Talk:Vittorio Emanuele, Prince of Naples/Archive 1

message: As the pretender to the throne of Italy is still living, I believe that his name should conform to how he is commonly known today, ie Juan Carlos of Spain, et al, rather than the Anglicization of his names that would be utilized after his death, per Wiki convention. Mowens35 02:01, 25 Apr 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: There is no longer such thing as a "throne of Italy", as Italy is a republic. He's not a king and therefore his name may be left in original untranslated form. --Orzetto 13:46, 28 May 2005 (UTC)
replies: text:  actually, a friend of mine is one of Vittorio Emanuele's lawyers and declares the Prince of Naples is most commonly known as Vittorio Emanuele, not Victor Emmanuel. As per the Wiki naming coventions, my question remains: As most commonly known where? If you look closely at the Wiki naming conventions, dead kings and queens most often have their names translated into the nearest English equivalent however well known they were known by another name in their lifetime and their own country, ie Charles XIV John of Sweden, which is how Wiki prefers to list a man Swede's know as Carl XIV Johan. Curious and illogically, the present king is listed in Wiki as Carl XVI Gustaf, and Wiki covention, if you look at past kings and queens, is to translate their names to the nearly English equivalent upon their death or certainly most of the dead ones do. If you look at the entries for any dead Danish royal known as Fredrick in his own country, the name has been altered to the English form Frederick; however, the present crown prince of Denmark (Fredrick) retains the spelling of his name as it is used in Denmark. Also look at the entries for many of the historical Spanish kings, who have their names listed as Charles, et cetera, rather than Carlos, which is how they were popularly known in their own time and their own country, then and now; today's king, however, is Juan Carlos I, and if Wiki convention as to the majority of his predecessors is any indication, he eventually will become John Charles I with time. Wiki's reason for this Anglicization, according to contributors who have written back to me on this question, is that the English equivalent for dead kings is similar to the Encyclopaedia Britannica's naming convention. So you see why my question was posed and why it remains apt. It is illogical to list a king by an Anglicization he never used and was never known by in his lifetime yet not translate the names of other heads of state similarly, ie Nicolae Ceaucescu, Mikhail Gorbachev, et cetera. Do you see what I am getting at? The term is "commonly used" ... and again, as used where? Mowens35 14:00, 26 Apr 2005 (UTC)

text: Yes, OK, on the basis of what has been discussed earlier and on what seems to be Wikipedia convention, I think it is correct to say he is Prince of Naples, but there appears to be a genuine dispute over whether he is head of the House of Savoy and Duke of Savoy (his cousin claims these titles). As for claiming to be king, as far as I can see he doesn't make any such claim, indeed he renounced such a claim in order to be allowed to return to Italy. I will make edits, if you disagree with them feel free to discuss or tweak. --SandyDancer 11:42, 11 October 2006 (UTC)

text: Done. Is that OK? As this doesn't relate to the discussion on removal of the NPOV tag, I am going to move it to the relevant discussion section above, unless you object? --SandyDancer 11:44, 11 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Naming

message: Concerning the comment for the edit:
  11:26, 17 July 2005 202.0.40.69
The comment said that the Order of St Lazarus merged with the O. of S. Michel. This is wrong; the comment should have read that Lazarus merged with the O. of S. Maurice.
202.0.40.69 11:28, 17 July 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Well, let my say in brief the house of Savoy is often blamed to be Black Nobility. I know, this doesnt't explain much at first sight, but it may give you a hint where to investigate furthermore. You might try google:"Black Nobility" Foreigner 15:14, 29 May 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Oops 

message: hmm .... what do you think about using it too? Foreigner 19:37, 29 May 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: There's quite a nice picture of the trial gainst Vittorio

message: see AP news report, I would add it but I need to run out the door right now.  Just for reference for the next person. --Bobak 00:36, 17 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: It's been in the article for some time now.  - Nunh-huh 00:45, 17 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  He was apparently arrested today 

message: Is it right to call him a pretender? He has recognised the Republican constitution as a provision to being allowed back into Italy again, so he does not claim the throne anymore.Gerard von Hebel 21:08, 19 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: This is a tricky sort of situation: Note the case of Otto von Habsburg (HI&RH The Crown Prince of Austria, Hungary and Bohemia). He renounced his claim to the Austro-Hungarian thrones in order to either gain re-entry into Austria; no monarchist or member of the House of Habsburg-Lorraine or indeed most royals consider Otto to have forfeited the Austrian imperial heritage. The reason being, the renunciation was to a republican government which are almost always viewed as illegitimate successors among the royal houses they displace and their supporters. The only difference between Otto von Habsburg and Victor Emmanuel is one of character. Victor Emmanuel is arguably unsuitable for the role of king or even as the head of a royal house. However, he can't be discounted on opinion. People regard his character as reason to support the Duke of Aosta, as good as he may be. Charles 21:15, 19 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Pretender? 

