Talk:Prince du sang

Which names to use and how to spell them
I am in a dispute with Charles. I want to take a poll.

1) How many people think the names of the French princes and princesses listed in this article should be written as the people were actually referred to at the time of their lives in their native language? Does anyone think that the names should be simplified beyond recognition into English? As an example, which is more accurate - "Anne, Duchess of Montpensier" or "Anne Marie Louise d'Orléans, Duchesse de Montpensier"?

2) How many people think modern French usage should be used to write titles or should the usage prevalent at the time the people lived be used? As an example, let's look at capitalization. Which should be used, "Duchesse de Montpensier" or "duchesse de Montpensier"?

BoBo (talk) 21:30, 8 April 2008 (UTC)


 * Wiki's naming conventions require that the title of the article be the form which is best known to present-day English readers. Within a biographical article, it makes sense to refer to the person by the name or title current in the period being described -- provided that this is made clear to readers: Louis XIV's grandson should be referred to as Philippe, duc d'Anjou during his youth in France, and as ''King Felipe V" or "King Philip V of Spain" after he became the Spanish monarch in 1700. French titles should usually be left in French (and wikified for those who may not be able to deduce the meaning, despite their similarity to equivalent titles in English). If the title is written in French, it should be lower-cased, because that is how noble titles were and are written in French. FactStraight (talk) 07:54, 15 April 2008 (UTC)
 * In the endpapers of Lucy Norton's Historical Memoirs of the Duc de Saint-Simon, Volume III, McGraw Hill Book Company, 1972, there is a facsimile of one of the handwritten pages of Louis de Rouvroy, duc de Saint-Simon's memoirs. It specifically refers to Philippe II, Duke of Orléans as, "S.A.R. Mg'r le Duc d'Orléans" with the title "duc" explicitly capitalized. That seems to indicate that the other styles used at the time like Madame la Comtesse de Soissons were also capitalized. BoBo (talk) 11:40, 19 April 2008 (UTC)
 * In addition, in Susan Nagel's new biography of Marie-Thérèse-Charlotte of France, Marie-Thérèse, Child of Terror: The Fate of Marie Antoinette's Daughter, Bloomsbury, 2008, p.374, the author does an analysis of Madame Royale's handwriting. She reproduces a letter written in 1804 by the Fille de France to her cousin, Louis Joseph de Bourbon, prince de Condé in which she specifically refers to his son, Louis Henry II, Prince of Condé as, "M. le Duc de Bourbon" with the title "duc" explicitly capitalized. I think this is proof positive that whatever rules Wikipedia may have on the capitalization of the titles and styles of French royalty is wrong and incorrect. Is anyone going to seriously argue that the daughter of Louis XVI and Marie Antoinette didn't know the correct way to address members of her own family? If people insist on using a capitalization system that is incorrect for the time they are reporting, I want to know how the Wikipedia policy can be changed. I do not want Wikipedia to be transmitting false, revisionist information. BoBo (talk) 16:01, 19 April 2008 (UTC)


 * Since BoBo copied and pasted, I will copy and paste my answer from here but I will not be continuing two conversations on two pages: Spelling and grammar are now regularized. We use lower-case letters for French titles. Sorry! Just the way it is. We write in current English. Do you suggest using Old English for certain article subjects? Charles 17:25, 19 April 2008 (UTC)

When writing about titled personages, lower case is used when not preceded by Monsieur or Madame: Le duc d'Orléans était le cousin du roi. Madame Royale est devenue la femme du duc d'Angoulême. Only after Monsieur or Madame, does the title take a capital letter; ex: Monsieur le Comte de Chambord, Monsieur le comte de Chambord or Monsieur le Comte, Madame la Duchesse du Maine, Madame la duchesse du Maine or Madame la Duchesse.

