Talk:Louis Philippe I/Archive 1

Archive 1

Untitled

Inconsistency in this article: Louis-Philip; Louis-Philippe; Louis Philippe.

According to some authorities, the French connect a person's two Christian names with a hyphen.
S.

So go ahead and put the hyphens in. He's not Louis (Philip I), he's (Louis Philip) I, and I think having the hyphen in makes that clearer, don't you? -- isis 29 Aug 2002

---

Moved this here because i don't own a single book that Anglicizes Philippe. Made the change in the article. JHK

Does everything after "The Clash of the Pretenders" belong here? Shouldn't it be moved to a history of France article? The dates next to the children are really ugly, too. We have Wiki standards for dates. And why is the daughter called Princess Louise-Marie Thérèse Charlotte Isabelle in one paragraph and Princess Louise of Orleans in another? I had fixed all of these things (except the last section), but got hit by an edit conflict and really don't want to have to redo all of it. -- Zoe

I think that as the monarchy ended with Louis-Philippe, 'The Clash of the Pretenders' is worth mentioning here as an epilogue, especially as the throne was offered gift-wrapped to the Comte de Chambord in the 1870s but the man (rumoured to be so stupid he couldn't tie his own shoelaces!) was to stupid to accept. Given that, to get all biblical (or at least to paraphrase it) here endeth the monarchy It is worth giving one of two paragraphs to explain why Louis-Philippe was the last king, even though by 1870 a majority wanted a royal restoration. Sometimes a postscript helps contextualise an article and this, I believe, is one of those occasions.

It could also be done as a separate page on the Comte de Chambord, but that would open up squabbles because some people call him Comte de Chambord, some the duc de Bordeaux, and some fanatical French royalists will insist (on pain of an edit war) on calling him 'Henry V of France'. And if you have a page on him, do you have one of the Comte de Paris, etc.? (If you don't, expect accusations of bias from [ . . . fill in name of the angry fanatic . . . .]) It could be in a page on the Third French Republic (if we had one!), but there too you'll have a couple of fanatics on left and right 'demanding' that the article 'expose' the 'anti-semitic, right wing anti-Dreyfus royalists' (the left wing view) or the two-faced dishonesty of the founders of the Republic on the issue of the Crown (the monarchist view), how the stupid legitimists destroyed a royal restoration (the orleanist view), or how the power-grabbing descendants of the 'usurper Louis-Philippe', the monied middle classes and jews all plotted to block the 'legitimate' king Henry V's right to get back his throne' (the legitimist view). On balance it is better to plonk it here on a page about the last French king where its is least likely to cause the Weekly Wiki War of the Edits. JTD

Marie Eugenia von Schroeppel

This marriage is not a documented fact and is at best wishful thinking on the part of whomever submitted this information. I am surprised that this made it into this encyclopedia. I have been doing basic academic research on the Schroeppel family for over twenty years and am able to definatively disprove this connection. Among other false items of information here is that George Casper Schroeppel never used nor was he ever know by "von" Schroeppel. 24Nov2003 DB

Louis Philippe of the French?

Since he was not "King of France", it might make more sense to title the article as above. This is probably not worth doing unless there is genuine and overwhelming consensus on it; so I'm not taking this to WP:RM until I see what the watchers of this page say. It should be a redirect anyway. Septentrionalis 15:19, 10 August 2005 (UTC)

Someone who knows more than I do, please edit to show the burial site of Louis-Philippe and his family. Isn't it the Royal Chapel at Dreux? glasperlenspiel 19:23, 5 October 2005 (UTC)

Louis Philippe, King of the French would be a better title, in my view. john k (talk) 21:51, 7 February 2008 (UTC)

(recent comments about the name of the page moved to Talk:Louis-Philippe d'Orléans, King of the French#Moving article) Equendil Talk 03:36, 10 May 2009 (UTC)

wrong date (?)

In the section entitled Abdication, at the end of the first paragraph, the following sentence is in parentheses:

(The following year, 1844, Louis-Philippe saw a Fleet Review, Royal Navy.)

From the context it appears that the date should read 1849. Is this correct? Dveej 22:12, 24 February 2006 (UTC)

Miserable Article

This article is pathetic. It doesn't even cite a thing. One source? That's it? This shouldn't even be a B-Class article, it's closer to a START class... I suggest a rewrite. Also, there is a ton of info on google books on this guy, just search it up.63.215.29.115 00:34, 23 February 2007 (UTC)

I have added the request for citation, perhaps you could help with it? STTW (talk) 13:00, 24 February 2007 (UTC)

Sure. I am doing a research paper on him. Since i have to cite my sources, ill try to work it in to wikipedia.63.215.29.115 00:45, 13 March 2007 (UTC)

Kasab

The word "kasab" appears a number of times in this article, apropos of nothing. It may be a vandalizing reference to Khaled Kasab Mahameed. 208.194.97.9 15:43, 27 February 2007 (UTC)

Fairly heavy style rewrite

This article was apparently composed by a non-Anglophone. Ther content was generally excellent, but the writing had problems.

There were several instances of wrong word usage ("installed" for "instilled", "sinecure" for "symbol", "following" for "succeeding").

Sentence forms imitated French forms that are not appropriate in English: "would be" for "was", "would go" for "went".

In addition:

There were many run-on sentences, and a lot of circumlatory language. Also passages that were confusing.

There were some serious typos ("Hiatt" for "he", "the the" for "to the").

Linking, capitalization, and italicization were inconsistent and sometimes improper.

All this I have fixed as much as I could.

Also a few errors of fact. Reichenau is on the upper Rhine, but not at its source, which is in Lichtenstein. Cochrane could not have commanded the British ship that seized Louis Philippe and his brothers in 1797; his first command was in 1800.

This latter passage seems confused. Why did the British ship seize Louis Philippe and his brothers? Why then deliver them to Havana, where they were bound anyway? If Britain and Spain were at war, how could a British ship call there?

There were some irrelevant passages about extraneous related topics which I deleted (about Chambord, for instance). It is important that an article stick to one topic, and avoid including material which appears in other articles. If there is a correction, expansion, or revision to be made, the fewer instances to be fixed, the better. (As noted, the discussion of the pretenders has to go somewhere, and would probably be edit-warred elsewhere. But there is no need to mention Chambord and the flag more than once, or include the date of Louis Napoleon's coup.)

Finally, while this article has great detail about Louis' life from 1789 to 1800, it has nothing at all about his 15 years in Britain, only one paragraph about the 15 years under Louis XVIII and Charles X, and only one brief paragraph about his 18 years as King. It is quite useful for what it has, but needs to be completed. Not, alas, by me.

--Rich Rostrom (Talk) 18:45, 22 May 2007 (UTC)

Napoleon III as successor ??

