Talk:Frankopan family/Archive 1

title
I've moved the page to the most common title after Googling showed clear order of popularity: "Frankopan", "Frangepan", "Frankapan". I also verified with the English-only filter, and the result was the same. --Shallot 00:07, 2 Mar 2004 (UTC)

the 'New' Frankopans
The section about the 'new Frankopans' is misleading and inaccurate. The existing 'Frankopan' family is not connected to the historical Frankopan family. This is common knowledge, and Croatians recognise this modern family as a national disgrace. The only possible link is somewhere in the 14th century, and itself tenuous. The new 'Frankopans' have reached significance today, by marriage into the Royal Family of the UK; but they should be moved to another page. History knows no Frankopans other than those which have been lying in their graves for centuries.

The modern 'Frankopans' did change their name by deed poll to 'Frankopan Subic Zrinski', a completely new combination of old Croatian aristocratic names. This is a fact.

No historical Frankopan have ever carried the hereditary title of Prince, so all claims to that are fake. The same of course goes for the Doimi 'comital' title. These are also fake.

The fact is that in 2000 Louis Doimi di Delupis (the founder of this dynasty) changed his surname to Doimi de Frankopan Subic Zrinski, without genealogical connection to these names. Because of this act, he was thrown out (he did not resign as it suggests in the article) from the Croatian Nobility Association.

I shall delete these false claims from the article, pending input and opinion from other members of the Wikipedia community. — Preceding unsigned comment added by RufusR (talk • contribs) 16:42, 18 August 2012 (UTC)

Deletion and amendments to content
Ok, I have now deleted the section concerning the new Frankopans, since other than their recent adoption of the surname they are virtually unconnected with the historical family of which this Wikipedia entry is subject. Furthermore the article in its original state appeared to have been a cloak whose purpose was to aggrandize living persons - Wikipedia's rules on this subject are very strict.

I have also made minor changes to the text itself (mainly changing things from the present to the past tense). I also changed the 'titles' of the Frankopans in the little box from "Duke, Prince, Ban" to "Counts of Veglia, Segn, Krk and Modrus". This is to dispel the belief that the Frankopans had hereditary titles such as prince - they did not. the Ban of Croatia was strictly speaking an office, not a hereditary title, and I believe the list of eminent Frankopan individuals at the bottom of the page is enough to show who carried this office. RufusR. — Preceding unsigned comment added by RufusR (talk • contribs) 09:21, 20 August 2012 (UTC)
 * I appreciate the good faith shown here, and agree that the "modern" Frankopans listed may not be genuinely related to the medieval dynasty. But insofar as there are reliable sources which attest to their "titles", etc., such information cannot be unilaterally deleted. We need to see some statement by the Croatian Nobility Association and articles in newspapers refuting the claims made in the other sources. Sorry. FactStraight (talk) 09:32, 20 August 2012 (UTC)

No need to apologise, FactStraight, I understand the need for sources. There are no historical sources whatsoever which, for instance, ever mention that the Frankopans were princes. All genealogical sources from the 17th century onwards attest to the extinction of the Frankopan family; let us just mention Siebmacher, one of the more eminently known sources. Another seminal source is Ivan Nagy's 'Hungarian Noble Families' from the 19th century, here is the link to the Frangepan page: http://books.google.sk/books?id=X_cUAAAAYAAJ&pg=RA1-PA236&lpg=RA1-PA236&dq=frangepan+csalad&source=bl&ots=ttzF92lrQ2&sig=YNf05TWqo3_fmdqx7QP5inGJwC4&hl=en&sa=X&ei=yFQyUODQH8mM4gSXiIHgAg&redir_esc=y#v=onepage&q=frangepan%20csalad&f=false

The Ivan Nagy states the the Frankopans are extinct, and that their titles were 'Counts of Veglia, Modrus, and Trsat'.

You rather diplomatically entertain the possibility that what is written in this wikipedia article is not really 'true'. There is indeed a statement from the Croatian Nobility Association, here is the link: http://skola.sys.hr/plemstvo/Dojmi1.htm Please use google translate if your knowledge of Croatian is not perfect. This unequivocally states the position of the association. Here is the link to another article written by a croatian genealogical expert about the actual origin and genealogy of the Doimi family: http://www.croatia.ch/zanimljivosti/071103.php

Here are also links to croatian articles revolving around the 'False Frankopans': http://www.nacional.hr/clanak/13230/hrvatska-misija-laznih-frankopana http://www.jutarnji.hr/lazna-plemkinja-paula-de-frankopan-uskoro-se-udaje-za-lorda-windsora/156515/

I understand that popular media articles may not be the most reliable sources, but the emphatic nature of them and also the fact that the Croats would be expected to know about the history of their most famous families, make these sources rather more relevant.

I have pondered about amending the wikipedia article instead of deleting it, as I do not wish to be accused of vandalism, but I genuinely do not believe that this material should remain here. It is utterly misleading and it flies in the face of truth. In itself this is a relatively uncontroversial matter - it seems it has become controversial since the modern family has come to popular knowledge through the royal wedding. But perhaps I could 'add' another new section which would present this 'alternative point of view' on wikipedia? — Preceding unsigned comment added by RufusR (talk • contribs) 14:52, 20 August 2012 (UTC) --RufusR (talk) 15:21, 20 August 2012 (UTC)

I have now amended the content accordingly. I have deleted very little, only information which was not referenced at all (i.e. there was no source) and which was opposed by relevant sourced information, which I replaced it with. Nevertheless, any individual with any sensitivity to Croatian and Hungarian history will still baulk at this plain daylight fraud. --87.197.114.237 --RufusR (talk) 06:41, 21 August 2012 (UTC)

I apologise I see now that I did not sign in - those changes in the Wikipedia article were made by myself. --RufusR (talk) 06:41, 21 August 2012 (UTC)
 * Thank you for your prompt, thoughtful response and edits! I had, frankly, been suspicious since reading the announcement of the "royal" wedding: when the only title that the British court was comfortable ascribing to the Doimi family was "Don", I guessed that the claim of their "princely" title must not have been documentable. FactStraight (talk) 07:31, 21 August 2012 (UTC)


