Talk:Louis XIV/Archive 3

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Genealogy vs. genetics

While M. Carretier's genealogical work is no doubt exceptional, genetics don't work out so that ancestry can be computed in the types of percentages he employs. Apparently, he doesn't know about Mendelian genetics and the law of Independent Assortment (also known as Random Assortment), or about Crossover. The way inheritance works ensures that we get half our genes from each parent, but not precisely 25% from each grandparent, so it's impossible to derive percentages of "what a person is" from genealogy. Since the article mentions the source is a genealogy, I suppose it's quasi-clear that these are cultural or ancestral linkages, not actual inheritance, but the way it's put is confusing, at least to me.--LeValley 00:00, 27 December 2010 (UTC)

I honestly do not see the relevance of Carretier's referenced statement. It interrupts the flow of the article and should be place in a different section, if not removed outright. --Kansas Bear (talk) 00:10, 27 December 2010 (UTC)

• Tracing Louis's ancestry to the tenth generation, genealogist C. Carretier calculated his ancestry to be approximately 28% French, 26% Spanish, 11% Austro-German and 10% Portuguese, the rest being Italian, Slavic, English, Savoyard and Lorrainer.[6]

My question is on the "approximately 28% French" since "French" could be considered some type of a patchwork. What is the resemblance between a Frenchman like the Béarnais Henri IV (his grandfather) & someone from Bretagne, Provence or Auvergne? Also, would not the "Lorrainer" ancestry belong with the "Austro-German"?

As suggested by Kansas Bear: remove outright.

--Frania W. (talk) 01:00, 27 December 2010 (UTC)

Served as an example

This sentence is strange "France also marked the birth of the modern State and served as an example of political organisation for much of Europe during the Enlightenment."

How did Louis XIV's France serve an example to Europe in the enlightenment- considering French style feudal-absolutism was utterly rejected by the enlightenment era? Louis XIV certainly served as an example to monarchy states around him, who copied his style of arbitrary rule, but what is that to do with the principles of the enlightenment? Voucherman (talk) 01:30, 7 August 2011 (UTC)

Verification of highly likely non-paternity event

I don’t think Louis XIV was the son of his precursor. The previous king and queen hated each other so it is highly unlikely that it was Louis XIII who made Louis XIV’s mother Anna pregnant. Anyone who can verify the hatred between them?

2010-06-04 Lena Synnerholm, Märsta, Sweden.

Lena Synnerholm, you are free to think what you want, but leaving an heir to the throne of France was a serious business the King of France had to attend to, whether he & his wife loved or hated each other.

--Frania W. (talk) 16:20, 4 June 2010 (UTC)

If the king and queen hated each other it is highly unlikely that they ever had sexual intercourse with each other. Human behaviour can’t be squeezed into formalized conditions like that. Is there contemporary eyewitness accounts showing that the king and queen hated each other? If so the fatherhood of the queen’s son should at least be considered unknown.

2010-08-22 Lena Synnerholm, Märsta, Sweden.

Here we go again. The wicked witch of Marsta is onto a new mission: keep on desecrating any article related to the French kings and emperors. Take a break, Missy Synnerholm! For crying out loud. Get over the Bernadottes being peasants in France and kings in your miserably cold and barren land. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.45.200.120 (talk) 04:22, 27 August 2010 (UTC)

The Bernadottes belonged to the bourgeoisie. Sweden is neither barren nor miserable but wealthy, forested and partly cultivated. You have just committed a combination of the straw man and ad hominem fallacies. Being born outside marriage is not a character flaw nor is resisting non-consensually arranged marriage. This is a discussion about historical facts. If you can't write inlays in Wikipedia discussions without filling them with factual errors and logical fallacies please refrain from writing anything at all here.

2011-01-05 Lena Synnerholm, Märsta, Sweden.

Lena, are you really arguing that people who hate each other never have sex? That seems a difficult argument to sustain. At any rate, the standard historical narrative, presented in reliable sources, is that Louis XIII and Anne were reconciled and had sex around the time of Louis XIV's conception. Your own personal feelings are irrelevant - what matters is what reliable sources say. I can't recall any reliable sources that cast much doubt on Louis XIV's paternity; the absence of plausible alternative candidates weighs heavily here. That being said - Frania Anon, ease up; there's no need for vitriol. john k (talk) 18:11, 5 January 2011 (UTC)

John, I beg your pardon, but what do you mean with this "Frania, ease up; there's no need for vitriol. " ???

In case you are wondering, I am not the anonymous 75.45.200.120 and do not usually carry H2SO4 in my wikipurse, only accents & cédilles.

I believe you made the mistake because the anonymous IP begins with 75, which is the postal code for Paris.

Très amusant !

P.S. Besides, when I resort to a vitriol attack, I do not do it anonymously, but à visage découvert & sign my name.

--Frania W. (talk) 18:59, 5 January 2011 (UTC)

God, Frania, I'm so sorry - I have no idea why I thought you wrote that comment. I've redacted my comment. john k (talk) 19:51, 5 January 2011 (UTC)

It's OK, John, you do not have to invoke God & apologize: I got a good laugh out of your comment.

Frania de Lutèce, Postal code 75: --Frania W. (talk) 20:45, 5 January 2011 (UTC)

I had to laugh at the inane notion that people cannot procreate despite cohabiting in a state of mutual hatred. Most royal marriages were arranged; things like love, sexual attraction, or even liking one another had nothing to do with the necessity of producing an heir for the kingdom.--Jeanne Boleyn (talk) 15:39, 14 June 2012 (UTC)

I think I know human behaviour better than you do. As Benjamin Franklin expressed it: “as long as there is marriage without love there will be love without marriage”. However, arranged marriage does not have to mean refusal to reproduce with you wife or husband. But in case of extremely bad luck a forcibly married couple may really hate each other. In such a case they are highly unlikely to ever have sex with each other. They would simply not be able stand doing it. Emotions have a stronger influence of human behaviour than social expectations, at least if you are not kept responsible by other people. This was certainly the case for most European 17th century royalties. In fact, emotions are Nature’s own way of telling us what is best for ourselves. This is not having your husband or wife decided by others on economic or political grounds!

