Talk:Carlos Hugo, Duke of Parma

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search

Irene's right of succession to the Dutch throne[edit]

"Her conversion to Catholicism meant that she had to renounce her right of succession to the Dutch throne" That is not correct. There is no impediment for the monarch or a person who can inherit the throne to become a Catholic or a member of any other religion. Irene lost her right to the throne because she married without there being a law to give her permission. Carlos claim to the Spanish throne was the central issue of the controversy. I'm changing this to "She lost her right of succession to the Dutch throne because the government refused to enact a law permitting the marriage, and her mother could not even go fetch her because the government advised her against it. The issue that prevented the government from making a law permitting the marriage was Carlos claim of the Spanish throne. The Dutch government saw international political difficulties arising from a possible heir to the Dutch throne holding a controversial claim to the throne of a foreign state. Also the Dutch Constitution does not allow the monarch to carry a foreign Crown.".Gerard von Hebel 20:35, 16 June 2006 (UTC)

Redundancy deleted[edit]

Baptized Hugo Xavier Marie Sixte Louis Robert Jean Georges Benoît Michel, he later took the name Charles (Carlos) before all his baptismal names. 13:20, 4 June 2007 (UTC)


"He was baptized Hugues Marie Sixte Robert Louis Jean Georges Benoît Michel. On 28 June 1963 he was officially renamed Charles Hugues, by judgement of the court of appeal of La Seine, France."

This suggests that the names "Marie Sixte Robert Louis Jean Georges Benoît Michel" were dropped in 1963. AFAIK only the name "Charles" was added, so after 1963 his full name would be "Charles Hughues Marie Sixte Robert Louis Jean Georges Benoît Michel". Känsterle 15:59, 3 September 2007 (UTC)

Pretender to France[edit]

As the heir of the Bourbons, he's the pretender to France as well as spain. Benkenobi18 (talk) 12:27, 2 February 2008 (UTC)

No, he is not. The ultimate heir to the House of France is Louis Alphonse, Duke of Anjou. Spain and Parma were/are held by junior branches of the House of France. Charles 19:50, 2 February 2008 (UTC)
He is a direct descendant of Charles X, though. — (talk) 11:15, 7 August 2008 (UTC).

France applied the Salic Law, which makes his descent via Charles X's granddaughter Louise quite worthless in terms of succession in claims to France. Besides, in successions where females are accepted, he is not the rightful heir of said Louise, instead his genealogically senior cousin infanta Alice is that heiress. (talk) 10:55, 24 October 2009 (UTC)

There are at least two pretenders to the throne of France, the other being the Count of Paris; whether Carlos Hugo is a third depends on what he pretends, not on our opinions of the validity of the pretence. All Spanish claims to the throne of France were renounced by the Treaty of the Pyrenees, but he may well ignore this - many do. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 15:21, 1 July 2010 (UTC)

Requested move[edit]

The following discussion is an archived discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the move request was: page not moved :: this discussion has rhubarbed on inconclusively for 40 days; having reverted an unagreed move made during discussion. Anthony Appleyard (talk) 13:12, 2 September 2010 (UTC)

Carlos Hugo of Bourbon-Parma → ? — Relisted. Vegaswikian (talk) 22:55, 24 July 2010 (UTC); Retargeted Anthony Appleyard (talk) 05:20, 25 July 2010 (UTC)

