Talk:Louis-Philippe of France
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
 |
Louis-Philippe of France 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. | |
| Start | This article has been rated as start-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.) |
|
 |
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Biography. For more information, visit the project page. | ||
| Start | This article has been rated as start-Class on the project's quality scale. [FAQ] | ||
Inconsistency in this article: Louis-Philip; Louis-Philippe; Louis Philippe.
According to some authorities, the French connect a person's two Christian names with a hyphen.
S.
- So go ahead and put the hyphens in. He's not Louis (Philip I), he's (Louis Philip) I, and I think having the hyphen in makes that clearer, don't you? -- isis 29 Aug 2002
Moved this here because i don't own a single book that Anglicizes Philippe. Made the change in the article. JHK
Does everything after "The Clash of the Pretenders" belong here? Shouldn't it be moved to a history of France article? The dates next to the children are really ugly, too. We have Wiki standards for dates. And why is the daughter called Princess Louise-Marie Thérèse Charlotte Isabelle in one paragraph and Princess Louise of Orleans in another? I had fixed all of these things (except the last section), but got hit by an edit conflict and really don't want to have to redo all of it. -- Zoe
- I think that as the monarchy ended with Louis-Philippe, 'The Clash of the Pretenders' is worth mentioning here as an epilogue, especially as the throne was offered gift-wrapped to the Comte de Chambord in the 1870s but the man (rumoured to be so stupid he couldn't tie his own shoelaces!) was to stupid to accept. Given that, to get all biblical (or at least to paraphrase it) here endeth the monarchy It is worth giving one of two paragraphs to explain why Louis-Philippe was the last king, even though by 1870 a majority wanted a royal restoration. Sometimes a postscript helps contextualise an article and this, I believe, is one of those occasions.
- It could also be done as a separate page on the Comte de Chambord, but that would open up squabbles because some people call him Comte de Chambord, some the duc de Bordeaux, and some fanatical French royalists will insist (on pain of an edit war) on calling him 'Henry V of France'. And if you have a page on him, do you have one of the Comte de Paris, etc.? (If you don't, expect accusations of bias from [ . . . fill in name of the angry fanatic . . . .]) It could be in a page on the Third French Republic (if we had one!), but there too you'll have a couple of fanatics on left and right 'demanding' that the article 'expose' the 'anti-semitic, right wing anti-Dreyfus royalists' (the left wing view) or the two-faced dishonesty of the founders of the Republic on the issue of the Crown (the monarchist view), how the stupid legitimists destroyed a royal restoration (the orleanist view), or how the power-grabbing descendants of the 'usurper Louis-Philippe', the monied middle classes and jews all plotted to block the 'legitimate' king Henry V's right to get back his throne' (the legitimist view). On balance it is better to plonk it here on a page about the last French king where its is least likely to cause the Weekly Wiki War of the Edits. JTD
Contents |
[edit] Marie Eugenia von Schroeppel
This marriage is not a documented fact and is at best wishful thinking on the part of whomever submitted this information. I am surprised that this made it into this encyclopedia. I have been doing basic academic research on the Schroeppel family for over twenty years and am able to definatively disprove this connection. Among other false items of information here is that George Casper Schroeppel never used nor was he ever know by "von" Schroeppel. 24Nov2003 DB
[edit] About his photo
I guess it wouldn't be odd to mention in the article that Louis-Philippe was the first French monarch to be photographed (the only existing photo was made in Tuileries in the summer of 1842). What do you think, messieurs? Asharidu 20:46, 1 December 2007 (UTC)
- Is that true? There exists a photograph of Empress Marie Louise which might be older. 82.161.19.51 (talk) 20:03, 23 December 2007 (UTC)
Of course it's true, cher ami, please follow this link to be sure: http://www.marillier.nom.fr/collodions/PM/instantaneEN.html . We should find out when Marie Louise was photographed and compare the dates. Asharidu (talk) 19:29, 7 February 2008 (UTC)
[edit] Louis Philippe of the French?
Since he was not "King of France", it might make more sense to title the article as above. This is probably not worth doing unless there is genuine and overwhelming consensus on it; so I'm not taking this to WP:RM until I see what the watchers of this page say. It should be a redirect anyway. Septentrionalis 15:19, 10 August 2005 (UTC)
Someone who knows more than I do, please edit to show the burial site of Louis-Philippe and his family. Isn't it the Royal Chapel at Dreux? glasperlenspiel 19:23, 5 October 2005 (UTC)
Louis Philippe, King of the French would be a better title, in my view. john k (talk) 21:51, 7 February 2008 (UTC)
[edit] wrong date (?)
