Talk:Marie Antoinette/Archive 1

message: Can anyone help me add the citations to the text (for I don't know how to do it - I'm a lousy 
i did a good job editing this thing... these people just change what i say.
I read the quotations below in the following books (I didnt read the original texts, but translations, into French and into Portuguese, respectively)
"There are a lot of people at Versailles tonight, aren't there" – in Zweig, Stefan, Marie Antoinette 
"Dear God, guide and protect us. We are too young to reign" – in Fraser, Antonia, Marie Antoinette – the Journey
Analogica 04:20, 20 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Two quotations 

message: Can anyone confirm (based on a reliable source) that Louis was not suffering from phimosis, but was rather oblivious to or ignorant of wedding-night rituals? I have read accounts of an intervention of HRE Josef II (brother of Marie Antoinette) with Louis in 1777, where he encouraged the king to have an operation to correct the cause of painful erections.
-M
Pubmed shows two articals suggesting that he did in fact have phimosis (both in french though). Likewise, I've seen it claimed by a number of other sources.  I think the current statement that he did not have it is much too strong to make without a definitive source.  Otherwise it should be changed to something like "may have had". —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 128.196.193.152 (talk • contribs) 23 June 2006.
I understand that one article in pubmed argues that Louis XVI  may have had a frenulum breve, which can be surgically corrected without circumcision. 
Here's the citation:
G. Androutsos, "Le phimosis de Louis XVI (1754-1793) aurait-il ete a l'origine de ses difficultes sexuelles et de sa fecundite retardee?" Progres Urologique, 12 (1), 2002
However, I have not read the article.  The issue here is that this article needs a citation that Louis XVI to support the statement that he did not have phimosis.  The article as currently written gives Louis XVI misleadingly implies that Louis had a clean bill of physical health, which may not be the case at all.  
Currently, the statement  Nor was it true that he suffered from phimosis. contradicts secondary sources like Encyclopedia Britannica, which imply he did have a physical disability that contributed to his marital difficulties. (Though, of course, no citation is given there either).  Further, the statement is contradicted by an article's internal link to the Wikipedia article on phimosis, which states that Louis XVI did have the disorder.
Until the evidence is in, I think this statement:  Nor was it true that he suffered from phimosis. should be deleted or qualified.  Rather, the article should present both hypotheses fairly in the absence of conclusive evidence: he had a physical disorder (perhaps phimosis or perhaps a frenulum breve) or he was psychologically unprepared for form of intimacy he had to perform, as the article currently suggests. Wtfiv 06:15, 5 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Anyway, I found a New Yorker review of Francine du Plessix Gray's bio at Louis's article. --Error 01:16, 30 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Phimosis

message: :The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposal. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. No further edits should be made to this section. 
The result of the debate was don't move. —Nightstallion (?) 00:40, 29 January 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Move?

message: :Add *Support or *Oppose followed by an optional one-sentence explanation, then sign your vote with ~~~~
* Strongly OpposeSeptentrionalis 02:05, 25 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Well in that case, it would have to be Elisabeth of Austria and not Elisabeth of Bavaria. and what about Elizabeth Bowes-Lyon (guess who that is?) Gryffindor 14:13, 25 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I don't know about these, but I don't see how the complicated and ambiguous nature of the various Elizabeths affects this question here, where "Marie Antoinette" is a nicely unambiguous and overwhelmingly used name. For example, nothing links to Maria Antonia of Austria. Kusma (討論) 14:51, 25 January 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Straw poll

message: In the external links: Autrichienne perdue sans collier, by Gilles Marchal. (1)Hideously laid out page. (2) I can't quickly work out if it's non-fiction, historical fiction, or what. But my French isn't great, and I'm not inclined to give it a lot of time. Possible linkspam: User seems to have been adding a bunch of links to one site: Contributions. Exact same link added to Louis René Édouard, cardinal de Rohan. - Jmabel | Talk 04:47, 7 March 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Linkspam? 

