![]() | This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
Archive 1 |
Nonsense : Louis XVIII wasn't precedeed by Louis XVII (which has never beeing king) but by Napoleon I. -- Arno Lagrange 14:02, 4 Feb 2004 (UTC)
More Nonsense: "It was to be the only fully regular transfer of power in France from one head of state to another of the entire 19th century." The fact that a president (or a king) resigns or dies in office (as was repeatedly the case during the Third Republic) does not make the succession irregular.
Wikipedia:Be bold and remove non-sense on sight. Tazmaniacs 01:26, 3 August 2006 (UTC)
Louis XVII was the King of France untill he sadly died. He was the only surviving son of Louis XVI making him first in line for the throne. His rule may not have been honored or respected by most of France, but it was still there. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 64.223.123.85 ( talk) 04:29, 1 March 2007 (UTC).
At the moment there is not one citation or reference in the article, which is extraordinary. This needs to be addressed as a matter of priority. -- ♦IanMacM♦ (talk to me) 19:11, 12 April 2008 (UTC)
Louis XVI reigned from 1774 until he was executed in 1793. The Directory rules France from 1795-1799. In 1799 Napoleon seizes power in coup d'état. Napoleon is crowned emperor in 1804. in 1814 Napoleon abdicates and is exiled to Elba. Louis XVII believed to have died in prison in 1795. 71.31.215.131 ( talk) 23:49, 12 January 2009 (UTC) [1]
Are we going to have a rerun of the article on Marie Antoinette based on only one source, that of Antonia Fraser's book? In which case, would not it be better to contact Mme Fraser & ask her to write the article? Frania W. ( talk) 03:41, 2 June 2009 (UTC)
Fraser is the best source I have for Louis XVIII's life before the revolution, Frania. Ergo, Fraser won't be used as a source after section "The Outbreak of the French Revolution".( Jack1755 ( talk) 12:29, 3 June 2009 (UTC))
Hey, everyone, I have almost finished the article's renovation. I have removed the "under constuction" template, because I won't be in the country for a few weeks, and therefore I won't be able to edit. I shall reinstate the banner upon my return. Have a great day ! ( Jack1755 ( talk) 02:08, 5 June 2009 (UTC))
I have cleaned up the formatting of this article:
Regards, Ground Zero | t 03:43, 5 June 2009 (UTC)
Should anyone want to request GA category for this article, as was done for the article on Charles X, please have the courtesy to give other readers & contributors the opportunity to discuss such request on this talk page. As the article stands, it needs a major overhaul, both in its written form & content: too much trivia, many inaccuracies & some vocabulary more of tabloid level, than that of an encyclopedia. Frania W. ( talk) 21:06, 20 June 2009 (UTC)
Could someone help me with the notes? I can't get them to display properly, Regards, -- Jack1755 ( talk) 16:02, 7 July 2009 (UTC)
Hey everyone, I have fixed the confusing areas of the article, and clarified names, and therefore I removed the *confusing* tag. I added a British English tag to the talk page, as the artice as it is now is written entirely in this dialect. If you have any questions, leave me a message on my talk page. Regards -- Jack1755 ( talk) 14:21, 8 July 2009 (UTC)
I am moving the relevant bits of a discussion from my talk page.
I removed from the article a reference about Louis being restored to "his rightful place on the throne of France" because I believe it to be non-neutral.
The original statement read:
I propose that it should read:
Jack1755 has restored the phrase, arguing that:
My response:
Jack1755:
My response:
Comments form other interested editors are particularly welcome to resolve this debate. Thanks. Ground Zero | t 02:06, 10 July 2009 (UTC)
PS. Are you saying that the Charter of 1814 was illegal ??
