Major General James G. Blunt

Page contents not supported in other languages.

Removal of picture

I delete the picture of this article because that portrait belog to the Duc de Berry's father, the Grand Dauphin. Aldebaran69 (talk) 21:08, 22 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Son of France

Sons of kings have NO surname ("de France" is NOT a surname): they are "son of France", which is a title put before any ducal title, and the daughters are "daughter of France". Frania Wisniewska disagrees with that, but the Duke of Berry disagree with her: he signed "Charles, fils de France, duc de Berry, etc." —Preceding unsigned comment added by 212.198.151.186 (talk) 18:05, 30 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Who says that ***Sons of kings have NO surname ("de France" is NOT a surname)***  ? English Wikipedia? You? Is there ONE INTERNATIONAL LAW that covers all the kings for all the countries of the world? Because the sovereigns of England have not chosen of England as a surname does not mean that the French King cannot have de France as his.
If the duc de Berry, son of the Grand Dauphin, did not put *de France* after Charles in his signature, it does not mean that he was not *Charles de France*. If I sign *Frania, duchesse de Montcœur*, it does not mean that I have no surname, but that I simply do not use *Wisniewska* in my signature.
Beside, the duc de Berry does not disagree with Frania Wisniewska, as last time I talked to him, he assured me that he had a surname - he even called it a patronyme -, and that it was de France.
Kings of France officially took de France as a surname with François Ier, and it went down the line, except for Henri IV who was born de Bourbon, but his sons, the future Louis XIII & Gaston, duc d'Orléans, both had the patronyme de France.
The surname de France was given to the children of the king. The only grandchildren who were de France, were the Dauphin's children, not the other grandchildren. Thus, as the son of the Dauphin, Charles, duc de Berry, was Charles de France, whether he signed with his surname or not.
Frania W. (talk) 03:29, 31 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
That is just wrong: firts, not only sons of the king were sons of France, sons of the heir apparent (of the "fils ainé de France", the Dauphin) also were. Second, sons of France had no surname, only grandsons of France had one. Charles went by the style "Charles, fils de France, duc de Berry", because he had no surname, when his cousin the Duke of Orléans, who was grandson of France, is mentionned in the same document "Philippe d'Orléans, petit-fils de France, duc d'Orléans" because, as a grandson of France, he had a surname which was "d'Orléans". Consequently, Charles simply signed "Charles", when his cousin signed "Philippe d'Orléans". I have corrected again the article.
I have restored - again - the correct style. Please don't vandalize again: "son of France" ("fils de France") is NOT a name, it is a TITLE, and a title which is above the title of Duke of Berry and so comes before it. See how Charles styled himself in his renunciation to the Spanish crown: http://www.chivalricorders.org/royalty/bourbon/france/success/d14-15rn.htm "Charles, fils de France, duc de Berry, d'Alençon et d'Angoulesme, vicomte de Vernon, Andely et Gisors, seigneur des chastellenies de Rignac et Merpins". Perhaps it is not useful to have the full style at the top of the article, but it is certainly useful to have the begining in the right order. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 90.38.75.69 (talk) 17:06, 14 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
90.38.75.69: Seven minutes before leaving this message, you put the title "son of France" right after the first name "Charles", and you came here saying that you *have restored - again - the correct style*, although your IP shows only the change you made in this article, and nothing else, except for this comment. Then you continue with *Please don't vandalize again*. How can you call *vandalism* the explained change by a regular user who left ***We normally don't use "fils de France" as part of the name.***
The sample you give in the signing of a document is just that, the manner in which the Duke of Berry signed, which is not the name one looks for in a dictionary or an encyclopedia, and the lead of an encyclopedia should start with the name of the personage, DoB&DoD, with the titles etc. following. Frania W. (talk) 04:05, 15 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
P.S. The following is addressed to 212.198.151.186, which I suspect to be a twinlet of the above IP:
I have in front of me the book Louis XV by Michel Antoine, Fayard, Paris 1989, page 1012 of the index section: Berry, (Charles de France, duc de). On the back flap of the book, this paragraph, in French, on Michel Antoine: "Specialist of the history of l'État sous l'Ancien Régime, Michel Antoine, after being Curator at the National Archives (Conservateur aux Archives nationales), Master of research at the French National Centre for Scientific Research (Centre National de la Recherche Scientifique) (CNRS), and professor at the Caen university, is now (at date of publication of book, i.e. 1989) Director of the School of High Studies (École pratique des Hautes Études) (IVth section)."
I don't see what you intend to prove. I have no doubt that the Duke of Berry can be referred as "the Duke of Berry" as a shorthand. But that was not his official style, which is what the first line of the article (as opposed to the title), is supposed to give. You must learn a little more on the title of the French royal family (until recently, you were absolutely convinced Charles was a grandson of France, when he was in reality a son of France, and you lectured me on the subject).
Not at all! You obviously did not read the document. The begining of the it is not a signature, but the style used by the Duke of Berry in a particularly important act: I do not see how you can find something more official and more correct. The signature at the end proves something else: that he had no surname, which is a different mater (on which you were also wrong). He was "Charles, Son of France, Duke of Berry" and signed just "Charles" (just first name, no surname, as all sons of France). Compare with his cousin, the Duke of Orléans, who was a Grandson of France and as such HAD a surname: he was "Philip d'Orléans, Grandson of France, Duke of Orléans" in a similar document and signed "Philippe d'Orléans" (first name + surname).
Once again, Son of France is not a name or a part of the name, it is a TITLE which is ABOVE the title of Duke of Berry. The entry one looks for in a dictionnary or encyclopaedia would be of course just "Duke of Berry", which was and still is the title of that article: I did not change that. On the contrary, the first line of the article is suppposed to give a more correct form of the style. The first line of the article on the "Duke of Berry" should give is correct style (not his surname: he had none), which is "Son of France, Duke of Berry", in that order.
I will also correct the paragraph on the styles of the Duke, which is patently wrong, for something more correct and better documented.
Kansas Bear, I revert your editing because I do not understand your point. You say "son of France was not his name". In a sense, that is true: "son of France" was not a name, it was his title, the higher one, who came before the second title of "Duke of Berry". But his name was neither "Charles of France" and he was never called like that (at least officialy) because he had no surname. He was Charles, Son of France, Duke of Berry. If you think otherwise, just produce any contemporary official document where endorsed by him where he is called as you claim. I have produced one for my part, so the burden of the proof his on your side. Your reverting war will get you nowhere and will not make your point.Montjoy Pursuivant (talk) 17:23, 15 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]


