Talk:Wenceslas IV Holy Roman Emperor


 * 1) We don't use the word 'acceed' nearly as often as it appears on the wikipedia. One reason is that there are better words, like 'succeed', that can be used to impart more information in a complex sentence structure.


 * 1) I'm not sure if this guy is King Wnceslaus the fourth, Emperor W the 4th, or duke W the 4th. It is not clear from the badly entitled article.


 * 1) The article makes it appear that W was able to help elect himself Emperor, since he was an imperial Elector -- whose title, by the way, in English would be Margrave of Brandenburg, Imperial Elector (or something more like that than the non-existent elector of Brandenburg.


 * 1) I am soooo tired of fixing space.

Could an intelligent and informed person please help?? Thanks! User:JHK


 * He was Wenceslaus IV of Bohemia and just plain Wenceslaus of the other territories because they never had a second. He held two electorates in succession - first as margrave of Brandenburg (1373-76) and then as king of Bohemia (1378-1419) - presumably he voted for himself as king of the Germans on the first occasion, though I don't know if this is recorded. - The usually intelligent and sometimes informed DP


 * Argh -- then is he Emperor W IV, or Emperor W...These entries are killing me! User:JHK


 * Remember the Imperial and Bohemian crowns are two entirely distinct entities though one is suzerain to the other: he was Bohemia's fourth Vaclav but the only Wenzel ever to be Emperor. If he'd been succeeded on both thrones by a later Wenceslas, he's become (posthumously) the Emperor Wenceslas I while remaining King Wenceslas IV of Bohemia. The subsequent Wenceslas would be the Emperor Wenceslas II and King Wenceslas V of Bohemia.


 * Anyway, if you think this one was bad you should have seen the entry for Rupert of Germany - she had a Wittelsbach who died in 1410 marrying the daughter of a Hohenzollern born in 1460! DP


 * I have no problem with the distinction -- it's just that I know he was the somethingth of one, and then the other somethingth of the other!. And why is this guy (whom I've always thought of as "good" King Wenceslas) the Drunkard -- was he really that bad? User:JHK


 * I think the "good" Wenceslas was a few centuries earlier: apparently Wenceslas IV was fond of the odd tipple and had a bit of a temper. But he seems to have been avoided needless military adventures and to have kept religious tensions in check until the end of his reign, which isn't bad. DP