Talk:Clotilde of France

Move

Moving article to Clothilde de France as *de France* is her surname & not to be translated. Reason given in move: *** *de France* being the surname of those members of the French royal family who are direct descendants of the king, Clothilde, a Princess of France, bears the surname *de France*, which is not to be translated.*** The surname *de France* is more exactly given to the children of the king and to the children of his eldest son, the Dauphin. Frania W. (talk) 21:04, 8 July 2009 (UTC)

• Clotilde* from *Clothilde* as name has no *h* in French. Frania W. (talk) 23:21, 8 July 2009 (UTC)

Requested move

The following discussion is an archived discussion of the proposal. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the proposal was to move the page because the sources support the new name. -- PBS (talk) 21:12, 20 September 2010 (UTC)

Clotilde de France → Marie Clotilde of France — Even though there is a redirect to this name already, is it possible to move her to that name!? Sources refer to her as this and I think her signature pretty much says it all! Anyone? Prince LouisPhilippeCharles 22:02, 7 September 2010 (UTC)

What sources? john k (talk) 22:17, 7 September 2010 (UTC)

Hey there...

Lettres inédites de Marie Antoinette et de Marie Clotilde de France (soeur de Louis XVI) Reine de Sardaigne

A Sister of Louis XVI, Marie-Clotilde de France, Queen of Sardinia (1759-1802) (her only real bio)

Vies des pères, martyrs et ... Volume 2 (Pope Pius VII declared her venerable)

Marie Antoinette, the Woman and the Queen By Sarah Tytler

Henry Stuart: cardinal of York and his times (related to the Jacobite succession and her husbands relation to it)

Catalogue of the renowned collection of autograph letters

The American Catholic quarterly review, Volume 12

Dictionnaire historique, ou histoire abrégée de hommes

It is a shame that so little is solely on her. Some of the above books may seem a little random but are relevant as they are contemporary writings. The almanach royal also calls her M.C rather than just Clotilde. As I, the signature on her page also supports this I feel Prince LouisPhilippeCharles 22:48, 7 September 2010 (UTC)

• That is an impressive array of sources. Support. john k (talk) 23:35, 7 September 2010 (UTC)
• Support I've heard of her as Marie Clotilde and not Clotilde 76.66.197.151 (talk) 04:08, 8 September 2010 (UTC)

Thank you people! Anyone else?! Prince LouisPhilippeCharles 12:58, 8 September 2010 (UTC)

• Support. I am entirely convinced by LouisPhilippeCharles's argument. Surtsicna (talk) 13:28, 8 September 2010 (UTC)

• Support change from Clotilde to Marie Clotilde, as per her own signature shown in infobox, but not of France. Her name was de France. Accordingly, I would

support move to Marie Clotilde de France. --Frania W.

Hey Franiaaaa! I saw this coming =P! The only thing I can say is that she would be the only petite-fille de France on wikipedia styled as de France... Prince LouisPhilippeCharles

She was a fille de France - children of a Dauphin were enfants de France, not petit-enfants de France. john k (talk) 20:36, 9 September 2010 (UTC)

• Oppose despite the sources which are cited on this move request, I believe that your request for this move is inappropriate because it is done in spite of the specific request of the admin Philip Baird Shearer, who has been correcting the hundreds of improper moves made unilaterally by your IPs to Bourbon and other royal articles, that you assist his efforts "to clean up your mess" by ceasing all further moves and edits until you first identify those outstanding improper moves made by you under various IPs and outline specifically how you will assist in correcting those actions, as stated on your talk page (which you have now archived) here. We all benefit by the admin's efforts to get errors on these articles corrected, and I wish to help support his burden by acting in compliance with his urgent appeal for your focused assistance. You can re-initiate this move request after assisting the admins in correcting your past move errors. FactStraight (talk) 19:50, 8 September 2010 (UTC)
  • I don't understand why one should vote for a move request on the basis of the requester's past history. Each move request should be judged on its own merits. john k (talk) 20:36, 9 September 2010 (UTC)
    • FactStraight there is no compulsion on user:LouisPhilippeCharles to clean up his mess (his moral compass should be guide enough). There is a compulsion for him to ask for moves such as this so that he does not cause any further material damage to the project. As john k says each move request should be judged on its own merits. -- PBS (talk) 21:12, 20 September 2010 (UTC)

Just passing by, I gave a quick look at Fils de France. Unfortunately, I have no time to spend on that article or on any other right now, but all those called "of France" should be "de France", because it was their last name. So, it is not Marie Clotilde who should be renamed "of France", but all the others who should be given their correct last name "de France".

