Jump to content

Talk:Charles Henri, Prince of Commercy

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

Names

[edit]

I have found several sources claiming he was Charles Henri as well as de Lorraine. However, with regards to his wife does seem to be Anne Elizabeth

  1. Histoire de Lorraine
  2. Le grand dictionnaire historique (the irony; also names his wife as Anne Elisabeth!)
  3. Henry Desmarest (1661-1741): exils d'un musicien dans l'Europe du grand siècle
  4. Collections manuscrites sur l'histoire des provinces de France: Bourgogne-Lorraine
  5. Face aux Colbert: les Le Tellier, Vauban, Turgot-- et l'avènement du libéralisme (another Anne Elisabeth)

I rest my case Monsieur le Duc 13:54, 5 July 2010 (UTC)

The source Frania cited clearly referred to him as Charles Henry; I saw no reason to ignore that while using the source to support the claim that de Lorraine was his surname. Anyway, if you search for sources in German, you'll find that Maria Theresa of Austria is called Maria Theresia von Österreich and, if you search for sources in Spanish, you'll find that Anne of Austria is called Ana de Austria. What I am trying to say is that none of the sources you cited say that de Lorraine was his surname, unless I missed it, in which case I humbly ask you to cite the sentence which says so. They simply call him Charles de Lorraine because they're in French; there is no doubt that French language sources also refer to Philip II of Spain as Philippe d'Espagne or Philippe d'Autriche, but we can't immediately claim that d'Espagne/d'Autriche was his surname. Surtsicna (talk) 14:12, 5 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The source Frania cited dates from 1692, at which time the letter y was much in use in place of i in the French language & French spelling was not settled the way it is now. As for the letter z, it was often used instead of s, even in plural form, and the letter s was written as an f. Consequently, here we are dealing with the evolution of the French language: pre-18th century vs post-18th century French.
If you care to read pre-18th century (and even post) French texts, you will see "Louis" spelled "Louys", "roi" "roy", "Paris" "Parys", "lui" "luy", "mai" "may", and the days of the week ending in "dy" instead of "di", etc. One example out of hundreds of pre-18th century French texts, on page 132, a text dating from the year 1552 in Nouvelle collection des mémoires pour servir à l'histoire de France depuis le XIIIe siècle jusqu'à la fin du XVIIIe..., par Joseph Fr. Michaud de l'Académie française et Poujoulat:
In all the above cases, modern French has replaced y by i and even en:wiki seems to be adopting modern French spelling with articles such those on the "de Guise", not spelled "de Guyze" or "de Guyse", which were the spelling at the time these personages were alive.
--Frania W. (talk) 15:55, 5 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for that explanation! Would you now explain the issue of his "surname"? The source you cited does not say that "de Lorraine" was his surname. Neither does the source later provided by LouisPhilippeCharles. They refer to him as "Charles Henri de Lorraine" because they are in French; there is no doubt that French language sources also refer to Philip II of Spain as Philippe d'Espagne or Philippe d'Autriche and that doesn't make d'Espagne/d'Autriche his surname. Surtsicna (talk) 16:06, 5 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  1. While we're at it, why not also look up the surname of his cousin whom he married & who is named in same source "Anne-Elizabeth de Lorraine"? Was it her surname or did she go without one & the "de Lorraine" was just something added in documents to identify her?
  2. More seriously, since the duc de Vaudémont, prince de Commercy is known under the appellation (for want of a better word) as "Charles-Henri/y de Lorraine", will not research to prove that "de Lorraine" was or not his sutname, or that he did, in fact, have a surname, be classified as OR?
--Frania W. (talk) 17:09, 5 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  1. Why not? It's as fishy as his "surname".
  2. The claim that "de Lorraine" was his surname is in itself an OR, regardless of how we call him, unless there is a source to confirm that. We can't assume that "de Lorraine" was his surname simply because sources call him "Charles Henri de Lorraine", otherwise Catherine of Aragon's surname would appear to be of Aragon - which is nonsense. Please find a source which says that de Lorraine was his surname or remove the dubious claim. Surtsicna (talk) 20:13, 5 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
If "de Lorraine" is not a surname, may I suggest that you remove such appellation from all wrongly-surnamed members of the dynastic House of Lorraine and let them go nameless. But before you do this, may I further suggest that you read what will look to you an enormously "mistake-laden" list of members of said House of Lorraine, on page 253 of the Bibliothèque historique de la France, published in 1778, as its author, Jacques Lelong, should be made to correct that page:
--Frania W. (talk) 21:39, 5 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Why should a skeleton/ghost/whatever be made to correct that page? There is nothing wrong with it, as far as I can see. But it does not say that de Lorraine was anyone's surname. Therefore, the claim that it was their surname is extremely dubious and I will do as you suggested - remove it. Surtsicna (talk) 22:00, 5 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Surtsicna: This is becoming ridiculous! My suggestion was in jest, as I am pretty sure you understood. Now, if you remove "de Lorrraine" to this "de Lorraine" family member, then remove it to all "de Lorraine" and have them go nameless.
When one reads official documents such as Nous, Françoys de Lorrayne de Guyse, trying to prove that this person is NOT named "Françoys de Lorrayne de Guyse" is OR. And I also believe that the authors of the various documents I provided were more knowledgeable on the Who's Who of France & Lorraine than the humble, or should be, wikipedians that we are. At least, I do not have the arrogance of believing that I know more than these respected authors.
--Frania W. (talk) 22:29, 5 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Surtsicna:

I just reverted you, and I am stopping right here and right now as this is becoming more than ridiculous.