 * Thank you - I hope that this will make the article slightly more balanced.--RufusR (talk) 08:59, 21 August 2012 (UTC)

I have noticed that all the information about the living 'Frankopans' has been disseminated on Wikipedia by one single user, 'Official Lists' (at least this user has not stooped to sockpuppetry) - this includes all the other collateral Frankopan articles on individual members. I guess this kind of thing happens all the time on Wikipedia, but it is a shame that users are powerless to stop it.--RufusR (talk) 14:06, 7 September 2012 (UTC)

New Edits
I have restored, at the very least, the academic essay by Ivan Mirnik, which unequivocally states that there is no genealogical justification for the modern Frankopan claim. The blog entries, though utterly true and taken from papers such as the Times and the Telegraph, I concede may not *appear* wholly professional. However, it is evident that the author of these amendments is closely connected with the subject of the living family (see all the edits and creations of Wikipedia pages on the living members of the family). Though I am a new member here (to really only attempt to reinstate a factual and verifiable basis for this particular sad case), I do know that Wikipedia has strict rules on articles on living individuals. Why does it allow this rampant disregard for the rules?--RufusR (talk) 13:09, 8 September 2012 (UTC)

I have deleted the section of the alleged apology by the Times Newspaper, because this is not verifiable - the link was dead, it took you to the 'subscribe now' homepage: if sources are at dispute, then this should be the first one to go, for it leads to nothing.--RufusR (talk) 14:00, 8 September 2012 (UTC)
 * Although I tried to strike a balance in editing this article between assertions that support the familial connection to the original Frangipanis and those which call the modern family a fraud, I am sympathetic to your edits: it seems evident that the alleged genealogical connection is not widely accepted; that the claims to Croatian and Italian nobility are, at best, outdated, at worst, fabricated; the claim that the modern Italian Republic has recognized the modern Frankopans as entitled to the title of "prince" is extremely unlikely; and the fact that the official announcement of the marriage into the British Royal Family ascribed to the prospective in-laws no higher title than the courtesy one of "Don" must raise red flags. OTOH, the family's current professional and academic position in British and Continental society appear genuine; the marriage with the British Royal Familly is indisputable; and edits done by a living family member or retainer seem likely. That last fact trumps all others, however, according to Wikipedia's BLP policy: we are required to err on the side of protecting the reputations of living family members. Therefore, although not required to include challenged claims, we may not publish allegations to which they object unless it is unequivocally well-sourced. The problems here are that the accusations against them are rather strong and the sources for those accusations rather weak. I agree that the quote from The Times must come out until a valid, live link is restored. But the flat denials of the Frankopans' authenticity, titles, nobility and the expulsion from the Croatian noble society must have better (preferably multiple) reliable sources, and until they do, must stay out. FactStraight (talk) 14:42, 8 September 2012 (UTC)

Thank you, I appreciate your explanation. But I have to say I am at a loss. The facts are simple: they assert that they are princes: genealogists, historians and the wider media assert that they are not; they assert that they are descendants of the Frankopans: genealogists, historians, and the wider media assert that they are not. The sources for the positive assertion of this seem to me weaker than the latter. But why not include both sides of the view? I do truly believe that this family would be far better protected if they were not on Wikipedia at all - or at the very least not on this House of Frankopan page. The actions of this family *invite* public scrutiny - they have entered the public realm, their privacy has been compromised only by themselves and their frankly delusional quest for social advancement. No connection to the Royal Family should legitimise their princely claims - and I do believe that their 'attainment' of a certain social position in Britain shields them from general scorn. No genealogical tree exists anywhere which traces this ancestry - why am I required to post multiple and compelling sources to negate an assertion for which NO source exists at all? I want to make it clear however that I do not wish to cause offence to you or the administrators - I am simply frustrated about this situation.--RufusR (talk) 15:29, 8 September 2012 (UTC)

In the meantime, I added mainstream Croatian coverage of the controversy. continued to make disruptive edits that have been reverted by myself and others, and their problematic behavior was the topic of two discussions: --Joy &#91;shallot&#93; (talk) 18:01, 8 April 2013 (UTC)
 * Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive779
 * Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive791

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Frankopan. 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:
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20091003041637/http://www.matica.hr/Kolo/kolo0202.nsf/AllWebDocs/strcic1 to http://www.matica.hr/Kolo/kolo0202.nsf/AllWebDocs/strcic1

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

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 16:56, 6 October 2017 (UTC)

About the judgment of an Italian court concerning the ″new″ Frankopans
There's a misleading segment that keeps reappearing in identical shape in wikipedia articles that have ″Frankopan″ in their title (including this one) and is the only ″argument″ that can be heard or found online that supports the premise of the Doimi de Lupis family from the UK being the descendants of the Frankopan, Croatian noble family whose family tree is very well documented and which, according to all credible and verifiable sources, became extinct in the 17th century. Any information about the reference that accompanies the segment seems impossible to find (I dare others to try) which also makes it impossible to verify the claims made and/or the correct interpretation of the content of the reference. The segment also contains some unsourced and suspicious claims that are unlikely to be true, so I'd like to analyse it here. This is the segment:

''The Court of Perugia confirmed the usage of the name and titles of the Doimi de Frankopan family in a judgment having previously examined the genealogical tables of the family and the grant of the title of Prince in 1425, with sanction of anyone who disputes this. The judgment has executory force in all jurisdictions in Europe and elsewhere and is recognised by the Croatian Government. (reference: Tribunale di Perugia, 1103/2007)''

So the claim is that an Italian court granted British citizens the right to use the name of Croatian nobility as well as the royal title of Prince. (let's take a moment to let that sink in) It all happened in the year 2007 (according to the reference provided) in the Italian Republic, where titles of nobility have not been officially recognised since 1948. (again, let's take a moment)

The segment also threatens with sanctions to anyone who disputes this. I don't really know how to interpret that part. Has the court prescribed sanctions for questioning someone's noble title? Again this is a court of a republic organised as liberal democracy and this would mean that the court restricted free speech because of a medieval noble title. I highly doubt the mentioned court actually did that (and I also dispute the title of Prince of the Doimi de Lupis, but more on that latter). This just seems like an argumentum ad baculum (meaning: we'll try to scare people off a little bit and then noone will bring this into question much).

