Talk:Marie Antoinette

Recently added, recently deleted

I recently removed the following (which had just been added). There are three sentences and three different issues, so I'm explaining here:

"She had faced a horrifying series of attacks, tragedies and cruelties since the days of 1789." - pointless restatement of the obvious, I don't think we need to say this; harmless, so if it is re-added, I won't remove it again without someone else doing so first, though I will welcome it is someone does so.

"In her life, she had evolved from a carefree archduchess to a royal martyr; along the way she had been an extravagant queen, a wonderful mother and a patroness of numerous charities and societies." Again, restatement of the obvious. Mildly POV: "a wonderful mother"? I bet this edit came from the same anonymous contributor who keeps adding material to Louis XVII of France about what an angelic child he was; I haven't checked. I would not object to something to this effect being re-added as a quotation from an identified biographer or similar source. It does not belong in the narrative voice of the article

"In the words of a biography of her published in 1933, despite being a woman of average intelligence, “Marie-Antoinette became tragic and finally achieved greatness commensurate with her destiny.”" What the heck kind of citation is "a biography of her published in 1933"? Name the author, name the book, and then this would be a perfectly acceptable addition to the article.

correction or vandalism

I agree. This article seems to contain a lot of personal bias for Marie Antoinette and King Louis XVI, which doesn't seem to go along with most historical sources. I wish more "Facts" presented in this article were referenced with a citation of some verifiable work. Overall, though I liked the conversational style of the article, and found it much more readable and accesible than the article on the French Revolution, which I thought was very confusing. -Mozartgirl
The preceding comment was added 5 April 2006, was interspersed before a comment from 16 months earlier, and seems to be replying to something, but doesn't make sense in this section. I suspect it was misplaced, but since I cannot see where it is intended to be placed, I have added this remark instead of moving it. - Jmabel | Talk 03:20, 12 April 2006 (UTC)

Could someone who knows more than I about the Bourbon monarchs scrutinize the recent, uncommented edit by User:209.112.215.94, which makes factual changes without citing any source? I have no idea whether this is a correction or vandalism. I'd really appreciate a comment one way or the other from a known editor. -- Jmabel | Talk 06:06, Dec 15, 2004 (UTC)

Completely rewritten?

It looks to me like this has been recently and completely rewritten, anonymously and without comments or even a single cited reference, and removing the 1911 Encyclopædia Britannica reference that was previously given. This cannot be entirely good. On the other hand, it doesn't look like a terrible article. I don't have the interest and the patience to evaluate it myself. I suspect that some material from the old version should have been preserved; certainly references are needed. I hope someone will take this on. -- Jmabel | Talk 19:20, Feb 10, 2005 (UTC)

du Barry

Re: the sentence that begins, "Du Barry had begun life as Jeanne Bécu, a common prostitute before she had been noticed by Louis XV and become his lover." Normally, I'd suggest "mistress" rather than "lover", but it's already used once in the paragraph, so "lover" is probably the right word. Some anonymous editor keeps wanting to substitute "woman", which really comes off as a euphemism here (and can also be read as either folksy/comfy or demeaning). One of his/her edit summaries suggests that the problem is one of grammatical gender agreement. "Lover" is a gender-neutral word in English, so I don't see the supposed problem. "Lover", like "mistress", clearly indicates a sexual relationship distinct from matrimony. "His woman" fudges the sexual issue, and falsely suggests an exclusive relationship on both sides. -- Jmabel | Talk 07:21, Apr 21, 2005 (UTC)

There are not many appropriate words to describe it, Mr. Mabel. Sir-reverence, "courtesan" would not suit the sentence since the word "prostitute" is already in it. "Lover," except in plural, always refers to a man. (unsigned)

I have to ask, where are you from? That is certainly not the case in either American or UK English, at least not in the last 50 years or so. -- Jmabel | Talk 05:50, Apr 23, 2005 (UTC)

