Talk:John the Fearless/Archive 1

Archive 1

Requested move, 2005

John, Duke of Burgundy → John the Fearless – known best under this name in history books, the rest is rather artificial complexity for an article name Francis Schonken 21:46, 28 August 2005 (UTC)

Discussion:

John, Duke of Burgundy → John the Fearless – known best under this name in history books, the rest is rather artificial complexity for an article name Francis Schonken 21:46, 28 August 2005 (UTC)

• Supporting page move as proposed --Francis Schonken 21:46, 28 August 2005 (UTC)
• Support; but are you going to extend this to the whole House of Burgundy? Septentrionalis 20:15, 29 August 2005 (UTC)
  • I had no plans in that sense, I really am not all that acquainted but Jan zonder Vrees (as this guy is known in Dutch) is quite evident to me. No I'd rather reform the "nobility titles" guideline (which presently is contraproductive in my eyes, certainly the way it's used by some), so that it's less ambiguous, reducing time lost on these kind of votes. --Francis Schonken 21:26, 29 August 2005 (UTC)

If we do this move (I am ambivalent), Charles the Bold and Philip the Good are certainly parallel cases. I feel as though there may be more than one Philip the Bold, though. john k 21:34, 29 August 2005 (UTC)

Well, Charles the Bold is the problem; one historian (Huizinga?) observed that he was also translated Charles the Rash and Charles the Reckless - and the more a historian studied Burgundy the more likely he was to choose the last. ;-> I agree with Philip the Good; if it's ambiguous, it's probably with one of the Spanish kings, and a cross reference to Philip N of Spain is enough. Septentrionalis 22:42, 29 August 2005 (UTC)

• Oppose, Assuming that article Duke of Burgundy is reasonably correct, and Peerage of France, if this title why not Duke of Wellington, or Kings of England etc, etc. Philip Baird Shearer 23:05, 29 August 2005 (UTC)
• Support. Use common name. CDThieme 15:44, 30 August 2005 (UTC)
• Abstain. I don't like what Francis has been doing in general, but I think moves of the Dukes of Burgundy are perhaps appropriate. john k 01:58, 31 August 2005 (UTC)
• Support. Use common name.Dejvid 21:23, 31 August 2005 (UTC)
• How about incorporating the two versions of the name ala Richard of Shrewsbury, 1st Duke of York? Something like "John the Fearless, Duke of Burgundy", indicating both which John this is and his title. User:Dimadick
  • I oppose the proposed move as it stands, but would support the amendment suggested by Dimadick. Deb 11:45, 2 September 2005 (UTC)
• Oppose. This current naming is helpful, since it is systematic. Also, sticking with systematics, we do not open gates to possible POV. Arrigo 10:52, 2 September 2005 (UTC)
• Oppose, I think...I can see some cases where a nickname would be appropriate for a title, but where there is a clear, long-term succession I think it would be more useful to use ordinals. Adam Bishop 15:47, 2 September 2005 (UTC)
• Oppose Craigy (talk) 19:56, September 2, 2005 (UTC)
• Comment: The Dukes of Burgundy are only a "clear, long term succession" for four generations. The only relation between Philip I, Duke of Burgundy and Philip II, Duke of Burgundy is that the latter (who was the younger son of the King of France) married the former's virgin bride five years after he became Duke. I believe there is also a difference of usage over the numbering, but the nicknames are fixed. Septentrionalis 21:16, 2 September 2005 (UTC)
  • Actually, it is not the only relation. For example, Philip II was the son and beneficiary of Philip I's heir in proximity of blood - the succession came from that feudal rule. Only much later, the legal concept of "new creation" was invented. Also, Philip II was Philip I's second cousin and no one survivor was genealogically closer to Philip I from Burgundian descent. Arrigo 21:21, 2 September 2005 (UTC)
    • Thank you for the correction; butI am genuinely uncertain what Arrigo is claiming: that John II of France succeeded to Burgundy before he regranted it to his youngest son? that rules for female succession are earlier and more certain than the right of the overlord to regrant? (I would like to be sure what points I am being asked to agree to before I discuss them.) Septentrionalis 21:44, 2 September 2005 (UTC)
      • Please read relevant books. Although this is a detail, it is well documented. King John rivalled in succession to Burgundy against Charles II of Navarre. John succeeded by principle of "proximity in blood". He held Burgundy himself for a couple of years. Then he transferred it to his favorite son. The transfer can be seen as a regrant (particularly by later legal theorists - similar persons who also retrospectively attached Salic Law to Philip V's succession in France), but it was also seen (at that time) as sort of division of inheritance. The time was still feudal, and certainly female succession was deemed very relevant re Duchy of Burgundy. How do you think Charles II of Navarre would ever have even had a claim? Attestedly he did. Regrants were very rare in those days, btw. Arrigo 21:55, 2 September 2005 (UTC)
        • If the rules of distant succession through the female line were well-defined, why were there two claimants?
          • Because the nice deviation of two feudal succession principles. Please read e.g Edward I's position as arbiter in Succession dispute over Scotland. Btw, did you know that John the Lackland succeeded Richard I much by the force of proximity principle. Arrigo 22:24, 2 September 2005 (UTC)
        • Cokayne's Complete Peerage makes clear that regrant of English earldoms after intestacy, forfeiture, or merger with the Crown was common; IIRC the same was true of the Duchies of Normandy and Anjou, see their articles; so why not of Burgundy?. Septentrionalis 22:17, 2 September 2005 (UTC)
          • England was more centralized at that time than France. Besides, earldoms in 14th century were sometimes still feudally inherited. How about you read the Norfolk Peerage Case. Cokayne could be full of later legal fiction regarding those centuries. Summa summarum: you cannot determine almost anything of France just because you have some source re England. Arrigo 22:24, 2 September 2005 (UTC)
            • • The descent of Lord Mowbray and Segrave? he includes the legal decision because it is the law; but he calls it "wholly irreconcilable with historical fact" (IX, p622, note ^a and App.G to that volume). Septentrionalis 23:17, 2 September 2005 (UTC)
                • Remember that the House of Lords, as supreme court in that case, did not draw its judgement from totally thin air: they utilized certain principles of feudal law, those which were overridden by "force" by then king who wanted a fief to Thomas. Imo The Lords caught something that is akin to usual application in those centuries, also in France. Regrants were not made except rarely, as fiefs did not became vacant easily. Of course Norfolk had a different fate, as the king was powerful, in Englnd which was more centralized than France at the time. Arrigo 23:34, 2 September 2005 (UTC)
          • Re Normandy and Anjou, articls here give more like legal fiction. Sad. But when you look at, Anjou was never regranted until the very exceptional conquest by Philip August - and then to only one line which had Marguerite as heiress at one stage. Same with Normandy, which actually never after 1200 developed an own line, but was always something like heir-apparent's purse (btw, succession of Normandy through Maud certainly attests female rights, thus presumed also re Burgundy). Besides, Burgundy's origins are older than year 1200. Arrigo 23:45, 2 September 2005 (UTC)
      • When Philip I died, the king did not inherit because there were no heirs, but because he was the heir. John II's mother was the grand-aunt of Philip I. He then bestowed the title upon his youngest son. I've never seen any numbering which does not make Philip the Bold "Philip II" and Philip the Good "Philip III". john k 21:52, 2 September 2005 (UTC)
• Support, per "use common name" rubric and comments above regarding inheritance. Jonathunder 21:27, 2005 September 2 (UTC)
• Oppose. Leave this one here. – AxSkov (☏) 06:33, 3 September 2005 (UTC)
• Oppose. Adraeus 18:38, September 3, 2005 (UTC)
• Three options are being discussed. Approval voting seems indicated. Septentrionalis 21:18, 2 September 2005 (UTC)