--Frania W. (talk) 22:35, 5 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Dear Frania W.: I do not understand sarcasm. Believe me, I will remove the claim that "de Lorraine" was their surname wherever and whenever I see it unless you provide a source saying that "de Lorraine" was their surname. You are engaging not only in original research, but also in synthesis, by concluding that "de Lorraine" was their surname without a reference saying so. For God's sake, the text is in French; of course it calls them "de Lorraine"! Contemporary texts in German would have referred to them as von Lothringen, which doesn't make that their surname. Finally, you never resist the temptation to engage in personal attacks, by crafitily calling those who disagree "arrogant"; I do not have to tolerate that as I have so far.Surtsicna (talk) 23:16, 5 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Surtsicna (I'll skip the "dear"): Trying to find hidden meaning in what someone expressed is OR. My: "I do not have the arrogance of believing that I know more than these respected authors" is exactly what I mean

Well, at least I do not have the hypocrisy to say something like that. Surtsicna (talk) 12:01, 6 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

RE "sarcasm": "Sarcasm has a calming effect on Wikipedia. Use it frequently!", dixit Wikipedia. --Frania W. (talk) 01:38, 6 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

:) Surtsicna (talk) 12:01, 6 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Frania W.: Your reversion is not legitimate. The claim is not referenced. The references provided there do not say that "de Lorraine" was his surname and do not say that "Charles Henri de Lorraine" was his full name. Claiming that a source says what the source doesn't say hurts Wikipedia much more than an unsourced statement and, as far as I can do anything about it, Wikipedia will not be a mockery. Surtsicna (talk) 23:16, 5 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Surtsicna: In Henry Desmarest(1661-1741), the text from p. 137 to 148, by Hubert Collin, is on "Charles-Henri de Lorraine, prince de Vaudémont". On p. 140, is the genealogy tree from René II duc de Lorraine et de Bar way into the 18th century.

Hubert Collin is director of the archives départementales de Meurthe-et-Moselle (Nancy) and member of the Société de l'École des chartes.

The last page there is page 138. Am I missing something? Surtsicna (talk) 12:01, 6 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Above link replacing wrong one put there previously. --Frania W. (talk) 12:30, 6 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Lastly, here is what Marie Antoinette answered when asked what her name was at time of her trial [1] ...but, what did she know...?

--Frania W. (talk) 01:38, 6 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Interesting. Go ahead and place that in the article about her. I don't see how it's related to this article. Again, it does not say that "de Lorraine" was her surname and we obviously can't conclude that Charles Henry's surname was "de Lorraine" even if hers was. Otherwise, we could argue that the surname of Emperor Charles of Austria and Duke Gerard of Lorraine was "de Lorraine". That's called synthesis. Surtsicna (talk) 12:01, 6 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
But it says that when asked to identify herself - "le président lui demande quel est son nom" , she answered "Je m'appelle Marie Antoinette de Lorraine..." --Frania W. (talk) 12:30, 6 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Good. So, should we assume that Charles of Austria's or Gerard of Lorraine's surname was de Lorraine? Surtsicna (talk) 13:29, 6 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Oh my! Where has all of this appeared from?! The way I see it, is that the surname of de Lorraine is jus as de Bourbon, it is not translated - that is just all I see it as. And I am not being rude I just do not understand why this is so difficult to comprehend. I stand by what I think Monsieur le Duc 14:28, 6 July 2010 (UTC)
It is difficult to comprehend why you claim that de Lorraine was the surname of all members of the House of Lorraine without citing a source that said so. If it was their surname, there has to be a source saying so. The way I see it, de Lorraine is simpy French for of Lorraine and they were of Lorraine as patrilineal descendants of the Dukes of Lorraine, just like Sigismund of Luxembourg was of Luxembourg as a patrilineal descendant of the Dukes of Luxembourg and just like Anne of Austria was of Austria as a patrilineal descendant of the Archdukes of Austria. Surtsicna (talk) 14:46, 6 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The examples I have given are all French..It is just obvious to me Monsieur le Duc LouisPhilippeCharles (talk) 18:33, 6 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
And this example is in Latin and this one is in German and this one is in Italian. So what's obvious? That his surname was "a Lotharingia" or "von Lothringen" or "di Lorena"? Surtsicna (talk) 19:06, 6 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Surtsicna: Why the aggressive tone when Monsieur le Duc is honestly stating what he thinks? He has shown no sarcasm nor made use of any personal attack against you to be addressed in such a tone.
When one reads the French texts we both submitted, it is impossible to tell that "de Lorraine" is not meant as a surname when it is constantly showing up next to other "surnames" for which no reference is being asked. And Monsieur le Duc is correct in stating that "de Lorraine" is similar to "de Bourbon" in its use as a surname.
We both have made available texts which are the works of respected authors who have the right to some consideration.
--Frania W. (talk) 22:37, 6 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Please, Frania Wisniewska, don't invent an "aggressive tone" on my side. LouisPhilippeCharles has not attacked anyone indeed and I haven't attacked him. It is obvious.
WP:OR is very clear. Users can't conclude anything from sources if the source does not clearly say that. I have made available Wiki policies which say that your texts can't be used as sources when it comes to this matter because they do not address the matter. Both the Spanish and the Italian Wikipedia translate "de Lorraine". There is no reason to refer to him as "de Lorraine" and not refer to Anne of Austria as Ana de Austria ( or Anne d'Autriche ;) ). Surtsicna (talk) 10:26, 8 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

"Wikipedia does not publish original research. The term "original research" refers to material—such as facts, allegations, ideas, and stories—not already published by reliable sources. It also refers to any analysis or synthesis by Wikipedians of published material, where the analysis or synthesis advances a position not advanced by the sources."

