Talk:Adélaïde of France

"First lady"?
Was she "first lady" after her sister-in-laws and her mother's death in 1767/1768 and Marie Antoinette in 1770?--85.226.45.121 (talk) 16:22, 20 November 2008 (UTC)

*Princess* in title
I do not believe that the word Princess should be in the title, and it certainly should not be repeated time & time again within the article. Adélaïde & her sisters were known as Madame + first name used, NOT by Princess + first name.

Although I do not agree with the title, I am not going to change it because edit warring is a waste of time. However, I will change names within the article & remove the word *Princess* in infobox where full name is required, as *Princess* is not part of the name: it is a title.

Also, the surname of the children of the king of France was de France, which should not be translated: "Marie Adélaïde de France", with Adélaïde italicised as it was the name she went by. Same for her sisters where listed.

Others wikipedians may want to give their opinion on this.

Best regards,

Frania W. (talk) 03:24, 23 August 2009 (UTC)


 * Children of the King had no surname because the King himself had none. Only grandchildren of the King had a surname. You can keep it however in the title ("of France" is more correct since it is not a surname, just a shorthand of "Daughter of France"), but not in the article itself: it is simply wrong. Montjoy Pursuivant (talk) 19:29, 23 August 2009 (UTC)


 * Moreover, the title of the article should be Marie Adélaïde of France, without the non-existing title of Princess. Only junior members of the Royal Family used the title of Prince/Princess (of the Blood, not of France).
 * Montjoy Pursuivant (talk) 12:46, 24 August 2009 (UTC)


 * I agree with Montjoy on the first point: the non-existing title of Princess has no place in the title.  The word "princesse" (or its plural "princesses") was used as a term of politeness when referring to daughters or high-ranking ladies of the king's entourage.  (L'arrivée des princesses causa un grand émoi parmi les courtisans...) "Princesse" was a title only in the Condé/Condi family.
 * I disagree with Montjoy on the second point: the name in the title should be her real name (yes, de France is given as a surname to the children of the king), so the title should be: "Marie Adélaïde de France".
 * If you insist on the utilisation of France as intellectually attached to "Daughter of France", then it would be more logical for the title to be: Marie Adélaïde, Daughter of France., (as in Philippe, Duke of Orléans).
 * However, there is no reason, I believe, that fils/fille de France & petits-fils/petite-fille de France should even be translated, hence, the title of this article should be Marie Adélaïde de France.
 * Opening of introduction: Marie Adélaïde de France, fille de France, etc.
 * Regards, Frania W. (talk) 13:24, 24 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Sorry, she was not. She was Marie Adéla*ï*de, fille de France. No surname. Montjoy Pursuivant (talk) 13:59, 24 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Montjoy, in spite of our constant disagreeing, I am beginning to sense less inflexibility on your part... hopefully a sign that we can work together in a more cordial way in the future, even if we disagree 90 percent of the time.  Frania W. (talk) 17:21, 24 August 2009 (UTC) (P.S. the *î* at "Adélaïde" was a typo, typing too fast, like making a mistake on the piano, but knowing better/FW)
 * Not 90 percent: I have too major disagreement, that is all. And I am new here, remember. Regards, Montjoy Pursuivant (talk) 18:16, 24 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Being new is not a flaw, it is the knowledge you bring that counts, and there is no doubt that you, like Lethiere and a few others have plenty of it; however, arguments often arise between some of the most knowledgeable wikipedians. The name of the game here is to come up with (not out of one's original research) "unshakable proof", the result often being that one's "unshakable proof" gets shaken out by someone else's, and the argument goes on.  If done in a courteous manner, no one should get upset or offended, as there will always be someone coming to the rescue.  So when new and very knowledgeable, as seems to be your case, you should not get overly concerned at being contradicted because what will matter in the end is the proof you bring that no one can reject.  Regards,  Frania W. (talk) 19:25, 24 August 2009 (UTC)


