This article is rated C-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
According to this blog, in 1664, the queen gave birth to a black girl that was said to die some days later. There is the hypothesis that this girl did not actually die, but became Louise Marie Therese, the black nun of Moret. She would have been a bastard of the queen and her black slave Nabo, who died (how?) while the queen was pregnant. The blog post gives no references, but quotes Voltaire's Century of Louis XIV and Anne-Marie-Louise de Orléans, Grande Mademoiselle. Do you know something about this? -- Error 22:53, 3 October 2007 (UTC)
The above comments could be true !! after reading it, i put in black nun of moret and there was some infomation saying she was born in 1664 like you said and that she died in 1732. also i saw found that she was exiled, treated with care and attention at her convent, her father went away somewhere and after her birth was sent to the convent of Moret where she did die. read the info following sites
on most sides, people said that Marie Therese was very boring; maybe she wasnt lol
86.164.90.95 (
talk)
10:08, 11 June 2008 (UTC)
That is just a myth created by court gossip, Marie Therese was extremely pious and devoted to her husband. These rumors were spread by those who were not either not alive at the time, such as Voltaire, or by people who had conspired against the crown, such as the Grande Mademoiselle. If one wanted a truly reliable source I would suggest Elizabeth Charlotte of the Palatinate, wife of Louis XIV's brother Philippe I, Duke of Orléans. As sister-in-law of King and a member of the immediate royal family, Elizabeth usually had access to far more information regarding members of the royal family and royal births. In her memoirs she sheds some light on the myth of the 'Black nun of Moret'
"It is totally false that the Queen was delivered of a black child. The late Monsieur (Philippe), who was present, said that the young Princess was ugly, but not black. The people cannot be persuaded that the child is not still alive, and say that it is in a convent at Moret, near Fontainebleau. It is, however, quite certain that the ugly child is dead; for all the court saw it die."
The Queen gave birth in public, witnessed by the entire court, and the death of the child was also witnessed by the entire court. It is said that the child had dark skin caused by Cyanosis, which courtiers ignorant of the medical field and who were prone gossip could have mistakenly believed was black skin. Andrew0921 ( talk) 02:30, 4 November 2010 (UTC)
I would also like to mention that the Grande Mademoiselle was NOT present at the birth, she was told about it afterward by Philippe I, Duke of Orléans. In her memoirs she states that...
"Monsieur (Philippe) told me of the trouble they had all been in during the illness of the Queen: of the crowd there was when the sacrament was administered; how Monsieur l'Abbe de Gordes, her first almoner, had nearly fainted away from affliction, whereat Monsieur le Prince and the rest had laughed, which vexed her Majesty extremely; that the infant very much resembled a little dwarf that Monsieur de Beaufort had brought with him from some foreign country, and that there was no chance of the child's living, although they had not stated this to the Queen."
In the memoirs of Philippe's wife, as stated earlier, she makes the point that Philippe clarified that the baby was ugly but not black. During the 17th century (and possibly even today) the average person had no idea what Cyanosis was, and when the Queen gave birth to a small baby with dark skin they rudely and ignorantly likened it to her black dwarf.
There are several other stories such as these, like the ridiculous theory by Louis-Pierre Anquetil (Who also was not alive at the time) that it was the legitimate child of Louis XIV and Marie-Therese, but that frequent and incautious admission of a black dwarf to her presence during her pregnancy, had affected the colour of the child; and that the birth being deemed monstrous, was thus secluded form the knowledge of the public. That is a ridiculous theory, as it is physically impossible for a child to come out black from staring at a black person. All of these stories, myths, and rumors should be taken with a grain of salt as they are not backed by science or reliable sources. Andrew0921 ( talk) 04:18, 4 November 2010 (UTC)
This article needs primary sources. The use of biographies of Louis XIV provides some information on Marie-Thérèse, but only as his consort. Several monographs (Jean-Paul Bled; Joëlle Chevé) on Marie-Thérèse have been published in the past few years. These books provide a more germane discussion of Marie-Thérèse. -- E. Lighthart ( talk) 14:12, 8 August 2008 (UTC)
Most of these quotations are attributed to Marie-Thérèse. There are no primary sources to verify the claim as quotations. What source material that has been indicated is vague: i.e. Louis refers to whom and what is the source.
Additionally, this is an article about Marie-Thérèse d'Autriche not an article about Marie-Antoinette. The discussion about the alleged statement "Let them eat cake" is superfluous as it demonstrates no plausible nor justified relation to Marie-Thérèse. -- E. Lighthart ( talk) 14:16, 8 August 2008 (UTC)
I moved the whole paragraph over to Let them eat cake, continue discussion over there. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 217.10.60.85 ( talk) 08:56, 2 October 2009 (UTC)
When a user changes the title of article and the other user disagrees, status quo should be respected and the article should revert to the old title until a consensus is reached. Edit war is not allowed. Surtsicna ( talk) 19:21, 4 November 2008 (UTC)
While there are Queens of France on wikipedia with their names anglicanized, there are those who have their actual name. Why can't this queen retain her name in French? She was born María Teresa. When she became Queen of France she became Marie-Thérèse. She is who she is, that hasn't changed. That's who she was and what people called her. That's how she is refered to in many history books, like Love and Louis XIV by Antonia Fraser. Sorry for being anoying before, I'm new at this stuff.
Fine, but then should she be mentioned as Marie-Thérèse, María Teresa, or Maria Theresa throughout the article?
Okay, you win. The second one sounds good.
No I agree with your plan, I promise.
