User talk:Cusio
Welcome!
[edit]
Welcome to Wikipedia, Cusio! I am Marek69 and have been editing Wikipedia for quite some time. I just wanted to say hi and welcome you to Wikipedia! If you have any questions, feel free to leave me a message on my talk page or by typing {{helpme}} at the bottom of this page. I love to help new users, so don't be afraid to leave a message! I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are some pages that you might find helpful:
- Introduction
- The five pillars of Wikipedia
- How to edit a page
- Help pages
- How to write a great article
- Manual of Style
I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! Oh yeah, I almost forgot, when you post on talk pages you should sign your name on talk pages using four tildes (~~~~); that should automatically produce your username and the date after your post. If you need help, check out Wikipedia:Questions, ask me on my talk page, or place {{helpme}} on your talk page and ask your question there. Again, welcome!
Marek.69 talk 12:46, 4 August 2009 (UTC)
re: your message
[edit]Hi Cusio, I've left a reply to your message on my talk page -- Marek.69 talk 12:47, 4 August 2009 (UTC)
Your unsourced editts about Henry VI
[edit]Here are the refs:
- Here is a book confirming Henry VI dual blood from valois and Lancaster:Read.:
http://books.google.com/books?id=gFfaD4JdZhwC&pg=PA45&dq=Henry+VI+dual-monarchy
http://books.google.com/books?id=7SL1bVtfP08C&pg=PA93&dq=Henry+VI+dual-monarchy
http://books.google.com/books?id=_JDOVMDi8d4C&pg=PA601&dq=Henry+VI+dual-monarchy&lr=
http://books.google.com/books?id=Qzc8OeuSXFMC&pg=PA464&dq=Henry+VI+dual-monarchy&lr=
main book:
Here are the Refs from French Academics:
Page 128 http://books.google.com/books?id=Mbfm1_q_zqQC&printsec=frontcover&dq=Joan+of+Arc&as_brr=3
Page 168 http://books.google.com/books?id=AYF4LIAMRMIC&printsec=frontcover&dq=Joan+of+Arc&as_brr=3
Pae 18 http://books.google.com/books?id=NG9DRSg5dYMC&printsec=frontcover&dq=Joan+of+Arc&as_brr=3
http://books.google.com/books?id=ZD_1zbyU5jsC&printsec=frontcover&dq=Joan+of+Arc&as_brr=3
Page 35 http://books.google.com/books?id=tky-kvB0rdAC&printsec=frontcover&dq=Joan+of+Arc&lr=&as_brr=3
Page 23 http://books.google.com/books?id=YJsMaEvgZzUC&pg=PP1&dq=Joan+of+Arc&lr=&as_brr=3
Page 28 http://books.google.com/books?id=0hYWzuecyHMC&printsec=frontcover&dq=Joan+of+Arc&lr=&as_brr=3
Pge 167 http://books.google.com/books?id=560fPSrm2hwC&pg=PA165&dq=Joan+of+Arc&lr=&as_brr=3
Page 246.Enclodopedia http://books.google.com/books?id=MziRd4ddZz4C&pg=PA246&dq=Charles+D+Orleans+recognized+Henry+as+King+of+France&lr=&as_brr=3
Page 129 http://books.google.com/books?id=tplzx-OCEicC&pg=PA36&dq=Joan+of+Arc+and+Henry+VI&lr=&as_brr=3
Page 7 http://books.google.com/books?id=eo9RW7jWxyMC&pg=PA7&dq=Joan+of+Arc+and+Henry+VI&lr=&as_brr=3
Page 206-217 http://books.google.com/books?id=_Cc9AAAAIAAJ&pg=PA206&dq=Charles+VII+of+France.The+Hundred+Years+War&lr=&as_brr=3
Thus Henry VI IS King of France.Wikepedia only accept what is accepted by historions as you said.Your arguement that Henry VI is not a French King is Original Research.
