Talk:List of French royal consorts

Dynastic Titles

If someone with expertise in this area could step in, that would be useful. I have none. However, I believe that the dynasties should be listed as 'Direct Capet', 'Valois of Capet'/'Valois Branch of Capet', etc:

• French Wikipedia records Valois, etc, as 'Capetiénne' (Jean II's article describes him as "le deuxième de la maison capétienne de Valois").
• The principle is the same as that we follow in the only similarly divided dynasty in English history, that of the Plantagenets: where Edward IV was of York, but also a Plantagenet; all direct descendants of Henry II are described today as Plantagenets, regardless of later subdivisions. In the same way, all the French Kings were direct descendants of Hugh Capet, and therefore are in that sense of the same family.
• Capet may not be a feudal title, but nor is Plantagenet. Michaelsanders 23:13, 8 January 2007 (UTC)

Yes, and nobody says "York of Plantagenet" either. The custom in English, as in French, is to list the kings from Henry II to Richard II as "Plantagenet", then from Henry IV to Henry VI as "Lancaster", then Edward IV to Richard III as "York", despite the fact that Lancaster and York were both in direct male-line descent from Geoffrey Plantagenet. The English-language convention for listing the French dynasties is the form that I used in correcting this article. The current Wikipedia convention, which is naturally a wordy compromise between several different views, can be seen at List of French monarchs. RandomCritic 01:44, 9 January 2007 (UTC)

In addition, the King list uses the same style of division (except 'Capetian dynasty' rather than 'Of Capet'. I'll change it to that, to match. Michaelsanders 01:41, 9 January 2007 (UTC)

Madame de Maintenon

I note that the article on morganatic marriage specifically denies that Louis XIV's marraige to Mme. de Maintenon was morganatic in any legal sense; however, it was secret, in that its existence was not announced or widely known. So perhaps morganatic is not the correct word to use here. RandomCritic 07:27, 17 January 2007 (UTC)

Peer review

Per the peer review comments, I'd suggest that a "Sources" column be added on the right with links and references for the information on each queen, consort, or empress. RandomCritic 23:11, 21 January 2007 (UTC)

That would belong to their individual articles. The List is merely supposed to reflect them. User:Dimadick

All articles (including lists) must provide their own references. Relying on linked-to articles is effectively using Wikipedia as a source, which isn't allowed. I'm not sure the extra column suggestion will work but it depends on what sources you have, how many there are and what they cover. Colin°^Talk 13:47, 24 January 2007 (UTC)

Just follow the example of the King List, and place a few relevant sources at the bottom of the article in a reference section - the King list has a star, so it obviously works there. Michaelsanders 17:00, 24 January 2007 (UTC)

Agnes of Merania

I added in Agnes of Merania, since although her marriage to Philip II seems to have been canonically objectionable, she was for some time treated as Philip's wife and queen. But I'm not clear on the details; did she cease to be queen on his first repudiation of her, in 1199, or his second, in 1200? RandomCritic 22:06, 2 February 2007 (UTC)

I suppose the second repudiation would probably the best cut-off point, for simplicity's sake, although it may not necessarily be accurate; maybe she should be listed twice (but I suppose she would count as having still been married, and thus still Queen, in the space between). To be honest, I originally avoided noting her because I was confused about whether she could be considered his wife (not only was the marriage officially declared void, but officially - according to some clerics, but not others - he was still married to Ingeborg at the time - and that was retroactively confirmed when Philip took Ingeborg back as his wife later without remarriage, implying that he had been married to her without break since their original marriage. But on the other hand, the children of Philip and Agnes were recognised as legitimate. At this point, my head starts to hurt). However, you are right in saying that she was "treated as Philip's wife and queen" at the time, and Ingeborg wasn't (an angle I hadn't really considered), so I suppose it is safe to leave her in. As for dates, I think it should be from the 'marriage(?)' to the second repudiation; however, possibly an official reference would be better. Michaelsanders 22:21, 2 February 2007 (UTC)

