Welcome to Wikipedia! I see you've been here about a month and a half or so now. I'm glad I was able to be the first to greet you. By the way, you've really improved a lot of France-related articles; nice work! Regarding the translation, I wasn't (at least don't think I was) the one that did it. I remember only very vaguely editing the word 'kaput' to add a 't' but I don't think I've translated anything for this article. Could you show me the quote? I know German (as you sound like you do) and can look it over if you want me to, but otherwise if you see incorrect translation then go ahead and fix it. :) If you have any questions about anything, please feel free to let me know! JRDarby 02:44, 2 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

JRDarby:

Thank you for your welcoming msg!

Here is the quote in the sentence before last in DEATH heading in MvR's article: "Another eye witness, Sgt Ted Smout of the Australian Medical Corps, reported that Richthofen's last word was "kaputt" ("broken") immediately before he died.[9]

I'll be sure to call for help if I need it. Merci beaucoup!

FW

I see the error as well. My first thought was 'finished' (the first thing you have listed as a possible translation on my talk page) and that sounds very appropriate. Good luck on editing and let me know if I can help you! By the way, to edit your talk page, you would best be served by clicking the edit nearest the specific topic to which you are responding, going to the bottom, and using colons to push the margins out so you can see each new edit and keep track of what everyone has said. :) See the source for this page for a demonstration. JRDarby 22:18, 3 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Michaelsanders,

Being rather new with this, I am not sure of how to get in touch with you about latest edits in the article on Marie Antoinette. If this is the correct way to talk to you, please let me know. I have been reading & re-reading the article & do not agree with a few points. For instance, I cannot understand the correction in the spelling of Marie Antoinette's fourth child. Marie Sophie Hélène Béatrice is her name in French and, since she is a royal daughter of France, why should "Béatrice" be changed to "Béatrix"?

The article is long & I keep on finding details that should be changed/corrected; however, I do not want to sound arrogant!

FW

With regards to Princess Sophie Hélène Béatrix of France - the link leads to that name, rather than to Princess Sophie Hélène Béatrice of France; since it was red-linking, I changed it.

You don't sound arrogant at all. If you find details that you believe need to be changed, then - provided you have a source to back up your changes, and include citations - you can change them. I do have to say, however, that in my personal opinion the article is not too long.

Also, please leave messages to other users on their talk pages (as I have left this on your talk page), rather than on user-pages. I don't find it particularly annoying, but it is slightly tedious to move messages from the user-page to the talk-page, and some users will get very angry if you leave messages there. Still no harm done, and I hope you are willing to improve the article further. Michael Sanders 13:01, 14 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I agree this expression can have the alternate meaning you mention. But, when it refers to something sad, I think more of the latter expression you mention, ça me brise le cœur, which I think is completely unambiguous. At any rate, why are we talking about this right now? I say, let's think instead of Joy to the World — I wish you a Joyeux Noël! -- Turgidson (talk) 21:33, 24 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Frania, thanks for your suggestions--they have both been implemented on the article near verbatim to your words (see Pont Royal). Thanks for your help with this--I did the translation from the French site and didn't notice the errors until you pointed them out. Thanks again for bringing this to me attention on my talk page. Lazulilasher (talk) 16:59, 29 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Frania,

Again, thank you for your suggestions--I'll take a look at them tomorrow as today I am still recovering from the New Year's celebration. Also, I recall that whilst I was doing the initial translation and subsequent editing that I actually found that my sources conflicted regarding Pavillon de Liberte/Egalite. I think. On the other hand, I may be wrong, as I also frequently confuse liberte/egalite for some bizarre reasons (English cognates confuse me....go figure)...you can see also that I originally wrote the article this way (click here and scroll down about 1/4 of the way and you'll see it on the left side) and later changed it....Regardless, I'll look into it tomorrow and we'll get it sorted.

ALSO...I was wondering if you could help me with something. I did some major edits on the pied-noir article and was hoping that, since you appear knowledgeable about these sorts of things, you could take a look at it? I've requested a peer-review and nobody has taken me up on the offer, so if you have the time would you be willing to write the review and let me know what needs to be done? The peer review is here and the article is here. You can edit the peer review page beneath my comments if you'd like.

This would be of great assistance if you're able  :)

Thanks much! Lazulilasher (talk) 00:18, 2 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Soundofmusicals: I am addressing this to you because as you were working on this article (removing "von", which I was planning on doing) - I was reading its history. A couple of things need to be corrected in the MvR info box but I hesitate to touch it for fear of doing something wrong. (1) On 13 December 2006, the box had been vandalised/vandalized and when it was reverted to its former version, something was left out. It is the name of the location of the death of MvR. In the first version, it was Morlancourt Ridge, near the Somme River which was correct, but incomplete. It should be Morlancourt Ridge, near Vaux-sur-Somme. "Somme" being the river running by "Vaux-sur-Somme", it would not be necessary to add "near the Somme River". If you look up Vaux-sur-Somme in the French wiki, Manfred von Richthofen is the only famous person making the list while the town of Morlancourt has nothing on him.

Here is a map with heading Der letzte Flug Manfred von Richthofens illustrating the air combat in which the Red Baron's Fokker Dr. I was shot down, and the exact location of the crash (Absturzstelle), north of Vaux-sur-Somme. Naturally, his route is shown in red.

http://www.tao-yin.com/baron-rouge/img/photos/carte-somme.jpg

(2) In the name Luftstreitkräfte, the German WWI "Air Force", there is no mention of "army" and "service". The translation given as "Imperial German Army Air Service". should be "Air (or aerial) Combat Forces" (Luft = air; Streit = combat; Kräfte = forces). Frania W. (talk) 02:44, 3 January 2008 (UTC)

1. Just finished sweeping up the last redundant von!! I have left any obviously correct "vons" (i.e. ones that are part of a "full name") - and have tried not to disturb any links or references.

2. I have changed "place of death" as you suggested.

3. The "translation" of the name of the German term for their WW1 air service is NOT a literal translation, of course - more a descriptive summary. The Germans (like everyone else at the time) had army and navy air services, but a strict translation might give an erroneous impression that the Germans already had an independent air force. Best left "as-is" I think. Soundofmusicals (talk) 22:09, 4 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Soundofmusicals: The word "service" does not sound right to me in the appellation of the German aerial combat forces that preceded the Luftwaffe. You say that "a strict translation might give an erroneous impression that the Germans already had an independent air force." Wikipedia is filled with articles where the proper words are not being used in fear of "giving the wrong impression" and that is when the wrong impression is given. I much prefer the use of "aerial combat forces", which is not "Air Force", but describes exactly what men like Richthofen were doing, "combating" in the air.

Here are two links that may help convince you (?):

n° 1 is to a German article with English translation in adjacent column: http://www.knirim.de/a1201mod.htm

n° 2 are "selected German documents from the Records of the American Expeditionary Forces of WWI" under the heading M2087. These documents are at the National Archives & Records Administration (NARA), in Washington, DC. In the glossary of selected German terms & abbreviations, at page 11, you can see the translation for Luftstreitkräfte.

http://www.archives.gov/research/captured-german-records/microfilm/m2087.pdf

I rest my case. Frania W. 02:03, 5 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Read your comment re. "literal vs free translation" with great interest and almost total lack of agreement - although I will not spoil either of our days with futile argument. If you feel VERY strongly about this issue I suggest you raise it in "open" discussion, as it is very large issue, which would affect many articles, not just this one. Soundofmusicals (talk) 02:15, 5 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Soundofmusicals, your answer to me: "Read your comment re. "literal vs free translation" with great interest and almost total lack of agreement - although I will not spoil either of our days with futile argument. If you feel VERY strongly about this issue I suggest you raise it in "open" discussion, as it is very large issue, which would affect many articles, not just this one."

In some cases, the literal translation happens to be the exact one and in this particular case, the three German words describe exactly a kind of force which was not a "service", while the word "services" gives it an American slant. At least, as long as the German names are kept in the article, ce n'est qu'un demi mal. Frania W. 03:50, 5 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Soundofmusicals: "La nuit porte conseil", say the French, and I woke up this morning with the solution that would avoid a long sterile discussion. The sentence before last in second paragraph of Early Life, reads as follows: "Richthofen applied for a transfer to the Luftstreitkräfte ("Military Air Service")". I propose adding my three contentious (!) words between parentheses to make the sentence read as follows:

"Richthofen applied for a transfer to the Luftstreitkräfte (literally: Aerial Combat Forces), the "Imperial German Army Air Service", forerunner of the Luftwaffe." Frania W. 20:12, 5 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Lazulilasher, here we meet again, this time not under the bridges of Paris, but at the Pavillon de Flore. After reading your article & its version in French, I looked for more articles on the renaming of Pavillon de Flore during the French Revolution of 1789 & fell upon something interesting in an old book "numérisé" by GOOGLE. Its long title is Histoire politique et littéraire de la presse en France avec une introduction historique sur les origines du journal et de la bibliographie générale des jounaux depuis leur origine by Eugène Hatin, Tome sixième, Poulet-Malassis et de Broise, imprimeurs-libraires-éditeurs, 9, rue des Beaux-Arts, Paris (1860).

I found mention of Pavillon de Flore on page 151 with the following written by Eugène Hatin: "Sur cette salle destinée à la Convention, qui préoccupait si fort Marat, nous trouvons dans Chronique de Paris un article assez curieux, dont voici quelques extraits. La Convention nationale a fait, le 10 mars, son entrée dans la nouvelle salle, au château des Tuileries, maintenant le palais national. On a donné aux trois pavillons qui le composent trois noms nouveaux : au nom de Flore a succédé celui d’Egalité, le pavillon de Mesdames s’appellera le pavillon de la Liberté, et celui des Cent-Suisses le pavillon de l’Unité. C’est entre le pavillon de la Liberté et celui de l’Unité qu’est placée la salle de la Convention nationale, dans la place qu’on appelait autrefois la Salle des Machines, ce qui fournira matière à plus d’un bon et d’un mauvais mot." I did not change "Liberté" for "Égalité" in your article, leaving you the Liberté (!) to do it. I also recommend that you read Eugène Hatin's book (500 pages). Also the article on the Tuileries in wiki in French. It has a couple of engravings of the old palais, one in particular showing the Pont Royal in front of the Pavillon de Flore. Frania W. (talk) 04:07, 31 December 2007 (UTC)

Lazulilasher: If we could use an illustration of the Pavillon de Flore façade with Jean-Baptiste Carpeaux' sculpted decoration, Le Triomphe de Flore, it would add a nice touch to the article. Frania W. (talk) 18:00, 2 January 2008 (UTC)

Hi Frania

Well, the Good Article reviewers have now turned their sights onto our favorite obscure subject: the Pavillon de Flore. Anyway, the reviewer has kindly posted what needs to be done to fix the article onto the article's Talk page. I'm going to be spending my time trying to address the issues the reviewer posted, but was wondering if you could take a look at the reviewer's comments as well and we can see if we can get this thing up to GA status. Lazulilasher (talk) 14:47, 9 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Will gladly help to the best of my abilities. In article, I just changed "Liberté" to "Egalité" & added book reference. Frania W. (talk) 17:47, 9 January 2008 (UTC)

Great, I'm glad you're around to help! Anyway, I spent some time this morning finding some cites and addressing the issues the reviewer brought up (various accuracy errors, etc.). I'm going to take a look at some sources I have emailed myself and see if I can beef up the article a bit. The main reference I'm trying to nail down right now is a scholarly article/book which makes note of the mis-aligned axes (I posted a link on the Pavillon de Flore Talk to a google map I created which demonstrates--however, this would be original research....). Regardless, I'm sure we can increase this article's quality :) Lazulilasher (talk) 17:31, 9 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Lazulilasher: Please check this: http://www.insecula.com/oeuvre/photo_ME0000049660.html The couple of pictures before this one are close ups of Carpeaux' "haut-relief" on the façade of Pavillon de Flore. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Frania Wisniewska (talk • contribs) 19:16, 9 January 2008 (UTC)

Lazulilasher: I read the article, saw the changes you made & added a few of my own. Will return to it with more info on historical "personnages" who passed thru it. There is also work to do in the Footnotes, such as following certain rules RE bibliography, going something like : last name of author, first name, title of book, page of reference, publisher, city where published, year. Will add this comment on PdF talk page. Frania W. (talk) 01:36, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

Hi, there shouldn't be too much to do in the footnotes b/c I've used the {{cite book}} and {{cite web}} templates which are generally sufficient. However, feel free to add any more info you'd like, but leave the {{citation}} templates in because they're accepted. All of your work looks great, btw. Lazulilasher (talk) 01:39, 10 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Y Yep. You were right--all of the footnotes were not in the same format--they've all (I think) been changed now to fit inline with the cite templates. Also--do you know if the insecula image is free use? If so, then we can use it in the article. I think it would be a nice touch to illustrate the article with the image....Lazulilasher (talk) 03:45, 10 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I looked at the footnotes after you reviewed them. RE the books of reference, the page number is there, but not preceded by p. , so it is not clear that it is the page number. Not knowing how to work with templated footnotes, I cannot fix it - I tried one & the whole thing would have been lost, so I decided to leave it alone. Frania W. (talk) 17:37, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

Hi Frania, we can actually just type :pp in the pages argument of the {{citation}}: Empty citation (help) template. I'll do that now and post one here for you as an example. It took me forever to finally figure out how all of the {{cite book}}: Empty citation (help), ^[1], and Cite error: A <ref> tag is missing the closing </ref> (see the help page). Lazulilasher (talk) 18:49, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

RE the burning of the Tuileries: I found some great pictures that may interest you for either PdF article or one you may decide to do on the Tuileries, since the two subjects are closely related. No time right now to forward the info. Frania W. (talk) 18:39, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

Lazulilasher: RE the copyright for the photograph of the "haut relief" by Carpeaux on the façade of PdF, please check the following: http://www.insecula.com/root/conditions.html. It looks like we have to look somewhere else, unless you want to go & take the picture yourself as I, unfortunately, am not in Paris right now to do it. Frania W. (talk) 23:19, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

It is quite unfortunate that I, as well, am not in Paris. I was just there a few months ago and at that point, I wasn't even aware that you could actually edit wikipedia. If I'd known I would have taken many photos. Oh well. Lazulilasher (talk) 13:54, 11 January 2008 (UTC)

Lazulilasher: I found a photograph of the Flore haut-relief. http://64.233.167.104/search?q=cache:hoa6KfLv8EIJ:www.fond-ecran-image.com/photo-gratuite-facade.php+photos+haut+relief+fa%C3%A7ade+Pavillon+de+Flore&hl=fr&ct=clnk&cd=1&gl=us

When you get to the site, scroll down to the 12th photograph. It is not as nice as the one on "insecula" as it does not show as much of the façade, but it is better than nothing. We also may have to leave a comment on the site & tell whoever is in charge of the use we plan of their photograph. Frania W. (talk) 00:50, 12 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The "Voie triomphale" in Paris is the axis beginning at the center of the now gone Palais des Tuileries & passing through the center alley of the Jardin des Tuileries, the middle of the Place de la Concorde (Obélisque de Luxor), the Champs Elysées, Arc de Triomphe, and continuing through the Avenue de la Grande Armée. When the Palais des Tuileries was burned down, the axis fell upon the Louvre, unfortunately, not at its center. So the beginning of the axis became the equestrian statue of Louis XIV in the Cour Carrée of the Louvre. In July 1989, François Mitterrand inaugurated The Grande Arche de la Défense, built at the end of the Avenue de la Grande Armée to commemorate the bicentennial of the French Revolution. Instead of respecting the course of the “Voie triomphale”, the Grande Arche aimed at the center of the Louvre, throwing the axis off some 6.33°. Should the Tuileries palace be rebuilt, its center will again be the starting point of the "Voie triomphale"; however, the Grande Arche de La Défense will always be 6.33° off, unless the Ministère de la Culture decide to have it torn down and rebuilt within the axis. Which means that, from Place de la Concorde, it would not be seen because hidden by the Arc de Triomphe. Frania W. (talk) 04:32, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

Hi Frania, great info....I love the accurate measurements. Do you happen to have the source? If so, then I think the 6.33 part would be great in this article. Lazulilasher (talk) 18:31, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

Will look it up. Also: RE the burning of the Tuileries: I found some great pictures that may interest you for either PdF article or one you may decide to do on the Tuileries, since the two subjects are closely related. No time right now to forward the info. Frania W. (talk) 18:45, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

Any interest in tackling the Louvre article next? I've started to look at it and gather sources...I'd love to see that and the Tuileries articles brought up in quality. Lazulilasher (talk) 20:31, 10 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Anything on historical Paris sounds great. The ensemble Louvre-Tuileries with adjacent topics such as the old bridges nearby that must be continued with more details. C'est un travail de longue haleine! Frania W. (talk) 23:50, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

Retrieved from "http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Lazulilasher"

Something does not seem right with the last two sentences in second paragraph of the article on Louis XIV of France, which read as follows: "His reign thus spanned seventy-two years and three months, the longest of any European monarch[2] and the second-longest documented reign of any monarch since antiquity. Only Sobhuza II of Swaziland had a longer precisely documented reign (1899-1982)."

