Jump to content

Talk:Louis, Dauphin of France (1729–1765)

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

"Great rejoicing"

[edit]

"there was great rejoicing and celebrations complete with fireworks (memorialized in engravings) in all the major cities of France, and indeed in most European courts. " I added the bit about engravings from personal experience, having looked through the folio album. But the idea that there was "great rejoicing and celebrations in most European courts" is claptrap: London? Vienna? Potsdam? The accredited French ambassador would have given a fête of course. I never "delete factual material". But I do know what's what.

The date 1745, often given for this pastel, formerly posted here without the artist's name, is insecure, as amost Maurice Quentin De la Tour's dates are. It was reverted "doubted" without a moment's thought by Hardouin, who is best left to his own gaffes apparently. No matter... --Wetman 12:42, 5 Feb 2005 (UTC)

The link points out to 1748 for the probable date of the painting, which sounds more credible, as the dauphin would have been 19 at this time.
As for the courts of Europe, I know this fact with certainty, having long ago read records of how both the birth of the dauphin in 1729 and his wedding in 1745 gave rise to public fêtes in many courts of Europe. Remember that most German and Italian states were client states of France, and that the Bourbon ruled in Madrid. I don't know if London organized fêtes on those occasions, but Berlin and Vienna almost certainly did, as it was thought courteous to do so to honor the man (Louis XV) that was seen as the most powerful king of Europe. Remember that all these royal families interbred with each other, and it didn't matter that the countries were at war with each other from times to times, because nonetheless all these kings and princes felt like they were all part of the same European social class. Hardouin 14:46, 5 Feb 2005 (UTC)
"Remember that most German and Italian states were client states of France"
What? You are seriously mistaken. However, the celebrations might still be true as not all rulers must be meanies just hoping for the extinction of another dynasty, which would certainly have resulted in a major war. Str1977 (talk) 10:03, 5 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Requested move (2007)

[edit]
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section.

Louis of Bourbon, Dauphin of France → Louis, Dauphin of France — He is not known as "of Bourbon"... It was never his surname ("of France" was). This is to move the page to a correct location following the repeated undiscussed moves of another user. Charles 02:07, 21 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Survey

[edit]
Add  # '''Support'''  or  # '''Oppose'''  on a new line in the appropriate section followed by a brief explanation, then sign your opinion using ~~~~. Please remember that this survey is not a vote, and please provide an explanation for your recommendation.

Survey - in support of the move

[edit]
  1. Support As nominator. Charles 02:07, 21 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Survey - in opposition to the move

