Talk:Prince Carlos, Duke of Parma

Titles

I've added the comment that the titles bestowed upon him by his father as Duke of Parma and the Carlist titles have no legality. That would include the title used in the name of the article. He's a Prince of Bourbon-Parma by right of it's annexation into the Dutch nobility, and the reasons for which that is (was) possible.Gerard von Hebel (talk) 23:36, 24 January 2009 (UTC)

In view of the result of the recent move request in relation to his father, I suggest that he should be moved to "Carlos of Bourbon-Parma". PatGallacher (talk) 16:52, 2 September 2010 (UTC)

I would oppose as the suggestion is in no way supported by naming conventions. - dwc lr (talk) 17:18, 2 September 2010 (UTC)

Requested move

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: Not moved, no consensus to move. -Taelus (Talk) 12:04, 12 September 2010 (UTC)

---

Carlos, Duke of Parma → Carlos of Bourbon-Parma — A recent discussion about his father Carlos Hugo of Bourbon-Parma concluded that we should not include his claimed title of Duke in the article title, so we ought to be consistent. It is POV to assume that a country (Italy in this case) does not have the right to declare a republic and all titles of nobility abolished. PatGallacher (talk) 19:41, 2 September 2010 (UTC)

• Oppose – per WP:NCNT which are very clear, his father’s discussion was inconclusive and the majority certainly did not want “Name of Bourbon-Parma” but an agreeable alternative could not be settled upon. The majority of Heads of the House of Bourbon-Pamra are at "Name, Duke of Parma" and have been for years so if you want consistency you are going the wrong way. It’s “POV” to solely subscribe to an Italian republican view, I doubt they even care if he uses the title Duke of Parma. He was inaugurated as Duke and grandmaster of the dynastic orders the other day in Parma.[1] - dwc lr (talk) 20:01, 2 September 2010 (UTC)
• Oppose He, his father, and his grandfather are commonly called Duke of Parma. Wikipedia doesn't decide about what SHOULD BE. It merely summarizes what other sources say. The title Duke of Parma is commonly used for these people. Titles of nobility have not been abolished in Italy; they are merely not recognised by the state ("I titoli nobiliari non sono riconosciuti"). Noel S McFerran (talk) 20:39, 2 September 2010 (UTC)
  • A claim that would be greatly improved by evidence that the subject is commonly so called; or is - indeed - notable enough to be commonly called anything. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 20:44, 2 September 2010 (UTC)
    • The main newspaper in Parma, the it:Gazzetta di Parma, calls Carlos that: "Sarà lui ad ereditare il titolo di duca di Parma e Piacenza".[2] As for his father Carlos Hugo, even The Telegraph called him Duke of Parma. [3] Noel S McFerran (talk) 22:21, 2 September 2010 (UTC)
      • Only one of those is in English, and that one is about someone else. Neither is evidence on the point at issue. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 15:35, 3 September 2010 (UTC)
        • It's good evidence for assessing the relative strength of arguments on the choice before us, though you may find it unpersuasive. Wikipedia didn't wait for the number of English google hits giving Daniel Westling the title of "Prince" to outnumber those of his pre-marital name before we inserted "Prince" in his article namespace, nor should we. It's a distraction to impose a standard of proof too stringent to guide the choice before us ("That obit only says he's now Duke of Parma, but doesn't call him so...That journal isn't authoritative enough, even though the ones which are don't mention him...That one's no good because it calls him Duke of Parma, but not in English...That one's misleading because it only says his father, grandfather & great-grandfather were titled D of P...That source is too monarchist/genealogical/tabloid-like) and so on until the only thing we're allowed to consider is...English google hits! This man inherited his father's title less than a month ago through events which transpired in or are most relevant to non-English language countries (Italy, Spain, The Netherlands). But there's enough good evidence out there for us to decide this move request, until better evidence appears which changes consensus. As for his notability, that's not what a move request is for. Take it up at Proposed deletion. FactStraight (talk) 20:32, 3 September 2010 (UTC)
• Strongly support. We are not here to repeat the propaganda of any pretender, even more or less English-speaking ones. A search will demonstrate that English already knows a Carlos, Duke of Parma; our article on him is under Charles III of Spain. Observe that we have plenty of links to this article; and none of them mean its subject. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 20:44, 2 September 2010 (UTC)
  • If you feel strongly about not using titles for non reigning royals, and its propaganda to do so, why not start a discussion at NCNT to try and enact that change. What’s the point in trying to change the odd one here and there when there are thousands out there on Wikipedia? - dwc lr (talk) 21:25, 2 September 2010 (UTC)
    • That's not what I feel strongly about; I feel strongly about writing in English, in which "Carlos, Duke of Parma" means someone else. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 15:32, 3 September 2010 (UTC)
      • A sentence like at the top Charles III of Spain will suffice if people are liable to search for that individual under this articles name on account of his 3 year reign in Parma, instead of searching for him on account of his near 30 year reign in Spain, or 25 year reign in Naples and Sicily. - dwc lr (talk) 16:01, 3 September 2010 (UTC)
