Jump to content

Talk:Family tree of French monarchs

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia



Though this tree, as all of these trees have been, is very good, there's one error on it.

Henry II and Catherine de Medicis never had a daughter named Violet. They did, however, have twin daughters named Jeanne and Victoire in 1556. Jeanne died at birth, but Victoire lived for two months. Randee15 05:47, 14 Jul 2004 (UTC)

You are right: i'll substitute Charlotte and Violet by Joan and Victoria in the next version of this tree. Meanwhile, i suggest you put a note in the page (if you care). Thanks, Muriel G 18:28, 14 Jul 2004 (UTC)

There's another error: Louis XVIII had a son who have been king under the name Louis XIX for few minutes, before he abdicated as well. That's why the following Louis is Louis XX. Helldjinn 09:23, 19 Aug 2004 (UTC)

How about the Merovingians that came before the Carolingians? --Slugguitar 14:40, 12 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Just to note, Helldjinn is incorrect above. It is Charles X whose eldest son was Louis. Although, indeed, he might be considered to have been de jure king for a few minutes in 1830, before he abdicated in favor of his nephew, the future comte de Chambord, who might thus be considered to have been king for a few days as Henri V until the usurpation of the Duc d'Orleans, this does not seem to be the general theory in operation at the time or later. john k 05:12, 30 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Another inacurracy in the Carolingians Charles the Fat was the son of Louis the German, not Carloman of France. His birth date was 832 and he died in 888. Also, I suggest that we do a major change to the tree to reflect all the Carolingians, not just the French ones ( I am considering doing a family tree for Holy Roman Emperors too), So I could use the tree twice.



Why aren't they here?Celsiana 04:19, 4 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I agree. The Merovingians were more French in disposition than the later Carolingians, who were attracted toward a more imperial view. But if this table displays the Carolingians, then why not the Bonapartes (who were Emperors of France, not Rome)? IMHO, the Merovingians and Capetians are more strictly French than either imperial families.
I am also in agreement with the above. The title of the page is French Monarchs, not Kings of France. This is an important distinction! The House of Bonaparte were as much “French monarchs” as any of the other houses. They were not in direct descent of the lineage of Hugh Capet, but neither was he in direct descent of either the Carolingians or the Marovingians. They were emperors, not kings, but the title “monarchs” does not distinguish between emperors and kings (or, indeed, those who held both titles such as Charlemagne and his son Louis I.) The Marovingians were certainly as much monarchs of the French as any later dynasty too. There is no clear break between the concept of ruler of the Franks and monarch of the French. The Marovingians, Carolingians and early Capetians all use the title Rex Francorum. They originated from the tribe of northwestern Germans called the Franks, but from the time of Clovis I onward the territory they ruled was principally inhabited by the French, and within the boundaries of the modern state of France. It seems to me to be unduly arbitrary, therefore, to split the Marovingian dynasty off as “Frankish kings” and all later rulers as “French monarchs”. A final point on terminology. I feel that “dynasty” is used inappropriately here as well. The four unrelated lineages, Merovingians, Carolingians, Capetians, and Bonapartes should properly be termed “dynasties”, whilst the related families within the Capetian dynasty — the Capets, the Valois, the Bourbons, and the Orléans should, more properly, be termed as “houses”.
Who could forget the Plantagenets either? There seems to be an unwritten rule that we don't factor in Edward III until George III, even though they were heavily intermarried to the (strictly) French (and Navarrese) dynasty. Until the end of the Stuart and Bourbon dynasties, the British monarchy was always focused on its southern dominion. Initially, only the Huguenot Republicans supported this claim and were exploited by the British. The Hanoverians unexpectedly then did a 360 degree turn and supported the Catholic Royalists, effectively causing a death sentence for the French establishment. I don't think it is possible to separate Paris and London affairs. Both countries are strange. The UK is a Protestant Monarchy, while France is a Catholic Republic. Usually, there would be a Protestant Republic and Catholic Monarchy. It is only because of the way these two countries have intertwined, that it is otherwise. I say this because initially, only Calvinists in either country were interested in abolishing the monarchy. Les Invisibles 23:49, 10 February 2007 (UTC)

