Talk:Louis XVI

Consistent citation styles
This page does not a consistent style of in-line citations. There is already a bibliography on the page. One option is adding every book cited to this bibliography and convert all in-line citations to short citations. Does any one have an opinion about this? Best, Oldsanfelipe2 (talk) 16:40, 11 May 2023 (UTC)

Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment
This article is or was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): Andreasvg.

Above undated message substituted from Template:Dashboard.wikiedu.org assignment by PrimeBOT (talk) 02:53, 17 January 2022 (UTC)

Consummation of marriage
I don't know much about French royalty, but I notice in this article it says ("Family life" section) that "Over time, the couple became closer, and their marriage was reportedly consummated in July 1773." The source given is Fraser, Antonia, Marie Antoinette, p.127

In the Marie Antoinette article ("1774–1778: Early years" subsection), it says, without a source, "It was due to Joseph's intervention that, on 30 August 1777, the marriage was officially consummated."

Can someone fix this contradiction?

Girlwithgreeneyes (talk) 10:53, 15 May 2011 (UTC)

American Revolution
The article currently states that "Louis was wholly disappointed in his aim of recovering Canada from Britain" in the American Revolutionary War. I was under the impression that this was never an aim of the French government in that conflict, and this would seem to be evidenced by the fact that France never mounted an invasion of Quebec. 12.239.145.114 (talk) 20:24, 20 June 2012 (UTC)


 * They were never able to, because the Royal Navy prevented any invasion of Canada from being attempted. (92.10.132.85 (talk) 21:50, 17 September 2012 (UTC))


 * Is that correct? The French Navy had many successes in that conflict (essentially battling the British to a standstill on the high seas), and France was able to successfully mount an invasion of Virginia. One would think that defending the Thirteen Colonies was a greater priority for the British than defending Canada at that time. Funnyhat (talk) 19:07, 26 December 2012 (UTC)

Britain had already lost control of the thirteen colonies by 1778. The main priority of the Royal Navy was to prevent the French from recapturing any territory lost during the Seven Years' War. (92.10.142.63 (talk) 21:12, 31 December 2012 (UTC))


 * I don't agree with that. The most decisive battle of the war (Yorktown) wasn't fought until 1781 - and the Royal Navy tried to relieve the British forces besieged there, but was stymied in the Battle of the Chesapeake.  Certainly, Louis wanted to avenge the defeat in the Seven Years' War, but I've never heard that it was a goal of the French government to recapture Canada once it was lost.  Even when it was a French possession, many (including Voltaire) argued that it was an unproductive colony, not worth maintaining. (See A few acres of snow.)  If there are sources indicating that Louis wanted to recapture Canada in the Revolutionary War, I'd be curious to see them (and they should be added as references).  Funnyhat (talk) 15:46, 1 January 2013 (UTC)

The biography I read of Louis said driving the British out of Canada, India and the West Indies were his main reasons for supporting the North American colonists from the spring of 1776. In all three aims he was to be disappointed, as these places were too well defended like Gibraltar. France basically gained nothing from joining the Revolutionary War, at the cost of bankrupting its economy and causing revolution at home. (92.7.15.211 (talk) 05:45, 4 January 2013 (UTC))


 * Reconquering Canada was never a French war aim, which was why France and the United States specifically made a point of saying in the terms of their 1778 alliance that Canada ("any part of the continent of North america which ... in virtue of that Treaty [of Paris 1763], were acknowledged to belong to the Crown of Great Britain ... or which are at this Time or have lately been under the Power of The King and Crown of Great Britain") was to go to the United States if captured, not to France. The reasons for that are obvious: Canada cost far more money for France to administer than it had ever made, it would have been impossible to defend against either Britain or the United States, and its possession would have guaranteed that the United States would turn into a hostile power rather than a useful ally against Britain.  Also it's not at all true that "Britain had already lost control of the thirteen colonies by 1778", a time when New York, much of the middle colonies and almost all the South south of Virginia were still in British hands.  Nor is it true that it was the strength of the Royal Navy that prevented French invasions of British colonies: the Royal Navy couldn't prevent the shipment of Rochambeau's army to Rhode Island in 1779 (which is the army that would have invaded Canada if that's the strategy that Rochambeau and Washington had agreed upon instead of marching south to Virginia; they did discuss such an option), nor could it break the French blockade of Yorktown that ultimately led to Britain's defeat in the war, and nor could they defeat Suffren's squadron in the Indian Ocean.  Indeed, the American Revolutionary War is the only war of the last three hundred years in which the Royal Navy hasn't been able to maintain its customary dominance of the seas.  It is true that France went to war with the idea of stripping away a number of British colonies (it's just that Canada explicitly was not one of them), and it is true that she ultimately walked away with nothing while her two major allies (the United States and Spain) made significant gains in the peace settlement.  But the sentence "France gained little from the 1783 Treaty of Paris that ended the war, except the colonies of Tobago and Senegal. Louis XVI was wholly disappointed in his aims of recovering Canada, India and other islands in the West Indies from Britain, as they were too well defended and the Royal Navy made any invasion attempt impossible" is full of inaccuracy.  (I wonder if "the Royal Navy made any invasion attempt impossible" is meant to mean specifically an invasion of Britain? That would be a more defensible assertion, though it would be better reworded as something clearer, like "an attempted French invasion of mainland Britain had to return to port after being unable to bring the Royal Navy to battle.")  Binabik80 (talk) 19:05, 29 September 2014 (UTC)

