Talk:Kingdom of France

Unnecessary disambiguation

With due respect, I think this page is a perfect example of an unnecessary disambiguation page. A disambiguation page for Georgia makes great sense, because Georgia (country) and Georgia (U.S. state) are entirely different places which have the same name out of pure coincidence. However, the Kingdom of France in 848 and the Kingdom of France in 1848 were not two different places; they were different historical periods and different forms of government for the same country. The connection between the two periods is not merely coincidence; it is a long, involved historical connection. This title should be a redirect to History of France, which provides a summary of the historical development of the state as well as links to detailed articles on particular periods. --Russ (talk) 16:16, 14 July 2008 (UTC)

First attempt

I've moved this page from being a redirect to the general history of France to one directly about the Kingdom before the Revolution. I think its criminal that there are articles on the United Provinces, the Commonwealth of England etc, but no overarching article on a state as powerful as this one.

At the moment it's only been a first attempt, and I'm not good enough at writing or history to do this on my own. But I hope a lot of wikipedians into European history can together develop this into something special.93.97.89.55 (talk) 17:30, 31 July 2010 (UTC)

Corsica became part of France in 1789

Corsica did not become part of Kingdom of France in 1768. In this date Genoa handed over the military power over the island to France in order to stamp out the Corsican patriots. Thanks to the Treaty of Versaille France get the administration control over the Corsica and supported Genoa with his army and money; Genoa got a loan from France using Corsica as a gage. When Genoa tried to honor her debt, the Revolution had already started in France and in 1789 the National Assembly stated one-sidedness that « la Corse fait partie de la France » (Corsica is part of France). So, from a French point of view, Corsica became part of France in 1789. The other powers acknowledged France ownership even later. UK for example staunchly supported the Corsican patriots.— Preceding unsigned comment added by 93.92.153.12 (talk) 13:51, 14 January 2013 (UTC)

Do I love those unsigned and undated contributions! We don't even know if this was posted in 2008 or 2018.--Lubiesque (talk) 16:37, 13 June 2018 (UTC)

Flag

If I'm not wrong, the whole "France didn't have an official flag, national identity consisted of loyalty to the King, ergo his flag should be the national emblem," is just supposition on the part of a few editors. Is there a source that says that this flag should be preferred over others? Surely naval flags, or military flags, or civil ensigns could have just as much, if not more, priority as representing the country as the Royal Standard which was used only in the presence of the King himself. It wouldn't make sense to use his flag, since doubtless people from other countries seldom saw it, except if they faced the King on the battlefield or perhaps at court, which would have been a rarity compared to seeing the Union Jack, which was ubiquitous throughout British holdings, or the Burgundy Cross in Spanish America.--99.36.191.131 (talk) 00:56, 22 August 2013 (UTC)

since there are no national flags prior to the 19th century anyway, which flag we choose is purely a matter of on-wiki convention, not one of factual accuracy. For feudal realms, we usually choose the flag or coat of arms of the sovereign. This makes sense in terms of feudal ideology which regards the sovereign as the liege of all other feudal rulers, even if in nothing more than in name. See also crwflags.com. --dab (𒁳) 18:38, 22 November 2013 (UTC)

Incidentally, should we add the 1790 flag (File:Flag of France (1790–1794).svg), which was the flag for the last few months before the Kingdom of France (1791–92)? I think we should; the case not to is that there was so little time between the flag being adopted and the new constitution being adopted.--AlphaMikeOmega (talk) 21:10, 17 May 2018 (UTC)

West Francia as early phase vs. predecessor of the Kingdom of France?

A "kingdom of France" cleary existed from about AD 1190 (or say, 1179, coronation of Philip II of France). Before that, there was the "kingdom of the Franks" which in various forms had existed since the 5th century.

Now it seems to be some sort of convention to count the "kings of France", and hence the history of the kingdom, from 843, but this is very far from objective and needs justification (as de-facto standard).

• anything down to the death of Charles the Fat (d. 888) is simply the Carolingian Empire
• in the century of 888 to 987, there was West Francia
• from Hugh Capet to Louis VII of France (987-1180) we have two centuries which can well be argued in retrospect to correspond to the emergence of the "kingdom of France" (including its language Old French), but which at the time was simply seen as another two centuries of West Francia.

