Talk:Family tree of German monarchs

Some problems
Some problems with this family tree. So all in all this article is far from complete.--Caranorn (talk) 22:11, 4 June 2008 (UTC)
 * These were not kings of the Germany, they were kings of the Germans.
 * Those who were crowned at Rome were Emperors of Rome not Emperors of the Holy Roman Empire, that is of course till the much later creation of said empire.
 * To which house or dynasty a person belongs is not at all clear from the image, in some cases the dynasty name seems to be before these people, in others after them.
 * No source whatsoever is given in the article or with the image.
 * Your name appears in the image which as far as I can tell is unacceptable.


 * Thank you for your feedback. It was never going to be perfect on the first revision, and I'm glad you could think of some improvements, although you could have been a bit more positive about an image it took me dozens of hours to make! I've done my best to address your points;

Hope you are finding it useful, --Mark J (talk) 08:35, 5 June 2008 (UTC)
 * Paragraph added in the lead explaining the different titles that were used, eg king of the romans, king of the germans. Please edit this if it's not what you meant.
 * Name removed. Titles for Charles the Fat and Arnulf of Carinthia changed of Emperor of Rome. Cheers for pointing that out.
 * With a tree as complex as this it was difficult to get the dynasty names exactly in the right place and they were mostly for illustrative purposes anyway. It's easy to check which dynasty the kings belonged to by checking their article, and, come to think of it, by looking at the dynastic dates included in the tree. However, I've put some arrows in to make it more clear.
 * The source? Hey, I just used the family info already in the Wikipedia articles, about ancestors and children. Nothing else.


 * I was going to strike through some of my comments as after a night's sleep I consider some injust to you. Unfortunatelly I don't recall how to do a strike through, so I'll let them stand for now and just comment some more.
 * King of the Germans, our article here indeed uses King of Germany and the like, while that stands I cannot criticise you for using the same or similar terminology. Though I should note that this is in no relationship to modern Germany as this medieval territory included (some of the following only at times) modern day countries like: the Netherlands, most of Belgium (except Flanders), Luxembourg, much of France (Alsace, Lorraine, and various territories further north), Switzerland, Austria, Lichtenstein, at least parts of Slovenia and Croatia, the Czech Republic, Poland, much of most of the baltic States, parts of Belorus, parts of Russia and I'm sure I forgot some. Maybe that's also why I'm distrubed by the use of Germany as I'm from one of those places that 100% belonged to this medieval realm but definitelly does not belong to the modern state and that entire history is pretty complex.
 * Rome, really the same problem, our current article uses the term Holy Roman Empire, more importantly (and certainly an error) many other articles calls Emperors and in some cases Kings Holy Roman Emperors or just mention that such and szuch feudal entity belonged to the Holy Roman Empire when the term is inapropriate for that time period (in the main article it's justified as long as the name's evolution is explained, in the individual articles it should be the term appropriate for that time period only).
 * Now to your reply. You are right, I imagine it took a lot of effort to create this image, though I wonder whether using an image, particularly in jpg format, was the best approach. Essentially this is only modifiable by you as anyone else who would like to make a small change would have to rebuild the entire image from scratch. If it had to be an image at all I would have opted for the svg format as this would if saved correctly remain modifiable by anyone (though I haven't really worked with text in svg, I'm aware there are some problems with this on wikipedia, so maybe it would not have worked at all). The best choice of all might have been a text approach (I will try to look up an example on french language wikipedia, though that tree is of course smaller). Again I haven't tried to construct anything this complex, so I'm not sure whether this is feasible.--Caranorn (talk) 12:27, 5 June 2008 (UTC)


 * Cheers, um, feel free to edit the lead to distinguish between the different titles, as I agree there was a lot of difference after looking at the articles - only trouble was, about 13 different titles for each person weren't going to fit on the image! So I had to go for a (slightly inaccurate) compromise. I've done a little on that front (including Emperor of Austria and dates of being crowned HRE).

