Talk:Charles I of Austria

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
WikiProject iconVital articles: Level 5 / People B‑class
WikiProject iconCharles I of Austria has been listed as a level-5 vital article in People (Politicians). If you can improve it, please do.
BThis article has been rated as B-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposal

Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the debate was no consensus, leaning on don't move. —Nightstallion (?) Seen this already? 14:09, 22 April 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Requested move[edit]

Karl I of AustriaCharles I of Austria - Rationale: The late Emperor Charles of Austria is one of several monarchs who is commonly referred to by an Anglicised name. Typing "Charles I of Austria" - wikipedia into Google yields more results than "Karl I of Austria" - wikipedia. In the effort for and for the sake of consistency, I feel that this page ought to be moved to the Anglicised form of his name as all other Austrian sovereigns are treated, with the exception of Francis Joseph, whom I shall bring up for a requested move. Charles 19:50, 17 April 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]



Please see my above comments in the survery and request for move. Thanks. Charles 19:55, 17 April 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Responding to the comments of John and Jtdirl above - Franz Joseph seems to be the exception, rather than the rule. There is a much stronger case for the use of Charles in English, from the beatification website to the number of Google hits to the use of Charles in the article for the Hungarian and Bohemian titles (rather than Karol/Carol/Karoly/etc). Charles 00:09, 18 April 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]
We should perhaps resort to looking and seeing what standard textbooks use. I'm open to being convinced to change my mind on this one. john k 02:10, 18 April 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I can't easily access a library, however Google Scholar seems to favour Charles over Karl. 18 for Charles of Austria vs 4 for Karl of Austria. Charles I of Austria yields 6 vs 5 for Karl I of Austria. The latter pair is close, but convincing enough to follow English usage in my opinion. Does anyone know where else to look? Charles 02:31, 18 April 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I utilized the book search as well: 34 for Charles I of Austria vs 3 for Karl I of Austria and 45 for Emperor Charles of Austria vs 24 for Emperor Karl of Austria. Charles 02:36, 18 April 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]
A lot of the Google Scholar results are from articles more than 50 years old. At that time, Charles was definitely in more common usage. I don't think that's conclusive. In terms of textbooks, John Merriman's A History of Modern Europe, Volume Two: From the French Revolution to the Present, refers to him as Charles. So does Felix Gilbert and David Clay Large's The End of the European Era: 1890 to the Present (5th Edition) Norman Davies's Europe: A History also uses Charles. All are fairly recent. Unfortunately, that's about all I have at hand that is relevant. I'd still like to look at more books, particularly textbooks on Austria specifically but as such, I'm going to withdraw from opposing the move. john k 19:09, 18 April 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Charles was also monarch of Hungary, where his name was officially Karoly. And king in other titular kingdoms, too, and of many nations. As I believe the English wikipedia should not be German-centric, I support the neutral name, that is in english. Shilkanni 20:50, 19 April 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]

He is certainly never called Karoly in English. And he is certainly sometimes called Karl in English. Whether he's called Karl or Charles his a matter for debate, but his status in Hungary is completely irrelevant. john k 21:13, 19 April 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]
You mised the point completely. I try in other words: since he was not Karl in his other kingdoms such as Hungary, since all those other nsations used a translation of the name, therefore his name is best to translate into English here. Shilkanni 21:31, 19 April 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]
But this is not how we decide these matters. Septentrionalis 02:04, 20 April 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I think the fractured use is unacceptable though. Calling him King Karl of Hungary and Bohemia would be a bit sketchy, but calling him Charles in reference to those kingdoms is okay with Karl in use for Austria? Charles 02:19, 20 April 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]
At the moment, we call him King Karoly of Hungary at the beginning, but just call him Karl thereafter. His role as King of Bohemia was not independent, so there's no more need to mention his Czech name than his Polish, Serbo-Croat, Italian, Slovak, Slovene, or Romanian name. john k 03:27, 20 April 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]
For the sake of "unity" of these different names though, shouldn't the umbrella name Charles, which is arguably common, be applied to this emperor? Charles 03:30, 20 April 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]
As I said above, I'm pretty neutral about a move, but I don't think this is a good argument. We should use the name most commonly used. If that name is Charles (which it may well be), then the article should be moved. If the most common name is Karl, then it should stay where it is, whether or not this detracts from "Habsburg unity" or whatever. But I'm leaning towards moving to Charles just on the basis of common-ness - as far as I can tell, he is called by the English version considerably more frequently than Franz Joseph. john k 06:48, 20 April 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

