This article is within the scope of WikiProject France, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of France on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Spain, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Spain on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.
I oppose the proposed merge. I think that it is worth having a separate article on the the very broadly defined House of Capet, which includes all descendants of Robert the Strong, including families that have ruled many parts of Europe other than France, including the present-day monarchs of Spain and Luxembourg. This article can and should focus instead on the narrowly defined dynasty that ruled France from 987 to 1328. It would be worth expanding this article to really cover monarchs in the dynasty and events and processes that occurred under their rule, as the article Carolingians does. Marco polo 01:55, 5 February 2007 (UTC)
I can see no difference in scholarly usage between "Capetian dynasty" and "House of Capet", so whatever you propose, I can't see why the merger should be opposed. I have created a redirect, as this page had no unique information. Srnec 06:59, 8 March 2007 (UTC)
I agree with Srnec. IMHO the two are synonyms that can either be used narrowly (987-1328) or broadly (France 987-1830 and anywhere else). Both terms exclude the ancestors of Hugh Capet. Capetians can be used for the main line ending in 1328 as well as including other branches down to the Bourbons (who in turn may or may not include the Orleans line).
Two (or more) articles might be justified, one dealing with the French main line of the House and others with other branches. However, I think the predecessors of Hugh should be covered in the Capetian article here as well. A sub article on Robertians might be in order, but a broad overview should be present here. I guees that all later subbranches are from the Capetians ruling France and not from the earlier Robertians. Str1977(smile back) 13:22, 8 March 2007 (UTC)
As Srnec says - we have created an artificial distinction here. There are two meanings of "House of Capet," and exactly the same two meanings apply to "Capetian dynasty". These articles really need to be merged. john k 23:15, 24 April 2007 (UTC)
This article applies to the 'Direct Capetians'; the other article applies to the entire dynasty, all those descended from Hugh Capet. The use of terminology is certainly not certain (various terms are used to separate the two, never consistently from one book to the next), but the difference between the two is historically clear.
Any proposed sourced terminological distinguishers then? The actual differences are clear, but the current terminology of Wikipedia is artificial and therefore ought to be abandoned. Srnec 05:42, 5 May 2007 (UTC)
Is the House of Capet decended in the male line from the Carolingian dynasty? If so, would they still be technically Carolingians? Emperor001 17:45, 9 June 2007 (UTC)
No they are not. They are Robertians. Charles 18:00, 9 June 2007 (UTC)
technically no, but they are related....Pepin of Italy, Charlemange's second son had an illegitimate son-Bernard whos son Pepin became the first Count of Vermandois, his son-Herbert I of Vermandois had a daughter named Beatrice that married Robert I (ruler of France 922-23) and produced Hugh the Great, father of the house's founder: Hugh Capet. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 184.108.40.206 (talk) 01:39, 10 August 2008 (UTC)