Talk:Antoine of Navarre
 | This article is rated Start-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||||||||||||
| |||||||||||||||||||||
Succession
Could people maybe explain what they're trying to do here? Michael, you keep putting him in the succession line with the Queen Consorts, since he was king by marriage; perhaps we should indicate that in the box? (e.g., "in right of" rather than "with" Jeanne III?) Choess 17:31, 24 January 2007 (UTC)
- Well, it labels him as 'King of Navarre'; but he was, nonetheless, consort, and his predecessor was the previous consort, Marguerite of Angouleme, etc. Michaelsanders 19:13, 24 January 2007 (UTC)
- It's really not quite right to describe him as a consort. He was king of Navarre in right of his wife. He wasn't a powerless king consort like Francisco de Asis in Spain under Isabel II - he was considered to be properly king, it was just in right of his wife. john k 19:34, 24 January 2007 (UTC)]
- I'm not disputing that he was 'King' rather than 'Prince Consort'; however, the point remains that he was King de Uxoris rather than de Jure, which places his predecessor as Marguerite of Angouleme, the previous royal spouse, and his successor as Marguerite of Valois, the following royal spouse - rather than his predecessor being Henry II, and his successor being Henry III (IV) - especially since Henry III didn't inherit until the death of Jeanne d'Albret. My point is that he was monarch of Navarre only by marriage, rather than by birth: his wife, his father-in-law and his son were all born to the title of monarch of Navarre, which inaliably belonged to them as their birthright; Antoine and the Marguerites held their titles only by virtue of their marriages to the Navarrese rulers, any power they exercised was, in theory at least, only by the consent of their spouses, and the title would be taken away from them if they were divorced (i.e. Marguerite of Valois), or if the regnant spouse died (i.e. Philip IV of France, who ceased to be King of Navarre with his wife's death, the title passing to his son). So, Antoine's predecessor was the previous royal spouse, not the previous regnant ruler. Michaelsanders 00:14, 25 January 2007 (UTC)
- A queen consort is not the same thing as a King de uxoris, or, at least, not necessarily the same thing. A queen consort is not a joint ruler with her husband. She is merely her husband's consort. The same is true for some king-consorts, but certainly not for all - they were often considered to be, in themselves, co-rulers with their wives, especially in earlier times. In some cases, they even got the throne for life, whether or not their spouses lived. This would have been the case in Scotland for Francis II of France, for instance, if his wife had died before him. And was certainly the case in Navarre itself, for John II of Aragon, who remained as king for 38 years after his wife's death, only on his death passing the kingdom on to their daughter. john k 00:47, 25 January 2007 (UTC)]
- But John's retention of the crown seems to have been illegal - witness his bad reputation as a result of that, the rumblings in favour of his children by Blanche inheriting after her death. Witness also the succession of Louis X of France to Navarre and Champagne following the death of his mother. The point remains that Antoine de Bourbon and his companion Kings-by-marriage are the spouses of the legitimate monarchs, rather than the legitimate monarchs in themselves, and as such are preceeded and succeeded by female spouses of male legitimate monarchs, rather than by the male legitimate monarchs themselves. Michaelsanders 01:15, 25 January 2007 (UTC)
- I really think this is the wrong way of looking at it. In the middle ages, male consorts were also normally the effective rulers of the country. It is just wrong to treat them as identical to female consorts. john k 16:09, 25 January 2007 (UTC)]
- I really think this is the wrong way of looking at it. In the middle ages, male consorts were also normally the effective rulers of the country. It is just wrong to treat them as identical to female consorts.
- But John's retention of the crown seems to have been illegal - witness his bad reputation as a result of that, the rumblings in favour of his children by Blanche inheriting after her death. Witness also the succession of Louis X of France to Navarre and Champagne following the death of his mother. The point remains that Antoine de Bourbon and his companion Kings-by-marriage are the spouses of the legitimate monarchs, rather than the legitimate monarchs in themselves, and as such are preceeded and succeeded by female spouses of male legitimate monarchs, rather than by the male legitimate monarchs themselves. Michaelsanders 01:15, 25 January 2007 (UTC)
- A queen consort is not the same thing as a King de uxoris, or, at least, not necessarily the same thing. A queen consort is not a joint ruler with her husband. She is merely her husband's consort. The same is true for some king-consorts, but certainly not for all - they were often considered to be, in themselves, co-rulers with their wives, especially in earlier times. In some cases, they even got the throne for life, whether or not their spouses lived. This would have been the case in Scotland for Francis II of France, for instance, if his wife had died before him. And was certainly the case in Navarre itself, for John II of Aragon, who remained as king for 38 years after his wife's death, only on his death passing the kingdom on to their daughter.
