Talk:Louis XVII

Wikipedia should be factual and encyclopaedic

Large sections of this article are vague, speculative and unencyclopaedic. At least half of it is devoted to possible theories of Louis escape from prison, consisting of unverifiable speculation, written in a sensationalist style, and of course entirely unsourced. While wikipedia should give appropriate weight to alternative points of view, the historical consensus is that Louis did indeed die in the Temple Prison, and that the stories of his possible escape (and the subsequent claims by pretenders) should be seen in the same light as those surrounding Edward V of England, Dmitri I of Russia, etc etc. The article in no way reflects this consensus. It requires dramatic amendment. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.162.71.239 (talk) 08:02, 28 July 2008 (UTC)

Old unsigned undated comment

not all the kings and presidents are given in succession... this kind of helps figure out eras by political/philosophical attitudes of the monarchy/theocracy/etc.

Date ?

"Taken from his mother in 1795". While she was executed in 1793 ?

---

I believe that the child was seperated from his mom in 1792, provided somewhere down the article: "The remaining 3 years of his life".

Patrickov 16:14, 28 Aug 2004 (UTC)

I'll edit accordingly. -- Jmabel 00:13, Aug 29, 2004 (UTC)

Rollback

I am rolling back a recent anonymous edit (by User:129.67.17.22). I don't doubt that it came from a public domain source, but it is full of trivia ("Both parents noted that the child was particularly frightened by loud noises, especially a dog's barking") and purple prose ("Savagely taken from his distraught mother..."). I believe it detracts from, rather than adds to, the article. However, it may contain some useful facts; I'd welcome someone combing through and seeing if there is something worth restoring. -- Jmabel 19:24, Oct 7, 2004 (UTC)

Deleted reference to student play

Trivial —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 66.74.198.222 (talk • contribs) 3 Nov 2005.

Louis XVI's children

Louis XVI had four children but only 3 are listed in the list on the side, the one that's missing is the youngest daughter Sophie Beatrix. I don't know how to change it as I don't know how to change side banners like that.

• Done. If you want to do it in the future, go to "Edit this page" and choose the template for the family, and edit that. Prsgoddess187 20:19, 13 January 2006 (UTC)

how proper is it to put the regnal number to him?

He never reigned. ObRoy 12:00, 20 May 2006 (UTC)

But he is nonetheless counted in the lineage, and traditionally known as Louis XVII. - Jmabel | Talk 00:22, 3 June 2006 (UTC)

Real Father

There were several rumours at the time that the real father was not Louis XVI but Axel von Fersen. Even a letter by Louis XVI saying somehting about him "being as healthy and strong as my own son". —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 83.178.7.84 (talk) 08:17, 29 April 2007 (UTC).

Yes, it is entirely possible that the Louis-Charles is the natural son of Count Fersen. DNA analysis could tell us. However, he looks like his older brother, the Dauphin to me. Therefore, I am inclined to think he is the son of Louis XVI. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.208.59.220 (talk) 01:23, 18 September 2007 (UTC)

Well, he would still look like hes brther because they had the same mother. Isn't it amusing somehow, that her alleged sexual relationship with Fersen is always denied by everyone who sympathise with her? Everyone who likes her, say it is terrible slander, as if it would be wrong for a woman in an arranged marriage to have a lover. It is just natural. For her own happiness sake, I hope she did have lovers. In those days, it was considered wrong, but now, we should be more modern about this. I do hope they would do a DNA test on her son someday. I know they have, but if there is possible to do one who shows the fatherhood, I hope they will do one. If it is possible, I wonder why the havent? Are they affraid for what it will show? It doesnt have to proove anything, of course: even if they had sex, they didn't have to have children toghether, so her son could be the son of the king anywhay. But if he prooves to be the son of Fersen, then perhaps historians could aknowledge the fact that it is just natural and human to have a lover in an arranged marriage, and that it doesnt make her a bad person. It simply seems to me, that historians make the alleged affair to slander, because they believe this would make her to a bad person. Not so strange, perhaps, because the debate started in a time when the moral values had this view. If they are prooved to be lovers by such a test, then perhaps this old view of the subject will change to a more modern one. Just an observation! --85.226.41.61 (talk) 14:41, 14 November 2008 (UTC)