 * As noted in a dif of this article, I had already documented at Talk:Louise Élisabeth of France that "de France" was used as a surname by Francois Velde, whom Montjoy Pursuivant quotes on similar issues as authoritative (yes, I saw the claim that he is being cited as authoritative on only one point, but I concur with Frania: having acknowledged Velde's scholarship as trustworthy enough to prove one point about correct titulature, when it is claimed that he errs elsewhere that claim must be substantiated -- not merely asserted -- by a source that is no less trustworthy, yet no such citation has been adduced), and by Pere Anselme, who was the pre-eminent contemporary 18th century expert in royal/noble genealogy and titulature. Because expert sources do differ, I am agnostic on whether French kings, dauphins, and their children legally held surnames, but I don't think we can or need resolve that point here. The evidence shows that contemporary encyclopedic sources attributed "de France" to them as if it were their surname, and therefore Wikipedia is justified in doing so (Is Prince Harry of Wales or "Prince Henry of the United Kingdom of GBNI" the "correct" title of the younger son of the Prince of Wales? The latter is virtually never used, but is contended to be his legal title. The former is almost always used, including by the British court, journals of record, and encyclopedias. I'd say both are "correct"). I would not so argue if there were a more acceptable option, but I see none. To describe a fille de France as Firstname of Birthrealm is to knowingly invite confusion with the NCNT convention on royal females ("Many English and French queens are traditionally referred to in English by {Name} of {Place}, like Margaret of Anjou, Isabeau of Bavaria, or Mary of Teck, where the place is country or House of origin. There is some sentiment that this "maiden name rule" should be generalized into a convention for all past European royal consorts; however, there is limited support for doing so contrary to actual English usage. This would provide a consistent and largely unambiguous nomenclature for a large number of articles, mostly on subjects who have no surname, properly speaking...In general, the convention is to title queens consort and empresses consort as '{Name} of {Place}'..."). Yet we have an affirmative responsibility to avoid generating confusion on Wikipedia when alternatives exist. The only way I see to use Firstname of Birthrealm unconfusingly, however, is to prefix it with "Princess", as some Wiki editors prefer. I see their point, since I consider that, whereas the prevalent translation for infanta de Espana is "Infanta of Spain", the prevalent usage for fille de France is "Princess of France" (for this "Infanta vs. Fille" contrast, see "The Descendants of Louis XIII", Daniel Willis, 1999, p.3; the "Genealogisches Handbuch des Adels, Band VIII", C.A. Starke, 1968, p. 200; and even oft-cited French sources such as "Le Royaume d'Italie, vol. 1", C.E.D.R.E., 1992, p.131; and "L'Allemagne Dynastique, tome V", Michel Huberty, 1988, P. 572). But I also agree with Montjoy Pursuivant that we should avoid converting fille de France to "Princess of France" as confusing (because it is not a literal translation, and because "Daughter of France" is sometimes used as the translation). My problem with "Daughter of France" (along with Granddaughter of France) is that these terms are not (yet) prevalent enough in English to be generally understood and Wiki does not employ neologisms in preference to widely used terms ("Princess of France"). More fundamentally, I understand fille de France to be closer in usage to a rank than a title since, in English, it is more often used as a descriptor and is rarely (compared, e.g., to "Infanta") used as a title: fille de France is like pair de France (e.g. Louis de Rouvroy, duc de Saint-Simon, pair de France). I believe that is why Pere Anselme, for instance, usually substitutes "de France" for fils/fille de France, just as "Prince Firstname of Fatherspeerage" is usually substituted for "Prince Firstname of UKGBNI". Still, I don't think there is an absolute right or wrong here I prefer "Firstname de France" for filles de France because it is the clearest way to refer to them in conformity with the norms of Wikipedia and English. I have difficulty accepting the flat assertion, "They don't have surnames" as proven, given the contradictory evidence and opinions on the subject. Lethiere (talk) 04:59, 25 August 2009 (UTC)


 * My answer below in a new paragraph. Montjoy Pursuivant (talk) 09:53, 25 August 2009 (UTC)

Madame + first name

 * The eldest daughter of the king was addressed to as Madame Royale.
 * Her sisters, if there were any, were addressed simply as Madame - (pl. Mesdames).
 * If the first "Madame Royale" died, the sister born right after her became Madame Royale.

In the case of the daughters of Louis XV, there happened to be so many of them that a way had to be found to differentiate one from the other, hence Madame *Première*, Madame *Seconde*, etc. which also became Madame *First name*, as in Madame *Élisabeth*, Madame *Adélaïde*, etc.

Hence, the sentence "She was referred to as Madame Adélaïde from 1737 to 1755 and from 1759 to her death, and simply as Madame" is incorrect.


 * First, she was not "referred to" as Madame Alélaïde, but "addressed to" as Madame Alélaïde,
 * She and her sisters were Madame since birth.
 * The first name added was no part of a title, just help to know which little Madame one was talking about.

The sentence has been removed but, expecting it will make a come-back, I am leaving a comment ahead of time.


 * As a group, the royal sisters were addressed or talked out as Mesdames.
 * Within the royal family, they later became known as Mesdames Tantes, tantes not being part of any title, but because that's what they were, the aunts - same principle as "Madame + First name".

