Talk:Louis XVI of France

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

To-do list for Louis XVI of France: edit · history · watch · refresh

Here are some tasks you can do:
    This article is within the scope of WikiProject Biography. For more information, visit the project page.
    Biography Portal
    B This article has been rated as B-Class on the project's quality scale. [FAQ]
    		This article is supported by the Royalty and nobility work group.
    France Portal
    Louis XVI of France is within the scope of WikiProject France, an attempt to build a comprehensive and detailed guide to France on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please join the project and help with our open tasks.
    ??? This article has not yet received a rating on the quality scale. Please rate the article and then leave a short summary here to explain the ratings and/or to identify the strengths and weaknesses.

    Contents

    [edit] Disambiguation

    The television show character should be a disambiguation, if significant enough to be included at all. The "vampire" Louis XVI has no place in the entry of the man from whom his name was taken. Un-merge this nonsense! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 133.19.126.5 (talk) 01:16, 12 May 2008 (UTC)

    [edit] Typo?

    Minor correction? He enjoyed working on locks and hunting with his grandfather King Louis XV, should read 'his Grandfather King Louis XIV?

    No. His father was Louis-Ferdinand, Dauphin of France, the son and heir of Louis XV was gay. Louis XV was in turn the great-grandson of Louis XIV, being the son of Louis, Duke of Burgundy, and grandson of Louis, Grand Dauphin. Louis XIV was born in 1638 and died in 1715, Louis XVI was born in the 1750s - it'd be very surprising if they ever met at all! :-) Michaelsanders 00:11, 25 February 2007 (UTC)

    [edit] Proof

    Does anyone have any proof that Louis had to be guilotined twice, because it doesnt have a link, and isn't a hard fact. Ian42 17:59, 26 November 2006 (UTC)

    [edit] POV?

    This line: Louis himself at this time was very unpopular because of his indecisiveness and conservatism which lead to the social, political, and economic reforms of the Revolution.

    That line is actually a matter of opinion, some condsier Louis to be nothing more then a victim of the circumstance. I found this article very biased.

    I dont think so it is just a statement based on the evidence of peoples views at the time there are numerous propaganda cartoons showing Louis as a weak king. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 124.170.67.12 (talk) 09:47, 3 March 2008 (UTC)

    An event mentioned in this article is a May 10 selected anniversary (may be in HTML comment)

    I am uncertain what the following sentence is trying to convey:

    On June 21, 1791, Louis attempted to flee secretly from Paris to the regions with his family in the hope of forcing a moderate swing in the revolution than was deemed possible in radical Paris but flaws in the escape plan caused sufficient delays to enable them to be recognised and captured at Varennes.

    Is the following better?

    On June 21, 1791, Louis attempted to flee secretly from Paris to the regions with his family, in the hope of forcing a more moderate swing in the revolution than was deemed possible in radical Paris, but flaws in the escape plan caused sufficient delays to enable them to be recognised and captured at Varennes. --Cfailde 10:23, 2004 Aug 9 (UTC)

    I added a link to the Brunswick Manifesto. How could we explain the fall of Louis XVI without it? David.Monniaux 20:16, 21 Aug 2004 (UTC)

    [edit] What an absurd line...

    "Today, historians and Frenchmen in general have a more nuanced view of Louis XVI, who is seen as an honest man with good intentions but who was probably unfit for the Herculean task of reforming the monarchy, and who was used as a scapegoat by the Revolutionaries."

    Reforming the monarchy? The feudal order is dead, and no matter how hard you try to ressurect it's corpse, it's still not coming back to life. The French revolution marks the end of the aristocracy and the rise of the bourgeoisie: one of the greatest landmarks in human history. It's not some trifling adventure that a group of revolutionaries decided to cook up for the hell of it, at the expense of an "honest and well-meaning" king.

    The Bourgeoisie, the class you belong to, has degenerated to the point where it is totally oblivious and apathetic to its revolutionary triumphs!

    But of course, you're thoroughly incapable of seeing any of this objectively, caught up in your misty-eyed adoration of a feudal despot. How telling that you identify with a reactionary and decrepit order at the expense of the progressive; you're in the same position now.

    Simgeo: Idiot! I'm left wing in politics, but the fool who wrote the critique above is biased, bigoted and demonstrates everything that puts me off ever aligning myself to a formally socialist party. How can you attack the writer for 'misty eyed adoration of a feudal despot' and then talk without bias of 'the Bourgeoisie...has degenerated to the point where it is totally oblivious'. Bias neither left nor right has no part to play in serious historical discussion. The key to this discipline is absolute objectivity. Therefore though my politics may swing more towards those of Danton, Robespierre and Desmoulins, I wouldn't savage articles on Louis XVI, Necker and Mirabeau just to suit my personal views. Grow up or find another subject.

