Talk:Kingdom of the Two Sicilies

Italy = Sicily?

The Two Sicilies refer to the Sicily Island and southern Italian mainland? --Menchi 08:29, 23 Aug 2004 (UTC)

Precisely. -- Jmabel 01:20, Sep 30, 2004 (UTC)

Doesn't that mean mainland Italy was also called Sicily? Was that ever true? --Menchi 00:39, 13 May 2005 (UTC)

Various sources indicate that after the War of the Vespers, the southern mainland was known as Sicily on this side of Cape Faro, in Italian (see Italian wiki) Regno di Sicilia di qua dal Faro (which Google renders as "Kingdom of Sicily from here to the Beacon", not sure if Italians would take it that literally). I'll modify the article accordingly. --Dhartung | Talk 06:17, 13 May 2005 (UTC)

Ah...that makes a lot of sense... Thanks. --Menchi 19:05, 14 May 2005 (UTC)

Only the part of Italy under the rivers Tronto and Garigliano were called Sicily. Not all the Italian peninsula. --84.222.233.152 (talk) 00:52, 2 February 2010 (UTC)

As far as i know,there was "Sicily after the beacon of Messina"and "Sicily before the beacon of Messina".The beacon,to be honest,it never existed,if i'm right,but it's only a topographical figure,you know,like the sea dragons on the ancient map saying "here be dragons".--87.6.34.75 (talk) 14:36, 20 April 2010 (UTC)

Group's Cultural Bias against L'Aquila

The Naples group treats l'Aquila as a distant and unimportant colony, reflecting traditional cultural prejudice Abruzzo. In fact this region's history is divided between several competing powers: Papal Staes, Normans, Spanish, each acting as as unwanted colonial power. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.182.189.149 (talk) 02:15, 28 February 2010 (UTC)

That foreigner Garibaldi

"…was overthrown by an insurrection led by Garibaldi and sponsored by the kingdom of Sardinia, which absorbed the Bourbons' domains…" has been altered (without comment) by Carmine Colacino to "…was overthrown by a foreign invasion led by Garibaldi and sponsored by the kingdom of Sardinia, which annexed the Bourbons' domains…". The question of which is more appropriate would seem to turn on (1) whether Garibaldi should be seen as foreign (he wasn't from the Kingdom, but he was from within Italy) and (2) whether there was a significant internal insurrection beyond the actions of Garibaldi's mostly northern Italian army. I don't think either of these is a clear-cut question; I was wondering if anyone can suggest a more neutral wording that splits the difference. -- Jmabel | Talk 04:40, August 29, 2005 (UTC) Garibaldi was considered a foreigner because in 1860 the Italian identity was totally unknown. Tullio De Mauro says that only 2 percent of population spoke the Italian language: most of this 2% was the Tuscans, just because they didn't know that the Tuscan dialect was chosen by politicians as 'national' language! --84.222.233.152 (talk) 00:54, 2 February 2010 (UTC)

History of Italy

Dear all,

in the last years many new documents have been brought to the attention by historians, that tell the real history of the State of the Two Sicilies and more in general the birth of the modern State of Italy, in a completely different way than we actually know.

So far, we are used to study about heroes like Garibaldi, about "king gentleman" like Vittorio Emanuele Savoia, about great politicians like the count Camillo Benso of Cavour; we are used to read about the deep poverty and ignorance of the southern italian people, the brutal kingdom of the kings of Naples; the criminals, called "briganti", that the italian troops had to fight in the southern provinces after the Unity.

All this is bullshit! It is an insult against the actual southern italian people. It is an insult against intelligence. It is an insult against the millions of people, that AFTER the unification started to emigrate from Southern Italy, while many people from Northern italian States already emigrated BEFORE the Unity. It is an insult against all those partisans that gave their life to uselessly defend their nation, conquered by a foreign State.

Tens (hundreds) of documents are already available now, that tell about the decent socioeconomic situation of the Two Sicilies, and give hints about the real reasons why and how that unjust and rude annexion happened, that still brings negative consequences to actual socioeconomic italian life. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Wousfan (talk • contribs) 8 Sept 2005

• Can you please be more precise in your citation? I'm not saying you are either right or wrong, but invoking "many new documents" and "tens (hundreds) of documents" with no specifics is not going to convince anyone who does not already agree with you. -- Jmabel | Talk 17:56, 9 October 2005 (UTC)

• After Wousfan's edits, the article is down to little more than a stub. Since the removed material was rather POV and uncited, I am leaving it alone. I would suggest that, given that this is apparently an area of controversy, whoever adds material back to this article, especially material praising or criticizing the government and administration of the Kingdom, should be careful to cite sources. Otherwise, we will clearly have nothing but an edit war. -- Jmabel | Talk 18:02, 9 October 2005 (UTC)

I'm glad that Jmabel didn't just restore the previous version, but admitted the controversy over this topic. I know (and i'm sorry) that i was vague over the documentation that proves the falsehoods included in the paragraphs, that i cut. I'll need some time to write down a new version to submit to Wikipedia. For the moment, please have a look at the two new links (in italian, and unfortunately still with a very little session in english) that provide many information about the history of the Two Sicilies. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Wousfan (talk • contribs) 10 Oct 2005

• This is indeed a very controversial area, and it is a miracle that so much restraint has been shown to date. Congratulations to all who have been involved in this article. I have just added two small points. Firstly, the Kingdom of Sicily had existed for precisedly 152 years before the Sicilian Vespers (and not merely one century). Secondly, I have been wanting to add a small piece about one of Sicily's many revolutions that occurred between 1816 and unification - the revolution of independence of 1848. It existed as an independent state for 16 months, and although admittedly it is a short period, it nevertheless warrants an article in its own right - so I would hope that people will leave the red link there for at least a day to enable me to get back to it. Furthermore, it is a strong indicator of the mood of the Sicilian people just prior to Garibaldi's boy's own adventure in 1860. If Garibaldi's boy scouts did get any support from the Sicilian people (and they clearly must have, or they would never have succeeded), it is only because they (the Sicilians) were wishing to become an independent state, and took the oppurtunity that Garibaldi provided them in overthrowing the Bourbons (yet again). Sounds far fetched? - then those that are interested should research the events leading to the many Sicilians that were killed between 1861 and 1866 revolting against what was in essence a foreign occupation. I don't think that is emotive language - it's a statement of fact, simply look at the circumstances of the protaganists in the year 1860 - the Kingdom of Sardinia was a foreign occupier. But at this stage, I am happy to stay out of that argument, I only wish to write about the events of 1848. Grazzî e salutamu. ρ¡ρρµ δ→θ∑ - (waarom? jus'b'coz!) 10:32, 25 March 2006 (UTC) ps I do have sources, stacks of them, I have a private collection of all things Sicilian that runs into the hundreds of volumes.

