Talk:Louis XV of France
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
 |
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Biography. For more information, visit the project page. | ||
| B | This article has been rated as B-Class on the Project's quality scale. [FAQ] (If you rated the article, please give a short summary at comments to explain the ratings and/or to identify the strengths and weaknesses.) |
||
 |
This article is supported by the Royalty and nobility work group. | ||
Here we go again! JHK has decided for everyone else that written documentation from the courtiers of the King is not acceptable as historical fact.
- Documents have to be read with an eye for who they were written for, and the prejudices of the authors. For example: were the courtiers expecting the king, or the royal family, to read what they wrote? If so, they're going to avoid unflattering remarks, true or not. A courtier who writes that today the queen was in bed with a fever is probably telling the truth as he knows it--but the queen might stayed in her apartments for some other reason, and not wanted to offend an important guest, so claimed a fever. In other words, this isn't medical evidence, though it is evidence that the queen wasn't holding audiences on the day in question.
Another important point is when the courtiers wrote these things: a diary or account-book kept at the time is much more likely to be accurate than a memoir written years later, because memory is a tricky thing. Vicki Rosenzweig
- DW, if it is "fact" (and I gather that you're talking about the bits I cut), here's how to make it stick:
-
- "According to x, who was one of y's courtiers, x was spoiled, inebriate,thick as two short planks...whatever."
- Attribution in reporting is key here. So is a critical look at sources. Do we know if y was a favorite? Did y write years after falling into disfavor? Did z, the Lord Chamberlain, say it was a pack of lies or confirm it?
- It doesn't really make sense to complain about unfair edits if you refuse to write in a manner that supports what you say. JHK
I have watched with interest and note that from looking at numerous Wiki articles, virtually none have references or identify sorces except for ones pasted from the 1911 encyclopedia. Suddenly, you are asking DW to do something new. Perhaps I'm mistaken and someone can direct me to articles by JHK that are referenced and attributed..... Elliot
articles by JHK don't make statements that are not NPOV, normally speaking. I've asked for attribution for articles that are written with an inappropriate amount of purple prose -- in some cases that contradicts what sounds correct. JHK
- If it's of any value, I fully support JHK in her battle on these pages. -- Zoe
contradicts what sounds correct Since when is what souns to JHK the facts. Unfortunately on the Internet anyone can take the identity of someone else or create a phony biography. A quick response and the ability to cut and paste does not validate the imposition of someone's view. It seems many regulars on this site have been intimidated and are allowing this to continue. ...Elliot
- You're not satisfied with driving JHK away, you still want to character assassinate her? Why don't you post YOUR credentials? -- Zoe
Contents |
[edit] Louis XV - Naval battle of Quiberon Bay (1759)
Did Louis XV have a naval minister at the time of this battle or alternatively what were the name(s) of the key admirals involved? Was there a minister/admiral with a name like Maximillion? If so to really push it what was his wife's first name?
The battle was apparently in the Bay of Biscay is there a port with a name like Amiens (I know that's inland at the site of the Somme battles of WW1)?
Please reply to alan.millett@bigpond.com originally Jan 2004, editted Feb 2004
A list of Louis XV's ministers would be more useful than hearing about Mme du Barry's career as a prostitute... Wetman 18:21, 23 Jan 2004 (UTC)
Why did someone change the picture? What was wrong with the old one? I happened to like the old one...
[edit] Making a decent article
This article is just a pile of gossip, cliché, and prejudice. It doesn't honor Wikipedia. I have started to turn it into a more decent article, writing an introduction, and first two chapters. Other chapters remain to be written and rubbish to be deleted. Hardouin 01:05, 16 Jan 2005 (UTC)
- Hardouin, good edits! Huge improvement. You'll understand my few tweaks I think. Some minor reservations
- "announces the bourgeois rulers of the romantic 19th century" This stretches the sense of bourgeois too far. Be more accurate: sentimental and informal?
- I changed "Parliament of Paris" to "Parlement of Paris in the text.The similar etymology of these separate institutions is misleading. Making "speeches" is about all they have in common.