• Charles de Valois, Duke of Orléans (1550–1574), younger brother of Francis II (1544–1560), was known as Monsieur at the beginning of the reign of Francis II. He was King of France as Charles IX from 1560 to 1574;
• Henri de Valois, Duke of Anjou (1551–1589), younger brother of Francis II and Charles IX, was known as Monsieur during the reign of Charles IX. He became King of France as Henry III from 1574–1589;
• François de Valois, Duke of Anjou (1574–1584), youngest brother of Francis II, Charles IX and Henry III, was known as Monsieur during the reign of Henry III;
• Gaston of France, Duke of Orléans (1608–1660), younger brother of Louis XIII (1601–1643), was known as Monsieur during the reign of Louis XIII and was the first fils de France to assume the use of altesse royale abroad;

Gaston of France, Duke of Orléans shoul be Gaston de France, Duke of Orléans

• • Philippe de France, duc d'Anjou (1640–1701), Gaston's nephew was known as le Petit Monsieur and Gaston as le Grand Monsieur when Louis XIII died in 1643;
• Philippe de France, Duke of Orléans (1640–1701) was the younger brother of Louis XIV, and known as Monsieur in 1660 after the death of his uncle, Gaston. He was the founder of the House of Orléans;
• Louis Stanislas Xavier of France, Count of Provence (1755–1824), younger brother of Louis XVI, known as Monsieur during the reign of Louis XVI, and was later King of France as Louis XVIII from 1814 to 1824;

Louis Stanislas Xavier of France, Count of Provence should be Louis Stanislas Xavier de France, Count of Provence

• Charles Philippe of France, Count of Artois (1757–1836) was the youngest brother of Louis XVI and Louis XVIII, and known as Monsieur at the beginning of the reign of Louis XVIII, later King of France as Charles X from 1824 to 1830.

Charles Philippe of France, Count of Artois should be Charles Philippe de France, Count of Artois

just as Louis XVI's daughter should be Marie Thérèse de France, not "Marie Thérèse of France".

--Frania W. (talk) 16:51, 8 September 2010 (UTC)

I know your reasoning for this but on all the above peoples pages would it hurt to put that in the full name section of the infobox? I have done it for some including Marie Clotilde as well as the Savoy's in which I have used their Italian names! And anyway, lets just sort her out first, she seems some what ignored Prince LouisPhilippeCharles 18:00, 8 September 2010 (UTC)

Has anyone else got a point that is relevant to the move? Prince LouisPhilippeCharles (talk) 17:46, 9 September 2010 (UTC)

• Support Your many sources are evidence enough for me. Ruby2010 (talk) 19:45, 9 September 2010 (UTC)
• Support for the reasons given above. AaronTheTypoWarrior (talk) 08:04, 11 September 2010 (UTC)

Support any name form as long as English is used: of is English in this case (geographic-political epithet, not a personal name). De (de) is French and is just fine, lovely in fact, on French WP and in French literature. Or Spanish such, but they would have de Francia (not de France, which is French) in their language. Language is a wonderful thing for us all to respect, try to understand, try to use effectively and work correctly within the rules of. Our own and each other's. SergeWoodzing (talk) 14:39, 15 September 2010 (UTC)

• Support for the given reasons. And, of course, it should be of France, not de France; "of" and "de" are to be regarded as words and should thereby be translated. If "de" are allowed here, than all articles about royalty must be changed from "of" to the equivalent words in the language of their respective articles, such as "von" for royalty of German-speaking countries, "av" for Swedish royalty, "van" for Dutch, and so on. Wether this is changed from Clotilde to Marie Clothilde or not, it must be changed from de to of. --Aciram (talk) 15:18, 15 September 2010 (UTC)
  • We do of course leave "de," "von," and "van" untranslated for many people. We don't have Gilbert of Le Motier, Marquess of Lafayette, for example. Or Otto of Bismarck. john k (talk) 13:55, 20 September 2010 (UTC)

That is true, but that is in regard to nobility, who does have surnames, not to royalty, who formally has no surnames. Lafayette or Bismarck is not countries; France is a nation. Furthermore, "de France" actually means "of France" in the English language, and this is English wp.--Aciram (talk) 15:17, 20 September 2010 (UTC)

Aciram: French royals had surnames. Please go to the links I gave further down [1]

--Frania W. (talk) 16:32, 20 September 2010 (UTC)

Have it as Marie Clotilde of France - French spelling of her name for obvious reasons and English "of France"! Prince LouisPhilippeCharles (talk) 10:32, 20 September 2010 (UTC)

"of France" is not a personal name. I tried to stress that above. If it were it should be "de France" or "De France" in English. "von Bismarck" and such are personal names. This woman's full personal name was Marie Adélaïde Clotilde Xavière (no surname). Her name of address was Clotilde. That's all she has in that regard. Can't we please discuss what the actual situation is here, not hypotheticals about some other name forms that do not pertain to this case? So much time and energy and expertise is wasted on pseudo-discussions like that. SergeWoodzing (talk) 15:10, 20 September 2010 (UTC)

No, her name is Marie Clotilde de France".

On the surname "de France" officially given the children of the kings of France:

• http://www.heraldica.org/topics/france/frroyal.htm#names
• Diderot & d'Alembert Encyclopédie méthodique, Paris, 1786 [2]

Upon his accession to the throne of France, the king of France lost his surname.

His legitimate children had the surname "de France". Of his grandchildren, only the children of the Dauphin were "de France". In other words, were "de France" only the children who could have become king of France in direct line from the eldest.

After Philippe I d'Orléans, brother of Louis XIV, his descendants had the surname "d'Orléans" (they still do), while "de Bourbon" (Henri IV's surname/family name) was the family name of the Condé, Conti etc. and also given by Louis XIV to his illegitimate children of Louis XIV with Louise de La Vallière and Mme de Montespan.

