Talk:John I of France

old comments

The discussion on Salic Law, I suggest, should go. Moreover, they later had Joan renounce, they certainly did not consider Salic law as important as her batardise Snapdragonfly 01:40, 2 September 2005 (UTC)

By way of reply on the loi salique and whether it prevented a regnant queen of France, this is a footnote:

Castelot, André. Henri IV. Paris: Librairie Académique Perrin, 1986. [Castelot 140 n1]

footnote text:

En fait l'ancienne loi des Saliens ne concernait que le droit privé, excluant les femmes de la succession aux biens fonciers, et non de la succession au trône. Cette dernière n'a pas posé de problème en France jusqu'au début du XIVe s., tant que les fils purent l'assurer dans l'ordre de primogéniture. Tout change à la mort de Jean I^er le Posthume (1316) : en l'absence de successeur mâle, les femmes sont écartées du trône au profit de Philippe V puis de Charles IV, frères de Louis X, et enfin de Philippe VI de Valois, leur cousin : le principe de la masculinité est établi. La guerre de Cent Ans et les prétensions anglaises sur le trône de France ne pouvaient que renforcer ce principe qui permettait d'écarter les étrangers de la succession, et qui fut peu a peu considéré comme l'une des règles fondamentales de la monarchie : ainsi, au fil des anées, l'habileté des légistes à interpréter la loi salique a permis de donner une assise juridique à l'exclusion des femmes.

This basically says that an old Salic Frank law on the privileged descent of property was yanked into use when Jean I died and suddenly Philippe had a shot at directly taking the throne, if Jean's older sister could be gotten out of the way, legally of course...and eventually this sort of thing leads to the Valois, and then inexorably to Henri IV, a ninth cousin of the Valois. Because of a "make it legal" reinterpretation of an old inheritance law. —Preceding unsigned comment added by U Aiguier (talk • contribs) 19:22, 28 November 2007 (UTC)

Image

The image ought to be removed. It is an image of an adult created centuries after the death of this infant king. It has no realism and its similarity to other portraits in the same series gives lie to its lack of any unique value in terms of information about John I or people's perceptions of him. Srnec 04:01, 23 March 2007 (UTC)

Discussion of Succession

Shouldn't the discussion of the succession to John I logically be moved to the article on his successor, Philip V? The issue had no impact on John since he was dead.Aldrichio 20:13, 17 April 2007 (UTC)

Short answer: padding. Longer answer - it is worth summarising what happened in this article, since it was his death that threw the succession into doubt. Michael Sanders 21:43, 17 April 2007 (UTC)

Shortest reign?

John I (15 November 1316 – 20 November 1316), called the Posthumous, was King of France and Navarre, and Count of Champagne, as the son and successor of Louis X, for the five days he lived. He thus had the shortest official reign of any French king.

Louis XIX reigned for half an hour, "officially," depending on how you look at it. It's unclear whether he or his nephew should be considered to have reigned in the period between Charles X's abdication and Louis Philippe's taking the throne, but the claim seems reasonable enough as to make this sentence problematic. john k (talk) 01:42, 23 August 2009 (UTC)

Unlike John I, Louis (a duke) isn't universally recognized as 'King of France' by historians. Therefore, John's is the shortest reign. GoodDay (talk) 19:04, 23 August 2009 (UTC)

Death date

GoodDay, @Johnn Francis: I noticed that change by Tintero21 a few weeks back and poked around a bit, and it seemed to be correct. Also noted that both fr.wp and de.wp give the 19th. In case it helps, here is some info from what Tintero put in the ref for the change, abridged by me:

These are the dates given by the continuator of Guillaume de Nangis. Ref: See footnote 1 (in French). The Chronique Parisienne Anonyme de 1316 à 1339 gives 13 and 18 November. His burial took place on Sunday 20 "according to the same source"* although the 20th was actually a Saturday. Ref: Julian Day and Civil Date Calculator.

*(Eric's quotes because Eric is somewhat confused by how the note is written and sourced). Eric ^talk 18:08, 29 February 2024 (UTC)

No problem. I just noticed the death date was changed, after it being the 20th, for so many years. GoodDay (talk) 18:28, 29 February 2024 (UTC)

I somehow ended up messing up the link for the Chronique parisienne, but that has been already fixed. Sorry! Tintero21 (talk) 21:50, 29 February 2024 (UTC)