The French Royal Family: Titles and Customs, Family Names and Titles of Younger Sons, retrieved from: (http://www.heraldica.org/topics/france/frroyal.htm#names):

"A son of France was born "de France": all his descendants, however, had his main title (whether an apanage or a courtesy title) as their family or last name. Thus the son of Philippe de France (1640-1701), duke of Orléans, was born Philippe d'Orléans, even though he was also petit-fils de France (see, for example, the text of his renunciation to his rights to the crown of Spain in 1712: the renunciation begins "Philippe, petit-fils de France, duc d'Orléans" but he signs "Philippe d'Orléans"; his cousin the duc de Berry signs his renunciation "Charles"). Charles de France (1757-1836), son of Louis, Dauphin, and grandson of Louis XV was given the title of Count of Artois, supposedly at the suggestion of the Queen Marie who thought of Robert d'Artois, brother of St. Louis (Luynes, Mémoires, 16:205). His children's names were Louis d'Artois and Charles-Ferdinand d'Artois. The latter's son, born in 1820, was "Henri-Charles-Ferdinand-Marie-Dieudonné d'Artois, Duc de Bordeaux." That is the way he is listed in the Almanach Royal of 1830 (p. 17). (The difference they used was a border embattled gules). Had the throne of France been restored in 1873, he would have become Henri V, and we would probably have spoken of the house of Bourbon-Artois, or Artois."

TO: 212.198.151.186, 90.38.75.69 & Montjoy Pursuivant, that's the very page you directed us to.
No further comment. Regards, Frania W. (talk) 02:59, 17 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
No, that is not the page I directed you to in the page which we are discussing here. I suppose you have problems with the first sentence ("A son of France was born 'de France'"): I also do, because strictly speaking that is not correct, Sons of France were called at birth "Firstname, Son of France", not "Firstname de France" (at least not in a formal way: this always could be used informally as a shorthand, as in the Almanach Royal) and they had no surname. All the rest of the paragraph however is correct, and I directed to it on another page for another problem (the fact that the son of someone who became King lost his surname). I have now given many examples showing that the Duke of Berry's official style (what you call improperly his "name") was "Charles, Son of France" and never, in an official context at least, "Charles de France". I have explained why, and how it works, giving references to contemporary sources. You remain sceptical, know better than Louis XIV in the letters patent for Charles' apanage, and still want to call him "Charles de France" because a passage in an (otherwise excellent) webpage which I quoted in another context is badly worded. You are just methodologically and factually wrong to do that, no further comment. Regards, Montjoy Pursuivant (talk) 21:30, 17 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]


TO Montjoy Pursuivant (talk):

Please go back to the page to which you directed us & read it all. The fact that the children of the king of France had the surname de France is mentioned in several of its paragraphs:

http://www.heraldica.org/topics/france/frroyal.htm#fils

"There was nonetheless a difference between the comte d'Artois, born fils de France under the traditional definition, and his eldest son the duc d'Angoulême: the former's name was Charles Philippe de France, the latter's name was Louis Antoine d'Artois (see the Almanach Royal of 1789..."

http://www.heraldica.org/topics/france/frroyal.htm#fils

In addition, here is a list of members of the royal family of France who bore the name "de France", which I found in the index of the book Louis by Michel Antoine, former curator of the Archives nationales de France, mentioned above a few days ago:

  • Berry, (Charles de France, duc de)
  • Bourgogne, (Louis de France, duc de)
  • Bourgogne, (Louis Joseph Xavier de France, duc de)
  • Bretagne, (Louis de France, duc de)
  • Anjou, (Louis de France, duc d'), dauphin de France, puis Louis XV
  • Anjou, (Philippe de France, duc d'), puis roi d'Espagne
  • Louis de France, dauphin, "Le Grand Dauphin", dit Monseigneur
  • Louis de France, dauphin, fils de Louis XV
  • Louis XVI (Louis de France, duc de Berry, puis dauphin, puis roi de France)
  • Madame Adélaïde de France
  • Madame Élisabeth de France (the lady of this article)
  • Madame Félicité de France
  • Madame Henriette de France
  • Madame Louise de France
  • Madame Sophie de France
  • Madame Victoire de France
  • Orléans, (Philippe de France, duc d'), Monsieur, frère de Louis XIV
  • Orléans, (Philippe de France, duc de Chartres, puis duc d'), régent de France

Regards, Frania W. (talk) 05:17, 19 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

TO Frania W. :
Please go back to what I said above and read it all more carrefully: I did not quote the page for the question of the surname "de France" but for another question. On the question of the surname of the sons of France, the page is wrong.
For exemple the page says in the lines you quoted: "There was nonetheless a difference between the comte d'Artois, born fils de France under the traditional definition, and his eldest son the duc d'Angoulême: the former's name was Charles Philippe de France, the latter's name was Louis Antoine d'Artois (see the Almanach Royal of 1789..." However, that is not correct. Although the almanach uses indeed that form, in official document the Count of Artois himself is always referred as "Charles-Philippe, Son of France, Count of Artois", not as "Charles Philippe de France, Count of Artois" (at least before the Revolution: emigration was another matter in his case, but that's not the point here).
Trying to solve this kind of erudite problems by profusely quoting the index of a modern book is hopeless, whatever the authority of its author (who can be wrong as everybody else can). What you have to do is to turn back to original documents of the time. You will find a lot of modern books where those people are named "Firstname de France". You will even find contemporary sources where they are, as the Almanach Royal. However, they are NOT in official, formal document: telling that the Count of Artois was "Charles-Philippe de France" rather than "Charles-Philippe, Son of France" because you have find that form in the Almanach Royal is as childish as telling that the legal name of the former President of the USA was "Bill Clinton" and not at all "William Jefferson Clinton" because you have find a newspaper where he is called "Bill Clinton".
Of course, "de France" is more handy than "Son of France", and even at the time it was used informaly as a shorthand for the latter: I never said the contrary. But the official style of the sons of the king (what you would call improperly their "name") was "Firstname, Son of France". You still disagree however: rather than mercilessly quoting poor Monsieur Antoine (why him particularly I don't know), just find an official document of the time (Letters patent or other royal acts) where the style you claim to have been the correct one is used. I have produced enough evidences for what is of Berry. For what is of Artois, suffices to say that he is styled "notre très-cher et très-amé frère Charles-Philippe, fils de France, comte d’Artois" in various Letters patent of Louis XVI relating to his apanage, that he styles himself in a document of 1785 relating to the mayorship of Châtellerault (a town in his apanage) as "Charles Philippe, fils de France, comte d'Artois, frère du roy, duc d’Angoulême et de Berry, comte de Poitou et de Ponthieu", and that his own seal bears the inscription: "+ CHAR. PHIL. FILS DE FRANCE COMTE D'ARTOIS COLONEL GENERAL DES SUISSES ET GRISONS"
Regards, Montjoy Pursuivant (talk) 08:50, 19 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]