Michaelsanders keeps listing Napoleon III as Louis-Philippe's successor. IMHO, this is not justified. Louis-Napoléon Bonaparte only came to power in december 1848, and was preceded as head of state by Jacques-Charles Dupont de l'Eure, the Executive Commission and Louis-Eugène Cavaignac. Moreover, he was not a monarch until the 1852 coup d'état. Listing him as Louis-Philippe's successor is just plain wrong and confusing. It would be pretty much like listing Napoleon I as Louis XVI's successor despite the 11-years gap, or Adolphe Thiers as Louis-Napoléon Bonaparte's (as he was the next president). I suggest we discuss it before we start an edit war. Wedineinheck 07:02, 4 December 2007 (UTC)

When listing monarchs, it's common to indicate the previous and following monarchical rulers. Napoleon III was the next monarch of France after Louis-Philippe, since, like you say, he became Emperor in 1852. Michael Sanders 11:52, 4 December 2007 (UTC)

Well, he might have been monarch in 1852 but he was definitely not Louis-Philippe's immediate successor. What matters IMHO is that Bonaparte was not HEAD OF STATE at the moment of Louis-Philippe's downfall; I considered that this infobox's role was to indicate France's actual ruler rather than monarch. Moreover, he was certainly not recognized as legitimate by monarchists. If we follow that logic, Napoleon I should be listed as Louis XVI's successor, which he is not at the moment. As for Henri V, as you state, his status as king was "questionable", as he was not recognized. In French historiography Louis XIX and Henri V are not recognized as having reigned (and, in effect, they didn't, much like Louis XVII or Napoleon II), so their presence as actual kings in a line of succession is considered purely theoretical. More often than not, they aren't even mentioned as such. But the history of France's monarchy is arguably convoluted in the XIXth century. If you absolutely want to list Napoleon III in this article (+ Louis XIX and Henri V) though, we might find a compromise. Wedineinheck 16:25, 4 December 2007 (UTC)

Here, I edited this infobox and Charles X's, so it includes all de facto/de jure predecessors and successors. I hope this suits everybody. Wedineinheck 16:40, 4 December 2007 (UTC)

Sorry, but I'd like the infoboxes to remain that way : Henri V is not generally considered as having legitimally reigned, so his inclusion without commentary is just confusing. Wedineinheck 17:34, 4 December 2007 (UTC)

—Preceding unsigned comment added by 89.224.138.28 (talk) 16:09, 7 December 2007 (UTC)

Listing as his successor the monarch of a completely different regime is absurd. I would say, though, that none of the intermediate authorities in 1848 really qualify as permanent, rather than temporary heads of state, and that, arguably, Cavaignac was the only one who was even a proper interim head of state. Dupont de l'Eure was really more a prime minister than a head of state, and the Executive Commission was a commission. On the other hand, rather sadly, we do list Georges Pompidou as both preceded and succeeded as French president by Alain Poher, rather than preceded by De Gaulle and succeeded by Giscard d'Estaing, so perhaps that doesn't hold up. john k (talk) 21:50, 7 February 2008 (UTC)

Well, it indeed implies changes of regime, but Louis-Philippe was nevertheless de facto the Head of State of France following Charles X, and Dupont de l'Eure de facto succeeded Louis-Philippe. So that makes sense, since we have to take into account that the situations were extremely convoluted. Wedineinheck (talk) 11:46, 17 February 2008 (UTC)

Dupont de l'Eure was certainly head of government. Whether he was head of state seems open to question. john k (talk) 14:16, 17 February 2008 (UTC)

Beyond that, I think I mostly object to the fact that we have two separate boxes, one for "French Head of State" and one for "King of the French". john k (talk) 14:19, 17 February 2008 (UTC)

Well, Dupont de l'Eure was head of government, but he was de facto head of state as there was no one else left to fill that role : the monarchy had been abolished and the position of President of the Republic had not yet been created. The same thing goes for the Executive Commission, or for the Presidents of the French Provisional Government (1944-46), who were de facto heads of State in absence of a President of the Republic. As for the separate boxes for "French Head of State" and "King of the French", I didn't create them, but they are two separate offices, the former being a position, the latter a title. Wedineinheck (talk) 14:53, 17 February 2008 (UTC)

They are not two separate offices. john k (talk) 17:35, 17 February 2008 (UTC)

Well, the word office does not correctly describes it, but these are two different things. Louis-Philippe was Head of State of France while he was in power; he remained de jure King of the French until his death, as this is a title and not an actual office. The title is currently held by Henri d'Orléans : no one would consider that this elderly gentleman is or has ever been an actual Head of State Wedineinheck (talk) 18:22, 17 February 2008 (UTC)

I think there should be one succession box. It should say "King of the French." The dates should say "1830-1848". The before box should say "Charles X", and below that, "(King of France)". The after box should say "Jacques Charles Dupont de l'Eure", and below that "(President of the Provisional Government)". The navigation should go to predecessors as head of state, the title in the box should be the title which he held as head of state. The de jure status of Louis Philippe after 1848 (which is dubious, anyway, since he abdicated) is irrelevant, as is the de jure succession of his grandson. Neither Philippe, Comte de Paris, nor his great-grand-nephew has ever been "King of the French" any more than he has been Head of State. (And, in fact, since 1875, the Orléans have not claimed the succession through the 1830 Charter, but rather as senior male descendants of Hugh Capet, assuming the exclusion of descendants of Philip V of Spain.) john k (talk) 20:27, 17 February 2008 (UTC)

This is actually a complex issue. I'd have no problem with listing only Charles X as Louis-Philippe's predecessor, but another user insisted on listing both Louis XIX and Henri V - who both had fictional and extremely short reigns - though no one except hardcore monarchists considers them to have actually been kings of France. Listing them in the infobox has the advantage of illustrating how complex the situation was. Same thing, IMHO, for listing both Dupont de l'Eure (de facto successor) and Philippe VII (de jure successor), as it illustrates how the line of succession was broken. I personnally think we could do without Napoleon III as next reigning monarch, but it was the same user who wanted to include him, so I think that we might keep that compromise. Wedineinheck (talk) 08:43, 18 February 2008 (UTC)

Paris -> England by cab

"he quickly disguised himself and fled Paris. Riding in an ordinary cab under the name of "Mr. Smith", he escaped to England."
One suspects that in travelling from Paris to England he may have used an alternate method of transportation at some point. :-) -- Writtenonsand (talk) 15:15, 22 March 2008 (UTC)

Bien sûr! Un bateau-mouche pour passer la Manche... Frania W. (talk) 17:54, 18 June 2008 (UTC)

Title is wrong

Louis-Philippe I, King of the French from 1830 to 1848, was never *de France* - surname given to the Bourbon kings of France & their direct legitimate descendants. Louis-Philippe's surname was *d'Orléans*, while the surname of his predecessors, from Louis XIII to Charles X was *de France*. Gaston de France, Duke of Orléans 'Gaston d'Orléans' (1608-1660), son of Henry IV & brother of Louis XIII, was not the founder of the House of Orléans, it is his nephew Philippe de France (1640-1701), Louis XIV's brother, who, at the death of his uncle Gaston, received the apanage of Orléans. From then on, beginning with the children of Philippe, the members of the Orléans branch never had the surname *de France* but *d'Orléans*. All this to say that the title of this article is wrong & should be Louis-Philippe d'Orléans, King of the French. Frania W. (talk) 02:55, 7 September 2008 (UTC)

