Talk:Louis XV

old comments

Here we go again! JHK has decided for everyone else that written documentation from the courtiers of the King is not acceptable as historical fact.

Documents have to be read with an eye for who they were written for, and the prejudices of the authors. For example: were the courtiers expecting the king, or the royal family, to read what they wrote? If so, they're going to avoid unflattering remarks, true or not. A courtier who writes that today the queen was in bed with a fever is probably telling the truth as he knows it--but the queen might stayed in her apartments for some other reason, and not wanted to offend an important guest, so claimed a fever. In other words, this isn't medical evidence, though it is evidence that the queen wasn't holding audiences on the day in question.

Another important point is when the courtiers wrote these things: a diary or account-book kept at the time is much more likely to be accurate than a memoir written years later, because memory is a tricky thing. Vicki Rosenzweig

DW, if it is "fact" (and I gather that you're talking about the bits I[the fucker] cut), here's how to make it stick:

"According to x, who was one of y's courtiers, x was spoiled, inebriate,thick as two short planks...whatever."

Attribution in reporting is key here. So is a critical look at sources. Do we know if y was a favorite? Did y write years after falling into disfavor? Did z, the Lord Chamberlain, say it was a pack of lies or confirm it?

It doesn't really make sense to complain about unfair edits if you refuse to write in a manner that supports what you say. JHK

I have watched with interest and note that from looking at numerous Wiki articles, virtually none have references or identify sorces except for ones pasted from the 1911 encyclopedia. Suddenly, you are asking DW to do something new. Perhaps I'm mistaken and someone can direct me to articles by JHK that are referenced and attributed..... Elliot

articles by JHK don't make statements that are not NPOV, normally speaking. I've asked for attribution for articles that are written with an inappropriate amount of purple prose -- in some cases that contradicts what sounds correct. JHK

If it's of any value, I fully support JHK in her battle on these pages. -- Zoe

contradicts what sounds correct Since when is what souns to JHK the facts. Unfortunately on the Internet anyone can take the identity of someone else or create a phony biography. A quick response and the ability to cut and paste does not validate the imposition of someone's view. It seems many regulars on this site have been intimidated and are allowing this to continue. ...Elliot

You're not satisfied with driving JHK away, you still want to character assassinate her? Why don't you post YOUR credentials? -- Zoe

Contradiction

In the paragraph talking about the family tragedy it says that Louis XIV died a week later than his wife of smallpox, the same disease she had. Then in the first sentence in the next paragraph it says that he was dieing of gangrene. Which one is it? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.110.171.4 (talk) 03:25, 13 November 2007 (UTC)

Louis XV in popular culture

Perhaps some mention is warrented that he is a main character in the 2006 anime Le_Chevalier_D'Eon? MaKamitt 09:54, 21 January 2007 (UTC)

Would be better described as "portrayals" or something. "X in pop culture" is bile-inducing. Stevage 14:20, 21 January 2007 (UTC)

Okay, so no objections if I add in this under "Modern portrayals of Louis XV"? MaKamitt 23:13, 30 January 2007 (UTC)

Louis XV - Naval battle of Quiberon Bay (1759)

Did Louis XV have a naval minister at the time of this battle or alternatively what were the name(s) of the key admirals involved? Was there a minister/admiral with a name like Maximillion? If so to really push it what was his wife's first name?

The battle was apparently in the Bay of Biscay is there a port with a name like Amiens (I know that's inland at the site of the Somme battles of WW1)?

Please reply to alan.millett@bigpond.com originally Jan 2004, editted Feb 2004

---

A list of Louis XV's ministers would be more useful than hearing about Mme du Barry's career as a prostitute... Wetman 18:21, 23 Jan 2004 (UTC)

---

Why did someone change the picture? What was wrong with the old one? I happened to like the old one...

Making a decent article

This article is just a pile of gossip, cliché, and prejudice. It doesn't honor Wikipedia. I have started to turn it into a more decent article, writing an introduction, and first two chapters. Other chapters remain to be written and rubbish to be deleted. Hardouin 01:05, 16 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Hardouin, good edits! Huge improvement. You'll understand my few tweaks I think. Some minor reservations

1. "announces the bourgeois rulers of the romantic 19th century" This stretches the sense of bourgeois too far. Be more accurate: sentimental and informal?
2. I changed "Parliament of Paris" to "Parlement of Paris in the text.The similar etymology of these separate institutions is misleading. Making "speeches" is about all they have in common.
3. "from a royal family who had never interbred with the French royal family, and it was hoped that she would bring new blood into the French royal family." These are semi-modern theories about "interbreeding" that did not obtain. Your other remarks on suitability are more to the point.

The remaining old text at the tail end of the article isn't up to the standard set by your new edits. --Wetman 11:29, 5 Feb 2005 (UTC)

I agree about all the "few tweaks", except for those in the introduction. The king was very close to the queen for about 10 years, and did not have mistresses at the time, so things are a bit more complicated than saying that he liked intimacy away from the queen. In fact after about 10 years his love faded because of the unconditional love of the queen, and frequent pregnancies ending only in girls. I intend to talk about that in the rest of the article, when I have time to add more chapters. Number two, only the Pompadour had an influence on policy, the other mistresses did not have influence, so it is a bit exagerated to say that he was criticized because of the influence of the mistresses on the policy. Actually, the real criticism was more moralistic, it concentrated on the fact that the king had sex with so many women, and on the fact that they were not chosen in the aristocracy like in the days of old Louis XIV, but they often came from lower-classes.

To answer the questions above:

1- bourgeois... in France people commonly say that the king had a bourgeois lifestyle in private. When I talk about the Bourgeois rulers of the 19th century I am thinking about Louis-Philippe of France for instance, or the kings of Belgium. After all, when you visit Versailles, guides will tell you that if Louis XIV was famous for building the Hall of Mirror, Louis XV was famous for building the first water closets with flushing system and bathroom with running water...

3- about bringing fresh blood in the royal family... again, I have always heard that. Even back then I think people new that marrying cousins was not necesarily good. Think about the Habsburg and some of their disfigured members... Hardouin 10:43, 6 Feb 2005 (UTC)

The Habsburgs did not understand that this was due to interbreeding! I am so tired of modern people seeing history through modern glasses. Every sick or dead child was explained by sins. It was God's power and his will made people sick, well, poor, wealthy or dumb. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Montespan (talk • contribs) 12:23, 13 August 2010 (UTC)

Family Name of Louis XV

Is the family name of Louis XV caled Quinze Scope_Creep 21:27 20th September 2005 (GMT)

No. "Quinze" means "Fifteen" in French. john k 20:38, 20 September 2005 (UTC)

He was a Bourbon. As was Louis XIV and Louis XVI. Sonic Mew | talk to me 20:34, 12 October 2005 (UTC)

Marquise de Pompadour

I can't believe no one has changed the description of the Pompadour as "frigid". The term is extremely offensive and misogynist, to say the least.

