User talk:Frania Wisniewska/Archive 1
 | This page is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
Response on Manfred von Richthofen translation
Welcome to Wikipedia! I see you've been here about a month and a half or so now. I'm glad I was able to be the first to greet you. By the way, you've really improved a lot of France-related articles; nice work! Regarding the translation, I wasn't (at least don't think I was) the one that did it. I remember only very vaguely editing the word 'kaput' to add a 't' but I don't think I've translated anything for this article. Could you show me the quote? I know German (as you sound like you do) and can look it over if you want me to, but otherwise if you see incorrect translation then go ahead and fix it. :) If you have any questions about anything, please feel free to let me know! JRDarby 02:44, 2 December 2007 (UTC)
- JRDarby:
- Thank you for your welcoming msg!
- Here is the quote in the sentence before last in DEATH heading in MvR's article: "Another eye witness, Sgt Ted Smout of the Australian Medical Corps, reported that Richthofen's last word was "kaputt" ("broken") immediately before he died.[9]
- I'll be sure to call for help if I need it. Merci beaucoup!
- FW
- I see the error as well. My first thought was 'finished' (the first thing you have listed as a possible translation on my talk page) and that sounds very appropriate. Good luck on editing and let me know if I can help you! By the way, to edit your talk page, you would best be served by clicking the edit nearest the specific topic to which you are responding, going to the bottom, and using colons to push the margins out so you can see each new edit and keep track of what everyone has said. :) See the source for this page for a demonstration. JRDarby 22:18, 3 December 2007 (UTC)
Michaelsanders,
Being rather new with this, I am not sure of how to get in touch with you about latest edits in the article on Marie Antoinette. If this is the correct way to talk to you, please let me know. I have been reading & re-reading the article & do not agree with a few points. For instance, I cannot understand the correction in the spelling of Marie Antoinette's fourth child. Marie Sophie Hélène Béatrice is her name in French and, since she is a royal daughter of France, why should "Béatrice" be changed to "Béatrix"?
The article is long & I keep on finding details that should be changed/corrected; however, I do not want to sound arrogant!
FW
With regards to Princess Sophie Hélène Béatrix of France - the link leads to that name, rather than to Princess Sophie Hélène Béatrice of France; since it was red-linking, I changed it.
You don't sound arrogant at all. If you find details that you believe need to be changed, then - provided you have a source to back up your changes, and include citations - you can change them. I do have to say, however, that in my personal opinion the article is not too long.
Also, please leave messages to other users on their talk pages (as I have left this on your talk page), rather than on user-pages. I don't find it particularly annoying, but it is slightly tedious to move messages from the user-page to the talk-page, and some users will get very angry if you leave messages there. Still no harm done, and I hope you are willing to improve the article further. Michael Sanders 13:01, 14 December 2007 (UTC)
Mal au Cœur
I agree this expression can have the alternate meaning you mention. But, when it refers to something sad, I think more of the latter expression you mention, ça me brise le cœur, which I think is completely unambiguous. At any rate, why are we talking about this right now? I say, let's think instead of Joy to the World — I wish you a Joyeux Noël! -- Turgidson (talk) 21:33, 24 December 2007 (UTC)
Hi Frania, thanks for your suggestions--they have both been implemented on the article near verbatim to your words (see Pont Royal). Thanks for your help with this--I did the translation from the French site and didn't notice the errors until you pointed them out. Thanks again for bringing this to me attention on my talk page. Lazulilasher (talk) 16:59, 29 December 2007 (UTC)
Pavillon de Flore and a request :)
Hi Frania,
Again, thank you for your suggestions--I'll take a look at them tomorrow as today I am still recovering from the New Year's celebration. Also, I recall that whilst I was doing the initial translation and subsequent editing that I actually found that my sources conflicted regarding Pavillon de Liberte/Egalite. I think. On the other hand, I may be wrong, as I also frequently confuse liberte/egalite for some bizarre reasons (English cognates confuse me....go figure)...you can see also that I originally wrote the article this way (click here and scroll down about 1/4 of the way and you'll see it on the left side) and later changed it....Regardless, I'll look into it tomorrow and we'll get it sorted.
ALSO...I was wondering if you could help me with something. I did some major edits on the pied-noir article and was hoping that, since you appear knowledgeable about these sorts of things, you could take a look at it? I've requested a peer-review and nobody has taken me up on the offer, so if you have the time would you be willing to write the review and let me know what needs to be done? The peer review is here and the article is here. You can edit the peer review page beneath my comments if you'd like.
This would be of great assistance if you're able :)
Thanks much! Lazulilasher (talk) 00:18, 2 January 2008 (UTC)
Manfred von Richthoven/Luftstreitkräfte
Soundofmusicals: I am addressing this to you because as you were working on this article (removing "von", which I was planning on doing) - I was reading its history. A couple of things need to be corrected in the MvR info box but I hesitate to touch it for fear of doing something wrong. (1) On 13 December 2006, the box had been vandalised/vandalized and when it was reverted to its former version, something was left out. It is the name of the location of the death of MvR. In the first version, it was Morlancourt Ridge, near the Somme River which was correct, but incomplete. It should be Morlancourt Ridge, near Vaux-sur-Somme. "Somme" being the river running by "Vaux-sur-Somme", it would not be necessary to add "near the Somme River". If you look up Vaux-sur-Somme in the French wiki, Manfred von Richthofen is the only famous person making the list while the town of Morlancourt has nothing on him.
Here is a map with heading Der letzte Flug Manfred von Richthofens illustrating the air combat in which the Red Baron's Fokker Dr. I was shot down, and the exact location of the crash (Absturzstelle), north of Vaux-sur-Somme. Naturally, his route is shown in red.
http://www.tao-yin.com/baron-rouge/img/photos/carte-somme.jpg
(2) In the name Luftstreitkräfte, the German WWI "Air Force", there is no mention of "army" and "service". The translation given as "Imperial German Army Air Service". should be "Air (or aerial) Combat Forces" (Luft = air; Streit = combat; Kräfte = forces). Frania W. (talk) 02:44, 3 January 2008 (UTC)
- 1. Just finished sweeping up the last redundant von!! I have left any obviously correct "vons" (i.e. ones that are part of a "full name") - and have tried not to disturb any links or references.
- 2. I have changed "place of death" as you suggested.
- 3. The "translation" of the name of the German term for their WW1 air service is NOT a literal translation, of course - more a descriptive summary. The Germans (like everyone else at the time) had army and navy air services, but a strict translation might give an erroneous impression that the Germans already had an independent air force. Best left "as-is" I think. Soundofmusicals (talk) 22:09, 4 January 2008 (UTC)
Soundofmusicals: The word "service" does not sound right to me in the appellation of the German aerial combat forces that preceded the Luftwaffe. You say that "a strict translation might give an erroneous impression that the Germans already had an independent air force." Wikipedia is filled with articles where the proper words are not being used in fear of "giving the wrong impression" and that is when the wrong impression is given. I much prefer the use of "aerial combat forces", which is not "Air Force", but describes exactly what men like Richthofen were doing, "combating" in the air.
Here are two links that may help convince you (?):
n° 1 is to a German article with English translation in adjacent column: http://www.knirim.de/a1201mod.htm
n° 2 are "selected German documents from the Records of the American Expeditionary Forces of WWI" under the heading M2087. These documents are at the National Archives & Records Administration (NARA), in Washington, DC. In the glossary of selected German terms & abbreviations, at page 11, you can see the translation for Luftstreitkräfte.
http://www.archives.gov/research/captured-german-records/microfilm/m2087.pdf
I rest my case. Frania W. 02:03, 5 January 2008 (UTC)
- Read your comment re. "literal vs free translation" with great interest and almost total lack of agreement - although I will not spoil either of our days with futile argument. If you feel VERY strongly about this issue I suggest you raise it in "open" discussion, as it is very large issue, which would affect many articles, not just this one. Soundofmusicals (talk) 02:15, 5 January 2008 (UTC)
Soundofmusicals, your answer to me: "Read your comment re. "literal vs free translation" with great interest and almost total lack of agreement - although I will not spoil either of our days with futile argument. If you feel VERY strongly about this issue I suggest you raise it in "open" discussion, as it is very large issue, which would affect many articles, not just this one."
In some cases, the literal translation happens to be the exact one and in this particular case, the three German words describe exactly a kind of force which was not a "service", while the word "services" gives it an American slant. At least, as long as the German names are kept in the article, ce n'est qu'un demi mal. Frania W. 03:50, 5 January 2008 (UTC)
Soundofmusicals: "La nuit porte conseil", say the French, and I woke up this morning with the solution that would avoid a long sterile discussion. The sentence before last in second paragraph of Early Life, reads as follows: "Richthofen applied for a transfer to the Luftstreitkräfte ("Military Air Service")". I propose adding my three contentious (!) words between parentheses to make the sentence read as follows:
"Richthofen applied for a transfer to the Luftstreitkräfte (literally: Aerial Combat Forces), the "Imperial German Army Air Service", forerunner of the Luftwaffe." Frania W. 20:12, 5 January 2008 (UTC)
Pavillon de Flore: Our favorite topic :)
Lazulilasher, here we meet again, this time not under the bridges of Paris, but at the Pavillon de Flore. After reading your article & its version in French, I looked for more articles on the renaming of Pavillon de Flore during the French Revolution of 1789 & fell upon something interesting in an old book "numérisé" by GOOGLE. Its long title is Histoire politique et littéraire de la presse en France avec une introduction historique sur les origines du journal et de la bibliographie générale des jounaux depuis leur origine by Eugène Hatin, Tome sixième, Poulet-Malassis et de Broise, imprimeurs-libraires-éditeurs, 9, rue des Beaux-Arts, Paris (1860).
I found mention of Pavillon de Flore on page 151 with the following written by Eugène Hatin: "Sur cette salle destinée à la Convention, qui préoccupait si fort Marat, nous trouvons dans Chronique de Paris un article assez curieux, dont voici quelques extraits. La Convention nationale a fait, le 10 mars, son entrée dans la nouvelle salle, au château des Tuileries, maintenant le palais national. On a donné aux trois pavillons qui le composent trois noms nouveaux : au nom de Flore a succédé celui d’Egalité, le pavillon de Mesdames s’appellera le pavillon de la Liberté, et celui des Cent-Suisses le pavillon de l’Unité. C’est entre le pavillon de la Liberté et celui de l’Unité qu’est placée la salle de la Convention nationale, dans la place qu’on appelait autrefois la Salle des Machines, ce qui fournira matière à plus d’un bon et d’un mauvais mot." I did not change "Liberté" for "Égalité" in your article, leaving you the Liberté (!) to do it. I also recommend that you read Eugène Hatin's book (500 pages). Also the article on the Tuileries in wiki in French. It has a couple of engravings of the old palais, one in particular showing the Pont Royal in front of the Pavillon de Flore. Frania W. (talk) 04:07, 31 December 2007 (UTC)
Lazulilasher: If we could use an illustration of the Pavillon de Flore façade with Jean-Baptiste Carpeaux' sculpted decoration, Le Triomphe de Flore, it would add a nice touch to the article. Frania W. (talk) 18:00, 2 January 2008 (UTC)
- Hi Frania
Well, the Good Article reviewers have now turned their sights onto our favorite obscure subject: the Pavillon de Flore. Anyway, the reviewer has kindly posted what needs to be done to fix the article onto the article's Talk page. I'm going to be spending my time trying to address the issues the reviewer posted, but was wondering if you could take a look at the reviewer's comments as well and we can see if we can get this thing up to GA status. Lazulilasher (talk) 14:47, 9 January 2008 (UTC)
Will gladly help to the best of my abilities. In article, I just changed "Liberté" to "Egalité" & added book reference. Frania W. (talk) 17:47, 9 January 2008 (UTC)
- Great, I'm glad you're around to help! Anyway, I spent some time this morning finding some cites and addressing the issues the reviewer brought up (various accuracy errors, etc.). I'm going to take a look at some sources I have emailed myself and see if I can beef up the article a bit. The main reference I'm trying to nail down right now is a scholarly article/book which makes note of the mis-aligned axes (I posted a link on the Pavillon de Flore Talk to a google map I created which demonstrates--however, this would be original research....). Regardless, I'm sure we can increase this article's quality :) Lazulilasher (talk) 17:31, 9 January 2008 (UTC)
Lazulilasher: Please check this: http://www.insecula.com/oeuvre/photo_ME0000049660.html The couple of pictures before this one are close ups of Carpeaux' "haut-relief" on the façade of Pavillon de Flore. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Frania Wisniewska (talk • contribs) 19:16, 9 January 2008 (UTC)
Lazulilasher: I read the article, saw the changes you made & added a few of my own. Will return to it with more info on historical "personnages" who passed thru it. There is also work to do in the Footnotes, such as following certain rules RE bibliography, going something like : last name of author, first name, title of book, page of reference, publisher, city where published, year. Will add this comment on PdF talk page. Frania W. (talk) 01:36, 10 January 2008 (UTC)
- Hi, there shouldn't be too much to do in the footnotes b/c I've used the {{cite book}} and {{cite web}} templates which are generally sufficient. However, feel free to add any more info you'd like, but leave the {{citation}} templates in because they're accepted. All of your work looks great, btw. Lazulilasher (talk) 01:39, 10 January 2008 (UTC)
Yep. You were right--all of the footnotes were not in the same format--they've all (I think) been changed now to fit inline with the cite templates. Also--do you know if the insecula image is free use? If so, then we can use it in the article. I think it would be a nice touch to illustrate the article with the image....Lazulilasher (talk) 03:45, 10 January 2008 (UTC)
I looked at the footnotes after you reviewed them. RE the books of reference, the page number is there, but not preceded by p. , so it is not clear that it is the page number. Not knowing how to work with templated footnotes, I cannot fix it - I tried one & the whole thing would have been lost, so I decided to leave it alone. Frania W. (talk) 17:37, 10 January 2008 (UTC)
- Hi Frania, we can actually just type :pp in the pages argument of the
{{citation}}: Empty citation (help) template. I'll do that now and post one here for you as an example. It took me forever to finally figure out how all of the{{cite book}}: Empty citation (help), [1], and Cite error: A<ref>tag is missing the closing</ref>(see the help page). Lazulilasher (talk) 18:49, 10 January 2008 (UTC)
- Hi Frania, we can actually just type :pp in the pages argument of the
RE the burning of the Tuileries: I found some great pictures that may interest you for either PdF article or one you may decide to do on the Tuileries, since the two subjects are closely related. No time right now to forward the info. Frania W. (talk) 18:39, 10 January 2008 (UTC)
Lazulilasher: RE the copyright for the photograph of the "haut relief" by Carpeaux on the façade of PdF, please check the following: http://www.insecula.com/root/conditions.html. It looks like we have to look somewhere else, unless you want to go & take the picture yourself as I, unfortunately, am not in Paris right now to do it. Frania W. (talk) 23:19, 10 January 2008 (UTC)
- It is quite unfortunate that I, as well, am not in Paris. I was just there a few months ago and at that point, I wasn't even aware that you could actually edit wikipedia. If I'd known I would have taken many photos. Oh well. Lazulilasher (talk) 13:54, 11 January 2008 (UTC)
Lazulilasher: I found a photograph of the Flore haut-relief. http://64.233.167.104/search?q=cache:hoa6KfLv8EIJ:www.fond-ecran-image.com/photo-gratuite-facade.php+photos+haut+relief+fa%C3%A7ade+Pavillon+de+Flore&hl=fr&ct=clnk&cd=1&gl=us
When you get to the site, scroll down to the 12th photograph. It is not as nice as the one on "insecula" as it does not show as much of the façade, but it is better than nothing. We also may have to leave a comment on the site & tell whoever is in charge of the use we plan of their photograph. Frania W. (talk) 00:50, 12 January 2008 (UTC)
"Voie triomphale" & Project of rebuilding the Palais des Tuileries
The "Voie triomphale" in Paris is the axis beginning at the center of the now gone Palais des Tuileries & passing through the center alley of the Jardin des Tuileries, the middle of the Place de la Concorde (Obélisque de Luxor), the Champs Elysées, Arc de Triomphe, and continuing through the Avenue de la Grande Armée. When the Palais des Tuileries was burned down, the axis fell upon the Louvre, unfortunately, not at its center. So the beginning of the axis became the equestrian statue of Louis XIV in the Cour Carrée of the Louvre. In July 1989, François Mitterrand inaugurated The Grande Arche de la Défense, built at the end of the Avenue de la Grande Armée to commemorate the bicentennial of the French Revolution. Instead of respecting the course of the “Voie triomphale”, the Grande Arche aimed at the center of the Louvre, throwing the axis off some 6.33°. Should the Tuileries palace be rebuilt, its center will again be the starting point of the "Voie triomphale"; however, the Grande Arche de La Défense will always be 6.33° off, unless the Ministère de la Culture decide to have it torn down and rebuilt within the axis. Which means that, from Place de la Concorde, it would not be seen because hidden by the Arc de Triomphe. Frania W. (talk) 04:32, 10 January 2008 (UTC)
- Hi Frania, great info....I love the accurate measurements. Do you happen to have the source? If so, then I think the 6.33 part would be great in this article. Lazulilasher (talk) 18:31, 10 January 2008 (UTC)
Will look it up. Also: RE the burning of the Tuileries: I found some great pictures that may interest you for either PdF article or one you may decide to do on the Tuileries, since the two subjects are closely related. No time right now to forward the info. Frania W. (talk) 18:45, 10 January 2008 (UTC)
Any interest in tackling the Louvre article next? I've started to look at it and gather sources...I'd love to see that and the Tuileries articles brought up in quality. Lazulilasher (talk) 20:31, 10 January 2008 (UTC)
- Anything on historical Paris sounds great. The ensemble Louvre-Tuileries with adjacent topics such as the old bridges nearby that must be continued with more details. C'est un travail de longue haleine! Frania W. (talk) 23:50, 10 January 2008 (UTC)
Retrieved from "http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Lazulilasher"
Something does not seem right with the last two sentences in second paragraph of the article on Louis XIV of France, which read as follows: "His reign thus spanned seventy-two years and three months, the longest of any European monarch[2] and the second-longest documented reign of any monarch since antiquity. Only Sobhuza II of Swaziland had a longer precisely documented reign (1899-1982)."
It seems to me that part of these sentences do not belong in the text but should be made into a footnote because, while they do compare length of long reign of several sovereigns, they go way beyond the subject being discussed, which is Louis XIV. I think the sentence should read: "His reign thus spanned seventy-two years and three months, the longest of any European monarch."
The rest of the sentence & last one should be a footnote.
Same msg left on discussion page of article. Frania W. (talk) 02:28, 2 February 2008 (UTC)
Retrieved from "http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Historymike"
Dedication of France to the Virgin Mary & the birth of Louis XIV
Left another comment on Louis XIV talk page, this concerning the consecration of France to the Virgin Mary by Louis XIII. Would like your thoughts on it. Frania W. (talk) 05:55, 5 February 2008 (UTC)
Retrieved from "http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Historymike"
- I am awaiting for your response to my counter-proposal on your compromise offer. Lil' mouse 3 (talk) 07:00, 29 February 2008 (UTC)
Other wikis
As far as I know, that would be perfectly acceptable. I'd like to see how other editors solved this "problem". Coemgenus 11:41, 20 February 2008 (UTC)
- If I understand it correctly, that discussion is quite similar to ours. The problems in both cases are (1) the impossibility of a clear definition of what makes a source "reliable," and (2) a single intransigent editor. It also seems that reasonable discussion was unable to produce a solution in their case. As Serein said at the bottom of that page, "Si vous ne voulez pas arrêter de vouloir à tous prix introduire des erreurs sur Wikipédia, je vous le répète, je demanderai un blocage." I hope it will not come to that here. Coemgenus 16:03, 20 February 2008 (UTC)
- I've only just now realized the point you've been making -- I didn't know the word "souris"! Coemgenus 17:36, 20 February 2008 (UTC)
- In response to your concerns, though, I think it is completely acceptable, and even appropriate to mention that the same activity is going on on the other Wikipedia. Coemgenus 18:04, 20 February 2008 (UTC)
- Thanks to you, too, for fighting the good fight. See you 'round the wiki. Coemgenus 22:10, 1 March 2008 (UTC)
Ponts sur la Seine à Paris
RE Passerelle Simone-de-Beauvoir:
(1) part of the text is squeezed between infobox & photo of lens transported on the Seine.
- No way of avoiding that, short of putting the image in a gallery, which would move it away from the point at which it is relevant. Neddyseagoon - talk 15:03, 17 March 2008 (UTC)
(2) after "lenticular" is it necessary to have "(lens shaped)"? It is like having "circular" (circle shaped).
- Perhaps, though lenticular is far less commonly used and known and thus might need explanation. Neddyseagoon - talk 15:02, 17 March 2008 (UTC)
On which side of the "pond" are we? ¿¿¿ Is not the meaning of "lenticular" obvious to a reader of English ??? Frania W. (talk) 16:16, 17 March 2008 (UTC)
Frania W. (talk) 14:09, 17 March 2008 (UTC)
- I see what you mean about doing anything with the text squeezed between infobox & photo. Thank you for trying. Frania W. (talk) 17:12, 17 March 2008 (UTC)
As a matter of chronology, it seems to me that the following, which is in the introductory paragraph, should be the last part of the History section.
The present 62m-long bridge dates to 1857 and was designed on three 17.2m arches by Paul-Martin Gallocher de Lagalisserie and Paul Vaudrey. It was the site of many of the killings of the Paris massacre of 1961.
Pont Saint-Michel is served by the Metro station Saint-Michel.
Your thoughts on this? Cordialement, Frania W. (talk) 22:23, 18 March 2008 (UTC)
L'intelligent Monsieur Crapaud! I fell by chance on the article, read it all as well as the discussion, i.e. your arguments with Rama. I regret not having the time to get involved in your discussion, besides, I would only repeat what you are saying & present the same preuves, but I do want you to know that you are 1000 per cent correct, not in my opinion, but as far as facts are concerned. I flipped when I read in the infobox that Londres was the "French Republic Free French Government capital in exile". Poor de Gaulle was certainly not considered as "President" of anything while in exile in England. He was in exile, his fellow countrymen were in exile, but la République française was not. In fact, since Pétain had created l'État français, la République was dormant. There came a government in exile headed by de Gaulle only when he signed the Ordonnance du 3 juin 1944 in Algiers. A very good text to read on the subject is the one by the université de Perpignan that you also found: Les gouvernements de la France libre de la France combattante et de la Libération:http://mjp.univ-perp.fr/france/co1940fl.htm This alone should be enough proof in your argumentation. Should a vote be needed at any time to settle the matter, please let me know. Joyeuses Pâques! Frania W. (talk) 14:40, 23 March 2008 (UTC)
- Chere Frania, many thanks for your comments. What I need, however, is people to go to the article's Talk page and present these arguments there, and to revert the article as required so that I don't get banned from Wikipedia for constant reversions. Avec mes salutations, Intelligent Mr Toad (talk) 09:41, 24 March 2008 (UTC)
Cher Monsieur le Crapaud intelligent: I understand/know exactly what you need but, as I mentioned above, "I fell by chance on the article", was shocked by the title in the infobox & could not but agree with your arguments. But incapable at this time to bring anything new to support your stand, I retained from reverting because edit wars are time-consuming and, beside leaving a bitter taste, often end up with a text in limbo & filled with wrong data because the person who is right either gets tired or kicked out. Not being in France full time, it is difficult for me to access my books or go to a bibliothèque, the BNP or Archives nationales. However, I googled a couple of official French government sites & believe I may have found a very simple answer to the argument of "London as capital in exile" for the “French Republic Free French Government” . Within a few hours, I shall put something on the Talk page. In the meantime, here is something for you to check, if you have not already done so: http://www.assembleenationale.fr/histoire/histoire-1940.asp Cordialement, Frania W. (talk) 14:56, 24 March 2008 (UTC)
FW
Posted on Free French talk page: Rama: As I, unfortunately, have no access to de Gaulle's Mémoires, I would appreciate your kindness in posting the whole sentence - even paragraph - of your quote re: "Read Mémoires de Guerre, L'Appel, chapter La France combattante. It cites the composition of the government, and states "le Comité serait le gouvernment" and "le chef des Français Libres prît des responsabilités d'État". I would like to see these in their context. You are correct in noting that the first is in the conditional; however, in reading the on-going argument, and the comment by Med in the last revision: rv. "le Comité serait le gouvernment" and "le chef des Français Libres prît des responsabilités d'État". (See talk.), I am left under the impression that "le chef des Français libres prît des responsabilités d'État" is being translated as "the chief of the Free French took on the responsibilities of the State". This would be an incorrect translation. This phrase is not written in the "prétérit de l’indicatif" (preterite of the indicative), thus not stating that the "chief of the Free French took on responsibilities of the State". The accent circonflexe on the "i" of prît marks the use of the "imparfait du subjonctif" (imperfect of the subjunctive), in which mode, the author was not stating that the chief of the Free French took on responsibilities of the State: the whole statement is a “could be/should be/would be” type of conditional, as in "should this be done, the following could/would happen." Frania W. (talk) 19:10, 24 March 2008 (UTC) Retrieved from "http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Free_French_Forces"
David: Please click on the above article. I would like your thoughts on the content of the infobox. Je suis tombée sur l'article tout à fait par hasard hier, en suis tombée à la renverse, et n'en suis pas encore revenue. Ai laissé un commentaire à la page de discussion. Merci de bien vouloir y jeter un coup d'œil. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:French_Third_Republic
Cordialement, Frania W. (talk) 13:26, 25 March 2008 (UTC)
Retrieved from "http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:David.Monniaux"
- Those flags illustrate the predecessor and successor flags. David.Monniaux (talk) 13:40, 25 March 2008 (UTC)
- Retrieved from "http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:French_Third_Republic" —Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.79.146.8 (talk) 14:19, 25 March 2008 (UTC)
- Merci pour l'explication... but the sight of the swastika makes me cringe. Frania W. (talk) 14:15, 25 March 2008 (UTC)
- Retrieved from "http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:David.Monniaux"
Prince du Sang (bis)
BoBo: Our paths have been crossing lately on the royal roads of France & I noticed that you added the title "Prince du Sang" to some royal personages. In my edit to Philippe I, Duke of Orléans :
I removed it without leaving a detailed explicative note, hence my contacting you here in case you would like to discuss it: I do not believe the title applies to the sons of the king, but to the male parents next in line should the king die without an heir, the first in line of these male relatives receiving the title of "Premier Prince du Sang" - the logic then is that if a male relative (cousin, uncle, nephew...) of a Fils de France is titled "Premier Prince du Sang", the Dauphin & his brothers do not have the title of "Prince du Sang", otherwise, it is the Dauphin who would be "Premier Prince du Sang".
Here are a couple of links from fr:wikipedia, as I presume you read French:
http://fr.wikipedia.org/wiki/Prince_du_sang
http://fr.wikipedia.org/wiki/Appellations_des_princes_du_sang
Frania W. (talk) 17:03, 13 April 2008 (UTC)
Frania, this exchange may interest you. As noted in the title, it is about capitalising French titles. Charles 01:09, 21 April 2008 (UTC)
- Charles, thank you: I have been following the discussion. Frania W. (talk) 01:49, 21 April 2008 (UTC)
- Frania, you are right on the spot with all of your comments. A user is able to prove that a form existed but does not acknowledge any other forms that do not align with his or her ideology, preference, et cetera. That we have an official regulating body for French now should govern how we use it in English only because English is otherwise silent on the matter of what to do. So long as we are silent as well there will always be chaos, there will always be edit disputes and there will always be questions and circular discussion. I cannot see why certain parties do not realize this but alas, I wonder that about *many* things in life! :) There are no single "historically accurate" forms for any title that the user listed; rather, there are many. Also, the user provided a list of books using his or her preferred form (initial upper case) but did not follow a request to show examples that didn't use that form. Weak foundation for an otherwise simple case. Even though the "right" thing to do is right in front of us, we will never reach it so long as there is vocal opposition (even if it doesn't make much sense). Charles 18:39, 22 April 2008 (UTC)
- Also, regarding the translation of de, we should never do it unless there is a strong case for it (like Dukes of Orléans, etc) but we should never, ever use terrible forms like "duc of Orléans"! To see that gives me a headache. Charles 18:42, 22 April 2008 (UTC)
- Whenever I read the comments of someone who brandishes Antonia Fraser's books to prove a point, I go into orbit... Frania W. (talk) 03:37, 23 April 2008 (UTC)
Frania! Ca va ou quoi!
I've been working a lot on the Louvre article. And was wondering if you could take a look at it, provide some of your detailed insight....double check my work regarding the history of the structure...etc....basically, if you have the time (ha, I know) I would really love your help.
How is everything?
Lazulilasher (talk) 13:27, 21 April 2008 (UTC)
- Où étiez-vous? La dernière fois que j'ai vérifié vos contributions, la date était toujours au 28 février. Je commençais à m'inquiéter. Maintenant je peux respirer!
- I will be more than happy to work on the Louvre with you. Will check it ASAP. I have been very busy with other matters & have not touched le Pavillon de Flore for which I have some additions, but I did go thru all the bridges on the Seine. Had plans also for the Seine as there are some inexactitudes in the article. Mais chaque chose en son temps.
- Ha! Thanks for the comment! C'est genial, ceci. I was starting a new job and was actually in/out of France often (we're headquartered in Levellois-Perret, juste a cote de Neuilly. Due to the new job, I decided that I couldn't edit Wikipedia until I had already built a decent reputation. But, helas! Here I am! aux citoyens, aux armes, aux stylos! au travail! En avance pour la Wikipedia! Lazulilasher (talk) 15:19, 21 April 2008 (UTC)
- Et en l'avenir, tu peut me tutoyer, si cela conviens le situation! Lazulilasher (talk) 15:21, 21 April 2008 (UTC)
- Retrieved from "http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Lazulilasher"
- Lazu, d'accord, on se tutoie. Alors tu travailles à Levallois-Perret? Bonne chance dans ton nouveau truc, ou plutôt... m.r.e! Sans rire, j'étais sur le point de confier mon inquiétude à Neddyseagoon qui semble être souvent sur les mêmes sujets que nous. Á bientôt sur notre favorite subject et autres. Frania W. (talk) 17:04, 21 April 2008 (UTC)
I notice on your French talk page that you are contributing heavily to the Chopin pages la. Maybe we have the next project? I love Chopin! Lazulilasher (talk) 14:25, 23 April 2008 (UTC)
- Oui, moi aussi j'adore Chopin. I spent hours transcribing tonalities that were given in either the English or German manner & checking the opus numbers. The only way to do it was to verify each composition against the partitions I have - ça a été du boulot and, as I said, it took hours, but time well spent. By the way, the article on Chopin already exists in en:wikipedia. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fr%C3%A9d%C3%A9ric_Chopin Musicalement vôtre, Frania W. (talk) 15:37, 23 April 2008 (UTC)
FactStraight, I have brought some changes to the article. One of them, a reference at Family and Death , is a link to an article in fr:wiki; although showing [1], the reference does not appear when clicking on [1]. Would you mind fixing it? I added the link to References. Thank you. Frania W. (talk) 12:08, 26 April 2008 (UTC)
Retrieved from "http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:FactStraight"
Re: Help
Charles, I have been working on several articles on the Bourbon-Toulouse-Penthièvre family and am having problems including references & footnotes. I have no idea what's wrong as I follow the steps by clicking on "references". The numbers show in the text itself, but nothing happens when clicking on the number. The articles are Louis-Alexandre de Bourbon, comte de Toulouse & Louise Marie Adélaïde de Bourbon-Penthièvre. If you check my edits (edit this page), you will see that my references are there. Merci d'avance, FW Frania W. (talk) 17:21, 29 April 2008 (UTC)
- Hi Frania!
- This has an east fix. Put {{Reflist}} (without the nowiki if you are viewing the code) at the top of the references section. Voilà! :) Charles 17:28, 29 April 2008 (UTC)
Would you mind taking a look at the last five revisions done on 12 May by 86.154.178.231 ? The changes do not bring anything new or noteworthy to the article; in fact they contradict what is already there & look to me as possible vandalism. Frania W. (talk) 01:50, 13 May 2008 (UTC)
Retrieved from "http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:ClueBot_Commons"
- It's not exactly vandalism: it's just BoBo editing under one of his two sockpuppets (the other is Tbharding), to make it look as if he is "improving" someone else's edits. He tries to make these Bourbon articles look and read like a novel, padding them with redundant or trivial information. Anyway, I tried to cut the article down to size. Now it's your turn. :-) FactStraight (talk) 07:47, 13 May 2008 (UTC)
- Since Tbharding reverted all of my edits without any explanation, I have reverted back to my version, with explanation. Unfortunately, that meant I had to revert your edits as well. I tried to restore the substantive ones, but you should check and make sure that it is correct. I object to referring to people by three Christian names as excessive, and really would prefer use of only one. I expect that one of the sockpuppets will again revert everything. If so, I recommend that rather than re-editing from his version, you revert, if warranted, to yours or mine: he can't revert us both on these Bourbon articles without violating the rules against 3RR and Sockpuppet. I try to work with his edits when they are reasonable (much of his input is good), but he can't be allowed to turn 18th century France into Gothic fiction on Wiki, full of titles & genealogy with pretty pictures, but no substantive content and no proper citations, all for his own amusement. BTW, Wiki articles (even French Wiki) are not considered acceptable as citations. Enjoy editing! FactStraight (talk) 04:45, 14 May 2008 (UTC)
wiki links
Bonjour cher Coemgenus: Going thru a few articles related to the Bourbon dynasty of France, I notice your name here & there. Hence my writing you on the subject of repeated blue wiki links on dates, personages, cities etc. Once Paris or Louis XIV have been wikilinked, it is enough. Repetition of the process within the same article is unnecessary & disruptive. Is there a rule stating that Paris & others have to be wikilinked every time? Frania W. (talk) 22:13, 12 May 2008 (UTC)
Retrieved from "http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Coemgenus"
- You're right about the excessive linking. There's a guideline about it somewhere in the manual of style, but I'm not sure where. Basically, I believe, one should not link more than once to a given article unless there is a good reason. If the two links are separated by a large amount of text, that's probably ok, but not twice in the same paragraph. Dates are different -- wikilinking them makes them able to be formatted according to a user's preferences, so that I can read my dates American style and people who prefer the European style can read them that way. This page talks about the dates. Bonjour! Coemgenus 10:40, 13 May 2008 (UTC)
Frania, I noticed your edits on Louvre! Nice additions. I'm still hoping to one day get that article up to FA, but who knows. How are things? Lazulilasher (talk) 13:01, 21 August 2008 (UTC)
- Lazu: So nice to find your note! Yes, I enjoyed reading the Louvre article & left a few traces, what I call "des petits riens", respecting the article. I have been very busy with life in general & got caught in articles on members of the French royalty. Quite a saga as one article leads to the next. Hope your new job is satisfying & your summer great. Aurevoir! Frania W. (talk) 18:43, 21 August 2008 (UTC)
Sculptures
Several *sculpture* figures are being put in articles related to French historical personnages: princesse de Lamballe, Mme de Montespan, Mme de Maintenon. They do not belong there. Checking the contributors' IP address - all beginning 75.106.192. with last two numbers different - reveals a history of vandalism. Would you mind checking this? Thank you. Frania W. (talk) 19:14, 31 August 2008 (UTC)
- Weird indeed. I've reverted the anon -- they added the same kind of image to Julius Caesar as well. Maybe they are shared IPs which would explain the vandalism (i.e. the previous edits weren't done by him/her). Anyways if they revert again I would try to discuss it with them and explain why it is inappropriate. Khoikhoi 07:18, 1 September 2008 (UTC)
End of summer
To Kansas Bear: Like the French say: "c'est la rentrée" et j'ai l'impression qu'on est reparti pour un tour. Bon courage! Frania W. (talk) 16:33, 4 September 2008 (UTC)
- Thanks, Frania. Kansas Bear (talk) 15:03, 6 September 2008 (UTC)
Lazu: Je viens d'ajouter le lien d'un article du Figaro sur un accident récent d'une vedette près du pont de l'Archevêché à Paris. http://www.lefigaro.fr/actualite-france/2008/09/14/01016-20080914ARTFIG00013-une-vedette-de-plaisance-sombre-sur-la-seine-.php Si ce lien n'a de raison d'être, je vous/te laisse libre de le retirer, mais je pense que cet article est intéressant parce qu'il soulève l'hypothèse que, hors autres raisons telles vitesse ou erreur humaine, l'étroitesse du pont aurait pu jouer. Aurevoir. Frania W. (talk) 19:19, 14 September 2008 (UTC)
- Eh, WOW! Bien sur, ajoute l'article. Aussi, si t'a le temps libre, peut-etre tu peut ecrire en petits riens au sujet du naufrage? Ca m'interessera bien. C'est bizarre, je sais que le Pont Notre-Dame provoquait quelques naufrage, mais pas en notre temps. Lazulilasher (talk) 17:19, 16 September 2008 (UTC)
- D'accord, quand j'aurai un peu de temps, j'ajouterai qq lignes sur cet accident qui me rappelle qqch de similaire qui était arrivé il y a très très longtemps à un autre pont. Tu as aussi l'air très occupé! Félicitations pour tout le joli travail que tu fais. A bientôt! FW Frania W. (talk) 17:49, 16 September 2008 (UTC)
Napoléon, François, Noël & chou à la crème
Tpbradbury: Do you mean that accents, cédille & others are forbidden in en:Wikipedia? It hurts my eyes terribly to see Champs Elysees and Republique francaise. In my opinion as a professional book editor working with six languages, even in a text in English, these are mistakes because one should either anglicise the word or, if kept in its language of origin, respect the original spelling. In N's article: 3rd line of *Origins & education*, one can read "though he later adopted the more French-sounding Napoleon Bonaparte". Well, if *he*, that is N, adopted the more French-sounding Napoleon Bonaparte, it stands to reason that *he* also adopted the accent on Napoléon.
It is also difficult for me to understand why accents should be banished in N's article while they are all over en:wikipedia. For instance, coup d'etat directs the reader to Coup d'état, Josephine de Beauharnais to Joséphine de Beauharnais, Champs Elysees to Champs Élysées.
Furthermore, does it make any sense to give a quote in French & remove all the accents? This is note n° 6 of N's article, which I had corrected, but that was immediately reverted: Letter published in (1870) in Henri Plon: Correspondance Napoleon. Dumaine, p.420. ASIN B0013Z9HGO. ^ Article 1.- Le Peuple français nomme, et le Senat proclame Napoleon Bonaparte Premier consul à vie. Translation: The French people name, and the Senate proclaims Napoleon Bonaparte First Consul for life Together with the French words without accents, whoever first wrote the article did not give the correct title for Henri Plon's publication of N's letters in 1870. The title is not "Correspondance Napoleon" but "Correspondance de Napoléon Ier".
Omitting an accent in French can change the meaning of the sentence as the accent aigu at the end of a verb indicates past participle tense. For instance: "Le chasseur tue pendant la chasse..." (= The hunter kills during the hunt) vs "Le chasseur tué pendant la chasse..." (= The hunter killed during the hunt). If the accent is omitted when the sentence is inserted in a text in English, then the reader will not know whether the hunter killed or was killed.
All this being said, and as your corrections came while I was in the middle of my own, I am stopping doing any editing on this article. It irks me to see the numerous historical inexactitudes with which en:wikipedia is filled, and have some silly rules keep serious editors from participating in the real *meat of the subject*, while vandals are allowed to flourish. Frania W. (talk) 20:38, 26 September 2008 (UTC)
P.S. By the way, why is there such a choice in the insert box listing "latin" if we can not use such symbols as Á á É é Ê ê ë ú Œ œ ? Ridiculous!
Put comment on Napoléon's talk page. FW
Chou a la creme to you too
Bonsoir Frania, The title of the article is Napoleon I of France (no accent). If you read above, when taken through the GA review it was pointed-out by the reviewer that the article was inconsistent in its use of diacritics so in order to make it consistent I took the diacritics out to be consistent with the title and the reviewer agreed. It seems difficult to justify not putting diacritics in the title and then suddenly putting them in the article. I think Napoleon is unsual because it's a name English speakers anglicise by not putting the accent in but they keep accents for other words such as in Coup d'état hence why many articles have diacritics. I think it might be possible to include some of the diacritics you inputted without being inconsistent. Thanks for pointing out some errors and please note any historical inexactitudes. I see you've written this on the talk page? it makes more sense just to write notes to me on my talk page. Tom B (talk) 20:40, 26 September 2008 (UTC)
good sense vs inconsistensies
Good evening, Tom/Tpbradbury: As you can see, I had put my comment on both Tpbradbury's & N's talk page in case others may want to respond.
(1) I have come to terms with Napoléon losing his accent in English, that's the way the Ameranglos write it, and I accept it. But it should not mean that there was a consensus between the English & the Americans to remove all diacritics from all French words in all Anglo texts.
(2) Please note that when I edited the article, except for the one "Napoléon Bonaparte" saying how Bonaparte himself chose to spell his name in French (which was my reason to put an accent on that Napoléon), I had not touched the other Napoleon of the text, thus respecting the Anglo-American entente cordiale on this point!
(3) In my opinion, the argument of inconsistency is being carried too far. If no accents are to be used, then let us not use foreign words & let's have every word anglicised. Instead of talking about Napoleon's *Grande Armée* camouflaged as Grande Armee, then let's write Napoleon's Great Army but please no Grande Armee. In other words, either French or English, but no amputated French terms.