[edit]
  1. Oppose - far too general a title. Michaelsanders 02:35, 21 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  2. Oppose - the suggested new page name already exists as a disambiguation page. What would be done with the content of that page? I agree that there is a problem with the current page name (Louis-Ferdinand); this is not how this man was known (even if Ferdinand was one of his baptismal names). It is totally inappropriate to make up names for people in order to have unique Wikipedia page names. Other encyclopedias solve this by including birth and death dates in the title. Noel S McFerran 19:44, 22 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Last time I checked, the dab page was titled Louis, Dauphin of France (disambiguation) with a note at the top of this article notifying of other possible dauphins named Louis. There has probably been a whole slew of undiscussed moves since. Charles 06:15, 23 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The point remains that 'Louis, Dauphin of France' is an unacceptable title for this person's article. What makes him The Dauphin? There were other Dauphin's named Louis - most notably the son of Louis XVI. I think that, if this person is never referred to as Louis-Ferdinand the Dauphin (since he does seem to be referred to as Louis-Ferdinand), the best title would be Louis, Dauphin of France (1732-1765), as User:Mcferran suggested. Michaelsanders 12:45, 23 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
He was the Dauphin though, since there is only ever one at a time. This was at a form of Louis, Dauphin of France until you moved it. All other dauphins named Louis are seemingly referred to by ducal titles meaning that this title is open for this dauphin. It's really not to simple to grasp, or so I pray. Charles 17:45, 23 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, he was the Dauphin. So were half a dozen others. And I'd question the titles for several of them. The Duke of Guyenne is as frequently known as Louis the Dauphin, thanks to Shakespeare. The elder son of Louis XVI is always referred to as The Dauphin and never as Duke of Brittany, if indeed, he even held that title. I can find no evidence that he did. And he certainly wouldn't have been referred to as such if he did, because he was always the Dauphin, from birth to death. Calling him 'Duke of Brittany' would be entirely artificial. And then there is the Grand Dauphin, the Duke of Burgundy and his son the Duke of Brittany (the latter two article titles are dubious). There is 'Louis XVII'. There is the 'Duke of Angouleme'. The first lot have as much right to the article title of 'Louis, Dauphin of France' as Louis-Ferdinand. The second lot one might to expect to find if typing in 'Louis, Dauphin of France'. And then there are all the Kings who were known as 'Louis, Dauphin of France' at some point. I don't see why you don't grasp this. Indeed, just because a 'title is open' doesn't make it acceptable if it sows confusion. But since it isn't open (Louis XVI's son definitely has as much right to the article title), you need to stop complaining and insisting that it be returned to the former, inappropriate title, and come up with some constructive suggestions. Michaelsanders 20:08, 23 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  1. Oppose per Micheal. I don't think the Bourbon Louis is established enough as the Primary topic to merit the generic title. I'm not a big fan of the Louis-Ferdinand solution either but it's a start. 205.157.110.11 03:48, 1 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I did suggest that if there is no evidence of him being called Louis-Ferdinand, Dauphin of France, we could call the article Louis, Dauphin of France (1729-1765). Would anyone have any objection to that? It would still allow a certain amount of confusion and problems (Louis-Ferdinand is easier to write and to remember than Louis, 1729-1765), but it couldn't b objected to, and I don't see how anyone could be markedly dissatisfied with it. Michaelsanders 11:16, 1 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Discussion

[edit]
Add any additional comments:
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Louis the Dauphin

[edit]

French forms of name, title, etc, are discouraged on English wikipedia. 'Louis, Dauphin of France' is a title that would apply to far too many French princes in history. By contrast, 'Louis of Bourbin, Dauphin of France' is more appropriate, since it distinguishes him from the other royals, and gives him the designation of his house (as is commonly used, for example the multitudinous Plantagenets, or Isabella of Valois). Michaelsanders 02:34, 21 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I would also point out that, with the exception of Italian wikipedia, all of the Roman alphabet interwikis use clear article titles - Louis Ferdinand de Bourbon, dauphin de Viennois (German), Luis, Delfín de Francia (1729-1765) (Spanish), Louis de France (1729-1765) (French), Lodewijk van Frankrijk (1729-1765) (Dutch), and Ludwik Ferdynand Burbon (Polish). Michaelsanders 02:47, 21 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Moved it to Louis-Ferdinand, Dauphin of France. No risk of confusion, and it's his real name. Michaelsanders 03:06, 21 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Do not, under any circumstances, move a page under discussion for a move. I can't believe you cite other Wikis when only one you've shown uses "Ferdinand". We do NOT use house names to disambiguate. Louis was first "of France" before he was ever "of Bourbon". French forms are not discouraged. Obviously, you have many, many things that you need to absorb. Charles 19:43, 21 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
My point was that none - with the exception of Italy - use the under-specific title of 'Louis, dauphin de France'. They make it clear whom they are referring to. We do use house names to disambiguate, as did royalty themselves (Louis XIV once compared himself to one of his Conde cousins by referring to them both being named Louis de Bourbon). He was as much 'of Bourbon' as he was 'of France'. I believe that foreign language forms are discouraged in English wikipedia, since it makes it harder for readers to find and reference the article. I fail to understand why you think 'Louis, dauphin of France' is an appropriate title for one man, when it as easily applies to numerous others. Are you trying to foster confusion. Moreover, since Louis-Ferdinand is his actual name (and he is referred to as such pretty consistently in his own article), it easily distinguishes him from the others, without the need for the house designation to which you object. Michaelsanders 01:03, 22 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
We do not follow the conventions of non-English Wikipedias. There are English conventions. Louis XIV comparing himself once to his Bourbon-Condé cousin does not set a precedent. That is not a disambiguation, by the way, it is an observation. One was THE KING OF FRANCE AND NAVARRE and the other was a Prince of Condé. No confusion there. Bourbon is only ever used in lieu of a territorial designation or if it is primary usage. It is neither for this dauphin. Under-specificity is a non-issue. There is a disambiguation link. Few of those other men named Louis remained dauphins and if they did they had other titles. That is disambiguation enough. The point of the matter is you fail to address your actions (moving a page under discussion) and you fail to make a point with point with consistency (inserting what he may be called as a common name but defending something he is never called (of Bourbon)). Charles 01:49, 22 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I don't know why you are still arguing about the 'of Bourbon' - I removed it, because it was too troublesome and ambiguous. Nonetheless, it is acceptable in English to refer to a member of a royal family by his/her house designation.

