Talk:Jagiellonian dynasty

Later Jagiellons

The article says: "after the 17th century, all members resumed the trait of having their children at a young age." But this article gives no account of the Jagiellons after the death of Anna, which marked the end of the dynasty. So my question is: did this mark the end of the House of Jagiellon a search for which redirects to this article on the dynasty. Basically, is there any information on the later Jagiellons? There should at least be a short comment on this here - if their child bearing practices over a century later are mentioned surely there is more info available as well. Also, a new article on the House or on the later House, if it was a house as such, should be mentioned. I am by no means an authority in the area. I mean only to point out what I perceive as a gap in the information given. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 188.141.71.70 (talk) 13:07, 10 January 2010 (UTC)

Old talk

From the article's main body:

<! This is horribly wrong! Polish Jagiellon Kings were hereditary. Elected kings in Poland started after the death of Sigismund Augustus without a male heir. !>

<! The above is a common misconception. All Jagiellon Kings were in fact elected - succession was by no means automatic. What changed after the death of Sigismund Augustus was that all szlachta could participate in free elections. !>

For future reference, use <!-- --> to make comments in-line with the article, but please discuss on the talk page. Thanks, - Fennec 15:02, 12 Apr 2004 (UTC)

---

A question to poster writing about election of Jagiellons kings:

I am native of Poland and I am currently taking course on history of Poland and this information is quite new to me. Would you like to state sources of this revelations? The situation you describe (consecutive ellection of kings from one dynasty) took place some time later in case of Vasa (also Jagiellons after a fashion ;). Unless you provide some relevant sources I will continue to change this paragraph to current form. -- rrw 2004.06.02 14:40:42 UTC

Discussion about the Gediminaičiai moved to Talk:Gediminaiciai.

Dynasty diagram

I have enlarged the dynasty diagram to fit fully across the page for better visibility and improved formatting of the text (previously was compressed on the right side). Is it a good idea to move the Dynasty diagram to after the end of all the prose in the article and put this note at the end of the first paragraph (See dynasty chart at the bottom of this page)  ?
H Padleckas 09:50, 29 Nov 2004 (UTC)

English??

English-written sources through I got acquainted with this dynasty, tended to use the form Jagello as the name of this dynasty. Yes, the dynasty.

I think the variant Jagiello is a result of later Polish influence. Perhaps of some American-Polish in acedemic and publishing world.

Why?

Mostly because Latin, French, Italian and so forth, use variant without that letter i. There, the name is Jagello, Jagellon...

This was originally a Lithuania name, and I would like to see what Baltic editors here would think about the version with i.

It is undeniably true that Polish language has recently influenced subtleties in English in many thing somehow related to Poland. It is called cultural sensitivity. Many English and American academics have started to use variants closer to Polish spelling. However it seems sad that the same cultural sensitivity has not been much extended to Lithuanian and Latvian variants of names relevant to those peoples and their history. There could be good reasons to rename this page, to choose more neutral variant. Maed 14:47, 7 June 2006 (UTC)

Request for clarification

Hiya, I'll freely admit that the entire Jagiellon dynasty confuses the heck out of me, and I keep losing track of who's related to whom and what they're supposed to be called, but could someone please help clarify the Bohemia/Hungary section of the article? For example:

• Sigismund's heir was his sister, Catherine Jagiellonica. Which Sigismund is being referred to?

• Also there appear to be two different places on the page which point to the same article, but with different names. It says that The Jagiellons at one point established dynastic control . . . with Wladislaus Jagiello. Then under the list of "Jagellon Kings of Bohemia and Hungary", the name Vladislas II of Hungary appears to point to the same page as the previous Wladislaus Jagiello. They both point to Vladislaus II of Bohemia and Hungary. Is this accurate? If so, I'd recommend adding an explanatory note to the first part, like, established dynastic control ... with Wladislaus Jagiello, who was crowned as Vladislas II.

Thanks much for any assistance in understanding this, --Elonka 16:57, 7 June 2006 (UTC)

One of darn things to confuse innocent readers is the habit of recycling their first names to younger generations. You get three Vladislas Jagellons to be confused about. And that first name is not exactly without variants how to spell it in English and in Latin. You may think that there are ten Vladislases when there actually resides three ones.

I believe I know this dynasty's genealogy as well as my own fingers. Here some answers:

Sigismund II's heir was his sister, Catherine Jagiellonica. Actually, the elder heir was Anna Jagellonica, the elder sister of both of them. They all are chldren of Sigismund I, and the boy (brother) is Sigismund II (August).

Also there is two different places on the page which point to the same article, but with different names. Both things refer to the same guy.