-- Jack1755 ( talk) 02:14, 10 July 2009 (UTC)
My comment left on Ground Zero talk page a few minutes ago:
***Louis XVIII was restored to his rightful place on the throne of France in 1814...*** I had read the above sentence & had thought of removing *his rightful place* but left it after reflection. The epoch of the French Revolution thru the First Empire of Napoléon was viewed from a different angle depending if you were of the Bourbon family or a revolutionary. Maybe that Napoléon viewed the monarchy to be an abomination, but I can assure you that the royalists viewed the Revolution to be an abomination and, in their heart & mind, never accepted the legality of the Republic, the Consulate or the Empire. In other words, for Louis XVIII, his brother & their faithful, the period 1789-1814 was a period they wished out of existence. The Revolution had not killed the love many had toward their king & many acclaimed the Restoration. Personally, I think this sentiment should not be ignored and, in order for the reader to understand that these 25 years were not glorified by all French people and, in particular, by the brother of Louis XVI, could not the sentence read:
***Louis XVIII was restored to what he felt was his rightful place on the throne of France in 1814...***
Cordialement, Frania W. ( talk) 02:28, 10 July 2009 (UTC)
Jack, the burden of proof for keeping the statement in lies with you: can you provide evidence that republicans and Bonapartists accepted the Louis's rightful place was on the throne? If you cannot support that statement with reliable sources, then it does not belong in the article.
The problem with the statement is that it is general. It does not indicate that the throne was Louis's rightful place "in the view of the Charter of 1814". It suggests that even now people would all agree that Louis should have been on the throne.
Frania's amendment would be acceptable to me because it moves the statement from a general one to one that includes appropriate context. It could even go further to say:
Regards, Ground Zero | t 02:36, 10 July 2009 (UTC)
Jack and Laur... Okay, MUCH better. I tried to tweak the lead a bit: you write the monarchy was abolished, and that Louis succeeded his nephew...etc. That leaves a lot of questions, so I tried to tweak a bit. See what you think. Still some issues I would have if I were reviewing for GA. First, focus: while you are much more focused on Louis Stanislas than before, and place him in better context than before, there is still a lot of digression, generally, into the French Revolution. This whole discussion needs to be focused on LS and the Revolution, or LS, his brother and the revolution. It needs to be relentlessly focused on this; there are other articles that deal with the revolution, and you don't need to do that. Second, you spend a lot of time talking about Tsar Paul, the Neopolitan court, going to England. What does LS's obsession with the grants he could get from other kings, the palaces he lived in, his marrying his son to his niece, etc., say about him? What do the biographers say these preoccupations meant? Perhaps, 1) he was preoccupied with his status as a Prince? 2) He was incredibly expensive as a young man, and his brother had paid off his debts; does it look like he overcame that hedonistic trait? If he was taking snuff from the breasts of a woman in 1818 (or whenever), I doubt it. 3) jealous/envious of the conditions others received, comparing them to his own? His brother had a grant from the English king, but he only had his niece and his son? Can these various "stories" be used not as one damn thing after another, but rather to illuminate this man's character? What do these stories tell us about LS? Third, you still have a lot of chop in here: short paragraphs (one to two short sentences), sometimes unrelated to one another, especially in the last half. The first half is much better. You're getting there. It's a 1-2 month wait on GA, so you'd have time to address some of these (although the waiting is shorter in biography). All in all, MUCH better. I can see that the two of you have done a lot of work on this. Auntieruth55 ( talk) 19:45, 21 October 2009 (UTC)
Jack & All, We should know who said what, as some authors have a tendency to exaggerate or use what Wikipedia calls "peacock" words. Until really proven that the poor Maréchal was "sliced into pieces", another word should be chosen, and definitely with source. I do not have time right now to look up something sent to me, but I have under my eyes Évelyne Lever Louis XVIII (Fayard, 1988) page 416:
Le 2 août, le maréchal Brune, qui se rendait à Paris, traversa la capitale du Comtat, en pleine terreur malgré l'arrivée du préfet du roi. Désigné à la vindicte publique comme le meurtrier de la princesse de Lamballe (ce qui était complètement faux), le maréchal fut sauvagement assassiné dans l'hôtel où il avait été contraint de se réfugier. On voulut maquiller le crime en suicide...
