This   level-5 vital article is rated C-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects:

Biography: Royalty and Nobility This article is within the scope of WikiProject Biography, a collaborative effort to create, develop and organize Wikipedia's articles about people. All interested editors are invited to join the project and contribute to the discussion. For instructions on how to use this banner, please refer to the documentation.BiographyWikipedia:WikiProject BiographyTemplate:WikiProject Biographybiography articles This article is supported by WikiProject Royalty and Nobility (assessed as Mid-importance). France High‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject France, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of France on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.FranceWikipedia:WikiProject FranceTemplate:WikiProject FranceFrance articles High This article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale. Middle Ages: Crusades High‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Middle Ages, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of the Middle Ages on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Middle AgesWikipedia:WikiProject Middle AgesTemplate:WikiProject Middle AgesMiddle Ages articles High This article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale. This article is supported by the Crusades task force.

On 4 March 2024, it was proposed that this article be moved to Charles VIII. The result of the discussion was not moved.

The account of Charles's death may be open to question. I have seen the doorway where Charles is thought to have struck his head. It is easily high enough for me to pass through, and I am 6 ft 2 in. Charles was extremely short, bein hardly over 5 ft. It would be impossible for him to hit his head on the lintel without jumping high into the air. I was assured the floor had not been lowered, and there is no evidence of this. The possibility of him being assassinated must be considered, the obvious culprits being partisans of Louis of Orleans, who succeeded Charles as Louis XII. I don't think the traditional account can be accepted by anyone who has seen the site where he had his "accident".

I.G. Helps

There exists a contradiction between this page and the page of Charles the VIII of France. In Ferdinand II of Naples we read that Charles retreated back to France with most of his armies, where in Charles the VII's page, we read that Charles retreated back to France with most of his army lost. Subotai 01/17/2006:: I went ahead and did a very few changes in order to line up the info with that of the battle of Fornovo. Previously the article stated that Charles lost a large part of his army but this was untrue because he only lost a few hundred at Fornovo. Subotai

The article used to give "On 19 december" as the date of the marriage. Someone added the following note to the article:

the official Institut de France info for Duchess Anne de Bretagne at the Langeais Chateau Exhibition says that the marriage took place in the early hours of 6th December, NOT December 19th

Until this issue is clarified, I have removed the note and changed the date to a noncommittal "In december". All the best, -- Jorge Stolfi ( talk) 00:44, 22 February 2010 (UTC) reply

Who ruled France during his absence in the Italian wars? Who served as the regent of France during his absence? Was it the queen, Anne of Brittany?-- 85.226.41.248 ( talk) 11:30, 24 February 2010 (UTC) reply

There was no regency for Charles VIII. His sister acted as guardian at his father's request, but, by law, Charles was of age when his father died. https://books.google.com/books?id=0jzf0iQdOnoC&pg=PA91&lpg=PA91&dq=charles+viii+did+not+have+a+regent,+age+of+majority&source=bl&ots=fLpc-u42Zi&sig=I1s_F6DNn5I3NvvLRO-W80egnes&hl=en&sa=X&ved=0ahUKEwi7qYjr9KPOAhWC8CYKHaTeAoIQ6AEISTAH#v=onepage&q=charles%20viii%20did%20not%20have%20a%20regent%2C%20age%20of%20majority&f=false 131.95.1.238 ( talk) 23:53, 2 August 2016 (UTC) reply

Some would disagree:

• A History of Women's Political Thought in Europe, 1400-1700, by Jacqueline Broad, Karen Green, Cambridge University Press, page 64.
• The Lost Tapestries of the City of Ladies: Christine de Pizan’s Renaissance Legacy, by Susan Groag Bell, University of California Press, page 108.
• The Late Medieval Age of Crisis and Renewal, 1300-1500, by Clayton J. Drees, Greenwood Press, page 477.
  

Even the book you cite:

• Anne of France: Lessons for My Daughter, by Sharon L. Jansen, page 5.
  