True or not, Count Axel von Fersen the Younger should be mentioned in the article. -- Petri Krohn (talk) 05:13, 3 May 2009 (UTC)

To 85.226.41.61 (talk), who wrote: Isn't it amusing somehow, that her alleged sexual relationship with Fersen is always denied by everyone who sympathise with her? I beg to differ, as many of those who symathise with her tend to believe the two may have been lovers - André Castelot, a French historian and, I believe, Mme Fraser. The only problem with such an assertion is that there is nothing to prove it, one way or the other. Frania W. (talk) 16:26, 3 May 2009 (UTC)

Question: Since DNA testing was able to etablish that the heart believed to be that of Louis XVII, was either the heart of Louis XVII or the heart of another member of the royal family, and also establish that one of the individuals who claimed to be Louis XVII was no relation to the royal family, would DNA testing also be able to show if the heart also contained the DNA of the von Fersen family? I'm not taking sides regarding the possibility that Count von Fersen was the biological father of Louis XVII, but could another round of DNA testing answer the question? (71.22.47.232 (talk) 08:00, 13 July 2010 (UTC))

The DNA from the heart is not "strong enough" (in lack of a better word) to measure it against the father. The DNA we get from mour mother (and her mother and sisters) are the ones that were used in this case.

All that aside, it is impossible (yes, I use that word) that a born and bred princess and later Queen would ever commit adultery. Ever. I don't think the thought even crossed her mind. She knew that the child she had, had to be the King's son. She would never have deared. Some women are not that sexual, and I think she found a perfect match in her husband. Antoher thing that speaks volumes, is her trial. Her enemies would have done everything possible to slander her, and they sure did that with the horrible incest accusation, but Fersen's name was only mentioned once. As the the man providing the carriage for the flight to Varennes. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Montespan (talk • contribs) 12:37, 13 August 2010 (UTC)

Story "After his father's death"

The first paragraph is largely a story, that while plausible doesn't cite any refrences and therefore likely contains some inaccuracies. I don't think it's necessary and probably breaks some neutrality rules. If there was a source where the information that lead to the writing of the story comes from, or if it is quoted from a notable work and changed format to reflect that I wouldn't have a problem with it. ASA-IRULE 04:57, 5 October 2007 (UTC)

The changes made on 16 December 2007 to the third paragraph are taken from an article by Mircea Platon that lists no sources. The paragraph should be reversed to its pre-changes state. False evidence and unverifiable stories have no place in Wikipedia, no more than in any encyclopedic article.

Frania W. (talk) 04:19, 19 December 2007 (UTC)

Agree with that, see next paragraph.91.148.159.4 (talk) 19:36, 2 May 2008 (UTC)

My edits

I had an edit conflict that I don't have time to continue. Details below:91.148.159.4 (talk) 19:36, 2 May 2008 (UTC)

Copied from Ave Caesar's talk page):

Hi, why did you revert this? Explain reverts. Regards, 91.148.159.4 (talk) 18:52, 2 May 2008 (UTC)

Now, you still haven't answered, and I don't have time to engage in a discussion that takes long. So I'm just going to repeat my edits one by one and then you can revert what you really mean to, I won't come back. Explanation for my edits (I'll copy it to the article talk, too):

1. "This use of a surname was a deliberate insult, since royalty do not normally use surnames." >> "This use of a surname was an anti-royalist statement ..." etc. Now, monarchy in France was abolished. He was not "royalty" any more. Hence, it was normal to refer to the boy by his name and surname, unless one didn't recognize the republic. In the same way, all the aristocrats, including many revolutionaries, had changed their names and their titles were not supposed to be used any longer. To say the opposite would be pro-royalist/pro-feudal POV.

2. Deletion of the last paragraph. - It depicts the same events that the next section depicts, so there is a duplication. It also depicts them from another, royalist POV, so it contradicts the next section. It describes cruelties that the next section disputes or refutes. It also includes rather wild and unusual claims such as the one that Simon led 8 year old Louis to prostitutes to contract venereal diseases!! So all in all, I think the article is better without it.

