Talk:Louis XVI

message: This page does not a consistent style of in-line citations. There is already a bibliography on the page. One option is adding every book cited to this bibliography and convert all in-line citations to short citations. Does any one have an opinion about this? Best, Oldsanfelipe2 (talk) 16:40, 11 May 2023 (UTC)
thread_title: Consistent citation styles

message: I don't know much about French royalty, but I notice in this article it says ("Family life" section) that "Over time, the couple became closer, and their marriage was reportedly consummated in July 1773." The source given is Fraser, Antonia, Marie Antoinette, p.127
In the Marie Antoinette article ("1774–1778: Early years" subsection), it says, without a source, "It was due to Joseph's intervention that, on 30 August 1777, the marriage was officially consummated."
Can someone fix this contradiction?
Girlwithgreeneyes (talk) 10:53, 15 May 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  Consummation of marriage 

message: The article currently states that "Louis was wholly disappointed in his aim of recovering Canada from Britain" in the American Revolutionary War.  I was under the impression that this was never an aim of the French government in that conflict, and this would seem to be evidenced by the fact that France never mounted an invasion of Quebec. 12.239.145.114 (talk) 20:24, 20 June 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: They were never able to, because the Royal Navy prevented any invasion of Canada from being attempted. (92.10.132.85 (talk) 21:50, 17 September 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: Is that correct?  The French Navy had many successes in that conflict (essentially battling the British to a standstill on the high seas), and France was able to successfully mount an invasion of Virginia. One would think that defending the Thirteen Colonies was a greater priority for the British than defending Canada at that time. Funnyhat (talk) 19:07, 26 December 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: I don't agree with that.  The most decisive battle of the war (Yorktown) wasn't fought until 1781 - and the Royal Navy tried to relieve the British forces besieged there, but was stymied in the Battle of the Chesapeake.  Certainly, Louis wanted to avenge the defeat in the Seven Years' War, but I've never heard that it was a goal of the French government to recapture Canada once it was lost.  Even when it was a French possession, many (including Voltaire) argued that it was an unproductive colony, not worth maintaining. (See A few acres of snow.)  If there are sources indicating that Louis wanted to recapture Canada in the Revolutionary War, I'd be curious to see them (and they should be added as references).  Funnyhat (talk) 15:46, 1 January 2013 (UTC)

text: Reconquering Canada was never a French war aim, which was why France and the United States specifically made a point of saying in the terms of their 1778 alliance that Canada ("any part of the continent of North america which ... in virtue of that Treaty [of Paris 1763], were acknowledged to belong to the Crown of Great Britain ... or which are at this Time or have lately been under the Power of The King and Crown of Great Britain") was to go to the United States if captured, not to France.  The reasons for that are obvious: Canada cost far more money for France to administer than it had ever made, it would have been impossible to defend against either Britain or the United States, and its possession would have guaranteed that the United States would turn into a hostile power rather than a useful ally against Britain.  Also it's not at all true that "Britain had already lost control of the thirteen colonies by 1778", a time when New York, much of the middle colonies and almost all the South south of Virginia were still in British hands.  Nor is it true that it was the strength of the Royal Navy that prevented French invasions of British colonies: the Royal Navy couldn't prevent the shipment of Rochambeau's army to Rhode Island in 1779 (which is the army that would have invaded Canada if that's the strategy that Rochambeau and Washington had agreed upon instead of marching south to Virginia; they did discuss such an option), nor could it break the French blockade of Yorktown that ultimately led to Britain's defeat in the war, and nor could they defeat Suffren's squadron in the Indian Ocean.  Indeed, the American Revolutionary War is the only war of the last three hundred years in which the Royal Navy hasn't been able to maintain its customary dominance of the seas.  It is true that France went to war with the idea of stripping away a number of British colonies (it's just that Canada explicitly was not one of them), and it is true that she ultimately walked away with nothing while her two major allies (the United States and Spain) made significant gains in the peace settlement.  But the sentence "France gained little from the 1783 Treaty of Paris that ended the war, except the colonies of Tobago and Senegal. Louis XVI was wholly disappointed in his aims of recovering Canada, India and other islands in the West Indies from Britain, as they were too well defended and the Royal Navy made any invasion attempt impossible" is full of inaccuracy.  (I wonder if "the Royal Navy made any invasion attempt impossible" is meant to mean specifically an invasion of Britain? That would be a more defensible assertion, though it would be better reworded as something clearer, like "an attempted French invasion of mainland Britain had to return to port after being unable to bring the Royal Navy to battle.")  Binabik80 (talk) 19:05, 29 September 2014 (UTC)
thread_title:  American Revolution 

