Talk:Marie Antoinette/Archive 1

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

→

Archive 5

Two quotations

Can anyone help me add the citations to the text (for I don't know how to do it - I'm a lousy

i did a good job editing this thing... these people just change what i say. I read the quotations below in the following books (I didnt read the original texts, but translations, into French and into Portuguese, respectively) "There are a lot of people at Versailles tonight, aren't there" – in Zweig, Stefan, Marie Antoinette

"Dear God, guide and protect us. We are too young to reign" – in Fraser, Antonia, Marie Antoinette – the Journey

Analogica 04:20, 20 April 2007 (UTC)

Old move debate

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

Would someone with access please correct this typo? The third sentence should say "Marie Antoinette was married . . ." not "was marriage . . ."

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.

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)

According to Antonia Frasier, who wrote the most recent biography of Marie Antoinette (the one the movie was based on), Louis XVI did NOT have phimosis Donthaveaspaz 09:50, 16 November 2006 (UTC) if that isn't a definitive source, i don't know what is

I was goint to insert a reference to Muy Interesante (Spain), Nº 307, diciembre 2006, page 65, that states that according to a letter sent to the Madrid court by the well-informed Spanish ambassador, "el frenillo sujeta tanto el prepucio, que no cede a la introducción y causa un dolor vivo en él, por el cual se retrae Su Majestad del impulso que conviniera.". However I googled the text and found an almost identical text in what seems to be the Spanish translation of Stefan Zweig's biography of Marie-Antoinette. Since I don't know what is documented and what is fictionalized in Zweig, I have left the article as is.--Error 01:05, 30 December 2006 (UTC)

Anyway, I found a New Yorker review of Francine du Plessix Gray's bio at Louis's article. --Error 01:16, 30 December 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": [1] but 21100 for "Marie Antoinette" combined with "Queen" [2]. 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.

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.

On this, I don't think that the article should serve to identify with her views- it should provide an unbiased view of them. See below. -Elizabennet 20:42, 5 October 2006 (UTC)

I agree on the view-point that the article reads too much like a book. The article also shows little understanding of Marié and her imaturity/incompetence; it's much too royalist. Moose in the Corner 02:21, 29 November 2006 (UTC) 20:21,

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)

The quote "let them eat cake" could have very well come from Marie Antoinette given the fact that if you have ever visited Austria, you would know that EVERYONE, including the VERY POOR, eat cake on a daily basis. This statement is valid on the grounds that she was just stating what seemed very normal for people to eat, even poor people. So the quote does have some asthetic value to it. Its the same as if an Italian said, feed them pasta, or anyone else who has a traditional plate or food that everyone eats, including the poor.

There have been some sources which state that although this statement was wrongly attributed to Marie Antoinette, that it was actually said by a predicessor as Queen Consort of France, Marie Therese, wife of Louis XIV and great-great-great grandmother of Louis XVI. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 193.108.158.71 (talk) 22:31, 23 February 2007 (UTC).

oui,je suis chanter e la danser, vais un la carne a Marie Antionette. Elle a comment t'apples till? auvoir!

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.

I don't know of any surgeries performed during the day that would cure impotence. In fact modern times seem to still be lacking in a surgery for impotence. I mean you've seen the viagra, cialis, etc. commercials? Youknowthatoneguy 10:06, 21 October 2006 (UTC)

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.

I agree this sounds like it was written by Marie Antionette herself or someone who loves French royalty. Youknowthatoneguy 10:02, 21 October 2006 (UTC)

Yeah this literally sounds like it was taken from one of the positive books mentioned in the reputation section. It sounds too much like a story rather than an encyclopedic entry.

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)

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)

Absolutely. I've changed the final sentence in the paragraph to something a little less emotional. Let me know what you think. User:Gboleyn

Looks good, I like it. 194.157.147.7

NPOV

Added a bias tag- this article, while very well-written, is also very biased. It shows only the positive parts of Marie Antoinette's life, and it should probably also discuss other points of view. Thoughts? I noticed that this has mentioned several times before, with no real response. I mean, I think Marie Antoinette gets represented unfairly a lot, but this article is hugely biased and should at least try to be more objective. -Elizabennet 20:20, 5 October 2006 (UTC)

My thoughts are that the article is well written and it creates one of the more balanced portraits of Marie Antoinette that is to be found. The article does not shy away from her shortcomings nor does it over emphasize her good qualities. It also deals with how her reputation has changed over the years and identifies the treatment of that reputation by authors. I am a loss to see what else could be added to the article to make it less-biased, if in fact it is biased. Ladydayelle 20:48, 5 October 2006 (UTC)

---

id like to see an english translation of her last testament.

I agree, this article is pretty heavily biased in favor of her. I mean several biographies have been written that are VERY critical of her but almost everything is drawn up from her more "Favorable" portraits.

I found this article very well-written and informative, having read it from a position of knowing nothing previously about Marie Antoinette. I don't know if the general tone of the article is 100% perfect, but I thought I'd let you know how I'm left feeling as a result of reading it:

• Before having kids, Marie was very selfish, spending lots of money and squandering the initial good will that she had from the French
• After having kids, Marie stopped her selfishness to a large degree, and devoted herself to working for charity, and raising her children. The article doesn't seem to offer much criticism of her from this point on, other than to suggest that having her own private village built was simply a bad mistake, and she had no realisation that doing this would make the French hate her more
• The Affair of the Necklace was in no way the fault of M.A. and she was simply the victim of someone's else's cunning plan.
• It was rumours and gossiping that led to the hatred of the French towards the Queen.
• During the revolutionary period, M.A. did nothing herself to deliberately fuel the republicans' hatred towards her, yet the French still wanted her dead.