Hello there.I see you are interested in the Hundred Years War.Regarding the Treaty of Troyes.You have to understand that Charles VII usurped legal authority from Charles VI and refused a Courts Summon to Paris.This is constructed as Lese-Majesty(Injury to the Soveriegn) or Treason to Charles VI whom was the King of France and the person whom Charles VII refused.He was found guilty by a legal summons in Paris or a lit-de justice.This renderd him legaly incapable of Succestion So Charles VII disinheritence was legal through the lit-de justice not the Treaty of Troyes.Now we have just proven that Charles VII was legaly dissinherited and legaly incapable of succestion so thus he has to right to be removed from the entire Dynastic succestion.Problem no.1 Gone.Problem no.2 was the Salic Law OR Law Sallica.Salic Law states that no women can succeded or a claim through a Women.However Salic Law had no contrevention or any attack on the Treaty of Troyes.This is proven in one of the Clauses that says Henry(Henry V) shall take Isebaue(Queen of France) and Charles VI as Father and Mother and unto Henry his son.This meant that Henry was Adopted Son so there was no contrevention of Salic Law.As the Succestion of thrones clearly says the Sons of the French King can inherit in the succestion.Henry was a son of Charles VI.Now we just proved there s no contrevention of Salic Law.Problem No.3 The French Aruement of Alienating the Throne to Foriegners and the arguement that Charles VI was mad when the Treaty was concluded.Here is a predescent to refute this.In terms expressly provided the realms of England and France must ratify this.In current jurisict theroy this was the safest way in which the laws of a country could be changed and inncorperated was by the power of the whole people and there soveriegn(collective or personal) and this ratification was indeed done:was that not the manner in which the power and authority of the Roman Republic tranferd to the Emperors in Antique Days.Armed with this awsome predescent this was in a way altering the fundemental law of succestion that Civilians could understand and defend.To butress further the legal binding force of the Treaty oaths were sought independently by the lords.One obvious example was the Duke of Burgundy.Anyone whom was in breach of these oaths were consderd traitoirs.Philips point of view at the Congrass of Arass however was to have his oath to the Treaty declared invalid.The only way he could break his oath was through a papal legate which he later recieved to break his oath from the treaty.
http://books.google.com/books?id=Qv9PlGCLy4YC&pg=PA235&dq=the+legality+of+the+treaty+of+troyes
Also please take to thee talkpage first because no-offence your edits were clearly wrong.Goodbye.--HENRY V OF ENGLAND (talk) 12:31, 5 September 2009 (UTC)
Statement about French people not anknowledging Henry VI
[edit]Hello again.Unfortunitly there is no historion whom can agree with you that no french author believed both Henry VI and Charles VII were kings of France.Henry VI had his french supporters as did charles like the Burgundians,John V of Brittiny,The university of Paris and Charles the duke of Orleons.You ahould also know alot of the nobels whom swore an oath to agree to the terms of the treaty of troyes and Amiens 1423 were French.The French administration at Paris was also filled with French cannons and even the local populace from 1422-1432 were Englis supporters.During the early regency under Bedford he had tried to recieve public oppinion of Henry VI.It wasnt until heavy taxes were introduced that the french incurtions began to rise,most noteably the revolt of Pays-de Caux in 1436.French nationailism under Joan of Arc also started to bring back frenchmen to the side of Charles VII.There was even a new minted coin in 1422 symbolising the Dual-Monarchy in which Henry VI was holding a quaterd-shield of the English lion and the French lillie was introduced to France.The book of Hours was also commisioned by Bedford to show the ties between Burgundy and England.In least both Henry VI and Charles VII were Kings of France in there own possetions and were anknowledged by Frenchmen in there areas.Its nonscence to say that Frenchmen didnt anknowledge Henry VI in his reign as King of Both England and France.No historion can deny the fact that both Charles and Henry were Kings in there own french possetions and I had already proven that French academics also anknowledge Henry as bieng King in his own French possetions.The only reason why most lists dont add Henry VI in the list of French Kings has nothing to do with nationailism but the fact that Charles VII was closer in blood to Charles VI as further explained by this book.
Page 23: http://books.google.com/books?id=kFSqKelemSMC&pg=PP1&dq=the+contending+Kingdoms#v=onepage&q=&f=false.
I hope you now agree with my descition to revert you on this since I had refuted this arguement.Please contact me on my talkpage.God bless you and goodbye.