(4) Should we want to carry this no diacritics policy throughout en:wikipedia, are we going to redirect articles such as those on André Le Nôtre, Madame de Sévigné, Marie-Thérèse de France, Champs Élysées to Andre Le Notre, Mme de Sevigne, Marie-Therese de France, Champs Elysees?
(5) As for not respecting French orthography in a quote in French, it makes no sense in an encyclopedic article. A letter is a letter. e is not é or è or ë or ê. And if you have ou (=or) and où (=where) what imbroglio would be created in skipping the accent on ù! The same with à (= at, to) and a (= has). And I shall not tell you what one would be writing if skipping the cedilla under the c of leçon!
I rest my case. Frania W. (talk) 23:31, 26 September 2008 (UTC)
- i'm sure you'll be ecstatic to know i've put a lot of the diacritics back in as you had done. i think i'd probably sledgehammered it before in an effort to make things straightforward. anyway i can't rule out the possibility i'll have to take some/all out again if some other people come along and there's a new consensus, Tom B (talk) 21:38, 27 September 2008 (UTC)
- Tom: Thank you for your note & taking the time to "put a lot of the diacritics back". I had planned on reading the article *from top to bottom* again, but decided instead to read the peer review: you are putting a lot of work & time in this, and I do not want to be a factor of distraction. So, I am going to finish what I had started & if the subject of *diacritics* comes up, I will take responsibility for it, plead my case & wait for consensus to be reached one way or the other. In the meantime, whenever I find clarification on points being raised, I'll send them your way. Cordialement, FW Frania W. (talk) 04:47, 28 September 2008 (UTC)
- Tom: If I do not bring changes directly to the article, where should I leave my *finds* on N? Here on your talk page or in the peer review discussion? Do your read French? Because I have details on Bonaparte's 1796 civil marriage to Joséphine, 1804 religious ceremony, 1810 divorce authorised by Senate & annulment of religious mariage by Paris diocese in January 1810, three months before N's marriage to Marie Louise. Frania W. (talk) 01:16, 29 September 2008 (UTC)
Lazu: RE sections Controversies & Satellite museums, it seems to me that it would be more logical for their order of appearance to be switched, unless last paragraph Jordan just added be used to close the Abu Dhabi segment. Qu'est-ce que tu en penses? Cordialement, Frania W. (talk) 19:05, 27 September 2008 (UTC)
- I think the two sections should be swopped around. This would certainly be better for the shape of the article and, as per above, would be more logical. Jordan Contribs 19:13, 27 September 2008 (UTC)
- Well, it seems like you two have it sorted out :) I agree with your mutual assessment. Also, I'm going to move this discussion to the article's talk page. That way, if any other folks happen around they will be able to read the conversation. Ok, I'm off to see if I can find the big edition of Le Robert, which may (may not, it is a proper noun after all) have an "official" etymology. Lazulilasher (talk) 19:59, 27 September 2008 (UTC)
- I agree with your suggestion, as proposed here. I would suggest that the sections are swopped around, rather than the text regarding the Louvre Abu Dhabi being assimilated into the body of the text in the Louvre Abu Dhabi section. If this is alright, I will change the sections around. But first, consensus needs to be accheived. Jordan Contribs 19:14, 27 September 2008 (UTC)
Louvre (etymology)
Lazu: Mes deux gros Robert ne disent rien sur l'étymologie du mot "louvre", ce qui signifie que ce n'est pas un nom commun. Dans le dictionnaire des noms propres, il n'y a que l'histoire du palais de sa construction à nos jours. Le mot n'apparaît même pas dans le dictionnaire étymologique Larousse. Aurevoir! FW
- J'ai la même histoire (c'est toujours la meme histoire :) ) Les dictionnaires ne disent plus que rien; sauf, comme tu m'a dit, l'histoire de la construction (Robert, les Noms Propres). Donc...hmmm....qu'est-ce que t'en penses? Lazulilasher (talk) 15:12, 28 September 2008 (UTC)
Retrieved from "http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Lazulilasher"
Bonjour Lazu! Ce que j'en pense est ce que j'ai écrit il y a quelques jours à la page de discussion du Louvre: Since the French themselves do not know the origin of the word *louvre*, and can only offer hypotheses, I believe that what Lalu wrote is what should be included in the article. If/when/until someone comes up with a better explanation, then it should be left as is. Bon weekend! Frania W. (talk) 15:49, 28 September 2008 (UTC)
- Résultat à *loup* dans Larousse étymologique:
- <loup 1080, Roland (leu, forme conservée dans à la queue leu leu, Saint Leu, etc.); du lat. lupus; loup est refait sur le fém. louve, où le *v* a empêché le passage du *ou* à *eu* (cf. Louvre, du lat. pop. lupara).>
- Bon! J'ai consulté "The Old & New Paris" par Edwards, pages 193-94. Il ecrivais le meme chose que toi, plus ou moins. Il est evident que "lupara" est le theorie le plus accepté. Donc, pense-toi qu'on devrais modifier le passage avec ces notes-ci? Je te laisse l'honneur :) Lazulilasher (talk) 18:11, 28 September 2008 (UTC)
Bonjour Lazu! RE PdF, I want to add a few details to the last paragraph of its History section; however, I am being slowed by inconsistencies found in various sources. For instance, Francis Miltoun places the Committee of Public Safety in former apartments of Marie Antoinette in PdF, while other sources (French) place it in former apartments of the queen, but in the Tuileries Palace, i.e. first floor looking into garden, which is what I believe. After the royal family was brought to Paris from Versailles on 6 October 1789, and until 10 August 1792 (fall of the monarchy), the apartment on first floor of PdF was occupied by the princesse de Lamballe. The queen had access to that apartment from her own in the Palais des Tuileries. However, I must find the source before bringing any change to article. This is taking time and, unfortunately, my personal time is not the exclusive property of Wikipedia! Aurevoir! Frania W. (talk) 17:02, 1 October 2008 (UTC)
- Ha! I'm sure it will be excellent! Lazulilasher (talk) 01:29, 2 October 2008 (UTC)
WikiProject France A-class review
I have proposed the development of an A-class review department for the France WikiProject. This would be a part of the project's reviews departement. See here and here. Thought you might be interested. Jordan Contribs 21:13, 1 October 2008 (UTC)
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.
What do you know about...
the Girondists? I don't know much, but an editor requested that someone take a look at that article and fix the lead up. Since I don't have great knowledge on the subject, I am coming to you. Lazulilasher (talk) 22:59, 5 October 2008 (UTC)
- Lazu: I imagine this the heading RE the request you are talking about?
- Answer the obvious question: "What did they believe?"
- I'll see what I can do about this, but not right now. FW
- Thanks Frania. I also asked a colleague over at the fr.wiki to take a look. I'm not a Revolution expert, so I decided to see if I could finagle you or McEwen to fix it up. You both have expressed interest in the subject. I might take a look, although right now my big artile projects are still Louvre and Marquis de Lafayette. Thanks for offering to take a look (and there's no rush). Lazulilasher (talk) 04:01, 6 October 2008 (UTC)
confiscation vs appropriation
Mon très cher Lazu: You are the last person with whom I am ever going to have an edit war, so I am not going to change your "appropriation" for my "confiscation", but I do want to tell you that in all studies I have done in France, and in all readings, the word that stands out RE the revolutionary government getting its hand on Church or émigré's property is "confiscation", which in the mind of the French is a lot meaner than "appropriation". Voilà! And, by the way, tu vas me copier cent (100) fois le mot "galerie", which has only one (1) *l* en français, ou je vais *confisquer* ton ordinateur !!! Frania W. (talk) 02:43, 6 October 2008 (UTC) http://74.125.113.104/search?q=cache:BGnbDtzxwCEJ:www.1789-1799.org/persos/talleyrand.htm+confiscation+des+biens+de+l%27%C3%A9glise+r%C3%A9volution+fran%C3%A7aise&hl=fr&ct=clnk&cd=12&gl=us
- No worries, revert me--I know you mean no harm. It's not like we've never worked together before. I was concerned because of the combination of Church/emigre/and the cabinets du roi. I'd thought that the royal collections had been "appropriated", not confiscated; hence, I changed the word. Confiscated seemed a little harsh, but it was really a minor tweak. Changing it back.... Lazulilasher (talk) 02:49, 6 October 2008 (UTC)
- I know that "confiscated" seems a little harsh, but "confiscation" was meant to be very harsh; it was a punishment to those who had belonged to privileged classes. Remember, the revolutionaries were not shy about cutting heads at the time... But I am not going to revert you. Maybe next year! FW
- FYI: changed it back. Frania, tu sais que tu peut me "reverter" (ha! is that a word?). Lazulilasher (talk) 02:54, 6 October 2008 (UTC
- Ha."je me revertais" (can we say that?) Lazulilasher (talk) 03:01, 6 October 2008 (UTC)
- fr:wikipedia appelle "revert": "révocation" ou "réversion". Les verbes sont "révoquer" ou "faire une réversion". Mais, entre nous, on peut utiliser un mot inventé, comme "réverter". On peut même le soumettre à l'Académie française.
- Ce texte est sans doute un peu long, mais il peut t'intéresser sur la façon dont les biens nationaux étaient revendus pendant la Révolution: http://rives.revues.org/document100.html
- En plus, je viens de tomber sur ce paragraphe: ***[...] La Commission des revenus nationaux rappelle que “ la vente des biens confisqués se poursuit dans toutes les parties du territoire français et même sous le feu de l'ennemi ”.[...] ***
- Bonne continuation! FW Frania W. (talk) 03:43, 6 October 2008 (UTC)
- Btw, I was reading a book about Lafayette today: you are correct, the proper word is "confiscated". Lazulilasher (talk) 16:26, 6 October 2008 (UTC)
Je te propose: French Revolution. Lazulilasher (talk) 18:02, 10 October 2008 (UTC)
J'accepte les deux cadeaux
Dear Frania, I am sorry if in the past I have been rude to you in our discussions on talk pages. As you can tell, I love 18th century history and can get very worked up about it. I hope you understand that my only goal, though, is to encourage the accurate transmission of information. I will try to work on my presentation (LOL). Best Wishes, BoBo (talk) 00:10, 14 December 2008 (UTC)
Kate, please read my comment on Pompadour talk page http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Madame_de_Pompadour and changes I brought to article. Frania W. (talk) 15:08, 24 December 2008 (UTC)
- Hi Frania, thanks for the edits and the heads up :) I agree with the revision, it's certain she had a bad reputatation but the modern connotation of prostitute seems a bit on the harsh side. Kate (talk) 15:42, 24 December 2008 (UTC)
I agree with you & find it very sad that some of the articles on famous French women are linked to Category:French courtesans and prostitutes http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Category:French_courtesans_and_prostitutes. Placing in that list Marie de Rohan-Montbazon, duchesse de Chevreuse, Stéphanie Félicité Ducrest de St-Albin, comtesse de Genlis, Thérésa Tallien and the French actress Rachel is beyond my comprehension of the words *courtesan* and *prostitute* used in English speaking Wikipedia! I believe Anglo-Saxon puritanism (probably more American than British) has a lot to do with such opinions. The French have a more liberal view on the behaviour of women. Why should a man with many feminine conquests be called a *libertine*, a *Don Juan*, a *womaniser* or a *great lover* (but never a *male-whore*!) while women doing the same are categorised as *prostitutes* ? Frania W. (talk) 19:09, 24 December 2008 (UTC)
- I agree, I find it utterly deplorable and I'm not even sure where it comes from, really. It certainly hasn't been unheard of in previous times for women to be less than puritanical sexually, and some of the most amazing women have been so, like Emilie du Chatelet, a personal heroine of mine. Why should it be so surprising that a woman of intellect and breeding should also explore her sexuality in a way that was permissable in her social status and culture? Simply having sex doesn't make one a prostitute, even if one is female. Kate (talk) 19:41, 24 December 2008 (UTC)
I sincerely do believe that it comes from puritanical judgment, which was & still is very harsh on women's behaviour. I notice the difference between French & English Wikipedia in such matters. Why are puritanical societies so hypnotised by sexual behaviour? It seems to me they would ignore it since sex is a taboo. For instance, one of my *beefs* is the lengthy paragraph in the Louis XVI article spending a kilometer long on the 7-year non-consummation of his marriage with Marie Antoinette. No other wiki article touches upon it with such gusto! And I could give you many more examples.
Joyeux Noël! or whatever else you may be celebrating.
Frania W. (talk) 20:40, 24 December 2008 (UTC)
Following is a msg I left on Mme de Pompadour's talk page:
Aciram: Thank you for the above comment. I do not agree with English language wikipedia as to its 17th century-19th century judgment of women. In France, the 17th & 18th centuries (except for the years Mme de Maintenon reigned over the morals at Versailles), and the beginning of the 19th were not a time of puritanism. The morals at Court & in higher classes of society were rather loose & women having romantic affairs with men other than their husband were not considered to be *prostitutes*! From the bourgeoisie on up to the royal family (even in lower class families where parents wanted their daughter to "faire un bon mariage", i.e. marry someone rich), marriages were pre-arranged *business deals* from which love was excluded. This was bound to lead to latter *love affairs* when two persons happened to meet & fall in love. One day when I have have time, I am going to remove many names from that ghetto-like Category:French courtesans and prostitutes http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Category:French_courtesans_and_prostitutes. Frania W. (talk) 19:02, 31 December 2008 (UTC)
- I have recieved your message, Frania, and I could not agree more. We do not have the same problem on Swedish wikipedia either. I have replyed on my page. --Aciram (talk) 19:42, 31 December 2008 (UTC)
- Yes, I understand. I agree with you in what you say about the weiv on sexuality in 18th century France. I was in fact also talking about the matter in general, the view on this in Europe in general; also, for example, an 19th century English actress, who had affairs, could be considered to be a prostitute, even if she was not: she could be described as such by her time, and therefore categorized as such in wikipedia, when the article is based upon such sources and tradition. I wish you good luck in adjusting this, and hope that you will also remove such wrongful labels from women of all nationalities as you find them, as I have done myself. I am glad if this puritanical wiev could be corrected toward a more neutral point of view. -Aciram (talk) 19:38, 31 December 2008 (UTC)
Aciram: Merci beaucoup for returning to me. I am happy that I am not the only one with this non-puritanical point of view. Fortunately, we can bring changes to wikipedia and, with some luck, convince others that their way of thinking does not always relate to the standards of 17th & 18th century Europe, of every country of Europe, as there was quite a difference between Sweden & Spain, Spain & France, France & Austria, Austria & England, etc. We have to know & understand how people thought at the time & not judge them by our way of thinking.
Meilleurs vœux pour 2009! Frania W. (talk) 22:09, 31 December 2008 (UTC)
- Merci Frania! A good method would be to look at all such categories, as the same category ecxist for several countrys here on wiki- in such cases when you do not know the truth yourself, I believe it would be a good method to simply question the matter and post a question about it on the article's talk-page; that way, the matter will eventually be corrected by those who do know, even if you are unable to do so yourself. A similar matter is, that when sexual matters are mentioned in articles about history, they are often phrased as "bad morals", for example: the sexual freedom in the royal French court are frecquently summarized in phrases such as : " the ill moral inviroment at court", "the bad standars at court", "her scandalous and imoral way of living", etc. Phrases like these are not neutral, and should be changed, I think, to for example: "the free sexuality at court", and "her free sexual morals". I must confess I have been irritated several times when I find such things here, as this is an way of speaking which would never have been allowed on the Scandinavian wikis. This is merely a tip and suggestions from my own experiences: I have re-phrased many such sentences. --Aciram (talk) 14:50, 2 January 2009 (UTC)
Two things
Salut Frania:
First, welcome back. It was great to see your name pop up on my watchlist.
Second, re:Lafayette's spelling. Ok. This is complicated. First, the name is spelled either La Fayette or Lafayette depending on where you are. Second, Lafayette has strong ties to both France and the US. Third, apparently there is a Wikipedia rule in these cases that whatever the first major editor chose would then be the de facto spelling (for consistency, and to avoid edit wars). I had not known this rule when I attempted to change the entire article to La Fayette, haha. This did not go over too well; that's when I was made aware of the rule. Apparently Gottschalk also presents a copy of his birth certificate somewhere that spells the name "Lafayette"; I recall seeing it, but do not have the citation readily available. Anyway, it was a debate, as I recall; and consensus went with "Lafayette". After pondering over this for a few months, I tend to agree; English sources appear to overwhelmingly use "Lafayette".
Third, please come over to the article and help out ;) If you've got the time. We are working hard there, now. You could specifically help out with the section on the French Revolution, where we are working towards removing all sources of POV. Also, I am not sure if you know anything of his ancestry, but we are a little weak there...
Welcome back! Yours, Lazulilasher (talk) 22:44, 30 December 2008 (UTC)
- Bonjour Lazu! Meilleurs vœux pour une année de bonheur et de réussite.
- As you suggested, I am going to read the article & all discussions on La Fayette - reluctantly using spelling of his name adopted by the Anglos!, which makes it sound as if the dear marquis-general had founded the Galeries Lafayette! Anyway, I shall read it & let you know. I have been back for a couple of weeks & touched up some easy articles that did not demand much time.
- Enjoy the new year celebration!
- Et toi de meme! Je souhaite que tous tes rêves se réalisent cette année!
- Thanks for agreeing to come and take a look. I was, apparently, not as knowledgeable or POV-free as I'd expected. I'm actually learning a lot, and enjoying the experience immensely. Thus far the article, although trying, has been my most rewarding experience on this project.
- I tend to agree with you regarding the name spelling; however, I do see the argument for consistency. I did try and change it to La Fayette, once. That attempt met with disaster.
- The Galeries Lafayette bit made me laugh. I might steal that quote from you and reuse it.
- All the best, and it's good to see you around. Lazulilasher (talk) 01:13, 1 January 2009 (UTC)
- Cher collègue: I've replied to you on Lafayette's talk page. More criticisms, comments, please ;) Lazulilasher (talk) 17:25, 6 January 2009 (UTC)
thanks for the thoughtful editing i've found spellings both Mme de Montagu and Montaigu, (i take it the latter is an error in the source?) i tended to use the (day month year) date format --- btw, i'm trying to talk to the National Museum of Women in the Arts in washington to use an image they have [[2]]; her sons in law Charles César de Fay de La Tour-Maubourg, Marie Victor de Fay, marquis de Latour-Maubourg, the french versions need some editing [[3]]; [[4]] pohick (talk) 19:04, 6 January 2009 (UTC)
- Pohick: As I was reading the article on her husband, I naturally clicked her name & read the article. There are interesting documents available thru Google. She is not the subject I would be working on; however, when I read something, I leave traces behind!
Capitalising Op.
Hi, Frania. I've noticed this edit. Can you tell me what your rationale for decapitalising "Op." is? It is certainly usually capitalised in English language references. If there's some WP convention about it, can you point me to it? Cheers. -- JackofOz (talk) 00:05, 22 January 2009 (UTC)
- JackofOz: I know that I must be the only person in the whole of en:wikipedia with this, so I looked it up before decapitalising *Opus* & *Op.* in order to have an immediate answer to the question I was sure would be coming! After finishing reading/editing the article, I was going to leave a note on Chopin's discussion page, but you beat me to it. I still will as I am not finished with this long article.
Please check the following:
Frania W. (talk) 01:26, 22 January 2009 (UTC)
- Thanks, Frania. Some queries:
- Why is the style presented in that site necessarily of any relevance to what Wikipedia does, or any other reference work does? Yale can do what it likes for its own internal purposes, but most English language reference works have always had, e.g. Rhapsody in F minor, Op. 328. This is certainly the predominant style used in WP, but I’ve seen a significant number of exceptions. Enough for me to ask, here, whether there’s ever been any consensus about the issue. It seems the process is only just getting started, so you might like to add your comments there. (That applies to anyone else reading this, too.)
- The examples given in the 2nd box are all in other languages, except for one case (Concerto in A minor), but it gives no guidance about Op./op. For the German ones, I would have thought that any noun that doesn’t start with a capital is misspelled, but as I say, it’s irrelevant to the English language issue. Cheers. -- JackofOz (talk) 03:54, 22 January 2009 (UTC)
JackofOz: Left a note on Chopin's discussion page + one at Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style (music). Best to you, Frania W. (talk) 05:13, 22 January 2009 (UTC)
Pont d'Iéna Hi Frania, I very much appreciate you editing this article. Most of the changes are within reasons. However, please refrain from making changes that distinguish British English from US English. This article is originally written in British English and should remain this way for two reasons according to Wikipedia's editing conventions: 1) The article is about a European bridge, not an American bridge; 2) This article is originally written in British English (by me incidentally). I've reverted the word 'sidewalk' back to 'pavement' as it appears in the original document. If you are not sure, please refer to the Wiki editing manuals for more instructions. Thanks - Jamesjiao (talk) 00:27, 13 January 2009 (UTC)
1849 Bisson daguerreotype of Chopin
If not a daguerreotype, then what? Frania W. (talk) 15:15, 22 January 2009 (UTC)
- A photograph. I quote from the picture's caption in Jeremy Siepmann's biography of Chopin: "The only known photograph of Frédéric Chopin, often incorrectly described as a daguerreotype." --RobertG ♬ talk 15:20, 22 January 2009 (UTC)
- A photograph in 1849? Isn't it rather a photograph taken from a now lost daguerreotype? Frania W. (talk) 16:05, 22 January 2009 (UTC)
- I don't know how to answer your question. Where did you read that it's a daguerreotype? --RobertG ♬ talk 16:36, 22 January 2009 (UTC)
- In all the books & articles where this portrait is. What I would like to know: since this was always (as far as I know) described as a daguerreotype, from where did Siepmann get that it is not? Frania W. (talk) 17:05, 22 January 2009 (UTC)
- All books & articles?! Google "chopin daguerreotype" and "chopin photograph": not a precise test, I know, but 5000 results versus 3.4 million is interesting. Don't know; not the sort of thing you write unless you think you know. --RobertG ♬ talk 17:23, 22 January 2009 (UTC)
- RobertG: Encountered an *edit conflict* with you. Here is what I was trying to post:
- P.S. And if it is not a daguerreotype, then Siepmann should tell us was process was used because, for a picture done in 1849, we cannot simplify the description to the word *photograph*. In the mid 19th century, there was an evolution in this new art & the new process for each step of the way had a name. Frania W. (talk) 17:29, 22 January 2009 (UTC)
- No he should not - his book is a biography of Chopin, not a history of photography. "Photograph" is simply a general term: we describe images of real things, be they Polaroids, digital image files, scanned images, copied images, projected transparencies (and even perhaps daguerreotypes), all as photographs without any problems. Daguerreotype is a specific name for a specific process. If you have a reference that tells us the specific process that made this image then please name it, otherwise it's surely just a photograph. --RobertG ♬ talk 21:23, 22 January 2009 (UTC)
- All books & articles?! Google "chopin daguerreotype" and "chopin photograph": not a precise test, I know, but 5000 results versus 3.4 million is interesting. Don't know; not the sort of thing you write unless you think you know. --RobertG ♬ talk 17:23, 22 January 2009 (UTC)
- In all the books & articles where this portrait is. What I would like to know: since this was always (as far as I know) described as a daguerreotype, from where did Siepmann get that it is not? Frania W. (talk) 17:05, 22 January 2009 (UTC)
- I don't know how to answer your question. Where did you read that it's a daguerreotype? --RobertG ♬ talk 16:36, 22 January 2009 (UTC)
- A photograph in 1849? Isn't it rather a photograph taken from a now lost daguerreotype? Frania W. (talk) 16:05, 22 January 2009 (UTC)
I posted this discussion at the Chopin talk page, as it's really more relevant there. I sincerely hope you find a reference. Best wishes, Frania. --RobertG ♬ talk 06:58, 23 January 2009 (UTC)
John Sawyer, please go to Marie Antoinette discussion page http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Marie_Antoinette, where I left a comment at The return of "Let them eat cake". Best regards, Frania W. (talk) 22:28, 24 January 2009 (UTC)
Hi! I noticed your edit at Louise Elisabeth of Orléans: d'Orléans is a surname and should not be translated to *of Orléans* as it is after title Duke of Orléans. The statement is very confusing and a bit contradictory, as you claim that "of Orléans" is wrong because it is derived from the title of "Duke of Orléans". Furthermore, we always translate the surname de France to of France. Is there something different between of France and of Orléans? Thank you :) Surtsicna (talk) 10:26, 27 January 2009 (UTC)
- Surtsicna: Ah! I knew someone would react to that one!!! And that someone is you...
- I agree that my sentence was not very clear (t'was late at night! & there is not enough space for comments at 'Briefly describe the changes you have made'. Here is what I meant to say: "d'Orléans is a surname and should not be translated to *of Orléans* in the fashion it is translated after the title Duke of Orléans".
- Ex: *de France*, *de Bourbon*, *d'Orléans* are surnames. For instance, Louis is king of France, so Louis de France becomes king of France, Marie de Bourbon is Duchess of Bourbon, Philippe d'Orléans is Duke of Orléans.
- Wikipedia has certain rules & regulations that are difficult for me to follow because I consider them to be incorrect & inconsistent.
- For instance, do you translate General Charles de Gaulle to Charles of Gaulle? Surnamely speaking there is no more logic to address Philippe de Bourbon as Philippe of Bourbon as there would be addressing Charles de Gaulle as Charles of Gaulle.
- Even General de La Fayette or de Lafayette (Eng. spelling) keeps his *de* and does not become General of Lafayette in English linguo.
- I could find thousands of examples in English wiki and others where the French *de* attached to noble surnames is not translated by *of*.
- Only after the title in English (Count, Duke...) should the *de* become *of*, ex: duc d'Orléans (French)→Duke of Orléans (English).
- What I am saying is that, in surnames, either all *de* should be translated with *of* (and why not *from* ???) or none at all.
- Best to you, Frania W. (talk) 15:09, 27 January 2009 (UTC)
- I entirely agree. FactStraight (talk) 00:58, 31 January 2009 (UTC)
- But isn't of Orléans regarded as territorial designation used by children of the Duke of Orléans, just like of York is regarded as territorial designation used by children of the Duke of York? According to English point of view, royals do not have surnames - instead, they have territorial designations and belong to a certain royal house. That's why Henrietta Maria of France is not wrong - it doesn't that mean her surname is of France, it means that she was a princess of France. That's also why we have Infanta Leonor of Spain - de Borbón Ortiz is considered to be her surname (by the Spanish) and of Spain as her territorial designation (by the English). Since Charles de Gaulle was not royal, de Gaulle cannot be considered his territorial designation. Surtsicna (talk) 21:52, 31 January 2009 (UTC)
- I entirely agree. FactStraight (talk) 00:58, 31 January 2009 (UTC)
- Généalogie de la Maison de Bourbon de 1256 à 1671,
- par L. Dussieux, Librairie Jacques Lecoffre, Paris, 1872
- Deuxième partie: La Maison de Bourbon depuis Antoine de Bourbon, La Famille royale
- p. 79: begin at Antoine de Bourbon (father of Henri IV)
- p. 81: Henri IV + footnote 7 on the nom de famille de France, which I am putting below:
- Prince de Navarre jusqu'à la mort de sa mère (1572); roi de Navarre en 1572, sous le nom de Henri III; roi de France après la mort de Henri III le 2 août 1589 à Saint-Cloud. — Il fut appelé successivement: le comte de Vianne, en naissant; le prince de Navarre et le prince de Béarn, le roi de Navarre et le roi de France et de Navarre. —Ajoutons que, devenu roi, Henri de Bourbon s'appela Henri de France, car le roi a pour nom de famille le nom même de sa couronne. (Voy. Recueils de Mémoires et de Dissertations qui établissent que c'est par erreur et par un mauvais usage que l'on nomme l'auguste maison qui règne en France la Maison de Bourbon, que son nom est de France, et qu'entre toutes les maisons impériales et royales régnantes, elle est la seule qui ait pour nom de famille le nom même de sa couronne, etc. — Amsterdam et Paris, 1769, in-12. — Biblioth. de Versailles, I d. 291. ...
- Louis XIII was thus de France and so was his younger brother Gaston (p. 121) who became Duke of Orléans.
- Louis XIV was de France, as was his younger brother Philippe. However, his nephew, the son of Philippe did not receive the surname of de France but that of d'Orléans. In the following generations on the Orléans side of the family, the first-born son of the Duke of Orléans was named, let's say, Philippe d'Orléans, duc de Chartres (at birth) then duc d'Orléans upon the death of his father, which gives, translated in English: Philippe d'Orléans, Duke of Chartres, then Duke of Orléans upon the death of his father.
- For curiosity, please go on reading the chapter La Famille royale and note that all the members of the royal family are given the surname de France, while the illegitimates are given that of de Bourbon.
- The d'Orléans branch begins at page 121.
- Again, I agree with Frania. And I disagree with the recent, plus royal que les royaux notion that members of the UK's dynasty lack surnames: At most they may have had only a "house name" between 1688 and 1917, since Britain's German dynasties acquired ruling status before surnames had become common in Germany (even so, in 1917 George V was not told by the Garter King that he lacked a surname, but that Garter was not sure whether it was Wettin or Wipper). No one questioned that Elizabeth I's surname was Tudor or that James I's surname was Stuart, and no law or patent ever said that a dynast loses his/her surname upon acceding to the throne. The British Royal Family's official website says that "The Royal Family name of Windsor was confirmed by The Queen after her accession in 1952. However, in 1960, The Queen and The Duke of Edinburgh decided that they would like their own direct descendants to be distinguished from the rest of the Royal Family (without changing the name of the Royal House), as Windsor is the surname used by all the male and unmarried female descendants of George V...For the most part, members of the Royal Family who are entitled to the style and dignity of HRH Prince or Princess do not need a surname, but if at any time any of them do need a surname (such as upon marriage), that surname is Mountbatten-Windsor."
- Therefore, it is a false analogy to claim that French dynasts have no surnames because British dynasts have none: both had and have surnames. It is not that "Henrietta of France" is wrong, but that it is misleading shorthand: in "Wikipedese", it implies that she was a queen or empress who was, by birth, also daughter of a French king or dauphin. In historical usage, it is the shortened version of "Henriette de France, daughter of France (fille de France): French royalty did not legally possess the title of prince or princess until 1790, since fils/fille de France connoted a higher rank.
- The same principle applies to the Spanish: you write that "we have Infanta Leonor of Spain - de Borbón Ortiz is considered to be her surname (by the Spanish) and of Spain as her territorial designation (by the English)". But that's not correct. Legally, she is "(Doña) Leonor de Borbón y Ortiz, Infanta of Spain", whether in Spain or the UK (although her title is translated when writing in English). In Spain, either of two less formal versions is acceptable: "Infanta Leonor of Spain (de España)" or "Infanta Leonor de Borbón". But in English we say "Infanta (or, less correctly, Princess) Leonor of Spain". In English, her surname is not used -- but that does not mean that when she crosses the Channel she loses it. The "de" should not be translated because it helps readers distinguish between name and title, thus clarifying proper usage -- something an encyclopaedia exists to do. (I suggest this discussion be moved to the talk page of Prince du sang. FactStraight (talk) 06:16, 1 February 2009 (UTC)
First of all: this is not a discussion. You obviously know much more about this issue, so I'm just asking because I want to understand this clearly :) I am not claiming that French and Spanish royalty don't have surname (and I've never claimed so). I do realise that Louise Elisabeth's surname was d'Orléans, but I also realise that whoever named the article Louise Elisabeth of Orléans regarded of Orléans as territorial designation. "Louise Elisabeth of Orléans" doesn't imply that her surname was of Orléans. Again, it's just like Princess Beatrice of York using her father's territorial designation - it doesn't mean that her surname is of York. Am I right? Surtsicna (talk) 11:05, 1 February 2009 (UTC)
- In point of fact, Louise Elisabeth's surname was Bourbon, just as Beatrice of York's surname is Mountbatten. Technically Queen Eizabeth II is Mrs. Mountbatten, but she isn't the Queen of Mountbatten!--jeanne (talk) 14:48, 1 February 2009 (UTC)
- No, Louise Elisabeth's legal surname was d'Orléans, Orléans being a branch of the House of Bourbon in this case (there were princes whose surname was d'Orléans but who had belonged to the Orléans branch of the House of Valois). Therefore, it is acceptable to say that she is a member of the House of Orleans or of the House of Bourbon or of the House of Capet or that she is a Robertian -- and all are correct, since "house name" is a socio-historical rather than a legal concept; it's purpose is to distinguish members of one dynasty or branch of a dynasty from another, so which term you use depends upon what period of history you're writing about, not law.
- In point of fact, Louise Elisabeth's surname was Bourbon, just as Beatrice of York's surname is Mountbatten. Technically Queen Eizabeth II is Mrs. Mountbatten, but she isn't the Queen of Mountbatten!--jeanne (talk) 14:48, 1 February 2009 (UTC)
- The French legal rule is simple, but differs from the British: until 1830, a French king (e.g. Henri de Bourbon, King of Navarre, duc de Vendôme) lost his previous surname upon his accession to the throne, as did those of his (legitimate) children and the children of the Dauphin (whereas in the UK a person's surname, and that of his/her descendants, remains legally unchanged upon becoming sovereign, except that a queen regnant retains her maiden name for dynastic purposes -- but her issue take their father's surname, unless the sovereign decrees otherwise). Each of the French king's younger sons was given a peerage in appanage (e.g. Philippe, fils de France, duc d'Orléans) which henceforth became the legal surname of his male-line descendants, as well as the name of his "house" (i.e., branch of the Capetians). This was confirmed as recently as 2003 in the failed lawsuit of the Orleanist pretender Henri d'Orléans, comte de Paris, who tried to claim the surname de Bourbon by right. In the UK, each younger son is also given a peerage (but an allowance, rather than an appanage of land), and his children are "Prince/ss Firstname of Dukedom", but this is a courtesy style, not a legal title or surname. FactStraight (talk) 06:00, 2 February 2009 (UTC)
- The (small) problem with Louise Elisabeth of Orléans as an article title is that because of lack of consistency in article naming, the reader does not know whether it refers to her surname, dynasty, or branch. For instance, if Louise Henriette de Bourbon-Conti were treated similarly, her article could be titled as it is, or as "Louise Henriette of Bourbon", or "Louise Henriette of Conti". She was surnamed de Bourbon as a male-line descendant of Henri IV, but she belonged to the branch of the Princes de Conti. Her proper maiden title was the too-lengthy "Louise Henriette de Bourbon, mademoiselle de Conti" and her correct married title was "Louise Henriette de Bourbon, duchesse d'Orléans". I favor "Louise Henriette of Bourbon-Conti" because here the "of" distinguishes her as a princess (rather than a noblewoman), and the hyphenated suffix indicates both the dynasty and the branch to which she belonged. FactStraight (talk) 06:00, 2 February 2009 (UTC)
- Yeah, but "Louise Henriette of Bourbon-Conti" would not be correct either, because this would imply that she was "queen of Bourbon-Conti" :-)). It is "Princess Louise Henriette of Bourbon-Conti" (given name + title, i.e. Prince(ss) of Bourbon-Conti) or "Louise Henriette de Bourbon-Conti" (given name + surname, i.e. de Bourbon-Conti). Demophon (talk) 16:16, 8 February 2009 (UTC)
- The thing is that nobody claims that of Orléans is a surname. It is considered territorial designation. Take for example Catherine of Aragon - nobody claims that of Aragon was her surname, just like nobody claims that of Norway is surname of Harald V of Norway! If it ever comes to move request (Louise Elisabeth of Orléans→Louise Elisabeth d'Orléans), I would be neutral, because both would be correct (one being territorial designation, the other one being surname). Surtsicna (talk) 16:28, 8 February 2009 (UTC)
- Yeah, but "Louise Henriette of Bourbon-Conti" would not be correct either, because this would imply that she was "queen of Bourbon-Conti" :-)). It is "Princess Louise Henriette of Bourbon-Conti" (given name + title, i.e. Prince(ss) of Bourbon-Conti) or "Louise Henriette de Bourbon-Conti" (given name + surname, i.e. de Bourbon-Conti). Demophon (talk) 16:16, 8 February 2009 (UTC)
- The (small) problem with Louise Elisabeth of Orléans as an article title is that because of lack of consistency in article naming, the reader does not know whether it refers to her surname, dynasty, or branch. For instance, if Louise Henriette de Bourbon-Conti were treated similarly, her article could be titled as it is, or as "Louise Henriette of Bourbon", or "Louise Henriette of Conti". She was surnamed de Bourbon as a male-line descendant of Henri IV, but she belonged to the branch of the Princes de Conti. Her proper maiden title was the too-lengthy "Louise Henriette de Bourbon, mademoiselle de Conti" and her correct married title was "Louise Henriette de Bourbon, duchesse d'Orléans". I favor "Louise Henriette of Bourbon-Conti" because here the "of" distinguishes her as a princess (rather than a noblewoman), and the hyphenated suffix indicates both the dynasty and the branch to which she belonged. FactStraight (talk) 06:00, 2 February 2009 (UTC)
In his comment of 2 February, FactStraight directed us to lawsuit and I am wondering if anyone taking part in this discussion read it. It really holds the key to the argument. Although it is going to put extra length to the discussion, I am adding the Attendu of the French court. No explanation could do it be better. Please note that in this case d'X stands for d'Orléans and d'Y for de Bourbon. Last Attendu highlighted by me, as it cannot be made any clearer that it is since Gaston, Louis XIII's second son, that d'Orléans has become the surname for himself & the Orléans branch of the French royal family.
Sur le moyen unique, pris en ses deux branches :
Attendu que, M. Henri d'X... reproche à l'arrêt confirmatif attaqué (Paris, 1er février 2001) d'avoir rejeté sa requête en rectification d'état civil à fin de rétablir son nom d'origine de Y... et se nommer à l'avenir Henri de Y..., alors, selon le moyen :
1 / qu'en lui déniant le droit de se faire enregistrer sous le nom "de Y...", aux motifs que ses ascendants n'auraient pas fait usage de ce nom, et auraient porté pendant trois siècles et demi le nom "d'X...", tiré d'un titre ducal, ce qui ne permettait pas de caractériser leur renonciation à se prévaloir de leur rattachement aux Y..., et à posséder ainsi, en sus du nom "d'X...", le nom dynastique "de Y...", la cour d'appel a privé sa décision de base légale au regard des articles 99 du Code civil et 1er de la loi du 6 fructidor an II ; 2 / qu'en affirmant que sa demande tendant à recouvrer le nom ancestral "de Y..." n'aurait présenté aucun intérêt légitime, au prétexte qu'il se serait agi d'une "querelle dynastique" dont l'issue "ne peut trouver une solution de nature judiciaire", la cour d'appel a méconnu l'étendue de ses pouvoirs et violé les articles 99 du Code civil et 1er de la loi du 6 fructidor an II ;
Mais attendu que si la possession loyale et prolongée d'un nom ne fait pas obstacle en principe à ce que celui qui le porte, renonçant à s'en prévaloir, revendique le nom de ses ancêtres, il appartient alors au juge, en considération, notamment, de la durée respective et de l'ancienneté des possessions invoquées, ainsi que des circonstances dans lesquelles elles se sont succédé, d'apprécier s'il y a lieu d'accueillir cette revendication ;
Attendu qu'en l'espèce, par motifs adoptés, la cour d'appel a souverainement estimé que c'était volontairement que le nom d'X... avait été substitué à celui de Y... par le fils cadet de Louis XIII et tous ses descendants qui avaient ainsi abandonné le nom de Y... et que cette volonté de porter le nom d'X... avait été confirmée par le roi Louis-Philippe lors de son accession au trône ; que, par des seuls motifs, elle a légalement justifié sa décision ;
In my eyes, it is extraordinary that the legal system of the French Republic (which has gone thru several revolutions!) takes into consideration, in the 21st century, decisions taken by Louis XIII's second son (or more likely by Louis XIV as every decision had to go thru him) in the 17th century, and confirmed by France's last king, Louis-Philippe, in the first half of the 19th century. This makes it difficult to understand arguments brought forward by en:Wikipedians who should be willing to cross the English Channel or the Atlantic Ocean into France in order to understand the French system. Frania W. (talk) 17:29, 8 February 2009 (UTC)
Bobo: Would you mind going to the House of Bourbon du Maine discussion page & read the comment/suggestion I left there? Thank you. FW Frania W. (talk) 02:45, 30 January 2009 (UTC)
- I agree with you. The "du" doesn't make sense in the title. "De" isn't used in the titles of any of the other articles about the different branches of the House of Bourbon. I have agreed with you on the talk page BoBo (talk) 03:02, 30 January 2009 (UTC)
The "du" Maine makes perfect sense. That is what Louis XIV officially called his bastard son: literally, not the "Duke of Maine" but the "Duke of the [duchy of] Maine". Only poorly informed French people would call him the "Duke de Maine." But can you possibly imitate in English the proper French form and call him, passim, the "Duke of the [duchy of] Maine"? Best wishes for resolving these conundrums.Patricia M. Ranum (talk) 18:01, 18 April 2009 (UTC)
A PS: I should be more specific. There is a French logic to it, and it clearly can clash with Anglophone logic. For the very old duchies or pays(countries) that go back to the middle ages --- Burgundy, Brittany, Guyenne etc--- they simply used de (of). So, Duke of Anjou, Duke of Normandy, Duke of Burgundy, Duke of Brittany, Duke of Guyenne, Duke of Valois. This included the region under their control and the capital city as well (Angers, Rouen, Dijon, Rennes, Bordeaux, Crépy respectively). Less often, again it was chiefly for a very old duchy, they used the name of the capital city of the duchy: Duke of Orleans, duc d'Orléans (although he was strictly speaking the "duke of the Orleanais" duc de l'Orleanais). In other words, the old titles are a bit like the "of France" that follows "king of France": for centuries the people who held these titles and lands were independent rules who were in a sense mini-monarchs. But for more recent creations, e.g. the young bastard prince who ruled over the duchy of Maine, the duke was given the name of the province, le Maine". Hence, the House of Bourbon du Maine. (There are also Bourbons de la Marche, lords of the old province of la Marche. I.e., it's not "House of Bourbon of Marche, but House of Bourbon of the Marche") I am sure there are exceptions to this broad picture I have painted, but I hope my panorama has helped... not further confused.Patricia M. Ranum (talk) 13:08, 20 April 2009 (UTC)
Marie Antoinette: Habsburg lip/jaw
My comment left at Marie Antoinette talk page:
Succubus MacAstaroth: Why change from *lip* to *jaw* since both are correct in the description of maxillary prognathism? Here is an excerpt from the Habsburg jaw The condition colloquially is known as Habsburg jaw, Habsburg lip or Austrian Lip (see Habsburg) due to its prevalence in that bloodline.[4] The trait is easily traceable in portraits of Habsburg family members.[...]
