Talk:Edict of Fontainebleau

message: Citation tags have been added to the French Revolution and the Huguenots' descendants section but they puzzle me. Why is "The December 15, 1790 Law" and "Article 4 of the June 26, 1889 Nationality Law" not adequate citation? It's a good deal more precise than we usually get.:-) (RJP 10:36, 13 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Citations

message: A reduction of >800,000 people in about 100 days? 99.9%? 8,000-8,500 per day? Few programs by any government have ever been so effective, so quickly. One wonders about the amount of resources devoteed to it and the degrees & types of suasion. Admittedly, as many as 500,000 Huguenots may have left before October 1685, but this aspect needs further evaluation & discussion. 
(User:Rt-sails 20:27 18 July 2008 (UTC)) Rt-sails (talk) 17:35, 18 July 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: Louis' claims of 17 Jan 1686

message: I think I read somewhere that the expulsion were of the Calvinist Huguenots, but in French owned cities in Germany, the Lutheran protestants were allowed to stay. Does anyone know if this is correct? If so, I think it should be mentioned.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 83.250.228.157 (talk) 10:20, 10 July 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: I believe that is correct about Lutherans in Alsace, as that province was conquered after the Edict of Nantes was issued. I don't think Lutherans had any rights in the rest of France, though. Funnyhat (talk) 06:59, 24 February 2011 (UTC)
thread_title: Different kinds of protestants

message: "The revocation of the Edict of Nantes created a state of affairs in France similar to that of virtually every other European country of the period (possibly with the exception of the Polish-Lithuanian Commonwealth), where only the majority state religion was tolerated."
:What does this mean? In the United Provinces, the state tolerated a lot. Catholics could not have their own churches, but the state let them come together in "churchhouses" (?). That were houses which were redesigned to a church in the attic of example. Every once in a while the police would come to clear everyone out etc., but the general view of the state was that they could stay there. Especially in the border regions with Germany, certain churches existed that would hold a catholic service and a reformed service. Not at the same time of course. 
:So what does tolerated mean in this section? Is country the same as state in this section? In the United Provinces a lot of calvinists were hardcore against catholics of course. If by 'country' we mean 'the people', how tolerant was the Polish-Lithuanian Commonwealth? Seriously a question, I don't know. But surely it doesn't mean that, since in France the toleration was a matter of the king who did that for the same reason as the state in United Provinces. 81.68.255.36 (talk) 13:29, 6 March 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  tolerated 

message: I think in the era of Absolutism there have been other reasons for this Edict than the piety of the King's (informal) second wife. There must have been some political advantages that were believed to compensate the brain drain. My guess would be that the Huguenots' doubted loyalty, and their insistence on collective rights for the sake of their particular interests, have been seen as an intolerable danger by the Absolutists. However, I have no English scientific sources on hand. Who does? --JakobvS (talk) 11:32, 25 June 2017 (UTC)
replies: text: It certainly eliminated a potential source of disloyalty, but at a very high cost for the development of France's economy, and it more or less united the Protestant powers of Europe against France in the run-up to the War of the Spanish Succession.  Some of the details (such as the extravagance of the persecutions) give the impression that it was ordered more to erase what Louis considered as a personal affront to himself and his individual glory and greatness, rather than to benefit the nation of France as a whole.  The fact that the next king found it best to mostly tacitly ignore it is another such indication... AnonMoos (talk) 12:26, 29 June 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  No mention of the political advantages of the Edict