User talk:LouisPhilippeCharles/Archive1 February 2010-20:49, 12 May 2010

Your page

Monsieur le duc, as a friend, I am suggesting that you do not blank your page while discussion is going on on some matters in which you are involved. Cordialement from chicken, aka --Frania W. (talk) 17:23, 4 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

P.S. And as an afterthought, it is none of my business! Liberté, liberté chérie FW/--Frania W. (talk) 18:09, 4 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Hello Philip, I have replied to you on my page. Giano 18:42, 11 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Blenheim Palace

I noticed that you also attempted to insert the WHS infobox into the Blenheim Palace article. I have started a discussion on the issue in the hopes of coming to a consensus. Your participation at Talk:Blenheim_Palace#WHS_infobox.--Labattblueboy (talk) 19:43, 11 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Orleans vs. d'Orleans

Just and FYI. Please use the requested moves process to move pages, rather than using cut and paste. Also, if you were not already aware, there are discussions ongoing regarding which name should be used. Best to wait until the discussion has been closed before makign moves. All the best.--Labattblueboy (talk) 21:07, 16 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Orléans and Bourbon-Two Sicilies

Hello Louis, I created the majority of the Bourbon-Two Sicilies articles and named them so because they are known as Princes and Princesses of Bourbon-Two Sicilies and not Princes and Princesses of the Two Sicilies. I will change them back to Bourbon-Two Sicilies and then we will open a discussion to editors to make a decision as that is Wikipedia protocol. As for the Princes and Princesses of Orléans, d'Orléans is not appropriate since it would be their name in French. of Orléans would be their English name. Again, we should have a discussion with other editors to sort this out. Thanks for all your work! V/r Caponer (talk) 14:43, 17 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I can definitely understand your reasoning for d'Orléans, but I must say that until there is a discussion on Bourbon-Two Sicilies, the articles should remain Bourbon-Two Sicilies since that is the English translation of the Italian Borbone delle Due Sicilie. Again, thank you for all your articles and edits! V/r --Caponer (talk) 15:02, 17 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Excellent article on Carlo, Duke of Calabria! --Caponer (talk) 01:50, 18 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Another excellent article on Princess Maria Cristina Amelia of Naples and Sicily! --Caponer (talk) 03:33, 18 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Bourbon-Two Sicilies

When you say that you are not satisfied with the articles "at all"...what does this "at all" comprise of? Are the articles not grammatically correct? Are the data provided not accurate? If "at all" is pertaining to the titles of members of Royal House of Bourbon-Two Sicilies, you may need to take your concern to the members of the royal house themselves, for they use "Bourbon-Two Sicilies", "Borbone delle Due Sicilie", "Borbón-Dos Sicilias", "Bourbon de Deux-Siciles", etc. etc. At no time did any Prince or Princess regard themselves as a Prince or Princess "of the Two Sicilies." Not even when the Kingdom was in its existence. You'll also notice that no other Wikipedia site refers to them as being "of the Two Sicilies." Please check out the two official sites of the House of Bourbon-Two Sicilies here and here. You'll notice there that the official press statements of the family use "Bourbon-Two Sicilies." The "Bourbon-Two Sicilies" surname is also used to describe them by a number of third parties including but certainly not excluding: thePeerage.com, and AnOnlineGotha, etc. An Online Gotha even mentions at the top of the Two Sicilies page: "The children, and the children of sons, of the head of the house, bear the title Prince[ss] Royal of Bourbon-Two Sicilies (Royal Highness). Other members of this family bear the title Prince[ss] of Bourbon-Two Sicilies (Royal Highness)." So given this, I would please ask you to be more specific with your grievance. In the meantime, I will find an appropriate venue for this conversation to take place. --Caponer (talk) 00:54, 19 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Hey Louis, I've started an arbitration session to be settled by an arbitration committee here. Please type your rationale for the renaming of the articles. --Caponer (talk) 01:12, 19 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Hey Louis, definitely write up your position at the link under your own section entitled "Statement by LouisPhilippeCharles." It looks like I may have chosen the wrong venue for this, so perhaps in a few days we'll cut and paste our conversations from the arbitration page to maybe the Nobility and Royalty Working Group page. --Caponer (talk) 11:46, 19 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Re:Template

Totally fine. I considered using the template you mentioned when I created it, but just happen to prefer the one I used more (this may be because it clearly defines what generation each duchess was a part of, which then I think is easier on the eyes). Yours of course works as well. Thanks for the notice on changing it and I hope to see you around. :) Ruby2010 (talk) 18:05, 19 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

d'Orléans

Monsieur le Duc, please go to my talk page.

P.S. Will not be at computer for a while.