TO: Montjoy Pursuivant (talk)

I find it rather amusing that you should direct us to a site for proof of your argument, then refutes what the author says when same author gives arguments that do not agree with your logic. Regards, Frania W. (talk) 14:15, 19 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

It is because you are not familiar with historical method: a scholar quoting another scholar on a specific point do not necessarily agree with him on all the other points (not that I pretend to be a scholar but I read them). I directed you to the page in question because it contains factual elements and sources relating to the point I was discussing. The author do not produce convincing arguments and adequate sources on the point which happens to agree with your logic, that is that the Sons of France had "Firstname of France" as their official name.
I am happy to see bowever that you seem now to have admitted that grandsons of the King can be Sons of France if their father is the Dauphin (something you also find "amusing" some days ago), so I am quite sure you will also understand at the end that Sons of France have no surname.
Regards, Montjoy Pursuivant (talk) 15:47, 19 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Montjoy, Since, according to you, I am not familiar with historical method, and your only pretension at being a scholar is reading them, it appears to me that you and I are at about the same level of either knowledge or ignorance. And if it pleases you to gloat about the mistake I made RE sons/grandsons of France, well... keep on gloating.
In the meantime, I prefer to use Monsieur Antoine as a reference. By the way, do you know how much of a scholar one has to be in order to be named Directeur des Archives nationales de France and Masters of research at the CNRS? Given the choice between your knowledge and his, I'll take Monsieur Antoine's any time.
Regards, Frania W. (talk) 18:52, 19 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
You miss the point, again. How great a scholar, he can make mistake. That is not between Antoine and me, that is between Antoine's index (which is not an original document or a dissertation you know?) and the contemporary evidences I produced. Would Antoine have made a voluminous dissertation on the subject of the Sons of France's titles, I would certainly be much more prudent. What you are quoting is just the index of a book: I don't know if you realise. Speaking of level of scholarship, I suspect Monsieur Antoine would not so be much flattered that you consider a mere index as the pinnacle of his erudition. In fact, you could have invoked more authoritative references since that way to speak ("Firstname de France") is quite widespread, simply because people generally don't bother too much about those niceties of names and titles. However, if you went to write and encyclopedic article, you have to bother somewhere. At least it is how it works for example in wikipedian articles about British aristocrats: although the title sometimes refers to them in a more informal way, the first line always goes into deep refinements when quoting their exact name and style. I don't see why French nobles should be treated otherwise. If an encyclopaedia is not a place to be pedantic...
Sorry to have been perhaps too much ironical. I did not gloated on the mistake you made but I was teasing you on the way you overreacted when I corrected it initially, as if you knew for sure that what I had introduced was completely senseless. Your mistake should have induced you to consider the possibility that perhaps the very strong notion you have acquired from the close reading of an index about the question of the surname of the Sons of France is also misconstrued. But I never implied I was not ready to discuss your arguments if you were open to it.
However, I confess I begin to lose interest in the discussion: I have created an account some days ago because I thought it could be interesting, after all, to correct some miswordings in peculiar questions of style about which I happen to know a very little. But now I spend my time here explaining evidences like the fact that sons of the Dauphin were Sons of France, or the fact that Navarre was no more a distinct Kingdom in the 18th Century. It is a bit tiresome and rather unproductive. Regards. Montjoy Pursuivant (talk) 19:41, 19 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Montjoy, You wrote: "However, if you went to write and encyclopedic article, you have to bother somewhere." I agree, but you cannot do original research, and the only way you can prove a point is by quoting authors and, yes, the index of a book if need be. Antoine's index may not be an original document, but the index of a book is usually as exact as possible and, in this case, I would trust the author not to have added non-existing surnames just to make it easy on readers to identify individuals.
Also, the fact that a document is worded in such a way as to emphasise a certain title (in this particular case Fils de France) does not mean that the name on the document is the individual's full name.
If you feel so strongly about the titles of articles and names within articles, then go ahead & change everything; even if I stay out of your way, others will probably contest some of your changes.
Regards, Frania W. (talk) 20:46, 19 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Well, I have some difficulties with the wikipedian concept of "unoriginal researches": it is extremely difficult to be absolutely unoriginal when you make researches. Of course, you can quote an index if you have nothing more to quote, but that is absurd when you are contesting a point which is based on sources directly relating to the subject: obviously, the purpose of Antoine or of any paid student who composed the index for him was not to make a treaty on the styles and names of the Royal family. I have all due respect for your faith into indexes, but unfortunately you must understand that indexes are precisely what you think they are not: a place where things are worded "just to make it easy on readers to identify". In the present case however, Antoine's index did not of course "add non existing surnames": he simplified by shortening the disconcerting title "Son of France" into a surname-looking "de France". As I said already, that is done all the time for simplicity, and it was even done at the time. But nevertheless, that was not the correct style.
You says that "the fact that a document is worded in such a way as to emphasise a certain title (...) does not mean that the name on the document is the individual's full name". First, that is not a document that is all official documents and particularly Letters patent, the most official kind of document conceivable at the time (or show me Letters patent of Louis XIV where he call is grandson "Charles of France"). Second, if, to find what was the official full name of an individual, we are not looking at what he was called in official documents and at what he called himself when he was the author of such kind of documents (beginning by "We, Charles, Son of France, Duke of Berry..."), then frankly I don't know where we have to look. Or do you imply that the "individual's full name" is a name he never used in an official context? If the Duke of Berry is called "Charles, Son of France" in Louis XIV and Louis XV official documents and "Charles of France" only in less authoritative document, how can the latter be "the individual full name"? Or should we understand that "Charles de France" is a "full name" and "Charles, Son of France" a "not full name"?
You asked for secondary sources: I quoted a specific paragraph relating to the question in Mousnier' classical manual, which I think is more authoritative than any index. I could have quoted other more scientific works, but you will always find other secondary sources (in my opinion much less authoritative) who say otherwise or are ambiguous (as Velde's site is on that specifici point). You can even find some of them where poor Berry is called "Charles de Berry" or "Charles de Bourbon". So what? Now he has find that secondary sources are contradictory, what can one do? One can pick just one secondary source, ignore the others and stand by it because it was the one he found first. Or, putting aside his wikipedian principles, one can admit to take a look to contemporary original sources and see which secondary source is the closer to them. That is not doing original research (God forbid!), just checking secondary sources' reliability.
Admitting you would do that, what would be your opinion? Would you really think that "Charles de France" is the closest of the wording of documents produced by French royal chancery (who should have known) at the time, and by Berry himself? Or would you have some kind of doubt after all?
Despite what I said earlier, I took some interest in that discussion: it made me reconsider some points. For example, I was convinced that the title "Son of France" always comes first before any other titles. That is not true. I was also interested in the question of the title of Philip V's children (although the explanation I suggested is just an hypothesis). But I am not sure I will stay a wikipedian for a long time. Thank you for the exchange.
Regards, Montjoy Pursuivant (talk) 22:01, 19 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]