These are three century, or a full third of the entire time span, of dubious pertinence to the article topic. Case in point, the French article opts for a starting date of 987. We should consider doing the same, and note that this is "in retrospect", and that there was no contemporary notion of a "kingdom of France" prior to the late 12th century. --dab (𒁳) 12:23, 12 December 2013 (UTC)

There are many sources that opt for a start date of 843. Janet Nelson's Charles the Bald, for instance, argues that he is properly seen as the first king of France. Jean Dunbabin's France in the Making starts in 843. Let's avoid what Susan Reynolds, discussing France in Fiefs and Vassals, calls "a crude view of the use of words and names". (Reynolds uses the term "kingdom of France" freely in a chapter about the two centuries from 900 to 1100.) Why distinguish as you do between the Kingdom of France and the Kingdom of the Franks, while nobody distinguishes the Kingdom of England from the Kingdom of the English? Or why can't we call West Francia (a very rare contemporary term) the Kingdom of France when we are already using an anachronism like "Carolingian Empire"? (10th-century Latin authors used the word "Carolingian" in its Latin variations to refer to the dynasty, the western kingdom and the people of the western kingdom.) Can you cite one reference to the term "West Francia" from the two centuries between 987 and 1179? So what's a change of dynasty in 987? Or the coronation of 1179, which was just standard practice? Neither event caused a kingdom of France to come into being. The treaty of Verdun, however, established a kingdom with pretty definite borders closely approximating those of France today. Many scholars treat of the kingdom of France in the 11th, 10th and even 9th centuries. Have you read Schneidmuller's Nomen Patriae, it's about this very thing? I haven't read it, only reviews. Srnec (talk) 15:53, 12 December 2013 (UTC)

I want to quote Janet Nelson (op. cit., p. 264) because I don't want to be guilty of misrepresenting her:

Though [Charles the Bald's] realm's permanent identity long postdated Charles the Bald, (Charles the Straightforward was the first even to call himself 'king of the West Franks') it could never have taken shape at all but for the decades in the ninth centuries during which Charles the Bald ruled it, effectively and vociferously, as a unit. In that sense, though as Charlemagne's grandson he himself always hankered after a larger, imperial realm, Charles was one of the makers of France: a maker in spite of himself, who deserved, nevertheless, his tomb's central place in St Louis's St-Denis.

Those are the last lines of the book. I won't quote anything else. My only commentary is this: she speaks of the kingdom of Charles and that of a later date as one and the same. Srnec (talk) 01:55, 13 December 2013 (UTC)

I realise there is a good case for using 843 as starting date. I also realise it's going to be arbitrary no matter what. What I was suggesting was, we should look into whether there may be equally good reasons for using 987 as fr-wiki did. I didn't say there is, or we should go this way. Just that I think there might be a case for it. 843 is convenient, but also lazy. With much the same justification of "pretty definite borders closely approximating those of France today", you might as well claim France began with Roman Gaul. A good indication for me is that there was no notion of "France" prior to 1100 or so. Of course you can still wave your hands and explain how "Charles was one of the makers of France", and above all without knowing or caring. My personal taste for presenting history is still that it is misleading to speak about "France" when there was no notion of "France" at the time, just a "political entity that would later come to be known as France". --dab (𒁳) 10:21, 16 April 2014 (UTC)

So what are the reasons to prefer 987? And what is a "notion of France"? These are discussion-spurring questions, not challenges. Srnec (talk) 02:04, 17 April 2014 (UTC)

yes? I do not have all the answers? I am trying to find the best solution, so I am coming up with possibilities. The point of these talkpages is that I can run them by other people and hopefully find out which are the most viable.

I have no preferred solution for this. It seems clear to me that "843" is not a satisfactory "foundation date" for the "kingdom of France", for the simple reason that no "kingdom of France" existed at that point.

I fully realize that this is purely about historians' judgement in retrospect, and that there is no single correct solution. Which is also why I do not have an opinion I am trying to impose on anyone.

I believe you are being facetious when you ask "what is a notion of France". If this article is about a "kingdom of France", it implies the claim that the lexeme "France" expresses a meaningful concept. Which it does, of course, but as always when discussing definitions, there is a fuzzy boundary for such concepts. I fully understand if you aren't interested in discussing that, but I do not understand why you would pretend you do not understand the question. --dab (𒁳) 06:58, 26 April 2014 (UTC)

There was no pretense. I know what I would mean by "a notion of France", but I did not think we had the same understanding of the expression. I don't tie the notion of France to any particular lexeme (Francia or France). There is no problem with France existing before "France" did. Also, since "France" is not contemporary (since it is not Latin), there really isn't much point in talking about it as a lexeme. The starting point for the notion of France is 843—not that it existed then, but that the notion began to be formed then, and by the end of the reign of the first king (Charles the Bald) there was a notion of "western Francia" (France, as it later came to be known). The notion created in 843 was "Charles's division of the empire, which is the western part". This notion had hardened into something like "a kingdom of the Franks bounded by the sea, the Pyrenees (roughly) and Germany (the Empire)" long before the early twelfth century.

