Talk:Aimée du Buc de Rivéry

message: Need to make this article as accurate as possible. Printed references conflict re her birth year, marriage year, child, et cetera. Do not use Prince Michael of Greece's book "Sultana" as a reference; it is not a biography; it is a novel.Mowens35 13:07, 5 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Untitled

message: The section As Nakshedil Sultan warns that the story is not confirmed by historical records. If she was born in 1776 the story is certainly a fabrication. It is claimed that she was a consort of Abdulhamit I. How ? Abdulhamit I died in 1789. She hadn't been yet 13 when the sultan died. It should further be noted that before being introduced to sultan slave girls had to be trained by experienced harem women. It is also claimed that she taught Abdulhamit French. It is almost impossible to visualise a 12 years old inexperienced girl (who hasn't yet learened Turkish) teaching 64 years old sultan French. Of course there may be some amendments to the story. She may be older than it is claimed. (If fact tr-Wiki claimes that she was born in 1768.) Nedim Ardoğa (talk) 09:59, 22 March 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  1776 birth ?  

message: Both Aimée du Buc de Rivéry and Nakshedil Sultan excisted, and both are notable for an article. They are not confirmed to have been the same person. Should the article be divided in two? If they are two people, then they are both notable enough to have an article. If they are truly the same, then the articles can be merged if and when this is confirmed. Would this be a good solution? --Aciram (talk) 12:27, 25 September 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: I would disagree,  because 90% of the notability of either of these two people,  actually arises from the somewhat interesting or intriguiging claim that they are one and the same.Eregli bob (talk) 04:05, 9 October 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: I have now performed the split. They are bot notable as an article subject: Nakshedil was a Valide sultan and therefore notable in herself, and Aimée du Buc de Rivéry was the subject of a popular legend and therefor notable in herself. Both are notable, but they are not confirmed to be the same person. Therefore, they should have separate article, just as in other similar cases. I will do my best to cleanup the split and make sure that the right things are in the right article - the sultan mothers' template for example have no business to be in this article, but of course, they both need more work from experts on the subject. --Aciram (talk) 15:37, 6 June 2013 (UTC)
thread_title:  Separation of article in two 

message: How exactly was she supposed to have been related to Josephine de Beauharnais? The genealogy site roglo.eu, which has a lot of information on French families, can't trace any link between them, though she was a cousin of Josephine's first husband. Opera hat (talk) 23:31, 16 June 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: Just noticed those links don't work any more, but here's her own page on that site: http://roglo.eu/roglo?lang=en;i=769276 Opera hat (talk) 15:00, 29 August 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  Cousin of Josephine 

message: " but this is not possible, given documentary evidence that puts her as still living in France at the time of his birth in 1785 when Aimée was but nine years old."
OK then,  so why does the article about Mahmud II   say that he was born in 1789 ?    Which is it ?   1785 or 1789  ? Eregli bob (talk) 04:03, 9 October 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: Currently, Mahmud's article states the correct year - 1785. E.g. de-WP never had any other date, en-WP seemed to have a vandal who inserted wrong dates(?). --Enyavar (talk) 20:22, 17 February 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  Inconsistent claims 

message: I added a novel to the list on the Novels About section, but it was removed.  I do apologize I should have consulted the talk page first before editing.  
The novel is called The Stolen Girl and is Book 1 in a historical fiction series about Aimée du Buc de Rivéry and Rose Tascher (her cousin) called The Veil and the Crown.  The book is published in both print (isbn number is ) and eBook (ASIN: B00KJ7RQME from Amazon).  It is a historical fiction (not a biography, and goes into more of the legend of what happened to Aimee after she disappeared).  It is an independently published novel so that might have been the reason it was removed.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by Fheadrick (talk • contribs) 16:04, 5 August 2014 (UTC)
replies: text: That's probably the reason, sure. --Enyavar (talk) 20:22, 17 February 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  Addition of a novel about  Aimée du Buc de Rivéry on the Novels About section 

message: Who was Alberic Chuct and how did he prove in 1931 that Aimée died in 1790? All sources I read assume she vanished in a pirate attack in 1788. I'd like to read more about Chuct before I believe that piece of information - an internet search for him didn't turn up anything so far. --Enyavar (talk) 20:22, 17 February 2017 (UTC)
replies: text: It is just a misspelling for Albéric Cahuet, a journalist who wrote a short article titled "Une énigme d'histoire, le secret d'un tombeau d'Orient". Nothing very solid I presume.--Phso2 (talk) 21:13, 17 February 2017 (UTC)
replies: text: Thanks, Phso2. Just reverted another edit that wanted to establish some illustration of "Alberic Chuct" as a source. The IP's edit has added nothing to the article that wasn't already established, except for the insubstantial theory that Aimée has been kept alive by unknown people for two years before she died. --Enyavar (talk) 12:36, 10 March 2017 (UTC)
replies: text: By the way, L'Illustration is the name of the magazine. The ip has probably not read it directly.--Phso2 (talk) 21:20, 10 March 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  Alberic Chuct 

message: Reporting that someone is the 8th cousin once removed -in-law of somebody famous is completely absurd. If she is not noteworthy without such this claim to kinship three centuries earlier, then she just isn't notable.  If she is independently notable, then we don't need to pretend such a relationship is meaningful. Agricolae (talk) 23:26, 12 November 2020 (UTC)
replies: text: You may have have missed all the history-fiction novels that were written upon baseless speculations on her going missing. That relationship was the hook to make it a spicy story. Later in the 19th century, Napoleon III and Abdülaziz cited her as a common link between their families, even. Yes it's absurd, but it's why Buc de Rivery became the subject of a dozen novels. --Enyavar (talk) 16:19, 14 November 2020 (UTC)
replies: text: Back home. I checked the sources I have access to. The claim of "eighth cousin", I can't validate. That would indeed be extremely removed. Those I checked, only claimed "distant", so I replaced "eighth" with that. It is mentioned in the (critical) treatise of Idom-Verhaaren, and in the (uncritical) women-biography collection of Lux, 1963, just for example. The popular if unproven claim, perpetuated in a dozen para-historical novels, is that in 1805 the French Empress and the Turkish Sultana were cousins. It's the tune that the legend fiddles on. The story does't hold water, but that bit is made clear in the article, too. --Enyavar (talk) 19:09, 14 November 2020 (UTC)
thread_title:  Eighth cousin once removed -in-law