Chicken, aka --Frania W. (talk) 14:44, 20 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

French nuns

Monsieur le Duc,

Vraiment désolée, but several of the royal ladies you added to the category of French Roman Catholic nuns[1] should not be there. Because a lady finishes her days in a convent does not mean that she took the veil. Many royal and noble women who were either widowed or separated from their husband for some reasons went to live or took refuge in a convent, which did not make nuns out of them. For them, a convent was a "retirement home" & sometimes a forced confinement. The following never took the veil, some did not even finish their life in a convent:

Anne Geneviève de Bourbon (1619-1679) died in a carmelite convent, which does not mean that she had taken the veil.
Marguerite Louise d'Orléans (1645-1721): finished her days in a convent as a pensionnaire, not as a nun.
Élisabeth Marguerite d'Orléans (1646-1696): died in Versailles, was buried in the Carmelite convent in Paris among the nuns, but had not been one.
Princess Victoire of France(1733-1799) died in exile at Trieste.
Princess Sophie of France(1734-1782): died in Versailles.
Princess Thérèse of France(1746-1754): died at the age of eight at the Abbaye de Fontevraud where she was being raised, as were three other daughters of Louis XV: Louise (who became a nun), Sophie & Victoire.
Françoise-Athénaïs, marquise de Montespan (1640-1707): did not become a nun, but retired at the couvent des filles de Saint-Joseph, an orphanage in Paris of which she was the benefactress.

Cordialement, from Chicken aka --Frania W. (talk) 03:21, 2 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Monsieur le Duc, if you see somewhere in these dear ladies' articles that they were or became nuns, please show me. As I told you, when she reached a certain age & was either widowed or separated from her husband, it was not uncommon for a noblewoman to retire to a convent or an abbey. These places were extremely comfortable, often run by a member of the royal family - Fontevraud, for instance, which is a splendid place (you should take yourself there if you ever tour France.) Some of these convents could also be a place of confinement for an "unruly" lady, or for a girl from the aristocracy who was going to have a child out of wedlock. As for Mme de Montespan, I can assure you that she never became a nun, only took a drastic turn toward religion after her star had faded. Votre humble servante always happy to keep an eye on you. Please stay out of trouble. Chicken aka --Frania W. (talk) 21:08, 2 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Monsieur le Duc, in answer to what you left on my talk page:

These Wikipedia articles are in error:

Madame de Toscane: While still technically married and a nun, Marguerite-Louise had several affairs: Marguerite-Louise d'Orléans had for years begged Louis XIV to let her come back to France & he granted her permission under the condition that she live quietly in a convent, which she had to accept. She is in the category of the ladies who "retired" or rather were "confined" into a convent, which had nothing to do with taking the veil. She just lived there.

Madame Thérèse: ...was a French Princess and a Nun at the Royal Abbey of Fontevraud: , A daughter of Louis XV, Madame Thérèse (Madame Sixième) was sent with three of her sisters to Fontevraud for her education, not as a nun! Look at the dates of her life, she died when she was only eight years old.

In quite a few en:wiki articles, women who are made to enter a convent for the reasons mentioned above (widowhood, separation, questionable conduct...) are said to have become nuns, which is not true. In the Ancien Régime, convents were not only "nunneries", but also orphanages, places of education, retirement, confinement, shelters against abusive husbands, etc.

PSOOT, Chicken aka --Frania W. (talk) 18:34, 3 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Orleans Collection

Don't do this again please! If you want to move a page use the procedures, but check out the WP:UCN position first. Johnbod (talk) 23:42, 3 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I say again - check out usage in English for the Collection. For example [2] or [3]. Even if you search with accent, the results come up without. You are possibly unaware that in English it was anglicized in pronunciation as "Orleens" as in New Orleans, in all contexts, whether city or Duke, until about 60 years ago, and the English spelling reflects this. Johnbod (talk) 23:47, 3 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Houses of Bourbon and Orléans

Louis, I've reiterated the following message with Fernandoe and will share this with you because it is important. The true issue here lies in the fact that as an editor, you cannot continue to work in a vacuum without finding consensus with fellow editors. Edits en masse without consensus, especially when a majority is not in agreement with those edits, inherently causes conflict. Many of these editors in disagreement with your edits attempted to resolve their dispute with you. I appreciate your good faith, but I do not agree with your edits and do not agree with your unilateral actions. Wikipedia articles retain their qualities through internal citations, and you cannot make your changes without citing your sources. Your original research will not be tolerated here. With that said, I am willing to work with you to find a solution to this dispute and repair your standing. Your participation in Wikipedia is appreciated. You just cannot go and make hundreds of edits and article moves without reaching out to other editors and article stakeholders. --Caponer (talk) 04:06, 6 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

François Marie de Lorraine

Monsieur le Duc, I cannot find anywhere the "Hôtel d'Elbeuf" in Paris where he was born. Where did you get the information from?

