Talk:Philippe II, Duke of Orléans/Archive 1

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 1

Relationships

The family relationships are confused here -- nephew or brother? JHK

DW -- you need to provide some sources for this and try to provide NPOV. This kind of writing does not belong here -- especially if you don't substantiate it. JHK

Philippe was a professed atheist who read the satirical works of Francois Rabelais inside a Bible binding during mass and a man who liked to hold orgies on religious high holidays. He had the artistic temperament of a Renaissance prince and the morals of a tomcat.

That second sentence is part of what I just deleted, as it is both POV and essentially unprovable, unless you've conducted a full psychological profile of every Renaissance prince as well as exhaustive moral tests on tomcats.

The 18th century Kings of France are the most closely documented monarchs in history. (There are even details precisely recorded of going to the toilet!) What I quote from is the most preeminent chronicler of that period, Sanche de Gramont. Suggest you do not remove things or claim NPOV simply because you do not know historical facts. As to debauchery, how much should one put in an encyclopedia? I mentioned orgies, isn't that enough? ...DW

P.S. I sure like people who do little or no work (in certain areas and toooooo much in others) but love to critize!.... DW

Just to point out more of how you make rash and wrong assumptions. POV is not created by me after specifying that he wrote an opera, played in theatre, was a painter and an engraver. Those are facts that qualify him as a Renaissance Prince, and he was Prince Philippe, second in line to the throne of Louis XIII. And, orgies alone, never mind deliberately on religious 'high holidays absoultely qualifies one as having the morals of a tomcat! Plus, if you lived in France or knew the history of their monarchs, you would know of his incest etc. His sex life overshadowed everything. ... DW

  • DW, there are two factors to any Wikipedia contribution: the substance and the style. We ask that the substance be balanced, for which see NPOV, and in accord with current scholarship; if a particular author's view is given, that view should be attributed to the author. We ask that the style follow conventions previously agreed on by the group, such as the naming conventions; and that discussions in talk pages are reasonably polite and avoid personal attacks (see Wikipetiquette). Those who frequently violate one or both policies will tend to find their work reflexively reverted by those who feel that you're not open to reasonable discussion and cooperation; in extreme cases it can lead to an IP ban. I strongly suggests you read through the background articles, and consider your manner of apporach, in order to get the best results on this collaborative endeavor. -- April
DW -- I have not been insulting towards you, I have complied with your insulting request for credentials, and yet, you have done nothing to justify the way you continually address me.
My colleagues here know that I am not a specialist in all areas, and also that I have no problem in saying when I don't know something. None of that addresses the fact that you write in an inflammatory manner that does not correspond with the Wikipedia policy of NPOV. It surprises me that you are so eager to find fault with me personally, when all I have done is ask for you to supply some source of evidence (not even of primary research -- just a couple of secondary sources) to back up statements that, as written, sound irresponsible and ill-founded to a historian. I am not calling you a liar, but working in a position of editor. For example, most of the references I've looked at on Philippe call him a libertine and some mention the licentiousness that prevailed at his court -- this is a far cry from "morals of a tomcat."
As for the documentation on French monarchs -- this may be true. I seem to remember from my own Grad level courses in Early Modern France that the sort of documentation to which you are referring existed as early as the childhood of Louis XIII. That said, I believe the documentation was limited to only a couple of sources. IIRC Philippe Ariés used those sources in his works on childhood and family life -- but admitted that there may have been some bias, as they were written by courtiers. This certainly doesn't make them wrong, but around here we like to be judged capable of understanding and reading sources for ourselves, if the statements based on them seem iffy.
Please try and work with other community members -- the object here is to create good, solid articles, which generally requires cooperation. JHK

By the way, the only Sanche de Gramont I'm familiar with is a French writer also known as Ted Morgan. He wrote for one of the NY papers and won a Pulitzer. He was also botn in the 1930s -- I'm not sure how this makes him a preeminent chronicler of the time, since he didn't live at that time. Perhaps there is another Sanche de Gramont? Or perhaps you mean you are working from Sanche de Gramont's translation of the Duc de Saint-Simon (who was a preeminent diarist of his time)? Just wondering. JHK


