Talk:List of French monarchs/Archive 6

Archive 1

←

Archive 4

Archive 5

Archive 6

Archive 7

Cusio's unsourced edits about Henry VI

Here are the refs:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

main book:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Here are the Refs from French Academics:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Statement about French people not anknowledging Henry VI

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Encyclopedias:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Henry VI in English books on the History of England

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

10 August 1792

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Merovingians and early Carolingians missing

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

Raoul/Rodolphe

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

This article is not NPOV

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

Surname

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

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

Henry VI of England

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Choice of arms

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

File:Louis IV of France.PNG Nominated for Deletion

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

File:Louis8lelion.jpg Nominated for Deletion

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

Question on Henry III and possibly Francis II

Henry III was never simultaneously King of Poland and France, at least according to my understanding: He abdicated/vacated the Polish throne when he was named King of France. I don't know that he ever used the title or style "King of France and Poland". He was King of Poland and then he was King of France. This is different from the various Kings who were simultaneously King of France and Navarre, or maybe even Francis II as King of France and King of Scotland (jure uxoris). I also have question whether or not Francis ever used the style "King of France and Scotland" or maintained distinct styles for his two roles. Does anyone have sources on this? A source which shows the style used by Henry III and Francis II would be helpful here. Did Henry ever use the style "King of France and Poland" or did Francis ever use "King of France and Scotland?" --Jayron32 03:42, 27 March 2012 (UTC)

Henry III was actually briefly king of both France and Poland from 30 May 1574 (when he became king of France) to 12 May 1575 (when he ceased to be king of Poland). Francis II was also king (consort) of Scotland until 5 December 1560, and king of France since 10 July 1559. Whether either of them used the title "king of France and Poland" or "king of France and Scotland" I don't know. Drilou (talk) 16:11, 28 March 2012 (UTC)

Was his formal ouster by the Sejm considered to be retroactive to the date he abandoned Poland or did they consider him to still be king until he was formally ousted? That is, is he considered to have remained king until he was forced to give up the title, or was he considered to have cease being king when he left in the night to take the job in France? --Jayron32 16:46, 28 March 2012 (UTC)

He wasn't ousted, he simply left Poland (secretly) when he heard about the death of his brother, as he considered being king of France much preferable to being king of Poland, which he quite disliked from the beginning. The Polish parliament then elected a new king after he had been gone for 18 months. Drilou (talk) 10:24, 29 March 2012 (UTC)

He was technically ousted when he refused to return to Poland. I understand the timeline of events, but was just trying to clarify the trivial legalities involved: When the Polish realized he wasn't coming back, they considered it a de facto abdication. If the date of the abdication was the date he skipped town, he was never really simultaneously King of both countries, if the date of the abdication was the date the Polish officially declared him to have abdicated, then he was, technically. It's a small point, however, and I note that you have seperated the titles in the table. That looks fine, and I don't think we need to belabor the point anymore. It looks good now. --Jayron32 13:39, 29 March 2012 (UTC)

Not editing anymore

Please don't delete Theuderic I, Theudebert I, Guntram, Theudebald &/or Cholomer. They are both French Monarchs. And please don't delete Pharamond as Chlodio's father and replacing that blank with Theudemeres. Pharamond is really Chlodio's father. Thanks. Cmach7 (talk).

Pharamond is a mythical king, there is no historical evidence for his existence whatsoever. He was invented in the Liber Historiae Francorum and has as much credibility as the legend about Merovingians being descendants of the last Trojans. Chlodio's father was most likely Theudemeres, himself son of Richomeres. Look up the relevant articles for more information (the French version features a full family tree: http://fr.wikipedia.org/wiki/Th%C3%A9odomir).

According to this website: http://www.geni.com/people/Chlodio-I-le-Chevelu-Roi-des-Francs/6000000002143053627, Pharamond is Chlodio's father. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Cmach7 (talk • contribs) 01:49, 27 March 2012 (UTC)

Geni.com isn't a reliable source; especially in light of the fact that the information there is a) not vetted and reviewed by recognized experts, and is b) directly contradicted by sources which are. I can make a website which says that I was the father of Chlodio. It wouldn't make it true. Furthermore, individual petty kings of various Frankish subtribes and petty kingdoms aren't usually included among recognized Kings of the Franks/French/France, which usually only includes those kings with a legitimate claim to being the King of all of the Franks/French. Seperate articles more properly cover such kings, for example see Neustria#Rulers, Austrasia#Rulers, and other similar articles which covers such divisions. Prior to the 5th century, even smaller divisions of the Frankish peoples existed, the Franks were a wide-ranging and disunited peoples. --Jayron32 03:31, 27 March 2012 (UTC)

There are other websites besides this one that says that Theudemeres is a king of the ledgend. There is no historical evidence of him. Most websites say that Chlodio's father is most likely Pharamond himself son of Marcomer. You can see this on this website: http://www.american-pictures.com/genealogy/persons/per02324.htm#0. Thanks, Cmach7.

The web site to which you point is not a reliable source (see WP:RS). It is true that the 8th century Liber Historiae Francorum reported that Chlodio was son of Pharamond, but the Chronicle of Fredegar, written a century closer to events, reported that Chlodio was son of Theodemir. How do we as editors resolve this conflict. We follow the scholarly consensus - what do modern scholars think is the more likely solution? While you can find numerous personal web sites that still give the Pharamond version popular in the 19th century, they carry no weight in the face of the opinions of such published scholars as Christian Settipani who conclude that Theodemir is the more likely father. Agricolae (talk) 02:08, 15 May 2012 (UTC)

As for the other Frankish kings, they were not included because they were at no point "king of the Franks". Each was only king of one of the usually four kingdoms that made up Francia.

