Talk:Congress Poland

Adam Czartoryski
The article refers to a Adam Czartoryski, to which exactly does it refer?... Adam Casimir Czartoryski or Adam George Czartoryski ? - Jaberwocky6669 07:39, Apr 1, 2005 (UTC)

Objection
'In 1863 the January Uprising started. The constitution was abolished and the political entity was directly incorporated into the Russian Empire - later even the name was changed into official name of "Vistula Country" (Russian Privislinskiy Kray).'

I've got an encyclopaedia printed in the Imperial Russia in 1909. According to it, the Constitution of 1815 was abolished in 1830, and the official name of Poland was not changed. The name 'Vistula Country' was popular among more nationalistic Russians then. Mapple 07:18, 13 August 2005 (UTC)

Respect of law
Instead of revert warring, please provide a reference for or against the disputed sentence (below).--Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus Talk 17:48, 24 March 2006 (UTC)

In reality all opposition to tsar was persecuted and the law was disregarded at will by Russian officials.

Puppet state
Is "puppet state" really the right term here? I mean Congress Poland was generally accepted as part of the Russian empire, just with extended autonomy. Maybe it should be called "autonomous area" or something of that sort instead. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 151.202.92.233 (talk • contribs) 20:33, 23 August 2006 (UTC) I think "puppet state" is the right term. It had its own border, currency, customs, legal system, army, etc that is separate from Russia. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 42.2.165.115 (talk) 00:06, 5 July 2016 (UTC)

I do not think "puppet state" is the right term. A puppet state is a formally independant state, the leaders of which are manipulated (like "puppets") by the government of another country (it could be told of the duchy of Warsaw as a puppet state of France) ; but in this case the same person is leader of the two countries (Russia and kingdom of Poland) ; the kingdom of Poland, then, was NOT formally independant : the Congress had indicated that it was distinct from the Empire of Russia, but related for ever to it. Fundamentally, is it logical to think that Alexander king of Poland was manipulated by Alexander tsar of Russia ? J. Richard --78.115.60.59 (talk) 12:55, 24 September 2016 (UTC)

When the same person is the leader of two countries and the countries are still distinct, the situation is called "personal union". The current article lists the following information about personal unions involving Poland:


 * Personal union with the Kingdom of Bohemia from 1300 to 1306.
 * Personal union with the Kingdom of Hungary, 1301–1305, 1370–1382 and 1440–1444 (see Hungary section above).
 * Personal union with the Grand Duchy of Lithuania from 1386 to 1401, 1447 to 1492, and 1501 to 1569.
 * Personal union with the Duchy of Ruthenia (Ukraine) in 1658.
 * Personal union with the Electorate of Saxony, 1697–1706, 1709–1733 and 1734–1763.
 * Personal union with the Russian Empire from 1815 to 1831. Dimadick (talk) 07:45, 27 September 2016 (UTC)

Perhaps the better test of "puppet state" is -- did any other nations send separate ambassadors? Open separate consulates?

Personal union implies that the territory would 'spin off" if the shared monarch failed to have an heir. Would the parts of Britain that are in personal union with the monarchy spin off if the monarchy ceased to exist?  Possibly -- see Isle of Man.  Here -- if the Czar line stopped, would the Russian claim cease?  I think not.

Is Congress Poland shown as one of the "Entente/Allies" for WW1? Not on the Wikipedia page.

The vast majority of books, maps, etc. show Congress Poland to be part of Russia.

Perhaps what is happening here -- is that some form of de jure legal existence is desired so that the re-instated Polish state (i.e. 1918 forward) can present a foundational claim to the former Polish/Lithuanian state that was dissolved in 1795, rather than admit that there was an interruption of any length. It seems clear that both de jure and de facto the old Polish state ended and a new Polish state arose in 1918. Chesspride216.144.161.51 (talk) 18:24, 17 March 2023 (UTC)

To do
Interesting article's from pl wiki about CP government: pl:Rada Stanu Królestwa Polskiego, pl:Rada administracyjna and pl:Konstytucja Królestwa Polskiego. Done: Namestniks of Kingdom of Poland.--Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus 23:22, 9 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Done, done, and done.--Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus 12:53, 10 April 2008 (UTC)

Abolished after January Uprising?
The article itself says that it was abolished after 1863. So why does the infobox say -1915? My sources also say that it was renamed to "Privislinskii krai," so is there any indication that the name remained except as a geographical expression (principally outside of Russia)?--James Honan-Hallock 01:14, 29 May 2007 (UTC)
 * See Vistulan Country for more details on this issue. The country was not officially abolished, but in practice, most of the autonomy and self-governance was taken away.--Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus 12:53, 10 April 2008 (UTC)

derogatory use of 'congressmen'?
I came here from the article on Galicia which has on the discussion page (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Galicia_%28Central_Europe%29) the following comment: "Many of the inhabitants of Southern Poland are proud to be Galicians (as opposed to "those barbaric Congressmen")." Is this a 'real' enough phenomenon to be mentioned or discussed in this article? Richardson mcphillips1 (talk) 03:27, 19 December 2007 (UTC)