My only knowledge of Marie Antoinette is that which the article has given me, so if the conclusions I've mentioned above are pretty accurate, then it's fair enough to assume that there is no bias in the article. Otherwise, perhaps more objectivity could be written into it. I suppose with the vilification of her over the years it's difficult to know what is accurate and what isn't, but I did feel that this article wasn't overly opinionated. Sorry for rambling a bit! Hope this helps --El Pollo Diablo (Talk) 00:31, 15 October 2006 (UTC)

I haven't contributed to this article before reading it today, but I too found it to be reasonable-sounding and unbiased. Until someone can show some evidence that this is violating the NPOV policy, I've removed the NPOV tag. —Cleared as filed. 03:33, 21 October 2006 (UTC)

You're showing exactly why the article is biased. From reading it without any other knowledge, you think she's a good queen when it's definately the main opinion that she isn't. Look at this:

"She then bowed her head and returned inside. Some in the mob were so impressed by her bravery that they cried "Vive la Reine!" ("Long live the Queen!")...When she appeared in public she appeared calm, serene and dignified."

If that's not bias, then I don't know what is. Hadoren 08:23, 21 December 2006 (UTC)

It's not biased if it's true and can be backed up by sources. MapleLeaf

Marie Antoinette Date of execution

Insert non-formatted text hereInsert non-formatted text here

At the top of the Antionette page it has her birth - death as (November 2, 1755 – June 16, 1793) but later it is said that she was guilotined on 16th Oct 1793. Which one is right?

The second one in October. On the following site it says she died in October.

http://www.historyplace.com/speeches/burke.htm

Burial Execution

There is a confusing statement in the last line about the restoration of her grave, it is minor but it states that "gray matter" was found. I don't think this is referring to brain material as it should have long since decomposed. I don't know it's just confusing to me because it mentions bone fragments right beforehand. Youknowthatoneguy 10:13, 21 October 2006 (UTC)

Trivia - Madonna & Christina Aguilera

I removed the trivia related to Madonna and Christina Aguilera (that Madonna performed "Vogue" at the MTV awards costumed as Marie Antoinette, and that Aguilera portrayed some of her "bedroom style" in the "Lady Marmalade" video).

I don't think there is documentation that Madonna intended to portray Marie Antoinette: I saw that performance as it aired. It came off as nonspecific French 18th century aristocracy, and seemed to be a reference to Dangerous Liaisons, which had recently been popular. If there is a quote in print where Madonna says that she portrayed Marie Antoinette in that performance, then that part should be restored. Otherwise, it's just opinion, and not particularly informed opinion.

As far as Christina Aguilera goes, the "Lady Marmalade" video was released as part of the promotional blitz for the movie Moulin Rouge. That film is set in the late 1890s, more than 100 years after the death of Marie Antoinette. The singers in the video portray late-19th-century prostitutes, with a significant modern twist; in the photo I link just below, she is even wearing a 19th century corset. So, this tidbit is absolutely incorrect and should not be restored to the article, even if there is documentation for the Madonna trivia.

[3]

4.225.129.36 10:13, 23 October 2006 (UTC) I know that on VH1 Behind the Music it is said Madonna portaryed Marie Antoinette but perhaps she was not.

In Caroline Webber's Book "Queen of Fashion: What Marie Antoinette wore to the revolution" She says Madonna has donned the image of Marie Antoinette twice. In the Vogue performance and then for the reinvention tour.

Large removal of material

Unregistered user 206.77.103.101 who seems to have a short history of not very useful edits has removed a large quantity of what looks like good material from this article just now - is this something people think we should correct? The only plus being that the article is already pretty long. This page is getting quite a lot of vandal attention following the recent movie. MarkThomas 23:06, 10 November 2006 (UTC)

length = breadth of detail = breadth of knowledge available. if it's all good information, isn't the general rule "the longer, the better"? Donthaveaspaz 09:58, 16 November 2006 (UTC)

Check the price of the necklace

It is stated that the value of MA's entire jewellery collection was 2 million livres, and also that the necklace in the "affair of the diamond necklace" cost 2 million livres, alone. It seems unlikely that both could be true, unless inflation played a major role in the value of the necklace. Can these prices be verified?

Trivia - never saw the ocean

Is there proof of this? she definitely traveled around certain parts of France spending time at the various royal chateaus (Fountainbleau, the Tuilieries, St. Cloud, etc. besides the obvious Versailles), and in the new biography it's mentioned that Louis inspected the shipyards at the north of France, even though MA didn't accompany him. But it wouldn't have been very hard for her to see the ocean, so where's the proof? Donthaveaspaz 10:04, 16 November 2006 (UTC)

I wouldn't think there's any proof as such, this is just one of those things people infer from her known movements - her life seems to have been an incredibly constrained one of life in the palace, visits to Paris and one or two aristocratic houses and that's it. But proof - no. I doubt though that she took to the autoroute du soleil for a quick break in Monaco. :-) MarkThomas 17:59, 16 November 2006 (UTC)

Marie- Antionette is referred to in the biography Marie- Antoinette- the Journey as having never seen the ocean. Please be aware that this written by Antonia Fraser, the most highly esteemed biographer in modern Britain.

Not that highly esteemed by scholars, surely. john k 04:26, 22 November 2006 (UTC)

She's pretty well regarded amongst academics I think, although I recall from university history society discussions that some feel she creates too much from too little evidence, apparently this is considered particulary true in her books on Oliver Cromwell and King Charles I. However, from decades of history reading, I would propose this is a curse suffered by many history writers, academic and otherwise. :-) Look at all those books for example on the Roman emperors or Alexander the Great or Athelstan or Alfred - in each case there is usually a dodgy surviving biographical sketch endlessly muddled with by generations of monks plus a bit of difficult-to-interpret archaeology and a few coins and _that's it_ - but on that slender evidence whole careers are built! Still, hopefully with MA there is a bit more actual written evidence to go through. MarkThomas 09:10, 22 November 2006 (UTC)

Trivia

in the Voltaire song The Headless Waltz is about Marie Antoinette and her excecution 66.69.112.37 00:44, 18 November 2006 (UTC)

Lack of formatting in page

To the people of Wiki-land;I've found a inconsistancy in the formatting of this article: usually a page on a European ruler such as: Louis XII; Charles II[Spain]; Fredrick Barbarossa[Holy Roman Emp. of the Crusades]; all of these have a helpful bars on the side and bottom to point out facts 'in a nut-shell'. I am a new member and cannot edit this article, could a vet. member(s) look into it or form a commitee. It would be cool to have family trees and simular information as well. Thank You, Moose in the Corner 01:58, 29 November 2006 (UTC)

Movie Verus Reality

Is it just me, or is this entire article filled with quotes and passages probably directly from the movie without citation.

