Talk:Vittorio Emanuele, Prince of Naples

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This article is within the scope of WikiProject Biography. For more information, visit the project page.
Biography Portal
Start This article has been rated as start-Class on the project's quality scale. [FAQ]

Contents

[edit] Archives

Archive 1 - 25/04/05 to 24/10/06

[edit] Titular

I'm not sure I understand the problem with "titular"; it certainly seems it applies to anyone calling himself "Prince of Naples". "Titular" means "existing in title only;" or "having the title and usually the honors belonging to an office or dignity without the duties, functions, or responsibilities". Clearly "Prince of Naples" is a title only, with no duties, functions, or responsibilities. "Prince of Naples" falsely suggests that Naples is a principality, while "titular Prince of Naples" does not mislead. - Nunh-huh 00:34, 25 October 2006 (UTC)

  • You are very much mistaken. He is the Prince of Naples as this is his highest Royal title. His father was a ruling King of Italy. What you are suggesting implied that we should refer to Lords of Great Britain who lost their seats in the House as titulae. It is nonsensical.--Couter-revolutionary 01:17, 25 October 2006 (UTC)
  • His father was king for about a month. He himself never was. Your analogy is rather imprecise. He has never ruled anywhere. - Nunh-huh 02:13, 25 October 2006 (UTC)
  • Technically yes, he has, as Prince of Naples. It does not matter one bit how long his father was King for, the undeniable fact is that he was. He is the titular King of Italy, not the titular Prince of Naples. This is what the article says at the moment and what it should say, please do not attempt to edit it to purport your own agenda.--Couter-revolutionary 06:10, 25 October 2006 (UTC)
  • I don't have any agenda, so stop being obnoxious by claiming I do. The "Prince of Naples" doesn't rule anything, and never has. - Nunh-huh 06:37, 25 October 2006 (UTC)
    • I agree that Vittorio Emanuele has never reigned under any title or over any territory, including as "Prince of Naples". But I also agree that it would be unconventional to refer to that style as "titular". The problem is that there are at least two conflicting "conventions" applicable here. One is that of the Italian Republic, whose current law does not normally recognize historical titles. The other convention dates back to the Almanach de Gotha during the Napoleonic era when many dynasties were exiled. The Gotha, Europe's primary gazette of international dynastic news, often continued to accord deposed monarchs and their dynasties the titles they held while reigning, but added to them the Bonaparte rulers. Since many of the exiled dynasties were restored to sovereignty after Napoleon's downfall in 1815, the Gotha's tradition of according former regnal dignities became the norm at European courts and remains so. It is also regularly used in heraldry, genealogy and historical biography. By that convention, "titular" is used as a prefix for a sovereign title, not a subordinate one. Thus, if dethroned, Elizabeth II would, by custom, continue to be referred to as "Queen Elizabeth II", but her territorial designation "of the United Kingdom" would be omitted at monarchical courts, while journalists would, on first reference, qualify her queenly title with a prefix such as "former" or "ex-" (although "titular" would not be incorrect or ahistorical). In Gotha convention, her eldest son remains "Prince of Wales", not "titular Prince of Wales" (although future heirs-in-pretence, who never held the title under the monarchy, are not automatically so entitled). That's partially very old custom adhered to, for example, by the respected Encyclopædia Britannica Eleventh Edition (ex-dynasts retain for life use of their highest title -- e.g. Empress Matilda, Charles V, Holy Roman Emperor, Queen Christina of Sweden, Grand Duke Jean of Luxembourg, etc.), and partially historic reality (Wales has been a "titular" principality for hundreds of years, as have the territories from which derive the titles of most modern royal heirs, i.e. Prince of Orange, Duke of Brabant, Prince of Asturias, and Prince of Naples). With respect to dethroned dynasties, Don Juan was not referred to as the "titular" Count of Barcelona, but simply as "HRH the Count of Barcelona", and sometimes as the "titular King of Spain". "Titular Prince of Naples" isn't used by anybody, not the Italian Republic nor by Italian monarchists nor by protocol at foreign courts. Lethiere 11:29, 25 October 2006 (UTC)
  • Lethiere, you say that "the problem is that there are at least two conflicting "conventions" applicable here". OK. Assuming that is correct, why in the face of such a conflict is one of the conventions, and the minority one at that, represented in this article (and apparently in others) as settled fact? Surely we should go with the view which is not only adopted by the majority, but also under the relevant legal systems, and state the name of the person without the abolished titles, and then state that some people still attribute such titles to them? --SandyDancer 11:44, 25 October 2006 (UTC)
