Talk:Louis XVIII/Archive 1

Archive 1

Comment

Nonsense : Louis XVIII wasn't precedeed by Louis XVII (which has never beeing king) but by Napoleon I. --Arno Lagrange 14:02, 4 Feb 2004 (UTC)

More Nonsense: "It was to be the only fully regular transfer of power in France from one head of state to another of the entire 19th century." The fact that a president (or a king) resigns or dies in office (as was repeatedly the case during the Third Republic) does not make the succession irregular.

Wikipedia:Be bold and remove non-sense on sight. Tazmaniacs 01:26, 3 August 2006 (UTC)

He was to King

Louis XVII was the King of France untill he sadly died. He was the only surviving son of Louis XVI making him first in line for the throne. His rule may not have been honored or respected by most of France, but it was still there. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 64.223.123.85 (talk) 04:29, 1 March 2007 (UTC).

Actually, Louis XVII was never King of France & Navarre. His uncle Louis XVIII, wasn't King of France & Navarre until 1814. See related discussion at Charles II of England. -- GoodDay (talk) 02:17, 31 December 2007 (UTC)

Sourcing

At the moment there is not one citation or reference in the article, which is extraordinary. This needs to be addressed as a matter of priority. --♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 19:11, 12 April 2008 (UTC)

I agree. E.g. in the section on the first restoration we find such unsourced POV statements like In addition, his cool and aloof behavior alienated many. Although he managed to suffice for the people of France while Napoleon was being exiled, he ruined all that he had done. He killed the economy even more, took away educational sources from the young people of France, and abolished all of the amazing things Napoleon had created, including the "Civil/Napoleonic Code". This was a big blow to the people of France, and they longed for their ruler, realizing it was a large mistake to have sent him off. --Pan Miacek and his crime-fighting dog (t) 10:05, 21 December 2008 (UTC)

Apart from being seriously POV the above mentioned statement is even factually wrong. The Civil Code remained in use even during the Bourbon restoration era as well as many other reforms. Isidoros47 (talk) 18:55, 3 June 2009 (UTC)

Problem Solved

Louis XVI reigned from 1774 until he was executed in 1793. The Directory rules France from 1795-1799. In 1799 Napoleon seizes power in coup d'état. Napoleon is crowned emperor in 1804. in 1814 Napoleon abdicates and is exiled to Elba. Louis XVII believed to have died in prison in 1795. 71.31.215.131 (talk) 23:49, 12 January 2009 (UTC)

Fraser single source (bis)

Are we going to have a rerun of the article on Marie Antoinette based on only one source, that of Antonia Fraser's book? In which case, would not it be better to contact Mme Fraser & ask her to write the article? Frania W. (talk) 03:41, 2 June 2009 (UTC)

Fraser is the best source I have for Louis XVIII's life before the revolution, Frania. Ergo, Fraser won't be used as a source after section "The Outbreak of the French Revolution".(Jack1755 (talk) 12:29, 3 June 2009 (UTC))

Article Completion

Hey, everyone, I have almost finished the article's renovation. I have removed the "under constuction" template, because I won't be in the country for a few weeks, and therefore I won't be able to edit. I shall reinstate the banner upon my return. Have a great day ! (Jack1755 (talk) 02:08, 5 June 2009 (UTC))

Formatting

I have cleaned up the formatting of this article:

• I have removed repeated links and links to plain English words per WP:OVERLINK
• I have removed links in section headings and fixed the heading capitlaisation per WP:MOSHEAD
• I have correct spelling
• I have corrected a lot of punctuation - it is generally incorrect in English to separate a simple subject from the main verb of the sentence as seemed to be standard in this article
• I have replaced the condition tense with the past tense for descriptions of past events -- this is simpler and clearer.
• I have fixed some of the links

Regards, Ground Zero | t 03:43, 5 June 2009 (UTC)

Louis XVIII and Charles X articles

Should anyone want to request GA category for this article, as was done for the article on Charles X, please have the courtesy to give other readers & contributors the opportunity to discuss such request on this talk page. As the article stands, it needs a major overhaul, both in its written form & content: too much trivia, many inaccuracies & some vocabulary more of tabloid level, than that of an encyclopedia. Frania W. (talk) 21:06, 20 June 2009 (UTC)

Frania, the Charles article has been taken off the GA lists. --Auntieruth55 (talk) 21:48, 20 June 2009 (UTC)

Notes

Could someone help me with the notes? I can't get them to display properly, Regards, -- Jack1755 (talk) 16:02, 7 July 2009 (UTC)

Jack, I tried but it did not work: while the notes were showing fine, the reference section was destroyed, so I reverted back to you. Hopefully, someone else will come to the rescue. Cordialement, Frania W. (talk) 16:25, 7 July 2009 (UTC)

Problem fixed. Frania W. (talk) 01:53, 8 July 2009 (UTC)

Fixed "confusing" sections & British English

Hey everyone, I have fixed the confusing areas of the article, and clarified names, and therefore I removed the *confusing* tag. I added a British English tag to the talk page, as the artice as it is now is written entirely in this dialect. If you have any questions, leave me a message on my talk page. Regards -- Jack1755 (talk) 14:21, 8 July 2009 (UTC)

"Rightful place"

I am moving the relevant bits of a discussion from my talk page.

I removed from the article a reference about Louis being restored to "his rightful place on the throne of France" because I believe it to be non-neutral.

The original statement read:

"Louis XVIII was restored to his rightful place on the throne of France in 1814, when coalition armies captured Paris from Napoleon Bonaparte."

I propose that it should read:

"Louis XVIII was restored to his rightful place on the throne of France in 1814, when coalition armies captured Paris from Napoleon Bonaparte.

