Talk:Edict of Nantes

message: The article states that following the Revocation of the Edict of Nantes the wars of religion did not reignite. However, there was significant conflict in the Cevennes region of France known as the Revolte des Camissards under the leadership of Abraham Mazel, Pierre Laporte, and Jean Cavallier. Does the statement in the article mean that no widespread civil war emerged after the revocation of the edict since the violence was localized in the Cevennes (despite lasting several years)? Please clarify in the article.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 97.102.177.26 (talk) 23:05, 22 September 2018 (UTC)
thread_title: No Reignition of Violence?

message: The first paragraph was deleted and a juvenile graffito added 14:16, 2 October 2005, User:142.59.104.79, an anonymous passer-by. In erasing the graffiti, the next editor (14:22, 2 October 2005, User:156.143.138.178, another anonymous passer-by) did not revert the page, and the opening paragraph remained lost. Then, a "cleanup tag' was applied 04:49, 4 October 2005 by User:Andreww  and a "Wikify tag" followed, 17:27, 4 October 2005, added by User:Acjelen. I have restored the original version, but some editorial care needs to be exercised before applying those tags, which have been so trashed by their mis-usage. --Wetman 05:35, 5 October 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Vandalism at [[Edict of Nantes]]

message: "Such an innovative act of toleration stood virtually alone in a Europe, where standard practice forced subjects to follow the religion of their ruler — the application of the principle of cuius regio, eius religio."
Come one! Warsaw Confederation, anyone? Or rule of Bathory's in Siebenburgen? Szopen 07:57, 2 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  So much as to use French, might as well do it correctly: "Une foi, une loi, un roi". I know, I know, it's hard. French has two genders: masculine and feminine, while English has only one. But it could be worse! German has three. And Latin had five or seven, depending on how you count. A native speaker of a lesser language should not attempt to master a greater one, except in extraordinary circumstances. Anglophones, keep away from French. It's out of your league.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.45.178.123 (talk) 17:29, 10 March 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Virtually alone..

message: I have ancestors who came to America after the revocation.  It seems a little odd to leave this out or play this down.76.215.47.190 17:13, 25 August 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Revocation: How about the new world? 

message: I see that the francophone article states that a recent discovery shows that the Edict of Nantes was not sealed with green wax (implying a permanent edict) but with brown wax (implying a temporary edict).   I was tempted to add this to the anglophone article, but desisted.    Although the French article cites plenty of sources, it is not clear - at least not to me - what is the specific source of this stuff about the colour of the sealing wax.  And the whole thing seems to be at variance with the assertion in the English wiki entry that the original Edict of Nantes has disappeared.    So maybe it's an obscure hoax.   Or an innocent misunderstanding.   Or...?
Does anyone know what this is about?   If soundly based, it probably merits inclusion in the English wiki article.   Nothing like a good conspiracy theory to stimulate interest....
Thanks d'avance for any sourced inputs....
Regards   Charles01 (talk) 21:29, 27 March 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: In a culture of lawyers, whether C16 or C21,  text rules "permanence", not wax color. The conspiracy theory you search lies rather in the disappearance of the Paris copy compared to the retention of the copy in Protestant Geneva. --Wetman (talk) 06:48, 28 March 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: According to Mousnier, the edict of 13 April is sealed with green wax on green and red and green cords and is declared "perpetual and irrevocable". The secret articles of May 2 are sealed only with yellow wax. I don't know if the yellow wax has gone a bit brown. qp10qp (talk) 07:35, 19 July 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Edict of Nantes - temporary or permanent 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified one external link on Edict of Nantes. 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
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) 11:45, 5 December 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: `The Edict remained unaltered in effect, registered by the parliaments as "fundamental and irrevocable law", with the exception of the brevets, which had been granted for a period of eight years, and were renewed by Henry in 1606` Shouldn't parliaments be parlements? (Since the English and French idea of parliament differed a lot)TablemannDanny231 (talk) 13:44, 6 January 2022 (UTC)
replies: text: fixed :) they're very different bodies Sovietblobfish (talk) 09:10, 2 January 2023 (UTC)
thread_title:  Correct Spelling