message: I see this is tagged with . All this tells me is that someone doesn't like someone else's writing. Would someone please indicate explicitly what they wish to see addressed? If there are specific issues, they can be addressed, but if that doesn't happen in the next week or so, I think the tag should simply be removed. It can always be re-added when someone is able to be explicit about the problems. - Jmabel | Talk 15:49, 27 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I've read over the article and I don't see a problem with the tone. -Will Beback 22:34, 27 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I think the issue is that the article is more novelistic than encyclopedic. For example:
The Dauphin and Marie Antoinette were then married in front of the court, with Marie Antoinette wearing a magnificent dress with huge white hoops covered in diamonds and pearls. There was then a formal dinner, which was also held in front of the crowd. Louis-Auguste ate an enormous amount. When the king told him to eat less, the Dauphin replied "Why? I always sleep better when I have a full stomach!"
"Magnificent" is definitely POV and "huge" is a little informal. It is also uncertain as to why this information is included at all. Why is it important to know that the Dauphin ate a lot of food? And if you think it is important, why don't we include other "anecdotal" information? Where do you stop? I didn't post the tag, but I agree that the overall tone of the article and the facts being presented are fairly informal.Pageblank 16:24, 1 May 2006 (UTC)

text: When referring to the wedding dresses of the brides of heirs-apparent of major monarchies, I think that "magnificent" may be an NPOV term. "Ornate", "expensive", "lavish" are other words that might be used, I suppose. Change "huge" to "large" if you like. Regarding the other details, it establishes the nature of court life, and the way that the subject was introduced to it on her very first day. Lastly, the detail about the Dauphine's appetite confirms the fact that he had no idea that sleep was not the primary activity on a wedding night, which turned out to be a critical issue in the marriage. -Will Beback 01:18, 2 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: On this, I don't think that the article should serve to identify with her views- it should provide an unbiased view of them.  See below.  -Elizabennet 20:42, 5 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Inappropriate tone? 

message: The article states her famous "let them eat cake quote" (which is well known to have not happened) to have been atributed to have taken place during her Coronation but the History Channel special on the French Revolution says it was claimed to have taken place during the bread riots, the "march of the women" when the king and queen were forced to move to Paris. Granted, since this is a atributed quote and not a real one, its imposible to pin down but a think the latter date is the more correct of the two. I wanted to get conformation on this before I went and changed it.
:Without any source here to refresh my memory, I do think you (&History Channel) are correct. Tazmaniacs 12:25, 24 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: There have been some sources which state that although this statement was wrongly attributed to Marie Antoinette, that it was actually said by a predicessor as Queen Consort of France, Marie Therese, wife of Louis XIV and great-great-great grandmother of Louis XVI. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 193.108.158.71 (talk) 22:31, 23 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Let them eat cake 

message: Didn't Louis have to have a operation before he was finally able to consummate the marrage? Not just the conversation mentioned in the article? or am i wrong?
:According to the article:
* Nor was it true that he suffered from phimosis. 
:If it were true, then he would have needed a very minor operation. -Will Beback 00:53, 18 May 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  finally consummated 

message: this seems to be horribly biased throughout, particularly in the sections talking about her life as queen.
: Biased for or biased against? The fact that I don't know in which direction you are complaining suggests that it is not. - Jmabel | Talk 16:29, 20 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  NPOV? 

message: Historical evidences shows she was a martyr. But most people still cling to the idea that she is the ultimate symbol of the decadent, foolish, bourgeois lady. Why?
: "Historical evidence" cannot show that anyone "was a martyr" (except in the sense that some individual or institution may have declared them such). - Jmabel | Talk 16:31, 20 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Fear of revewing concepts? 

message: In the first paragraph of the "Life as Dauphine" section there is a story I have never heard before or read about "once tipped a bucket of dirty water on Antoinette's head as she walked underneath her window" very unlikely!!! there has been a "citation needed" sign next to this since the 9th May, there has been ample time for someone to find proof of this, since no-one has im deleting it, if there is proof put it back.
--Stevenscollege 22:37, 22 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Yeah...how did this get featured with no in-line citations and only two references, incomplete references at that. I'm not an expert on the topic, so it might be all good. Or maybe not. There's really no way to tell. savidan(talk) (e@) 05:35, 5 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Citation Needed 

