# To 'de' or not to 'de'



## LouisaB

I'm very puzzled by the international use of 'de' in French surnames - and the 'von' in German ones.

I've always diligently applied these patronymic prefixes myself, and I _think_ most English people do. For instance, to me, to refer to 'de Gaulle' as simply 'Gaulle' would be highly disrespectful, and I can't imagine speaking of Dumas' hero as 'Artagnan' instead of 'D'Artagnan'. Similarly it would seem wrong to say 'Bulow' when I mean Claus von Bulow.

Yet in my current research into French history I keep coming across books which refer to people without their prefixes, eg 'Tocqueville' for de Tocqueville, or 'Beauvoir' for Simone de Beauvoir. These seem so far to be only written by Americans, but it may simply be a characteristic of some elements of the academic world (just as academics are the first to refer to people simply by surname). I do not, of course, refer to the dropping of prefixes in titles, which seems to be totally acceptable - e the Prince of Conde is Conde, not 'de Conde', the Marquis de Sade is 'Sade' and 'von Bismarck' is 'Bismarck'.

What is your experience? Is this acceptable/polite usage in your country? When I write to French and German officials with meticulous use of the 'de' and 'von' prefixes, am I being polite, or do I come across as old fashioned/pedantic/snobbish/all the above? 

Heeeellllppp...

Louisa


----------



## cuchuflete

> These seem so far to be only written by Americans...


First lets debunk the bad American theory.  The omission of the _de _is far from uncommon among BE writers:

Results 1 - 10 of about 3,290 for Tocqueville -de site:.uk

Results 1 - 10 of about 20,100 for Tocqueville site:.uk. 

Now that that little nit has been disposed of (unless you consider that a 19.57% omission rate at UK sites is something more than a nit...), we can move on to your questions.

Is this acceptable or polite?  Not if one knows the language in question and knows the correct name being mangled and truncated.  If one is unfamiliar with French or German, the lack of a de or von will pass unnoticed, and therefore offend no sensibilities, unless one is a monolingual student of literature or history, in which case the omission will be noted.  It will probably be ascribed to ignorance, rather than a lack of manners.


BE writers seem even less concerned with German language conventions than those of French.  However you may choose to interpret Google's New Math, _von_ is notable for its omission on UK web sites. 


Results 1 - 10 of about 98,600 for Bismarck site:.uk.
Results 1 - 10 of about 78,500 for Bismarck -von site:.uk.
Results 1 - 10 of about 5,710 for "von Bismarck" site:.uk.


I have no doubts that AE writers are  bad at this also:

Region=US
Results 1 - 10 of about 306,000 for "von Bismarck"
Results 1 - 10 of about 691,000 for "Bismarck" -von.


----------



## Outsider

I just want to add that these conventions can differ between languages (in Portuguese and Spanish, for example, the preposition _de_ is normally omitted), so it's no wonder that they might cause some confusion. 

Wikipedia has an article about French names. I can't vouch for how accurate it is.


----------



## LouisaB

cuchuflete said:


> First lets debunk the bad American theory.


 
Sorry, but there _is_ no 'bad American theory'! As far as I know, there's no 'good' or 'bad' with this at all, only different usages, which is what I'm interested to learn. I mentioned the American books only because that's the most striking difference I've noticed in the books reviewed on the Society for French History forum (H-France) and, as I say, this is a strictly academic (and therefore very formal) environment. I too did a Google search before posting the question, but it still doesn't help me know how I can _most politely_ address or refer to people with such names.

If there _is_ a perception of 'good' or 'bad', then I'd like to know - especially from those who live in France or Germany, or those with surnames so prefaced. What do people in other countries do, and how do they react to others with different usage - or does it simply not matter outside the academic world? I'm hoping it doesn't, so I don't need to vary my usage according to the nationality of the people I'm addressing!


----------



## panjandrum

This may be a reflection of what was the custom.