  • Information: this page was originally at Carlos Hugo, Duke of Parma. Anthony Appleyard (talk) 05:22, 25 July 2010 (UTC)
  • Move to the real name of this man. If we should use artistic names, why not calling him "Carlos Hugo, King of Spain"? (talk) 10:35, 1 July 2010 (UTC)
  • Support this is clearly POV, recognising the titles of pretenders, unless it can be shown that his title is reconised. PatGallacher (talk) 11:05, 1 July 2010 (UTC)
  • Prefer alternative, but support this as an improvement: This is not English - and unattested - presumably because it is a pretence to the state of Parma. But his uncle is called Prince Sixtus of Parma; so should Carlos Hugo be: Prince Carlos Hugo of Parma. (Whether they all should be Bourbon-Parma, which I would support, is another move request.) Septentrionalis PMAnderson 15:16, 1 July 2010 (UTC)
  • Comment I don't see why a fake state is any better than a fake title. And a few of those links shows self-proclaimation. (talk) 06:56, 2 July 2010 (UTC)
  • Because he's actually called Prince of Parma or Bourbon-Parma; just like the Count of Paris, a title also inherited from a departed monarchy. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 15:43, 2 July 2010 (UTC)
  • Support pretenders don't actually hold anything. (talk) 06:56, 2 July 2010 (UTC)
  • Oppose Two separate issues here: 1st, we're confusing the duchy of Parma, a former European realm, with the dukedom of Parma, a hereditary title. The fief of Parma was ceded to the Pope, then ruler of the Papal States (as he is now of the State of the Vatican City, its successor state as the UK is a successor state of England). On Aug 19, 1545, Pope Paul III (Alessandro Farnese, 1468-1549) detached Parma from the Papal States and gave it as a duchy to his illegitimate son, Pier-Luigi Farnese, to whose titles of Duke of Castro and Ronciglione, he added Duke of Parma. The Farnese dynasty, descended from him, ruled in Parma from 1545 to 1731. The last agnatic male descendant was Antonio Farnese, Duke of Parma (1666-93), whose niece, Elizabeth Farnese, was recognized as heir to both the duchy and the dukedom by Pope Clement XII and, in the Treaty of The Hague (1720), by most of the other Great Powers. Subsequently the duchy was bounced around in dynastic wars and treaties, but eventually came back to rest on Elisabeth Farnese's descendants, who reigned in Parma until it was annexed by Italy in 1860. Since Duke of Parma remains a title unrevoked by the Pope (who, as a sovereign, is a fons honorum, retaining the right to recognize and grant secular titles: Rose Kennedy was made a countess in 1951). 2ndly, Wikipedia article titles are supposed to be based on what reliable sources call someone. Carlos-Hugo is (outside of Spain, where he has been an active pretender to that throne, not Parma's) largely referred to as Duke of Parma. It's misguided to go after widely-accepted titles as fantasms of pretendership while leaving intact flagrant abuses, such as Archduke Sigismund, Grand Duke of Tuscany, the first member of that deposed dynasty to assume a regnal title since ex-Grand Duke Ferdinand IV died in 1908! FactStraight (talk) 18:11, 2 July 2010 (UTC)
    • We should go after both; there is no Grand Duchy of Tuscany, either. But that is WP:OTHERCRAPEXISTS, a road to disaster.
    • The Duchy of Parma Carlos Hugo descends from was not a title of honor; it was a sovereign state, last constituted at Vienna, in 1815, when Parma was not part of the Papal States.
    • But this ignores the most important point; the present article title is original research: there is no English source for it whatsoever. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 19:01, 2 July 2010 (UTC)
  • Carlos Hugo is the heir-male of the last Farnese, Elisabeth Farnese, in her capacity as heiress to the Dukedom of Parma. Burke's Guide to the Royal Family, 1972 refers to several of her post-1860 heirs as "Duke of Parma" (while not referring to most pretenders by their regnal title unless they reigned de facto). What "English source" are you citing in contention that "Carlos Hugo of Bourbon-Parma" is more in use and less "original research" than is "Carlos Hugo, Duke of Parma" or "Carlos Hugo de Bourbon, Duke of Parma"? FactStraight (talk) 08:08, 3 July 2010 (UTC)
  • Any of these 91 sources should do. Most of them appear to call him Prince - and Jan Morris implies it, or there would be no point to the story. All of them use Bourbon-Parma - as we should - but that's another move request. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 20:26, 5 July 2010 (UTC)
  • Many of these sources are writing about Carlos Hugo when he was most active as the Carlist pretender -- his efforts to induce Franco to choose him as future king before the Generalissimo officially designated Juan Carlos in 1969, his controversial 1964 marriage, and the notorious Montejurra Incidents -- all before Hugo Carlos inherited the ducal title in 1977. Moreover, anti-Carlist sources in Spain, including those that preferred Juan Carlos, have always denied Carlos Hugo any title for purely POV reasons. But just as Wikipedia no longer refers to the article on Daniel Westling by that name although it was overwhelmingly used in the media until last month, our guidelines indicate that we don't retain outdated titles for royalty once they obtain a new title (e.g. Albert II, Prince of Monaco, Prince Friso of Orange-Nassau, Alexandra, Countess of Frederiksborg, etc), regardless of how long it takes "reliable sources" to catch up to the change. Besides WP doesn't just count google hits to name BLP's when we have applicable conventions like NC(RN) (and Jimbo Wales made a rare point of visiting NC(RN) recently arguing in favor of use of official title rather than counting google hits). Point #1 under NC(RN) is applicable. But as I pointed out above, the real issue here is that our conventions have a gray area which needs to be resolved through inclusive discussion at NC(RN): thus far, pretenders below the rank of Grand Duke are allowed to use their title of pretence as a title of nobility on Wikipedia. Preventing Carlos Hugo from doing so here sets a new precedent for summarily stripping living people of the title they currently use without a comprehensive discussion of what we will substitute. Why fix what ain't broke? FactStraight (talk) 03:24, 6 July 2010 (UTC)
  • I note that only the Portuguese Wikipedia gives him the title of Duke, all others just call him "of Bourbon-Parma". The title of Duke may have been given to him by the Pope, but titles can be withdrawn. There could be some complicated questions about whether his title became the property of the Grand Duchy of Parma when it became independent of the Papal States, or Italy with the unification of that country or the Lateran Treaty. All Italian noble titles were abolished after WWII although the existing holders were allowed to incorporate them into their names, I think this applied regardless of who awarded them, a complicated question in view of modern Italian history. In the absence of clear sources, assuming that his title is still legally recognised by any country is getting into original research. PatGallacher (talk) 10:35, 3 July 2010 (UTC)
  • Lots of reputable sources refer to Carlos-Hugo as Duke of Parma (most famously, that's what he's usually called in The Netherlands, where he and his children are best known), including Burke's, so no "original research" is needed to establish reputable use of that title. Whereas we're speculating here on zero evidence that his ducal title "might" have been withdrawn by some Pope. Italy's irrelevant for several reasons: Italy never abolished titles of nobility (whereas, e.g., the Soviet Union and Austria did), it simply declines to acknowledge their legal existence anymore, but legality is not a primary WP criterion. Papal titles definitely do not fall under this restriction anyway because its titles are issued by Italy's friendly neighbor, Vatican City, whose sovereigns have never ceased recognizing hereditary titles granted by their own authority. Duke of Parma was never a title of the Kingdom of Italy. The duchy, on the other hand, was awarded by conquest or treaty to various people who then used the ducal title for a while. That left intact the papal title, just as changes in geo-political history do not invalidate use of victory titles by the original recipients' heirs, e.g. Prince of Waterloo (an 1815 title of the kingdom of the Netherlands, granted to & now borne by a British subject, based on territory now part of Belgium), Earl Mountbatten of Burma (now the "Union of Myanmar"), Duke of Magenta. Anyway, I think this line of argument is a distraction. IMO, a genuine need for clarity exists in that Wikipedia normally accords pretenders the title by which they are most widely known, except when the claimed title is one exclusively identified with actually (or formerly) reigning. That leaves a gray area consisting of pretenders to ducal and princely thrones, because duke and prince are most often titles of royal cadets or noblemen, whereas emperor, queen, grand duke, crown prince are withheld from pretenders (and their consorts) who never held that title during the monarchy ("King" Leka of Albania is a conspicuous exception, as is "Grand Duke" Sigismund, each of whom uses a regnal title, although only the latter's usage is, inexplicably, validated in Wikipedia). A number of imperial and royal pretenders are widely referred to by ducal (e.g. Franz, Duke of Bavaria and Prince Henri, Count of Paris, Duke of France) or princely (Georg Friedrich, Prince of Prussia) titles of pretence. But unlike those pretenders, it's widely accepted, and reflected in Wikipedia, that ducal (e.g. Peter, Duke of Schleswig-Holstein) and princely (e.g. Armin, Prince of Lippe and Heinrich IV, Prince Reuss of Köstritz) pretenders may use (although not all do) the title they would hold if reigning for the reason that these titles, in themselves, do not suggest to the public that the titleholder is currently enthroned. That logic is key, is consistent with NPOV, reflects actual usage, and should not be summarily undone here without wider discussion at NCRC of other similarly situated pretenders. FactStraight (talk) 20:22, 3 July 2010 (UTC)
  • Citation please; page reference and edition for Burke's would be a start - although Burke's is not particularly reliable. One rather large corpus of English writing has no hits for Carlos Hugo, Duke of Parma at all; in partial hits it shows a history of Carlism which scrupulously calls his grandfather Duke of Parma, and not his father or himself. His father had a moderately notable part in WWI, and is always called "Prince Xavier". Septentrionalis PMAnderson 21:44, 3 July 2010 (UTC)
    Xavier was not yet head of the house during World War I, though.
  • Burke's Royal Families of the World, Volume II, 1980, p.312. I'm stunned by the suggestion that you assert Burke's is not "particularly reliable". So what is regarded as more reliable on royal titulature in English? Xavier inherited the ducal title when he was 85, long after his WWI fame. And most of Carlos Hugo's exploits as Carlist pretender were also already part of written history by the time he got the title. FactStraight (talk) 03:07, 6 July 2010 (UTC)
  • Burke's is less reliable on English titles than Debrett's, and far less reliable than the Complete Peerage. I see no reason they should be regarded as specially reliable outside their chief field, especially considering their troubled publication history. They are a tertiary source, like Wikipedia; they would be useful as a guide to their sources - if they give them.Septentrionalis PMAnderson 15:44, 6 July 2010 (UTC)
    • Noting that this move request has been re-opened: First you claimed that the usage was "original research" until I cited Burke's, then you demanded I cite the exact page, while deprecating (in advance) Burke's authority by insisting that Debrett's is "more reliable on English titles" (eliding the fact that "Duke of Parma" is not an "English title" but a Latin {papal} title, use of whose English translation is what we're debating) yet Debrett's 2007, like Burke's, accords him the title "Duke of Parma"). These feints are confusing matters because NCROY indicates we've agreed that we use specific conventions rather than most-common-name-per-google when naming articles on royalty, and this situation falls prima facie under NCROY: Royals with a substantive title point #3): If I understand correctly, your fundamental objection is that "Duke of Parma" should not be accorded to one who is the historical claimant to sovereignty of the "Duchy of Parma". I think that is a valid though complex issue worth our effort to try to resolve by consensus (although I disagree with your position: "duke" is, like "prince" {Furst}, a title which may {unlike emperor, queen, crown prince, grand duke {Gross Herzog}, etc} suggest to the public mere nobility rather than sovereignty, and has therefore been traditionally acceptable in English usage as a title of pretence for dynastic claimants a la "Duke of Schleswig-Holstein" and "Prince of Waldeck-Pyrmont" post-1918). I urge that we focus (at NCROY: Pretenders) on the underlying issue ("May names of articles on claimants to ducal & princely thrones include the title by which they are most reliably known even if that is their ducal/princely title?"), since consensus on that is apt to point us to a solution on "Duke of Parma" that is consistent with how ducal pretenders are actually treated. FactStraight (talk) 23:25, 25 July 2010 (UTC)
  • But FactStraight's argument is one reason we should not call Carlos Hugo by the title he is not known by, any more than his father. If either of them had reigned in Parma - or elsewhere - they would be known by it, in written history and here; but as it is, they resemble Frederick North, Lord North, who succeeded to the Earldom of Guilford at an advanced age (for the 18th century) and had established his own place in written history under the name we give him. (Whether we should simplify to Lord North, now a redirect, is off topic here; nobody is proposing title alone for this article.) Septentrionalis PMAnderson 16:06, 6 July 2010 (UTC)
  • As a number of posters who weren't aware of the previous !vote on this are now here and acknowledging, Carlos Hugo is best known by his ducal title in reliable sources in English, if only because it is the most obvious way to distinguish him from the numerous other princes of Bourbon-Parma, within a family where disambiguaiton is called for because cadets have never shared the same title as the head of their family. Nor, if we're to be honest, would prevalence of google hits in his favor matter to those who oppose the ducal title for Carlos Hugo: their opposition isn't based on lack of prevalence, but upon the fact that the title he uses is also the title of a sovereignty formerly held by his dynasty. The argument over current google hits is a distraction: yes, he was most famous before inheriting his ducal title, because his Carlist claim to the crown of Spain was rendered moot by the enthronement of Juan Carlos in 1975. But Wikipedia changes royal nomenclature when names/titles change (e.g. Daniel Westling), rather than when the new name eventually accumulates more google hits than the old one. FactStraight (talk) 23:25, 25 July 2010 (UTC)
  • Also I note that the article itself states that he uses the title of Count of Montemolin. PatGallacher (talk) 10:45, 3 July 2010 (UTC)
  • Whereas Carlos Hugo claims (undisputedly) to be head of the House of Bourbon-Parma (not "Parma", the massive, undiscussed article name changes for members of his dynasty began this year & are part of the problem), he is most widely known as the Carlist pretender to the throne of Spain (it is this, rather than his Parmesan title, that prompted the Dutch Government to withhold approval of his 1964 marriage to Princess Irene of the Netherlands, thereby expelling her from the Dutch royal house). As I mentioned, Spain definitely does not recognize any titles for Carlos Hugo, so it's not surprising that its Wikipedia goes along (but since when do we allow non-English Wikipedias to influence the English WP's article-naming?). But that's blatantly POV, since Spain does recognize titles of pretence for other pretenders, most notably that of King Juan Carlos's first cousin, Infante Carlos, Duke of Calabria, who has been embroiled for decades in a notorious feud with the rival Bourbon branch of Prince Carlo, Duke of Castro -- yet Wikipedia accords both men their ducal titles of pretence, because that's how they're best known. The title Conde de Montemolin is a Carlist title of pretence, whereas Duke of Parma is a title of nobility as well as one of ducal pretence. Wikipedia is full of both kinds of these titles as article names. FactStraight (talk) 20:22, 3 July 2010 (UTC)
  • Support This title is not recognized (more: it was officially abolished in 1946) by actual republican Italy. Any recognition by other States is illegal because the title refers to a city they do not own. Parma has not a duke in 2010, simply.--Civitatem (talk) 14:00, 4 July 2010 (UTC)
  • Wikipedia does not care what the government of Italy recognises. If we said only what's legal in all countries of the world, we'd never be able to mention any criticism of Ayatollah Khomeini, for example. Anyway, what makes you think that the Queen of the Netherlands is committing a crime by referring to her nephews and nieces as Princes of Bourbon-Parma? She is a sovereign and has the right to bestow any title she wants (well, if the Parliament agrees, of course). Did the Queen of the United Kingdom comit a crime by creating Sue Ryder Baroness Ryder of Warsaw? Of course not. Your argument makes no sense at all. Surtsicna (talk) 16:20, 5 July 2010 (UTC)
  • Pretence titles are not real, we should not be promoting fiction in place of reality. No article should contain pretence titles. By adding titles of pretence to articles, we are explicitly supporting their claims. (talk) 05:01, 6 July 2010 (UTC)
  • That's a much broader (and older) discussion than this article, since it would affect the article name of every pretender in Wikidpedia, many of whom are completely unknown to the public except by their titles. Please raise your objections at NC(RN). FactStraight (talk) 05:18, 6 July 2010 (UTC)
  • Nevertheless, we do not give pretenders the crowns they pretend to, although we follow general usage in according a courtesy title - when it does; compare Otto von Habsburg, whose article (correctly) wears none of the titles to which he pretended. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 01:39, 7 July 2010 (UTC)
  • I closed the request which found a quite large consensus. I think that similar moves should be applied to similar pages about Bourbon-Parma family.--Cusio (talk) 00:07, 12 July 2010 (UTC)
  • He made the move without closing the discussion. (I found the move already made and closed the discussion.) After that, people moved the page without discussion twice more; I have reverted those moves. See discussion at Wikipedia talk:Naming conventions (royalty and nobility)#Pretenders. Anthony Appleyard (talk) 22:02, 24 July 2010 (UTC)

  • Relisting note. I relisted this after the various moves. The page is move protected while this discussion continues. Vegaswikian (talk) 22:55, 24 July 2010 (UTC)

I wish to protest strongly at how this has been handled. It may not be invariably wrong to re-open a move discussion soon after it has been closed, but as a general rule not good practice and ought to be discouraged. If so it should have been treated as a fresh move request. This approach is a standing invite to anyone who happens to disagree with a recent move to re-open it in a disruptive way. PatGallacher (talk) 23:51, 24 July 2010 (UTC)

I read through this and did not see a clear consensus. A little additional discussion will not hurt. If any admin who is not involved sees a consensus they can close the discussion at any time. Vegaswikian (talk) 00:15, 25 July 2010 (UTC)

Oh my...[edit]

VegasWikian, there was no consensus for the move Carlos Hugo, Duke of Parma → Carlos Hugo of Bourbon-Parma. An administrator moved it back to Carlos Hugo, Duke of Parma and relisted the move to see if there would be consensus. You performed the move Carlos Hugo, Duke of Parma → Carlos Hugo of Bourbon-Parma yet there was no consensus for that in the first place... Can you please move it back to the original title, not the one which, right now, has no consensus and was closed prematurely? Thank you. Seven Letters 02:31, 25 July 2010 (UTC)

After the last edit of mine I reread the discussions and looked at the external links. I believe that there is consensus for the move that was done. The previous discussion was very hard to follow since everyone did not indent their replies. If you really believe that there is a consensus to leave the page where it was, feel free to renominate for a move. But as I said, in rereading the discussion, there is a consensus to move supported by external sources. Vegaswikian (talk) 02:37, 25 July 2010 (UTC)
You did, however, go over another administrator. There was no consensus for a move. A margin of one with no discussion does not result in a move now, does it? Seven Letters 02:54, 25 July 2010 (UTC)

Further discussion[edit]

