Jump to content

Talk:Francis II of France

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
The printable version is no longer supported and may have rendering errors. Please update your browser bookmarks and please use the default browser print function instead.


Untitled

His name is François. Show a little respect.

In English it's "Francis," and it's Wikipedia's policy to use the English version, and the "ç" creates problems with a search and doesn't find all of them, because it can be coded more than one way, and the search finds only the ones coded the same as the search entry. -- isis

Is it the policy of Wikipedia to use English names or the English spelling. In the French Wikipedia or any publication in France, the President of the United States is George Bush. Not Georges.

Those are two contradictory positions - if the French Wikipedia followed a comparable policy ("use French spellings not English ones"), he would indeed be listed as "Georges W Bush". Which is crazy. 81.110.86.44 06:33, 15 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
We use the spelling which is commonly used in English sources. Sometimes this is anglicized, and sometimes it is not. For monarchs, it tends to be anglicized, but not always. Thus, we have Philip IV of Spain, but also Juan Carlos I of Spain. In the last century or so, anglicization of foreign monarchs' names has become considerably less common. But it's still around. I'd say that Francis II is a borderline case, but I see no compelling reason to move the page. john k 06:46, 15 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Oh, I quite agree, I was just commenting on the apparent contradiction in the previous comment. Sorry for any confusion caused :) Eventually I think we'll reach the point in English where *all* foreign monarchs are referred to by their names in the native language, as we've already reached the stage where we automatically use Louis instead of Lewis, Henri instead of Henry, Kaiser Wilhelm not Emperor William - but then we get into difficulties with the names of the Russian Czars. And foreign place names are apparently subject to completely different rules. Eh, this sort of thing tends to confuse me greatly anyway. 81.110.86.44 06:05, 16 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

"Show a little respect." The French do this on quite a large scale, of course. e.g. James I is commonly called Jacques Ier and Michelangelo is Michel-Ange, and it's so common there's no point multiplying examples. And why not? It's their language after all. No one ever imagined that calling François Francis implied disrespect - it could be the opposite. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2.235.212.17 (talk) 09:07, 24 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

209 -- please do read Naming conventions and History standards and their discussions. For reasons that make no sense to me (but which I think have to do with British preferences between 1800 and 1950-ish), English speakers are not at all consistent with how they call foreign persons by name. I agree with you that his name is Francois (I don't know how to do most diacritical marks -- forgive me) -- and even agree it sounds better to me that way. I can even say that English-language scholarship is moving in that direction -- but for the time being, most literature calls them Francis and John. Louis is easy, because we all made the transition from the ugly-looking Lewis a long time ago. Philip is Philip if it's Spain (not Felipe), but often Philippe for France. Go figure.

I also have never heard Marie de Medici called Maria -- but that's another story! Anyway, it can always be changed to reflect the norm. JHK

Known as...

What was he known as before his grandfather's death? john k (talk) 18:40, 26 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Translation?

Much of the article appears to be a poor translation from French (or Italian?), complete with historic present tenses. Doesn't it deserve better? --PL (talk) 07:49, 1 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Issues

There seem to be quite a few translation issues with this article, and also some factual ones. At one point, the Guise brothers are described as foreign, although they were French. Did the writer assume that because they were the uncles of Queen Marie (Stuart), they were Scottish ? Not so. They were her uncles because their sister Marie (Guise), a french woman, had married the previous King of Scotland, James V, father of Marie (Stuart).Eregli bob (talk) 03:23, 9 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The Guise were lorrains. The Duchy of Lorraine was an sovereign and independent duchy (like Scotland). — Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.120.206.129 (talk) 11:27, 7 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

translation notes

cleaning up the English a bit

pretty sure the republic of Venice was not his godparent, not sure what that's a mangling of, but I took it out of the article until somebody figures it out.

Also there is something about entrusting the reins of government to the Guises after his arrival. Not sure what this means. After he arrived in Scotland the Guises were in charge in France? Don't know the history enough to make this clarification. Elinruby (talk) 05:25, 10 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

OK, completed a fast pass to improve some of the more glaring Frenchnesses. I have not attempted to verify the links (although in some cases I edited the display text) and I am leaving the templates up because really, the article needs more work, preferably from someone who knows the period. There are several pronouns whose antecedents are unclear. Did my best with this as well as the original writer's obsession with the word "repression" :)

I also agree that the article lacks organization,but I did not tackle this. I can only do so much magic in the time I have available ;) Elinruby (talk) 19:34, 10 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

removed text

"the rebel leaders that had not been arrested were at large." -- seems self-evident. Moving here instead of deleting, in case there is some point I am missing. Elinruby (talk) 16:44, 10 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

"Tuscany[1] and Corsica.[2]" -- not a sentence, apparently left behind by some prior edit. Moving here as a resource if anyone wants to work on the article.

