Talk:Louis Alphonse de Bourbon

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

Title of the article[edit]

Discussion[edit]

I am totally at loss why a guy who lives in Spain and uses Spanish, and on the other hand, is pretender to monarchy (in which context English name forms are used, not local languages) has this article with French name Louis-Alphonse, Duc d'Anjou. I would expect to find him under Louis Alfonso, Duke of Anjou 217.140.193.123 16:23, 25 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Or Luis-Alfonso? Morhange

This is English Wikipedia. As a French version is used of him, and a Spanish, we should choose neither of them, but use English. 217.140.193.123 08:49, 17 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I will support this move (or Louis Alphonse). The present form is also incorrect French (duc should be lower-case; cf. the French WP article); but WP:UE makes clear that it should read Duke of Anjou anyway.Septentrionalis 16:14, 17 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • Oppose - Louis Alfonso is no more "English" than Louis-Alphonse, perhaps less so. The most English form would be Lewis Alphonzo, and that's clearly absurd. We should use Duke of Anjou, cf. List of Counts and Dukes of Anjou, WP:UE. It is most consistent with use elsewhere in WP to use non-English versions of royal names in circumstances like this one where the name is not particularly in use in English (cf. Alfonso, where numerous Alphonses, Affonsos, and Alfonsos are listed). This applies even more so to a name which is double. In addition, both Luis Alfonso and Louis-Alphonse are much more common in English than Louis Alfonso. Google gives 243 hits for "Louis-Alphonse"+ pretender -Wikipedia [1], 736 hits for "Luis Alfonso" + pretender -Wikipedia [2], and only 30 for "Louis Alfonso" + pretender -Wikipedia [3], many of which also contain Louis-Alphonse. The page should be either at Luis Alfonso, Duke of Anjou or Louis-Alphonse, Duke of Anjou, but not at this proposed combination name. This would be the equivalent of referring to Frederick Wilhelm III or Vittorio Emanuel! Satyadasa 14:27, 19 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Still opposed, but to the idea that he should be listed under this name at all. He has no title, and to give him a title in the article name itself is not NPOV. His father was also called Duke of Anjou by legitimists, but we have him under his given name Alfonso de Borbón Dampierre. The most famous pretenders in the English-speaking world are under James Francis Edward Stuart, Charles Edward Stuart, and Henry Benedict Stuart, not James III, Charles III and Henry IX, not the Old Pretender, the Young Pretender, and Cardinal-Duke of York; we have Clemente Domínguez y Gómez for the sedevacantist antipope Pope Gregory XVII. Of course we should have a number of redirects, including from Louis-Alphonse, Duke of Anjou, etc., just as there is already one from Louis XX, his other non-title, but his name is Luis Alfonso de Borbón y Martínez-Bordiú Satyadasa 09:18, 22 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

This is a very interesting argument, which I will have to consider. I'm not sure I understand it fully. Noone supports moving this article to Louis XX, as far as I know; and we have Philippe, Comte de Paris and many other French titles used because of grants by extinguished dynasties. Are you arguing that they should be treated by surname too? Who is Duke of Anjou, if he is not? Septentrionalis 19:53, 22 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Well, the Orléanist claimant seems to have given the title to his nephew. No one is the Duke of Anjou in the same way that someone once was the Duke of Anjou, because of course there is no French crown. Henri, Comte de Paris, Duc de France sued our subject here for using it, and lost, but not because French courts decided for the Orléanist point of view… the view seems to have been that the Fifth Republic has no jurisdiction over titles that haven't really existed since Louis-Philippe:
It is right in my opinion that all titles given only by a claimant (for example Charles Philippe d'Orléans, who got as said the Anjou title) should not be treated as "authorised" because there is obviously no french crown who could grant such titles. But titles given by a reigning monarch should be fully accepted here mainly in republics who accept noble titles as part of the name (like Germany, France..). So the title Duke of Anjou (see below) is an authorised title, because it was granted by Louis XIV for his grandchild Philip V of Spain ans has never ceased to exist (it has never merged with the french crown) and thus the eldest male descendent of Philip V (today Louis Alphonso of Bourbon, althoug it could be argued that Don Jaime disclaimed also that title and thus Juan Carlos I of Spain is Duke of Anjou, but I have never read that this was the case, he only disclaimed his rights on the spanish crown) has the right to legally hold this title. (Xerxes M.F. 27.8.2006)
L'irrecevabilité tiendrait dans cette optique à l'inexistence du titre de Duc d'Anjou. Les plaideurs se battraient pour rien. (The inadmissibility is accordingly due to the non-existence of the title Duke of Anjou. The litigants fight for nothing). [4].
Of course, this means that moves of a number of other pages would be in order, not because the French state says there are no titles, but because it's not NPOV to use the titles in the title of the page where there is controversy. No one else but Franz could claim to be Duke of Bavaria. Satyadasa 10:14, 24 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
The second choice (in Satyadasa's original post) should be Louis Alphonse, Duke of Anjou; when French names are Englished, the hyphens are dropped. I would agree to that; I proposed Louis Alfonso because it appeared to be the most popular in the pre-existing discussion. WP:RM could be clearer. Septentrionalis 18:09, 19 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
The hyphen should stay: Louis-Philippe of France, Louis-Antoine, Duke of Angoulême, Prince Ferdinand-Philippe of France. Create a disambiguation page for those who assume no hyphen. The hyphen will not confuse anyone, and it is used in English, for contemporary Francophones: Jean Michel Jarre, those with French-derived names: Jean-Michel Basquiat, and even in English names: Mary-Kate Olsen. The hyphen is English, and the article should be Louis-Alphonse, Duke of Anjou Satyadasa 02:14, 21 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Support but I prefer a redirect from the old one still. Louis-Alphonse is named thus because he is the pretender to the French throne by the Legitimists and Anjou is in France. He is not Spanish because he had been denied his right to the Spanish throne by his grandfather. English, though, would make the most sense since this is and English encyclopedia. His titles can be displayed after his English name. My final conclusion is that Louis Alphonse, Duke of Anjou is the most logical and most in line with other similar French names.
--Whaleyland 03:17, 21 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • Oppose If that's the title he is known under, keep it that way. There is no need to translate everything into english. Gryffindor 23:47, 22 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • Actually, the French form is Louis-Alphonse, duc d'Anjou (note lower case). See the French wikipedia, linked to from main page. And why not follow WP:UE? Septentrionalis 16:42, 24 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
      • Actually, the French WP uses Louis de Bourbon (1974-)[5]
        • So it does; I'm not sure whether it moved or whether I checked another Duke of Anjou. For the point of usage, however, see the text of fr:Liste des comtes et ducs d'Anjou and fr:Jean Ier de Bourgogne. Septentrionalis 19:24, 25 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
          • That's an inconsistency on the French WP. fr:Liste des comtes et ducs d'Anjou lists the claimant dukes under Titres de courtoisie, but fr:Titre de noblesse makes it clear that accepted titles are ones that have been recognized by the Third, Fourth, and Fifth Republics, and these are usually rather less grandiose titles, like Marquis de Montalembert than these claimants to the throne take, and are not and have not been recognized by the French state. Also note again the legal dispute above. If we use his legal name and point to it through all sorts of disambigs, we will be more consistent than if we choose any of these variants Satyadasa 20:37, 26 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
            • You mistake the point under discussion here, which is simply that Louis-Alphonse, Duc d'Anjou, with a capital D is flat wrong in either language. Septentrionalis 20:44, 26 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
              • Of course it should be Duke of Anjou, the question is whether or not that title should be in the title at all. Why change it to this if it would be better to change it to something else that would both be more correct and avoid the language issue altogether? Satyadasa 21:44, 26 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Consensus[edit]

There are four questions here, and seven editors:

  1. First Name
    • One suggestion of Luis, otherwise Louis.
  2. Hyphen
    • Two for, four against
  3. Second name
    • Two for Alfonso; otherwise Alphonse. I would tolerate Alfonso if it made consensus; but I don't prefer it, and Satyadasa's argument of consistency should be considered.
  4. Title
    • Four for Duke of Anjou, one for no title, one for Duc d'Anjou [sic].

Is Louis Alphonse, Duke of Anjou consensus out of all this?

Note: the question is not, "is that right?"; this is, "would you, as a neutral closer, close that way?"

  • I Support the name Louis Alphonse, Duke of Anjou as the official Wikipedia page title, with the others acting as redirects.
    --Whaleyland 21:20, 24 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose — seven editors throwing out at least a dozen different possibilities for his name is not a consensus. Satyadasa 11:22, 25 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support I think it shows consensus on each point separately, and there is no objection (so far) of inconsistency. Septentrionalis 19:19, 25 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • LOUIS ALFONSO He was named Louis after the French Kings, and Alfonso after Alfonso XIII, King of Spain. Since they are usually called Louis and Alfonso in English, that is what he should be called. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 208.87.248.162 (talk) 21:41, 23 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Discision[edit]

Page moved. Ryan Norton T | @ | C 01:25, 15 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Morganatic marriage[edit]

According to the article concerning his father, Louis-Alphonse was born into a morganatic marriage. So, how can he rightfully claim the French throne? --Anglius 20:21, 17 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, France has never been keen on enforcing the status loss in that way. Earlier French dynasts have married under high aristocracy, and it did not hinder their descendants' succession rights. Morganatic marriage is very much a German concept. Shilkanni 11:24, 2 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Please explain this to me: since his parents marriage was annulled, why is he still considered to be the legitimate heir?

Annulment does not always (and now rarely does) result in the illegitimacy of a child. Charles 21:49, 15 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
He was born a legitimate child, during the period the marriage was legitimate. Changes afterwards in the marriage situation does not affect this. Stijn Calle 12:47, 17 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

HRH in opening line.[edit]

I am not sure why Terrence Darnell thinks removing HRH from the opening line of this article constitutes vandalism. Certainly, the Wikipedia:Manual of Style (biographies) under the heading Honorific prefixes states: "(3) Styles shall not be used to open articles on royalty and popes. Thus the article on Pope Benedict XVI shall not begin 'His Holiness Pope Benedict XVI . . . ' nor the article on Queen Victoria begin 'Her Majesty Queen Victoria . . .'" It would appear beyond dispute that this article should not begin with HRH which, according to wikipedia, stands for "His Royal Highness." I also note that the HRH was removed from this article previously and then reinstated by someone. Is there some type of campaign to promote this person? Whatever the case, HRH in the opening lines is clearly against Wikipedia style guidelines. Accordingly, I am removing the HRH.

--ThomasK107 07:00, 15 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The vandalism was not in removing HRH from the opening line of the article, but it was in the multiple lies full of hate written by the IP 205.188.116.130 in his/her edit [6].

--Terence Darnell 19:56, 15 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think the following sentence should be included in the article: "He is recognised as His Royal Highness by the French Minister of Justice." Nobility titles ("comte", "duc",...) are only recognized by the French Republic as a part of the name (and included as such on official documents), but "H.R.H" is not one of those titles. Refer to this offical court transcript of a dispute between two former pretendants to the throne: http://www.heraldica.org/topics/france/proces2.htm, and note that "Son Altesse Royale" (His Royal Highness) never appears in the document.

