Talk:List of French monarchs.html |
| | | ca | | | de | | | en | | | es | | | fr | | | it | | | nl | | | no | | | pl | | | pt | | | ru | | | ro | | | fi | | | sv | | | tr | | | vo | | |
| |  |
 |
List of French monarchs is a featured list, which means it has been identified as one of the best lists produced by the Wikipedia community. If you can update or improve it, please do so. | ||||||||||||||||
|
|||||||||||||||||
 |
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Biography. For more information, visit the project page. | ||
| FL |
This article has been rated as FL-Class on the project's quality scale. [FAQ] | ||
 |
This article is supported by the Royalty and nobility work group. | ||
 |
List of French monarchs is within the scope of WikiProject France, an attempt to build a comprehensive and detailed guide to France on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please join the project and help with our open tasks. | |
| FA |
This article has been rated as FA-Class on the Project's quality scale. (If you rated the article please give a short summary at comments, explaining the ratings and/or suggest improvements.) |
|
| Version 0.5 (Rated FA-Class) | |
|---|---|
 |
This History article has been selected for Version 0.5 and subsequent release versions of Wikipedia. It has been rated FA-Class on the assessment scale (comments). |
- Talk:List of French monarchs/archive 1
- Talk:List of French monarchs/archive 2
- Talk:List of French monarchs/archive 3
- Talk:List of French monarchs/archive 4
Earlier stuff
Emily: Whats all this fuss I keep hearing about fresh monarchs? How long does a monarch stay fresh, anyway? Why, I saw a perfectly lovely old queen on television just the other day. She didn't look like she was at all stale. And not at all saucy! Why, you replace one country's stale old monarch with a nice fresh one and they'll all end up wanting one. And we haven't enough to go around! I say stick with our everyday monarchs! Its terrible! the way they want to...what, what?!
Chevy: Miss Litella, that was French monarchs. Not fresh. French.
Emily: Oh, well thats different.
Chevy: Yes.
Emily: Nevermind.
So, anyway, would it be okay if I change the list so it starts with Verdun? I think one thing we did mostly agree on in that mess is that starting with Pepin the Short doesn't really make much sense. john 04:55 31 May 2003 (UTC)
Go for it, John User:kt2
This is the opening of a message labeled T-001 from User:Triton:
Copied from User talk:Eloquence for reference purposes:
- (Exact quote from User:Eloquence in discussion) - Specifically, the quite nice table at the UCW website [2] calls these two separate eras "The Old Frankish Kingdom" and "The Kingdom of France". Please try to work towards a compromise that takes this distinction into account, instead of making no distinction between the Frankish rulers and those who followed.
- (Response by User:Triton) - If you say that this list titled France's Kings and Rulers from the University of Washington HIST112 Medieval & Renaissance Europe Winter 2003 as found at [5] showing the two kingdoms, should be exactly what we place on the List of French monarchs at Wikipedia as a compromise that takes this distinction into account, instead of making no distinction between the Frankish rulers and those who followed, then in the spirit of cooperation, I will accept this and post the information.
Copied from: Talk:List of French monarchs/archive 4 for the purpose of responding:
- I am sorry Triton. Let me make sure I understand you. You are saying that your opinion is that this particular list should include a list of all the Frankish monarchs, as well as the French ones?
I am only trying to figure out what the problem is, because you didn't respond to any of the specific issues listed above. The article as it stands links (or should -- I will make sure) to the list on the "Frankish Monarchs" page. It explains the separation, and the contents of Professor O'Neil's list more than support the idea of separation. Could you please explain why this is unacceptable? Thanks! JHK
Reply from USER:Triton to JHK: - If you refer to the points made by Eloquence and my response to him, plus my response to an ensuing statement/set of questions regarding the List of French monarchs on this talk page (archive 4) by Ms. User:JHK immediately preceding her statement/questions above, in short it said:
- "it seems most sensible to post the list as presented by the University of Washington"
- "after someone inserts the Merovingians and does comments, I will look again when I came back and if I have questions I will leave them here on the talk page. "
Ms. User:JHK, ma'am, I don’t think anything could be more clear or precise than my reply that covered every single question you asked. However, I will gladly prepare the list as presented by the University of Washington and post it to the page. So that I do not mislead, if anyone does not want to insert Clodian, then I have no objection but I have no cause or qualifications to justify disagreeing with the University of Washington. I will even rewrite, to the best of my ability, the comments to be absolute NPOV and clarity if no one else wishes to do so as I suggested. This will take a little time as I am certainly no computer whiz. Thank you and may you have a joyful experience at Wikipedia in the spirit of User:Jimbo Wales/Statement of principles. Triton 11:12 31 May 2003 (UTC)
End of message T-001 from User:Triton:
I have started the work to convert and edit the list from the University of Washington. It is a big job what with doing my best links and name verifications but not as much as I had first thought and as such will have it ready for posting by late today. Thank you, please. Triton 14:39 31 May 2003 (UTC)
- If I have observed the somewhat messy discussion about the poor French monarchs correctly (and the most recent change on the main page), then the list should start with 943 (split of the realm with the Treaty of Verdun) and not include the Franks, correct? Just to make it clear, I think it's a good idea to differentiate between a) Frankish rulers on the one side and b) French and German rulers in two separate lines after 843. But from what I can see, this seems to be the consensus (finally). I am only asking because I am currently working on a more lucid list of the Frankish rulers; see User:Djmutex/Sandbox Frankish rulers, and I'd hate to see all the work duplicated. — djmutex 14:51 31 May 2003 (UTC)
As all can be aware from this ongoing discussion, the list to be posted under List of French monarchs is as precisely stated above from the University of Washington. If you were not party to the discussion and did not read it, then whatever editing you might do anywhere is of course your right as a Wikipedia user. It just means you will place more work on others to someday fix what might be wrong. I am dealing only, and have been for several days as detailed herein before-during-since the resolution on Clovis I, with the issue regarding what information will appear on the List of French monarchs. A separate article that deals with the various Franks or other parties who ruled over parts of what we know today as Germany is certainly a worthy task and I appreciate any efforts you make on that separate issue. Triton 15:32 31 May 2003 (UTC) --- Triton, it seems we are back where we started, because you understand the list differently from everybody else. This is why I asked the questions above very specifically, so you could have a chance to respond to what you specifically find wrong. Again, you refuse to work with anyone else; again, you refuse to make any attempt to consider anything that doesn't fit into your viewpoint. You also misrepresent what Eloquence said.
As I said above, and what, if you read what everyone else who has commented on the list but you agrees, the list says France starts with the Capetians. How can you say it should start with the Franks? JHK
Ms.User:JHK, ma'am, I am posting the list from the University of Washington. I never once said France starts with the Franks or anyone else. Thank you, may the Prophet bless you. Triton 16:48 31 May 2003 (UTC)
Can I just say that I'm absolutely confused at this point? I'm going to go add Blanche of Castile as Regent from 1226 to 1234, and hope this blows over. john 16:52 31 May 2003 (UTC)
Hey John -- which part is confusing? Triton is going to reduplicate the efforts of the people who created the varios lists of monarchs already on this site, and lift directly from a list belonging to a non-wikipedian that says what we've already said (and he disagrees with). He is then going to erase all the hard work that many others have done and replace it with a list that starts with the earliest Merovingians because they are French Monarchs, according to him and him alone, even though his list doesn't support this idea. I think it's pretty clear. If anyone disagrees with my understanding of the situation, I'd certainly like to hear why -- it would ease my mind about this project considerably JHK
- Yeah, that's what I was afraid of, but I was hoping that if I ignored it, it would go away. Sigh. john 17:06 31 May 2003 (UTC)
The position on this list was very clear and I am, as stated before, proceeding on that basis. Let us make certain that this situation is dealt with exactly as was outlined previously and that we all adhere to User:Jimbo Wales/Statement of principles on any issue. These principles certainly apply here and make sense. If there is a disagreement with the intrepretation of Mr. Wales statement or my actions, it can always be taken to him. Please, thank you. Triton 17:12 31 May 2003 (UTC)
Triton, what exactly are you saying here? Could you please explain, in detail, what exactly you plan to do, and what exactly is your justification for this? john 17:16 31 May 2003 (UTC)
- Now I'm really confused too. What I understand, Triton, is that you want to work on the List of French monarchs only. Fine; I am not planning to touch that page. But just to enlighten my poor confused mind, I don't understand what needs to be changed there anymore. Let me try to make clear, in simple words, what I thought was the consensus here otherwise.
- 1. The Franks are neither French, nor are they German. They are Franks. The Frankish kingdoms are common ancestry of France on the one hand and the Holy Roman Empire (Germany, if you want) on the other side. They do not belong on the List of French monarchs, nor do they belong on the List of German Kings and Emperors, since they precede both.