Surtsicna, Brian & others: In the Google search, the numbers are not the number of authors, but the number of times books are listed, with the same book listed several times. In the instance of *626*, Google is not listing 626 authors; ex:
This being said... There seems to be an ongoing argument over the title of the article & I'd like to give my two cents worth, as a previous queen of France was in the same situation:
The title of her article in English Wikipedia is:
Now let's look at her niece, Maria Theresa of Spain, also
There thus appears to be TWO problems
Since the first name is followed by *of*, Maria Theresa does not bother me, as Maria can be used in English. However, to remain logical with instance of Anne of Austria, I opt for of Austria. Following the same logic, I would say that the title of the article on Marie Antoinette should be Marie Antoinette of Austria.
Cordialement, Frania W. ( talk) 18:10, 30 July 2009 (UTC)
I (regretfully) must disagree with Surtscina saying this article titled "Maria Theresa of Austria" would be very inconvenient because there are many other Archduchesses named Maria Theresa, the reason of my disagreement being that when you compare the other Maria Theresa of Austria, who are ALL related, not having her named as the others gives the impression to those who check the list without much knowledge of history that she does not belong to the Austrian Habsburg branch. If you notice, the other Maria Theresa are differentiated by their B&D dates, so she could be Maria Theresa of Austria (1638-1683).
À plus tard, après un esspresso! Frania W. ( talk) 20:14, 30 July 2009 (UTC)
Surtscina, I think we can argue back & forth, each one of us bringing a new counter-proposal to be counter-proposed! I also would like to take into consideration what Brian wrote, which, in my opinion, is very logical.
As for ***... would give the impression to those who check the list without much knowledge of history that she was not daughter of a king of Spain,...?*** How about Anne of Austria, (baptised Infanta Ana María Maurícia de España), who became queen of France when she married Louis XIII? Where in the title of her article does it give a hint that she was daughter of a king of Spain? And her first name has been gallicised to Anne, which happens to be the same in English.
Is *kahve* coffee in... Bosnian? Cordialement, Frania W. ( talk) 21:28, 30 July 2009 (UTC)
Is Encyclopædia Britannica credible? FW
"Marie-Thérèse Of Austria." Encyclopædia Britannica. 2009.
Frania W. ( talk) 22:57, 30 July 2009 (UTC)
First, I apologise for my possibly confusing suggestion--"Marie-Thérèse Of Austria". As all reasonable individuals may guess, I really meant "Marie-Thérèse of Austria". Now that's done with, let's move on to more important points.
I shall now try to explain "Mary Theresa". Surtsicna argued the following: this is English wikipedia; thus a "more English" name, instead of a "less English" one, should be used; therefore "Maria Theresa" should be preferred to "Marie-Thérèse" because the former is "more English" than the latter. The logical conclusion of this argument (i.e., that a "more English" name should be preferred to a "less English" one) is that the "most English" name should be preferred to all others. Thus, the argument results in what is arguably the "most English", but also quite absurd, version--"Mary Theresa". Therefore, this means that the argument (that the degree of "Englishness" should decide an article's name) loses its value.
Admittedly, Surtsicna has changed tack throughout this discussion, a fact which renders my point not completely pertinent now. However, it is directed to what he impliedly argued in his first post's second point. I hope my explanation may turn our attention from preserving the "Englishness" of English wikipedia to other more important issues.
Next, Google is notoriously unreliable, and any "research" or "proof" based on Google remains, to me, somewhat dubious. Moreover, the "proof" here is merely a number on the top of a screen--greatly unconvincing! Additionally, Frania observed that Google lists the same book multiple times. Neither 626 nor 30 times are definitive then. Without a thorough examination of scholarly terminology, which would be very inconvenient, the "most commonly used English version of the name" remains relatively obscure. Thus, it would be best to avoid arguments claiming to forward the "most commonly used English version of the name".
Furthermore, in Surtsicna's link, some sites referred not to Louis XIV's queen, but Louis XV's daughter-in-law, the Dauphine. While she was similarly born in Spain and married to French royalty, the Dauphine was not of the House of Austria, but of France (or Bourbon) in Spain. Anne of Austria remains the closest analogy for Marie-Thérèse of Austria.
Lastly, given the obscurity of common usage and the correct degree of "Englishness", arguments citing these serve little purpose. Rather, let's look at "Anne of Austria". I think that version is uncontroversially gallicised and "of Austria". It stands to reason then, that to solve the controversy surrounding a similar queen, we should follow the example of the uncontroversial, i.e., name her "Marie-Thérèse of Austria". This would be logical.
Nonetheless, as an olive branch, I am prepared to offer as a compromise Frania's suggestion: "Maria Theresa of Austria (1638-1683)". Brian junhui sim ( talk) 09:07, 1 August 2009 (UTC)
Surtsicna clearly fails to understand my "Mary Theresa" argument. While evidently quite disconcerting (because I tried to simplify it as much as possible), admittedly the point is now moot because, as noted earlier, I am prepared to accept "Maria Theresa".
Next, as Frania and I have observed, the 626 figure on the Google booksearch list is not definitive because the same books are repeatedly listed and even then, not all books refer to the woman presently under discussion. If evidence is essential, then Frania's and my suggestion, "Maria Theresa of Austria", garners 6 290 mentions. Obviously, one might object that 6 290 includes many individuals of that name. But then so too does "Maria Theresa of Spain".
The point is, Surtsicna cited a source, but seemingly has not investigated it thoroughly to show exactly how many individual books and writers have used the name he suggests. Accordingly, a mere Google booksearch is not "proof" enough. The fact that wikipedians "commonly use" Google "to determine the most commonly used English version of (a) name", without further investigation, is of no matter. A community, say a prison community, may solve its problems most commonly by murder, but murder is not thereby made acceptable. Therefore, to speak of "the most commonly used English version of (a) name" and merely cite a number (without further investigation) from a source, which lists everything without discernment, is ridiculous.