Moved pictures
I moved all the pictures and templates to the top of the page just under the infobox - for me it removes the large amount of whitespace created by placing the titles at the beginnings of sections (which pushes the actual text to below the infobox). Don't know what it does on other browsers, so please adjust further if someone has a perfect solution. WLU (talk) 12:44, 10 April 2008 (UTC)

Re-write
I tried to clean up the language in the article and ended up re-writing most of the page. I think I only changed the wording and added citation templates, but it could definitely use a good once-over by someone more familiar with Polish history than I. WLU (talk) 14:37, 10 April 2008 (UTC)

Succession by the Vistula land/Privislinsky Krai
As was noted above, there is much confusion over the issue of how to distinguish the Congress Poland from the Vistula land/Privislinsky Krai. As far as I know, the Congress Poland was never officially abolished. Yes, there were many major internal changes, and the post-1867 Congress Poland was indeed quite different - but arguing that it was replaced in 1867 by a new entity, Privislinsky Krai, is dubious. If one is going to make such an argument, please provide proper sources per WP:V. Also, please note that pl:Królestwo Kongresowe doesn't acknowledge the Vistula land as a state-level successor.--Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus 02:46, 11 March 2009 (UTC)
 * To centralize the discussion, please direct any replies to Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Poland.--Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus 00:00, 12 March 2009 (UTC)

The creation of the Kingdom created a partition of Polish lands in which the state was divided and ruled between Russia, Austria and Prussia.
I think that this sentence is not like a natural sentence in logic. Is "the creation of the Kingdom"'s meaning Vienna Congress? Thanks in advance —Preceding unsigned comment added by 藏骨集团 (talk • contribs) 11:05, 25 January 2010 (UTC)

About Vistula Krai
I was reeding through collection of legal acts of Russian Empire ( http://civil.consultant.ru/reprint/books/172/1.html), and one of the basic laws of 1892 uses term "Kingdom of Poland", not "Vistula Krai". So the statement about complete abolition of Kingdom of Poland seems to be untrue. Is it possible that terms "Vistula Krai" and "Kingdom of Poland" were used simultaneously? Budgie1988 28 january 2011 (UTC)


 * It is, we would need to look at more sources to see what the scholars write on that. I am going to restore a note we had on that in the article that seems to have been removed without any explanation a while ago. PS. I moved your post to the bottom as on Wikipedia we use bottomposting. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus 18:46, 27 January 2011 (UTC)


 * One could nominally use Kingdom of Poland during the entire time period or Vistula Krai during the latter period. My objection is any use of Congress Poland which was never the name. Leave Congress Poland as a redirect and explain it's use in the article lead paragraph, but not as the article name. Ajh1492 (talk) 20:15, 27 January 2011 (UTC)
 * That is a point suited more for a dedicated WP:RM, I'd think. I'd have to think more on it, certainly, before I'd have an opinion. Note that pl wiki article is at pl:Królestwo Kongresowe (although the lead goes: "Królestwo Polskie (potocznie Królestwo Kongresowe, Kongresówka" - Kingdom of Poland, colloquially Congress Poland). --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus 20:19, 27 January 2011 (UTC)

B-class review
Failed for WPPOLAND due to insufficient inline citations (quickfail criteria). --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus&#124; reply here 10:21, 21 July 2013 (UTC)

Question
Although it is clear that Polish autonomy mostly ceased in 1831 and, quite officially, all residues of it were cut in 1867 (with the Tsar dropping "King of Poland" from his title, renaming of the country to "Vistula province", etc.), I wonder whether it can be said, as the article does, that it was entirely from the onset (which would mean including the years up to 1831) nothing more than a province of Russia.--2001:A61:21CC:C701:D19D:1F37:A9C6:40B8 (talk) 14:57, 18 August 2015 (UTC)
 * The sentence I am referring to is: Thus from the start[!], Polish autonomy remained little more than fiction.--2001:A61:21CC:C701:D19D:1F37:A9C6:40B8 (talk) 14:59, 18 August 2015 (UTC)
 * I'd suggest reading the reference for this sentence: Agnieszka Barbara Nance, Nation without a State: Imagining Poland in the Nineteenth Century, Dissertation for the Degree of Doctor of Philosophy, The University of Texas at Austin, pp. 169-188. It purports to support it, so checking with the source would be the first step. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus&#124; reply here 06:52, 19 August 2015 (UTC)

Please rewrite this sentence
This sentence is very confusing on the first read:

"Though officially the Kingdom of Poland was a state with considerable political autonomy guaranteed by a liberal constitution, its rulers, the Russian Emperors, generally disregarded any restrictions on their power. "

How about this:

"Officially the Kingdom of Poland was a state with considerable political autonomy guaranteed by a liberal constitution. However, the rulers of Congress Poland, the Russian Emperors, generally disregarded any restrictions on their power. Thus it was effectively little more than a puppet state of the Russian Empire." — Preceding unsigned comment added by 47.18.211.203 (talk) 16:23, 24 March 2016 (UTC)