Dear Ms. JHK: 1) Preeminent chronicler of the time. 2) No one attacked you personally, but you did not post your credentials so they could be verified and you have bullied others into allowing you to post your views (like Pippin instead of Pepin or the Carolingians not being Kings of France), overriding every major publication on the planet by calling it "new". You have even taken such possession as to post warnings to others not to do anything because you want to do it right. (Lothair) etc....DW

"Chronicler of the time" generally means someone who wrote about things when they were happening. I gather that what you mean is that this person is the main or preeminent modern historian working on this area?
Jules has posted her credentials; you have not offered yours. I suggest you stop worrying about credentials, and work on good, unbiased encyclopedia articles. Vicki Rosenzweig

Thanks, Vicki. If Sanche de Gramont is a current writer, I'd be very surprised if he weren't the journaist. I really do think DW is mistaken, and that he's talking about S d G's translation of Saint-Simon.

DW -- 1) Hofmann -- it's right there, so it shouldn't be hard to spell. Failing that, JHK is fine.
2)So are you saying that there is another Sanche de Gramont?
3)My credentials are posted -- you can verify them anyway you like. I'm not sure what you want -- an uploaded copy of my diploma? as I said, the dissertation is on file with University Microfilms. The information on university and graduation date should be there. You may find my name at the Seattle U online catalog -- I think I'm listed there, although much of the time my classes are listed as "Staff". Your repeated implications that I (or anyone else here) am lying about my background is what is insulting. I have been a member of this site and a sysop for a long time, and no one else seem sto have a problem.
4)I'm sorry you see me as a bully. If I am, no one else has said anything, and there is no shortage of strong personalities to put me in my place. Perhaps people listen to me because they know me and my work? As for my note to Andre (I think that is what you are talking about), it is perfectly normal to let others know if you are in the middle of major revisions. If Andre resented my note or thought I wanted to make changes that made no sense, he could have said something, but AFAIK, he hasn't.
4)FOr your information, one of the reasons many scholars are now using spellings that you find offensive is that they are closer to the Latinized forms of the Frankish names. Documents of the time do not say "Pepinus rex", but "Pippinus rex". This is true for many of the names of the Franks. I've certainly made some exceptions -- for example, for Louis, which is Ludovicus (which sounds much more like the German Ludwig). Louis is what we say in English, and I can't see it changing. The same with Charlemagne -- That's what we call him in English. At present, Pepin and Pippin are both used, but the current (since the 1980s or so) trend is towards Pippin -- it's not "new" by any means. JHK

I note you say but the current (since the 1980s or so) trend is towards Pippin. I don't see that anywhere in an significant publications. I searched the Internet and found all the usual respected sources referring to him as Pepin. Maybe DW has a point that your personal opinion, while valid in its own way, is not that of the historic community at large. Too, I don't think Ms? DW is referring to The Age of Magnificence by Sanche de Gramont, but his acclaimed Epitaph For Kings in which he refers to Pepin. Charlotte A.


Might as well jump in here too. Note from another site the following comment when an edit was made by JHK : (cur) (last) . . 15:51 Feb 25, 2002 . . JHK (removed, because there's a link to the list. Duh.)

Is a duh appropriate? Seems someone might indeed have a double standard. ... Elliot

How does this contribute anything useful to the discussion? -- Zoe
or could it be that the comment was self-referential to a previous edit I'd made? Couldn't say. As for Sanche de Gramont -- which no one seems to verify, so I can only assume it's the Sanche de Gramont who was a professional writer and journalist, but not a historian -- this is of course my point. And please do not imply I'm part of some wacky minority view -- historical community at large includes historians in all subfields -- at worst my view can be said to represent the current trend among the people who study Franks and other Germanic peoples, or early medieval history. There aren't a lot of us compared to the "community at large" -- any more than there are English speakers who specialize in Iberia. But the specialists are the ones who end up changing the view of "historians at large." But since a lot of people teaching history at any level other than tenured professor often teach out of their field, it takes a while for these things to trickle down. JHK