- "from a royal family who had never interbred with the French royal family, and it was hoped that she would bring new blood into the French royal family." These are semi-modern theories about "interbreeding" that did not obtain. Your other remarks on suitability are more to the point.
The remaining old text at the tail end of the article isn't up to the standard set by your new edits. --Wetman 11:29, 5 Feb 2005 (UTC)
- I agree about all the "few tweaks", except for those in the introduction. The king was very close to the queen for about 10 years, and did not have mistresses at the time, so things are a bit more complicated than saying that he liked intimacy away from the queen. In fact after about 10 years his love faded because of the unconditional love of the queen, and frequent pregnancies ending only in girls. I intend to talk about that in the rest of the article, when I have time to add more chapters. Number two, only the Pompadour had an influence on policy, the other mistresses did not have influence, so it is a bit exagerated to say that he was criticized because of the influence of the mistresses on the policy. Actually, the real criticism was more moralistic, it concentrated on the fact that the king had sex with so many women, and on the fact that they were not chosen in the aristocracy like in the days of old Louis XIV, but they often came from lower-classes.
- To answer the questions above:
- 1- bourgeois... in France people commonly say that the king had a bourgeois lifestyle in private. When I talk about the Bourgeois rulers of the 19th century I am thinking about Louis-Philippe of France for instance, or the kings of Belgium. After all, when you visit Versailles, guides will tell you that if Louis XIV was famous for building the Hall of Mirror, Louis XV was famous for building the first water closets with flushing system and bathroom with running water...
- 3- about bringing fresh blood in the royal family... again, I have always heard that. Even back then I think people new that marrying cousins was not necesarily good. Think about the Habsburg and some of their disfigured members... Hardouin 10:43, 6 Feb 2005 (UTC)
[edit] Family Name of Louis XV
Is the family name of Louis XV caled Quinze Scope_Creep 21:27 20th September 2005 (GMT)
No. "Quinze" means "Fifteen" in French. john k 20:38, 20 September 2005 (UTC)
- He was a Bourbon. As was Louis XIV and Louis XVI. Sonic Mew | talk to me 20:34, 12 October 2005 (UTC)
[edit] Marquise de Pompadour
I can't believe no one has changed the description of the Pompadour as "frigid". The term is extremely offensive and misogynist, to say the least.
- Which word would you use instead? It's just a medical word really. Are we going to use "politically correct" expressions such as Female sexual arousal disorder or Inhibited sexual desire? That sounds a little bit long-winded to me... Hardouin 13:42, 18 June 2006 (UTC)
[edit] Régence
I have tried to improve the style and content of the recent edits about the Régence. I have also deleted some lenghty passages that are not really relevant to Louis XV. These deleted paragraphs, on the other hand, could be added to the article about the Régence and to the article about Philippe II d'Orléans. Hardouin 01:06, 11 November 2005 (UTC)
[edit] few things
There is not scientific evidence / concensus that supports the idea that mental stress causes miscarriages. In any case it is impossible to prove that there were not other physical factors some 200+ years ago. That line should be changed / modified to read, "many believed that her miscarriage was related to hearing the news of what happened to her family"
The parts about Damiens are not very academic either. J.Collins and Dale Van Kley (French History Academics) both argue that Damiens attempted assination was related to Jasenist - Parlement refusal of sacraments, anit-clerical and growing public opinion situations. The 'speculations' on what may have motivated him in this article are a little far fetched and there is documentation from his trial found in Van Kley in which Damiens says he was motivated to force the king to act justly, expell the Jesuits and ensure that good Catholics (Jansenists) receive the sacraments.
I also found the term frigid unacademic, unecessary and without support. There were many pamphlets that implied she was the opposite of frigid but these are not reliable either. The term should just be removed because it is offensive and because it is inconsistent and not verifiable.
[edit] repeated stuff
i'm removing a few info at the conclusion section which is redeundant.
[edit] Pastel
Can someone who is far better at editing than me please restore the pastel picture of Louis XV that is in the pastel article
[edit] too long
There is too much information in this article that has nothing to do with the King himself.