I don't have anything to back this, but I believe that the nobility often referred to one another by title, so that Richard of York would have been referred to, in court, as York.
So, similarly, long ago, Simone de Beauvoir would have been the only noble with that attribution and would have been referred to as Beauvoir.

I don't think there is any lese majeste (forgive the absence of any appropriate accents) in the historical omission of the de or von.  I suspect that what you find in the historical record is the use of the placename to refer to the person who is the noble from that placename.


----------



## JamesM

As far as I know, "de Gaulle" is not in any way associated with nobility. It's simply a very old way of designating a family's location ("near/from the wall", as I understand in this case.) As with "du Pont", ""du Lac" and other French names, it's often simply a place to distinguish where someone lived ("near the bridge", "by the lake").

That said, it does seem odd to drop the "de", "du", "de la" or "des".


----------



## Paulfromitaly

As far as I know the prefix "de" and "di" cannot be omitted in Italian surnames: it would be a mistake.


----------



## berndf

*German: *Before the creation of the German Republic in 1918/1919 "von" was in most cases just an indication of nobility. While in Austria titles of nobility were totally abolished, in Germany former nobles had the right to continue using parts of their former titles as integral parts of their names. In names like "von Braunmühl" or instance the "von" is *not* *optional* and you would *never omit* it. It is different for titles of nobility like "Graf" (count). While you would address "Otto Graf Lambsdorff" always as "Graf Lambsdorff" and never as "Herr Lambsdorff" it is acceptable to drop the title if talking about a person, e.g.: "Minster Lambsdorff sagte...".


----------



## ewie

I find it *very odd* that French _Beauvoir_ should look as utterly wrong as Spanish _de Cervantes_.


----------



## berndf

JamesM said:


> As far as I know, "de Gaulle" is not in any way associated with nobility. It's simply a very old way of designating a family's location ("near/from the wall", as I understand in this case.) As with "du Pont", ""du Lac" and other French names, it's often simply a place to distinguish where someone lived ("near the bridge", "by the lake").


 
The name _de Gaulle_ is probably of Germanic origin _*de Walle_ (_the wall_). Hence, _de_ is probably the Germanic definite article (_the_) and not the Romance preposition _de_.


----------



## LouisaB

Paulfromitaly said:


> As far as I know the prefix "de" and "di" cannot be omitted in Italian surnames: it would be a mistake.


 
Thank you very much for expanding the question like this, Paul - I should have included it in the first place. A million years ago I taught 'The Leopard' for 'A' Level and was driven to distraction by a critical work (daren't mention the nationality of the writer!) who referred throughout to 'Lampedusa' instead of 'di Lampedusa' and gave me a really uphill battle convincing my students not to do the same.

But thank you also to ewie, who makes a very valid point about 'Cervantes'. Yes, this too should be 'de Cervantes', yet I've never heard an English person refer to him in any other way than simply 'Cervantes' - and I don't know why! When you buy a copy of Don Quixote, the spine simply reads 'Cervantes', so maybe it's a matter of the 'de' having been dropped years ago, but if it's wrong, that's no excuse.

There may be all kinds of subtle distinctions between names it's allowable to drop prefixes from (eg titles, place names etc) and those it's not, eg patronymics. In English (on the whole) such prefixes have been absorbed into the original name (eg Fitzwilliam, meaning illegitimate son of William, is spelt as one word) and some 'de' prefixes seem internationally to have done the same, eg 'Deschamps' - but otherwise I'm stumped. Why would nobody refer to Olivia de Havilland (or the old plane factory) as 'Havilland' - and yet 'Beauvour' is acceptable???

Is there a political agenda to this? berndf's post is especially interesting with its reference to 'post republic'. Is it the same in France? Does the 'de' suggest a kind of 'ci-devant' nobility from which people wish to disassociate themselves?