I admit a .jpg image wasn't the best option, but firstly, the many intermarriages make it just too complex for a text-based format. Secondly the image looks nicer (!) and thirdly, there's a precedent - Wpedia already has numerous family-tree articles in the image format (Britain, France, Burgundy etc.) I don't have the option of saving as a .svg, sadly, but you can import it into a image-editing program and move bits and pieces around and stick new text in, it's hardly perfect but it does allow people to edit the image, however I will do my utmost to keep it uptodate in response to any issues anyone cares to raise on the talk page. --Mark J (talk) 16:40, 5 June 2008 (UTC)

Just dropping a note to say this family tree is amazing. Thanks!--24.251.17.123 (talk) 22:07, 30 May 2010 (UTC)

Ditto. Very useful - good job! The fact that the gripes mentioned above are so mind-bogglingly petty should carry more weight than the criticism itself - I doubt there's any easily obtainable printed book which would come anywhere near this, and only a standard family-tree-generating program for Wikipedia would allow easy editing anyway (I don't think one exists yet). —Preceding unsigned comment added by 41.185.146.101 (talk) 22:27, 26 February 2011 (UTC)

Printing
How does one print out the jpg chart? If saved, it is very small; and using the tools that I have on hand, cannot make larger without lots of blur. Tried printing, and only a small section of the jpg is printed.Doonboggle (talk) 03:16, 7 October 2008 (UTC)

title again
"Until 911 the kings were known as 'Kings of East Francia'. After that the title fluctuated between 'King of Germany' and 'King of the Germans'." Do we have evidence for this? As far as I know the frankish/east frankish title was used until the 11th century, followed by "king of romans". I think "king of the Germans" was a title used by the pope and the kings opponents. My question is: do we have any evidence that a medieval king refered to himself as "rex teutonicorum"?--MacX85 (talk) 10:54, 16 December 2008 (UTC)
 * To be honest I'm not sure. Feel free to edit the lead paragraph if you want. However, in the box at the bottom of Otto III's article it describes him as being 'King of Germany'. Whether this is equivalent to 'rex teutonicorum' I'm not sure. He's in the period you specified (between 911 and the 1000s). Mark J (talk) 16:05, 16 December 2008 (UTC)

Error noted
First of all, to whomever created this: wow. Color me impressed. It must've taken a great effort, and it shows.

That said, I noticed an error in it that I wanted to point out. If you look almost all the way down in the chart, on the same line as Napoleon (in bold), there's a line connecting "Leopoldo 1790-1851" to "Maria Leopoldina 1797-1826". However, if you look at the articles for these two, you'll see they were never married. Leopold married the sister of Maria Leopoldina, who is listed on the chart as "Maria Clementina 1798-1881". Her wiki article confirms this. Gabefarkas (talk) 01:21, 14 December 2010 (UTC)

Font

 * Small question, what font did you use for the title of the family tree itself? It is very nice and I may use it for something like this in the near future. Also, very nice tree. I made one for a smaller time range for 'Germany' and this is much more complete. Him9999 (talk) 15:28, 27 January 2012 (UTC)

Dubious claim
"although in every case he was both de jure and de facto ruler over the territory currently known as Germany"

Oh really ? In every case ? I see that in the first part of the 19th century,  you have the Prussian Kings and the Austrian Emperors both highlighted in 'bold' type on your chart simultaneously. So which one of those two was the "de jure and de facto ruler over the territory currently known as Germany" ??

Specifically, between the dissolution of the "Holy Roman Empire" (as it is known in English) in 1806,   and the establishment of the German Empire in 1871,  which of your alleged kings was the de jure and de facto ruler of Bavaria,  which during that period was an entirely sovereign state with no imperial suzerain ?Eregli bob (talk) 16:19, 11 February 2012 (UTC)

What?
This article seems to be somewhat odd. Why (one might ask) is there no aquivalent in the german wikipedia? We germans love writing too much about our history, but this `Family-tree´ is rather imaginative. Not to say - a total waste of time. Sorry for that.--78.54.37.171 (talk) 22:21, 24 January 2013 (UTC)

Arnulf the Bad
The family tree appears to present Arnulf the Bad as the offspring of Conrad I, who had no heirs. Arnulf was the offspring of Cunigunde by her first marriage to Luitpold of Bavaria. I'm not clear on why he's even in there, since his son Eberhard was deprived of the Duchy by Otto I in 938 (who subsequently gave it to his brother, Henry), and the line appears to have died out after the death of Arnulf II during the latter's rebellion against Otto to re-establish his family's position in Bavaria. I was going to suggest putting him under Cunigunde, but, in fact, I think he's irrelevant, since he wasn't related to any subsequent monarchs. Thus, if there's no opposition, I'm going to delete him --Masque (talk) 17:55, 9 March 2019 (UTC)