Talk:Vittorio Emanuele, Prince of Naples

As the pretender to the throne of Italy is still living, I believe that his name should conform to how he is commonly known today, ie Juan Carlos of Spain, et al, rather than the Anglicization of his names that would be utilized after his death, per Wiki convention. Mowens35 02:01, 25 Apr 2005 (UTC)

There is no longer such thing as a "throne of Italy", as Italy is a republic. He's not a king and therefore his name may be left in original untranslated form. --Orzetto 13:46, 28 May 2005 (UTC)

The convention is to use the name by which he is commonly known. Whether he is dead makes no difference - We call Kaiser Wilhelm "Wilhelm," even though he is dead. I am uncertain by which name he is more commonly known. john k 02:31, 25 Apr 2005 (UTC)

actually, a friend of mine is one of Vittorio Emanuele's lawyers and declares the Prince of Naples is most commonly known as Vittorio Emanuele, not Victor Emmanuel. As per the Wiki naming coventions, my question remains: As most commonly known where? If you look closely at the Wiki naming conventions, dead kings and queens most often have their names translated into the nearest English equivalent however well known they were known by another name in their lifetime and their own country, ie Charles XIV John of Sweden, which is how Wiki prefers to list a man Swede's know as Carl XIV Johan. Curious and illogically, the present king is listed in Wiki as Carl XVI Gustaf, and Wiki covention, if you look at past kings and queens, is to translate their names to the nearly English equivalent upon their death or certainly most of the dead ones do. If you look at the entries for any dead Danish royal known as Fredrick in his own country, the name has been altered to the English form Frederick; however, the present crown prince of Denmark (Fredrick) retains the spelling of his name as it is used in Denmark. Also look at the entries for many of the historical Spanish kings, who have their names listed as Charles, et cetera, rather than Carlos, which is how they were popularly known in their own time and their own country, then and now; today's king, however, is Juan Carlos I, and if Wiki convention as to the majority of his predecessors is any indication, he eventually will become John Charles I with time. Wiki's reason for this Anglicization, according to contributors who have written back to me on this question, is that the English equivalent for dead kings is similar to the Encyclopaedia Britannica's naming convention. So you see why my question was posed and why it remains apt. It is illogical to list a king by an Anglicization he never used and was never known by in his lifetime yet not translate the names of other heads of state similarly, ie Nicolae Ceaucescu, Mikhail Gorbachev, et cetera. Do you see what I am getting at? The term is "commonly used" ... and again, as used where? Mowens35 14:00, 26 Apr 2005 (UTC)

We use the name by which they're most commonly known in English. I would add that it is standard to anglicize monarchs names, but not those of others, and that this is reasonably common practice. You will not find a book that talks about Michael Gorbachev. You will find many books about Charles II of Spain. The fact that it is inconsistent is because in the last several decades, anglicization has become much less common. Thus, recent monarchs have never had their name anglicized. In the nineteenth century and earlier, though, it was highly common to anglicize the names of contemporary monarchs, and this custom has survived for those monarchs. In the late 19th/early 20th centuries it's more complicated, as there seems to have been no particular standard. In American newspapers of 1914, for instance, one finds that the same newspaper will refer to the Emperor of Austria as "Francis Joseph," "Franz Joseph," and "Franz Josef," with no seeming rhyme or reason. The Kaiser is sometimes "William" and sometimes "Wilhelm." And so forth. So a) this has nothing to do with whether the person has died or not. It has do with standard practice in English language references to the person. It is quite possible that many of our articles err one way or the other (it seems weird to me that Swedish Gustaf's going back to the 16th century are all at "Gustav" rather than "Gustavus," and also that we have Gustav VI Adolf and Frederick IX of Denmark, since the two were contemporaries, but this is a matter of application, not of policy). But the policy itself is sound. b) the question is how the person is referred to in English. Sometimes, anglicization is quite obviously the appropriate thing to do. The tsars starting with Peter the Great, for instance (with the exception of Ivan VI and Anna) are all known by the anglicized versions of their names. So are the Kings of the Hellenes. Other times it's weird - we discuss King Carol I and King Carol II of Romania (non-anglicized), but also King Michael I (anglicized). It is equally confusing in many other instances. So, the question is "How is the Prince of Naples referred to in English?" If he is known as "Vittorio Emanuele," by all means move the article. If the name is commonly anglicized, it should stay here. john k 15:20, 26 Apr 2005 (UTC)

