Talk:Louise-Élisabeth of France

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Move[edit]

Moving article to Louise Élisabeth de France as *de France* is her surname & not to be translated. Reason given for move: *** *de France* being the surname of those members of the French royal family who are direct descendants of the king, Louise-Élisabeth, a Princess of France, bears the surname *de France*, which is not to be translated.*** The surname *de France* was given to the children of the king and to the children of his eldest son, the Dauphin. Frania W. (talk) 21:36, 9 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

You haven't given ANY source for this information. We're still waiting for that. In any case, this is English wikipedia, not French, and in English "*** of France" is not meant as a surname, but just as a title (Princess of France).DanyMountbatten (talk) 12:13, 8 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not sure if you're actually disagreeing or just saying you think it should be sourced? I agree with Frania about "de France" as the most correct surname for the king's kids and grands (thru Dauphin) as documented here by Velde and here by Père Anselme himself, but that's contingent upon the presumption that they (and the king) had a surname. While I strenuously disagree with those who assume that "royals never have surnames" (in fact, many have and do, depending upon the realm & dynasty: in general, Latin realms attributed surnames to dynasts, while Germanic ones did not, exceptions notwithstanding), Velde suggests "de France" was a default (faute de mieux) rather than a mandate for the Robertiens. I do like the fact that if the particule is left untranslated, the result is accurate, clear, and violates no WP rules. But when translated, it needs the "Princess" prefix to avoid confusion with the convention WP applies to distinguish deceased empresses/queens consort ("Firstname of Birthrealm") from other female royalty. Unfortunately, Capet females didn't use that prefix in real life until post-1830, and those who object to retro-attribution of titles have inserted a ban on them at Naming conventions (names and titles) (without first obtaining consensus, as I recall). Use of "de France" gets around all that. Lethiere (talk) 04:40, 18 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
DanyMountbatten (talk), I am beginning to sense animosity on your part, which is not the best atmosphere in which to begin a discussion. However, as you believe that I am always wrong, please feel free to check all my edits & undo my work. I started working on Wikipedia articles in October 2007 & have approximately 320 articles on my watch list, that should keep you busy for a while because, as you so rightly say, this being English Wikipedia, and *de* being either *of* or *from* in English, in addition to the many French words found in English Wikipedia without mentioning à â é è ë ê ï î ô œ ù ü ç, you are going to have to englicise many names & words: *Marquis de La Fayette* to **Marquess of the Fayette; *Mme de Sévigné* to *Mrs of Sevigne*, *Mme de Maintenon*, to *Mrs of Maintenon*; *comtesse du Barry* to *Countess of the Barry*; *Madame Royale* to *Mrs Royal*; *La Grande Mademoiselle* to *The Big Miss*, * Le Grand Dauphin* to *The Large Dolphin*; plus all the French kings *Louis* to *Lewis* and, finally, *Avenue des Champs Élysées* to *Elysian Fields Avenue*.
As I sense "animosity" on you part, I hope that you can detect my "sense of humour" in the above.
Regards, Frania W. (talk) 16:17, 12 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Frania: I don't have any "personal" animosity against you. I have changed "some" of your edits (not "all") because I don't agree with them, not because I have anything personal against you or just because "you" did them. I hope this is clear. Besides, you can't say that I believe that you're "always" wrong, because I haven't changed "all" your edits, only some of them and in a few articles. And no, I haven't checked all the articles you have made/changed nor do I intend to, only the ones I'm interested in and would like to improve (for instance, this one).
In this case, in several books in *English* Louise Elisabeth is referred to as "Louise Elisabeth of France" (as a title, not a surname), so on that basis, it's completely fair to refer to her as "of France" in the English article. Of course, it depends on the case. For instance, most books also in *English* refer to "Mme de Maintenon" as "Mme de Maintenon", just as it is in French. In that case it's alright, I leave it as that and don't translate it into "Mrs of Maintenon". It's "case sensitive". I hope you get my point and we can improve the article without "animosity".
Regards, DanyMountbatten (talk) 17:30, 12 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]


Dany,

  1. I agree with you that in English Wikipedia, when a French title is translated in English, the particule de should become of, for instance: duc d'Orléans→Duke of Orléans.
  2. I disagree with you on the translation of a surname, for instance: Philippe d'Orléans, Duke of Orléans not Philippe of Orléans, Duke of Orléans.
  3. This logic applies to the daughters of Louis XV: in English, they may be Princesses of France, however, their surname is de France, which would give us, in the case of Louise Élisabeth, daughter of Louis XV, Louise Élisabeth de France, Princess of France.
  4. I do not believe that the title of the article on Louise Élisabeth should begin with the word Princess.
Checking through the titles of articles in which a nobility title is included, the majority of them have:
position #1: the names
position #2: the title
Again, using Dukes of Orléans as reference: Philippe II, Duke of Orléans, not Duke Philippe II of Orléans, which is the case in the title Princess Louise Élisabeth of France.

Even though I do not agree with you, I am not going to revert the titles of the articles you have changed because this would turn into an edit war & I have more important things to do in Wikiland than fight for the sake of fighting. I much prefer going through articles & work on the meat of the subject, a matter that gets totally ignored when people start fighting on one point in particular, while enormities remain in the article (I invite you to read some of my revisions, where most of them amount to hours of work.) However, I have written the above because that is my side of the argument & other users may be interested in the subject. Regards, Frania W. (talk) 17:55, 15 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

P.S. By the way, always bringing up the refrain "this is English Wikipedia, not French" is not necessary. I am quite aware that this is English Wikipedia, and I am not out on a mission to annihilate the English language. If it was the case, I would have been kicked out a long time ago. As for ""...in several books in *English* Louise Elisabeth is referred to as "Louise Elisabeth of France"", there probably are as many "several books in *English*" that refer to her as "Louise Élisabeth de France". In fact, the much-acclaimed & used-as-reference English author Antonia Fraser does not translate any French title or name into English: here are a few examples found in Love and Louis XIV: "Marie-Élisabeth d'Orléans, Duchesse de Berry", "Élisabeth de France, Queen of Spain", "Louis de France (see Dauphin) Louis de France", "Marie-Anne de Bourbon, Princesse de Conti", "Marie-(Louise)-Élisabeth d'Orléans, Duchesse de Berry"; and Simon Schama, the author of Citizens, does not either, not even the rank of military men, ex: "Maréchal de Broglie" (p 384), "Maréchal Duras" (p. 393) etc.