On page 417, Évelyne Lever goes on relating how Mme Brune brought the case of her husband's assassination in front of a tribunal because she wanted her husband's assassins to be found & punished. She even sent a requête to Louis XVIII on 29 March 1819. Mme Brune's efforts helped her discover the names of the men who had killed her husband:
Elle put enfin désigner nommément ceux qui avaient tué son époux. Quelques jours plus tôt, le ministre de la Justice, M. de Serre, avait reconnu à la tribune de la Chambre des députés, que tous les meurtres commis en 1815 étaient restés impunis. Évoquant la conjuration de certains hommes convaincus d'assassinat devant la cour de Riom, le garde des Sceaux s'écria: "Il a été impossible d'obtenir la déposition d'un seul témoin contre eux. Ces témoins, la terreur les avait glacés." L'enquête montra que les autorités avaient fait preuve d'un très grand laxisme à l'égard des coupables. De tous les coupables. Le 26 juillet 1820, la chambre des mises en accusation de la cour de Nîmes reconnut que le maréchal Brune avait bien été assassiné, ses voitures pillées, ses effets volés et que ses assassins étaient Farges et Roquefort. Le premier était mort. Le second resta introuvable.
There are other texts relating that his body was thrown into the Rhône, some going as far as saying that his body was left out to rot then thrown into the Rhône.
Until we find out exactly how he was killed, I do not think that words like "sliced" or even "mutilated" should be used. In the meantime, why not adopt Évelyne Lever's version: "le maréchal fut sauvagement assassiné dans l'hôtel..."? savagely assassinated covers quite a range of atrocities, which should suffice.
Cordialement, Frania W. ( talk) 17:33, 23 October 2009 (UTC)
Adding two links sent to me RE the assassination of Maréchal Brune in Avignon: [1], [2]
Frania W. ( talk) 18:13, 23 October 2009 (UTC)
All Bourbon kings of France since Henri IV are Roi de France et de Navarre. See photograph of inscription on Louis XVIII's tomb at Saint-Denis basilica on Wikimedia: http://74.125.93.132/search?q=cache:DEO29UqFqhkJ:commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Tombe_louis_XVIII_roi_de_france_saint-denis.JPG+tombe+de+louis+XVIII&cd=3&hl=en&ct=clnk&gl=us&client=firefox-a Frania W. ( talk) 14:42, 12 December 2009 (UTC)
All English monarchs since Edward III were King of England and France (and Ireland). See the inscription on Elizabeth I's tomb at Westminster Abbey. Nevertheless, I'm sure you'll agree that we shouldn't add the title "Queen of France" to her article's infobox and succession box. I am not saying that of Navarre should be removed. I'm just saying that there is no point in keeping it, for the Kingdom of Navarre ceased to exist in the 17th century and Navarre actually had no kings since then. I could be wrong about the title, though; was the state ruled by Louis XVIII called Kingdom of France and Navarre? If not, there is nothing wrong with removing of Navarre, but I won't argue against keeping it. Perhaps we could make it look like King of France and of Navarre ? That would give a clue that of Navarre is no more than a title and that the person was not head of state of the Kingdom of Navarre. Surtsicna ( talk) 18:38, 18 December 2009 (UTC)
Please continue the discussion here. There is no doubt that their title was King of France and of Navarre. It is not clear what you mean by everyday use. Referring to successors of Louis XIII of France simply as King of France or the French king has always been more common (thus everyday use) than referring to them as King of France and of Navarre. Of course treaties called him King of France and of Navarre; that is not disputed. The same source you cited says that these are the titles that belong to the Crown; those titles were last used by Alphonse XIII. Of course monarchs used their full titles in treaties and official documents. Just take a look at the text of the Peace of Westphalia; Duke of Burgundy, Brabant, Styria, Carinthia, Carniola, Marquiss of Moravia, Duke of Luxemburgh, the Higher and Lower Silesia, of Wirtemburg and Teck, Prince of Suabia, Count of Hapsburg, Tirol, Kyburg and Goritia, Marquiss of the Sacred Roman Empire, Lord of Burgovia, of the Higher and Lower Lusace, of the Marquisate of Slavonia, of Port Naon and Salines is just a half of titles used to describe the Holy Roman Emperor. Do I need to prove that the Swedish monarchs were referred to as King of Sweden, the Goths and the Wends in treaties, coins, etc? Do I need to prove the same for other monarchs? I hope you understand that I am not disputing the fact that they used the title of King of France and of Navarre. However, if other European monarchs have their titles shortened in the infobox and succession box, I can't see why the French monarchs should be an exception. Surtsicna ( talk) 19:05, 19 December 2009 (UTC)
If one can prove that Louis XVIII was the head of state of Navarre, the dispute will be solved (dixit Surtsicna). Is this one of Wikipedia "rules & regulations", which would contradict its own rules on original research, or is this one of Surtsicna's personal demands? What more is necessary to prove that the kings of France from Henri IV on were "rois de France et de Navarre" than the simple fact that it was their title - a dual title inscribed on their tombs at Saint-Denis?