Therefore, Surtsicna's argument lacks merit, even if he is oblivious to it. Frania has proposed a compromise, and a just one if I may add. It seeks regularity and consistency because the "most common English version" has currently failed us. I wholly agree with her. But as Frania has also pointed out, we have reached an impasse. After all, what can mere men do in the face of such intransigent obstinacy and irrational stubbornness! And so without choice, I must accept and await other readers to break the impasse.
Addressing the issue of incorrect capitalisation, I think my intentions were clear to any reasonable person. People make genuine mistakes. Sometimes these concern punctuation, sometimes, grammar, sometimes, spelling. It is necessary to be generous about some of these errors for a better, more conducive environment. Harping on other's genuine mistakes after receiving an apology is quite petty. If, for instance, I behaved like Surtsicna, I would be completely stumped by his repeated mistakes such as "arguement" or "adress". What ever could this mean! What ever could Surtsicna mean! Overlooking or perhaps pointing out certain errors in passing is certainly better than buzzing around them like mosquitoes. Brian junhui sim ( talk) 02:27, 3 August 2009 (UTC)
I really don't understand why Surtsicna is still so stubborn. Giving a number and providing a link to a Google searchlist is not proof. Nor is making random assertions. I do not ask for much, only for a bibliography of sorts, with verifiable details like author, publisher and date, which use the version of the name he suggests--"Maria Theresa of Spain". If he can provide overwhelming evidence in this form, then I am happy to oblige and accept that name.
What is greatly frustrating is that he does not. He merely cites a number found on a website which almost always churns out links (and repeats these links if I may add) without any discrimination. If he had then practised some discernment and noted the exact number and publication details of those which refer to this woman, rather than only citing the number of random links, I would eagerly accept. But he has not. Nonetheless, I continue to hope he will.
My argument simply is this. If he will not or cannot provide us with further detail, then his claim that "Maria Theresa of Spain" is the most commonly used English version is dubious. Given this doubt, we should resort to other means, hence, my proposed compromise--"Maria Theresa of Austria (1638-1683)", which Frania had earlier suggested. It maintained the consistency with the other Spanish-born Habsburg French queen. Surtsicna has rejected our offer of compromise most obstinately.
Lastly, the reasonable neutral observer will note that I promptly apologised for my genuine mistake (regarding Britannica's "Marie-Thérèse Of Austria") after Surtsicna repeatedly highlighted it. To lighten the mood, I also said jokingly, and with not a little fun irony, that all reasonable individuals might guess my true intentions. Surtsicna promptly pounced on it again and ripped open old wounds. As most will agree, to have someone harp on one's own errors after having made an apology for it is highly annoying. So if I lashed out unreasonably, then I regret it. Having said that, I nevertheless do not think it appropriate to insult and accuse in the manner to which I have been subjected.
P.s. Surtsicna, I don't understand your gripe about my name. If you intended it as a retort to "What ever could Surtsicna mean?" (which really meant "what ever could he (Surtsicna) mean?"; see how it follows "what ever could this mean?"), then you either do not quite understand the importance of context in English or are not particularly pleasant. To insult another's name is not very polite. Brian junhui sim ( talk) 01:53, 4 August 2009 (UTC)
I agree. This argument does us no good. However, just for the record, I only seek an interpretation of your figures. A list of books, writers, publishers and dates would be more helpful than a mere number with an assertion. That is all I seek. After all, the former gives credence to an argument, the latter bewilders.
As for the rest, I honestly have no idea how our mutual "attacks" arose. If I had meant to insult your name, I would have written "what ever could 'Surtsicna' mean?", not "what ever could Surtsicna mean?". The former refers to your name in particular, while the latter merely refers to you. But as this is hardly the place for such a discussion, and as I'd like to bury any hatchet between us, I ask you to look to your talkpage so that we may amicably settle our personal disagreements. Brian junhui sim ( talk) 15:32, 4 August 2009 (UTC)
Surtsicna, I'm glad everything's cleared up now. It's really a relief! In retrospect, I'm quite amused as to how the discussion got so heated, especially when it was a discussion over the naming of a relatively unknown queen (at least when compared with others).
But coming back to "business", I persist with my, or more rightly Frania's, suggestion of "Maria Theresa of Austria (1638-1683)" (no typos I hope!). I don't suppose you might have changed your mind? Haha... Brian junhui sim ( talk) 15:14, 5 August 2009 (UTC)
- There thus appears to be TWO problems
- the choice of a first name in title
- the choice between of Spain and of Austria
I am having a problem following Dany's argumentation or the direction he wants to take this discussion. Whether "de Austria", "d'Autriche" or "von Österreich" is a surname or not was not part of the original discussion & I cannot see why it should be introduced now.
- There thus appears to be TWO problems
- the choice of a first name in title
- the choice between of Spain and of Austria
As we could not agree at the time, I suggested that we leave the title alone until someone else enter the discussion.
Here are the choices:
Dany, what do you mean here: "...the Austrian Habsburg dynasty (which was not called Habsburg at the time, by the way)." ? What were they called "at the time" and "what time" are you talking about?
Regards, Frania W. ( talk) 01:49, 3 November 2009 (UTC)
Dany,
Finally, from the tone you are using in hardly 24 hours that this new discussion has begun after you picked it up yesterday, it is becoming clear to me that you are trying to antagonise me by pointing out to other discussions in which we disagreed. I sincerely hope this is not or was not your purpose, and that I simply misread / mis-heard the tone of your words. This type of behaviour leads to a real waste of time. When on Wikipedia, I like to accomplish something useful, for instance, fixing a real problem attached to this article since someone added material copied from a book (see Copyright violation below). This needs time & concentration to accomplish without losing good material that may have been added since plagiarism occurred. So this is adieu on this one.
