Talk:Charles, Cardinal de Bourbon (born 1562)

Page Move Reversion
Hi ,

I see you reverted my page move on the grounds that Charles II, Duke of Bourbon was also a cardinal. I understand this line of argument but I disagree with it.

The first cardinal de Bourbon was however briefly a major secular lord as the duc de Bourbon and Auvergne, and that is the title his article enjoys despite its brevity. By contrast neither of the two cardinal Bourbon's of the 16th century are known as secular lords. Therefore I don't believe their numbering leads to confusion.

Even if we do not restore the article to Charles II, cardinal de Bourbon, which fair enough, you could make an argument it should be 'Charles II, cardinal de Bourbon and Charles III, cardinal de Bourbon', Charles II de Bourbon-Vendôme is an unsatisfactory alternative as his grandfather was Charles IV de Bourbon-Vendôme. The 'II' numbering only makes sense in the context of him being the second Bourbon cardinal of this period.

I would therefore propose the following compromise. Charles de Bourbon, cardinal de Bourbon (1523-1590). Charles de Bourbon, cardinal de Bourbon (1562-1594) sovietblobfish (talk) 23:02, 2 March 2024 (UTC)


 * I believe their numbering leads to confusion because it is not in virtue of being a cardinal of the House of Bourbon that he is Charles II. It is as archbishop of Rouen. I don't think that second Bourbon cardinal of this period is good basis for an encyclopedia article title, although it might work as a fudge in a book. I agree that the current title is also unsatisfactory for the reasons you state. I am perfectly happy to use dates in the titles, but I see no need to repeat 'Bourbon'. Srnec (talk) 23:23, 2 March 2024 (UTC)
 * Hi Srnec,
 * Dates sounds good to me, and I can lose the double Bourbon if needs be. My main priority is preserving the fact they were cardinals de/of bourbon in the title as this is how I have seen them referred to in every index and every book. :) sovietblobfish (talk) 23:27, 2 March 2024 (UTC)