Talk:List of French monarchs/Archive 1

To the creator of the list, there is something to consider in History standards. Specifically, most of the edit links on this page should probably also of "of France" as part of their name (or "of {French kingdom}). --maveric149

All French monarchs and lists have already been existing in Wikipedia as in Merovingian Dynasty -- Carolingian Dynasty -- Capetian etc.). I was just coping and pasting and leave the "of country" issue after I finish the table or to anyone who is willing to help. IMO, edit links without "of country" are existing as seen in above links. Reposing will not harm in any way.

Ktsquare -- this looks great and is clearly well-intentioned, but just plain wrong. I have removed the following chunk because NONE of these people were rulers of France. France didn't exist until (VERY arguably) Charles the Bald. I've noticed you've tried to also retitle a bunch of articles according to the history standards, too. Normally I would fall to my knees in praise, but unfortunately, the standard wasn't drafted with Germanic kings or pre-modern kingdoms in mind. This is where the "of country" standard must, IMO, fall to the basic standard of "what is recognizable to English speakers." "of Franks" -- a people, makes no sense. Clovis is simply Clovis -- All of the Clovises are Franks...as are most of the important Theudeberts. Here, it's appropriate to disambiguate, I think.

Edited portion:


 * Saint Pepin I the Elder of Landen (Mayor of the Palace 628-640)
 * Pepin II the Younger of Herstal (Mayor of the Palace 680-700)
 * Theodoald (b.708-d.714) (Mayor of Palace 714)
 * Charles Martel (Mayor of the Palace 714-741)
 * Carloman, son of Charles Martel (Mayor of Palace in Austrasia 741-747)
 * Pepin III the Short (Duke of Neustria, Burgundy and Provence 741-751, and Austrasia since 747), King of Franks 751-768)
 * Carloman, son of Pepin the Short	  768-771

JHK, Wednesday, July 17, 2002

I agree with you completely. I reluctantly redirected the pages of Clovis I to "of country" when User:maveric149 started complaining. There wasn't any Clovis I etc. of Franks and I knew it was ridiculous. "of Franks" was created just to satisfy the vigilant moderators. I was intended to started the list with Charlemagne but I have to collect all info first and save them as a draft. After all info is there, I will cut and paste the Merovingians and your edited portionto other pages. My previous saves have to be restored to facilite my work. Nothing personal. Thanks for your help. Ktsquare Wed july 17 2002


 * Um... that's why I removed the stuff to this page. I'm sorry, but it makes no sense to leave known incorrect info on the page.  Many of us work offline and save there.  I suggest you do the same, or jump back into the history to get what you need.  I think Maveric will read the standards and help with this, too, btw! JHK, Wednesday, July 17, 2002

Okay I compromise. Ktsquare Wed july 17 2002

I think my actions here have been misrepresented &#8211; all I did was suggest that History standards be read. And Ktsquare, everyone here is a moderator and nobody suggested using the [X of people] format. BTW, the history standards page is in bad need of organization &#8211; in the version I read there was no obvious mention of only treating monarchs of modern kingdoms in the [X of kingdom] format. This misconnect is probably the reason we now have Cleopatra VII of Egypt, which I think is unnecessary and starts a bad precident for ancient rulers. Can we have a clear statement on that page that [X of kingdom] is to be used only for modern kingoms? --maveric149
 * taking care of it now... JHK

Someone filed this in the bug reports tracker, I'm moving it here:


 * At http://www.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_French_monarchs List of French monarchs Click on Carloman II 882-884 [NOTE THIS BIRTH DATE] and it takes you to http://www.wikipedia.org/w/wiki.phtml?title=Carloman_II&redirect=no Carloman II From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia. REDIRECT Carloman, son of Pippin III


 * NOTE THE BIRTH DATE ON THIS PAGE: Carloman, second son of Pippin the Short and Bertrada of Laon, was born in 751 and died December 4, 771.


 * Carloman, son of Pippin III, was born in 751 was King of Franks, NOT King of France. Carloman II, who reigned as King of France from 882-884 is a different person and you have redirected incorrectly.


 * Do you have any information regarding Caroloman II, son of Louis II, The Stammerer??


 * Thank You!

The correct person seems to be Carloman, King of the West Franks. I'll leave any renaming and fixing of links to those more familiar with the local naming conventions... --Brion 22:34 Nov 24, 2002 (UTC)

Zoe -- all explanations for removal of Merovingians can be found above and elsewhere on the pedia. They aren't French. They are Frankish. There is a difference. I din't explain, for the same reason that I didn't log in -- I wanted to fix this without dealing with the French nationalist and/or non-expert patrol. JHK

Gotcha. OK, if we change it back to non-Merovingian, could we include a link and explanation? -- Zoe

What -- like "The Merovingians are NOT French, but if you want to think they are, here's where to find them?" They're in History of France I believe

From a modern POV France didn't exists until Louis XI. I will add more comment later. Ericd 21:36 Mar 4, 2003 (UTC)