Before ending this conversation with you, I would like to say that when addressing a contributor with whom you do not agree, it is uncalled for to write: then I'm sorry but you have problems. Whatever the problems you are implying, when contributors have disagreements, the "problems" are shared.
Frania W. ( talk) 19:11, 3 November 2009 (UTC)
Just because they are referred to as de France in the books you quoted? If you want to show a real proof that de France was their surname, prove it by showing a statement in an academic publication which clearly states that de France was their surname.
I believe Frania will be delighted to read that, one year later, I have slightly changed my views regarding the titles (though I still insist on referring to sources first and then to our opinions). This is what I have to say about the choices:
IP 69.251.180.224 has left a comment & flagged Death section for possible copyright violation. Indeed! The whole section is verbatim Antonia Fraser - what else could it be since she is the only source (see Marie Antoinette article for similar over use of a single author) The copyrighted text can be found in Fraser's Love and Louis XIV pp.196-197. Frania W. ( talk) 13:30, 6 August 2009 (UTC)
Further copyright violation by same user was done earlier on same date in Court life section, taken from Fraser's book Love and Louis XIV chapter Peace and the Infanta (pp. 40-60) & chapter Our Court's laughing face (pp. 61-81).
Frania W. ( talk) 14:28, 6 August 2009 (UTC)
I see that another problem has cropped up in this article! I have not read Antonia Fraser's books on Maria Theresa, and so cannot confirm assertions regarding copyright violation.
However, what I will say is that the problem is hardly too big to handle.
To clarify matters, I'd like to ask how the copyright has allegedly been violated. If by wholesale quoting, then adding quotation marks or paraphrasing the relevant sections should suffice. If the violation is only insofar as using her opinion, then that is hardly a violation in my opinion. Nonetheless, footnotes must still be used, whatever the case, to acknowledge provenance. Whatever the case too, I see no need to remove whole sections of the article. It isn't theft to use Fraser's work. She published, if I am not wrong, as non-fiction.
I suggest that the offending section simply be rewritten with footnotes acknowledging provenance. I don't mind trying my hand at the task, but a tonne of work has just landed most conveniently on my shoulders. And so, if I do take some time to finish it, I ask for your indulgence. After all, as some may notice, I took days, even weeks, to rewrite the "Louis XIV" article.
Frania, if your suggestion only entails removing the offending section first to avoid a lawsuit and then doing what I have suggest above in the background, then I am all for it. Brian junhui sim ( talk) 15:22, 10 August 2009 (UTC)
Frania,
I agree with you. However, while the section definitely requires rewriting, I hope you do not intend to permanently remove information which could still be saved. Nonetheless, I will bow to your discretion as it seems that, accompanied with Fraser's own books, you seem better placed to right this wrong. Brian junhui sim ( talk) 01:04, 12 August 2009 (UTC)
[...] 4th paragraph:
[...] 2nd & 3rd paragraphs:
[...]
To the best of my knowledge, this is the extent of the plagiarism of Fraser's book done on 3/4 November 2008. Although Death section has been cleaned by contributor Kansas Bear ( talk), there are still traces of Fraser's writing. Frania W. ( talk) 07:04, 7 November 2009 (UTC)
References
Contesting edits done by 74.166.2.185, which are obvious plagiarism & copyright violation of Antonia Fraser's Love and Louis XIV, pp. 54 thru 60:
I have reverted twice lines added by IP 74.166.2.185 who, in turn, reverted me twice.
IP 74.166.2.185 does not seem to understand that "rewording" a sentence by changing a couple of words still falls under "plagiarism", as stated in Plagiarism: 'Plagiarism, as defined in the 1995 Random House Compact Unabridged Dictionary, is the "use or close imitation of the language and thoughts of another author and the representation of them as one's own original work."
I also left a note on IP 74.166.2.185s talk page.
-- Frania W. ( talk) 19:05, 26 March 2010 (UTC)
When something is reworded, it is not considered plagiarism. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Dal89 ( talk • contribs) 02:00, 29 March 2010 (UTC)
Was she know more as Maria Theresa of Spain or Maria Theresa of Austria? Please give reliable sources instead of stating Austria was her highest title.-- Queen Elizabeth II's Little Spy ( talk) 18:12, 25 November 2010 (UTC)
It'd be nice to see what reliable sources in English use. I'd note that other wikis aren't reliable sources. For example, I've been to Versailles and various other places in France with pictures of Marie Antoinette. The captions in such museums always refer to her as "Marie Antoinette de Lorraine." The fr article is at "Marie Antoinette d'Autriche," for reasons that are completely unclear to me. Other wikipedia articles are not reliable guides to usage. john k ( talk) 22:23, 3 December 2010 (UTC)
I do not see it mentioned here, but some historians believe that the queen may have been somewhat "developmentally delayed" (though not to the degree that her half-brother Charles II was). There are anecdotes about her giving childlike responses to serious questions (of which the "qu'ils mangent de la brioche" is only the most famous). Do we want to mention that, or is it considered mere speculation? 12.239.145.114 ( talk) 01:49, 21 June 2012 (UTC)
like a majority of other wikis she actually has of Austria in her page name & it baffles me as to why this page is wrongly called of spain. yes she was born in spain was a daughter of a king of spain BUT WAS A HABSBURG so the article should be moved asap to Maria Theresa of AUSTRIA, Queen of France or Marie Thérèse Queen of France this just seems logical to me she was in the exact same situation as her aunt cum mother in law Anne of Austria. so is contradictory confusing and just a tad stupid?! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 89.243.39.243 ( talk) 22:54, 17 July 2013 (UTC)
Very sparse sources—in particular, the 'Queenship' section has a single cite, more should be easily available for the Queen of the Sun King and grandmother of his successor. — Neonorange ( talk) 14:06, 21 December 2016 (UTC)
