Talk:House of Valois

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
WikiProject France (Rated C-class, High-importance)
WikiProject icon 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.
C-Class article C  This article has been rated as C-Class on the project's quality scale.
 High  This article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale.
 
WikiProject Middle Ages (Rated C-class, High-importance)
WikiProject icon This article is within the scope of WikiProject Middle Ages, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of the Middle Ages 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.
C-Class article C  This article has been rated as C-Class on the project's quality scale.
 High  This article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale.
 

Pronunciation[edit]

I know this is a stupid question, but I need to ask it. How does one pronounce 'Valois'?

Knyght27 14:45, 27 May 2006 (UTC)

I speak a fair bit of French, even if affected, but I say "Val-wah", but in a more seamless fashion. Charles 01:40, 5 June 2006 (UTC)
Well, I pronounce it the French way, "Val-wah," and it is my name, so I can't be wrong. ;) PatrickCV (talk) 20:42, 21 January 2009 (UTC)
Yep. The IPA link is at the top of the article. Both vowels are "ah" (Open front unrounded vowel)DavidRF (talk) 00:09, 26 January 2009 (UTC)
You pronounce the oi of Valois as you do that of François, (do not pronounce the final *s*). Another example of oi known to Anglos is Loire. Frania W. (talk) 12:15, 27 May 2009 (UTC)

Discussion on why the new house was created[edit]

I became curious reading the article. The Valois line was a much closer branch from the senior Capet line than either the Valois-Orléans or Valois-Angoulême branches were from the senior Valois line. Any ideas why they went through the trouble of renaming the House for the Valois kings rather than simply calling it "Capet-Valois"? Or on the other hand, why didn't the Orleans and Angouleme branches get full house status? Thanks. DavidRF (talk) 00:13, 26 January 2009 (UTC)

Answering my own question. I see the Capet line itself is just an extension of the Robertian line (not even a Cadet Branch). So, I think these are just quirks of history as to where royal houses are separated from each other. DavidRF (talk) 06:16, 26 January 2009 (UTC)
Hello.GoodDay there is no such thing as a house called Lancaster-Valois.No offence but you have no proof.sorry.The Treaty of Troyes didnt make Henry V king of France it made him heir by bieng adopted to Charles VI and marrying his daughter.Henry therefore who now appeared as the legitimate Heir was succeding to the Valois and not the Plantagement.Henry in the treaty Abondend his claim through Edward III as bieng the legitimate and rightful king of France by allowing Charles and recognizing Charles as king.Furthermore this in effect has to be interpeted as "GIVING" The legitimacy of kingship to the valois king Charles.Henry now had a double-whammy bieng adopted to the valois house by an international treaty and by bieng Lancastrian by birth.As you know already Henry V failed to outlive Charles so Henry VI became heir for the four months difference before bieng king of France.Henry VI was therefore a Valois-Lancastrian king of France and England by beccoming the king of france through the recognition of the Valios house bieng the legitimate rulers of France.If you happen to read any English or French epigrams on Henry VI when he was in infancy he was commented on bieng blessed with a dual-monarchy and bieng of descent through his father and mother of Saint Louis.Notice my spech by saying Henry V.This is because as earlier said,Henry appeared as a Valois heir to the kingdom of France by the Treaty of Troyes not through his Plantagement claim.I hope I didnt confuse you lol and to add this is not original research although it is important to do so in terms of treaties,I have internet links to books that say so.Just ask for them.In the case of the dissinheritence of the dauphine,it was Illegal in the treaty itself but outside the treaty it was legal.Because Charles refused a courts summon in 1420 and usurped legal authority from Charles VI which was treason,He was found guilty for Lese-Majesty BY a lit-de-justice in 1421 rendering him incapable of succestion LEGALY.By 1421 it could be safely said since his legitimacy ended through a lit-de-justice he had no right to succeded Charles VI.Googbye.--HENRY V OF ENGLAND (talk) 13:34, 25 May 2009 (UTC)

Ill imply them in 2 days.

