Talk:Louis Antoine, Duke of Angoulême

Older

How legal was his 20 minute reign? If it was then should he be under Louis XIX of France? Timrollpickering 11:55, 15 Dec 2004 (UTC)

"Legitimist" fantasies, imagined long afterwards out of dreaming over a genealogical tree by someone who refers to "La Madame de France," wouldn't you say? "The duc d'Angoulême set aside any claims he might have had on the occasion." That's the ordinary assessment, though I won't intrude into this current entry. The occasion, on August 2, 1830, was well-recorded at the time in memoirs. A contemporary quote would be an unlikely surprise, however, forcing me to kow-tow in apology upon the Savonnerie. --Wetman 08:26, 17 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Hi, On this page the duc de Bordeaux is also referred to the comte de Chambord very close together, and it might make someone not familiar with the history think that they are two seperate people. Should I try to clarify this myself or do I just note this and then someone elmse changes this? Oh I should probably read the instructions. Sorry.

Louis XVII is listed as such, even though he was never king. This guy was technically king if only for 20 minutes, so he deserves a number too. --dllu \17:02, 20 April 2007 (UTC)

Maybe it should be changed to Louis-Antoine, Dauphin of France-Croix129

Requested move (2007)

The following discussion is an archived discussion of the proposal. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

Louis-Antoine, Duke of Angoulême → Louis XIX of France and Henri, comte de Chambord → Henry V of France - (Discuss) — even only for a very short time, they were French kings in fact, so there's no reason not to use their regnal names as titles of their articles. - Louis88 16:30, 12 June 2007 (UTC)

Survey

• Strongly oppose We have no business deciding whether they were kings in fact, which happens to be strongly controversial. (Even from the legitimist PoV, neither was crowned; and the question of when the Bourbons ceased to be the government is infinitely debateable.) We should merely call them what English does, which is the Duke of Angoulême and Count of Chamfort (comte is artificial). Septentrionalis PMAnderson 17:45, 13 June 2007 (UTC)
  • I don't see how crowning comes into it - Louis XVIII was never crowned, either, and all kings were clearly kings before their crowning, as well. As to "Comte" being artificial, there are 13,000 English google hits for "Comte de Chambord" and only 1000 for "Count of Chambord", once wikipedia results are excluded. There's only 26 Google Scholar hits for "Count of Chambord", as opposed to 200 for "Comte de Chambord" (although this may include some foreign language journals, I don't see any in the early hit results.) In English French title are often left untranslated, and in this particular instance, it seems to be left untranslated the majority of the time. john k 17:53, 13 June 2007 (UTC)
    • Well, if you checked, I won't insist on Count. I suppose Charles VII, whom I was thinking of, is a special case. That would be another move request anyway. The only point about Louis XVII is that he is so called (and there is less dispute about this because the numbering was supported by a later actual government of France; Louis XIX never was.) Septentrionalis PMAnderson 18:02, 13 June 2007 (UTC)
      • • Louis XVIII, was never crowned. The one who reigned from 1814-1824. I agree about Louis XVII - he's called that. Angoulême is rarely called Louis XIX. john k 18:56, 13 June 2007 (UTC)
• Oppose, as PMA says, it is controversial whether they were kings in fact, and they are, at any rate, better known by their other titles - Louis for his pre-1824 title of "Duke of Angouleme" (which he was known by for his first 45 years or so), Henri for his post-1830 title of "Comte de Chambord.". john k 17:53, 13 June 2007 (UTC)
• Oppose, while my preference is to extend them their regnal names and ordinals, it is just that, my preference. Majority usage is for the ducal and comital titles. Charles 18:06, 13 June 2007 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the proposal. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

It was requested that this article be renamed but there was no consensus for it be moved. --Stemonitis 17:54, 17 June 2007 (UTC)

King of France??

Err, if I recall correctly, historians don't recognize Louis' twenty minute reign. GoodDay (talk) 01:25, 16 December 2007 (UTC)

Hideous lead sentence

The article begins as follows:

Louis-Antoine of Artois [1], Dauphin of Viennois and Duke of Angoulême (Louis XIX, disputedly King of France and Navarre for twenty minutes in 1830 and Legitimist Pretender to the throne from 1836 to 1844) (August 6, 1775 – June 3, 1844) was the eldest son of King Louis XVI of France's youngest brother, the Comte d'Artois, and his wife, Marie-Thérèse de Savoie.

As someone somewhere once said, "that sentence should be taken out and shot"! --207.176.159.90 (talk) 06:40, 23 May 2008 (UTC)

Instead of passing what you perceive to be a fault, how about you do something about it? It's easy to edit, in fact I would encourage you to register to make such changes in the future easier to do and track. Charles 18:28, 23 May 2008 (UTC)

Angoulême Son of France?

