Talk:Louis of Lower Lorraine

Untitled
CapitalMove|Louis of Lorraine, pretender of France
 * Done, vandalism repair. Rest of name discussion is up to you. -- Kim van der Linde at venus 04:07, 5 June 2006 (UTC)

Original placement, and in accordance with WP:Style. Obstructed as a side-effect of the move vandalism of Duckbilled Platypus, now blocked. Septentrionalis 23:02, 1 June 2006 (UTC)

No, that edit was not vandalism and the current title is horrible. Srnec 04:44, 6 June 2006 (UTC)

Title

 * What was wrong with the original title. This title seems stupid for the following reasons:
 * I have never seen him actually called "Louis of Lorraine" because he was not "of Lorrain" in any real sense.
 * "Pretender of France" is not a title, so why should we treat it with something like that sort of dignity? Its not like he even ever titled himself as such. "Son of Charles of Lorraine" is far more descriptive and useful.
 * This title has an improper capitalisation.
 * Srnec 23:08, 1 June 2006 (UTC)

Which original title do you mean? If Louis of Lorraine is unambiguous, I have no objection to it. Septentrionalis 23:52, 1 June 2006 (UTC)


 * I meant Louis, son of Charles of Lorraine. The reason is that, as far as I can tell, he has no byname: his is simply Louis. These people, when there name is common like Louis, are identified by their relations, through which they attained fame. If there is a better title or Louis of Lorraine is attested in some source, please propose it. Srnec 01:46, 2 June 2006 (UTC)
 * None so far, and Louis of Lorraine appears to mean the Cardinal of Guise; or if not, a younger brother of Antoine, Duke of Lorraine. Septentrionalis 02:39, 2 June 2006 (UTC)

Hope you all can live with the article name I just located this to. It does not denote that Louis was any sort of lord of that territory, it denotes that he was a child of a guy who weas that terriotory's lord. As thousands of medieval others are named, and used at their time. Savoy building in London got its name from Peter of Savoy who at that stage was not count of Savoy, but a younger son of a reigning count of Savoy. Etc, ad nauseam. Marrtel 17:37, 6 June 2006 (UTC)

Even if pretender were needed in the title, Louis of Lorraine (French pretender) might be a better title? Charles 22:36, 7 June 2006 (UTC)

verifiability
As much as I have searched for, it seems that next to none information is available on the career of this guy. On the contrary, those sources easily available indicate that he died or disappeared from pages of history quite young (which seems to argue against "he took upon his father's claims") and there are indications he is thought to have died young. Besides, why a younger son continues to claim the royal crown?, when the elder brother, much better attested, born of better marriage, lives and is duke in a neighboring territory. How much of the contents of the article is wishful thinking, and how much is based on reliable sources?

As to problems of his naming, if he did not gain any distinctive name for himself, that's an indication he actually did not live long enough, or not had a career. Naming conventions here are designed to help with a presumptive article title particularly for cases the actual used name is poorly attested or not known. Nowhere in conventions is there a format "son of somebody". The presumption, if nothing convincing is found, is IMO something based on "Louis of Lower Lorraine" as Lorraine was the territory his attested father held, and it is usual for children to be "of father's territory". Septentrionalis pointed out the obvious existence of some namesakes.

Apparently it is impossible for him have been born (much) earlier than around 980. How can he truly and really participated his father's campaigns as father died in 991?? I mean, a child in baggage train is another thing than an assistant and fellow-warrior.

What grounds are there to explain why he allegedly surpassed his elder brother in French claims?

Does any other encyclopedia have an entry for this guy? Is this guy anywhere in books as a person with a real career, or is he just a name in genealogy? What attestation there is for him having died in 1012? Or is that just a nice guess, his elder brother having presumably died somewhere close to that. Are there any evidence he did not die sometime around 993, as suggested by German Wikipedia?

If the guy actually had no notable career, an independent article may be undeserved, an account in father's article could be just sufficient.

The article should anyway be written with more cautious tone, as most of the "facts" ae not easy to correlate with real events - much of those are actually presumably incorrect. 'preventing undesired data flows' 10:24, 2 June 2006 (UTC)


 * There is only one problem with your comments: you ignore the fact that a source is presented in the article. The Cambridge Medieval History is the source for all this information. I will verify the article with the Cambridge later today. Otto gave up the claim. That's how he became duke. Louis, being the next eldest son, continued to claim it. He did not style himself "King", but he did claim to have a greater right to the throne than a Capet. Srnec 15:08, 2 June 2006 (UTC)

If this is a legitimate biography (and not an invention, extrapolating an obscure child beyond his death - both alternatives are possible), there would in all probability be something about him somewhere in the internet. I am concerned because there seems to be NOTHING. Only listings in genealogies. Of course it is slightly possible that a legitimate biographical subject has avoided internet thus far. But how likely is that? These are the first reasons why I now regard this article as very suspected one indeed. How about if one work of reference has gone wrong re this guy (and believed a hoax?), all other books however treating him as someone who presumably died as child. If there is material about him in some book, corroboration could be desirable. Perhaps everything about this guy should be balanced in form of citations... Marrtel 21:13, 2 June 2006 (UTC)
 * This man is not royalty (strictly speaking), and lived in the tenth century. I would think it very likely indeed that the internet would omit the few scraps of surviving fact. Septentrionalis 21:47, 2 June 2006 (UTC)