message: The utility of charts, succession box, templates & so forth mustn't abuse us. To put a "succession box" on this article, claiming that Joséphine de Beauharnais "succeeded" to Marie-Antoinette is an obvious historical short-cut which totally bypass the events of the French Revolution. Beauharnais did not succeeded to Marie-Antoinette, unless you consider that Lenin "succeeded" to the Tsar... It was rather like an overthrowing in the last case... Although I'm sure some find these boxes very cute, an encyclopedia must first of all give correct information, and this also goes for images, pictures, categories & all these boxes. Tazmaniacs 12:22, 24 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Misleading succession box removed 

message: Is the painting used on the front page the same one here? If so then we can finally ad the painter and the year it was painted.
http://www.linternaute.com/histoire-magazine/interview/06/xavier-salmon/marie-antoinette/presentation.shtml
--Jimmyjrg 22:08, 31 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Painting 

message: There is a confusing statement in the last line about the restoration of her grave, it is minor but it states that "gray matter" was found. I don't think this is referring to brain material as it should have long since decomposed. I don't know it's just confusing to me because it mentions bone fragments right beforehand. Youknowthatoneguy 10:13, 21 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Burial Execution 

message: I removed the trivia related to Madonna and Christina Aguilera (that Madonna performed "Vogue" at the MTV awards costumed as Marie Antoinette, and that Aguilera portrayed some of her "bedroom style" in the "Lady Marmalade" video).
I don't think there is documentation that Madonna intended to portray Marie Antoinette: I saw that performance as it aired. It came off as nonspecific French 18th century aristocracy, and seemed to be a reference to Dangerous Liaisons, which had recently been popular. If there is a quote in print where Madonna says that she portrayed Marie Antoinette in that performance, then that part should be restored. Otherwise, it's just opinion, and not particularly informed opinion.
As far as Christina Aguilera goes, the "Lady Marmalade" video was released as part of the promotional blitz for the movie Moulin Rouge. That film is set in the late 1890s, more than 100 years after the death of Marie Antoinette. The singers in the video portray late-19th-century prostitutes, with a significant modern twist; in the photo I link just below, she is even wearing a 19th century corset. So, this tidbit is absolutely incorrect and should not be restored to the article, even if there is documentation for the Madonna trivia.
4.225.129.36 10:13, 23 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Trivia - Madonna & Christina Aguilera 

message: Unregistered user 206.77.103.101 who seems to have a short history of not very useful edits has removed a large quantity of what looks like good material from this article just now - is this something people think we should correct? The only plus being that the article is already pretty long. This page is getting quite a lot of vandal attention following the recent movie. MarkThomas 23:06, 10 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Large removal of material 

message: Is there proof of this? she definitely traveled around certain parts of France spending time at the various royal chateaus (Fountainbleau, the Tuilieries, St. Cloud, etc. besides the obvious Versailles), and in the new biography it's mentioned that Louis inspected the shipyards at the north of France, even though MA didn't accompany him. But it wouldn't have been very hard for her to see the ocean, so where's the proof? Donthaveaspaz 10:04, 16 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Not that highly esteemed by scholars, surely.  john k 04:26, 22 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Trivia - never saw the ocean 

message: in the Voltaire song The Headless Waltz is about  Marie Antoinette and her excecution
66.69.112.37 00:44, 18 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Trivia 

message: To the people of Wiki-land;I've found a inconsistancy in the formatting of this article: usually a page on a European ruler such as: Louis XII; Charles II[Spain]; Fredrick Barbarossa[Holy Roman Emp. of the Crusades]; all of these have a helpful bars on the side and bottom to point out facts 'in a nut-shell'. I am a new member and cannot edit this
article, could a vet. member(s) look into it or form a commitee. It would be
cool to have family trees and simular information as well. Thank You, Moose in the Corner 01:58, 29 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Lack of formatting in page 

message: Is it just me, or is this entire article filled with quotes and passages probably directly from the movie without citation.
The entire article appears to have been written by a fourteen year old girl who just watched Marie Antoinette. The tone is childish and the lack of citations makes the whole enterprise completely unreliable. Robotk 14:59, 24 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Movie Verus Reality 

