Jump to content

Talk:List of rulers of Provence

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Comment

[edit]

Yes, the Bourbons used Cte. de Provence. A younger brother of Louis XVI was a Cte. de Provence. Wetman 21:59, 14 Mar 2004 (UTC)

Holy Roman Empire/French

[edit]

Just because the younger brother of the French king became count in 1246 does not mean it became part of France. My understanding was that, like other parts of the old Burgundian kingdom, Provence is generally considered to have remained part of the Empire until it fell into the French royal domain in 1481. Obviously the Counts of Provence, especially the Valois counts after 1382, were more oriented towards France than towards the Empire, but the same is also true of, for instance, the Dukes of Lorraine, who were clearly considered to be part of the Empire. john k 02:24, 3 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The 1911 Britannica article supports the idea that it was not considered a part of France until 1486. Indeed, Emperor Charles IV was crowned King of Arles in 1365, suggesting it was still considered part of the Holy Roman Empire at least that late. john k 02:37, 3 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Scope

[edit]

@Lithopsian Hi, it looks like you disagree with some of my recent edits. Could you explain why? Cheers, Nederlandse Leeuw (talk) 14:57, 26 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Indeed. I'm not qualified to give a strong opinion on the distinction between rulers, monarchs, and governors of Provence, but it seems like a split of a small section of a relatively small article that changes the content of the article sufficiently that it then merits being renamed is something that should be discussed first. Neither a content split nor a size split seem compelling, but if it really is a blatantly-obvious thing then a discussion will resolve quickly. Otherwise, well let's see what people say. I've reverted the page move but, other than a small technical edit, not the split itself. A bit messy, probably the split should be reverted so that it doesn't seem to be assuming the result of any discussion. Lithopsian (talk) 16:22, 26 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@Lithopsian Alright. I split the governors off because there has been a separate category for governors ever since 2009: Category:Governors of Provence. Lots of other Wikipedias, in particular French Wikipedia, already had separate lists: fr:Liste des gouverneurs de Provence and fr:Liste des souverains de Provence. It was only reasonable to split them on English Wikipedia as well.
Secondly, the move is part of a large-scale process of moving away from the ambiguous term "rulers" to something more specific (usually "monarchs"), depending on the circumstances. (If you'd like to know the background, please read Wikipedia:Categories_for_discussion/Log/2023_February_25#Category:Rulers). Long story short: the ambiguity of the term "rulers" messes up our categorisation system and puts people in places where they do not belong, because "ruler" can mean anything you like, and not everyone has the same understanding. If you look at the Wikidata item of this list, you can immediately see the confusion that creates (and this is just a small selection of all languages:
  • ca Llista de comtes de Provença
  • de Liste der Grafen und Markgrafen der Provence
  • en List of rulers of Provence
  • eo Listo de suverenoj de Provenco
  • es Anexo:Gobernantes de Provenza
  • fr Liste des souverains de Provence
  • oc Lista dei dirigents de Provença
  • pt Lista de governantes da Provença
  • sv Grevarna av Provence
So what is this list really about? Counts (2)? Counts and margraves? "Rulers" (whatever that is)? Sovereigns (2)? Governors (2)? "Leaders" (whatever that is)? At the very least, we should split off those who got into office through hereditary succession (monarchs, sovereigns?) and those who were appointed by the king of France (governors). I think you'll agree with me on that, right? Cheers, Nederlandse Leeuw (talk) 17:59, 26 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I do not think our categories should be driving article titling. Moreover, I oppose a large-scale process of moving away from the ambiguous term "rulers". The vague term "ruler" is appropriate in many cases, where the nature of the office changes over time. The Merovingian