This article is rated C-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
I am in a dispute with Charles. I want to take a poll.
1) How many people think the names of the French princes and princesses listed in this article should be written as the people were actually referred to at the time of their lives in their native language? Does anyone think that the names should be simplified beyond recognition into English? As an example, which is more accurate - "Anne, Duchess of Montpensier" or "Anne Marie Louise d'Orléans, Duchesse de Montpensier"?
2) How many people think modern French usage should be used to write titles or should the usage prevalent at the time the people lived be used? As an example, let's look at capitalization. Which should be used, "Duchesse de Montpensier" or "duchesse de Montpensier"?
BoBo ( talk) 21:30, 8 April 2008 (UTC)
When writing about titled personages, lower case is used when not preceded by Monsieur or Madame: Le duc d'Orléans était le cousin du roi. Madame Royale est devenue la femme du duc d'Angoulême. Only after Monsieur or Madame, does the title take a capital letter; ex: Monsieur le Comte de Chambord, Monsieur le comte de Chambord or Monsieur le Comte, Madame la Duchesse du Maine, Madame la duchesse du Maine or Madame la Duchesse.
Throughout the centuries, the French language has known many changes - grammar, spelling, meaning of word, capitalization etc. There have been many such changes since Madame Royale wrote her mémoires. If we want to write the way she did, then we have to "quote" her writings, otherwise, and when we write in French, we must follow the guidelines of today's Académie française. No one in France, even ces messieurs de l'Académie, speak or write as in the time of Louis XIV or even Louis Philippe.
In other words, I am siding with Charles. Frania W. ( talk) 18:35, 19 April 2008 (UTC)
See also: WP:MOS-FR#Noble titles. Charles 19:11, 19 April 2008 (UTC)
Why on earth is this article using the French title, when a perfectly good English one exists, and rightly begins the text? Johnbod ( talk) 01:23, 21 April 2008 (UTC)
In my opinion the notion of the princes of the blood was established before Henry IV, despite what the article says at the moment. It's true that this would have become more codified under the Ancien Régime, but it was also a significant factor in sixteenth-century royal politics. For example, when Francis II died in 1560, it was held in many quarters that the First Prince of the Blood Antoine of Bourbon had the right to become the regent of the nine-year-old Charles IX; Catherine de' Medici had to buy Antoine off with the release from captivity of his brother Louis of Bourbon, prince of Condé, another prince of the blood. Louis's son Henry I of Bourbon, prince of Conde, was also a significant player in the French Wars of Religion, and was next in line to the throne after Henry of Bourbon, king of Navarre, until 1588, when he died. His son Henry II of Bourbon, prince of Condé became the First Prince of the Blood once Henry IV became king. The Catholic claimant to the throne at that time was Charles, cardinal of Bourbon, the surviving brother of Antoine of Bourbon and Louis of Bourbon. Again, his claim to the throne was as a prince of the blood. qp10qp ( talk) 01:34, 22 April 2008 (UTC)
FactStraight, I have corrected the capitalization. Look at my examples above and at Wikipedia_talk:Manual_of_Style. The titles were capitalized by the French Court when used in formal forms of address such as Monsieur le Prince or Madame la Duchesse. Even Frania W. admits as much for modern French:
"When writing about titled personages, lower case is used when not preceded by Monsieur or Madame: Le duc d'Orléans était le cousin du roi. Madame Royale est devenue la femme du duc d'Angoulême. Only after Monsieur or Madame, does the title take a capital letter; ex: Monsieur le Comte de Chambord, Monsieur le comte de Chambord or Monsieur le Comte, Madame la Duchesse du Maine, Madame la duchesse du Maine or Madame la Duchesse."
WP:MOS-FR#Noble titles was specifically changed to allow this type of capitalization, which can be applied to the article Fils de France and all biographical articles of those who were actual Fils de France or Princes and Princesses du Sang. BoBo ( talk) 00:50, 1 May 2008 (UTC)
Why do we say that the Regent Orleans was entitled to be first prince of the blood? He was a petit-fils de France, which is senior to a prince of the blood. It was his son who was entitled to the position, wasn't it? john k ( talk) 21:06, 1 August 2009 (UTC)
.***Ranking among the princes du sang was by order of succession rights. The closest to the throne (excluding any fils de France) was called Premier Prince du Sang. In practice, it was not always clear who was entitled to the rank, and it often took a specific act of the king to make the determination.