It seems to me that part of these sentences do not belong in the text but should be made into a footnote because, while they do compare length of long reign of several sovereigns, they go way beyond the subject being discussed, which is Louis XIV. I think the sentence should read: "His reign thus spanned seventy-two years and three months, the longest of any European monarch."

The rest of the sentence & last one should be a footnote.

Same msg left on discussion page of article. Frania W. (talk) 02:28, 2 February 2008 (UTC)

Retrieved from "http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Historymike"

Left another comment on Louis XIV talk page, this concerning the consecration of France to the Virgin Mary by Louis XIII. Would like your thoughts on it. Frania W. (talk) 05:55, 5 February 2008 (UTC)

Retrieved from "http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Historymike"

I am awaiting for your response to my counter-proposal on your compromise offer. Lil' mouse 3 (talk) 07:00, 29 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

As far as I know, that would be perfectly acceptable. I'd like to see how other editors solved this "problem". Coemgenus 11:41, 20 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

If I understand it correctly, that discussion is quite similar to ours. The problems in both cases are (1) the impossibility of a clear definition of what makes a source "reliable," and (2) a single intransigent editor. It also seems that reasonable discussion was unable to produce a solution in their case. As Serein said at the bottom of that page, "Si vous ne voulez pas arrêter de vouloir à tous prix introduire des erreurs sur Wikipédia, je vous le répète, je demanderai un blocage." I hope it will not come to that here. Coemgenus 16:03, 20 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I've only just now realized the point you've been making -- I didn't know the word "souris"! Coemgenus 17:36, 20 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

In response to your concerns, though, I think it is completely acceptable, and even appropriate to mention that the same activity is going on on the other Wikipedia. Coemgenus 18:04, 20 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks to you, too, for fighting the good fight. See you 'round the wiki. Coemgenus 22:10, 1 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

RE Passerelle Simone-de-Beauvoir:

(1) part of the text is squeezed between infobox & photo of lens transported on the Seine.

No way of avoiding that, short of putting the image in a gallery, which would move it away from the point at which it is relevant. Neddyseagoon - talk 15:03, 17 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

(2) after "lenticular" is it necessary to have "(lens shaped)"? It is like having "circular" (circle shaped).

Perhaps, though lenticular is far less commonly used and known and thus might need explanation. Neddyseagoon - talk 15:02, 17 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

On which side of the "pond" are we? ¿¿¿ Is not the meaning of "lenticular" obvious to a reader of English ??? Frania W. (talk) 16:16, 17 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Frania W. (talk) 14:09, 17 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I see what you mean about doing anything with the text squeezed between infobox & photo. Thank you for trying. Frania W. (talk) 17:12, 17 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

RE Pont Saint-Michel

As a matter of chronology, it seems to me that the following, which is in the introductory paragraph, should be the last part of the History section.

The present 62m-long bridge dates to 1857 and was designed on three 17.2m arches by Paul-Martin Gallocher de Lagalisserie and Paul Vaudrey. It was the site of many of the killings of the Paris massacre of 1961.

Pont Saint-Michel is served by the Metro station Saint-Michel.

Your thoughts on this? Cordialement, Frania W. (talk) 22:23, 18 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

L'intelligent Monsieur Crapaud! I fell by chance on the article, read it all as well as the discussion, i.e. your arguments with Rama. I regret not having the time to get involved in your discussion, besides, I would only repeat what you are saying & present the same preuves, but I do want you to know that you are 1000 per cent correct, not in my opinion, but as far as facts are concerned. I flipped when I read in the infobox that Londres was the "French Republic Free French Government capital in exile". Poor de Gaulle was certainly not considered as "President" of anything while in exile in England. He was in exile, his fellow countrymen were in exile, but la République française was not. In fact, since Pétain had created l'État français, la République was dormant. There came a government in exile headed by de Gaulle only when he signed the Ordonnance du 3 juin 1944 in Algiers. A very good text to read on the subject is the one by the université de Perpignan that you also found: Les gouvernements de la France libre de la France combattante et de la Libération:http://mjp.univ-perp.fr/france/co1940fl.htm This alone should be enough proof in your argumentation. Should a vote be needed at any time to settle the matter, please let me know. Joyeuses Pâques! Frania W. (talk) 14:40, 23 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Chere Frania, many thanks for your comments. What I need, however, is people to go to the article's Talk page and present these arguments there, and to revert the article as required so that I don't get banned from Wikipedia for constant reversions. Avec mes salutations, Intelligent Mr Toad (talk) 09:41, 24 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Cher Monsieur le Crapaud intelligent: I understand/know exactly what you need but, as I mentioned above, "I fell by chance on the article", was shocked by the title in the infobox & could not but agree with your arguments. But incapable at this time to bring anything new to support your stand, I retained from reverting because edit wars are time-consuming and, beside leaving a bitter taste, often end up with a text in limbo & filled with wrong data because the person who is right either gets tired or kicked out. Not being in France full time, it is difficult for me to access my books or go to a bibliothèque, the BNP or Archives nationales. However, I googled a couple of official French government sites & believe I may have found a very simple answer to the argument of "London as capital in exile" for the “French Republic Free French Government” . Within a few hours, I shall put something on the Talk page. In the meantime, here is something for you to check, if you have not already done so: http://www.assembleenationale.fr/histoire/histoire-1940.asp Cordialement, Frania W. (talk) 14:56, 24 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Archives nationales: http://64.233.167.104/search?q=cache:9sjA6Bd8ZFkJ:www.archivesnationales.culture.gouv.fr/chan/chan/pdf/sm/A_2007.pdf+Archives+nationales+Fran%C3%A7ais+libres+Londres+1940&hl=fr&ct=clnk&cd=9&gl=us

FW

Posted on Free French talk page: Rama: As I, unfortunately, have no access to de Gaulle's Mémoires, I would appreciate your kindness in posting the whole sentence - even paragraph - of your quote re: "Read Mémoires de Guerre, L'Appel, chapter La France combattante. It cites the composition of the government, and states "le Comité serait le gouvernment" and "le chef des Français Libres prît des responsabilités d'État". I would like to see these in their context. You are correct in noting that the first is in the conditional; however, in reading the on-going argument, and the comment by Med in the last revision: rv. "le Comité serait le gouvernment" and "le chef des Français Libres prît des responsabilités d'État". (See talk.), I am left under the impression that "le chef des Français libres prît des responsabilités d'État" is being translated as "the chief of the Free French took on the responsibilities of the State". This would be an incorrect translation. This phrase is not written in the "prétérit de l’indicatif" (preterite of the indicative), thus not stating that the "chief of the Free French took on responsibilities of the State". The accent circonflexe on the "i" of prît marks the use of the "imparfait du subjonctif" (imperfect of the subjunctive), in which mode, the author was not stating that the chief of the Free French took on responsibilities of the State: the whole statement is a “could be/should be/would be” type of conditional, as in "should this be done, the following could/would happen." Frania W. (talk) 19:10, 24 March 2008 (UTC) Retrieved from "http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Free_French_Forces"

David: Please click on the above article. I would like your thoughts on the content of the infobox. Je suis tombée sur l'article tout à fait par hasard hier, en suis tombée à la renverse, et n'en suis pas encore revenue. Ai laissé un commentaire à la page de discussion. Merci de bien vouloir y jeter un coup d'œil. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:French_Third_Republic

Cordialement, Frania W. (talk) 13:26, 25 March 2008 (UTC)

Retrieved from "http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:David.Monniaux"

Those flags illustrate the predecessor and successor flags. David.Monniaux (talk) 13:40, 25 March 2008 (UTC)

Retrieved from "http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:French_Third_Republic" —Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.79.146.8 (talk) 14:19, 25 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Merci pour l'explication... but the sight of the swastika makes me cringe. Frania W. (talk) 14:15, 25 March 2008 (UTC)

Retrieved from "http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:David.Monniaux"

BoBo: Our paths have been crossing lately on the royal roads of France & I noticed that you added the title "Prince du Sang" to some royal personages. In my edit to Philippe I, Duke of Orléans :

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Philippe_I%2C_Duke_of_Orl%C3%A9ans&diff=next&oldid=205217638,

I removed it without leaving a detailed explicative note, hence my contacting you here in case you would like to discuss it: I do not believe the title applies to the sons of the king, but to the male parents next in line should the king die without an heir, the first in line of these male relatives receiving the title of "Premier Prince du Sang" - the logic then is that if a male relative (cousin, uncle, nephew...) of a Fils de France is titled "Premier Prince du Sang", the Dauphin & his brothers do not have the title of "Prince du Sang", otherwise, it is the Dauphin who would be "Premier Prince du Sang".

Here are a couple of links from fr:wikipedia, as I presume you read French:

http://fr.wikipedia.org/wiki/Prince_du_sang

http://fr.wikipedia.org/wiki/Appellations_des_princes_du_sang

Frania W. (talk) 17:03, 13 April 2008 (UTC)

Frania, this exchange may interest you. As noted in the title, it is about capitalising French titles. Charles 01:09, 21 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Charles, thank you: I have been following the discussion. Frania W. (talk) 01:49, 21 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Frania, you are right on the spot with all of your comments. A user is able to prove that a form existed but does not acknowledge any other forms that do not align with his or her ideology, preference, et cetera. That we have an official regulating body for French now should govern how we use it in English only because English is otherwise silent on the matter of what to do. So long as we are silent as well there will always be chaos, there will always be edit disputes and there will always be questions and circular discussion. I cannot see why certain parties do not realize this but alas, I wonder that about *many* things in life! :) There are no single "historically accurate" forms for any title that the user listed; rather, there are many. Also, the user provided a list of books using his or her preferred form (initial upper case) but did not follow a request to show examples that didn't use that form. Weak foundation for an otherwise simple case. Even though the "right" thing to do is right in front of us, we will never reach it so long as there is vocal opposition (even if it doesn't make much sense). Charles 18:39, 22 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Also, regarding the translation of de, we should never do it unless there is a strong case for it (like Dukes of Orléans, etc) but we should never, ever use terrible forms like "duc of Orléans"! To see that gives me a headache. Charles 18:42, 22 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Whenever I read the comments of someone who brandishes Antonia Fraser's books to prove a point, I go into orbit... Frania W. (talk) 03:37, 23 April 2008 (UTC)

Frania! Ca va ou quoi!

I've been working a lot on the Louvre article. And was wondering if you could take a look at it, provide some of your detailed insight....double check my work regarding the history of the structure...etc....basically, if you have the time (ha, I know) I would really love your help.

How is everything?

Lazulilasher (talk) 13:27, 21 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Où étiez-vous? La dernière fois que j'ai vérifié vos contributions, la date était toujours au 28 février. Je commençais à m'inquiéter. Maintenant je peux respirer!

I will be more than happy to work on the Louvre with you. Will check it ASAP. I have been very busy with other matters & have not touched le Pavillon de Flore for which I have some additions, but I did go thru all the bridges on the Seine. Had plans also for the Seine as there are some inexactitudes in the article. Mais chaque chose en son temps.

Aurevoir! Frania W. (talk) 15:13, 21 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Ha! Thanks for the comment! C'est genial, ceci. I was starting a new job and was actually in/out of France often (we're headquartered in Levellois-Perret, juste a cote de Neuilly. Due to the new job, I decided that I couldn't edit Wikipedia until I had already built a decent reputation. But, helas! Here I am! aux citoyens, aux armes, aux stylos! au travail! En avance pour la Wikipedia! Lazulilasher (talk) 15:19, 21 April 2008 (UTC)

Et en l'avenir, tu peut me tutoyer, si cela conviens le situation! Lazulilasher (talk) 15:21, 21 April 2008 (UTC)

Retrieved from "http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Lazulilasher"

Lazu, d'accord, on se tutoie. Alors tu travailles à Levallois-Perret? Bonne chance dans ton nouveau truc, ou plutôt... m.r.e! Sans rire, j'étais sur le point de confier mon inquiétude à Neddyseagoon qui semble être souvent sur les mêmes sujets que nous. Á bientôt sur notre favorite subject et autres. Frania W. (talk) 17:04, 21 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I notice on your French talk page that you are contributing heavily to the Chopin pages la. Maybe we have the next project? I love Chopin! Lazulilasher (talk) 14:25, 23 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Oui, moi aussi j'adore Chopin. I spent hours transcribing tonalities that were given in either the English or German manner & checking the opus numbers. The only way to do it was to verify each composition against the partitions I have - ça a été du boulot and, as I said, it took hours, but time well spent. By the way, the article on Chopin already exists in en:wikipedia. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fr%C3%A9d%C3%A9ric_Chopin Musicalement vôtre, Frania W. (talk) 15:37, 23 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

FactStraight, I have brought some changes to the article. One of them, a reference at Family and Death , is a link to an article in fr:wiki; although showing [1], the reference does not appear when clicking on [1]. Would you mind fixing it? I added the link to References. Thank you. Frania W. (talk) 12:08, 26 April 2008 (UTC)

Retrieved from "http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:FactStraight"

Charles, I have been working on several articles on the Bourbon-Toulouse-Penthièvre family and am having problems including references & footnotes. I have no idea what's wrong as I follow the steps by clicking on "references". The numbers show in the text itself, but nothing happens when clicking on the number. The articles are Louis-Alexandre de Bourbon, comte de Toulouse & Louise Marie Adélaïde de Bourbon-Penthièvre. If you check my edits (edit this page), you will see that my references are there. Merci d'avance, FW Frania W. (talk) 17:21, 29 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Frania!