DW and Elliott, I hope you're happy, you've driven JHK away. Don't think that her work at making you toe the line will end. -- Zoe

I agree with Zoe's sentiment -- consistently NOT following our policy is grounds for at least a temporary IP block. I am sick and tired of losing good contributors because some people can't play by our community accepted rules on naming things, NPOV and for God's sake even basic decency. --mav


The purported JHK has avoided the question. What right does he/she have to humiliate and degrade someone else with the offensive reference of duh. And, why are others allowing it to continue. Responsibility is a sign of intellect.... Elliot

You DO know she was making the duh comment about herself, right? What have you given to the Wikipedia? I can't find a single article you've written or contributed to. -- Zoe

What about the Duke of Bourbon? LirQ

What about Naomi? If the question is "Was Philippe II of Orleans the Duke of Bourbon?" the answer is no. During Philippe's lifetime the title duc de Bourbon belonged to the "Conde" line, and didn't fall to the Orleans line until 1830. Bunk

The question is: "For those of you who know what Im talking about...wasn't the Duke of Bourbon sufficiently important that he should be a little more prominently mentioned here (and on other pages) then he currently is?" LirQ

Merger proposal

Louise Adélaïde d'Orléans should be merged to this article because that article does not assert the subject's notability. Wikipedia is not simply a genealogical repository and I believe that the princess would make a fine addition to her father's page but does not cut it as a standalone article. Charles 23:17, 28 May 2008 (UTC)

well i must admit im quite impressed and was surprised with the level of effort you had clearly put into it :) (not to sound patronising!) im going to stay neutral for now and wait to see what other people have to say on the matter.

Tbharding (talk) 23:38, 28 May 2008 (UTC)

  • Oppose I believe there is enough notable content such as being abbesse de Chelles for her to have her own article. - dwc lr (talk) 23:34, 28 May 2008 (UTC)
  • Support As nominator. I suggest that DWC LR start an appropriate article on Abbesses of Chelles rather than pushing to maintain all sorts of frivolities. Charles 23:56, 28 May 2008 (UTC)
  • Oppose It's perfectly reasonable to have an article about a woman with a 324 page published biography. What this article needs is references and expansion, not merger. Noel S McFerran (talk) 04:20, 29 May 2008 (UTC)
  • Oppose as per Noel excellent words above.--UpDown (talk) 07:35, 29 May 2008 (UTC)
  • Oppose Seems a significant enough noble and religious figure in her own right. Dimadick (talk) 12:13, 30 May 2008 (UTC)

This is highlights why merges should be discussed not carried out unilaterally by one person as I was not aware she had a biography written about her so we could have lost a potentially good little article. Perhaps Charles could look at expanding articles in future instead of judging them on there current status and just redirecting them elsewhere. - dwc lr (talk) 14:22, 29 May 2008 (UTC)

I personally am not an advocate of bold changes (such as merging an article without any discussion whatsoever). However, it is allowed by the Wikipedia:BOLD, revert, discuss cycle. What is extremely distressing is when an editor makes a bold change, it is reverted, but then the bold editor just makes the change again and again without any discussion. It shows an incredible lack of respect for other editors. Noel S McFerran (talk) 15:11, 29 May 2008 (UTC)
I agree, but it is something Charles does an awful lot of. I recently had a similar problem with another article on a illegitmate daughter of Louis XIV.--UpDown (talk) 16:46, 29 May 2008 (UTC)
You do a lot of things too, UpDown, but it would be below me to detail. If editors continually show and state that they have no respect for me and treat me with a lack of decency then I will not hide that I have absolutely no time, patience or respect for them. I thought you were going to stop editing royalty article anyway. Too bad. Charles 18:34, 30 May 2008 (UTC)
My point Charles is that you frequently redirect articles without discussion, it normally ends up in another editor reverting this, and then eventually a discussion like the above. Would it not be simpler to start the discussion in the first place. I would not say I have no respect for you, you are an excellent editor in many ways, but I do believe that the way you redirect articles without discussion is not ideal.--UpDown (talk) 19:25, 30 May 2008 (UTC)