Which word would you use instead? It's just a medical word really. Are we going to use "politically correct" expressions such as Female sexual arousal disorder or Inhibited sexual desire? That sounds a little bit long-winded to me... Hardouin 13:42, 18 June 2006 (UTC)

How is it misogynist? Yellowgirl44x44 (talk) 02:29, 8 April 2018 (UTC)

Not so much inaccurate as NPOV. Deb (talk) 07:37, 8 April 2018 (UTC)

Régence

I have tried to improve the style and content of the recent edits about the Régence. I have also deleted some lenghty passages that are not really relevant to Louis XV. These deleted paragraphs, on the other hand, could be added to the article about the Régence and to the article about Philippe II d'Orléans. Hardouin 01:06, 11 November 2005 (UTC)

few things

There is not scientific evidence / concensus that supports the idea that mental stress causes miscarriages. In any case it is impossible to prove that there were not other physical factors some 200+ years ago. That line should be changed / modified to read, "many believed that her miscarriage was related to hearing the news of what happened to her family"

The parts about Damiens are not very academic either. J.Collins and Dale Van Kley (French History Academics) both argue that Damiens attempted assination was related to Jasenist - Parlement refusal of sacraments, anit-clerical and growing public opinion situations. The 'speculations' on what may have motivated him in this article are a little far fetched and there is documentation from his trial found in Van Kley in which Damiens says he was motivated to force the king to act justly, expell the Jesuits and ensure that good Catholics (Jansenists) receive the sacraments.

I also found the term frigid unacademic, unecessary and without support. There were many pamphlets that implied she was the opposite of frigid but these are not reliable either. The term should just be removed because it is offensive and because it is inconsistent and not verifiable.

repeated stuff

i'm removing a few info at the conclusion section which is redeundant.

Pastel

Can someone who is far better at editing than me please restore the pastel picture of Louis XV that is in the pastel article

too long

There is too much information in this article that has nothing to do with the King himself.

Best Wikipedia article

I think this article deserves ten stars. This user has done a terrific job giving the details on this man's life. I got most of the info on him by reading this document! HERE ARE THE TEN STARS; **********

known as

What was Louis XV known as before the deaths of his father and brother? john k 00:49, 1 December 2006 (UTC)

Marble Court pic

I'd like to see a picture of the Marble Court of Trianon for the Damiens section.

I would also like to see the same pastel portrait that is in the Pastel article Cloud Stryfe 21:34, 14 February 2007 (UTC)

Deluge vs. flood

There has been a dispute about the appropriate English translation of the French phrase "Après moi, le déluge". Michaelsanders contends that "Flood is the conventional English translation of that phrase (more intelligible)". Here are the statistics from Google:

• 11,500 "after me the deluge"
• 6 "after me comes the deluge"
• 3,000 "after me the flood"
• 640 "after me comes the flood"

And here are the statistics from Google Books:

• 615 "after me the deluge"
• 4 "after me comes the deluge"
• 58 "after me the flood"
• 3 "after me comes the flood"

Based on Google and Google Books, it would seem that deluge is far more frequently used. Noel S McFerran 22:29, 10 April 2007 (UTC)

April 11 Edits

I have made some edits, mainly stylistic, to try to polish up the tone of the article. I hope they have improved it.

My substantive edits were primarily to change the emphasis of the discussion of Louis' 1744 illness. Based on the sources I've seen, it appears that the refusing of absolution was done in order to get the King to renounce his mistress. The publication of his renunciation seems to have been done without his consent.

I think some work is still needed on the article. For example, the source I read (Julian Swann's chapter "Politics: Louis XV" in William Doyle, ed., Old Regime France 1648-1788, Oxford Univ. Press, 2001), indicates that the financial reforms of the 1740's were opposed principally by the clergy, and that the opposition wasn't irresistible -- i.e., Louis unnecessarily caved. It also indicated that the Parlement's remonstrances came genuinely in response to the persecution of Jansenists not as a pretext for opposition directed at the financial reforms.

Another concern is that the article virtually ends in 1757. More is needed on the last 17 years of Louis' reign.

Aldrichio 23:12, 11 April 2007 (UTC)

Bias

The article is full of heavily biased unsourced statements in the spirit of revisionism:

While historians have traditionally treated Louis XV harshly, more recent research has suggested that he was in fact very intelligent and dedicated to the task of ruling the largest kingdom of Europe.

Yet at the time the French public, influenced as it was by a violent campaign of libels against the king and the Marquise de Pompadour starting in the mid-1740s, could only see royal incompetence and spending sprees.

Although history has painted him as a weak, vacillating, and indecisive ruler who preferred pleasure over government, Louis XV did make some important reforms during his reign.

If these statements accurately reflect the modern scholarly consensus (which needs to be proved), they should be spun off into a separate section which will list the conflicting views of different historians on Louis's activities. The prospective section should be well referenced. Otherwise I urge the casual statements to be removed. --Ghirla^-трёп- 15:23, 21 July 2007 (UTC)

Wholeheartedly agree with the above. There is nothing in this article that makes me think Louis XV was anything but incompetent, given that most of the beneficial effects from his reign come from Cardinal Fleury and his amazing reliance on him, rather than from the king himself. When left to his own devices he was nothing greater than decidedly mediocre. The article consistently highlights the main problem, his lack of a strong will. The offhand comments thrown in give the entire article a contradictory tone that is rather confusing. On one hand, all the things about Louis XV that made him nothing more than average are plain for all to see in this article and would be if not for the aforementioned comments. 204.95.62.232 18:34, 12 September 2007 (UTC)

My understanding is that general consensus is that Louis XV was naturally intelligent and might have made a good ruler, but that his character was ruined by his upbringing, leaving him an incompetent and ultimately disastrous ruler. So, anyway, there was no problem with his natural talents. The problem was that he had no particular patience for the task of government. The general agreement, I think, is that he was certainly a lot smarter than his grandson. Anyway, I agree this stuff should be referenced and incorporated into the text in a smooth manner. john k (talk) 07:47, 16 December 2007 (UTC)