Here are some recent examples from major press sources that refer to Camilla Parker Bowles as having been Prince Charles's "lover"

• US (Washington Post): [1]
• India (The Tribune of Chandigarh): [2]
• UK (The Mail on Sunday): [3]

Jmabel | Talk 06:02, Apr 23, 2005 (UTC)

I only prefer to avail conventional language, and "lover" in reference to a "lady" is unconventional, Mr. Mabel. (Presumably the same anon)

Avail used this way isn't "conventional": in both U.S. and UK English, it is absolutely archaic. Similarly for your restrictions on the use of "lover". We are trying to write Wikipedia articles in contemporary English, not in 19th century English. (That, in fact, is one of the main problems with using 1911 EB material.) Again, how can you say that a word that I can find used in an exactly parallel context by major newspapers in the U.S., UK, and India isn't "conventional" English? -- Jmabel | Talk 18:08, Apr 24, 2005 (UTC)

Newspapers, sir, frequently are not written in proper English. (Presumably the same anon: would you at least sign with ~~~~ so we can see that these come from the same IP address.)

I'm not going to keep fighting over this, because I don't think it is important enough to keep eating my time, but I think this persistent person is dead wrong, and would appreciate if someone else would take up the matter. -- Jmabel | Talk 20:46, Apr 24, 2005 (UTC)

Mabel is right. Also, "Woman", "anon" and "avail" as used by (Presumably the same anon) are correct neither in nineteenth-century nor in contemporary English. I presume that the writer is a francophone, in which case a little advice may be in order: in what you call the Anglo-Saxon world, literary trends have been on the side of simplicity and clarity since, at least, Hemingway's time. If you read Proust in English, you'd find that long French sentences (elegant in the original language, but unseemly in the "target" language) have been cut up into shorter English ones. This is not to say that complex sentence structures and high-sounding words are not used in English: they are, but not normally in history or literature. Anyway, you have to know how to use them correctly first before you can use them elegantly. Indeed, once you master the basics, you can even break a few rules and get away with it. Many writers do it. But first, better err on the side of simplicity and clarity than on that of the amateurishly grandiloquent. (a different anon, 25 April 2005)

I am not a Gallican, gentlemen, but I apologise for having used the word "avail" incorrectly (I was not the one who wrote the word "anon"). (The first guy, 25 April 2005)

Title

On what basis was this moved from Marie Antoinette to Marie Antoinette, Archduchess of Austria? I can't imagine anyone looking for this article under this title. She is almost universally known in English simply as Marie Antoinette, and if people know one of her titles it is certainly as Queen of France. -- Jmabel | Talk 06:35, Apr 27, 2005 (UTC)

I totally agree with Jmabel. Please move back. RodC 12:58, 27 Apr 2005 (UTC)

I agree as well. Pavel Vozenilek 14:02, 27 Apr 2005 (UTC)

I am moving it back. -- Jmabel | Talk 03:25, Apr 28, 2005 (UTC)

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposal. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

Requested move (21 Jun 2005)

Marie Antoinette → Maria Antonia, Archduchess of Austria – look up naming of queen consort Wikipedia:Naming_conventions_(names_and_titles)#Monarchical_titles --Antares911 11:43, 21 Jun 2005 (UTC)

• Oppose Doesn't exception #2 clearly apply? -- Rick Block (talk) 14:24, Jun 21, 2005 (UTC)
• Obvious oppose - the "use common names" rule can override any others, as in this case where she is almost universally known as Marie Antoinette. sjorford →•← 22:03, 21 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Oppose' - This doesn't even fit with our naming standards for queen consorts - in that case, it would be Maria Antonia of Austria or Marie Antoinette of Austria (the latter I would not object to) - we generally don't include titles like "Archduchess" in titles like this, since the person was a queen, and not just an archduchess. john k 00:17, 22 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• oppose for same reason. Rd232 10:37, 22 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Oppose Fits exception 2. Wood Thrush 02:35, Jun 23, 2005 (UTC)
• Oppose. Maria Antonia is not good.

