Talk:English claims to the French throne

Reversals

Is it worth noting a couple of cases where pretender kings of England then became actual kings of France, being French rather than English? One was Louis VIII of France, who was proclaimed in London as King Louis I of England in 1216, becoming King of France in 1223. The other was Francis II of France, who married Mary Stuart in 1558 becoming King consort of Scotland and then presumably sharing his wife's claim to the throne of England on the death of Mary Tudor later in 1558, before becoming King of France in 1559. 2A00:23C7:7B0E:7400:E4F2:C8A8:E906:35D4 (talk) 15:55, 15 October 2021 (UTC)

Article name?

I'm not sure any change is warranted but I thought i would just float a minor-ish concern, bearing in mind this is a low traffic article and I may not get any response. The current title doesn't really reflect the dynastic nature of the claim. It sounds too "national" currently I think. Edward III would be horrified that his was described as an "English" claim, as would, for perhaps different reasons, James I (a Scot) and George I (a German). Of course from 1707 they are "British" claims anyway. Would a better title be Plantagenet claim to the French throne? It emphasises the dynastic origin. With the exception of Henry VII and VIII, it covers all the monarchs that actually pursued the claim. Of course, the latter two were pursuing a claim they inherited from the Plantagenets - I think "Plantagenet claim" works as reflective of how the claim originated rather than who pursued it. It also takes away emphasis from the use of the title after Henry VIII. the fact that that the English/British monarchs continued to use the title after 1523 is trivia and not a topic of substance. Changing the title helps to refocus this in the right way - it was really only during the Hundred Years war i.e. the Plantagenets when this is a real issue. DeCausa (talk) 18:48, 14 September 2025 (UTC)

That is a reasonable proposition. What do sources call it? Surtsicna (talk) 10:40, 29 September 2025 (UTC)

I think it's mixed in the RS although my impression had been that it is weighted in favour of "Plantagenet claim". But, in terms of 'blunt instrument' indicators, I found the numbers returned from Google Scholar searches suggests "English claims" is more common:

• "English claims to the French throne" - 72
• "English claims to the French crown" - 25
• "Plantagenet claim to French throne" - 56
• "Plantagenet claim to the French crown" - 6

That's probably backed up by ngrams. - although "English claim" (singular) is the most common on both ngrams and Google Scholar(129 returns) DeCausa (talk) 10:17, 30 September 2025 (UTC)

GA review

This review is transcluded from Talk:English claims to the French throne/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Nominator: DeCausa (talk · contribs) 15:38, 20 September 2025 (UTC)

Reviewer: Borsoka (talk · contribs) 09:29, 29 September 2025 (UTC)

GA review – see WP:WIAGA for criteria

1. Is it well written?

   A. The prose is clear and concise, and the spelling and grammar are correct:

   B. It complies with the manual of style guidelines for lead sections, layout, words to watch, fiction, and list incorporation:

2. Is it verifiable with no original research, as shown by a source spot-check?

   A. It contains a list of all references (sources of information), presented in accordance with the layout style guideline:

   B. Reliable sources are cited inline. All content that could reasonably be challenged, except for plot summaries and that which summarizes cited content elsewhere in the article, must be cited no later than the end of the paragraph (or line if the content is not in prose):

   C. It contains no original research:

   D. It contains no copyright violations nor plagiarism:

3. Is it broad in its coverage?

   A. It addresses the main aspects of the topic:

   B. It stays focused on the topic without going into unnecessary detail (see summary style):

4. Is it neutral?

   It represents viewpoints fairly and without editorial bias, giving due weight to each:

5. Is it stable?

   It does not change significantly from day to day because of an ongoing edit war or content dispute:

6. Is it illustrated, if possible, by images?

   A. Images are tagged with their copyright status, and valid non-free use rationales are provided for non-free content:

   B. Images are relevant to the topic, and have suitable captions:

7. Overall:

   Pass or Fail:

Image review

• File:Edward III of England (Order of the Garter).jpg: the source is a dead link at Commons (I would delete it, because the manuscript is mentioned in the description)
• File:Royal Arms of England (1340-1367).svg: source is missing at Commons.
• File:Royal Arms of England (1399-1603).svg: source is missing at Commons.
• File:Royal Arms of England (1694-1702).svg: source is missing at Commons.
• File:Royal Arms of United Kingdom (1801-1816).svg: source is missing at Commons.
• File:Royal Arms of Great Britain (1714-1801).svg: source is missing at Commons. Borsoka (talk) 09:44, 29 September 2025 (UTC)

