Talk:Visconti of Milan

[Untitled]

"Buzz Visconti, Duke of Hazzard"? Now wait a minute... --Cyrenaic -Addendum: Removed Buzz Visconti. For what I've found out, he's merely a medical official on films such as Kill Bill and an extra on a couple of films. No indication of being a member of the Visconti family. If anyone can produce any evidence of this, fine, but either way, he doesn't belong in the family tree from the 15th century. --Cyrenaic

Were the Pisan and Milanese Visconti even remotely related?

Visconti is a surname with a clear meaning - "viscount". The èppoint is: viscount of what, and when? The two families - in Pisa and Milan - were most likely NOT related to each other. AFAIK, the Milanese Visconti came from lesser nobility, their ancestor was lord of Massino Visconti, Albizzate and Besnate. Online I've found to now ZERO sources, apart the redundant and translated Wikipedia itself, claiming a link between the two families. Same surname does not mean automatic kinship, even in the Middle Ages.

Basil II —Preceding comment was added at 20:58, 3 February 2008 (UTC)

Separation of the two families (Pisan and Milanese)

I suggest to separate into a new entry ("Visconti of Milan") the part of the article concerning the Visconti of Milan. As stated above, they are two different families. The corresponding article in italian language (it:Visconti) is entirely devoted the Visconti of Milan. A separate article is about Visconti di Pisa (it:Visconti di Gallura). Naming explicitely the Visconti of Milan and thus keeping three different articles ("Visconti" for disambiguation, "Visconti of Milan", "Visconti of Pisa") seems to me a better solution. --Bg69 (talk) 08:35, 31 August 2013 (UTC)

Seconded. Sparafucil (talk) 05:48, 15 October 2013 (UTC)

I have followed my previous proposal, separated the Visconti of Pisa and Sardinia, moved the introductory part in Houses of Visconti, where I mentioned the existance also of the Visconti of Piacenza and Vercelli. Pope Gregory X was a Visconti of Piacenza, misattributed to the Visconti of Milan. --Bg69 (talk) 11:17, 23 December 2017 (UTC)

Caption under image of Biscione

The serpent prior to biblical times was a sign of goodness. The human in the mouth of the snake is proposed to be a Saracen who were perceived as evil in Christian history. The symbol therefore depicts the triumph of Good over Evil.

This is a highly problematic caption for a neutral and factual encyclopaedia to allow. It needs immediate editing or it will remain a clear indication of how Wikipedia is becoming corrupted, misleading and unreliable.

To say that because 'prior to Biblical times', ie before circa 70AD at least, the serpent was a sign of goodness, the family who took up this symbol over one thousand years after Biblical times did so in reference to that very ancient and defunct symbology rather than symbology prevailing at that time and for centuries preceding its use is plainly ridiculous. And then to assign this 'good' triumphing over evil' interpretation to the symbol because of that ancient and so irrelevant pre-Biblical symbology is a gob-smacking assault on logic as well as plain old common sense.

If the author is trying to refer to more contemporaneous pagan symbology which survived in varying degrees in those regions, then the author needs to state this clearly with references, or not at all.

The image is very plainly of a human being with the lower half of its body inside the mouth of a serpent/dragon-like creature. To suggest that this is a representation of 'good triumphing over evil' requires a very clear and thoroughly referenced and balanced discussion, which this is absolutely not. In the absence of such a study worthy of an encyclopaedia, I would strongly suggest removing all in that caption following the first sentence ending 'swallowing a human'. It is currently not good at all for Wikipedia's reputation (to put it mildly).

I would suggest similarly amending the fourth paragraph under the heading 'Visconti of Pisa and Sardinia'. 86.141.175.58 (talk) 08:15, 28 July 2008 (UTC)

According to the German Wikipedia the depicted human is given birth to, not swallowed. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 91.15.24.175 (talk) 21:37, 11 January 2014 (UTC)

What about the women?

This article does not mention anything about Bernabò Visconti's daughters, who married into royalty & nobility. Some of them married Cypriot kings & Bavarian dukes or had descendants who were French & English kings. In what a particularly outlandish wedding, Galeazzo II Visconti's daughter, Violante Visconti, married Lionel of Antwerp, the third son of Edward III of England. Peaceray (talk) 19:23, 29 August 2015 (UTC)

Luchino Visconti

Luchino Visconti, is presented as "...one of the most prominent film directors of Italian neorealist cinema..."

