This
level-4 vital article is rated C-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
The contents of the Capetian Miracle page were merged into Capetian dynasty on 27 September 2019. For the contribution history and old versions of the redirected page, please see its history; for the discussion at that location, see its talk page. |
I changed this:
To this
As I would expect a list of countries in the first case rather than a list of people. Matthieu 11:07, 25 June 2007 (UTC)
Perhaps the best titles would be Capetian dynasty, Valois dynasty, Bourbon dynasty, instead of the mixture. Or is there a better way still? -- Wetman 02:23, 26 Feb 2005 (UTC)
I oppose the proposed merge. I think that it is worth having a separate article on the the very broadly defined House of Capet, which includes all descendants of Robert the Strong, including families that have ruled many parts of Europe other than France, including the present-day monarchs of Spain and Luxembourg. This article can and should focus instead on the narrowly defined dynasty that ruled France from 987 to 1328. It would be worth expanding this article to really cover monarchs in the dynasty and events and processes that occurred under their rule, as the article Carolingians does. Marco polo 01:55, 5 February 2007 (UTC)
The list of Capetian kings here goes from the end of the Carolingians up to the Revolution (and beyond!). According to the House of Bourbon article, the Bourbon dynasty took over with Henry IV.
So which is it? Did the Capetians rule in unbroken succession until 1792?
I would hasten to add that this should probably be explained in the article (or perhaps the Bourbon one). It's not clear as it's currently written. I'm obviously not an expert on this subject, so I can't fix it myself. Cheers -- DarthBinky 22:20, 19 December 2006 (UTC)
Bourbon are a cadet line of Capet family. See my new edition Aubisse
Hugh Capet's surname is described on his article as of unknown origins. This article claims, rather strangely, that it comes from his habit of wearing a cape. Unless someone can source this, I am removing it. Michaelsanders 14:52, 9 January 2007 (UTC)
While I know that the origin of the word "Capet" is not for certain, it would make more sense, if we were to consider that it did, indeed mean "big head", which is but a variation of "The Great!" I would suggest that this moniker is the most correct! It would make more sense if one were to consider "Ier", as a moniker, that is "the first?". I.e. "Premier" or "ultimate leader", or even "War Commander", or even "Caesar?" 69.92.23.64 ( talk) 02:29, 27 January 2010 (UTC)Ronald L. Hughes
I have removed the successors to Ferdinand I of Portugal. His successor was an illegitimate son of Peter I of Portugal, and is not, therefore, Capetian. Michaelsanders 15:00, 9 January 2007 (UTC)
There has been a proposal to merge House of Capet with Capetians, but it seems to me useful to have separate articles on the House of Capet, which covers a wide range of dynastic lines, and on the narrowly defined Capetian dynasty that ruled France from 987 to 1328. The latter article should cover monarchs in that dynasty and events in the history of France that occurred under their rule, whereas the article "House of Capet" can be a general introduction to the broader nexus of aristocratic families sharing a descent from the early Capets. In order to avoid confusion between the Capetians of France, narrowly defined, and other members of the House of Capet, I think that it would help to reserve the term "Capetians" for the French kings and their immediate family members and to use the term "Capets" for members of the broader network of families. Do others think that this would be a good way to avoid confusion? Marco polo 01:51, 5 February 2007 (UTC)
Please tell me it there is a source for Robert and Eudes of Paris being maternal grandsons of Louis the Pius. And if so, what it is? Another source says "Their mother was Adelheid of Tours, an Etichone and sister-in-law of Lothar I of Lorraine -- not a Carolingian." 144.160.98.31 05:31, 14 May 2007 (UTC)
"it also is one of the most incestuous, especially in the Spanish Monarchy." I think the author mistaken the Capetian and the Spanish branch of the Habsburg dynasty, more known for their intermarriage than the Capetian dynasty. As there is no source for this statement, i propose to simply remove it. 86.206.111.109 ( talk) 13:48, 2 March 2009 (UTC)
The English claim was not the first time female succession became an issue, so it's oversimplification to say that "Without Salic Law, ... the crown would have passed to Isabella ... and her heir, Edward III of England." Under modern British rules, the French succession in 1328 would apparently be:
The next sentence is also more than a little bit misleading:
This reads as if Valois, Valois-Orléans and Angoulême each lasted only one reign! — Tamfang ( talk) 21:46, 2 April 2010 (UTC)
Recently added:
Two paragraphs above, we say the Salic Law specifies strictly agnatic succession. So how is this an addition? — Tamfang ( talk) 19:36, 16 July 2010 (UTC)
I made a few changes to the article on subjects related to Brazilian history. -- Lecen ( talk) 19:19, 23 December 2010 (UTC)
The introduction claims the Capetians were descended from the Merovingians. Where did that claim come from? Can anyone show a line of descent from the Merovingians? Emerson 07 ( talk) 13:56, 30 June 2011 (UTC)
This is a more sure line of descent: Clovis I Chlothar I Sigebert I Ingunda Atanagild Ardabastus Peter of Cantabria several generations to Blanche of Castile, mother of Saint Louis King of France — Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.60.138.156 ( talk) 15:45, 3 November 2011 (UTC)
Some people think the Capetians are too powerful and have made a monopoly of Europes Kingdoms. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 88.111.116.197 ( talk) 22:17, 21 November 2011 (UTC)
I revert Cristiano Tomás's which said "House of Capet did not hold the Portuguese throne, members of its cadet branches did, quite different; illegitamate descent from cadet branches, very different" since this is not an article about the House of Capet which is about the Direct Capetian line. This is an article about all the male-line descendants of Hugh Capet, period. -- The Emperor's New Spy ( talk) 07:32, 5 July 2012 (UTC)
I changed the cadet branches section to a link to the section of the article about cadet branches since it ignore most of the cadet branches. At first I thought it was just listing existing lines, but the fact that the House of Valois is on it makes that assumption negelible. I think it is much tidier this way. -- The Emperor's New Spy ( talk) 07:32, 5 July 2012 (UTC)
I've have changed House of Vermandois to Capetian House of Vermandois since there were two. It seems there were many of these branches that were Capetian House of ... since there were older lines from different family. -- The Emperor's New Spy ( talk) 00:14, 6 July 2012 (UTC)
French wiki page: "Selon l’historien Karl Ferdinand Werner, les Capétiens constituent la plus ancienne dynastie royale en succession masculine du monde"
Approximately translated by: "According to the historian Karl Ferdiand Werner, Capetian are the oldest royal dynasty in the world by male lineage." Would be interesting to mention it. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2A01:E35:8A8D:FE80:5F5:C0B6:6A84:361E ( talk) 10:20, 6 August 2016 (UTC)
It think the article should be moved from Capetian Dynasty to simply Capetians. To use the term dynasty, especially in reference to monarchs across europe who never used it as a self-identifier, implies a unity of the various descendants under a single family, which is not the case. While Felipe VI is a Capetian (a malé line descendant of Hugh Capet), his family is the House of Bourbon; while Manuel II of Portugal was a Capetian, his family was the house of Braganza, which incidentally often is referred to as the Braganza dynasty, which goes to the point of my suggestion: it's not incorrect to refer to all these different descendants as individual capetians but using the term dynasty implies a unity which is non existent amongst the royal families of Spain, Luxembourg, Portugal, France, etc. I'd like to gage thoughts before opening a move request, so please comment below. Cristiano Tomás ( talk) 02:58, 7 December 2019 (UTC)
This
level-4 vital article is rated C-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
The contents of the Capetian Miracle page were merged into Capetian dynasty on 27 September 2019. For the contribution history and old versions of the redirected page, please see its history; for the discussion at that location, see its talk page. |
I changed this:
To this
As I would expect a list of countries in the first case rather than a list of people. Matthieu 11:07, 25 June 2007 (UTC)
Perhaps the best titles would be Capetian dynasty, Valois dynasty, Bourbon dynasty, instead of the mixture. Or is there a better way still? -- Wetman 02:23, 26 Feb 2005 (UTC)
I oppose the proposed merge. I think that it is worth having a separate article on the the very broadly defined House of Capet, which includes all descendants of Robert the Strong, including families that have ruled many parts of Europe other than France, including the present-day monarchs of Spain and Luxembourg. This article can and should focus instead on the narrowly defined dynasty that ruled France from 987 to 1328. It would be worth expanding this article to really cover monarchs in the dynasty and events and processes that occurred under their rule, as the article Carolingians does. Marco polo 01:55, 5 February 2007 (UTC)
The list of Capetian kings here goes from the end of the Carolingians up to the Revolution (and beyond!). According to the House of Bourbon article, the Bourbon dynasty took over with Henry IV.
So which is it? Did the Capetians rule in unbroken succession until 1792?