        • No. It is conceivable there should be a dab page at this title. But calling this article by a title which no independent reliable source in English has ever called its subject is contrary to policy; Original Research. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 17:02, 3 September 2010 (UTC)
          • There are foreign sources available Noel McFerran mentioned one, the link I posted above to the photo agency is English and calls him Duke of Parma,[4] It is hardly OR to call him Duke of Parma. I haven’t seen any sources calling him “Carlos of Bourbon-Parma” that is where the real OR seemingly lies so this move request should be dismissed, but you actually support it. - dwc lr (talk) 17:21, 3 September 2010 (UTC)
            • • • I don't care what the Italian paparazzi say; that matters (if to anybody) to the Italian wikipedia, not to us. Your link to a photographer is broken - and I doubt his caption-writer is a herald. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 17:51, 3 September 2010 (UTC)
                  • It works now. Manifestly not by an English-speaker - and the assertion is attributed to the Grand Master of the "Ordine Costantiniano di San Giorgio". Who? Septentrionalis PMAnderson 18:46, 3 September 2010 (UTC)
                • You do have a point that the dynastic name doesn't seem to mentioned much either; but the obvious resolution to that is to delete the article on this unimportant morganatic princeling. If I get any more backchat from single-purpose accounts, I shall consider that alternative further. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 17:51, 3 September 2010 (UTC)
                  • There aren’t many sources in English and probably never will be many as he has no connection to an English speaking county, a new Burkes Royal Families of Europe is out next year which will most likely be the first English language work to deal with this family since his succession. I can hazard a guess based on past works what he will be called in the Parma entry and I would be amazed if it’s plain old “Carlos of Bourbon-Parma”. He is certainly not morganatic and there is no need to delete the article (and I would be surprised if an AFD succeeded) as there are references to this notable individual who is now Head of the House of Bourbon-Parma, Carlist heir and a member of the Dutch Royal Family, sources not necessarily in English however, but that doesn’t mean he is not notable. I’m certainly not giving you “backchat” this is a very important discussion on the naming of non reigning royals, and yes the majority of my edits are indeed in an area of interest to myself. - dwc lr (talk) 18:27, 3 September 2010 (UTC)
                    • I trust I'm not a single-purpose account who is back-chatting you. What is the basis for the claim that he is morganatic? His grandfather's marriage was originally considered non-dynastic by Prince Elias, but either Elias or his son later changed his mind and recognized the marriage as dynastic. Carlos Hugo was recognized as head of the house of Bourbon-Parma after his father's death, and was so recognized for over thirty years. Carlos Hugo's own marriage, to the daughter of a reigning monarch, was certainly equal and dynastic from the standpoint of the Bourbon-Parma dynasty. The subject of this article is also a nephew of the Queen of the Netherlands; my understanding is that his family gets a significant amount of press coverage in the Netherlands. john k (talk) 06:57, 4 September 2010 (UTC)
                      • • And he is not, as the article makes plain, in the line of succession to the Dutch throne: if that be not "morganatic", the term has no meaning. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 14:47, 4 September 2010 (UTC)
                          • That is not, in fact, what morganatic means. He is not a member of the Dutch royal family, although he is a close relative. (Much more closely related than such not-in-the-British-line of succession people as George Windsor, Earl of St Andrews). I'm not sure how that's even relevant. Is Paul, Crown Prince of Greece morganatic because he's not in the line of succession to the Danish throne? He is the head of the House of Bourbon-Parma, which is a European princely house generally recognized as such, and is arguably a member of the royal houses of France, Spain, and the Two Sicilies. The fact that these countries are no longer monarchies or do not exist (except for Spain, whose line of succession is unclear after the present king's descendants), does not make members of such houses morganatic. "Morganatic" is a term with a very specific meaning, which is "referring to marriages made by members of a royal or princely house that are not considered dynastic, and descendants of such marriages." Carlos wouldn't have been a member of the Dutch royal family whether or not his mother's marriage had been approved, and whether or not he was in the line of succession. The Earl of Harewood is in the line of succession to the British throne, but is not a member of the British royal family. So he's not morganatic on the Dutch side. He's a full dynast on the Bourbon-Parma side, which is why it's inappropriate to say he's morganatic. john k (talk) 21:01, 4 September 2010 (UTC)
                            • He is a member of the Royal Family just not a member of the Royal House.[5] - dwc lr (talk) 16:53, 6 September 2010 (UTC)
• Oppose!!! - per WP:NCNT, WP:MOSBIO and WP:NCP + what I already wrote intensively on Talk:Carlos Hugo, Duke of Parma. It is really annoying to start this discussion whole over again! Diodecimus (talk) 07:49, 3 September 2010 (UTC)

