text:
Talk:Edmund Spenser

2006
Could the discussion of Brady and Canny's readings of the "View of the Present State of Ireland" be relegated to a subheading? It severely impairs the flow of Spenser's biography. I propose a "Controversy" subsection.

While funny, I thought this quite biased:

 * One poet enormously influenced by Edmund Spenser is John Milton, famous author of Paradise Lost, which critics many consider the greatest poem of all time. They are clearly wrong however .

Bold text removed. MarkReid

Can we justify the boldface in the quote from "The Faerie Queen"? (The link is amusing.) Vicki Rosenzweig

What's the source for the Karl Marx quotation? It seems very suspect. I can't find it elsewhere on the Web and AFAIK it's not even good German (the usual word for "poet" in German is "Dichter"). I'm deleting it as a bit of trollery (unless anyone can come up with a valid reference...).--Folantin 12:06, 24 May 2006 (UTC)

I removed the comment "Spenser is often overshadowed by his contemporary Shakespeare", because:

1. They weren't quite contemporaries

2. Spenser wrote no plays

3. You could say that about any Elizabethan writer, really - not illuminating.

4. It was in the same paragraph as a comment about Spenser's Epithalamion.

I think it would be great if someone wanted to compare them off the back of knowledge though.

It's frankly bizarre that Samuel Daniel's entry is considerably longer (and more interesting) than Spenser's. This article could do with serious expansion. --rmcubed 00:48 20 November 2006 (GMT)

Expansion
The comment that this article needs serious expansion, made in 2006, is still true. I have added in the obvious reference to Gabriel Harvey, and amended the statement about his death, as his dying in poverty is contested. But doing anything more is beyond me, as the article is also seriously imbalanced and needs wholesale reconstruction. --MWLittleGuy (talk) 13:53, 27 December 2010 (UTC)

Reputation
I have deleted a sub-clause in the introductory statement. If anyone wishes to replace it, perhaps they would put in something that is (a) grammatical and (b) makes sense. If they wish to put in something as contentious as what has been deleted, perhaps they would reference it. --Martin Wyatt (talk) 22:03, 3 February 2012 (UTC)

Untitled
I am a SUNY New Paltz student, and I (and two classmates) will be making substantial changes to the page in the coming weeks, as part of an English Literature class project. Mraewarren (talk) 00:43, 16 October 2012 (UTC)Mraewarren

"According to legend"
The 'Life' section contains three allusions to "legends". Is this appropriate for a biographical article?Tffff (talk) 21:08, 23 October 2012 (UTC)

Date of birth
The latest biography of Spenser, by Andrew Hadfield, contains a detailed discussion on Spenser's date of birth. He puts it to 1554, but this rather depends on whether one uses the Elizabethan dating convention or the modern one, as his birthday probably occurred in the period 1 January to 24 March which was in one year then and another year now. c.1653 will probably do, and I have altered the text to correspond to what is in the infobox.

That biography, incidentally, explodes one of the "legends" referred to in the previous entry. --Martin Wyatt (talk) 19:26, 4 November 2012 (UTC)

 * Which legend is that? Hohenloh + 15:14, 5 November 2012 (UTC)

Not exactly named as a legend, now I look at it: "It is said that Spenser is the man to have crafted the phrase "without reason or rhyme." The Queen promised him payment of one hundred pounds for his poetry, a so-called "reason for the rhyme." The Lord High Treasurer William Cecil, however, considered the sum too much. After a long while without receiving his payment, Spenser sent the Queen this quatrain: I was promis'd on a time, To have a reason for my rhyme: But from that time unto this season, I had neither rhyme or reason. She immediately ordered Cecil to send Spenser his due sum." --Martin Wyatt (talk) 19:14, 5 November 2012 (UTC)

Major alterations
I have made major alterations to the Life section, adding information, removing misleading non-information, reorganising, and, I hope, adding enough references to satisfy anyone. What I have done can doubtless be improved, but simply reinstating previous errors will not help. Some work now needs to be done on the Poetry section, preferably by scrapping most of it and starting again. The first paragraph starts with an unsubstantiated statement. The second starts with an obvious one, but then carries on in a manner which is highly misleading. The bit about rhyme and reason simply shows that in the absence of hard fact a lot of nonsense accrued to Spenser's name after his death.--Martin Wyatt (talk) 15:42, 30 November 2012 (UTC)
 * What about his death - did he die in poverty or not? Are there any contemporary sources? Thanks, Hohenloh + 19:09, 30 November 2012 (UTC)
 * There is a long, well-informed and inconclusive discussion on this in the latest biography by Hadfield. The statement that he died in poverty rests largely on Jonson and Camden.  Spenser left estates worth litigation over once the English had "pacified" Ireland, but he may have been short of ready money.  He had recently received a fee for bringing despatches over from Ireland, though it is possible that he was too ill to pick up the payment. The latest instalment of his pension was collected after his death.  As everything is uncertain, I have said nothing.  --Martin Wyatt (talk) 19:56, 30 November 2012 (UTC)

I have now made further major changes to the article, reorganising it to cut out repetition, removing unsubstantiated statements, and correcting the stuff about rhyme and reason. In view of this I have removed the tag saying that it has multiple issues.--Martin Wyatt (talk) 21:39, 4 December 2012 (UTC)

Mother Hubberds Tale
This has been altered by the addition of an apostrophe. Mother Hubberds Tale is how the work appears on the title page of the original work. Is anyone going to start correcting Spenser's spelling of Shepherdes Calender?--Martin Wyatt (talk) 13:58, 24 April 2013 (UTC)

 * The WP article is entitled Mother Hubberd's Tale. There are many strong sources that use this formulation. It is more commonly written in texts 'Hubbard' than 'Hubberd', but there you are. Span (talk) 14:12, 24 April 2013 (UTC)

 * Too many editors who don't know what they are doing (I don't mean you, Spanglej)- this is why I have mostly given up on Wikipedia. Incidentally, the link provided does not go anywhere. --Martin Wyatt (talk) 19:47, 24 April 2013 (UTC)

 * No doubt there is a lot of nonsense around. Which link is broken? There may be a good case for retitling the article. WP:UCN, however suggests the WP "prefers to use the name that is most frequently used to refer to the subject in English-language reliable sources" which would seem to be Mother Hubbard's Tale. But it's certainly worth exploring. Don't give up my friend. We each make the contributions that we can and we learn from each other as we go. Best wishes Span (talk) 20:35, 24 April 2013 (UTC)

Raleigh's commendatory sonnet
I have reinstated the assertion about Raleigh's commendatory sonnet. It appears as one of the commendatory verses attached to the Faerie Queene, is signed W.R. and ends: "Of me no lines are lov'd, nor letters are of price,/Of all which speake our English tongue, but those of thy device." This, being written in Alexandrines, does not conform to our present idea of a sonnet, so if anyone wanted to change sonnet to poem, that would be OK. --Martin Wyatt (talk) 21:37, 12 August 2013 (UTC)
 * I have now made the change suggested above. --Martin Wyatt (talk) 15:43, 16 August 2013 (UTC)

Present State of Ireland
When I saw the deletion of so much text on Spenser's notorious diatribe on Ireland, I wondered whether to revert it, but decided not to, because (a) the overall article is relatively short, and the part on this failed pamphlet is disproportionately long, unbalancing the whole; and (b) it does not add much to what was written before - I think the reader will already have gathered that Spenser was very prejudiced. I have therefore reverted the text to the shorter version. If what I have reverted is to be reinstated, I think the whole paragraph needs to be edited. I doubt whether the failed pamphlet justifies an article in itself, but that might be an answer. --Martin Wyatt (talk) 18:51, 29 August 2014 (UTC)
 * There's a lot of publications on The Present State dating from the 1990s, so it is a significant work. The analysis doesn't just relate to prejudice but to political economy too, so I'd say no delete - at least without prior discussion - with "a view" maybe to just cutting it down to essentials. I suppose the material is more appropriate to the intellectual history of early English colonialism, but I'm not aware of a corresponding article.--Shtove (talk) 18:37, 30 August 2014 (UTC)
 * That seems reasonable enough. --Martin Wyatt (talk) 21:25, 31 August 2014 (UTC)

Not Cited
Hi, I am doing a research project on Edmund Spenser, and as I was reading this article, I noticed that the first two paragraphs are taken from(or, at least, it is the exact same wording) http://www.poemhunter.com/edmund-spenser/biography/. Now, I may not have seen it, but when I looked at the citations, I didn't se this website down there. The part that I believe to be copied is where, in both articles(this one and the one mentioned previously) it says, "Edmund Spenser was an English poet best known for The Faerie Queene, an epic poem and fantastical allegory celebrating the Tudor dynasty and Elizabeth I. He is recognised as one of the premier craftsmen of Modern English verse in its infancy, and one of the greatest poets in the English language.

Life

Edmund Spenser was born in East Smithfield, London around the year 1552 though there is some ambiguity as to the exact date of his birth. As a young boy, he was educated in London at the Merchant Taylors' School and matriculated as a sizar at Pembroke College, Cambridge. While at Cambridge he became a friend of Gabriel Harvey, and later consulted him, despite their differing views on poetry.

In July 1580 Spenser went to Ireland, in the service of the newly appointed Lord Deputy, Arthur Grey, 14th Baron Grey de Wilton." Minecraftwizard (talk) 01:35, 17 January 2015 (UTC)

Wait, never mind-on that website it says "based off the Wikipedia "Edmund Spenser"" Minecraftwizard (talk) — Preceding undated comment added 01:40, 17 January 2015 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 3 external links on Edmund Spenser. 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:
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20120102013123/http://www.english.cam.ac.uk/spenser/biography.htm to http://www.english.cam.ac.uk/spenser/biography.htm
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20120102013123/http://www.english.cam.ac.uk/spenser/biography.htm to http://www.english.cam.ac.uk/spenser/biography.htm
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20120102013123/http://www.english.cam.ac.uk/spenser/biography.htm to http://www.english.cam.ac.uk/spenser/biography.htm

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 14:17, 17 September 2017 (UTC)

title: Talk:Edmund Spenser


text:
Clove hitch

The clove hitch is an ancient type of knot, made of two successive single hitches tied around an object. It is most effectively used to secure a middle section of rope to an object it crosses over, such as a line on a fencepost. It can also be used as an ordinary hitch, or as a binding knot, but it is not particularly secure in either application. It is considered one of the most important knots, alongside the bowline and the sheet bend.

"Although the name clove hitch is given by Falconer in his Dictionary of 1769, the knot is much older, having been tied in ratlines at least as early as the first quarter of the sixteenth century. This is shown in early sculpture and paintings. A round turn is taken with the ratline and then a hitch is added below. The forward end is always the first to be made fast."

- The Ashley Book of Knots

Usage
This knot is particularly useful where the length of the running end needs to be adjustable, since feeding in rope from either direction will loosen the knot to be tightened at a new position. With certain types of cord, the clove hitch can slip when loaded. In modern climbing rope, the clove hitch will slip to a point, and then stop slipping. When tied around a carabiner, the load should pull on the end closest to its spine. With smaller diameter cords, after being heavily weighted it may become difficult to untie. It is also unreliable when used on a square or rectangular post, rather than round.

