Jump to content

Talk:Jean, Count of Paris

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

duc or Duc de Vendôme?

[edit]

The article title is duc de Vendôme, but it references his title as Duc de Vendôme. Which is correct? ~Geaugagrrl talk 03:20, 29 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

None of them, it is "Duke", since this is the English language Wikipedia. Duke is a proper translation of the title "Duc" without any loss of translation. Demophon (talk) 10:30, 4 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Move to Jean d'Orléans

[edit]

New York Times gives him as "Jean d'Orléans". So does Paris Match here and here. No one else is calling him "Prince Jean, Duke of Vendôme". Given name only is royal style and every RS is including a surname. Kauffner (talk) 12:33, 23 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

And in all three it gives his ducal title which you removed..... - dwc lr (talk) 14:49, 23 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
You must know why. It is not part of the most common version of his name, nor is it a legally recognized title of nobility. Paris Match introduces him as "Jean d'Orléans" and gives "duc de Vendôme" in the following sentence. Kauffner (talk) 02:32, 24 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
This sounds like cherry-picking based on IDONTLIKEIT. If all three references accord him both name and title, on what rationale is one being preferred and the other omitted, since we give both for peers? Where is it stated that "given name only is royal style"? Since when are WP bios supposed to be named according to "legal titles"? Why accuse others of making up a naming format ("These are what, titles that you just made up for him?") -- then do exactly that yourself? FactStraight (talk) 12:42, 25 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I didn't make up "Jean d'Orleans". It is what the New York Times calls him. On French Wiki, he is fr:Jean d'Orléans (1965). Whether he is a peer or not is another issue. In peer format, he would get a surname. So the current title is not in peer format either. Kauffner (talk) 15:32, 25 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose Although I would prefer people be just referred to by their princely title or by their substantive/ducal titles (eg Prince Jean of Orléans OR Jean, Duke of Vendôme) Seven Letters 17:24, 23 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