message: This article is sore for more citations there are a lot of statements that seem like a part of a novel rather than a historical record because there are no citations for various parts. Things like there was gossip that abound, this person hated her, she hated court life because her ladies in waiting kind of stuff. It feels almost too detailed to feel real, so it needs massive citations. --Hitsuji Kinno 16:57, 15 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Citations 

message: I was alerted to this page by another user, and I hope I can help. I have Fraser's 'The Journey', and I could certainly help with citations in regards to a lot of quotes, particularly also with certain spots which are biologically iffy. I also have a few other books that feature Antoinette, such as 'Sex with the Queen', which highlights the interpretation and historical controversy over the paternity of Louis Charles, the second Dauphin. I have also seen the new movie, and so can comment on the inaccuracies in it (as there are several that clearly stick out in my mind, even four months after).
I hope to be of some help here. :) - Papirini
*I have written changes up to the calling of the Assembly of Notables on my discussion page. I haven't put up all of the citations yet (that will come later) and I need to change some of the letter syntax of names as well. But this is what my cleanup looks like so far. ^^;;
**I've moved it to User:Papirini/Marie Antoinette (after talking it over with the user).  I don't know a whole lot about French history, but I think it looks good so far. :) JuJube 03:39, 22 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Offer to cleanup 

message: In the "Motherhood" section the article says Marie had four kids.  Later in the article the article talks about "two kids" and "the two kids".  Please correct this discrepency and make the article internally consistent.  If there were indeed four kids, then they all need to be addressed later - don't just let two of them disappear into thin air.  Thanks.
Sorry I don't know how to sign this, or what tildes mean.
(Cpnugent 01:43, 26 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: It is. Marie Antoinette had four children = Maria Theresa, Louis-Joseph, Louis-Charles, and Sophie-Beatrix. If you look at the section Eve of revolution, you will see that Sophie-Beatrix died when only a year old, and Louis-Joseph in 1789 of tuberculosis. By the time the Revolution began, only two of her children were alive - as is explained in the article. Hope that cleared it up for you. Michaelsanders 02:09, 26 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  please get Marie's number of children straight 

message: :The following discussion is an archived discussion of the proposal. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. No further edits should be made to this section. 
Marie Antoinette of Austria → Marie Antoinette — This page should be moved back to its former location as it was moved unilaterally by another editor. This woman is university known as Marie Antoinette. The problem with the current (and undiscussed) move is similar to that of Alexandra Feodorovna, who was erroneously titled Alexandra Fyodorovna of Hesse, which is an artificial construction. There is something to be said for official or formulaic titling when all of the elements fit but such is not the case with this one. I cite Wikipedia:Naming conventions (common names) to back this up. Charles 15:39, 27 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Add  # Support  or  # Oppose  on a new line in the appropriate section followed by a brief explanation, then sign your opinion using ~~~~.  Please remember that this survey is not a vote, and please provide an explanation for your recommendation.
====Survey - in support of the move====
# Support As a restorative move and as this queen's common name. Charles 15:40, 27 March 2007 (UTC)

text: Add any additional comments:
This is nothing like the Russian Empress issue. As I have already said, that was an issue where two sets commonly used but linguistically distinct names had to be dealt with (since 'Alix of Hesse' does not translate to 'Alexandra Feodorovna'). This issue, on the other hand, is as simple as the choice between Jeanne de Bourbon and "Joanna of Bourbon". Michael  Sanders 16:13, 27 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I'd also note that several other versions of wikipedia name her 'Marie Antoinette of Austria' or 'Marie Antoinette of Habsburg Lorraine', without anyone's head spinning. And that includes the French article. Michael  Sanders 15:40, 28 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: English people don't refer to her that way though. Why not mention Swedish, Finnish, Slovak, Serbian, Russian, Portuguese, Norwegian, Hungarian, Lithuanian, Spanish, Danish, or Czech, etc., if that matters at all? It doesn't! The French recognize their consorts as coming from somewhere else, us English recognize select consorts just as the queens they were. In this case, it is the name Marie Antoinette. Charles 16:08, 28 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: In English, consorts are recognised as 'coming from somewhere else'. Thus, name a single non-surnamed Queen consort of England or Scotland who was not 'of Somewhere' - even 'Elizabeth of York' (now, that's artificial). And the French article is entirely relevant - given that she was Queen of France, what the French call her is rather important. Michael  Sanders 16:13, 28 March 2007 (UTC)