Moving on: WP:Naming conventions: "Generally, article naming should prefer to what the majority of English speakers would most easily recognize, with a reasonable minimum of ambiguity, while at the same time making linking to those articles easy and second nature." "Names of Wikipedia articles should be optimized for readers over editors; and for a general audience over specialists." Thus, my original suggestion doesn't work, but the current title (Louis-Ferdinand, Dauphin of France) does. Yours does not, since it follows French format, and is too ambiguous.

"Use English words Convention: Name your pages in English and place the native transliteration on the first line of the article unless the native form is more commonly recognized by readers than the English form."

"Be precise when necessary Convention: Please, do not write or put an article on a page with an ambiguously named title as though that title had no other meanings. If all possible words have multiple meanings, go with the rule of thumb of naming guidelines and use the more popular term."

I made a mistake by using the title of Louis of Bourbon, Dauphin of France. Fine. I corrected it, because I thought that would solve the dispute. But this title (Louis-Ferdinand, Dauphin of France) is the acceptable title, not Louis, Dauphin of France, and certainly not Louis, dauphin de France. It could just as appropriately apply to several others: Louis, Duke of Guyenne (who despite his title is, thanks to Shakespeare, as frequently known as Louis the Dauphin); Louis, Grand Dauphin; Louis, Duke of Burgundy;Louis, Duke of Brittany; Louis-Ferdinand, Dauphin of France; and Louis-Joseph, Dauphin of France. What makes Louis-Ferdinand different from these others? Why shouldn't the elder son of Louis XVI be Louis, Dauphin of France? Michaelsanders 15:17, 22 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

"Louis Ferdinand" is NOT his name. His name was Louis, period. Please do not invent names. This prince, as all the French royal princes, had several Christian names (at least 4), and perhaps Ferdinand was one of his Chritian names, but only Louis was used, so either you quote all his Chrisian names if you can find them, either you leave only Louis which is the way historians do. As for disambiguation, this is a fake argument. Other dauphins that were called Louis are already disambiguated, either in French or in English (Louis the Grand Dauphin, Louis Duke of Burgundy, or with their dates in parenthesis). I've moved the article to Louis, Dauphin of France (1729-1765). Godefroy 23:31, 27 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I think this document should settle it. It is the marriage certificate of Louis XVI and Marie Antoinette where the name of Louis XVI's father appears undisputably as "Louis dauphin de France". Godefroy 14:27, 2 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Louis-Ferdinand

[edit]