Unreadable

The section Two Sicilies#Heads of the Royal House of the Two Sicilies, 1861-present is nearly unreadable. I did some minimal copy edits; frankly, I don't care enough about claimants to defunct royal titles to take the time it would require to sort out the prose, but I assume that someone else does: please see if you can make this comprehensible. -- Jmabel | Talk 03:49, 2 April 2006 (UTC)

I wrote a short, fairly comprehensible summary a little while ago, which seems to have been replaced by a long, detailed, almost incomprehensible version. It's also arguably POV in the direction of the senior line. I don't want to just revert, because there seems to be fairly useful stuff, but that might be the best way to do it. (To see the change, take a look at the paragraph about the dispute in the last version edited by me in the history.) john k 04:32, 2 April 2006 (UTC)

Certainly yours is clearer; I just can't work out if there is anything in the other worth salvaging. I would not complain about simply reverting to your version, but assuming that there is accurate information in the other, I'd much rather just see it cleaned up and NPOV'd. - Jmabel | Talk 00:00, 13 April 2006 (UTC)

Yeah, I've the same issue. It seems like there might be some useful info in there, it's just a mess... john k 03:58, 13 April 2006 (UTC)

History of Sicily, Two Sicilies and Italy

I'm glad that the reason why some months ago I deleted the previous "official" history of Two Sicilies, that was reduced to "poverty, ignorance and brutality", until Garibaldi and the unification with the rest of the peninsula brought freedom and progress, is becoming evident. The interpretation of the facts is still controversial: from the "neapolitan" side the perception of the Bourbon period is more positive than from the "sicilian" side. But both sides agree on the perception that the "italian period", after the annexion, is rather negative. Then, it is not acceptable that several centuries of national identity, culture and history of the Two Sicilies are erased and re-written by the "winners".wousfan 6 April 2006 (UTC)

You still need to add something about the "annexation", it looks like an article from 1860 at this point. I might think that the kingdom still exists if I did not know about the country Italy. 203.218.37.8 02:19, 17 April 2006 (UTC)

Calabria or Castro?

I have no idea whether this edit is right or wrong. It was anonymous, uncited, and gave no summary. - Jmabel | Talk 02:59, 23 August 2006 (UTC)

It seems to be correct per here. I'm not 100% sure but it seems that the Castro title is held by the father and the Calabria title by the son and heir, roughly how Charles is the Prince of Wales. The whole section is overlong and complicated, though. --Dhartung | Talk 04:28, 23 August 2006 (UTC)

Giovanni?

I know nothing about these various claimants to a defunct throne, but someone removed "HRH Prince Giovanni of the Two Sicilies (born 1933, died 2000)". I have no idea if this was vandalism or the removal of vandalism. Will someone with a clue please take a look? - Jmabel | Talk 06:29, 18 November 2006 (UTC)

It's neither. Prince Jean (as he was normally called) was indeed in line, and in that place. however, the list supposedly details the current "line of succession," and Prince Jean is, in fact, dead. I'll add that the list at present seems rather odd. Why is "Prince Francesco's" son, Prince Antoine, not included, but the supposed "Duke of Calabria" included? Prince Carlo is the son of a minor French noblewoman, while the younger Prince Antoine is the son of a Countess of Schönborn, which is certainly not a misalliance. Prince Gaetano, the son of a princess of Orleans, was also for some reason excluded, in spite of his still being alive. I've added both back in, and changed the names so as not to give Italian names to members of the family who aren't known by such names normally in English. john k 17:00, 18 November 2006 (UTC)

Someone was editing using an outdated source, that's all. Prince Antoine was only born in 2003. Prince Gaetano has been dead more than 20 years, although I notice that many genealogical sources (including Paul Theroff's Online Gotha and the 1991 Genealogisches Handbuch des Adels don't mention it, maybe because he died in Zimbabwe). According to the Castro branch's website, Gaetano died in Harare on 27 December 1984. As for their marriages, while it is true that Antoine is the son of an equal marriage and Carlo de Bourbon, the Castro Duke of Calabria, is only arguably so, that is not the relevant criterion for this dynasty. Two Sicilies law only required prior, written consent of the Sovereign for dynastic marriage. Strictly speaking, Ferdinand Castro's marriage to Chantal de Chevron-Villette was unequal when contracted in 1949, but she was subsequently granted the style of "Highness", and eventually recognized as equal -- if only when her own husband became Head of House in 1973. Little Prince Antoine is recognized as the family's youngest dynastic member by both Sicilian pretenders, but his parents' marriage was not authorized in advance by either pretender, because the child's grandfather, Prince Antoine -- Head of the so-called Gabriele branch -- is alienated from both and did not invite either of them to his son's wedding in Geneva in 2000. Historically, the Gabrieles support the Castro branch's claim, but rebelled when Carlo Calabria married Camilla Crociani in 1998. They are being courted assiduously by the Spanish branch's adherents, who'd like a reconciliation -- and an alternative to Pedro Calabria's legitimated son. Lethiere 05:03, 21 November 2006 (UTC)

The genealogy can be checked out, btw, at Paul Theroff's Internet Gotha. Generally, the normal sized bolded texts indicates dynasts of that family, the small bolded text indicates morganatic or legitimized by subsequent marriage or, occasionally, purely illegitimate lines, and the plain text indicates cognatic lines that aren't represented on other pages. john k 17:10, 18 November 2006 (UTC)

Very weak article

This article goes on and on about the putative heirs to a defunct royal title, but has almost nothing about the years in which this was an actual kingdom, with subjects and domestic and foreign policies, a topic that a reader could reasonably expect it to engage. - Jmabel | Talk 07:52, 20 November 2006 (UTC)

I agree. There are articles on the 2 claimants to the defunct throne (linked from this article)and an article on the succession to that throne. This article needs to discuss the Two Scilies as an actual historic state, not the dispute over the empty title.