Mrglass123 (talk) 00:37, 25 November 2007 (UTC)mrglass123[reply]

I have no evidence regarding Louis Alphonse himself - which is why today I added the {{Fact}} tag. However, in the case of his father, uncle, and grandmother, it is certain that they are/were recognised with the style "Son Altesse Royale" by the French Republic. "S.A.R." appears on the French national identity cards of all three. Noel S McFerran (talk) 01:23, 25 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
What do you mean exactly by "recognised"? Except this possible mention on their identity card (themselves less official than the 'Etat-civil' anyway), this title certainly never appears on official documents or laws. Again, refer to the court transcript linked above, during this dispute between two would-be-Kings, never once is SAR (HRH) used. Saying he is "recognised" as "His Royal Highness" by the State also implies that royalty still has a place in the French legal system, which is obviously false.
"Recognised" means that the HRH style is used by the French Republic on a legal document that it issues for the purpose identification of individuals. You cannot "except this possible mention on their identity card": that is to ignore the kind of act on the part of the French Republic that is intended and is accepted as the nation's legal designation for French residents and/or citizens. It need not be the only designation which the Republic uses in order for it to be an official and/or legal designation. Howsoever "obviously false" it may appear for the French Republic to recognise "royalty", if in fact the Republic does so -- it does so. The court's ruling on the Anjou vs Orleans lawsuit does accord the title of "Prince" to parties of the suit, even if not HRH. But given that neither's princely title derives from any non-French fount of honour, how is that usage any less indicative of their "royalty" than HRH? Until 1950, the heads of France's former reigning dynasties and their heirs were banished from the Republic. That law was enforced by expelling some of those persons from French soil several times since the 1880s. That law and each enforcement thereof constituted "recognition" of royalty -- the more so because the reason for the banishment was those dynasties' potential for arousing public repudiation of the republic and restoration of monarchy. French law does not deny the existence of "royalty", only of monarchy. At the moment. Lethiere (talk) 08:27, 8 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Well this definition of "recognised" is far-fetched at best. Unless you can prove Louis Alphonse has special "royal" powers or rights recognized by the French Republic, I will edit the page to clarify the amount of "recognition" he has: a possible title on his Identity Card (a fact that still has not been proven in the citations). In particular, if you have any evidence of current French laws barring his family from France, then again please provide a proof; but I don't think any such law still existsMrglass123 (talk) 01:56, 12 December 2007 (UTC)Mrglass123[reply]

Chambord is a place[edit]

Just for the record:

  • Chambord is a place and NOT a person.
  • Henri Comte de Chambord/Henry Count of Chambord or Comte de Chambord/Count of Chambord or Henri/Henry are/were persons.

Str1977 (smile back) 08:00, 4 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Chambord is a place and a person. "Comte de Chambord" can legitimately be shortened to "Chambord." A good percentage of British peers' peerage titles are places, but we still call them "Norfolk," "Castlereagh," "Salisbury," and so forth. john k 12:44, 4 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
John is correct. Particularly with individuals such as the Count of Chambord, the use of the territorial designation to refer to the person itself is not uncommon. Charles 20:34, 4 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]


Genealogical confusion[edit]

It is my understanding that the French crown cannot be inherited through the female line, yet it appears that Louis Alphonse descends from Louis XIV through Queen Isabella II of Spain. Either I'm mistaken about something, or some French legitimists have been looking the other way from their own principles....Anyway, the article could use clarification of this point. Kevin Nelson 09:36, 17 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, this principle is called Agnatic succession (See Salic law). It means succession to the throne going to an agnate of the predecessor; for example, a brother, a son, or nearest male relative through male line (collateral agnate branches, for example cousins, very distant cousins included). Chief forms are agnatic seniority and agnatic primogeniture. The latter, which has been the most usual, means succession going to the eldest son of the monarch; if the monarch had no sons, the throne would pass to the nearest male relative through male line. Stijn Calle 18:36, 17 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
In the 1870s the rival Orleanist and Legitimist claimants agreed, for the sake of the French Monarchy, to end their rivalry. The comte de Paris accepted the prior claim to the throne of the comte de Chambord. Chambord, who remained childless, in turn acknowledged that the comte de Paris would claim the right to succeed him as heir. Since then, a new rift between Legitimists and Orleanist originated, which exists untill today. However, the more ardent Legitimists argued that the renunciation of the French throne by Philip V of Spain, second grandson of Louis XIV, was invalid, and that in 1883 the throne had passed to his male heirs, as follows:
So, to answer your question, Isabella (so called II) of Spain, comes into it, because she married Francis of Spain, and he was the male primogeniture of the Bourbons, and so his male descendants (which are also the descendants of Isabella), were rightfully pretender (not hers), i.c. Alphonse I, king of France. Stijn Calle 18:44, 17 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for the quick and informative response! I would like to suggest that some more of the information you give above could be put in the article. This raises another question, though. If Louis Alphonse's claim to the French throne rests on the theory that one cannot renounce a royal inheritance for one's descendants, then it seems one could argue that Louis Alphonse's own grandfather could not have properly renounced the Spanish throne...and Louis Alphonse has just as good a claim to the Spanish throne as to the French--maybe even better! Incidentally, did Alphonso XIII of Spain ever make any sort of claim on the French throne as the above list indicates he could have? It is certainly news to me that _anyone_ ever considered him as a French royal claimant. Kevin Nelson 16:48, 18 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
1. Alphonse I of France did claim to be the legitime pretender to the French throne.
2. Within the salic law, if a male primogeniture pretender renounces, he only renounces for himself on a personnal level. If his renouncement would automatically mean a renouncement of his male heirs, this would de facto change the system, which cannot be allowed. So the bloodline continues with the next male primogeniture. And therefore Jacques II of France / Henry VI of France could not renounce for his male children on June 23 1933. He only renounced for himself. So H.R.H. Louis XX de France indeed got a claim to the Spanish throne that is superior to the actual, constitutional, (so called) king Juan Carlos. But as far as I know he has never publicly stated this claim. Problably for tacticle reasons in order not to 'insult' the other branch. It is a fact that they never accepted the declaration of Philip V of Spain, that one person could never be king of Spain and France at the same time. Stijn Calle 18:24, 18 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Correction. H.R.H. Louis Alphonse has also got a (theoretical) claim, besides to the French throne, to the Spanish throne. But I do not think he transformed this theoretical claim into a practical claim, in order not to threaten his theoretical and practicle claim to the French throne. There could be a possibility of invalidity perhaps if the two thrones were to be combined in one head. Stijn Calle 14:22, 25 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The Spanish and French thrones are two different kingdoms. While France does not allow the renunciation of succession rights for one's descendants, Spain does. Prince Louis' grandfather, Infante Jaime, Duke of Segovia, was a deaf-mute; some kingdoms don't like disabled people to become king.Emerson 07 (talk) 07:39, 11 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Kevin, the Utrecht renunciation is totally invalid, even a king of France cannot refuse the crown for himself, he can only refuse acting as a king, if this happened there would be a regency or any other government. King Charles X did not abdicate, he named his cousin "Lieutenant-Général du Royaume", and his cousin managed to be named "king of the French" (in this way, one can sustain it was not an usurpation, as he didn't pretend succeeding to his cousin, but instore a new monarchy; he renounced to his arms, etc. If Utrecht renunciation had been valid (what none legist admitted, I think, anyway fortunately, the États-Généraux were not called, this was a success from Louis XIV who knew that id would make any change in succession order invalid), as their text precise very clearly, all descendents of king Philip V of Spain would be excluded from the French crown. Orléans princes, as well as Napoléon princes, do descend from Philip V, so the Utrecht renunciation, if valid would exclude them too. TR, 8 June 2007

International treaties are of course valid. A king of France can perhaps not refuse the Crown, but if a person is excluded he nor his descendants an heirs can become king of France in the first place. The Peace of Utrecht continues to have historical consequences.so that is neither here nor there... Gerard von Hebel (talk) 13:38, 18 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

King of Albania[edit]

Why is Louis de Bourbon a pretender to the Albanian throne? I don't remember the House of Bourbon having reigned in Albania... (?) - Louis88 17:09, 16 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hello? - Louis88 15:13, 28 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Stijn Calle added the category. But Louis Alphonse could be the heir of the Angevin Kings of Albania who belonged to the House of Valois which was a cadet branch of the Capetian dynasty of which Louis Alphonse is the senior member. - dwc lr 15:31, 28 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Indeed, he is. Stijn Calle 16:06, 29 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
If the title of King of Albania was held by a junior branch of the family, it doesn't mean it belongs to Louis Alphonse now as head of the house. The only way is if he is a lineal representative of that particular title. Charles 00:01, 30 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

King of Jerusalem[edit]

I read that HM Juan Carlos of Spain is the Bourbon pretender to the throne of Jerusalem (see Kings of Jerusalem) - they can't be both, now which article is right? - Louis88 10:06, 27 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

If there can be more than one pretender to the throne of Jerusalem, there can be more than one Bourbon pretender to the throne. It depends upon whether one sees the claim to Jerusalem as having been permanently united to Spain. When Louis Alphonse's grandfather, Infante Jaime, Duke of Segovia, renounced Spain, did he also renounce Jerusalem? Since Jerusalem had no requirement of equal marriage (as Spain did), Jaime's son Alfonso, Duke of Anjou and Cádiz could be a dynast of Jerusalem and pass on his rights to his son Louis Alphonse. Noel S McFerran 12:49, 27 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Vandalism[edit]

This page was vandalised yesterday by an anonymous person, who wanted to discredit Louis Alphonse in an sexually offensive and graphic way. Stijn Calle 07:16, 10 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Usually when vandals do such things, they do not include an edit summary. In this case, the individual wrote, "Fixed various syntax and spelling mistakes"; this was highly misleading. Noel S McFerran 11:05, 10 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Why not use his real name[edit]

If he was born as Luis Alfonso (on his Spanish birth certificate) and on his French Identaty card states Luis Alfonso, and when he is written up in magazines as Luis Alfonso, why did we name him "Louis Alphonse"? We use Juan Carlos I and not John Charles I. Callelinea 22:12, 28 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Name and title in infobox[edit]

I'm not a proponent of using infoboxes, because their intention is to simplify matters - and in this case, simplification isn't easy or helpful. Virtually everything about Louis Alphonse's name and title is complicated. Today User:Counter-revolutionary changed the infobox entry for English name to "Louis XX, King of France". Then User:Demophon reverted it to "Louis Alphonse, Duke of Anjou". Now is the time for discussion. Noel S McFerran (talk) 20:42, 3 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The way I see it the infobox for a pretender, which this is, should refer to their title in pretence, in this case Louis XX. From what I've seen this is done in other articles, and really makes the most sense. --Counter-revolutionary (talk) 20:52, 3 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Please take another look at Template:Infobox_pretender (you have to click on "Edit" to see the whole thing). There is a field for "English name", and another for "Regnal name claimed". Then see how the template is used on the articles for Henri, comte de Paris, duc de France (Louis Alphonse's rival for France) and Alexander, Crown Prince of Yugoslavia. Noel S McFerran (talk) 14:34, 4 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Jacobin Pretender[edit]

He also is the senior Salic law succession from Charles I of England, oddly enough. The direct line has no French kings at all!