Surtsicna, in order to rewrite the History of France to your liking, are you going to demand that the arms of the kings of France be amputated of that of Navarre?
http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Armoiries_France_et_Navarre.png
By the way, I love your I said won't argue against keeping of Navarre..., which you rushed to follow with this: I'll start a discussion here
Finally, I presume this text (written in English with all French names kept in French) has no value in your eyes, but I'll throw it into the discussion anyway:
Frania W. ( talk) 14:14, 20 December 2009 (UTC)
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:England_Arms_1340.svg
The Kingdom of Navarre became a part of the Kingdom of France in 1620. IMHO, Louis XIII of France's infobox, should be the last to have ..of Navarre in it. GoodDay ( talk) 20:00, 20 December 2009 (UTC)
PS: Why is this discussion taking place at this talkpage? it covers more then Louis XVIII. GoodDay ( talk) 20:50, 20 December 2009 (UTC)
Note: The discussion is also taking place here where one user disagreed (?) and three users agreed with me. I have already informed you that the I'll start a discussion there. That's where the discussion should be led. Surtsicna ( talk) 23:07, 20 December 2009 (UTC)
Why is the picture accompanying this article labelled as Louis XVII in one place and Louis XVIII in another? 98.93.141.211 ( talk) 02:32, 20 November 2011 (UTC)lhm
I removed the youth portrait which was set as one of the count the Provence by Maurice Quentin de La Tour. But it isn't and rather a painting of the future Louis XVI. as a child. https://www.kunst-fuer-alle.de/english/fine-art/artist/image/maurice-quentin-de-la-tour/17118/1/114992/louis-xvi,-king-o-france---la-tour--1765/index.htm See also my example from my French biography:: http://orig08.deviantart.net/7b96/f/2016/228/5/6/13989440_10153907207558403_1599895194_n_by_redpassion-dae4fm9.jpg Louis XVI. by Jean-Christian Petitfils http://orig09.deviantart.net/6e9a/f/2016/228/3/2/hgrh_by_redpassion-dae4ftr.jpg — Preceding unsigned comment added by Clarice ( talk • contribs) 20:07, 17 August 2016 (UTC)
There is a move discussion in progress on Talk:Louis XIV of France which affects this page. Please participate on that page and not in this talk page section. Thank you. — RMCD bot 21:30, 21 June 2020 (UTC)
The page for LOUIS XVIII is protected and therefore can not be edited. This page alleges that Louis XVIII, did not live his wife. The sources it quotes are highly debated as Louis XVIII HIMSELF wrote in his own words (after she died), that he lived her very much. You can see an image of the letters he wrote to his friend the Duke D’Avray (who was on his deathbed when they were sent) on the wiki page for Marie-Josephine Louise de Savoy Comtesse de Provence (under the section death). If you want to protect the Louis XVIII page, at least put the image in the text. The letters are in the public domain and both the English Translations and their French originals are on google for free. Here’s a link to the wiki page with image of letters in English (look for it in section titled death). https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Marie_Joséphine_of_Savoy EvaJehanne ( talk) 17:28, 2 July 2020 (UTC)
![]() | This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
Archive 1 |
Nonsense : Louis XVIII wasn't precedeed by Louis XVII (which has never beeing king) but by Napoleon I. -- Arno Lagrange 14:02, 4 Feb 2004 (UTC)
More Nonsense: "It was to be the only fully regular transfer of power in France from one head of state to another of the entire 19th century." The fact that a president (or a king) resigns or dies in office (as was repeatedly the case during the Third Republic) does not make the succession irregular.
