This level-4 vital article is rated C-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
Among the things I removed: he threw out the vast legacy of Mediaeval prohibitions. Now you may think that I'm a cranky medievalist (and I am - I've only had one cup of coffee so far), but this is virtually meaningless. Mediaeval prohibitions? Does that refer to laws? Customs? Legal codes? Please elaborate. Were they mediaeval, or perhaps Roman? French legal history is a vast and complicated sea of change, and saying that a king 'threw out the vast legacy' of the middle ages is silly. "Renaissance," by the way, is a very mixed term. One could, and I would, argue that the two paragraphs about the economic and military disasters of Francis's reign were caused by his openness to 'humanism' and its model of the absolute ruler rather than an accident of luck or poor planning. Those "mediaeval prohibitions" sometimes had the virtue of restraining royal action. MichaelTinkler
I find what you said very interesting. This information originaly came from a much longer essay I wrote. The argument I made in this essay was that Francis' humanism was the cause of his economic and military problems. In turning the essay from an argumentative one to a expository one I cut out pretty much all of that discussion. I personally think that it was the embrace of humanism by the French monarchy that put it on the path to the behaviour that would cause the French Revolution. I didn't think this opinion was NPOV enough, however, and thus left it out. -SimonP
Before I start copyediting: in addition to easy fixes (a comma here, "renowned" there), the word "chateaux" appears in a lot of places where I suspect the singular is called for. E.g., did Saint Germain-en-Laye ever have more than one chateau? (That one caught my eye because I've been there--the surviving chateau now houses the Museum of French Prehistory.) And does anyone know whether older browsers, and lynx, handle those long codes for apostrophes and quotation marks gracefully? Vicki Rosenzweig
Oy, I did use chateaux for the singular throughout didn't I. Many years of French teachers would be very dissapointed in me. -SimonP
I've never heard of this guy referred to as Francis. If it's not John Charles of Spain, why is it Francis of France? - montréalais
Yeah, I was a bit baffled too. It's Francois, right? What do we call Carlos of Spain -- Charles or Carlos? -- Tarquin
Like I said before -- it was Frederick William when I was in high school, but it's Friedrich Wilhelm now...As we English speakers try to become more culturally aware, we're going to get these changes. i don't think it's a big problem, as long as the article is in the most normal form -- we can create re-direct pages, and even swap content and redirects in future. Ah, the beauty of wiki. HK 14:47 Aug 13, 2002 (PDT)
It makes no sense to call someone "Francis" when in fact they are born and legally baptized as "François". And, anyone who has studied any amount of French history, refers only to him as François. But then again, being from France, maybe I should go change everything to "Georges Bush" and "Guillaume Clinton" etc ? ... DW
— This a strange comment, because (like English-speakers), French-speakers do this quite a lot, especially with historical names – so we have Raphaël, Tite-Live (the Roman historian), Pétrarque, Guillaume d'Orange, etc. I’m tempted to say everyone does it, and why not? The Italians call the guy Cristoforo Colombo but the French say Christophe Colomb, the Spanish Cristóbal Colón, and so forth. The king is certainly known as Francis I in English, just as the queen of Scotland is called Marie Stuart in French. No need to labour the point. Campolongo (talk) 07:43, 28 May 2008 (UTC) Campolongo
-Well, feel free to anglicise Joan Charles I, we spaniards still translate ALL the names of the monarchs. Yes, we call Her Majesty Isabel II and Príncipe Carlos de Inglaterra and even their sons Príncipe Guillermo. --84.126.10.233 (talk) 08:47, 25 September 2009 (UTC)
PS: Names of Prime Ministers and Presidents are not translated, at least not since the XVII century. Only royals and popes have that treatment.
