Talk:Louis VIII of France

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search

Added to category of English Monarchs[edit]

I'd never even heard of Louis' invasion of England and subsequent proclamation as King of England until relatively recently, and certainly never heard about it at school. Reader over the issue, it seems Louis has at least as much claim to be considered an "English monarch" as Lady Jane Grey who was also proclaimed monarch but never crowned. Isn't it funny how this second French invasion of England never gets mentioned? Cheers, Neale Neale Monks 18:52, 24 February 2007 (UTC)

It was less an invasion, more a civil war - Louis was invited and sponsored by the English Barons, and depended on them for support; the war was based far more on English internal problems than external threats (note that I said 'less an invasion' - certainly in some ways it was an invasion, given that he landed with troops, but on the other hand the Barons would have argued he was securing what was already his). As to why it is less frequently mentioned, I think it was based partially on English embarrassment that the whole affair had happened, partially on post-event clarification of the rules of succession, and partially on the later evolution of 'Divine Right of Kings', which allowed monarchs to claim that monarchy came only from God: thus, the crown was not the gift of the Barons, but must pass according to the law of the land, supposedly sanctioned by God; and the King would thus be Henry III, who was legitimately crowned and anointed in 1216 (thus sanctioned by God, supposedly - coronation was always a very important element of kingship), not Louis, who was never crowned (and thus, by some standards, never King anyway - a similar example is the heiress of Alexander III of Scotland, who died before being crowned, confusing the issue of whether she had been Queen or not - although Louis was at least solidly proclaimed King). It's all a mixture of mediaeval ritual, custom and law, and post-event rewriting. It's debateable as to whether he has as much of a claim to be considered King of England as Jane Grey - he signed a treaty which in legal terms pretended the previous two years hadn't happened and which stripped him of his rights to the title; he didn't have any noteable claim to the English throne, either by blood, law, or conquest; he wasn't crowned; there was no later rehabilitation of his claim; and he didn't win. These factors together make his claim to have been King, though existent, nonetheless sparser than that of Jane Grey (and in absolute terms pretty low). Michaelsanders 19:47, 24 February 2007 (UTC)
All very interesting, thank you! The place I heard about Prince Louis was a Radio 4 program called "Making History". You can listen to it again at the link below (the actual item is about 10 minutes in the program). Cheers, Neale Neale Monks 21:39, 24 February 2007 (UTC)
Lady Jane Grey was named successor to the throne of England by Edward VI. How then could Louis VIII be considered to have had a stronger claim to the English crown than Jane? Besides, even had King John been deposed following Louis's proclamation as king, Henry III as his legitimate son would have, by right of primogeniture succeeded him not Louis, despite the barons' support. Had Louis insisted on claiming the throne, a very bloody civil war would have ensued as Henry had many powerful maternal relatives in France and his own mother would never have stood aside and allowed her son to be disinherited. Recall that Isabella of Angouleme later rebelled against King Louis IX following her second marriage to Hugh de Lusignan, Count of La Marche.--Jeanne Boleyn (talk) 09:37, 17 March 2009 (UTC)
Indeed, Louis VIII of France was never King of England. GoodDay (talk) 14:01, 17 March 2009 (UTC)
Bollocks, see Talk:Henry_VI_of_England#King_of_France. Oh, nativism stinks like just what it is: FOUL! You lot would be happy to promote Henry VI as King of France, but not Louis VIII as King of England. Be fair and you may have enough reason to be "edgy" around the French presence in England, for whitewashing it will do no good. Louis did more for England than Henry did for France. Read the argument and weep at your nostalgic francophobia. William of Orange, the reincarnated Dauphin. I have said enough and will not argue with such thickheaded prejudices more than that. Catterick (talk) 09:53, 17 April 2009 (UTC)
FRANCOPHOBIA?!!!!!Who is a Francophobe here?! GoodDay and I are both PROUD to claim genetic descent from early French pioneers to North America. Check out my user page. I am extremely proud of my French ancestry. The kings of England and France in the middle ages were both ethnically French, besides, nationalism played no part in their claims, just lust for more power. Obviously a joint kingdom of France and England would have presented a strong power base in Europe which few could have rivalled. --Jeanne Boleyn (talk) 15:29, 18 April 2009 (UTC)
Utter nonescence Chaterrick.Henry VI was crowned Henri II of France and inherited france as every single historion states unless of course your contridicting pure fact.Henry VI had legal claim and the law on his side and was a de jure king of france until 1429 and de facto until 1453.Utter rubbish Henry was always a king of france but was unnumberd in regnal templates but that in now way means he was never a french king.He shares bieng unnumberd like charles the fat but we dont say he was never a french king.The reason why They were happy to leave Henry there was because I mentioned multiple resources,facts and I fortunately beat them at the debate(No offence to jeann or GoodDay) as already said Henry succeded his grandfather as king of france(No contridiction) as well as with Charles the dissinherited heir.What type of promotion is that when it is simple fact that happend.also Charles and Henry were both legitimate kings of france as they were both disscrimated of there rights from ancestry(Edward III) and by justice and treaty(Treaty of troyes).Jeanne has correctly stated Louis had no legitimacy or law on his side to make his claim unlike Henry V.He anyway as you said also solidly proclaimed king of england which is correct and was able to have de facto power in england assuring him a regnal title,But he confessed in the treaty he had no claim and that he was a pretender to england.He was pretending to be a king of england in otherwords he is not a regnal soveriegn and cannot share bieng unnumberd king of england as he confessed in an international treaty.Henry never ended his claim and lived a full life as king of france for 32years.henry was a regnal king in dispute with charles but Louis was a pretnder and nothing more.The list only features regnal kings and somethimes unnumberd regnal kings such as Henry VI or Charles the fat even though they are not in the official regnal template since they are unnumberd.No historion supports your nonscence claims and you should have mentioned a source but if you give me a source saying he was proclaimed king of england that in no way means he is a regnal king of england.Also your other unsupported and nonsence claim about Louis doing more for england then Henry for France.Henrys legitimacy was regognized internationaly by northen frenchmen and burgundians as henry as there king and they as his vassals or subjects as king of france however they are alien to him as king of england in other words serving him as his vassal to the french throne and not to the english throne.John the duke of Bedford also found the university of caen in 1432 while Loiuis in my record says he wasnt much of a benifet at all to england.Also Chaterix watch your language and nonsence claims to other users saying they are franco-something.Again please give me a source which says he is king of england.--HENRY V OF ENGLAND (talk) 19:16, 20 April 2009 (UTC)
Who's Chaterix? GoodDay (talk) 19:24, 20 April 2009 (UTC)
Sorry GoodDay I meant Chaterrick--HENRY V OF ENGLAND (talk) 22:57, 20 April 2009 (UTC)
I think I have proven my point.Saying Louis as a english monarch is as crazy as saying Henry VI of england and(unnumberd)of France was never king of france.The Double-Monarchy ruled for 31years under the personal union of Henry king of England and france,Lord of Ireland prince of Wales.--HENRY V OF ENGLAND (talk) 23:18, 20 April 2009 (UTC)
"Effectively ruled for 31 years"??. I think not. The Treaty of Arras(1435) was "effective" for the English? Whereas by 1444, the English were so hard pressed they signed the Treaty of Tours, hoping that Henry VI's marriage to Maragaret of Anjou would help his claim. Later in 1446, without the permission of the Estates, Henry had decided on his own to meet with Charles VII, violating the Treaty of Troyes. By no means would I call the failure of a major English expedition(1443) led by the Duke of Somerset as "effective". I find your proclamations fallacious and utterly questionable. --Kansas Bear (talk) 00:53, 31 May 2009 (UTC)

