This article is rated C-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
The Living Museum of the Horse should be mentioned. Axeman89 07:18, 27 December 2006 (UTC)
What's the matter with the reference to Brobdignag in the "Persecution of Protestants" section? English is my second language, but so far as I know, Brobdignagian means "gigantic" (a reference to Jonathan Swift's works). Can somebody clarify that sentence? Rizzardi 00:07, 28 December 2006 (UTC)
I hate to say it, but much of this article has absolutely nothing to do with Louis Henri, Duc de Bourbon, Prince de Condé. A lengthy discussion of the marriage of Louis XV should be found in the article on Louis, not this article. And there is almost no information about Louis Henri from the point of his activities regarding the marriage of the king until his death some 15 years later.
Thus, I would recommend excising almost all of what is found regarding the marriage of Louis XV, and let's get some information about Louis Henri from 1725 through 1740. Doug 14:17, 19 May 2007 (UTC)
It surprises me to see this above comment still here 5 months later and no response from the author. The details of Louis XV's wedding arrangements deserve only a couple of lines here and belong in an article on the future queen instead if at all. They are also presented in a style of a wider history discussion. The style is not appropriate to a biographical article at all and strikes any reader as being copied from a textbook or something similar. I propose to remove it if no one objects.-- AssegaiAli 02:44, 7 October 2007 (UTC)
No response so I am removing all the irrelevant copy -- AssegaiAli ( talk) 20:34, 25 January 2008 (UTC)
A lot of unsourced edits are being uploaded rapidly to articles on French royalty. Some appear dubious, others wrong. Yet requests for reputable citations are ignored, deleted, or inadequately sourced (page numbers in books are essential to verify if the citation is accurate) -- while the wholesale editing continues. Please respond to these requests, either with reputable sources or more careful edits, before adding additional unsourced material. Also, much of the added material is redundant, excessive, or trivial. I've already recorded repeated objections to 1. unsourced allegations (e.g. that seem unprecedented, unlikely, or undocumentable) are apt to be deleted unless precisely sourced 2. redundancies (if it's in a box on the page, it's apt to be deleted from the text): 3. excess (details which belong in another person's article [e.g. parent, spouse, child], or which describe hard-to-verify details [e.g. "She felt envious": unless it's an attributed quote from a diary or correspondence -- how is it possible to know what someone who died hundreds of years ago "felt" or "thought"? Let's stick to what they verifiably said or did]), 4. gallicization (names and titles when combined, OK [but members of dynasties that ruled outside France -- Lorraine, Savoy, Modena, Bouillon, Monaco, etc -- shouldn't be gallicized, except for cadets born into a branch naturalised in France]; well-known phrases, yes; untranslatable terms, maybe; just for the sake of a more "French" sound or "feel" to the article -- not usually, and subject to deletion). Other editors will, of course, have their own views. Please don't use sockpuppets. I look forward to better mutual cooperation -- and better Wiki articles. Thanks. FactStraight ( talk) 06:15, 6 June 2008 (UTC)
To the best of my recollection, the first de facto PM was Talleyrand, as "President of the King's [Louis XVIII's] council". -- Jack1755 ( talk) 22:31, 4 November 2009 (UTC)
The result of the move request was: not moved. Consensus appears to be that the current titles are preferable. ( non-admin closure) ModernDayTrilobite ( talk • contribs) 21:32, 6 February 2023 (UTC)
– The two men, grandfather and grandson, were both Duke of Bourbon and Prince of Condé so at the moment they are not really disambiguated, and I cannot find a suitable form myself. This RM follows the one at Talk:Louis I, Prince of Condé, which added numerals to their predecessors' titles, but numerals are not normally used for those two. For what it's worth, Britannica has titles "Louis-Henri, 7e prince de Condé" and "Louis-Henri-Joseph, 9e prince de Condé". No such user ( talk) 12:44, 26 January 2023 (UTC)
This article is rated C-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
The Living Museum of the Horse should be mentioned. Axeman89 07:18, 27 December 2006 (UTC)
What's the matter with the reference to Brobdignag in the "Persecution of Protestants" section? English is my second language, but so far as I know, Brobdignagian means "gigantic" (a reference to Jonathan Swift's works). Can somebody clarify that sentence? Rizzardi 00:07, 28 December 2006 (UTC)
I hate to say it, but much of this article has absolutely nothing to do with Louis Henri, Duc de Bourbon, Prince de Condé. A lengthy discussion of the marriage of Louis XV should be found in the article on Louis, not this article. And there is almost no information about Louis Henri from the point of his activities regarding the marriage of the king until his death some 15 years later.