- I'm not disputing that he was 'King' rather than 'Prince Consort'; however, the point remains that he was King de Uxoris rather than de Jure, which places his predecessor as Marguerite of Angouleme, the previous royal spouse, and his successor as Marguerite of Valois, the following royal spouse - rather than his predecessor being Henry II, and his successor being Henry III (IV) - especially since Henry III didn't inherit until the death of Jeanne d'Albret. My point is that he was monarch of Navarre only by marriage, rather than by birth: his wife, his father-in-law and his son were all born to the title of monarch of Navarre, which inaliably belonged to them as their birthright; Antoine and the Marguerites held their titles only by virtue of their marriages to the Navarrese rulers, any power they exercised was, in theory at least, only by the consent of their spouses, and the title would be taken away from them if they were divorced (i.e. Marguerite of Valois), or if the regnant spouse died (i.e. Philip IV of France, who ceased to be King of Navarre with his wife's death, the title passing to his son). So, Antoine's predecessor was the previous royal spouse, not the previous regnant ruler. Michaelsanders 00:14, 25 January 2007 (UTC)
- It's really not quite right to describe him as a consort. He was king of Navarre in right of his wife. He wasn't a powerless king consort like Francisco de Asis in Spain under Isabel II - he was considered to be properly king, it was just in right of his wife.
Which I am not doing. I am simply saying that they occupied the place of 'spouse of the hereditary monarch', rather than 'hereditary monarch' - which makes the predecessor the previous 'spouse of the hereditary monarch', etc, rather than the previous hereditary monarch. Michaelsanders 17:33, 25 January 2007 (UTC)
- There is a difference between de jure uxoris kings and kings consort. In the middle ages, husbands of queens regnant usually became de jure uxoris monarchs; they had appropriate regnal numbers and they reigned together with their spouses. Kings consort, on the other hand, held the same position as queens consort - they had titles, but they did not rule and they did not have regnal numbers. De jure uxoris kings were not counterparts of queens consorts - counterparts of queens consort were kings consort. Thus, if Antoine was de jure uxoris monarch, his predecessor was Henry II. If he was a king consort, his predecessor was Marguerite of Angoulême. So, was he a monarch or a consort? Surtsicna (talk) 16:37, 27 May 2008 (UTC)
Children
I have been doing some family research and have found that my 11th Great-Grandfather is one Jean Navarre, who married Perette Barat in 1572. Presumably, he was a son of Antoine de Bourbon. I know that Antoine had at least one illegitamite son. I have found other internet nites that mention Jean, why isn't he on Wikipedia and does anyone have a credible source for him? User: 1812Soldier —Preceding undated comment added 02:04, 15 October 2009 (UTC).
- I see no listing for a Jean Navarre in Généalogie de la maison de Bourbon: de 1256 à 1871 or Histoire généalogique et chronologique de la maison royale de Bourbon, Volume 2. It does list Charles de Bourbon(who is listed in the article) in both books. --Kansas Bear (talk) 06:00, 15 October 2009 (UTC)
- Please see these books. It seems that a certain Jean Navarre, who married Perette Barat in 1572, really existed and that he was an illegitimate son of Antoine de Bourbon. Surtsicna (talk) 17:43, 15 October 2009 (UTC)
- I've already seen the genealogical legend attributed to this. Oddly, there is no Jean Navarre mentioned in either French genealogical books, yet both mention Charles de Bourbon. Also, why would this Jean have a surname of Navarre?? That was not Antoine's surname as clearly indicated by his illegitimate son, Charles de Bourbon. This sounds more like a family legend with no factual basis. --Kansas Bear (talk) 18:19, 15 October 2009 (UTC)
- Doing also a quick search, I can find nothing in any French site about a Jean Navarre found in North American (Canadian + Le Détroit Legends) sites.
- In the following:
- http://74.125.113.132/search?q=cache:KU61R2bejtsJ:mlloyd.org/texts/lold.htm+Perette+Barat&cd=4&hl=en&ct=clnk&gl=us&client=firefox-a
- at the NAVARRE section, a Jean Navarre is mentioned: Jean Navarre, married 1572 Perette Barat; however, in the last paragraph of the next section Legends of Le Détroit, consecrated to the same family, one can read: Another Charlotte Bourassa, a cousin. married in 1760, Chas. de Langlade, the pioneer settler of Wisconsin, whose family belonged to that of the Count of Paris.
- Reading this last sentence makes me rather doubtful of the exactitude of this "legends" site :in the 18th century, there was no Count of Paris = comte de Paris, title created by Louis-Philippe king of the French & given to his grandson Philippe d'Orléans (1838-1894).
- Finally, and in total agreement with Kansas Bear, should Jean Navarre be the recognised illegitimate son of Antoine de Bourbon, king of Navarre, his surname would have been de Bourbon, not the name of the kingdom of Navarre.
- I suggest that User: 1812Soldier do more research on his own & bring more believable proof before his ancestor name can be included in the article on Antoine de Bourbon.
- P.S. Why is the article titled Antoine de Navarre instead of Antoine de Bourbon, which was his real name?
- Frania W. (talk) 19:40, 15 October 2009 (UTC)
- The surname Navarre ranks 2022th in France, i.e. it is a surname (patronyme) which bears no relationship to the Navarre kingdom. It is just a name.
- http://74.125.113.132/search?q=cache:Cn8F7b_-WcgJ:www.notrefamille.com/nom-navarre/navarre.html+nom+Navarre&cd=2&hl=en&ct=clnk&gl=us&client=firefox-a
- Frania W. (talk) 20:35, 15 October 2009 (UTC)