Regards, Frania W. (talk) 22:37, 24 August 2009 (UTC)


 * Actually, she was NOT adressed as Madame Adélaïde. As all Daughters of France, she was adressed simply as Madame (obviously, when you are addressing somebody, there is no need to specify "which little Madame one is talking about", that is needed only when you are speaking about somebody, not talking to her). "Madame Adélaïde" (and similar forms) were used only at the third person. So she was referred to under that name.


 * In any case, it was not a "title", it is a "quality" to speak like Loiseau, or an appellation: her title was "Daughter of France". She would not have spoken of herself as Madame Anything, but as A, Daughter of France.


 * I think our disagreements here perhaps come from the loose use you make of terms like "title" or of verbs like "to address".


 * Your claim that the sentence "She was referred to as Madame Adélaïde from 1737 to 1755 and from 1759 to her death, and simply as Madame" is incorrect... is correct... But I don't know where you have found the badly-worded sentence you are justly chastising. For my part, I had written something a little longer and, I hope, less meaningless: "She was referred to as Madame Adélaïde from 1737 to 1755 and from 1759 to her death, and simply as Madame from 1755 to 1759".


 * These mistake about what I wrote notwithstanding, it seems you disagree with the fact that "Madame Adélaïde" was just Madame between 1755 and 1759. Perhaps you will not find that logical (as you didn't find logical that the Duke of Berry was a Son of France), but I refer you to L.-E. Dussieux, Généalogie de la Maison de Bourbon, 2nd edition revised, Paris 1872, p. 105-106: "Appelée successivement : Madame Quatrième ; en 1735 après la mort de la précédente, Madame Troisième ; en 1757 Madame Adélaïde ; en 1755, après la mort de Marie-Zéphirine de France, fille du Dauphin, Madame; en 1759, après la naissance de Madame Clotilde, elle reprend son nom de Madame Adélaide. Dussieux quotes the relevant Almanach royaux (admittedly not a perfect source for titles, but certainly convenient for this kind of Masame-Monsieur-styles, which were after all just practical appellations for everyday life at court, and not plain royal grand styles). Dussieux even notes that the Almanach royal often called her Madame still after 1759 and until Louis XV's death. Not that Dussieux is himself exempt of all errors (he doesn't know that the Duke of Angoulême was - indeed, surprisingly - born a Son of France), but the sources he quotes cannot be dismissed so easily.


 * You must stay careful with generalizing "rules" about the titles of the Royal family, particularly when they are contradicted by facts: exceptions (as in the Duke of Angoulême case) are so numerous that rules must be inferred from particular cases, and not the contrary.


 * Sorry to be a bit pedantic but I am deeply interested by all those littlenesses.


 * Regards, Montjoy Pursuivant (talk) 23:30, 24 August 2009 (UTC)


 * Montjoy, you wrote:


 * But I don't know where you have found the badly-worded sentence you are justly chastising.
 * I copied/pasted it from one of the revisions, did not write it myself.


 * You wrote also:


 * Actually, she was NOT adressed as Madame Adélaïde. As all Daughters of France, she was adressed simply as Madame (obviously, when you are addressing somebody, there is no need to specify "which little Madame one is talking about", that is needed only when you are speaking about somebody, not talking to her). "Madame Adélaïde" (and similar forms) were used only at the third person. So she was referred to under that name.
 * Isn't what I was saying??? that what followed Madame was used only when talking about her.


 * I will add that, since you do not seem to agree with some of the sources you are quoting, or rather, since you find fault even with the sources you are quoting, I don't have to feel that bad for not making the grade with you, n'est-ce pas?


 * And, sorry for my mistakes in English, I knew that I should have finished high school!


 * Regards, Frania W. (talk) 00:09, 25 August 2009 (UTC)


 * I can not find from which version you copied the shortened sentence, but that is of no importance.


 * No, that is not what you were saying (or you were saying more than one thing and they were contradictory). I quote you, you said: "She was not "referred to" as Madame Alélaïde, but "addressed to" as Madame Alélaïde". That is in fact quite the contrary: she was referred to as Madame Adélaïde, but was not adressed to as Madame Adélaïde.


 * For what is of disagreeing with "sources", the problem is that you have also a loose (or wikipedian) use of the word "sources", which makes the discussion between us difficult. Dussieux is not a source, it is a reference. When Dussieux calls the Duke of Angoulême "Grandson of France", without any footnote, that is just Dussieux who speaks, and I can disagree with him, particularly if I have other sources or references who say otherwise. When Dussieux says that in 1755, after Marie-Zéphirine's death, Adélaïde was called just Madame, and then give a footnote with quotation of the Almanach royal, Dussieux is still a reference, but a reference with a source, and I can not do that the Almanach royal, a source, says otherwise than how it says (except of course a material error of Dussieux when quoting his source, but that's another problem). So, or I agree that Adélaïde was just called Madame at the said date, or I must come with a very strong explanation for what an official source would give a wrong title (for example: all other subsequent Almanachs say otherwise, so this one must have contained an error, and anyway I have a more authoritative source which says otherwise, etc.... But of course here that is not the case at all because the Almanachs are coherent on that point and I have no other more authoritative source at hand).