In German, it is called Habsburger Unterlippe http://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Habsburger_Unterlippe, and in French lèvre autrichienne.
Habsburg jaw sounds so harsh! If you want to change, then why not use the more scientific prognathism or maxillary prognathism? If not, then put *lip* back. Frania W. (talk) 15:54, 7 January 2009 (UTC)
- Hi there. Sorry I took so long in getting back to you about this. I have also left part of this on the M.A. talk page.
- Honestly, I just didn't think Wikipedia was a place for euphemisms. You can clearly see from all her portraits that it was her jaw which was misshapen, not her lip. Therefore, "Habsburg lip" would be a misnomer. I'm also against simply calling it prognathism in this article, because Marie Antoinette was in fact a Habsburg. Her Habsburg jaw was literally THE Habsburg jaw, inherited from her Habsburg family. It couldn't be more straightforward.
- It may sound "harsh", but it's the plain truth...
- I also don't understand the need to include German translations of the condition's name in the main article. What purpose does that serve? This is the English-language Wikipedia... Succubus MacAstaroth (talk) 03:07, 7 February 2009 (UTC)
By the way, are not both "Habsburg jaw" & "Habsburg lip" euphemisms for "mandibular prognathism"?
Before writing the above comment, I checked the wiki article on Habsburg jaw, which brings you directly to the section Mandibular prognathism (progenism) in the Prognathism article, in which it is stated: "The condition colloquially is known as Habsburg jaw, Habsburg lip or Austrian Lip[...]". Please note the word "colloquially" in front of the three appellations, while the non-colloquial expression is "mandibular prognathism". So, colloquially speaking, my lip seems to have as much right to be as your jaw ! (^+^)
The reason of giving the various German names -which I should have put in a footnote- was only to show what the condition is called in that language, which happens to be close enough to English for en:wiki readers to understand. MA was from a German-speaking country, so inserting a German expression that describes her condition could not be too foreign to the subject.
Now that we had our little discussion, please feel free to revert to what you prefer. This is not something for which I would go to war.
Best to you, Frania W. (talk) 04:34, 7 February 2009 (UTC)
- Meh, I'm of the same mind. It's not such a big deal that I'd actually make the effort to go back in and edit it now. LOL Succubus MacAstaroth (talk) 05:54, 7 February 2009 (UTC)
Succubus: Please go to Marie Antoinette article & let me know if the change I made resolves our disagreement. Be sure to chek footnote n° 17. Enjoy your weekend! Frania W. (talk) 14:06, 7 February 2009 (UTC)
- Thanks, Frania, it was generous of you. :-D Succubus MacAstaroth (talk) 21:32, 3 March 2009 (UTC)
HELLO AND GOOD DAY.Charles VII reign did actually began in 1422.I forgot the fact that there is also such thing called de facto soveriegnty as well as de jure soveriegnty and therefore I am deeply sorry for the inconvenience caused due to my editing.I meant to say his de jure reign began in 1429 upon his corination which he became then the legall king.henry vi was de facto of the north of france and de jure or legall king of france from 1422 to 1429. Again sorry.--HENRY V OF ENGLAND (talk) 23:09, 17 February 2009 (UTC)
- Dear HENRY V OF ENGLAND: I accept your apology, although there is nothing you did against me, as all was done, or rather said, in jest on my part. I fell on the debate by chance & wiggled myself into the conversation. I simply could not resist! In case we bump into each other again, be sure to keep on your helmet! Also, please join Jeanne, Surtsicna, GoodDay & me in Reims for a glass of champagne! Cordialement! Frania W. (talk) 23:30, 17 February 2009 (UTC)
Bonjour BoBo! RE naming of the Regent, the Parlement de Paris did not deliberate for a week. Within a week after the death of Louis XIV, Orléans was declared Regent, but the deliberation was short & stormy, and the decision taken rather quickly after the Parlement returned from an hour break. Although a blow to his ambition, du Maine took it very meekly. However, I am not going to revert you until I first find the exact text, so that there is no reverting back & forth. Cordialement, FW
Frania W. (talk) 20:25, 20 February 2009 (UTC)
- Dear Frania, sorry for not responding sooner. My life outside of Wikipedia has been quite busy recently. My editing of the article has primarily been to correct the very awkward English of Special:Contributions/86.149.172.104 and User_talk:Tbharding. Personally, I think they are the same person. As a result, any changes in the details you want to make are fine with me. BoBo (talk) 00:33, 27 February 2009 (UTC)
- Dear BoBo, Thank you for returning to me & also for informing me that we are working in the same style/spirit. Your work is always so serious that I'd hate not to be in sync with you, although I realise we may not always agree on some details. I have not had time to check my books (Erlanger's L.XIV & Antoine's L.XV) on the decision taken by the parlement de Paris in naming the Régent. It was quite a scene. Like you, very busy in real life! Cordialement, Frania W. (talk) 01:10, 27 February 2009 (UTC)
- 86.149.172.104 and 81.159.252.120 and Tbharding are the same person. As you know, he avoids being blocked by creating new editor accounts. He will continue to trivialize Bourbon-related articles, as he threatened to do when you and Kansas Bear tried to correct his vandalism at Gaston, Duke of Orléans last July, as long as people accept his changes by editing them instead of reverting them. He has taken effective ownership of all these articles because he faces no consistent opposition to his vandalizing, and my efforts to report his OWNership of them were ignored by the admins. FactStraight (talk) 03:57, 27 February 2009 (UTC)
- Thank you for your msg concerning 86.149.172.104 ; 81.159.252.120 & Harding, esq. 120 seems to have been out of mischief since August 2008. However, I believe there is another one beside 104. I keep adding Bourbon-related articles to my watch list. Reverting is a tedious & time-consuming affair & I keep an eye on your contributions so that you do not have to go over the 3Rs - but a lot gets missed because Wikipedia is not our 24/24 occupation. Cordialement, Frania W. (talk) 15:20, 27 February 2009 (UTC)
- Has our little "buddy" returned? Perhaps under a different guise? To be honest I've seen some editing going on with the Bourbon/Orleans articles and have tried to keep an eye on it, unfortunately I haven't caught this person in the act of vandalizing. Perhaps he is layering his vandalism to keep it from being easily recognized. I'll try to keep a closer eye on anymore edits. --Kansas Bear (talk) 18:47, 2 March 2009 (UTC)
- No idea if it is our little buddy or a new one, but someone has begun doing the same as last year. He/she usually picks on one editor & reverses his work. Lately, my work has also been reversed. From the Bourbons, I have extended out to the Orléans family, then to the Condé & Conti, methodically trying to edit one after the other, but it is difficult because some little bug barges in, reverses & adds trivia insisting that it is more important than proven historical facts. By the time I go back & correct, hours have gone by & there is no time to take on another subject. Two articles get messed up a lot, which I do not bother touching: they are the last two on my list so I let them go for now. It is tiresome to see articles on French royalty written as Hollywood gossip magazines. In fact, real vandals are much easier to deal with, you just revert & they get blocked eventually.
- On another subject: did you see the Figaro link I left a couple of weeks ago on the stand taken by some Turkish intellectuals toward the Armenian genocide?
If you have the time, please take a look at this article, in case I have made accidental deletions that should be restored. Johnbod apparently continues to believe that I am editing ignorantly or maliciously, and does not seem to have noticed that my efforts have been largely intended to reduce the trivia, redundancies & errors of Tbharding & his sockpuppets on Bourbon/Orléans articles. I have no problem with most of Johnbod's edits, but I see no reason to abandon this or any article to endless trivialisation by a vandal. Thanks! FactStraight (talk) 09:58, 28 February 2009 (UTC)
- Dear FactStraight: I have added a paragraph about the education of Philippe because it's a very interesting and important example of the "Education of Princes." Added a couple of notes and a ref. in Bibliography. If you have questions or don't agree with me, I'll be glad to explain my entries. Patricia M. Ranum (talk) 19:30, 26 March 2009 (UTC)
Hello Frania W. I am sorry for bringing this up late but you gave me a reply in the charles VII article.You gave me a challenge which I do accept.Frania if you dont mind I do not need to state the obvious on how henry VI is king of france so you must tell me how henry vi is not king of France.Hopwfully as you stated before we will see who gets the upper hans.P.S.No hard feelings on whoever wins.--HENRY V OF ENGLAND (talk) 01:36, 1 March 2009 (UTC)
- HENRY V OF ENGLAND: Please go the Charles VII talk page http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Charles_VII_of_France&action=submit for start of the challenge. Naturellement, all's done in good spirit! If you do not get an immediate return it's because life outside Wikipedia is also very demanding... and we may not live in the same time zone, or even the same planet. Cordialement, Frania W. (talk) 02:17, 1 March 2009 (UTC)
- Are you there Frania.W?
--HENRY V OF ENGLAND (talk) 02:26, 1 March 2009 (UTC)
- Are you still there Frania W.
--HENRY V OF ENGLAND (talk) 03:04, 1 March 2009 (UTC)
- HELLO FRANIA YOU MUST RALLY BACK.--HENRY V OF ENGLAND (talk) 03:59, 1 March 2009 (UTC)
- Bonjour Frania. I have commented on the Charles VII talk page. BTW, are you French?--Jeanne Boleyn (talk) 09:00, 1 March 2009 (UTC)
- Hello Frania W.I think I gave A desscesive blow this time LOL.Frania dont worry I will give you some time to rally back your forces LOL.Im just joking.The battle continues on.--HENRY V OF ENGLAND (talk) 13:15, 1 March 2009 (UTC)
- Bonjour Frania. I have commented on the Charles VII talk page. BTW, are you French?--Jeanne Boleyn (talk) 09:00, 1 March 2009 (UTC)
- frania hello.ITS your turn.--HENRY V OF ENGLAND (talk) 14:00, 1 March 2009 (UTC)
- HELLO FRANIA YOU MUST RALLY BACK.--HENRY V OF ENGLAND (talk) 03:59, 1 March 2009 (UTC)
Hiya Frania. HENRY seems to be making opposing arguements simultaneously (concerning Charles VII of France). I've lost patients with my inability to understand his postings. GoodDay (talk) 20:43, 1 March 2009 (UTC)
- Henry V will have to abide by Wikipedia policy. His arguments on behalf of Henry VI are all original research. Historians recognise Charles VII's reign as having begun in 1422, however as GoodDay correctly states it was disputed by Henry VI, hence his proposal for the nav box.--Jeanne Boleyn (talk) 08:15, 2 March 2009 (UTC)
- Frania you cant debate that Henry VI wasnt a de jure king of france since it is fact.You are missunderstanding me by thinking I am saying Charles reign began in 1429 when it began in 1422.I was not reffering about the nav box on charles but on henry VI and had complely nothing to do with Charles VII.I was complaiining about henrys nav box but everyone seemed to mistake me by saying I am referring to charles.I mentioned that in the start of my post.Here is a good nav box for henry VI IN regnal as de jure king of france from 1422 to 1429,preddesced by Charles VI and succeded by Charles VII.then in henrys nav box you can have in pretensce king of france 1429-1471 or 1461 predescesd by Henry V succeded by Edward IV.Henry is also a geniune king of france just like charles VII OR Lous XIV.P.S.Good thing that this debate was done to improve the article and no hard feelings were shed from editors.goodbye and goodnight.--HENRY V OF ENGLAND (talk) 01:50, 4 March 2009 (UTC)
- HENRY, while there is nothing wrong in your way of thinking, what you are saying cannot be accepted in Wikipedia because the way you reach your conclusion is pure personal research. So, all you want to put in either boxes is what is accepted by historians. If you want to do your own research, go ahead, then write & publish a book that wiki editors can use as a reference. In the meantime, we should stay as concise as possible in the navboxes & accept GoodDay's wording with *disputed*, which is the truth. Yes, it was an interesting debate & I thank you for accepting the challenge. We fought fairly! Aurevoir! Frania W. (talk) 03:41, 4 March 2009 (UTC)
- Frania you cant debate that Henry VI wasnt a de jure king of france since it is fact.You are missunderstanding me by thinking I am saying Charles reign began in 1429 when it began in 1422.I was not reffering about the nav box on charles but on henry VI and had complely nothing to do with Charles VII.I was complaiining about henrys nav box but everyone seemed to mistake me by saying I am referring to charles.I mentioned that in the start of my post.Here is a good nav box for henry VI IN regnal as de jure king of france from 1422 to 1429,preddesced by Charles VI and succeded by Charles VII.then in henrys nav box you can have in pretensce king of france 1429-1471 or 1461 predescesd by Henry V succeded by Edward IV.Henry is also a geniune king of france just like charles VII OR Lous XIV.P.S.Good thing that this debate was done to improve the article and no hard feelings were shed from editors.goodbye and goodnight.--HENRY V OF ENGLAND (talk) 01:50, 4 March 2009 (UTC)
- Henry V will have to abide by Wikipedia policy. His arguments on behalf of Henry VI are all original research. Historians recognise Charles VII's reign as having begun in 1422, however as GoodDay correctly states it was disputed by Henry VI, hence his proposal for the nav box.--Jeanne Boleyn (talk) 08:15, 2 March 2009 (UTC)
Here are the refs:
- Here is a book confirming Henry VI dual blood from valois and Lancaster:Read.:
http://books.google.com/books?id=gFfaD4JdZhwC&pg=PA45&dq=Henry+VI+dual-monarchy
http://books.google.com/books?id=7SL1bVtfP08C&pg=PA93&dq=Henry+VI+dual-monarchy
http://books.google.com/books?id=_JDOVMDi8d4C&pg=PA601&dq=Henry+VI+dual-monarchy&lr=
http://books.google.com/books?id=Qzc8OeuSXFMC&pg=PA464&dq=Henry+VI+dual-monarchy&lr=
main book:
- Good day Frania.W.Thank you frania for your comment.I know historians already regognize that Charles was king of france in 1422,but henry was also the king of france in 1422 as the de jure.Historians also say that Henry was de jure king of france.The french were actually rebels and charles took advantage of the situation by bribing rebel lords to his side.The treaty was actually legal since Edward III had a just claim.There are also about therois f salic law bieng a cover up against edwards rightful claim.There were actually other daughters of france who had a much better claim then edwards mother,but salic law around the 1100's meant that no female can inherit from her father but the french later changed it more authenticly by stating that a male cant inherit through a female line.Of course though the successtion will go to the eldest son and then to the other male heirs untill it died out.And once it died out i.e.Capetian succestion then Edward had legal claim.Im not areguing but henrys nav box should be fixed as titular regnal instead of titular pretensce and should be mentioned in the french monarchs aricle.--HENRY V OF ENGLAND (talk) 20:44, 4 March 2009 (UTC)
- HENRY, on Charles VII talk page, I wrote that I would not cross the Channel to fight for the English... So I am staying out of Henry V's life. However, I checked fr:wikipedia for the list of the kings of France:
- http://fr.wikipedia.org/wiki/Liste_des_monarques_de_France.
- Cordialement, Frania W. (talk) 20:53, 4 March 2009 (UTC)
- Good day Frania.W.Thank you frania for your comment.I know historians already regognize that Charles was king of france in 1422,but henry was also the king of france in 1422 as the de jure.Historians also say that Henry was de jure king of france.The french were actually rebels and charles took advantage of the situation by bribing rebel lords to his side.The treaty was actually legal since Edward III had a just claim.There are also about therois f salic law bieng a cover up against edwards rightful claim.There were actually other daughters of france who had a much better claim then edwards mother,but salic law around the 1100's meant that no female can inherit from her father but the french later changed it more authenticly by stating that a male cant inherit through a female line.Of course though the successtion will go to the eldest son and then to the other male heirs untill it died out.And once it died out i.e.Capetian succestion then Edward had legal claim.Im not areguing but henrys nav box should be fixed as titular regnal instead of titular pretensce and should be mentioned in the french monarchs aricle.--HENRY V OF ENGLAND (talk) 20:44, 4 March 2009 (UTC)
Gaston d'Orléans (de Bourbon/de France)
Kansas Bear: To much of my regret, there is a subject on which we may disagree: the name of Gaston d'Orléans. In France, he is always referred to as such and, when looking him up in a French dictionary, either Larousse or Petit Robert, one has to go at *Orléans*, where he is found the third one down after Louis, duc d'Orléans (1372-1407) and Charles d'Orléans (1391-1465), as the ducs d'Orléans are listed in chronological order.
However, our dear Gaston is Gaston de France, duc d'Orléans. The only two ducs d'Orléans who were *de France* at birth are him, Gaston de France, duc d'Orléans (L.XIII's brother) & his nephew, Philippe de France (Louis XIV's brother), who started the Orléans branch of the House of Bourbon. Louis XIV's surname is also *de France* as are the surnames for all the kings to follow him, ending with Charles X - the last king, Louis-Philippe, king of the French being Louis-Philippe d'Orléans.
Documents at the Archives nationales, have Gaston as Gaston de France, duc d'Orléans. The following should fall on page 786, a document concerning him, but there are more if you scroll up & down. (Bourbon is highlighted because I was looking for him under Gaston de Bourbon, which, theoretically speaking, should have been his last name as his father, Henri IV, was Henri de Bourbon. (ah, ces Frenchies!)
This being done in good humor, I sincerely hope it will not ring the end of our friendly cooperation! Cordialement vôtre, Frania W. (talk) 23:25, 8 March 2009 (UTC)
- So exactly where are we in disagreement?? --Kansas Bear (talk) 00:08, 9 March 2009 (UTC)
Have I misread what you wrote at Gaston's talk page? It seems to me that you were saying that his name is not Gaston de France. If we are not in disagreement, then all's well! Frania W. (talk) 00:13, 9 March 2009 (UTC)
- That was his name. I was referring to the way it was continually used in the edit here[5]. Do you think the current version of Gaston d'Orleans is alright? --Kansas Bear (talk) 00:24, 9 March 2009 (UTC)
Oh...my... God !!! That's what you were referring to !!! Then forget what I wrote. I get filled with TNT when I see 104's contributions. Have not read the whole version yet, after you reverted; was busy on other subjects. à bientôt! FW Frania W. (talk) 00:38, 9 March 2009 (UTC)
Hi Frania! I have proposed a change in the article page as per discussion at Talk:Remarkable_Gardens_of_France. The suggested draft version of the article is User:SlaveToTheWage/List_of_Remarkable_Gardens_of_France. Perhaps you could help on improving it. Cheers. --STTW (talk) 17:23, 8 March 2009 (UTC)
- STTW, Thank you for your note. I enjoyed going thru the article on the Remarkable Gardens of France. I agree that when it gets too long, an article tends to be difficult to read, one reason being that other editors may decide to add to one section & the whole article becomes out of balance. The idea of making it on the model of the List of castles in France is excellent, and that could be the start of a collection using the same type of map, for food, climate, (wild) plants & animals etc. (which may already exist). All I can do to help is go thru texts, correct French & details when I fall upon something I know. I have put the article on my watch list. Aurevoir! Frania W. (talk) 19:12, 8 March 2009 (UTC)
Hello Frania.Charles VI MIGHTEND have any legal right to disinherit his son but youre forgetting the terms.Charles VII rights were disinherited in practice and was removed from succestion but managed in least to inheriting the south,its part of the aftermath thus henry VI succeded as de jure or legal king not charles.Charles VII since he wasnt the legal king took advantage of the french king in infancy and tried to claim his pretensces to the french throne and made the notable nobels such as arthur de richemond revolt against the new legitimized goverment and estates-general and had him turned constable.Most of the french nobels took an act of oath anyway to Henry while in infacy and many of them supported his claim.Isabbela of Bravia only called him a bastard to further undermine charles claim.It was the government in the north which actually had legal authority in the land.most of the french people didnt suspect charles of succeding and even in the south charles had limited power and the peasents in the south said they will support charles but meant it in name only and in fact they knew charles would eventually give out.It wasnt untill 1429 that the rise of french insurtions began.Henry was by fact the legal king at the time as part of the aftermath of the treaty of troyes.Henry corination wasnt proper anyway.Henry was crowned king in 1431 but was in paris and was not a place for corination ceremony but just a mere cathedral made to impress.No holy relics were formed on the corination and the oil that was anointed on him wasnt holy,the only relic there which was not holy was the crown of thorns.If henry recaptured rheims and got crowned again he would return to his status as de jure.John the duke of Bedford tried to make it close enough to a corination ceremony.--HENRY V OF ENGLAND (talk) 07:37, 17 March 2009 (UTC)
- Gooday Frania.Please go when you have the time to jeannes talk page.I have left my post there.--HENRY V OF ENGLAND (talk) 14:41, 17 March 2009 (UTC)
- Hello Frania.I know charles VI had no right to disinherit his son but the aftermath in 1422 was that henry succeded to the thrne of france even if charles VI did it in a so called Illigial manner and as henry succeded to the throne of france in 1422 then he automaticly became the legal soveriegn of france.Remember charles VII became king due only to de facto soveriegnty and he inherited the south.If Charles was the rightful king as he claimed he then he had the right to take back his possetions.Claming youreself as the rightful king is different from bieng the legal soveriegn of the country.Also Charles VII inflicted many crimes against france itself.He was very closely related with the murder of john the fearless and usurped legal authority from his father by taking Illigial possetion of the south,and to add he refused a summons to paris from the king himeself asking him to return to paris in 1420.We cant have the heir-apperent let loose acting like the king and bieng pardoned for every crime against the country.His usurption of legal authority in the south in 1420 fulfiled his disinheritence as heir and so he could bebannished or ececuted even though no charges were put against him to such condemnition.It wasnt until 1436 that the parleimaint of france declared the banishemnt of the dauphine illigial.It dosent matter if you could claim the treaty legal or illegal its aftermath is fixed and undisputed.Henry by fact was the next heir to the throne of france and thus upon asscending to the throne he became king as the legal soveriegn while charles became the disinherited rightful king and de facto of southern france.I hope you got my point.--HENRY V OF ENGLAND (talk) 22:34, 18 March 2009 (UTC)
- Hello Frania and gooday.I already asked a request in the french kings article to add king Henry VI as a french monarch and Is it OK if I can impose these changes today please?Dont worry I wont impose the changes if you dont agree until futher disscution and conclustion.Your say is required please.Thank you.--HENRY V OF ENGLAND (talk) 21:03, 20 March 2009 (UTC)
- Dear Henry, As per your request to add Henry VI on the list of the kings of France, you do what you want, as I am not one to impose my views on anyone without a discussion. It probably will expand the discussion; but you already know that I do not agree on having him there. Salutations! FW Frania W. (talk) 21:38, 20 March 2009 (UTC)
- Hello Frania.I dont think that henry was not a king of france because it states he was next in line to the french throne and english throne so he consilidated a double-monarchy.Henry as said before was the supreme legal body king in the entire country of france and I am really sure he is the only english king to become king of france and the only king of france to become king of england.--HENRY V OF ENGLAND (talk) 10:16, 21 March 2009 (UTC)
- Hello frania.Is this ok what I did on the french kings article.--HENRY V OF ENGLAND (talk) 22:39, 21 March 2009 (UTC)
- Dear Henry, As all of us stand on our own ground not moving an inch, the discussion is taking us nowhere. You are aware that a similar argument was the cause of the One Hundred Years War. And whether she was right or wrong, certainly wrong in your eyes, I am siding with Jeanne d'Arc; not that I believe in her "voices", but because, whoever she was, she knew in her own heart that Charles VII was the real king of France. Legally speaking, while his father Charles VI was alive, the future Charles VII was the dauphin, and the Treaty of Troyes was not a legal piece of paper. As powerful as he is, a king does not have the right to change a fundamental law to his liking, more importantly when the change will give the dynastic line another direction & disinherit the rightful heir to the throne. And that is exactly what was done by the Treaty of Troyes. The son of Charles VI was deprived of his right to the throne of France in favour of his future brother-in-law; the irony being that one of the conditions was that Henry V of England marry Catherine, the daughter of Charles VI & Isabeau de Bavière, which means that when the treaty was signed, the marriage had not yet taken place. How could such a magouille be considered legal? What would have happened if Catherine had dropped dead before her marriage to Henry V ? Nearly three centuries later, the all-powerful Louis XIV could not tamper with dynastic heredity either when he elevated his legitimised sons to the rank of Princes du Sang, thus placing them in the line of succession; his will was broken by the Parlement de Paris within a week after his death. A king of France wears the crown, he does not own it, thus he cannot dispose of it at will.
- In conclusion, it seems to me that the note, with the word *disputed* inserted by GoodDay, was the best solution to our (dis)agreement. Aurevoir! FW
- Hello Frania I am so happy you posted this comment.As you said If Charles became dauphine he was thus legaly bound to the throne but that is wrong because this is not in french law a tenure of qualification for kingship any more then holding the principilty of wales or earldom of the dutchy of cronwell so he is not legaly bound to the thronee upon inheriting the title dauphine.As said times before salic law had nothing to do with succestion of thrones but for private plots of land even though it is a standard of succestion in both england and france during the 15th century.This boycotting of Edward III legal claim became known as repolitik but the treaty fudged the past and never admmited the french were with wrongful kings.It was more of de justice since Charles VII was emmensely involved in the scandel of John the fearles death in 1419.You are wrong frania by stating the the treatys clauses declared henry should marry catherine and with her his heirs will inherit the thronee but actualy stated henry and his heirs should inherit france so its legal.If Catherine had died before henry had sons then it would be his brothers who became king as ppart of the clause so please read carefully frania.As also said before the treaty in practice removed Charles from succestion as part of de justice for the murder of john the fearless so upon Henrys death Henry VI of England and of France became the legal soveriegn by virtue of treaty in other words upon charles death no matter what happens all the rights,privilages,and virtue of the throne succeded to Henry VI and I am in complete support of historions in this and as in next in line he became soveriegn.The only thing the treaty was proved Illigial for was for opposing the traditional rights of succestion but yet again there is no written down document in french law before 1317 which stated "Men must succeded" the main cause for it not written was because the capetians were hugely invested with males and brothers to succeded nobody not even Edward III thought the capetian dynasty would become extinct and the same thing happend with basis of archery law in england since england loved archery and were the best archers nobody thought of a point to write key therois on how to draw the bow thus as it declined nowadays there is hardly any written therois of the days of the draw in england since it was so common no one yielded to the idea.So in complete support of historions Henry succeded to a double-monarchy as de jure or legal king.Charles could say he is the rightful king but dosent make him legal or de jure king.The treaty fudged the past.Goodbye frania and thanks for that question since it was the most difficult question I found so far on this debate but I agree this is going around in circles and me GoodDay Jeanne and you are all basicly stating the same thing over and over again.--HENRY V OF ENGLAND (talk) 17:34, 26 March 2009 (UTC)
Touchups of Guises, etc
Dear Frania, I _think_ I have added all the REDIRECTS I can think of to the Guises and Orleanses... and I have tightened a few articles, adjusted the chronologies (it's always hard to see chronologies unless you have worked with the sources, so I'm certainly not being critical of the Anon who did the articles!), and I also corrected some details here and there in the different articles. Sorry that I forgot a few times to show what they were. So now I will stop for a bit and prepare for houseguests --- 2 adults, 2 children, 7 days starting next week. Happy spring to you. Patricia M. Ranum (talk) 19:15, 24 March 2009 (UTC)
- Dear Patricia: Please note that I brought your note to me on your talk page for you to have a record of it.
- Just went down the list of what you did today: ! . As soon as I have a day to myself (or a sleepless night), I will read it all, but not right now as I also have a life waiting for me on the other side of Wikipedia.
- I am planning on doing some relocation (move) for the Orléans tribe, changing the *of* to *de* in the titles as it is a real mess, some being *of Orléans*, some *d'Orléans*, same with the Bourbons & a few others. I have been working on them starting with Gaston d'Orléans & going down the line to Louis-Philippe roi des Français, trying not to skip any of the daughters of the duc who had so many... It's going to take a whole day. For months, one after the other, I have been changing the *of* to *de* (and deleting a lot of trivia) inside each article. I left a comment on the talk page of one of them to be sure no one would be against it, but there was never any answer, which leads me to believe that no one really cares - of course, until I go ahead with the change!
- What you brought to Marie de Lorraine will enrich all the articles that touch upon her, either family or Baroque music.
- At the risk of repeating myself: it's nice to have you here. I sincerely hope you are coming back.
- Meilleurs vœux en ce début de printemps et à bientôt! FW
- Merci bien, Frania! There is an enormous amount of editing to do, and I wish you well! As I said (never quite sure where my messages go ...), the French version is the cause of all the trouble, in a sense, because the "de Lorraine" is missing in all the Guise pages, and that is, after all, the closest thing to a "family name" that members of that House possessed! Hence the way they were often called: Henri de Lorraine de Guise, Marie de Lorraine de Guise, etc. I'm sure I'll approve of your editing. As for your pleasure at having me, it is mutual and nice to meet some congenial people. I have a few articles in mind and maybe can do some of them before we go to our French village for the summer in late May. User:Ranumspa|Patricia M. Ranum]] (talk) 14:48, 25 March 2009 (UTC)
- Dear Patricia, here is what I propose before you go spend the summer in your French village (you, poor thing!): we go together through the de Lorraine/de Guise articles you want to work on (= you do the work, I read over your shoulder), add *de Lorraine* wherever you deem necessary, then we redirect the article whenever we change the name of the subject. By *redirect* I mean that when we bring a change in the title of the article, we must redirect it, same as you did with Étienne Loulié. For instance, the title of the article Marie, Duchess of Guise is incorrect. It should be, I believe, Marie de Lorraine, Duchess of Guise, giving her full name in French, but title in English. As you see, the name of the title as it is now is blue-linked to wikipedia article, while the title as it should be is red-linked. We want it blue. When redirected correctly, it will be blue. If you want, I can put the articles you are editing on my watch list & keep an eye on them while you are slaving the summer away in your French village. Cordialement, FW (Where did you take the photograph of wild crocuses?)
- I'll be glad to help and learn how to redirect so that the actual page title is what we want. I'll need a prod at first, because I haven't yet deduced how the big bold title can be modified once a page is published: e.g. the *Etienne Loulié* that is (or was?) at the top of the page. Making a redirect *Étienne Loulié* didn't change the big bold title, of course. Anyway, I will be glad to collaborate, once the Minnesota rellies have come and gone. A wee bit depends on an editorial project that I have to be totally devoted to: I've edited and translated a Fr. ms. of 1680s about the Jesuit Novitiate in Paris; have had lots of challenging work (in collaboration with the Jesuit who heads the Institute in St. Louis that will publish it) getting the vocabulary to sound really "jesuitical." The Father is reading things now and when he sends back his comments, I'll have to devote myself to that very interesting project. But yes, I will collaborate and will get back to you when I'm free, mid-Holy Week. Patricia M. Ranum (talk) 16:30, 26 March 2009 (UTC)
Photo problems
Actually, I think the problem was because of a mis-type owing to a brace on right hand: I missed the click the first time I uploaded the crocuses. At any rate, didn't have trouble when I re-did it today. (Brace: not the usual carpal tunnel, but a _thumb_ carpal tunnel caused by unscrewing a terribly designed humidifier tank, refilling it, etc, all requiring twists of wrist --- and giving me a numb right thumb! It's almost gone now, but I wear the brace when I type so I won't tuck thumb under palm all the time. I'll tell you if I have trouble again. I did my last Guise lady just fine (Elis. Marg. of Orleans...) so I hope I've figured it out! You probably have seen my note to author of Philippe II d'Orleans? He (the prince, not the author!) was a chap who showed _such_ and who received an extraordinary education.... and then fell into dissolution. Best laid plans, etc....!Patricia M. Ranum (talk) 20:27, 26 March 2009 (UTC)
Henry VI of England (cont'd)
Hello Frania.Henry VI as you see must be mentioned as a king of france because every book I and looked up on the internet said Henry became king of both england and france and was divinely blessed with a Double-monarchy.Frania as said before it was an undisputable fact that henry had achieved the throne of france but didnt conquer france and he was also the legal soveriegn until 1429.Do you now regognize under fact Henry was de jure or legal king until 1429 even though you may believe as you wish charles was rightful king?Bye.--HENRY V OF ENGLAND (talk) 23:44, 26 March 2009 (UTC)
- Dear Henry, As I said before, I am not crossing the Channel to give my allegiance to any Henry of England. Henry VI of England was crowned king of France in the part of France that was under English occupation at the time. For the unoccupied French, the English & their king had to be booted out & their law never recognised by the French. Un point c'est tout. As Jeanne said previously, the French never counted him among their kings, otherwise, the following Henri de France would have added *one* to his numeral and so on. Frania W. (talk) 00:26, 27 March 2009 (UTC)
- Hello Frania I am much wanting to quickly get a conclustion on this as you do.The treaty wasnt claimed Illigial for dissinheriting the dauphine but for going against the tradition from father to son thus making charles dissinheritence Illigial since in the treaty it says as clause each country shall have its own customs and Traditions so the traditions part that undermined the treaty.The dauphines dissinheritence was legal because of his great crimes against france and against regent and soveriegn Henry V and Charles VI being banished after not comming in a courts summons but was yet Illigial due to the fact that in the treaty it said each country will keep its own tradition and as french tradition inhertitence goes from father to son this not realy alienating the crown to someone else since it completely differd to Philipn V descition since he had no reason to do it.The aftermath was fixed and as said before you are not legaly bound to inherit france upon picking the title dauphhine as as prequiste of kingship and as Henry was in fact next in the throne he became the legal soveriegn while charles was dissinherited from sucestion and managed to become soveriegn due to de facto soveriegnty.Henry was leegal soveriegn de jure in fact so I am going to mention him again as soveriegn of france.--HENRY V OF ENGLAND (talk) 17:59, 27 March 2009 (UTC)
Hello Frania I am a bit puzzled because in the disscution for the french monarchs you declared an edit war on me.I thought I was youre friend????--HENRY V OF ENGLAND (talk) 18:22, 3 April 2009 (UTC)
- You wrote:
- "Speaking for the French side, I would & do disagree with Str1977 (sorry!): the king has no right to disinherit his son and, if he does, the disinherited son has every right to fight for his right, which is exactly what Charles VII did with the help of Jeanne d'Arc."
- Since you speak for the French side, I think we agree that this make it non-NPOV in wiki-terms.
- My point is: the King has the right to disinherit his son but as any legal act this may be contested. Charles VII did that and in the end succeeded.
- "And the throne of France was inherited from father to son (dauphin)."
- That is a legal fiction and it is debatable when simple inheritance became the norm. However, it never worked automatically. Philipp VI did not simply automatically succeed because of a supposedly better claim. He succeeded because he was accepted as King. That really has nothing to do with "divine right", which does not preclude even being elected King. And BTW, the English were arguing with dynastic succession as well, since Edward III.
- "As for my using the example of Louis XIV, it was to show that no matter how powerful a king was or had been, an illegal act by him could be reversed"
- An example from a totally different time, that is! And parlement then had the right to refuse ratification of any royal act (not just "illegal ones") until the King showed up in person to enforce ratification.
- However, I don't see how this could keep us from reaching a consensus: both claimants had a legal basis to their claims (and even if you say those that followed the Treaty of Troyes were wrong). They also had a base in actual power - and this is what distinguishes Henry VI from all the English active claimants before (Edward III, Richard II, Henry IV, Henry V) and afterwards (Edward IV), not speaking of those that never tried to actually conquer France. Str1977 (talk) 11:41, 5 April 2009 (UTC)
- Str1977: Thank you for taking the time to discuss this with me. Should an agreement be reached on this one, it would be the first time the Anglos & the French agree on anything! That's why I began my comment with "Speaking for the French side" - and I trust that in my various comments, you detect the "witty" side of me.
- On a discussion page, I feel that everyone can speak freely & expose his/her point of view as long as that POV is not carried into the article, that is what the discussion page is about with the aim of reaching consensus. It also happens that this article is on French history, and it seems to me quite normal that within the international debate symposium offered by Wikipedia, a French person could/should/would take part in a discussion relative to the history of France & explain the French view on the matter. I hope you noticed that I have not forced my POV on anyone, just discussed it while having a fun little duel with our dear friend HENRY V OF ENGLAND. Please also note that I have not even touched the paragraph within the article and, regarding what I think should be changed, I mentioned it on the discussion page asking if everyone would agree, ex: having "south of the Loire River" instead of "south of France" which is totally misleading.
- If I understand you correctly, you do not accept the parallel I made with the Parlement de Paris breaking L.XIV's will because it was at a latter period; at the time of which we speak, the right of succession to the throne of France was the same: the dauphin was the legal heir to the throne and, if disinherited, had every right to fight for his right - whether his name was Charles (to be VII) or, at a later date, Philippe d'Orléans or Philip V of Spain, had all of L.XIV's direct heirs within France died - which would have been the signal for a war between France & Spain (and Austria), since the king of Spain was a grandson of L.XIV... In our discussion, we could also make a parallel between Charles VI's testament disinheriting his son (followed by the Treaty of Troyes), and Charles II of Spain's testament, which was opening the door for another battle of succession had the young Louis XV died. Every argument was based on direct & legitimate lineage down to the next guy until the direct line was exhausted, then cousins, nephews etc. could step in.
- On the legitimity of the dauphin: the second a dying king let out his last breath, came the announcement: Le Roi est mort. Vive le Roi!. And the dauphin was king.
- Back to Henry VI of England: there is no argument as to his having been crowned king of France at Notre Dame de Paris - historians do not deny the fact - but he is not listed as king of France because of all the reasons we discussed previously, some of these reasons having a different interpretation whether you are anglais ou français.
- A couple of weeks ago, GoodDay had found the perfect wording for the mention of Henry VI of England in the list of French monarchs & that is the type of consensus we should aim at. Now, if you come up with something better, I am sure we'll reach consensus.
- Cordialement, Frania W. (talk) 16:29, 5 April 2009 (UTC)
- Frania, Thanks for your message.
- Agreement need to be reached only in regard to how to word a certain article, not on the differing opinions.
- And sure you may express your opinion on the matter anytime. My nod to NPOV was not meant to preclude that but to insist that the article cannot be indentical to any one side of the debate.
- I for my part am actually not on the other side from you - maybe because I am neither French nor English (but then I do not know of what nationality our friend HENRY is) - as I think that the Valois had a much better claim to the throne than any Plantagenet or Lancastrian, at least after Philip VI was firmly settled on the throne (OTOH, I see that Edward III mainly aimed at securing his continental possessions, not at conquering the whole of France - a goal he never pursued to the end). And what was questionable for the still largely French-speaking Edward was bad for the by then completely Anglicised Harry. The Dual Monarchy HENRY speaks about turned out to be largely a sham, as de facto English lords commanded in France. This propelled the actions of Jean Darc.
- And sure French editors should take part in this debate. The only thing I reject is the impression that French editors are per se more qualified. But I have no complaints against you in that regard.
- And sure the south of France sounds a little bit like: well, he held the Provence.
- Yes, I do not accept the validity of your Louis XIV example because it was of a MUCH LATER period and because it is of course based on a French legal position that was long solidified in the 17th century - a thing we cannot simply assume for the 15th century (you might know that when one looks at even earlier times that France once was an elective monarchy). My point is that the King could disinherit his son and the son could contest that decision by the means avaiable (just as Edward III could contest Philip's succession by the means avaiable). I know of the Spanish sucession issue but am strongly of the opinion that in relinquishing his rights to the sucession, Philip did indeed do just that. One cannot take back one's word (that is the problem I also have with Edward III's sudden claim).
- "On the legitimity of the dauphin: the second a dying king let out his last breath, came the announcement: Le Roi est mort. Vive le Roi!. And the dauphin was king." - When? Already in this day? And who is the legitimate heir that supposedly suceeds in this second? That by all means was the question so even the questionable principle you mention doesn't help. I call it questionable because it is a legal fiction that in the end has done more bad than good (some countries had mad kings because of it). And if taken seriously, the announcement would be superfluous.
- Henry is not listed as a King of France because the Valois perspective that he was an interloper prevailed politically and historically. Our list reflects that as we do not insert Henry as the sucessor of Charles VI (instead of Charles VII) - this would be the English POV - or even insert both contestant immediately after Charles VII - a quasi-neutral position. No, I inserted Henry at the next section break. This is because history does look backwards from the hindsight of how things turned out. The quasi-neutral stance would be proper if we were doing this article in the year 1425.
- Is GoodDay's wording that paragraph currently in place in the Lancaster section? If so, I am absolutely content with it. The only thing I want is that the section also includes the box for Henry VI. with a neutral presentation of the dates provided (not the POV slugfest that HENRY had put in there). I do think that this solution is something better.
