Talk:Alexander Farnese, Duke of Parma

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

Untitled[edit]

Eugene, I've tried on three browsers (IE. Opera and Mozilla), and the replacements made to the apostrophe have all come up with a question mark. So I've kept the link and reverted those replacements. Djnjwd 19:01, 9 Sep 2003 (EDT)

The problem is that you're using a character set that my Opera for Linux can't read. The quotes are all "high ASCII" characters, possibly from a Windows character set? In the edit window, Opera replaced them all with a question mark, and I didn't notice that. Perhaps it would be better to replace them with plain apostrophes and quote marks? Eugene van der Pijll 17:14, 12 Sep 2003 (UTC)

None of the other Dukes of Parma are at X, Duke of Parma and Piacenza. They're all at X, Duke of Parma. Considering that this fellow is normally called "the Duke of Parma", without elaboration, I don't see why he should be an exception. Also, he's normally referred to by the Anglicized "Alexander," rather than his native "Alessandro" (And how native that is I don't know - his mother was more or less Flemish and he was mostly brought up in Spain, so the Italian name seems not especially accurate). I'm going to suggest a move to Alexander Farnese, Duke of Parma. john k 00:58, 28 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Speculation[edit]

There is much history that has not been told. There are many theories as to why Farnese did not come out. Many believe it was because he was trying to help out Elizabeth, secretly of course. And he did just that, had he gone in to help the Armada, they would have destroyed the English. But Farnese decided to stay out regardless of what Medina or Phillip said. Farnese is a man of with a great sword, but also a great heart. It is believed that Elizabeth and Farnese had a love affair. Perhaps that is the reason why Farnese never went into England. He had the greatest army.

Removed from article. If it can be verified, it should of course be replaced. However, most of it looks unverifiable. Mon Vier 19:25, 27 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]