Mountjoy - it is not wikipedia's job to go to primary sources and determine what the person's real name was. We should follow what reliable secondary sources say. I'd add that "son of France" is basically never used - if we are going to use it, we should certainly use the untranslated form "fils de France," just as we use "infant of Spain" rather than "son of Spain." john k (talk) 14:22, 19 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Mr Kenney, I understand your first point. However, when "reliable secondary sources" do not agree between them, what will you do? I can produce "reliable secondary sources" where Berry will be also called - correctly - "Charles, Fils of France". How do you chose then? According to your own fancy or following the secondary sources which are closer to the primary sources?
You must understand that it is above all a matter of context: an index, an almanach, memories, are often not the place to give to somebody is exact style, something approximative is often enough, as in the title of a book or of an article. Official documents and official names are another matter. That is why I have no objection to somebody being called in the title of an article "X de France, Duke of Y" if it can help to clear some homonymy. But the first line of the article must give what was his actual name. And officialy, Charles was not a Mr De France (when is first cousin was a Mr d'Orléans). He was Charles, Son of France.
For what is of the untranslated vs translated form, I have to point to your attention that "Infant of Spain", which is used in English (although not exclusively) is a translated form! "Infant" is English. "Infante" would be Spanish. If you want to take the Infant case as a simile, you will perhaps have to chose "Fitz of France" as English translation of fils de France :)
You say that "Son of France is basically never used". Although I am ready to admit that it is perhaps not the most used English rendering of the French title, "basically never used" seems a great exaggeration. For example, the English translation of Roland Mousnier classical manual, The Institutions of France Under the Absolute Monarchy contains the following lines: The eldest son of France assumed no title other than the following: "by the grace of God, eldest son of France, Dauphin of Viennois." No other prince of the royal house had the right to use the formula, "by the grace of God." The Paris parlement granted the eldes son of France the exclusive title of "Monseigneur" when it was requested by Louis XIV upon the birth of the dauphin. And some lines thereafter: The king's next eldest brother, born the second son of France, bore the title "Monsieur", "absolutely and without appendage." And again, "All the princes who were sons of France sat with the princes of the blood. In public ceremonies sons of France other than the dauphin were entitled only to the title of Monsieur."
Mousnier is certainly "reliable secondary source". I think it is authoritative enough to use the translated form "Son of France" in Wikipedia.
Montjoy Pursuivant (talk) 15:47, 19 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Sources

The sole source of this article, Nancy Mitford's The Sun King, is inappropriate as it is not a primary source, though she does have a good bibliography.

Sections have been written with out citation or reference, i.e. inclusion of material attributed to the duchesse d'Orléans.

--E. Lighthart (talk) 14:47, 8 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

That is nonsense, indeed it is worse than nonsense, it is a complete misunderstanding of what an encyclopedia is. Wikipedia is a distillation of secondary sources. Reliance on primary sources is likely to breach the policy on original research. Abberley2 (talk) 19:51, 14 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Why change from *Grandson of France* to *Son of France* in article?

User 212.198.128.195 (talk), Would you mind explaining your change from *Grandson of France* to *Son of France* for the duc de Berry, the youngest son of the Grand Dauphin, and, as such, one of the grandsons of Louis XIV, so logically a *Grandson of France*? Frania W. (talk) 15:20, 12 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

My understanding is that a fils de France was a son of the king or a song of the Dauphin. A petit-fils de France was a grandson of the king (who was not a son of the dauphin) or a grandson of the dauphin. john k (talk) 01:15, 13 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Here is Velde on the subject - note that a petit-fils de France is only for the sons of a younger son of the king. The title has appeared to have applied to Louis XIII's brother's children, to Louis XIV's brother's children, to the subject of this article's children, and to children of the Comte d'Artois before his accession. The Grand Dauphin's children, the Duc de Bourgogne's children after his father's death, and Louis XV's grandchildren were all fils and filles de France. I'm not sure about the Duc de Bourgogne's children before his father's death, or about Felipe V's children before his renunciation of the French throne after the War of the Spanish Succession, although probably the latter were also technically petit-fils de France. john k (talk) 01:21, 13 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
John, as we are seriously looking into this, I am not going to touch the subject until proven right... or wrong. Fair enough? Must return to out-of-wiki occupation as I have a deadline to respect. Best to you, Frania W. (talk) 13:25, 13 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Um, okay, I guess. Surely Louis XVI's brothers were fils de France, though? john k (talk) 13:33, 13 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I quoted a document from the Duke of Berry, his renounciation to the Spanish throne, where he is called "son of France", so I think it is now proven right. Of course, all sons of the heir apparent were sons of France. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 90.38.75.69 (talk) 15:15, 15 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]


My argument on: "Son of France" ("Daughter of France" will not be in discussion as she is out of the succession)

"Son of France"

  • sons of the king with the eldest being the "dauphin"
  • sons of the dauphin

"Grandson of France"

  • all grandsons of the king, except the sons of the dauphin who are sons of France.