Wikipedia:Be bold and remove non-sense on sight. Tazmaniacs 01:26, 3 August 2006 (UTC)
Louis XVII was the King of France untill he sadly died. He was the only surviving son of Louis XVI making him first in line for the throne. His rule may not have been honored or respected by most of France, but it was still there. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 64.223.123.85 ( talk) 04:29, 1 March 2007 (UTC).
At the moment there is not one citation or reference in the article, which is extraordinary. This needs to be addressed as a matter of priority. -- ♦IanMacM♦ (talk to me) 19:11, 12 April 2008 (UTC)
Louis XVI reigned from 1774 until he was executed in 1793. The Directory rules France from 1795-1799. In 1799 Napoleon seizes power in coup d'état. Napoleon is crowned emperor in 1804. in 1814 Napoleon abdicates and is exiled to Elba. Louis XVII believed to have died in prison in 1795. 71.31.215.131 ( talk) 23:49, 12 January 2009 (UTC) [1]
Are we going to have a rerun of the article on Marie Antoinette based on only one source, that of Antonia Fraser's book? In which case, would not it be better to contact Mme Fraser & ask her to write the article? Frania W. ( talk) 03:41, 2 June 2009 (UTC)
Fraser is the best source I have for Louis XVIII's life before the revolution, Frania. Ergo, Fraser won't be used as a source after section "The Outbreak of the French Revolution".( Jack1755 ( talk) 12:29, 3 June 2009 (UTC))
Hey, everyone, I have almost finished the article's renovation. I have removed the "under constuction" template, because I won't be in the country for a few weeks, and therefore I won't be able to edit. I shall reinstate the banner upon my return. Have a great day ! ( Jack1755 ( talk) 02:08, 5 June 2009 (UTC))
I have cleaned up the formatting of this article:
Regards, Ground Zero | t 03:43, 5 June 2009 (UTC)
Should anyone want to request GA category for this article, as was done for the article on Charles X, please have the courtesy to give other readers & contributors the opportunity to discuss such request on this talk page. As the article stands, it needs a major overhaul, both in its written form & content: too much trivia, many inaccuracies & some vocabulary more of tabloid level, than that of an encyclopedia. Frania W. ( talk) 21:06, 20 June 2009 (UTC)
Could someone help me with the notes? I can't get them to display properly, Regards, -- Jack1755 ( talk) 16:02, 7 July 2009 (UTC)
Hey everyone, I have fixed the confusing areas of the article, and clarified names, and therefore I removed the *confusing* tag. I added a British English tag to the talk page, as the artice as it is now is written entirely in this dialect. If you have any questions, leave me a message on my talk page. Regards -- Jack1755 ( talk) 14:21, 8 July 2009 (UTC)
I am moving the relevant bits of a discussion from my talk page.
I removed from the article a reference about Louis being restored to "his rightful place on the throne of France" because I believe it to be non-neutral.
The original statement read:
I propose that it should read:
Jack1755 has restored the phrase, arguing that:
My response:
Jack1755:
My response:
Comments form other interested editors are particularly welcome to resolve this debate. Thanks. Ground Zero | t 02:06, 10 July 2009 (UTC)
PS. Are you saying that the Charter of 1814 was illegal ??