The problem with the events of 987 is that they demonstrates the opposite of "the kingdom of France began to exist in 987". They show, in fact, that the kingdom very much existed already, since that it needed a king, and an effective one, was undisputed. It existed even when the royal family was removed. Certainly the main actors in 987 did not believe they were creating something new. They didn't even know they were creating a new dynasty! They were just filling a vacant state office. If the kingdom of France did not exist in 843—which in one important sense (the concept of France) I am willing to admit—then when did it come to be? Well before 987. Even after the events 887–88 (deposition and death of Charles the Fat), the French kingdom remained in tact: Aquitaine recognised the authority of the same king as Neustria. What might well have seemed likely to be ephemeral in 843 had become permanent within a generation.

These are my takes. Dunbabin, op. cit. supra, pages 4–5, talks about "the absence of a name in common use to describe the realm of Charles the Bald's successors". It is not a problem unique to France, however. Srnec (talk) 18:19, 26 April 2014 (UTC)

We do not have any disagreement in substance. The question is merely, how to present this state of affairs in an "infobox"? Indeed this is not a unique, or even less than ubiquitous, type of problem. But since this is the article about France, we here need to address it for the case of France. Yes, the problem is that "France" is a modern term. The contemporary Carolingian-era term is Francia, and that entity is already covered under Carolingian Empire. ::::Look, you say " there really isn't much point in talking about it as a lexeme", and I agree, but then you immediately disregard your own advice and say "The starting point for the notion of France is 843—not that it existed then, but that the notion began to be formed then". And of course, we need to talk about the lexeme, if only because we need to justify whatever sense in which we are going to use it. Semantics is always blurry. The "notion" did not "begin to forming 843". It "began to form" in 457, if not in 368, or earlier. But clearly this article isn't about the 5th century, and arguably, it is not about the 9th century either, except in the loosest sense of giving historical background, which may as well include Caesar's conquest of Gaul. --dab (𒁳) 12:10, 14 June 2016 (UTC)

The pragmatic way here is to poll academic sources, and be noncommittal and up front about this being essentially an arbitrary choice. Sure, "many sources" choose 843, so I agree that by all means the number 843 is going to be mentioned in the page. Beyond that, it is simply the article's job to make clear the gradual, centuries-long nature of the process that turned Carolingian "Francia" into Capetian "France".

My concern is purely editorial, mostly based on the existence of the article about West Francia, which covers "early France" for the period 843 to 987. This entity covers barely half the territory of the early modern kingdom, it did not have as its anthem "Marche Henri IV", nor did it have the motto "Montjoie Saint Denis", as suggested by the infobox here. It is perfectly fair to treat it as a separate entity, the immediate predecessor of Capetian France, for the purposes of organising our topics, but of course the gradual nature of the shift in territory and administration needs to be made clear in prose.

An alternative would be to completely re-work the current page into an over-arching page summarizing the history of France from, say, 480 to 1792, and treat West Francia, Capetian France and Early modern France as its sub-pages, and move the early modern stuff ("Marche Henri IV" etc.) into a new infobox at the early modern page. I do not think such a large scope would improve the situation, because the overlap with the generic history of France page would be excessive. --dab (𒁳) 12:16, 14 June 2016 (UTC)

July Monarchy and aftermath section

Should this section be removed? It appears to have been here for awhile. It has being removed and restored a number of times. Jim1138 (talk) 07:00, 6 April 2017 (UTC)

Salic Law does not support the succession of the House of Orleans, and a dedicated page already exists on the separate political phenomena known as the French Kingdom. Anonymous user 03:05, 6 April 2017 (EST) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2601:980:C100:14:0:480C:D497:1AB (talk)

@Jim1138: I am agree with you but July Monarchy is also part of Kingdom of France. --Panam2014 (talk) 18:47, 17 April 2017 (UTC)

@Panam2014: I am not knowledgeable in the area. It seems that complete removal of the section including the {{main|July Monarchy}} was overdoing it. I am not qualified to comment on the relevancy of the Kingdom of France#July Monarchy and aftermath section. Jim1138 (talk) 20:51, 17 April 2017 (UTC)

Poor Grammar

If someone would care to proofread this article it would benefit from extensive grammatical edits. 86.173.182.10 (talk) 08:29, 18 January 2018 (UTC)

Adding onto this, in the July Monarchy section, should "the French monarchy has not restored." be changed to "the French monarchy was not restored." or "the French monarchy has not been restored."? "has not restored" makes some grammatical sense, as in, it has not restored (itself), but I question if that should remain or be changed.