The clove hitch is also commonly used in pioneering to start and finish a lashing such as the traditional square lashing, tripod lashing, round lashing and shear lashing.

Tying
The clove hitch is tied by first passing the running end of the rope around the spar and back over itself to form an X. The running end then passes around the spar again, under the intersection of the last two turns, and both ends are pulled tight. There are several methods of tying it using both hands   or one hand.

Related knots

When a turn around an object is made and a clove hitch is tied to the rope's own standing part, it produces either a buntline hitch or two half-hitches, depending on whether the turns of the clove hitch progress toward or away from the hitched object. Two-half hitches is also the capsized form of a granny knot. The buntline hitch itself is used as a necktie knot called the four-in-hand knot.

The clove hitch is also a part of a family of binding knots called millers' knots, which all start with a single hitch tied around an object.

license: Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/

title: Clove hitch


text:
Cyclic redundancy check

A cyclic redundancy check (CRC) is an error-detecting code commonly used in digital networks and storage devices to detect accidental changes to digital data. Blocks of data entering these systems get a short check value attached, based on the remainder of a polynomial division of their contents. On retrieval, the calculation is repeated and, in the event the check values do not match, corrective action can be taken against data corruption. CRCs can be used for error correction (see bitfilters).

CRCs are so called because the check (data verification) value is a redundancy (it expands the message without adding information) and the algorithm is based on cyclic codes. CRCs are popular because they are simple to implement in binary hardware, easy to analyze mathematically, and particularly good at detecting common errors caused by noise in transmission channels. Because the check value has a fixed length, the function that generates it is occasionally used as a hash function.

Introduction
CRCs are based on the theory of cyclic error-correcting codes. The use of systematic cyclic codes, which encode messages by adding a fixed-length check value, for the purpose of error detection in communication networks, was first proposed by W. Wesley Peterson in 1961. Cyclic codes are not only simple to implement but have the benefit of being particularly well suited for the detection of burst errors: contiguous sequences of erroneous data symbols in messages. This is important because burst errors are common transmission errors in many communication channels, including magnetic and optical storage devices. Typically an n-bit CRC applied to a data block of arbitrary length will detect any single error burst not longer than n bits, and the fraction of all longer error bursts that it will detect is approximately (1 − 2−n).

Specification of a CRC code requires definition of a so-called generator polynomial. This polynomial becomes the divisor in a polynomial long division, which takes the message as the dividend and in which the quotient is discarded and the remainder becomes the result. The important caveat is that the polynomial coefficients are calculated according to the arithmetic of a finite field, so the addition operation can always be performed bitwise-parallel (there is no carry between digits).

In practice, all commonly used CRCs employ the finite field of two elements, GF(2). The two elements are usually called 0 and 1, comfortably matching computer architecture.

A CRC is called an n-bit CRC when its check value is n bits long. For a given n, multiple CRCs are possible, each with a different polynomial. Such a polynomial has highest degree n, which means it has n + 1 terms. In other words, the polynomial has a length of n + 1; its encoding requires n + 1 bits. Note that most polynomial specifications either drop the MSB or LSB, since they are always 1. The CRC and associated polynomial typically have a name of the form CRC-n-XXX as in the table below.

The simplest error-detection system, the parity bit, is in fact a 1-bit CRC: it uses the generator polynomial x + 1 (two terms), and has the name CRC-1.

Application
A CRC-enabled device calculates a short, fixed-length binary sequence, known as the check value or CRC, for each block of data to be sent or stored and appends it to the data, forming a codeword.

When a codeword is received or read, the device either compares its check value with one freshly calculated from the data block, or equivalently, performs a CRC on the whole codeword and compares the resulting check value with an expected residue constant.

If the CRC values do not match, then the block contains a data error.

The device may take corrective action, such as rereading the block or requesting that it be sent again. Otherwise, the data is assumed to be error-free (though, with some small probability, it may contain undetected errors; this is inherent in the nature of error-checking).

Data integrity
CRCs are specifically designed to protect against common types of errors on communication channels, where they can provide quick and reasonable assurance of the integrity of messages delivered. However, they are not suitable for protecting against intentional alteration of data.

Firstly, as there is no authentication, an attacker can edit a message and recompute the CRC without the substitution being detected. When stored alongside the data, CRCs and cryptographic hash functions by themselves do not protect against intentional modification of data. Any application that requires protection against such attacks must use cryptographic authentication mechanisms, such as message authentication codes or digital signatures (which are commonly based on cryptographic hash functions).

Secondly, unlike cryptographic hash functions, CRC is an easily reversible function, which makes it unsuitable for use in digital signatures.

Thirdly, CRC satisfies a relation similar to that of a linear function (or more accurately, an affine function):

 * $$\operatorname{CRC}(x \oplus y) = \operatorname{CRC}(x) \oplus \operatorname{CRC}(y) \oplus c$$

where $$c$$ depends on the length of $$x$$ and $$y$$. This can be also stated as follows, where $$x$$, $$y$$ and $$z$$ have the same length

 * $$\operatorname{CRC}(x \oplus y \oplus z) = \operatorname{CRC}(x) \oplus \operatorname{CRC}(y) \oplus \operatorname{CRC}(z);$$

as a result, even if the CRC is encrypted with a stream cipher that uses XOR as its combining operation (or mode of block cipher which effectively turns it into a stream cipher, such as OFB or CFB), both the message and the associated CRC can be manipulated without knowledge of the encryption key; this was one of the well-known design flaws of the Wired Equivalent Privacy (WEP) protocol.

Computation
To compute an n-bit binary CRC, line the bits representing the input in a row, and position the (n + 1)-bit pattern representing the CRC's divisor (called a "polynomial") underneath the left end of the row.

In this example, we shall encode 14 bits of message with a 3-bit CRC, with a polynomial x3 + x + 1. The polynomial is written in binary as the coefficients; a 3rd-degree polynomial has 4 coefficients (1x3 + 0x2 + 1x + 1). In this case, the coefficients are 1, 0, 1 and 1. The result of the calculation is 3 bits long, which is why it is called a 3-bit CRC. However, you need 4 bits to explicitly state the polynomial.

Start with the message to be encoded:

11010011101100

This is first padded with zeros corresponding to the bit length n of the CRC. This is done so that the resulting code word is in systematic form. Here is the first calculation for computing a 3-bit CRC:

11010011101100 000 <--- input right padded by 3 bits 1011              <--- divisor (4 bits) = x³ + x + 1 -- 01100011101100 000 <--- result

The algorithm acts on the bits directly above the divisor in each step. The result for that iteration is the bitwise XOR of the polynomial divisor with the bits above it. The bits not above the divisor are simply copied directly below for that step. The divisor is then shifted right to align with the highest remaining 1 bit in the input, and the process is repeated until the divisor reaches the right-hand end of the input row. Here is the entire calculation:

11010011101100 000 <--- input right padded by 3 bits 1011              <--- divisor 01100011101100 000 <--- result (note the first four bits are the XOR with the divisor beneath, the rest of the bits are unchanged) 1011             <--- divisor ... 00111011101100 000 1011 00010111101100 000   1011 00000001101100 000 <--- note that the divisor moves over to align with the next 1 in the dividend (since quotient for that step was zero) 1011            (in other words, it doesn't necessarily move one bit per iteration) 00000000110100 000       1011 00000000011000 000         1011 00000000001110 000          1011 00000000000101 000           101 1 - 00000000000000 100 <--- remainder (3 bits). Division algorithm stops here as dividend is equal to zero.

Since the leftmost divisor bit zeroed every input bit it touched, when this process ends the only bits in the input row that can be nonzero are the n bits at the right-hand end of the row. These n bits are the remainder of the division step, and will also be the value of the CRC function (unless the chosen CRC specification calls for some postprocessing).

The validity of a received message can easily be verified by performing the above calculation again, this time with the check value added instead of zeroes. The remainder should equal zero if there are no detectable errors.

11010011101100 100 <--- input with check value 1011              <--- divisor 01100011101100 100 <--- result 1011             <--- divisor ... 00111011101100 100

......

00000000001110 100         1011 00000000000101 100           101 1 -- 00000000000000 000 <--- remainder

The following Python code outlines a function which will return the initial CRC remainder for a chosen input and polynomial, with either 1 or 0 as the initial padding. Note that this code works with string inputs rather than raw numbers:

Mathematics
Mathematical analysis of this division-like process reveals how to select a divisor that guarantees good error-detection properties. In this analysis, the digits of the bit strings are taken as the coefficients of a polynomial in some variable x—coefficients that are elements of the finite field GF(2) (the integers modulo 2, i.e. either a zero or a one), instead of more familiar numbers. The set of binary polynomials is a mathematical ring.

Designing polynomials
The selection of the generator polynomial is the most important part of implementing the CRC algorithm. The polynomial must be chosen to maximize the error-detecting capabilities while minimizing overall collision probabilities.

The most important attribute of the polynomial is its length (largest degree(exponent) +1 of any one term in the polynomial), because of its direct influence on the length of the computed check value.

The most commonly used polynomial lengths are 9 bits (CRC-8), 17 bits (CRC-16), 33 bits (CRC-32), and 65 bits (CRC-64).

A CRC is called an n-bit CRC when its check value is n-bits. For a given n, multiple CRCs are possible, each with a different polynomial. Such a polynomial has highest degree n, and hence n + 1 terms (the polynomial has a length of n + 1). The remainder has length n. The CRC has a name of the form CRC-n-XXX.

The design of the CRC polynomial depends on the maximum total length of the block to be protected (data + CRC bits), the desired error protection features, and the type of resources for implementing the CRC, as well as the desired performance. A common misconception is that the "best" CRC polynomials are derived from either irreducible polynomials or irreducible polynomials times the factor 1 + x, which adds to the code the ability to detect all errors affecting an odd number of bits. In reality, all the factors described above should enter into the selection of the polynomial and may lead to a reducible polynomial. However, choosing a reducible polynomial will result in a certain proportion of missed errors, due to the quotient ring having zero divisors.

The advantage of choosing a primitive polynomial as the generator for a CRC code is that the resulting code has maximal total block length in the sense that all 1-bit errors within that block length have different remainders (also called syndromes) and therefore, since the remainder is a linear function of the block, the code can detect all 2-bit errors within that block length. If $$r$$ is the degree of the primitive generator polynomial, then the maximal total block length is $$2 ^ {r} - 1 $$, and the associated code is able to detect any single-bit or double-bit errors. We can improve this situation. If we use the generator polynomial $$g(x) = p(x)(1 + x)$$, where $$p$$ is a primitive polynomial of degree $$r - 1$$, then the maximal total block length is $$2^{r - 1} - 1$$, and the code is able to detect single, double, triple and any odd number of errors.

A polynomial $$g(x)$$ that admits other factorizations may be chosen then so as to balance the maximal total blocklength with a desired error detection power. The BCH codes are a powerful class of such polynomials. They subsume the two examples above. Regardless of the reducibility properties of a generator polynomial of degree r, if it includes the "+1" term, the code will be able to detect error patterns that are confined to a window of r contiguous bits. These patterns are called "error bursts".