The entire article appears to have been written by a fourteen year old girl who just watched Marie Antoinette. The tone is childish and the lack of citations makes the whole enterprise completely unreliable. Robotk 14:59, 24 December 2006 (UTC)

I assume this is a troll? It's an impressive article and very well written by Wikipedia standards. If you are serious, please point to sections or parts that you feel are written by a 14 year-old. Thanks. MarkThomas 12:03, 30 December 2006 (UTC)

While I'm not going to go so far as to say the article is childish by any means, it does have a certain 'movie report' quality about it. I'm sure it can't be helped since her story is historical record, but it seems odd that the things that are embellished in the film seem equally embellished in the article Beetlecat 07:58, 2 January 2007 (UTC)

Not a troll -- one example is the "Life as Dauphine" section, which has a tone more consistent with breathless gossip than an encyclopedic entry. I will grant that this is entirely subjective. Technically the article is well written, but Antoinette is a major historical subject and, in my opinion, deserves a more serious presentation. Robotk 15:34, 6 January 2007 (UTC)

The unsourced quotations in the "Life as Dauphine" section are lifted verbatim from dialogue in Sophia Coppolla's film. Unless Coppolla has lifted uncredited quotations from Antonia Fraser's book, their presence in Wikipedia is risible. A similar unsourced quotation is in the page on Marie-Antoinette's daughter, Marie-Thérèse - perhaps someone with more time should compare the origin of these non-encyclopedic additions. mikem 22:46, 9 March 2007 (UTC)

In fact, the entire description of Marie Antoinette's relationship with Madame du Barry is based on Sofia Coppola's movie, quotations and all. unche 18:07, 21 March 2007 (UTC)

I'm watching the movie as I read this, and the quotes throughout the article have been lifted verbatim from the film. 24.34.121.119 04:59, 24 March 2007 (UTC)

I second that. Have been watching the movie two hours ago and halfway through reading this article I got the impression that either Sofia Coppola based her script on the WiKi-Article or some contributors to the article consider Coppolas movie to be a historically reliable source of information on Marie Antoinette. I liked the film thoug. This article in its present form however - is a piece of fiction. Sorry. Nouly 08:52, 15 April 2007 (UTC)

I third it. I suffered through the film last night, and thought I'd come here to see how far the film missed the mark. Imagine my horror when the article appeared to parrot the movie, attributed quotes and all. Saint Mahone 14:03, 16 April 2007 (UTC)

Citations

This article is sore for more citations there are a lot of statements that seem like a part of a novel rather than a historical record because there are no citations for various parts. Things like there was gossip that abound, this person hated her, she hated court life because her ladies in waiting kind of stuff. It feels almost too detailed to feel real, so it needs massive citations. --Hitsuji Kinno 16:57, 15 January 2007 (UTC)

Most of the quotes were lifted directly from the film... After Louis XV died Louis XVI said "What a pity, and they have taught me nothing." not "God bless us, we are too young to reign."--12.227.185.212 05:38, 13 April 2007 (UTC)

Offer to cleanup

I was alerted to this page by another user, and I hope I can help. I have Fraser's 'The Journey', and I could certainly help with citations in regards to a lot of quotes, particularly also with certain spots which are biologically iffy. I also have a few other books that feature Antoinette, such as 'Sex with the Queen', which highlights the interpretation and historical controversy over the paternity of Louis Charles, the second Dauphin. I have also seen the new movie, and so can comment on the inaccuracies in it (as there are several that clearly stick out in my mind, even four months after).

I hope to be of some help here. :) - Papirini

• I have written changes up to the calling of the Assembly of Notables on my discussion page. I haven't put up all of the citations yet (that will come later) and I need to change some of the letter syntax of names as well. But this is what my cleanup looks like so far. ^^;;
  • I've moved it to User:Papirini/Marie Antoinette (after talking it over with the user). I don't know a whole lot about French history, but I think it looks good so far. :) JuJube 03:39, 22 January 2007 (UTC)
    • The page is finished. Please tell me what you think, and if you think it is a good replacement for the current page. I know it's not much, but I think it's a start. Papirini

Marriages of the Archduchesses

"Maria Antonia's sisters were quickly married off to the heads of European royal houses - Maria Christina to the Regent of the Austrian Netherlands" Not quite true. Christina was the only one allowed to marry for love, and she choose her husband. If I'm not mistaken, he was made Regent in order to have a position and money to support Christina, and that after her father's death, who strongly opposed the match. So "married off" is not appropriate in this case.

"In an effort to preserve this alliance, it was proposed that [...] his grandson Louis-Auguste, marry one of Empress Maria Theresa's daughters. Upon the sudden deaths of her elder sisters from smallpox (Joanna Gabriella in 1762 and Maria Josepha in 1767), Maria Antonia was next in line." No way. Johanna and Josepha were fiancees of the King of Naples... Upon their deaths, he married Maria Carolina. Nothing to do with Louis XVI.

"Under-taxed !!?? What nonsense ...

I feel compelled to point out the unproven assertions contained in the following sentence:

"French society was under-taxed and what little money was collected failed to save the economy."

Apart from being a bit ambiguous, (does the writer equate "society" with only the wealthy, or with society as a whole?) this statement betrays an egregious socialist/interventionist bias and a profound ignorance of economics. On its face it is logically ridiculous since, how can one expect to "save the economy" by extracting money from the economy, and then returning (in accordance, presumably, with some superior bureaucratic insight) some necessarily lesser amount back into that same economy? The economy must be poorer than it would have been had there been no meddling at all.

The very idea of "under-taxation" is ludicrous. This is like saying if a thief fails to relieve you of the twenty dollars hidden in your shoe, then you have been "under-robbed". What utter nonsense. Such discussions, obviously, would be much more appropriate in the sections dealing with Austrian vs Keynesean economics than in the biography of Marie Antoinette, but such fervent true believers in Keynesean doctrine must be careful not to include - subconciously or otherwise - such controversial economic dogma as though its veracity had been demonstrated.

One is tempted to conclude that the collapse of that grand experiment in socialism called the USSR would be sufficient to disabuse the enthusiasts of government intervention in the economy of the folly of their beliefs but, apparently such beliefs die hard.