Talk Material up to April 17, 2006[edit]

I removed following section: and the last king of The Czech Kingdom. His titles claimed of course that he was king of Bohemia, king of Croatia, duke of Carinthia asf, but he reigned in Cisleithania (which included Bohemia and Carinthia) in his right as emperor of Austria and in Transleithania (which included Croatia) in his right as king of Hungary. Either we add all of his titles or we just restrict ourselves in stating that he was the last emperor of Austria and last king of Hungary (since those were the constitutionally "important" ones). Gugganij 16:51, 10 Jul 2004 (UTC)

Addition to the infobox about his being Provisional President of Hungary[edit]

At the bottom of the Mihály Károlyi infobox, it reads that Károlyi was preceded by Karl I of Austria as "Provisional President of Hungary". This thread completely gets lost in this article. Could somebody please add this infobox (completed) to the article?

Preceded by
Provisional President of Hungary
?–1918 ?
Succeeded by

Thanks, Adam78 00:03, 12 Apr 2005 (UTC)

He was not provisional president of Hungary. Karl preceded Karolyi as Hungarian Head of State. Perhaps the succession box on Karolyi's page could be better laid out? john k 00:38, 12 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Thank you – I could have guessed it. ;-) I was doing this job a bit too automatically... Anyway, I've corrected Mihály Károlyi's infobox. Adam78 02:04, 12 Apr 2005 (UTC)

does anyone know why he died so young? and of what the cause of death was?

Title Naming[edit]

Shouldn't the article's title be "Charles I of Austria", following the convention to anglisize the names? Karl is his german name, the translation of Charles into german. Alex 10:46, 27 December 2005 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I agree that this should be at Charles I of Austria. Charles 16:09, 26 February 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I don't know about this. How would you explain Wilhelm I of Germany and Ludwig II of Bavaria in that case? Gryffindor 16:50, 18 April 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Usage, for Ludwig. Wilhelm should be moved. Septentrionalis 02:06, 20 April 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]

In any books, incl. schoolbooks, in which I've read about Billy (1 & 2) of Germany, it's always referred to them with the name "William". -Alex, 01:09, 30 April 2006 (UTC).Reply[reply]

King of Bohemia[edit]

The article says "He reigned as Emperor Charles I of Austria, King Charles III of Bohemia and King Charles IV of Hungary from 1916 until 1918". Karl was certainly titular King of Bohemia but he did not reign as such as Bohemia was included in Austria. I'll remove the reference.Gerard von Hebel 20:29, 21 November 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]

He was the last king and monarch of the kingdom fo Bohemia, founded as a princely state around 870, sure, that's not important . -- (talk) 07:53, 12 August 2009 (UTC) (NB2 here, but this doesn't deserve me signing in at the moment)Reply[reply]

Requested move[edit]

The following discussion is an archived discussion of the proposal. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the proposal was Move.--Húsönd 01:37, 12 March 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Karl I of AustriaCharles I of Austria — The last Emperor of Austria is commonly referred to by the name "Charles". Not only is this name more prevalent online, it is used by the website for his beatification. The last discussed move request seemingly failed because a misunderstanding in the vote (it was not requested because of WP:UE) and one vote in agreement to another which was later withdrawn. Regardless, the use of Charles is prevalent and has the added effect of bringing the names of the emperors into their anglicized forms. Charles 01:48, 6 March 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]


Add  # '''Support'''  or  # '''Oppose'''  on a new line in the appropriate section followed by a brief explanation, then sign your opinion using ~~~~. Please remember that this survey is not a vote, and please provide an explanation for your recommendation.

Survey - in support of the move[edit]

  1. Support As nominator. Charles 01:48, 6 March 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  2. Support as best known in English. Gene Nygaard 16:53, 11 March 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Survey - in opposition to the move[edit]


Add any additional comments:
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

Ancestry Section[edit]

Since Charles can either be refered to as Charles of Austria or Charles I of Austria, his grandfather and great-grandfather ought to be refered to the same way.

