Talk:Philip III of France

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

old comment[edit]

Someone saw fit to change the way I set the opening lines here. I did it here (and elsewhere) to make it easier on the eyes to digest the facts because the multitude of words, interspersed with coloration, is hard to absorb.... DW


Does anybody else find it redundant to begin an article as "X [ordinal] of [Kingdom] ... was the King of [Kingdom]"? Srnec 22:26, 8 April 2007 (UTC)

His name in standard usage is Philip III of France, not Philip III. Michael Sanders 13:58, 9 April 2007 (UTC)
"of France" cannot be considered part of his name. That was just Philip. However, that requires disambiguation in most (but not all) contexts and so we have the epithet "the Bold" and the ordinal "III." Because the ordinal is meaningless without an indicator of his title, "of France" is added. This has nothing to do with his "name." My point about the redundancy is still relevant. There is no ambiguity in: "Philip III (died 1285), called the Bold, was the King of France from 1270 to his death." One can know exactly who he is and what he is called from that opening line and it doesn't insult one's intelligence. Srnec 19:21, 9 April 2007 (UTC)
I agree with Srnec, besides we use the same thing in other peoples articles, for example: Bill Clinton begins William Jefferson Clinton. So why can't Philip III of France begin just Philip III? Carl Logan 19:31, 9 April 2007 (UTC)
Because that's Clinton's formal name. The bold text is meant to show the accepted scholarly name. Otherwise, I could (for example) alter introductory name of Marie Antoinette to Maria Johanna Josepha Antonia, for example. So far as I understand it, the bold text introduction is meant to show the name the article uses as the 'real' name. So, in this case, he is not 'Philip III' (there are other Philip IIIs), he is 'Philip III of France'. He is never referred to as 'Philip III' unless already disambiguated as 'Philip III of France'. Michael Sanders 19:39, 9 April 2007 (UTC)
But he can be disambiguated many ways and in some contexts no disambiguation from "Philip III" would be needed. Why can't "Philip III, King of France" be his "scholarly" name, for instance? What does "Marie Antoinette" have to do with anything? That's her name. It is precisely my point that "of France" is not a part of Philip's name and need not be treated as such. Srnec 20:27, 9 April 2007 (UTC)

Descendents of Phillip III[edit]

The article on Isabella of Aragon says she and Phillip III had 4 sons (Louis, Phillip, Robert, and Charles), that Louis was born in 1264, and that she died in 1271.

The article on Phillip III of France says he had 3 sons (Louis, Phillip, and Charles) by his 1st wife, Isabella of Aragon, and 3 children (Louis, Blanche, and Margaret) by his 2nd wife, Marie de Brabant. Robert isn't mentioned at all, which is unusual, since Wikipedia articles on royalty usually llist even the stillborns.

It further states that Phillip's firstborn Louis was born in 1266 and died in May 1276 - which is the same month that Marie gave birth to Phillip's second son named Louis. This is a pretty remarkable coincidence.

What year was the first Louis born? Is there any evidence of how/why he Louis died? —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 13:55, 30 April 2008 (UTC)

Question about Charles, Count of Valois[edit]


Philip III of France has a son who was the count of Anjou and Valois. His name is Charles III of Anjou & I of Valois. However, it says so in Counts and Dukes of Anjou. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Cmach7 (talkcontribs) 14:19, 25 April 2012 (UTC)

He is commonly known as Charles, Count of Valois.[1] Emphasis on Anjou is an inaccurate representation. --Vrok (talk) 17:09, 25 April 2012 (UTC)