Frania,
I understand your point, but I think their articles should begin with their titles, not their surnames.
You said that checking through the titles of articles in which a nobility title is included, the majority of them have their names first, and their titles second. Well, you should check through the titles of articles of *European royalty*, not nobility. I will give you a few examples:
If you check the English articles of the daughters of Empress Maria Theresa of Austria, the titles of their articles are: "Archduchess *** of Austria", not "*** of Habsburg" (their surname).
If you check the English articles of the daughters of King George III of the United Kingdom, the titles of their articles are: "Princess *** of the United Kingdom", not "*** of Hanover/Welf" (their surname).
If you check the English articles of the daughters of Emperor Nicholas II of Russia, the titles of their articles are: "Grand Duchess *** of Russia", not "*** Romanova" (their surname).
So you see, the titles of the articles of several princesses have their royal titles first, not their surnames. So why should we use a *different criteria* for the titles of the articles of the daughters of Louis XV (and French royals in general)?
By the way, you mention the "much-acclaimed & used-as-reference" English author Antonia Fraser as a source, but I (and other people too) have found several inaccuracies in her "much-acclaimed & used-as-reference" works. If you want I can point out some of her mistakes.
Regards, DanyMountbatten (talk) 19:48, 17 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Dany,
I really do not want to be in a conflictual situation with you, but I will not change my mind because of an *Archduchess* of Austria or a *Grand Duchess* of Russia, as I could turn the argument the other way & ask you "why should other criteria be used for the titles of the articles of the daughters of the Empress of Austria or those of the Emperor of Russia?"
Titles (that I did not create) of articles of personages of royal blood:
So...
I know you are going to say that, according to Wikipedia rules & regulations, the name most common with readers of English Wikipedia should be used as title of the article, well, it may be OK with subjects such as Marilyn Monroe, however, do you think that most readers of English Wiki (except for history buffs) know who Alexandra Feodorovna (Alix de Hesse) was? And for a great percentage of teens reading Wikipedia articles, Marie Antoinette is a 2006 film by an American film maker named Sofia Coppola (if they know that much).
Which brings us to my remark on the "much-acclaimed & used-as-reference" English author Antonia Fraser. Did not you grasp the tone of irony in my use of "much acclaimed" & "used as reference"? On the talk page of a couple of articles, that on Marie Antoinette in particular, I wrote several comments about the over-use of Mme Fraser's book & even suggested that Lady Antonia Fraser should have been invited to write the article. And because of this constant reference to her work, I bought her Marie Antoinette & Love and Louis XIV in order to check to which extend her writing is being plagiarised on English wiki. The reference to her book & that of Schama's Citizens was made for the example I could give you of books written in English in which French names & titles are kept in French. I could look for other instances, but I am not going to spend my life on this. I made my point.
As for the daughters of Louis XV, princesses or not, they were addressed as Madame, followed by their first name: *Madame Élisabeth*, *Madame Henriette*, *Madame Louise*, *Madame Adélaïde*, *Madame Victoire*, *Madame Sophie*, *Madame Félicité*, *Madame Louise*. Those who lived to a certain age became Mesdames Tantes to their nieces & nephews.
Regards, Frania W. (talk) 22:47, 17 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]


Frania,
I don't want to change your mind. You're free to think whatever you want and I don't care about it. I'm just making my point about the titles of the articles of royalty and why I think they should have their royal titles first, not their surname.
If you *would* turn the argument the other way & ask me: why should other criteria be used for the titles of the articles of the daughters of the Empress of Austria or those of the Emperor of Russia?, my answer *would be*: "Because the English Wikipedia articles of royalty have been consistent (up to a certain point) in using the royal titles for the titles of the articles, and NOT their surnames. We're not going to change that just because *you* say so."
And it's not just an *Archduchess* of Austria or a *Grand Duchess* of Russia. If you check the titles of the articles of *most* European princesses there's some consistency in using their titles, not their surnames. The titles of the articles of the daughters of the Kings of Spain are *Infanta *** of Spain*, the daughters of the Kings of Portugal are *Infanta *** of Portugal*, the daughters of the Kings of the United Kingdom are *Princess *** of the United Kingdom*, and so on. There are also some cases of titles of articles which are just "***(name) of ***(country)", without using their surname.
As for the articles of personages of royal blood that you mentioned (btw, some of them are nobility, not royalty), it's evident that there's a lack of consistency in the titles of these articles, especially the ones about French royalty. However, most of these articles only have *name, title*. It fails to prove your point that surnames should be used in the titles of the articles of royalty.
In order to answer your question: do you think that most readers of English Wiki (except for history buffs) know who Alexandra Feodorovna (Alix de Hesse) was? And for a great percentage of teens reading Wikipedia articles, Marie Antoinette is a 2006 film by an American film maker named Sofia Coppola (if they know that much). I agree that the titles of these articles should be improved, but I don't think their surnames should be used. I would use "Marie Antoinette of Austria" or (more specifically) "Marie Antoinette of Austria, Queen of France" for the title of the article, not "Marie Antoinette of/de/von Habsburg".
Regards, DanyMountbatten (talk) 17:47, 18 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]


Dany,

The above list contains, purposedly on my part, the names of royals, nobles & misnamed queens, at least for the latter not named following Wikipedia "strict rules".

As for the surname *de France*, it is bel et bien the surname given to the children of the king and of the dauphin; and I would like to take this opportunity to thank Lethiere (talk) for stepping in & directing us to her sources. In the search of published texts to prove what I have been advancing for months, I have stored a few in my computer, but had not seen Père Anselme's text. I also check many books and one of my sources for this article & many others is a book in French, for which I do not know if an English translation exists: Louis XV, by Michel Antoine, Fayard, Paris, 1989. The index of the book is a treasure of details, a few of them I shall share with you, going by alphabetical order:

  • Berry, (Charles de France, duc de)
  • Bourgogne, (Louis de France, duc de)
  • Bourgogne, (Louis Joseph Xavier de France, duc de)
  • Bretagne, (Louis de France, duc de)
  • Anjou, (Louis de France, duc d'), dauphin de France, puis Louis XV
  • Anjou, (Philippe de France, duc d'), puis roi d'Espagne
  • Louis de France, dauphin, "Le Grand Dauphin", dit Monseigneur
  • Louis de France, dauphin, fils de Louis XV
  • Louis XVI (Louis de France, duc de Berry, puis dauphin, puis roi de France)
  • Madame Adélaïde de France
  • Madame Élisabeth de France (the lady of this article)
  • Madame Félicité de France
  • Madame Henriette de France
  • Madame Louise de France
  • Madame Sophie de France
  • Madame Victoire de France
  • Orléans, (Philippe de France, duc d'), Monsieur, frère de Louis XIV
  • Orléans, (Philippe de France, duc de Chartres, puis duc d'), régent de France

On the back flap of the book, this paragraph, in French, on Michel Antoine, its author: "Specialist of the history of l'État sous l'Ancien Régime, Michel Antoine, after being Curator at the National Archives (Conservateur aux Archives nationales), Master of research at the French National Centre for Scientific Research (Centre National de la Recherche Scientifique) (CNRS), and professor at the Caen university, is now (at date of publication of book, i.e. 1989) Director of the School of High Studies (École pratique des Hautes Études) (IVth section)."