This article is rated C-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
According to this blog, in 1664, the queen gave birth to a black girl that was said to die some days later. There is the hypothesis that this girl did not actually die, but became Louise Marie Therese, the black nun of Moret. She would have been a bastard of the queen and her black slave Nabo, who died (how?) while the queen was pregnant. The blog post gives no references, but quotes Voltaire's Century of Louis XIV and Anne-Marie-Louise de Orléans, Grande Mademoiselle. Do you know something about this? -- Error 22:53, 3 October 2007 (UTC)
The above comments could be true !! after reading it, i put in black nun of moret and there was some infomation saying she was born in 1664 like you said and that she died in 1732. also i saw found that she was exiled, treated with care and attention at her convent, her father went away somewhere and after her birth was sent to the convent of Moret where she did die. read the info following sites
on most sides, people said that Marie Therese was very boring; maybe she wasnt lol
86.164.90.95 (
talk)
10:08, 11 June 2008 (UTC)
That is just a myth created by court gossip, Marie Therese was extremely pious and devoted to her husband. These rumors were spread by those who were not either not alive at the time, such as Voltaire, or by people who had conspired against the crown, such as the Grande Mademoiselle. If one wanted a truly reliable source I would suggest Elizabeth Charlotte of the Palatinate, wife of Louis XIV's brother Philippe I, Duke of Orléans. As sister-in-law of King and a member of the immediate royal family, Elizabeth usually had access to far more information regarding members of the royal family and royal births. In her memoirs she sheds some light on the myth of the 'Black nun of Moret'
"It is totally false that the Queen was delivered of a black child. The late Monsieur (Philippe), who was present, said that the young Princess was ugly, but not black. The people cannot be persuaded that the child is not still alive, and say that it is in a convent at Moret, near Fontainebleau. It is, however, quite certain that the ugly child is dead; for all the court saw it die."
The Queen gave birth in public, witnessed by the entire court, and the death of the child was also witnessed by the entire court. It is said that the child had dark skin caused by Cyanosis, which courtiers ignorant of the medical field and who were prone gossip could have mistakenly believed was black skin. Andrew0921 ( talk) 02:30, 4 November 2010 (UTC)
I would also like to mention that the Grande Mademoiselle was NOT present at the birth, she was told about it afterward by Philippe I, Duke of Orléans. In her memoirs she states that...
"Monsieur (Philippe) told me of the trouble they had all been in during the illness of the Queen: of the crowd there was when the sacrament was administered; how Monsieur l'Abbe de Gordes, her first almoner, had nearly fainted away from affliction, whereat Monsieur le Prince and the rest had laughed, which vexed her Majesty extremely; that the infant very much resembled a little dwarf that Monsieur de Beaufort had brought with him from some foreign country, and that there was no chance of the child's living, although they had not stated this to the Queen."
In the memoirs of Philippe's wife, as stated earlier, she makes the point that Philippe clarified that the baby was ugly but not black. During the 17th century (and possibly even today) the average person had no idea what Cyanosis was, and when the Queen gave birth to a small baby with dark skin they rudely and ignorantly likened it to her black dwarf.
There are several other stories such as these, like the ridiculous theory by Louis-Pierre Anquetil (Who also was not alive at the time) that it was the legitimate child of Louis XIV and Marie-Therese, but that frequent and incautious admission of a black dwarf to her presence during her pregnancy, had affected the colour of the child; and that the birth being deemed monstrous, was thus secluded form the knowledge of the public. That is a ridiculous theory, as it is physically impossible for a child to come out black from staring at a black person. All of these stories, myths, and rumors should be taken with a grain of salt as they are not backed by science or reliable sources. Andrew0921 ( talk) 04:18, 4 November 2010 (UTC)
This article needs primary sources. The use of biographies of Louis XIV provides some information on Marie-Thérèse, but only as his consort. Several monographs (Jean-Paul Bled; Joëlle Chevé) on Marie-Thérèse have been published in the past few years. These books provide a more germane discussion of Marie-Thérèse. -- E. Lighthart ( talk) 14:12, 8 August 2008 (UTC)
Most of these quotations are attributed to Marie-Thérèse. There are no primary sources to verify the claim as quotations. What source material that has been indicated is vague: i.e. Louis refers to whom and what is the source.
Additionally, this is an article about Marie-Thérèse d'Autriche not an article about Marie-Antoinette. The discussion about the alleged statement "Let them eat cake" is superfluous as it demonstrates no plausible nor justified relation to Marie-Thérèse. -- E. Lighthart ( talk) 14:16, 8 August 2008 (UTC)
I moved the whole paragraph over to Let them eat cake, continue discussion over there. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 217.10.60.85 ( talk) 08:56, 2 October 2009 (UTC)
When a user changes the title of article and the other user disagrees, status quo should be respected and the article should revert to the old title until a consensus is reached. Edit war is not allowed. Surtsicna ( talk) 19:21, 4 November 2008 (UTC)
While there are Queens of France on wikipedia with their names anglicanized, there are those who have their actual name. Why can't this queen retain her name in French? She was born María Teresa. When she became Queen of France she became Marie-Thérèse. She is who she is, that hasn't changed. That's who she was and what people called her. That's how she is refered to in many history books, like Love and Louis XIV by Antonia Fraser. Sorry for being anoying before, I'm new at this stuff.
Fine, but then should she be mentioned as Marie-Thérèse, María Teresa, or Maria Theresa throughout the article?
Okay, you win. The second one sounds good.
No I agree with your plan, I promise.