- As an side, my suggestion for a new list of French monarchs, separate from both the French and German lists, is at User:Djmutex/Sandbox Frankish rulers. I'd be grateful for comments whether other people consider that new format useful.
- 2. I therefore find the present List of French monarchs that starts after the Verdun split of 843 wonderful. The same should be done with the List of German Kings and Emperors, which needs a merge with that other List of Holy Roman Emperors, but that's an entirely different can of worms.
- As a result, I simply do not understand what you want to do now, Triton. Do you disagree with anything that I stated above? Do you want to copy the entire list from the University of Washington to the French Monarchs? That would include the Merovingians, which I thought was considered misleading in the discussion so far. If that is not what you want to do, do you want to copy the information from the list for the time after 843 only? If so, how does that differ from what is presently on the French list?
- Could you answer these questions instead of globally referring to Wikipedia policies, please, which does not really help the issue? Thank you. — djmutex 17:19 31 May 2003 (UTC)
Mr.User:John, sir and all others, I am sorry if you have not been following this enough to have read everything. Your questions have already been fully answered on this page talk page and/or its predecessor pages. Thank you, and may the Prophet bless you. Now, I do have to leave Wikipedia for a short time. I believe that nothing here will render the heavens and the earth asunder, is there? Nor will my departing for a reasonable period of time on a promise to return to deal with matters be a contravention of any policy. Will it? I do note others do that, frequently. However, in this case, as all has been dealt with in vast detail on these talk pages for anyone who cares to read it, then there is nothing I can add or for anyone to question until I've completed my promised work. Thank you all again, Triton 17:26 31 May 2003 (UTC)
- Wow, that was disingenuous. Good luck on your far-off mission, Triton, and may the Prophet grant peace to you and your clan. john 17:36 31 May 2003 (UTC)
-
- The wheels on the bus go 'round and 'round ... JHK
Notice from User:Triton: As stated on 17:26 31 May 2003 (UTC) above, all questions have already been fully answered by me on this talk page and/or its predecessor pages and that I am proceedng in a clearly defined and proper manner with my work on the List of French monarchs. This work will be finished in a reasonable length of time. Further, I plan to make contributions to many articles at Wikipedia and in an attempt to cooperate fully in any discussions, I will follow Mr. Wales words who said that wikipedia will be run in accordance with his User:Jimbo Wales/Statement of principles that includes using diplomacy consisting of a combination of honesty and politeness. As such, I think that everyone would concurr that standard norms for diplomacy in debate is a straightforward one at a time question/answer format used by most all debating forums in the civilized world. With more than one party asking a question to one person, diplomacy requires each person wait their turn. In order to ensure I follow Article 1. of Mr. Wales Statement of principles, and Do The Right Thing to preserve our shared vision for the NPOV and for a culture of thoughtful diplomatic honesty, I will wait for a response to my question before considering any another. Once one reply has ben posted, should there be a question then I will reply to it, and only it. I will not attempt to answer a multitude of questions or one question from a several users. I note, that other than some vague reference in a foreign language dictionary that I cannot read, not one party to the discussion on the List of French monarchs has chosen to answer my request for credible and verifiable references to support the statements they have made. And, while I may agree or disagree, I will not respond to anyone’s unfounded opinions. They are your opinions. I recognize the right for anyone to express an opinion, but they are exactly that: your opinions. I can only respond to matters of fact. In order that everyone equally follows the orderly Wikipedia courtesy that Mr. Wales rightfully demands of all contributors, one question clearly addressed to me will receive one answer before any other questions will be considered. If anyone posts another question before I have received an answer to mine, there will be no response to you under any circumstances unless you restate the question later on in the proper participant order. Any question that includes racial or ethnic slurs, is derogatory or demeaning in any manner or in any way is less than the etiquette Mr. Wales demands, will not be answered --ever. If you believe that my interpretation of User:Jimbo Wales/Statement of principles for diplomacy within proper and honest ask/answer debate is incorrect, you can certainly take up the issue with Mr. Wales for clarification. Thank you, may the Prophet bless each of those honorable contributors to this wonderful project called Wikipedia. Triton 17:57 1 Jun 2003 (UTC)
ATTENTION ALL INTERESTED WIKIPEDIANS!!!
In the interests of fair play and compromise, it has been suggested that there be a 'vote' for what exactly belongs on this page. Several options which have been discussed above and in the archived talk pages are listed below. Please add your name to the option you feel best, and feel free to add other options If I've left any out. Since this is more in the way of achieving compromise, more than one option may be selected. Thanks!
- Leave the page basically as it is, with explanatory introduction and lists of monarchs starting with the Carolingians:
- Leave the page basically as it is, with explanatory introduction and list beginning with Charles the Bald after 843:
- Leave the page basically as it is, with explanatory introduction and list beginning with the Capetians in 987:
- Supported by: JHK FearÉIREANN djmutex (consistency with new List of German Kings and Emperors), john, Martin, Kt²
- Opposed by: llywrch
- Rewrite the page to include the Merovingians in the list, but still explain that there is a difference between "traditionally considered" and "actually were":
- Convert the page to a list with no explanation, beginning with Clovis, broken down as per the UW list:
- Convert the page to a list with no explanation, beginning with Charles the Bald in 843, but linking to the Frankish monarchs page:
- Convert the page to a list with no explanations, beginning with the Capetians and linking to the Frankish monarchs page:
Thanks in advance for your opinions JHK 20:03 1 Jun 2003 (UTC)
Just to explain my vote, my preference is for a list starting in 843. I think that a list showing all of the Carolingians would be inappropriate - why was Pepin I any more a "French monarch" than Clovis? Starting in 987 would be alright, as well, but I still don't like the idea of 987 as some sort of enormous breaking point. Anyway, either of those would be acceptable, so long as we explain carefully what exactly we're doing. The other options I firmly oppose. john 22:30 1 Jun 2003 (UTC)
I'd like to explian my vote also. While tracing the birth of the modern French monarchy with the Treaty of Verdun can be persuasively argued, I feel that an explanation is needed for the layman why certain members of the Carolingian Dynasty are excluded. (e.g., "If this is the Carolingian Dynasty, then where's Charlemagne?") Further, it is not only the layman who thinks Clovis I founded the French Monarchy: IIRC, many French kings, in expressing their right to the throne, also expressed a claim back to Clovis' reign. (For some reason, monarchs are adverse to stating their claim to rule on the pragmatic argument, "I have more soldiers than anyone else, & have physical control of these fortresses, therefore I am king." Perhaps because that argument could be used by a rival to depose him thru the accumulation of more troops, & attempting to physically dispossess the incumbent of said fortresses. ;-) I'm not aware if Wikipedia has tackled the issue of the language of state legitimacy & succession. -- llywrch 17:42 2 Jun 2003 (UTC)
Why "monarchs"?
Since France has Kings only, and no French Queen has ever reigned, why is this a "List of French monarchs" rather than a "List of French Kings"? -- Nunh-huh 20:07, 11 Apr 2004 (UTC)
Dunno. Is it important? john 21:18, 11 Apr 2004 (UTC)
- Probably not, but it does seem peculiar. It only occurred to me as I was making a redirect of King of the French to here (on the assumption that no one was going to write an article contrasting King of the French with King of France... - Nunh-huh 00:24, 12 Apr 2004 (UTC)
France had a couple of Emperors. 217.140.193.123 16:16, 25 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Somewhat POV presentation
French national identity. Since the 1990s, the very question of nationality, especially for nations who consider their foundations to be in the period from the 5th to 9th centuries, has come under fire. This re-examination has already resulted in several interesting studies (see below), some of which will surely lead to a further redefinition of what it means to be a nation, and how nationality can be better defined.
--Rephrased. The preceding formulation would better fit a general article on early Middle Ages than the list of French kings. Furthermore, it was POV in the sense that it implied that the foundation by Clovis is a significant belief of French identity, which is untrue. David.Monniaux 14:35, 10 Nov 2004 (UTC)
Heir to the French Throne
As a matter of curiosity (and at the risk of adding more fuel to the fire), if the French were at all inclined to declare a monarchy again, who would have the best claim to the throne at present and why ? It might make an interesting addition to the article... -- Derek Ross | Talk 05:48, 2005 Jan 20 (UTC)
- It probably doesn't belong here, but I'm sure it's somewhere else in Wikipedia...probably pretender. The French could make anyone king, but if they were to do it on the basis of hereditary "claims", it would depend which "throne" they were "restoring". In the unlikely possibility that it would be Napoleonic Imperial throne, the current claimant is Charles Bonaparte. If it were the royal throne, there are two leading contenders, Henri, Comte de Paris, Duc de France, Orléanist pretender (i.e. descendant of Louis-Philippe), and Louis-Alphonse, Duc d'Anjou, the Legitimist pretender (i.e. the inheritor of the pretension of Henri, Comte de Chambord). The former having by far the more monarchist supporters, and the latter looking better in his sumptuous red Ruritanian uniform... - Nunh-huh 06:01, 20 Jan 2005 (UTC)
Thanks. I wasn't aware of the pretender article. It's very informative -- and hurrah for Ruritanian uniforms! Cheers -- Derek Ross | Talk 07:20, 2005 Jan 20 (UTC)
I think it would come down to which "throne" they would restore, if the Imperial one, then obviously it would be Charles Bonaparte. In the case of the "French King or King of the French" I would think the advantage would go to the Comte de Paris, simply because he is French, lives in France, speaks French, and the decendent he is from (Louis Phillipe) ruled lastly before the Duc d'Anjou's (Louis XIV). Plus he is nor french, lives in spain, and does not speak french.