I wondered about the reasoning behind the Merovingian Dynasty not being part of the list of French monarchs until I saw where user User:JHK had intentionally removed the Merovingian rulers names. Then I checked to see that this was not the first time User:JHK had done that. Having taken the time to look through this matter, including the assessing of the prior writings of User:JHK on articles relative to this aspect of European history, it appears that User:JHK has a personal agenda to rewrite and present history the way she wants it to be. While I cannot even speculate on User:JHK&#8217;s motivations, I do know the attempts to downplay the long history of France and its rulers stems from centuries of animosity and bloodshed between France and Germany. The German elite could not claim the Merovingians for themselves because the country of Germany was only created in 1871 and the Merovingian empire was centered almost exclusively and continuously in France. As such, at the height of the ill will, the major attempt at rewriting France's history was made by the Nazis in 1933 under Minister for Propaganda, Joseph Goebbels. The Nazi doctrine proclaimed the Merovingians to be rulers of a never never land, not France. As part of this indoctrination, Hitler&#8217;s regime made Alsace-Lorraine permanent parts of the German Fatherland and wiped out all traces of French there, banning the speaking of French and burning all French books. Hitler's desire to distort anything contrary to his view of a glorious Aryan history had no foundation in facts of any kind, and was not shared by any credible institution or person then or now. This propaganda that the Merovingians are not Kings of France contradicts the United States Library of Congress, Encyclopedia Britannica, Microsoft Encarta, the Bibliotheque Nationale de France, and every historian of recognizable standing in the world. I quote here from "Merovingian Dynasty." Britannica Concise Encyclopedia 2003 Encyclopædia Britannica Premium Service. 06 Mar, 2003 http://www.britannica.com/eb/article?eu=1657&tocid=0&query=merovingian%20dynasty&ct= as follows:


 * Merovingian dynasty - Frankish dynasty considered the first French royal house.

Absolutely King Childeric I made his capital at Tournai in what is now Belgium but I note that User:JHK completely revamped the article on Clovis I with a revision on September 4 2002. The most authorative works on these Merovingians, written during the times, was by Gregoire of Tours (539-594) in Tours, France. Check out User:JHK&#8217;s revision of Clovis I and you will see that it obliterated any reference to France and removed important historical facts that contradict her views. Clovis I, and other Merovingians, ruled over what is often called the Frankish kingdom but that "kingdom" is in reality virtually all of today's France with only a tiny portion of what is today called Germany. Any early references to Germanic peoples are not the German people we think of today in any way shape or form. The name was given by the early Romans to lump together a number of peoples who had no actual connection to each other. Included in those lumped as Germanic was a tribe living in Italy. However, for most all of the Merovingians, Paris was their capital and from there they attempted to consolidate their empires. 1,500 years later it is their descendants who still occupy France. User:JHK seems to think that because the borders of France changed over time, or the label given the territory at a certain date, changed, that they are somehow not French. Every country in the world has had their border and name changed countless times over the centuries. It is worth noting that user User:JHK had previously deliberately deleted from the Wikipedia article the important and symbolic fact that Clovis I was borm in Tournai in what is now Belgium but is buried in his capital of Paris, France in the Saint Denis Basilica where ONLY French Royalty are buried including other Merovingian rulers. Clovis and other of the Merovingian kings were born in France, lived there all their lives, died there and were buried there. It was in fact a Merovingian, Dagobert I who founded the Abbey at St. Denis. I suggest Wikipedia participants or visitors go to Clovis I and Childebert I and look at the photos. Are these medals of the Kings a fraud? I have copied one of them and posted it here:

Note too, that in the writings of User:JHK on any of the Carolingian kings, the references and connections to France are also omitted. For User:JHK to delete facts from Wikipedia articles because they disprove her unfounded claims, is an abomination of Wikipedia values. HK is not the Encyclopedia Britannica and as best I can determine, standing in has not produced any published works that I could find in any leading periodicals and is not ranked with, or acknowledged by, any of the other of the world&#8217;s leading authorities on this subject. Her thesis on the Carolingians is exactly that: Her Thesis. I for one respect various views expressed in a neutral fashion and designated as such. But, I strongly resent someone manipulating unsuspecting contributors to Wikipedia like User:Zoe who recognized the truth regarding the Merovingians as founders of the French Royal House.

I note too, User:JHK efforts to obliterate parts of French history includes her changing the name of another ruler from the French name Pepin to Pippin. The French name Pepin is the only one used for the French rulers. The family name "Pepin" is one of the most common in France and Quebec where the name "Pippin" does not exist. (See the thousands of articles on the origin of family names and the adoption of rulers names by ordinary citizens in Burkes Peerage and other publications.) and Pepin is the English language spelling. See where the Wikipedia article on Pepin the Short was changed to Pippin with no notation that he is buried under the name Pepin in the tomb for French Monarchs at Saint Denis Basilica in Paris, France. The name Peppin is nothing more than the German spelling of a very French name. On the Wikipedia German Language site (Deutsch), any article on Pepin written in the German language should be spelled Pippin but not in the English version.. On this matter too, User: JHK contradicts the United States Library of Congress, Encyclopedia Britannica, Microsoft Encarta, the Bibliotheque Nationale de France, and every historian of recognizable the world who only use the French name Pepin. I note too, that the contributions by User:JHK in these matters are written in a way so as to subtly remove direct attributions to the history of France. For most people at Wikipedia, this type of carefully crafted writing goes undetected. Any domineering personality, supported by a claim to certain education credentials, can impose their views on others such as User:Zoe (or, as is possible on the Internet, the stealing of a legitimate identity). Even with legitimate education credentials, User:JHK is trying to impose an unfounded point of view or, as is not uncommon within those who have never been able to make their mark in the academic community, User:JHK is trying to establish a reputation, that in the world outside of Wikipedia, she has never been able to achieve. It&#8217;s too bad, because User:JHK might possibly be a worthwhile contributor to this worthwhile project. -- Elliot

Elliot -- First, I was a contributer here long before you were, and I seldom make appearances here because of people like you. My thesis, as you nicely call it IS a thesis -- in the sense that it is a doctoral dissertation, available on microfilm, and registered with the American Historical Association. It was approved by three scholars with experience in Medieval European studies.