• agree I think we can rename it to Vittorio Emmanuele, i see no problem with that.. Antares911 14:06, 18 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• agree - I admit, when I first saw the change to Vittorio I was a little put off, but as I have thought about it, johnk makes a good point. There really is no standard way of doing it, as much as we try, but the trend to anglicization is dying out. Prsgoddess187 00:47, 8 March 2006 (UTC)
• disagree Leave the guy's name as "Vittorio Emanuele di Savoia" (English: Victor Emanual of Savoy). But what is his family name anyway? The first line indicates that he is styled as "Vittorio Emanuele ... ... de Savoie." What would the correct Italian of the name be -- "di Savoia" or "de Savoie?" [I see while I was editing this comment sombody deleted "Prince of Naples" from the first line of the article. Somebody must believe in Grace Hopper's adage: "It's better to ask for forgiveness than to beg for permission."]--TGC55 03:14, 9 March 2006 (UTC) edited --TGC55 19:35, 11 March 2006 (UTC)

Moved as per request. There is clearly no consensus to leave it in a form that breaches the MCN rule on WP and more people voted to return it to follow MCN than to break it. FearÉIREANN\^(caint) 20:55, 24 March 2006 (UTC)

Oops

Concerning the comment for the edit:

 11:26, 17 July 2005 202.0.40.69

The comment said that the Order of St Lazarus merged with the O. of S. Michel. This is wrong; the comment should have read that Lazarus merged with the O. of S. Maurice.

202.0.40.69 11:28, 17 July 2005 (UTC)

---

You know I really would like to know more about this murder charge, I love all royalty, I have no idea how this could have gone unnoticed by me! -(unsigned)

See Hamer v. France - Nunh-huh 03:00, 22 October 2005 (UTC)

Hey, don't worry about it -- the shooting happened in 1978, likely before you were born, and wasn't finalized until 1991 with no jail time.--TGC55 03:24, 9 March 2006 (UTC)

Well, let my say in brief the house of Savoy is often blamed to be Black Nobility. I know, this doesnt't explain much at first sight, but it may give you a hint where to investigate furthermore. You might try google:"Black Nobility" Foreigner 15:14, 29 May 2006 (UTC)

There's quite a nice picture of the trial gainst Vittorio

File:Savoia in manette.jpg

Vittorio E. Di Savoia durante il processo per omicidio

hmm .... what do you think about using it too? Foreigner 19:37, 29 May 2006 (UTC)

He was apparently arrested today

see AP news report, I would add it but I need to run out the door right now. Just for reference for the next person. --Bobak 00:36, 17 June 2006 (UTC)

It's been in the article for some time now. - Nunh-huh 00:45, 17 June 2006 (UTC)

Arrest

It seems to me that the sections with comments of parents are so big instead of other "objective facts" and that Wikipedia is saying that all is a conspiracy made by Italian magistrates to receive fame! Strongly POV --Ilario 07:02, 18 June 2006 (UTC)

You know, not every disagreement has to result in tagging an article. The steps to disagreement would be [1] edit it so that you think it's NPOV, [2] discuss any disagreements on the talk page, and [3] if and only if you cannot reach resolution, tag the article and go to mediation. Not everything has to rise to the level of a reader's advisory, and this certainly shouldn't. For what it's worth, nothing in the article suggests to me that Wikipedia is saying what you have read into it, and the protests of relatives that an accused party is innocent [1] are to be expected, and [2] look pretty pitiful, unconvincing and unappealing. - Nunh-huh 07:06, 18 June 2006 (UTC)

I've read it. The informations about the arrest are wrong in some detail, also the charges, but the son's and wife's comments are careful. Also the links to an Italian newspaper are not fair because the newspaper could be POV, instead the links should be to [1] (for example) that don't take an opinion on it because it's a press agency. --Ilario 07:21, 18 June 2006 (UTC)

I assumed you read the article, because you were complaining about it. I'm not sure why you are saying "I read it". Any source can have a point of view, and we don't require that our sources don't have one. Press agencies like newspapers also have points of view. If you think you have a correction to the charges, make it. Don't just post a tag. And after you've edited it, you should take the tag off. - Nunh-huh 07:25, 18 June 2006 (UTC)

I just wanted to say that ITALY is a REPUBBLIC, this family isn't welcome in our contry and the only reason they wanted to come back is to take commercial advantages on us. Please give a more complete information about him and link to at least ONE site against them, not just their fan sites. Thank you

It's up to you or other interested parties to find and cite information, sites or links which may be more investigative or critical of the individual and/or family. --TGC55 12:08, 21 June 2006 (UTC)

Pretender?

