Talk:House of Hohenzollern

House of Liechtenstein
Aren't the rulers of Liechtenstein still Hohenzollerns? --corvus13 --- I don't you .Check http://www.webtop.com, I have to leave. user:H.J. -- I do "you" -- the family name of the rulers of Liechtenstein is "Liechtenstein". They've been around for ages -- since the 12th century, I think -- mostly because of their impressive ability to look completely inoffensive when necessary. Kind of like a hedgehog. -- Paul Drye -- No relationship. Have a good day!-- Jacob Barsimson talk  06:26, 16 April 2019 (UTC)

William and Wilhelm
Um... what's the difference between Frederick William I and Friederich Wilhelm I? JHK - JHK, you can see how difficult it is to tell them apart. I just added Der Grosse Kurfuerst to the first one. Please read the titles and about the patent, permit for building. This is what I have written about earlier to MT and you. That was followed all the time, no city or coin or anything was done without a permit. Therefore I believe that if a city and surrounding area write it on record (coins etc) that they were a civitas, they were a Freie Stadt or city state. Otherwise they would not have used it. If they had tried the imperial forces would habe gone after them. user:H.J.


 * Hi -- I did read them. I've been trying to explain that what you believe to be true is not in fact the case.  It could be, but there is no clear way of telling.  They could be calling themselves civitas in the sense of "the government and the people".  There is no way of telling from one word what was meant (for certain).  Also, you assume that nothing was done without a permit -- this is patently untrue.  Nothing was supposed to be done without an Imerial license -- But the HRE had no standing army, no unified court system, no unified tax system -- in fact no real central administration!  From before Charles IV issued the Golden Bull, and especially aftrwards, the Imperial government was only as powerful as the people who supported it -- and in the case of a great trade city like Hamburg, the license process may have been more along the lines of "We Minted this coin, Mr. Emperor.  We're using it.  How much do we owe you for the license?"  You have to remember that the Emperor had very little authority -- just prestige.  In some cases, the Emperor was strong -- but only because he happened to be an Emperor with lots of family lands, money, and his own army attached to family lands and money -- not because of an Imperial tie! JHK


 * HJ, as JHK is pointing out you are making a basic mistake of people dealing with legal history. Whenever we look at laws as a source of history, we have to ask "did they pass a law against because SO MANY people were doing it?"  For instance, there are laws against speeding, murder, tax evasion - all those are common (sort of).  There are also laws that are statements of ideals that have very little to do with COMMON human behavior.  There are laws against terrorism, which is, thankfully, not as common as speeding.  However, both of them have laws against them.  Cities sometimes came to exist without legal standing - and then there were decades (literally!) of lawsuits about their standing.   --MichaelTinkler

(or sons) made no grammatical sense where it was so I removed it. Some one else removed the list of titles under Friedrich Wilhelm I so I removed the pointer to it. --rmhermen

How should a list without portraits look like?
House of Hohenzollern For example: The list should contain the following minimum information: Name, reign, relationship with predecessor, birth and death.--Mr. Boston (talk) 10:39, 1 September 2017 (UTC)
 * 1488–1512: Eitel Friedrich II (c. 1452–1512), son of
 * 1512–1525: Eitel Friedrich III (1494–1525), son of
 * 1525–1575: Charles I (1516–1576), son of

Historical names
I think that we should follow the conventions on the discussion page for historical names? Since many, if not most, English speakers aren't as familiar with German history before the end of hte Weimar Republic, I think it would be best to put the name and "of Place", like Albert (or Albrecht) Achilles of Brandenburg, or Friedrich Wilhelm II of Prussia (or Frederick William -- it's hard to say, because more recent sources use the German names, but 50 years ago, they used English -- on the other hand, Karl der Grosse is ALWAYS Charlemagne, and Louis the Pious is never Ludwig the Pious or der Fromme!). Let's see what the others have to say, and maybe look at each one individually -- because there will always be exceptions, like Frederick the Great (well-known in English). JHK
 * English names make more sense. Sir Tony Britton (talk) 03:36, 22 June 2018 (UTC)

Family Tree
In this revision https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=House_of_Hohenzollern&type=revision&diff=1065576008&oldid=1065550699 I added a family tree. I want a family tree in this article that adequately shows the relationship of the Protestant and Catholic Branches. How can we properly cite such a tree? MaitreyaVaruna (talk) 20:34, 31 March 2022 (UTC)


 * The reason it was removed was that you didn't provide a source for any of this. We cite it by pointing to your source. --jpgordon&#x1d122;&#x1d106;&#x1D110;&#x1d107; 21:07, 31 March 2022 (UTC)
 * It is created from the infoboxes on all the individual articles, plus the tree in List of monarchs of Prussia. What would the proper format for citation be in this case? Also pardon the moving around of the conversation. I believe something in the tree made me unable to reply and it was unintentionally locked. MaitreyaVaruna (talk) 18:03, 1 April 2022 (UTC)