Well here's something I think the Duc d'Anjou's claim is very much the same as the Comte de Pairs, but also thiers another claim, my claim to the French thrown. I'm a direct decendent of Charlemange through his son Charles the younger who was King of the Germans. If i was to tell you my family tree it would be from Charlemange, Charles The Younger, Rowland, Godfrey, Baudouin I Count of Flanders, Baudouin II Count of Flanders, Arnulf Count of Flanders, Baudouin III count of Flanders, Jean General of the French Kings Army, Sir Harlevin Viscount of Conteville, best freind of Robert Duke of Normany, and Husband of Harleve de Falaise (mother of William I of England) thier son Robert Count of Mortain, and Earl of Cornwall, William Count of Mortain, Earl of Cornwall, Adelm de Burgo married Agnes Princess of France, son Willim FitzAdelm de Burgo (the conqueror of Ireland) married the daughter of High King Rory of Ireland, son William de Burgh Lord of Connaught, son Richard "The Great" de Burgh Lord of Connaught, son Walter de Burgh Lord of Connaught Earl of Ulster, son Richard "The Younger" de Burgh Lord of Connaught Earl of Ulster, son Edmond de Burgh then I have a missing 14 generations i'm working on that, and then it starts up again with John Burk, (the name Burke is the Irish name for de Burgh by the Irish or either de Burc, and their name Burke is just another spelling of it like Bourke) son Timothy Burke, son John "The Laberor" Burke, son Daniel Lawrance Burke, son Robert Burke, son Thomas Burke, son Michael Burke. I'm Michael, and I'm claiming the French or German Throwe. email me at cadets/burkem@cbchs.org
Charles the Fat
Why is it that Charlemange is considered "Charles I King of France" but he is not numbered "Charles I (Holy) Roman Emperor"? (That is if you do consider the Holy Roman Empire to have been started pre Otto I, which I do) Anyone know why the numbering was like that?
The ordinal tradition was not in use in their days. It is a later invention. The ordinals came to use apparently in 15th (or already in 14th) century. These earlier monarchs were numbered using hindsight. However, the "correct" ordinals were important to kings of France who began to use them. Thus, they created an official canon of "rightful" kings. To them, French monarchy began from Clovis (whom they claimed as an ancestor in female line) - Carolingians were interlopers. Charles the Fat did not leave a good reputation. And he was a sideline person to reign France. Thus, he was left out from the canon. Whereas Charlemagne was really important, thus he was Charles I in that canonical numbering. The next was Charles II the Bald. Charles III the Simple was the last of that name before Capetians. And, Charles IV, youngest son of Philip IV, was the first Capetian with carolingian name Charles to ascend the throne of France. I try to say it again: These ordinals come from late medieval canon ordered by then kings. We cannot alter that fact. 217.140.193.123 19:10, 25 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Charlemagne is also considered to be Holy Roman Emperor Charles I. Charles the Bald was Emperor Charles II, and Charles the Fat Emperor Charles III, making the 14th century Luxembourg Emperor Charles IV... john k 19:22, 25 Jun 2005 (UTC)
The World Almanac lists as French kings: Charles I the Bald, Charles II the Fat, Charles III the Simple. Charlemagne is not listed because it was upon his death that what is now France was carved.--67.49.149.91 5 July 2005 01:12 (UTC)
The World Almanac is hardly a definite source. Charles the Fat is not traditionally given a number. Charles the Bald is "Charles II" and Charlemagne is "Charles I." This is the standard nomenclature. john k 5 July 2005 01:44 (UTC)
Erase republics?
The republics should not be included in a list of monarchs. These sections should be collapsed into simple links to the first and second republics or replaced with Interregnum.
I fail to see what, if anything, it hurts to have them listed. Especially since the one and only president that the Second Republic had, ended up being the ruler of the Second Empire, so there is just a bit of a connection. ~Tate
Charles the Simple article
Can someone change the mention of an "Edward I of England" to what he really was "Edward the Elder" Since they are differnt monarchs and ruled far apart from each other. It wasnt until a few minutes after reading this article that I realized he couldnt possibly have married the daughter of the actual Edward I of England.
and under Louis VI it says that his first son, Phillip was someone king of France? Philippe (1116 - October 13, 1131), king of France (1129-1131)
I'm not sure to understand
I don't understand why the Merovingians kings are not considered kings of France ... since they ruled France (Gaul) ...... The (will-be) French people and the lands in France were ruled by the Merovingian kings so they were kings of France-Gaul, right ? They were the creators of that kingdom that will be divided later in 843, so what's the problem ? ...
BTW :
"In addition to the monarchs listed below, the Kings of England and Great Britain from 1422 to 1801 also claimed the title of King of France. Initially, this had some basis in fact - Henry VI of England had been recognized by his grandfather Charles VI as heir to the French throne under the terms of the 1420 Treaty of Troyes, and most of Northern France was under English control until 1435"
If we forget the fact that Charles VI was half-mad, maybe ...
according to Henry_VI_of_England, Henry was Crowned, and so should be in this list. I can see the gap in the dates in the current list, but this guy should fill it.
Conglacio 23:05, 12 January 2006 (UTC)
- I see no gap and an agreement with a mad contractant has no value anyway, right ?
waggg 02:30, 13 January 2006 (UTC)
Late to the party, but I think later French legal theory would say that Charles, mad or not, had no right to change the order of succession - according to most later theories, the French law of succcession was ordained by God, and could not be changed by any man. When Charles VI died, the Dauphin is king automatically, and there's nothing the king can do to change that. This theory created a lot of problems during the War of the Spanish Succession, because (more or less) the French had difficulty promising Philip V's renunciation of the French throne because they (more or less) thought he didn't have the right to do so. But even if the renunciations are valid, note that in this case it is Philip himself who is renouncing, which is quite different from Charles VI disinheriting his son. Also, Henry VI was crowned, but not in Reims - he had to be crowned in Paris, and I believe this was only after Charles had already been crowned in Reims.
I suppose Charles VI might have been able to claim his son was a bastard (and I believe this was done), but even that wouldn't have made Henry V his successor. It would have, if accepted, made the Duke of Orleans (then a prisoner in England) king. john k 00:13, 28 July 2006 (UTC)
Let me chime in as well:
- Charles VI's madness or rather his mental illness (switching from rage to depression) has no impact on whether the Treaty of Troyes was legal, as Charles' wife Isabeau and the official regent, the Duke of Burgundy were involved as well.
- Charles VII indeed was declared a bastard by his own mother - or at least that was spread.
- Henry V was regent of France for his father-in-law 1420-1422 but predeceased him. Charles VI was then succeeded by Henry's baby son Henry VI, who thus was King of England and of France.
- Henry VI does not appear in the list because he is considered an interloper (and because he effectively didn't rule France because of his age) but that shouldn't be interpreted as him not having been legally King of France. Whether he was the legitimate, rightful king is another matter but legally he was the King for some time. (And his successors in England upheld that claim until 1801)
Str1977 (smile back) 09:39, 4 October 2006 (UTC)
As for the Merovingians (and Carolingians), they are not included in this list for reason of organisation, putting all rulers of the Frankish Kingdom before 843 into one article/list separate from the French and the German line (to which they could be included). Str1977 (smile back) 09:41, 4 October 2006 (UTC)
- Henry VI must appear in this list. He was crowned King of France, the son of two legal claimants, had huge parts of the country ruled in his name and was contested only by a bastard. Even Charles VII considered dropping his claim because he knew Henry had more legal entitlement. Not including Henry is like saying William I was never King of England. The only difference is that William's invasion stuck and Henry's didn't, which shouldn't be an issue at all. --Tefalstar (talk) 00:12, 12 May 2008 (UTC)
Problems
This list has several problems. Some of the links link to disambiguation pages and there is inconsistency in the naming of monarchs: some are given numbers, some nicknames. Its also as if we don't know any death dates for monarchs before Hugh Capet. These ought to be fixed before this becomes a "featured list"! Srnec 04:30, 28 March 2006 (UTC)
DIAGRAM
I've moved this diagram fromt he article to here, it starts from a different pointin historty for starters. It makes the article way too long aswell. If any one thinks otherwise just say Sotakeit 09:41, 6 May 2006 (UTC)
450- Merovech, local King.