The neck is part of the spine
>"The former king was then quickly beheaded. Some accounts of Louis's beheading indicate that the blade did not sever his neck entirely the first time. There are also accounts of a blood-curdling scream issuing from Louis after the blade fell but this is unlikely, since the blade severed Louis's spine."

The neck is part of the spine. If some accounts say the blade did not sever his neck entirely the first time, then it's definitely possible he screamed. Although I do wonder why, if that's true, the guillotine blade hadn't been sharpened on purpose for the king. Maybe someone decided Louis deserved two cuts instead of one (gack). Rissa, Guild of Copy Editors (talk) 03:45, 18 July 2015 (UTC)

Madam Campan
Under "Primary sources" it has: "Marie Antoinette. Memoirs of Marie Antoinette, Queen of France and Wife of Louis XVI: Queen of France." Those memoirs were written by Jeanne-Louise-Henriette Campan, not by the queen. Click on the link to Google Books and space down seven pages. I fixed the citation. Rissa, Guild of Copy Editors (talk) 04:07, 18 July 2015 (UTC)

Louis's blood and Henri IV's head
These findings were later cast into severe doubt, see http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/10/09/mummified-head-french-king-henri-iv-dna_n_4069500.html

Wolfita (talk) 06:53, 18 January 2016 (UTC)


 * Considering the "polémique" within the scientific world, how can Wikipedia pretend to know better, and settle the matter - both RE Henri IV's head and Louis XVI's blood - once and for all? Discussing the subject is fine, but being affirmative one way or the other is not: Wikipedia cannot take on the role of both judge & jury on scientific matters the scientific world is still debating.
 * At best, Wikipedia should only mention both sides, but not take side.


 * European Journal of Human Genetics, 9 October 2013 (English):
 * http://www.nature.com/ejhg/journal/v22/n5/full/ejhg2013211a.html


 * Science, 9 October 2013 (English):
 * http://www.sciencemag.org/news/2013/10/bloody-rag-may-not-have-touched-louis-xvis-severed-head


 * Le Monde, 20 January 2014 (French):
 * http://www.lemonde.fr/sciences/article/2014/01/20/polemiques-sur-le-crane-suppose-d-henri-iv_4351224_1650684.html


 * Paris Normandie, 24 April 2014 (French):
 * http://www.paris-normandie.fr/detail_article/articles/388111/ce-n-etait-pas-le-sang-de-louis-xvi-dans-la-calebasse


 * etc. etc. etc.
 * --Blue Indigo (talk) 11:31, 18 January 2016 (UTC)

King Louis' XVI relic and King Henri's IV head have the same Y chromosome G2A
With a differing Y chromosome haplogroup to the one shared by the relic and head, it is more likely the 'surviving' three members of the House of Bourbon aren't related to King Louis XVI and King Henri IV. The article French Kings from Henry IV to Louis XVI "Bourbon", ancient Y-DNA explains: "King Louis XVI of France from a genetic test on blood in a cloth purported to have been collected at his beheading and maintained in an ornate gourd decorated with French Revolution themes. Confirmation of this genetic profile requires testing of a known relative because the "relic" cloth was a popular item sold for money following Louis XVI's execution. The sample was tested at two laboratories with the same results. The sample is most consistent with G2a3b1a samples and contains unusually high, rare values for markers DYS385B and DYS458 in this haplogroup G subgroup. Subsequent testing in 2012 on a mummified head, purportedly that of King Henri IV of France, revealed that typing of a limited number of Y-STR's showed a Y-Dna haplogroup of G2a. Reported researchers: "Five STR loci [from the sample taken from the head] match the alleles found in Louis XVI, while another locus shows an allele that is just one mutation step apart. Taking into consideration that the partial Y-chromosome profile is extremely rare in modern human databases, we concluded that both males could be paternally related." The two French kings were separated by seven generations." Quoted as being based on this scientific article. The same one this wikipedia article quotes. That scientfic article comes to some strange conclusions like the requirement to use surviving relatives, when the relic and head support each other and not the three supposed descendants claim. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Adrian Scott Herbert (talk • contribs) 11:49, 27 August 2023 (UTC)

