Talk:List of French monarchs

Cusio's unsourced editts about Henry VI

Here are the refs:

• http://books.google.ie/books?id=keUoHXulnewC&pg=PA128&dq=Henry+VI+of+England+crowned+king+of+France#PPA128,M1

• http://books.google.ie/books?id=G5yuNbIuPKwC&pg=PA95&dq=Henry+V+adopted+son+of+Charles+VI&as_brr=3

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

• Here is a book confirming Henry VI dual blood from valois and Lancaster:Read.:

http://books.google.com/books?id=gFfaD4JdZhwC&pg=PA45&dq=Henry+VI+dual-monarchy

http://books.google.com/books?id=7SL1bVtfP08C&pg=PA93&dq=Henry+VI+dual-monarchy

http://books.google.com/books?id=_JDOVMDi8d4C&pg=PA601&dq=Henry+VI+dual-monarchy&lr=

http://books.google.com/books?id=Qzc8OeuSXFMC&pg=PA464&dq=Henry+VI+dual-monarchy&lr=

http://books.google.ie/books?id=G5yuNbIuPKwC&pg=PA95&dq=The+Treaty+of+Troyes+and+Henry+V+adopted+son&as_brr=3

http://books.google.ie/books?id=LLZlfam_wCgC&pg=PA85&dq=The+Treaty+of+Troyes+and+Henry+V+adopted+son&as_brr=3

http://books.google.ie/books?id=6mPQgJ5h3h4C&pg=PA527&dq=The+Treaty+of+Troyes+and+Henry+V+adopted+son&as_brr=3

http://books.google.ie/books?id=MziRd4ddZz4C&pg=PA246&dq=The+Treaty+of+Troyes+and+Henry+V+adopted+son&as_brr=3

http://books.google.ie/books?id=EBIn5YL7NAcC&pg=PA188&dq=The+Treaty+of+Troyes+and+Salic+Law&lr=&as_brr=3

http://books.google.ie/books?id=qLKF0LCPlsIC&pg=PA63&dq=The+Treaty+of+Troyes+and+Salic+Law&lr=&as_brr=3

http://books.google.ie/books?id=0eU4_f0rKdQC&pg=PA20&dq=The+Treaty+of+Troyes+and+Salic+Law&lr=&as_brr=3

http://books.google.ie/books?id=niJRz9EhwxoC&pg=PA3&dq=The+Treaty+of+Troyes+and+Salic+Law&lr=&as_brr=3

main book:

http://books.google.com/books?id=kFSqKelemSMC&pg=PP1&dq=contending+kingdoms+of+England+and+France&lr=#PPA23,M1

• http://books.google.ie/books?id=s8H9TEtITPcC&pg=PA147&dq=Henry+VI+became+king+of+France

• http://books.google.ie/books?id=LY0OAAAAQAAJ&pg=PA81&dq=Henry+VI+became+king+of+France

• http://books.google.ie/books?id=Qzc8OeuSXFMC&pg=PA464&dq=Henry+VI+and+dual-monarchy+of+England+and+France&lr=

• http://books.google.ie/books?id=7SL1bVtfP08C&pg=PA93&dq=Henry+VI+and+dual-monarchy+of+England+and+France&lr=&as_brr=3#PPA93,M1

• http://books.google.ie/books?id=Sctuzn19w5EC&pg=PA85&dq=Henry+VI+and+dual-monarchy+of+England+and+France&lr=&as_brr=3

http://books.google.ie/books?id=jDQfuSmu8gAC&pg=PA302&dq=Henry+VI+of+England+is+not+King+of+France&lr=&as_brr=3

http://books.google.ie/books?id=YJsMaEvgZzUC&pg=PA98&dq=Henry+VI+of+England+is+King+of+France+pretender&lr=&as_brr=3

Here are the Refs from French Academics:

Page 128 http://books.google.com/books?id=Mbfm1_q_zqQC&printsec=frontcover&dq=Joan+of+Arc&as_brr=3

Page 168 http://books.google.com/books?id=AYF4LIAMRMIC&printsec=frontcover&dq=Joan+of+Arc&as_brr=3

Pae 18 http://books.google.com/books?id=NG9DRSg5dYMC&printsec=frontcover&dq=Joan+of+Arc&as_brr=3

http://books.google.com/books?id=ZD_1zbyU5jsC&printsec=frontcover&dq=Joan+of+Arc&as_brr=3

Page 35 http://books.google.com/books?id=tky-kvB0rdAC&printsec=frontcover&dq=Joan+of+Arc&lr=&as_brr=3

Page 23 http://books.google.com/books?id=YJsMaEvgZzUC&pg=PP1&dq=Joan+of+Arc&lr=&as_brr=3