Jack1755 has restored the phrase, arguing that:

By the laws of Royaume de France, Louis XVIII was rightfully King since 1795, and the Charter of 1814 does not recognise the legitimacy of the republic or Bonaparte. King Louis signed the Charter of 1814 as "Given at Paris, in the year of grace 1814 and of our reign the nineteenth, Louis R." Note the "of our reign the nineteenth". Regards, -- Jack1755 (talk) 00:27, 10 July 2009 (UTC)

My response:

The article, as written, stated that Louis XVIII's rightful place was on the throne of France - it did not qualify that statement by reference to the Charter of 1814. It would thus be read as a general statement, i.e., that it was Louis's right to rule France, which republicans would contest on the basis that monarchy is an abomination, or which Bonapartists would contest on the basis that the Bourbons had given up their right to rule by failing to be good rulers. I don't think that the article should take sides in that debate. The article should be neutral. Regards, Ground Zero | t

Jack1755:

Louis XVIII is "neutral". It's a fact that the perfectly legal Charter of 1814 cited Louis XVIII's reign as beginning in 1795, upon his nephew's death. While we are on the subject of neutrality, daubing la Maison de Bourbon with the appellation "bad rulers" is not only a superficial judgement, but belligerent and untrue. Faithfully, -- Jack McNamee -- Jack1755 (talk) 01:40, 10 July 2009 (UTC)

My response:

The statement that Louis had a rightful place on throne of France is not neutral. It is based on acceptance of the Charter of 1814 as being "perfectly legal", which republicans and Bonapartists wouldn't accept, or they would not have opposed Louis being on the throne. Should Wikipedia reflect only the Royalist point of view? Ground Zero | t 02:02, 10 July 2009 (UTC)

Comments form other interested editors are particularly welcome to resolve this debate. Thanks. Ground Zero | t 02:06, 10 July 2009 (UTC)

I never said you were accusing me of being belligerent, you accused me of starting an edit war. Contrary to what you said, many Bonapartists and Republicans accepted Louis XVIII upon his restoration; he was dubbed "the Desired" by his subjects. The public opinion in France was so pro-Bourbon, that you had the White Terror and the Chambre introuvable. I need a citation for the alleged Republican and Bonapartist dissatisfaction.

PS. Are you saying that the Charter of 1814 was illegal ??

--Jack1755 (talk) 02:14, 10 July 2009 (UTC)

My comment left on Ground Zero talk page a few minutes ago:

***Louis XVIII was restored to his rightful place on the throne of France in 1814...*** I had read the above sentence & had thought of removing *his rightful place* but left it after reflection. The epoch of the French Revolution thru the First Empire of Napoléon was viewed from a different angle depending if you were of the Bourbon family or a revolutionary. Maybe that Napoléon viewed the monarchy to be an abomination, but I can assure you that the royalists viewed the Revolution to be an abomination and, in their heart & mind, never accepted the legality of the Republic, the Consulate or the Empire. In other words, for Louis XVIII, his brother & their faithful, the period 1789-1814 was a period they wished out of existence. The Revolution had not killed the love many had toward their king & many acclaimed the Restoration. Personally, I think this sentiment should not be ignored and, in order for the reader to understand that these 25 years were not glorified by all French people and, in particular, by the brother of Louis XVI, could not the sentence read:

***Louis XVIII was restored to what he felt was his rightful place on the throne of France in 1814...***

Cordialement, Frania W. (talk) 02:28, 10 July 2009 (UTC)

Jack, the burden of proof for keeping the statement in lies with you: can you provide evidence that republicans and Bonapartists accepted the Louis's rightful place was on the throne? If you cannot support that statement with reliable sources, then it does not belong in the article.

The problem with the statement is that it is general. It does not indicate that the throne was Louis's rightful place "in the view of the Charter of 1814". It suggests that even now people would all agree that Louis should have been on the throne.

Frania's amendment would be acceptable to me because it moves the statement from a general one to one that includes appropriate context. It could even go further to say:

"Louis XVIII was restored to what he and Royalists felt was his rightful place on the throne of France in 1814."

Regards, Ground Zero | t 02:36, 10 July 2009 (UTC)

Ground Zero, As I was shooting the comment out, I felt something was missing, and you got it. Thank you. Now, who will bring the change or are we going to wait for more comments/suggestions to come in? Aurevoir! Frania W. (talk) 02:46, 10 July 2009 (UTC)

If this is the suggested change, ***Louis XVIII was restored to what he felt was his rightful place on the throne of France in 1814...***

I have no problems with it. --Kansas Bear (talk) 03:12, 10 July 2009 (UTC)

This one, "Louis XVIII was restored to what he and Royalists felt was his rightful place on the throne of France in 1814."

is fine as well. --Kansas Bear (talk) 03:15, 10 July 2009 (UTC)

I support "Louis XVIII was restored to what he and Royalists felt was his rightful place on the throne of France in 1814"--Jack McNamee/Jack1755 —Preceding unsigned comment added by 93.107.195.55 (talk) 03:35, 10 July 2009 (UTC)

Sincere thanks to Kansas Bear (talk) for stepping in & giving his support for making the contentious sentence acceptable, thus ending this argument - the shortest edit war ever! Am adding what he and Royalists felt before *was his rightful place* immediately. Cordialement, Frania W. (talk) 14:10, 10 July 2009 (UTC)