In the section entitled Abdication, at the end of the first paragraph, the following sentence is in parentheses:
(The following year, 1844, Louis-Philippe saw a Fleet Review, Royal Navy.)
From the context it appears that the date should read 1849. Is this correct? Dveej 22:12, 24 February 2006 (UTC)
[edit] Last king
To say this means that it is 100% certain France will never have another king. This should be revised as there is perhaps some distant possibility that she might have another one in the indefinite future. --Daniel C. Boyer 17:40, 10 March 2006 (UTC)
- This is an encyclopedia, not a handbook of epistemology. If he ceases to be the last king, we will revise it. Septentrionalis 20:53, 10 March 2006 (UTC)
- Napoleon III was a monarch after Louis-Phillipe. What about him?
[edit] Miserable Article
This article is pathetic. It doesn't even cite a thing. One source? That's it? This shouldn't even be a B-Class article, it's closer to a START class... I suggest a rewrite. Also, there is a ton of info on google books on this guy, just search it up.63.215.29.115 00:34, 23 February 2007 (UTC)
- I have added the request for citation, perhaps you could help with it? STTW (talk) 13:00, 24 February 2007 (UTC)
- Sure. I am doing a research paper on him. Since i have to cite my sources, ill try to work it in to wikipedia.63.215.29.115 00:45, 13 March 2007 (UTC)
[edit] Kasab
The word "kasab" appears a number of times in this article, apropos of nothing. It may be a vandalizing reference to Khaled Kasab Mahameed. 208.194.97.9 15:43, 27 February 2007 (UTC)
[edit] Fairly heavy style rewrite
This article was apparently composed by a non-Anglophone. Ther content was generally excellent, but the writing had problems.
There were several instances of wrong word usage ("installed" for "instilled", "sinecure" for "symbol", "following" for "succeeding").
Sentence forms imitated French forms that are not appropriate in English: "would be" for "was", "would go" for "went".
In addition:
There were many run-on sentences, and a lot of circumlatory language. Also passages that were confusing.
There were some serious typos ("Hiatt" for "he", "the the" for "to the").
Linking, capitalization, and italicization were inconsistent and sometimes improper.
All this I have fixed as much as I could.
Also a few errors of fact. Reichenau is on the upper Rhine, but not at its source, which is in Lichtenstein. Cochrane could not have commanded the British ship that seized Louis Philippe and his brothers in 1797; his first command was in 1800.
This latter passage seems confused. Why did the British ship seize Louis Philippe and his brothers? Why then deliver them to Havana, where they were bound anyway? If Britain and Spain were at war, how could a British ship call there?
There were some irrelevant passages about extraneous related topics which I deleted (about Chambord, for instance). It is important that an article stick to one topic, and avoid including material which appears in other articles. If there is a correction, expansion, or revision to be made, the fewer instances to be fixed, the better. (As noted, the discussion of the pretenders has to go somewhere, and would probably be edit-warred elsewhere. But there is no need to mention Chambord and the flag more than once, or include the date of Louis Napoleon's coup.)
Finally, while this article has great detail about Louis' life from 1789 to 1800, it has nothing at all about his 15 years in Britain, only one paragraph about the 15 years under Louis XVIII and Charles X, and only one brief paragraph about his 18 years as King. It is quite useful for what it has, but needs to be completed. Not, alas, by me.
--Rich Rostrom (Talk) 18:45, 22 May 2007 (UTC)
[edit] Napoleon III as successor ??