Throughout the centuries, the French language has known many changes - grammar, spelling, meaning of word, capitalization etc. There have been many such changes since Madame Royale wrote her mémoires. If we want to write the way she did, then we have to "quote" her writings, otherwise, and when we write in French, we must follow the guidelines of today's Académie française. No one in France, even ces messieurs de l'Académie, speak or write as in the time of Louis XIV or even Louis Philippe.

In other words, I am siding with Charles. Frania W. (talk) 18:35, 19 April 2008 (UTC)

See also: WP:MOS-FR. Charles 19:11, 19 April 2008 (UTC)


 * Here is another example to prove my point about what was current in France at the time that the senior line of the House of Bourbon ruled France. In the illustrations section of Antonia Fraser's book, Love and Louis XIV, The Women in the Life fo the Sun King, Doubleday, 2006, she reproduces a letter written in 1700 from Princess Marie-Adélaïde of Savoy to her grandmother, Marie Jeanne of Savoy-Nemours. On the last page, her style is clearly handwritten (probably by a lady-in-waiting) as "Mme. la Duchesse de Bourgogne", again with the title "duchesse" explicitly capitalized. With this, I think I have clearly established the royal House of Bourbon capitalized their titles.


 * As for the claim that, "spelling and grammar are now regularized,", my question is by whom and when? This sounds like a very arbitrary pronouncement, even if it was by the Académie française. By the way, if that is the case, where is the exact rule referenced? The reference to WP:MOS-FR isn't very helpful. That is only a detailed description of the arbitrary pronouncement. The following quote is highly suspect:


 * "in French with capital spelling: Comtesse de, Marquis de... (e.g. Charles de Secondat, Baron de Montesquieu; Georges-Louis Leclerc, Comte de Buffon; Constantin-François de Chassebœuf, Comte de Volney). This is a incorrect Franco-English hybrid form using the capitalization rules of an English-user."


 * The consensus has been that all articles with French titles using de should follow the correct French form with the title in lowercase."


 * What consensus? As I mentioned before, by whom and when? Who are the people who came up with this: experts in French history or experts in modern French linguistics? I suspect they are linguists. Besides, even this is a policy created by modern French linguists, that should not impact the translation of the original French into modern English. The following famous books in English use this "Franco-English hybridization":


 * Nancy Mitford - The Sun King, Harper & Row, 1966;
 * Antonia Fraser - Marie Antoinette, The Journey, 2001;
 * Antonia Fraser - Love and Louis XIV, The Women in the Life of the Sun King, Doubleday, 2006;
 * Caroline Weber - Queen of Fashion, Henry Holt and Company, 2006;
 * Susan Nagel - Marie-Thérèse, Child of Terror: The Fate of Marie Antoinette's Daughter, Bloomsbury, 2008.


 * If anything, these examples prove that the "regularization of spelling and grammar" in the capitalization of French titles doesn't really exist in modern English. If modern English authors, especially of the quality of Nancy Mitford and Antonia Fraser, use the same capitalization system as did the French royal family themselves, then something is really wrong with Wikipedia policies in this area. BoBo (talk) 19:45, 19 April 2008 (UTC)

Name
Why on earth is this article using the French title, when a perfectly good English one exists, and rightly begins the text? Johnbod (talk) 01:23, 21 April 2008 (UTC)


 * I've noticed that a redirect is taking the link prince du sang to prince. Despite this problem, and the one Johnbod mentions above, I'm glad to see an article on this topic.qp10qp (talk) 01:34, 22 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Not any more, and I did Prince of the Blood yesterday. Johnbod (talk) 01:41, 22 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Thank you. Although I felt it was fine for prince of the blood to be covered in the article on Prince, if there's going to be a separate article, it needed to use the English term, since there is one which exactly corresponds, both in transliteration and translation, to the French prince du sang. Ditto premier prince du sang FactStraight (talk) 07:48, 22 April 2008 (UTC)