I suggest that the sentence could be entirely removed from the paragraph in question without affecting its meaning, and would add the additional thought that it is over-taxation that provides governments - be they monarchies, dictatorships or even democracies - with the means necessary to conduct such wasteful foreign adventures in the first place. Mega-death and deficit spending go hand-in-hand despite the wishes of idealists. I submit that it is no mere coincidence that the advent of "total war" in the twentieth century was contempory with the imposition of income tax and the abandonment (or dare I say: sabotage) of the gold standard and its replacement with inflationary government fiat money schemes.

Such schemes have in the past always led to economic chaos and this present one - as grand and powerful as it might seem at present - certainly will too within the next few years. The difference in the present case is that this time, the chaos will be global in extent instead of being confined to a single nation. The irony is that, widely held mis-conceptions about the political nature of America to the contrary, it's all based on the same flawed socialist economics.

JohananS

By the same logic the collapse of the Russian economy as well as the Belarusian economy as well as Reaganomics and Thatcherism and the Collapse of the Ukrainian economy and the collapse of the Argentinian economy and the collapse of the Moldovian Economy and the collapse of the Azerbajani economy and the collapse of the Armenian economy would have convinced those who believe in the free market of the folly of their beleif but such beleifs die hard apparently —Preceding unsigned comment added by Roberto Boberto (talk • contribs) 01:06, August 28, 2007 (UTC)

Not to mention the conspiracy to cover up cloudbusters and orgone energy...

In pre-revolutionary France, nobles and clergy were not taxed even though they were by far the wealthiest members of society. Perhaps this is what is meant by "under-taxed".

Jokes

I am not able to see what is serious and what is not serious here. There is a sentence saying that she married Regis Philbin at 15 and something about the lost dauphin Kid Rock. She is getting a diamondengraved Mercedes +++.

øyvind

please get Marie's number of children straight

In the "Motherhood" section the article says Marie had four kids. Later in the article the article talks about "two kids" and "the two kids". Please correct this discrepency and make the article internally consistent. If there were indeed four kids, then they all need to be addressed later - don't just let two of them disappear into thin air. Thanks.

Sorry I don't know how to sign this, or what tildes mean.

(Cpnugent 01:43, 26 February 2007 (UTC))

It is. Marie Antoinette had four children = Maria Theresa, Louis-Joseph, Louis-Charles, and Sophie-Beatrix. If you look at the section Eve of revolution, you will see that Sophie-Beatrix died when only a year old, and Louis-Joseph in 1789 of tuberculosis. By the time the Revolution began, only two of her children were alive - as is explained in the article. Hope that cleared it up for you. Michaelsanders 02:09, 26 February 2007 (UTC)

Article title - again

Over the past week Michaelsanders has changed the name of this article from "Marie Antoinette" to "Maria Antoinette of Austria" three times. There have been two previous votes on changing the name from "Marie Antoinette", one in June 2005, the other in January 2006. This is clearly a controversial topic, and it is inappropriate to change the name unilaterally. I will therefore ask an administrator to revert it to "Marie Antoinette". If any editor thinks that there should be a name change, then another vote should be started. Noel S McFerran 17:34, 26 March 2007 (UTC)

We know that there are "votes" on either side, so I don't see a problem with having another discussion of this issue. It is fairly likely, given the previous results, that the page will be moved back by that. I don't think reversion is necessary before the "vote". Dekimasuよ! 03:50, 27 March 2007 (UTC)

The correct title is Marie Antoinette of Austria, in accordance with Wikipedia:Naming conventions (names and titles). There is absolutely no reason to not give the article a proper title, in line with the titles of other Queen consorts. Or are you going to name the article of Franz Joseph's wife as 'Empress Elisabeth' (or 'Sisi' even?)? Is Maximilian's wife going to be 'Carlotta the Mad'? This subject shouldn't even require discussion - she wouldn't be titled 'Maria Antonia' here, any more than we would title Henry VIII's first wife as 'Catalina of Aragon' or 'Katherine of Aragon'. There are no rules requiring the spelling of a consort to be 'correct English' or 'default native language'. Merely that they follow the 'x of y' format. The most common form of her name is 'Marie Antoinette'. She was of the monarchy of 'Austria'. Therefore, she is 'Marie Antoinette'. Simple. Michael Sanders 18:05, 26 March 2007 (UTC)

I kinda agree on this one, but I know it's a controversial issue. Gryffindor 19:41, 26 March 2007 (UTC)

I agree that it seems to have been in the past. However, people seem to have been working from the flawed premise that deceased consorts are listed under the original form of their name - i.e. that she should be "Maria Antonia of Austria" or "Archduchess Maria Antonia of Austria" or whatever, which is a flawed reading of the rules (or possibly, they have been updated since then. I only started taking an interest in this page recently). To wit: we quite specifically do not respell a consort's name to her 'maiden form'; rather, we spell it either in the English form (thus, Joanna of Bourbon rather than Jeanne de Bourbon), or in the form that is most used for the person in English (thus Claude of France rather than Claudia of France - she is rarely referred to in English as 'Claudia'). Thus, Catherine de' Medici is under her article name because that is how it is most commonly spelled in English - otherwise it would be Katherine of Medici. It wouldn't be Catherine des Medicis, or Caterina de' Medici, because those are neither English nor most common, and thus not acceptable in English wikipedia.