Regards, 91.148.159.4 (talk) 19:30, 2 May 2008 (UTC)

Picture

Isn't the portrait of his older brother Louis-Joseph? (92.9.188.50 (talk) 17:12, 26 September 2009 (UTC))

Needs general cleanup and rewriting

There's no doubt at the time that how Louis XVII was treated was controversial. I'd say that it can still carry a symbolic controversy today, seen as a symbol by proxy for the French revolution and its humanity or lack thereof. Given this, it's not overly surprising that the article seems to be written based on a lot of loose claims with few verifiable sources mentioned. Did he really contract Syphilis and was threatened with the Guillotine? What is supposed to be the exact meaning of saying that "Marie Jeanne, in fact, took great care of the child's person"? In my view this article would be served best by a complete rewriting, with at least a section on his early life which everyone can agree on, and an academically oriented section (hence, referencing a number of sources) of what is more or less known of his life under the Revolutionaries.158.143.136.183 (talk) 17:29, 18 October 2009 (UTC)

A lot of this could have been invented by the British. (92.12.206.20 (talk) 19:07, 18 October 2009 (UTC))

Well, it is all cited, which is more than can be said for the section "Prison and Rumors of Escape" which should probably be deleted, given it is an unreferenced section that conflicts with a referenced section. Sir rupert orangepeel (talk) 10:08, 3 December 2009 (UTC)

Made this change: "The wildness of this tale refutes itself." This sentence means to say that the tale refutes itself by its wildness. I substituted with the less highfalutin " Williams' story is generally regarded as false." Do what you want, but the first sentence makes no sense; it says that the wildness refutes itself, which makes no sense. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.76.5.12 (talk) 10:13, 5 December 2009 (UTC)

Venereal Disease

The article states he was made to sleep with prostitutes and contracted venereal diseases; this is apparently based on a single Romanian language source. Yet he died at the age of ten. Few male children are capable of sexual intercourse at such a young age.218.14.53.8 (talk) 07:38, 25 December 2009 (UTC)

Fatherhood

Is not Louis Charles’ fatherhood disputed? His mother Marie Antoinette is known to have had a lover named Axel von Fersen Jr. She had the opportunity to be alone with him during the time she could have become pregnant. As such Louis Charles was not necessary the son of his mother’s husband.

2010-06-04 Lena Synnerholm, Märsta, Sweden.

Lena Synnerholm, what do you know of the relationship between Marie Antoinette and Fersen? What allows you to affirm that they were lovers and that Fersen was Louis Charles' biological father? If they were lovers, proof of their relationship has been destroyed. All we know is that they were attracted to each other, but nothing else permits us to say more, not even the fact that through Mme Coppola's movie Hollywood states otherwise. During her lifetime, libelles & pornographic caricatures did a splendid job of character assassination, the whole of which was picked up & even made worse with accusations of incest by her "judges" at her trial. No woman in history has been so lied about. If she was guilty of any of the crimes of which she was accused, she paid the ultimate price on the scaffold. So, is not it time to stop paying attention to the rumours & let her rest in peace?

--Frania W. (talk) 16:52, 4 June 2010 (UTC)

The main point is that he was officially declared the son of Louis XVI and Marie Antoinette at his birth. For want of evidence that disproves this acknowledgement, this is what most historians accepts as fact, as anything else would be conjecture. Obviously, following the Wikipedia rule of using reliable sources, the consensus result will be that Louis XVII was legitimate. Simple as that. --Saddhiyama (talk) 20:20, 4 June 2010 (UTC)

Another point is that, no matter what the accepted fact is, there will always be someone ready & willing to adopt accusatory tactics & "go after" Marie Antoinette. The poor woman has been accused of everything under the sun and was executed. Is she to be put on an eternal trial because some people cannot stop looking through the keyhole of History in the hope of finding her in bed with Fersen?