Also before Henry IV?
In my opinion the notion of the princes of the blood was established before Henry IV, despite what the article says at the moment. It's true that this would have become more codified under the Ancien Régime, but it was also a significant factor in sixteenth-century royal politics. For example, when Francis II died in 1560, it was held in many quarters that the First Prince of the Blood Antoine of Bourbon had the right to become the regent of the nine-year-old Charles IX; Catherine de' Medici had to buy Antoine off with the release from captivity of his brother Louis of Bourbon, prince of Condé, another prince of the blood. Louis's son Henry I of Bourbon, prince of Conde, was also a significant player in the French Wars of Religion, and was next in line to the throne after Henry of Bourbon, king of Navarre, until 1588, when he died. His son Henry II of Bourbon, prince of Condé became the First Prince of the Blood once Henry IV became king. The Catholic claimant to the throne at that time was Charles, cardinal of Bourbon, the surviving brother of Antoine of Bourbon and Louis of Bourbon. Again, his claim to the throne was as a prince of the blood. qp10qp (talk) 01:34, 22 April 2008 (UTC)


 * François Velde's article on the subject would seem to support your contention. Choess (talk) 01:48, 22 April 2008 (UTC)


 * Ooh, that's interesting. Things became so complicated! qp10qp (talk) 02:38, 22 April 2008 (UTC)

More on capitalization
FactStraight, I have corrected the capitalization. Look at my examples above and at Wikipedia_talk:Manual_of_Style. The titles were capitalized by the French Court when used in formal forms of address such as Monsieur le Prince or Madame la Duchesse. Even Frania W. admits as much for modern French:

"When writing about titled personages, lower case is used when not preceded by Monsieur or Madame: Le duc d'Orléans était le cousin du roi.  Madame Royale est devenue la femme du duc d'Angoulême.  Only after Monsieur or Madame, does the title take a capital letter; ex: Monsieur le Comte de Chambord, Monsieur le comte de Chambord or Monsieur le Comte, Madame la Duchesse du Maine, Madame la duchesse du Maine or Madame la Duchesse."

WP:MOS-FR was specifically changed to allow this type of capitalization, which can be applied to the article Fils de France and all biographical articles of those who were actual Fils de France or Princes and Princesses du Sang. BoBo (talk) 00:50, 1 May 2008 (UTC)


 * I remain convinced that titles were usually not capitalized in French scholarly printed works, neither in France when the titles were in use nor in modern French -- and in my opinion it is such works which should guide Wikipedia. I do, however, concur with you that it was more common for the "Monsieur le" and "Madame la" styles to be capitalized than others, so I do not object to that form per se. However, as I expressed in the debate at MOS, I fear that "some who like to edit historical biographies are prone to maximize use of both titles and foreign phrases". When editing, I'm inclined to be vigilant for such excess, especially if the Monsieur le/Madame la locution seems to be used to get around the lack of consensus in favor of capitalization of French titles. FactStraight (talk) 07:22, 1 May 2008 (UTC)

Orleans
Why do we say that the Regent Orleans was entitled to be first prince of the blood? He was a petit-fils de France, which is senior to a prince of the blood. It was his son who was entitled to the position, wasn't it? john k (talk) 21:06, 1 August 2009 (UTC)


 * John K, please go to: http://www.heraldica.org/topics/france/frroyal.htm#sang


 * Excerpt given below under the heading Premier Prince du Sang, (reading the whole article suggested). Please note that in 1709, the duc d'Orléans, future Régent, became the Premier Prince du Sang, but did not use the title out of courtesy for his cousin Condé, although HE WAS the PPdS.  It is only at his death that his son officially took the title, inheriting it from his father.

.***Ranking among the princes du sang was by order of succession rights. The closest to the throne (excluding any fils de France) was called Premier Prince du Sang. In practice, it was not always clear who was entitled to the rank, and it often took a specific act of the king to make the determination.