  Are you saying you would like me to add sourcing on the Commons files? That should be feasible as they are well known/prominent CoAs? DeCausa (talk) 15:19, 29 September 2025 (UTC)

  Yes. Each image needs references to reliable sources. Borsoka (talk) 02:13, 3 October 2025 (UTC)

  Ok, I'll get on it. It may take me a few days. DeCausa (talk) 06:39, 3 October 2025 (UTC)

  I've now added sourcing to the last 5 Commons' images. With regard to the Edward III image from the Bruges Garter Book, I've left the link there but have added an additional secondary source reference. I've left the link in place because it's a link to where the image was obtained from. I'm not that familiar with Commons templates but "source" there seems to refer more to where an image originates rather than our sense of WP:RS. I think that link was to the British Library digitised publication of the image (BL holds the manuscript). However, as a result of the 2023 British Library cyberattack all their digitised images were taken offline and they've taken an inordinate amount of time to restore them. I think this applies to this image of Edward III. I think it best to leave the link as is in case they restore back to that link. Hope that makes sense. DeCausa (talk) 11:09, 4 October 2025 (UTC)

Source review

• Are works by Heath and Mortimer peer-reviewed sources? Borsoka (talk) 09:44, 29 September 2025 (UTC)

  I don't know the exact publishing process of the publishers in question - I don't think that's ever very clear with monograph publishers unlike journals. They are, however, published by well known, reputable and prominent publishing houses - Random House and Bloomsbury Academic in the case of Mortimer and Pen & Sword (military specialists) in the case of Heath - so I would assume the process is robust. The works I used by Mortimer have multiple citations on Google Scholar. Perfect King: Life of Edward III has 98 citations, Fears of Henry IV has 82 ciatations, Medieval Intrigue has 26 citations and 1415 Henry V's Year of Glory has 57 citations.. Do you think they're not WP:RS? DeCausa (talk) 15:34, 29 September 2025 (UTC)

• The website of Pen and Sword does not indicate that peer review is standard for their publications. I have not found an academic review of the book written by Heath. I tried to locate the reference to Mortimer’s book in one of the listed works (Henry IV by Chris Given-Wilson) but was unable to. Therefore, I am seeking comments on the reliability at the relevant Noticeboard before proceeding with the review. Borsoka (talk) 02:13, 3 October 2025 (UTC)

  @Borsoka: Thanks. While I'm pretty sure Mortimer has a strong reputation and is RS I do have doubts about Heath. Sumption (in his 2025 vol. 5 already used in the article) makes the same point as I was using Heath for so I've replaced Heath with a citation to that. DeCausa (talk) 06:39, 3 October 2025 (UTC)

• As noted above I've addressed the sourcing on the Commons' images, removed Heath from the article and added some information to the WP:RSN thread relating to Mortimer. Does the review still need to be on hold? @Borsoka: DeCausa (talk) 12:51, 4 October 2025 (UTC)

Mortimer's books are deemed reliable sources in line with the consensus reached at the Noticeboard discussion. Borsoka (talk) 09:05, 7 October 2025 (UTC)

References 2, 20ab, 21, 22, 28, 45, 68 checked. Borsoka (talk) 06:39, 1 November 2025 (UTC)

Comments

• ...their ancestral Angevin lands... Gascony, Ponthieu or both? Ponthieu was not inherited from the Angevins.

  Done. Changed to refer to specifically Duchy of Aquitaine - which is what the source says in fact. DeCausa (talk) 14:14, 6 October 2025 (UTC)

• ...Edward and Isabella's son...} Could it be rephrased? ("...his son by Isabella" / "...his and Isabella's son..." / ...)

  Done. Changed to his and Isabella's. DeCausa (talk) 14:14, 6 October 2025 (UTC)

• (section title) Succession to the French throne to Charles IV Delete "to Charles IV".

  Not done. It only covers to Charles IV - in the same way that the previous sub-section covers to Edward III. I think the scope would be unclear otherwise. DeCausa (talk) 14:14, 6 October 2025 (UTC)

  What about "Succession to the French throne prior to the English claim"? I think that's clearer. DeCausa (talk) 20:39, 6 October 2025 (UTC)

  • I think the last title would properly reflect the section's text. Borsoka (talk) 09:00, 7 October 2025 (UTC)

    I shortened the section title. Please feel free to revert it if you do not like it. Borsoka (talk) 09:49, 9 October 2025 (UTC)

    Done. DeCausa (talk) 13:52, 7 October 2025 (UTC)

• ...his mother who was unpopular with the French nobles... Name her. Why was she unpopular?