In the case of Marie Antoinette - if we were spelling it in the 'correct' English form, it would be 'Maria Antonia' (or 'Mary Antonia'). But, she is quite blatantly not referred to as Maria Antonia by most - she is 'Marie Antoinette'. But this issue is quite distinct from the 'of y' issue, which should never have been subject to any sort of controversy. We title deceased consorts without conventional surnames according to their dynastic origins, unless - for whatever reason - such simplicity is not available. Fortunately, it is purely simple here. Her father was Holy Roman Emperor - which dynastically is irrelevant (children of HR Emperors are titled according to either most important dynastic territory, or to dynasty title) - and Grand Duke of Tuscany. Her mother was ruler of the House of Austria, and thus all her daughters are 'of Austria' (see Marie Caroline of Austria). So I really don't see the problem here. I didn't see the problem when I decided that an inexcusable title, in violation of the rules, required boldness. Nor did anyone else - the move was reverted 1 & 1/2 days after by someone with whom I have had several run-ins before, which led me to conclude that his actions were largely unprincipled (mainly because he reproved me for not discussing moving the page, yet makes numerous moves every day without comment). So I really don't see how this woman's article title can be at all controversial where it is now. Michael Sanders 20:23, 26 March 2007 (UTC)

Anybody who has actually read this talk page would know that this move is controversial. It is irresponsible to move a page without first reading the talk page. Michaelsanders repeatedly uses the word "rules" in reference to the Wikipedia:Naming conventions (names and titles). The conventions are conventions, not rules; there are all sorts of occasions where exceptions are appropriate. The most important part of the convention is "use the most common form of the name used in English". What scholarly works refer to this lady as "Marie Antoinette of Austria"? Noel S McFerran 21:54, 26 March 2007 (UTC)

The emphasis being "common form of the name". There is nothing in the rules and conventions (and this may be a 'convention' rather than a rule, but it is very thoroughly enforced - otherwise, we'd have articles on "Empress Elisabeth of Austria" (not Elisabeth of Bavaria), "Elisabeth, Queen of the Belgians" (not Elisabeth of Bavaria (1876-1965)), "Empress Josephine", "Joanna the Mad", "Empress Victoria of Germany", and so on) to support an article being given an inadequate and incorrect title. As for what scholarly works refer to her as Marie Antoinette of Austria, I don't know; I'd presume as many as refer to William the Conqueror as William I of England. However, don't forget that just because she is the only major Marie Antoinette in history, it doesn't make her the only such article in this encyclopaedia. Historians don't necessarily need to use the full name, any more than they need to reference 'Emperor Charles V'.

Nor is any such exception appropriate here. Can you give me a proper reason as to why Marie Antoinette of Austria is an inappropriate title?

And one assumes that if the last dispute was over a year ago, it presumably isn't controversial anymore. Michael Sanders 22:44, 26 March 2007 (UTC)

The chief problem with this proposal is that the woman was NEVER known as "Marie Antoinette of Austria"; it is a constructed name. Before her marriage she was "Maria Antonia of Austria"; if Michaelsanders wishes to apply the naming convention that suggests that a person be called "by their pre-marital name or pre-marital title, not by their consort name", then he should suggest a change to that - which has been rejected twice by an overwhelming consensus of editors. This is similar to the problem with Maria Feodorovna (Dagmar of Denmark) and Alexandra Fyodorovna (Alix of Hesse). In the past some editors had taken the form of name used when married and attached it to the pre-marriage title (Maria Feodorovna of Denmark, Alexandra Fyodorovna of Hesse). "Marie Antoinette of Austria" is the same sort of construction. Noel S McFerran 00:53, 27 March 2007 (UTC)

If this is a constructed name, then so is Henrietta Maria of France - since, "before her marriage, she was Henriette Marie, Madame Royale de France". Let me repeat - there is NO rule declaring that a consort reverts back to the original spelling of her name (in which case the article would be "Maria Antonia von Osterreich", and Catherine of Aragon would be "Catalina de Aragon"). Rather, we either use the 'correct' English form (in which 'Maria Antonia' is the 'correct form', just as Katherine of Aragon is the 'correct form'), or, if a particular spelling is commonly favoured over the 'correct' form, we use that common form (thus, 'Marie Antoinette' for this particular woman, just as 'Catherine of Aragon' is used over the more accurate 'Katherine of Aragon', and 'Catherine de' Medici' is used over 'Katherine of Medici' - the last is *NEVER* used to my knowledge). Nor is this the same issue as 'Maria Feodorovna' and 'Alexandra Feodorovna' - those are attempts to deal with *two distinct names* ('Alix' in English is 'Alice', not 'Alexandra'; haven't a clue what 'Dagmar' is, if anything), both of which are commonly used, which are not translations of each other, and which are part of radically different naming systems - hence the problem. This issue, however, is not the same. There is absolutely no question about Marie Antoinette's dynastic allocation. There is no need to article her as 'Archduchess', since Queen consorts aren't articled as 'archduchess' or 'princess'. She is rarely called 'Maria Antonia', generally called 'Marie Antoinette'. This really shouldn't be a difficult issue ('Isabeau of Bavaria' is doing fine - even though she should really be 'Elisabeth of Bavaria'). Michael Sanders 01:11, 27 March 2007 (UTC)

I believe that you've hit on the most important point: she is generally called "Marie Antoinette". Marie Antoinette would seem to be the proper page name because it seems to map directly to Wikipedia:Naming conventions (common names)#Examples. Also, the rationale notes, "Using a full formal name requires people to know that name, and to type more." As far as the titles convention goes, doesn't this apply? "Where a monarch has reigned over a number of states, use the most commonly associated ones." Marie Antoinette is usually associated with France rather than Austria. Dekimasuよ! 03:50, 27 March 2007 (UTC)

My point is that she is always called 'Marie Antoinette', rather than 'Maria Antonia'. That does not make a title of 'Marie Antoinette', as opposed to the acceptable dynastic title of 'Marie Antoinette of Austria', acceptable (many people talk about 'Princess Diana'. Yet her article is at the correct, but less common, 'Diana, Princess of Wales'. 'Marie Antoinette of Austria' is hardly an unknown name; and given that a lot of readers are likely to be looking for the film, as opposed to the woman, 'Marie Antoinette' should be the disambiguation reference, not a redirect to the historical figure. Furthermore, "Where a monarch has reigned over a number of states, use the most commonly associated ones." is completely inappropriate here. They apply to reigning monarchs (e.g. Henry IV of France, who was also Henry III of Navarre). Consorts are allocated according to their dynastic origins. Michael Sanders 15:24, 27 March 2007 (UTC)

Michael Sanders, simply put you are wrong. I have been involved in the naming conventions and I know when they apply. Marie Antoinette falls under the most common name. You are trying to defend your construction (more like destruction) with examples that you admit are constructions themselves. Two wrongs do not make a right. This lady is universally known as Marie Antoinette. Frankly, your blatant ignorance is incredibly tiresome at this moment. Charles 04:41, 27 March 2007 (UTC)

Ah, I see, we're trying to keep this discussion civilised and conversational by hurling insults, eh? With, I see, a touch of misplaced arrogance and an over-powerful superiority complex. I would point out that I would expect you, having been involved in the rules, to be more willing to follow them, not less. But then, you have demonstrated a thorough pettyness over the past few months - defending the utterly undefendable 'Louis, dauphin de France' for this woman's father-in-law and then sulking when it was clear that you couldn't get your way there, whining that the reorganisation of the article titles of the Dauphins in accordance with the rules was awful and you wanted it put back to the old shoddy system - so I'm not surprised here.