In answer to your other accusations -- The sources you cite are all general -- presented to give a layman's overview. As a Carolingianist in particular and an Early Medievalist in general, I wrote my articles from a more expert position -- one which was at least at one time encouraged by the wikipedia. Hence, the articles reflect the opinions of the majority of scholars in the field -- Franks aren't French -- they are Germanic peoples -- which also means that they aren't German.
 * You cite Gregory of Tours -- Gregory never calls the Merovingians French -- at least not in the original Latin -- they are Franks. Period.
 * You point to the coin as evidence -- the coin looks like absolutely no coin from the time that I have seen -- it is much later, I suspect. If it is from a later date, then it is probably part of the French tendency to claim Clovis as their own.
 * Although the kingdom of Clovis was relatively small, and didn't contain much of present day Germany, the Carolingian kingdoms certainly did.
 * As far as Pippin goes, my regularizing the usage to Pippin over Pepin is because that is the current trend among specialists in the period. It has nothing that I know of to do with Hitler or anti-French feeling -- instead, it reflects the more commonly held opinion that, although English speakers (who tend to speak more French than German) used to use Pepin, the use of Pepin reinforces the "French" notion.  In fact, Pepin is almost never spelt that way in historical documents -- it is Pippinus.  The fact that it is the spelling used more by Germans is coincidental, having probably more to do with the fact that Germans are more pedantic about their Latin than most.

As for your underhanded comparison of me to the Nazi propaganda machine, it is unworthy of anyone wishing to contribute to this site. JHK

''P.S. -- The reason I haven't made a mark is not because I have tried and failed, but that my Ph.D. is relatively recent, and I am not yet in a position to publish without giving up class time (and money). Not that that's any of Elliot's business. I teach at least 3 classes a quarter -- most publishing academics teach at least two courses less a year than I do.''

Elliot, " Even with legitimate education credentials, User:JHK is trying to impose an unfounded point of view or, as is not uncommon within those who have never been able to make their mark in the academic community, User:JHK is trying to establish a reputation, that in the world outside of Wikipedia, she has never been able to achieve. " is a violation of our Wikipetiquette. Jimbo is taking these type of offenses seriously now so please stop the personal attacks. --mav 20:58 Mar 6, 2003 (UTC)

Zoe -- I'm surprised that you thought there was no explanation for the removal of the Merovingians from the list of french monarchs. I put one in, and received the usual nasty responses on the talk page. Despite the fact that someone has added in some interesting references, I stand by the argument made when the page was created. The Merovingians aren't french, so they can't be french monarchs. The Fouracre book is good -- but I am also pretty certain that in this context, even Fouracre might agree that the Merovingians were Frankish kings in the area now known as France. We call it France because that's what it is now, not because it's what it was then. After all, when we say Rome in the context of say, 150 AD, we can be speaking of the Empire or the city -- it certainly doesn't meant that today's Rome encompasses the same territory 9or there would be no France!).

The Capetian reference is wonderful, because it proves my point that the Capetians made a definite propaganda attempt to coopt the CArolingians and Merovingians into their heritage -- note that the book was commissioned during the buildup of the Hundred Years' war, when England's claims to the French throne had to be denied in no uncertain terms. Whether my changes stay will reflect whether the wikipedia is in the hands of backward-thinking nationalists or forward-thinking would-be scholars who are aware of trends in the field. FOr example, did you know that many historians now see the merovingians not as part of the middle ages, but as part of late antiquity? That's a period not seen in many textbooks, but it is recognized more and more, and there are conferences, journals, etc. I doubt the Erics and Elliots will recognize it, though. JHK

Eric -- I appreciate that you have tried to make your views work. But the problem is that your assertions aren't scholarly, and don't really fit in. As an extreme example, if I asserted that most Christians in the Middle Ages believed that Jews killed Christ (which was fairly standard), it would still not justify my labeling them as murderers in an article on Christ's life (which would be totally inappropriate and untrue). Part of this being an encyclopedia is that the standard should be based on scholarship. Another is that sometimes inclusions like that of the Merovingians as French kings reinforce a belief, rather than the more complex truth. Our goal should be to illuminate and elucidate, not to reinforce commonly held opinion -- commonly held opinion is ipso facto POV, if there's nothing to back it. Oh -- and not even most French people or scholars -- it depends. I was recently at a conference where I brought up this question. Neither the French nor the German scholars thought of the Merovingians as anything but Frankish! JHK