--Frania W. (talk) 21:57, 4 June 2010 (UTC)

I don't exactly agree with that sentiment. If a historian or another scholar finds definite proof of her either sleeping with Fersen or having a child with him, it is our job to mention it in the artice. Personal sympathies should not weigh in when it comes to article content. --Saddhiyama (talk) 22:05, 4 June 2010 (UTC)

It is not a question of personal sympathy, but the realisation that Marie Antoinette has been accused of every sin & crime through libelles & other publications & that many would love to add to her "crimes" that of lèse-majesté by adultery. Maybe she & Fersen were lovers and, if they were, traces were carefully erased. So, we have no proof until more DNA test leads us to Fersen. Then we would not be dealing with rumours.

--Frania W. (talk) 22:24, 4 June 2010 (UTC)

Marie Antoinette may have been accused for just about anything. However, this does not mean that she was innocent of everything she was accused for. I consider it historically verified that she had a lover named Axel von Fersen Jr. I also think it is verified that she and Axel meet at the about the time she become pregnant. Consequentially, the father of her son Louis Charles could have been either her husband or her lover. Please note that I only feel a bit pitty for Marie Antoinette. Otherwise I have no special emotions for or against her. Anyway, I would try to find the objective truth without my emotions getting in the way.

2010-11-13 Lena Synnerholm, Märsta, Sweden.

Embalmed heart

Some people have suggested that the embalmed heart is not that of Louis Charles but instead comes from his brother Louis Joseph. Has an unbroken chain of owners been traced? If so we can be as certain as possible that the heart comes from the boy who died in prison in 1795.

2010-06-04 Lena Synnerholm, Märsta, Sweden.

Louis Joseph's heart was embalmed at his death and then lost during the revolution. The heart that was tested was not embalmed, and examination when the DNA was taken showed that the aorta was cut raggedly as if done in a hurry.

I actually refereed to the heart claimed to be from Louis Charles. If there was no kind of preservation – either intentional or unintentional – there would have been no DNA to analyse. What I wondered was how we can know that the heart in question really is from the boy who died in prison in 1795.

2010-08-22 Lena Synnerholm, Märsta, Sweden.

Title and NPOV

I wonder if the title of this article breaks NPOV... He was, after all, never King of France. France was a Republic in 1793-1795. He was only considered to be "King Louis XVII of France" by the royalists. Would not this mean, that it is POV to call him this? Would it not be better to call him Louis, Dauphin of France? He was dauphin, but he was never King. Is it not to be POV to call him what only the monarchists called him?

I am not making this query to provoce any one, I am neutral when it comes to this issue, but it think it is an important question. What is the policy about titular monarchs? --85.226.42.215 (talk) 02:30, 25 July 2010 (UTC)

The article title is reasonable, because that is what people are most likely to search for: Louis XVII was the one in between Louis XVI and Louis XVIII. The article makes it clear that although some considered that he held the title of "king" he was never in fact the ruler. Aymatth2 (talk) 03:00, 25 July 2010 (UTC)

Le Roi est mort, vive le Roi! is the traditional phrase said at the death of a king of France, which means that, at the time of death of a king, the next in line became king immediately. So, when Louis XVI was executed, the second his head fell, his son was king Louis XVII of France, which, of course, was not recognised by the Republic, but was by the royalists. When Louis XVII died, his uncle, the comte de Provence became king Louis XVIII, although he was living in exile.

--Frania W. (talk) 02:32, 29 July 2010 (UTC)

That rationale leads into a debate about whether he could legitimately be styled "king" when France was a republic. The title is correct simply because it is the most likely search term, regardless of rights and wrongs. Aymatth2 (talk) 15:21, 29 July 2010 (UTC)

That rationale (yours) leads into a debate about whether the comte de Provence should have been crowned king of France as Louis XVII instead of Louis XVIII.