From 1562 to 1589, the Premier Prince du Sang was Henri de Bourbon, king of Navarre (who was acknowledged as such and received at the Paris Parlement). '''From 1589 to 1709 the title was held by the prince de Condé (received by Parlement in 1595). At the death of the prince in 1686, it was unclear whether the title ought to go to the duc d'Anjou, younger son of the Dauphin, but a fils de France, or the duc de Chartres, son of the king's brother, but still a petit-fils de France, or the duc d'Enghien, son of the deceased. As the first two were members of the Royal Family and thus outranked other princes of the blood, it was felt that the rank would not honor them enough, and the deceased's son Louis de Bourbon-Condé took the rank, although the duc de Chartres drew the pension''' (the source for this is Sainctot, cited in Rousset de Missy).

On the death of Louis de Bourbon-Condé in 1709 the title would have passed to the duc d'Orléans, nephew of Louis XIV, but he did not use it (he did, however, call himself first prince of the blood on occasion: when cardinal Dubois died in August 1723, the duc d'Orléans asked the king for the vacant position of prime minister "sans faire attention à mon rang et à ma dignité de premier prince de votre sang"; Journal de Buvat, 2:451). After the duc d'Orléans's death in December 1723, his son officially received the title. It remained to the head of the Orléans family until 1830. However, at the death of the duc d'Orléans in 1785, it was decided that, once again, the duc d'Angoulême, son of the king's brother, ranked too high for the title, and it was granted to the new duc d'Orléans (letters patent of 27 Nov 1785); but Louis XVI decided that the duc d'Orléans would hold the title until the duc d'Angoulême had a son who could bear it (this is what Guyot writes, citing the Journal Politique de Bouillon, second half of 1785). " dans la cérémonie d'hier, M Le Duc De Bourbon prétendoit marcher côte à côte de M Le Duc De Chartres, disant que M Le Duc De Chartres ne devoit être considéré que comme premier prince du sang, et qu'il n'y avoit point d'exemple contraire; cependant le roi jugea en faveur de M Le Duc De Chartres, parce qu'il lui a donné un rang au-dessus des princes du sang." " M. Le duc n' aura pas les priviléges de premier prince du sang. M. Le prince en jouissoit parce l' on n' ôte point à ces gens-là les honneurs qu' ils ont eus, et qu' il avoit été longtemps premier prince du sang ; c' est présentement M De Chartres qui l' est et qui, par-dessus cela, a des honneurs particuliers comme petit-fils de France." " Le roi a dit à m. Le duc de s' appeler m. Le prince, et M De Bourbon gardera le nom de Duc De Bourbon, mais on ne l' appelera que m. Le duc tout court." "M. le Prince aura le traitement de premier prince du sang." Saint-Simon's addition: "le roi donna à M. le Prince les avantages de premier prince du sang devenus vacants, et au-dessous de M. le Duc d'Orléans au point où il fut élevé alors."
 * 1) Entries from Dangeau's Journal in the 1854 edition available from Gallica) 3 Jun 1686, after the induction of the duc de Chartres, nephew of the king, and the duc de Bourbon, eldest son of the prince de Condé, into the order of the Saint-Esprit (Vol. 1, p. 345):
 * 1) 14 Dec 1686, following the death of Louis de Bourbon, prince de Condé (Vol. 1, p. 429):
 * 1) 16 Dec 1686 (p. 430):
 * 1) 14 June 1701, following the death of Monsieur (vol. 12, p. 128):

The rank of "premier prince du sang" was not purely a court title or a precedence. It carried with it legal privileges, notably the right to have a household (maison), such as the king, the queen, and the enfants de France each did. A household was a collection of officers and employees, paid for out of the State's revenues, and constituted a miniature version of the royal administration, with military and civil officers, a council with a chancelor and secretaries, gentlemen-in-waiting, equerries, falconers, barbers and surgeons, a chapel, etc. (See a description of the King's Household). The duc d'Orléans's household, set up in 1724, had 265 officers.***


