Talk:List of Frankish kings

message: May a French specialist of this period intervene in this odd, unhistorical debate?
History has its traditions against which battling is idlesome, unless new facts are discovered. Clovis and his descent are regarded as French just because they have been acknowledged as such for centuries by the French people; and because Kings of France have always vindicated being their successors (which is not the case with the Visigoths and the Kings of Asturias, Leon, Castila, Aragon). This is not a matter of passport: no Green Card was required for being crowned, in these times. Shall we deny that the Yuan and the Qing were Chinese emperors, although they were respectively Mogolian and Mandjurian? That Alexander the Great is a Greek monarch, although he was a Barbarian (Macedonian)? That William the Conqueror is a British ruler although he was a Norseman and never reigned over Wales, Scotland, and Ireland... nor Gibraltar (but he did over the Channel Islands!) Shall we call the Plantagenets English, or French monarchs? I suggest that some more time could be wasted in discussing an important question of the same kind: may we call the Pilgrim Fathers American?
As regards the "questionable limits of France" in the 6th-8th centuries, it is well established that after defeating (in approximate chronological order) the Gallo-Romans, the Burgundians, the Alamans, the Visigoths, the Ostrogoths, the Thuringians, Clovis' sons reigned over 80% of what is presently France, plus Belgium, the Netherland, and Switzerland. Indeed, we could call them Belgian...
:Not to restart a long, long dormant debate, but the point is that at the time of Clovis, there was no such thing as "France".  The Plantagenets were not English, but they were monarchs of England.  Clovis, though a Frank, cannot really be said to be a monarch of France, as France did not yet exist in the 5th century (he was, however, a monarch of Gaul).  Anyway, let's let sleeping dogs lie, on this one. john 07:22, 22 Oct 2003 (UTC)
thread_title: France in the 6-8th Century

message: I merged this page with the former Merovingian Dynasty and Carolingian Dynasty pages, turned those two into redirects, reformatted the entire damn list into HTML tables, and fixed a large number of links on other pages — all in an attempt to make the crazy relationships with all the splits and rejoins of the kingdoms a bit more lucid. It was not my intent to make any semantic changes, and I sincerely hope no information was lost. 
The new page was initially sandboxed on User:Djmutex/Sandbox Frankish rulers (which is therefore now obsolete) and approved of by several people, so I hope I stepped on nobody's toes. — djmutex 21:47 31 May 2003 (UTC)
------
In any case, this list of Frankish Kings is presently rather confusing and contains several errors (specially with Dagobert I).
This is my attempt to make things more clear (but I still have some problems with formatting and setting the proper links). I put it here for further discussion.
Besides, it should be noted that the name "Theuderic" is never used by French historians, who use "Thierry" instead. There are some other minor differences on this ground; but this one is particularly misleading.
One more thing: the usual practice is to number Merovingian kings in one single series (since they were all titled "Kings of the Franks", not "King of such or such place"). Thus, there should not be two "Theuderic I" and two "Theuderic II", as it is presently. These are commonly known as "Thierry III" and "Thierry IV".
   
    447-511
     *Merovech 447-458 *Childeric I 458-481 
      *Clovis I 481-511
  
Upon Clovis' death, the kingdom was split among his four sons. 
   
    
    Paris
    Soissons
    Orleans
    Reims (later Metz)
  
   
    511-524 
    *Childebert I 511-558
    *Clotaire I 511-561
    *Chlodomer 511-524
     *Theuderic I 511-534 
      *Theudebert I 534-548 *Theudebald 548-555
  
   
    524-555 
    Clotaire I
  
   
    555-558
    Clotaire I
  
   
    558-561
    Clotaire I
  
   
    561-567
    *Charibert I 561-567
    *Chilperic I 561-584
    *Guntram 561-592 (Orleans & Burgundy) 
    *Sigebert I 561-575 (Metz)
  
Upon the death of Charibert I, Frankish Gaul reached its final threefold division into Neustria (in the west), Burgundy, and Austrasia (in the east). 
   
    
    Neustria
      (Soissons, later Paris)
    Burgundy
      (Orleans)
    Austrasia
      (Metz)
   
    561-612 
    *Chilperic I 561-584 *Clotaire II 584-628
    *Guntram 561-592 *Theuderic II 592-613 
    *Sigebert I 561-575 (Metz) *Childebert II 575-595 (Austrasia) *Theudebert II 595-612 (Austrasia) 
  
   
    612-613 
    Clotaire II
    Theuderic II
  
   
    613-623
    Clotaire II
  
   
    623-629
    Clotaire II
     *Dagobert I 623-639
  
   
    629-630
    *Charibert II 629-630
  
   
    630-633
    Dagobert I (with Charibert II, sub-king in Aquitania, 
      630-632)
  