The result of the move request was: page moved. After looking at the external sources the case for moving is clear. Vegaswikian (talk) 00:25, 25 July 2010 (UTC)
I asked Anthony Appleyard on his talk page to revert his change in his talk page "I do not like to reverse the actions of an administrator, so please revert your closing of this requested move as it seems to me that the move was premature to close it particularly as without the IP opinion there was no clear consensus, and the person who made the move was involved in the debate. The issue has been raised on Wikipedia talk:Naming conventions (royalty and nobility) and at least one other editor has expressed a desire to take part in the requested move."[1] So I am disappointed Vegaswikian that you chose not to consult with Anthony Appleyard as to why he changed his opinion. So I am going to reopen this debate and I would ask you to revert the move until the debate is ended. You say you have clear evidence from reliable sources, then pleas produce it here so that others can see it and a consensus can be found. -- PBS (talk) 03:10, 25 July 2010 (UTC)
  • Comment. We need to work towards a compromise as there is little support for Carlos Hugo, Duke of Parma the question is is the new name supported by sources and the guidelines? PMA what title do you think the article should have? -- PBS (talk) 03:20, 25 July 2010 (UTC)
  • The article is currently at Carlos Hugo of Bourbon-Parma without royal or noble titles. Since his right to the royal or noble titles attributed to him seems to be queryable, and Wikipedia rules about people's titles, best leave it here at Carlos Hugo of Bourbon-Parma, or at some name without royal or noble titles, until discussion is finished. Meanwhile, best list here again, compactly and please keep the verbiage to a minimum, the arguments for or against putting the title in:
    • Him having de-facto authority anywhere, or not. E.g. the British Duke of Devonshire does not rule Devonshire.
    • Which modern countries recognise or allow his claimed titles.
    • Conflicting hereditary claims to his claimed titles.
    • The rules of Wikipedia.
    • What he is most known as.
  • Comment - I admit I've never heard of him, but after a quick read of the article I would say that the present title is the least controversial and reflects his identity accurately enough to satisfy most people who are likely to be searching for an article on this individual. Deb (talk) 09:19, 25 July 2010 (UTC)
I've changed my mind - I'll go for the "Duke" option. Deb (talk) 11:47, 26 July 2010 (UTC)
  • Comment The new name is defiantly not supported by guidelines even if you discard the rule for royals with substantive titles. If you follow the guidelines it would be “Carlos Hugo, Duke of Parma” or “Prince Carlos Hugo of Bourbon-Parma”. I don’t see the reason for denying him a royal title (which is an awful idea imo) because if you are going to move to the “real name” as the original requester wanted why is this not “Carlo Ugo di Borbone-Parma” or something, instead of being the English version “of Bourbon-Parma”. - dwc lr (talk) 13:27, 25 July 2010 (UTC)
  • Move to original title, Carlos Hugo, Duke of Parma That is the title used on the duke's website. He is not claiming a title of king or emperor. Pretenders use titles like duke, prince, margrave, etc. Seven Letters 15:24, 25 July 2010 (UTC)
  • Original title - pretenders use ducal and princely titles all the time, and in particular the head of the house of Bourbon-Parma has always been known as "duke of Parma", even long after the end of the duchy, with no particular controversy. john k (talk) 19:58, 25 July 2010 (UTC)
It seems to me that there is very little research being presented here. What English language newspapers and other reliable English language sources call this man? Failing that, what do reliable foreign language sources call him? I would have thought that the Dutch would have a reasonable amount on him, but if there is a dearth of reliable sources what do less reliable sources such as self-promoting web sites call him? -- PBS (talk) 01:05, 26 July 2010 (UTC)
This is indeed an issue - a google search doesn't turn up much, certainly. john k (talk) 02:36, 26 July 2010 (UTC)
Debrett's 2007, like Burke's (1980, p.312) calls him the "Duke of Parma", as does "Daniel Willis's "Descendants of King George I of Great Britain" (2002, p.269), while "Royalty, Peerage and Nobility of the World" (1977, p.48) accords the ducal title to his father and the marquis de Ruvigny's "Titled Nobility of Europe" (1914, p.42) attributes it to his great-uncle Henry, Duke of Parma, yet all 3 princes inherited the title long after Italy's 1860 annexation of the duchy. These feints are confusing matters because NCROY indicates we've agreed that we use specific conventions rather than most-common-name-per-google when naming articles on royalty, and this situation falls prima facie under NCROY: Royals with a substantive title point #3). Why not apply it? FactStraight (talk) 08:02, 26 July 2010 (UTC)
Please read the lead of the guideline to which you refer (and the WP:AT policy). We still base our decisions on what is used in reliable sources, we do not make up names and titles. The point of that particular guideline is to give advise on the name to use when there is a choice between various different combinations of names and titles that are used in reliable sources. -- PBS (talk) 09:10, 26 July 2010 (UTC)
As attested by highly reputable English-language sources on royal titulature, "Duke of Parma" isn't a "made up" name or title for Carlos Hugo. Even if there are other ways in which he has been styled, "Duke of Parma" is used to refer to him in multiple reputable sources, is documented as correct in books specializing in royal titulature, and is current. Therefore, it's the appropriate title under our NCROY guideline. FactStraight (talk) 01:15, 27 July 2010 (UTC)
You see you agree with me you justify the name basing it on usage in "reputable English-language sources on royal titulature". I am only using what is available on Google books and there are very few books on this man. The best of the few seems to be "Burke's Royal Families of the World: Africa & the Middle East" (1980) p. 312 But a book with quite a lot of biographical details about his early life is "The decline of Carlism" by Jeremy MacClancy (2000) pp.104-. You mentioned "Burke's (1980, p.312)" is it "Burke's Royal Families of the World: Africa & the Middle East"? to which you were referring? -- PBS (talk) 09:36, 27 July 2010 (UTC)
Actually, having monitored NCROY's evolution, I disagree its consensus concluded that the guideline only applies "when there is a choice between various different combinations of names and titles that are used in reliable sources": I understand it to emphasize that there are multiple criteria, so close adherence to the guideline on titulature rather than to google hits is called for, as affirmed in recent NCROY discussions here, here, and here by Jimbo Wales. Still, it seems to me that even by your interpretation of the guideline, "Duke of Parma" works. Burke's series included 2 volumes on royalty in addition to those on British peerage. Its 1980 volume on non-Euro royalty included an addenda & corrigenda section updating the 1973 Euro volume, and thus included the reference to Carlo Hugo as "Duke of Parma". FactStraight (talk) 17:39, 27 July 2010 (UTC)
  • Original title I agree with john k heads of Bourbon-Parma have always been known as "Duke of Parma" and this can be sourced for Carlos Hugo as FactStraight has shown. - dwc lr (talk) 19:24, 26 July 2010 (UTC)
If you read further up the page PMA did a search on "Carlos Hugo of Bourbon-Parma" which returned 91 sources so this man is not always known as "Duke of Parma" he has also been known as "[the pretender] Prince Carlos Hugo of Bourbon-Parma" with or without the mention of pretender. Doesn't Prince trump Duke in our naming conventions unless Duke is better known? -- PBS (talk) 20:33, 26 July 2010 (UTC)
A lot of those seem to be pre 1977 before he became duke. In the naming conventions I believe a substantive title (duke of Parma) would trump the Princely title. I believe it’s also important to differentiate the Head of the House of Bourbon-Parma from all the other Princes and Princesses of Bourbon-Parma which recognising his use of the title of Duke in the article name would do. - dwc lr (talk) 21:36, 26 July 2010 (UTC)
I think you put forward a reasonable point. If PMA's search is restricted to books published after 1977 (the year his father died) then they seem to use the prince title to refer to the only time this man seems to have been notable his marriage to Princess Irene of the Netherlands. -- PBS (talk) 09:36, 27 July 2010 (UTC)
Yes its a fair point. Most of the 93 hits are for "Prince Carlos Hugo of Bourbon-Parma" he is a Prince of Bourbon-Parma so it’s understandable that sources use that pre and post 1977 at the moment the article name doesn’t even use the title prince. Imo the title (Duke of Parma) that has always been used for the Head of the Parma dynasty should be used as there are sources to support it. But if that is completely unacceptable and impossible to do at the very least it should be “Prince Carlos Hugo of Bourbon-Parma”. Other than his marriage he is probably most notable for being Carlist heir then claimant to the Spanish throne I don't know what title he used in relation to those claims. - dwc lr (talk) 12:49, 27 July 2010 (UTC)
  • I noticed that this page does not have it’s correct name. Carlos Hugo should be named with his title "Prince de Bourbon-Parma" (English version), which is a very commonly used in the world (or otherwise “Duke of Parma”), this is according to WP:NCNT or WP:MOSBIO. Or otherwise named with his officially registrated and used surname “de Borbón de Parma”, this according to WP:NCP. Surnames (at Wikipedia) are normally not Anglicized. The name of the page is now totally incorrect and a violation of Wikipedia guidelines. I tried to improve the name per WP:BOLD; at least a name that was better than the now currently used but incorrect name; unfortunately this was rejected. So some Wikipedians prefer the most incorrect name above an improved (maybe not perfect) name. This is a clear violation of the guidelines.Diodecimus (talk) 10:15, 4 August 2010 (UTC)
    This page is currently subject to a WP:Requested move, and as such you should not have moved it while the requested move is in progress. The whole point of the WP:RM is to try to reach a consensus over the best article title to use. You say it is an incorrect name, but if read this section you will see that others disagree with you, and while others who agree with you do not necessarily agree that your preferred article title is the best one. If as you say it is an incorrect name, do you have any reliable English language sources to back up you assertion for what is the correct name? -- PBS (talk) 10:53, 4 August 2010 (UTC)
    Whatever other merits "Prince de Bourbon-Parma" may have, it isn't English; using French for an Italian princeling and pretender to the throne of Spain seems odd. Keep at Carlos Hugo of Bourbon-Parma or make it Prince Carlos Hugo of Bourbon-Parma for consistency, pointless though the usage is. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 00:52, 5 August 2010 (UTC)
    Would the BBC be conversant on the correct usage of royalty and pretenders titles? [2] It refers to him as Prince Carlos Hugo of Bourbon Parma.
    I didn't say it was incorrect; I said it was pointless. Just as we call knights Arthur Conan Doyle, not Sir ACD, we should call modern princes, like medieval ones, by name and House (or title or epithet): George of Clarence, William, Duke of Cumberland, Charles of Orleans. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 02:27, 5 August 2010 (UTC)
    I wasn't trying to imply anything. Simply asking if the BBC could be considered a viable source, based on whether they were correct in how they title individuals. --Kansas Bear (talk) 04:53, 5 August 2010 (UTC)
    They are a reasonable sample of educated English usage, which is our principal desideratum here. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 17:54, 5 August 2010 (UTC)
    According to which guideline it is determinded to name this page Carlo Hugo of Bourbon-Parma? What does "of Bourbon-Parma" means? His surname? Diodecimus (talk) 07:17, 5 August 2010 (UTC)
    His House: the Parma branch of the Bourbons. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 17:50, 5 August 2010 (UTC)
    PMA higher up this section I presented you search for [Prince] Carlos Hugo of Bourbon-Parma was the best name to use, other editors countered that most (all?) of those references were talking about him before he became head of his house in the 1970s (much like the Prince of Wales today) and therefore Carlos Hugo, Duke of Parma should be his title now. I would be interested to hear you opinion on that argument. -- PBS (talk) 04:03, 6 August 2010 (UTC)
    I stand by my position above. In cases where a man succeeds to a title and is not generally known by it, we use the name he is known by. For example, Frederick North, Lord North succeeded to his father's Earldom of Guilford two years before his death; similarly, Anne Isabella Byron, Lady Byron because Baroness Wentworth in her own right four years before hers. In both cases, the work for which they are notable took place long before. So here; if the subject were known as the Duke of Parma, some English source would call him that. (Even the Carlist website, in Spanish, linked in the next section, calls him His Royal Highness, Don Carlos Hugo, not the Duke of Parma.) Septentrionalis PMAnderson 17:12, 6 August 2010 (UTC)
    Yet the genealogy calls him Duke of Parma on the very same site. Seven Letters 18:14, 6 August 2010 (UTC)
    As I noted in this discussion one month ago, "just as Wikipedia no longer refers to the article on Daniel Westling by that name although it was overwhelmingly used in the media until last month, our guidelines indicate that we don't retain outdated titles for royalty once they obtain a new title (e.g. Albert II, Prince of Monaco, Prince Friso of Orange-Nassau, Alexandra, Countess of Frederiksborg, etc), regardless of how long it takes "reliable sources" to catch up to the change. Besides WP doesn't just count google hits to name BLP's when we have applicable conventions like NC(RN) (and Jimbo Wales made a rare point of visiting NC(RN) recently arguing in favor of use of official title rather than counting google hits). Point #1 under NC(RN) is applicable." FactStraight (talk) 21:58, 6 August 2010 (UTC)
    Albert is now generally known as Prince of Monaco. True; to what extent this is due to consensus that there is a Principality of Monaco may be speculation. And by the same token, there is no difficulty finding an English source that calls him Prince of Monaco; let's see some for the subject here. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 23:01, 6 August 2010 (UTC)
    I have a question: to my knowledge kings and emperors are only recognized as such, after the formal coronation and anointing. Only after this proces they are king or emperor, and also Fount of honour. The coronation and anointing gave/give them, according to believe and tradition, their god given right. But what I know, sovereign princes, dukes, counts, etc. do/did not get a coronation. For example, The Prince of Orange in the 17th century, or The Prince of Monaco today, received immediately the title after the dead of their predecessor. They had no coronation, only an investiture ceremony marking the investment as monarch, which was not required for receiving the title. Was this also the case for the sovereign Dukes of Parma? In contrast what is described in the text I do not find sources that the current duke is claiming the throne of Parma, he is only using the title of Duke of Parma. The title and throne are two separate issues; this is not uncommon as seen in history. Maybe this is the case why pretenders of (former) kingdoms are not named "King", but titular dukes of former duchies are still named with their title "Duke".Diodecimus (talk) 15:55, 7 August 2010 (UTC)
    Precisely. FactStraight (talk) 19:09, 7 August 2010 (UTC)
    By the way, deposed kings or current heads of at the time of the Congress of Vienna in 1815 ruling families are still recognized as Fons honorum, this according to international traditions and law. So a head of a former royal German family is still authorized to create a nobility title or knighting someone. This is also the case with the current Duke of Parma and head of the House of Bourbon-Parma. See for more information of the author on royal genealogy and heraldry Guy Stair Sainty: A SUMMARY OF THE USE OF THE ROYAL PREROGATIVE, ITS USE BY THE HEIRS TO FORMER THRONES, AND BY REPUBLICAN OR REVOLUTIONARY REGIMES Diodecimus (talk) 15:55, 7 August 2010 (UTC)
    Not true in European law or tradition. Some emperors and kings never had coronations (German Empire, Bavaria, Greece), some abandoned them centuries ago (Portugal, Spain), and most in Europe stopped having them before the 20th century. But the fons honorum prerogative could be exercised from the moment of a king's accession to the throne. Rulers below the rank of king, such as the Dukes of Parma, almost never had coronations. The Congress of Vienna did not recognize the right of mediatized sovereigns to confer titles or arms, and only a few of the prince-electors could legally do so under the Holy Roman Empire. Sainty's theory about deposed monarchs retaining the right to confer titles is outside the mainstream of monarchical theory -- neither the Almanach de Gotha nor any other noble registry or national gazette acknowledges such titles, although the Portuguese nobility's Conselho de Nobreza (but not the republic or its laws) recognizes the Duke of Braganza's prerogative to regulate titles. Otherwise, ex-sovereigns and heads of deposed dynasties are traditionally and journalistically only recognized as hons fonorum for members of their own agnatic families FactStraight (talk) 19:09, 7 August 2010 (UTC)
    I agree that Sainty's argument probably does not reflect consensus. That being said, this seems like a tangent from the discussion here. We are interested in the title of duke of Parma itself, not titles created by dukes of Parma. That title was, in fact, created by the Pope, who is still a recognized sovereign. john k (talk) 15:50, 12 August 2010 (UTC)

