Talk:Francisco de Asís, Duke of Cádiz

	Biography portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Biography, a collaborative effort to create, develop and organize Wikipedia's articles about people. All interested editors are invited to join the project and contribute to the discussion. For instructions on how to use this banner, please refer to the documentation.BiographyWikipedia:WikiProject BiographyTemplate:WikiProject Biographybiography
	This article is supported by WikiProject Royalty and Nobility.

Spain Mid‑importance

	Spain portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Spain, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Spain on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.SpainWikipedia:WikiProject SpainTemplate:WikiProject SpainSpain
Mid	This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.

Article title

"Francis of Asis de Bourbon" is horrible. Francis is English; Asis is Spanish; de Bourbon is French. Nobody could pretend that this is how he is generally referred to in English works. Having complained, however, I'm at a loss in determining what would be best. Noel S McFerran 12:41, 27 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Since he was a king-consort, I think Francis de Asis of Spain would be acceptable. Was he truly ennumerated? Charles 21:03, 11 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Gah. If we're translating, translate the whole given name at least: Francis of Assisi de Bourbon. - Montréalais 01:00, 25 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I think using de in front of the second part of his first name would be an acceptable solution. Charles 02:19, 25 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

There is a mistake. This king was a king consort, husband of the reigning Queen, Isabella the Second of Spain, therefore his name hasn't got the ordinal I. The next king named Francis would have to be Francis the First (Francisco I), if he is not a king consort.

Ferdinand V was a king-consort, and is counted in the numbering. So is Philip I. At any rate, I think he should clearly be "Francisco" - I don't think I've ever seen him referred to as "Francis". john k 23:44, 27 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Ferdinand V and Philip I were not kings consort - they were jure uxoris monarchs and that's why they are counted in the numbering. Kings consort (as well as queens consort) are not counted in numbering and they are not considered monarchs. It seems that only husbands of medieval queens became jure uxoris kings. Thus, this man should be called Francis de Asis de Bourbon (or something like that) because Francis of Spain is not correct. Surtsicna (talk) 22:18, 2 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Why isn't Francis of Spain correct? Is that not the name he was entitled to by birth and as a consort? Charles 22:38, 2 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Perhaps it would be best to move this article to Francis, Duke of Cadiz. He is not known by any particular name in English, and "Francis, Duke of Cadiz" follows the substantive titles convention. Surtsicna (talk) 18:48, 24 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Chromosomes

All your comments about what his name is or should be are interesting, but the real thrust of the article concerns ferreting out preferences between Y chromosome testing versus mitochondrial testing.JGC1010 (talk) 01:59, 19 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

And these are just speculations. User:Glatisant (talk) 18:13, 11 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Nonetheless...

Nonetheless, twelve children were born during the marriage

I understand this doesn't quite say that Francis was the biological father of Isabella's children, but given that it's pretty generally agreed that he was not the biological father of the children born to the marriage, isn't that "nonetheless" a bit misleading. It seems to say, "Isabella thought he was effeminate, but nonetheless they had a lot of kids." Which isn't right at all - shouldn't some explicit notice be given to the fact that they were probably the biological children of Isabella's lovers? john k (talk) 21:47, 12 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

He wouldn't be the first "effeminate" Royal to have biological kids with his wife. Royals having legitimate kids was a political act meant to secure the future of the Crown, it did not mecessarily imply romantic feelings between the couple. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 180.215.39.5 (talk) 20:55, 19 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Francisco

It should be Francisco! Plain and simple! Gosh Prince LouisPhilippeCharles (talk) 16:52, 15 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

If a move request is made, some evidence of usage from English-language scholarship should be provided. Noel S McFerran (talk) 23:02, 15 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

And es:Isabel II del Reino Unido should be "Elizabeth II". Could you clarify, please? Surtsicna (talk) 13:17, 16 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Most times I've seen this guy referred to in English, it's as Francisco, not Francis. His son is called "Alfonso" and his father is called "Francisco." Those who don't want it moved have just as much need to provide evidence of usage in English-language scholarship. Britannica calls him "Francisco de Asis de Borbón" (in their article on Isabella). So there's our first piece of evidence. Another piece of evidence: Paul Schroeder's Transformation of European Politics 1763-1848 (Oxford, 1994) calls him "Don Francisco, the Duke of Cadiz." So, ball's in your court, opponents. john k (talk) 16:12, 16 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

He was a King

why is he introduced as Duke of Cadiz? Nobody knows him in Spain by that title and he stopped using it after his marriage. He was the King Consort, and remained a King after his wife lost the throne. I know it is difficult for English speaking users to understand that the husband of a queen regnant can be a king as well, but he was neither a duke nor a Prince, he was His Majesty The King Don Francisco. Even Edward VIII is presented as King, and he sat on the throne just for a few months.