Specification
The concept of the CRC as an error-detecting code gets complicated when an implementer or standards committee uses it to design a practical system. Here are some of the complications:
 * Sometimes an implementation prefixes a fixed bit pattern to the bitstream to be checked. This is useful when clocking errors might insert 0-bits in front of a message, an alteration that would otherwise leave the check value unchanged.
 * Usually, but not always, an implementation appends n 0-bits (n being the size of the CRC) to the bitstream to be checked before the polynomial division occurs. Such appending is explicitly demonstrated in the Computation of CRC article. This has the convenience that the remainder of the original bitstream with the check value appended is exactly zero, so the CRC can be checked simply by performing the polynomial division on the received bitstream and comparing the remainder with zero. Due to the associative and commutative properties of the exclusive-or operation, practical table driven implementations can obtain a result numerically equivalent to zero-appending without explicitly appending any zeroes, by using an equivalent, faster algorithm that combines the message bitstream with the stream being shifted out of the CRC register.
 * Sometimes an implementation exclusive-ORs a fixed bit pattern into the remainder of the polynomial division.
 * Bit order: Some schemes view the low-order bit of each byte as "first", which then during polynomial division means "leftmost", which is contrary to our customary understanding of "low-order". This convention makes sense when serial-port transmissions are CRC-checked in hardware, because some widespread serial-port transmission conventions transmit bytes least-significant bit first.
 * Byte order: With multi-byte CRCs, there can be confusion over whether the byte transmitted first (or stored in the lowest-addressed byte of memory) is the least-significant byte (LSB) or the most-significant byte (MSB). For example, some 16-bit CRC schemes swap the bytes of the check value.
 * Omission of the high-order bit of the divisor polynomial: Since the high-order bit is always 1, and since an n-bit CRC must be defined by an (n + 1)-bit divisor which overflows an n-bit register, some writers assume that it is unnecessary to mention the divisor's high-order bit.
 * Omission of the low-order bit of the divisor polynomial: Since the low-order bit is always 1, authors such as Philip Koopman represent polynomials with their high-order bit intact, but without the low-order bit (the $$x^0$$ or 1 term). This convention encodes the polynomial complete with its degree in one integer.

These complications mean that there are three common ways to express a polynomial as an integer: the first two, which are mirror images in binary, are the constants found in code; the third is the number found in Koopman's papers. In each case, one term is omitted. So the polynomial $$x^4 + x + 1$$ may be transcribed as: In the table below they are shown as:
 * 0x3 = 0b0011, representing $$x^4 + (0x^3 + 0x^2 + 1x^1 + 1x^0)$$ (MSB-first code)
 * 0xC = 0b1100, representing $$(1x^0 + 1x^1 + 0x^2 + 0x^3) + x^4$$ (LSB-first code)
 * 0x9 = 0b1001, representing $$(1x^4 + 0x^3 + 0x^2 + 1x^1) + x^0$$ (Koopman notation)

Obfuscation
CRCs in proprietary protocols might be obfuscated by using a non-trivial initial value and a final XOR, but these techniques do not add cryptographic strength to the algorithm and can be reverse engineered using straightforward methods.

Standards and common use
Numerous varieties of cyclic redundancy checks have been incorporated into technical standards. By no means does one algorithm, or one of each degree, suit every purpose; Koopman and Chakravarty recommend selecting a polynomial according to the application requirements and the expected distribution of message lengths. The number of distinct CRCs in use has confused developers, a situation which authors have sought to address. There are three polynomials reported for CRC-12, twenty-two conflicting definitions of CRC-16, and seven of CRC-32.

The polynomials commonly applied are not the most efficient ones possible. Since 1993, Koopman, Castagnoli and others have surveyed the space of polynomials between 3 and 64 bits in size,   finding examples that have much better performance (in terms of Hamming distance for a given message size) than the polynomials of earlier protocols, and publishing the best of these with the aim of improving the error detection capacity of future standards. In particular, iSCSI and SCTP have adopted one of the findings of this research, the CRC-32C (Castagnoli) polynomial.

The design of the 32-bit polynomial most commonly used by standards bodies, CRC-32-IEEE, was the result of a joint effort for the Rome Laboratory and the Air Force Electronic Systems Division by Joseph Hammond, James Brown and Shyan-Shiang Liu of the Georgia Institute of Technology and Kenneth Brayer of the Mitre Corporation. The earliest known appearances of the 32-bit polynomial were in their 1975 publications: Technical Report 2956 by Brayer for Mitre, published in January and released for public dissemination through DTIC in August, and Hammond, Brown and Liu's report for the Rome Laboratory, published in May. Both reports contained contributions from the other team. During December 1975, Brayer and Hammond presented their work in a paper at the IEEE National Telecommunications Conference: the IEEE CRC-32 polynomial is the generating polynomial of a Hamming code and was selected for its error detection performance. Even so, the Castagnoli CRC-32C polynomial used in iSCSI or SCTP matches its performance on messages from 58 bits to 131 kbits, and outperforms it in several size ranges including the two most common sizes of Internet packet. The ITU-T G.hn standard also uses CRC-32C to detect errors in the payload (although it uses CRC-16-CCITT for PHY headers).

CRC-32C computation is implemented in hardware as an operation (CRC32) of SSE4.2 instruction set, first introduced in Intel processors' Nehalem microarchitecture. ARM AArch64 architecture also provides hardware acceleration for both CRC-32 and CRC-32C operations.

Polynomial representations
The table below lists only the polynomials of the various algorithms in use. Variations of a particular protocol can impose pre-inversion, post-inversion and reversed bit ordering as described above. For example, the CRC32 used in Gzip and Bzip2 use the same polynomial, but Gzip employs reversed bit ordering, while Bzip2 does not. Note that even parity polynomials in GF(2) with degree greater than 1 are never primitive. Even parity polynomial marked as primitive in this table represent a primitive polynomial multiplied by $$ \left(x+1\right)$$. The most significant bit of a polynomial is always 1, and is not shown in the hex representations.

Implementations

 * Implementation of CRC32 in GNU Radio up to 3.6.1 (ca. 2012)
 * C class code for CRC checksum calculation with many different CRCs to choose from

CRC catalogues

 * Catalogue of parametrised CRC algorithms
 * CRC Polynomial Zoo

title: Cyclic redundancy check


text:
Talk:Fulda

Extraneous dialogue
How could I have left out Rabanus Maurus??? DUH! JHK

Somebody left the following editorial comment in the text. It should go on this page. " Need a bit on CounterRef and Fulda -- the Baroque stuff has to do with the elevation of Fulda to an ecclesiastical principality... "

If only I knew it myself. I would love to see an even more detailed article of Fulda. The German language one seems a little more detailed. Id translate it myself if I had enough faith in my German. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Pacman7922 (talk • contribs) 20:21, 23 August 2008 (UTC)

Fulda was firstly twinned with Winfridstead Crediton, Devon, England, Britain
yep, back in the days, way before nowadays twinning, Fulda was twinned with Winifrid Crediton by dint of it being Saint Boniface's hometown. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 5.69.57.38 (talk) 00:41, 5 November 2015 (UTC)

"Fuld" and "Fulden" oldenday English exonyms for Fulda
Come on folks not hard to find out this stuff. Googlebooks is your friend. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 5.69.57.38 (talk) 00:44, 5 November 2015 (UTC)

Bronzell
The heading Bronzell comes when searching wiki. It redirects to this page. And yet there is no mention of Bronzell on this page. Why does it redirect to this page? Brunswicknic (talk) 09:56, 7 September 2017 (UTC)

To add to article
Basic information to add to this article (to help make it properly encyclopedic): the etymology/origin of the name "Fulda." 173.88.246.138 (talk) 02:45, 6 April 2023 (UTC)

title: Talk:Fulda


text:
Jochem Uytdehaage

Jochem Simon Uytdehaage (born 9 July 1976) is a Dutch former long track speed skater who won two Olympic gold medals in Salt Lake City and was the 2002 World Allround champion. He retired in 2007 at the age of 30, following two consecutive seasons of poor results.

Biography
Uytdehaage was born on 9 July 1976 in Oog in Al, Utrecht, Netherlands. He was the 2002 European Allround champion. During the 2002 Winter Olympics, he won the gold medal in the 5,000 and 10,000 meter events and the silver in the 1500 meter event. His winning time on the 10,000 meter was 12:58.92, the first time a skater broke the 13-minute barrier on this distance, and this world record stood for three years, until it was broken by Carl Verheijen and Chad Hedrick. His 5,000 meter time of 6:14.66 was also a world record. Uytdehaage led the long track speed skating Adelskalender from 2001 until 13 November 2005, when Chad Hedrick (US) overtook him.

In December 2005, at the Dutch Olympic trials in Heerenveen, Uytdehaage failed to qualify for the 2006 Winter Olympics in Turin.

Tournament overview
Source:
 * NC = No classification
 * DNQ = Did not qualify for the last event

World Cup
Source:
 * (b) = Division B
 * * = 10000 meter
 * – = Did not participate

title: Jochem Uytdehaage


text:
Renate Groenewold

Renate Titzia Groenewold (born 8 October 1976) is a Dutch former long track speed skater and road bicycle racer.

Groenewold has won several Dutch Championships. In 1999, 2002 and 2003 she won the Dutch allround championship. At the European Allround Championships she has won various medals. Five times she came in third in the overall ranking. In 2005, she won the silver medal which was her best result at the European Championships. In 2001, she also came in third in the overall ranking on the World Allround Championships, which she won in 2004.

Besides participating in the all-round championships Groenewold has participated in the championships for individual distances. Her best results there were winning the team pursuit in 2008 and the 3000 meters in 2009.

In 2002 Groenewold participated at the 2002 Winter Olympics. She won the silver medal in the 3000 m. However, on the 1500 m she fell in the second turn. At the 2006 Winter Olympics, rookie compatriot Ireen Wüst beat her to the gold on the 3000 m, leaving Groenewold with silver once more.

In 2007, Groenewold joined Team DSB Bank, which was a women's professional cycling team that competed in international and UCI Women's Road World Cup events. In 2010, Groenewold competed again at the 2010 Winter Olympics, in Vancouver. She falsely listed as one of lesbian athletes at the Games.

After her active skating career she was a coach from 2011 until 2014. In October 2018 she was appointed in the speed skating Technical Committee of the International Skating Union (ISU).

title: Renate Groenewold


text:
User:Full Decent

William Entriken

Homepage: http://phor.net

title: User:Full Decent


text:
Electoral Palatinate

The Electoral Palatinate (Kurpfalz) or the Palatinate (Pfalz), officially the Electorate of the Palatinate (Kurfürstentum Pfalz), was a constituent state of the Holy Roman Empire. The electorate had its origins under the rulership of the Counts Palatine of Lotharingia in 915; it was then restructured under the Counts Palatine of the Rhine in 1085. From 1214 until the Electoral Palatinate was merged into the Kingdom of Bavaria in 1805, the House of Wittelsbach provided the Counts Palatine or Electors. These counts palatine of the Rhine would serve as prince-electors (Kurfürsten) from "time immemorial", and were noted as such in a papal letter of 1261; they were confirmed as electors by the Golden Bull of 1356.

