Jump to content

Talk:Coronation of Napoleon

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Napoleon crowning himself

[edit]

Shouldn't there be more emphasis on the fact that Napoleon chose to crown himself as opposed to being crowned by the pope as was customary? Also, the Napoleon article says, "The story that Napoleon seized the crown out of the hands of Pope Pius VII during the ceremony to avoid his subjugation to the authority of the pontiff is apocryphal; the coronation procedure had been agreed in advance." --202.28.182.5 (talk) 05:47, 4 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

That article provides no reference for this claim. I've slapped on a "citation needed". Qwertyus (talk) 15:00, 28 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I've always been puzzled by the crowning part of the ceremony. I've seen the crown made for Napoleon's coronation and it is a small, rather insignificant object. Not in the least beautiful or impressive - indeed it looks slightly absurd. We know that the emperor wore a gold laurel wreath (invoking memories of ancient Rome) so how was the Christian crown worn. A recent movie shows Napoleon (still wearing the wreath) holding the little crown symbolically over his head for a few moments. Perhaps this is what actually happened. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.6.154.57 (talk) 06:53, 26 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Move and joint coronation

[edit]

Why was the page moved to refer solely about Napoleon being crowned emperor? If Josephine was crowned as empress alongside him, even if solely as empress consort, the page name should reflect that. PanagiotisZois (talk) 18:23, 29 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

It was moved because it was undiscussed. Apparently, a move request should be filed, if somebody wants to move it. Brandmeistertalk 09:33, 30 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I have already started an RM to clear the matter up. Keivan.fTalk 02:23, 2 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Requested move 2 December 2023