Than there is the part that says that the judgment has executory force in all jurisdictions in Europe and elsewhere. Ridiculous. The Court of Perugia is not a recognized international court (that's just a fact) in order to have jurisdiction outside of Italian borders. Also no international court just by being recognized gets to ipso facto have the executory force. Who ever came up with this segment is counting on the readers not to know that.

Than there is the claim that the Croatian Government recognised the judgment. Also ridiculous (apart from being unsourced). There is no official or unofficial source to prove that (or any information about it what so ever). This is just plain false. As a matter of fact this appropriation of the name Frankopan (and Šubić and Zrinski) by some members of the Doimi de Lupis family is highly controversial in Croatia. Croatian Nobility Association even expelled them from their membership because of that (reference/source is in the ″Frankopan″ wiki article). It's also highly disputed among historians, genealogists, journalists and general public, which is why any recognition of the bloodline connection by the Croatian government seems extremely unlikely.

About the claim of the grant of the title of Prince in 1425. First of all it's not very clear from the segment if the title was supposed to have been granted to the Doimi de Lupis or the Frankopan. Since Doimi de Lupis were minor nobles in the Middle Ages (the rank of knighthood according to some sources) it's hard to find historical sources in the form of official state documents that mention them, and therefore verify the claim. But the fact that they are not very mentioned in historical sources (in general) makes the claim of them being Princes very dubious, because if that were the case they would have been mentioned (and with such title) somewhere in the official correspondence of the royal (Austrian-Hungarian) court. But such sources cannot be found. The Frankopan were feudal nobles that were styled as Counts in the official correspondence from their era. For example, it's possible to find documents of that kind in the Austrian State Archives (Österreichisches Staatsarchiv) where they are referred to as ″comes″ in Latin (since Latin was the language of law in the Middle Ages), which is equivalent to count in English (eg. Frangipani, Bernardin Comes de). There are even two documents in the Archives from the year that is mentioned - 1425 (119.16 Fragiapan, Begle, Segnie et Modrusse, Niclas Comes des and 120.6 Frangiapan, Begle, Segnie et Modrusse, Niklas Comes de) - that also style a member of the Frankopan family as ″comes″, more specifically ″comes de Begle″, which is Latin for Count of Veglia. In later official correspondence documents listed in the Archives that are written in German the title that is mentioned with the members of the family is ″Graf″ (eg. Christoph Graf Frangepan und Wolfgang Graf Frangepan from the year 1525, Graf Niclas von Frangepan (Frankopan, Frangipani) from the year 1644, Graf Georg von Frangepan (Frankopan, Frangipani) from the year 1679), which is German for Count. So clearly nothing has changed for them in 1425 regarding their title. The Italian Treccani encyclopedia is referring to the Croatian Frankopan family as ″conti di Veglia″ (source: "Frangipane" in Treccani). Hungarian sources do the same: they are styled as ″vegliai comes″ in the Arcanum Database ("Frangepán-család") and as ″vegali gróf″ (gróf is Hungarian for Count) in the book Hungarian Families from 1858, page 235 ("Hungarian Families" in google-books). According to the entry about the family in the digital edition of Croatian Encyclopedia ("Frankapan (Frankopan)" entry) their title in Croatian was ″knezovi Krčki″ (Counts of Krk; Krk is Croatian name for the Croatian island called Veglia in Italian), but (according to the same encyclopedia) ″knez″ can mean different things depending on different time in history and has different geographical use. In Croatia in the late Middle Ages it was a feudal noble title (not a sovereign one), so when Croatian historians are translating the title of the family into an English equivalent they write it as Counts of Krk (a few examples of articles in English from academic journals by different Croatian authors: Strčić (2007), Horvat (2005), Kosanović (2016), and a book chapter: Marković (2012)). So where does the information about the Frankopan being Princes since 1425 come from? It was not noted in the official correspondence of the Austrian-Hungarian imperial-royal court or was it noted in other historical sources, or by past or contemporary historians in Italy, Croatia or Hungary (where the family was active and known in the past).

There's also the reassurance in the segment from the beginning of this entry that the court in Perugia examined the genealogical tables of the family prior to making a judgment. Now, providing that credible family tree or some other genealogical proof really existed, doesn't this beg the question of why the Doimi de Lupis family is not using that to silence their critics? Why don't they brag about thair family tree in public (and on their wikipedia pages)? Instead, all there is to support the bloodline connection between them and the Frankopan family is a dubious, confusing, misleading, threatening (and good reasoning insulting) segment, that every once in awhile reappears in wikipedia articles that have the word ″Frankopan″ in their title. The only reference provided for some of its claims is impossible to verify, while other claims are completely unsourced and absurd. It doesn't even seem like the segment is a result of incorrect interpretation of the reference, it seems intentionally fabricated. But it keeps reappearing. So, I figured I should put some information about it on the talk page. --Caelumastris (talk) 15:35, 31 October 2017 (UTC)

2018
About the family Frangipani (Frankopanovich Francopanovich Frankopan Frankopani Frankapani Frangepan) of Dalmatia Croatia. The Counts Damiani di Vergada Gliubavaz Frangipani (Frankopan) de Detrico as unique and legitimate heirs of the family of the Counts Frangipani of Dalmatia Croatia Counts of Krk, Segnia, Modrus, Vinodol etcc.., formally distrust anyone (person or entity) intends to make use of their old surnames, coats of arms and related family traditions. The counts Damiani di Vergada Gliubavaz Frangipani (Frankopan) Detrico, expressly reserves the right to appeal to the judicial authorities national and international, for the legal protection of their rights, reasons and interests, for see refreshed all moral and economic 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, subsequent family branch that they not only do not recognize, but who have no relationship, and that substain impossible relationship to the Frangipani (Frankopan) family of Dalmatia-Croatia that they just as Damiani Counts of Vergada Gliubavaz Frangipani (Frankopan) Detrico represent in fact and in law. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 46.44.215.226 (talk) 07:22, 20 October 2018 (UTC)

'Doimi de Lupis' Name Claiming'
I have tried to edit out the biased and defamatory claims about the Frankopans and their surname, only to have the edit immediately reverted.

