Talk:Charles X of France

Needs more

Haiti. The 1825 invasion threat and ludicrous indemnity demands were seminal events for the nation. -LlywelynII (talk) 13:29, 31 January 2011 (UTC)

Contradicting infomation

I have found the end of this sentance to be inconsistent with others and have removed it.

"He took the disastrous decision of appointing Calonne to his council, which outraged Marie Antoinette, who had never liked him.

RE: This is in reference to Calonne, not Artois. The queen had never liked Calonne.

Picture

what happened to the picture of Charles X

Nav Box

Hiya folks. Charles X's successor as King of France, was Louis Phillipe. I'll make the correct changes. GoodDay (talk) 16:12, 2 April 2009 (UTC)

King of the French, not King of France.--Auntieruth55 (talk) 21:37, 20 June 2009 (UTC)

Formatting

I have cleaned up the formatting of this article, including:

• I have removed repeated links and links to plain English words per WP:OVERLINK
• I have removed links in section headings and fixed the heading capitalisation per WP:MOSHEAD
• I have correct spelling
• I have corrected a lot of punctuation - it is generally incorrect in English to separate a simple subject from the main verb of the sentence as seemed to be standard in this article
• I have replaced the condition tense with the past tense for descriptions of past events -- this is simpler and clearer.
• I have fixed some of the links

Regards, Ground Zero | t 17:55, 5 June 2009 (UTC)

"forever ending Bourbon rule over France"

That sentence is not entirely correct as Louis-Phillippe - the true last king of France/of the French - was still a member of the Bourbon dynastic family, but from the junior Bourbon-Orleans branch. It's true that Charles X was the last direct legal descendant of Louis XIV on the throne but the Orleans were the direct legal descendants of Louis XIV's younger brother. Perhaps this should be reworded slightly to note this (last of the direct line) and to avoid confusion. -- fdewaele, 19 June 2009, 15:28.

In total agreement with you.

He was the last king of the senior Bourbon line to reign over France was the wording of the sentence until 30 May when someone who began working on the article changed it to what is there now. I have been waiting until the current main editor is finished before going ahead to edit Charles X article & that of Louis XVIII; however, I am bringing the former sentence back into article immediately.

Frania W. (talk) 16:29, 19 June 2009 (UTC)

The House of Orléans article treats the House of Bourbon as its predecessor on the throne of France, i.e. removing the line in question should prove unnecessary. http://en.wiki.x.io/wiki/House_of_Orl%C3%A9ans#Ruling_House_of_France —Preceding unsigned comment added by 93.107.222.217 (talk) 18:39, 22 June 2009 (UTC)

GA Review

I'm going to list some of the major problems in the GA review check list, and if you want more information, I'll make a second post with specific problems, okay? Also, next time you nominate, please complete all the nomination templates, because there wasn't one on the talk page. --Auntieruth55 (talk) 20:10, 20 June 2009 (UTC)

GA review (see here for criteria)

---

This is a brave effort at Charles X's life, but it still has some shortcomings, several of them major, with respect to the good article criteria.

1. It is reasonably well written.

   a (prose): b (MoS):

   The writing is very choppy, redundant and at times confusing. I thought initially it was just problems getting through the overview, which is frequently difficult, but as I got further into it, I realized that there were far more problems than I was willing to fix on a GA review. 1 I did rewrite your overview to make it tighter. The whole article needs a really really good copy edit, and I suggest that you eventually find someone at the guild of copy editors who is willing to help you with this, but this would need to be after you've dealt with some of the articles significant problems. 2 There needs to be a clearer narrative here. I realize it's difficult, since everyone was named Louis or Charles, but it needs to be clearer who is who. Did Charles really have two brothers named Louis August? It sounds like he did. I'm pretty well up on this period of French history, and I was confused by this. 3the House of Bourbon info box appears magically in the middle of the article. I don't know if that is my browser (I think not), or how you constructed this, but it was very disconcerting, and disruptive of any continuity of prose that you had established. 4 the second half of the article seems like more of a list of events (one darn thing after another) than a coherent "story" of Charles and his life. You don't need to go into all this stuff. You can use wiki links to send people to other articles, and I suggest you do so. Summarize what was going on BRIEFLY, and then tell us what Charles did and, what the historians say about WHY he did it.

2. It is factually accurate and verifiable.

   a (references): b (citations to reliable sources): c (OR):

   You've relied very heavily on Susan Nagle, Price and Antonia Fraser. I'm okay with the first ones, but Ms. Fraser....? I'm not convinced she's a reliable source. You'd have to convince me of that. Don't get me wrong: I enjoy reading her books, but you need to temper your reliance on her; if there is a contradiction with her and Nagle, for example, go with Nagle. Your citations also need to be in proper format. Susan Nagle, etc. (not Dr. Nagle).