"Louis-Antoine, Dauphin of France and Duke of Angoulême (born Louis-Antoine d'Artois, son of France...",

as per 15 August 2009 change by Montjoy Pursuivant.

How can the duc d'Angoulême be born a son of France? He was born in 1775 during the reign of his uncle Louis XVI and is thus in the same category as Louis XIV's nephew, Philippe II d'Orléans, who was the son of the king's brother or, if you prefer, the king's nephew, and a "grandson of France" because the grandson of a king (Louis XIII). Very simple.

Now, to go back to Angoulême. At the time of his birth, he was

• great-grandson of a king (Louis XV),
• grandson of the Dauphin,
• son of the fifth son (Charles Philippe) of the Dauphin,
• nephew of the third son (Louis Auguste = Louis XVI at the death of his grandfather Louis XV in 1774) of the Dauphin,

I do not understand the logic that would give Angoulême the title "son of France" when he was born, instead of "grandson of France".

The way I understand it, Louis Antoine d'Artois, duc d'Angoulême, was born a grandson of France, and became "son of France" in 1824 when his father Charles X acceded to the throne.

Now, let's take children of the same generation as Angoulême, the children of his father's brother, Louis Auguste, who was king Louis XVI at the time of Angoulême's birth.

All of Louis XVI children are "sons or daughters of France", the eldest son being also the "dauphin".

How could Angoulême, the nephew of the king, be given the same title "son of France" as his cousins, the children of the king?

I may be mistaken, in which case I would like this to be explained to me.

Regards, Frania W. (talk) 02:32, 17 August 2009 (UTC)

This time, you would be right... if all was always logical. The general rule is, as you say, that only sons of Kings, sons of the Heir apparent (and probably sons of the firstborn son of the Heir apparent) are Sons of France. However, the Duke of Angoulême was a special case. As the son of a Son of France who was not the heir apparent, he should have been a Grandson of France, but at his birth his uncle the King decided he would be granted the honours of a Son of France. See for example Guyot, Traité des droits, fonctions, franchises, exemptions, prérogatives et privilèges annexés en France à chaque dignité, vol. 2, Paris 1787, p. 307: "Monsieur le duc d'Angoulême, quoiqu'arrière-petit-fils de Roi, porte le titre d'Enfant de France. Mais s'il a un jour des enfans, on appellera son fils aîné premier Prince du Sang. C'est ce qui a été décidé par le Roi à la naissance de ce prince". Guyot implies that it would apply to all great-grandchildren of a King when the King is the grandson of a King, and not his son, but he is wrong on that as shown by the exemple of Berry: Angoulême was a one-time case. For what reason I don't know, but "Son of France" is indeed the title which Angoulême always used, for exemple in documents produced in emigration (so long before Louis XVIII's death). Note however that the privilege was not extended to his children, who would have been only princes of the blood (not Grandsons of France).

The Duke of Berry, Angoulême younger brother, was a different case (I have also corrected his notice). The ordinary rule applied to him: he was born a Grandson of France, and that is the title he used in emigration. However, sometime early during the Restauration (I don't know when exactly) he also was elevated to the rank of a Son of France, which he is given in his contract of marriage and in other official documents. The reason is obvious: it was unlikely that his brother would have children.

What made however Angoulême and Berry a special species, different from "real" Sons of France, was that they had a surname, which was "d'Artois", when "real" Sons of France have no surname at all. That changed for Angoulême when Charles X became king (he was upgraded from "L-A d'Artois, Son of France, Duke of Angoulême" to "L-A [no surname], Dauphin of France, Duke of Angoulême". But this never happened for Berry who was already dead at the time.

Regards, Montjoy Pursuivant (talk) 08:33, 17 August 2009 (UTC)

Artois or France?

When Charles X became king did Louis Antoine not automatically bear the name "France" instead of "Artois"? Seven Letters 23:41, 21 October 2010 (UTC)

I would think so. john k (talk) 14:15, 22 October 2010 (UTC)

I'll change it. Seven Letters 03:44, 27 October 2010 (UTC)

Requested move (2010)

The following discussion is an archived discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the move request was: not done. Doesn't seem to have persuaded people. Fences&Windows 11:41, 28 November 2010 (UTC)

---

Louis Antoine, Duke of Angoulême → Louis XIX of France — He was technically Louis XIX (for 20 minutes.) --Whoop whoop pull up (talk) 00:12, 27 October 2010 (UTC)