I didn't think to the Merovingians as anything else than Frankish. And even Carolingian were not French. But the Monarchy and later the Republic accredited the idea that France begun under Clovis I. IMO this belief is historically unaccurate but important. My aim was to expose both what was popular belief in France and seems still to be official history in France (the Republic celebrated the anniversary of Clovis...) and to point out as wrong. I'm not so skilled in English and it can be unclear but the last version of the intro is IMO worse than mine. It start with : "The actual beginnings of the French monarchy are generally accepted by most qualified historians to have begun under Clovis I." that is absolutely confusing.... If you're not well informed you will spend a long time to understand that the French monarchy didn't begun with the French.... And about France as a nation I would be much more drastic thant our anonymous contributor my personnal opinion is that it begun to make sense with Joan of Arc and later with Louis XI... Ericd 02:17 23 May 2003 (UTC)

I put this on Jacques' page, but thought I would also explain here -- and I'm reverting back to my last version -- it needs work to make it more readable, but I wanted to incorporate reasons for why popular knowledge includes the Merovingians, why some historians do, and why, when one specializes more, one sees that this is an inaccurate picture and they don't fit. Oh -- and BTW -- please let's don't forget that there is a link to the Merovingians ON THE PAGE -- if people want to know more and know who the Merovingian kings were, they need only click!! JHK

Jacques -- what is it with Canadians and the Merovingians? You all (the ones on the 'pedia) seem to be very argumentative in a way that is pretty 19th c. nationalistic. What I said is pretty representative of what historians of Medieval and Late Antique History say about France, AFAIK. WHat I know is more than the average wikipedian -- I am by profession a Historian -- my specialtiy is Carolingian. I'm fairly up on the scholarship and, if you not, I added two references to the list at the end of the French Monarchs page. ALso, as I have tried to explain many times before, most general books are talking about France in the sense of a geographical area, often following conventions that are being rethought. If one looks at two very simple criteria, I don't understand the problem. Simply put, ask yourself if the M's were French -- answer, no, they were Franks. DIfferent thing entirely, despite the fact that the name France is derived from Francia -- but then so is Franken in Germany -- surely you aren't saying that people living in Franken are French? WHat about Louis the German?

Second question -- were the M's kings of France? Answer -- no -- the Merovingians ruled several kingdoms at different times. The best-known are Austrasia and Neustria. No France. The country that is now France just didn't exist.

Now, you can ask different questions and get different answers -- Do many French people think of the Merovingians (and Carolingians) as French? Probably they do. There's even good reason, since some of them are buried in Paris (although I'm pretty sure some of the remains were translated there in the same way that saints' relics were translated -- often stolen -- in the MA -- again, Patrick Geary is a good source for this). But you know what? Germans also think of many of the same Frankish kings (especially the Carolingians) as German. I would say the same to them -- nope. This field is growing by leaps and bounds. Much of what appears on the wikipedia reflects less the comfortable conventions and more the newer trends, because that's a luxury that the medium offers. I have tried to make that clear. oh -- and a couple of other things --


 * If the Merovingians were the first kings of France, why do the Carolingians make no attempt to emphasize contiuity? Answer (main reason) -- because there was no need.  They had the support of the Frankish nobles AND the pope.  They were much more concerned with the tie to Rome


 * Why do the Capetians need to tie things back to the Merovingians? Answer (somewhat simplified) -- Hugh Capet's claim to the throne, although supported by the western Frankish nobles, wasn't that strong -- over the succeeding generations, and for a number of political reasons, inheritance through Salic law and continuity back to those times was emphasized by the Capetian kings -- this became more important at times when rival claimants to the throne (like the kings of England) appeared.


 * Are there any other claims about the Merovingians and their position out there that provide documentation? ANswer -- yes, there are several books out there that demonstrate that the Merovingians are direct descendants of Jesus Christ and Mary Magdalene, and that they are also somehow connected to the Knights Templar.  IS this provable?  um ... no, but many people believe it.  It doesnt mean it should be in the article on Merovingians, though.  JHK


 * Delson insult moved to User talk:Jacques Delson


 * Jacques -- please read Derek Ross's comments above. I was a wikipedia contributor long before you'd heard of it, and many of the people who have been here a long time can tell you that I played no small part in creating many well-received articles, helping to resolve many such disagreements as the one here, and in setting and writing the standards for nomenclature and articles.  You can check my user pages for background on why I became a lurker and only occasional contributor, but simply put, it was because expertise, especially in the field of history, is not respected by many contributors like yourself, and I refuse to invest that much of myself in fighting unwinnable battles.


 * In response to your somewhat odd comments above (I have read the books on the list, and added two more), let me say that no academic argument asks a person to prove a negative, as you do. Instead, I made changes to reflect the current state of research, explaining in some (perhaps too much) detail as to why one finds different lists in different books.  YOu have not had the courtesy to explain what you find offensive or incorrect about those explanations.  If you have specific problems with them, I suggest you pick out the problematic areasm and perhaps I can address them specifically.  Until that time, I will continue to revert this article to an explanation that reflects historical reality, rather than conventions that appeal to irredentist nationalist arguments and not much else. JHK

