Talk:Louis XV

message: 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)
thread_title:  Contradiction 

message: 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)
replies: text: Would be better described as "portrayals" or something. "X in pop culture" is bile-inducing. Stevage 14:20, 21 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Okay, so no objections if I add in this under "Modern portrayals of Louis XV"? MaKamitt 23:13, 30 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Louis XV in popular culture 

message: 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)
thread_title:  Louis XV - Naval battle of Quiberon Bay (1759) 

message: 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)
replies: text: He was a Bourbon.  As was Louis XIV and Louis XVI. Sonic Mew | talk to me 20:34, 12 October 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Family Name of Louis XV 

message: 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)
replies: text: Not so much inaccurate as NPOV. Deb (talk) 07:37, 8 April 2018 (UTC)
thread_title: Marquise de Pompadour

message: 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)
thread_title: Régence

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

message: 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)
thread_title:  Marble Court pic 

message: 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)
thread_title:  Deluge vs. flood 

message: 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)
thread_title: April 11 Edits

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title:  Confusing and incorrectly worded 

message: 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)
thread_title:  Illegitimate issue 

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

text: 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)
thread_title:  NPOV dispute 

message: 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)
thread_title:  Explanation of editing 

message: 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)
thread_title: Mistresses

message: 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)
thread_title:  Which Merrick book? 

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

message: 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)
thread_title:  Newfoundland 

message: > 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)
replies: text: The right word is Parlement, not Parliament. I will make a change. Riyadi (talk) 09:42, 11 May 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  Parliament, seriously? 

message: 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.
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 13:32, 26 May 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title:  Needs mention of contribution to science and the arts 

message: 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)
replies: text: Thanks, quite right.  Fixed. Cordially, SiefkinDR (talk) 17:50, 28 December 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  "Vingtième" tax 

message: 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)
thread_title:  Minor edit to the opening section 

message: change "fundaments" (in Discours sur les origins et les fundaments de l'inégalité) to fondaments, see e.g. https://fr.wikipedia.org/wiki/Discours_sur_l'origine_et_les_fondements_de_l'inégalité_parmi_les_hommes Eridanus (talk) 11:23, 9 April 2020 (UTC)
replies: text: –Deacon Vorbis (carbon • videos) 14:25, 9 April 2020 (UTC)
thread_title:  Semi-protected edit request on 9 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: 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)
thread_title:  line of succession 

message: 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)
thread_title: Detailed account of the execution of Damiens

message: Please change the author details for the book by J. H. Shennan to include the ( Gownsball (talk) 12:12, 6 August 2021 (UTC)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title:  Semi-protected edit request on 6 August 2021 

message: Please add an author link to page on J. H. Shennan. Gownsball (talk) 12:27, 6 August 2021 (UTC)
replies: text: ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 12:31, 6 August 2021 (UTC)
thread_title:  Semi-protected edit request on 6 August 2021 (2) 

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) 06:47, 22 October 2021 (UTC)
thread_title:  Images 

message: 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)
replies: text: Not done: That would be the 16th, not this guy Cannolis (talk) 04:25, 31 December 2021 (UTC)
thread_title:  Semi-protected edit request on 31 December 2021 

message: Please add the following template to the bottom of the article:
 67.173.23.66 (talk) 18:06, 6 March 2022 (UTC)
replies: text: — Paper9oll (🔔 • 📝) 07:29, 13 March 2022 (UTC)
thread_title:  Semi-protected edit request on 6 March 2022 

message: 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)
replies: text: Done  WhinyTheYounger (WtY)(talk, contribs)  00:08, 30 March 2022 (UTC)
thread_title:  "The Treaty of Vienna" 

message: 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)
replies: text: Italicised all usages of the word.–small jars tc 19:45, 20 January 2023 (UTC)
thread_title:  Unigenitus: italicised or not? 

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: 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)
replies: text: Pinchme123 (talk) 03:13, 11 September 2023 (UTC)
thread_title:  Semi-protected edit request on 10 September 2023 

message: 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)
replies: text: Pinchme123 (talk) 03:18, 11 September 2023 (UTC)
thread_title:  Semi-protected edit request on 10 September 2023 (2)