It was requested that this article be renamed but there was no consensus for it be moved. violet/riga (t) 10:26, 10 July 2005 (UTC)

Discussion

I would like to draw attention to Wikipedia´s ridiculous rule on naming of Queen Consorts according to their maiden name. according to the current rules, she has to be listed as how she was born. Wikipedia:Naming_conventions_(names_and_titles)#Monarchical_titles in my humble opinion this is ludicrous. Antares911 11:40, 21 Jun 2005 (UTC)

You mean Wikipedia:Naming_conventions (names and titles)#Other royals Number 9.Past Royal Consorts:

Past Royal Consorts are referred to by their pre-marital name or pre-marital title, not by their consort name, as without an ordinal (which they lack) it is difficult to distinguish various consorts; eg, as there have been many queen consorts called Catherine, use Catherine of Aragon not Queen Catherine. However, there has been one notable exeption. From Wikipedia: "Shortly after King George VI died of lung cancer, on February 6, 1952, Elizabeth began to be styled "Her Majesty Queen Elizabeth, The Queen Mother." This style was adopted because the normal style for the widow of a King, "Queen Elizabeth," would have been too similar to the style of her elder daughter, now Queen Elizabeth II. The alternative style "The Queen Dowager" could not be used because a senior widowed Queen, Queen Mary, the widow of King George V, was still alive."

--Philip Baird Shearer 18:22, 21 Jun 2005 (UTC)

then please explain to me why Princess Alice, Duchess of Gloucester is not listed as Lady Alice Christabel Montagu-Douglas-Scott? and besides, that still doesn´t answer why Marie Antoinette is not listed by her pre-marital name. she was a "past royal consort", because her husband died before she did. and there was only one Archduchess Maria-Antonia, so where would theoretically the confusion lie? Caroline of Brunswick is also not listed as Caroline, Queen of England. so what is exactly is going on here? Antares911 19:37, 21 Jun 2005 (UTC)

I took past Royal Consorts to mean those pushing up the daisys not just those who outlive thier Royal spouse. In the case of the Duchess of Gloucester she was not a royal consort. BTW you will notice I have not expressed Support or Oppose to the proposed move. I am just trying to understand what the name ought to be or if this example proves the rule to be wrong. Philip Baird Shearer 19:54, 21 Jun 2005 (UTC)

In terms of Alice, she counts as a peeress - they are given under their married names, normally. But I agree that the current naming system for royal consorts isn't very good. john k 00:17, 22 Jun 2005 (UTC)

I think that her article should be under Marie Antoinette of Austria, but since she is the best known Marie Antoinette, that page could be redirected to her article. I oppose Maria Antonia in the title of the article, as she is not well known by bthat name form. Her father's family was mostly French, thus she knew also Marie Antoinette as her name from childhood. 217.140.193.123 18:22, 24 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Hyphen?

Most of the text in the article spells her name with a hyphen, but the title doesn't. Surely this should be standardised? sjorford →•← 22:03, 21 Jun 2005 (UTC)

I would like to see the article under title wiothout hyphen, but of course a redirect from corresponding page where there is the hyphen. 217.140.193.123 18:18, 24 Jun 2005 (UTC)

I've removed the hyphen from article text. john k 22:11, 10 July 2005 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

Royal consorts and monarchs

hi there. i´m trying to get a discussion going to change the rules on naming consorts, monarchs, etc.. it´s a bit of mess at the moment. maybe you wanna join in and give your opinion? feel free [4] cheers Antares911 23:57, 21 Jun 2005 (UTC)

If it is mess at the moment, the worse mess is (and has been) brought about by your edits. 217.140.193.123 19:43, 25 Jun 2005 (UTC)