Page 28 http://books.google.com/books?id=0hYWzuecyHMC&printsec=frontcover&dq=Joan+of+Arc&lr=&as_brr=3

Pge 167 http://books.google.com/books?id=560fPSrm2hwC&pg=PA165&dq=Joan+of+Arc&lr=&as_brr=3

Page 16 http://books.google.com/books?id=Gos6x0hrzsIC&pg=PA17&dq=Henry+VI+of+England+King+of+France.French+Historians&lr=&as_brr=3

Page 246.Enclodopedia http://books.google.com/books?id=MziRd4ddZz4C&pg=PA246&dq=Charles+D+Orleans+recognized+Henry+as+King+of+France&lr=&as_brr=3

Page 129 http://books.google.com/books?id=tplzx-OCEicC&pg=PA36&dq=Joan+of+Arc+and+Henry+VI&lr=&as_brr=3

Page 7 http://books.google.com/books?id=eo9RW7jWxyMC&pg=PA7&dq=Joan+of+Arc+and+Henry+VI&lr=&as_brr=3

Page 62 http://books.google.com/books?id=s8kOAAAAQAAJ&pg=PA59&dq=Charles+VII+of+France.The+Hundred+Years+War&lr=&as_brr=3

Page 160 http://books.google.com/books?id=nv73QlQs9ocC&pg=PA160&dq=Charles+VII+of+France.The+Hundred+Years+War&lr=&as_brr=3

Page 206-217 http://books.google.com/books?id=_Cc9AAAAIAAJ&pg=PA206&dq=Charles+VII+of+France.The+Hundred+Years+War&lr=&as_brr=3

Page 203 http://books.google.com/books?id=4qFY1jpF2JAC&pg=PA203&dq=Charles+VII+of+France.The+Hundred+Years+War&lr=&as_brr=3

Thus Henry VI IS King of France.Wikepedia only accept what is accepted by historions as you said.Your arguement that Henry VI is not a French King is Original Research.

Hello there.I see you are interested in the Hundred Years War.Regarding the Treaty of Troyes.You have to understand that Charles VII usurped legal authority from Charles VI and refused a Courts Summon to Paris.This is constructed as Lese-Majesty(Injury to the Soveriegn) or Treason to Charles VI whom was the King of France and the person whom Charles VII refused.He was found guilty by a legal summons in Paris or a lit-de justice.This renderd him legaly incapable of Succestion So Charles VII disinheritence was legal through the lit-de justice not the Treaty of Troyes.Now we have just proven that Charles VII was legaly dissinherited and legaly incapable of succestion so thus he has to right to be removed from the entire Dynastic succestion.Problem no.1 Gone.Problem no.2 was the Salic Law OR Law Sallica.Salic Law states that no women can succeded or a claim through a Women.However Salic Law had no contrevention or any attack on the Treaty of Troyes.This is proven in one of the Clauses that says Henry(Henry V) shall take Isebaue(Queen of France) and Charles VI as Father and Mother and unto Henry his son.This meant that Henry was Adopted Son so there was no contrevention of Salic Law.As the Succestion of thrones clearly says the Sons of the French King can inherit in the succestion.Henry was a son of Charles VI.Now we just proved there s no contrevention of Salic Law.Problem No.3 The French Aruement of Alienating the Throne to Foriegners and the arguement that Charles VI was mad when the Treaty was concluded.Here is a predescent to refute this.In terms expressly provided the realms of England and France must ratify this.In current jurisict theroy this was the safest way in which the laws of a country could be changed and inncorperated was by the power of the whole people and there soveriegn(collective or personal) and this ratification was indeed done:was that not the manner in which the power and authority of the Roman Republic tranferd to the Emperors in Antique Days.Armed with this awsome predescent this was in a way altering the fundemental law of succestion that Civilians could understand and defend.To butress further the legal binding force of the Treaty oaths were sought independently by the lords.One obvious example was the Duke of Burgundy.Anyone whom was in breach of these oaths were consderd traitoirs.Philips point of view at the Congrass of Arass however was to have his oath to the Treaty declared invalid.The only way he could break his oath was through a papal legate which he later recieved to break his oath from the treaty.