Moving article

As there has been no reaction to my above comment Title is wrong, I am moving this article to its rightful title of Louis-Philippe d'Orléans, King of the French. Frania W. (talk) 00:24, 4 May 2009 (UTC)

Would it be better to revert the title of this article back to "Louis-Philippe I of France"? Yes, he was the king of the French, but "Louis Philippe d'Orleans, King of the French" is way too much for a title. Napoleon was Emperor of the French, but the title of the article is not "Napoleon I, Emperor of the French". It is Napoleon I of France, and I believe that some controversies can be resolved be simple reverting the title of the article back to "Louis-Philippe I of France". MWatson15 (talk) 17:15, 8 May 2009 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.163.159.52 (talk)

On 7 September 2008, exactly eight months ago, I had left a comment below == Title is wrong == no one ever commented on it and I figured no one really cared. Now that I politely waited these full 8 months & did the change in title, someone wakes up saying the change is wrong.

Louis-Philippe was *King of the French*, not *of France*, so giving him the title Louis Philippe of France is historically wrong. The very fact that Louis-Philippe did not want to be called Roi de France, but Roi des Français should be respected in an encyclopedic article. In fact, the title of the article on Napoléon I is also wrong, and should be Napoleon I, Emperor of the French.

Drop the *d'Orléans*, if too cumbersome, but keep *King of the French*.

Wikipedia is, paraît-il, an encyclopedia, so why should wrong titles be given to its articles?

Frania W. (talk) 01:40, 10 May 2009 (UTC)

Titles and page names are not the same. Titles belong in the article, the name of a page is merely there to identify its subject simply and unambiguously, Napoleon would be just fine at "Napoleon Bonaparte" or "Napoleon I, French Emperor". For disambiguation as well as consistency reasons however, French monarchs are usually named "<Monarchal name> of France" in line with Wikipedia:Naming conventions (names and titles). Let's keep things simple, formal regal titles only make it more difficult to reach pages, which is counter productive. There was nothing wrong with Louis-Philippe of France as a page name for the article about Louis-Philippe d'Orléans, King of the French. Equendil Talk 03:32, 10 May 2009 (UTC)

I still maintain that Louis-Philippe of France is not the correct title, and that it should be Louis-Philippe, King of the French, if d'Orléans is not included. It is not a matter of keeping things simple, but having things correctly worded. It happens that Louis-Philippe is different than his predecessors BECAUSE HE HIMSELF decided to be called King of the French, and I cannot see a valid reason why an encyclopedia would take liberties with history.

And if we want to put this naming of royalty into such a corset, why is the article on queen Marie Antoinette titled Marie Antoinette? What strict wikipedian rule is being followed? Why is not she Marie Antoinette of Austria, or Marie Antoinette of France (which would be wrong) since it is the country of which she was queen? Cordialement, Frania W. (talk) 04:23, 10 May 2009 (UTC)

P.S. Moving here 7 February 2008 comment by user john k (talk)

Louis Philippe, King of the French would be a better title, in my view. john k (talk) 21:51, 7 February 2008 (UTC)

Frania W.

Again, page names are for identification of the subject, nothing more. From Wikipedia:Naming conventions (names and titles)#Consorts of sovereigns: "Where the name by itself is unambiguous or primary usage, it is pedantry to insist on this form against usage: Marie Antoinette, not Marie Antoinette of Austria." Now a proper title might be Marie Antoinette, Archduchess of Austria, Queen consort of France and Navarre, but it is needlessly tortuous. Please note there are no "strict" rules per se, however the spirit behind naming conventions is as follow:

:::Generally, article naming should prefer what the greatest number of English speakers would most easily recognize, with a reasonable minimum of ambiguity, while at the same time making linking to those articles easy and second nature.

This is justified by the following principle:

The names of Wikipedia articles should be optimized for readers over editors, and for a general audience over specialists.

If we *really* wanted to follow historical titles, we would end up with a page named: "The most Serene and most Puissant Prince and Lord, Ferdinand the Second, of famous Memory, elected Roman Emperor, always August, King of Germany, Hungary, Bohemia, Dalmatia, Croatia, Slavonia, Arch-Duke of Austria, Duke of Burgundy, Brabant, Styria, Carinthia, Carniola, Marquiss of Moravia, Duke of Luxemburgh, the Higher and Lower Silesia, of Wirtemburg and Teck, Prince of Suabia, Count of Hapsburg, Tirol, Kyburg and Goritia, Marquiss of the Sacred Roman Empire, Lord of Burgovia, of the Higher and Lower Lusace, of the Marquisate of Slavonia, of Port Naon and Salines" for Ferdinand II, Holy Roman Emperor, to take an extreme example. The latter is prefered, it's not taking liberties with history, it's just identifying the subject concisely, unambiguously, and in a manner consistent with other Holy Roman Emperors. Equendil Talk 15:39, 10 May 2009 (UTC)

It sounds a bit ridiculous to me to give an extreme as an example. I gave my argument as to why Louis-Philippe should be treated differently and not be *of France* as Louis XIV is. For some of us who know a little of French history, and without being pedant, I see nothing wrong in having a correct title instead of perpetuating inexactitudes. The title I proposed does immediately separates Louis-Philippe from his predecessors for the simple reason that Louis-Philippe was not King of France but King of the French. And I do repeat that the title for Marie Antoinette is wrong, as are those of Napoléon I and Napoléon III. Since I have been spending days... months correcting the *abominations* I find in en:wiki, I have absolutely no qualms in standing my ground. Cordialement à vous! Frania W. (talk) 16:12, 10 May 2009 (UTC)

But Louis XIV was "Louis XIV, roi très chrétien de France et de Navarre" and that's ditching most of the bells and whistles; "Louis XIV of France" is not really any more "correct" than "Louis-Philippe of France". However, and that's what you don't seem to get, it identifies the subject properly for the purpose of naming pages, in accordance to Wikipedia(en)'s naming policy and guidelines established through concensus, and consistent with the more informal convention regarding French monarchs. What dictates the name of pages is ease of reach and disambiguation. Besides, Louis-Philippe of France is not "incorrect", it's how English speaking authors commonly refers to all French monarchs, regardless of what form was prefered by said French monarchs or nobility of the time, regardless of what form is prefered by French people nowadays.

I think you are fighting the wrong battle here, there are entire articles to introduce official title(s), surnames, monikers, variants or whatever, particularly in the lead section. You may as well argue that the article on France should really be under the name French Republic because that's the official name.