Thanks to both Frania and Kansas Bear for weighing in on this. Bonnes vacances, Jack. 14:26, 10 July 2009 (UTC)

suggestions for improvement

Jack and Laur... Okay, MUCH better. I tried to tweak the lead a bit: you write the monarchy was abolished, and that Louis succeeded his nephew...etc. That leaves a lot of questions, so I tried to tweak a bit. See what you think. Still some issues I would have if I were reviewing for GA. First, focus: while you are much more focused on Louis Stanislas than before, and place him in better context than before, there is still a lot of digression, generally, into the French Revolution. This whole discussion needs to be focused on LS and the Revolution, or LS, his brother and the revolution. It needs to be relentlessly focused on this; there are other articles that deal with the revolution, and you don't need to do that. Second, you spend a lot of time talking about Tsar Paul, the Neopolitan court, going to England. What does LS's obsession with the grants he could get from other kings, the palaces he lived in, his marrying his son to his niece, etc., say about him? What do the biographers say these preoccupations meant? Perhaps, 1) he was preoccupied with his status as a Prince? 2) He was incredibly expensive as a young man, and his brother had paid off his debts; does it look like he overcame that hedonistic trait? If he was taking snuff from the breasts of a woman in 1818 (or whenever), I doubt it. 3) jealous/envious of the conditions others received, comparing them to his own? His brother had a grant from the English king, but he only had his niece and his son? Can these various "stories" be used not as one damn thing after another, but rather to illuminate this man's character? What do these stories tell us about LS? Third, you still have a lot of chop in here: short paragraphs (one to two short sentences), sometimes unrelated to one another, especially in the last half. The first half is much better. You're getting there. It's a 1-2 month wait on GA, so you'd have time to address some of these (although the waiting is shorter in biography). All in all, MUCH better. I can see that the two of you have done a lot of work on this. Auntieruth55 (talk) 19:45, 21 October 2009 (UTC)

It is difficult to add to Auntie Ruth's commentaire, as she covered it all, but, nonetheless, I shall give my thoughts:

• The two main editors have succeeded in giving more sources than were originally given.
• French historian Évelyne Lever's Louis XVIII (Fayard 1988) could be used also, but is not translated in English.
• I find reading over & over "comte de Provence", "comte d'Artois", "duc d'Angoulême" repetitive & believe that in many instances these could be shortened to "Provence", "Artois" & "Angoulême", which is the way they were addressed & mentioned within royal family circle from birth (I have changed to shortened version here & there already).
• Where are to be found the gory details of Maréchal Brune being "sliced into pieces"? Mon Dieu! How thick the slices? Was he made into sandwiches?

Cordialement, Frania W. (talk) 15:07, 22 October 2009 (UTC)

Only one author says "slices"; but I have troved through GoogleBooks and found words like "horribly mutilated", "destroyed" etc. It's probably best to say mutilated. -- Jack1755 (talk) 16:46, 23 October 2009 (UTC)

Jack & All, We should know who said what, as some authors have a tendency to exaggerate or use what Wikipedia calls "peacock" words. Until really proven that the poor Maréchal was "sliced into pieces", another word should be chosen, and definitely with source. I do not have time right now to look up something sent to me, but I have under my eyes Évelyne Lever Louis XVIII (Fayard, 1988) page 416:

Le 2 août, le maréchal Brune, qui se rendait à Paris, traversa la capitale du Comtat, en pleine terreur malgré l'arrivée du préfet du roi. Désigné à la vindicte publique comme le meurtrier de la princesse de Lamballe (ce qui était complètement faux), le maréchal fut sauvagement assassiné dans l'hôtel où il avait été contraint de se réfugier. On voulut maquiller le crime en suicide...

On page 417, Évelyne Lever goes on relating how Mme Brune brought the case of her husband's assassination in front of a tribunal because she wanted her husband's assassins to be found & punished. She even sent a requête to Louis XVIII on 29 March 1819. Mme Brune's efforts helped her discover the names of the men who had killed her husband:

Elle put enfin désigner nommément ceux qui avaient tué son époux. Quelques jours plus tôt, le ministre de la Justice, M. de Serre, avait reconnu à la tribune de la Chambre des députés, que tous les meurtres commis en 1815 étaient restés impunis. Évoquant la conjuration de certains hommes convaincus d'assassinat devant la cour de Riom, le garde des Sceaux s'écria: "Il a été impossible d'obtenir la déposition d'un seul témoin contre eux. Ces témoins, la terreur les avait glacés." L'enquête montra que les autorités avaient fait preuve d'un très grand laxisme à l'égard des coupables. De tous les coupables. Le 26 juillet 1820, la chambre des mises en accusation de la cour de Nîmes reconnut que le maréchal Brune avait bien été assassiné, ses voitures pillées, ses effets volés et que ses assassins étaient Farges et Roquefort. Le premier était mort. Le second resta introuvable.

There are other texts relating that his body was thrown into the Rhône, some going as far as saying that his body was left out to rot then thrown into the Rhône.

Until we find out exactly how he was killed, I do not think that words like "sliced" or even "mutilated" should be used. In the meantime, why not adopt Évelyne Lever's version: "le maréchal fut sauvagement assassiné dans l'hôtel..."? savagely assassinated covers quite a range of atrocities, which should suffice.

Cordialement, Frania W. (talk) 17:33, 23 October 2009 (UTC)

Adding two links sent to me RE the assassination of Maréchal Brune in Avignon: [1],[2]

Frania W. (talk) 18:13, 23 October 2009 (UTC)

Adding savagely assassinated; thanks FW! -- Jack1755 (talk) 22:36, 26 October 2009 (UTC)

Roi de France et de Navarre

All Bourbon kings of France since Henri IV are Roi de France et de Navarre. See photograph of inscription on Louis XVIII's tomb at Saint-Denis basilica on Wikimedia: http://74.125.93.132/search?q=cache:DEO29UqFqhkJ:commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Tombe_louis_XVIII_roi_de_france_saint-denis.JPG+tombe+de+louis+XVIII&cd=3&hl=en&ct=clnk&gl=us&client=firefox-a Frania W. (talk) 14:42, 12 December 2009 (UTC)

Yes. Hence "King of France and of Navarre" in the infobox. -- Jack1755 (talk) 18:23, 12 December 2009 (UTC)

I reverted what a certain Morancio had done, which was removing "of Navarre" from Louis XVII of France, Louis XVIII of France & Charles X of France. Frania W. (talk) 19:09, 12 December 2009 (UTC)