I
451-Childeric I (437-482) local King.
I
482-Clovis I (466-511), King of the Franks, conquerst Gaul
I converts to Catholicism, codifies Salic Law.
I
I_______________________________________________
I I I I
Theuderic I Chlodomer Childebert I Clotaire I
(? – 534) (+532) (? -558) (497-561)
King Reims King Orleans King Paris King Soissons
511-534 511-532 511-558 511-561
___________________________________I___________________
I I I I
Chilperic I Charibert Sigebert I Guntram
(539-584) (517-567) (535-575) (545-592)
King Soissons King Paris King Reims King Orleans
561-584 561-567 561-575 561-592
m. Fredegund m. Brunhilda
I I
I Childebert II
I (570-595)
I King Austrasia
I _______I__________
I I I
I Theudebert II Theuderic II
I (+612) (587-613)
I King Austrasia King Burgundy 595-613
I 595-612 King Austrasia 612-613
I I
I Sigebert II
I (608-613)
I King Austrasia & Burgundy 613
Clotaire II (584-629)
King Neustria 584-629
King Austrasia 613-623
King Burgundy 613-629
________I________________
I I
Cheribert II (618-632), Dagobert I (603-639)
King Aquitaine 629-632 King Austrasia 623-634
King Neustria & Burgundy 629-639
_____________________________I___________________
I I
Clovis II (637-658) Sigebert III (630?-656)
King Neustria 639-658 King Austrasia 634-656
_____I_______________________________ I__________________
I I I I I
Clotaire III Childeric II Theuderic III I Dagobert II Childebert the Adopted
(652-673) (653-675) (? –691) (650-679) son of mayor Grimoald
King Neustria King Austrasia King Neustria King Austrasia (?-661)
658-673 662-675 675-691 676-679 King Austrasia
King Austrasia King Neustria King Austrasia 656-661
661-662 673-675 679-691
I I I
Clovis III I Clovis IV (682-695)
King Austrasia I King of Franks
675-676 I 691-695
I I
I Childebert III,
I (683-711)
I King of Franks
Chilperic II 695-711
(? -720) I
King of Franks Dagobert III (?-715) Clotaire IV (?-720)
715-721 King of Franks 711-15 King of Austrasia 717-720
I I
Childeric III Theuderic IV
(? – 752) (? – 737)
King of Franks King of Franks
743-751 721-37
Last Merovingian king.
I
Theuderich
X
751-Pippin III, The Younger (714-768), first Carolingian King
I
I
768-Charles I (Charlemagne) (742-814), Holy Roman Emperor
I (HRE) 800-814
I
769-Louis I, The Pious, (778-840), HRE 814-840
I____________________________________________
I I I
840-Lothair I 841- Charles II, 843- Louis II,
(795-855), The Bald, The German
HRE 843-55 (823-877) (804-876)
I HRE 875-77 HRE 855-75
I King West Franks. King East Franks
I I after Treaty Verdun
I_____________ I I
I I I I
Louis II, Lothair II I I
Holy Roman I I
Emperor I I
__________________________I I
I I
877-Louis II, The Stammerer, (846-879), I
King West Franks until death. I
I_________________________________ I
I I I I
879-Louis III, Carloman Charles III, I
(863-882) ( ? – 884) The Simple I
King with Carloman (879-929) I
I__________I___
_____________________________________________I I
I I I
884-Charles III, Louis, The Younger, I
The Fat (832-888) (? -882) I
Holy Roman King East France I
Emperor 881-887 876-882 I
King West Franks 884-887, I
East 882-887. I
X I
887-Odo,Eudes, (860-898), son Robert, The Strong, I
selected King by nobles. I
Ranulf II Duke Aquitaine I
________________________________________________I
I
898-Charles III, The Simple, (879-929), King until 922
I_____________________________________________
X I
911-Robert I (865-923), brother of Odo, King by nobles. I
X I
923-Rudolf, Duke of Burgundy, (? - 936), King by nobles. I
__________________________________________________I
I
936-Louis IV (920-954), King until death.
I
954-Louis V (967 – 987), King until death leaving no heirs. Last
Carolignian king.
X
987-Hugh Capet (938-996), son of Hugh, the Great, and Hedwig,
I daughter of Henry I of Germany. Elected King
I by nobles. Start Capetian dynasty.
I
996-Robert II, (972-1031), Son of Hugh Capet and Adelaide of
I Aquitaine. King until death.
I
1031-Henry I (1008-1060), King until death.William VI, The Eagle,
I Duke Aquetaine.
I
1060-Phillip I (1052-1108), King until death. William the Conqueror
I (1028-1087), Duke of Normandy,
I invades England 1066 becomes
I William I King of England.
I Starts primogeniture inheritance.
1108-Louis VI (1081-1137), King until death.
I
1137-Louis VII, The Younger (1120-1180), King until death.
I Marries Eleanor of Aquetaine
I who had inherited Aquitaine from William X on
I his death 1154. Eleanor annuls marriage and
I marries Henry II future King of England giving
I five sons including John, of England; Henry, The
I Young; Richard I, The Lion Heart.
I
1180-Phillip II, Augustus (1165-1223), King until death.
I
1223-Louis VIII, The Lion (1187-1226)
I
1224-Louis IX, St. Louis (1214-1270)
____I_________________________________
I I I
Phillip III, Four other boys, Robert, Count of Clermont
The Bold , five girls I
(1245-1285) I
I I
I Louis I, Duke of Bourbon
I I
I Jaques de Bourbon
I I
I Jean de Bourbon
I I
I Louis de Bourbon
I I
I Jean de Bourbon
I I
I Francois de Bourbon
I I
I Charles IV, Duke of Bourbon
I I
I Antoine de Bourbon
I I___________
I_________________________________________ I
I I I
Phillip IV, The Fair, (1269-1314) Charles III, Valois I
____I________________________________ I I
I I I I I I
Louis X, Phillip V, Charles IV, Isabel-m. I I
Quarreler The Tall The Fat King Ed II, I I
(? -1316) (1293-22) (1294-1328) of England I I
King King King I I I
1314-6 1316-22 1322-1328 I I I
Son John Had girls Had girls Edward III I I
1316-1316 (1312-77) I I
Claims French I I
Throne 1328. I I
Starts 100 y I I
War. I I
_____________________________________________I I
I I
1328- Phillip VI, of Valois, (1293-1350),King (disputed) I
1328-1350, Starts Valois dynasty. I
I I
1350- John II, The Good, (1319-1364), I
King (disputed by Edward III) until death. I
I I
1364- Charles V, The Wise, (1338-1380), I
King (disputed) until death. I
I_________________________________ I
I I I I
1380- Charles VI, 7 other Louis of Valois, I
The Well Beloved, Duke of Orléans I
The Mad, (1368-1422) (1372-1407) I
King until Death. ____I__________ I
I I I I
I Charles, John, I
I Duke of Count of I
I Orléans Angoulême I
I I (1394– 1465) I
I I____________ I I
I I I I
1429- Charles VII, The Victorious, (1403-1461), I I I
I Revolts against Henry VI I I I
I of England who had gained I I I
I French throne by treaty with I I I
I Charles VI. King until death. I I I
I Crowned with help of Joan I I I
I of Arc, helps end 100 y war. I I I
1461- Louis XI, The Prudent, (1423-1483), King I I I
I until death. I I I
I I I I
1483-Charles VIII, The Affable, (1470-1498), I I I
king until death. I I I
No living heirs at his death. I I I
_________________________________________I I I
I I I
1498-Louis XII, Father of the People, I I
(1462-1515), king until death. Had 2 daughters. I I
________________________________________________I I
I I
1515-Francis I (1495-1547) I
I I
1547-Henry II (1519-1559), King until death. I
I_______________________________________ I
I I I I
1559- Francis II 1560- Charles IX 1574- Henry III I
(1544-1560) (1550-1574) (1551-1589) I
King until death King until death. King until death. I
by ear infection, Illeg son Charles Last Valois King. I
brain abcess. (1573-1650). I
No children. I
____________________________________________________I
I
1589- Henry IV, (1553-1610), First Bourbon king 1589-1610
I Ninth cousin of Francis II, Brother-in-law to Charles IX and Henry III.