[edit]
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: not moved. There is no clear consensus that Coronation of Napoleon and Joséphine is the common and concise name. Best, (closed by non-admin page mover) Reading Beans (talk) 00:58, 30 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Coronation of Napoleon → Coronation of Napoleon and Joséphine – Given the fact that the two of them were crowned together, I don't see why we should omit his wife's name. The names of the consorts are attached to the names of the monarchs when the two of them are crowned simultaneously. Examples include Coronation of Bokassa I and Catherine, Coronation of Charles III and Camilla, Coronation of Nicholas II and Alexandra Feodorovna, etc. Keivan.fTalk 02:21, 2 December 2023 (UTC) — Relisting. -- Maddy from Celeste (WAVEDASH) 08:50, 9 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  • Support: Historically, the wives of emperors, kings, and other types of monarchs have basically always taken on the feminine equivalent of their husband's titles; in this case, Josephine becoming empress. Granted, queen consorts did not always receive coronations in France, but Josephine was quite clearly crowned alongside her husbands. Moreover, if one looks at other joint coronations of kings and queen consorts on Wikipedia, all of them list both the king and his wife on the page name. This page should be no exception. --PanagiotisZois (talk) 02:29, 2 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
As coronation of Napoleon, coronation of Napoleon and Josephine, coronation of Josephine, Napoleon's coronation, etc; I have seen all the variations. This is not a proper noun or the name of an individual or an object. It's an event involving two people. It just makes sense to include both their names. Keivan.fTalk 19:14, 2 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support per nom. estar8806 (talk) ★ 19:20, 2 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose per WP:CONCISE. Many consorts are crowned are not mentioned. Given Josephine is not co-empress in her own right (unlike, say, William & Mary, Ptolemaic queens, or Byzantine empresses), it is a little confusing and not really necessary. It is just an additional detail to the overall event. It is not adding any information nor improving, just making it a bit more ambiguous. Current title more concise. Walrasiad (talk) 03:52, 9 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Many consorts are crowned are not mentioned. Examples? Also, her being an empress consort rather than an empress regnant doesn't mean that she was insignificant. Consorts that are crowned with their husbands are typically named alongside them. Keivan.fTalk 17:07, 9 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Most of the articles regarding coronations we have tend to be of British monarchs. While Mary II and William III are the only joint monarchs to also receive a joint coronation, every other British king who was married at the time, their wives were crowned alongside them, and the article names reflect this. Look at George II and III, William IV, Edward VII, George V and VI, and most recently Charles III with Queen Camilla. --PanagiotisZois (talk) 17:25, 9 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The suggested name is not in violation of WP:COMMONNAME because it already does include the words "Coronation of Napoleon". It only makes it more accurate and consistent by including Josephine's name as a consort who was also crowned on that day. The ngram does indeed show that the terms "Coronation of Napoleon and Josephine" and "Coronation of Josephine" have been used in sources. Keivan.fTalk 18:11, 9 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
COMMONNAME means we simply pick the most common variant. As you say, the proposed title does also include the current one as a substring, so analysis of one includes the other. But the lead in sources is not 2:1, it's more than 14:1. Although a minority might do so, Sources don't generally include Josephine as part of the main narrative or titling of this event. It's not our place to try to "put that right" or "make it more accurate". We describe things the way sources do, and as a byproduct, having a more concise title is also a desirable thing. There's ko case at all for making this move.  — Amakuru (talk) 19:03, 9 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
It is right in the sense that sources do discuss it to some extent. It's not like we are forcing her into the narrative. She was a participant in that ceremony. The question is, was she crowned? Yes. Does this article discuss her coronation? Yes. Are there sources out there that talk about her coronation? Yes. Then why isn't her name in the title? I mean obviously the monarch, in this case Napoleon, will be the main focus of such events. Doesn't mean that the consort should be discarded completely. Keivan.fTalk 19:31, 9 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
That's not the question. The question is whether a longer title is necessary or improves recognizability, or is it simply longer for the sake of being longer? Walrasiad (talk) 10:16, 10 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Two words is not gonna make the title extremely longer. It's not like we are trying to add a sentence. And is it necessary? I think it is, considering the fact that the woman was crowned and the article does cover her coronation. There is a direct link to this article from the infobox of the page on Josephine and it's linked in that article's body as well. Keivan.fTalk 12:17, 10 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
There are lots of things that happened not in the title. We don't say it is a imperial coronation (not royal), for instance. Or that there was a consecration. Or that it was Notre Dame. Or that the Pope was present. But all that is already included in the lede - just as Josephine is. Doesn't need to be in the title. Indeed, if I was going to expand the title by a couple of words, I think mentioning that it was a "coronation as emperor" is far more important as information missing in the title. Walrasiad (talk) 17:10, 10 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Because those are parts of every coronation ceremony? Typically each monarch is consecrated, receives blessing, etc. It is also held at a church or some religious building. What does this have to do with Josephine being crowned exactly? Keivan.fTalk 17:47, 10 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Coronation of consorts is also routine in every coronation ceremony. Walrasiad (talk) 18:20, 10 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