By all means, correct the information on Wikipedia-en, but please don't go on a crusade trying to change article names against a well established concensus. Equendil Talk 19:59, 10 May 2009 (UTC)

I very much dislike including "d'Orléans." We almost never use surnames for monarchs, and there's really no reason to use it for him, and it makes the title ridiculously long. Beyond that, I think using "King of the French" would be fine, but I don't have a very strong opinion of it. I think we ought to have an organic solution for all the "King of [People]" forms - we shouldn't have Louis Philippe, King of the French if we also have George II of Greece and Albert II of Belgium. Deal with them all together, or leave them as is. I will dispute two claims made by either side in this dispute. First, I dispute that Louis Philippe is "normally referred to in English" as "Louis Philippe of France". By who? When? How often? What he is normally referred to in English is "Louis Philippe," just as Louis XIV is normally referred to as "Louis XIV." (One would add that in neither case is disambuguation really necessary - certainly there is no other Louis XIV of note, and this Louis Philippe is by far the most prominent person known by that name.) Second, I dispute, as others have, that "Louis Philippe of France" is incorrect. It would be incorrect to say "Louis Philippe, King of France" or to call him the "King of France" (although I'd imagine the latter is sometimes done). The form "Name of France" really does not imply anything about what title he held, so I don't see that it's a big problem. The whole naming form for monarchs strikes me as very inelegant, but there's little to be done about it. By the way - I find it ridiculous that Wiki technology has still not found a way to have a display title which is different from the url title. These awkward titles for monarch articles result from the fact that, for instance, unlike every other encyclopedia in existence, we cannot have multiple articles with the same title. This leads to all sorts of awkward disambiguation titles, of which the monarchical naming convention is one. It would be far better if we could just have multiple articles that all appear to the reader to be titled Henry IV, for instance. Disambiguation forms could then be left as an exercise for editors, and there would be little need to insure consistency. john k (talk) 18:14, 11 May 2009 (UTC)

John K: Thank you for entering the debate, giving your point of view on both sides of the discussion. After moving the article to include the surname, I realised *d'Orléans* was a bit too much. Being an extremely civil person, I shall abide to consensus (what else can one do?); however, this will not mean that my views on the subject have changed. Cordialement, Frania W. (talk) 18:44, 11 May 2009 (UTC)

Surely the most obvious place for the article given all the naming conventions is at Louis-Philippe of the French? Opera hat (talk) 02:50, 19 May 2009 (UTC)

Not Louis-Philippe of the French, but Louis-Philippe, King of the French. Frania W. (talk) 02:59, 19 May 2009 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Naming conventions (names and titles)#Sovereigns disagrees. Opera hat (talk) 09:48, 21 May 2009 (UTC)

And I happen to disagree with some of Wikipedia's ***Naming conventions (names and titles)#Sovereigns***. On the one hand, the titles of articles must follow a strict rule that I see as a corset, strict rule that refuses to take into consideration the peculiarity of a sovereign, as in the case of king Louis-Philippe & the emperors Napoléon I & Napoléon III, while on the other hand, it totally ignores its own convention, as in the case of Marie Antoinette : why nothing after her name?. I know that my opinion goes against the tide, but it is my opinion & I maintain that Wikipedia is not the Truth parachuted to Earth. Frania W. (talk) 13:30, 21 May 2009 (UTC)

More about his diary?

It was translated into Polish, and maybe other languages. 570 pages. Link to etext?--Revery (talk) 17:57, 20 August 2009 (UTC)

Article moved

Why has the article been moved from Louis-Philippe I, King of the French to Louis-Philippe of France??? It's clearly a controversial change which should've been discussed beforehand. -- Jack1755 (talk) 01:36, 16 November 2009 (UTC)

I've undone my edit. DrKiernan (talk) 09:05, 17 February 2010 (UTC)

It should be at Louis-Phillipe I of the France, just like we got Albert II of Belgium (for example). GoodDay (talk) 20:44, 18 February 2010 (UTC)

You don't mean "of the France", presumably? Anyway, can someone start a proper move discussion?--Kotniski (talk) 13:58, 20 March 2010 (UTC)

Louis-Philippe, "King of the French" by his own choice, wishes English Wikipedia would respect that historical choice of his & stop moving his article back & forth to "of France" and "of the French" as it makes him constantly turn in his grave - awfully tiresome in that narrow space. --Frania W. (talk) 14:55, 20 March 2010 (UTC)

It should be at Louis-Phillippe I of France, for the same reason we've got the Belgian monarchs as ..of Belgium, instead of the correct version ..of the Belgians. GoodDay (talk) 16:22, 20 March 2010 (UTC)

Another example are the Greek monarchs George I to Constantine II. They're as ...of Greece, not ...of the Hellenes. GoodDay (talk) 17:09, 20 March 2010 (UTC)

Could there be another side of this argument? If the title Louis-Philippe, King of the French was accepted on en:wiki as historically correct, then why not have So& So, King of the Belgians since that is the title of the Belgian monarchs in reality? Using "of France" for Louis-Philippe is going against "historical correctness" of the History of France, something that should be of importance in an encyclopedia. --Frania W. (talk) 17:46, 20 March 2010 (UTC)

If you can pull off such changes at the Belgian & Greek monarch articles? good luck. GoodDay (talk) 22:16, 20 March 2010 (UTC)

Couldn't we just call him Louis Philippe? That's what I've always heard him referred to as, and he's certainly the primary topic for that name.--Kotniski (talk) 09:46, 21 March 2010 (UTC)

And while we're at it, should the hyphen be there or not? The article uses "Louis-Philippe" most of the time, but when it refers to how he actually called himself, the hyphen drops out.--Kotniski (talk) 10:01, 22 March 2010 (UTC)

In the case of Louis-Philippe, the hyphen is there (or should be) - always. Will explain when have more time.

--Frania W. (talk) 12:02, 22 March 2010 (UTC)

Previous requested move

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

No consensus to move. If anyone attempts to try relisting, do address the ambitiousness of the title proposed here. Vegaswikian (talk) 22:07, 22 April 2010 (UTC)

Louis-Philippe I, King of the French → Louis-Philippe of France — Relisted--Aervanath (talk) 11:42, 3 April 2010 (UTC)

The present title is contrary to Wikpedia naming conventions, see WP:NCROY. While we are not obliged to follow these conventions slavishly at all times, departing from them in a case which has proved controversial, like this, deserves a full discussion. PatGallacher (talk) 18:31, 22 March 2010 (UTC)

