Talk:Charles the Simple
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
 |
Charles the Simple is within the scope of WikiProject France, an attempt to build a comprehensive and detailed guide to France and Monaco on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please join the project and help with our open tasks. | |
 |
||
| Start | This article has been rated as start-Class on the Project's quality scale. (If you rated the article please give a short summary at comments, explaining the ratings and/or suggest improvements.) |
|
 |
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Biography. For more information, visit the project page. | ||
| Start | This article has been rated as start-Class on the Project's quality scale. [FAQ] (If you rated the article, please give a short summary at comments to explain the ratings and/or to identify the strengths and weaknesses.) |
||
 |
This article is supported by the Politics and government work group. | ||
Can someone change the mention of an "Edward I of England" to what he really was "Edward the Elder" Since they are differnt monarchs and ruled far apart from each other. It wasnt until a few minutes after reading this article that I realized he couldnt possibly have married the daughter of the actual Edward I of England.
But why was he called "The Simple"?
[edit] Ordinal
Shouldn't this page be under "Charles III of France"? There's no controversy over his enumeration is there? Srnec 22:11, 29 March 2006 (UTC)
- Well, let's see. James's Origins of France does indeed index him as "Charles III, king of West Francia, 'the Simple'". However, it's an error to suppose that indexes represent auctorial viewpoints. James refers to the man as "Charles the Simple" in the text (and also to "Charles the Bald" and to "Louis the Stammerer"), but to Louis III, IV and V). Gauvard does the same in La France au Moyen Âge (the index of which is similar to that in James's book): the text has Charles le Chauve, Charles le Simple and Louis le Bègue. Angus McLellan (Talk) 22:56, 29 March 2006 (UTC)
I do not deny that he may be more often called Charles the Simple, but Philip II is more often called Philip Augustus and we don't title his article such. I am only suggesting that his ordinal of III is not contested: there is no other possible Charles III of France. If there isn't, I would support moving the article there. I would support the same for Louis the Stammerer, his ordinal is undisputed as well isn't it? I only suggest this for consistency's sake. The later kings of France are enumerated based on these numbers. Srnec 04:47, 30 March 2006 (UTC)
- I do like consistency: it makes editing easier. On the other hand, I'm not sure that this is really a case where it adds much. To begin with, if you call the article "Charles III", then the officious will insist on it beginning with the words "Charles III" and on referring to him as that throughout. That doesn't help readers; he's usually called Charles the Simple. Again, there are already articles on every king of West Francia and France, so that editing is only a case of adding to existing articles rather than writing new ones. Charles III links to Charles the Simple, so that doesn't seem to be an issue for editors. For what it's worth, I'd say that the article on Philip II should be called Philip Augustus, because that is what he's known as. Angus McLellan (Talk) 22:09, 30 March 2006 (UTC)
