Talk:Kingdom of Germany#Proposal to split this article

Just to give some native speaker remarks: in the German language, there is no whatsoever use of the terms "König von Deutschland" (king of germany; except for a pop song) or "Deutscher König" (german king), "Königreich Deutschland" (kingdom germany). There is, on the other hand, a :de:Deutscher Kaiser, but that reflects a much later period of time. There is also a new term :de:Römisch-deutscher König to be more precise in specialised scientific literature when referring to a period of time before emperors were enthroned as Kaiser. I'm not sure, if this is relevant for the discussion, as this article is not about the German terms, but I was confused seeing this lemma, as the term "Deutschland" (Germany) was not used officially before 1945. --Amtiss, SNAFU ? 16:24, 21 July 2020 (UTC)

:It's highly relevant in helping us realise that the article is not about a real political entity, but about the usage of the phrase 'Kingdom of Germany' in some English sources in a rather loose and inconsistent way to refer to the German-speaking states in history, the Holy Roman Empire north of the Alps or the region roughly covered by modern Germany. Like the phrase 'King of Germany', it reached its peak in the mid-19th century and has tailed off since, but its use is far exceeded by the term Holy Roman Empire. However, there appears to be a minority view that it really existed. Bermicourt (talk) 17:39, 21 July 2020 (UTC)

:Müller-Mertens in his book Regnum Teutonicum uses the terms "Deutschland", "deutsches Reich" and "Reich der Deutschen" many times throughout. The term "Reich" does not translate easily, but it is certainly not "empire" in these instances. The Latin sources use regnum and in English we say "kingdom". Srnec (talk) 02:19, 22 July 2020 (UTC)

:::Sry für dieses kleine "Interregnum" ... "Reich" gab's doch auch im Englischen, bloß heute nicht mehr, außer in e.g. "bishopric", wo das "-ric" (derzeit auch -rike, -riki) eben "Reich" bedeutet. Nur ums erwähnt zu haben. Hut ab für Geduld, übrigens. Vielleicht sollten einige sich der Abwechslung wegen mal über "France originated as West Francia (Francia Occidentalis), the western half of the Carolingian Empire, with the Treaty of Verdun (843). A branch of the Carolingian dynasty continued to rule until 987, when Hugh Capet was elected king and founded the Capetian dynasty. The territory remained known as Francia and its ruler as rex Francorum ("king of the Franks")" aufregen. Als ob Deutschland irgenwie eine Sonderstellung einnimmt. T 88.89.219.99 (talk) 00:08, 23 July 2020 (UTC)

::::"-ric" is not an English word but only a suffix. Even if there once existed a word in Old or even Middle English, no such word now exists in modern English. I agree with your point about Germany being singled our for a special role here. Str1977 ^(talk) 12:41, 25 August 2020 (UTC)

::Yes but that was written in 1956, and so is not contemporary. Maximilian I, Holy Roman Emperor (1493–1519) was the first to use the title "Germaniae rex" (King of Germany"), see [https://books.google.co.uk/books?id=-M4dwX_X0PoC&pg=PA20&lpg=PA20&dq=Maximilian+I+Germaniae+rex&source=bl&ots=YhjbA_iZMz&sig=ACfU3U061vZU3Z6sKSXvw8GJhyXRaBqh2g&hl=en&sa=X&ved=2ahUKEwjVvOvU_ODqAhVUTsAKHY88BzMQ6AEwG3oECA4QAQ#v=onepage&q=Maximilian%20I%20Germaniae%20rex&f=false]. But did it refer to a territory distinct from the HRE? That is the central question. It could be seen as excluding Territories of the Holy Roman Empire outside the Imperial Circles, but there is no particular evidence that the title referred to territories excluding those; and indeed the Old Swiss Confederacy would probably have been seen as Germanic (or at least the German cantons), despite being outside the Imperial Circles. But it is convenient for historians to use the term "Kingdom of Germany" in this way. The ref {{tq|...it is the relative fewness of references to a German realm, and the instability in the term's use, that must above all be kept in mind.{{cite book|author=Len Scales|title=The Shaping of German Identity: Authority and Crisis, 1245-1414|url=https://books.google.com/books?id=-qICADV-G-EC&pg=PA179|accessdate=3 April 2013|date=26 April 2012|publisher=Cambridge University Press|isbn=978-0-521-57333-7|page=179}}}} says it all to some extent. --Jules (Mrjulesd) 14:01, 22 July 2020 (UTC)