This means that the direct line going down from the eldest son has to be followed in order to be son of France, even if in fact a grandson of the king.

Ex: Louis XV's son, the Dauphin, is "son of France", and his five sons are "sons of France" also, (as correctly stated by *John K* & *Montjoy Pursuivant*).

  • Louis Joseph Xavier, duc de Bourgogne (died in childhood)
  • Xavier Marie Joseph, duc d'Aquitaine (died in babyhood)
  • Louis Auguste, duc de Berry (Louis XVI)
  • Louis Stanislas Xavier, comte de Provence (Louis XVIII)
  • Charles Philippe, comte d'Artois (Charles X)

Upon the death of Bourgogne, Berry became dauphin, and when he acceded to the throne as king Louis XVI, his sons, upon their birth, were "sons of France"

  • Louis-Joseph, dauphin (died)
  • Louis-Charles, dauphin, then Louis XVII.

Of Louis XVI's two younger brothers, only the youngest, Artois (future Charles X) had children, and his sons should have been born "grandsons of France", but Louis XVI decided otherwise: (Please see explanation given by Montjoy Pursuivant at Angoulême talk page: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Louis-Antoine,_Duke_of_Angoul%C3%AAme#Angoul.C3.AAme_Son_of_France.3F)

  • Louis-Antoine d'Artois, duc d'Angoulême (Louis XIX)
  • Charles Ferdinand d'Artois, duc de Berry (assassinated)

They should have been born "grandsons of France" because great-grandsons of a king (Louis XV), and as their father was not the eldest son of the dauphin, they could not have the title of "sons of France". Their relationship with the reigning king Louis XVI was that of uncle-nephew, the same case as Louis XIV's nephew, Philippe II, duc d'Orléans, the Regent, but Louis XVI did not follow the tradition. (Explanation by Montjoy Pursuivant at Angoulême talk page)

Angoulême became "dauphin" & "son of France" upon the accession of his father to the throne. Had he had any children, they would have then been "children of France", because children of the dauphin.

It becomes a bit more twisted with Henri, duc de Bordeaux, the posthumous son of Berry, Angoulême's younger brother. Logically, he should have been born a "grandson of France", then "son of France" when his grandfather Charles X became king. He was also far down the ladder to the throne, but climbed it quickly when his grandfather abdicated as, for twenty minutes, he was "dauphin de France", then twenty minutes later, upon the abdication of his uncle (Angoulême=Louis XIX), he became king Henri V of France, unfortunately for only four days until his throne was pulled from under him by his dear Orléans cousin.

Answering John K. questions

  • The duc de Bourgogne, the Dauphin's eldest son:

Had he had any children (great-grandchildren of Louis XV), before the death of his own father, only his eldest son would have been "son of France" (direct line from eldest to eldest).

  • The duc d'Anjou who became Philippe V d'Espagne:

Not the eldest of the dauphin, then his children would have been "grandsons of France". But as he renounced his rights to the crown of France, his children (none of them born before he became king of Spain) bore no French titles.

To the best of my knowledge. Frania W. (talk) 04:51, 17 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

(Frania W. (talk) 13:57, 17 August 2009 (UTC), editing own comment)[reply]

Five more comments:
1) The son of Ch-F d'Artois, Duke of Berry, would not have been automatically grandchildren of France, because himself was not a "real" Son of France: that is clear from the case of his elder brother Angoulême, since when Louis XVI decided Angoulême would be a Son of France at birth, he also made it quite specific that his children would be only princes of the Blood (as they would have been if the general rule had applied and he had been born a Grandson of France). However, in Ch-F case, by a specific decision of Louis XVIII during the first pregnancy of the Duchess of Berry, his future children were made Grandchildren of France. So, Henry V was born indeed a Grandson of France (and never was more until he succeeded his uncle as claimant).
2) Why those exceptions? The reason is clear: at his birth, Angoulême was the only male-line great-grandchild of Louis XV (although Louis XVI could still been expected to produce children). At the time Berry was made a Son of France (he was not made one at birth contrary to his elder brother), he was the only descendant of Louis XV who could be expected to have children.
3) Concerning the children of Philip V of Spain, you must keep in mind that at least three of his children were born before he made any renunciation to the French crown: so, their titles at birth can not have been affected by the renunciation. Nevertheless, as far as I can tell, they are not qualified of grandchildren of France. The only reason I can see is that one does not use titles of the kind "Son of France" or "Prince of the Blood" when he enjoys an higher title (for example, one is not called prince of the blood when he is also Son of France, despite the fact he is obviously one, as shown by the question of the title "First Prince of the Blood" which Sons and Grandsons of France declined to assume because they were above). The title "Infant of Spain" was considered equal in dignity to "Son of France", so perhaps the "Infant of Spain" title was deemed incompatible with the slightly lower ranking title of "Grandson of France".
4) That is shown also by the case of Philip V himself: although he never renounced to anything relating to the French succession before the Treaties of Utrecht, he nevertheless stopped to use the title "Son of France" when he became King of Spain (at least I cannot remember to have ever seen a document where he uses it, at least in a formal way; but see also below, nr 5, for a kind of dubious exception). Obviously, the Royal dignity was above. However, in a more ancient past, foreign Kings had used their Royal titles in conjunction with their French dynastic title (one example still relatively recent at the time being Henri IV who, when he was only Henri III of Navarre, had no problem to use side by side his titles of Prince of the Blood and of King of Navarre).
5) Those questions are very complex and they were already confusing at the time: there is no doubt that Philip V was originally a Son of France. However, there is at least a semi-official document dating from the time when he was King of Spain where he referred to himself casually as a Grandson of France!!!
Regards, Montjoy Pursuivant (talk) 11:21, 18 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Oh, sorry, by the Duc de Bourgogne I meant Louis XIV's eldest grandson, rather than Louis XV's, who shared the same title. All of his three sons were born before his father's death. He was a fils de France. Were his children petit-fils? Or did the oldest son get to be a fils de France because he was expected to inherit the throne? Obviously after his father's death, when he became dauphin, both of his sons would have become fils de France. john k (talk) 14:30, 19 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Who's Who

It would be nice if a contributor stick to one name & would sign his/her/its comments.

