Talk:Parvenu

Original merge proposal

Honestly, I've only really heard widespread usage of "Nouveau Riche". If anything, shouldn't "Parvenu" be merged into that?--80.47.43.207 20:11, 14 December 2006 (UTC)

Indeed. If "parvenu" is a notable concept in its own right, the two should remain separate, but nouveau riche is a much more widely known term and clearly deserves its own article. CameoAppearance ^orate 13:23, 23 December 2006 (UTC)

I concur. The term nouveau riche is especially prominent in literature (across several languages), whilst the term parvenu is more limited to specific social circles. As a matter of fact, (no source here, but from experience) nouveau riche is sooner used in French than parvenu (despite both terms coming from the French language). I expect this to be simply because nouveau riche, meaning new rich (or rather, emergent/new wealthy person) is easier to place and understand in context than parvenu, even for French-speakers (parvenir is not a very common word anymore). Since literature has its bases in successful communication I find it little wonder that nouveau riche would be so widespread in the same. Keeping the two articles separate but with "See Also" links is the best choice IMO... Signed: El Belga^TM 05:15, 29 December 2006 (UTC)

Concur with separation. NR is far more known (at least in the parts of the US I travel, I can't speak for the global audience) and it is a specific term (new to a particular class) while parvenu is a general term (new to any class). The two articles should be cross-referenced, as El Bega suggets. Slapshot24 08:30, 13 February 2007 (UTC)

As a Belgian from the province of West-Flanders, wich has a dialect of Dutch strongly influenced by the French language, and as french-speaker as well, i can say that the term 'parvenu' is still quite widely used, and is not exactly the same thing as nouveau riche. Nouveau riche puts more emphasis on the simply rising on the social ladder, while parvenu puts more emphasis on the not being adjusted to this new social class. A reference would definitely be a good idea, but bear in mind that the terms are not synonyms.

I think that there is a shading to the two expressions that can be different. NR does more than imply new money, and "parvenu" can be totally divorced from wealth or new-found financial wealth or position.

A person wanting to join a new group (e.g. a fan group, person who shows up at a rally or a game with a whole new kit of everything that the team store has to offer this season in clothing could be considered "parvenu." This is not a good example, but the best that I can think of that could be generalized. hat, jacket, shirt, shoes, scarf, only this season's clothes, suggests someone who is trying to join in and may not be succeeding. A shirt from 10 years ago, a scarf from the previous design change, not brand-spanking new, says long-time fan). Talking statistics of the game isn't the same thing as being a long-time, through good times and bad, fan.

Or someone who is just joining an organization, a neighborhood, a city could be "parvenu" Katydidn't 04:20, 10 June 2007 (UTC)katydidn't.

Form of classism?

I agree that parvenu does not necessarily imply a financial designation whereas nouveau riche does. But my question, which is unrelated, has do with the constitution of classism within the same class. Whether or not there exists some form of discrimination or prejudice within the class is not really an issue for me, the issue is whether discrimination against someone with the same or similar financial means, with ostensibly the same class interests constitues classism. If the nouveau riche do not constitute a lower class, can it really be classism? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Sandschie (talk • contribs) 18:19, 18 May 2008 (UTC)

Confusing sentence...

"Many believe this phenomenon is not as common in Europe due to the centuries-old, well-established social hierarchy of European countries, nor is it as common in present-day U.S. due to largely the same reasons." I'm not quite sure what this sentence means--not even enough to be able to rewrite it. Caste-transcendance is not common in Europe because the classes are too fixed, and it is increasingly uncommon in the US for the same reason? Seriously? How 'bout a polite version of "because of the fundamental nature of the US, social mobility has always been assumed, and not as frowned on as in the higher maintenance counties of Europe. Old money is almost synonymous with crassness in the US, and new money with 'coolness'. There are simply no universally recognized classes or celebrity last names in the United States." I'm from the richest place in the country, and always get frustrated at new-money folk being grotesque with their wealth, but I still don't know anyone who cares about the names in the society pages...--Mrcolj (talk) 05:19, 31 October 2010 (UTC)

Merge proposal

I see that there has been a merge proposal (merging Nouveau riche with Parvenu) for a while but no discussion since the proposal was added. While I have no vested interest in the article I just thought I'd create a discussion to close that proposal. There was some previous discussion above which is relevant as well. I'd suggest there are three general options here:

1. Keep as two separate articles.
2. Merge Nouveau Riche into Parvenu.
3. Merge Parvenu into Nouveau Riche.

-- MC 141.131.2.3 (talk) 19:25, 24 July 2017 (UTC)

• Merge Parvenu into Nouveau Riche - Though one can argue there are subtle distinctions between the two terms, they cover one broad topic which I do not believe deserves two articles. Since the term Nouveau Riche is much more widely known than Parvenu I would argue NR should be the title and the subtle distinctions can simply be discussed in the body of the article. -- MC — Preceding unsigned comment added by 141.131.2.3 (talk) 19:25, 24 July 2017 (UTC)

Note: Maintaining two articles solely on the basis that the actual words have slightly varying meanings would violate WP:NAD. -- MC — Preceding unsigned comment added by 141.131.2.3 (talk) 19:27, 24 July 2017 (UTC)

Oppose: Nouveau Riche is an independently notable example of a parvenu, so shouldn't be merged into it. A social climber need not be nouveau riche and the distinction is, in my opinion, not slight. Please also see the earlier merge proposal (from 2007) where there was also considerable opposition to the proposal, and the case hasn't changed. Klbrain (talk) 23:22, 21 September 2017 (UTC)

The distinction is not as subtle as you might think. Parvenu covers not only 'new money', but people who, for example, ascend from the lower to Upper-middle class. It covers every socioeconomic class ascendancy while nouveau riche centers on the very top of the wealth strata. Jonathan f1 (talk) 02:03, 23 November 2022 (UTC)

Hyacinth Bucket

It's only a small point, but I don't think Hyacinth is representative of this group of people. More of an aspiring parvenu than an actual one? She isn't someone who has status or wealth, newly acquired or otherwise. Rather, she is someone who erroneously believes that she has those things, despite her clearly middle class existence. She expects to be accepted into the upper class based on her demeanour alone and the reaction of true Nobility to her is usually one of bemusumement rather than resentment. 77.102.62.3 (talk) 18:42, 19 February 2022 (UTC)

Napoleon III in ‘Examples’

There are no citations for the statements about Napoleon III’s attempts to marry into the Swedish royal family. This seems nonsensical anyway as the House of Bernadotte, the royal family of Sweden, were descended from Bonapartistes themselves, and already related by marriage to the Emperor.

Indeed the Wikipedia page on Napoleon III (but this passage is also flagged as lacking an appropriate citation):

”He quietly sent a diplomatic delegation to approach the family of Princess Carola of Vasa, the granddaughter of deposed King Gustav IV Adolf of Sweden. They declined because of his Catholic religion and the political uncertainty about his future, as did the family of Princess Adelheid of Hohenlohe-Langenburg, a niece of Queen Victoria.”

This seems to suggest that he approached not the ruling royal family but the deposed former family.

Perhaps the material on Napoleon should be removed? Djewesbury (talk) 18:49, 15 July 2024 (UTC)