--Frania W. (talk) 15:15, 20 September 2010 (UTC)

This is English WP, not French WP. These are two different languages, even in this case. The one link you gave, in English, apparently is some sort of a hobby project, not a reliable source for an accurate "surname" (the woman had none). The other source is in French, not in English. SergeWoodzing (talk) 20:04, 20 September 2010 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the proposal. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

Wikipedia Verifiability

From http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Verifiability#Non-English_sources:

Non-English sources

"Because this is the English Wikipedia, English-language sources should be used in preference to non-English ones, except where no English source of equal quality can be found that contains the relevant material. When quoting a source in a different language, provide both the original-language quotation and an English translation, in the text or in a footnote. Translations published by reliable sources are preferred over translations by Wikipedians. When citing a source in a different language, without quotations, the original and its translation should be provided if requested by other editors: this can be added to a footnote, or to the talk page if too long for a footnote. If posting original source material, editors should be careful not to violate copyright; see the fair-use guideline."

The above does not say that non-English sources cannot be used, but can where no English source of equal quality can be found that contains the relevant material.

Denis Diderot's Encyclopédie méthodique is such a source, written in French, not found translated in English online.

Some contributors' statements given above RE the family name "de France" as "not a personal name", "...not to royalty, who formally has no surnames", "This woman's full personal name was Marie Adélaïde Clotilde Xavière (no surname)", "...accurate "surname" (the woman had none)" are based on the fact that some valuable reliable sources are ignored or rejected "because this is English WP", in direct contradiction with English WP's article "Wikipedia Verifiability", which does not forbid the use of non-English sources where no English source of equal quality can be found that contains the relevant material, this being the case for Diderot's Encyclopédie.

--Frania W. (talk) 14:26, 21 September 2010 (UTC)

The policy doesn't even say that non-English sources can't be used, just that we prefer English sources. That being said, I'm not so sure about the Encyclopédie; as a primary source from the eighteenth century, it should be used with caution. In this case, it seems to be making a polemical argument, not stating an agreed-upon fact; the writer (probably not Diderot himself?) is arguing that the descendants of Philip V of Spain do not actually bear the surname "de Bourbon," but rather "de France." Considering that the descendants of Philip V always, both before and after the publication of the Encyclopédie, used the surname "Bourbon" and used that as their house name as well, it is probably worth taking this article with a grain of salt. At any rate, I don't see what any of this has to do with the question of whether we should translate "de France" to "of France." That is a purely stylistic question, not a question of factual accuracy. I notice that the French Wikipedia translates a number of people who were, in their own language, known as "von Preußen" "de Prusse," and, in fact, this is standard practice on the French wikipedia for German royals. It also substitutes "de Savoie" for "di Savoia," "de Médicis" for "de' Medici" and much else besides. I don't see how what we are doing is any different. john k (talk) 15:05, 21 September 2010 (UTC)

Diderot's Encyclopédie was first brought to the attention of wiki contributors because of a controversy on the use or even the existence of "last name/surname/patronym" (nom de famille) before recent centuries. And Diderot goes extensively into the history of "nom de famille", leading the reader to "nom de famille" given to everyone, including the members of the royal family of France. That is one of my main arguments here: that nom de famille/patronyme have existed in France for a long time, even for the children of the kings of France.

On page 159 of the link given earlier, Diderot gives the "nom de famille" of the different branches of the royal family, including the nom de famille "de France" given to the children of the king, name found in several baptismal records of the French royal children.

All I can say is that I am amazed at the constant rejection of proof of verifiability whenever the subject pertains to France.

--Frania W. (talk) 15:46, 21 September 2010 (UTC)

Frania, I am not denying that members of the royal house had surnames. The Encyclopédie entry obviously gives pretty good evidence that the idea that they did goes back to at least the seventeenth century or so. I just dispute the relevance of this to article titles. Article titles should use the most common name found in English, even when this is not strictly correct. I don't think anyone would dispute that the given name of the French king who reigned from 1589 to 1610 was "Henri." And yet we translate it into the English form "Henry." Translating "de France" to "of France" is the same. I think that in the first line, we should give the full name in French of such people, but I don't see the harm of using "of France" in the article titles; they mean the same thing, just as "von Preussen" and "de Prusse" do. I'll also note, again, that the Encyclopédie entry needs to be taken with a grain of salt, as well - it may provide evidence that there was a strong sense that even the royal family had a last name. I'm unconvinced it tells us much else; we certainly can't take for granted its assertion that the rulers of Spain and Naples in the eighteenth century bore the surname "de France." john k (talk) 15:59, 21 September 2010 (UTC)

John, you are not denying that members of the royal house had surnames, but other contributors of this discussion are, and it is on a false assumption that they base their arguments and persist on saying that the children of the kings of France & the rest of the royal family did not have surnames/family names.

• "The Encyclopédie entry obviously gives pretty good evidence that the idea that they did goes back to at least the seventeenth century or so."