Drilou (talk) 22:21, 24 March 2012 (UTC)

Direct Capetians

The usage of this term seems to be dated. A Google Books search shows only a small number of scholarly works using it as a proper name that don't predate the 1920s. Another search for Capetians and 1328 seems to indicate that it is more common among scholars these days to refer to this group simply as the Capetians (without further description). Agricolae (talk) 23:51, 20 July 2012 (UTC)

How about just House of Capet instead of pipelinking anything?--The Emperor's New Spy (talk) 00:45, 21 July 2012 (UTC)

Probably the best way around the problem. Agricolae (talk) 17:39, 21 July 2012 (UTC)

I don't see anything wrong with the term. They're in a direct father-to-son line while the Valois and Bourbon form other branches. Referring to them only as Capetians is incorrect as the other branches were too, and "Early Capetians" is vague and not very meaningful.Drilou (talk) 06:39, 24 July 2012 (UTC)

Direct is vague - the Valois also directly descend from the Capetians. More importantly, it doesn't matter - we need to follow modern scholarly usage, whether we think it is 'incorrect' or not, and modern scholars don't appear to use the term 'Direct'. Agricolae (talk) 13:38, 24 July 2012 (UTC)

Theuderic IV

Is there a reason Theuderic IV is not included in the main list? As far as I can tell, the criterion for including Merovingian kings in the list is that they were called 'king of the Franks', which Theuderic IV was. His absence is particularly confusing since he is mentioned in the text that precedes Childeric III. Aiwendil42 (talk) 05:02, 16 January 2013 (UTC)

King of the Langobards, resp. King of Italy

CarstenN (talk) 10:03, 16 March 2014 (UTC)Since 5th June 774 until his death, Charlemagne (Charles I.) had the official title "King of the Francs and Langobards" (Latin: Rex Francorum et Langobardorum), after he had defeated the Langobardian king Desideratus that same year and annected the Langobardian kingdom in Italy.

Later on, the title of the king of Langobards was connected with the title of the king of Italy.

Of the Kings of the (West-)Franks, Charles II. was King of Italy and King of the Langobards from 875 - 877, and Charles the Fat was King of the Langobards and King of Italy from 879 - 887.

I think the complete titles of these kings should be mentioned.CarstenN (talk) 10:03, 16 March 2014 (UTC)

Henry V and Henry VI of England

Can someone please tell me why Louis VIII "the Lion" of France is listed as a king of England (disputed claimant) in the list of English kings, he briefly ruled about half of England from 1216 to 1217 and was proclaimed (not crowned) king at St Paul's cathedral and is rendered mute by the Treaty of Lambeth but there is no mention in the French list of kings of Henry V who controlled half of France and by the Treaty of Troyes is recognised as the heir and regent of France and Henry VI who was crowned king at Notre Dame de Paris on 16 December 1431 and is listed as king of France (disputed) on his page reigning from 21 October 1422 to 19 October 1453. I have no problem of Louis being mentioned in the list of English kings, it just seems wrong that there is none of at least Henry VI in the French list being crowned and all. I am talking about the list of kings not the summary. LordWiltshire1529 (talk) 14:23, 29 April 2014 (UTC)

Because you didn't fix it yet. Things only get done at Wikipedia for one reason: People that care do it. You care. So it's your responsibility to do it. --Jayron32 18:03, 29 April 2014 (UTC)

I've added Henry VI but it'll probably be removed so at least I tried... LordWiltshire1529 (talk) 21:13, 29 April 2014 (UTC)

Inline Citations

Although a FL, the inline citation and referencing is woefully inadequate. I'm going to try and reference the lead and probably give the formatting of the 'notes/references' section a little bit of a rework. Sotakeit (talk) 09:13, 3 July 2014 (UTC)

Odo

Odo of Paris was not a member of the Carolingian dynasty.. -- Director (talk) 02:01, 25 September 2014 (UTC)

How's that look, Director? I've split Odo and Robert I into 'Robertians'. Sotakeit (talk) 08:28, 25 September 2014 (UTC)

Looks very good, thanks :) -- Director (talk) 09:04, 25 September 2014 (UTC)

Rudolph (Raoul) also wasn't a Carolinigan. He's a Bosonid. -- Director (talk) 12:59, 26 September 2014 (UTC)

No footnotes in headings

Per MOS:HEADINGS:

Citations should not be placed within or on the same line as section and subsection headings.

Could the references currently appearing in the headings please be relocated somewhere more appropriate? —sroc 💬 15:34, 10 December 2014 (UTC)

"Death" Column

An anonymous editor, 167.78.4.19, just added an extra column to the Merovingian dynasty table. Titled "death", it seems the details of the death of each king is what the editor intended to add. However just one king's death has been explained and the column has not been added to any other sections. The details of each of their deaths can be found on their respective articles and so I think the column should be added to the other tables and details added in. This column is also used on List of English Monarchs so I think it's a consistent, useful edit and so I am going to try and bring in info slowly, but would appreciate help. Thanks, SamWilson989 (talk) 16:26, 5 February 2015 (UTC)

Nineteenth century monarchs

I'm wondering about a few things. Why is Louis XVII depicted on the list who was never a reigning king and Napoleon II, who arguably and technically was emperor for a few days also, while Louis XIX (Angoulleme) and Henri V (Chambord) who were arguably and technically kings of France as good as Napoleon II was emperor for a couple of days, have to make do with a mere mention in a sentence at the end of a section? Shouldn't Louis XVII be the one with a mere mention instead of the other way around? Gerard von Hebel (talk) 01:52, 10 September 2015 (UTC)

I think neither of these three persons should be entries in the list, though me might mention them in additional text. I tend to follow the format employed for Angouleme and Chambord, though with the wording used for Napoleon II with the overused word "technically".