No, that's false. Not all consorts are crowned alongside the monarchs. Philip was not crowned alongside Elizabeth II in 1953. Margaret of Valois was not crowned alongside Henry IV in 1594. Isabella of Hainault was crowned months after her husband. Keivan.fTalk 18:57, 10 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
No, it is true. If they're there and available, it's pretty routine. And rather unremarkable. Walrasiad (talk) 19:33, 10 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
That has not been the case throughout history whether you like it or not, meaning that not all coronations included a consort being crowned alongside a monarch, so it is not a feature of every single coronation (not to mention that Philip was "available" at Elizabeth II's coronation but he was not crowned; so was Caroline of Brunswick at her husband's coronation). And, if the crowning of a consort can be described as unremarkable, so can be the crowning of a monarch in the eyes of a republican for example. Our job is not to sit here and determine what history events are "remarkable" or not based on our personal preferences. This was a ceremony which saw Napoleon AND Josephine crowned together, something that was never done for his second wife, Marie Louise. And before you say she was married to Napoleon after her husband's coronation, well so were Anne Boleyn and Anne of Denmark, yet they were both crowned and we have separate articles covering their coronations. Keivan.fTalk 20:06, 10 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The estranged Caroline of Brunswick? She was banned. That is a strange interpretation of "there and available". Anne Boleyn? She was two years old when Henry VIII was crowned (and his consort Catherine was crowned at his ceremony BTW). Your examples are bordering on absurdity.
Coronations of rulers are political events. Coronation of consorts are not. Consorts are not acclaimed, swear no oaths, no consent demanded, no conditions imposed, no homage or allegiance is sworn to them, etc. Very unremarkable.
The coronation of Napoleon as emperor is remarkable because it was a political act - a very significant political act, indeed few acts get more political than that. That of Josephine? Like all consorts, fun but an irrelevance. Walrasiad (talk) 20:40, 10 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The estranged Caroline of Brunswick? She was banned. So? Further proves my point that not all consorts are crowned with the monarchs. One is banned, one is deceased, another is male, etc. Who cares what the reason is? The fact is that there is no such rule or custom that a monarch and a consort are always crowned together as you were previously trying to assert.
Anne Boleyn? She was two years old when Henry VIII was crowned. Get your facts straight. I never said she was crowned with Henry. I said she received her own coronation, and we do have an article covering her unremarkable coronation.
Like all consorts, fun but an irrelevance. That is your 'personal' opinion. A consort shares a monarch's rank, albeit not his or her power. From a religious point of view, he/she is anointed and crowned in pretty much the same way as the monarch. I'm not going to sit here and debate whether the coronation of a consort is important or not. The fact is that this is something that happened to Josephine. The article talks about it and so do the sources.
Consorts are not acclaimed, swear no oaths, no consent demanded, no conditions imposed That is not entirely true either. Can't speak for each nation's historical coronation customs, but in Britain the female consort has to be proclaimed Queen. The liturgy from the Church of England's website provides examples all the way back to 1689, showing that each time a queen consort has been consecrated, anointed and declared Queen. In terms of conditions, well, let's just say that not everyone has been qualified enough to get the position. Keivan.fTalk 21:25, 10 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
So? Further proves my point that not all consorts are crowned with the monarchs. One is banned, one is deceased, another is male, etc. Who cares what the reason is?. That's a rather silly point. I pointed out that if there is a consort there and available, they will always be part of the coronation of the ruler. To dispute that, I would expect you to come up with examples when consorts were there and available, but nonetheless held significant separate coronations. And obviously you can't, because there aren't any. There are numerous instances when rulers & consorts have to be crowned separately by force of circumstance (e.g. consort not present in city at ruler's coronation, or a later spouse, etc.) But these are usually insignificant, small private affairs and are rarely noted.
I said she received her own coronation, and we do have an article covering her unremarkable coronation. The coronation of Anne Boleyn in 1533 is a remarkable event, not because it is the coronation of a consort, but because it had significant political implications. Pope had ordered Henry VIII to exclude her from the royal court, so her coronation was an open defiance that led directly to the pope issuing the bull of excommunication. It set up the rupture between churches and armies in motion and changed history. Did the coronation of Josephine have any comparable implications? No.
A consort shares a monarch's rank, albeit not his or her power. Definitely not. Consorts don't have rank. e.g. in the British Order of Precedence, consorts aren't included at all. The order of rank is Monarch, Heir Apparent, Sons, Grandsons, Brothers, Nephews, Uncles, Other Princes of Blood, Dukes, Marquises, eldest sons of Dukes, Earls, etc. and so on down the line. No consorts - not even the queen - have official rank. By custom, consort queens are granted a courtesy position in precedence (below king, above heir apparent), but never official rank. Their title is merely by jure uxoris, which allows courtesy treatment, that is all. (Yes, rank is very sexist - although a woman can hold rank by own right (e.g. if sole heir to father's rank), she cannot acquire rank by marriage. And if British rank sounds sexist, Salic law France was even more sexist since she can't inherit at all.)