--Frania W. (talk) 17:02, 29 July 2010 (UTC)

His supporters considered he was Louis XVIII and the supporters of the republic or the empire presumably did not recognize his legitimacy at all. The simplest way to avoid arguments about the "right" title is just to use the most common title, and explain in the text of the article. Aymatth2 (talk) 17:21, 29 July 2010 (UTC)

I agree. Just mentioning him as Louis XVII without any explanation will only confuse more than it will enlighten. --

He was considered to be king, but he was not. According to the royalists, he became King upon the death of his father automatically. To say he was not recongized as king makes it sounds like he was in reality king, even tough this "fact" was not "recognized"; it makes it sounds like he became king biologically, by nature. But this is not reality. France was a republic, even though the royalists disagree. This is a fact, not a question of recognition. It is POV to take the side of the royalists. The comte de Provence did not become king in 1795; he considered himself to have become king, but in reality, he did no become king until 1814. His uncle took his number because he was POV because of his views: this is not to be regarded as any proof that his nephew had been king, only that he was considered to have been king. and indeed, his uncle did take the wrong number, because of his POV. The fact is, that France was a Republic in 1792-1804, and wp should present the reality as it was, not the reality according to royalist POV. Of course many people will use the name "Louis XVII of France" in their search here, just as Aymatth2 says above. But this will have the same function if we redirect "Louis XVII of France". Thereby, that problem is solved. Wikipedia should, according to its rules of NPOV, redirect this name and adjust to facts as they truly where, not to facts as they where considered to be. --85.226.42.215 (talk) 20:17, 6 August 2010 (UTC)

Frania W, you removed the fact that France was a Republic in 1792-1795 and that he was therefore not a king. That was POV. It does not matter whether we are royalists ourselves. In wp, we must see to reality. Please try to be neutral. Your text gave the impression, that he was in reality king, although he was not recognized as such. This is royalist POV. Why not vote about the title? --85.226.42.215 (talk) 20:27, 6 August 2010 (UTC)

TO: 85.226.42.215,

According to your logic, as France was a republic & this child had lost his titles, he would not have been Dauphin de France either, only Citoyen Louis Charles Capet.

And since his father (I dare not say "the King" for fear of being accused of royalist leanings!) had lost his crown long before losing his head and was called by the republicans "Citoyen Capet", why not rename his article Citoyen Capet, Sr. and that of his son Citoyen Capet, Jr.?

Cordialement,

--Frania W. (talk) 02:17, 7 August 2010 (UTC)

Inconsistencies

The DNA testing that proves he died in prison as a boy is covered in the article, but earlier the article states the mystery is open and another section says evidence favors his escape. The imposter theories certainly need coverage, but it should also be made clear that they've been disproven rather conclusively.

Requested move

The following discussion is an archived discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the move request was: no consensus to support move. Arbitrarily0 ^(talk) 16:29, 29 September 2010 (UTC)

---

Louis XVII of France → Louis XVII — "Louis XVII" is completely unambiguous. Furthermore, it is the title here not because he was king of France (he was not), but because this is the most common way to refer to him. While I don't really think we should pre-emptively disambiguate in general, there is truly no need to pre-emptively disambiguate per WP:NCROY for Louis XVII, because he wasn't actually a king. john k (talk) 15:53, 11 September 2010 (UTC)

Survey

Feel free to state your position on the renaming proposal by beginning a new line in this section with *'''Support''' or *'''Oppose''', then sign your comment with ~~~~. Since polling is not a substitute for discussion, please explain your reasons, taking into account Wikipedia's policy on article titles.

• Oppose This is not a matter of disambiguating. He's not referred to just as "Louis XVII", but as "Louis XVII of France". If there were a flower named after him, or a passing reference to him in an article on children's clothing, then he would not be called just "Louis XVII". Let's give him his full name which includes "of France". It's just plain incorrect to suggest that most royals can be referred to merely by their first names and without some country designation. Napoleon is an exception - but so too is Cher. Noel S McFerran (talk) 13:38, 12 September 2010 (UTC)
• Oppose, as I agree with Mcferran for the same reasons, so I won't repeat them. -- fdewaele, 15 september 2010, 16:27.