From 1562 to 1589, the Premier Prince du Sang was Henri de Bourbon, king of Navarre (who was acknowledged as such and received at the Paris Parlement). From 1589 to 1709 the title was held by the prince de Condé (received by Parlement in 1595). At the death of the prince in 1686, it was unclear whether the title ought to go to the duc d'Anjou, younger son of the Dauphin, but a fils de France, or the duc de Chartres, son of the king's brother, but still a petit-fils de France, or the duc d'Enghien, son of the deceased. As the first two were members of the Royal Family and thus outranked other princes of the blood, it was felt that the rank would not honor them enough, and the deceased's son Louis de Bourbon-Condé took the rank, although the duc de Chartres drew the pension (the source for this is Sainctot, cited in Rousset de Missy).
On the death of Louis de Bourbon-Condé in 1709 the title would have passed to the duc d'Orléans, nephew of Louis XIV, but he did not use it (he did, however, call himself first prince of the blood on occasion: when cardinal Dubois died in August 1723, the duc d'Orléans asked the king for the vacant position of prime minister "sans faire attention à mon rang et à ma dignité de premier prince de votre sang"; Journal de Buvat, 2:451). After the duc d'Orléans's death in December 1723, his son officially received the title. It remained to the head of the Orléans family until 1830. However, at the death of the duc d'Orléans in 1785, it was decided that, once again, the duc d'Angoulême, son of the king's brother, ranked too high for the title, and it was granted to the new duc d'Orléans (letters patent of 27 Nov 1785); but Louis XVI decided that the duc d'Orléans would hold the title until the duc d'Angoulême had a son who could bear it (this is what Guyot writes, citing the Journal Politique de Bouillon, second half of 1785).
" dans la cérémonie d'hier, M Le Duc De Bourbon prétendoit marcher côte à côte de M Le Duc De Chartres, disant que M Le Duc De Chartres ne devoit être considéré que comme premier prince du sang, et qu'il n'y avoit point d'exemple contraire; cependant le roi jugea en faveur de M Le Duc De Chartres, parce qu'il lui a donné un rang au-dessus des princes du sang."
" M. Le duc n' aura pas les priviléges de premier prince du sang. M. Le prince en jouissoit parce l' on n' ôte point à ces gens-là les honneurs qu' ils ont eus, et qu' il avoit été longtemps premier prince du sang ; c' est présentement M De Chartres qui l' est et qui, par-dessus cela, a des honneurs particuliers comme petit-fils de France."
" Le roi a dit à m. Le duc de s' appeler m. Le prince, et M De Bourbon gardera le nom de Duc De Bourbon, mais on ne l' appelera que m. Le duc tout court."
"M. le Prince aura le traitement de premier prince du sang." Saint-Simon's addition: "le roi donna à M. le Prince les avantages de premier prince du sang devenus vacants, et au-dessous de M. le Duc d'Orléans au point où il fut élevé alors."
The rank of "premier prince du sang" was not purely a court title or a precedence. It carried with it legal privileges, notably the right to have a household (maison), such as the king, the queen, and the enfants de France each did. A household was a collection of officers and employees, paid for out of the State's revenues, and constituted a miniature version of the royal administration, with military and civil officers, a council with a chancelor and secretaries, gentlemen-in-waiting, equerries, falconers, barbers and surgeons, a chapel, etc. (See a description of the King's Household). The duc d'Orléans's household, set up in 1724, had 265 officers.***
Is it true that the brother of a king who was not the son or grandson of a king or dauphin would have been a fils de France or petit-fils de France? I can't think of any instances where this arose in practice. Louis-Philippe's brothers died before he took the throne, and all the old formal stuff was basically discarded in his reign, anyway. Henry IV, Francis I, and Louis XII had no brothers. Any instances before that would definitely be before any of this formalization had taken place, and I don't think there really were any, anyway - the early Capetians and Valois all succeeded father to son, and Philip VI and his brother were grandsons of Philip III. Louis Philippe, Henry IV, and Francis I did all have sisters, though - if those sisters were treated as filles de France, I suppose one could extrapolate the same treatment for brothers, although that might be OR if no reliable sources say that specifically. I tend to think it would be best to remove "brothers" from the list - all actually existing brothers of kings qualified as filles de France by being sons of a king or dauphin, anyway. john k ( talk) 02:24, 26 July 2010 (UTC)
This article is rated C-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
I am in a dispute with Charles. I want to take a poll.
