Talk:Madame de Pompadour

message: She was know to have a close friend that she truly loved. She died waiting for his return. He was known as the Doctor.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 173.170.149.94 (talk) 00:56, 16 April 2024 (UTC)

message: I would really like to know why she died so young.
And why was she blamed for the Seven Years War?
-- GIR 12:34, 9 December 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Older

message: Did she, or did she not, arrange lovers for the King? The article says she did and then, lower down, says that contrary to popular belief, she did not. Which is it?--Doc ask? 20:58, 6 May 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Contradictions 

message: I suspect quite a few people will have looked at this article in the wake of her appearance in Doctor Who. Personally I noticed a distict lack of citations & references. The question of whether or not she arranged other liasons should clearly be referenced. Any takers? MGSpiller 00:20, 8 May 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Citations 

message: From everything I have read, Madame de Pompadour did not arrange for mistresses, but the populace often said that she did as an insult, and who knows, they may have thought that she did at the time. Let's not forget that Louis XV had the Parc au Cerfs as his own personal harem, and this place came into being(supposedly) after she was unable to make love with him (after 1750). Does anyone know why they had to cease sexual relations?
* Sources I have seen do state that she did arrange other women - possibly courtesans - to sleep with the king. The reason was probably medical - maybe she did not want to experience more miscarriages - but the exact reason was probably known only to her personal physician and is lost to history - Skysmith 13:27, 9 May 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Arranging for Royal Mistresses 

message: Quote: "See paragraph 4 vs. the second to last paragraph."
I removed the fourth paragraph. It didn't seem to have any constructiveness in it. Nothing useful. Since the contradiction has been removed, should I remove the contradict template? --MorwenofLossarnarch 02:38, 9 May 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Edit 

message: OK. I hate to interrupt the debate over Doctor Who (Though I do like the current compromise), but i have something that may cause even more contention. According to Alexandra Robbins's book, Secrets of the Tomb, the members of Skull and Bones believe that they possess Madame de Pompadour's skeleton. (Cited in page 92 of the paperback edition.) 65.12.115.249 13:41, 30 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Madame de Pompadour and Skull and Bones?

message: 1. This article has NO citations. This is shameful. This is one of the best-known mistresses of all time. There are plenty of books on her. At least start with Sex with Kings.
2. The dispute over Doctor Who. I'm thinking do it like the other articles out there who have listed historical figures who've appeared in popular culture and label it something like legacy: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Marie_Antoinette and mix in it things like this: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/George_Washington that will get rid of some of the problems with the trivia and also bring it into a more encyclopedic article. Does that make sense Instead of fighting about if or what, show precedence and also wikipedia pages themselves. There is a precedence, however, you need to balance it out with OTHER stuff in addition. Comprimise. That's where both sides lose. --Hitsuji Kinno 02:36, 15 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: The Doctor Who dispute was resolved nearly a year ago, so I don't think there's a need for both sides to do much of anything now. Wibbble 09:26, 15 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Citations needed and a compromise 

message: I do not believe her mother was a prostitute, as the article say know. She had a "bad reputation", she had several sexual partners, yes, but she was not a prositute. In those days, people had the opinion that a woman who had several lovers was a prostitute, but we should hardly use this definition in wikipedia - and still, I have seen it on several places; Madame Dubarry was not a prostitute during the period of 1774-89, but was called so here earlier, because she had lovers. These things should really be corrected. --85.226.45.121 (talk) 10:25, 28 November 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Removed offensive qualification of mother as a prostitute.  Frania W. (talk) 15:03, 24 December 2008 (UTC)
replies: text:  Good edit, the characterisation seemed a bit harsh! Thank you. Kate (talk) 15:40, 24 December 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree with you & find it very sad that some of the articles on famous French women are linked to Category:French courtesans and prostitutes http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Category:French_courtesans_and_prostitutes.  Placing in that list Marie de Rohan-Montbazon, duchesse de Chevreuse, Stéphanie Félicité Ducrest de St-Albin, comtesse de Genlis, Thérésa Tallien and the French actress Rachel is beyond my comprehension of the words *courtesan* and *prostitute* used in English speaking Wikipedia! I believe Anglo-Saxon puritanism (probably more American than British) has a lot to do with such opinions.  The French have a more liberal view on the behaviour of women.  Why should a man with many feminine conquests be called a *libertine*, a *Don Juan*, a *womaniser* or a *great lover* (but never a *male-whore*!) while women doing the same are categorised as *prostitutes* ?  Frania W. (talk) 19:12, 24 December 2008 (UTC)

