Talk:Charles the Bold/Archive 1

Archive 1

Title

Why "Charles I"? I have never seen him referred to with an ordinal. I suppose that there was a Charles II (Emperor Charles V), but he never ruled over the Duchy of Burgundy (although he claimed it), and is never known as Charles II, Duke of Burgundy, anyway. john k 18:50, 2 September 2005 (UTC)

Rulers of Burgundian Circle. I understand they used the title to mean that too and increasingly chiefly (there actually then is Ch III etc; and for Ch II, the title was very important). Consistency: despite of whether the later ones were not known mainly as, however they were, which in my understanding means per NC that Ch I gets ordinal (could put ordinal to John I too, but unfortunately there apparently never was John II). However, I feel not very strongly whether he be at "Charles I, D of B"; or "Charles, D of B". Arrigo 20:56, 2 September 2005 (UTC)

I wonder if a good compromise on the dukes of Burgundy might not be the form Philip the Bold, Duke of Burgundy, John the Fearless, Duke of Burgundy, Philip the Good, Duke of Burgundy, and Charles the Bold, Duke of Burgundy. These would indicate both the names by which they are best known, and the fact that they were dukes of Burgundy. john k 20:57, 2 September 2005 (UTC)

Too long for my taste. One of my priority principles is to keep headings simple (though systematic). It might be that I going to feel strongly if too long headings be offered. Arrigo 21:00, 2 September 2005 (UTC)

Image:Charles le temeraire.jpg

I have been asked on my talk page on Commons to identify the museum which this painting is located in. Searching the web, I could not find any reference to this painting (other than on Wikipedia mirror sites). Maybe the painting isn`t of Charles the Bold, but is incorrectly named? Does somebody know? --Kjetil_r 20:28, 31 August 2006 (UTC)

The painting appears to have been identified as belonging to the Kunsthistorisches Museum in Vienna. Laura1822 03:03, 8 November 2006 (UTC)

I don't know it, but to me it looks like stylistically it was painted at least a century after he lived - probably a copy of an earlier painting Johnbod 21:58, 31 December 2006 (UTC)

Early Life

According to the "Dictionnaire de la noblesse, contenant les généalogies, l'histoire et la chronologie des familles nobles de France , Volume 1" [1] Charles was probably brought up by Jean, Sire et Ber d'Auxy, fourth bearer of the name who, according to the book mentioned, was held in high regard by both, Philipp of Burgundy and the Count of Chalorois. In this case, Auxy refers to the town of Auxi-le-Château in northern France. As en.wikipedia does not contain an article about this town, I'd propose that the link be removed. --Nanoktom (talk) 13:12, 5 January 2013 (UTC)

See: Auxi-le-Château. Nick Michael (talk) 13:36, 5 January 2013 (UTC)

Duh, is all I have to say, and thanks to Nick. While we're here, I propose to change the name of Jehan(?) to Jean which is the only form I've found in all the french sources. Not sure if Jehan is a typo? --Nanoktom (talk) 17:23, 5 January 2013 (UTC)

Jehan is an old French orthography for John. I see no particular reason for maintaining it, and would go with a change to Jean. Nick Michael (talk) 22:18, 9 January 2013 (UTC)

I had added, Jehan, per this source, Steven J. Gunn and A. Janse, The Court As a Stage: England And the Low Countries in the Later Middle Ages, (Boydell Press, 2006), 121. --Kansas Bear (talk) 01:50, 10 January 2013 (UTC)

Marriages

According to the text, a marriage was proposed in the Treaty of Conflans between Charles and Louis's infant daughter Catherine. Yet Mary of Burgundy's mother was Isabella, daughter of the Duke of Bourbon. This is not mentioned in the article. Isabella died in 1465, the same year as the treaty. Did he ever marry Catherine? Did she die young? She is not listed in Louis XI's article. Laura1822 14:56, 7 November 2006 (UTC)

I've done some further research, and discovered that:

1. The statement comes from the EB 1911.
2. Charles's first wife was Catherine, Louis XI's sister, but she died twenty years before this allegedly proposed marriage.
3. Charles's second wife, Isabelle de Bourbon, died during the negotiations for the treaty, making a dynastic marriage suddenly possible.
4. If Louis XI had a daughter named Catherine, she must have died as an infant, as I can't find a record of her. Or it may be that the proposal was for one of Louis's other named daughters, and "Catherine" was simply a mistake.
5. A couple of years after this, Charles married Margaret of York. This was a highly political match, especially if he rejected Louis's sister to do so. Or, if there really was an infant Princess Catherine, she may have died. Other articles say that Louis tried to prevent this match for a long time.