  Done. Named her - but I've put the reason into a note. The affair with Mortimer (the reason) would get too much prominence otherwise, I think. To explain it would generate to much tangential text for the main body. My preference would actually be to leave it out altogether as I don't think the reason for her unpopularity is relevant. In or out? DeCausa (talk) 14:14, 6 October 2025 (UTC)

• Link "closer in blood"to proximity of blood.

  Done. DeCausa (talk) 14:14, 6 October 2025 (UTC)

• ...pope Benedict XII... Why is pope written with a lowercase letter?

  Done - corrected. DeCausa (talk) 14:14, 6 October 2025 (UTC)

• ...a peace conference at the papal palace at Avignon... Mention that it was presided over by Clement VI (and delete the same information from the paragraph where Clement VI is first mentioned now).

  Done. DeCausa (talk) 14:14, 6 October 2025 (UTC)

• The legal argument put forward in the brief was ... The English lawyers, in the brief, argued that ... Delete "in the brief" in both sentences.

  Done. DeCausa (talk) 14:14, 6 October 2025 (UTC)

• Although the applicability of Salic law did not figure in the Valois arguments until the 15th century, the French had claimed, vaguely, that it had been established by custom that the crown could not be inherited through females. Delete (already mentioned).

  Done (partially). Only that Salic law point was already mentioned. This is the first mention of "custom" in the 1328 debates, so left second part of the sentence in. DeCausa (talk) 14:14, 6 October 2025 (UTC)

• ...after the death of Philip V in... Delete.

  Done. DeCausa (talk) 14:14, 6 October 2025 (UTC)

• ...those bodies in 1317 or in 1322... Rephrase to avoid the repetition of the two years.

  Done. DeCausa (talk) 14:14, 6 October 2025 (UTC)

• Introduce Mark Ormrod, Christopher Allmand, Ian Mortimer, Anne Curry.

  Done. (I presume you mean introduce them as historians). DeCausa (talk) 14:14, 6 October 2025 (UTC)

• As Mark Ormrod has remarked... Why present perfect instead of present simple?

  Not changed for the moment. Ormrod died a few years ago. Is present simple appropriate? Past perfect perhaps? DeCausa (talk) 14:14, 6 October 2025 (UTC)

  • According to my experiences, the use of present simple is fully acceptable in this situation (because his book is read now). Borsoka (talk) 09:00, 7 October 2025 (UTC)

    Done. DeCausa (talk) 13:52, 7 October 2025 (UTC)

• Why is not the core of note 4 in the main text?

  Now note 5. Couple of reasons. Firstly, I was concerned with WP:DUE and giving Mortimer's theory too much prominence. I haven't researched in detail but I don't believe it's been taken up by anyone else. Secondly, potentially a WP:BALASP issue as it's more to do with the English succession than the claim on the French crown. For both reasons keeping it in a note felt the most appropriate solution. DeCausa (talk) 14:14, 6 October 2025 (UTC)

• ...Edward III's claim to the French crown was revived and actively pursued again... I would delete the text "was revived and", because it is dubious.

  Done. DeCausa (talk) 14:14, 6 October 2025 (UTC)

• ...to pursue Edward III's claim to the crown I would delete.

  Done. DeCausa (talk) 14:14, 6 October 2025 (UTC)

• ...who could have claimed the crown... Why not "who claimed the crown"?

  That would sound like there were individuals who could have claimed on that basis but didn't - which was not the case. Left unchanged. DeCausa (talk) 14:14, 6 October 2025 (UTC)

• ...for a number of reasons Examples?

  The examples are in the next two sentences already. (Joan didn't submit a claim and he wasn't born at the time). But I've taken out "for a number of reasons" as it's looks rather vague. DeCausa (talk) 14:14, 6 October 2025 (UTC)

• (section title) Henry V and the dual monarchy I miss a reference to Henry VI.

  In that section I've deliberately focussed on the concept of the "dual monarchy" rather than personal references to Henry VI for the period from 1422 to the end of the Hundred Years' War. Henry was utterly passive, ineffective and almost invisible (both initially as a child and later as an adult) and the English role in France was dominated by his uncles and the rest of the English nobility. I think this heading better reflects that reality. DeCausa (talk) 14:14, 6 October 2025 (UTC)

Borsoka (talk) 11:15, 6 October 2025 (UTC)

• ..., whose claim to the English crown had been arguably superior to that of the Lancastrians.[64] Mortimer also had had a stronger claim than the Lancastrians to the French crown. Rephrase and shorten the text in order to avoid repetition of information presented in a previous section.

  Done. DeCausa (talk) 15:27, 7 October 2025 (UTC)

• Introduce Sumption, Trémaugon, Marius, Gunn.