This has an east fix. Put {{Reflist}} (without the nowiki if you are viewing the code) at the top of the references section. Voilà! :) Charles 17:28, 29 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thank your for returning to me so quickly. Will get to it when I have more time. Très bien et merci. Frania W. (talk) 17:39, 29 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Would you mind taking a look at the last five revisions done on 12 May by 86.154.178.231 ? The changes do not bring anything new or noteworthy to the article; in fact they contradict what is already there & look to me as possible vandalism. Frania W. (talk) 01:50, 13 May 2008 (UTC)

Retrieved from "http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:ClueBot_Commons"

It's not exactly vandalism: it's just BoBo editing under one of his two sockpuppets (the other is Tbharding), to make it look as if he is "improving" someone else's edits. He tries to make these Bourbon articles look and read like a novel, padding them with redundant or trivial information. Anyway, I tried to cut the article down to size. Now it's your turn. :-) FactStraight (talk) 07:47, 13 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you FactStraight. Same "redundant or trivial information" is added to every article, making for unnecessary length, while interesting details are skipped - or removed without explanation, as was the case in several of my edits yesterday. Aurevoir! Frania W. (talk) 13:17, 13 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Since Tbharding reverted all of my edits without any explanation, I have reverted back to my version, with explanation. Unfortunately, that meant I had to revert your edits as well. I tried to restore the substantive ones, but you should check and make sure that it is correct. I object to referring to people by three Christian names as excessive, and really would prefer use of only one. I expect that one of the sockpuppets will again revert everything. If so, I recommend that rather than re-editing from his version, you revert, if warranted, to yours or mine: he can't revert us both on these Bourbon articles without violating the rules against 3RR and Sockpuppet. I try to work with his edits when they are reasonable (much of his input is good), but he can't be allowed to turn 18th century France into Gothic fiction on Wiki, full of titles & genealogy with pretty pictures, but no substantive content and no proper citations, all for his own amusement. BTW, Wiki articles (even French Wiki) are not considered acceptable as citations. Enjoy editing! FactStraight (talk) 04:45, 14 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for this update. I shall go thru the article & check with you before making any "conflicting" changes, or am in doubt about anything. Aurevoir! Frania W. (talk) 04:59, 14 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Bonjour cher Coemgenus: Going thru a few articles related to the Bourbon dynasty of France, I notice your name here & there. Hence my writing you on the subject of repeated blue wiki links on dates, personages, cities etc. Once Paris or Louis XIV have been wikilinked, it is enough. Repetition of the process within the same article is unnecessary & disruptive. Is there a rule stating that Paris & others have to be wikilinked every time? Frania W. (talk) 22:13, 12 May 2008 (UTC)

Retrieved from "http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Coemgenus"

You're right about the excessive linking. There's a guideline about it somewhere in the manual of style, but I'm not sure where. Basically, I believe, one should not link more than once to a given article unless there is a good reason. If the two links are separated by a large amount of text, that's probably ok, but not twice in the same paragraph. Dates are different -- wikilinking them makes them able to be formatted according to a user's preferences, so that I can read my dates American style and people who prefer the European style can read them that way. This page talks about the dates. Bonjour! Coemgenus 10:40, 13 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Merci Coemgenus for the guideline. What you say makes sense & is in line with what I thought. Bonne journée! Frania W. (talk) 13:03, 13 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Frania, I noticed your edits on Louvre! Nice additions. I'm still hoping to one day get that article up to FA, but who knows. How are things? Lazulilasher (talk) 13:01, 21 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Lazu: So nice to find your note! Yes, I enjoyed reading the Louvre article & left a few traces, what I call "des petits riens", respecting the article. I have been very busy with life in general & got caught in articles on members of the French royalty. Quite a saga as one article leads to the next. Hope your new job is satisfying & your summer great. Aurevoir! Frania W. (talk) 18:43, 21 August 2008 (UTC)

Several *sculpture* figures are being put in articles related to French historical personnages: princesse de Lamballe, Mme de Montespan, Mme de Maintenon. They do not belong there. Checking the contributors' IP address - all beginning 75.106.192. with last two numbers different - reveals a history of vandalism. Would you mind checking this? Thank you. Frania W. (talk) 19:14, 31 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Weird indeed. I've reverted the anon -- they added the same kind of image to Julius Caesar as well. Maybe they are shared IPs which would explain the vandalism (i.e. the previous edits weren't done by him/her). Anyways if they revert again I would try to discuss it with them and explain why it is inappropriate. Khoikhoi 07:18, 1 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for your quick action on removing these weird things. Frania W. (talk) 14:32, 1 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

To Kansas Bear: Like the French say: "c'est la rentrée" et j'ai l'impression qu'on est reparti pour un tour. Bon courage! Frania W. (talk) 16:33, 4 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, Frania. Kansas Bear (talk) 15:03, 6 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Lazu: Je viens d'ajouter le lien d'un article du Figaro sur un accident récent d'une vedette près du pont de l'Archevêché à Paris. http://www.lefigaro.fr/actualite-france/2008/09/14/01016-20080914ARTFIG00013-une-vedette-de-plaisance-sombre-sur-la-seine-.php Si ce lien n'a de raison d'être, je vous/te laisse libre de le retirer, mais je pense que cet article est intéressant parce qu'il soulève l'hypothèse que, hors autres raisons telles vitesse ou erreur humaine, l'étroitesse du pont aurait pu jouer. Aurevoir. Frania W. (talk) 19:19, 14 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Eh, WOW! Bien sur, ajoute l'article. Aussi, si t'a le temps libre, peut-etre tu peut ecrire en petits riens au sujet du naufrage? Ca m'interessera bien. C'est bizarre, je sais que le Pont Notre-Dame provoquait quelques naufrage, mais pas en notre temps. Lazulilasher (talk) 17:19, 16 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

D'accord, quand j'aurai un peu de temps, j'ajouterai qq lignes sur cet accident qui me rappelle qqch de similaire qui était arrivé il y a très très longtemps à un autre pont. Tu as aussi l'air très occupé! Félicitations pour tout le joli travail que tu fais. A bientôt! FW Frania W. (talk) 17:49, 16 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Tpbradbury: Do you mean that accents, cédille & others are forbidden in en:Wikipedia? It hurts my eyes terribly to see Champs Elysees and Republique francaise. In my opinion as a professional book editor working with six languages, even in a text in English, these are mistakes because one should either anglicise the word or, if kept in its language of origin, respect the original spelling. In N's article: 3rd line of *Origins & education*, one can read "though he later adopted the more French-sounding Napoleon Bonaparte". Well, if *he*, that is N, adopted the more French-sounding Napoleon Bonaparte, it stands to reason that *he* also adopted the accent on Napoléon.

It is also difficult for me to understand why accents should be banished in N's article while they are all over en:wikipedia. For instance, coup d'etat directs the reader to Coup d'état, Josephine de Beauharnais to Joséphine de Beauharnais, Champs Elysees to Champs Élysées.

Furthermore, does it make any sense to give a quote in French & remove all the accents? This is note n° 6 of N's article, which I had corrected, but that was immediately reverted: Letter published in (1870) in Henri Plon: Correspondance Napoleon. Dumaine, p.420. ASIN B0013Z9HGO. ^ Article 1.- Le Peuple français nomme, et le Senat proclame Napoleon Bonaparte Premier consul à vie. Translation: The French people name, and the Senate proclaims Napoleon Bonaparte First Consul for life Together with the French words without accents, whoever first wrote the article did not give the correct title for Henri Plon's publication of N's letters in 1870. The title is not "Correspondance Napoleon" but "Correspondance de Napoléon Ier".

Omitting an accent in French can change the meaning of the sentence as the accent aigu at the end of a verb indicates past participle tense. For instance: "Le chasseur tue pendant la chasse..." (= The hunter kills during the hunt) vs "Le chasseur tué pendant la chasse..." (= The hunter killed during the hunt). If the accent is omitted when the sentence is inserted in a text in English, then the reader will not know whether the hunter killed or was killed.

All this being said, and as your corrections came while I was in the middle of my own, I am stopping doing any editing on this article. It irks me to see the numerous historical inexactitudes with which en:wikipedia is filled, and have some silly rules keep serious editors from participating in the real *meat of the subject*, while vandals are allowed to flourish. Frania W. (talk) 20:38, 26 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

P.S. By the way, why is there such a choice in the insert box listing "latin" if we can not use such symbols as Á á É é Ê ê ë ú Œ œ ? Ridiculous!

Put comment on Napoléon's talk page. FW

Chou a la creme to you too

Bonsoir Frania, The title of the article is Napoleon I of France (no accent). If you read above, when taken through the GA review it was pointed-out by the reviewer that the article was inconsistent in its use of diacritics so in order to make it consistent I took the diacritics out to be consistent with the title and the reviewer agreed. It seems difficult to justify not putting diacritics in the title and then suddenly putting them in the article. I think Napoleon is unsual because it's a name English speakers anglicise by not putting the accent in but they keep accents for other words such as in Coup d'état hence why many articles have diacritics. I think it might be possible to include some of the diacritics you inputted without being inconsistent. Thanks for pointing out some errors and please note any historical inexactitudes. I see you've written this on the talk page? it makes more sense just to write notes to me on my talk page. Tom B (talk) 20:40, 26 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

good sense vs inconsistensies

Good evening, Tom/Tpbradbury: As you can see, I had put my comment on both Tpbradbury's & N's talk page in case others may want to respond.

(1) I have come to terms with Napoléon losing his accent in English, that's the way the Ameranglos write it, and I accept it. But it should not mean that there was a consensus between the English & the Americans to remove all diacritics from all French words in all Anglo texts.

(2) Please note that when I edited the article, except for the one "Napoléon Bonaparte" saying how Bonaparte himself chose to spell his name in French (which was my reason to put an accent on that Napoléon), I had not touched the other Napoleon of the text, thus respecting the Anglo-American entente cordiale on this point!

(3) In my opinion, the argument of inconsistency is being carried too far. If no accents are to be used, then let us not use foreign words & let's have every word anglicised. Instead of talking about Napoleon's *Grande Armée* camouflaged as Grande Armee, then let's write Napoleon's Great Army but please no Grande Armee. In other words, either French or English, but no amputated French terms.

(4) Should we want to carry this no diacritics policy throughout en:wikipedia, are we going to redirect articles such as those on André Le Nôtre, Madame de Sévigné, Marie-Thérèse de France, Champs Élysées to Andre Le Notre, Mme de Sevigne, Marie-Therese de France, Champs Elysees?

(5) As for not respecting French orthography in a quote in French, it makes no sense in an encyclopedic article. A letter is a letter. e is not é or è or ë or ê. And if you have ou (=or) and où (=where) what imbroglio would be created in skipping the accent on ù! The same with à (= at, to) and a (= has). And I shall not tell you what one would be writing if skipping the cedilla under the c of leçon!

I rest my case. Frania W. (talk) 23:31, 26 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

i'm sure you'll be ecstatic to know i've put a lot of the diacritics back in as you had done. i think i'd probably sledgehammered it before in an effort to make things straightforward. anyway i can't rule out the possibility i'll have to take some/all out again if some other people come along and there's a new consensus, Tom B (talk) 21:38, 27 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Tom: Thank you for your note & taking the time to "put a lot of the diacritics back". I had planned on reading the article *from top to bottom* again, but decided instead to read the peer review: you are putting a lot of work & time in this, and I do not want to be a factor of distraction. So, I am going to finish what I had started & if the subject of *diacritics* comes up, I will take responsibility for it, plead my case & wait for consensus to be reached one way or the other. In the meantime, whenever I find clarification on points being raised, I'll send them your way. Cordialement, FW Frania W. (talk) 04:47, 28 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Tom: If I do not bring changes directly to the article, where should I leave my *finds* on N? Here on your talk page or in the peer review discussion? Do your read French? Because I have details on Bonaparte's 1796 civil marriage to Joséphine, 1804 religious ceremony, 1810 divorce authorised by Senate & annulment of religious mariage by Paris diocese in January 1810, three months before N's marriage to Marie Louise. Frania W. (talk) 01:16, 29 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

thanks, best leave it on article talk page probably. i do read French but best if it's in English so everyone, including me, can understand. we may not be able to include all material otherwise article will get to large, merci Tom B (talk) 01:24, 29 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Lazu: RE sections Controversies & Satellite museums, it seems to me that it would be more logical for their order of appearance to be switched, unless last paragraph Jordan just added be used to close the Abu Dhabi segment. Qu'est-ce que tu en penses? Cordialement, Frania W. (talk) 19:05, 27 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I think the two sections should be swopped around. This would certainly be better for the shape of the article and, as per above, would be more logical. Jordan ^Contribs 19:13, 27 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Well, it seems like you two have it sorted out :) I agree with your mutual assessment. Also, I'm going to move this discussion to the article's talk page. That way, if any other folks happen around they will be able to read the conversation. Ok, I'm off to see if I can find the big edition of Le Robert, which may (may not, it is a proper noun after all) have an "official" etymology. Lazulilasher (talk) 19:59, 27 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with your suggestion, as proposed here. I would suggest that the sections are swopped around, rather than the text regarding the Louvre Abu Dhabi being assimilated into the body of the text in the Louvre Abu Dhabi section. If this is alright, I will change the sections around. But first, consensus needs to be accheived. Jordan ^Contribs 19:14, 27 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Perfect. I have changed the sections around. Lets hope that that's alright with everyone. Jordan[[Special:Contributions/Jordan Timothy

Lazu: Mes deux gros Robert ne disent rien sur l'étymologie du mot "louvre", ce qui signifie que ce n'est pas un nom commun. Dans le dictionnaire des noms propres, il n'y a que l'histoire du palais de sa construction à nos jours. Le mot n'apparaît même pas dans le dictionnaire étymologique Larousse. Aurevoir! FW

J'ai la même histoire (c'est toujours la meme histoire :) ) Les dictionnaires ne disent plus que rien; sauf, comme tu m'a dit, l'histoire de la construction (Robert, les Noms Propres). Donc...hmmm....qu'est-ce que t'en penses? Lazulilasher (talk) 15:12, 28 September 2008 (UTC)

Retrieved from "http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Lazulilasher"

Bonjour Lazu! Ce que j'en pense est ce que j'ai écrit il y a quelques jours à la page de discussion du Louvre: Since the French themselves do not know the origin of the word *louvre*, and can only offer hypotheses, I believe that what Lalu wrote is what should be included in the article. If/when/until someone comes up with a better explanation, then it should be left as is. Bon weekend! Frania W. (talk) 15:49, 28 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Résultat à *loup* dans Larousse étymologique:

<loup 1080, Roland (leu, forme conservée dans à la queue leu leu, Saint Leu, etc.); du lat. lupus; loup est refait sur le fém. louve, où le *v* a empêché le passage du *ou* à *eu* (cf. Louvre, du lat. pop. lupara).>

Bon! J'ai consulté "The Old & New Paris" par Edwards, pages 193-94. Il ecrivais le meme chose que toi, plus ou moins. Il est evident que "lupara" est le theorie le plus accepté. Donc, pense-toi qu'on devrais modifier le passage avec ces notes-ci? Je te laisse l'honneur :) Lazulilasher (talk) 18:11, 28 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Lazu, un grand merci pour l'honneur! Je vais faire de mon mieux et tu me diras ce que tu en penses. J'ai toujours penché pour une relation à loup, mais cela ne suffit pas pour affirmer quelque chose comme la vérité. Aurevoir! Frania W. (talk) 20:52, 28 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Bonjour Lazu: Pour ne pas alourdir l'article avec plus d'explications sur l'étymologie du nom, j'ai ajouté l'explication du Larousse en note de bas de page (foot note n° 5). Please feel free to edit it as I did it in a rush. Bonne journée! Frania W. (talk) 13:14, 29 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Bonjour Lazu! RE PdF, I want to add a few details to the last paragraph of its History section; however, I am being slowed by inconsistencies found in various sources. For instance, Francis Miltoun places the Committee of Public Safety in former apartments of Marie Antoinette in PdF, while other sources (French) place it in former apartments of the queen, but in the Tuileries Palace, i.e. first floor looking into garden, which is what I believe. After the royal family was brought to Paris from Versailles on 6 October 1789, and until 10 August 1792 (fall of the monarchy), the apartment on first floor of PdF was occupied by the princesse de Lamballe. The queen had access to that apartment from her own in the Palais des Tuileries. However, I must find the source before bringing any change to article. This is taking time and, unfortunately, my personal time is not the exclusive property of Wikipedia! Aurevoir! Frania W. (talk) 17:02, 1 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Ha! I'm sure it will be excellent! Lazulilasher (talk) 01:29, 2 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I have proposed the development of an A-class review department for the France WikiProject. This would be a part of the project's reviews departement. See here and here. Thought you might be interested. Jordan ^Contribs 21:13, 1 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, Frania Wisniewska. You have new messages at Voceditenore's talk page.
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

the Girondists? I don't know much, but an editor requested that someone take a look at that article and fix the lead up. Since I don't have great knowledge on the subject, I am coming to you. Lazulilasher (talk) 22:59, 5 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Lazu: I imagine this the heading RE the request you are talking about?

Answer the obvious question: "What did they believe?"