The "idea" goes back much earlier, and may I throw in François Ier's August 1539 Ordonnance de Villers-Cotterêts, which ordered that everyone in France was to have a "nom de famille" and that such name should be inscribed in every official document, such as birth/death registers, contracts & judgements, and that said documents were to be written in French (Latin was dropped as the official language in legal documents). Of course, that royal ordonnance being written in French has no value in English wiki.

--Frania W. (talk) 18:34, 21 September 2010 (UTC)

Who has said that French documents or historical works have no value in the English wikipedia? john k (talk) 20:57, 21 September 2010 (UTC)

In the discussion above (similar to many others on same subject), those who turn down the French documents I bring to the discussion use as an argument: "this is English WP...source is in French, not in English" - the very reason why I started this Wikipedia Verifiability section on non-English sources.

--Frania W. (talk) 21:11, 21 September 2010 (UTC)

Well, I certainly have no interest in defending such silly remarks. john k (talk) 05:00, 22 September 2010 (UTC)

This has been twisted now so the discussion is off track. Of course reliable sources are welcome no matter what language they are in. This is not a matter of the admissibility of a source, primarily, but of what translates into what, from the French to the English. "de France" is French for "of France" in this case. That was (obviously?) what I meant and is hardly "silly". Legitimate French royalty, as all other royalty did not have any surnames of any kind - and there are no reliable sources anywhere in any language that give them any, as if they were some kind of special surname exception. Nobody's POV, no matter how inventive, is going to change that fact. So to repeat my intent for the third time, for the sake of absolute clarity: in this case "de France" in French equals "of France" in English. I never meant to say anything else. I am adding a source now to the article which shows that the woman in question had no surname. SergeWoodzing (talk) 05:37, 22 September 2010 (UTC)

This discussion is entirely circular, it will go on and on and on. The one party, Frania, who is actually a good editor, has shown that she is hung up entirely on this issue. None of the French sources explicitly state in a way that, in English, would say the royal family has the surname "de France". More like they bear the name of France (understood to be a designation). France is a territory. Seven Letters 17:25, 22 September 2010 (UTC)

Surname

Due to a recent lengthy edit summary to this article, I must maintain that legitimate royalty, including this woman, does not have or use surnames and never has. Any source that specifically might state that they did/do is not a scholarly, reliable source, and therefore inadmissible as a reference on WP. Burke's and Debrett's can be relied upon as thoroughly reliable sources which support my stand in this matter without exception.

No person anywhere in the world had what can be considered a surname, legally, until the middle of the 17th century at the very earliest. Most had none until about 1850. Mentions in very old literature that can be interpreted otherwise will not hold water as factual sources in modern terms. There were no Mr. & Mrs. Jones in 1360! A term such as (French) nom de famille, as published in a 250-year-old book, is not equivalent to "surname" for royalty in any sense that could be relevant to an encyclopedia, and there is no encyclopedia anywhere in any language that would acknowledge it as such. What a surname is was not even legally defined until people began to be registered by name for census purposes.

In some special cases, the word "of" (in English) followed by the name of a country, is used as a surnamne for alphabetical filing purposes, such as in passenger lists, patient lists, hotel guest lists and so on (Sweden, Silvia of). Such usage is irrelevant to factual content in an encyclopedia, and is never used in an type of literary index. SergeWoodzing (talk) 14:17, 22 September 2010 (UTC)

First: I would like to make clear that the use of the English word "surname" in my comments is meant as what the French call "nom de famille" ("family name") or "patronyme".

Second: "No person anywhere in the world had what can be considered a surname, legally, until the middle of the 17th century at the very earliest. Most had none until about 1850." ? Hmm... Maybe nowhere else in the world but in France, yes, a legal "must" since 1539.

The English did well before the middle of the 17th century. For example it was Henry VIII who forced (strongly recommended) that the Welsh start to use surnames in the way that the English did -- because it was found so inconvenient, using the Welsh naming convention, in identifying persons in judicial matters -- see this footnote in an article on a grandfather of Olive Cromwell. -- PBS (talk) 12:07, 23 September 2010 (UTC)

PBS, I take it that your remark was addressed To Whom It May Concern, and not to me, as I have been arguing the pre-17th century existence of surnames for months, with my references ignored and/or rejected.

--Frania W. (talk) 16:59, 23 September 2010 (UTC)

Third: In the centuries preceding the creation of the UN & the EU, each country was on its own & there was no law governing at the same time France & England, Austria & Russia, or the German states & the Italian states. What the law was in the Kingdom of France applied only to France as the King of France did not have to ask permission to Brussels to write his own édits & ordonnances. Consequently, when François Ier signed the Ordonnance de Villers-Cotterêts in August 1539, in the course of the administrative reforms he brought to the Kingdom of France[3], he did not - nor did he have to - ask, the Emperor Charles Quint nor the the King of England Henry VIII, to countersign it.

Fourth: Most countries of the world use the metric system while the United States still use the inch/foot/ounce medieval system: is there an international law that forbids the United States to use the system it has decided for itself? The same for driving in Great Britain, its driving code says left while that of most countries says right. Is there an international driving code to make the Brits change side? Same reasoning with family name: no international law.

