Talk:Charles VI of France

Expulsion of Jews

September_17 says: 1394 - King Charles VI of France orders all Jews expelled from France. There is no mention of this on this page though. Thehalfone 09:34, 6 September 2007 (UTC)

Succession Box

I know about the 1420 Treaty, but Henry VI of England shown as Charles VI's successor? Jeepers. GoodDay (talk) 00:30, 27 January 2009 (UTC)

Le Bien-Aimé

Le Bien-Aimé does not translate into English as "the Well-loved" (nor as "Well-beloved"). It translates simply as: "Beloved", according to Le Robert & Collins Senior, 6e édition, Paris: Dictionnaires Le Robert-VUEF, 2002. I have made the appropriate correction in the article. Charvex (talk) 23:32, 2 March 2010 (UTC)

Discrepancy at the Bal des Ardents

There's a minor discrepancy in the descriptions. Here, it is said: "Another, Jean son of the Lord de Nantouillet, saved himself by jumping into a dishwater tub" The article Bal des Ardents, however, claims it was a wine vat. A little thing, but a contradiction nevertheless. --Oop (talk) 23:56, 5 January 2013 (UTC)

It is a contradiction. I've read both and will have to get the sources and re-read and then mention the discrepancy on both articles. Thanks for mentioning. Truthkeeper (talk) 13:19, 6 January 2013 (UTC)

Opinion in "The English invasion"

"Many historians have misinterpreted this treaty and the disinheriting of the Dauphin Charles. The Dauphin sealed his fate, in the eyes of the king, by committing treason: he declared himself regent, usurped royal authority, and refused to obey the king's order to return to Paris.[12] It is important to remember that when the Treaty of Troyes was finalized in May 1420, the Dauphin Charles was only 17 years' old. He was then a weak figure who was easily manipulated by his advisors."

There are issues of clarity with these sentences, but I'm presuming that the second sentence above is meant to be the "misinterpreted" viewpoint. It is also unclear why the one source cited should be considered authoritative over the "Many historians" who interpreted the treaty differently. More research needs to be represented or a further explanation of the reasoning is needed. Mm1dd2 (talk) 10:33, 22 February 2013 (UTC)

It might be worth developing the influence of the King's Confessor Pierre d'Ailly further. As Chancellor of the University and Chief Theologian, he was faced with the Papal Schism Charles had aggravated, having inherited the Avignon Papacy, and so started to distance himself from the French, using his diocese of Cambrai as a means, astride the Burgundian border. The loss of his moderating influence was significant, as was the wider social despair in the wake of the Black Death, as wave after wave of plagues generated an apocalyptic sentiment summed up in Dufay's L'Homme Armé mass some 60 years later. For this, BErnard Scouller's biography in The Lives of Four French Prelates is widely considered authoritative.

The Treaties must therefore be seen in the co-ordination between d'Ailly and Henry V, found in the former's letter from Constance shortly after Agincourt (Henrici Quinti Gesta). A new balance of power was forming, with the first steps towards Eugenius IV's assumption of Papal Authority: you'll find the ideation in Scouller's text, coming from Jean Gerson, an inversion of the power base within the Concilium.

The headache here is that you're on the verge of OR, though.

Catherine de Valois

She actually died in January 1437, as her own Wikipedia page and several authoritative sources state. It is critical to her legal inability to remarry, under the 1426 statute, until Henry VI came of age, which happened AFTER her death (cited both by Harriss and Ashdown-Hill). — Preceding unsigned comment added by Smlark (talk • contribs) 17:54, 7 March 2017 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Charles VI of France. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20061211173924/http://www.herodote.net/histoire11230.htm to http://www.herodote.net/histoire11230.htm

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 00:05, 6 December 2017 (UTC)

Mental Illness

Does anyone know if any modern historians and psychologists have attempted to diagnose what exactly he was suffering from? It should be added to the article. Just my $0.02. Bill the Cat 7 (talk) 01:17, 16 February 2019 (UTC)

Too long

The headings are too long with these kings... There is no need of such a long introduction. Kapeter77 (talk) 02:03, 20 September 2019 (UTC)

Signatures of medieval kings of France

I was looking through Wikimedia and found charters of Philip VI of France, Charles V of France, and Charles VI of France. They all have the kings seals but they also have what looks like signatures beside the seals. Are those the signatures of the kings? ✠ Robertus Pius ✠ (Talk • Contribs) 19:29, 5 June 2023 (UTC)

Probably not, in most cases. I looked at some, which had signatures and "pour the Roi" - for the King, ie it's some civil servant on his behalf. Even if they are, please don't cruft up the infobox with them! Johnbod (talk) 19:39, 5 June 2023 (UTC)