    Thank you for your suggestion! When you feel an article needs improvement, please feel free to make whatever changes you feel are needed. Wikipedia is a wiki, so anyone can edit almost any article by simply following the Edit this page link at the top. You don't even need to log in! (Although there are some reasons why you might like to…) The Wikipedia community encourages you to be bold. Don't worry too much about making honest mistakes—they're likely to be found and corrected quickly. If you're not sure how editing works, check out how to edit a page, or use the sandbox to try out your editing skills. New contributors are always welcome. 68.39.174.238 15:49, 8 January 2006 (UTC)


    anon: Speaking of absurd lines... "They were not able to have children for several years due to the fact that Louis XVI was not circumsized and[...]" implies circumsision is related to fertility. seriously.

    Actually, I read up on it and there is a condition where the foreskin is unretractable. It talks about it right here: http://www.bmj.com/cgi/content/full/312/7026/299 Also, the rumor that he had a penis that was too large does not seem to hold as much ground on other places I read. If you look at the link I sent there is a part where they reference Louis as being afflicted by the disorder.

    Speaker I thought the reason they couldn't have children was because Louis had a rather large penis and Marie had a rather narrow vagina. It was on some pbs documentary about Marie Antoinette.

    That's a possible explanation. Additionally, all evidence points to the couple never equating ejaculation with conception until the queen's brother Joseph II visited from Austria. It's clear that as early as 1772, the dauphin had made Marie-Antoinette his wife, as letters between him and his grandfather Louis XV state this. Based on Joseph's account, however (where the king "inserts his member, lies perfectly still for several minutes, withdraws, and bids goodnight) it seems as though simple misunderstanding of how intercourse worked was the problem. Furthermore, there is no proof of Louis XVI having ever undergone circumcision, and in looking at when he might have and when his first child was born, there are no gaps in his hunting logs that would indicate any sort of recovery time or time he would have needed out of the saddle. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.163.224.120 (talk) 01:50, 25 May 2008 (UTC)

    [edit] Pre-revolution history

    What happened to this man before 1789? At the very least, what were his politics like before the revolution. i feel like this desperately needs to be added. Donbas 18:02, 24 February 2006 (UTC)

    The article in general could use some serious augmentation. john k 18:58, 24 February 2006 (UTC)


    Travac 08:00, 31 May 2006 (UTC)perhaps on these pages a few quotes from various historians about these important historical figures may help the public discern an opinion?

    I just finished writing a small article about his early life, I hope it is helpful. I used Antonia Fraser's biography on Marie Antoinette and Vincent Cronin's dual biography about Louis XVI and Marie Antoinette as reference. Daniel Chiswick 07:20, 3 November 2007 (UTC)

    [edit] Expansion?

    I'm honestly surprised by how short this article is, especially in comparison to Marie Antoinette. I know absolutely nothing of the subject so I can't say for sure if it should be expanded, but its length seems lacking. Should it be expanded? -RaCha'ar 23:49, 23 August 2006 (UTC)

    [edit] Austrian hate and Fear??

    Before readin this article, I had never heard that Louis XVI was taught to hate and fear Austria. Can someone maybe cite this reference? Coffeegirlyme 01:10, 9 February 2007 (UTC)

    It seems unlikely. From the time Louis was two, onwards, Austria and France were allies. john k 07:20, 8 February 2007 (UTC)
    • Yes that is what I believed also. I don't want to change it though however without having proof.Coffeegirlyme 01:10, 9 February 2007 (UTC)
    No need for us to have proof to remove something. There's a positive obligation to provide sources for something that people think is dubious. john k 05:33, 9 February 2007 (UTC)
    Although, the circumstantial claim that his aunts were anti-Austrian makes me hesitate to remove it as well. I would like a source, though. john k 05:34, 9 February 2007 (UTC)

    Agreed Coffeegirlyme 06:56, 14 February 2007 (UTC)

    [edit] Photo Layout

    The photo layout of this article is really marring its readability. The two large photos at the top distorts the column layout even on large monitors.Symphony Girl 15:41, 16 February 2007 (UTC)

    It only does that to the first few lines. The picture of the young and beautiful Marie Antoinette in her coronation robes looks very good under the picture of the young Louis XVI in his coronation robes. User:Daniel_Chiswick

    I disagree with the inclusion of Marie Antoinette's picture so prominently displayed with that of Louis XVI. She has her own entry. This article should not over-emphasize Marie Antoinette with such a prominent picture. The smaller picture of the queen with her children is a more appropriate way to show her as a royal wife and mother. I fear that the queen's almost cult-like popularity with certain romanticists degrades any useful summary of the politically independent role of Louis XVI in French history. BoBo 01:14, 18 February 2007 (UTC)

    Marie Antoinette was the most important person in his life and I do not see why she should not be shown in a picture of her in her cornation robes underneath a picture of her husband in his coronation robes. It does not take up too much room and deserves to be there more than the picture of his mother. User:Daniel_Chiswick 18 Feruary 2007.