I was not advocating either convention, merely providing their histories and applications. But to play Devil's Advocate and answer your question, it is not clear that we should use the Italian convention because it is "local" to Italy, whereas English Wiki isn't, and seeks some consistency in how it deals with similar situations across nations. Germany, for instance, incorporates former royal titles into the surname, and allows their use socially as titles. Its next door neigbor Austria forbids both legal (e.g. documents) and official (e.g. phone listings) usage. Austria's neighbor, Liechtenstein, not only allows use of foreign monarchical titles, but uses them itself (the reigning Prince's grandmother was an Austrian archduchess). Italy's legal stance applies to government, not to society. In fact, when the Italian president greeted Vittorio Emanuele upon his return to Italy, he referred to him as "Prince", which was objected to by the socialist party leadership -- but not by the other parliamentary parties. The Italian media, like most media the world over, varies depending upon its political slant, and is notoriously inconsistent -- how an ex-royal is titled often depends upon which editor happens to be in charge the day that a story about royalty is filed for publication. We should certainly acknowledge and report the Italian state's position, but we are not an arm of that state. Conversely, the advantage of the Gotha convention is that it has been much more carefully elaborated than republican conventions on titles, is widely adhered to by those who have most occasiont to mention royalty in print, and ignoring an already widely used convention puts WP in the position of inventing its own standard, since no other exists supranationally. For instance, legally there is no difference between Vittorio Emanuele's former title and those of any Joe Blow in Italy suffering from delusions of grandeur who declares himself "Prince of Naples". But the Gotha's convention would unhesitatingly distinguish between someone whose dynasty reigned over part or all of Italy for the last millenium and someone who merely needs to be reminded to take his morning meds. That convention is quite clear: deposed royalty get to keep a modified version of their titles; their descendants also get to use titles, but not (for the pretender, his wife and his heir) the same ones as were used under the monarchy -- thus the Gotha convention does defer to the reality of royal depositions and exiles. That convention has indeed been influenced by monarchists -- because they are the folks who care enough about how ex-royalty is styled to develop coherent rules and adhere to them. Nonetheless, encyclopedic practice has been to make use of the Gotha tradition: The legitimist French pretender's legal name may have been "Henri d'Artois", but he will be found in Encyclopædia Britannica Eleventh Edition under Henri, comte de Chambord -- and in every other encyclopedia and journal of public record except, perhaps, those of the French republic during his lifetime. Encyclopedic precedent is not to substitute legal name for royal titulature once a monarchy has been abolished -- or ex-King Constantine II of Greece would be known everywhere (instead of just among anti-monarchists) as "Constantine Glucksburg". Lethiere 21:52, 27 October 2006 (UTC)
Fair enough. That was very interesting and to be honest you've convinced me. --SandyDancer 22:15, 27 October 2006 (UTC)
  • Why is it that people that do have agendas (normally right wing ones) on Wikipedia always accuse others of having them? It is so tiresome. The title of Prince of Naples is clearly "titular", i.e. existing as a title only, because the title was abolished under Italian law in 1946, and certainly isn't recognised under any other legal system. The difference to the Lords of GB who lost their seats in the House of Lords is that they are still Lords under law - their titles were not abolished, just their right to sit and vote in the House (though they can still sit on the steps of the throne, and some do). --SandyDancer 09:10, 25 October 2006 (UTC)
  • Thank you, I am all too aware of the Lords issue, believe me. What I am trying to say is that he was the Prince of (the pincipality of) Naples and, as result should be known by his highest royal title, out of courtesey if nothing else. This is practice across Wikipedia and I have seen no Royal described as Titular outside of sucsession boxes, where it is appropriate for clarity. My final point is that he is the Titular King of Italy, he cannot be a titular Prince too. The article is fine the way it is.--Couter-revolutionary 09:16, 25 October 2006 (UTC)
  • If it truly is the position in other Wikipedia articles that people are given titles they no longer hold as if they still do, I disagree with it in those articles too. It runs counter to common sense and needs to be challenged.
  • Turning back to this article, the one we are discussing, you admit he was called Prince of Naples - and the article should state this. But I see no reason why it follows from this that we have to pretend he still holds this title "out of courtesy". It is, however, worth stating that some people (principally Italian monarchists) nevertheless continue to refer to him in this way out of courtesy - but Wikipedia shouldn't do so as it just isn't factual.
