Talk:Louis XI

His Death

Does anybody know the exact cause of his death? LouisXI (talk) 14:20, 17 July 2008 (UTC)

Encyclopedia Britannica says that he had a stroke in 1481 and was presumably incapacitated for the remaining two years of his life. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.214.31.237 (talk) 23:40, 21 August 2009 (UTC)

The Citation Needed...

Whoever added the Richard III reference must have seen the quote from the letter where Rich thanks Louis for the "bombard" he sent him while he was still Duke of Gloucester. The term "cousin" was just used in good will, although there is some validity in it, as they were related (not as close as first, second, or even third cousins, obviously). Louis' mother was from the Angevin house, anyways, just as Richard is descended. Since the turn of the last millennium, the kings of France and England are genetically linked through the obvious/encompassing and more discrete, those I don't think I need to state.

However, eschew Richard III with his brother Edward IV, who was Louis XI's real enemy, as shown in his aborted forays into France to confront him. There is plenty of evidence, either way. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.238.41.82 (talk) 07:31, 15 September 2009 (UTC)

Place of birth

Why the need, in the case of a medieval personage, to include the modern department of France beside the name of the town where he was born? It would be more appropriate to name the former province of France, since departments were created at the time of the French Revolution of 1789.

Louis XI being born in Bourges, which when clicked upon will take us to the Bourges article, the mention of the Cher (department), becomes unnecessary, while that of the former province of Berry is more appropriate when considering the historical period.

--Frania W. (talk) 18:11, 28 April 2010 (UTC)

Middle French instead of modern French

Is there really a point to using the Middle French spellings of his nicknames? We use modern spelling for most other medieval/Renaissance figures' names on here. 108.254.160.23 (talk) 22:17, 30 April 2014 (UTC)

• Middle French: le rusé : still is perfectly correct in modern French, so here the qualifer ''middle'' might indeed be seen as superfluous
• "the Universal Spider" (Middle French: l'universelle aragne) : the name of the arthropod has since morphed to araignée, indeed. However, this phrase universelle aragne is commonly used in modern French texts pertaining to Louis XI. There might not be any historiographical reason for this, and it could be a cheap medievalish trick by popular authors, yet there is no reason why it shouldn't be rendered as-is in this article.

Noliscient (talk) 12:02, 16 December 2022 (UTC)

Assessment comment

The comment(s) below were originally left at Talk:Louis XI/Comments, and are posted here for posterity. Following several discussions in past years, these subpages are now deprecated. The comments may be irrelevant or outdated; if so, please feel free to remove this section.

This page has no information on his religious beliefs, opinion of the divine right of kings, foreign relations, Economic issues trade policy, taxation of people,industry,land owning nobles of the country, peasants and working class, womens roles in society, public work such as buildings, roads, etc. , or monarchs view on all of these.

Last edited at 22:11, 10 December 2006 (UTC). Substituted at 22:30, 29 April 2016 (UTC)

Loches

What about keeping prisoners in iron cages? Many literary references to this, including Quentin Durward. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2A00:23C3:E284:900:C9A3:49FB:A4AE:D68D (talk) 21:23, 24 June 2020 (UTC)

Requested move 29 January 2021

The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review after discussing it on the closer's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

The result of the move request was: Consensus to move (non-admin closure) (t · c) buidhe 12:02, 6 February 2021 (UTC)

---

• Louis XI of France → Louis XI
• Louis XII of France → Louis XII

– As the result of a previous move, all subsequent French kings named Louis (Louis XIII, XIV, etc.) have had "of France" removed from their title as a result of a previous page move. In addition, there are no other rulers named Louis XI or Louis XII who have articles about them on Wikipedia. The title Louis XI already redirects to Louis XI of France and the same is true for the article on Louis XII. I would say the territorial designation is not needed. Векочел (talk) 22:22, 29 January 2021 (UTC)

• Support per WP:COMMONNAME, WP:CONCISE, and WP:CONSISTENT, for consistency with the other French monarchs. Rreagan007 (talk) 00:00, 30 January 2021 (UTC)
• Support per WP:PRECISION and WP:COGNOMEN. Specifically, the explicit part in WP:COGNOMEN where it states that "If the regnal name and number are unambiguous, use them: Louis XVIII, Edward VIII, Alfonso XII, Gustaf VI Adolf. Adding a country to the article title, when there is no other country with a monarch of that name, goes against WP:PRECISION." HouseBlaster^talk 03:48, 30 January 2021 (UTC), Edited 18:31, 30 January 2021 (UTC)
• Support per nom.--Ortizesp (talk) 06:35, 30 January 2021 (UTC)
• Support, as virtually every reference to them in English language literature is under the names Louis XI and Louis XII. In other words, WP:COMMONNAME and WP:CONCISE apply. Surtsicna (talk) 10:28, 30 January 2021 (UTC)
• Support as nominator. Векочел (talk) 03:57, 5 February 2021 (UTC)
• Oppose ongoing special treatment of British and French monarchs. Harald V of Norway failed an RM not six months ago. Franz Joseph I of Austria has failed multiple RMs. Their names are as unambiguous—I might even say more so—than these Louis's. Srnec (talk) 15:47, 30 January 2021 (UTC)

  Franz Joseph I is not unambiguous at all, though the emperor is obviously the primary topic. That those articles failed to be moved in accordance with article title policy (WP:COMMONNAME) and the specific guideline (WP:SOVEREIGN) is hardly a good reason to keep these articles with these titles, especially since many more articles have been moved. Surtsicna (talk) 15:58, 30 January 2021 (UTC)