"This means that all material added to articles must be attributable to a reliable published source, even if not actually attributed. The sourcing policy, Verifiability, says a source must be provided for all quotations, and for anything challenged or likely to be challenged—but a source must exist even for material that is never challenged. "Paris is the capital of France" needs no source because no one is likely to object to it, but we know that sources for that sentence exist. If no source exists for something you want to add to Wikipedia, it is what we call original research. To demonstrate that you are not adding original research, you must be able to cite reliable published sources that are directly related to the topic of the article, and that directly support the material as presented."

Since you reject as "original research" all the "sources" given above, even the work of Hubert Collin, what type of "reliable source" do you demand? --Frania W. (talk) 12:32, 8 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

"The term "original research" refers to material—such as facts, allegations, ideas, and stories—not already published by reliable sources. It also refers to any analysis or synthesis by Wikipedians of published material, where the analysis or synthesis advances a position not advanced by the sources." This is exactly what you're doing. You are analyzing the sources you cited in order to conclude that "de Lorraine" was their surname while the source itself does not say that.
"To demonstrate that you are not adding original research, you must be able to cite reliable published sources that are directly related to the topic of the article, and that directly support the material as presented." You haven't done this so far. This is the kind of a reliable source I "demand" - a source that directly supports the claim that "de Lorraine" was the surname of Charles Henry and his relatives. Surtsicna (talk) 13:14, 8 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
"To demonstrate that you are not adding original research, you must be able to cite reliable published sources that are directly related to the topic of the article, and that directly support the material as presented. You haven't done this so far.", dixit Surtsicna
How about Hubert Collin? What type of a source does he fall under?
--Frania W. (talk) 13:49, 8 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I am sure that he is an author of reliable sources but, so far, I haven't seen where he says: "De Lorraine was the surname of the members of the House of Lorraine", or anything like that. I am sure that you are well aware what I underlined and why I underlined it; I did not underline "reliable published sources". I don't know how you managed to interpret that as me saying that Collin was not a reliable source. Surtsicna (talk) 16:40, 8 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Followed in here as I looked up Surtsicna's contributions (he helpfully found a source for the expected birth of Elizabeth II's first great-grandchild). My comment is the same as it was when I first edited about the Orléans names. Houses, whether royal or noble, for the most part, derived names from titles, territories and properties. It is anachronistic to apply the idea of "everyone must have a surname" to these people. "Lorraine" simply is not a surname. It is the name of a royal family, it is a territorial designation and a house name but none of those make it a "surname" as we know it. Surnames are legal constructions and there was no legal device at the time requiring these people to have one. Because something is held in common among agnates and appended to the end of any of their personal given names does not mean that they have a surname. Surtsicna's points about "of Austria/d'Autriche/von Österreich", etc, are right on point. Had Charles Henry been settled in primarily in German lands he would have been known among German speaking people as Karl Heinrich von Lothringen perhaps, not as "de Lorraine". Seven Letters 18:32, 8 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The way I understand what you wrote, (and forgive me if I'd rather limit the discussion to France & Lorraine), then not a single aristocratic family of France has a surname because all the "de" + word names come from a land, an estate, a city, a village etc...
What are we to do with the descendants of these aristocrats who do have on their identity card these very family names "de"+, which would imply that at one point in time (when?) these "non-names" did in fact become "surnames"? Why is there not a "reference needed" attached to their names? Picking one for example: Charles Louis d'Albert de Luynes, why is not he flagged? The surname of the descendants of this ancient French noble family is... "d'Albert de Luynes"
Please look up the signatures of the following 1. 19. 44. 61. 65. 70. 75. 76. 78. 79. 81. 83. 90. 91. 100. 101. at [2]
--Frania W. (talk) 22:33, 8 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
"Charles Louis d'Albert de Luynes, why is not he flagged?" The status of the House of Lorraine was equivalent to the status of the House of Austria, the House of Anjou, etc. We don't call the Habsburgs X de Austria or Y von Österreich. Referring to the members of the House of Lorraine as X de Lorraine calls for referring to Marie Antoinette as Maria Antoinette von Österreich-Lothringen. Surtsicna (talk) 09:32, 9 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
A "House" is a "House", a "surname" is a "surname", and this being en:wiki, why should not Charles Louis d'Albert de Luynes's accepted surname "d'Albert de Luynes" be flagged the same as the "de Lorraine" are? That was a simple question. He was "d'Albert de Luynes" no more no less than Charles Henry was "de Lorraine" and, at the time of the birth of Charles Henry de Lorraine (born in 1649), and Charles Louis d'Albert de Luynes (born in 1717), French people had surnames. The Ordinance of Villers-Cotterêts[3], signed by François I in 1539, cannot be ignored - although I imagine that bringing it up is classified WP:original research, synthesis etc.