Oh! I see. -- Jack1755 (talk) 19:20, 12 December 2009 (UTC)

All English monarchs since Edward III were King of England and France (and Ireland). See the inscription on Elizabeth I's tomb at Westminster Abbey. Nevertheless, I'm sure you'll agree that we shouldn't add the title "Queen of France" to her article's infobox and succession box. I am not saying that of Navarre should be removed. I'm just saying that there is no point in keeping it, for the Kingdom of Navarre ceased to exist in the 17th century and Navarre actually had no kings since then. I could be wrong about the title, though; was the state ruled by Louis XVIII called Kingdom of France and Navarre? If not, there is nothing wrong with removing of Navarre, but I won't argue against keeping it. Perhaps we could make it look like King of France and of Navarre ? That would give a clue that of Navarre is no more than a title and that the person was not head of state of the Kingdom of Navarre. Surtsicna (talk) 18:38, 18 December 2009 (UTC)

Surtsicna,

Which is it of the two?

• "I am not saying that of Navarre should be removed."
• "I am just saying that there is no point in keeping it..."

From which I gather that your personal point of view would dictate that "de Navarre" be removed from the legal title of the kings of France from Henri IV through Charles X + Louis XIX for the few minutes of his reign & Henri V for the few days of his.

Elizabeth and other sovereigns of England, Ireland etc. may have "of France" inscribed on their tombs; however, while they claimed to be kings and queens of France in addition to their other titles, there was a French sovereign on the throne of France at the time of their reign. On the other hand, Navarre got attached to France and, whether it ceased to exist as a kingdom in the 17th century or was absorbed into the kingdom of France, since Henri IV, the official title of the king of France was "roi de France et de Navarre", title inscribed on the tomb of everyone of them. And should, in the future, be a king in France that would not be "roi des Français", but "roi de France", this king would be "roi de France et de Navarre".

I personally am against removing "of Navarre" from the titles of the kings of France. Moreover, this should not be a matter of consensus left to the whim of a few wiki editors, but a matter of respecting facts when/where History is concerned.

Frania W. (talk) 23:10, 18 December 2009 (UTC)

• "I am not saying that of Navarre should be removed."
• "I am just saying that there is no point in keeping it..."

It's both. I said won't argue against keeping of Navarre and that I just think that it is pointless to keep it unless we are referring to the full title of the French sovereign. You claim that we shouldn't mention the French title in articles about English monarchs because there was a French sovereign on the throne of France at the time of their reign. There was also another King of Navarre besides the King of France. Louis XVIII ruled a part of Navarre, just like the English monarchs ruled a part of France. I am not convinced that there is any difference between King of France and of Navarre and King of England and France. What about the vast number of European monarchs who use(d) the title King of Jerusalem? The throne of Jerusalem was very much vacant after the 14th century. Should we attach the titles of King of the Goths and King of the Wends to the titles of the previous monarchs of Sweden and Denmark? Those were their titles. Those are facts. We also seem to forget the significant By the Grace of God. That's a fact too. Do we get to choose which facts we should respect and which facts we should ignore? Because, if we do (and it seem that we do), then consensus is all that remains. Surtsicna (talk) 14:42, 19 December 2009 (UTC)

Look, Surtsicna, I am saying what I have to say about the kings of France and, for now, that's it, as I do not feel like getting involved in another endless argument with you that will take us into a discussion concerning the "kings of Jerusalem" or the "kings of Wends". Right now, we are talking about the kings of France who, from Henri IV to the last reigning & non-reigning ones had for title "roi de France et de Navarre". That's their legal & official title & I do not think that it should be left to modern en:wiki historians to decide whether these kings were given the right title or not.

Frania W. (talk) 15:21, 19 December 2009 (UTC)

Frania, this project is not edited only by you. Discussions are neccessary. Should we replace King of Spain with King of Spain, King of Castile, of León, of Aragón, of the Two Sicilies, of Jerusalem, of Navarre, of Granada, of Seville, of Toledo, of Valencia, of Galicia, of Sardinia, of Córdoba, of Corsica, of Murcia, of Jaén, of the Algarves, of Algeciras, of Gibraltar, of the Canary Islands, of the East and West Indies, of the Islands and Mainland of the Ocean Sea? The King of Spain is entitled to use these titles (and others concerning Low Countries and Austria) by the Constitution of Spain. Castile, Leon, Granada, Aragon, Valencia, Cordoba, Toledo, Seville and others were parts of the Kingdom of Spain just like (a half of) Navarre was part of the Kingdom of France. I just don't understand why we should treat Louis XVIII differently than monarchs of Spain, Denmark, Sweden, Norway, Italy, etc. Can you explain it to me?

Of course the legal title of Henry IV's successors was King of France and of Navarre, but legal titles of other European monarchs are shortened for clarity, simplicity or whatever reason. Do we get to choose which facts we should respect and which facts we should ignore? Because, if we do (and it seems that we do), then consensus is all that remains. If I recall correctly (and I believe I do), you always liked bringning up (un)related examples to prove your point in our discussions (such as mentioning every Marguerite here). So why can't you tell me why we should treat titles of French monarchs differently than titles of other European monarchs? If you are not willing to explain it to me, I can only conclude that there is no explanation. I'll start a discussion here. Surtsicna (talk) 15:33, 19 December 2009 (UTC)