--Frania W. (talk) 15:36, 22 September 2010 (UTC)

Translating nom de famille directly as a surname is an anachronism for early time periods. It may be synonymous today but it was not always the case. "Family name" does not always been surname. This is the problem when it comes to translation: bias and ambiguity. For instance, the world Schloss in German or château in French... both are applied to buildings which, in English, we may divide into palaces and castles. You are entirely missing the context of the name "France" in the French royal family while ignoring the precedent that royal families generally did not and do not bear surnames the way we have them today. You even disputed a source about Lorraine which explicitly stated that the family did not have a surname. Seven Letters 17:33, 22 September 2010 (UTC)

"You even disputed a source about Lorraine which explicitly stated that the family did not have a surname."

Talk about bias, it would appear you are ignoring this[4] reference;

"In the Middle Ages, the feudal nobility needed to associate themselves with the fief or landed property which justified their rank. As a result, they adopted place-based surnames using either a prefix, such as von, or di, or suffix, such as -ski. Hence the French prince Charles de Lorraine would be known in German as "Karl von Lotharingen" or in Polish as "Karol Lotarinski". -- Europe: A History, by Norman Davies, p169. --Kansas Bear (talk) 17:57, 22 September 2010 (UTC)

But look at that in and of itself. Is that really a surname or a territorial designation? A surname, as Frania is describing it, can never be translated (maybe transliterated for differences of alphabet). If that source holds up as the definition of a surname though it means "de France" can be "of France". Seven Letters 18:10, 22 September 2010 (UTC)

1. I am quite aware of the meaning & evolution of the word "surname" in English, which cannot be translated by its faux ami "surnom" in French, and that is why I usually write along with it the French "nom de famille" & "patronyme", and I believe that those who take part in the discussion understand what I am talking about. I also believe that I am consistent in my arguments.
2. I am not "ignoring the precedent that royal families generally did not and do not bear surnames...", I am saying that each royal family, or rather, each kingdom had its own rules & if the king of France decreed that his children had to have a family name, and that name was to be "de France", then it was his bon plaisir, and that was that, no matter what other kings did in their own land.

--Frania W. (talk) 19:29, 22 September 2010 (UTC)

Point one only holds though for writing in French. In that context "de France" works... but that's French. The second point is entirely unclear. Replace English with French entirely here to get an idea of what I am saying (and to illustrate the arising bias and anachronism): Are you deciding that the king wasn't saying "my children shall bear the name of France" but that he was saying "my children shall bear the name (of) of France"? Seven Letters 20:00, 22 September 2010 (UTC)

Okay, a couple of thoughts. Firstly Serge is saying some pretty nonsensical stuff. Most Europeans have had surnames since the late middle ages; plenty of royalty have or had names which are pretty clearly the equivalent of surnames. Italian ruling families like the Medici, Este, Farnese, and Gonzaga used those names exactly in the manner that we use surnames; Spanish royalty also uses surnames - the current king, for instance, is Juan Carlos de Borbón y Borbón; his son is Felipe de Borbón y Grecia - this is no different from the way all Spanish people use surnames. And, I think, French royalty seem to essentially have surnames. Certainly the junior members of the family, who went by "d'Orléans" or "de Bourbon," or whatever. The House of Stuart arguably had surnames as well. Schiller called his play on Mary, Queen of Scots, "Maria Stuart," and there's no real reason to say this is wrong. Monarchs generally don't use surnames, and some monarchs don't really have surnames. But others have family names which function in virtually exactly the same manner that surnames do. Secondly, I don't really think the fact that we can consider certain names to be, effectively, surnames, means that we can't translate them. As I noticed before, the French translate surnames from other languages into French. "de' Medici" is quite clearly the surname of the Florentine banking family which became, in 1569, grand dukes of Tuscany. Nonetheless, in French, that surname is universally translated as "de Médicis." For surnames which also function as territorial designations (which "de' Medici" does not) I can't see why we shouldn't be able to translate them into English, because this is what English typically does. john k (talk) 22:21, 22 September 2010 (UTC)

Serge, could you please provide some specific quotes as to how Burke's and Debrett's supposedly prove that members of royal families can never have surnames? john k (talk) 22:23, 22 September 2010 (UTC)

I agree that most Europeans have had family names or territorial names since the late Middle Ages. Generally in the royal families the territorial name and the "family name" are synonymous. They serve to identify... I am not so sure we can call what the French royals had surnames though... It's kind of like York, Kent, and the like in the British royal family, no? The Stuarts had a family name before they gained a throne... Arguably a surname too under English/Scottish conventions. I think we need to throw the notion of surnames aside in the case of this reigning family. There simply isn't a clear source which says it is "de France" as an indivisible unit never to be translated... It's a territorial designation and house name. They aren't "de France of France". Seven Letters 01:02, 23 September 2010 (UTC)

Also, I would say that "Stuart" is used in the name way that the Spanish royals just before the House of Bourbon were "of Austria", like Anne of Austria... It was also their house name. The only difference is, starting as a surname, it never had "of". Seven Letters 01:03, 23 September 2010 (UTC)