Incest and sexual life

There does not seem to be anything about his alleged incest with his daughter, nor about his very talked about sexual life. I have no idea if this is true or not. It may very well be just slander. But in any case, this is something you always hear about in connection to him, and something which seem to have been given much attention in history and in his own time. Whenever one reads about him, there is always talk about incest and sexual orgies. So; even if this is just slander, it should still be mentioned. If nothing else, so at least something like: "There was rumors that he had comitted incest with his daughter, though this have never been confirmed, and may not be true". It is a fact that his sexual life was given much attention in history, in his own time, and still are; it was famous. For this reason, it shold be at least mentioned, otherwise, the article lacks neutrality, just the same way as it would lack neutrality, if you only wrote about these things in it; neautrality means, that you should present both good and bad things, and if they can't be confirmed, you should present them as alleged rumors, but still include them, if they are so famous as the rumors about his sex life is. Just my opinion! I have nothig more to say about this, but I hope you wikipedians can solve this! My best wishes! --85.226.235.248 (talk) 10:12, 12 September 2008 (UTC)

Some articles in en:wikipedia read more like gossip magazines with *historical* anecdotes of below-the-waist rather than above. Articles that come to mind are:
(1) Louis XVI of France with its section Family life. Excepting the first sentence and the last, which *Subsequently* lists the name of his children, the whole of this lengthy section is devoted to L.XVI's phimosis with not a word on his *subsequent* family life.
(2) The article on L.XVI's son, the martyr child Louis XVII, section After his father's death, in which "Simon taught him to curse his parents and the aristocracy and also to blaspheme. He also made Louis-Charles sleep with prostitutes, from whom he caught venereal diseases.[4]"
This last sentence taken from an unsourced text by a Rumanian writer is an absolute abomination as unproven historically. Simon left the Temple in January 1794 when Louis XVII was not even nine years old, so the story about the prostitutes should be proven beyond any doubt before being included in a supposedly encyclopedic article.
All this to say that when we begin talking about someone's sexual life, there is a great chance that we are going to fall into the *porno trap*. In other words, if someone brings in the *alleged incest with his daughter*, that person better have unshakable proof. Frania W. (talk) 15:36, 12 September 2008 (UTC)
P.S. to 85.226.235.248: When you address Wikipedians as *you*, you are addressing people from anywhere in the world who freely participate in the redaction of wiki articles. No one works under a contract & anyone (*you* included) is welcome to contribute. So, why don't you write about the things you mention? FW Frania W. (talk) 17:44, 12 September 2008 (UTC)

I fully understand what you mean! I also think, that there is a reason to be carefull when you write about these things. When it comes to the thing about the child Louis you mention, that should be labelled as a rumor, and worded as one, not worded the way you say it was. However, if rumors have played such a great part as these about Philippe of Orleans, they should at least be mentioned as a note in the article. Rumors, even if they are not true, nevertheless played a great part in history; in the way people were seen, and treated because of them, etc. Just like the rumour about Marie Antionette and Axel von Fersen. I have read about this in all of the books I have read about him, that's why I reacted. Songs and poems were written about this. To be honest, I don't feel confident enough to meddle in this. I now this is controversial, so if I included it, then perhaps it would just be removed. Perhaps this have been in the article before? This is what I think should be included: "During his lifetime, they were long going rumors that he had a sexual relationship with his daughter, the duchess de Berry. This was one of the greatest scandals in Europe at that time, and had since been mentioned in the biographys about him. Whether this was true or not, is of course impossible to know. What is true, is that he encourraged this rumors by touching her in front of people to give this impression. When she died, a song was spread in France: "La pleures-tu comme mari/Comme ta fille ou ta matress?" ("Do you cry for her as a wife, a daughter, or as your mistress?". One of the reasons as to why his regin were given such a bad name in history, was because of the sexual orgies which occurred in his home. They are a lot of stories about them. There does not have to be more than this about these things in the article, so that's not so much. But I'm way to much of a covard to meddle in something controversial. I just thought I should mention it!--85.226.235.248 (talk) 09:10, 17 September 2008 (UTC)

