Talk:Philip IV of France

Untitled
Suggestion regarding the comment on Philippe not being fair:

Look up the word "fair."it could mean fair as look at bankers today

See comments on Philippe III. Same thing applies. Thanks.... DW

For ideas for the beginnning of a deeper historical assessment, see "What links here." --Wetman 19:43, 9 Dec 2004 (UTC)


 * User:Francis Schonken has take upon himself the job of redirecting the article. That is the first step. "What links here" will give the list of articles with redirects to be changed.--Wetman 08:50, 30 August 2005 (UTC)

Philip the Fair?
There should be a section describing why Philip IV is called Philip the Fair when he obviously was not.


 * Er, "Fair" as in good-looking/blond, not "fair" as in "just." john k 17:50, 19 March 2006 (UTC)


 * The original French name is "Philippe le Bel", which clearly means "Philip the Handsome" (no conotation of being "Blond" here). PHG (talk) 20:34, 8 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Fair enough. Indeed, in this case, it just means "good looking."  It certainly doesn't mean "Just". john k (talk) 01:32, 9 April 2008 (UTC)

There is a possibility that Philip IV had 2 Nicknames, Phillipe le Bel, (Handsome) and Phillipe le Faux, (Monetary Connotation) because of his devalue of the currency. And someone perhaps got confused. Fair makes no since unless he was blonde, was he ? --Edgemaniac (talk) 05:44, 24 February 2010 (UTC)

Citing Sources
After the Friday The 13th sentence, it lists Citation Needed. I don't know who originally put that information about Friday the 13th there, but I just heard confirmation concerning it on the documentary "Knights Templar" on the History Channel. Is that good enough reference? If so, how would a reference for a television documentary look? Kwyjibear 07:56, 27 May 2007 (UTC)

I would say no Edgemaniac (talk) 03:37, 24 February 2010 (UTC)

Cenotaph photograph
Here is a photograph of the bust of Philippe le Bel, which I took in Saint-Denis. Could somebody kindly include it in the article, in the infobox? Best regards PHG (talk) 18:41, 8 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Done! Ealdgyth - Talk 19:11, 8 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Thanks! PHG (talk) 19:56, 8 April 2008 (UTC)

What happened to the earlier photo of a different statue of this king? The one that really showed him as handsome? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.11.54.249 (talk) 23:50, 1 October 2013 (UTC)

Mongol Alliance
I did a substantial cut of the information on the diplomacy with the Mongols, and moved it to the bottom of the page. As it was, far too much undue weight for a relatively minor diplomatic effort for a king with profound influence on western Europe at the time. Probably worth checking to make sure I didn't mess up sourcing or mangle the text too much. 131.107.0.73 (talk) 15:54, 5 September 2008 (UTC)
 * We don't just cut information at a Wikipedia article, we move it to a more relevant article, which in this case would be Franco-Mongol_alliance. Someone may want to check that all these deletions here are represented there, and that nothing has actually been lost.--Wetman (talk) 19:27, 5 September 2008 (UTC)
 * It's never lost unless oversighted, it's still in the previous version history, should someone think it is germane somewhere else. Really, if nothing where ever removed from wikipedia, why then is AfD and MfD necessary?  And yes, information sometimes needs to be cut as unnecessary or hindering of the reading of the article.  Fully half of what was there were exceptionally long quotes which aren't necessary for an encyclopedia.  And if you really want to see if this is all considered necessary for wikipedia, please do first peruse the talk page at Franco-Mongol_alliance as you'll see there's not only an arbcom case, but quite a bit of consensus that the information cut from here isn't exactly desired in it's previous form.

Coinage of Philippe le Bel
Feel free to insert the following information into the article. Cheers PHG (talk) 18:58, 13 January 2009 (UTC)


 * Perhaps we need a Coinage of Philip IV of France article! Srnec (talk) 20:07, 18 January 2009 (UTC)

Florin d'Or
Philippe le Bel's golden Florin, also called "Petit Royal assis" ("Small seated Royal") was the first French gold coin to reach major circulation. Its popularity was due to the fact that it was an authentic Florin, with a weight of 3.54 grams, and entirely made of pure gold. It was circulated without problem among the gold Florentine Florin and their imitations throughout Europe.

Masse d'Or
This landmark coin of Philippe le Bel, called a "Masse d'Or", was issued soon after the "false" double-Parisis and Tournois of 1295. It was minted from 10 January 1296 to August 1310. This coin was supposed to be a "Double Florin", but it was actually slightly de-based (it was a "false" Double-Florin). The weight of the coin was indeed double that of the "Petit Royal assis" (7.10g), but its title was only 22 karats (instead of 24 karats). The copper alloy used actually hardened the coin, so that it was nicknamed "Royal dur" ("Hard Royal"). Its value was one "livre Parisis" (one "Parisis pound").

Agnel d'Or
The "Agnel d'Or" ("Golden lamb") was the last gold coin of the reign of Philippe le Bel. It had a weight of 4.13g and was composed of pure 24 karats gold. Its value was one "Livre tournois" or 15 Parisis sols ("Sous Parisis").

