Talk:Francis I of France

Untitled

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) Campolongo

-Well, feel free to anglicise Joan Charles I, we spaniards still translate ALL the names of the monarchs. Yes, we call Her Majesty Isabel II and Príncipe Carlos de Inglaterra and even their sons Príncipe Guillermo. --84.126.10.233 (talk) 08:47, 25 September 2009 (UTC)

PS: Names of Prime Ministers and Presidents are not translated, at least not since the XVII century. Only royals and popes have that treatment.

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)

I don't know how to start a new section for discussion but this bothers me: three times in this article, it mentions that one of his nicknames was the 'Grand Colas," but this is nowhere translated. His other nicknames (Francis of the Long Nose, etc.) are all translated. What is "Grand Colas" and can we please put it in the article? As a non-speaker of French I keep thinking of big soft drinks. Pfft. 73.53.72.243 (talk) 21:49, 3 November 2019 (UTC)

Failed imperial candidacy

Does anyone know anything more about Francis' bid to become Holy Roman Emperor? I've heard this mentioned elsewhere (in passing, as in this article). It seems an intriguingly odd ambition on his part, as the rulers of Germany would have had several centuries worth of tradition in holding the title. Was there any chance that the electors might have chosen him? Was the fact that his rival Charles V was a "Spaniard" (not really, of course, but he did live in Spain by this time, I believe) a factor? --Jfruh 7 July 2005 15:24 (UTC)

Why exactly has no one, to this point, mentioned the Concordat of Bologna? It's arguably one of Francis I's greatest achievements...control over the Church is nothing to be sneezed at.

---

A treatise on Fencing (By G. Hale Gent, 1614) mentions thet Frances I challenged Emperor Charles to a duel.

http://www.thehaca.com/Manuals/FullPSoDtext.htm

"The Second is, Publique good abroad, for avoyding bloud, if the State of a War should require a single Tryall, which howsoever was presumption in Goliath, was true valor in David: the imitation of this example, hath beene frequent in great Persons in forraigne, and memorable in our owne Country: as betweene Edmund, surnamed Ironside, and King Canute, to a happy issue. Neyther can I forget an offer in the same kinde made in more late yeeres, betweene Frances the first, King of France, and Charles the fift, Emperour, though without effect."

---

Sons

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)

Francis ?

"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)

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)

King of Navarre?

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)

Mistresses.

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)jeanne (talk)court.

Probably because nobody has attempted to improve the article in some time. You might do so yourself, if you ar interested in Francis and his court. But take note that both Françoise de Foix and Anne de Pisseleu d'Heilly already have their own articles. Dimadick (talk) 13:46, 20 April 2008 (UTC)

Duke of Brittany as Francis III?

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)

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)

Francis I and Emperor Charles V and the Italian Wars

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) It's spelled Navarre. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Fale Aesgard (talk • contribs) 17:35, 16 June 2012 (UTC)

Hi, I am afraid you might be getting a bit carried away here. It is true that the Valois family had a dynastic claim to Milan and Naples. But it is rather far-fetched to say that Charles V was fighting Francis in his Burgundian capacity. As King of Spain and Emperor, Charles had plenty of beef with Francis. I do not recall ever reading about the Orleans-Burgundy feud as perpetuated in the Italian Wars. If you can prove me wrong by producing a reference, so much the better - I'll have learned something new. Till then, I remove this sentence. Cheers, Bazuz (talk) 17:39, 16 June 2012 (UTC)

Comment

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)

New Angoulême

The sentence mentioning Verrazzano's reconnaissance of the present site of New York City has been reworded; he named this location New Angoulême, but I am not aware of any evidence that he actually "founded" a settlement there.

Man of letters - question mark

Francois I came on my radar from reading Benedict Anderson's Imagined Communities. In chapter three he refers to "The Coming of the Book" by Lucien Febvre and Henri-Jean Martin. Page 310-315 describe the (ultimately unenforceable) ban on all books by Francois I in 1535 in response to the overwhelming protestant or otherwise heretical thought being printed vs latin-language printing. This undermines the larged unsourced section in this article claiming Francois was enthusiastic about books... consideration for editing this section. Louise000 (talk) 04:31, 18 April 2020 (UTC)

Did you read all of page 310?? --Kansas Bear (talk) 05:08, 18 April 2020 (UTC)

Death by hanging, censorship and limitation on sales, what am I missing. Louise000 (talk) 11:12, 18 April 2020 (UTC)

That edict by Francis I, follows the Affair of the Placards(17-18 October, 1534), hence the death by hanging, censorship, limitation on sale, etc. What gives it away is the "Extirpation of heresy" part of the sentence. A later sentence, "Bude and Jean Du Bellay objected to the decree and it was finally revoked." Also, explains that Francis realized the limitations of that edict.