 * There is a rule you can infer from that Madame you found so illogical where you would have wanted Madame Royale: when there is not a wife or a widow of the King's brother who is alive, the King's eldest daughter is just Madame, not Madame Royale. However, even that rule does not work absolutely: Adélaïde succeded as Madame not to one of her eldest daughters, but to her niece, the daughter of the Dauphin! For the various Madames, Durieux is very useful (see p. 245 et sqq., the precious "Liste des princesses de la famille royale qui ont porté le titre de Madame"), although himself confess his incapacity to fix absolute rules (He put the general rule this way: "Madame tout court était le titre attribué: 1° à la soeur du Roi; 2° à la femme du frère du Roi, appelé Monsieur tout court ; 3° à la fille aînée du Roi, ses autres filles ajoutant leur nom de baptême au titre de Madame ; 4° à la fille aînée du Dauphin"; but almost immediately he has to recognise numerous exceptions, so that he concludes: "Il y a toutefois des exceptions autorisées, sinon par les règles de l'étiquette, du moins consacrées par la politesse et l'usage").


 * Montjoy Pursuivant (talk) 00:49, 25 August 2009 (UTC)

1. Copied/pasted from revision done at 19:40 on 23 August 2009 by a certain Montjoy Pursuivant (talk)


 * "Marie Adélaïde, Daughter of France (Versailles 23 March 1732 - Trieste 27 February 1800), was the fourth daughter and sixth child of King Louis XV of France and his Queen consort, Maria Leszczyńska. As the daughter of the king, she was a Fille de France. She was referred to as Madame Adélaïde from 1737 to 1755 and from 1759 to her death, and simply as Madame from 1755 to 1759."

'''Parts highlighted are those added on that revision.

2. Quoting you:  ''For what is of disagreeing with "sources", the problem is that you have also a loose (or wikipedian) use of the word "sources", which makes the discussion between us difficult. Dussieux is not a source, it is a reference.''
 * Yes, I must agree with you with our disagreeing on the word "sources", but you must remember that this is not the Institut de France nor the Académie française, but Wikipedia where all you have to do to prove your point is to bring something that you have read somewhere... (why not the index of a book?) whether it is true or not, and above all, none of your personal research done by going to the Bibliothèque nationale de France, for instance. Please go & read what I call *Wikipedia rules & regulations*.  It will probably make your hair stand on your head, but that's the way it is in Wikiland.  Anybody can put anything down as long as he/she has a source to which he/she can point.  You may come equipped with the best "sources" and "references" in the world, and some teenage kid will try to beat down your argument with trivia picked from a published work loosely based on historical facts.  You probably will win in the end, but not without tiring arguments that will make my argumentation with/against you a candidate for the Nobel Prize in the History *de France*.

3.  Madame Royale: first sentence in Wikipedia article by that name:
 * Madame Royale (Royal Lady) was a style customarily used for the eldest living daughter of a reigning French monarch.


 * Of you, Wikipedia (Truth parachuted to Earth) & Dussieux (who can make a material error), which are we supposed to believe? What are we supposed to do? Go find original documents signed by Louis XIII, XIV, XV, XVI, XVII, XVIII, XIX, XX ??? That is called *Original Research* strictly forbidden by Wikipedia.

Regards, Frania W. (talk) 03:03, 25 August 2009 (UTC)


 * On your first point. You now copy the following extract:  She was referred to as Madame Adélaïde from 1737 to 1755 and from 1759 to her death, and simply as Madame from 1755 to 1759."


 * That is indeed what I wrote.


 * However, in your previous posting, when you quoted the first time "my" version of the article (see what you wrote above) the extract appeared in the following, truncated form: "Hence, the sentence "She was referred to as Madame Adélaïde from 1737 to 1755 and from 1759 to her death, and simply as Madame" is incorrect." It changes the sense.


 * On your second point. I clearly understand it is not an academic place and anyway I am not myself an academic. However, that does not dispense to use common sense. If "anybody can put anything down as he/she has a source to which he/she can point" that does not mean that all "sources" (I would say rather references) are of equal value or do not have to be evaluated.