message: >"The former king was then quickly beheaded. Some accounts of Louis's beheading indicate that the blade did not sever his neck entirely the first time. There are also accounts of a blood-curdling scream issuing from Louis after the blade fell but this is unlikely, since the blade severed Louis's spine."
The neck is part of the spine.  If some accounts say the blade did not sever his neck entirely the first time, then it's definitely possible he screamed.  Although I do wonder why, if that's true,  the guillotine blade hadn't been sharpened on purpose for the king. Maybe someone decided Louis deserved two cuts instead of one (gack). Rissa, Guild of Copy Editors  (talk) 03:45, 18 July 2015 (UTC)
thread_title:  The neck is part of the spine 

message: Under "Primary sources" it has: "Marie Antoinette. Memoirs of Marie Antoinette, Queen of France and Wife of Louis XVI: Queen of France."  Those memoirs were written by Jeanne-Louise-Henriette Campan, not by the queen.  Click on the link to Google Books and space down seven pages.  I fixed the citation.  Rissa, Guild of Copy Editors  (talk) 04:07, 18 July 2015 (UTC)
thread_title:  Madam Campan 

message: With a differing Y chromosome haplogroup to the one shared by the relic and head, it is more likely the 'surviving' three members of the House of Bourbon aren't related to King Louis XVI and King Henri IV.
The article French Kings from Henry IV to Louis XVI "Bourbon", ancient Y-DNA explains:
"King Louis XVI of France from a genetic test on blood in a cloth purported to have been collected at his beheading and maintained in an ornate gourd decorated with French Revolution themes. Confirmation of this genetic profile requires testing of a known relative because the "relic" cloth was a popular item sold for money following Louis XVI's execution. The sample was tested at two laboratories with the same results. The sample is most consistent with G2a3b1a samples and contains unusually high, rare values for markers DYS385B and DYS458 in this haplogroup G subgroup. Subsequent testing in 2012 on a mummified head, purportedly that of King Henri IV of France, revealed that typing of a limited number of Y-STR's showed a Y-Dna haplogroup of G2a. Reported researchers: "Five STR loci [from the sample taken from the head] match the alleles found in Louis XVI, while another locus shows an allele that is just one mutation step apart. Taking into consideration that the partial Y-chromosome profile is extremely rare in modern human databases, we concluded that both males could be paternally related." The two French kings were separated by seven generations."
Quoted as being based on this scientific article.  The same one this wikipedia article quotes.
That scientfic article comes to some strange conclusions like the requirement to use surviving relatives, when the relic and head support each other and not the three supposed descendants claim. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Adrian Scott Herbert (talk • contribs) 11:49, 27 August 2023 (UTC)
thread_title: King Louis' XVI relic and King Henri's IV head have the same Y chromosome G2A

message: In the Imprisonment and Execution section the text currently reads "On 15 January 1793, the Convention, composed of 721 deputies, voted on the verdict. Given overwhelming evidence of Louis's collusion with the invaders, the verdict was a foregone conclusion – with 693 deputies voting guilty, none for acquittal, with 23 abstaining.". The numbers do not add up (693+0+23 = 716, not 721) and I have no access to the cited source (a book). Can someone verify or find another source to confirm (or not) these numbers ? -- Fbergo (talk) 18:21, 15 March 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  Imprisonment and Execution: Vote Count Inconsistence 

message: Hello! This is a note to let the editors of this article know that :File:Antoine-François Callet - Louis XVI, roi de France et de Navarre (1754-1793), revêtu du grand costume royal en 1779 - Google Art Project.jpg will be appearing as picture of the day on May 10, 2016. You can view and edit the POTD blurb at Template:POTD/2016-05-10. If this article needs any attention or maintenance, it would be preferable if that could be done before its appearance on the Main Page. — Chris Woodrich (talk) 00:29, 23 April 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  [[:File:Antoine-François Callet - Louis XVI, roi de France et de Navarre (1754-1793), revêtu du grand costume royal en 1779 - Google Art Project.jpg]] to appear as POTD soon 