I
1610- Louis XIII, The Just, (1601-1643)
I___________________________________________________
I I
1643- Louis XIV Philippe I, Duke of Orleans
The Sun King, (1638-1714) I
King 1643-1714 I
I Philippe II , Duke of Orleans
Louis, The Grand Dauphin I
(1661-1711) I
I Louis of Bourbon, Duke of Orleans
Louis, Duke of Burgundy I
(1682-1712) I
I Louis Philippe I, Duke of Orleans
I I
I Louis Philippe (II.) Joseph, Duke of Orleans
I I
1723-Louis XV, The Well Beloved, (1710-1774 I
I king until death. I
I 1714- Phillip II, Duke of I
I Orleans (1674-1423) I
I makes self regent until death I
I over 5 year old Louis XV. I
I I
Louis, dauphine de France (1729-1765) I
I_______________________________________________ I
I I I I I
1774- Louis XVI, (1754-1793), king until I 6 More I I
I guillotined in French I I I
I Revolution started 1789, ends I I I
I early modern & ancient regime I I I
I I I I
I I I I
1793- Louis XVII (1785-1795), I I I
son Louis XVI and Marie Antoinette I I I
daughter of Philip V of Spain,king I I I
till death in Republic prison. I I I
____________________________________I I I
I I I
1795- Louis XVIII (1755-1824) I I
King 1814-1824 I I
______________________________________________I I
I I
1824- Charles X, (1757-1836), King until 1830 I
I_______________________________________ I
I I I
1830- Louis XIX, (1755-1844), Charles I 1830- Louis-Philippe I.
Ferdinand, duc de Berry, I (1773-1850)
abdicates 20 minutes after his father I King of the French1830-1848
Henri Charles, comte
de Chambord, (1820-1883)
claimant as King Henry V
Carlo Buonaparte
________________________I__________
I I
1799- Napoleon I, (1769-1821), Louis Bonaparte
after French Revolution, I
Ruler French Republic I
1804 crowns himself Emperor I
I I
Napoleon II 1852- Napoleon III (1808-1873)
heir, did not rule President 1849-1852
Emperor 1852-1870
Is this diagram still used in anyway. It does contain errors (and puts forth some opinions as facts) and if it is still used I would correct these, if no one minds. Str1977 (smile back) 09:43, 4 October 2006 (UTC)
I have done some correcting in the Merovingian section and some re 1830. Enough for now. Str1977 (smile back) 13:46, 4 October 2006 (UTC)
Portrait of Henry III
Hello, I just wanted to mention that the picture of "Henry III" is not the portrait of the king but the one of his younger brother François Hercule duke of Anjou. (Henry III was duke of Anjou before he became king, that's where the confusion may come from).
Louis XIX, Henri V and Phillipe VII
If you let Louis XIX in as King of France (15-20 minutes), and Louis XVII (NEVER), you have to have Henri V, who was technically king for between a week and ten days in 1830 and is aknowledged as such by the French government, and Phillipe VII, who was technically king for a day between Louis Phillip's abdication and his mother's being kicked out of the general assembly and the formal establishment of the second republic.
Henri and Phillipe spent most of their lives as "pretenders" but they were indeed, however briefly, genuine monarchs. I added Henri V but not Phillipe VII.
- I don't think anyone believes that adding Henri V or Philippe VII is vandalism. On the other hand, I don't think it is necessarily a good idea. Louis XVII's claim to be king was retrospectively justified when Louis XVIII was restored. I'm less certain about Louis XIX, but he usually is listed (dead hand of tradition, bleh). Regards, Angus McLellan (Talk) 13:55, 21 October 2006 (UTC)
Henri V arguably should be included. Philippe VII I dont' think should be, and, at any rate, should not be called Philippe VII, but "Louis Philippe II," his orleanist name. "Philippe VII" is what he was known as to legitimists during his notional "reign" from 1883-1894. That being said, I think that Louis XIX and Louis XVII should probably be taken out as well, and that all these questionable rulers should only be mentioned in footnotes. I would note, though, that I've never heard Henry V acknowledged as a King by the French government. It is arguable that he was king, but I've never seen any official acknowledgement of such. I don't think that we should include any dubious kings, at any rate. We should have Louis XVI, Napoleon, Louis XVIII, Charles X, Louis Philippe, and Napoleon III. Louis XVII, Napoleon II, Louis XIX, Henry V, and Louis Philippe II should be relegated to footnotes. john k 17:50, 21 October 2006 (UTC)
- I've added links to the pretenders at the end of the list. I have no opinion about includiong pre-1870 ones within the list. jnestorius(talk) 22:23, 26 October 2006 (UTC)
Images
Does anybody else think that using images in the series that look like Image:Philippe Ier.jpg is unwise and should cease? Srnec 03:19, 19 March 2007 (UTC)
- If they're the best image available (i.e. most reliable, most clear, most descriptive of the person), why not? If you object, find some better images of the relevant people (e.g. Image:Philippe4-1.jpg). Michael Sanders 13:41, 19 March 2007 (UTC)
- I agree with Srnec. Pictures like that belong, if anywhere, in the trivia section of the article, specifically labelled as later fantasy, and dated. At the head of an article, or in an infobox, they are among the most childish and unencyclopedic features of Wikipedia. They actively mislead many users, who aren't given any help in judging whether the images may offer real evidence about the person concerned. But Wikipedia uses thousands of such images, and it will be a hard task to clean them out. Andrew Dalby 21:56, 19 March 2007 (UTC)
- If it is the best picture available, then it is hardly 'childish and unencyclopaedic'. It is simply the best and most reliable image of what the person looked like. If you consider it inappropriate, you find a better picture to improve the quality of the article, you don't remove a picture and give the reader no conception of what the person looked like, or was considered to look like by those closest to him or her chronologically. Michael Sanders 22:50, 19 March 2007 (UTC)
- It is not reliable at all. It has no correspondance to how the person actually looked. That's the point. The picture itself gives the reader "no conception of what the person looked like." Srnec 04:29, 20 March 2007 (UTC)
- If it is the best picture available, then it is hardly 'childish and unencyclopaedic'. It is simply the best and most reliable image of what the person looked like. If you consider it inappropriate, you find a better picture to improve the quality of the article, you don't remove a picture and give the reader no conception of what the person looked like, or was considered to look like by those closest to him or her chronologically. Michael Sanders 22:50, 19 March 2007 (UTC)
- I agree with Srnec. Pictures like that belong, if anywhere, in the trivia section of the article, specifically labelled as later fantasy, and dated. At the head of an article, or in an infobox, they are among the most childish and unencyclopedic features of Wikipedia. They actively mislead many users, who aren't given any help in judging whether the images may offer real evidence about the person concerned. But Wikipedia uses thousands of such images, and it will be a hard task to clean them out. Andrew Dalby 21:56, 19 March 2007 (UTC)
-
-
-
-
- How do you know it is 'not reliable at all' and 'has no correspondance to how the person actually looked'? First of all, that would appear to be your opinion. Second of all, if there are no surviving images of a person from his or her own time, then one presumes that the images produced by those closest chronologically to the person are most reliable, since those artists would have more knowledge of what the person looked like than would a later artist. So, what's your basis for believing the pictures you object to are not reliable? Michael Sanders 14:31, 20 March 2007 (UTC)
- We're not talking about pictures painted within living memory here, which might possibly resemble the subject, but ones produced many generations afterwards. Idealised representations at best, and completely imaginary at worst. But let's not get off track: if you think the pictures are accurate, where's the source that says so? Angus McLellan (Talk) 16:38, 20 March 2007 (UTC)
- How do you know it is 'not reliable at all' and 'has no correspondance to how the person actually looked'? First of all, that would appear to be your opinion. Second of all, if there are no surviving images of a person from his or her own time, then one presumes that the images produced by those closest chronologically to the person are most reliable, since those artists would have more knowledge of what the person looked like than would a later artist. So, what's your basis for believing the pictures you object to are not reliable? Michael Sanders 14:31, 20 March 2007 (UTC)
-
-
-
Where's the source that says it's not? I'm working on the premise that if a picture purports to represent a person, and there is no better imagery of the person, then the image must be taken as the best image of that person. That's how most encyclopaedia's work - they show the best available image of a person, and if they can't get a lifelike image, they get the nearest thing to a lifelike image. As these are. So whilst I wouldn't advise using the portrait in the protested series of Louis IX in place of the lifelike statue of him (because the statue is contemporary and considered lifelike), in the case of Louis VII or Philip I - where there are no better images on wikipedia (so, as I have said, the impetus would be on those editors who object to obtain other images - statues, for example) - these pictures are the best we have, and the closest to contemporary, so - in the absence of better - are what we use. Michael Sanders 17:23, 20 March 2007 (UTC)
- I'd try an appeal to common sense, but that's not going to work, is it? Adding an imagined portrait, just for the sake of an image, isn't helping the reader. A contemporary image, even if it may no be a life-like one, represents how the subject was seen, or wished to be seen. This is an very good image of Charlemagne, far better than the coronation one that graces the article now. It tells the reader something about the subject. Illustrations for the sake of mere decoration are waste of everyone's time. Angus McLellan (Talk) 18:38, 20 March 2007 (UTC)
- I should think that a standardized portrayal of a figure of whom no images from the time they were alive survive would, at the very least, give one an idea of the iconography that is used to represent that person. john k 22:01, 20 March 2007 (UTC)
- But look at the various images in the series: they are almost identical to one another. The iconography does not tell us anything about the individuals or about a later author's impression of them, since it is obvious that nothing real about the individuals influenced him (see John I of France). Srnec 02:40, 21 March 2007 (UTC)
- And you know perfectly well that John I is an obvious exception - no one would say with a straight face that it was a credible representation of a 5 day old baby. Does that make the others inaccurate? And, "they look almost identical to one another." 1) Opinion. 2) They are a family. And quite a few contemporary representations of them look similar to each other. And it does a greater disservice to the reader to give them no idea at all of what the person looked like than to show them a flawed representation. Michael Sanders 15:54, 21 March 2007 (UTC)
- What is the purpose of a representation if it is not credible? Does that make the others inaccurate? Not in itself, but it certainly hints at the authors lack of care about actuality in making them, doesn't it? Of course their similarities may be a matter of opinion, but if you disagree, that is just as much opinion! So what's your point? And it is only your opinion, and one I strongly disagree with, that "it does a greater disservice to the reader to give them no idea at all of what the person looked like than to show them a flawed representation." In fact, I would go so far as to aver that your statement runs contrary to Wikipedia's spirit of verifiability and accuracy. A flawed representation is worse than no representation because it does not merely leave the reader uninformed, but misinformed. Srnec 23:34, 31 March 2007 (UTC)
- But look at the various images in the series: they are almost identical to one another. The iconography does not tell us anything about the individuals or about a later author's impression of them, since it is obvious that nothing real about the individuals influenced him (see John I of France). Srnec 02:40, 21 March 2007 (UTC)
- I should think that a standardized portrayal of a figure of whom no images from the time they were alive survive would, at the very least, give one an idea of the iconography that is used to represent that person. john k 22:01, 20 March 2007 (UTC)
Article formatting
There are three aspects of the current format of the articles with which I take issue:
- Images: as stated in the preceding discussion, the 16th-century images are not very good and it would be better to have no image than those images.
