Jump to content

Talk:Louis Alphonse de Bourbon

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

"as such"

[edit]

"As such" appears more than once in this text. "As such", particularly when such has no clear antecedent, improves every sentence from which it is removed.

Requested move 31 May 2020

[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: Moved to Louis Alphonse de Bourbon; consensus in this thread and other similar threads (see Talk:Karl Von Habsburg) is that referring to contemporary pretenders by their pretended title(s) is an NPOV issue and, as such, is not appropriate. Sceptre (talk) 00:28, 8 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]


Louis Alphonse, Duke of Anjou → Louis Alphonse – Per WP:NCROY#Other cases, "For claimants to titles which have been suppressed, as with the dukes of Bavaria, follow the general article titling policy." As there is no longer a "dukedom of Anjou", I think this qualifies as suppressed/defunct and should therefore be titled like a regular human's article. Also, later in WP:NCROY#Hypothetical, dissolved and defunct titles, "Do not use hypothetical, dissolved or defunct titles, including pretenders (real or hypothetical)". Axem Titanium (talk) 18:45, 31 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The current title is far from being the most common way the subject is referred to in the RS. So where does it come from? It is a style given at WP:OBE presumably for people who are nobles by law. Allan Rice (talk) 14:16, 1 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Your own source has its article on him titled “H.R.H. Louis Alphonse, Prince of Bourbon, Duke of Anjou”. It’s a title used by the Leigitimist claimants to the French throne since the succession passed to the Spanish House of Bourbon. I seriously doubt most Reliable Sources would use the format Prince William, Duke of Cambridge to write about him, with royalty there are numerous variations of how they could be called. What even is the common name here, Louis Alphonse, Luis Alfonso, just Louis or Luis? - Fact is his primary notability is for being a claimant to the French throne, using the title he uses and is attributed by Reliable Sources as such is logical. - dwc lr (talk) 14:31, 1 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
The overwhelming majority of RS give "de Bourbon" as the subject's surname, including The Telegraph article that you cite above. The comma title format is for nobles. It is not "Emmanuel Macron, president of France." Allan Rice (talk) 15:35, 1 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Duke of Anjou is a substantive title. If we want the article to be called Louis Alphonse de Bourbon, Duke of Anjou that’s fine by me happy to support that. - dwc lr (talk) 15:47, 1 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Duke of Anjou is a nonexistent title, no matter how many RS mistakenly apply it to Ol' Louie here. The main goal of point 6 at NCROY is to disallow ordinals in article titles for pretenders. It is not an affirmation to use other titles in their place. Any charitable reading of the point would indicate that. Axem Titanium (talk) 15:59, 1 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Well it’s a POV that’s it’s a “non existent title”, one that is clearly not recognised by a large number of sources. It might be the law in France that titles are not recognised legally, I’m pretty sure legally people can’t change gender in Hungary. Wikipedia does not have to submit to laws it should refer to reliable sources which attribute titles (or genders or whatever), mistakenly in the eyes of the law or not. - dwc lr (talk) 16:18, 1 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Even so, it's still a misreading of point 6 and your argument is directly contradicted by WP:NCROY#Other cases and WP:NCROY#Hypothetical, dissolved and defunct titles within the same guideline. Point 6 is clearly aimed at preventing pretenders from having ordinal numbers in their article title; it says nothing about adding titles, real or fictitious. Axem Titanium (talk) 00:22, 2 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
The court's opinion in "Lawsuit brought by the comte de Clermont against the duc d'Anjou (1987-89)" gives us precise legal arguments as to why the subject is not a duke. If we follow tradition, this title was not hereditary. It had to be bestowed directly by the French king. Louis's father, who bestowed the title, was not the king. In law, a title must be recognized by the Keeper of the Seals (in modern times, the minister of justice), according to an 1859 decree. This one is not. It is "for the administrative authority to say whether a family is titled and for the judicial authority to say, in a titled family who is the legitimate bearer of the title," according to longstanding judicial opinion. To put something in the article that we know is likely to mislead the reader is contrary to the purpose of an encyclopedia. Allan Rice (talk) 00:55, 2 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
By all means mention in the article that in the French Republic titles are not legally recognised, that does not mean the titles are not recognised by other States or in Reliable Sources. How can the ruling Houses of Monaco and Liechtenstein attribute the style Royal Highness to members of their families when Hanover and Bavaria (where the HRH comes from) are republics? Because it’s tradition, it’s historic practice, it’s curtesy, irrespective of what the law says. The law is not the be all and end all otherwise Wikipedia must not change the gender or pronouns of Hungarian transgender people so we don’t “mislead” the readers into thinking they are of a gender they aren’t legally. I’d love to see how that goes down. Let’s stick to what Reliable Sources do rather than impose our own POV’s or bend over to the law. - dwc lr (talk) 08:31, 2 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
That was added less than 2 weeks ago. I’m not aware of any consensus for the change in long standing practice. Point 6 specifically says “Such a person may however be referred to by a title”, Duke of Anjou is a title so it’s perfectly proper to include it. Even the Defunct title guideline would seem to support the title. Is the title recognised? Yes, lots of reliable sources use it. Does the subject use it? Yes. - dwc lr (talk) 08:31, 2 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Whether or not he is a duke is a factual question. It is separate from the common name issue. Reporters can call him a duke, but that does not make him a duke. The laws on this subject are well known, at least in France. We do not put the titles of non-nobles into our article titles. Micheal Jackson can be "King of Pop." But that's in the lead, not the article title. Allan Rice (talk) 12:39, 2 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Wikipedia:Verifiability, not truth. Fact is it’s verifiable that countless sources call him Duke of Anjou, he calls himself Duke of Anjou, his predecessors called themselves and were called Dukes of Anjou. The fact France may not recognise noble or royal titles is irrelevant and has never been an impediment to this well established practice. You say he’s not a Duke, I can go pull up news articles or books from my shelf that disagree and say he’s a Duke, that his predecessors were Dukes etc. You even cited a book in this discussion that says he’s the Duke of Anjou? - dwc lr (talk) 14:14, 2 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
“Such a person may however be referred to by a title”. Note "may", not "must". Plenty of sources also call him Louis Alphonse de Bourbon without the title. In an absence of consensus among reliable sources, why should Wikipedia default to making up a title to bestow upon Monsieur Louie? It's also very privileged of you to suggest that the rights of transgender people, a persecuted minority, to be called by their identified gender is morally equivalent to a poor young rich boy like Louie not having his made up title on his Wikipedia article title. I would reread WP:BIAS and reconsider if you really want to pursue that argument. Axem Titanium (talk) 18:03, 2 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
A lot of the sources focus on the subject's French claims, so they mentioned his self-styled titles. This is from a story in the The Express that is not about his claims: "The pretender to the now-defunct Bourbon dynasty, Prince Louis-Alphonse of Bourbon, has allegedly taken an interest in European politics."[1] Nothing about Anjou in this story. Allan Rice (talk) 05:00, 3 June 2020 (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.