Now it has turned out that Louis XVI had the same Y chromosome as Henri IV. This means Louis XIV really was the son of his mother’s husband. This has makes me consider it highly unlikely that they really hated each other. Maybe it was a rumour taken too seriously by the popular scientific magazine I originally got the statement from?

2013-12-30 Lena Synnerholm, Märsta, Sweden.

The Longest Reigning

The article states Louix XIV is one of the longest-reigning monarchs in French and European history. In fact, he is THE longest-reigning monarch in French and European history, not just one of them.

Given that her mother nearly lived to age 103, it is entirely possible that Elizabeth II will surpass Louis XIV's 72+ year reign, but that won't happen for another 12 years yet. In the meantime, I think it's safe to leave Louis XIV alone as the longest-reigning monarch in French and European history.

69.181.62.103 (talk) 07:15, 16 December 2012 (UTC)

Bernard VII, Lord of Lippe, was the longest reigning ruler in European history. Louis was the longest reigning king. Both were monarchs. Seven Letters 16:34, 17 December 2012 (UTC)

Strasbourg

I have lodged the following request with User:Blaue Max:

Kindly stop removing "(German: Strassburg)" from Louis XIV. The city's name is derived from German (Strasse = road/street, Burg = fort/castle), and the French spelling is a later adaptation of the German name.

It may interest you to know that according to the British historian Geoffrey Barraclough, "the unprovoked French occupation of Strassburg in 1681 aroused — for almost the last time in the history of the old empire — a wave of resentment and [German] national feeling." (Barraclough, Geoffrey: The Origins of Modern Germany, Capricorn Books edition, 1963, p. 386.) Please note that Barraclough refers to the city, c. 1681, by its German name.

Thank you. Sca (talk) 16:39, 20 February 2013 (UTC)

Further, I note that "(German: Strassburg") has once again been removed from the article text. I don't think this should be done unless agreement is reached that it should be removed. The German origin and medieval history of Alsace and its primary city are known and accepted everywhere. In 1681, the city was known to its inhabitants as Strassburg (or Straßburg).

Sca (talk) 17:02, 20 February 2013 (UTC)

The etymology of Strasbourg doesn't have to be pointed out in this article about Louis XIV, it is just out of the topic as Strasbourg is the most commonly used term in both English and French. For notes about Strasbourg's etymology see the specific article: Strasbourg. Blaue Max (talk) 07:53, 21 February 2013 (UTC)

Au contraire. I realize that Strasbourg today is a francophone city and is known in English by the French name. However, casual readers may not know its history and assume from the French spelling that such always has been the case. In this instance, the aggressive character of Louis XIV's policy may be illustrated by the fact that up until that up until roughly the Peace of Westphalia the city was known by its German name, and until 1681 was indeed considered "German" (to the extent that the German nation can be said to have retained a legal status in the loose-knit Empire). This says something about the despotic reign of Louis XIV.

But I agree that the etymology of Strasbourg doesn't need to be spelled out here, and I have not suggested that it should. My contention is merely that the older German form of the name be included in parentheses; readers who are interested in knowing more can indeed consult Strasbourg. Sca (talk) 16:46, 21 February 2013 (UTC)

You have sufficiently emphasized the aggressive policy of Louis XIV and the Germanic origin of Strasbourg in previous edits[1]. "Strassburg" adds no information and it's burdening the text for nothing. Furthermore, it is misleading to add the standard German name of Strassburg, as Strasbourg was locally known as Strossburi and in Latin, the "official" language of the Holy Roman Empire, Strasbourg was known as Argentoratum [2]. Favouring Strassburg, instead of its other names, would be non-neutral, and adding the three names would be absurd. By the way, the German identity of the Holy Roman Empire is very blurry and such concept should be used with care as it was considered as the successor State of the Roman Empire, not as the precursor of Germany. Qualifying the Holy Empire as "German" is also anachronistic for Louis XIV's era. Blaue Max (talk) 19:53, 21 February 2013 (UTC)

I've noted parenthetically above the dubious 'national' status of the Empire as it was after Westphalia — divided into 234 territorial units. (To say nothing of having lost half its population.) But when one speaks of "Germany" in this era, the HRE usually is what is meant, however loosely.

I simply contend that there should be some indication in Louis XIV that the king of France was annexing a German city within the contemporary meaning of the term. At the time the city was "German" in ethnicity, name and legal status. (And BTW, I don't believe that most of its inhabitants spoke Latin. Of course, the educated elite all over Europe knew Latin, but not the masses — other than liturgical phrases.)

PS: I don't accept that two parenthetical words "burden the text."

Sca (talk) 21:46, 21 February 2013 (UTC)

Educated people called it Argentoratum and uneducated masses called it Strossburi. That doesn't give much legitimacy to Strassburg... Strasbourg wasn't precisely "German" as we understand it today. German nationality is a concept of the 19th century, before that the German nation could have very different meanings[3]. On Wikipedia, it's very unusual to add alternative names of a city in an unrelated article and it is absolutely unjustified in this case, as it is irrelevant, non-neutral and anachronistic. Blaue Max (talk) 07:45, 22 February 2013 (UTC)

Not agreed. I realize that nationality was a different matter in the Middle Ages than in modern times. (Was Copernicus Polish, German, Prussian or Warmian? — or none of the above?) The local dialect may have been Strossburi — which seems essentially a colloquial pronunciation — but the formal name was Straßburg, and had long been so.

I'm certainly not suggesting that all these details be covered in Louis XIV. I don't understand why you're protesting so much over two (2) words in parentheses, giving an alternate spelling, in an article that comprises 11,000 words. Sca (talk) 15:27, 22 February 2013 (UTC)

Well, I do not understand why you insist about putting something biased and fallacious in this article. Blaue Max (talk) 17:57, 22 February 2013 (UTC)

I find your insinuations of bias and mendacity offensive, and I object to your tone.

"Argentina / Straßburg" as seen in 1644

Three questions:

1) What's the linguistic derivation of the name of the city, French or German?

2) The language spoken by most inhabitants of the city at the time of its annexation was a dialect of which parent language, French or German?