Over-drastic pruning

The article has been subjected to what seems to me to be an over-drastic shortening [1]. I have corrected one mistake un-necessarily introduced, and people may like to pick through the rubble to see what else should be saved. We should also not include the same portrait twice in different infoboxes. Johnbod (talk) 04:48, 22 December 2008 (UTC)

What drew my attention to the article was that it was labeled as excessive in quotations, and I saw that it contained a large number of unsourced assertions, many of which were redundant or belonged in other articles. Your edit was unsourced, and I tried to retain it by making it a less categorical statement. FactStraight (talk) 09:26, 22 December 2008 (UTC)
If you'd followed the link to Orleans Collection, which is heavily referenced (and far longer than this article incidentally), you would have seen "mostly" was a considerable understatement already. This is how well-intentioned but uninformed tinkering actually increases inaccuracy rather than reducing it. Other parts of your edit have the same effect. You also seem not to have realized that the article, like very many historical bios, was originally taken wholesale from the 1911 EB (see tag at the top of this page). This text is online, and it is a basic mistake to try to remove "unreferenced" text without comparing to the EB to see if it came from there - obviously it is now hard to see what is EB and what is not from the article itself. The article now gives a less satisfactory description of Phillippe than before, which is saying something, as it had already been edited to strongly play down the sensational aspects of his life, which are in fact very well attested in the sources and the thing he is most famous for, and indeed what he was notorious for in his lifetime. Johnbod (talk) 14:12, 22 December 2008 (UTC)
The pruning has continued apace, and has now certainly gone too far, while much of what remains is still old-fashioned and odd. The article now gives no idea whatsoever of Orleans' very individual personality. what can be done by mere removal has been done, and overdone. Johnbod (talk) 15:58, 25 February 2009 (UTC)

Regency Council

http://books.google.com/books?id=BLuDdFDCJA0C&pg=PA78&dq=Louis+XV+king+navarre&lr=&as_brr=3#v=onepage&q=Louis%20XV%20king%20navarre&f=false --Kansas Bear (talk) 21:11, 18 August 2009 (UTC)

Although Kings of France continued to use the title of "King of France and Navarre", Navarre had been merged in the crown of France in 1620. At this date, there was no more a personnal union, Navarre was part of France. Consequently, the title of the régent in the next century was just "Regent of France" or, more exactly, "Regent of the Kingdom" (singular, not "of the Kingdoms"). The style of Louis XV proves nothing about the style of the regent, and the fact that he, of course, still uses the title of King of Navarre does not prove that Navarre was still a distinct kingdom: this royal tyle was used until 1830! For Philip's title, see for example the Almanach Royal of 1620, p. 44: "Philippe d'Orléans, petit-fils de France, duc d'Orléans, régent du royaume, né à Saint-Cloud le 2 aoust 1674". Montjoy Pursuivant (talk) 08:30, 19 August 2009 (UTC)
Kansas Bear, you restored the reference I deleted, but it has nothing to do with what you claim. It only shows that Louis XV went by the title of "King of France and of Navarre", something which was never in doubt. What you claim is that there were two distinct Kingdoms of France and Navarre at the time and that Philippe was Regent of both. That is not correct. Navarre had been merged in the Crown of France in 1620, and since that time "King of Navarre" was just a title, not the sign of a personal union. In official document, Philippe is referred to as "Regent of the Kingdom", which is obviously the Kingdom of France. In less formal context, he is referred to as "Regent of France", for example in his funeral oration. Never I have seen him referred by the title you want to give him. Provide examples, sources or whatever showing the contrary and I will stand by your side. Montjoy Pursuivant (talk) 18:50, 19 August 2009 (UTC)
The reference indicates the regency council WAS over Navarre, which was a separate entity until:

In January 1789, when the Estates General of France were called, an order was sent to Navarre for the election of representatives to that assembly: the order was rejected by the Estates of Navarre, and the king sent an "invitation" to the Estates to send its representatives to the king in Versailles. The four representatives (one clergyman, the bishop of Bayonne; one nobleman, Legras marquis d'Olhonce; and two of the commons, Vivié and Franchistegui) arrived in Versailles in July 1789 but did not take seat at the National Assembly (which the Estates General had turned into). When the Assembly came to debate the new style of the monarch, it was proposed to drop the title of king of Navarre, at which point the deputation intervened and sent a letter to the Assembly, read in the session of October 12, 1789 (see the text of the session on Gallica). The Estates of Navarre, he explained, were not against complete union with France and in fact had just voted to adopt the Salic law in their kingdom; but they did not want this to happen before they knew what the new constitution would be, and without their consent. Until then, they considered their kingdom as separate. The Assembly nevertheless voted to drop the title, and the French king became "roi des Français" (the old style of "roi de France et de Navarre" was resumed from 1814 to 1830, at a time when it had no meaning anymore, the institutions of Navarre having been abolished without a trace in 1789-91).

Yet again, the source you continue to parade around has shown you to be nothing but "cherry-picking" what information you find palatable. So unless you can show there was another regent for Navarre, that leaves Philippe d'Orleans as regent over both! --Kansas Bear (talk) 20:41, 19 August 2009 (UTC)
Not at all. The reference says nothing of that kind. It is true that the Etats de Navarre were contesting the legitimacy of the merging of Navarre in the crown of France. However, it was certainly not the point of view of the Royal court under Louis XIV or Louis XV: for them, the act of Louis XIII uniting France and Navarre was plainly valid. The Regent was Regent of only one Kingdom, and that Kingdom was the Kingdom of France, whatever was the title of its King. With your logic, Philippe would have been also Regent of Provence, and of Dauphinée, since that were also "separate entities" exactly as much as Navarre was, and for which the King used a special title. I have produced evidences that Philippe was called "Regent of the Kingdom" (singular) formally and "Regent of France" (without Navarre) informally. Unless you are able to produce any direct evidence that his title was what you claim it was, I stand by my point.Montjoy Pursuivant (talk) 21:13, 19 August 2009 (UTC)
So you are directly ignoring this statement, The Estates of Navarre, he explained, were not against complete union with France and in fact had just voted to adopt the Salic law in their kingdom; but they did not want this to happen before they knew what the new constitution would be, and without their consent. Until then, they considered their kingdom as separate. This clearly states, that Navarre WAS a separate kingdom. Your opinion, yet again, has been shown to be in error. Unless you are able to produce any direct evidence that Navarre had a separate regent, I stand by my point. --Kansas Bear (talk) 21:21, 19 August 2009 (UTC)
Er, no, it says that the Estates of Navarre in 1789 claimed that Navarre was still a separate kingdom. That is not at all the same thing. Louis XIII, as Montjoy notes, proclaimed the annexation of Navarre to France. After that point, whatever its pretentions, it functioned as simply another pays d'état, no different from Brittany or Languedoc. What you need to do is present evidence that Philippe was ever called "Regent of France and Navarre." To take the facts that A) he was regent over all of the lands his uncle had reigned over and B) 75 years later the estates of Navarre claimed to still be a separate state, not part of France, and infer from them C) That therefore Philippe was regent of France and Navarre separately is an original synthesis, which is forbidden by WP:NOR. john k (talk) 21:49, 19 August 2009 (UTC)
Well, almost nothing to add although I would not have gone through the wikipedian casuistic. My final argument would have been rather that Philippe is not called "Regent of France and Navarre" by any source, ancient or modern, primary or secundary. So, as I am a newbie, tell me what to do now. I revert again? But the game will probably continue ad nauseam since Kansas Bear seem very convinced of his (wrong) point. I must confess I would not have thought this point would make so much difficulties: the merging of Navarre in the French crown is much less complex fact than the titles of the Royal family... Montjoy Pursuivant (talk) 22:09, 19 August 2009 (UTC)
I have tried to change the wording so as to remove the issue, at least in the main article text. The infobox may still pose a problem.
Your point, by the way, is basically the same as mine - Philippe is never called "Regent of France and Navarre" in reliable sources, and as such, we should not use such a title. john k (talk) 22:44, 19 August 2009 (UTC)
Yes we certainly completely agree on that. Why don't we just simply use in the first line of the article the title as it appears in official documents of the time: "Regent of the Kingdom"? That would solves the issue.
Note that in French the title was originally "Régent le royaume" not "Régent du royaume", because "régent" was a verb (but it was no more in Philip's time). Montjoy Pursuivant (talk) 09:32, 21 August 2009 (UTC)
Montjoy, would you mind directing us to the text you have which shows the title originally being "Régent le royaume" and to the dictionary showing "régent" as an old French verb. I am having a problem with this. Regards, Frania W. (talk) 14:31, 21 August 2009 (UTC)