Undoubtedly you missed that part. -- Kansas Bear ( talk) 04:32, 3 August 2016 (UTC) reply

Some might disagree, but they would be wrong. There is a difference between a regent and a guardian. If Charles had had a regent, under the interpretation he had not yet reached his 14th birthday, the regency would have been dissolved on his 14th birthday. It wasn't, because there was no regency. And, by the way, one of the books you list, The Late Medieval Age of Crisis and Renewal, 1300-1500, by Clayton J. Drees, Greenwood Press, page 477., actually says she wasn't his regent. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 131.95.1.238 ( talk) 21:49, 3 August 2016 (UTC) reply

Drees calls her an unofficial regent, your opinion is of no concern. If Cambridge University calls her a regent, your original research is meaningless. -- Kansas Bear ( talk) 22:20, 3 August 2016 (UTC) reply

There is no such thing as an "unofficial" regent, and the article, itself, says no regent was named. I have done no "original research." I merely know how to read. I bring this up because I like articles in Wikipedia to be accurate, and to say there was a regency for Charles VIII is simply wrong. You should bring this to the attention of a senior editor and let him or her fix it. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 131.95.1.238 ( talk) 22:53, 3 August 2016 (UTC) reply

Apparently you can't read, because that is exactly what Drees calls her while two other university sources call her regent. So you can continue to ignore Cambridge and California university presses, it wont do you any good. And what you have done with the Jansen source is called cherry-picking information. -- Kansas Bear ( talk) 01:55, 4 August 2016 (UTC) reply

More sources;

• History of Holland, by George Edmundson, Cambridge University Press, page 15.
• Chronology of World History, Volume 1, H. E. L. Mellersh, Neville Williams, ABC-CLIO, page 569. -- Kansas Bear ( talk) 04:11, 4 August 2016 (UTC) reply

This is ridiculous. Drees, in the article and on the page you quote, states, "Louis died in 1483 after expressing the wish that Anne be Charles' guardian, but without naming a regent." You mention Cambridge and California, and now Holland, but maybe you would be better off finding a French source. I don't know you or what your background is, but obviously you know nothing of this subject. I am not "cherrypicking" sources. I listed one because I thought that was satisfactory. All I wanted to do was keep Wikipedia from misleading people who now think Charles VIII had a regent. He did not. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 131.95.1.238 ( talk) 13:18, 4 August 2016 (UTC) reply

Hmm...More cherry picking:

• "Valois, Anne, Duchess de Bourbon (1461-1522), is also known to scholars as Anne de Beaujeau and "Madame la Grande". Anne Valois is best known for her role as unofficial regent of France for her brother, Charles VIII..."

Miss that part?

• Louis XI: The Spider King, Paul Murray Kendall, page 373-374, "The shrewd couple to whom Louis XI had entrusted the regency, his iron-willed daughter Anne and her husband, Pierre de Beaujeu...."
• "I am not "cherrypicking" sources."

Your Jansen source states on page 5, "...the name of regent, Anne of France was nevertheless recognized as controlling the person of the king, the finances of the state, and the power of the realm."

• "but obviously you know nothing of this subject."

Making it personal since you do not have an argument, clear sign of defeat. The sources clearly state Anne was regent. And since you can not refrain from commenting on another editor(and not the 7 sources calling her regent), we are done here. -- Kansas Bear ( talk) 18:47, 4 August 2016 (UTC) reply

You have now crossed the line from mere ignorance to deception. You state, "Your Jansen source states on page 5, "...the name of regent..." So what is the long and unimportant part of the sentence you leave out? "Lacking." "Lacking the name of regent..." Why is she "lacking the name of regent"? Because she was not the regent. You say I am making it personal. I am making it personal because you don't know what you are talking about. But yes, we are done. I have reported you. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 131.95.1.238 ( talk) 19:13, 4 August 2016 (UTC) reply

Be Careful not To exceed this rule-- Yufitran ( talk) 20:19, 4 August 2016 (UTC) reply

My apologies, but thank you for joining the conversation Yufitran. I do think it is deceptive to leave a single word out of a quote when that word changes the entire meaning of the quote. When I started this, I just wanted Wikipedia to remove a serious mistake from the very beginning of an article. I like Wikipedia very much, and it really bothers me when the information is incorrect. Kansas Bear can put up as many links as he/she likes, but the problem is, they are wrong. We are talking about an historical fact here. Either there was a regency or there wasn't. There wasn't. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 131.95.1.238 ( talk) 20:40, 4 August 2016 (UTC) reply