  • CHARLES I ->
  • DAUGHTER HENRIETTA ANNE OF ENGLAND ->
  • DAUGHTER ANNE MARIE OF ORLEANS ->
  • DAUGHTER MARIA LOUVISA OF SAVOY->
  • SON FERDINAND VI OF SPAIN ->
  • SON CHARLES III OF SPAIN ->
  • SON CHARLES IV OF SPAIN ->
  • SON FRANCISCO de PAULA of SPAIN ->
  • SON FRANCIS OF SPAIN ->
  • ALFONZO XII OF SPAIN ->
  • ALFONZO XIII OF SPAIN ->
  • JAIME DUKE OF SEGOVIA ->
  • ALFONZO DUKE OF ANJOU AND CADIZ ->
  • LOUIS ALPHONSE DUKE OF ANJOU

Benkenobi18 (talk) 02:59, 22 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

1. There is a HUGE difference between Jacobin and Jacobite. There is no such thing as a "Jacobin pretender" to England.
2. There is a HUGE difference between senior co-heir general and Salic heir. Charles I has no Salic heir (i.e. male line only).
3. Anne Marie of Orléans had a son Charles Emmanuel III of Sardinia. It is through him that the Jacobite succession is traced and comes today to Franz, Duke of Bavaria. Noel S McFerran (talk) 13:21, 22 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Even though I have no sympathy for the young pretender (his behaviour was worse than his own father, who in 1719 got chuffed out of France), I am glad that the young pretender never had to know what is a jacobine. Jacobites however (especially this one) was so royalistic, that Enoch Powel must have been a communist. Jacobines, they were so leftwing, that even Arthur Scargill looks like a royalist who would never be seen at a pub with a pint of bitter. The only thing that is more gay, is that some people dont know there is/was a difference betwwen these two.--82.134.28.194 (talk) 12:41, 3 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Even wiki says: Jacobinism is unrelated to Jacobitism or the English Jacobean period. --82.134.28.194 (talk) 14:18, 20 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

If you really understood Salic Law, you would not include women in that lineage. Charles I of England is not an agnatic ancestor of Louis, Duke of Anjou. Every person has one patriline only. Louis, Duke of Anjou, is a male-line descendant of the House of Bourbon, of the Capetian dynasty. Thus, he cannot also be a male-line descendant of the House of Stuart. The heir of Charles I, if Salic Law applies, would be his most senior, legitimate male-line descendant. Today, that would be nobody. Legitimate agnatic descendants of the House of Stuart had become extinct at the death of Cardinal Henry Benedict Stuart, grandson of King James II of England. However, several illegitimate agnatic branches of the House of Stuart exist, descended from the illegitimate sons of Charles II and James II.Emerson 07 (talk) 08:26, 11 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

"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.

Louis Alphonse is precluded from the throne by French Law[edit]

Louis Alphonse is precluded from the throne by French Law as first established under Henri III and reconfirmed under Henri IV, Louis XIII, and Louis XIV. Firstly, he is foreign born. Secondly, King Philip renounced his claim to the French Throne.

1) Preclusion owing to foreign birth.

This was written into French law to preclude claims by the [then foreign] House of Lorraine on behalf of the Marquis of Pont-a-Mousson (later Henry II, Duke of Lorraine) by reason of his descent from Claude de Valois, and by Philip II of Spain on behalf of his daughter, Isabella Clara Eugenia by reason of her descent from Elisabeth de Valois. It should be noted that, custom notwithstanding, no written law existed prior to this time that precluded descent through the female line. Further, it has been claimed by supporters of Louis Alphonse Henri IV was foreign-born, yet allowed to succeed to the Crown. However, his predecessor, Henri III, in accordance with royal prerogative, had recognized Henri as citizen of France, prince of the blood, and rightful successor to the throne.

It was the House of Lorraine which is "foreign". Members of the House of Bourbon, wherever they were, are French. Individual nationality is a relatively new concept. Emerson 07 (talk) 05:26, 19 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

2) King Philip’s renunciation

In re this latter point, Wikipedia article states:

“Legitimists regard this [renunciation] as invalid, because, under the fundamental law of French monarchy, neither a king nor his heirs can renounce the claim to a throne they hold but do not possess. Luis Alfonso is the current claimant, in the view of this group.”

This position is legally invalid. During the reign of Henri IV, the Courtenay heir disputed the right of Henri IV’s eldest son (later Louis XIII) to succeed to the throne and claimed right of succession. Said Courtenay’s father had signed away his rights by contract with Henri III. Using essentially the same argument put forward by supporters of Louis Alphonse, said Courtenay claimed his father did not have the right to renounce his claim to the throne, on either his own behalf or that of his heirs. Judgment was rendered against Courtenay in favor of Louis XIII on this specific issue of law. Continued claims by the Courtenays seeking acknowledgment as princes of the blood were further denied under Louis XIV on the basis of this same issue of law.

The Courtenays cannot dispute the right of the descendants of Henry IV. The Courtenays were descendants in male line of Louis VI, while the Bourbons were of Louis IX. Thus, the Courtenays were genealogically junior to the Bourbons. Even by Salic law they were so far down the line of succession, and their appanages were really small and insignificant compared to the other Capetians. What they were really claiming from the Bourbons was recognition of their status as princes of the blood. Emerson 07 (talk) 05:26, 19 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Additionally, supporters of Louis Alphonse purport succession was not lost by reason of his line’s holding a foreign throne. As precedent, they cite the succession of Henri III to the throne of France, after having held the throne of Poland-Lithuania. However, prior to accepting the Polish crown, Henri III obtained by written contract confirmation that, by reason of accepting the Polish throne, he did not give up his right to the French throne. King Philip and/or his line obtained no such written contract or confirmation of their continued rights to the French throne. It should be further noted that Louis Alphonse is in direct conflict with French Law by purporting to be a knight of the Order of the Holy Spirit (Ordre du Saint-Esprit), which (1) was dissolved, and (2) by its charter can only be conferred by the [reigning] King of France.

In the Treaty of Utrecht, Philip V of Spain renounced his claim to the French throne for himself and his descendants, on the condition that Spain shall be inherited by his descendants through Salic Law. Assuming that the treaty is valid, the renunciation made by Philip was invalidated when Ferdinand VII of Spain repealed Salic Law. Further, it is clear that Philip V did not wish the renunciation to take effect. In the Treaty of Utrecht, he states "I declare, and hold myself for excluded and separated, me, and my Sons, Heirs, and Descendents for ever, for excluded, and disabled absolutely, and without Limitation, Difference and Distinction of Persons, Degrees, Sexes and Time, from the Act and Right of succeeding to the crown of France..." http://www.heraldica.org/topics/france/utrecht.htm This means even his cognatic descendants are excluded from the French line of succession. With this complication, there will be some future time in the foreseeable future during which the heir of the House of Orleans would also be a descendant of Philip V, and thus ineligible for the succession to the French throne. Ferdinand Philippe, Duke of Orléans, ancestor of the current Orleanist claimant, is a fourth-generation descendant of Philip V through his mother. With this complication, it would have been all or nothing. Either the clause stands, or it does not. If it stands, neither the male-line descendants of Philip or the House of Orleans would be eligible to become King of France. If it does not stand, then the descendants of Philip have precedence over the descendants of Orleans. Emerson 07 (talk) 05:26, 19 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Fundamental Law of Succession to the French Throne[edit]