There are all kinds of situations where we provide additional context for in articles on children's clothing. The fact that one sometimes needs to provide additional context doesn't have anything to do with what an article should be titled. john k (talk) 15:04, 15 September 2010 (UTC)

• Oppose. The title does not state he was king, but because this is the manner used for kings, I understand your concern about what it implies. Personally, I think the article titles of royals should be given in the manner of "Louis XV, King of France", which would help avoid any implications or confusion with this article. [tk] XANDERLIPTAK 14:12, 15 September 2010 (UTC)
• Oppose - Whether he ever reigned or not, he was king; of course, not in the eyes of the revolutionaries who kept him prisoner in the Temple & let him die like a dog, but as the continuation of the line of the Kings of France. For whatever reason, his uncle, the comte de Provence, took the title Louis XVIII, not Louis XVII, which means that, historically speaking, he considered his nephew to have been Louis XVII. Consequently, if all the others are Henry, Charles or Louis (number) of France, Louis XVII has his place among them. --Frania W. (talk) 14:53, 15 September 2010 (UTC)

He was not king because the Republic was the de facto government of France. Is Louis XX (or Henri VII) also king of France? I don't see how Louis XVII's claim to have actually been king is much stronger than theirs. john k (talk) 15:04, 15 September 2010 (UTC)

Indeed he was not. His uncle Louis XVIII merely took the regnal numerial XVIII, because he personally (and the monarchists) considered the monarchy as having (retroactively) never been abolished. He considered his nephew as having been King from 1793 to 1795 & himself as King since 1795. GoodDay (talk) 15:52, 15 September 2010 (UTC)

Hugh Magnus of France and Philip of France have both been crowned kings yet neither of them is assigned an ordinal. Do ordinal numbers make people monarchs? Surtsicna (talk) 16:12, 15 September 2010 (UTC)

Since "the Republic was the de facto government of France", which had deposed Louis XVI, who thus was not king when he was executed in 1793, but "Citizen Louis Capet", making his wife, the ex-Queen of France, the "Widow Capet", and since their son is referred to on his death certificate as "Louis Charles Capet", not acknowledged as King Louis XVII of France, why not reflect these in the title of their respective articles with the names given them by the de facto Republic: "Citizen Capet", "Widow Capet" and "Citizen Louis Charles Capet"?[1]

--Frania W. (talk) 18:27, 15 September 2010 (UTC)

Those are the highest positions they held (King & Queen-regnant). As for their son? blame the historians for that one. GoodDay (talk) 20:29, 15 September 2010 (UTC)

Whether or not Louis XVI was king at his death, he certainly had been king before 1792. That is an entirely different matter from Louis XVII, who was never king. He is best known as Louis XVII, so that should appear in his article title, but he wasn't actually king. john k (talk) 20:32, 15 September 2010 (UTC)

To add further, it's made quite clear in the Louis XVII article's infobox & content, that the little guy was never King. GoodDay (talk) 20:45, 15 September 2010 (UTC)

Then, why is he known as Louis XVII? --Frania W. (talk) 22:22, 15 September 2010 (UTC)

Why is this American country musician known as "Hank Williams III"? Surtsicna (talk) 13:39, 16 September 2010 (UTC)

The title of king is hereditary, and passes to the heir upon the death or abdication of his predecessor, just like any other title. When a monarchy is overthrown, the new republic will of course ignore numbering the heirs of the monarchy because the republic, in order to claim sovereignty, must abolish and make illegal the royal title. However, the dynasty always counts the heirs because they will argue the coup illegal or invalid, and declare the republic had no right to claim sovereignty because the monarchs never abdicated sovereignty to the republic. Also, simply because a nation declares a royal title illegal does not obliterate it from the face of the earth, and other countries may still recognize the abolished title, if not the full sovereignty of the deposed monarch, over the authenticity of the new republic. So such things are often contentious and debatable, over who has proper and legal authority. It seems, then, a fair compromise to number the deposed heirs according to tradition, customs and (former) laws of the dynasty, but withhold the actual title from the article name to avoid confrontation with republicans and the new laws that contradict the old. [tk] XANDERLIPTAK 13:32, 17 September 2010 (UTC)

In total agreement with the above argument by Xanderliptak. And while en:wiki is discussing whether this little guy should be Louis XVII, King of France and of Navarre or not, what do we do with the proclamation by the comte de Provence, new Régent du Royaume, made from Hamm on 28 January 1793, and accepted by European countries, plus the United States of America? Are we supposed to ignore it or decide that it is not valid?