3) Annexation denotes a taking by one country from another. Which country did the taking in 1681, France, or "Germany" (fragmented as it then was)?

According to Wiki's Strasbourg article, the University of Strasbourg (founded 1631) originally was a German university, and "the German Lutheran university persisted until the French Revolution."

Sca (talk) 22:07, 22 February 2013 (UTC)

Assuming that the Holy Roman Empire was the precursor of Germany is simply anachronistic and biased. It was considered as the successor of the Roman Empire and its official language was latin. It had many vernacular languages and the concept of German nationality emerged only in the 19th c. Therefore, arguing that Strassburg is the only "true" name of the city for that period is unencyclopedic and misleading, in addition of being irrelevant.

As I said earlier, the standard German name of Strasbourg is not related to this article. We are on the English Wikipedia on an article about Louis XIV, not on the German Wikipedia. You are free to argue endlessly about Strasbourg's toponymy, but not on this article about Louis XIV, this is not the place. Adding the German translation of Strasbourg, in an unrelated context, would be a dangerous precedent for Wikipedia, which would see every occurrences of Strasbourg in Wikipedia attached to a useless "(German:Strassburg)". Let us be clear, I do not dispute the Germanic origin of the city, but it is absurd to add its translation in a context inadequate. Like adding "(Deutschland)" every time the word "Germany" appears would be inapropriate.

Thank you for pointing out another bias in the article about the Strasbourg University. Blaue Max (talk) 23:30, 22 February 2013 (UTC)

Like what? That German continued to be used at the university for a century or so after the French annexation? If indeed such was the case, as the Wiki entry indicates, I fail to see why mentioning it in the history section would constitute "bias."

Adding "(German: Strassburg)" here is not out of context. The context is provided by "heretofore a Free Imperial City of the Holy Roman Empire of the German Nation." The parenthetical phrase is entirely relevant in the historical context.

Indeed, there would be no reason to add "(German: Strassburg)" to articles or sentences about Strasbourg not related to its history. The parenthetical phrase would be irrelevant in, for example, an article about the European Parliament.

That the "official" language of the HRE was Latin is irrelevant to this discussion. Latin, as mentioned previously, was spoken by the educated elites. Of course the polyglot HRE encompassed a number of vernacular languages spoken by the common people. They included numerous dialects of German — among which was Alsatian German (Elsässerditsch).

Sca (talk) 22:57, 23 February 2013 (UTC)

Strasbourg is the common English name of an Imperial city detached from the Holy Roman Empire in 1681. That's an historical fact.

"Strassburg" being~the "real" name of a "German" city detached from "Germany" in 1681, is a anachronistic point of view.

The "Holy Roman Empire of the German Nation" is also an anachronistic term for Louis XIV's era.

I still don't understand why you want to put "German" everywhere, as the concept of nationality was very loosely defined before the 19th c. You should use it with care, instead of pushing it everywhere. Blaue Max (talk) 15:58, 24 February 2013 (UTC)

From an outsider's point of view, I have to agree with Blaue Max. Adding the German name in this context when it can be found with one click on the link to Strasbourg is not suitable. As to the HRE of the German Nation, even though the emperors were all from German-speaking countries, this titling is in fact a dubious affair when referring to the times of Louis XIV. See also source No. 13 of de.wiki de:Heiliges Römisches Reich for the increasing use of "German Nation" only in the 19th century by German historians. The fact that there was a large German community in Strasbourg and Alsace in general is not relevant to this article about Louis because the adherence of Strasbourg to the HRE has already been pointed out in the article. I think in this article we're better off using the common French/English name of "Strasbourg" only. De728631 (talk) 17:32, 24 February 2013 (UTC)

Based on my own reading over the years, I can't buy the argument that there was no continuity between the HRE and the inchoate concept of the German nation. I return to the quote from Geoffrey Barraclough about "national feeling" with which I began this discussion. Barraclough has a good deal more to say on the subject of French encroachment on the German realm in The Origins of Modern Germany, including this observation, from the point of view of 1945:

"French memories of invasion reach back to 1870; but German memories of unprovoked French aggression reach back to the thirteenth century." (Barraclough, Geoffrey: The Origins of Modern Germany, Capricorn Books edition, 1963, p. 461.)

It's interesting to note that Barraclough wrote most of Origins while he was on active duty with the RAF in the European Theater of WWII. I commend this very well-written volume to your review.

I've said what I have to say. Adieu to Blaue Max and Louis. Sca (talk) 23:35, 24 February 2013 (UTC)

This dispute is ridiculous. Encyclopedias are supposed to summarise the information. At the first mention of Strasbourg, the article is very explicit about what kind of city it was: "heretofore a Free Imperial City of the Holy Roman Empire". In the next sentence it also implicitly dispels any misconception a reader might have that the Alsace might have been culturally French at the time: "Although a part of Alsace, Strasbourg was not part of Habsburg-ruled Alsace and was thus not ceded to France in the Peace of Westphalia."

That's more than enough. Adding the German spelling for Straßburg would add so close to nothing to the article that it's simply not defensible to waste space and reader attention on this minor detail of hardly any relevance to the subject of the article. Hans Adler 21:05, 25 February 2013 (UTC)

Sun King

Could someone provide an explanation for the nickname in the article?--The Emperor's New Spy (talk) 13:04, 30 November 2013 (UTC)

Fatherhood

I am sorry for claiming Louis XIV to have been illegitimate. This claim has been forensically disproven. A sample of dried blood from Louis XVI has been compared to the embalmed head of Henri IV. The dried blood sample had been collected on a handkerchief at Louis XVI execution. The embalmed head had been taken as a trophy during the French Revolution. It was forensically identified in 2012. Now we know that Henri IV was Louis XIII’s father. We also know that Louis XVI was a fifth generation, male line only descendant of Louis XIV. DNA testing showed that Henri IV and Louis XVI had the same Y chromosome. Of cause, there could have been a contamination of the blood sample. But to give a false positive the contamination would have to have come from a man with the same Y chromosome as Henri IV. Considering how accurate male line only haplogroups can be determined I find this too unlikely. One of the scientists involved said it was 250 times more likely that the two men were related on their father’s side than not. This is enough likelihood for me.