Ever since the establishment of Salic Law in France, the right of succession to the French throne was held to be an inalienable right of every male-line descendant of Hugh Capet. To date, all Kings of France were Senior Capets - Heads of the Capetian Dynasty. (Note that the Bonapartes were emperors, while the only king from the House of Orleans is a King of the French, not King of France). During his lifetime, King Louis XIV, the most powerful of the absolute monarchs of France, tried several times to change the line of succession to the French throne, without any success. This same right is held today by Louis Alphonse, Duke of Anjou. Emerson 07 (talk) 13:23, 13 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

```` —Preceding unsigned comment added by CFlemming (talk • contribs) 20:18, 29 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

It has not been settled and can never be settled whether Philip V's renunciation was valid or not, because by the time the question came up (1883), the Kingdom of France no longer existed and there were no authorities competent to determine who the rightful king was. john k (talk) 22:24, 13 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
There was really no authority in France that could change or modify the succession to the French throne. As in almost every European monarchy, even the King of France does not have the power to alter the line of succession. In the United Kingdom, the power to alter the line of succession has been given to the Parliament. Equivalent bodies in France did nothing to regulate or had no power to regulate the line of succession to the throne. French statesmen were very clever on dealing with foreign powers who attempted to regulate the succession to the Kingdom of France. The renunciation of Philip V of Spain of his rights of his succession to France was conditional: it would only be valid if Spain would adopt Salic Law, with the intention of keeping Spain under the House of Bourbon as long as his male-line descendants would last. After Spain abandoned Salic Law (paving the way for the succession of Queen Isabella II), any validity of the renunciation of Philip V would be nullified.Emerson 07 (talk) 12:15, 15 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
If you want to read more about this, try this link: http://www.chivalricorders.org/royalty/bourbon/france/frenlegt.htm Emerson 07 (talk) 12:20, 15 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

True pretender?[edit]

Is there any evidence that this man claims the throne of France, or that his supporters so acknowledge him? As it stands the article seems to assume it, though there is no evidence to cite such a claim. His website styles him 'Prince Louis' and 'Chef de la Maison', which is not the same as claiming the title King or Dauphin.Gazzster (talk) 23:16, 13 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

It is the same thing though. The belief is that the Head of the House of France and the King of France are always one and the same. If he is claiming to be Head of the House of France then he believes himself to be rightful King of France and of Navarre. Most pretenders do not assume the reigning title but rather assume a lower one. Like HIH the Grand Duchess of Russia rather than HIM the Empress of Russia or HI&RH the Prince of Prussia rather than HI&RM The German Emperor and King of Prussia. Seven Letters 23:55, 13 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Not necessarily. A former royal house can be a private family without claiming any crown. George Friedrich Hohenzollern, for example, has declared he is not seeking a political role. Likewise Otto von Habsburg has denied he is seeking the former crowns of Hungary or Austria. The Jacobite heir in Bavaria denies he seeks the crowns of Scotland England. Gazzster (talk) 05:47, 14 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The vast majority of pretenders aren't actively seeking the throne, but they still generally assert themselves as "head of the family" or what not. BTW, there's no such person as "Georg Friedrich Hohenzollern". His name is "Georg Friedrich Prinz von Preußen". john k (talk) 15:23, 14 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
If he is not pretending to the French throne, then why did he bestow the titles Duke of Burgundy and Duke of Berry to his twin sons? Or did someone else just add those titles? Emerson 07 (talk) 12:19, 15 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The lead of the article describes him as 'a claimant to the throne'. However, there is no reference cited to support this. I have no idea why he calls his sons Duke of Burgundy and Duke of Berry. You could do the same for your own sons if you want. I could name my brother Grand Duke of Wurttemburg. The lead says he is a claimant to the defunct throne of France. Where is the evidence for this?Gazzster (talk) 12:09, 15 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Well, if he took the liberty of giving ducal titles to his sons, then he must be claiming the royal prerogatives of his ancestors, those prerogatives which belong to a King. Even if I name my sons dukes or you name your brother grand duke, nobody would really recognize them as such, as we have no authority to do that. A claimant may be a claimant per se, or he was just being seen as a claimant by his supporters, as the Heir Male of Louis XIV. Emerson 07 (talk) 12:19, 15 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
If he names his son by virtue of being King of France, he would call himself King of France. But he doesn't. I repeat, the lead says he is a claimant to the defunct throne of France. There is not one scrap of evidence that he (or a significant number of his supporters on his behalf) makes that claim . To assume that because he styles his sons as Kings of France used to do is OR. It is an interpretation. If someone can reasonably cite something to uphold the assertion, I'll shut up. Gazzster (talk) 21:57, 15 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Wikipedia doesn't determine whether or not a man is a claimant to the throne of France (or anything else). It merely summarizes what has been written in other places (books, articles, websites). There are many many sources which describe Louis as "claimant to the throne of France". Therefore, it is appropriate for Wikipedia to summarize those sources. Noel S McFerran (talk) 11:51, 16 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
And yet it does make that claim for this person. Read the lead. It states Louis is 'a claimant to the throne'! It may indeed summarize 'what has been written in other places'. But there are no references even for this. It is not sufficient to 'summarize' the 'many sources' without citing those sources. I'm simply pointing out that there are no references to support the claim in the lead that Louis 'is a claimant' (which implies that he, not only his supporters) make the claim, or that a notable number of his supporters make the claim on his behalf. It's not unreasonable. In fact, it's editorial policy and just plain professional conduct. It's no skin of my nose if he claims to be Grand Poobah of the Outer Hebrides. We just need to see supporting references.Gazzster (talk) 00:39, 17 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
You are utilizing an ahistoricallly narrow definition of "claimant". Almost none of the people listed at Pretender makes a personal claim to the throne of their ancestors, because the tradition of abolished monarchies is that such claims are asserted on their behalf and under titles other than the one by which they would reign if enthroned (unless the throne was ducal or princely, in which case the "claimant" often does bear the former monarchical title, since "Prince" and "Duke" do not, ipso facto suggest a claim to exercise current sovereignty). Thus, you will find no document or statement in which the comte de Chambord described himself either as "King of France" or as "claimant/pretender" thereto, yet no one disputes that he was the claimant par excellence to France's defunct throne all his life. Nor is Wikipedia exclusively concerned with how a person defines or describes him/herself (which might be POV), but relies upon how most reputable sources name and refer to that person. Alphonse de Bourbon is widely regarded as the legitimist claimant to the throne of France, by which is meant that he and most others who have occasion to refer to him consider him the most rightful heir to his ancestors' dynastic legacy according to some legal, historical or cultural calculus embraced by those who adhere thereto (French legitimists, e.g. the Institute of the House of Bourbon) and attested to by reputable publications which track such matters. By the way, neither the Orléanist nor Bonaparte claimants assert any current right to occupy the throne of France -- but merely affirms that each is the rightful heir to his ancestor's legacy. Indeed Prince Charles Napoléon is a self-avowed republican, but has nonetheless publicly disputed for years his late father's attempt to expel him from the Line of succession to the French throne (Napoleonic); see his direct comments and you'll find that his rationale exactly corresponds to Wikipedia's attribution of "claimant" to him and to others similarly situated. FactStraight (talk) 19:52, 25 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
FactStraight, en toute sympathie, I must disagree with you when you write: "you will find no document or statement in which the comte de Chambord described himself either as "King of France" or as "claimant/pretender"...". The plaque known as the "déclaration du drapeau blanc" (5 July 1871)[7] at the château de Chambord states differently:
on line 7 of the text you can read:
  • CES DEVOIRS, JE LES REMPLIRAI, CROYEZ EN MA PAROLE D'HONNÊTE HOMME ET DE ROI.
last line:
  • HENRI V NE PEUT ABANDONNER LE DRAPEAU BLANC D'HENRI IV.
--Frania W. (talk) 21:34, 25 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I'm familiar with Chambord's "white flag" declaration, and I understand it to be an assertion of how he would behave if he were to be crowned as Henri V, rather than as a proclamation from the throne of his imagination (after all, the intended audience was the National Assembly of the French Third Republic, whom he hoped to persuade to give him the crown, although he felt obliged by honour to clarify the terms on which he would accept it). FactStraight (talk) 01:20, 26 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
"...the National Assembly of the French Third Republic, whom he hoped to persuade to give him the crown, " ? It was the National Assembly who was offering him the crown! --Frania W. (talk) 03:32, 26 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

[out-denting] No. On 4 September 1870, with Napoleon III having surrendered and France rapidly coming under German occupation, Chambord publicly petitioned the French people from abroad to restore him to the throne so that he could deliver them from the German yoke! But by referring to himself as king and repudiating the tricolour on 5 July 1871, he prevented the National Assembly's acceptance of his offer. I thought he learned his lesson and avoided ever again calling himself a king, sticking to comte de Chambord. The NA wanted to offer Chambord the throne, but refrained until he would first accept the tricolour as symbol of the Revolution's success in repudiating the absolutism of the ancien regime and its divine right principle. Chambord undoubtedly wanted the crown of France, but it was theirs to give, not his to take. His refusal to accept that fact has left him a pretender rather than a king in the eyes of history -- though an honourable one. No matter that legitimist Bourbons, French and Spanish, could neither learn nor forget, there have been plenty of other countly claimants in exile who knew better than to call themselves by a sovereign title they hoped would be granted them, e.g., the comte de Paris (Orleanist France), the comtesse d'Eu (Brazil), the Count of Caserta (Two Sicilies), and the Count of Barcelona (Spain), whose son today reigns as king -- and that's the relevant point. FactStraight (talk) 07:17, 26 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

From the Assemblée nationale de France site:
  • En raison de la persistance du comte de Chambord à vouloir renoncer au drapeau tricolore au profit d'un retour au drapeau blanc, il faut dans l'attente d'une solution élire un nouveau Président de la République.
  • Décidé à s'effacer devant le roi si le trône était rétabli, le maréchal Mac-Mahon est aussitôt élu, ce 24 mai 1873, Président de la République par 390 voix sur 721 présents. Mais le comte de Chambord fait échouer la restauration de la royauté en faisant publier le 30 octobre dans le journal monarchiste l'Union une déclaration intransigeante : « Je veux rester tout entier ce que je suis. »
--Frania W. (talk) 16:37, 26 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Requested move[edit]

The following discussion is an archived discussion of a requested move. 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 move request was: page not moved. harej 08:53, 9 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]


Prince Louis, Duke of Anjou → Louis Alphonse of Bourbon — See Talk:Carlos Hugo of Bourbon-Parma, where we decided not to recognise a title of nobility in a country which declared a republic and abolished its nobility. There is a plethora of claimants to the French throne, this person is not even the only claimant to be Duke of Anjou. PatGallacher (talk) 17:08, 24 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose. There's a difference; this is a courtesy title, which the subject is actually described by - like his ancestor Henry, Count of Chambord. The conflicting claims of the French pretenders are not our business; if there were fifteen men claiming to be Duke of Anjou, we'd list them all, if common usage permitted. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 17:55, 24 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I looked up courtesy title but just got a redirect to "Courtesy titles in the United Kingdom". This suggests that this term is, at the very least, vague and ill-defined outside the UK, and people do not appear to be using it in the way it is used in the UK e.g. there can be only one holder of the courtesy title. PatGallacher (talk) 18:30, 24 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
That the term is not as well known with regard to other peerages and systems of titles does not mean it does not have an application outside of the UK. Seven Letters 18:32, 24 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose "We" did not decide anything. A title is a name and does not always depend on the current laws of the territory where the land used to be. Titles are used all of the time for members of deposed royal families. For instance, the consent Elizabeth II gave to the marriage of Ernst August Prinz von Hannover (legal name) as "HRH Prince Ernst August of Hanover,... etc" (style and common usage). Seven Letters 18:21, 24 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I have had a look at the French and Spanish wikipedias. The former calls him "Louis de Bourbon", the article does call him "duc d'Anjou" but puts this quotes and describes it as a "titre de courtoisie" (anyone whose French is up to it is welcome to have a look at this article, it might shed some light). The latter calls him "Luis Alfonso de Borbón" and describes him primarily as "Legitimist pretender to the French throne", his alleged ducal title does not get much mention. This suggests that this title is not treated entirely seriously in the two countries with which he is most associated, at the very least it is not equivalent to a courtesy title in the UK. PatGallacher (talk) 18:49, 24 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