• Oppose - so sad, seeing these bios 'one-by-one' moving away from the Monarch # of country title style, of yester-year :( GoodDay (talk) 15:54, 30 January 2021 (UTC)

  I do not understand why it is sad. A vast majority of articles about heads of state have never had "of [Country]" appended to the title, nor is it commonly done outside Wikipedia. Surtsicna (talk) 16:01, 30 January 2021 (UTC)

We shall disagree on this matter, concerning monarchs. Was so neat, tidy & consistent, then. Increasingly, we no longer have that, even within each country's group of monarchs. Someone earlier mentioned Harald V of Norway, no doubt eventually, the remove-country group will get their way there, too :( GoodDay (talk) 16:15, 30 January 2021 (UTC)

The "of country" is a natural disambiguation, and we only disambiguate article titles when disambiguation is actually needed. It's not needed in this particular case, so it should not be used here. Rreagan007 (talk) 07:28, 31 January 2021 (UTC)

• Oppose The articles should remain in the Monarch # of country title style. The previous moves were ill-advised. Dimadick (talk) 16:10, 30 January 2021 (UTC)
• Oppose I prefer the Name–number–of–country convention. No logical supporting argument for my preference comes to mind, other than my impression that this formula incorporates a clean disambiguation in the article title. I just think it's better that way. Eric ^talk 17:42, 30 January 2021 (UTC)

Really? No logical supporting argument? How about the fact that we don't disambiguate article titles that don't actually require disambiguation. Rreagan007 (talk) 07:26, 31 January 2021 (UTC)

I think Eric meant that his own !vote had no logical supporting argument. Surtsicna (talk) 10:02, 31 January 2021 (UTC)

• @Surtsicna: Yes, that was what I meant, thanks. I have made an attempt at making that more clear above. Eric ^talk 19:29, 31 January 2021 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

How could this be ruled a consensus to move? GoodDay (talk) 18:52, 7 February 2021 (UTC)

I had the same question. Eric ^talk 19:09, 7 February 2021 (UTC)

@Buidhe:, would you please give us an explanation. Such explanations are usually given in any RM ruling/closing. GoodDay (talk) 20:36, 7 February 2021 (UTC)

It's WP:NOTAVOTE. The opposing arguments failed to provide good reasons in terms of the article titles policy (one person states that the move "is sad", while another says, "No logical supporting argument for my preference comes to mind"). In contrast, the supporters cited policies and guidelines especially WP:PRECISE, WP:COGNOMEN, etc. (t · c) buidhe 20:39, 7 February 2021 (UTC)

There is nothing wrong with ignoring policies and guidelines when, as I pointed out, they are in fact ignored in analogous cases and applied in a piecemeal fashion. Srnec (talk) 22:39, 7 February 2021 (UTC)

I would say that the solution to the fact that they are "applied in a piecemeal fashion" is to work to apply them uniformly, instead of not applying them at all. WP:PRECISE and WP:COGNOMEN are the current consensus. WP:IAR is used to make exceptions to a rule, not to rewrite the rule. Remember that exceptions should leave the rule intact. HouseBlaster^talk 19:00, 8 February 2021 (UTC)

Hugo's "Notre Dame de Paris"

Would it be worth adding a section "In art and literature" including the fact that Louis XI is a character in Victor Hugo's 1831 novel "Notre Dame de Paris"? Point of Presencetalk 12:56, 4 June 2022 (UTC)

Pierre de Beaujeu

Responding to a question posed by AlmeidaBenevides in an edit summary: I saw your unexplained removal of "Pierre de Beaujeu", which prompted me to look at the French article on him (fr:Pierre II de Bourbon). That article, despite its title, refers to him as Pierre de Beaujeu at the beginning of the intro sentence and in several more places. That is why I reverted your edit. Just now I got curious and did a couple ngram searches:

• French
• English

These might not be the best formulations for the ngrams, but they do seem to indicate that in both French and English writings of the past couple centuries, it appears that the Beaujeu title might be more prevalent than the Bourbon one. Eric ^talk 14:50, 11 March 2023 (UTC)

Hello there Eric. This was almost a year ago, but only now did I noticed that I had a notification about this. I didn't remove "Pierre de Beaujeu". What I did was replace "Pierre de Beaujeu" with "Peter II, Duke of Bourbon", since it's literally the name of his own wiki page (it didn't need much explaining to do). If "Pierre de Beaujeu" is indeed the right way to call him, then the first thing that should have been done was rename his page as such. Otherwise, it doesn't really matter what is the name that is used here, because when you click in the link of that same name it will always take you to a page called "Peter II, Duke of Bourbon". AlmeidaBenevides 01:50, 9 March 2024 (UTC)

You did remove "Pierre de Beaujeu" as the visible, linked text. I think you will agree that this was the proper way to refer to him at the time of his marriage to Anne in 1473, as he did not become Duke of Bourbon until 1488. Eric ^talk 03:30, 9 March 2024 (UTC)

Move discussion in progress

There is a move discussion in progress on Talk:Charles the Bald which affects this page. Please participate on that page and not in this talk page section. Thank you. —RMCD bot 12:01, 31 July 2023 (UTC)

"The Prudent"

Hello all- No historian I, but the epithet "the Prudent" is unfamiliar to me in either French or English. I did some minor searching on Google Books, and found a few sources in French that use it, but it seems there are considerably more in English. Does anyone know how we decided to include the epithet in the intro sentence? I see that fr.wp does not, while de, es, and it do. Just curious, as the fact that fr does not (while they do for many others, including his predecessors and successors) made me wonder. Eric ^talk 21:56, 4 December 2023 (UTC)