Thus, I would recommend excising almost all of what is found regarding the marriage of Louis XV, and let's get some information about Louis Henri from 1725 through 1740. Doug 14:17, 19 May 2007 (UTC)
It surprises me to see this above comment still here 5 months later and no response from the author. The details of Louis XV's wedding arrangements deserve only a couple of lines here and belong in an article on the future queen instead if at all. They are also presented in a style of a wider history discussion. The style is not appropriate to a biographical article at all and strikes any reader as being copied from a textbook or something similar. I propose to remove it if no one objects.-- AssegaiAli 02:44, 7 October 2007 (UTC)
No response so I am removing all the irrelevant copy -- AssegaiAli ( talk) 20:34, 25 January 2008 (UTC)
A lot of unsourced edits are being uploaded rapidly to articles on French royalty. Some appear dubious, others wrong. Yet requests for reputable citations are ignored, deleted, or inadequately sourced (page numbers in books are essential to verify if the citation is accurate) -- while the wholesale editing continues. Please respond to these requests, either with reputable sources or more careful edits, before adding additional unsourced material. Also, much of the added material is redundant, excessive, or trivial. I've already recorded repeated objections to 1. unsourced allegations (e.g. that seem unprecedented, unlikely, or undocumentable) are apt to be deleted unless precisely sourced 2. redundancies (if it's in a box on the page, it's apt to be deleted from the text): 3. excess (details which belong in another person's article [e.g. parent, spouse, child], or which describe hard-to-verify details [e.g. "She felt envious": unless it's an attributed quote from a diary or correspondence -- how is it possible to know what someone who died hundreds of years ago "felt" or "thought"? Let's stick to what they verifiably said or did]), 4. gallicization (names and titles when combined, OK [but members of dynasties that ruled outside France -- Lorraine, Savoy, Modena, Bouillon, Monaco, etc -- shouldn't be gallicized, except for cadets born into a branch naturalised in France]; well-known phrases, yes; untranslatable terms, maybe; just for the sake of a more "French" sound or "feel" to the article -- not usually, and subject to deletion). Other editors will, of course, have their own views. Please don't use sockpuppets. I look forward to better mutual cooperation -- and better Wiki articles. Thanks. FactStraight ( talk) 06:15, 6 June 2008 (UTC)
To the best of my recollection, the first de facto PM was Talleyrand, as "President of the King's [Louis XVIII's] council". -- Jack1755 ( talk) 22:31, 4 November 2009 (UTC)
The result of the move request was: not moved. Consensus appears to be that the current titles are preferable. ( non-admin closure) ModernDayTrilobite ( talk • contribs) 21:32, 6 February 2023 (UTC)
– The two men, grandfather and grandson, were both Duke of Bourbon and Prince of Condé so at the moment they are not really disambiguated, and I cannot find a suitable form myself. This RM follows the one at Talk:Louis I, Prince of Condé, which added numerals to their predecessors' titles, but numerals are not normally used for those two. For what it's worth, Britannica has titles "Louis-Henri, 7e prince de Condé" and "Louis-Henri-Joseph, 9e prince de Condé". No such user ( talk) 12:44, 26 January 2023 (UTC)