I would hasten to add that this should probably be explained in the article (or perhaps the Bourbon one). It's not clear as it's currently written. I'm obviously not an expert on this subject, so I can't fix it myself. Cheers -- DarthBinky 22:20, 19 December 2006 (UTC)
Bourbon are a cadet line of Capet family. See my new edition Aubisse
Hugh Capet's surname is described on his article as of unknown origins. This article claims, rather strangely, that it comes from his habit of wearing a cape. Unless someone can source this, I am removing it. Michaelsanders 14:52, 9 January 2007 (UTC)
While I know that the origin of the word "Capet" is not for certain, it would make more sense, if we were to consider that it did, indeed mean "big head", which is but a variation of "The Great!" I would suggest that this moniker is the most correct! It would make more sense if one were to consider "Ier", as a moniker, that is "the first?". I.e. "Premier" or "ultimate leader", or even "War Commander", or even "Caesar?" 69.92.23.64 ( talk) 02:29, 27 January 2010 (UTC)Ronald L. Hughes
I have removed the successors to Ferdinand I of Portugal. His successor was an illegitimate son of Peter I of Portugal, and is not, therefore, Capetian. Michaelsanders 15:00, 9 January 2007 (UTC)
There has been a proposal to merge House of Capet with Capetians, but it seems to me useful to have separate articles on the House of Capet, which covers a wide range of dynastic lines, and on the narrowly defined Capetian dynasty that ruled France from 987 to 1328. The latter article should cover monarchs in that dynasty and events in the history of France that occurred under their rule, whereas the article "House of Capet" can be a general introduction to the broader nexus of aristocratic families sharing a descent from the early Capets. In order to avoid confusion between the Capetians of France, narrowly defined, and other members of the House of Capet, I think that it would help to reserve the term "Capetians" for the French kings and their immediate family members and to use the term "Capets" for members of the broader network of families. Do others think that this would be a good way to avoid confusion? Marco polo 01:51, 5 February 2007 (UTC)
Please tell me it there is a source for Robert and Eudes of Paris being maternal grandsons of Louis the Pius. And if so, what it is? Another source says "Their mother was Adelheid of Tours, an Etichone and sister-in-law of Lothar I of Lorraine -- not a Carolingian." 144.160.98.31 05:31, 14 May 2007 (UTC)
"it also is one of the most incestuous, especially in the Spanish Monarchy." I think the author mistaken the Capetian and the Spanish branch of the Habsburg dynasty, more known for their intermarriage than the Capetian dynasty. As there is no source for this statement, i propose to simply remove it. 86.206.111.109 ( talk) 13:48, 2 March 2009 (UTC)
The English claim was not the first time female succession became an issue, so it's oversimplification to say that "Without Salic Law, ... the crown would have passed to Isabella ... and her heir, Edward III of England." Under modern British rules, the French succession in 1328 would apparently be:
The next sentence is also more than a little bit misleading:
This reads as if Valois, Valois-Orléans and Angoulême each lasted only one reign! — Tamfang ( talk) 21:46, 2 April 2010 (UTC)
Recently added:
Two paragraphs above, we say the Salic Law specifies strictly agnatic succession. So how is this an addition? — Tamfang ( talk) 19:36, 16 July 2010 (UTC)
I made a few changes to the article on subjects related to Brazilian history. -- Lecen ( talk) 19:19, 23 December 2010 (UTC)
The introduction claims the Capetians were descended from the Merovingians. Where did that claim come from? Can anyone show a line of descent from the Merovingians? Emerson 07 ( talk) 13:56, 30 June 2011 (UTC)
This is a more sure line of descent: Clovis I Chlothar I Sigebert I Ingunda Atanagild Ardabastus Peter of Cantabria several generations to Blanche of Castile, mother of Saint Louis King of France — Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.60.138.156 ( talk) 15:45, 3 November 2011 (UTC)
Some people think the Capetians are too powerful and have made a monopoly of Europes Kingdoms. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 88.111.116.197 ( talk) 22:17, 21 November 2011 (UTC)
I revert Cristiano Tomás's which said "House of Capet did not hold the Portuguese throne, members of its cadet branches did, quite different; illegitamate descent from cadet branches, very different" since this is not an article about the House of Capet which is about the Direct Capetian line. This is an article about all the male-line descendants of Hugh Capet, period. -- The Emperor's New Spy ( talk) 07:32, 5 July 2012 (UTC)
I changed the cadet branches section to a link to the section of the article about cadet branches since it ignore most of the cadet branches. At first I thought it was just listing existing lines, but the fact that the House of Valois is on it makes that assumption negelible. I think it is much tidier this way. -- The Emperor's New Spy ( talk) 07:32, 5 July 2012 (UTC)
I've have changed House of Vermandois to Capetian House of Vermandois since there were two. It seems there were many of these branches that were Capetian House of ... since there were older lines from different family. -- The Emperor's New Spy ( talk) 00:14, 6 July 2012 (UTC)
French wiki page: "Selon l’historien Karl Ferdinand Werner, les Capétiens constituent la plus ancienne dynastie royale en succession masculine du monde"
Approximately translated by: "According to the historian Karl Ferdiand Werner, Capetian are the oldest royal dynasty in the world by male lineage." Would be interesting to mention it. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2A01:E35:8A8D:FE80:5F5:C0B6:6A84:361E ( talk) 10:20, 6 August 2016 (UTC)
It think the article should be moved from Capetian Dynasty to simply Capetians. To use the term dynasty, especially in reference to monarchs across europe who never used it as a self-identifier, implies a unity of the various descendants under a single family, which is not the case. While Felipe VI is a Capetian (a malé line descendant of Hugh Capet), his family is the House of Bourbon; while Manuel II of Portugal was a Capetian, his family was the house of Braganza, which incidentally often is referred to as the Braganza dynasty, which goes to the point of my suggestion: it's not incorrect to refer to all these different descendants as individual capetians but using the term dynasty implies a unity which is non existent amongst the royal families of Spain, Luxembourg, Portugal, France, etc. I'd like to gage thoughts before opening a move request, so please comment below. Cristiano Tomás ( talk) 02:58, 7 December 2019 (UTC)