Surtsicna, Brian & others: In the Google search, the numbers are not the number of authors, but the number of times books are listed, with the same book listed several times. In the instance of *626*, Google is not listing 626 authors; ex:
This being said... There seems to be an ongoing argument over the title of the article & I'd like to give my two cents worth, as a previous queen of France was in the same situation:
The title of her article in English Wikipedia is:
Now let's look at her niece, Maria Theresa of Spain, also
There thus appears to be TWO problems
Since the first name is followed by *of*, Maria Theresa does not bother me, as Maria can be used in English. However, to remain logical with instance of Anne of Austria, I opt for of Austria. Following the same logic, I would say that the title of the article on Marie Antoinette should be Marie Antoinette of Austria.
Cordialement, Frania W. ( talk) 18:10, 30 July 2009 (UTC)
I (regretfully) must disagree with Surtscina saying this article titled "Maria Theresa of Austria" would be very inconvenient because there are many other Archduchesses named Maria Theresa, the reason of my disagreement being that when you compare the other Maria Theresa of Austria, who are ALL related, not having her named as the others gives the impression to those who check the list without much knowledge of history that she does not belong to the Austrian Habsburg branch. If you notice, the other Maria Theresa are differentiated by their B&D dates, so she could be Maria Theresa of Austria (1638-1683).
À plus tard, après un esspresso! Frania W. ( talk) 20:14, 30 July 2009 (UTC)
Surtscina, I think we can argue back & forth, each one of us bringing a new counter-proposal to be counter-proposed! I also would like to take into consideration what Brian wrote, which, in my opinion, is very logical.
As for ***... would give the impression to those who check the list without much knowledge of history that she was not daughter of a king of Spain,...?*** How about Anne of Austria, (baptised Infanta Ana María Maurícia de España), who became queen of France when she married Louis XIII? Where in the title of her article does it give a hint that she was daughter of a king of Spain? And her first name has been gallicised to Anne, which happens to be the same in English.
Is *kahve* coffee in... Bosnian? Cordialement, Frania W. ( talk) 21:28, 30 July 2009 (UTC)
Is Encyclopædia Britannica credible? FW
"Marie-Thérèse Of Austria." Encyclopædia Britannica. 2009.
Frania W. ( talk) 22:57, 30 July 2009 (UTC)
First, I apologise for my possibly confusing suggestion--"Marie-Thérèse Of Austria". As all reasonable individuals may guess, I really meant "Marie-Thérèse of Austria". Now that's done with, let's move on to more important points.
I shall now try to explain "Mary Theresa". Surtsicna argued the following: this is English wikipedia; thus a "more English" name, instead of a "less English" one, should be used; therefore "Maria Theresa" should be preferred to "Marie-Thérèse" because the former is "more English" than the latter. The logical conclusion of this argument (i.e., that a "more English" name should be preferred to a "less English" one) is that the "most English" name should be preferred to all others. Thus, the argument results in what is arguably the "most English", but also quite absurd, version--"Mary Theresa". Therefore, this means that the argument (that the degree of "Englishness" should decide an article's name) loses its value.
Admittedly, Surtsicna has changed tack throughout this discussion, a fact which renders my point not completely pertinent now. However, it is directed to what he impliedly argued in his first post's second point. I hope my explanation may turn our attention from preserving the "Englishness" of English wikipedia to other more important issues.
Next, Google is notoriously unreliable, and any "research" or "proof" based on Google remains, to me, somewhat dubious. Moreover, the "proof" here is merely a number on the top of a screen--greatly unconvincing! Additionally, Frania observed that Google lists the same book multiple times. Neither 626 nor 30 times are definitive then. Without a thorough examination of scholarly terminology, which would be very inconvenient, the "most commonly used English version of the name" remains relatively obscure. Thus, it would be best to avoid arguments claiming to forward the "most commonly used English version of the name".
Furthermore, in Surtsicna's link, some sites referred not to Louis XIV's queen, but Louis XV's daughter-in-law, the Dauphine. While she was similarly born in Spain and married to French royalty, the Dauphine was not of the House of Austria, but of France (or Bourbon) in Spain. Anne of Austria remains the closest analogy for Marie-Thérèse of Austria.
Lastly, given the obscurity of common usage and the correct degree of "Englishness", arguments citing these serve little purpose. Rather, let's look at "Anne of Austria". I think that version is uncontroversially gallicised and "of Austria". It stands to reason then, that to solve the controversy surrounding a similar queen, we should follow the example of the uncontroversial, i.e., name her "Marie-Thérèse of Austria". This would be logical.
Nonetheless, as an olive branch, I am prepared to offer as a compromise Frania's suggestion: "Maria Theresa of Austria (1638-1683)". Brian junhui sim ( talk) 09:07, 1 August 2009 (UTC)
Surtsicna clearly fails to understand my "Mary Theresa" argument. While evidently quite disconcerting (because I tried to simplify it as much as possible), admittedly the point is now moot because, as noted earlier, I am prepared to accept "Maria Theresa".
Next, as Frania and I have observed, the 626 figure on the Google booksearch list is not definitive because the same books are repeatedly listed and even then, not all books refer to the woman presently under discussion. If evidence is essential, then Frania's and my suggestion, "Maria Theresa of Austria", garners 6 290 mentions. Obviously, one might object that 6 290 includes many individuals of that name. But then so too does "Maria Theresa of Spain".
The point is, Surtsicna cited a source, but seemingly has not investigated it thoroughly to show exactly how many individual books and writers have used the name he suggests. Accordingly, a mere Google booksearch is not "proof" enough. The fact that wikipedians "commonly use" Google "to determine the most commonly used English version of (a) name", without further investigation, is of no matter. A community, say a prison community, may solve its problems most commonly by murder, but murder is not thereby made acceptable. Therefore, to speak of "the most commonly used English version of (a) name" and merely cite a number (without further investigation) from a source, which lists everything without discernment, is ridiculous.