I think you can portray Francis as reacting to, as he saw it, heresy. That he issued an edict that was impossible to enforce and then later revoked it.

It is mentioned in passing in the article, "Printing was censored and leading Protestant reformers such as John Calvin were forced into exile.". I think you can add some information into the article(paraphrased and sourced).

I do not believe what we find on 310(et.al.) negates that Francis was a bibliophile. You might search through other books and see if they support what that "largely unsourced section" states. --Kansas Bear (talk) 17:07, 18 April 2020 (UTC)

Discussion

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)

Grammatical problems

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)

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)

Captions

Recently I’ve been going back and forth a bit with an editor who’s been changing the standard captions for a few French monarchs, such as Charles VII, Louis XII, Francis I, Henry II, Francis II, Charles IX, Louis XVI, Louis XVIII, and Charles X. The standard caption is for example normally “Portrait by (artists name), c. 1500” or something similar to that. The captions this editor wants (because they say they’re following Wikipedia policy) is captions such as Portrait c. 1514 and 1559 portrait. Nearly every royal article uses the caption I’ve insisted remains. I and another editor (User:Randy Kryn) tried talking with them in their talk page and they still refuse to at least make a post in the talk pages of the articles to see if other editors agree with them. Two editors have openly disagreed with them about this issue but conversations have gone nowhere. I think it’s important that artists are credited in the caption because it’s important to the topic, the topic of the captions should be the artist who created it and the year it was created. I wanted to gain consensus to stop this editor from removing credits for the artist and keep the long standing captions that includes the artists, as the editor who’s making the change has refused to gain consensus to remove the artists. Kind regards, Robertus Pius (Talk • Contribs) 17:06, 8 March 2024 (UTC)

This isn't a key fact about the article subject. Nikkimaria (talk) 01:22, 9 March 2024 (UTC)

Crediting artist's works in captions is the guideline of the visual arts WikiProject (which was given the task of providing the language). Randy Kryn (talk) 01:40, 9 March 2024 (UTC)

The credit is appropriately included on the image description page. Nikkimaria (talk) 01:44, 9 March 2024 (UTC)

Did you read my comment above (we've had this talk before, at the Abigail Adams talk page), the guiding language asks for artists to be credited in artwork captions. If you want to employ the policy WP:IAR then please discuss how your point-of-view is essential to improve or maintain Wikipedia, thanks. Randy Kryn (talk) 02:34, 9 March 2024 (UTC)

I did indeed. Wikipedia:Manual_of_Style/Captions#Tips_for_describing_pictures indicates that image description page is an appropriate place for details to be hosted, and MOS:CREDITS indicates that this information should not be included in the context of the infobox caption; no IAR is required. Nikkimaria (talk) 03:16, 9 March 2024 (UTC)

Removing the artist credit does nothing to improve the article, quite the opposite actually. If nobody responds to this in the next few days supporting your change then I’ll go ahead and revert your removals of the artists from the French monarchs I’ve listed above. Robertus Pius (Talk • Contribs) 07:43, 9 March 2024 (UTC)

No need to wait a few days, see guideline comment below. Randy Kryn (talk) 10:18, 9 March 2024 (UTC)

Please read it again, this is applicable to all images in Wikipedia articles: Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Captions#Tips for describing pictures, quote, "For works of art (see WikiProject Visual arts Art Manual of Style for fuller details) at "Who is the artist?" Randy Kryn (talk) 10:18, 9 March 2024 (UTC)

From the page you have linked

"An infobox image and, in the absence of an infobox, a photograph or other image in the article's lead section, serves to illustrate the topic of the article, as such, the caption should work singularly towards that purpose."

"Unless relevant to the subject, do not credit the image author or copyright holder in the article. It is assumed that this is not necessary to fulfill attribution requirements of the GFDL or Creative Commons licenses as long as the appropriate credit is on the image description page. If the artist or photographer is independently notable, then a wikilink to the artist's biography may be appropriate, but image credits in the infobox image are discouraged, even if the artist is notable, since the infobox should contain only key facts of the article's subject, per MOS:INFOBOX."