2013-12-30 Lena Synnerholm, Märsta, Sweden. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 213.114.157.228 (talk) 18:51, 30 December 2013 (UTC)

Copyright problem removed

Prior content in this article duplicated one or more previously published sources. The material was copied from: http://journals.cambridge.org/action/displayAbstract?fromPage=online&aid=122547. Copied or closely paraphrased material has been rewritten or removed and must not be restored, unless it is duly released under a compatible license. (For more information, please see "using copyrighted works from others" if you are not the copyright holder of this material, or "donating copyrighted materials" if you are.) For legal reasons, we cannot accept copyrighted text or images borrowed from other web sites or published material; such additions will be deleted. Contributors may use copyrighted publications as a source of information, but not as a source of sentences or phrases. Accordingly, the material may be rewritten, but only if it does not infringe on the copyright of the original or plagiarize from that source. Please see our guideline on non-free text for how to properly implement limited quotations of copyrighted text. Wikipedia takes copyright violations very seriously, and persistent violators will be blocked from editing. While we appreciate contributions, we must require all contributors to understand and comply with these policies. Thank you. Diannaa (talk) 01:31, 18 March 2014 (UTC)

Leibniz reference

Hello, I'm troubled by the quotation attributed to Leibniz that "one of the greatest kings that ever was." I'm about 2/3 of the way through reading a massive and comprehensive biography of Leibniz, and Leibniz's view seems to be quite the opposite, considering he wrote a satire of Louis XIV calling him "Mars Christianissimus" (Most Christian War-God). The quote in the Wikipedia entry cited a book by Bluche called "Louis XIV". I don't have access to this text at the moment, but I'd like to know what reference Bluche gives, because it seems a bit sketchy. If Leibniz did say this, I'd like to know the context. --Substantial form (talk) 06:18, 18 January 2015 (UTC)

His tasty heart.

Bit of an edit war going on about this claim. Source seems reliable, section seems appropriate, relevance seems obvious. To me, anyway.

What say you? InedibleHulk (talk) 10:31, 8 August 2015 (UTC)

Somewhat ghoulish, but relevant to the article, so I've reinstated the information. Favonian (talk) 12:09, 8 August 2015 (UTC)

As far as ghoulish snacks go, it may not even make Buckland's Top 5. But as far as coeur de roi goes, it seems a unique case. Even in the "savage world", that sort of thing generally has some deeper meaning. I can only imagine a shocked and saddened Archbishop yelling "What the hell, man?", and Buckland simply shrugging, as if the relic were merely a poodle. InedibleHulk (talk) 16:11, 9 August 2015 (UTC)

L'etat c'est moi

The famous quote "L'etat c'est moi" ("I am the state") redirects to this article, but the article contains no mention of it. CuriousOliver (talk) 11:48, 9 October 2015 (UTC)

Many Grammatical Issues

I'm having a hard time reading this post, as there are so many grammatical mistakes. I made a couple of changes to the top fifth of the page, but it really needs a thorough read through to make it more readable. There are many issues with the use of plurals (adding or omitting them incorrectly), lack of the use of possessives where needed, and run-on sentences, just to name a few.

I've included below just one of the many problem sentences:

The best example of Anne statesmanship and the partial change in her heart towards her country of birth Spain, is seen in her keeping of one of Richelieu men the chancellor of France Pierre Séguier in his post; in spite of the fact that Séguier was the person who interrogated her, treating her like a "common criminal" as she herself described her treatment in 1637 following the discovery that she was giving military secrets and informations to Spain.

108.42.130.129 (talk) 07:55, 10 November 2015 (UTC)

Children and wife.

Firstly, his illegitimate daughter Marie Anne was better known as the Princess of Conti than as the Duchess of La Vallière. Louis himself organised the marriage between Marie Anne and the Prince of Conti in 1680 himself. Plus. Louis' wife was ACTUALLY Maria Theresa of AUSTRIA. So my edits are in fact correct. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 78.149.139.54 (talk) 12:18, 17 January 2016 (UTC)

This IP is LouisPhilippeCharlesNew (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log), recently community banned. Favonian (talk) 18:06, 17 January 2016 (UTC)

L'etat c'est moi: Source?

Currently, under the quotes section, it is stated that Louis XIV said "I am the state" (l'état, c'est moi),[106]. However, source 106 is simply a link to Yahoo Answers. Yahoo Answers is absolutely not a reliable source — Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.61.21.178 (talk) 14:25, 22 February 2016 (UTC)

I fixed it & cited a RS = Jay Caplan (1999). In the King's Wake: Post-Absolutist Culture in France. p. 17., which says it's a legend and explains its meaning. Rjensen (talk) 14:36, 22 February 2016 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Louis XIV 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/20070616071522/http://www.smae.diplomatie.gouv.fr/choiseul/ressource/pdf/D16590004.pdf to http://www.smae.diplomatie.gouv.fr/choiseul/ressource/pdf/D16590004.pdf

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 13:30, 26 May 2017 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Louis XIV 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/20080107232540/http://www.bartleby.com/65/lo/Louis14Fr.html to http://www.bartleby.com/65/lo/Louis14Fr.html
• 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.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 02:35, 7 January 2018 (UTC)

Missing edit summary, my apologies

I reverted a pending change by User:195.195.115.250 here. I omitted to provide a reason. Here it is. The I.P has focused on all rulers in Europe, I believe including statelets that were included in the Holy Roman Empire. However I do not believe that these can be classified as major sovereign states, which is the basis of the claim for Louis XIV as longest - serving monarch in European history in article mainspace. Thanks. Irondome (talk) 15:15, 29 October 2017 (UTC)

Just fyi, Irondome, a possibly easier and more unobtrusive way to handle an update to an edit summary is through a dummy edit. Also, two handy ways to code that diff above are this and this. I like the second one better (which is the only one of the three that works in the Edit summary field as well) but mostly they are a matter of personal preference. HTH, Mathglot (talk) 04:57, 13 April 2018 (UTC)

Louis Dieudonné

He was not "known as" Louis Dieudonné, that is his name. Although that seems like a nickname (like Sun King), it is his actual, given name, and is on his baptismal certificate. I'll see about finding some refs, but if you get there before me and want to add it in, be my guest. Mathglot (talk) 05:01, 13 April 2018 (UTC)

Turns out the body of the article already has it right; only the lead was wrong. I've fixed it to match and summarize the body. The body ref could be better, though; for example, these. Mathglot (talk) 09:52, 19 April 2018 (UTC)

References

Grand Siècle listed at Redirects for discussion

An editor has asked for a discussion to address the redirect Grand Siècle. Please participate in the redirect discussion if you wish to do so. Hildeoc (talk) 22:35, 26 April 2019 (UTC)

Adding SNAC Ark ID in Wikidata

Please change the SNAC Ark ID in wikidata to w6ph2ft3. Thanks!

