Talk:Libro d'Oro

The entry is incoherent.

It starts by referencing nobility in the Republic of Venice (697–1797), but the history section describes it as founded in 1896. A clearer explanation of the pre-1896 history (ie, of the original Venetian institution) is necessary.

Stud book is a book for animals not humand beings

Whomever keeps putting in stud book, is wrong. Nothing even in the article of stud book pertains to a human being, and more over, the Libro d'Oro was NOT a book to establish breeding in any sort of way, it is NOT a book to say one has some sort of special pedigree, is was a book to establish what political rights a family had in terms of what their title gave them, and it only became relevant in terms of marriages in order to make sure that they were following the laws that were set in place to retain legal rights that their title awarded them. Using "stud book" in this manner for this article is not objectively accurate and is sarcasim- also factually, the context is wrong, Libro was maintained in Corfu etc. because it was a colony of Venice and Venetian nobles were residing there. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 65.141.156.193 (talk) 22:29, 11 May 2008 (UTC)

Then place it into the article with a reference. An intention of the Golden Book was ccertainly to record the genealogy of noble families, in ecactly the same was a stud book records the pedigree of highly bred race horses, and this is it purpose today. Giano (talk) 06:16, 12 May 2008 (UTC)

The first guy is right. The Libro d'Oro is not some book to record genetic traits in order to "breed" a human being in a certain way, which is what a stud book is trying to establish for animals, a lineage of breeding. The Libro d'Oro was a book that recored what policitcal rights a family had, and at that time, political rights had laws of marring other people who fell into the same category of political rights, otherwise they lost their own political rights- so people who were about to marry had to check the background of potential mates to make sure that they were marring someone in accordance with the law. If a royle married a noble, the child was called "morgantic" which meant it had no succession rights and just became noble, no longer royal. If a noble married a commoner, their child would loose all titular privledges period. Therefore people used the book to establish legitimacy. Many nobles and royals resented these marring laws themselves- thereby marring appropriately, but then sharing their lives with someone they actually wanted to be with.Geniejargon (talk) 19:53, 12 May 2008 (UTC)

I think you are a little confused here - "Therefore people used the book to establish legitimacy" - so it was not a "lineage of breeding."? and then you say: "Many nobles and royals resented these marring laws themselves- thereby marring appropriately, but then sharing their lives with someone they actually wanted to be with" - who do you suppose made these rules and laws? Giano (talk) 21:35, 12 May 2008 (UTC)

• So how do you explain, Thomas Jefferson, who he himself believed that slavery was wrong, yet had slaves himself and wasn't able to stop it. Systems that are in place are bigger than any individual person. When these laws were put into place, it was a primitive world, with 90%+ of the population illiterate, they were laws that made sense in the middle ages and a pre-modern world. The very reason that America was able to do what it did, in terms of a revolution, was because of the enlightments and industrial revolution, creating a new class of people, bougeoise, that were educated but not nobles, and had skills to govern. Many nobles, i.e. Marquis Lafayette and others, were very happy to the rise of non-nobles through education and wanted to see a world without such restrictive marriage clauses. Many nobles themselves, were behind the push to see people become more educated so they would have abilities to rule. An illiterate person has no skills to govern. Your simplistic world's view is not based on reality.Geniejargon (talk) 21:57, 12 May 2008 (UTC)

Whatever? I think you are confusing the rules governing the marriages of Germanic and Austro-Hungarian aristocrats with the less stringeant rules governing the aristocracy of the more southern European countries, and Britain. In Italy so tolerant were the rules it was not uncommon for cicisbei to be part of the contract. However, even in in the Italian States 16 quarterings were/are of use, and the Libro d'Oro was certainly recording "lineage of breeding" for this purpose. I am unsure what the point you are trying to make is. Incidentally, you talk of the middle ages, Il Libro d'Oro della Nobiltà Italiana is stil published why do you suppose that is? Giano (talk) 22:07, 12 May 2008 (UTC)

Assertions about the current publication

Interesting assertions about the present Libro d'Oro were inserted here but reverted. If any of these assertions can be presented as a report of a published source, they might be returned to the article.--Wetman (talk) 03:50, 31 August 2008 (UTC)

I am an expert about Italian nobility and in the history of books of reference about the italian aristocracy.