While he made some films in the neorealistic vein, particularly at the beginning of his career, his later films departed absolutely from the neorealistic code.

--200.12.130.226 (talk) 15:55, 1 September 2016 (UTC)

Yes, as this article mentions, Luchino Visconti is descended via the line of Visconti of Modrone. It would be helpful if you or someone else could expand this section from the corresponding section in Italian, Visconti di Modrone.

Peaceray (talk) 16:23, 1 September 2016 (UTC)

"House of"

In English the term "House of" is reserved for Royal Families as per House of. As far as I can see there were no Royal titles in this family and in Italian the term used is famiglia. I understand fully that this page has existed since 2004 under this title but I would like to propose that the page be moved to Visconti family. Does anyone have any comments or objections? --Domdeparis (talk) 15:47, 9 March 2017 (UTC)

House of may be reserved for royal families in England/Britain/UK, but I am unaware of any such limitation elsewhere. House of redirects to Dynasty, which states

“ The dynastic family or lineage may be known as a "house"; which may be styled "royal", "princely", "comital", etc., depending upon the chief or present title borne by its members. ”

wiktionary:dynast has this definition:

“ 1. A ruler or governor, especially a hereditary ruler or someone who founded or is part of a dynasty. ”

Comital refers to Count. The Count article states:

“ Count (male) or countess (female) is a title in European countries for a noble of varying status, but historically deemed to convey an approximate rank intermediate between the highest and lowest titles of nobility. ”

The Count article goes on to state:

“ In Italy

The title of Conte is very prolific on the peninsula. In the eleventh century, conti like the Count of Savoy or the Norman Count of Apulia, were virtually sovereign lords of broad territories. Even apparently "lower"-sounding titles, like Viscount, could describe powerful dynasts, such as the House of Visconti which ruled a major city such as Milan.

”

Visconti or vicecomes in the Italian context means viscount. I have no doubt that the Visconti used it both in terms of being imperial vicars & in the context of signorie. The fact that they didn't have a pedigree before conquering Milan is inconsequential, as there are plenty of dynasties whose founders attained power by force and having enough wealth to raise armies. Even though they began without pedigree (although Giangaleazzo claimed to be descended from Aeneas!), they were able to marry female descendants into the royal families of England, France, Cyprus, & the House of Wittelsbach, & had kings of England & France among their descendants. Giangaleazzo himself was able to obtain the title of Duke, which subsequently became hereditary.

For comparison, consider the House of Medici. Also consider that the House of Visconti has been included in {{Royal houses of Europe}}.

I think that based upon what I have written here, the case for continuing to call the Visconti dynasty the House of Visconti has been well established.

Peaceray (talk) 18:01, 9 March 2017 (UTC)

@user:Peaceray: Please see a more general discussion at WT:RM#House of -- PBS (talk) 22:08, 12 March 2017 (UTC)

I agree that this article should retain the name of House of Visconti, particularly since they were the rulers of the Duchy of Milan -- Blairall (talk) 03:40, 25 August 2017 (UTC)

About the anonymous contribution of May 3rd 2018

A couple of days ago an anonymous contributor has added unsupported and inconsistent information in the Family info box and in the first rows of the article. Before selectively reverting it, some arguments are introduced here.

Family name and houses

As stated in the first lines before the change, Visconti is a family name shared by several different unrelated dynasties. It is therefore improper to assert that "House of Visconti was one of the most important Italian noble dynasties". Details on this are here: Houses of Visconti. As a result of this misunderstanding the unrelated Visconti of Pisa have been added in the info box as cadet branch. This change should be reverted.

