Talk:Charles VII of France

message: The article says:
Under the Treaty, King Henry of England ruled Northern France through a regent in Normandy and southern France by the Dauphin Charles from his fortified castle at Chinon.
I'm not really sure how to parse this sentence.  Did the treaty see Charles ruling southern France in the name of his nephew as a sort of viceroy?  Or did he rule southern France by virtue of his position there, as an explicit enemy of the English? --Jfruh 03:06, 3 Mar 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Charles' position after 1422? 

message: and in such bold type, too. I thought capetitian was an auburn hair color with reddish glints... --Wetman 04:01, 25 Apr 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Capetitian Dynasty

message: Mention is made above of the "British occupation", and in the article itself about the inability of the French to field an army between 1422 and 1429. It amazes me that somehow the Scottish involvement in this war is completely forgotten by the French. The English, not the British, occupied Normandy etc. I am not just a chippy jock whining about the conflation of the terms English and British, because to do so actually completely misrepresents the situation. The English were prevented from effectively extending their influence south of the Loire between 1422 and 1429 by the Scottish armies put into the field by James I. c.f. the Battles of Bauge, Verneuil, Cravant etc. - all conflicts between English armies and French armies primarily composed of Scottish forces sent to assist France by Scotland under the terms of their military alliance. Between 1419 and 1425 17,000 Scots embarked for France, and another 6,000 in 1428 (under the terms of the treaty of Perth) to fight against the English, inflicting their first defeat in the war at Bauge in a conflict that prevented the English penetrating south of the Loire to Chinon. The Scottish 4th Earl of Douglas was made Lieutenant-General of the French forces and made Duke of Touraine. The Earl of Buchan was made constable of France. Sir John Crichton was made governor of Chatillon. Charles VII married his son and heir off to the daughter of the king of Scots. One of the six bishop attending his coronation was Scottish, as was his bodyguard. Jeanne d'Arc's escort to Orleans was composed entirely of Scottish forces. Even her banner had been made by a Scot, Hamish Powers, in Tours, in gratitude for which Jeanne persuaded the dignitaries of Tours to provide his daughter's dowry. As a result of the debt the French owed the Scots for giving them time to recover Scots merchants were given preferential terms in Bordeaux.  
None of this is controversial or a matter of interpretation, it is all amply attested by primary historical record and is not disputed by serious historians - so why is it written out of history, and why is the memory of the Scots who fought to save France from English domination in the 15th century routinely insulted by people like the authors of this article by their omissions and misrepresentations?!
Maybe because you're not looking at the good page, if you have time, have a look on the different battles of this era, you will see that the Scots involvement in the war is not forgotten. But in a different point of view, you say that Scots fought to save France ??? Could you not say they fought english to weak them, as french did during the American Independence War in the 18th century ?  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.206.59.234 (talk) 00:13, 29 July 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Scottish involvement 

message: I'm wondering if the statement:
"Although his leadership was sometimes marked by indecisiveness, hardly any other leader left a nation so much better improved than when he came on the scene."
Is neutral? It doesn't strike me as neutral at all. LouisXI 04:28, 3 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Sounds pretty basic statement of fact to me (albeit poorly written): he began with his kingdom largely conquered and in crisis, he ended with a united nation, free of English domination, and almost entirely free of foreign encroachment. An improvement, no? Michael  Sanders 14:20, 3 April 2007 (UTC)

text: Hmm, I do think it needs to be rewritten, so it seems a tad bit more neutral. It is a true statement, but, as stated, it's not written well at all.LouisXI 06:19, 4 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Neutrality 

message: Here's a nice coin of Charles VII, feel free to insert it in the article. Cheers PHG (talk) 21:19, 24 January 2009 (UTC)
thread_title: Coinage

message: Historian now recognize Charles VII's reign as begining in 1422. GoodDay (talk) 00:34, 27 January 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: .Many Kings were accused of being bastards, including Edward IV. Luckily for the French Jeanne d'Arc defeated the English, otherwise Margaret of Anjou would have ended up becoming the de facto ruler of both England and France. High jinks in the Middle Ages with her running the show in both places!--jeanne (talk) 14:49, 29 January 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Reign 

