Talk:Princess Clémentine of Orléans

A fact from this article was featured on Wikipedia's Main Page in the On this day section on March 6, 2017 and March 6, 2022.

Biography: Royalty and Nobility

	Biography portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Biography, a collaborative effort to create, develop and organize Wikipedia's articles about people. All interested editors are invited to join the project and contribute to the discussion. For instructions on how to use this banner, please refer to the documentation.BiographyWikipedia:WikiProject BiographyTemplate:WikiProject Biographybiography articles
	This article is supported by WikiProject Royalty and Nobility (assessed as Low-importance).

Women's History Low‑importance

	History portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Women's History, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Women's history and related articles on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Women's HistoryWikipedia:WikiProject Women's HistoryTemplate:WikiProject Women's HistoryWomen's History articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Title of article[edit]

should be Clémentine d'Orléans, Princess of Saxe-Coburg and Gotha. Leaving this for discussion for a few days before moving article to proper title. Frania W. (talk) 13:12, 26 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I'm getting dizzy with all these title changes. --Roisterer (talk) 00:55, 9 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Roisterer, I agree. The users should really look at the naming conventions. For royal, the form is "<Title> <Name> of <Place>" for cadet royals without substantive titles. Frania's suggestion does not conform to the conventions. She is also insistent upon treating the designations exactly as surnames when, with royalty, such distinctions are blurred or do not exist. You might notice a lot of "moves" to Orléans articles. Many done today were to revert copy/paste moves. Hope this helps. Seven Letters 01:06, 9 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Surname "d'Orléans"[edit]

In: Encyclopédie méthodique, ou par ordre de matières, ... Jurisprudence, Tome Sixième, by Diderot, published in 1778:

http://books.google.com/books?id=qHhBAAAAcAAJ&pg=PA160&lpg=PA160&dq=Diderot+Jurisprudence+Philippe+de+France+duc+d%27Orl%C3%A9ans&source=bl&ots=xFoInU8NtT&sig=9zIqnDLZpQvKOm6bGZ9xTZlx3Ho&hl=fr&ei=eAVXTODpCoL48Abmk6inBA&sa=X&oi=book_result&ct=result&resnum=2&ved=0CBgQ6AEwAQ#v=snippet&q=Philippe%20de%20France%2C%20duc%20d%27Orl%C3%A9ans%2C%20fr, p. 160:

Les descendants de Philippe de France, duc d'Orléans, frère de Louis XIV, portent le nom d'Orléans, comme nom distinctif de cette autre branche, sans qu'aucun ait pris, ni doive prendre le nom de Bourbon, destiné à en distinguer une autre.

--Frania W. (talk) 18:00, 2 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

A HOUSE name which distinguishes them from the other branch. Really now, Frania, when will you give up this campaign? Seven Letters 20:57, 2 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Frania, what do you have to say about the Orléans-Braganza? Are they not "of" too? Really now... You need to stop trying to push a POV for which there is no evidence or purpose. Even if it was a surname, we don't use surnames for royalty. She was of Orléans. Seven Letters 21:00, 2 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Seven Letters,

Les descendants de Philippe de France, duc d'Orléans... ***portent le nom d'Orléans*** comme nom distinctif de cette autre branche, specifies "nom" & does not say "appartiennent à la Maison d'Orléans". and if you read the entire paragraph, you will see that its subject is "nom de famille".

Maybe we (whoever "we" are) do not use surname for royalty but the French do, and when "we" are treating French History, "we" must respect what the French had decided for themselves, otherwise "we", as an encyclopedia, are not reporting historical facts as they are/were, but are rewriting History as per our own view.

If you would mind reading the entire paragraph Diderot wrote on "nom de famille", and how it was applied to the whole of the French royal family (the "de France", the "de Bourbon" & the "d'Orléans"), you would understand the point I am making, which is not MY point of view, but what French "jurisprudence" has been for centuries. So please, stop patronising me as if I was an ignoramus pushing a stupid POV.

To whoever is interested, please begin at page 159 of Diderot Encyclopédie Tome Sixième[1]: Les fils de France qui ont des apanages, joignent au nom de France, comme nom de famille, celui de leur apanage, comme nom de terre, & c'est ce nom d'apanage qui se perpétue dans leurs descendants...

Further on page 160 beginning on the column on the left, Diderot writes about the nom de famille "de France" given to the royal family, then goes on to "de Bourbon" & "d'Orléans". It cannot be clearer and, if I had time, I would be more than happy to translate it to establish once & for all that what I have been saying for months is not my POV, but French jurisprudence on "nom de famille".

By the way, I also found this, on page 968, of the American Historical Association[2].

--Frania W. (talk) 02:27, 3 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

In ENGLISH, we had "of Orléans", "of Bourbon" and "of France" for these people. You are cherry-picking sources and using your POV in how you apply very vague terminology which is especially not explicit in terms of royalty. Seven Letters 19:42, 3 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

In other monarchies, there are the "family names" Glücksburg, Hohenzollern, Windsor, Bernadotte, etc. These aren't surnames. Seven Letters 19:44, 3 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The French royals used names in a way close to what happens in the British royal family. The children of the Prince of Wales are "of Wales", so on and so forth. Seven Letters 19:46, 3 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I do not think that you ever read what I bring to a discussion & I am beginning to be outraged at the fact that every time I provide sources by respected authors, I am being subjected to such accusations: "You are cherry-picking sources and using your POV in how you apply very vague terminology...". Wikipedia requests the use of reliable sources & I am asking what is wrong with François Ier's Ordonnance de Villers-Cotterêts, Diderot's Encyclopédie, Louis Philippe's Ordonnance du 13 août 1830 or the description of someone's passport in a respected publication? I always do my utmost to provide real & reliable historical sources & you have nothing better to do but tear my work to shreds. What really irks me is your patronising tone towards me, which might even be against some wiki rule.

On the other hand, since when are the French to follow English rule? They have their own jurisprudence and their royals have family names: "de France", "de Bourbon" & "d'Orléans". Thus, my answer is the same as what I wrote earlier, which is not my POV, but French jurisprudence, not English, not German, not Swedish, as there was never a unique European jurisprudence on any matter, and Wikipedia's "one-size-fits-all" policy is doing away with the peculiarities of the History of each country.

--Frania W. (talk) 22:28, 3 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Portrait[edit]

I'm fairly sure that's not Princess Clémentine in the portrait at the upper right-hand corner of the page. I think that's her daughter, Princess Clotilde. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jabezjabez (talk • contribs) 00:26, 2 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

It's been sometime since I added the image but I think it was from (or the same as) I book I had on Princess Clémentine. --Roisterer (talk) 09:29, 2 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Well, in that case the book made a mistake! This portrait dates from the 1860, by which time Princess Clémentine was a much older woman. This is one of her daughters, either Clothilde or Amalie. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jabezjabez (talk • contribs) 04:26, 11 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]