Please delete; I was able to change this

I have marked this request as answered, since you were able to fix it yourself. RudolfRed (talk) 21:45, 20 August 2019 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 7 October 2019

Change the hatnote link at § France as the pivot of warfare from International relations 1648-1814 (note the hyphen) to the target of that redirect: International relations, 1648–1814 (with a dash). Very minor, but a slightly improved appearance. 38.39.199.2 (talk) 08:04, 7 October 2019 (UTC)

In the second paragraph of § Relations with the Dutch, change "the secret Treaty of Dover" to "the secret Treaty of Dover", as the latter is what the former redirects to. Again, pretty piddling, but these small improvements help. 38.39.199.2 (talk) 09:41, 7 October 2019 (UTC)

Both  Done. Philroc (c) 14:49, 7 October 2019 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 17 January 2020

There is a duplicated paragraph of information that should be removed or rewritten. The area in question is the final paragraph in the opening section, beginning with “During Louis’ long reign...”. An almost verbatim paragraph exists in the Height of Power section under the “France as the pivot of warfare” area. Starts with “During...” again. 47.199.199.116 (talk) 21:28, 17 January 2020 (UTC)

 Not done for now: please establish a consensus for this alteration before using the {{edit semi-protected}} template. Interstellarity (talk) 16:06, 23 January 2020 (UTC)

Requested move 21 June 2020

The following discussion is an archived discussion of a requested move. 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.

Moved as proposed. Consensus is clear that the proposed targets sufficiently identify the article subjects, with greater concision. BD2412 T 23:48, 30 June 2020 (UTC)

• Louis XIV of France → Louis XIV
• Louis XIII of France → Louis XIII
• Louis XV of France → Louis XV
• Louis XVI of France → Louis XVI
• Louis XVII of France → Louis XVII
• Louis XVIII of France → Louis XVIII
• Charles X of France → Charles X

– The titles of articles about 20th-century British monarchs were shortened 9 years ago and this week the titles of articles about recent Swedish monarchs were too. It is time to consider shortening these as well, not only in the spirit of the conciseness policy, but also in consideration of the common name policy. Louis XIV is never called anything but that; the same is true for the others. There is no need for the "of France" disambiguation, which contributes nothing but verbosity. Compare with articles succinctly titled Louis Philippe I, Napoleon I, Napoleon II, Napoleon III, Marie Antoinette, etc.

Other points worth raising are that Louis XVII was never more than a pretender, which makes the current title a frequent point of contention, and that his uncle Charles X is the primary topic for "Charles X" (hence the redirect from Charles X to Charles X of France). There is a king of Sweden called Charles X Gustav but never Charles X. Surtsicna (talk) 20:57, 21 June 2020 (UTC)

• Oppose This issue is an old chestnut has been chewed over a number of times. There is a consensus on Wikipedia that as a general rule we go for pre-emptive disambiguation, which means that we include the country names in cases like this, see WP:NCROY. The decision to move recent UK monarchs was controversial, but one argument in favour of moving them was they were monarchs of more than just the UK. This is the first I have heard of the move of Swedish monarchs, it may have slipped under the radar. The list of succinct articles you supply is misleading since Marie Antionette was not a monarch, after discussion there is a consensus that there is no consistent approach to monarch's spouses, and Napoleon I is actually at plain Napoleon. One problem with avoiding this sort of disambiguation is that e.g. in relation to the Stewart monarchs of Scotland the "of Scotland" would have to be switched on and off for reason which have nothing to do with events in Scotland, only in other countries, similar problems exist with the monarchs of other countries. PatGallacher (talk) 21:55, 21 June 2020 (UTC)

I do not think there is a consensus to go for pre-emptive disambiguation. WP:NCROY guideline does advise it but in general, we do not do pre-emptive disambiguation. Instead we generally favor shorter titles, hence WP:CONCISE policy. And being policies, WP:CONCISE and WP:COMMONNAME override WP:NCROY. Virtually no biography of any of these men calls them "of France". Other encyclopedias do not do it either; see Britannica. But aside from the British and Swedish kings, we have also had moves such as Elizabeth I of England→Elizabeth I and Maria Theresa of Austria→Maria Theresa. There is already a lot of switching on and off for the Scots, where the articles about four successive monarchs are titled James V of Scotland, Mary, Queen of Scots, James VI and I, and Charles I of England. But they are not the topic of this discussion. Surtsicna (talk) 22:22, 21 June 2020 (UTC)

• Oppose. “of France” is required for RECOGNIZABILITY. —SmokeyJoe (talk) 22:08, 21 June 2020 (UTC)

That is demonstrably not the case. Louis XIV and Louis XVI are arguably some of the best known monarchs in world history and are hardly ever called anything but Louis XIV and Louis XVI. "of France" does as much for recognizability in these cases as "of the United States" would do for Abraham Lincoln or Thomas Jefferson. Surtsicna (talk) 22:22, 21 June 2020 (UTC)

Nonsense. That is not “demonstration”. “Louis XIV” used in isolation is normal for already in-context use, and repeated use. Books should be considered repeated use, as books frequently are addressing preceding books, authors write to the audience of preceding authors. For a book addressing the subject afresh, they use the formal introductory title, usually “King”, and if not that, such as from an international context, “of France”. Wikipedia articles stand alone and afresh, and the titles should be broadly recognizable, not just to historians of Kings or of France. —SmokeyJoe (talk) 23:55, 21 June 2020 (UTC)