  • Oppose. The Carlos Hugo case was already wrongly decided, and this would be an even worse idea. john k (talk) 18:50, 24 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose this man is known by the title. I'm not particularly familiar with French nobility but I believe titles are even recognised in the French Republic. - dwc lr (talk) 19:51, 24 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • Actually, they are so commonly used in part because the Republic does not recognize or regulate them. One branch of the Bourbon pretenders suec the other and the juge held that there was no justiciable issue here. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 20:28, 24 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
      • In particular, I think the Count of Paris (Bourbon-Orléans) sued the Duke of Anjou over the use of the undifferentiated arms of (royal) France (Azure, three fleurs-de-lys or). The court dismissed the case as out of their jurisdiction (dynastic matters). Seven Letters 20:35, 24 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
        • From what I gather from his article of the French wikipedia his national identity cards reads "S.A.R. de Bourbon, duc d'Anjou, Louis Alphonse". His fathers certainly did it seems from a link given in the article.[8] - dwc lr (talk) 01:09, 25 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose the change in the form being proposed, but
  • in favor of Louis Alphonse *de* Bourbon
The title "Prince" must be dropped. I cannot understand the title "Prince" & "Princesse" en:wiki is liberally pouring over the head of French royals who never held that title.
It must? Frania, in a speech he referred to his wife as "la Princesse Marie Marguerite"... She was not a princess before marriage so he must be a prince. And OBVIOUSLY it is contested by the Orléanists but it is not our place to pick sides! Seven Letters 15:26, 25 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I simply do not understand why "Prince"/"Princess" must be put in front of their names. Anglo wiki is the only one to give such a title preceding the name in the title of the article. At the old French court, the whole of the royal related family was mentioned as "Les princes et les princesses", but each in particular was "Monseigneur le Dauphin", "Madame Victoire", "Monsieur le Duc" etc. "Prince & princesse" was only a polite way of talking about them, not specially an official title. There was no title "Prince de France", "Princesse de France". It is only when Louis Philippe I came to the throne in 1830 that he created the titles of "Prince d'Orléans & Princesse d'Orléans" for his children & his sister.
I am not trying to be "smart", but the use of "prince" as an official title troubles me because I am not sure it is "officially" correct, but only a way of speaking, of addressing the personage. If Louis Alphonse de Bourbon is "prince", he is prince of what? "Prince de France"?
As far as I understand, only the Orléans use the title "Prince", as for : [9]. By the way, please note the use of "duc d'Anjou" for "Charles-Philippe d’Orléans":
  • Actuelle Maison d'Anjou. Duc apanage : Prince Charles-Philippe d’Orléans (1973- ... ), titularisé duc d’Anjou le 8 décembre 2004 par son Oncle, Monseigneur le Comte de Paris, Duc de France (de jure Henri VII de France), Chef de la Maison Royale de France.
--Frania W. (talk) 16:52, 25 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • With the dispute over the title Duke of Anjou removing it from the article name of Louis Alphonse would be an incredibly pov move. - dwc lr (talk) 18:33, 25 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The title duc d'Anjou, contested in France by the orléanistes, was first taken up in Spain by Jacques de Bourbon (1870-1931) - well explained in fr:wiki articles [10] - [11] - [12] -

--Frania W. (talk) 22:39, 24 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Before we get too carried away here, let's bear in mind that at present, the article has no supporting references for any title assigned to this person, real, presumptive or otherwise.Let's find out what the bloke himself says, for it seems that there are a few people here who are interpreting history on his behalf.Gazzster (talk) 11:20, 26 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Here [13]. The Institute of the House of Bourbon was founded by his grandfather. He succeeded his father and acts as Head of the House of Bourbon and therefore titular King of France and Navarre. Seven Letters 14:14, 26 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
There is no throne of France, titular or otherwise. The throne of France has been abolished. Where do you come up with 'titular'? Certainly not from the dude himself!Gazzster (talk) 06:40, 27 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
If "There is no throne of France, titular or otherwise", what are we doing writing such an article on such a "dude"? Why not delete it? --Frania W. (talk) 14:02, 27 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose The precedent cited of Carlos Hugo of Bourbon-Parma is already being challenged as an inappropriate move. While I'd prefer "Louis Alphonse de Bourbon, duc d'Anjou", the present title is much better than the proposed one because that would strip him of a title which, deliberately denied him by his cousin the King of Spain for POV reasons, is accorded him by nearly all French legitimists, and means that he claims to be heir to the heritage of the Kings of France -- not to be "King of France". Debrett's Peerage, 2007, p.125 says, "Don Luis Alfonso...de Borbon y Martinez-Bordiu, recognized by some French legitimists as head of the Royal House of France and as such styled Louis XX". FactStraight (talk) 01:29, 27 July 2010 (UTC)"[reply]
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. No further edits should be made to this section.

French form of full name[edit]

Would the full form of the Duke of Anjou's name in French Louis Alphonse Gonsalve Victor Emanuel Marc de Bourbon? Thanks. Seven Letters 20:37, 24 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Too long! Louis Alphonse is enough - with de Bourbon, of course. --Frania W. (talk) 22:41, 24 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I know what may or may not be enough but I am wondering if that would be the French form of all of his given names. Seven Letters 22:56, 24 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The French form: Louis Alphonse Gonzalve Victor Emmanuel Marc de Bourbon ("Gonzalve" with a *z*; "Emmanuel" with two *m*).
--Frania W. (talk) 02:03, 25 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Again, never mind what we think his name should be. How does he name himself?Gazzster (talk) 11:22, 26 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
This person being of both Spanish & French nationalities, what's wrong -on a discussion page - asking how his given names are spelled in both Spanish & French?
As for the "how does he name himself" question, one would have to be pretty close to him to find out... and the result would be qualified OR.
--Frania W. (talk) 13:43, 26 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
He calls himself HRH The Prince Louis XX, Duke of Anjou. Seven Letters 14:11, 26 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I do not think that he would call himself "Prince" Louis XX... as you do not put the title "Prince" before that of a "King". Have you ever heard of "Prince Louis XIV"???
--Frania W. (talk) 14:35, 26 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
You will see that using Prince in titles of articles about princes is standard on Wikipedia. For example: Prince William of Wales, Prince Harry of Wales, Prince Philip, Duke of Edinburgh, etc. GorillaWarfare talk 14:41, 26 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Is this lady [14] referred to as "Princess Elizabeth II"?
I believe that, as the pretender to the "*defunct* or not throne of France", the subject of this article is more likely to call himself "Louis de Bourbon".
--Frania W. (talk) 14:58, 26 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
That's your opinion. Elizabeth II is queen de facto and de jure. Queen is higher than princess so we do not need to call her "Princess Elizabeth", although princess does appear in full styles. In that instance, prince(ss) is just a generic term for a ruler and not a title with a designation. The foundation of which Louis is hereditary patron calls him "the Prince Louis XX" and Louis Alphonse refers to his wife as a princess... Which she can only be if he is a prince. We accord titles of pretense to pretenders because that is what is usually done. Seven Letters 16:22, 26 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
As far as "royal étiquette" is concerned, I find it hard to believe that a king, real, pretender, de facto or de jure, goes along with being addressed as:
  • "Prince + King's name".
"Prince" Louis XIV must be turning in his grave!
--Frania W. (talk) 17:23, 26 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
It's not that unusual Alexander, Crown Prince of Yugoslavia calls himself Crown Prince Alexander II. - dwc lr (talk) 18:41, 26 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
There is a difference between "prince" and "crown prince"="heir to the throne": "prince héritier" in French. --Frania W. (talk) 19:11, 26 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Yes there is a difference but the similarity is they are both heirs to a throne and use the name they would reign under without actually adopting the title king. As far as I’m aware the only pretender to adopt the title king is Leka of Albania. - dwc lr (talk) 19:21, 26 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
My personal preference would be Louis Alphonse de Bourbon, Duke of Anjou. john k (talk) 17:15, 26 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support title proposed by John K. --Frania W. (talk) 17:23, 26 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Louis Alphonse of Bourbon, Duke of Anjou or as it is, Louis Alphonse, Duke of Anjou. Preferably the latter. Seven Letters 19:17, 26 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Why do you prefer "of Bourbon"? "de Bourbon" (or "de Borbón") is his last name. john k (talk) 00:29, 27 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Because he is of the house of Bourbon. Honestly, I don't want it included at all. I like it as much as I'd like "Albert Grimaldi, Prince of Monaco", "Alexander Karageorgevich, Crown Prince of Yugoslavia" or "Franz Prinz von Bayern, Duke of Bavaria" (which is not at all!). Seven Letters 00:41, 27 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
French, Spanish, and Italian royals, though, have always used surnames in a way that Germanic and Slavic royals didn't. The last cited person's name is actually "Franz Herzog von Bayern", by the way. john k (talk) 15:49, 27 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
We do not have surnames for any other legitimate Franco-Iberian royalty. Seven Letters 16:55, 27 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
That does seem to be the case, although I think that is a mistake. I'd be happy with Louis Alphonse, Duke of Anjou. john k (talk) 18:39, 27 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Actually, Slavic royals use surnames. Russian and Serbian royals are just examples of 20th-century Slavic royals that used surnames. Anyway, I have always been puzzled by this man's name. What is his legal name? Is he legally Luis Alfonso de Borbon or Louis Alphonse de Bourbon? I may be wrong, but it seems to me that he is a citizen of Spain - thus, it would be likely that Luis Alfonso de Borbon is his name. Surtsicna (talk) 11:53, 29 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
He is also a citizen of France because his father was French through his own mother, Emmanuelle de Dampierre. His name on French ID card is S.A.R. de Bourbon, duc d'Anjou, Louis Alphone. So, if the article lists him as "Duke of Anjou", a French title, and mentions his being "claimant" or "pretender" to the throne of France as "Louis XX", why should the title of the article of this French citizen be Luis Alfonso de Borbón?
Who said that the title of the article "of this French citizen" should be Luis Alfonso de Borbón? Surtsicna (talk) 12:39, 29 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
What was meant - and sorry if I was not clear - was that in an article describing him as Duke of Anjou, and "would be" Louis XX of France, and because he is also a French citizen, there is nothing wrong in using the "legal French form" of his name, Louis Alphonse de Bourbon.
--Frania W. (talk) 12:59, 29 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

French Claimant? So far no-one has cited one reference for the extraordinary claims in the lead that he is a claimnt to the French throne (which does not exist) nor that he styles himself Louis XX?Gazzster (talk) 06:44, 27 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I myself prefer to avoid using terms claimants/pretenders if I would do an article I would probably say Head of the House as I think that suffices because the two are synonyms with one another but that’s just my own personal view. There are sources calling him a pretender/claimant though. [15][16] - dwc lr (talk) 14:00, 27 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Is this really an extraordinary claim? Obviously France is a republic, but I'm not sure what that has to do with anything. john k (talk) 15:49, 27 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
If one will only accept "I am the King of France, even though it isn't a kingdom" or "I claim the throne of France" as proof of being a claimant, there are a lot of critters over at Pretender who waddle, quack & have webbed feet but can't be called "ducks". Given the evidence already cited here, no further point trying to meet this artificially narrow definition of "claimant". Could you refer to Margaret Thatcher as "she", "her", "Mrs." or "Lady" on Wikipedia if told you must first produce a cite for Thatcher saying "I am female"? FactStraight (talk) 02:13, 28 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Many here seem to believe, without serious research, that simply because this Louis person is one of the descendants of one of the former French monarchical houses and the head thereof , he must be claiming the title of king. It doesn't follow! We don't know he's a duck because we haven't any proof he has webbed feet! Just because he is head of his house doesn't mean he lays claim to all his family's ancient titles and privileges. Many here, and on the other 'Pretender' pages have a very broad and odd interpretation of pretender. They seem to think that simply because a monarch is heir to an abolished title one actually possesses the title or at least claims it! This is nonsense.The last Shah of Iran was a true pretender, for he had not renounced the throne of Iran. James Stuart, called by his supporters II of England and VII of Scotland was a true pretender, for he he had not renounced his titles. But Otto von Habsburg is not a true pretender, for not only does he not claim the former crowns of Austria and Hungary, but has renounced them. The same can be said for the former royal houses of Italy, Germany, the 'Jacobite' succession in the house of Bavaria, etc, etc. To argue reductio ad absurdum, if mere inheritance of a dead title made a pretender, Elizabeth II would be a pretender to the 'thrones' of India, Pakistan, Bangladesh, Sri Lanka, South Africa,etc, and dare I say, to the 'throne' of the United States of America! It worries me that not one or two editors here seem to take their royalist sympathies too seriously, and seem to assign this poor man dignities he does not actually possess or claim. But as I say, if someone can produce references to indicate that he refers to himself as 'Louis XX', fine. It is of course illegal and treasonous in France to claim the throne of France. And so, he would be unlikely to do so. OK, then show from other sources that he makes such a claim.It's not unreasonable.Gazzster (talk) 21:46, 28 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