At least we should treat all three pretenders equally. What do others think? Str1977 ^(talk) 17:59, 22 October 2015 (UTC)

Historians don't count Charles X's son & grandson as French monarchs. Therefore, I've placed the description (Disputed) within their entries. GoodDay (talk) 06:26, 16 January 2016 (UTC)

Napoleon's son was never Emperor, not even nominally. The Senat of France declared Napoleon deposed. It was only when Napoleon learned of this that he abdicated in favour of his son. Since he had already been deposed he could not pass the throne to him. When he learned that his son would not be acceptable to the allies he abdicated unconditionally. 'Napoleon II' was the fantasy of the Bonapartists. As for 'Louis XVII', France had been declared a republic by the time his 'reign' began. Louis XIX was arguably king for 20 minutes. The Comte de Chambord declared that he would only accept the crown if the tricolor was abandoned. This was never done, so he never accepted the crown.Gazzster (talk) 09:23, 16 January 2016 (UTC)

I considered deleting Napoleon II, Louis XIX & Henry V from the list, but figured there'd be a spat over it. I wouldn't object if they were deleted, though. GoodDay (talk) 16:35, 16 January 2016 (UTC)

Indeed Louis XVII should also be deleted. All we would need is a note at the entry of Louis XVIII, explaining his choice of regnal number. GoodDay (talk) 16:42, 16 January 2016 (UTC)

Chart with dubious connections

I again have removed the chart. In showing now-discounted speculation about descent of the Carolingians and Robertians/Capetians from the Merovingians it gives the false impression of continuity. Agricolae (talk) 04:09, 25 August 2018 (UTC)

Which is why the line connecting them states bastard/uncertain, it's all in the legend and those claims are from Wikipedia... But it is all the same to me, here is a version where the connection has been removed. It isn't the latest version because Wikimedia bugged out and didn't allow updating it, thus I nominated it for deletion in order to upload a newer version. Also, I like your approach of throwing the baby away with the bathwater, instead of adding a note or requesting a modification.--Go-Chlodio (talk) 17:10, 31 August 2018 (UTC)

I am glad you like my approach, which is fully consistent with WP:BRD. This whole suggestion that there was a connection was really just a wishful-thinking guess by Maurice Chaume (from the 1930s, IIRC) without the slightest shred of support in the historical record. Most more recent scholars reject the connections, in favor speculative connections to a Mayor of the Palace, Hugobert (thought he precise reconstructions differ. There is no reason to illustrate the dated minority opinion, even labelled as 'uncertain', which smacks of POV-pushing the mostly-rejected concept of continuity.

Regarding the new version of the chart, I have two issues with this portion of it, then a broader issue, all of which have been problems with the chart from the start and remain in this newest iteration. First, it is factually inaccurate, making a complete mess of the mid-Carolingians. Louis 'the German' (as he is known in English, not 'de Germanie', and he shouldn't be shown as Louis II here - he was Louis II of Germany but did not rule France, and the use of the ordinal creates confusion on a France-specific chart) was not son of Charles the Bald, he was his half-brother, son of Louis the Pious by his first wife, Ermengarde. Likewise it combines two distinct kings, Charles the Fat (son of Louis the German) with Charles the Simple (son of Louis II and his other wife, half-brother of Louis III and Carloman, and father of Louis IV). Second, while I appreciate the desire to take up as little vertical space as possible, the compression of late-Carolingians and Robertians/early-Capetians ends up displaying Louis V four generations below his successor. Fix the Louis the German/Charles the Fat/Charles the Simple problem, then move the Robertians underneath Charles the Fat, and you should be able to line up Hugh Capet with his predecessor, Louis V. Also, King 'Raoul' was the maternal grandson of Conrad II, not the paternal grandson. However, the notable connection with regard to his succession was that he was son-in-law of Robert I, which should be shown (and the fact that this marriage would have been well within the prohibited degree were the descents as shown has led a lot of scholars to challenge whether both Raoul's mother and his wife could have been granddaughters of the same woman Adelaide of Tours - this highlights why gratuitous genealogy on Wikipedia can become a quagmire). The two Conrads were Welfs, but they are made Bosonids here. More broadly, given that you have used English-language definitions in the Legend, why are you then using French-language name forms in the chart itself? It would be one thing if this chart was made for wiki.fr but then also used on wiki.en, but to design it with the legend optimized for one language and the body optimized for an entirely different one is an odd choice. Given that you seem to have created it primarily for this List of Kings page, using the name forms on this page would seem the obvious way to go. Agricolae (talk) 18:02, 31 August 2018 (UTC)

Is this better? Carolingians were indeed a mess.

Conrad I is colored with the color of Bosonides because Welfs were not a French dynasty, thus he is colored with the color of the king that relates to him.

I know Rudolph's election might not have been impacted by his great grandmother's marriage, but I wanted to include all possible connection, as without it, I would have to include him without any other connections.

They are written in French because it's article about French monarchs. --Go-Chlodio (talk) 12:42, 1 September 2018 (UTC)

Tackling these in order:

1) You fixed one problem with the Carolingians, but not the rest. You continue to combine two distinct kings named Charles, Charles the Fat (884-888) and Charles the Simple (898-922), into is single chimera, Charles 'the Simply Fat'. Charles the Fat, son of Louis the German, ruled France in succession to Carloman, son of Louis II. By his wife Richardis of Swabia he had no children, and was succeeded in Germany by an illegitimate nephew, in Italy by distant cousin, and in France by the unrelated Odo of Paris, who was then succeeded by Charles the Simple (898-922), half-brother of Louis III and Carloman and son of Louis II. This Charles was husband of Eadgifu of Wessex. Louis IV (936-954), from whom the late-period Carolingians derive, was son of Charles the Simple, not of Charles the Fat.