Well, approval vote...

Honestly saying, the approval vote tends to lead to an impassé. Not that I have very much against that in this case. I have seen these earlier. People write loong loong treatises and nothing ever gets decided. Fine. Fine. Arrigo 21:36, 2 September 2005 (UTC)

Approval vote

Please vote for as many of these as you can approve Single sentence comments please; longer comments above. Opinions expressed only in discussion should be considered, but do risk misinterpretation. Feel free to add other options.

John, Duke of Burgundy

equals no change

1. Of course I support this option. Per naming conventions. And for systematic simplicity. Arrigo 22:03, 2 September 2005 (UTC)
2. I'd prefer us to stick with this name. – AxSkov (☏) 06:39, 3 September 2005 (UTC)
3. Duke of Burgundy indicates no other John so don't need an ordinal. Philip Baird Shearer 18:04, 4 September 2005 (UTC)
4. Correctly encyclopedic. Adraeus 00:43, September 6, 2005 (UTC)
5. This would be acceptable as well. john k 02:38, 6 September 2005 (UTC)

John the Fearless

1. Acceptable, least piped links Septentrionalis 21:24, 2 September 2005 (UTC)
2. Support - I don't vote for the next choice (adding ", Duke of Burgundy"), because of "artificial complexity for an article name", so I vote for "John the Fearless", and nothing else. --Francis Schonken 06:50, 5 September 2005 (UTC)

John the Fearless, Duke of Burgundy

1. Adds information to present title Septentrionalis 21:24, 2 September 2005 (UTC)
2. I think this is the best option. john k 21:52, 2 September 2005 (UTC)
3. I'm inclining towards this one. Deb 18:04, 4 September 2005 (UTC)

John I, Duke of Burgundy

1. Correctly encyclopedic. Adraeus 18:38, September 3, 2005 (UTC) Replaced. I had a reason but that reason is now lost to me. Adraeus 00:43, September 6, 2005 (UTC)
2. I am willing to approve also this alternative. Arrigo 21:23, 3 September 2005 (UTC)
3. Acceptable. Deb 18:04, 4 September 2005 (UTC)
4. This would be an acceptable alternative. – AxSkov (☏) 05:33, 6 September 2005 (UTC)

Comment

Is John I, Duke of Burgundy in accord with policy?