  • It is simply a statement of POV to say that deposed royals/nobles still hold defunct titles. In effect you are asking Wikipedia to support your personal, minority view that these royal titles exist forever in perpetuity, even when legislatures / constitutional conventions / referenda have purported to abolish them, and this has been accepted in practice. This is precisely the kind of thing that the Wikipedia NPOV policy is aimed at.
  • To conclude, the article should not state that he still holds abolished titles as a matter of fact - and the title needs to be amended to reflect this too. --SandyDancer 10:36, 25 October 2006 (UTC)
  • While I understand your rationale, it flies in the face of the convention that has been developed and applied over the last several years to guide articles on reigning and deposed dynasties. Specifically, Rule # 7. Lethiere 11:29, 25 October 2006 (UTC)
  • Hilariously, Rule # 7 doesn't support what you are saying at all, and in fact says the contrary - read it:
Former or deposed monarchs should be referred to by their previous monarchical title with the exception of those who are still alive and are most commonly referred to by a non-monarchial title; all former or deposed monarchs should revert to their previous monarchical title upon death; for example, Constantine II of Greece not ex-King Constantine II or Constantine Gluckberg, Edward VIII of the United Kingdom not the Prince Edward, Duke of Windsor, but Simeon Saxe-Coburg-Gotha not Simeon II of Bulgaria.
Just as the living Simeon Saxe-Coburh-Gotha isn't called Simeon II of Bulgaria (his highest royal title before it was abolished) now, but rather by his actual name, Vittorio Emanuele should be "Vittorio Emanuele" here, and when he dies he will revert to being called by the highest title he held in his lifetime - Prince of Naples. Can I rest my case??? --SandyDancer 13:42, 25 October 2006 (UTC)
  • I quite agree, although I don't understand the rationale myself. He is the Prince of Naples, however Italian Monarchists (many of them anyway) will refer to him as King of Italy, since his father's death. This is his titular position, that of King. The Prince of Naples is his title as a right, it is not a titular one.--Couter-revolutionary 11:33, 25 October 2006 (UTC)
  • No. He isn't the Prince of Naples. There is no such thing as the Principality of Naples, there is no such title as the Prince of Naples. The title was abolished in 1946 and consequently Vittorio Emanuele of Savoy, who is a private citizen just like you or I, holds no titles whatsoever. Lots of people like to think that he still holds titles due to their personal belief that such titles exist irrespective of Italian law, but this is a minority view and should not be presented as fact, which it currently is. How much clearer do I have to be before you understand the rationale? Your arguments run counter to common sense. --SandyDancer 11:38, 25 October 2006 (UTC)
  • Righto, what you are saying is that the accepted Wikipedia guidelines and I are running counter to common sense. Please, by all means attempt to change them all, change the guidelines to what you would like them to say if you will. Call Edward VIII the Duke of Windsor because he abdicated the Throne, as this is what you are supporting, against the tide of accepted practice. If you want to change the guidelines do, however, I am sure that then you will see it is you who is acting without reason.--Couter-revolutionary 12:06, 25 October 2006 (UTC)
  • Do you deliberately use false analogies in order to avoid sensible argument? The Edward VIII thing is completely different in so many ways its hardly worth bothering to explain why.
  • It cannot be considered accepted practice to use Wikipedia to assert as undisputed fact that claimants to abolished titles still actually hold such titles. This is an encylopedia. It is supposed to deal in facts, not points of view. Stop trying to obscure the argument by falsely characterising what I am saying. It just makes you look bad, as does deleting sections of a discussion we previously had where you laid out your own highly unusual POV on this topic in detail (see [1] - it speaks volumes - he took that action after I cross-referred to it here [2]. --SandyDancer 12:25, 25 October 2006 (UTC)
  • I think the Wikipedia naming conventions, which another kind user has posted a link to above, clearly show that to call him the Prince of Naples is accepted practice. But, as I say, please do change them, it shall clear up any confusion.--Couter-revolutionary 12:34, 25 October 2006 (UTC)
  • Why did you just try and edit my comments above? See here for the edit, which I have naturally reverted [3]. You shouldn't do that. --SandyDancer 12:49, 25 October 2006 (UTC)
  • "Titular" has caused so much debate. Another user removed it. I have now removed the "Prince of Naples" after VE's name, as the intro paragraph already states he is sometimes styled as such out of courtesy, despite the fact that the title was abolished in 1946. I have done so because that is the truth. --SandyDancer 13:16, 25 October 2006 (UTC)