No, the demonstration is the list of references cited in the biography. There are 30 publications naming him "Louis XIV" in the title and 0 naming him "Louis XIV of France". Of those 30, 11 have titles consisting of nothing more than "Louis XIV". Precise enough for everyone, apparently. A name used never or hardly ever is not more recognizable than the commonly used name. Surtsicna (talk) 23:13, 25 June 2020 (UTC)

• There are 30 books in Louis XIV of France#Bibliography that name their subject Louis XIV in the title. Of these, 10 are titled simply Louis XIV. "Louis XIV of France" does not appear in the title of any of them. Surtsicna (talk) 22:33, 21 June 2020 (UTC)
• Reply See Talk:Louis XVII of France for a couple of examples of where these issues have already been discussed, and it was decided to stick to the current name. I am unclear whether you are proposing that we abandon pre-emptive disambiguation for one or two particularly well-known monarchs, or for all French monarchs where they are the sole meaning of the name. If applied consistently this could mean that we have Louis XI of France but Louis XII, not because of anything happening in France but because the Dukes of Bavaria only go up to eleven, or Charles IX of France but Charles X because the kings of Sweden only go up to nine. The examples you provide from Scotland could be misleading because the last two were also king of England, and Mary, Queen of Scots is recognised as a special case with a particularly well-known cognomen. The eight before her from David II to James V are all at "of Scotland", abandoning pre-emptive disambiguation makes it more complicated. See the sources for James III of Scotland and James IV of Scotland, some of them just use "James III" and "James IV" although this is not unambiguous. The issues with US presidents are completely different. PatGallacher (talk) 22:42, 21 June 2020 (UTC)
• Support per nom.--Ortizesp (talk) 22:56, 21 June 2020 (UTC)
• Comment - Just a thought. Odds are these increasing number of RMs may create an increasing number of opposition. Maybe a massive RM on WP:ROY would be best. Link to such would be required, as activity there has slowed over the years. GoodDay (talk) 23:12, 21 June 2020 (UTC)
  • Better, an RfC on the standing of NCROY. It has numerous difficulties. —SmokeyJoe (talk) 23:56, 21 June 2020 (UTC)

Sure. GoodDay (talk) 00:17, 22 June 2020 (UTC)

• Support. I was just about to start a similar RM for Louis XI onwards when I realised Surtsicna had beaten me to it. Opera hat (talk) 01:02, 22 June 2020 (UTC)
• Support. "Louis XIV of France" brings to mind the overprecision of "Paris, France" or Frankfurt am Main. I am not aware of any published reference work that uses "of [country]" descriptors. On Wikipedia, we have seen numerous moves away from this format in recent weeks, as you can see here. Allan Rice (talk) 02:32, 22 June 2020 (UTC)
• Support. I agree re overprecision. Rjensen (talk) 06:05, 22 June 2020 (UTC)
• Support per common usage in most sources Aeengath (talk) 15:21, 22 June 2020 (UTC)
• Support, as this is over precise. Should England or someone else manage to play catch up on Charles and reach X, then we can re-discuss in a few hundred years.--Bob not snob (talk) 09:38, 23 June 2020 (UTC)

England? Ya mean, United Kingdom. GoodDay (talk) 12:23, 23 June 2020 (UTC)

Actually, Sweden is currently on Charles IX, so not that far-fetched. PatGallacher (talk) 20:15, 23 June 2020 (UTC)

• Support. Agree with Surtsicna and so does one of my principle goto places, the ODNB for Scottish monarchs. Bill Reid | (talk) 19:20, 23 June 2020 (UTC)
  • Not sure what you are on about, I have had a look at ODNB, it handles James I of Scotland down to James V of Scotland identically, although in some cases their name is ambiguous and in others it isn't. See [4]. PatGallacher (talk) 20:26, 23 June 2020 (UTC)

"ODNB" refers to the revised edition of the DNB published by Oxford University Press in 2004. See here. Opera hat (talk) 01:33, 24 June 2020 (UTC)

Yes, and just to be clear regarding the search link provided by Opera hat, that link is a search which lifts the first few words of the articles themselves, not the actual article title. The actual articles do not have "of Scotland" appended. Bill Reid | (talk) 13:30, 24 June 2020 (UTC)

I have had a look at the ODNB link provided. It doesn't handle e.g. James I of Scotland any differently from James V of Scotland (the only James V). It only seems to include English and Scottish monarchs, far fewer to disambiguate. It actually disambiguates the Scottish and English James II as "James II" and "James II and VII", does anyone seriously think we should copy this? It distinguishes the English and Scottish William I by cognomen. As for the Online Britannica, the distinction between the article title and description isn't totally clear. However it has e.g. "Louis XVI" in large letters and "King of France" below in smaller letters. It doesn't however treat the Louis's of France or Jameses of Scotland any differently. So it would actually be Wikipedia which would be adopting a different approach from any other reference work if we handled monarchs differently, depending on whether their name-number combination was ambiguous or unambiguous. PatGallacher (talk) 18:54, 24 June 2020 (UTC)

• Oppose all but Louis XVII. What is the logic for not including Louis XII? I don't see any improvement in these moves and it would add unnecessary inconsistency in French monarchs' articles. If applied across the board it would lead to a lot of inconsistency from one article to the next. I don't see the value in going from Philip V of Spain to Ferdinand VI to Charles III of Spain, which is where this gets you. Srnec (talk) 22:27, 24 June 2020 (UTC)

Thank you for raising that point, Srnec. The idea was to start with the Bourbons. I would not like us to go from Philip V of Spain to Ferdinand VI to Charles III of Spain either; I envisaged something more like Philip V, king of Spain or Philip V (king of Spain). That sort of disambiguation is more in line with encyclopedic and academic practice and would bring the articles in line with articles such as Jean, Grand Duke of Luxembourg, John, King of England, and Wilhelm II, German Emperor. There is, after all, no reason for the titles of biographies of Luxembourger monarchs to be formatted so differently from the titles of biographies of, say, Danish monarchs. That is the inconsistency we should address because it is arbitrary and does not exist outside Wikipedia. Surtsicna (talk) 23:27, 25 June 2020 (UTC)

• Support, per nom. -- Jack of Oz ^{[pleasantries]} 23:51, 25 June 2020 (UTC)
• Support per nom and persuasive discussion. And per common name for most if not all of them. Randy Kryn (talk) 03:29, 29 June 2020 (UTC)

• Support, per WP:COMMONNAME. --Robert.Allen (talk) 06:33, 29 June 2020 (UTC)

Discussion at Wikipedia_talk:Naming_conventions_(royalty_and_nobility)#Request_for_comment

 You are invited to join the discussion at Wikipedia_talk:Naming_conventions_(royalty_and_nobility)#Request_for_comment. Interstellarity (talk) 13:30, 24 June 2020 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. 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.