A search: [1] [2] [3] [4] [5] [6] [7]

provides numerous results of 'Louis-Ferdinand' for this person, most at trustworthy sites. It is definite Original Research to conjecture from the absence of the name 'Ferdinand' in either the marriage contract or the Almanach that he never bore the name (since you are deciding that because the name is not mentioned, he didn't have it). Accordingly, either find a refutation of his ever having the name, or stop interfering with it. Michael Sanders 18:56, 3 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Please read Wikipedia:Reliable sources. Not a single one of those websites could be cited in an essay for a university course; I know since I'm a faculty member at a major research university. The appropriate sources to check are published biographies of this prince. A week ago I added several to the page; not one of them calls this prince "Louis Ferdinand". I've now added the online version of Proyart. It is also possible to do a search on Europeana. There are dozens of mentions of this particular prince under "Louis dauphin", but not a single one under "Louis Ferdinand". Popular websites are just wrong sometimes. Noel S McFerran 00:30, 9 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Michaelsanders continues to insist that this prince should be referred to throughout the article as "Louis-Ferdinand". In defence of this position he has cited a number of popular websites. I have maintained that he should be referred to throughout the article as "Louis". There are at least six book-length biographies of this prince, all of which call him "Louis". His tombstone calls him "Louis". Engravings of him call him "Louis". In the major French genealogical works he is called "Louis" (although his sons are referred to by their multiple baptismal names). It is possible that he received the name "Ferdinand" as one of his baptismal names (at the age of seven, not actually when he was baptised) - but I have thus far found no evidence whatsover for this. Even if this were the case, it is not our practice in Wikipedia to refer to a person throughout the article by all of their baptismal names (cf. Felipe, Prince of Asturias who is not referred to as "Felipe Juan Pablo Alfonso" except in the first line). In the article we should refer to this prince by the name generally used for him. That is "Louis". Six book-length biographies and a bunch of other sources trump a few popular webpages. Noel S McFerran 01:20, 10 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Today, once again, Michaelsanders changed Louis' name to Louis-Ferdinand saying in his edit summary, "Antonia Fraser refers to him as Louis-Ferdinand. Proof of usage outweighs proof of lack of usage." The fact that Antonia Fraser uses this name for Louis does not outweigh the fact that Proyart, Rozoir, Achaintre and Dussieux all say that his name is just Louis. There is NO evidence that this man was EVER called Louis Ferdinand during his lifetime. The only usage of Louis Ferdinand is by a few modern authors - and almost all of these are writing in English. The fact that a minority of modern English-language authors have misnamed this man, does not change the fact that he was only ever Louis. The attempt to foist the name Louis Ferdinand upon him is an attempt to change scholarship. There is presently in the article a footnote saying "Several modern popular works, including some websites, call him Louis-Ferdinand". That accurately represents the situation. Noel S McFerran 16:40, 21 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This is an article on a historical personage. However he may be referred to by some historians, his full name is cited as being 'Louis-Ferdinand'. That means that it is represented as such in the heading. Especially since you cannot prove that your own sources are stating 'Louis' as being his full name, rather than simply not using 'Ferdinand'. Michael Sanders 15:01, 30 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