I'll see what I can do about this, but not right now. FW

Thanks Frania. I also asked a colleague over at the fr.wiki to take a look. I'm not a Revolution expert, so I decided to see if I could finagle you or McEwen to fix it up. You both have expressed interest in the subject. I might take a look, although right now my big artile projects are still Louvre and Marquis de Lafayette. Thanks for offering to take a look (and there's no rush). Lazulilasher (talk) 04:01, 6 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Mon très cher Lazu: You are the last person with whom I am ever going to have an edit war, so I am not going to change your "appropriation" for my "confiscation", but I do want to tell you that in all studies I have done in France, and in all readings, the word that stands out RE the revolutionary government getting its hand on Church or émigré's property is "confiscation", which in the mind of the French is a lot meaner than "appropriation". Voilà! And, by the way, tu vas me copier cent (100) fois le mot "galerie", which has only one (1) *l* en français, ou je vais *confisquer* ton ordinateur !!! Frania W. (talk) 02:43, 6 October 2008 (UTC) http://74.125.113.104/search?q=cache:BGnbDtzxwCEJ:www.1789-1799.org/persos/talleyrand.htm+confiscation+des+biens+de+l%27%C3%A9glise+r%C3%A9volution+fran%C3%A7aise&hl=fr&ct=clnk&cd=12&gl=us[reply]

No worries, revert me--I know you mean no harm. It's not like we've never worked together before. I was concerned because of the combination of Church/emigre/and the cabinets du roi. I'd thought that the royal collections had been "appropriated", not confiscated; hence, I changed the word. Confiscated seemed a little harsh, but it was really a minor tweak. Changing it back.... Lazulilasher (talk) 02:49, 6 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I know that "confiscated" seems a little harsh, but "confiscation" was meant to be very harsh; it was a punishment to those who had belonged to privileged classes. Remember, the revolutionaries were not shy about cutting heads at the time... But I am not going to revert you. Maybe next year! FW

FYI: changed it back. Frania, tu sais que tu peut me "reverter" (ha! is that a word?). Lazulilasher (talk) 02:54, 6 October 2008 (UTC

Ha."je me revertais" (can we say that?) Lazulilasher (talk) 03:01, 6 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

fr:wikipedia appelle "revert": "révocation" ou "réversion". Les verbes sont "révoquer" ou "faire une réversion". Mais, entre nous, on peut utiliser un mot inventé, comme "réverter". On peut même le soumettre à l'Académie française.

Ce texte est sans doute un peu long, mais il peut t'intéresser sur la façon dont les biens nationaux étaient revendus pendant la Révolution: http://rives.revues.org/document100.html

En plus, je viens de tomber sur ce paragraphe: ***[...] La Commission des revenus nationaux rappelle que “ la vente des biens confisqués se poursuit dans toutes les parties du territoire français et même sous le feu de l'ennemi ”.[...] ***

Bonne continuation! FW Frania W. (talk) 03:43, 6 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Btw, I was reading a book about Lafayette today: you are correct, the proper word is "confiscated". Lazulilasher (talk) 16:26, 6 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Lazu: Case closed and à la prochaine. Frania W. (talk) 16:39, 6 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Je te propose: French Revolution. Lazulilasher (talk) 18:02, 10 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Dear Frania, I am sorry if in the past I have been rude to you in our discussions on talk pages. As you can tell, I love 18th century history and can get very worked up about it. I hope you understand that my only goal, though, is to encourage the accurate transmission of information. I will try to work on my presentation (LOL). Best Wishes, BoBo (talk) 00:10, 14 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Kate, please read my comment on Pompadour talk page http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Madame_de_Pompadour and changes I brought to article. Frania W. (talk) 15:08, 24 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Frania, thanks for the edits and the heads up :) I agree with the revision, it's certain she had a bad reputatation but the modern connotation of prostitute seems a bit on the harsh side. Kate (talk) 15:42, 24 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with you & find it very sad that some of the articles on famous French women are linked to Category:French courtesans and prostitutes http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Category:French_courtesans_and_prostitutes. Placing in that list Marie de Rohan-Montbazon, duchesse de Chevreuse, Stéphanie Félicité Ducrest de St-Albin, comtesse de Genlis, Thérésa Tallien and the French actress Rachel is beyond my comprehension of the words *courtesan* and *prostitute* used in English speaking Wikipedia! I believe Anglo-Saxon puritanism (probably more American than British) has a lot to do with such opinions. The French have a more liberal view on the behaviour of women. Why should a man with many feminine conquests be called a *libertine*, a *Don Juan*, a *womaniser* or a *great lover* (but never a *male-whore*!) while women doing the same are categorised as *prostitutes* ? Frania W. (talk) 19:09, 24 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I agree, I find it utterly deplorable and I'm not even sure where it comes from, really. It certainly hasn't been unheard of in previous times for women to be less than puritanical sexually, and some of the most amazing women have been so, like Emilie du Chatelet, a personal heroine of mine. Why should it be so surprising that a woman of intellect and breeding should also explore her sexuality in a way that was permissable in her social status and culture? Simply having sex doesn't make one a prostitute, even if one is female. Kate (talk) 19:41, 24 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I sincerely do believe that it comes from puritanical judgment, which was & still is very harsh on women's behaviour. I notice the difference between French & English Wikipedia in such matters. Why are puritanical societies so hypnotised by sexual behaviour? It seems to me they would ignore it since sex is a taboo. For instance, one of my *beefs* is the lengthy paragraph in the Louis XVI article spending a kilometer long on the 7-year non-consummation of his marriage with Marie Antoinette. No other wiki article touches upon it with such gusto! And I could give you many more examples.

Joyeux Noël! or whatever else you may be celebrating.

Frania W. (talk) 20:40, 24 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Following is a msg I left on Mme de Pompadour's talk page:

Aciram: Thank you for the above comment. I do not agree with English language wikipedia as to its 17th century-19th century judgment of women. In France, the 17th & 18th centuries (except for the years Mme de Maintenon reigned over the morals at Versailles), and the beginning of the 19th were not a time of puritanism. The morals at Court & in higher classes of society were rather loose & women having romantic affairs with men other than their husband were not considered to be *prostitutes*! From the bourgeoisie on up to the royal family (even in lower class families where parents wanted their daughter to "faire un bon mariage", i.e. marry someone rich), marriages were pre-arranged *business deals* from which love was excluded. This was bound to lead to latter *love affairs* when two persons happened to meet & fall in love. One day when I have have time, I am going to remove many names from that ghetto-like Category:French courtesans and prostitutes http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Category:French_courtesans_and_prostitutes. Frania W. (talk) 19:02, 31 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I have recieved your message, Frania, and I could not agree more. We do not have the same problem on Swedish wikipedia either. I have replyed on my page. --Aciram (talk) 19:42, 31 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, I understand. I agree with you in what you say about the weiv on sexuality in 18th century France. I was in fact also talking about the matter in general, the view on this in Europe in general; also, for example, an 19th century English actress, who had affairs, could be considered to be a prostitute, even if she was not: she could be described as such by her time, and therefore categorized as such in wikipedia, when the article is based upon such sources and tradition. I wish you good luck in adjusting this, and hope that you will also remove such wrongful labels from women of all nationalities as you find them, as I have done myself. I am glad if this puritanical wiev could be corrected toward a more neutral point of view. -Aciram (talk) 19:38, 31 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Aciram: Merci beaucoup for returning to me. I am happy that I am not the only one with this non-puritanical point of view. Fortunately, we can bring changes to wikipedia and, with some luck, convince others that their way of thinking does not always relate to the standards of 17th & 18th century Europe, of every country of Europe, as there was quite a difference between Sweden & Spain, Spain & France, France & Austria, Austria & England, etc. We have to know & understand how people thought at the time & not judge them by our way of thinking.

Meilleurs vœux pour 2009! Frania W. (talk) 22:09, 31 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Merci Frania! A good method would be to look at all such categories, as the same category ecxist for several countrys here on wiki- in such cases when you do not know the truth yourself, I believe it would be a good method to simply question the matter and post a question about it on the article's talk-page; that way, the matter will eventually be corrected by those who do know, even if you are unable to do so yourself. A similar matter is, that when sexual matters are mentioned in articles about history, they are often phrased as "bad morals", for example: the sexual freedom in the royal French court are frecquently summarized in phrases such as : " the ill moral inviroment at court", "the bad standars at court", "her scandalous and imoral way of living", etc. Phrases like these are not neutral, and should be changed, I think, to for example: "the free sexuality at court", and "her free sexual morals". I must confess I have been irritated several times when I find such things here, as this is an way of speaking which would never have been allowed on the Scandinavian wikis. This is merely a tip and suggestions from my own experiences: I have re-phrased many such sentences. --Aciram (talk) 14:50, 2 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Salut Frania:

First, welcome back. It was great to see your name pop up on my watchlist.

Second, re:Lafayette's spelling. Ok. This is complicated. First, the name is spelled either La Fayette or Lafayette depending on where you are. Second, Lafayette has strong ties to both France and the US. Third, apparently there is a Wikipedia rule in these cases that whatever the first major editor chose would then be the de facto spelling (for consistency, and to avoid edit wars). I had not known this rule when I attempted to change the entire article to La Fayette, haha. This did not go over too well; that's when I was made aware of the rule. Apparently Gottschalk also presents a copy of his birth certificate somewhere that spells the name "Lafayette"; I recall seeing it, but do not have the citation readily available. Anyway, it was a debate, as I recall; and consensus went with "Lafayette". After pondering over this for a few months, I tend to agree; English sources appear to overwhelmingly use "Lafayette".

Third, please come over to the article and help out ;) If you've got the time. We are working hard there, now. You could specifically help out with the section on the French Revolution, where we are working towards removing all sources of POV. Also, I am not sure if you know anything of his ancestry, but we are a little weak there...

Welcome back! Yours, Lazulilasher (talk) 22:44, 30 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Bonjour Lazu! Meilleurs vœux pour une année de bonheur et de réussite.

As you suggested, I am going to read the article & all discussions on La Fayette - reluctantly using spelling of his name adopted by the Anglos!, which makes it sound as if the dear marquis-general had founded the Galeries Lafayette! Anyway, I shall read it & let you know. I have been back for a couple of weeks & touched up some easy articles that did not demand much time.

Enjoy the new year celebration!

Cordialement, FW Frania W. (talk) 00:51, 1 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Et toi de meme! Je souhaite que tous tes rêves se réalisent cette année!

Thanks for agreeing to come and take a look. I was, apparently, not as knowledgeable or POV-free as I'd expected. I'm actually learning a lot, and enjoying the experience immensely. Thus far the article, although trying, has been my most rewarding experience on this project.

I tend to agree with you regarding the name spelling; however, I do see the argument for consistency. I did try and change it to La Fayette, once. That attempt met with disaster.

The Galeries Lafayette bit made me laugh. I might steal that quote from you and reuse it.

All the best, and it's good to see you around. Lazulilasher (talk) 01:13, 1 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Cher collègue: I've replied to you on Lafayette's talk page. More criticisms, comments, please ;) Lazulilasher (talk) 17:25, 6 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

thanks for the thoughtful editing i've found spellings both Mme de Montagu and Montaigu, (i take it the latter is an error in the source?) i tended to use the (day month year) date format --- btw, i'm trying to talk to the National Museum of Women in the Arts in washington to use an image they have [[2]]; her sons in law Charles César de Fay de La Tour-Maubourg, Marie Victor de Fay, marquis de Latour-Maubourg, the french versions need some editing [[3]]; [[4]] pohick (talk) 19:04, 6 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Pohick: As I was reading the article on her husband, I naturally clicked her name & read the article. There are interesting documents available thru Google. She is not the subject I would be working on; however, when I read something, I leave traces behind!

Bonne année 2009 ! Frania W. (talk) 00:16, 7 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, Frania. I've noticed this edit. Can you tell me what your rationale for decapitalising "Op." is? It is certainly usually capitalised in English language references. If there's some WP convention about it, can you point me to it? Cheers. -- JackofOz (talk) 00:05, 22 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

JackofOz: I know that I must be the only person in the whole of en:wikipedia with this, so I looked it up before decapitalising *Opus* & *Op.* in order to have an immediate answer to the question I was sure would be coming! After finishing reading/editing the article, I was going to leave a note on Chopin's discussion page, but you beat me to it. I still will as I am not finished with this long article.

Please check the following:

http://74.125.47.132/search?q=cache:lcnDub8e8H0J:www.library.yale.edu/cataloging/music/capital.htm+should+opus+op.+be+capitalized&hl=en&ct=clnk&cd=1&gl=us&client=firefox-a

Frania W. (talk) 01:26, 22 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, Frania. Some queries:

• Why is the style presented in that site necessarily of any relevance to what Wikipedia does, or any other reference work does? Yale can do what it likes for its own internal purposes, but most English language reference works have always had, e.g. Rhapsody in F minor, Op. 328. This is certainly the predominant style used in WP, but I’ve seen a significant number of exceptions. Enough for me to ask, here, whether there’s ever been any consensus about the issue. It seems the process is only just getting started, so you might like to add your comments there. (That applies to anyone else reading this, too.)

• The examples given in the 2nd box are all in other languages, except for one case (Concerto in A minor), but it gives no guidance about Op./op. For the German ones, I would have thought that any noun that doesn’t start with a capital is misspelled, but as I say, it’s irrelevant to the English language issue. Cheers. -- JackofOz (talk) 03:54, 22 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

JackofOz: Left a note on Chopin's discussion page + one at Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style (music). Best to you, Frania W. (talk) 05:13, 22 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Pont d'Iéna Hi Frania, I very much appreciate you editing this article. Most of the changes are within reasons. However, please refrain from making changes that distinguish British English from US English. This article is originally written in British English and should remain this way for two reasons according to Wikipedia's editing conventions: 1) The article is about a European bridge, not an American bridge; 2) This article is originally written in British English (by me incidentally). I've reverted the word 'sidewalk' back to 'pavement' as it appears in the original document. If you are not sure, please refer to the Wiki editing manuals for more instructions. Thanks - Jamesjiao (talk) 00:27, 13 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Jamesjiao: So sorry about my *sidewalk* vs your *pavement*! I hope there was nothing wrong with other details I added. Anyway, merci beaucoup pour la leçon d'*anglais* vs *amerloque*. Frania W. (talk) 05:34, 22 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

If not a daguerreotype, then what? Frania W. (talk) 15:15, 22 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

A photograph. I quote from the picture's caption in Jeremy Siepmann's biography of Chopin: "The only known photograph of Frédéric Chopin, often incorrectly described as a daguerreotype." --RobertG ♬ talk 15:20, 22 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

A photograph in 1849? Isn't it rather a photograph taken from a now lost daguerreotype? Frania W. (talk) 16:05, 22 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I don't know how to answer your question. Where did you read that it's a daguerreotype? --RobertG ♬ talk 16:36, 22 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

In all the books & articles where this portrait is. What I would like to know: since this was always (as far as I know) described as a daguerreotype, from where did Siepmann get that it is not? Frania W. (talk) 17:05, 22 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

All books & articles?! Google "chopin daguerreotype" and "chopin photograph": not a precise test, I know, but 5000 results versus 3.4 million is interesting. Don't know; not the sort of thing you write unless you think you know. --RobertG ♬ talk 17:23, 22 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

RobertG: Encountered an *edit conflict* with you. Here is what I was trying to post:

P.S. And if it is not a daguerreotype, then Siepmann should tell us was process was used because, for a picture done in 1849, we cannot simplify the description to the word *photograph*. In the mid 19th century, there was an evolution in this new art & the new process for each step of the way had a name. Frania W. (talk) 17:29, 22 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

No he should not - his book is a biography of Chopin, not a history of photography. "Photograph" is simply a general term: we describe images of real things, be they Polaroids, digital image files, scanned images, copied images, projected transparencies (and even perhaps daguerreotypes), all as photographs without any problems. Daguerreotype is a specific name for a specific process. If you have a reference that tells us the specific process that made this image then please name it, otherwise it's surely just a photograph. --RobertG ♬ talk 21:23, 22 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

When I "find the reference that tells us the specific process..." I'll put it there. Frania W. (talk) 22:32, 22 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I posted this discussion at the Chopin talk page, as it's really more relevant there. I sincerely hope you find a reference. Best wishes, Frania. --RobertG ♬ talk 06:58, 23 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you; I saw it. Whether a dag or not, I am curious to know what the process was, so I am looking into it. Bonne année à vous, Robert! Frania W. (talk) 14:09, 23 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

John Sawyer, please go to Marie Antoinette discussion page http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Marie_Antoinette, where I left a comment at The return of "Let them eat cake". Best regards, Frania W. (talk) 22:28, 24 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hi! I noticed your edit at Louise Elisabeth of Orléans: d'Orléans is a surname and should not be translated to *of Orléans* as it is after title Duke of Orléans. The statement is very confusing and a bit contradictory, as you claim that "of Orléans" is wrong because it is derived from the title of "Duke of Orléans". Furthermore, we always translate the surname de France to of France. Is there something different between of France and of Orléans? Thank you :) Surtsicna (talk) 10:26, 27 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Surtsicna: Ah! I knew someone would react to that one!!! And that someone is you...