• (comment, my !vote is below) It can only be stated that the proposed title complies with the naming conventions if it can be shown that the "I" is not in official use (which no-one has made any attempt to do). Anyway, since he appears to have made a conscious and significant decision to be roi "des Francais" rather than "de France", I think the current title is to be preferred (unless "of France" can be shown to be the established usage among English historians).--Kotniski (talk) 19:02, 22 March 2010 (UTC)
• Support Convention appears pretty clear on this one. Not only that it appears to be common name as well (731 google book hits for Louis-Philippe of France[1] vs. 241 hits for Louis-Philippe I, King of the French[2]). Seems like a pretty open and closed case to me.--Labattblueboy (talk) 21:37, 22 March 2010 (UTC)
• Oppose. Louis-Philippe intentionally shunned the territorial designation 'of France', and therefore I believe the present title should be respected; moreover, his most recent biography in English is Citizen-King: the Life of Louis-Philippe, King of the French. I fail to see how google books can successfully determine the occurence of the 'most common name' in popular imagination. After all, if, for example, the aforementioned biography sold 70,000 units and and the books using 'Louis-Philippe of France' sold a combined 60,000, which name, I ask you, would be adopted? -- Jack1755 (talk) 22:14, 22 March 2010 (UTC)
• Support, as this is the current convention. GoodDay (talk) 22:39, 22 March 2010 (UTC)
• Support per naming conventions, but wouldn't be terribly opposed to Louis-Philippe of the French as a compromise. jgpTC 07:32, 23 March 2010 (UTC)
• Support, according to all the Wikipedia guidelines and commonly is applied for this kind of monarchs; discussed above here and on WT:NCNT. No French exception, this is the English-language Wikipedia. Demophon (talk) 07:46, 23 March 2010 (UTC)

No-one's actually suggesting calling the article "...Roi des Francais".--Kotniski (talk) 10:24, 23 March 2010 (UTC)

• Oppose The current title matches his official style, and is found in reliable sources. The disambiguation page lists four other Louis Philippe's from France, and so the proposed target is ambiguous, whereas the current title is not. 137.205.183.12 (talk) 08:06, 23 March 2010 (UTC)
• Oppose (pending more detailed dicussion of options). As usual, Google book hits (the new science) are misleading. The first thing to decide is whether the numeral "I" should be included. It's that (not the designation of France vs. the French) that leads to the 731-241 preponderance of hits cited above. Once we've got that sorted out (preferably on the basis of something resembling scholarship), we can decide whether and what disambiguator to use - and we'll find that Google is no longer decisive on the issue. Also please note that the great majority of the hits for "LP of France" are actually part of "King LP of France" - taking the "king" bit away makes the "of France" bit meaningless (as in all these stupid names that WP uses, like Victoria of the United Kingdom and Anne of Great Britain). This convention does not even have consensus support any more (as other discussions have shown), and particularly the bit about what to do with monarchs without numerals is so patently at odds with real-world usage as not to be worthy of any consideration at all.--Kotniski (talk) 09:19, 23 March 2010 (UTC)

Discussion notified at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject France#Louis Philippe; one reply (re the "I") received there.--Kotniski (talk) 13:35, 23 March 2010 (UTC)

• Oppose for this simple reason:

Ordonnance du 13 août 1830 (highlighting/underlining mine):

• Ordonnance du roi qui détermine les noms et titres des princes et princesses de la famille royale.
• LOUIS PHILIPPE ROI DES FRANÇAIS, à tous présens et à venir, salut.

The role of an encyclopedia is to be "historically correct", not to cater to the most popular wording or "Google hits", which seems to become the standard manner in which to prove a theory. If I may give an example of how "Google" works, I just typed the following on France & obtained Google scientific answer:

• France is a kingdom 322,000,000
• France is a republic 188,000,000

In other words, had men like Galileo, Copernicus, Einstein followed the popular belief & become addicted to "Google hits", we'd still be living in caves... on a flat Earth.

--Frania W. (talk) 13:54, 23 March 2010 (UTC)

In fairness (though it's no better - worse in my opinion) the principal argument here is from the naming convention rather than from Google hits. But I notice you write that quote without the hyphen and without the "I" - does that indicate something?--Kotniski (talk) 14:37, 23 March 2010 (UTC)

1. My "Google hit" example was a try at proving by the absurd why "Google hits" are not to be taken as the "Truth parachuted to Earth".
2. At the Wikipedia talk:WikiProject France#Louis Philippe you directed us to, I wrote: The *I* was NOT used in Louis-Philippe's lifetime. As for the hyphen, I noticed that Louis-Philippe signed without it, but in the case on which we are arguing, it is of lesser importance than the wrong & misleading title English Wikipedia wants to give him, which, in order to be correct, should be Louis-Philippe, King of the French.
3. Among the books I either own or consult online (biographies by historians such as É. Lever, Castelot, Dufresne, Guillon, Burton...), I find LP to be spelled out "Louis-Philippe" with the hyphen, there is one of particular interest: the Mémoires de la comtesse de Boigne (1781-1866) who was a close friend to most members of the royal family, both main branch & Orléans. She had been raised with Louis-Philippe's wife & remained an intimate friend of theirs to the last. In her Mémoires, LP is chronologically mentioned as "duc de Chartres, "duc d'Orléans", "Lieutenant général", "roi Louis-Philippe" (with the hyphen). On page 331 Mme de Boigne writes: "On ne peut imaginer un cicerone plus instructif, plus amusant et plus amusé que le roi Louis-Philippe..."

--Frania W. (talk) 16:56, 23 March 2010 (UTC)

So is it possible (I'm just speculating here) that the compulsory use of the hyphen applies in modern French, and that in 19th-century French it was optional (explaining why LP himself didn't use it but his friend did)? And do you have any information as to when and why the "I" came to be appended to his name?--Kotniski (talk) 18:31, 23 March 2010 (UTC)

I'm pretty certain that the comte de Paris pretended as 'Louis-Philippe II', although some books say he did so as 'Philippe VII'. -- Jack1755 (talk) 19:29, 23 March 2010 (UTC)

His article says he was called LP II initially by his supporters, but when he came to have a say in the matter himself, he preferred to be just Philippe.--Kotniski (talk) 19:35, 23 March 2010 (UTC)

If so, calling him "Louis-Philippe I" could be giving support to the Orleanist claim, contrary to NPOV. PatGallacher (talk) 19:48, 23 March 2010 (UTC)

My apologies to Jack1755 for inserting a comment before his.

