Talk:1799–1800 papal conclave

Old talk page post

"Henry Benedict Stuart, duke of York, bishop of Frascati" is both a POV listing and within it's POV arguably wrong. At this point he considered himself to be Henry IX of England and Ireland and Henry I of Scotland and the York Dukedom would have merged with the crown (yet another case of it not being inherited after the first creation). However this assumes the Jacobite line as legitimate - something other Wikipedia articles do not. Timrollpickering 23:21, 17 Apr 2005 (UTC)

I agree and you have amended. Settled. --Oldak Quill 00:30, 18 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Date span

This article (1799-1800) needs an EN-rule in its title (1799–1800). Ericoides (talk) 12:19, 19 April 2008 (UTC)

Infobox

The infobox needs a slight spacing added round the edges, for legibility.--Wetman (talk) 19:57, 4 February 2009 (UTC)

Vetoes

The contributor who thinks there were two vetoes at this conclave is wrong. There were NO vetoes. Bellisomi was excluded by votes; he simply couldn't get beyond 19 votes. The voting tally of Cardinal Gerdil shows this: http://www.csun.edu/~hcfll004/Conclave-1800-votes.html   Hrzan did not need to use a formal veto at all, though he would have used it on Bellisomi if Bellisomi's candidacy showed any prospect of succeeding. But why set off your one and only bomb if you don't have to?? As for Gerdil's candidacy, the statistics show that he reached his maximum of 14 on December 19, 1799--nowhere near what he needed. His name came up a second time, when a compromise was being sought in the second week of March, 1800. The accounts of both Cardinal Maury (Read his letters, please!) and Ercole Consalvi (Mémoires du Cardinal Consalvi seconde édition (Paris: Plon 1866), 255-258.) show that Hrzan merely stated that "Gerdil would receive a veto." No veto was actually presented, because it was not needed. Gerdil had no chance without Hrzan's votes and cooperation, and all he needed to do was indicate his disapproval for the compromise that was being contemplated to fall apart. See Ludwig Wahrmund, Das Ausschliessungs-recht (jus exclusivae) der katholischen Staaten Österreich, Frankreich und Spanien bei den Papstwahlen (Wien 1888) 230-231. Unless somebody has better evidence, I propose to delete the references to an actual veto as being contrary to double-sourced evidence of participants.

Vicedomino (talk) 08:03, 7 August 2009 (UTC)Vicecomino

List of Cardinals

The list of cardinals is obviously taken from Salvador Miranda, and contains the names of 34 participants. This is wrong. There were 35 participants. This is indicated by the official list of Cardinals and their Conclavists attached to the usual bull of privileges granted by the new pope [Bullarii Romani Continuatio 15 (1846) pp. 10-12]. Also, Cardinal Herzan, in one of his conclave letters mentions having to deal with 34 colleagues [Charles van Duerm, SJ, Un peu plus de lumière sur le Conclave de Venise et sur les commencements du Pontificat de Pie VII. 1799-1800 (Louvain: Ch. Peeters 1896), p. 234]. The thirty-fifth cardinal was cardinal Carlo Livizzani Forni, who is listed by Salvador Miranda as "absent".

Vicedomino (talk) 01:41, 11 May 2014 (UTC)

Longest Conclave

I deleted the following sentence, "At 105 days (30 November–14 March) this was the longest conclave to date since 1775, when the Conclave lasted from October 5, 1774, until February 15, 1775, — a total of 133 days." What is the point of the statement? The Conclave of 1774-5 was the previous conclave. Of course it was the longest conclave since 1774--a conclave of one day would have been the longest since 1774. The author of the section seeks to manufacture uniqueness where there is none. 1799-1800 was the last Conclave to be held outside of Rome. True, but not "unique". Many conclaves were held outside Rome. It's just a provisional statement. Vicedomino (talk) 13:12, 26 February 2016 (UTC)

An unusual conclave

In that section the statement is made:

Foremost, it was the last to be held outside Rome, in this case Venice.

I admit I dislike the Gee-whiz trivia of the entire section, and would like to see it all disappear. Toward that goal, I would point out that, since 1929, all the conclaves have been held outside Rome! They take place in a separate individual State called the State of Vatican City, not in Rome (which is a part of Italy). If we are to have this trivia, let it at least be accurate. This is an encyclopedia.

--Vicedomino (talk) 02:23, 15 November 2017 (UTC)

Graph

IMHO, the graph appears to be original research. And yet it is not usable research. It does not account for the historical vagaries that had made one conclave well-attended and another conclave not. Improved transportation is one factor in the rise in attendance in the 19th century. And the French Revolution has a good deal to do with the decline in 1799–1800. I can find no representation of this graph anywhere. As I said of other material in the section in which the graph appears, this is trivia, and inaccurate. It should all be removed. --Vicedomino (talk) 07:43, 7 December 2017 (UTC)

After 8 months, there is no comment, and no objection. I am deleting the section, on the grounds that it is original research and unreferenced.

--Vicedomino (talk) 20:28, 15 August 2018 (UTC)