Talk:Casimir IV Jagiellon

This template must be substituted. Replace {{Requested move ...}} with {{subst:Requested move ...}}.

Imperial politics

I would like to point out here something that clearly demonstrates HJ's lack of understanding of the period and the inner workings of imperial politics. She continually points out "Imperial alliances", generally marriages between the Habsburgs and some other family, and has said that we cannot underestimate how important these ties were. Yet strangely, it doesn't seem to through a spanner into her logic when the very-allied-to-the -imperial-house-of-Habsburg Casimir Jagiello annexes Prussia AND THE EMPEROR REFUSES TO RECOGNIZE THIS!

BTW, I am not sure that annex is the correct term. As I understand it, several cities in the region of Prussia (which was not at the time a nation-state or any other political entity, merely a greographical one) wanted to rid themselves of the overlordship of the Teutonic Knights. They asked Casimir for help, and promised to transfer allegiance to him in exchange (they had never been given a choice in the matter of the Knights).

Also, for those of you who keep track...

Casimir Jagiello of Poland is tied to the Habsburg emperors through his marriage to Elisabeth of Austria, granddaughter of the Habsburg emperor (I think -- emperor at any rate) Sigismund. Their son, Ladislaus, benefits by getting to be king of Hungary and Bohemia.

Here's the fun bit: Their daughter, Sophia, married Frederick Hohenzollern, prince of Ansbach and Bayreuth (and nowhere near Prussia) -- their son is Albert, Grand Master of the Teutonic Order, who converts to Lutheranism and claims Brandenburg-Prussia as his own duchy. The duchy won't exist without the support of Sigismund (his Polish uncle, Sophia's brother, now king) -- and he has to agree to Sigismund as his overlord for that support.

....and then there's the Reformation

JHK

According to my archives of genealogical data on European houses, Elisabeth of Austria was indeed the granddaughter of Sigismund, Holy Roman Emperor. the family tree looks like this.

Sigismund married Maria of Hungary and had a duaghter Elizabeth who married Albert II Holy Roman Emperor. Elizabeth of Austria mentioned above was the daughter of Albert II. -- Ktsquare

Let me clarify -- I knew Sigismund was Emperor -- I was not sure if he belonged to the Habsburg house. JHK

Sigismund of Luxembourg -- Ktsquare

THanks -- so, if Elizabeth was a Habsburg, that was entirely different from her connection to the "Imperial" house of Luxembourg. aha -- she is connected to two emperors -- one a Habsburg (her father) one not. Try to be a bit more clear, HJ. JHK

First off, there were 2 Elizabeth, the first Elizabeth (the mother) and the second was the daughter of Elizabeth the mother.

more detailed version of the tree which shall clarify you:

Sigsmund of Luxembourg, Holy Roman Emperor married Maria, Queen of Hungary and has a daughter:

Elizabeth (the mother), married to Albert II of Habsburg, Holy Roman Emperor and has 2 children:

1. Ladislas Posthumous (as Ladislas V of Hungary or Ladislas of Bohemia)

2. Elizabeth (the daughter) of Habsburg, married to Casimir IV of Poland and has a child

1. Vladislas (or Ladislas, which is just omitting the "V") (as Vladislas II of Hungary or Vladislas II of Bohemia) -- Ktsquare

SIGH. All sorts of small problems above, mostly due to inaccuracies, ignorance and thoughtlessness.

Casimir was married with Elisabeth of Habsburg. Who was daughter of Albert of Habsburg (an Emperir) and Elisabeth of Luxembourg, heiress of Bohemia. However, those Habsburgs ceased to be emperirs when Elisabeth was a little girl and not yet married.

Elisabeth's distant cousin Frederick III was the next emperor. That emperor who reigned when Casimir was king. Elisabeth and Frederick were rather distant. In some senses, even rivals. Therefore, no big ideas about Habsburg alliance should be entertained regarding that time,

Besides, they were more or less realists and, as relatives everywhere, tended their own interests. Sometimes interests collided, sometimes joined. A sign of divergent interests is that none of Casimir's numerous children married a family member of emperor Frederick, during their reigns.

It is no secret that Frederick would have liked to have his own family members in Eastern thrones - not distant relatives such as Elisabeth and her brood. And Casimir, who through Elisabeth had good hereditary claims, wanted such for his own children. 62.78.126.145 17:33, 24 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

English name - Requested move

This template must be substituted. Replace {{Requested move ...}} with {{subst:Requested move ...}}.

Survey

One sentence comments here please; this should be on the first name, as proposed.