In a conversation the comtesse de Boigne had with the wife of the Duke of Orléans on the day he had been designated Lieutenant général du royaume by the deputies, and that she reports in her Mémoires, there was mention of the name Louis(-)Philippe would take, should the crown land upon his head (my words). Quoting Mme de Boigne addressing the Duchess of Orléans on 31 July 1830: Eh bien! Madame, la France serait-elle donc si malheureuse de se trouver entre de pareilles mains, si notre Guillaume III, s'appelait Philippe VII? to which the future queen answered, Ils l'appelleraient usurpateur. It is easy to understand that LP would not use the name Louis, if only because of his father the regicide, and the fact that his becoming king meant the end of the senior line, which was filled with "Louis". For the same reason, because he was knifing the senior line in the back, he could not become "Philippe VII" (also, "Philippe VI" had lost the battle of Crécy (1346) to the English, not good for a new king to follow in his footsteps). Consequently, he had no other choice than to inaugurate the new royal house with a new name, that of "Louis Philippe", with or without hyphen. As for the *I*, I can find it nowhere during his lifetime & I cannot find when it was first used. --Frania W. (talk) 04:52, 24 March 2010 (UTC)

To Jack below: Did LP declare himself king? --Frania W. (talk) 04:52, 24 March 2010 (UTC)

If we are to travel down the long road of NPOV, this article should mention that, under the Charter of 1814, Louis-Philippe's declaring himself King was legally impossible. -- Jack1755 (talk) 20:16, 23 March 2010 (UTC)

About as relevant as the legal impossibility of the Charter of 1814 under the declaration of the French Republic of 1792. Efforts to pretend away the horrid Revolution of 1830 are charming in Cardinal Newman, but not helpful to the encyclopedia. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 22:21, 23 March 2010 (UTC)

Oh dear, Pmanderson, and I thought that the Charter of 1814 was still in use when Charles X adbicated and Louis-Philippe oversaw unauthorised changes to that document as Lieutenant-General of the Kingdom, not even to begin with the declaration of his kingship--silly me! I'd like to apologise for branding illegal Louis-Philippe's acceptance of the throne and wishing to include that fact in the article. All those historians that so much as contemplate the question in their works must be completely wrong! However, the comparison you drew, Pmanderson, confuses me. Could you elaborate on how the declaration of the French Republic made the Charter of 1814 invalid? I eagerly await what is going to be a fascinating answer--I know you wouldn't make such a huge statement without having indisputable evidence to back it up--especially considering how almost every legislative action of the republic was incapacitated, to a large extent, by the empire. BTW, I can't wait to hear how the declaration of the republic had articles banning a future constitution. Oh so eager to be corrected and happily assuming good faith, -- Jack1755 (talk) 00:10, 24 March 2010 (UTC)

Thank you for your apology; now make it sincere, and stop pushing a fringe point of view on Wikipedia. You waste your time, and, more importantly, the time of the editors who have to clean up after your mess, and the admins who will eventually have to ban you. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 05:53, 24 March 2010 (UTC)

LOL. While you may be inclined to describe six good articles as my 'mess', I am not. Anyway, seeing as you're cleary so upset with my jest, I shan't continue to dwell on the topic: an acid-tongued rebuttal would constitute pettiness at its worst. -- Jack1755 (talk) 14:01, 24 March 2010 (UTC)

We seem to have strayed a little from the original proposal... Anyway, since this proposal seems to have been made without addressing all the issues involved, and hence without considering all potential titles, I've started a new section below (#Title of the article) to try to get agreement on all of those issues. I suggest that, for the moment, discussion would be more productively continued in that section.--Kotniski (talk) 09:22, 24 March 2010 (UTC)

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

The hyphen in French names

The use of hyphen in French string of names is not "compulsory", but could be called administrative in the instances of naming of streets, metro stations, etc. linking two or more names, which follows typographic rules of the Imprimerie nationale. :

• Metro stations, linking two names: Montparnasse-Bienvenüe, Réaumur-Sébastopol, Denfert-Rochereau, Mouton-Duvernet.
• Street: names of persons or events, which are not linked in literary texts, are linked with hyphen(s). For instance, take the writer "Edmond Rostand", the "place" named after him in the 6th arrondissement of Paris is Place Edmond-Rostand, same for "Victor Hugo", with Avenue Victor-Hugo, and when there are two persons together, all the words are hyphened: "Pierre et Marie Curie" become Rue Pierre-et-Marie-Curie, and the odd couple "Jean-Paul Sartre" and "Simone de Beauvoir" have a street named after both them Rue Jean-Paul-Sartre-et-Simone-de-Beauvoir. Then there is (my favorite) in the Quartier Latin, an extremely narrow street, a remnant of old Paris, near the Seine: Rue du Chat-qui-Pêche, named obviously after a cat who was going fishing in the river.
• Buildings, monuments, bridges etc.: Palais-Royal, Pont Charles-de-Gaulle, Pont Louis-Philippe (naturally, here with the hyphen), passerelle des Arts et Métiers, but metro station Arts-et-Métiers.

Purists reject what they consider to be an (improper) overuse of the hyphen.

• Baptismal names: "Marie Louise Joséphine So&So", the name of that person will appear on her birth certificate as "Marie Louise Joséphine", but if the parents want that child to have a "double first-name", it will be shown as "Marie-Louise Joséphine", in which case she most likely will be called "Marie-Louise". As you must have noted, many women in France have as first name a double name beginning with "Marie-...", "Marie-Louise", "Marie-France", "Marie-Françoise", "Marie-Thérèse", "Anne-Marie", "Marie-Anne", etc... The same type of double first name is given to boys: "Jean-Claude", "Jean-Pierre", "Jean-Marie", "Jean-François", "Paul-Louis"... These names are hyphened on birth certificate.

Now, let's turn to our dear "Louis Philippe": original texts he signed do not seem to have the hyphen, as shown on the 13 August 1830 ordinance & the signing of his abdication, which I just added to the article. What we need are copies of his baptismal register, marriage certificate and the like.

If you are interested: http://fr.wikipedia.org/wiki/Trait_d%27union - in French.

--Frania W. (talk) 03:04, 24 March 2010 (UTC)

Thanks Frania for the information - I'd noticed these strange hyphens in French street names and so on, but I'd never looked into the rules behind them before. Anyway, to return to the question of the name of this article... I'll start a new section below this one.

Title of the article

From the discussions above it looks like there are three questions to be answered:

1. Louis-Philippe or Louis Philippe?
2. Louis(-)Philippe I or just Louis(-)Philippe?
3. What (if any) disambiguator or title to add?

Based on what's been said so far, my initial answers would be:

1. no hyphen, since he didn't use it, and the conventions of modern French don't apply to English;
2. without the I, since it seems not to have been used officially, only later to legitimize the claim of the would-be LPII (although I notice French WP uses Ier, so maybe there's something we don't know)
3. If anything at all, then the full title "King of the French", since forms that omit "King" are misleading, and "of France" is historically incorrect (it's a correct description, but not a correct name).

In other words, I propose moving either to Louis Philippe or Louis Philippe, King of the French, but am open to persuasion on all these points.--Kotniski (talk) 09:14, 24 March 2010 (UTC)

You say the "I" was not in use, but it's shown on the contemporary coin depicted in the article. 94.196.208.41 (talk) 10:35, 24 March 2010 (UTC)

Good point; any further such evidence?--Kotniski (talk) 10:51, 24 March 2010 (UTC)

So it looks that at time of LP's reign:

(1) *no hyphen*: none in his signature & none on the coin;

(2) *I* was used: coin.

We may need more evidence to satisfy others, although where I see the arguing taking place will be, as always, at the use of "King of the French" instead of "of France".