I agree that my sentence was not very clear (t'was late at night! & there is not enough space for comments at 'Briefly describe the changes you have made'. Here is what I meant to say: "d'Orléans is a surname and should not be translated to *of Orléans* in the fashion it is translated after the title Duke of Orléans".

Ex: *de France*, *de Bourbon*, *d'Orléans* are surnames. For instance, Louis is king of France, so Louis de France becomes king of France, Marie de Bourbon is Duchess of Bourbon, Philippe d'Orléans is Duke of Orléans.

Wikipedia has certain rules & regulations that are difficult for me to follow because I consider them to be incorrect & inconsistent.

For instance, do you translate General Charles de Gaulle to Charles of Gaulle? Surnamely speaking there is no more logic to address Philippe de Bourbon as Philippe of Bourbon as there would be addressing Charles de Gaulle as Charles of Gaulle.

Even General de La Fayette or de Lafayette (Eng. spelling) keeps his *de* and does not become General of Lafayette in English linguo.

I could find thousands of examples in English wiki and others where the French *de* attached to noble surnames is not translated by *of*.

Only after the title in English (Count, Duke...) should the *de* become *of*, ex: duc d'Orléans (French)→Duke of Orléans (English).

What I am saying is that, in surnames, either all *de* should be translated with *of* (and why not *from* ???) or none at all.

Best to you, Frania W. (talk) 15:09, 27 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I entirely agree. FactStraight (talk) 00:58, 31 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

But isn't of Orléans regarded as territorial designation used by children of the Duke of Orléans, just like of York is regarded as territorial designation used by children of the Duke of York? According to English point of view, royals do not have surnames - instead, they have territorial designations and belong to a certain royal house. That's why Henrietta Maria of France is not wrong - it doesn't that mean her surname is of France, it means that she was a princess of France. That's also why we have Infanta Leonor of Spain - de Borbón Ortiz is considered to be her surname (by the Spanish) and of Spain as her territorial designation (by the English). Since Charles de Gaulle was not royal, de Gaulle cannot be considered his territorial designation. Surtsicna (talk) 21:52, 31 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Généalogie de la Maison de Bourbon de 1256 à 1671,

par L. Dussieux, Librairie Jacques Lecoffre, Paris, 1872

http://books.google.com/books?id=8DwWAAAAYAAJ&pg=PA81&lpg=PA81&dq=nom+de+famille+de+Henri+IV&source=bl&ots=XAwZndy0TT&sig=o0qmNPasB-UyVF5Ygs3BIt_PkUY&hl=en&ei=zOyESazPCoG4twfr_rjRCQ&sa=X&oi=book_result&resnum=7&ct=result#PPP9,M1

Deuxième partie: La Maison de Bourbon depuis Antoine de Bourbon, La Famille royale

p. 79: begin at Antoine de Bourbon (father of Henri IV)

p. 81: Henri IV + footnote 7 on the nom de famille de France, which I am putting below:

Prince de Navarre jusqu'à la mort de sa mère (1572); roi de Navarre en 1572, sous le nom de Henri III; roi de France après la mort de Henri III le 2 août 1589 à Saint-Cloud. — Il fut appelé successivement: le comte de Vianne, en naissant; le prince de Navarre et le prince de Béarn, le roi de Navarre et le roi de France et de Navarre. —Ajoutons que, devenu roi, Henri de Bourbon s'appela Henri de France, car le roi a pour nom de famille le nom même de sa couronne. (Voy. Recueils de Mémoires et de Dissertations qui établissent que c'est par erreur et par un mauvais usage que l'on nomme l'auguste maison qui règne en France la Maison de Bourbon, que son nom est de France, et qu'entre toutes les maisons impériales et royales régnantes, elle est la seule qui ait pour nom de famille le nom même de sa couronne, etc. — Amsterdam et Paris, 1769, in-12. — Biblioth. de Versailles, I d. 291. ...

Louis XIII was thus de France and so was his younger brother Gaston (p. 121) who became Duke of Orléans.

Louis XIV was de France, as was his younger brother Philippe. However, his nephew, the son of Philippe did not receive the surname of de France but that of d'Orléans. In the following generations on the Orléans side of the family, the first-born son of the Duke of Orléans was named, let's say, Philippe d'Orléans, duc de Chartres (at birth) then duc d'Orléans upon the death of his father, which gives, translated in English: Philippe d'Orléans, Duke of Chartres, then Duke of Orléans upon the death of his father.

For curiosity, please go on reading the chapter La Famille royale and note that all the members of the royal family are given the surname de France, while the illegitimates are given that of de Bourbon.

The d'Orléans branch begins at page 121.

I rest my case. Frania W. (talk) 02:50, 1 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Again, I agree with Frania. And I disagree with the recent, plus royal que les royaux notion that members of the UK's dynasty lack surnames: At most they may have had only a "house name" between 1688 and 1917, since Britain's German dynasties acquired ruling status before surnames had become common in Germany (even so, in 1917 George V was not told by the Garter King that he lacked a surname, but that Garter was not sure whether it was Wettin or Wipper). No one questioned that Elizabeth I's surname was Tudor or that James I's surname was Stuart, and no law or patent ever said that a dynast loses his/her surname upon acceding to the throne. The British Royal Family's official website says that "The Royal Family name of Windsor was confirmed by The Queen after her accession in 1952. However, in 1960, The Queen and The Duke of Edinburgh decided that they would like their own direct descendants to be distinguished from the rest of the Royal Family (without changing the name of the Royal House), as Windsor is the surname used by all the male and unmarried female descendants of George V...For the most part, members of the Royal Family who are entitled to the style and dignity of HRH Prince or Princess do not need a surname, but if at any time any of them do need a surname (such as upon marriage), that surname is Mountbatten-Windsor."

Therefore, it is a false analogy to claim that French dynasts have no surnames because British dynasts have none: both had and have surnames. It is not that "Henrietta of France" is wrong, but that it is misleading shorthand: in "Wikipedese", it implies that she was a queen or empress who was, by birth, also daughter of a French king or dauphin. In historical usage, it is the shortened version of "Henriette de France, daughter of France (fille de France): French royalty did not legally possess the title of prince or princess until 1790, since fils/fille de France connoted a higher rank.

The same principle applies to the Spanish: you write that "we have Infanta Leonor of Spain - de Borbón Ortiz is considered to be her surname (by the Spanish) and of Spain as her territorial designation (by the English)". But that's not correct. Legally, she is "(Doña) Leonor de Borbón y Ortiz, Infanta of Spain", whether in Spain or the UK (although her title is translated when writing in English). In Spain, either of two less formal versions is acceptable: "Infanta Leonor of Spain (de España)" or "Infanta Leonor de Borbón". But in English we say "Infanta (or, less correctly, Princess) Leonor of Spain". In English, her surname is not used -- but that does not mean that when she crosses the Channel she loses it. The "de" should not be translated because it helps readers distinguish between name and title, thus clarifying proper usage -- something an encyclopaedia exists to do. (I suggest this discussion be moved to the talk page of Prince du sang. FactStraight (talk) 06:16, 1 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

First of all: this is not a discussion. You obviously know much more about this issue, so I'm just asking because I want to understand this clearly :) I am not claiming that French and Spanish royalty don't have surname (and I've never claimed so). I do realise that Louise Elisabeth's surname was d'Orléans, but I also realise that whoever named the article Louise Elisabeth of Orléans regarded of Orléans as territorial designation. "Louise Elisabeth of Orléans" doesn't imply that her surname was of Orléans. Again, it's just like Princess Beatrice of York using her father's territorial designation - it doesn't mean that her surname is of York. Am I right? Surtsicna (talk) 11:05, 1 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

In point of fact, Louise Elisabeth's surname was Bourbon, just as Beatrice of York's surname is Mountbatten. Technically Queen Eizabeth II is Mrs. Mountbatten, but she isn't the Queen of Mountbatten!--jeanne (talk) 14:48, 1 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

No, Louise Elisabeth's legal surname was d'Orléans, Orléans being a branch of the House of Bourbon in this case (there were princes whose surname was d'Orléans but who had belonged to the Orléans branch of the House of Valois). Therefore, it is acceptable to say that she is a member of the House of Orleans or of the House of Bourbon or of the House of Capet or that she is a Robertian -- and all are correct, since "house name" is a socio-historical rather than a legal concept; it's purpose is to distinguish members of one dynasty or branch of a dynasty from another, so which term you use depends upon what period of history you're writing about, not law.

The French legal rule is simple, but differs from the British: until 1830, a French king (e.g. Henri de Bourbon, King of Navarre, duc de Vendôme) lost his previous surname upon his accession to the throne, as did those of his (legitimate) children and the children of the Dauphin (whereas in the UK a person's surname, and that of his/her descendants, remains legally unchanged upon becoming sovereign, except that a queen regnant retains her maiden name for dynastic purposes -- but her issue take their father's surname, unless the sovereign decrees otherwise). Each of the French king's younger sons was given a peerage in appanage (e.g. Philippe, fils de France, duc d'Orléans) which henceforth became the legal surname of his male-line descendants, as well as the name of his "house" (i.e., branch of the Capetians). This was confirmed as recently as 2003 in the failed lawsuit of the Orleanist pretender Henri d'Orléans, comte de Paris, who tried to claim the surname de Bourbon by right. In the UK, each younger son is also given a peerage (but an allowance, rather than an appanage of land), and his children are "Prince/ss Firstname of Dukedom", but this is a courtesy style, not a legal title or surname. FactStraight (talk) 06:00, 2 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The (small) problem with Louise Elisabeth of Orléans as an article title is that because of lack of consistency in article naming, the reader does not know whether it refers to her surname, dynasty, or branch. For instance, if Louise Henriette de Bourbon-Conti were treated similarly, her article could be titled as it is, or as "Louise Henriette of Bourbon", or "Louise Henriette of Conti". She was surnamed de Bourbon as a male-line descendant of Henri IV, but she belonged to the branch of the Princes de Conti. Her proper maiden title was the too-lengthy "Louise Henriette de Bourbon, mademoiselle de Conti" and her correct married title was "Louise Henriette de Bourbon, duchesse d'Orléans". I favor "Louise Henriette of Bourbon-Conti" because here the "of" distinguishes her as a princess (rather than a noblewoman), and the hyphenated suffix indicates both the dynasty and the branch to which she belonged. FactStraight (talk) 06:00, 2 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, but "Louise Henriette of Bourbon-Conti" would not be correct either, because this would imply that she was "queen of Bourbon-Conti" :-)). It is "Princess Louise Henriette of Bourbon-Conti" (given name + title, i.e. Prince(ss) of Bourbon-Conti) or "Louise Henriette de Bourbon-Conti" (given name + surname, i.e. de Bourbon-Conti). Demophon (talk) 16:16, 8 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The thing is that nobody claims that of Orléans is a surname. It is considered territorial designation. Take for example Catherine of Aragon - nobody claims that of Aragon was her surname, just like nobody claims that of Norway is surname of Harald V of Norway! If it ever comes to move request (Louise Elisabeth of Orléans→Louise Elisabeth d'Orléans), I would be neutral, because both would be correct (one being territorial designation, the other one being surname). Surtsicna (talk) 16:28, 8 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

In his comment of 2 February, FactStraight directed us to lawsuit and I am wondering if anyone taking part in this discussion read it. It really holds the key to the argument. Although it is going to put extra length to the discussion, I am adding the Attendu of the French court. No explanation could do it be better. Please note that in this case d'X stands for d'Orléans and d'Y for de Bourbon. Last Attendu highlighted by me, as it cannot be made any clearer that it is since Gaston, Louis XIII's second son, that d'Orléans has become the surname for himself & the Orléans branch of the French royal family.

Sur le moyen unique, pris en ses deux branches :

Attendu que, M. Henri d'X... reproche à l'arrêt confirmatif attaqué (Paris, 1er février 2001) d'avoir rejeté sa requête en rectification d'état civil à fin de rétablir son nom d'origine de Y... et se nommer à l'avenir Henri de Y..., alors, selon le moyen :

1 / qu'en lui déniant le droit de se faire enregistrer sous le nom "de Y...", aux motifs que ses ascendants n'auraient pas fait usage de ce nom, et auraient porté pendant trois siècles et demi le nom "d'X...", tiré d'un titre ducal, ce qui ne permettait pas de caractériser leur renonciation à se prévaloir de leur rattachement aux Y..., et à posséder ainsi, en sus du nom "d'X...", le nom dynastique "de Y...", la cour d'appel a privé sa décision de base légale au regard des articles 99 du Code civil et 1er de la loi du 6 fructidor an II ; 2 / qu'en affirmant que sa demande tendant à recouvrer le nom ancestral "de Y..." n'aurait présenté aucun intérêt légitime, au prétexte qu'il se serait agi d'une "querelle dynastique" dont l'issue "ne peut trouver une solution de nature judiciaire", la cour d'appel a méconnu l'étendue de ses pouvoirs et violé les articles 99 du Code civil et 1er de la loi du 6 fructidor an II ;

Mais attendu que si la possession loyale et prolongée d'un nom ne fait pas obstacle en principe à ce que celui qui le porte, renonçant à s'en prévaloir, revendique le nom de ses ancêtres, il appartient alors au juge, en considération, notamment, de la durée respective et de l'ancienneté des possessions invoquées, ainsi que des circonstances dans lesquelles elles se sont succédé, d'apprécier s'il y a lieu d'accueillir cette revendication ;

Attendu qu'en l'espèce, par motifs adoptés, la cour d'appel a souverainement estimé que c'était volontairement que le nom d'X... avait été substitué à celui de Y... par le fils cadet de Louis XIII et tous ses descendants qui avaient ainsi abandonné le nom de Y... et que cette volonté de porter le nom d'X... avait été confirmée par le roi Louis-Philippe lors de son accession au trône ; que, par des seuls motifs, elle a légalement justifié sa décision ;

In my eyes, it is extraordinary that the legal system of the French Republic (which has gone thru several revolutions!) takes into consideration, in the 21st century, decisions taken by Louis XIII's second son (or more likely by Louis XIV as every decision had to go thru him) in the 17th century, and confirmed by France's last king, Louis-Philippe, in the first half of the 19th century. This makes it difficult to understand arguments brought forward by en:Wikipedians who should be willing to cross the English Channel or the Atlantic Ocean into France in order to understand the French system. Frania W. (talk) 17:29, 8 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Bobo: Would you mind going to the House of Bourbon du Maine discussion page & read the comment/suggestion I left there? Thank you. FW Frania W. (talk) 02:45, 30 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with you. The "du" doesn't make sense in the title. "De" isn't used in the titles of any of the other articles about the different branches of the House of Bourbon. I have agreed with you on the talk page BoBo (talk) 03:02, 30 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The "du" Maine makes perfect sense. That is what Louis XIV officially called his bastard son: literally, not the "Duke of Maine" but the "Duke of the [duchy of] Maine". Only poorly informed French people would call him the "Duke de Maine." But can you possibly imitate in English the proper French form and call him, passim, the "Duke of the [duchy of] Maine"? Best wishes for resolving these conundrums.Patricia M. Ranum (talk) 18:01, 18 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

A PS: I should be more specific. There is a French logic to it, and it clearly can clash with Anglophone logic. For the very old duchies or pays(countries) that go back to the middle ages --- Burgundy, Brittany, Guyenne etc--- they simply used de (of). So, Duke of Anjou, Duke of Normandy, Duke of Burgundy, Duke of Brittany, Duke of Guyenne, Duke of Valois. This included the region under their control and the capital city as well (Angers, Rouen, Dijon, Rennes, Bordeaux, Crépy respectively). Less often, again it was chiefly for a very old duchy, they used the name of the capital city of the duchy: Duke of Orleans, duc d'Orléans (although he was strictly speaking the "duke of the Orleanais" duc de l'Orleanais). In other words, the old titles are a bit like the "of France" that follows "king of France": for centuries the people who held these titles and lands were independent rules who were in a sense mini-monarchs. But for more recent creations, e.g. the young bastard prince who ruled over the duchy of Maine, the duke was given the name of the province, le Maine". Hence, the House of Bourbon du Maine. (There are also Bourbons de la Marche, lords of the old province of la Marche. I.e., it's not "House of Bourbon of Marche, but House of Bourbon of the Marche") I am sure there are exceptions to this broad picture I have painted, but I hope my panorama has helped... not further confused.Patricia M. Ranum (talk) 13:08, 20 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

My comment left at Marie Antoinette talk page:

Succubus MacAstaroth: Why change from *lip* to *jaw* since both are correct in the description of maxillary prognathism? Here is an excerpt from the Habsburg jaw The condition colloquially is known as Habsburg jaw, Habsburg lip or Austrian Lip (see Habsburg) due to its prevalence in that bloodline.[4] The trait is easily traceable in portraits of Habsburg family members.[...]