In addition to the grammar being very poor and confusing, the entire section is written with a great deal of negative bias and no attempt at a neutral point of view (NPOV). This user threatens to "report" me whenever I say so, but this violates Wikipedia standards - NPOV is a very basic and primary Wikipedia editing rule. A number of the claims are either not sourced or not supported by the sources attached to them, and much of it is merely the opinion of the author and not fact at all.

Examples:

1. In the first paragraph, the statement "trying to save the reputation of his family name, Louis's cousin Mirko Jamnicki-Dojmi di Delupis wrote an open letter where he denounced claims over Frankopan, Šubić and Zrinski names by his family" is not NPOV. It might be appropriate to say that Mirko SAID his motivation was to save the family name IF there is indeed any proof that he did say that - and I don't see any source proving that he did - but you cannot merely conjecture that he did it for this reason and state it as a fact; this makes the assumption that the current family using the name Frankopan has destroyed the family's reputation, which is opinion and not fact. Same with this statement in the second paragraph: "not knowing that part of the family falsely presents itself" - that is highly slanted and not NPOV.

2. In the third paragraph,it says that Ingrid "influenced with false information the publishing of a book with the intention to distort history about these two families" - Firstly, it is debatable whether the information is false so that is very biased, but more importantly, the writer is not inside Ingrid's head and therefore has no way of knowing what her "intention" was (she has never announced that she was intending to distort history, obviously). This is purely opinion, and a very defamatory one of a Living Person at that. Certainly not NPOV.

3. Also in the third paragraph is this sentence: during the Pope John Paul II visit of The Shrine of Our Lady of Trsat... the members of de Lupis family managed to get presented not by their original name yet as Frankopans. There are a couple of problems with this: first, their name at this point WAS legally "Frankopan" (despite the writer not-so-subtly referring to them as the "de Lupis family"), so there's no reason they would have been presented under any other name. And secondly, the tone of "managed to get presented" strongly implies duplicity. Again, not NPOV.

4. In the fourth paragraph, the statement that "Louis Doimi de Lupis together with his wife and children eventually started to use the title of Prince, a royal title never held by the Frankopans, claiming that an Italian court gave them the right to use the name of Croatian noble family the Frankopans as well as the style of Prince/Princess in the late 2000s" is a completely unsourced claim. This is defamatory.

5. Also unsourced in the fourth paragraph is the second half of this statement: "it is possible to find online sources where they are styled as "Prince/Princess ... of Croatia"",[30][31] "which is a royal title that only the heir apparent of the House of Habsburg-Lorraine could illegitimately claim". Moreover, the entire sentence is highly irrelevant - saying that "it's possible to find sources online where people call them prince and princess" in no way proves that THEY have claimed the title of prince and princess..

In short, this entire section reads like a personal hit piece on this family. It is biased, defamatory toward Living Persons and improperly sourced. It should be deleted, but the same user reverts the edits whenever anyone tries. Suggestions for how to proceed? Lilipo25 (talk) 08:05, 29 May 2019 (UTC)

Miki Filigranski has now gone so far as to remove the ONE brief quote I had managed to get in the whole article which gave the Frankopans' side of the story - two short sentences by Peter Frankopan - and replaced it with another biased statement that included an interviewer telling Peter Frankopan that she had a "sensitive subject" to bring up with him - completely irrelevant. This has to stop. These constant edit revisions are vandalism, and this is nothing more than a very personal bashing of this family. That is not what Wikipedia is for. Lilipo25 (talk) 01:01, 1 June 2019 (UTC)


 * First and foremost, we are dealing here with historical facts, sourced by reliable and/or scholarly sources. There's nothing biased, defamatory, neither it is improperly sourced. According to article's revision history, it was since October 2017 included in the article and reverted back by confirmed editors for being well sourced (for e.g., ).


 * 1. First sentence is sourced by Nacional (2002) "Smatrajući da je Ingrid Detter zbog svoje, kako kažu, “prezimenjačke megalomanije” ugrozila ugled obitelji Delupis, pobunili su se članovi obitelji njezina muža. Konkretno, Mirko Jamnicki-Dojmi di Delupis, bratić Louisa Doimi de Lupisa ... narušila ugled jednoj časnoj obitelji" etc., while the second by GHPZ (2008) "Nažalost tada se nije provjeravala, a nije bilo kod nas poznato da se taj dio obitelji Doimi lažno predstavlja. Kad je to Hrvatski plemićki zbor uočio prvo je njihovo članstvo zamrznuto, a zatim nakon analize suda časti prema statutu i pravilniku o članstvu zbog lažnog predstavljanja na prijedlog Plemićkog stola Veliko plemićko vijeće brisalo ga je 2006. godine iz Zbora" or by Jutarnji list (2018) "Hrvatsko plemićko društvo, kada je saznalo za njegovu promjenu imena, ustvrdilo je da..."


 * 2. It is sourced by scientific review by reputable Croatian scholarly journal Povijesni prilozi (2004), that the book's author himself said that the information was given by Ingrid "Već na samome početku udara u oči da L. Orešković knjigu “Les Frangipani” posvećuje slijedećim riječima “Izražavamo svoju najiskreniju zahvalnost princezi Ingrid de Frankopan zbog njene podrške toj publikaciji i za informacije koje nam je dala” (Nous exprimons nos plus vifs remerciements à la princesse Ingrid de Frankopan pour son soutien à cette publication et pour les informations qu’elle nous a confiées)..." and that this information was false and intentionally wrongly interpreted to prove the existence of the fourth family Frankopan that is Doimi (Dojmi) di Delupis from London. The same can be read summarized at GHPZ (2008) "Knjiga je napisana da bi dokazala da pored tri poznate obitelji Frankopani u Rimu, Furlaniji i Krku postoji i četvrta dalmatinska Doimi de Frankopan. No bezuspješno". Arguing that she "she has never announced that she was intending to distort history" is a lie considering all the evidence of the controversy, including for example when proclaimed after buying former Frankopan's castle while presenting themselves as Frankopan's "vrlo važan trenutak jer se oni vraćaju kući i jer je dvorac za njih i njihovu domovinu Hrvatsku simbol patriotizma" (very important moment because they [Frankopans] are returning home and because the castle for them and their homeland Croatia is a symbol of patriotism), as I. Mirnik described, "posrijedi svojatanje Frankopana i cinično izrugivanje povijesti".