-- Jack1755 ( talk) 02:14, 10 July 2009 (UTC)
My comment left on Ground Zero talk page a few minutes ago:
***Louis XVIII was restored to his rightful place on the throne of France in 1814...*** I had read the above sentence & had thought of removing *his rightful place* but left it after reflection. The epoch of the French Revolution thru the First Empire of Napoléon was viewed from a different angle depending if you were of the Bourbon family or a revolutionary. Maybe that Napoléon viewed the monarchy to be an abomination, but I can assure you that the royalists viewed the Revolution to be an abomination and, in their heart & mind, never accepted the legality of the Republic, the Consulate or the Empire. In other words, for Louis XVIII, his brother & their faithful, the period 1789-1814 was a period they wished out of existence. The Revolution had not killed the love many had toward their king & many acclaimed the Restoration. Personally, I think this sentiment should not be ignored and, in order for the reader to understand that these 25 years were not glorified by all French people and, in particular, by the brother of Louis XVI, could not the sentence read:
***Louis XVIII was restored to what he felt was his rightful place on the throne of France in 1814...***
Cordialement, Frania W. ( talk) 02:28, 10 July 2009 (UTC)
Jack, the burden of proof for keeping the statement in lies with you: can you provide evidence that republicans and Bonapartists accepted the Louis's rightful place was on the throne? If you cannot support that statement with reliable sources, then it does not belong in the article.
The problem with the statement is that it is general. It does not indicate that the throne was Louis's rightful place "in the view of the Charter of 1814". It suggests that even now people would all agree that Louis should have been on the throne.
Frania's amendment would be acceptable to me because it moves the statement from a general one to one that includes appropriate context. It could even go further to say:
Regards, Ground Zero | t 02:36, 10 July 2009 (UTC)
Jack and Laur... Okay, MUCH better. I tried to tweak the lead a bit: you write the monarchy was abolished, and that Louis succeeded his nephew...etc. That leaves a lot of questions, so I tried to tweak a bit. See what you think. Still some issues I would have if I were reviewing for GA. First, focus: while you are much more focused on Louis Stanislas than before, and place him in better context than before, there is still a lot of digression, generally, into the French Revolution. This whole discussion needs to be focused on LS and the Revolution, or LS, his brother and the revolution. It needs to be relentlessly focused on this; there are other articles that deal with the revolution, and you don't need to do that. Second, you spend a lot of time talking about Tsar Paul, the Neopolitan court, going to England. What does LS's obsession with the grants he could get from other kings, the palaces he lived in, his marrying his son to his niece, etc., say about him? What do the biographers say these preoccupations meant? Perhaps, 1) he was preoccupied with his status as a Prince? 2) He was incredibly expensive as a young man, and his brother had paid off his debts; does it look like he overcame that hedonistic trait? If he was taking snuff from the breasts of a woman in 1818 (or whenever), I doubt it. 3) jealous/envious of the conditions others received, comparing them to his own? His brother had a grant from the English king, but he only had his niece and his son? Can these various "stories" be used not as one damn thing after another, but rather to illuminate this man's character? What do these stories tell us about LS? Third, you still have a lot of chop in here: short paragraphs (one to two short sentences), sometimes unrelated to one another, especially in the last half. The first half is much better. You're getting there. It's a 1-2 month wait on GA, so you'd have time to address some of these (although the waiting is shorter in biography). All in all, MUCH better. I can see that the two of you have done a lot of work on this. Auntieruth55 ( talk) 19:45, 21 October 2009 (UTC)
Jack & All, We should know who said what, as some authors have a tendency to exaggerate or use what Wikipedia calls "peacock" words. Until really proven that the poor Maréchal was "sliced into pieces", another word should be chosen, and definitely with source. I do not have time right now to look up something sent to me, but I have under my eyes Évelyne Lever Louis XVIII (Fayard, 1988) page 416:
Le 2 août, le maréchal Brune, qui se rendait à Paris, traversa la capitale du Comtat, en pleine terreur malgré l'arrivée du préfet du roi. Désigné à la vindicte publique comme le meurtrier de la princesse de Lamballe (ce qui était complètement faux), le maréchal fut sauvagement assassiné dans l'hôtel où il avait été contraint de se réfugier. On voulut maquiller le crime en suicide...