Michaelsanders keeps listing Napoleon III as Louis-Philippe's successor. IMHO, this is not justified. Louis-Napoléon Bonaparte only came to power in december 1848, and was preceded as head of state by Jacques-Charles Dupont de l'Eure, the Executive Commission and Louis-Eugène Cavaignac. Moreover, he was not a monarch until the 1852 coup d'état. Listing him as Louis-Philippe's successor is just plain wrong and confusing. It would be pretty much like listing Napoleon I as Louis XVI's successor despite the 11-years gap, or Adolphe Thiers as Louis-Napoléon Bonaparte's (as he was the next president). I suggest we discuss it before we start an edit war. Wedineinheck 07:02, 4 December 2007 (UTC)
- When listing monarchs, it's common to indicate the previous and following monarchical rulers. Napoleon III was the next monarch of France after Louis-Philippe, since, like you say, he became Emperor in 1852. Michael Sanders 11:52, 4 December 2007 (UTC)
-
- Well, he might have been monarch in 1852 but he was definitely not Louis-Philippe's immediate successor. What matters IMHO is that Bonaparte was not HEAD OF STATE at the moment of Louis-Philippe's downfall; I considered that this infobox's role was to indicate France's actual ruler rather than monarch. Moreover, he was certainly not recognized as legitimate by monarchists. If we follow that logic, Napoleon I should be listed as Louis XVI's successor, which he is not at the moment. As for Henri V, as you state, his status as king was "questionable", as he was not recognized. In French historiography Louis XIX and Henri V are not recognized as having reigned (and, in effect, they didn't, much like Louis XVII or Napoleon II), so their presence as actual kings in a line of succession is considered purely theoretical. More often than not, they aren't even mentioned as such. But the history of France's monarchy is arguably convoluted in the XIXth century. If you absolutely want to list Napoleon III in this article (+ Louis XIX and Henri V) though, we might find a compromise. Wedineinheck 16:25, 4 December 2007 (UTC)
- Here, I edited this infobox and Charles X's, so it includes all de facto/de jure predecessors and successors. I hope this suits everybody. Wedineinheck 16:40, 4 December 2007 (UTC)
- Sorry, but I'd like the infoboxes to remain that way : Henri V is not generally considered as having legitimally reigned, so his inclusion without commentary is just confusing. Wedineinheck 17:34, 4 December 2007 (UTC)
- Here, I edited this infobox and Charles X's, so it includes all de facto/de jure predecessors and successors. I hope this suits everybody. Wedineinheck 16:40, 4 December 2007 (UTC)
- Well, he might have been monarch in 1852 but he was definitely not Louis-Philippe's immediate successor. What matters IMHO is that Bonaparte was not HEAD OF STATE at the moment of Louis-Philippe's downfall; I considered that this infobox's role was to indicate France's actual ruler rather than monarch. Moreover, he was certainly not recognized as legitimate by monarchists. If we follow that logic, Napoleon I should be listed as Louis XVI's successor, which he is not at the moment. As for Henri V, as you state, his status as king was "questionable", as he was not recognized. In French historiography Louis XIX and Henri V are not recognized as having reigned (and, in effect, they didn't, much like Louis XVII or Napoleon II), so their presence as actual kings in a line of succession is considered purely theoretical. More often than not, they aren't even mentioned as such. But the history of France's monarchy is arguably convoluted in the XIXth century. If you absolutely want to list Napoleon III in this article (+ Louis XIX and Henri V) though, we might find a compromise. Wedineinheck 16:25, 4 December 2007 (UTC)
- —Preceding unsigned comment added by 89.224.138.28 (talk) 16:09, 7 December 2007 (UTC)
- Listing as his successor the monarch of a completely different regime is absurd. I would say, though, that none of the intermediate authorities in 1848 really qualify as permanent, rather than temporary heads of state, and that, arguably, Cavaignac was the only one who was even a proper interim head of state. Dupont de l'Eure was really more a prime minister than a head of state, and the Executive Commission was a commission. On the other hand, rather sadly, we do list Georges Pompidou as both preceded and succeeded as French president by Alain Poher, rather than preceded by De Gaulle and succeeded by Giscard d'Estaing, so perhaps that doesn't hold up. john k (talk) 21:50, 7 February 2008 (UTC)
- Well, it indeed implies changes of regime, but Louis-Philippe was nevertheless de facto the Head of State of France following Charles X, and Dupont de l'Eure de facto succeeded Louis-Philippe. So that makes sense, since we have to take into account that the situations were extremely convoluted. Wedineinheck (talk) 11:46, 17 February 2008 (UTC)
- Dupont de l'Eure was certainly head of government. Whether he was head of state seems open to question. john k (talk) 14:16, 17 February 2008 (UTC)
- Beyond that, I think I mostly object to the fact that we have two separate boxes, one for "French Head of State" and one for "King of the French". john k (talk) 14:19, 17 February 2008 (UTC)
- Well, Dupont de l'Eure was head of government, but he was de facto head of state as there was no one else left to fill that role : the monarchy had been abolished and the position of President of the Republic had not yet been created. The same thing goes for the Executive Commission, or for the Presidents of the French Provisional Government (1944-46), who were de facto heads of State in absence of a President of the Republic. As for the separate boxes for "French Head of State" and "King of the French", I didn't create them, but they are two separate offices, the former being a position, the latter a title. Wedineinheck (talk) 14:53, 17 February 2008 (UTC)