 * 3. It is sourced by Povijesni prilozi (2004) "Druga sablazan bila je još gora: zveckajući ponešto krunicom, a ponešto novcem (zasigurno Sir Timothyja Sainsburyja, s kojim su sada u svojti), «prinčevi» su se uspjeli korporativno progurati u Trsatsko svetište i tamo biti predstavljeni Sv. Ocu tijekom njegova trećeg posjeta Hrvatskoj dana 8. lipnja 2003.! Naravno, predstavljeni su ne pod svojim pravim, nego pod tuđim imenima. Bila je to jedina tamna strana inače veličanstvenog stotog putovanja Ivana Pavla II. I gorki je okus ostao i neugodna uspomena, a Hrvatska je osramoćena diljem svijeta, ne samo Trsatski samostan" and GHPZ (2008) "Takove titule mogu samo u našoj zemlji kod neukih izazvati pozitivnu reakciju, pa da uz zveckanje novce budu primljeni u početku stvaranje Hrvatske u Predsjedničke dvore ili ih župan u Ozlju tako predstavi, ili u crkvi na Trsatu prilikom posjete pape Ivana Pavla II. budu njemu predstavljeni". Arguing that "there's no reason they would have been presented under any other name" is again a lie when it is even scientifically proven, besides obviously, that the family is falsely presenting itself as relatives and descendants of the Frankopan family, stealing their identity and family. Exactly because of that this event is particurarly mentioned as the  Trsat Castle and The Shrine of Our Lady of Trsat have been built and used by the family Frankopan.


 * 4. It is strongly sourced that the members of the Doimi de Lupis have been using a royal title of Prince, from GHPZ (2008) "Prince Peter Frankopan of Croatia (when was marrying) to British papers. The part "claiming that an Italian court gave them the right to use the name of Croatian noble family the Frankopans as well as the style of Prince/Princess in the late 2000s" previously was sourced by "Tribunale di Perugia, 1103/2007", but that is probably difficult to confirm and should be removed until proven true.


 * 5. Again, it is strongly sourced that the members of the family have been using a royal title of Prince. Arguing that it "no way proves that they have claimed the title of prince and princess" is a strawman and contradicting to the existence of a texts like in The Telegraph (2001), Nacional (2002) quote of Mirko Jamnicki-Dojmi di Delupis "Posizanje za kraljevskom krunom Hrvatske od strane osobe, rođene Šveđanke, u najmanju je ruku komičan gest. Nakon rata to je do krajnjih granica neukusno i uvredljivo za našu domovinu..." (Reaching out for the royal Crown of Croatia by a foreign person, a born Swede, is at least a comic gesture. After the war, this is utmost distasteful and insulting to our homeland...)--Miki Filigranski (talk) 02:39, 1 June 2019 (UTC)


 * 6. The quote by Peter Frankopan was not removed, it was paraphrased and put into the source. The quote itself is irrelevant because its content is retelling the history of the Frankopan family which has nothing to do with the Domini de Lupis family Peter's father belongs to. Reverting the content of the section, based on such wrongly understood and false arguments, is disruptive.--Miki Filigranski (talk) 02:43, 1 June 2019 (UTC)


 * stop disrupting the article and take the issue to the talk page. If you still do not want to accept the facts and agree, then start a WP:DISPUTE resolution. Also, stop constantly saying that it is "vandalism", "bashing", "personal" etc. it is not and won't change anything.--Miki Filigranski (talk) 02:46, 1 June 2019 (UTC)


 * It is obviously ridiculous for you to reply to my message on the talk page - where I have been trying to get you to engage for some time and you have only just now done so - by telling me to "take it to the talk page". Obviously, that's where the comment of mine to which you are replying IS. We are ON the talk page.


 * Again, you cannot make these claims as FACT - you COULD say, for example, that "the author of the book accused Ingrid de Frankopan of making false statements", if you provide a link to him saying it. You CANNOT say "she falsified evidence with the intention to rewrite history" - can you not see the difference? The first is a fact. The second is conjecture and opinion. You do not know what her "intentions" were, and the author's opinion is not fact, either.


 * You keep saying that it is "strongly sourced" that Peter Frankopan calls himself a prince and the family has called themselves princes BUT YOU HAVEN'T SHOWN IT IN ANY SOURCE. You have used nonsense like saying "it's possible to find on the internet sites where people have called him a Prince" - that is NOT proof that he claims the title. Surely you can see that?


 * The quote by Peter Frankopan is one of the only relevant things in this whole mess - your obvious anger toward the Frankopans does not overrule their own statement on their surname being included in a section about their surname.


 * You keep saying "we are dealing with facts", but that's the whole problem - YOU ARE NOT. You are dealing with opinion and conjecture and using a very negative bias toward Living Persons, which is expressly against Wikipedia policy. Frankly, the name this family chooses to use is not even of particular importance - it's perfectly legal in Great Britain, where they have resided for 70 years, to take any name you wish. If they decided to call themselves Rockefeller tomorrow, it would merit no more than a sentence in the article about them. It is not worthy of  these extremely lengthy, continuing hatchet jobs on the character of these people on multiple articles across Wikipedia because you disapprove of the surname they use. A brief paragraph stating the controversy and their reply to it would be more than enough. This all smacks of a personal vendetta, and that is not what Wikipedia is for. Lilipo25 (talk) 03:09, 1 June 2019 (UTC)