No mention on why they were called The Sun King

That seems like an interesting detail — Preceding unsigned comment added by 213.205.241.187 (talk) 22:20, 3 October 2020 (UTC)

full name

hello

his family, commonly called "capetians" were the house of France since... they recieved dukedom of France (today's Ile-de-France) under the carolingians. moreover, Louis was born son of a king of France as cadet house of Bourbon became eldest branch upon the death of Henri III, so his name wasn't "de Bourbon" but "de France".

regards,2A01:CB0C:65C:8900:940F:5DF2:D57C:5C90 (talk) 19:29, 18 October 2020 (UTC)

Photo change necessary?

This new photo of Louis XIV isn't all that good for a prominent monarch like Louis XIV compared to the portrait originally used for his infobox. Therefore, is it necessary to change his image, just to have a "close-up portrait", as the person (User:Deedman22) who changed the photo said? Yourlocallordandsavior (talk) 02:47, 18 May 2021 (UTC)

My personal opinion I do not think it’s necessary for all the other Wikipedia’s use it and it’s such an iconic portrait of him people may not recognize him if the Portrait’s is not there Mazzoof (talk) 07:22, 18 May 2021 (UTC)

Okay but I don't know why the guy keeps changing the image. Looking into his talk page, he seems to ignore protests from other editors about his revisions on other articles. Yourlocallordandsavior (talk) 20:06, 18 May 2021 (UTC)

Overly laboured introduction

In the opening of this article, the following sentence occurs

"The King surrounded himself with a variety of significant political, military, and cultural figures, such as Mazarin, Colbert, Louvois, the Grand Condé, Turenne, Vauban, Boulle, Molière, Racine, Boileau, La Fontaine, Lully, Charpentier, Marais, Le Brun, Rigaud, Bossuet, Le Vau, Mansart, Charles Perrault, Claude Perrault, and Le Nôtre."

Is a list of over 20 people named one after the other really something that should be in an introduction? Surely a couple would do as illustrations of the point made previously and the rest can, if they're important enough to maintain be put in the article body somewhere. Sovietblobfish (talk) 18:14, 24 November 2021 (UTC)

I agree with you I think looks kinda over the top and too complicated. Maybe just leave 4 or 5 names and take out the rest. Orson12345 (talk) 00:39, 9 January 2022 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 6 March 2022

Please add the following template to the bottom of the article.

67.173.23.66 (talk) 18:05, 6 March 2022 (UTC)

 Done — Paper9oll (🔔 • 📝) 07:28, 13 March 2022 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 23 April 2022

X = ' ' odres du roi ' ' T = ' ' odres du roi ' ' Dunkizle (talk) 03:06, 23 April 2022 (UTC)

 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. 𝕸𝖗 𝕽𝖊𝖆𝖉𝖎𝖓𝖌 𝕿𝖚𝖗𝖙𝖑𝖊 🇺🇦🇺🇦🇺🇦 (talk) 21:30, 26 April 2022 (UTC)

References

Photo change

@Mazzoof: Let's discuss. Why do you think the panned-out portrait by Rigaud that you are proposing would be a better choice as the lead image than a close-up portrait of the king's face? Do you have proof that the portrait is somehow "iconic" as you are saying? Thank you.

Deedman22 (talk) 22:12, 18 May 2021 (UTC)

Not Mazzoof here, but I would like to keep this image. The image is indeed "iconic", or at least its a more better representation of Louis as "the Sun-king", as the preeminent monarch of 17th-early 18th century Europe. Your preferred portrait doesn't really indicate that and should be a portrait somewhere down the article, not the main article portrait.. Rigaurd's portrait of Louis has been here for more than ten years and for much of that time people seemed quite content to keep it that way, that is until your dissatisfaction with it recently. Strangely enough, many other people are dissatisfied with other monarch's images on this site too, and have tried to change those as well, especially in this past year. Yourlocallordandsavior (talk) 22:57, 18 May 2021 (UTC)

I agree with Yourlocallordandsavior, the life size Rigaud portrait is undoubtably the most famous depiction of Louis XIV and indeed Rigaud's most famous painting. Whatever issues with it not being "close up", aren't pertinent enough to overrule that. Aza24 (talk) 17:56, 23 May 2021 (UTC)

Photo change Dimakatso Perseverance (talk) 11:15, 18 June 2022 (UTC)

Elizabeth watch

It's a bit early just yet, but her Mom made it to 101, and if Queen Elizabeth makes it to 97 1/2 and is still on the throne, she may eclipse Louis's record for longest serving monarch. The actual date is Saturday, September 20, 2025 for the Queen to tie the 72 year + 110 day record (calculation), and Sunday the 21st to beat it. Place your bets! Mathglot (talk) 03:12, 14 July 2021 (UTC)

Queen Elizabeth has died and so this speculation may be closed. Mkretzsch (talk) 15:35, 11 September 2022 (UTC)

Correction: Elizabeth II's reign dates from her accession (February 1952) not her (June 1953) coronation. She would, therefore, overtake Louis XIV on 27th May 2024, but has already outreigned all sovereign monarchs in adult years, having succeeded at 25.Smlark (talk) 13:17, 8 February 2022 (UTC)

Your assertion about her outreigning all the other monarch in terms of "adult years" is nothing but a factoid unworthy of note. The fact still remains that Louis XIV is still the longest reigning sovereign monarch in history no ifs, no buts. 103.196.139.48 (talk) 10:13, 11 September 2022 (UTC)

Move discussion in progress

There is a move discussion in progress on Talk:L'État, c'est moi which affects this page. Please participate on that page and not in this talk page section. Thank you. —RMCD bot 14:03, 9 October 2022 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 15 February 2023

Change 'Queen Anne interfered more with internal policy that foreign policy' to 'Queen Anne was more concerned with internal policy than foreign policy.'

