Talk:Capetian dynasty

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Minor edit[edit]

I changed this:

Current countries under Capetian leadership:[edit]

To this

Current Capetian rulers:[edit]

As I would expect a list of countries in the first case rather than a list of people. Matthieu 11:07, 25 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Naming[edit]

Perhaps the best titles would be Capetian dynasty, Valois dynasty, Bourbon dynasty, instead of the mixture. Or is there a better way still? --Wetman 02:23, 26 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Proposed merge with House of Capet[edit]

I oppose the proposed merge. I think that it is worth having a separate article on the the very broadly defined House of Capet, which includes all descendants of Robert the Strong, including families that have ruled many parts of Europe other than France, including the present-day monarchs of Spain and Luxembourg. This article can and should focus instead on the narrowly defined dynasty that ruled France from 987 to 1328. It would be worth expanding this article to really cover monarchs in the dynasty and events and processes that occurred under their rule, as the article Carolingians does. Marco polo 01:55, 5 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I can see no difference in scholarly usage between "Capetian dynasty" and "House of Capet", so whatever you propose, I can't see why the merger should be opposed. I have created a redirect, as this page had no unique information. Srnec 06:59, 8 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I agree with Srnec. IMHO the two are synonyms that can either be used narrowly (987-1328) or broadly (France 987-1830 and anywhere else). Both terms exclude the ancestors of Hugh Capet. Capetians can be used for the main line ending in 1328 as well as including other branches down to the Bourbons (who in turn may or may not include the Orleans line).
Two (or more) articles might be justified, one dealing with the French main line of the House and others with other branches. However, I think the predecessors of Hugh should be covered in the Capetian article here as well. A sub article on Robertians might be in order, but a broad overview should be present here. I guees that all later subbranches are from the Capetians ruling France and not from the earlier Robertians. Str1977 (smile back) 13:22, 8 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Bourbons and Capetians[edit]

The list of Capetian kings here goes from the end of the Carolingians up to the Revolution (and beyond!). According to the House of Bourbon article, the Bourbon dynasty took over with Henry IV.

So which is it? Did the Capetians rule in unbroken succession until 1792?

I would hasten to add that this should probably be explained in the article (or perhaps the Bourbon one). It's not clear as it's currently written. I'm obviously not an expert on this subject, so I can't fix it myself. Cheers --DarthBinky 22:20, 19 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Bourbon are a cadet line of Capet family. See my new edition Aubisse

Ok, well then what does "cadet line" mean? --DarthBinky 15:36, 20 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
cadet line : males coming from a son who wasn't the first born.--Aubisse1:20 22 décember 2006 (Greenwich)
The article should mention that too then. I've never heard that term before. Cheers --DarthBinky 05:52, 22 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Capet[edit]

Hugh Capet's surname is described on his article as of unknown origins. This article claims, rather strangely, that it comes from his habit of wearing a cape. Unless someone can source this, I am removing it. Michaelsanders 14:52, 9 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

While I know that the origin of the word "Capet" is not for certain, it would make more sense, if we were to consider that it did, indeed mean "big head", which is but a variation of "The Great!" I would suggest that this moniker is the most correct! It would make more sense if one were to consider "Ier", as a moniker, that is "the first?". I.e. "Premier" or "ultimate leader", or even "War Commander", or even "Caesar?" 69.92.23.64 (talk) 02:29, 27 January 2010 (UTC)Ronald L. Hughes[reply]

Capet looks more like 'little head' from where I sit. —Tamfang (talk) 07:31, 27 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Portugal[edit]

