Talk:Duke of Burgundy

message: On what basis do we claim that John the Good was Duke of Burgundy.  Obviously, he took control of the Duchy of Burgundy after the death of Philip I in 1361.  But that's not the same thing.  The fief came to the crown, just like other fiefs had before it.  Why, of all the fiefs in the French crown, is Burgundy the only one where we list the king of France as holding the fief.  The King was never duke of Burgundy, just as he was never Duke of Normandy or Duke of Guyenne or Count of Toulouse or Count of Champagne or anything else.  The only title John II ever used after his father's death was "King of France".  The Duchy of Burgundy ceased to exist as a distinct political entity in 1361, and was recreated in 1363 for the king's youngest son.  John was never duke of Burgundy. john k (talk) 23:35, 27 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Nope. Wrong. John II inherited the Duchy personally, as Philip of Rouvres' nearest kinsman in proximity of blood. He then attempted to merge the Duchy into the crown (but would nonetheless have been Duke anyway until that took effect), but the Burgundians refused to accept it; the political situation made him decide to pacify them by giving the duchy to his son Philip. Nonetheless, Burgundy most definitely existed as a distinct political entity continuously from Duke Robert I to Charles the Bold - the only break in 1361-63 was of dynasty, not of the political institutions. Read my summarisation of the translated Calmette, The Golden Age of Burgundy, or read the real thing. But yes, John was Duke of Burgundy. Michael  Sanders 09:20, 28 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Hmm...certainly the material you have written provides supporting detail for your argument, and I'll assume it's a fair summary of Calmette, although some in text citations at Duchy of Burgundy would be very useful.  One thing that I do wonder about, though, is whether we are justified in calling John the Fearless "John II".  Ordinals are not merely a matter of counting - we ought to demonstrate that sources call him that before including it.  For instance, John the Good's son Charles V was the sixth Charles to rule France.  If we can't establish usage for "John I" for John the Good and "John II" for John the Fearless (which I suspect is, at the very least, unusual), we should just use "John the Good" and "John the Fearless", or "John II of France" and "John the Fearless." john k (talk) 15:34, 28 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I'll freely admit I've never seen John II of France and John the Fearless enumerated as John I and John II of Burgundy...but then, outside wikipedia, I've never seen any enumerations of the Valois Dukes at all. More pertinently, it is technically correct to refer to them as 'John I' and 'John II', though certainly they shouldn't be used frequently. Michael  Sanders 10:36, 29 November 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Burgundy

message: How did you make that beautiful coat of arms? Emerson 07 (talk) 02:53, 19 June 2011 (UTC)
thread_title: Coat of Arms

message: I just corrected the French name of Philip the Handsome of Hapsburg from "Philippe le Bel" to "Philippe le Beau". Indeed, both names exist in the French language but they don't apply to the same person. "Philippe le Bel" means Philip IV, king of France, said to have been cursed by Hugh of Molay when the latter was about to be burned at the stake, and therefore inaugurating the series of the so-called "cursed kings" ("les Rois maudits"). "Philippe le Beau" means Philip of Hapsburg, who married Joanna of Castile and whose early death is said to have driven her mad, hence her nickname "Jeanne la Folle" ("Joanna the Mad"). — Tonymec (talk) 03:30, 25 September 2018 (UTC)
thread_title:  "Philippe le Beau" vs. "Philippe le Bel"