I'm going to have to agree with Frania on this one, Surtsicna. King of France and Navarre was the shortened title in everday use; the prerogatives of the Spanish crown you've listed above, are they in everyday use? Of course, like Spain, the French crown had numerous other titles. Even in treaties, namely one with England in 1655, the Peace of Westphalia in 1648, the Treaty of Aix-la-Chapelle in 1668, the Treaty of Nijmegen in 1678/9 and the Treaty of Vienna in 1738, call the French monarch "King of France and Navarre". [3] Regarding your claim about the Spanish titles, the constitution says "(2) His title is that of "King of Spain" and he may use the others which belong to the Crown". [4] It doesn't specify which titles belong to the crown, and I can't find legisation that creates him "King of Spain, King of Castile, of León, of Aragón, of the Two Sicilies, of Jerusalem, of Navarre, of Granada, of Seville, of Toledo, of Valencia, of Galicia, of Sardinia, of Córdoba, of Corsica, of Murcia, of Jaén, of the Algarves, of Algeciras, of Gibraltar, of the Canary Islands, of the East and West Indies, of the Islands and Mainland of the Ocean Sea". Plese find the law in question. I don't think using a modern example is at all relevent. There was no legislature to register all of the historical King of France's titulary -- bar, of course, for our friend Louis and his successors; moreover, there was no constitution in which they could be enshrined! And more to the point, Louis XVIII is called "King of France and Navarre" in the preface of the Charter of 1814. [5] -- Jack1755 (talk) 17:05, 19 December 2009 (UTC)

P.S. A published third-pary source has as its title "Louis XIV, King of France and Navarre"; straight from his brother's mouth: Louis XVI's royal edict: Louis, by the grace of God, King of France and Navarre. Even contemporarys agreed: "The funeral oration of Lewis XV the well-beloved King of France and Navarre". Yet another third-party published source calling a French monarch after Louis XIII, this time Louis XVIII, "roi de France et de Navarre". [6] And another one [7]. More: [8], [9], Louis's own correspondence, A declaration by Louis XVIII. There are many, many more. -- Jack1755 (talk) 17:27, 19 December 2009 (UTC)

We can't deny photographic evidience!

File:Mary and Philip medal.jpg

Maria Dei gratia regina Angliae, Franciae & Hiberniae. It seems that we do ignore photographic evidence elsewhere! Who decides when to ignore facts and when to respect facts? The successors of Louis XIII were as much as Kings of Navarre as Mary I was Queen of France - ruling a part of those respective states and using the title.

Please continue the discussion here. There is no doubt that their title was King of France and of Navarre. It is not clear what you mean by everyday use. Referring to successors of Louis XIII of France simply as King of France or the French king has always been more common (thus everyday use) than referring to them as King of France and of Navarre. Of course treaties called him King of France and of Navarre; that is not disputed. The same source you cited says that these are the titles that belong to the Crown; those titles were last used by Alphonse XIII. Of course monarchs used their full titles in treaties and official documents. Just take a look at the text of the Peace of Westphalia; 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 is just a half of titles used to describe the Holy Roman Emperor. Do I need to prove that the Swedish monarchs were referred to as King of Sweden, the Goths and the Wends in treaties, coins, etc? Do I need to prove the same for other monarchs? I hope you understand that I am not disputing the fact that they used the title of King of France and of Navarre. However, if other European monarchs have their titles shortened in the infobox and succession box, I can't see why the French monarchs should be an exception. Surtsicna (talk) 19:05, 19 December 2009 (UTC)

In which treaties did the Holy Roman Emperor call himself "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"? In the Peace of Cateau-Cambrésis, Charles V was simply reffered to as "His Imperial Majesty"; his French counterpart, "His Most Christian Majesty". Mary I is different; she briefly ruled Calais with the title Queen, that I conceed; however, France as a legal personality was firmly in the hands of Henri II. She could claim it all she wanted, but, in fact, Henry was recognised as its King. He was -- bar, of course, England's protest -- undisputed King of France. Navarre's case is very different: Two people didn't claim the title. Even though Spain annexed a great deal of its Southern territory, it, Navarre, as a legal personality, continued to exist undisputedly until 1620(?), because a new state, Upper Navarre, was created for the Aragonese King, thus creating a new legal personality. Navarre became, if you like, a rump state. Navarre's proper status after its annexation to France I do not know; however, I do recall the French revoltionary government struggling to legally integrate Navarre into France in 1793. Could you, Surtsicna, please offer us a source that says Navarre completely ceased to exist as a legal entity in 1620? -- Jack1755 (talk) 20:54, 19 December 2009 (UTC)

The treaty I referred to is the Peace of Westphalia. This book, a biography of Louis XIII, says that, during Louis XIII's reign, "the rest of the kingdom of Navarre was incorporated into the French state". I suppose this means that the Kingdom of Navarre ceased to exist. Two people didn't claim the title - are you sure? The King of Castile (later the King of Spain) claimed the title King of Navarre and used it regularly until the reign of Isabella II (from then on the title was used, though rarely). The Kingdom of Navarre certainly did last until 1620, but if that's the year it disappeared, then there surely can't be any kings of Navarre after that date? Now, I am not disputing the fact that the French monarchs continued to use the Navarrese royal title, but on the other hand, there is no doubt that the Spanish monarch did the same. If we do not mention Navarre in the infoboxes and succession boxes in articles about Spanish monarchs, I simply cannot understand why we should mention it in the infoboxes and succession boxes in articles about French monarchs. If one can prove that Louis XVIII was the head of state of Navarre, the dispute will be solved. Surtsicna (talk) 21:19, 19 December 2009 (UTC)

As we have seen, the constitutional statue of Basse-Navarre was completely different from that of either Labourd or Soule. On the eve of the Revolution, Basse-Navarre remained a separate kingdom, rule by the king of Navarre, who had also been king of France since the time of Henri IV. -- A rebellious people: Basques, protests, and politics, by Cyrus Ernesto Zirakzadeh, p21.