In German, it is called Habsburger Unterlippe http://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Habsburger_Unterlippe, and in French lèvre autrichienne.

Habsburg jaw sounds so harsh! If you want to change, then why not use the more scientific prognathism or maxillary prognathism? If not, then put *lip* back. Frania W. (talk) 15:54, 7 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hi there. Sorry I took so long in getting back to you about this. I have also left part of this on the M.A. talk page.

Honestly, I just didn't think Wikipedia was a place for euphemisms. You can clearly see from all her portraits that it was her jaw which was misshapen, not her lip. Therefore, "Habsburg lip" would be a misnomer. I'm also against simply calling it prognathism in this article, because Marie Antoinette was in fact a Habsburg. Her Habsburg jaw was literally THE Habsburg jaw, inherited from her Habsburg family. It couldn't be more straightforward.

It may sound "harsh", but it's the plain truth...

I also don't understand the need to include German translations of the condition's name in the main article. What purpose does that serve? This is the English-language Wikipedia... Succubus MacAstaroth (talk) 03:07, 7 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

By the way, are not both "Habsburg jaw" & "Habsburg lip" euphemisms for "mandibular prognathism"?

Before writing the above comment, I checked the wiki article on Habsburg jaw, which brings you directly to the section Mandibular prognathism (progenism) in the Prognathism article, in which it is stated: "The condition colloquially is known as Habsburg jaw, Habsburg lip or Austrian Lip[...]". Please note the word "colloquially" in front of the three appellations, while the non-colloquial expression is "mandibular prognathism". So, colloquially speaking, my lip seems to have as much right to be as your jaw ! (^+^)

The reason of giving the various German names -which I should have put in a footnote- was only to show what the condition is called in that language, which happens to be close enough to English for en:wiki readers to understand. MA was from a German-speaking country, so inserting a German expression that describes her condition could not be too foreign to the subject.

Now that we had our little discussion, please feel free to revert to what you prefer. This is not something for which I would go to war.

Best to you, Frania W. (talk) 04:34, 7 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Meh, I'm of the same mind. It's not such a big deal that I'd actually make the effort to go back in and edit it now. LOL Succubus MacAstaroth (talk) 05:54, 7 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Succubus: Please go to Marie Antoinette article & let me know if the change I made resolves our disagreement. Be sure to chek footnote n° 17. Enjoy your weekend! Frania W. (talk) 14:06, 7 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, Frania, it was generous of you. :-D Succubus MacAstaroth (talk) 21:32, 3 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

HELLO AND GOOD DAY.Charles VII reign did actually began in 1422.I forgot the fact that there is also such thing called de facto soveriegnty as well as de jure soveriegnty and therefore I am deeply sorry for the inconvenience caused due to my editing.I meant to say his de jure reign began in 1429 upon his corination which he became then the legall king.henry vi was de facto of the north of france and de jure or legall king of france from 1422 to 1429. Again sorry.--HENRY V OF ENGLAND (talk) 23:09, 17 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Dear HENRY V OF ENGLAND: I accept your apology, although there is nothing you did against me, as all was done, or rather said, in jest on my part. I fell on the debate by chance & wiggled myself into the conversation. I simply could not resist! In case we bump into each other again, be sure to keep on your helmet! Also, please join Jeanne, Surtsicna, GoodDay & me in Reims for a glass of champagne! Cordialement! Frania W. (talk) 23:30, 17 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you very much and next time I wont quicly launch my self into a disscustion unless I have revised all my material again.You also have great humour.--HENRY V OF ENGLAND (talk) 23:37, 17 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

when goodday was talking to me I didnt know what he was trying to say when he said english is not your first language.I presumed he was trying to insult me but he didnt mean it like that.

--HENRY V OF ENGLAND (talk) 00:04, 18 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hello Frania. Thanks for your note. While I do patrol pages for vandalism, I have not made any protection requests. My best advice would be to go to the Requests for protection page, and put your request there. Let me now how you make out. -- IG (talk) 0001:, 20 February 2009 (UTC)

Bonjour BoBo! RE naming of the Regent, the Parlement de Paris did not deliberate for a week. Within a week after the death of Louis XIV, Orléans was declared Regent, but the deliberation was short & stormy, and the decision taken rather quickly after the Parlement returned from an hour break. Although a blow to his ambition, du Maine took it very meekly. However, I am not going to revert you until I first find the exact text, so that there is no reverting back & forth. Cordialement, FW

Frania W. (talk) 20:25, 20 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Dear Frania, sorry for not responding sooner. My life outside of Wikipedia has been quite busy recently. My editing of the article has primarily been to correct the very awkward English of Special:Contributions/86.149.172.104 and User_talk:Tbharding. Personally, I think they are the same person. As a result, any changes in the details you want to make are fine with me. BoBo (talk) 00:33, 27 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Dear BoBo, Thank you for returning to me & also for informing me that we are working in the same style/spirit. Your work is always so serious that I'd hate not to be in sync with you, although I realise we may not always agree on some details. I have not had time to check my books (Erlanger's L.XIV & Antoine's L.XV) on the decision taken by the parlement de Paris in naming the Régent. It was quite a scene. Like you, very busy in real life! Cordialement, Frania W. (talk) 01:10, 27 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

86.149.172.104 and 81.159.252.120 and Tbharding are the same person. As you know, he avoids being blocked by creating new editor accounts. He will continue to trivialize Bourbon-related articles, as he threatened to do when you and Kansas Bear tried to correct his vandalism at Gaston, Duke of Orléans last July, as long as people accept his changes by editing them instead of reverting them. He has taken effective ownership of all these articles because he faces no consistent opposition to his vandalizing, and my efforts to report his OWNership of them were ignored by the admins. FactStraight (talk) 03:57, 27 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for your msg concerning 86.149.172.104 ; 81.159.252.120 & Harding, esq. 120 seems to have been out of mischief since August 2008. However, I believe there is another one beside 104. I keep adding Bourbon-related articles to my watch list. Reverting is a tedious & time-consuming affair & I keep an eye on your contributions so that you do not have to go over the 3Rs - but a lot gets missed because Wikipedia is not our 24/24 occupation. Cordialement, Frania W. (talk) 15:20, 27 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Has our little "buddy" returned? Perhaps under a different guise? To be honest I've seen some editing going on with the Bourbon/Orleans articles and have tried to keep an eye on it, unfortunately I haven't caught this person in the act of vandalizing. Perhaps he is layering his vandalism to keep it from being easily recognized. I'll try to keep a closer eye on anymore edits. --Kansas Bear (talk) 18:47, 2 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

No idea if it is our little buddy or a new one, but someone has begun doing the same as last year. He/she usually picks on one editor & reverses his work. Lately, my work has also been reversed. From the Bourbons, I have extended out to the Orléans family, then to the Condé & Conti, methodically trying to edit one after the other, but it is difficult because some little bug barges in, reverses & adds trivia insisting that it is more important than proven historical facts. By the time I go back & correct, hours have gone by & there is no time to take on another subject. Two articles get messed up a lot, which I do not bother touching: they are the last two on my list so I let them go for now. It is tiresome to see articles on French royalty written as Hollywood gossip magazines. In fact, real vandals are much easier to deal with, you just revert & they get blocked eventually.

On another subject: did you see the Figaro link I left a couple of weeks ago on the stand taken by some Turkish intellectuals toward the Armenian genocide?

Thank you for your concern. Cordialement, Frania W. (talk) 23:44, 2 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

If you have the time, please take a look at this article, in case I have made accidental deletions that should be restored. Johnbod apparently continues to believe that I am editing ignorantly or maliciously, and does not seem to have noticed that my efforts have been largely intended to reduce the trivia, redundancies & errors of Tbharding & his sockpuppets on Bourbon/Orléans articles. I have no problem with most of Johnbod's edits, but I see no reason to abandon this or any article to endless trivialisation by a vandal. Thanks! FactStraight (talk) 09:58, 28 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Dear FactStraight: I have added a paragraph about the education of Philippe because it's a very interesting and important example of the "Education of Princes." Added a couple of notes and a ref. in Bibliography. If you have questions or don't agree with me, I'll be glad to explain my entries. Patricia M. Ranum (talk) 19:30, 26 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hello Frania W. I am sorry for bringing this up late but you gave me a reply in the charles VII article.You gave me a challenge which I do accept.Frania if you dont mind I do not need to state the obvious on how henry VI is king of france so you must tell me how henry vi is not king of France.Hopwfully as you stated before we will see who gets the upper hans.P.S.No hard feelings on whoever wins.--HENRY V OF ENGLAND (talk) 01:36, 1 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

HENRY V OF ENGLAND: Please go the Charles VII talk page http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Charles_VII_of_France&action=submit for start of the challenge. Naturellement, all's done in good spirit! If you do not get an immediate return it's because life outside Wikipedia is also very demanding... and we may not live in the same time zone, or even the same planet. Cordialement, Frania W. (talk) 02:17, 1 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Are you there Frania.W?

--HENRY V OF ENGLAND (talk) 02:26, 1 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Are you still there Frania W.

--HENRY V OF ENGLAND (talk) 03:04, 1 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

HELLO FRANIA YOU MUST RALLY BACK.--HENRY V OF ENGLAND (talk) 03:59, 1 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Bonjour Frania. I have commented on the Charles VII talk page. BTW, are you French?--Jeanne Boleyn (talk) 09:00, 1 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hello Frania W.I think I gave A desscesive blow this time LOL.Frania dont worry I will give you some time to rally back your forces LOL.Im just joking.The battle continues on.--HENRY V OF ENGLAND (talk) 13:15, 1 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

frania hello.ITS your turn.--HENRY V OF ENGLAND (talk) 14:00, 1 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hiya Frania. HENRY seems to be making opposing arguements simultaneously (concerning Charles VII of France). I've lost patients with my inability to understand his postings. GoodDay (talk) 20:43, 1 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Henry V will have to abide by Wikipedia policy. His arguments on behalf of Henry VI are all original research. Historians recognise Charles VII's reign as having begun in 1422, however as GoodDay correctly states it was disputed by Henry VI, hence his proposal for the nav box.--Jeanne Boleyn (talk) 08:15, 2 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Frania you cant debate that Henry VI wasnt a de jure king of france since it is fact.You are missunderstanding me by thinking I am saying Charles reign began in 1429 when it began in 1422.I was not reffering about the nav box on charles but on henry VI and had complely nothing to do with Charles VII.I was complaiining about henrys nav box but everyone seemed to mistake me by saying I am referring to charles.I mentioned that in the start of my post.Here is a good nav box for henry VI IN regnal as de jure king of france from 1422 to 1429,preddesced by Charles VI and succeded by Charles VII.then in henrys nav box you can have in pretensce king of france 1429-1471 or 1461 predescesd by Henry V succeded by Edward IV.Henry is also a geniune king of france just like charles VII OR Lous XIV.P.S.Good thing that this debate was done to improve the article and no hard feelings were shed from editors.goodbye and goodnight.--HENRY V OF ENGLAND (talk) 01:50, 4 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

HENRY, while there is nothing wrong in your way of thinking, what you are saying cannot be accepted in Wikipedia because the way you reach your conclusion is pure personal research. So, all you want to put in either boxes is what is accepted by historians. If you want to do your own research, go ahead, then write & publish a book that wiki editors can use as a reference. In the meantime, we should stay as concise as possible in the navboxes & accept GoodDay's wording with *disputed*, which is the truth. Yes, it was an interesting debate & I thank you for accepting the challenge. We fought fairly! Aurevoir! Frania W. (talk) 03:41, 4 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Good day Frania.W.Thank you frania for your comment.I know historians already regognize that Charles was king of france in 1422,but henry was also the king of france in 1422 as the de jure.Historians also say that Henry was de jure king of france.The french were actually rebels and charles took advantage of the situation by bribing rebel lords to his side.The treaty was actually legal since Edward III had a just claim.There are also about therois f salic law bieng a cover up against edwards rightful claim.There were actually other daughters of france who had a much better claim then edwards mother,but salic law around the 1100's meant that no female can inherit from her father but the french later changed it more authenticly by stating that a male cant inherit through a female line.Of course though the successtion will go to the eldest son and then to the other male heirs untill it died out.And once it died out i.e.Capetian succestion then Edward had legal claim.Im not areguing but henrys nav box should be fixed as titular regnal instead of titular pretensce and should be mentioned in the french monarchs aricle.--HENRY V OF ENGLAND (talk) 20:44, 4 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

HENRY, on Charles VII talk page, I wrote that I would not cross the Channel to fight for the English... So I am staying out of Henry V's life. However, I checked fr:wikipedia for the list of the kings of France:

http://fr.wikipedia.org/wiki/Liste_des_monarques_de_France.

Cordialement, Frania W. (talk) 20:53, 4 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Kansas Bear: To much of my regret, there is a subject on which we may disagree: the name of Gaston d'Orléans. In France, he is always referred to as such and, when looking him up in a French dictionary, either Larousse or Petit Robert, one has to go at *Orléans*, where he is found the third one down after Louis, duc d'Orléans (1372-1407) and Charles d'Orléans (1391-1465), as the ducs d'Orléans are listed in chronological order.

However, our dear Gaston is Gaston de France, duc d'Orléans. The only two ducs d'Orléans who were *de France* at birth are him, Gaston de France, duc d'Orléans (L.XIII's brother) & his nephew, Philippe de France (Louis XIV's brother), who started the Orléans branch of the House of Bourbon. Louis XIV's surname is also *de France* as are the surnames for all the kings to follow him, ending with Charles X - the last king, Louis-Philippe, king of the French being Louis-Philippe d'Orléans.