::I'm sorry but I'm quite perplexed by this debate, doesn't the article cite statements showing that the term Regnum Teutonicorum or variants were used in the High Middle Ages to indicate the division of the Empire besides the Kingdom of Arelat and Kingdom of Italy, with the Archbishop of Mainz as its Archchancellor separate from the other two? There seem to be plenty of cited statements in the article where contemporaries from all sides, and occasionally even the Emperor himself, used some variant of the term, just inconsistently. Are we at least on agreement on that point? If yes, "Kingdom of the Germans" seems to be the most common translation for Regnum Teutonicorum, at least on Google Books. As for use of the term after the loss of Imperial Burgundy and Italy, that's a different issue which needs to be addressed separately. 42.61.172.8 (talk) 17:41, 3 August 2020 (UTC)

:::Well for most of the HRE history they called themselves King of the Franks or King of the Romans, it wasn't until the 16th century they called themselves Germaniae rex, Regnum Teutonicorum was actually more of an insult as anything. So did the Kingdom of Germany come about in the 16th century? Also the Kingdom of Germany was rarely referred to, didn't have an independent ruler, governance was via the Imperial Diet (of all the HRE), and didn't have a clear definition of what it included. So there are a number of pertinent questions. The Prince-Archbishop of Mainz was the Archchancellor of Germany, but there is no evidence of Germany having separate governance than the rest if the HRE, or even what it referred to. In reality, the HRE was a loose federation at that point, so you could even argue that the Emperor was essentially a figurehead. But if the HRE was vague, the Kingdom of Germany was doubly so. --Jules (Mrjulesd) 19:34, 3 August 2020 (UTC)

::::Hear, hear! Bermicourt (talk) 21:22, 3 August 2020 (UTC)

:::: Ok the issue is, I just added a number of cited statements from Scales and a few others that I came across reading, which say that the term was also used occasionally in a non-insulting sense by representatives of the emperor, and in the Concordat of Worms which specified a separate legal jurisdiction of the Regnum Teutonicorum from "other parts of the empire", and also unofficially by some Germans at the time because of growing sense of national consciousness. Even though it's not much, there seems to be some contemporary political meaning to the term. I understand that there was no concrete political structures for this Regnum Teutonicorum entity. Again, this is not talking about the 16th century introduction of Rex Germaniae; I agree that by that point any distinction between a "German kingdom" and the HR Empire of the German nation was definitely meaningless. I'm only discussing the High Medieval concept of that part of the empire that does not include the Kingdoms of Italy and Burgundy. Aelmsu (talk) 05:56, 4 August 2020 (UTC)

::::: Yes looking through the article it doesn't seem that bad at all. There was definitely a German identity, mainly through language, and the Imperial Circle concept somewhat formulated that; by excluding the Swiss, it gave a sense of jurisdiction that excluded some German speakers. The German identity was somewhat tempered to avoid giving away their claims to Bohemia and Northern Italy. So while the concept of the "Kingdom of Germany" may be somewhat ill-defined, the large number of sources suggest an article is needed, and I feel that the Wikipedia article does a reasonable job. The main issue I have here is with people claiming a clearly defined and unquestionable concept of a Kingdom of Germany within the HRE, which I definitely object to that. I think that you also have to realise that the concept of nation state was quite weak at that stage anyway, that only came about quite a bit later, nations and national identity didn't really exist early on when feudalism dominated. --Jules (Mrjulesd) 10:02, 4 August 2020 (UTC)

:" Just to give some native speaker remarks: in the German language, there is no whatsoever use of the terms "König von Deutschland" (king of germany; except for a pop song) or "Deutscher König" (german king), "Königreich Deutschland" (kingdom germany)."