I would suggest to change the name of this Polish king to "Casimir IV Jagiellon" as he is usualy referred to as Casimir in the english literatur.--Dagox 09:48, 3 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Fully support it. Juraune 14:02, 17 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Support. I too support a move to "Casimir IV Jagiellon". --Elonka 23:36, 22 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- (update) Per the surname discussion below, I also support Casimir IV of Poland. --Elonka 00:56, 30 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I support Casimir IV of Poland. We should keep them systematical and in accordance with naming convention [1]. Shilkanni 16:46, 23 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Shilkanni, are you willing to also support a move to Casimir IV Jagiellon? I am definitely willing to also discuss the "of Poland" suffix, but for now I'd like to make a clear case that the name should be at least moved off of "Kazimierz" to "Casimir". I give you my word that we can engage in a good faith discussion about the other suffix afterwards. :) --Elonka 17:40, 23 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I've separated the two discussions. If we can get them done at the same time, why not? Septentrionalis 18:00, 23 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Well, within parameters of this poll (choices are Kazimierz IV Jagiellon and Casimir IV Jagiellon), I prefer of course the proposed move to "Casimir...". I can accept it, though it is not my fist choice (I have already presented my first choice). Shilkanni 10:15, 24 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Support Use English; no evidence that Kazimerz is predominant. Septentrionalis 17:35, 23 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Support. Appleseed (Talk) 17:56, 23 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Support - personally I've read of Casimir, not of Kazimierz.--Aldux 11:07, 24 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Support Use English Bubba ditto 23:37, 29 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Support, although Casimir IV of Poland is best by a considerable margin. john k 00:38, 30 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Support Calgacus (ΚΑΛΓΑΚΟΣ) 13:13, 30 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Surname

Also comments above

Of Poland The Jagiellonian dynasty does not disambiguate between Casimirs (in theory, and Sigismunds in practice); so I see no reason to depart from the expected convention. Septentrionalis 17:35, 23 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
of Poland. Let's keep these systematical. Shilkanni 10:16, 24 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
of Poland. Use of "Jagiellon" is not terribly common in English, and no reason to depart from the standard convention, as Septentrionalis says. john k 00:39, 30 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
of Poland. This keeps it consistent with the other Polish kings, Casimir I of Poland, Casimir II of Poland, and Casimir III of Poland. --Elonka 00:54, 30 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Discussion

I would be persuaded by evidence that it is weird, in English, not to use Jagiellon. Septentrionalis 17:35, 23 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

It is not weird for an Anglophone to see that name without "Jagiellon". Poland's Casimir IV, or just Casimir IV, are names well seen in English materials. Shilkanni 10:20, 24 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Infobox

In the current infobox, the "reign" and "coronation" information appears to be scrambled.

I can't make sense of the king having reigned "1440 (June 7, 1492 as Grand Duke of Lithuania [he died on that date]) to June 7, 1492."

And I would think that "Coronation June 29, 1440, June 25, 1447, in Vilna Cathedral, Vilna, Wawel Cathedral, Kraków" should instead read: "Coronation June 29, 1440, in Vilna Cathedral, Vilna, June 25, 1447, at Wawel Cathedral, Kraków."

KonradWallenrod 16:55, 20 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Let me explain you. He was born on 1427, not 1440. He was first crowned as Grand Duke of Lithuania in 1440 in Vilnius Cathedral, and only then in 1447 in Wawel, Poland as King of Poland. To name it Vilna Cathedral is complete nonsense, since Vilna is Jewish name, and Cathedral is Catholic. Juraune 19:12, 21 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The infobox "reign" and "coronation" data are still hopelessly scrambled and unintelligible. Could somebody correct them, so they will make sense? logologist|Talk 20:21, 21 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I noticed, that a 'template:infobox Polish monarch' was applied, but this template did not provide for different corronation date and place and for different reign span as Grand Duke of Lithuania. I created similar 'template:infobox Polish Lithuanian monarch', which has additional parameters for these dates and places. If there is a plan to appy Polish monarch infobox for all Polish monarchs, this template should be expanded to include different GDL reign and coronation possibility, in a similar way. Also, I didn't like the centered position of the text in the first column, and applied left alignment. Juraune 19:57, 31 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Sophia of Halshany or Zofia Holszańska

To Hallibut and other Polish editors of this page: Why do you keep polonizing the names of family members? For example, Sophia of Halshany you constantly revert to Zofia Holszańska, as if Holszanska is her family name. Her English name is more informative: it shows that she came from Halshany ruler family. By the way, she wasn't even Polish. Juraune 19:04, 21 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Perhaps this should be "Kasimieras IV", seeing how little Polish he had in his genetics. Maed 16:40, 14 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

How 'bout Casey? Dr. Dan 22:12, 15 June 2006 (UTC) p.s. It would have a "Z", in the Lithuanian version, tak samo, jak po Polsku. p.p.s How 'bout sticking with English?[reply]

Ethnicity

It should be reminded that Casimir was quite totally of non-Polish origin, whereas his wife was from the Piast descent, having ancestry in Masovian, Sandomir, Kujavian, Sileasian and Greater Poland branches of Piasdts as well as among earlier dukes of Pomerania.

Casimir's mother was Sophia of Halshany, belarusian/Lithuanian. Father was Jogaila, Lithuanian-Ruthenian. Maed 16:38, 14 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Encyclopedias and dictionaries

This is how this individual's name is listed in major English-language reference works. If you have access to any such books which are not already listed here, please feel free to add to the list. Thanks! --Elonka 00:51, 30 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Encyclopedias

Casimir IV of Poland (1979 Encyclopedia Britannica)

Casimir IV (Online Britannica) [2]

Casimir IV (Online Columbia) [3]

Casimir IV (MSN Encarta) [4]

Dictionaries

Casimir IV (Jagiellonczyk) (Sokol's Polish Biographical Dictionary)