2) Twice here you are sacrificing accuracy for aesthetics, basically forcing yourself to show dubious material simply because of your own whim. Conrad I, Conrad II and Adelaide were not Bosonids. Coloring them that way just because it would be inconvenient to do otherwise just doesn't cut it. With Raoul we know he married the daughter of Robert. Reliable sources, when referring to him, invariably call him the son-in-law of Robert so that is the important relationship, not a more distant supposed descent from Adelaide of Tours. We also know that the church at this time prohibited the marriage of anyone as closely related as Raoul and his wife would have been were both descended from Adelaide of Tours in the manner shown. This whole web of relationships must be wrong somehow, though it is hard to point at a particular connection and say 'here is the problem' (best guess is that Conrad I had two wives, and Conrad II was son of the other one). The whole Welf-Robertin connection is not relevant, is not commented on within the context of French succession, and is certainly wrong, yet you insist on showing it anyhow, and the reason you inaccurately characterize Welfs as Bosonids, and also show a relationship that must be wrong, and not show the relationship given by every reliable source as critical to Raoul's succession, is in order to avoid "hav[ing] to include [Raoul] without any other connections" as if that aesthetically displeasing (to you) alternative is a greater sin than giving incorrect information. This is the trap of gratuitous genealogy - it becomes an end unto itself, and all Wikipedia standards of PERSPECTIVE go out the window, sacrificed to the desire to show elaborate pedigrees and connections. Conform to all the sources in showing Raoul only as Robert's son-in-law, and all this mess goes away.

Really quickly, it should look something like this (you can even throw Rudolph's [Raoul's] parents in above him if you want to provide context and give you more names to color, but just the parents):

             =Louis the Pious=
             |               |
          Louis           Charles
        the German        the Bald
             |               |
         Charles             |
         the Fat          =Louis II=
                      ,---^---,    `-----,
        Robert IV  Louis III Carloman    |
        ,---^---,                     Charles
      Odo    Robert I               the Simple
                |                        |
            ,---^---,                 Louis IV
          Hugh    Emma=Rudolph           |
            |                          Lothar
            |                            |
          Hugh I                      Louis V
            |

3) They were French kings, but this is English Wikipedia, where both this List of French monarchs, and the individual kings' pages, use the form most common in English language scholarly sources, as per Wikipedia policy. We have a page for Rudolph of France, not for Raoul, and we list him as Rudolph in this List. It thus unnecessarily obscures the identity of this man to give him a different name form in the chart that is intended to show how the listed kings relate to each other. This is the most obvious example, but the same applies to the other places where you have chosen to use a name on a chart intended for English Wikipedia that differs from the name used by English Wikipedia to refer to the person. Agricolae (talk) 17:11, 1 September 2018 (UTC)

Okay, I overlooked the Charles problem, but it's easy the get confused when they share a name, father's name and regnal number. And, just to add to the confusion Charles le Gros is considered a French monarch, but wasn't given a regnal number

You called Hugh Capet "Hugh I", why?. He is never called Hugh I, mostly because there is no Hugh II, as explained by this section.

I intended this diagram for both fr. and en. Wikipedia, but never got around putting it to the fr. Wikipedia. There was also the "issue of de", as en. Wikipedia articles randomly use de and of... It's kind of messy because de is nobiliary particle, so I ended up just using the names of fr. Wikipedia, for the sake of consistency. I also intended to include hyperlinks to their respective articles, however, Wikimedia prohibits SVG hyperlinks... I'm not sure why this is an issue, most of these names are self-explanatory and en. Wikipedia has plenty of diagrams in foreign languages.

New version. Charles III and Rudolph have been fixed, I also changed labels to French as a compromise.--Go-Chlodio (talk) 09:41, 2 September 2018 (UTC)

I called him Hugh I for the same reason you continue to show Judith of Bavaria the daughter of Charlemagne, and attach the Valois line to the wrong Philip: a simple slip - I did say I was doing it really fast. While we are talking about wives, if you care about accuracy at all you would not call Louis II's second wife Adelaide of Frioul. Yes, I know that wiki.fr names her page that, but is is an error, a holdover from a much earlier version that had misidentified her father (or maybe assigned him the wrong title). Nowhere in the text of her page nor that of her father on wiki.fr is there the least mention of Friuli at all. In the lede of her own page, she is called 'de Paris', or alternatively "de France", "d'Adalard", and her father's page is named "Adelard de Paris". And while we are at it, it is awfully distracting to have the names of wives and non-rulers be converey in a larger font than the names of the actual kings (well most of them - some of them are tiny for no apparent reason)- it draws the eyes to the wrong people. Anyhow, I think this has gone on long enough - since you won't optimize it for its destination, I will have to. Agricolae (talk) 18:38, 4 September 2018 (UTC)

Well, I adjusted it anyhow.--Go-Chlodio (talk) 22:41, 4 September 2018 (UTC)

I'm not sure what you meant with "I will have to", but I'm going to reinstate it you have no other flaws to point out.--Go-Chlodio (talk) 05:21, 16 September 2018 (UTC)

I meant I am fixing it, but I despise Inkscape so it is taking a while. Since you intend to use this on wiki.fr, at a minimum you should go back through and double check everything - you have at least two kings with the wrong mother (Louis V and Louis VI, IIRC) and two with the wrong reign dates (don't remember which two - one of the later Carolingians and maybe a Valois). Agricolae (talk) 05:29, 16 September 2018 (UTC)