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

http://books.google.ie/books?id=qLKF0LCPlsIC&pg=PA63&lpg=PA63&dq=The+Treaty+of+Troyes+ended+Salic+Law&source=bl&ots=Gz0XCciaFN&sig=ue_TDF0fqeHvB5GQgg0Lc2dFKMk&hl=en&ei=EWFCSvDoMoWc_AbbiPjOCA&sa=X&oi=book_result&ct=result&resnum=1

Also please take to thee talkpage first because no-offence your edits were clearly wrong.Goodbye.--HENRY V OF ENGLAND (talk) 12:31, 5 September 2009 (UTC)

I'm still not convinced. IMHO, Henry was 'never' King of France. GoodDay (talk) 15:31, 5 September 2009 (UTC)

Statement about French people not anknowledging Henry VI

Hello again.Unfortunitly there is no historion whom can agree with you that no french author believed both Henry VI and Charles VII were kings of France.Henry VI had his french supporters as did charles like the Burgundians,John V of Brittiny,The university of Paris and Charles the duke of Orleons.You ahould also know alot of the nobels whom swore an oath to agree to the terms of the treaty of troyes and Amiens 1423 were French.The French administration at Paris was also filled with French cannons and even the local populace from 1422-1432 were Englis supporters.During the early regency under Bedford he had tried to recieve public oppinion of Henry VI.It wasnt until heavy taxes were introduced that the french incurtions began to rise,most noteably the revolt of Pays-de Caux in 1436.French nationailism under Joan of Arc also started to bring back frenchmen to the side of Charles VII.There was even a new minted coin in 1422 symbolising the Dual-Monarchy in which Henry VI was holding a quaterd-shield of the English lion and the French lillie was introduced to France.The book of Hours was also commisioned by Bedford to show the ties between Burgundy and England.In least both Henry VI and Charles VII were Kings of France in there own possetions and were anknowledged by Frenchmen in there areas.Its nonscence to say that Frenchmen didnt anknowledge Henry VI in his reign as King of Both England and France.No historion can deny the fact that both Charles and Henry were Kings in there own french possetions and I had already proven that French academics also anknowledge Henry as bieng King in his own French possetions.The only reason why most lists dont add Henry VI in the list of French Kings has nothing to do with nationailism but the fact that Charles VII was closer in blood to Charles VI as further explained by this book.

Page 23: http://books.google.com/books?id=kFSqKelemSMC&pg=PP1&dq=the+contending+Kingdoms#v=onepage&q=&f=false.--HENRY V OF ENGLAND (talk) 13:20, 5 September 2009 (UTC)

I hope you now agree with my descition to revert you on this since I had refuted this arguement.Please contact me on my talkpage.God bless you and goodbye.

For my general answer, please look at Henry's talk.

I think that it's not correct to use French sources of the time of the English occupation: otherwise, we could write that Vidkun Quisling was the legal Prime Minister of Norway using Norwegian sources of 1942.... I repeat: we have English sources that enlist Henry between the kings of France, and French (and worldwide) sources that say the opposite. We can't declare ourselves as judges, we must show the various positions without choosing.--Cusio (talk) 13:39, 5 September 2009 (UTC)

Hello There Cusio.I previously mentioned French sources afrter the English occupation and if you dont mind can you please give me a french source which contridicts that adoption and denyed de facto french kingship in the north.You gave very strong words denying the adoption but I would just like a source where you got that arguement from because the adoption is itself mentioned in the first clause of the treaty.Thank you very much and God's blessings.--HENRY V OF ENGLAND (talk) 13:56, 5 September 2009 (UTC)

I answer here for your reply in my talk too.
I see what I wasn't able to make you understand the core of the problem. Your sources are very good sources, and it is clear: if this article would be called Reasons for English claim on French throne, I would say nothing about them. But please, look at a French encyclopedia, a Spanish encyclopedia, a German, an Italian or a Russian one: where do you see Henry enlisted between the kings of France? This aspect of the problem, is what you do not consider.
Speaking about the adoption, I think that the thesis that Henry V became son tout-court (as our French friends say ;-) ) of Charles VI, is completely absurde. If the statement of the adoption would be true, the consequence would be that Henry had married... his sister!!! I remember that incest is one of the worst sins in European-Christian culture, and it would surely led Henry to the excommunication (with consequent loss of all his political powers) and, considering the Medieval laws, I think to the stake too. In English language, we call the daughter's husband as son-in-law, and in French language we can call him as "beau-fils", so it isn't improbable that Charles VI would call Henry briefly as son but, the legal and logical consequences of considering Henry as totally son of Charles, would be clear as I say before.--Cusio (talk) 15:12, 5 September 2009 (UTC)