My point with regard to names is that consort names are often artificial in nature. Yet, they are what we use. The alternative is titling articles as 'The Queen Mum', 'Princess Di', 'Joanna the Mad', 'Queen Margot', etc. Which we don't do. 'Marie Antoinette of Austria' is this woman's name by the dynastic and common name conventions which we use. Michael Sanders 15:24, 27 March 2007 (UTC)

This is not cut-and-dried, because sometimes precision is also necessary for naming. There are other articles that use the title Marie Antoinette, so we can't say that only WP:NC (CN) comes into play. We won't get anywhere if both sides claim to be 100% correct. I think the title should probably be "Marie Antoinette", but we can get to a solution without combativeness. Dekimasuよ! 05:04, 27 March 2007 (UTC)

Move back to Marie Antoinette. The argument that "Marie Antoinette" is by far the most common designation is compelling. The question "What scholarly works refer to this lady as 'Marie Antoinette of Austria'" needs to be answered with more than "I don't know" and a presumption, before we accept that as the standard.zadignose 12:03, 27 March 2007 (UTC)

We should also note that this would move the dab page. It's also likely that a significant number of people who type "Marie Antoinette" into the search box are looking for the recent movie. Should that be considered here? Dekimasuよ! 12:12, 27 March 2007 (UTC)

No, the queen is more notable and should be at Marie Antoinette. After all, the movie is about her. Charles 12:55, 27 March 2007 (UTC)

Thank you for considering it. The issue was not which should be at Marie Antoinette, but whether Marie Antoinette should be a disambiguation page, and this should be somewhere else. Personally, I tend to agree with you. Dekimasuよ! 12:59, 27 March 2007 (UTC)

The practice I have seen is to keep article such as this (where the subject of this name is far more notable than all others) at the main title and all others at the page with "disambiguation" appended to the end. Charles 13:27, 27 March 2007 (UTC)

'Marie Antoinette' should refer to the disambiguation page. The sad truth is that most people typing in 'Marie Antoinette' at the moment will be looking for the movie, as opposed to a long dead Queen. Michael Sanders 15:24, 27 March 2007 (UTC)

Requested move

The following discussion is an archived discussion 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.

Marie Antoinette of Austria → Marie Antoinette — This page should be moved back to its former location as it was moved unilaterally by another editor. This woman is university known as Marie Antoinette. The problem with the current (and undiscussed) move is similar to that of Alexandra Feodorovna, who was erroneously titled Alexandra Fyodorovna of Hesse, which is an artificial construction. There is something to be said for official or formulaic titling when all of the elements fit but such is not the case with this one. I cite Wikipedia:Naming conventions (common names) to back this up. Charles 15:39, 27 March 2007 (UTC)

Survey

Add  # '''Support'''  or  # '''Oppose'''  on a new line in the appropriate section followed by a brief explanation, then sign your opinion using ~~~~. Please remember that this survey is not a vote, and please provide an explanation for your recommendation.

Survey - in support of the move

1. Support As a restorative move and as this queen's common name. Charles 15:40, 27 March 2007 (UTC)
2. Support She is universally known as "Marie Antoinette" --Yath 22:08, 27 March 2007 (UTC)
3. Support - most common name; present form incomprehensible to many people. Noel S McFerran 00:50, 28 March 2007 (UTC)
4. Support per WP:COMMONAME. At first glance, Marie Antoinette of Austria seems to imply a completely different person and can easily confuse readers looking for the univerially known Marie Antoinette. 205.157.110.11 06:05, 28 March 2007 (UTC)
5. Support. Marie Antoinette is "what the majority of English speakers would most easily recognize", which is what WP:NAME says we should use. Angus McLellan (Talk) 00:00, 30 March 2007 (UTC)
6. Support as per Angus. Now Marie Antoinette is redirecting to Marie Antoinette (disambiguation); primary topic, anyone? Olessi 04:30, 30 March 2007 (UTC)
7. Support. I am of course strongly in favour of the present consort naming conventions and not keen on exceptions, but I think this is a valid one. The present title is actively misleading. Certainly it's ludicrous that the Marie Antoinette page is currently redirecting to a disambiguation page. Deb 11:51, 30 March 2007 (UTC)
8. Support. Because of the widespread name recognition of Marie Antoinette, I think this is a valid exception to the rule. Also, the convention on the naming of consorts that would mandate the current title appears to lack widespread consensus, judging from a reading of that page. Dekimasuよ! 12:11, 30 March 2007 (UTC)
9. The vast majority of users will be looking for this individual. Move per Common useage. KillerChihuahua^?!? 15:35, 30 March 2007 (UTC)
10. Support. Many average people probably don't even remember she was originally from Austria, so this name is just going to confuse people. --Groggy Dice T | C 16:31, 30 March 2007 (UTC)
11. Support - easily most common name. Patstuart^talk·edits 01:43, 31 March 2007 (UTC)

Survey - in opposition to the move

1. Oppose - current title is her name, in line with convention and precedent, making use of her common name. Michael Sanders 15:40, 28 March 2007 (UTC)
2. Weak oppose; this is what WP:NCNT says, and I don't see this coming under any of the exceptions. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 15:55, 28 March 2007 (UTC)

Discussion

Add any additional comments:

This is nothing like the Russian Empress issue. As I have already said, that was an issue where two sets commonly used but linguistically distinct names had to be dealt with (since 'Alix of Hesse' does not translate to 'Alexandra Feodorovna'). This issue, on the other hand, is as simple as the choice between Jeanne de Bourbon and "Joanna of Bourbon". Michael Sanders 16:13, 27 March 2007 (UTC)