You creation of Valois-Lancaster, smacks of original research. Please don't go there. GoodDay (talk) 19:58, 29 May 2009 (UTC)
Plus, its just wrong. Even if the inheritance came from the mother, the name of the royal house comes from the father. Examples are rare in French history due to the Salic Law, but there are several examples in English history. New house names with Henry II, Edward VII from their fathers despite inheriting the throne from their mothers. DavidRF (talk) 01:35, 26 May 2009 (UTC)
Sorry but you have to remember Henry V was adopted Charles VI and Isebaue of Bravia and appeared as the valois Heir to CharleS VI thus abandining his plantagement claim.Your statement of it bieng wrong is wrong.Dont take it as offence.I will provide you reference.

1.

http://books.google.com/books?id=Qv9PlGCLy4YC&pg=PA235&dq=the+legality+of+the+treaty+of+troyes

--HENRY V OF ENGLAND (talk) 19:35, 29 May 2009 (UTC)

On May 25th, I mentioned that Valois-Lancaster was original research, since then that post of mine has been deleted, why is that?. GoodDay (talk) 19:46, 29 May 2009 (UTC)

Sorry.--HENRY V OF ENGLAND (talk) 19:52, 29 May 2009 (UTC)

Would you kindly restore it, please? GoodDay (talk) 19:54, 29 May 2009 (UTC)
I've restored a similiar post, there. Please don't delete my posts again, on public talk-pages. GoodDay (talk) 20:00, 29 May 2009 (UTC)

HENRY V OF ENGLAND! Aren't you aware of Wikipedia's rules & regulations? While you can do what you want to your own, you do not touch other people comments in a talk page, either that of an article or their own. You can only correct your own statements, and you should NEVER delete someone else's comment. The only exception would be in case of vandalism or extreme impoliteness, cases that should be reported to Wikipedia "authorities". Very sternly yours, Frania W. (talk) 20:19, 29 May 2009 (UTC)

In reply to the original question, on "why the new house was created" - the House of Valois one of the original offshoots of the House of Capet, and therefore deserves "full house status" as such. Its founder, Charles of Valois, is a younger son of a King of France. The distinction between the Robertians and the Capetians is purely nominal, dividing the dynasty temporally between those who came before and after Hugh, since the Capetian dynasty is the senior line (not a cadet branch) of the Robertians. The Valois-Orleans, however, is a cadet branch of a cadet branch. In the term "Valois-Orleans", Valois indicates that Louis XII (the only king from that house), is a descendant in the male line of Charles of Valois, and therefore of Philip III of France; Orleans indicates that he is an agnatic descendant of Louis of Orleans, and therefore of Charles V of France. The terminology ties him to the earlier kings of the House of Valois (Philip VI to Charles V), and severs him from the later kings who were not his ancestors (Charles VI to Charles VIII). Emerson 07 (talk) 01:34, 24 December 2011 (UTC)

Alternatively, this Capet-Valois is correct, but time has dictated that people should prefer the shorthand, Valois, as is often done with Valois-Angouleme, which should more precisely be Valois-Orleans-Angouleme, since it is a cadet branch of the House of Valois-Orleans. At other instances, such as Burgundy and Anjou, which share their name with other distinct houses, the term Capetian House of Burgundy is used to distinguish the earlier dynasty from the Valois House of Burgundy; the term Capetian House of Anjou is used to distinguish the descendants of Louis VIII from both the House of Plantagenet and the Valois House of Anjou. Emerson 07 (talk) 01:58, 24 December 2011 (UTC)

For royals, cadet-branching occurs at the level of first cousins. If it occurs at the succession of a collateral line, then John I of France should have been the last King from the direct line of the House of Capet. However, his successor and uncle, Philip V is still classified as a member of that House. The brother of Louis XVI, Charles X, had effectively created his own cadet branch, since his descendants were already surnamed d'Artois (named after his appanage). Yet since he succeeded his brother, Louis XVIII, not a cousin, his descendants (pretenders to the French throne) were often counted as simply members of the House of Bourbon, not Bourbon-Artois. When a cousin succeeds, then the name of the House changes with some certainly, such as Valois (Philip VI succeeding his cousin Charles IV) and Bourbon (Henry IV succeeding his cousin Henry III). Emerson 07 (talk) 02:29, 24 December 2011 (UTC)