This is specially addressed to apparent-triplet user who started as anonymous IP 212.198.151.186 (talk), continued as 90.38.75.69 (talk), to become Montjoy Pursuivant (talk).

There are arguments going on with the subject at hand, and the least courtesy would be that each one of us discuss under one name. The triplet ghost flying around makes it look as if three editors were arguing the same contentious point, while there is only one. Regards, Frania W. (talk) 15:42, 16 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

You are implying I am of bad faith, aren't you? It just happens I made my first contributions from one computer, others from another computer, and then created an account because I took interest. There is no triplet ghost flying, stay calm: it is clear I am the sole and only one who argue the contentious point on the "Sons of France" correctly.Montjoy Pursuivant (talk) 19:15, 16 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I was not implying anything, just telling you what it could appear to be to a stranger stepping into the discussion. When you experience a few incidents with some anonymous IPs commonly called sock puppets (see: Wikipedia:Sock puppetry), you might understand what I meant when I wrote about "the triplet ghost flying around". To avoid problems, just sign your name so that we know we are talking to you, not a... ghost. Now this is over and out for me on this one. Frania W. (talk) 20:40, 16 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I doubt any "sock puppet" would begin his comment by "I have restored again the correct style", considering the sense of the word "again"... Montjoy Pursuivant (talk) 06:58, 17 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

"de France" as surname

[1]The new Larned History for ready reference, reading and research, Volume 2, by Josephus Nelson Larned, Donald Eugene Smith, p1101, "Bourbon, House of: its origin. From King Louis IX of France, "through his last male child, Robert de France, Comte de Clermont, sprang the House of Bourbon. An ancient barony, the inheritance of Beatrix, wife of this prince, was erected into a dukedom in favour of Louis, his son, and gave to his descendants the name which they have retained(Bourbon), that of France being reserved for the Royal branch. But Henry IV's children, those of Louis XIII, and those of their successors in the throne, were surnamed "de France"..." --Kansas Bear (talk) 16:52, 17 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
In real life however, Robert son of Saint Louis was not styled something like "Robert of France" but rather "Robert, son of the King of France" (the medieval style from which derived the modern title of Son of France). See for example how he is named in the Coutumes de Beauvaisis of Philippe de Beaumanoir: "très haut et très noble homme Robert, fils du Roi de France, comte de Clermont". Anyway, that has little (although something) to do with the styles used in the 17th century and early 18th century. Evidences have been produced of the style actually used by Charles, Son of France, Duke of Berry. Second-hand references can not change that. However, one can perhaps quote the opinion on that topic of a learned jurist of the 17th century, Charles Loyseau, in his Traité des orders et simples dignitez (written in 1610) :
"Et de vérité comme leur père [= the King] n'a aucun surnom [i.e. surname], aussi eux [= the King's sons] n'en peuvent-ils avoir dès leur naissance : et de fait nous voyons, qu’ils ne signent que leur propre nom [i.e. firstname], et qu’en leurs patentes ils s'intitulent seulement d'iceluy auquel ils adjoustent immédiatement la qualité de fils de France..."
Now of course if such authorities as MM. Larned & Smith (forgotten authors of third hand textbooks at the beginning of the past century), in a passage which does not even treat specifically of that question, are thinking otherwise than Loyseau did in the 17th century when he specifically treated of the style of the King's sons... Montjoy Pursuivant (talk) 19:22, 29 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
FYI, you haven't changed anything. The source blantatly states, But Henry IV's children, those of Louis XIII, and those of their successors in the throne, were surnamed "de France". And yet the French source that shows their full names as "de France" is the one you continue to remove. Your "source" does NOT state that "de France" was NOT their surname. --Kansas Bear (talk) 00:03, 30 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Kansas Bear - do you have any reason why we should treat a general reference work from 1922 as a reliable source on this subject? Beyond that, this seems like a pointless and rather arcane dispute. john k (talk) 06:00, 30 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Histoire généalogique et chronologique de la maison royale de Bourbon, Vol. 2, (Publisher Mansut Fils, 4 Rue de l'École de Médecine, Paris, 1825
Se vend a paris chez N. Arnoult rue de la Fromagerie a l'image St. Claude aux halles [1689]

Date of publication : 1689[2]