dukes (who were not in fact all dukes) were governors just as much as the later governors now listed at List of governors of Provence. The later counts and margraves are not best described as monarchs or governors, since they occupied a different role, being neither sovereigns nor appointees. Srnec (talk) 01:39, 27 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Given that there is some need for discussion, I have reverted the split of content from this article. List of governors of Provence remains since it isn't causing much harm for now and can be referred to for an explanation of any intended split. I'd suggest discussing only this article, at least initially. I see huge scope for a trainwreck trying to address all the similar articles at once. On the wider issue, it might be worth posting up at a relevant project page, a good idea anyway when planning wholesale structural changes to a group of articles that have been around for a while. It may be that the categories discussion brought out all the interested parties already, or it might not. Lithopsian (talk) 13:38, 27 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I've put a link to this talk page at Wikipedia:Categories_for_discussion/Log/2023_April_26#Category:Rulers_of_Provence. To summarise/clarify what I've done and said so far: I intend to make clearer distinctions between various types of "rulers" as I and many others have been doing for months, and my edits here logically resulted from it. The Wikidata item helps to demonstrate what a confused mess the current situation is, and that we need to clarify what this list is even about. Splitting off the governors into a separate list (as German, French, Italian and Russian Wikipedia had already done and a separate category (Category:Governors of Provence, which already existed on English Wikipedia since 2009) seems a very first reasonable step to me. I'm open to other titles than "monarchs" for what remains of the current list. Cheers, Nederlandse Leeuw (talk) 13:58, 27 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I've added some references to confirm some basic facts mostly already mentioned in the lead section. This list needs more RS in general. Nederlandse Leeuw (talk) 14:26, 27 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@Sovietblobfish recently made some edits to List of governors of Provence after I split it off, maybe you would like to comment? Cheers, Nederlandse Leeuw (talk) 17:33, 27 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I don't know too much about Wikipedia policy, I keep to my content editing corner but at least to me it makes sense to separate governors/grand seneschals from sovereign counts. The governor has no sovereign authority over Provence, and is thus distinct from a hereditary count/duke/margrave in an important enough way to warrant a separate page.
My ambition long term would be for all major French provinces to have a 'list of governors' article, but for the moment sadly, only Provence and Languedoc do. Sovietblobfish (talk) 18:44, 27 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for your feedback! Nederlandse Leeuw (talk) 21:49, 27 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@Srnec @Lithopsian thoughts on my and Sovietblobfish's recent comments? Nederlandse Leeuw (talk) 19:55, 29 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Here is an idea. Split this article into four (five):
Leave this article as a set index. There is a long History of Provence article, but it is not well sourced or well organized. I am not sure that "List of Frankish governors of Provence" is the best way to handle our somewhat spotty information regarding that period, so consider this a mere suggestion. The French Wiki has a single list article like ours (albeit misleadingly named souverains, which absolutely none of these people save a few kings were). Srnec (talk) 23:30, 29 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I quite like this idea. For the Frankish ones, the List suggests they were named dux and rector Provinciae (which per wikt:en:rector#Noun_4 #3 could mean director, ruler, master, governor in classical Latin; I suppose "official" or "manager" would also cut it), but without source. I suppose we really do need to dig for RS to be able to decide on this matter. Nederlandse Leeuw (talk) 22:41, 2 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