So, dear Dany, if you do not want to accept my proofs, I suggest you go to Paris & speak with M. Antoine, whom I consider to be quite a few rungs of ladder above at least me, and maybe you (no offence), and Mme Fraser.

Regards, Frania W. (talk) 04:44, 19 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]


Frania,
You still have NOT given a valid reason why we should use surnames for the titles of the articles of royalty instead of royal titles. I'm still waiting.
And I have read Michel Antoine's book, which I found very good indeed. And yes, I also think Mr Antoine is an excellent researcher.
What are you trying to prove? From what you wrote above, it seems that you're trying to prove that 'de France' is their surname. Whether 'de France' is their surname or not, it doesn't matter because English Wikipedia articles of royalty use royal titles as titles for the articles of royalty, NOT surnames. If Mr Antoine uses their surnames to refer to them in his book, that's his criteria and it's fine. This is English Wikipedia, here we have different rules.
Regards, DanyMountbatten (talk) 09:22, 19 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I don't understand why you seem to be ignoring the point I made above in this regard: NCNT has contradictory rules on the use of titles for princesses, at least as they would affect French royalty. To repeat: "Firstname of Birthrealm" is Wiki style for deceased empresses/queens consort. When you use it for filles de France you make them all look as if they were queens consort, yet some married men below that rank and many never married at all. Some other women are named "Firstname of Place" in Wiki, but most are saints or using their own name -- most of these exceptions are not royalty and those which are violate our rules on disambiguation of empresses/queens. The other problem is that "Firstname of Birthrealm" is not a person's title: to see my point, contrast it with "Title Firstname of Birthrealm". Asserting that "Firstname of Birthrealm" is a title is a novel theory (no one claimed that "Catherine of Aragon" was her actual title, and that usage has the benefit of ubiquity in English to justify it) and needs verification which has not been provided here.
The reality is that French royalty either did not bear a title as prefix (i.e. "Princess") as did Spanish royalty (i.e. "Infanta"), or they used a courtesy style as a title, e.g. "Madame Firstname" or "Madame Premiere" or "Mademoiselle de Place". Strictly, NCNT states that we may not name articles of royalty using titles they didn't bear in life -- so that eliminates the prefix "Princess", while the convention used to distinguish deceased queens prevents use of "Firstname of Birthrealm". Yet we do have an alternative solution. Because both the French language & French royalty were once exceptionally well-known in English usage, their treatment was unique and has tended to remain so. Thus, French noble titles are often not translated in English-language encyclopedias, whereas titles in other languages are almost always translated. Frania's usage of "de France" allows us to take advantage of this unique historical status of French royalty: until after the last Capetien monarchy in France in 1848, they simply didn't use the princely prefix, but that's okay because English-users are likely to recognize them without it when they are, instead, described as "de France". Elsewhere in these discussions, I have disagreed with attempts to ignore the historical usage of French titulature in Wikipedia because it is traditional, recognizable and, frankly, charming. I now add another argument: clarity. Lethiere (talk) 19:43, 20 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Dany,

I - Titles & surnames:

  1. If you want, or rather if Wikipedia rules that titles are to be first term of an article, then there is nothing that I can do, although this means that the titles of hundreds of articles will have to be changed.
  2. Following your logic, the articles on the dukes of Orléans should start with Duke Philip (Roman numeral) of Orléans, same with the Condé princes & all the dukes, counts etc.; in addition, copying one emperor on another, Napoléon I of France will have to be changed to Emperor Napoléon I of France, as is Emperor Nicholas II of Russia that you give as a model to follow.
  3. However, within the article, the surname of the personage should remain in French, as surnames should not be translated; thus, Élisabeth de France, Princess of France as of follows the English word princess.

II - Reference to Michel Antoine:

The list of names I copied from his book Louis XV is to show, or rather prove, that de France is a surname given to the children of the king and those of the dauphin. Another source on this (and there are more):

http://www.heraldica.org/topics/france/frroyal.htm#fils

Regards, Frania W. (talk) 14:00, 19 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Since she never had any surname, the discussion is a bit void. Her title was "Daughter of France", not "Princess of France", a title never used by any child of a King of France: if Dany thinks otherwise, she must produce evidences of official use of the title "Princess of France". For what is of her surname, as a daughter of the King, she had none: only grandchildren of the King used surname.
Of course, and I strongly agree with Frania on that, "Duke Philip of Orléans" makes no sense. How then will you make a distinction between, for example, "François de Cossé-Brissac, Duke of Brissac" (substantive title) and "Count François de Cossé-Brissac" (courtesy title of a cadet son of a duke-peer since 19th century)? What is coherent with logic of French title is to have, for anybody enjoying a title, "Firstname Surname Title" in the first line of the article.
However, for what is of the present case, there is no problem because the Duchess of Parma had technically no a surname (at least not before his marriage). She could sometime have been referred in an informal context as L-E de France (and so that's ok for the title) but that was not her full style (and so that's not ok for the first line).
The title of the article should be Louise-Elisabeth de France, Duchess of Parma. The first line of the title should be Louise Elisabeth, Daughter of France later Duchess of Parma, Plaisance and Guastalla.
I contemplate the project to rework the page on titles of the Royal family, which needs intensive cleaning and referrences. I hope it will help.
Montjoy Pursuivant (talk) 11:02, 24 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, her title was "Fille de France", not "Princess of France", but in practice she was a Princess of France, because her father was the King of France. I don't think it's ok to write "Louise Elisabeth, Daughter of France" as a title. It wouldn't make sense for most readers of English Wikipedia (with the exception of history buffs, of course). However, I agree with you that the articles of French nobility should keep the surnames in the titles, but not those of royalty.
On the other hand, according to Frania her surname was 'de France' and, according to you, she never had a surname. I see a big contradiction there... Regards, DanyMountbatten (talk) 16:06, 24 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]


