Talk:List of rulers of medieval Bosnia

Bosnian Rulers
Surtsicna, please stop deleting/reverting the whole sections and tables, as they are all properly referenced. Thank you. Bosnipedian (talk) 15:42, 22 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Please stop referring to bans as kings, stop inserting false claims and sources that do not cover your claims. Regards, Surtsicna (talk) 15:43, 22 January 2010 (UTC)

All information was referenced, you have no right to remove well referenced articles just because you dislike the authors of those peer-reviewed references. So again, please stop reversing, and also stop doing unnecessary minor edits thus making the reverting difficult. Bosnipedian (talk) 16:18, 22 January 2010 (UTC)


 * You are lying when putting references. The source you cite does not cover the information you keep reinserting. You say that Branko Nadilo refers to Stjepan Berislavić as Crown Prince of Bosnia but he doesn't. Here is the source; everyone can read it. He says on the page you cite: Taj je Berislavić (pokopan u Grabarju) imao nezamislivo tužnu i burnu biografiju, jer je kao Hrvat i katolik bio preko majke naslovni srpski despot (i vlasnik svih njihovih imanja u Ugarskoj), a ujedno i gorljivi pristaša Zapolje te povremeni turski saveznik. In English, it means: This Berislavić (buried in Grabarje) had an unbelieaveably sad and turbulent biography because, as a Croat and Catholic, he was the titular Serbian despot through his mother (and the owner of all their possesions in Hungary), as well as a devoted supporter of Zapolja and occasional Turkish ally. There is no mention of the word heir next to Stjepan's name. Don't lie. If the word heir can be translated as Crown Prince so easily, why don't you propose referring to Charles, Prince of Wales, as crown prince? Why don't you propose referring to all heirs in any line of succession as crown princes?


 * Please stop reinserting dubious claims until you achieve a consensus for such changes. Please read Reverting: If you make a change which is good-faith reverted, do not simply reinstate your edit - leave the status quo up. If there is a dispute, the status quo reigns until a consensus is established to make a change'.


 * You may consider orthography and grammar unnecessary and unimportant but it's neither unnecessary nor unimportant. Surtsicna (talk) 16:53, 22 January 2010 (UTC)

As Bosnian Royal Family clearly states, the said reference is used only for the Despot claim. Bosnian throne claim was paternal from Count Franjo Berislavić, as head of House of Berislavić Boričević upon extinction the kin House of Kotromanić. Bosnipedian (talk) 18:54, 22 January 2010 (UTC)


 * I know that you think that I am an idiot, but do you consider all the other users idiots as well? Do you think that your lies will go undetected by them? Now you say that the said reference is used only for the Despot claim but yesterday you said that the reference was used for the Crown Prince of Bosnia claim. I quote: "You are forgering reference contents, which does call him a heir to Bosnian throne." You have now acknowledged that you have no source that confirms the claim that a Berislavić held the title Crown Prince of Bosnia. Surtsicna (talk) 19:06, 22 January 2010 (UTC)

After "liar" and others, now you have added the word "idiot" to your vocabulary. Congrats. Bosnipedian (talk) 19:26, 22 January 2010 (UTC)
 * I have not called you an idiot as you claim here, thus confirming that you do lie. Surtsicna (talk) 19:32, 22 January 2010 (UTC)

Who said you did? I said you added the word to your vocabulary. But look what you have done now due to your hastiness -- you called me a liar, for no reason whatsoever. What is enough is enough. Apologize, please. Bosnipedian (talk) 19:36, 22 January 2010 (UTC)


 * You said it on the page I linked to. There you go again. All the reasons for calling you a liar are presented at this talk page. You are the only Wikipedia user I have ever called a liar or accused of lying. I would not have done it without a reason and those reasons are listed above. Saying that a source says what the source doesn't say and then saying that you didn't say it is called lying. I apologize if that offends you but check the dictionary meaning of the word lie. Surtsicna (talk) 19:49, 22 January 2010 (UTC)

No he didn't!! He said "calls names (liar, idiot,e tc.)", he didn't say you called HIM that. And it's not just this, you also called me his socketpuppet. I want an appology too. Who you think you are? Regionlegion (talk) 23:13, 22 January 2010 (UTC)