So explain to me again, how this reference[3], states that "de France" isn't his surname. --Kansas Bear (talk) 07:19, 30 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not convinced that anyone has presented any convincing evidence one way or another on this subject. This is all approaching OR. We should follow the forms used in the best sources, and not worry about saying one thing or another was his surname unless we find a source which specifically discusses the surnames of fils de France. john k (talk) 04:34, 1 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
While you're throwing around the typical threat of OR, you should read where your buddy got his source[4]. And since, according to you, fils de France is a shortened version of "de France", could you explain to me what petit fils de France has been shortened from??
A son of France was born de France: all his descendants, however, had his main title (whether an apanage or a courtesy title) as their family or last name. Thus the son of Philippe de France (1640-1701), duke of Orléans, was born Philippe d'Orléans, even though he was also petit-fils de France (see, for example, the text of his renunciation to his rights to the crown of Spain in 1712: the renunciation begins "Philippe, petit-fils de France, duc d'Orléans" but he signs "Philippe d'Orléans".[5]
Now oddly enough, your buddy has made these statements...
  • No evidence produced that "de France" was her official surname or that she had any..
  • No evidence that "de France" was used as a surname or put directly after her first name.
  • title of Son of France'. Oddly here he even admits that fils de France is a TITLE. The same as here; A son became fils de France upon accession of his father, but a sibling did not become fils or fille de France upon accession of a brother. This is shown by the fact that Henri IV gave his only sister the rank of fille de France by a declaration of February 1599.[6]. Perhaps we should be told yet again how fil/fille de France is a shortened version of "de France" and NOT a title to be given....... --Kansas Bear (talk) 07:39, 1 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I have one question for Montjoy Pursuivant: did the duc d'Orléans, nephew of Louis XIV, have the surname d'Orléans or was he just Philippe, petit-fils de France, duc d'Orléans sans nom de famille? Frania W. (talk) 05:03, 1 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
God, this is tedious. Does anyone have any reliable source which says that the subject of this article had a surname? Heraldica says that he signed his name just "Charles," while the Regent signed his name "Philippe d'Orléans". That seems like fairly good evidence to me that "de France" was not considered a surname. Unless someone has direct evidence otherwise, we should leave the article as is, not dealing with the last name question at all. We know that his style was "Charles, fils de France, duc de Berry." We also know, seemingly, that he signed his name "Charles." Unless we can find evidence somewhere that he used "de France" as a surname, we should avoid the issue entirely. john k (talk) 13:09, 1 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Whilst you are invoking your deity, could you tell me when Montjoy's source was published? Since you seem to have such a grasp of this situation and your continued remarks concerning Wiki rules and regulations, you might want to re-read this[7], focusing on this part, Wikipedia articles should rely primarily on reliable, third-party, published sources. But like before, this will, again, be cast aside to promote the self-aggrandizement of certain individual(s). --Kansas Bear (talk) 22:04, 1 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

John, I understand that you find this tedious, and so do I. You also wrote: This is all approaching OR. We should follow the forms used in the best sources,... As to the way I understand OR to be, one would have to go the Archives nationales, for instance, and dig up a document unknown until now. However, if you have read the discussion since it began last May (2009), none of us has brought anything that had not been discovered & published by someone else, so I fail to see how what we are doing is "approaching OR". All of us are quoting authors, and as strange as it may be, on some points arguing for or against from the very same source.

Now, here is what I was driving at when I asked Montjoy Pursuivant what the surname of Philippe, duc d'Orléans was. MP had earlier quoted the beginning of the duc de Berry's renunciation to the throne of Spain not containing the surname *de France* as proof that he had no surname: "Charles, fils de France, Duc de Berry, d'Alençon et d'Angoulesme,.... When one reads the beginning of Philippe, duc d'Orléans own renunciation, no surname is given in beginning of text either: "Philippe, petit-fils de France, duc d'Orléans, de Valois, de Chartres et de Nemours... Did this mean that Philippe, duc d'Orléans had no surname? No, the form is simply the manner in which such texts are written.

I shall skip repeating the many examples that *de France* was given as a surname to the children of the king of France, as it would be *tedious* & add length to this already long discussion.

John, your proposal, Unless we can find evidence somewhere that he used "de France" as a surname, we should avoid the issue entirely., cannot be agreed upon as we, on the *de France* side, can as well propose: Unless we can find evidence somewhere that he did NOT use "de France" as a surname, we should avoid the issue entirely.

Sweeping the argument under the carpet will not resolve an issue that has arisen in other articles related to the children of the kings of France. Frania W. (talk) 16:28, 1 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Frania - surely the question "What was the subject of this article's surname?" is one that can only be answered if we have some evidence. The Heraldica source you mention for Philippe d'Orléans vs the Duc de Berry notes that when they actually signed their names, Berry signed his "Charles," while Orléans signed his "Philippe d'Orléans." That seems like a fairly good basis for saying that the latter had the surname "d'Orléans" and the former had no surname. I have yet to see much clarity for the argument that "de France" was used as a surname, separately from the use of "fils de France." If you could point me to some evidence on that score, that would be helpful, but I don't remember anything specifically. As far as OR goes, the point is that we're mostly looking at primary sources and inferring things from them, rather than looking at secondary sources that deal with the issue of surname directly. Velde comes closest, but isn't completely clear about it. Other than that, it's all OR, in the sense of "Original synthesis" of existing sources. Using the style that he used, and avoiding the issue of surname due to lack of evidence, seems like the best way to go about it. john k (talk) 01:17, 2 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

John, if I remember correctly, discussion on same subject has already taken place in at least two other articles. So I'll let my fingers take a break & invite you to read the following where you will find links not to primary sources, but to reliable sources, in accord with Wikipedia rules & regulations. As you will see in the discussions below, the sources I gave are the work of French historians & links to what could be considered trustworthy institutions such as Gallica, bibliographic site of the Bibliothèque nationale de France, where you will see "de France" used as a surname.

Louise Élisabeth de France:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Louise_%C3%89lisabeth_of_France
Adélaïde de France:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Princess_Marie_Ad%C3%A9la%C3%AFde_of_France

I believe that my use of reliable source falls in line with Wikipedia R&R:

Wikipedia articles[2] should rely primarily on reliable, third-party, published sources (although reliable self-published sources are allowable in some situations – see below). Reliable sources are credible published materials with a reliable publication process; their authors are generally regarded as trustworthy or authoritative in relation to the subject at hand.