I don't understand how it makes any sense to start this list with Pepin the Short. Pepin didn't found a Kingdom, he overthrough the existing King, the Merovigian Childeric III. Clovis united the Franks back in the 5th century, and although his Kingdom was divided between his successors, it was reunited by Theuderic IV. If Theuderic & Childeric were not Kings of "France" then neither were Pepin or Charlemange. A case could be made for starting the list with Charles the Bald as he was the first king of the western division of Charlemage's Empire, an entity that evoled into France, but this would leave Charlemage, one of the famous French leaders, off the list, and would leave people searching in vain for Louis I. So I say we start the list with Clovis, while making clear that niether the Merovigians nor the Carolingians were "French" as we now understand it. 65.94.49.229

Starting with Pepin the Short is a) fairly standard (my Almanac does it, for instance); and b) represents the start of a new dynasty, which makes some sense. Starting with Charles the Bald would make the numbering confused, since Louis I and Charles I would not be included in the list. On the other hand, the Merovingians did not count for the purpose of numbering later French monarchs. The Merovingians are also confusing with their separate Kings of "Neustria" and "Austrasia". If it can be done clearly, though, it wouldn't be objectionable. john 07:56 25 May 2003 (UTC)


 * Delson insult moved to User talk:Jacques Delson

Ummm ... no, I don't think so. YOu have not done me the courtesy of reading my comments, nor of responding to my questions for exactly what you find incorrect in what I have said. As I have mentioned numerous times, I've read James and Fouracre. I also added a couple of sources to the list -- both Patrick Geary, but I could also add Edward James' The Franks to the list. Again, I debate your understanding of the context. Both of the sources you cite are using the word France in an anachronistic sense to convey to the readers that the are talking about the very early background to modern France -- that is, the History of an area defined geographically in modern terms.

You can take as much exception as you want, but insults are not going to change my mind, are not wiki-appropriate, and certainly don't demonstrate your willingness to work with others. If you can't object to specifics and give reasoned explanations as to why you think I'm wrong, then you aren't interested in a good article, just in your viewpoint. Which viewpoint is, btw, correct only in the loosest sense, but incorrect in specifics.

If you want a list of people who have ruled in the area that is now France, then the Merovingians fit in -- but so do any Gauls we can name and also a whole bunch of Romans. In this case, they are rulers of a geographic ares, but no one would call them French. But wait -- the list is of French monarchs -- and Romans aren't French! Maybe this is a differentiation worth mentioning? As I have? JHK

Please, could you start discussing things out on the talk page and stop Else the article would have to be protected. -- JeLuF 22:50 25 May 2003 (UTC)
 * reverting the article back and forth
 * inserting editorical marks into the article

Dr. K (or Hemp?) would welcome the freezing of the page. She would do it herself, but that would be an abuse of her position as sysop. Jens, If you would like to do so, I support it! JHK

I don't think that there is an absolute need for a freeze. Anyone reading the talk page will quickly see the merits of JHK's argument and the lack of JD's. As a result, I, for one, am adding this page to my watchlist in order to ensure that the less simplistic version is the top one whenever I'm around. -- Derek Ross 23:13 25 May 2003 (UTC)

By training, I am a historian. This is not my period, and I'd have to take more time out to read up on it than I can reasonably spare to independantly establish the veracity of the arguments above. However, JHK's contributions demonstrate an obvious concern for detail, are polite and civilised, and have all the usual hallmarks of being those of a genuine historian. I too will keep an eye on this page. Tannin 23:17 25 May 2003 (UTC)


 * Well I'm just a hard-working amateur historian but I otherwise just want to Ditto everything Tannin said. BTW, lists do not traditionally start with an encyclopedia article. In this case the subject of the prose is not a list of French monarchs, but is about French monarchs. Therefore I suggest that the prose be moved to French monarch (per Wikipedia naming conventions) and this list should only be a list (perhaps annotated a bit). --mav

While I like that idea from a consistency point of view, I think that we need some sort of an explanation as part of the list article, otherwise well-meaning editors will take a look at it, say "oh, they've missed out the Merovingians!", and add them, not realising the pros and cons. So there are some benefits in having the article structured the way it is. -- Derek Ross


 * Well whole content of the page can be moved to French monarch since the list only comprises part of the current article. User:kt2


 * I agree. In the future we may want to separate the list when the combined article gets too long (and there is a whole bunch to say about this topic). "List" is just the way we state to the user that they should expect Almanac-type information and not a real encyclopedia article. --mav


 * Sounds reasonable. Okay, I'm convinced. -- Derek Ross


 * Seems to me that the list should explain what it is a list of. Why start with the Carolingians, specifically.  Which is what it does.  Personally, I don't have any particular strong feelings about where a list of French kings should start.  Obviously, there is no real date where you can suddenly say "this is the beginning of France".  Thus, for me at least, lists which started with the Merovingians, with the Carolingians, with Verdun, and with the Capetians, would none of them be offensive, so long as an explanation for why this is being done is put in.  That said, I would moderately oppose taking out the Carolingians, since Charlemagne is King "Charles I of France", and such.  For the Merovingians, I have no particularly strong feelings either way, but the argument that, whatever it was they ruled, it was not "France," seems fairly convincing.  Anyway, I'd oppose taking out explanatory material, since that would just encourage people to continually add the Merovingians in, and take them out, and add them in again.  The best thing to do is explain why things are the way they are now, which would discourage such activities.  john 00:11 26 May 2003 (UTC)
 * Seem to have lost my post -- A much older version of the article is way less wordy -- and has links to Merovingians and Carolingians, I believe. Otherwise, I'm not sure we need another complete article.  There are articles on History of France, Merovingians, Carolingians, Capetians, and Franks.  SOme of this might better be incorporated into those places. Just my opinion.  It becomes more of a controversy if we treat it as one. JHK