BernardAbbotLane 07:50, 26 January 2007 (UTC)

I also agree!!! This article is useless as it is now. My revision of one year ago, was in the direction of HIGHLIGHTING the hidden and manipulated history or the ancient State, and the criminal annexion by Garibaldi and by the Kingdom of Piedmont. The succession on the throne of Naples and Palermo is not completely meaningless, but definitely less important... Wousfan 19:00, 20 April 2007 (UTC)

I'm thinking about putting all the stuff about the 1960 - present dispute in Bourbon-Two Sicilies Head of House dispute... would this be a suitable title? I also think House of Bourbon-Two Sicilies needs its own article as it does on other languages. - Gennarous (talk) 11:33, 29 February 2008 (UTC)

language

the official language was sure Italian - a lot of dialects were also spoken not only Sicilian and Neapolitan--Massimo Macconi 20:12, 12 February 2007 (UTC)

This is false. The official languages were Neapolitan, Catalan, Spanish (Castellan), French depending on the period. Tuscan/Italian has never been official, even if it was used in the latest period (about from 1859). Sicilian was never official. Anyway, Neapolitan and Sicilian are not dialects, but languages. --84.222.233.152 (talk) 00:59, 2 February 2010 (UTC)

This is absurd. Please provide a source that Neapolitan, rather than standard (Tuscan) Italian, was the language of government, court, administration, under the Bourbons. john k (talk) 03:19, 23 August 2010 (UTC)

Laws and acts were written in Italian, not in Neapolitan. Look at 1948 constitution. Paolo — Preceding unsigned comment added by 87.14.208.147 (talk) 21:32, 7 December 2018 (UTC)

Requested move

Two Sicilies is a regional name, it wouldn't be used as a synonym of "Kingdom of Two Sicilies"--Wento (talk) 13:16, 24 March 2008 (UTC)

• Someone's gone and moved it to Kingdom of Two Siclies (spelt wrong); it will still require an admin's assistance due to the edit history at Kingdom of Two Sicilies. PC78 (talk) 18:12, 24 March 2008 (UTC)

I reverted the page location to Two Sicilies. If this page is moved to a location utilizing kingdom, it should be Kingdom of the Two Sicilies. Charles 18:31, 24 March 2008 (UTC)

It probably should be moved (and Charles is quite right whither). Two Sicilies is meaningless outside the context of the Kingdom. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 21:19, 24 March 2008 (UTC)

Septentrionalis you're wrong. Two Sicilies is a historical synonym of it:Mezzogiorno d'Italia or it:Meridione (South). See also the italian adjective duosiciliano (<Due Sicilie/Two Sicilies) [1]. It's also cited in the official web-pages of Naples (search "duosiciliano" with your browser). --Wento (talk) 20:59, 25 March 2008 (UTC)

• I've changed the order of redirect. I hope it isn't a wrong way of editing. Thanks --Wento (talk) 20:49, 25 March 2008 (UTC)

I notice also that Two Sicilies is not a political party as the page Two Sicilies (political party) suggestes. I guess it would be a secessionist movement without political representation. Bye --Wento (talk) 20:52, 25 March 2008 (UTC)

Actually, it is the wrong way of editing. Never make a copy and paste move as you did when moving this page, it destroys the edit history. Charles 21:07, 25 March 2008 (UTC)

I agree with Wento that the article on the kingdom (this one) should be titled at Kingdom of Two Sicilies. Before the official kingdom existed Two Sicilies was just a geographical description to describe mainland Kingdom of Naples and island Kingdom of Sicily even before they were united, as thus the geographical description needs its own article, maybe Two Sicilies (geograpical) (I still feel Two Sicilies should redirect here but have a disambiguation link at the top). The reason for the pre-united kingdom useage is complex, relating to the fact that the Kingdom of Naples in extremely formal uses was refered to as the Kingdom of Sicily as well.. though it was a different thing to the island Kingdom of Sicily, which existed indepedently at exactly the same time.

Also on an unrelated note to the move, can we not have that filthy Lombard tricolour which was used in 1860 only as a represenative of the flag? (it was added by R-41). It should be the one used before, the plain white one with the Bourbon arms. - Gennarous (talk) 01:26, 26 March 2008 (UTC)

If "Two Sicilies is meaningless outside the context of the Kingdom," then there shouldn't be any ambiguity. Why the move then? On the other hand, if Two Sicilies transcends the kingdom as the Two Sicilies independence movement suggests, then the page should stay at its current location. Oppose. Awaiting more convincing arguments. — AjaxSmack 02:37, 26 March 2008 (UTC)

Two Sicilies is a political party (in English movement has a different meaning from movimento in Italian), thus I rollbacked the move. --Checco (talk) 08:53, 26 March 2008 (UTC)

I agree with Gennarous... Two Sicilies (Due Sicilie) isn't a political party. It's just a club [2]. Two Sicilies is the name of an Italian region, not only the kingdom. What kind of reason you need? Anyway you should use the right name for this article: Kingdom of Two Sicilies --Wento (talk) 11:48, 26 March 2008 (UTC)

That is the wrong title. You mean Kingdom of the Two Sicilies. Charles 19:49, 26 March 2008 (UTC)

Ok Charles, excuse my english and "my way" ;-). Anyway I agree with you. We should correct the title of this article, then we can use Two Sicilies as a redirect to Kingdom of Two Sicilies (Kingdom of the Two Sicilies), meanwhile somebody will find convincing sources to prove that Two Sicilies means it:Mezzogiorno d'Italia even if it is not a synonym of "Kingdom of Two Sicilies". First the terms Two Sicilies was used by Alfonso V of Aragon to designate his United Crown of Sicily (Naples) and Trinacria (Isle of Sicily), Utriusque Siciliae, but noone used the term to designate a state until Joachim Murat. On the other hand geographers and historians used the term Two Sicilies to designate the whole Kingdom of Naples and Sicily after Alfonso V of Aragon invented "Utriusque Siciliae", and now in some italian works we can find the expression Due Sicilie (Two Sicilies) and duosiciliano ("Two-sicilians", or "Two-sicels") as a geographical synonym of it:Mezzogiorno d'Italia. I hope I'm covincing enough. Thanks--Wento (talk) 23:25, 26 March 2008 (UTC)

founded by "Ferdinand I"

The Kingdom of Two Sicilies was founded first by Napoleon when he invested Murat with the title King of Two Sicilies. In the same time he claimed juridical and political right on the it:Apostolica Legazia di Sicilia, an ecclesiastical institution where local church powers where ruled by the king. Whe have to corret the introduction of this article or mark it with a template. Napoleon gave also the first constitution of Two Sicilies. Bye--Wento (talk) 11:00, 1 April 2008 (UTC)

How do we treat Murat using the name though? Since he never actually controlled the island of Sicily (where Ferdinand had fled to and was protected by the British), so Murat essentially only had one part of the Two Sicilies, correct? - Gennarous (talk) 11:31, 2 April 2008 (UTC)