Will bring more "evidence" if/when I find some.

--Frania W. (talk) 14:30, 24 March 2010 (UTC)

I would add that there is a further possibility, just to call him "Louis Philippe" or "Louis-Philippe", the solution adopted when "Napoleon I of France" was moved to Napoleon I. PatGallacher (talk) 19:01, 1 April 2010 (UTC)

Yes, I said that not far above this. If no-one can convince me that the "I" is compulsory, then that would be my preferred solution.--Kotniski (talk) 19:24, 1 April 2010 (UTC)

This article could have over a dozen plausible titles. I am coming round to the view that we can let "King of the French" through on the nod, on the grounds that in the context of late 18th century/19th century France the distinction between "King of France" and "King of the French" really was a serious political issue, kings could lose their crown or even their head over these issues. However this is an exceptional case, which should not be taken as creating a wider precedent, e.g. we are not going to move articles to "King of the Hellenes". We could avoid any royal title in the article's title, but unlike Napoleon he is not a household name, so we should tell people who he was.

This leaves the numeral and the hyphen, both forms have some currency. Guidelines seem to be that the "I" for unique monarchs should be generally avoided, only used if this is clearly their normal title, so if in doubt cut it out. He seems to have avoided the hyphen himself, this may sway things.

We may need some polls, but at present I am leaning to "Louis Philippe, King of the French". Any comments? PatGallacher (talk) 12:17, 3 April 2010 (UTC)

Pat, you explained very clearly what I have been saying for months. As was the issue with the flag, (white of the kings of France vs tricolor of the Revolution, which had been adopted by LP & cost the comte de Paris the throne), King of France vs King of the French was a monumental issue that cannot been swept under the wikipedian carpet.

The hyphen can be discussed further, as should be the *I*.

--Frania W. (talk) 12:41, 3 April 2010 (UTC)

I have visited a local library and looked at what a number of works call him. Nobody uses the numeral. However they seem to be fairly evenly split over the hyphen, but I am going by tertiary reference works, or biographies of e.g. Marie Antoinette. I have not yet consulted a decent history of modern France, so I still have an open mind. PatGallacher (talk) 18:45, 3 April 2010 (UTC)

It may not be worth doing an exact count. The hyphen was not used by the man himself or official documents during his reign, although not always decisive, all things being equal this might sway it. So we end up with "Louis Philippe, King of the French". Unless anyone objects I will submit a further move request once this one expires. PatGallacher (talk) 11:15, 7 April 2010 (UTC)

Sounds good. (Though I don't think it's even necessary to wait - we can just close the previous move request and open a new one down here; the bot ought to be able to cope.)--Kotniski (talk) 11:36, 7 April 2010 (UTC)

Pat & Kotniski: I believe that I found something interesting RE the reason for *I*, but I do not have time to write it down now; so, would you mind waiting until I gather source & enough time? --Frania W. (talk) 13:02, 7 April 2010 (UTC)

Pat, Kotniski & others:

Here is what I have found in favour of the argument on the use of the numeral I in the title of the article:

• Le Comte de Paris, by Hyacinthe Camille Spiro François de Paule de La Motte Ango, marquis de Flers, published in 1888 by Perrin, Paris: [3]

First document in annexe, p. 421, Procès verbal de la naissance de S.A.R. Monseigneur le Comte de Paris: "Paris, le 24 août [1838]:

Aujourd'hui le 24 août, à deux heures cinquante minutes après midi, S.A.R. Mme la duchesse d'Orléans est heureusement accouchée d'un prince qui, d'après les ordres du roi a reçu le nom Louis-Philippe-Albert d'Orléans, comte de Paris. Le comte de Paris et son auguste mère sont en parfaite santé."

The comte de Paris always signed "Philippe, comte de Paris", never preceding "Philippe" with "Louis".

• France, volume 2, by John Edward Courtenay Bodley, [4]

pp. 357 & 361: political motive that made Louis-Philippe Albert d'Orléans, comte de Paris, stop using the name "Louis" & opt for that of "Philippe" only, by which, had he become king (for both Legitimists & Orléanists) he would have been known as Philippe VII. With explicative footnote on p. 361: "Louis-Philippe intended his grandson to retain the name of Louis-Philippe. The crown-piece of the Monarchy of July, stuck in 1838, the year of the birth of the Comte de Paris, are still in circulation, and the King is described upon them as Louis-Philippe I, showing that when the first-born of the Duc (Ferdinand) d'Orléans was called Louis-Philippe, his parents & grandparents intended him to be known as Louis-Philippe II.

This clearly explains why Louis-Philippe was known as Louis-Philippe I, and also why the comte de Paris stopped using the name "Louis" (in 1883), as the title Philippe VII (roi de France et de Navarre) would have put him in the main House of the kings of France, as a descendant of Henry IV & not only of the younger brother of Louis XIV, Philippe de France, who was at the origin of the cadet House of Orléans when his brother gave him the title (and the fortune) of duc d'Orléans.

According to the above (please read references 1 & 2) the title of the article for Louis-Philippe should be Louis Philippe I, King of the French, leaving me hesitant as to whether the hyphen should be or should not be. He did not use it & it does not show on any of the medals or coins I have seen so far.

I also would like to point out that it is clear by the names given "d'après les ordres du roi", that d'Orléans was used as a surname.

Cordialement, --Frania W. (talk) 19:22, 11 April 2010 (UTC)

Kotniski,

I think that I found the evidence that will convince you that *I* should be used. Excerpt from the above-mentioned book Comte de Paris, p. 424, events that took place immediately after his birth:

Acte de naissance reçu par le baron Pasquier, chancelier de France, remplissant les fonctions d'officier de l'état civil, (...) en présence de Très Haut, Très Puissant et Très Excellent prince Louis-Philippe, premier du nom, Roi des Français (...).

If need be for use in article, the above will be translated, but I do not have time right now.

--Frania W. (talk) 20:46, 11 April 2010 (UTC)

Thanks, that seems to be a good explanation. So for those who like to follow conventions, it seems that the "I" was in "official use" and should therefore be used in the title (according to WP:NCROY#Sovereigns). Personally I prefer to follow English usage, which is without the "I" (or the hyphen, or any royal title - so Louis Philippe would be my ideal title for the article). But if my fellow editors can't be persuaded down that path of common sense, then I concur with Frania's well-researched conclusions.--Kotniski (talk) 08:24, 13 April 2010 (UTC)

Requested move

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

The result of the move request was: page moved to Louis Philippe I. Feel free to re-request other variants. Cheers, Arbitrarily0 ^(talk) 00:05, 21 July 2010 (UTC)

---

Louis-Philippe I, King of the French → Louis Philippe, King of the French — Relisted. Vegaswikian (talk) 17:52, 8 July 2010 (UTC) This person is a particularly problematic case, but this could be the nearest we have to a consensus. The hyphen in his name was not used by the man himself or contemporary official documents. The numeral is sometimes used and sometimes not, but Wikipedia conventions mean that if in doubt we should go without it. PatGallacher (talk) 21:15, 29 June 2010 (UTC)

