This article is within the scope of WikiProject France, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of France on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.
What do all those 1st, 2nd,...."creations" mean? --Menchi 01:18, 4 Apr 2005 (UTC)
Each time the title died out because there was no one to inherit it under the terms that were established when it was awarded. It was then given out over again to a new person a few years or decades later.
My understanding is that the comte de Paris today is considered to be the heir to the 1661 creation, as have all his predecessors as pretender. He doesn't use this title, which he allows relations to use as a courtesy title, but he is considered to be duc d'Orléans in the same way that, say, Victor-François, 8th duc de Broglie is considered to be the duc de Broglie. As such, the list of the 1661 creation should perhaps not include Ferdinand Philippe (who used the title as a courtesy title, not as a substantive duke of Orléans), but include the duc de Guise and the two most recent comtes de Paris (who did not use the title, but hold it as a substantive title). Those who have used the title as a courtesy title could be listed in another part of the article. Thoughts? john k (talk) 15:07, 7 July 2009 (UTC)
If the Dukes of Orléans really are assigned ordinals, why isn't the son of Philip II called Louis IV? Surtsicna (talk) 14:57, 5 September 2010 (UTC)
Because numbering restarted with the 1661 grant. The point is not logic, but tradition. john k (talk) 16:04, 8 September 2010 (UTC)
I have noticed that Wikipedia articles about the dukes of the 1661 grant tend to avoid the ordinals. Most notably, Philippe I, Duke of Orléans, is mentioned as Philippe I only in the title of the article. That's what actually prompted my question. Surtsicna (talk) 16:14, 8 September 2010 (UTC)
There's not much reason to use the ordinals in running text except when we need to explicitly disambiguate. Even then, we don't necessarily need to, as, for example, in Philippe I's article we'd probably usually refer to his son and eventual successor as the Duke of Chartres, rather than as Philippe II. john k (talk) 16:20, 8 September 2010 (UTC)
I agree, the ordinal is unneccessary in running text but the lead sentence calls him Philippe de France and the infobox calls him Philippe; succession boxes in other articles refer(red) to him as Philippe de France. The ordinal seems to be generally ignored, even by the French Wiki. Surtsicna (talk) 16:27, 8 September 2010 (UTC)