message: Apparently, Vittorio Emanuele just renounced his rights in favor of his son, Emanuele Filiberto. See here:  and here:  I can't read Italian, but I put it through the google translator and it rougly says:
Rome - Vittorio Emanuele renounces to the throne in favour of the son Emanuele Filiberto. The news, published on the weekly magazine “People”, had to remain secret for some weeks: the time necessary to complete the practical ones previewed from the real protocol for the passage of deliveries from father to son. In many they will be able to think that this decision has been taken as a result of the notes judicial vicissitudes, but are not therefore. They give beyond two months are in course practical affinche' the Emanuele Filiberto can' inherit' the charges and the onorificenze of the father. 
So presumably this takes effect in two months time, or it took two months to become official or I don't know how to interpret that. So would EF now be the pretender? Morhange 07:55, 26 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Gave Up Rights... 

message: User:Netquantum's latest attacks on the integrity of this article seems to be principally based around trying to edit the heading of the section to "Dirk Hamer Situation", and to put a nonsensial sentence at the beginning of it - "In 1991 the princed was cleared of all charges by a French repuplican court. "The story "" (sic). He has just reverted this for the third time in contravention of wikipedia's 3RR rule.
So that no-one is misled into thinking that somehow there is dispute that Vittorio Emanuele killed Dirk Hamer, I want to quote here from the official findings of the French court that tried VE for unlawful killing:
:" In the night of 17 to 18 August 1978, on leaving a restaurant where he had spent the evening, Prince Victor-Emmanuel noticed that a rubber dinghy belonging to him was moored, for no reason that he knew of, to the stern of the Cocke. Having armed himself with a rifle classified as a military weapon and fitted with a cartridge clip containing thirty-one cartridges, he brought his boat alongside the Cocke to try to recover his property. Confronting a passenger who had been woken by the manoeuvre, Prince Victor-Emmanuel fired twice. The Cocke's passenger, avoiding the shots, threw himself on his assailant and both men fell into the water. However, one of the bullets very seriously wounded a nineteen-year-old German youth, Mr Dirk Hamer, who had been asleep on the deck of the Mapagia. Prince Victor-Emmanuel called for the emergency services and Mr Hamer was admitted to Porto-Vecchio Hospital at about 6 a.m., in a deep coma, with no measurable pulse or blood pressure, the accident having occurred about four hours before. On 19 August 1978 he was transferred to Marseilles Northern Hospital in a very alarming condition. On 30 August 1978, against the advice of the doctors at that hospital, Mr Hamer, whose parents were also doctors, was taken to Heidelberg University Hospital. Intensive care was of no avail, and Mr Hamer died on 7 December 1978 without ever being able to give evidence. An autopsy carried out on 11 December 1978 showed that the bullet wound had been the cause of death." 
To be clear, VE was cleared of negligently or deliberately killing Dirk Hamer. Nevertheless, the court ruled - and VE admitted - that he was reponsible for the death.
Now, Netquantum, if you want to edit this section again could you please answer the following question:
*Do you dispute that VE killed Dirk Hamer, despite (a) the fact he himself admits that he did so and (b) the fact that a French court and the ECHR ruled that he did so?'''
If you don't dispute that sentence, then why are you deliberately adding untruths to this article? --SandyDancer 21:30, 9 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: What are you talking about? His admissions of doing this, at the time of the killing and since, are well documented. VE himself has never disputed that he killed Dirk Hamer. The French courts cleared VE of deliberately or negligently killing Hamer, they did not say he didn't kill him - they just ruled that the killing was accidental. What difference does it make if you are "a professional historian and constitutional specilist" (sic)? You are deliberately trying to obscure the truth here and it is tiresome in the extreme. Just stop it. What is untrue in the article? Can you specifically choose a sentence which you consider untrue and discuss it? --SandyDancer 22:20, 9 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Killing of Dirk Hamer

message: A sentence was inserted by an anon user about the results of referendum abolishing the monarchy being controversial. Initially I put a fact tag on this, but on second thought I am not sure it belongs in the introduction at all. The article Birth of the Italian Republic - which is linked to in this article - discusses claims by monarchists that the vote was corrupt but states "a monarchist minority advanced suspicions of fraud, but the referendum is generally considered fair". If so, do we need to mention the claims here, particularly in the introduction? Doesn't seem balanced. I note the article in question, however, is entirely unsourced (have tagged it accordingly). --SandyDancer 17:03, 17 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Referendum controversial?