3. It is broad in its coverage.

   a (major aspects): b (focused):

   yes, it is broad in its coverage, and you do focus appropriately on Charles through most of the article, but there is a disconnect between what is going on "broadly" with its impact on Charles. 1 For example, when sundry relatives are trying to discredit Charles with his brother, it's never clear why that was happening, how, and so what. These are important issues, not just some French royalty playing family games. If C was so far from the throne, then why was he a threat? And to whom? 2 During the flight to Varennes, for example, you have one and two sentence paragraphs telling us what was going on with various members of the royal family, but what we need to know is that Charles was in exile in Trier, right across the border from France, while Louis was struggling for his throne and his life in France.

4. It follows the neutral point of view policy.

   Fair representation without bias:

   Here is where your problem with relying on Fraser really lifts its head: I'm not convinced you've maintained neutrality the neutrality of an encyclopedic article with these sources. One of the ways you might do this is to stick to relaying the "facts" (one darn thing after another) and then have a section of analysis in which you pit Nagle, Fraser, and Price against one another in their interpretation of what this all meant. And your first source, Parmele, just drops off the map. I would think this should be of great importance to you, since she covers a great deal of what went on in the DNA (Diamond Necklace Affair), etc.

5. It is stable.

   No edit wars etc.:

6. It is illustrated by images, where possible and appropriate.

   a (images are tagged and non-free images have fair use rationales): b (appropriate use with suitable captions):

   I didn't even get this far, about fair use and all that. I did look at your images, though and suggest that you use them to illustrate your story. Charles as a boy, for example, Charles with his brother -- there's a family picture that adeptly illustrates the distance he was from the throne. What did that mean in terms of his education, for example.

7. Overall:

   Pass/Fail:

   Good luck improving the article

No advance notice on GA nomination request for this article

Why was not an advance notice given on this talk page RE Charles X good article category request? A notice would have given readers & other contributors the opportunity to discuss the quality of the article. This article needs a complete overhaul - as does its twin article on Louis XVIII. They both are filled with trivia & inaccuracies, and are certainly not of an encyclopedic quality. In fact, some of the vocabulary belongs to tabloid literature, not to an encyclopedia. Frania W. (talk) 20:52, 20 June 2009 (UTC)

Death of Marshal Brune

On 2 August 1815, after the room in which he had taken refuge at the auberge du Palais Royal in Avignon had been invaded by several men, Marshal Brune was killed by two of them, Fargue & Guindon, with one bullet in the nape of his neck shot by Guindon. It is only after Brune had been killed & when his body was taken outside for immediate burial that the mob got hold of it, stabbed it etc. before throwing it into the Rhône River. Frania W. (talk) 05:53, 30 November 2009 (UTC)

Roi de France et de Navarre

Inscription on stone above Charles X's tomb reads: Ici repose très haut et puissant excellent prince CHARLES X de nom, roi par la grâce de Dieu, de France et de Navarre

Frania W. (talk) 14:50, 12 December 2009 (UTC)

Why mention 'Professor X' as a disambig?

WHO in the Universe thinks that Charles X of France is likely to be the same person as the fictional comic book character Professor X? Is it that the professor's middle name is "Charles"? On that tenuous basis, there should be a disambig to Charles de Gaulle, another man named Charles who a) actually existed and b) also ruled France. 75.201.128.65 (talk) 22:25, 21 July 2012 (UTC)

Charles Xavier could be abbreviated to Charles X, the page title does not include "of France" as of my typing this. 193.203.152.185 (talk) 12:24, 3 March 2024 (UTC)

A questionable claim from a questionable source, and broader problems.

This article relies heavily on non-scholarly works by writers not working as academic historians. This, not surprisingly, leads to problems. One such problem involves a striking claim based on flimsy evidence. Citing Susan Nagal, the article claimed Louis Philippe d'Orléans had introduced the future Charles X to brothels in an attempt to cause him to become infected with a venereal disease, in order either to kill him or render him sterile. This claim is sourced to p.11 of Susan Nagal's Marie-Therese: The Fate of Marie Antoinette's Daughter. Nagel writes "[Louis Philippe d']Orléans, it was said', had deliberately introduced d'Artois [the future Charles X] to the world of gambling and brothels at the Palais-Royal in Paris[...]" (emphasis added). Nagal cites no source for this claim. Her work, which does not contain footnotes, includes limited endnotes on a per-chapter basis, not linked to individual sentences or paragraphs. An examination of her notes for for chapter 1 (where p.11-12 are) on p.377 reveals that she gives no reference or source for this claim.
I am not suggesting Nagal made this up. My hunch would be that the accusation existed in scurrilous or otherwise gossipy libelles, newspapers or mémoires from the period, but this is pure speculation. What is clear, though, is that the accusation cannot be presented as fact, for even Nagal writes "it was said." Consequently, I have removed this passage from the article.