References

  1. ^ Lucien Romier, op. cit., p. 424-429 et Alphonse de Ruble, op. cit., p. 60.
  2. ^ Alphonse de Ruble, op. cit., p. 63-69.

Married to Mary at 12

Can 12 years old really be considered a "willing" marriage? (first paragraph of the article). Even back then.

Requested move 5 August 2023

The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review after discussing it on the closer's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

The result of the move request was: not moved. (closed by non-admin page mover) CLYDE TALK TO ME/STUFF DONE 20:53, 15 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Francis II of France → François II of France – Articles current location relies on an out of date assessment of where English scholarship stands as to the king's name. The same rationale would also apply for Henri II, François, Duke of Guise, Henri, Duke of Guise, François, Duke of Anjou in that per WP:COMMONNAME all these articles are out of step with modern (English language) historical literature. This is especially true for non king's with anglicised names, as it is the names of the kings that are the slowest to adjust to the changing of the tides by virtue of their stronger inertia.

Focusing for the moment on François II, let us review the historians of the period who use the non-anglicised version of his name.

  • Allan Tulchin (2010) That Men would Praise the Lord: The Triumph of Protestantism in Nîmes 1530-1570 pg 58 - "One obvious explanation looks towards the perceived breakdown of royal authority once a child, François II ascended the throne"
  • Vincent Pitts (2012) Henry IV of France: His Reign and Age pg 14 "The new king, François II"
  • Nancy Roelker (1996) One King One Faith: The Parlement of Paris and the Religious Reformations of the Sixteenth Century pg 243 "François II fell ill with aa severe ear infection"
  • Frederic Baumgartner (1986) Change and Continuity in the French Episcopate: The Bishops and the Wars of Religion pg 37 "There is far less question about the domination of the Guises over the brief reign of François II"
  • Stuart Carroll (2005) Noble Power during the French Wars of Religion: The Guise Affinity and the Catholic Cause in Normandy pg 48 "After the dauphin was crowned François II"
  • Barbara Diefendorf (1991) Beneath the Cross: Catholics and Huguenots in Sixteenth-Century Paris pg 52 "Their new power at court can be seen in an increase in the number of arrests and executions for heresy during the eighteen-month reign of François II"
  • Robert Knecht (2016) Hero or Tyrant? Henry III King of France pg 3 "Having already produced two children - François and Elizabeth - during Francis I's reign"
  • John Salmon (1979) Society in Crisis: France in the Sixteenth Century pg 118 "The eldest son, the fifteen-year old king, François II"
  • James Wood (2002) The King's army: Warfare soldiers and society during the French Wars of Religion pg 43 "If François II's penstroke"
  • Robert Harding (1978) Anatomy of a Power Elite: The provincial governors of Early Modern France pg 34 "In the brief reign of François II"
  • Hilary Bernstein (2004) Between Crown and Community: Politics and Civic Culture in Sixteenth-Century Poitiers pg 47 "François II for example"
  • Arlette Jouanna (2016) The St Bartholomew's Day Massacre: The Mysteries of a Crime of State pg 80 "She had been in the political frontline since Henri II's death in 1559, her eldest son, François"
  • Marie Seong-Hak Kim (2010) Civil Law and Civil War: Michel de L'Hôpital and the Ideals of Legal Unification in Sixteenth-Century France - "The Edict of Second Marriages promulgated under François II in July 1560"

Mark Konnert does not discuss François II, however he mentions 'François I' on pg 53 of Local Politics in the French Wars of Religion. Likewise Kevin Robbins only covers 'François I' on pg 79 of City on the Ocean Sea: La Rochelle 1530-1650