----------



## berndf

cuchuflete said:


> BE writers seem even less concerned with German language conventions than those of French. However you may choose to interpret Google's New Math, _von_ is notable for its omission on UK web sites.
> 
> 
> Results 1 - 10 of about 98,600 for Bismarck site:.uk.
> Results 1 - 10 of about 78,500 for Bismarck -von site:.uk.
> Results 1 - 10 of about 5,710 for "von Bismarck" site:.uk.
> 
> 
> I have no doubts that AE writers are bad at this also:
> 
> Region=US
> Results 1 - 10 of about 306,000 for "von Bismarck"
> Results 1 - 10 of about 691,000 for "Bismarck" -von.


 
His full title was "Fürst von Bismarck-Schönhausen, Herzog zu Lauenburg". This is also in German normally contracted to "Bismarck" or "Fürst Bismarck" and seldom to "von Bismarck". Only if you include the first name you would say "Otto von Bismarck" or "Otto Fürst von Bismarck".


----------



## Outsider

LouisaB said:


> But thank you also to ewie, who makes a very valid point about 'Cervantes'. Yes, this too should be 'de Cervantes' [...]


Really?! Why is that?


----------



## berndf

LouisaB said:


> ...Why would nobody refer to Olivia de Havilland (or the old plane factory) as 'Havilland' - and yet 'Beauvour' is acceptable???
> 
> Is there a political agenda to this? berndf's post is especially interesting with its reference to 'post republic'. Is it the same in France? Does the 'de' suggest a kind of 'ci-devant' nobility from which people wish to disassociate themselves?


 
In French a distinction is made between "de" which is part of a former title of nobility which can be omitted and particles which have nothing to do with titles of nobility which cannot be omitted (like "de Gaulle").

The abovementioned wikipedia article contains a remark stating that this distinction is less and less observed in modern (republican) France and all particles are considered part of the name and are not omitted. Having lived in France and in French speaking Switzerland for quite some time now, I would tend to agree with this observation.


----------



## Flaminius

I _think_ I have read in _Les miserables_ how Victor Hugo lamented on the use of _de_ prefix in the Restoration era which was so rampant that even well-known nobilities like La Fayette were referred to with the prefix.

I have no answer as to what the best practise is today but it is worth knowing that the same question has been asked before (perhaps for the nth time).


----------



## Etcetera

Hi Loiusa,

I'm not an expert in this field, but I can't remember a single case of imitting the "de" or "von" in surnames. Olivia de Havilland, for example, will always be Olivia de Havilland.

The prefix is omitted in titles - Prince de Conde would be just Conde, and von Bismarck would be just Bismarck. Quite frankly, when after finishing Dumas's trilogy I opened Wikipedia and read that Conde was, in fact, Prince de Conde, I wondered why the 'de' was omitted in the text and thought that it was the translator's mistake.


----------



## ewie

Outsider said:


> Really?! Why is that?


Well, perhaps not _should be_, Outsider, but the chap's full name was Miguel *de *Cervantes Saavedra [apparently] so we English-speakers might _expect_ it to be shortened to _de Cervantes_ along the same lines as _de Beauvoir, von Frankenstein _[oops!], and the rest.


----------



## Etcetera

ewie said:


> Well, perhaps not _should be_, Outsider, but the chap's full name was Miguel *de *Cervantes Saavedra [apparently] so we English-speakers might _expect_ it to be shortened to _de Cervantes_ along the same lines as _de Beauvoir, von Frankenstein _[oops!], and the rest.


In Russian, it's _Miguel *de *Cervantes Saavedra_, but it is normally shortened to just _Cervantes_.


----------



## Outsider

ewie said:


> Well, perhaps not _should be_, Outsider, but the chap's full name was Miguel *de *Cervantes Saavedra [apparently] so we English-speakers might _expect_ it to be shortened to _de Cervantes_ along the same lines as _de Beauvoir, von Frankenstein _[oops!], and the rest.