 * On your third point. I do not ask you to believe me or Dussieux (who, indeed, can make material errors or simply infer from his vast knowledge things - like that the Duke of Angoulême was grandson of France at birth - which are sensible but which are disproved by sources Dussieux did not know, despite his vast knowledge). I ask you to believe the reliable sources quoted by Dussieux on the actual successive styles of Madame Adélaïde, and to assume that Dussieux was of good faith in quoting them and that I am of good faith when I tell you that those specific facts are in Dussieux, rather than relying on a general rule (without even a time range specifying when exactly the rule applied) in a Wikipedia article and then taking the rule for granted in all specific cases. That is precisely not doing original research, just using common sense.


 * That being said, I do not care here about what is strictly forbidden by Wikipedia: this kind of edition rules can perhaps apply to set how and using which references an article must be worded, but that is not an argument in a discussion. If someone proves you something in a discussion by original research (convincing and reliable one of course), then the sensible answer should be : "You are correct and I was wrong, but we cannot use that in the article itself, so now we must find together how to prove your point, which is now our point, without using original research". You cannot just answer: "No sorry, you are right but you have cheated because you used original research, so I continue to believe I am right although you prove me the contrary and I continue to try endlessly to make my point using only unoriginal research". Common sense is more important than any rule.


 * However, here no original research is involved: consulting Dussieux is not original research. So you have not to worry about that.


 * Regards, Montjoy Pursuivant (talk) 10:34, 25 August 2009 (UTC)

Château de Louvois
Mesdames Adélaïde & Sophie acquired together the château de Louvois in February 1776. The domain of Louvois was a Marquisat, which Louis XVI raised to Duché after acquisition by his aunts. Accordingly, Louis XVI neither created them duchesses, nor did he give them the title of duchesses: he raised the title of the domain one step up and, as the two aunts could not be "marquises" of a "duché", they could be nothing else but duchesses de Louvois. Frania W. (talk) 22:52, 24 August 2009 (UTC)


 * Not necessarily: lots of people were possessing a Marquisate or a Duchy before 1789 without being for that Marquis or Duke (but simply "Lord of the Marquisate/Duchy of N"). But it is a very complicated matter in which I have no intention to go here.


 * In the case of our Daughters of France however the problem is a bit different. But, any proof that they ever used the title "Duchess of Louvois"? And would it have been used by BOTH OF THEM simultaneously? Until shown otherwise, better to stay to the fact: Louis XVI erected Louvois into a Duchy for them, so they possessed collectively that Duchy. Difficult to say more without documenting the use of the title.


 * For my part I doubt they would have ever used it: it sounded too much modest for them. But I am ready to be corrected on that if you have any contemporary evidence of their actual use of the title.


 * Montjoy Pursuivant (talk) 00:01, 25 August 2009 (UTC)

My reason for bringing up the subject of the domain of Louvois is that when his aunts bought it, it was a "marquisat" and that is when Louis XVI raised it to a "duché". So if one of them got a title from the domain of Louvois, it had to be "duchesse", by which I meant that she (they or whoever) was not given the title of nor created "duchesse", it is the domain that got the promotion. Regards, Frania W. (talk) 00:44, 25 August 2009 (UTC)


 * I don't follow you well: do you see a way, before 1789, that somebody would be "given the title" or would be "created" a Duke and peer other than by having a domain promoted to the rank of Duchy? Other ways existed to obtain a simple title of Duke (for example by brevet), but not a title of Duke-peer. At that time, this kind of title was always linked to the possession of a real estate, something which can created terrible juridical imbroglio when complex successions occurred. So, would Louis XVI's purpose have been to create his aunts Duchess-peeress, he would have had no other means anyway than to raise one of their domain to the rank of Duchy.


 * If the purpose had been to grant them a title, he could of course just have declared that from then they will go by the title of Duchess of Someprovince, as a courtesy title (of the Artois and Provence species). But that is another matter: such title would have had no actual existence, would not have been transmissible (the Duchy of Louvois was transmissible in indivisibility to the "posterité mâle" of both sisters), etc.


 * Montjoy Pursuivant (talk) 01:04, 25 August 2009 (UTC)

Louis XVI's purpose was not to grant them just any title; his aunts wanted to acquire a beautiful domain that happened to be a marquisate, and after they did, he raised (érigea) said marquisate to duchy (duché-pairie, in fact), as he could not let his aunts be known as simple marquises. I believe that you & I agree on that, and I may not have expressed myself clearly (we have been spending hours duelling on this & on another page.)

Taken from p. 723 of Ducs et pairs et duchés-pairies laïques à l'époque moderne : (1519-1790), by Christophe Levantal (who himself uses Dussieux as reference.)