What do you mean exactly by "in practice"? Is The Prince of Walles "in practice" an Infant of Great-Britain?
For what is of the title, I suggested "Louise Elisabeth of France" (that is not exact, but that is ok for a title if the actual correct style is quoted immediately after, in the first line). If you call it "Princess Louise Elisabeth of France", you are violating one of the wikipedian naming rules (see: here : "A prefix title can be used only when it was held and used by the person"). Not that I care too much about them, but you based on them all your anti-historical argumentation that Louise-Elisabeth should be called by the non-exiting style of "Princess Louise-Elisabeth of France". She certainly did not "held and use" the title of "Princess of France", so according to your own standards that closes the discussion.
You claim that it impossible to call the article "Louise Elisabeth of France" (the better solution in my opinion) because "Firstname of France" is reserved for Daughter of France who were Queen consort of other kingdoms. However, the naming conventions do not back at all your argument. They do not present that as a general rule universally admitted. Quotation: "There is also opposition to a broad usage of this convention, on the following grounds" (followed by five reasons why it is not prudent to take for granted that "Firstname of Someplace" is necessarily a Queen consort (of a Kingdom other than Someplace). Anyway, you cannot apply mechanically those kind of rules without taking into account historical facts.
Even admitting your argument, Louise-Elisabeth was married to an (almost) sovereign Duke, so she could fit into the category of a Consort.
And if, despite the two preceding arguments, "Louise Elisabeth of France" is really unbearable for your (unfounded, as I showed) Wikipedian orthodoxy, just use as a title "Louise Elisabeth of France, Duchess of Parma". At least, it will contain nothing totally wrong.
Concerning the articles on French nobility, I do not think they should keep the surnames in the titles, at least not when we are speaking of a substantive title of nobility: "François, Duke of Brissac" is ok for a title, but of course the first line of the article must have the complete name: "Marie Artus Timoléon de Cossé-Brissac, 9th Duke of Brissac, 2nd Count of Cossé-Brissac. That is more logical, because during his lifetime he was referred to has "The Duke of Brissac" (the firstname is just useful in the title to differentiate successive owners). Moreover, you must keep in mind that French noble surnames are sometimes VERY long. If you want to always keep the full surname in the title, what will you do with an individual like Antoine de Gramont de Lesparre-Moncey de Conégliano, 5th Duke of Lesparre? I don't see why French titles would have to be treated otherwise than British titles on that respect.
One last point. You said: "On the other hand, according to Frania her surname was 'de France' and, according to you, she never had a surname. I see a big contradiction there...". Frania is wrong on that: Children of France had no surname, only Grandchildren of France and Princes of the Blood had one (and it was never "de France"). See here for more details and sources quotations.
Montjoy Pursuivant (talk) 17:15, 24 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Montjoy,
Quoting you above: The title of the article should be Louise-Elisabeth de France, Duchess of Parma. The first line of the title should be Louise Elisabeth, Daughter of France later Duchess of Parma, Plaisance and Guastalla.
And being in agreement with you, except for the first line where I would have Fille de France in French, followed by ("Daughter of France") in parentheses.
Louise Élisabeth, Fille de France (Daughter of France), etc...
This would "contouner" our disagreement on the surname "de France"... until one of us comes up with incontestable proof.
Regards, Frania W. (talk) 17:42, 24 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Frania, I take the Letters patent of Louis XIV, Louis XV and Louis XVI and the own documents of the Sons of France as "incontestable proof" that they did not have "de France" as an official surname (although I agree that in some contexts they can be referred as such in French, but not as a surname). The man whose name and title you claim were "Charles de France, Fils de France, duc de Berry" was called by his grandfather when he gave him his apanage and called himself in such an important act as his renunciation to the Spanish throne "Charles, Fils de France, duc de Berry".
Until you give at least an example of the official use of the style you claim to have been in official use, I will continue to consider that the point is not even in discussion. I have Mousnier and Loyseau by my side so I am in pretty good company. You could have invoked some authorities on yours, as Guyot, and so we could have had a serious discussion, but you prefer to stand on your position that wayt-o-day of a modern index is enough largely to prove your point. What can I say then except that we do not have the same standards?
For what is of the abovementionned quotation of me, I have to apologize. I tend to think in French, not in English, and of course in French the distinction of/de does not work. What I wanted to say was that The title of the article should be Louise-Elisabeth of France, Duchess of Parma (because, once and for all, France was not her surname, it is just a way to say quickly "Daughter of France", like in "Catherine of Aragon" rather than "Catherine, Infant of Aragon and Castille"). For what is of the first line of the title, it should read Louise Elisabeth, Daughter of France, later Duchess of Parma, Plaisance and Guastalla.
Sorry for the confusion.
For what is of the question of Daughter vs fille, I still do not see why the title should have to be kept in French when "Son of France" is not at all unused in English. But that is another question entirely.
Regards Montjoy Pursuivant (talk) 18:14, 24 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Montjoy,
Dommage, ce n'était qu'une illusion, as I must admit that we are still 100 percent in disagreement on every point.
Regards, Frania W. (talk) 18:22, 24 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
We at least agree that there is nothing like a "Princess of France". For Daughters of France, "Princess" was an honorific (like Royal Highness), not a title. Montjoy Pursuivant (talk) 22:34, 24 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Montjoy, I'll take this one, leaving the door open for future... disagreements. Frania W. (talk) 23:01, 24 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Montjoy,
Quoting you: What I wanted to say was that The title of the article should be Louise-Elisabeth of France, Duchess of Parma (because, once and for all, France was not her surname, it is just a way to say quickly "Daughter of France", like in "Catherine of Aragon" rather than "Catherine, Infant of Aragon and Castille").
I completely agree with you on this. For the reasons you have stated above, it's alright to use "of France". That's what I originally wanted to say; I guess you said it better than me. And no, I don't claim that it's impossible to call the article "Louise Elisabeth of France"; in fact, I think that's a fine solution. I would go for "Louise Elisabeth of France, Duchess of Parma".
Regards, DanyMountbatten (talk) 18:34, 24 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Then we agree on that... as long as the first line is correctly worded to give the full correct style. Montjoy Pursuivant (talk) 18:40, 24 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
And I disagree with both of you, sticking to my proposal of
Louise Élisabeth de France, Duchess of Parma,
with first line of introduction: Louise Élisabeth, Fille de France (Daughter of France), etc....
NOTE: Louise Élisabeth are not hyphenated, but two separate first names.
Regards, Frania W. (talk) 19:40, 24 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Not correct in my opinion: "de France" was not her surname (or show evidence of the contrary).
You are quite right on the first names: Louise and Elisabeth are indeed two distinct baptismal names (and she was sometimes referred to only as Elisabeth). However, it looks always a bit odd in French to have two separate first names which are actually used together but not hyphenated (as opposed to a series of unused baptismal names) and she is often referred in that way in bibliography. But clearly that is less correct.
Regards, Montjoy Pursuivant (talk) 22:29, 24 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Frania,
Do you claim that "de France" was her surname using the index of Michel Antoine's book as your evidence? Or do you have any real proof? DanyMountbatten (talk) 10:24, 25 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Louise Élisabeth de France[edit]