This seems fairly open and shut in favour of Nikkimaria's position, even if personally I think caption credits are nice and maybe the MoS should be reworked on this one. sovietblobfish (talk) 10:44, 9 March 2024 (UTC)

It's open and shut, but not in the way you describe (and the quotes you use are not consecutive, they are separated and refer to different topics). Maybe read it again and follow the link to the relevant wording at the visual arts guidelines. This is not about photographs or a general copyrighted image, it is about artworks, and the guideline says that the artist's name should be credited. Read the talk:Abigail Adams discussion as well. Johnbod has a good handle on this situation. Randy Kryn (talk) 11:03, 9 March 2024 (UTC)

Just a reminder, this discussion is about the removal of Jean Clouet, the artist, from the infobox caption about the portrait of Francis I that he created. The visual arts guideline says that the name must be included. Randy Kryn (talk) 11:16, 9 March 2024 (UTC)

It seems to me WP:Visual Arts Manual of Style and MOS:Credits are in tension here and this is a broader problem that needs to be resolved on one of those two pages rather than something that should be fought in individual articles talk pages.

I disagree with you however that the passages I provided don't cover 'artworks', a) photographs are artworks, and b) the quote says "artist or photographer is independently notable"

Finally I confess I am confused how WP:ASTONISH which appears in the Abigail Adams talk page is meant to apply to this situation. The failure to include a painters name in the article body is not turning the painter into an easter egg because the painter is entirely incidental to this article. I am not going to be 'shocked surprised or confused' because the author of a painting is not immediately displayed to me on an article about a French king.

Anyway, I have nothing further to contribute to this discussion. Best wishes all. sovietblobfish (talk) 11:28, 9 March 2024 (UTC)

It seems to me WP:Visual Arts Manual of Style and MOS:Credits are in tension here Here, no - MOS:VA is quite clear that its scope is "writing about the visual arts", making this article out of scope. The tension is rather between a particular interpretation of Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Captions#Tips for describing pictures on the one hand and MOS:VA, MOS:CREDITS, MOS:CAPLENGTH, and more on the other. I have not seen that tension reconciled.

Otherwise I would agree with your comments, particularly that if people want to change the wording of these guidelines that discussion doesn't belong here. Nikkimaria (talk) 14:29, 10 March 2024 (UTC)

Nevertheless, it seems there is a majority consensus to restore the captions that include the artists. They’re three editors who think the artists should remain and two who don’t. I’ll go ahead and restore the the old captions later today. Regards, Robertus Pius (Talk • Contribs) 22:01, 12 March 2024 (UTC)

Hi Robertus Pius, consensus is not a vote - what you're proposing would not be an appropriate action to take based on this discussion. Nikkimaria (talk) 22:07, 12 March 2024 (UTC)

I assume the only action acceptable to you would be to allow your captions to stay even though they’re more editors who disagree with your captions then agree with them. And in a way consensus is a vote, though, normally they’re more compromises. If a minority amount of editors want to change something but the majority don’t, the change will not happen. Regards, Robertus Pius (Talk • Contribs) 23:34, 12 March 2024 (UTC)

I can’t think of a compromise as it’s pretty cut and dry. I think the artists should be linked, you do not. Can you think of a compromise that might leave us both feeling satisfied with the outcome? Robertus Pius (Talk • Contribs) 23:39, 12 March 2024 (UTC)

No, consensus is not a vote, which is why selective notification remains problematic in determining majority vs minority opinion - and even if it was a vote, you can't apply the results from one article talk page across others.

One potential solution for this particular article would be to add a paragraph in the article body discussing artistic portrayals of the subject, which could include a more extensive discussion of the artist. Nikkimaria (talk) 23:47, 12 March 2024 (UTC)

Perhaps. But it seems unnecessary as a

simple link in the caption could solve this issue. Robertus Pius (Talk • Contribs) 23:58, 12 March 2024 (UTC)

• MOS:CREDITS is out of sync with the community, and should be altered. One wonders how and when that wording came in, and whether there was discussion. I think it is fine for most photographs, & I don't think eg "unknown artist" needs saying, but leading painters of the day should be named. Johnbod (talk) 13:41, 9 March 2024 (UTC)