Talk:Peerage of France

General

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)

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)

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)

Princes of the Blood

The number of lay peerages increased over time from 6 in 1297 to 26 in 1400, 21 in 1505, 24 in 1588. By 1789, there were 43, including 5 held by princes of the blood (Orléans, Condé, Bourbon, Enghien, Conti), a legitimized prince (Penthièvre), and 37 other peers, ranking from Uzès (duchy created in 1572) to Aubigny (created in 1787). One family could hold several peerages; the minimum age was 25.

Is this really right? Had I to guess the 5 princes of the blood, I'd have imagined Orléans, Condé, Conti, Provence, and Artois. Bourbon and Enghien were the heirs to the Condé peerage title, certainly, but didn't have substantive titles of their own, while the king's brothers had been given full on apanages - and the article itself notes that all apanagists were peers. Can anyone source the claim that Enghien and Bourbon were peers and Provence and Artois were not? john k 23:15, 10 March 2006 (UTC)

There's a confusion going on here between titles and ranks. The French dynastic anomaly is that it never used "Prince" as a prefix for its dynasts, so they were forever forced to scramble for titles. But since their rank derived from their kinship to the reigning King, it didn't much matter what titles they took. Strictly speaking, you are correct that the dukedoms of Bourbon and Enghien were not legally held by those princes, but by their grandfather the Prince de Condé. But the Ducs d'Enghien and Bourbon, and the Comtes de Provence and Artois all had rank above peers because, since 1576, all agnates of the Blood Royal outranked peers by birth.

Their peerage titles were irrelevant and, in fact, were often never legally conferred or long ago sold, being used merely as titles (although others were granted as formal appanages). Condé and Conti were never peerages, but lordships the Princes didn't bother to hang onto (Condé-en-Brie was inherited by female heirs in 1641, Conti was sold in 1628. Bourbon was made a dukedom in 1661 and Enghien a dukedom in 1633, and both did stay in the family).

Strictly speaking, Provence and Artois were not princes of the Blood, but petit-fis de France ("grandsons of France") a distinctly higher rank -- so that the fact they used the title of Count is deceiving: The Comte de Provence's appanage was the ducal peerage of Anjou, never Provence. The Comte de Provence's appanage originally consisted of the duchies of Auvergne, Angoulême, Mercoeur and the vicomté of Limoges. By a bewildering exchange of properties between 1773 and 1778 his legal appanage ended up consisting of the duchies, counties and lordships of Angoulême, Berry, Châteauroux, Agenton, Henrichemont, Ponthieu and Poitou -- never Artois. So by my count Provence and Artois held seven peerages between them -- obviously as appanages, they were not part of the five attributed above to "princes of the Blood", whose dukedoms had not been created as appanages but usually inherited from heiresses or purchased. See Francois Velde's site at:

http://www.heraldica.org/topics/france/apanage.htm Lethiere 20:29, 11 March 2006 (UTC)

That's word-for-word from François Velde. (This page may border on copyvio, in fact.) Choess 23:24, 10 March 2006 (UTC)

Since Velde is a notorious critic of WP, his language should be removed pronto and, at least (since he is an invaluable source), paraphrased. See:

http://groups.google.com/group/alt.talk.royalty/msg/25b0825e427eeae5 Lethiere 20:29, 11 March 2006 (UTC)

The above explanation is a bit complicated, and I am not sure I understood everything. But then, maybe it's not so much that I am dumb, but rather that Lethiere did not make a good job of explaining the matter (LOL).

I'm sorry if I failed to make matters clear. I tried to address several questions raised all at once. If you will indicate what remains unclear, I will try to check sources and clarify.Lethiere 06:19, 14 March 2006 (UTC)

Anyway, I noticed one error: the title Prince de Condé doesn't come from Condé-en-Brie, but from Condé-sur-l'Escaut (Nord département). This I found in many sources. The title was inherited through the house of Luxembourg, who owned many fiefs in the Lower Countries (Condé-sur-l'Escaut, also Enghien now in Belgium, and many others). For fuller explanations check what I wrote at Enghien. Hardouin 18:30, 13 March 2006 (UTC)

"There is some confusion as to whether the title was not attached instead to another lordship owned by the family, that of Condé-sur-Escaut. I follow the opinion of the editors of the Hommages rendus à la Chambre des comptes." François Velde, http://www.heraldica.org/topics/france/frprince.htm. Also, see: http://groups.google.com/group/alt.talk.royalty/msg/d1edeccd2019c3cf Lethiere 06:19, 14 March 2006 (UTC)

You're right actually. I checked www.quid.fr, which is the ultimate source for the history of each French commune, and it appears Condé-en-Brie was indeed a fief of the house of Luxembourg that entered the house of Bourbon with the marriage of Mary of Luxembourg. On the other hand, it appears Condé-sur-l'Escaut was divided in two fiefs: one fief was in the hands of the Croÿ family, the other fief was in the hands the descendants of Mary of Montmorency (unrelated to the princes of Condé). Eventually in 1602 the two families intermarried and the dukes of Croÿ became the only lords of Condé-sur-l'Escaut. Doing that little research, I discovered that the fantastic family library of the dukes of Croÿ, who were men of the enlightenment, was seized during the French Revolution and is now the property of the public library of the city of Valenciennes. I recommend you have a look at the Valenciennes city library website ([1]), which is greatly designed, and where you will be able to see a scanned version of the Cantilène de Sainte Eulalie, one of the oldest piece of writing in French, which I had no idea was kept there. Anyway, what this proves is that internet sources cannot be trusted and should always be triple and quadruple checked. All sources I had seen referred to Condé-sur-l'Escaut, but Quid and the Valenciennes library prove beyond doubt that Condé-sur-l'Escaut was not a fief of the Princes of Condé. I am immediately making the necessary corrections at the relevant articles. Hardouin 22:46, 14 March 2006 (UTC)

Merge with Pairie?

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)

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)

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)

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)

Sigh. I'm so lazy. We obviously need to rewrite the whole thing. Sigh. john k 23:07, 14 October 2006 (UTC)

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)

Well, have a go at it, please. john k 23:36, 14 October 2006 (UTC)

After I did the merge and fixed the redirects, User:Fastifex has brought back pairie and undone my redirects. Why are two articles needed to cover roughly the same material?NYArtsnWords 20:04, 19 October 2006 (UTC)

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)

Unanswered Question

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)

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)

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)

I seem to remember you can apply for 'recognition' from the french state Alci12 14:20, 19 December 2006 (UTC)

Normandy ?

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)

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)

Napoleonic peerages

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)

Abolition of hereditary peerage

It was in 1832, not in 1830! I change that.Montjoy Pursuivant (talk) 16:36, 18 August 2009 (UTC)

And I changed it to 1831.

Montjoy, will we ever agree???

Also moving this down the discussion page, as it is where new sections should go.

Frania W. (talk) 22:07, 19 August 2009 (UTC)