Imprisonment and Execution: Vote Count Inconsistence
In the Imprisonment and Execution section the text currently reads "On 15 January 1793, the Convention, composed of 721 deputies, voted on the verdict. Given overwhelming evidence of Louis's collusion with the invaders, the verdict was a foregone conclusion – with 693 deputies voting guilty, none for acquittal, with 23 abstaining.". The numbers do not add up (693+0+23 = 716, not 721) and I have no access to the cited source (a book). Can someone verify or find another source to confirm (or not) these numbers ? -- Fbergo (talk) 18:21, 15 March 2016 (UTC)

File:Antoine-François Callet - Louis XVI, roi de France et de Navarre (1754-1793), revêtu du grand costume royal en 1779 - Google Art Project.jpg to appear as POTD soon
Hello! This is a note to let the editors of this article know that File:Antoine-François Callet - Louis XVI, roi de France et de Navarre (1754-1793), revêtu du grand costume royal en 1779 - Google Art Project.jpg will be appearing as picture of the day on May 10, 2016. You can view and edit the POTD blurb at Template:POTD/2016-05-10. If this article needs any attention or maintenance, it would be preferable if that could be done before its appearance on the Main Page. — Chris Woodrich (talk) 00:29, 23 April 2016 (UTC)

End/s of reign/s
The article currently has

There seem to be a number of contradictions: - 1. Did he cease to be reigning King of France and Navarre and start being titular King thereof on 4 September - they day after the adoption of the French Constitution of 1791 or 1 October 1791 - the day after the dissolution of the National Constituent Assembly? 2. Did he cease to be reigning King of the French and start being titular King on 10 August 10 August (French Revolution) or 21 September 1792 Proclamation of the abolition of the monarchy? Alekksandr (talk) 17:06, 30 April 2016 (UTC)

Then what happened?
After the execution, was his body entombed? Buried? Torn to shreds by the mob? Quartered and set on spikes outside the city? Inquiring minds want to know. <> Alt lys er svunnet hen (talk) 18:53, 4 September 2016 (UTC)


 * That's what happened:
 * --Blue Indigo (talk) 11:46, 30 January 2017 (UTC)

Potential ideas and references
As part of my experience in a classroom role-playing game of the French Revolution, I come as a novice editor hoping to be able to contribute information that could improve the article on my character, at least a bit! I have read and taken into considerations the suggestions made on here about the discrepancies within the article and will carefully review the issues, although some suggestions were made years ago. I plan most specifically to build up on the section on Louis XVI's time as a constitutional monarch and what other plans may have been under-works in his final moments of holding some power. Later I'll also like to elaborate on the article on The Edict of Versailles. I'd like to share some resources I've gathered for this purpose, and would appreciate any feedback. If any other issues have come your attention, please let it be known so I could try and address them! Thank you. References 1893-1978., Faÿ, Bernard, (1968-01-01). Louis XVI; or The end of a world;. W.H. Allen. ISBN 0491000405.

1939-, Johnson, Alison, (2013-01-01). Louis XVI and the French Revolution. McFarland. ISBN 9780786473557. OCLC 865033927.

Charles River Editors (2013). French Legends: The Life and Legacy of King Louis XVI. CreateSpace Publishing. ISBN 9781494300180.

"Edict of Toleration, November 1787". chnm.gmu.edu. Retrieved 2017-02-20. John., Hardman, (2000-01-01). Louis XVI: The Silent King. Arnold. ISBN 9780340706503. OCLC 959636426. King Louis XVI, Benefactor of America, and Martyr - Dominicana Vol. 15 No. 2 Michael., Walzer, (1992-01-01). Regicide and revolution: speeches at the trial of Louis XVI. Columbia University Press. ISBN 0231082592. OCLC 26932951. Munro., Price, (2003-01-01). The fall of the French monarchy: Louis XVI, Marie Antoinette and the Baron de Breteuil. Pan. ISBN 9780330488273. OCLC 59340837. "The Edict of Toleration (November 29th, 1787) | Musée virtuel du Protestantisme". www.museeprotestant.org. Retrieved 2017-02-20.

