Talk:Louis I of Spain

Infant or Prince?

The article claims he was born an Infant of Spain and then made a Prince of Asturias. However, being born the elder son of a King of Spain, surely he was directly a Prince of Asturias and was never an Infant. Moreover, he is called "Infante Luis Felipe de España (or de Bórbon)". However, his name was "de Bórbon" and "of Spain" goes with the title of Infant, not as a name. I suggest "Luis Felipe de Bórbon, Prince of Asturias" to be the correct form for his name at birth.Montjoy Pursuivant (talk) 17:32, 16 August 2009 (UTC)

According to the Journal of Dangeau, he was born a Prince of Asturias ("... l'heureux accouchement de la reinde d'Espagne qui nous a donné un prince des Asturies...") and so was never an Infant. I change that. Montjoy Pursuivant (talk) 10:39, 22 August 2009 (UTC)

de Borbón / de Bourbon

Louis de Borbón (= French/Spanish) reads strange.

• Should not first name Louis be followed by surname de Bourbon (= French/French)?
• Should not surname de Borbón be preceded by first name Luis (= Spanish/Spanish)?

First sentence of introduction:

• either:

Louis de Bourbon (Sp: Luis de Borbón)

• or:

Luis de Borbón (Fr: Louis de Bourbon)

Frania W. (talk) 14:58, 22 August 2009 (UTC)

He is King Louis of Spain in most English books: I don't think it is necessary to translate his regnal name. See all the Spanish Philips (almost never called Felipe in English), or his brothers Ferdinand (not Fernando) and Charles IV (not Carlos). For his familly name I don't know. Since neither Bourbon nor Borbón is English, perhaps it should be better to keep it in Spanish? It was his surname only as a Spanish prince: what would have been his French surname if his father had not become King of Spain, we don't know. Perhaps to avoir Englis(French)/Spanish mixing, you can use something like Louis I (don Luis de Borbón). At least in one of his acts, he doesn't use the surname and styles himself: "Don Louis, First of that name, by the Grace of God King of Castille etc." ("Don Luis, primero de este Nombre, por la gracia de Dios, Rey de Castilla &c."). Montjoy Pursuivant (talk) 15:29, 22 August 2009 (UTC)

Did my edit solve the problem? Surtsicna (talk) 15:49, 22 August 2009 (UTC)

Si señor, muchas gracias. Frania W. (talk) 16:41, 22 August 2009 (UTC)

I have to disagree: although his baptismal name was indeed Luis Felipe (as it is explicitely said at the beginning of the paragraph titled "Life"), he did not reign as King Luis Felipe, so the firstname in the firstline of the article must contain only the firstname Luis as Spanish equivalent of Louis. Moreover, he certainly had a reigning number (Louis I, not just Louis) and that also must me mentionned in the first line. I edit accordingly. Montjoy Pursuivant (talk) 17:53, 22 August 2009 (UTC)

Coins

The article claims that "the only coins minted in Mexico during his reign never reached Spain as the ship containing them sank in the Caribbean Sea. An expedition to recover them is under way". What is it intended to mean? That his only coins were minted in Mexico and never reached Spain, or that his coins were minted everywhere in the Spanish empire, including Mexico, and that all those minted in Mexico were lost? Anyway, both affirmations seem wrong: although coins of Louis I must be obviously rare, one find pictures available online of gold and silver coins of "LUDOVICUS I DEI GRATIA HISPANARUM REX" with the date 1724, including coins from the Mexico mint. See for example: http://www.coindatabase.com/coin_spain.php?pais=530# So, all this short last paragraph looks very much like a sensationalist advertising for a treasure-hunt firm. I think it should be removed. Montjoy Pursuivant (talk) 07:40, 23 August 2009 (UTC)

Une fois n'est pas coutume... but, for once, dear Montjoy, we are in agreement. Originally written: The only coins minted in Mexico during his reign never reached Spain as the ship containing them was wrecked in the Caribbean. An expedition to recover them is under way. was stuck between his death & his burial. I put it by itself in last position wondering whether it even belonged in the article. Thank you for bringing it up. Let's get rid of it. Regards, Frania W. (talk) 13:52, 23 August 2009 (UTC)

Roman Numeral removal?

Since there isn't other King Louis' in Spain, he should just be known as King Louis of Spain Archchinook (talk) 01:20, 1 April 2013 (UTC)

I agree; like how Queen Victoria isn't Victoria I 2601:47:4380:D550:9881:9C52:7009:B926 (talk) 19:53, 6 May 2022 (UTC)

I also agree, such as Paul of Greece is the only King Paul of Greece, and Louis is the only King Louis of Spain so I suggest this article be titled Louis of Spain. Jeffersonian111 (talk) 18:28, 12 January 2023 (UTC)

This move seems fairly ill-advised. Some monarchs in this situation are not known with a regnal number, some others are; see Regnal number § "The first". I don’t know about English sources, but the Spanish one used for this article and the Spanish article seem to consistently call him Luis I. Keriluamox (talk) 21:35, 13 June 2023 (UTC)

RfC of interest

(non-automated message) Greetings! I have opened an RfC on WT:ROYALTY that may be of interest to users following this article talk page! You are encouraged to contribute to this discussion here! Hurricane Andrew (444) 19:44, 24 November 2023 (UTC)