    Daniel, this is not a matter of aesthetics. If you look carefully, you will see that none of the other Bourbon kings of France have such prominent pictures of their wives displayed with theirs. I am not saying that Marie Antoinette wasn't an important part of Louis' emotional and domestic life, but an over-emphasis on her is to fall into the same trap that many during the French Revolution did. Too much time was spent on her behavior, and not on the behavior of her husband. We should not let the "pretty" image of Marie Antoinette cloud an analysis of her husband, the actual ruler of France. BoBo 00:04, 19 February 2007 (UTC)

    [edit] Language/Content

    Many of the sentences in this article are so oddly phrased that I have to assume that they have been either written or edited by non-English speakers. I am tempted to fix them, but they are so disordered that I have the horrible feeling I will be ruining what someone intended to say. One prime culprit/example: "He had moreover a theoretical knowledge of the navy so pointed that he was likely, when he saw the sea for the first time, to make remarks whose relevance astounded his interlocutors." What on earth is this supposed to mean? That he knew more about the sea than people supposed and surprised his listeners with it? If so, then "likely" is just... stupid, the tenses incorrect the syntax too convoluted - and that's not saying anything about the silted pomposity of this and many other sentences that lace the article (the word "interlocutor" being used in another instance where I strongly suspect "people" or even "companions" might be better - but, as I say previously, I am not 100% what the writer meant in the first place!).141.156.150.185 09:12, 14 April 2007 (UTC)Susan

    [edit] "Louis IV of Navarre" and "Louis-Auguste of France"?

    Michael, I'm not clear on why these changes are necessary. Regarding Navarre, the MoS says:

    "Where a monarch has reigned over a number of states, use the most commonly associated ones. For example, Charles II of England, not Charles II of England, Scotland and Ireland; William I, German Emperor, not William I of Prussia, although there should be redirects from these locations. When several states are so associated, it is proper and often desirable to give the others compensating prominence in the intro when one gets the name of the article. "

    I'm not sure exactly what this suggests is "desirable" in the case of Louis XVI.

    Regarding Louis-Auguste, can you direct me to where the MoS says birth names should be given and/or bolded in the first paragraph? I can see this becoming a never-ending process of revision that is likely to raise many people's hackles.

    Assuming that it *is* desirable and appropriate, why not call him "Louis-Auguste" instead of "Louis-Auguste of France" since we already know he's from France? It seems awfully clunky. Also, if you do end up putting Navarre in the first paragraph, wouldn't you also have to say "Louis-Auguste of Navarre," if you're saying "Louis-Auguste of France"?

    Eldredo 22:50, 21 April 2007 (UTC)

    "Where a monarch has reigned over a number of states, use the most commonly associated ones. For example, Charles II of England, not Charles II of England, Scotland and Ireland; William I, German Emperor, not William I of Prussia, although there should be redirects from these locations. When several states are so associated, it is proper and often desirable to give the others compensating prominence in the intro when one gets the name of the article. "
    That passage refers to article titles - more people look for Henry IV of France or Charles II of England, so those names are used to give the articles titles. As it also says, "When several states are so associated, it is proper and often desirable to give the others compensating prominence in the intro when one gets the name of the article. " I.e. when the monarch is associated with several states, give 'compensating prominence' to the others in the intro. As I am doing: he was 'King of France and Navarre', so it is a clear case for 'compensating prominence'. As for "Louis-Auguste", he was born Louis-Auguste de France. In the case of different names or different forms of names being used in life, the birth-name is shown in the lead. I forget when and why it changed from 'Louis Auguste de France' to 'Louis Auguste of France'. Michael Sanders 01:17, 22 April 2007 (UTC)
    This prince was not "born Louis-Auguste de France" nor is this his "birth-name". Anybody with a modicum of knowledge about the French Bourbons knows that they did not give Christian names to infant princes when they were baptised privately soon after birth. Princes were not given Christian names until several years later (sometimes princes died aged eight without a Christian name). From his birth this prince was known as the "duc de Berry". I am not certain when he received the names "Louis-Auguste" but it was definitely not before 1758. Noel S McFerran 02:02, 22 April 2007 (UTC)
    I would presume that the names would be informally used, nonetheless, from birth - no person has no name. But the point remains, that was his name as first used. Thus, it should be in the lead. Michael Sanders 02:19, 22 April 2007 (UTC)
    Your presumption is totally inaccurate. French princes had no Christian names as infants; they were known only by their titles. Noel S McFerran 03:09, 22 April 2007 (UTC)