 * LOUVOIS, (Marie Adélaïde de France, duchesse de)
 * {château de Versailles, 23 mars 1732 - Trieste, 27 février 1800]
 * Quatrième fille de Louis XV, roi de France et de Navarre, († le 10 mai 1774) et de Marie Leszczynska († 24 juin 1768), tante de Louis XVI, roi de France et de Navarre († le 21 janvier 1793).
 * Marquise de Louvois (3 février 1776), puis duchesse de Louvois et pair de France avec sa sœur Sophie Philippine (juin/14 juillet 1777).
 * Sans alliance.

given in note n° 5:
 * "Le marquisat de Louvois fut acquis par procuration par Mesdames Marie Adélaïde et Sophie Philippine de Louis Sophie Le Tellier, marquis de Souvré, par contrat passé le 3 février 1776 devant Regnault, notaire à Paris (AN, MC, ét. LXXXIV, n° 543)."

Montjoy, whether you like it or not, according to *Wikipedia rules & regulations*, this is enough of a "source" for me to include the following in the article:
 * 1) Marie Adélaïde's surname was de France.
 * 2) Marie Adélaïde & Sophie Philippine acquired by procuration the marquisat de Louvois on 3 February 1776.
 * 3) The marquisat de Louvois was erected in duché-pairie in 1777.
 * 4) At time of acquisition, Marie Adélaïde became marquise de Louvois.
 * 5) On June/14 July 1777, Marie Adélaïde became duchesse de Louvois et pair de France with her sister Sophie Philippine.
 * 6) Openly, Louis XVI had nothing to do with the acquisition of the marquisate of Louvois (unless he gave his aunts the money to pay for it as he was great at paying the bills of the members of his family). But he erected the marquisat to duché-pairie, as he could do nothing else but make his aunts (each one from my understanding of the text) duchesse de Louvois and pair de France.

Regards, Frania W. (talk) 04:18, 25 August 2009 (UTC)


 * You still have produce no evidence that she used "de France" as a surname.


 * On your other points I mostly agree, although I still doubt they would have use such title, except perhaps in local context (I have difficulty to imagine them being referred in court context as "Mesdames les duchesses de Louvois" in the way that one can speak of "Monsieur le duc de Berry"). But they were certainly entitled to use the title if they wanted, so no objection after all to see her referred as "Duchess of Louvois" as long as it is not immediately in the first line.


 * However, I do not agree with you argument that Louis XVI could not let his aunts owning a domain just as a mere marquisate: Children of France owned many marquisates, counties, baronies and lordships and even used the relating titles in their grand style.


 * Montjoy Pursuivant (talk) 10:03, 25 August 2009 (UTC)


 * I have found an example of the actual use of the title for both sisters jointly (by someone else speaking of them however, not by themselves), in a document relating to the convocation of the Etats-Généraux in Champagne in 1789. Montjoy Pursuivant (talk) 18:59, 26 August 2009 (UTC)

Daughter of France, not "de France" (again)
Sorry Lethiere but if you consider that "having acknowledged Velde's scholarship" on one subject implies that I follow him on all, you are confusing scholarship with sacred scripture. I have substantiated, not merely asserted, that Children of France did not use surnames. I have quoted scholars who think they didn't, and more important I have produced official documents where Children of France are referred and referred to themselves only by their first name and title, without surname, when Grandsons of France and Princes of the Blood in exactly similar situation are referred to by first name surname and title. What do you need more?

You have produced no sources where "de France" would be used a surname concurrently with the title of Son of France. The only sources you have produced are secondary sources, mostly genealogies, were "de France" is used, but not "Son of France", for the simple reason that "de France" is just a shorthand for "Son/Daughter of France". Once and for all I have no doubt that those people where and are frequently referred as "of France" in a wide range of contemporary and modern books (and I am tired to repeat that). My point is that it was not their official style (or show me counter-examples).

You prize Père Anselme as being "the pre-eminent contemporary 18th century expert", something I find indeed fascinating for somebody who died in 1694! I have less confidence than you have in Père Anselme (or rather in his continuators who have done most of the job in the 18th-century version of his work). You could perhaps use the Histoire généalogique rather than prizing it, and, instead of looking at what people are called in genealogies (which is not at all authoritative, much less than even the Almanach royal, where you could also have found the shorthand "Firstname de France"), to have a glance at what they are called in what is the real treasure in "Père Anselme", that is the original document which are published here. Authoritative theoreticians of the monarchy who treat the problem mostly agree that the King and his children had no surname(with the notable exception of the late 18th-century Guyot). However, that is a theoretical question. The real question is: did they officially use a surname. The answer is clearly no.

