Talk:House of Capet

Naming
Perhaps the best titles would be Capetian dynasty, Valois dynasty, Bourbon dynasty, instead of the mixture. Or is there a better way still? --Wetman 02:23, 26 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Proposed merge with House of Capet
I oppose the proposed merge. I think that it is worth having a separate article on the the very broadly defined House of Capet, which includes all descendants of Robert the Strong, including families that have ruled many parts of Europe other than France, including the present-day monarchs of Spain and Luxembourg. This article can and should focus instead on the narrowly defined dynasty that ruled France from 987 to 1328. It would be worth expanding this article to really cover monarchs in the dynasty and events and processes that occurred under their rule, as the article Carolingians does. Marco polo 01:55, 5 February 2007 (UTC)
 * I can see no difference in scholarly usage between "Capetian dynasty" and "House of Capet", so whatever you propose, I can't see why the merger should be opposed. I have created a redirect, as this page had no unique information. Srnec 06:59, 8 March 2007 (UTC)
 * I agree with Srnec. IMHO the two are synonyms that can either be used narrowly (987-1328) or broadly (France 987-1830 and anywhere else). Both terms exclude the ancestors of Hugh Capet. Capetians can be used for the main line ending in 1328 as well as including other branches down to the Bourbons (who in turn may or may not include the Orleans line).
 * Two (or more) articles might be justified, one dealing with the French main line of the House and others with other branches. However, I think the predecessors of Hugh should be covered in the Capetian article here as well. A sub article on Robertians might be in order, but a broad overview should be present here. I guees that all later subbranches are from the Capetians ruling France and not from the earlier Robertians. Str1977 (smile back) 13:22, 8 March 2007 (UTC)
 * As Srnec says - we have created an artificial distinction here. There are two meanings of "House of Capet," and exactly the same two meanings apply to "Capetian dynasty".  These articles really need to be merged. john k 23:15, 24 April 2007 (UTC)
 * This article applies to the 'Direct Capetians'; the other article applies to the entire dynasty, all those descended from Hugh Capet. The use of terminology is certainly not certain (various terms are used to separate the two, never consistently from one book to the next), but the difference between the two is historically clear.
 * Any proposed sourced terminological distinguishers then? The actual differences are clear, but the current terminology of Wikipedia is artificial and therefore ought to be abandoned. Srnec 05:42, 5 May 2007 (UTC)

Decent
Is the House of Capet decended in the male line from the Carolingian dynasty? If so, would they still be technically Carolingians? Emperor001 17:45, 9 June 2007 (UTC)


 * No they are not. They are Robertians. Charles 18:00, 9 June 2007 (UTC)

technically no, but they are related....Pepin of Italy, Charlemange's second son had an illegitimate son-Bernard whos son Pepin became the first Count of Vermandois, his son-Herbert I of Vermandois had a daughter named Beatrice that married Robert I (ruler of France 922-23) and produced Hugh the Great, father of the house's founder: Hugh Capet. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.85.197.167 (talk) 01:39, 10 August 2008 (UTC)

Capétiens directs
"Capétiens directs" isn't mentioned at the french names at this article.If you see the french scholars and sources,they generally or at least often call this house with the name "Capétiens directs".It needs to be added at the french names here.Rolandi+ (talk) 12:22, 14 July 2015 (UTC)

"the House of Capet "
That's a joke ... There is nothing like that.

"Capetien direct" is another joke (a french one, this time). As if "capetien indirect" existed ... --Chilbaric (talk) 23:43, 25 April 2021 (UTC)

Connection to the Merovingians
It seems that the Wikipedia pages of Hugh Capet and his male-line forebears lead to Charibert of Hesbaye, who is mentioned as the son of another Charibert, himself the son of Clothar I. This Clothar is the son of Clovis, the first King of the Franks. Is this likely, or should the respective Wikipedia pages be changed?
 * This is what the pages show, but only if you accept each reported uncertain connection as fact, ignoring all of the 'possibly' and 'perhaps', and 'might have been' qualifiers. At a half-dozen different points in this so-called line of descent, the individual's parentage is undocumented, but people unwilling to limit themselves to actual evidence has speculated (i.e. guessed) who that person's father might have been, and they never pick an obscure person as the father, always someone prominent (both because those are the people in the records that survive, but also because of inherent bias of genealogists toward more noteworthy ancestors), so it was bound to get to the Merovingians eventually.  In each individual case an argument can be made in favor of the speculation, such that it may well be valid to include each of the theories on the individual pages. However, for the entire line to be authentic, you need every single one of the individual speculations to all be correct, and the chances of that is vanishingly unlikely. Even raising the issue of the consequences of the entire line on a page like with one would have significant WP:SYNTH/WP:UNDUE issues. Agricolae (talk) 01:01, 23 September 2021 (UTC)