Talk:Francis I of France

message: Among the things I removed:  he threw out the vast legacy of Mediaeval prohibitions.  Now you may think that I'm a cranky medievalist (and I am - I've only had one cup of coffee so far), but this is virtually meaningless.  Mediaeval prohibitions?  Does that refer to laws?  Customs?  Legal codes?  Please elaborate.  Were they mediaeval, or perhaps Roman?  French legal history is a vast and complicated sea of change, and saying that a king 'threw out the vast legacy' of the middle ages is silly.  "Renaissance," by the way, is a very mixed term.  One could, and I would, argue that the two paragraphs about the economic and military disasters of Francis's reign were caused by his openness to 'humanism' and its model of the absolute ruler rather than an accident of luck or poor planning.  Those "mediaeval prohibitions" sometimes had the virtue of restraining royal action. MichaelTinkler
I find what you said very interesting.  This information originaly came from a much longer essay I wrote.  The argument I made in this essay was that Francis' humanism was the cause of his economic and military problems.  In turning the essay from an argumentative one to a expository one I cut out pretty much all of that discussion.  I personally think that it was the embrace of humanism by the French monarchy that put it on the path to the behaviour that would cause the French Revolution. I didn't think this opinion was NPOV enough, however, and thus left it out. -SimonP
----
Before I start copyediting: in addition to easy fixes (a comma here, "renowned" there), the word "chateaux" appears in a lot of places where I suspect the singular is called for. E.g., did Saint Germain-en-Laye ever have more than one chateau? (That one caught my eye because I've been there--the surviving chateau now houses the Museum of French Prehistory.) And does anyone know whether older browsers, and lynx, handle those long codes for apostrophes and quotation marks gracefully? Vicki Rosenzweig
Oy, I did use chateaux for the singular throughout didn't I.  Many years of French teachers would be very dissapointed in me. -SimonP
-----
I've never heard of this guy referred to as Francis. If it's not John Charles of Spain, why is it Francis of France? - montréalais
:Because that's the way he's known to English speakers.  We never claimed to be consistant.  :-)  -- Zoe
Yeah, I was a  bit baffled too. It's Francois, right? What do we call Carlos of Spain -- Charles or Carlos? -- Tarquin
: He's called Juan Carlos in English (in Dutch too, btw) while Francis is not known as François. I guess the use of anglicised (localised) names for monarchs has diminished; it is only still used for non-current ones and the pope, I think. Jeronimo
::That sounds correct.  The heir is Prince Felipe, not Prince Philip.  I guess he'll be Philip VI, but he'll probably be refered to as Felipe VI. -- Zoe
:::Aargh!  Even worse -- I would say either Francis or Francois is correct -- leaning towards Francis, because I just looked in Spitz's The Renaissance and Reformation Movements, Lockyer's Tudor and Stuart Britain, 1471-1714, and Smith's The Making of England.  And even if TODAY we call the heir Felipe (and he'll probably be Felipe VI), we still call his most famous (arguably) ancestor Philip II.  Go figure.
Like I said before -- it was Frederick William when I was in high school, but it's Friedrich Wilhelm now...As we English speakers try to become more culturally aware, we're going to get these changes.  i don't think it's a big problem, as long as the article is in the most normal form -- we can create re-direct pages, and even swap content and redirects in future.  Ah, the beauty of wiki. HK 14:47 Aug 13, 2002 (PDT)
It makes no sense to call someone "Francis" when in fact they are born and legally baptized as "François". And, anyone who has studied any amount of French history, refers only to him as François. But then again, being from France, maybe I should go change everything to "Georges Bush" and "Guillaume Clinton" etc ? ... DW
— This a strange comment, because (like English-speakers), French-speakers do this quite a lot, especially with historical names – so we have Raphaël, Tite-Live (the Roman historian), Pétrarque, Guillaume d'Orange, etc. I’m tempted to say everyone does it, and why not? The Italians call the guy Cristoforo Colombo but  the French say Christophe Colomb, the Spanish Cristóbal Colón, and so forth. The king is certainly known as Francis I in English, just as the queen of Scotland is called Marie Stuart in French. No need to labour the point. Campolongo (talk) 07:43, 28 May 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: In English, there is a tendency to translate the names of foreign monarchs . . . except for recent/current ones. We keep their native names.  If Juan Carlos had reigned a century ago, we'd call him John Charles.  Why the double-standard, I don't know. Funnyhat (talk) 22:41, 17 June 2012 (UTC)
thread_title: Untitled