If we consider Two Sicilies as a geografical expression, then whe have to say that Murat had only a part of Two Sicilies. Actually Murat's kingdom never hold Sicily. If we want to cosider Two Sicilies as an historical kingdom, we should notice that it was founded by the Edict of Bayonne, when Zurlo wrote the first (United kingdom of) Two Sicilies constitution. Zurlo himself become minister of Ferdinand I after restauration. See: Ercole F., Gli uomini politici in Enciclopedia biografica e bibliografica italiana by Ribera A., p. 365 (article on Zurlo), Roma 1942. There's an historical continuum in Two Sicilies' civil identity from Murat to Bourbon, so we should specify that kingdom of Two Sicilies started with Napoleon and Murat and then developed in Bourbon Restoration. I think we should write that on incipit or just after it. Bye --Wento (talk) 12:05, 2 April 2008 (UTC)

I'll change the wording to "The Kingdom of the Two Sicilies (Italian: Regno delle Due Sicilie) was the name of a united kingdom first put into practice by Bourbon king Ferdinand I." So that it shows Ferdinand was the first to hold and united both kingdoms into one called the Two Sicilies. Then later in the article we should explain the more complex situation with Murat holding the mainland for a while and using the name Two Sicilies, which is obviously important too. - Gennarous (talk) 19:59, 3 April 2008 (UTC)

I think it's a good solution. See also what I've added and than tell me if whe have to discuss about it. Please do not remove first Two Sicilies flag, thanks and bye. --Wento (talk) 10:44, 4 April 2008 (UTC)

Wento, I'm not really sure that we should go as far as to include the Murat flag because he never actually owned the Two Sicilies, in reality he only owned Naples (One Sicilie). Its just a technicality that on paper it said "Two Sicilies"... we can't just expand the historical time frame of the kingdom to 1808-1861 when Murat or his men never actually set foot on Sicily. I've reworked the lead sentence a bit though, tell me what you think. We should also keep the paragraph not that long, the Papal Concord thing is just details that could go in the full body of the article lower down. - Gennarous (talk) 11:03, 4 April 2008 (UTC)

Two Sicilies was a state first founded by Edic of Bayonne. Even if Murat never possesed Sicily, his kingdom was called Kingdom of Two Sicilies before Bourbon restauration. We have to say it on incipit (Edict of Bayonne) --Wento (talk) 11:05, 4 April 2008 (UTC)

I think Edict of Bayonne's article should be made first before we link it in the intro or it looks just messy. Also, if Murat called his kingdom "Two Sicilies", does this mean we should remove him from Kings of Naples? - Gennarous (talk) 11:07, 4 April 2008 (UTC)

Whe have to include that info both in Kingdom of Naples both in Kingdom of Two Sicilies. There's an historical continuum that we shouldn't ignore. You removed also the concordat's citation. Can you tell me the reason of this edit? --Wento (talk) 11:10, 4 April 2008 (UTC)

How can it be both, if you said he was "King of the Two Sicilies" in 1808? He can't be King of Two Sicilies AND King of Naples in 1808, because that just looks confusing to readers who do not know minor details. I tried to look for more information about the Edict, but that book seems to be the only source. Unless it is the "Bayonee Decree" of Napoleon in 1808, but I can't find mention of Two Sicilies, that just mentions something about US ships.[3] IMO we should find several sources describing Murat as king of the Two Sicilies before we rewrite the history of the kingdom. - Gennarous (talk) 11:13, 4 April 2008 (UTC)

There's no confusion. Kindom of Naples become Kingdom of Two Sicilies after Giuseppe Bonaparte. What's unclear? About Bayonne Edict I can cite you bibliography and Napoleon's own world- I'll do a page of the edict soon. See also it:Statuto di Baiona, ca:Constitució de Baiona, es:Estatuto de Bayona, fr:Constitution de Bayonne--Wento (talk) 11:16, 4 April 2008 (UTC)

OK I have found something, a full good source of his official title; "Joachim Napoleon thanks to God and to the Constitution of the State, King of the two Sicilies and Great Admiral of the Empire".[4] So if officially, that kingdom was known as "two Sicilies" under Murat, then shouldn't we change the time frames of the Kingdom of the Two Sicilies and Kingdom of Naples, also updating the Kings of Naples article with more info?... It also brings in a strange period, when Ferdinand was restored, he was still just "King of Naples and King of Sicily" as two seperate kingdoms for another year before the Congress of Vienna was finished and he was renamed "King of the Two Sicilies". - Gennarous (talk) 11:25, 4 April 2008 (UTC)

I think that whe should add info in Kingdom of Naples article. Formerly Ferdinand I was invested as king of the two siciles after Congress of Vienna, despite he returned in Naples as "king of Naples" (17 June 1815). In 8 December 1816 he signed a low known as "Ritorno del Re. Nuove disposizioni di Stato" in wich he officially get Two Sicilies' title and regognized Murat's kingdom as Two Sicilies (not Murat's title). In 16 February 1818 Ferdiand I signed a concordat with Pope in wich he abolished some feudal rights in Neapolitan mainland, actually founding Two Sicilies. Thanks --Wento (talk) 12:05, 4 April 2008 (UTC)

Language 2

This may be an ignorant question, but can anyone explain the situation regarding official language or languages used in the kindgom? Obviously, the masses spoke regional dialects of Neapolitan, Sicilian, etc., but was there a standard language (for example used by government and schools)? Had standard Italian come into use before unification as someone claims above? Was Spanish superseded (assuming it was used by the former kingdoms) and did it really influence the local dialects, as some WP articles claim? How profuse would Italian have been amongst the business classes? Dionix (talk) 23:21, 22 April 2008 (UTC)

Speaking about Sicily, there's no doubt that the educated classes (a small percentage of the population at the time) did their schooling in Italian. So someone like Giovanni Verga, one of the great Italian writers of the 19th century, was born 20 years before the unification of Italy. Many poets wrote in Sicilian during this time, and the noble prize winner Luigi Pirandello wrote plays in both Italian and Sicilian, but the lingua franca for much of what ultimately became the modern state of Italy had been "Tuscan" Italian for a few centuries. I have sources which show that Sicilian was used to record the Sicilian Parliament through the 14th and early part of the 15th centuries, but half way through that century, Tuscan Italian slowly begins to supplant Sicilian (evidenced by the increasing use of Italian endings to nouns and verbs). By the start of the 16th century, this process is complete. Of course, the language spoken by the populace was something else again. It's also worth bearing in mind that the Universities and the courts used Latin till very late in the piece as well. πιππίνυ δ - (dica) 02:36, 23 April 2008 (UTC)

Official languages where Latin, Italian and Spanish. Since 1815 only Italian.--Wento (talk) 09:42, 24 April 2008 (UTC)

Yes, but if you go back to the split in the Kingdom following the Sicilian Vespers, the official language was both Latin and Sicilian, the language of the court was Catalan. πιππίνυ δ - (dica) 10:32, 7 June 2008 (UTC)

anon keeps calling Ferdinand I "Spanish" in article

Rather irritatingly, its an anon and he keeps ignoring the edit summaries. Charles VII of Naples (later Charles III of Spain) established a cadet branch of the House of Bourbon. It was not under direct control of Spain, or the Spanish House of Bourbon under Charles or after him. Explicitly they were separate because when he became king of Spain he had to give up the Neapolitan and Sicilian crowns.