 * Continue reading to end. Frania W. (talk) 17:23, 2 August 2009 (UTC)


 * That in 1686 they were considering giving it to the Duc de Chartres but did not is interesting, but this is still a bit puzzling - Chartres had by 1709 become Orléans, but he was still a petit-fils de France. Pretty clearly even from the 16th century a fils de France was not considered eligible to be first prince of the blood, but the precedent from 1686 seems to be that petit-fils de France also did not get the title, and that it went to the seniormost prince who was not a fils or petit-fils de France.  That, in 1709, was the Duc de Chartres, not his father, who was still a petit-fils de France.  Since Velde is our source, I suppose we have to stick with what he says, but it still seems a bit puzzling. john k (talk) 17:55, 2 August 2009 (UTC)


 * John, I pointed out to you an article that is long to read, but in which it is very well explained - and my own English could not do it better. The same explanation is given in several books in French, which I do not have time to translate.  When upon the death of the Prince de Condé in 1709, Louis XIV gave the title of Premier Prince du Sang to his nephew, the Duke of Orléans, oblingingly, Orléans (the future Regent) let the son of the Prince de Condé use it, although he, Orléans, was the Premier Prince du Sang.  That is why, upon the death of the Regent, his son was Premier Prince du Sang. When in one of the sentences above it says but he did not use it, it does not mean that he was not the PPdS, but that he did not use the title & let the new Prince de Condé use.  It also should be noted that Orléans did take the money that went with the title, so...  if he was not the real Premier Prince du Sang, how would he have been entitled to the money going with the title???  Frania W. (talk) 20:28, 2 August 2009 (UTC)
 * I'm not disputing that this is what Velde says, I'm disputing the logic of the situation. From what I can see, your comment above says 1709 when you mean 1686.  So, basically, Chartres was entitled to be first prince of the blood after 1686, and, as you say, took the money, but the new prince of Condé was allowed to use the title until his death in 1709.  After that, the title basically wasn't used, even though Orléans was still entitled to it, until his death, when his son took it up.  Right?  So a petit-fils de France was eligible, so long as he wasn't the grandson of the current king.  And then more or less the same thing happened in 1785 with Angoulême...basically, the issue seems to be that a fils de France is not eligible to be first prince of the blood.  A petit-fils de France is eligible, but because it's better to be a petit-fils de France than first prince of the blood, they will generally allow someone else to hold the title temporarily, until their own son can take up the position.  Or am I missing something?  Looking at it, when Henri IV ascends, Condé is recognized as first prince of the blood (perhaps only after the Cardinal de Bourbon died?).  He retains that title until his death When Condé dies in 1646, the position goes to his son, the Great Condé, rather than to the king's brother the duke of Anjou or the king's uncle the duke of Orleans, presumably because both are fils de France.  When the Great Condé dies in 1686, there is no question of the title going to the king's brother, Monsieur, nor does it go to the dauphin's second son, both of whom are fils de France.  But now, for the first time in a long while, we also have a petit-fils de France in the person of the duke of Chartres, Monsieur's son.  He gets the pension for the premier prince du sang, but because he is a petit-fils de France, the title itself is used by the Great Condé's son, the new prince of Condé.  He holds it until his death in 1709.  When he dies in 1709, the title is again up for grabs, but the pension has been being held by the ex-duke of Chartres (by now duke of Orléans) for 23 years.  