Petty that you hate Inkscape, I personally adore it; anyhow take your time, I just wasn't sure if you were still working on it. I fixed the mothers of Louis' mothers and three tenure errors from the Carolingians.--Go-Chlodio (talk) 10:33, 16 September 2018 (UTC)

Where to begin this list

The list of Merovingian kings does not have any place in a "List of French monarchs" because they were not, by any stretch, "French". They also have their own page, at Merovingian dynasty, so why duplicate content when doing so only introduces problems. It is also quite fantastical to claim that the kingdom of France "was established" in AD 428. If you must include Western Francia, say it was established in 843, there is some reason to that, but then this was Western Francia, not the kingdom of France. The only reasonable starting point for the kingdom of France (as opposed to the Kingdom of the West Franks) and thus of "French monarchs", would be 987. They didn't even speak a romance language. I mean how deluded are the french to actually believe their weird version of history falsification.

Whatever happened to historical accuracy... — Preceding unsigned comment added by 31.17.140.107 (talk) 13:44, 15 September 2019 (UTC)

If you want to be pedantic, we would have to start this list from Philip II, for he officially changed the title from "king of the Franks" to "king of France". But if we are not doing that, and want to be consistent with another article (John Lackland changed his title from the "king of the English" to "king of England") we should instead merge the "Frankish kings" with this article, for they are essentially the same title. Go-Chlodio (talk) 16:43, 15 September 2019 (UTC)

I don't think he meant that the change in title was important. I agree it's not worth having different articles for king of the Franks and king of France. But there is an important point about when the Frankish kingdom split into France and Germany. It is totally anachronistic to say that Clovis or Charlemagne were kings of France, a country that did not yet exist. We should start this list at 843 (the Treaty of Verdun) or 887 (the death of Charles the Fat, the last Frankish monarch to rule both the East and West Franks). Or perhaps there is some other logical date, but we can't sensibly begin this list in 509. (We already have List of Frankish kings.) Richard75 (talk) 18:30, 16 September 2019 (UTC)

But the article isn't called "List of Kings of France". It's as anachronistic to say monarchs prior to Philip II were kings of France, when they didn't carry such title. It would be absolutely nonsensical to start this list from the 9th century when all French monarchs considered themselves direct successors of Clovis I, and still operated under the Salic law he created. Another option would be to rename this article to "Rulers of France" and merge it with List of presidents of France. Go-Chlodio (talk) 02:44, 17 September 2019 (UTC)

We already have an article called List of rulers of France. Dimadick (talk) 14:07, 17 September 2019 (UTC)

That is a little more than a disambiguation page. Go-Chlodio (talk) 14:45, 17 September 2019 (UTC)

This article is called "List of French monarchs", but nobody was French (or German) in the sixth century. They were Franks. The adjective French doesn't apply to Clovis. This list should start in an era when one can credibly speak of France and Germany, and direct the reader to the list of Frankish kings article for their predecessors. (To be clear, I accept that the French kings are successors of Clovis, but so are the German kings.) Richard75 (talk) 16:28, 17 September 2019 (UTC)

When you put it like that... I'm okay for starting this article from Treaty of Verdun (843) with Charles the Bald. Go-Chlodio (talk) 10:23, 18 September 2019 (UTC)

Mistakes in the family tree

There are mistakes in the family tree, if someone is able to fix them: "Louis XVII (1795-1815)" should read "Louis XVIII (1814-1815, 1815-1824)" and "Charles X (1815-1830)" should read "Charles X (1824-1830)". They are for now indicated in the caption. 92.184.97.56 (talk) 08:42, 19 September 2019 (UTC)

Done. Go-Chlodio (talk) 11:41, 19 September 2019 (UTC)

XVII and XVIII are the wrong way round. Richard75 (talk) 20:07, 19 September 2019 (UTC)

Facepalm... I guess I just wasn't thinking, but it should be fine now. Go-Chlodio (talk) 21:15, 19 September 2019 (UTC)

Numbering of Charles the Bald

Following a recent edit changing Charles the Bald from Charles I of the West Franks to Charles II (because Charlemagne is Charles I), the list was left with two Charles IIs because Charles the Fat is Charles II (of the West Franks). This has been discussed before at Talk:Charles the Fat#Numbering, where someone explained that Charles the Bald doesn't have a regnal number as king (although he does as emperor). So I have taken out the number and put a footnote in to explain. We still need a source for this though. But I've been bold for now because we obviously can't have two Charles IIs, and Charles I is clearly wrong. Richard75 (talk) 12:47, 25 May 2020 (UTC)

There is no need to bang our heads against the wall for this. These men are almost exclusively referred to by their epithets and we should not attribute ordinals to them at all. It is anachronistic and borderline original research. Surtsicna (talk) 13:05, 25 May 2020 (UTC)

That seems best. Richard75 (talk) 15:09, 25 May 2020 (UTC)

Arms: Stop edit warring

Sort it out here. Richard75 (talk) 21:07, 15 June 2020 (UTC)

Where to begin this list #2

It is anachronistic to group the kings of France with the kings of the Franks, especially when France begins exactly in 1190 under Philip II. Altanner1991 (talk) 08:45, 30 July 2020 (UTC)

That's just when the king's title changed, it doesn't necessarily mean you can say that France was created in 1190. Richard75 (talk) 09:05, 30 July 2020 (UTC)

It would be much simpler and easier to the reader because then the other article (List of Frankish kings) would now lead directly into this one. Altanner1991 (talk) 09:33, 30 July 2020 (UTC)