 * Sometimes our 'pedia conventions don't quite fit the particular circumstances. This is unavoidable because conventions (by their very nature) must be fixed and consistent, while circumstances tend to vary a good deal. (Pesky darn things they are. One of these days I'm going to invent a sort of meta-DDT substitute and use it to kill off all those wayward bits of reality that don't fit into our nice tidy categorisation schemes&#8212;the Giant Panda, for example: what right does a bamboo eating damn pacifist have to mess up the Carnivora?) Moving to French monarchs sounds good to me, but I'm not expert on the period. Do as you judge best, JHK. Tannin


 * Hmmm. In principle, I think it's a sensible solution -- but by calling this French Monarchs, we'd merely be perpetuating the problem, which really lies in the definition of "French."  Is there such a thing as French, if there is no France?  Suggestions? JHK


 * But isn't "French" just an adjective anyway and thus can be interpreted with varying degrees of absolutism? Does that not reflect the situation we have here? IMO to be really precise we would have to invent an unwieldy title. Aside: Chuckle. Because of the capitalization "French Monarchs" looks like the name of a sports team. :) --mav

Well, we already have it under "List of French monarchs"...in any event, France is simply a shortening of "Francia", a term which was used at the time, no? Obviously, the meaning has changed over the centuries, but it's basically the same term, isn't it? john 00:43 26 May 2003 (UTC)


 * Not really, JOhn -- that's part of the problem. As I pointed about above, if we say "it's the same" then we have to say that Franken in Germany is the same.  At least, this is what I was trying in part to convey.  Because Clovis as king of France is part of a French national identity, if we use French, it reinforces the idea.  I see nothing wrong with the national mythos, BTW, but would like it to be clear that there's a slightly different historical reality.  Ugh.


 * We could re-title the list List of Monarchs of the French Nation ... phew JHK

In the List of British monarchs article the adjective, "British", is used in a purely geographical sense and we have therefore included all monarchs who have ruled on the island whether British (ie Brythonic), English, Pictish, or Scottish. Perhaps we could treat the adjective "French" in the same way and make it clear that we are not using it in a political sense but merely to describe the geographical area covered by the modern state. -- Derek Ross 01:05 26 May 2003 (UTC)


 * Hmmm -- list of British Monarchs looks like an article to me -- and the different nations are divided. If that's the norm, we could take the French list as is, and just divide it further with more, not less annotation! JHK

Well, if it worked for an article which had to be agreed on by the Scots, the English, the Irish, the Welsh (and the Picts!), it might be worth considering! Most of the wikipedia lists have pretty straightforward criteria which can be summarised in their title but these monarch lists don't because of the time factor so I think that it's reasonable that they should be part list, part article, unlike the standard lists. -- Derek Ross 01:28 26 May 2003 (UTC)


 * Lord -- has anyone seen the German Kings and Emperors page? This is why I prefer the article or annotated list form.   Wow.  New project for me, I guess. JHK

I worked on the German Kings and Emperors page earlier. I think all of the dates are largely accurate, but it could certainly use more explanation. I do want for the dates to show clearly both the "German Kings" or "Kings of the Romans" and the actual emperors. Otherwise, any annotation would be useful. Would you like to discuss this further on the talk page for List of German Kings and Emperors? john 01:41 26 May 2003 (UTC)
 * HI John -- my comments certainly weren't meant to insult -- only to point out that the French article was in relatively good shape by comparison. I'll certainly try to help out -- although not much until the quarter's over.  The problems with France have seriously eaten into my weekend.  CHeers! JHK

um.... We can then create two lists or articles, French monarch and Germanic monarch (or likewise Frankish monarch), where the former contains what we have here and the latter consists of the monarchs before and including Charlemagne or the Carolingians or whatever ruling entity should be sensibly determined as the first king of France. Annotations in both articles explain why such a split is necessary. User:kt2

I have some knowledge of European history and after reading this article, I&#8217;m not sure where the author is coming from; the opening line makes little professional. The Merovingians are certainly monarchs who all reigned over the geographical area we now call France. They ruled from Paris beginning with Clovis and are part of the chain of rulers who formed France. This is not a matter that I have ever heard being debated before; all scholars state that as a given. The Merovingian empire shrank, expanded, and changed countless times as did most all European kingdoms. However, Merovingians were always based in Paris and what Clovis controlled is basically France today. The Carolingians are on the list because they simply took over the territory of the Merovingians as did the Capetians. It is a continuous succession of rulers over the same territory, when someone actually began calling it France (or England, England), Lord knows. What I&#8217;m saying is no great revelation, it can be found in the Encyclopedia Britannica and other accurate sources including the Edward James book on France and its Merovingian kings that is mentioned as a reference and the very extensive and respected Cambridge University&#8217;s Illustrated History of France that clearly outlines the Merovingians in France as part of French history and creators of the country. Triton


