Talk:Henri, comte de Chambord

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

France Portal
Henri, comte de Chambord is within the scope of WikiProject France, an attempt to build a comprehensive and detailed guide to France 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.
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Biography. For more information, visit the project page.
Biography Portal
Start This article has been rated as start-Class on the project's quality scale. [FAQ]
This article is supported by the Royalty and nobility work group.

Contents

[edit] Duplicate page

It seems to me that on October 28, 2005, an anonymous editor has copied "Henri, comte de Chambord" and duplicated the page as "Henry V of France" (with a link from the first page to the term "Henry V" which links in turn to "Henry V of France"). Can we agree to delete this second page? There should just be a redirect from "Henry V of France" to "Henri, comte de Chambord". Noel S McFerran 01:00, 29 October 2005 (UTC)

Should they be merged? -Alex, 12.220.157.93 05:51, 31 January 2006 (UTC).

I have removed the second pretension box. There is no system under which Chambord followed Louis Philippe as a claimant to the French throne. I have also changed the box to indicate a) that many people considered him to be the legitimist claimant from the time of his grandfather and uncle's abdications in 1830, rather than from the time of his uncle's death in 1844; and b) that many people who considered themselves legitimists in 1883 recognized the Comte de Paris as his successor. john k 16:42, 6 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Surname

Shouldn't Henry V's surname be de France since he did indeed become King of France and of Navarre? I didn't know it could go back to d'Artois. Charles 15:19, 7 June 2007 (UTC)

IMHO, the name of the article should be Henry V of France. Why people are desconsidering the fact that he was proclaimed king? --Tonyjeff 00:27, 14 October 2007 (UTC)
The title of the page is based on popular and scholarly usage. The question was about a fact within the content of the article rather than the title of the article itself. Charles 06:35, 14 October 2007 (UTC)
Still, I think the name of the article should be Henry V of France. --Tonyjeff 18:59, 29 October 2007 (UTC)
Please start a separate discussion on the matter then as this question does not involve the article title. Charles 19:06, 29 October 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Orleanist pretender

On August 19, 2007, Wedineinheck added to this article the Category:Orléanist pretenders to the French throne. I removed it, but Wedineinheck then replaced it with the edit summary "No, really ! He was both for a time." What evidence can Wedineinheck provide that Henri was the Orléanist pretender? Please cite a specific book which refers to him as this. Noel S McFerran 13:18, 20 August 2007 (UTC)

This is explicitely stated in this article and in the one regarding "Philippe VII of France". In 1870-1871, and more or less until his death of 1883, Henri d'Artois was the pretender of both orleanists and legitimists, as Philippe d'Orléans agreed to make way for him. Wedineinheck (talk) 21:53, 22 November 2007 (UTC)

No, he was never the Orléanist pretender. The (original) Orléanist claim ceasd to exist when the Comte de Paris recognized the Comte de Chambord as proper heir. After Chambord died, there was a new schism, with the ultra-legitimists (the "Blancs d'Espagne") going with the Carlists, while most legitimists and all Orléanists recognized the Comte de Paris as the legitimate pretender. This group became known as "Orléanists," but they were distinct from the 1848-1873 Orléanists. The Comte de Paris's claim before 1873 was based on his status as heir under the 1830 charter. Since, in 1873, he recognized Chambord, and thus essentially repudiated the 1830 Charter, there was no Orléanist candidate, in that sense, thereafter. After 1883, the Comte de Paris's claim was different - now he was the legitimist heir on the condition that the terms of the Treaty of Utrecht, barring the descendants of Philip V of Spain, was binding, while the Conde de Molina was claimant based on the notion that no treaty could bar the legitimate senior descendant of Hugh Capet from the French throne. It makes no sense to call Chambord the Orléanist pretender. john k (talk) 07:43, 16 December 2007 (UTC)

I concur that the fact that the Orleanist pretender "retired" and recognized Chambord's rights, doesn't make Chambord the Orleanist pretender. Noel S McFerran (talk) 14:09, 16 December 2007 (UTC)

[edit] King of France??

Historians (to my recollection) don't recognize Henry's reign. GoodDay (talk) 01:28, 16 December 2007 (UTC)

Did he not 'reign' between the deposition of Charles X & and the Dauphin and the proclamation of Louis-Philippe? Michael Sanders 01:35, 16 December 2007 (UTC)

Not according to the French Parliament of that time, nor historians since. According to them, Charles X's immediate successor is Louis Phillipe. GoodDay (talk) 01:41, 16 December 2007 (UTC)

It is arguable that he was King as Henri V after Charles X and the Dauphin's abdication and before the proclamation of Louis Philippe. He was never, however, officially recognized as such. john k (talk) 07:38, 16 December 2007 (UTC)

The reason this article's proposed movement to Henry V of France was rejected, is the same reason these 'King of France' edits should be removed. Henry was never King, never reigned. PS- identical edits have been made to the Louis (Henry's uncle) article, claiming he was also King of France. GoodDay (talk) 16:31, 16 December 2007 (UTC)