The Ladislas Jagello meant in The Jagiellons at one point established dynastic control . . . with Wladislaus Jagiello is the Ladislas who lived 1456-1516. The third namesake. The youngest who was (V)Ladislas. Grandson of the first namesake and eldest nephew of the second namesake.

Under the list of "Jagellon Kings of Bohemia and Hungary", the name Vladislas II of Hungary is the same guy, lived in 1456-1516.

However, the guy did not use a regnal number during his lifetime, nor did his contemporaries. According to best sources I perused, this was one of the usual medieval kings who did not use a numeral. You see, it was rarer that then a number was used. Such became common just a few centurues later. Any numeral to this guy is anachronistic. It is just a retrospective assignation by writers of histories. (Actually, he could be assigned a variety of numbers, there are his two realms with differing lists of predecessors, and there are unclear cases whether to count a pretender or a predecessor with lower title or predecessors with the same-origin name however written with a slightly different spelling.) The numeral II is attached to him presumably to distinguish him in history books from his uncle, another Vladislas who reigned Hungary. They had more than one predecessors who were Vladislases, so the real number would be higher. Maed 23:53, 7 June 2006 (UTC)

Aha! Okay, thanks Maed, that helps me to understand. I'll re-read the article again, and if I see anything that's still confusing to me, I'll try to edit it to clarify. Please let me know if I get anything wrong though! --Elonka 12:57, 8 June 2006 (UTC)

Maed, several messages have been left on your userpage, but you have not responded. Have you seen them? --Elonka 20:54, 21 June 2006 (UTC)

Maturity pattern

Anthropologists have given some special attention to the Jagiello dynasty regarding their tendencies to procreate next generation just at rather an old age, and also often to first marry relatively aged. Most of its males in the two centuries (approximately between 1360 and 1560) managed to have their heirs only when well in their middle years.

In those days, only rarely people lived past say fifty. Quite many died in thirties... A way to end the dynasty not to produce heirs before say 40.

Compare with later Bourbons and Habsburg-Lorrainess, prolific catholic dynasties, which usually started to produce offpring already in teens. And their dynasties have not extinguished. Those Jagiellons who continued the line, lived to great age. Whereas those who died in twenties or thirties, generally did not leave children. Because average life span was relatively short those days, this habit of starting produce children late axed many potential branches from the dynasty, persons who were generally potential parents, but did not start procreating even in thirties.

This no coincidence. "Maturity" and willingness to settle occurred only later in life, not in one's twenties. Possibly some cultural reasons were co-factors. However, it has been proposed that inherited features were the chief reason. Some female-line descendants within a couple of generations showed similar tendencies: Charles II, Archduke of Inner Austria, Archduke Albert VII of Austria. However, the tendency later got overwhelmed with blood used to procreate young. No discernible trace available after 17th century.

It weakened the potential of the dynasty compared to others of same era. After just four generations, the dynasty went extinct in male line. These four generations however lasted two centuries, over fifty years between siring a new generation in average:

• Algirdas (1291-1377), Ladislaus (1351-1434), Casimir IV (1427-92), Sigismund I (1467-1548), and Sigismund II (1520-72).
• Algirdas (1291-1377), Ladislaus (1351-1434), Casimir IV (1427-92), Ladislaus II (1456-1516), and Louis (1506-26)
  

(Generational chart: Zeroeth interval 60/60 years, first interval: 76/76 years, second interval 29/40 years, third interval 50/53 years)

Age when first child who lived to adulthood was born: Age when any first child was born:

• Ladislaus (1351-1434): 57 48
• Casimir IV (1427-92): 29 29
• Sigismund I (1467-1548): 46 46
• Ladislaus II (1456-1516): 47 47

Jagiello himself was born to a father already in his fifties or sixties. In generational terms, this was a most etraordinary dynasty.

Five generations cover two-and-a-half centuries. For example, Sigismund II in 1572 would have looked and -his grandfather was reigning over 130 years ago. Usual time between grandfather and grandson is 50 years. Here, 50 years was geerally between father and son.

Psychological effects, to have "old" parent, fifty or more years older than one. At a grandfather's age, when father is needed. More tired, more experienced, less active.

Guess it would be better to write this a bit shorter. Agye 10:15, 21 June 2006 (UTC)

strange that Kaliningrad is listed as a country where Jagiellon dynasty ruled. What sort of country is that? Are you sure?