Someone edited the text to reflect part of this, without responding to my question here on the talk page.

I am going to add a section on Charles's marriages to the article. Laura1822 17:29, 31 December 2006 (UTC)

I have been working on the article, but there's a long way to go. Laura1822 00:48, 2 January 2007 (UTC)

It's a mistake of name. According to Aline S. Taylor (Isabel of Burgundy), Countess Isabelle of Charolais died during the Conflans negotiations. Charles' mother, Isabel, and the other Burgundian politicians immediately began scrambling to resurrect old marriage proposals between Charles and one of the Yorkist princesses. Charles' advisor, Guillaume de Clugny, proposed in London that Charles marry Margaret of York, Edward IV's sister. Louis, however, desperate to prevent an Anglo-Burgundian alliance, countered the English proposal "by offering Charles the hand of his eldest daughter, four-year-old Anne [my italics]. But the French proposal, which included the counties of Champagne and Ponthieu and a large dowry, was refused." Michaelsanders 01:39, 2 January 2007 (UTC)

Excellent, thank you! I am grateful to have it explained. FWIW another mixup is in the French wiki article, which says that he wanted to marry Anne of York as his second wife, but his father told him that the Treaty of Conflans required him to marry French blood royal. He later married Margaret of York. There was an Anne of York, but she was married in 1447 and her husband did not die until 1475, so if Charles "wanted" to marry her, it would have been right after the death of his first wife in 1446, when he was only 12 or 13. I think it's more likely that he wanted to marry Margaret all along, or at least from the time he started thinking about marriage. Does your source state that he had no say and it was always his father's choice without regard to his wishes (for the second marriage)?

Would you please explain about the Bishop of Liege? Louis of Bourbon being the duke's putative father was a mistake--thanks for catching it-- but in 1461 the revolt in Liege must have been against Louis of Bourbon, whom they hated because Philip the Good had put him in there. (See the French article and also Bishopric of Liège).

Would you please add your source to the references section? Thanks! Laura1822 02:21, 2 January 2007 (UTC)

My source is, as I said, Isabel of Burgundy, by Aline Taylor. I was, and still do, intend to add to the articles for on Isabel, Philip the Good, Charles the Rash, etc, based on info in this book. Marriages: Philip the Good, according to Taylor, had dynastic ambitions of his own, but also saw himself as a Valois and the preeminant Duke in France; he therefore vacillated throughout his life between fighting the French monarchy and moving close to it. He arranged his son's marriages with that in mind: first to Catherine of Valois, daughter of Charles VII; then to his own niece, Isabelle of Bourbon. His wife, Isabel (a granddaughter of John of Gaunt and something of an Anglophile), wanted to marry her son to an English princess to strengthen Burgundian ties to England (since that would further Burgundian independence).

Isabelle of Bourbon had been sent to the court of her uncle and his wife, to be educated by the Duchess. Says Taylor: "Philip was very fond of his French niece, as she was not only pliant to his wishes and rahter lovely to have about, but also, in the Duke's eyes, ideally suited to become his son's second bride. Isabella [sic] was also conveniently within his household, under his immediate control, and could be useful in his alliance with Charles VII. The duchess had other ideas about her son's second bride, however. Isabel wanted a lady who would cement an English alliance, and was proceeding during 1454 with her own negotiations with the Duke of York, who had three unmarried daughters." No mention is made of a name here.

Philip the Good appears to have been the dominant factor in arranging the marriage: he hoped it would make Charles VII friendly enough to allow Philip to recruit men in France for the Duke's intended Crusade. The Pope, meanwhile, allowed the marriage of 1st cousins, and the girl's parents approved of the good match. Charles, apparently, agreed with his mother's determination to secure an English bride. Philip then summoned Charles, and one of his own illegitimate sons (probably Anthony 'The Grand Bastard of Burgundy', who was an ally of Isabel and a supporter of her English scheme), who had apparently been encouraging Charles to resist their father's choice. "Philip insisted that although he had once sided with the enemies of France, 'he had never been English at heart.' He then commanded Charles to accept his decision of a French bride in spite of his mother's difference of opinion or suffer disinheritance." He then threatened to have the other son tied up in a sack and drowned if he encouraged Charles to be rebellious again. Philip eventually manipulated events to have Charles secretly married to Isabelle - not even telling Charles until the night before the ceremony on 31 October - in order to get a better deal in the dowry.