Your analogy with "Prince Henry" is interesting. Incidently, for what is of Prince Harry I think (but I am less competent here) that his style, at least in the UK does not include the "OTUKOGBANI" part since in Britain princes (except of course foreign princes) are by definition only royal princes (and I think - but am ready to be corrected - that the only people officially created "Prince of the UKOGBANI/UKOGBANI were consorts): OTUKOGBANI would be useful only in international context, when in contact with Royals of other houses. However, the case we are discussing is completely different and your analogy is wrong: "Son of France" was not "virtually never used" and "de France"-looking-as-a-surname was not used at the French court. Official documents like Letters patent always use the full style "First Name, Son of France, Duke of Someplace", and the court less formal use is entirely different, with the "Monsieur/Madame" system, but again not de France as a surname.

The fact that contemporary encyclopedic sources attribute "de France" to some of France in a way you interpret as looking as a surname does not justify Wikipedia to do so in the first line of the article. I can show you encyclopedic sources, journals of record or contemporary memories attributing to Prince Charles (the living one) styles like "Charles of England": do you suggest to use it in the first line of his Wikipedia notice?

At the most, it could justify to use the form "Firstname of France" and, as I said, I am not against using it in the titles of the articles when it can be disambiguating (although Firstname + Title is better when no ambiguity is at risk). However, in the first line of an article, we are supposed to be more technical and here we have to use the official contemporary style first, then any official nickname à la Madame. And it is really totally incongruously absurd to call somebody "Firstname de France, Son of France" since, even in "contemporary encyclopedic sources" of the Anselm kind, "de France" is just a shorthand for "Son of France". Or do you suggest for poor Prince Harry something like "Harry of the United Kingdom of Great-Britain and Northern Ireland, prince of the United Kingdom of Northern Ireland"?

All the result you arrive is to have people designated under a style they never used, that did not exist legally, and that is not even the style use by contemporary encyclopedic sources but a patchwork of all of that produced with more wikipedian orthodoxy than common sense.

The convention you invoke as your most definitive argument does not say what you claim it says. Quotation: "There is some sentiment that this ‘maiden name rule’ should be generalized into a convention for all past European royal consorts" and "There is also opposition to a broad usage of this convention". For me, it does not sound like an absolute rule. And, as any rule, it must be used with common sense. Where is common sense? Is there really a "risk" that somebody will for some seconds (before reading the first line of the article) infer from the title that Madame Adélaïde" (Adélaïde of France) was a Queen of some place. And is that risk really more damaging than to make him think wrongly that she was "de France" in the sense that Charles was de Gaulle rather than in the sense that Harry is of Wales? I think the second confusion is much more detrimental and will only make confuse what is simple. It is your responsibility to avoid generating confusion of that kind when a simple alternative exist.

The question of the translation or non-translation of fils/fille de France into Son/Daughter of France is another problem. However, you are completely wrong in your understanding of "fils de France" as a rank rather than a title: it was a title, used as a title, in conjunction with other titles and mixed with them: for example, they were rules for the place in which the title had to be put between others, that is before any other except royal titles (see for example Loyseau: "C'est pourquoy aussi s'ils ont quelque Royaume, ils en mettent le tiltre avant celuy de fils de France, comme il s'est veu en Charles roy de Sicile frère de S. Louis...". Nevertheless, one century after Loyseau, Philip V stopped to use his title of Son of France when he acquired the dignity of King, and that long before renouncing his rights to the French throne). However, during the emigration and in the 19th century that order was sometimes changed for Firstname + ducal title + Son of France. So, Son of France is a title like any other one, although above any other one. It is not the description of an actual relationship (as shown in documents where you have both the title and the description of the relationship, with strange-looking wordings like "Firstname, Son of France, brother of the King of France".

If the flat assertion, "They don't have surnames", is too flat, just take this one: "They never used any surname". That is easier to disprove: just find a document before 1789 using both the title and what you think was there surname, and you will have proven that they had a surname and not just a shortened title.

Montjoy Pursuivant (talk) 09:53, 25 August 2009 (UTC)
 * I respectfully suggest that Montjoy Pursuivant review Wikipedia's policy on the use of primary vs secondary sources in documenting content here. In response to my and Frania W.'s efforts (imperfect but sincere) to reconcile varying French historical usages and interpretations thereof with Wikipedia norms, we get condescension, derision, nitpicking and, in effect, "I know what I'm talking about and all the rest of you are ignorant, so shut up and do as I say." We'll see how far that attitude gets you in editing Wikipedia articles. Good luck. Lethiere (talk) 00:11, 26 August 2009 (UTC)