Going forward, we should avoid drawing on Nagal, who not an ideal source for writing this article. Not trained as a historian, targeting a non-specialist audience, publishing for a trade publisher rather than an academic press, her work is not without merit. But it is not a scholarly, academic work of history. Despite (or because!) of this, it is quite readable, and was reviewed favorably by newspapers. I've searched JSTOR but not found any reviews in the major history journals of her work. It doesn't appear she's ever published in scholarly journals. Antonia Fraser, despite her literary talents, is not an academic historian. Unfortunately it seems half the article is sourced to Fraser and Nagel, which is quite problematic. On the other hand, Munro Price and Évelyne Lever are respected academic historians and publish through respected publishers.
Editors working on this article should try to stick to academic histories that cite their sources. --Datafier (talk) 18:08, 29 May 2014 (UTC)

Excellent catch! Ruddah (talk) 20:04, 29 May 2014 (UTC)

Thank you, Ruddah. Looking over the article, I think it looks more like a C-class article than a B class. Its Good Article Review, five years ago, recommended substantial changes, it didn't just barely fail. The review process noted that Antonia Fraser is not a good source, but missed Nagal. Perhaps the combination of a C-class (deserved, at this point) and the high importance of the subject will attract some committed Wikipedians to fix this article! To that end, here is a brief historiographical orientation for those brave souls who want to re-write the article

The historiography seems somewhat weak. If my cursory searches in catalogues are any indication, Charles X has attracted more writers like Nagal than scholarly historians. (fr:Georges Bordonove is a good example of this problem: his 1980 Charles X : le dernier roi should be avoided, cf his Wiki article). There doesn't seem to be one good, serious, all-encompassing biography of Charles X from birth to death, written by a professional historian, recently. I might have missed it, but I don't think so. So our options are more limited. Here are some places to start:

• Jean-Pierre Garnier's Charles X, le roi, le proscrit (1967) seems reasonably good; see a generally favorable review in one of the prominent French academic journals of historical research.
• José Cabanis' Charles X roi ultra (1972), received a slightly less favorable review but would certainly be appropriate to use here.
• I was unable to (quickly) locate any reviews of Éric Le Nabour's Charles X : le dernier roi (1980) but he received a prize from the Académie française for it.
• Paul and Pierrette Girault de Coursac's Provence et Artois : les deux frères de Louis XVI is probably quite serious, (and royalist, as well!?)
  

This list is not exhaustive, I just looked in the usual places -- Persée, JSTOR, the Bibliothèque national's catalogue, and I looked quickly! But Garnier, Cabanis and Girault de Coursac -- these would be the places to start if for a re-write of the article. Weak historiography or not, three serious books is enough for our purposes. So works like these, and not those of Nagal or Fraser should be used: I can't emphasize this enough. A final note: of course, you don't have to be trained as an academic historian to write a serious works on Charles X, although it helps. Garnier had been a diplomat. Cabanis was many things, but an academic historian was not one of them. (On the other hand, Pierrette Girault de Coursac is a historian by training). What matters though, is their seriousness and scholarly approach: all three are recognized by professional historians, reviewing their works are in historical journals. So stick with the scholarship: when this article is finally re-written -- and it won't be by me -- these names are a good place to start.

--Datafier (talk) 02:15, 30 May 2014 (UTC)

Assessment comment

The comment(s) below were originally left at Talk:Charles X of France/Comments, and are posted here for posterity. Following several discussions in past years, these subpages are now deprecated. The comments may be irrelevant or outdated; if so, please feel free to remove this section.

well-written article, but needs references Coemgenus 15:06, 28 February 2007 (UTC) GA assessment during GA assessment, many problems appeared. Article needs a serious overhaul and rewriting. It is not ready for prime time. See comments under GA review. --Auntieruth55 (talk) 21:38, 20 June 2009 (UTC)

Last edited at 12:36, 22 November 2011 (UTC). Substituted at 11:21, 29 April 2016 (UTC)

Move discussion in progress

There is a move discussion in progress on Talk:Louis XIV of France which affects this page. Please participate on that page and not in this talk page section. Thank you. —RMCD bot 21:31, 21 June 2020 (UTC)

Images

Do you think we should make the images of Louis XV, Louis XVI, Louis XVIII, and Charles X them in normal attire instead there coronation robes? Just a question--Orson1234 (talk) 06:50, 22 October 2021 (UTC)Orson1234

'Wheelchair bound' - a small change

I know this is a protected page so I wanted to post here first - I'd just like to make one very small change, from 'by then wheelchair-bound' to 'by then using a wheelchair' in Bourbon Restoration. 'Wheelchair-bound' is widely considered outdated and a bit offensive now (and inaccurate - I sincerely hope!). There's more information in this guideline: MOS:DISAB. Thanks! Persicifolia (talk) 00:06, 30 October 2021 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 6 March 2022

Please add the following template to the bottom of the article:

67.173.23.66 (talk) 18:07, 6 March 2022 (UTC)

 Not done please explain the reason. AwfulReader (talk) 18:21, 6 March 2022 (UTC)

It's because he's listed on the template.67.173.23.66 (talk) 18:35, 6 March 2022 (UTC)

