Talk:List of French monarchs/Demo page

very odd -- I titled this something totally different, and someone seems to have moved it while I was working. what gives?JHK

Julie, I moved this to a subpage of the talk page -- we try to keep experimental articles out of the main article namespace. Use it just like you intended, the revision history is still there. --Eloquence 23:57 29 May 2003 (UTC)

Looks like someone started work on it independently once they saw the stub. -- Derek Ross

Several thoughts. Firstly, and most substantively, what exactly is meant by "the foundation of a single political entity of France"? That's an ambiguous phrase. Does the feudal chaos of the early Capetians count as a single entity? Certainly there was some sense in which it was, although it was surely not a modern state in any way. But if it isn't to count, at what point can it be said that there was a "single political entity of France"? With Philip Augustus? There were still vast feudal domains beyond central political control until at least the late 15th century (I'd say until Henry IV's accession in 1589, substantial parts of France were not under direct royal control). And if early Capetian France does count, then why doesn't late Carolingian France? Surely nobody in 987 would have seen Hugh Capet as ruling a different kingdom from that ruled by Louis the Sluggard (or Hugh's own grandfather Robert I, for that matter).

Second, some quibbles on some of the specific comments made. I'd note that the "Capetian Dynasty" included not only the rulers up to Charles IV, but also the later Valois and Bourbon kings, who were just as much capetians as the earlier rulers. Louis XVI was, at his trial, referred to as "Louis Capet". (And if the Valois are to be considered a distinct dynasty from the earlier capetians, when Philip VI was a first cousin of the last "Capetian" king, why should Louis Philippe be considered a "Bourbon" when his family diverged from the main line of French kings 200 years before his accession? In any event, I think it should be made clear that all of the monarchs of France between 987 and 1792 (and 1814 and 1848) were equally Capetians, and of the same patrilineal ancestry. The Salic Law ought to be brought in in terms of the transition from "Early Capetian" to Valois, and it be mentioned that the King of England's claim doesn't even work out if you ignore the the Salic Law.

Finally, I'm not sure I like the backwards format. it is, as I mentioned before, a bit off-putting, and I'm not sure that this article deserves this much explanation. Some brief annotation is a good idea, but I don't know that a list article should get into this much detail. I would still argue that a clear explanation of the place of the Merovingian and early Carolingian monarchs in the French monarchical tradition, along with links to wherever they are listed, followed by an explanation of the treaty of Verdun, and how the West Frankish kingdom established in that treaty directly evolved into modern France, and then a list starting with Charles the Bald, would be sufficient. Much of the rest of the material could be put into the sadly neglected History of France article. john 00:08 30 May 2003 (UTC)

Hey, I'm just trying to get things to work -- and your point is well taken. WHen I took my first medieval history class, the prof pointed out that the Capetians ruled continuously from 987 to 1792 -- I have no problem with this, but was trying to stick with the breakdown that existed in the old list. It certainly shows how a relatively weak family with very few possessions can come out on top largely due to passing on lots of y chromosomes and having a good string of legal nitpickers and bean counters as members. And of course, all your comments about the early Capetians are true -- which is why I also like 843. But then, I'm a Carolingianist and have no axe to grind when it comes to preserving a national(ist) myth as some kind of 'real' history ;-) The best thing about reverse Chronologies, though, is that we could also put in maps of the areas ruled under different kingdoms, and take it back to the various Gallic provinces. That way, it would clearly be defined as geographic, not national, in scope. JHK

That's true. Certainly, if it'll get Triton off our backs ... er, "satisfy all Wikipedians", it's probably worth doing. I agree that the distintions of the different lines of Capetians should be distinguished. if we could put in maps that'd be cool, although, again, I wonder if this is beyond the scope of a page that is supposed to be simply a list of Kings of France... john 02:09 30 May 2003 (UTC)