Is it right to call him a pretender? He has recognised the Republican constitution as a provision to being allowed back into Italy again, so he does not claim the throne anymore.Gerard von Hebel 21:08, 19 June 2006 (UTC)

This is a tricky sort of situation: Note the case of Otto von Habsburg (HI&RH The Crown Prince of Austria, Hungary and Bohemia). He renounced his claim to the Austro-Hungarian thrones in order to either gain re-entry into Austria; no monarchist or member of the House of Habsburg-Lorraine or indeed most royals consider Otto to have forfeited the Austrian imperial heritage. The reason being, the renunciation was to a republican government which are almost always viewed as illegitimate successors among the royal houses they displace and their supporters. The only difference between Otto von Habsburg and Victor Emmanuel is one of character. Victor Emmanuel is arguably unsuitable for the role of king or even as the head of a royal house. However, he can't be discounted on opinion. People regard his character as reason to support the Duke of Aosta, as good as he may be. Charles 21:15, 19 June 2006 (UTC)

Gave Up Rights...

Apparently, Vittorio Emanuele just renounced his rights in favor of his son, Emanuele Filiberto. See here: [2] and here: [3] I can't read Italian, but I put it through the google translator and it rougly says:

Rome - Vittorio Emanuele renounces to the throne in favour of the son Emanuele Filiberto. The news, published on the weekly magazine “People”, had to remain secret for some weeks: the time necessary to complete the practical ones previewed from the real protocol for the passage of deliveries from father to son. In many they will be able to think that this decision has been taken as a result of the notes judicial vicissitudes, but are not therefore. They give beyond two months are in course practical affinche' the Emanuele Filiberto can' inherit' the charges and the onorificenze of the father.

So presumably this takes effect in two months time, or it took two months to become official or I don't know how to interpret that. So would EF now be the pretender? Morhange 07:55, 26 July 2006 (UTC)

"Prince of Naples" in the title

I am not sure it is appropriate to style Vittorio Emanuele as "Prince of Naples", as he is a commoner and his title is not recognized. The Constitution of Italy, in temporary provision XIV, states clearly that nobility titles shall not be recognized by the Italian state. Using his nobility title may be interpreted as a political statement in support of monarchy. In Italian media, he is usually referred to as "Vittorio Emanuele di Savoia", which may be a better article title. Alternatively, "Vittorio Emanuele of Savoy" or "Victor Emmanuel of Savoy". In the legal documents used in the investigation that resulted in his arrest, he was simply named "Vittorio Emanuele Savoia", i.e. "Savoia" was used as a normal surname. I was unaware that he claimed for himself the title of Prince of Naples until I saw this article, as he is never referred to like this. Googling around (yeah google is not the ultimate truth, but it may be helpful) for usage on cnn.com shows no occurrences of "prince of naples" at all, and some of Vittorio Emanuele (though some links refer to Victor Emmanuel II and III). A similar number for Victor Emmanuel.

I am not sure whether the name should be translated or not, but I definitely believe the "Prince of Naples" part should be removed.

His title is just that: His title. The consitition of the Republic of Italy can say whatever it wants on the matter but Victor Emmanuel's title is one of the Kingdom of Italy, a different sort of entity which doesn't exist as a tract of land. I have seen newspaper articles that call him Crown Prince of Italy, Duke of Savoy and also Prince of Naples. The Italian media has no say in English usage. It is just that, Italian. His legal surname in Italy is irrelevant with regard to what he is commonly called. Indeed, Otto von Habsburg is simply (and legally) Otto Habsburg in the Republic of Austria, but he is known elsewhere as Archduke Otto, Crown Prince Otto, etc. Newspapers (especially current ones) are not authoritative on matters of titling and style. Remember, most of it is regurgitated through various offices that go through material on thousands of different subjects. You can't expect them to be experts on royalty. VE is also treated as royalty (or, has been) by various other royal courts. If he weren't, his article here would probably be deleted. Charles 19:30, 11 September 2006 (UTC)

Well, so what is the convention for recognizing a title? Neapolitans are likely unaware that VE is their prince, and Naples is definitely not a principality... Can you point to articles using his title? I did not find any (though I did not look much beyond the CNN website). Hits on Google for Prince of Naples are fairly low, many being this article and derivatives on answers.com, unrelated (e.g. other Italian royalties such as VE2) or pro-monarchy sites. I agree the main usage in English should be the one used, but "Prince of Naples" does not seem to be the one.

Me again. I found out that VE actually renounced to the title of "Prince of Naples" with a legally binding letter, signed by his son as well. As described in this article (Italian) from February 2002, he swore loyalty to the Constitution of Republican Italy, which (as I mentioned above) abolished all legal value of titles of nobility; he had therefore to renounce to his title.