 Not done: He's not listed in the template. ––FormalDude talk 05:52, 9 March 2022 (UTC)

He is listed on the template in the section "House of Bourbon - Lower Navarre" under the name "Charles V^F".2601:241:300:B610:685B:FB1F:77B9:E320 (talk) 14:51, 12 March 2022 (UTC)

 Not done: Still not listed in the template. Meltdown reverter (talk) 15:03, 12 March 2022 (UTC)

As said earlier, on the template he is the last entry listed "House of Bourbon - Lower Navarre". The link listed is a piped link written as [[Charles X|Charles V]], which displays as "Charles V", but still links to "Charles X". Clicking on that link in that section will bring the user to the article this talk page is attached to. With that in mind, I request it be added, as he is linked on the template under the aforementioned piped link.2601:241:300:B610:685B:FB1F:77B9:E320 (talk) 17:02, 12 March 2022 (UTC)

 Not done: It links to Charles II instead of Charles X. Meltdown reverter (talk) 22:10, 13 March 2022 (UTC)

There are two different entries which display as "Charles V". One is the one in the section "House of Habsburg - Upper Navarre", which links to Charles II of Spain as you said. The other is the one in the section "House of Bourbon - Lower Navarre" which links to Charles X. Reactivating request with this clarification.67.173.23.66 (talk) 04:42, 31 March 2022 (UTC)

Done. This took way too long for a simple request. Dimadick (talk) 08:24, 31 March 2022 (UTC)

Move discussion in progress

There is a move discussion in progress on Talk:Charles the Bald which affects this page. Please participate on that page and not in this talk page section. Thank you. —RMCD bot 12:01, 31 July 2023 (UTC)

This should be a dabpage

I don't know which tenth Charles monarch is genuinely the most famous, but I'm 100% sure that none of them completely overshadow the others. Charles X Gustav of Sweden is commonly known as just "Charles X".

I don't see that our readers benefit from having this article as the main entry with everything else squirreled away behind a general dabnote. Peter ^Isotalo 12:01, 21 January 2024 (UTC)

@Peter Isotalo: See below. Srnec (talk) 03:00, 7 March 2024 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 23 January 2024