message: I was told that he left his sons as token hostages in Medinaceli when he was freed from Spain.
However, since he refused to comply with his ransom, what happened to the sons?
I believe they were kept in captivity until the Treaty of Cambrai in 1529. john k 00:13, 28 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Sons 

message: "Francis" is also a french name, like "françois". But "francis" really don't suit to a king (it sounds pejorative imo). Why don't keep his french name ? 213.103.243.191 21:08, 4 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes, if François is to be misnamed 'Francis' here, then Louis should be called 'Lewis'. No-one actually refers to the French kings as 'Francis' or 'Henry' or 'Lewis'. Maybe two or three hundred years ago, but today, no.88.167.22.75 (talk) 09:07, 22 June 2013 (UTC)
thread_title:  Francis ? 

message: Francis I of France was never king of Navarre. He supported the claims of the House of Albret to the kingdom of Navarre that had been incorporated to the spanish monarchy. Thus, is necessary to remove the coat of arms of Navarre.--158.227.33.102 (talk) 16:02, 31 March 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  King of Navarre? 

message: Why aren't the names of his mistresses listed in the article? Seems to be a gross oversight to me.Francoise de foix and Anne d'Heilly are worthy of a mention-in fact, the latter is worthy of her own article.She was very important at the French 13:39, 17 April 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: Mistresses. 

message: Was he really Duke of Brittany as Francis III? I do believe that Francis was de jure uxoris Duke of Brittany by his marriage to Claude, Duchess of Brittany, but wasn't their son Duke of Brittany as Francis III? Surtsicna (talk) 07:58, 26 August 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Surtsicna:  You are correct.  It is François de France (1518-1536), the Dauphin to the throne of France as eldest son of king François Ier & Claude de Bretagne, who was Francis III, Duke of Brittany, (François III, duc de Bretagne, in French), not his papa.  Frania W. (talk) 16:26, 26 August 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Duke of Brittany as Francis III? 

message: Someone had it that Francis I and Charles V had inherited their family feud of "Burgundy and Narvare". NO, not so. I corrected it to read "Burgundy and Orleans". Francis was the great grandson of Louis of Orleans and Charles was the great grandson of John of Burgundy. Burgundy and Orleans were engaged in a power struggle during the mad king Charles VI's reign. John had Louis murdered thus starting the family feud and many years of civil war. Then the dauphin Charles had John of Burgundy murdered. The family feud is now Burgundy against Orleans and the Crown. Actually both Louis and John were grandsons of the French king John the Good. When the English king Edward III tried to have Margaret, Countess of Flanders, marry one of his sons, the French king Charles the Wise snatched Margaret for his brother Philip of Burgundy. The French thought it was a victory over England. But, with control over Burgundy and Flanders (and various smaller territories), the House of Burgundy rose to become a power that challenged France. So, Charles the Wise unwittingly created the monster. 
Since Louis of Orleans married Valentine Viscounti, the daughter of Galeazzo, Duke of Milan, the House of Orleans was the legitimate heir to the territory of Milan when Filipo died without an heir. That's why the French kings, especially the Orleans branch, pursued the Italian Wars relentlessly trying to recapture this lost inheritence.
--VimalaNowlis (talk) 09:56, 25 June 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Francis I and Emperor Charles V and the Italian Wars 

message: Does anyone think it a little strange that two of his children were engaged to the same man, one from birth and after she died, the other took over and then died as well, and then he married someone else? I was just interested if this was common practice during those times.
:It's just marriage diplomacy, plain and simple. The betrothals are made to seal alliance and when Spain and France goes to war its broken and if a daughter dies young, another candidate is chosen to replace her. --The Emperor's New Spy (talk) 03:33, 22 April 2013 (UTC)
thread_title:  Comment 

message: By "Incessant wars of his predecessors", you mean that the end of one war was the beginning of another against the same ennemy? Boutarfa1 (talk) 15:33, 6 September 2023 (UTC)
thread_title:  Discussion 

message: This sentence does not make grammatical sense:
:Zuppa alla Pavese and supposed story of providing meals to the captured king right after the battle was made. 76.190.213.189 (talk) 19:39, 4 February 2024 (UTC)
replies: text: Thank you for highlighting. I observe the sentence made sense until an edit in December, therefore I will restore the sentence to how it was prior to that. sovietblobfish (talk) 06:48, 5 February 2024 (UTC)
thread_title:  Grammatical problems