We do not normally use the full names of historical people as the title of their articles, nor to refer to them in their text. Per WP:COMMONNAME we should use the most common name in English. None of the special rules in Wikipedia:Naming conventions (names and titles) for royalty affect this particular case. I notice the other WPs all just use, Louis, except for the German, which uses L-F in the title, but L in the text. Most modern royals have a great tail of names which are of course never used. At the moment you have not demonstrated that LF is the commonest name used by historians in English. Johnbod 15:08, 30 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
None of the biographies of Abraham Lincoln say that he did not also have the additional baptismal name "Moonbeam". But it would be ridiculous for me to contend that Moonbeam was one of his baptismal names merely because some modern works in French said that he was actually named "Abraham Moonbeam Lincoln". We look at the most reliable sources. In the case of the Dauphin Louis, ALL the contemporary sources say that his name was "Louis". Please cite any source published in the eighteenth century which suggests that he had an additional baptismal name. Of course, even if he did, Johnbod's comment that this would only be mentioned once is applicable. Noel S McFerran 18:18, 30 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with M. Sanders as far that his name is "Louis Ferdinand" (though not "Louis-Ferdinand" as the hyphen is not conclusively used). The sources are sufficent for that. But that doesn't mean that the page should be moved or that we have to use LF throughout the article. Str1977 (talk) 10:12, 5 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Proyart, Rozoir, Achaintre and Dussieux all say that his name is Louis. There is NO evidence that this man was EVER called Louis Ferdinand during his lifetime. The only usage of Louis Ferdinand is by a few modern authors - and almost all of these are writing in English. The fact that a minority of modern English-language authors have misnamed this man, does not change the fact that he was only ever Louis. The attempt to foist the name Louis Ferdinand upon him is an attempt to change scholarship. There is presently in the article a footnote saying "Several modern popular works, including some websites, call him Louis-Ferdinand". That accurately represents the situation. Noel S McFerran (talk) 12:01, 5 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
These however constitute RS in WP terms. Furthermore, I think it highly unlikely that he only had one name. I agree that we should call him Louis throught the article but his second name must be mentioned as well. Str1977 (talk) 15:56, 5 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

de France

[edit]

The parish of Notre-Dame in Versailles has death, marriage, baptism "certificates" of all the members of the royal family from the time Louis XIV established the Court at Versailles until the Revolution.

  • Here is the text RE baptism of Marie-Thérèse de France, Madame Royale, daughter of Louis XVI & Marie Antoinette:[8]

Marie-Thérèse-Charlotte de France, fille du Haut et Puissant Seigneur Louis, roi de France et de Navarre, et de Haute et Puissante Princesse Marie-Antoinette-Josèphe de Lorraine, archidusse d'Autriche, reine de France...

  • In addition, here is the transcribed text of document given above of the marriage of Louis Auguste, dauphin de France, to Marie Antoinette, Archiduchesse d'Autriche, highlighting name "de France" whenever used in text as a surname (and throwing in a "d'Orléans' for good measure.)

"L'an mil sept cent soixante-dix, le seize may vû la dispense de parenté accordée par nôtre saint père le pape Clément quatorze en datte du trente aoust mil sept cent soixante -neuf et la dispense accordée par Mgr l'Archevêque de Paris de la publication de trois bans, ensemble la permission d'être fiançés et mariés le même jour dans telle église ou chapelle par tel évêque ou prêtre qu'il plaira à sa majesté , même in pontificalibus en datte du quatre de ce mois , signé Christophe Archevêque de Paris , plusbas de La Touche secrétaire très haut , très puissant et excellent prince Loüis , Auguste , dauphin de France , fils de défunt très haut , très puissant , et excellent prince , Loüis dauphin de France , et de défunte très haute , très puissante et excellente princesse , Marie- Josephe princesse de Saxe ses père et mère d'une part , et très haute très puissante et excellente princesse Marie-Antoinette-Josephe Jeanne , Archiduchesse d'Autriche , fille de défunt très haut , très puissant et très excellent prince François premier du nom , empereur des romains grand duc de Toscane , et de très haute -très puissante et très excellente princesse , Marie , Thérèse, Valpurge-Amélie-Christine , impératrice doüairière des romains , reine de Hongrie et de Bohême ses père et mère , d'autre part , les fiançailles faites - ont été marié denraefenti après avoir pris leur consentement mutuel et ont reçu la bénédiction nuptiale , nous curé de cette paroisse présent, par Mgr Charle-Antoine de La Rochenimon Archevêque duc de Reims , pair et grand-aumonier de France , le susdit mariage fait en la chapelle du roy , en présence de très haut , très puissant et très excellent prince Loüis roy de France et de Navarre , de très haut , et très puissant prince Loüis Stanislas Xavier de France comte de Provence , de très haut , et très puissant prince , Charle-Philippe de France comte d'Artois , de très haute , et très puissante princesse , Marie, Adélaïde, Clotilde , Xavière de France de très haute , et très puissante princesse , Marie -Adélaïde de France , de très haute et très puissante princesse , Victoire , Loüise , Marie-Thérèse de France , de très haute et très puissante princesse Sophie , Philippine Justine de France , de très haut et puissant prince , Loüis-Philippe duc d'Orléans premier prince du sang , de très haut , et puissant prince , Loüis Philippe Joseph d'Orléans duc de Chartres prince du sang qui ont signés avec les époux "

