Talk:Louis Henri, Duke of Bourbon

Untitled
The Living Museum of the Horse should be mentioned. Axeman89 07:18, 27 December 2006 (UTC)

What's the matter with the reference to Brobdignag in the "Persecution of Protestants" section? English is my second language, but so far as I know, Brobdignagian means "gigantic" (a reference to Jonathan Swift's works). Can somebody clarify that sentence? Rizzardi 00:07, 28 December 2006 (UTC)

Exactly Who is the Article About?
I hate to say it, but much of this article has absolutely nothing to do with Louis Henri, Duc de Bourbon, Prince de Condé. A lengthy discussion of the marriage of Louis XV should be found in the article on Louis, not this article. And there is almost no information about Louis Henri from the point of his activities regarding the marriage of the king until his death some 15 years later.

Thus, I would recommend excising almost all of what is found regarding the marriage of Louis XV, and let's get some information about Louis Henri from 1725 through 1740. Doug 14:17, 19 May 2007 (UTC)

It surprises me to see this above comment still here 5 months later and no response from the author. The details of Louis XV's wedding arrangements deserve only a couple of lines here and belong in an article on the future queen instead if at all. They are also presented in a style of a wider history discussion. The style is not appropriate to a biographical article at all and strikes any reader as being copied from a textbook or something similar. I propose to remove it if no one objects.--AssegaiAli 02:44, 7 October 2007 (UTC)

No response so I am removing all the irrelevant copy --AssegaiAli (talk) 20:34, 25 January 2008 (UTC)

Redundant & trivial content
A lot of unsourced edits are being uploaded rapidly to articles on French royalty. Some appear dubious, others wrong. Yet requests for reputable citations are ignored, deleted, or inadequately sourced (page numbers in books are essential to verify if the citation is accurate) -- while the wholesale editing continues. Please respond to these requests, either with reputable sources or more careful edits, before adding additional unsourced material. Also, much of the added material is redundant, excessive, or trivial. I've already recorded repeated objections to 1. unsourced allegations (e.g. that seem unprecedented, unlikely, or undocumentable) are apt to be deleted unless precisely sourced 2. redundancies (if it's in a box on the page, it's apt to be deleted from the text): 3. excess (details which belong in another person's article [e.g. parent, spouse, child], or which describe hard-to-verify details [e.g. "She felt envious": unless it's an attributed quote from a diary or correspondence -- how is it possible to know what someone who died hundreds of years ago "felt" or "thought"? Let's stick to what they verifiably said or did]), 4. gallicization (names and titles when combined, OK [but members of dynasties that ruled outside France -- Lorraine, Savoy, Modena, Bouillon, Monaco, etc -- shouldn't be gallicized, except for cadets born into a branch naturalised in France]; well-known phrases, yes; untranslatable terms, maybe; just for the sake of a more "French" sound or "feel" to the article -- not usually, and subject to deletion). Other editors will, of course, have their own views. Please don't use sockpuppets. I look forward to better mutual cooperation -- and better Wiki articles. Thanks. FactStraight (talk) 06:15, 6 June 2008 (UTC)

Prime Minister?
To the best of my recollection, the first de facto PM was Talleyrand, as "President of the King's [Louis XVIII's] council". -- Jack1755 (talk) 22:31, 4 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Certainly Talleyrand wasn't the first de facto prime minister. But Bourbon was certainly called Prime Minister, and fulfilled the function of one in terms of running France for those three years.  Certainly Richelieu and Mazarin are very commonly referred to as prime ministers. john k (talk) 03:06, 27 May 2010 (UTC)

Requested move 26 January 2023

 * 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: not moved. Consensus appears to be that the current titles are preferable. (non-admin closure) ModernDayTrilobite (talk • contribs) 21:32, 6 February 2023 (UTC)

– The two men, grandfather and grandson, were both Duke of Bourbon and Prince of Condé so at the moment they are not really disambiguated, and I cannot find a suitable form myself. This RM follows the one at Talk:Louis I, Prince of Condé, which added numerals to their predecessors' titles, but numerals are not normally used for those two. For what it's worth, Britannica has titles "Louis-Henri, 7e prince de Condé" and "Louis-Henri-Joseph, 9e prince de Condé". No such user (talk) 12:44, 26 January 2023 (UTC)
 * Louis Henri, Duke of Bourbon → ?
 * Louis Henri, Prince of Condé → ?


 * Pinging, , , participants of the previous RM. No such user (talk) 12:46, 26 January 2023 (UTC)
 * Where was that please? Johnbod (talk) 03:12, 2 February 2023 (UTC)


 * Comment. I've just learned that the grandfather did not use the title Prince of Condé he was entitled to (not sure about the grandson), so the status quo may ultimately be the best option. No such user (talk) 12:53, 26 January 2023 (UTC)


 * The title of "duke" was the highest title of nobility in France, and tied with dukedom, while "prince" was just a honorofic title. So I think we should use the highest held title by each person, so possibly: Louis IV Henri, Duke of Bourbon and Louis VII Henri, Duke of Bourbon? Marcelus (talk) 13:04, 26 January 2023 (UTC)
 * Support move to Louis Henri I, Prince of Condé and Louis Henri II, Prince of Condé (or some other numbering, though I would oppose the numbering from Britannica). Based on the RM adding numerals and the fact that the Princes of Condé constitute a cadet branch of the House of Bourbon. Also, Prince of Condé is probably more notable than Duke of Bourbon even if neither of these men were the reason the title is notable. Estar8806 (talk) 14:46, 26 January 2023 (UTC)
 * Oppose per comment by nominator. If one was known in the one way and the other in the other, this status quo is the best solution available. In the starting paragraph of the grandfather should be mentioned, that he was a prince of condé, even though he didn't used this title.
 * I have no idea, why the French peers aren't numbered at all (in difference to the british), but if it is introduced, please WP:CONSISTENT not for single individuals. Furthermore as the titles are translated per WP:USEENGLISH, the numbering should be in english, too.
 * One comment on "Prince": Prince is here as in Principality, not as in son of a king. Therefore it is the same "category" of title as Duke, but higher. Theoreticalmawi (talk) 16:46, 26 January 2023 (UTC)
 * Prince isn't higher than Duke Marcelus (talk) 18:03, 26 January 2023 (UTC)
 * Let me simply refer to Prince. Theoreticalmawi (talk) 14:36, 27 January 2023 (UTC)
 * Oppose per comment by User:Theoreticalmawi. It seems WP:COMMONNAME, the main policy, is against these, rather than theoretical, probably OR arguments. In fact the French article is at Louis IV Henri de Bourbon-Condé (and VI), but if we are not numbering these princes consistently we should have a wider discussion first. Or use their dates. Johnbod (talk) 03:12, 2 February 2023 (UTC)

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.