Talk:Charles IV of France

Expansion
I've gone through and expanded the core text a bit, adding references and citations. It will probably need a copy-edit, however. Hchc2009 (talk) 17:23, 27 February 2010 (UTC)

Numbering
Who numbered him Charles IV? He should have been Charles V, following Charlemagne (I), Charles the Bald (II), Charles the Fat, and Charles the Simple (III). — Preceding unsigned comment added by Emerson 07 (talk • contribs) 04:41, 15 June 2011 (UTC)

Louis de France
The article notes Charles's son by his second wife in this fashion: "Louis de France (March 1324)". Without the customary birth and death dates, I suppose it's logical to assume that March 1324 was both (as it was), but this isn't immediately obvious to a reader not familiar with genealogical conventions. Would purists be horrified if we spelled it out -- something like "Louis de France (born and died March 1324)"? Given that the absence of a son when Charles died was the whole basis for the Hundred Years' War, the fate of this little baby is unusually important. JamesMLane t c 18:42, 25 July 2012 (UTC)
 * Seems a sensible option to me. Hchc2009 (talk) 18:56, 25 July 2012 (UTC)

Why didn't either of his surviving daughters inherit his throne of Navarre?
He had some children who died before he did, but when he died his daughters Marie (Mary) and Blanche were both still alive. If he had the throne of Navarre why didn't Mary get the throne of Navarre when he died? In the non-Salic male-preference primogeniture of Navarre why wouldn't the oldest surviving daughter of a King with no sons get his throne? And we know Navarre does NOT go by Salic because look at who DID get the throne of Navarre when Charles IV of France died: Joan (II), i.e. a woman, so that repudiates any suggestion that Mary and Blanche couldn't inherit on account of being female. Now, their father's place in the succession of Navarre must have been senior to Joan II's, or else she'd have had that throne all along, instead of having to wait for Charles IV to die. If their father had precedence over Joan II, why didn't they?69.86.65.12 (talk) 11:29, 4 October 2013 (UTC)Christopher L. Simpson

Numbering
The footnote after his name says that in the standard numbering of French kings, he is Charles V. So why aren't we following the standard numbering? Richard75 (talk) 19:06, 9 July 2019 (UTC)
 * I'm a medieval France historian with a focus on royalty and I never recall seeing Charles IV numbered anything different, except perhaps in pre-1800 texts. He is often called in French texts Charles le Bel, but that's it. Pre-1800 texts may number him Charles V in recognition of the reign of Charles the Fat, who is technically a king of France (well, the West Franks) but is rarely given a number. Charles the Simple, meanwhile, is almost always numbered Charles III, and no other Charles reigned between 923 and 1322. All of the later Charles (V, VI, VII, VIII, IX, and X) were given those numbers in official documents during their lifetimes. In other words, the article's title is correct as is the footnote, but the numbering should not change. – Whaleyland ( Talk •  Contributions ) 06:10, 11 July 2019 (UTC)
 * The footnote can't be correct -- it says he's normally called Charles V, and you've just said that isn't true. Richard75 (talk) 08:17, 11 July 2019 (UTC)
 * His name and the name of the article are unanimously correct within the current historical community and you are misconstruing the meaning of the footnote. It says: "In the standard numbering of French Kings, which dates to the reign of Charlemagne, he is actually the fifth such king to rule France, following Charlemagne (Charles the Great), Charles the Bald, Charles the Fat, and Charles the Simple." It does not say he is called Charles IV. It is only pointing out that he is, in fact, the fifth king of France to be named Charles. It is similar to how Frederick the Simple of Sicily is treated. Frederick is known to the historical community as "Frederick III" even though he was actually only the second king of that name in Sicily (or Naples). Similarly, all of the Charles of Sweden are incorrectly numbered due to a fictional line of kings that were named Charles that a later king thought were real. See also Pope John numbering. The bottom line is history is messy and mistakes are made. Whether Charles IV adopted his name intentionally or because he did not know there was a fourth Charles before him doesn't matter because that is the name that he adopted. The consensus within the historical community is that his name is Charles IV. – Whaleyland ( Talk •  Contributions ) 09:09, 11 July 2019 (UTC)
 * Thanks. Richard75 (talk) 12:13, 11 July 2019 (UTC)
 * I find it odd that none of the six later kings of France named Charles bothered to correct the numbering. One would think that, due to the history of the name Charles, there would be quite an incentive among the Capetians to correct this mistake. Do any historians offer explanations for Charles IV's choice of ordinal? Did he choose it all? Surtsicna (talk) 17:03, 11 July 2019 (UTC)
 * The pattern seems to be that once a mistake is made in regnal numbering, it is retained. See again the examples above. But to address your Charlemagne argument, the cult of Charles the Great was on the decline in France during Philip IV's reign. He personally found the concept of "Reditus Regni ad Stirpem Karoli Magni" a ridiculously and potentially de-legitimising fabrication and instead sought to simply erase the idea that there were three separate Frankish/French dynasties. He never denied the importance of Charlemagne, but his goal was to legitimise the Capetians from the very beginning, not through some convenient and dubious descent from Charles, Duke of Lower Lorraine to Louis VIII of France. And in the end, the important thing to remember is that Charlemagne is always Charles I – the other Charles afterwards are less important and are easier to forget. I am not 100% certain what Charles IV referred to himself as nor what his royal seal stated - it likely did not include a regnal number at all since he was the first King Charles in 400 years - but I am certain that Charles V (1364-1380) was called by that name during his lifetime, implicitly acknowledging his recent predecessor as Charles IV. My copy of Les Grandes Chroniques, which is based on a text dated to c. 1354, simply calls him "Charles le Bel" and "Karle le Bel". – Whaleyland ( Talk •  Contributions ) 07:09, 12 July 2019 (UTC)