Sections copied from the article, with changes embedded

Childhood and adolescence Charles Philippe with his younger sister Clotilde on a goat Charles Philippe of France was born October 9, 1757, the youngest son of the Dauphin Louis and his wife, the Dauphine Marie Josèphe, at the Palace of Versailles. Charles was created Count of Artois at birth by his grandfather, the reigning King Louis XV. As the youngest male in the family, Charles had very little chance of ever becoming king. His eldest brother, Louis, Duke of Burgundy, died unexpectedly in 1761, which moved Charles up one place in the line of succession. He was raised in early childhood by Madame de Marsan, the Governess of the Children of France. At the age of two, Charles' father died in 1765, Charles's oldest surviving brother, Louis Auguste, became the new Dauphin (the heir apparent to the French throne). Their mother Marie Josèphe, who never recovered from the loss of her husband, died in March 1767 from tuberculosis. This left Charles an orphan at the age of nine, along with his siblings Louis Auguste, Louis Stanislas, Count of Provence, Clotilde ("Madame Clotilde"), and Élisabeth ("Madame Élisabeth"). Under the care of the Duke of Vauguyon, who left him to be cared for by young noblemen, Charles spent most of his days passing the time with foolish amusements. This also meant that formal schooling was neglected for Charles. Louis XV fell ill on 27 April 1774 and died on 10 May of smallpox at the age of 64. His grandson Louis-Auguste succeeded him as King Louis XVI. Marriage and private life Charles as Count of Artois in 1798. Portrait by Henri-Pierre Danloux In November 1773, Charles married Marie Thérèse of Savoy. In 1775, Marie Thérèse gave birth to a boy, Louis Antoine, who was created Duke of Angoulême by Louis XVI. Louis-Antoine was the first of the next generation of Bourbons, as the king and the Count of Provence had not fathered any children yet, causing the Parisian libellistes (pamphleteers who published scandalous leaflets about important figures in court and politics) to lampoon Louis XVI's alleged impotence. Three years later, in 1778, Charles' second son, Charles Ferdinand, was born and given the title of Duke of Berry. In the same year Queen Marie Antoinette gave birth to her first child, Marie Thérèse, quelling all rumours that she could not bear children. Charles was thought of as the most attractive member of his family, bearing a strong resemblance to his grandfather Louis XV. His wife was considered quite ugly by most contemporaries, and he looked for company in numerous extramarital affairs. According to the Count of Hézecques, "few beauties were cruel to him." Among his lovers was notably Anne Victoire Dervieux. Later, he embarked upon a lifelong love affair with the beautiful Louise de Polastron, the sister-in-law of Marie Antoinette's closest companion, the Duchess of Polignac. Other pleasures Charles engaged in include Cabriolet races and deer hunts, which often ended in gay dinners at Bagatelle, leading to an abundance of gossip and rumors. Charles' undignified behavior during horse races led many people to discredit French royalty. This included Mercy-Argenteau, the Austrian ambassador to France, who wrote a letter to the Austrian empress, Maria Theresa, "the Count of Artois, the promoter of these race meetings ought to be discouraged by his failures. In spite of his large expenditures upon horses and English jockeys, he never wins a single bet." In the 1780's, Charles further developed his love for hunting. Especially in 1785, when Charles went on fifty-three boar hunts. In addition to Charles' love for horse races and hunting, Charles also loved drinking and gambling. Charles also struck up a firm friendship with Marie Antoinette herself, whom he had first met upon her arrival in France in April 1770 when he was twelve. The closeness of the relationship was such that he was falsely accused by Parisian rumour mongers of having seduced her. Part of these rumours includes a note supposedly written by Charles, though it also could've been written by one of his enemies. The note states, "What have they not said of us, my dear friend. They claim that I am the father of all your children, that the King is impotent, and that the Parisians fatten a pig which soon will be slaughtered." As part of Marie Antoinette's social set, Charles often appeared opposite her in the private theatre of her favourite royal retreat, the Petit Trianon. They were both said to be very talented amateur actors. Marie Antoinette played milkmaids, shepherdesses, and country ladies, whereas Charles played lovers, valets, and farmers. Portrait of the Count of Artois (future Charles X) in the habit of the Order of the Holy Spirit, by Antoine-François Callet, c. 1775 A famous story concerning the two involves the construction of the Château de Bagatelle. In 1775, Charles purchased a small hunting lodge in the Bois de Boulogne. He soon had the existing house torn down with plans to rebuild. Marie Antoinette wagered her brother-in-law that the new château could not be completed within three months. Charles engaged the neoclassical architect François-Joseph Bélanger to design the building. He won his bet, with Bélanger completing the house in sixty-three days. It is estimated that the project, which came to include manicured gardens, cost over two million livres. Throughout the 1770s, Charles spent lavishly. He accumulated enormous debts, totalling 21 million livres. In the 1780s, King Louis XVI paid off the debts of both his brothers, the Counts of Provence and Artois. In 1781, Charles acted as a proxy for Holy Roman Emperor Joseph II at the christening of his godson, the Dauphin Louis Joseph. Crisis and French Revolution Charles's political awakening started with the first great crisis of the monarchy in 1786, when it became apparent that the kingdom was bankrupt from previous military endeavours (in particular the Seven Years' War and the American War of Independence) and needed fiscal reform to survive. Charles supported the removal of the aristocracy's financial privileges, but was opposed to any reduction in the social privileges enjoyed by either the Roman Catholic Church or the nobility. He believed that France's finances should be reformed without the monarchy being overthrown. In his own words, it was "time for repair, not demolition." Charles became a leader of the obstructionist group that was stopping real reform from occuring. In 1774, Turgot was announced as Controller General, summing up his policies as “No Bankruptcy, No Increase of Taxes, No Loans.” Charles hated the economy that Turgot proposed, which led to him abusing the minister for undermining that prop and rampart of the throne, the aristocracy. Charles was hoping for a new minister that would be more open to letting him spend as much as he wants. Turgot was eventually released and was succeeded by Necker. However, Charles still was not a fan of this minister, producing vicious libels of him. Necker was dismissed, leading to Calonne and Brienne becoming the successors. Like the previous two ministers, Charles disliked Brienne because he wanted Charles to pay his debts, which he refused to do, leading to their dismissals as well. In 1787, the Assembly of Notables occurred to discuss administrative and fiscal reforms. Notables were organized into seven bureaus, each presided over by a Prince of the Blood. Charles was chairman of the Second Bureau, meaning he had some amount of influence in his speeches. During the assembly, Lafayette and Charles got into a series of arguments. One of these occurred when Lafayette proposed that King Louis XVI should be presented with a petition with a request to give civil rights to Protestants. Charles, disagreeing with Lafayette’s idea, declared that the subject matter was not on the agenda of his Second Bureau and did not matter. Charles was not for reform, but rather reaction. The Assembly of Notables disbanded, having done nothing. At this point, Charles was very unpopular with a majority of the French population. On August 17, 1787, Charles was followed by a mob as he went to go present two edicts to the cours des aides (Court of Aids). Before the convening of the Estates General, a second Assembly of Notables occurred in 1788, this time to look at what the parlements had been demanding as well as pamphleteers who were demanding the Third Estate to have double representation. This demand by the Third Estate did not sit well with Charles, as well as his friends, together making up the Five Princes of the Blood. The princes included Charles as the Count of Artois, the Prince of Condé, the Duke of Bourbon, the Prince of Conti, and the youthful Duke of Enghien. The Five Princes came together to create and present a memorial to King Louis XVI, stating their reasons why the demands made by the Third Estate are a “threat to the state”. King Louis XVI eventually convened the Estates General, which had not been assembled for over 150 years, to meet in May 1789 to ratify financial reforms. Along with his sister Élisabeth, Charles was the most conservative member of the family and opposed the demands of the Third Estate (representing the commoners) to increase their voting power. This prompted criticism from his brother, who accused him of being "plus royaliste que le roi" ("more royalist than the king"). In June 1789, the representatives of the Third Estate declared themselves a National Assembly intent on providing France with a new constitution. Since Necker’s first reign as financial minister, Charles disliked the man. Charles' feelings turned to hatred as Necker opposed his project to disband the National Assembly. Together with the Duke of Cars, they came up with an idea for the king to sign a declaration, making the delegates return home. The king would then retire to Compiègne, where 40,000 men would support him. However, if deputies refused to go home, the place would be surrounded by troops, the leaders being arrested. Necker opposed this and was the primary reason for the plan's rejection. In conjunction with the Baron de Breteuil, Charles had political alliances arranged to depose the liberal minister of finance, Jacques Necker. These plans backfired when Charles attempted to secure Necker's dismissal on 11 July without Breteuil's knowledge, much earlier than they had originally intended. On 10 July 1789, a meeting of the [Conseil du Roi|Royal Council]] was scheduled. As Necker arrived, Charles blocked his path, saying to him, “Where are you going, foreign traitor? Is this where you belong, misplaced bourgeoisie? Return to your little town, or you will perish by my hand.” Necker, however, still entered the meeting. The next day, 11 July 1789, Necker was dismissed. It was the beginning of a decline in his political alliance with Breteuil, which ended in mutual loathing. Necker's dismissal provoked the storming of the Bastille on 14 July. With the concurrence of Louis XVI and Marie Antoinette Charles and his family left France three days later, on 17 July, along with several other courtiers. These included the Duchess of Polignac, the queen's favourite. His flight was historically attributed to personal fears for his own safety. However recent research indicates that the King had approved his brother's departure in advance, seeing it as a means of ensuring that one close relative would be free to act as a spokesman for the monarchy, after Louis himself had been moved from Versailles to Paris. HIS30324PS (talk) 08:04, 23 January 2024 (UTC) References

 Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format and provide a reliable source if appropriate. Shadow311 (talk) 16:07, 23 January 2024 (UTC)

- Changed "born in 1757", to "born October 9, 1757"

- Added citation after the sentence "Charles was created Counted of Artois at birth by his grandfather, the reigning King Louis XV"

- Changed "Charles seemed unlikely ever to become king" to "Charles had very little chance of ever becoming king"

- Changed "At the death of his father in 1765" to "At the age of two, Charles' father died in 1765"

- Added "Under the care of the Duke of Vauguyon, who left him to be cared for by young noblemen, Charles spent most of his days passing the time with foolish amusements. This also meant that formal schooling was neglected for Charles" and added a citation

- Added a new paragraph in the Marriage and private life section, "Other pleasures Charles engaged in include Cabriolet races and deer hunts, which often ended in gay dinners at Bagatelle, leading to an abundance of gossip and rumors. Charles' undignified behavior during horse races led many people to discredit French royalty. This included Mercy-Argenteau, the Austrian ambassador to France, who wrote a letter to the Austrian empress, Maria Theresa, "the Count of Artois, the promoter of these race meetings ought to be discouraged by his failures. In spite of his large expenditures upon horses and English jockeys, he never wins a single bet." In the 1780's, Charles further developed his love for hunting. Especially in 1785, when Charles went on fifty-three boar hunts. In addition to Charles' love for horse races and hunting, Charles also loved drinking and gambling." as well as citations

- Added a section to the paragraph about his friendship with Marie Antoinette, "Part of these rumours includes a note supposedly written by Charles, though it also could've been written by one of his enemies. The note states, "What have they not said of us, my dear friend. They claim that I am the father of all your children, that the King is impotent, and that the Parisians fatten a pig which soon will be slaughtered." and a citation

- I added to the end of the first paragraph of the Crisis and French Revolution section as well as three new paragraphs. "Charles became a leader of the obstructionist group that was stopping real reform from occurring.

In 1774, Turgot was announced as Controller General, summing up his policies as “No Bankruptcy, No Increase of Taxes, No Loans.” Charles hated the economy that Turgot proposed, which led to him abusing the minister for undermining that prop and rampart of the throne, the aristocracy. Charles was hoping for a new minister that would be more open to letting him spend as much as he wants. Turgot was eventually released and was succeeded by Necker. However, Charles still was not a fan of this minister, producing vicious libels of him. Necker was dismissed, leading to Calonne and Brienne becoming the successors. Like the previous two ministers, Charles disliked Brienne because he want Charles to pay his debts, which he refused to do, leading to their dismissals as well.