Source: registres paroissiaux de Versailles

--Frania W. (talk) 18:14, 22 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

  • "De France" is wrong because it is not a surname as say "De Rothschild" If you really want to use the term then it has to be "of France." Even this is unnecessary on a page dedicated unambiguously to a single royal family. Princes and princesses of the blood are distinguished by the use of a sole Christian name - even when "Children of France." Your French documents obviously will use "de" rather than "of" because they are in French. The reason they use the term "de France" at all, is to distinguish the individual from the thousands of others with similar Christian names also dying in the locality - even de Bourbon would have been ambiguous. You might like also to consider the wretched Jeanne of Valois-Saint-Rémy (why is that an "of"? it should be "de") whose fraudulent practices were exposed when Marie Antoinette's forged signature included "de France." Elsewhere on Wikipedia people seem confused - for instance her in Louis, Duke of Burgundy (1751–1761) we have an "of France" and a "de France" in the space of two paragraphs. And for this page here, to include the immortal description "Louis Auguste de France King of France Duke of Berry" and "Louis Stanislas Xavier de France King of France Count of Provence" is more than plain wrong, it displays ignorance. Once a monarch is annointed all other lesser titles are dispensed with.  Giano  22:51, 22 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]


Giano, thanks for adding a windmill to my collection.

  • "de France" is a surname as are "de Bourbon" (the surname of Henri IV's father), "d'Orléans", "de Gaulle", "de Rothschild", etc.
  • Jeanne of Valois-Saint-Rémy, should be Jeanne de Valois-Saint-Rémy.
  • Members of the royal family signed only with their baptismal names (or a couple of them), which did not mean that they did not have a surname. It simply was the traditional way of signing.
  • And for this page here, to include the immortal description "Louis Auguste de France King of France Duke of Berry" and "Louis Stanislas Xavier de France King of France Count of Provence" is more than plain wrong,... In the article, they are there as the Dauphin's children, so they should be listed with their names & titles at birth and (future "name as king"):
    • Louis Auguste de France, duc de Berry, (future Louis XVI)
    • Louis Stanislas Xavier de France, comte de Provence, (future Louis XVIII)
    • Charles-Philippe de France, comte d'Artois, (future Charles X)

Regards, --Frania W. (talk) 01:37, 23 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