That article used to lead directly into this one until 11 July, when someone added all the French kings up to 1190. I've taken it out. Richard75 (talk) 10:21, 30 July 2020 (UTC)

Yes 987 is the "proper" year of divide. Thank you. Altanner1991 (talk) 10:58, 30 July 2020 (UTC)

France didn't start in 987 though. Richard75 (talk) 23:10, 5 August 2020 (UTC)

Well I wouldn't mix "French" and "Frankish", as they are two very different cultures. The only accurate label was just a "title" from 1190. Altanner1991 (talk) 23:12, 5 August 2020 (UTC)

That's why the list doesn't start with Clovis. But a culture doesn't just change overnight. It evolved gradually from Frankish to French, so you can't just say that happened in a particular year. France didn't just come into existence when a new dynasty started either; this is just like your attempt to start the list of English kings in 1066. Richard75 (talk) 23:19, 5 August 2020 (UTC)

It wasn't my idea on England (I did support either way) but I'll remove the "definitive date" for France, because as you say it was gradual. Altanner1991 (talk) 23:21, 5 August 2020 (UTC)

That is certainly an improvement, but the list still starts at Hugh Capet, and his predecessor was also king of France. Richard75 (talk) 23:32, 5 August 2020 (UTC)

Everything before Capet will be purely anachronistic historical revisionism with few and far between verifiability on French/France as opposed to the Frankish/Francia of their time. They weren't using the word French as they were very much "Frankish", so this divide between a new Capetian dynasty and a previous Frankish one is a clear marker. Altanner1991 (talk) 23:47, 5 August 2020 (UTC)

This is not the right approach. Wikipedia follows reliable sources, even if we personally think they are wrong or anachronistic, rather than using our own criteria to reach conclusions. Look at some general reference books and see where they begin their lists of kings of France. Agricolae (talk) 00:14, 6 August 2020 (UTC)

It's always Capet in the history books (I grew up my entire life at French school). Others mix "Franks" and the French which is not something this article could do, unless it was moved say to List of monarchs of the Franks and France, or Frankish and French monarchs, or something else of the nature. Altanner1991 (talk) 00:21, 6 August 2020 (UTC)

This is not French Wikipedia. The French have a view of their own history that is tied up in their national self-identity (not unique to the French - every nation does and it is always problematic to base content on such insider frames of reference). It is better to see how non-French sources treat the question. Agricolae (talk) 01:57, 6 August 2020 (UTC)

The name France literally means Francia/Frankish in all the languages including Italian and Spanish (literally "Francia") and Germanic ("Land of the Franks"). There's no precedence on divide, it's unsourced. Franks vs French only pulls linguistic evolution, not a cultural shift like the formation of Great Britain and Ireland. Altanner1991 (talk) 01:02, 6 August 2020 (UTC)

With French/France starting circa 1000 CE according to etymological dictionaries it's essentially Merovingian dynasty or Hugh Capet but nothing in between. Altanner1991 (talk) 01:15, 6 August 2020 (UTC)

Etymology is not the only way of looking at the question, and in some cases can create false distinctions. You argue there is nothing between the Merovingians and Capet that would possibly serve as a dividing line, but the foundation of the state with direct continuity with Modern France occurred with the separation of Charles the Bald's West Frankish kingdom. My point here is not to argue that time-point should be the divider, but rather that criteria that seem self-evident to one editor are not necessarily the ones that are self-evident to other editors, and there is no solution to an argument when different criteria are being applied. Again, that is why we use sources. Agricolae (talk) 01:57, 6 August 2020 (UTC)

No one thinks Hugh Capet was the first king of France. What's wrong with starting at the Treaty of Verdun? Richard75 (talk) 09:15, 6 August 2020 (UTC)

There is no readily available logic that puts the Treaty of Verdun as the dividing line between Frank and French. At least etymological dictionaries provide a source. Altanner1991 (talk) 11:56, 6 August 2020 (UTC)

The logic is that that is when the Frankish Kingdom was finally divided into what later became France and Germany. We don't have to use that date if there's another date that will do just as well, but a change of dynasty seems completely arbitrary. Hugh Capet didn't create France. Richard75 (talk) 12:20, 6 August 2020 (UTC)

It would need sources. That applies here and anywhere else on Wikipedia. So to claim the West Francian monarchs were "French" instead of "Frankish, that's going to take a lot, because I know from experience it wasn't already the case in that time of day. Altanner1991 (talk) 12:49, 6 August 2020 (UTC)

Your experience of the tenth century? Richard75 (talk) 16:34, 6 August 2020 (UTC)

Well no, just etymological dictionaries and some familiarity on the topic. Altanner1991 (talk) 16:35, 6 August 2020 (UTC)

There is clearly no consensus for the recent change in scope. Many sources could be provided referring to pre-987 kings as kings of France. Srnec (talk) 14:15, 10 August 2020 (UTC)

• The creation of modern nation states was a slow, gradual process and does not owe itself to convenient dividing lines, while sources will vary, many reliable sources start their list of the Kings of France at one of either of two dividing line: The division of the Frankish Empire and creation of West Francia in 843 or the founding of the Capetian Dynasty under Hugh Capet in 987. Very few reliable sources treat the change of the name from "King of the Franks" to "King of France" under Philip II in 1190 to be anything but a minor change of name. I'm fine with using either 843 or 987 as the key break point, but 1190 is not a good choice. --Jayron32 14:44, 10 August 2020 (UTC)

The source on this dividing line is the dictionary: there was no "French" language or people prior to c. ~1000 CE. They were Frankish, of Francia. Altanner1991 (talk) 16:53, 10 August 2020 (UTC)