:"Königreich Deutschland" and "König von Deutschland" are indeed uncommon in modern German. "deutscher König" and "deutsches (König-)reich" however aren't uncommon at all. And both would be more correct than speaking of a "deutscher Kaiser" in pre-modern contexts.--MacX85 (talk) 12:51, 29 September 2020 (UTC)

@42.61.172.8 I think you're using the fact that the Prince-Archbishop of Mainz was Archchancellor of Germany in the Imperial Diet as evidence for the "Kingdom of Germany". Might I also remind you that the Elector of the Palatinate was Archsteward? Or that the Elector of Saxony was Archmarshal? Or that the Margrave of Brandenburg was Archchamberlain? But there is no suggestion that these entities were outside the so-called "Kingdom of Germany". Just because a title exists, it doesn't necessarily give credence to a defined area of juridiction. Also there was no Archchancellor of Bohemia, so by that logic Bohemia was part of the Kingdom of Germany. --Jules (Mrjulesd) 16:06, 4 August 2020 (UTC)

: I was in the middle of a reorganisation to merge the awkwardly separated bottom sections with the main narrative in "terminology". and I've now added a few more references to a legal distinction between the German part of the empire and the rest of the empire. Also, I'm having a lot of difficulty verifying the source (Bryce) which connects the Imperial territory within the circles to a German identity? Can someone provide the chapter? 42.61.172.8 (talk) 17:34, 4 August 2020 (UTC)

:{{ping|Mrjulesd}} See archive 6 for the discussion of whether Bohemia was a part of the kingdom of Germany. There is scholarship on the topic, and remember that Bohemia was a duchy before it was a kingdom. I'm not sure your point about the arch-titles. Although the archchancelleries of Germany, Italy and Arles were honorifics, the chanceries had been separate into the reign of Henry V. Only then were they merged into one for the whole empire. Srnec (talk) 00:20, 5 August 2020 (UTC)

::{{ping|Srnec}} my point may be a little unclear, so allow me to explain. I think the position of the IP is that the position "Archchancellor of Germany" infers the "Kingdom of Germany". But I disagree. First of all, the "Archchancellor of Germany" would have sit in the Imperial Diet, and therefore represented the entire HRE, right? So it was more likely that the Archchancellor of Germany was actually the "Archchancellor of the HRE, but appointed from a German state, and therefore given the title Archchancellor of Germany". In my mind the Archchancellor of Germany was the second highest rank of the HRE (after the Emperor), and represented the entire HRE, and was unlikely that there was a particular significance in the title "Archchancellor of Germany" other than it was an Archchancellor of the HRE chosen from a German state, but with no special jurisdiction over the so-called Kingdom Of Germany. So the inference is wrong. Hopefully you can follow me. --Jules (Mrjulesd) 00:59, 5 August 2020 (UTC)

:::{{gi|First of all, the "Archchancellor of Germany" would have sit in the Imperial Diet, and therefore represented the entire HRE, right?}} Why do you think this? There were no fixed seats in the diet until the 16th century. The archbishop of Mainz was archchancellor of Germany only, but there was in fact only one chancery. Over the years the formal role of Mainz in its administration waxed and waned but ultimately prevailed. Thus the other archchancellors had no formal role or rights in virtue of their titles, but that of Germany did, because he was in charge of the actual single imperial chancery. I don't believed the formal titles ever changed. The titles are evidence of a division that once existed, but they do not show that it persisted until 1806. Srnec (talk) 02:55, 5 August 2020 (UTC)