Hello there my friend.I find what you are explaining to me completely rationail and I am begining to agree about the view on the adoption.Yes you are correct,if Henry was adopted and married catherine then that would mean he would have married his sister,But I think we have to reliase salic law still dosent have anything to do with the Treaty of Troyes .Think about it,when Henry was adressed in the clauses as Heir of France this could mean that he was always the Heir of Charles and so the treaty didnt mention where Henrys claim came from thus it fudged the past.A complete masterwork in English diplomacy because just as Henry had to accept valios kingship to his heir so did the french had to accept his anccestral rights.The English claim througe Isebaue is vauge since interpetations would undermine either Henry or Charles.In the meantime also Normandy was virtually under English controll and what better way did Henry not show susspection of holding a seperate claim from his preddescesors when he didnt take the title Duke of Normandy.As did the Treaty of Troyes skillfully avoided the mention of Henry's existing claim so to was his marriage dealt with sensitively.In order to avoid the impresstion that Henry had been Heir by virtue of Catherine's rights.The first clause stated that: By the alliance of marriage made for the benifet of the said peace,he had become the son of charles and Isebaue and would honour us and our consort as father and mother as seen fitting.This was not how Henry became heir since as we have just proven this was the arrangement made by the Heir and the King.Henry's title as Heir fortified his claim and he did not need anyone else to give him that.Therefore where is the contrevention of salic law if he was a male and his title gave him the claim without derieving his claim from anywhere else.Catherine was unimportant.His Heirs didnt have to be from her and I will repeat again this was an arrangement made by the Heir with the King.Also Catherine was given a dowry from both England and France.The latter when Henry died and given to the value of 20,000 Ecus.Another aspect of the treaty is the ratification as obliged by the Treaty.This was indeed done when all the leading french officials came to ratify the treaty and according to current juriscist law the safest way in which a countrys laws can be changed and incorrperated into a new one was by a ratification.Oaths were also taken seperately by French nobels which bounded them to Henry and his Heir and so the Treaty was water-tight.The oaths could only be broken by a papal legate.Now lets deal with the dissinheritence of the dauphine.Charles VII usurped legal authority from Charles VI by taking illegal de facto controll of the south.In addition he was responcible for the murder of Montreui in 1419 and refused a courts summon to Paris which was issued from 1420.Unsuprisingly he refused the courts summon which was also treason and in 1421 in the abscence of the dauphine the lit-de justice found Charles so called dauphine guilty of Lese-Majesty and was orderd to dissinheritence and bannishment from the Kingdom of France.The legal proccedings gave facts and satisfactory proofs to the condemnation of the dauphine unlike the rumour of Charles bieng a bastard.His dissinheritence would in respect have to be considerd legal outside the treaty.

Regarding the disscution in general there are no majour facts which we both dont agree upon.I respect your oppinion as you to towards me.You asked me to give you a list of french kings in which Henry is mentioned.Months ago I was asked the same question by another user.The truth is that there is no official list where Henry VI is mentioned in it.That does not mean however that internationaly Henry VI is not King of France.The reason that Charles VII was closer in blood to Charles VI and thats is why he is listed in the official regnal template as the Heir of him also to the fact that Henry VI lost France in 1453.I do not think Enclodopedias to be bias but rather very vauge in details but neutral.In the text of my enclyopedia it mentiones that Henry VI was ruling in Northen France according to the right from the Treaty of Troyes But it neither says Charles was the only King of France since they were both claimaints or else the enclopedia could be accused of bieng bias in its text.My other Enclodopedia's say that Henry ruled in northen France against the french king Charles VII but if he ruled in Northen France that still means he was de facto King in the North.Some enclopedia's even reffer to both Charles and Henry as claimaints.I think in conclution we should leave Henry in this list even if he dosent show in the oficial regnal template because I still didnt see any French oppinion on Henry VI yet.Both Henry and Charles were claimaints and Kings in there own territory.God bless you and lookinjg forward to further disscution.--HENRY V OF ENGLAND (talk) 17:13, 5 September 2009 (UTC)

Encyclopedias:

Page 177 http://books.google.com/books?id=kJ6PZ7g3Yw0C&printsec=frontcover&dq=Encyclopedia+on+History&lr=&as_brr=3#v=onepage&q=Henry%20VI&f=false

Page 241 http://books.google.com/books?id=MziRd4ddZz4C&printsec=frontcover&dq=Encyclopedia+on+History&lr=&as_brr=3#v=onepage&q=Henry%20VI&f=false

Page 127 http://books.google.com/books?id=ubXnWRMt6uoC&pg=PA122&dq=Encyclopedia+on+History+oN+KINGS&lr=&as_brr=3#v=snippet&q=tROYES&f=false

Page 151 http://books.google.com/books?id=irnJ4n3FkD4C&pg=PA266&dq=Encyclopedia+on+French+KINGS&lr=&as_brr=3#v=snippet&q=Henry%20VI%20&f=false

--HENRY V OF ENGLAND (talk) 17:30, 5 September 2009 (UTC)

The basic problem, I repeat, is the French position denies Henry's rights, on the principle that the succession decided by God couldn't be changed by humans. I don't know if you speak French, but here you can read the general French position [1]: Henry (that, we must remember, was a child during the period we are speaking of) took the crown in illegal way, because he was not a descendent of Hugh Capet in male-line. French sources make a comparaison with Antipopes: the irregularity of their accession to power justified their decadence and remove from the official list even if, in some occasions, they effectively exercized de facto their regnal powers. So, there's no French list of the kings of France including Henry [2].
By the way, I think it's harsh to say that actual Queen Elizabeth II might let the throne to anyone she wants, outside her descendents.... --Cusio (talk) 23:15, 8 September 2009 (UTC)

Cusio, the day you've convinced our dear HENRY, bells will be ringing in Hell & cats will be flying.