The duke of Orléans has a son, called also the duke of Chartres, who is neither a fils nor a petit-fils de France.  This younger duke of Chartres does not, however, use the title of premier prince du sang until his father's death.  At the same time, Orléans himself also does not use it.  Neither does the new prince of Condé.  Basically, between 1709 and 1723, the pension is still held by the duke of Orléans, but the title is not in use.  Once Orléans dies, his son claims the title and the pension.  He dies in 1752, and the title goes to his son, the new duke of Orléans.  That duke of Orléans dies in 1785.  At that point, we have a situation analogous to 1686 - the king's sons and brothers are all fils de France, and so not eligible.  The King's nephew the duke of Angoulême is eligible, but as a petit-fils de France is not given the title - instead it goes to the future Philippe Egalité, the new duke of Orléans.  However, the title is to go to any descendants of Angoulême thereafter.  But Angoulême doesn't seem to have gotten the money, even though his situation in 1785 is precisely the same as that of Chartres in 1686.  So the whole system doesn't seem to be particularly consistent. john k (talk) 21:28, 2 August 2009 (UTC)
 * John, Once held by one of their dukes, the title never left the Orléans whose Duke of Orléans was always the First Prince of the Blood, all the way through 1830. I guess that the title going to Louis XIV's nephew, a petit-fils de France, was the illogical part of the whole process.  As for Angoulême, he should have been the designated one since, when Louis XVIII acceded to the throne, he was the nephew of the king, in the same position as Philippe d'Orléans had been as Louis XIV's nephew.  Yet, the Duke of Orléans (future Louis-Philippe I, King of the French) kept the title of First Prince of the Blood.  I see your point.  I think that we agree on this.  However, I want to read more about Orléans the Regent First Prince of the Blood in some of my (extremely thick) French books because we seem to have a problem with the 1686 vs 1709 vs 1723 dates.  à plus tard.  Frania W. (talk) 23:47, 2 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Yes, as I said, it's rather confusing. Perhaps because the title itself was never fully thought out, and whenever a death happened the new successor needed to be worked out on the fly, and this was not always done in clearly compatible ways. john k (talk) 02:13, 3 August 2009 (UTC)
 * There was on the one side the Royal Family, that is the king, his brothers, sisters, his children, his grandchildren (great-grandchildren?) all the members of the family that came in direct line from a king. On the other side, there were the Princes of the Blood, who did not belong to the Royal Family as such, but who were relatives with royal blood running in their veins:  they were the branches issued from the descendants of a brother, which, as such, put Louis XIV's nephew in that category, while his father, Louis XIV's brother, belonged to the Royal Family.  The twist happened when the Prince de Condé, the Great Condé, died in 1686:  was the nephew of the king to be considered close enough to be of the Royal Family (no), or a step back & be a Prince of the Blood, in which case, as the son of the brother of the king, he had to be the First Prince of the Blood (yes).  And Philippe, the future Regent, turned down the title because it was lower than being a member of the Royal Family, yet... he took the money that went with the title.  That figures!  Same thing in 1709 & 1710.  But when he died in 1723, his son had to be the First Prince of the Blood as he was too far removed from the direct line to be considered of the Royal Family: too far away from the king (son of the newphew), yet closer than the new Prince de Condé.  That's the way I understand it.  Waiting for your next comment whenever you have the time & if you are not getting tired of this. Cordialement,  Frania W. (talk) 03:57, 3 August 2009 (UTC)