A different proposed move

I would like to propose that we move this article to where it is actually supposed to be according to the naming policy, which is Marie Antoinette of Austria. This would a) promote consistency, and b) be a perfectly reasonable thing to do. Marie Antoinette's association with Austria is quite well-known - she was known as L'Autrichienne("the Austrian woman," or, as I've also seen it translated "the Austrian bitch") by those who didn't like her. Any takers? john k 29 June 2005 22:55 (UTC)

• I'd have no active problem with that, although she is one of those few people in history where just her forenames are sufficient for almost anyone to know who you are talking about. Up there with Jesus, Galileo, and (I hesitate to say it, but I will) Madonna. (Aside: Madonna is the only one on that list where putting an emphatic the before the name would mean that isn't who you meant...) -- Jmabel | Talk July 1, 2005 00:18 (UTC)
• I think the simple Marie Antoinette title that we currently have is the best form.

It was requested that this article be renamed but there was no consensus for it be moved. I'm unsure if I should take Jmabel's comments as a support vote or just a comment, but as nobody else has voted (in such an extended vote time) I'm going to err on the side of leaving it as it is. By all means add it once again to WP:RM once the process there has caught up with itself. violet/riga (t) 10:26, 10 July 2005 (UTC)

• My vote was "I'd be OK with either". -- Jmabel | Talk 17:38, July 10, 2005 (UTC)
• She is quite famous with her name solely. I vote for to leave the title as is. Jensboot 21:38, 10 July 2005 (UTC)

Massive vandalistic deletion

The recent edits by User:64.229.157.97 constituted a massive vandalistic deletion. Unfortunately, the next contributor went ahead and made a small edit, so I can't use the rollback tool, and I am not currently editing from a fast enough connection to fix this in any other way.

Would someone with a better connection please fix this (and make a note here that it's been dealt with)? Thanks in advance. -- Jmabel | Talk 06:54, 21 September 2005 (UTC)

Done. - Nunh-huh 06:58, 21 September 2005 (UTC)

"Empress" Maria Theresia

The name of Maria Theresia, should be changed: she was never "empress", she was "just" the wife of Emperor Franz Ferdinand I von Lothringen. As the Austrian empire had only been founded later (1804) by Franz II. (then I.), Maria Theresia could not have been "Austrian" empress either. Could someone with a better command of English than me please make those changes? TIA, Negationsrat 15:28, 31 October 2005 (UTC)

Actually, she was the wife of Franz Stephen von Lothringen. He was the Holy Roman Emperor Franz I and she was his wife and thus, like every wife of an emperor, titled the "empress". While she was not an empress regnant (which is the point I think Negationsrat wants to make), she was an empress consort and therefore entitled to the title of "empress" and she is known as "Empress Maria Theresia" in English, and as Kaiserin Maria Theresia is Austria. --StanZegel (talk) 05:03, 1 November 2005 (UTC)

I see you are both repeating "Maria Theresia". Is she not properly "Maria Theresa" in English? That is what I recall always seeing. -- Jmabel | Talk 05:13, 2 November 2005 (UTC)

Yes, Maria Theresa in English. Maria Theresia is the German. john k 05:22, 2 November 2005 (UTC)

Last Words

pardon moi is not good French. It should be either pardonne-moi or pardonnez-moi, or translated into English. Slac speak up! 03:25, 26 November 2005 (UTC)

-That the French had to be corrected in the quote of her final words seems a bit troublesome, even if they are only attributed to legend - the difference between using tu and vous is fairly significant here. Also, the translation of "pardonnez-moi" to "Monsieur, I ask your pardon. I did not do it on purpose." is simply incorrect. I'm guessing whoever wrote that part only knew the English translation.