Frania W. (talk) 00:25, 9 September 2009 (UTC)

Henry VI in English books on the History of England

Could someone tell me if in the History of England taught in the United Kingdom Henry VI of England is considered to have been a king of France? And if so, was he king of the whole of France or only the part occupied by the English? We know what contemporaries of Henry VI thought, but how have English historians treated the subject? Please do not cite any Wikipedia examples. Just curious. Frania W. (talk) 17:18, 5 September 2009 (UTC)

Frania I'm suprised of you lol.Both Henry VI and Charles VII were kings of France.Henry was De fact king north of the loire and Charles was de facto south of thr loire.Please revise the sources I mentioned to you.C'ya Frania.--HENRY V OF ENGLAND (talk) 22:03, 5 September 2009 (UTC)

Plus I already mentioned English and French academic work up above.--HENRY V OF ENGLAND (talk) 22:04, 5 September 2009 (UTC)

HENRY, there was a reason behind my question & I need a simple answer. Tell me what you learned in your History of England. Merci. Frania W. (talk) 22:12, 5 September 2009 (UTC)

Hello Frania.Our History book at school does not mention the Hundred Years Wars.Documentries on the Hitory channel by David Starky and other similiar programs call him a King of France plus these books.You should notice I am not the only one to bring up the disscution that Henry was also a king of France.Scroll up and you will find propisitions to add him as a french King.Now let me ask you a question.So far you have done nothing execpt originial research in your aquisation that Henry VI is not King of France.So can you not give me hard scholary evidence in which your POV is supported? Thank You and goodbye Frania.--HENRY V OF ENGLAND (talk) 15:47, 6 September 2009 (UTC)

Students Encyclopedia: http://student.britannica.com/comptons/article-202002/Henry-kings-of-England

http://www.luminarium.org/encyclopedia/henry6.htm

http://www.royal.gov.uk/HistoryoftheMonarchy/KingsandQueensofEngland/TheLancastrians/HenryVIdeposed.aspx

http://www.berkshirehistory.com/bios/henry6.html

--HENRY V OF ENGLAND (talk) 15:56, 6 September 2009 (UTC)

Dear HENRY, first, please note that I was simply asking a question out of curiosity as to how Henry VI is presented in English school manuals; second, since I have not brought any change to his article or to the list of kings of France (except once last April to change *south of France* to *south of the Loire River*), you cannot say that I am doing original research & applying it to the article: I was only asking a question, then I developed my point of view on Jeanne's page, which is no part of an article, but to be considered as a conversation between friends sitting at a café. Again, please note that I am staying out of both articles because I do not want to give them a French point of view that would be difficult for me to avoid. Truly yours, Frania W. (talk) 16:27, 6 September 2009 (UTC)

His uncle is certainly treated as the Regent of France by English-language historians. Henry VI was certainly the de facto king of much of France, and claimed the title. On the other hand, he's not usually listed in lists of Kings of France, and in reference to the specific question, he is not called king of France by the ODNB. I think the best result would be to mention him in a footnote, or something similar. john k (talk) 00:15, 9 September 2009 (UTC)

Ga, just read through the whole horrible discussion. One basic point is that we really have no business going on with de jure claims. We really have no tools to determine who is correct in such disputes, and it really shouldn't be our job anyway. Our lists should be about the de facto situation, not de jure claims. john k (talk) 02:53, 9 September 2009 (UTC)

10 August 1792

I have a problem: the article states that Louis XVI was "King until August 10, 1792", but wasn't the monarchy only suspened on August 10, and wasn't it formally abolished by the National Convention on 21 September 1792? I propose using the latter in the former's place. Thoughts? -- Jack1755 (talk) 19:33, 8 September 2009 (UTC)

Jack: go to 10 August 1792 article, section The demise of the Legislative Assembly plus following section The aftermath:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/10_August_(French_Revolution)#The_demise_of_the_Legislative_Assembly

you should find your answer there. àpt, Frania W. (talk) 20:21, 8 September 2009 (UTC)

The French handle it in a different manner, giving dates of reign as 1774-1792, adding

Suspendu par l'Assemblée nationale le 10 août 1792 et détrôné le 21 septembre.