It appears she is mentioned as Louise Elisabeth de France quite often. --Kansas Bear (talk) 02:26, 25 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Of course, because most of these books are in French. DanyMountbatten (talk) 10:18, 25 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
And nobody says she is not referred as "Louise Elisabeth of France", even at the time in some kind of references. Just that it was not her actual style and certainly not her surname. Montjoy Pursuivant (talk) 10:37, 25 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]


Dany,

It is not "because most of these books are in French", but the fact that in the list of books given above by Kansas Bear, those in French do show her as Louise Élisabeth de France, while Montjoy keeps on saying that de France was not a surname.

  • Les guerres sous Louis XV, Volume 2, by Charles Pierre Victor Pajol, given above as:
http://books.google.com/books?id=A3gaAAAAYAAJ&pg=PA7&dq=Louise+%C3%89lisabeth+de+France&lr=&as_brr=3#v=onepage&q=Louise%20%C3%89lisabeth%20de%20France&f=false
note (1) on page 4: "Philippe de France, duc d'Anjou, roi d'Espagne sous le nom de Philippe V. Second fils de Louis de France, Dauphin..."
p. 7: Louise Élisabeth de France
  • Journal des Savants, Volume 3, by Académie des inscriptions & belles-lettres (France), Institut de France
http://books.google.com/books?id=7V3tOaKKlSEC&pg=PA192&dq=Louise+%C3%89lisabeth+de+France&lr=&as_brr=3#v=onepage&q=&f=false
I just want to point out that the Journal des Savants, published in 1905, was published "sous les auspices de l'Institut de France", not exactly the publishing house for romans à l'eau de rose & trivia.

Montjoy keeps on referring us to scholars who were correct, while warning us about some points in which they may not have been, thus leaving us with the doubt: To believe or not to believe, that is the question.

Regards, Frania W. (talk) 13:45, 25 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]


They are not correct by the Grace of God, they are correct because
1) They are interested in that specific mater, that is styles and titles of the RF. A book on the wars of Louis XV can be excellent on his subject, but it could hardly be authoritative on titles against a book which specifically refers to that topic.
2) They are quoting sources relating to the topic. How Madame Adélaïde was referred to in private correspondance for example is no proof of her official styles, only of how she was called by the author of the letters. Official documents from the monarchy are authoritative on that topic, and that is on them that the authors of the books I referred you to are founding their analyses.
Your problem is not a problem of faith, that is a problem of method. Nobody asks you to believe or just to believe, only to use your common sense rather than just keeping to say "I found it printed in a book so that's true, and if other books say otherwise then nobody can know so my prejudice is equal to any other".
Montjoy Pursuivant (talk) 14:19, 25 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Montjoy,
Thank you for pointing out to me what my problem is. I guess that "method" & "common sense" were not in the bag of goodies left in my crib by my Fairy Godmother.
Please do not put words in my mouth as I never wrote or said: "I found it printed in a book so that's true, and if other books say otherwise then nobody can know so my prejudice is equal to any other". Some of the works I am referring to were published "sous les auspices de l'Institut de France", and I will not be crushed if proven wrong when using the Institut de France as a reference. At least, I'll go down in good company.
I also would like to point out to you that, no matter what I write, no matter what *proof*, *source*, *reference* I bring to this argument (here & on Madame Adélaïde's talk page), your first reaction is one of criticism, as most of your sentences to me begin with a negative expression. You may be "new at this", but you certainly do not appear "new" at treating others with a certain arrogance. This leads me to "believe" that your agenda is more about conducting a war against me than discussing our difference of opinion or judgment.
Regards, Frania W. (talk) 16:10, 25 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Daughter of France not "as a Daughter of France"[edit]

"As the daughter of the king, she was ranked as a 'fille de France'". That is misleading. One can say that an Infanta for example "ranks as a Daughter of France", since Infants were accorded same preseance that Sons of France. However, Louise Élisabeth did not "rank as a Daughter of France", she was one. Montjoy Pursuivant (talk) 12:37, 25 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Élisabeth de France +Louise+Henriette+Adélaïde+Victoire+Clotilde+Philippe+ in Bibliothèque nationale de France[edit]

The following are links to books kept at the BnF, referring to

Élisabeth de France, both the daughter of Louis XV, and Madame Élisabeth, sister of Louis XVI.

http://gallica.bnf.fr/Search?q=Elisabeth+de+France&p=1&lang=en&ArianeWireRechercheHaut=palettewhere the text is highlighted with http://gallica.bnf.fr/Search?q=Elisabeth+de+France&p=1&lang=en&ArianeWireRechercheHaut=palettede France
http://gallica.bnf.fr/ark:/12148/bpt6k54474367.r=Elisabeth+de+France.langEN
http://gallica.bnf.fr/ark:/12148/bpt6k5414642w.r=Elisabeth+de+France.langEN
http://gallica.bnf.fr/ark:/12148/bpt6k54939029.r=Elisabeth+de+France.langEN

Adélaïde de France with a few notices on her sister Victoire:

http://gallica.bnf.fr/Search?q=Ad%C3%A9la%C3%AFde+de+France&p=1&lang=en&ArianeWireRechercheHaut=palette

On an event that happened in 1756, published in 1757:

http://gallica.bnf.fr/ark:/12148/bpt6k5677701c.r=Ad%C3%A9la%C3%AFde+de+France.langEN

