Talk:Charles VII of France

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This article is within the scope of the following WikiProjects:

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Charles VII of France article.
Article policies


Contents

[edit] The sword that used in the crowning of Charles VII?

This ceremony sword was used on sunday, 17 July, 1429, where Charles VII was solemnly crowned. It should be placed here. This is 100% authentic image of the sword.


black and white [1]


color [2]


[edit] Charles' position after 1422?

The article says:

Under the Treaty, King Henry of England ruled Northern France through a regent in Normandy and southern France by the Dauphin Charles from his fortified castle at Chinon.

I'm not really sure how to parse this sentence. Did the treaty see Charles ruling southern France in the name of his nephew as a sort of viceroy? Or did he rule southern France by virtue of his position there, as an explicit enemy of the English? --Jfruh 03:06, 3 Mar 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Capetitian Dynasty

and in such bold type, too. I thought capetitian was an auburn hair color with reddish glints... --Wetman 04:01, 25 Apr 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Marie de France?

The historical writer Marie de France, as I know it, lived in the 12th century. Although there might have been another woman by the same name as Charles's daughter in the 15th century, the wiki link should not refer to an incorrect article as it does at this time. As I have come late to the discussion and editing of this page, I leave it to you the make the required modification for that matter. Thank you.

[edit] Scottish involvement

Mention is made above of the "British occupation", and in the article itself about the inability of the French to field an army between 1422 and 1429. It amazes me that somehow the Scottish involvement in this war is completely forgotten by the French. The English, not the British, occupied Normandy etc. I am not just a chippy jock whining about the conflation of the terms English and British, because to do so actually completely misrepresents the situation. The English were prevented from effectively extending their influence south of the Loire between 1422 and 1429 by the Scottish armies put into the field by James I. c.f. the Battles of Bauge, Verneuil, Cravant etc. - all conflicts between English armies and French armies primarily composed of Scottish forces sent to assist France by Scotland under the terms of their military alliance. Between 1419 and 1425 17,000 Scots embarked for France, and another 6,000 in 1428 (under the terms of the treaty of Perth) to fight against the English, inflicting their first defeat in the war at Bauge in a conflict that prevented the English penetrating south of the Loire to Chinon. The Scottish 4th Earl of Douglas was made Lieutenant-General of the French forces and made Duke of Touraine. The Earl of Buchan was made constable of France. Sir John Crichton was made governor of Chatillon. Charles VII married his son and heir off to the daughter of the king of Scots. One of the six bishop attending his coronation was Scottish, as was his bodyguard. Jeanne d'Arc's escort to Orleans was composed entirely of Scottish forces. Even her banner had been made by a Scot, Hamish Powers, in Tours, in gratitude for which Jeanne persuaded the dignitaries of Tours to provide his daughter's dowry. As a result of the debt the French owed the Scots for giving them time to recover Scots merchants were given preferential terms in Bordeaux.

None of this is controversial or a matter of interpretation, it is all amply attested by primary historical record and is not disputed by serious historians - so why is it written out of history, and why is the memory of the Scots who fought to save France from English domination in the 15th century routinely insulted by people like the authors of this article by their omissions and misrepresentations?!

[edit] Neutrality

I'm wondering if the statement:

"Although his leadership was sometimes marked by indecisiveness, hardly any other leader left a nation so much better improved than when he came on the scene."

Is neutral? It doesn't strike me as neutral at all. LouisXI 04:28, 3 April 2007 (UTC)

Sounds pretty basic statement of fact to me (albeit poorly written): he began with his kingdom largely conquered and in crisis, he ended with a united nation, free of English domination, and almost entirely free of foreign encroachment. An improvement, no? Michael Sanders 14:20, 3 April 2007 (UTC)


Hmm, I do think it needs to be rewritten, so it seems a tad bit more neutral. It is a true statement, but, as stated, it's not written well at all.LouisXI 06:19, 4 April 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Succession box error

Shouldn't the succession box state that his rule was in dispute with the Angevin Henry of Aquitaine? Don't piss of the Frenchies, huh? 24.255.11.149 (talk) 09:29, 24 December 2007 (UTC)