The territory stretched from the left bank of the Upper Rhine, from the Hunsrück mountain range in what is today the Palatinate region in the German federal state of Rhineland-Palatinate and the adjacent parts of the French regions of Alsace and Lorraine (bailiwick of Seltz from 1418 to 1766) to the opposite territory on the east bank of the Rhine in present-day Hesse and Baden-Württemberg up to the Odenwald range and the southern Kraichgau region, containing the capital cities of Heidelberg and Mannheim.

The counts palatine of the Rhine held the office of imperial vicars in the territories under Frankish law (in Franconia, Swabia and the Rhineland) and ranked among the most significant secular Princes of the Holy Roman Empire. In 1541 elector Otto Henry converted to Lutheranism. Their climax and decline is marked by the rule of Elector Palatine Frederick V, whose coronation as king of Bohemia in 1619 sparked the Thirty Years' War. After the 1648 Peace of Westphalia, the ravaged lands were further afflicted by the Reunion campaigns launched by King Louis XIV of France, culminating in the Nine Years' War (1688–97). Ruled in personal union with the Electorate of Bavaria from 1777, the Palatinate was finally disestablished with the German mediatization and annexation by Baden on 27 April 1803 and the rest eventually to the Kingdom of Bavaria as the Circle of the Rhine.

Background
The comital office of Count Palatine at the Frankish court of King Childebert I was already mentioned about 535. The Counts Palatine were the permanent representatives of the king in particular geographic areas, in contrast to the semi-independent authority of the dukes (and their successors). Under the Merovingian dynasty, the position had been a purely appointed one, but by the Middle Ages had evolved into an hereditary one.

Up to the tenth century, the Frankish empire was centered at the royal palace (Pfalz) in Aachen, in what had become the Carolingian kingdom of Lotharingia. Consequently, the Count Palatine of Lotharingia became the most important of the Counts Palatine. Marital alliances meant that, by the Middle Ages, most Count Palatine positions had been inherited by the duke of the associated province, but the importance of the Count Palatine of Lotharingia enabled it to remain as an independent position.

In 985, Herman I, a scion of the Ezzonids, is mentioned as count palatine of Lotharingia (which by then had been divided into Upper and Lower Lotharingia). While his Palatine authority operated over the whole of Upper Lorraine, the feudal territories of his family were instead scattered around south-western Franconia, including parts of the Rhineland around Cologne and Bonn, and areas around the rivers Moselle and Nahe.

In continual conflicts with the rivalling Archbishops of Cologne, he changed the emphasis of his rule to the southern Eifel region and further to the Upper Rhine, where the Ezzonid dynasty governed several counties on both banks of the river. The southernmost point was near Alzey.

From about 1085/86, after the death of the last Ezzonian count palatine Herman II, Palatinate authority ceased to have any military significance in Lotharingia. In practice, the Count Palatinate's Palatine authority had collapsed, reducing his successor (Henry of Laach) to a mere feudal magnate over his own territories – along the Upper Rhine in south-western Franconia. From this time on, his territory became known as the County Palatine of the Rhine (not because Palatine authority existed there, but as an acknowledgement that the Count still held the title, if not the authority, of Count Palatine).

Various noble dynasties competed to be enfeoffed with the Palatinate by the Holy Roman Emperor – among them the House of Ascania, the House of Salm (Count Otto I of Salm in 1040) and the House of Babenberg (Henry Jasomirgott in 1140/41).

The first hereditary Count Palatine of the Rhine was Conrad, a member of the House of Hohenstaufen and younger half-brother of Emperor Frederick Barbarossa. The territories attached to this hereditary office in 1156 started from those held by the Hohenstaufens in the Donnersberg, Nahegau, Haardt, Bergstraße and Kraichgau regions (other branches of the Hohenstaufens received lands in the Duchy of Swabia, Franche-Comté, and so forth). Much of this was from their imperial ancestors, the Salian emperors, and apart from Conrad's maternal ancestry, the Counts of Saarbrücken. These backgrounds explain the composition of Upper and Rhenish Palatinate in the inheritance centuries onwards. About 1182, Conrad moved his residence from Stahleck Castle near Bacharach up the Rhine river to Heidelberg.

Upon Conrad's death in 1195, the Palatinate passed to the House of Welf through the (secret) marriage of his daughter Agnes with Henry of Brunswick. When Henry's son Henry the Younger died without heirs in 1214, the Hohenstaufen king Frederick II enfeoffed the Wittelsbach Duke Louis I of Bavaria, whose son, Otto II of Bavaria married Agnes of the Palatinate, daughter of Henry of Brunswick and Agnes of Hohenstaufen in 1222. The Bavarian House of Wittelsbach eventually held the Palatinate territories until 1918.

During a later division of territory among the heirs of Duke Louis II, Duke of Upper Bavaria, in 1294, the elder branch of the Wittelsbachs came into possession of both the Rhenish Palatinate and the territories in the Bavarian Nordgau (Bavaria north of the Danube river) with the centre around the town of Amberg. As this region was politically connected to the Rhenish Palatinate, the name Upper Palatinate (Oberpfalz) became common from the early 16th century in contrast to the Lower Palatinate along the Rhine.

With the Treaty of Pavia in 1329, the Wittelsbach Emperor Louis IV, a son of Louis II, returned the Palatinate to his nephews Rudolf and Rupert I.

In the Golden Bull of 1356, the Palatinate was recognized as one of the secular electorates, and given the hereditary offices of archsteward (Erztruchseß, Archidapifer) of the Empire and imperial vicar (Reichsverweser) of Franconia, Swabia, the Rhine, and southern Germany. From that time forth, the Count Palatine of the Rhine was usually known as the Elector Palatine (Kurfürst von der Pfalz, Palatinus elector). In 1386, Rupert I helped establish the University of Heidelberg, the oldest University in Germany.

In 1400, the Elector Palatine, Rupert III was elected as King of the Romans, but he was never crowned as Holy Roman Emperor because he was defeated in Italy while attempting to travel to Rome for a coronation.

Due to the practice of dividing territories among different branches of the family, by the early 16th century junior lines of the Palatine Wittelsbachs came to rule in Simmern, Kaiserslautern, and Zweibrücken in the Lower Palatinate, and in Neuburg and Sulzbach in the Upper Palatinate. The Elector Palatine, now based in Heidelberg, adopted Lutheranism in the 1530s; when the senior branch of the family died out in 1559, the electorate passed to Frederick III of Simmern, a staunch Calvinist, and the Palatinate became one of the major centers of Calvinism in Europe, supporting Calvinist rebellions in both the Netherlands and France.

Thirty Years' War
In 1619, the Protestant Frederick V, Elector Palatine accepted the throne of Bohemia from the Bohemian Diet. This initiated the 1618–1648 Thirty Years' War, one of the most destructive conflicts in human history; it caused over eight million fatalities from military action, violence, famine, and plague in the vast majority in the German states of the Holy Roman Empire. In terms of proportional German casualties and destruction, it was surpassed only by the period January to May 1945 and remains the single greatest war trauma in German memory.

Frederick was evicted from Bohemia in 1620 following his defeat by the forces of Ferdinand II, Holy Roman Emperor at the Battle of the White Mountain. Over the period 1621–1622, the Palatinate was occupied by Spanish and Bavarian troops and Frederick was exiled to the Dutch Republic. His territories and electoral rights were transferred to the distantly related but Catholic Maximilian I of Bavaria, who now became Elector of Bavaria.

After his death in 1632, Frederick's daughter Princess Elizabeth and wife Elizabeth Stuart, Queen of Bohemia, worked tirelessly to have the Palatinate restored to her son Charles Louis and the Protestant cause. When the Peace of Westphalia ended the war in 1648, he regained the Lower Palatinate and the title 'Elector Palatine' but now ranked lower in precedence than the others. He was succeeded by Charles II, Elector Palatine in 1680, but the Simmern branch became extinct in the male line after he died in 1685.

In 1670, Charles II's sister Elizabeth Charlotte of the Palatinate married Philippe of Orléans, younger brother of Louis XIV; on this basis, Louis claimed the Rhineland territories of the Palatinate for France. However, he was outmaneuvered by Leopold I, Holy Roman Emperor, whose third wife was Eleonore-Magdalena of Pfalz-Neuburg, eldest daughter of Philip William, a Catholic who was the closest male heir in the direct line. Leopold installed his father-in-law as Elector Palatine, ensuring that his electoral vote and this strategic region remained in Imperial control.

Nine Years' War
When France invaded the Palatinate in September 1688 to enforce its claim, these wider connections meant the conflict rapidly escalated, leading to the outbreak of the Nine Years' War. The French were forced to withdraw in 1689 but before doing so, destroyed much of Heidelberg, another 20 substantial towns and numerous villages. This destruction was systematically applied across a large section of the Rhineland but especially the Palatinate, which was raided again in 1693; the devastation shocked much of Europe. France later renounced its claim to the region in the 1697 Treaty of Ryswick.

Johann Wilhelm succeeded as elector in 1690, changing his residence first to Düsseldorf, then back to Heidelberg and finally Mannheim in 1720. Like his father, he was a Catholic, which under the 1555 Peace of Augsburg meant the Protestant majority in the Palatinate was theoretically obliged to convert to Catholicism. The 1705 'Palatine Church Division' compromised by allocating five-sevenths of public church property to the Reformed or Calvinist church and the remainder to Catholicism, while excluding the Lutheran Church, whose membership exceeded 40% of the population in some areas.

In 1716, Charles Philip succeeded his brother as elector and in January 1742, helped his cousin Charles Albert become the first non-Habsburg emperor in over 300 years. He died in December and the Palatinate passed to Charles Theodore, then Duke of Sulzbach, who also inherited the Electorate of Bavaria in 1777. The title and authority of the two electorates were combined, Charles and his heirs retaining only the vote and precedence of the Bavarian elector, although continuing to use the title 'Count Palatine of the Rhine'.

Mediatisation

The Palatine territories on the left bank of the Rhine were annexed by France in 1795, mainly becoming part of the Mont-Tonnerre department. In 1799 Elector Charles Theodore died and the territory was inherited by the Duke of Palatine Zweibrücken, uniting all the Wittelsbach lands. The loss of the left bank territories was accepted by the new Elector Maximilian Joseph in the Treaty of Paris. Those on the right were taken by the Elector of Baden, after the 1805 Peace of Pressburg dissolved the Holy Roman Empire; the remaining Wittelsbach territories were united by Maximilian Joseph as the Kingdom of Bavaria.

Coat of arms and flag
In 1156 Conrad of Hohenstaufen, brother of Emperor Frederick Barbarossa became Count Palatine. The old coat of arms of the House of Hohenstaufen, the single lion, became coat of arms of the Palatinate.

By marriage, the Palatinate's arms also became quartered with those of Welf and later Wittelsbach. The arms of Bavaria were used with reference to the elector's holdings in Bavaria. This was extended to quartering of the lion and the Bavarian Arms upon the ascension of Maximilian I to the position of elector of the Palatinate in 1623, used concurrently with the arms shown. From 1356 onwards, the orb represented their position as Arch-Steward of the Holy Roman Empire.