text: This is very true, Frania! I believe you are correct. I find it very sad to call a woman a prostitute merely because she, according to the moral of those days, (which of course are included in contemporary references) was wrongly considered to be one. I have noticed before that many actresses, singers, and other women of the 17th century-19th century here on wikipedia have the category courtesans/prostitutes; they may have been called prostitutes because of the moral in those days, but they should not still be labelled so in our age: only the women, who actually charged money for sex, should have the category prostitue or courtesan. I think it will benefit wikipedia more if we are carefull about hese things. --Aciram (talk) 14:43, 31 December 2008 (UTC)

text: Yes, I understand. I agree with you in what you say about the weiv on sexuality in 18th century France. I was in fact also talking about the matter in general, the view on this in Europe in general; also, for example, an 19th century English actress, who had affairs, could be considered to be a prostitute, even if she was not: she could be described as such by her time, and therefore categorized as such in wikipedia, when the article is based upon such sources and tradition. I wish you good luck in adjusting this, and hope that you will also remove such wrongful labels from women of all nationalities as you find them, as I have done myself. I am glad if this puritanical wiev could be corrected toward a more neutral point of view. -Aciram (talk) 19:36, 31 December 2008 (UTC)

text: Of course, if the fact that her mother had a "bad reputation" made it difficult for her parents to arrange her marriage, then that should still be mentioned, but phrased: "The fact that her mother had several sexual partners, and had a bad reputation because of it", rather than the incorrect and untrue: "her mother was a well known prostitute".--85.226.44.74 (talk) 13:09, 3 January 2009 (UTC)

text: It does seem, that although her mother was not a prostitute at all, she had a "bad reputation", and that this had effects upon her daughter's possibilities on the marriage market. This should defenitely be inserted in to the article. I know France had a different view on sex than England, but let's not pretend that it did not belong to the same masculin culture as the whole of Europe, which gave a woman and not a man a "bad reputation" if she had several sexual partners. France is not an exception from this all-European wiev. --85.226.47.151 (talk) 20:24, 11 February 2009 (UTC)
replies: text:  I se that everything about this have been deleted. If I may say so, Frania; to delete everything about sex wherever you find it, is also to be a puritan.--85.226.47.151 (talk) 20:27, 11 February 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Mother a prostitute? 

message: Minor edit to move the information related to her death into its own section instead of having it in the "Versailles" => "Postion at Court" subsection. No change to actual information. cswpride (talk) 00:19, 24 December 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Death 

message: "Talented and beautiful lady" seems a little too opinion for Wikipedia. I suggest "regarded as a talented and beautiful lady" Whigg (talk) 13:35, 18 June 2009 (UTC)
thread_title: Neutrality?

message: There are sections of this article that are badly written, either they are cut & paste jobs from another source or they are written by a nonnative English speaker. I'm not sure what to think of statements like this:
: The Marquise de Pompadour directed political life in France she was king and prime minister for almost 20 years
Huh? And later comments about how she, with her obese body, physically dominated the king despite the fact that they stopped having sex? Sources, anyone? Bad writing and poorly sourced. Are there any experts out there on 18th century French history? 69.125.134.86 (talk) 22:31, 17 June 2013 (UTC)
thread_title:  This article needs help! 