In 1787, the Assembly of Notables occurred to discuss administrative and fiscal reforms. Notables were organized into seven bureaus, each presided over by a Prince of the Blood. Charles was chairman of the Second Bureau, meaning he had some amount of influence in his speeches. During the assembly, Lafayette and Charles got into a series of arguments. One of these occurred when Lafayette proposed that King Louis XVI should be presented with a petition with a request to give civil rights to Protestants. Charles, disagreeing with Lafayette’s idea, declared that the subject matter was not on the agenda of his Second Bureau and did not matter. Charles was not for reform, but rather reaction. The Assembly of Notables disbanded, having done nothing.

At this point, Charles was very unpopular with a majority of the French population. On August 17, 1787, Charles was followed by a mob as he went to go present two edicts to the cours des aides (Court of Aids). Before the convening of the Estates General, a second Assembly of Notables occurred in 1788, this time to look at what the parlements had been demanding as well as pamphleteers who were demanding the Third Estate to have double representation. This demand by the Third Estate did not sit well with Charles, as well as his friends, together making up the Five Princes of the Blood. The princes included Charles as the Count of Artois, the Prince of Condé, the Duke of Bourbon, the Prince of Conti, and the youthful Duke of Enghien. The Five Princes came together to create and present a memorial to King Louis XVI, stating their reasons why the demands made by the Third Estate are a “threat to the state”. As well as citations.

- Added to the the 2nd to last paragraph of the Crisis and French Revolution section, "Since Necker’s first reign as financial minister, Charles disliked the man. Charles' feelings turned to hatred as Necker opposed his project to disband the National Assembly. Together with the Duke of Cars, they came up with an idea for the king to sign a declaration, making the delegates return home. The king would then retire to Compiègne, where 40,000 men would support him. However, if deputies refused to go home, the place would be surrounded by troops, the leaders being arrested. Necker opposed this and was the primary reason for the plan's rejection" at the beginning of the paragraph and then, "On 10 July 1789, a meeting of the Royal Council was scheduled. As Necker arrived, Charles blocked his path, saying to him, “Where are you going, foreign traitor? Is this where you belong, misplaced bourgeoisie? Return to your little town, or you will perish by my hand.” Necker, however, still entered the meeting. The next day, 11 July 1789, Necker was dismissed" towards the end. As well as citations HIS30324PS (talk) 21:57, 23 January 2024 (UTC)

 Not done: There are too many proposals here to effectively implement as one single edit request, especially because it is entirely unclear if any of the changes have been supported by reliable sources, since they're presented in the sections copied in their entirety.

Please submit new edit requests for each proposed change, without copying entire sections of the article text (because doing so makes the request inscrutable), and please ensure you have provided reliable sources for each. This way they can be considered and responded-to individually and over time. When doing so, please describe each change in a "please change X to Y" format, along with the relevant reliable source. -- Pinchme123 (talk) 17:36, 29 January 2024 (UTC)

Requested move 2 March 2024

The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review after discussing it on the closer's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

The result of the move request was: Moved per request. Favonian (talk) 21:13, 9 March 2024 (UTC)

---

• Charles X → Charles X of France
• Charles X (disambiguation) → Charles X

– Current title is ambiguous with Charles X Gustav. Although "Gustav" is a natural disambiguator, the bare "Charles X" is quite common ([1][2]). Srnec (talk) 21:09, 2 March 2024 (UTC)

• Support per WP:COMMONNAME. Improves recognizability enormously. Wikipedia readers should not be expected to be forced to guess who this article is about. Walrasiad (talk) 21:54, 2 March 2024 (UTC)

  What evidence do you have that "Charles X of France" rather than just "Charles X" is his WP:COMMONNAME? UmbrellaTheLeef (talk) 12:58, 8 March 2024 (UTC)

• Support - easier for readers to know which country he was king of. GoodDay (talk) 22:34, 2 March 2024 (UTC)
• Support per GoodDay's argument. Better for recognizability. Dimadick (talk) 18:51, 3 March 2024 (UTC)
• Oppose: no need for disambiguation, per WP:SOVEREIGN; the Swedish king is more commonly referred to with Gustav and the natural disambiguation is sufficient. If there were significant numbers of readers getting misled by the primary topic, wikinav would register outgoing traffic from Charles X via the dab link in the hatnote, but that isn't the case [3]. Rosbif73 (talk) 08:54, 4 March 2024 (UTC)

• Neverthless, readers are misdirected as shown by wikinav for the disambiguation page: [4]. Readers are going to the French king's page and then having to click through the disambiguation page to get to the article they want. Celia Homeford (talk) 10:36, 8 March 2024 (UTC)

• Support. The title is ambiguous and insufficiently recognizable without the country, particularly given that he's not consistently identified with the "Gustavus". ╠╣uw [talk] 10:44, 4 March 2024 (UTC)
• Oppose: Per WP:SOVEREIGN. The French monarch is the clear WP:PRIMARYTOPIC. [5] It gets about 40 times the amount of page views than the other Charles X, the Swedish king. UmbrellaTheLeef (talk) 12:48, 4 March 2024 (UTC)

