribs) 07:59, 3 July 2020 (UTC)
thread_title:  Removing the "Hymn" section 

message: I found an image of him in an old Turkish magazine, Servet-i-Funun. I wonder if here are higher quality versions of this image
https://archives.saltresearch.org/bitstream/123456789/129156/79/PFSIF9170222140.jpg
WhisperToMe (talk) 16:21, 10 March 2021 (UTC)
replies: text: Which one? There are a lot of pictures at emperorcharles.org. --jpgordon𝄢𝄆 𝄐𝄇  16:39, 10 March 2021 (UTC)
replies: text:  Good to know! The image printed in Servet-i-Funun was of him with his consort and a child, all in Royal regalia. In French it's captioned "La famille souveraine d'Autriche-Hongrie." (I cannot read Ottoman Turkish and I have no idea what that caption says) WhisperToMe (talk) 19:00, 10 March 2021 (UTC)
replies: text:  Here; you can source it to http://www.emperorcharles.org. The Turkish seems to say Austrian-Hungarian Emperor Qarli and Zita, but I only have Persian translation available, not Turkish Arabic. --jpgordon𝄢𝄆 𝄐𝄇  21:10, 10 March 2021 (UTC)
replies: text: Oh duh, it's :File:Kroenung Budapest Karl und Zita 1916a.jpg. Wow, this one's a different photo from the same session! --jpgordon𝄢𝄆 𝄐𝄇  21:14, 10 March 2021 (UTC)
thread_title:  Image from a Turkish magazine 

message: Quoting Neo-Jacobite Herbert Vivian in the Legacy section smacks to me heavily of WP:FRINGE. It's hardly surprising that an ultra-monarchist would have a positive view of Charles; the Herbert Vivian article explicitly mentions that his praise of Charles is believed to be based on his uncritical admiration of kings. Unless there's good reason to do otherwise, I think this quote should be removed. Jah77 (talk) 20:26, 10 August 2022 (UTC)
thread_title:  Legacy