I'd also note that several other versions of wikipedia name her 'Marie Antoinette of Austria' or 'Marie Antoinette of Habsburg Lorraine', without anyone's head spinning. And that includes the French article. Michael Sanders 15:40, 28 March 2007 (UTC)

English people don't refer to her that way though. Why not mention Swedish, Finnish, Slovak, Serbian, Russian, Portuguese, Norwegian, Hungarian, Lithuanian, Spanish, Danish, or Czech, etc., if that matters at all? It doesn't! The French recognize their consorts as coming from somewhere else, us English recognize select consorts just as the queens they were. In this case, it is the name Marie Antoinette. Charles 16:08, 28 March 2007 (UTC)

In English, consorts are recognised as 'coming from somewhere else'. Thus, name a single non-surnamed Queen consort of England or Scotland who was not 'of Somewhere' - even 'Elizabeth of York' (now, that's artificial). And the French article is entirely relevant - given that she was Queen of France, what the French call her is rather important. Michael Sanders 16:13, 28 March 2007 (UTC)

Marie Antoinette Josephe Jeanne de Lorraine, Archduchesse d'Autriche

What is the exact purpose of this? Charles 22:46, 29 March 2007 (UTC)

You asked for proof that 'Marie Antoinette' and 'Austria' were combined in the same name. Michael Sanders 22:51, 29 March 2007 (UTC)

In English. Giving the whole thing in French, with French titles and French names doesn't support the form "Marie Antoinette of Austria". The form shown there isn't even "Marie Antoinette d'Autriche". Charles 22:53, 29 March 2007 (UTC)

But it demonstrates that the forms 'Marie Antoinette' and 'Austria' are used together (whereas the POV of yourself and others appears to be that she can only be 'Maria Antonia of Austria'); 'Marie Antoinette' and 'Maria Antonia' are merely the same name in different languages, not different names (and thus nothing like the mess of Russian Empresses). Michael Sanders 22:58, 29 March 2007 (UTC)

I'm sure they have been used together before, when the title is wholly in French, but this is English and I, at least, have never heard her called Marie Antoinette of Austria in conversation. It is always Marie Antoinette. Adding of Austria does nothing for her. Charles 23:02, 29 March 2007 (UTC)

Marie Antoinette Jeanne Josephe d'Autriche —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Michaelsanders (talk • contribs) 23:05, 29 March 2007 (UTC).

"Marie Antoinette of Austria"

Marie Antoinette was known never known as "Marie Antoinette of Austria" or "Marie Antoinette of France". Maire Antoinette, who used "Antoine" as a child, still used "Antoinette" alone very occasionally in family letter when she signed them (mainly she did not). On all her formal correspondence , the Queen of France was loftily "Marie Antoinette", with no need of qualification. Even after her husband was executed she was still known simply as Marie Antoinette, by monarchists and revolutionarys alike. Marie Antoinette never held the title "Marie Antoinette of Austria" because as a child her title was Maria Antonia Josepha Johanna of Habsburg-Lorraine, Archduchess of Austria, Princess of Hungary and Bohemia, Princess of Tuscany. Her name was Marie Antoinette, not disrespectful "Marie Antoinette of Austria", so please change it back to Marie Antoinette. User:Daniel_Chiswick 29 March, 2007

First of all, Mr Chiswick, place comments at the bottom of the page, not the top. Second of all, she is quite specifically referred to as 'Marie Antoinette d'Autriche' in one source above, and as 'Marie Antoinette, Archduchesse d'Autriche' in another. You're right to say that she "never held the title Marie Antoinette of Austria" - since such isn't a 'title', but rather a manner of referring to Queen consorts. Michael Sanders 14:48, 30 March 2007 (UTC)

French sources and English sources differ though. This is a matter of English-speaking convention. Charles 15:04, 30 March 2007 (UTC)

Conclusions

• 1) In 'x of y' terms, her name is 'Marie Antoinette of Austria'.
• 2) She originally given a Latin name (as part of baptism), 'Maria Antonia etc.', which is also (I believe) the German form of her name. However, historic royalty are generally not viewed as having any 'official' form of their name, either terminological or linguistic; rather, they are generally named in a manner most appropriate to the language the author or commentator is using - which would make 'Mary Antonia' her name in English. However, there are always figures who are particularly named in one manner, language or language form over another (for example 'The Comte de Paris', 'Marguerite de Valois', 'Marie de' Medici'), even if that is not the standard form of the name in the language being used. Thus, this person is known as 'Marie Antoinette', and so that form is used over the 'correct' (in English) 'Maria Antonia' - since, she may have been originally named 'Maria Antonia', but as a royal she doesn't get to claim the privilege of a private citizen by keeping her name untranslated.
• 3) There was no 'name change', of the style in Russia; she had always been referred to as Marie Antoinette in France, even before she married Louis (see the link to the almanach above), no name change ceremony: the French called her 'Marie Antoinette' as they always had; the Germans called her 'Maria Antonia' as they always had. This means that it is technically wrong to refer to her as 'Maria Antonia' before her marriage, which gives the impression that she was legally Maria Antonia before, and legally Marie Antoinette after. That differentiation is required for those who legally change their name (e.g. Marilyn Monroe); it merely confuses the issue when used for royalty (Isabella of France is not referred to as Isabelle prior to her marriage in her article) - royalty are expected to have different forms of the name referenced at the beginning (or at the beginning of the biography), but otherwise are meant to be referred to in the article by the name, or a simplification of the name, that is used for the article title (thus Anne of Austria is referred to in her article as Anne rather than Anne of Austria - but in other articles given the full designation where appropriate - but is not referred to as Ana).

• Corollary: the Russian Empress issue is very different. There, a foreign and non-Orthodox bride would be baptised into the Orthodox faith, and given a new name. Thus, Catherine the Great was born Sophie Augusta Frederica of Anhalt-Zerbst, and then before she married she was baptised, and given a new name of Catherine Alexeyevna - she, to all intents and purposes, was renamed, and it is the same with the rest of the Romanov-Gottorp Empresses. Catherine wasn't referred to in Russian or by the Russians as Ekaterina Alexeievna prior to her baptism, at which point different countries would have referred to her by that name, per the language in the particular country. Such a situation was not the case with Marie Antoinette.

