Talk:Maria Christina of the Two Sicilies

Requested move

Maria Christina of Bourbon-Two Sicilies → Maria Christina of the Two Sicilies – This page has been moved and has had numerous redirects made (double up to quadruple) that I am trying to fix. I cannot figure out what the original name was, however, the proposed name is correct as it derives from a state existing pre-Italian unification, with the Spanish queen being born before the Two Sicilies was absorbed. — Talk:Maria Christina of Bourbon-Two Sicilies — Charles 22:20, 17 June 2006 (UTC)

Survey

• Support As nominator. Charles 22:20, 17 June 2006 (UTC)
• Oppose. It would be simpler to move her to Maria Christina of Sicily Maed 22:47, 17 June 2006 (UTC)
• Support No other member of the Two Sicilies royal family is named "Bourbon" in the title of their article. No other member of the French and Spanish royal lines of the Bourbon was marked this either. I don't see why she needs to be singled out. (Maed, your suggestion would be simpler but would fail to disambiguate between the former Kingdom of Sicily (active from 1130 to 1816) and the state former after the state union with the Kingdom of Naples in 1816. The newer Kingdom was active from 1816 to 1861). User:Dimadick
• Support The dynasty might be called "Bourbon-Two Sicilies", but in fact the kingdom was only called "Two Sicilies" (and not "Sicily"). Gryffindor 07:10, 21 June 2006 (UTC)
• Oppose. In my own reference works, she is generally listed by the royal title: either as "Maria Cristina (I)"[1] or "Maria Cristina de Borbon" [2]. I found one reference where she was listed as "Maria Cristina of Naples", but I have nothing that lists her as "Maria Christina of the Two Sicilies". --Elonka 18:56, 22 June 2006 (UTC)

But Maria-Christina of Bourbon-Two Sicilies is acceptable to you or...? None of those articles list any other title or style other than Queen of Spain. Charles 18:58, 22 June 2006 (UTC)

Well, I try to keep my vote focused on one poll at a time.  ;) To expand though: I don't really like the current name either. If it were up to me, I'd say to move the article to either "Maria Christina I of Spain", or "Maria Christina of Bourbon", as those seem to be in line with the most common usage in my own encyclopedias. But between the choices of the current name and "of the Two Sicilies", I'd say stick with the current name. --Elonka 19:06, 22 June 2006 (UTC)

I can't make anyone change their mind, but I have to note that "Bourbon-Two Sicilies" is a retroactive application in this case. It certainly was never used by MC. Just before her marriage, she was a princess of the Two Sicilies. The problem with just using "Bourbon" is that it sets a precedent as a shortcut in naming, which would lead to tons of disambig pages when it comes to all of the Marias, etc. Charles 19:10, 22 June 2006 (UTC)

"Maria Christina I of Spain" makes her a Queen regnant and she never was one. "Maria Cristina of Naples" is a curiosity at best. Her paternal grandfather Ferdinand I of the Two Sicilies lost the throne of Naples in 1806 and only ruled in Sicily until 1815. He reconquered Naples in 1815 by deposing and (later in the year) executing his rival Joachim Murat, The Kingdom of Naples and the Kingdom of Sicily entered a personal union and were formaly merged to the Kingdom of Two Sicilies in 1816. When Maria Christina was ten-years-old that is. She would not marry until 1829. In other words she was a Princess of Sicily for 9 years, Princes of Naples and Sicily for 1 year and Princess of Two Sicilies for 13 years. User:Dimadick

• Support Noel S McFerran 17:20, 3 July 2006 (UTC)

Discussion

The designation of Bourbon-"Territory" was informally used after present-day Italy was united. The Spanish queen in question never used of Bourbon-Two Sicilies as she had become a queen-consort while of the Two Sicilies was still in use. Charles 22:20, 17 June 2006 (UTC)

Moved

There does not seem to be consensus for the propoer name at the moment, please try to work it out first and then make a new request. -- Kim van der Linde ^{at venus} 02:12, 5 July 2006 (UTC)

After having asked to reconsider my judgement of yesterday evening, I have reread everything and come to the conclusion that moving is better and that there is sufficient support for that. So, I have moved it accordingly. -- Kim van der Linde ^{at venus} 11:49, 5 July 2006 (UTC)

children

The remarriage section states that she had a stillborn child who lived from 1847 to 1863. Something needs to be fixed, but I'm not sure what.PurpleChez (talk) 16:43, 1 October 2015 (UTC)

First Child

It says that she had already given birth to a child before marriage to Ferdinand. The child is not listed, nor who the father was. Is this in error? EmilySarah99 (talk) 04:18, 22 October 2022 (UTC)