It is not like the first time someone used the word "French" there was a bright flash of light, a loud crack, a puff of smoke and suddenly there was a nation-state where there had been nothing like it before. This is not something that can be arrived at through an exclusively etymological analysis. Agricolae (talk) 17:44, 10 August 2020 (UTC)

I'm afraid dictionary writers are not historians. I'll take sources that specialize in actual history, thanks. You can create reasons for anything you want. What do other, reliable, widely used source do when creating their lists of French kings? --Jayron32 17:58, 10 August 2020 (UTC)

The infobox is inconsistent with the article because it starts with the first Frankish monarch (Clovis). This isn't acceptable, and I would certainly change it to Charles the Bald as the page is indicating. I also do not agree on Charles the Bald but perhaps we can fix the infobox and so have a cleaner page. Altanner1991 (talk) 21:45, 10 August 2020 (UTC)

There are indeed several issues with "French" monarchs, I'd support renaming to "List of the monarch of West Francia and France", and begin from Treaty of Verdun. Go-Chlodio (talk) 15:32, 11 August 2020 (UTC)

Half the article is gone

Is there any reason the infobox was removed? It also seems the list starts in 843 now. I see there was some discussion about it but I don't see a conclusion. Why 843? Charles the Bald ruled from 840, and held the same title as all his predecessors for over 300 years. Also why is the portrait column missing from all the kings before Hugues Capet? This article seems like a bit of a mess. Drilou (talk) 21:10, 27 January 2021 (UTC)

Napoleon I The Great

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

At this point in time "The Great" appears to have been eliminated.

ICE77 (talk) 06:44, 18 February 2021 (UTC)

Merovingians and Carolingians

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Can't both France and Germany have their king lists going through the leading Franks back to Clovis I? Altanner1991 (talk) 05:41, 17 August 2022 (UTC)

Merovingian kings

As I pointed out before (see above), the section on Merovingian king is seriously misguided, selectively listing or omitting kings:

• Petty kings like Chlodio and Merovech are listed, while others are not (they were not the only Frankish kings, neither was Clovis for all but four years). This might be justified by the French monarchy's tradition, which claimed these (along with Pharamond) as ancestors of Clovis. However, it is questionable whether this was France. But it's probably enough for "French monarchs".
• But after Clovis, things get less justifiable, as Merovingian kings are arbitrarily chosen. E.g. the list suggests that Franch was ruled by Clovis (-511), then by his son Childebert I (511-558) and then by the latter's brother Clothar I (558-561), when in fact Clovis was succeeded by four sons ruling jointly (and all ruling parts of modern or even pre-18th century France) - Clothar ruled from 511-561 and only succeded Childebert in the latter's portion, having succeded another brother and a grand-nephew previosly.
• The same fake succession also appears after 561, when Clothar is supposedly succeded first by Charibert and then by Chilperich, when in fact the two succeded their father together with their brothers Guntram and Sigibert.

Str1977 ^(talk) 07:35, 20 May 2012 (UTC)

So, as long as the edits are based on WP:RS, go ahead and fix it. Any questions that arise can then be dealt with here. Agricolae (talk) 13:43, 20 May 2012 (UTC)

Well they're not exactly arbitrarily chosen. They're based on the traditionally used succession, and I think except three of the early ones who were kings of Paris, they're distinguished from the others in that they all held the title of "king of the Franks". I have no particular objection if you want to add the minor kings though, or if you want to remove the first three as it's true Clovis is generally taken to be the first king of France. Drilou (talk) 21:42, 27 May 2012 (UTC)

more to the point, the list of Merovingian kings does not have any place in a "List of French monarchs" because they were not, by any stretch, "French". They also have their own page, at Merovingian dynasty, so why duplicate content when doing so only introduces problems. It is also quite fantastical to claim that the kingdom of France "was established" in AD 428. If you must include Western Francia, say it was established in 843, there is some reason to that, but then this was Western Francia, not the kingdom of France. The only reasonable starting point for the kingdom of France (as opposed to the Kingdom of the West Franks) and thus of "French monarchs", would be 987. --dab (𒁳) 11:00, 3 September 2013 (UTC)

It's anachronistic to separate France from "Western Francia" or the "kingdom of the Franks" based on modern historical semantics that only describe phases in a continuously evolving realm. It was always described as "Francia" (which evolved into "France") or the "kingdom of the Franks" (a designation that can still be found today in the German name for France: "Frankreich") interchangeably, and its kings were referred to as "king of the Franks" until the 13th century.

I agree that saying France was established in 428 is wrong (although the article refers to the royal line rather than the country), a more accurate date would be 486 and I would be in favour of removing the kings prior to Clovis. But 987 is completely nonsensical as it only corresponds to the ascension of a new dynasty to the throne of France. It only makes sense within the nationalist/legitimist view that the existence of France is inseparable from the Capet family, and would also imply that France hasn't existed since 1830.

Drilou (talk) 15:59, 11 December 2013 (UTC)

In this regard I agree with Drilou. While any starting-point is somewhat artificial, the reign of Clovis I is probably the best starting point. While 843 is more to the point of a beginning of separate French and German kingoms and cultures, this would mean starting midway in the Carolingian dynasty. While the previous history is not only French history but the shared Frankish heritage of both nations, it is French history too. And while Charlemagne is a big name in Germany, Clovis is probably more prominent in France. Str1977 ^(talk) 17:55, 22 October 2015 (UTC)

I do agree that Clovis is more associated with France than Germany. However the issue with 843/Charlemagne vs Clovis is sourcing. Altanner1991 (talk) 05:45, 17 August 2022 (UTC)

Agricolae said: "So, as long as the edits are based on WP:RS, go ahead and fix it."