    With regards to Navarre, it was not a state in Louis XVI's time, and had not been one since 1620. Furthermore, we should not be making up ordinals. We should only use ordinals that have ever actually been used. The ordinals for Bourbon kings of Navarre are entirely notional - they were never used at the time, and they are never used by historians, with the exception of Henry IV, who is called King Henry III of Navarre in discussions of him prior to 1589. But for the rest, you are basically making up numbers. This is absolutely original research that we shouldn't engage in. Ordinals should only be used if we can find them used in reliable sources. I strongly doubt one will find a single reliable source that refers to "Louis V of Navarre". Even if something could be found, the usage is so incredibly rare that it represents undue weight to include this utterly obscure nomenclature in the lead. This kind of ignorant pedantry is not good for anyone. john k 05:14, 22 April 2007 (UTC)

    On Antoinettes Wiki page it says that she was married to Louis until 92 when on this page it contradicts —Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.89.216.222 (talk) 18:36, 9 April 2008 (UTC)


    Navarre was a state: it was politically tied to France, and its succession bound with France, but other than that it was not integrated into France, and retained its own institutions and jurisdiction. Even if that wasn't the case, he is titled 'King of France and Navarre', so naturally his title as King of each should be in the lead. Michael Sanders 10:42, 22 April 2007 (UTC)
    No, Navarre was not a state after 1620. At that point, lower Navarre was annexed to France. It remained only as a title. Territorially, further, lower Navarre proper was tiny. Most of the Pyrenean territories of Henry of Navarre were composed of Béarn, which was arguably always a French fief. But this is moot, since the whole thing was annexed and joined to the French crown in 1620. It simply was not a separate kingdom. It had no more separate existence than the multitudinous royal titles belonging to the Kings of Castile (King of Leon, Galicia, Granada, Toledo, Seville, Algeciras, etc. etc. etc.). Hell, we don't even give numbers for the separate Spanish kingdoms that actually we were separate kingdoms, like Castile and Aragon, except in the very specific case of Ferdinand. And Castile and Aragon were separate kingdoms in a way that France and (lower) Navarre simply were not after 1620. The Spanish situation gives a good precedent for not worrying about it for Louis XIII, either, even though he was technically king of a separate kingdom of Navarre. We should only give other numbers when they are actually in common use in some way. These numbers for kings of Navarre are made up. I will finally add that the existence of certain separate institutions in Béarn (not, I believe, in Lower Navarre proper) does not mean that place was not part of France. There were separate Estates and legal systems and so forth in territories throughout France. This did not make them separate kingdoms. john k 14:54, 22 April 2007 (UTC)

    [edit] Creation of article "King Louis 16"

    I think it would be a good idea to have a redirect page called "King Louis 16" for those people who have only heard of the name and have not actually seen it in writing. As in writing it is usually spelled with Roman numerals, but if someone never saw it in writing they would think that it would be written with traditional numbers.Spitfire 20:44, 18 October 2007 (UTC)

    Be bold and do it; it would be helpful. Charles 05:28, 19 October 2007 (UTC)
    Alright, I did it. I'm going to do the same with King George III now. Spitfire 17:00, 19 October 2007 (UTC)

    ok louis louis was a bad guy —Preceding unsigned comment added by 189.129.37.98 (talk) 00:51, 1 November 2007 (UTC)

    [edit] sexual....

    "inserted his member, stayed still for a few minutes, and withdrew without ejaculating."

    Don't you think this is a little too...sexual for some readers? also there is no reference so this may be make-believe I suggest removing it Also it would be nice if that section was "toned-down" just a bit —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.158.38.40 (talk) 17:30, 12 November 2007 (UTC)

    As I understand it, this is based on a letter which Joseph II wrote after talking with his sister and Louis about their sexual difficulties in order to try to help them get past them - possibly to his brother, Peter Leopold? Anyway, certainly true. Anyway, there's way more sexual articles on wikipedia, so I don't see what purpose censorship serves. john k (talk) 07:34, 28 November 2007 (UTC)

    It is reasonable that the source of something this detailed be identified. I have added the [citation needed] tag. Noel S McFerran (talk) 12:10, 28 November 2007 (UTC)
    Sure. But I'm reasonably confident it's based on something. I'll see what I can find when I have time (sadly, nothing appropriate in my home library - I thought I had Simon Schama's Citizens, which probably has something, but no go. Either that or Derek Beales's biography of Joseph II ought to discuss the issue, I think.) john k (talk) 15:18, 28 November 2007 (UTC)
    Try R. R. Palmer, although he is less -er- graphic than our text. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 05:22, 25 April 2008 (UTC)

    [edit] Personality

    Seven polemical paragraphs on Louis's personality, arguing that it's not what most histoians have thought, with one source? Really, this will not do; one paragraph, idenrified as Andrews' view in text, might be reasonable; but it woul be simpler just to remove this. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 05:21, 25 April 2008 (UTC)