--Frania W. (talk) 13:14, 9 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Please find any government form of the time were a field for a "surname" is filled in as "de Lorraine". Seven Letters 16:43, 9 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
!!!
Would not that be great! A "government form" from the 16th & 17th centuries!
And would not it be even greater that which would allow you to tell me that such find is classified under the sacrosanct original research & synthesis.
I have already brought several documents, i.e. fac simile of manuscripts with signatures by different members of the "de Lorraine" family [4] to this discussion :
  • n° 1: Nous, Marguerite de Lorraine, duchesse d'Alençon...
  • n° 19: the signature of a document Charles de Lorraine, the future Charles IV de Lorraine
  • n° 70: Catherine de Lorraine (signature) with text Haulte et puissante princesse Madame Catherine de Lorraine... veuve de feu haut et pussant Messire Nicolas de Lorraine comte de Vaudémont...
  • n° 78: Nous Henry de Lorraine duc de Mayenne...
  • n° 79: document signed by the duc de Guise, prince de Joinville Charles de Lorraine where there is mention of Madame Renée de Lorraine...
  • n° 83: Très hault et puissante Madame Jehanne de Lorraine, abbesse de l'église & abbaye Ns dame de Jouarre...
  • n° 90: Marie de Lorraine (signature)
  • n° 91: Louis de Lorraine grand escuyer de France (signature)
and see no reason why I should be ordered to bring more.
May I also point out the fact that the list & fac simile of these documents are given by Jérôme Cortade with the note: Tous les documents sont visibles sur Paris – (Quartier de l’Hôtel des Ventes de Drouot).
--Frania W. (talk) 17:59, 9 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Frania, if I were a prince of Lorraine, I certainly would describe myself as "NN de Lorraine" in French... And NN von Lothringen in German, and NN of Lorraine in English. These citations, in the French language, prove nothing because a distinction is not made. One of those references refers to a princess "of Lorraine". Albert of Monaco has signed his name as "Albert de Monaco" before... Does it make "de Monaco" a surname? No, it does not. All Lorraine is is the house and territory to which the family belonged. Obviously, it is an identifier but it is not an untranslatable surname the way you see it and there is no proof to say that it ever was. Seven Letters 20:51, 9 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Was her surname de Monaco?
Exactly, Seven Letters! Grace Kelly signed herself Grace de Monaco after her marriage and nobody ever asserted that that was her surname. Isn't that odd? Surtsicna (talk) 13:44, 10 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
So the "de Lorraine" is title related?? Then perhaps I can get an explanation as to why Henri, Count of Harcourt is mentioned as Henri de Lorraine[5][6]. According to "Seven Letters" if someone were ".....a prince of Lorraine, I certainly would describe myself as "NN de Lorraine" in French", then Henri, Count of Harcourt should not be mentioned as "de Lorraine". Even Henri's father, Charles I, Duke of Elbeuf is mentioned as "de Lorraine".[7] And Charles' father Rene is mentioned as de Lorraine[8]. For a name that is not a surname, then where is this "title" that entitles them to "de Lorraine"? Rene's father, Claude de Lorraine, duc de Guise[9] oddly was not Duke of Lorraine, but he carries "de Lorraine". --Kansas Bear (talk) 01:30, 11 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Have you read the discussion, Kansas Bear? Claude, Duke of Guise, was a son of a Duke of Lorraine and therefore he and all his male-line descendants are of Lorraine (French: de Lorraine, German: von Lothringen, Italian: de Lorena, Spanish: de Lorena, etc) just like Sigismund of Luxembourg is of Luxembourg (French: de Luxembourg, German: von Luxemburg, Italian: di Lussemburgo, Spanish: de Luxemburgo) as an agnatic descendant of a Duke of Luxembourg and just like Anne of Austria is of Austria (French: d'Autriche, German: von Österreich, Spanish: de Austria) as an agnatic descendant of an Archduke of Austria. "Where is this title that entitles them to de Lorraine?" I see them all in Template:Princes of Lorraine. A clue, perhaps? Even if not, what is the title that entitles Elizabeth of York to of York and Barbara of Cilli to of Cilli? Surtsicna (talk) 08:52, 11 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I'm sorry, I thought since you have been clamoring for sources, that you had sources proving what you are stating. Simply referencing a wikipedia template is hardly a published source. Do you have a source that states Rene II and his male-line descendants were all entitled to "Prince of Lorraine"? --Kansas Bear (talk) 14:52, 12 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Excuse me, I thought you had sources proving that de Lorraine was their surname. And why did you ignore the rest of my comment? Why did you ignore my comment about Sigismund of Luxembourg? Surtsicna (talk) 20:48, 12 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I'll take your "Red herring"(since I never said "de Lorraine was their surname), to mean that you do not have any sources.
I never said "de Lorraine" was anyone's surname. I asked, "For a name that is not a surname, then where is this "title" that entitles them to "de Lorraine"?" Seeing how none of the individuals I listed indicated a title(x of "de Lorraine") being passed down in the sources I found. Instead of an answer, backed by a source, I get a link to a wikipedia template and a false accusation. --Kansas Bear (talk) 23:18, 12 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
If you do not claim that "de Lorraine" was their surname, what are we discussing? What is the point of all of this? Surtsicna (talk) 09:49, 13 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
So now instead of answering my question, you continue with your "Red Herring" of my supposed claim.