In agreement with both of you. Louis XV was better suited to be a constitional monarch. GoodDay (talk) 18:20, 16 December 2007 (UTC)

I am also annoyed at the bias present in this article. This is not the place for opinions or discussions of how "intelligent" or "indecisive" Louis XIV was. Whether the opinions are accurate or not is irrelevant, they shouldn't be there.129.67.63.251 (talk) 22:09, 24 July 2008 (UTC)

Continued agreement and addition of original research tag

I do not know much about French history, but it certain appears that someone has a particular perspective that they wanted to share. It may not be wrong, but it should certainly be cited and possibly--as the above writer stated--spun off into a separate section. I read this article for information, but I felt I could not trust the content. I also felt confused, like the writer above. G

Given what seems like original research (or the absence of citations if it is not original research), the tag is justified. I would be happy to change this myself, but my lack of knowledge on the subject makes me hesitant to do so. I hope others will be able to make this better. Kearnsdm (talk) 00:14, 16 December 2007 (UTC)

Personally I don't see what's contradicting in the statements quoted above. Louis XV was for a very long time portrayed in a very bad light especially by French historians (he was, after all, the last great king before the French Revolution, so it is only natural that French people in the aftermath of the Revolution would depict him in a bad light), but modern historians have a much more nuanced view today. I'll try to find references when I have time to add to these statements (I think Encyclopaedia Universallis in particular can serve as a reference for this). Someone above also said that Louis XV was incompetent and that anything good that happened during his reign was due to Cardinal Fleury. But let's remember that the first ministry of Fleury accounts for only a small part of the reign of Louis XV. If Louis XV was a incompetent and mediocre as some of you say, and given that most of the reign was spent without Fleury, then surely the country should have crumbled and disintegrated. And yet none of this happened.

Let's remember that during the long reign of Louis XV France was never invaded (that can't be said of Prussia, Austria, or even England considering the 1745 invasion of the young Stuart pretender). France was the most prosperous European country along with England. In fact the country was much more prosperous than under Louis XIV. There were no huge famines contrary to the reign of Louis XIV, the country was professionally administered by intendants chosen and controlled by Louis XV. French trade increased greatly (one can think of Bordeaux, Nantes). French cities were modernized and embellished by the intendants (the Quais of Bordeaux, the public lighting and street naming in Paris, and so forth). In fact historians often compare the 18th century to a Golden Age for France. The French population increased from a low of 19 million at the end of the reign of Louis XIV which had been catastrophic in human terms, to an all time high of 26 million at the end of the reign of Louis XV (the first European country ever to cross the 25 million threshold). All of these achievements are not really what would be expected from a "mediocre" and "incompetent" king. Of course if by incompetent you mean that Louis XV failed to invade England, did not crush the English colonists in North America, did not overcome Germany and set the border of France on the Rhine, then yes I guess Louis XV was incompetent.

Anyway, probably the achievements of the reign such as those I've just mentioned should be added to the article so the readers can better understand the reassessment of modern historians. I'll try to do that as soom as I have time (unless someone else want to have a try). Godefroy (talk) 22:34, 3 January 2008 (UTC)

This is an extremely poorly referenced article. Just one example of the decidedly un-encyclopedic content of this article is the psychoanalysis attributing Louis' loss of his mother at an early age as driving him to find comfort in the arms of women. It is incredible that someone would put this purely opinionated drivel into this article. Even if some reputable source analyzed the king in this manner, it needs to be presented as an opinion and not as fact (as it is now). —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.2.113.20 (talk) 11:48, 25 September 2008 (UTC)

Confusing and incorrectly worded

I noticed many sentences in this article that are worded in a way that provides incorrect information. One example:

"Louis XV was born in the Palace of Versailles on 15 February 1710, during the reign of his great-grandfather Louis XIV, to the third surviving son of Louis, duc de Bourgogne and his wife, Marie-Adélaïde of Savoy."

This sentence implies that Louis XV was the grandson of Louis, duc de Bourgogne and Marie-Adelaide, when he was actually their son. Tad Lincoln (talk) 21:30, 28 December 2008 (UTC)

==The Gaucher son of a member of Anjou.== I was told that my family history included a woman of the family Anjou who feel in love with a commener. Also my family was descended from Louis XV. Afterwards she gave birth and the son was soon called Gaucher because he wrote with his left hand. I am trying to reserch more into this family history of mine and would love some help, please and thank you. 208.92.136.109 (talk) 01:18, 3 April 2010 (UTC)

As I was told, this is not a genealogy site. If you were a descendant of Louis XV there would be documentation but I'm guessing you are using ancestry.com -- which usually has no sources and just goes by hearsay. I'm guessing you just took someone else's tree for the truth? It would seem by my research that most illegitimate children were recorded and seem to carry a title or became clergy members dying with no issue. This is not the place to ask for help on family history. Thank you. -- Lady Meg (talk) 23:43, 25 December 2010 (UTC)

What's with the enfant picture?

It seems the picture of Louis XV as a child is wrong. It seems the picture of a girl. Am I mistaking something? Who did this picture, and when? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.208.177.12 (talk) 13:02, 22 October 2010 (UTC)

No mistake: it was customary for young boys of the aristocracy to be dressed like little girls until they were handed over to the men for their education at the age of seven.

--Frania W. (talk) 01:21, 26 December 2010 (UTC)

Illegitimate issue

The section describing Louis XV's illegitimate children is a bit confusing and perhaps a bad translation. It might need to be clarified. --BRCScriptor (talk) 09:08, 11 June 2012 (UTC)