On this Valois-Lancaster, I believe this is totally wrong. Membership in houses is determined solely on the basis of patrilineality, not on the claims and rights that one has on the kingdom or duchy of others. Even though both Stephen and Henry II are descendants of William the Conqueror, they were descended from William's female descendants, and therefore not members of his House (House of Normandy). Stephen is a member of the House of Blois, while Henry II is of the House of Anjou (later Plantagenet). The Houses of Lancaster and York, meanwhile, having been descended from Edward III in the male line, are cadet branches of the House to which Edward belonged (Plantagenet/Angevin). Emerson 07 (talk) 01:34, 24 December 2011 (UTC)

There are, however, some royal houses that were named after the territory of a female ancestor. One notable example would be Bourbon. Its founder was Robert, Count of Clermont, a younger son of Louis IX of France. He married the Beatrix, heiress of Bourbon, and their son became the first Duke of Bourbon. Still, the House of Bourbon descended from the son of Robert of Clermont was a cadet branch of the Capetians, distinct from the lesser-known non-Capetian House of Bourbon to which Beatrix belonged. Emerson 07 (talk) 01:34, 24 December 2011 (UTC)

Adoption does not grant House membership, which is determined from birth. Charles XIII of Sweden, who belonged to the House of Holstein-Gottorp, adopted Jean Bernadotte (later King of Sweden as Charles XIV). This, however, did not make Jean a member of the House of Holstein-Gottorp. Instead, he is considered to have founded a line of his own, the House of Bernadotte, which still reigns in Sweden today. Emerson 07 (talk) 02:12, 24 December 2011 (UTC)

When determining House membership, it is best to look only at the male line, not on the name and title held by the person. This method has been tested by time and provides a good way of classifying rulers. For instance, Queen Elizabeth II has proclaimed that her descendants would belong to the House of Windsor, which is the name of her House. Before that, there is only one House of Windsor, which is a cadet branch of the House of Saxe-Coburg-Gotha, itself a cadet branch of the House of Wettin. After her proclamation, another House of Windsor was born, being distinct from its namesake since it was a cadet branch of the House of Glucksburg, itself a cadet branch of the House of Oldenburg, to which the Queen's husband Philip belonged. After a few years, this House was renamed Mountbatten-Windsor, although the Queen insisted that her most senior descendants (those with the style Royal Highness) should only use Windsor. Emerson 07 (talk) 02:12, 24 December 2011 (UTC)

incorrect info[edit]

Someone added the following sentences: Like the Direct Capetians, the House of Valois became extinct when the three sons of Henry II succeeded to the throne without producing surviving male heirs. This pattern would be repeated once more in the sons of Louis, Dauphin of France, which ended the direct line of the French branch of the House of Bourbon.

This is blatantly incorrect. For starters if comparing direct lines, the direct Valois dynasty was already extinct by the time Henry III died. The last direct Valois was Charles VIII. The next kings were of collateral branches Valois-Orleans and Valois-Angouleme. Branches even more remote from the crown, than the relation between the last direct Capet and the first Valois king. Nextly, the direct Bourbon's did not go extinct with the three sons of Dauphin Louis: Louis the Grand Dauphin (son of Louis XIV) indeed had three sons of which the eldest son Louis predeceased his grandfather (leaving issue), the second son Philip (and his desendants) became barred from the throne upon his accession to the Spanish throne (his descendant still rules) and the third son Charles died childless. Louis XIV was ultimately succeeded by his senior living greatgrandson, Louis XV. Louis XV in turn was succeeded by his grandson Louis XVI (guillotined). After a spell of the boy king Louis VII, Louis XVI's brothers became king of France in turn as Louis XVIII and Charles X. Charles X had to abdicate upon the 1830 revolution. He had two sons of which the junior one (Duke of Berry) had predeceased him (murdered in 1820). His eldest son Louis (XIX) died childless. The last direct Bourbon claimant was Charles X's grandson (posthuimous child of the Duke of Berry) the Henri de Chambord. After that the legitimate claimant were the descendants of Louis-Phillippe (desending in male line from Louis XIII's second son). -- fdewaele, 8 June 2010, 19u20 CET.