Talk:Prince Felix of Bourbon-Parma

Title Royal Highness

It is not true that the title Royal Highness came to the grand-ducal family by the way of marriage to Prince Felix de Bourbon-Parme. The grand father of Grand Duchess Charlotte (Grand Duke Adolphe)er was a Royal Higness and so on.....

Prince of Bourbon-Parma not Parma

1. The change made in the article's reference to Felix as "Prince of Parma" instead of "Prince of Bourbon-Parma" is inaccurate for reasons that have been documented before, but here goes:
   1. The evidence shows that "Prince X of Bourbon-Parma" and "Princess Y of Bourbon-Sicily", or variations thereof (always including "Bourbon" and usually "name-of-realm") is how members of these branches of the Bourbon dynasty are overwhelmingly referred to (rather than as "Prince X of Parma" or "Princess Y of the Two Sicilies") in even the most precise venues, but also in general reference, the latter being what is most relevant to WP usage.
   2. As indicated on the Bourbon-Parma website and the Bourbon-Sicily website, this is how they refer to themselves, and how they instruct others about their titulature.
   3. It is how they are referred to legally:
      1. One of them filed a lawsuit in France: "Cour d'appel de Paris (1re Ch. sect. A) 22 novembre 1989 Présidence de Mme Ezratty Premier Président Prince Henri d'Orléans, comte de Clermont et Prince Sixte Henri de Bourbon Parme c. Carmen Rossi". (emphasis mine).
      2. Similarly, in the Netherlands: "Bij Koninglijk Besluit van 15 mei 1996 nr 96.000163, zijn de vier kinderen van HKH prinses Irene, te weten Carlos Javier Bernardo; Margarita Maria Betriz; Jaime Bernardo en Maria-Carolina de Bourbon de Parme ingelijfd in de Nederlandes Adel met de title van prins en prinses en het preikaat Koninklijke Hoogheid" (By Royal Decree of 15 May 1996 No.96.000163, the four children of HRH princess Irene, namely Carlos Javier Bernardo, Margarita Maria Betriz, Jaime Bernardo and Maria-Carolina "de Bourbon de Parme" are incorporated in the Dutch nobility with the title of prince and princess and the predicate royal highness) (emphasis mine).
      3. And in Luxembourg: On 28 July 1986 Grand Duke Jean of Luxembourg issued a decree dropping use of the title Prince de Bourbon de Parme for himself and his descendants (but not his siblings). But on 18 December 2000, Grand Duke Henri decreed that among the titles his son and heir, Guillaume (born 11 Nov. 1981), would henceforth bear would be that of Prince de Bourbon de Parme.
   4. The 1911 Encyclopædia Britannica's article on the principality of Bulgaria states: "In the spring of 1893 Prince Ferdinand married Princess Marie-Louise of Bourbon-Parma..." (emphasis mine). Note that in English, the second "de/of" in the name had already morphed into a hyphen by 1911.
   5. Until it ceased publication in 1944, the Almanach de Gotha was regarded as the premier source and authority on proper use of dynastic titles, relied upon by courts and diplomats. Since it began publication in 1951 the Genealogisches Handbuch des Adels is now regarded as the most authoritative genealogical work on royalty. Both publications did and do submit entries to the Head of House of each dynasty for prior review.
      1. The 1878 Almanach de Gotha included its entry on the Dukes of Parma, who had been in exile since 1859, under "Bourbon". But it did not define the official titles of Parmesan dynasts, nor did it report titular suffixes for females. But I found one relevant example: in the Portugal entry the marriage was recorded of the Infanta Adelgonde in 1872 to a younger son of Duke Charles III of Parma, who is listed as Prince Henri de Bourbon, Comte de Bardi (emphasis mine).
      2. But the 1912 Almanach entry does define the official title of Parmesan dynasts: "Les cadets portent les titre et nom de prince ou princesse de Bourbon de Parme, Alt. Roy." (emphasis mine).
      3. The 1991 Handbuch does likewise on p.13: "Die Nachgeborenen führen den Titel und Namen Prinz bzw. Prinzessin v. Bourbon v. Parma und das Prädikat Kgl. Hoheit." (emphasis theirs).
   6. No decree has been adduced that ever legally granted the title of "Prince/ss of Parma" to cadets of the Bourbon dynasty. So far as we know, that style was borne by Farnese cadets in the 18th century as a matter of courtesy, and was then assumed by Bourbon cadets on the basis of tradition (Parma was a papal fief. But it was allocated by the Treaty of Aix-la-Chapelle in 1748 to Infante Felipe, youngest of the Spanish Bourbons -- without the papal patent of investiture that would normally specify the titular details treaties omit). Sometime after the loss of the throne of Parma in 1859, cadets of this family came to be known by a combined form of their dynastic surname and their forfeited territory. Throughout the 20th century, and apparently earlier, "HRH Prince X de Bourbon de Parme" became prevalent enough to replace the earlier tradition of "Prince of Parma" to such an extent that members of the family now use the latter almost exclusively instead of the former. The English translation of that title is invariably "Prince of Bourbon-Parma".
   7. The House of Bourbon reigned in Parma (with interregnums) 1748-1859. So it would be reasonable to use "Prince/ss of Parma" for members of the family born prior to 1860. But the dynasty has now been in exile from their realm longer than they held its throne, and Felix was born 30+ years after deposition. Lethiere 03:34, 19 April 2006 (UTC)