Sure. The issue of France seems complicated. The Encyclopedist is making a polemical argument that "de France" rather than "de Bourbon" (or, I suppose, "d'Anjou") is the house name of the descendants of Philip V. This was obviously not widely accepted and obviously Carlos III himself was using "de Bourbon." That being said, it does seem as though fils and filles de France, and especially the latter, used "de France" effectively as a surname. The descendants of Louis XIV's younger brother have also consistently used "d'Orléans" in a manner that is indistinguishable from how a surname would be used, and by 1589 "de Bourbon," a territorial designation dating back to the beginning of the 14th century and which was no longer associated with the territory actually ruled by the King of Navarre, is pretty indistinguishable from a surname, as well. I just don't think that there's any real problem with translating territorial designations, even if they are being used as surnames. john k (talk) 02:47, 23 September 2010 (UTC)

Would the Acte de mariage of Louis Auguste, Dauphin de France & Marie Antoinette, Archiduchesse d'Autriche [5], and the Acte de baptême de Louis Charles de France[6], their son, be considered valid documents? When enlarged, one can read the full names of Louis XVI's brothers & sisters.

Seven Letters, I may be "hung up" on the subject, as you so elegantly put it, but I at least I try to back up my arguments with visible proof & concrete evidence, and my edits amount to a bit more than the trivia & abominations I spend hours cleaning up & clearing out.

--Frania W. (talk) 03:28, 23 September 2010 (UTC)

In their signatures Louis XVI's brothers, sisters, and aunts just sign with their given names - no surname. But as you say, we see in the text of the first document "Louis-Stanislas-Xavier de France, comte de Provence," "Charles-Philippe de France, comte d'Artois," "Marie Adélaide Xavière de France," "Marie Adélaide de France," "Victoire Louise Marie Thérèse de France," and "Sophie Philippines Justine de France." The duke of Orléans is not given a surname, just "Louis Philippe, duc d'Orléans," while his son the duke of Chartres is "Louis Philippe Joseph d'Orléans, duc de Chartres." In the second document, we see some of the same names, plus "Elisabeth Philippine Marie Helene de France." (Note that "de Lorraine" is used as the surname for the Habsburg-Lorraine's in that document, but not in the first one). john k (talk) 13:17, 23 September 2010 (UTC)

The duc d'Orléans & the duc de Chartres signed "given names + d'Orléans".

--Frania W. (talk) 17:33, 23 September 2010 (UTC)

I started a debate here which I'm really glad I did. Admittedly, some of what I claimed was intended as a challenge, and I learned a lot here. Sorry I bluffed a bit about the history of surnames (amongt non-royals) worldwide, but it was worth it, and to anyone whose feathers got hugely ruffled: my sincere apology. The info some of you have provided here is valuable.

What's important is the case at hand: "de France" in French; "of France" in Engish.

Also Burke's and Debrett's are crystal clear in their listings from cover to cover (400-500-600 pages per volume): royalty has no surmnames. If the Spanish mention dynasty names to distinguish between branches, so do many others. But the royal persons do not have surnames. SergeWoodzing (talk) 17:25, 23 September 2010 (UTC)

How can anyone take you seriously when you admit that you "bluffed" !

--Frania W. (talk) 17:33, 23 September 2010 (UTC)

Don't bother! Just take Burke's and Debrett's seriously and stick to English on English WP. A history of the use of surnames among non-royals, which is what I bluffed about to get more info here - valuable such - is irrelevant to this discussion anyway. SergeWoodzing (talk) 22:14, 23 September 2010 (UTC)

OK, Monsieur. How do we translate into English Honni soit qui mal y pense and Dieu et mon droit?

--Frania W. (talk) 19:16, 24 September 2010 (UTC)

Frania! You obviously and passionately love the French language. That's a good thing. And don't get me wrong, I too love French. It is truly a great language. I'm really looking forward to getting back to Paris soon and to brushing up. But I am not going to comment on anything here which is irrelevant to this discussion. Why not practice some empathy here and try hard to see this from the point of view of the English reader? Why not accept defeat gracefully, and move on? That's what I do when consensus goes against me. Cordially, SergeWoodzing (talk) 02:25, 25 September 2010 (UTC)

Could you please provide specific references and specific quotations? Just saying that a gigantic reference work supports your argument is not helpful. john k (talk) 04:00, 26 September 2010 (UTC)

No. There is not one instance among all the thousands of persons listed by those English-language genealogists and historians where a person of legitimate royalty is listed with a surname. In this article, I have cited a relevant example, with the page #, covering the case we are dicsussing on this page. That will have to do. SergeWoodzing (talk) 14:25, 26 September 2010 (UTC)

Is that an ukase? Will the knout [7] or the guillotine [8]be next? Vous m'en voyez terrifiée.