text: What is the exact purpose of this? Charles 22:46, 29 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: You asked for proof that 'Marie Antoinette' and 'Austria' were combined in the same name. Michael  Sanders 22:51, 29 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: In English. Giving the whole thing in French, with French titles and French names doesn't support the form "Marie Antoinette of Austria". The form shown there isn't even "Marie Antoinette d'Autriche". Charles 22:53, 29 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: But it demonstrates that the forms 'Marie Antoinette' and 'Austria' are used together (whereas the POV of yourself and others appears to be that she can only be 'Maria Antonia of Austria'); 'Marie Antoinette' and 'Maria Antonia' are merely the same name in different languages, not different names (and thus nothing like the mess of Russian Empresses). Michael  Sanders 22:58, 29 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I'm sure they have been used together before, when the title is wholly in French, but this is English and I, at least, have never heard her called Marie Antoinette of Austria in conversation. It is always Marie Antoinette. Adding of Austria does nothing for her. Charles 23:02, 29 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Marie Antoinette Jeanne Josephe d'Autriche —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Michaelsanders (talk • contribs) 23:05, 29 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Requested move 

message: :Add  # Support  or  # Oppose  on a new line in the appropriate section followed by a brief explanation, then sign your opinion using ~~~~.  Please remember that this survey is not a vote, and please provide an explanation for your recommendation.
====Survey - in support of the move====
# Support As a restorative move and as this queen's common name. Charles 15:40, 27 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Survey

message: # Support As a restorative move and as this queen's common name. Charles 15:40, 27 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Survey - in support of the move

message: #Oppose - current title is her name, in line with convention and precedent, making use of her common name. Michael  Sanders 15:40, 28 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Survey - in opposition to the move

message: :Add any additional comments:
This is nothing like the Russian Empress issue. As I have already said, that was an issue where two sets commonly used but linguistically distinct names had to be dealt with (since 'Alix of Hesse' does not translate to 'Alexandra Feodorovna'). This issue, on the other hand, is as simple as the choice between Jeanne de Bourbon and "Joanna of Bourbon". Michael  Sanders 16:13, 27 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I'd also note that several other versions of wikipedia name her 'Marie Antoinette of Austria' or 'Marie Antoinette of Habsburg Lorraine', without anyone's head spinning. And that includes the French article. Michael  Sanders 15:40, 28 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: English people don't refer to her that way though. Why not mention Swedish, Finnish, Slovak, Serbian, Russian, Portuguese, Norwegian, Hungarian, Lithuanian, Spanish, Danish, or Czech, etc., if that matters at all? It doesn't! The French recognize their consorts as coming from somewhere else, us English recognize select consorts just as the queens they were. In this case, it is the name Marie Antoinette. Charles 16:08, 28 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: In English, consorts are recognised as 'coming from somewhere else'. Thus, name a single non-surnamed Queen consort of England or Scotland who was not 'of Somewhere' - even 'Elizabeth of York' (now, that's artificial). And the French article is entirely relevant - given that she was Queen of France, what the French call her is rather important. Michael  Sanders 16:13, 28 March 2007 (UTC)

text: What is the exact purpose of this? Charles 22:46, 29 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: You asked for proof that 'Marie Antoinette' and 'Austria' were combined in the same name. Michael  Sanders 22:51, 29 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: In English. Giving the whole thing in French, with French titles and French names doesn't support the form "Marie Antoinette of Austria". The form shown there isn't even "Marie Antoinette d'Autriche". Charles 22:53, 29 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: But it demonstrates that the forms 'Marie Antoinette' and 'Austria' are used together (whereas the POV of yourself and others appears to be that she can only be 'Maria Antonia of Austria'); 'Marie Antoinette' and 'Maria Antonia' are merely the same name in different languages, not different names (and thus nothing like the mess of Russian Empresses). Michael  Sanders 22:58, 29 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I'm sure they have been used together before, when the title is wholly in French, but this is English and I, at least, have never heard her called Marie Antoinette of Austria in conversation. It is always Marie Antoinette. Adding of Austria does nothing for her. Charles 23:02, 29 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Marie Antoinette Jeanne Josephe d'Autriche —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Michaelsanders (talk • contribs) 23:05, 29 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Discussion