On page 417, Évelyne Lever goes on relating how Mme Brune brought the case of her husband's assassination in front of a tribunal because she wanted her husband's assassins to be found & punished. She even sent a requête to Louis XVIII on 29 March 1819. Mme Brune's efforts helped her discover the names of the men who had killed her husband:
Elle put enfin désigner nommément ceux qui avaient tué son époux. Quelques jours plus tôt, le ministre de la Justice, M. de Serre, avait reconnu à la tribune de la Chambre des députés, que tous les meurtres commis en 1815 étaient restés impunis. Évoquant la conjuration de certains hommes convaincus d'assassinat devant la cour de Riom, le garde des Sceaux s'écria: "Il a été impossible d'obtenir la déposition d'un seul témoin contre eux. Ces témoins, la terreur les avait glacés." L'enquête montra que les autorités avaient fait preuve d'un très grand laxisme à l'égard des coupables. De tous les coupables. Le 26 juillet 1820, la chambre des mises en accusation de la cour de Nîmes reconnut que le maréchal Brune avait bien été assassiné, ses voitures pillées, ses effets volés et que ses assassins étaient Farges et Roquefort. Le premier était mort. Le second resta introuvable.
There are other texts relating that his body was thrown into the Rhône, some going as far as saying that his body was left out to rot then thrown into the Rhône.
Until we find out exactly how he was killed, I do not think that words like "sliced" or even "mutilated" should be used. In the meantime, why not adopt Évelyne Lever's version: "le maréchal fut sauvagement assassiné dans l'hôtel..."? savagely assassinated covers quite a range of atrocities, which should suffice.
Cordialement, Frania W. ( talk) 17:33, 23 October 2009 (UTC)
Adding two links sent to me RE the assassination of Maréchal Brune in Avignon: [1], [2]
Frania W. ( talk) 18:13, 23 October 2009 (UTC)
All Bourbon kings of France since Henri IV are Roi de France et de Navarre. See photograph of inscription on Louis XVIII's tomb at Saint-Denis basilica on Wikimedia: http://74.125.93.132/search?q=cache:DEO29UqFqhkJ:commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Tombe_louis_XVIII_roi_de_france_saint-denis.JPG+tombe+de+louis+XVIII&cd=3&hl=en&ct=clnk&gl=us&client=firefox-a Frania W. ( talk) 14:42, 12 December 2009 (UTC)
All English monarchs since Edward III were King of England and France (and Ireland). See the inscription on Elizabeth I's tomb at Westminster Abbey. Nevertheless, I'm sure you'll agree that we shouldn't add the title "Queen of France" to her article's infobox and succession box. I am not saying that of Navarre should be removed. I'm just saying that there is no point in keeping it, for the Kingdom of Navarre ceased to exist in the 17th century and Navarre actually had no kings since then. I could be wrong about the title, though; was the state ruled by Louis XVIII called Kingdom of France and Navarre? If not, there is nothing wrong with removing of Navarre, but I won't argue against keeping it. Perhaps we could make it look like King of France and of Navarre ? That would give a clue that of Navarre is no more than a title and that the person was not head of state of the Kingdom of Navarre. Surtsicna ( talk) 18:38, 18 December 2009 (UTC)
Please continue the discussion here. There is no doubt that their title was King of France and of Navarre. It is not clear what you mean by everyday use. Referring to successors of Louis XIII of France simply as King of France or the French king has always been more common (thus everyday use) than referring to them as King of France and of Navarre. Of course treaties called him King of France and of Navarre; that is not disputed. The same source you cited says that these are the titles that belong to the Crown; those titles were last used by Alphonse XIII. Of course monarchs used their full titles in treaties and official documents. Just take a look at the text of the Peace of Westphalia; Duke of Burgundy, Brabant, Styria, Carinthia, Carniola, Marquiss of Moravia, Duke of Luxemburgh, the Higher and Lower Silesia, of Wirtemburg and Teck, Prince of Suabia, Count of Hapsburg, Tirol, Kyburg and Goritia, Marquiss of the Sacred Roman Empire, Lord of Burgovia, of the Higher and Lower Lusace, of the Marquisate of Slavonia, of Port Naon and Salines is just a half of titles used to describe the Holy Roman Emperor. Do I need to prove that the Swedish monarchs were referred to as King of Sweden, the Goths and the Wends in treaties, coins, etc? Do I need to prove the same for other monarchs? I hope you understand that I am not disputing the fact that they used the title of King of France and of Navarre. However, if other European monarchs have their titles shortened in the infobox and succession box, I can't see why the French monarchs should be an exception. Surtsicna ( talk) 19:05, 19 December 2009 (UTC)
If one can prove that Louis XVIII was the head of state of Navarre, the dispute will be solved (dixit Surtsicna). Is this one of Wikipedia "rules & regulations", which would contradict its own rules on original research, or is this one of Surtsicna's personal demands? What more is necessary to prove that the kings of France from Henri IV on were "rois de France et de Navarre" than the simple fact that it was their title - a dual title inscribed on their tombs at Saint-Denis?
