Talk:Maximilian de Beauharnais, 3rd Duke of Leuchtenberg

On 28 August 2012, it was proposed that this article be moved to Maximilian de Beauharnais, Duke of Leuchtenberg. The result of the discussion was not moved.

Requested move

The following discussion is an archived discussion of the proposal. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the proposal was not moved. --BDD (talk) 21:55, 19 September 2012 (UTC) (non-admin closure)[reply]

– There is no need to use any rank since none of the Dukes share close name. Ranking title holders is only something found in English and British nobility, not in the German or Russian titles.--The Emperor's New Spy (talk) 19:32, 29 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose Let's not fix what ain't broke. Since it is quite possible for someone to come to these pages knowing only that the article they seek is about a "Duke of Leuchtenberg" or a "Prince Romanovsky" or one of Eugene de Beauharnais' heirs, any help in narrowing down which among them is the one being sought is useful. This title is unique because most non-sovereign Russian and German titles don't descend by primogeniture so numbering them would be meaningless and/or misrepresentative (whereas we do differentiate rulers, German and otherwise, by name-plus-ordinal). Moreover, it is usual in the literature to distinguish the Beauharnais Leuchtenberg dukes by number (e.g., Almanach de Gotha, 1944, p. 528; Burke's Guide to the Royal Family, pp. 219, 220, 288; L'Allemagne Dynastique, Tome V, pp. 493-495; Le Petit Gotha, pp. 745, 788). If that's also how Wikipedia usually distinguishes British peers, well the precedent helps us be consistent. FactStraight (talk) 22:52, 29 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment With or without number there are going to be 8 Dukes of Leuchtenberg. There is no need to number them or give them regnal numbers because each of them have distinct names. I am sure most sources do not use the numbering except for the few genealogical and royalty almanachs you listed above.--The Emperor's New Spy (talk) 21:39, 30 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose I don't really have a strong preference either way, but am inclined to agree with FactStraight on this one. The numbers help disambiguate the dukes, especially for unfamiliar readers, and are employed in prominent genealogy books. The Leuchtenbergs are also unique within the Russian/German nobility – I wouldn't directly compare them to, say, the Princes of Schaumburg-Lippe (to use but one example). Just my two cents though. Ruby 2010/2013 04:13, 15 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the proposal. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.