It is not a question of "believing without serious research" (thank you for the compliment), it is the simple fact of looking at a family tree, and the family tree of the "dude" takes us all the way back to Hugues Capet, Saint Louis, Henri IV, Louis XIII, Louis XIV... So, if the French ever decided to again have a king, they would pick one from two branches of that tree, and if it was that "dude", he would be "King Louis XX"; and if it was the "Orléans dude", he would be "King Henri VII"; and if the French did not want a king, they simply would elect a "Président de la République". If you are a "history buff", you like to look into the past & how the present is related to it, and you tell yourself: "if the French had a king, it could be either this "Louis dude" or that "Henri dude" or maybe even that "Nappy dude" - tout simplement. That is the spirit to look at it as none of these "dudes" is pushing his claim or his pretension to the point of attacking the Republic and having another Revolution. They simply enjoy being the descendants of & neither you nor I know how they are addressed to in private - could very well be Sa Majesté.
--Frania W. (talk) 00:05, 29 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
If, as you say, no-one knows how he is addressed in private, why is this article interpreting his claim on his behalf? I find it vaguely amusing and not a little odd that you think this article should be edited according to 'the spirit'. Whose spirit? The spirit of the royalists here who would love him to be Louis XX, or the spirit of the man himself? Well, according to you, we don't know what he holds in private. So why are we presuming to know? He may well very well refer to himself as 'Sa Majeste', if he was suffering from flu-induced delirium or overmedication, but we don't know.I was under the impression that Wikipedia needed to be edited according to verifiable fact. Sure, if the French ever decided to return to monarchy they might choose one of the descendants of one of the plethora of ex-royal houses, or start a new one- and Monsieur de Bourbon might be chosen and he might choose the name Louis XX. But this is unlikely to the point of near certainty, and it is treason in France to claim the throne of France. So a candidate is unlikely to present himself or herself (unless the French want to return to Salic law). No, the 'spirit' of the thing, as you call it, smacks of the spirit of the editors. Let's base our editing on fact.Gazzster (talk) 21:23, 29 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Gazzster, are not you kind of twisting the meaning of what I wrote? "That is the spirit to look at it" was not meant "the spirit to edit Wikipedia articles", but was referring to previous sentence: "If you (meaning people in general/FW) are a "history buff", you like to look into the past & how the present is related to it, and you tell yourself: "if the French had a king...".
I am not pushing calling him "Louis XX", but you cannot ignore or deny the fact that to the eyes of the legitimistes that is what he would be, should he be king of France, and if you read one of my comments above, you will see that I am one person against having the title "Prince" in the title of the article, and have proposed to have the title of the article as Louis Alphonse de Bourbon, Duke of Anjou.
--Frania W. (talk) 12:16, 30 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I don't think anyone is saying he is "claiming the title of king". He is claiming to be the head of the royal house of France. That's basically the key issue. Otto Habsburg, in spite of his renunciations, is still treated as the Habsburg pretender because he remains head of the family, and that, effectively, is what a pretender or claimant is in the modern world. As for the subject of this article, here's a blogger at the Telegraph calling him Louis XX. Does that count as a source? Whatever he may call himself, French royalists pretty clearly sometimes refer to him as Louis XX. john k (talk) 06:53, 30 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
We're still kinda missing the point. The lead here says Louis de Bourbon is a 'claimant to the French throne'. So according to us, he is 'claiming the title of king', John Kenney.As for that Telegraph blogger, he's a private devotee claiming a royal name for his hero. It's dicey using bloggers as sources. A good source would be, as I have suggested, de Bourbon himself, or a spokesperson for his house, or a spokesperson for a society of supporters affiliated with the French Bouron house. With what justification do you assert that a person who renounces a royal claim remains a 'pretender or claimant' by virtue of being head of a royal house? Was Edward Windsor 'pretender or claimant' to the throne of Great Britain after explicitly abdicating his claim and those of his descendants? Is Elizabeth II 'pretender or claimant' to the throne of France, even though her predecessor George III explicitly renounced he claim on behalf of himself and his descendants? Headship of former royal house does not a claimant make. Of course they inherit a history, the family wealth, and perhaps a certain prestige. In pretender it claims that person does not need to make a claim in order to be a claimant. To which is attached a note, 'citation needed, and I agree.Gazzster (talk) 02:07, 31 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
In an interview done in June 2010 in New York by Olivier O'Mahony for Paris Match (first & second pages: [17] [18]), Louis de Bourbon mentions a couple of times being the "prétendant" since the death of his brother François in 1984, "à 18 ans, j'ai joué pleinement mon rôle de prétendant au trône de France", talks about the eldest of his twins as Dauphin de France, and that if the French ask him to become king of France, he will not refuse: "Si les Français m'appellent, je ne me déroberai pas. Mais je ne revendique rien", this last sentence meaning "I am not claiming anything", which suggests a difference between "claimant" & "pretender", and does not mean that he ever "renounced" the throne of France: he recognises his place as "pretender", but does not "claim" the throne. He also says that he is both Spanish & French and that he went to the French consulate in New York to declare the birth of his twins under the name Bourbon.
--Frania W. (talk) 04:29, 31 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
At last! A proper source. Great. Use that to source the article. You could even insert direct quotations from that inyerview, provided they're translated correctly of course. Thank you! Gazzster (talk) 11:27, 31 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Gazzster, Oh! la! la! I could not be more surprised than receiving a compliment from you.
Mon Dieu! On aura tout vu !--Frania W. (talk) 12:55, 31 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Merky! I certainly uunderstand, and share the interest in dispossessed royal houses. Heck, that's why I'm here. But I genuinely wanted a source. And you've found a beauty. Some people have to be pains in the arse to get things going. Still, can't help thinking why doesn't that hot young man just get a proper life and enjoy himself as a private citizen, instead of carrying the tenuous hopes of some ancient families who have never reconciled themselves to the Republic. Or, for that matter, to the Orleanists and Bonapartes. Sorry, not the forum for that discussion. Cheers!Gazzster (talk) 09:56, 1 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Louis XX[edit]

I know his family considers him to be rightfully Louis XX, but it is established that if he becomes king, he will definitely have that number and not XIX, since the "Louis XIX" was merely a pretender? 98.209.116.7 (talk) 21:12, 29 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

That is the number used for him by his supporters. Noel S McFerran (talk) 21:19, 29 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
If you would wish to take the time to read the beauty of French royal history, every Senior Capet starting with Hugh Capet to Charles X, (987-1830) is also the King of France. Louis XVII, son of Louis XVI, never reigned as king. Yet, he survived his father Louis XVI and thus, for a brief time, became the Senior Capet. However, he died before the Bourbons were restored to the throne. His uncle, who took the regnal name Louis, succeeded him as the Senior Capet, and was restored to the throne as Louis XVIII, recognizing the seniority of his deceased nephew. When Charles X abdicated in 1830, his son Louis became Louis XIX. Twenty minutes later, Louis XIX also abdicated, at the behest of his father Charles X, in favor of his nephew, Henry V.Emerson 07 (talk) 08:02, 11 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Requested move: Louis Alphonse, Duke of Anjou --> Louis Alphonse de Bourbon[edit]

The following discussion is an archived discussion of a requested move. 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 move request was: page not moved per discussion. - GTBacchus(talk) 08:51, 21 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]


Louis Alphonse, Duke of Anjou → Louis Alphonse de Bourbon – This pretender to the French throne is commonly given as either "Louis de Bourbon" or as "Louis Alphonse de Bourbon". As he is not the primary topic for "Louis de Bourbon", I am recommending this form. On his Web site, he is "Le Prince Louis XX" and "Louis Alphonse de Bourbon, duc d'Anjou".[19] As he is not legally recognized as a noble, he should be placed at the most common form of his name, without honorifics or self-bestowed titles. (Relisted, after notifying 3 WikiProjects. More input would be good here, I think. -GTBacchus(talk) 22:01, 8 July 2011 (UTC)) Kauffner (talk) 08:19, 25 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Although many sources describe Louis as the duke of Anjou, his name is most commonly given without this title. The style "Personal name, Ordinal (if appropriate) Peerage title" is from WP:NCROY, and thus not something one would expect to find in the secondary sources. As this title is not legally recognized, the page belongs at a WP:COMMONNAME. “For claimants to titles which have been suppressed...follow the general article titling policy", according to NCROY. France’s Ministry of Justice does actually recognize titles of nobility, but not this one. The Orleanist pretender sued over this and other alleged Bourbon infringements on his pretender status in 1988, but the court ruled that title “duke of Anjou" had been abolished in 1790. The title was traditionally held by a senior prince not in line for the throne, equivalent to Duke of York. Louis’ grandfather, a Spanish prince, started using it soi-disant in 1946.

This chart shows how the name appears in reliable sources:

Term Google Books since 1980 Google News since 1990
"Louis Alphonse de Bourbon" 30 16
Anjou "Prince Louis de Bourbon" 24 19
"Prince Louis Alphonse" 9 5
"Prince Louis de Bourbon, Duke of Anjou” 1 1
"Louis Alphonse, duc d'Anjou" 5 0
"Louis Alphonse, Duke of Anjou" 0 0
"Louis-Alphonse de Bourbon, duke of Anjou" 0 0
"Duke of Anjou, Louis-Alphonse de Bourbon" 0 3

Some of these results are in French, but I don’t think there is any issue of his name being different in English than it is in French, aside from the duc versus “duke” issue. I get 30+16+24+19+9+5 = 103 for the various forms without “Duke of Anjou” as part of the name, compared to 1+1+5+3=10 for those with the title. If we take "prince" as a signifier of his pretender status rather than as a title of nobility, it can be dropped off like "president", "general", "Mr.", "Dr.", etc. Kauffner (talk) 07:58, 25 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The court case referred to above is titled Prince Henri Philippe Pierre Marie d'Orléans et autres c. Prince Alphonse de Bourbon (21-12-1988). So even though the French courts don't accept the "duke of Anjou" title, they are happy to call you "prince" if that's what you want to be called. Kauffner (talk) 01:38, 26 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose The claim is made above that "On his Web site, he is called ..." The Institut de la Maison is not "his web site" (although they are supportive of his claims). His website is the Institut Duc d'Anjou [20] where he signs his name "Louis, Duc d'Anjou". Noel S McFerran (talk) 15:31, 3 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose per Noel McFerran. Also his father had duc d'Anjou on his passport quite possible the same applies for Louis Alphonse. - dwc lr (talk) 01:56, 16 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

His legal French name is “Louis Alphonse de Bourbon” and his legal Spanish name is “SAR Don Luis Alfonso de Borbón y Martínez-Bordiú." So if anything about Anjou appeared on his documents, that would certainly be irregular. His father obviously found a local prefect who was willing to play along. These documents are centrally issued nowadays, so it is not possible to do that kind of thing anymore. Kauffner (talk) 07:39, 16 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose per Noel. Nightw 07:27, 17 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Support, how can he be 'duke of Anjou', when France is a republic? GoodDay (talk) 12:15, 17 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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. No further edits should be made to this section.

Titular[edit]

"Titular" means "existing in title only." That is to say, it implies that he holds the various titles officially or rightfully, but doesn't exercise the authority. (Perhaps because that would be beneath him?) Kauffner (talk) 04:20, 23 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Title of pretence[edit]