Small error


Another small error, the second wife of Philip, Duke of Orleans, the brother of Louis XIV, was Elisabeth Charlotte of the Palatinate, not Isabelle Charlotte of Savoy. Concerning the error remarked on above, I agree that if Louis XIX (who as already mentioned was the son of Charles X, not Louis XVIII) is to be shown as such for reigning for 20 minutes, so should Henry V be, he managed a whole five days! It is debatable perhaps whether either should appear as such, but in fact Henry V does not appear at all, and where he would be the Dukes of Parma are rather misleadingly shown as proceeding from Charles X's younger son the Duke of Berry. Which they did, but through a female line. Minor criticisms of what are obviously lovingly prepared trees. 16:14, 30 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I agree that "Isabelle Charlotte of Savoy" appears to be an error and should be "Elizabeth Charlotte of the Palatinate." I also agree with the appreciative comments for the creator of this chart and am happy to offer a tiny comment in hopes of contributing to its perfection.
Ed-Claude (talk) 20:04, 25 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]



The person who made this thing is amazing! He must have a lot of patience. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Acorcoran (talkcontribs) 14:00, 9 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I've usually seen Pepin the Short, not Pepin the Brief. Shouldn't it be either Charlemagne or Charles the Great? I've also seen Louis Outremer (the foreigner?) not Louis the Ultramarine. I'll be checking my 1911 Britannica. Sorry, not a user yet, but just wanted to make a comment. —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 16:33, 20 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

A mistake ?


Well, who is this Charles II, the Fat, son of Carloman, and greatson of Louis II, the Stammerer (France) ?

Wasn't Charles the Fat, French King, son of Louis II, the German, and thus greatson of Louis I ??

Isnt' there a confusion beetween Louis II the German, and Louis II the Stammerer ?

-- (talk) 17:23, 2 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]



What about to try to make some family tree charts from that obsolete pictures, keeping, for as much as possible, all of the present informations? Any objections? --Daduxing (talk) 08:26, 14 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]



I noticed a couple of errors in the late direct Capetian section.

Under Robert II, Duke of Burgundy (1248-1306, Row # 17), the line of descendants correctly links to Margaret of Burgundy (m. Louis X, Row #20) but incorrectly to Joan II, Countess of Burgundy (m. Philip V, Row #20).

This chart (corrected in the Valois section) shows the Valois kings descending from Philip VI and Blanche of Navarre, his second wife by whom he had one daughter (Joan of Valois, b. 1351 d. unmarried 1371).

As shown in the Valois section, the Valois kings descend from Philip VI and Joan of Burgundy "the Lame" (1293-1349). She was the younger sister of Margaret of Burgundy as well as the first wife and queen of Philip VI and mother of John II.

Joan of Burgundy "the Lame" should connect to the line of descent from Robert II, Duke of Burgundy (Row #17).

Maybe... 1. Delete the vertical line above Joan II, Countess of Burgundy. (I think her closest relations shown are Robert I of Artois and Matilda of Brabant, one set of great-grandparents)

2. Replace Blanche of Navarre (1330-1398) with Joan of Burgundy (1293-1349). Delete the connection to Joan II and Philip III of Navarre.

3. Connect Joan of Burgundy "the Lame" (1293-1349) to the line that connects Margaret of Burgundy (1290-1315) and Odo IV, Duke of Burgundy (1295-1350) as children of Robert II, Duke of Burgundy (1248-1306).

I didn't see an open space between boxes to make it work. Perhaps double the space above Philip VI and Joan the Lame, run her line up the left side, turn right above Row #20 and connect to Margaret of Burgundy?