- Cordially, Str1977 (talk) 21:09, 5 April 2009 (UTC)
- Str1977: Thank you for your note & explanation. Yes, "Agreement need to be reached only in regard to how to word a certain article, not on the differing opinions" and I believe that, as a whole, you & I agree more than not.
- Henry VI navigation box: After long arguments with our dear HENRY V OF ENGLAND on the validity of the claim by both Henry VI (England) and Charles VII (France), we finally agreed on the use of GoodDay's word *disputed* to be inserted in the navigation box at end of article on Henry VI of England.
- Paragraph in Lancaster section: the few lines seem to have been there for a while, but several times edited. ON 21MAR09, our HENRY added a box for the House of Lancaster; it was reverted & put back, then corrected, and a few days ago, you stepped in & cleaned it up. I think that the only detail missing in paragraph is a mention of the long English held rich Aquitaine, with the important port of Bordeaux from where wine was shipped to England.
- As for what we do not agree upon, let's leave it at that & wish us good "working" relations in the future, as I am sure our paths will cross again (in fact, I believe they already have.)
- I'll accept Henry VI of England on the List of French monarchs article. As long as Charles VII's reign is shown as 1422 to 1461 & Henry doesn't use the name Henry II of France. GoodDay (talk) 15:45, 8 April 2009 (UTC)
- I accept your conditions anyway.--HENRY V OF ENGLAND (talk) 17:56, 8 April 2009 (UTC)#
- Hello Frania.Is Henry there to stay and are we so in turn finished with this once endless debate.Also Frania not many websites actualy give lists of french kings but rather websites give texts.Henry VI in countless other websites say he also inherited the throne of france.This is not revising history since soureces state that henry was in possetion of the double-monarchy.--HENRY V OF ENGLAND (talk) 15:11, 9 April 2009 (UTC)
- hello Frania.Charles was the legal heir until 1420.As the other user rightfully states it was also due to absolute power that charles was dissinherited,so automaticly Henry VI is king de jure or legal soveriegn of the entire country as historions state.Succestion from father to son is nonsense since there no law during the capetian rule that states this.It is TRADITION and nothing else.Henry was the legal succeser and legal heir according to law and so how can charles become de jure in 1422 when he was dissinherited and succeselfuly removed from succestion--HENRY V OF ENGLAND (talk) 16:41, 9 April 2009 (UTC)
86.164.91.170: I just finished correcting - not reverting - your last version of Anne Marie d'Orléans. Now, if you want to add something to the article, and to others in which you are interested, it would be appreciated that you simply add what you want and stop destroying the work done by others before you. RE every article you touch: you do not only put your details, you revert & destroy. You have no right to do that. Frania W. (talk) 01:21, 11 April 2009 (UTC)
- Thanks..thats all i wanted 86.164.91.170 (talk) 10:47, 11 April 2009 (UTC)
- OK. FW
- It should not be all that you wanted; it should be the way it is supposed to be done. I did not revert you this time because I thought I could show you how to work with and not against other editors, obliterating their work. As things stand right now with Anne Marie d'Orléans, previous work is still there while your additions have been edited, not reverted. However, should you not choose to work that way RE other articles, you will be reverted, because what I did once, I will not do again, and other editors will not be as patient as I have been this time. Frania W. (talk) 17:48, 11 April 2009 (UTC)
hello.. i have not removed anything so it should all be there..i have only added =) regards 86.164.91.170 (talk) 14:02, 14 April 2009 (UTC)
- I know that you only added things, but a lot of these things are details pertaining to other individuals who have their own wiki articles; so, once they are blue-linked to their own article, it is not necessary to give lengthy details of their life on someone else's article. Remember, this is an encyclopedia, not a family saga. Only details pertaining directly to the person in the title of the article are necessary, i.e. give the name of their children, but do not go on describing these children's love life, wedding ceremony etc. Names of children are fine, but adding the name of the children of the children or children of their siblings leads to confusion.
- Instead of removing what you wrote, or even changing anything, I left hidden comments that you can read when the text shows when being edited. If you care to read them, you will see what I am telling you. Because, if you seriously want to work with other wikipedians, you have to follow certain rules, otherwise, you will get reversed, which I do not believe is what you want.
- Aurevoir! FW
Another Jeanne
- Bonjour! I have just created another article :Jeanne of Artois. What do you think of it?--Jeanne Boleyn (talk) 09:03, 17 April 2009 (UTC)
DE Lorraine
Dear Frania, for the moment that editing chore has not yet descended upon me, to overwhelm me. I'll be glad to do the "de" Lorraine thing, but I am not sure exactly what you want and where to start and which pages to do. Patricia M. Ranum (talk) 17:52, 18 April 2009 (UTC)
- Dear Patricia, I did not mean for you to do it but was proposing changing the title of the article on Marie, Duchess of Guise to "Marie de Lorraine, Duchess of Guise" when you'd be around so that you could tell me if it looked correct to you. Then if you wanted to work on other "de Lorraine" articles, you would know how to do the change. Cordialement, Frania W. (talk) 00:23, 19 April 2009 (UTC)
- Dear Frania, Agreed! Have you made the changes to Mlle de Guise yet? I don't think so? Go ahead and make them and I will read and comment (and not further touch the Mlle de Guise page in the meantime). It will be nice to learn Wikipedia style that way. There are so many ways of doing noble titles, and translating them is such a nightmare! I'll be happy to try to conform as best I can, once I have a model. Patricia M. Ranum (talk) 13:15, 20 April 2009 (UTC)
- Dear Patricia, I just added here the comment you left on my talk page so that you can follow our exchange directly on yours. FW
- Dear Patricia: Done & a very simple thing to do when you want to change the title of an article: go to the commands that are above title of article; click on move; you are brought at a special page; it has 12 lines of blabla under which you can read: Move page/ To new title/ Reason; type the new title & below, give the reason of the move. For our dear Marie sans nom, Duchess of Guise, I wrote:
- With surname, she is *Marie de Lorraine* (not only *Marie*), *Duchess of Guise*.
- Title of article must appear as follows: *Marie de Lorraine, Duchess of Guise*
- Cordialement, Frania W. (talk) 14:15, 20 April 2009 (UTC)
- Dear Patricia: Done & a very simple thing to do when you want to change the title of an article: go to the commands that are above title of article; click on move; you are brought at a special page; it has 12 lines of blabla under which you can read: Move page/ To new title/ Reason; type the new title & below, give the reason of the move. For our dear Marie sans nom, Duchess of Guise, I wrote:
- Dear Patricia, I just added here the comment you left on my talk page so that you can follow our exchange directly on yours. FW
- Dear Frania, Agreed! Have you made the changes to Mlle de Guise yet? I don't think so? Go ahead and make them and I will read and comment (and not further touch the Mlle de Guise page in the meantime). It will be nice to learn Wikipedia style that way. There are so many ways of doing noble titles, and translating them is such a nightmare! I'll be happy to try to conform as best I can, once I have a model. Patricia M. Ranum (talk) 13:15, 20 April 2009 (UTC)
- Patricia, Yes, there is a big clean up to do in order to have some sense of sameness in the titles of articles of most French nobility. I plan on doing it, hoping no one will come behind me & change my changes. My main objection is that surnames with *de* should remain *de* and not be translated in *of*; for instance: Philippe d'Orléans, Duke of Orléans, instead of Philippe of Orléans, Duke of Orléans. You can imagine the project when you know the size of the Orléans tribe!!! My main argument is no translation of surnames.
C'est sûr, vous avez du courage! Je suis tout à fait d'accord: Philippe of Orleans, Duke of Orleans, cela n'a pas de sens. Une promesse: Je n'y toucherai point, ni pendant vos retouches, ni après. J'ai tenté d'expliquer le titre "Bourbon du Maine, chez vous; je ne suis pas sûr d'y être parvenue. 'Tis a can of worms.... Patricia M. Ranum (talk) 14:47, 20 April 2009 (UTC)
- Bourbon du Maine est sur ma liste de titres à corriger. Il me faudra toute une journée pour tous ces articles. J'attendrai d'être coincée à la maison pendant une tempête de neige!!! FW
And how does one change a "stub" to "just about all one can say about a very brief life"? I'm thinking of Louis Joseph Duke of Guise and his son, Francis Joseph (or Francois Joseph, I forget which). Short of going into details about deaths, ... which doesn't belong in an encyclopedia, there isn't much to add to those poor little "stubs."Patricia M. Ranum (talk) 14:57, 20 April 2009 (UTC)
- I do not know how to answer this one, will have to look into it. FW
- Frania W. (talk) 15:13, 20 April 2009 (UTC)
Frania, I have gone through my research notes and added things to the different Lorraine de Guise males.... don't think I have messed anything for you, though. Most of them are no longer "stubs". I think I can just go in and delete the "stub" HTML... but do I have the right to do so?Patricia M. Ranum (talk) 18:26, 20 April 2009 (UTC)
- Patricia, You did figure out what to do to/with the "poor little stubs". I just read the Louis Joseph Duke of Guise article & added a couple of accents : ma marotte!. Now, if you want, we could move (= change) the title to Louis Joseph de Lorraine, Duke of Guise. I am back at my computer & do check wiki once in a while in order to take a break. Aurevoir! Frania W. (talk) 20:46, 20 April 2009 (UTC)
Thanks to your previous explanation, this pupil changed the title to desired one! Will do the stubs next. It's a lovely day here... til thunderstorms later in day. Patricia M. Ranum (talk) 14:25, 21 April 2009 (UTC)
RE: Welcoming vandals with... cookies ? Why not champagne !
Good one. :) I guess I should look through people's contributions before welcoming them. --Gp75motorsports TALK 18:36, 18 April 2009 (UTC)
Return
Salut! Lafayette, j'ai revenu! Lazulilasher (talk) 16:15, 21 April 2009 (UTC)
- Merci bien, j'etais tres occupais avec mon boulot et je suis en train de preparer pour mes etudes en droit. Mais, j'ai maintenant, plus du temps libre. En ce qui concerne Marquis de La Fayette...est-ce que t'a des nouvelles? Lazulilasher (talk) 18:10, 21 April 2009 (UTC)
- Le marquis de La Fayette? Tu n'es donc pas au courant? Aux dernières nouvelles, il était mort... FW
- Oui, t'as raison...Lazulilasher (talk) 20:33, 21 April 2009 (UTC)
Hotel or Hôtel?
Hello, Frania! Some advice, please, since you are une passionnée des accents. I've been putting remarks about the Hotel de Guise into various articles and have not use the circumflex. Someday I will summon the courage to write an article on the Hotel de Guise (it doesn't seem to exist but I frankly haven't checked that thoroughly. Might as well do things right from now on. Do you suggest using the circumflex, passim? Patricia M. Ranum (talk) 14:19, 22 April 2009 (UTC)
Hello and Gooday Frania thanks for your reply.Frania.If you happend to remeber our previous debate on the legality of the treaty of troyes,it wasnt well planned and our posts where in multiple articles.Would you like to start one on your page again so we know for sure what we are disputing against.If you do we are only leaving it on your talkpage and you can give me copys of the post on mine but dont make copy posts on any other persons talkpage or article.So would you like another debate?Goodbye and have a good day.--HENRY V OF ENGLAND (talk) 18:48, 22 April 2009 (UTC)
Give me a reason why the trety of troyes is illegal?--HENRY V OF ENGLAND (talk) 16:18, 24 April 2009 (UTC)
- Hello Frania are you still alive.lol. —Preceding unsigned comment added by HENRY V OF ENGLAND (talk • contribs) 16:05, 25 April 2009 (UTC)
- Hello Frania.I said I wasnt finished I was only begining with the regency and I was later going to talk about the legalitiy of the treaty in french eyes and about Charles VII.I also stated charles was king in 1422.--HENRY V OF ENGLAND (talk) 11:23, 26 April 2009 (UTC)::Hello Frania.I never mentioned anything yet about Charles VII.It had no contridicting in factn with salic law as it was only succestion for the private norm and in fact had nothing to do with france.It was used as a cover up rather then a legal law in a council held in 1317.I never even started with the legality of the traty yet.I also mentioned reliable sources aout the existence of the doble-mnarchy.Like the angevin empire because it was destroyed that dosent mean we say The angevin empire never existed.I starting with preface of how the double-monarchy came about or there would have been no reason to create it if Henry wasnt a french king.I didnt take sides and I am just mentioning what historions state and check the sources.You said that frenchmen never had regognized the legitimacy of Henry VI when the northen frenchmen and the Burgundians including the duke of brittiny and the pope regognized Henry.It wasnt until the mid-1430s when there began a rise of French inscurtions.Because Henry was expelled that does not mean he didnt have legitimacy to rule France.Please be exat in my article in which it is one sided.The french regency for Henry did exist if you happen to remember John the duke of Bedford.I see nothing against NPOV because I never mentioned Charles at all exept when I said he was king as well.You make it sound that charles was completely inane when he was half-insane.The french king also had his wife as a regent in order to rule for him anyway.Charles VI was incompetent of ruling and thats why he had a regent who was present during the treaty.I promise Frania that I will also expose the right of Charles but I cant dot this in one day because you must understand I have to mention Henry as king of france first in order for it to make sense on how it was formed.I am not pushingfor anyside.--HENRY V OF ENGLAND (talk) 11:46, 26 April 2009 (UTC)
- Thank you very much Frania for your advice.p.s I am cutting downon the background but you must know I am not simply coppying from a book I learnt the information but I was just looking back to the books to see if I was right.Goodbye and have a nice day. —Preceding unsigned comment added by HENRY V OF ENGLAND (talk • contribs) 22:54, 29 April 2009 (UTC)
Henry, I do not agree with the changes you brought to the lead of the article as it had been set up by Jeanne. It was perfect!
- the lead is not where various matters should be discussed, only introduced;
- next comes the background;
- then the different views of the parties involved must be developed in two separate sections; and it should be done without showing any bias toward one or the other, i.e. do not let your pro Henry VI view filter through the article;
- it does not matter where the Salic law originated, it has to be mentioned in order to have the reader understand the argument utilised by the French side; again, whether you agree with its use by the French does not matter because it is your opinion; the fact is that it was one of the main arguments of the French, a position the French have held throughout the history of their kings to this day (even by today's pretender).
I am bringing this comment to Jeann's page since the two of you were discussing this very point. Frania W. (talk) 18:09, 30 April 2009 (UTC)
- OK,Then no problem but it should also state Henry bieng king of France more openly in stead of giving the advantage to charles by refusing the article to state henry was also king.Sorry actualy prigmintioure is important.Ill mention salic law now again.--HENRY V OF ENGLAND (talk) 17:50, 30 April 2009 (UTC)
Henry, please revert to what Jeanne had done & do not touch her edits. When the article is finished, then we can read thru it again & bring changes here & there, if necessary. Most important right now is to build the article, not start the Hundred Years War all over again. Frania W. (talk) 18:09, 30 April 2009 (UTC)
- I mentioned what she stated about salic law but I didnt say anything wrong by saying Henry was king of France with Charles VII as that is what happend.yes?he was the only king of the dual-monarchy.--HENRY V OF ENGLAND (talk) 18:16, 30 April 2009 (UTC)
I just read the lead as last revised by Jeanne: the main events up to the death of Charles VI are mentioned, Treaty of Troyes & Salic law included, so I suggest we leave it alone & go on with the rest. Henry, you should realise that Jeanne & I are trying to help you so that this article so dear to your heart does not get deleted. So, please do not throw banana peels on our path. If Jeanne judges the lead to be confusing, then it is, so let her handle it. Cordialement, Frania W. (talk) 18:34, 30 April 2009 (UTC)
Jeanne, in my opinion, your first blabla (to which *of France* should be added to Charles VII) was better than last version:
- previous: The Dual-Monarchy of England and France occurred during the latter phase of the Hundred Years War between the years 1422 until 1453, when two kings disputed the crown of France. These were kings Charles VII and Henry VI of England.
- last version: The Dual-Monarchy of England and France occurred during the latter phase of the Hundred Years War when Henry VI of England inherited the throne of France. FW
Hello Frania.Can we just leave the NPOV lead that I adjusted because its more clear and the english had also a contredection against the salic law and is much more fair to both sides.--HENRY V OF ENGLAND (talk) 00:24, 4 May 2009 (UTC)
- HENRY, would you mind telling me if English is your mother tongue, because I have the feeling you do not understand what we have been trying to tell you since you created this article on 24 April 2009, that is ten days ago. The lead of an article is meant to succinctly present an article: no arguments in it, keep them for future sections where we can have the two points of view, that of the English & that of the French. All of us who are trying to help you launch the article are constantly stopped in our tracts by your same rangaine. What we really need for you to do right now is to forget the lead and match all the references with related points in your text. Do you have a problem with that? Having a perfect lead is not enough, the article must follow, and if you do not insert the references properly, they will have to be removed as not being linked to their proper place renders them meaningless.
- As to what you call the *NPOV lead* that you adjusted, what do you call this :but failed to outlive Charles VI so Henry VI became the first(and in reality only)king of both kingdoms. ? and this about Salic law: but was as well equaly debated in the English side that the so called law as they said,was applied only for German lands which was where it originaly came from during Charmaglanes reign and didnt apply France.
- I am bringing this exchange to the Dual-Monarchy talk page & also reverting your last revision. Frania W. (talk) 01:34, 4 May 2009 (UTC)
There is nothing wrong with the first part.The French throne was given to Henry V and his heirs so I made it more specific by heir meaning Henry VI and the dual-monarchy happend like that not rambling on about Henry V bieng the heir when he didnt even live to become king of both kingdoms.As for your statement about aguements not bieng in the lead,take out salic law.What I mentioned is NPOV so I am going to revert you unfortuniately.P.S finished the english regency and ILL sort out refs.--HENRY V OF ENGLAND (talk) 03:09, 4 May 2009 (UTC)
Should I remind you of your statement:
- it does not matter where the Salic law originated, it has to be mentioned in order to have the reader understand the argument utilised by the French side; again, whether you agree with its use by the French does not matter because it is your opinion; the fact is that it was one of the main ""arguments of the French,"" a position the French have held throughout the history of their kings to this day (even by today's pretender).
This confirms it I am reverting you. —Preceding unsigned comment added by HENRY V OF ENGLAND (talk • contribs) 03:19, 4 May 2009 (UTC)
Ok then I will leave the lead but Henry VI gets to be mentioned as well.As for Jeanne D arc its not like I am going to call her a whitch but I am not as well going to answer for her visions.Henry VI you know was close to bieng anknowledged as a saint.--HENRY V OF ENGLAND (talk) 19:56, 6 May 2009 (UTC)
P.S.I am going to start the part of the french realm tommorow.--HENRY V OF ENGLAND (talk) 20:07, 6 May 2009 (UTC)
Hello Frania.I was wondering on what house Henry VI is actually from.I have multiple sources that say he was a descent of saint Louis by his father and mother and bieng of descent of The House of Plantagement and Valois.The point of the treaty of troyes is that Henry and his heirs would become french monarchs.If Henry II of France mother was Valios and his father Lancastrian wouldnt that technicly make him from the house of valious or Lancastrian-Valoious.Example Valios-Angouleme.Henrys cadet brance would also have to be capetian as well.It was a double-inheritence not an inheritence just through his father as bieng the descent of Saint Louis.It makes perfect sense and for a moment without taking into consideration the there was two disputed kings would this be authentic.Henry is allready listed in sources of bieng Half Valios(French) and Half Lancastrian(English).Here is a source which says otherwise and confirms the legality of the treaty of Troyes.Please give me your oppinion and if we both agree on this Ill edit the list of french monarchs from Lancaster to Valios-Lancaster and maybe expand the note by 1 or 2 sentences.Goodbye Frania.--HENRY V OF ENGLAND (talk) 23:14, 7 May 2009 (UTC)
HENRY: I went thru the section The French Realm in Dual-Monarchy article & also left a comment at article's talk page. Please read my 15:18 8 May 2009 revision where it says: typos + request for references + hidden comments.
As for your question of the royal House Henry VI of England belongs to, I will not advance an answer to this, all I can agree with is his ancestry reaching all the way up to Saint Louis, which does not mean that he has a double whammy in his favour to the throne of France. Again, viewed from the side of the French, Salic law & the doubts as to the validity of the Treaty of Troyes are/were enough keep him from the throne of France. Being a descendant of Saint Louis does not give him a right over the Dauphin of France who is also a descendant of Saint Louis. He can be a descendant of Saint Louis & not be able to claim the throne of his illustrious ancestor just because of the fact that his claim is thru his mother. And the fact that the Dauphin was disinherited because he was behind some guy's murder has me smile: read the history of England & count the many who became kings after murdering their rival!
Cordialement... even though the two of us will never agree! Frania W. (talk) 18:13, 8 May 2009 (UTC)
- Yes Frania and that includes Henry V's own father Henry IV of England, who arranged Richard II's murder and then subsequently usurped the throne in place of Mortimer who was next in line to the throne after Richard.--Jeanne Boleyn (talk) 18:28, 8 May 2009 (UTC)
- Yes Jeanne, that's the neighbourhood, or should I say the hoods http://freethesaurus.net/s.php?q=hood I was hinting at!!! Frania W. (talk) 19:43, 8 May 2009 (UTC)
http://books.google.com/books?id=Qv9PlGCLy4YC&pg=PA235&dq=the+legality+of+the+treaty+of+troyes
This book provides the legality of the Treaty of Troyes and the legal dissinheritence of the dauphin.It also explains the legaliy of the treaty against salic Law.As fot your statement on henry IV,RICHARD II was removed in 1399 by an act of parliament before he was murderd and when Henry IV succeded then did he order the act of assasination.You must reliase that most of the legality to Charles dissinheritence was outside the treaty.Frania and Jeanne it all ends here if Charles was CONNFIRMED as incapable of succestion because of bieng guilty of lese-majesty and was further confirmed by a sentence at a formal lit de justice in 1421 how can Henry VI(Henri II of France) NOT be the legitimate king.This is why the treaty has been commonly misunderstood because French historions refuse to look at the later charges to Charles.Treaty or no Treaty Charles was incapable of succestion either way.As for what you people call Salic Law which is an ILlegal law.Read the terms of the treaty proparly dont just start making up your own terms.Henry V was adopted by Charles VI therefore making him his son.Strictyly by now there would be no absolute contridiction with Salic Law therefore Henry was capable of succeding as any of Charles sons although the actual text of Adopted-son was never used in the term it was explained.The Heir-Apparent was legaly confirmed as incapable of succestion by a lit-de justice so Charles VI next son(adopted) as legitimate Heir was Henry V.Henrys adoption is further enhanced in the treaty that Bravia and Charles be addresed as Father and Mother to Henry.Further more that gives Henry the legitimacy to adopt the title "Heir of France".Henry V also married Catherine which also made Henry,Charles son-in law.In order for the treaty to be confirmed legal there has to be ratification.As such,Both parties ratified the treaty in 1420.Most of the French arguements by now are overthrown.If Henry was just made heir with no reference to claim and without bieng enchanced then it would have been illegal and thus Charles can be accused of allienating the throne and treating the Kingdom as private land.Louis was incapable of succeding because he didnt profess his claim and was checked in England and to add he didnt have any title like heir prempusitive or apparent to the throne of France like Bedford therefore he wasnt strictly or legaly bound in the line of succestion to inherit.--HENRY V OF ENGLAND (talk) 02:12, 9 May 2009 (UTC)
- Hello Frania.I think the part on the lead about the contrevention of salic law be removed.The treaty succesfully got around this as I previously mentioned in my comment.I dont think its honest to mention false arguments.The part of Charles VII bieng the legitimate king of France should also be removed since in practice he had no legitimacy for his act of treason.--HENRY V OF ENGLAND (talk) 19:10, 12 May 2009 (UTC)
- Hello Frania,I think salic law should be removed in the lead.Its a false arguement.Do you agree for the reasons above?
- HENRY V OF ENGLAND (talk) 16:05, 13 May 2009 (UTC)
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?
Father before mother?
Hello, Frania! I have a question about your latest edit of Marie Antoinette article. You've put her father's name before her mother's name. Is that a standard or your personal preferance? Maria Theresa is much more significant and more notable than her husband and she was certainly more important when it came to her daughters' education and marriage, otherwise I wouldn't mind if it is just your personal preferance :) Surtsicna (talk) 19:25, 14 May 2009 (UTC)
- Bonjour/Bonsoir Surtsicna! My reason for putting Marie Antoinette's father before her mother is because generally that is what's done with people: father's name then mother's name. In other words, it is not a matter of preference on my part. Her mother may have been more notable at time of her education, but at time of Marie Antoinette's conception & birth, her father had as much an important role as her mother; it's with that spirit that I put him before Marie-Theresa in the first sentence. Besides, her mother's influence is described in the article. All this being said, I shall not fight you on this, as I see that the change I brought can be interpreted to reflect my personal opinion. Cordialement, Frania W. (talk) 20:38, 14 May 2009 (UTC)
- Bonjour Surtsicna, Thank you for your habit of leaving comments when you do a revision, it is so much better to know the reason of changes & it leaves the door open for discussion. Please feel free to change to previous if better for Anglo reading.
- In this article, there are many words used improperly & poorly written sentences/paragraphs. Yesterday, I inserted a hidden comment next to the word "laxity" at the Austrian court, but did not have the time to stay with the article & find something better; I also corrected something at the birth of MA's first child where A. Fraser had been misquoted. There are more coquilles but it takes time to correct them all & I can work only on one paragraph at one session... because I am busy in real life as I am sure you are.
Legality of the Treaty of Troyes
Hello Frania.Please Stop with the *threats*.There is no need.Anyway,do you have any more tricks to defend the french(southern french) against the Treaty of Troyes .P.S I dont like it when we have none-friendly argues.I only edited the french monarch list to include the Treaty instead of using the plantagement claim or have both.--HENRY V OF ENGLAND (talk) 22:45, 14 May 2009 (UTC)
- Henry!!! Oh! la! la! Did not you understand the joke ??? FW
- Oops messed up.Sorry Frania,P.S I gave reference to the treaty of troyes.--HENRY V OF ENGLAND (talk) 22:54, 14 May 2009 (UTC)
- lol.--HENRY V OF ENGLAND (talk) 22:56, 14 May 2009 (UTC)
- Henry, what are you talking about? I have not touched any of these articles for days & left no comment on any of them, except somewhere the comment Joan of Bark entrusted to me about putting you on a... bottomless boat. But, swear to God, nothing more on Salic law or the Treaty of Troyes! FW
- I am hoplessley confused today lol.I meant to say I changed the arguement in the lead in the double-monarchy article from salic law to the french arguement of alienating the throne to a foriegner.Salic Law is a false arguement as Henry was Charles VI adopted son.--HENRY V OF ENGLAND (talk) 23:09, 14 May 2009 (UTC)
- '*Confused*? Vous avez dit *confused*??? La vérité sort de la bouche des enfants ou de celle de ceux qui agissent comme tels... FW
- I am hoplessley confused today lol.I meant to say I changed the arguement in the lead in the double-monarchy article from salic law to the french arguement of alienating the throne to a foriegner.Salic Law is a false arguement as Henry was Charles VI adopted son.--HENRY V OF ENGLAND (talk) 23:09, 14 May 2009 (UTC)
- Henry, what are you talking about? I have not touched any of these articles for days & left no comment on any of them, except somewhere the comment Joan of Bark entrusted to me about putting you on a... bottomless boat. But, swear to God, nothing more on Salic law or the Treaty of Troyes! FW
- Frania what does that mean.--HENRY V OF ENGLAND (talk) 19:23, 15 May 2009 (UTC)
Citation
Hello Frania how do you answer a ciatation since you asked for it on the article of the dual monarchy.If so,how do I link it to reference.--HENRY V OF ENGLAND (talk) 19:34, 15 May 2009 (UTC)
- HENRY: If you want, you can bring the citation you want to include on Dual-Monarchy talk page & indicate the exact place in text where you want it. Be sure to also give the reference with title of book or document, publication, city or country, date, page. Let's try it that way. Frania W. (talk) 01:10, 16 May 2009 (UTC)
- Hello Frania.I get the majority of my information from a couple of books I have at home.I finished them ages ago but I learned basiicly all the vivid campaigns from Griffith R.A Henry VI but I rarely needed to look back for to confirm it because I already learned most of the campaigns from the book,Wikepedia and other internet Enclodopedias.For the legality and/or the legality of the treaty,I used many sources to back my statement so I wouldnt be wrong in what I say.Do I give sources of every single book I researched or just maybe 2 or 3.I also researched the french arguements in a book called the Congrass of Arras.--HENRY V OF ENGLAND (talk) 23:13, 16 May 2009 (UTC)
HENRY: I brought (above) your original question to this section so that we can follow on the same page what we are talking about.
- I had understood you to ask how to include a citation in the text, and that's what I was prepared to help you with. I know that what you write comes from books & documents you have read, but it has no encyclopedic value if you do not back it up with these very sources.
In order to do this & when you are ready to, i.e. when you are at a point where you absolutely must prove that what you are writing is not the fruit of your imagination (places where references are needed are already shown in the text), you do the following:
- - you point & click on the third from right key on top - it will say *Insert block of quoted text*, : TYPE IN YOUR QUOTE;
- - once you have typed the quote, you need to give the reference, so click on the first key on the right where it says < ref ref > This will give you the space to type in your reference: title of book, name of author, publishing house, city, year, page number.
- - if you mess things up, one of us will come to the rescue.
Now, you may not find the need to give references from all the books you have read; in this case, you list all of them in the *bibliography* section (title, author, editor, etc.)
Hope this will help. Cordialement, Frania W. (talk) 02:20, 17 May 2009 (UTC)
- Frania is this example correct:
Vive le France[1]
- This is just a made up one.
- HENRY V OF ENGLAND (talk) 00:57, 18 May 2009 (UTC)
HENRY: Bravo! Frania W. (talk) 01:03, 18 May 2009 (UTC) (Are you changing side?)
Case of bastard/adopted son
Wait.Really important question Frania.Off course an adopted son is annowledged in the succestion to the throne.Am I right in this or would the fact of alienating the throne still be beased in principle.I think it is possible for a Bastard son of the king to succeded if he was anknowledged by the king to be his legitimate son from his wife.In fact many times kings got away of bieng bastards and still inheriting.Jochi the eldest son of Ghengis Khan who was also claimed to be a Bastard by his own father still inherited the West of Mongol conquests.--HENRY V OF ENGLAND (talk) 23:26, 16 May 2009 (UTC)
- Henry: The case of a bastard and/or adopted son would have to be looked into case by case: there is not one *international law* covering them all. Genghis Khan is not one model I would give as an example to follow in Europe, be it that of the Middle Ages. In the history of Europe, any time a king disinherited his legitimate successor or legitimised one of his bastards in order to allow him to inherit the throne, it opened the door to contestation the minute the king died because never considered legal by the "next of kin".
- Aurevoir! Frania W. (talk) 02:42, 17 May 2009 (UTC)
- Why no replys????--HENRY V OF ENGLAND (talk) 23:12, 20 May 2009 (UTC
- Hello Frania,I am going to answer the ciatations tommorow.--HENRY V OF ENGLAND (talk) 23:22, 20 May 2009 (UTC)
- Why no replys????--HENRY V OF ENGLAND (talk) 23:12, 20 May 2009 (UTC
To the question on where to find the original of the Treaty of Troyes, this is the answer I recd from the CALAMES search group: Bonjour, En effectuant sur le catalogue Calames la recherche suivante: "Traité de Troyes", on obtient parmi les résultats l'intitulé suivant: "Traicté de Troyes, du mariage de madame Catherine de France, fille du roy Charles VI, et Henry d'Angleterre. 1420". Il s'agit de cet original, que vous trouverez à la bibliothèque de l'Institut de France. Pour connaître les modalités de consultation, vous pouvez prendre contact avec: Institut de France. Bibliothèque 23 quai de Conti 75006 Paris tél. 01 44 41 44 10 bibliotheque@bif.univ-paris5.fr Cordialement, la cellule assistance. Cordialement, FW
- Hello Frania as we were saying earlier on.Would it still be considerd alienating the throne if the adopted son becomes king.Whats the case on Henry V then.--HENRY V OF ENGLAND (talk) 20:52, 21 May 2009 (UTC)
- P.S Frania.I am very thankful for your help and welcoming me and accepting me as a friend since we began months ago.Its just a reminder--HENRY V OF ENGLAND (talk) 21:58, 21 May 2009 (UTC)
- HENRY: I really do not have the time right now (personal work) to answer you in length, but it seems to me that anyone - bastard, adopted son or any bloke stepping in & sitting on the throne that belongs to the legal heir would be overstepping his bounds.
- P.S Henry, you're welcome & I am glad we are such good-ever-fighting-never-agreeing friends. As the French saying goes: avec des amis comme ça, on n'a pas besoin d'ennemis (= with such friends, one has no need for enemies...) Just joking! Cordialement à vous de l'autre côté de la Manche! Frania W. (talk) 22:24, 21 May 2009 (UTC)
- Thanks Frania for your reply.As we were saying.If Charles VII was incapable of succestion(so therefore was no longer the lega; heir),could Henry be then the legitimate heir.My predescent for this is that Philp of Burgundy was 7th to the line of succestion during Charles VI reign but he was geniunly removed from the legitimate line for succestion to the French throne.--HENRY V OF ENGLAND (talk) 20:30, 23 May 2009 (UTC)
- HENRY:It is not *as we were saying...* because you are the one saying that Charles VII was incapable of succession, not I. So, as far as I am concerned, there is not *if*, because Charles VII was the rightful successor to his father Charles VI of France, nobody else. And to quote you further: Vive la France! Frania W. (talk) 21:30, 23 May 2009 (UTC)
- Thanks Frania for your reply.As we were saying.If Charles VII was incapable of succestion(so therefore was no longer the lega; heir),could Henry be then the legitimate heir.My predescent for this is that Philp of Burgundy was 7th to the line of succestion during Charles VI reign but he was geniunly removed from the legitimate line for succestion to the French throne.--HENRY V OF ENGLAND (talk) 20:30, 23 May 2009 (UTC)
- But he is legaly allowed to be dissinherited through a legal act and the lit-de-justice legaly ended his legitimacy as heir and his incapability of succestion is not questionable,ITS A FACT as any other legal act.The treaty didnt end his legitimacy as it still existed it only ended by a lit-de-justice for the aquesation of lese-Majesty and as I said this is not a matter of oppinion it is fact therefore not questionable.By 1421 Charles was found guilty so it was illegal for him to succede in 1422.
HENRY V OF ENGLAND (talk) 21:50, 23 May 2009 (UTC)
- http://books.google.com/books?id=Qv9PlGCLy4YC&pg=PA235&dq=the+legality+of+the+treaty+of+troyes
- There was no illegality in the dissinheritence of the dauphine outside the treaty.Charles is by fact not the legal heir.
- HENRY V OF ENGLAND (talk) 21:53, 23 May 2009 (UTC)
- Please read the article.Lese-Majesty.Injury to the soveriegn.
- http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lese_Majeste#Europe
- Aquasations against Charles VII.
- murder of John the Fearless
- Usurped legal authority from Charles VI by taking unnoficial control of the south and refusing the rector Henry V.
- Refusing a courts summon in 1420
- Refusing the terms of the Treaty of Troyes even though during the year 1420 until 1421 was Illegal for the clause of dissinheriteng the dauphine.
- Conclustion to his fauilure to appear in court:
- Bannisjment and rendering him ""INCAPABLE OF SUCCESTION"".
- Franias Arguements:
- Conclustion
- Overthrown
- (LOL). —Preceding unsigned comment added by HENRY V OF ENGLAND (talk • contribs) 22:11, 23 May 2009 (UTC)
- I've read through this discussion and.......
- 1. IF the lit de justice(1420) is to be recognized then why not the decision by doctors of law at Bologna in 1435[6]?
- 2. Clause 12, obliged Henry to reduce to obediance the territories still loyal to the Dauphin. Therefore, just as Henry's heirs gained France, they also inherited this obligation. Thus their failure to ensure Clause 12, would invalidate any claim.
- 3. Whereas just as Henry V achieved the Treaty of Troyes(through force of arms) so did Charles VII regain France. A claim to kingship was valid only if territory could be secured. -- The Hundred Years War, by Curry, p91 --Kansas Bear (talk) 15:05, 25 May 2009 (UTC)
Something's happening
I've reverted edits by HENRY (recently) concerning his argument of Henry VI as King of France. The last revert was at James I of Scotland. I'm growing concerned. GoodDay (talk) 15:14, 24 May 2009 (UTC)
- His was full name was like that.--HENRY V OF ENGLAND (talk) 13:14, 25 May 2009 (UTC)
- Hello.GoodDay there is no such thing as a house called Lancaster-Valois.No offence but you have no proof.sorry.The Treaty of Troyes didnt make Henry V king of France it made him heir by bieng adopted to Charles VI and marrying his daughter.Henry therefore who now appeared as the legitimate Heir was succeding to the Valois and not the Plantagement.Henry in the treaty Abondend his claim through Edward III as bieng the legitimate and rightful king of France by allowing Charles and recognizing Charles as king.Furthermore this in effect has to be interpeted as "GIVING" The legitimacy of kingship to the valois king Charles.Henry now had a double-whammy bieng adopted to the valois house by an international treaty and by bieng Lancastrian by birth.As you know already Henry V failed to outlive Charles so Henry VI became heir for the four months difference before bieng king of France.Henry VI was therefore a Valois-Lancastrian king of France and England by beccoming the king of france through the recognition of the Valios house bieng the legitimate rulers of France.If you happen to read any English or French epigrams on Henry VI when he was in infancy he was commented on bieng blessed with a dual-monarchy and bieng of descent through his father and mother of Saint Louis.Notice my spech by saying Henry V.This is because as earlier said,Henry appeared as a Valois heir to the kingdom of France by the Treaty of Troyes not through his Plantagement claim.I hope I didnt confuse you lol and to add this is not original research although it is important to do so in terms of treaties,I have internet links to books that say so.Just ask for them.In the case of the dissinheritence of the dauphine,it was Illegal in the treaty itself but outside the treaty it was legal.Because Charles refused a courts summon in 1420 and usurped legal authority from Charles VI which was treason,He was found guilty for Lese-Majesty BY a lit-de-justice in 1421 rendering him incapable of succestion LEGALY.By 1421 it could be safely said since his legitimacy ended through a lit-de-justice he had no right to succeded Charles VI.Googbye.--HENRY V OF ENGLAND (talk) 13:33, 25 May 2009 (UTC)
- His was full name was like that.--HENRY V OF ENGLAND (talk) 13:14, 25 May 2009 (UTC)
Please read page 16,17,18,19,20. Nothing against Jeanne D'ARC,But the reality there were two kings of France.
http://books.google.ie/books?id=NG9DRSg5dYMC&printsec=frontcover&dq=joan+of+arc&as_brr=3#PPA18,M1 —Preceding unsigned comment added by HENRY V OF ENGLAND (talk • contribs) 14:14, 25 May 2009 (UTC)
- Hello everybody.As for the users contribution in this I am very thankful.I read those books before lol.As for your point about the clauses and his claims bieng invalid.You have the right idea in your head but I apoligize your phtasing is a bit off target.Clause 12 was not fulfilled but it only ended Henrys claim it didnt mean his claim was invalid and legitimacy never existed and this is how you are styling your work.Trust me I have many books from Anne Curry about the treaty of troyes but she is keen on Henry VI inheriteing the throne of france as this is what happend.So how can his claims be invalid and still be king,it makes no sence.As part of the clause it didnt make a peace it made an ongoing war and the war continued from 1420-1453.In the span Henry VI was king of France.Anne Curry published the contending kingdoms of england and France and she says including you say that Henry in order to inherit the problem of clause 12 had to inherit France.By the clause when Henry lost guinne in 1453 then did his legitimacy end,that does not mean it didnt exist.You have to intrpetet the clause correctly.By the same clause why do you think I put his reign as king of France from 1422-1453 and not 1422-1471.By your style no offence your stating Henry never had claim.He had claim but it ended.Goodbye.--HENRY V OF ENGLAND (talk) 15:35, 26 May 2009 (UTC)
Will I stop the Hundred Years War
Hello.Will I just end the disscution on the hundred years war.This does not mean I am wrong as I expalined above.I am just getting tired of this.--HENRY V OF ENGLAND (talk) 15:49, 26 May 2009 (UTC)
- HENRY: What a great idea! Now you can go back to the Dual-Monarchy article presenting the case for each side without taking side. There is a lot to say about this controversy but, remember, this is History, events happened the way they happened, and we are not to judge these people, just report the facts. Consider yourself as a chronicler or a modern-time reporter. Frania W. (talk) 17:25, 26 May 2009 (UTC)
--HENRY V OF ENGLAND (talk) 15:38, 28 May 2009 (UTC)==Treaty of II== I promise I will never edit Henry VI as Henri II of France.I guess I did push it too far.I apoligize Frania.--HENRY V OF ENGLAND (talk) 16:25, 27 May 2009 (UTC)
- OK HENRY, your promise is registered under the name Treaty of II, under which you are going to be held until the end of times. And if you ever break it, remember the bottomless bark! Now back to your beloved Dual-Monarchy. Waving to you from the other side of the Manche. FW
OK.Last thing I swear to God.I reverted you on the queen mother page.I gave reference yo her bieng queen mother of france and anyway that is what it says in her article.Ok as you said back to the dual monarchy article unless I want to be sunk to the sea evertime I try to cross the channel.--HENRY V OF ENGLAND (talk) 16:43, 27 May 2009 (UTC)
- HENRY: Forget about everything else, stick to the Dual-Monarchy. FW
Frania why did you revert my comment.--HENRY V OF ENGLAND (talk) 16:49, 27 May 2009 (UTC)
Not finished dont revert Frania the extention to the article of Ultimate Dual-Monarchy.--HENRY V OF ENGLAND (talk) 17:28, 27 May 2009 (UTC)
- I have to be away from computer for a few hours or until tomorrow & will not read your addition to the Dual-Monarchy before then. You did well to put a warning so that nobody else will revert you. A plus tard. Frania W. (talk) 17:37, 27 May 2009 (UTC)
Goodbye Frania.--HENRY V OF ENGLAND (talk) 17:52, 27 May 2009 (UTC)
VIVE LE....FR'AN'NC'..E'.LOL.I said it.--HENRY V OF ENGLAND (talk) 15:38, 28 May 2009 (UTC)
- In fact === God bless France ===.