And PatGallacher wrote in the introduction of this requested move: "A recent discussion about his father Carlos Hugo of Bourbon-Parma concluded that we should not include his claimed title of Duke in the article title". But that statement is not true and a distortion of that discussion. Diodecimus (talk) 08:41, 3 September 2010 (UTC)

• Oppose because the new precedent cited misrepresented consensus IMO; because the arguments are factually erroneous (Italy didn't even try to abolish titles when it abolished the monarchy, but could certainly have done so if it wished -- e.g. Austria, Soviet Union); nor was "Duke of Parma" ever a title of the Italian kingdom (or even of Sardinia!); and the entity which did create the title remains an internationally recognized fons honorum; for which there is, moreover, no evidence it ever rescinded its grant of the ducal title to the ancestor of Carlo di Borbone-Parma. Besides, monarchies have never restricted themselves to granting titles only named for territories within their boundaries (ever heard of victory titles?). Nor do such titles vanish from reality (or Wikipedia) when geo-political boundaries shift. Or do you contend that all British titles including an Irish designation are now "illegal" or offensively POV? FactStraight (talk) 08:20, 3 September 2010 (UTC)
  • It is possible that some Irish people might find them offensive. What would Americans say if some British people had "victory titles" from the War of 1812? Given the importance and complexity of these issues, I think this should go to WP:NCROY, give me a couple of hours and I will kick off the discussion. PatGallacher (talk) 16:07, 3 September 2010 (UTC)
    • If the title is used and the person is known by his/her title, I don't see why Wikipedia should care if someone finds it offensive. The Spy Who Came in from the Cold (talk) 23:13, 3 September 2010 (UTC)
      • If the title is used, but is it? There's no evidence of that; indeed, there's no evidence of notability. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 23:26, 3 September 2010 (UTC)
        • There is evidence, his inauguration as Duke of Parma was reported a few days ago.[6] - dwc lr (talk) 00:10, 4 September 2010 (UTC)
          • That's the local Italian newspaper reprinting a press release. Its relationship with English, independent, reliable sources is difficult to see. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 19:12, 4 September 2010 (UTC)
            • No such relationship is called for, except as a way of trying to impose a narrow, irrelevant standard on our decision about this move request. Per the Notability guideline, "Sources may encompass published works in all forms and media, and in any language": English not required. Parma's "La Repubblica" appears to publish independently of the ducal dynasty. Lots of reliable media reprint press releases at times. FactStraight (talk) 21:08, 4 September 2010 (UTC)
• Oppose - the title is recognized and used, and we should at least recognize the princely title if we're moving it, as we do for Prince Sixtus of Bourbon-Parma or Prince Felix of Bourbon-Parma. And the discussion at Carlos Hugo of Bourbon-Parma has certainly never shown any consensus for that location. ETA I do agree with Pmanderson that the current title is ambiguous with Charles III of Spain. Don't like the proposed move to location, but a move would probably be in order. john k (talk) 06:50, 4 September 2010 (UTC)
  • I'd settle for Prince Carlos of Bourbon-Parma, like the other members of the family. But if the dukedom is recognized and used, where are the independent English reliable sources? Septentrionalis PMAnderson 14:43, 4 September 2010 (UTC)
    • The Telegraph used it for his father, certainly. Genealogical sources have used it for every previous head of the house, and will undoubtedly use it for him in the future. john k (talk) 21:02, 4 September 2010 (UTC)
      • When and if they do, and are genuine sources in English, then a move will be worth discussing. This mess of press releases is not reliable, not evidence, and not English; nor does usage for somebody else prove anything. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 04:07, 6 September 2010 (UTC)
        • Usage for somebody else is our criterion for moving articles on new British peers when they inherit their titles, unless we have strong reason to think they don't use the title, like Michael Ancram. Note for example Charles Townshend, 8th Marquess Townshend, which was created with that title a few months ago, just after his father's death, without anybody presenting any evidence that he uses that title or is called by it. john k (talk) 05:02, 6 September 2010 (UTC)
          • There is a reasonable presumption that he is, it being a title granted by an existing monarchy, and plainly used of the rest of his family. There is a consistency argument that it is for the reader's convenience that it should be. Nevertheless, if there is reasonable doubt that he is commonly called Lord Townshend, bring it up on that talk page.
          • Here, however, consistency would lead to Prince Carlos of Bourbon-Parma, like his genuinely notable grandfather and great-uncle; usage cannot support a form which has no citations. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 17:49, 6 September 2010 (UTC)