 Comment: "rulers" below the rank of king are still "monarchs". WP:COGNOMEN states: #5 European monarchs whose rank is below that of king (e.g., grand dukes, electors, dukes, princes), should be at the location "{Monarch's first name and ordinal}, {Title} of {Country}". Examples: Maximilian I, Elector of Bavaria, Jean, Grand Duke of Luxembourg. In several past and ongoing Rulers CfR-related discussions (including this one), the argument is made that e.g. "dukes" should not be categorised as "monarchs" because they are not "kings", but this guideline shows that they are "monarchs" nonetheless. I've also frequently invoked the fact that the List of German monarchs in 1918 identifies Emperors, Kings, Grand Dukes and Dukes as "monarchs", even though Grand Dukes and Dukes are below the royal level. This is not a valid argument to keep "rulers" in catnames or lists of rulers titles. Cheers, Nederlandse Leeuw (talk) 10:58, 5 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I would not use the term 'monarch' for a non-sovereign ruler below a king. Our guidelines are not RS. For what it's worth, the Wiktionary articles on 'monarch' and 'monarchy' agree with me. The word has strong connotations of sovereignty, which does not apply to rulers in the Holy Roman Empire. Srnec (talk) 20:30, 8 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@Srnec So Frederick Augustus III of Saxony should be taken out of the Category:Saxon monarchs tree? Because he was not 'sovereign' in the sense of having Wilhelm II, German Emperor above him. Perhaps we should then also remove both mentions of Monarchy abolished, because the Kingdom of Saxony ceased being a "monarchy" in 1871 due to losing its sovereignty to the German Empire? I'm just testing to see if this reasoning holds up; I'm curious if you would the terms 'monarch' and 'monarchy' in these cases. Cheers, Nederlandse Leeuw (talk) 22:00, 10 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I said below a king. Where the titulature is royal, the term 'monarch' is fine. Of couse, 'king' has strong connotations of sovereignty too! It's just that there are in fact cases of the title for non-sovereigns, since there is a higher title (emperor, king of kings). But I think titles like prince and duke have the opposite connotations. They suggest non-sovereigns, it's just that there are cases where a sovereign has been content to leave his old title be. Srnec (talk) 01:57, 11 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Alright, so a monarch doesn't necessarily need to be sovereign in all cases. A non-sovereign king may still be a monarch. So how about... the subcategories of Category:German monarchs?
Or, if we believe English Wikipedia has gotten it all wrong, how about English-language literature? Handbook of Imperial Germany (2009) p. 70:
  • Duchy of Anhalt: hereditary constitutional monarchy
  • Duchy of Brunswick: hereditary limited constitutional monarchy
  • Etc. In fact, all of the states identified as "monarchies" on this page were below the level of kingdom.
How about German Wikipedia's de:Kategorie:Deutsche Monarchie? In particular:
Now, it may be that, unlike Germany, France simply has a different tradition of identifying "monarchs", not awarded to anyone below the level of king? Nederlandse Leeuw (talk) 23:44, 12 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
In 1806, a lot of rulers below the rank of king became automatically sovereign. So Germany is a bit of a special case. And of course Landeshoheit—the German princes had a lot more autonomy than French aristocrats under the Bourbons. But it might be better to ask specifically what you think it is that makes the count of Toulouse a monarch of Provence because he held a marquisate there? How low does it go? Were the counts of Valentinois monarchs? The lords of Baux? Hereditary lordship cannot be synonymous with monarchy. And if a monarch can be elected (he can), why does heredity have anything to do with it? Srnec (talk) 14:24, 13 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Ok, that answers some of my questions.
The way I look at and apply the term "monarchy" is how virtually all dictionaries would. It has a set of elements, not all of which always apply simultaneously. You seem to at least partially agree with that, based on what you're saying here.
These elements commonly include:
  1. Monarchy is a system of government...
  2. ...in which one person - the monarch - has supreme executive power.
  3. The monarch is de jure or de facto sovereign (but may be bound by a higher monarch, or a constitution).
  4. The monarch is designated through dynastic hereditary succession (though the rules of succession aren't always fixed, let alone respected – whenever this system fails, it result may result in a war of succession), unless it is an elective monarchy (in which a small elite group of people - who are themselves nobles through hereditary succession - gets to choose the next monarch from their own midst).
  5. "Monarchy" is the default term for a system of government which is not a republic, that is, a state in which the head of state is elected or appointed in some way that distinguishes it from an elective monarchy. Debates continue about whether to describe various cases as "monarchies", "republics", or both. Republic of Florence, Republic of Venice, Republic of Genoa etc. Polish-Lithuanian Commonwealth, Novgorod Republic, Pskov Republic, etc. are well-known cases of what may arguably called elective monarchies that are nevertheless frequently called "republics" in literature and here on Wikipedia. (The Dutch Republic with its first de facto and later de jure hereditary stadtholderate is another complicated case that continues to defy scholars, but it's not an elective monarchy, and usually categorised as a republic.)
  6. According to the narrow meaning, the term "monarchy" is associated with the level of "king" or above, but according to the broader meaning, it can apply to any level which complies with most of these elements.
A lordship (seigneurie) fulfills 1, 2, partially 3, 4, and 5.
That doesn't mean the Lord is a "king" or higher; it means that
(1) the Lordship is a system of government,
(2) in which the Lord has or can have supreme executive power (often including the right to put his subjects to death, to conclude treaties and to wage war without asking permission from higher up);
(3) is not de jure but often de facto sovereign (plenty of lordships in the Low Countries and Holy Roman Empire are examples of this);
(4) is designated through dynastic hereditary succession (usually agnatic primogeniture) – whenever this system fails, it result may result in a war of succession, and the Baussenque Wars are an example of that with the Lords of Baux;
(5) is not a republic (unless we may be talking about the Lords of Florence, for example);
(6) Therefore, according to the broader meaning, it's a monarchy. According to the narrow meaning, the whole question is a non-starter: anyone below the rank of king is not a "monarch" by definition.
Cheers, Nederlandse Leeuw (talk) 07:51, 14 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