I apoligized to GoodDay.--HENRY V OF ENGLAND (talk) 20:23, 29 May 2009 (UTC)
Well Frania, if you don't like it, then feel free to change it, *would* you agree ? (Jack1755 (talk) 22:56, 31 May 2009 (UTC))
Hello Frania.Should I mention a great deal on joan of arc on the dual monarchy article or will I just leave it as it is with the same intro to the french revival--HENRY V OF ENGLAND (talk) 01:19, 1 June 2009 (UTC)
- Dear HENRY. I do not know what & how much you want to say about Jeanne d'Arc, so it is difficult for me to suggest what you should do. It seems that the best way is to keep on doing as you have done previously, i.e. start work on the section & we (others & myself) will edit & let you know, and you pursue from there. I think it has worked pretty well so far, and everybody is in a mood to give advice & help. In other words, I cannot tell you and do not want to tell you what to do... until you have done it & if I do not agree, I'll let you know ! As always, we'll keep on friendly terms. Cordialement, Frania W. (talk) 02:50, 1 June 2009 (UTC)
Catterick
- Don't let Catterick's comments made on my talk page bother you, Frania. He is just trying to get a reaction from you.--Jeanne Boleyn (talk) 04:51, 2 June 2009 (UTC)
Hello Frania.If you still happen to remeber the posts concerning numbering of the french regnal template you mentioned Henri V of France saying "Paris is worthe a mass".But this is wrong it was to do with the french religious wars when by salic law Henri IV of Naverra was the legitimate heir to Henri III of France.Henri IV was removed from succestion previuosly by the treaty of Netmours since he was a calvinist or a hugenout(followers of John Cavin and preched by John Knox).By the proccess Charles cardinal of bourbon was made heir and he was the brother to Henri I prince of conde.The house of guise and the catholic leauge kept the king in check and on the 12th of May 1588 the parisans setted up barricades on the streets of paris and the cul de sac were willing to save the duke of guise away from the hostility of the king Henri III(or Henri IV since I recognize Henry VI as king of France) and so the king fled and joined up with his cousin Henry of Naverra(Henri IV of France).Henri III called for the Estates-General to Blois.The duke of guise Henri I and his Brother cardinal of guise Louis II were asked to meet the king in his private chamber where they were previously awaiting in the council chamber.The gaursdmen seized the duke and stabbed him in the heart and arrested his brother whom was later to die from the pikes of his escorts,to add the dukes son was also arrested in order for that there will be no contender to the french crown.Henri IV by the way was exumenicated by Sixtus V but converted to cathlisim by force when he was in paris earlier on.The duke of guise was highly famed publicly and so the parliament of paris declared war openly against the king and charged him with personal crimes.The duke of Mayenna whom was the younger brother of the duke of guise became leader of the catholic leauge.He declared publicly that a public citizen was free to commit regicide against the the soveriegn Henri III.A dominican friar in 1589 drove a long knife into the kings spleen when seeking an audience with him.On Henri III 's deahbed he pleaded in the name of statecraft(public administration),that he should take throne.The only contest was now between Henri IV and the catholic leauge supported by Philip II and pope Greogery VIII .It was basicly an approxy war between Elizibith I and Philip II.At the battle of Arques Henri deliverd a crushing defeat against Murremncy and swept Normandy and won the battle of Ivery in 1450 letting him besiege Paris.The siege was broken off by spanish troops.The same thing happend at the siege of Roen.Paris refused to allow a calvin to be there king.He later converted to Catholisicm and said the famous speech that "Paris is well worth a Mass" not Henry V who came much later.Just to add it is in fact not a constitutional tradition that corinations must take place at Rheims(although this is seriously reccomended if it is avaliable).Here we can see another matter of a french king bieng crowned other then in Rheims.My point bieng said when in 1594 Henri IV was crowned king of France NOT in Rheims BUT in CHARTERS.The reason bieng the same thing as Henry VI,it was under foriegn authority in this case the catholic leauge.Even when Henri IV regained the city he wasnt obliged to have another corination was he?The answer is No so a french corination outside Rheims is perfectly fine.Probably the Greatest French Corination was Henri VI of England and France at Paris in 1431.I am not biased but I am correct to this,Although the corination came to naught in prcatice its extravegence,ceremony prompt and feast was the greatest in french history.Here is the main reference 1.Read from page pp206-pp217. http://books.google.ie/books?id=_Cc9AAAAIAAJ&pg=PA231&dq=Henry+VI+french+coronation:Music+of+Paris&lr=#PPA206,M1 Goodbye Frania.--HENRY V OF ENGLAND (talk) 03:16, 5 June 2009 (UTC)
- Reims, Paris, Chartres, the legality of the coronation has nothing to do with the place or the extravagance of the ceremony. In fact, the ceremony held in a cathedral is only a religious ceremony, which does not *make* the king. There was no coronation ceremony for Louis XVIII & he still was king of France. http://books.google.com/books?id=9PMFVLsDWBkC&pg=PA494&lpg=PA494&dq=sacre+de+Louis+XVIII&source=bl&ots=ikBUOxXCuK&sig=MPqQWJjf7KkvyqnJnnmxmP-vL-8&hl=en&ei=6VkpSpuqGpOeM5Cd_MgJ&sa=X&oi=book_result&ct=result&resnum=1
- Frania W. (talk) 17:49, 5 June 2009 (UTC)
- Thanks Frania but thats exactly my point,a corination can take place anywhere in France it dosent matter.It is as you only a religious ceremony.--HENRY V OF ENGLAND (talk) 18:56, 5 June 2009 (UTC)
- HENRY: Yes, a coronation can happen anywhere in France, or not happen, as in the case of Louis XVIII; what matters is that the guy being *coronated* be the legal heir to the throne of France, which Charles VII, Henri IV, Louis XVIII were, but not Henri VI of England (Salic law + Treaty of Troyes signed by an insane king of France under duress). Frania W. (talk) 19:44, 5 June 2009 (UTC)
- Thanks Frania but thats exactly my point,a corination can take place anywhere in France it dosent matter.It is as you only a religious ceremony.--HENRY V OF ENGLAND (talk) 18:56, 5 June 2009 (UTC)
Hello Frania lol I am still puzzeled why you said Henri V of France said "Paris is worth a mass" when Henry IV of France and Naverra said that when he converted in order to secure Paris.Again thanks Frania.--HENRY V OF ENGLAND (talk) 18:59, 5 June 2009 (UTC)
- Can you bring back to me what I am supposed to have said on that famous mass quote? Merci d'avance. Frania W. (talk) 19:51, 5 June 2009 (UTC)
- I thought we agree salic law has nothing to do with the treaty of troyes--HENRY V OF ENGLAND (talk) 22:42, 5 June 2009 (UTC)
- Yes, they were two separate things: on the one hand the French could invoke Salic law & on the other claim that the Treaty of Troyes was null & void because of the reasons given above. Besides, when the English were booted out of France, their Henry VI could not be king of France any longer. For the French point of view, which you tend to want to ignore because you believe the king of England owned France (!), Charles VII was heir to the throne & became king of France when his father expired - i.e. would have been even if Jeanne d'Arc had not made him to go be crowned in Reims. Charles VII's coronation was quite a feat & a necessary coup because done in Reims (not next to Bourges!) in spite of the fact that the English occupied the north of France.
- Mon cher ami Henry, I also would like to point out that, on this story, the two of us have never agreed on anything. Frania W. (talk) 00:07, 6 June 2009 (UTC)
- Another thing Henry, had Henry VI been a legitimate and universally-recognised king of France, historians and academics throughout the intervening centuries would have listed him as Henry II, and the true Henri II of France would have been known in history as Henri III. Do you see why the article can never refer to Henry VI of England as Henri II of France? Too much confusion for the readers, plus it's OR on your part to do so!--Jeanne Boleyn (talk) 05:40, 6 June 2009 (UTC)
- I thought we agree salic law has nothing to do with the treaty of troyes--HENRY V OF ENGLAND (talk) 22:42, 5 June 2009 (UTC)
He cant be Heir since he was guilty of Lese-Majesty and thus renderd him incapavle of succestion.Salic Law could have not been used against The Treaty of Troyes for the reasons given above.Charles VII was then found guilty by a LEGAL SUMMONS or a lit-de justice in 1421 confirming he was ncapable of succestion.Henry took Iseabeu and Charles VI as Father and Mother thus making Henry V his son(adopted son).By now there was no contrevention of either Salic Law or the Personal exsistence of the Dauphine Charles.I never ignored any French point of View.Goodbye.--HENRY V OF ENGLAND (talk) 16:23, 25 June 2009 (UTC)
Away from Wikipedia today because of D-Day - the most glorious day the French (in particular) should never forget. Taps... Frania
- Are Germans invading again.Lets get Henry V,Jeanne D Arc and some English Longbowmen.JOKEN--HENRY V OF ENGLAND (talk) 19:26, 6 June 2009 (UTC)
- No! 6 June 1944 is when the Anglo-Américains landed in Normandy to kick the Germans out... I am sure that Jeanne d'Arc, Henry & Loongbowmen were showing them the way to Victory! Frania W.
- I know I was just jocking lol.North of France was under German control and southern France was ruled by the Vichy goverment whom propagated for the german cause especially of there posters concerning Roen and Jeanne D arc.The Vichy Goverment was a German puppet state.The symbol of Vichy France I remember was the double HEADED AXE.They signed an armistice wiith Germany in 1940 And the french leader was Marshal Petain but the vichy state callapsed in 1944 August.Vichy France in my oppinion are nasty.Not the public but the actual government.The LVF was set up there and the goverment were sent to fight with the germans against the soviets and were strongly against communism.Hitler also visited Paris nine days after its capture.He orderd a german commander-in-chief to burn the city to the ground but refused.I find Operation DYNAMO in 1940 really interisting.It was when the french soldiors were evacuated at the frecnh beaches of Dunkirk and as the Germans wept accross nothen france Belgian,British and french ships simintinueosly crossed the channel to transport the soldiors and the remaining equipment to England in which many people set up german resistance councils.The Battle of France was a huge defeat for the British army.lol a 4.4m long wooden ship took part it was called Tamzine.Adolf Hitlers campaign against the Russians was a huge failure.Losing the battle of Stalingrad 1942-1943 and Hitler failed to learn from Napolian Bannoparte when he attacked Russia during the winter and planned to capture Mosscow like Adolf Hitler.The German tanks were usless in the cold.Red Army snipers are the most renown during World War II especially at Stalingrad.4O Kills awarded the snipre the title as "Noble Sniper"The road to stalingrad started in 1941.The Germans advanced on three directions.North to Leningrad,East towards Mosscow and south to the weath fields of Ukraine and the oil wells.The advance in the south led to Stalingrad named after Stalin.The battle which ended in 1943 was a turing point at the war.No longer was the German Army unbeatable.D-DAY(Deliverence Day 1944).More then 150,000 US,UK and Canadian soldiors were ferried accross the English channel to establish five(5) beachlands.The Germans were expecting an invastion much further East.The operation cost 2500 alied soldiors.The liberation of most importantly France and Europe begun.I strongly,strongly,strongly dislike the American descition of dropping the two attomic bombs at first Hiroshimie with 70,000 killed and then Nagasaki killing 80,000 people.The people didnt deserve it.The first Nucleur Bomb was tested on 16 july 1945.--HENRY V OF ENGLAND (talk) 05:21, 8 June 2009 (UTC)
- Hey.you forget Bedford regent of France.--HENRY V OF ENGLAND (talk) 06:52, 8 June 2009 (UTC)
- Wow, HENRY! You finally came out of the Hundred Years' War! Mes compliments! ::::Frania W. (talk) 12:23, 8 June 2009 (UTC)
- I knew the stuff but I never got to use it.I would say after I finish the article,There shall never be a debate on the hundred years war for another 100 years.--HENRY V OF ENGLAND (talk) 16:46, 8 June 2009 (UTC)
- A great decision on your part HENRY ! Let's do like these guys did, leave the fight for our great-grandchildren in 100 years ! Adieu! Frania
- I knew the stuff but I never got to use it.I would say after I finish the article,There shall never be a debate on the hundred years war for another 100 years.--HENRY V OF ENGLAND (talk) 16:46, 8 June 2009 (UTC)
- Wow, HENRY! You finally came out of the Hundred Years' War! Mes compliments! ::::Frania W. (talk) 12:23, 8 June 2009 (UTC)
- No! 6 June 1944 is when the Anglo-Américains landed in Normandy to kick the Germans out... I am sure that Jeanne d'Arc, Henry & Loongbowmen were showing them the way to Victory! Frania W.
- Absolutely agreed.lol--HENRY V OF ENGLAND (talk) 17:35, 8 June 2009 (UTC)
World War I
Hello Franai.I have a question concerning World War I.Is it right to say that the warefare in world war I the same as the warefare in the late 19th century like in the Boer War or Crimien War since there is absolutely no simmilary in warefare with war II.--HENRY V OF ENGLAND (talk) 19:48, 6 June 2009 (UTC)
- HENRY, Well, in all these wars, horses were used... and sometimes donkeys, maybe even bows & arrows. However, cannons also, then tanks & that's what made the difference in modern warfare (with air reconnaissance & bombardment from the air). If you are interested in the evolution of arms from one war to another, I recommend you read The Arms of Krupp - 1587-1968, by William Manchester, first published by Little, Brown in 1964, followed by additional reprints in 1965 & 1968. Book itself (my copy) is 833 pages but totals up to 941 with acknowledgments, appendices, chapter notes, bibliography & index. It is the four-hundred year history of the arm-making Krupp family. You can read the wiki article on Krupp, but if you are really interested, please get the book:
- http://www.amazon.com/Arms-Krupp-Industrial-Dynasty-Germany/dp/0316529400.
- On pp. 211-212 (page number may differ with different publications) there is mention of the Boer War as Krupp furnished arms to the Boers, then you will get the description of all the material made by Krupp for the wars of 1870, 1914, 1939...
- Mit freundlichem Gruß, aufwiedersehen ! Frania.
- Frania W. (talk) 03:08, 8 June 2009 (UTC)
- Thanks Frania.--HENRY V OF ENGLAND (talk) 05:27, 8 June 2009 (UTC)
Oceanblueeyes: The hidden comments about which you are getting upset are mine, with my signature *FW* for Frania Wisniewska, which you could have guessed by going back to the date when comments were inserted. May I point out to you that hidden comments within text are not *accusations of lies* (please find one instance where I accused you of lying), they are addressed as a point of discussion to the editor who wrote the contested part. That's what Wikipedia is all about. The fact that you may have read hundreds of books on one subject does not mean that everyone will agree that you know more about that subject than anyone else. There may be books you have not read. For instance, have you read memoirs in French written by individuals who personally knew Mme du Barry? If you have not, you should, because this would make you realise that, depending on whether they liked her or not, the authors of these memoirs either praised her or thrashed her (the duc de Choiseul, for instance, who could not stand her because he had tried to have his own sister become official mistress to Louis XV, so you can imagine what he wrote about Mme du B!). Some authors and libellists did not treat her any better than was treated Marie Antoinette, with similar accusations of both women being whores, which, as the article stands, gives the impression that it is what Mme du Barry was, i.e. a modern call girl. Frania W. (talk) 13:38, 6 June 2009 (UTC)
Response on Madame du Barry editing
Dear Ms. Wisniewska, I would like to apologize extremely for my ill behaviour regarding your editing of Madame du Barry's article. I am not a fighting type of person, so I would rather actually broaden and share my knowledge about her rather with you rather than take competing attitude...I gave a mistaken impression that I am a top-most expert, whereas I am only well- informed; fullstop! I misunderstood the 'lying' part which I found and deleted at the end of the first section, and took it as a personal insult, which now is clear was not- which is why I am asking for your pardon. Regards the book you spoke of to me, I'm not sure if I have it...the one I have is her memoirs written by Baron Lamothe-Langon. In case there are any wrong ideas, I love Madame du Barry and her life story, and the same with Marie Antoinette even though they themselves were the worst of enemies at first. I have many biographies of MA too, and due to this I decided to have a good opinion of both women, whose lives I find exceptionally interesting. I believe du Barry was herself a courtesan of the highest calibre who was very beautiful and very talented in her work, and to this all biographies which I have agree, which I believe are either agreeable or neutral when speaking about her, but none speak of her in shame; only those instances when they describe Marie Antoinette's attitude towards her do they give her a bad name... Again, I ask for your pardon and would much like to keep contact with you in sharing knowledge on du Barry...it may win as 'the most well informed article' on Wiki. My name is Sean, from Malta.
=========================
- Dear Sean, Thank you for your note. Please, do not feel bad about our little exchange via hidden notes in the du Barry article. There is nothing to forgive as you did nothing wrong. We only had a sharp exchange... So let's shake hands with the hope that, in the future, we can work in harmony, even if we rarely agree.
- Her humble origins, and the fact that in spite of it she became the mistress of Louis XV, passing over all the other beautiful women who were vying for the *post* are at the base of the hatred many at Court had for her. You have to realise that the Court at Versailles was nothing but a wasp nest filled with gossip, greed & jealousy. People were divided into factions & the woman who would win the heart (and bed) of the king would immediately be sought after by those hoping to get the king's favour through her position, while, at the same time, she would be demonised by those who had lost to her. In the case of Mme du Barry, her supposed mémoires are apocryphal, i.e. the work of the baron de Lamothe-Langon. I am including a link to something you may find interesting.
- Now there are books that are not on Mme du Barry but which have details on her - books written by the authors themselves, who met her. In her Souvenirs, the painter Élisabeth Vigée Le Brun has eight pages on Mme du Barry & the conditions in which she did three portraits of her.
- May I suggest that you do not give out your e-address for millions of readers to see?
- Best to you,
- Frania W. (talk) 04:06, 10 June 2009 (UTC)
=====================================
Lol, thanks for the suggestion...I wasn't aware others but you could see my email address.
Yes, I completely agree with you on Madame du Barry. I prefer to think of her as a seductive woman who knew her sexuality, like many many women in her time, could bring a buck home if used it wisely with the opposite sex. She was fortunate enough to have been introduced into the Parisian high-class section of these debaucheries :). I in no way judge her at all- as I said before, I love her and her biography. I always did feel an inclination to learn more about her, and found how her bio is so nicely put by those who did write about her. I do not believe she was all good, obviously- but I think she wasn't cruel-hearted either, but rather took everyone for what he/she was, just like everybody else. I was happy to learn that she and Antoinette made friends later on in life... —Preceding unsigned comment added by Oceanblueeyes (talk • contribs) 13:30, 11 June 2009 (UTC)
Vandalism RE articles on French royalty
Bonjour Kansas Bear: Articles on Louis XIV, Louis XVI & Marie Antoinette seem to be the most hit by vandalism. In fact, if you scroll down the list of edits for the past few months, there are more vandal hits & reverts than actual positive participation. Sometimes, instead of reverting, a good soul *corrects* what the vandal inserted, missing deletions & changes in dates etc, this resulting in an article filled with vandal-leftovers until someone reads it all over again & catches the stupidities. Don't you think that these articles should be semi-protected & do you know to whose attention we should bring it to? Cordialement ! Frania W. (talk) 16:06, 8 June 2009 (UTC)
- Frania, I posted a request on Nishkid's talk page and received this response.
I'm afraid the level of vandalism on those pages does not "qualify" for page protection. It's still being managed quite nicely by page watchlisters like yourself.
- [7]. My sincerest apologies. --Kansas Bear (talk) 19:24, 8 June 2009 (UTC)
Time Period
Hello Frania.What other time period do you like or wanting to disscuss.(Just to test our Knowledge not a competition..... or is it???)Goodbye Frania.--HENRY V OF ENGLAND (talk) 21:32, 8 June 2009 (UTC)
- Henry! You mean that you are considering stepping away from the Middle Ages? Dommage ! Are you thru with the Dual-Monarchy? Is the section *the two coronations* the last chapter or is there more to come? When I corrected it earlier, I inserted some hidden comments where I could not figure out the meaning of the sentence (missing words?), specially toward the end, so I did not change anything thinking that some of the others would.
- As for the time period I like, there are too many to list, and too many subjects. How about... Beethoven???
- Adieu, Henry. Frania W. (talk) 03:48, 9 June 2009 (UTC)
- Well Frania.What I said about the corination is true.Here is the ref.
- http://books.google.ie/books?id=_Cc9AAAAIAAJ&pg=PA231&dq=Henry+VI+french+coronation:Music+of+Paris&lr=#PPA206,M1
- Vivid account of the corination.I thought you read the ref because I mentioned it before.--HENRY V OF ENGLAND (talk) 18:16, 9 June 2009 (UTC)
- P.S Frania.Regarding your comment about bieng curt to Kansas Bear.I was talking about Burgundys withdrawel of the fighting but Kansas Bear brought up the corination.I said in the start of my comment that I agreed that the corination failed to be recognized internationaly.What we didnt agree upon was that he came with his unsourced statement that Burgundy in fact never at all recognized Henry as king of france and refuses facts concerning the strain of relations during the 1430'.He gives a ref concerning the corination and says it was completely an Anglophile affair,which I agreed upon and it even says in Griffith R.A'S BOOK that the affair was completely English.I turned my attention to it but explained to him the overall recognition as Henry by bieng bound to the treaty of troyes oaths and still was a staunch ally during the early 1430s for the alliance to conquer france for henry(unless he thinks its for Charles).He rufused the facts and was pressistant on the corination but had nothing to do with overall recognition and Philip still publicly invocked Henry as king of France not Charles VII.Kansas Bear thinks that relations are effectively iron clad and cant be changed.Burgundian and English morale was nominaly good during the 1420's and I have refs saying he recognized Henry as king of France.Even if Kansas Bear replys he is going to still be presistant on the corination.But you and I know that the treaty of Arras between the french and Burgundians was because of English military indescisiveness,death of Bedford,Bad relations with the duke of Gloutchester and the his invastion of the low counties in 1424 which provoked Anglo-Burgundian hostility.The corination didnt have its outcome effect but even if the burgundians ignored it they were begining the withdraw of the recognition of Henry but I said above he was effectively rrecognized in the 1420,s and was still involved on the treaty of troyes basic terms which is represented by the alliance and even during the early 1430'sas I said he still invocked Henry as king of France.--HENRY V OF ENGLAND (talk) 19:15, 9 June 2009 (UTC)
- Actually.You know what Frania.I would ask him does he have any record in which from 1422-1435 announce Charles is my soveriegn and I philip are his vassal.--HENRY V OF ENGLAND (talk) 19:17, 9 June 2009 (UTC)
- HENRY, my comment about you being *curt* toward Kansas Bear had nothing to do with your disagreement on the subject, but with the way you addressed him because he was not in agreement with you. Jeanne caught it & made the remark to you, so I stayed out of it, still, being rather old-fashioned, I found your words disagreeable, to say the least, not *gentlemanly*, and I told you directly on your talk page. KS got in our discussion in order to help & he gave a much-valued opinion backed with proof. All of us can get into heated arguments, there is nothing wrong with not agreeing, but it is not right not to remain courteous. My reaction would be the same if someone was acting impolitely toward you or Jeanne or GoodDay. That's all. Cordialement, Frania W. (talk) 22:46, 9 June 2009 (UTC)
- Actually.You know what Frania.I would ask him does he have any record in which from 1422-1435 announce Charles is my soveriegn and I philip are his vassal.--HENRY V OF ENGLAND (talk) 19:17, 9 June 2009 (UTC)
- P.S Frania.Regarding your comment about bieng curt to Kansas Bear.I was talking about Burgundys withdrawel of the fighting but Kansas Bear brought up the corination.I said in the start of my comment that I agreed that the corination failed to be recognized internationaly.What we didnt agree upon was that he came with his unsourced statement that Burgundy in fact never at all recognized Henry as king of france and refuses facts concerning the strain of relations during the 1430'.He gives a ref concerning the corination and says it was completely an Anglophile affair,which I agreed upon and it even says in Griffith R.A'S BOOK that the affair was completely English.I turned my attention to it but explained to him the overall recognition as Henry by bieng bound to the treaty of troyes oaths and still was a staunch ally during the early 1430s for the alliance to conquer france for henry(unless he thinks its for Charles).He rufused the facts and was pressistant on the corination but had nothing to do with overall recognition and Philip still publicly invocked Henry as king of France not Charles VII.Kansas Bear thinks that relations are effectively iron clad and cant be changed.Burgundian and English morale was nominaly good during the 1420's and I have refs saying he recognized Henry as king of France.Even if Kansas Bear replys he is going to still be presistant on the corination.But you and I know that the treaty of Arras between the french and Burgundians was because of English military indescisiveness,death of Bedford,Bad relations with the duke of Gloutchester and the his invastion of the low counties in 1424 which provoked Anglo-Burgundian hostility.The corination didnt have its outcome effect but even if the burgundians ignored it they were begining the withdraw of the recognition of Henry but I said above he was effectively rrecognized in the 1420,s and was still involved on the treaty of troyes basic terms which is represented by the alliance and even during the early 1430'sas I said he still invocked Henry as king of France.--HENRY V OF ENGLAND (talk) 19:15, 9 June 2009 (UTC)
- Hello Frania.Can I just ask you please.Is it not a fact that Philip III withdrew from the recognition of Henry as King of France at the treaty of Arras or will we follow Kansas Bears Idea that Philip recognized Charles as king of france before 1435 with his statement bieng completely unsourced.--HENRY V OF ENGLAND (talk) 19:04, 10 June 2009 (UTC)
- Never mind Frania.I apoligised to him.--HENRY V OF ENGLAND (talk) 22:29, 10 June 2009 (UTC)
The Bourbons
Tbharding: RE your removing Condé, Conti & others after the surname Bourbon makes it extremely difficult to know which Bourbon the article is about. If only the name Bourbon is kept in title of article, then a title should be added to name of person, as was done for the Duke of Penthièvre: Louis Jean Marie de Bourbon, Duke of Penthièvre.
For instance, the title for the article about his daughter, which now is: Louise Marie Adélaïde de Bourbon should be Louise Marie Adélaïde de Bourbon, Mademoiselle de Penthièvre, or Louise Marie Adélaïde de Bourbon, Duchess of Orléans. Because if you & I have no problem with it, others may not know who that particular Bourbon is & may have to read quite a bit of the article in order to discover whose biography it is.
Articles with clear titles:
- Louis-Auguste de Bourbon, duc du Maine (or Duke of Maine)
- Louis-Alexandre de Bourbon, comte de Toulouse (or Count of Toulouse)
not clear:
- Anne Louise Bénédicte de Bourbon, which should be Anne Louise Bénédicte de Bourbon, duchesse du Maine (or Duchess of Maine)
- Françoise-Marie de Bourbon, which should be Françoise-Marie de Bourbon, duchesse d'Orléans (or Duchess of Orléans)
Frania W. (talk) 12:59, 13 June 2009 (UTC)
- haha this is a good point to make..will do from now on =] thanks
I am back
Hello Frania.I am ok and thanks for your post.I was just defeating Kansas Bear on a debate of recognition as king of France.--HENRY V OF ENGLAND (talk) 18:53, 13 June 2009 (UTC)
HENRY requesting FW's opinion
Hello Frania.I am asking your oppinion to whom won the debate.Kansas Bear.Worked up a tantram by his lat post.I need your oppinion to which argue is more Historicly accurite.This is not wiki in-civility.
- Going back to the Henry VI debate since we are not insulting each other.Am I right to say in your oppinion that because Burgundy didnt recognize the corination for the reasons I mentioned above,you think that philip never recognized Henry VI as king of France from 1422-1435.I dont mean to offend but I dont think any historion would say this.The ref you gave me was concerning the corination lacking achievement(as announced by the archibishop of Canterbury in 1432 clarifying it as an English affair) nothing about overall recognition and commitement that was formed by the military alliance
- http://books.google.ie/books?id=9UsOAAAAQAAJ&pg=PA299&dq=Neillands,+Robin,+The+Hundred+Years+War,+(Routledge,+1991),+263.#PPA239,M1
- http://books.google.ie/books?id=9UsOAAAAQAAJ&pg=PA299&dq=Neillands,+Robin,+The+Hundred+Years+War,+(Routledge,+1991),+263.#PPA245,M1
- http://books.google.ie/books?id=Qzc8OeuSXFMC&pg=PA394&dq=Burgundian+alliegence+to+HENRY+VI
Main Book
The order of then Garter was used by Philip to give space between himeself and England.Philip made no attempt to renew his oath of alliegence taken at troyes 10 years before Henrys corination.
Goodbye Kansas Bear.--HENRY V OF ENGLAND (talk) 09:05, 12 June 2009 (UTC)
- "Duke Philip, was his ally...." --The Reign of Henry VI, Griffith, p11.
- "Alliance between England, Burgundy, Brittany.....", p178
- "Secondly the alliance with Burgundy....", p192
- "with crucial reliance placed on Breton and Burgundian alliances...", p185
- "the impact of his(Henry VI) coronation was significantly lessened by the knowledge that 3 days earlier the duke of Burgundy had concluded a general truce with Charles VII to last for 6 years.", p 193
- La double monarchie France-Angleterre et la maison de Bourgogne le declin d'une alliance, listed as a reference.
- What would a historian "think" after reading the previous sentences? --Kansas Bear (talk) 14:49, 12 June 2009 (UTC)
Hello Kansas Bear thanks for using my statement about the 3 days before the corination philip made a 6 day general truce with Charles and signifinitly lessend the corination's achievement my point bieng that also.If you go to the back of the Book of Griffith R.A it says Henry was the only English King whom was anknowledged by the French as rightfully king of France.(Burgundy,Brittiny and the Northen Frenchmen).pp.18 Philip of BURGUNDY COULD HARDKY resist English wishes,for he depended on English support after the murder of his father by thr henchmen of the dauphine.pp.217 The novelty of the dual-monarchy,and the extraordinary emotional and material demands it imposed on Englishmen and Northen Frenchmen.I agree on the Burgundian de[endince but so aswell did Philip inleast from 1422-1429 because morale and conquests was high.pp.218 The Book of Hours which he commistioned in 1423 was pepperd with pictorial reminders of the "Burgundian tie".pp.199 The outcome of the congrass of Arras was an alliance between Charles VII and Philip III and the latters withdrawel of his alliegence to Henry(meaning he recognized Henry before as king of France).pp.18.It is a reflection of Burgundys dependence on England.pp.1 lol Henry,too was the only English King to be recognized(anknowledged) by French authorities as rightfully King of France,to preside over a dual-monarchy....ect)pp.17 Henry VI would become King of France and require a regent.Montresalet a Burgundian chronicler reported that Bedford can have the regency of France if Philip withdrew from the position.(It was contrevertial but as I said above Philip depended on the English alliance and recognition of Henry as King of France.pp.17 Bedford might have been a little uncertain to wether Burgundy would relinquish his authority(in france).triple alliance in 1423 including Brittiny which vowed the recognition of Henry as King of France and that they would help each other against Philip.As I said before Kansas Bear relations are not Iron clad they change at differeny times.Brittiny had good relations with England from 1423-1425 but then declared war on England in 1426.
pp.219(refering to the book I was just mentioning).pp.219 The unity of the dual-monarchy inspired a New Anglo-French coinage in France.6000 coins were found in France regarding Henrys symbol.pp.221 Philip(regarding the corination) did not meet his anknowledged soveriegn at any time during the latters visit to France.Philip in conclustion recognized Henry as King of France.Unfortunitly the only thing I can agree with you on was the lack of achievement of the corination and itself bieng 100% an Anglophile move not a joint move.There was a report of a raid on the feast by Burgundian parisians celebrating Henrys corination.If you also read the refs I gave above it says "No matter how unconfortible Philip wa in recognizing an English king of France he could never anknowledge the dauphine as King of France for the murder of his father".Both Burgundian and English contemperoys referred to The Dauphine as the king of Bourges that bieng his residence.Philip regarded Henry as king of France not Charles untill 1435 and both Bedford and Philip were inviolved in propaganda.Again remember the notion that relations are not iron clad they change.Goodbye.--HENRY V OF ENGLAND (talk) 18:51, 12 June 2009 (UTC)
pp.11.Philip of Burgundy was his ally so the conquest of France seemend possible.Kansas Bear.Reflect on the imaginitve here.Notice how it said when the conquest of all of France was assured.What is then the relaity for Philip?Who is he going to recognize?Henry II of FRANCE is the answer he was going to recognize Henry when the territory had been securde.Its a bit obvious lol.pp.192 does not refer to recognition but the fact that the Burgundian alliance had been a mit less reliable after French success north of Paris.pp.193 refers to my previous statements Burgundys withrawel of the fighting.--HENRY V OF ENGLAND (talk) 18:51, 12 June 2009 (UTC)
- That's the difference, I don't "reflect on the imaginative" I interpret what is written. Griffith states one thing at the beginning of his book then spends the rest of the book contradicting himself. IF Burgundy was seen as a vassal of Henry V or VI then Griffith throughout his book has stated differently. There is a vast difference between an ally and a vassal!
Philip of Burgundy was his ally.... "Reign of Henry VI", p11.
Though Henry V never became king of France, his baby son, Henry VI of England and, to the Anglophiles, Henry II of France, inherited the dual monarchy. "The Oxford illustrated history of Britain" - Page 200
Although the young Henry was crowned King of England on 6 November 1429, he was not brought to Paris for his French coronation until December 1431, where the old Cardinal Beaufort crowned him Henry II of France. This coronation lacked both the setting of Rheims and the holy oil of St Remy, and was ignored by the French and Burgundians. Neillands, "The Hundred Years War, p263
- Also, instead of stating, "Kansas Bear is saying....." realize that I use REFERENCES and as such your argument should be with those REFERENCES instead of stating that, "Kansas Bear is saying....". Your lack of acuity has show your immaturity in this matter. So it would appear you are arguing with The Oxford Illustrated History of Britain, and Robin Neillands. What would any historian think after reading the previously mentioned texts? --Kansas Bear (talk) 19:33, 12 June 2009 (UTC)
- Sorry for saying this is your statement.PP.11 as I said was reflecting on the relaity of the dual-monarchy if its obligations had been fulfilled.I agree on the corination bieg ultiminitly a faiuluire.If you read the Encylopedia of the Hundred Years War which is the ref I previously mentioned it says Burgundy anknowledged Henry VI as King of France and made an oath in the treaty that he would anknowledge Henry V and Henry VI as undisputed and true Kings of France.Henry VI had been represented as Heir in the treaty 1420 since he wasnt born until 1421 in Windsor.
- http://books.google.ie/books?id=uVZ893wOWgoC&pg=PA255&dq=Burgundy+vassal+of+Henry+VI&as_brr=3
- http://books.google.ie/books?id=AYF4LIAMRMIC&pg=PA189&dq=Philip+the+Good+and+Henry+VI&lr=&as_brr=3#PPA189,M1
- http://books.google.ie/books?id=PmABeelKRDAC&pg=PA339&dq=Philip+the+Good+ally+and+vassal+of+Henry+VI&lr=&as_brr=3
If Philip anknowledged Henry as King of France does that not make him his vassal as he was a peer of france and was such at the treaty of troyes.I would advise you to concentrate on the argue not on the personal attacks.Griffith R.A book says that Philip anknowledged Henry as his soveriegn many times and was also his military ally so ultimitly you failed to answer the fundemental questions.Forgive me if I didnt reliase this in the book but where actually does it say in Robin Neilands book does it say Philip didnt anknowledge Henry as his liege soveriegn as in the treaty of troyes which you fail to bring up.
The defection of Burgundy by recognizing(anknowledging) Charles as true King of France so previously he anknowledged Henry as King of France as in the treaty of troyes by his oath.--HENRY V OF ENGLAND (talk) 20:34, 12 June 2009 (UTC)
- http://books.google.ie/books?id=9UsOAAAAQAAJ&pg=PA299&dq=Neillands,+Robin,+The+Hundred+Years+War,+(Routledge,+1991),+263.#PPA230,M1 —Preceding unsigned comment added by HENRY V OF ENGLAND (talk • contribs) 20:41, 12 June 2009 (UTC)
- http://books.google.com/books?id=gFfaD4JdZhwC&pg=PA45&dq=Henry+VI+dual-monarchy
- http://books.google.com/books?id=7SL1bVtfP08C&pg=PA93&dq=Henry+VI+dual-monarchy
- http://books.google.com/books?id=_JDOVMDi8d4C&pg=PA601&dq=Henry+VI+dual-monarchy&lr=
- http://books.google.com/books?id=Qzc8OeuSXFMC&pg=PA464&dq=Henry+VI+dual-monarchy&lr=
main book:
--HENRY V OF ENGLAND (talk) 20:45, 12 June 2009 (UTC)
Hello Kansas Bear.The refs I gave make it clear that Phulip recognized Henry VI as his liege lord as king of France.Here is morre proof from Griffith R.A book.pp.185 "Burgundy bound by intrest(october 1423) and by blood to the English cause.Makes it really clear.pp.199"Burgundys alliance with Charles VII(treaty of Arras) and renouncement of his alliegence to Henry VI.Philip had recognized Henry as ling of France.I mentioned a lot of points now.Remeber I also have the points above.
It says here Philip recognized Henry as king of France and ruled the lands in the name of Henry.
Also Kansas Bear.I was a bit upset by the way you tricked and decieved me with your own eloquent definition of Anglophile.Dont worry I can clarify this later.
In this book you throw at me it says to the anglophiles King Henri II of France.I will have to say when I took your definition of Anglophile all the three books that were mentioned seemed to contridict each other regardin g the corination and recognition.I was waiting when you will figuire out what anglophile means and when you do reply dont post nonscence or personal attacks just answer what I am saying.Anglophile in the dictionary means.One who admires Englands people.its culture,History,cause ect.ect.ect.
Here is the internet dictionary definition:
Basicly now your unsourced statements are refuted.You have nothing to stand on your refs 100% did not support you at all they supported my argues.It shows your immiturity on this matter by msking up definitions.O wait I forgot my clarification.Take out Griffiths R.A book in your hands and look up page 193 regarding the corination.I quote "for those whom came to the second corintion was mainly an English affair(no mention of anglophile yet) dominated by Beufort,some English Bishops and a couple of Anglophile bishops.There I proved you 100% Wrong.According to your eloquent definition of Anglophile you regard it as reffering to nationality by bieng English this is wrong.According to this then that makes them English-French,no this is just more of your nonscence.I just refuted your unsourced statement so I will go to the book you keep throwing at me which is The Oxford illustrated History of Britian.page 200.I quote "And to the Anglophiles King Henri II of France,inherited the dual monarchy".To the Anglophiles meaning those whom support The English cause and I clarifyed this with one of the pages from Griffith R.A and other sources.One of my sources which I already stated says That both English and Burgundian contemperoys regarded Charles as the king of Bourges and Henry as the King of France.Anglophile can refer to any nationality regarding they support the English cause.Burgundy were clearly Anglophile and as it says in the back of Griffiths R.A book." The only English King to have been anknowledged by the French as Rightfully King of France and when he says anglophile French bishops regarding the corination he refers by definition of the word those whom support the English cause.Refuted on all sides.
