Talk:Duchy of Bouillon

Title wrong

Why on earth was this page titled Duke of Bouillon!? It should have been Duchy of Bouillon.

Requested move 17 March 2016

The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the move request was: Move. The opposition is well considered, but we have consensus that the article at present is primarily about the duchy, and not just the title, which regardless can still be discussed at an article on the duchy. Cúchullain ^t/c 16:44, 28 March 2016 (UTC)

---

Duke of Bouillon → Duchy of Bouillon – The page is about the duchy with a list of dukes included. ("Duke of Bouillon" is not a free-floating title—it's what we call the ruler of the state.) – Srnec (talk) 00:00, 17 March 2016 (UTC)

This is a contested technical request (permalink). EdJohnston (talk) 02:32, 17 March 2016 (UTC)

• Comment: If the page is moved to Duchy of Bouillon then it will have overlap with Bouillon. Some material may need to be rearranged for the move to make sense. If someone is ready to take on this task perhaps a technical move would be OK. EdJohnston (talk) 02:32, 17 March 2016 (UTC)

I'm not sure I see why. The only thing at Bouillon that overlaps is the relevant portion of the timeline. This move request is only designed to bring the title in line with the contents: the article is already about the duchy and not just the title. Srnec (talk) 13:12, 17 March 2016 (UTC)

• Oppose There is a very complicated historical conflict over the right to the title "Duke of Bouillon" that overlaps with but is not synonymous with the history of the land which constituted the Duchy of Bouillon which, as a piece of territory, was allocated to the Netherlands straightforwardly by the Congress of Vienna in 1815. Changing this article's name reduces the focus on the title in favor of the realm, making it less inviting for scholars to come hither to offer needed clarity on the historical dispute, which involved an international lawsuit that extended through the first half of the 19th century. Guy Stair Sainty takes one position on the outcome of the battle over this title, while another is summarized here. I think that people interested in -- or who could become interested in -- that dispute ought to continue to be drawn to this this article, and to feel that here is where the issues are to be explored and illuminated. FactStraight (talk) 04:43, 17 March 2016 (UTC)

The purpose is precisely to take the focus off the title. In fact, the duchy is already the focus of the article (as it should be). The move just brings the title in line with the contents. The use of the title post-1815 is a footnote next to the history of the duchy—and that's precisely how the article treats it.

It is not our job to "invite" certain people and not others. The 19th-century dispute over a title can be treated here, but do we really need a whole article devoted to it? It certainly makes no sense to treat the title and the state separately for the centuries during which the former just indicated the ruler of the latter. Srnec (talk) 13:12, 17 March 2016 (UTC)

What isn't our job is to decide what readers ought to be interested in, but to provide information about what does interest them, and the struggles for the right to claim to be Bouillon's Duke has long done so, as evidenced by the amount of literature describing the dispute compared to the duchy. I just think those interested in the oft-told dispute over the title are not discouraged from accessing it because Wikipedia is deliberately back watering it. Bouillon was a tiny duchy (in 1789 it had 2,000 residents and the town today has fewer than 6,000: the claim that it once had 12,000 residents is an obvious exaggeration -- but would still make of it a minuscule country only 1/3 the population of modern Monaco) whose historical renown and significance lies in the role its nominal sovereignty afforded its faraway rulers -- the rulers generally lived in Paris where they were hereditary members of its Parlement -- allowing its dynasty to participate in French national and European international politics as grand seigneurs, about which much has been written. Like the Princedom of Orange in southern France, which conferred upon the House of Nassau the sovereign rank that prompted the Dutch to make them stadtholders and, eventually kings, Orange (which was much larger than Bouillon) is remembered mostly for the title it conferred upon its absentee rulers and the attached privilege of issuing letters of marque of which William the Silent made such strategic use: the history of the sovereign status its title conferred is far better remembered and treated in history than its internal affairs. Even Monaco, which remains a sovereign state (unlike Bouillon) was, before annexation of 95% of its territory (Menton & Roquebrunne) after the Congress of Vienna, written about as the postage-stamp principality which gave the ruling Grimaldi dynasty its prestige (Saint-Simon, resenting the prominence of the Princes of Monaco at the court of Louis XIV, famously dismissed the Grimaldis as "the rulers of a rock on the seaside"). Bouillon is not a current, independent nation whose ongoing history as such merits more focus on the former nation than on the dynasty: it hasn't existed as a duchy for two centuries. Historical Bouillon is remembered largely for the coins its Dukes minted and for the conflicts over who was entitled to be its Duke. Re-sizing Bouillon's history to minimize its main historical function as the source of a famous title is distortion -- and unnecessary. FactStraight (talk) 17:57, 17 March 2016 (UTC)