I'm under the impression that the rules for Spanish are different from the rules for French or German. In Spanish, the little particles like _de_ are supposed to be omitted when you refer to someone only by their family name. 
This must have been talked about here in the WR forums already, but when I tried to find something my search came up empty.


----------



## la zarzamora

Both in Argentina and in Spain, everyone - at every level, from primary school kids to academics- refers to Miguel de Cervantes Saavedra as "Cervantes".
And, by the way, we also say  "El Quijote" (with the article like "The Quijote". Yes, just like that.


----------



## timpeac

cuchuflete said:


> BE writers seem even less concerned with German language conventions than those of French.  However you may choose to interpret Google's New Math, _von_ is notable for its omission on UK web sites.
> 
> 
> Results 1 - 10 of about 98,600 for Bismarck site:.uk.
> Results 1 - 10 of about 78,500 for Bismarck -von site:.uk.
> Results 1 - 10 of about 5,710 for "von Bismarck" site:.uk.
> 
> 
> I have no doubts that AE writers are  bad at this also:
> 
> Region=US
> Results 1 - 10 of about 306,000 for "von Bismarck"
> Results 1 - 10 of about 691,000 for "Bismarck" -von.


Careful - the ship "the Bismarck" will hugely influence this (and perhaps even more for the British than the Americans thus the big percentage difference there?), probably to the point of making such an investigation impossible. That said, I don't think you're wrong on this point, see below.

What an interesting question this is. I think that my personal feelings and initial reaction on a small range of such titles would be:

"De" in a French name - wouldn't miss it out. "Sade had many strange habits", "Beauvoir was good friends with Sartre" - very strange to my eyes.

"De" in Spanish - would miss it out. "De Cervantes was a prolific writer" - odd.

"Di" in Italian - can't think of any off hand. Edit, it's scraping the barrel I know but "Leonardo di Caprio" has occurred. "Caprio was great in this film" - hmmm, odd.

"Von" - wouldn't add it - "Von Liebnitz was a great mathematician" - odd.

"Van" - wouldn't add it - "Van Beethoven was a great composer" - who's he?

What do I conclude from that? I wonder, particularly following the comments of various native speakers above, if in English we simply follow the usual custom in the country of origin. Any German or Dutch speakers care to add their countries' tendencies?

As to the specific question asked about missing them out (well those that I would add per above) in certain genres or contexts - personally, I would find, say, "Sade" without the "de" very odd in any context - and I think it would strike me if I read that in a literary context or otherwise. It sounds too chatty, too informal to me. I wonder if this might be relaxed in a text pretty much dedicated to the person in question. Would it be reasonable to just put "Beauvoir" in a book principally about her? Perhaps.


----------



## jann

In French, there are specific rules governing the omission or inclusion of the _de_ particle in a name_.  _Most major American publishers and newspapers follow these rules when writing French names (or at least they try).

de + [name]
 The _de_ is included only when the [name] is preceded by a noble title (prince, count, duke, marquis, etc.), a first name, or an honorific (_monsieur, madame, général_, etc.)
Alexis de Tocqueville wrote "Democracy in America."
The marquis de La Fayette renounced his noble title in 1790.
le comte d'Artagnan
Madame de Beauvoir, Simone de Beauvoir​
 When the first name, title, or honorific is omitted, so is the _de_.  (Although if it is a _du, des _or _d' _instead, it may well be maintained).
Lafayette trained American troops.
Tocqueville wrote "Democracy in America."
the theme of freedom in the writings of Beauvoir
(But "The Three Musketeers was partially based on a fictionalized account of D'Artagnan's life.")​
However, when the [name] contains only one syllable, the _de_ is always included... even if the first name, title, or honorific is not.  Thus we always speak of _de Gaulle_.  I know of only one exception: for some reason, we speak of _Sade_ and not _de Sade_ for _le marquis de Sade_.
If I can find a good link, I will update this post.