The Treaty of Conflans could not have affected Charles' second marriage - Isabelle died in the midst of its negotiations. By this time, Philip was increasingly ill, and was willing to let his son handle matters, especially since he was becoming fearful of France; Isabel is credited as being the primary mover of the English marriage, but she and her son are also painted as being in concert in many matters at that time, especially in the English matter. No mention is made of Charles' view of the matter, unfortunately, although much is made of Louis'.

As for the Bishop of Liege, I would guess that John of Heinsburg (the Bishop of Liege mentioned by the people of Dinant as being Charles' real father, and apparently being rich in such scandals) was Bishop at the time of Charles' birth, and thus long dead. Michaelsanders 17:14, 2 January 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for adding your reference, and for catching typos, etc. The core of the article was from the 1911 EB, and so the phrase about gay dissipation was not my own! I am thrilled to see some substantive discussion going on here; this is great stuff. Please, please add at least some of it to the article. When I first found this article, I was only vaguely familiar with Charles the Bold; I had the idea that "Burgundy" was simply a duchy more or less consistent with the modern province, and had no clue that it was so large, including much of the Low Countries, and such an important cultural center (arguably more important at that time than Paris). I have been combing through PD articles online (including other Wikipedia articles and those in other languages) trying to cobble together some more info to expand it, as he clearly deserves more than a few meager paragraphs (which didn't mention any of his marriages or even his heiress!). So I'm delighted that you and others are contributing! Laura1822 03:27, 3 January 2007 (UTC)

Burgundian Succession

A bit of confusion deriving from my lack of understanding regarding inheritance laws at that time... Charles was described in this article as 'The last Duke of Burgundy'. References were made here and in Maximilian's article to the Duchy of Burgundy escheating to the French crown following Charles' death due to Salic law. Is this quite true? In Isabel of Burgundy, no mention is made of the Duchy lawfully returning to the French crown following Charles' death; it is, however, said that Louis sent troops against Burgundy, and that this was resisted by Marie and Maximilian, but that 'repeated inroads into Burgundian territory continued to dissipate the duchy's strength.' After Marie died, it says, "Within months, Burgundy was carved up between the empire and France. By July, Flanders made it known to Louis XI that the Flemish wanted peace with France irrespective of Maximilian's wishes. On 23 December the Three Estates of the Lowlands signed the Treaty of Arras with Louis XI, securing that peace...Thus, the French acquired the Burgundian Lowlands, the Duchy of Burgundy, Picardy and the county of Boulogne. In addition, Mary's three-year-old daughter, Margaret of Austria, was betrothed to the dauphin of France, and brought in her dowry the counties of Burgundy and Artois. The remainder of the great duchy that Charles had sought to build fell back into the control of the empire."

Thus, it sounds more as if the Duchy of Burgundy and the various other titles were inherited by Marie (though clearly disputed, one way or another, by Louis), and that the seizure of the Duchy was a conquest rather than a rightful reversion to the crown. This would explain why the Habsburgs continued to maintain the title of Duke of Burgundy: they had lost the land by conquest, but continued to view themselves as rightfully possessing the title (just as the Navarro King's maintained their title, despite losing the Upper Navarre from which the title derived).

Furthermore, I don't see anything in the history of the times to suggest that a duchy and land in want of a male heir would revert to the crown: Brittany and Bourbon were both inherited by women (Bourbon, despite the claims of Charles de Montpensier, who believed he as the senior male heir had the right of it over Louise of Savoy, who had the better dynastic claim).

