Talk:Frederick Christian, Elector of Saxony

Untitled
All of the other inaccuracies (misuse of titles and family names in the body of the articles, not to mention totally ignoring a nomenclature system that makes sense in English to people who study these things in English) aside, what the HELL is this 'Elector' stuff? When the Electors' identities were settled in 1356, Saxony was ruled by a Duke -- therefore the ruler was Duke of Saxony AND imperial elector -- NOT the Elector of Saxony. In this article, Helga Jonat talks about the son of the Elector of Saxony becoming the King of Saxony. If something as momentous as the elevation of a duchy to a kingdom occurred, why is it not mentioned? JHK

I didn't write this article, but as a writer of other ones I'd say that to use the term Elector of Saxony/Bavaria/Cologne etc may well be a little inaccurate but it's a convenient description for these rulers. It's fairly standard practice in history books to describe the electoral dignity in this way. Anyone who wants to read more about it can easily find out that the ruler in question is a duke, prince, archbishop or king with the additional title of Elector. If this was described every time a reference was made to the ruler in question it would make for a highly accurate, but completely tedious and petty narrative. By the same standard a&#12288;Byzantine Emperor would be a Basileus of Rome (Basileus actually translates better as 'King' than Emperor). The Holy Roman Emperors should also not be counted as such until the reign of Frederick Barbarossa. Do the Saxon Kings of England have to be dealt with as Kings of the English? The Kings of Naples should also be changed to that of Sicily - even though most of them never ruled that island. I could go on. The point is that the title itself is secondary to the political and geographical reality behind it. I've seen your comments in other articles. You need to drink a little less coffee and perhaps do some sit ups. You'll feel much better.