            • In Wikipedia the heads of the House of Bourbon-Parma, with the exception of his father, which will hopefully soon be rectified, and his grandfather which has never had a move discussion/consensus to remove the ducal title, all incorporate the title Duke of Parma in their article name, therefore in order to achieve consistency this article should be left where it is. - dwc lr (talk) 18:26, 6 September 2010 (UTC)
            • The papacy is not an existing monarchy? "Duke of Parma and Piacenza" isn't plainly used of the rest of his family? john k (talk) 18:27, 6 September 2010 (UTC)
              • The papacy is not a monarchy; Parma has not been subject to it for centuries now. Do you really see no difference between this hopeless and unrecognized pretence and a British marquessate? Septentrionalis PMAnderson 18:01, 7 September 2010 (UTC)
                • Well, I suppose it depends on how you define a monarchy, but the pope is certainly a sovereign, and has been treated as such from time immemorial; papal titles have also been granted from such time, and I'm not sure I see how they are any different from titles of nobility granted by any other sovereign. The duchy itself was not a papal fief for very long after its creation, but certainly the title has considerably more claim to "actually exist" than most titles of pretense. Note that we seem perfectly happy in other contexts to use titles granted by entities that undoubtedly no longer existence. How is Carlos's "hopeless and unrecognized pretence" any different from that of Franz, Duke of Bavaria, Carl, Duke of Württemberg, Maria Emanuel, Margrave of Meissen, or just about every other head of a German royal or princely house, all of whom are under titles created by the Holy Roman Empire, which has not existed for over two hundred years. Yes, they are not using the sovereign title used most recently by their reigning ancestors, like the titular dukes of Parma are, but Württemberg, for example, was ruled by a "Duke of Württemberg" until 1806, which is not so much longer ago than the last time a duke of Parma actually reigned. We can say he has the title of "Duke of Parma and Piacenza" without implying that he is the ruler of an actual duchy. His claim to that title is certainly as good as the claim of any German pretender to whatever title he is using. john k (talk) 19:16, 7 September 2010 (UTC)
                  • • • • And we should mention that he claims the title - if there is indeed consensus that he does. I'm not sure the evidence so far amounts to that.
                        • But there is no reason to put it in the article title. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 19:43, 7 September 2010 (UTC)
  • He is also known by his second given name so It’s possible this could be moved to Carlos Javier, Duke of Parma. - dwc lr (talk) 18:58, 6 September 2010 (UTC)
    • I would support that, given the possible ambiguity with this Carlos, Duke of Parma, as well as with his father. john k (talk) 04:28, 7 September 2010 (UTC)
      • I would support that too, but should it be Carlos Javier or Carlos Xavier? I was also thinking of this double name, but is it not better to wait and to start a separated requested move for that? Furthermore, I was doubting to bring it up here, because it could complicate the things: he is incorporated into the Dutch nobility as "Prince", as well head of a royal family and "Duke of Parma" in Italy. Should that not be reflected in the page name as well, like: "Prince Carlos Xavier, Duke of Parma"? I know, not exactly the same, but see for example Prince Lorenz of Belgium, Archduke of Austria-Este. Diodecimus (talk) 08:38, 7 September 2010 (UTC)
        • I think “Javier” is slightly more prevalent at least in the Spanish media.Carlos Xavier.Carlos Javier There is the option of the Italian “Carlo Saverio”.Carlo Saverio It’s difficult to know what English media would use as he has no connection to an English speaking country, but it would possibly be Xavier. I don’t have a problem with adding Prince as often they seem to be referred to by both ducal and princely titles but like you I’m worried about complicating things too much, resulting in an unwanted article name again like his father’s initial discussion which failed to find a consensus and had lots of suggestions thrown in. - dwc lr (talk) 13:25, 7 September 2010 (UTC)

There is currently a discussion about changing the name of this page from "Carlos, Duke of Parma" to "Carlos of Bourbon-Parma". Let's conclude that before starting a discussion about Carlos/Carlos Xavier/Carlos Javier/Carlos Saverio. In any case, his ribbon on the flowers at his father's funeral said just "Carlos". Noel S McFerran (talk) 19:52, 8 September 2010 (UTC)

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.

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Carlos, Duke of Parma. 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:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20050205075220/http://www.borbon-parma.net/Actualidad/actualidad.htm to http://www.borbon-parma.net/Actualidad/actualidad.htm

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

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) 13:23, 15 November 2016 (UTC)