Louise de France, youngest of the daughters of Louis XV: http://gallica.bnf.fr/ark:/12148/bpt6k5424098g.r=Louise+de+France.langEN

Louis XIII with names of his sisters

http://gallica.bnf.fr/ark:/12148/bpt6k64848c.r=Anne+Henriette+de+France.langEN

Clotilde de France, her marriage to Prince de Piedmont (published in 1775)

http://gallica.bnf.fr/ark:/12148/bpt6k5425494h.r=Clotilde+de+France.langEN

Henriette d'Angleterre wife of Philippe de France, duc d'Orléans (published in 1720)

http://gallica.bnf.fr/ark:/12148/bpt6k1110915.r=Philippe+de+France+duc+d%27Orl%C3%A9ans.langEN

Regards, Frania W. (talk) 02:58, 26 August 2009 (UTC) copy/paste at Marie Adélaïde de France talk page.[reply]

Frania,
They are referred to as "de France" because it's a short way to say "Fils/Fille de France", not because it's their surname. It's simple as that. For instance, the list of names that you gave above mentions Henriette d'Angleterre. So according to your logic, if she's referred to as "Henriette d'Angleterre", that means that her surname was "d'Angleterre", right? DanyMountbatten (talk) 10:51, 26 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Only if she were French; surnames for Britons follow different rules. This "short-hand" theory is original research on the part of its theorists here: nowhere else have I seen a reliable secondary published source (as required by Wiki standards) state that "Louise Élisabeth de France is short-hand for her legal title." Lethiere (talk) 12:38, 26 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Henriette was French by her marriage, wasn't she? Where have you seen a reliable secondary published source stating that Louise Elisabeth de France was the legal title or surname of Madame Infante? Montjoy Pursuivant (talk) 17:10, 26 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
As I told DanyMountbatten on our other page of battle, it is not Henriette that is highlighted, but Philippe de France, duc d'Orléans, her husband, because of the de France shown as his name. Nowhere was I talking about Henrietta Anne Stuart. Regards, Frania W. (talk) 17:41, 26 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
But, according to your own standards, how can the reference be right on Philip's style and wrong on Henriette's style? Montjoy Pursuivant (talk) 17:43, 26 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
We are here discussing de France. Frania W. (talk) 18:18, 26 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I, at least, do not. I do not discuss that, in French, those people are routinely called "Firstname de France" in a various range of publications. What I am arguing that "de France" is just a shorthand for the formal title "fils/fille de France" or "fille de France", and so that it is not at all surname (as "d'Orléans" is for all descendants of the Duke of Orléans) but just a part of a title. Consequently, it must be translated in English (like in "Mary of Rumania" or "Philip of Greece"), not just kept in its French form. I don't see how the multiplication of references of various kind where "de France" is used can in anyway clarify the point. Montjoy Pursuivant (talk) 18:26, 26 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
According to this, official correspondence from d'Espagne, Note #2;[1]. "de France" is used as part of her name.
Recueil des instructions données aux ambassadeurs et ministres de France By France. Commission des archives diplomatiques
And here again,[2]
Postscript to the further considerations respecting the marriage of the Duc By Antony Mary Philip Louis (duke of Montpensier.)
and here, [3]
Mémoires du duc de Choiseul, 1719-1785 By Etienne-François Choiseul (duc de) --Kansas Bear (talk) 01:12, 27 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I checked your links but I couldn't find any statement about her surname being "de France". Perhaps if you add the exact page number in each source... DanyMountbatten (talk) 17:19, 29 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I can't find any statement saying it isn't her surname. Perhaps you should post your evidence. --Kansas Bear (talk) 17:37, 29 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Some evidence that she is referred to as "Louise Elisabeth of France" in books in English:
"Queenship in Europe 1660-1815: the role of the consort", edited by Clarissa Campbell Orr, pages 166, 171 http://books.google.com/books?id=g1xOmktdMqwC&printsec=frontcover&dq=queenship+in+europe#v=onepage&q=&f=false
"Women, art and the politics of identity in eighteenth-century Europe", edited by Melissa Lee Hyde and Jennifer Dawn Milam, pages 130, 132, 306 http://books.google.com/books?id=0QECAUr1WB4C&pg=PP1&dq=Women,+Art+and+the+Politics+of+Identity+in+Eighteenth-Century+Europe#v=onepage&q=&f=false
"Memoirs and letters of Cardinal de Bernis", Volume 1 by François-Joachim de Pierre de Bernis, Katharine Prescott Wormeley, Charles Augustin Sainte-Beuve, page 187 http://books.google.com/books?id=JIQfAAAAMAAJ&q=%22louise+elisabeth+of+france%22&dq=%22louise+elisabeth+of+france%22
"Women artists: an illustrated history" by Nancy Heller, pages 60, 62 and 223 http://books.google.com/books?id=KlBQAAAAMAAJ&q=%22louise+elisabeth+of+france%22&dq=%22louise+elisabeth+of+france%22
"Royal and republican sovereignty in early modern Europe: essays in memory of Ragnhild Marie Hatton", by Robert Oresko, G. C. Gibbs, Hamish M. Scott, page 662 http://books.google.com/books?id=kfXtdrD6kVIC&printsec=frontcover&dq=Royal+and+republican+sovereignty+in+early+modern+Europe:+essays+in+memory#v=onepage&q=%22louise%20elisabeth%20of%20france%
"Elizabeth Farnese: the termagant of Spain" by Edward Armstrong, page 343 http://books.google.com/books?id=WsETAAAAQAAJ&dq=elisabeth+farnese+termagant&q=%22louise+elisabeth+of+france%22
"Debrett's kings and queens of Europe" by David Williamson, page 58 http://books.google.com/books?id=EIJyAAAAMAAJ&q=%22louise+elisabeth+of+france%22
"Madame de Pompadour" by Nancy Mitford, page 302 http://books.google.com/books?lr=&id=5R0JAQAAIAAJ&q=%22louise+elisabeth+of+france%22
"The Bourbons of Naples, 1734-1825" by Harold Acton, page 722 http://books.google.com/books?lr=&id=ULEfAAAAIAAJ&dq=%22louise+elisabeth+of+france%22&q=%22louise+elisabeth+of+france%22
"The complete works of Voltaire", Volume 105 edited by Theodore Besterman, commentary on page 41 http://books.google.com/books?lr=&id=kMNcAAAAMAAJ&dq=%22louise+elisabeth+of+france%22&q=%22louise+elisabeth+of+france%22
So it is valid to refer to her as that in the English wikipedia article.
DanyMountbatten (talk) 18:44, 1 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]