--Frania W. (talk) 16:06, 26 September 2010 (UTC)

Scanning the page above, I see no relevant example, and no page number, that you have ever cited. What are you talking about? Also, refusing to provide any relevant quotations from a work that you claim supports your point is deeply unimpressive. john k (talk) 01:58, 27 September 2010 (UTC)

My opinion is that some royalty have had surnames and others haven't. Those who believe they have not tend to do so, in my personal opinion, for philosophical rather than political reasons: they consider royalty is or was above the use of surnames, therefore part of their definition of royalty is that they have no surnames -- any evidence to the contrary is dismissed. This argument, then, becomes reduced eventually to "Unless you can show me a quote in a reputable English-language source which says exactly 'Y is the surname of members of the Royal Family of X'" they will refuse to consider your evidence as adequate proof. This is like saying, "Unless you can show me a reputable, English-language source which says exactly that 'George Washington's surname was Washington', you have not proved it was his surname." Since such precise language is rarely if ever encountered, the opponents to "royal surnames" are fairly safe that their POV cannot be refuted -- and they will continue to include it in Wikipedia. FactStraight (talk) 01:42, 27 September 2010 (UTC)

Well put. john k (talk) 01:58, 27 September 2010 (UTC)

Not so in fact. This: "they consider royalty is or was above the use of surnames, therefore part of their definition of royalty is that they have no surnames" is just about about as irrelevant and speculative a way of trying to belittle, trivialize and ridicule people, who know what they are talking about, as I have ever seen. How insulting! Even the most rabid republican anti-monarchist, who is knowledgeable about these things, would be surprised at such a fantastic accusation.

I am an elderly person who has dealt with the subject of royalty since my teens. I have never met or dealt with any such ignorant person as those ("they") described in the "personal opinion" cited above. I might add (though it is totally irrelevant) that am not a royalist.

If users FactStraight and john k are to be considered greater experts than Burke's Peerage and Debrett's on this, they will have to publish their real names and credentials as references here so I can concede defeat. I will gladly do so if that is the case. That would be impressive. In the meantime, for the sake of impressing our readers here with facts (I believe that's the main thing), I cordially suggest, for the third time now, that we go with Burke's and Debrett's on this. Their expertise is impressive. Not heeding it would be truly unimpressive.

And how about let's just discuss this article and have your extended debate about surnames elsewhere! So, as for the page number john k can't find, here it is. It has been cited at the top of the article, re: this subject person's name, for several days now. SergeWoodzing (talk) 12:46, 27 September 2010 (UTC)

You have yet to demonstrate that Burke's and Debrett's say anything of the kind. That Burkes's entry on Marie Clotilde does not give her a surname is also not evidence that she doesn't have one. You need to find an explicit discussion somewhere that says that royalty don't have surnames, or, in this specific, case, that the royal house of France did not have surnames. Velde's site, which is normally very reliable, effectively says that fils and filles de France had "de France" as their family or last name. For example, "A son of France was born de France: all his descendants, however, had his main title (whether an apanage or a courtesy title) as their family or last name." and "Although the king of France had no family name, and his children were born "de France", there was a sense in which a certain house was on the throne." So - kings of France, no family name; fils and filles de France - family name "de France"; other princes of the blood - apanage or courtesy title of their ancestor. This seems far more helpful to me than some vague references to Burke's and Debrett's. Does Debrett's even deal with continental royalty? john k (talk) 13:57, 27 September 2010 (UTC)

I have now clarified the validity of ref 1 and added a new ref 2 (Debrett's) - that's all I "need to" do here to fit the bill at hand, besides (1) object to any assertion that an amateur genealogist such as François Velde can compete as a WP source with the two academic specialists I have cited, who are known and respected worldwide by anyone who knows what they are talking about (and asking!) in matters such as this, and (2) apologize sincerely to anybody whose feathers I have ruffled without ever meaning to do so. Recommending cordially that anyone still interested read the closing comment that Seven Letters made at 17:25 on 22 September 2010 in the section just above, that's all I have here. SergeWoodzing (talk) 17:02, 27 September 2010 (UTC)

You are completely and utterly full of it. I just paged through Burke's and Debrett's Peerage guides in the library. They do not list the surnames of most people. The surname is given once, and then for everybody else it is just assumed, so you get things like the first child of the current early being listed as "Lady Susan Elizabeth", with no last name. john k (talk) 18:15, 27 September 2010 (UTC)

BTW, while browsing Burke's and Debrett's, I came upon a volume from 1873 which was essentially a list, with short biographies, of the various members of the Order of the Holy Spirit. Names on the list would generally take a form along the lines of:

René de ROCHECHOUART, baron de Mortemart, seigneur de Montpipeau, de Tonnay-Charente, de Vivonne et de Lussac, etc. etc.

The last name in capital letters. For fils de France, the format used is

Gaston-Jean-Baptiste de FRANCE, duc d’Orléans, de Chartres, de Valois et d’Alençon, pair de France, etc. etc.