- Infobox: the infoboxes do not seem to me to be of much use since all the information they contain is so easily accessible in the article itself. If, like the philosopher infoboxes for instance, they contained information not easily uncoverable in the body text, they would be more useful, but as they are now, they do not.
- Lead: the emboldened text that begins each article often follows the style "[Name] [Ordina] of [Epithet] France ... was the King of France ..." I find this wording redundant and out of step with most reference sources. I would suggest "[Name] [Ordinal] ..., called [Epithet], was the King of France ..."
I post this here because arguments have already begun concerning these issues at Talk:Louis VII of France, Talk:John I of France, and Talk:Philip III of France and it is more efficient to try and get an agreement that would apply across the board. Srnec 12:54, 11 April 2007 (UTC)
I much agree with the last point on the leads. "Louis XIV (1638-1715) was King of France" should be the form. john k 15:02, 11 April 2007 (UTC)
-
-
- A good image representative of what the person was believed to look like at a time closest to the person living is better than no image at all. At best, it can be based on genuine knowledge of what the person looked like, and thus end up showing a good depiction of what the person looked like. At worst, it shows what the person was thought to look like at the time of the image creation, or acts as a cultural representation of the person, and is better than nothing.
- Infoboxes, like succession boxes, are in articles as reader aids and conveniences - it allows the reader to look up pieces of information immediately in places where s/he knows they will be. Infoboxes are a commonly accepted en.wikipedia practice, for those reasons
- Wikipedia:Lead section#Bold title: "The subject of the article should be mentioned at the first natural place that it occurs in the prose, preferably in the first sentence, and should appear in bold face. The name of the subject is usually identical to the page title, although it may appear in a slightly different form from that used as the title, and it may include variations." In the case of Philip III, say, the subject is not Philip III: it is Philip III of France (i.e. that is what he is always called by scholars and non-scholars when they are not calling him Philip the Bold); Philip III is Philip III of France, Philip III of Burgundy, Philip III of Spain, Philip III of Macedon, and possibly others. In the case of royalty/feudal nobility, the place they ruled is in historical usage firmly part of their name, as much as the ordinal (unless they are better known by name and epithet, e.g. Philip the Good). So in this case, the appropriate form would either be "[Name] [Ordinal] of France, called [Name] the [Epithet]", or ("in a slightly different form from that used as the title"), "[Name] [Ordinal], King of France/of the Franks/of France and Navarre, called [Name] the [Epithet]" Either way, there will be what you perceive as redundancy with the repetition of "was King of France from ..."; however, the manual of style is quite clear, so I fail to see it as appropriate to leave out the fairly integral part of the name, i.e. where Philip was the third of. Michael Sanders 23:11, 11 April 2007 (UTC)
-
Michael, Wikipedia:Lead section#Bold title specifically says that the name of the subject is not necessarily identical to the page title. And the subject is, indeed, "Philip III", even though that name is ambiguous. "Philip III of France" in the opening is both awkward and unnecessary, since the article says immediately thereafter that he was a king of France. john k 23:58, 11 April 2007 (UTC)
- I have to say that, whilst understanding Michael's concerns, I agree with the proposed "new" wording, and indeed that is how I have always begun monarch articles myself. (I was the one who kicked off many of the English kings' articles.) Deb 16:44, 15 April 2007 (UTC)
-
- So what, then, is the point of the Manual of Style? Or the 'guidelines' on naming conventions? Were they written simply to prove that wikipedia is not paper? Because no-one appears to actually pay any attention to them. WP:LEAD says:
-
-
- "The subject of the article should be mentioned at the first natural place that it occurs in the prose, preferably in the first sentence, and should appear in bold face. The name of the subject is usually identical to the page title, although it may appear in a slightly different form from that used as the title, and it may include variations. For example, in the article "United Kingdom":
-
The United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland (usually shortened to the United Kingdom or UK) occupies part of the British Isles in northwestern Europe ..."
-
- So this is a case obviously covered by the Manual of Style: we begin the article by writing what is, for a monarch, the full formal name - [Name] [Ordinal of [Country]. Just as the United Kingdom article, according to the sample, should begin as such: even if "it is clear from the context" that it refers to the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland, and not that of Portugal, Brazil and the Algarves. The notice at the top of every MoS page reads, "This page is part of the Manual of Style, and is considered a guideline for Wikipedia. The consensus of many editors formed the conventions described here, and Wikipedia articles should heed these guidelines. Before making any major changes to these guidelines, please use the discussion page to ensure that your changes reflect consensus." So is that notice wrong? Has consensus changed, leaving the Manual out of date? Because, if so, the issue should be raised properly, so that the Manual can be properly changed to reflect the consensual opinion that an abbreviation in the first sentence is acceptable, instead of being left to a cabal here. And if not, is it really so much trouble to simply give the articles the small additional piece of formality that the very guidelines by which we write articles demands? Michael Sanders 21:21, 15 April 2007 (UTC)
-
-
- Name Ordinal of Country is not the "full formal name" of the monarch. It is a made up wikipedia usage whose purpose is to disambiguate. The full formal name of Louis XIV, for instance, is either "Louis XIV," or else "Louis XIV, by the grace of God, King of France and Navarre." john k 15:33, 16 April 2007 (UTC)
-
-
-
-
- No, Name Ordinal of Country is the full formal name as traditionally used by historians - which, of course, is not the 'real' formal name of the monarch, because monarchs don't get such things historically. Nonetheless, any historian will formally describe a monarch, when introducing him or her, as 'Who the what of where', because that is the formal manner of referring to deceased monarchs in historical works. Michael Sanders 16:31, 16 April 2007 (UTC)
- It is a formal usage, but there are many other ways a monarch may be introduced depending on context. For example, "Roger II, King of Sicily" or "the queen of the United Kingdom, Elizabeth II." Can you provide any reference stating that the form "[name] [ordinal] of [country]" is a standard form? Srnec 18:16, 16 April 2007 (UTC)
- I really have no idea what you mean. Can you explain how it is historians who get to determine the "full formal name" of a person? What do you mean that monarchs "don't get such things historically"? What things? A historian will usually describe a monarch as "Who the what of Where," but that's not the same thing as that being someone's name. And they won't always do that, depending on the context. Sometimes, as Srnec notes, they may say the same thing using different phraseology. Other times, they won't name the country at all. For instance, if one is talking about French politics in the 18th century, you might say something like. "Following the Treaty of Utrecht, France's position in Europe began to weaken. The king for most of the 18th century, Louis XV, was intelligent, but feckless and lazy." I would add myself to Srnec in asking if you can provide any references to support your contention about what the "standard form" is. I hate to pull rank (well, actually, I kind of like it), but I'm a PhD candidate in history and I'm not familiar with any such thing. You are a first year undergraduate at university. Why should I (or anyone) accept your statements which, so far as I can tell, are based entirely on your own say so? john k 23:31, 16 April 2007 (UTC)
- No, Name Ordinal of Country is the full formal name as traditionally used by historians - which, of course, is not the 'real' formal name of the monarch, because monarchs don't get such things historically. Nonetheless, any historian will formally describe a monarch, when introducing him or her, as 'Who the what of where', because that is the formal manner of referring to deceased monarchs in historical works. Michael Sanders 16:31, 16 April 2007 (UTC)
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
- Marion Meade uses 'who the what of where' to introduce monarchs. Aline Taylor uses it to introduce monarchs. JR Hale uses it. Leonie Frieda uses it. Ian Mortimer uses it. Hollister and Bennet use it variantly with 'King who the what of where' and 'who the what, King of where'. And that's just the books I can grab immediately in 2 minutes. Would you like me, as a lowly undergraduate, to go to my uni library next week and list for you every book that uses the formulation?