:::OK hang on there, the Archchancellors of Italy and Burgundy are also from German states. The Archchancellor issue (which is weak evidence) is no longer the sole evidence of a German-Imperial legal distinction. from Len Scales' book: there are a very large number of concrete examples of contemporary German writers and virtually all non-Germans making references to a "regnum Alemanniae" or "Regnum Teutonicorum" that is a part of the Empire but not all of it. There are also many examples of a legal distinction in Imperial law between the German lands of the empire and the rest of the empire. But the emperors were very reluctant unless required by diplomacy to specifically refer to a German kingdom because doing so would weaken their own link to the universalist Roman throne. 42.61.172.8 (talk) 03:01, 5 August 2020 (UTC)

{{ref-talk}}

:Another "native speaker remarks": that there is no title "König von Deutschland" is beside the point. That has long been discussed. The king was first "King of the (Eastern) Franks" and later "King of the Romans". But the kingdom he ruled was never called "Kingdom of the Romans"

:Regarding the "Archbishop of Mainz as the Archchancellor of Germany" etc. - these Archchanceries are pretty late development. Frederick I's chancellor was the Archbishop of Cologne. Only later did the Archchancellorship develop into honorifics, three for the three Archbishops. They are just honorifcs as the Duke of Saxony being Archmarshall. But that these honorifics were given also indicates that separate kingdoms existed, at least in theory.

:"So it was more likely that the Archchancellor of Germany was actually the "Archchancellor of the HRE, but appointed from a German state, and therefore given the title Archchancellor of Germany"."
By that logic, how did the titles of Archchancellor of Italy" or "Or Burdundy" came about? Cologne is not in Italy and Trier is not in Burgundy. No, these honorifics do denote the existence of three separate (not independent) kingdoms. Str1977 ^(talk) 12:38, 25 August 2020 (UTC)

::Au contraire. If there is no king, there is no kingdom. And even if there is a king (of the Romans), you are absolutely right that there was no kingdom (of the Romans) in this case; it was an honorific, as you call it, for the emperor-in-waiting. And please don't dismiss all Germans ("native speaker remarks etc.") as if we know better than they about the history of their country. The reason this is even an issue is sheer ignorance or imprecision on the part of English writers who either don't have sufficient German (or Latin) to understand the sources or choose to oversimplify the history of the Holy Roman Empire for the sake of English readers who aren't familiar with the very different landscape that existed in Central Europe. Bermicourt (talk) 13:42, 17 February 2021 (UTC)

:::The title of the king was certainly not an honorific. If anything the title of the emperor was since it changed nothing about their legal position within the empire but gave them more legitimacy.--MacX85 (talk) 22:08, 27 February 2021 (UTC)

::::That's incorrect. To become the legitimate emperor, you had to be crowned by the Pope. No King of Italy was going to pay homage to a prince elected by a bunch of electors north of the Alps. The imperial coronation was what gave the emperor legitimacy as well as dominion over a much larger territory than that represented by the Regnum Teutonicum. Bermicourt (talk) 14:34, 28 February 2021 (UTC)

::::: There was no other king of Italy other than the Roman/German king who assumed this position by his coronation in Aachen.--MacX85 (talk) 22:57, 2 March 2021 (UTC)

Just to butt in here. I raised this issue Talk:Kingdom of Germany/Archive 1#Last King of Scotland back in February 2007. I thought then and still think that "King of the Germans" (which currently redirects to "King of the Romans") is a better article title for this article, principally because using "Kingdom of Germany" implies a unified state as per England and to a lesser degree Scotland during the period this article covers and that is therefore misleading for those who are not familiar with German history. I used "Last King of Scotland" as the section header because it was topical at the time. There is no doubt that Idi Amin assumed the title, but as with many pretenders it does not mean that it was recognised as a title of a sovereign state. What has surprised me is that very few editors support the current article title with the notable exceptions of users Srnec and Str1977 who have supported the current title since I originally questioned it on this page. The problems with the current article title have been raised repeatedly, so perhaps it is time to hold a "requested move" (RM). Nothing ventured nothing gained and AFAICT more discussion is unlikely to persuade Srnec and Str1977 to change their opinions any more than they are likely to change mine, so perhaps it is time to see which way the wind is blowing. However because at least two editors will object to any move I suspect that such an RM will be closed by a disinterested editor as no move because of no consensus. If someone does initiate an RM please ping all the users (but not IPs) who have discussed this over the years, so that informed editors who have previously discussed this issue can express an opinion. -- PBS (talk) 09:40, 24 September 2021 (UTC)