Sutherland, Benedict, Holt, Roberts, Heller do not appear to use the name François, overall he's a tougher king to get a picture of than Henri III as he reigned for such a short period, however there remains a stable and growing majority in contemporary English historiography for François. sovietblobfish (talk) 22:05, 5 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  • Oppose per WP:COMMONNAME and WP:USEENGLISH based on the Google Ngrams. Rreagan007 (talk) 02:46, 6 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Again GoogleNgrams are an inappropriate methodology to use to understand modern relevant academic consensus, which I have presented here. As an example, we turn to the ngrams you have presented, and they include such books as 'The Ladies room reader quiz book". They are completely overwhelmed with noise from non relevant materials to approaching the conclusion of what name we should be using, i.e. non historians and writers who aren't even focused on this period. sovietblobfish (talk) 08:10, 6 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Why not start with the far more significant Francis I of France? Too many watchers there? I think this probably needs to be done; I'd like to be able to support just "Francois" but that doesn't seem common enough yet. You don't say you've actually started Talk:Henry_III_of_France#Requested_move_5_August_2023 - how many others such noms are underway? Johnbod (talk) 02:57, 6 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    I haven't made an attempt on François I, because I don't have the breadth of literature at my disposal required to assert that there is a consensus for a change with him. However, any book I have presented that uses François II, would refer to him as François I, if they do in fact mention him in the book. I will conduct a brief review and get back to you. sovietblobfish (talk) 08:08, 6 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    I am only working on two noms presently (this and Henri III), as I dont' want to overwhelm everybody.
    However, I beleve the argument of my nom as to what the present academic consensus is for specialists of the area, is strong enough that we could make a case to change Henri II, Henri III, Henri IV, François, duke of Anjou, François III, duke of Brittany, as well as non-royal dukes such as François de Lorraine, Henri de Lorraine etc. sovietblobfish (talk) 08:25, 6 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Okay, reviewing my literature
    Robbins, Harding, Bernstein, Carroll, Greengrass, Jouanna, Salmon, Diefendorf, Baumgartner, Pitts, Roelker, Konnert, Tullchin refer to the king as 'François I'
    Sutherland, Knecht, Holt, Heller, Potter, Davies refer to the king as 'Francis I' sovietblobfish (talk) 08:45, 6 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment If this article is moved, no disambiguation in the title would be needed here. So it should be moved to François II, which already directs here per WP:PRIMARYTOPIC. Rreagan007 (talk) 19:17, 7 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose - known better as "Francis II of France". Tim O'Doherty (talk) 20:33, 7 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    The majority of specialist literature from the last 50 years disagrees. As seen in what I have provided in my request for this move. sovietblobfish (talk) 20:45, 7 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    In common parlance, he is not "François". Tim O'Doherty (talk) 15:25, 8 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Common parlance isn't what we should be basing this off, I also find myself sceptical that a king as obscure as François II has any naming preferences in the 'common parlance' to begin with. WP:COMMONNAME states "significant majority of independent, reliable English-language sources"
    I have provided the independent reliable English language sources. sovietblobfish (talk) 15:46, 8 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    He's quite well-known in the UK as the husband of Mary, Queen of Scots. When talking, or reading about him there, he is "Francis II". Tim O'Doherty (talk) 08:38, 9 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    I don't personally think common parlance in the UK should overrule international English language academic majorities (including academics from England such as Stuart Carroll and Mark Greengrass) , but I guess we'll have to agree to disagree. sovietblobfish (talk) 15:48, 9 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Cautious oppose for reasons I stated at Henry III. I am cautious about de-anglicising, even more cautious about doing so on a piecemeal basis, could easily confuse readers to have Francis I but Francois II. Inertia may not necessarily be a bad thing in this context. PatGallacher (talk) 20:48, 7 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    If operating on a less piecemeal basis is what could make the difference here, I would suggest moving François I also, as while I have access to less English language materials on him, the majority of them do also call him François as illustrated in my reply to Johnbod sovietblobfish (talk) 20:53, 7 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose introducing inconsistency with Francis I, Henry IV and Philip VI. It is a mistake to treat kings in isolation. The jumping around between titles with and without "of France" is bad enough. Srnec (talk) 20:05, 8 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    As I've said elsewhere, I am more than happy to bring other articles along with it (on the same grounds of WP:COMMONNAME), I just didn't want to start too many move requests at the same time and wanted to focus on monarchs for which I had a strong grounding in the scholarship. Its harder for me to make the cases for monarchs I'm less familiar with. sovietblobfish (talk) 20:23, 8 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=Talk:Francis_II_of_France&oldid=1260918784"