I agree with Lethiere here, and don't think I have anything to add to what he says. Nunh Huh's definition would have to lead to us calling Prince Charles the "titular Prince of Wales," since he does not rule over a Principality of Wales. Even when the Italian monarchy existed, the titles "Prince of Piedmont" and "Prince of Naples" were titular in that sense. Beyond that, as Lethiere says, for royal pretenders, the word "titular" is used in a different sense from how it is used more broadly. Vittorio Emanuele is the titular King of Italy. But former monarchs are generally considered to retain the titles they held under the monarchy. Thus, Vittorio Emanuele's father was still called "King Umberto II" after he was kicked out of the country, and Vittorio Emanuele himself is still called "Prince of Naples." The government of the Italian Republic has banned noble and royal titles, but they don't get to dictate usage, which remains in the traditional place, I think. john k 13:19, 25 October 2006 (UTC)

  • I quite agree with what you are saying, finally some sense.--Couter-revolutionary 13:24, 25 October 2006 (UTC)
  • Are you admitting you haven't been adding any sense to the discussion, then? ;-)
  • Just to be clear I am not a proponent of the view that use of the word "titular" is necessarily the right way to represent the facts here - the facts being that you want a Wikipedia article to state that someone who was Prince of Naples is Prince of Naples, when no such title is recognised under any legal system and is only used by monarchists as a form of expression of their own point of view. Although I think John Kenney does make sense, and perhaps points out why use of the word "titular" is perhaps not the right approach, that doesn't mean that Wikipedia should mislead readers by saying someone is "Prince of Naples" when they aren't. --SandyDancer 13:38, 25 October 2006 (UTC)
Although I reverted you when you removed "Prince of Naples" from the first line, I'm beginning to think that that may have been the right approach. As far as I have seen, he is normally called "Vittorio Emanuele of Savoy," and not "the Prince of Naples." I would add that I have no idea whether Vittorio Emanuele is the Prince of Naples, as I'm not sure what that means. For instance, the head of the Bavarian Royal House is universally called "the Duke of Bavaria" (der Herzog von Bayern), but his legal name is actually Franz Herzog von Bayern, and he is not a duke - Herzog von Bayern is merely his surname. I don't think it's our place to say that a title of pretense used by custom is not "real" simply because it is not recognized by the Republican government of the place that it used to be a title for. The German pretenders are certainly universally known by their titles of pretense - the Duke of Bavaria, the Prince of Prussia, the Prince of Hanover, the Duke of Württemberg, the Margrave of Meissen, the Margrave of Baden, the Landgrave of Hesse, and so forth. It would be pedantic to assert the German legal fiction that they are merely surnames in order to change the way we refer to these people. I'm less certain with Vittorio Emanuele of how universally he is called "Prince of Naples." I think the article should stay here because it's his highest title, and he certainly was Prince of Naples before June 1946. Beyond that I'm not really sure. Might be best to remove it from the first line. I won't re-revert if you do so again. john k 14:16, 25 October 2006 (UTC)
  • If you're going to play that game...I propose we don't even use "of Savoy", why should we apparently he's not Royalty. Let's just call him "Emanuele Savoia", and, of course we'll have to change the article name. Oh, and don't forget to do the same for his father King Umberto as he had to abdicate. PS, I'm so pleased you are changing the name on Tsar Simeon II of Bulgaria's article. PPS, I'm being sarcastic.--Couter-revolutionary 14:37, 25 October 2006 (UTC)
  • So lets get this straight, you only like Wikipedia guidelines when they support your view, but get very upset when you read them and find they don't? I ask because you seemed very keen to wave them at me earlier, but now seem to take a rather different approach.
  • If you don't want to engage, then don't. Let the rest of us get on with the enjoyable and challenging task of contributing to an encyclopedia which represents a neutral point of view, and isn't just a scrapbook of article representing minority opinions on various topics. --SandyDancer 14:47, 25 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Reverted per what discussion?

As far as I can, there was no real consensus to remove the title. At any rate, I wholly disagree. The treatment that SandyDancer is trying to apply to VE is not symmetrical with all other pretenders. I am going to revert it. Charles 18:02, 25 October 2006 (UTC)

Not true. And it isn't just me that believes that it wrong to refer to VE as Prince of Naples when he isn't. I believe the distinction is that he is a living ex-Royal - when he passes away, he will be referred to on this page as Prince of Naples, which was the highest title that he held during his life. See the Wikipedia guidelines on this, which you no doubt have a view on. Telling readers the subject of this article is Prince of Naples is wrong because he isn't. --SandyDancer 18:28, 25 October 2006 (UTC)