What more do you want???? --HENRY V OF ENGLAND (talk) 18:46, 13 June 2009 (UTC)
Huge Favor
I have a HUGE favor to ask you. :-) Could you translate the page in this book for me? Specifically the part about Huguette??[8]. Thanks! --Kansas Bear (talk) 01:43, 14 June 2009 (UTC)
Merci
Thank you for reverting vandalism on my page. How did you catch it so fast? Frania W. (talk) 22:38, 13 June 2009 (UTC)
- De rien. I caught it using WP:HUGGLE. --NorwegianBlue talk 07:12, 14 June 2009 (UTC)
I need your help
- Ma cher Frania, I need your help on my latest article:Charlotte de Bourbon-La Marche. I need to have Catherine of Vendome wikilinked. Also, I need to know if I described socièté courtoise correctly. Merci beaucoup, ma amie,--Jeanne Boleyn (talk) 06:45, 15 June 2009 (UTC)
Merci
- Thank you for your help. I've corrected the Mixture of British and American English. I was quoting from the author's text; it seems she mixed up her English. Not to worry, the sentence has been fixed. Thanks again for your help, Frania.--Jeanne Boleyn (talk) 17:07, 15 June 2009 (UTC)
Continued discussion on Henry's lonely war
Why would I ignore you.I already stopped talking to this user yesterday.I replied to a admin Nishkid 64 and so far the edit I did on the dual-monarchy is ok.I just need clarification from him because he even said "So far it says in this book Philip recognized Henry as King of France".I deleted my posts on Kansas Bears talkpage and left him to talk to himself.I just need the clarification from the admin so the edit on the lead will stay like that.--HENRY V OF ENGLAND (talk) 16:48, 17 June 2009 (UTC)
- HENRY, I do not want to talk about your problem with Kansas Bear or your edits on the Dual-Monarchy. The problem right now is your attitude toward Kansas Bear. The rest is unimportant, and I am not going to discuss it further because I do not consider this to be any of my business. My last post to you was only *friendly advice* & not a subject for further discussion either: I just wanted to give you once & for all my point of view on the whole matter & give you suggestions on how to conduct yourself in the future. Point final. Frania W. (talk) 17:00, 17 June 2009 (UTC)
- OK Frania.I will take in mind what you said.But if I get a reply from Nishkid64 I have to reply back regarding the situation.--HENRY V OF ENGLAND (talk) 19:12, 17 June 2009 (UTC)
- Of course, you reply to Nishkid; but, please, do not go beyond what he is telling you if what he mentions is your incivility toward Kansas Bear, because that is the real issue, not the use or misuse of the word anglophilia or whether Henry VI of England can be mentioned as Henry II of France. On something else: copy editing means to edit your writing, i.e. correct your mistakes... if you happen to see them with *your 2 healthy eyes.(which work I am guessing lol)"* (quoting you). It is very difficult to read you. Frania W. (talk) 19:36, 17 June 2009 (UTC)
- OK Frania.I will take in mind what you said.But if I get a reply from Nishkid64 I have to reply back regarding the situation.--HENRY V OF ENGLAND (talk) 19:12, 17 June 2009 (UTC)
Wowsers, I've never seen HENRY this upset. Perhaps he's not the real HENRY; remeber the Star Trek episode, where Captain Kirk's personality was replaced by Janice Lester's? GoodDay (talk) 19:29, 17 June 2009 (UTC)
OK.Frania so next time when I post.I just get to the point and stop repeating that point like I do in almost all my posts.--HENRY V OF ENGLAND (talk) 13:33, 18 June 2009 (UTC)
- Yes, you've got it:
- stick to the subject in a concise manner,
- do not repeat what you have written earlier,
- do not copy & paste earlier arguments - everyone knows what it's about by now & the more you add, the more confusing it gets,
- do not use demeaning terms toward anybody,
- use proper grammar,
- watch your spelling,
- don't lose your cool & remain courteous.
Thanks
Thank you very much for your clear and concise remarks on Talk:Sarah Palin. I've been an advocate against the exploitation of her children, (and, frankly, any other child), since August, but it amazed me that nobody else seemed to see this as a problem. Thanks again!
I also see that you have worked on the Manfred von Richthofen article. I'm an aviation buff, especially when it comes to dogfighting and air combat maneuvering, and I've always admired the WWI pilot's courage and chivalry in the face of his enemy. Thanks for helping improve the accuracy of that article as well. Zaereth (talk) 00:50, 19 June 2009 (UTC)
- Thank you for your thanks. People do not seem to realise how children can be marked for life because of something that was said or done to them at a time of their life they will not even remember. Children should be off limits & protected - no matter who their parents are, or their grandparents.
- I did not do much on MvR, simply got involved with the word *kaputt* & the translation of some German terminology + the exact location where he managed to land his aircraft. I am not an aviation buff but love to read about these men & their crazy deeds, no matter the side they were on because they had so much respect for one another - Richthofen's burial by his "enemies" speaks for itself. One of my close ancestors was a French WWI ace who flew his plane thru the Arc de Triomphe at the end of the war (got quite a lecture because of it & threatened to give his medals back!) & another let himself go down with his ship after a vessel cut his in half. So without being an aviation or a naval buff, this double inheritance put me in the "avid reader" category.
- Cordialement, Frania W. (talk) 03:16, 19 June 2009 (UTC)
- You're welcome. I saw you're message on my talk page this morning. It's 9:00 AM here in Alaska, so I just got up really. Sometimes it may take me a while to respond.
- Yes, I have seen, and to some extent even experienced, how a child can be scarred for life. Whether a fan of Mrs. Palin or not, it seems to me that there should be some level of respect that appears to be lost in the media these days. Much of it, I believe, comes from the anonymity of this type of environment, where people are far removed from the consequences of their actions. It provides a sort of "mob mentality", where it becomes perfectly acceptable to take shots at the family if they can't strike directly at her. Personally, I find this trend to be very disturbing.
- I wish more people could take a lesson from the WWI era soldier. There were several things in Richthofen's autobiography that really stood out to me. One was the story of the French pilot he shot down. Upon capture, the Frenchman asked about the red plane, to which Richthofen responded that he was the pilot. Quite embarrassed, the Frenchman replied, (much to Richthofen's amusement), that he'd thought it must have been a woman flying such a brightly colored plane. The other was an Englishman, and they shot each other down, landing not far from each other. They had a nice little conversation and went their separate ways. It would be nice if adversaries today could show each other such mutual respect, especially here on Wikipedia.
- Out of the horrors of WWII in Europe (which means France for me), including the downing of aircraft followed by the point blank shooting by Germans of the pilot and crew if they were still alive, or worse if thought they could be made to talk, there are some very touching stories when single "enemy" individuals found themselves face to face. Testimony by air or land military personnel can bring tears to your eyes or make you sick with laughter. I know of one in particular, shortly after the landing in Normandy, when two soldiers, one American & the other German, happened on each other in the yard of a French farm, made each other prisoner, slept tied to each other so they would not escape, then after waking up the following morning, untied themselves, stood up, shook hands before going their own separate way. But then there were also massacres.
- The Sarah Palin article is not my cup of tea and I would not participate in its redaction; however, I will not let any insidious remark worm its way into it if that remark is aimed at the child, directly or indirectly. Frania W. (talk) 17:46, 19 June 2009 (UTC)
- Well, I don't mean to discount the horrors of war ... they occured in every one. What I think was lost in WWI was the concept of chivalry, which I feel the world could use a little more of these days. Most cultures had something similar, such as the Greek concept of hubris. Making fun of an enemy was a serious crime in ancient Greece.
- While I have great respect for Mrs. Palin's accomplishments as my Governor, I am not at all political, and would've never got involved if it wasn't for such low blows, aimed not just at her, but at her children, and Alaska. Most Americans don't know anything about this state, and that became very obvious during the Presidential election here. Our personal views of the subject should be irrelevant on Wikipedia, but it makes me feel particularly good to see that someone else is standing up for those who can not. Zaereth (talk) 19:16, 19 June 2009 (UTC)
- All I know of Mme Palin is what I read in the press. Up until now, the Alaskans were the only ones who could/should have a judgment of her as their governor; but since last summer, she has got into the international limelight and, unfortunately, her children were dragged onto the stage. And while years ago JFK's children were treated as royalty, I feel that her eldest has been exposed to the pillory together with her little child. Frania W. (talk) 20:39, 19 June 2009 (UTC)
- I think her's is an amazing story, myself. Her election to governor, running against a long time senator in her own party was incredible in itself. Then to defeat him in a landslide victory, running a completely "grassroots campaign", (almost no media coverage for her, mostly just word of mouth), was spectacular, and I was glad to be here to witness it. She is the only politician I've seen in my lifetime that has kept all of their campaign promises, and her stand against corruption has a lot of very powerful people afraid of her. That's my view in a nutshell ... not trying to alter your's in any way. If you're trusting only the media coverage, then I would strongly suggest seeing the documentary called Media Malpractice - How Obama got elected and Palin was targeted (Witness the death of journalism). The detailed evidence of media bias against her, and the lengths used to discredit her, was shocking even to me, and I've been watching since it started. Zaereth (talk) 21:24, 19 June 2009 (UTC)
- I think that I did not express myself correctly when I wrote that all I know of her is what I read in the press. I meant to say that I have not studied her "case" in depth by reading everything written & said about her. I listen to her when she speaks & try to make my own opinion of her that way. What's being said about her doesn't count. However, when I read something on anyone in the news, I always consider where the writer comes from & do not swallow everything that is written, I can make my opinion without the propaganda of either the right or the left. I am sure that you know what I mean: after years of absorbing news & opinions from all sides, you can almost finish the sentences of the writer or the speaker; you know ahead of time how such a magazine is going to handle a certain subject. News are like music, once you get started on the story & get the right tonality, you know what the last chord is going to be. Frania W. (talk) 22:05, 19 June 2009 (UTC)
The Coronation of Henry VI????
Hello Frania do you think the corination section makes sence.I am changing some words.--HENRY V OF ENGLAND (talk) 12:21, 19 June 2009 (UTC)
- Hello Frania.I am also going to make another small article.Its called the treaty of Amiens 1423.I know there is also another treaty of Amiens 1802 so how do I come around this problem.--HENRY V OF ENGLAND (talk) 13:02, 19 June 2009 (UTC)
Thanks Frania.--HENRY V OF ENGLAND (talk) 16:08, 20 June 2009 (UTC)
I agree with you on this, which is why I failed the article on the GA assessment. It is in serious need, and in no way, I think, even deserving of the B it has now, but I'm not in those projects, so I didn't change the class. If you and whoever wrote it care to tackle it, let me know and I will assess it again. --Auntieruth55 (talk) 21:30, 20 June 2009 (UTC)
- Auntieruth: Thank you for your attention on this article and that of Louis XVIII. If you go through the history of my contributions, you will notice that a great percentage of my time is devoted to the French royal family & related articles, from Henry IV down to the last monarch; and although I still have not touched, or hardly, Louis XVIII, Charles X & Louis-Philippe, I do keep an eye on them. In fact, earlier in the day, I had inserted hidden comments in the article on L.XVIII. The whole enterprise is time consuming & there is life outside Wikiland! I never ask for the upgrading of an article, only do the editing & try not to go to war with anybody... Cordialement, Frania W. (talk) 22:21, 20 June 2009 (UTC)
- I realize that. It's in need of some serious help now, though. Good luck getting it back in shape! I put some clean up tags on it, so maybe you'll get some help.--Auntieruth55 (talk) 22:24, 20 June 2009 (UTC)
Talkback
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.
He's doing his best, and I give him credit for tackling some hard issues. :) Auntieruth55 (talk) 23:13, 20 June 2009 (UTC)
Hello Frania.I know this guy here was imprisioned from 1792-1795 when the commistioners arived at the temple prision and went to the apartment for orders of seperating the fills-de-france Louis from the rest of his family.He started crying uncontrolably when he was seperated from his mother Maria-ANNIONETE and his sister marie theraise was also taken to solidtry confinement.He was in the care of Mademe de Rabaud and was given a republican education by Antoine Simon and proclaimed by the royalists in favour of the dynamic line as Louis XVII(off course in pretence).What I Dont get is the actual difference between prince du royal and the title dauphine or are they the same?I thought of asking you since you are an expert on these things.--HENRY V OF ENGLAND (talk) 17:25, 21 June 2009 (UTC)
- HENRY, First, this *guy*, as you call him, was a little boy and his name was Louis Charles. He was the second son of king Louis XVI of France and of his wife, queen Marie Antoinette. He became Dauphin of France when his elder brother died in June 1789. At that time, he & his sister Marie-Thérèse were the only children left to the king & queen. Children of the king of France were Fils de France (Fils (son) or Fille (daughter). The Dauphin was the heir to the throne, i.e. the eldest living son of the king. When Louis XVI was beheaded, Louis Charles' mother & all the royalists proclaimed the young Dauphin king Louis XVII, title given to him by historians, even though he never reigned et pour cause, since he was imprisoned in the Temple Tower & died there.
- All the titles of address from the Ancien Régime were still used during the Bourbon Restoration, but not during the reign of Louis-Philippe I, King of the French who belonged to the House of Bourbon-Orléans. When he came to throne at the beginning of August 1830, Louis-Philippe created the title Prince royal for his heir Ferdinand Philippe, Duke of Orléans, who was NEVER called Dauphin.
- Reading for you:
- http://74.125.47.132/search?q=cache:GZLLN0Sb9kAJ:www.heraldica.org/topics/france/roygenea.htm+what+is+prince+royal+in+French+royalty&cd=1&hl=en&ct=clnk&gl=us&client=firefox-a
- That should keep you out of trouble... Frania W. (talk) 20:17, 21 June 2009 (UTC)
- Thanks Frania but why with the comment that will keep you out of trouble.--HENRY V OF ENGLAND (talk) 21:45, 21 June 2009 (UTC)
- Just to be sure you don't... get in trouble. FW
- ok.I knew he was a child.--HENRY V OF ENGLAND (talk) 22:41, 21 June 2009 (UTC)
- OK. Then don't call him *this guy* anymore. The poor little boy suffered so much! Do you know there is a (recent) movement in France asking that he be made the symbol of abused children? FW
- Thanks Frania but why with the comment that will keep you out of trouble.--HENRY V OF ENGLAND (talk) 21:45, 21 June 2009 (UTC)
Hello Frania
You do know the chamber of Deputies tryed to end salic law in 1820 after Louis XVIII failuire to demonstrate himeself as a good king of France after the Treaty of Paris in 1814.He was forced to sign another Treaty of Paris in 1815 after the loss of Napolian Bonnaparte in the 100 days war when Napolian lost the battle of Waterlloo to the duke of Wellington after escaping from the Island of Elba.This second treaty of Paris was unpopuler because it forced a prevous french territorial quo-status like in 1790,Further west to the Rhine.Louis stantiff was also forced to pay a war indemnity 700 million francs and there had to be an army occupying France for at least 5 years with the cost of 150 million francs per year.The French army was raised to over 100,000 soldiors in 1818.The duke of Rothuseui whom was the foriegn minister convinced the European powers to withdrew from France.The Deputie Chamber wanted salic law to end since they wanted to place the crown on his niece,Marie-therasie-Charlettie of France.She was married to Henry antoine whom was the nephew of Louis XVIII and was Duke of Angouleime.In turn Marie became Dschess of Angoulemia.In 1823 in least Louis helped Fedrick VII to supress a revolt in Spain.I remeber Alexandr I tsar of Russia wanted the prince du Sage Louise Phillipa Duc de Orleons as King of France.As you said he later became Louise Phillipa I duc de Orleons King of France.--HENRY V OF ENGLAND (talk) 17:29, 22 June 2009 (UTC)
- HENRY, was this a statement or a question? FW
- A statement.I was afraid you lost your merry atituide.--HENRY V OF ENGLAND (talk) 19:34, 23 June 2009 (UTC)
- HENRY V OF ENGLAND: Should I ever lose my merry *atituide*, the mere sight of your *olde Englische* would revive it. Have you finished the Dual-Monarchy or are we going to have to put you on the grill to get it done? Frania W. (talk) 22:04, 23 June 2009 (UTC)
- Hello Frania.I was just realy,realy,realy worried we lost you.I also prefer not to be grilled thankyou lol.I will finish the article.--HENRY V OF ENGLAND (talk) 16:31, 24 June 2009 (UTC)
Louis XVIII and Charles X
Frania, sorry for all the commotion I have caused with Louis XVIII and Charles X. Should I refrain from editing these artices? Regards,(Jack1755 (talk) 01:34, 23 June 2009 (UTC))
- Oh, Jack! that's not commotion, only wikitalk. Don't take it personally. I left a note on your talk page yesterday to tell you I was going thru both articles & that I was hoping we would work in harmony. Auntieruth is also very kind & will review both articles once they are cleaned up. Others will probably sneak in once in a while either to help or criticise, but that's the way Wikipedia works. (Is it really green in Ireland?) Aurevoir! FW
Aww, that's so sweet Frania. I guess since I'm new it shall take me a bit of time to learn how things work. To answer the green question, Ireland's vast forestry was felled in its entirety during British rule. I live in a small city named Cork, which has little vegetation, but once you enter the countryside, it is the stereotypical emerald isle full of cows, fields and etc. Have a great morning Frania! Kind Regards,(Jack1755 (talk) 02:22, 23 June 2009 (UTC))
- Not working on any these articles right now because this is a busy week outside of Wikipedia, but I will return to both in little breaks here & there. Do you read French? If you do, there are authors/researchers/historians who have done a lot of work on kings, queens & interesting personages that are worth reading in French, not translated, unless the translator is topnotch. Bonne journée! FW Frania W. (talk) 02:43, 23 June 2009 (UTC)
Mon Français n'est pas particulièrement étendu. Bien que ce soit une bonne idée. Mon père travaille à Paris, et je lui demanderai d'obtenir quelques livres décents en français. Merci pour le bout Frania. I hope you have a good week. (Jack1755 (talk) 02:57, 23 June 2009 (UTC))
- Si vous êtes intéressé, Evelyne Lever a publié: Louis XVIII, édition Fayard, Paris, 1988, 597 pages comprenant bibliographie & index. Mme Lever est chercheur au CNRS. Elle a aussi publié un livre sur Louis XVI (Fayard/1985) & un (ou plusieurs) sur Marie Antoinette (Fayard/1991). Aurevoir! (gone for the rest of the day) FW
- P.S. Charles X par André Castelot, Librairie Académique Perrin, Paris, 1988, 588 pages.
- Really "aurevoir" this time. Frania W. (talk) 03:42, 23 June 2009 (UTC)
Merci Frania. La biographie de Louis XVI sera de grand intérêt à moi. J'ai ne pu pas trouver une description bien fondée de Louis, en anglais qui est. Merci encore Frania.(Jack1755 (talk) 03:24, 23 June 2009 (UTC)
Hey Frania lets have another disscution on some french kings.lol.I thnk that tag on Louis XVIII article regarding it as confusing should be deleted.It is a bit but not that much.Goodbye--HENRY V OF ENGLAND (talk) 17:30, 24 June 2009 (UTC)
- The tag was put there for a reason only a couple of days ago & should not be deleted. We are going thru the whole article & it will be removed when it's OK to do so, which it is not now. I personally can work on it only a section at a time because I am checking several books & am also very busy in real life & there are only 24 hours in a day. Frania W. (talk) 18:16, 24 June 2009 (UTC)
Hello Frania! How are you? I have found a source (Philip Mansel) that states that Louis XVIII wasn't impotent, but had an slight defect of the foreskin, that did not affect his "performance". Should I go with Fraser (Who said he was impotent.) or should I do Mansel? or mention both? Regards, (Jack1755 (talk) 00:44, 25 June 2009 (UTC))
- Hello Jack! I have not read Mansel's book, but that would be a change from Fraser & bring some diversity to the article regarding sources. You just want to be sure that his book is not un ramassis de ragots. On the other hand, your suggestion of mentioning both authors sounds good to me as long as you do not appear to lean toward one side. It seems that both Louis Auguste & Louis Stanislas had the same handicap.
- You wrote that Provence "waddled". Do you know that he was born with a malformation of both hips, which caused him to walk like a duck? Also when a small child, he was not yet fat, but had become so by age fifteen & was at the time of his marriage: hip problem + good appetite + food + no exercise => obesity. That's for one thing. The other is the word *impotence*. In French, when used by itself, it usually is a synonym for *infirmity*, while *impuissance* translates *sexual impotence*. I just want to warn you in case you read something on Provence in French. In the following sentence, the word *impotent* means that he cannot walk: Le roi a soixante ans, il est obèse, impotent et bientôt il ne quittera plus son fauteuil roulant.
- Please do not get offended for the hidden notes I insert in the text. I burst out laughing when I read "Louis Auguste was catapulted to first-in-line to the throne". I just could see the scene! And then, you have Louis Stanislas climb the ladder of succession. You really make these personages move a lot... maybe they'll lose some weight with the exercise you have them do. I can hardly wait for you to have one of them "parachuted down to the throne." Then in another article, you have the royal family being ripped away from Versailles: not bad either. I sincerely hope that you become a writer in *your own right* parce que vous avez un vocabulaire très imagé. Cordialement, FW Frania W. (talk) 11:49, 25 June 2009 (UTC)
XD (Jack1755 (talk) 12:34, 25 June 2009 (UTC))
Hello Frania... again. I noticed your hidden comment on Louis XVIII calling Madame Royale illegitimate, I have reason to believe it is true, as in 1798, when Louis XVIII was living in Russia, he wrote his Reflexions Historiques sur Marie Antoinette. Louis XVIII openly challenges Marie Antoinette’s children’s paternity. Taking that into account, it is certainly plausible that Louis could very well have done the same at the Duchesse d’Angoulême’s christening, could he not? Regards (Jack1755 (talk) 03:03, 25 June 2009 (UTC))
- Bonjour Jack: I know what Provence (supposedly) said at his niece's christening, but something had happened when it was time to sign the baptism certificate & he made a joke. That joke is what has been misconstrued. I'll share it with you when I find it in Evelyn Lever's book. remember that he was an extremely witty person & also very jealous of the fact that his elder brother was to become king & did. He also had mixed feelings about Marie Antoinette as his own wife was a laideron while MA was very pretty & elegant etc. Frania W. (talk) 12:02, 25 June 2009 (UTC)
Hey Frania. I saw your hidden comments on the Cometesse de Cayla, that content is relevent, as was Louis XVIII's penchant for boasting about sex with his wife. "Wikipedia is not censored, which in practice means that we permit sexual content in many areas. Any material which serves an encyclopedic purpose should be preserved." - Wikipedia:Sexual content
- Jack, I maintain my *Holy cow!* comment on such an important historical fact... FW
- Maybe it should be removed XD(Jack1755 (talk) 12:34, 25 June 2009 (UTC))
- Why? It is a non-offensive hidden comment. in these articles, a lot of space is given to trivia while important political matters are left out. Frania W. (talk) 12:39, 25 June 2009 (UTC)
- I beg your pardon Frania, I was referring to remark about Louis and Cayla, not your hidden comment. I should have made that clearer. Regards (Jack1755 (talk) 13:12, 25 June 2009 (UTC))
- Jack: I'll leave it up to you. Personally, I would not have included this type of *information*, but others may have a different view - hence my *Holy cow!* outburst without removing anything. FW
- I beg your pardon Frania, I was referring to remark about Louis and Cayla, not your hidden comment. I should have made that clearer. Regards (Jack1755 (talk) 13:12, 25 June 2009 (UTC))
- Why? It is a non-offensive hidden comment. in these articles, a lot of space is given to trivia while important political matters are left out. Frania W. (talk) 12:39, 25 June 2009 (UTC)
- Maybe it should be removed XD(Jack1755 (talk) 12:34, 25 June 2009 (UTC))
Louis XVII
Sorry Frania,I never knew there was an actual French political movement to have him viewed as Symbol for abused children.I knew the horrible things Antoine Simon did to him like making him sing le Mairlesailes while drunk.sleeping with prostitutes in which he contracted disiease from,Simon Antoine also taught him to curse and be rude and was in fact given a poor republic education.Again sorry I hadent a clue you were very sensitive on this matter.Apoligies.--HENRY V OF ENGLAND (talk) 19:27, 23 June 2009 (UTC)
- It is not a political movement, simply a prise de conscience of many French citizens. Mme Giscard d'Estaing, the wife of former President Valéry Giscard d'Estaing, has been promoting his being made the symbol of the enfance maltraitée. We have entered an era in which the well-being of children is being promoted, i.e. no abuse of any kind, and many French people have finally come to realise that their great Revolution was won partly on the back of a little boy whose only crime was to have been born a royal child. His tormentors made him suffer more than Jesus Christ endured.
- On the other hand, you have to be careful believing all that has been written about what happened to him in the Temple Tower. That Simon was hired to make a real Republican out of him is accepted because proven; however, the story of having him sleep with prostitutes & contracting venereal disease(s) is to be viewed with much prudence. The Bourbon Restoration saw the publishing of many apocryphal writings: much of what has been written about Louis XVII belongs to that category.
- Frania W. (talk) 22:46, 23 June 2009 (UTC)
Lese-Majesty + lit-de Justice
Hello Frania.Is there any other example within French History that the legal summons or Lit-de justice legaly dissinherited the Heir besides Charles VII in 1421.Meaning is there any other Heir of France whom had commited Lese-Majesty.--HENRY V OF ENGLAND (talk) 23:21, 25 June 2009 (UTC)
- Frania youre dissaperaing acts is extraordinary at mind.LOL.Are you there Frania.Goodbye--HENRY V OF ENGLAND (talk) 01:27, 26 June 2009 (UTC)
- Just taking a break because busy somewhere else. To answer your question: I don't think so, at least do not remember of any such case. What's your problem with Charles VII? Which majesty did he *lèse*? May not be able to get back to Wikipedia for a few days. Aurevoir! Frania W. (talk) 02:31, 26 June 2009 (UTC)
- Frania youre dissaperaing acts is extraordinary at mind.LOL.Are you there Frania.Goodbye--HENRY V OF ENGLAND (talk) 01:27, 26 June 2009 (UTC)
Hello Frania. Remeber the lit-de justice 1421
I have more refs if you want Frania.Goodbye.--HENRY V OF ENGLAND (talk) 15:31, 26 June 2009 (UTC)
Your thoughts
I've noticed that TBharding has been hard at work, writing in nonsensical and irrelevant verbiage into French royalty/nobility articles. Any ideas how to curtail this individual's rather flamboyant writing fervor? Most readers will not be able to follow,
"At the age of ten, Anne Marie's eldest child, Marie-Adélaïde, was betrothed to the son of her cousin Louis, Dauphin of France; the eldest son of Louis was the Duke of Burgundy."
What is the relevance of mentioning "son of her cousin"?? Also, "Duke of Burgundy" is linked to the individual she apparently marries. Which in fact should show the individual's name not the title and a link! As show here:
"The next of her relatives to marry was the youngest; Louise Diane, the favourite of Madame, was engaged to the young Prince of Conti. Louise died in childbirth at the Château d'Issy. Her only surviving child was the last Prince of Conti, who married his cousin Princess Maria Fortunata of Modena. Maria Fortunata was the daughter of Charlotte Aglaé and thus grand daughter of Françoise-Marie. The Prince would play a large part in the revolution and would later serve in the Battle of Hastenbeck on 26 July 1757 as well as the Battle of Krefeld (23 June 1758)."
Here the links to Prince of Conti direct to apparently two different individuals!! And the relevance of Maria Fortunata(an off topic individual that married the last Prince of Conti) being a grand daughter of Francoise-Marie?? According to the above paragraph, Hastenbeck and Krefeld occurred before the "revolution"(that doesn't say "which" revolution). What are your thoughts on this?? --Kansas Bear (talk) 21:40, 27 June 2009 (UTC)
- My thoughts on this? If you read the hidden comments I have inserted, is your question necessary, dear Kansas Bear??? My thoughts are the same as yours. When I first read the above quote, I could not figure out much of anything:
- the next relative: who is she? her daughter? her granddaughter? in which case she would not be named a *relative*;
- Louise Diane (who becomes Louise in the next sentence): why mention that she was the favourite of Madame? unnecessary verbiage, and which *Madame*? because it spills over several generations & there was always one *Madame*;
- I imagine that Louise (who must be Louise Diane) must have married the Prince of Conti since she died in childbirth after having been engaged to him seven words back in previous sentence; but is it even necessary to mention the castle in which she died?
- Her only surviving child: whose only surviving child? That of Françoise Marie or of Louise Diane? I guess Louise Diane since the only surviving child was the last Prince of Conti, but then you have to stop & think in order to figure out the link between Maria Fortunata, Charlotte Aglaé & Françoise-Marie;
- The whole thing is a terrible imbroglio of personages who do not need to be there as they are linked to their own articles. One would have to be an extremely good writer to write & make sense out of the family tree. That's why family trees are presented as such, not in writing.
- What I fear is that our *Alexandre Dumas, junior* is going to give the same treatment to all related articles, i.e. the articles of these relatives, in which case he should write one cacophony article on the family tree of the Bourbon, Condé, Conti, Orléans... (have I forgotten a branch?)
- I have come to the point of not wanting to change anything because it would take a whole month of rewriting - that's why I have opted for the hidden comments attitude.
- I also left a comment at the beginning of the *Dowry* section (pasted below minus the pictures). Why have such a section in which only the first two sentences speak of the dowry, which should be mentioned in the marriage section: the dowry being a part of the *marriage deal*. And Saint-Simon's quote is totally out of place. It comes, as the French say, comme des cheveux sur la soupe (like hair on soup).
- As for the Prince de Conti, there is a mix up between father & son, Louis François I de Bourbon, who had participated in the Seven Years War, died in 1776, hence could not have had any part in the Revolution of 1789 & Louis François II de Bourbon, who died in 1814 - but I have no idea what "great part" he played in the Revolution of 1789, except for being a suspect to the revolutionaries, arrested in 1793 & kicked out of France in 1797. Anyway, as you pointed out, the battles of Hastenbeck and Krefeld occurred more than thirty years before the Revolution of 1789, thus did not follow it.
- We cannot let such inexactitudes creep in. The Françoise-Marie de Bourbon article is turning into a disaster. Those of the two Conti princes, which were not on my watchlist & I am wondering what's with them.
Usurper
Hello Frania.Is Louis Phillipa I Duke of Orleans King of France a usurper.The legitimists under the duke of Chambond or Henry V of France was recognized by some loyalists and ruled for 7 days.The succestion went from the Comte'd Artois(Charles X) abdicaited in 1824 in favour of his son Louis-Antoine Duke of Angoulemia(Louis XIX) whom ruled for 20 mins and so it went To Louis-Antoine's nephew Henri duke of Chambond or Henry V.How did Louise Phillipa I prince du sang(Orleoans) take the throne.Or did the Chambers ratify the succestion of Louis Phillipa I Duke of Orleons SOMEHOW? Henry V should be given a template in the French Monarchs List Like Le Roi Henry VI of England since he had de facto soveriegnty for 7 days.Thats much better Then his uncle's rule for 20 mins which could hardly be described as a de facto rule.Hello Frania--HENRY V OF ENGLAND (talk) 06:37, 29 June 2009 (UTC)
Frania?????--HENRY V OF ENGLAND (talk) 14:38, 2 July 2009 (UTC)
- Not exactly an usurper, but... After Charles X's abdication in favor of his son the duc d'Angoulême, who in turn abdicated in favor of his nephew the duc de Bordeaux (later comte de Chambord), Charles X wrote the duc d'Orléans asking him to watch over the rights of his grandson & govern for him until he was of age. However, within a few days, the duc d'Orléans accepted the decision of the Chambre des Députés for him to be king and thus became Louis-Philippe I, King of the French, while the young duc de Bordeaux was bypassed. I do not know if you want to call Louis-Philippe an *usurper* but he certainly took advantage of the situation & his young cousin never became king Henri V of France and, in fact, lost his chance when, many years later, he refused the tricolor as the flag of France. He wanted to restore the white flag of the kings of France. Had he become king, his reign would not have lasted anyway because the majority of the French wanted a Republic. All 19th century one-man reigns finished in disaster for the monarch & none of them reigned for twenty years: Napoléon I (1804-1814/15) died in exile, Charles X (1824-1830) died in exile, Louis-Philippe (1830-1848) died in exile, Napoléon III (1852-1870) died in exile.
- Have not much time for Wikipedia for a few days. Aurevoir! FW/Frania W. (talk) 02:55, 3 July 2009 (UTC)
I did a history merge on the article, so all the edits are now in one place. Graham87 14:53, 3 July 2009 (UTC)
- There's no difference in the visible text. The difference is in the page history. Go to this diff and keep on clicking on the previous edit link; you will see the earliest edits to the article, the ones I've recently revealed with my history merge. I do sometimes have to destroy edits to perform a history merge properly, but they're only redirect edits. Graham87 15:03, 3 July 2009 (UTC)
Semi-Retire
Hello Frania.I have to semi-retire today since I am going on Holidays tommorow.I wont be active as much.--HENRY V OF ENGLAND (talk) 16:02, 3 July 2009 (UTC)
XD
Aww Thanks Frania! *hug* (Jack1755 (talk) 19:25, 5 July 2009 (UTC))
- I'm gonna be 15 on August 16! I chose 1755 for Marie Antoinette. It's just a handy coincidence that it is the same year Louis XVIII was born. When is your birthday Frania ?
(Jack1755 (talk) 21:10, 5 July 2009 (UTC))
- 8 October. FW
- Hey Frania, could I get your opinion on this : [9]. Kind Regards, (Jack1755 (talk) 22:53, 6 July 2009 (UTC))
- Jack, I read it rapidly & cannot figure out what the argument is about. Could there be confusion between *heir* & *pretender*? FW
- Well, I pointed out that the map on the article Monarchies in Europe was inaccurate, as it states Ireland has a pretender to its throne. User:Cameron believes that Elisabeth II, as daughter of the last King of Ireland, is pretender to the throne, despite the fact she has never declared herself "Queen of Ireland". I then pointed out that to pretend, someone must be activley pursuing the title, but Cameron has stated "Queen Elizabeth II is the pretender to the Throne of Ireland, whether she claims it or not". I fail to see how EIIR is a pretender. I believe you are correct in saying Cameron is confused between *heir* and *pretender*, Merci pour le conseil. Vous êtes très utile, Frania! Jack1755
- Jack, I read it rapidly & cannot figure out what the argument is about. Could there be confusion between *heir* & *pretender*? FW
- Hey Frania, have you read Evelyne Lever's "Madame de Pompadour: A Life"? I was thinking of getting it, but I know you enjoy her books, so I thought I would ask you about the book and the author first, Regards!-- Jack1755 (talk) 02:08, 7 July 2009 (UTC)
- Non, Jack, je n'ai pas lu Madame de Pompadour d'Évelyne Lever et ne peux donc vous donner mon opinion, mais connaissant le travail de recherche de Mme Lever, je serais tentée de le recommander. All of Mme Lever's work is based on pure historical research & her books are not novels. Cordialement, Frania W. (talk) 03:30, 7 July 2009 (UTC)
- Thanks Frania! -- Jack1755 (talk) 16:31, 7 July 2009 (UTC)
![[9]](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Monarchies_in_Europe#Ireland_-_Image:Location_European_monarchies.svg){kind=link}
Hey Frania, Do you have any constructive criticism for my latest article Kingdom of the French (1791–1792)? Regards, -- Jack1755 (talk) 00:07, 8 July 2009 (UTC)
- Jack: so far so good. I will take a more critical look at it afterward or tomorrow. Right now, I am in the middle of trying to fix the notes/references on our dear Louis XVIII. FW
Thanks Frania :) U having a good day ? -- Jack1755 (talk) 00:22, 8 July 2009 (UTC)
- Oui! Thanks to you!!! Keep your fingers crossed RE Louis XVIII & please do not try anything with it while I am working on it. Aurevoir! FW
XD.. Bien, je suis sûr que votre jour était merveilleux! I'm sure this song will cheer u up FW! http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pfGzWntCbxY&feature=channel .... -- Jack1755 (talk) 00:48, 8 July 2009 (UTC)
- --*Yay* you fixed the links :). Thx FW. -- Jack1755 (talk) 01:18, 8 July 2009 (UTC)
- I knew that video would cheer u up FW! XD The best I can give you at the moment is a cup of darjeeling tea and a bowl of microwave popcorn. Oh ! That reminds me .. could u translate something into polish for me ? *U can guess why I'm asking* Regards, -- Jack1755 (talk) 01:32, 8 July 2009 (UTC)
Jack: If you do it yourself, it will go faster than if I do it. The only Polish I know are Frédéric Chopin's Polonaises & Mazurkas... Here you go: http://www.polish-dictionary.com/ Musicalement vôtre! P.S. le français est ma langue maternelle. Frania
Madame Royale
Hello Frania, I noticed that you changed the name of the article about Marie-Thérèse Charlotte de France recently. The *de France* modifier has no precedent in articles about French princesses. The articles about Louis XV's spinster daughters use *of France*, as do his granddaughters Clothilde of France and Princess Elisabeth of France. I recognise that *de France* is correct, but I propose for the sake of consistency that we change the name of MT’s article to *Marie-Thérèse Charlotte of France*. Regards as always, -- Jack1755 (talk) 19:56, 8 July 2009 (UTC)
Vacation
Good evening Frania, I'm going on vacation tomorrow, for a month. I am going somewhere very isolated *god help me!* and I can only come online when I find a wi-fi hot spot. I wish you a sun-filled July! Bye Frania, ttyl, -- Jack McNamee -- Jack1755 (talk) 00:19, 10 July 2009 (UTC)
Frania,Merci de votre chaud au revoir.Je n'aurai pas besoin de lunettes de soleil où je vais, Il sera froid et humide, en tant que toujours! Espérons que Louis XVIII n'a pas l'inquiétude de séparation! XD. Est-ce qu'en fait avant que j'aille, je pourrais avoir votre avis sur ceci -- http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Ground_Zero#"Rightful place" -- ? Amitié, Jack McNamee Jack1755 (talk) 01:25, 10 July 2009 (UTC)
- On this : http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Ground_Zero#"Rightful place" -- I forgot to add it the first time :P. -- Jack1755 (talk) 01:29, 10 July 2009 (UTC)
- Hey Frania, the discussion has been moved to Talk:Louis XVIII of France, Amitié -- Jack1755 (talk) 02:21, 10 July 2009 (UTC)
Must catch my flight now FW. Have a great month! I shall try to continue my participation in the "rightful place" debate. While I'm gone ... Ne faites rien que je ne ferais pas. XD .. Bye! -- Jack1755 (talk) 02:39, 10 July 2009 (UTC)
Frania, je voudrais aussi exprimer mes remerciments pour votre aide dans cette affaire. Je suis bien content que c'est resoluer maitenant. Regards, Ground Zero | t 12:44, 11 July 2009 (UTC)
Þjóðólfr: Why did you change the name Bertrand Barère de Vieuzac to Bertrand Barère ?
- Results when asking Google for *Barère*: please notice that *Barère* is always followed by *de Vieuzac*.
- http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&client=firefox-a&channel=s&rls=org.mozilla%3Aen-US%3Aofficial&q=Bar%C3%A8re&aq=f&oq=&aqi=g1
- Results when asking Google for *de Vieuzac*: you will notice that *de Vieuzac* is always preceded by *Barère*.
- http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&client=firefox-a&channel=s&rls=org.mozilla%3Aen-US%3Aofficial&q=de+Vieuzac&btnG=Search&aq=f&oq=&aqi=
The name *de Vieuzac* came from a feodal seigneurie he inherited from his mother's side, which made him seigneur de Vieuzac & enabled him to add *de Vieuzac* to the surname Barère. He may have signed Barère during the Revolution as the *de* preceding Vieuzac would have made him a sure snack for the guillotine, which does not change the fact that he was Barère de Vieuzac.
Regards, Frania W. (talk) 23:23, 14 July 2009 (UTC)
(bringing discussion on FW talk page)
- Hiya, while I don't feel strongly about it and would not oppose you if you reverted, I prefer Bertrand Barère. The reason I moved is simple: I linked "Bertrand Barère" on an article which produced a red link. See User:Johnbod's comments above; he may be a condescending *****; but I have taken his words at face value. Þjóðólfr (talk) 02:28, 15 July 2009 (UTC)
- Þjóðólfr, I understand what ***** is saying about titles; however, *de Vieuzac* is not a title (*seigneur* would be) and had become part of his name, and *Barère de Vieuzac* is the name he is given in encyclopedias, dictionaries etc. The reason he may have dropped *de Vieuzac* during the Revolution is obvious: although he still was going by that name after the night of 4 August 1789 (abolition des privilèges), the seigneurial addition was too aristocratic sounding to keep when the Revolution became bloody.
- Anyway, these are my thoughts. Cordialement, Frania W. (talk) 12:48, 15 July 2009 (UT
our friend Maria Teresa
hey hey thanks for letting me know =] she's all good now as is her husband ha Tbharding (talk) 01:59, 17 July 2009 (UTC)
Hello!
How are you Frania? How is wherever you are? Are you having nice weather?,Amitié -- Jack1755 —Preceding unsigned comment added by 88.151.27.235 (talk) 15:17, 20 July 2009 (UTC)
Écarter Frania, je vous remercie pour tout le bien souhaitant et j'espère revenir à Wikipedia A.S.A.P., amitié Jack1755 (talk) 17:45, 22 July 2009 (UTC)
It is quite boring here (remote part of Ireland- Barleycove) ... :P ... but I guess its a change of scenery. I have my summer holidays from May 30 - August 27. It could be pushed back into September this year, ostensibly because of the swine flu and Ireland's awful healthcare system, plus the lack of preparation for the virus. How is life in Franialand..XD? Have u been busy this summer? Amitié - Jack1755 (talk) 16:29, 24 July 2009 (UTC)
Thats funny about the Lisbon Earthquake, I just finished a brief report on it! It is most quiet here Madame, too quiet. I'd much rather be in Cork city in my home, which I dearly miss. Thank you for your attentiveness to my articles Frania. I truly appreciate it. I'm inept at anything to do with sport XD... the sea is quite chilly here. Oh how I love Bretagne, my family used to visit there constantly in my infancy. Unfortunately, it would see that a tag had been added to my Colour Catcher article. I just can't find decent sources that aren't third party, also I just found out that Colour Cathcer has a twitter ([10]) which I think is kinda odd :P. My brother Ian has just moved to Dublin to begin his law career. My mother is devastated, but on the bright side I have a bigger and better bedroom which I shall proceed to decorate as I see fit :). I am currently in a pub (O Sullivan's) looking over Crookhaven harbour, enjoying some scones and free wi-fi (yes!). Are you reading anything interesting at the moment Frania? Amitié - Jack1755 (talk) 17:14, 26 July 2009 (UTC)
P.S. I'm impressed with your knowledge of Barleycove!
The scenery is beautiful here, although prices are inflated out here more than in the cities. There is a two bedroom apartment here of about 900 sqaure feet selling for $711,000, how that can be justified is beyond me, as the demand for property has plummeted. How could you read several books at the same time :O ? Doesen't that lessen the enjoyment? Thank you for your advice about my mother!:)... but unfortunately my mom works in a bank ... so she's beyond cheering XD! Amitié -- Jack1755 (talk) 17:39, 26 July 2009 (UTC)
P.S. Isn't it just? The similarities are astounding.