The Estates of Navarre claimed to be Estates General and on 6 March 1789 asserted that 'Navarre is not a province of France; it is a separate kingdom subject to the king of France, but distinct from and independent of the kingdom of France'. -- The Institutions of France Under the Absolute Monarchy, 1598-1789, by Roland Mousnier, p251. --Kansas Bear (talk) 21:38, 19 December 2009 (UTC)

Now that changes everything! But don't we now need to edit some articles and correct serious mistakes (such as claims that the kingdom of Navarre ceased to exist in 1620)? Does it also mean that the biography of Louis XIII is incorrect? The second book you cite also claims that the French king reigned as count of Provence (Some provinces were not part of the kingdom and belonged to the king as personal possessions: these included Provence, where the king was count...). Shouldn't we also mention the relevant French monarchs as Counts of Provence, then? Surtsicna (talk) 21:41, 19 December 2009 (UTC)

Unless you are trying to be obtuse, royalty are regarded by their highest title(do you call the Prince of Wales -- Duke Charles of Rothesay?? Do you call Queen Elizabeth II, Duchess of Normandy?), hence why the title is King of France and Navarre. If you do not know this, WHY are you editing royalty articles? And WHY should an ignorant American redneck in Kansas be explaining this to you? --Kansas Bear (talk) 22:10, 19 December 2009 (UTC)

What's the matter with being so agressive now? I acknowledged your argument as the best one in this discussion and you're calling me obtuse and ignorant? That's disgusting. Just to inform an ignorant American redneck in Kansas, I would call the Prince of Wales Duke of Rothesay (never Duke Charles of Rothesay) if I were a Scot because that is the title he uses in Scotland as that was the title used by the heir to the Scottish throne. Surtsicna (talk) 22:43, 19 December 2009 (UTC)

Good to know. --Kansas Bear (talk) 22:46, 19 December 2009 (UTC)

I also forgot to tell you that the Queen is known as The Queen, Duke of Normandy (never Duchess of Normandy) on the Channel Islands. Now I might ask you, just like you asked me, if you do not know this, WHY are you editing royalty articles? If Navarre was a seperate kingdom like your sources claim, then it surely should remain in the infobox and succession box, but then we should also add Count of Provence because your source claims that Provence was seperate from France and that the French king ruled it as count. What about this comment made you so upset? Perhaps I misunderstood the source you cited, but that's not a good reason to call someone obtuse and ignorant. Surtsicna (talk) 22:48, 19 December 2009 (UTC)

Upset? Hardly. So by your own words, Queen Elizabeth II's article should state Queen Elizabeth II, Duke of Normandy. FYI, I did not call you ignorant and I asked if you were being obtuse. So you are offended that an ignorant Kansan is editing articles. Very good to know. Then I'll take my leave. --Kansas Bear (talk) 23:01, 19 December 2009 (UTC)

Now you are putting words into my mouth. Where have I mentioned (let alone proposed using) Queen Elizabeth II, Duke of Normandy? Oh, it's good to know that you are not upset, that you can be so calm while offending people. It is very clear which words you used when referring to me and very clear which word stood behind "If you do not know this, WHY are you editing royalty articles". Don't consider yourself a victim here; you are the one who asked me: If you do not know this, WHY are you editing royalty articles? And WHY should an ignorant American redneck in Kansas be explaining this to you? I merely repeated your words. Why are you offended by your own words if they were not intended to offend anyone? Surtsicna (talk) 23:10, 19 December 2009 (UTC)

Then I guess we won't be adding your suggestion, Shouldn't we also mention the relevant French monarchs as Counts of Provence, then?. Or maybe I was being obtuse. --Kansas Bear (talk) 17:04, 20 December 2009 (UTC)

If one can prove that Louis XVIII was the head of state of Navarre, the dispute will be solved (dixit Surtsicna). Is this one of Wikipedia "rules & regulations", which would contradict its own rules on original research, or is this one of Surtsicna's personal demands? What more is necessary to prove that the kings of France from Henri IV on were "rois de France et de Navarre" than the simple fact that it was their title - a dual title inscribed on their tombs at Saint-Denis?

Surtsicna, in order to rewrite the History of France to your liking, are you going to demand that the arms of the kings of France be amputated of that of Navarre?

http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Armoiries_France_et_Navarre.png

By the way, I love your I said won't argue against keeping of Navarre..., which you rushed to follow with this: I'll start a discussion here

Finally, I presume this text (written in English with all French names kept in French) has no value in your eyes, but I'll throw it into the discussion anyway:

http://74.125.93.132/search?q=cache:L_6w3uLAAuIJ:www.heraldica.org/topics/france/navarre.htm+michelet+roi+de+france+et+de+navarre&cd=2&hl=en&ct=clnk&gl=us&client=firefox-a

Frania W. (talk) 14:14, 20 December 2009 (UTC)

If you can prove that Louis XVIII was the head of the state of Navarre, I will gladly leave the discussion. I cannot believe that you can see some sort of a personal demand here, unless you want to see it. What more is necessary to prove that the kings of France from Henri IV on were "rois de France et de Navarre" than the simple fact that it was their title - a dual title inscribed on their tombs at Saint-Denis? If this is the best argument you've got, then we ought to describe all English monarchs from Edward III on as Kings of England and France (and Ireland). After all, those were the titles inscribed on their tombs at Westminster Abbey.

Frania, in order to rewrite the History of England to your liking, are you going to demand that the arms of the kings of England be amputated of that of France? (Note: The only point of this argument is to adress Frania's argument: Surtsicna, in order to rewrite the History of France to your liking, are you going to demand that the arms of the kings of France be amputated of that of Navarre? )

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:England_Arms_1340.svg

Of course I requested another opinion after you failed to explain why we should make any difference between French monarchs and other European monarchs regarding their official titles.

Finally, if the text you cite (written by a French person with all names in French, including non-French names) has any value in your eyes, you'll agree with this line of that text: the old style of "roi de France et de Navarre" was resumed from 1814 to 1830, at a time when it had no meaning anymore, the institutions of Navarre having been abolished without a trace in 1789-91. The style remained but it had as much meaning as King of England, France and Ireland had - no meaning. If it was meaningless like the Swedish/Danish titles of King of the Goths and King of the Wends, the English title of King of France, the Italian title of King of Sardinia and others, why should we keep it when we don't keep other meaningless titles? Surtsicna (talk) 17:27, 20 December 2009 (UTC)

What more is necessary to prove that the kings of France from Henri IV on were "rois de France et de Navarre" than the simple fact that it was their title - a dual title inscribed on their tombs at Saint-Denis?