Where there has only been one holder of a specific monarchical name in a state, the ordinal is used only when the ordinal was in official use. For example, Victoria of the United Kingdom, not Victoria I of the United Kingdom; Juan Carlos I of Spain, not Juan Carlos of Spain. Wikipedia:Naming conventions (names and titles)#Monarchical titles, 2

Since it has little English usage (Google offers no instances[1]), what is the case for it? Septentrionalis 19:25, 5 September 2005 (UTC)

Just to add, I cannot think of even any theoretical "John II," and the number was certainly not used at the time. My understanding is that Francis I of France was the first monarch to actually use the ordinal "I," and he lived a century after Jean Sans-Peur. john k 02:42, 6 September 2005 (UTC)

The usage of ordinals where there has been more than a single holder of a specific monarchical name in a state is correct and appropriate in Wikipedia. Whether the holder of a name was attributed an ordinal during their lifetime has no bearing on whether names are attributed ordinals in Wikipedia; however, if the holder of a name was not attributed an ordinal during their lifetime and that same holder of a name was the only person to hold that name, monarchically, in a state, then the ordinal should not be attributed in Wikipedia. (By the way, I've stricken my approval vote for the alternative I added because I can't remember the reason I added that alternative. The reason probably concerned naming consistency, but I'm uncertain.) Adraeus 06:14, September 6, 2005 (UTC)

Adraeus, why do you keep on repeating these same comments on multiple pages? This is not a response to my comment at all. I was pointing out that there has not been "more than a single holder" named John of the title "Duke of Burgundy." I was further pointing out that it is unlikely that John used an ordinal in his time. One of these has to be true for us to include the ordinal in the article title, according to current naming conventions. As far as I can tell, neither is true in this case - there was no John II, and this John didn't call himself "John I." As such, there is absolutely no reason for us to use "John I." john k 07:26, 6 September 2005 (UTC)

In support of your logic, I responded, not argued. Please remember that not all responses are arguments. Adraeus 04:08, September 7, 2005 (UTC)

Ah, I see, I'm sorry. You do seem to be repeating this same line with little variation on a number of pages, so I was puzzled. But sorry to have assumed you were arguing with me when you were agreeing with me. john k 04:52, 7 September 2005 (UTC)

Actually, there are some very theoretical (pretender) holders of the title named John. Among the later Borbons of Spain - kings of spain continued, even today, to use that title among their longer titulary. (Juan Carlos may be construed as John III of Burgundy, his father as John II, and in the latter part of 19th century there was the Carlist pretender of Spain who apparently regarded himself as John II of Burgundy too, as well as king John III of France.) Imo those theoretical holders are not important, and I certainly prefer the first option (that one without ordinal) but as I voted above, I am willing to approve also the ordinal. Arrigo 11:32, 6 September 2005 (UTC)

Once you get to Spanish monarchs and pretenders who neither ruled over nor specifically claimed any part of the Burgundian inheritance, I think the chain is getting pretty slim indeed. john k 17:48, 6 September 2005 (UTC)

It was requested that this article be renamed but there was no consensus for it be moved. Dragons flight 06:39, September 10, 2005 (UTC)

Requested move

The following discussion is an archived discussion of the proposal. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

John, Duke of Burgundy → John the Fearless – The current title is rarely, if ever used; the replacement, however, is the most common name used. Michael Sanders 22:00, 7 April 2007 (UTC)

Survey

Add "* Support" or "* Oppose" or other opinion in the appropriate section followed by a brief explanation, then sign your opinion with ~~~~

• Support as nominator Michael Sanders 22:00, 7 April 2007 (UTC)
• Support , a bit less strongly than the other two Johnbod 23:09, 7 April 2007 (UTC)
• Support, also more weakly. "John, Duke of Burgundy" is not strange, but I will go along with his father and son. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 20:12, 8 April 2007 (UTC)

Incidentally, just food for thought: the current title is, by wikipedia standards, just wrong anyway. He wasn't John I of Burgundy; he was John II. John II of France was John I of Burgundy, having inherited the Duchy as heir in proximity to Philip I. Michael Sanders 22:26, 10 April 2007 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the proposal. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

This article has been renamed from John, Duke of Burgundy to John the Fearless as the result of a move request. --Stemonitis 17:20, 16 April 2007 (UTC)