NPOV dispute

This article violates Neutral Point of View throughout. For example, the first section has claims of "debauchery," "ill-advised financial policies," the portrayal of Louis XV as "one of the most unpopular kings of France" who "damaged the power of France," and "weakened the treasury," and so on. These are all pejoratives which have no place here. Blaming Louis XV for the French Revolution, which occurred fifteen years after his death, is laughable - yet it is placed up front. The article repeatedly talks about his mistresses, which may be true and should be mentioned, but not over and over with detailed listing of his alleged illegitimate children, without citation. The section of "Image and public opinion" is filled with insults: Louis was "unequal to the high expectations of his subjects," the people "withdrew their respect," and "reviled the sycophant king" and "celebrated his demise." He may have been, as the article claims, a "notorious womanizer," but the phrase itself should be excluded based on Wikipedia's own policy. Olivier Bernier's book, Louis the Beloved points out that much of what we know of Louis XV is based on non-existent letters and dubious memoirs published decades later, to discredit the monarchy after the Revolution. This article seems to swallow any claim and declare it fact. In previous entries of this talk section, others have cited this repeated bias, yet it remains. Will someone at Wikipedia kindly enforce the rules? Most of this article is crap.Princetoniac (talk) 19:39, 14 August 2012 (UTC)

the text is a summary of section 8 which is fully sourced to multiple scholarly studies. Princetoniac seems to take issue with the scholarly literature. Need more cites? see T. C. W. Blanning, 'Louis XV and the decline of the French monarchy', History Review, 22 (1995) which shows how central venality was in pre-revolutionary France, or Blanning's The Culture of Power and the Power of Culture: Old Regime Europe 1660-1789 (2003) . Jones is one of many scholars to say "The military disasters of the Seven Years War led to acute state financial crisis" (History Today Nov2011). All the historians emphasize the importance of the mistresses. As the king was dying the archbishop made a public confession & apology for the kings notorious sexual misconduct. [see Merrick, in European History Quarterly April 2008]. On the king's very wide unpopularity see "Pure politics in absolute space" by Dale Van Kley, Journal of Modern History (Dec 1997). His political failures are explained in Julian Swann, "Parliaments and political crisis in France under Louis XV" Historical Journal (Dec 1994). All the main studies show the fiscal collapse caused by his wars. Rjensen (talk) 21:23, 14 August 2012 (UTC)

I agree with Rjensen. For the lead section, which I partially wrote, see this source [1]. You will see that Wikipedia gives a quite accurate description of Louis XV's reign. DITWIN GRIM (talk) 09:47, 15 August 2012 (UTC)

I do not "take issue with the scholarly literature," as Rjensen claims. I take issue with the article's bias, as others have done (above) for the last 7 years. The article seems to be written with an agenda, to taint the reader's opinion before any facts are given. For example, the third paragraph of section one is a quote from a website which itself has no sources. It is all opinion. The first citation from Colin Jones is a bibliography of other sources, but no claims in the Wikipedia article can be found there. If the editors want to use Colin Jones' book, they have to cite page numbers which back up the statements, which they do not do. Rjensen says the text is a summary of section 8, so the opinions should be in that section, not at the beginning of the article. These opinions - by Wikipedia's own policy - should be marked as opinions of a particular author. Furthermore, DITWIN GRIM states that "wikipedia gives a quite accurate description of Louis XV's reign." This is just another opinion. Please describe accurate. Define Louis' "unpopularity." How can this be measured? It Cannot be measured. The article should be cut to reflect FACTS, not opinions. Princetoniac (talk) 21:44, 17 August 2012 (UTC)

the Wiki policy is to give the consensus of the RS, which is overwhelmingly that Louis XV was a poor king in most areas (except art and high culture). There has been one favorable biography written 30 years ago compafred to dozens of scholarly studies that reinforce the main point. "Bias" means that Wikipedia veers away from the mainstream view toward the minority viewpoint, which it does not. Scholars who have spent years and decades on the subject have very well considered interpretations, not what Princetoniac carelessly calls "opinions." He needs to read the scholarship before criticizing it. Their views are fully cited especially in section 8. The challenge is to Define Louis' "unpopularity."- -- that is what scholars spend their time doing and many have been cited that he was unpopular, while the one favorable historian agrees that he was unpopular (he says Louis' enemies did that....but the enemies of 1770 do not control several hundred 20th-21st century scholars). Rjensen (talk) 22:34, 17 August 2012 (UTC)

Explanation of editing

After stating some objections in NPOV Dispute above, I have added some reference to Bernier's arguments in favor of Louis without removing any citations with a critical view. I also took out material which was unsourced in which "citation needed" was added three years ago; three years was plenty of time to add citations, which did not happen. I also trimmed some unsourced material unrelated to Louis himself, and some editorial comments (mostly adverbs) without removing the facts critical of Louis. For example, the long description and condemnation of Damiens' execution seemed irrelevant. I took out the long list of alleged illegitimate children, which had no sources, while keeping the one reference with a source and keeping the notation that other illegitimate children may have existed. I did not remove a single source from the article. In this way I submit the article as a whole has been improved without substantially removing criticism of the subject.Princetoniac (talk) 18:41, 18 August 2012 (UTC)

Three days later the editing has remained, so I have removed the NPOV tagPrincetoniac (talk) 21:45, 21 August 2012 (UTC)

I have also added reference to Guy Chassinanad-Nogaret's book on the Eighteenth Century to support Bernier's argument.Princetoniac (talk) 17:20, 31 August 2012 (UTC)

Mistresses

The content on his mistresses and private life still has the breathless tone of a popular fan magazine and lacks sources. I've tried to tone it down and stick to facts, but it needs more work. It was such a common practice that there were official mistresses, so comments about adulterous behavior do not really belong here. Royalty married for property and dynasties, not for love. Men, at least, often found that with mistresses.Parkwells (talk) 15:57, 9 December 2012 (UTC)

Which Merrick book?

The sentence "Merrick writes that popular faith in the monarchy was shaken by the scandals of Louis’s private life and by the end of his life he had become despised." had a reference with the name "Merrick", but it's not linked to any reference currently in the article, and it's not clear which of Merrick's books it is sourced from. I left a comment in the page at that point. --Slashme (talk) 14:18, 18 December 2012 (UTC)

Reads in many places like a bad translation from another language. A remark about citing 'authorities'

The author of an encyclopedia article should be sufficiently expert on the subject that he or she can deliver authoritative judgments of his or her own, not just say report what some other author has claimed. The reader has no idea with what authority, if any, the cited writer may have. Any sentence of the form "Harris says xyz" raises the question in the reader's mind, who is Harris and why should we believe what he says? This is a common problem in Wikipedia articles, and it marks an article as amateurish. A reader of an encyclopedia article should be presumed to know little or nothing of the literature on the subject, and the identity or standing of various contributors to it. If the author of the article can't make the statement that xyz on the authority of his own knowledge, or at least his own critical scholarship, it should not be made. If it is an essential and perhaps controversial issue, then the author needs to identify the authorities that are cited. "Harris, the foremost authority on the 18th c. French navy, says xyz'. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 184.60.17.48 (talk) 16:08, 4 December 2015 (UTC)

Newfoundland

The map which claims that the English acquired Newfoundland from the French, is erroneous and misleading. The English had a colony in Newfoundland for 500 years. At one period, the French also had a colony on a different part of the island, which they relinquished after one of the wars.Lathamibird (talk) 13:15, 5 January 2016 (UTC)

Parliament, seriously?