in: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Reliable_sources

Frania W. (talk) 05:19, 2 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I concur. The Prince of Wales signs his name simply as "Charles". He has recorded his name in legal documents as "Mountbatten-Windsor", and the Queen's declaration states that she and her children bear the name of "Windsor". Wikipedia isn't written from the first-person point of view, so how a prince signed his name can't be decisive since, as in the UK, it may reflect tradition rather than legality. The point's been made here: "Because expert sources do differ, I am agnostic on whether French kings, dauphins, and their children legally held surnames, but I don't think we can or need resolve that point here. The evidence shows that contemporary encyclopedic sources attributed 'de France' to them as if it were their surname, and therefore Wikipedia is justified in doing so." Since we don't have any source which states "'de France' is merely shorthand for the title 'fils de France', and some of us disagree that this is so based on our interpretation of the sources, we can't resolve the point of surname vs abbreviation here. Contrasting use of "de France" and "fils de France" is SYN and OR absent that statement from a reliable source. So let's rely on usage instead where no OR or SYN is required. Horledi (talk) 12:50, 2 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I don't see how the way Gallica indexes individuals demonstrates much of anything. I don't think anybody is disputing that "de France" is used as a surname in modern reference works. And the point about the signature isn't that the signature proves that "de France" wasn't his last name, but that it leaves the question unclear. The version on this page that Texas Kansas Bear put in, where we have "de France" and "fils de France" separately is entirely unjustified, as far as I can tell. I would be perfectly happy to have "Charles de France, duc de Berry," but "Charles de France, fils de France, duc de Berry" is just awkward and we have no basis anywhere for using it. john k (talk) 15:46, 2 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Who is Texas Bear?? The facts about the signature are...
  • #1.It is unpublished[8].
  • #2.It does not, in any way, support anything Montjoy has been pushing. See SYN and OR
  • #3.Illustrates why secondary and tertiary published sources are preferred on wikipedia. --Kansas Bear (talk) 17:39, 2 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry for getting your name wrong. As I said before, my only concern here is not having "Charles de France, fils de France," for which we have no support of any kind. Montjoy seems to think that including the "fils de France" title is very important, so I don't have a problem with "Charles, fils de France, duc de Berry." But I tend to think that "fils de France" is not, in fact, all that important, and that "Charles de France, duc de Berry," would be fine. Including both is just repetitive and unnecessary. One can compare to other royalty. We wouldn't say "Charles of Belgium, Prince of Belgium, Count of Flanders," for example. We wouldn't say "Friedrich Karl of Prussia, Prince of Prussia"...and so forth. Whether or not "de France" is a surname or not, I have no idea - I'm not even sure it's an answerable question. It seems fairly evident that it is derived from a shortening of "fils de France". So, basically, all I want is no repetition of "de France." Other than that you guys can all work it out for yourselves. john k (talk) 17:57, 2 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

John & All,

then instead of:

Charles, fils de France, Duke of Berry (Charles, fils de France, duc de Berry)[1] (Versailles, 31 July 1686 – Versailles, 5 May 1714). Grandson of King Louis XIV of France, he was nevertheless a son of France (fils de France) as son of the heir apparent, the Dauphin. The Duke of Berry was for seven years heir presumptive to the throne of Spain (1700-1707). He was a member of the House of Bourbon.

why not:

Charles de France, Duke of Berry, (Charles de France, duc de Berry), (Versailles, 31 July 1686 – Versailles, 5 May 1714), a grandson of Louis XIV of France, was a fils de France, and not a petit-fils de France, because son of the Dauphin of France, heir apparent to the throne. The Duke of Berry was for seven years heir presumptive to the throne of Spain (1700-1707). He was a member of the House of Bourbon.

NOTE: The multi use of "France" seems inescapable when one mentions *fils de France+petit-fils de France+Louis XIV of France+Dauphin of France*

Regards, Frania W. (talk) 18:49, 2 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

PS to John: RE Gallica & Bibliothèque de France and your comment "I don't see how the way Gallica indexes individuals demonstrates much of anything."

  • Please read Wikipedia:Reliable sources.
  • Check the following Gallica link, which does not "index individuals" but gives the titles of books together with a photograph of their cover and also parts of texts with name of individual highlighted from book or document - far from being "indexes", but visual proof. As an example, please click on the following link that will show you the cover of a book published in 1757, which has on its cover the name of Madame Adélaïde de France, daughter of Louis XV.

http://gallica.bnf.fr/ark:/12148/bpt6k5677701c.r=Ad%C3%A9la%C3%AFde+de+France.langEN

another example on Louise Élisabeth de France, the eldest daughter of Louis XV:

http://gallica.bnf.fr/ark:/12148/bpt6k5414642w.image.r=Elisabeth+de+France.f2.langEN

a painting done in 1720 with caption under portrait: "Henriette Anne d'Angleterre épouse de Philippe de France, duc d'Orléans":

http://gallica.bnf.fr/ark:/12148/bpt6k1110915.r=Philippe+de+France+duc+d%27Orl%C3%A9ans.langEN

To which you can add Encyclopædia Britannica: http://www.britannica.com/EBchecked/topic/107316/Charles-de-France

If all the above examples do not meet Wikipedia rules, regulations & demands on reliable sources, this is turning into a farce.

Frania W. (talk) 19:12, 2 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Frania, I don't believe that even Montjoy is disputing that "Philippe de France" or "Adelaide de France" or whatever were forms that were used. His claim is that this is a shortening of "fils (fille) de France." Whether this is true or not is difficult to resolve - we'd need a source which specifically says something about the question in dispute. As yet, we don't seem to really have any sources that address it one way or another. Anyway, for the intro, I suggest the following:

Charles de France, Duke of Berry, (Charles de France, duc de Berry), (Versailles, 31 July 1686 – Versailles, 5 May 1714) was a grandson of Louis XIV of France. Although he was only a grandson of Louis XIV, Berry held the rank of fils de France ("son of France"), rather than petit-fils de France ("grandson of France"), as the son of the Dauphin, heir apparent to the throne. The Duke of Berry was for seven years heir presumptive to the throne of Spain (1700-1707). He was a member of the House of Bourbon.

But maybe the whole issue with fils vs. grand-fils should be relegated to a footnote. john k (talk) 22:16, 2 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

John, this is fine with me. I think the way the fils vs petit-fils is worded is good, it is short & to the point & leaves no doubt that there was not a mistake in calling him a "fils de France". For further explanation, readers can click on the fils de France blue link. Frania W. (talk) 22:49, 2 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
This is fine with me as well. --Kansas Bear (talk) 21:51, 3 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I concur, this works well. Thanks, John, for having the patience to find a solution. Horledi (talk) 13:01, 4 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
As a week has passed & no more comments have been added to the discussion, I am replacing the introduction with the one for which John found the proper wording. Frania W. (talk) 01:08, 11 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Charles, Duke of Berry (1686–1714). Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 14:28, 13 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

source: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Charles,_Duke_of_Berry_(1686%E2%80%931714)