The point? Just as I had illustrated earlier, that "de Lorraine" was being passed down generation to generation with no apparent title(X de Lorraine) being mentioned. Which is why I asked if you had a reference. Which apparently I won't be getting an answer, simply the continued attempt to avoid giving one. You seem to be quite determined to pigeon-hole someone as either for or against your opinion. I'd rather do the research, find the facts, and enjoy learning something in the process. --Kansas Bear (talk) 21:59, 13 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I had illustrated above that other territorial designations were passed down generation to generation with no apparent title being mentioned. Sigismund of Luxembourg, for an umpteenth time, a son of a ruler of Luxembourg, is being ignored all this time. I have as many references to prove that they were princes of Lorraine as you have to prove that their surname was de Lorraine. The amount of WP:SYNTHESIS on your part is gross. "I'd rather do the research, find the facts, and enjoy learning something in the process." So why don't you? Surtsicna (talk) 13:19, 14 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I have as many references to prove that they were princes of Lorraine..... Where are they? Post them here. Does this "Prince of Lorraine" title start with Rene II?
The amount of WP:SYNTHESIS on your part is gross.. What synthesis? Where exactly have I stated the "de Lorraine" was their surname or part of some un-named title? Until you provide sources supporting your position, you are the only one practicing WP:SYNTHESIS. I am still searching for sources for either "de Lorraine" the surname or "Prince(s) de Lorraine". So continue your false accusations and diversions to keep from answering my question, yet again.
And as for Sigismund of Luxembourg, I was unaware wikipedia articles could be used to reference other wikipedia articles. --Kansas Bear (talk) 21:53, 14 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
"I have as many references to prove that they were princes of Lorraine as you have to prove that their surname was de Lorraine." → "Where are they?" Exactly where the references for the "de Lorraine" claim are. I have never claimed that they bore the title Prince of Lorraine. I said that their inclusion in the template was "a clue, perhaps? Even if not, what is the title that entitles Elizabeth of York to of York and Barbara of Cilli to of Cilli?" This discussion of ours is based on your hanging onto five letters while deliberately ignoring the rest of the comment.
"Where exactly have I stated the de Lorraine was their surname or part of some un-named title?" Here? If I have misunderstood you, please do tell us what your position is! What are you arguing for? The rest of that paragraph is making me sick, so I'll try to pretend that it's not there.
"And as for Sigismund of Luxembourg, I was unaware wikipedia articles could be used to reference other wikipedia articles." Where have I used it as a reference? If Charles Louis d'Albert de Luynes can be mentioned without such a comment, Sigismund of Luxembourg can certainly be mentioned as well. Surtsicna (talk) 14:13, 15 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I'll take your response to mean, you don't have a reference stating the title "Prince of Lorraine" started with Rene II and was passed down from generation to generation, and that you have initiated this discussion without any source/reference to support your opinion. There is the definition of sick.
As for French(not Lorraine) royalty surnames, Encyclopedie Methodique:Jurisprudence, p156-161,[10] goes into detail concerning Henri IV and his descendants. --Kansas Bear (talk) 15:24, 15 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
And I'll take your response to mean that you do not think that "de Lorraine" was the surname of the members of the House of Lorraine. Cheers :) Surtsicna (talk) 15:44, 15 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
If "de Lorraine" was not the surname of the members of the Lorraine family, then what was their surname or did they have none?
--Frania W. (talk) 16:48, 15 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Not having a surname is nothing strange. People without surnames lived before and after the Prince of Commercy. They even live today. Therefore, the argument "everyone must have a surname" is moot. If we don't have a source that says that "de Lorraine" was their surname, ignoring the question is better than inventing the answer. Surtsicna (talk) 10:51, 17 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Also, remember, the Princes of Great Britain and Ireland, who from George I to Victoria and her issue were all "of Hanover/Brunswick and Lunenburg" or "of Saxe-Coburg and Gotha" in perpetuity. A prominent one many people might be familiar with. Seven Letters 14:18, 11 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
What do Grace Grimaldi née Kelly, princesse de Monaco, and the princes of Great Britain and Ireland have to do with the Lorraine family?
--Frania W. (talk) 18:16, 11 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
It blows your notion of a signature absolutely proving a surname out of the water and also shows that people can be "of" one thing and have additional titles where they are "of" other things. Seven Letters 18:19, 11 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I see nowhere where "it blows my notion of a signature absolutely proving a surname out of the water": a signature "X... de Lorraine, duc de Lorraine" can be "de Lorraine" in both when the first one is a surname & the second the "de" following a title, as we have in the case of "Philippe d'Orléans, duc d'Orléans"; on the other hand, we can also have "Louis Alexandre de Bourbon, comte de Toulouse" as we have "Grace Grimaldi, princesse de Monaco".
--Frania W. (talk) 18:52, 11 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
We can also have "Grace de Monaco, princesse de Monaco".[11] Was de Monaco her surname? Surtsicna (talk) 20:48, 12 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Source?