1) How many people think the names of the French princes and princesses listed in this article should be written as the people were actually referred to at the time of their lives in their native language? Does anyone think that the names should be simplified beyond recognition into English? As an example, which is more accurate - "Anne, Duchess of Montpensier" or "Anne Marie Louise d'Orléans, Duchesse de Montpensier"?
2) How many people think modern French usage should be used to write titles or should the usage prevalent at the time the people lived be used? As an example, let's look at capitalization. Which should be used, "Duchesse de Montpensier" or "duchesse de Montpensier"?
BoBo ( talk) 21:30, 8 April 2008 (UTC)
When writing about titled personages, lower case is used when not preceded by Monsieur or Madame: Le duc d'Orléans était le cousin du roi. Madame Royale est devenue la femme du duc d'Angoulême. Only after Monsieur or Madame, does the title take a capital letter; ex: Monsieur le Comte de Chambord, Monsieur le comte de Chambord or Monsieur le Comte, Madame la Duchesse du Maine, Madame la duchesse du Maine or Madame la Duchesse.
Throughout the centuries, the French language has known many changes - grammar, spelling, meaning of word, capitalization etc. There have been many such changes since Madame Royale wrote her mémoires. If we want to write the way she did, then we have to "quote" her writings, otherwise, and when we write in French, we must follow the guidelines of today's Académie française. No one in France, even ces messieurs de l'Académie, speak or write as in the time of Louis XIV or even Louis Philippe.
In other words, I am siding with Charles. Frania W. ( talk) 18:35, 19 April 2008 (UTC)
See also: WP:MOS-FR#Noble titles. Charles 19:11, 19 April 2008 (UTC)
Why on earth is this article using the French title, when a perfectly good English one exists, and rightly begins the text? Johnbod ( talk) 01:23, 21 April 2008 (UTC)
In my opinion the notion of the princes of the blood was established before Henry IV, despite what the article says at the moment. It's true that this would have become more codified under the Ancien Régime, but it was also a significant factor in sixteenth-century royal politics. For example, when Francis II died in 1560, it was held in many quarters that the First Prince of the Blood Antoine of Bourbon had the right to become the regent of the nine-year-old Charles IX; Catherine de' Medici had to buy Antoine off with the release from captivity of his brother Louis of Bourbon, prince of Condé, another prince of the blood. Louis's son Henry I of Bourbon, prince of Conde, was also a significant player in the French Wars of Religion, and was next in line to the throne after Henry of Bourbon, king of Navarre, until 1588, when he died. His son Henry II of Bourbon, prince of Condé became the First Prince of the Blood once Henry IV became king. The Catholic claimant to the throne at that time was Charles, cardinal of Bourbon, the surviving brother of Antoine of Bourbon and Louis of Bourbon. Again, his claim to the throne was as a prince of the blood. qp10qp ( talk) 01:34, 22 April 2008 (UTC)
FactStraight, I have corrected the capitalization. Look at my examples above and at Wikipedia_talk:Manual_of_Style. The titles were capitalized by the French Court when used in formal forms of address such as Monsieur le Prince or Madame la Duchesse. Even Frania W. admits as much for modern French:
"When writing about titled personages, lower case is used when not preceded by Monsieur or Madame: Le duc d'Orléans était le cousin du roi. Madame Royale est devenue la femme du duc d'Angoulême. Only after Monsieur or Madame, does the title take a capital letter; ex: Monsieur le Comte de Chambord, Monsieur le comte de Chambord or Monsieur le Comte, Madame la Duchesse du Maine, Madame la duchesse du Maine or Madame la Duchesse."
WP:MOS-FR#Noble titles was specifically changed to allow this type of capitalization, which can be applied to the article Fils de France and all biographical articles of those who were actual Fils de France or Princes and Princesses du Sang. BoBo ( talk) 00:50, 1 May 2008 (UTC)
Why do we say that the Regent Orleans was entitled to be first prince of the blood? He was a petit-fils de France, which is senior to a prince of the blood. It was his son who was entitled to the position, wasn't it? john k ( talk) 21:06, 1 August 2009 (UTC)
.***Ranking among the princes du sang was by order of succession rights. The closest to the throne (excluding any fils de France) was called Premier Prince du Sang. In practice, it was not always clear who was entitled to the rank, and it often took a specific act of the king to make the determination.