Hello again Cusio and thank you very much for your reply.I should reccomend that you read some of the sources about the adoption.I will agree with everytthing else you said but we also cant deny the fact that Henry VI ruled de facto King of France in the North and Charles in the south and were both ankowledged nby frenchmen.Henry VI in least had a claim to follow from the treaty of troyes.Also I thoght I gave you sources from french academics about Joan of ARC,Charles VII and Henry VI.Salic Law had nothing to do with the Treaty of Troyes because clause 1 of the Treaty clearly states he would be adopted by the royal couple ans also this arrangement was made between King and Heir and the treaty fudged the past so there was no need for Catherine to transmit her right since as I just said the arrangement was made between Heir)Male) and King.I dont think there is any source which can attack the adoption of Henry V by Charles VI,if there is please give me a source.Thankyou for comming to disscuss with me on this and looking forward to your 2nd reply.Goodbye and Bleessings.
Hello My friend
[edit]Hello are you not going to reply to my last last post regarding the sources my friend.Thank you very much.--HENRY V OF ENGLAND (talk) 14:36, 5 September 2009 (UTC)
I have to sign off wikepedia for a while and when I come back I will disscuss with you again hopefully.Goodbye my friend.--HENRY V OF ENGLAND (talk) 14:38, 5 September 2009 (UTC)
Hello there my friend.I find what you are explaining to me completely rationail and I am begining to agree about the view on the adoption.Yes you are correct,if Henry was adopted and married catherine then that would mean he would have married his sister,But I think we have to reliase salic law still dosent have anything to do with the Treaty of Troyes .Think about it,when Henry was adressed in the clauses as Heir of France this could mean that he was always the Heir of Charles and so the treaty didnt mention where Henrys claim came from thus it fudged the past.A complete masterwork in English diplomacy because just as Henry had to accept valios kingship to his heir so did the french had to accept his anccestral rights.The English claim througe Isebaue is vauge since interpetations would undermine either Henry or Charles.In the meantime also Normandy was virtually under English controll and what better way did Henry not show susspection of holding a seperate claim from his preddescesors when he didnt take the title Duke of Normandy.As did the Treaty of Troyes skillfully avoided the mention of Henry's existing claim so to was his marriage dealt with sensitively.In order to avoid the impresstion that Henry had been Heir by virtue of Catherine's rights.The first clause stated that: By the alliance of marriage made for the benifet of the said peace,he had become the son of charles and Isebaue and would honour us and our consort as father and mother as seen fitting.This was not how Henry became heir since as we have just proven this was the arrangement made by the Heir and the King.Henry's title as Heir fortified his claim and he did not need anyone else to give him that.Therefore where is the contrevention of salic law if he was a male and his title gave him the claim without derieving his claim from anywhere else.Catherine was unimportant.His Heirs didnt have to be from her and I will repeat again this was an arrangement made by the Heir with the King.Also Catherine was given a dowry from both England and France.The latter when Henry died and given to the value of 20,000 Ecus.Another aspect of the treaty is the ratification as obliged by the Treaty.This was indeed done when all the leading french officials came to ratify the treaty and according to current juriscist law the safest way in which a countrys laws can be changed and incorrperated into a new one was by a ratification.Oaths were also taken seperately by French nobels which bounded them to Henry and his Heir and so the Treaty was water-tight.The oaths could only be broken by a papal legate.Now lets deal with the dissinheritence of the dauphine.Charles VII usurped legal authority from Charles VI by taking illegal de facto controll of the south.In addition he was responcible for the murder of Montreui in 1419 and refused a courts summon to Paris which was issued from 1420.Unsuprisingly he refused the courts summon which was also treason and in 1421 in the abscence of the dauphine the lit-de justice found Charles so called dauphine guilty of Lese-Majesty and was orderd to dissinheritence and bannishment from the Kingdom of France.The legal proccedings gave facts and satisfactory proofs to the condemnation of the dauphine unlike the rumour of Charles bieng a bastard.His dissinheritence would in respect have to be considerd legal outside the treaty.
