Talk:Louis Bonaparte

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Does the text on the subject page about the second son make any sense? If the second son had still been alive, wouldn't he have become emperor instead of the third one? So how could he possibly live long enough to see his own heir inherit? I must be missing something. -- isis 21:53 Sep 17, 2002 (UTC)

Well, pretty much all the male Bonaparte's are called either Napoléon or Louis, so yo get easely confused. For instance Louis Bonaparte is not Louis Bonaparte but his father!

Louis' nicknames[edit]

On the Dutch page, Louis' nickname is given as de Lamme Koning. Can anyone translate this nickname? I can't find laame in any online dictionary. SigPig 15:01, 18 February 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Lamme Koning = Lame King Dedden 14:20, 13 April 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Thanks! I thought that's what it might be, but I wasn't 100% sure. SigPig 16:27, 13 April 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]
He cant have been seen as smart. Even though it was not customary of him to know the Dutch langage, saying Conijn instead of Konink is more than a common mistake. Anyone can point out that he never knew where to install a Capital (or Principal) City, but I'm calling it a technical detail. The Conijn...thought he would rid himself of his French Nationality, and call himself a Dutchman. Any grown up Dutchman of that time, would either know or behave in such a manner, as if Batavia already was a (de facto) region of France. Napoleon was cheesed of with his own brother, dethroned him, and just said it that Batavia was independant no more. -- (talk) 08:50, 8 February 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]


He was never Grand Duke of Berg, that was his son Napoleon Louis Bonaparte. Känsterle 12:04, 13 June 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Factual accuracy[edit]

Can someone tell me WHERE the factual accuracy is discussed, as none of the few discussion items do state that they link to the tag. If not, I will soon remove the tage on the page. Thanks Arnoutf 15:21, 8 July 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]

He never was Grand Duke of Berg and Cleves. Känsterle 20:24, 21 July 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]

The Wikipedia article "Berg (state)" says: When, in 1808, Murat was promoted to the Kingdom of Naples, Napoleon's infant nephew, Prince Napoleon Louis (1804–1831, elder son of Napoleon's brother Louis Bonaparte, King of Holland) became Grand Duke, and the territory was administered by French bureaucrats. The Grand Duchy's short existence came to an end with Napoleon's defeat in 1813, and in the peace settlement that followed, Berg, along with much of the Westphalian region, was annexed to Prussia, forming a part of the Rhine province.

I think that means that title, and that of Duke of Cleves should be removed from Louis Bonapart, as Känsterle suggested. B. Meijlink 12:14, 10 October 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Requested move[edit]

The following discussion is an archived discussion of a requested move. 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 move request was: Not moved. Jafeluv (talk) 21:59, 22 April 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Louis BonaparteLouis I of Holland — They were both de facto monarchs for a time, we do not pass judement on the legitimacy of people's claims. PatGallacher (talk) 16:30, 8 April 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]

  • That one book for Louis II is a novel. Fictional works are not reliable sources. DrKiernan (talk) 11:57, 13 April 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Oppose on the grounds that this name, like Jerome of Westphalia and Joseph I of Spain, would not be recognizable. We are allowed and encouraged to choose among recognizable names; we should not go outside those forms which an anglophone may be expected to recognize. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 01:53, 12 April 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Oppose per UCN Flamarande (talk) 21:10, 12 April 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Oppose These terms are very, very rarely if ever used by reliable sources. I see thousands of references to "Louis Bonaparte" but no more than a handful of poor quality ones for "Louis I of Holland" and none at all for "Louis II of Holland". DrKiernan (talk) 11:57, 13 April 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. 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.