:{{reply|PBS}}: Since I haven't stopped by this discussion in two years I just want to say I'd reluctantly agree with that compromise. I still strongly prefer the German Wikipedia title "Regnum Teutonicum" (which we can then optionally translate as "Kingdom of Germany") but whatever, this has gone on for long enough. It's insane that we've had a disputed tag on the article for 5 years but the discussions never ended so it can't be removed either. It really is time to resolve this. I'm not the best RM maker so I'm hesitant to do it, but if someone more experienced wants to make one I would suggest the following:

:1. Gather a small number of the most often repeated solutions from this talk page over the last year

:2. Provide these the possible options in an RfC or RM (is that allowed?) plus an option "Other"

:3. Ping everyone who has been at all involved in this discussion.

:4. Have everyone (hopefully) make peace with the result. Prinsgezinde (talk) 22:56, 2 August 2022 (UTC)

:: Or just stop flogging a dead horse? T 84.208.65.62 (talk) 01:55, 20 August 2022 (UTC)

I agree it would be good to bring closure to this. My sense is that the problem here is more to do with the title and lede than the content. In English, "Kingdom of Germany" implies a sovereign territory ruled absolutely by a king. That was not the case: there was never such a kingdom which is why it is never called that in German. It is one of several possible translations of Regnum Teutonicorum but not a good one because it doesn't convey the real meaning which is more like "realm of the Germans" i.e. the collection of states which were individually ruled by peoples who identified themselves as teutsche, most of which came together under the HRE from 962.

In fact the article itself is less about a kingdom, but about the emergence of '"German" terminology', as its main section is entitled, which is an entirely valid topic. Interestingly, in that section, Regnum Teutonicorum is translated "Kingdom of the Germans" which is closer to the right sense.

However it seems to me that the lede doesn't chime with the body of the article. The opening line gives the impression that the article is not about terminology, but a real entity equating to East Francia. Moreover, since the term Regnum Teutonicorum does not appear until 920, it's not historically accurate either since East Francia folded into the HRE in 962 becoming a collection of states and did not remain as a separate entity renamed the Kingdom of Germany.

My sense is that we could improve the situation as follows:

• Keep the focus of the article on terminology
• Modify the lede to reflect the above
• Move the article to Regnum Teutonicorum, thus avoiding the potential confusion at least in the title

That way, we keep the bulk of the text, but bring the title and lede into line. Bermicourt (talk) 12:46, 20 August 2022 (UTC)

:: I'd be interested to see any valid refutations of the arguments presented in the posting marked " Str1977 (talk) 12:29, 25 August 2020 (UTC)" first; if there are any. T 84.208.65.62 (talk) 21:31, 20 August 2022 (UTC)

:::The bulk of the discussion here refutes Str1977's arguments which boils down to "we need a modern term for Regnum Teutonicorum and I think Kingdom of Germany sounds best." But it doesn't even line up with the what the main body of the article is about. Bermicourt (talk) 07:46, 21 August 2022 (UTC)