So could someone please explain this matter to me? Michaelsanders 23:09, 2 January 2007 (UTC)

I'm no sort of expert, but I think the French regarded the title of Duke of B, B being a French fief, as being capable of being withdrawn & handed to anyone the King wanted - just as an English King would have regarded the title of Duke of Norfolk. The French Crown certainly regarded themselves as D's of B thereafter, & used the title for the Dauphin's eldest son at times - eg the father of Louis XV (d1712 odd). I think under French rules titles in theory went with possession of the land, so by seizing it back they settled the matter. On reflection, the last independent Duke of.. would make the point better in the article. What Salic law had to say on the matter I'm not sure Johnbod 23:24, 2 January 2007 (UTC)

Wasn't Maximilian Duke of Burgundy by virtue of his marriage to Marie? Michaelsanders 23:40, 2 January 2007 (UTC)

(first reply)Yes, but he was not the ruler of an independent state (in any real sense). I don't think he even spent much time there. Nor was Charles the last Valois D of B, as the French continued to regard themselves as having the title. One could make the point more long-windedly by saying Charles was the last Duke to rule the combined territories of Burgundy & Flanders etc. Johnbod 23:57, 2 January 2007 (UTC)

Actually, I'm pretty sure Charles definitively was the last Valois Duke: I do know that if a title reverts to the crown, it is considered extinct, and the monarch is not also the noble (if he inherits it, on the other hand - as in the Brittany case - he is). Thus, if this was the state of affairs (and does now sound as though the French did legally end the title by their reckoning rather than simply steal the land), 'Duke of Burgundy' would have existed in potentia, but the title would be merged in the crown (I don't think, for example, that the Queen would be described as Duchess of Clarence, say). Then again, I may be confusion legal fictions and actualities. Michaelsanders 12:25, 3 January 2007 (UTC)

Maybe so. In fact the Queen is Duchess of Lancaster (Loyal toasts are made in that form in the county) & Countess of Chester, & the Prince of Wales is Duke of Cornwall and Lord of the Isles. This is exactly because these are the ones which once were relatively independent - unlike Clarence. The remaining Valois may have kept DofB in their full titles, precisely because it was in dispute with the Hapsburgs. But I don't know. Johnbod 12:34, 3 January 2007 (UTC)

Notwithstanding the form of the loyal toast, it's by no means clear that the sovereign is Duke of Lancaster, although of course he or she enjoys the revenues of the Duchy of Lancaster. (The heir apparent of the sovereign is usually created Earl of Chester as well as Prince of Wales.) But this is off-topic. The title of "Duc de Bourgogne" was used, not by the French sovereigns, but by junior members of the Royal Family, who generally bore a sort of "courtesy title" chosen from among the otherwise extinct dukedoms which had returned to the crown. Again, see Velde.[2] Choess 17:47, 5 January 2007 (UTC)

Anyone? (I know that this is going slightly off topic, but it is interesting: and helps us ignorant mortals understand the machinery of inheritance set in motion with Charles' death). Michaelsanders 12:39, 3 January 2007 (UTC)

To elaborate...how much power did the King actually have? If he could simply order a Duchy conquered, for example, why would he try to marry Marie to his son? Why did Anne of Beaujeu have to marry her brother to Anne of Brittany in order to bring the Duchy under French control? Why was it necessary to marry Claude of Brittany to Francis I in order to keep hold of the Duchy? And, going further back, John II of France claimed Burgundy not because of the lack of a direct male heir, but because he considered himself the rightful heir (by proximity of blood). And if the French King revoked Burgundy without a good reason, was it valid? Should we call Henry IV prior to becoming King of France 'Duke of Bearn' or whatever his titles were? Please can someone clarify this. Michaelsanders 23:48, 2 January 2007 (UTC)

Flanders & other bits of Burgundy were parts of the Empire, not part of the Duchy of Burgundy. Marriage was much easier than war, especially with both Brittany and Burgundy having histories as allies of England. Any legal status is vague - there were clearly no courts one could go to on these sorts of things. If a French King did it, & the Parlement approved it, as they always did, it was valid for French purposes. Johnbod 23:57, 2 January 2007 (UTC)

Well, the Parlement was the court one would go to for such. But take Anne of Brittany: Louis XII had to go through the mess of divorcing his wife and hurriedly marrying her in order to keep Brittany. Maximilian tried to marry Anne so that he could inherit the Duchy (and Brittany required a war anyway, to force Anne to marry Charles VIII). Clearly, this is a complicated issue, so if there is anyone that is either an expert or can quote an expert, please could they explain. Michaelsanders 00:07, 3 January 2007 (UTC)