The portrait of him showing the least degree of beautification is found here. This bust has been claimed to portray Napoléon I Bonaparte. Yet the combination of wavy hair, thicker lips and a longer nose has convinced me that it is the misidentified portrait of his brother Louis who had Napoléon as his second name. (A good comparison would be with this drawing of Napoléon.) Louis could very well have looked just like that since all the traits can be found in people alive today. In fact it exactly matches Ian Holm when he was young except for the chin which is very different. On the other hand this chin can be found in a living, male line only descendant of Louis' younger brother Jérôme named Jean-Christophe Bonaparte. No, this shared trait is not due to the bloodline between them! Although both Jérôme and his son Napoléon Joseph had protruding chins none of them had any cleft in theirs. Napoléon Joseph's son Victor did not even have any particularly large chin. I have never seen any photo of Victor's son Louis However, I can tell that Jean-Christophe's father Charles has a protruding chin but no cleft in it. Consequentially, Jean-Christophe must have inherited the cleft in his chin from his mother Béatrice. (This trait is due to a dominant gene.) So it is questionable if Jean-Christophe has any more in common with the king of Holland than the Y-chromosome. The physical resemblance between Louis an Ian should not be overestimated either. Louis was considerably taller compared to the average of his time and may have been more heavily built. I am not sure about which colours Louis had. However, if you imagine him with Ian's colours you probably don't get too far from reality (although he might well have been more dark-skinned). Yet if you would ask me the persons bearing the closest resemblance to Ian would be Louis’ older brothers Napoléon and Lucien. All three is or where small and thin with a rather big forehead, black hair and a similarly shaped nose. (“A rather big forehead” is my attempt to describe their shape of face.) But while both Napoléon and Lucien had strait hair Ian's hair is naturally wavy. Napoléon had the same eyes and Lucien the same nose as Ian. However, Napoléon had a shorter nose then the two others and Lucien had large, brown eyes. Both the Bonaparte brothers also had thinner lips than Ian and a protruding chin with a cleft. This was completely unlike Ian's rounded one. Finally, Napoléon and Lucien where probably a little more dark-skinned than Ian. But this is nothing strange since Ian is nearly as light-skinned as anyone can be. So we are not talking about look-alikes here.

The original bust of Louis is too old to have any copyright. If there originally was any it has long expired. However, there could be copyright on the photo of the bust just like there is copyright on this photo of a statue portraying his younger brother Jérôme. If anyone knows he or she should contact me. My e-mail address can be found in the last page of this PDF.

2010-12-29 Lena Synnerholm, Märsta, Sweden.

The PDF I previously referred to have been removed from my website. My e-mail address can now be found here.

2014-01-12 Lena Synnerholm, Märsta, Sweden. — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 18:29, 12 January 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Was he hetero- or bisexual?[edit]

I don’t think Louis was homosexual. If he had been it he had never had sex with any other woman than his wife Hortense. (This would have worked is he simultaneously imagined himself doing it with a man.) All his sex partners outside marriage would have been men. This would have efficiently prevented him from having any illegitimate child. However, Louis really seems to have had an illegitimate son. He was named Francesco di Castelvecchio. Anyone who can verify this?

Is there any concrete indication of Louis having any homosexual emotions? Did any man claim to have had sex with him at a time we know they had the chance to be alone with each other? Did he treat any other man as if he was his lover? Please note that “homosexual” does not mean “unmanly”. (Such ideas have varied considerably between times and places anyway.) A person thinking like that would probably mistake me for a lesbian when I am in fact completely heterosexual.

2012-08-01 Lena Synnerholm, Märsta, Sweden.

The line was supported by a reference to a book (see on his son (Napoleon III) which seems a reliable source WP:RS. I am not sure the book states that claim, but would need to check to figure it out for sure.
Re your arguments, in the early 19th century homosexuality was no longer punishable, but that does not mean it was accepted in the ruling classes. Also, perhaps Louis was having a mistress to fool himself, or others. In any case there are many reasons. We have to go with the sources. Arnoutf (talk) 18:37, 1 August 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Unless he felt a strong social pressure to have mistresses I find you explanation implausible. Chales Louis Napoléon Bonaparte may or may not have been Louis’ son. But if he confessed a want to have sex with other men to him this does not matter. Anyway, sexual orientation is not a matter of either-or. Up to half of all people sexually attracted to persons of the same gender are attracted to ones of the opposite gender too. This is what is meant by being “bisexual”.

2013-08-17 Lena Synnerholm, Märsta, Sweden.

Now it has been shown that Charles Louis Napoléon Bonaparte was illegitimate. However, if his mother’s husband confessed sexual attraction to other men to his wife’s son it does not matter if they were related or not.

2014-01-01 Lena Synnerholm, Märsta, Sweden.