This article is within the scope of WikiProject European history, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of the history of Europe on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.European historyWikipedia:WikiProject European historyTemplate:WikiProject European historyEuropean history articles
This article is within the scope of WikiProject France, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of France on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.FranceWikipedia:WikiProject FranceTemplate:WikiProject FranceFrance articles
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Law, an attempt at providing a comprehensive, standardised, pan-jurisdictional and up-to-date resource for the legal field and the subjects encompassed by it.LawWikipedia:WikiProject LawTemplate:WikiProject Lawlaw articles
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Politics, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of politics on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.PoliticsWikipedia:WikiProject PoliticsTemplate:WikiProject Politicspolitics articles
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Royalty and Nobility, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of royalty and nobility on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Royalty and NobilityWikipedia:WikiProject Royalty and NobilityTemplate:WikiProject Royalty and NobilityRoyalty and Nobility articles
(Wait for reFill...) Mathglot (talk) 03:51, 1 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Expanded by reFill, except for the fee-based one. Mathglot (talk) 03:53, 1 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Done Okay, I'm done here for now. At least it looks very real, and the topic is clearly notable, so that's good news. Mathglot (talk) 03:54, 1 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Here's another one: Radica-2009 (see Further reading for citation) on Trois interprétations de la notion de « lois fondamentales » au xviiie siècle, with full text of the book available. Mathglot (talk) 06:58, 7 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Came across rhis while clicking around recently. Both you and I worked on ot so it's probably at least half right, but it was a while ago so we should probably check it. Makes sense that there would still be fundamental laws even after it wasn't a monarcht, though, right? It's more surprising that there were some before the revolution. Anyway, consider this a note to us both.Elinruby (talk) 22:02, 4 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Elinruby, Came across what? Did you forget to add a link? Mathglot (talk) 08:38, 5 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@Elinruby: completely different topics. The topic of that article concerns which written laws and documents of France should be considered "of constitutional force" (valeur constitutionnelle) in the present day, and is essentially a debate about the content of the constitutional block. They are all written documents. This article is about unwritten, customary laws from the Middle Ages, about inheritance and legitimacy of the French crown. There are still some traces of unwritten, customary law that have an effect on modern jurisprudence, but they have nothing to do with the constitutional block. So although they are two completely separate topics, the superficial similarity of the titles might imply that hatnotes should be added to both, once this draft is moved to main space to avoid possible confusion, so that was a really good catch to identify them. Mathglot (talk) 18:48, 5 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Added hatnote to the draft. Mathglot (talk) 18:31, 6 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
