Talk:Catholic League (French)

Untitled
Isn't this Catholic League also, and perhaps better, known as the "Holy League"? I'd think it should at least mention that as a bold-alt-title. Alai 16:25, 22 October 2005 (UTC)
 * Find a ref for this and add it. TMLutas (talk) 03:31, 27 November 2007 (UTC)

I plan to expand on this stub as part of a research assignment for George Mason University. Spring 2008.wsbonduran (talk) —Preceding comment was added at 14:23, 5 February 2008 (UTC)

NPOV
I updated my first draft at updating this entry. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Wsbonduran (talk • contribs) 02:59, 21 February 2008 (UTC)


 * The article does need an overhaul. Perhaps some basic bibliography would make a start in the right direction.--Wetman (talk) 20:05, 14 March 2008 (UTC)


 * A recent edit under a summary "tried to edit out bias, provided balanced information" but which substitutes an uncritical RC whitewash, is scarcely a step in the right direction. This article now needs to be rewritten from ground up, sticking close to published assessments, both apologetical and historical. --Wetman (talk) 02:12, 16 March 2008 (UTC)

Everything added came from verified references, what you call "published" assessments. As such the article is greatly improved on the previous version which painted the Catholic League as genocidal monsters bent on the murder of all none Catholics and referred to them as "like todays terrorist Jihad", while not quoting any references directly to back up these obviously biased comments. (Volpius Leonius (talk) 23:10, 16 March 2008 (UTC)}


 * Substitution of one bias for another is not "balance", still less compliance with NPOV. Unfortunately, the bias tag must stick until an objective version comes along.FactStraight (talk) 23:03, 3 April 2008 (UTC)

I've made some large changes to the section on the origins of the Catholic League to try to bring it more in line with NPOV. Thoughts? Tiger Khan (talk) 14:27, 7 July 2008 (UTC)

There needs to be something in here about how the League was taken up in cities during the 1588-94 period of the civil wars when it rebuked the crown's authority. Dijon, Paris, Amiens, Toulouse etc did not relate to the movement in identical ways, for instance in Paris it was tied up with city-pride. Dragonfang88 (talk) Also, where are the 11 articles of Nancy (January 1588) and the Spanish offer of funding made at Soissons in April 1588??? Dragonfang88 (talk) 22:04, 2 March 2009 (UTC)

Right to worship?
The article says "The Catholic League of France aimed to preempt any shift in power to the Huguenots and to protect French Catholics' right to worship." Was this right ever seriously threatened in France? I know that in Germany, under Cuius regio, eius religio, there were Protestant states where Catholicism was banned, and in England too, but I was wondering if there were French Protestants who proposed this as a political program or if this is simply referring to fears based on the situation outside of France. --Jfruh (talk) 02:28, 7 July 2009 (UTC)

Need for Corrections
The following is inaccurate and needs correction: “The League immediately began to exert pressure on Henry III of France. Faced with this mounting opposition (spurred in part because the heir to the French throne, Henry of Navarre, was a Huguenot) he canceled the Peace of La Rochelle, re-criminalizing Protestantism and beginning a new chapter in the French Wars of Religion.” The Peace of La Rochelle was not at issue. Henri III had ratified a number of edicts subsequent to his ascending to the throne that, in fact, granted greater liberties than later provided for by the Edict of Nantes under Henri IV. Nor in any of the concessions Henri III was forced to was there either a “re-criminalizing of Protestantism” or an attempt by him to enforce those concessions. “However, Henry also saw the danger posed by the Duke of Guise, who was gaining more and more power. In the Day of the Barricades, Henry III was forced to flee Paris, which resulted in Henry, Duke of Guise becoming the de-facto leader of France. “ Guise was hardly the “de-facto leader of France,” though the League had gained control of Paris. “Afraid of being assassinated himself, the King moved to have him killed. On December 23, 1588, Henry III's guardsmen assassinated the Duke and his brother, Louis II and the Duke's son was imprisoned.” Also imprisoned were Charles de Bourbon and other League leaders. “However, this move did little to consolidate Henry's power and he was forced to flee Paris and take refuge with Henry of Navarre, a Huguenot, as the League moved against him. Henry of Navarre and Henry III began building an army with which to retake the city from supporters of the League.” The whole bit about Henri [again] fleeing Paris needs to be deleted. Second, Henri at no time “sought refuge” with Henri of Navarre. Henri III gathered an army of roughly 40,000, to which Henri of Navarre contributed 3,000 cavalry. “On August 1, 1589, as the two Henrys besieged the city and prepared for their final assault, a friar loyal to the League used false papers and claims to get close to Henry III and assassinated him, revenge for the killing of the Duke of Guise. This killing threw the army into disarray and Paris was freed from the siege.” Actually, the friar in question, Jacques Clement, assassinated Henri III as the “voices” in his head, which spoke to him advised him the King was the Antichrist and that he, Clement, would then be raised up to heaven as a holy martyr. “Although Henry of Navarre was now the king (albeit uncrowned), the League's power was such that he was unable to control France successfully and was forced south. Using troops given by Elizabeth I he achieved several military victories, but was unable to overcome the superior power of the League which commanded the loyalty of most French citizens and had the support of Philip II of Spain.” First, the decisive battles were not in the south of France. Second, the troops provided by Elizabeth I were relatively few in number and by no means a factor in Henri IV’s successes. Third, by no means can your statement that the League had the support of the majority of France be supported. “Unable to provide a viable candidate for the French throne (the League's support was split among several candidates, including Isabella, a Spanish princess, which made them appear to no longer have French interests at heart), the League's position weakened, but remained strong enough to keep Henry away from Paris. Finally, in a bid to achieve control of France, Henry converted to Catholicism on July 25th, 1593 and was recognized as king Henry IV on February 27th, 1594.” There was a great deal more involved in Henri’s ascension to the throne, including negotiations with the Vatican. Henri had been engaged in a long siege of Paris. Phillip claimed the throne of behalf of his daughter based on her descent from the Valois. ````

Religious fundamentalism unusual???
"In a time when religious fundamentalism was unusual, the League was an extremist group bent on the eradication of French Protestants..." The very first paragraph provides information of questionable historicity. If the 16th century (protestant reformation, religious wars in multiple countries, Wars of Kappel, Munster commune, massacre of Vassy, the Michelade, Saint Bartholomew's day massacre, The Schmalkaldic War, ...) wasn't a time of religious fundamentalism then there was no era of religious fundamentalism at all. This sentence should be rewritten or removed.

Furthermore I don't think that the eradication of Protestants was the sole main goal of the League. I suggest that keeping France a catholic monarchy was their primary objective. "Eradication of Protestantism"(as opposed to eradication of Protestants) would be a more neutral description of their activities.

Isidoros47 (talk) 00:09, 1 August 2010 (UTC)