> Norman Davies characterized Louis XV's reign as "one of debilitating stagnation," characterized by lost wars, endless clashes between the Court and Parliament, and religious feuds.

Parliament? Is this even talking about the right country? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2A00:23C4:7F04:A000:4574:2EA8:B5A1:E20F (talk) 02:22, 11 May 2017 (UTC)

The right word is Parlement, not Parliament. I will make a change. Riyadi (talk) 09:42, 11 May 2017 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Louis XV of France. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20110725101858/http://webspace.qmul.ac.uk/cdhjones/documents/gn_pdf.pdf to http://webspace.qmul.ac.uk/cdhjones/documents/gn_pdf.pdf

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 13:32, 26 May 2017 (UTC)

King of France

Louis XV's official title was "by the Grace of God King of France and Navarre". No more and no less. It can be seen on all his coins. Now, obviously, we do not include the phrase "by the Grace of God" in the infobox or the succession box, nor do we use it to describe him in the lead sentence. Or any sentence in any article. So we are not actually using his official title in the infobox. We cut it down to "King of France and Navarre", rather arbitrarily. Why keep Navarre if we discarded the God part? He ruled no such kingdom.

For comparison, Henry VIII of England was "by the Grace of God King of England, France and Ireland". We call him simply King of England and Ireland. No France, despite Calais. Frederick IX of Denmark was "by the Grace of God, King of Denmark, the Wends and the Goths, Duke of Schleswig, Holstein, Stormarn, Dithmarschen, Lauenburg and Oldenburg". We call him simply King of Denmark. No Goths, no Wends, and definitely no German territories. The official title should always be clearly designated as such if it did not correspond to reality. In reality Louis XV was not King of Navarre. He ruled a tiny part of the former kingdom which had been annexed to France a century earlier. He was King of Navarre as much as Henry VIII was King of France. So why insist on calling him, in every instance, "King of France and Navarre"? Surtsicna (talk) 22:04, 16 June 2017 (UTC)

I agree with Surtsicna. Inclusion of "Navarre" is bound to confuse and mislead many readers, and help zero of them. Rjensen (talk) 22:17, 16 June 2017 (UTC)

Rjensen - What do you mean by "... is bound to confuse and mislead many readers..."? What readers are you talking about? Those who did not know & have no idea what the history of France & Navare is? Then, keeping Navarre in the official title of the kings of France and of Navarre might make them, or at least some, curious enough to learn about it. It has always been my understanding that the goal of encyclopedias is to teach things to people, in other words, to improve their knowledge, not go down to and remain at the level of those who know very little.

--Blue Indigo (talk) 17:53, 20 June 2017 (UTC)

To put it in perspective, the British crown's claim to France (as with Henry VIII) was an illegitimate claim not recognized as he had no power over France or the French people, who had their own crown. Frederick IX, of Denmark ruled over the Wends and Goths as a people (not a state), and his titles as Duke are separate to his sovereign crown (like Elizabeth II's dukedoms). Navarre, an independent kingdom, was inherited by bloodline into the House of Bourbon through Henry IV and III and the title officially became King of France and Navarre, as the Navarre became incorporate into the French crown. He was crowned as King of France and Navarre and was referred to as such. -- Willthacheerleader18 (talk) 01:45, 17 June 2017 (UTC)

Seeking a consensus on the matter before removing this information from multiple articles would have been appreciated, had you "had the patience." -- Willthacheerleader18 (talk) 01:52, 17 June 2017 (UTC)

Willthacheerleader18 - I agree with you 100 per cent, the fact being that Roi de France et de Navarre was the official title (titre officiel) of the French kings from Henri IV until Louis XVI->1790 when title was changed to Roi des Français, then again under Louis XVII, a child prisoner in the Temple, and his uncles Louis XVIII & Charles X. Whether Anglo-American encyclopedias or readers agree with these facts is one thing, but it is not based on reality. Thus, not including the whole real title is changing the History of a country. I simply cannot understand what the point is in doing so. As the French would say: Roi de France et de Navarre n'est pas un titre *folkorique*, c'est le véritable titre des rois de France!

--Blue Indigo (talk) 17:53, 20 June 2017 (UTC)

the issue is whether 21st century RS call him the king of France and Navarre. Rjensen (talk) 09:59, 17 June 2017 (UTC)

Why should in history the issue be based on a century in particular? In this 21st century & in the previous one, many people believe(d) that Joan of Arc fought the English during the Hundred Years' War, which is correct. However, many of them believe that the Hundred Years' War took place in the 19th century. So, is this the consensual truth we should adopt in the 21st century & totally skip the space in time when the Hundred Years' War took place?

--Blue Indigo (talk) 17:53, 20 June 2017 (UTC)

It is not up to you or me to decide what title is legitimate. Louis XV had no power over Navarre or its people either. He ruled a tiny part of Navarre and called himself King of Navarre. Henry VIII ruled a tiny part of France and called himself King of France. Neither of them ruled the respective kingdoms. The people of actual Navarre had another king, as much as the French did, and he was recognized by the kingdom's parliament. The point here is that, from 1620 onwards, there was no kingdom of Navarre north of the Pyrenees. We are misleading the readers into thinking that Louis XV was king of France and Navarre as much as Henry IV/III was.

Reputable tertiary sources, what Wikipedia strives to be, call Louis XV simply King of France. They also describe him in the opening line simply as King of France. See Britannica and Catholic Encyclopedia. As a matter of fact, they do not mention Navarre anywhere. Neither does the Dictionary of World Biography. The secondary sources used in this article also refer to him as "King of France" (eg. Louis the Beloved: the life of Louis XV). Surtsicna (talk) 12:21, 17 June 2017 (UTC)

Surtsicna - This may sound a naïve question to your obvious high knowledge on the subject, but when you write: "As a matter of fact, they do not mention Navarre anywhere." -

a) does that mean that Navarre did not exist,

b) or that the fact that Henry IV brought it to France did not happen

c) or that the official title of the Rois de France et de Navarre is a... fake title?