 * So Moctezuma I was a ruler of Mexico then? Rubbish. Mexico didn't exist when Moctezuma I ruled. --mav

The Merovingians certainly were not always based on Paris. For most of the time, there were two kingdoms, Neustria and Austrasia. Austrasia didn't include Paris. Neustria, which did, was based mostly on Soissons, I thought. In any event, it was my understanding that the Merovingians were Kings of the Franks, not Kings of France. john 02:06 26 May 2003 (UTC)

If you start breaking lists into monarchs of various domains you will have so many you couldn't make sense of them for England, Italy, and others. Clovis I did what they all did for 1300 years, that is create a united kingdom. Clovis I made his capital in Paris and unless the French government archives, the Roman Catholic Church and other world scholars are involved in a coverup, Clovis and many Merovingians are buried in Paris. Every scholar I have read, does talk about a "body politic", they talk about the history of the rulers over a specific place. Hence, when referring to France, it is about the people who occupied the territory and the Merovingians certainly occupied France. Triton

First, they are buried in Saint Denis, which was not a part of Paris at the time. Second, early Medieval monarchs cannot really be said to have had a capital. Third, the Kings of Austrasia, Frankish Kings, did not even possess Paris. But in any event, the Merovingians didn't call themselves Kings of France or Kings of the French. They called themselves Kings of the Franks. Which is different. The Roman Emperors ruled over all of what is now France, but I wouldn't call them "French monarchs". The problem here is anachronism, I think. john 02:36 26 May 2003 (UTC)

The Rome comparison makes now sense. They were occupiers, the Merovingians were residents.
 * Merovingian dynasty
 * Encyclopædia Britannica Article
 * Frankish dynasty (AD 476&#8211;750) traditionally reckoned as the &#8220;first race&#8221; of the kings of France. 



So, if Britannica is wrong, author Edward James is wrong, Cambridge U is wrong, then how come I keep finding many American universities that agree with them but not one that agrees with the theories by JHK? I thought Wikipedia contributions were subject to verification? Triton

As several posters have clearly stated above, France did not existed during the Merovingian dynasty. Burial at a specific place does not imply legitimate rule over the land. Most important of all, Merovingians only occupied part of today France. If occupants of part of an individual piece of land is defined as the ruler of the whole area, then Theodoric the Great should also be Theodoric the Great of France because his dominions included Septimania. User:kt2

What? France was under water? Or on Mars? NO country existed then as we know it today. Read, the above please, that issue is already clear. But hey, I'm with Britannica, and other scholars and you and Ms. K think they are all wrong. I have no problem with anyone disagreeing, so long as they back it up with proper proofs. Triton And, oh yes. You have it backwards. The Merovingian rulers of France occupied parts of present day Germany, Belgium and Holland.Triton

Merovingians occupied areas in today France, Germany, Belgium and Holland but why would they cited in Britannica and other sources as rulers of only France? It's ONLY because their domains are mostly in today France, that's it, which then leads us to another question, starting time of existence of France. My Larousse clearly stated that under the entry Clovis I, Clovis Ier (465-Paris 511), roi des Francs (481/482-511) not roi de France. Under Septimania, Septimanie anc. region cotiere de la Gaule meridionale, entre le Rhone et les Pyrennees, ou se maintinrent les Wisigoths apres la battaille de Vouille (507). Elle fut reattachee au ronyaume franc en 759.

It still only mentions Frank, not France. User:kt2

I don't pretend to be the expert. I read what Britannica says and other scolars. And, what they say here is relative to England. We don't restrict any monarch because part of their kingdom changed. What historians are talking about is the origins of a country by the people living there. Triton

Triton, would you consider the Roman Emperors Constantius I, Constantine I, Constantine II, Julian, Valentinian I, Gratian, and Maximus, all of whom resided at Treves, in Gaul, to be "French Monarchs"? For many of them (at least at times), their rule was mostly over what is now France, and they resided in Gaul. john 03:52 26 May 2003 (UTC)

No, they are Emperors of Rome who conquered Gaul. Period. Virtually all of the Merovingians were born, lived, died, and were buried in what today we call France. The issue is not when France came to be is irrelevant, and that issue is open to much discussion because of border changes. We are talking, and I repeat, about a piece of rock, mud, water, and the like that became France, Were there rulers ever living over this area? If so were they residents of Emperors/Kings/Gods and the like who were born, lived, and died elsewhere? Or, were they living, say in Paris, raised in say, Paris, fought in say Paris, died in say Paris, and were buried in say Paris. If they did, then I think it is reasonable to call them Parisians, not Floridians. But, my question is why do you or Ms. K want to contradict Britannica and other qualified world historians. They all say Merovingians monarchs of France. If you can't accept them, I can't do more. But if you want to post to Wikipedia, please provide facts to show Britannica, Cambridge U and others wrong. Do a Googfle search and you will find all kinds of American universities that refer to the Merovingians as kings of France. Honestly, I just don't understand why this discussion even exists. Triton


 * This is the heart of it, whether we mean geographical France or political France. Perhaps we can all agree that the Merovingians were kings in France, the country, but not kings of France, the nation.  In that geographical sense of French, they were French kings.  Yes, no ?  -- Derek Ross 04:19 26 May 2003 (UTC)


 * They were kings in what is now France. It was Gaul at the time.  It came to be called France because it was conquered by the Franks, a Germanic tribe of whom the Merovingians were kings.  I think it would be a lot simpler if we just called the Merovingians "Kings of the Franks" or "Frankish Kings", and avoided the whole issue. john 04:21 26 May 2003 (UTC)

Does anyone think that having this in the article gives Wikipedia credibility as an authorative source:
 * In light of these recent trends, this list begins with the Carolingians. This is a compromise.