RfC: Kingdom of France and French Kingdom

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

Background: The Kingdom of France as made in the image of Hugh Capet held at its foundation the practice of Salic Law, manifest in the Arrêt Lemaistre and Fundamental Laws of France, which constituted the monarchical succession for over eight-hundred years. These traditions were immutable by all powers and considered vital to the existence of the State. However, the French Revolution of 1789 abolished this traditional succession, favoring a constitutional alternative that was to re-emerge in the July Revolution of 1830. This nineteenth-century uprising saw the Bourbon monarchy deposed in favor of Louis Philippe d'Orléans as "King of the French", his realm designated the "French Kingdom", to better associate the government with its people and the revolutionary reforms of 1789.

Proposal: We should divide the Kingdom of France and French Kingdom into two separate articles, drawing clear distinction between the Salic-foundational and Charte-foundational monarchies. This can be realized by relocating all relevant information to the July Monarchy page.

_{NOTE: The Kingdom of France 1791–92 would best be described as a government in captivity given that Louis XVI was incapacitated as a prisoner of circumstance; juxtaposed to the rule of Louis Philippe in 1830, who was free to govern and travel of his own volition, it would not be appropriate to separate the 1791-92 article.}

- Conservatrix (talk) 21:30, 3 March 2018 (UTC)

Vote: Support or Oppose?

• Support The two monarchies rely on two separate justifications for existence and so should exist on two separate articles. - Conservatrix (talk) 21:30, 3 March 2018 (UTC)

• Support There is enough distinction to justify separate articles. -Ad Orientem (talk) 21:46, 3 March 2018 (UTC)

• Oppose The proposed new article would be completely redundant with July Monarchy - and largely redundant with Louis Philippe. We are not here to make Orleanist political points. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 01:10, 4 March 2018 (UTC)

Perhaps you misunderstand, Pmanderson. A new page will not be created. The proposed move will elevate the July Monarchy page to that of a "first-tier" country and away from being a sub-article of the Kingdom of France. The matter is not so political but more about distinguishing the foundational principles of these two regimes. - Conservatrix (talk) 02:07, 4 March 2018 (UTC)

What is that supposed to mean? If you're not going to create an article called French Kingdom. what is this in aid of? Make that Strongly opposee as not only tendentious but incoherent. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 03:20, 7 March 2018 (UTC)

• Oppose As July Monarchy already exists (which I'm not against existing mind you), why exactly can't there be an article covering the French monarchy arch until 1848? RedUser (talk) 09:05, 4 March 2018 (UTC)

I think the issue is that we have an article that covers two political entities while naming the article after the first. It is rather akin to having an article that covers both the First and Second French Republics but naming it The First French Republic. It may be that moving the article to a less specific name that encompasses the broader history of French Monarchy would suffice. -Ad Orientem (talk) 14:44, 4 March 2018 (UTC)

We have five pages dedicated to five French republics, yet you suggest we generalize the kingdoms? - Conservatrix (talk) 12:58, 6 March 2018 (UTC)

July Monarchy does cover the monarchy from July 1830 to February 1848. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 03:23, 7 March 2018 (UTC)

• Oppose no evidence provided that this is common in the RS. Rjensen (talk) 10:33, 4 March 2018 (UTC)

• Neutral Weak Support for the reasons enunciated by OP and Ad Orientem. These are clearly two polities that existed inside congruous territorial boundaries and with similar names, but two polities nonetheless that are not continuations of one or the other. That said, while this may be the most correct division of articles, it probably will inject a level of confusion for the reader. On further consideration I'm now split and neutral.Chetsford (talk) 21:20, 5 March 2018 (UTC)

• Oppose Searching for each appellation in the literature and online reveals rare instances of distinction between them in the nomenclature. Scholars use both terms interchangeably and without making the reference suggested in the proposal. It'd be an arbitrary move on our part to have two such separate articles on the basis of bringing into relief the two alleged aspects of the two monarchical lines (one "liberal", the other not). -The Gnome (talk) 09:22, 6 March 2018 (UTC)