• Sounds good to me (though as I said above, I don't see any reason why it can't be simply "Louis Philippe" - it's only a problematic case if we choose to make it so). --Kotniski (talk) 06:16, 30 June 2010 (UTC)
  • Louis-Philippe I: dropping "King of the French" in title of article would be fine; however, there was/is a reason for the "I" after Louis-Philippe (with or without hyphen, the French using the hyphen), the "I" being used by himself during his lifetime, as his grandson, the comte de Paris[5] would have been Louis-Philippe II had politics not taken the turn they did after 1848, after the death of Louis-Philippe I in 1850, and after 1852. In fact, in 1848, Louis-Philippe I abdicated in favour of the comte de Paris, who then became Louis-Philippe II, although he never reigned, and kept this title, as prétendant au trône, until 1873, when he chose to be Philippe VII - same type of abdication as that of Charles X in favour of his grandson the duc de Bordeaux known as Henri V.

--Frania W. (talk) 12:57, 3 July 2010 (UTC)

Clarification as per billinghurst's request [6]:

Move to Louis Philippe I, as Louis Philippe used the title "Louis Philippe Ier" because he had hoped his royal dynasty would survive; I thus propose the move be done to Louis Philippe I (dropping "King of the French" in name of article for same reason "Emperor of the French" is not used in article for Napoléon I, II & III); as for the hyphen, this is debatable since he sometimes used it and sometimes not. The French hyphenate (and sometimes they do not) and do use the "Ier".

--Frania W. (talk) 16:58, 8 July 2010 (UTC)

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

Trivia

Interesting passage from La Monarchie, by Daniel de Montplaisir: « Un prince lieutenant général qui abuserait de sa situation pour se substituer à l’héritier légitime serait à jamais exclu du trône, lui et sa race. »

"A prince lieutenant general who would abuse his position to replace the legitimate heir would be forever excluded from the throne, he and his race", adopted by the Estates-General in 1590. [7]. Reigen (talk) 10:06, 7 January 2012 (UTC)

Much good that did. The Estates General of 1590 was convened by the pretender Charles X. Arglebargle79 (talk) 17:22, 9 February 2019 (UTC)

About his photo

I guess it wouldn't be odd to mention in the article that Louis-Philippe was the first French monarch to be photographed (the only existing photo was made in Tuileries in the summer of 1842). What do you think, messieurs? Asharidu 20:46, 1 December 2007 (UTC)

Is that true? There exists a photograph of Empress Marie Louise which might be older. 82.161.19.51 (talk) 20:03, 23 December 2007 (UTC)

Of course it's true, cher ami, please follow this link to be sure: http://www.marillier.nom.fr/collodions/PM/instantaneEN.html . We should find out when Marie Louise was photographed and compare the dates. Asharidu (talk) 19:29, 7 February 2008 (UTC)

Sorry! It's true! Their home is actually a National Monument in Syracuse NY! http://www.geocities.com/henry8jane2/LouisPhilippe.html has their marriage and http://www.maltagenealogy.com/libro%20d'Oro/dorleans.html takes her descendants into the third generation...scroll down to 1.2.3.1.1.5.1. to pick up that part of the genealogy. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 165.166.3.170 (talk) 18:26, 14 March 2009 (UTC)

http://www.geocities.com/henry8jane2/LouisPhilippe.html "Louise Marie Adelaide Eugenie d'Orleans a.k.a. Madame Adelaide, married George Casper von Schroeppel; of their 4 children, a daughter, Marie Eugenie von Schroeppel. m. John Hnman, Mayor of Utica NY" http://www.maltagenealogy.com/libro%20d'Oro/dorleans.html has three generations of the family: 1.2.3.1.1.5.Eugenie, b. Paris 1777, d. there 1847, bur Dreux; m. N, Baron Athelin; m. George Casper von Schroeppel, with issue. 1.2.3.1.1.5.1.Marie Eugenie von Schroeppel, m. John Hinman, Mayor of Utica NY, USA, with issue. 1.2.3.1.1.5.1.1.Catherine Edgar Hinman, b. 1828 Charleston, SC, USA. 1.2.3.1.1.5.2.George Casper von Schroeppel, dunm (drowned at the age of 12, Morristown, NY). 1.2.3.1.1.5.3.Louis Henry William von Schroeppel. 1.2.3.1.1.5.4.Marie Antoinette von Schroeppel, married to a Dr Pennell MD., with issue. 1.2.3.1.1.5.4.1.Henry Pennell, dunm. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 165.166.3.170 (talk) 18:56, 14 March 2009 (UTC)

Last king

To say this means that it is 100% certain France will never have another king. This should be revised as there is perhaps some distant possibility that she might have another one in the indefinite future. --Daniel C. Boyer 17:40, 10 March 2006 (UTC)

This is an encyclopedia, not a handbook of epistemology. If he ceases to be the last king, we will revise it. Septentrionalis 20:53, 10 March 2006 (UTC)

Napoleon III was a monarch after Louis-Phillipe. What about him?

He was emperor, not king. john k 06:55, 20 February 2007 (UTC)

Does definition matter?63.215.29.115 00:26, 23 February 2007 (UTC)

It surely matters as to the question of who the last king was. john k 23:18, 24 February 2007 (UTC)

He was not the last king; he abdicated in favour of his grandson. It was not until two days later that the monarchy was abolished and the Republic declared. His grandson was therefore one of the shortest-reigning monarch in history as Louis Philippe II (or perhaps Philip VII). This should be mentioned. Jim Pleiades Hawkins 01:41, 26 June 2018 (UTC)

His grandson, prince Philippe, Count of Paris was never actually recognized as King, therefore the last king of France was Louis Philippe I. Royal Braganza (talk) 19:52, 4 November 2019 (UTC)

He wasn't the last king. That would be Napoleon III. 2600:1700:BC01:9B0:9540:273E:CD38:9084 (talk) 23:21, 27 March 2021 (UTC)

As has been already stated had you cared to look, he was not a 'king' - he was an emperor. 50.111.29.1 (talk) 03:04, 5 September 2022 (UTC)

• Our opinions are irrelevant. We go by what reliable sources say. And I have never read any RS that claimed anything other than that he was the last king. If there are sources claiming otherwise, they can be brought here for discussion. -Ad Orientem (talk) 03:12, 5 September 2022 (UTC)

Long, bizarre citation in French

needs to go. Link to it at Wikisource or (at minimum) use an English translation. — LlywelynII 13:19, 27 July 2016 (UTC)

Photographs

As there is one known photograph of LP1, it is right to have it in the info box. Photos are preferrable to paintings and color photos are preferrable to B&W. They have been photographing people for 178 years. So let's have them.Arglebargle79 (talk) 17:20, 9 February 2019 (UTC)