:::: I don't get it. Perusing the archives, this is a slow-burning edit war that has gone on for 15 years ...! AFAICS, the "KoG" crowd has the support of the better arguments, refs and Wiki public opinion, while the "There was no Germany" team's main support, I'm sorry to say, seems to be "I don't like it", covered with with more or less relevant and valid rationalizations; for example the claim that Germany wasn't a thing since it wasn't a proper state, which IMO is pretty pointless, given the variety of constitutions and historical development lines one can find for political entities from Sumer up to our times - and even rendered absurd when it was pointed out that the arguments fielded for not calling Germany a state, as opposed to e.g. France, fit France even better than Germany. Find better arguments, or drop this Quest. T 84.208.65.62 (talk) 19:05, 21 August 2022 (UTC)

:::::I'm afraid you won't resolve this lengthy dispute in 5 minutes by jumping in and venting your frustration with one side because you happen to like the term KoG. That's just another WP:POV. If you do a little research you will find that KoG is scarcely used in German sources because they understand their own history and don't recognise any such entity. Most English sources use HRE; those few that do use KoG tend to do so rather loosely and apparently for convenience; that of course is worth including. And you've completely ignored the lack of coherence between the title and lede and the rest of the article which even an editor with no knowledge of the subject can see is not logical. And please don't tell other editors what they should do - it sounds a bit patronising and, in the Wikipedia democracy, we are all entitled to our views. Bermicourt (talk) 07:35, 22 August 2022 (UTC)

:::::: No, I guess I wont. Part of that is the style of argument established here: I say that in my opinion, the KoG people have the better arguments; in your recap, that has become "you happen to like the term KoG", which possibly might not demonstrate the highest attainable level of intellectual honesty. Likewise, the "scarcely used": in even a brief glance through scientific articles online, the terms König and Königreich appears aplenty. And so on, examples are legio, and this is what I mean when I say that this level of argument is ineffective (which is why "Get better arguments" is merely a friendly and enthusiastic exhortation, not a command). The main, i.e. underlying point of contention, AFAICS, is what is meant by "entity", how that applies to the KoG (or not), and what properties of such an entity are and what criteria for applying the term to KoG are; which should be resolved by editors before it is possible to proceed further. How did the Germany of Heinrich I differ from what Germany is today wrt. being a federation of Stammesherzogtümer / Bundesländer ? How organized - and organized in which way - does a political unit have to be to be considered a nation? T 84.208.65.62 (talk) 12:51, 22 August 2022 (UTC)

::::::: I disagree that a comparable translation to "kingdom of Germany" is not used in German. The German terminology has been "Deutsches Reich" since roughly the 16th century. Whether this meant the kingdom or the empire is a bit up to interpretation. However, expecting the use of "Königreich Deutschland" which would be the literal translation strikes me as misled since calling any kingdom "Königreich X" hasn't been common in German until rather recently.--MacX85 (talk) 20:04, 13 September 2022 (UTC)

Well I used to made a Infobox for "Kingdom of Germany" and someone undid my edit, saying "Consensus against infobox" i'd love to know why ! Thank You Gabriel Ziegler (talk) 17:42, 1 October 2022 (UTC)

:The discussion is at the top of this page... Furius (talk) 22:30, 1 October 2022 (UTC)

So I have a question because of the info box, why was it removed? because there was no real "Kingdom of Germany" that's righst but the term Germany is not wrong but right, Germany means land of the Germans that means a "region/ or the Lands" where the Germans live or rule, usually both so that the term makes sense, even today Germany only has the sense of attributing the place where Germans live or the land of the Germans is and that's what it was at the time too, so I don't see a problem when we call the realm or kingdom of Germany bcs it was the Kingdom the Germans and both had the same meaning as I explained before. AsuraZC (talk) 00:27, 11 September 2023 (UTC)

:The infobox was removed because infoboxes suck. More seriously, it was removed because you cannot convey what the medieval kingdom of Germany was in a box. It is hard enough in prose. Srnec (talk) 01:47, 11 September 2023 (UTC)

::That's why there are texts and pecific Infos writen about it too, it would help to find out some properties faster AsuraZC (talk) 01:14, 16 September 2023 (UTC)