His son Ferdinand I of the Two Sicilies was thus, not "Spanish". He was born in Naples in the Kingdom of Naples, as a member of the House of Bourbon which was not controlled by either French or Spanish houses. Indepedent. Had the Spanish directly controlled the two kingdoms with Charles invasion, it would likely have failed as the people would have revolted. So can this anon stop saying that Ferdinand was "Spanish"? - Gennarous (talk) 08:12, 7 June 2008 (UTC)

Aragonese rule

After the death of Alfonso, both remained under direct rule from the Crown of Aragon, but Naples had a different Aragonese king to the island of Sicily from 1458 until 1501.

Come again? If the two Sicilies had two kings, how were they both under direct rule from Aragon? —Tamfang (talk) 18:38, 15 July 2008 (UTC)

Good question, clearly that can't be correct, and is not supported by List of monarchs of Sicily and List of monarchs of Naples. πιππίνυ δ - (dica) 00:15, 16 July 2008 (UTC)

SUPREMACIES of the Kingdom of Naples and Two Sicilies

INDUSTRY: At the Paris International Exhibition in 1856 it received the Prize for the third industrially developed country in the world (first in Italy); First iron suspended bridge (across the Garigliano river) First railroad and railway station in Italy (Napoli-Portici railroad); First gas-fuelled lighting system; First electric telegraph; First network of lighthouses with lenses system; Largest engineering industry in Italy, at Pietrarsa; Naples shipyard had the first masonry dry dock in Italy; First submarine telegraph in continental Europe.

ECONOMY:

Reclamation of Terra di Lavoro; State revenue listed at 12% at Paris Stock Exchange; Lower discount rate (5%) First bank checks in the history of economics (policies on Credit Guarantees); • First University Chair in Economics (Naples, A. Genovesi, 1754); • First Goods Exchange and second Stock Exchange in continental Europe; • Greatest number of Joint-Stock Companies in Italy; • Best public finance in Italy; this was the pattern in 1860 (in million gold-lire) : - Kingdom of the Two Sicilies: 443, 2 - Lombardy: 8,1 - Venetian Region: 12,7 - Duchy of Modena: 0,4 - Parma and Piacenza: 1,2 - Pontifical State: 90,6 - Kingdom of Sardinia: 27 - Grand Duchy of Tuscany: 84,2 First merchant fleet in Italy (third in the world); First cruising fleet in the Mediterranean; First Italian fleet to reach America and the Pacific Ocean; First steamboat in the Mediterranean; First pension system in Italy (with 2% deductions on salaries); Lower number of taxes in all Italian States.

JURISPRUDENCE – MILITARY ORGANISATION:

• Promulgation of the first Maritime Code in Italy; • First military code; • Institutes of justification of judgements (G. Filangieri, 1774); • Establishment of Military Colleges (Nunziatella); • Fire Brigade.

SCIENCE AND CULTURE

• Chair of Psychiatry; • Chair of Obstetrics and surgery observations; • Physics Laboratory of the King; • Vesuvian seismologic observatory (first in the world), with its meteorologic station; • Papyrus Factory in Herculaneum; • Highest percentage of physicians per capita in Italy; • Lowest infant mortality rate in Italy; • First tourist agencies in Italy; • Archaeological Excavations at Pompeii and Herculaneum; Posillipo painting school (among others, G. Gigante studied here); • The very famous ceramic and porcelain manufactures, among which Capodimonte manufactures; • S. Carlo’s Theatre (the first in the world), rebuild in just 270 days after a fire; • Neapolitan music school (Paisiello, Cimarosa, Scarlatti); • World success (still now) of Neapolitan songs; • The royal palaces.

These are just the “supremacies”. Our list do not include all activities carried out in the Kingdom and the success and progress reached in every sector, since we have already outlined them under the previous headings. We just mention here, as a further example, the tapestry weaving school. To conclude, we think that to arouse controversies is out of place here. We just desire to stress three historical truths so manifest to be incontrovertible: after what described on this website,

1) can we still continue to believe in the Risorgimento “vulgate” presenting the Bourbon Kingdom as the most hated and old-fashioned in Italy? 2)How to explain that before 1861 the phenomenon of migration did not exist at all and that after that date almost 20,000,000 desperate people had to migrate? 3) Can all this provide an explanation of the tragic as well as heroic phenomenon of the pro-Bourbon revolution of 1860-1865?

It is clear, now more than ever, that Italians must be informed about their history according to greater unbiased criteria. And this is not to arouse fruitless controversies, but to honour and serve historical truth. And to serve the memory of the cultural and civil identity of all Italians.

more informations : http://www.facebook.com/home.php#/group.php?gid=8841632509

Indeed, and I'd like to add that after the unification , hundreds of thousands of people began to arise against the newly formed "government". They called phenomenon "brigantaggio" (brigandage), but it was, in fact, a civil war, it's just that the Italian government didn't want to recognize it as so, because it was too "fluorescent". Thousands of people have died and the Italian governmenet had to send like 120,000 men (if i recall, perhaps more) , to end this and it lasted 12 years or so. 87.14.241.172 (talk) 16:32, 17 December 2010 (UTC)

In 1856 there was no International Exibition nor in Paris nor in anywhere! Why don't you inform with accurancy before to state rubbish ? Thanks You, I looked for the Paris Exposition before to say you this, try you to believe without doubts for denying or corfirming...Ciào friendo! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 87.21.179.127 (talk) 19:23, 14 January 2011 (UTC)

All neo-sudist-monarchic propaganda

I can agree the Kingdom of Two Sicilies was so bad, and one of the most beautiful places in the world (like today), but most of it was still a medieval agricultural land. It raced with Papal States as the most medieval in Western Europe in the 19th century. 90% of it was an agricultural area ruled by barons exactly like in the Middle Ages. Do you think Sicily is poor today as it is due to the Piedmontese colonization? Was it a thriving industrial or agricultural region place like Lombardy or Veneto in the 19th century? All the listed, alleged "SUPREMACIES" is due to the fact it was SIMPLY the largest Italian state. Its poverty and backwardness is incontrovertible, unfortunately for such people believing in such ridiculous theories, against any evidence of history. Simply, IMHO, if the Two Sicilies were so powerful, they wouldn't melt like snow at the sun facing a mediocre attack like Garibaldi's and a mediocre state like Piedmont. You can tell me thousand times the Reggia di Caserta is marvellous, that Naples had many nice laws, but the evidence of history is that it was unable to sustain that operetta-like invasion, and this alone speaks by itself.