If anyone has a good source on the French, could they please correct it? At the moment I'm finding everything from "Monsieur, je vous demande pardon. Je ne l'ai pas fait exprès" to "Pardonnez-moi, monsieur" - there doesn't seem to be much consensus, even on French websites. [uregistered user, 7 December 2005]

Let them eat brioche

Bravo for correcting the myth. Rousseau made it up. See Shenkman, Legends, Lies, & Cherished Myths of World History. Trekphiler 04:02, 8 December 2005 (UTC)

Where's the body?

Is she interred with her hubby or was she dumped in a mass grave? --chad 12:49, 13 December 2005 (UTC)

as stated in the article - interred at the Royal Crypt at Saint Denis Bacilica. Her remains (along with her husband's) were transferred there from a mass grave in Paris (commemmorated by the Chapelle Expiatoire) during the 19th century.

'Let Them Eat Cake' (BBC)

Would someone like to add something about the BBC comedy Let Them Eat Cake, starring Dawn French and Jennifer Saunders?

Phimosis

Can anyone confirm (based on a reliable source) that Louis was not suffering from phimosis, but was rather oblivious to or ignorant of wedding-night rituals? I have read accounts of an intervention of HRE Josef II (brother of Marie Antoinette) with Louis in 1777, where he encouraged the king to have an operation to correct the cause of painful erections. -M

Pubmed shows two articals suggesting that he did in fact have phimosis (both in french though). Likewise, I've seen it claimed by a number of other sources. I think the current statement that he did not have it is much too strong to make without a definitive source. Otherwise it should be changed to something like "may have had". —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 128.196.193.152 (talk • contribs) 23 June 2006.

I understand that one article in pubmed argues that Louis XVI may have had a frenulum breve, which can be surgically corrected without circumcision. Here's the citation:

G. Androutsos, "Le phimosis de Louis XVI (1754-1793) aurait-il ete a l'origine de ses difficultes sexuelles et de sa fecundite retardee?" Progres Urologique, 12 (1), 2002

However, I have not read the article. The issue here is that this article needs a citation that Louis XVI to support the statement that he did not have phimosis. The article as currently written gives Louis XVI misleadingly implies that Louis had a clean bill of physical health, which may not be the case at all.

Currently, the statement Nor was it true that he suffered from phimosis. contradicts secondary sources like Encyclopedia Britannica, which imply he did have a physical disability that contributed to his marital difficulties. (Though, of course, no citation is given there either). Further, the statement is contradicted by an article's internal link to the Wikipedia article on phimosis, which states that Louis XVI did have the disorder.

Until the evidence is in, I think this statement: Nor was it true that he suffered from phimosis. should be deleted or qualified. Rather, the article should present both hypotheses fairly in the absence of conclusive evidence: he had a physical disorder (perhaps phimosis or perhaps a frenulum breve) or he was psychologically unprepared for form of intimacy he had to perform, as the article currently suggests. Wtfiv 06:15, 5 July 2006 (UTC)

Move?

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposal. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the debate was don't move. —Nightstallion (?) 00:40, 29 January 2006 (UTC) J

Move to Maria Antonia of Austria

Talk:Marie Antoinette — Marie Antoinette → Maria Antonia of Austria - past queen-consorts revert to their pre-marital name, per Wikipedia:Naming conventions (names and titles). Gryffindor 01:21, 25 January 2006 (UTC)

According to Wikipedia:Naming conventions (names and titles), #9 "Past Royal Consorts are referred to by their pre-marital name or pre-marital title, not by their consort name, as without an ordinal (which they lack) it is difficult to distinguish various consorts; eg, as there have been many queen consorts called Catherine, use Catherine of Aragon not Queen Catherine." Gryffindor 01:17, 25 January 2006 (UTC)

Straw poll

Add *Support or *Oppose followed by an optional one-sentence explanation, then sign your vote with ~~~~