[edit]

I have removed the bone of contention. If this continues, I will consider removing the infobox; like most infoboxes, it is producing more heat than light.

Some questions:

Answers:
  1. No. That's the origin of this dispute. Wikipedia:PROVEIT: "The burden of evidence lies with the editor who adds or restores material."
  2. I have no idea.
  3. To push a POV? Surtsicna (talk) 09:49, 13 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Reply:
  1. Hopefully getting there with said source accepted by contributors to this article.
  2. It may interest readers to learn the full name of the person they are looking up.
  3. What does this mean: *"To push a POV?"* ??? It hits me as a sly remark addressed to those coming up with surnames. What "POV" can be pushed when giving the full name of an historical personage in an encyclopedic article? Please explain.
--Frania W. (talk) 21:29, 13 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  1. Which "said source" says "his full name is"? That's what Pmanderson asked.
  2. It's already in the title of the article.
  3. You haven't come up with a single source saying "his surname was" or "his full name was". You are simply opposed to translating "de Lorraine" to "of Lorraine". That's a POV. Surtsicna (talk) 13:26, 14 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Surtsicna: ***You are simply opposed to translating "de Lorraine" to "of Lorraine"***: this is your judgment of me. We are co-participants in a project and we may not agree all the time & obviously rarely do.
When you write ***"To push a POV? "*** followed by a question mark, I take it as an accusation because to push is not an innocent act. I am not "pushing" any POV, I am simply stating that "de Lorraine" is the surname of the Lorraine family.
Would it be too much to ask you not to bring slyly-worded accusations to those with whom you do not agree?
--Frania W. (talk) 14:20, 14 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Frania claims that "de Lorraine" is the surname of the Lorraine family, even of this natural scion; Surtsicna challenges that. Frania, do you have a source for your assertion? Septentrionalis PMAnderson 15:48, 14 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Surtsicna & PMAnderson claim that "de Lorraine" is not the surname of the Lorraine family; do you have a source for your assertion? --Frania W. (talk) 19:04, 14 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
A: God exists! B: Do you have proof? God doesn't exist! A: Do you have proof? Seven Letters 19:43, 14 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Almost so. The way out, however, is straightforward: I have not made any assertion on the subject; I don't think (in all the scrambling for parallels above) that Surtsicna has. It is the burden of those who would include something to provide a source. Frania hasn't. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 19:54, 14 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Surtsicna has shown, with irrefutable evidence, that a surname a signature does not make! Seven Letters 19:45, 14 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Because Mme Grimaldi née Kelly signed "Grace de Monaco", which was not her surname, is not "irrefutable evidence" that "de Lorraine" is not the surname/nom de famille of the Lorraine family. I do not believe that such an argument would hold in court.
And why should not I in return ask for proof/source spelling out that "de Lorraine" was / is not a surname? Why should any reader take for granted what Surtsicna, PMAnderson & 7 Letters interpret to be the only truth when several of us have brought numerous texts, ancient & modern, where only "de Lorraine" is used in the mention of these members of the Lorraine family?
"Marguerite de Lorraine, duchesse d'Alençon", did not only sign "Marguerite de Lorraine", but began her text with:
  • Nous, Marguerite de Lorraine, duchesse d'Alençon...
What type of a discussion is this? Why no commentaries to the many texts I brought to this page? While they are totally ignored, you ask me to bring "sources". Who are you to ignore and/or denigrate the work of some of us? And what have Grace Kelly & God to do with this subject? I have spent hours searching for sources which are rejected with not a single look at them or only disparaging comments, and the "proof" brought against my work is the signature of a 20th century American actress turned princess. Why should she be the final word as proof against hundreds of members of the houses of Lorraine, or Bourbon, France or Orléans, for that matter.
--Frania W. (talk) 20:52, 14 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
We, Marguerite of Lorraine, Duchess of Alençon... The reason there is no commentary is because none of them prove a surname. I know of no use of the royal we which includes a surname. You accuse us of ignorance and denigration when we ask for proof of something of which there is no proof to show you that you are spinning your wheels in trying to produce an anachronistic surname. Seven Letters 21:02, 14 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
And please do not misquote me. That "Grace Grimaldi" signed Grace de Monaco is proof that a signature does not make a surname because some of your sources reference signatures and you feel that the signatures prove surnames. Seven Letters 21:04, 14 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The fact that "a signature does not make a surname" does not mean that "a surname is never used in a signature".
Still hoping to get somewhere with those participating in this discussion, I shall ignore language such as "spinning your wheels"...
--Frania W. (talk) 21:26, 14 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
According to this source (not specially about this individual but a member of the House, Charles, Count of Armagnac I believe) “The overall security of the family’s future is best seen in Armagnac’s youngest son, known at court as simply ‘le Prince Charles’, a clear indication of the family’s prestige as only royalty have no surname”. - dwc lr (talk) 00:02, 15 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
And here we have it! Seven Letters 00:37, 15 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
"We" have what? The "irrefutable proof" that he had no surname because he was called "le Prince Charles" at court? Within & out the royal family, the brothers of Louis XVI were addressed to as "Artois", "Provence", which is no proof that they had no surname or baptismal names, or were not "comtes". Same with the numerous sons of king Louis Philippe who were addressed to as "Chartres", "Aumale", "Joinville", "Penthièvre"... which does not mean that they had not baptismal names, surnames or titles.
According to you, the signature of feue Madame la Princesse de Monaco and a sentence by Jonathan Spangler stating (wrongfully as far as the French royal family is concerned[12]) that "only royalty have no surname" is enough "irrefutable proof" to have Wikipedia not give a surname to Charles Henri de Lorraine and all the Lorraine family members?
If no surnames were given to royals & nobles, I am curious to know if, in theory, they are all "nameless".
--Frania W. (talk) 13:23, 15 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
No, of course this doesn't mean they were nameless. le Prince Charles’', Louis, Charles Henry are all names. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 13:33, 15 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
