Talk:House of Bourbon

message: There seems to be a superfluity of "well-beloved"s here. Were they really all called that? By whom? Vicki Rosenzweig
I think Louis XIII was called "The Just", not the "Well-Beloved". Louis XV, however, was indeed called the "Well-Beloved". At the end of his reign, though, he was so detested the French people called him the "Well-Hated". --Slugguitar 00:05, 14 Sep 2004 (UTC)
thread_title: [Untitled]

message: This massive addition of material is from an anon. No edit summary. Is this a possible copyvio? Does it come from some other part of Wikipedia? Does anyone know what is going on here? -- Jmabel | Talk 02:18, 12 October 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: No one is responding, I guess I'll assume it is OK and copy edit it. -- Jmabel | Talk 06:19, 13 October 2005 (UTC)

text: I see. Someone was trying to follow up on the proposed merge of France: Wars of Religion - Bourbon Dynasty, but instead of a proper merge they just dumped the text, without even an edit summary. -- Jmabel | Talk 06:28, 13 October 2005 (UTC)
replies: text:  Looks like this has been through the blender in the last 24 hours. I've restored some lost material. There is probably more of this to do. I'll probably be back soon, but I won't feel poached on if someone else takes up this particular Bourbon restoration. -- Jmabel | Talk 07:08, 13 October 2005 (UTC)

text: I've now restored everything I think was worth restoring. The result may be a bit uneven in terms of depth of coverage, but I believe it is now far better written. This may call for some refactoring, possibly into an article (or articles) on a period (or periods) in the history of France allowing the present article to focus more on the dynasty as such. Or maybe not: I don't find articles focused on dynastic succession far less interesting than those that treat the matter as more a biography and a "life and times".
I'll bow out of this for a while now to give someone else a shot at moving forward from here. May I suggest that this is a substantive enough article that if someone wants to do drastic edits again they might put a note on the talk page saying what they intend to do? -- Jmabel | Talk 02:34, 15 October 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Big mystery edit 

message: He failed and after the capture of the fortress of Gaeta (February 13, 1861) his kingdom was incorporated in the Kingdom of Italy but only on March 17, 1861 because two other fortress Messina and Civitella del Tronto surrendered on March 12, 1861 9 p.m.(Messina) and only on March 20 Civitella. (to be true when the magg. Ascione was convinced to surrender from the order of his King, there was still a group of soldier contrary to the surrender led by the heroic sgt. Massinelli and the friar Leonardo Zilli. The former commander, Ascione, however, succeeded to make to penetrate the enemy piemontesi in the morning of March 20. They shoot the heroes Massinelli and Zilli and so fell the last fortress of the Kingdom of the Two Sicilies.)  
Will someone who knows (1) the English language, (2) the relevant history, and (3) the meaning of NPOV please clean this up? (I lack item 2, or I'd do this myself). - Jmabel | Talk 19:24, 26 March 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Very confusing passage 

message: Can anybody provide me with Juan carlos' e-mail adress? I need to contact his majesty URGENTLY.
I will be happy with any contact details. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 168.209.97.34 (talk • contribs).
Try a postcard  ;-)) 
Aubisse 18:46, 3 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  His Majesty: Juan Carlos contact details??? 

message: The section on the War of Three Henrys linked Cardinal de Bourbon with Charles II, Duke of Bourbon - that does not seem correct, so I have changed - but where should it link ? -- Beardo 06:53, 10 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Charles of Bourbon 

message: I did a really great family tree (I did also the one shown in this page) however the new one contains almost all lines of the current Bourbons, including modern ones, however I can not upload it since it contains modern pictures that may be deleted because of rights issues. If someone wants to see it, pls contact me, It is awesome, or if you wonder a way to upload and avoid being deleted, it would be great, it is huge and very illustrative. May be we can claim it is fair use Lefairh (talk) 16:08, 27 August 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: New Bourbon Tree

