Talk:Edict of Fontainebleau

Comments
"This Revocation of the Edict of Nantes, as it is also commonly called, has been criticized in a manner similar to criticism of the Nazi Holocaust and the Spanish Inquisition, although the action created a state of affairs in France similar to that of virtually every other European country of the period..." ''I take violent exception to the word "..., although ..." Such a word softens the implications of "Nazi Holocaust" -- to wit, "some say it was a NAZI HOLOCAUST, *BUT*..." That is inappropriate according to my thinking. I would prefer, "..., and yet ..." The fact that all European societies were hereditary dictatorships that smothered 95+% of the population in grinding poverty does not serve as a legitimate appologetic for the practice. Rather, it highlights the terrible tragedy of the times.

"destruction" of Huguenot churches or simply "closing"? User:Wetman

According to the cited references, destruction. Pizza Puzzle

Im not sure I see the point of "The event is more familiar to readers of English as the 'Revocation of the Edict of Nantes'." -- so I deleted it. It seems akin to saying, "World War II is sometimes known as the "German violation of the Versailles Treaty" Pizza Puzzle


 * It is a bit like saying that in a way, but nontheless, it's how the event is best known in English (it gets over 4000 Google hits, compared to just 74 for "Edict of Fontainebleau"). So I've put it back. --Camembert


 * One of the text books we used in a history class at UWO just calls it the "Revocation of the Edict of Nantes." It's even listed that way in the index, with no mention of Fontainebleau...granted, it isn't much more than a survey of Louis's reign. But anyway, I don't think it's the same calling WWII ""German violation of the Versailles Treaty." Adam Bishop 00:12, 21 Sep 2003 (UTC)


 * I agree. The mention of "The Revocation of Nantes" should stay. Trhaynes 02:17, Dec 16, 2004 (UTC)


 * It is better known for the French reader as the "Revocation of the Edict of Nantes" (and is one of the reasons why Louis XIV is not well considered in France nowadays). David.Monniaux 10:22, 12 Mar 2005 (UTC)
 * Really??! Well, on the other hand, we in Slovakia have never heard of the "Revocation of the Edict of Nates; neither have we been taught it at school, nor have I found it in serious Czech or Slovak scientific literature or peer-reviewed articles. Always only as the "Edict of Fontainebleau". Hence my doubt. And for that reason, I have changed the wording again. Is it really taught in present-day France as the "Revocation of..."? 78.99.226.4 (talk) 17:09, 27 June 2008 (UTC)

"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."...This may be too strongly stated. Holland was, at least relatively speaking, a haven of confessional tolerance. And in Brandenburg-Prussia the Calvinist of the court and the provincial Lutheran churches managed to live side-by-side (not without tension) under the banner of 'tolerance.'(Prussia incidentally absorbed a large number of Huguenot refugees). And throughout the Holy Roman Empire there were a number of complicated power-sharing agreements between Protestants and Catholics as stipulated by the Peace of Westphalia. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.167.62.52 (talk) 16:38, 1 September 2008 (UTC)

Louis' claims of 17 Jan 1686
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)

Different kinds of protestants
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)


 * 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)

tolerated
"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)

"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."...This may be too strongly stated. Holland was, at least relatively speaking, a haven of confessional tolerance. And in Brandenburg-Prussia the Calvinist of the court and the provincial Lutheran churches managed to live side-by-side (not without tension) under the banner of 'tolerance.'(Prussia incidentally absorbed a large number of Huguenot refugees). And throughout the Holy Roman Empire there were a number of complicated power-sharing agreements between Protestants and Catholics as stipulated by the Peace of Westphalia. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.167.62.52 (talk) 16:38, 1 September 2008 (UTC)

No mention of the political advantages of the Edict
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)


 * 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)