From a religious point of view, he/she is anointed and crowned in pretty much the same way as the monarch. Very significant differences. The consort queens of France were NOT anointed with the Holy Chrism of royals, but just with run-of-the-mill sanctified oil (and even then not always). If a queen has to have a separate coronation for some reason (i.e. she was not available at time of king's coronation), it is not a public ceremony, but a small private affair (in France, usually at Saint-Denis, not Reims, presided not by primate but a lower ranking bishop, regalia carried not by peers, but lower barons). These were non-events, and often not mentioned at all. The consort queen's "official entry" (usually her arrival at the capital city) was the ceremonial public event relating to the consort, not her coronation (which may be before or after entry, if anyone was even aware of it).
The fact is that this is something that happened to Josephine. It happened to every consort who attended their spouse's coronation ceremony. There's nothing special here.
in Britain the female consort has to be proclaimed Queen. The liturgy from the Church of England's website provides examples all the way back to 1689, showing that each time a queen consort has been consecrated, anointed and declared Queen. I don't think you're reading that right. Your very document shows the only queens declared queens are queens regnant (Mary II, Anne, Victoria, Elizabeth II), not consorts. Consorts are not presented nor declared. Walrasiad (talk) 01:45, 11 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
To dispute that, I would expect you to come up with examples when consorts were there and available, but nonetheless held significant separate coronations. So we went from consorts are always crowned with monarchs, to now providing examples of consorts who were by the monarchs' side or not estranged but were crowned afterwards. Fine, there are plenty of examples. Catherine de' Medici is certainly one. Her husband was crowned in 1547 while she was crowned separately in 1549. Same thing happened with Claude of France. In my opinion, what would make it extraordinary are the cases when they are not available and yet receive their own coronation afterwards, which is what happened to Matilda of Flanders. I'm sure if the coronation of a consort was of no importance she and many other women who were crowned years after their husbands would not have been crowned in the first place.
Did the coronation of Josephine have any comparable implications? No. Did the entry and coronation of Anne of Denmark have any comparable implications when examined against that of Anne Boleyn? Of course not. Does not mean that it was an insignificant event or that sources did not discuss it.
Your very document shows the only queens declared queens are queens regnant No, I'm reading it correctly. Go back and read the parts covering the coronations of queens consort. The part covering the coronation of Mary of Teck clearly has the Archbishop stateing: "Almighty God, the fountain of all goodness: Give ear, we beseech thee, to our prayers, and multiply thy blessings upon this thy servant MARY, whom in thy Name, with all humble devotion, we consecrate our Queen; defend her evermore from all dangers, ghostly and bodily; make her a great example of virtue and piety, and a blessing to this kingdom;…" She and all of the other queens were consecrated, anointed, presented with rings and scepters, just like their spouses. Anyway, enough with the British coronations because apparently they differ significantly from the French ones so there is not point in comparing them.
Consorts don't have rank. Mind providing a source here? Cause the very opening sentence of the article queen consort (which is incidentally sourced) disagrees with what you are stating here.
The consort queens of France were NOT anointed with the Holy Chrism of royals, but just with run-of-the-mill sanctified oil. Thanks for pointing out the differences. PanagiotisZois had already pointed out that queen consorts did not always receive coronations in France, so I guess that makes Josephine's case even more exceptional. And even though you say there's nothing special here, throughout the history of France how many women were actually crowned alongside their husbands other than Josephine? 5? (Blanche of Castile, Clementia of Hungary, Joan II, Countess of Burgundy, Joan the Lame, Joan I, Countess of Auvergne) That appears to have been something rare indeed. Keivan.fTalk 03:30, 11 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
In a bit of a rush, so don't have time to reply in full. But briefly:
  • (1) I can't account for every single queen, or the particular reasons or that one didn't. I have more particulars for Medieval French monarchs, and consorts are definitely crowned with monarch at Reims, and we have the liturgies for it. But there are some exceptions that couldn't make it for a variety of reasons (e.g. one was too pregnant to make the trip, another had to cross enemy-occupied land and it was deemed too dangerous, etc.)
  • (2) If you have enough relevant material about the political impact or significance of Josephine's coronation, feel free to make a page about it. But we shouldn't dilute the title of this page, about a highly significant event for 19th Century Europe, with frankly rather insignificant detail.
  • (3) Nope. That's a clergyman's prayer to God. He is asking God to safeguard the his family. He is not addressing the people. It is not presentation, and not declaration. The presentation is the critical part of the coronation ceremony - turning the candidate towards the congregation, asking if the people accept this person, and getting their consent (declaration: "God save X"). That is the political act. Consorts are never presented and never consented (it's nobody's business who the king is banging.) Only the reigning monarchs are presented and declared. As made abundantly clear in the very document you cite.
  • (4) e.g. Order of Precedence in England and Wales (or Dodd for ugly detail). Consorts are not part of the "general order of precedence", but rank only among themselves. This is sometimes distinguished as "Gentlemen" (title by inheritance, land and office) and "Ladies" hierarchies (title by marriage), but they do not intersect. It should come as no surprise that it is incredibly sexist. The highest consort does not outrank the lowliest gentleman, she only outranks other ladies. A consort's rank is determined by her husband, and confers nothing other than a status to beat out other women. A Queen regnant or a noblewoman by her own right does have rank in the general order, and the privileges that go along with it, but a queen consort or lady who acquires rank by marriage does not (e.g. a "duchess by right", like a duke, has the right to sit in royal curia, i.e. a parliamentary seat (although as a female, she cannot physically sit in it, and must appoint a male representative in her name, but it is her seat by right, not his); a duchess by marriage has nothing but courtesy from other women).