These are what, titles that you just made up for him? And you were complaining when I translated the titles used by the French press. Either title you suggest is better than the current title, which is quite artificial -- and in a style that may be unique to Wikipedia. Kauffner (talk) 19:10, 23 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Those are French descriptions of what he is which you did not translate (d'Orléans). If he is better known as the Duke of Vendôme then there is no need for Orléans. Seven Letters 20:31, 23 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
What makes you think that he is better known as "duke of Vendôme"? Even if he was, we do not have biography titles in the format "Duke of Foo", not even Duke of Wellington. Kauffner (talk) 01:29, 24 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
At what point did I claim he was... And you're totally getting it wrong. My statement was about Jean, Duke of Vendôme vs Prince Jean of Orléans. Seven Letters 14:04, 24 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose There is a hodge-podge of personal preferences attempting to be substituted in here as a new policy based on a single IDONTLIKEIT objection to titles for persons who hail from what are now republics. According noble-sounding titles to members of the Capetian dynasty is a very old practice that the family has consistently adhered to whether on or off the throne of France -- and which pre-dates modern journalism and encyclopedias but has been reflected in them more often than not, e.g. every one of the sons of King Louis Philippe I during his reign, and every one of his male-line grandsons after his dynasty had been deposed. Nor have such titles always been "legal" in order to be conferred or publicly recognized: the basic title for the Legitimist pretender, Duc d'Anjou, derives from that title being accorded Philippe de Bourbon prior to his becoming king of Spain in 1700. Some titles used by the House of Orléans are legally theirs (Duc d'Orléans), others not (Comte de Paris; so do you want to retroactively de-title the late Prince Henri, Count of Paris and make Wikipedia a laughing stock?). The princely prefix is allowed precisely to prevent a concern you claim to have: confusion that "Duke of Vendôme" is a noble title one would expect to follow French nobiliary rules. It is duly noted that you personally object to members of deposed dynasties being accorded extra-legal, noble-sounding titles. But given that they have long been and continue to be accorded such titles in RS, may we please move on? This article name adheres to the long-standing and carefully evolved format described as Point #3 at our NCROY guideline, and until consensus changes it there, so should we. FactStraight (talk) 12:42, 25 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
My view is that article titles for pretender should be the form of their names most commonly given in the media and other independent secondary sources, i.e. the same standard as the one used for non-nobles under WP:MOSBIO. To argue that a certain title is "substantive" makes a judgement concerning its validity. I can bestow titles on my family just as easily as these pretenders can name their children dukes of Anjou, princes of Russia, and whatnot. Of course, the Orleanists are at least minor celebrities in France. But Wiki treats various obscure claimants the same way. Kauffner (talk) 20:22, 25 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, anyone can attempt to pass off fabricated titles as bona fide -- and it's often done, see Anna Anderson, Maria Pia de Saxe-Coburgo e Bragança, Karl Wilhelm Naundorff, Alexis Brimeyer, Michel Roger Lafosse, and we even have a character who, on and off Wikipedia, has been daring folks to prove he is not genuinely Prinz Karl Friedrich von Deutschland for years. But eventually editorial diligence discovers that such characters are not so styled in RS once their background has been probed, whereupon their claims are debunked, and the article is re-titled accordingly. Your apparent desire to cast into the "royal impostor" pot people whom RS repeatedly verify are heads of formerly reigning families, about whom the information published has generally been accurate and verifiable, and some of whom are at various times the objects of significant attention from adherents, media, the public, historians or officialdom because of the historical legacy they incarnate, would compel us to ignore the distinction between pretenders and impostors. While I think I understand that you consider that distinction inappropriate, apparently as a matter of law, and you have every right to do so -- that doesn't quell the sources -- from Burke's British Royal Family to the Almanach de Gotha, to occasional coverage in serious newspapers, journals and books -- which keep telling those of us who edit and read such articles otherwise. BTW, WP doesn't define a substantive title as such because someone has judged it as "valid", but because it is used in the real world in a way that distinguishes it from the way other kinds of titles are used. And yes, people sometimes disagree about that -- as about everything else. I suppose that's why we have talk pages. FactStraight (talk) 21:06, 25 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
That someone is recognized as head of a house by Gotha or whoever can certainly be mentioned in the article. If someone is given in the RS as "Apple CEO" or with some other non-noble title, we don't add that to his article title. I don't see a reason to treat a title differently simply because it is in the form of a title of nobility. And I don't see any RS that gives the subject here without a surname. Kauffner (talk) 05:29, 26 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
As far as the "legitimists" go, when legitimist pretender Count of Chambord died, he made the Orleanist pretender his successor. Or least that's the way the issue is generally understood in France. The various Spanish nobles who have claimed to be kings of France have never made any headway in France itself. If anything, Louis Alphonse gets better coverage in English than in French. In short, the "duke of Anjou" title is just one step away from Emperor Norton territory. Kauffner (talk) 01:03, 27 August 2011 (UTC) Kauffner (talk) 01:03, 27 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
On the contrary, if anything Legitimists are enjoying something of a revival in monarchist circles -- which, perhaps, explains why Louis Alphonse, Duke of Anjou draws what you (and, frankly, I) consider to be an inexplicably large number of hits on his Wikipedia article. As for success in claiming exclusive use of the term "legitimist" in French politics -- and in the English language -- that precise point was the subject of at least one forum discussion when the Orleanist "Queen Mother", the Comtesse de Paris died -- all meticulously documented to reliable sources -- in English! FactStraight (talk) 01:42, 27 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 4 external links on Prince Jean, Duke of Vendôme. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 05:50, 20 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

A Commons file used on this page has been nominated for deletion

[edit]

The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page has been nominated for deletion:

Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. —Community Tech bot (talk) 22:52, 21 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Commoner wife.

[edit]

Why is it deleted that he is the first Orleans head whose heir is a son of a commoner mother? --Yomal Sidoroff-Biarmskii (talk) 11:38, 22 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]