Seal of Philippe le Bel
Here's a photograph of the seal of Philippe le Bel (Musée National du Moyen Âge). Feel free to insert it in the article. Cheers PHG (talk) 17:05, 18 January 2009 (UTC)

Conflict with Boniface VIII and the Avignon Papacy
There is very little about the Conflict with the Pope Boniface VIII (see also the german article and the facts that brought to the Avignon Papacy, in which the part played by Philip IV was not insignificant. Someone should expand the section! --Marcoranuzzi (talk) 09:52, 18 June 2009 (UTC)

Which Henry VI?
What is this poisoning of Henry VI mentioned in the part about Pope Clement V shedding tears for his three great crimes? "Clement was described as shedding tears of remorse on his death-bed for three great crimes, the poisoning of Henry VI, and the ruin of the Templars and Beguines."

There is only one notable Henry VI alive during the same time period as Clement V that I can find, Henry VI, Count of Luxembourg. Except he was killed in battle, not by poisoning, and Clement V was only in his early 20's when it happened regardless. And nowhere is there a poisoning mentioned in regards to Clement V in his article. If there's nothing that can be added to clear up this contradiction, this should be removed as it amounts to little more than baseless rumor mongering. 173.8.132.118 (talk) 19:52, 4 September 2012 (UTC)

http://www.nnet.gr/historein/historeinfiles/histvolumes/hist06/historein6-given.pdf

feudal v centralized?
What exactly does the sentence in the leader "Philip and his advisors were instrumental in the transformation of France from a feudal country to a centralized state." mean? As far as I know, a feudal state was based on the idea of centralization, with the king in theory owning the whole land and leasing large parts of it to his leading nobles, who in turn subdivided their respective parts into smaller ones, which they leased to lesser nobles and so forth. --Thrissel (talk) 21:56, 1 May 2013 (UTC)
 * I think that this is a reference to a shifting of administrative functions from the delegated layers of authority inherent in a feudal system, to royal officials appointed by and responsible directly to the monarch. This was one of Philip's motives for moving against the Templers - who had come to exercise a good deal of financial responsibility and power only nominally on behalf of the king. Buistr (talk) 22:47, 1 May 2013 (UTC)
 * I see. Yes, like that it makes sense. Thanks! --Thrissel (talk) 12:46, 2 May 2013 (UTC)

Image query
Hi, I'm curious. A photo of a painting of Phillip IV used to be on this page. Apparently it was removed. I found it on the page for Knight Templars: "http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Knights_templar#Arrests.2C_charges_and_dissolution" I wonder why it was removed from this one? It was nice to have a picture with the name. Thanks. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.11.54.249 (talk) 01:22, 28 November 2013 (UTC)
 * There's a slightly fanciful late-19th (?) century image there on the Knights Templar page, if that's the one you mean. It's rather romanticised image (some of the details are basically made-up), and different in a range of ways even to Philip's 1327 effigy. I'd stay well clear of these sorts of images, unless its part of a discussion of the historiography. Hchc2009 (talk) 03:16, 28 November 2013 (UTC)

Capetian kings of France do not use lesser titles
No contemporary or academic source ever names Philip IV of France "count of Champagne", only ever administrator, governor, or some other bureaucratic title. Jeanne directly ruled her county with the frequent assistance of royal administrators. Upon her death, it passed to Louis in 1305, after which it merged into the crown. This is why Philip VI was able to retain it in 1328. The absence of any source ever naming any French king anything less than king is evidence enough for this fact.

User: Surtsicna made the point in the reversion comment "That does not appear to be true. Louis VII certainly called himself Duke of the Aquitanians, and Philip married Joan before his accession. Please elaborate on the talk page." I agree that I made a mistake in not including Philip's brief year as count-consort from 1284-1285. That was a mistake, although he usually went by king of Navarre during this brief period, he was also count. But once he became king, he ceased using the comital title. Regarding "Duke of the Aquitainians", that is an entirely different matter. In that specific case, Aquitaine was not a duchy of the kingdom of France but an independent title disconnected from any feudal superior. Louis's title of "King of France", or rather "King of the Franks" had no authority in Aquitaine, which was an independent allod. Thus he had to take such a title to justify his position within the duchy. It was not a lesser title, instead it was the title of the independent lord of that region.

I've corrected the mistake I made with Champagne and will be sure to watch myself regarding future corrections, but it should always be remembered that the Capetian kings of France never held lesser titles [i]within the kingdom[/i] from Hugues Capet all the way to Louis-Philippe. Aquitaine was a rare exception, not proof otherwise. – Darius von Whaleyland,  Great Khan   of the Barbarian Horde  02:30, 22 November 2015 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Philip IV of France. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20061117080733/http://aedilis.irht.cnrs.fr/jeudis9900/jeudis_problematique_det3.htm to http://aedilis.irht.cnrs.fr/jeudis9900/jeudis_problematique_det3.htm

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 23:53, 5 December 2017 (UTC)

Questionable change
IP92.5.37.94 has changed, without source or edit summary, The birth year for Philip IV's daughter, Isabella. This information is referenced by Warner, p.8 which states, "Isabella of France, (c. late 1295-1358)...". --Kansas Bear (talk) 20:47, 6 October 2021 (UTC)