Talk:Charlemagne

Aren't all Europeans related to Charlemagne?

I don’t know if this has been discussed or not but aren’t all Europeans or people of European descent related Charlemagne?

I have been seeing sources talk about this nonstop. But I don’t seem to see it anywhere in the article.CycoMa2 (talk) 21:37, 17 March 2025 (UTC)

Because it's the least notable thing about the guy. I imagine most of the individuals in 9th-century Europe who became parents are direct ancestors of a large chunk of the present-day European population. Remsense ‥ 论 21:45, 17 March 2025 (UTC)

I can definitely see that. But still I have seen tons of sources mention this or talk about this.

here

here

I just can’t seem to find an article about this and don’t know if any Wikipedia articles touch on this or not. When this thing appears to mentioned a lot in various sources.CycoMa2 (talk) 21:52, 17 March 2025 (UTC)

I am aware of Royal Descent page. But either I am too busy with school work or I don’t see any mention of most Europeans being descendants of Charlemagne.

Except this:

There has been a long tradition for royalty predominantly to intermarry those of their own class. As a result, the ruling houses of Europe have tended to be closely related to one another, and descent from a particular monarch will be found in many dynasties – all present European monarchs, and a great many pretenders, are genealogical descendants of William the Conqueror (1028–1087), for example, and further back in time of Charlemagne(742/747/748–814). Through Charlemagne, some researchers have even speculated on descent from antiquity.

The practice of restrictive marriages has been noted as increasing over the years until the 20th century: the passage of time strengthened the conviction that royalty only allied with royalty, and from the 16th century marriages between royal and commoner became rarer and rarer. This is one reason why descent from more recent monarchs is rarer amongst commoners than from monarchs further back.

Members of untitled families today may be descended from illegitimate children of royalty. Seldom permitted to marry into other royal families, these children tended to marry into upper-class or middle-class families within their own countries.

CycoMa2 (talk) 22:12, 17 March 2025 (UTC)

But I don’t think it directly says most Europeans are descendants of him.CycoMa2 (talk) 22:17, 17 March 2025 (UTC)

Wait did I misread your reply. Forgive me I doing school work while doing this.CycoMa2 (talk) 22:35, 17 March 2025 (UTC)

Remove section on "Veneration".

"Charlemagne has been the subject of artworks, monuments and literature during and after the medieval period and is venerated by the Catholic Church."

The veneration could be doubted as in "Held in respect" had it not linked directly to the page on beatification.

The actions of an Anti-Pope do not reflect on the Catholic Church and her official teachings. The beatification on an individual must be done with the permission of the Holy See, and as Paschal III was an Anti-Pope, this condition was not met. Therefore, he was not Venerated by the Catholic Church in the sense where "Veneration" is related to the state of Beatification. Cleric of Vecna (talk) 16:47, 30 March 2025 (UTC)

Birthplace

The old version claimed Charlemagne was born in Aachen, Germany or Herstal (in present-day Belgium), which was contrary to the current Wikipedia page, whereas the Frankish palaces in Vaires-sur-Marne and Quierzy have also been proposed as possible birthplaces in the current version. Alleged editor (talk) 13:54, 16 April 2025 (UTC)

The current version takes into consideration the latest scholarship, instead of solely relying on much older works. --Obenritter (talk) 20:24, 16 April 2025 (UTC)

In fact, the | version from before I started my rewrite made the claim of Aachen or Herstal (along with Quierzy and Prüm) with no citation. Seltaeb Eht (talk) 17:42, 17 April 2025 (UTC)

Name pronunciation

What is the source for the name pronunciation? I feel like it is wrong - the original french pronunciation does not end in "main" but in something closer to "ma-nie". I don't know the rules about default pronunciation on Wikipedia (do we take that of original language or wiki language?), so this might be the english vernacular pronunciation - but even if it is the case, I don't think you're supposed to say "charle-main" in english? DommageCritique (talk) 06:08, 20 April 2025 (UTC)

Hello! The pronunciation is indeed the correct one for how Charlemagne is pronounced in English. Pronunciation guides on English-language Wikipedia usually take into account the English pronunciation of the article subject (if and when an established English one exists), and relevant pronunciations in other languages, such as a modern non-English speaking person's name pronunciation in their language. Rudde99 (talk) 08:03, 29 April 2025 (UTC)

Details on Charlemagne campaigns

I am wondering what happened to the extra details on the campaigns [[1]] of Charlemagne. I believe that we should bring back the sections of the campaigns. Or at the very least have subsections. I do not believe that Seltaeb Eht getting rid of the sections had merit. Zman19964 (talk) 13:58, 29 May 2025 (UTC)

Hi there. I think you'll find that, after the reorganization of the article, the same information is present. However, it is organized chronologically rather than topically - i.e., rather than narrating all wars against the Saxons at once, and then those geographically near it (an odd structure), these events come up chronologically as they come up in Charles' life - a more appropriate structure for a biography. The old structure of the article caused the timeline to constantly jump back and forth, making it difficult to construct and follow the biography of the person the article is about. Seltaeb Eht (talk) 14:32, 29 May 2025 (UTC)

Agree wholeheartedly with Seltaeb Eht here. A chronological structure for a biography offers several advantages over a thematic approach, particularly when the goal is to trace historical development, preserve narrative integrity, and foster contextual understanding. First, chronology enables the preservation of causality by situating events in their actual temporal sequence, allowing readers to see how early experiences influenced later actions. This reinforces a realistic sense of progression and embeds the subject within their historical milieu. Hermione Lee notes in Biography: A Very Short Introduction that such a structure helps readers grasp the evolution of identity over time, offering a more nuanced view of the subject’s transformation across life stages. From a methodological standpoint, chronology aligns closely with the documentary record; primary sources are produced sequentially, and organizing them accordingly preserves evidentiary transparency.--Obenritter (talk) 20:47, 30 May 2025 (UTC)