Excuse me that rejection of page movement was at the Louis-Antoine article, where editors there rejecting moving to Louis XIX and Henry V. GoodDay (talk) 16:44, 16 December 2007 (UTC)

From Philip Mansel's book, Paris between Empires, 1814-1852 (page 261), " On 2 August, Charles X and the Dauphin abdicated in favour of the King's grandson, the Duc de Bordeaux." From T.E.B. Howarth's book,The Life of Louis-Philippe, Citizen King (page 153), "...[Charles X] instructed Louis-Philippe to proclaim Henry V." Based on the Charter of 1814, it would seem that only the king could decide upon his successor. It was not a prerogative of either the House of Peers or House of Deputies. Only later did events get out of hand due to the duplicity of Louis-Philippe. Just because an insurrectionary wave overcomes an elected assembly does not necessarily means that it can over-ride previously established tradition and law and decide upon a new leader outside the normal realm of succession. Due to the wording of the abdication document signed by Charles X and his son, it would appear that the Duc de Bordeaux was indeed the de jure ruler of France starting on August 2, regardless of what the two legislative houses wanted. As far as the Duc d'Angoulême goes, based on the Charter of 1814, for the twenty minutes between the signature of his father to the abdication document and his own, he too appears to have been the de jure ruler of France. This is a sticky situation to define because to deny kingly status to the Ducs d'Angoulême and Bordeaux requires a retrospective validation of illegal acts by the House of Peers and House of Deputies encouraged by Louis-Philippe. It revives an age old question, should history be written to only suit the desires of the victors? BoBo (talk) 22:04, 16 December 2007 (UTC)

We can't ignore the fact, that Historian and Encyclopdeia have declare Louis & Henry as not being Kings of France. To have them as such, would also call for the inclusion of Edward III of England to George III of the United Kingdom aswell, since they've claimed the title King of France. We should go along with historians and not re-write history - There was no 'King Louis XIX of France', 'King Henry V of France', 'King Philip VII of the French', Emperor Napolean II of the French. These people didn't reign. GoodDay (talk) 22:16, 16 December 2007 (UTC)
Your response seems rather stark and not nuanced at all. I am not suggesting that either the Duc de Reichstadt or Duc de Bordeaux should be considered as reigning monarchs for the remainder of their lives. Rather, each should be considered rulers de jure from the time of the abdication of their predecessors to the actual installation of the successors condoned by the actual powers that be. Claims mean nothing. De jure leadership during the actual transition between the legal systems of two different regimes does. BoBo (talk) 22:34, 16 December 2007 (UTC)
These men didn't 'reign' as Kings of France, thus the reason their articles weren't moved to Louis XIX of France and Henry V of France, please reconsider your 'January 2007' edits. If we follow your examples - Juan Carlos I of Spain's reign would be 1977- present, his father would be King of Spain 1941-77, and his father Alfonso XIII of Spain, 1886-1941. GoodDay (talk) 22:40, 16 December 2007 (UTC)
You continue to misunderstand my point. Only royals who accede to a throne by the laws in place in their country at the time of their accession should be considered de jure rulers of that country until the legally recognized installation of a different regime. The Count of Barcelona should not be considered a de jure king of Spain because his succession is based upon the family rules of only one branch of Spanish Bourbons and not the actual laws in place in Spain at the time of the death of his father. To expand on my point, if Juan Carlos I should abdicate in favor of his son, and twenty minutes later a new Spanish republic is declared by forces actually in control of the country, then his son should be considered the de jure ruler of Spain during the twenty minute transition between the two regimes. His son, however, should not be considered the de jure ruler of Spain until his own death. BoBo (talk) 23:03, 16 December 2007 (UTC)
If this were all as simple as automatic succession then yes Lous & Henry were Kings of France. But, France has chosen to (retroactively, if you will) consider them not Kings; someday 'maybe' the Republic will reconsider, until then let's stick with what the historians and encylopedias say. GoodDay (talk) 23:08, 16 December 2007 (UTC)
I worry that your approach in essence justifies revisionist history by victorious governments. One shouldn't just give into the "party line" because it is easier and less complicated to do so. I think some have already tried that in Nazi Germany and Stalinist Russia. Look at the supression of information such concessions can make. BoBo (talk) 23:29, 16 December 2007 (UTC)
Seeing as we're not gonna agree, I'll let others have a chance to discuss this topic with you. All we're doing is stalmating. GoodDay (talk) 23:40, 16 December 2007 (UTC)

I take Bobo's point (hello, by the way! First time on this page) that if the constitutional law of a state is based on automatic succession, then there is a line of succession until such a time as that law isbolished by a new regime. Thus, many hold that the brother of Tsar Nicholas II was Michael II after his abdication until Michael Romanov refused the throne.So on those grounds, the Comte de Chambord could be styled Henri V. But I also see that few sources style him such. Historical persons are styled by common opinion. That may seem subjective. But we need to accept some standard, otherwise we have to consider every claim. I mean, what if someone presents the opinion that Henri could not have been king because of the claims of the son of Napoleon III?--Gazzster (talk) 00:19, 17 December 2007 (UTC)