 * You never discuss the point itself, do you? I most respectfully suggest that, if you please, you may take into consideration the fact that the point is not varying bibliographical usages (of course Firstname of France is used by historians and memorialists, today and in the past, who said the contrary?) it is official style used at the time in official context. And, speaking of condescendence, I find you extremely condescending to refuse to discuss the evidences and sources I took the time to quote and just dismissed them in four scandalised lines with such patronizing argument as to tell me that I don't play fair game because I use "original research". I don't claim any special authority myself: I have produced bibliography, sources and facts. If you want to do without them, that is entirely your problem. And for what is of editing Wikipedia article, indeed I begin to think it was perhaps an error. Montjoy Pursuivant (talk) 17:41, 26 August 2009 (UTC)

Élisabeth de France +Louise+Henriette+Adélaïde+Victoire+Clotilde+Philippe+ in Bibliothèque nationale de France
The following are links to books kept at the BnF, referring to

Élisabeth de France, both the daughter of Louis XV, and Madame Élisabeth, sister of Louis XVI.
 * http://gallica.bnf.fr/Search?q=Elisabeth+de+France&p=1&lang=en&ArianeWireRechercheHaut=palettewhere the text is highlighted with http://gallica.bnf.fr/Search?q=Elisabeth+de+France&p=1&lang=en&ArianeWireRechercheHaut=palettede France
 * http://gallica.bnf.fr/ark:/12148/bpt6k54474367.r=Elisabeth+de+France.langEN
 * http://gallica.bnf.fr/ark:/12148/bpt6k5414642w.r=Elisabeth+de+France.langEN
 * http://gallica.bnf.fr/ark:/12148/bpt6k54939029.r=Elisabeth+de+France.langEN

Adélaïde de France with a few notices on her sister Victoire:
 * http://gallica.bnf.fr/Search?q=Ad%C3%A9la%C3%AFde+de+France&p=1&lang=en&ArianeWireRechercheHaut=palette

On an event that happened in 1756, published in 1757:
 * http://gallica.bnf.fr/ark:/12148/bpt6k5677701c.r=Ad%C3%A9la%C3%AFde+de+France.langEN

Louise de France, youngest of the daughters of Louis XV: http://gallica.bnf.fr/ark:/12148/bpt6k5424098g.r=Louise+de+France.langEN

Louis XIII with names of his sisters
 * http://gallica.bnf.fr/ark:/12148/bpt6k64848c.r=Anne+Henriette+de+France.langEN

Clotilde de France, her marriage to Prince de Piedmont (published in 1775)
 * http://gallica.bnf.fr/ark:/12148/bpt6k5425494h.r=Clotilde+de+France.langEN

Henriette d'Angleterre wife of Philippe de France, duc d'Orléans (published in 1720)
 * http://gallica.bnf.fr/ark:/12148/bpt6k1110915.r=Philippe+de+France+duc+d%27Orl%C3%A9ans.langEN

Regards, Frania W. (talk) 02:58, 26 August 2009 (UTC) copy/paste from Louise Élisabeth de France talk page.


 * You miss the point again. Once and for all (but again) NOBODY SAYS THEY HAD NOT OR CAN NOT BE REFERRED 'AS DE FRANCE' in secondary or contemporary sources. The point is that IT WAS NOT THEIR OFFICIAL NAME and THEY DID NOT USE IT. Can we agree that it is what we are discussing?
 * Montjoy Pursuivant (talk) 16:35, 26 August 2009 (UTC)


 * I may have missed the point again (comme d'habitude), however, I am not going to stand for your "once and for all (but again)" manner of speaking to me. I am not missing any point.  I know exactly what you are saying, I know exactly what we are discussing & I know exactly why I do not agree with you.  Frania W. (talk) 18:08, 26 August 2009 (UTC)


 * Then, since you know, do you agree that the quotations you produced have nothing to do with official names and style? Montjoy Pursuivant (talk) 18:13, 26 August 2009 (UTC)


 * Absolutely not. And now, if you'll excuse me, I have to do my scales & walk my cat.  Frania W. (talk) 18:21, 26 August 2009 (UTC)


 * When you will have done with your scales and cat, perhaps you could elucidate how exactly all those links are referencing official styles and titles? Montjoy Pursuivant (talk) 18:31, 26 August 2009 (UTC)

WP: Women's History Commentary
The article was assessed as C-class for lack of sufficient in-line citations. Boneyard90 (talk) 18:08, 4 February 2012 (UTC)

Adversarial Characterization
It appears that considerable negative characterizations are drawn from a sole source about a particularly adversarial character - Perhaps this should noted in the textual account  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 65.92.17.142 (talk) 01:42, 5 March 2017 (UTC)