• Strongly OpposeSeptentrionalis 02:05, 25 January 2006 (UTC)
• Oppose, Marie Antoinette is the most widely known version of her name. - Bobet 15:07, 25 January 2006 (UTC)
• Oppose for reasons above (I also think the emphasis on titles of royalty in the title of articles have become far too extravagant in this project; beyond designating "Kings", "Queens", and other monarchs, I'd prefer most of them be limited to simply appearing in the articles themselves). ~ Achilles † 16:36, 25 January 2006 (UTC)
• Strongly oppose --Macrakis 17:13, 25 January 2006 (UTC)
• Oppose per the guideline you cite: "Exception 4: If a person is overwhelmingly best known by a cognomen, or by a name that doesn't fit the guidelines above, revert to the base rule: use the most common English name." I just tried Google Books, and found two mentions of "Maria Antonia of Austria": [5] but 21100 for "Marie Antoinette" combined with "Queen" [6]. Kusma (討論) 02:06, 25 January 2006 (UTC)
• Oppose per the guideline discussed by Kusma; she is overwhelmingly known by the name the article is at now. Jonathunder 21:53, 25 January 2006 (UTC)
• Oppose due to the rules on common names. She is known commonly as Marie Antionette.Gateman1997 22:01, 25 January 2006 (UTC)

Well in that case, it would have to be Elisabeth of Austria and not Elisabeth of Bavaria. and what about Elizabeth Bowes-Lyon (guess who that is?) Gryffindor 14:13, 25 January 2006 (UTC)

I don't know about these, but I don't see how the complicated and ambiguous nature of the various Elizabeths affects this question here, where "Marie Antoinette" is a nicely unambiguous and overwhelmingly used name. For example, nothing links to Maria Antonia of Austria. Kusma (討論) 14:51, 25 January 2006 (UTC)

Discussion

Add any additional comments

See the first time this wasn't moved; except that this is now exception 4 to Wikipedia:Naming_conventions_(names_and_titles)#Monarchical_titles. Septentrionalis 02:05, 25 January 2006 (UTC)

• Why couldn't we turn Marie Antoinette into a redirect for Marie Antonia of Austria. Then she could be found by searching for either her correct pre-marital name or her more well known name. Prsgoddess187 14:25, 25 January 2006 (UTC)
  • That would happen in any case. The question is not how she is to be found, but how the article is too be titled. Kusma (討論) 14:51, 25 January 2006 (UTC)
    • Guidelines state it should be the most commonly searched term which is obvious in this case. There should be no debate.Gateman1997 01:17, 26 January 2006 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

THEN She is a martyr (well, not really)

If Marie Antoinette was That good , in my opinion she deserves to be considered as a martyr . Because she was excuted ,without any kind of justice , and she was accused inspite of being innocent (relativly)

HOwever thak you so much about this Page(about Antoinette) —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 213.178.253.2 (talk • contribs) 9 Feb 2006.

Well, your logic is correct, but she wasn't that good. She was a capable person, especially in the later years. But she turned against her country, inviting Austria and Prussia to invade your country is evidence of treason, is it not? -huangdi

Linkspam?

In the external links: Autrichienne perdue sans collier, by Gilles Marchal. (1)Hideously laid out page. (2) I can't quickly work out if it's non-fiction, historical fiction, or what. But my French isn't great, and I'm not inclined to give it a lot of time. Possible linkspam: User seems to have been adding a bunch of links to one site: Contributions. Exact same link added to Louis René Édouard, cardinal de Rohan. - Jmabel | Talk 04:47, 7 March 2006 (UTC)

please, don't remove this links, They result from a very serious French site and can bring a new light on these articles concerning of the French events. It is not a question of linkspam. thank you in advance Adrienne93 02:16, 10 March 2006 (UTC)

Inappropriate tone?