I'm afraid you are mistaken. His mother is Duchess Marie-Thérèse of Württemberg. CSBurksesq (talk) 16:27, 22 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, his inquiry is about the new head of the House of Orléans, Prince Jean, Duke of Vendôme, who is married to a commoner and whose eldest son is thus "son of a commoner mother". I think it would be odd to mention this in regard to the heir, rather than in regard to the new French pretender himself, who made the choice to deviate from his dynasty's tradition. He was, as the article notes, first engaged to a princess, but he broke it off and waited several years before marrying another woman. While I imagine that he is simply following the example of his relatives who actually occupy thrones, almost all of whom now marry commoners, he is deviating from a tradition (it never became a law, as in many European monarchies) in the Capetian dynasty that dates back to at least 1692 (when Jean's ancestor, the 2nd Duke d'Orléans was forced to marry the illegitimate daughter of the Sun-King Louis XIV. Before and since then, I can recall no Head of the House of Orléans or male-line ancestor of a French king back 1,000 years who is known to have married a commoner. FactStraight (talk) 08:10, 23 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
He broke off his first engagement because his first fiancee was a Protestant, correct? Basically, as far as I know, it was believed by Jean's father Henri, Count of Paris (1933-2019) that marrying Protestant royalty would undermine the Orleanists' claim to the French throne more than marrying a Catholic commoner would. After all, there was a long history of French monarchs being Catholic (Henry IV of France even had to convert to Catholicism before his claim to the French throne would actually be accepted by the Parisians); in contrast, as you said, unlike in some other European countries, the concept of a morganatic marriage never actually existed in France and thus in theory French male royalty were always able to marry commoners and still have their male children be princes du sang. Futurist110 (talk) 02:09, 4 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Anyway, I have now double-checked and it appears that Jean's wife (or second fiancee) is actually of (minor?) nobility, being related to Jean through some distant 16th century Czech noble ancestor! Futurist110 (talk) 02:12, 4 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Ah. I misread. I thought he was talking about Prince Jean's mother. CSBurksesq (talk) 15:04, 23 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Not yet Count of Paris

[edit]

The communiqué previously cited [1] does NOT say that Prince Jean is assuming the title of Count of Paris (just that he has buried his father). I've reverted the move. Rosbif73 (talk) 12:30, 3 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

The communiqué is signed "Jean, Comte de Paris". Noel S McFerran (talk) 02:49, 4 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Ah, that was hidden by the way the tweet was displayed in the article. FWIW, his official site has the full communiqué [2] including an English translation. However, despite perusing numerous press articles, I can't find a single source, in French or in English, that actually refers to him as Count of Paris. It seems to me to be rather tenuous to move this article and use the title purely on the basis of a signature. Rosbif73 (talk) 10:14, 4 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
A few secondary sources in French have appeared; hopefully English sources will follow. I've moved the page accordingly. Rosbif73 (talk) 16:43, 4 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Semi-Protection?

[edit]

I wonder if this article should go under Semi-Protection status. It seems to be the only way to stop this person, whoever he/she is, from editing the page (which are always the same edits and not constructive; just semantics). Every day I check my email and see someone, from a different IP address, has made the same revision over and over. CSBurksesq (talk) 23:56, 24 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

It seems to me that the criteria on Wikipedia:Rough guide to semi-protection are met, yes. I've submitted a semi-protection request. Rosbif73 (talk) 07:54, 25 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Titles

[edit]

@FactStraight: The previous source for Jean's titulature, la-couronne.org, doesn't verify that HRH is his new style, whereas the source now added, Montjouvent, states on p.13, "Le chef de la Maison royale de France porte le titre de 'Monseigneur' et son épouse celui de 'Madame', sans prédicat d'altesse royale."

Does the source say anything about the style and title of heirs? It seems totally illogical that prior to his father's death Jean would have been entitled to HRH, but then become a "mere" Monseigneur on acceding as head of house. I suspect that part of the issue is a difference between the title actually used as a pretender and the titles to which he would have been entitled as King of France. Presumably at least some Orléanists try to apply the latter. Indeed I suspect that "fils de France, and "dauphin de France" given on the French wikipedia page, fall into the latter category too. Does the reference have anything to say on the matter? Rosbif73 (talk) 08:11, 25 February 2019