What I meant was "surnameless". --Frania W. (talk) 20:50, 15 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I can hardly believe that Frania considers heraldica, whose author clearly states that he runs the site as a hobby,[13] a more reliable source than Dr Jonathan Spangler. Surtsicna (talk) 13:57, 15 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Surtsicna, why always denigrate?
Velde is basing his work, among others, on the Mémoires of Saint-Simon & of Dangeau. Here is the text found at his References
  • A good source for the customs of the French royal court are the memoirs or diaries of its participants. Two stand out, namely Dangeau (who was also master of ceremonies, hence particularly attuned to questions of etiquette and protocol) and Saint-Simon. Parts of their works are available online at Gallica. (Gallica being the online library of the Bibliothèque Nationale de France.)
And now, to these, we can also add Diderot's Encyclopédie Méthodique published in 1778, and read what he had to say about the history & use of surnames in France, thanks to the link provided by Kansas Bear[14]
Or will the French 18th century Encyclopédiste be dismissed as an unlearned personage?
--Frania W. (talk) 20:50, 15 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Frania W.: I presented facts. The fact is that the author of that website is an amateur, just like we are. The fact is that you dismissed the work of a university lecturer in favour of a "hobby website". And I am denegrating? Uh...
Anyway, do the Mémoires of Saint-Simon & of Dangeau say that "de Lorraine" was the surname of the members of the House of Lorraine? Does the Encyclopédie Méthodique say that "de Lorraine" was the surname of the members of the House of Lorraine? Surtsicna (talk) 10:51, 17 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Surtsicna, for once (!), I wholeheartedly agree with you that you & I are "amateurs". But I will also repeat that you are denigrating when you judge François Velde as a mere amateur & put him down to our level. I do not believe that François Velde has to feel or be treated as an inferior to Dr. Jonathan Spangler.
Who's Who:
The BnF is not in the business of promoting the work of amateurs.
University professors are not invested with papal infallibility and Dr. Spangler is wrong when he writes that "royalty has no surname", unless by "royalty" he means the "king", as members of the royal family of France (the children of the king & those of the dauphin) do have a surname: "de France".
--Frania W. (talk) 04:20, 21 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
And why would you decide which one of them is right and which one is wrong? And why am I even asking that? Mr. Velde does not even say that "de Lorraine" was their surname. Surtsicna (talk) 21:30, 23 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Surtsicna, my last comment was not on whether Mr. Velde was saying "de Lorraine" was their surname or not, but was on the fact that you were denigrating François Velde as "an amateur, just like we are", which, in your eyes, seems to make Dr. Jonathan Spangler infallible.
I have brought texts to this discussion that mention the use of surnames long before the 16th & 17th centuries. In his Heraldica website, François Velde says nothing different than Diderot in his Encyclopédie who explains clearly the process involved in the creation of surnames since Roman times, then goes on to France with surnames of every day people, then how nobles got theirs, including members of the royal family, underlining that only the king did not have a surname.
Here is Christophe Levantal's book Ducs et pairs et duchés-pairies laïques à l'époque moderne : (1519-1790). [20] Note (1) of p. 800:
  • Par lettres patentes données au mois d'août 1629 (AN, KK 595, pp. 503-505, ou BN, Mss, Fonds français, n° 4584, pp. 98-100), le Roi permit à ses parents de lui faire prendre le nom de Lorraine à la place de son frère Louis qui reprenait celui de Savoie (cf. supra, note 1).
This is not meant for "Charles Henry de Lorraine, prince de Vaudémont", who was not born in 1629, but to settle the "surname/no surname" controversy.
--Frania W. (talk) 01:25, 24 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
[21]"In the Middle Ages, the feudal nobility needed to associate themselves with the fief or landed property which justified their rank. As a result, they adopted place-named surnames using either a prefix such as von or di, or suffix, such as -ski. Hence the French prince Charles de Lorraine would be known in German as "Karl von Lotharingen" or in Polish as "Karol Lotarinski"." -- Europe:A History, by Norman Davies, p 169. --Kansas Bear (talk) 00:32, 21 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Or in English as "Charles of Lorraine". So, if it is a surname, a type of surname that could be translated (as indicated by the book), why not call him "Charles Henri of Lorraine"? Anyway, that's a very interesting text, Kansas Bear! Surtsicna (talk) 21:30, 23 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
So after 2 weeks, where is your source for your continued reverting[22][23] of this article? Since according to you;
"No. That's the origin of this dispute. Wikipedia:PROVEIT: "The burden of evidence lies with the editor who adds or restores material.".". Since you have removed "de Lorraine" and added your opinion to this article.
Where is your source after your snide remark of, "I have as many references to prove that they were princes of Lorraine as you have to prove that their surname was de Lorraine.". Still waiting. After 2 weeks you have posted no sources(neither has your cheerleader) and apparently you suffer from an inability to accept facts when shown.
As for your other snide remark, in response to my statement("I'd rather do the research, find the facts, and enjoy learning something in the process"), "So why don't you." The facts speak for themselves. Where are your facts to support your opinion?
FYI, the other part of Wikipedia:PROVEIT;All quotations and any material challenged or likely to be challenged must be attributed to a reliable, published source using an inline citation..
So as it stands right now, your amount of WP:SYNTHESIS is sickening.(Using your words)
Also, why didn't you "smart-off" to John Kenney when he supported Heraldica.org?
"Heraldica is a hobby site, but it's written by an academic (in another field, admittedly) and maintains a very high level of quality and reliability, with direct citations to primary sources. If it doesn't count as a reliable source under current rules, then current rules should be changed, as it's one of the best sources around for the subjects it covers".[24] --Kansas Bear (talk) 03:45, 7 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Having read and relied upon both Spangler and Velde for years, I second Kenney's high assessment of the latter's work, and am disappointed that Surtsicna would belittle it to win an argument on Wikipedia over Commercy, one of the most minor figures in French history. Spangler's generally reliable, but I've never known Velde to falter in terms of accuracy, thoroughness, objectivity (save on the matter of the princesse de Réthy where, even though I disagree with his conclusion, his findings are the most comprehensive writing to be found on the subject), and insight. FactStraight (talk) 05:54, 7 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Since you have removed "de Lorraine" and added your opinion to this article." " What on Earth have I added? Surtsicna (talk) 12:31, 7 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Claudius princeps Lotharingiae.[25]
  • Your comments are indeed sickening. Referring to another user as someone's cheerleader, a clear personal attack, is obnoxious. Yuck.