UPDATE: The BDL comes to the rescue, as usual.  I'm afraid the page is in French, though.


----------



## timpeac

Oh well, that blows my theory of following the customs of the original countries out the water then!


----------



## jann

timpeac said:


> Oh well, that blows my theory of following the customs of the original countries out the water then!


Actually, just the opposite!  At least for French names, and in American English, we *do* try to follow the customs of the original French. 

Your examples from post #21 fit perfectly:
-- Beauvoir is multisyllabic, so we generally omit the _de_ unless we happen to include her first name, or _Madame_ or something.
-- Sade is the well-known exception to the "include the _de_ with monosyllabic names" rule... and so we usually omit the _de._


----------



## LouisaB

Thank you, jann, that is a brilliantly helpful answer to the French question, and explains many of the apparent contradictions that have puzzled me.

Would I be right in thinking that the 'de' would also be omitted when referring to the whole family? Since the 'de' means (roughly) 'from the house or family of' it would be redundant in the plural. So we would speak of the Tocquevilles, the Beauvoirs, etc?

Even here, however, I think your rule still applies - eg 'the Gaulles' still sounds wrong, and I'd say 'the de Gaulles' instead. Your single-syllable exception works for me in (I think) every case, and explains why although I've always believed it's okay to refer to 'Sade' because it's a title, to me it actually _sounds wrong._

Also very helpful is the point that when the prefix is d' then it can be maintained even without title. It makes perfect sense, because the 'd' has effectively elided its way into the original word, which would hardly be recognizable without it. Might this also apply to some names which may not strictly elide in their present anglicised spoken form, but start with 'soft' consonants, eg 'h' - and explain why one so rarely comes across 'Havilland' without the 'de'?

berndf, does this work for you? You mentioned your actual experience in French-speaking countries is more in line with wikipedia, ie that all particles are considered part of the actual word and therefore not omitted - would your exceptions be in line with jann's?


----------



## ewie

I'm with Tim and Louisa on the subject of the Marquis de Sade: _de_-less 'Sade' looks very odd to me too. (I can't remember the last time I actually referred to the chap but _Leopold von Sacher-Masoch_ presents a whole _new_ set of problems: no matter *what* you do with his name ~ omit the _von_, omit the _Sacher_, omit both ~ it bears little resemblance to _masochism _/'mæsəkɪzəm/ and just sounds like *noise*.)


----------



## Flaminius

Then, *ewie*, I wonder how come _Sade_ in resemblance with sadism sounds strange to the UK foreros in this thread?

In relation with this, I realise English speaks of DeGaullism contrary to expectations from *jann*'s #22 _supra_.


----------



## berndf

LouisaB said:


> berndf, does this work for you? You mentioned your actual experience in French-speaking countries is more in line with wikipedia, ie that all particles are considered part of the actual word and therefore not omitted - would your exceptions be in line with jann's?


 
I agree with the wikipedia article that there is a definite tendency in this direction but, at least in written French, the traditional rules are not dead.

The mono- vs. multi-syllabic distinction I cannot relate to and I have never heard this. I surmise that this is more of a heuristic to distinguish names of Romanic and Germanic origin. In the letter case you would never drop the _de_ simply because it has nothing to do with _de=of_. It is not surprising that you say _de Gaulle_ but _Sade_.

In general I think the (slightly simplified) traditional rule
- include _de_ if title and/or first name are present
- drop _de_ if the name is used in isolation
is or was in some form present other European languages as well:
Spanish: _Miguel de_ _Cervantes_ but _Cervantes_ (example discussed above)
German: _Otto von Bismarck_ but _Bismarck_ (example discussed above)
English: _The Duke of Norfolk_ and _Thomas of Norfolk_ but _Norfolk_ (example from Shakespeare's Richard II)


----------



## Etcetera

berndf said:


> English: _The Duke of Norfolk_ and _Thomas of Norfolk_ but _Norfolk_ (example from Shakespeare's Richard II)


Now that you've mentioned it I'd like to add that names of English noblemen are always used without any prefix at all: the Duke of Norfolk is just _gertsog Norfolk _in Russian. 'Norfolk' will be a noun here.