I don't know how to start a new section for discussion but this bothers me: three times in this article, it mentions that one of his nicknames was the 'Grand Colas," but this is nowhere translated. His other nicknames (Francis of the Long Nose, etc.) are all translated. What is "Grand Colas" and can we please put it in the article? As a non-speaker of French I keep thinking of big soft drinks. Pfft. 73.53.72.243 (talk) 21:49, 3 November 2019 (UTC)
Does anyone know anything more about Francis' bid to become Holy Roman Emperor? I've heard this mentioned elsewhere (in passing, as in this article). It seems an intriguingly odd ambition on his part, as the rulers of Germany would have had several centuries worth of tradition in holding the title. Was there any chance that the electors might have chosen him? Was the fact that his rival Charles V was a "Spaniard" (not really, of course, but he did live in Spain by this time, I believe) a factor? --Jfruh 7 July 2005 15:24 (UTC)
Why exactly has no one, to this point, mentioned the Concordat of Bologna? It's arguably one of Francis I's greatest achievements...control over the Church is nothing to be sneezed at.
A treatise on Fencing (By G. Hale Gent, 1614) mentions thet Frances I challenged Emperor Charles to a duel.
http://www.thehaca.com/Manuals/FullPSoDtext.htm
"The Second is, Publique good abroad, for avoyding bloud, if the State of a War should require a single Tryall, which howsoever was presumption in Goliath, was true valor in David: the imitation of this example, hath beene frequent in great Persons in forraigne, and memorable in our owne Country: as betweene Edmund, surnamed Ironside, and King Canute, to a happy issue. Neyther can I forget an offer in the same kinde made in more late yeeres, betweene Frances the first, King of France, and Charles the fift, Emperour, though without effect."
I was told that he left his sons as token hostages in Medinaceli when he was freed from Spain. However, since he refused to comply with his ransom, what happened to the sons?
I believe they were kept in captivity until the Treaty of Cambrai in 1529. john k 00:13, 28 July 2006 (UTC)
"Francis" is also a french name, like "françois". But "francis" really don't suit to a king (it sounds pejorative imo). Why don't keep his french name ? 213.103.243.191 21:08, 4 December 2006 (UTC)
Francis I of France was never king of Navarre. He supported the claims of the House of Albret to the kingdom of Navarre that had been incorporated to the spanish monarchy. Thus, is necessary to remove the coat of arms of Navarre.--158.227.33.102 (talk) 16:02, 31 March 2008 (UTC)
Why aren't the names of his mistresses listed in the article? Seems to be a gross oversight to me.Francoise de foix and Anne d'Heilly are worthy of a mention-in fact, the latter is worthy of her own article.She was very important at the French 13:39, 17 April 2008 (UTC)jeanne (talk)court.
Probably because nobody has attempted to improve the article in some time. You might do so yourself, if you ar interested in Francis and his court. But take note that both Françoise de Foix and Anne de Pisseleu d'Heilly already have their own articles. Dimadick (talk) 13:46, 20 April 2008 (UTC)
Was he really Duke of Brittany as Francis III? I do believe that Francis was de jure uxoris Duke of Brittany by his marriage to Claude, Duchess of Brittany, but wasn't their son Duke of Brittany as Francis III? Surtsicna (talk) 07:58, 26 August 2008 (UTC)
Someone had it that Francis I and Charles V had inherited their family feud of "Burgundy and Narvare". NO, not so. I corrected it to read "Burgundy and Orleans". Francis was the great grandson of Louis of Orleans and Charles was the great grandson of John of Burgundy. Burgundy and Orleans were engaged in a power struggle during the mad king Charles VI's reign. John had Louis murdered thus starting the family feud and many years of civil war. Then the dauphin Charles had John of Burgundy murdered. The family feud is now Burgundy against Orleans and the Crown. Actually both Louis and John were grandsons of the French king John the Good. When the English king Edward III tried to have Margaret, Countess of Flanders, marry one of his sons, the French king Charles the Wise snatched Margaret for his brother Philip of Burgundy. The French thought it was a victory over England. But, with control over Burgundy and Flanders (and various smaller territories), the House of Burgundy rose to become a power that challenged France. So, Charles the Wise unwittingly created the monster. Since Louis of Orleans married Valentine Viscounti, the daughter of Galeazzo, Duke of Milan, the House of Orleans was the legitimate heir to the territory of Milan when Filipo died without an heir. That's why the French kings, especially the Orleans branch, pursued the Italian Wars relentlessly trying to recapture this lost inheritence. --VimalaNowlis (talk) 09:56, 25 June 2010 (UTC) It's spelled Navarre. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Fale Aesgard (talk • contribs) 17:35, 16 June 2012 (UTC)
Hi, I am afraid you might be getting a bit carried away here. It is true that the Valois family had a dynastic claim to Milan and Naples. But it is rather far-fetched to say that Charles V was fighting Francis in his Burgundian capacity. As King of Spain and Emperor, Charles had plenty of beef with Francis. I do not recall ever reading about the Orleans-Burgundy feud as perpetuated in the Italian Wars. If you can prove me wrong by producing a reference, so much the better - I'll have learned something new. Till then, I remove this sentence. Cheers, Bazuz (talk) 17:39, 16 June 2012 (UTC)
Does anyone think it a little strange that two of his children were engaged to the same man, one from birth and after she died, the other took over and then died as well, and then he married someone else? I was just interested if this was common practice during those times.