 * I am informing you for the X time to stop commenting on editors and focus on the content (WP:PERSONAL). 1) the author of the book did not "accuse" Ingrid, it was the author of the scholarly review of the book. There's no more mention of only Ingrid in the section but "they" per second source. Again, these are again not mere opinion as it is something which factually happened. We do know what their intention was - providing false information for the invention of the existence of a family which never existed. It is said right there in the scholarly paper several times, that's the conclusion, it's obvious considering the whole controvery and context. If you insist it can be attributed as well. 2) The sources are cited in the article 3) Peter's quote content is irrelevant because it is retelling the Frankopan family history, not his family history. Do you understand that? It is pointless for direct quotation. 4) No, we are dealing with facts. If you do not want to accept that, then prove they are not facts. Simple as that. Find me reliable sources which prove the whole section is based only on "opinion", "conjecture", "negative bias". Your or mine personal opinion do not matter, the RS repeteadly say that the choice of the family name is of particular importance, especially because the family members are claiming the Frankopan family identity and history. It is not only an adoption of a name. Do you understand that? --Miki Filigranski (talk) 03:30, 1 June 2019 (UTC)


 * I AM commenting on the content. (By the way, you have called me a "liar" at least three times on three separate talk pages now, so you might want to watch that WP:PERSONAL yourself, there). I don't know how to make it any clearer - if a reviewer said that Ingrid gave false information, then you can absolutely say "such-and-such-reviewer accused Ingrid Frankopan of giving false information". Totally legit. But you CAN'T say "she gave false information to change history" - that IS an opinion. Do you see the difference? And you have provided NO facts for many of your statements - again, for example, you can't say "Peter Frankopan calls himself a prince" and then as proof say "It's possible to find sites online where he is called that" - the second does not prove the first at all. See?


 * I am completely at a loss as to how you want me to "provide sources" to prove that an unsourced opinion is an unsourced opinion?


 * Honestly, all I want here is for the articles about the Frankopans to adhere to Wikipedia policies regarding NPOV. I don't know the Frankopans. I will never meet them and they are not of personal importance to me as people. But the articles as they stand are biased and defamatory, and that's not ok. Lilipo25 (talk) 03:40, 1 June 2019 (UTC)


 * P.S. By "RS", do you mean the Royal Society in Croatia? I am unclear on that. If you do, then I don't see why their opinion that it is important if these people use the name "Frankopan" is determines how much space it should be given in Wikipedia articles? Lilipo25 (talk) 03:55, 1 June 2019 (UTC)
 * RS is short for reliable source, for e.g. WP:RS.--Miki Filigranski (talk) 03:57, 1 June 2019 (UTC)
 * I see, thanks. I'm still unclear on why an outside source - in this case Croatian noble societies - would be the determining factor in how much weight and space and importance this topic is given in Wikipedia articles about the Frankopans? They have every right to be offended by the use of the name if they think it's wrong, but that doesn't make it worth all these very lengthy and very negative (I don't know know what word to use here, since you keep getting angry at whatever one I use) ...word pieces...in multiple articles about the family. Their name is not the reason that any of the three of them are in Wikipedia. Lilipo25 (talk) 04:09, 1 June 2019 (UTC)
 * Miki! Why are you doing that??? We are literally engaging in talk RIGHT NOW trying to work this out and you are edit warring as we do it, reverting the same edits again! WHILE we are still discussing it! A whole bunch of edits in a row! You just deleted Peter Frankopan's ONE quote AGAIN! WHY? This is not good faith engagement.Lilipo25 (talk) 04:16, 1 June 2019 (UTC)
 * There's only one Croatian nobility association. They are not determining factor anyhow as are not the only RS which extensively reported on them. Stay focused on the content as Wikipedian talk pages (WP:TALK) are not a forum to share personal commentary or argue personal point of view. What edit warring? I am making bold edits according to discussion, that's according to editing policy. I already explained you the Peter's quote twice. If you have any issue start a WP:DISPUTE.--Miki Filigranski (talk) 04:26, 1 June 2019 (UTC)
 * That is not what making edits according to discussion means - you just reverted the article to what you wanted despite it still being in great dispute, without any resolution being made! You are edit warring again. I will make the reports but I had really hoped you would act in good faith and try to come to an agreement and not just do the same thing again with no agreement. This is not good editing at all. You are wrong to delete that quote yet again - it is the ONLY statement from the Frankopan family among the many, many negative statements attacking them and absolutely belongs in the article. Lilipo25 (talk) 04:32, 1 June 2019 (UTC)
 * To understand how editing process at Wikipedia works, read WP:BRD carefully. I reverted to old revision which has a WP:SILENCE and which is substantiated as explained above, making along WP:BOLD constructive edits according to our discussion. I am telling you for the 3rd time, if you don't find the current section's revision satisfactional then start a dispute resolution. I already explained you the quote issue twice, don't make me repeat myself countless times. Besides that quote, what are other issues?--Miki Filigranski (talk) 04:55, 1 June 2019 (UTC)


 * Hi Miki: I have edited the section while leaving in more than 90% of your material. I cleaned up all the grammar and language issues so it is now grammatically correct and the meaning is clear in English. I did my best to show both sides of the controversy as neutrally as possible, adding in information from a 2006 Evening Standard article on the issue.


 * As you know, the only other opinion we managed to get on the BPL noticeboard which took any side felt the language was biased, while another person said the whole issue was too complicated for them to even be able to understand, so we didn’t really get a consensus. I am hoping this compromise, which gives you most of what you wanted in the article while trying to make it adhere to WP:NPOV, will end the disagreement.


 * I was careful to leave in the fact that they WERE presented under the name Frankopan to the Pope while making the language more neutral and to leave in that the media sometimes refers to them with the titles of prince and princess, so the information that you wanted in is still there, just now written in a neutral and non-biased tone. Peter Frankopan’s quote has to be included because the family’s defense of their use of the name is directly relevant to an article about their use of the name. I had to remove the end of the last sentence, which said that only the heir apparent to the throne may use the title of prince because it had no source attached and I couldn’t find one. If you can find a source for that, we can put it back in.