- They are not two separate offices. john k (talk) 17:35, 17 February 2008 (UTC)
- Well, the word office does not correctly describes it, but these are two different things. Louis-Philippe was Head of State of France while he was in power; he remained de jure King of the French until his death, as this is a title and not an actual office. The title is currently held by Henri d'Orléans : no one would consider that this elderly gentleman is or has ever been an actual Head of State Wedineinheck (talk) 18:22, 17 February 2008 (UTC)
- I think there should be one succession box. It should say "King of the French." The dates should say "1830-1848". The before box should say "Charles X", and below that, "(King of France)". The after box should say "Jacques Charles Dupont de l'Eure", and below that "(President of the Provisional Government)". The navigation should go to predecessors as head of state, the title in the box should be the title which he held as head of state. The de jure status of Louis Philippe after 1848 (which is dubious, anyway, since he abdicated) is irrelevant, as is the de jure succession of his grandson. Neither Philippe, Comte de Paris, nor his great-grand-nephew has ever been "King of the French" any more than he has been Head of State. (And, in fact, since 1875, the Orléans have not claimed the succession through the 1830 Charter, but rather as senior male descendants of Hugh Capet, assuming the exclusion of descendants of Philip V of Spain.) john k (talk) 20:27, 17 February 2008 (UTC)
- This is actually a complex issue. I'd have no problem with listing only Charles X as Louis-Philippe's predecessor, but another user insisted on listing both Louis XIX and Henri V - who both had fictional and extremely short reigns - though no one except hardcore monarchists considers them to have actually been kings of France. Listing them in the infobox has the advantage of illustrating how complex the situation was. Same thing, IMHO, for listing both Dupont de l'Eure (de facto successor) and Philippe VII (de jure successor), as it illustrates how the line of succession was broken. I personnally think we could do without Napoleon III as next reigning monarch, but it was the same user who wanted to include him, so I think that we might keep that compromise. Wedineinheck (talk) 08:43, 18 February 2008 (UTC)
- I think there should be one succession box. It should say "King of the French." The dates should say "1830-1848". The before box should say "Charles X", and below that, "(King of France)". The after box should say "Jacques Charles Dupont de l'Eure", and below that "(President of the Provisional Government)". The navigation should go to predecessors as head of state, the title in the box should be the title which he held as head of state. The de jure status of Louis Philippe after 1848 (which is dubious, anyway, since he abdicated) is irrelevant, as is the de jure succession of his grandson. Neither Philippe, Comte de Paris, nor his great-grand-nephew has ever been "King of the French" any more than he has been Head of State. (And, in fact, since 1875, the Orléans have not claimed the succession through the 1830 Charter, but rather as senior male descendants of Hugh Capet, assuming the exclusion of descendants of Philip V of Spain.) john k (talk) 20:27, 17 February 2008 (UTC)
- Well, the word office does not correctly describes it, but these are two different things. Louis-Philippe was Head of State of France while he was in power; he remained de jure King of the French until his death, as this is a title and not an actual office. The title is currently held by Henri d'Orléans : no one would consider that this elderly gentleman is or has ever been an actual Head of State Wedineinheck (talk) 18:22, 17 February 2008 (UTC)
- They are not two separate offices. john k (talk) 17:35, 17 February 2008 (UTC)
- Well, Dupont de l'Eure was head of government, but he was de facto head of state as there was no one else left to fill that role : the monarchy had been abolished and the position of President of the Republic had not yet been created. The same thing goes for the Executive Commission, or for the Presidents of the French Provisional Government (1944-46), who were de facto heads of State in absence of a President of the Republic. As for the separate boxes for "French Head of State" and "King of the French", I didn't create them, but they are two separate offices, the former being a position, the latter a title. Wedineinheck (talk) 14:53, 17 February 2008 (UTC)
- Well, it indeed implies changes of regime, but Louis-Philippe was nevertheless de facto the Head of State of France following Charles X, and Dupont de l'Eure de facto succeeded Louis-Philippe. So that makes sense, since we have to take into account that the situations were extremely convoluted. Wedineinheck (talk) 11:46, 17 February 2008 (UTC)
- Listing as his successor the monarch of a completely different regime is absurd. I would say, though, that none of the intermediate authorities in 1848 really qualify as permanent, rather than temporary heads of state, and that, arguably, Cavaignac was the only one who was even a proper interim head of state. Dupont de l'Eure was really more a prime minister than a head of state, and the Executive Commission was a commission. On the other hand, rather sadly, we do list Georges Pompidou as both preceded and succeeded as French president by Alain Poher, rather than preceded by De Gaulle and succeeded by Giscard d'Estaing, so perhaps that doesn't hold up. john k (talk) 21:50, 7 February 2008 (UTC)
[edit] Paris -> England by cab
"he quickly disguised himself and fled Paris. Riding in an ordinary cab under the name of "Mr. Smith", he escaped to England."
One suspects that in travelling from Paris to England he may have used an alternate method of transportation at some point. :-) -- Writtenonsand (talk) 15:15, 22 March 2008 (UTC)
