Talk:Antoine of Navarre
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
 |
Antoine of Navarre is within the scope of WikiProject France, an attempt to build a comprehensive and detailed guide to France and Monaco on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please join the project and help with our open tasks. | |
 |
||
| ??? | This article has not yet received a rating on the quality scale. Please rate the article and then leave a short summary here to explain the ratings and/or to identify the strengths and weaknesses. | |
[edit] Succession
Could people maybe explain what they're trying to do here? Michael, you keep putting him in the succession line with the Queen Consorts, since he was king by marriage; perhaps we should indicate that in the box? (e.g., "in right of" rather than "with" Jeanne III?) Choess 17:31, 24 January 2007 (UTC)
- Well, it labels him as 'King of Navarre'; but he was, nonetheless, consort, and his predecessor was the previous consort, Marguerite of Angouleme, etc. Michaelsanders 19:13, 24 January 2007 (UTC)
- It's really not quite right to describe him as a consort. He was king of Navarre in right of his wife. He wasn't a powerless king consort like Francisco de Asis in Spain under Isabel II - he was considered to be properly king, it was just in right of his wife. john k 19:34, 24 January 2007 (UTC)
- I'm not disputing that he was 'King' rather than 'Prince Consort'; however, the point remains that he was King de Uxoris rather than de Jure, which places his predecessor as Marguerite of Angouleme, the previous royal spouse, and his successor as Marguerite of Valois, the following royal spouse - rather than his predecessor being Henry II, and his successor being Henry III (IV) - especially since Henry III didn't inherit until the death of Jeanne d'Albret. My point is that he was monarch of Navarre only by marriage, rather than by birth: his wife, his father-in-law and his son were all born to the title of monarch of Navarre, which inaliably belonged to them as their birthright; Antoine and the Marguerites held their titles only by virtue of their marriages to the Navarrese rulers, any power they exercised was, in theory at least, only by the consent of their spouses, and the title would be taken away from them if they were divorced (i.e. Marguerite of Valois), or if the regnant spouse died (i.e. Philip IV of France, who ceased to be King of Navarre with his wife's death, the title passing to his son). So, Antoine's predecessor was the previous royal spouse, not the previous regnant ruler. Michaelsanders 00:14, 25 January 2007 (UTC)
- A queen consort is not the same thing as a King de uxoris, or, at least, not necessarily the same thing. A queen consort is not a joint ruler with her husband. She is merely her husband's consort. The same is true for some king-consorts, but certainly not for all - they were often considered to be, in themselves, co-rulers with their wives, especially in earlier times. In some cases, they even got the throne for life, whether or not their spouses lived. This would have been the case in Scotland for Francis II of France, for instance, if his wife had died before him. And was certainly the case in Navarre itself, for John II of Aragon, who remained as king for 38 years after his wife's death, only on his death passing the kingdom on to their daughter. john k 00:47, 25 January 2007 (UTC)
- But John's retention of the crown seems to have been illegal - witness his bad reputation as a result of that, the rumblings in favour of his children by Blanche inheriting after her death. Witness also the succession of Louis X of France to Navarre and Champagne following the death of his mother. The point remains that Antoine de Bourbon and his companion Kings-by-marriage are the spouses of the legitimate monarchs, rather than the legitimate monarchs in themselves, and as such are preceeded and succeeded by female spouses of male legitimate monarchs, rather than by the male legitimate monarchs themselves. Michaelsanders 01:15, 25 January 2007 (UTC)
- I really think this is the wrong way of looking at it. In the middle ages, male consorts were also normally the effective rulers of the country. It is just wrong to treat them as identical to female consorts. john k 16:09, 25 January 2007 (UTC)
- But John's retention of the crown seems to have been illegal - witness his bad reputation as a result of that, the rumblings in favour of his children by Blanche inheriting after her death. Witness also the succession of Louis X of France to Navarre and Champagne following the death of his mother. The point remains that Antoine de Bourbon and his companion Kings-by-marriage are the spouses of the legitimate monarchs, rather than the legitimate monarchs in themselves, and as such are preceeded and succeeded by female spouses of male legitimate monarchs, rather than by the male legitimate monarchs themselves. Michaelsanders 01:15, 25 January 2007 (UTC)
- A queen consort is not the same thing as a King de uxoris, or, at least, not necessarily the same thing. A queen consort is not a joint ruler with her husband. She is merely her husband's consort. The same is true for some king-consorts, but certainly not for all - they were often considered to be, in themselves, co-rulers with their wives, especially in earlier times. In some cases, they even got the throne for life, whether or not their spouses lived. This would have been the case in Scotland for Francis II of France, for instance, if his wife had died before him. And was certainly the case in Navarre itself, for John II of Aragon, who remained as king for 38 years after his wife's death, only on his death passing the kingdom on to their daughter. john k 00:47, 25 January 2007 (UTC)
- I'm not disputing that he was 'King' rather than 'Prince Consort'; however, the point remains that he was King de Uxoris rather than de Jure, which places his predecessor as Marguerite of Angouleme, the previous royal spouse, and his successor as Marguerite of Valois, the following royal spouse - rather than his predecessor being Henry II, and his successor being Henry III (IV) - especially since Henry III didn't inherit until the death of Jeanne d'Albret. My point is that he was monarch of Navarre only by marriage, rather than by birth: his wife, his father-in-law and his son were all born to the title of monarch of Navarre, which inaliably belonged to them as their birthright; Antoine and the Marguerites held their titles only by virtue of their marriages to the Navarrese rulers, any power they exercised was, in theory at least, only by the consent of their spouses, and the title would be taken away from them if they were divorced (i.e. Marguerite of Valois), or if the regnant spouse died (i.e. Philip IV of France, who ceased to be King of Navarre with his wife's death, the title passing to his son). So, Antoine's predecessor was the previous royal spouse, not the previous regnant ruler. Michaelsanders 00:14, 25 January 2007 (UTC)
- It's really not quite right to describe him as a consort. He was king of Navarre in right of his wife. He wasn't a powerless king consort like Francisco de Asis in Spain under Isabel II - he was considered to be properly king, it was just in right of his wife. john k 19:34, 24 January 2007 (UTC)
Which I am not doing. I am simply saying that they occupied the place of 'spouse of the hereditary monarch', rather than 'hereditary monarch' - which makes the predecessor the previous 'spouse of the hereditary monarch', etc, rather than the previous hereditary monarch. Michaelsanders 17:33, 25 January 2007 (UTC)