  Done. DeCausa (talk) 15:27, 7 October 2025 (UTC)

• (Section title) Valois rebuttals to the Plantagenet claim Why Plantagenet?

  The rebuttals were countering the Plantagenet dynastic claim and a feature specifically of the Plantagenet period. After the Plantagenets, they basically didn't bother writing counter-arguments any more because no one essentially cared by then. That's why I've put it as a subsection under "Plantagenet claimants". DeCausa (talk) 15:27, 7 October 2025 (UTC)

  Done. After further thought I've taken out "to the Plantagenet claim". It's unnecessary. It's a subheading under "Plantagenet claimants" so it's obviously redundant. DeCausa (talk) 20:48, 7 October 2025 (UTC)

• No mention was made of Salic law. Delete to avoid repetition.

  Done. DeCausa (talk) 15:27, 7 October 2025 (UTC)

• ..."right of nature" Perhaps a link to Ius naturale?

  Done. DeCausa (talk) 15:27, 7 October 2025 (UTC)

• ...in the case against the Plantagenet claim I would avoid the reference to the Plantagenets, instead saying "English", or "Lancastrian and Yorkist".

  Done. DeCausa (talk) 15:27, 7 October 2025 (UTC)

• I would delete the last paragraph in section "Succession to the French throne to Charles IV", or integrate it into section "Valois rebuttals to the Plantagenet claim" to avoid repetition.

  Not done. Chronologically, this paragraph is about the status of Salic law in, and prior to, 1328. To explain that, there's going to be some foreshadowing of how Salic law was rediscovered and it's later importance. But I think ultimately it makes most sense to cover this as "background" for the context of 1328. DeCausa (talk) 15:27, 7 October 2025 (UTC)

• Henry VII, the first Tudor king, followed a similar path to Edward IV that led to the Treaty of Picquigny.[124] In 1489 he announced that he was claiming the French throne and made an alliance with the Breton opponents of Charles VIII. I would integrate the two sentences, and shorten them. ("Following Edward IV's example, Henry VII announced, in 1489, that ..." or something similar)

  Done (mostly). I've shortened it but kept the "following the example of Edward IV" and the reference to his 1489 announcement in separate sentences because they rely on two different sources. If I combined them too much with the sources at the end of the one sentence that feels a little WP:SYNTHy. DeCausa (talk) 15:27, 7 October 2025 (UTC)

• ...with the aim of claiming the crown and becoming the rightful king of France Shorten the text.

  Done. DeCausa (talk) 15:27, 7 October 2025 (UTC)

• Introduce the "Field of the Cloth of Gold " with one or two words.

  Done. DeCausa (talk) 15:27, 7 October 2025 (UTC)

• Louis XI, in particular, was fixated with it, and commissioned a book rebutting the claim which was reprinted several times up to the mid-16th century. But this changed with the passage of time. The text more suitable to section "Valois rebuttals to the Plantagenet claim". Here it gives the impression of repetition.

  In fact it is repetition - the commissioning of the book is already covered in the previous section. The point I was trying to make is that Louis XI was still sensitive about the claim at that time - it wasn't yet the irrelevant issue that it became a few decades later. So I've narrowed it down to that specific point and taken out the reference to the book. Hopefully that removes any repetition. DeCausa (talk) 15:27, 7 October 2025 (UTC)

• By the time of the Tudors it was clearly an unrealistic objective. Delete or move it to the proper section about the Tudors' claim.

  It's similar to the above point. This section is about when it became a non-issue. What I'm trying to identify for the reader here is the point in time when it transitioned to that i.e. the Tudors. I'd prefer to leave as is for that reason. DeCausa (talk) 15:27, 7 October 2025 (UTC)

• Introduce Louis XIV and William III as the kings of France and England, respectively.

  Done. DeCausa (talk) 15:27, 7 October 2025 (UTC)

• ...French republic... Why the lower case?

  Corrected. DeCausa (talk) 15:27, 7 October 2025 (UTC)

• I have not read the Lead, but I would radically (at least by 15%) shorten it.

  That's going to be difficult but I'll have a go. I may not finish it today. There's a long period to cover with a number of factors. DeCausa (talk) 15:27, 7 October 2025 (UTC)

  Ok, I've made an 18% reduction. Let me know what you think. DeCausa (talk) 18:24, 7 October 2025 (UTC)

Borsoka (talk) 09:37, 7 October 2025 (UTC)

• (Lead) Edward's claim was based on his being, through his mother, Isabella, the nearest male relative of the last direct line Capetian king of France, Charles IV, it already having been established that women could not inherit the throne. Rephrase.