Therefore, Surtsicna's argument lacks merit, even if he is oblivious to it. Frania has proposed a compromise, and a just one if I may add. It seeks regularity and consistency because the "most common English version" has currently failed us. I wholly agree with her. But as Frania has also pointed out, we have reached an impasse. After all, what can mere men do in the face of such intransigent obstinacy and irrational stubbornness! And so without choice, I must accept and await other readers to break the impasse.
Addressing the issue of incorrect capitalisation, I think my intentions were clear to any reasonable person. People make genuine mistakes. Sometimes these concern punctuation, sometimes, grammar, sometimes, spelling. It is necessary to be generous about some of these errors for a better, more conducive environment. Harping on other's genuine mistakes after receiving an apology is quite petty. If, for instance, I behaved like Surtsicna, I would be completely stumped by his repeated mistakes such as "arguement" or "adress". What ever could this mean! What ever could Surtsicna mean! Overlooking or perhaps pointing out certain errors in passing is certainly better than buzzing around them like mosquitoes. Brian junhui sim ( talk) 02:27, 3 August 2009 (UTC)
I really don't understand why Surtsicna is still so stubborn. Giving a number and providing a link to a Google searchlist is not proof. Nor is making random assertions. I do not ask for much, only for a bibliography of sorts, with verifiable details like author, publisher and date, which use the version of the name he suggests--"Maria Theresa of Spain". If he can provide overwhelming evidence in this form, then I am happy to oblige and accept that name.
What is greatly frustrating is that he does not. He merely cites a number found on a website which almost always churns out links (and repeats these links if I may add) without any discrimination. If he had then practised some discernment and noted the exact number and publication details of those which refer to this woman, rather than only citing the number of random links, I would eagerly accept. But he has not. Nonetheless, I continue to hope he will.
My argument simply is this. If he will not or cannot provide us with further detail, then his claim that "Maria Theresa of Spain" is the most commonly used English version is dubious. Given this doubt, we should resort to other means, hence, my proposed compromise--"Maria Theresa of Austria (1638-1683)", which Frania had earlier suggested. It maintained the consistency with the other Spanish-born Habsburg French queen. Surtsicna has rejected our offer of compromise most obstinately.
Lastly, the reasonable neutral observer will note that I promptly apologised for my genuine mistake (regarding Britannica's "Marie-Thérèse Of Austria") after Surtsicna repeatedly highlighted it. To lighten the mood, I also said jokingly, and with not a little fun irony, that all reasonable individuals might guess my true intentions. Surtsicna promptly pounced on it again and ripped open old wounds. As most will agree, to have someone harp on one's own errors after having made an apology for it is highly annoying. So if I lashed out unreasonably, then I regret it. Having said that, I nevertheless do not think it appropriate to insult and accuse in the manner to which I have been subjected.
P.s. Surtsicna, I don't understand your gripe about my name. If you intended it as a retort to "What ever could Surtsicna mean?" (which really meant "what ever could he (Surtsicna) mean?"; see how it follows "what ever could this mean?"), then you either do not quite understand the importance of context in English or are not particularly pleasant. To insult another's name is not very polite. Brian junhui sim ( talk) 01:53, 4 August 2009 (UTC)
I agree. This argument does us no good. However, just for the record, I only seek an interpretation of your figures. A list of books, writers, publishers and dates would be more helpful than a mere number with an assertion. That is all I seek. After all, the former gives credence to an argument, the latter bewilders.
As for the rest, I honestly have no idea how our mutual "attacks" arose. If I had meant to insult your name, I would have written "what ever could 'Surtsicna' mean?", not "what ever could Surtsicna mean?". The former refers to your name in particular, while the latter merely refers to you. But as this is hardly the place for such a discussion, and as I'd like to bury any hatchet between us, I ask you to look to your talkpage so that we may amicably settle our personal disagreements. Brian junhui sim ( talk) 15:32, 4 August 2009 (UTC)
Surtsicna, I'm glad everything's cleared up now. It's really a relief! In retrospect, I'm quite amused as to how the discussion got so heated, especially when it was a discussion over the naming of a relatively unknown queen (at least when compared with others).
But coming back to "business", I persist with my, or more rightly Frania's, suggestion of "Maria Theresa of Austria (1638-1683)" (no typos I hope!). I don't suppose you might have changed your mind? Haha... Brian junhui sim ( talk) 15:14, 5 August 2009 (UTC)
- There thus appears to be TWO problems
- the choice of a first name in title
- the choice between of Spain and of Austria
I am having a problem following Dany's argumentation or the direction he wants to take this discussion. Whether "de Austria", "d'Autriche" or "von Österreich" is a surname or not was not part of the original discussion & I cannot see why it should be introduced now.
- There thus appears to be TWO problems
- the choice of a first name in title
- the choice between of Spain and of Austria
As we could not agree at the time, I suggested that we leave the title alone until someone else enter the discussion.
Here are the choices:
Dany, what do you mean here: "...the Austrian Habsburg dynasty (which was not called Habsburg at the time, by the way)." ? What were they called "at the time" and "what time" are you talking about?
Regards, Frania W. ( talk) 01:49, 3 November 2009 (UTC)
Dany,
Finally, from the tone you are using in hardly 24 hours that this new discussion has begun after you picked it up yesterday, it is becoming clear to me that you are trying to antagonise me by pointing out to other discussions in which we disagreed. I sincerely hope this is not or was not your purpose, and that I simply misread / mis-heard the tone of your words. This type of behaviour leads to a real waste of time. When on Wikipedia, I like to accomplish something useful, for instance, fixing a real problem attached to this article since someone added material copied from a book (see Copyright violation below). This needs time & concentration to accomplish without losing good material that may have been added since plagiarism occurred. So this is adieu on this one.