Since titles are generally not are used, for consistancy's sake, use titles for all entries in the chart. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Cladeal832 (talkcontribs) 19:02, 13 November 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Incorrect, when the ancestry charts were first being implemented, they were being linked as the article titles did or should appear, according to WP:NC(NT) and also to avoid redirects. They are going to be changed back to that form for the sake of consistency with article titles and with WP:NC(NT), which is a standard for article titles. Wikipedia is not consistent for all royals and WP:NC(NT) only gives consistency for groups of royals, such as monarchs, consorts and other royals. Charles 20:20, 13 November 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Summary of my edits on March 27, 2008[edit]

Summary - I have removed the many un-needed & "space-waisting" info boxes, which are rather silly. I removed the section on the Emperor's issue, which is listed twice in the article. Should one need to see if his issue has issue of their own, one can access that partiocular subject's respective article.

In an affort to improve lay out, I put all images into a gallery - these images really didn't look right where they were placed.

I have always felt that one of the resons that wikipedia gets an occasional bad reputation is due to the complete disregard for layout. Many articles look horrible.

--Mrlopez2681 (talk) 10:57, 27 March 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Crown Prince[edit]

Since Charles was heir presumptive did he ever hold the title of Crown Prince-Croix 129

There were only ever three Crown Princes of Austria - the future Emperor Ferdinand, Rudolf, and Otto. john k (talk) 17:16, 7 May 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Is it known if a collateral agnate could have ever been Crown Prince of Hungary and/or Bohemia? Charles 17:35, 7 May 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I wouldn't think anyone but an heir apparent would be called a crown prince, which is just an informal style, rather than a formal title, anyway. john k (talk) 21:19, 7 May 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Then why is Empress Zita called crown pincess —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 21:45, 8 May 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Austrian & Hungarian reigns[edit]

Charles's reign as King of Hungary was 1916-18 (due to his abdication). But his reign as Emperor of Austria should be 1916-19 (as he didn't abdicate, but rather the Austrian monarchy was abolished, in 1919). GoodDay (talk) 16:10, 4 April 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]

He withdrew from the throne, or something similar. He was not the reigning emperor of Austria after November 11, 1918, at any rate. john k (talk) 05:01, 9 July 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Official Grand Titles[edit]

I notice in the sectin of Official Grand titles a lot of "etc.", as in King of Jerusalem, etc. Is this for a formal reason or did the author not know what to put? --Eddylyons (talk) 23:24, 10 April 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Toroko please DO NOT REMOVE titles. Wikipedians want to know ALL titles! And once more remember to assume good faith when dealing with other editors. Thank You. --Dvatel (talk) 21:54, 14 May 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Toroko, I don`t like to read you nationalistic poems. wikipedian reader -- (talk) 16:20, 7 June 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I removed the etc, etc. from the section. --Eddylyons (talk) 16:24, 17 November 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Page location[edit]

This is pretty ridiculous. In 2006 Charles tries a move from Karl I of Austria to Charles I of Austria. It doesn't get too many votes, but there was obviously no consensus to move at all. A year later, he tries again. This time, nobody notices, he gets one other person to vote in favor of the move, and it gets moved. That just isn't a consensus to move at all. john k (talk) 05:01, 9 July 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Well, I'll support it retroactively as usage; see for example Nicholson's history of WWI. But the real problem is that he is not Charles I of Austria; he is only the first Charles if the locator is the Dual Monarchy. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 19:06, 14 September 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]
And if the locator is the Empire of Austria. Surtsicna (talk) 19:49, 14 September 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]
More the Empire of Austria than the Dual Monarchy; he was Charles IV of Hungary. Ferdinand I did not reign over the Dual Monarchy, and is still at Ferdinand I of Austria, in spite of the existence of numerous previous Ferdinands who were archduke of Austria. As to usage, Hew Strachan and John Keegan's histories of World War I use "Karl I". On the other hand, most of the general histories of the Habsburg Monarchy that I can find (e.g. Robin Okey, Alan Sked, Robert Kann, A.C. Macartney) use Charles. I think both usages are in fact pretty common in English, and I'm no longer too worked up about this. If we're going to have the anglicized form for every other Habsburg, though, we should probably go to Francis Joseph I of Austria, which has similar usage patterns (although Okey, puzzlingly, uses anglicized forms for every monarch except Franz Joseph, so I guess we're in good company). john k (talk) 20:10, 14 September 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Requested move 3[edit]

The following discussion is an archived discussion of the proposal. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