   
    633-751
     Dagobert I *Clovis II 639-658 
      *Clotaire III, (652-673), 658-673 *Theuderic III, 673-691 *Clovis III 691-695 *Childebert III 695-711 *Dagobert III 711-715 *Chilperic II 715-720 *Theuderic IV 720-737 *Childeric III 742-751 
    *Sigebert III 632-656 *Dagobert II 656-660 *Childebert (usurper) 660-661*Childeric II 661-675 *Dagobert II, restored 675-679 
      
      Interregnum: rule of the Mayors of the Palace, then Dukes of the Franks (root of the Carolingian dynasty)
  
Latest source: M. Sonnet, T. Charmasson, A.-M. Lelorrain, Chronologie de l'histoire de France (Paris, 1994).
I think your suggestions are basically good, although I believe they're usually called "Theuderic" or "Theodoric", or some such, in English, rather than Thierry, and we're supposed to use the common English usage. john 05:13, 21 Oct 2003 (UTC)
thread_title: Merge, revision

message: I'm afraid I may have botched up the formatting somewhat in an attempt to get the various templates working, and keep that table at the end.  If anyone can offer suggestions on the formatting of the templates, I'd be happy to learn.  Kaisershatner 13:19, 14 Jun 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Formatting

message: How on earth did this article come to be formatted this way?  This is just about the most useless list I've ever come across on wikipedia.  It makes me dizzy just looking at it.  Furthermore, the list of Kings of Italy (and the various Italian emperors) after Louis II seems to have disappeared completely from both here and List of German Kings and Emperors.  Very annoying. john k 23:05, 25 Jun 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Judging from previous comments I think this is a geniune error by a contributor who needs to become more familiar with wiki-tables through sandbox. It can be irritating but it can easily be reverted, so it is not the end of the world (that comes under apocalypse). --JohnArmagh 11:03, 26 Jun 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  What the *#$£! 

message: Some things that might be missing and could be added:
* what about the struggles between Louis the Pious and his sons and among the sons - the distribution of kingdoms during Louis lifetime are not given (and his son Pippin is missing alltogether)
* what about mayors that were not Carolingians, but were nonetheless powerful (Ebroin, Erchinoald, Wulfoad) - there is a unhealthy focus on the Carolingians when discussing mayoral power (up to the allegation that Pippin the Middle instigated the murder of Dagobert II - why? because he's the only one known who could have done it)
*what about distinctions within the Carolingian family (after Pippin the Middle's death)
*separate from any mayoral questions, maybe the Carolinigian template should give - for that period - heads of the family and not so much offices (though these can be included)
Any thoughts on these issues?
Str1977 18:44, 11 July 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  What might still could be added 

message: I don't see any mention of Dagobert II on this page? XXXX
Dear anononymous, he's right there in the middle of the page, in the middle column "Austrasia", after Clovis III (Austrasia) and preceding Theuderic III (king of all Franks). Please sign your posts. Str1977 09:38, 10 November 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Someone Missing 

message: I think that you forgot to list the Roman Dynasty.
signed JJJ
:If you are referring to Aegidius, he is there. If to Syagrius, he was never a Frankish king. Srnec 23:49, 18 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I can't remember Syagrius being called a Frankish king either. However he was leader of Soissons, the capital of the remainder of the Roman field army that hosted, and was dominated by, huge amounts of Franks. Some scholars leave room to think, or even suggest he may have had a function as some kind of Frankish chief in succession to his father. johanthon 12:22, 19 July 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Roman Dynasty 

message: There has been a recent dispute regarding whether or not the Franks can be said to have united the Frankish petty kingdoms without the qualifier "in Roman Gaul" and whether the conquest of most of Roman Gaul can afford to not be mentioned. In response to my query about whether the Chamavi can be said to constitute a petty kingdom and whether it can be shown that they were not subject to Merovingian lordship like all other known Frankish tribes, Johanthon wrote that since the Chamavi were in conflict with Pepin, they must have been independent and that no source mentions their conquest. If the sources are silent on the conquest of the Chamavi, it should be pointed out that they are completely silent about any Chamavi rulers. Which silence is more important? 
The original conquest of the Bretons is never mentioned in a primary source, but Gregory of Tours says that when they were brought to heel by Chilperic I it was because they had been subject to the Franks since the time of Clovis I. Some scholars believe Gregory is wrong, of course, but it serves to point out that Frankish hegemony was extended in some areas with little record in the sources. Look also at Bavaria. Finally, Pepin fought against many peoples disputing Frankish rule, so it is hard to see how his conflict with the Chamavi (and I don't know what you're referring to) would demonstrate anything. Considering that the Chamavi were "Franks" and the Charlemagne created a lex for them, I would like a better source for the belief that the Chamavi were outside of Merovingian hegemony. Srnec 23:49, 18 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: That's a reasonable wish. However this is not solely about the Chamavi. It is also about tribes as the TVVANTI (Twents), BRUCTERI and BRUCTOVARI. In the mean time I suggest we settle a peace on a phrase that confirms Merovingian hegemony IN Gaul and remain open at what exactly happened outside Gaul with those minor Frankish tribes. johanthon 10:14, 19 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I edited the page to more or less address my main concern with your edits. I hope it's acceptable to you. I have no problem putting this to rest for now. The scholarly secondary sources are very silent on this (save for the more generalist ones, which indubitably make Clovis ruler of "all" the Franks). Srnec 01:23, 20 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: This phrase is very acceptable for me. As a matter of fact I proposed this one myself some edits ago. It covers the factual truth and leaves room to wonder what 'dominance' actually means. johanthon 10:49, 20 July 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Chamavi