message: ::In point of fact, the Yorkists later disputed Henry VI's right to the English throne as his grandfather Henry IV, after deposing the legitimate King Richard II, ascended the throne bypassing Edmund Mortimer, 5th Earl of March , who as  a descendant of Lionel, Duke of Clarence (second son of Edward III), certainly came before Henry IV, who was the son of John of Gaunt (the third son of Edward III). Edmund was actually the heir presumptive to the throne. The Lancastrians wanted to apply the Salic Law to exclude the Mortimers, who were descended from Lionel's daughter, Philippa, Countess of Ulster-in her lifetime the heiress presumptive to the throne, yet conveniently ignore it in order to claim the throne of France! Sorry, but that dog just won't bark!--Jeanne Boleyn (talk) 07:31, 1 March 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: Indeed, Henry VI was eventually given the boot, as 'King of England'. GoodDay (talk) 16:48, 1 March 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: Anyroad, it was Margaret of Anjou who was de facto ruler, seeing as Henry suffered from the same malady as his maternal grandfather.--Jeanne Boleyn (talk) 05:49, 2 March 2009 (UTC)
thread_title: Henry IV the Usurper

message: #***In his adolescent years, Charles was noted for his bravery and style of leadership: at one point after becoming Dauphin, he led an army against the English, dressed in the red, white and blue that represented France;*** In which text is it written that in the early 15th century *red white & blue* were the colors of France?
#***Instead, he remained in southern France, where he was still able to exert some small amount of power, maintaining an itinerant court in the Loire Valley at castles such as Chinon, being customarily known as "Dauphin" still, or derisively as "King of Bourges" (Bourges being the region where he generally lived)...***  The Loire valley is not considered to be southern France.
#The map that was added does not show Bourges. Dommage!    
#There should be a choice of English-English or American-English: both are being used.
#I added the accent on Orleans→Orléans, maybe this is not acceptable in this text.  If so, I shall remove it.  
:Frania W. (talk) 14:53, 11 March 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: Frania, I prefer the accent on Orléans. It should stay. You are right, until the French Revolution, blue and white were the colours of France. Red, white and blue are the post-revoluion colours of France.--Jeanne Boleyn (talk) 15:47, 11 March 2009 (UTC)
thread_title: The colors of France ?

message: Is there any record of the music played and sung at the coronation in 1429? There may not have been much as there would have been little time to rehearse. Xxanthippe (talk) 00:56, 16 May 2009 (UTC)
thread_title: Coronation music

message: It's kind of ridiculous to claim that "under Charles VII France was for the first time since the Carolingian dynasty united under one ruler" when Burgundy still existed. I think it's more important that he kicked the English out, thereby regaining the north and Aquitaine. Brutannica (talk) 20:39, 21 December 2010 (UTC)
thread_title: Unification

message: The article should be consistent in the use of name. Since Joan of Arc is the name of the article in this wikipedia, Joan of Arc should be used, right?Naraht (talk) 13:18, 27 April 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  Joan of Arc/Jeanne d'Arc. 

message: Hello, I want to expose here what I think is a slight inconsistency (in my opinion) in what is exposed in this wiki with the dates of birth of the princesses Radegund and Catherine. So, as I think it would be more accurate.
Two possible birth dates for Radegund, 1425 and August 1428, are cited here, while the birth date of her younger sister, Catherine, is also given as 1428; according to another source.
Therefore, if the year 1428 is accepted as Catherine's birth, without the possibility of questioning it, the possibility that her sister Radegunda was also born in August of that year is completely invalidated, as the same wiki also collects. As they were not twins, they could not be born with such a short time difference either, since from August to the end of the year there is a very small margin for the birth of the other sister, which would have to be, at least, already in 1429.
So it can only be stated that she is born in 1428, if Radegund is born in 1425; at the same time that if the possibility that Radegunda was born in August 1428 is left open, it should be noted that Catherine could be born in 1429/31, which is the space that remains until the birth of the next brother (1432).
So if the reference to Catherine's birth is sound and there is no chance of a typo in the source (this being a book I haven't read, I can't tell if it refers to a first-hand document or not), the the year in which Radegund could be born is in 1425, exclusively (according to the references provided). Because it cannot be affirmed at the same time that there is a possibility that Radegund is born in August 1428, and at the same time that the other sister is also born that same year, when it is impossible that both events happened at that time interval.
So if it can be claimed that Catherine was born in 1428, it cannot be said that Radegun could have been born in August of that year. Because one event excludes the other, since there would be no time for another birth in that year. Therefore, in my opinion, since one source contradicts the other and neither possibility seems to be absolutely corroborated, it would be more prudent to question the year of birth of both sisters, not just one. Radegunda's from 1425 or August 1428 and Catherine's from around 1428 or later. The reference that Catherine could be born after that year is deduced from the same source that cites the birth of her sister in August of that date, because Catalina could not be born with four months, which is the period of time from August to december. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 90.94.49.136 (talk) 09:06, 11 November 2022 (UTC)
thread_title:  Little controversi with the date of birth of princesses Radegund and Catherine