Can you stop filling pages with this stuff? Relevant Gothas, etc of the era use "of Bourbon of Parma" or "of Bourbon, ... of Parma". The site for the House of Parma uses the same form for the duke and for members of the family given other titles. Charles 04:40, 19 April 2006 (UTC)

comment

This seems an odd comment:

Unlike some European consorts, Felix neither adopted his wife's dynastic surname (of Nassau), nor relinquished his own princely title and name.

Precisely which European male consorts had done this prior to 1919? john k 19:04, 28 August 2006 (UTC)

None is what immediately comes to my mind... Charles 19:07, 28 August 2006 (UTC)

Prince Henry of the Netherlands, possibly? john k 19:42, 28 August 2006 (UTC)

I thought that he always remained a member of the House of Mecklenburg and that Mecklenburg was always his dynastic name. Charles 20:01, 28 August 2006 (UTC)

Yes, me too, but he was also "Prince Henry of the Netherlands," no? Hey, are there even any post-1919 examples of this? Prince Bernard's house is still Lippe, no? And Prince Claus did not become an Orange-Nassau, as far as I'm aware. Prince Hendrik certainly isn't an Oldenburg or a Gottorp, is he? The Duke of Edinburgh is not a Windsor. There's also Emperor Francis I, but I believe he a) stayed a Lorraine his whole life, and is only retrospectively referred to as "Habsburg-Lorraine"; and b) was not a consort, but a monarch in his own right, of both Tuscany and the Holy Roman Empire. john k 22:09, 28 August 2006 (UTC)

Henry was a prince of the Netherlands, but that does not change the house name. If it did, Victoria of the UK's children would've all been members of the House of Hanover. Bernhard's was Lippe, Claus' was Amsberg, Henry (Denmark) is Laborde de Montpezat. Francis I was a Lorraine, but *could* been seen as the progenitor, along with his wife, of a new royal house. House names don't change (except maybe explicitly in Monaco, where new ones are assumed, but the old ones don't stop existing). Pierre de Polignac married Charlotte in 1920... He was her consort, but she never became sovereign. Phil is still a Mountbatten/Oldenburg. I wish everyone would just pick a name and stick with it. Charles 22:19, 28 August 2006 (UTC)

Date of birth

Ever since 25 October 2008, over 4 years ago, his birth date has appeared as "28 September/28 October 1893". This is a very unorthodox way of expressing uncertainty, as it can be read in different ways, e.g. either one or the other date, or somewhere in between.

Also, this surely deserved some sort of explanation when the edit was first made, and it's still crying out for a footnote or something to tell us what the issue is. I've checked him out on the interlang WPs, and there does seem to be some lack of agreement about when he was born. Can someone who knows more about this please come to the party and let us all know? -- Jack of Oz ^[Talk] 20:40, 18 November 2012 (UTC)