Talk:Duke of Orléans

2004
Having a problem placing a link to a research of the Royal House of Orleans. Can anyone fix it? Tancarville 5-11-04 7.47pm (EST)
 * I cant do it either and its the right way! Thats odd. [[:pt:Usuário:Muriel Gottrop|muriel@pt]] 08:56, 5 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Creations
What do all those 1st, 2nd,...."creations" mean? --Menchi 01:18, 4 Apr 2005 (UTC)
 * Each time the title died out because there was no one to inherit it under the terms that were established when it was awarded. It was then given out over again to a new person a few years or decades later.

Modern day
My understanding is that the comte de Paris today is considered to be the heir to the 1661 creation, as have all his predecessors as pretender. He doesn't use this title, which he allows relations to use as a courtesy title, but he is considered to be duc d'Orléans in the same way that, say, Victor-François, 8th duc de Broglie is considered to be the duc de Broglie. As such, the list of the 1661 creation should perhaps not include Ferdinand Philippe (who used the title as a courtesy title, not as a substantive duke of Orléans), but include the duc de Guise and the two most recent comtes de Paris (who did not use the title, but hold it as a substantive title). Those who have used the title as a courtesy title could be listed in another part of the article. Thoughts? john k (talk) 15:07, 7 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Agreed. A good source on this is here. Lethiere (talk) 22:09, 8 July 2009 (UTC)

Numbering
If the Dukes of Orléans really are assigned ordinals, why isn't the son of Philip II called Louis IV? Surtsicna (talk) 14:57, 5 September 2010 (UTC)
 * Because numbering restarted with the 1661 grant. The point is not logic, but tradition. john k (talk) 16:04, 8 September 2010 (UTC)
 * I have noticed that Wikipedia articles about the dukes of the 1661 grant tend to avoid the ordinals. Most notably, Philippe I, Duke of Orléans, is mentioned as Philippe I only in the title of the article. That's what actually prompted my question. Surtsicna (talk) 16:14, 8 September 2010 (UTC)
 * There's not much reason to use the ordinals in running text except when we need to explicitly disambiguate. Even then, we don't necessarily need to, as, for example, in Philippe I's article we'd probably usually refer to his son and eventual successor as the Duke of Chartres, rather than as Philippe II. john k (talk) 16:20, 8 September 2010 (UTC)
 * I agree, the ordinal is unneccessary in running text but the lead sentence calls him Philippe de France and the infobox calls him Philippe; succession boxes in other articles refer(red) to him as Philippe de France. The ordinal seems to be generally ignored, even by the French Wiki. Surtsicna (talk) 16:27, 8 September 2010 (UTC)

Gaston duke of Orléan
The article says that Gaston was created duke of Orléan on 1626 by his father Henry IV. This is impossible as Henry IV died in 1610. Scafloc (talk) 06:47, 11 November 2021 (UTC)