message: Marie Antoinette was known never known as "Marie Antoinette of Austria" or "Marie Antoinette of France". Maire Antoinette, who used "Antoine" as a child, still used "Antoinette" alone very occasionally in family letter when she signed them (mainly she did not). On all her formal correspondence , the Queen of France was loftily "Marie Antoinette", with no need of qualification. Even after her husband was executed she was still known simply as Marie Antoinette, by monarchists and revolutionarys alike. Marie Antoinette never held the title "Marie Antoinette of Austria" because as a child her title was Maria Antonia Josepha Johanna of Habsburg-Lorraine, Archduchess of Austria, Princess of Hungary and Bohemia, Princess of Tuscany. Her name was Marie Antoinette, not disrespectful "Marie Antoinette of Austria", so please change it back to Marie Antoinette. User:Daniel_Chiswick 29 March, 2007
:First of all, Mr Chiswick, place comments at the bottom of the page, not the top. Second of all, she is quite specifically referred to as 'Marie Antoinette d'Autriche' in one source above, and as 'Marie Antoinette, Archduchesse d'Autriche' in another. You're right to say that she "never held the title Marie Antoinette of Austria" - since such isn't a 'title', but rather a manner of referring to Queen consorts. Michael  Sanders 14:48, 30 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: French sources and English sources differ though. This is a matter of English-speaking convention. Charles 15:04, 30 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: "Marie Antoinette of Austria"

message: * 1) In 'x of y' terms, her name is 'Marie Antoinette of Austria'.
* 2) She originally given a Latin name (as part of baptism), 'Maria Antonia etc.', which is also (I believe) the German form of her name. However, historic royalty are generally not viewed as having any 'official' form of their name, either terminological or linguistic; rather, they are generally named in a manner most appropriate to the language the author or commentator is using - which would make 'Mary Antonia' her name in English. However, there are always figures who are particularly named in one manner, language or language form over another (for example 'The Comte de Paris', 'Marguerite de Valois', 'Marie de' Medici'), even if that is not the standard form of the name in the language being used. Thus, this person is known as 'Marie Antoinette', and so that form is used over the 'correct' (in English) 'Maria Antonia' - since, she may have been originally named 'Maria Antonia', but as a royal she doesn't get to claim the privilege of a private citizen by keeping her name untranslated. 
* 3) There was no 'name change', of the style in Russia; she had always been referred to as Marie Antoinette in France, even before she married Louis (see the link to the almanach above), no name change ceremony: the French called her 'Marie Antoinette' as they always had; the Germans called her 'Maria Antonia' as they always had. This means that it is technically wrong to refer to her as 'Maria Antonia' before her marriage, which gives the impression that she was legally Maria Antonia before, and legally Marie Antoinette after. That differentiation is required for those who legally change their name (e.g. Marilyn Monroe); it merely confuses the issue when used for royalty (Isabella of France is not referred to as Isabelle prior to her marriage in her article) - royalty are expected to have different forms of the name referenced at the beginning (or at the beginning of the biography), but otherwise are meant to be referred to in the article by the name, or a simplification of the name, that is used for the article title (thus Anne of Austria is referred to in her article as Anne rather than Anne of Austria - but in other articles given the full designation where appropriate - but is not referred to as Ana).
* Corollary: the Russian Empress issue is very different. There, a foreign and non-Orthodox bride would be baptised into the Orthodox faith, and given a new name. Thus, Catherine the Great was born Sophie Augusta Frederica of Anhalt-Zerbst, and then before she married she was baptised, and given a new name of Catherine Alexeyevna - she, to all intents and purposes, was renamed, and it is the same with the rest of the Romanov-Gottorp Empresses. Catherine wasn't referred to in Russian or by the Russians as Ekaterina Alexeievna prior to her baptism, at which point different countries would have referred to her by that name, per the language in the particular country. Such a situation was not the case with Marie Antoinette.
* 4) It is a misreading of the issue to assert that she is 'Maria Antonia of Austria' but not 'Marie Antoinette of Austria' - as though she could only be 'of country of origin' if given the name form of her country of origin, or as if the name form commonly used for her in English is incompatible with her dynastic source. In simple 'x of y' terms, she is 'Marie Antoinette of Austria', just as her sisters are all 'z of Austria'. Or 'Eleanor of Aquitaine' is such, who despite being originally named 'Alienor'. Again, such would be true in the case of the Russian Queen consorts - there is not 'Alexandra Feodorovna of Prussia'; but in the case of Marie Antoinette, it is simply the use of her most common name with her dynastic origin.
* 5) See Talk:Catherine of Aragon for the result of arguments that 'the woman called herself such and such, so we should call her that'. Royals have no power over their own name in the face of history. Michael  Sanders 23:49, 30 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the proposal.  Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.</div>
This article has been renamed  as the result of a move request. --Stemonitis 15:27, 1 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Conclusions