check this and this-- Yufitran ( talk) 20:57, 4 August 2016 (UTC) reply

Yufitran, allow me to start from the beginning, and, perhaps, I can do a better job of explaining my position. First, I have done no original research. There are accounts in history books that describe certain events. One of those is the death of King Louis XI and the succession of his son as King Charles VIII. Here is an article: http://www.medievalists.net/2016/01/20/isabeau-of-bavaria-anne-of-france-and-the-history-of-female-regency-in-france/ Charles was young and sickly, and his father was concerned about his abilities, which is why he arranged for his older daughter, Anne (and, by extension, her husband) to be his guardian. She was not a regent. There are rules concerning regents that are separate from guardians. There was never a regency. The histories are clear about this (although, apparently, some "historians" are not). As far as giving all sides, sometimes there is only one side. If I say George Washington was the first president of the United States of America, that is not biased. There is no other position. He was, or he was not. That is all. Anne was not a regent, and saying she was can't change that. What concerns me is that I now see that the Anne of France article on Wikipedia has an entire subhead concerning her regency, which is easily the majority of the article. This is wrong. She was never regent. Kansas Bear has quoted at least one article saying an was the "unofficial" regent. There is no such thing as an "unofficial" regent (this should be obvious) and calling someone that is just sloppy. (I'm referring here to the articles being linked, not to Kansas Bear.) I see how this could be confusing, but that is exactly why Wikipedia should make an effort to get it right. A lot of people look to Wikipedia first (and sometime, sadly, only) and getting it right can make a huge difference. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 131.95.1.238 ( talk) 21:28, 4 August 2016 (UTC) reply

I just saw this (obviously I should have looked at Wikipedia first!): https://translate.google.com/translate?hl=en&sl=fr&u=https://fr.wikipedia.org/wiki/Charles_VIII_(roi_de_France)&prev=search This is the French Wikipedia page for Charles VIII. Notice, it calls Anne his guardian, not his regent, which is what I have been saying from the beginning. Is it possible that French people (on Wikipedia) understand their history a little better than we do? What will it take for someone to fix our page? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 131.95.1.238 ( talk) 22:01, 4 August 2016 (UTC) (Actually, I just noticed this on the French Anne of France page: "Beaujeu exercised the regency from 1483 to 1491 with her ​​husband. To the extent nor the last wishes of Louis XI nor the States General of 1483 will give Anne (or her husband) the powers of regency, and entrust them, in fact, that education or the future Charles Board VIII, the term regent must be qualified." So, I guess you can't trust even French Wikipedia. The point that it was trying to make, which is really important, is that neither King Louis XI nor the States General gave her the regency, which is why she never was regent. Maybe you can clean up the French Wikipedia sites, too.) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 131.95.1.238 ( talk) 22:11, 4 August 2016 (UTC) reply

• Regent and guardian Women and Gender in Medieval Europe: An Encyclopediap:703 and Memoirs of the Queens of France, Volume 1p:253
• Regent britannica, A History of Women's Political Thought in Europe, 1400-1700p:64 and A history of France from the death of Louis 11and Isabeau of Bavaria, Anne of France, and the History of Female Regency in Francep:119 and History of Hollandp:15 and The Lost Tapestries of the City of Ladies: Christine de Pizan’s Renaissance Legacyp:108
• unofficial regent Rivals or Friends?: Anne de Bourbon and Anne de Bretagne, Founding Feminisms in Medieval Studies: Essays in Honor of E. Jane Burnsp:171 and The Late Medieval Age of Crisis and Renewal, 1300-1500: A Biographical Dictionaryp:477 and An index of dates, a complete index to the enlarged ed. of [J.] Blair's Chronological tablesp:36 and Proceedings of the Annual Meeting of the Western Society for French History, Issue 11p:53 and Women and the Book Trade in Sixteenth-century Francep:161 WIF Studies, Volume 18p:46 and Encyclopedia of Women in the Renaissance: Italy, France, and Englandp:42 and Gender and Emotions in Medieval and Early Modern Europe: Destroying Order, Structuring Disorderp:52
• Guardian Penny Cyclopaedia of the Society for the Diffusion of Useful Knowledgep:401 and The history of Lewis xi. king of France. Transl and Medieval France: An Encyclopediap:82 but"she and pierre retained custody of the young king, skillfully managed the Estates General of 1484, and defeated a princely uprising. For five years she exercised considerable authority over the french governement.In 1488 when her husband inherited the duchy of Bourbon and her brother reached the age of eighteen,her political influence diminished."-- Yufitran ( talk) 00:03, 5 August 2016 (UTC) reply

Okay, let's try this again. Here is another article: http://www.encyclopedia.com/topic/Charles_VIII.aspx There was no regency. Doesn't Wikipedia have someone that can actually check something out, rather than just Google links? There was no regency. I used to really defend you guys when people said Wikipedia articles were riddled with mistakes. Show me I was right. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 131.95.1.238 ( talk) 00:30, 5 August 2016 (UTC) reply

Why did not you put the second page?