Okay, let’s continue the discussion. The following Wikipedia guidelines are applicable, namely WP:NCP (Naming conventions of people), WP:MOSBIO (Manual of style for biographies) and WP:NCNT (Naming conventions for royalty and nobility). You all agree with that? So let’s put the options on a row, with the guidelines in mind:

  • A) Carlos Hugo of Bourbon-Parma - This option is nonsense, and not in line with the guidelines. Not even the "X of Y" format for historical figures (WP:NCP, section 2.5) or for monarchs (WP:NCNT, section 1) is applicable here. A big no-no here.
  • B) Carlos Hugo de Borbón (de) Parma - This option is technically correct, and WP:NCP is applicable here: <First name> <Last name>. His first name is "Carlos Hugo" and his last name "de Borbón de Parma" (he is a Spanish subject). Surnames are understandable not translated into English. Although this option is correct, WP:NCNT (section 4.4) advises against the use of this possibility: 4. Do not use surnames in article titles for such persons.
  • C) Prince Carlos Hugo of Bourbon-Parma - This option is in line with the common practise on Wikipedia and the common international traditions. Members of former and deposed royal houses are named with their princely title. This is in line with WP:NCNT.
  • D) Carlos Hugo, Duke of Parma - After 1977, that's how he primarily is named in capacity as Head of the House of Bourbon-Parma. Indeed, successors of deposed kings or emperors are not named king or emperor anymore, but is this also the case on the level of Duke or lower? To my knowledge they are still named Duke, albeit the Duchy does not exist anymore; see please the previous rationales for that.

So…, in my opinion we have to choose between option C or D. Diodecimus (talk) 09:13, 11 August 2010 (UTC)

B is not English; I see no evidence for English use of D at all. After 1977, that's how he primarily is named in capacity as Head of the House of Bourbon-Parma has been claimed several times but there has been no evidence for this either; in any case, we usually expect independent sourcing. I do not assert general comparibility here, but David Bawden is called Pope Michael I as head of his schism; we don't. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 13:51, 12 August 2010 (UTC)
  • Alright, I have gone and done some actual research based on actual sources not on the internet (astonishing, I know.) Volume III, part 1 of the Europäische Stammtafeln (published 1984) has, as Table 83, "Die Prinzen von Bourbon von Parma". Here, it shows Robert I's sons Enrico, Giuseppe, Elias, and Xaver as "Herzog von Parma". It uses the same term for Elias's son Robert and for Xaver's son Charles-Hugues, the last, of course, being the subject of this article. The Europäische Stammtafeln is, as I understand it, one of the premier genealogical resources on European royal families, and as such should be taken seriously as a source. Being written in German, it obviously doesn't show common usage in English, but it does show that it's not incorrect to refer to post-1907 heads of the house of Bourbon-Parma as "duke of Parma," an that they are referred to as such. Another source I've found is the second volume of Burke's Royal Families of the World (my library doesn't have the first volume, which would be the one to deal directly with the house of Bourbon-Parma). The second volume, which mostly deals with non-European royalty, has an addendum updating and correcting the first volume. Again, it refers to both Elias and Xavier as "Duke of Parma," and notes that Xavier was succeded by his son, Carlos Hugo, although it does not directly refer to Carlos Hugo as Duke. Again, none of this really demonstrates what common usage is, but it does demonstrate that calling him "Duke of Parma" is not something made up by wikipedia, but is done by reliable reference works on European royalty. ETA: Neither of these sources calls pretenders to other thrones by royal names. john k (talk) 16:14, 12 August 2010 (UTC)
  • That's because "Duke" (Herzog) and "Prince" (Fürst) are usually treated as acceptable titles of pretence even for heirs of dynasties that reigned under those titles. Here again are cites given upthread: "Burke's (1980, p.312) calls him the 'Duke of Parma', as does Daniel Willis's 'Descendants of King George I of Great Britain' (2002, p.269), while 'Royalty, Peerage and Nobility of the World' (1977, p.48) accords the ducal title to his father and the marquis de Ruvigny's 'Titled Nobility of Europe' (1914, p.42) attributes it to his great-uncle Henry, Duke of Parma, yet all 3 princes inherited the title long after Italy's 1860 annexation of the duchy." FactStraight (talk) 19:21, 12 August 2010 (UTC)
Le Petit Gotha, Alamanch de Gotha (1998/182 ed), Genealogisches Handbuch des Adels Fürstliche Häuser XV all give him the ducal title. The article needs to be moved from its present form at any rate, ideally to option D. - dwc lr (talk) 23:45, 12 August 2010 (UTC)
Do you have anything that isn't a genealogy? If not, notability comes into play; Wikipedia is not a studbook. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 23:55, 12 August 2010 (UTC)
No I personally don’t have access to anything else that mentions him but of course I don’t a vast collection. There are news articles calling him Duke of Parma that I found.[3][4][5][6]. Mine and others sources are mainly just genealogies but they do show that he is given the ducal title. But he is most defiantly notable though, mainly for his Carlist pretensions in the 1970’s and his marriage which caused a great stir in the Netherlands. - dwc lr (talk) 00:21, 13 August 2010 (UTC)
None of those articles are in English - and at least one appears to be an unmodified press release. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 16:49, 13 August 2010 (UTC)
Of course, most reliable sources on deposed royal families are going to be genealogical; excluding them entirely from consideration makes little sense. IMost non-genealogical sources are going to be discussing him pre-1977, which doesn't help much. If he really is dying, that will actually be most useful, since it'll mean there will be obituaries. Given that this is a fairly clear issue of direct translation, I think non-English sources should be given some weight, since there are so few decent English language sources. john k (talk) 17:06, 13 August 2010 (UTC)

That Obituary thought gave me the idea to look at obituaries in newspapers for Carlos Hugo's father. So, results:

  • New York Times, May 8, 1977, "Father of Claimant to Spanish Throne dies in Switzerland." Use: "Prince Xavier of Borbón-Parma";
  • Washington Post, May 8, 1977, "Prince Xavier, Pretender to Spanish Throne, dies." Use: "Prince Xavier of Borbon-Parma." It does say, however, that Carlos Hugo succeeded his father as Duke of Parma. So we have a reliable, non-genealogical source saying Carlos Hugo is Duke of Parma, but not calling his father that. Looking up Carlos Hugo on google more broadly, "Prince Carlos Hugo of Bourbon-Parma" seems the most common way to refer to him. He is sometimes called "Duke of Parma," but the other formulation is more common in non-genealogical sources. I don't think it's wrong or unheard of to refer to him as "duke of Parma," but it does seem to be the less common usage. I'd support a move to Prince Carlos Hugo of Bourbon-Parma (and of his father to Prince Xavier of Bourbon-Parma. I'm less certain about the titular dukes who were descended from Roberto I's first marriage; Roberto I's elder two sons were severely mentally retarded, and rarely written about; the younger, Giuseppe died in 1950. The third son, Elias, who was not mentally disabled, then succeeded, but he'd been regent since 1907; whatever he was called after 1950, his many decades ruling as "Prince Elias of Bourbon-Parma" may have trumped the nine years when he was actually the titular duke. I can barely find anything on Elias's son Roberto II, either, whose titular reign lasted from 1959 to 1974. Elias, Xavier, and Carlos Hugo get written about at least intermittently in non-genealogical sources; the others don't really seem to. john k (talk) 17:06, 13 August 2010 (UTC)
We're getting distracted. This move request (launched July 1st anonymously) is between restoring him to Carlos Hugo, Duke of Parma or leaving him at Carlos Hugo of Bourbon-Parma. Most nobles who have Wiki articles would have to be deleted if genealogical reference works like Burke's Peerage -- which also tend to report the most accurate titulature -- weren't deemed reputable sources. Nor is a move request about establishing Carlos Hugo's "notability". Unless it's believed that the reputable sources which recognize Carlos Hugo as "Duke of Parma" would also recognize Franz, Duke of Bavaria as "King of England", it's clear that these sources are acknowledging his right to the title rather than the realm of Parma. Willis's "Descendants of King George I", published in English in 2002, unequivocably refers to him as "Duke of Parma", and other mentioned references refer to him or his never-having-reigned dynastic predecessors similarly in English and other languages. Both he and his father inherited the ducal title decades after their greatest notability, yet Wikipedia updates royalty's titles when they change, despite the lag time for popularly-published sources doing so (e.g. Daniel Westling). The "Duke of Parma" move complies with NCROY's applicable guideline (point #3), but not with (deprecated) google hits. Most of those who've posted in this thread since the move was belatedly noticed at NCROY have now come round to support use of his ducal title. Only if that fails should he should be moved to "Carlos Hugo, Prince of Bourbon-Parma", which would at least distinguish him from the numerous cadets of his family as we do with Georg Friedrich, Prince of Prussia. 20:24, 13 August 2010 (UTC)
So, I can't say that I'd prefer "Prince Carlos Hugo of Bourbon-Parma" over the other two options? I also strongly strongly dislike the phony nonsense of distinguishing him from cadets with a made up title. He is absolutely never called "The Prince of Bourbon-Parma." He is either called Prince Carlos Hugo of Bourbon-Parma or the Duke of Parma. I also don't see why distinguishing him from cadets should be an important aspect of wikipedia naming policy. I'd prefer the old title over this one, but Xavier's obituaries in the two major U.S. papers of record strongly suggests that using "duke of Parma" is not most common usage. john k (talk) 21:02, 13 August 2010 (UTC)
I didn't intend to suggest that "Prince Carlos Hugo of Bourbon-Parma" shouldn't be considered a plausible compromise -- should one become necessary, but to emphasize that with most input now tending toward the ducal option such a compromise seems both premature and, frankly, unrequited. Every time support for the ducal option is expressed here, some objection ("no sources for this usage", "no sources in English for this usage", "no non-genealogical sources in English", "no independent sources in English", "no notability") is resurrected by a single dissenter which drives us to the library (3 such trips seem to have been undertaken so far) and re-focuses us on Google-hits as though evidence produced in support of "Duke of Parma" remains insufficient by comparison in the face of: compliance with authoritative texts on titulature (Europäische Stammtafeln, Genealogisches Handbuch des Adels Fürstliche Häuser XV, Le Petit Gotha, etc); evidence that he is widely regarded as entitled to use the ducal title by reputable sources (Burke, New York Times' article of May 8, 1977, "Royalty, Peerage and Nobility of the World" (1977), etc); sundry cites of actual usage in articles, books and the Bourbon-Parma official website; observable English usage by those who actually do read/talk about this man, both in this discussion (read 4 such mentions upthread, affirming that Carlos Hugo is indeed habitually referred to as "Duke of Parma" -- including you and me) and e.g., in recent non-Wiki discussions Franco-Iberian Royals Message Board and The Royal; and that the ducal usage complies with the applicable guideline NCROY Point #3. All of this is repeatedly dismissed, so all I'm saying is: enough evidence has been adduced, it's time to accept that "consensus" for the ducal usage may not mean "unanimity", and may not require the compromise you've suggested either. As for "The Prince of Bourbon-Parma", I didn't use that locution, but you're right "Firstname, Prince of X" suggests it. It's not my preference for this article but a reluctant compromise proposal, proffered because I'm not the only participant in this discussion who has said that if a compromise is to be used, it should differentiate the dynastic head from cadets to reflect both Carlos Hugo's substantive status as a head of house and real usage: Carlos Hugo uses a title different from the one used by the many cadets of his dynasty, yet since objections to that title persist, "Carlos Hugo, Prince of Bourbon-Parma" that has Wikipedia precedent: Maria Vladimirovna, Grand Duchess of Russia. FactStraight (talk) 02:05, 14 August 2010 (UTC)
If Duke of Parma is totally out of the question (which would be a mistake in my view) then I agree that it should be “Carlos Hugo, Prince of Bourbon-Parma” to be consistent with other heads of royal houses, and this is how they are listed in genealogies from what I’ve seen. - dwc lr (talk) 02:35, 14 August 2010 (UTC)
Carlos Hugo is not listed in genealogies as "Carlos Hugo, Prince of Bourbon-Parma." He is always referred to as either "Carlos Hugo, Duke of Parma" or "Prince Carlos Hugo of Bourbon-Parma". We shouldn't make up a title that isn't used by any sources. I think "Maria Vladimirovna, Grand Duchess of Russia" and "Georg Friedrich, Prince of Prussia" are terrible titles, too, but at least these are actually used in genealogical sources. john k (talk) 02:56, 14 August 2010 (UTC)
In post 1977 genealogies he is always listed with the title “Duke of Parma”, Wikipedia should surely reflect this. - dwc lr (talk) 03:19, 14 August 2010 (UTC)
Ugh, naming the site "Carlos Hugo, Prince of Bourbon-Parma" - let's give this option the label 'E' - is awful; I'm not in favour of that. This tradition is customary in Germany where the difference between a holder of a substantive title and a courtesy title in any given family of the German nobility may not be easily determined as some families use(d) the same titles for all members. I know that they entitle(d) sometimes the head of a comital family as "The Count of Y" or "X, Count of Y", while all other members of his family are titled "Count(ess) X of Y". Not all families use(d) this option, especially when the head and junior members has different titles. In the English language countries the option "X, Prince of Y" is instead used for holders of substantive titles. It emphasises that the title is only held by that person and not by other family members. To my knowledge "Prince of Bourbon-Parma" is not a substantive title and to use this as such would not be in line with historical tradition. Furthermore, it has some strange connotation to me: it sounds like he would be the 'Fürst of Bourbon-Parma'. Although, there was in history a guy named Alexander Farnese who held the title Prince of Parma as a substantive one, but that's not the case here now. Diodecimus (talk) 07:33, 14 August 2010 (UTC)
Willis is, at last, a real, current and English source - and I will consult it.
But it is not true that most articles on peers would be deleted without genealogical sources; and those which have no other claim to notability should probably be deleted. We have articles on peers for the same reason we have articles on MPs: they're members of a national legislature, and their doings have at least a minor historical interest. (How this applies to non-representative peers is another question; some are celebrities, and some we really don't have articles on - like most of the Lords of Dunsany.) Septentrionalis PMAnderson 23:51, 13 August 2010 (UTC)
Ok I’m a bit confused now as to why people are opposed to using the title “Duke of Parma”. Are people opposing “Duke of Parma” because they think that’s not the common way he is referred to, or is it because of the issue of “pretenders” using the title that they would rule under and what the limit is Duke or Grand Duke etc?
  • With the common way of how people are referred, in my opinion it’s going to be incredibly difficult to nail down a common way to refer to royal persons in general. Someone like Alexander, Crown Prince of Yugoslavia for example is also referred to as “Crown Prince Alexander of Serbia”, “Crown Prince Alexander Karađorđević” and so on, what if Crown Prince Alexander Karađorđević is more common is Edward VIII of the United Kingdom the most common way to refer to him. Are we supposed to change the article names or should we use the Naming conventions that are in place. FactStraight has also mentioned Daniel Westling and situations like that where there is a change in how someone is referred, are we supposed to wait a few months to change the article name or should we be current and up to date and correct with formal titles used by the people (Carlos Hugo uses the title Duke of Parma) regardless of if they could be called something else from time to time.
  • And then there is the issue of the limit of “pretender’s” titles, obviously with Prince you can’t really use anything lower. I know some of the Saxe-Meiningen heads have used the title Duke although that is not recognised in their article names at present. And what about all the other non reigning dukes of Parma? Are their article names going to left or changed, what if they are best known for the ducal title, as is most likely the case for the two mentally retarded dukes Henry and Joseph as I would imagine very little is written about them other than genealogical listings. I believe we need consistency which is surely the whole point of naming conventions, either use the substantive title (Duke of Parma) like the NC's say in all, or none. - dwc lr (talk) 02:29, 14 August 2010 (UTC)
Indeed, there are lots of problems here. I was trying to look at usage for the other previous non-reigning dukes. I could find almost no non-genealogical sources on Enrico and Giuseppe, and not much more on Roberto II. Elias has a fair bit, but mostly from when he was regent and correctly known as "Prince Elias of Bourbon-Parma." Same thing with Xavier, who was not head of the house until three years before his death. Both are more commonly referred to as Prince X of Bourbon-Parma than as X, Duke of Parma, but I'm not sure what conclusion should be drawn from that. I'd generally say that "Prince X of Bourbon-Parma" for Elias, Xavier, and Carlos Hugo seems fine, as that is the most common usage. I'd have a lot of trouble doing the same for the other three, though. john k (talk) 02:56, 14 August 2010 (UTC)
Amazing how much research has gone into this move change, anonymously initiated six weeks ago! Clearly, there's less consensus here for either "Prince Carlos Hugo of Bourbon-Parma" or "Carlos Hugo, Prince of Bourbon-Parma", than there is for "Carlos Hugo, Duke of Parma" -- which is where this article was until July 12th, and where most of us those who've expressed themselves in this discussion are comfortable seeing it restored. FactStraight (talk) 03:22, 14 August 2010 (UTC)
I can’t understand the logic denying it to some but using it for others, using the supposed common way of how someone is referred poses all sorts of problems and to an extent renders WP:NCNT irrelevant. Surely it is best to use the formal (substantive) title of someone this is an encyclopaedia after all and it’s not like there is a shortage of sources that call this man Duke of Parma. In my opinion the only common issue to sort out in cases like this is the name; “Carlos Hugo” or “Charles Hughes” as an example, not that I’m proposing changing anything there, titles shouldn’t really come into it the proper formal title (that are given in genealogies for instance) should be used. - dwc lr (talk) 03:19, 14 August 2010 (UTC)
There is no common logic; although the phrasing of point 8 of WP:NCROY affirms that we do not use ordinals for pretenders, and cites two examples where we do not use the titles to which they pretend, I know of no discussion of these cases collectively. If you think the reasoning here would apply to other articles, propose moves there. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 13:57, 14 August 2010 (UTC)
Typically, pretenders to princely and ducal titles actually use the titles to which they pretend, even if they never reigned. Pretenders to grand ducal, royal, and imperial titles do not. I assume this is because being a duke or a prince doesn't necessarily imply that you are actually a reigning monarch. john k (talk) 15:47, 14 August 2010 (UTC)
And so we're back to square 1 <sigh>. On July 3rd, I posted in this thread, "it's widely accepted, and reflected in Wikipedia, that ducal (e.g. (Peter, Duke of Schleswig-Holstein) and princely (e.g. Armin, Prince of Lippe and Heinrich IV, Prince Reuss of Köstritz) pretenders may use (although not all do) the title they would hold if reigning for the reason that these titles, in themselves, do not suggest to the public that the titleholder is currently enthroned. That logic is key, is consistent with NPOV, reflects actual usage, and should not be summarily undone here without wider discussion". Now, let's give Carlos Hugo back his dukedom (not his duchy). FactStraight (talk) 16:44, 14 August 2010 (UTC)
This is precisely the reason why I stopped editing Wikipedia a half year ago (after being a member for 4 year under an other name. But now I’m back). The change to the now current name was easily made, but without firm grounds and was incorrect. Now it costs almost 1,5 month (!) of discussion with overwhelming proof why it should go back to the original name! Even bureaucracy is faster! Tiresome :-( Diodecimus (talk) 17:05, 14 August 2010 (UTC)
This is all very annoying. There was clearly no consensus for a move, especially since most of the "move" voters were random anons. I tend to think it should go back to Carlos Hugo, Duke of Parma until it can be determined that there is a consensus to move anywhere else. (And if it is to be moved anywhere else, it should be to Prince Carlos Hugo of Bourbon-Parma, not the current title.) But it's hard to say that there's much consensus for him to be anywhere. john k (talk) 17:38, 14 August 2010 (UTC)
We should just move this and his fathers articles back and let this end, like you say the opposes are generally anon IP’s and people whose argument is the Italian government does not legally recognise the title which is irrelevant. - dwc lr (talk) 22:50, 14 August 2010 (UTC)
I concur that this page should never have been moved to "Carlos Hugo of Bourbon-Parma". There was certainly no consensus for this move. (talk) 12:05, 18 August 2010 (UTC)

