Talk:Louis XVI of France
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
 |
This article is a current candidate for the Article Creation and Improvement Drive. Please see the project page to find this article's entry to support or comment on the nomination. |
 |
To-do list for Louis XVI of France: | edit · history · watch · refresh | ||
|---|---|---|---|---|
|
||||
 |
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Biography. For more information, visit the project page. | ||
| B | This article has been rated as B-Class on the Project's quality scale. [FAQ] (If you rated the article, please give a short summary at comments to explain the ratings and/or to identify the strengths and weaknesses.) |
||
 |
This article is supported by the Royalty and nobility work group. | ||
Contents |
[edit] Typo?
Minor correction? He enjoyed working on locks and hunting with his grandfather King Louis XV, should read 'his Grandfather King Louis XIV?
````
- No. His father was Louis-Ferdinand, Dauphin of France, the son and heir of Louis XV. Louis XV was in turn the great-grandson of Louis XIV, being the son of Louis, Duke of Burgundy, and grandson of Louis, Grand Dauphin. Louis XIV was born in 1638 and died in 1715, Louis XVI was born in the 1750s - it'd be very surprising if they ever met at all! :-) Michaelsanders 00:11, 25 February 2007 (UTC)
[edit] Proof
Does anyone have any proof that Louis had to be guilotined twice, because it doesnt have a link, and isn't a hard fact. Ian42 17:59, 26 November 2006 (UTC)
[edit] POV?
This line: Louis himself at this time was very unpopular because of his indecisiveness and conservatism which lead to the social, political, and economic reforms of the Revolution.
That line is actually a matter of opinion, some condsier Louis to be nothing more then a victim of the circumstance. I found this article very biased.
An event mentioned in this article is a May 10 selected anniversary (may be in HTML comment)
I am uncertain what the following sentence is trying to convey:
On June 21, 1791, Louis attempted to flee secretly from Paris to the regions with his family in the hope of forcing a moderate swing in the revolution than was deemed possible in radical Paris but flaws in the escape plan caused sufficient delays to enable them to be recognised and captured at Varennes.
Is the following better?
On June 21, 1791, Louis attempted to flee secretly from Paris to the regions with his family, in the hope of forcing a more moderate swing in the revolution than was deemed possible in radical Paris, but flaws in the escape plan caused sufficient delays to enable them to be recognised and captured at Varennes. --Cfailde 10:23, 2004 Aug 9 (UTC)
I added a link to the Brunswick Manifesto. How could we explain the fall of Louis XVI without it? David.Monniaux 20:16, 21 Aug 2004 (UTC)
[edit] What an absurd line...
"Today, historians and Frenchmen in general have a more nuanced view of Louis XVI, who is seen as an honest man with good intentions but who was probably unfit for the Herculean task of reforming the monarchy, and who was used as a scapegoat by the Revolutionaries."
Reforming the monarchy? The feudal order is dead, and no matter how hard you try to ressurect it's corpse, it's still not coming back to life. The French revolution marks the end of the aristocracy and the rise of the bourgeoisie: one of the greatest landmarks in human history. It's not some trifling adventure that a group of revolutionaries decided to cook up for the hell of it, at the expense of an "honest and well-meaning" king.
The Bourgeoisie, the class you belong to, has degenerated to the point where it is totally oblivious and apathetic to its revolutionary triumphs!
But of course, you're thoroughly incapable of seeing any of this objectively, caught up in your misty-eyed adoration of a feudal despot. How telling that you identify with a reactionary and decrepit order at the expense of the progressive; you're in the same position now.
Simgeo: Idiot! I'm left wing in politics, but the fool who wrote the critique above is biased, bigoted and demonstrates everything that puts me off ever aligning myself to a formally socialist party. How can you attack the writer for 'misty eyed adoration of a feudal despot' and then talk without bias of 'the Bourgeoisie...has degenerated to the point where it is totally oblivious'. Bias neither left nor right has no part to play in serious historical discussion. The key to this discipline is absolute objectivity. Therefore though my politics may swing more towards those of Danton, Robespierre and Desmoulins, I wouldn't savage articles on Louis XVI, Necker and Mirabeau just to suit my personal views. Grow up or find another subject.