• It is because it was their title that it is inscribed on their tombs at Saint-Denis.

why we should treat titles of French monarchs differently than titles of other European monarchs...? (dixit Surtsicna)

• Because we cannot make a one-size-fits-all in History, which is a wonderful patchwork of differences that took centuries to put together. Wikipedia is an encyclopedia telling the story of people with their own particularities, not a rigid corseted goulag, unless that's what you want to make of it.

Frania W. (talk) 18:31, 20 December 2009 (UTC)

What more is necessary to prove that the kings of France from Henri IV on were "rois de France et de Navarre" than the simple fact that it was their title - a dual title inscribed on their tombs at Saint-Denis? It is because it was their title that it is inscribed on their tombs at Saint-Denis. The argument remains meaningless. The title King of France is inscribed on the tombs of English monarchs at Westminster Abbey, yet we do not describe them as Kings of France. It is because it was their title that it is inscribed on their tombs at Westminster Abbey yet we don't put that title in infoboxes and succession boxes. I have to stress once again that the English usage of the title of King of France is only one of many examples.

Because we cannot make a one-size-fits-all in History, which is a wonderful patchwork of differences that took centuries to put together. So why don't you finally point out to the differences between the French title of King of Navarre and the Danish title of King of the Goths or the Italian title of King of Sardinia?

Also, why do you ignore what the text you cited says (the old style of "roi de France et de Navarre" was resumed from 1814 to 1830, at a time when it had no meaning anymore, the institutions of Navarre having been abolished without a trace in 1789-91)? I'll have to repeat my last point since you haven't addressed it (perhaps you haven't seen it): If it was meaningless like the Swedish/Danish titles of King of the Goths and King of the Wends, the English title of King of France, the Italian title of King of Sardinia and others, why should we keep it when we don't keep other meaningless titles? Surtsicna (talk) 18:59, 20 December 2009 (UTC)

Navarre wasn't a "meaningless" title! It was the official style of the French monarch. Did the Kings of Italy and Denmark sign their constitutions as "King of Italy, Sardinia..." and "King of Denmark, of the Wends...", as Louis XVIII signed his "King of France and of Navarre"?? The Bourbons' case is very different to the British monarchs'. Yes, they claimed to be Kings of France -- but they had no control of any French territory after Mary's loss of Calais. France, on the other hand, as I have already said, actuallly had possession of Navarre; this kingdom being by no means titular. Both cases are very different. What about the Dukes of Lorraine and Bar? Bar was integrated into Lorraine, yet nobody is disputing their being called such on WP. And morever, you don't see biographies of "Christian IV, King of Denmark and of the Wends" as you do "Louis XIV, King of France and Navarre". -- Jack1755 (talk) 19:39, 20 December 2009 (UTC)

The source Frania quoted (saying that it probably has no value in my eyes, for reasons only known to her) said that Navarre was a meaningless title. I didn't say it was. Did the Kings of Italy and Denmark sign their constitutions as... "King of Denmark, of the Wends..." If this and this is what you mean, then yes. Frederick IX signed acts as Frederick the Ninth, by God's Grace King of Denmark, the Wends and the Goths, Duke of Schleswig, Holstein... The English monarchs had control of a part of French territory before Mary I lost Calais just like the French monarchs had control of a part of Navarre. The cases may be different but they are surely comparable. So is the Danish monarch's usage of the titles King of the Goths/Wends. If the Duchy of Bar became a part of the Duchy of Lorraine, our article about the Duchy of Bar should reflect that. Currently, it says otherwise. you don't see biographies of "Christian IV, King of Denmark and of the Wends. True, but you do see biographies of Edward the Fourth, King of England and France. This proves that mere book titles don't prove anything. Surtsicna (talk) 20:23, 20 December 2009 (UTC)

The Kingdom of Navarre became a part of the Kingdom of France in 1620. IMHO, Louis XIII of France's infobox, should be the last to have ..of Navarre in it. GoodDay (talk) 20:00, 20 December 2009 (UTC)

PS: Why is this discussion taking place at this talkpage? it covers more then Louis XVIII. GoodDay (talk) 20:50, 20 December 2009 (UTC)

It doesn't effect any French Bourbon monarchs before 1789/91. See Frania and Kansas Bear's points above. I do conceed, however, that it of course effects LXVIII's brother and successor, Charles X. -- Jack1755 (talk) 21:11, 20 December 2009 (UTC)

Howabout deleting the entire thing? Just have Louis XVIII. GoodDay (talk) 21:17, 20 December 2009 (UTC)

I do not understand; are you proposing removing the title King of France altogether? That doesn't make sense. Surtsicna (talk) 21:22, 20 December 2009 (UTC)

Made an example edit, to show what I mean. Basically, how many Louis XVIIIs do we know? GoodDay (talk) 21:28, 20 December 2009 (UTC)

If the Kingdom of Navarre did not cease to exist in 1620 as some sources and our articles claim, then I only can't understand why we should retain of Navarre part in the infobox and succession boxes of post-Revolution monarchs (who deffinetly did not reign over the Kingdom of Navarre just like the above mentioned monarchs did not reign over the Kingdom of the Goths/Wends/Sardinia/etc). Since it obviously isn't clear whether or not the Kingdom of Navarre survived the year 1620, I wouldn't oppose keeping Navarre in articles about Louis XIV, Louis XV and Louis XVI. If we come to conclusion that the Kingdom of Navarre was dissolved in 1620, the situation will be different. Surtsicna (talk) 21:22, 20 December 2009 (UTC)