Documents at the Archives nationales, have Gaston as Gaston de France, duc d'Orléans. The following should fall on page 786, a document concerning him, but there are more if you scroll up & down. (Bourbon is highlighted because I was looking for him under Gaston de Bourbon, which, theoretically speaking, should have been his last name as his father, Henri IV, was Henri de Bourbon. (ah, ces Frenchies!)

http://books.google.com/books?id=_hBD_QlmorIC&pg=PA786&lpg=PA786&dq=Gaston+de+Bourbon&source=bl&ots=AYUuhWjt9K&sig=CBsDzJnIffzCpKo5d1zjDOpRfv0&hl=en&ei=-zezSYPUM4qhtwfOl_TEBw&sa=X&oi=book_result&resnum=3&ct=result

This being done in good humor, I sincerely hope it will not ring the end of our friendly cooperation! Cordialement vôtre, Frania W. (talk) 23:25, 8 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

So exactly where are we in disagreement?? --Kansas Bear (talk) 00:08, 9 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Have I misread what you wrote at Gaston's talk page? It seems to me that you were saying that his name is not Gaston de France. If we are not in disagreement, then all's well! Frania W. (talk) 00:13, 9 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

That was his name. I was referring to the way it was continually used in the edit here[5]. Do you think the current version of Gaston d'Orleans is alright? --Kansas Bear (talk) 00:24, 9 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Oh...my... God !!! That's what you were referring to !!! Then forget what I wrote. I get filled with TNT when I see 104's contributions. Have not read the whole version yet, after you reverted; was busy on other subjects. à bientôt! FW Frania W. (talk) 00:38, 9 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Frania! I have proposed a change in the article page as per discussion at Talk:Remarkable_Gardens_of_France. The suggested draft version of the article is User:SlaveToTheWage/List_of_Remarkable_Gardens_of_France. Perhaps you could help on improving it. Cheers. --STTW (talk) 17:23, 8 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

STTW, Thank you for your note. I enjoyed going thru the article on the Remarkable Gardens of France. I agree that when it gets too long, an article tends to be difficult to read, one reason being that other editors may decide to add to one section & the whole article becomes out of balance. The idea of making it on the model of the List of castles in France is excellent, and that could be the start of a collection using the same type of map, for food, climate, (wild) plants & animals etc. (which may already exist). All I can do to help is go thru texts, correct French & details when I fall upon something I know. I have put the article on my watch list. Aurevoir! Frania W. (talk) 19:12, 8 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hello Frania.Charles VI MIGHTEND have any legal right to disinherit his son but youre forgetting the terms.Charles VII rights were disinherited in practice and was removed from succestion but managed in least to inheriting the south,its part of the aftermath thus henry VI succeded as de jure or legal king not charles.Charles VII since he wasnt the legal king took advantage of the french king in infancy and tried to claim his pretensces to the french throne and made the notable nobels such as arthur de richemond revolt against the new legitimized goverment and estates-general and had him turned constable.Most of the french nobels took an act of oath anyway to Henry while in infacy and many of them supported his claim.Isabbela of Bravia only called him a bastard to further undermine charles claim.It was the government in the north which actually had legal authority in the land.most of the french people didnt suspect charles of succeding and even in the south charles had limited power and the peasents in the south said they will support charles but meant it in name only and in fact they knew charles would eventually give out.It wasnt untill 1429 that the rise of french insurtions began.Henry was by fact the legal king at the time as part of the aftermath of the treaty of troyes.Henry corination wasnt proper anyway.Henry was crowned king in 1431 but was in paris and was not a place for corination ceremony but just a mere cathedral made to impress.No holy relics were formed on the corination and the oil that was anointed on him wasnt holy,the only relic there which was not holy was the crown of thorns.If henry recaptured rheims and got crowned again he would return to his status as de jure.John the duke of Bedford tried to make it close enough to a corination ceremony.--HENRY V OF ENGLAND (talk) 07:37, 17 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Gooday Frania.Please go when you have the time to jeannes talk page.I have left my post there.--HENRY V OF ENGLAND (talk) 14:41, 17 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hello Frania.I know charles VI had no right to disinherit his son but the aftermath in 1422 was that henry succeded to the thrne of france even if charles VI did it in a so called Illigial manner and as henry succeded to the throne of france in 1422 then he automaticly became the legal soveriegn of france.Remember charles VII became king due only to de facto soveriegnty and he inherited the south.If Charles was the rightful king as he claimed he then he had the right to take back his possetions.Claming youreself as the rightful king is different from bieng the legal soveriegn of the country.Also Charles VII inflicted many crimes against france itself.He was very closely related with the murder of john the fearless and usurped legal authority from his father by taking Illigial possetion of the south,and to add he refused a summons to paris from the king himeself asking him to return to paris in 1420.We cant have the heir-apperent let loose acting like the king and bieng pardoned for every crime against the country.His usurption of legal authority in the south in 1420 fulfiled his disinheritence as heir and so he could bebannished or ececuted even though no charges were put against him to such condemnition.It wasnt until 1436 that the parleimaint of france declared the banishemnt of the dauphine illigial.It dosent matter if you could claim the treaty legal or illegal its aftermath is fixed and undisputed.Henry by fact was the next heir to the throne of france and thus upon asscending to the throne he became king as the legal soveriegn while charles became the disinherited rightful king and de facto of southern france.I hope you got my point.--HENRY V OF ENGLAND (talk) 22:34, 18 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

http://74.125.113.132/search?q=cache:SbqYcJ0n4gsJ:pagesperso-orange.fr/aetius/general/Medval3.htm+Charles+VII+a+usurp%C3%A9+le+tr%C3%B4ne+de+France&cd=4&hl=en&ct=clnk&gl=us&client=firefox-a

http://www.academieduvar.org/oeuvres/histoire/histoire2008/0802%20-%20Lachard%20%20grandes%20chroniques2.pdf FW

Hello Frania and gooday.I already asked a request in the french kings article to add king Henry VI as a french monarch and Is it OK if I can impose these changes today please?Dont worry I wont impose the changes if you dont agree until futher disscution and conclustion.Your say is required please.Thank you.--HENRY V OF ENGLAND (talk) 21:03, 20 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Dear Henry, As per your request to add Henry VI on the list of the kings of France, you do what you want, as I am not one to impose my views on anyone without a discussion. It probably will expand the discussion; but you already know that I do not agree on having him there. Salutations! FW Frania W. (talk) 21:38, 20 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hello Frania.I dont think that henry was not a king of france because it states he was next in line to the french throne and english throne so he consilidated a double-monarchy.Henry as said before was the supreme legal body king in the entire country of france and I am really sure he is the only english king to become king of france and the only king of france to become king of england.--HENRY V OF ENGLAND (talk) 10:16, 21 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hello frania.Is this ok what I did on the french kings article.--HENRY V OF ENGLAND (talk) 22:39, 21 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Dear Henry, As all of us stand on our own ground not moving an inch, the discussion is taking us nowhere. You are aware that a similar argument was the cause of the One Hundred Years War. And whether she was right or wrong, certainly wrong in your eyes, I am siding with Jeanne d'Arc; not that I believe in her "voices", but because, whoever she was, she knew in her own heart that Charles VII was the real king of France. Legally speaking, while his father Charles VI was alive, the future Charles VII was the dauphin, and the Treaty of Troyes was not a legal piece of paper. As powerful as he is, a king does not have the right to change a fundamental law to his liking, more importantly when the change will give the dynastic line another direction & disinherit the rightful heir to the throne. And that is exactly what was done by the Treaty of Troyes. The son of Charles VI was deprived of his right to the throne of France in favour of his future brother-in-law; the irony being that one of the conditions was that Henry V of England marry Catherine, the daughter of Charles VI & Isabeau de Bavière, which means that when the treaty was signed, the marriage had not yet taken place. How could such a magouille be considered legal? What would have happened if Catherine had dropped dead before her marriage to Henry V ? Nearly three centuries later, the all-powerful Louis XIV could not tamper with dynastic heredity either when he elevated his legitimised sons to the rank of Princes du Sang, thus placing them in the line of succession; his will was broken by the Parlement de Paris within a week after his death. A king of France wears the crown, he does not own it, thus he cannot dispose of it at will.

In conclusion, it seems to me that the note, with the word *disputed* inserted by GoodDay, was the best solution to our (dis)agreement. Aurevoir! FW

Hello Frania I am so happy you posted this comment.As you said If Charles became dauphine he was thus legaly bound to the throne but that is wrong because this is not in french law a tenure of qualification for kingship any more then holding the principilty of wales or earldom of the dutchy of cronwell so he is not legaly bound to the thronee upon inheriting the title dauphine.As said times before salic law had nothing to do with succestion of thrones but for private plots of land even though it is a standard of succestion in both england and france during the 15th century.This boycotting of Edward III legal claim became known as repolitik but the treaty fudged the past and never admmited the french were with wrongful kings.It was more of de justice since Charles VII was emmensely involved in the scandel of John the fearles death in 1419.You are wrong frania by stating the the treatys clauses declared henry should marry catherine and with her his heirs will inherit the thronee but actualy stated henry and his heirs should inherit france so its legal.If Catherine had died before henry had sons then it would be his brothers who became king as ppart of the clause so please read carefully frania.As also said before the treaty in practice removed Charles from succestion as part of de justice for the murder of john the fearless so upon Henrys death Henry VI of England and of France became the legal soveriegn by virtue of treaty in other words upon charles death no matter what happens all the rights,privilages,and virtue of the throne succeded to Henry VI and I am in complete support of historions in this and as in next in line he became soveriegn.The only thing the treaty was proved Illigial for was for opposing the traditional rights of succestion but yet again there is no written down document in french law before 1317 which stated "Men must succeded" the main cause for it not written was because the capetians were hugely invested with males and brothers to succeded nobody not even Edward III thought the capetian dynasty would become extinct and the same thing happend with basis of archery law in england since england loved archery and were the best archers nobody thought of a point to write key therois on how to draw the bow thus as it declined nowadays there is hardly any written therois of the days of the draw in england since it was so common no one yielded to the idea.So in complete support of historions Henry succeded to a double-monarchy as de jure or legal king.Charles could say he is the rightful king but dosent make him legal or de jure king.The treaty fudged the past.Goodbye frania and thanks for that question since it was the most difficult question I found so far on this debate but I agree this is going around in circles and me GoodDay Jeanne and you are all basicly stating the same thing over and over again.--HENRY V OF ENGLAND (talk) 17:34, 26 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Dear Frania, I _think_ I have added all the REDIRECTS I can think of to the Guises and Orleanses... and I have tightened a few articles, adjusted the chronologies (it's always hard to see chronologies unless you have worked with the sources, so I'm certainly not being critical of the Anon who did the articles!), and I also corrected some details here and there in the different articles. Sorry that I forgot a few times to show what they were. So now I will stop for a bit and prepare for houseguests --- 2 adults, 2 children, 7 days starting next week. Happy spring to you. Patricia M. Ranum (talk) 19:15, 24 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Dear Patricia: Please note that I brought your note to me on your talk page for you to have a record of it.

Just went down the list of what you did today:  ! . As soon as I have a day to myself (or a sleepless night), I will read it all, but not right now as I also have a life waiting for me on the other side of Wikipedia.

I am planning on doing some relocation (move) for the Orléans tribe, changing the *of* to *de* in the titles as it is a real mess, some being *of Orléans*, some *d'Orléans*, same with the Bourbons & a few others. I have been working on them starting with Gaston d'Orléans & going down the line to Louis-Philippe roi des Français, trying not to skip any of the daughters of the duc who had so many... It's going to take a whole day. For months, one after the other, I have been changing the *of* to *de* (and deleting a lot of trivia) inside each article. I left a comment on the talk page of one of them to be sure no one would be against it, but there was never any answer, which leads me to believe that no one really cares - of course, until I go ahead with the change!

What you brought to Marie de Lorraine will enrich all the articles that touch upon her, either family or Baroque music.

At the risk of repeating myself: it's nice to have you here. I sincerely hope you are coming back.

Meilleurs vœux en ce début de printemps et à bientôt! FW

Merci bien, Frania! There is an enormous amount of editing to do, and I wish you well! As I said (never quite sure where my messages go ...), the French version is the cause of all the trouble, in a sense, because the "de Lorraine" is missing in all the Guise pages, and that is, after all, the closest thing to a "family name" that members of that House possessed! Hence the way they were often called: Henri de Lorraine de Guise, Marie de Lorraine de Guise, etc. I'm sure I'll approve of your editing. As for your pleasure at having me, it is mutual and nice to meet some congenial people. I have a few articles in mind and maybe can do some of them before we go to our French village for the summer in late May. User:Ranumspa|Patricia M. Ranum]] (talk) 14:48, 25 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Dear Patricia, here is what I propose before you go spend the summer in your French village (you, poor thing!): we go together through the de Lorraine/de Guise articles you want to work on (= you do the work, I read over your shoulder), add *de Lorraine* wherever you deem necessary, then we redirect the article whenever we change the name of the subject. By *redirect* I mean that when we bring a change in the title of the article, we must redirect it, same as you did with Étienne Loulié. For instance, the title of the article Marie, Duchess of Guise is incorrect. It should be, I believe, Marie de Lorraine, Duchess of Guise, giving her full name in French, but title in English. As you see, the name of the title as it is now is blue-linked to wikipedia article, while the title as it should be is red-linked. We want it blue. When redirected correctly, it will be blue. If you want, I can put the articles you are editing on my watch list & keep an eye on them while you are slaving the summer away in your French village. Cordialement, FW (Where did you take the photograph of wild crocuses?)

I'll be glad to help and learn how to redirect so that the actual page title is what we want. I'll need a prod at first, because I haven't yet deduced how the big bold title can be modified once a page is published: e.g. the *Etienne Loulié* that is (or was?) at the top of the page. Making a redirect *Étienne Loulié* didn't change the big bold title, of course. Anyway, I will be glad to collaborate, once the Minnesota rellies have come and gone. A wee bit depends on an editorial project that I have to be totally devoted to: I've edited and translated a Fr. ms. of 1680s about the Jesuit Novitiate in Paris; have had lots of challenging work (in collaboration with the Jesuit who heads the Institute in St. Louis that will publish it) getting the vocabulary to sound really "jesuitical." The Father is reading things now and when he sends back his comments, I'll have to devote myself to that very interesting project. But yes, I will collaborate and will get back to you when I'm free, mid-Holy Week. Patricia M. Ranum (talk) 16:30, 26 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Bonjour Madame! To make sure we do it correctly, I will try redirecting some articles I have been working on, so that there are no problems. Entre temps, je vous souhaite une bonne fin de carême. Frania W. (talk) 16:48, 26 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, I think the problem was because of a mis-type owing to a brace on right hand: I missed the click the first time I uploaded the crocuses. At any rate, didn't have trouble when I re-did it today. (Brace: not the usual carpal tunnel, but a _thumb_ carpal tunnel caused by unscrewing a terribly designed humidifier tank, refilling it, etc, all requiring twists of wrist --- and giving me a numb right thumb! It's almost gone now, but I wear the brace when I type so I won't tuck thumb under palm all the time. I'll tell you if I have trouble again. I did my last Guise lady just fine (Elis. Marg. of Orleans...) so I hope I've figured it out! You probably have seen my note to author of Philippe II d'Orleans? He (the prince, not the author!) was a chap who showed _such_ and who received an extraordinary education.... and then fell into dissolution. Best laid plans, etc....!Patricia M. Ranum (talk) 20:27, 26 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hello Frania.Henry VI as you see must be mentioned as a king of france because every book I and looked up on the internet said Henry became king of both england and france and was divinely blessed with a Double-monarchy.Frania as said before it was an undisputable fact that henry had achieved the throne of france but didnt conquer france and he was also the legal soveriegn until 1429.Do you now regognize under fact Henry was de jure or legal king until 1429 even though you may believe as you wish charles was rightful king?Bye.--HENRY V OF ENGLAND (talk) 23:44, 26 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Dear Henry, As I said before, I am not crossing the Channel to give my allegiance to any Henry of England. Henry VI of England was crowned king of France in the part of France that was under English occupation at the time. For the unoccupied French, the English & their king had to be booted out & their law never recognised by the French. Un point c'est tout. As Jeanne said previously, the French never counted him among their kings, otherwise, the following Henri de France would have added *one* to his numeral and so on. Frania W. (talk) 00:26, 27 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hello Frania I am much wanting to quickly get a conclustion on this as you do.The treaty wasnt claimed Illigial for dissinheriting the dauphine but for going against the tradition from father to son thus making charles dissinheritence Illigial since in the treaty it says as clause each country shall have its own customs and Traditions so the traditions part that undermined the treaty.The dauphines dissinheritence was legal because of his great crimes against france and against regent and soveriegn Henry V and Charles VI being banished after not comming in a courts summons but was yet Illigial due to the fact that in the treaty it said each country will keep its own tradition and as french tradition inhertitence goes from father to son this not realy alienating the crown to someone else since it completely differd to Philipn V descition since he had no reason to do it.The aftermath was fixed and as said before you are not legaly bound to inherit france upon picking the title dauphhine as as prequiste of kingship and as Henry was in fact next in the throne he became the legal soveriegn while charles was dissinherited from sucestion and managed to become soveriegn due to de facto soveriegnty.Henry was leegal soveriegn de jure in fact so I am going to mention him again as soveriegn of france.--HENRY V OF ENGLAND (talk) 17:59, 27 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hello Frania I am a bit puzzled because in the disscution for the french monarchs you declared an edit war on me.I thought I was youre friend????--HENRY V OF ENGLAND (talk) 18:22, 3 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

You wrote:

"Speaking for the French side, I would & do disagree with Str1977 (sorry!): the king has no right to disinherit his son and, if he does, the disinherited son has every right to fight for his right, which is exactly what Charles VII did with the help of Jeanne d'Arc."