- Thank you for your suggestion! When you feel an article needs improvement, please feel free to make whatever changes you feel are needed. Wikipedia is a wiki, so anyone can edit almost any article by simply following the Edit this page link at the top. You don't even need to log in! (Although there are some reasons why you might like to…) The Wikipedia community encourages you to be bold. Don't worry too much about making honest mistakes—they're likely to be found and corrected quickly. If you're not sure how editing works, check out how to edit a page, or use the sandbox to try out your editing skills. New contributors are always welcome. 68.39.174.238 15:49, 8 January 2006 (UTC)
anon: Speaking of absurd lines... "They were not able to have children for several years due to the fact that Louis XVI was not circumsized and[...]" implies circumsision is related to fertility. seriously.
Actually, I read up on it and there is a condition where the foreskin is unretractable. It talks about it right here: http://www.bmj.com/cgi/content/full/312/7026/299 Also, the rumor that he had a penis that was too large does not seem to hold as much ground on other places I read. If you look at the link I sent there is a part where they reference Louis as being afflicted by the disorder.
Speaker I thought the reason they couldn't have children was because Louis had a rather large penis and Marie had a rather narrow vagina. It was on some pbs documentary about Marie Antoinette.
[edit] Pre-revolution history
What happened to this man before 1789? At the very least, what were his politics like before the revolution. i feel like this desperately needs to be added. Donbas 18:02, 24 February 2006 (UTC)
- The article in general could use some serious augmentation. john k 18:58, 24 February 2006 (UTC)
Travac 08:00, 31 May 2006 (UTC)perhaps on these pages a few quotes from various historians about these important historical figures may help the public discern an opinion?
Daniel Chiswick 06:00, 12 December 2006. I just finished writing a small article about his early life, I hope it is helpful. I used Antonia Fraser's biography on Marie Antoinette and Vincent Cronin's dual biography about Louis XVI and Marie Antoinette as reference.
[edit] Expansion?
I'm honestly surprised by how short this article is, especially in comparison to Marie Antoinette. I know absolutely nothing of the subject so I can't say for sure if it should be expanded, but its length seems lacking. Should it be expanded? -RaCha'ar 23:49, 23 August 2006 (UTC)
[edit] Austrian hate and Fear??
Before readin this article, I had never heard that Louis XVI was taught to hate and fear Austria. Can someone maybe cite this reference? Coffeegirlyme 01:10, 9 February 2007 (UTC)
- It seems unlikely. From the time Louis was two, onwards, Austria and France were allies. john k 07:20, 8 February 2007 (UTC)
- Yes that is what I believed also. I don't want to change it though however without having proof.Coffeegirlyme 01:10, 9 February 2007 (UTC)
-
- No need for us to have proof to remove something. There's a positive obligation to provide sources for something that people think is dubious. john k 05:33, 9 February 2007 (UTC)
- Although, the circumstantial claim that his aunts were anti-Austrian makes me hesitate to remove it as well. I would like a source, though. john k 05:34, 9 February 2007 (UTC)
Agreed Coffeegirlyme 06:56, 14 February 2007 (UTC)
[edit] Photo Layout
The photo layout of this article is really marring its readability. The two large photos at the top distorts the column layout even on large monitors.Symphony Girl 15:41, 16 February 2007 (UTC)
It only does that to the first few lines. The picture of the young and beautiful Marie Antoinette in her coronation robes looks very good under the picture of the young Louis XVI in his coronation robes. User:Daniel_Chiswick
I disagree with the inclusion of Marie Antoinette's picture so prominently displayed with that of Louis XVI. She has her own entry. This article should not over-emphasize Marie Antoinette with such a prominent picture. The smaller picture of the queen with her children is a more appropriate way to show her as a royal wife and mother. I fear that the queen's almost cult-like popularity with certain romanticists degrades any useful summary of the politically independent role of Louis XVI in French history. BoBo 01:14, 18 February 2007 (UTC)
Marie Antoinette was the most important person in his life and I do not see why she should not be shown in a picture of her in her cornation robes underneath a picture of her husband in his coronation robes. It does not take up too much room and deserves to be there more than the picture of his mother. User:Daniel_Chiswick 18 Feruary 2007.
Daniel, this is not a matter of aesthetics. If you look carefully, you will see that none of the other Bourbon kings of France have such prominent pictures of their wives displayed with theirs. I am not saying that Marie Antoinette wasn't an important part of Louis' emotional and domestic life, but an over-emphasis on her is to fall into the same trap that many during the French Revolution did. Too much time was spent on her behavior, and not on the behavior of her husband. We should not let the "pretty" image of Marie Antoinette cloud an analysis of her husband, the actual ruler of France. BoBo 00:04, 19 February 2007 (UTC)