Well Frania, if you want to acquire it you betta Work for it XD. Oh really, how interesting. What is it that occupies your literary pursuits most? encore Amitié -- Jack1755 (talk) 17:53, 26 July 2009 (UTC)
P.S. Property prices in Ireland are hugely inflated, its almost the norm >_<.
Personally I admire Haussman's work (the only good thing Napoleon III ever did). But I do comprehend the romantic appeal of a mediaeval city. Are you a student Frania? - Jack1755 (talk) 18:21, 26 July 2009 (UTC)
I bet your Carla Bruni XD, Bye! -- Jack1755 (talk) 18:49, 26 July 2009 (UTC)
Hmmm .... then I'd imagine that Frania Wisnewska's real identity is Britney:p. -- Jack1755 (talk) 12:11, 27 July 2009 (UTC)
Schama
yes that's why it indicates it's the 2004 edition in the article, Tom B (talk) 00:02, 23 July 2009 (UTC)
yes, 848 [11] and 948 [12] Tom B (talk) 00:15, 23 July 2009 (UTC)
Monet
Mon plaisir. It needed to be done. Ty 06:39, 28 July 2009 (UTC)
Do you believe her siblings need to be listed in her article? --Kansas Bear (talk) 01:46, 31 July 2009 (UTC)
- I imagine that your question means you are not favorable to the sibling section. It usually gives me goose pimples because, if the articles of both parents are well done, all the children are listed there, and Wikipedia makes it easy to switch from one article to another by clicking on a blue-linked name. This logically would render a sibling section unnecessary. In some articles, these sections are sagas in themselves as they not only give the name of the sibling(s), but that of the spouse, lovers, children, grandchildren, out of wedlock nieces & nephews, etc. Those I particularly have in mind are the children of Louis XIV of France: all of them, legitimate & illegitimate are listed in HIS article, nicely packaged under the heading of their respective mother.
- I invite you to Louis-Auguste de Bourbon, duc du Maine's article:
- To answer your question, Louise Adélaïde's siblings need not be listed in her article; however, if we remove them, we must slash away everywhere else.
- At the risk of contradicting myself, if there is one article where the siblings do not bother me that much, it is in Louise Adélaïde's article because, as a nun, she never got married and the only close relationship she seemed to have had was with her sisters.
- Cordialement, Frania W. (talk) 03:23, 31 July 2009 (UTC)
- I wasn't sure how I felt about it, but as long as the reader isn't confused by the listing of her siblings then I'm fine with it. How is it you keep finding all the interesting articles?? :-p --Kansas Bear (talk) 04:03, 31 July 2009 (UTC)
News Update!
Hey Frania! How are you? I'm going home tomorrow - woo hoo! Do you recall our talk over Louis XVIII's "impotence"? I have established that there was no other kind of male infertility recognised in the 18th century.Bye FW .. ttyl! -- Jack1755 (talk) 18:17, 2 August 2009 (UTC)
- Dear Jack, I hope it is not too difficult to go home, which means that your summer vacation is nearing the end, but from what I understand from your last courrier, you are getting a bigger bedroom! That ought to make you happy.
- RE Louis XVIII's "impotence", wasn't it usually considered that the woman was sterile, because it was difficult to prove then that the man was "at fault".
P.S. I thought you might be interested in this Daguerreotype of pre-Haussman Paris([13]), but you probably have seen it before. Bye!
![[13]](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Boulevard_du_Temple_by_Daguerre.jpg){kind=link}
- Thank you for the daguerreotype article. I know about it, although not that much. I once "got in trouble" on the Chopin's article on en:wikipedia because I renamed the photograph a *daguerreotype*. Oh! la! la! what an "ignoramus" was I made to feel! I would like to find the process it was made from, but never found it - in fact, I never researched it as I am too busy with other things.
- Aww...If only the Chopin editors knew Madame Wisniewska is the fount of knowledge! Just this moment received a consignment of Lever books; her publisher seems to adore deckled edges! I think it looks like Madame de Pompadour was a victim of the Texas Chainsaw Massacre XD.Have a nice day! -- Jack1755 (talk) 18:19, 5 August 2009 (UTC)
- Jack, glad to see you back. But you should enjoy summer vacation more. Unfortunately, Mme W.'s knowledge seems to stop at Chopin's non-daguerreotype photograph. To make matters worse in Chopin article in en:wikipedia, I had "decapitalised" Opus & Op. to opus & op. A sacrilege in Germano-English musicology, although a great American university agrees with me.
- Am going to see what you did to Marie Antoinette. Ne perds pas trop de temps à travailler, profite de tes vacances. Amicalement, FW/Frania W. (talk) 18:44, 5 August 2009 (UTC)
- Aww...If only the Chopin editors knew Madame Wisniewska is the fount of knowledge! Just this moment received a consignment of Lever books; her publisher seems to adore deckled edges! I think it looks like Madame de Pompadour was a victim of the Texas Chainsaw Massacre XD.Have a nice day! -- Jack1755 (talk) 18:19, 5 August 2009 (UTC)
- "Her only flaw perhaps was her Habsburg jaw, a feature she loathed."
- Since we do not know whether she had other flaws - well, she did have another flaw: her eyes were slightly bulging, if I remember correctly - then "her only flaw perhaps" is not correct anyway & should be changed to something else. The "Habsburg jaw" or "Habsburg lip" was a reality, "which she loathed". Artists did not show it. The only one who did & really pushed his pen to near caricature was David in the portrait he made of her on her way to the guillotine.
- Let's figure out something else... Right now, I am busy with other earthly matters. Aurevoir! FW
- True.And I know how you feel about non-sencical editors. I find the article on the Irish language to be almost farcical. I just sense that it was written by a fervent Gael. I believe some artists may have chosen flattering angles for MA, but I find that a relatively mild Stomatognathic disease is very difficult to detect in a frontal photograph, or, in this case a portait. -- Jack1755 (talk) 19:56, 5 August 2009 (UTC)
- P.S. You're correct about the bulging eyes. They are very apparent on Maria Carolina of Austria also.
Hello, Frania! I just wanted to say that you and I would have reached a consensus long time ago and the title of the article would already be Maria Theresa of Austria, as you seem to be naturally charismatic and reasonable user. I hope you can see why I am now frustrated. I know we will be able to discuss the matter after some time. Thank you for always keeping your head cool and for having kind words for those who disagree with you!
Anyway, would you like to help me with gathering non-Fraser references for Marie Antoinette artcicle? The article currently relies on a single source and I think we should change that by putting a nonn-Fraser reference next to every Fraser reference. Surtsicna (talk) 12:39, 4 August 2009 (UTC)
Original vs. translation
You're right, I have very few books in French, merely the various French constitutions. I shall do so in the future FW! Thanks again. Amitié -- Jack1755 (talk) 00:29, 6 August 2009 (UTC)
Votre Avis
Bonjour, j'exige une fois de plus votre (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Juan_Carlos_I_of_Spain#Duke_of_Milan_.26_other_dubious_titles). Vous faites un grand arbitre ! -- Jack1755 (talk) 16:59, 9 August 2009 (UTC)
- Jack, I am afraid that this would be too long for me to involve myself at the time being as I would have to poner mi cabeza en la historia de España, y no tengo tiempo ahora. Will try reading it later. Amicalmente a ti, Frania W. (talk) 17:36, 9 August 2009 (UTC)
P.S. You seemed more Protestant than Catholic to me :P ... but I guess all the burnings must have changed your mind. It is nice to see you practicing the true faith Madame! haha XD -- Jack1755 (talk) 18:15, 9 August 2009 (UTC)
Charles X
Thank you so much Frania! I had to abandon my pc, knowing I was not able to fix them. Thanks again. :) -- Jack1755 (talk) 09:02, 10 August 2009 (UTC)
Emotional
Stop reverting the Robespierre discussion page.
Your actions are clearly demonstrating you are bias, and against the true nature of wikipedia. You are acting emotional and heating in an inappropriate manner. One does not have to be an admin to change items in an article or discussion page.
Wikipedia is a common encyclopedia, not your own ego-boosting private document.
General questions should go to the help desk as noted in the rules and front page. Your entertaining of a user asking general questions is doing nothing but go against the nature of wikipedia by allowing people to be lazy and not read articles. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 174.6.26.254 (talk) 05:20, 10 August 2009 (UTC)
Re: Robespierre
Hi Frania Wisniewska, sorry for my delayed response, I wouldn't worry about the IP, they've been blocked as you can see from the block log and from their talk page. Jeffrey Mall (talk • contribs) - 13:24, 10 August 2009 (UTC)
- Yes I did, and personal attacks like that one won't help his/her case. If the IP decides to cause any more disruption in the community do let me know. Jeffrey Mall (talk • contribs) - 14:02, 10 August 2009 (UTC)
Liselotte
I recall now! To the best of my recollection, Queen Marie Louise, when she visited the young Victoria of the United Kingdom, bought her niece the most fashionable beautiful outifts. Victoria loved her. I'm not a big fan of the Roi-Citoyen though. Thanks for the info :-).-- Jack1755 (talk) 14:33, 10 August 2009 (UTC)
P.S. I hope the Robespierre situation is quickly resolved!
Louise d'Artois
Phew! Thanks for the alert Frania. I reverted it to Princess Louise Marie Therese of France. Crisis averted! I can return to Madame de Pompadour knowing all is well ^^. -- Jack1755 (talk) 20:10, 10 August 2009 (UTC)
- Oh my, What happened to Marie Therese of Austria? -- Jack
Edit war on Talk:Maximilien Robespierre
Hi. I'm an administrator here on the English Wikipedia. As requested, I have looked at the edit war on that talk page. Please do not restore the misplaced discussion on Talk:Maximilien Robespierre that you have been involved in. It falls under Wikipedia:Forum#FORUM and does not belong on that talk page. Thank you. Toddst1 (talk) 15:32, 11 August 2009 (UTC)
- Where did I say you were violating anything? Hersfold (t/a/c) 23:21, 12 August 2009 (UTC)
- Hersfold, You did not say anything. I wrote you because I noticed that you are among the administrators handling this case & I wanted to point out to you the innocent original discussion with student Laura in which I see no violation of any of Wikipedia rules & regulations on my part. Just clarifying things. Regards, Frania W. (talk) 00:06, 13 August 2009 (UTC)
:)
Thank you for your best wishes on my birthday :)! Just home from Crookhaven...having a nice day. -- Jack1755 (talk) 16:48, 16 August 2009 (UTC)
P.S.: I almost forgot to wish you a happy, but belated, Feast of the Assumption! Can you believe I almost had the audacity to be born on the 15th?:P
- Like Napoléon Ier! FW
- It won't happen to you: you already live on an Island. FW
- Your island-prison? L'île émeraude des leprechauns!!! A fairytale island! FW
- You being the expert on Ireland, I am not going to contradict you; but, please, do not destroy my vision of La verte Érin. Must leave you know. Happy birthday again! FW
generating support for German Unification FA review
Frania, the article on German Unification was not promoted last month, primarily it seems because only 2 people read it all (it's long). Would you be willing to read it if I nominate it again? How is the work with Jack going? Auntieruth55 (talk) 20:58, 16 August 2009 (UTC)
- Auntie Ruth, thank you for directing me to the article. I just took a look at it and, yes it's long, but I will read it as soon as I can & give you my thoughts.
- Auntie Ruth, I feel hesitant at reading the article talk page before reading the article itself because I do not want to be influenced by other readers' comments. So, if you do not mind, I first will read the article, then turn to the discussion for enlightenment of the various points being raised by others. You see, it already bothers me to know that several readers find the article too long. However, I checked the length of some which I consider to be in the "heavy artillery" category: Mozart: 52,023 bytes; French Revolution of 1789: 71,567; Beethoven: 74,843; Bach: 75;190; Einstein: 103,555; Unification of Germany: 104,754 (eine Dicke Bertha, twice the weight of Mozart!); September 11 attacks: 124,906 (I have no idea which article tops 9/11).
- To summarize, you are right between *Einstein* & *9/11*, and twice as large as *Mozart*.
okay, so we know it's long...and now, after a bunch of comments....it's longer. Still would appreciate nay or aye at the FAC. Auntieruth55 (talk) 20:02, 19 August 2009 (UTC)
- oh and by the way, at 110 it's just a piker. Here's a list: long pages Auntieruth55 (talk) 20:11, 19 August 2009 (UTC)
Talkback
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.
Auntieruth55 (talk) 14:55, 17 August 2009 (UTC)
Continuing saga on the edit war on Talk:Maximilien Robespierre
When did I ever "explicative word" spamming, and what is it? I did not once swear or use uncivil words with you on the article page. Please do not make stuff up to make me look bad in front of administrators, it demonstrates your immaturity. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 174.6.26.254 (talk) 07:45, 17 August 2009 (UTC)
TO: 174.6.26.254 (talk) What are you talking about? Frania W. (talk) 19:49, 17 August 2009 (UTC)
- You were complaining to a moderator and giving them a list of actions I had supposedly done with reverts and posts, and claim at one point I used swear words. Here is your words verbatim:
- "09 AUG 2009, IP 174.6.26.254 deleted the whole Q/A section with explicative word *Spamming*"
- I don't appreciate things being made up at all. It is very immature and speaks to your credibility in the matter, and demonstrating your emotions were thinking more than your logic. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 142.58.252.240 (talk) 20:35, 17 August 2009 (UTC)
TO: 174.6.26.254 (talk)
You brought the following to my talk page accusing me of making "stuff up to make (you) look bad in front of administrators":
- "09 AUG 2009, IP 174.6.26.254 deleted the whole Q/A section with explicative word *Spamming*"
Can't you read? You were the one who, on 9 August 2009, wrote "Spamming" as a reason for deleting the section. I was just quoting what you wrote.
Now, if you feel like starting something with me with words such as *You are acting emotional and heating in an inappropriate manner*, *you are bias*, *your own ego-boosting*, *it demonstrates your immaturity*, *very immature*, *speaks to your credibility*, *demonstrating your emotions were thinking more than your logic*, then address this directly to an administrator, that will save me time & trip, because, if you continue, that is where it is going to end anyway.
You wrote me, accusing me of something I did not do, and I just answered you to show you what you had read wrong since it was you who had written it. A few weeks ago, you began an edit war on the Robespierre talk page, and I will ask you now to not begin one on my talk page, and suggest that you turn your attention to something more constructive and learn some manners, because I am not going to fall for your enfantillages. Frania W. (talk) 23:30, 17 August 2009 (UTC)
- Excuse me? You didn't even address what I asked you, please remove the section about me using explicatives, because it is untrue and fabricated entirely on your part. Maybe you don't understand what explicative means, but it connotes swear words, your use is wrong.
- Learn yourself some manners. You are trying to make me look bad and buffed your own claim up with lies. I admit I removed the section repeatedly, and ultimately it was demonstrated the section didn't belong. Maybe I went about it the wrong way, but it takes two to tango.
- I would like it if you removed the section claiming I using explicatives, thanks. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 174.6.26.254 (talk) 07:16, 18 August 2009 (UTC)
TO: 174.6.26.254 (talk):
1. Even if I wanted to, there is nothing that I can remove from Wikipedia. What's written is there forever, even when deleted, all one has to do is track back history.
2. Look up the word *explicative* with all its synonyms.
3. This is becoming harassment on your part. Please bring your complaint to an administrator.
Frania W. (talk) 11:50, 18 August 2009 (UTC)
- 1) You can remove whatever you want from wikipedia, you arguing semantics is just showing your stubborness.
- 2) See the above point
- 3) Don't tell me what is and what isn't on my part, get over yourself, you think you have some air of superiority over others by your wording and sematnics. Like your changing of british vernacular which you were warned about on another article. I'm done with this, don't bother me again. --174.6.26.254 (talk) 07:38, 20 August 2009 (UTC)
TO: 174.6.26.254 (talk)
1. Before attacking me any further, please look up the word "explicative" & its synonyms.
2. If anything can be removed from Wikipedia & if what's there bothers you that much, please feel free to remove it yourself & wait for the consequences from a Wikipedia Administrator. I certainly shall not backtrack into the history of a contentious discussion to delete anything.
3. Who is bothering whom? You keep on leaving messages on my talk page misinterpreting what I have written and distorting what's going on in the discussion page of other articles, and you are telling me: "don't bother me again." What spin!
4. Any further harassment on your part will immediately be reported to a Wikipedia Administrator.
Thanks
|
The Royalty and Nobility Barnstar | |
| For your tireless efforts to correct and improve the House of Bourbon articles. Without you I would truly be lost. --Kansas Bear (talk) 07:08, 19 August 2009 (UTC) |
Genevieve
'Genevieve, thanks chicken =] Tbharding (talk) 18:32, 20 August 2009 (UTC)
Some help
- http://books.google.com/books?id=qZpWp8bSxXIC&pg=PA14&dq=Estates+General+Navarre+Revolution&lr=&as_brr=3#v=onepage&q=Estates%20General%20Navarre%20Revolution&f=false
- http://books.google.com/books?id=6r90-ReqQhAC&pg=PA21&dq=Estates+General+Navarre#v=onepage&q=Estates%20General%20Navarre&f=false
- http://books.google.com/books?id=RcRVRvjzZXMC&pg=PA158&dq=Estates+General+Navarre&lr=&as_brr=3#v=onepage&q=Estates%20General%20Navarre&f=false --Kansas Bear (talk) 01:40, 21 August 2009 (UTC)
- http://books.google.com/books?lr=lang_fr&as_brr=0&q=royaume+Navarre --Kansas Bear (talk) 05:42, 21 August 2009 (UTC)
- * http://books.google.com/books?id=_7AaAAAAYAAJ&pg=PA123&dq=royaume+Navarre+Philippe+d%27Orleans+regent&lr=lang_fr&as_brr=0#v=onepage&q=&f=false --Kansas Bear (talk) 05:50, 21 August 2009 (UTC)
- What was her(Serein) answer? As for searching, Velde, has this on his website:
Thus the main object of the edict of 1620 was to bind together the two kingdoms, not merge them, and they remained separate, with their bodies of laws and customs. (There are in fact striking similarities between this union and the Act of Union which created the Kingdom of Great Britain in 1707.) The style of the monarch remained "Roi de France et de Navarre" and the coat of arms of the French king showed the two escutcheons of France and Navarre side by side.
- At the bottom of this page[14] he listed 4 references(all in French).
- Delmas, Pierre: Du Parlement de Navarre et de ses origines. Bordeaux, 1898; Yvres Cadoret.
- Destrée, Alain: La Basse-Navarre et ses institutions de 1620 à la Révolution. Zaragossa, 1955; Talliares editoriales.
- Tucoo-Chala, Pierre: La vicomté de Béarn et le Problème de la souveraineté. Bordeaux, 1961; Imprimerie Bière.
- Toureng, Raymonde: Le Statut juridique des vallées d'Andorre. Toulouse, 1939; Imprimerie moderne.
- Of which none are anywhere near me. :-( --Kansas Bear (talk) 03:40, 24 August 2009 (UTC)
School
It occured to me just moments ago... that... school is back on Thursday >_<. Ergo, my contrubutions to wikipedia wil be curtailed. It is my Junior Cert year. And we know what that means... STUDY! Aurevoir Madame -- Jack1755 (talk) 01:12, 25 August 2009 (UTC)
- After much googling... I'm going into the 10th grade! Languages: German, French & Irish. I'm doing an extra language. One has these choices: Irish + German, or Irish + German + French, or Irish + French. Additonally, I'm studying Business, Geography, History, S.P.H.E. (Social Personal Health Education i.e. Sex ed. gone horribly wrong!), C.S.P.E (Political Studies, pretty insignificant; only one class per week), Science, English, Maths and Religion. My favourite subjects are: English, French, German, History, Business and Geography & Science. I loathe Maths & Irish. We do P.E., not as frequently as the Americans do, once a week.
- Irish Schools
90% of the schools in Ireland are nominally under the suzerainty of the Catholic Church (through religious orders, most prominetly the Christian Brothers and the Presentation Brothers). The schools are generally on church land, and up until relatively recently priests taught. The church schools cannot turn away people from different religious denominations, but the schools do teach Religion (no creationism). There are two major exams in secondary school, which has six grades: 1st year, 2nd year, 3rd year & etc., the Junior Cert & Leaving Cert. One is usually 13 years old upon entering secondary education and 18 years old when leaving it, but one is able to terminate formal education at the age of 16 if he/she wishes. 3rd year and 6th year are the exam years (Junior and Leaving Cert respectively).
There is a Transition Year between the Junior Cycle (1st year - 3rd year) and the Senior Cycle (5th year - 6th year) known as 4th year. Many consider it to be pointless and a waste of time. It can be obligatory depending on the school's particular policy, as it is in my school.
In my school we briefly pray between classes and occasionally attend masss. My classroom bears a statue of the Virgin Mary. Teachers are nice. The school day begins at 9:00 am. It is divided into 8 periods, each lasting 45 minutes. School ends at 3:30. I usually take 1 and a half hours to do my homework. On Wednesdays, school ends early at 1 pm. There are 6 periods and are five minutes shorter as a result.
- Social Problems in Irish Schools
Having recently read the latest report from the Irish Children's authority, I know that the most griveous problems facing Irish students are:
- Exam Stress
- Homophobic Bullying
- Self-Esteem
Particulary homophobic bullying, which apparently, is particulary egregious. Ireland has a high teenage suicide rate, which, some experts blame on Exam stress from the Leaving Cert. Sex ed. is quite minimal in some schools. There is a shocking story about a 14 year-old girl, in the '70s, who got pregnant and gave birth and died in a grave yard without her family knowing a thing beforehand.
- Overall Conclusion
Irish public schools are infinitely more pious than American ones. American schools have better sports facilities, healthcare and transport. American schools have less homophobic bullying.
I intend for this go on for so long :P - Well, at least its enlightening...'Amitié -- Jack1755 (talk) 02:25, 25 August 2009 (UTC)
- Jack, I believe that tragic story about the girl dying after giving birth took place in the early 1980s. In fact, I can remember the uproar it created in Ireland at the time. I cannot recall where in Ireland it occurred-somewhere in the country.--Jeanne Boleyn (talk) 19:34, 25 August 2009 (UTC)
Oh my
- Hehe, I know. Its quite an odd outfit. Ta ta -- Jack1755 (talk) 19:24, 25 August 2009 (UTC)
- Bonsoir Frania! How are you?--Jeanne Boleyn (talk) 19:29, 25 August 2009 (UTC)
- under attack by windmills... Frania W. (talk) 19:36, 25 August 2009 (UTC)
- Hey Jeanne! I think Wales stole it from his local Chinese takeout. What do you think of the new editing system? The IP edits will probably take weeks to come into affect on more remote articles. Not to mention the huge back log of alteration requests - to be dealed with by editors! Poor Caster Semenya, look at her talk page - editors are debating as to whether she is transsexual or not. -- Jack1755 (talk) 19:45, 25 August 2009 (UTC)
- Uh-oh, what new editing system?--Jeanne Boleyn (talk) 19:51, 25 August 2009 (UTC)
- Check it out [16]...so long "the encyclopaedia anyone can edit". -- Jack1755 (talk) 19:58, 25 August 2009 (UTC)
- We should be safe as this seems to concern only articles on people still living, and ours have been dead for a long time. It may also get rid of a good number of vandals & wikitrash. FW
- But Louis XVIII still lives... in my world :P hehe. True, but there certainly are a few drawbacks, mainly the extra work load. Who is going to approve the edits? -- Jack1755 (talk) 20:04, 25 August 2009 (UTC)
- I like the trial 'amendment'. GoodDay (talk) 20:05, 25 August 2009 (UTC)
- Bienvenue à vous GoodDay! Who is going to approve the edits? That is a good question. While all of you were away on holiday/vacation/congé payé/beachbumming, I met a couple of Wikipedians this would nicely occupy & keep out of everybody else's hair... FW
- Hey GoodDay. Who did you meet Frania? -- Jack1755 (talk) 20:35, 25 August 2009 (UTC)
- Jack, what are you drinking? It is not "who" but "where" or "when"! We met at Jeanne's Café de la plage. When is our dear HENRY V OF ENGLAND coming back? He'd better not miss school's opening. FW
- [response to Jack] I've met Frania months ago. [response to Frania] I believe 'deleting' Henry VI of England from the List of French monarchs, would bring him back. GoodDay (talk) 20:46, 25 August 2009 (UTC)
- Jack, what are you drinking? It is not "who" but "where" or "when"! We met at Jeanne's Café de la plage. When is our dear HENRY V OF ENGLAND coming back? He'd better not miss school's opening. FW
- Bienvenue à vous GoodDay! Who is going to approve the edits? That is a good question. While all of you were away on holiday/vacation/congé payé/beachbumming, I met a couple of Wikipedians this would nicely occupy & keep out of everybody else's hair... FW
- I like the trial 'amendment'. GoodDay (talk) 20:05, 25 August 2009 (UTC)
- But Louis XVIII still lives... in my world :P hehe. True, but there certainly are a few drawbacks, mainly the extra work load. Who is going to approve the edits? -- Jack1755 (talk) 20:04, 25 August 2009 (UTC)
- We should be safe as this seems to concern only articles on people still living, and ours have been dead for a long time. It may also get rid of a good number of vandals & wikitrash. FW
- Check it out [16]...so long "the encyclopaedia anyone can edit". -- Jack1755 (talk) 19:58, 25 August 2009 (UTC)
- Uh-oh, what new editing system?--Jeanne Boleyn (talk) 19:51, 25 August 2009 (UTC)
- Hey Jeanne! I think Wales stole it from his local Chinese takeout. What do you think of the new editing system? The IP edits will probably take weeks to come into affect on more remote articles. Not to mention the huge back log of alteration requests - to be dealed with by editors! Poor Caster Semenya, look at her talk page - editors are debating as to whether she is transsexual or not. -- Jack1755 (talk) 19:45, 25 August 2009 (UTC)
- under attack by windmills... Frania W. (talk) 19:36, 25 August 2009 (UTC)
- Bonsoir Frania! How are you?--Jeanne Boleyn (talk) 19:29, 25 August 2009 (UTC)
- Hehe, I know. Its quite an odd outfit. Ta ta -- Jack1755 (talk) 19:24, 25 August 2009 (UTC)
Hehe. Well, he's back to school on the 2nd of September, and like myself, in his Junior Cert year, so he won't be particulary active this year. Really GoodDay? Is Jeanne's beach cafe in Messina? Tell all! -- Jack1755 (talk) 20:54, 25 August 2009 (UTC)
- I believe so, she just got back from a summer trip in Italy. GoodDay (talk) 20:57, 25 August 2009 (UTC)
- We've got a problem, Frania. DanyMountbatten has reverted your name change on Princess Henriette of France. -- Jack1755 (talk) 22:40, 25 August 2009 (UTC)
- Here is a picture of the perhaps Miss Ireland [17]. Her current distinction is Miss Kerry 2009. Hmm...I was wondering about the windmills; subtleties are usually lost on me. As for the Irish, nobody speaks it: 20,000 aprox. One is forced to learn it for 14 years, but few can even fabricate a sentence afterwards! The language is too backward. A verb must be the first word in every sentence, the general structure of the sentences, and pronounciations, are very trying. Thank you for the well-wishing! You are wonderful person, Frania. -- Jack1755 (talk) 01:08, 26 August 2009 (UTC)
- P.S. Sorry for the late reply. I'm engrossed in book!
Jack, when we both have more time, I will tell you why you should not pout at learning Irish. kenavo ! Frania W. (talk) 15:32, 26 August 2009 (UTC)
Back to school
It's no problem, Frania. It took two minutes in paint - hehe. I hope I do too. There is a flim being shot in Goleen - it's on all the Barleycovers lips! -- Jack1755 (talk) 17:16, 29 August 2009 (UTC)
Place of birth/Place of death
Hello, Frania! See Wikipedia:Manual of Style (biographies)#Opening paragraph. To be honest, today I looked up this rule for the first time because you asked me to do it. Until now, I just followed the examples of thousands of other Wiki biographies. Surtsicna (talk) 10:22, 31 August 2009 (UTC)
Philippe
odeeaaaar chicken..it wasn't me =] its been like it for ages, since April i believe..never mind..shall one of us remove it? i put Philippe de France on the second para, the one headed Biography =) hope your okk Tbharding (talk) 15:10, 1 September 2009 (UTC)
Can you email me? Merci! --Kansas Bear (talk) 01:48, 2 September 2009 (UTC)
How is the Franiameister?
How are things going in your world, Frania?
- Still fighting windmills. FW
School is such a drag! -- Jack1755 (talk) 22:38, 2 September 2009 (UTC)
Talkback
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.
Auntieruth55 (talk) 20:38, 5 September 2009 (UTC)
Frania
Hello Frania.Our History book at school does not mention the Hundred Years Wars.Documentries on the Hitory channel by David Starky and other similiar programs call him a King of France plus these books.You should notice I am not the only one to bring up the disscution that Henry was also a king of France.Scroll up and you will find propisitions to add him as a french King.Now let me ask you a question.So far you have done nothing execpt originial research in your aquisation that Henry VI is not King of France.So can you not give me hard scholary evidence in which your POV is supported? Thank You and goodbye Frania.--HENRY V OF ENGLAND (talk) 15:47, 6 September 2009 (UTC)
Retrieved from "http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:List_of_French_monarchs"
- Dear HENRY, first, please note that I was simply asking a question out of curiosity as to how Henry VI is presented in English school manuals; second, since I have not brought any change to his article or to the list of kings of France (except once last April to change *south of France* to *south of the Loire River*), you cannot say that I am doing original research & applying it to the article: I was only asking a question, then I developed my point of view on Jeanne's page, which is no part of an article, but to be considered as a conversation between friends sitting at a café. Truly yours, Frania W. (talk) 16:22, 6 September 2009 (UTC)
Regarding the information I sent you
Frania,
Here[18] and here[19] followed by this[20] and here[21] is more evidence that indicates the individual in question is NOT recognized by historians, since it indicates other individuals are listed for that rank. --Kansas Bear (talk) 20:43, 6 September 2009 (UTC)
- And again[22] --Kansas Bear (talk) 20:45, 6 September 2009 (UTC)
- And here[23] --Kansas Bear (talk) 20:59, 6 September 2009 (UTC)
![[23]](http://images.google.com/imgres?imgurl=http://www.knowledgerush.com/wiki_image/7/7d/France-3rdValois.png&imgrefurl=http://www.knowledgerush.com/kr/encyclopedia/Kings_of_France_family_tree/&usg=__-MbnIiQ2Tc5ZGYLCNOEKQQTr8AQ=&h=1722&w=741&sz=58&hl=en&start=15&tbnid=jHeDmMRDFcTfaM:&tbnh=150&tbnw=65&prev=/images%3Fq%3Dkings%2BFrance%26hl%3Den%26lr%3D){kind=link}
- Here[24] is a nice view of a listing, note the missing name in the list. :-O
- Here[25] and here[26] and here[27], where the individual in question is mentioned only as roi in the singular.
- And, here[28] and here[29], note the titles of each individual.
- So currently there is no listing that indicates the individual in question is recognized by anyone. --Kansas Bear (talk) 22:12, 7 September 2009 (UTC)
- Here is another one[30] on page 167. Again, not listed with both titles, just the one. --Kansas Bear (talk) 00:31, 12 September 2009 (UTC)
Talkback
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.
Auntieruth55 (talk) 18:21, 11 September 2009 (UTC)
Have a cookie
Jack forbes (talk) 21:31, 11 September 2009 (UTC)
Empress Maria Theresa
Hi, Frania! Jack and I are trying to improve the article about Maria Theresa of Austria. I thought you might know something about Empress Maria Theresa as a mother. This mother-in-law of France had a distinct relationship with each of her children - doting Maria Christina, disagreeing with Joseph, scolding Marie Antoinette, etc. I believe that many books about Marie Antoinette describe her as a mother. Unfortunatly, I don't have access to the relevant sources. I hope you'll find time for Wikipedia soon! :) Cordially, Surtsicna (talk) 16:38, 12 September 2009 (UTC)
Talkback
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.
Auntieruth55 (talk) 19:03, 12 September 2009 (UTC)
T_T
You will be sorely missed, Frania. I wish you the utmost luck in whatever you're doing. We will always be here for you at the 'paedia. Au revoir -- Jack1755 (talk) 20:38, 12 September 2009 (UTC)
Good riddance. Glad you're leaving wikipedia.--142.58.252.240 (talk) 22:31, 13 September 2009 (UTC)
- Please note the above childish outburst, preaches of immaturity and credibility, then illustrates a dose of immature incivility. --Kansas Bear (talk) 01:42, 14 September 2009 (UTC)
- Sorry for you buddy, I am not leaving Wikipedia, just taking a couple of weeks off as I am going on a concert tour. I am a musician. And it seems to me that your English has not improved as "semi retired" means "partially retired", as when one is too busy outside Wikipedia, one has to take time off, which does not mean "leaving". Frania W. (talk) 00:54, 14 September 2009 (UTC)
Maybe if you werent such an intellectual snob you would understand what the word 'retired' means, and that placing adjectives doesn't make it a break or sabbatical.
I'm done talking to you, jerk. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 174.6.26.254 (talk) 04:08, 14 September 2009 (UTC)
- What a quality individual that has to vilify someone, unprovoked, on their own talk page. Frania, you must have truly scared this poor thing!! LMAO --Kansas Bear (talk) 04:24, 14 September 2009 (UTC)
TO: 142.58.252.240 (talk) &
174.6.26.254 (talk):
For God knows what reason, keep these unprovoked attacks on my talk page & we'll see which of us gets "forever retired" from Wikipedia.
Werner Moelders FAC
Frania, the Werner Mölders article could use some additional reviews. It has only 2 supports, and from two of us who have helped the original editor write it. Would you mind taking a look and see if you can support it. It's on the "do it now" FAC list, so I hope you can find the time. Thx Ruth Auntieruth55 (talk) 17:11, 14 September 2009 (UTC)
Talkback
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.
time to vote?
Auntieruth55 (talk) 15:34, 18 September 2009 (UTC)
you're good, in the right place. I just removed the indents. Thanks! Auntieruth55 (talk) 21:13, 18 September 2009 (UTC)
Charles VII
(According to French Salic law Charles VII became king of France upon the death of his father Charles VI on 21 October 1422, anyone contesting it should provide scholarly reference). Nice point. I don't intend to contest it. I just point out that the Kings of England did. That was the reason for the 100 years war. Xxanthippe (talk) 03:33, 28 September 2009 (UTC).
- The Hundred Years War began long before the birth of Charles VII. It was Henry V of England who took up the claim in 1414, but it was his great-grandfather Edward III who started the ball rolling by claiming the crown of France by dint of his mother Isabella of France, having been the daughter of King Philip IV--Jeanne Boleyn (talk) 14:05, 28 September 2009 (UTC)
- Oh, welcome back Frania!--Jeanne Boleyn (talk) 14:09, 28 September 2009 (UTC)
- The Hundred Years War began long before the birth of Charles VII. It was Henry V of England who took up the claim in 1414, but it was his great-grandfather Edward III who started the ball rolling by claiming the crown of France by dint of his mother Isabella of France, having been the daughter of King Philip IV--Jeanne Boleyn (talk) 14:05, 28 September 2009 (UTC)
Bonjour, bonjour
Hi Frania, I want to create an article for La Marseillaise des Blancs, like on the French Wikipedia, but my French skills are a bit rusty. Could you translate the rest into English please, after the first paragraph?[31] - Yorkshirian (talk) 21:29, 8 October 2009 (UTC)
- Bonjour Yorkshirian! I found the whole text of the Marseillaise des Blancs, transcribed in modern French from its original Vendéen form, with translation already done by a Franco-American author by the name of Charles A. Coulombe. To read it, please go to
- and scroll down to about 2/3 of the article where you will see the text, first in French, then its translation in English by Charles A. Coulombe.
- I do not know if Wikipedia allows the use of material found on the web, but here it is, probably OK to use as long as Mr. Coulombe is properly mentioned & given credit for the translation.
- Thanks for that, looks Good. It should be fine to use it, so long as its as a reference I think. - Yorkshirian (talk) 22:13, 9 October 2009 (UTC)
United Kingdom of Great Britain + (Northern) Ireland
Great Britain is an island comprising of England, Scotland and Wales. The United Kingdom consisted of the island of Great Britain and the island of Ireland. It is a matter of geography, not sovereignty.--Britannicus (talk) 21:16, 14 October 2009 (UTC)
- If you wish to be spared the fact then perhaps it would better if you did not make edits on such matters.--Britannicus (talk) 21:39, 14 October 2009 (UTC)
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.
Promise not to be mad :P; I've nominated Louis XVIII for a good article review. -- Jack1755 (talk) 23:08, 18 October 2009 (UTC)
Bonjour
Bonjour, Frania. How are you? It's been a while since we heard from you at Wikipedia.--Jeanne Boleyn (talk) 06:43, 20 October 2009 (UTC)
Brune and his body
According to Napoleon's sorcerers: the Sophisians and Napoleon: a biographical companion, he was shot and killed, his body dragged through the streets and then thrown in the Rhone river.[32],[33] --Kansas Bear (talk) 04:21, 22 October 2009 (UTC)
Mon Dieu!
Hello, Frania. Could I get your opinion on this? Merci beaucoup. -- Jack1755 (talk) 14:42, 26 October 2009 (UTC)
Tiene ganas de salir Deja que se coma el barrio Antes de irte a dormir -- Jack1755 (talk) 00:18, 28 October 2009 (UTC)
- Llevo conmigo un radar especial para localizar solteros
Si acaso me meto en aprietos tambien llevo el número de los bomberos -- Jack1755 (talk) 21:00, 28 October 2009 (UTC)
- P.S. There's no need to check out Cosimo III (if you don't want to) anymore. A case has been opened with the Mediation committee.
- Una loba en el armario Tiene ganas de salir Deja que se coma el barrio Antes de irte a dormir... -- One, two, three Not only you and me Got one eighty degrees And I'm caught in between Countin' 1, 2, 3 Peter, Paul & Mary Gettin' down with 3P Everybody loves *** Countin' -- Jack1755 (talk) 21:43, 28 October 2009 (UTC)
- P.S. There's no need to check out Cosimo III (if you don't want to) anymore. A case has been opened with the Mediation committee.
Delighted to have an informed contrib. on this. I initially reverted as dubious only on basis of other edits by IP which, while certainly not vandalism, were contrary to WP:MOS dates. Best. RashersTierney (talk) 14:32, 1 November 2009 (UTC)
le Roi Citoyen
Hey Frania, how are things? We haven't heard from you in a while. I thought it politic to inform that Louis Philippe I, King of the French has been moved to Louis Philippe of France! I'm outraged, especially since the sensitivity of his title is well-known and not even an explanatory note was left on the talk page. In other news, I'm working to bring Anna Maria Luisa de' Medici up to GA status. Your thoughts are always appreciated! Ton ami, -- Jack1755 (talk) 01:45, 16 November 2009 (UTC)
Thank you
My sincerest thanks, Frania! --Kansas Bear (talk) 18:19, 20 November 2009 (UTC)
Apparently our Silent-but-Prolific editor is back under a new handle, this time moving Bourbon articles to names with "of" and/or dates instead of titles, and complicating the edit and talk page histories. Has there been a change I am unaware of to the Royals with a substantive title rule? As you know, French royalty often used a courtesy title as a substantive title and historical usage accepts this because the French kings accepted it. Otherwise all of the Bourbon-Orleans (e.g. Ferdinand, duc d'Orléans, Gaston, comte d'Eu, Antoine, duc de Montpensier) and many of the pre- and post-ancien régime Bourbons (e.g. all the princes de Conde and Conti, Henri, comte de Chambord would have to be moved to names by which they are unknown. Yet no one has, as yet, objected to all these moves. Why? FactStraight (talk) 20:29, 21 November 2009 (UTC)
Louis, C of Vermandois
Chicken =]
It seems to me that people (and Wiki conventions) prefer people with bio's to be named as simply as possible, Louis, Count of Vermandois is simpler that Louis de Bourbon, comte de Vermandois - as well as English. I have noticed a lot of arguments between people over it being English Wikipedia [blah blah] and (even though I created it as L.d.B, c.d.V) I am just following étiquette so to speak..
Also as for Monsieur de Lamballe, i moved him to his actual name as the English style of Prince of Lamballe is rarely used (probably to his wife leaving her legacy as the princesse de Lamballe) if that makes sense =]
Monsieur le Duc LouisPhilippeCharles (talk) 15:39, 4 December 2009 (UTC)
- Monsieur le Duc,
- Although what you say makes sense in a roundabout way, I still believe that you should leave a note at article talk page so that others can give their thought on the matter.
- On the one hand, you remove the de Bourbon to the illegitimate/legitimised comte de Vermandois, keeping only his first name & title but, on the other hand, you keep first name plus de Bourbon to the prince de Lamballe, and remove his title.
- Please be clearer. Je ne comprends pas très bien votre argument au sujet du prince de Lamballe. Si sa femme est connue sous le titre "princesse de Lamballe", c'était bien parce qu'elle était mariée au "prince de Lamballe".
"And I was like..."
"why're you so obsessed with me"? -- Jack1755 (talk) 18:20, 10 December 2009 (UTC)
- I love that tuneee =] Monsieur le Duc LouisPhilippeCharles (talk) 23:24, 12 December 2009 (UTC)
The King of the Poor
Chicken, i moved them as i added them to their individual Wiki Common's project..Monsieur le Duc LouisPhilippeCharles (talk) 23:23, 12 December 2009 (UTC)
Merry Christmas!