Legacy
In 1806, Baden was raised to a grand duchy and parts of the former Palatinate including Mannheim became part of it. At the Congress of Vienna in 1814 and 1815, southern parts of the left-bank Palatinate were restored and enlarged by mediatisation (consuming the former Prince-Bishopric of Speyer, the Free Imperial City of Speyer, and others) up to the new border with France, and given (temporarily) to the Habsburg Austrian Empire; after this time, it was this new region that was principally known as "the Palatinate". The right-bank Palatinate remained with Baden while northern parts became part of Prussia (Rhine Province) and Hesse (Rhenish Hesse).

In 1816, the Palatinate became a formal part of the Wittelsbach Kingdom of Bavaria (the Rheinkreis or Circle of the Rhine) in a pre-arranged exchange for Tyrol, which Bavaria returned to Austria. Most of the area remained a part of Bavaria until after the Second World War (after 1918 the Free State of Bavaria), with some western parts becoming part of the Territory of the Saar Basin after World War I.

In September 1946 the territory was made part of the federal state of Rhineland-Palatinate, along with former left bank territories of Prussia (southern part of the Rhine Province, including the former Principality of Birkenfeld which had been an exclave of Oldenburg until 1937, and western parts of the Province of Nassau) and Rhenish Hesse. The former Territory of the Saar Basin was reinstated and expanded to create the French Saar Protectorate, which returned to Germany in 1956 as the modern state of Saarland.

title: Electoral Palatinate


text:
Unpowered aircraft

Unpowered aircraft can remain airborne for a significant period of time without onboard propulsion. They can be classified as gliders, lighter-than-air balloons and tethered kites. In the case of kites, lift is obtained by tethering to a fixed or moving object, perhaps another kite, to obtain a flow of wind over the lifting surfaces. In the case of balloons, lift is obtained through inherent buoyancy and the balloon may or may not be tethered. Free balloon flight has little directional control. Gliding aircraft include sailplanes, hang gliders, and paragliders that have full directional control in free flight.

History
The first manned aircraft were kites, balloons and gliders. Man-lifting kites were used in ancient China and Japan, often as a punishment for prisoners. Unmanned hot-air balloons and toy "bamboo-copters" are also recorded in Chinese history.

The first manned free flight was in a hot-air balloon built by the brothers Joseph-Michel and Jacques-Etienne Montgolfier in Annonay, France in 1783. The hydrogen balloon appeared at about the same time and proved more practical.

The first practical, controllable glider was designed and built by the British scientist and pioneer George Cayley who many recognise as the first aeronautical engineer. It flew in 1849.

Tethered balloons and, to a lesser extent, kites were developed for military and meteorological observation, however the use of kites has remained largely recreational. Free-flying ballooning using coal gas (which has about half the lifting effect of hydrogen) became a popular sport. Gliders were used mainly for aerodynamic research until their sporting use was developed in the 1920s.

During the two World Wars, tethered barrage balloons were made and deployed in large numbers. Military assault gliders were also developed during World War II, while the rotor kite was used by the German Navy for seaborne observation.

Modern applications include experimental high altitude wind power generation.

Gliders
Sailplanes, hang gliders and paragliders are all types of glider aircraft.

For a glider to generate lift, it must first gain and then maintain sufficient forward air speed.

Launching a glider gives it the initial forward airspeed to start flying. This is often done by towing the aircraft into the air on a long line, using either a ground-based winch or vehicle, or a powered "tug" aircraft. A small foot-launched glider is launched by running downhill or stepping off a high location.

Forward speed is then maintained by a gradual descent through the surrounding air, with the wings angled slightly down so that their lift also provides a small forward thrust to counter the drag of the wing.

If the air is rising faster than the aircraft is descending through it, the glider will gain height and additional potential energy. Sources of such rising air include warm thermals and hill ridges.

In the past, unpowered military gliders have been used for military applications.

Today, the majority of use of all types of glider aircraft is recreational.

Balloons
Free-flying Balloons drift with the wind. The pilot controls the altitude either by heating the air more or by releasing ballast weight. The wind direction usually changes with altitude, so crude directional control can be obtained by changing altitude.

A round tethered balloon is unstable in any significant wind. A kite balloon is streamlined to make it stable in strong winds.

Today, the majority of manned balloon flights are recreational, whereas unmanned and usually free-flying balloons are widely used for meteorological measurement.

Kites
Kites are aircraft that are tethered to some other object (fixed or mobile) or other means that maintain tension in the kite line; and rely on virtual or real wind blowing over and under them to generate lift and drag. Kytoons are balloon kites that are shaped and tethered to obtain kiting deflections, and can be lighter-than-air, neutrally buoyant, or heavier-than air. Kites have been developed for commercial applications using kite control systems, including the airborne wind energy systems of high altitude wind power.

title: Unpowered aircraft


text:
House of Wittelsbach

The House of Wittelsbach (Haus Wittelsbach) is a former Bavarian dynasty, with branches that have ruled over territories including the Electorate of Bavaria, the Electoral Palatinate, the Electorate of Cologne, Holland, Zeeland, Sweden (with Swedish-ruled Finland), Denmark, Norway, Hungary, Bohemia, and Greece. Their ancestral lands of Bavaria and the Palatinate were prince-electorates, and the family had three of its members elected emperors and kings of the Holy Roman Empire. They ruled over the Kingdom of Bavaria which was created in 1805 and continued to exist until 1918.

The House of Windsor, the reigning royal house of the British monarchy, are descendants of Sophia of Hanover (1630-1714), a Wittelsbach Princess of the Palatinate by birth and Electress of Hanover by marriage, who had inherited the succession rights of the House of Stuart and passed them on to the House of Hanover.

History
When Otto I, Count of Scheyern died in 1072, his third son Otto II, Count of Scheyern acquired Wittelsbach Castle (near Aichach). The Counts of Scheyern left Scheyern Castle (constructed around 940) in 1119 for Wittelsbach Castle and the former was given to monks to establish Scheyern Abbey. The origins of the Counts of Scheyern are unclear. Some speculative theories link them to Margrave Henry of Schweinfurt and his father Berthold, whose background is also disputed. Some speculate that the Schweinfurters may be descendants of the Luitpolding dynasty, the Bavarian dukes of the 10th century.

The Wittelsbach Conrad of Scheyern-Dachau, a great-grandson of Otto I, Count of Scheyern, became Duke of Merania in 1153 and was succeeded by his son Conrad II. It was the first duchy held by the Wittelsbach family (until 1180/82).

Otto I's eldest son Eckhard I, Count of Scheyern was father of the count palatine of Bavaria, Otto IV (died 1156), who was the first Count of Wittelsbach and whose son Otto was invested with the Duchy of Bavaria in 1180 after the fall of Henry the Lion and hence the first Bavarian ruler from the House of Wittelsbach. Duke Otto's son Louis I, Duke of Bavaria acquired the Electorate of the Palatinate in 1214.

Throughout history, members of the royal house have reigned as Dukes of Merania (1153–1180/82); Dukes, Electors, and Kings of Bavaria (1180–1918); Counts Palatine of the Rhine (1214–1803 and 1816–1918); Margraves of Brandenburg (1323–1373); Counts of Holland, Hainaut, and Zeeland (1345–1433); Elector-Archbishops of Cologne (1583–1761); Dukes of Jülich and Berg (1614–1794/1806); Kings of Sweden (1441–1448 and 1654–1720); and Dukes of Bremen-Verden (1654–1719).

The family also provided two Holy Roman Emperors (1328–1347/1742–1745), one King of the Romans (1400–1410), two Anti-Kings of Bohemia (1619–20/1742–43), one King of Hungary (1305–1308), one King of Denmark and Norway (1440–1448), and one King of Greece (1832–1862).

Bavaria and Palatinate within the Holy Roman Empire

The Wittelsbach dynasty ruled the German territories of Bavaria from 1180 to 1918 and the Electorate of the Palatinate from 1214 until 1805. In both countries they had succeeded rulers from the House of Welf. The Duchy of Bavaria was elevated to the Electorate of Bavaria in 1623, and in 1806, Napoleon elevated it to the Kingdom of Bavaria. In 1815, the majority of the Palatinate was annexed by the Grand Duchy of Baden, with the remainder becoming the Circle of the Rhine.

On Duke Otto II's death in 1253, his sons divided the Wittelsbach possessions between them: Henry became Duke of Lower Bavaria, and Louis II Duke of Upper Bavaria and Count Palatine of the Rhine. When Henry's branch died out in 1340 the Emperor Louis IV, a son of Duke Louis II, reunited the duchy.

The family provided two Holy Roman Emperors: Louis IV (1314–1347) and Charles VII (1742–1745), both members of the Bavarian branch of the family, and one German King with Rupert of Germany (1400–1410), a member of the Palatinate branch.

The House of Wittelsbach split into these two branches in 1329: Under the Treaty of Pavia, Emperor Louis IV granted the Palatinate including the Bavarian Upper Palatinate to his brother Duke Rudolf's descendants, Rudolf II, Rupert I and Rupert II. Rudolf I in this way became the ancestor of the older (Palatinate) line of the Wittelsbach dynasty, which returned to power also in Bavaria in 1777 after the extinction of the younger (Bavarian) line, the descendants of Louis IV.

Through the efforts of Louis IV, the Wittelsbachs controlled the Duchy of Bavaria, the Electorate of the Palatine, the County of Tyrol, the Margraviate of Brandenburg, the County of Holland, County of Zeeland and the County of Hainault. This gave them a chance to dominate the Empire as the previous imperial houses of Hohenstaufen, Salians, Ottonians and Carolingians had. However, in the next generation they were outmaneuvered in Imperial politics by the Habsburgs and the most importantly by the Luxemburgs who both held compact and large possessions in the Duchy of Austria for the former and the Kingdom of Bohemia for the latter that allowed them to expand eastward.

Bavarian branch
The Bavarian branch kept the Duchy of Bavaria until its extinction in 1777.

The Wittelsbach Emperor Louis IV acquired Brandenburg (1323), Tyrol (1342), Holland, Zeeland and Hainaut (1345) for his House but he had also released the Upper Palatinate for the Palatinate branch of the Wittelsbach in 1329. His six sons succeeded him as Duke of Bavaria and Count of Holland and Hainaut in 1347. The Wittelsbachs lost the Tyrol with the death of Duke Meinhard and the following Peace of Schärding – the Tyrol was finally renounced to the Habsburgs in 1369. In 1373 Otto, the last Wittelsbach regent of Brandenburg, released the country to the House of Luxembourg. On Duke Albert's death in 1404, he was succeeded in the Netherlands by his eldest son, William. A younger son, John III, became Prince-Bishop of Liège. However, on William's death in 1417, a war of succession broke out between John and William's daughter Jacqueline of Hainaut. This last episode of the Hook and Cod wars finally left the counties in Burgundian hands in 1433. Emperor Louis IV had reunited Bavaria in 1340 but from 1349 onwards Bavaria was split among the descendants of Louis IV, who created the branches Bavaria-Landshut, Bavaria-Straubing, Bavaria-Ingolstadt and Bavaria-Munich. With the Landshut War of Succession Bavaria was reunited in 1505 against the claim of the Palatinate branch under the Bavarian branch Bavaria-Munich.