message: I remember in History Class one of my textbooks said she did many plays in the Palace of Versailles. And she did Frivolous spending and hated to be bored. Should this be added or labeled as an opinion? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Vladimir Stalin (talk • contribs) 14:06, 1 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: You should find sources that other people can check. For the theater, this won't be hard. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 22:27, 1 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Artist? 

message: In French, as in the translations at the top of the article, Marie Antoinette is inevitably written with a hyphen, as are all doubled names in French, like Yves Saint-Laurent and Jean-Marie Le Pen. So, at least for the French parts, the hypen should be added. 71.102.134.129 04:25, 6 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Hyphen?

message: Hi. I don't have an account on the english wikipedia, since my main activity here is adding interwiki links to the LB one. Since the page is semi-prot, could you please add the link to lb:Marie-Antoinette vun Éisträich. Thx in advance. Briséis.
I'm not sure how you would do this, but would it be possible to link an English translation of the French page if it is a more well quoted, authoritative piece because i find this article to be poorly supported in its quotes. 
"Let Them Eat Cake" - a U.K. T.V. series on BBC I think although i may be wrong, staring and written by Dawn French and Jennifer Saunders. a comedic take on the life of (Marie A) is unmentioned in the legacy section.
DM Danmas1986 05:26, 24 July 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Interwiki Link 

message: Problems: In my opinion, although it is well written, it uses a heavily fictional style that whilst making it easy to read detracts from its authenticity. 
I also find it to be heavily biased towards the queen, spending far more text supporting her, than opposing her when she is historically famous for being incompetent, mostly due to her ignorance and her detachment from the common people. Yes we know that that she was villainized by popular culture at the time and in subsequent generations but more quotes, links, and details about supposed political intrigue, the pamphleteers and the revolutionary movement would be preferable to what is currently on show. 
Recent attempts to portray her a martyr, seem to me to have heavily affected the authors perceptions. Her (MA) actions in life may not have been sufficient to deserve the penalties she suffered by todays standards, but in relation to trial and punishment of the time it was fairly standard.
Somehow the author also fails to include that because of the poor governance of the kingdom at the time countless French people died of poverty related causes. In current (2007) British law causing death through incompetence and neglect is constitute to manslaughter, (I don't know about current French or US equivalents) therefore the monarchy deserved to be punished for not ceding the reins of authority to more capable persons earlier, even though the punishment may have been overly harsh it was justified.
It also fails to realize that the invasion by a foreign army (strongly linked to Marie A's political links in other states), destroying the lives of many (i don't know how many)people, in order to restore and secure the privileges of a few people (the monarchy) could be a bad thing, and possibly the fatal last mistake of the royals.
b.t.w. my rant is unquoted but it is a rant and therefore does not require it.
Possible solution: If parts of the page were split into two sub sections (a kind of for and against) it could show the divided nature of the topic and give a broader portrayal, allowing the reader to form his or her own conclusions. Please could i recieve some comment on this.
DM Danmas1986 05:26, 24 July 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  OVERBOARD!!! 

message: Despite the fact that it is stated here that her last words were 'Pardonez-moi, monsieur', on Wikiquote it says, 'Monsieur, je vous demande  pardon. Je n'ai pas le dai exprès. 瀬人様 15:24, 21 July 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Final words 

message: Substituted at 21:22, 3 May 2016 (UTC)
thread_title: Assessment comment