message: It seems kind of funny that when I clicked on a link for  Poisson's actual name, I was redirected to an article title that is merely her nickname. I'd like to suggest that the article be retitled using her actual name, in the same way that searching for "Honest Abe" redirects you to an article titled "Abraham Lincoln."  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 130.132.199.113 (talk) 22:48, 23 June 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: It's not a nickname, it's a title of nobility.  It is, and has for centuries, been the practice in Western usage that members of the nobility are referred to by their title, like Arthur Wellesley, Camillo Benso or Gilbert du Motier.  Occasionally a holder of a noble title might be better known by their personal name, like most holders of Napoleonic titles or British prime ministers who were ennobled after already having held the premiership; in such cases, Wikipedia finds it inappropriate to follow the formally correct practice and instead very sensibly uses the subject's more common name as its title.  But Madame de Pompadour is not commonly known to anyone as Jeanne-Antoinette Poisson, and therefore Wikipedia very correctly has located her article here. Binabik80 (talk) 22:04, 19 February 2014 (UTC)
thread_title:  Madame de Pompadour or Jeanne-Antoinette Poisson? 

message: Shouldn't simply 'Madame Pompadour' be listed as a name she is known by in English? Going by the use of that version of her name in film/television/operetta/novels and the flower named for her, down in the popular culture section.219.88.68.195 (talk) 00:46, 18 November 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: Just to revisit, seeing as it got no replies at the time, -as per WP:NCUE, and WP:COMMONNAME, shouldn't the article be renamed 'Madame Pompadour', given that in the popular culture section and appearances this would appear to be the more common form of her name that she is referred to by in English. 219.88.68.195 (talk) 03:08, 18 December 2018 (UTC)
thread_title:  Madame Pompadour 

message: The infobox on this page is completely wrong. It seems to contain information for Maria Antonia Ferdinanda of Spain, not Jeanne Antoinette Poisson, Marquise of Pompadour. I'm afraid I don't know enough on editing and correcting entries to remedy this myself, but it seems a large oversight that should be corrected. 38.98.94.10 (talk) 17:48, 6 January 2020 (UTC)
thread_title:  Infobox Misinformation 

message: She received, "a private education at home with the best teachers of the day who taught her dancing, drawing, painting, engraving, theatre, the arts, and the ability to memorize entire plays." Really. "The Best Teachers of the Day" weren't instructing a would-be courtesan in the essentials of her trade. Care to name who they were?
:She was expensively educated, before marrying a rich man. The classic background for a king's mistress. She was never a courtesan. Johnbod (talk) 12:51, 21 May 2021 (UTC)
thread_title:  great education? 

message: We state that "The King purchased the marquisate of Pompadour on 24 June [1745] and gave the estate, with title and coat-of-arms, to Jeanne Antoinette, making her a Marquise" and then state that "she was elevated on 12 October 1752 to duchess". But we continue to refer to her as a marquise, rather than a duchess, and even Louis XV is then said to have referred to her as "la marquise" after her death. So was she a duchess, and if so of what ("Duchesse de Pompadour", or some other title)? (Nothing appears to be listed on our list of French dukedoms.) And if so why does that title seem to have been ignored in favour of the lower one? Proteus (Talk) 16:14, 24 January 2023 (UTC)
replies: text: The French article begins: "Jeanne-Antoinette Poisson, marquise de Pompadour et duchesse de MenarsL'acte de décès de Madame de Pompadour en date du 17 avril 1764 à Versailles, mentionne ses titres sans toutefois respecter l'ordre d'accession : ., dite Madame de Pompadour, est une maîtresse-en-titre du roi..."
Johnbod (talk) 16:21, 24 January 2023 (UTC)
replies: text: Thank you, but unfortunately that raises further questions. Our article on the Château de Menars records that it was not acquired by Mme de Pompadour until 1760, eight years after she was apparently raised to be a duchess, and only mentions it being raised to a 'marquisat' (which appears to be borne out by Mme de P's brother, Abel-François Poisson, who inherited it from her, being referred as as "marquis de Menars" rather than "duc de Menars"). Do we perhaps have the dates wrong? Proteus (Talk) 15:48, 21 April 2023 (UTC)
thread_title:  Rank