message: these lists can be merged nicely Smasongarrison (talk) 05:26, 10 March 2016 (UTC)
replies: text: Oppose; the merge looks complicated, rather than nice; the lists are already long, and a combined list would be unwieldy; many of the queens are independently notable, as indicated by their distinct pages. Klbrain (talk) 22:36, 16 February 2018 (UTC)

text: Oppose - it is complicated enough as it is. Agricolae (talk) 22:46, 16 February 2018 (UTC)
thread_title:  Proposed merge with [[List of Frankish queens]] 

message: Although the title King of the Franks was used until 1190, that doesn't mean they were still Franks, just that they used an obsolete title for a while. There's no need to duplicate the List of French kings article over here. Richard75 (talk) 10:27, 30 July 2020 (UTC)
thread_title:  Overlap with List of French kings 

message: I have several grievances with the edits that had overturned the article in recent weeks. First of the all the tables were much cleaner when they were all the same width. Second of all the inclusion of the "claim" column as opposed to creating a separate column for the number of children is much more encyclopedic. Finally, the sections for West Francia, Middle Francia, and East Francia are not showing valid information in their introductory sentences. For example,
:"West Francia" or "Kingdom of the West Franks" was part of the Carolingian Empire until 888 AD, after which the kingdom became its own entity.
is not correct because there were some other Kings of West Francia after 888 AD who were indeed Carolingian. Then,
:This western kingdom eventually was absorbed into the Kingdom of France in 987 and ruled by the House of Capet.
is confusing language because it was more of a "transition", than "absorption", and so this can be misleading or interpreted incorrectly. Middle Francia's intro language is somewhat "informal" for an encyclopedia (for example, "king named Lothair.") and the sequences for each of the three divisions of Charlemagne's empire are broken. The edits should be rolled back to the close of June 2020, in my opinion.
I admit the final portion:
:The title "King of the Franks" continued to be used in the Kingdom of France until 1190. While the Kingdom of the Franks had long been extinct by this time, the title "Queen consort of the Franks" continued to be used until 1227.
was indeed interesting but the other edits have to be rolled back to June 27, 2020.
Altanner1991 (talk) 12:49, 30 July 2020 (UTC)
replies: text: The legend for Neustrian-Austrasian overlap is a positive edit, however the word "Notes:" under the Austrasian section also needs to be removed. Altanner1991 (talk) 13:04, 30 July 2020 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree, it looked better before, and the recent edits also removed plenty of information. I've reverted it to 19 June. Richard75 (talk) 17:43, 30 July 2020 (UTC)
replies: text: Ok, and I reincorporated the other parts. Altanner1991 (talk) 18:22, 30 July 2020 (UTC)
thread_title:  Recent overhaul 

message: I read this article with interest and made some corrections and improvements. I have some comments and questions.
1. I had some problems following the sequence of kings as kingdoms united and split time after time. I think there is a great deal of overlaps of kings between Austrasia and Neustria so I wonder if it makes sense to go chronologically and list kings as they changed independently from the Austrasia and Neustria locations since some kings ruled both.
2. This is clearly an article on the Frankish kings but I wonder if adding some more information on the Mayors of the Palace would be useful to understand the roles of the Merovingians under them, especially during the time of Charles Martel and his interregnum of 737-741. It does not have to be a huge expansion but a couple of lines would help. Also, in a list of kings he was duke and prince so a separate section for Charles Martel is needed in my opinion.
3. The entry on Chlothar II says he was king of Neustria between 584 and 613 and king of the Franks from 613 and 629. This article says he was king of Neustria between 584 and 629 and Austrasia between 584 and 623 which, by the way, overlaps with 4 kings of Austrasia before him (Childebert II, Theudebert II, Theuderic II and Sigebert II).
Something is not adding up. Can somebody review and possibly correct?
4. Charles Martel was a Carolingian and he shows under the Merovingians section which is not correct. Charles Martel should have his own section with interregnum between 737 and 741 and Childeric III should follow as the last Merovingian king.
5. Why is Chlothar IV not listed for 717-718?
6. At the end of this article, under Middle Kingdom, I read "Lothair I, 818-855", "Louis II, with his father 839–855", and "Louis II, 855–875, the eldest son, succeeded his father as Emperor and received Italy". The King of Italy article lists "Louis I (818 – 822), 
Lothair I (822 – 855), 
Louis II (844 – 875)".
There is clearly a discrepancy. Can somebody to align the dates in both articles?
ICE77 (talk) 08:42, 16 February 2021 (UTC)
thread_title:  Comments and questions