Talk:Louis Antoine, Duke of Angoulême

message: How legal was his 20 minute reign? If it was then should he be under Louis XIX of France? Timrollpickering 11:55, 15 Dec 2004 (UTC)
replies: text: "Legitimist" fantasies, imagined long afterwards out of dreaming over a genealogical tree by someone who refers to "La Madame de France," wouldn't you say? "The duc d'Angoulême set aside any claims he might have had on the occasion." That's the ordinary assessment, though I won't intrude into this current entry. The occasion, on August 2, 1830, was well-recorded at the time in memoirs. A contemporary quote would be an unlikely surprise, however, forcing me to kow-tow in apology upon the Savonnerie. --Wetman 08:26, 17 Jan 2005 (UTC)

text: Louis XVII is listed as such, even though he was never king. This guy was technically king if only for 20 minutes, so he deserves a number too. --dllu \17:02, 20 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Older

message: :The following discussion is an archived discussion of the proposal. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. No further edits should be made to this section. 
Louis-Antoine, Duke of Angoulême → Louis XIX of France and Henri, comte de Chambord → Henry V of France - (Discuss) — even only for a very short time, they were French kings in fact, so there's no reason not to use their regnal names as titles of their articles. - Louis88 16:30, 12 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the proposal.  Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.
It was requested that this article be renamed but there was no consensus for it be moved. --Stemonitis 17:54, 17 June 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Requested move (2007)

message: *Strongly oppose We have no business deciding whether they were kings in fact, which happens to be strongly controversial. (Even from the legitimist PoV, neither was crowned; and the question of when the Bourbons ceased to be the government is infinitely debateable.) We should merely call them what English does, which is the Duke of Angoulême and Count of Chamfort (comte is artificial). Septentrionalis PMAnderson 17:45, 13 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the proposal.  Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.</div>
It was requested that this article be renamed but there was no consensus for it be moved. --Stemonitis 17:54, 17 June 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Survey

message: Err, if I recall correctly, historians don't recognize Louis' twenty minute reign. GoodDay (talk) 01:25, 16 December 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: King of France??

message: The article begins as follows:
:Louis-Antoine of Artois [1], Dauphin of Viennois and Duke of Angoulême (Louis XIX, disputedly King of France and Navarre for twenty minutes in 1830 and Legitimist Pretender to the throne from 1836 to 1844) (August 6, 1775 – June 3, 1844) was the eldest son of King Louis XVI of France's youngest brother, the Comte d'Artois, and his wife, Marie-Thérèse de Savoie.
As someone somewhere once said, "that sentence should be taken out and shot"!
--207.176.159.90 (talk) 06:40, 23 May 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Instead of passing what you perceive to be a fault, how about you do something about it? It's easy to edit, in fact I would encourage you to register to make such changes in the future easier to do and track. Charles 18:28, 23 May 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Hideous lead sentence 

message: When Charles X became king did Louis Antoine not automatically bear the name "France" instead of "Artois"? Seven Letters 23:41, 21 October 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: I would think so. john k (talk) 14:15, 22 October 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: I'll change it. Seven Letters 03:44, 27 October 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Artois or France? 

message: Well  & , it appears that here & at the infobox of Louis' nephew. You both have something to work out, as to what goes in both their infoboxes. GoodDay (talk) 21:09, 7 March 2022 (UTC)
replies: text: I don’t think it affects readers negatively for the infobox to clearly state that there reign is disputed. The info box makes it more clear that they were “disputed” monarchs.  Orson12345 (talk) 21:23, 7 March 2022 (UTC)

text: The infobox shouldn’t change for Louis XVII because the number 17 was skipped because the Bourbons wanted to to include him as king of France. So his claim is more solidified. Orson12345 (talk) 21:36, 7 March 2022 (UTC)

text: I agree with you. I wish there was a better way to explain it in the infobox. I think it’s best to have the infobox (though very complicated) at least there’s something there instead of being blank. Orson12345 (talk) 13:21, 14 March 2022 (UTC)
thread_title:  Shall we pretend