And so I did.

Drilou said: "Well they're not exactly arbitrarily chosen. They're based on the traditionally used succession, and I think except three of the early ones who were kings of Paris, they're distinguished from the others in that they all held the title of "king of the Franks"."

Not completely arbitrarily but still mistakenly. They were chose under three mistaken notions:

1. that Soisson and especially Paris are somehow more important to France than Reims, Metz or Orleans
2. that Chilperic succeeded Charibert at Paris in 567 - he actually only inherited a part of the latter's realm, with Paris remaining common to the remaining brothers. It was only Clothar II who made Paris his own, two decades later.
3. that the eventually victorious line in this dynastic back-and-forth somehow has the right to be mentioned all along whereas the losing line doesn't. Hence the fiction Clovis - Clothar I - Chilperic - Clothar II, with Paris added here into the mix because of the French capital's prestige.

If that's the "traditionally used succession" it's not the one used by historians.

Also, it is also mistaken to say "except three of the early ones who were kings of Paris, they're distinguished from the others in that they all held the title of "king of the Franks"." - No one ever held the title of "King of Paris", they all held the title "King of the Franks". Only some had their court in this city, some in another. For the first two partitions the realms were not clear-cut territories. In 511, the four brothers divided the kingdom so that a) everyone would have a share in Francia (where all their chief cities were), b) everybody would have a share in the newly conquered Aquitania (with Theuderic "of Austrasia" getting the Auvergne) and c) everybody should have more or less equal revenue. The same principles governed the division of 561, only now Burgundy was thrown into the mix too. Only over time did these changing districts develop into coherent realms (Neustria, Austrasia, Burgundy, with Aquitania sometimes divided and sometimes a separate realm). Chroniclers then use these terms and so do modern historians, sometimes retroactively. However, all these Kings would have insisted on being "Rex Francorum". Str1977 ^(talk) 17:50, 22 October 2015 (UTC)

Formation in 509, not in 486

In 486 Clovis defeated the Soissons, but in 509 he unified the Salian Franks and Ripuarian Franks, becoming the king of all the Franks; does that not correspond with "French monarch" better? If only control of Gaul matters, why not start with Syagrius? --Go-Chlodio (talk) 12:58, 18 August 2018 (UTC)

I have to say if the line can go to 486 then it could go through Merovech and earlier... Altanner1991 (talk) 05:49, 17 August 2022 (UTC)

Comments

1. It's not clear to me if this article is about monarchs of what is considered France (geografically) or if it is about monarchs that styled themselves are kings of France (since I see Kings of the Franks and Kings of France which is not the same thing). I think it's important to make such distinction and explain in the introduction. The genealogical tree at the top right of the page is for the period 509-1870. The period from 509 to 843 is primarily Frankish and it's not clear why the article completely bypasses the Merovingian dynasty which included Charles Martel and Charlemagne, only starting to list the Carolingian dynasty with Charles the Bald. If this article is about who ruled as as monarchs of France from a geographical standpoint then it should start from 509 with Clovis I. If this entry is about those who styled themselves as royalty of France then it should start in 1180 with Philip II. The languages and cultures of the people who lived in what is now France since the time the Roman Empire dissipated certainly evolved over time and the world of the Franks became the world of France. I think it's important to explain what this article is about and be consistent with tables, titles, dates and genealogical trees.

2. The note on "popular monarchy" is in both the introduction and the "Titles" section. The two are redundant and only one should be in the article.

3. Under Napoleon I and the First Empire, it should also be noted that Napoleon I did not just rule over France but way beyond after conquering large areas of Europe. It does not have to be a long discussion but one or two lines would be useful.

ICE77 (talk) 06:54, 18 February 2021 (UTC)

For the first point most authors simply don't regard the Merovingians as the starting point of French royal history, for instance: Hollister and Bennett (2002) begin with Charles the Bald in 840, Merriam-Webster starts with Charlemagne in 768, and Encyclopedia Britannica variously starts with Pepin the Short in 751 or Charlemagne in 768. None of these dates start at the exact point of this list but the Merovingians seem to be near-consistently excluded, as is Charles Martel (who wasn't king?) - whether Charlemagne and the pre-Charles the Bald Carolingians qualify seems to be a bit up in the air.

The biggest issues with this article IMO is its use of 19th-century ahistorical images for a lot of the early kings and its near complete lack of sourcing, which should disqualify it from its current featured article status. Ichthyovenator (talk) 15:30, 9 March 2022 (UTC)

In French class they always told me that "French" history began with Clovis I, but I know is not as simple as that. 843 is still debatable but I think that it's a reasonable starting point (it's also the start of the List of German monarchs). And yeah, this definetly needs more sources. Tintero21 (talk) 19:36, 9 March 2022 (UTC)

I too was *always* taught in French school that it was Clovis I and not Charles the Bald, who I had never even heard of. It is also interesting to see different historians' perspectives. Altanner1991 (talk) 05:30, 17 August 2022 (UTC)

Not sure what "most authors" means. Is this a modern context only? It is important to note that the other language editions of this Wikipedia article have the list going back earlier than ours. Some even go as far as Pharamond who was born in the 300s CE. Others go to Clovis or Pepin, depending on the language.

A contentious debate such as this one should leave it to the readers to decide for themselves. Altanner1991 (talk) 12:20, 17 August 2022 (UTC)

Reliable sources can be adduced for starting the French royal succession from 843, e.g., Jean Dunbabin, France in the Making, 843–1180, and Janet Nelson, Charles the Bald. Srnec (talk) 01:59, 18 August 2022 (UTC)