And what are you getting from Santa this year, little Frania? -- Jack1755 (talk) 00:02, 19 December 2009 (UTC)
If not "peace of mind", then "piece of mind". And you? Frania W. (talk) 17:26, 21 December 2009 (UTC)
- Books, clothes and a velour tracksuit with "pimp" stiched on the ass. -- Jack1755 (talk) 17:44, 21 December 2009 (UTC)
- Madame Wisniewska! Notre ami Surtsicna has opened a new discussion regarding roi de France et de Navarre @ Wikipedia talk:Naming conventions (royalty and nobility). -- Jack1755 (talk) 20:18, 19 December 2009 (UTC)
- No kidding? Frania W. (talk) 17:26, 21 December 2009 (UTC)
- Now, now, Frania! There's no need for sarcasm! LOL. It upsets me too; God, I hope it remains "[King of] France and Navarre"!
- Sarcasm, Jack? Vous avez dit "sarcasme"? FW
- Merry Christmas or Bonne Noel, Frania! Nice to see you back. I think you've resolved the King of France and Navarre discussion with your photo of Louis XVIII's tomb.--Jeanne Boleyn (talk) 17:30, 21 December 2009 (UTC)
- Jeanne,
- If I remember correctly, I mentioned the dual title inscribed on the tombs of the kings of France (and of Navarre), giving the link to the tomb of L.XVIII, but Jack is the one who brought the image itself into the discussion on L.XVIII talk page, and I simply carried it over from there. If you noticed, there are also images of 1786 louis d'or, minted during the reign of L.XVI, which clearly show the dual title in Latin (you can read Nav. Rex) on the obverse with the arms of the king of France (fleurs de lys) & of Navarre (chains) on the reverse.
- Joyeux Noël to you & your family! Frania W. (talk) 18:04, 21 December 2009 (UTC)
- Merry Christmas or Bonne Noel, Frania! Nice to see you back. I think you've resolved the King of France and Navarre discussion with your photo of Louis XVIII's tomb.--Jeanne Boleyn (talk) 17:30, 21 December 2009 (UTC)
- Sarcasm, Jack? Vous avez dit "sarcasme"? FW
- Now, now, Frania! There's no need for sarcasm! LOL. It upsets me too; God, I hope it remains "[King of] France and Navarre"!
Hello, Frania, I have looked for and I have found this, where is written: Charles X, Roi de France, so I think Charles X was only King of France.What do you think about this?
About Louis XVIII, if you look behind Louis XVIII's tomb, you will look the Louis XVI's tomb, where is written only Roi de France et Navarre, without Roi des Français, so I think the tombs's inscriptions aren't completely correct.
Bye Morancio (talk) 18:42, 22 December 2009 (UTC)
- The title "Roi des Français" was not exactly the cup of tea of the House of Bourbon "rois de France et de Navarre". Louis XVI did not have much choice when the Revolution made him "roi des Français", no more than he had when he was made "citoyen Capet", nor had a voice in the vote that condemned him to be beheaded. At the time of the Restoration, in 1814, Louis XVIII refused the title "roi des Français" & took back that of "roi de France et de Navarre" & so did his successor Charles X, whose tomb is also inscribed with that title. Louis XVIII, who searched for the bodies of Louis XVI, Marie Antoinette, and his sister Madame Élisabeth (which was never found), in order to have them buried at Saint-Denis basilica, had inscribed on Louis XVI's tomb the dual title ROI DE FRANCE ET DE NAVARRE born by the French Bourbon kings since Henri IV.
- These are historical facts.
- Lettre de Chevalier de l'Ordre royal de Saint-Louis signed by Louis XVIII (read beginning: Louis, par la grâce de Dieu, roi de France et de Navarre)
- http://cgi.ebay.fr/1819,-Louis-XVIII.-Belle-pi%E8ce-avec-sceau-SIGN%C9E-LOUIS_W0QQitemZ270476559615QQcmdZViewItemQQimsxZ20091030?IMSfp=TL091030176001r20978#shId
- Description of several medals to Charles X & others: note that some medals have in Latin "roi de France", others "roi de France et de Navarre", while others "Roi très chrétien".
- http://www.archivesmonetaires.org/apam/bibliotheque/1892/charles10.pdf
- Descriptive list of tableaux in various museums on site of the Ministère de la Culture:
- http://74.125.93.132/search?q=cache:dX7zdiTs0P4J:www.culture.gouv.fr/public/mistral/joconde_fr%3FACTION%3DCHERCHER%26FIELD_98%3DREPR%26VALUE_98%3DCharles%2520X%26DOM%3DAll%26REL_SPECIFIC%3D1+m%C3%A9daille+de+Charles+X+roi+de+France+et+de+Navarre+sacre+%C3%A0+Reims+1825&cd=8&hl=en&ct=clnk&gl=us&client=firefox-a
- Domaine estampe ; ethnologie
- Dénomination
- Auteur/exécutant Martin-Delahaye Henri Alexandre Joseph (éditeur) ; Martin-Muiron Louis César Joseph (imprimeur)
- Titre CHARLES X, / Roi de France et de Navarre, né à Versailles, le 9 Octobre 1757, sacré et couronné à Reims, le 29 Mai 1825. (titre inscrit)
- Période création/exécution 2e quart 19e siècle
- Lieu de conservation Paris ; musée des Civilisations de l'Europe et de la Méditerranée
- Numéro d'inventaire 995.5.3 C
- Notice complète N° 63 [Notice complète]
- Inscription on the medallion above Louis XVII's heart:
- http://www.flickr.com/photos/joriavlis/3421546259/sizes/o/
- Louis XVIII was the last king of France buried at Saint-Denis. None of the governments - the July Monarchy with Louis-Philippe, "roi des Français", the Second Republic, the Second Empire, the Third Republic, the Fourth Republic & the Fifth Republic - that have succeeded each other since the end of the Restoration in 1830, have ever contested the inscriptions. We are now in the 21st century, almost two hundred years after the death of Louis XVIII, which has been ample time to have had these "mistakes" corrected, should they be mistakes.
- My personal opinion is that Wikipedia is not the authority nor has the authority to bring such changes. I would suggest contacting the curator of the Saint-Denis basilica at the following address:
- Basilique cathédrale de Saint-Denis
- Centre des monuments nationaux
- 1, rue de la Légion d'honneur
- 93200 Saint-Denis, France
- Tél. (33) 1 48 09 83 54
- Fax. (33) 1 48 09 83 66
- http://www.ville-saint-denis.fr/saint-denis/decouverte/monuments/la-basilique-de-saint-denis/la-basilique-de-saint-denis.241.html
- Regards, Frania W. (talk) 06:08, 23 December 2009 (UTC)
Thanks, Frania. I think I musn't talk to Saint-Denis's curator, because it isn't very important.
I think Louis XVIII and Charles X, had the title of Rois de France et Navarre, but the title of Roi of Navarre was a simbolyc title, because the Kingdom of Navarre dissapeared and was integrated to France in 1989 [2]
And at the end, I'd make you a question
Are Louis XVI and Mary Antoniette really in Saint-Denis?
Milly (Maillé-Brézé)
There is a fairly new article for Milly le Meugon which perhaps explains the problem in the biography of Claire-Clémence. Please look and see if the present version is better.--Felix Folio Secundus (talk) 10:56, 27 December 2009 (UTC)
I have re-written the article and have tried to avoid copyright issues, please take a look and see if the tag could be removed. Thanks. Etincelles (talk) 12:14, 28 December 2009 (UTC)
- I have tried to remove copyright violations in all 3 pages you placed tags on. The tag you used says that the material has been copied and pasted, which is far from the case. If what I have done is still in violation of copyright, do you think its best to remove all the violating text.
Etincelles (talk) 11:19, 31 December 2009 (UTC)
Please see Talk:Mazurkas Op. 17 (Chopin)#Copyright Issues cont.. Thanks--Pianoplonkers♫(talk) 09:26, 29 December 2009 (UTC)
Ok, Frania!!
How do you make those "c"'s with the danglies? :-D --Kansas Bear (talk) 22:33, 29 December 2009 (UTC)
Talkback
Message added 22:15, 14 January 2010 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.
Johann von Klenau is at FAC. Just FYI ;) Auntieruth55 (talk) 22:15, 14 January 2010 (UTC)
- Thanks for your ce. Can you support it at FAC? Auntieruth55 (talk) 18:08, 15 January 2010 (UTC)
help! =]
Chicken, i was wondering if you could help me!
i was wondering if you know the conventions for dates, such as the Titles and styles part of an artricle? do you know where i can find info on it at all?
Monsieur le Duc LouisPhilippeCharles (talk) 16:52, 15 January 2010 (UTC)
- Lol odeaar! happy new year to you to =] dates obviously have their own Étiquette so to speak, and i was wondering if you knew where info on this étiquette is? for example;
- Bob de Bourbon [LOL] (14 January, 1678 – 14 November, 1765) do you put where he was born/died within the bracket or leave it? are they linked to their specific page (i.e.14 January)?
- what way is the right way and where can i find info on it? i dont understand =[ Monsieur le Duc LouisPhilippeCharles (talk) 17:10, 15 January 2010 (UTC)
- Monsieur le Duc,
- In lead of article, you just put:
- the dates DMY
- no blue linking,
- no place of birth/death,
- just the dates plain black between parentheses
- comma only between DoB & DoD
- In lead of article, you just put:
- Example: Bob de Bourbon (14 January 1712, 6 July 1745)... bla bla bla...
- Place of birth will be mentioned at Life section: Bob de Bourbon was born in a cabbage patch...
- Place of death at Death section: Bob de Bourbon died in his sleep at the Palace of Sleeping Beauty...
- Now for the Titles & Styles section, I have no idea as to why the dates are in bold, never questioned it, never changed it. However, the dates should be given in DMY with no comma anywhere.
- Leaving this on my page in case some knowledgeable Wikipedian can give answer.
Merci
Je vous remercie de votre accusé de réception de ma modifier à l'article Chopin. Il est parfois difficile à franchir pour certains individus. C'est mon espoir sincère de soulager certaines argument passé à la nouvelle année. Vos aimables paroles me donnent quelque espoir que cette mai être possible. Ne pardonnent mon français imparfait. Dr. Dan (talk) 02:50, 18 January 2010 (UTC)
Cher Dr. Dan, Merci de votre message. I have read your recent edits on Chopin's article, and am quite satisfied that you gave George Sand's real name. And I am going to jump on the opportunity of your coming upon the scene to bring out a couple of points, three, in fact:
1. Chopin's birthdate: 22 February on a baptismal certificate, with an alleged (but generally considered erroneous) birth date recorded on it, according to a Wikipedian. Now, why is this "alleged" date considered to be *erroneous*? It is the date inscribed on the cenotaph with his heart in the church of Sainte-Croix in Warsaw. We know that Chopin's sister took his heart when she returned to Poland after his burial. When was the cenotaph built? What I am driving at: was she still alive when it was, because, if so, then she would have given the exact details pertaining to the date of his birth.
2. Chopin's nationality: Born in Poland, there is no doubt that he is a Polish citizen, naturellement. However, his father was a French citizen. Now, I have no idea what the law(s) on nationality - different in different countries, even now - were at the time of Chopin's birth.
- Was a French expatriate considered a French citizen?
- If still a French citizen, would the born-out-of-France children of this expatriate French citizen be French?
- As the laws of France are now, OUI: Chopin would have both nationalities. But what were the laws in 1810?
- If considered a French citizen because his father was French, then Chopin, once he moved to France, did not need to become a French citizen since he was one by birth.
3. Chopin's French passport: In my opinion, his French passport is no proof of citizenship:
- The one we see in the article was issued for one year in 1837 to allow him to travel outside of France. Chopin was 27 years old, quite well known and well considered because of his artistry: the French would have done anything they could to facilitate his travels, and the only way they could do it was to issue a passport to him.
- The passport issued to Chopin in 1837 does not say that he is a Frenchman, it says that his parents are French (de parents français), which includes his mother, implying she became a French citizen by marrying a Frenchman. Which also could imply that Chopin (and his sisters, by the same token) were French citizens because of the French nationality of their father. However, it does not say de nationalité française; but, again, this was in 1837.
The reason I am bringing this up is because it seems to me that somewhere in the article, it is said that he became a French citizen & the only proof given is the passport. (In fact, if the one issued in 1837 was issued for one year, then he must have had others as he traveled outside of France two or three times.)
Meilleurs vœux pour 2010.
Frania W. (talk) 03:53, 18 January 2010 (UTC)
- Thank you for your time and trouble to elucidate your thoughts on various matters (birth dates, passports, etc.) concerning Chopin. Unfortunately the issue of his nationality (far too often) seems to raise concerns in some quarters on Wikipedia. It would seem that other than some type of nationalistic xenophobia one should not object to including his connection to France (emigration to France, acquiring French citizenship, primary residency in France), thus making him Polish-French (and of course, his father's heritage). And including that would be appropriate information for the lead. Dr. Dan (talk) 04:18, 18 January 2010 (UTC)
Well, I do fight my own battles (which I call "windmills") at times on Wikipedia, but the (dual) nationality of Chopin is not one I want to go into because I realise that it touches some too deeply. Besides, being French with a Polish name, whichever way I turn, I can claim Chopin! Aurevoir ! Frania W. (talk) 04:32, 18 January 2010 (UTC)
- I do understand your dilemma. Unfortunately, many of the people who are "touched too deeply" by such issues are the same ones that are less concerned about "touching other people's sensibilities" as in the Antanas Mackevicius matter [34]. There are plenty of other examples. Dr. Dan (talk) 04:47, 18 January 2010 (UTC)
Be careful with 3RR! I must go now. Will probably run into each other again at Chopin's page. Aurevoir! Frania W. (talk) 05:27, 18 January 2010 (UTC)
- Cher Frania. Thank you for your recent note at my talk page. By now I'm sure that you are aware that delving into Chopin's multi-ethnic and multi-cultural heritage is quite a volatile subject. Not because of the veracity of the facts, but simply because it does not fit into the perceptions that certain people wish to maintain concerning Chopin. And their perceptions concerning other people as well. As you so poetically put it... "you sometimes fight battles (which you call "windmills") at times on Wikipedia". I feel that pursuing this would become a fight of that nature. Concerning the citizenship and passport matters, your points are well taken. Within the English Wikipedia article there are sources claiming, that despite his French citizenship birthright per Code civil des Français, that he obtained French citizenship. Perhaps you are correct (and they are not) and he did not do since it would have been unnecessarily superfluous. Perhaps we can garner further interest from others and get to the bottom of this question. If you have any suggestions and wish to pursue this further, I would be happy to share some thoughts with you on the matter. Regards, Dr. Dan (talk) 02:49, 27 January 2010 (UTC)
Cher Dr. Dan, Yes, I am quite "aware". But I am also aware of what the Code Napoléon stated at time of the birth of Chopin, which touches the Chopin family since his father came from France, and leaves no doubt as to Chopin's French nationality. Unfortunately, it is difficult to find a book to reference this particular point, and what I am saying falls into Wikipedia definition of "original research".
Chopin & his music are so incrusted into the tragedy of Poland that, in my opinion, out of respect for the Poles, the French have been unwilling to claim him as their own. He is always mentioned as "compositeur polonais né d'un père français" (Dictionnaire Petit Robert)... yet, according to the Code Civil: "Tout enfant né d'un Français à l'étranger est Français." But, go say that to the Poles!
Tad Szulc is the writer being quoted in Chopin acquiring French citizenship four years after his arrival in France. These few lines [35] are enough for Wikipedia's requirements. It is obvious that neither Chopin's friends and protectors nor Tad Szulc ever consulted the French Code Civil. Until he met with the French authorities, Chopin himself may have been unaware of the fact that he was French, but the French authorities knew the Code, hence the issuance of a French passport.
In my opinion, Tad Szulc's book is not a good reference (for the nationality part), but it is the only one there is, so it automatically wins out.
Do you "readez" French?
Cordialement, Frania W. (talk) 05:48, 27 January 2010 (UTC)
- J'ai lu français avec difficulté, mais faire comprendre les bases. Quand en France, j'ai toujours la préséance à m'exprimer dans la langue française. Il divertit probablement certaines personnes et je suis heureux de leur donner un certain soulagement comique. Mais sérieusement, en réponse à votre question, je ne suis pas compétent pour lire quoi que ce soit de nature savante en français. Cordialement Dr. Dan (talk) 04:17, 28 January 2010 (UTC)
Bonjour Dr. Dan, S'il vous plaît, allez ici [36]. Cordialement, --Frania W. (talk) 15:11, 28 January 2010 (UTC)
- Merci. J'ai lu votre lien et le point de prendre bonne note. Le problème est que ceux qui s'opposent à des faits ne traitons pas avec la réalité. Que faire maintenant? Dr. Dan (talk) 15:47, 28 January 2010 (UTC)
Que faire maintenant? Attendre une réaction et si elle se fait attendre, on peut toujours mettre les deux nationalités dans l'introduction de l'article puisque l'on est couvert par Encyclopedia Britannica. Ensuite, si nécessaire, en cas de controverse, on sortira le Code Napoléon ! - the problem being that it may be argued as OR. I am looking for something readable in English that would put an end to the debate. Comme vous vous en doutez, le plus gros problème sera d'éviter une bagarre entre éditeurs. Aurevoir ! --Frania W. (talk) 17:13, 28 January 2010 (UTC)
- I will look for something in the library. But in all honesty I have to tell you that I personally dislike peppering an article with too many references. I feel that it cheapens an article. As it stands the Chopin article has too many citations already. For example there is nothing controversial about Chopin dying of tuberculosis. Yet we have two citations following that information. Typically, encyclopedias do not have to follow every other entry with a citation. I believe that only disputed or dubious information needs to be cited. In the case regarding Chopin's dual nationality the information is not dubious, but I suppose due to the fact that it is "disputed", a source will be needed. I'm sure you're aware that although most Wikipedians agree that Encyclopedia Britannica is a reliable and acceptable source, there are some who challenge and nit-pick it's reliabity. My experience has been that these individuals typically have very little reluctance to source their information from web-sites, blogs, and tabloids when they can get away with it. Maybe Twitter and My Space will soon be used as a RS. Dr. Dan (talk) 18:07, 28 January 2010 (UTC)
Well, as I wrote earlier, Chopin is the last person I would want to fight an edit war over; in other words, he is not going to be turned into one of my windmills. If I can find it acceptable for en:wiki, the only reference/source I will use is the Code Napoléon and, as I understand the way Wikipedia functions, it has to be a secondary source, not the reading of the code itself (?).
In fact, there should be a calm discussion on Chopin's nationality/nationalities without anyone over-reacting when the word "French" is mentioned. --Frania W. (talk) 18:21, 28 January 2010 (UTC)
I share your exasperation at "corrected" vandalism, which you expressed in your edit summary at Arc de Triomphe. Know at least that you're not the only one struggling in misery. My shortcut is to compare the current version with the (hopefully sound) one I left at my last edit, often many months ago. Giving the "diff" gives me a quick method of vetting all the recent edits.--Wetman (talk) 20:44, 18 January 2010 (UTC)
Thanks!
thanks for your help with Johann von Klenau, which was promoted yesterday. Auntieruth55 (talk) 19:52, 26 January 2010 (UTC)
How's...life?
Hello, Frania. How are yoooooooooooooou? Haven't heard from you since my last impromptu retirement! I bet you've been watching Jersey Shore....or something or singing. -- Jack1755 (talk) 19:47, 2 February 2010 (UTC)
French titles
Frania, I have a convoluted question about French titles, a non-wiki question. Would you email me off the wiki? I need your advice. :) Auntieruth55 (talk) 20:45, 12 February 2010 (UTC)
- email sent. :) Auntieruth55 (talk) 15:52, 13 February 2010 (UTC)
Reply on Philippe d'Orleans
Hah, my apologies. I was up late trying to revise some of the article and reformat a section. Long story short, I had placed the turkey comment to see where it would show up to make sure I had formatted right and forgot to delete it. Thanks for reminding me. Too bad it doesn't have have any historical significance :) Abennettx (talk) 03:09, 19 February 2010 (UTC)
Famille d'Orléans
Chicken, I don't understand why this d'Orléans business is so hard for people to comprehend lol =[ its silly now LouisPhilippeCharles (talk) 13:10, 20 February 2010 (UTC)
- Monsieur le Duc, I left this [37] on Talk:Anne Marie d'Orléans d' or of query.
- What better proof is there that d'Orléans was the members of the House of Orléans family surname? Louis Philippe states it clearly at the opening:
- Ordonnance du roi qui détermine les NOMS et titres des princes et princesses de la famille royale.
- Les princes et princesses nos bien-aimés enfans, ainsi que notre bien-aimée sœur, continueront à porter le nom et les armes d'Orléans.
- continueront à porter means will keep on bearing, which implies that d'Orléans was already the family surname, just as was de Bourbon.
- But Frania, it's in French!!! :-O --Kansas Bear (talk) 15:16, 20 February 2010 (UTC)
- RE Louis Philippe's article, King of the French section [38], I intend to rewrite the following: "By his ordinance of 13 August 1830, soon after his accession to the throne, it was decided that the king's sister and his children would continue to bear the arms of Orléans, that Louis Philippe's eldest son, as Prince Royal, would bear the title Duke of Orléans, that the younger sons would continue to have their previous titles, and that the sister and daughters of the king would only be styled Princesses of Orléans, not of France" & include Louis Philippe's 13 August 1830 ordonnance. The reason I have not done so yet is because it is not translated. My days have only 24 hours & these 24 hours cannot be spent entirely on Wikipedia...
- à+ --Frania W. (talk) 16:14, 20 February 2010 (UTC)
- I was referring to how certain French genealogy books that indicate de France as a surname were scorned for being written in French! My :-O was my attempt to show surprise/shock/horror. Wikipedia doesn't have smilies. --Kansas Bear (talk) 20:51, 20 February 2010 (UTC)
- à+ --Frania W. (talk) 16:14, 20 February 2010 (UTC)
- ₵hicken, you really are a legend aren't you! ♥ Monsieur le Duc LouisPhilippeCharles (talk) 16:28, 20 February 2010 (UTC)
Talkback
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.
Lord Spongefrog, (I am Czar of all Russias!) 14:23, 20 February 2010 (UTC)
Happy Birthday Chopin!
 |
- --Etincelles (talk) 17:04, 21 February 2010 (UTC)
Chopin
I want to congratulate you as being the first person I've encountered who has done a revert to an old page and then has manually redone the good edits in the intervening period. I've lost count of the number of times people have not bothered to reinstate good edits of mine when I've fixed thin gs in the middle of an edit war that has nothing to do with my fix.--Peter cohen (talk) 23:51, 25 February 2010 (UTC)
Foreign titles
Hi Frania. Thanks again for your interest and help with François de La Rochefoucauld (writer). I felt the need for the WP view in our titles debate (to capitalise or not to) so I have asked a question on the Wikipedia Manual of Style talkpage [39] here. Both methods seem to have their advocates. Would you like to have some input?
Woops, forgot to sign. Added yesterday by Rumiton (talk) 11:01, 1 March 2010 (UTC)
Monsieur le Duc!
Chicken, hello, i hope you are ok! just to have a chat about our "nun " friends; i may have gone a bit over the top i must admit! i removed the category from the articles which do not state (my own presumption is to blame again :( lol) that X de Whoever was not a nun; Madame Thérèse and the Grand Duchess and la Mostespan state in their text they were :)
once again, i hope you are ok, your adoring and ever in debt [to your attentiveness and kindness] Monsieur le Duc LouisPhilippeCharles (talk) 18:41, 2 March 2010 (UTC)
- I hope that does not sound sarcastic, it is not meant to be :) LouisPhilippeCharles (talk) 18:42, 2 March 2010 (UTC)
- Chicken, just in response to your last post; While still technically married and a nun, Marguerite-Louise had several affairs (Madame de Toscane), was a French Princess and a Nun at the Royal Abbey of Fontevraud (Madame Thérèse) :) as for La Montespan i seem to have dreamed it up lol! lastly, i have to say Please stay out of trouble made me laugh :) hope you are ok Monsieur le Duc LouisPhilippeCharles (talk) 14:49, 3 March 2010 (UTC)
- These Wikipedia articles are in error:
- Madame de Toscane: While still technically married and a nun, Marguerite-Louise had several affairs: Marguerite-Louise d'Orléans had for years begged Louis XIV to let her come back to France & he granted her permission under the condition that she live quietly in a convent, which she had to accept. She is in the category of the ladies who "retired" or rather were "confined" into a convent, which had nothing to do with taking the veil. She just lived there.
- These Wikipedia articles are in error:
- Madame Thérèse: ...was a French Princess and a Nun at the Royal Abbey of Fontevraud: , A daughter of Louis XV, Madame Thérèse (Madame Sixième) was sent with three of her sisters to Fontevraud for her education, not as a nun! Look at the dates of her life, she died when she was only eight years old.
- In quite a few en:wiki articles, women who are made to enter a convent for the reasons mentioned above (widowhood, separation, questionable conduct...) are said to have become nuns, which is not true. In the Ancien Régime, convents were not only "nunneries", but also orphanages, places of education, retirement, confinement, shelters against abusive husbands, etc.
Chopin
Chers Frania, je ne sais où je peux obtenir un fac-similé du certificat de baptême de Chopin? Peut-être que vous l'avez vu au cours de certaines de vos travaux de référence? Merci. Dr. Dan (talk) 21:18, 4 March 2010 (UTC)
- Cher Dr. Dan,
- Voilà !
- En latin: :http://diaph16.free.fr/chopin//actenaissancechopin.png
- SVP, allez à la discussion sur la page de Chopin.
- J'ajoute ce facsimile en note de bas de page à l'introduction de l'article.
- Cordialement, --Frania W. (talk) 03:30, 5 March 2010 (UTC)
Foreign titles again
Hi Frania, did you get time to have a look at the above discussion? Rumiton (talk) 13:32, 5 March 2010 (UTC)
- If you mean the Manual of Styles, I did not. --Frania W. (talk) 14:37, 5 March 2010 (UTC)
- Hi again. Perhaps we are having a misunderstanding. I invited you to join the MOS Talkpage discussion on 1/Mar. I certainly did not try to exclude you, as some of your remarks there might be taken as suggesting. Discussing issues on the MOS Talkpage is the first step to adding, clarifying or changing anything in the manual, which it seems to me this issue of representing foreign titles requires. Things move fast there, so I may need to start another thread to continue the talk so as to keep it alive. Your input is most welcome. Rumiton (talk) 14:46, 10 March 2010 (UTC)
- OK. Sorry I misunderstood. I think I also suggested italicising the titles. This might be the best solution, but I am not sure if the links to other articles which are not italicised will still work. Anyway they can be piped. Cheers. Rumiton (talk) 15:30, 10 March 2010 (UTC)
- There is no problem reaching wikilinked italicised titles as long as you put in as link the exact title of the article: Catherine de Vivonne, marquise de Rambouillet, Philippe, duc d'Orléans, if that's what you mean. à+ --Frania W. (talk) 15:41, 10 March 2010 (UTC)
- OK. Sorry I misunderstood. I think I also suggested italicising the titles. This might be the best solution, but I am not sure if the links to other articles which are not italicised will still work. Anyway they can be piped. Cheers. Rumiton (talk) 15:30, 10 March 2010 (UTC)
- Hi again. Perhaps we are having a misunderstanding. I invited you to join the MOS Talkpage discussion on 1/Mar. I certainly did not try to exclude you, as some of your remarks there might be taken as suggesting. Discussing issues on the MOS Talkpage is the first step to adding, clarifying or changing anything in the manual, which it seems to me this issue of representing foreign titles requires. Things move fast there, so I may need to start another thread to continue the talk so as to keep it alive. Your input is most welcome. Rumiton (talk) 14:46, 10 March 2010 (UTC)
French broutilles
Merci pour ces mots. Je suis anglais et je n'ai qu'une faible connaissance d'autres langues, mais il me semble important de respecter leur conventions orthographiques, surtout dans un encyclopédie. Colonies Chris (talk) 13:55, 12 March 2010 (UTC)
Charles II of Spain
I am unsure what premise Surtsicna has for seeking to move the Charles II of Spain article. Recent scholarship indicates that Charles II of Spain continues to be used[40]. If you are so inclined, feel free to use the link I've provided. --Kansas Bear (talk) 06:29, 16 March 2010 (UTC)
"The immortal Battle of Dürenstein"
Battle of Dürenstein is an FAC. If you have time to take a peak, for the French side of things, it would be appreciated! Auntieruth55 (talk) 02:15, 27 March 2010 (UTC)
- Is there a deadline? --Frania W. (talk) 15:17, 27 March 2010 (UTC)
- FAC will run for 3-4 weeks, or until there is consensus. More or less. I've found that articles run about 2 weeks, and we are partly through the first week on this. Auntieruth55 (talk) 16:54, 27 March 2010 (UTC)
translation?
- "On dit que vous avez été si content de Nauendorf, d’un recrue Carlstätter ou hongrois qui a tué sept hommes, que vous lui avez donné douze ducats;..."
- They say you are so pleased with the rookie Nauendorf that you have given him 12 ducats....
- Do I have this right? War of the Bavarian Succession Auntieruth55 (talk) 23:50, 9 April 2010 (UTC)
- ...d'une recrue Carlstätter ou hongrois, which you have not included in translation, sounds weird. Was this written by a Frenchman?
- "They say you were so pleased with Nauendorf, whatever rookie Carlstätter or Hungarian who killed seven men, that you gave him twelve ducats..."--Frania W. (talk) 11:56, 10 April 2010 (UTC)
- Okay, so she's not sure if he's a Carlstaetter or a Hungarian? rookie Carlstaetter or rookie Hungarian? Auntieruth55 (talk) 16:28, 10 April
2010 (UTC)
Journal intime
Frania Cher, il se fait plutôt chaud dans le restaurant de Chopin, sans doute un incendie dans la cuisine. Laissant le point chaud pour un moment, savez-vous si Freddy a écrit son diary en polonais, comme mon ami Nihil dit, ou peut-être dans des langues différentes. Lorsque vous avez le temps. Merci, Dr. Dan (talk) 00:56, 25 April 2010 (UTC)
Talkback
Message added 21:24, 26 April 2010 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.
Talkback
Message added 21:56, 26 April 2010 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.
Chopin
Mon Dieu! Comment pouvons-nous connaître la vérité concernant la nationalité de Chopin, quand on ne peut même pas avoir un consensus sur son anniversaire? Mais maintenant, une toile d'araignée peuvent attraper à la volée. Il est évident que l'opinion de notre cher George Sand est plus importante que celle du grand artiste lui-même. En attendant, je suis vraiment furieux que Kotniski a pris sur lui de supprimer les pensées sont énoncées lors de notre débat. Oui, celle concernant «l'accident» de l'héritage paternel de Chopin. Je pense que les motivations sont Kotnitski peine de prendre un second regard. Certes, son argument est correct en ce qui concerne le fait que certaines des remarques faites, il y avait incivils. Pourtant, je pense que son autre considération est que les points concernant le père de Chopin et les conclusions logiques qu'une personne normale aurait déduire des faits, ont été trop proche pour le confort. Je veux être accommodant et flexible, mais je ne peux pas tolérer cette tentative unilatérale de la censure et la manipulation. Comme toujours, nos meilleurs vœux. Dr. Dan (talk) 22:54, 29 April 2010 (UTC)
Ma chère Frania, j'ai eu à rire lorsque mon ami Loosmark utilisé l'expression «Tempête dans une théière" (je l'ai utilisé pendant des années par rapport à ce qu'on appelait autrefois la cabale, mais je suppose que maintenant tout la clique) . Je crois qu'il veut être comme moi quand il grandit. Surtout depuis qu'il a également fait lui-même un "Doctor". Ce qui s'est passé pendant l'un de nos discussions d'autres. Puis me souviens pas exactement où cela s'est passé. Pas important. C'est flatteur, mais seulement un peu. Merci de mettre le lien vers la page WP parler français à ma page de discussion propre. Je crains que mon français est trop faible pour y participer. Et j'ai assez de mal à la tête à la version anglaise de s'impliquer à un autre. Merci bien, tout de même. Cordialement Dr. Dan (talk) 04:37, 11 May 2010 (UTC)
Chopin
You have my sympathy. All I can suggest is that you raise the issue at the WP:NPOV notice board and get some help. If that does not work, perhaps raising the issue at WP:ANI (the admin notice board). Good Luck. Blueboar (talk) 21:30, 8 May 2010 (UTC)
Hôtel de Bourbon-Condé
Hi Frania, Thank you for your very valuable contribution to the talk page for this article. In particular, one of the links you added has some fabulous pictures, so I added it to the "External links" for the article. I never imagined that naming this page would become so controversial. Wetman also agrees with you on this one. I, however, remain unsure. I have had the link to the Bibliothèque nationale drawings by Brongniart in the article for some time and have added it as justification for mentioning the name Bourbon-Condé as one of the three names for the building. We also have sources for the other two names, which also seem to be good ones. It seems likely that more than one name can be perfectly valid. I hope you looked at the Parker article from Metropolitan Museum of Art in New York. You can view it here. This is the primary justification for using Hôtel de Condé as one of the names for the building. It is a scholarly and detailed source of information on the building and Clodion's bas-reliefs. The Bibliothèque nationale web pages certainly provide good justification for Hôtel de Bourbon-Condé, but I feel they are not as quite strong as the Parker article. Another thing to consider is that User:LouisPhilippeCharles, who you may already be well aware of, argues that the combined name Bourbon-Condé is "incorrect" since it conflates the family name with the name of the house. I'm very ignorant of these issues, but he is quite adamant, and I sense that we will need to somehow accommodate his views. I feel he is a well-intentioned editor with some strong opinions, and a valuable contributor to our encyclopedia. --Robert.Allen (talk) 02:16, 13 May 2010 (UTC)
- Robert Allen,
- There is only one Hôtel de Condé, which you will also find on French wiki [41]. Monsieur le Duc has mistakenly named Hôtel de Mademoiselle de Condé one of France's monuments classés which has always be known by the name of Hôtel de Bourbon-Condé. An encyclopedia cannot change the name of a monument even if a Museum has put the name down in a shortened manner in one of its catalogs or website. The naming of this article should not be a matter of "google hits"" or "Wikipedia consensus" either. Would you ever agree to change the name of the famous London time-giver to Big Benclock?
- Rue Monsieur article on French wiki
- http://webcache.googleusercontent.com/search?q=cache:dgXDvGm57vEJ:fr.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rue_Monsieur+H%C3%B4tel+de+Bourbon-Cond%C3%A9&cd=15&hl=fr&ct=clnk&gl=us&client=firefox-a
Thanks for the links. I'm not saying that Hôtel de Bourbon-Condé is not a name for the building. I agree that it is. But buildings often have more than one name, and sometimes they are the same as another building. When the hôtel at 12 rue Monsieur was built the former Hôtel de Condé in Saint-Germain had already been demolished. So there was little reason not to call the new building by the same name. Look at Parker's article, you will see that Hôtel de Condé is a legitimate name for the building. Look at Bauchal's dictionary here, you will see that Hôtel de Mademoiselle de Condé has also been used. I don't think we can justifiably exclude the alternative names used in these sources. We have no basis for doing so. (BTW, there is a policy against using the Wikipeida itself as a source. See WP:CIRCULAR.) And, there doesn't seem to be anything in the sources you provided which supports the assertion that there is only one Hôtel de Condé. (I will copy our discussion to the article talk page.) --Robert.Allen (talk) 05:07, 13 May 2010 (UTC)
- Chicken, I have replied regarding Mademoiselle de Condé and her charming hôtel Monsieur le Duc LouisPhilippeCharles (talk) 12:55, 13 May 2010 (UTC)
- Chicken what has happened to Mademoiselle de Condé etc?! P.S Hope you are ok =) Monsieur le Duc LouisPhilippeCharles (talk) 16:11, 19 May 2010 (UTC)
- Chicken, I have replied regarding Mademoiselle de Condé and her charming hôtel Monsieur le Duc LouisPhilippeCharles (talk) 12:55, 13 May 2010 (UTC)
Papillon
Ma chère Frania, avez-vous déjà entendu parler de l'expression, "vous êtes tous mouillé"? Elle ne s'applique pas à vous, mais certaines personnes choisissent de leur propre surnom. S'il vous plaît profiter de doux rêves, et Merci pour amener les deux sain d'esprit et le charme de ces pages. Cordialement, Dr. Dan (talk) 03:41, 13 May 2010 (UTC)
Merci
Merci pour le rire immense que vous avez obtenu de moi avec ce poste [42]. Dr. Dan (talk) 16:31, 25 May 2010 (UTC)
Charlotte de Sauve
Hello Frania, I need your input here: Talk:Charlotte de Sauve. Merci.--Jeanne Boleyn (talk) 06:57, 9 June 2010 (UTC)
Chicken, Long time no speak! Hope you are ok!
Anyway regarding Monsieur de Luynes:
- I did the category for Category:House of Albert as it made sense to group all of the descendants of the house through the main line, as they all descended from Honoré d'Albert who was not the Duke of Luynes but the seigneur of Luynes; if that makes sense;
- Governor of Paris - [43] - i am not familiar with many military issues/people at all so I merely looked on the French link above and our friend was there :) I have realised that he was the Governor of Paris under the Ancien Régime - ill change that later!
- As for his name, I used [44] - a very useful site regarding Genealogy and It is very reliable! Its amazing I think. Haha!
- Thank you for doing the accents which I missed
Many regards Madame
Monsieur le Duc LouisPhilippeCharles (talk) 13:41, 18 June 2010 (UTC)
- Monsieur le Duc,
- If I am not mistaken, he was a member of the "House of Albert" [45], and could be considered at the origin of the" House of Luynes", like the duc d'Orléans, brother of L. XIV, was of the "House of Bourbon", but the head of the branch "House of Orléans". However, the present duc de Luynes et de Chevreuse [46], with his main residence in the Château de Dampierre in Dampierre-en-Yvelines in the Vallée de Chevreuse, is of the "House of Albert".
- I edited Gouverneur de Paris (Military governor of Paris); now, to that article must be added the Ancien Régime military governors, which I can do later when I have time, unless you want to do it.
- For his name ("Marie" being excluded) it was only a remark on my part; however, the article on fr:wiki does not exclude "Marie":
Charlotte de Sauve
I looked through the letters of Henri IV and found one in the 1576 volume in which he refers to Charlotte. I cannot understand it though.--Jeanne Boleyn (talk) 13:45, 18 June 2010 (UTC)
Hmmmmm
Have you ever considered archiving your talk page?? Maybe?? --Kansas Bear (talk) 06:24, 1 July 2010 (UTC)
LOL
Madame Ty for correcting my awful spelling :) Monsieur le Duc LouisPhilippeCharles (talk) 00:05, 5 July 2010 (UTC)
- Madame, I did not realise I was that bad haha =O Also, this Lorraine issue scares me and makes me feel uncomfortable =( Monsieur le Duc LouisPhilippeCharles (talk) 14:30, 6 July 2010 (UTC)
Gday. I am looking at the discussion Talk:Louis-Philippe_I,_King_of_the_French#Requested_move with regards to seeing whether a consensus has been reached on the proposal. From your commentary, there seems to be ambiguity on whether you support, oppose, or simply comment on the proposed move. If you would be able to review your comments and add some clarity, that would be appreciated for those reviewing the moves. Thanks. billinghurst sDrewth 13:53, 8 July 2010 (UTC)
Take a look
Madame, Look at this! I have been working on it for days ;) tell me what you think! I value your opinion to be honest and am eager to release him into the wild haha!
Monsieur ;) LouisPhilippeCharles (talk) 18:39, 10 July 2010 (UTC)
- Yaaaaaa, He deserves a bit more recognition that being Louis' brother! I am also doing Mademoiselle and Madame! Monsieur le Duc --15:42, 13 July 2010 (UTC)
- Fair do's =] Monsieur le Duc --LouisPhilippeCharles (talk) 16:11, 13 July 2010 (UTC)
- SOOT! I'm all good! Hope you are as well Monsieur le Duc LouisPhilippeCharles (talk) 00:06, 17 July 2010 (UTC)
- Fair do's =] Monsieur le Duc --LouisPhilippeCharles (talk) 16:11, 13 July 2010 (UTC)
Capital of France
The main use of this article seems to be from Template:Capitals in Europe. In that template, in every other case I've looked at, the link [[Capital of xxxxx]] is simply a redirect to the article on the actual current capital city. I've looked through the other places that link to this article, and in only one case is the intention to discuss the history (List of former national capitals); the others really just want a link to 'Paris'. So to my mind it would make sense for the contents of this article to be incorporated into List of former national capitals and for [[Capital of France]] to then become a redirect to Paris. And of course the contents should be corrected to distinguish more clearly between the capital and the seat of government, and between France proper and related states like Vichy France. Colonies Chris (talk) 13:29, 21 July 2010 (UTC)
- I see no reason for any of the cities given in the article to be listed as a "former national capital of France" as the only capital of France has always been Paris.
- Troyes ? Orléans ? In that case, why not Bourges ? It is totally ridiculous.
- During the reigns of Louis XIV, XV & XVI, Versailles was the seat of government, not the capital of the kingdom.
- During the 1871 Commune of Paris, and until 1879, Thiers' government was in Versailles, but the capital of France was Paris.
- In the 1940-1944 period, Vichy was the capital of the "État français", not of France.
- In my opinion, the article is 99 percent useless and should be either deleted or renamed from Capital of France to Seats of government of France, for which I do not see much use.