message: Should not the Spanish Borbons be written as it is in Spanish? Borbón? I've just visited the official Spanish Royal Family website and they reder to de Borbón in the Spanish language version and de Borbon in the English language version. ♦Drachenfyre♦·Talk 05:33, 20 May 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: It depends on the english language policy for translating foreing royal names/houses. But the name of the King is Juan Carlos de Borbón. In Spain there is a clear manner of "translating" foreign king names, they always take the spanish language equivalent, Henry VII would be Enrique VII, Louis XVI as Luis XVI, Alaric as Alarico, etc. If there is no equivalent in spanish anthroponomy, then they mantain the original name, so for example Hassan II of Morocco would still be named Hassan in spanish. I don't know the english rule for this, but it should be applied to the article too.--Infinauta (talk) 20:54, 13 September 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Spanish Borbóns 

message: Wouldn't it be interesting to find out if the current members of the House of Bourbon are "true" agnatic descendants of Hugh Capet? They almost certainly are descendants of Hugh, by cognatic descent, for the man lived more than 1000 years ago. However, in Salic law, only the male line is important. Surely science can reveal to us what centuries of indiscretion had kept hidden? It would be interesting to find out how many of these people came from non-paternity events.  Emerson 07 (talk) 13:15, 11 May 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: I come from a family that is directly descended from King Louis IX. That is, I come from the same line of the Chaput family as Archbishop Charles J. Chaput and I've also done a DNA test with 23andMe. I have the same Y-DNA type as King Louis XVI. This suggests that at least Louis XVI was a proper Bourbon. 
--70.29.74.78 (talk) 23:54, 6 May 2015 (UTC)
thread_title:  Y-chromosome of the House of Bourbon 

message: Could we agree that Louis, Duke of Anjou is the Head of the House of Bourbon? Even if you're an Orleanist, you should recognize him as such, and refrain from impulsive edits. Emerson 07 (talk) 14:02, 21 June 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: On the other hand, you could name Henri, Count of Paris as Head of the House of Orleans. Naming him the Head of the House of Bourbon would just be a pure lie. Emerson 07 (talk) 14:21, 21 June 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  Head of the House of Bourbon 

message: About renunciation of his claim to France, see:"Lo anterior concierne exclusivamente a España, que es de lo único que me he ocupado, pero desde hace bastante tiempo se está queriendo complicar estos asuntos familiares con Francia y esto lo considero grave por las consecuencias que pueda ocasionar. No cabe la menor duda de que desde la muerte del Conde de Chambord y de los últimos Reyes de la rama carlista, corresponde a nuestra rama, o sea la de Borbón-España, la primogenitura. No es que crea sea muy factible o probable una restauración en Francia, pero por seriedad me parece muy mal que se eivindiquen títulos sonoros Fanceses por miembros de la Familia Real española. Cuando a mi Padre le fueron a buscar unos «legitimistas» franceses para que se levantara bandera, se negó rotundamente y creo recordar dijo esta frase o algo parecido: «Suprimir el cerco de gules a nuestras gloriosas flores de lis comprometería las buenas relaciones entre España y Francia, y por lo tanto no pienso recabar nada de ese lado.» Se refiere, naturalmente, a la orla roja que rodea nuestro escudo.
Hablando con mi hijo nos ha parecido a los dos peligroso que se esgriman nuevamente estos seudo-derechos, sobre todo cuando está claro que se pretende obtener, por mi  hermano y sobrino, por el lado francés, lo que por el lado español no les corresponde. Si a pesar de los antecedentes que te expongo de nuestra familia, considerando que los deseos del Rey mi Padre fueron de no aceptar las proposiciones de los legitimistas franceses con el sentido de patriota y español que siempre inspiró su conducta, considero que si tanto les gusta lo francés deberían nacionalizarse en Francía, cuyo Trono pretenden."
Source:Documents relating to the Spanish Succession it is letter of Count of Barcelona to Antonio de Oriol, minister of Justice. --Yopie (talk) 15:11, 29 September 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: Even if true, the general Legitimist view is that abdications and renunciations of this kind are not valid; the king cannot relinquish the throne, since he is king not by choice, but by birth. Should he refuse to exercise his duties (but this occurred during the time of the republic, so there is none), a regent serves in his name. Another view is that abdications and renunciations are valid; however, this affects him only, and not his descendants. Emerson 07 (talk) 13:31, 25 November 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  Alfonso XIII 