message: The article currently has
There seem to be a number of contradictions: -
1. Did he cease to be reigning King of France and Navarre and start being titular King thereof on 4 September - they day after the adoption of the French Constitution of 1791 or 1 October 1791 - the day after the dissolution of the National Constituent Assembly?
2. Did he cease to be reigning King of the French and start being titular King on 10 August 10 August (French Revolution) or 21 September 1792 Proclamation of the abolition of the monarchy?
Alekksandr (talk) 17:06, 30 April 2016 (UTC)
thread_title: End/s of reign/s

message: As part of my experience in a classroom role-playing game of the French Revolution, I come as a novice editor hoping to be able to contribute information that could improve the article on my character, at least a bit! I have read and taken into considerations the suggestions made on here about the discrepancies within the article and will carefully review the issues, although some suggestions were made years ago. I plan most specifically to build up on the section on Louis XVI's time as a constitutional monarch and what other plans may have been under-works in his final moments of holding some power. Later I'll also like to elaborate on the article on The Edict of Versailles. I'd like to share some resources I've gathered for this purpose, and would appreciate any feedback. If any other issues have come your attention, please let it be known so I could try and address them! Thank you. 
References 
1893-1978., Faÿ, Bernard, (1968-01-01). Louis XVI; or The end of a world;. W.H. Allen. .
1939-, Johnson, Alison, (2013-01-01). Louis XVI and the French Revolution. McFarland. . OCLC 865033927.
Charles River Editors (2013). French Legends: The Life and Legacy of King Louis XVI. CreateSpace Publishing. . 
"Edict of Toleration, November 1787". chnm.gmu.edu. Retrieved 2017-02-20.
John., Hardman, (2000-01-01). Louis XVI: The Silent King. Arnold. . OCLC 959636426. 
King Louis XVI, Benefactor of America, and Martyr - Dominicana Vol. 15 No. 2 
Michael., Walzer, (1992-01-01). Regicide and revolution: speeches at the trial of Louis XVI. Columbia University Press. . OCLC 26932951. 
Munro., Price, (2003-01-01). The fall of the French monarchy: Louis XVI, Marie Antoinette and the Baron de Breteuil. Pan. . OCLC 59340837. 
"The Edict of Toleration (November 29th, 1787) | Musée virtuel du Protestantisme". www.museeprotestant.org. Retrieved 2017-02-20. 
Andreasvg (talk) 05:02, 20 February 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  Potential ideas and references 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 2 external links on Louis XVI 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/20120714094231/http://booking-help.org/book_338_glava_314_Edict_of_Versailles_(1787).html to http://booking-help.org/book_338_glava_314_Edict_of_Versailles_%281787%29.html
*Added  tag to http://www.tigerandthistle.net/tipu315.htm
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20110929061344/http://historyproject.ucdavis.edu/ic/standard/5.00/5.3_1.00/13161.html to http://historyproject.ucdavis.edu/ic/standard/5.00/5.3_1.00/13161.html
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 12:49, 5 December 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: The sentence "Louis XVI was initiated[when?] into masonic lodge Trois-Frères à l'Orient de la Cour.[4][Cite book verification needed]" should be removed. Even if it's accurate, there's no indication given as to why this piece of information is important enough to be situated in the overview of his life at the top of the page, right after a sentence about the storming of the Bastille. 2604:2000:12C0:5C97:20D2:6DCB:346E:55D9 (talk) 04:36, 17 April 2020 (UTC)
replies: text: Done The cited source is to an 1895 book which depends on old letters. The actual text: "Ce point d'histoire est la participation de Louis XVI ...a une loge maconnique qui est le denommee dans le trevail de M Monin de loge des Trois-Frères à l'Orient de la Cour."  This makes it clear that Amiable is only reporting what Monin claimed, and cannot be considered a WP:RS.  This sentence seems to have been added solely to justify inclusion in the category of French Freemasons. Eggishorn (talk) (contrib) 18:49, 19 April 2020 (UTC)
thread_title:  Semi-protected edit request on 17 April 2020 

message: 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)
thread_title:  Move discussion in progress 

message: The description of Louis' trial makes it appear that Michelet spoke against Louis' execution at his trial.  Actually, he was a historian who made the point decades later.  VERY misleading.
Kathleen Weber  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2600:1700:30C0:6E50:CDB4:3EDB:CCCB:17CD (talk) 09:28, 6 July 2020 (UTC)
thread_title:  Misleading Description of Trial 