Can we close this discussion and move the article back to its original name “Carlos Hugo, Duke of Parma” which I gather was its name for many years, this will just sit in the WP:RM backlog for ever and ever otherwise. - dwc lr (talk) 03:25, 21 August 2010 (UTC)

the Guardian and the BBC reported in 2000 that "Prince Carlos Hugo of Bourbon-Parma"."Prince Carlos Hugo of Bourbon Parma" attended the Service for the 100th birthday of the Queen Mother. It suggests that the title used to describe him in Britain was Prince not Duke (The "Foreign Royals" titles given for both reports are almost identical the only substantive differences is that the Guardian wrote "King Michael of Romania" while the BBC wrote "Ex-King Michael ...of Romania" and the ordering of the Foreign Royals in the respective lists was different). -- PBS (talk) 06:37, 21 August 2010 (UTC)
Perhaps this could be moved to “Prince Carlos Hugo, Duke of Parma”. - dwc lr (talk) 17:05, 21 August 2010 (UTC)
I read that somebody said that "wikipedia must not regard to the opinions of the Italian government". I think this is a very unilateral opinion. If wikipedia must not reflect the opinions of the Italian government (a respectable idea) which does not recognize the title of duke, I don't understand why wikipedia must be submitted to the opinions of the Dutch government which recognizes that title (and, if I understood, it is the sole, or one of the few, State in the world to do it). If the Emperor of Japan will appoint somebody as Duke of New York City, wikipedia would create a list of Dukes of New York City? I think that the concept of NPOV is not clear to somebody.-- (talk) 12:19, 21 August 2010 (UTC)
If you are referring to my comment, please don't misquote me. That's not what I said. I said that we don't need to ignore everything just because the Italian government does not recognise the title. Simply put: if one government grants a title to a person and uses a title to refer to a person, it is logical for Wikipedia to consider the title valid. It's not POV. The Eastern Orthodox Church does not consider Joan of Arc a saint; does that make it wrong to call her "Saint Joan of Arc"? If the Emperor of Japan creates the title Duke of New York, why wouldn't Wikipedia have an article about that title and its holders? As I've said earlier, we do have an article about the Baroness Ryder of Warsaw. The King of England created the title Duke of Beaufort, which refers to a place in France, yet Wikipedia has a an article about the title and articles about the holders of the title. So, why not an article about the Duke of New York, should such a title ever be created? The Spy Who Came in from the Cold (talk) 12:45, 21 August 2010 (UTC)
Earl of Ypres, too. john k (talk) 13:31, 21 August 2010 (UTC)
In my opinion, The-Spy, there's a basic difference. The Ortodox Church does not say "Joan of Arc is not a saint", simply it never considered the problem if Joan is saint or not. It is neutral about this point.
Here we are in a different situation. Here we have a source (the Italian Constitution) which says that our man is not a duke. More, considering that (according to our page) our man is a French citizen, we have another source (the French Constitution) which has legal effects on our man, which says that there are no dukes or lords between French citizens. So, while about Saint Joan we have affermative sources (the Catholic Church) and neutral sources (the Ortodox Church), here we have opposite sources (affermative and negative). Considering that wikipedia is not Dutchpedia, I don't see reasons to submit wikipedia to the Dutch POV. -- (talk) 12:42, 22 August 2010 (UTC)
The French government explicitly allows people to use noble titles, although it doesn't regulate them. And I don't see how the Italian government is particularly relevant. In the first place, it's a papal title; in the second place, whatever the government may say, Italian titles are still commonly used. Republican governments abolish titles in order to assert the equality of citizens. But holders of those titles generally continue to use them, no matter what the government says, and governments generally don't do anything to prevent this. We should refer to people based on how they are called, not what official governments say. In your view, do we have to call King Constantine of Greece Constantine Glücksberg? john k (talk) 12:54, 22 August 2010 (UTC)
Furthermore, we have to look to the international convention. According to international convention and tradition, members of former royal house are still allowed to use their princely, ducal or lower titles on de facto basis, although in the country it self there is no de jure basis for it anymore. This allowance goes quite far up to the highest official levels. So, internationally there is still recognition for that. Diodecimus (talk) 13:28, 22 August 2010 (UTC)
Last two edits are uncorrect. French and Italian laws about this point are the same. Both two States abolished noble titles, so that these titles are nowadays without any legal effects. Yes, both two States allows the use of ancient nobles titles, but only as "part of surnames", so that this titles must result on the registry of births taken by the municipal authorities and, consequently, on the identity cards of our man. There are sources or evidences that the name of our man, as it can be seen on his identity card, was "Carlos Hugo Duke de Parme"? If not, this man had no rights to use the title of duke under French law.
About international law, I never found any treaty or international convention which recognizes noble titles of citizens of republican states. The UN database gives no results about this research.-- (talk) 19:49, 23 August 2010 (UTC)
slightly off topic but, Indian Republic's Constitution recognised some Princes as rulers from 1949-1971. The South African constitution recognises the King of the Zulus as a traditional leader. A number of other commonwealth countries have constitutions that recognise traditional leaders, see for example House of Chiefs (Fiji). -- PBS (talk) 03:38, 24 August 2010 (UTC)
You are wrong about France. François Velde has a good discussion of this: the nobility was abolished in France during the Revolution, but titles have not been abolished, and are in fact actually regulated by the republican government. Best brief summary: "The President has ceased to confer or confirm titles, but the French state still verifies them, civil courts can protect them, criminal courts can prosecute their abuse." That hardly seems like a situation where titles have been abolished. I'm not sure what this really has to do with anything, though. We should call people by the titles they are known by, regardless of what the government says; just because the French Republic decided that Louis XVI was "really" named Louis Capet doesn't mean we are obligated to follow them in that. john k (talk) 02:10, 24 August 2010 (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. No further edits should be made to this section.

The Duke of Parma is dying dead[edit]

Yet the article mentions nothing of this health. See here the site for the House of Parma.[7] Seven Letters 18:30, 5 August 2010 (UTC)

I have added it the article. Feel free to format as I have trouble probably incorporating references sometimes. Seven Letters 18:34, 5 August 2010 (UTC)
The duke has died today at the age of 80, see His son Prince Carlos will now be the titular Duke of Parma and Head of the House of Bourbon-Parma. Diodecimus (talk) 09:54, 18 August 2010 (UTC)
We should be on the lookout for obituaries, in terms of the article title debate. None of the stuff I can find on google news is in English. john k (talk) 14:03, 18 August 2010 (UTC)
Maybe not in English, but do any give the title? I think English usage of name forms, etc, can be determined but we need to look at it all for titles (although he did use the title Duke of Parma as indicated on his website). Seven Letters 14:07, 18 August 2010 (UTC)
Here an official message of the Netherlands Government Information Service of the Dutch Royal House itself: [8]. It’s unfortunately in Dutch, but it is a very formal message from the highest source in the Netherlands. Translated into English:

"The Dutch Government announces on behalf of Her Majesty the Queen and the family of Bourbon-Parma , with great regret that His Royal Highness Prince Carlos Hugo de Bourbon-Parma, Duke of Parma and Piacenza has deceased on August 18, 2010 at 08.00 hours in Barcelona, Spain to the effects of cancer."

Diodecimus (talk) 14:51, 18 August 2010 (UTC)
That’s a good find. As I said in the move discussion my opinion is as an encyclopaedia we should use the formal title Duke of Parma. The only English article I’ve found thus far uses Duke of Parma.[] - dwc lr (talk) 15:02, 18 August 2010 (UTC)
So it does. Most of the non-English sources I've seen seem to basically use some form of "Prince Carlos Hugo of Bourbon-Parma." john k (talk) 20:20, 18 August 2010 (UTC)
Dutch News has published an article Prince Carlos Hugo lies in state the call him "Carlos Hugo de Bourbon de Parme". this source (which I don't think it reliable) suggests "Bourbon-Parma had the title of a Dutch prince because of his marriage to Irene, sister to Dutch Queen Beatrix". Not sure that is right because according to the Dutch Royal website Princess Irene is not a member of the Royal House, but a member of the Dutch Royal Family,[9] According to contemporary Time magazine report to marry Carlos Hugo, Irene had to be officially dead to the Dutch Royal House,[10] so perhaps "Prince" is a courtesy title in the Netherlands ... . -- PBS (talk) 11:02, 19 August 2010 (UTC)
They mistook the incorporation of his children into the Dutch nobility as Royal Highnesses and princes of Bourbon of Parma as extending to him. It is a social courtesy title only in the Netherlands for the late duke. Seven Letters 15:04, 19 August 2010 (UTC)
that source is definitely wrong. "Prince of Bourbon-Parma" is a long-standing title of the members of the family. They are princes and royal highnesses by members of their status as agnatic descendants of kings of Spain, I believe, as well as being in line for the now defunct throne of the Two Sicilies. john k (talk) 17:40, 19 August 2010 (UTC)

Throne versus Title[edit]

To my knowledge he never claimed the Throne of Parma, I could not find sources of that… Is there some Parmesan movement to restore the defunct Throne of Parma? He only claimed to be the Head of the House of Bourbon-Parma. And what he indeed did was claiming the Throne of Spain with the Carlist movement. However, they still have/use the Parmesan titles, which is not the same as the throne. It was quite common during the time of the Holy Roman Empire that when a duke or prince lost the throne or sold his territory, he continued the use of the title. The title and throne are two separate issues. This 'de facto' tradition is still continued, however there is only no 'de jure' basis left for it anymore in Italy. I have a question: could the letters patent of creation of the title still be in existance and be in possession of the Bourbon-Parma’s? Who was by the way the fons honorum that created the title Duke of Parma in first instance?