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
- Monarchs don't get assigned 'immutable' names, quite simply. 'Jean-Jacques Rousseau' is always 'Jean-Jacques Rousseau', never 'John-James Rousseau'. 'Giacomo Casanova' is never 'John Newhouse'. Surnamed commoners generally get to keep their name in their own form (an exception being Caterina and Maria de' Medici, who get to be Catherine and Marie de Medici because they were Queens). Monarchs, nobles, or anyone else 'of' somewhere (e.g. Joan of Arc) don't get that. They are almost always referred to in the style appropriate to the language of the writer, unless the writer deliberately uses the native form. Thus, 'Joanna the Mad' rather than 'Juana la Loca'. 'Philip the Handsome' rather than 'Philipp der Schone'. 'Philip IV of France' rather than 'Philippe IV de France', 'Philip the Fair' rather than 'Philippe le Bel'. The only time a monarch will be introduced without the disambiguating 'of where' is when either the context is already sufficiently established (e.g."...He therefore established the Pragmatic succession to allow his daughter, Maria Theresa, to succeed in Austria, Hungary and Bohemia. On his death, however, her right was challenged, leading to the War of the Austrian Succession...") or when disambiguation is unnecessary (e.g. the Louis's of France - there has never been another Louis XV, so the reader will automatically identify 'Louis XV' as 'Louis XV of France'). However, the addition 'of [Country]' is always accepted as being part of the name - it is in that form that it is always used by historians, that form that always features in popular use.
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
- Your position, quite frankly, is ludicrous. 'Name ordinal of country' is 'always' used as the standard manner of disambiguating or introducing monarchs. Your attempts to prove that it is not, merely to allow you to ignore the Manual of Style, are so bemusing that, honestly, your attempts to 'pull rank' look even more petty. But please. Enlighten me as to why you believe the relevant degree of formality, as consistent with the rules and guidelines governing wikipedia, is not appropriate in an encyclopaedia. Michael Sanders 10:05, 17 April 2007 (UTC)
- The point is not that "John II of France" is not a commonly used form. Of course it is. The point is that the choice of whether to use that or "John II, King of France" or "The King of France, John II" or simply "John II" is a stylistic one, and has nothing to do with a formal name. Furthermore, you are not merely arguing that it is commonly used, you are arguing that it is always used (you say it right above). This is simply complete nonsense. It is not always used. It is frequently used, but as a means of disambiguation. Other means of disambiguation by country are also used with some frequency. Sometimes there is no need for disambiguation by country, and no means of disambiguation by country is used. The point is that you're asserting that a common means of disambiguation is actually the "full formal name" of a person, for which you have no evidence, and which you can't support. Beyond that, the term "full formal name" is one that you've introduced, and that appears nowhere in the manual of style. Here, again, is the entirety of what the manual of style says about what the bolded name should be:
- The subject of the article should be mentioned at the first natural place that it occurs in the prose, preferably in the first sentence, and should appear in bold face. The name of the subject is usually identical to the page title, although it may appear in a slightly different form from that used as the title, and it may include variations.
- Nothing about "full, formal names." All it says is that the bolded name is usually the same as the title of the article. It also says that a "slightly different form" can be used if we want to. This is an entirely vague guideline. It simply does not say at all that we have to do things your way. It basically leaves the issue of what the bolded name should be in any given article up to the discretion of the editors working on that article. Until you admit that there is absolutely nothing mandating your preferred way of doing things, I don't see why I should bother trying to explain, again, why I prefer to do things another way. john k 15:39, 17 April 2007 (UTC)
- The point is not that "John II of France" is not a commonly used form. Of course it is. The point is that the choice of whether to use that or "John II, King of France" or "The King of France, John II" or simply "John II" is a stylistic one, and has nothing to do with a formal name. Furthermore, you are not merely arguing that it is commonly used, you are arguing that it is always used (you say it right above). This is simply complete nonsense. It is not always used. It is frequently used, but as a means of disambiguation. Other means of disambiguation by country are also used with some frequency. Sometimes there is no need for disambiguation by country, and no means of disambiguation by country is used. The point is that you're asserting that a common means of disambiguation is actually the "full formal name" of a person, for which you have no evidence, and which you can't support. Beyond that, the term "full formal name" is one that you've introduced, and that appears nowhere in the manual of style. Here, again, is the entirety of what the manual of style says about what the bolded name should be:
- Your position, quite frankly, is ludicrous. 'Name ordinal of country' is 'always' used as the standard manner of disambiguating or introducing monarchs. Your attempts to prove that it is not, merely to allow you to ignore the Manual of Style, are so bemusing that, honestly, your attempts to 'pull rank' look even more petty. But please. Enlighten me as to why you believe the relevant degree of formality, as consistent with the rules and guidelines governing wikipedia, is not appropriate in an encyclopaedia. Michael Sanders 10:05, 17 April 2007 (UTC)
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
- The sample it gives shows that the full formal name is to be used: 'United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland'. With the other forms used following on. Vague? Hardly. And in historical usage, 'Name Ordinal of Country' is the Common Name. So that is what we use for the article title, and what we use for the bold lead. Michael Sanders 19:46, 17 April 2007 (UTC)
- You keep saying all this, and you keep on failing to provide any evidence to support any of these contentions. Additionally, the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland is a formal name in a way that Louis XI of France simply is not. The latter isn't a formal name in any manner whatsoever. john k 20:54, 17 April 2007 (UTC)
- The sample it gives shows that the full formal name is to be used: 'United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland'. With the other forms used following on. Vague? Hardly. And in historical usage, 'Name Ordinal of Country' is the Common Name. So that is what we use for the article title, and what we use for the bold lead. Michael Sanders 19:46, 17 April 2007 (UTC)
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
Take a Deep Breath
People, it seems to me you are all spending way too much time arguing about something that is pure form and no content. Rather than fighting this out, Stalingrad-style, on a House-by-House or even article-by-article basis, why don't you take it to some larger group like the Biography project nobility-and-royalty work group? Otherwise, whatever gets decided by force of arms for French monarchs could be totally inconsistent with what is done for HRE, English, Russian, Turkish or what have you. I can see some merit on both sides, but this strikes me as a pretty pathetic subject for an edit war.Eldredo 13:41, 17 April 2007 (UTC)
- But I hope you can see that the forms which Michael proposes (and seems willing to push at any cost) are absurd. I think Wikipedia loses credibility if its form is bad. But where can enough consensus be had to force a style change? Or rather, to enforce the long-accepted style? Srnec 13:55, 17 April 2007 (UTC)
-
- That would be the long-accepted style as laid down by the Manual of Style, would it? Wikipedia will not lose credibility if, in writing articles, it enforces a bit of extra formality that you view as redundant. It will lose credibility if its editors are shown to disregard the rules and regulations, supposedly laid down by consensus to be enforced in all articles, as their fancy takes them. Michael Sanders 14:03, 17 April 2007 (UTC)
-
-
- Oh, for God's sake. There are absolutely no rules that require the format you prefer. Nothing at all in the manual of style suggests anything of the sort. The better maintained articles on monarchs have always bolded simply Name Ordinal (look at the articles on British monarchs, particularly, as these are generally much more frequently edited than articles on other European monarchs). The only example of a royal in Wikipedia:Manual of style (biographies) uses this format, as well. (That is to say "Cleopatra VII Philopator", not "Cleopatra VII of Egypt"). Michael is on a bizarre crusade here that has absolutely no basis in the written rules of wikipedia. john k 15:53, 17 April 2007 (UTC)
-
-
-