I see this is tagged with {{inappropriate tone}}. All this tells me is that someone doesn't like someone else's writing. Would someone please indicate explicitly what they wish to see addressed? If there are specific issues, they can be addressed, but if that doesn't happen in the next week or so, I think the tag should simply be removed. It can always be re-added when someone is able to be explicit about the problems. - Jmabel | Talk 15:49, 27 April 2006 (UTC)

I've read over the article and I don't see a problem with the tone. -Will Beback 22:34, 27 April 2006 (UTC)

I think the issue is that the article is more novelistic than encyclopedic. For example:

The Dauphin and Marie Antoinette were then married in front of the court, with Marie Antoinette wearing a magnificent dress with huge white hoops covered in diamonds and pearls. There was then a formal dinner, which was also held in front of the crowd. Louis-Auguste ate an enormous amount. When the king told him to eat less, the Dauphin replied "Why? I always sleep better when I have a full stomach!"

"Magnificent" is definitely POV and "huge" is a little informal. It is also uncertain as to why this information is included at all. Why is it important to know that the Dauphin ate a lot of food? And if you think it is important, why don't we include other "anecdotal" information? Where do you stop? I didn't post the tag, but I agree that the overall tone of the article and the facts being presented are fairly informal.Pageblank 16:24, 1 May 2006 (UTC)

When referring to the wedding dresses of the brides of heirs-apparent of major monarchies, I think that "magnificent" may be an NPOV term. "Ornate", "expensive", "lavish" are other words that might be used, I suppose. Change "huge" to "large" if you like. Regarding the other details, it establishes the nature of court life, and the way that the subject was introduced to it on her very first day. Lastly, the detail about the Dauphine's appetite confirms the fact that he had no idea that sleep was not the primary activity on a wedding night, which turned out to be a critical issue in the marriage. -Will Beback 01:18, 2 May 2006 (UTC)

I think that the tone is somewhat informal but nonetheless, it is not a blatant problem and if anything takes away the boring "only state the facts" tone. The extra details allow the reader to identify with Marie Antoinette's views as well as how the people perceived her.

Let them eat cake

The article states her famous "let them eat cake quote" (which is well known to have not happened) to have been atributed to have taken place during her Coronation but the History Channel special on the French Revolution says it was claimed to have taken place during the bread riots, the "march of the women" when the king and queen were forced to move to Paris. Granted, since this is a atributed quote and not a real one, its imposible to pin down but a think the latter date is the more correct of the two. I wanted to get conformation on this before I went and changed it.

Without any source here to refresh my memory, I do think you (&History Channel) are correct. Tazmaniacs 12:25, 24 July 2006 (UTC)

finally consummated

Didn't Louis have to have a operation before he was finally able to consummate the marrage? Not just the conversation mentioned in the article? or am i wrong?

According to the article:

• Nor was it true that he suffered from phimosis.

If it were true, then he would have needed a very minor operation. -Will Beback 00:53, 18 May 2006 (UTC)

That entire paragraph makes no sense. "Rumours would later circulate that Louis-Auguste was impotent, but this was not the case" and "Years later, King Louis XVI would have the surgery though that would permit him to be free from impotency" Could he get it up or not? The sentences seem as if they should be cleaned up as well.

NPOV?

this seems to be horribly biased throughout, particularly in the sections talking about her life as queen.

Biased for or biased against? The fact that I don't know in which direction you are complaining suggests that it is not. - Jmabel | Talk 16:29, 20 June 2006 (UTC)

The claim that this article is objective or even "unbiased" is rooted in ignorance. Both the diction and the selection of facts presented heavily favor this unfortunate queen. I would attempt to edit the entry, but I believe it to be beyond repair, and must be deleted and a new one must be submitted.

Fear of revewing concepts?

Historical evidences shows she was a martyr. But most people still cling to the idea that she is the ultimate symbol of the decadent, foolish, bourgeois lady. Why?

"Historical evidence" cannot show that anyone "was a martyr" (except in the sense that some individual or institution may have declared them such). - Jmabel | Talk 16:31, 20 June 2006 (UTC)

I need infomation about you

Hi, my name is Jess and I am doing a french assignment about Marie Antoinette. I Need infon about:

• Why you were famous
• Why you were important to French society
• Global Significance

Please give me infomation about these questions?