I have removed the successors to Ferdinand I of Portugal. His successor was an illegitimate son of Peter I of Portugal, and is not, therefore, Capetian. Michaelsanders 15:00, 9 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I am re-adding the successors of Ferdinand because illegitimacy does not remove you from a dynasty, it simply is not socially accepted. The House of Avis is a successor branch of the House of Burgundy, through an illegitimate cadet branch. And both are members of the House of Capet.
–Whaleyland ( Talk • Contributions ) 18:26, 9 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
No. Dynasties only continue through direct legitimate male lines, unless they specifically specify otherwise (e.g. Elizabeth II, who has specified that her children are of the House of Windsor). It is an (illegitimate) offshoot of the Capetian Burgundians, but it is not Capetian itself. Michaelsanders 19:10, 9 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
What's with that Elizabeth II example? Though the name of the House (Windsor) would not be changed, the name of its parent house would: the House of Oldenburg (from their father's line), as opposed to the House of Wettin (from their mother's line), as membership to European royal houses is strictly counted through the male line, without regard to legitimacy of descent. Thus, in the above example, the Windsors from George V were members of the House of Saxe-Coburg-Gotha, a cadet branch of the House of Wettin. The Windsors who were descended from Elizabeth II would be members of the House of Schleswig-Holstein-Sonderburg-Glücksburg, a cadet branch of the House of Oldenburg, being the children of Philip, Duke of Edinburgh. Having been descended from an illegitimate line, however, the House of Avis does not have any claim to the throne of France as heirs of Hugh Capet, though they are at the very least entitled to be named members of the Capetian Dynasty. To sum, membership to houses is more a matter of genealogy rather than legitimacy of birth. Emerson 07 (talk) 04:23, 15 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I have added the successors to the throne of Portugal under the "illegitimate" heading. Aviz and Braganza are illegitimate branches of the Capetian dynasty, a "continuation" of it, but barred from succeeding under normal circumstances. Membership to a dynasty is inalienable from an individual, unless you can prove that they are not natural descendants of their royal ancestors. Emerson 07 (talk) 11:42, 21 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Capets and Capetians[edit]

There has been a proposal to merge House of Capet with Capetians, but it seems to me useful to have separate articles on the House of Capet, which covers a wide range of dynastic lines, and on the narrowly defined Capetian dynasty that ruled France from 987 to 1328. The latter article should cover monarchs in that dynasty and events in the history of France that occurred under their rule, whereas the article "House of Capet" can be a general introduction to the broader nexus of aristocratic families sharing a descent from the early Capets. In order to avoid confusion between the Capetians of France, narrowly defined, and other members of the House of Capet, I think that it would help to reserve the term "Capetians" for the French kings and their immediate family members and to use the term "Capets" for members of the broader network of families. Do others think that this would be a good way to avoid confusion? Marco polo 01:51, 5 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Surely it would be the other way round - 'The House of Capet' to describe the Kings of France (as opposed to 'The House of Burgundy', 'The House of Dreux'), and 'Capetian' to denote the ultimate stemming of these Houses from the Capets (thus, 'The Capetian Dukes of Burgundy' to contrast with 'The Valois Dukes of Burgundy'). The main idea sounds good, though.Michaelsanders 09:37, 5 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Please tell me it there is a source for Robert and Eudes of Paris being maternal grandsons of Louis the Pius. And if so, what it is? Another source says "Their mother was Adelheid of Tours, an Etichone and sister-in-law of Lothar I of Lorraine -- not a Carolingian."144.160.98.31 05:31, 14 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Incestuous[edit]

"it also is one of the most incestuous, especially in the Spanish Monarchy." I think the author mistaken the Capetian and the Spanish branch of the Habsburg dynasty, more known for their intermarriage than the Capetian dynasty. As there is no source for this statement, i propose to simply remove it. 86.206.111.109 (talk) 13:48, 2 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Salic law; succession of dynasties[edit]

The English claim was not the first time female succession became an issue, so it's oversimplification to say that "Without Salic Law, ... the crown would have passed to Isabella ... and her heir, Edward III of England." Under modern British rules, the French succession in 1328 would apparently be:

The English had accepted that no female could ever inherit the French crown. Due to the failure of Matilda to secure the English throne for herself many generations before, it was de facto established that no female could inherit the English crown either. However, Matilda succeeded in securing the kingship of her son, Henry II of England, creating a precedent in the English monarchy whereby no female could become queen regnant, but a king may succeed through the female line (This would change later, during the reign of the Tudor dynasty, many centuries after). In 1328, Edward III applied this rule of English succession to that of France, as a male heir of the French Kings through a female line. The French nobles refused to recognize an English monarch as its king, and backed Philip of Valois instead.Emerson 07 (talk) 14:01, 15 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
So why doesn't Philip of Burgundy come before Edward? —Tamfang (talk) 19:32, 16 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Are you referring to Philip II, Duke of Burgundy, son of King John II of France? He wasn't born yet at that time. Even if he was alive then, Edward would still precede him. The list above refers to the succession according to cognatic primogeniture. Cognatically, Edward is senior to the House of Valois (descendants of a younger brother of Philip IV), as a descendant of Philip IV. However, Salic Law forbade the succession of females. Agnatically, the House of Valois had the best claim to the crown, and no non-Capetian (such as Edward) would ever become King of France. Emerson 07 (talk) 12:24, 21 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The next sentence is also more than a little bit misleading:

Thus instead of the above succession [i.e. Edward], the French crown passed from the House of Capet after the death of Charles IV to Philip VI of France of the House of Valois, a cadet branch of the Capetian dynasty, then to Louis XII of Valois-Orléans, a cadet line of the Valois, then to Francis of Angoulème (who became Francis I), belonging to a cadet line of the Valois-Orléans, then to Henry of Navarre (who became Henry IV of France), from the House of Bourbon, a cadet line of the Capetian Dynasty.

This reads as if Valois, Valois-Orléans and Angoulême each lasted only one reign! —Tamfang (talk) 21:46, 2 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

"So why doesn't Philip of Burgundy come before Edward?" Maybe because it doesn't suit well with the English claims to the French throne. And also the fact that Philip of Burgundy was not born in 1328. And we cannot forget that in 1332, Joan II of Navarre gave birth to a child, the future Charles II of Navarre, what would have happen to him if we follow a part of the so-called modern british rule applied to the French succession ? The both Philip anf Charles would have been in good position to claim the throne too...92.157.195.132 (talk) 11:01, 15 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
At the death of Charles IV in 1328, the only living male descendant of Philip IV is Edward III of England. Edward's problem is that he is the English king, and England was the greatest rival of France. Also, it was argued that since Isabella herself does not have a right to succeed to the French throne according to Salic Law, then it followed that Edward, her son, had no such right either. "One cannot give what one does not have." As pointed out above, Edward interpreted the French law of succession according to the English one (at that time): Though a female cannot succeed, her male heirs could. I think that in the viewpoint of medieval English nationalists, Edward was the legitimate heir, since he was the "heir" in 1328, as opposed to Philip VI. Charles the Bad's claim cannot be enforced, since he was born four years after the death of Charles IV. If he was the rightful king, who was the one whom he succeeded? Charles IV? Of course not... There should have been an heir to Charles IV at that time already. Even if France had a succession law similar to England's, there cannot have been a four-year interregnum waiting for the birth of the male heir of Philip IV's most senior descendant, Joan of Navarre. Emerson 07 (talk) 12:24, 21 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Salic law – and on top of that, Salic law![edit]

Recently added:

The French lords were opposed to the succession of an English monarch, and produced an addition to the Salic Law whereby a male heir cannot succeed to the throne through a female line.