Current verb suggests she had no right to change or agree policy, but she was head of the Council, so she did. It reads as covert sexism against her being a female ruler rather than a male one. I haven't seen this used about kings - except when parliament has all the control. 2A00:23C8:1C89:7601:D188:751E:48BB:9620 (talk) 12:20, 15 February 2023 (UTC)

 Done small jars tc 20:53, 16 February 2023 (UTC)

Not a King from 1638

Louis XIV is listed as the longest reigning monarch. However, the man or woman does not become a Monarch until they have their Coronation and ascend to the title after many formalities. The assumption that Louis XIV was king from the age of 4 is incorrect. He was under protective custody by the Catholic Church in France until he ascended to the throne on 7 June 1654 in Reims Chatederal, France. Therefore, his official reign until his death on 1 September 1715, is only 61 years 2 months and 26 days.

Not as Queen Elizabeth II 70 years and 214 days. Please correct this error. If you assum that Louis XIV duration as king is correct, King Charles III has already reigned for 12 days. 209.93.119.184 (talk) 23:54, 19 September 2022 (UTC)

The statement that a monarch's reign only begins from the date of their Coronation is inaccurate, as demonstrated by the two modern examples you have provided: Elizabeth II marked her Platinum Jubilee on the date she ascended to the throne, not the date of her Coronation. EditorOnOccasion (talk) 15:01, 27 May 2023 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 4 June 2023

Should we add line breaks for monarchs/popes (for example, [[Elizabeth II]]) by following this code  . Unlike my recent edit moments ago. 112.204.197.139 (talk) 16:21, 4 June 2023 (UTC)

 Done I think I got all the correct spots. If you notice any I missed, point them out specifically and tag me in the message so I return to update. --Pinchme123 (talk) 21:36, 4 June 2023 (UTC)

Move discussion in progress

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)

Citation suggestion

Under Early Acts a citation is needed at the end of the third paragraph (this would be a new citation 23). I cannot edit the article directly but I suggest this book chapter by David Parrot.

https://academic.oup.com/book/33734/chapter/288372979

In this text he writes (bold added):

"The essence of the regime was the management of allies and clients within the political establishment to concentrate power and influence, creating a commitment to support ministerial policies on the basis of shared political and material interests. This network of alliances started at the top of society: the occasionally fraught but long-lasting alliance between Richelieu and Henri II, prince de Condé, brought great political benefits to Richelieu, primarily by legitimizing his regime via the adherence of a prince of the royal blood.77 Beneath the rapport with Condé, a sporadic network of ministerial alliances descended down through tiers of the great nobility, and were in some cases secured by matrimonial alliances: Bernard de La Valette, second duc d’Épernon; Henri de Guise-Lorraine, comte d’Harcourt; Antoine de Gramont, comte de Guiche.78 The network extended through families and groupings within the noblesse de robe with power and influence in key judicial and financial institutions. It could include families whose members, holding the office of maître des requêtes in the Paris Parlement, might be commissioned to act as intendants with instructions to try to impose or collect taxes in provinces, neutralize opposition, or satisfy the various financiers that outstanding revenues or debts would be collected. But many other members of the network of clients were themselves part of the provincial elites—nobles, churchmen, or office-holders, tasked with trying to break down resistance to tax demands, overseeing unpopular legislation, and buying off or intimidating opponents of Richelieu’s policies in the provinces and within local institutions.79

An essentially personalized network linked a nexus of ministerial supporters across court, central government, provinces, and institutions. What bound them to ministerial policies was not ideological commitment to Richelieu’s priorities in foreign policy, still less a belief that Richelieu’s rule was synonymous with political modernization or state-building. What motivated and maintained their adherence was an alignment of interests. As the burdens of sustaining the war effort grew heavier, the task of selling and maintaining ministerial policies became harder and generated more antagonism between the exponents of ministerial policy and their opponents. Yet the benefits of adherence to a powerful patronage network could provide a range of advantages in terms of appointments for relatives and friends, career advancement, political influence, and judicial protection. For many of those in the higher reaches of ministerial clienteles, or the political allies of Richelieu and, later, Mazarin, involvement on favourable terms in the financing of the war effort became one of the largest attractions of cooperation with the regime. ‘Exploitative finance seems the glue which held together the Mazarinist regime’, as William Beik bluntly summed up this mechanism.80 The perception was widely shared that the only access to the king and royal favour lay through the minister and his clients, and this was indeed a situation that Richelieu wished to create, even if he was not wholly successful. Moreover, the king’s decisions in matters of favour were perceived as subordinate to those of the cardinal-minister. The claim that the ‘king counted for nothing’ in appointments and promotions to military office, though demonstrably not true, became a regular and bitter complaint in the officer corps, which was split between those who enjoyed advancement because they were the cardinal’s clients, and those marginalized or excluded despite their services.81

A lot of resentment and hostility was generated by this essentially informal regime through which the cardinal and his allies gained control of the mechanisms of government and used them to short-circuit the ‘ordinary’ system of royal authority based on established institutions and traditional rights. This hostility should be emphasized." Djorenstein (talk) 14:55, 8 September 2023 (UTC)

"L'Etat c'est moi" listed at Redirects for discussion

The redirect L'Etat c'est moi has been listed at redirects for discussion to determine whether its use and function meets the redirect guidelines. Readers of this page are welcome to comment on this redirect at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2023 December 11 § L'Etat c'est moi until a consensus is reached. Silcox (talk) 06:27, 11 December 2023 (UTC)

Correction requested.

Heading - Personal reign and reforms Section - Coming of age and early reforms

Paragraph 6 sentence 1. Nobility is spelled incorrectly. Keio9011565 (talk) 00:47, 21 March 2024 (UTC)