message: Just to expand a bit on my edit summary, if he's known as Restorer of Liberty, this should be discussed in the body of the article. The lead summarizes the article. If it's not important enough to discuss in the article, then it doesn't belong in the lead. And the source doesn't say that he is known by that name. It just says that there exists a cotton weave museum piece whose title is "Louis XVI Restorer of Liberty". GA-RT-22 (talk) 23:21, 1 June 2021 (UTC)
thread_title:  Restorer of Liberty 

message: 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) 06:46, 22 October 2021 (UTC)
thread_title:  Images of French monarchs 

message: In the section 'Absolute Monarch of France (1774-1789)', add a hyperlink to the wikipedia article 'compte rendu au roi' where the name appears in this article.
Article in question: 
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Compte_rendu 194.230.148.125 (talk) 08:53, 11 February 2022 (UTC)
thread_title:  Semi-protected edit request on 11 February 2022 

message: Please add the following template to the end of the article:
 67.173.23.66 (talk) 18:07, 6 March 2022 (UTC)
replies: text: — Paper9oll (🔔 • 📝) 07:30, 13 March 2022 (UTC)
thread_title:  Semi-protected edit request on 6 March 2022 

message: Please add the category :Category:Royal reburials 67.173.23.66 (talk) 17:42, 13 March 2022 (UTC)
replies: text: . Heartmusic678 (talk) 11:40, 23 March 2022 (UTC)
thread_title:  Semi-protected edit request on 13 March 2022 

message: The reference added recently by @Dialuanny0 regarding the claim "none doubted his intellectual ability to rule France" does not sufficiently support this claim, in my view. The cited source says:
: "While there is no doubt that Louis’ leadership and political judgement were lacking, it is simplistic and unfair to attribute the revolution to his errors alone. The king was no intellectual or visionary but nor was he reckless or stupid. In a more settled age, he might have made a capable old regime ruler. With better judgement, he might have overseen France’s transition to a constitutional monarchy. Instead, Louis found himself in a situation beyond his control and perhaps beyond his understanding."
and
: "The young Louis XVI was moderately intelligent..."
I think whilst it certainly supports the claim that Louis was intelligent, it doesn't cover the claim of "none doubted his intellectual ability to rule France." Saying someone is intelligient is not the same as saying no one ever claimed he was unintelligent enough to rule France. Therefore I have added a failed verification tag, as I still think the reference has some value. And as always, appreciate any attempt to improve references so please don't take this as criticism @Dialuanny0! Happy to discuss further. SamWilson989 (talk) 23:26, 21 May 2022 (UTC)
thread_title:  Louis' intellect 

message: Louis 14th in Roman Numerals is XIV. Please change XVI to XIV throughout article. 70.80.20.84 (talk) 17:42, 13 September 2022 (UTC)
replies: text: Not done: The article is most certainly about Louis 16th. Favonian (talk) 18:02, 13 September 2022 (UTC)
thread_title:  Semi-protected edit request on 13 September 2022 

message: Change émigrés to include the link to that page. I think the format would be émigrés Richardgomes7d (talk) 14:42, 3 March 2023 (UTC)
replies: text: Not done for now: No point in linking a French word to an article that doesn't exist. M.Bitton (talk) 17:33, 3 March 2023 (UTC)
thread_title:  Semi-protected edit request on 3 March 2023 

message: 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)
thread_title:  Move discussion in progress 

message: 23 and me states I'm in the same haplogroup as Louis the xvi 2601:409:C100:A330:9426:5CC:BFA:234F (talk) 03:22, 28 October 2023 (UTC)
thread_title:  Ancestry  

message: When you hover over this article link from another article, you get that "Saša Ostojić was the last king of France". I would edit this myself but I'm new to Wikipedia editing and unsure how to do so (also this article appears to be protected so I don't want to make any changes on a new account). Just bringing this to someone's attention. Aurangzebra (talk) 04:30, 20 December 2023 (UTC)
thread_title:  Hoverbox showing Saša Ostojić 

message: whom did louis XVI get married to? 106.221.74.72 (talk) 07:36, 6 March 2024 (UTC)
thread_title:  Sst