Congratulations. You have discovered France has a population of 70 million and Sweden has a population of 10 million. And more people are interested in French history than Swedish history. So is that your logic? Big countries have primacy over small countries? French kings are "more important" than Swedish kings? Imperialism is the criteria now? Walrasiad (talk) 18:21, 4 March 2024 (UTC)

This argument is WP:IJDLI. French kings are not "more important" than Swedish kings, they're just what most English Wikipedia users look for in this instance. UmbrellaTheLeef (talk) 20:01, 4 March 2024 (UTC)

And "Government of France" is much more sought after than "Government of Sweden" [6]. By your logic, "Government" should direct to the French government page? Walrasiad (talk) 12:32, 5 March 2024 (UTC)

In a hypothetical world where France and Sweden were the only two places that had governments, I suppose that your pageviews link comparing just those two would be relevant, and the government of France would potentially be the primary topic. But that isn't the world that we're talking about. Rosbif73 (talk) 12:48, 5 March 2024 (UTC)

Or, hear me out, this may sound crazy, we title the page for the French government "Government of France" and on the Swedish government "Government of Sweden"! Insane, isn't it? Walrasiad (talk)

That would most likely be the case even in this imaginary two-government world of yours, in that there would probably still be a broad topic article for "Government". But the analogy adds nothing useful to this discussion; let's get back to the real world where we have just two historical figures, one of whom is a potential primary topic for "Charles X", please. Rosbif73 (talk) 14:17, 5 March 2024 (UTC)

So you want to ignore the most straightforward and most obvious solution, that renders an article immediately recognizable to readers at no cost, in the most neutral and natural way. And prefer that readers be forced to engage in guessing games and hurdles, and that editors - we few, we happy few - should be deciding whether France is "more important" than Sweden? Walrasiad (talk) 14:38, 5 March 2024 (UTC)

We are not making any such judgemental decision. But we've had that exact discussion elsewhere recently, let's not repeat it here. Rosbif73 (talk) 14:49, 5 March 2024 (UTC)

We're not deciding whether France is "more important" than Sweden. We're discussing whether Charles X is more important to the readers of English Wikipedia than Karl X Gustav. Charles X is not representative of the country of France, and neither is Karl X Gustav representative of the country of Sweden. UmbrellaTheLeef (talk) 16:11, 5 March 2024 (UTC)

That is exactly what you're asking. You're comparing two different men and asking us to put one in primacy over the other. On account of what? They are both useless inbred idiots who happen by chance to be kings of their countries (although in actual accomplishments the Swedish Charles probably quite exceeds the French one). The main difference between them is that one is tied to the history of France, a big country, the other tied to the history of Sweden, as small country. That is all your numbers reveal. France is bigger than Sweden, more people are interested in French history than Swedish history. You are trying to use that big country bias to make an argument for primacy. You are trying to impose as a rule on Wikipedia that Big Countries "matter more" than Small Countries. And that is unacceptable. That is pure WP:BIAS.

Charles X of France is primary in the context of French history. Charles X of Sweden is primary in the context of Swedish history. There's no doubt about that. So the only thing that is left to disentangle, what you are trying to impose, is whose history matters more - France's or Sweden's?

If you don't think the countries should be compared, then don't compare them. King Charles X of France is primary for the article title "Charles X of France" and King Charles X of Sweden is primary for title "Charles X of Sweden". And that's that. Problem solved. Naturally, neutrally. And we can put an end to this nonsense and the articles can go back to being useful and beneficial to readers. Walrasiad (talk) 17:47, 5 March 2024 (UTC)

If you want to "put an end to this nonsense" then open another RfC on WP:NCROY. And to answer your question, the Swedish Empire is not a "small country" that needs special accomodation from Wikipedia policy. WP:NCROY applies to all countries in Europe, big and small, with a few exceptions, Sweden not being one of them. I am not trying to impose any rule. You are trying to impose the old WP:NCROY guideline on all articles, even when the guideline in question has been changed. And if we are applying your logic to its logical conclusion, then should Paris be moved to Paris, France because Paris (mythology) exists? Is it prejudicial against Greeks to keep Paris as the city instead of a disambiguation page? Because that is what your reasoning leads to. UmbrellaTheLeef (talk) 11:22, 9 March 2024 (UTC)

• Support as per the reasons given above. Disambiguation is needed. - Therealscorp1an (talk) 12:45, 5 March 2024 (UTC)
• Support per nom. -- Necrothesp (talk) 14:22, 5 March 2024 (UTC)
• Support per nom and points made above. Robertus Pius (Talk • Contribs) 00:58, 7 March 2024 (UTC)
• Support per WP:COMMONNAME and the reasons given above. ICOTEYE (talk) 18:54, 7 March 2024 (UTC)
• Oppose per WP:COMMONNAME and WP:PRIMARYTOPIC. Векочел (talk) 14:34, 9 March 2024 (UTC)
• Support per nom. ‑‑Neveselbert (talk · contribs · email) 15:02, 9 March 2024 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.