--Blue Indigo (talk) 18:09, 20 June 2017 (UTC)

It does mean that a kingdom of Navarre did not exist at that time, yes. At least not north of the Pyrenees. And thank you for recognizing my pre-eminence in the field. Surtsicna (talk) 18:22, 20 June 2017 (UTC)

Surtsicna - I wrote "your obvious high knowledge", not "higher" knowledge, nor "pre-eminence" :)

--Blue Indigo (talk) 19:35, 20 June 2017 (UTC)

It's a fake title of the sort kings in those days insisted that their subordinates use. Scholars no longer use them and Wikipedia follows the scholars, not the dead kings. Rjensen (talk) 18:49, 20 June 2017 (UTC)

It is not a "fake title". The French crown was placed upon a Navarrese monarch's head, and so they became (separately) King of France AND King of Navarre. Then Navarre was brought into the kingdom of France, and as the king of both people the title became King of France and Navarre. That is a legitimate (and official) title. -- Willthacheerleader18 (talk) 00:20, 23 June 2017 (UTC)

Navarre (a Basque speaking region) became part of Spain in 1515. "Lower Navarre" became an independent kingdom--its king became king Henry IV of France in 1589. Henry merged it with another French province (Bearne) and it lost its separate identity as a realm --only the title remained. So Louis XV was at best the king of Lower Navarre only. The king of Spain also called himself "King of Navarre" and had more of the people in his control. If you asked the people of Navarre, most would say the "King of Navarre" lived in Madrid, not Paris. Spanish Navarre was treated as a separate kingdom by Madrid, with its own parliament, laws and taxes. Not so Navarre in France. That makes it the title highly misleading at the time--nobody in France dared object when a Bourbon was king but scholars do not use it. [cite: Columbia encyclopedia under "Navarre"] Rjensen (talk) 01:24, 23 June 2017 (UTC)

Rjensen - Skipping a word of what was historically an official title makes it a fake title.

However, since I only wanted to give my thoughts, and did, I am stepping out of a conversation that is going nowhere. I have made my point.

However, I would like to add that I find it rather amusing that Surtsicna waited a few days to revert back to his/her version, putting in the summary per talk, when the talk, i.e. supposed consensus, was arrived at in a discussion in which participated 3 persons, giving a grand result of 2 against 1. What would have happened if I had intervened earlier, making it a 2/2 tie?

--Blue Indigo (talk) 19:35, 20 June 2017 (UTC)

This is not a vote. Nothing would have changed if you had "intervened" earlier because the only secondary and tertiary sources presented here are those presented by Rjensen and myself. Counting participants is not how discussion works. Surtsicna (talk) 19:39, 20 June 2017 (UTC)

the title was never "real" --it was made up & enforced by the king. Kings did a lot of that. But in Wikipedia "true" and "real" are not our criteria--verifiability by reliable secondary sources is the criteria. Emphasis on the wording of the title is a dangerous use of a primary source. Rjensen (talk) 21:56, 20 June 2017 (UTC)

Rjensen - According to you, the title was never "real" and "was made up"? So what should we make of this official document: Le sacre et couronnement de Louis XVI, roi de France *et de Navarre* in Reims on 11 June 1775?

http://gallica.bnf.fr/ark:/12148/btv1b8620764f/f7.item.zoom

--Blue Indigo (talk) 09:48, 22 June 2017 (UTC)

Nothing. We should make absolutely nothing of that official document. Surtsicna (talk) 12:18, 22 June 2017 (UTC)

"real" is not a Wiki criterion. nor is "truth". our job is to report what the reliable secondary sources say--and they almost all leave Navarre out. Rjensen (talk) 13:28, 22 June 2017 (UTC)

Surtsicna & Rjensen - Since nothing should be done with that official document, and since real nor truth are no-no.wiki, are we allowed to use and/or quote - since it is a primary source - the Article 1 of the US Bill of Rights in an article on free speech?

--Blue Indigo (talk) 14:08, 22 June 2017 (UTC)

For questions about Wikipedia guidelines and policies, please consult Wikipedia talk:Verifiability and Wikipedia talk:No original research. Surtsicna (talk) 14:14, 22 June 2017 (UTC)

the rules imposed by the defunct king of france are defunct--and have been for centuries. As for the Bill of Rights, I think we want a reliable secondary source rather than the personal legal views of an anonymous editor with no visible legal qualifications. Rjensen (talk) 15:44, 22 June 2017 (UTC)

Rjensen - with that type of reasoning, the only solution is to hand contribution to wiki to lawyers only :) !!!

On a more serious side, and although I know in advance that you & Surtsicna will find this piece, Le Royaume de Navarre et la Révolution française, by G. Em. Morbieu, with introduction by the historian Renan (1911)[2] unworthy of any type of consideration since it does not emanate from the Britannica, it is however interesting to see that at the time prior to the 1789 meeting of the Ėtats généraux, i.e. under Louis XVI, French Navarre was treated differently than the rest of the country, as it was not considered a regular province of France, but a kingdom of its own with the king of France its ruler under the title Roi de Navarre. I sincerely hope that more curious readers will want to further their knowledge by going beyond en.wiki, as I do believe that the unique reliance by en.wiki to Encyclopedia Britannica & the likes as the absolute & acceptable interpretation of History does shrink the possibility of extending one's knowledge of History; not only shrinks, but carries with it the possibility of distorting historical facts.

We know from the past that considering the majority to be always right in its beliefs, with the minority thus automatically wrong, was disproven years after Galileo was almost burnt at the stake for insisting that the earth was not flat, but round & not the center of the universe.

--Blue Indigo (talk) 13:35, 23 June 2017 (UTC)

There you go again: right in its beliefs -- save it for your talk page. If you want to work on Wikipedia you need to learn and follow its rules. Rjensen (talk) 15:13, 23 June 2017 (UTC)

Rjensen - What is with you? You pick four words out of a sentence & make it as if I went against wiki's rules & regulations, while I was referring to the fact that sometimes and in life in general, in their respective beliefs, the majority is wrong while the minority is right, taking as an example the case of Galileo.

I also wonder how proper it is, according to wiki guidelines, to direct me to my talk page to discuss these four words, while we are having a conversation on a subject, at the very talk page of that subject. Then, your: "If you want to work on Wikipedia you need to learn and follow its rules." My goodness! Right out of the teacher's mouth! And if I don't, you are going to order me at the corner of the wiki.room with a donkey hat on my head, I presume, which in fact is what you did sending me to my talk page. Superior airs don't work with me.

There is no "if" as I have been working on Wikipedia for a few years, following its rules, while at the same time feeling free to criticize some of these very rules, while not breaking them. But discuss, yes! Until now, I thought that was the purpose of the talk page of articles, without fearing being sent to my own talk page. I will also point out to you that in my few years at en.wiki, I have rarely, if ever, been reverted. So you either missed my edits or I have not been doing too bad.