The sentence mentioning Verrazzano's reconnaissance of the present site of New York City has been reworded; he named this location New Angoulême, but I am not aware of any evidence that he actually "founded" a settlement there.
Francois I came on my radar from reading Benedict Anderson's Imagined Communities. In chapter three he refers to "The Coming of the Book" by Lucien Febvre and Henri-Jean Martin. Page 310-315 describe the (ultimately unenforceable) ban on all books by Francois I in 1535 in response to the overwhelming protestant or otherwise heretical thought being printed vs latin-language printing. This undermines the larged unsourced section in this article claiming Francois was enthusiastic about books... consideration for editing this section. Louise000 (talk) 04:31, 18 April 2020 (UTC)
By "Incessant wars of his predecessors", you mean that the end of one war was the beginning of another against the same ennemy? Boutarfa1 (talk) 15:33, 6 September 2023 (UTC)
This sentence does not make grammatical sense:
Recently I’ve been going back and forth a bit with an editor who’s been changing the standard captions for a few French monarchs, such as Charles VII, Louis XII, Francis I, Henry II, Francis II, Charles IX, Louis XVI, Louis XVIII, and Charles X. The standard caption is for example normally “Portrait by (artists name), c. 1500” or something similar to that. The captions this editor wants (because they say they’re following Wikipedia policy) is captions such as Portrait c. 1514 and 1559 portrait. Nearly every royal article uses the caption I’ve insisted remains. I and another editor (User:Randy Kryn) tried talking with them in their talk page and they still refuse to at least make a post in the talk pages of the articles to see if other editors agree with them. Two editors have openly disagreed with them about this issue but conversations have gone nowhere. I think it’s important that artists are credited in the caption because it’s important to the topic, the topic of the captions should be the artist who created it and the year it was created. I wanted to gain consensus to stop this editor from removing credits for the artist and keep the long standing captions that includes the artists, as the editor who’s making the change has refused to gain consensus to remove the artists. Kind regards, Robertus Pius (Talk • Contribs) 17:06, 8 March 2024 (UTC)
It seems to me WP:Visual Arts Manual of Style and MOS:Credits are in tension hereHere, no - MOS:VA is quite clear that its scope is "writing about the visual arts", making this article out of scope. The tension is rather between a particular interpretation of Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Captions#Tips for describing pictures on the one hand and MOS:VA, MOS:CREDITS, MOS:CAPLENGTH, and more on the other. I have not seen that tension reconciled.
Hi @Mandsford, saw your recent edit of the date of marriage. I suspect the reason it did not accord with the source attached to the line is less to do with carelessness from whoever wrote it and more to do with a confusion among the sources. I observe the line is sourced to a book from 1860. In the far more recent work by Jean Jacquart (1994) p. 221 we find the following.
"Le 6 juillet à l'abbaye de Saint-Laurent-de-Beyrie occupée par des clarisses, le roi peut embrasser ses enfants et sa fiancée, qu'il n'avait fait qu'entrevoir en Espagne, quatre ans plus tôt. Il fait célébrer la messe de mariage le lendemain matin vers six heures, sans attendre l'arrivée du grand aumônier, et les époux se retirent dans leur chambre." sovietblobfish (talk) 06:06, 1 July 2024 (UTC)