• Support I think the monarchies are different enough that they merit separate articles; as Conservatrix points out, there is no need for a new article for 1830-1848, since articles about Louis Philippe and the July Monarchy already exist. SiefkinDR (talk) 20:19, 6 March 2018 (UTC)

• Oppose Appears similar to the "Split Eastern Roman Empire and Byzantium" idea: almost impossible to do, because every person has a different idea of where one ends and begins, or may not even differentiate the two. -- Iazyges Consermonor Opus meum 20:32, 7 March 2018 (UTC)

• Oppose (Summoned by bot) The proposal is not very clear, but seems to request that the Kingdom article end with the French Revolution, and that events afterward be included in the existing July Monarchy article. If that interpretation is correct, the events from about 1789 until 1830 would be included in an article that takes as its beginning the year 1830. That does not make a lot of sense, if my interpretation is correct. I will base my Oppose vote on that interpretation and on unequivocal wording found in this very article (Kingdom of France), which says, "On 24 February 1848, the monarchy was abolished and the Second Republic was proclaimed.[33] Despite later attempts to re-establish the Kingdom in the 1870s, during the Third Republic, the original French monarchy never returned." Clearly then, the Kingdom, as embodied in the monarchy, ended in 1848. Even if monarchic "foundational" principles differ before and after the revolution, this article (Kingdom of France) can explain those differences with no great difficulty. The unifying principle for one article is the concept of monarchy, which lasted, in one form or another, until 1848. I also agree with the well-reasoned comments ("an arbitrary move on our part") by The Gnome and Rjensen. DonFB (talk) 06:26, 8 March 2018 (UTC)

@DonFB: The proposal is meant to separate the constitutional July Monarchy from the traditional Salic monarchy, this because the Orléans were elected to supremacy over the Bourbons, thus reputuring their observance of the Fundamental Laws of France. Divide would be at 1830. Those who support the Orléans (Orléanists) have a vested political interest in associating their cause with the traditional monarchy, to present the Orléans as the legitimate, modern heirs to the throne of France. A likely cause for the chosen wording. - Conservatrix (talk) 14:11, 8 March 2018 (UTC)

It seems, then, that your proposal would merely eliminate the section 'Aftermath and July Monarchy' from this article in order to simultaneously eliminate the link to the main July Monarchy article, a link that you seem to believe characterizes July Monarchy as "a sub-article of the Kingdom of France." It appears that you believe inclusion of the section represents a POV ("a vested political interest") that unfairly associates the two forms of monarchy. As a reader unfamiliar with such subtleties in French history, I see nothing problematic about inclusion of the section and its link to July Monarchy. On the contrary, the section and link provide useful information to the reader, and I see no just cause to eliminate them. DonFB (talk) 14:40, 8 March 2018 (UTC)

Well, if I were to enjoy creative freedom, the dates would be changed to 987–1792, 1814–1815, 1815–1830; the La Parisienne anthem, Louis Philippe I and François Guizot would be removed from the infobox; the noted section would be remodeled into a page closer; and the July Monarchy would be established as a successive government. This contentious issue among royalists so often resulting in factional entrenchment, the RfC was meant to open the debate to lay discussion and community rule. - Conservatrix (talk) 15:02, 8 March 2018 (UTC)

• Oppose (Summoned by bot) Partly for vagueness of Rfc wording, but mostly because WP:AT says: The title indicates what the article is about and distinguishes it from other articles, and the dividing line between the two articles isn't clear (fails WP:PRECISION), or at the least, seems a bit OR, arbitrary, and not supported by sources. Mathglot (talk) 06:03, 18 March 2018 (UTC)

@Mathglot: An historical analogy would be the divide between the Kingdom of England and the Commonwealth, both were ruled by hereditary leaders, both were English, both opposed the other's existence, and the kingdom held as crucial to its own existence the uninterrupted legitimate succession. - Conservatrix (talk) 08:55, 18 March 2018 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Conservatrix, this seems like an inappropriate closure to me, since you have expressed an opinion in the discussion. Please reopen it and then make a request at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Requests for closure by an uninvolved party. Thanks, Mathglot (talk) 08:56, 19 March 2018 (UTC)

Mathglot, this RfC has been open for two weeks and the result was not to my satisfaction. You want me to reopen the discussion so that an administrator can repost what has already been published? I would perhaps agree if it had resulted in my favor but with good faith ruling this website, the close is sufficient. - Conservatrix (talk) 09:17, 19 March 2018 (UTC)