This map is a fantastic creation and incredibly impressive. Johnnybna (talk) 03:16, 2 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Done it. Thanks. A little tangled but at least it's correct. --Daduxing (talk) 18:32, 2 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Requested move 1 July 2019

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: Move all per unanimous agreement. (closed by non-admin page mover) --DannyS712 (talk) 18:53, 8 July 2019 (UTC) DannyS712 (talk) 18:53, 8 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

– Per WP:CONSISTENCY with Family tree of Belgian monarchs, Family tree of the German monarchs, Family tree of Dutch monarchs, etc., as well as List of Castilian monarchs, List of Navarrese monarchs, List of Portuguese monarchs inter alia, as opposed to formula "List of monarchs of Naples", since not all are or were actually "of X". PPEMES (talk) 09:00, 1 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Good proposal. I would support that. Yes, thanks for correction. PPEMES (talk) 17:20, 1 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Just for the sake of clarity, does this imply we also want to change Family tree of British monarchs (simple) to Simple family tree of British monarchs? The original British namespace did not include any indication of simplicity. Why was the choice made to add the modifier here? (not intended as an argument in the form of a question, just a request for information) Agricolae (talk) 15:38, 4 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I'm leaning towards "X (simple)", if you ask me. But either way, don't wish this to break the original nomination, so I guess I am neutral. PPEMES (talk) 15:41, 4 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I will not, at least at this point, express an opinion of which I might find preferable - I do think that all trees with a 'simple' modifier should be modified the same way, just for consistency. That being said, in the French case we are using the modifier 'simple' (wherever one puts it) to distinguish the low-detail tree from another existing tree with higher level of detail. In the British case there is no other tree of British monarchs I could find. Is there any particular reason for this not just to be Family tree of British monarchs without saying 'simple' anywhere, or is this an important descriptive modifier that adds desirable precision - it is a tree with a 'simple' format, independent of whether there is a complex tree or not? Agricolae (talk) 16:02, 4 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Actually I don't see why these "simple" version, notwithstanding, may not simply be merged. But that's another discussion. PPEMES (talk) 18:00, 4 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
OK, that is something to consider, but it doesn't really answer my question. Why did you choose to add the disambiguating descriptor (simple) to the British page, when there is no other Family tree of British monarchs that it needed to be disambiguated from? Agricolae (talk) 20:05, 4 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
1. I just noticed it said in the lead section "The following is a simplified family tree of the English and British monarchs". 2) I guess English monarchs' family tree would play that role. 3) Furthermore, see indication in naming in Template:Aristocratic family trees. Any other hacks or tweaks you think would be more appropriate, though, please be my guest. PPEMES (talk) 17:04, 5 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
OK, thanks.
Agree. PPEMES (talk) 17:23, 5 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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 or in a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.


The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section. A summary of the conclusions reached follows.
To not merge the simple tree into the main one, as the independent simple tree has support given its helpful summary form. Klbrain (talk) 19:01, 8 May 2020 (UTC)))[reply]

What about merging French monarchs family tree (simple) here? PPEMES (talk) 22:13, 26 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

  • Ambivalent There doesn't need to be two separate pages, but there is a certain utility to having a separate page with a simple set of charts, not bogged down with the very large amount of code that is entailed in the larger charts (I have a slow connection, so do I notice the difference), that are also so full of wall-to-wall tiles needed to show every obscure child that my eyes glaze over when I look at them. Me personally, I would prefer to just dump the big files as excessively detailed (and let's face it, aesthetically awful), but I know I am in the minority on that. Agricolae (talk) 02:36, 27 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Merging them will create a repetitive text and in the future someone will remove it due to this reason. Personally, I don't agree with the removing of the content. --Daduxing (talk) 07:14, 27 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
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.

Henry VI of England


Shouldn't Henry VI of England also be included, considering he is as well related to the Valois and was at least de jure king of France for a while after Henry V died? The only thing that stopped him from being a prober reigning monarch at that time was because of his age and when he finally was old enough, the war was practically over and Charles VII's position secured. Maybe he could have a inscription as "disputed" for his status or something?

-- (talk) 23:24, 22 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]