Well, the starting point is that fiefs without heirs would automatically pass to the crown. Charles had an heir, but, as described in the article below, Louis' lawyers came up with this theory that said in essence that apanages (fiefs granted to younger sons of a King of France), such as Burgundy, were inalienable from the crown and were therefore compelled to follow Salic law, notwithstanding the original terms of the grant (which in the case of Burgundy permitted female heirs). In the case of Brittany, the Duchy was a normal fief held by nobles rather than an apanage, so marriage with the heir was necessary in order to bring it to the crown. Oddly enough, by the terms of the Treaty of Guérande, Jean II de Brosse, Count of Penthièvre should have inherited the Duchy upon the failure of the male line of Montfort, but was shoved aside (albeit the claim resurfaced during the Wars of Religion in France). Choess 17:47, 5 January 2007 (UTC)

And Burgundy still had a male Valois heir at Charles' death: John II, Count of Nevers (d.1491, according to his father's article).Michaelsanders 20:12, 5 January 2007 (UTC)

See doi:10.2307/286114 (JSTOR). It's rather a dense read, but the gist of it is that the second bestowal of the Duchy of Burgundy was claimed to be as an apanage (see Velde, [3]), rather than a fief, and that such apanages were inalienable from the crown of France, and hence could not pass through the male line, regardless of the original terms of the grant. It was outstanding legal fiction — the existing precedents were certainly in favor of Marie — but Burgundy was crippled and Louis was intent on centralizing royal power to prevent any possible resurgence of the Armagnac-Burgundian conflict which had drawn out the Hundred Years' War. Choess 01:10, 3 January 2007 (UTC)

I added that poorly-worded statement to the intro because I knew I'd read something about Burgundy being an apanage somewhere (probably here in Wikipedia), so I'm sorry for the confusion. Glad to have a more precise explanation. The new Intro and Legacy paragraphs are great! Laura1822 03:30, 3 January 2007 (UTC)

I just realised that I didn't thank Choess for the explanation. Thanks for the elucidation - the issue makes sense now. Michaelsanders 16:55, 6 January 2007 (UTC)

Featured on Main Page

This article was featured on the Main Page on 5 January for the anniversary of the Duke's death in 1477. Laura1822 14:05, 5 January 2007 (UTC)

Great - it's good we improved it just in time! Johnbod 14:23, 5 January 2007 (UTC)

Requested move

The following discussion is an archived discussion of the proposal. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

Charles I, Duke of Burgundy → Charles the Bold – The current title is rarely, if ever used (I have never seen it), as well as showing Habsburg POV (Charles II, Duke of Burgundy, redirects to Charles V, Holy Roman Emperor). The replacement, however, is the most common name used. Michael Sanders 22:01, 7 April 2007 (UTC)

Survey

Add "* Support" or "* Oppose" or other opinion in the appropriate section followed by a brief explanation, then sign your opinion with ~~~~

• Support as nominator Michael Sanders 22:01, 7 April 2007 (UTC)
• Support per johnk & other arguments above Johnbod 23:07, 7 April 2007 (UTC)
• Support, although the question here is "would it be surprising to see him called Charles I". I think it would, but am open to persuasion otherwise. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 20:05, 8 April 2007 (UTC)
• Oppose. I definitely agree that the ordinal is inappropriate. The Library of Congress name heading is "Charles, Duke of Burgundy, 1433-1477". The English-language biographies (Kirk, Putnam, Vaughan) all call him "Charles the Bold, Duke of Burgundy". Only the recent work by Walsh calls him just "Charles the Bold". I would support a move to "Charles the Bold, Duke of Burgundy". Noel S McFerran 23:45, 8 April 2007 (UTC)
• Oppose. I vote for belt and braces: Charles the Bold, Duke of Burgundy. This should help people not intimately acquainted with him to place the chap immediately. Nick Michael 18:55, 9 April 2007 (UTC)

Comment - this would be better than the present title. Johnbod 19:34, 9 April 2007 (UTC)

Perhaps: the issue, however, is if that combination is more commonly used than 'Charles the Bold'. The simple version gets 96300 results; the extended version gets 17600 results. Michael Sanders 19:45, 9 April 2007 (UTC)

This is an article title. It hardly matters how much the form of the title is used. One could read in a book "...the duke of Burgundy, Charles the Bold, who..." and that would be, for all intents and purposes, the same as "Charles the Bold, Duke of Burgundy." The real question is: Is "Charles the Bold" on its own sufficiently distinct and recognisable? Srnec 05:23, 10 April 2007 (UTC)

Discussion

Add any additional comments

I have heard Charles the Rash more often then the proposed destination. Srnec 01:17, 8 April 2007 (UTC)