Sorry I just meant to elaborate.I meant it ruled for 31 years.The treaty said The parties couldnt make peace without the permisstion of the three.Burgundy,France,England.--HENRY V OF ENGLAND (talk) 18:19, 31 May 2009 (UTC)

PS.How does one mistake apparently make my arguements Fallacious.Your remark is utter nonscence as it is based on false premises.And also I find your arguement on the truce of tours 1444 bieng forced on the english laughable.The English had needed peace since there last council in 1439 with both burgundy and France.The English made the reccomendation for a peace not Charles VII.It was decided that Maine-Anjou should be given over to Charles instead of the customary dowry to Margerat.There would be Two Frances with its own juristiction like in ancient times and each king shall be de facto kings over either the north or south and with no de jure kings.Please dont post nonscence especially with your point on the Congrass of Arras.As you made the elementry mistake of calling it a treaty it was in fact a congrass.More of your desciptive remarks is about the Congrass bieng in upper hand to the English.Thats what I call nonscence lol.Burgundy needed the his oath to the treaty and the treaty itself to be declared invalid.Burgundy forged an alliance with france until 1439 when they still recognized Charles as king but broke of the alliance with no ill will intentions to the three partys of English France,Burgundy and Valois France.Please dont give me bad attitude because its not niece is it? --HENRY V OF ENGLAND (talk) 18:46, 31 May 2009 (UTC)