Riots put Louis-Alphonse in the news

[edit]

When a statue of King Louis XVI was vandalized in the Antifa-Black Lives Matter riots, Louis-Alphonse got into the news by posting on Twitter about it. The king financed the U.S. revolution and was thanked by getting the city of Louisville named after him. See "Twitter Unites to Roast an Heir of Louis XVI Who Weighed in on America’s Protests." Of course, Louis-Alphonse is descended from Louis XIV, not Louis XVI. Allan Rice (talk) 00:48, 3 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

By my reckoning he is also the Lancastrian heir to the English crown, by his descent from John of Gaunt, but this could be OR.PatGallacher (talk) 09:44, 1 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Why is this article given his civil name?

[edit]

His “rival”, the Orléanist pretender, has an article titled Jean, Count of Paris and there in the royal titles and styles he pretends to are noted. In this article they seem to be obscured. If this article isn’t at Louis Alphonse, Duke of Anjou shouldn’t the other similarly be moved to Jean d’Orléans? Either moving this article or the other would preserve the neutral point of view given both claim the prerogatives of the kings of France. Charles 14:50, 1 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

The question that needs to be addressed is, what is the legal nature of his titles? If they are actually recognized by France, as opposed to being a courtesy title used by monarchists, then we should probably move the article. Otherwise it's fine where it is. And FWIW, I agree that there does seem to be a discrepancy between the two pages. The guidelines for naming articles about royalty and aristocrats are found at WP:NCROY. -Ad Orientem (talk) 15:12, 1 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Neither "neutrality" or "legal nature" are the most important issues. Biographical articles on English Wikipedia are named according to how an individual is commonly referred to in English-language sources. If a case can be made that "Jean, Count of Paris" is more commonly known in English-language sources as "Jean d'Orléans" or as "Jean, comte de Paris", then the article should be moved. If a case can be made that "Louis Alphonse de Bourbon" is more commonly known in English-language sources as "Louis Alphonse, Duke of Anjou" (or just Louis), then the article should be moved. See Wikipedia:Article_titles#Non-neutral_but_common_names. (Nice to know that Charles is still alive and kicking). Noel S McFerran (talk) 15:24, 1 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Indeed, I am! Charles 22:03, 24 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Royal title of decent

[edit]

King Henry II of France was my 15th Great Grandfather ... 24.89.254.217 (talk) 21:19, 22 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

And your point is? Dimadick (talk) 14:00, 23 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

This gives him an ancient manorial right to park anywhere in Paris without paying. 2A00:23C7:E287:1901:451C:34A1:782D:BAB5 (talk) 04:43, 15 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "http://en.wiki.x.io/w/index.php?title=Talk:Louis_Alphonse_de_Bourbon&oldid=1264994660"