Before ending this conversation with you, I would like to say that when addressing a contributor with whom you do not agree, it is uncalled for to write: then I'm sorry but you have problems. Whatever the problems you are implying, when contributors have disagreements, the "problems" are shared.
Frania W. ( talk) 19:11, 3 November 2009 (UTC)
Just because they are referred to as de France in the books you quoted? If you want to show a real proof that de France was their surname, prove it by showing a statement in an academic publication which clearly states that de France was their surname.
I believe Frania will be delighted to read that, one year later, I have slightly changed my views regarding the titles (though I still insist on referring to sources first and then to our opinions). This is what I have to say about the choices:
IP 69.251.180.224 has left a comment & flagged Death section for possible copyright violation. Indeed! The whole section is verbatim Antonia Fraser - what else could it be since she is the only source (see Marie Antoinette article for similar over use of a single author) The copyrighted text can be found in Fraser's Love and Louis XIV pp.196-197. Frania W. ( talk) 13:30, 6 August 2009 (UTC)
Further copyright violation by same user was done earlier on same date in Court life section, taken from Fraser's book Love and Louis XIV chapter Peace and the Infanta (pp. 40-60) & chapter Our Court's laughing face (pp. 61-81).
Frania W. ( talk) 14:28, 6 August 2009 (UTC)
I see that another problem has cropped up in this article! I have not read Antonia Fraser's books on Maria Theresa, and so cannot confirm assertions regarding copyright violation.
However, what I will say is that the problem is hardly too big to handle.
To clarify matters, I'd like to ask how the copyright has allegedly been violated. If by wholesale quoting, then adding quotation marks or paraphrasing the relevant sections should suffice. If the violation is only insofar as using her opinion, then that is hardly a violation in my opinion. Nonetheless, footnotes must still be used, whatever the case, to acknowledge provenance. Whatever the case too, I see no need to remove whole sections of the article. It isn't theft to use Fraser's work. She published, if I am not wrong, as non-fiction.
I suggest that the offending section simply be rewritten with footnotes acknowledging provenance. I don't mind trying my hand at the task, but a tonne of work has just landed most conveniently on my shoulders. And so, if I do take some time to finish it, I ask for your indulgence. After all, as some may notice, I took days, even weeks, to rewrite the "Louis XIV" article.
Frania, if your suggestion only entails removing the offending section first to avoid a lawsuit and then doing what I have suggest above in the background, then I am all for it. Brian junhui sim ( talk) 15:22, 10 August 2009 (UTC)
Frania,
I agree with you. However, while the section definitely requires rewriting, I hope you do not intend to permanently remove information which could still be saved. Nonetheless, I will bow to your discretion as it seems that, accompanied with Fraser's own books, you seem better placed to right this wrong. Brian junhui sim ( talk) 01:04, 12 August 2009 (UTC)
[...] 4th paragraph:
[...] 2nd & 3rd paragraphs:
[...]
To the best of my knowledge, this is the extent of the plagiarism of Fraser's book done on 3/4 November 2008. Although Death section has been cleaned by contributor Kansas Bear ( talk), there are still traces of Fraser's writing. Frania W. ( talk) 07:04, 7 November 2009 (UTC)
References
Contesting edits done by 74.166.2.185, which are obvious plagiarism & copyright violation of Antonia Fraser's Love and Louis XIV, pp. 54 thru 60:
I have reverted twice lines added by IP 74.166.2.185 who, in turn, reverted me twice.
IP 74.166.2.185 does not seem to understand that "rewording" a sentence by changing a couple of words still falls under "plagiarism", as stated in Plagiarism: 'Plagiarism, as defined in the 1995 Random House Compact Unabridged Dictionary, is the "use or close imitation of the language and thoughts of another author and the representation of them as one's own original work."
I also left a note on IP 74.166.2.185s talk page.
-- Frania W. ( talk) 19:05, 26 March 2010 (UTC)
When something is reworded, it is not considered plagiarism. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Dal89 ( talk • contribs) 02:00, 29 March 2010 (UTC)
Was she know more as Maria Theresa of Spain or Maria Theresa of Austria? Please give reliable sources instead of stating Austria was her highest title.-- Queen Elizabeth II's Little Spy ( talk) 18:12, 25 November 2010 (UTC)
It'd be nice to see what reliable sources in English use. I'd note that other wikis aren't reliable sources. For example, I've been to Versailles and various other places in France with pictures of Marie Antoinette. The captions in such museums always refer to her as "Marie Antoinette de Lorraine." The fr article is at "Marie Antoinette d'Autriche," for reasons that are completely unclear to me. Other wikipedia articles are not reliable guides to usage. john k ( talk) 22:23, 3 December 2010 (UTC)
I do not see it mentioned here, but some historians believe that the queen may have been somewhat "developmentally delayed" (though not to the degree that her half-brother Charles II was). There are anecdotes about her giving childlike responses to serious questions (of which the "qu'ils mangent de la brioche" is only the most famous). Do we want to mention that, or is it considered mere speculation? 12.239.145.114 ( talk) 01:49, 21 June 2012 (UTC)
like a majority of other wikis she actually has of Austria in her page name & it baffles me as to why this page is wrongly called of spain. yes she was born in spain was a daughter of a king of spain BUT WAS A HABSBURG so the article should be moved asap to Maria Theresa of AUSTRIA, Queen of France or Marie Thérèse Queen of France this just seems logical to me she was in the exact same situation as her aunt cum mother in law Anne of Austria. so is contradictory confusing and just a tad stupid?! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 89.243.39.243 ( talk) 22:54, 17 July 2013 (UTC)
Very sparse sources—in particular, the 'Queenship' section has a single cite, more should be easily available for the Queen of the Sun King and grandmother of his successor. — Neonorange ( talk) 14:06, 21 December 2016 (UTC)