 * I am weary of the back-and-forth between us over this issue and hope this satisfies you and the edit war can stop. The article now gives both sides of the controversy without taking either one, which is correct for an encyclopedia article. Peace? Lilipo25 (talk) 06:17, 28 June 2019 (UTC)
 * Sorry, but I cannot. You had your discussion at BLP noticeboard, it failed to attract enough attention and of those who did they did not agree with your POV and you're even misinterpreting them. You did not have a consensus for an edit, while a compromise, in general, is first discussed at the talk page, and not via an edit war (which you started and continue to do). In your edit, you falsely referred to the noticeboard discussion, you are again intentionally misinterpreting reliable sources and facts, pushing your own and/or family's agenda. Stop WP:NOTLISTENING and WP:STONEWALL. --Miki Filigranski (talk) 17:48, 29 June 2019 (UTC)
 * Miki, PLEASE stop. The BLP noticeboard got two responses, one which said the article was too complicated to understand and one that said your language was biased. It wasn't enough for consensus, so I edited to leave in almost all of your material and just gave the sentences a neutral, non-biased tone to meet WP:NPOV. I also cleaned up all the terrible English and grammar so the sentences actually make sense now and your reverting them means that a number of them are nonsensical in English again.


 * PLEASE stop the edit war. I am not pushing ANY "agenda", I AM TRYING TO KEEP ALL AGENDA OFF THE PAGE by giving both points of view, fully sourced, with no bias or point of view at all. You continue to delete all properly sourced material that shows one POV and revert to biased language. PLEASE - all of your information is in there, but you have to allow BOTH sides in an encyclopedia article about something controversial!! And I DID discuss it with you at length - you simply ignored the entire discussion and deleted all my properly sourced material anyway and called it "Bold editing" while saying I was "not listening". And you are doing it again. PLEASE STOP THIS. Lilipo25 (talk) 18:08, 29 June 2019 (UTC)
 * This other response said "What I can say is that it most certainly is possible to know another's intentions without having them state them" and "What we can do is quote or paraphrase experts in the field who may hold that opinion, but we'd need to attribute it to them, and then make an effort to find opposing views to maintain balance. We can definitely give the family's side too, but all of this needs very reliable sources" - and that is already done in the article. In your edit, you did not listen to what the editor said and continued to push your own POV. The one who should stop is you with your tedious way of discussing, editing, misinterpreting of the editing policy and what other editors had to say. The one who started the edit war and continues to do it is - you. Not me. You. You do not have support from other editors for the content change, no consensus, nothing. Do you understand that? The copy editing is whole other issue, that's always welcome if the one who's doing it understand the context at all. If you make one more revert to you POV, you are immediatelly getting reported at the noticeboard for disruptive editing.--Miki Filigranski (talk) 18:23, 29 June 2019 (UTC)
 * You made a 3rd disruptive edit. I already warned you at your talk page, if you make 4th you will violate WP:3RR and be reported. Please, I advise you to calm down. --Miki Filigranski (talk) 18:32, 29 June 2019 (UTC)
 * You are the one who is removing properly sourced content here! You cannot remove sourced material because it doesn't fit your personal POV. And THIS is what the other person (Zareth) on the noticeboard said, copied and pasted - note that it clearly says you were editorializing and you can't word things the way you did:
 * We should definitely avoid language that implies something not directly said, such as "managed to get themselves". This is what is called editorializing. I still don't know what a name has to do with distorting history. We can't say, in Wikipedia's voice, that anyone intended to distort history, because that would be OR and a judgment call on our part. What we can do is quote or paraphrase experts in the field who may hold that opinion, but we'd need to attribute it to them, and then make an effort to find opposing views to maintain balance. We can definitely give the family's side too, but all of this needs very reliable sources.
 * Edit warring and then posting "You are edit warring" on my talk page doesn't fool anyone. Please, please, please stop, Miki!. Lilipo25 (talk) 18:41, 29 June 2019 (UTC)
 * What do you not understand in the part at "What we can do is quote or paraphrase experts in the field who may hold that opinion..."? How many times did I quote you the source? Why did you remove the expert's opinion?--Miki Filigranski (talk) 18:46, 29 June 2019 (UTC)
 * The only thing I removed is something that had NO SOURCE ATTACHED at all. YOU removed sourced content, repeatedly, and I DON"T CARE ANY MORE. You won. You got the admin to lock the page on your biased, defamatory, half-unsourced, non-NPOV edit with English so poor that much of your meaning is lost and to lock out sourced, NPOV content. You WON. It isn't worth trying to make this page encyclopedic with you willing to go to these lengths to keep it pushing your personal POV.  Now leave me alone. Lilipo25 (talk) 19:55, 29 June 2019 (UTC)


 * Please, do not add back without reaching a consensus here first. Hollarwd (talk) 20:22, 17 July 2019 (UTC)
 * The inclusion has an old consensus. The major edit & removal does not. Your edit was disruptive.--Miki Filigranski (talk) 10:19, 18 July 2019 (UTC)
 * Not to get dragged back in to Miki's endless edit warring, but there was most definitely not an "old consensus" reached on her edits. Lilipo25 (talk) 16:57, 18 July 2019 (UTC)
 * Constant revert by editors and administrators does not indicate there's any consensus for the removal. --Miki Filigranski (talk) 20:41, 24 July 2019 (UTC)
 * What are you talking about? I didn't say there was a consensus - YOU did. I said there was NOT a consensus.
 * You said right there, three comments up: "The inclusion has an old consensus". I pointed out that no such consensus was ever reached at all, so that simply isn't true. You just reverted sourced, NPOV edits so many times and carried on so long calling me names (and finally got an admin to lock the page on a biased and defamatory edit) that I gave up in exasperation. That's not a consensus. Lilipo25 (talk) 21:12, 24 July 2019 (UTC)
 * Wow, again with the ignorance. Constant revert by multiple editors and administrators over the years indicates there's at least WP:SILENCE consensus for inclusion and not removal.--Miki Filigranski (talk) 21:24, 24 July 2019 (UTC)
 * Miki, stop it right now. Calling me "ignorant" is a violation of WP:PERSONAL. I did not call you any names here. It is not necessary for you to always be so aggressive and hostile to everyone over editing Wikipedia, and the apoplectic "Wow!"s and "I can't believe what I have to deal with!" and "I've never dealt with an editor who's so ignorant and can't understand how Wikipedia works!" from you to multiple people is an indication of your own inability to edit without warring.
 * Please look around and recognize that when you are saying the same angry, hostile things to multiple people on multiple pages, the problem might be you and not everyone else.
 * By the way WP:SILENCE is the weakest form of consensus, and you never really even had it - other editors continued to argue with you even after I gave up. Lilipo25 (talk) 21:37, 24 July 2019 (UTC)
 * Sorry, but I am only stating a fact. I was very polite in the beginning, but your level of ignorance and lack of understanding of what's written in RS, of accepting the truth, the fact multiple editors and administrators (!) over the years reverted and denied the remarks for removal, the fact you did not get any consensus for removal, the fact you first started to provoke, is obvious and a bit irritating. If you have an issue with that, sorry, that's your problem, not mine to deal with, except when your problem becomes disruptive for the development of Wikipedia.--Miki Filigranski (talk) 21:57, 24 July 2019 (UTC)
 * No, you are NOT "stating a fact" by calling me rude names. That is a personal attack, not a fact. You are calling several other people names on other pages, as well, all while threatening all of us that you'll report us to your personal admin if we object. Honestly, I cannot figure out how you have been allowed to behave this way for so long on Wikipedia. You endlessly edit war, you post defamatory, biased articles that blatantly violate the NPOV mandate, and your personal attacks and aggression to other editors never cease. Unbelievable. Lilipo25 (talk) 22:03, 24 July 2019 (UTC)
 * Almost everything you have written is a lie and further evidence of your ignorance. Won't comment further, it's a waste.--Miki Filigranski (talk) 22:09, 24 July 2019 (UTC)