Marie-Therese-Charlotte

1) She's in the wrong place, as her putative queendom is in 1830 -- after the Bonapartes; 2) Her date is just given as "August 2" instead of "August 2, 1830" 3) She can't possibly have died in 1751. 4) Both her husband and father-in-law abdicated via the same instrument, that is, from a legal point of view, virtually simultaneously; the instrument is effective from the time of its publication, not from the time of signature. There isn't any basis for considering M.T.C. queen. The precedent of existing Wikipedia articles is that she was Duchess of Angoulême, not reigning queen of France.RandomCritic 20:46, 16 March 2007 (UTC)

1) Corrected. 2) Corrected. 3) Corrected 4) Depends on what authority you listen to - whether a King ceases to be King from the moment of his abdication, or from the publication of the document (just as there is debate over whether a King is a King automatically upon the death of the predecessor, or upon proclamation, or on crowning, or whatever). Her husband is considered to have legally been unquestionably King for 20 minutes, or thereabouts, and so Marie-Therese is Queen in the same manner (and is recorded as dowager Queen on her headstone for that reason). And incidentally, the precedent is that she is Marie Therese Charlotte of France, and that her highest unquestionable title was Dauphine of France. Michael Sanders 21:21, 16 March 2007 (UTC)

Margaret of Anjou

Henry VI of England has been added the article List of French monarchs, with a disputed reign of 1422 to 1453. Do we now add Margaret (1445-53) to this article's list? GoodDay (talk) 17:02, 9 April 2009 (UTC)

If any historian mentioned her as Queen of France, yes. Otherwise, no (just my opinion). We could mention that her husband claimed the title though. Surtsicna (talk) 21:30, 9 April 2009 (UTC)

That sounds good. We could say that her husband claimed the title without giving her the title of consort.--Jeanne Boleyn (talk) 04:44, 10 April 2009 (UTC)

I've found some sources which refer to her as "Margaret of Anjou, queen of England and France". Actually, the book's title is "The life and times of Margaret of Anjou, queen of England and France" (by Mary Ann Hookham, 1872). That should be enough to include her as pretender to the title of Queen of France. Surtsicna (talk) 07:11, 10 April 2009 (UTC)

OK--Jeanne Boleyn (talk) 07:51, 10 April 2009 (UTC)

I mentioned on her own article that she was a pretender to the title, but could you please add the source? Thank you.--Jeanne Boleyn (talk) 07:58, 10 April 2009 (UTC)

On this article, how/where should she be listed and under which dynasty? Lancaster was not a recognised French royal dynasty. Perhaps at the bottom of the page under the caption Pretender? Or below Isabeau of Bavaria?--Jeanne Boleyn (talk) 08:40, 10 April 2009 (UTC)

I'd put her below Isabeau of Bavaria, to keep chronological order. We must stress out that her right to use the title was and is disputed. Surtsicna (talk) 08:44, 10 April 2009 (UTC)

Could you please help me, I'm making a huge mess on the article here. I have put up her image, but I just cannot align the information. Thank you.--Jeanne Boleyn (talk) 08:59, 10 April 2009 (UTC)

Looks good, Surtsicna. Thank you.--Jeanne Boleyn (talk) 12:23, 10 April 2009 (UTC)

Louis XVIII & Louis XIX consorts?

Why is Louis XVIII's wife listed on this article? she died before her husband became King of France. Also, the alleged Louis XIX's status as King of France, is disputed (thus his wife consort status, is disputed). GoodDay (talk) 14:37, 10 April 2009 (UTC)

To be a bit rude about it -- it is because in the notional world of monarchism, kings are kings whether they actually have a legally recognized role in government or not -- thus "Louis XVII" is "really" king from 1793-1795, and Louis XVIII (note number) is "really" king (the article says "de jure", but by whose jus? Not that of the French Republic or Empire, obviously) from 1795 to 1814, and therefore his wife is "de jure" queen. The same with "Louis XIX" -- he is classed as "king" because in his blood flowed (for a few minutes anyway) the sang royal, not because he ever actually fulfilled the political role of king. In other words, we are talking about two quite different definitions of kingship: one the one hand, as the holder of a real executive office, with more or less real power; on the other, as the nominal figurehead for a more or less dormant dynastic ambition, defined by a quasi-mystical reliance on genealogy.

