Talk:Baron de Longueuil

French barons

Will the user who insists the barons de Longueuil are French kindly accept that there is no authority to resolve disputes about French titles, let alone anonymous users of Wikipedia, and that the 'Disputed succession' section on the baron de Longueuil article is the most generous way of accommodating his claims in a neutral fashion?GSTQ 04:15, 24 July 2006 (UTC)

Please, let be fair-play! I have you indicated the source; but the truth disturbs. The letters patent of january 26, 1700, signed by Louis XIV (common reference)exist and are an authority. Don't suppress my contribution (encyclopedic, true, and objective) and I shall not change or suppress your proper contribution. Thank you!

Dear anonymous user, I am not suppressing anyone's point of view. Your contribution is not necessarily proper just because you believe your conclusion is supported by the source. I am not quite sure which principle of 'fair play' you are invoking, but Wikipedia is not principally about fair play, it is about neutrality and accuracy. There are two sides to this argument, and the Queen of Canada for one appears to have come to a different conclusion from the one you have reached. The claim about succession to the title has no real place on Michael Grant's article; only on the 'baron de Longueuil' article. It is also customary not to delete previous entries on discussion pages. Moreover, since you appear to be not a native speaker of English, it might be advisable to be a little more circumspect when inserting sections into articles, for instance by adhering to the general flow of the article and by being consistent with the methods of capitalization and punctuation already present.GSTQ 04:06, 25 July 2006 (UTC)

A French branch of the family claims entitlement to the honour arguing that after the cession of Quebec to Britain the Canadian branch of the family are no longer French. As there is no record of whether the French branch of the family's claim was tested before the eventual end of the Monarchy in France in 1848, and there has been since then no authority to adjudicate disputes about French titles, the right of this quarrel is essentially indeterminable.

You ask me for the source. You do not have to suppress it. (unsigned)

The source being asked for is a citation to those people making the claim, not for the document they are interpreting in order to make it. - Nunh-huh 10:48, 25 July 2006 (UTC)

Please show me the french branch's claim.

Yes, that's what you're being asked for. A citation to a reference that interprets things in the way you want to add to the article. - Nunh-huh 12:58, 25 July 2006 (UTC)

Very sorry, but I don't read clearly the french branch's claim.

The french branch does not need the approval of the british crown to carry the title of Baron de Longueuil (Since 1789, in France, the bearing of a title of nobility is not official any more but private. Meanwhile it is authorized to bear it in public). What I want to say, it is that Louis XIV's act makes void the bearing of this title by the Grant family. (unsigned)

Yes, we know that's what you want to say. The question is, does anyone say that that we can quote. Your opinion doesns't matter; the opinion of an expert, in print, might. - Nunh-huh 15:52, 25 July 2006 (UTC)

Nunh-huh, thank you for have confirmed this last version, by correcting the syntax. It is true that if Queen Victoria had appealed to an expert, She would not have been misleaded (God Save the Queen!)(User: 193.252.50.118)

As I pointed out elsewhere, fixing syntax confirms only that the syntax was previously bad. In the meantime, we await a citable source for the purported dispute and the alternate "claimants". - Nunh-huh 09:40, 27 July 2006 (UTC)

Queen Victoria was an expert, she was the fount of all honour in the British Empire when she was alive. And she was queen during the last period of the French monarchy; she would have been personally familiar with Louis-Philippe (the last fount of honour for France) not to mention a number of the French nobility. The fact that Queen Victoria, and all her successors, have recognized and continue to recognize the title in the person of Michael Grant and his predecessors should be an end to it. Indeed, what has the Queen of Canada to do with the title if the holder is not and has never been a subject of hers or a holder of honour within her realm? The conclusion presented by this article at the moment is not only original research, but also inconsistent with the rest of this entire encyclopaedia insofar as it mentions this title. Why list the Canadian holders of the title (including Michael Grant) and then put this contradictory statement at the foot? Perhaps if you start editing more notable articles such as 'Canadian Honours System' or 'Nickle Resolution', my dear anonymous user, you might draw wider attention to the Longueuil article. Reference to the letters patent is all very well, but history appears to have overtaken the French branch of this family (if there is one). Given that the title derives from a location in Canada, it would be a rather ludicrous result if the cession of Longueuil resulted in the sudden transfer of the title to descendants of Charles Le Moyne who had stayed in France (if any in fact did). Was the French branch recognized as holding the barony after 1763 simply because of the cession of New France to Britain? Is this title listed in the Almanach de Gotha? The quotation of the letters patent as it stands is quite irrelevant to the article. It should either be deleted, or there should be a verified conclusion drawn from the quotation.GSTQ 00:10, 27 July 2006 (UTC)

Queen Victoria was an expert in politics. (User: 193.252.50.118)

Fair use rationale for Image:Longueuil Coat of Arms.jpg

Image:Longueuil Coat of Arms.jpg is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in this Wikipedia article constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.

Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to insure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If there is other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page. Note that any fair use images lacking such an explanation can be deleted one week after being tagged, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.

BetacommandBot (talk) 14:43, 2 January 2008 (UTC)

Recent edit-warring

D.A.V.I.D. hasn't responded yet to a message I left on his talk page to explain his edits. I believe the matters being raised by his edits were dealt with above some time ago. As far as sourcing of this article is concerned, I think the article as it now stands is pretty O.K., except that "The Canadian recognition of the title is based on this act" looks POV to me, and I'll get rid of it shortly. The only other unsourced bits are the fact that the title is the only French colonial title recognized by the Queen of Canada, and the list of barons. Both seem pretty uncontroversial although citations would be good.GSTQ (talk) 05:40, 7 April 2008 (UTC)

I agree with GSTQ that the article needs to be swept clean of any assertions that are unsourced. The following quotation may be useful:

"The title of Baron de Longueüil of Longueüil, in the province of Quebec, in Canada, was granted (at the time when Canada formed part of the Dominion of France) by letters patent of Louis XIV, King of France, dated 26 January 1700, to Charles le Moyne, a distinguished military commander, the estate of Longueüil being erected into a Barony, with remainder to the heirs (male or female) of his body." Note (a): "This dignity...was undoubtedly a French dignity at its creation in 1700. By the treaty of Paris, however, 10 February 1763 (after the conquest of Quebec by the English in 1759), all rights and privileges 'of what kind soever' were reserved to all of French descent who were entitled thereto under the former (i.e. the French) government." Note (b): "This appears to be the only Canadian hereditary title existing; its holder, though a Dominion peer, has not, apparently, any precedence in right of his unique position." - Nunh-huh 05:55, 7 April 2008 (UTC)

I agree with Souht. With regard to the treaty of Paris, the British recognition of title is void. 9 avril 2008 —Preceding unsigned comment added by D.A.V.I.D. (talk • contribs) 17:23, 9 April 2008 (UTC)

How can you agree with Souht, D.A.V.I.D.? He hasn't made a post on this discussion page. How can the British recognition of the title be void? You do realize the King of France (or his envoy) signed the Treaty of Paris?GSTQ (talk) 23:18, 9 April 2008 (UTC)