Two paragraphs above, we say the Salic Law specifies strictly agnatic succession. So how is this an addition? —Tamfang (talk) 19:36, 16 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I think that, at first (or at least according to medieval English jurists), Salic Law is not strictly agnatic. It simply meant that a female cannot succeed to the throne. Thus, Edward III's claim to the French throne, since he was, for all purposes, male. According to some histories I read, it was only later that the French added the tenet that succession to the French throne cannot be transmitted by females. Emerson 07 (talk) 12:28, 21 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The whole salic law thing was a bit dubious, but kind of unnecessary. It is not just that the French lords didn't want the English monarch as king, but preferred Philip of Valois, and why not he was one of them. Plus, it did follow precedent. Tinynanorobots (talk) 06:20, 13 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Brazil[edit]

I made a few changes to the article on subjects related to Brazilian history. --Lecen (talk) 19:19, 23 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Merovingians[edit]

The introduction claims the Capetians were descended from the Merovingians. Where did that claim come from? Can anyone show a line of descent from the Merovingians? Emerson 07 (talk) 13:56, 30 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Well the claim is not 100% sure.

This is a more sure line of descent: Clovis I Chlothar I Sigebert I Ingunda Atanagild Ardabastus Peter of Cantabria several generations to Blanche of Castile, mother of Saint Louis King of France — Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.60.138.156 (talk) 15:45, 3 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

How about a published source?? --Kansas Bear (talk) 17:44, 3 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Controversy[edit]

Some people think the Capetians are too powerful and have made a monopoly of Europes Kingdoms. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 88.111.116.197 (talk) 22:17, 21 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

So what's your point? Emerson 07 (talk) 13:23, 9 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Portugal[edit]

I revert Cristiano Tomás's which said "House of Capet did not hold the Portuguese throne, members of its cadet branches did, quite different; illegitamate descent from cadet branches, very different" since this is not an article about the House of Capet which is about the Direct Capetian line. This is an article about all the male-line descendants of Hugh Capet, period. --The Emperor's New Spy (talk) 07:32, 5 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I just saw the illegitimacy argument above with the same section heading. But I think Cristiano Tomás meant to remove all reference to Portugal since he remove the title from the infobox. The title King of Portugal should remain in the infobox since 9 Kings of Portugal were legitimate male-line descendants of Hugh Capet.--The Emperor's New Spy (talk) 19:10, 5 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Cadet Branches[edit]

I changed the cadet branches section to a link to the section of the article about cadet branches since it ignore most of the cadet branches. At first I thought it was just listing existing lines, but the fact that the House of Valois is on it makes that assumption negelible. I think it is much tidier this way. --The Emperor's New Spy (talk) 07:32, 5 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Since Capetian dynasty#Descendants of Robert II of France includes two illegitimate branches, should illegitimate branches of the Valois and Bourbons be included as well. There was an illegitimate Valois branch that lasted until the 17th century.--The Emperor's New Spy (talk) 07:44, 5 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I've have changed House of Vermandois to Capetian House of Vermandois since there were two. It seems there were many of these branches that were Capetian House of ... since there were older lines from different family. --The Emperor's New Spy (talk) 00:14, 6 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Oldest male lineage[edit]

French wiki page: "Selon l’historien Karl Ferdinand Werner, les Capétiens constituent la plus ancienne dynastie royale en succession masculine du monde"

Approximately translated by: "According to the historian Karl Ferdiand Werner, Capetian are the oldest royal dynasty in the world by male lineage." Would be interesting to mention it. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2A01:E35:8A8D:FE80:5F5:C0B6:6A84:361E (talk) 10:20, 6 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Article title[edit]

It think the article should be moved from Capetian Dynasty to simply Capetians. To use the term dynasty, especially in reference to monarchs across europe who never used it as a self-identifier, implies a unity of the various descendants under a single family, which is not the case. While Felipe VI is a Capetian (a malé line descendant of Hugh Capet), his family is the House of Bourbon; while Manuel II of Portugal was a Capetian, his family was the house of Braganza, which incidentally often is referred to as the Braganza dynasty, which goes to the point of my suggestion: it's not incorrect to refer to all these different descendants as individual capetians but using the term dynasty implies a unity which is non existent amongst the royal families of Spain, Luxembourg, Portugal, France, etc. I'd like to gage thoughts before opening a move request, so please comment below. Cristiano Tomás (talk) 02:58, 7 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Capetian_dynasty&oldid=1194464586"