• "Nous déclarons que le Dauphin Louis-Charles, né le vingt-septième jour du mois de mars 1785, est ROI DE FRANCE ET DE NAVARRE, sous le nom de Louis XVII, et que par droit de naissance, ainsi que par les dispositions des lois fondamentales du royaume, nous sommes et serons Régent de France durant la minorité du Roi notre neveu et seigneur......

Ce 28 janvier de l'an 1793, et du règne du Roi, le premier."

You can read the whole proclamation here [2]

--Frania W. (talk) 15:51, 17 September 2010 (UTC)

Ought we have James III of England, as well? john k (talk) 16:26, 17 September 2010 (UTC)

John, (I hate to disagree with you!), but who are we to judge in the case of Louis XVII? Is Wikipedia an encyclopedia reporting the facts as they happened - on one side the Republicans, who abolished the monarchy and executed the king; on the other the Royalists, who never recognized the death of the monarchy which lived through a child, and who eventually restored it -, or is this the Tribunal of History, seating both as Judge & Jury?

If you look at the history of France in the 19th century, First Empire, Restoration, July Monarchy, Second Republic, Second Empire, Third Republic, while none of these regimes ignored its predecessor(s), they all took the next number of the "family" to which they belonged, and all are acknowledged by the name they were known at the time: Louis XVIII is not named Louis XVII in French history books. France is now in its fifth Republic, and it acknowledges all previous regimes as having existed, it does not throw them into limboland, which is what en:wiki wants to do to Louis XVII.

--Frania W. (talk) 17:14, 17 September 2010 (UTC)

We can judge on the basis that reliable sources do not consider Louis XVII to have ever reigned. Neither did the people who offered the throne to Louis XVIII, whom they called "Louis Stanislas Xavier". The reign of Louis XVII, as well as the reign of Louis XVIII prior to 1814, exist only in the beliefs of legitimists, and perhaps in the momentary recognition of the great powers for a king ho did not actually reign. Obviously Louis XVIII should be called such, just as Pope Alexander VI should be called that, even though Pope Alexander V is not normally considered to have been a legitimate pope. We call people by how they are known. If they take ordinals that don't make sense, so be it. Louis XVII is obviously a well known personage under that name, but he was not king of France; France was a republic from 1792 to 1804. Beyond that, you didn't answer my question about James III. The Old Pretender was, like Louis XVII, recognized as King of England by various foreign monarchs, including Louis XIV. His supporters also had intermittent control of parts of the British Isles on his behalf, especially parts of Scotland in 1715-1716 and 1745-1746, which is at least as much as Louis XVII ever got (I believe that Toulon recognized him for a while in 1793). But we don't call him king, because he didn't actually reign. The same is true for Louis XVII, except that we have to call him Louis XVII because this is how he is known. john k (talk) 17:59, 17 September 2010 (UTC)

"...we don't call him king, because he didn't actually reign." What kind of reign did 12-year old Edward V of England have? What did he accomplish during his two months of actually being (not crowned) King of England while locked up in the Tower of London?

In my eyes, the fate of Louis XVII is more to be compared to that of Edward V with the conduct of his uncle Richard similar to that of the French revolutionaries who dragged France into the Terror. I know, you are going to tell me that things did not happen in the same order for the two boys as, after the death of his father, Edward V was the rightful king of England, then was imprisoned in the London Tower on the order of his uncle the usurper, stripped of his kingship, thanks to the claim hat he & his brother were illegitimate, and left to die only God knows how; while, Louis-Charles de France had been stripped of all his royal titles, inheritance & rightful name, before being imprisoned in the Temple Tower, then left to die as citoyen Charles Capet in a cubicle only God knows how.

A similar end for two innocent young boys, one, Edward V, a real king, according to en:wiki, but not according to his uncle who had dispossessed him; the other, Louis XVII, not a king because “he did not reign”, and also according to the revolutionaries who had dispossessed him.