VE is in the same situation as Crown Prince Paul of Greece and Crown Prince Alexander of Yugoslavia. They gained those titles while the monarchy still existed and they continue to bear them. It is almost international as a practice to freeze the titles as they are at the end of a monarchy and to let non-sovereign titles pass as they normally do. Charles 01:00, 26 October 2006 (UTC)
I don't agree. Just because the families and themselves try and perpetuate abolished titles, that doesn't mean Wikipedia should join them. Wikipedia is supposed to represent a neutral point of view - pretending that legally abolished titles are still valid is adopting a monarchist viewpoint. You revealed your personal view with your statement "They gained those titles while the monarchy still existed and they continue to bear them" - can't you just accept that's your view but isn't neutral? If VE himself can accept titles have been legally abolished in Italy, can't you? --SandyDancer 08:00, 26 October 2006 (UTC)
It's not just the Savoys and monarchists who call VE "Prince of Naples". ANSA, the largest of the Italian news agencies (comparable to Reuters or Associated Press) often (but not always) gives him this designation; check Factiva. The Italian constitution says nothing about titles being abolished, merely not recognised. While the Italian government doesn't recognise VE officially as "Prince of Naples", it does recognise him as having the name "Principe di Savoia" since this predicate existed before 1922 and is therefore recognised as part of his name. Noel S McFerran 11:23, 26 October 2006 (UTC)
I agree that he has been referred to by his princely title by the Italilan government. But I understood that this was defended based upon a similar reference in a post-monarchical law. I don't think that Italy's recognition of pre-1922 predicates in the surname includes legal recognition of the noble title to which it was attached, e.g. "Luigi di Roma" not "Luigi, principe di Roma". OTOH, surely Vatican titles may be legally borne in Italy today? Lethiere 18:55, 28 October 2006 (UTC)
If what you say is true (and I have no reason to doubt it is), I would concede the point that he should be described as "Prince of Naples". Maybe also on that basis we need to revise the article to make it clear the consitution states titles aren't recognised in Italy due to the constitution, but that the constitution doesn't purport to abolish the titles. However I am not comfortable doing so unless we can get a source for this. Thanks. --SandyDancer 12:26, 27 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Opening paragraph

The Wikipedia:Manual of Style (biographies) guideline gives clear directions on what should be included in an opening paragraph (i.e. before the table of contents). There is no justification for four paragraphs of material here which merely repeats information which is given below at its proper place. Noel S McFerran 13:40, 13 November 2006 (UTC)

Are you saying the murder trial and the other scandals don't fall into the category of:
  • What they did
  • Why they are significant
Like it or not, VE has been known primarily for these occurrences - he was only a royal as a child - he has been an exile from Italy all his life and has come to public attention only for the things mentioned in the opening para. As I said on McFerran's talk page, this opening para and the whole article have been discussed at length and agreed between people with very different views on the subject. --SandyDancer 14:14, 13 November 2006 (UTC)
Some examples of biographies of very prominent figures which have similar content in the opening paragraph are below. I have chosen these because the figures in question are so prominent, one would assume that if this kind opening paragraph content was indeed contrary to guidelines, it would have been removed:
  • Michael Jackson - scandals about child sex abuse allegations are mentioned in intro.
  • Jeremy Thorpe - British Liberal party leader, criminal charges mentioned in intro.
  • George Galloway - controversial comments and controversial TV appearance mentioned in intro.
  • Yasser Arafat - general and wide-ranging criticisms in the intro.
I could go on. The kind of trimmed down intro you suggest is in fact - and quite correctly - not the norm on wikipedia. The intro should tell people why the person is notable and what they have been famous for. --SandyDancer 14:35, 13 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Image

The man in the picture doesn't look like Vittorio Emanuele. Compare [4] --87.1.70.118 (talk) 20:44, 10 February 2008 (UTC)

You are right, it really doesn't look much like him, although they do look similar. The Prince has a cleft in his nose and much lighter eyes in the picture you linked to, as well as a narrower appearing face. Charles 20:50, 10 February 2008 (UTC)
I agree with Charles, I don't think that's VE. The man in the photograph has a much fuller face. Here's a picture of VE smiling (no teeth, though) [5] Definitely not the same man, I think. Morhange (talk) 23:39, 10 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] No longer a pretender?

Should we have Vittorio Emanuele presented still as a claimant to the defunct throne of Italy? Are his official declarations not considered a relinquishing of these claims? And, if this is the case, it would be strange to consider the Belgian acknowledgment of his past pretension to be presently valid. __meco (talk) 09:01, 24 April 2008 (UTC)