Then the bizarre thing that Jagiellons ruled over Estonia - they never did. Never mind that such a country never existed before Bolsheviks (and is now a temporary fluke of history) but the territory Jagiellons ruled was Livonia, quite distinct from the old province of Estonia (Esthonia, Estland) though a part of Livonia is indeed now within state that is called Estonia. It would be better if article, with all respect to Jagiellons, used proper historic appellations and fantastic notions of the dynasty ruling over Belorussia, Kaliningrad, phony statelet of Estonia and what else Roobit (talk) 10:48, 4 December 2008 (UTC)

Surviving Members

I've removed the section on "Surviving Members". It all looked rather fishy (a British(?)lawyer and one of the many Szlachta families seemed to claim descent) and was completely without references. Anyone who does know some published materials that help shed a light on the issue are very welcome to contribute. Trigaranus (talk) 15:22, 23 August 2009 (UTC)

Anna, Bathory's wife

Could anyone check if she was really a queen only? I was taught that she was a king, like St. Hedwig, for a short period, probably in order to shorten an over-prolonged period of interregnum. 89.231.116.65 (talk) 02:15, 30 March 2011 (UTC)

NO REFERENCES

One of the external links goes to a Physics dept. at a univ, the other is in Polish. This article needs substantial Reliable Sources in English, and there needs to be in-line citations ASAP. Technically, this could be nominated for swift deletion - so please, those editors in-the-know, get to work on this and bring it in line with Wikipedia policy. HammerFilmFan (talk) 03:52, 4 March 2012 (UTC)

On the radar

Probably after the holidays for adding citations, English language + scholarly publication is not an issue. Also, "Jagiellonian" is far more common usage (and in the best current scholarship), so let me put that rename out there as something that should be done and can be done in short order.

Otherwise, nothing terribly urgent, just curious who else out there has this on their radar screen at the moment.

I would also mention that the "dynastic" form omits diacritics as opposed to the proper name, Jagiełło. VєсrumЬа ►TALK 14:45, 7 December 2012 (UTC)

Requested move

The following discussion is an archived discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the move request was: moved to Jagiellonian dynasty. Favonian (talk) 21:41, 4 April 2013 (UTC)

---

Jagiellon dynasty → ? – Jagiellonian dynasty or Jagiełłonian dynasty. Andrew Gray (talk) 18:23, 27 March 2013 (UTC)

Per the above comments, some form of "Jagellonian" "Jagiellonian" seems better than "Jagiellon". A colleague made the same comment to me today during a workshop, so I thought I'd file a move request! I'm agnostic on whether or not we should have the ł form. Thoughts? Andrew Gray (talk) 18:23, 27 March 2013 (UTC)

Well, no one can accuse me of not being in favor of diacritics, in this case, I do believe the "anglo" rename is in order. Might wait to see who else is watching. VєсrumЬа ►TALK 22:31, 27 March 2013 (UTC)

I believe it would be "Jagiellonian", with an "i" in there and just "l"'s, not "ł"'s.Volunteer Marek 22:37, 27 March 2013 (UTC)

Well spotted! My typo... Andrew Gray (talk) 22:47, 27 March 2013 (UTC)

Neutral on "Jagiellon" vs "Jagiellonian". Certainly not "Jagiełłonian". — Kpalion^(talk) 09:50, 28 March 2013 (UTC)

Can somebody please run a Google Books test? I am falling asleep. And of course, no diacritics this time :) --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 15:56, 28 March 2013 (UTC)

• "Jagiellon dynasty" - 107 Google Scholar, 2010 Google Books, 15 JSTOR
• "Jagiellonian dynasty" - 321 Google Scholar, 3610 Google Books, 57 JSTOR

Clearer results than I'd expected! Andrew Gray (talk) 17:21, 28 March 2013 (UTC)

I wouldn't say they're particularly clear. A difference in the order of magnitude is what I would call significant, but this is quite even actually. That's why I keep neutral. — Kpalion^(talk) 18:00, 28 March 2013 (UTC)

• Support move to "Jagiellonian dynasty" per results/discussion above.Volunteer Marek 19:21, 28 March 2013 (UTC)
• Support per above including mine, also, Kpalion is correct, not "Jagiełłonian". I also find the ngrams view useful. VєсrumЬа ►TALK
• Abstain. I don't see much difference either way. As some people seem to care more, go ahead. Would be nice to fix all the redirects... --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 05:46, 31 March 2013 (UTC)

Well, I think it behooves those supporting the move to pitch in on that. :-) VєсrumЬа ►TALK 23:53, 1 April 2013 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page or in a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

A Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion

The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion:

• Bitwapodchojnicami.jpg

Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. —Community Tech bot (talk) 17:23, 17 October 2021 (UTC)

Gedeminis dynasty

Gedeminus come power after death of his father Viten coat of arm Columni and Viten 3 d dynasty of Romans that landed there during run of Neron in Roman Emprire 1st Palemon dynasty many generations, second Dovspungus coat of arm dynasty many generations when last Dovspungus Ginvil went to monastry took power Viten and he aroun 20 generations after first from hif dynasty Prespor Cesar landed Александр Макович (talk) 03:53, 10 February 2024 (UTC)