Talk:Louis Alphonse de Bourbon

message: There are four questions here, and seven editors:
#First Name
#*One suggestion of Luis, otherwise Louis.
#Hyphen
#*Two for, four against
#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.
#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)
thread_title: Consensus

message: Page moved. Ryan Norton T | @ | C 01:25, 15 October 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Discision

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)

text: Annulment does not always (and now rarely does) result in the illegitimacy of a child. Charles 21:49, 15 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title: Morganatic marriage

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title: Chambord is a place

message: 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)
replies: text: Hello? - Louis88 15:13, 28 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: Indeed, he is. Stijn Calle 16:06, 29 April 2007 (UTC)

text: 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)
thread_title:  King of Albania 

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title: King of Jerusalem

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title: Vandalism

message: 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)
thread_title: Why not use his real name

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title:  Name and title in infobox 

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)

text: 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)
thread_title:  Louis Alphonse is precluded from the throne by French Law 

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title:  Fundamental Law of Succession to the French Throne 

message: 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)
replies: text: That is the number used for him by his supporters. Noel S McFerran (talk) 21:19, 29 April 2011 (UTC)

text: 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)
thread_title:  Louis XX 

message: "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)
thread_title: Titular

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title:  Title of pretence 

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title:  "The claims of Orléans" 

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title:  Duke, "per tradition"

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: Is there a Wikipedia procedure on evaluating a specific source? Reigen (talk) 22:48, 4 September 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  Head of the House of Bourbon 2 

message: 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)
thread_title:  Incorrect link for child 

message: 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)
thread_title:  Legitimist pretender section 

message: :
Why do Jaime Marcelino María have no French form, and Gonzalve Marc have no Spanish form? —Tamfang (talk) 09:11, 18 March 2015 (UTC)
thread_title:  What a fine collection of names! 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified  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:
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/20091212104944/http://www.royaute.org:80/page3.html to http://www.royaute.org/page3.html
When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at ).
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 17:43, 16 July 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title:  Duke of Franco 

message: 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)
thread_title:  Sectioning 

message: 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:
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20091212104944/http://www.royaute.org/page3.html to http://www.royaute.org/page3.html
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20110906144541/http://noticias.terra.es/2010/genteycultura/0528/actualidad/los-duques-de-anjou-anuncian-el-nacimiento-de-sus-hijos-luis-y-alfonso.aspx to http://noticias.terra.es/2010/genteycultura/0528/actualidad/los-duques-de-anjou-anuncian-el-nacimiento-de-sus-hijos-luis-y-alfonso.aspx
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) 10:15, 26 May 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: 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)
thread_title:  Luis Alfonso, of what? 

message: 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:
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20120316220550/http://www.chivalricorders.org/royalty/bourbon/france/success/sucprt6.htm to http://www.chivalricorders.org/royalty/bourbon/france/success/sucprt6.htm
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) 01:30, 29 November 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: @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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title:  Louis Alphonse as claimant to French throne? 

message: 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)
thread_title:  Riots put Louis-Alphonse in the news 

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)

text: 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)
replies: text: Indeed, I am! Charles 22:03, 24 February 2024 (UTC)
thread_title:  Why is this article given his civil name? 

message: King Henry II of France was my 15th Great Grandfather ... 24.89.254.217 (talk) 21:19, 22 January 2023 (UTC)
replies: text: And your point is? Dimadick (talk) 14:00, 23 January 2023 (UTC)
thread_title:  Royal title of decent