• 4) It is a misreading of the issue to assert that she is 'Maria Antonia of Austria' but not 'Marie Antoinette of Austria' - as though she could only be 'of country of origin' if given the name form of her country of origin, or as if the name form commonly used for her in English is incompatible with her dynastic source. In simple 'x of y' terms, she is 'Marie Antoinette of Austria', just as her sisters are all 'z of Austria'. Or 'Eleanor of Aquitaine' is such, who despite being originally named 'Alienor'. Again, such would be true in the case of the Russian Queen consorts - there is not 'Alexandra Feodorovna of Prussia'; but in the case of Marie Antoinette, it is simply the use of her most common name with her dynastic origin.

• 5) See Talk:Catherine of Aragon for the result of arguments that 'the woman called herself such and such, so we should call her that'. Royals have no power over their own name in the face of history. Michael Sanders 23:49, 30 March 2007 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the proposal. 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.

This article has been renamed from Marie Antoinette of Austria to Marie Antoinette as the result of a move request. --Stemonitis 15:27, 1 April 2007 (UTC)

Artist?

I remember in History Class one of my textbooks said she did many plays in the Palace of Versailles. And she did Frivolous spending and hated to be bored. Should this be added or labeled as an opinion? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Vladimir Stalin (talk • contribs) 14:06, 1 April 2007 (UTC).

You should find sources that other people can check. For the theater, this won't be hard. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 22:27, 1 April 2007 (UTC)

Hyphen?

In French, as in the translations at the top of the article, Marie Antoinette is inevitably written with a hyphen, as are all doubled names in French, like Yves Saint-Laurent and Jean-Marie Le Pen. So, at least for the French parts, the hypen should be added. 71.102.134.129 04:25, 6 May 2007 (UTC)

Interwiki Link

Hi. I don't have an account on the english wikipedia, since my main activity here is adding interwiki links to the LB one. Since the page is semi-prot, could you please add the link to [[lb:Marie-Antoinette vun Éisträich]]. Thx in advance. Briséis.

I'm not sure how you would do this, but would it be possible to link an English translation of the French page if it is a more well quoted, authoritative piece because i find this article to be poorly supported in its quotes.

"Let Them Eat Cake" - a U.K. T.V. series on BBC I think although i may be wrong, staring and written by Dawn French and Jennifer Saunders. a comedic take on the life of (Marie A) is unmentioned in the legacy section. DM Danmas1986 05:26, 24 July 2007 (UTC)

OVERBOARD!!!

Problems: In my opinion, although it is well written, it uses a heavily fictional style that whilst making it easy to read detracts from its authenticity. I also find it to be heavily biased towards the queen, spending far more text supporting her, than opposing her when she is historically famous for being incompetent, mostly due to her ignorance and her detachment from the common people. Yes we know that that she was villainized by popular culture at the time and in subsequent generations but more quotes, links, and details about supposed political intrigue, the pamphleteers and the revolutionary movement would be preferable to what is currently on show. Recent attempts to portray her a martyr, seem to me to have heavily affected the authors perceptions. Her (MA) actions in life may not have been sufficient to deserve the penalties she suffered by todays standards, but in relation to trial and punishment of the time it was fairly standard. Somehow the author also fails to include that because of the poor governance of the kingdom at the time countless French people died of poverty related causes. In current (2007) British law causing death through incompetence and neglect is constitute to manslaughter, (I don't know about current French or US equivalents) therefore the monarchy deserved to be punished for not ceding the reins of authority to more capable persons earlier, even though the punishment may have been overly harsh it was justified. It also fails to realize that the invasion by a foreign army (strongly linked to Marie A's political links in other states), destroying the lives of many (i don't know how many)people, in order to restore and secure the privileges of a few people (the monarchy) could be a bad thing, and possibly the fatal last mistake of the royals. b.t.w. my rant is unquoted but it is a rant and therefore does not require it.

Possible solution: If parts of the page were split into two sub sections (a kind of for and against) it could show the divided nature of the topic and give a broader portrayal, allowing the reader to form his or her own conclusions. Please could i recieve some comment on this. DM Danmas1986 05:26, 24 July 2007 (UTC)

I've read biographies about her, and I don't think this page should read like one. A lot of the crap in this article should come out. It's written like a puffy historical biography, not an encyclopedia. Agrippina Minor 20:12, 29 June 2007 (UTC)

I agree, theres allot that can be cut out. It reads more like a fairy tale. vince

Final words

Despite the fact that it is stated here that her last words were 'Pardonez-moi, monsieur', on Wikiquote it says, 'Monsieur, je vous demande pardon. Je n'ai pas le dai exprès. 瀬人様 15:24, 21 July 2007 (UTC)

Assessment comment

The comment(s) below were originally left at Talk:Marie Antoinette/Comments, and are posted here for posterity. Following several discussions in past years, these subpages are now deprecated. The comments may be irrelevant or outdated; if so, please feel free to remove this section.

Comment(s)

Press [show] to view →

== Biography assessment rating comment == WikiProject Biography Assessment Well, it should be a GA on somebody's scale. The article may be improved by following the WikiProject Biography 11 easy steps to producing at least a B article. -- Yamara 05:25, 28 May 2007 (UTC) ==Page 12 will not print correctly== Page 12 will not print correctly. Tried twice. Can't find the proper site to report this difficulty. Gael BraxtonGaelbraxton 04:47, 28 December 2006 (UTC) == WikiProject France Assessment == This article was listed on WikiProject France under articles needing assessment. This article has been rated B-class because: It is informative and seems to be fairly well sourced. It has a wide range of useful images. The neutrality of the article is in dispute as referenced on the discussion page, otherwise I'd be interested to see how it faired in a GA review. EDIT: Also, please note that I assessed this article as "top" importance for WikiProject France. Marie Antoinette is a widely known name from France (up there w/ Jean D'Arc) and has a significant cultural role. Therefore, this topic deserves to be top importance. Lazulilasher (talk) 17:37, 26 December 2007 (UTC)

Last edited at 17:48, 26 December 2007 (UTC). Substituted at 21:22, 3 May 2016 (UTC)