The point is that "Duke of Bouillon" is not a mere title. It was a claim to rule a principality. The title was in dispute because the land was in dispute. The title derives from the principality. The latter is properly the topic. If we had enough content, we could perhaps have two separate articles. As it is, this article is about the duchy and the title should reflect that. —Srnec (talk) 01:39, 18 March 2016 (UTC)

Actually, the title was only in dispute (and resolved in favour of the Rohans) after the land was granted to the Grand Duchy of Luxemburg at the Congress of Vienna. During the time it was a nominally sovereign state, the dukes themselves were far more notable than the duchy. The idea that all sovereign nations are equally important is a twentieth century convention. Opera hat (talk) 18:28, 22 March 2016 (UTC)

• Support. While I can see what FactStraight is saying, the article at present is almost entirely about the realm and not the ducal title, and the title of the article should, as Srnec says, reflect its content. If there's as much historiographical material specifically on the title as FactStraight has suggested then it can probably be spun off as its own article should someone wish to pick that up. —Nizolan ^(talk) 04:07, 18 March 2016 (UTC)
• Support per scope.--Zoupan 18:06, 22 March 2016 (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 or in a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

Neutrality

I've edited this for neutrality. The tables of dukes of Bouillon here seem to skate over the fact that the territory of Bouillon, and the first claim to the title of duke, lay with the prince bishop of Liege, though it says that clearly in the text. The text also suggests that the bishop's claim to ownership disappeared in the 16th century, though the chronology on the Bouillon page shows that it festered on for the next 250-odd years. So I've tweaked the text, and added a table, to correct this. I trust everyone is OK with that. Moonraker12 (talk) 16:02, 14 October 2017 (UTC)

Ok.--Revolution Yes (talk) 22:01, 21 September 2022 (UTC)

1678

There was no state before 1678 (and even after.... in other centuries it would be called “puppet state”). Before 1678, there is no evidences or sources different from a simple title’s claim while the territory was part of the bishopric of Liege.--Revolution Yes (talk) 22:00, 21 September 2022 (UTC)

I'm not sure what you mean. This page is about the Duchy of Bouillon and it certainly existed before 1678. Your edit introduced contradictions, like map that says 1560 for a state that only "began" in 1678. Srnec (talk) 00:10, 22 September 2022 (UTC)

Certainly? In 1678 The King of France establishes the La Tour d'Auvergne dynasty in full sovereignty over the Duchy of Bouillon under French protectorate. Before 1678, the territory was part (a province, we could say) of the Bishopric of Liege which styled himself as duke of Bouillon. Not a state, only a title and perhaps a province. Before 1678, it was not a state of the HRE, it was a territory of the HRE because the bishopric was, in the HRE the emperor gave to the lords the title of dukes, and there is no evidence that this ducal title was created by the emperor. After 1678, we could say that this duchy was under French occupation (politically correct: “protectorate”), so technically no more a territory of the HRE.--Revolution Yes (talk) 19:48, 22 September 2022 (UTC)

What is the relevance of whether or not it was a "state"? It was the duchy of Bouillon whatever its status. Srnec (talk) 21:50, 22 September 2022 (UTC)

If you can cite Worldstatesmen, I can cite Heraldica: see here. —Srnec (talk) 04:00, 23 September 2022 (UTC)