It would be acceptable, I suppose, to use one definition or another, so long as it was clearly stated which was which; but in fact this article confusingly conflates the two definitions. RandomCritic (talk) 05:46, 11 April 2009 (UTC)

I sure wish the dejure stuff was removed from the monarchy articles. GoodDay (talk) 22:59, 11 April 2009 (UTC)

Major change

I've just made a major change and I think I should justify it: I've replaced the column marked "House" and replaced it with one marked "Father". There are several reasons for this. First, we do not actually have links to all of the so-called "Houses" that were identified, with the result that some of the links went to placenames, some to lists of counts or dukes (not necessarily all of the same family), and others that failed to link at all. Second, "House" as apparently (though not explicitly) defined for the purposes of the list was a rather abstract and uninformative patriline -- consider that members of the same "House" could be found scattered all over Europe (there have been French, Portuguese, Spanish, Hungarian, Neapolitan and Sicilian "Capetians") and that a member of a "House" could be anything from the younger son of a titular count to a king or emperor. And with the exception of some of the later "Houses" of great fame (e.g., Tudors, Bourbons, Hapsburgs) many of the "House" names, like Ahalolfing or Liudolfing, are unlikely to convey even general information.

Providing the name and title of the consort's father, however, provides a good deal of information: you learn from it the consort's relative rank (e.g., is she the daughter of a king? a duke? a commoner?) and her country of origin. It also provides insight into the political relationships that were aimed at by the marriage -- was the king seeking an alliance with a foreign monarch, or trying to consolidate power by alliances with powerful French fiefs and appanages? The "House" names often make this quite opaque -- e.g., when "Liudolfing" disguises the fact that the consort was actually the daughter of the King of Germany.

In general, "Houses" don't tell us a lot about the political geography of the time or the reasons for the consort's marriage; but providing the father's name and title does shed considerable light upon the roles that the consort was born into. RandomCritic (talk) 15:50, 3 September 2009 (UTC)

I agree with you. Good decision. Surtsicna (talk) 16:33, 3 September 2009 (UTC)

File:Bertha of holland.jpg Nominated for Deletion

An image used in this article, File:Bertha of holland.jpg, has been nominated for deletion at Wikimedia Commons in the following category: Deletion requests December 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) 07:55, 24 December 2011 (UTC)

Currently living in Louisiana! Anyone else is just Playing with our kingdoms! So sit down and be humble or else move out!

Leblanc LeVeau Degraffenreid and many more. To many to name. 174.255.130.174 (talk) 13:53, 31 December 2021 (UTC)

Should we include ...?

Compare and contrast: -

• This article
• List_of_Frankish_queens_consort#Queen_of_the_Franks_(843–987)
• Template:French consorts
• The succession boxes in the individual articles.

In an ideal world, these should all correspond/dovetail, and should agree with the corresponding sources for their husbands. But as far as I can see, they do not.

• All four start with Ermentrude of Orléans and then through Richilde of Provence to Adelaide of Paris, the wife of Louis the Stammerer, who died in 879.
• But List_of_Frankish_queens_consort#Queen_of_the_Franks_(843–987), Template:French consorts and Adelaide's succession box say that the next one was Richardis of Swabia, the wife of Charles the Fat, while this article says that the next one was Théodrate of Troyes, the wife of Odo of France. I suggest that Richardis should be added to this article.
• Ermentrude and Richilde are both categorised under Frankish_queens_consort while Adelaide is under both that and Queens_consort_of_France, Richardis is only under Frankish_queens_consort, Théodrate, Frederuna, Eadgifu, Beatrice are under both, Emma of France is only under Frankish_queens_consort, Geberga of Saxony and Emma of Italy are under both, Adelaide of Aquitaine (wife of Hugh Capet) is only under Queens_consort_of_France. I suggest that Ermentrude, Richilde, Richardis and Emma should be categorised as Queens of France. Their husbands are in a sub-sub-cat of Kings of France.

Thoughts? Alekksandr (talk) 21:44, 16 June 2024 (UTC)