- I'd have to agree with this. Michael is absolutely right to emphasize the importance of following conventions - they are there for guidance where there is any room for disagreement. But I don't really see the problem here - the biography conventions are quite general and were created primarily to help those who had difficulty understanding how to set out the introduction to an article. There are many valid exceptions. Now, can we all get back to discussing the naming of queen consorts, please? Deb 16:58, 17 April 2007 (UTC)
-
-
-
-
- No, I am asking you to be in accordance with the rules and conventions of wikipedia, and not break them simply because other editors are on some 'bizarre crusade' to remove what s/he views as 'redundancy' - after all, nobody else seemed to have a major problem with that layout before that. But all I can say is this: if you don't want 'Name ordinal of country', you go to the Manual of Style, or some other general forum of discussion, and discuss it there, and get the Manual changed, so at least it won't be a handful of editors deciding that an entire slew of articles can break the rules. Michael Sanders 19:44, 17 April 2007 (UTC)
- There is no rule breaking involved, as John Kenney has pointed out so many times... Srnec 20:12, 17 April 2007 (UTC)
- No, I am asking you to be in accordance with the rules and conventions of wikipedia, and not break them simply because other editors are on some 'bizarre crusade' to remove what s/he views as 'redundancy' - after all, nobody else seemed to have a major problem with that layout before that. But all I can say is this: if you don't want 'Name ordinal of country', you go to the Manual of Style, or some other general forum of discussion, and discuss it there, and get the Manual changed, so at least it won't be a handful of editors deciding that an entire slew of articles can break the rules. Michael Sanders 19:44, 17 April 2007 (UTC)
-
-
-
-
-
-
- This is because there aren't any rules in wikipedia. There are only conventions and guidelines. But by all means let's change the Manual of Style to take into account the exceptions. Deb 20:37, 17 April 2007 (UTC)
- By all means let's clarify the issue on the Manual of Style, but the fact remains that the current conventions and guidelines simply don't address this issue one way or the other. john k 20:52, 17 April 2007 (UTC)
- I think you can afford to be more generous in your comments, though. Without wishing to sound patronizing, Michael is a great contributor to the history pages and his concerns ought not to be dismissed lightly. Deb 21:08, 17 April 2007 (UTC)
- I cannot tell exactly what his concern is. He supports the leads as they stand at Louis X of France and Robert II of France: but why must we see "Louis" mentioned siz times in bold in the lead? and why do we need to embolden "France" in the Robert lead? I can't follow his reasoning, since other encyclopaedias support my proposed format. Srnec 03:03, 18 April 2007 (UTC)
-
-
-
Resolution
If four users — Carl Logan, john k, Deb, and myself — oppose one — Michael Sanders — in a matter of style, is that not enough of a consensus to enforce a change in style? Srnec 03:20, 20 April 2007 (UTC)
- No. The Manual of Style is based - supposedly - on wiki-wide consensus. You need more than a cabal to change that. Michael Sanders 11:19, 20 April 2007 (UTC)
-
- Neither Wikipedia:Manual_of_Style#Article_titles nor Wikipedia:Lead_section#Bold_title says that the page name should always appear in the lead. Indeed, the MOS does not mention the page name. It says: "[i]f possible, make the article’s topic the subject of the first sentence of the article". Not the page name, the topic. Disambiguating parts of the page name such as "(writer)", "(died 888)" are not part of the topic. Neither is "of France", since the relevant naming convention describes this as a preventive disambiguation. Angus McLellan (Talk) 11:33, 20 April 2007 (UTC)
-
-
- WP:LEAD
- "==Bold title==
- The subject of the article should be mentioned at the first natural place that it occurs in the prose, preferably in the first sentence, and should appear in bold face. The name of the subject is usually identical to the page title, although it may appear in a slightly different form from that used as the title, and it may include variations. For example, in the article "United Kingdom":
-
The United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland (usually shortened to the United Kingdom or UK) occupies part of the British Isles in northwestern Europe ..."
-
-
-
-
- The MoS says "The name of the subject . . . may appear in a slightly different form from that used as the title." What part of that don't you understand? Srnec 21:36, 20 April 2007 (UTC)
-
-
-
-
-
-
- What part of the example - showing what it means by 'slightly different form' - don't you understand? Michael Sanders 00:54, 21 April 2007 (UTC)
- I don't think you understand the MoS: it is not a rule and it is not upheld by consensus. The example is just that, an example. It does not tell us the only cases where exceptions are allowed. As pointed out above, "of France" is a disambiguator and ought to be absent from the first line, where it is unecessary. Why do you insistent on boldening "France" in the leads? What purpose does that accomplish? Srnec 01:05, 21 April 2007 (UTC)
- What part of the example - showing what it means by 'slightly different form' - don't you understand? Michael Sanders 00:54, 21 April 2007 (UTC)
-
-
-
The Manual of Style is a guide to writing articles, which is expected to be upheld in all articles, and which is decided upon by consensus, which cannot be ignored or overturned without discussion at the relevant manual page. Are you saying that that is not the case? The example stands as a clear example of how the bold leads should be laid out - with the full name (which may differ slightly from the article title), variations bracketed, etc. If it does not tell of any exceptions, why assume there are any? And as for 'of France', it is as much a part of a monarch's name as his or her ordinal - if excluding one, why not exclude the other? Michael Sanders 01:12, 21 April 2007 (UTC)
- Robert Dudley, 1st Earl of Leicester: Robert Dudley, 1st Earl of Leicester; Robert Devereux, 2nd Earl of Essex: Robert Devereux, 2nd Earl of Essex; Robert Gascoyne-Cecil, 3rd Marquess of Salisbury: Robert Arthur Talbot Gascoyne-Cecil, 3rd Marquess of Salisbury; William Pitt, 1st Earl of Chatham: William Pitt, 1st Earl of Chatham; Charles Brandon, 1st Duke of Suffolk: Charles Brandon, 1st Duke of Suffolk. Aren't the numberings there 'disambiguators'? Michael Sanders 01:15, 21 April 2007 (UTC)
-
- No, the ordinal is, in fact, more a part of the name than "of France". And British peers are always referred to by their numbering. The point is that ordinals, or the numerings of British peers, are a standardized way of referring to these people. "Of France" is not standardized. It is one of many different possible ways of expressing information about what country the person ruled. It's also worth noting that "of X" is inherently ambiguous when there's no ordinal. "Catherine of Aragon," for instance, could refer either to a reigning queen of Aragon named Catherine or, as it does, to an infanta of Aragon. If anything, adding "of X" as though it is part of the formal name when there's no ordinal implies that the person is like Catherine of Aragon - i.e., not a reigning monarch. john k 17:29, 21 April 2007 (UTC)
I hesitate to jump in here, but . . . First, I have to agree with Srnec et al. that, whatever the binding or non-binding nature of the manual of style may be, it is ambiguous on the issue presented. That said, I think it would be much better if Michael, Srnec, and others could agree on a resolution rather than fight it out. I'm concerned that everyone is dug in to their positions mainly by virtue of having strongly defended them for several weeks.
As I understand it, it is settled that the title of an article, absent other sufficient disambiguators, should usually read "A [numeral] of B". The issue is whether that formula needs to be duplicated in the bold first mention, or whether it's OK to just say "A [numeral]" and indicate that he's "King of B" in non-bold print in the course of the first paragraph. I'm oversimplifying here, but this seems to be the gist of it. I gather that the main argument for allowing variation is that "A [numeral] of B" can be clunky as part of a lead paragraph, because it results in truisms like "A [numeral] of B was the King of B."
I like the idea of avoiding clunkiness. I can also see that making the bold first mention more, rather than less, ambiguous than the article title may not advance the purpose of having a bold first mention (although I'm not sure exactly what that purpose is supposed to be). Would it make sense to say that you can avoid clunkiness by splitting up the bold first mention, as long as you bold enough words to ensure that the bold first mention is no more ambiguous than the article title? E.g., you could say "A [numeral] was King of B" or "A [numeral] was King of B" but not "A [numeral] was King of B. Eldredo 13:12, 21 April 2007 (UTC)
- That's what I did about a week ago in all articles where the monarch did not hold another major title or title which a reader might conceivanly search for the monarch under. Michael Sanders 13:35, 21 April 2007 (UTC)
Michael appears to be alone in believing that the MoS mandates anything on this subject. Can we move on to discussing on the merits what the better first line is, rather than arguing about the MoS, which simply doesn't say anything about this subject? john k 17:31, 21 April 2007 (UTC)
Just to clarify my own position, I agree that the MoS doesn't mandate the answer to what you guys are arguing about.Eldredo 18:39, 21 April 2007 (UTC)