Talk:Peerage of France

message: History of the peerage states, with reference to the 11th century : "William was himself one of the twelve "Peers of France," the others being the Archbishop-Duke of Reims, the Bishop-Duke of Laon, the Bishop-Duke of Langres, the Bishop-Count of Beauvais, the Bishop-Count of Châlons and the Bishop-Count of Noyon—and six lay peers—the Duke of Burgundy, the Duke of Aquitaine, the Count of Toulouse, the Count of Flanders and the Count of Champagne. The French peers, especially the Dukes of Normandy and Burgundy, were especially powerful rulers with large armies of their own." This material should be worked into this entry-- by someone more knowledgeable than I. --Wetman 17:03, 1 Nov 2004 (UTC)
replies: text: Gentlemen, what is a peerage-fiefdom? Must a dukedom refer to its holder's property? What anenst titles that refer to surnames(e.g. duc de Broglie)? --Anglius 05:20, 15 October 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Everybody seems to have forgotten that France possessed a Chamber of Peers after Napoleon, from 1815 to 1848.
--Alexvonf 10:10, 21 February 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: General

message: I've put a merge tag on this article and Pairie.  Both articles seem to repeat much of the same information.  In the case of a merge, "Peerage of France" would probably be more in keeping with wiki naming conventions, leaving a redirect for "Pairie". Comments?  Suggestions? --NYArtsnWords 09:27, 10 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: The text of the two articles seems identical, which is suspicious...I'm trying to check and see if it's a copyvio (perhaps of François Velde). john k 09:42, 10 September 2006 (UTC)

text: And, indeed, both articles would appear to be independent copyvios of François Velde's work - see Notes on the French Peerage.  Sigh... john k 09:44, 10 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Sigh, indeed.  I finally took care of the merge, but something will have to be done about the copyvio issue pronto. --NYArtsnWords 19:58, 14 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Sigh.  I'm so lazy.  We obviously need to rewrite the whole thing.  Sigh. john k 23:07, 14 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: After a closer look at the François Velde original material, it seems that the copyvio isn't too extensive after the initial paragraphs (?).  Some close comparisons and judicious rewrites may do the trick. NYArtsnWords 23:23, 14 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Well, have a go at it, please. john k 23:36, 14 October 2006 (UTC)

text: Tried a different approach, this time only eliminating the repeated French Peerage material from Pairie with a clear link to this page. That should do it.--NYArtsnWords 20:56, 21 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Merge with [[Pairie]]? 

message: Okay, so the French Peerage was abolished in 1848. But when I go to the Duke of Broglie article, it lists four Dukes well past 1848, and gives me the impression that the Dukedom continues to this day. What's up with that? -- MiguelMunoz 07:41, 7 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: The peerage (as a body) was legally abolished in France. Dukedoms, however, were not abolished and remain legal, as with other hereditary titles. Although it was customary under the ancien régime for peerages to be attached to dukedoms, there were always exceptions, and in the 19th century a peerage could be attached to any hereditary title except chevalier. Even so, it is common to describe a current dukedom of the ancien régime as a duché-pairie in order to convey that it is, historically, a title of the highest rank, even though the current holder of the dukedom is no longer legally a peer of France. Lethiere 17:37, 7 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Titles of nobility have at time been illegal, though - during the Second Republic, I believe - but they were restored by Napoleon III, and never abolished thereafter. john k 19:13, 15 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  I seem to remember you can apply for 'recognition' from the french state Alci12 14:20, 19 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Unanswered Question 

message: In the article :
"The presence of Normandy – held by the English crown by Angevin heritage – was theoretical, since in French eyes it had been forfeited to the crown in 1202."
That basically makes no sense to me, first of all Normandy was never held "by the English crown" but by the Norman/Angevin rulers who also held the English crown, secondly the grammatical construction suggests that it was "theorical" because the French had forfeited Normandy to the English crown. I expect that's not what was meant, but I'm not quite sure what was actually meant here. Anyone ? Equendil Talk 12:50, 19 December 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: I believe the sentence is trying to say that while the "Duke of Normandy" was considered one of the nine peers in 1216, at least on paper, in point of fact the Duchy had been (from the French perspective) reattached to/absorbed into the crown lands of France in 1204 (they were confiscated from John of England) and there ceased to be an actual Duke at that point (while, from the Angevin perspective, the Duchy was still considered part of their heritage). - NYArtsnWords (talk) 17:54, 19 December 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Normandy ? 

message: Needs much fuller treatment of Napoleon I's princes, dukes, and barons.  Seems unaware of the fact that Napoleon III also granted such titles.  
:Those were not peers!  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 85.168.72.28 (talk) 12:06, 20 January 2009 (UTC)
thread_title: Napoleonic peerages