Additionally, it occurs to me that Heads of former reigning royal houses use their titles as a some sort of "courtesy title"? Or am I wrong? Diodecimus (talk) 08:53, 21 August 2010 (UTC)

The fons honorum, as I understand it, was the Pope. The first duke of Parma was Paul III's illegitimate son. john k (talk) 13:27, 21 August 2010 (UTC)

Name again[edit]

It doesn't seem clear that there's a consensus to move back to Carlos Hugo, Duke of Parma (although it's worth noting that the article on his son is now at Carlos, Duke of Parma). But would anybody really object if we moved to Prince Carlos Hugo of Bourbon-Parma? That would at least be in line with other members of the family. john k (talk) 15:46, 24 August 2010 (UTC)

I wouldn't opppose that, though I wouldn't oppose moving back to Carlos Hugo, Duke of Parma either. The Spy Who Came in from the Cold (talk) 15:49, 24 August 2010 (UTC)
I'd prefer Prince Carlos Hugo, Duke of Parma so as to include princely title which some want; and the ducal title which others want. This is also supported by naming conventions (WP:NCNT#Royals with a substantive title). If not I'd rather see Carlos Hugo, Prince of Bourbon-Parma over Prince Carlos Hugo of Bourbon-Parma. - dwc lr (talk) 16:43, 24 August 2010 (UTC)
But would that be correct? Didn't he cease to be "prince of Bourbon-Parma" when he became "Duke of Parma"? The Spy Who Came in from the Cold (talk) 17:15, 24 August 2010 (UTC)
I believe he kept the princely title, the death notice on the official Bourbon-Parma site lists princely and ducal title. [11]. - dwc lr (talk) 17:20, 24 August 2010 (UTC)
Didn’t you all notice that the serious and official sources describe him with his princely title and his ducal title as well, thus Prince Carlos Hugo (of Bourbon-Parma), Duke of Parma and Piacenza? Or is this an imagination of me? It's rather strange, since he was the Duke, why was he (himself) still using his princely title also? It makes more sense if you see the ducal title of today as a substantive title or courtesy title, what dwc lr said before. Royals with a substantive or courtesy title are also described with their princely title or their other title, or both together. Titular dukes are not the reigning dukes anymore; they are merely described with this title out of courtesy, so maybe it became a courtesy title? I know, it is not entirely the same, but the eldest sons of British peers are also described with their courtesy title, although there is no de jure basis for this, it is a merely a de facto custom, which is commonly practiced and accepted internationally (and at Wikipedia as well). Diodecimus (talk) 18:11, 24 August 2010 (UTC)

Well, I've been bold, since nobody seemed to particularly prefer "Carlos Hugo of Bourbon-Parma" over "Prince Carlos Hugo of Bourbon-Parma," or, in fact, much of anyone who particularly cared for "Carlos Hugo of Bourbon-Parma" at all. I don't intend for this to be a final move, but I didn't see much evidence that much of anyone preferred the previous title, so I thought the move would be okay. Obviously we should continue to discuss what the best title would be. john k (talk) 19:00, 24 August 2010 (UTC)

I do wish you would have been bold and moved it back to the original title. CH is being referred to as Duke of Parma (and Piacenza). Seven Letters 22:47, 24 August 2010 (UTC)
I agree it was sitting happily at the original title for many years without any bother. - dwc lr (talk) 01:36, 25 August 2010 (UTC)

Telegraph obituary [12] calls him "HRH Prince Carlos Hugo, Duke of Parma and Piacenza". Also gives ducal title to his father whose is currently at Prince Xavier of Bourbon-Parma but should be moved back as well in my opinion. - dwc lr (talk) 01:47, 25 August 2010 (UTC)

I'm afraid I must very strenuously object to this move, for several reasons. First, it repeats the problem which has prolonged this process inordinately, and inflamed it to the point of wheelwarring: On July 25th, one administrator addressed another, "...please revert your closing of this requested move as it seems to me that the move was premature to close it particularly as without the IP opinion there was no clear consensus, and the person who made the move was involved in the debate." So now we once again have a move made by someone who was involved in this debate, yet again prompting any who disagree to challenge the process. Second, July 25th was also the last time anyone expressly objected to inclusion of "Duke of Parma" for this man's bio -- that's a month ago, when he was still alive. Thirdly, on August 14th I summarized, "Clearly, there's less consensus here for either 'Prince Carlos Hugo of Bourbon-Parma' or 'Carlos Hugo, Prince of Bourbon-Parma', than there is for 'Carlos Hugo, Duke of Parma' -- which is where this article was until July 12th, and where most of us who've expressed themselves in this discussion are comfortable seeing it restored." I don't see in subsequent discussion that anything has changed on use of the ducal title. But I do see re-iterations of the clearly-stated view that if the article were to be moved, "Prince Carlos Hugo of Bourbon-Parma" is not our first preference. So why has it been moved to a title which evoked less support than the pending move, given that there's no rush to act without consensus? This really feels unfair. FactStraight (talk) 03:50, 25 August 2010 (UTC)
If people want to continue to discuss the location of the article, that's fine. I moved on the basis that Carlos Hugo of Bourbon-Parma has no discernible support. john k (talk) 04:37, 25 August 2010 (UTC)
I'll add that I'd be perfectly happy with moves to Carlos Hugo, Duke of Parma and Xavier, Duke of Parma, but in the interim, I see no reason to rest at a completely stupid title when there's a perfectly reasonable title available. Does anyone actually prefer Carlos Hugo of Bourbon-Parma to Prince Carlos Hugo of Bourbon-Parma, or are you just objecting because I didn't move to Carlos Hugo, Duke of Parma? john k (talk) 04:39, 25 August 2010 (UTC)
I am in favour of a move to "Carlos Hugo, Duke of Parma". That is in accordance with naming conventions and with common usage for this individual. Noel S McFerran (talk) 22:30, 25 August 2010 (UTC)
I also agree that the page should not be moved while the page name is still under discussion. I'm not fussed what the page name is providing reliable sources support it (and BTW I don't think that most of the websites alluded to higher up this section are reliable), but I also think John that you are digging a hole for your self here. If this page is at Prince Carlos Hugo of Bourbon-Parma, then why not incorporate Prince, King, Queen, at the front of all such pages ... ? -- PBS (talk) 22:41, 25 August 2010 (UTC)
I’m not sure how much more discussion will take as a lot has been said already; I see support for restoring the title Duke of Parma though. In the naming conventions only kings/queens/( excluding HRE and German)emperors do not have the title at the front name, or anywhere. The majority of princes/dukes have the title before the name, unless they were a ruler, or head of a princely house when it is given after the name. The old name (Carlos Hugo of Bourbon-Parma) for this article was never supported by naming conventions. I really think we should restore the ducal title to this, and his fathers articles now, and bring this mammoth discussion to a perfectly reasonable conclusion and all move on. - dwc lr (talk) 01:43, 26 August 2010 (UTC)
I'm not sure I understand what PBS is getting at. "Prince Carlos Hugo of Bourbon-Parma" is the title format followed for most members of this family. See, for example, Prince Sixtus of Bourbon-Parma and Prince Felix of Bourbon-Parma. If these gentlemen, who never headed the house, get the honorific, I don't see why Carlos Hugo should be at Carlos Hugo of Bourbon-Parma, without any title at all. "Prince X of Y" is, in fact, a very common way to title articles for people holding royal titles that are not unique to one "head of house." Carlos Hugo was head of house, but "Prince of Bourbon-Parma" was not a unique title that only he held, and was not, indeed, his title of pretense, so it would be inappropriate to use Carlos Hugo, Prince of Bourbon-Parma. I tend to slightly prefer Carlos Hugo, Duke of Parma to the current title, but I thought Prince Carlos Hugo of Bourbon-Parma was better than Carlos Hugo of Bourbon-Parma, and when I proposed the change there didn't seem to be anyone who particularly preferred the latter title, so I moved it. As I said, we should continue to discuss whether to move back to Carlos Hugo, Duke of Parma. The Telegraph obituary provides a pretty solid instance of English language usage of that form. Many other sources use the current title. I didn't move because I thought this should necessarily be the permanent title, but just on the basis that it was a better title than the one the article was then at, and seemed likely to not be particularly controversial, because it's basically the same (note that Carlos Hugo's father is currently at Prince Xavier of Bourbon-Parma, and nobody seems to care. I moved it there a couple weeks ago from Prince Xavier of Parma, which seemed ridiculous to me; PMA had moved the article some time before from the previous location, Xavier, Duke of Parma. It certainly makes no sense to have all these heads of the house of Parma at so many different titles; we ought to come up with a single standard and figure out what it is. john k (talk) 03:56, 26 August 2010 (UTC)
All heads of the House of Bourbon-Parma use the title Duke of Parma, all of the heads should be at “Name, Duke of Parma” which the majority are, with the exception of Carlos Hugo and his father, which should also be moved back as there was never a discussion to change from “Xavier, Duke of Parma” in the first place. - dwc lr (talk) 17:00, 26 August 2010 (UTC)
Look PBS, to say it bluntly: this page should never had been moved earlier to the "Carlos Hugo of Bourbon-Parma" in the first instance. There was certainly no consensus for that move and that was a clear violation of the Wikipedia guidelines. The fact that someone unilaterally changed the page name (under the false assumption that there was a consensus, which was clearly not), and than blocked any possibility to let it be changed back by others, because they considered it a violation of the Wikipedia guidelines (but the move was backed by an absent-minded Wikipedia administrator), that made me very angry. I really don't understand why a Wikipedia administrator allowed that move anyhow. And subsequently, the people that liked the original title "Carlos Hugo, Duke of Parma" and opposed the first move, has to defend why it should go back! Wow, that is the world like up side down! In my opinion, to have a fair debate and to obey to the Wikipedia rules, we have to restore the title to it original one, before the first move (on 12 July, falsely made by Cusio) that sparkled this whole discussion, thus back to: Carlos Hugo, Duke of Parma. And that should be the starting point in the discussion to see if there is a consensus to change that title. In my opinion: I think that that "Carlos Hugo, Duke of Parma" is the correct name. Diodecimus (talk) 03:17, 26 August 2010 (UTC)
  • There is no need to disambiguate. There is no article at Carlos Hugo. It does not matter what title he may or may not be entitled to. Put the article under Carlos Hugo. --Bejnar (talk) 23:34, 1 September 2010 (UTC)

Consensus unclear from last !vote[edit]

Requested move 2[edit]

The following discussion is an archived discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the move request was: page moved.  Ronhjones  (Talk) 00:43, 30 September 2010 (UTC)

Carlos Hugo of Bourbon-ParmaCarlos Hugo, Duke of ParmaConsensus can change, and the repeated unilateral moves to and from "Carlo Hugo, Duke of Parma", along with discussion that spanned 3 different sections on the talk page, !votes cast for neither of the 2 original options, new sources emerging when C-H died during the discussion, and the confusingly prolonged discussion (60 days!) since July 1st leave it unclear which portions of the debate and !votes were reflected in the admin's closing decision, and even more unclear whether that decision reflects the most current consensus. FactStraight (talk) 07:20, 3 September 2010 (UTC)


Feel free to state your position on the renaming proposal by beginning a new line in this section with *'''Support''' or *'''Oppose''', then sign your comment with ~~~~. Since polling is not a substitute for discussion, please explain your reasons, taking into account Wikipedia's policy on article titles.