  • I am only here trying to find information for two other pages I am, writing tht involves some French history,so I;m not really bothered what you do here, but if you are going to be wrong on these French royal pages, then it is best to be consistently wrong or consistently right; at present they confusingly all over the place. De France is not their surname/dynastic name, never has been and never will be. Ancient documents referring to Royalty of any nationality frequently fall over themselves in their obseqiousness - for instance we would not begin a page today "The most gracious and high and mighty sovereign lord born in 1520" - would we? Well I wouldn't at least. People on Wikipedia seem frequently confused in their use of "de" and "of" and fall over themselves to use titles, ranks and honorifics which are now completely meaningless and irrelevant. It was only a couple of years ago that Wikipedia stoped useing "The most noble" as the first words on pages about living British dukes. Anyway, I shall leave you to your page, but do think about these things - they are quite important to get right, and at the moment they are not.  Giano  08:11, 23 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Giano, so how are we to interpret the above two documents ? Are you saying that the whole royal family (king, queen, brothers, sisters, plus the Orléans & Condé cousins) was wrong in its display of ignorance, signing documents containing the portions I underlined, and which are to be found in the archives of Notre-Dame church in Versailles ?
--Frania W. (talk) 15:47, 23 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • I suggest you read your own evidence. I am pleased to see "future King of France" has now been added to the page. I will leave you to correct the unfortunate Jeanne de Valois-Saint-Rémy. The French have never had a royal house named "de France." That during their lifetime certain members were poud of being "Children of France" I have no doubt, but to use the appelation centuries after their death as a surname is incorrect. I am begining to wish I had not edited the page at all as this is obviously one of those Wikipedia-areas were its dedicated editors wish to celebrate every aspect of "royalness" and "obseqiousness." Personally, I am not bothered if it is correct or not - it's not my favourite field of editing. I will leave you to it, but I suspect someone else will raise it before long. Bonne chance et au'revoir.  Giano  16:23, 23 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Giano, I agree with you that it is important to get these things right, which is why I invite you to read the following:
Page 237, (Google directs to p. 137, but it falls on p. 237), paragraph 7, in Collection complète des lois, décrets, ordonnances, réglemens et ..., Volume 20, (from 1788 to 1824), published in Paris in 1827, [9]:
Here is an excerpt taken from an ordonnance by Louis XVIII signed in Paris on 12 January 1816:
Notre bien-aimé frère, Monsieur, colonel général, et notre ministre secrétaire-d'Etat de l'intérieur, sont chargés, chacun en ce qui le concerne, de l'exécution de la présente ordonnance.
Charles-Philippe de France, fils de France, Monsieur, comte d'Artois, colonel général des gardes nationales du royaume,
Vu l'ordonnance ci-dessus ....
Regards, --Frania W. (talk) 16:38, 23 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Giano, you wrote: "The French have never had a royal house named "de France."
Book Histoire de la maison royale de France et des grands officiers de la Covronne, by R.P. Anselme, published in 1674:
Armoiries de la Maison royale de France:
If you don't mind, I'll stick to archives, official documents & side with the ignorant French.
Bonne chance à vous & aurevoir, --Frania W. (talk) 18:02, 23 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
My final word, the people of whom you speak were not members of a House of de France, there never was such a dynasty and probably never will be (unless you create it here on Wikipedia - which is a law unto itself). I'm sorry, I wish for you it was otherwise, but that's a fact - these peope were Bourbon or de Bourbon - it matters not. They are dead. Even Wikipedia cannot change their dynastic names. Adieu  Giano  18:56, 23 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Interesting....

[10]The new Larned History for ready reference, reading and research, Volume 2, by Josephus Nelson Larned, Donald Eugene Smith, p1101, "Bourbon, House of: its origin. From King Louis IX of France, "through his last male child, Robert de France, Comte de Clermont, sprang the House of Bourbon. An ancient barony, the inheritance of Beatrix, wife of this prince, was erected into a dukedom in favour of Louis, his son, and gave to his descendants the name which they have retained(Bourbon), that of France being reserved for the Royal branch. But Henry IV's children, those of Louis XIII, and those of their successors in the throne, were surnamed "de France"...

--Kansas Bear (talk) 19:14, 23 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Really? Then I look forward to seeing House of Bourbon and Bourbon Restoration updated and referenced accordingly.  Giano  21:03, 23 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Requested moves (2010)

[edit]

Move? (July 2010)

[edit]
The following discussion is an archived discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the move request was: page moved per request. - GTBacchus(talk) 04:22, 31 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]


Louis, Dauphin of France (1729–1765) → Louis-Ferdinand, Dauphin of France —

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

Revert (November 2010)

[edit]
The following discussion is an archived discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the move request was: page moved. Vegaswikian (talk) 21:31, 4 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]