Miki Filigranski's changes
Hello,

I have reverted 's changes in and, because I consider the chapter being written in a biased tone, in a violation of WP:NPOV. In addition to that, it also relies at documents published by Croatian Nobility Association, which is not a secondary independent source (fails both secondary source check, and independent source check). Since this involves living persons, please follow WP:BLP and explain why you consider your material to be "relevant, properly weighted, and reliably sourced". --Martin Urbanec (talk) 12:15, 24 July 2020 (UTC)
 * I already explained. I am not at the moment interested of wasting my time doing it again. I didn't have a good experience doing it with previous reverter, who mischaracterized and misunderstood the RS, seeing you're already at the beginning making false claims about the sourcing of the section - it doesn't bring any good faith - because it relies on only 1 RS by Croatian Nobility Association. There was a previous consensus to keep it. Instead of you should explain where, what, and why think it is written in a violation of NPOV.--Miki Filigranski (talk) 18:53, 24 July 2020 (UTC)
 * Please link to where the consensus to keep it was reached. Thanks. Lilipo25 (talk) 19:01, 24 July 2020 (UTC)
 * Since 2012 sock accounts who introduce themselves as being members of the false Frankopan family or being in contact with false Frankopan family are removing this section and the same information from articles on the false Frankopan family members on English Wikipedia, to only be blocked, and article reverted by administrators and editors (for example , ), because the "removing the entire notion is blatant censorship/whitewashing" and the section is "heavily documented". Then come new editors like Lilipo25 whose purpose of making an account are again about the removal of the content, and play slight of hand blaming the introduction of information to me i.e. anyone at the moment although it was introduced by other editors years ago and it was kept here by administrators and editors. Instead of saying there should be reached a consensus for keep, editors like Lilipo25 should explain where, what, and why something is controversial and reach a consensus for removal (and not fail ).--Miki Filigranski (talk) 19:39, 24 July 2020 (UTC)
 * Miki, I realise that English is not your first language and so I do not mean this as an insult in any way, but your comment about me is so ungrammatical that I am unable to figure out exactly what you are trying to accuse me of. I hope that you are not once again accusing me of being a sock puppet? You may recall that you made that claim once before and opened a Wikipedia investigation into me which found that this is my only account, and the only one I have ever had, and you were told to stop making that accusation.
 * It does appear that you have stated that my "purpose of making an account is about the removal of content" on this article, which is a very bizarre claim indeed. This article has been only a tiny portion of my Wikipedia editing. It wasn't the first thing I edited and I have never focused solely on it - in fact, I haven't edited it at all in over a year, and I have been fairly active editing during that time. How you could come to the conclusion that I made a Wikipedia account just for this article is beyond me.
 * You are the one who claimed there was a consensus, so I'm afraid the onus is on you to link to that discussion where the consensus was reached. I do not think it exists. Lilipo25 (talk) 22:01, 24 July 2020 (UTC)

2020
About the family Frangipani (Frankopanovich Francopanovich Frankopan Frankopani Frankapani Frangepan) of Dalmatia Croatia. The Counts Damiani di Vergada Gliubavaz Frangipani (Frankopan) de Detrico as unique and legitimate heirs of the family of the Counts Frangipani of Dalmatia Croatia Counts of Krk, Segnia, Modrus, Vinodol etcc.., formally distrust anyone (person or entity) intends to make use of their old surnames, coats of arms and related family traditions. The counts Damiani di Vergada Gliubavaz Frangipani (Frankopan) Detrico, expressly reserves the right to appeal to the judicial authorities national and international, for the legal protection of their rights, reasons and interests, for see refreshed all moral and economic 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, subsequent family branch that they not only do not recognize, but who have no relationship, and that substain impossible relationship to the Frangipani (Frankopan) family of Dalmatia-Croatia that they just as Damiani Counts of Vergada Gliubavaz Frangipani (Frankopan) Detrico represent in fact and in law. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 217.133.39.68 (talk) 16:31, 5 August 2020 (UTC)


 * It is unclear why you are posting what appears to be a Claim of Legal Standing on a Wikipedia Talk page? Wikipedia is not a court of law in any jurisdiction, so serving notice of your Claim here cannot serve any legal purpose. It is also clearly translated from a foreign language and very poorly, making it nearly impossible for a reader of English to understand what exactly you are claiming as your rights. I must say that despite the anonymous IP account, this reads exactly like the poor and highly distinctive written English of a longtime editor of this page. At any rate, this is not an appropriate place to declare Legal Standing for any legal procedure. Lilipo25 (talk) 02:56, 7 August 2020 (UTC)