Man i'll be honest,i don't think the Two Sicilies was the superpower the neo-borbonics talk about,but i also don't think it was the shit of the shit of Europe.We were,steadily,industrializing,we had some industries,the shipyards weren't bad,we had the first railway in Italy(pretty short,but it would had been extended with the time),we were the richer guys in Italy(surely it wasn't a richness even nearly comparable to the Austrians,the Prussians,the Brits,the French,hell even the Americans)but still we were first in Italy.I think that we must create a page,or,at least,a section regarding the development here.--87.6.34.75 (talk) 14:28, 20 April 2010 (UTC)

First, who are you to speak of "ridicolous theories"? THere are loads of people uncovering the truth all over Italy and some documentaries (even Ulisse, which is one of the most reliable and popular here) have begun to tell a different history. None of the regions in italy before italian unification (and even afterwards) were THRIVING and indredibly wealthy, not by modern standards at least. The kingdom was structurally weak, high officers of the armed forces were bribed , France and England plotted against the Two Sicilies (also because of the sicilian sulphur thing, look it up), plus it's quite obvious and normal for the time , that most of the people in the kingdom were POOR and agriculture like in many other european states was the BASE of the economy, even in the more industrialized nations. Since the Two Sicilies had an absolute monarch, many people were against it and wanted a republic. But it's not just that. The poor ones, the farmers, who were so desperate just joined Garibaldi in the hope that things would have changed after the unification, but they have, in fact, worsened. There are so many facts to consider and I suggest you look everything up. Even if the kingdom was backward and poor, such an "operetta-like" invasion wouldn't have been enough if it wasn't a perfectly organized and planned plot. I'm not claiming any exaggerate theory about the kingdom, such as the "third most industrialized country in europe" or anything like that. Also, ask yourself this: why spending resources to conquer a state that is so backward and useless, and that will cause us only problems because we'll have to support, nurture, and mantain them? Also, why was the first railway built there? Sure, it wasn't very big (there were plans and projects to make it bigger which were stopped) but the kingdom could count on a very large and quite powerful (For the size of the kingdom) navy. This is no joke, no propaganda lie. IN fact, history books report that the bulk of the newborn Italian Navy ( Regia Marina) was the navy of the Two Sicilies. Now, explain to me WHY , a backward and weak kingdom had such a powerful navy (I remind you that the Italian navy, even if it wasn't better than england and france navies, was ranked among the first in the world). —Preceding unsigned comment added by 87.14.241.172 (talk) 16:22, 17 December 2010 (UTC)

In 1856 there was no International Exposition in Paris nor in elsewhere; the Navy was the greatest (may be) in Italy but not comparable with that of France, England, Spain, Netherlands etc. of course, if it couldn't stop Expedition of Thousend of Garibaldi supported by two militar ships from England. Please let away to repeat always the same rubbish you got I don't know where.. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 87.21.179.127 (talk) 19:13, 14 January 2011 (UTC)

Erroneous assertion of the origin of "Two Sicilies"

The article claims that The Kingdom of the Two Sicilies was created as such by that name only under Murat. That is complete and utter nonsense. The name long predates the Napoleonic period.

The kingdom might have been known for convenience as the "Kingdom of Naples" before and after Napoleon's irruption, but the official name as it appears in British official papers was always "the Kingdom of the Two Sicilies".

I suggest for a quick confirmation, look at the London Gazette Archive search page. Search for "Two Sicilies" between, say 1700 and 1800.

I am not enough of an expert on Italian history to rewrite the article confidently, but it needs a rewrite urgently. The best course would perhaps be a straight translation of the French Wikipedia article Royaume des Deux-Siciles, which I might do if no one better at it beats me to it. (The Italian article is not much good, surprisingly.)

Howard Alexander (talk) 23:34, 18 February 2009 (UTC)

... which I have now done. Howard Alexander (talk) 18:35, 3 March 2009 (UTC)

Exile?

Is this family allowed to visit Italy? 68.224.206.168 (talk) 17:55, 23 September 2009 (UTC)

Its latest member, Francis II, died without sons (his only daughter died when she was very young). --84.222.233.152 (talk) 01:05, 2 February 2010 (UTC)

Header seemingly out of place

A section's header has been changed to "Invasion by Sardinia" long ago, but neither that section's text nor the linked article Sicilian revolution of independence of 1848 explain that Sardinia sponsored Garibaldi's forces' actions, if that's what's meant here. How are readers supposed to know? I had to come to this talk page to find

"led by Garibaldi and sponsored by the kingdom of Sardinia"

in the section #That_foreigner_Garibaldi to even guess what you mean. So, if you mention an "invasion by Sardinia" in the header, please give readers at least half a sentence as to which invasion you are talking about, and Sardinia's role in it that warrants your choice for a section header. Thanks! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 165.146.116.155 (talk) 13:42, 22 November 2009 (UTC)

Expert tag

Not to rain on anyone's parade, but this article contains a great deal of anachronisms and inaccuracies. I understand that there has been lots of work done on the article; the errors, however, are too grave to go unnoticed. -- Jack1755 (talk) 20:04, 31 January 2010 (UTC) Here are some examples:

• "In January 1799, Napoleon Bonaparte, in the name of the French Republic, captured Naples and declared the Parthenopaean Republic." Napoleon was in Egypt at the time. He could not have invaded Naples, and nor was the invasion an executive order from the French Republic.
• "In 1754, he became King Carlos III of Spain and resigned Sicily and Naples to his younger son, Ferdinand." Charles became King of Spain in 1759, not 1754.
• "For a brief period the Parthenopaean Republic was instated in Naples by French Revolution supporters; however, a counter-revolutionary army of lazzaroni retook Naples in order to restore royal power." The Cardinal Ruffo sezied Naples, not the lazzaroni.

who was the first "king of the two sicilies"?