From 1562 to 1589, the Premier Prince du Sang was Henri de Bourbon, king of Navarre (who was acknowledged as such and received at the Paris Parlement). From 1589 to 1709 the title was held by the prince de Condé (received by Parlement in 1595). At the death of the prince in 1686, it was unclear whether the title ought to go to the duc d'Anjou, younger son of the Dauphin, but a fils de France, or the duc de Chartres, son of the king's brother, but still a petit-fils de France, or the duc d'Enghien, son of the deceased. As the first two were members of the Royal Family and thus outranked other princes of the blood, it was felt that the rank would not honor them enough, and the deceased's son Louis de Bourbon-Condé took the rank, although the duc de Chartres drew the pension (the source for this is Sainctot, cited in Rousset de Missy).
On the death of Louis de Bourbon-Condé in 1709 the title would have passed to the duc d'Orléans, nephew of Louis XIV, but he did not use it (he did, however, call himself first prince of the blood on occasion: when cardinal Dubois died in August 1723, the duc d'Orléans asked the king for the vacant position of prime minister "sans faire attention à mon rang et à ma dignité de premier prince de votre sang"; Journal de Buvat, 2:451). After the duc d'Orléans's death in December 1723, his son officially received the title. It remained to the head of the Orléans family until 1830. However, at the death of the duc d'Orléans in 1785, it was decided that, once again, the duc d'Angoulême, son of the king's brother, ranked too high for the title, and it was granted to the new duc d'Orléans (letters patent of 27 Nov 1785); but Louis XVI decided that the duc d'Orléans would hold the title until the duc d'Angoulême had a son who could bear it (this is what Guyot writes, citing the Journal Politique de Bouillon, second half of 1785).
" dans la cérémonie d'hier, M Le Duc De Bourbon prétendoit marcher côte à côte de M Le Duc De Chartres, disant que M Le Duc De Chartres ne devoit être considéré que comme premier prince du sang, et qu'il n'y avoit point d'exemple contraire; cependant le roi jugea en faveur de M Le Duc De Chartres, parce qu'il lui a donné un rang au-dessus des princes du sang."
" M. Le duc n' aura pas les priviléges de premier prince du sang. M. Le prince en jouissoit parce l' on n' ôte point à ces gens-là les honneurs qu' ils ont eus, et qu' il avoit été longtemps premier prince du sang ; c' est présentement M De Chartres qui l' est et qui, par-dessus cela, a des honneurs particuliers comme petit-fils de France."
" Le roi a dit à m. Le duc de s' appeler m. Le prince, et M De Bourbon gardera le nom de Duc De Bourbon, mais on ne l' appelera que m. Le duc tout court."
"M. le Prince aura le traitement de premier prince du sang." Saint-Simon's addition: "le roi donna à M. le Prince les avantages de premier prince du sang devenus vacants, et au-dessous de M. le Duc d'Orléans au point où il fut élevé alors."
The rank of "premier prince du sang" was not purely a court title or a precedence. It carried with it legal privileges, notably the right to have a household (maison), such as the king, the queen, and the enfants de France each did. A household was a collection of officers and employees, paid for out of the State's revenues, and constituted a miniature version of the royal administration, with military and civil officers, a council with a chancelor and secretaries, gentlemen-in-waiting, equerries, falconers, barbers and surgeons, a chapel, etc. (See a description of the King's Household). The duc d'Orléans's household, set up in 1724, had 265 officers.***
Is it true that the brother of a king who was not the son or grandson of a king or dauphin would have been a fils de France or petit-fils de France? I can't think of any instances where this arose in practice. Louis-Philippe's brothers died before he took the throne, and all the old formal stuff was basically discarded in his reign, anyway. Henry IV, Francis I, and Louis XII had no brothers. Any instances before that would definitely be before any of this formalization had taken place, and I don't think there really were any, anyway - the early Capetians and Valois all succeeded father to son, and Philip VI and his brother were grandsons of Philip III. Louis Philippe, Henry IV, and Francis I did all have sisters, though - if those sisters were treated as filles de France, I suppose one could extrapolate the same treatment for brothers, although that might be OR if no reliable sources say that specifically. I tend to think it would be best to remove "brothers" from the list - all actually existing brothers of kings qualified as filles de France by being sons of a king or dauphin, anyway. john k ( talk) 02:24, 26 July 2010 (UTC)