  Done. DeCausa (talk) 11:37, 9 October 2025 (UTC)

• (Lead) Philip was Charles's nearest male line relative and it was later claimed that it was a fundamental precept, established by the 6th century Frankish legal code known as Salic law, that the crown could not be inherited through the female line. In reality, this was a retrospective claim first put forward in the 15th century. Split the sentence into two or three shorter sentences.

  Done. DeCausa (talk) 11:37, 9 October 2025 (UTC)

• (Lead) Edward, whose main concern was, in fact, to protect his French fief of Gascony, ultimately lost most of his once extensive domains in France by the time of his death. He never secured the crown. The loss of his French domains is less relevant in the article's context.

  Done - removed. DeCausa (talk) 11:37, 9 October 2025 (UTC)

• (Lead) ...and, although England and France would continue to fight wars none was over the claim to the crown. Monarchs of England and Great Britain nevertheless continued to include France in their titles for the next 250 years. Because of the improbable and unrealistic nature of the claim, the use of the title was ignored by the French. I would delete it as repetitions.

  Done - trimmed. DeCausa (talk) 11:37, 9 October 2025 (UTC)

Borsoka (talk) 09:56, 9 October 2025 (UTC)

Following my latest edits to the lead, I feel too involved in the article to make an impartial judgment on GA criteria 1a and 1b, and therefore request a second opinion on these matters. Borsoka (talk) 06:49, 10 October 2025 (UTC)

How would that work in practice? Would the second opinion be limited to those criteria and you continue on the rest? DeCausa (talk) 08:33, 10 October 2025 (UTC)

Normally, yes it will have a limited scope. I will complete and close the review. Borsoka (talk) 09:04, 10 October 2025 (UTC)

Ok, thanks. DeCausa (talk) 09:47, 10 October 2025 (UTC)

@Borsoka: would it be possible for you to complete the other aspects of the review so that it can be closed as soon as the second opinion is done? DeCausa (talk) 10:54, 13 October 2025 (UTC)

Thank you for your note. I believe it would be best to review the text against criteria 2c and 2d only after the second opinion and any proposed modifications are available. Borsoka (talk) 07:54, 14 October 2025 (UTC)

Second opinion

Second opinion, as requested: I have read (and enjoyed) the article, which seems to me to meet GA criteria 1a and 1b. – Tim riley talk 09:20, 29 October 2025 (UTC)

Thank you for your review and second opinion. Now, I can complete the review, hopefully by the end of the week. Borsoka (talk) 09:48, 29 October 2025 (UTC)

Yes, thank you very much Tim riley (talk · contribs) DeCausa (talk) 21:06, 29 October 2025 (UTC)

Just noting that this article was still flagged as needing a second opinion, but since Tim riley kindly already answered this, I set it as answered. IAWW (talk) 10:03, 31 October 2025 (UTC)

Passing

I am pleased to pass this professionally written and comprehensive article. A peer review could be a good next step to refine it even further. Borsoka (talk) 06:48, 1 November 2025 (UTC)

@Borsoka: thank you very much for your thorough and careful review. The effort you put into it is very much appreciated. DeCausa (talk) 08:14, 1 November 2025 (UTC)

Did you know nomination

The following is an archived discussion of the DYK nomination of the article below. Please do not modify this page. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as this nomination's talk page, the article's talk page or Wikipedia talk:Did you know), unless there is consensus to re-open the discussion at this page. You can locate your hook here. No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was: promoted by Gommeh talk 16:14, 21 November 2025 (UTC)

(

• Comment or view
• Article history

)

• ... that English and British monarchs claimed to be the king or queen of France for over 450 years and only finally dropped the title in 1801?

Source: Panton, Kenneth (2023). Historical Dictionary of the British Monarchy. Rowman & Littlefield Publishers. p. 203. ISBN 978-1-5381-7577-4.

• • Reviewed: Template:Did you know nominations/Edwin Boxshall
  • Comment: If you can't get to page 203 of the source, it is unchanged from page 199 of an earlier edition here.

Improved to Good Article status by DeCausa (talk). Number of QPQs required: 1. Nominator has 10 past nominations.

DeCausa (talk) 09:30, 1 November 2025 (UTC).

General: Article is new enough and long enough
New enough: Long enough:

Policy: Article is sourced, neutral, and free of copyright problems
Adequate sourcing: Neutral: Free of copyright violations, plagiarism, and close paraphrasing:

Hook: Hook has been verified by provided inline citation
Cited: - Offline/paywalled citation accepted in good faith Interesting:

QPQ: Done.

Overall: Nice article! (t · c) buidhe 04:27, 2 November 2025 (UTC)