Since you speak for the French side, I think we agree that this make it non-NPOV in wiki-terms.

My point is: the King has the right to disinherit his son but as any legal act this may be contested. Charles VII did that and in the end succeeded.

"And the throne of France was inherited from father to son (dauphin)."

That is a legal fiction and it is debatable when simple inheritance became the norm. However, it never worked automatically. Philipp VI did not simply automatically succeed because of a supposedly better claim. He succeeded because he was accepted as King. That really has nothing to do with "divine right", which does not preclude even being elected King. And BTW, the English were arguing with dynastic succession as well, since Edward III.

"As for my using the example of Louis XIV, it was to show that no matter how powerful a king was or had been, an illegal act by him could be reversed"

An example from a totally different time, that is! And parlement then had the right to refuse ratification of any royal act (not just "illegal ones") until the King showed up in person to enforce ratification.

However, I don't see how this could keep us from reaching a consensus: both claimants had a legal basis to their claims (and even if you say those that followed the Treaty of Troyes were wrong). They also had a base in actual power - and this is what distinguishes Henry VI from all the English active claimants before (Edward III, Richard II, Henry IV, Henry V) and afterwards (Edward IV), not speaking of those that never tried to actually conquer France. Str1977 ^(talk) 11:41, 5 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Str1977: Thank you for taking the time to discuss this with me. Should an agreement be reached on this one, it would be the first time the Anglos & the French agree on anything! That's why I began my comment with "Speaking for the French side" - and I trust that in my various comments, you detect the "witty" side of me.

1. On a discussion page, I feel that everyone can speak freely & expose his/her point of view as long as that POV is not carried into the article, that is what the discussion page is about with the aim of reaching consensus. It also happens that this article is on French history, and it seems to me quite normal that within the international debate symposium offered by Wikipedia, a French person could/should/would take part in a discussion relative to the history of France & explain the French view on the matter. I hope you noticed that I have not forced my POV on anyone, just discussed it while having a fun little duel with our dear friend HENRY V OF ENGLAND. Please also note that I have not even touched the paragraph within the article and, regarding what I think should be changed, I mentioned it on the discussion page asking if everyone would agree, ex: having "south of the Loire River" instead of "south of France" which is totally misleading.
2. If I understand you correctly, you do not accept the parallel I made with the Parlement de Paris breaking L.XIV's will because it was at a latter period; at the time of which we speak, the right of succession to the throne of France was the same: the dauphin was the legal heir to the throne and, if disinherited, had every right to fight for his right - whether his name was Charles (to be VII) or, at a later date, Philippe d'Orléans or Philip V of Spain, had all of L.XIV's direct heirs within France died - which would have been the signal for a war between France & Spain (and Austria), since the king of Spain was a grandson of L.XIV... In our discussion, we could also make a parallel between Charles VI's testament disinheriting his son (followed by the Treaty of Troyes), and Charles II of Spain's testament, which was opening the door for another battle of succession had the young Louis XV died. Every argument was based on direct & legitimate lineage down to the next guy until the direct line was exhausted, then cousins, nephews etc. could step in.
3. On the legitimity of the dauphin: the second a dying king let out his last breath, came the announcement: Le Roi est mort. Vive le Roi!. And the dauphin was king.
4. Back to Henry VI of England: there is no argument as to his having been crowned king of France at Notre Dame de Paris - historians do not deny the fact - but he is not listed as king of France because of all the reasons we discussed previously, some of these reasons having a different interpretation whether you are anglais ou français.

A couple of weeks ago, GoodDay had found the perfect wording for the mention of Henry VI of England in the list of French monarchs & that is the type of consensus we should aim at. Now, if you come up with something better, I am sure we'll reach consensus.

Cordialement, Frania W. (talk) 16:29, 5 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Frania, Thanks for your message.

• Agreement need to be reached only in regard to how to word a certain article, not on the differing opinions.
• And sure you may express your opinion on the matter anytime. My nod to NPOV was not meant to preclude that but to insist that the article cannot be indentical to any one side of the debate.
• I for my part am actually not on the other side from you - maybe because I am neither French nor English (but then I do not know of what nationality our friend HENRY is) - as I think that the Valois had a much better claim to the throne than any Plantagenet or Lancastrian, at least after Philip VI was firmly settled on the throne (OTOH, I see that Edward III mainly aimed at securing his continental possessions, not at conquering the whole of France - a goal he never pursued to the end). And what was questionable for the still largely French-speaking Edward was bad for the by then completely Anglicised Harry. The Dual Monarchy HENRY speaks about turned out to be largely a sham, as de facto English lords commanded in France. This propelled the actions of Jean Darc.
• And sure French editors should take part in this debate. The only thing I reject is the impression that French editors are per se more qualified. But I have no complaints against you in that regard.
• And sure the south of France sounds a little bit like: well, he held the Provence.
• Yes, I do not accept the validity of your Louis XIV example because it was of a MUCH LATER period and because it is of course based on a French legal position that was long solidified in the 17th century - a thing we cannot simply assume for the 15th century (you might know that when one looks at even earlier times that France once was an elective monarchy). My point is that the King could disinherit his son and the son could contest that decision by the means avaiable (just as Edward III could contest Philip's succession by the means avaiable). I know of the Spanish sucession issue but am strongly of the opinion that in relinquishing his rights to the sucession, Philip did indeed do just that. One cannot take back one's word (that is the problem I also have with Edward III's sudden claim).
• "On the legitimity of the dauphin: the second a dying king let out his last breath, came the announcement: Le Roi est mort. Vive le Roi!. And the dauphin was king." - When? Already in this day? And who is the legitimate heir that supposedly suceeds in this second? That by all means was the question so even the questionable principle you mention doesn't help. I call it questionable because it is a legal fiction that in the end has done more bad than good (some countries had mad kings because of it). And if taken seriously, the announcement would be superfluous.
• Henry is not listed as a King of France because the Valois perspective that he was an interloper prevailed politically and historically. Our list reflects that as we do not insert Henry as the sucessor of Charles VI (instead of Charles VII) - this would be the English POV - or even insert both contestant immediately after Charles VII - a quasi-neutral position. No, I inserted Henry at the next section break. This is because history does look backwards from the hindsight of how things turned out. The quasi-neutral stance would be proper if we were doing this article in the year 1425.
• Is GoodDay's wording that paragraph currently in place in the Lancaster section? If so, I am absolutely content with it. The only thing I want is that the section also includes the box for Henry VI. with a neutral presentation of the dates provided (not the POV slugfest that HENRY had put in there). I do think that this solution is something better.

Cordially, Str1977 ^(talk) 21:09, 5 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Str1977: Thank you for your note & explanation. Yes, "Agreement need to be reached only in regard to how to word a certain article, not on the differing opinions" and I believe that, as a whole, you & I agree more than not.

• Henry VI navigation box: After long arguments with our dear HENRY V OF ENGLAND on the validity of the claim by both Henry VI (England) and Charles VII (France), we finally agreed on the use of GoodDay's word *disputed* to be inserted in the navigation box at end of article on Henry VI of England.

• Paragraph in Lancaster section: the few lines seem to have been there for a while, but several times edited. ON 21MAR09, our HENRY added a box for the House of Lancaster; it was reverted & put back, then corrected, and a few days ago, you stepped in & cleaned it up. I think that the only detail missing in paragraph is a mention of the long English held rich Aquitaine, with the important port of Bordeaux from where wine was shipped to England.

• As for what we do not agree upon, let's leave it at that & wish us good "working" relations in the future, as I am sure our paths will cross again (in fact, I believe they already have.)

Cordialement, Frania W. (talk) 01:02, 6 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I'll accept Henry VI of England on the List of French monarchs article. As long as Charles VII's reign is shown as 1422 to 1461 & Henry doesn't use the name Henry II of France. GoodDay (talk) 15:45, 8 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I accept your conditions anyway.--HENRY V OF ENGLAND (talk) 17:56, 8 April 2009 (UTC)#[reply]

Hello Frania.Is Henry there to stay and are we so in turn finished with this once endless debate.Also Frania not many websites actualy give lists of french kings but rather websites give texts.Henry VI in countless other websites say he also inherited the throne of france.This is not revising history since soureces state that henry was in possetion of the double-monarchy.--HENRY V OF ENGLAND (talk) 15:11, 9 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

hello Frania.Charles was the legal heir until 1420.As the other user rightfully states it was also due to absolute power that charles was dissinherited,so automaticly Henry VI is king de jure or legal soveriegn of the entire country as historions state.Succestion from father to son is nonsense since there no law during the capetian rule that states this.It is TRADITION and nothing else.Henry was the legal succeser and legal heir according to law and so how can charles become de jure in 1422 when he was dissinherited and succeselfuly removed from succestion--HENRY V OF ENGLAND (talk) 16:41, 9 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

86.164.91.170: I just finished correcting - not reverting - your last version of Anne Marie d'Orléans. Now, if you want to add something to the article, and to others in which you are interested, it would be appreciated that you simply add what you want and stop destroying the work done by others before you. RE every article you touch: you do not only put your details, you revert & destroy. You have no right to do that. Frania W. (talk) 01:21, 11 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks..thats all i wanted 86.164.91.170 (talk) 10:47, 11 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

OK. FW

It should not be all that you wanted; it should be the way it is supposed to be done. I did not revert you this time because I thought I could show you how to work with and not against other editors, obliterating their work. As things stand right now with Anne Marie d'Orléans, previous work is still there while your additions have been edited, not reverted. However, should you not choose to work that way RE other articles, you will be reverted, because what I did once, I will not do again, and other editors will not be as patient as I have been this time. Frania W. (talk) 17:48, 11 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

hello.. i have not removed anything so it should all be there..i have only added =) regards 86.164.91.170 (talk) 14:02, 14 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I know that you only added things, but a lot of these things are details pertaining to other individuals who have their own wiki articles; so, once they are blue-linked to their own article, it is not necessary to give lengthy details of their life on someone else's article. Remember, this is an encyclopedia, not a family saga. Only details pertaining directly to the person in the title of the article are necessary, i.e. give the name of their children, but do not go on describing these children's love life, wedding ceremony etc. Names of children are fine, but adding the name of the children of the children or children of their siblings leads to confusion.

Instead of removing what you wrote, or even changing anything, I left hidden comments that you can read when the text shows when being edited. If you care to read them, you will see what I am telling you. Because, if you seriously want to work with other wikipedians, you have to follow certain rules, otherwise, you will get reversed, which I do not believe is what you want.

Aurevoir! FW

Bonjour! I have just created another article :Jeanne of Artois. What do you think of it?--Jeanne Boleyn (talk) 09:03, 17 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Dear Frania, for the moment that editing chore has not yet descended upon me, to overwhelm me. I'll be glad to do the "de" Lorraine thing, but I am not sure exactly what you want and where to start and which pages to do. Patricia M. Ranum (talk) 17:52, 18 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Dear Patricia, I did not mean for you to do it but was proposing changing the title of the article on Marie, Duchess of Guise to "Marie de Lorraine, Duchess of Guise" when you'd be around so that you could tell me if it looked correct to you. Then if you wanted to work on other "de Lorraine" articles, you would know how to do the change. Cordialement, Frania W. (talk) 00:23, 19 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Dear Frania, Agreed! Have you made the changes to Mlle de Guise yet? I don't think so? Go ahead and make them and I will read and comment (and not further touch the Mlle de Guise page in the meantime). It will be nice to learn Wikipedia style that way. There are so many ways of doing noble titles, and translating them is such a nightmare! I'll be happy to try to conform as best I can, once I have a model. Patricia M. Ranum (talk) 13:15, 20 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Dear Patricia, I just added here the comment you left on my talk page so that you can follow our exchange directly on yours. FW

Dear Patricia: Done & a very simple thing to do when you want to change the title of an article: go to the commands that are above title of article; click on move; you are brought at a special page; it has 12 lines of blabla under which you can read: Move page/ To new title/ Reason; type the new title & below, give the reason of the move. For our dear Marie sans nom, Duchess of Guise, I wrote:

With surname, she is *Marie de Lorraine* (not only *Marie*), *Duchess of Guise*.

Title of article must appear as follows: *Marie de Lorraine, Duchess of Guise*

Cordialement, Frania W. (talk) 14:15, 20 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Patricia, Yes, there is a big clean up to do in order to have some sense of sameness in the titles of articles of most French nobility. I plan on doing it, hoping no one will come behind me & change my changes. My main objection is that surnames with *de* should remain *de* and not be translated in *of*; for instance: Philippe d'Orléans, Duke of Orléans, instead of Philippe of Orléans, Duke of Orléans. You can imagine the project when you know the size of the Orléans tribe!!! My main argument is no translation of surnames.

I will not be much at my computer for the rest of the day, just pass by once in a while - busy with other projects. Bonne continuation! Frania W. (talk) 14:38, 20 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

C'est sûr, vous avez du courage! Je suis tout à fait d'accord: Philippe of Orleans, Duke of Orleans, cela n'a pas de sens. Une promesse: Je n'y toucherai point, ni pendant vos retouches, ni après. J'ai tenté d'expliquer le titre "Bourbon du Maine, chez vous; je ne suis pas sûr d'y être parvenue. 'Tis a can of worms.... Patricia M. Ranum (talk) 14:47, 20 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Bourbon du Maine est sur ma liste de titres à corriger. Il me faudra toute une journée pour tous ces articles. J'attendrai d'être coincée à la maison pendant une tempête de neige!!! FW

And how does one change a "stub" to "just about all one can say about a very brief life"? I'm thinking of Louis Joseph Duke of Guise and his son, Francis Joseph (or Francois Joseph, I forget which). Short of going into details about deaths, ... which doesn't belong in an encyclopedia, there isn't much to add to those poor little "stubs."Patricia M. Ranum (talk) 14:57, 20 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I do not know how to answer this one, will have to look into it. FW

Frania W. (talk) 15:13, 20 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Frania, I have gone through my research notes and added things to the different Lorraine de Guise males.... don't think I have messed anything for you, though. Most of them are no longer "stubs". I think I can just go in and delete the "stub" HTML... but do I have the right to do so?Patricia M. Ranum (talk) 18:26, 20 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Patricia, You did figure out what to do to/with the "poor little stubs". I just read the Louis Joseph Duke of Guise article & added a couple of accents : ma marotte!. Now, if you want, we could move (= change) the title to Louis Joseph de Lorraine, Duke of Guise. I am back at my computer & do check wiki once in a while in order to take a break. Aurevoir! Frania W. (talk) 20:46, 20 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks to your previous explanation, this pupil changed the title to desired one! Will do the stubs next. It's a lovely day here... til thunderstorms later in day. Patricia M. Ranum (talk) 14:25, 21 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

It's like learning how to ride a bicycle: now you're on your own! Bon Tour de France! Frania W. (talk) 14:37, 21 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Good one. :) I guess I should look through people's contributions before welcoming them. --Gp75motorsports ^TALK 18:36, 18 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Salut! Lafayette, j'ai revenu! Lazulilasher (talk) 16:15, 21 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Merci bien, j'etais tres occupais avec mon boulot et je suis en train de preparer pour mes etudes en droit. Mais, j'ai maintenant, plus du temps libre. En ce qui concerne Marquis de La Fayette...est-ce que t'a des nouvelles? Lazulilasher (talk) 18:10, 21 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Le marquis de La Fayette? Tu n'es donc pas au courant? Aux dernières nouvelles, il était mort... FW

Oui, t'as raison...Lazulilasher (talk) 20:33, 21 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, Frania! Some advice, please, since you are une passionnée des accents. I've been putting remarks about the Hotel de Guise into various articles and have not use the circumflex. Someday I will summon the courage to write an article on the Hotel de Guise (it doesn't seem to exist but I frankly haven't checked that thoroughly. Might as well do things right from now on. Do you suggest using the circumflex, passim? Patricia M. Ranum (talk) 14:19, 22 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]