message: Why just Southern Italy? Parma is northern Italy and Etruria is central Italy. --The Emperor's New Spy (talk) 00:39, 12 September 2013 (UTC)
thread_title:  Southern Italy 

message: I don't see how they can be considered morganatic. Wouldn't Spain's Pragmatic Sanction of 1776 been override by the Pragmatic Sanction of 1830? And do we know anything about it's criteria on marriages? Also the Galliera's are still of the descendants of the House of Orleans, which didn't have concepts of morganatic marriage (maybe marriages which were strongly disapproved and shunned but not automatically because of rank as was the case in Germany). I thought they merely lost their titles because they became too distantly related to the reigning monarch or the pretender to continue to bear the titles of Infante of Spain or Princes of Orleans. --The Emperor's New Spy (talk) 10:32, 12 September 2013 (UTC)
thread_title:  Dukes of Galliera 

message: Instead of focusing solely on the people, the article should also examine the extent of their reign. A few simple color-coded maps for key years would suffice. --108.31.150.218 (talk) 16:54, 15 February 2015 (UTC)
thread_title:  Picture worth a thousand words 

message: In the family tree section, shouldn't the monarchs and pretenders of the Two Sicilies be mentioned?  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2601:241:300:36C8:21E:52FF:FE82:CC43 (talk) 22:33, 10 April 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  Two Sicilies 

message: The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page has been nominated for deletion:
* 
Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. —Community Tech bot (talk) 20:15, 14 February 2019 (UTC)
thread_title:  A Commons file used on this page has been nominated for deletion 

message: The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page has been nominated for speedy deletion:
* 
You can see the reason for deletion at the file description page linked above. —Community Tech bot (talk) 01:52, 23 August 2019 (UTC)
thread_title:  A Commons file used on this page has been nominated for speedy deletion 

message: I see a number of nonexistent page links in the hierarchy and historical chronological orders of royals, from The Three Dynasties of Bourbon, onwards. These cannot be permitted. Either we editors remove the links, or create well-referenced articles on each of these royals.
Everyone is free to share their thoughts/ideas on this.
Migsmigss (talk) 16:33, 18 December 2019 (UTC)
replies: text: Well, they can be permitted - see WP:REDLINK. Johnbod (talk) 18:30, 18 December 2019 (UTC)

text: Thanks for the response, Johnbod. I think I didn't say what I meant. I am all for linked texts, but I also hope these texts get articles of their own, soon. If they merit an article. I am all for Wikipedia's growth, too, and if it means having more articles from these linked texts, I support that. Thanks, and have a good day. Migsmigss (talk) 19:23, 18 December 2019 (UTC)
thread_title:  Nonexistent page links 

message: Hi, I've come across this article and immediately noticed the weird formatting of the House of Bourbon#Second House of Bourbon (Bourbon-Dampierre) and House of Bourbon#Third and current House of Bourbon sections. I think this formatting should be fixed, perhaps making it more similar to the one in the First House of Bourbon section, or even placing it on its own article as it is extremely long. In any case, it should be reviewed (is it written entirely in French?) and it shouldn't be encased in code tags. As I don't really know about the subject (or wikitext formatting), I leave this notice for somebody that could help with those sections. GoodCrossing (talk) 13:26, 11 April 2020 (UTC)
thread_title:  House of Bourbon succession 

message: Does anyone here know how I can add an extra couple of boxes to a family tree on Wikipedia? Specifically, I want to create a separate box for John, Lord of Carency in the House of Bourbon family tree right here right next to his two brothers--James II, Count of La Marche and Louis, Count of Vendome. I also want to create a separate box right below the hypothetical box for John, Lord of Carency for the Lords and princes of Carency.
Does anyone here know how to do all of this?
Thank you.
Futurist110 (talk) 07:40, 22 October 2020 (UTC)
thread_title: Adding an extra couple of boxes to a family tree on Wikipedia

message: Somehow, Henri II's father, François I, is missing from the family tree at the bottom of the article.  This is egregiously wrong. 2601:646:4100:1E20:8821:3DC5:B306:3368 (talk) 22:31, 4 December 2021 (UTC)
thread_title: The Mysterious Disappearance of François I