Suspended by the National Assembly on 10 August 1792 and dethroned on 21 September.

Frania W. (talk) 20:30, 8 September 2009 (UTC)

Frania, you never cease to amaze me with the swiftness of your replies! Are you glued to the 'paedia, like me? Louis XVI of France dates his deposition as the end of his reign. -- Jack1755 (talk) 22:19, 8 September 2009 (UTC)

I will. Moved irrelevent segments to my talk. -- Jack1755 (talk) 01:44, 9 September 2009 (UTC)

Quite correct, Louis XVI ceased to be King of the French on September 21, 1792. On August 10, 1792, he was merely stripped of his duties (thus became purely a figure head). GoodDay (talk) 22:53, 31 October 2009 (UTC)

Missing

Merovingians and the first Carolingians kings are missing. Check the french article... —Preceding unsigned comment added by 88.172.141.127 (talk) 22:22, 18 December 2009 (UTC)

Raoul/Rodolphe

"Three of the twelve kings during the 147 year Carolingian Dynasty, Odo, his brother Robert I and Robert's son in law Raoul/Rudolph, were not from the Carolingian Dynasty but from the rival Robertian Dynasty, named for Robert the Strong (father of Odo and Robert I)." Raoul was indeed a son in law of Robert I, however he was not a Robertian, he was a Bosonid. In fact, he was the only king of France who was not coming from the Merovingians, the Carolingian or the Robertians/Capetians.86.206.184.13 (talk) 21:43, 28 December 2009 (UTC)

Surname

When did de France become the surname borne by the children of French kings? Was de France the surname of medieval French princes? 92.36.165.7 (talk) 19:01, 8 January 2010 (UTC)

French royalty did not possess surnames as such; rather they belonged to a succession of dynasties such as Capet, Valois, and Bourbon.--Jeanne Boleyn (talk) 15:42, 7 March 2010 (UTC)

This article is not NPOV

Outside sources include French/Frankish kings back to Clodion...why does this article start at 840?Ryoung122 11:22, 7 March 2010 (UTC)

Merovingians and Carolingians

Is there any reason why this article, while including the Merovingian and pre-843 Carolingian dynasties, does not list their kings? Lists of the kings of France usually start with Clodio, or at the latest Clovis (as mentioned in the introduction). That is also the case in the French version of this article. Drilou (talk) 12:03, 6 May 2010 (UTC)

The reason probably was that both dynasties form the common heritage of both France and Germany and one cannot properly split the two.

The Merovingian section now introduced is severely flawed (probably the Carolingian too, but I haven't checked the problem is limited) as it artificially limits itself to some Merovingian Kings. E.g. of the sons of Clovis I, only Clothair and Childebert (Soisson and Paris, respectively) are included, while Chlodomer (Orleans) and Theudebert (Reims) are omited. Probably on the faulty reasoning that Theudebert ruled what came to be Austrasia. Faulty, because he and his sucessors' territory extended wide into modern France, faulty because they also ruled the Auvergne (as their share of Aquitania) and all brothers received a share in Burgundy. The Kingdom of the Franks is one Kingdom, ruled by various Kings simultaneously - to rip it apart is faking history.

There is a point in the Carolingian dynasty where dynastic partitions become permanent, say after 843 but before this, such attempts are nonsensical.

Str1977 ^(talk) 08:22, 16 June 2010 (UTC)

The fact that Germany was created from a piece of Charlemagne's empire doesn't affect the continuity between France before and after the treaty of Verdun. France and Germany do share the Frankish heritage, but France was France before already, just like Britain was Britain before 1776, regardless of the US sharing their heritage prior to that date.

The current list of Merovingian kings lists all kings who have held the title of "king of all the Franks", as well as the rulers of the kingdoms which went on to conquer all the others. It's the canon list you will find in all French sources. Also the last unification under a single ruler took place in 719, during the Merovingians.

That said, if you think the other Frankish kings should be listed as well, you can always add them.

Drilou (talk) 14:54, 3 July 2010 (UTC)

Henry VI of England

The addition of Henry VI of England as king of France (with dates overlapping those of Charles VII) seems strange, and I see it has already been tagged. I have never seen a French (or other non-English) source which considered him king of France, only English sources seem to do so. I have looked at the avalanche of links posted here in support of that claim, and actually found several arguments contradicting it:

The legality of the Treaty of Troyes has always been questioned for several reasons: signatory Charles VI of France was mad, and French jurists considered it conflicted with a broad interpretation of Salic law (http://books.google.ie/books?id=qLKF0LCPlsIC&pg=PA63&dq=The+Treaty+of+Troyes+and+Salic+Law&lr=&as_brr=3#v=onepage&q=The%20Treaty%20of%20Troyes%20and%20Salic%20Law&f=false). But beyond that, Duke Philip of Burgundy had his oath declared invalid in 1435, supported by the authority of a papal legate (http://books.google.com/books?id=Qv9PlGCLy4YC&pg=PA235&dq=the+legality+of+the+treaty+of+troyes#v=onepage&q=the%20legality%20of%20the%20treaty%20of%20troyes&f=false). As such, legally speaking, the treaty was not simply overturned, it was declared to have been invalid from the start. Also, the argument that Henry V became the son of Charles VI with the treaty is invalid, he was simply stylized as such. As user Cusio already remarked, he could not have been actually adopted, as that would have rendered his marriage incestuous, but also made him lose his claim to the throne of England. Finally, the coronation of Henry VI as king of France was a sham. He was crowned in Paris in 1431 (and not in Reims, using the vial of holy oil, as all kings of France had since Clovis to legitimately become king), two years AFTER Charles VII had already been crowned king of France (in Reims this time, with holy oil and everything). http://books.google.ie/books?id=YJsMaEvgZzUC&pg=PA98&dq=Henry+VI+of+England+is+King+of+France+pretender&lr=&as_brr=3#v=onepage&q=Henry%20VI%20of%20England%20is%20King%20of%20France%20pretender&f=false

I therefore don’t see how he could have been considered king of France de jure. De facto, he was never really king of France either, as he never ruled over more than the parts of France he was occupying, while the Valois still controlled the rest.

But most importantly, he is not considered king of France from the French or international point of view. Cusio already provided a link which explains the French position (http://www.roi-france.com/perso_fiche.php?i=2299), and a simple Google search will give you several lists of kings of France from the French perspective, here are just a few of them: http://www.histoiredefrance.net/roisdefrance.php http://jeanjacques.villemag.free.fr/ http://www.thucydide.com/realisations/utiliser/chronos/rois_france.htm (By the way, all those also support my proposal above to include the Merovingians and Carolingians). Finally, Henry VI of England was never acknowledged as a king of France, as he would have been Henry II of France, a name later assumed by Henry of Valois, son of Francis I.

I therefore propose to remove Henry VI from the list, as the Lancaster claim to the throne of France is already explained in the introduction.

Drilou (talk) 18:50, 6 May 2010 (UTC)

I agree with your proposal, Drilou. Henry VI has never been described as a French monarch by historians or academics. This insertion here was clearly based on OR and a non-neutral POV.--Jeanne Boleyn (talk) 08:59, 7 May 2010 (UTC)

On the contrary. To simply omit him is POV pushing based on a nationalist historiography that (falsely) potrayed the French monarchy as an unbroken line of kings by inheritance. Str1977 ^(talk) 08:25, 16 June 2010 (UTC)

Consider this also: If Henry VI was lawfully King of France, then every king and queen regnant of England and Great Britain until George IV was also legally monarch of France. And so they claimed.But how does one determine a legal reign? This can be tricky. Generally, legality should be determined by the consent of the people through its lawful representatves and officers. On this point, there seems little doubt that Henry VI was recognised as King of France, albeit begrudgingly and for a time. I don't think though, that we should then consider the claims of English monarchs after Henry.For theirs was a barren legal claim. Of course, rather than discuss what constitutes a legal reign, we could simply consider how authorities and culture judge them. And this seems the wiser. Where authorities argue we can cite the argument, and put ol Henry into parentheses.Gazzster (talk) 06:34, 17 June 2010 (UTC)

"If Henry VI was lawfully King of France, then every king and queen regnant of England and Great Britain until George IV was also legally monarch of France." Not neccessarily. Henry VI of England's claims were based on his mother's descent and his father's recognition as Heir of France, not on his distant ancestress's claims. But Henry VI of England has no descendants today and his claim was not inherited by the Tudors. The Tudors and their successors based their claim on their descent from Isabella of France. Of course, descent is not the only thing that makes someone a lawful monarchy; if it were, King Francis II would now be sitting in Buckingham Palace and King Louis XX would be sitting in the Palace of Versailles. Surtsicna (talk) 10:47, 17 June 2010 (UTC)

Too true. That harkens back to my point about legitimacy requiring some sort of concrete activity and consent amongst the supposed subject peoples.Gazzster (talk) 05:38, 18 June 2010 (UTC)

It's not true that Henry VI was only recognized in the areas militarily controlled by the English; until 1435, he was recognized in the Burgundian lands, as well. I think he was also recognized for a time in Brittany - the duke had signed the Treaty of Troyes - at least for a while. But, basically, Henry VI was recognized by Charles VI as his successor and actually controlled large portions of France, including Paris. I think it's reasonable to at least mention him on the page. john k (talk) 19:02, 26 August 2010 (UTC)