 * Maybe I'm missing something here, but I see only minor inconsistencies so far. As I see it, the position of premier prince du sang was official, and is governed by the rule that "it shall belong by right to the dynast closest to the throne who is not king, dauphin or fils de France, but shall only be borne by a dynast who is also not a petit-fils de France." Use of the style premier prince was not governed by the dynast's relationship to the reigning monarch, but by whether he belonged to the famille du roi, even if he was only a distant cousin of the sovereign (as the Regent was to Louis XV). The minor inconsistencies arise only in 1785, when 1. the rank ceased belonging for life to an incumbent (instead passing by right to any prince the moment he became the nearest dynast to the throne without belonging to the famille du roi), and 2. one petit-fils de France (the duc d'Angoulême) who was, by right, premier prince may not have received the annuity which had previously gone with it. So what other inconsistencies am I missing? Finally, I would note that as fascinating and fun as it is to trace the evolution of this grand style, we need not impose consistency upon it, we need only be sure that Wiki's article clearly reports its history. Lethiere (talk) 04:16, 3 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Lethiere - that seems like a fairly clear explanation of the apparent "rule," but it's a pretty complicated and confusing rule - especially the idea that a petit-fils de France could have the title by right, but could not bear it. It also still doesn't particularly explain why the duc de Chartres didn't take up the title in 1709, but only after his father died.  I agree, of course, that it is not our job to impose consistency on it.  I just found the explanation of the situation from 1709 to 1723 in the article rather odd, and wanted to clarify if that was, indeed, correct.  Since it seems to be, this is all probably rather pointless for the article itself. john k (talk) 06:36, 3 August 2009 (UTC)
 * BTW, I notice that we don't seem to have an article about the somewhat related title of "Lieutenant General of the Kingdom," which was born several times by senior members of the royal house during royal minorities. It might be useful to have an article on that, if we can. john k (talk) 06:38, 3 August 2009 (UTC)
 * .***And Philippe, the future Regent, turned down the title because it was lower than being a member of the Royal Family, yet... he took the money that went with the title.***
 * I expressed myself wrongly (doing too many things at the same time & getting tired): Philippe did not turn down the title but, out of courtesy for the new Prince de Condé, he let him use it because it had been the title of the senior member of the House of Condé for a long time (will find the source of this).  So, the future Régent did not use the title out of courtesy to the new Prince de Condé, but he did take the money that went with the title, and it was only after the death of the Régent in 1723 that his son, the new Duke of Orléans, officially took the title of First Prince of the Blood, title that stayed in the House of Orléans until 1830, at which time such titles were canned, for instance, the Dauphin became Prince Royal, title given to the eldest son of Louis-Philippe I.   If you do not mind, Messieurs, I am going to turn to cultivating my garden...  Aurevoir!  Frania W. (talk) 14:21, 3 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Maybe it is more complicated than I thought. I understood (from Velde, I think) that the style was borne for life by its incumbent, until 1785 when the king allowed the duc d'Orleans to bear it instead of d'Angouleme, but only until the birth of a son to Angouleme. This was a change. Theretofore, once a dynast obtained use of the style, any prince born with a greater right to it had to await a vacancy, i.e. the incumbent's death, to use it. Also, the article doesn't make clear that the accompanying style, Monsieur le Prince fell into desuetude when the Orleans obtained it, because they preferred to continue being known by their dukedom. Simultaneously, for a while the Condes dropped that title in favor of Duc de Bourbon precisely because they were no longer entitled to be known as Monsieur le Prince -- although they seem later to have resumed use of the Conde princedom as their main title. Lethiere (talk) 23:01, 3 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Hmm...French wikipedia gives the title to Chartres in 1709...their sourcing is close to nonexistent, though. john k (talk) 01:20, 4 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Yeah, but we the French are born knowing it all... no need for sources!/FW  Frania W. (talk) 01:44, 4 August 2009 (UTC)

brothers of kings
Is it true that the brother of a king who was not the son or grandson of a king or dauphin would have been a fils de France or petit-fils de France? I can't think of any instances where this arose in practice. Louis-Philippe's brothers died before he took the throne, and all the old formal stuff was basically discarded in his reign, anyway. Henry IV, Francis I, and Louis XII had no brothers. Any instances before that would definitely be before any of this formalization had taken place, and I don't think there really were any, anyway - the early Capetians and Valois all succeeded father to son, and Philip VI and his brother were grandsons of Philip III. Louis Philippe, Henry IV, and Francis I did all have sisters, though - if those sisters were treated as filles de France, I suppose one could extrapolate the same treatment for brothers, although that might be OR if no reliable sources say that specifically. I tend to think it would be best to remove "brothers" from the list - all actually existing brothers of kings qualified as filles de France by being sons of a king or dauphin, anyway. john k (talk) 02:24, 26 July 2010 (UTC)