 * The only facts other than his existence of which I am aware come from the Cambridge. It states that he was imprisoned with his father in 991. Though his father died in (or by) 993, Louis was released, where he fell under the control of the the archbishop of Rouen (Robert II), who plotted an overthrow of the Capetians, perhaps with the object of placing Louis on the throne. While Louis's brothers were aligned with the German kingdom and outside of French politics, Louis was imprisoned again until death: probably because he presented a weak counterclaim to the reigning house, a claim he probably refused to give up, like his other brothers. The article may make this appear far more significant or certain than it is, but it provides its references and is certainly no hoax. The French Wiki attests some of this, like his re-release and his death in 1012. Srnec 23:18, 2 June 2006 (UTC)

What is the source of the date of his death, other than some other wiki? Is there any indication of the timing of his birth? Are there any evidence that he actually presented a claim? Or that archbishop or others truly presented such on his behalf? It could just have been a pre-emptive incarceration. (His brothers? I am not aware of any other surviving brother than Otto at that stage.) The brother was outside France, not easy to catch, remembering the bleak resources of Capetians of that era. Louis was on the spot, poor bugger. Marrtel 00:44, 3 June 2006 (UTC)


 * The French Wiki gives its sources. It is not unsourced information. One of those sources is Christian Settipani. I have no indication of the timing of his birth except that Charles was married in 975. The only evidence that he presented a claim is that he was imprisoned by the Capets' allies and he had a claim. Scholars have presented such a hypothesis and the source of such a conclusion is provided. The Cambridge mentions Charles and puts him as a loyal follower of the Emperor. I don't understand what being outside of France, out of the reach of the poor Capetians has to do with anything. If Otto had claimed France, with the backing of Otto III he would have easily triumphed. He simply never made a claim. Louis, on the other hand, clearly never abandoned any claim. Srnec 01:37, 3 June 2006 (UTC)

The child's career does pale much, when facts are accounted. Besides, this seems to be on the border of not deserving an own article. Perhaps this should be AfD'd?? Only facts that are not in his father's article, are his release, recapture and death. Very flimsy, in regard of whether an own article is deserved. Btw, I wouldn't be so sure that Otto had succeeded in France with Emperor's help - 1) emperor had many problems, Italy etc were almost unsurmountable for him 2) Charles, enjoying imperial help, did not win -> imperial help guarantees no victory. No convincing piece of evidence has yet reached me to show Otto actually renounced his right - there is a difference between renunciations and not actively claiming. Not advisable to draw too many conclusions from the mere fact that Otto remained left to govern the duchy. Settipani, with all due respect, has published also weak material. btw, out of reach has of course something to do with captures, your postulation seems to be ill-advised. those marrage dates vary in various sources, as does also a girl's paternity and even some first names. It seems to me that we cannot, in good faith, conclude that Louis even was a claimant. From facts, it seems he was a child, a young teenager at most, who was in "baggage train" of father, did not do anything notable, and of whose "claiming" ources are interestingly silent, apparently not even having any instance where archbishop Robert had made a direct pretension on kid's behalf. His final imprisonment seems tellingly a pre-emptive strike, to prevent other plotters try to use him in the future. Marrtel 03:23, 3 June 2006 (UTC)
 * This is an argument for Louis, son of Charles of Lorraine. That name is clumsy, and extremely unlikely to be a search phrase, but that is my only objection. I don't see why age should prevent him being a pretender: Lambert Simnel began at ten. Septentrionalis 17:06, 3 June 2006 (UTC)


 * How actively must one make a claim? If one's father makes a claim based on heredity, it only follows that you naturally inherit your father's claim unless you reject it. That is, the son of a pretender is automatically suspect until he renounces his claim or otherwise makes it known that he does not consider himself the true titleholder. Just like property which your father gives you by will: you must sell it or give it away, otherwise its yours. Srnec 18:03, 3 June 2006 (UTC)


 * For mention of a person having been a pretender, we require that the person or a group or an influential supporter has publicly staked that claim. Usually, just being born does not suffice for "claimant" or "pretender", silent right is usually denoted by term "heir". Clamant is one who stakes a claim, pretender is one who starts to use the relevant titulary. This guy MAY or NOT have been claimant, it seems that all depends upon the good archbishop: did they (=archbishop) publicly stake a claim, or was it just some plotting, without explicit proclamation WHO would take the kingship. I have all this time felt misgivings due to the fact that this boy was a junior, his elder brother was the heir. If they stayed silent, this guy is neither heir nor claimant/pretender. In those days, empty pretensions were rare, so if they staked a claim, this guy however probably did not start to use royal title, but it was left to whether they win enough battles to have e.g a coronation. I think we would not call this guy as heir in any case, as there is no explicit evidence that his claim had been staked publicly and proclaiming him to be the heir. Marrtel 17:47, 6 June 2006 (UTC)


 * If you inherited a claim and stayed silent about it, that's presumptive evidence for your continued claim. Srnec 17:53, 7 June 2006 (UTC)