@Conservatrix: Okay, that seems fair then, plus I guess it would save admin time. Go ahead and close if you want. In this case it's probably for the best. Sorry to whipsaw you back and forth; guess I was paying too much attention to formalities, and maybe in this case, we didn't need them. Mathglot (talk) 09:28, 19 March 2018 (UTC)

French or Latin name

Hi, User:Haywalk. Regarding this change, as explained in the summary, this changed dozens of lines in the Infobox, not just that one line you wanted to change. Only white space was changed, but this ruined columnar formatting in the wikicode, which wasn't necessary, in order to implement the possibly beneficial change you wanted to introduce. I'm not sure why this is happening to you, possibly a Visual editor issue? (If it keeps happening, I'd raise a discussion at WP:VPT, but if it's just this once, it's maybe not worth it.) Anyway, if you tell me what change you'd like to make, I can do it on your behalf; but then it's on me, and I don't quite understand yet the rationale for this change. I'm not challenging it, I'd just like to understand how it improves the article, because if the edit is going to have my username on it, then I need to support it. Mathglot (talk) 18:26, 15 May 2020 (UTC)

Hello, User:Mathglot! I have no idea why this keeps happening either, but it's likely because of the visual editor. The reason I made the change was because the royal anthem is written in as "Grand Dieu suave le roi," and though that's correct, the title of Wikipedia article for the song is in Latin (Domine salvum fac regem). Thus, it says that no page exists for that song, when in reality it does, just under a different title. If you could make that change for me, that would be lovely, however I understand if you don't want someone else's change to be on you. I maintain, however, that the change is valid. Thank you for your time and for letting me know about my formatting mistakes! Haywalk (talk) 18:46, 15 May 2020 (UTC)

@Haywalk:, thanks for your explanation. Normally, we couldn't use what another Wikipedia article says as the basis for anything in this article, because of WP:WINARS. However, there's a simple solution for the problem in *this* article. In an in-text link, you could simply pipe the link from the French to the Latin name. If that's permitted in the Infobox, we could do that. However, another solution is better, and kills two birds with one stone, namely: simply create a redirect from the French name to the Latin one. Then, you can just leave the French name, and it will still link to the Latin-named Wikipedia article. That would be the best alternative here, imho. I can do that, if you're not sure how, or I can walk you through it. One caveat: we'd need a reliable source that says that these two are the same, before we do that. Do you have one? Also, I'm not sure if that will fix our strange, white-space issue. See also this discussion at MediaWiki's VisualEditor/Feedback page.
#VEwhitespaceMunge Mathglot (talk) 20:53, 15 May 2020 (UTC)

@Haywalk:, I went ahead and created the redirect, and relinked the French anthem title. Hope this solves the problem you were trying to deal with. Mathglot (talk) 19:21, 20 May 2020 (UTC)

@Mathglot:, much appreciated! Thanks for all your help. Haywalk (talk) 21:18, 20 May 2020 (UTC)

You're welcome. #VEwhitespaceMunge. Mathglot (talk) 22:17, 17 August 2020 (UTC)

Official religion statement

Moved from User talk:Eric § Kingdom of France

 – Eric ^talk 14:38, 2 June 2021 (UTC)

Hi. Why did you undo my edit that was supported by a reliable source?, regards Hugitt (talk) 13:50, 2 June 2021 (UTC)

It seemed out of place to me, and when I looked at your other contributions, it seemed to me that you might be on a campaign to make many such changes across many articles. Eric ^talk 13:53, 2 June 2021 (UTC)

This is a topic that I'm genuinely interested in. The material is relevant and it's supported by RS.Hugitt (talk) 14:24, 2 June 2021 (UTC)

@Hugitt: I think it's better to discuss this on the article's talkpage. Eric ^talk 14:38, 2 June 2021 (UTC)

The area seems wrong

The current right-hand table lists the area as 1,035,995 km2 (400,000 sq mi) in the year 1250. I have yet to find an exact map for 1250, but the total area seems to be more or less comparable to modern France. However, the total area of modern France is 551,695 km2. So the listed area is clearly wrong. I also checked the reference [2] but couldn't find any precise area data for France. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2001:1530:1018:CC74:8C45:B144:AF2D:6A69 (talk) 07:56, 21 June 2021 (UTC)

A Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for speedy deletion

The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for speedy deletion:

• Kingdom of France (Bourbon Restoration) Le Retour des Princes français à Paris.ogg

You can see the reason for deletion at the file description page linked above. —Community Tech bot (talk) 18:53, 11 April 2023 (UTC)