Regarding the disscution in general there are no majour facts which we both dont agree upon.I respect your oppinion as you to towards me.You asked me to give you a list of french kings in which Henry is mentioned.Months ago I was asked the same question by another user.The truth is that there is no official list where Henry VI is mentioned in it.That does not mean however that internationaly Henry VI is not King of France.The reason that Charles VII was closer in blood to Charles VI and thats is why he is listed in the official regnal template as the Heir of him also to the fact that Henry VI lost France in 1453.I do not think Enclodopedias to be bias but rather very vauge in details but neutral.In the text of my enclyopedia it mentiones that Henry VI was ruling in Northen France according to the right from the Treaty of Troyes But it neither says Charles was the only King of France since they were both claimaints or else the enclopedia could be accused of bieng bias in its text.My other Enclodopedia's say that Henry ruled in northen France against the french king Charles VII but if he ruled in Northen France that still means he was de facto King in the North.Some enclopedia's even reffer to both Charles and Henry as claimaints.I think in conclution we should leave Henry in this list even if he dosent show in the oficial regnal template because I still didnt see any French oppinion on Henry VI yet.Both Henry and Charles were claimaints and Kings in there own territory.God bless you and lookinjg forward to further disscution.--HENRY V OF ENGLAND (talk) 17:13, 5 September 2009 (UTC)
Encyclopedias:
Page 151
--HENRY V OF ENGLAND (talk) 17:30, 5 September 2009 (UTC)
Hi, Cusio.
Could you review the discussion in the article talk page Czechoslovakia? I see that you are an expert in the issues there. How should the article be changed in your opinion to reflect the facts instead of nonsense? Hobartimus (talk) 15:01, 18 October 2009 (UTC)
Hi, I've noticed what you did in the Allies of World War II article, particularly regarding India's inclusion, and I'm am in need of a second opinion on India (again) and also on Canada, New Zealand, and the Philippines inclusion on the infobox. I have placed some arguments at the talk page but the users hiving there won't listen so I need your help.--119.95.7.96 (talk) 07:36, 20 October 2009 (UTC)
Thank you for your Poland-related contributions
[edit]
|
Hello and welcome Cusio! Thank you for your contributions related to Poland. You may be interested in visiting Wikipedia:WikiProject Poland, joining the project, joining our discussions and sharing your creations with our community. |
--Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk 17:09, 9 November 2009 (UTC)
Thanks for your contribution to List of states with limited recognition
[edit]Thanks for your contribution, but I'm removing the info on the Taiwan representative offices for the following reasons:
1. The article is about diplomatic recognition, not foreign relations. The topic is better suited for Foreign relations of the Republic of China.
2. ROC is not the only state with limited recognition that has de facto embassies abroad. If we were to add info on the foreign offices of every country, the tables would become too cumbersome.
Feel free to discuss the situation on my talk page or here. Thanks again. Ladril (talk) 19:43, 13 November 2009 (UTC)
Aidez-moi, s'il vous plait!
[edit]I have made extensive edits to the Cisalpine Republic article, especially within the section entitled "Institutional form" giving the Preamble to the Constitution of the Republic. I feel that they must better convey the intended original meaning than the text as I found it. I remain puzzled by the phrase "...pushes more faraway its promptnesses..." Could you please send the French or Italian original text to my userpage so that I may effect an acceptable translation? Thank you! Writtenright (talk) 21:40, 7 January 2010 (UTC)Writtenright
- Thank you so very much for directing me to the http://www.dircost.unito.it/ website, from which I have been able to download the "Repubblica Cisalpina Prima Costituzione dell'Anno 1797". I will purchase an Italian/English dictionary and then read through this document. With gratitude, Writtenright (talk) 18:47, 15 July 2010 (UTC)Writtenright
Carlos Hugo of Bourbon-Parma
[edit]You close the debate on Talk:Carlos Hugo of Bourbon-Parma which has since been re-opened. Do you have any opinion on which article title should be used? -- PBS (talk) 20:24, 26 July 2010 (UTC)
Hi,
You appear to be eligible to vote in the current Arbitration Committee election. The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to enact binding solutions for disputes between editors, primarily related to serious behavioural issues that the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the ability to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail. If you wish to participate, you are welcome to review the candidates' statements and submit your choices on the voting page. For the Election committee, MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 14:12, 24 November 2015 (UTC)