Surtsicna, in order to rewrite the History of France to your liking, are you going to demand that the arms of the kings of France be amputated of that of Navarre?
http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Armoiries_France_et_Navarre.png
By the way, I love your I said won't argue against keeping of Navarre..., which you rushed to follow with this: I'll start a discussion here
Finally, I presume this text (written in English with all French names kept in French) has no value in your eyes, but I'll throw it into the discussion anyway:
Frania W. ( talk) 14:14, 20 December 2009 (UTC)
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:England_Arms_1340.svg
The Kingdom of Navarre became a part of the Kingdom of France in 1620. IMHO, Louis XIII of France's infobox, should be the last to have ..of Navarre in it. GoodDay ( talk) 20:00, 20 December 2009 (UTC)
PS: Why is this discussion taking place at this talkpage? it covers more then Louis XVIII. GoodDay ( talk) 20:50, 20 December 2009 (UTC)
Note: The discussion is also taking place here where one user disagreed (?) and three users agreed with me. I have already informed you that the I'll start a discussion there. That's where the discussion should be led. Surtsicna ( talk) 23:07, 20 December 2009 (UTC)
Why is the picture accompanying this article labelled as Louis XVII in one place and Louis XVIII in another? 98.93.141.211 ( talk) 02:32, 20 November 2011 (UTC)lhm
I removed the youth portrait which was set as one of the count the Provence by Maurice Quentin de La Tour. But it isn't and rather a painting of the future Louis XVI. as a child. https://www.kunst-fuer-alle.de/english/fine-art/artist/image/maurice-quentin-de-la-tour/17118/1/114992/louis-xvi,-king-o-france---la-tour--1765/index.htm See also my example from my French biography:: http://orig08.deviantart.net/7b96/f/2016/228/5/6/13989440_10153907207558403_1599895194_n_by_redpassion-dae4fm9.jpg Louis XVI. by Jean-Christian Petitfils http://orig09.deviantart.net/6e9a/f/2016/228/3/2/hgrh_by_redpassion-dae4ftr.jpg — Preceding unsigned comment added by Clarice ( talk • contribs) 20:07, 17 August 2016 (UTC)
There is a move discussion in progress on Talk:Louis XIV of France which affects this page. Please participate on that page and not in this talk page section. Thank you. — RMCD bot 21:30, 21 June 2020 (UTC)
The page for LOUIS XVIII is protected and therefore can not be edited. This page alleges that Louis XVIII, did not live his wife. The sources it quotes are highly debated as Louis XVIII HIMSELF wrote in his own words (after she died), that he lived her very much. You can see an image of the letters he wrote to his friend the Duke D’Avray (who was on his deathbed when they were sent) on the wiki page for Marie-Josephine Louise de Savoy Comtesse de Provence (under the section death). If you want to protect the Louis XVIII page, at least put the image in the text. The letters are in the public domain and both the English Translations and their French originals are on google for free. Here’s a link to the wiki page with image of letters in English (look for it in section titled death). https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Marie_Joséphine_of_Savoy EvaJehanne ( talk) 17:28, 2 July 2020 (UTC)