  • You haven't responded to my question in 2 weeks. The book you cited says that "de Lorraine" can be translated. So why not translate it to "of Lorraine"?
  • Anyway, the current situation is: one source saying that "de Lorraine" was their surname[26], one source explicitly saying that they had no surname[27] and one source saying that their surname can be translated.[28] So, the options are: keep "de Lorraine" per the first source, remove "de Lorraine" per the second source and replace "de Lorraine" with "of Lorraine" per the third source. Why did you ignore the last two source? Why did you ignore your own source?
  • Finally, if Velde is considered reliable by a majority, then he has to be reliable enough. I said that I saw no reason to consider him more reliable than Spangler.
  • FactStraight, no matter how reliable Velde is, the fact is that he does not say anything about the last name of the members of the House of Lorraine. I don't even know why we're discussing him. He does not say that it was their surname. Surtsicna (talk) 12:31, 7 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Velde's under discussion because in her effort to adduce evidence about surname existence for dynasts, Frania cited him (rightly or wrongly), and in your determination to refute anything that suggests dynastic surname evidence (rightly or wrongly), you belittled him. Although you know I tend to disagree with you in this matter (people who mount thrones sometimes have surnames which don't, IMO, vanish, e.g. Vasa, Grimaldi, Romanov, Gonzaga, Bernadotte, Stuart, etc. -- and I've never seen such a monarch issue a decree or law dropping their pre-accession surname, with the exception of members of the House of Bonaparte who substituted "Napoléon" for "Bonaparte" as their legal surname. On the other hand, some monarchs belong to dynasties which mounted the throne before surnames came into use, and therefore may never have had one), however since I don't care about this issue as fervently as those who deny surnames for royalty, I have usually watched without weighing into these debates. I think Frania's frustrated because 1. reasonable evidence of the existence of surnames among royalty is being dismissed by people who usually acknowledge the gravitas of evidence, and 2. she has ended up on a diversion, chasing the red herring of "a reputable source which states X is a surname". Frania, don't spin your life searching for a needle in a haystack with the words engraved, "de Lorraine is a surname". That is the only proof your interlocutors will ever accept, knowing that even if the alleged surname were factual, that exact quote is no more likely to exist than Margaret Thatcher saying "I am female" (thus anyone who objects to Thatcher being referred to as "woman", "Lady", "Mrs.", "she" or "her" could, within the rules of Wikipedia, insist that such references are "under-sourced and relying on synthesis", and delete them). The real issue here is not surname but "of": Those who prefer that English Wikipedia refer to royalty (and even nobility) by always translating "de", "von", "af", etc as "of" are not going to concede that "de Lorraine" is a surname, at least partially because that would be a strong argument for leaving non-English particules untranslated. I've found this to be an important point to many royalists and royalty-watchers. But it isn't the only rationale for the "pro-of" advocates: I don't think, for instance, that Septentrionalis's arguments are motivated by deference for royalty so much as a relentless insistence on English usage wherever possible. I am in agreement with him when that manifests as "use what English uses" but (as one who read the 1911 Encyclopedia Britannica before later, dumbed-down versions) I disagree when it becomes "use English 'only'". Frania's best argument is that English history has not usually translated the "de" for cadets of the House of Guise (though it often does for the dukes themselves and their immediate family, e.g. "Mary of (Lorraine-)Guise", but "François de Lorraine, Count of Harcourt"). Surely therein lies a compromise -- if consensus is still what is being sought here. FactStraight (talk) 15:42, 7 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
FactStraight, *surname is a distraction, real issue is "of"*, maybe, but the advantage of this discussion may have been to be able to prove with reliable texts that "surnames" (which does not translate "surnom" in French, but "nom de famille") have been in use in France for a long time, fact that has been constantly denied up to now.
And thank you for your understanding of what I have been saying.
Cordialement, --Frania W. (talk) 17:42, 7 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Surtsicna, why do you choose to ignore Diderot who, in his Encyclopédie, wrote extensively about the "nom de famille"[[29]] as it came to being in the Roman Empire & taken up later in France (and in other parts of Europe), and to the fact that no one could go without? Thus, in France, everyone, from the "most humble" to the "most noble" had to have one, all the way up to the children of the king & their children - and because of its relationship with the kingdom of France, Lorraine followed the same course.
As for Dr. Spangler, with all respect due to him, he is incorrect, and in direct conflict with Diderot, in his statement that "only royalties have no surname"[30] if this is meant to include the French royal family. The king of France had no surname, but his children & all members of the royal family did - and still do.
I understand your obstinacy (and please, do not accuse me of "personal attack" for using such a term) changed to : desire not to lose this debate, as it would rob you of your argument in all similar cases; however, a proper & reliable source such as Diderot's - or François Ier's 1539 Ordonnance de Villers-Cotterêts - cannot be treated as unworthy of consideration.
--Frania W. (talk) 13:42, 7 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Does Diderot say that "de Lorraine" was the surname of the members of the House of Lorraine? It seems to me that he mentions "de France" as surname of the French king's children and "le duc de Lorraine" but I can't see where he says that "de Lorraine" was the surname of the members of the House of Lorraine.
As for your most recent insult, trust me, I'm used to being told far worse things by you ;) Surtsicna (talk) 14:14, 7 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
"Obstinacy" (used for lack of a better word caused by ignorance on my part since English is not my maternal tongue) was not meant as an insult - and I did ask you not to take it as a "personal attack". Edited my wording accordingly, maintaining that losing this debate would mean being disarmed in further discussions relative to a "nom de famille" born by everyone in France, except by the king, this as per reliable sources given in reference.
--Frania W. (talk) 15:43, 7 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for taking back that comment. I understand that we, non-native speakers of English, sometimes choose a wrong word. Anyway, I don't see this discussion as a competition in which one party will "win" and the other one will "lose". I do agree with you that this discussion might influence future discussions. For example, it would be awful to see Mary of Burgundy, a woman always known by that name, called "Mary de Bourgogne" because "de Bourgogne" might've been her surname. Surtsicna (talk) 16:28, 7 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Charles_Henri,_Prince_of_Commercy&oldid=1200618473"