Cultural depictions of Charles IV, Holy Roman Emperor

[9] In The Story of Civilization, Will Durant opines that Charles governed well as emperor and king, and praised him for improving administration and commerce as well as providing relative peace.

[13] Thomas Brady Jr. opines that Charles IV's intention was to end contested royal elections (from the Luxembourghs' perspective, they also had the advantage that the King of Bohemia had a permanent and preeminent status as one of the Electors himself).

[16] Michael Lindner and Paul-Joachim Heinig opine that the Golden Bull depended on a set of contemporary political conditions and only gained it long-term structure-defining importance over the course of time.

He was a devout Christian [...] the figures of his two patrons, Charlemagne and Saint Wenceslas, were of equal influence in determining his conception of rulership as a Roman emperor and a king of Bohemia.

The curious mixture of devotional Christianity and rational statecraft, the assertion of imperial claims – he was the last emperor to be crowned as king of Burgundy – on the one hand and the construction of the empire as an oligarchy of the princes on the other, his position over or between the nations—these complexities are probably why one of the great Western statesmen has remained to this day in a relative historical obscurity.Reviewing Pierre Monnet's recent work Karl IV.

Der europäische Kaiser, Wihoda disagrees with Monnet's assertion that Wenceslaus (Wenzel) IV failed to understand his father's style of ruling.

Wihoda opines that based on Monnet's portrayal alone, Charles's much praised diplomacy skills did not appear that impressive and that Wenceslaus had to bear the price of debt and isolation.

[19] Brady Jr. remarks that Charles's court's inability to deal with the great number of German-speaking immigrants in Bohemia (and the religious tensions this situation brought about) weakened public stability and decreased the chance for the Luxembourg imperial project's success.