(Looks like AQOTWF !) Cordialement, from Chicken aka --Frania W. (talk) 23:15, 11 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Re Eugenio, Count of Villafranca

Move the article name don't just copy and paste as that destroys the page history. - dwc lr (talk) 00:04, 20 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Ok but why are you saying that from 21 October 1753 – 1780 he was His Highness Prince Eugenio of Savoy. Your refrence calls him Prince Eugenio de Savoie-Carignano Count of Villafranca, I don't really see what the problem is anyway putting Prince Eugenio, Count of Villafranca as the title. - dwc lr (talk) 14:18, 20 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Why move Prince of Lambesc?

Are you pulling nationalist rationale out of the hat? If you're going to do that, it should be Charles Eugene, as his English name is spelled. Auntieruth55 (talk) 19:49, 22 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Talkback

Hello, LouisPhilippeCharles. You have new messages at Auntieruth55's talk page.
Message added 20:12, 22 March 2010 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.[reply]

Auntieruth55 (talk) 20:12, 22 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Articles for deletion nomination of Alexandre Louis, Duke of Valois

I have nominated Alexandre Louis, Duke of Valois, an article that you created, for deletion. I do not think that this article satisfies Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion, and have explained why at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Alexandre Louis, Duke of Valois. Your opinions on the matter are welcome at that same discussion page; also, you are welcome to edit the article to address these concerns. Thank you for your time.

Please contact me if you're unsure why you received this message. Hans Adler 08:27, 20 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Infanta Francisca of Brazil?

I am sorry, but Francisca, daughter of Pedro I, Emperor of Brazil was never a "infanta". This is a Portuguese title, reserved for the children of the monarch, not a Brazilian one. Neither Francisca, nor her sisters Januária and Paula Mariana, and even less her brother Pedro II, where "infantes". The title for the children of Brazilian monarchs was simply "Prince", with the exception of the her who was "Imperial Prince" and his heir, who was entitled "Prince of Grand Pará". Regards, --Lecen (talk) 20:35, 24 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Yolande de Polastron

Hi. I edited your edits on Yolande de Polastron. I think the text reads better this way. Please see if you can agree with my edits. Regards, Jeff5102 (talk) 07:23, 10 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Hôtel de Mademoiselle de Condé

Hi LouisPhilippeCharles, I think I understand why you made the move that you did, but I suspect it will be disputed. Please, let's not rename the page again until we reach a consensus. Apparently the most common name is simply Hôtel de Condé, but since there is already an article with that title which is about a different complex of buildings in a different location, which existed prior to this building, we need to distinguish the title of this article from that one by some means. In such cases, it is common to add a parenthetical differentiator to the title. I therefore suggest, as a compromise, that we use the title "Hôtel de Condé (rue Monsieur)". The current title "Hôtel de Mademoiselle de Condé" may be less than ideal, because it is not a very common name for the site, and we have only one reference that appears to support it. (Some of these comments I already left on the article's talk page). Thanks for your input. --Robert.Allen (talk) 23:15, 11 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, Merci beaucoup for your comments. Initially I favored the name Hôtel de Mademoiselle de Condé as well: she seems to have been such a nice lady. But so far the only source I have turned up that uses it is Bauchal's dictionary of French architects. Later I came across the digital copy of the paper by the American curator at the Metropolitan Museum in New York, a Mr. Parker. This is where we got the nice images of the courtyard and the floor-plan, etc. He was somehow able to purchase the Clodion bas-reliefs for preservation and display to the public at the museum, perhaps the best place for them, since this simple, yet elegant house does not appear to be open to the public. It's unfortunate that there are no records of the interior furnishings, making it difficult to contemplate a restoration of the interiors. Anyway, Mr. Parker, for some reason, seems to favor the name Hôtel de Condé with the address appended. Perhaps this is based on his interactions with the prior owners of those reliefs, obviously speculation on my part. Actually I can live with any of the three names, but if you also agree that his usage might be best, it would still be my first choice. Apparently Wettman is OK with whatever. I'm willing to make the move, but only if we agree on it. Thanks again. --Robert.Allen (talk) 19:43, 12 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Hi again! On a side issue, I noticed you removed the suffix "-Condé" from her name, but I had seen that both Alan Braham (footnoted when I added it) and the French Wikipédia use it fr:Louise-Adélaïde de Bourbon-Condé. I really know nothing about this issue, but am curious to know why there are these differences in the names, and why you prefer omitting it, that is, when should it be used, and when should it not be used. --Robert.Allen (talk) 20:12, 12 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Brackets in the name Hôtel de Bourbon-Condé

Now I also notice you added brackets like this: Hôtel de [Bourbon-]Condé. Yet neither of the cited sources uses the brackets, so regardless of whether we consider this name correct or not, it has been used by others (without brackets). So I don't think it is the best solution to use the brackets. If Hôtel de Bourbon-Condé is incorrect usage, perhaps we could say the house "has also been incorrectly called the Hôtel de Bourbon-Condé" and add a detailed explanation to a footnote, as to why the usage in the sources is incorrect. --Robert.Allen (talk) 20:49, 12 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Archiving

Hello, LouisPhilippeCharles. You have new messages at Jack1755's talk page.
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.