Family info box

• Country: enumeration of three countries (Milan, Pisa and Siena) is unsupported by any source neither mentioned in the page. It seems also arbitrary: Why not Genua? Why not other City-state mentioned in the List of Titles? Considering their frequent title of Imperial Vicar, shouldn't be the Holy Roman Empire first in the list?
• Ethnicity: Italian (with French and Germanic influences). Who said that? From the body of the article only something like this could be inferred: "Italian with Lombard origin".
• Etymology: It should be better like this: "Viscount; from the Latin vice comes (deputy of the count)". Cf. wiktionary:viscount
• Place of Origin: As stated in the Origin section, Massino was acquired in 1134 by Guido Visconti of Milan. The Visconti existed in Milan before 1134 and in Massino only after 1134. Massino is not their Place of Origin.
• Founded, Founder: How can a founder exists two centuries before the first attestation of family members? Such genealogical connection is unsupported by any source and looks as a mere speculation.
• Current head: None; extinct; Final head: Bianca Maria Visconti: No Family Head seems ever attested among the Visconti of Milan.
• Connected families: It’s a complicate topic unfit to be summarized in the info box. Why not to add among the Allies the families of the husbands of the 9 daughters of Bernabò Visconti, not to mention the marriages of the other family members? How can be justified among the Rivals the Della Scala, considering the marriage (a solid one) of Regina Della Scala to Bernabò Visconti?
• Estate(s): Royal Palace of Milan, Castello Visconteo (Pavia). Why not the Castle of Milan? Why not to the many castles cited in the template:Visconti of Milan, still incomplete of other important castles, for instance Vigevano?
• Dissolution: 1447 (male line); 1468 (female line). These years consider the end of the rule of the Visconti on Milan, improper here as "dissolution" of the family.
• Cadet branches: Considering the lineages along about 9 centuries, it is an extremely complicated topic. Before entering any argument, to have an idea of the complexity, one should have a look at Litta, Famiglie celebri Italiane, available at Biblioteca Nazionale Braidense in Milan. Mentioned in the info box should be only the branches documented with a genealogical connection (as the Visconti di Modrone in their article; the other supposed branches have links to towns not families).

--Bg69 (talk) 14:01, 5 May 2018 (UTC)

• I've reverted those edits. We need to be careful about inaccurate information in infoboxes. Thanks for posting and for presenting the reasons. Victoriaearle (tk) 17:20, 5 May 2018 (UTC)

Visconti di Modrone branch members

It is odd that the Visconti di Modrone branch members are not listed in the Visconti di Modrone article but are instead listed here in Visconti of Milan#Visconti di Modrone. I wanted to discuss this before we undertook moving them. Peaceray (talk) 21:34, 17 January 2019 (UTC)

Support: I support the suggestion that parts of that section (branch members of the Visconti di Modrone) be moved (or copied) into Visconti di Modrone, as you see fit. -- Blairall (talk) 00:43, 18 January 2019 (UTC)

Seconded. Bg69 (talk) 15:44, 26 January 2019 (UTC)

Maranghi-Castellini-Baldissera family

The Maranghi-Castellini-Baldissera family is not a cadet branch of the Visconti and no relationship between the two families is provided. Also the author of the section thinks that "the family should probably have a separate page entirely dedicated to themselves." --Bg69 (talk) 22:27, 16 October 2019 (UTC)

Famiglie celebri italiane by Litta

@Bg69: A couple of things:

• I suggest that you try out User:Lingzhi2/reviewsourcecheck in your Special:MyPage/common.js page. It will flag disconnects with Harvard-style referencing with shortened footnotes. For example, it will warn about a shortened footnote that does not actually link to a citation, & vice-versa. Check out {{sfn}}, also, as it skips the need for ref tags.
• In this edit, I see that you introduced references to Famiglie celebri di Italia by Pompeo Litta Biumi. I spotted a couple of problems. The shortened footnote is {{harvp|Litta Biumi|1911|loc=}} but the citation is for 1823, so that is not matching up.:
  • {{cite book |last=Litta Biumi |first=Pompeo |title=Famiglie celebri italiane |trans-title= |chapter=Visconti di Milano |location=Milano |publisher=Luciano Basadonna Editore |year=1823 |oclc=|language=it |ref=harv |hdl=}}
• I did find an online version, although I have not yet found a date of publication due to my inability to navigate BnF Gallica's web interface:
  • Litta Biumi, Pompeo. "Famiglie celebri di Italia. Visconti di Milano" (in Italian). OCLC 777242652. Retrieved 2020-04-15.
• The above in wikitext adding |ref=harv
  • {{cite web |last=Litta Biumi |first=Pompeo |title=Famiglie celebri di Italia. Visconti di Milano |oclc=777242652 |url=http://gallica.bnf.fr/ark:/12148/btv1b8452267x |language=it |ref=harv |access-date=2020-04-15}}

I hope this is helpful. I expect that you & I will be interacting more around the Visconti. BTW, I created the Violante Visconti & translated the Matteo I Visconti articles. Peaceray (talk) 04:58, 15 April 2020 (UTC)

Thanks. I fixed the publication year. I found 1819-1884 in BnF Gallica and used it. I added also your OCLC and URL. Feel free to make any other improvements. Bg69 (talk) 17:28, 18 April 2020 (UTC)