You just choose what suits you

You just don't like it

And this is not just google links this is books!-- Yufitran ( talk) 00:56, 5 August 2016 (UTC) reply

I didn't put the second page because it was explained on the first: "A contentious struggle erupted over the regency between his older sister Anne of Beaujeu (1461–1522) and his cousin Louis of Orléans (ruled 1498–1515). It led to the convocation of the Estates-General in January 1484, which had the widest representation and most significant results of any meeting before 1789, most notably a powerful request for a reduction in taxes. The Estates-General, however, failed to designate a regent, and Charles turned fourteen without having one. Louis XI had designated Anne and her husband as his son's guardians, and they dominated the government for the next decade." The Estates-General was similar to the English Parliament at the time, although there were differences (some say big differences). The Estates-General was called to determine whether there would be a regency. They chose no. Some say that worked out to Anne's advantage because, as a guardian, she had more control than a regent would and it lasted longer. That's not the point. Wikipedia is supposed to be about providing accurate information. To say there was a regency isn't accurate. Words mean things. I don't just choose what suits me. I choose what is actually accurate. Surely there is an administrator for Wikipedia that has some background on the subject. Would it be so hard to ask one of them? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 131.95.1.238 ( talk) 01:26, 5 August 2016 (UTC) reply

Just to chime in with my 2¢. I am a historian of this era and, although I do not know the answer to this specific issue, I think this is a rare case where looking at the primary sources may do the matter a little justice. What do they say? All these books call her regent, unofficial regent, guardian, etc., but what do the sources that they are citing say? Interpretations of history are fine for secondary sources, but when it comes to straight terminology—which is what this discussion really is about—it is oftentimes necessary to go straight to the original sources. It is not original research, it is getting to the bottom of a fact, and whether or not a person officially held the title of regent is a fact. One thing I can say is that the actual term "regent" was rarely used in France for political reasons (it betrayed the myth of the perpetual king) and that most of the famous "regents" of France actually never held the title in any formal capacity, at least until the Bourbon era. That being said, even many near-contemporary writers called them as such so the term is definitely fluid in this period. For that reason, it is somewhat unlikely that any consensus can be found on this issue either way unless a regency document or other official governmental document definitively names her as regent. It is more likely, though, that she only held the title honorarily but was officially the king's guardian with no official regent or regency council on record. –  Whaleyland ( Talk •  Contributions) 08:46, 5 August 2016 (UTC) reply

Thank you so much for bringing some clarity to this. I am not an expert of any kind, and it was quite interesting to read this. I would be (mostly) satisfied if some form of this message were added to the top of any article about the French regencies. The only thing I would add to this is that there were recognized regencies before Charles VIII, so I would think that, had there been an actual regency, there would be record somewhere, but perhaps not. But just including what you said in the articles would be a huge leap forward. Hopefully, the editors will pay attention to you. Thank you again. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 131.95.1.238 ( talk) 14:29, 5 August 2016 (UTC) reply

I believe the best way to address this conflict is to present a paragraph and the entire issue *within* the article itself. Clearly the secondary sources are in conflict and there is no reason at all why we cannot present that conflict *as it is* without comment. Wjhonson ( talk) 18:58, 3 January 2017 (UTC) reply

I first brought up the incorrect usage of "regency" in this article in 2016. The final post (above, which was an excellent suggestion that could have taken care of all this) was made on Jan. 3, 2017. To date, nothing has been done to fix the article. What does it take to get someone to fix an article? This is embarrassing. Why don't we just talk about King Herman (or something) and admit Wikipedia, in some cases, simply doesn't have a clue what it's talking about? (By the way, I don't know your Terms of Use and don't irrevocably agree to anything. That's why I put this on the Talk page. Surely, there are actually editors here?) — Preceding

Today is 9/30/2020. To date, this article remains unchanged. This is just sad. This goes far beyond lazy. It is willful ignorance or a determination to keep bad information posted. What is wrong with the editors of this site? unsigned comment added by 131.95.1.238 ( talk) 22:32, 18 March 2019 (UTC) reply

A lot of the info about Charles VIII is actually Charles d'Amboise. I noticed that the main image was very similar on Wikipedia and its the main image on Google as well.

/info/en/?search=File:Charles_d%27_Amboise_vs._Charles_VIII.jpg#file

I'll wait for another user to confirm before I start moving info. Fact checking info and changing will be a 1-2 hour project.

Kindly sign your posts. —  LlywelynII

Currently duckbill shoe claims that the medieval long-toe shoe was killed by the duckbills popularized by Chucky 7 owing to his extra toe.

If he has one and if it prompted that, absolutely needs to be included somewhere. —  LlywelynII 13:09, 28 June 2023 (UTC) reply

There is a move discussion in progress on Talk:Charles IX of France which affects this page. Please participate on that page and not in this talk page section. Thank you. — RMCD bot 13:20, 4 March 2024 (UTC) reply