--Blue Indigo (talk) 19:23, 23 June 2017 (UTC)

the Church that condemned Galileo acted like an absolute monarch (such as Louis XV) in imposing rules and formulas --it did not pretend to speak for the majority. The goal at Wikipedia is to speak for the majority of reliable secondary sources--which is what Galileo was doing. So I think you're on the wrong side in that analogy. You propose to reject the basic wiki rules on verification--all editors are allowed to do that on their personal talk pages. Rjensen (talk) 19:38, 23 June 2017 (UTC)

Rjensen - If I may again differ with you. At the time of Galileo, and for fear of burning in Hell for eternity, if not first being burnt at the stake on the main square of town, the majority of the population believed what the Church said to believe and, in believing->knowing thanks to his own observations that the earth was round & not the center of the universe, Galileo was very much in a tiny tiny minority.

Quoting you: "The goal at Wikipedia is to speak for the majority of reliable secondary sources--which is what Galileo was doing." Galileo was the discoverer of what turned out to be true about the set up of the universe... should not he be considered the primary source of his own findings? If so, how could he speak for the majority of reliable secondary sources? Would he even be allowed to write anything at wikipedia, using his own original work as proof?

Furthermore, I do not reject the basic wiki rules on verification (please check my work); but when they do not make sense, I do, and also believe that it is better to express my thoughts on the talk page of the article to which it is related.

--Blue Indigo (talk) 22:24, 23 June 2017 (UTC)

Tricky stuff. The Kingdom of Navarre was merged into the Kingdom of France in 1620. However, after that date the French monarchs continued to use the Navarre title until 1791 & again 1814 to 1830. GoodDay (talk) 00:57, 24 June 2017 (UTC)

Exactly. That is why we call Louis "King of France and Navarre" when we explain how he called himself, but we do not define him as "King of France and Navarre". We define him as "King of France", as sources normally do. Surtsicna (talk) 12:04, 24 June 2017 (UTC)

Needs mention of contribution to science and the arts

How can you have an article about Lous XVI that makes no mention of his patronage of the arts and science? That makes no mention of the buildings that he built, or the music that his family commissioned? This is not just a political biography. You can't entirely ignore an important part of his legacy. SiefkinDR (talk) 19:58, 15 December 2017 (UTC)

It should be mentioned, but definitely not in such great detail. The subsection Science and technology mentions Louis in only one sentence, and only that sentence is actually relevant to the article. Under Music, there is hardly anything about Louis himself, other than a few things that are already mentioned earlier in the article. In Painting and sculpture and Decorative Arts- Style Louis XV Louis is not the subject of any sentence. The only subsection that's about Louis personally is Architecture. Surtsicna (talk) 20:12, 15 December 2017 (UTC)

"Vingtième" tax

The Vingtième tax was one twentieth, not twenty per cent... — Preceding unsigned comment added by 79.36.95.182 (talk) 11:52, 28 December 2017 (UTC)

Thanks, quite right. Fixed. Cordially, SiefkinDR (talk) 17:50, 28 December 2017 (UTC)

this is amazing nice job — Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.165.131.187 (talk) 13:07, 21 November 2018 (UTC)

Minor edit to the opening section

At the end of the first paragraph: "Cardinal Fleury was his chief minister from 1726 until the Cardinal's death in 1743, at which time the young king took sole control of the kingdom."

Louis XV was a few days short of his 33rd birthday when the Cardinal died. Calling him "the young king" has no reasonable foundation in fact in this context, has no encyclopaedic value and sounds extremely subjective. So, I propose removing the word "young". If anyone objects, please respond here. 82.176.221.176 (talk) 11:24, 31 July 2019 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 9 April 2020

change "fundaments" (in Discours sur les origins et les fundaments de l'inégalité) to fondaments, see e.g. http://fr.wiki.x.io/wiki/Discours_sur_l'origine_et_les_fondements_de_l'inégalité_parmi_les_hommes Eridanus (talk) 11:23, 9 April 2020 (UTC)

 Done –Deacon Vorbis (carbon • videos) 14:25, 9 April 2020 (UTC)

Move discussion in progress

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)

line of succession

i didn't know that the Anjou (or spanish) line was extinct upon the death of Louis XV... according to the laws of successions, the clauses of treaty of Utrecht privating that line of ther place in the line were null and void, as was the treaty of Troyes of 1420, see the thesis of Paul Watrin "La Tradition monarchique d'après l'ancien droit public français" for more details. 2A01:CB0C:65C:8900:E850:9101:68D0:B8F8 (talk) 12:01, 12 July 2020 (UTC)

The Conquest of Naples

The article claims that Austria gained the Austrian Netherlands and Naples through marriage. It in no way did and that is an entirely incorrect statement. Austria gained those lands through the Treaty of Utrecht which was signed at the conclusion and as a result of the War of the Spanish Succession. Obviously, the original writer of that sentence did not know let alone understand the period and just assumed that one quote about the Hapsburgs marrying well applied to all Hapsburg expansionism, which ignores the fact that the Hapsburgs were a major military power that was involved in countless wars and made many conquests. - Leo

Detailed account of the execution of Damiens

This could improve the article. Note the detail of the hand with the knife being burnt first.

From “A Manual of American Ideas” (1873)

Strange and terrible scenes, witnessed from the windows of the Hotel de Ville, have been enacted on the Place d& Greve (now Place da Hotel de Yi!le) in days not yery far removed from ours. One of these occurred on Monday, March 28, 1757. AU the windows that commai^ded a view of the square were filled with noble ladies and gentlemen, splendidly attired. It was a dazzling blaze of gold- embroidered garments, of glittering orders, of floating plumes, and priceless gems. The assemblage was radiant and gay, chatting and laughing; and yet, from time to time, eager looks were bent upon a space in the centre of the square, surrounded by palisades, and guarded by horse and foot. Was there to be a tournament ? What was the promised entertainment, which had attracted so many gallant gentlemen and so many beautiful and high-born ladies ? A sort of thrill running through the assembled thousands, a sudden silence, preceded the appearance on the square of a pale, slender man, who advanced, surrounded by guards and officers ol justice. The lugu- brious procession halted.