House of Šubić
I added House of Šubić along with House of Kotromanić from 1299 to 1322. Many sources confirm this, for example:
 * Kebeta (talk) 09:16, 14 June 2010 (UTC)

Pretender, titular and/or de jure
Ok. How about we make a consensus? Pretender, De jure and Titular ruler all mean basically the same. My edit has been in good faith since I consider the two latter are more appropriate for a section covering medieval history. De jure means someone who is professing the claim on something...which means they are King, Duke or whatever in title only. You can have as many pretenders (de jure) titular claimants/rulers as you wish. As you can see we are arguing about semantics here. So my proposition is to keep all three versions for clarification. My main reason to change it in the first place and link them is to clarify....pretender has a certain modern ring to it and it implies they were pretending to be something which they were not...which does not correspond to the existing situation at that time. All three have been recognized/appointed by someone and were in fact Titular Kings of Bosnia (per their Template:Succession box). In fact Nicholas of Ilok held a northwestern part of the kingdom and even minted his own money as King of Bosnia but failed to defend it against Ottomans. The second two were puppet kings. So as you can see they were not just pretenders, some of them actually held some power in at least some parts of their claimed kingdom. But as I said I am prepared to compromise. Shokatz (talk) 22:04, 22 July 2013 (UTC)
 * I am not sure I can agree with your premises. There is a definition of the expression de jure. According to that definition, they cannot all have been de jure kings because the Kingdom of Bosnia was a monarchy, not a diarchy and not a triarchy. Furthermore, probably none of them can be considered a de jure king, as the monarchy was elective rather than hereditary, and none of them was elected by Bosnian nobility. "Titular kings" would make sense, as that is factually correct. Those men were certainly pretenders. See the very definition of the word: "A pretender is one who claims entitlement to an unavailable position of honour or rank." The throne was certainly unavailable to them, yet they all claimed it. The reason the word has a modern ring is the fact that many monarchies were abolished in the 20th century, but there are nevertheless the Old Pretender, the Young Pretender, and many earlier pretenders who are described just as such. Henry VIII of England was no more than a pretender to the French throne; although he ruled a tiny bit of France and styled himself as King of France, signing documents and minting coins as such, no historian would ever describe him as a French monarch, nor as a de jure French monarch. Anyway, can we agree to name the subsection "Titular kings"? Surtsicna (talk) 22:27, 22 July 2013 (UTC)
 * I have already explained the use of the term de jure in medieval context. It refers to a pretender, someone who holds the titles but does not exercise their power (that comes with the title) over the territory it refers to. Main example are the De jure Lusignan Kings of Jerusalem in later period when it was already lost and occupied by Arabs but they still referred to themselves as Kings/Queens of Jerusalem although they only held Cyprus where they escaped. I would point you to the Sovereignty where it is more clarified when concerning this issue rather than the default De jure article which mostly refers to the term as used in modern-day law practice...which are two completely different things. Also I must say Bosnian kingdom was surely not an elective monarchy, it was a hereditary kingdom ruled by a royal family. Anyway, I will then add the Titular in the brackets besides Pretender section. I also think we should link Pretender so if someone is in doubt he can follow the link for clarification. Shokatz (talk) 22:54, 22 July 2013 (UTC)


 * Which articles and the points at issue are not quite clear from the above. De jure and de facto are terms of art in legal parlance today but derive from the centuries when Latin was the language of scholars and lawyers, and historians today need to have sufficient feel for the use of them not to clash with the received and accepted usage when claims of sovereignty are in question. The usage of "pretender" in this sort of context is as Surt. has explained. Titular ruler could be the most suitable of the three, but may not entirely fit the given facts. In the course of history, disputed and competing claims have often arisen, some peaceably and some with threats or violence. Historians can usually agree who was ruler de facto, and whose claim was de jure, but where there have been disputed claims in some cases historians themselves dispute about who was de facto ruler and who de jure at any particular time. There have been times in English and Scottish history when there have been rival contenders for the title to the crown and throne, but it seems that in Bosnia there has sometimes been particular confusion and uncertainty. Terminology must allow for that. Qexigator (talk) 00:26, 23 July 2013 (UTC)

article does not define "Ban"
Someone with proper sources add a definition/cite, please, in the lede and body - thanks. 50.111.51.247 (talk) 07:52, 10 March 2021 (UTC)