On legal aspects of French medieval regencies, much useful is the thesis of F. Olivier-Martin, Les Régences et la majorité des rois sous les Capétiens directs et les premiers Valois (1060-1375), Paris 1931, but, on the specific question of the Regent's titles, also useful and more easily accessible right now (because on line) is E. Berger, Le titre de Régent dans les actes de la chancellerie royale, Bibliothèque de l'Ecole des Chartes, vol. 61 (1900), p. 413-425, particularly p. 415-416 (all references below - but one - are from that article). In few words: Régent means "reigning" or "governing" and is the present participle of the verb "régir" (Latin regere). It is a Latinizing made-up form, closer to Latin than the equivalent form "régissant", used in modern French.
The title first appears with Philip, Count of Poitiers (later Philippe V) in 1314, who took the style "Son of the King of France, Regent of the Kingdoms of France and Navarre" (in Latin regis Francie filius, regens regna Francie et Navarre, in French of the time, Philippes, filz de roy de France, regent les royaumes de France et de Navarre). Berger comments "Ce simple adjectif verbal [that is "regens"], traduit du latin, devint la désignation officielle de tous ceux qui, depuis le XIVe siècle jusqu'à la fin de la monarchie, firent fonction de roi sans être rois eux-mêmes". Indeed, at that time régent is just a present participle (French equivalent of the Latin verbal adjective).
By parenthesis, concerning this document, note that, contrary to the case of the regency of the Duke of Orléans which we were originally discussing here, there were two distinct kingdoms in the 14th century, and the Count of Poitiers was Regent of both of them, hence the plural regna/royaumes. Note also that "Son of the King of France" (what will become later in the modern era just "Son of France") is already a title in 1314, not just the description of an actual genealogical tie (since Philip was obviously not the son of the King of France reigning at the time, and not even of the last reigning King). End of the parenthesis.
Then use of the title changed during the 14th century. In informal use, it quickly became substantive: much interesting in that regard is an extract of the continuation of the chronicle of Guillaume de Nangis quoted by Olivier-Martin (référence above) in the continuation of the chronicle of Guillaume de Nangis and relating to the regency of Philip of Valois in 1328: traditum est regimen regni Philippo, comiti Valessi, et vocatus est tunc regnum regens seu regni ("the government was handed to Philip, Count of Valois, and he was called then 'Regent the Kingdom' or 'of the Kingdom'"); it betrays an hesitation between verb and substantive. In official documents evolution was more complex. When Louis, Duke of Anjou, was Regent for young Charles VI, documents were promulgated "Par Monseigneur le régent", which looks very like a substantive but can also just be a simple participle used as a substantive. But, according to sources quoted by Berger, it seems the first one to use undeniably Regent as a substantive in official document was Henri V of England, probably (that is my suggestion, not Berger's) because he needed to put it on the same level with his other (unusual and illegitimate) title of "Heir of France". So he styled himself "Regent and Heir of France". It is unquestionably a substantive since it has a noun adjunct. However, later documents by French Regents of France are more ambiguous, for example with Louise of Savoy (mother of Francis I), "régente en France" (with en, régente can be interpreted both as a substantive or as a verb). Mary of Medici, mother of Louis XIII, is called in his acts "royne régente", where régente is an adjective, but also more formally (in a proxy for the King's marriage) "Marie, par la grace de Dieu, royne de France et de Navarre, mère et tutrice du roy et régente desdits royaumes", where régente cannot be something else than a substantive.
Of course, the original grammatical meaning of the word Regent does not apply to our Philippe, the Duke of Orléans of the 17-18th centuries, since at his time, as I said above, Regent had become a full substantive in its own right. I just mentioned the topic because I cannot refrain from being extremely pedantic. And, to turn back nevertheless to the subject, Philip was "Regent of the Kingdom", singular, not "of the Kingdoms" as his medieval namesake had been four centuries earlier.
Other French titles, some passed in English, are formed by a similar evolution like President/"président" (originally, "président" just means "présidant", that is "presiding").
Montjoy Pursuivant (talk) 18:35, 21 August 2009 (UTC)
Hmm, interesting. I assume you mean 1316 for the Count of Poitiers, rather than 1314? I see that Marie de' Medici was "regent of the kingdoms" as well, because Navarre was not incorporated into France until 1620. What about Anne of Austria? john k (talk) 20:21, 21 August 2009 (UTC)
Yes, 1316 and not 1314, sorry for the lapsus. I don't know about Anne's style. Barbier's article says she made few acts in her own name as Regent, if any: acts where worded in the name of Louis XIV, making explicit he was acting on advice of her mother. The Latin dedicatory inscription of the Val de Grâce, call her a Queen of France and a Regent (rectrix, no more regens) of the Kingdom (singular), without any reference to Navarre (ANNA AUSTRIAE Dei Gratia FRANCORum REGINA REGNIQue RECTRIX), but I would not take an inscription as a proof of an official style, except if there is no more authoritative sources. The surname (Austria) for example is not correct in the name of a Queen of France. Montjoy Pursuivant (talk) 22:43, 21 August 2009 (UTC)

