Talk:List of Queens and Empresses of France

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

List of Queens and Empresses of France has had a peer review by Wikipedia editors which is now archived. It may contain ideas you can use to improve this article.

	France Portal List of Queens and Empresses of France 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.
B	This article has been rated as b-Class on the Project's quality scale. (If you rated the article please give a short summary at comments, explaining the ratings and/or suggest improvements.)

Contents 1 Dynastic Titles 2 Madame de Maintenon 3 Peer review 4 Agnes of Merania 5 Marie-Therese-Charlotte

[edit] Dynastic Titles

If someone with expertise in this area could step in, that would be useful. I have none. However, I believe that the dynasties should be listed as 'Direct Capet', 'Valois of Capet'/'Valois Branch of Capet', etc:

• French Wikipedia records Valois, etc, as 'Capetiénne' (Jean II's article describes him as "le deuxième de la maison capétienne de Valois").
• The principle is the same as that we follow in the only similarly divided dynasty in English history, that of the Plantagenets: where Edward IV was of York, but also a Plantagenet; all direct descendants of Henry II are described today as Plantagenets, regardless of later subdivisions. In the same way, all the French Kings were direct descendants of Hugh Capet, and therefore are in that sense of the same family.
• Capet may not be a feudal title, but nor is Plantagenet. Michaelsanders 23:13, 8 January 2007 (UTC)

Yes, and nobody says "York of Plantagenet" either. The custom in English, as in French, is to list the kings from Henry II to Richard II as "Plantagenet", then from Henry IV to Henry VI as "Lancaster", then Edward IV to Richard III as "York", despite the fact that Lancaster and York were both in direct male-line descent from Geoffrey Plantagenet. The English-language convention for listing the French dynasties is the form that I used in correcting this article. The current Wikipedia convention, which is naturally a wordy compromise between several different views, can be seen at List of French monarchs. RandomCritic 01:44, 9 January 2007 (UTC)

In addition, the King list uses the same style of division (except 'Capetian dynasty' rather than 'Of Capet'. I'll change it to that, to match. Michaelsanders 01:41, 9 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Madame de Maintenon

I note that the article on morganatic marriage specifically denies that Louis XIV's marraige to Mme. de Maintenon was morganatic in any legal sense; however, it was secret, in that its existence was not announced or widely known. So perhaps morganatic is not the correct word to use here. RandomCritic 07:27, 17 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Peer review

Per the peer review comments, I'd suggest that a "Sources" column be added on the right with links and references for the information on each queen, consort, or empress. RandomCritic 23:11, 21 January 2007 (UTC)

That would belong to their individual articles. The List is merely supposed to reflect them. User:Dimadick

All articles (including lists) must provide their own references. Relying on linked-to articles is effectively using Wikipedia as a source, which isn't allowed. I'm not sure the extra column suggestion will work but it depends on what sources you have, how many there are and what they cover. Colin°^Talk 13:47, 24 January 2007 (UTC)

Just follow the example of the King List, and place a few relevant sources at the bottom of the article in a reference section - the King list has a star, so it obviously works there. Michaelsanders 17:00, 24 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Agnes of Merania

I added in Agnes of Merania, since although her marriage to Philip II seems to have been canonically objectionable, she was for some time treated as Philip's wife and queen. But I'm not clear on the details; did she cease to be queen on his first repudiation of her, in 1199, or his second, in 1200? RandomCritic 22:06, 2 February 2007 (UTC)

I suppose the second repudiation would probably the best cut-off point, for simplicity's sake, although it may not necessarily be accurate; maybe she should be listed twice (but I suppose she would count as having still been married, and thus still Queen, in the space between). To be honest, I originally avoided noting her because I was confused about whether she could be considered his wife (not only was the marriage officially declared void, but officially - according to some clerics, but not others - he was still married to Ingeborg at the time - and that was retroactively confirmed when Philip took Ingeborg back as his wife later without remarriage, implying that he had been married to her without break since their original marriage. But on the other hand, the children of Philip and Agnes were recognised as legitimate. At this point, my head starts to hurt). However, you are right in saying that she was "treated as Philip's wife and queen" at the time, and Ingeborg wasn't (an angle I hadn't really considered), so I suppose it is safe to leave her in. As for dates, I think it should be from the 'marriage(?)' to the second repudiation; however, possibly an official reference would be better. Michaelsanders 22:21, 2 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Marie-Therese-Charlotte

1) She's in the wrong place, as her putative queendom is in 1830 -- after the Bonapartes; 2) Her date is just given as "August 2" instead of "August 2, 1830" 3) She can't possibly have died in 1751. 4) Both her husband and father-in-law abdicated via the same instrument, that is, from a legal point of view, virtually simultaneously; the instrument is effective from the time of its publication, not from the time of signature. There isn't any basis for considering M.T.C. queen. The precedent of existing Wikipedia articles is that she was Duchess of Angoulême, not reigning queen of France.RandomCritic 20:46, 16 March 2007 (UTC)

1) Corrected. 2) Corrected. 3) Corrected 4) Depends on what authority you listen to - whether a King ceases to be King from the moment of his abdication, or from the publication of the document (just as there is debate over whether a King is a King automatically upon the death of the predecessor, or upon proclamation, or on crowning, or whatever). Her husband is considered to have legally been unquestionably King for 20 minutes, or thereabouts, and so Marie-Therese is Queen in the same manner (and is recorded as dowager Queen on her headstone for that reason). And incidentally, the precedent is that she is Marie Therese Charlotte of France, and that her highest unquestionable title was Dauphine of France. Michael Sanders 21:21, 16 March 2007 (UTC)