:::If you are looking for the kind of information typically found in such infoboxes, you will be disappointed. The kingdom of Germany did not have a capital or official language, flag or coat of arms. It has no precisely datable beginning or end. Srnec (talk) 14:16, 16 September 2023 (UTC)

::::{{re|User:Srnec}} I don't really see a recent consensus against adding an infobox. I think we should start an official WP:RfC on the matter per WP:CCC. Personally, I think the article can benefit from an infobox as it links what the Kingdom of Germany was before, and what it became afterwards. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 16:51, 5 October 2023 (UTC)

:::::What do you think came before and after? (There have been three discussions of the infobox, see above and archive 7.) Srnec (talk) 20:26, 6 October 2023 (UTC)

::::::{{re|User:Srnec}} I saw them, the discussions were mostly small with a WP:LOCALCONSENSUS. This should have an WP:RfC to attract as many viewpoints as possible for a solid consensus that isn't dated. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 13:19, 11 October 2023 (UTC)

:::::::I would be opposed to an infobox. All the factors that an infobox presents (start date, capital, official language, predecessors and successors, etc) are complicated for the kingdom of Germany and infoboxen aren't good with complexity. But if you think an RfC would be worthwhile, you should go ahead and open one. Furius (talk) 17:40, 11 October 2023 (UTC)

::::::::{{re|User:Furius|}} I don't see how this is different from Kingdom of Italy (Holy Roman Empire). The "Kingdom of Germany" was a constituent kingdom of the Holy Roman Empire. I will note that a similar discussion was held here. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 13:18, 25 October 2023 (UTC)

:::::::::It's a pretty dire infobox. The flag and coat of arms aren't actually that of the Kingdom of Italy, but the HRE as a whole. The set of events in "historical era" are important, but fairly randomly chosen. I doubt that the HRE kingdom of Italy really had an ISO code. It strengthens my opinion in the previous comment that infoboxes aren't good for these entities. Furius (talk) 14:33, 25 October 2023 (UTC)

:::::::{{re|User:Knowledgekid87}} I'm with Srnec. Not including an infobox is one of the few things every side can agree upon. This is also a somewhat problematic topic for RfCs - it's too low profile and niche to gather much interest on its own, and those that do find their way here take one look at the talk page and decide it's not worth it. Prinsgezinde (talk) 12:44, 25 October 2023 (UTC)

As far as I can gather, and many others here seem to feel the same way, the "kingdom of Germany" was not a polity at any time and this entire article is misleading. If anything it should be a stub. The only two verifiable things that seem to form the basis of this idea of a "German kingdom" are:

1. The title for the king of East Francia was sometimes rendered as "king of the Germans" though this is a translation of "rex teutonicum", which uses the root Latin word for Germanic tribes in general, so one could argue this could most accurately be actually translated as "king of the Germanians", "Germanians" obviously not ever being a term in use contemporarily or now, because there was no central German identity at the time and wouldn't be for hundreds of years to come, which is kind of my point. This title "rex teutonicum" was also used at times during the Holy Roman Empire for the Holy Roman Emperor, but more as a subsidiary title, since at the time legitimacy of rule was derived from dominion over a people, not a territory. The emperor also used the title "king of the Romans" but again this title has a history of being ceremonial.

2. There is some limited suggestion that for a brief time large parts of the HRE were divided into "kingdoms" for demarcation purposes, such as "the kingdom of Germany" and "the kingdom of Italy", but I've never seen any evidence to suggest that this was ever done or used for administrative purposes, and if so, it must have been rather unimportant and quickly undone. There were certainly never individual monarchies bearing these kinds of sweeping ethnic titles within the HRE, the highest ranking sovereign states being national kingdoms like Prussia and sovereign duchies. I've yet to see a convincing argument for even this made, but if it were, it would be more for something like the ceremonial counties of England today. Used to demarcate cultural and historical boundaries, not much else. Nationalism wasn't a thing at the time these "kingdoms" are said to exist.