There has been no discussion since May 14, and I have closed the CfD as no consensus, so I have opted to start an RfC on the remaining open question. –LaundryPizza03 (dc̄) 19:32, 22 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

RfC: Scope and title

[edit]

Which option would best resolve the ambiguity in the scope and title of the current article?

  • Option 1: Rename to List of monarchs of Provence, and do nothing else.
  • Option 2: Rename to "List of monarchs and XYZ of Provence" for some XYZ, and do nothing else.
  • Option 3: Split by office, such as counts and dukes, and leave a WP:SIA at this title. List of governors of Provence has already been split to a standalone list.
  • Option 4: Do nothing.

–LaundryPizza03 (dc̄) 19:33, 22 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Option 4: Keep the current title. Provence according to the article had kings, dukes, counts, margraves as rulers of the territory. The option 1 monarchs could confuse things and seem to be specific only to the kings and emperors. Also, per WP:TITLE, "Generally, article titles are based on what the subject is called in reliable sources. If we check Google Scholar, we find the term "rulers of Provence" used by sources. But if we search "monarchs of Provence", we have no results whatsoever.
About Option 2 XYZ, it would be too cumbersome of a title that would leave other sort of rulers out. Per WP:TITLE, "A good Wikipedia article title has the five following characteristics: Recognizability, Naturalness, Precision, Concision, and Consistency. XYZ is not concise, probably not as recognizable as rulers, not very natural, nor precise (mostly if leaving some rulers titles out).
Option 3 seems to be way premature because the page is only six kb, when WP:SIZERULE suggests that for less than 40 kb "Length alone does not justify division". Regards, Thinker78 (talk) 22:56, 23 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Option 4: I outlined a potential split above, but it is based on the writing of articles and not just dividing up a list. Srnec (talk) 23:39, 23 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Option 4 Johnbod (talk) 02:43, 24 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Option 3: I have come to understand some of the objections against "monarchs" (for which I think Srnec has made good points), but I still find "rulers" to be unhelpful and vague. So options 1 and 2 are not very attractive (I agree with Thinker78 on that), but neither is 4. I would therefore recommend option 3, not because of the size rule, but because I think we shouldn't be lumping offices which are very different together. Because some people say kings are "monarchs", but dukes, counts, margraves, governors etc. aren't, I think this is all the more reason not to be lumping them together in a single list as if they all held exactly the same position. We agree they didn't, otherwise people wouldn't have objected to calling all of them "monarchs" except the kings. Given that the categories are already split up into these respective titles/offices, I think Option 3 is best. I would make the following suggestion (comment if you think this can be better organised, I'm open to lots of ideas):
I hope this suggestion is somewhat along the lines of what Srnec suggested above. I'm open to making changes. Cheers, Nederlandse Leeuw (talk) 12:53, 25 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
What about Heads of state or government of Provence? Regards, Thinker78 (talk) 02:46, 30 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I would be open to that, but I think it invites more problems than it would solve. The central question (which is perhaps a valid objection against using the term "monarch" in certain situations) is:
  • Which person or entity has "sovereignty" in the given circumstances?
This leads to other questions:
  1. Was Provence a "state", and if so, when? Or was Francia/France or Lower Burgundy or the Holy Roman Empire always the "sovereign" entity above it?
  2. If a Merovingian rex appoints a dux to govern Provence for him, i.e. in his stead, who is the real "ruler of Provence"? The Merovingian rex, who holds Provence as one of many hereditary possessions, or the dux he appointed to govern Provence in his name, and might develop his own dynasty (which, at times, he did)?
  3. Can we call this Merovingian rex the "head of state", and his dux the "head of government"? Or was the latter more akin to a "governor", even if his position could become hereditary (which, at times, it did)?
Particularly question no. #2 contains my main objection against the vague and ambiguous catch-all term "ruler", because it doesn't mean anything specific, and everyone can make it mean whatever they want it to mean. In the past 6 months, I have seen all sorts of different positions ranging from the Emperor of China to the elected mayor of Waterford (a city in Ireland) and German postal ministers being called a "ruler". That really doesn't help our readers understand what we mean. Cheers, Nederlandse Leeuw (talk) 15:17, 30 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Option 4: Keep the current title. I just do not see major ambiguity here, and would regret the lost scope and continuity if the rulership wass broken into disjointed articles just so one could be purely kins ruling Provence versus Regents ruling provence, etcetera. It seems better to have one chronological history and explain the variations in rulership within the article. In any case, the policy WP:TITLE part WP:PRECISION seems to say limit how precise the title needs to be and this title seems enough. Cheers Markbassett (talk) 23:12, 27 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:List_of_rulers_of_Provence&oldid=1210147771"