Jess —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 150.101.123.138 (talk • contribs) 20 June 2006.

Hi ! Can I give you information in French ? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 83.112.162.39 (talk • contribs) 21 June 2006.

1. Read the article.
2. Do your own homework.
3. Asking questions of dead people is not usually productive. When it is, you'd usually rather they had not answered. - Jmabel | Talk 08:11, 2 July 2006 (UTC)

Citation Needed

In the first paragraph of the "Life as Dauphine" section there is a story I have never heard before or read about "once tipped a bucket of dirty water on Antoinette's head as she walked underneath her window" very unlikely!!! there has been a "citation needed" sign next to this since the 9th May, there has been ample time for someone to find proof of this, since no-one has im deleting it, if there is proof put it back. --Stevenscollege 22:37, 22 June 2006 (UTC)

Yeah...how did this get featured with no in-line citations and only two references, incomplete references at that. I'm not an expert on the topic, so it might be all good. Or maybe not. There's really no way to tell. savidan^{(talk) (e@)} 05:35, 5 July 2006 (UTC)

Misleading succession box removed

The utility of charts, succession box, templates & so forth mustn't abuse us. To put a "succession box" on this article, claiming that Joséphine de Beauharnais "succeeded" to Marie-Antoinette is an obvious historical short-cut which totally bypass the events of the French Revolution. Beauharnais did not succeeded to Marie-Antoinette, unless you consider that Lenin "succeeded" to the Tsar... It was rather like an overthrowing in the last case... Although I'm sure some find these boxes very cute, an encyclopedia must first of all give correct information, and this also goes for images, pictures, categories & all these boxes. Tazmaniacs 12:22, 24 July 2006 (UTC)

Painting

Is the painting used on the front page the same one here? If so then we can finally ad the painter and the year it was painted.

http://www.linternaute.com/histoire-magazine/interview/06/xavier-salmon/marie-antoinette/presentation.shtml --Jimmyjrg 22:08, 31 August 2006 (UTC)

Louis XV's relationship

Someone keeps correcting "granddaughter-in-law" in the section Life as the Dauphine, to daughter-in-law, so I have qualified it by inserting a small note that Marie-Antoinette's parents-in-law predeceased her arrival at Versailles. I mean, it should be obvious but this person KEEPS editing it! User Gboleyn

Her son

Two hours after the commissioners had entered her room, Marie Antoinette had to say goodbye to her beloved son.

She would never see him again.

OK, so what happened? This is uninformative, unnecessarily dramatic and unencyclopaedic. The paragraphs do not state whether her son was murdered, or if it's even known what happened to him. Strongly suggest rephrasing.

Surely they could simply click on the link for Louis XVII; after that, Marie-Antoinette didn't seen him again and so his eventual death (almost two years after her own) doesn't necessarily need to be included? "Beloved" may be a bit hyperbolic, but it is emotionally true given her maternal instincts. Perhaps replace it with "young" so that the article doesn't seem insensitive to the human tragedy, but doesn't necessarily express any deliberate preference for or against the royals? User:Gboleyn

I would include some information (say, "He died two years later in captivity") from the Louis XVII article here to avoid misapprehension on the part of those who don't click the link; I, for one, did think that the paragraphs implied that he was murdered some time after. This, actually, is my more general point: such style as used in the text is too vivid and too much subject to interpretation to be sufficiently factual. Not only do I object to the the word "beloved" (why bother to replace it with "young" if the readers can click the link?) but also to expressions like "Marie Antoinette had to say goodbye" which implies, for example, that she had the chance of saying so (did she?), which is probably not what the paragraph means to imply. In short, the text unnecessarily sacrifices encyclopaedic style for sense of drama.

Please excuse my nitpicking but I hope you see what I mean. 194.157.147.7 11:25, 8 September 2006 (UTC)