DanyMountbatten: For Louis XV's children, Achaintre's généalogie pp. 153, 154, 155

http://books.google.com/books?id=rjsWAAAAYAAJ&pg=PA303&lpg=PA303&dq=de+France+Achaintre,+Nicolas+Louis,+Histoire+g%C3%A9n%C3%A9alogique+et+chronologique+de+la+maison+royale+de+Bourbon,&source=bl&ots=YDGthpwADl&sig=LNFAUFzBnINSSH0swdux12a7Vx8&hl=en&ei=vqOYSpr1FJ2L8QbGp8G5BQ&sa=X&oi=book_result&ct=result&resnum=3#v=snippet&q=Elisabeth%20de%20France&f=false

and while you're at it, you can also check the names of the Dauphin's children, i.e. Louis XV's grandchildren, pp. 167-168. and also: p. 123:

Louis de France, dit le Grand Dauphin, appelé aussi Monseigneur

p. 128:

Philippe de France, duc d'Anjou...
Charles de France, duc de Berry...

p. 137:

Louis de France, duc de Bourgogne, fut enterré à Saint-Denis...

p. 138:

Louis de France, né le 15 février 1710, d'abord duc d'Anjou, puis dauphin après la mort de son frère le duc de Bretagne, enfin roi de Frane sous le titre de Louis XV.

p. 139:

Charles de France, petit-fils de Louis XIV et frère du duc de Bourgogne...

p. 142:

Charles de France, duc de Berry, eut de son épouse:
Charles de Berry, duc d'Alençon... & list of other children with the surname "de Berry".

Next names are those of Louis XV's children given above on pp. 153, 154 & 155.

p. 166: Children of Louis XV's son, the Dauphin:

Marie-Thérèse de France, dite Madame
Louis-Joseph-Xavier de France, duc de Bourgogne

p. 167:

Xavier-Joseph-Marie de France, duc d'Angoulême
Louis-Auguste de France, duc de Berry
Louis-Stanislas-Xavier de France, comte de Provence
Charles-Philippe de France, comte d'Artois
Marie-Zéphirine de France, dite Madame

p. 168:

Marie-Adélaïde-Clotilde-Xavière de France, dite Madame Clotilde
Philippine-Hélène-Marie-Élisabeth de France, connue sous le nom de Madame Élisabeth

Frania W. (talk) 19:37, 29 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Dany Mountbatten,
If I remember correctly, the whole discussion started not on the fact that of France is used in books in English, but that de France is a surname, which should not be translated, while the de after a title in English becomes of, i.e.
  • Philippe de France, duc d'Orléans, vs Philippe de France, Duke of Orléans;
  • Adélaïde de France, duchesse de Louvois vs Adélaïde de France, Duchess of Louvois.
The examples you are bringing to us amount to "water to drown the fish".
Furthermore,
in Queenship of Europe, first of your list above, de France used as a surname:
p. 48 note 15: Philippe de France, duc d'Anjou, and later duc d'Orléans
in Women, art and the politics..., second of your list:
p. ix 6.3 "Madame Victoire de France at Fontevrault" (at Fontevrault being given in English, the de of de France is obviously not translated in of.)
p. 128 6.7: Madame Victoire de France
p. 131: Portrait of Madame Victoire de France
in Memoirs and letters of Cardinal Bernis, third of your list, de France kept as a surname & not translated:
index, p. 329: Louise-Élisabeth de France, (Madame Infanta and Duchess of Parma)
in (translation of) Voltaire, last on your list:
p. 156: ...madame Louise-Élisabeth de France, duchesse de Parme...
And I will repeat that the translation of de in of is not correct when the de is part of a surname. I am yet to see in an English text Charles of Gaulle.
Frania W. (talk) 01:02, 2 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Frania,
If according to you it's not valid to refer to her as Louise Elisabeth of France, can you explain why in the books I quoted she is referred to as Louise Elisabeth of France? I wait for your explanation.DanyMountbatten (talk) 11:01, 2 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Dany Mountbatten,
Repeating what I wrote above:
"If I remember correctly, the whole discussion started not on the fact that of France is used in books in English, but that de France is a surname, which should not be translated, while the de after a title in English becomes of, i.e.
  • Philippe de France, duc d'Orléans, vs Philippe de France, Duke of Orléans;
  • Adélaïde de France, duchesse de Louvois vs Adélaïde de France, Duchess of Louvois."
And in the books you quoted, there are many instances where the author uses de France or where de France appears = is printed in a book in English.
Now, if you'll excuse me, I have other things to do than argue endlessly with you on this.
Frania W. (talk) 13:49, 2 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Frania,
You still have NOT answered my question. You argue that in the books I quoted there are many instances where the author uses de France. OK, can you explain why in these same books there are also many instances where the author uses of France, if according to you it's not valid?
Obviously since you cannot give any valid explanation, the best thing you can do is to say "excuse me, I have other things to do".
I'm still waiting for your explanation.
DanyMountbatten (talk) 15:13, 2 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Dany,
I do not believe that you & I are arguing on the same subject and, like I said earlier, right now you are trying to drown the fish. The very fact that in some books in English the surname de France is used is as much of a valid reason than the fact that same authors also use of France in same books. And the proof that I brought that de France is a surname, the origin of the argument, is in full view in books kept at the Bibliothèque nationale de France, encyclopedias, dictionaries etc. (*Louis de France*, duc de Bourgogne, fils de *Louis de France*, dit le Grand Dauphin..., in Petit Robert, 1988, p. 1093)
Frania W. (talk) 15:34, 2 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Frania,
It is you who is trying to drown the fish by avoiding my question. And my question is totally related to the whole discussion.
Quoting you: "The very fact that in some books in English the surname de France is used is as much of a valid reason than the fact that same authors also use of France in same books."
OK, so then you agree that it is also valid to use of France, right?
Which proof did you bring about de France being a surname? Just because they are referred to as de France in the books you quoted? If you want to show a real proof that de France was their surname, prove it by showing a statement in an academic publication which clearly states that "de France was their surname".
DanyMountbatten (talk) 15:43, 2 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Dany,
You show us a document, such as an edict, in which Louis XIV, for instance, ordered that de France was not to be used as a surname.
Frania W. (talk) 15:54, 2 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Frania,
You show us a document, such as an edict, in which Louis XIV, for instance, ordered that de France was to be used as a surname.
DanyMountbatten (talk) 16:05, 2 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
[4]The new Larned History for ready reference, reading and research, Volume 2, by Josephus Nelson Larned, Donald Eugene Smith, p1101, "Bourbon, House of: its origin. From King Louis IX of France, "through his last male child, Robert de France, Comte de Clermont, sprang the House of Bourbon. An ancient barony, the inheritance of Beatrix, wife of this prince, was erected into a dukedom in favour of Louis, his son, and gave to his descendants the name which they have retained(Bourbon), that of France being reserved for the Royal branch. But Henry IV's children, those of Louis XIII, and those of their successors in the throne, were surnamed "de France"..."
Where is your evidence that "de France" wasn't a surname?? --Kansas Bear (talk) 18:14, 2 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
You have shown a statement from an academic publication. However, it's only one; perhaps you could post further evidence (more academic works which confirm this). On the other hand, other prestigious encyclopedias, such as the Britannica, do NOT mention that de France was their surname. If it's a fact, why do they omit this? That said, it doesn't mean that in books in English they cannot be referred to as of France (as title) and the links I gave above (also from academic works) prove that. DanyMountbatten (talk) 18:39, 2 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I won't be posting anymore evidence to your "demands", since you have not posted ANY evidence that states "de France" was not their surname. You have no factual basis therefore, that "de France" is not their surname. Your "sources" that you posted actually illustrated "de France" while being written in English. You asked for a source stating "de France" was a surname, you were given a source, now you can't handle it. Where are your source(s) stating that "de France" was not their surname?? IF you are such the "scholar" then you should know how to do historical research and not be "demanding" any sources, instead, you should be illustrating your point with sources. You have not shown a statement from an academic publication, stating that "de France" was not their surname. --Kansas Bear (talk) 21:01, 2 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I guess you cannot post anymore evidence to my "demands" because you just couldn't find any other evidence in Google Books. Anyway, I could also post evidence that Bourbon is used in several academic publications as their surname (not de France), but I'm not interested in arguing that. What I wanted to prove with the sources I posted is that it is valid to refer to them as "of France" in English because several academic works in English refer to them as that. If they actually illustrate "de France" while being written in English as you say, then it proves that "de France" may be translated, contrary to what Frania argued. DanyMountbatten (talk) 07:30, 3 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Dany: This discussion began on 9 July when I moved the article to Louise Élisabeth de France (please refer to first sentence, first section: *Move*), saying that as a surname de France should not be translated, which I maintain is still what I am arguing about. By now, after one kilometer long discussion, and your constant deviation from my original point, I would think that we have exhausted our supply of arguments, but you keep on coming back rejecting every word, every comma, every source, every reference put under your eyes, telling me: You still have NOT answered my question. The lists of names taken from books (both French & English) IS the answer to your question. I am not going to write you an essay on the translation of de to of.