I suppose it's acceptable as long as Charles VII is shown as concurrently being the French monarch (i.e. Charles VII, reigning 1422 to 1461). GoodDay (talk) 19:42, 26 August 2010 (UTC)

Certainly. My general feeling would be that Henry VI should be relegated to a footnote. john k (talk) 21:37, 26 August 2010 (UTC)

That's reasonable & acceptable. GoodDay (talk) 22:03, 26 August 2010 (UTC)

the Great

Is there a reason that Napoleon is named "Napoleon I, the Great" from 1804 to 1814, but when he rules in 1815 he is simply "Napoleon I"? Shouldn't it be consistent? Jenks24 (talk) 15:37, 26 August 2010 (UTC)

choice of arms

Why is the infobox headed with the shield of the Empire(s), which existed for a total of 28 years, rather than that of the Kingdom, which existed thirty times as long? Because the Empire was France's last monarchy? —Tamfang (talk) 08:48, 3 October 2010 (UTC)

I fully agree. john k (talk) 20:00, 3 October 2010 (UTC)

I suppose that's the reason, yes. The problem is which coat of arms should be used, if not the last? It has evolved a little over time: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Coat_of_arms_of_France. The simple "France moderne" is probably the most recognisable and emblematic of the monarchy as a whole, but I'm not sure how to justify just picking one like that.Drilou (talk) 09:19, 19 October 2010 (UTC)

Why can't we justify it by noting that it is the most recognisable and emblematic of the monarchy as a whole? The version used by Louis XVIII and Charles X would also seem appropriate, as it is the final version used by the main line of the French monarchy, as opposed to the various Bonaparte and Orléans usurpers. john k (talk) 16:44, 19 October 2010 (UTC)

I agree with John K. --Frania W. (talk) 17:42, 19 October 2010 (UTC)

I replaced it with the France moderne. On a side note, I certainly wouldn't call the Bonaparte and Orléans usurpers, as they were in many ways more legitimate than the Bourbon. Drilou (talk) 01:23, 20 October 2010 (UTC)

Well, that could lead us into quite a discussion... and we may even find Napoléon Bonaparte less of an usurper than Louis Philippe d'Orléans. Charles X's abdication (countersigned by his son) was in favor of his grandson, the young duc de Bordeaux, with Louis Philippe named Lieutenant Général du Royaume. On the other hand, prior to Napoléon, there had been a revolution, so he was not taking any king's throne, just making his own.

--Frania W. (talk) 05:39, 20 October 2010 (UTC)

I didn't mean "usurper" as a pejorative, but as a description. The senior line claimed the throne by hereditary right. Neither Louis Philippe nor the Bonapartes could do so. john k (talk) 17:06, 20 October 2010 (UTC)

Yes, but Napoléon Bonaparte was issued from the Revolution, which had abolished the monarchy, so he was not stealing the throne of the king, he was only continuing on his path to power & crowned himself emperor of the French, while Louis Philippe d'Orléans tricked Charles X by accepting the crown from the Chamber after having been nominated Lieutenant général du royaume. In fact, Louis Philippe himself in conversations with his wife mentioned several times that he probably would be seen as "un usurpateur", which he was: he could/should have acted as Régent until his issued-from-the-senior-line young cousin's majority; instead, he stole the crown from him & sent the whole of Louis XIV's descendance packing to England.

--Frania W. (talk) 18:41, 20 October 2010 (UTC)

France moderne is best. It is emblematic of French royalty as a whole, it seems. Seven Letters 18:16, 20 October 2010 (UTC)

File:Louis IV of France.PNG Nominated for Deletion

	An image used in this article, File:Louis IV of France.PNG, has been nominated for deletion at Wikimedia Commons in the following category: Deletion requests July 2011 What should I do?
	A discussion will now take place over on Commons about whether to remove the file. If you feel the deletion can be contested then please do so (commons:COM:SPEEDY has further information). Otherwise consider finding a replacement image before deletion occurs. This notification is provided by a Bot --CommonsNotificationBot (talk) 09:21, 21 July 2011 (UTC)

File:Louis8lelion.jpg Nominated for Deletion

An image used in this article, File:Louis8lelion.jpg, has been nominated for deletion at Wikimedia Commons in the following category: Media without a source as of 6 September 2011 What should I do? Don't panic; a discussion will now take place over on Commons about whether to remove the file. This gives you an opportunity to contest the deletion, although please review Commons guidelines before doing so. If the image is non-free then you may need to upload it to Wikipedia (Commons does not allow fair use) If the image isn't freely licensed and there is no fair use rationale then it cannot be uploaded or used. This notification is provided by a Bot --CommonsNotificationBot (talk) 06:22, 6 September 2011 (UTC)