That doesn't fully explain why you would use a relative pronoun here. You don't use one in the English translation:

Once upon a time, a king and a queen lived in a castle.

You could say: 

Once upon a time, there were a king and a queen who lived in a castle.

I think the point is that, although we're generally told that "Il était une fois"  means "once upon a time",  it's really "once upon a time there was".

"Il était une fois" = "il y avait une fois"

Yes, Alan has nicely explained the reason for my question.

If the following French was written I could understand the use of "qui":

"Il était une fois, il y avait un roi et une reine qui vivaient dans un château"

But with no "il y avait," for the reason Alan explained the necessity of "qui" doesn't seem obvious.

I think I also answered your question - or is it still unclear?

Alan: Yes, I did understand. Thank you.

I was just trying to make a little more explicit how an English-language understanding gets represented in French in the hope that one of the French experts could provide an explicit grammar road map that shows how "once upon a time there was" (whatever the appropriate expression in French is") and "qui" are combined.

You and I have both pointed to "il y avait . . ." Obviously that's incorrect, but I would like to know the specific grammar grammar reason for what it's incorrect and why "Il était une fois" possibly incorporates the idea of "il y avait".

Correction: You and I have both pointed to "il y avait . . ." Obviously that's incorrect, but I would like to know the specific grammar for why it's incorrect and why "Il était une fois" apparently incorporates the idea of "il y avait".

Dear Cécile:

Thank you. Now I understand.

I also asked another question on or around the same day, 18 May, but have yet to receive a reply. 

Unfortunately I don't see any website function to locate one's own questions so I cannot tell you where it is and I have forgotten myself.

The answer is "it depends".

We need to see the complete context to work out whether it is more appropriate to use the imparfait or PC.

If this was a sentence in a story where you were talking about something you habitually did every day (i.e., getting off the train), then the imperfect is appropriate.

If you are describing a specific one-off event (the main story line) then PC would be better.

Generally speaking, imparfait sets the scene, and PC describes the action.

I'm a non-native speaker and PC v imparfait is a continual battle I'm afraid!

I'm glad I wasn't the only one, but sorry for asking what has already been asked. 

 If I were to say simply "She pardoned us" without "She said that..." Would it change to passé composé or still be Imperfect? 

The second one...it's harder to wrap my head around it. If it had been "We forgot" I would have used the Passé Composé. Am I right to assume that, that in those cases the negation is treated the same way as the positive form? If you say "Nous avons oublié" if there wasn't a negation you'd automatically say "Nous n'avons oublié" when it's put in the negative? Does this make any sense or am I WAY off? 

It would really be great if there were lessons on reported speach on kwiziq. I do believe this topic has been neglected in the past. It often comes up in everday situations and when reading, e.g., newspapers.

I just realized that I asked a very stupid question. You said in the SECOND part, duh. I'd really appreciate a lesson on Reported speech, hopefully before my subscription runs out. For now, I'll take notes on this, try to practice it offline and hope that it becomes a little clearer as I hopefully encounter it in my reading and listening. I don't read newspapers or watch the news, unfortunately. I'd love to be able to see it in lessons and fill in exercises as that really really helps. Especially since I am able to ask and receive great answers when I really don't understand why I made a mistake. No textbook can do that and while a teacher can, the cost in considerably higher than a subscription. 

Most of this is very similar to English (Future becomes Conditional, Present becomes Past). But I have to wrap my mind around the Plus-que-parfait usage too, as in English, I'd honestly use the simple past (She went, she decided) here. It would probably be more correct to use the Past Perfect, but most or at least many, English speakers do not in conversation with reported speech. Of course, French is not English. 

It is very tricky I do agree.

L'endroit qui m'a enchanté ..... expresses that at the time, you were delighted / awed by that chateau. You may retain fond memories of that experience but the emotion / feeling of that sight was at that short instant. This why the perfect tense is appropriate.

In the case of vouloir this verb is almost always, in my understanding: in the imparfait as a verb expressing a mental state. The desire / wanting is not short lived but an ongoing state of mind.

Hope that helps.

Alan

First, sorry for the confusion.  I'm always mixing up, "to reside" (habiter) and, "to get dressed" (se habiller) which couldn't have helped my sentence above at all!  (Once upon a time, a king dressed his castle. :)

Second, I *thought* that I had used, "vivait", and the question had corrected me with, "avait vécu", but I have come across the question on another quiz and see that I was wrong about that.

Merci !