--Frania W. (talk) 07:19, 18 September 2010 (UTC)

Edward V was actually recognized as king for a couple of months, and actions were carried out in his name. This is not the case for Louis XVII. The fact that both had unfortunate fates has nothing to do with the fact that Edward V was recognized as king of England for several months, while Louis XVII only "succeeded" to the throne after France had been a republic for five months and his "regent" was living in exile and had no authority in the country either. The situations are not analogous. john k (talk) 16:46, 18 September 2010 (UTC)

• Support as IMHO, the Monarch # of country style is archaic. GoodDay (talk) 15:47, 15 September 2010 (UTC)

Archaic, perhaps, but it still in use to this present day. We can not simply ignore titles because they have origins that date back several centuries, to say "Let's not do that, because it's old." The biggest problem with the current format is the implication of sovereignty, even to those who do not have such powers. So the kings with sovereignty are titled as John I of Narnia, and the princes as John of Narnia. Now, since the former is king, one might assume the latter to be a king since the article title is set up in the same format. Or confuse the latter for the former, or assume the latter was the only John to be of Narnia because they are unaware that there are to be numerals in the article title. Putting in the full royal title leaves no room for mistakes, nor wastes the readers time searching around for the right article. John I, King of Narnia is quite clear and distinct from Prince John of Narnia. [tk] XANDERLIPTAK 13:30, 17 September 2010 (UTC)

• Support, I find the oppose arguments incoherent. Here we have someone who is clearly most commonly known as "Louis XVII", and who is the only person called "Louis XVII". Any "disambiguation" is superfluous (as indeed it is for the other King Louis's), and inconsistency with the others is no bad thing in any case, as this unfortunate boy was not a king in the same way that they were.--Kotniski (talk) 15:10, 18 September 2010 (UTC)

Then the disambiguation page should be a redirect page. I find it more incoherent to have one article named "John I of Place", then the successor's article titled "John II", followed by "John Smith", then back to "John IV of Place". [tk] XANDERLIPTAK 23:59, 22 September 2010 (UTC)

Discussion

Any additional comments:

That would be the title if we agreed to get rid of pre-emptive disambiguation, as John K has proposed - We'd have:

Capetian kings of France.

1. Hugh Capet - or Hugh, King of France
2. Robert II, King of France
3. Henry I, King of France
4. Philip I, King of France
5. Louis VI, King of France (or Louis VI, if he is the primary topic as I believe he is)
6. Louis VII, King of France (or Louis VII, if he is the primary topic as I believe he is)
7. Philip II, King of France
8. Louis VIII, King of France (or Louis VIII, if he is the primary topic as I believe he is)
9. Louis IX, King of France (or Louis IX, if he is the primary topic as I believe he is)
10. Philip III, King of France
11. Philip IV, King of France
12. Louis X, King of France (or Louis X, if he is the primary topic as I believe he is)
13. Philip V, King of France
14. Charles IV, King of France
15. Philip VI, King of France
16. John II, King of France
17. Charles V, King of France
18. Charles VI, King of France
19. Charles VII, King of France
20. Louis XI
21. Charles VIII, King of France
22. Louis XII
23. Francis I, King of France
24. Henry II, King of France
25. Francis II, King of France
26. Charles IX, King of France
27. Henry III, King of France
28. Henry IV, King of France
29. Louis XIV
30. Louis XV
31. Louis XVI
32. Louis XVII - currently proposed
33. Napoleon I - already there
34. Napoleon II - already there
35. Louis XVIII
36. Charles X, King of France
37. Louis Philippe I - already there
38. Napoleon III - already there

For kings between Hugh and Philip II, we might use "King of the Franks" instead of "King of France" - since we use Wenceslaus, King of the Romans instead of Wenceslaus, King of Germany. Surtsicna (talk) 16:21, 11 September 2010 (UTC)

Indeed. In this case, though, I don't think we need to change the convention. john k (talk) 16:34, 11 September 2010 (UTC)

Philip II, Philippe Auguste, who became "Roi des Francs" (Rex Francorum) at the death of his father, gave himself the tile "Roi de France" (Rex franciæ) in 1190. Consequently, should he not be listed with the "Kings of France" since he was the first to bear such a title?

--Frania W. (talk) 15:34, 12 September 2010 (UTC)

Who suggested otherwise? Surtsicna (talk) 16:13, 15 September 2010 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.