Any additional comments:
  • Support (although recognizing that different options may be voted upon if this move's rejected) because:
  1. the last discussion seemed to yield a consensus against the current name, Carlos Hugo of Bourbon-Parma, in favor of restoring Carlos Hugo, Duke of Parma, and showed that no alternative to the latter garnered as much support;
  2. when we have a relevant guideline we apply it; we don't substitute "google hits", and the proposed name, previously stable, complies with NCROY- Royals with a substantive title point #3;
  3. proposed name is supported by highly reliable sources, both as recognized titulature for heads of the house post-duchy ("Burke's Royal Families of the world, Volume II", 1980 p.312; "Royalty, Peerage and Nobility of the World", 1977, p. 48; Mqs. de Ruvigny's "Titled Nobility of Europe", 1914, p.42", "Europaissche Stammtafeln, Vol. III, Part 1", 1984, table 83; "Prince Xavier, Pretender to Spanish Throne, dies", Washington Post, May 8, 1977) and as specific usage for Carlos-Hugo (in Parma's media "L'addio a Carlo Ugo: tutti i particolari della cerimonia, Gazzetta di Parma, 3/9/2010; in the official statement issued when C-H lay in state at the palace of his ex-sister-in-law Beatrix, Queen of the Netherlands Prins Carlos Hugo de Bourbon de Parme overleden, 18 augustus 2010; on his own dynasty's website Reale e Ducale Casa di Borbone Parma - Carlos Ugo: and in English "Descendants of King George I of Great Britain", 1980, p.312; "HRH Prince Carlos Hugo", Obituaries, The Telegraph, 3 Sept 2010).
  4. "Duke of Parma" is a papal, not Italian, title created by a current fons honorum. Typically, pretenders to princely and ducal (but not higher-ranking) thrones are referred to by the titles to which they pretend, even if they've never reigned, including on Wikipedia, e.g. Peter, Duke of Schleswig-Holstein and Armin, Prince of Lippe, since being a duke or prince doesn't necessarily suggest that you are or claim to be a monarch. Moreover D of P was not a Spanish title, even though C-H was Carlism's active pretender to the crown of Spain, so referring to him by that title violated neither law nor NPOV. FactStraight (talk) 07:20, 3 September 2010 (UTC)
  • Comment I suggest it is bad practice to re-open a discussion as quickly as this. There are some complex questions about titles. I understand that titles are legally recognised by Germany but not Italy, where they were abolished when a republic was declared after WW2 (although existing holders were allowed to incorporate them in their name). Does the Vatican still recognise papal titles referring to place in the former Papal States, or did it effectively hand over responsibility for them to Italy? Are such titles still widely used or recognised in Italy (where presumably the majority of holders still live)? What happened to territorial titles in e.g Austrian, Neopolitan and Tuscan territory at the Risorgimento? With a relatively minor figure like this there could be a degree of monarchist bias in the sources which mention him e.g. what would The Guardian have called him, if it had bothered to print an obituary? PatGallacher (talk) 10:56, 3 September 2010 (UTC)
Titles of nobility have not been abolished in Italy; they are merely not recognised by the state ("I titoli nobiliari non sono riconosciuti"). We don't know what The Guardian would have done in an obituary (since they did not publish one), but we do know that The Telegraph called him Duke of Parma. [13] I don't think that it can be accused of "monarchist bias". Many Italian papers called him "Duca di Parma" in their obituaries, e.g. the it:Gazzetta di Parma, La Nazione, Il Giorno, Il Resto del Carlino. Noel S McFerran (talk) 12:12, 3 September 2010 (UTC)
Germany, France and Italy all ceased officially recognizing their nobility as a privileged class, but didn't abolish or ban the use of titles -- whereas Austria and the U.R.S.S. did and do. Germany recognizes titles only as surnames. France stopped registering titles but legally protects those which existed, and Italy legally recognizes the pre-1922 predicati formerly associated with titles -- but not the titles themselves (i.e. "Carlos Ugo di Borbone Parma" but not "Carlos Ugo, duca di Parma"). Vis-a-vis noble titleholders from the monarchies of Sicily, Naples and Tuscany, Italy did approximately what the UK did to Irish titles: henceforth only the annexing state had the right to grant new titles, while recognized the continued legal use of previous titles, but without privileges (UK continued to give out Irish titles as a work-around for Englishmen who "deserved" nobility but needed either to continue serving in the House of Commons or did other work for pay deemed "incompatible" with the dignity of full British peerage). Papal titles, having always been conferred upon an "urban" nobility were sometimes territorial but more often attached to the surname. Either way, by Italy's 1929 Lateran Treaty with the Vatican, Italy recognized Papal titles of nobility, both past and future, even for Italian subjects. The latter provision ceased to have effect after the Italian monarchy was constitutionally abolished in 1947. But the Lateran Treaty remains intact and so too, under it, does the Pope's prerogative as hons fonorum in his capacity as sovereign of Vatican City. Of course, no state, whether monarchy or republic, officially "accepts" foreign nobility or titles (except via "incorporation" by those monarchies {e.g. Belgium, Spain} which occasionally admit into their nobility naturalized subjects who possessed foreign titles -- that's what Queen Beatrix of the Netherlands did to Carlos Hugo's children in 1996). Still, as sovereign of Vatican City each pope recognizes all titles granted by his predecessor popes. Thus their status in Italy is irrelevant here. But FYI it is exactly what your status would be if you were a U.S. citizen and inherited the "Earldom of New York" created in 1772 by Great Britain: the title would have no legal existence in the U.S. except insofar as you substituted it for your surname, but you would still legally be "Earl of New York" in the British peerage. The U.S. constitutional ban on hereditary titles could only be triggered as a condition you accept if you seek but haven't yet received citizenship (since "inheriting" is not the same as "accepting": issuance of letters patent, not your "acceptance" thereof, makes you a titleholder). Your use of that title would usually be treated as a courtesy upheld by tradition rather than as a usurpation or fraud -- except by the occasional boor who feels entitled to speak to anybody without regard to social norms. In any event, as the ancient tradition of victory titles proves, neither Italy nor any other country has "rejection rights" over a monarchy's freedom to incorporate any territory into any hereditary title it creates, e.g. Prince of Waterloo. FactStraight (talk) 14:01, 3 September 2010 (UTC)
  • Support I agree totally with FactStraight + what I already intensively wrote on this talk page. And as I explained in the previous discussion, the move "Carlos Hugo, Duke of Parma" → "Carlos Hugo of Bourbon-Parma" should never have been made in the first instance, and was a clear violation of the Wikipedia guidelines. Already because of this, the page should be moved back and restored to "Carlos Hugo, Duke of Parma". Diodecimus (talk) 11:21, 3 September 2010 (UTC)
  • Support "Restoring" a page name which was created by a unilateral move was inappropriate. He commonly used the designation "Duke of Parma", and was commonly referred to by it. Noel S McFerran (talk) 12:12, 3 September 2010 (UTC)
  • Support per WP:NCNT as current name is a clear violation and for the reasons I and others have given many times such as common usage and reliable sources to support the ducal title. - dwc lr (talk) 13:06, 3 September 2010 (UTC)
  • Support, although I'd mildly prefer Prince Carlos Hugo of Bourbon-Parma. The current title is awful. john k (talk) 06:44, 4 September 2010 (UTC)
  • Very strongly oppose. Consensus can change, but in 24 hours?!? I would support Prince Carlos Hugo of Bourbon-Parma; but the rest of this is a handful of disruptive chauvinists asking again and again until they get their POV into the title. Does one article in the Telegraph create English usage? I doubt it. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 16:09, 4 September 2010 (UTC)
    The move to "Carlos Hugo of Bourbon-Parma" was not made based on consensus. It was done unilaterally on July 11, 2010. Describing those who disagree with you about the name of this page as "a handful of disruptive chauvinists" is a clear violation of Wikipedia:Civility. Please apologise immediately. Noel S McFerran (talk) 12:38, 5 September 2010 (UTC)
    And the effort to move it back was found to have no consensus on September 2; on Thursday last, 24 hours before this new effort; that's what I linked to. The rest of Noel's post is, as WP:SPADE says, an effort to protect this action from review. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 04:04, 6 September 2010 (UTC)
    If there's no consensus for any particular title, the article should go back to its long-time stable location. john k (talk) 05:20, 6 September 2010 (UTC)
    Wikipedia:SPADE is an essay. Wikipedia:Civility is a policy. Wikipedia:SPADE says that "one can be honest and direct about another editor's behaviour or edits without resorting to name-calling or attacks." Septentrionalis has resorted to name-calling. Noel S McFerran (talk) 20:38, 6 September 2010 (UTC)
    No, I have been direct about this precipitate effort to impose a point of view upon this article; to open a new move request the day after the old one was closed was and is forum-shopping - an effort to disrupt Wikipedia. If this had waited the customary two or three months, I would still disagree with it, but would not call it disruptive. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 18:11, 7 September 2010 (UTC)
  • Comment Judging by the second paragraph of the article the most plausible names appear to be Hugues Marie Sixte Robert Louis Jean Georges Benoît Michel or Charles Hugues. Brevity does not suggest the former. More problematic than the name though seems to be the notability. Yes I know that Wikipedia will always cover minor porn stars and so forth, but an article of this length really ought to make its subject seem a little more significant. Ian Spackman (talk) 10:36, 7 September 2010 (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. No further edits should be made to this section.

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 3 external links on Carlos Hugo, Duke of Parma. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

You may set the |checked=, on this template, to true or failed to let other editors know you reviewed the change. If you find any errors, please use the tools below to fix them or call an editor by setting |needhelp= to your help request.

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

If you are unable to use these tools, you may set |needhelp=<your help request> on this template to request help from an experienced user. Please include details about your problem, to help other editors.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 15:40, 15 November 2016 (UTC)

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 3 external links on Carlos Hugo, Duke of Parma. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

You may set the |checked=, on this template, to true or failed to let other editors know you reviewed the change. If you find any errors, please use the tools below to fix them or call an editor by setting |needhelp= to your help request.

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

If you are unable to use these tools, you may set |needhelp=<your help request> on this template to request help from an experienced user. Please include details about your problem, to help other editors.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 04:19, 31 July 2017 (UTC)