I am perplexed by the claim at List_of_monarchs_of_the_Two_Sicilies that "Joachim Murat was the first king to rule a kingdom which was called "Two Sicilies" by the Edict of Bayonne, in 1808" , but see capitulation signed on 12 June 1798 https://openaccess.leidenuniv.nl/bitstream/1887/4576/4/Thesis.pdf , the Bailiff de Turin Frisari signs "without prejudice to the right of domination which belongs to my Sovereign, the King of the Two Sicilies". Some one please clarify who was the first king of the two sicilies? I posted this same question here http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:List_of_monarchs_of_the_Two_Sicilies Red taxi (talk) 23:01, 20 February 2010 (UTC)

In the "Geogrpahy" section The map and list seem incorrect and don't match each other.

I have also added an edit to the actual article in Wikipedia ("Kingdom of the Two Sicilies"), repeated at the bottom here, that gives a little more illustration of the apparent problem.

--It looks as though a number of interested people who are experts, etc. have been working on this article, but to a casual reader like myself, who was looking up the kingdom out of interest, the map doesn't make sense, and in fact, it is possible that some error has caused a number of the provinces shown on the map to be mis-identified. Perhaps someone with expertise can correct it,or if it is correct, make some clarification, since I have been left confused by the map and table apparent mis-match.

My addition to the article is shown below. It appears just after the two existing section titles ("Geograpy" and "Provinces")and begins with "Caution....."

And Thank You to the contributors to this page; I found it very informative, even though a number of the interested parties and experts have disagreements---even knowing about those disagreements was illuminating for me.
-JB--an American of Italian descent.

Geography ===Provinces=== (Caution: This map and list seem incorrect and don't match each other.---The map shows 13 colored regions, but the list contains 14 names. E.g. map has "Sicily" as #13, but the list has Sicily as #14. ---If all the names are correct, then one province is missing on the map.--Perhaps someone with more knowledge than I(I was just browsing about the history of the area) can correct this, or at least clarify the way the section is written or constructed. --Thank You. )

Provinces/departments

The author of the map forgot the province/department of Naples! Naples wasn't in Terra di Lavoro!!! --84.222.233.154 (talk) 22:05, 3 August 2010 (UTC)

This article is terrible

This article is quite bad, especially the organization, which is incomprehensible. Some thoughts for improvements:

1. Material about the history of southern Italy and Sicily before 1816 should be at Kingdom of Naples and Kingdom of Sicily. The title "King of the Two Sicilies" obviously predates 1816, but the Kingdom of the Two Sicilies only came into existence in the latter year, and it is the latter which is the subject of the article. Background should of course be given, especially for the period between the beginning of Bourbon rule in 1734 and the union of the two kingdoms in 1816, but it should clearly be background to explain how the kingdom came to be; we should not recapitulate material that more properly belongs in other articles
2. Somewhat tangential, but I tend to think Kingdom of Sicily ought to be split up, with one article on the united Norman kingdom that existed until the Vespers in 1282, and a separate article on the insular kingdom that existed from 1282 to 1816. The insular kingdom probably has less claim to be the original kingdom created in 1130 than the Kingdom of Naples does.
3. The article should focus on the history of the Kingdom of the Two Sicilies, properly speaking, between 1816 and 1860/61. It should describe the basic political narrative of those years, the key military-political events (revolutions in 1820 and 1848-9; the conquest of the kingdom by Garibaldi and the Piedmontese in 1860), the reigns of the four kings, as well as important economic, social, and cultural developments and features
4. There should probably also be a section on the geography of the kingdom.
5. Historiographical issues should be discussed somewhere; the standard heroic risorgimento narrative should be contrasted with more recent works that take issue with that narrative.
6. What should not be discussed here is the detailed history of the pretendership to the throne of the kingdom after 1861. We should, as somebody suggested above, have a separate article at House of Bourbon-Two Sicilies to deal with such dynastic issues, which are deeply tangential to the history of the kingdom itself.
7. We should also avoid much discussion of the history of southern Italy and Sicily after 1861. This is an article about a kingdom that existed in a particular period of time, not an article about a region.

I don't really have time to do this myself, but hopefully this can at least be a starting off point for improving the article. john k (talk) 03:37, 23 August 2010 (UTC)

I agree completely. I read this just after looking at the Kingdom of Sicily article and saying to myself, "This should really be split up into two articles..." Srnec (talk) 19:13, 23 October 2010 (UTC)

Wealthiest?

The Kingdom of the Two Sicilies was by far the poorest and most economically backward of the Italian peninsula, the wealthiest were Piedmont-Sardinia, Lombardy and Venetia (even if the latter two belonged to Austria for the majority of the 19th Century). I have rectified this. Mspence835 (talk) 13:32, 16 October 2010 (UTC)

And I have rectified this again since the history you're aware of isn't the actual fact. I'm italian and I know my own history and I'm also aware of what the history books say. However, in recent times, there have been some proofs coming out that tell the truth about the history of the Two Sicilies. Even the most important documentaries in Italy have told the truth about what actually happened. (See the documentary, Ulisse. The guy that presents it is from Piedmont) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 87.15.240.66 (talk) 08:14, 24 October 2010 (UTC)

The Kingdom of the Two Sicilies was the most populous and militarily powerful Italian state. I've never read any reliable source which suggested that it was the wealthiest (although I'm sure it was better off than Sardinia proper, and perhaps than the Papal States). Every account I've read notes Lombardy-Venetia as the most economically developed part of the peninsula. john k (talk) 04:32, 23 November 2010 (UTC)

And as I said, there are constantly reported facts in Italy about this. I'm sorry, but if you don't know the language your access to historical sources is highly limited. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 87.14.241.172 (talk) 16:04, 17 December 2010 (UTC)

Could you provide some sources? And if this is so widely recognized in Italy, there ought to be sources in English that discuss it - English language historians of Italy generally keep abreast with what's going on in Italian scholarship. john k (talk) 16:23, 17 December 2010 (UTC)

I don't know it might be. Just type "Regno delle Due Sicilie" on google, that should do the trick. And I'm sorry, I'm not very informed about translated sources. I'm Italian. The Italian article reports facts the way they have been described here, but they're much more detailed.

What a joke!!!!!!!!! The ony two areas to have some industrialization were Naples and Palermo. Illiteracy ranged from 88% (Sicily) to 90% (Campania). There was a grand total of eleven (yes, eleven) kilometers of railroad tracks in the whole south. Agriculture had not moved forward in the past ten centuries. This article belongs in the Wikipedia Fantasy section. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.119.54.82 (talk) 02:56, 28 March 2011 (UTC) —

This needs a government section: Two Sicilies government was alleged to be absolute/despotic?