Forget the facts, the wording in this whole article is unworthy. Triton


 * Triton, your last comment is exactly why I proposed the two article format - French monarch stores what we have here (which is still subjected to revision) and Frankish monarch stores the merovingians, carolingians etc., rulers who aren't considered kings of France. French monarch contains a link to Frankish monarch and annotations explain the reason for splitting. Still it doesn't help your argument of claiming Merovingians as rulers of France. Geographically Merovingians occupied large (but not all) of modern France. Politically, the sense of France as a nation did not exist at the time since feudalism still predominated. BTW, the Clovis I at Britannica is the king of Franks not king of France, and ruler of much of Gaul but not all Gaul, which in turn supports my ideas. User:kt2

Look, Gratian, Constantius, etc. were Roman monarchs who lived in Gaul, and ruled Gaul, a country which was entirely Romanized. They were certainly less foreign conquerors of it than the Franks were. Further, you seem to be saying that a "French monarch" is one one who ruled from what is now France. Was Vercingetorix, then, a French monarch? As far as Google, of the top six results for "Merovingian" five specifically do not call them "Kings of France". Several of them say they ruled over Gaul. Most of them call them "Frankish Kings". john 04:17 26 May 2003 (UTC)

"Further, you seem to be saying that a "French monarch" is one one who ruled from what is now France." - You're starting to get the idea, Mr. Ross. The same thing applies to the England, Austria, Germany, Spain because of the internal/external wars, territory lost and regained etc. I look at a map and ask myself who was King of that place in the year 500 or whenever? If they called the place Crapville and later, Mudville, and later France, I can accept that it is still France the same as I don't need Harry Trumnan, "President of the United 48 States". Defining when France (or any country) became a country is almost impossible. I have friends in Bretagne who swear they will never be French! I note the anti-France attitude of Ms. K and note that she voices no arguments over any other list of monarchs. It does make me question motivation over what to any qualified historian is a non issue. Note that Edward James, named his book "The Origins of France: Clovis to the Capetians 500-1000." ISBN: 0333270525, not "The Origins of Germany" or "The Origins of China." This title says it all, and every scholar in the world says the exact same thing. I don&#8217;t know about you, but I don&#8217;t profess to know more than these people and Britannica doesn&#8217;t toss out words without basis, that&#8217;s for sure.Triton

Yes, Edward James names his book that because he's looking at the origins of France. Doesn't mean that Clovis was a king of France. In any event, was Vercingetorix a French King? Was Cassivellaunus an English King? Was Emperor Alexius Comnenus a Turkish monarch? Was Baldwin III of Jerusalem an Israeli King? john 04:46 26 May 2003 (UTC)

Just a minor note, in EB


 * Frankish dynasty (AD 476&#8211;750) traditionally reckoned as the &#8220;first race&#8221; of the kings of France. 

Take great caution of the word. Tradition is only what people used to follow, but not necessarily right. User:kt2
 * Thanks, KT -- and I hoped that that was clear in what I wrote. I certainly am not anti-French.  I am, however, anti-nationalistic in the way that some of the people who want to change this page are.  ANd thanks also, John and KT, for pointing out that the Franks also were invaders.  Speaking of which, wasn't Toulouse, a part of France, once ruled by the Visigoths?  I think a better comparison might be the Ummayad rulers in Spain -- certainly they ruled almost all of today's Spain, but no one would consider them Spanish monarchs.


 * It boils down to this (I think): Although French national tradition considers CLovis to be the first French monarch, and although this tradition has been accepted in many times as a convenience, there is an equally longstanding scholarly tradition that considers the Capetians as the first kings of France as we know it (and that's saying a lot, since they only had control over the Ile-de-France for several generations).   Complicating this is that the traditional numbering of the Kings of France includes some (but not all) of the Carolingians.  In light of a large (and rapidly growing) body of scholarship on the relations between Rome and the Germans, and on Germanic peoples in general, over the last 30 years (this is not new stuff), coupled with more recent works on the question of nationality and ethnicity, it makes sense to include the Carolingians so as not to confuse people with an incomplete numbering system.  It makes sense to mention the Merovingian tradition -- and link the Merovingians.  It doesn't make sense to say that Clovis was the first King of France.  And by the way, I'd be happy to see something substantial rather than inference based on the title of a book, that disagrees with me absolutely.  History being the field it is, though, I can probably find stuff, too.  JHK


 * No problem. I think Triton is getting a bit of Be bold in updating pages mentality but in the wrong direction - s/he challenged ideas s/he confused (b/c of not reading the EB carefully) and took the issue too personally - and calling people anti-French. As long as Triton doesn't go to the extremes of the Elliot(s) and Jacque(s), I wish s/he flourishes to be a successful wikipedian. Anyhow it was my made-up excuse for him. :-) User:kt2

Talk:List of French monarchs/archive 2