• Oppose. He never effectively ruled France, and is best known as the Duke of Angoulême (although he was indisputably dauphin). john k (talk) 05:41, 27 October 2010 (UTC)
• Weak oppose I can see how his reign was rather short and, if French monarchs could abdicate, that he was King of France and Navarre, but he is known as Duke of Angoulême. I still, however, believe that encyclopedias should have their own internal style guides and that the common names should be redirects in some instances. Seven Letters 14:23, 27 October 2010 (UTC)
• ??? "He never effectively ruled France", says John K, and neither Louis XVII. Charles X abdicated in favor of his grandson, the duc de Bordeaux, and his son had to countersign the abdication, thus abandoning his rights to the throne of France in favor of his nephew. In order to abdicate, you have to be whatever you are abdicating. Non? In which case, for a few minutes, he was king Louis XIX (and his wife was queen). Now, if we move him to Louis XIX of France, since he abdicated in favor of his nephew, the duc de Bordeaux who was king for about a week, then the article on the latter will have to be moved to Henry V of France. (A "fun discussion" looming on the horizon !)

--Frania W. (talk) 15:12, 27 October 2010 (UTC)

He never effectively ruled France and is not known as Louis XIX. Louis XVII is usually referred to that way. That is not the case for Angoulême. john k (talk) 16:29, 27 October 2010 (UTC)

It really depends on which side of the pond or the channel the conversation is taking place. [1]

--Frania W. (talk) 17:44, 27 October 2010 (UTC)

Even that article isn't titled "Louis XIX". Moreover, it refers to him as "Louis XIX" for the 1836-1844 period, not the 20 minutes in 1830. john k (talk) 19:21, 27 October 2010 (UTC)

But if you begin looking into books, quite a few authors do call him Louis XIX.[2] What I am saying is that he is also known under Louis XIX, even if it was a blitzreign.

--Frania W. (talk) 21:20, 27 October 2010 (UTC)

• Oppose I don't think that anybody who knows my published work could fault my legitimist credentials. But it doesn't matter whether or not I believe that Louis reigned or not. It is purely a matter of what he is generally called in the scholarly literature. Noel S McFerran (talk) 04:05, 29 October 2010 (UTC)

• Oppose Charles was deposed on July 30, 1830, [3][4][5][6], and when he abdicated on 2 August, Charles was not king of France at that time, therefore neither his son, the duke of Angoulême nor his grandson the duke of Bordeaux, they could be kings of France. This reign of 20 minutes rather looks like a false legitimist hoax. Trasamundo (talk) 17:10, 29 October 2010 (UTC)

  Hmm...this is problematic. Charles was deposed in Paris by an illegal provisional government, but, as I understand it, the rest of France continued to acknowledge him and his government continued to be recognized by foreign powers. Louis XIX's 20 minute reign, and, more broadly, the question of who was the legal government of France between July 30 and August 9, is debatable, but this is not a "false legitimist hoax." Until August 2, at least, I don't think the Paris provisional government can be considered the undisputed de facto government of France. (I'll add that historical dictionaries from the late nineteenth century are a horrible source for proving anything) john k (talk) 02:11, 1 November 2010 (UTC)

  Was there really a government of Charles X over France? Perhaps did this government recognize the reign of the duke of Angulema and of the duke of Bordeaux? The facts show that Charles X attempt to repeal the ordinances, but it was not possible, their authority was not recognized then. [7] And in fact, his own ministers abandoned him. [8] The government of the Duke of Orleans (not the Municipal Commission of Paris) was recognized by the Chamber of Deputies [9] and that of the Peers. [10] before Charles X's abdication. Finally, when Charles X abdicated he had been abandoned by his own regiments. Trasamundo (talk) 20:53, 2 November 2010 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

Shall we pretend

Well @Orson12345: & @Surtsicna:, it appears that here & at the infobox of Louis' nephew. You both have something to work out, as to what goes in both their infoboxes. GoodDay (talk) 21:09, 7 March 2022 (UTC)

I don’t think it affects readers negatively for the infobox to clearly state that there reign is disputed. The info box makes it more clear that they were “disputed” monarchs. Orson12345 (talk) 21:23, 7 March 2022 (UTC)

And then there's Louis XVII's infobox. Anyways, you both will iron out some kinda compromise, I'm sure. GoodDay (talk) 21:32, 7 March 2022 (UTC)

The infobox shouldn’t change for Louis XVII because the number 17 was skipped because the Bourbons wanted to to include him as king of France. So his claim is more solidified. Orson12345 (talk) 21:36, 7 March 2022 (UTC)

My concern is that there is no way for the infobox to succinctly and clearly explain something so complex as Henri's (and to a lesser extent Louis Antoine's) status, but I do not feel that strongly about it. Surtsicna (talk) 08:46, 13 March 2022 (UTC)

I agree with you. I wish there was a better way to explain it in the infobox. I think it’s best to have the infobox (though very complicated) at least there’s something there instead of being blank. Orson12345 (talk) 13:21, 14 March 2022 (UTC)