----------



## jann

Flaminius said:
			
		

> In relation with this, I realise English speaks of DeGaullism contrary to expectations from *jann*'s #22 _supra_.


Hello Flaminius, 

But how is this "contrary" to the expectations of my post #22?  The rules apply to the use of the name directly, and not to derivative forms like adjectives and nouns formed from the name.  

I think the English term for the doctrine named for the general is Gaullism, and the principles are Gaullist.  You will sometimes see "de Gaullism" or even "deGaullism"... but I think these forms are less common.  In French, the particle must be dropped: the doctrine is _gaullisme_ and the adjective is _gaulliste_. 



			
				LouisaB said:
			
		

> Might this also apply to some names which may not strictly elide in their present anglicised spoken form, but start with 'soft' consonants, eg 'h' - and explain why one so rarely comes across 'Havilland' without the 'de'?


In French, there are two kinds of H's: aspirate and non-aspirate.  Aspirate H's behave like consonants.  Non-aspirate ones behave like vowels, and will be preceded by _d'_ instead of _de.  _So with a name that is truly French, you should still be able to apply the rules listed above.  

Wikipedia indicates that Olivia de Havilland was born of British parents.  I know little about the historical adoption of the French _de [name]_ structure in British society, but I expect that it plays a role in how we say those names when they are British rather than French... and probably explains why we would speak of her as de Havilland.


----------



## Hulalessar

In French you can say "de de Gaulle" - as strong an indication as anything that the "de" is thought of as an essential part of the name.


----------



## federicoft

timpeac said:


> "Di" in Italian - can't think of any off hand. Edit, it's scraping the barrel I know but "Leonardo di Caprio" has occurred. "Caprio was great in this film" - hmmm, odd.



I don't know if this is true for French as well, but as long as Italian is concerned a distinction between two different kinds of _de/di_ (_da/del/della/etc._) should be made.



When _de/di_ is a constituent part of the surname, it should be capitalized.
E.g. 
_Leonardo Di Caprio, Alcide De Gasperi, Francesco De Gregori._

Even if the first name is omitted, the de/di particle should always stay. 

E.g.
_De Gasperi was the most respected Italian statesman from the 20th century, Di Caprio was great in this film._
​
When _de/di _precedes the territorial designation of a title of nobilty (the so called 'predicato'), it is written in small letters.
E.g. 
_Camillo Benso di Cavour_, _Count Benso di Cavour_, _Count di Cavour. _
_Camillo_ is the first name, _Benso_ is the surname, _di Cavour_ is the territorial designation.

If the first name, surname, title, or honorific is omitted, so is generally the _de/di_, although there are some exceptions. 

E.g.
_Cavour was the most respected Italian statesman from the 19th century_.

But for instance _Giuseppe Tomasi di Lampedusa _or _Tomasi di Lampedusa_ is always written like that, never just _Lampedusa_. I can't explain why though.
​Please note that all this is true just in modern and contemporary usage. _Leonardo da Vinci_ for instance is correct, even if _da Vinci _is not a territorial designation.

Is there this kind of distinction in French too?


----------



## LouisaB

Many thanks, federicoft. This is all really helpful.

I guess part of the problem for foreigners to a language is our ignorance of when the 'di' etc is an integral part of the name or not. Is it safe(ish) to assume it's integral if it doesn't correlate to a known place name? Mind you, I confess with shame I might have guessed 'di Caprio' to be something to do with Capri!! 

The capitalization point is also interesting. If it's consistent, that would help an alien like me see immediately which kind of name I was dealing with. Do you think it's a safe way of judging?