 * There's more garbage to be re-written:


 * "Prussia insisted on the Duchy being completely eliminated, but after Russian troops reached Paris in 1812, Tsar Alexander I originally intended to annex to the Duchy the Lithuanian-Belarusian lands, now controlled by the Tsardom, which used to be a part of the First Polish Republic and to unite thus created Polish country with Russia. Both Austria and the United Kingdom disapproved of that idea, Austria issuing a memorandum on returning to the 1795 resolutions, this idea supported by the United Kingdom under George IV and Prime Minister Robert Jenkinson and the British delegate to the Congress, Robert Stewart, Viscount Castlereagh, so in effect the Tsar, after the so-called Hundred Days, established the Kingdom of Poland and the 1815 Congress of Vienna approved."


 * It makes little sense at all. -Chumchum7 (talk) 20:50, 8 January 2020 (UTC)

I agree with the first suggestion. Laurel Lodged (talk) 22:07, 8 January 2020 (UTC)

About the "Civil code of the Kingdom of Poland" (Kodex Cywilny Królestwa Polskiego)
The Duchy of Warsaw was given the Code Napoléon as civil code (Kodeks Napoleona Ksiestwa Warszawskiego), which was enforced from May 1808.

This code was kept in the Kingdom of Poland as the "Civil code of the Kingdom of Poland" (Kodex Cywilny Królestwa Polskiego).

It was reformed in 1825. In the new text, the article 9 said what were the conditions necessary to be "a Pole subject of the Kingdom of Poland" (Uważanym jest za Polaka poddanego Królestwa Polskiego : [there are 8 alineas]). The texte of this Code can be found at the Polish Library of Paris (I don't know where in Great-Britain)

It was never replaced (although the tsars had wishes about that) and went on up to 1918, and even later, because the civil law in the Republic of Poland was not immediately unified.

So that Maria Sklodowska (born in 1867 in Warsaw) was by the law "a Pole subject of the Kingdom of Poland".

--Jcqrcd44 (talk) 10:08, 31 March 2021 (UTC)

The formula "Russian Poland" is not relevant for Congress Poland
"Congress Poland or Russian Poland"

This is not ok.

The formula "Russian Poland" should be used for the parts of Poland annexed by the Russian Empire, notably during the partitions of Poland (if we remain strict on the meaning of "Poland", we can say that Bialystok was in "Russian Poland"). The territory of Congress Poland had been annexed by Prussia or Austria, before Napoleon created the Duchy of Warsaw, the origin of Congress Poland.

Formally, the Kingdom of Poland has never been annexed by the Russians ; as I wrote in the intervention just above, the "Civil Code of the Kingdom of Poland" (official denomination) remained in force up to 1918 (and even after that, up to the unification of civil law in the Republic of Poland). The inhabitants were not "Russian subjects", but "Poles, subjects of the Kingdom of Poland" (article 9, Civil Code of the Kingdom of Poland, as reformed in 1825).

Even the date "1915" is not formally relevant : it is only a situation of occupation which begins then.

The big problem is the excessive importance of truisms when most people think or write about Polish history of the XIX° century ("in Poland, that's to say nowhere", Alfred Jarry, Ubu roi).

--Jcqrcd44 (talk) 19:17, 22 May 2021 (UTC)


 * Citing Jarry's Ubu roi is not a good example at all with placing forward an argument. Instead, published sources by historians should be used. Whilst Russian Poland is a very generic term that can be misunderstood and misinterpreted, Congress Poland is very much widespread and, with time, became official in English. Moreover, the Civil Code of the Kingdom of Poland didn't do much to deter the Tsarist government from forcibly 'annexing' Poland after the January Uprising and degrading its status as a separate entity. Just a reminder that it wasn't a country only a polity. Oliszydlowski (talk) 11:27, 23 May 2021 (UTC)

Coat of arms
The coat of arms of the Kingdom of Poland as part of Russia was most highly approved on August 20, 1832 by Emperor Nicholas I: "In the scarlet shield is a white, one-headed eagle with a golden beak and claws, scarlet eyes and tongue, crowned with a golden, royal crown."

On December 8, 1856, the titular coat of arms of the Tsar of Poland (for the Great Coat of Arms of the Empire) was approved: The traditional Polish shield was crowned with the "crown of the Kingdom of Poland". Ongoingday (talk) 03:47, 9 September 2022 (UTC)


 * Coats of arms... I'll ping User:Marcelus, they may be interested in this? Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus&#124; reply here 04:22, 9 September 2022 (UTC)


 * I reverted due to quality, not the content itself. However, the current CoA does not match ones found on flags and banners in the same infobox. Can this somehow be fixed? Merangs (talk) 22:39, 10 September 2022 (UTC)

Woman rights in Congress Poland
Could women own property in 1815-1831? Could Women own property in 1831-1863? In the Russian Empire, they could. But I can not find any sources for Congress Poland — Preceding unsigned comment added by VetMax (talk • contribs) 21:41, 17 March 2023 (UTC)