There seems to be cofusion about use of titles for persons who belong to dethroned dynasties, including Louis Alphonse de Bourbon. Historically, a person recognized by supporters, governments and/or scholars as the object of a right, movement or tradition of monarchical restoration based on his/her lineage may be known publicly by an alias called a "title of pretence". Duc d'Anjou is such a title, attributed by French legitimists to Louis Alphonse de Bourbon, and often used in society, in publication and by the man himself to refer to that hereditary position. Originally, titles of pretence allowed foreign courts and society to interact with ex-kings and wannabe crown princes of indisputably dynastic gravitas (not False Dmitriy, Alexis Brimeyer, Anna Anderson or other impostors) without affording them the sovereign honours their adherents proclaimed for them but which were awkward and impolitic once they became homeless refugees. These titles are part of a convention applied to exiled members of European dynasties reachng back to the Crusades, e.g. Prince of Antioch, Duke of Naxos, Prince of Tyre, Marquis of Bodonitsa, Prince of Taranto, Countess of Albany, Prince of Vasa, Prince of Montfort, Count of Chambord, Count of Barcelona and Duke of Calabria. Whether borne by a former ruler or the heir of a banished one, these are neither intended to be titles of nobility (they're borne by persons of royal blood openly, rather than as incognito) nor legal hereditary titles. Contrary to what's been implied, in 1989 the French court carefully avoided formally ruling on the current status of the title attributed to Louis Alphonse, but mentioned in explaining its official finding, that the title, borne by Louis XIV's grandson Philippe de Bourbon (who renounced his claim to the French crown {validly or not} to become King Felipe V of Spain in 1700) had been abolished in 1790 during the French Revolution and there is no evidence it was ever re-granted to anyone (the court also mentioned in passing, that the title was nonetheless on Louis Alphonse's valid French passport). But the only binding decision the court rendered was dismissal of the lawsuit of the Orleanist claimant, Henri, comte de Clermont against Louis Alphonse, on the grounds that since Henri failed to establish that he had a right to the title duc d'Anjou, Henri lacked standing to challenge Louis Alphonse's use of it -- regardless of whether such usage was permissable in law. Morevoer, the court found that Louis Alphonse never claimed or pretended to anyone that the title was his by legal right -- he simply uses it, as did his late father, to indicate his legitimist dynastic position. Duc d'Anjou is not a "monarchist" title -- legitimists consider his proper title to be "Henri XX" -- and most publications and authors which call him duc d'Anjou do not consider him a "king" or even necessarily the rightful claimant to any crown (I certainly don't) -- whether he is an active or a passive pretender. So stating in these kinds of articles that titles of pretence are not usually inherited under law is appropriate, and should be done in this case. But withholding the title, or stressing that it is not legal beyond the degree to which reputable publications typically do, so would be improperly POV in the face of a convention long-established by history and common in encyclopedias. FactStraight (talk) 07:48, 23 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

This article gets 8,000 page views a month as if the subject was a world leader. Even on the rare occasions when a French newspaper refers to the French pretender, they mean Henri d'Orleans, not this guy. Louis Alphonse is a Spanish banker who lives in Venezuela. "Louis Alphonse, BNP banker" would make more sense than "Louis Alphonse, Duke of Anjou." His "movement or tradition of monarchical restoration" consists of four Web sites. He is nobody off Wikipedia. Somewhere in the article that needs to be pointed out. Kauffner (talk) 09:28, 23 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for this comment. Now I know that the Duke of Anjou gets more page views than the Count of Paris.Emerson 07 (talk) 03:43, 9 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

"The claims of Orléans"[edit]

This part was deleted, as is unsourced and some statements are untrue. For example, is stated, that "Bourbons of Spain bear the full arms of France", but Coat of arms of the King of Spain is with bordure gules. About various lawsuits - see Lawsuit brought by Francisco Maria de Borbon y Castellvi against the duc d'Orléans (1897) - won by Orléans. Lawsuit brought by the comte de Clermont against the duc d'Anjou (1987-89) was dismissed by Court on basis, that it does not behoove a court of the Republic to adjudicate the dynastic rivalry.--Yopie (talk) 07:24, 3 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Bourbons of Spain does not necessarily refer to the King of Spain, but the Spanish branch of the House of Bourbon, which includes the King of Spain only as a junior member. Remember that Louis Alphonse is the Head of the House of Bourbon; he belongs to the Spanish branch of the House, as a descendant of Philip V of Spain; he is not the King of Spain, since one of his ancestors had renounced the throne of Spain (which, however, does not affect his right of succession to the throne of France). At the extinction of the senior line of the House of Bourbon (1883), seniority passed to the Carlist claimant to the Spanish throne, not to the King. Seniority of the house was briefly reunited with the King of Spain in the person of Alfonso XIII, but went a separate way again thereafter. The lawsuit of Borbon y Castellvi was irrelevant, since he was not the most senior member of the House of Bourbon; he himself does not have a right to bear the plain arms (under the old rules), but may do so since heraldry is no longer regulated. You are correct to state that the court refused to adjudicate the dynastic rivalry; the court notes that with the establishment of the republic, the arms of France, which was tied to the Kings of France, disappeared with the title; however, the court agreed, that under the old customs, the plain arms of France belonged to the senior line, while the Orleans line are required to add a label argent. Emerson 07 (talk) 16:20, 3 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

FactStraight, you are too concerned with the actual ruling of the French court. Surely, being a Frenchman, Henri d'Orleans expected that he would not get an actual ruling in his favor. This side comment of the court, answering the fundamental question of "Who would be the rightful bearer of the plain arms of France under the old customs?" is the greatest thing Henri could ask for, if only it had been in his favor. Like, if the court refused to make a ruling on the dynastic rivalry, but commented that, "Henri d'Orleans is the rightful bearer of the arms of France, since his ancestors are all Frenchmen, while the senior branch had been Spanish for many years." Yet under the old customs, the plain arms passes by seniority, not by nationality or any other qualification.Emerson 07 (talk) 12:26, 11 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Yopie, I believe you are confused by the term "Bourbons of Spain". Bourbons of Spain refers to all agnatic descendants of Philip V, King of Spain. It does not, however, mean that all of them are the rightful bearers of the plain arms (under the old rules). The Bourbons of Spain has several branches, such as Seville, Two Sicilies and Parma. Under the old rules, only the most senior person, the Head of the House, can bear the plain arms. Because Ferdinand VII chose to abandon the Salic law, the throne of Spain was no longer guaranteed to the senior male heir of Philip V - hence, the Carlist pretenders to the Spanish throne. The decision was made in 1989. Going back a hundred years, that would be 1889. The Senior Bourbon by then, the rightful bearer of the plain arms of France, judging by the seniority of descent from the Kings of France, would be Carlos, Duke of Madrid, the Carlist pretender to the Spanish throne, and not the King of Spain, Alfonso XIII (yet). In time however, the male line of Carlos, Duke of Madrid, ran out. Alfonso XIII became the senior male heir of Philip V, and in his person, the Senior Capet was again the rightful King of Spain (although by that time, he had already been dethroned). It was, however, a brief reunion. For the seniority would pass to the oldest son, Jaime, Duke of Segovia, deaf, mute, deemed unfit for the kingship of Spain, and whose unequal marriage assured his descendants little, if any, strong claim on the Spanish throne; the heir to the throne of Spain was the younger son Juan, Count of Barcelona, the father of Juan Carlos I. Thus, it is rather right for Juan Carlos to use a bordure gules on his version of the arms of France. Louis Alphonse is the Head of the House, and Juan Carlos, despite being the King of Spain, is merely a cadet member of the dynasty. Genealogically, the Head of the Spanish House of Bourbon is no longer synonymous with who sits on the throne of Spain. What you should look at is not the arms of Juan Carlos, a mere cadet, but the arms of Louis Alphonse, the head.Emerson 07 (talk) 12:26, 11 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Duke, "per tradition"[edit]

Is there some RS that says that says the subject is duke of Anjou "per tradition"? Certainly no source is given. The subject's grandfather gave himself this title in 1946, his father used it, so now he uses it. That's the "tradition." The French duke of Anjou title is equivalent to the British duke of York title. So it is not something the could be inherited, even if the title wasn't abolished and all. The article implies that France doesn't recognize the duke of Anjou title only because it is a republic, but many traditional titles are recognized. Kauffner (talk) 00:20, 9 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Yup, that's the tradition. Since he is "king", he can virtually use any title he wishes to use. Could you give examples of traditional titles recognized by the republic?Emerson 07 (talk) 03:29, 9 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
French Wiki has a list of noble families here. Any title confirmed after 1789 is still legally recognized. This list also includes titles recognized by ANF, the French nobility association. Kauffner (talk) 04:51, 9 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Head of the House of Bourbon[edit]

L'Institut de la Maison de Bourbon is "a cultural institution of public utility recognized by a decree of the Council of State in April 23, 1997". Its objectives, as specified in its statutes, is "to promote knowledge of the history of France and the rule of the Royal House," "the conservative traditions" and "transmit the values ​​that have made France in the unwavering loyalty to the eldest of the Capetians." The website of L'Institut de la Maison de Bourbon is not a personal website; The Duke of Anjou has no direct control over it. These people actually know their history, and they have determined that Louis Alphonse is the Head of the House of Bourbon. There are some editors out there who say that the position of the Head of the House of Bourbon is disputed. Yet they fail to name who are the ones who dispute the position. With such failure, their claim that "the headship of the House of Bourbon is obviously disputed" is baseless. Emerson 07 (talk) 08:14, 27 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The "Institut de la Maison de Bourbon" is a partisan organization set up with the explicit goal of promoting the Legitimist cause. It is founded and controlled by the Anjous themselves, and as such counts as a Self-published source. (It's status as a tax-exempt organization is obviously quite irrelevant for assessing its status as a source here.)
You made a very specific claim: that his status as head of the "House of Bourbon" is uncontroversial, i.e. that it is recognized even by those who reject his status as claimant to the French throne. Logically, this is only possible to the extent that the "House of Bourbon" and the "House of France" are two different things, because headship of the "House of France" is clearly claimed also by Henri d'Orleans. So, what you need to provide to justify your claim is sources that:
(a) are published through reputable academic channels
(b) are independent of any of the partisan factions
(c) unambiguously speak of the "House of France" and the "House of Bourbon" as two separate, independent entities
(d) unambiguously call him head of the latter.
I haven't yet seen any sources to that effect. Fut.Perf. ☼ 08:36, 27 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Historically the House of Bourbon had been the same with the House of France, as the House of Bourbon became the senior line of the Capetian dynasty. However, the claim is that he is Head of the House of Bourbon (undisputed), not of the French Royal House (disputed; stated in the article clearly as a Legitimist claim). Henri d'Orleans does not claim to be the Head of the House of Bourbon; he is the Head of the House of Orleans, and logic follows that he thinks that the House of Orleans should be the new ruling house of France. Emerson 07 (talk) 09:50, 27 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Start providing references to reliable publications, at last, or talking with you is utterly useless. Fut.Perf. ☼ 09:54, 27 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

To clarify:

  • The Capetian dynasty is the House of France. Note that this only suggests the origin of the family, and not necessarily whether the Capetians are the ruling dynasty of France
  • The House of Bourbon is a cadet branch of the Capetian dynasty; the House of Orleans, in turn, is a cadet branch of the House of Bourbon
  • The House of Bourbon became the eldest of the Capetians starting with Henry IV
    • At that point, the House of Bourbon = House of France = French royal house
  • The death of the Count of Chambord led to a dispute on who is the King of France (Head of the French Royal House)
    • Blancs d'Eu: The House of Orleans = House of France (cadet) = French Royal House
    • Blancs d'Espagne: The Bourbons of Spain = House of France (eldest of the Capetians) = French Royal House
  • At no point can the Head of the House of Orleans claim to be the Head of the House of Bourbon, since the Bourbons of Spain are still extant and prominently bear the name
  • So
    • Louis Alphonse de Bourbon - Head of the House of Bourbon
    • Henri d'Orleans - Head of the House of Orleans
  • And finally,
    • The dispute is on who is the Head of the French royal house. Depending on who you ask, that would be the Head of the House of Bourbon, or the Head of the House of Orleans.
    • Thus, there is no dispute whatsoever on who is the Head of the House of Bourbon. Emerson 07 (talk) 12:26, 27 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
When will you finally learn? STOP arguing your own opinions here. Start giving references to reliable publications, or shut up and go away. Fut.Perf. ☼ 12:29, 27 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Please cite any reference showing that 1) the Head of the House of Bourbon is disputed and 2) who they consider to be the Head instead. Without this, there is essentially no dispute, so this claim could stand by itself. Emerson 07 (talk) 07:50, 28 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