I have seen other members of the House of Orleans referred to as Monseigneur, Charles Philippe d'Orleans, for example (this was some months ago on his Facebook page). Charles Philippe also has the style of HRH, and the late Count of Paris's Twitter handle was SARcomtedeparis. "SAR" is the French version of HRH. It seems to me that monseigneur is more of a spoken style, while the official one is HRH.
For these reasons, I generally prefer the return to the HRH. CSBurksesq (talk) 16:46, 25 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Monseigneur is roughly equivalent to "Sire", so it's hardly surprising that many nobles are referred to with that style. Charles Philippe d'Orleans's page says that as a grandson of the former head of house, he takes the traditional royal rank of petit-fils de France with the style of Royal Highness and cites Le Petit Gotha (which also doesn't seem to be available online). I also note that {{French Royal Family (Orléanist)}} has HRH for the whole immediate family (but has no citations). I would be strongly tempted to put HRH back into this artice for Jean's current title, primarily for consistency reasons, until or unless we can resolve the issue of inconsistent sources. Rosbif73 (talk) 17:08, 25 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
That is what I'd recommend. CSBurksesq (talk) 21:00, 25 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I have always understood that in post-monarchy France, "Monseigneur" is the correct style for the French pretender (whether legitimist or Orléanist), while HRH is correct for other members of the pretender's family, except his wife who is "Madame". "Monseigneur" is both a form of address in the second-person (e.g., "Welcome, Monseigneur, to our home") and an honorific for reference in the third-person (e.g. "Monseigneur thanked me for the letter I sent him." "Madame honoured me with a visit the last time she was in London"). Montjouvent confirms this usage, and it is reflected in our article on Monseigneur. Thus in post-monarchy France, "Monseigneur" is not a lower style than HRH, but is the usual style for the head of house, while HRH is used by default for all royals when one does not know the proper style. I don't see an inconsistency with this practice in the cited sources. FactStraight (talk) 01:55, 26 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for that explanation. Rosbif73 (talk) 07:16, 26 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I made a correction. The article previously stated that Jean was "Dauphin." This is patently false. Jean's son, Gaston, is Dauphin. The Dauphin is the heir to the throne, not the pretender himself. https://web.archive.org/web/20190711165734/https://www.la-couronne.org/la-famille-royale-de-france/ CSBurksesq (talk) 01:49, 29 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

full name

[edit]

Hello

I see that Jean-Carl's name is written "Jean Charles Pierre Marie d’Orléans", but his name is actually Jean-Carl Pierre Marie d’Orléans c.f. fr:Jean d'Orléans (1965), and not Jean-Charles. regards 2A01:E35:8BA5:E5B0:13D:BF5C:A377:D35D (talk) 10:50, 3 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Article title

[edit]

Should this not be moved to “Jean d’Orléans” for the same reason that the other French royal pretender was moved to Louis Alphonse de Bourbon (where Karl von Habsburg was cited as an example)? 2607:FEA8:C260:1F51:E0A7:5C1B:7FF6:D966 (talk) 15:56, 28 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@2607:FEA8:C260:1F51:E0A7:5C1B:7FF6:D966
Jean d'Orléans would be more accurate. count of Paris has no significance and is 'not legally recognized. Document02 (talk) 05:45, 4 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

"John IV of France" listed at Redirects for discussion

[edit]

An editor has identified a potential problem with the redirect John IV of France and has thus listed it for discussion. This discussion will occur at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2022 March 22#John IV of France until a consensus is reached, and readers of this page are welcome to contribute to the discussion. DrKay (talk) 07:57, 22 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Claim to the throne or defunct throne of France

[edit]

Recommend that his claim to the "throne of France", throughout the page. Be changed to the "defunct throne of France". GoodDay (talk) 17:16, 26 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose The use of the terms "claimant" and "pretender" make it pretty obvious, along with thirty seconds of research, that France is a de facto republic. The article even directly states that he met with the President of France. Inserting "defunct" is unnecessary and biased language. From a royalist POV, the throne is only "defunct" because the country is ruled by an "illegitimate" republic; thus, it is only "defunct" de facto and not de jure. Further, most French royalists reject the very idea of a the throne being vacant, since that would violate the old Fundamental Laws (this is why French pretenders continue to use regnal numbers). CSBurksesq (talk) 19:01, 26 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
There's no French throne, as there's no French monarchy. Claimants & pretenders aren't limited to former monarchies. They can also exist for current monarchies. GoodDay (talk) 21:32, 26 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
While your latter point is technically correct, it doesn't change the fact that the article makes it clear that France is a de facto (royalist POV) republic. Inserting "defunct" before every time a throne is mentioned is unnecessary, over-the-top, and likely biased. CSBurksesq (talk) 04:23, 27 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
The royalist POV does not matter in this regard, since they are a fringe group advocating extremist ideas. They're not normal. 82.34.195.252 (talk) 16:10, 13 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
POV is supposed to be neutral. That means you can't just ignore minority political factions. Whether they are a fringe group is irrelevant. The point being made is that everyone knows the throne is defunct; hence France being a republic. Your point is without merit and not germane to the subject at hand. As far as I can tell, considering you don't have an account, is that you are a troll. CSBurksesq (talk) 00:37, 14 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Jean,_Count_of_Paris&oldid=1203082142"