From 1549 to 1567 the Wittelsbach owned the County of Kladsko in Bohemia.

Strictly Catholic by upbringing, the Bavarian dukes became leaders of the German Counter-Reformation. From 1583 to 1761, the Bavarian branch of the dynasty provided the Prince-electors and Archbishops of Cologne and many other bishops of the Holy Roman Empire, namely Liège (1581–1763). Wittelsbach princes served at times as Bishops of Regensburg, Freising, Münster, Hildesheim, Paderborn and Osnabrück, and as Grand Master of the Teutonic Order.

In 1623 under Maximilian I the Bavarian dukes were invested with the electoral dignity and the duchy became the Electorate of Bavaria. His grandson Maximilian II Emanuel, Elector of Bavaria served also as Governor of the Habsburg Netherlands (1692–1706) and as Duke of Luxembourg (1712–1714). His son Emperor Charles VII also claimed the throne of Bohemia (1741–1743). With the death of Charles' son Maximilian III Joseph, Elector of Bavaria the Bavarian branch died out in 1777.

Palatinate branch

The Palatinate branch kept the Palatinate until 1918, having succeeded also to Bavaria in 1777. With the Golden Bull of 1356 the Counts Palatine were invested with the electoral dignity, their county became the Electorate of the Palatinate. Princes of the Palatinate branch served as bishops of the Empire and also as Elector-Archbishop-Electors of Mainz and Archbishop-Electors of Trier.

After the death of the Wittelsbach king Rupert of Germany in 1410 the Palatinate lands began to split under numerous branches of the family such as Neumarkt, Simmern, Zweibrücken, Birkenfeld, Neuburg and Sulzbach. When the senior branch of the Palatinate branch died out in 1559, the electorate passed to Frederick III of Simmern, a staunch Calvinist, and the Palatinate became one of the major centers of Calvinism in Europe, supporting Calvinist rebellions in both the Netherlands and France.

The Neuburg cadet branch of the Palatinate branch also held the Duchy of Jülich and Berg from 1614 onwards: When the last duke of Jülich-Cleves-Berg died without direct heirs in 1609, the War of the Jülich succession broke out, ended by the 1614 Treaty of Xanten, which divided the separate duchies between Palatinate-Neuburg and the Margraviate of Brandenburg. Jülich and Berg fell to the Wittelsbach Count Palatine Wolfgang William of Neuburg.

In 1619, the Protestant Frederick V, Elector Palatine became King of Bohemia but was defeated by the Catholic Maximilian I, Elector of Bavaria, a member of the Bavarian branch. As a result, the Upper Palatinate had to be ceded to the Bavarian branch in 1623, along with the Imperial office of Arch-Steward. When the Thirty Years' War concluded with the Treaty of Münster (also called the Peace of Westphalia) in 1648, a new additional electorate was created for the Count Palatine of the Rhine, along with the new office of Imperial Arch-Treasurer. During their exile Frederick's sons, especially Prince Rupert of the Rhine, gained fame in England.

The house of Palatinate of Zweibrücken-Kleeburg as heir to the Swedish throne ruled simultaneously the Duchy of Bremen-Verden (1654–1719).

In 1685, the Simmern line died out, and the Catholic Philip William, Count Palatine of Neuburg inherited the Palatinate (and also Duke of Jülich and Berg). During the reign of Johann Wilhelm (1690–1716) the Electoral residence moved to Düsseldorf in Berg. His brother and successor Charles III Philip, Elector Palatine moved the Palatinate's capital back to Heidelberg in 1718 and then to Mannheim in 1720. To strengthen the union of all lines of the Wittelsbach dynasty Charles Philip organized a wedding on 17 January 1742 when his granddaughters were married to Charles Theodore of Palatinate-Sulzbach and to the Bavarian prince Clement. In the imperial election a few days later Charles III Philip voted for his Bavarian cousin Prince-Elector Charles Albert. After extinction of the Neuburg branch in 1742, the Palatinate was inherited by Duke Charles Theodore of the branch Palatinate-Sulzbach.

After the extinction of the Bavarian branch in 1777, a succession dispute and the brief War of the Bavarian Succession, the Palatinate-Sulzbach branch under Elector Charles Theodore succeeded also in Bavaria.

With the death of Charles Theodore in 1799 all Wittelsbach land in Bavaria and the Palatinate was reunited under Maximilian IV Joseph, a member of the branch Palatinate-Zweibrücken-Birkenfeld. At the time there were two surviving branches of the Wittelsbach family: Palatinate-Zweibrücken (headed by Maximilian Joseph) and Palatinate-Birkenfeld (headed by Count Palatine William). Maximilian Joseph inherited Charles Thedore's title of Elector of Bavaria, while William was compensated with the title of Duke in Bavaria. The form Duke in Bavaria was selected because in 1506 primogeniture had been established in the House of Wittelsbach resulting in there being only one reigning Duke of Bavaria at any given time. Maximillian Joseph assumed the title of king as Maximilian I Joseph on 1 January 1806. The new king still served as a Prince-elector until the Kingdom of Bavaria left the Holy Roman Empire (1 August 1806).

Kingdom of Bavaria, 1806–1918
The Bavarian Army was involved in the Austrian defeat at Hohenlinden, and General Jean Victor Marie Moreau once more occupied Munich. By the Treaty of Lunéville (9 February 1801), Bavaria lost the Palatinate and the duchies of Zweibrücken and Jülich. In view of the scarcely disguised ambitions and intrigues of the Austrian court, prime minister Montgelas now believed that the interests of Bavaria lay in a frank alliance with the French Republic; he succeeded in overcoming the reluctance of Maximilian Joseph; and, on 24 August, a separate treaty of peace and alliance with France was signed at Paris, which allied Bavaria with France.

The 1805 Peace of Pressburg (now Bratislava) between Emperor Napoleon of France and Francis II, Holy Roman Emperor, as a consequence of the French victory over the Russians and Austrians at the Battle of Austerlitz (2 December), allowed Maximilian to raise Bavaria to the status of a kingdom. Accordingly, Maximilian proclaimed himself king on 1 January 1806. The King still served as an elector until Bavaria seceded from the Holy Roman Empire on 1 August 1806, joining the Confederation of the Rhine. The Duchy of Berg was ceded to Napoleon only in 1806.

The Congress of Vienna 1814−15 led to the establishment of significant territorial gains for the Kingdom of Bavaria. Although the Duchy of Berg remained lost, almost all of Franconia, previously ruled by a number of Prince-bishops, as well as parts of Swabia, which had belonged to various mediatised secular and ecclesiastic princes, came under Bavarian rule. In both areas a number of formerly free imperial cities were also integrated into the kingdom. The previously heavily fragmented Palatinate territory was rounded off and partially moved. Smaller, mostly ecclesiastical territories on the southern border with Austria were also added. In this way, the border of Bavaria, which largely still exists today, was redefined and the state grew by more than a third in size.

Under Maximilian's descendants, Bavaria became the third most powerful German state, behind only Prussia and Austria. When the German Empire was formed in 1871, Bavaria became the new empire's second most powerful state after Prussia. The Wittelsbachs reigned as kings of Bavaria until the German Revolution of 1918–1919. On 12 November 1918 Ludwig III issued the Anif declaration (German: Anifer Erklärung) at Anif Palace in Austria, in which he released his soldiers and officials from their oath of loyalty to him and ended the 738-year rule of the House of Wittelsbach in Bavaria. The republican movement thereupon declared a republic.

Activities during the Nazi regime, 1933–1945
Before and during the Second World War, the Wittelsbachs were anti-Nazi. Crown Prince Rupert had earned Hitler's eternal enmity by opposing the Beer Hall Putsch in 1923. In 1933, shortly after Hitler's rise to power, he protested against the appointment of governors at the head of the federal states and thus the de facto abolition of German federalism. In 1938, he emigrated to Italy and, after the German Army occupied Italy in September 1943, went into hiding in Florence.

His son, Albrecht, Duke of Bavaria, initially left Germany for Hungary with his family, but was eventually arrested by the Gestapo in October 1944, after Germany had occupied Hungary in March. With his wife, four children and three half-sisters, he was sent to a series of Nazi concentration camps, including Oranienburg, Flossenbürg and Dachau. Badly hit by hunger and disease, the family barely survived. At the end of April 1945, they were liberated by the United States Third Army.

Current position of the head of the house
Albrecht's eldest son, Franz von Bayern (Francis of Bavaria) is the current head of the house.

In the course of the division of state and house assets after the end of the kingdom, the Wittelsbach Compensation Fund (Wittelsbacher Ausgleichsfonds) was established through a compromise in 1923 and the Wittelsbach State Foundation for Art and Science was established by the former Crown Prince Rupprecht of Bavaria. The Wittelsbach State Foundation received the Wittelsbach family's art treasures acquired before 1804 and has since been the owner, although not the manager, of a large part of the holdings of the ancient and classical art museums in Munich, while more recent art collections came into the possession of the compensation fund, into which most of the possessions from the former Wittelsbach House Property Fund were transferred in 1923, including art treasures and collections (in particular the art collection of King Ludwig I, today mostly in the museums Alte Pinakothek and Neue Pinakothek and in the Glyptothek in Munich), the Secret House Archives (today a department of the Bavarian State Archives) and the former royal castles of Berg, Hohenschwangau (including the Museum of the Bavarian Kings), Berchtesgaden and Grünau hunting lodge.

The respective head of the House of Wittelsbach appoints a board of up to 8 directors of the foundation Wittelsbach Compensation Fund. He also appoints one of the 3 board members of the Wittelsbach State Foundation for Art and Science, while the other two are a representative of the Bavarian Ministry of Culture and a museum specialist appointed by the latter. There are around 13,500 cultural items belonging to the Wittelsbach State Foundation while another 43,000 are owned by the Wittelsbach Compensation Fund, mainly shown in museums and collections such as the Pinakotheken.

The former Bavarian Royal Family receives around 14 million Euros in payments annually from the proceeds of the Wittelsbach Compensation Fund which also owns agricultural and forestry lands, while its main source of income is urban real estate in Munich. The respective head of the family decides on their distribution and use. He has the right to live in the castles mentioned. While Albrecht lived in Berg Palace from 1949 until the end of his life in 1996, his son and successor Franz primarily uses the side wing of the Nymphenburg Palace that is available to him. The administration of the House of Wittelsbach is also based there.

The private assets of the House of Wittelsbach include the castles of Tegernsee Abbey, Wildenwart (near Frasdorf), Leutstetten (near Starnberg) and Kaltenberg as well as agricultural lands and forestry with an area of 12,500 hectares, real estate and industrial shares. These include two breweries that only became significant after the Second World War: the Ducal Bavarian Brewery of Tegernsee and the König Ludwig Schlossbrauerei. Since 2011, the Nymphenburg Porcelain Manufactory is also owned by a member of the family.

The head of the house is also Grand Master of the Wittelsbach House Orders, the Royal Order of Saint George for the Defense of the Immaculate Conception, the Order of Saint Hubert and the Order of Theresa.

