Talk:Frangipani family

[Untitled]
Actually the correct name of the family is Frangipani or Frangipane. A quick look on the the italian version of google or even the italian Wiki will clear any doubt. I corrected the text in the stub where it was possible, I hope someone will fix the title as well. Actually the Italian edition of Wikipedia states: "Frangipane (anche Frangipani) - famiglia nobile italiana". — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2.235.212.17 (talk) 17:45, 15 May 2013 (UTC)

by Ialkarn
 * I think Frangipani is just the "English" plural of Frangipane and the English-language practice for Italian names often uses the plural form. It is common enough in English and that's all I know. Srnec 22:17, 7 September 2007 (UTC)

-
 * This article has been swamped by zany Croatian unwikified and un-encyclopedic special pleading. What should we do with it? --Wetman 20:20, 6 September 2007 (UTC)
 * How about this? Srnec 22:17, 7 September 2007 (UTC)

deletion
I have deleted part of the last sentence, which claimed that the Frangipani exist today in the 'Princes Frankopan'. This is incorrect. — Preceding unsigned comment added by RufusR (talk • contribs) 09:05, 20 August 2012 (UTC)

Proposal
On 6 September 2007 wrote "This article has been swamped by zany Croatian unwikified and un-encyclopedic special pleading". On 7 September 2007 made a valuable edit. I propose restoring the core of this atrocious article to that version again in December 2013. That would remove a mass of unreferenced gibberish, a whole shipload of primary sources and a lot of very poor English. It might leave space for someone to write a few well-referenced lines of the history of this unfortunate family. Any objections? Justlettersandnumbers (talk) 23:31, 12 December 2013 (UTC)
 * No objections were voiced, so I've gone ahead and done this. I've added one reference to the article, and hope to add others soon. I also plan to remove any remaining unreferenced material in the very near future. I'd like to suggest that if anyone wants to add back anything from the previous verbose versions of the article, they should do so only with rigorous references to reliable sources, and that if those sources are not visible to others, then they should be quoted (with proper attribution) here so that other editors can see them and have the opportunity to comment on them. Justlettersandnumbers (talk) 02:02, 17 December 2013 (UTC)

This article must be deleted — Preceding unsigned comment added by 151.19.78.230 (talk) 19:04, 23 February 2016 (UTC)

Original surname of the famiglia Frangipani family
About the family Frangipani (Frankopanovich Francopanovich Frankopan Frankopani Frankapani Frangepan) of Dalmatia Croatia the Counts Damiani di Vergada Gliubavaz Frangipani (Frankopan) Detrico say that the original surname of the family is only Frangipani. The Counts Damiani di Vergada Gliubavaz Frangipani (Frankopan) de Detrico, as unique and legitimate heirs of the family Frangipani (Frankopan) of Dalmatia-Croatia, formally distrust anyone (person or entity) intends to make use of their old surnames, coats of arms and related family traditions, expressly reserves the right to appeal to the authorities national and international for the legal protection of their rights to see, reasons and interests, to see refreshed all moral and financial damages. The Damiani Counts of Vergada Gliubavaz Frangipani (Frankopan) de Detrico also intend to be considered and kept clearly distinct and separate from any other eventual, occasional, recently Came To and subsequent alleged family branch that they not only do not recognize, but who have no relationship, and formally support from wary impossible kinship ties to the Frangipani family of Dalmatia-Croatia that they just as Damiani Counts of Vergada Gliubavaz Frangipani (Frankopan) Detrico represent in fact and in law. The members of the Frangipani never carried the title of Prince, and never called themselves in other ways than Frangipani, Frangipane, Frankopanovich, Frankopan, Frangepan or Frankopanovits, all surnames directly connected with the legitimate decendants and heirs Counts Damiani di Vergada Gliubavaz Frangipani (Frankopan) Detrico. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 94.85.243.25 (talk) 17:10, 24 October 2016 (UTC)

The original and legitimate surname of the family of Croatia Dalmatia is only Frangipani dating back from centuries.

The family Frangipani of Croatia Dalmatia never carried the title of Prince: it's a false information.

Frangipane and Frankopan (Frankapan)
First of all the reference that was provided in the article regarding this issue did not mention it at all. Second, looking around I couldn't find anything about the supposed "false documents" or anything similar. Now on to the matter...there is no doubt that the connection between Italian Frangipane and Croatian Frankopans is dubious...as dubious as the connection of Frangipane to the Roman Anicia. Now the context in which Croatian Frankopan began to use this name was early 15th century, the Frangipani wealth and reputation was waning and has been for centuries now...at the same time you had a rising family on the eastern coast of the Adriatic which had marital connections to major families in the region (Naples, Austria, Hungary, etc. i.e. families such as Abensberg-Traun, d'Aragona-Trastámara, Bocskáy, Carrara-Carraresi, Erdödy, Garai, Corvinus-Hunyadi, Hohenzollern, Sforza, Zrinski-Zrinyi...just to mention a few) and was very VERY rich (and would get even more rich and powerful) as they controlled the trading routes and the maritime entrance into Croatia (and thus Hungary) and beyond to Austria, etc. The Italian Frangipani had the old pedigree, they claimed to be an ancient family existing since Roman times, while the Frankopan (as we said) had wealth. The conclusion is: Frankopans used the name with the blessing and approval of the Frangipane and both families had a benefit from it...this is the official story of both Italian and Croatian historian/genealogists who looked into the matter. Pope Martin was just a collateral and he had no reason to provide "false documents" as was claimed in the article, if there were "false documents" they were provided by both these families who claimed relations to each other...mutually. Shokatz (talk) 02:19, 10 February 2019 (UTC)