[This actually posed a very curious problem for Victoria's husband Prince Albert, who was merely a consort and had no rank in the general order of precedence (well, he had a very low Knight of Garter rank). Albert was granted precedence after the Queen as a courtesy. While British peers were generally respectful enough to play along, foreigners were less so, treating him as merely the younger brother of the Prince of Coburg-Saxe-Gotha at events. Vicky pushed parliament to formalize his "Prince Consort" title in the general order, but they refused. Elizabeth II avoided much of the mess by having Prince Philip invested as "Duke of Edinburgh", thereby putting him (near) the top of the heap.]
Anyway, we're straying a bit far off topic. So let me emphasize:
  • (5) France at this time is a republic, not a kingdom, so all this talk of old French (& British) kings & queens is curious, but hardly relevant. It is FAR, FAR more significant, unprecedented and ground-breaking that a French Republic raised an Emperor for the first time since the Roman Republic. And if you want to just talk purely coronation ceremonies, then it is more significant that a coronation was held at Notre-Dame de Paris rather than Reims, and in the presence of a Pope (rep of SPQR). Yet we don't mention "Imperial" or "Notre-Dame" or "Pope" in the title. Somehow the fact that this guy has a girlfriend is more important? It is disproportionate. It is unnecessary to clutter a perfectly functional and concise title with relatively insignificant details. Walrasiad (talk) 15:52, 11 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Nope. That's a clergyman's prayer to God. Yes, I can see that. Yet, he utters those words in front of everyone and mentions that they are about to consecrate the woman as Queen. And then she is anointed with the same oil, blah blah, which I guess was not the case for French queens. Again, I don't know all the differences between a British and French coronation, but the order of service for the British coronations have always featured the consort's name next to that of the monarch (as is evident in the source); and so did the tickets.
so all this talk of old French (& British) kings & queens is curious, but hardly relevant I agree. Because the ceremonies appear to have been executed differently in each country. My aim was to point out consistency in titles, but when there is not consistency in customs, then that factor should be set aside.
If you have enough relevant material about the political impact or significance of Josephine's coronation, feel free to make a page about it. That being said, whether the coronation of Josephine was important or not is the sort of conclusion that each person should reach by him/herself. You think it was not; I think it was. Women have been excluded from the narrative in many instances so when there is a chance to give them some space I always opt to include them. It is possible to have a separate article covering Josephine's coronation (sources are there), but the logical thing would have been to add those material here since they were crowned together, which brings up the question: would everyone be willing to add her name in the title then? Keivan.fTalk 18:46, 11 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • The title of the article should reflect the scope of the article. I support this proposal if the coronation of Josephine is meant to be within the scope of this article. If not, we should have a separate Coronation of Josephine article. Surtsicna (talk) 13:47, 16 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    By that logic, the Inauguration of Joe Biden article should be housed at Inauguration of Joe Biden and Kamala Harris, since she was also inaugurated at the same event. Or David Beckham should be called David and Cruz Beckham, since his son Cruz Beckham is notable but not sufficiently so to merit his own page. The key point is we go by what sources say, not what we think ought to be said. For better or for worse, very few sources focus on Josephine's role in this ceremony, and it would be WP:UNDUE to include it in the title.  — Amakuru (talk) 23:40, 16 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    The second argument regarding David Beckham is kind of silly. If his son is irrelevant to begin with, why would he need to have his own page, and since that's not happening, have the page for his father also include the son's name? Regarding the inauguration of Joe Biden, I don't know why Kamala Harris' name isn't included. Maybe it's because their inaugurations took place separately, whereas Napoleon and Josephine's coronation occurred simultaneously, almost to the second.
    Irregardless, what we have here is not an inauguration, but a coronation; one where both Napoleon and Josephine were crowned as emperor and empress, respectively. For one thing, we would look at consistency. Almost every single monarch's coronation that also included his wife has both of their names included. Moreover, it is not undue weight to point out that Napoleon and Josephine had a joint coronation, where they were crowned with equal titles (albeit Josephine being just a consort), and the article itself often brings up her involvement in the coronation. --PanagiotisZois (talk) 23:54, 16 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I actually find it worth considering to have Inauguration of Joe Biden and Kamala Harris or Inauguration of Kamala Harris as a separate article. The coverage suggests that her role is notable enough. As for Josephine, neither including her name in the titles of works about her and Napoleon's coronation nor works focusing (in title and content) on her coronation alone are unheard of. See these Surtsicna (talk) 21:11, 17 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
It's not even comparable to be honest. It's not like Biden was inaugurated as "Mr President" and then Harris was given the female equivalent title of "Madame President"! Unlike an inauguration, a coronation always involves a couple; pretty much like a wedding. Keivan.fTalk 21:24, 17 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
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.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Coronation_of_Napoleon&oldid=1198654369"