Duke Franz maintained the tradition founded by his father of holding a large annual reception with a sit-down dinner at Nymphenburg Palace. Around 1,500 mostly changing guests from state politics, municipalities, churches and sciences, art and medicine as well as friends and relatives are invited. He also invites smaller groups of changing guests to Berchtesgaden Castle to discuss specific topics that are important to him. His 80th birthday party, in 2013, was held at the Schleissheim Palace near Munich. The party was attended by 2,500 guests including the then-incumbent Minister-President of Bavaria, Horst Seehofer.

In addition to numerous honorary positions in Bavaria, including many cultural and scientific institutions, Franz was also a member of the European Foundation for the Imperial Cathedral of Speyer in the State of Rhineland-Palatinate for many years, a position that his younger brother Duke Max Emanuel in Bavaria, has since taken over, through which the House of Wittelsbach still maintains a connection to one of its former main territories, the Electoral Palatinate.

Reign outside the Holy Roman Empire
With Duke Otto III of Lower Bavaria, who was a maternal grandson of Béla IV of Hungary and was elected anti-king of Hungary and Croatia as Bela V (1305–1308) the Wittelsbach dynasty came to power outside the Holy Roman Empire for the first time. Otto had abdicated the Hungarian throne by 1308.

United Kingdom
The Bill of Rights 1689 and the Act of Settlement 1701 excluded non-Protestants from inheriting the throne of Great Britain, making Sophia of Hanover, a born princess of the House of Palatinate-Simmern, the heir presumptive upon Anne's death. Sophia died two months before Anne, however, and Sophia's eldest son George I of Great Britain succeeded the throne in 1714. In this way, the House of Hanover inherited the British crown. It remained on the throne until the death of Queen Victoria in 1901.

The line of Jacobite succession, which recognises the right for a Catholic monarch from the House of Stuart, acknowledges Franz, Hereditary Prince of Bavaria to be the rightful heir as "Francis II". However, no individual since Henry Benedict Stuart has publicly taken up the claim.

Kingdom of Sweden

Christopher III of the House of Palatinate-Neumarkt was king of Denmark, Sweden, and Norway in 1440/1442–1448, but left no descendants.

The House of Palatinate-Zweibrücken succeeded to the monarchy of Sweden again 1654–1720 when Queen Christina of Sweden abdicated her throne on 5 June 1654 in favour of her cousin Charles X Gustav. Under Charles X, Charles XI, Charles XII, Sweden reached its greatest power (see Swedish Empire). Charles XII was succeeded by his sister Ulrika Eleonora.

Sweden reached its largest territorial extent under the rule of Charles X after the Treaty of Roskilde in 1658. Charles's son Charles XI rebuilt the economy and refitted the army. His legacy to his son Charles XII was one of the finest arsenals in the world, a large standing army, and a large fleet. Charles XII was a skilled military leader and tactician. However, although he was also skilled as a politician, he was reluctant in making peace. While Sweden achieved several large scale military successes early on, and won the most battles, the Great Northern War eventually ended in Sweden's defeat and the end of the Swedish Empire. Charles was succeeded to the Swedish throne by his sister, Ulrika Eleonora. Her abdication in favour of her husband Frederick I in 1720 marked the end of Wittelsbach rule in Sweden.

Kingdom of Greece

Prince Otto of Bavaria was chosen by the London Conference of 1832 to be king of newly independent Greece. This was confirmed by the Treaty of Constantinople, whereby Greece became a new independent kingdom under the protection of the Great Powers (the United Kingdom, France and the Russian Empire).

Throughout his reign, Otto faced political challenges concerning Greece's financial weakness and the role of the government in the affairs of the Church. The politics of Greece of this era was based on affiliations with the three Great Powers, and Otto's ability to maintain the support of the powers was key to his remaining in power. To remain strong, Otto had to play the interests of each of the Great Powers’ Greek adherents against the others, while not aggravating the Great Powers. Otto's standing amongst Greeks suffered when Greece was blockaded by the British Royal Navy in 1850 and 1853 to stop Greece from attacking the Ottoman Empire during the Crimean War. As a result, there was an assassination attempt on his wife Queen Amalia in 1861. In 1862, Otto was deposed while in the countryside, and in 1863, the Greek National Assembly elected George I of the House of Glücksburg, aged only 17, King of the Hellenes, marking the end of Wittelsbach rule in Greece.

Bavarian branch
Joseph Ferdinand, a son of Maximilian II Emanuel, was the favored choice of England and the Netherlands to succeed as the ruler of Spain, and Charles II of Spain chose him as his heir. Due to the unexpected death of Joseph Ferdinand in 1699 the Wittelsbachs did not come to power in Spain, leaving the Spanish Succession uncertain again.

Patrilineal descent
Duke Franz's patriline is the line from which he is descended father to son. Patrilineal descent is the principle behind membership in royal houses, as it can be traced back through the generations.
 * 1) Heinrich I, Count of Pegnitz, 1000–1043
 * 2) Otto I, Count of Scheyern, 1020–1072
 * 3) Eckhard I, Count of Scheyern, 1044-1088
 * 4) Otto IV, Count of Wittelsbach, 1083–1156
 * 5) Otto I, Duke of Bavaria, 1117–1183
 * 6) Louis I, Duke of Bavaria, 1173–1231
 * 7) Otto II Wittelsbach, Duke of Bavaria, 1206–1253
 * 8) Louis II, Duke of Bavaria, 1229–1294
 * 9) Rudolf I, Duke of Bavaria, 1274–1319
 * 10) Adolf, Count Palatine of the Rhine, 1300–1327
 * 11) Rupert II, Elector Palatine, 1325–1398
 * 12) Rupert of Germany, 1352–1410
 * 13) Stephen, Count Palatine of Simmern-Zweibrücken, 1385–1459
 * 14) Louis I, Count Palatine of Zweibrücken, 1424–1489
 * 15) Alexander, Count Palatine of Zweibrücken, 1462–1514
 * 16) Louis II, Count Palatine of Zweibrücken, 1502–1532
 * 17) Wolfgang, Count Palatine of Zweibrücken, 1526–1569
 * 18) Charles I, Count Palatine of Zweibrücken-Birkenfeld, 1560–1600
 * 19) Christian I, Count Palatine of Birkenfeld-Bischweiler, 1598–1654
 * 20) Christian II, Count Palatine of Zweibrücken, 1637–1717
 * 21) Christian III, Count Palatine of Zweibrücken, 1674–1735
 * 22) Count Palatine Frederick Michael of Zweibrücken, 1724–1767
 * 23) Maximilian I Joseph of Bavaria, 1756–1825
 * 24) Ludwig I of Bavaria, 1786–1868
 * 25) Luitpold, Prince Regent of Bavaria, 1821–1912
 * 26) Ludwig III of Bavaria, 1845–1921
 * 27) Rupprecht, Crown Prince of Bavaria, 1869–1955
 * 28) Albrecht, Duke of Bavaria, 1905–1996
 * 29) Franz, Duke of Bavaria, b. 1933

Bavarian branch

 * Louis V, Margrave of Brandenburg, Duke of Bavaria and Count of Tyrol (1323–1361)
 * Albert I, Duke of Bavaria, Count of Holland and Hainaut (1347–1404)
 * Isabeau de Bavière (1371–1435), queen-consort of France
 * Ernest, Duke of Bavaria (1397–1438) duke of Bavaria-Munich
 * Albert III, Duke of Bavaria (1438–1460) duke of Bavaria-Munich
 * Jacqueline, Countess of Hainaut and Holland (1417–1432)
 * Albert IV, Duke of Bavaria (1465–1508)
 * William IV, Duke of Bavaria (1508–1550), co-regent Louis X from 1516 to 1545
 * Louis X, Duke of Bavaria (1516–1545)
 * Albert V, Duke of Bavaria (1550–1579)
 * Maximilian I, Elector of Bavaria (1597–1651)
 * Maria Anna, Dauphine of France (1660–1690)
 * Maximilian II Emanuel, Elector of Bavaria (1662–1726)
 * Duchess Violante Beatrice of Bavaria (1673–1731), Hereditary Princess of Tuscany and Governess of Siena,
 * Clemens August of Bavaria (1700–1761)
 * Maria Antonia of Bavaria (1724–1780)

Palatinate branch

 * Frederick I, Elector Palatine (1451–1476)
 * Frederick III, Elector Palatine (1559–1576)
 * Frederick V, Elector Palatine (1610–1623), King of Bohemia (the "Winter King")
 * Charles I Louis, Elector Palatine (1648–1680)
 * Prince Rupert of the Rhine (1619–1682)
 * Sophia of the Palatine (1630–1714), daughter of Frederick V, Heiress to the British throne, mother of King George I of Great Britain
 * Elizabeth Charlotte, Princess Palatine (1652–1722)
 * Johann Wilhelm, Elector Palatine (1690–1718), his wife Anna Maria Luisa de' Medici being the last scion of the House of Medici
 * King Ludwig I of Bavaria (1825–1848)
 * Princess Sophie of Bavaria (1805–1872), Archduchess of Austria
 * Elisabeth in Bavaria (1837–1898) ("Sisi"), Empress of Austria
 * Ludwig II of Bavaria (1864–1886)
 * Marie Sophie (1841–1925), last queen of the Kingdom of the Two Sicilies
 * Elisabeth of Bavaria (1876–1965), queen-consort of Albert I of Belgium
 * Sophie, Hereditary Princess of Liechtenstein, b. 1967

Scandinavian kings

 * Christopher of Denmark, Norway and Sweden, reigned 1440–1448

Royal House of Sweden

 * Charles X Gustav of Sweden, reigned 1654–1660
 * Charles XI of Sweden, reigned 1660–1697
 * Charles XII of Sweden, reigned 1697–1718
 * Ulrika Eleonora of Sweden, reigned 1718–1720

The Bavarian/Younger Branch
The colours denote the Dukes, Counts and Electors over the following regions of Bavaria and under the following circumstances:

Living legitimate members of the House of Wittlesbach
Bold signifies heads of the house and numbers shown indicate the pretense to the kingship of Bavaria:

 * [[Image:Simple gold crown.svg|15px]] Ludwig I of Bavaria (1786–1868)
 * [[Image:Simple gold crown.svg|15px]] Maximilian II of Bavaria (1811–1864)
 * [[Image:Simple gold crown.svg|15px]] Ludwig II of Bavaria (1845–1886)
 * [[Image:Simple gold crown.svg|15px]] Otto of Bavaria (1848–1916)
 * Princess Mathilde Caroline of Bavaria (1813–1863), married Louis III, Grand Duke of Hesse (1806-1877) without issue
 * Prince Otto of Bavaria, later King of Greece, (1815–1867), married Princess Amalia of Oldenburg (1818–1875) without issue
 * Princess Theodelinde of Bavaria (1816–1817)
 * [[Image:Simple silver crown.svg|15px]] Luitpold, Prince Regent of Bavaria (1821–1912)
 * [[Image:Simple gold crown.svg|15px]] Ludwig III of Bavaria 1845–1921
 * [[Image:Simple silver crown.svg|15px]] Rupprecht, Crown Prince of Bavaria (1869–1955)
 * Prince Luitpold of Bavaria (1901–1914)
 * Princess Irmingard of Bavaria (1902–1903)
 * [[Image:Simple silver crown.svg|15px]] Albrecht, Duke of Bavaria (1905–1996)
 * Princess Marie Gabrielle of Bavaria (born 1931), married Georg, Prince of Waldburg zu Zeil und Trauchburg (1928–2015) and has issue
 * Princess Marie Charlotte of Bavaria (1931–2018), married Paul, Prince of Quadt zu Wykradt und Isny (1930–2011) and issue
 * [[Image:Simple silver crown.svg|15px]] Franz, Duke of Bavaria (born 1933), head of the House of Wittelsbach (1996–present)
 * (1) Prince Max-Emanuel, Duke in Bavaria (born 1937)
 * Princess Sophie of Bavaria (born 1967), married Alois, Hereditary Prince of Liechtenstein (born 1968) and has issue
 * Princess Marie Caroline of Bavaria (born 1969), married Duke Philipp of Württemberg (born 1964) and has issue
 * Princess Helene of Bavaria (born 1972)
 * Princess Elisabeth of Bavaria (born 1973), married Daniel Terberger (born 1967) and has issue
 * Princess Maria Anna of Bavaria (born 1975), married twice and has issue
 * Prince Rudolf of Bavaria (1909–1912)
 * Prince Heinrich of Bavaria (1922–1958), married Anne Marie de Lustrac (1927–1999) without issue
 * Princess Irmingard of Bavaria (1923–2010), married Prince Ludwig of Bavaria (1913–2008), see issue below
 * Princess Editha of Bavaria (1924–2013), married twice and has issue
 * Princess Hilda of Bavaria (1926–2002), married Juan Bradstock Edgar Lockett de Loayza (1912–1987) and had issue
 * Princess Gabriele of Bavaria (1927–2019), married Carl Emmanuel, 14th Duke of Croÿ (1914–2011) and had issue
 * Princess Sophie of Bavaria (born 1935), married Jean, 12th Duke of Arenberg (1921–2011) and has issue
 * Princess Adelgunde of Bavaria (1870–1958), married William, Prince of Hohenzollern (1864–1927) without issue
 * Princess Maria Ludwiga Theresia of Bavaria (1872–1954), married Prince Ferdinand Pius, Duke of Castro (1869–1960) and had issue
 * Prince Karl of Bavaria (1874–1927)
 * Prince Franz of Bavaria (1875–1957)
 * Prince Ludwig of Bavaria (1913-2008)
 * (2) Prince Luitpold of Bavaria (born 1951)
 * Princess Auguste of Bavaria (born 1979), married Hereditary Prince Ferdinand of Lippe-Weißenfeld (born 1976) and has issue
 * Princess Alice of Bavaria (born 1981), married Prince Lukas of Auersperg (born 1981) and has issue
 * (3) Prince Ludwig of Bavaria (born 1982)
 * (4) Prince Heinrich of Bavaria (born 1986)
 * (5) Prince Maximilian of Bavaria (born 2021)
 * (6) Prince Luitpold of Bavaria (born 2023)
 * (7) Prince Karl of Bavaria (born 10 March 1987)
 * Princess Maria of Bavaria (1953-1953)
 * Princess Philippa of Bavaria (1954–1953)
 * Princess Maria Elisabeth of Bavaria (1914–2011), married Prince Pedro Henrique of Orléans-Braganza (1909–1981) and had issue – including the current Head of the Imperial House of Brazil
 * Princess Adelgunde of Bavaria (1917–2004), married Baron Zdenko von Hoenning-O'Caroll (1906–1996) and had issue
 * Princess Eleonore of Bavaria (1918–2009), married Count Konstantin of Waldburg-Zeil (1909–1972) and had issue
 * Princess Dorothea of Bavaria (1920–2015), married Archduke Gottfried of Austria (1902–1984) and had issue
 * Prince Rasso of Bavaria (1926-2011)
 * Princess Maria Theresa of Bavaria (born 1956), married Count Tamбs Kornis de Gцncz-Ruszka (born 1949) and has issue
 * Prince Franz-Josef of Bavaria (1957–2022)
 * Princess Elisabeth of Bavaria (born 1959), married Count Andreas von Kuefstein (born 1954) and has issue
 * (8) Prince Wolfgang of Bavaria (born 1960)
 * (9) Prince Tassilo of Bavaria (born 1992)
 * (10) Prince Richard of Bavaria (born 1993)
 * (11) Prince Philip of Bavaria (born 1996)
 * Princess Flavia of Bavaria (born 2011)
 * Princess Benedikta of Bavaria (born 1961), married Count Rudolf von Freyberg-Eisenberg (born 1958) and has issue
 * (12) Prince Christoph of Bavaria (born 1962)
 * (13) Prince Corbinian of Bavaria (born 1996)
 * (14) Prince Stanislaus of Bavaria (born 1997)
 * (15) Prince Marcello of Bavaria (born 1998)
 * Princess Odilia of Bavaria (born 2002)
 * Princess Gisela of Bavaria (born 1964), married Prince Alexander of Saxony (born 1954) and has issue
 * Princess Mathilde of Bavaria (1877–1906), married Prince Ludwig Gaston of Saxe-Coburg and Gotha (1870–1942) and had issue
 * Prince Wolfgang of Bavaria (1879–1895)
 * Princess Hildegard of Bavaria (1881–1948)
 * Princess Notburga of Bavaria (1883-1883)
 * Princess Wiltrud of Bavaria (1884–1975), married Wilhelm Karl, Duke of Urach (1864–1928) without issue
 * Princess Helmtrud of Bavaria (1886–1977)
 * Princess Dietlinde of Bavaria (1888–1889)
 * Princess Gundelinde of Bavaria (1891–1983), married Count Johann Georg of Preysing-Lichtenegg-Moos (1887–1924) and had issue
 * Prince Leopold of Bavaria (1846–1930)
 * Princess Elisabeth Marie of Bavaria (1874–1957), married Count Otto of Seefried and Buttenheim (1870–1951) and had issue
 * Princess Auguste of Bavaria (1875–1964), married Archduke Joseph August of Austria (1872–1962) and had issue
 * Prince Georg of Bavaria (1880–1943), married Archduchess Isabella of Austria (1888–1973) without issue
 * Prince Konrad of Bavaria (1883–1969)
 * Princess Amalie Isabella of Bavaria (1921–1985), married Count Umberto Poletti Galimberti, Count di Assandri (1921–1995) and had issue
 * Prince Eugen of Bavaria (1925–1997), married Countess Helene von Khevenhüller-Metsch (1921–2017) without issue
 * Princess Therese of Bavaria (1850–1925)
 * Prince Arnulf of Bavaria (1852–1907)
 * Prince Heinrich of Bavaria (1884–1916)
 * Princess Adelgunde of Bavaria (1823–1914), married Francis V, Duke of Modena (1819–1875) and had issue
 * Princess Hildegard of Bavaria (1825–1864), married Archduke Albrecht, Duke of Teschen (1817–1895) and had issue
 * Princess Alexandra of Bavaria (1826–1875)
 * Prince Adalbert of Bavaria (1828–1875)
 * Prince Ludwig Ferdinand of Bavaria (1859–1949)
 * Prince Ferdinand of Bavaria (1884–1958), married twice and renounced his rights to the Bavarian throne in 1914
 * Prince Adalbert of Bavaria (1886–1970)
 * Prince Konstantin of Bavaria (1920–1969)
 * (16) Prince Leopold of Bavaria (born 1943)
 * (17) Prince Manuel of Bavaria (born 1972)
 * (18) Prince Leopold of Bavaria (born 2007)
 * Princess Alva of Bavaria (born 2010)
 * (19) Prince Gabriel of Bavaria (born 2014)
 * (20) Prince Joseph of Bavaria (born 2019)
 * Princess Maria del Pilar of Bavaria (born 1978)
 * Princess Maria Felipa of Bavaria (born 1981), married Christian Dienst (born 1978) and has issue
 * (21) Prince Konstantin of Bavaria (born 1986)
 * (22) Prince Alexis of Bavaria (born 2020)
 * (23) Prince Nikolaus of Bavaria (born 2023)
 * (24) Prince Adalbert of Bavaria (born 1944)
 * Princess Bernadette of Bavaria (born 1986), married Carmelo Milici (born 1987) and has issue
 * (25) Prince Hubertus of Bavaria (born 1989)
 * Princess Ysabel of Bavaria (born 1954), married Count Alfred Hoyos (born 1951) and has issue
 * Prince Alexander of Bavaria (1923–2001)
 * Prince Alfons of Bavaria (1862–1933)
 * Prince Joseph Clemens of Bavaria (1902–1990)
 * Princess Elisabeth of Bavaria (1913–2005), married twice and had issue
 * Princess Isabella of Bavaria (1863–1924), married Prince Tommaso, Duke of Genoa (1854–1931) and had issue
 * Princess Elvira of Bavaria (1868–1943), married Count Rudolf von Wrbna-Kaunitz-Rietberg-Questenberg und Freudenthal (1864–1927) and had issue
 * Princess Clara of Bavaria (1874–1941)

Bavaria
Some of the most important Bavarian castles and palaces that were built by Wittelsbach rulers, or served as seats of ruling branch lines, are the following:

Palatinate branch
Some of the most important castles and palaces of the Palatinate Wittelsbach were:

Electorate of Cologne
From 1597 to 1794, Bonn was the capital of the Electorate of Cologne and residence of the Archbishops and Prince-electors of Cologne, most of them belonging to the Bavarian branch of the House of Wittelsbach (continuously from 1583 to 1761).

Coats of arms
A full armorial of the Wittelsbach family can be found on the French-language Wikipedia at Armorial of the House of Wittelsbach.

Grand Offices of the Prince Electors of the House of Wittelsbach (Erzämter)
Each of the prince electors carried one of the grand offices of the Empire. Each office was indicated by a heraldic mark; the ones that the House of Wittelsbach carried are shown below.

Palatinate branch (senior line), issue of Rudolph I of the Palatinate and Bavaria
In the German fashion, all the sons were "Count Palatine of the Rhine" (Pfalzgraf bei Rhein). There was only one Elector Palatine of the Rhine (Kurfürst von der Pfalz). Similarly, all the sons were Dukes of Bavaria (Herzog von Bayern), until 1506. Then, Duke in Bavaria (German: Herzog in Bayern) was the title used by all members of the House of Wittelsbach with the exception of the Duke of Bavaria. This became a unique position given to the eldest descendant of the younger branch of the Wittelsbachs, who inherited the rule of the entire duchy of Bavaria. For example, so reads the full title of the late 16th century's Charles I, Count Palatine of Zweibrücken-Birkenfeld and patriarch of the House of Palatinate-Birkenfeld: "Count Palatine by Rhine, Duke in Bavaria, Count at Veldenz and Sponheim" (Pfalzgraf bei Rhein, Herzog in Bayern, Graf zu Veldenz und Sponheim).

title: House of Wittelsbach