Ghits 1,630 for "Charles the Rash", 103,000 for "Charles the Bold" Johnbod 02:09, 8 April 2007 (UTC)

Charles the Rash is an accurate translation of the usual French appellation, Charles le téméraire. However, I have read (but of course cannot recall the source) that during his lifetime Charles was called le hardi, which translates as the bold. It may well be that the English epithet has survived from Charles' lifetime, whereas the French one has changed to suit historians. Still, everyone knows Charlie B as the Bold as far as I know. Why can't the title encompass all things, and read Charles the Bold, Duke of Burgundy? Nick Michael 16:38, 8 April 2007 (UTC)

Perhaps. I'd personally say that "Charles the Bold" unappellated is the most common name (in English, if not French), and that there is 1)no need and 2)less use of "Charles the Bold, Duke of Burgundy". However, does anyone else have any thoughts? Michael Sanders 16:41, 8 April 2007 (UTC)

There is a comment, which should probably be found and added, that the translation varies from "the Bold" to "the Rash" to "the Foolhardy" - depending on how closely the translator has been reading Charles' history. ;-> Septentrionalis PMAnderson 23:36, 8 April 2007 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the proposal. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

No-one argues in favour of "Charles I, …", which only leaves the question of whether to include the title "Duke of Burgundy". The two oppose votes are in favour of "Charles the Bold, Duke of Burgundy", but this looks like needless disambiguation, and such a title would probably be moved within a few months to simple "Charles the Bold". There does seem to be only one "Charles the Bold", so I see no reason not to move the article there now, with redirects from all other reasonable versions, of course. This article has been renamed from Charles I, Duke of Burgundy to Charles the Bold as the result of a move request. --Stemonitis 17:37, 16 April 2007 (UTC)

Additional Information

I hope this note ends up in the correct place and with the correct form. I saw some interesting information about Charles the Bold on James Burke's Connections 1, Volume 8: Eat, Drink, and Be Merry. Specifically, his love of credit and Italy and financing his army. Also mentioned is his dress and fashion sense. Alpinebixby (talk) 05:23, 17 February 2009 (UTC) 16 February 2009 (UTC)

Map

This article (and perhaps others, for example Kingdom of Burgundy), could benefit from a map of the Kingdom Charles hoped to create. I will look for one but perhaps someone could draw one? Avalon (talk) 08:09, 8 February 2010 (UTC)

Command capabilities?

As depicted in Dorothy Dunnett's House of Niccolò series, he seems to have been a military imbecile. Is this accurate, or dramatic licence? Perhaps a paragraph or two in the article would not go amiss? Paul Magnussen (talk) 01:19, 16 November 2012 (UTC)

I haven't read the book you mention, but we do know that Charles' favourite books included Vegetius and of course Caesar. It seems incredible that over 1000 years later, these sorts of author were still considered the military authorities, but Charles was by no means the only European prince to take his military inspiration from such sources: in fact I would hazard that just about all European military leaders read these Roman authors avidly and probably based their tactics on them to some extent. As for being a military imbecile, it has been suggested that Charles became mentally unbalanced in the last years of his life. But consider that he was militarily the most powerful ruler in Europe: a reading of the events of the battles of Grandson, Morat (Murten) and Nancy show that there was no particular "imbecility" in the tactics he employed; just rather bad luck. I mean, he could and should have made mincemeat of the Swiss in the first two battles, with the numerical and technical superiority he enjoyed. If anything, it was over-confidence that caused his downfall, together with over-employment of mercenary forces. Remember too that Charles was not acting alone as a commander - he had several experienced and presumably competent generals together with him. I do agree that it would improve the article to mention something along these lines. Nick Michael (talk) 22:12, 16 November 2012 (UTC)

Was Dorothy Dunnett an historian? Or simply a popular writer? Any "incompetence" by Charles would need to be supported by a reliable source. --Kansas Bear (talk) 23:36, 16 November 2012 (UTC)

Byname

In the section Byname, the epithet Téméraire is translated as "reckless". That is certainly a possible meaning, one that conveys a strongly negative connotation. But the French word can also mean, in a much more positive vein, "audacious". The same equivocacy is already found in Latin temerarius. The English and German versions (Bold and Kühn, respectively) are positioned on the positive side of the spectrum. Do we have evidence that his contemporaries, writing in French or Latin, used the term somewhat disapprovingly rather than, say, admiringly?  --Lambiam 00:12, 2 September 2015 (UTC)