Légitimée de France rather than fille légitimée de France

Titles of legitimised children of the King is not an easy question, since their statute was a contentious and evolving matter, made, particularly fluctuating due to the efforts of Louis XIV to push the career of his legitimated children, and then due to the death of the King and the undoing of what he had done for that purpose. However, I don't think they ever claimed "fils légitimé de France" as a title (it would have looked too much like "fils de France": Louis XIV's goal was to assimilate his legitimised offspring to the princes of the Blood - even with that usurped title - not to the sons of France). In Letters patents for his sons (1695 & 1697), Louis XIV call the Duke of Maine, "notre très-cher et très-amé fils légitimé Louis-Autuste de Bourbon, duc du Maine", and the Count of Toulouse "notre très-cher et très-amé fils légitimé Louis-Alexandre de Bourbon, comte de Toulouse, amiral de France, gouverneur de notre province de Bretagne" but here "notre fils légitimé" is just a description of their relationship with the King: it is no more a title than "notre petit-fils" is a title in the Letters for the Duke of Berry. The title used later by Maine himself in his own acts was "Legitimated Prince of France" ("prince légitimé de France").

Signatures are more indicative about names than about titles, however, for what is of the Duchess of Orléans, she signed "Françoise Marie de Bourbon, légitimée de France", even after her marriage (without "Princess" or "Daughter" before "of France"), then from 1696 she signed only "Françoise-Marie de Bourbon". Dangeau says that the Condés and Contis were not happy with the change since the surname "de Bourbon" made look her signature similar to the signature of legitimate princesses of their own lines!

Montjoy Pursuivant (talk) 08:27, 22 August 2009 (UTC)

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Philippe_II,_Duke_of_Orléans/Archive_1&oldid=572356170"