What is reported in the above link is true, but was quickly erased by an "anonymous" user.

I think that would be very better to translate this page from the italian version of WP: the italian version is very more correct and, of course, is located in the Italian version of wikipedia http://it.wikipedia.org/wiki/Libro_d%27oro_della_nobilt%C3%A0_italiana_(periodico)

The page, in italian version, was blocked because, in Italy, there was an anonymous (which is the same man that wrote here, in en.wikipedia, a fake italian noble I think): this man continually go to repeat and put into the page the incorrect & inaccurate informations about this private book (in this book also this fake noble was published, of course).

In Italian version the block of page was decided by various admin after a very very very long edit war started by this fake italian noble, or duke, as you prefer (for more info see "wiew history" in italian version and the big lot of nickname banned users: really the same person, of course!).

In italian version you can found also a disambiguation page about the official and the unofficial "Libro d'Oro della Nobiltà Italiana": for more info see http://it.wikipedia.org/wiki/Libro_d'oro_della_nobilt%C3%A0_italiana

--Contebragheonte (talk) 17:16, 14 February 2011 (UTC)

fake

please be aware: the repeated insertion [here] made by user "Contebragheonte" are fake, spam, self-promotion, self advertising, in the intent to promote a complete differente new publication holding the same name of the historical one. The user is the editor of this new publication, and the same as the user "Torean - capricorn" that inserted here a lot of fake informations to try to discredit what he see as the rival publication. Please patrol those two voices. Thanks.--Ersormarchese (talk) 11:17, 7 May 2011 (UTC)

This page is on my watch list and I am watching it very closely indeed. I know exactly what is going on - I'm afraid, if you are not in the Libro d'Oro, you are bogus and Wikipedia is poweless to change that - so pack it in. Giacomo Returned 18:14, 7 May 2011 (UTC)

I totally agree with your asertion Giacomo: "if you are not in the Libro d'Oro, you are bogus and Wikipedia is poweless to change that - so pack it in!Italic text", To understand what happen here, please read below...--Larastabata (talk) 20:56, 11 May 2011 (UTC)

troll at work

troll at work: user "A curious reader" aka "Contebragheonte" aka "Torean - capricorn" etc. etc. is a fake baron; he hate the Libro d'oro because, as he is a fake noble, the libro d'oro ever refused to publish him: check http://www.caccialavolpe.it) On the contrary, he try to "advertise" the "Annuario" because, as a dubious publication, it - the only one! - published him as a fake pubblication, asserting it is the same historical "Annuario" that HAS NOT BEEN PUBLISHED SINCE 1905 (!)check http://www.caccialavolpe.it)--Larastabata (talk) 13:12, 9 May 2011 (UTC)

And the most ridiculous is that he try to "invent" a "new" okus-bogus-fake-ridiculous "Libro d'oro" named "Regio Libro d'Oro" to put in it ... himself (!!!) once again check here http://www.caccialavolpe.it/index.php?p=regiolibrodoro !--Larastabata (talk) 13:31, 9 May 2011 (UTC)

Proposed merge with Golden Book of Italian nobility

More recent "Golden Book ..." article (2012) is poor translation of Italian Wikipedia article, but appears to be on the subject already covered in the 2005 article at "Libro d'Oro" PamD 09:14, 18 May 2014 (UTC)  Done Klbrain (talk) 21:02, 26 March 2017 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Libro d'Oro. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://www.webcitation.org/5mw0RFKPV?url=http://www.regalis.com/reg/titles.htm to http://www.regalis.com/reg/titles.htm

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 22:54, 22 December 2017 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Libro d'Oro. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20120317151557/http://www.archivi.beniculturali.it/ACS/GuidaFrazionata/dest9main.html to http://www.archivi.beniculturali.it/ACS/GuidaFrazionata/dest9main.html

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 19:19, 6 January 2018 (UTC)

This article needs disambiguation or to be split in two.

It focuses mainly on an incarnation of a Libro d'Oro rather than on the concept. Such books were common in many locations. — Preceding unsigned comment added by VenetianNobility (talk • contribs) 08:04, 23 January 2020 (UTC)