The prisoner, for such he was, was stripped, bound, Ironed, and laid upon the scaffold in the centre of the palisades. Then followed the most horrible scehe that the imagination can conceive. The right hand of the sufferer, which held a knife, was burned. He uttered a terrible cry as the member crackled in the blaze, and was then Silent and looked at the charred stump with mournful attention. Then the executioner tore out pieces of flesh from his arms and legs, and poured into the flesh tf mixture of melted lead, boiling oil, hot pitch, wax and sulphur; at which, says the official report, " the aforesaid criminal cried out at several intervals, ' My God! Strength 1 Strength!' * O Lord,^aay God, have pity on me!* * O Lord, my God, how I suffer!* * Lord, my God, give me fortitude!* '* As during the burning of his hand, he uttered cries at the infliction of each fresh torture, then became calm and silent, and patiently contemplated his wounds, Four young and vigorous horses were then harnessed to his limbs; but though they pulled with all their strength, and though the extensipn of the members was prodigious, they did not succeed in qnartering the sufferer tintil the snrgeon'd knife had scored the joints. The victim, lived till the last limb was torn from his body, and then only gave^up the ghost. His mangled remains were thrown upon a pile of wood and bnmed to ashes. The punishment had lasted hours, and night closed upon the horrible scene. The name of the victim, whose tortures were contemplated with satisfaction by the most refined ladies of the kingdom, was Bobert Francis Damiens, and his crime that of stabbing Louis XV with a knife. 2A00:23C7:E284:CF00:2956:8673:454C:742E (talk) 21:42, 17 April 2021 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 6 August 2021

Please change the author details for the book by J. H. Shennan to include the ( Gownsball (talk) 12:12, 6 August 2021 (UTC)

 Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format and provide a reliable source if appropriate. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 12:20, 6 August 2021 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 6 August 2021 (2)

Please add an author link to page on J. H. Shennan. Gownsball (talk) 12:27, 6 August 2021 (UTC)

 Done ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 12:31, 6 August 2021 (UTC)

Images

Do you think we should make the images of Louis XV, Louis XVI, Louis XVIII, and Charles X them in normal attire instead there coronation robes? Just a question--Orson1234 (talk) 06:47, 22 October 2021 (UTC)Orson1234

Semi-protected edit request on 31 December 2021

I request to edit louis the 15th spouse(s). One of the missing spouses of the king is Marie Antoinette. 107.145.69.129 (talk) 01:27, 31 December 2021 (UTC)

 Not done: That would be the 16th, not this guy Cannolis (talk) 04:25, 31 December 2021 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 6 March 2022

Please add the following template to the bottom of the article:

67.173.23.66 (talk) 18:06, 6 March 2022 (UTC)

 Done — Paper9oll (🔔 • 📝) 07:29, 13 March 2022 (UTC)

"The Treaty of Vienna"

The sub-section "Foreign relations - New alliances; the War of the Polish Succession" quotes the King of Prussia as declaring "Since the Treaty of Vienna France is the arbiter of Europe", but it does not explain what the Treaty of Vienna actually is. The sentence starting the preceding paragraph: "To bring the war to an end, Fleury and Charles VI negotiated an ingenious diplomatic solution" should be extended to read "... solution, formalised in the [Treaty of Vienna (1738)|Treaty of Vienna]". 194.193.172.207 (talk) 17:51, 21 March 2022 (UTC)

 Done WhinyTheYounger (WtY)(talk, contribs) 00:08, 30 March 2022 (UTC)

Unigenitus: italicised or not?

In the section heading Unigenitus, Jansenism and religious conflict, "Unigenitus" is italicised. In the first sentence of the section it is not, and again in a later sentence. Please change whichever is incorrect. 2001:BB6:4734:5658:8D88:3FA3:FB0C:EA92 (talk) 14:25, 20 January 2023 (UTC)

Italicised all usages of the word.–small jars tc 19:45, 20 January 2023 (UTC)

Move discussion in progress

There is a move discussion in progress on Talk:Charles the Bald which affects this page. Please participate on that page and not in this talk page section. Thank you. —RMCD bot 12:01, 31 July 2023 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 22 August 2023

The references to the partition of Poland are somewhat confused. The partition in 1772 was the first partition. In it, parts of Poland were taken by Russia, Prussia AND Austria, but Poland was not entirely divided between them. 92.30.146.64 (talk) 23:10, 22 August 2023 (UTC)

 Not done: please provide reliable sources that support the change you want to be made. The Herald (Benison) (talk) 17:28, 23 August 2023 (UTC)

Essentially I am asking that the passage on the partition of Poland in 1772 should be edited to agree with the Wikipedia article on the first partition of Poland, relying on the sources for that article. Or see Paul E Schroeder, The transformation of European politics 1763-1848, Oxford University Press, 11-19. 78.149.130.152 (talk) 14:53, 10 September 2023 (UTC)

 Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format and provide a reliable source if appropriate. M.Bitton (talk) 09:45, 14 September 2023 (UTC)

In the section on the Government of Maupeou ..., in the paragraph on Foreign affairs, change the passage

France did not even have an ambassador ... without protest from France.

to

France did not even have an ambassador in Vienna. In 1772 Austria, Russia and Prussia took territory from an old French ally, Poland, without protest from France (the First Partition of Poland).

First Partition of Poland is intended to be a link to the so-named Wikipedia article, which I hope will serve as a reliable source. Alternatively see Paul W Schroeder, The transformation of European politics 1763-1848, Oxford University Press, 1994, pages 11-19. 78.149.130.152 (talk) 20:35, 15 September 2023 (UTC)

 Partly done: Wikipedia is not a reliable source. But thankfully the pages from the book you offered up are available on Google Books, so I am still comfortable implementing this. I slightly changed the linking to the First Partition of Poland by making it in-text rather than as a parenthetical, and narrowed the cited pages to the specific one that mentions the year of the partition and the nations involved. -- Pinchme123 (talk) 04:22, 5 October 2023 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 10 September 2023

Towards the end of the first paragraph of the section on Choiseul, change his grandson, the future Louis XIV to Marie Antoinette to the king's grandson, the future Louis XIV, to Marie Antoinette 78.149.130.152 (talk) 14:35, 10 September 2023 (UTC)

 Done Pinchme123 (talk) 03:13, 11 September 2023 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 10 September 2023 (2)

Near the end of the section on Commerce, agriculture, ..., change "it be done, let it pass" to " let it be done, let it pass" 148.252.128.141 (talk) 14:40, 10 September 2023 (UTC)

 Done Pinchme123 (talk) 03:18, 11 September 2023 (UTC)