No consensus to move. Vegaswikian (talk) 06:12, 23 January 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Charles I of AustriaCharles of Austria – Is it really necessary to have this page named "Charles I of Austria"? There is no monarchy in Austria now, so it is unlikely for a Charles II to come up. If, however unlikely, that does happen, we can always re-move it. I propose to move this article to Charles of Austria. --Alexcoldcasefan (talk) 09:07, 16 January 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]

  • Oppose Yes, it is desirable (although it would be better at Charles I of Austria-Hungary; the only defense for not indicating the state better is his great-uncle's article - and he reigned before the Ausgleich). "Charles of Austria" is seriously ambiguous, being used of at least three other Habsburgs.
  • This is not something we are making up; like Juan Carlos I of Spain, he used the numeral himself, and it is normally used by modern historians. (He didn't know the Empire was going to end in a couple years, after all.) Follow reliable sources. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 20:06, 16 January 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Oppose per Pmanderson he used Charles I. Possibly this could get moved to something like Charles I & IV as the territory got removed from British monarchs who reigned over various places. - dwc lr (talk) 01:24, 17 January 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Oppose "Charles I" was his actual title, as you can see here. Kauffner (talk) 10:39, 17 January 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Oppose -- Where possible our articles should reflect the actual regnal name adopted. This article says, "He reigned as Charles I as Emperor of Austria" and as Charles IV as King of Hungary. British monarchs with a unique regnal name do not use the ordinal, but where they do, WP should follow suit. On the question of ambiguity, see Archduke Charles of Austria (disambiguation). If created Charles of Austria should be a redirect to that page. Peterkingiron (talk) 14:50, 21 January 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the proposal. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

Orphaned references in Charles I of Austria[edit]

I check pages listed in Category:Pages with incorrect ref formatting to try to fix reference errors. One of the things I do is look for content for orphaned references in wikilinked articles. I have found content for some of Charles I of Austria's orphans, the problem is that I found more than one version. I can't determine which (if any) is correct for this article, so I am asking for a sentient editor to look it over and copy the correct ref content into this article.

Reference named "Brook-Shepherd":

  • From Rudolf Carl von Slatin: Gordon Brook-Shepherd (1972). Slatin Pascha-Ein abenteuerliches Leben (in German). Vienna-Munich-Zürich: Verlag Fritz Molden.
  • From Zita of Bourbon-Parma: Brook-Shepherd.

I apologize if any of the above are effectively identical; I am just a simple computer program, so I can't determine whether minor differences are significant or not. AnomieBOT 09:09, 9 April 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]

NPOV dispute Assessment[edit]

Most of the assessments have no references. Whereas I can trace Helmut Rumpler's statement back to an article in the British newspaper The Guardian [1], the quotes by Anatole France and Herbert Vivian have no source and are probably taken from the essay Why an Austrian Emperor should be canonized by Br. Nathan Cochran, O.S.B., published on Charles' beatification and canonization site, surely not a neutral source. Why should lengthy quotes by a French novelist and an obscure journalist (?) be pitted against a historian's assessment in the first place? Neither do I understand, what the significance of Paul von Hindenburg's statement from 1920 (!) might be. In short, the whole section is not based on reliable sources, but on primary sources, biased in its selection of quotes and unbalanced in as much critics are hardly represented.--Assayer (talk) 16:12, 15 January 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]

"Charles was born on 17 August 1887 in the Castle of Persenbeug in Lower Austria. His parents were Archduke Otto Franz of Austria and Princess Maria Josepha of Saxony. At the time, his granduncle Franz Joseph reigned as Emperor of Austria and King of Hungary, while his uncle Franz Ferdinand was heir presumptive."

The last part of this paragraph is nonsense. When Charles was born in 1887, Franz Josef's son Rudolf ( and not Franz Ferdinand ) was the heir. And after Rudolf would have been Karl Ludwig who was also still alive then. Eregli bob (talk) 09:16, 22 July 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]

King of jerusalem?[edit]

I have a question that hopefully someone can answer. Since Jerusalem was under the control of the Ottoman Empire, how was the monarch of Austria-Hungary the King of Jerusalem? — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 22:47, 30 September 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]

See the article King of Jerusalem for details. While the Kingdom fell in 1291, succession to the title and claims to it have continued to the present day. His particular lineage goes as following:

Simple enough? Dimadick (talk) 00:12, 2 October 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Heir presumptive?[edit]

'Charles became heir presumptive after the assassination of Archduke Franz Ferdinand in Sarajevo in 1914...'