Louis Ferdinand, Dauphin of France → Louis, Dauphin of France (1729–1765) — The above move had no support or opposition. It was moved 15 hour after it was requested. I don't know the rules of moving but I don't think that was long enough time. Also the sources referring to him as Louis-Ferdinand is unreliable as state in the sections #Louis-Ferdinand and #Louis the Dauphin. Even if he had the name of Ferdinand, Louis was his most common name and the name he used on documents and how he was refer to in his lifetime, and it's the name used by historians.--Queen Elizabeth II's Little Spy (talk) 04:04, 27 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Support: I have never heard him referred to as Louis-Ferdinand. Though this was his name, it is not what he is commonly referred to. Would we call Queen Victoria Queen Alexandrina Victoria? A simple search will pull up numerous legitimate books (like [11]). I recommend reverting the move back to Louis, Dauphin of France (1729–1765). Ruby2010 (talk) 04:40, 27 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Weak oppose Although QEIILS and Ruby are correct in that few people refer to him as Louis-Ferdinand, I prefer the name to the dates. I think we should avoid article titles containing dates whenever it is possible to do so.--Jeanne Boleyn (talk) 06:12, 27 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I understand people don't like dates, but calling him Louis Ferdinand is just incorrect. If you do a google book search you find no books that refers to him as Louis Ferdinand except "Marie-Thérèse, child of terror: the fate of Marie Antoinette's daughter by Susan Nagel", a book written in 2008. Imagine this signario Charles, Prince of Wales dies before becoming King and William has a son who he names Charles in honor of his father; we'll make his baptismal name Charles William Edward Henry. Both are called Charles. This new Charles dies before becoming king, do we called the old Charles Charles Philip and the other Charles William just so we don't have to use dates.--Queen Elizabeth II's Little Spy (talk) 06:36, 27 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support I think most points have been put across, I believe that he should be moved back to Louis, Dauphin of France as I doubt the people of his era would have refered to him as Louis Ferdinand--David (talk) 11:53, 27 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: I have been asked to comment here, so I will. This is not a question of what he was or is called, but one of disambiguation. Just as nobody of his time would have called him "Louis Ferdinand", nobody of his time would have called him "Louis 1729-1765". He was called some variant of Louis, Dauphin of France, but that can't be used as that name applies to too many people. Thus we are left with injecting something else into his name that wasn't used, just so that his page is named differently than those of the other Dauphins Louis. Should that be a set of dates or a second name, neither of which would have been used at the time? It is not even a case of which someone is more likely to search for in Wikipedia, because they are most likely to find themselves at the disambiguation page anyhow. Personally, I am with Jeanne here - not a fan of dates in page names. Agricolae (talk) 16:08, 27 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: I am also not a fan of dates in article titles, but am still against the use of Louis-Ferdinand. Is there any other article name we could use that isn't either of these? Ruby2010 (talk) 17:06, 27 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support Louis, Dauphin of France (1729–1765). The name "Louis-Ferdinand" does not show up in a SINGLE source from his lifetime or from the century after his death. It appears first in the 20th century and has been repeated in a minority of books. I surmise that it was created by a writer merely to distinguish the subject from his father and his sons (also named Louis). But there is absolutely no historical evidence for the name "Louis-Ferdinand" while there is plenty of historical evidence (outlined above on this talk page) for the use of the plain name "Louis". Dates may not be the ideal way of disambiguating a name - but it's certainly preferable to using a made-up name. Noel S McFerran (talk) 19:23, 27 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: Just for the record, the comment that the previous move was done 15 hours after being requested is a mistake. It was 10 days. Station1 (talk) 20:51, 27 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry read it wrong. But I still don't think many people were aware of its move.--Queen Elizabeth II's Little Spy (talk) 22:56, 27 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
--Frania W. (talk) 00:50, 28 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.
[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Louis, Dauphin of France (son of Louis XV). Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 00:51, 2 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Louis,_Dauphin_of_France_(1729–1765)&oldid=1203764181"