I too would be very interested to know if any of these distinctions apply in France, and hope a French native will soon join the thread to help us out. For instance, I've always thought the 'de' was in lower case (unless, of course, it starts a sentence) but I notice Jann writes 'The Three Musketeers was partially based on a fictional account of D'Artagnan's life'. In my editions of 'The Three Musketeers' and 'Twenty Years On', the hero's name is written 'd'Artagnan' throughout. These are English translations but a Google search of Dumas' original text shows it's 'd'Artagnan' there too. Now very confused... 

Louisa


----------



## federicoft

LouisaB said:


> I guess part of the problem for foreigners to a language is our ignorance of when the 'di' etc is an integral part of the name or not. Is it safe(ish) to assume it's integral if it doesn't correlate to a known place name? Mind you, I confess with shame I might have guessed 'di Caprio' to be something to do with Capri!!



Well, some territorial designations are linked to very secluded places so it's not generally possible to assume whether the 'di' is integral or just a title.

There are some surnames which are unquestionably not territorial designations though (i.e.: _Di_ + plurals), but I'm afraid a complete mastering of the language is required in order to tell them apart.



> The capitalization point is also interesting. If it's consistent, that would help an alien like me see immediately which kind of name I was dealing with. Do you think it's a safe way of judging?



Yes, as long as the author knows that rule. 
Too bad, it is not always the case in foreign texts.


----------



## jann

> I too would be very interested to know if any of these distinctions apply in France, and hope a French native will soon join the thread to help us out.


I am not a native French speaker, but I do have access to some references on these sorts of spelling and grammar matters... Bescherelle, the BDL online, etc. 

There are indeed two different types of particles in French, but it doesn't make a difference in how they are treated.  When writing in French, the rules I outlined in post #22 apply regardless.

* 1.* Sometimes the particle is part of a family name
_Samuel de Champlain_ (the explorer)
Given name: Samuel
Family name: (de) Champlain
The family name is multisyllabic, so when we write about him using only that family name, we always omit the _de_.

* 2. *Sometimes the particle is part of a geographic location, etc.
_Armand Jean du Plessis de Richelieu_ (the cardinal)
Given names: Armand Jean
Family name: (du) Plessis
Associated territory: Richelieu, an area in the present-day département of _Indre-et-Loire_
If we write about him using his family name, we call him _du Plessis_ (or _Du Plessis_) because _du_ (unlike _de_) is never omitted.
If we write about him using only the geographic designation associated with his family, we call him _Richelieu_, because that name is multisyllabic so the _de_ must be omitted.
Before becoming cardinal, he was a bishop (_évêque_) of Luçon (a diocese).  At that point we could have called him _Richelieu, évêque de Luçon_.  Later he was named a cardinal... but that distinction does not have a territorial designation associated with it. However, when a French title precedes a name with a particle, we leave the particle.  This means that in French, we call him _le cardinal de Richelieu_, even though he was not the cardinal of the town of Richelieu.  In English, we properly omit the _de_ and call him "Richelieu"... and it seems we also extend that to calling him "Cardinal Richelieu" also without the _de_ (different from French).  Perhaps this is because cardinals are not cardinals "of [location X]."


I should not have capitalized the "d" in d'Artagnan in my example sentence from before.  It was a typo.  Sorry to have caused confusion! 

Regarding capitalization when writing in French, the particle is lower case except 
1. when it is the first word in the sentence
2. when it is preceded by a preposition, it may be capitalized (but I understand this is not mandatory)
_les mémoires du général de Gaulle = _the memoirs of general de Gaulle
_les mémoires de De Gaulle, les mémoires de de Gaulle = _the memoirs of de Gaulle
3. _du _and _des_ (which are not omitted, you remember) are sometimes capitalized when the first name, title, or honorific is left out

That said, the capitalization guidelines for French names when writing in French will be of limited utility if you are interested in French names when reading or writing in English.


----------