"France" is clearly treated as their surname in exactly the same manner that "Rochechouart" is the other guy's surname. The Bourbon-Condés and Contis are "de BOURBON;" the Orléans are "d'ORLÉANS." I don't see how this is distinguishable from a surname. john k (talk) 22:17, 27 September 2010 (UTC)

I don't know, John. Do they give the same treatment (WALES, UNITED KINGDOM, etc) for others families? At the most, we can say Bourbon and Orléans represent families the same way Kent, York, etc do. Seven Letters 22:46, 27 September 2010 (UTC)

It's a book of Knights of the Holy Spirit. Almost every member is French, and all are Catholic. In paging through it, the only non-French people I recall were one duke of Mecklenburg-Schwerin (I think), who was at Christian Louis, duc de MECKLENBOURG-SCHWERIN, or some such; and several Spanish infants, who were not given a capitalized family name that I remember (It was just "Louis-Antoine-Jacques, enfant d'Espagne," iirc. "de FRANCE," on the other hand, was treated exactly like all the other surnames. john k (talk) 04:06, 28 September 2010 (UTC)

Surnames are always given in the works of Burke's and Debrett's if they differ from the father's. The father's name in this case clearly ends with "of France", whether or not that should be considered a surname. There is now a markedly offensive, uncivil tone and wording being hurled at me, obviously with the intent of insulting me. That is not allowed in editing WP, as far as I know, and editors that are intentionally insulting should be blocked, shouldn't they? Not to mention editors who remove valid references citing excellent, modern sources? Why on earth should we use name lists in French from 1873, when French was used, rather than highly respected work in English from 1977 and 1986? SergeWoodzing (talk) 23:29, 27 September 2010 (UTC)

Monsieur Woodzing, you wrote:" Why on earth should we use name lists in French from 1873, when French was used, rather than highly respected work in English from 1977 and 1986?" Could it be because the article concerns French royalty, the subject of which the French author knew pretty well?

As for being offended at the "uncivil tone", I could point out to you several instances where you have not been too tender either, one in particular where you refer to me (?) as "the worst nightmare in your life". I shall be kind & not direct you to said paid compliment.

--Frania W. (talk) 00:25, 28 September 2010 (UTC)

You continue to cite Debrett's and Burke's as proving that French royalty don't have surnames, when they do nothing of the kind. You are engaging in blatant OR here, interpreting the use or lack of use of surnames in these sources as somehow proving that French royalty don't have surnames. You acknowledge, however, that neither of these sources addresses the issue specifically. We have various sources (Velde, the Encyclopédie) which specifically state that French royalty bore the surname "de France"; these sources may not be perfect, but all you have to oppose them with is your interpretation of the way people's names are listed in some English peerage guides. And then you keep repeatedly insisting on how strongly these sources make your case, when they don't actually address the issue directly at all. john k (talk) 04:06, 28 September 2010 (UTC)

I have one question: What allows anyone to declare that Burke's Peerage[9] is more authoritative than Diderot's Encyclopédie[10] & François Ier Ordonnance de Villers-Cotterêts[11] on the adoption of nom de famille in France?

Found in the Berkeley Library Research Tools for French Studies here[12], among the works listed as "tool":

Encyclopédie nouvelle, ou dictionnaire philosophique, scientifique ..., by P. Leroux,J. Reynaud

In Volume 3 at page 27 begins the article on the Maison de Bourbon which develops into the Maison de France, with list of kings, marriage, children etc.

In several discussions, this one included, I have brought facsimile of documents such as register of marriage, baptism, where the surname "de France" appears.

• http://www.larousse.fr/encyclopedie/media/Acte_de_bapt%C3%AAme_de_Louis_Charles_de_France_/11018532]

Many of these documents are to be found in the archives of Notre-Dame church in Versailles (the parish to which the château de Versailles was attached), the municipal archives of Versailles, the archives of the département des Yvelines, of which Versailles is the préfecture, the Archives nationales de France, none of which, I believe, are considered to be fly-by-night "blogs", to which François Velde's Heraldica is so contemptuously compared. I have a simple question: why are these documents either ignored or rejected?

Online, one can find the mémoires de Marie-Thérèse-Charlotte de France, [13] with several of her letters, which signed either "Marie-Thérèse", "Marie-Thérèse de France", "Marie-Thérèse-Charlotte" or "Marie-Thérèse-Charlotte de France". She was baptised "Marie-Thérèse-Charlotte de France" - first line on her baptismal register.

All this to say that I personally believe the kings, queens, princes, princesses, dukes & duchesses of France, who signed documents where their names were inscribed, do not need the author of an English Peerage to tell them whether they had a nom de famille or not.

And again, England is England, France is France, and what applied in the past or applies now to one country does not necessarily apply to the other. They, the Brits, speak English & drive on the left. We, the French, speak French & drive on the right.

--Frania W. (talk) 00:25, 28 September 2010 (UTC)

Requested move 11 November 2018

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 section.

The result of the move request was: moved per request. Favonian (talk) 22:01, 18 November 2018 (UTC)

---

Clotilde of France, Queen of Sardinia → Clotilde of France – Per WP:NCROY as well as WP:CONCISE and WP:PRECISE. "Queen of Sardinia" would only be needed if there were another Clotilde of France, but this one seems to be the only French princess named Clotilde. Surtsicna (talk) 22:41, 11 November 2018 (UTC)

• Support if there isn't any other (notable) Clotilde of France. --Woofboy (talk) 04:12, 12 November 2018 (UTC)
• Support, as it is inline with the name form for consorts; if there is another Clothilde of France, she can be named Clotilde of France (1759-1802). --Aciram (talk) 13:58, 12 November 2018 (UTC)
• Support No other article with a similar name. No disambiguation needed. Dimadick (talk) 15:33, 12 November 2018 (UTC)

---

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page or in a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.