If Charles became Heir Presumptive, who was Heir Apparent? Valetude (talk) 13:56, 22 October 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Nobody. If there is an heir presumptive, there is no heir apparent. He was heir presumptive because so long as Franz Josef was alive, it was in theory possible that he would remarry and have a son, who would then have become heir. Intelligent Mr Toad (talk) 17:05, 20 April 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Two questions[edit]

1. Why is he Charles I and not just Charles? There has been no Charles II. 2. Is he not much better known in English as Karl? The practice of calling European monarchs by English names has just about died out. Almost no-one refers to Francis Joseph anymore. Intelligent Mr Toad (talk) 17:05, 20 April 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]


What was he called before his succession? Archduke Karl? —Tamfang (talk) 00:35, 25 August 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]

caught a cold?[edit]

The phrase "On 9 March 1922 he had caught a cold walking into town..." seems to employ the false notion that one catches a cold by being out in cold weather.

That should be rewritten into something more factual. — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 02:29, 17 August 2015 (UTC)Reply[reply]

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Charles I of Austria. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 03:10, 20 November 2016 (UTC)Reply[reply]

A Commons file used on this page has been nominated for deletion[edit]

The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page has been nominated for deletion:

Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. —Community Tech bot (talk) 03:38, 14 December 2018 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Why Charles I, when there's no Charles II?[edit]

Why is he Charles the First? He was the last Austro-Hungarian emperor, there was no Charles II - or rather there was a Charles II of Austria, but in the 16th century.Gymnophoria (talk) 13:52, 11 July 2019 (UTC)Reply[reply]

See #Requested move 3. Surtsicna (talk) 16:47, 11 July 2019 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Excessive genealogy[edit]

Wikipedia is not a genealogy database. The biographers of Charles I of Austria do not mention Gerard II of Metz, or Frederick I of Lorraine, or Anthony of Vaudémont, etc, and neither should Wikipedia. Surtsicna (talk) 21:52, 10 December 2019 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Removing the "Hymn" section[edit]

The "Hymn" section does not appear to be notable or relevant to the life, legacy, and cultus of Charles I. An internet search shows the hymn neither to be in common usage nor to be an important part of Charles' cultus. I am happy to be contradicted on these points; however, unless its notability can be proven, I shall think it best to remove the section. — Preceding unsigned comment added by CPClegg (talkcontribs) 07:59, 3 July 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Image from a Turkish magazine[edit]

I found an image of him in an old Turkish magazine, Servet-i-Funun. I wonder if here are higher quality versions of this image WhisperToMe (talk) 16:21, 10 March 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Which one? There are a lot of pictures at --jpgordon𝄢𝄆 𝄐𝄇 16:39, 10 March 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]
@Jpgordon: Good to know! The image printed in Servet-i-Funun was of him with his consort and a child, all in Royal regalia. In French it's captioned "La famille souveraine d'Autriche-Hongrie." (I cannot read Ottoman Turkish and I have no idea what that caption says) WhisperToMe (talk) 19:00, 10 March 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]
@WhisperToMe: Here; you can source it to The Turkish seems to say Austrian-Hungarian Emperor Qarli and Zita, but I only have Persian translation available, not Turkish Arabic. --jpgordon𝄢𝄆 𝄐𝄇 21:10, 10 March 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Oh duh, it's File:Kroenung Budapest Karl und Zita 1916a.jpg. Wow, this one's a different photo from the same session! --jpgordon𝄢𝄆 𝄐𝄇 21:14, 10 March 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Should “defacto” be used when listing him as King of Hungary.[edit]

To my understanding de-facto is used in cases when there’s not a legal status. Like if the true ruler of a country doesn’t hold the highest office or whatever. To me saying he was “de-facto” king implies he ruled the country even if he wasn’t legally King. Would putting “de-jure” work better? I’m not if he actually was recognized as king or if the throne was considered empty. The same issue exists on Ottos profile.


Quoting Neo-Jacobite Herbert Vivian in the Legacy section smacks to me heavily of WP:FRINGE. It's hardly surprising that an ultra-monarchist would have a positive view of Charles; the Herbert Vivian article explicitly mentions that his praise of Charles is believed to be based on his uncritical admiration of kings. Unless there's good reason to do otherwise, I think this quote should be removed. Jah77 (talk) 20:26, 10 August 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]