Furthermore, when someone else - Kansas Bear - brings to you "The new Larned History for ready reference, reading and research, Volume 2, by Josephus Nelson Larned" you accept it on the one hand, but turn around & ask for more on the other. How many more will you *demand* before being satisfied, and what more do you need after this, not written by me, but which is in Larned:

...that of France being reserved for the Royal branch. But Henry IV's children, those of Louis XIII, and those of their successors in the throne, were surnamed "de France"..."*

If you feel so strongly about having de & every French word removed from English Wikipedia, please feel free to move the article on Charles de Gaulle to Charles of Gaulle, and that on Jean de La Fontaine to John of the Fountain.

Over and Out. Frania W. (talk) 15:36, 3 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Frania,
It is not my intention to have de & every French word removed from English Wikipedia. My point (once again) is that it is valid to refer to them as "of France" in English because academic works in English refer to them as that. Whether their surname is "de France" or not, in any case it is valid to refer to them as "of France" in English (and it is also valid to use "de France", of course). Both forms are valid in English.
Quoting you from your post of yesterday: "The very fact that in some books in English the surname de France is used is as much of a valid reason than the fact that same authors also use of France in same books."
Judging from what you wrote above, you agree that using "of France" is just as valid as using "de France" in books in English. And amen to that.
DanyMountbatten (talk) 16:43, 3 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Not speaking from the same planet, are we? But if we are, please stop twisting my words. When de France is used as part of a full name, i.e. surname, then it is de France, not of France, no more than you speak of Charles of Gaulle, but Charles de Gaulle, President of France. Frania W. (talk) 17:18, 3 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
So when authors refer to them as "of France" in books in English, are they using their title to refer to them, and not their full name, i.e. surname? DanyMountbatten (talk) 17:49, 3 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I think that they automatically translate de to of, refuse or want to ignore the fact that de France is a surname. But I cannot speak for authors; you should ask them. By the way, it is time for my scales & my cat's walk. Frania W. (talk) 18:18, 3 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Conclusion: If authors refer to them as "of France" in academic publications in English (for whatever reason), it is valid to refer to them as "of France" in English. Good luck with your scales and cat! DanyMountbatten (talk) 18:36, 3 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
It is not my conclusion: de France is a surname, not of France. Frania W. (talk) 18:44, 3 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Frania, I thought you were busy with your scales and cat already... Whether de France is a surname or not, if authors refer to them as "of France" in academic publications in English (for whatever reason), it is valid to refer to them as "of France" in English. DanyMountbatten (talk) 19:00, 3 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  1. REDIRECT Talk:Louise Élisabeth of France

Louis XV as ancestor of the Bourbons of Spain... and the House of Orléans???[edit]

This sentence seems rather weird: "Through Élisabeth's daughter Maria Luisa, Louis XV is an ancestor of the Bourbons of Spain, the Bourbons of the Two Sicilies, and the House of Orléans."

Ancestor of the

  • Bourbons of Spain? How about Philip V of Spain, Louis XIV's grandson, whose descendant, Prince Louis, Duke of Anjou could claim the throne of France, should France choose to have another king?
  • Bourbons of the Two Sicilies?
  • House of Orléans?

All Bourbons & Orléans (who are Bourbons) have as common ancestor Saint Louis, and closest common ancestor Henri IV. They also constantly intermarried. So I do not see why Louis XV should be singled out as the ancestor of the Bourbons of Spain (?), the House of Orléans (!), etc.

If I sound confused, please someone enlighten me. In the meantime, I am removing sentence.

--Frania W. (talk) 21:24, 11 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Louise-Élisabeth_of_France&oldid=1208595048"