• I see no objection to his full title appearing in the lead; after all, that was his title; but it should appear ONLY there. By that time, most of Navarre was incorporated into Spain, so that this was no more than a mere title. It should thus not appear at the head of the infobox or in linked articles, etc. and probably not in the succession box. Before the Revolution, though France had an autocratic monarch, it was not a unified state: there were internal customs barriers between France and Lorraine and between notehrn and southern France. What in French hands remained of Navarre may well have similarly been administratively separate, but we should not seek to make too much of that. All such barriers were swept away at the Revolution and France became an integrated state. We certainly should not make much of Navarre, any more than for English (and British) kings were stress their titular kingship of France. Another analogy might be drawn with British peerage succession boxes, where holding subsidiary titles (that a Duke often also has a title as Marquess, an Earl, and so on) unless it is in some way significant. (edit conflict occured) Peterkingiron (talk) 21:38, 20 December 2009 (UTC)

(edit conflict) Surtsicna, this is becoming tiresome. The examples you gave are not constitutions. Because both myself and wikipedia think citing wikipedia as a source on wikipedia is wrong, I'm going to ignore you're point about the Duchy of Bar. While we're on the point of ignore, as I have already said, yes, Spain controlled part of Navarre; however, the Kingdom of Navarre -- a legal personality -- continued to exist regardless. A new kingdom, also called Navarre, was formed for the use of the Aragonese king, thus avoiding a double-claimancy. On the opposite end of the spectrum, we have Mary I claiming to have the prerogatives of the monarch of the legal personality of the Kingdom of France, but, as we both know, the said country's throne was occupied by Henri II -- a dobule claimancy, something that is not applicable in the case of Navarre. King of France and Navarre was not a long-winded title used simply in treaties with other nations, the king was reffered to as such in contemporary diaries, newspapapers, royal proclaimations et al.However, what was the name of the state he ruled over? Was it the Kingdom of France and Navarre? Or simply the Kingdom of France. That we do not know. -- Jack1755 (talk) 21:55, 20 December 2009 (UTC)

Yes, it is becoming tiresome because you keep ignoring the examples I give even though they are absolutely comparable to this situation. What is this if not a part of a constitution? Aren't Frederick's titles of King of the Goths and the Wends and Duke of Holstein, Schleswig, etc, much like of Navarre in the titles of the last French kings? Of course they are. And why aren't all these Frederick's titles mentioned while Louis XVIII's meaningless title is mentioned? Both men officially used their respective titles and ruled the provinces related to those titles. There is no difference. It is clear that I haven't used Wikipedia as source so please don't imply that I did. I did not even say that you are wrong. I only said that our article should be corrected (preferably citing sources). Even if the titles King of England and France are not the same as King of France and Navarre (and I am not saying they are not), there still remain King of Denmark, the Wends and the Goths; King of Sweden, the Goths and the Wends; King of Spain, Castile, ...Aragon, ...Toledo, ...; King of Italy, Sardinia,... I am sure you are aware that all these titles were used in relevant royal proclamations just like you say that King of France and Navarre was. They were also mentioned in newspapers (an example). After 1620 (or 1789), the King of France was as much as King of Navarre as the King of Castile/Spain was for there was no longer any "legal personality" called Navarre. Both used the title King of Navarre but Wikipedia acknowledges only one as such even though neither of them was the head of state of Navarre. It simply makes no sense. If we shorten the official titles of other monarchs, there is no reason not to do the same with the official title of the last French monarchs. Surtsicna (talk) 22:56, 20 December 2009 (UTC)

Note: The discussion is also taking place here where one user disagreed (?) and three users agreed with me. I have already informed you that the I'll start a discussion there. That's where the discussion should be led. Surtsicna (talk) 23:07, 20 December 2009 (UTC)

Picture label

Why is the picture accompanying this article labelled as Louis XVII in one place and Louis XVIII in another? 98.93.141.211 (talk) 02:32, 20 November 2011 (UTC)lhm

Youth Painting of Provence wasn't the count at all...

I removed the youth portrait which was set as one of the count the Provence by Maurice Quentin de La Tour. But it isn't and rather a painting of the future Louis XVI. as a child. https://www.kunst-fuer-alle.de/english/fine-art/artist/image/maurice-quentin-de-la-tour/17118/1/114992/louis-xvi,-king-o-france---la-tour--1765/index.htm See also my example from my French biography:: http://orig08.deviantart.net/7b96/f/2016/228/5/6/13989440_10153907207558403_1599895194_n_by_redpassion-dae4fm9.jpg Louis XVI. by Jean-Christian Petitfils http://orig09.deviantart.net/6e9a/f/2016/228/3/2/hgrh_by_redpassion-dae4ftr.jpg — Preceding unsigned comment added by Clarice (talk • contribs) 20:07, 17 August 2016 (UTC)

Move discussion in progress

There is a move discussion in progress on Talk:Louis XIV of France which affects this page. Please participate on that page and not in this talk page section. Thank you. —RMCD bot 21:30, 21 June 2020 (UTC)

Question about Louis's wife

Moved from Help talk:Template

The page for LOUIS XVIII is protected and therefore can not be edited. This page alleges that Louis XVIII, did not live his wife. The sources it quotes are highly debated as Louis XVIII HIMSELF wrote in his own words (after she died), that he lived her very much. You can see an image of the letters he wrote to his friend the Duke D’Avray (who was on his deathbed when they were sent) on the wiki page for Marie-Josephine Louise de Savoy Comtesse de Provence (under the section death). If you want to protect the Louis XVIII page, at least put the image in the text. The letters are in the public domain and both the English Translations and their French originals are on google for free. Here’s a link to the wiki page with image of letters in English (look for it in section titled death). https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Marie_Joséphine_of_Savoy EvaJehanne (talk) 17:28, 2 July 2020 (UTC)