As I hope I've laid out, the evidence supporting this page is incredibly flimsy at best. These two points are not enough to have an article suggesting some legal polity known as "the kingdom of Germany" ever existed, when no such polity ever existed, and it's a stretch to even claim it existed even as some subnational boundary outside of a cultural demarcation and historical title. I think this article needs an entire rewrite from the ground up but I'm not sure that would be accepted, I don't write on Wikipedia much. Honestly I'm not sure this article should even exist, maybe just rename/merge this article with the topic of the title "king of Germany", but again, at the risk of repeating myself, even that title doesn't really seem to have the historical sticking power to really warrant a whole article that isn't a stub. 2605:8D80:13E3:37FA:B0B1:81BE:4E5F:7818 (talk) 04:46, 6 January 2025 (UTC)

:Refs 6, 8, 30, & 32 seem clearly to show that a (hazy) notion of a Kingdom of Germany did exist Furius (talk) 09:03, 6 January 2025 (UTC)

::As a concept yes, but not as a polity. So the article should explain that it was an unofficial concept, and not as if it were a polity. Germany actually did exist during the middle ages, but still by a different name: The Holy Roman Empire, and before that East Francia. The problem with this article is that it suggests there was an atonomous German kingdom within the Holy Roman Empire that made up the bulk of the Holy Roman Empire, kind of like Soviet Russia within the Soviet Union, but administratively speaking that was simply not the case.Machinarium (talk) 20:36, 14 February 2025 (UTC)

:::Holy Roman Empire ≠ Germany. Srnec (talk) 00:54, 15 February 2025 (UTC)

:::::It was more Germany than an imagined kingdom north of the alps. Machinarium (talk) 11:52, 15 February 2025 (UTC)

::::I've been trying to follow this discussion for years, and I think one of the problems is people talking past each other, because they are using different definitions, and maybe the article will be less difficult to discuss if the definitions can be made more transparent. For example, early medieval political entities can't be judged based upon the standard of modern nation states, with their clear definitions and administrative apparatus. The Holy Roman Empire itself hardly "existed" if we use that standard. OTOH, claimed titles and inheritances really did have a massive political importance, despite not always being connected to clearly distinct administrations and so on. A second apparent source of confusion seems to be the fact that different editors are thinking of different periods, and the theory and practice of this concept changed a lot over time. Sometimes the German core kingdom apparently saw itself as expanding, and absorbing new territories which had once been distinct kingdoms, like Lotharingia. Sometimes there was apparently a long-lasting idea that the king was wearing several crowns, so to speak.--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 08:19, 15 February 2025 (UTC)

:Your Arguments are far flimsier than those you are trying to rebuke.

:"There is some limited suggestion that for a brief time large parts of the HRE were divided into "kingdoms" for demarcation purposes, such as "the kingdom of Germany" and "the kingdom of Italy", but I've never seen any evidence to suggest that this was ever done or used for administrative purposes"

:That comes from the Golden Bull of 1356, the closest the holy roman empire had to a constitution. It gave the elector counts positions, and the arch bishop of Mainz became the cancellor of Germany. How much influence those Positions had is debattable, but they did carry those titles.

:"there was no central German identity at the time"

:That is nonsense. Often repeated nonsense, but still nonsense. There are plenty of primary medieval sourcs of individuals referening to themself as Germans and to their land as Germany.

:Most promintent, of course, there was literary a country made by an "Order of the Knights of Germany". If that is not enough prove for your definition of an existing national identity, than that definition is wrong. 2A02:3100:1AE2:C00:FC45:5548:629C:BBD4 (talk) 18:48, 11 March 2025 (UTC)

{{ping|Dom Kaos}} If the other thing actually called 'Kingdom of Germany' does not have its own article, then it isprobably not important enough for a hatnote. That is my position. But I see we now have Königreich Deutschland... Srnec (talk) 12:48, 14 May 2025 (UTC)