I wrote this on the talk page of Congress of Laibach, but it's worth noting and repeating here, as well.

According to a 1931 encyclopedia entry on the Kingdom of the Two Sicilies, the government under Ferdinand I (around 1820) was dspotic and absolute.

Quoted directly from the old book:

In 1820 there was a military rising in the Neapolitan dominions, joined by the Carbonari (q.v.), under the leadership of General Pepe, to secure a constitutional government. [King Ferdinand I] yielded to the demand, notwithstanding his agreement with Austria to make no constitutional concessions. At the same time a revolutionary movement aiming at autonomy for the island took place in Sicily. The Congress of the Great Powers at Laibach (1821) charged Austria with the restoration of Ferdinand's absolute power'. The patriots made an ineffectual resistance and Ferdinand resumed his tyrannical sway under the protection of Austrian bayonets. Ferdinand died in 1825, and was succeeded by his son Francis I (q.v.), who in 1830 was succeeded by his son Ferdinand II (q.v.). The change of rulers brought about no change in the despotic policy of the government.

— Frank H. Vizetelly, Litt.D., LL.D., ed (1931). "Two Sicilies, KINGDOM OF THE".
New Standard Encyclopedia of Universal Knowledge. Twenty Four.
"New York and London": Funk and Wagnalls Company. pp. 112.

This, to me, seems very notable. There is no section regarding how Two Sicilies was governed, and that information would make for good education. However, I don't know how to approach writing this. Can someone help add this in? I don't want to give it a shot because I'll be chastized if I log into my username and dare try. --99.157.108.248 (talk) 22:39, 22 November 2010 (UTC)

As I have noted above, the whole article is awful. It needs basically a total rewrite. But I'm not volunteering either. john k (talk) 04:31, 23 November 2010 (UTC)

Absolutely, the Kingdom of the Two Sicilies was an absolute monarchy, even though described as "illuminated". — 87.5.22.246 (talk) 16:47, 1 February 2011 (UTC)

could be of any interest? about discussion in editing this page? --93.34.52.230 (talk) 19:58, 3 April 2011 (UTC)

File:Calabria Ulteriore I.png Nominated for Deletion

An image used in this article, File:Calabria Ulteriore I.png, has been nominated for deletion at Wikimedia Commons in the following category: Deletion requests August 2011 What should I do? Don't panic; a discussion will now take place over on Commons about whether to remove the file. This gives you an opportunity to contest the deletion, although please review Commons guidelines before doing so. If the image is non-free then you may need to upload it to Wikipedia (Commons does not allow fair use) If the image isn't freely licensed and there is no fair use rationale then it cannot be uploaded or used. This notification is provided by a Bot --CommonsNotificationBot (talk) 22:10, 28 August 2011 (UTC)

Wealthiest says who?

I added "citation needed" to the "wealthiest" at the very beginning of the article and Khajidha removed it. Making such a claim requires some facts, which are not provided. It is not the first time that this sort of historical revisionism on the past of southern Italy takes place on Wikipedia, especially on the Italian version. God help us if this starts also on the English version. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Stecap (talk • contribs) 17:51, 8 September 2011 (UTC)

I'm not an "expert", but I'll take a look at it.

Hey all,

I know a pretty good bit about Italian history, so I'll take a crack at improving this article. I wouldn't call myself an expert, though, so I'm leaving the tag up there -- hopefully someone who knows more than I do will swing by and improve it further. Zaldax (talk) 15:02, 31 July 2012 (UTC)

Quote from Lancaster Seems Irrelevant to Point It Is Supposed to Illustrate

'Lancaster notes that the integration of the Kingdom of the Two Sicilies in the Kingdom of Italy changed the status of Naples forever: "Abject poverty meant that, throughout Naples and Southern Italy, thousands decided to leave in search of a better future."'

1) Who is Lancaster?!

2) How in the world does this quote bear upon unification?

GeneCallahan (talk) 11:07, 29 September 2012 (UTC)

Invasion by Sardinia?

The section entitled "Invasion by Sardinia" contains nothing about an invasion by Sardinia! GeneCallahan (talk) 11:22, 29 September 2012 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 3 external links on Kingdom of the Two Sicilies. 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:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20090926150113/http://www.realcasadiborbone.it/uk/archiviostorico/cs_04.htm to http://www.realcasadiborbone.it/uk/archiviostorico/cs_04.htm
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20090629185159/http://faculty.ed.umuc.edu/~jmatthew/naples/Parthenopean_Republic.html to http://faculty.ed.umuc.edu/~jmatthew/naples/Parthenopean_Republic.html
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20061229161058/http://www.realcasadiborbone.it/uk/archiviostorico/cs_05.htm to http://www.realcasadiborbone.it/uk/archiviostorico/cs_05.htm

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

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

• 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.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 09:43, 6 May 2017 (UTC)

Italian flag inserted into the flag of the Kingdom of the Two Sicilies

I think that there's something wrong with the image. As far as I know, the flag of the Kingdom of the Two Sicilies didn't contain the Italian flag, I'm not sure. Can anybody confirm that it was the flag of the Kingdom of the Two Sicilies in a certain period? Which period?

Largest arms factory in Mongiana, Calabria, under the King of Spain

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reali_ferriere_ed_Officine_di_Mongiana — Preceding unsigned comment added by C Squitti (talk • contribs) 11:20, 25 April 2020 (UTC)

Is the Neapolitan name correct?

It's great that there's the name in Neapolitan and in Sicilian, but I don't think they are quite correct and actually are Italian-flavoured. Napulitano has a feature, raddoppiamento iniziale (see WikiBook), wherein duje after the article 'e becomes dduje. Also, dê is "from the". In the Napulitano wiki the name is in fact different: Regno de Ddoje Sicilie. Likewise, masculine singular words in Sicilianu totally end in -u (e.g. omu), which is its most notable feature, and plurals of both genders are in -i (e.g. matri) — cf. Sicilianu article calls it Regnu dî Dui Sicili. 129.67.116.191 (talk) 16:02, 21 May 2023 (UTC)

Enclaves?

Hi, I was curious about the 'white spots' on the map; as far as I can understand the legend, they are simply enclaves of the northern political unit. However, they are unnamed on the map, and not mentioned in the article (which I admittedly only skimmed). I'd be curious as to what places these were, and how they came to be. I guess it would make the article more complete, as well. Not being a scholar of It. Pol. Hist., I wouldn't even know where to look, so I'm hoping someone who knows this could add to the article. TiA! T 84.208.65.62 (talk) 10:36, 11 December 2023 (UTC)