Talk:House of Bonaparte

message: What happens if the lines of Prince Napoleon VII Charles, his son, and his brother go extinct?  Does the succession just die, will the last in line appoint it to someone, does it go to Napoleon's illegitimate lines, or what?  Emperor001 20:58, 17 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Succession

message: Buonaparte was branch of countly house of Cadolings. Cadolings had Langobardic origin. But there was claim of Carolingian origin. May be this came from similarity of names.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by Greutungen (talk • contribs) 12:35, 6 May 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Genealogy 

message: It looks like there is a missing level of indentation after the line "10 children with second wife, Alexandrine von Bleschamps:".  I'd add the indentation, but it seems there are other problems, such as 11 children being listed, not 10.  I wonder if it's a mistake that there are two different Christine Charlottes.  This information is also inconsistent with the Charles Lucien Bonaparte page.  Could a historian step in? Espertus (talk) 17:36, 8 June 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: Problem with the family tree under Lucien Bonaparte

message: The allegation that Napoleon III was not the son of Hortense de Beauharnais by her husband, Napoleon I's brother King Louis Bonaparte of Holland, has long been a matter of debate and conjecture. Recent studies purporting to compare DNA salvaged from Napoleon I's hair to that of various subsequent persons clsiming male-line kinship with the first Bonaparte emperor have been widely circulated via the Internet. On 10 March 2015, an anonymous, apparently newbie Wikipedia contributor 78.192.203.71 edited this article, purporting to confirm therein that published DNA studies have established that the current Bonaparte claimant Charles, Prince Napoléon, is indeed of the same Y-STR haplotype as Napoleon I, but also claiming that Napoleon III (and his descendants by his illegitimate son, the Comte d'Orx) is not. On 21 April 2017 DrKay edited out the latter contention, noting that it was not substantiated by the source to which it was attributed. While the integrity of English Wikipedia has thus been protected from disinformation, many other online sites have uncritically accepted that it has been academically proved that Napoleon III was not genetically a Bonaparte. I am flagging attention to the matter here because it should be expected that further editing of this and related articles will address this controversial issue, so English Wikipedia should be vigilant and scrutinize such edits carefully. At this moment, there seems to have been no reliably published results of comparisons of Napoleon I's DNA to that of Napoleon III, but it is entirely possible that such information will eventually become available. Let's be careful to vet the allegations and sources carefully, then edit accordingly. FactStraight (talk) 21:23, 19 June 2018 (UTC)
thread_title:  Napoleon III paternity 

message: This article is very confusing. It says that the house is a royal one and founded by Napoleon's father and Napoleon himself...this makes little sense as Carlo did not seem to have held a title but was designated a member of nobility because of his origins. He died in 1785 long before Napoleon crowned himself Emperor in 1804. The lead says the house was created in 1804 (logically I believe) by Carlo and his son (illogically because Carlo had been dead for nigh on 20 years). The info box says the House was created in 1771 which was when Carlo had his noble ancestory confirmed but as there seems to have been no title to inherit I cannot see how a "house" could have been created at this date.
Also this was not a dynasty of Italian origin because Napoleon was born after the Genoese had ceded the Island to the King of France in 1768 via the Treaty of Versailles and it had become his personal possession and in May 1769 (before Napoleaon's birth) Louis XV's army had quelled the Corsicans. That aside the nobility of Carlo was confirmed by the King of France in 1771 so even if by some stretch of the imagination we could consider the house having been started in 1771 then it was French and not Italian.
This article has been the object of edits by a tendentious pro-Italian and anti-French editor (blocked) and IPs that are probably his socks. Before making any major changes I would like to have some input from other editors. --Dom from Paris (talk) 13:24, 14 November 2018 (UTC)
replies: text: As it is almost all unsourced, and probably wrong, I think you should go ahead and make improvements. DrKay (talk) 17:28, 14 November 2018 (UTC)
replies: text: The distinction between the House of Bonaparte (which should include all the brothers, even the Republican Lucien) and the Imperial House (did it really include Fesch and not, say, Joseph?) needs both explanation and sources. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 23:49, 20 December 2018 (UTC)
thread_title:  Problem with dates and logic 

message: Last night I wasted over an hour of my life fact-checking an Andres Napoleon Bonaparte only to find out that not only did he not exist, but that his name seems to come from a garbled reading of a Spanish document (it appears that the Andres was just someone named Andres Castelo who wrote a book on Napoleon Bonaparte), and that this so-called Andres seemed to have originated in the Spanish Wikipedia (where he was erroneously listed as the son of Jean-Christophe despite supposedly being born in 1997) in 2014 and no one seemed to have bothered fact-checking this individual. The only other two Wikipedias that have mentioned an Andres was the English Wikipedia (where he was erroneously listed as the son of Prince Napoleon VII Charles), and the Asturian Wikipedia (which was a copy-paste of the Spanish Wikipedia's article). I have removed this erroneous child from all three, but am still wondering why it took this long for someone to catch this error. Mr.McCloud 11:15, 7 August 2022 (UTC)
thread_title:  Erroneous Offspring