No -- once challenged it cannot "stand by itself." Yet again, please understand: information must be attributed to a specific, reliable source to remain in a Wikipedia article whenever legitimately challenged. A "legitimate" challenge is one raised by someone who has a right to edit Wikipedia (i.e., who is not blocked or editing with sockpupppets), and whose challenge is not tendentious (e.g. disruptive, disguised advocacy, or done to make a point). By contrast, information may be deleted from a Wikipedia article simply because it lacks attribution to a reliable source, provided that the deletion is legitimate, i.e. done by someone entitled to edit Wikipedia and not done tendentiously. The record will show, on these Legitimist-related articles, that for weeks now I have called for sources only for those of your edits which seemed to reflect novel reasoning or points of view that I doubt are reflected in reliable sources. It is only your tendency to ignore those requests that has made me concerned enough about the bases of your edits to start reverting them when you ignore requests for sources. Wikipedia's verifiability policy does not require that every datum be sourced, but it does require that every datum be source-able. When you consistently ignore or side-step requests for sources and consistently fail to supply them, you must expect that such behavior will elicit more such requests -- not render them irrelevant. "[over-wrought comment removed by the author, with apology.]" FactStraight (talk) 11:01, 28 November 2011 (UTC) 02:35, 30 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Head of the House of Bourbon 2[edit]

The sources are Velde and Opfell, and both of them also feature the claims of other pretenders. Velde is undoubtably an Orleanist supporter, but he nevertheless recognizes the seniority of the elder Bourbons and the headship of that House by the Duke of Anjou (purely a matter of genealogy). In her book, Opfell discusses both the Legitimist and Orleanist claims, as well as the claims of nineteen other pretenders. If there are no more objections, these sources, so unjustly removed, will be restored back on the page. If these sources are unreliable, please state why they are so; refrain from arbitrarily declaring the unreliability of sources. Emerson 07 (talk) 15:47, 20 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Look up WP:Reliable sources, at last. Velde is a hobbyist who writes a website. We need academic publications. It's as simple as that. Fut.Perf. ☼ 20:47, 10 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Velde is an excellent source who is respected by anyone who knows anything about the subjects he writes about. If Wikipedia's reliable source policy does not allow him to be considered a reliable source, that is a failure of Wikipedia policy, not a sign that Velde is a bad source. And, indeed, there is a problem with wikipedia's reliable source policy, because it basically allows anything that is published by any print publisher, no matter how bad, to qualify as a reliable source while disallowing virtually everything published on a website, no matter how good, from qualifying. john k (talk) 05:24, 4 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Is there a Wikipedia procedure on evaluating a specific source? Reigen (talk) 22:48, 4 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Closure on Head of House[edit]

Can we put something in on this now explaining why Juan Carlos isn't? I think that's what most people want to know since SFAICT they have similar descent from Alfonso XIII and another Bourbon. I'm sure there's a reason or rationale and that's what readers are going to want to see, please excuse if it's there and I've missed it. 72.228.189.184 (talk) 20:46, 1 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The simple answer is that Louis Alphonse descends from the elder son of Alfonso XIII, Jaime, Duke of Segovia, while Juan Carlos descends from the younger son Juan, Count of Barcelona. For several reasons, which I will not repeat here, Jaime and his descendants were deemed ineligible to succeed to the Spanish throne, clearing the way for the succession of Juan Carlos. Details can be found on the article on Jaime, Duke of Segovia. Of course, the succession in Spain does not affect in any way the theoretical Legitimist succession in France.
A House, by the traditional definition, consists of agnates descended from a common patrilineal ancestor. The laws of the house or the realm states which members are considered "dynastic"; the senior eligible dynast is the Head. With regards to the House of Bourbon as it was conceived by the Legitimists, this person is Louis Alphonse. Reigen (talk) 03:42, 2 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Looks like we are closing on closure. Is there no supranational House of Bourbon, distinct from the House of France? It was this I presumed the current Duc d'Anjou was head of not just France. Besides that, the rule of shortest descent is sufficient in this case for me as better than both nothing and an delving into dynastic rule sets. It's unclear how a political faction in one country could determine a family with a presence in several. 72.228.189.184 (talk) 10:35, 2 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Current text makes this clear. It doesn't make clear the situation with the larger house of Bourbon-Parma but based on the main article, that appears indeterminate. 72.228.189.184 (talk) 10:54, 2 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Theoretically, as the most senior male of the Capetian dynasty, Louis Alphonse is the overall head of the entire House of Bourbon (which includes the rival House of Orleans). However, this status is not recognized even by some of the descendants of Philip V, such as Juan Carlos and Sixtus Henry. Reigen (talk) 12:58, 2 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
To clarify, the rule is primogeniture rather than "shortest descent", which is proximity of blood. On the dynastic rules, you can read either [21] or [22]. The two main points of contention are: 1) whether a prince can renounce his rights of succession to the throne; 2) whether or not the prince or his line has to remain French. Reigen (talk) 13:17, 2 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
OK, thanks, per your statement I've removed the bold emphasis and replaced it with ordinary string quotes. The other was misleading to a counterfactual you've just explained isn't the case. 72.228.189.184 (talk) 19:10, 3 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Counterfactual? That would be a very strong word, outright rejecting this simple claim. I believe no other person claims (or could claim) to be Head of the House of Bourbon in its entirety (Bourbon specifically, as a distinct entity from the Royal House of France or Spain). But I have no problems with the string quotes. Reigen (talk) 22:44, 4 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Incorrect link for child[edit]

I just noticed the link to his son Prince Louis, Duke of Burgundy in the info box is incorrect. Currently the link redirects back to this page, I'm not sure if this is intentional but it seems to be a mistake. 70.51.28.175 (talk) 02:31, 5 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Legitimist pretender section[edit]

This entire section has nothing to do with Louis Alphonse directly. It is basically a summary of every pretender before him and doesn't state anything about how he is advancing his claim or what he himself has done as the Legitimist pretender. I'm removing it since it is just basically fluff material. --The Emperor's New Spy (talk) 00:04, 5 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

What a fine collection of names![edit]

(Spanish: Luis Alfonso Jaime Marcelino Manuel Víctor María de Borbón y Martínez-Bordiú, French: Louis Alphonse Gonzalve Victor Emmanuel Marc de Bourbon …)

Why do Jaime Marcelino María have no French form, and Gonzalve Marc have no Spanish form? —Tamfang (talk) 09:11, 18 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Louis Alphonse, Duke of Anjou. 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, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

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: 18 January 2022).

  • 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) 17:43, 16 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Duke of Franco[edit]

Is it correct that he "was expected to succeed to the Dukedom of Franco, held by his grandmother Carmen Franco and through his mother"? Surely the title would go to his grandmothers son, not daughter. Furthermore it is unlikely that the first duchess would be able to "bequoth" a title.Royalcourtier (talk) 06:38, 17 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The Spanish nobiliary law as changed in 2006 makes the grandmother's eldest daughter the next in line to the Dukedom (her son has already inherited a marquessate).In fact,the law there pressures those with multiple titles to break them up among their children.12.144.5.2 (talk) 04:15, 4 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Sectioning[edit]

I have no idea, having checked the source code, why the "Distinctions" section heading doesn't currently show up correctly. Chicbyaccident (talk) 15:04, 5 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Louis Alphonse, Duke of Anjou. 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: 18 January 2022).

  • 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) 10:15, 26 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Luis Alfonso, of what?[edit]

Hallo: the head of the genealogy site 'Geneanet', Joseph Guijarro, located in Paris, stated that most deliveries from Elizabeth, supposedly born from the so called: 'Fernando VII el indeseable', had the autorship of one of his relatives, with the surname 'Sutton', count of Clonard.

Isabel was forced to marry his double cousin Francisco de Asís, an exclusive homosexual, union made with the open refusal of both. It was said that none of the kids attributed to the self-proclamed: 'Carlos IV', upstream in the line, was truly his, but coming from infidelities, so, if no male blood continuity exists from Carlos IV to Luis Alfonso, and the marriage of Isabel and 'Francisquito' never existed, a forced marriage (By whom?) lacks any legal value, the use of the surname 'Bourbon' by Louis Alphonse is, to be kind: 'questionnable'.

PMID 20940110 Lalueza-Fox, 2011; and PMID 23283403, Charlier P, 2012, both in: For Sci Int Gen; address the peculiar genetics of the 'Y', or 'male chromosome' of Bourbons, a truncated form of it. Some genetic data may exist from a man called Leandro Alfonso Luis de Borbon Ruiz, previsouly known with the 'Ruiz Moragas' surnames, who requested using the Borbon surname, and also being included in the 'sucession line'.

The issue is close, but of deeper implications, to the 'concession', by the Vatican religious authority, absolutely out of their scope of powers, of the head of the Order of the Golden Fleece, to 'the king of Spain', la 'Toison d'or', el 'Vellocino de oro', that is a private distinction of the house of Burgundians. Why is Luis Alfonso, descendant of general Franco, accepted with no problem in France and elsewhere, while there is, in Spain, a hunt for those who refuse or refused to damn, curse, general Franco and his regime? An engima wrapped in a mistery, or a sardine wrapped in a sheet of the 'Pravda' newspaper. Please, someone to add data. btw: who has ever seen a Germanic man with furry arms? Aufwiedersehen. Gesund +--Hijuecutivo (talk) 20:07, 9 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Louis Alphonse, Duke of Anjou. 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: 18 January 2022).

  • 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) 01:30, 29 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Louis Alphonse as claimant to French throne?[edit]

So is the section that mentions Louis as "rightful claimant to the French crown, being the senior agnatic descendant of King Louis XIV of France (ruled 1643–1715) through his grandson King Philip V of Spain." meant to indicate that some people think he'd be a rightful claimant to the throne or is it meant to indicate that he IS a rightful claimant to the throne? Because as a member of the Spanish Bourbons and indeed a descendant of Philip V he would have no claim to the French throne due to the Treaty of Utrecht requiring Philip V and all of his descendants to permanently renounce their claims to the French throne. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2001:56A:7789:E100:84F5:177:77D1:52B2 (talk) 04:37, 14 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

This seems like a potential WP:BLP problem. I saw some friends posting this in the wild ( https://twitter.com/dreamoforgonon/status/1266747591942983684 ) where people rag on this guy for advocating for a royalist coup. If he really has claimed that the Republic should be overthrown and he should become King, then there should be some better sources for it than a 1992 book on genealogy, which is where the current article's line "He is considered the rightful pretender to the French throne by adherents of the Legitimist movement" is sourced to. I'm pretty sure there is no Legitimist movement in France whatsoever, and this is a historical curiosity. SnowFire (talk) 03:26, 31 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

France is a republic. There is no French throne to claim, much less pretend to claim. Why does this guy have "Duke of Anjou" in his Wikipedia article title if he's not actually a Duke of anything! Axem Titanium (talk) 06:37, 31 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
France, today is a Republic. Yesterday and the day before yesterday, it was a Monarchy. It will become a monarchy again in the future. The republic will be just an abnormality in the history of FranceStijn Calle (talk) 13:37, 31 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
That's nice, but I'm asking specifically if the Duc de Anjou himself thinks he's a Duke and actually advocates for the overthrow of Macron so he can save the French people. Or if there is a viable political movement (not a wedding invitation & fancy dinners society) in favor of enthroning him. If the answer is no to both, he isn't a pretender, or at least an active one. SnowFire (talk) 16:28, 31 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
@Stijn, even if we take the nonsense you just spouted as true, there's no guarantee it will be the same monarchy that you're evidently pining for, nor is it guaranteed that Louis Alphonse will be the Duke of Anjou under it (cf. WP:CRYSTAL). @SnowFire, his personal belief about his dukedom doesn't really matter since the title of Duke of Anjou has been abolished. Unlike, say, the Spanish or British monarchal systems, the French monarchy simply doesn't exist anymore. It holds no land and no members of this purported royal house govern anything. De facto, he is not a duke and there's no throne for him to stake a claim on, legitimate or otherwise, because the land (and people) of France is not administered by a throne. Axem Titanium (talk) 18:04, 31 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I entirely agree, of course, but occasionally there is an WP:ABOUTSELF / WP:COMMONNAME argument to be had (e.g. Emperor Norton, Queen Latifah, etc.), where it'd be okay to say he runs around calling himself Duc d'Anjou on Twitter ( https://twitter.com/louisducdanjou?lang=en ). I don't think it's sufficient here, just saying it's at least something to consider. SnowFire (talk) 19:22, 31 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Sure, I see the argument for those two examples, but here it's a claim to a nonexistent title, not a stage name or done in jest (mental illness, for Norton's case?). So-called royals are just human like anyone else and don't deserve special privileges, and in Louie's case, he's not even one of those. Axem Titanium (talk) 23:00, 31 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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."[23] 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 "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Louis_Alphonse_de_Bourbon&oldid=1210075091"