Go to your talk page,I have provided you with reference which refutes all your nonsensical claims.--HENRY V OF ENGLAND (talk) 01:34, 1 June 2009 (UTC)

But is it right to call him a pretender? That would only apply to someone who wasn't crowned. If someone is crowned, he is a crowned King, whether or not it is later seen as invalid. 92.7.162.208 (talk) 17:00, 24 October 2010 (UTC)

File:Louis8lelion.jpg Nominated for Deletion[edit]

Image-x-generic.svg 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) 06:21, 6 September 2011 (UTC)

Disputed King of England[edit]

I had added on 29 August 2015 a succession box at the bottom of the page for Louis VIII that he was a "Disputed" King of England, which is true. However, User:Hchc2009 moved the title to "Titular" and changed the template, arguing that: "to be the King (disputed or otherwise), you needed to be coronated; see cited Carpenter source". This statement is absolutely wrong, at least as far as Wikipedia standards go. If this is the case, then please remove John I of France as a king, as well as Edward V of England and Edward VIII of England. None of them were crowned but modern historians consider them all kings. Being crowned does not make one king, which is why people like Philippe III of France were able to assert their royal authority before they were crowned. In fact, Louis VIII of France was the first Capetian king of France to not be crowned during his father's lifetime, which means he ruled uncoronated for a short time after Philippe II's death. Had Louis died prior to his coronation would he not be considered king? Absolutely not! He'd just be a very short-lived king. There is definitely precedent for kings to forego coronation or die before the ceremony, but that does not make them any less the king.

Louis VIII was a "disputed" king of England. The very fact that we are discussing this proves that fact. As a disputed king, he had actual power over a portion of England, power that was given to him by the barons. The fact that he had to sign a treaty denying he ever claimed the English throne is proof that he had claimed the English throne during this time. And the fact that we have dates for both his assumption of that claim and the abandonment of that claim further is evidence. Louis was a disputed king of England and I challenge you to argue his case was any different than Napoleon II's or Louis Antoine, Duke of Angoulême's, both of whom are considered "Disputed" emperor/king of France.
Darius von Whaleyland, Great Khan of the Barbarian Horde 22:32, 29 August 2015 (UTC)

There's an extensive body of literature on the nature of medieval kingship in both England and France, exploring some of the similarities and many differences between the two. The Anglo-Norman traditions of selecting kings, the role of the Church and God in the process, the purposes/meanings of coronations were different from those in Capetian France (and different again to the Empire etc.). The Anglo-Norman debates over the period about the role of primogeniture, election, the coronation oath, etc. were very real: witness the discussions over how the young Henry III should portray his first coronation, and the justification for the second. Louis "claimed" the throne, but that didn't make him a king unless he had been coronated by the Church - and, of course, Louis wasn't the first would-be medieval English monarch to come badly unstuck over their failure to achieve this! The key task on the Wikipedia, though, is to follow reliable sources for the period. I can't find any evidence of modern historians describing Louis as the "disputed King of England", which would be essential if we were to make the claim in articles here. Hchc2009 (talk) 06:58, 30 August 2015 (UTC)
I concede to your argument in this specific case. I have heavily modified his succession box while also removing his predecessor and successor. I have actually seen historians call him both "titular" and "disputed" king of England (or equivalents), but I did not think to record such instances at the time I saw them. Technically Louis' claim to England falls just outside my PhD topic on Capetian dynasticism (I am focusing on 1270 to 1490). If I run across those references again, I will bring them here. Louis did have a very vague hereditary claim to England through his wife, I remember. His wife was a granddaughter of Henry II of England via Castile. That was recorded by chroniclers as the reason why his claim was legitimate.
Darius von Whaleyland, Great Khan of the Barbarian Horde 08:12, 30 August 2015 (UTC)