Gazzster, in my scheme, the problem you suggest is no problem at all for two reasons. First, the Duc de Bordeaux was the de jure king only from the time of his lawful succession until the new government proclaimed Louis-Philippe to be the King of the French. Because of this, he was not the legal de jure king of France at the time of Napoleon III. Second, Napoleon was no longer the legal emperor at the time of his death, therefore his son could not legally succeed him. The laws of the Third French Republic prevented that. Complicated? Yes, but accurate. BoBo (talk) 00:31, 17 December 2007 (UTC)
I still think the 'King of France' succession boxes & infoboxes should be removed from the 'two' disputed articles & the opening line (atleast) being changed to some consider him King of France.... GoodDay (talk) 01:37, 17 December 2007 (UTC)

I have run a Google search. The name Henri V occurs as a major entry once-here, in the English Wikipedia. The French site does not say he was King of France, but only styled so by legitimists. The Count de Chambord was not proclaimed King by the French people and so they do not regard him as such. Standard lists of monarchs do not include an Henri V, just as lists of Russian monarchs do not include a Michael II. Adding his name as the edits in question have done is original. --Gazzster (talk) 13:22, 17 December 2007 (UTC)

Gazzster, there also was no King Louis-Philippe I of France, but he appears in Wikipedia in many places. Louis-Philippe was never the King of France, rather he was specifically referred to as the King of the French in the 1830 constitution. My point is that modern usage is fluid and does not always accurately represent the debates current to specific people or events in the past. BoBo (talk) 23:51, 18 December 2007 (UTC)
Someday this (comte de Chambord) and the 'Duke of Angouleme' articles, will be corrected. It's only a matter of time. GoodDay (talk) 00:00, 19 December 2007 (UTC)

You're missing the point, I'm afraid. Whether Louis-Philippe was 'King of the French' or 'King of France', he is a monarch of France in a line of succession from Louis XVI (and b4 of course) to Napoleon III. My point is that Harry boy is not generally recognised as a true monarch of France. You can personally claim that he was- that's fine. But for Wiki to publish it as a fact is original research. How about noting underneath his (and Louis XIX's) entry something like 'legitimists claim he was technically King for {however long} but he is not generally included in lists of French monarchs'?--Gazzster (talk) 00:07, 19 December 2007 (UTC)

In general, I do not want to belabor this point. I would not be opposed to the removal of the "king" templates on the right of the Angoulême and Chambord articles with the addition of the following phraseology in the introductions:
For the Duc d'Angoulême:
"Louis-Antoine d'Artois [1], Dauphin of France and Duke of Angoulême (de jure King of France and Navarre for twenty minutes in 1830 and Legitimist Pretender to the throne from 1836 to 1844) (August 6, 1775 – June 3, 1844) was the eldest son..."
For the Comte de Chambord:
"Henri Charles Ferdinand Marie Dieudonné d'Artois, comte de Chambord – (September 29, 1820 – August 24, 1883) was the de jure King of France and Navarre from 2 to 9 August 1830 according to the Charter of 1814 and afterwards the Legitimist Pretender to the throne of France from 1844 to 1883." BoBo (talk) 02:34, 19 December 2007 (UTC)

That's cool with me, as long as you reference that claim.--Gazzster (talk) 03:01, 19 December 2007 (UTC)

Remove the 'King of France' infoboxes & succession boxes aswell. GoodDay (talk) 15:21, 19 December 2007 (UTC)

I think BoBo has a reasonable case to be made - although I'll add that Chambord was arguably the legitimist pretender between 1830 and 1844, as well, and was supported as such by many legitimists, although he himself always recognized his grandfather and uncle. I do think that they shouldn't be in succession boxes or infoboxes. john k (talk) 21:53, 19 December 2007 (UTC)

I think we should consider that the Legitimist themselves don't recognize Louis & Henry as Kings in 1830. GoodDay (talk) 21:59, 19 December 2007 (UTC)
It depends on the legitimist. At the time, there was a wide variety of opinion on the subject - some recognized Henri V from 1830, some from 1836, and some only from 1844. john k (talk) 22:20, 19 December 2007 (UTC)
I'm concerned that by having it edited as Louis & Henry reigned, is rather one-sided (along with letting them have a 'monarch info box' & 'succession box'). We need something to point out that their Kingly status is historically questionable. GoodDay (talk) 22:26, 19 December 2007 (UTC)

The logic applied in making these two kings is faulty at least in the case of "Henry V" ... if he succeeded as king in 1830, his "de jure reign" does not suddenly stop with the proclamation of Louis Philippe, who under the laws of the kingdom can only be considered an usurper. If we followed the "de jure" line, Henry would become King in 1830 and remain so until his death. Str1977 (talk) 10:40, 2 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] heir apparent

I've removed the category for heir apparents who never ascended to the throne. He was never heir apparent. During Charles X's reign, the King's elder son, Louis, Duke of Angoulême, was heir-apparent. The Duc de Bordeaux wasn't even his heir apparent - he could have been displaced had Angoulême had any sons of his own. john k (talk) 16:24, 16 December 2007 (UTC)

In agreement, Henry was never heir-apparent. GoodDay (talk) 16:41, 16 December 2007 (UTC)