Andreasvg (talk) 05:02, 20 February 2017 (UTC)

quality of article
As a reader of encyclopedias, I have to hope that a better article than this might be produced about the last king of France, executed during the Revolution, an event of great importance in European and world history. I would rate this article as pitched at high-school-level readers, not well written (translated from the French version, perhaps?), and without serious political or social analysis. For example, the riots leading up to the storming of the Bastille are brushed past as of no importance. It is of course appropriate to focus on biographical details, but the sources are not scholarly and the context is minimal. It would be wonderful if the article could be improved. Actio (talk) 00:03, 12 April 2017 (UTC)


 * French article = 299 530 bytes vs English article = 75,575 bytes
 * If translated from the French, something must be missing in the translation:)
 * As a reader of encyclopedias who seems to put quality first, your help & comments would be more than welcome at articles on Louis XVI's children.
 * --Blue Indigo (talk) 11:01, 12 April 2017 (UTC)
 * --Blue Indigo (talk) 11:01, 12 April 2017 (UTC)

thank you, Blue Indigo, I wish I had the capacity to make t better, but i think some serious scholarship should be cited here. I have opinions, but even I would not want to read my own presuppositions if swept into an encyclopedia article Actio (talk) 21:16, 16 May 2017 (UTC)

King of France and of Navarre
Reason given by Surtsicna for removing of Navarre from the title King of France and of Navarre:
 * He was not actually king of such a kingdom. It was just part of his official title. We use "Queen of Great Britain and Ireland", not "Queen of Great Britain, France and Ireland", and "King of Denmark", not "King of Denmark, the Wends and the Goths"

I am in total disagreement with the above: what is done with the titles for the reigning monarch in the kingdoms of Great Britain and of Denmark should have no bearing on the title King of France and of Navarre. To each its own history and titles.

The title came to the kingdom of France with the Bourbon dynasty when Henri III of Navarre became Henri IV of France, remaining king of Navarre & transmitting the title to his successors. Since, France has become a republic and Navarre - in fact Basse Navarre - a part of the Pyrénées Atlantiques department. However, the past is the past & no country should have to follow the do's and don'ts of another one, and Wikipedia is here to present & explain events as they are/were, not change the history of a country.

Here is how Louis XIV, roi de France et de Navarre, began his addresses, letters, ordinances etc.
 * http://gallica.bnf.fr/ark:/12148/btv1b86015722
 * http://gallica.bnf.fr/ark:/12148/btv1b86018619/f1.image

--Blue Indigo (talk) 15:37, 17 June 2017 (UTC)
 * Louis XIV does not begin his addresses, letters and ordinances as "King of France and Navarre". He begins them as "by the Grace of God King of France and Navarre". Why have we dispensed with the Grace of God? It had a tremendous meaning. It emphasised his semi-divinity, which he very much liked. We are already changing history, to paraphrase you, by cutting out this part.
 * And here is how Britannica calls him: Louis XIV | king of France. It describes him as "king of France (1643–1715) who ruled his country, principally from his great palace at Versailles, during one of its most brilliant periods and who remains the symbol of absolute monarchy of the classical age."
 * Louis XIV's full title and style must have a place in the article. He should not, however, be called King of France and Navarre in every instance, especially not when it suggests that France and Navarre were on equal terms or that Navarre was an actual state. He should be described in this encyclopedia the way he is described in all others - as king of France.

Surtsicna (talk) 15:50, 17 June 2017 (UTC)


 * Surtsicna, Louis par la grace de Dieu Roy de France et de Navarre: whether "par la grace de Dieu" belongs in the title or not, it does not change what follows, which is Roy de France *et de Navarre*.
 * French monarchy was "de droit divin", Divine right of kings, which does not mean that the king was a half-god, but that he received his authority only from God, which, for instance, is the case of the Pope, who, even in the Catholic Church (or by himself) is not considered to be a half-god. I think we are missing quite a bit in the translation here :)
 * Quoting you: "He should be described in this encyclopedia the way he is described in all others - as king of France." Agreed as to follow the description of other wiki encyclopedias:
 * https://fr.wikipedia.org/wiki/Louis_XVI
 * https://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ludwig_XVI.
 * https://es.wikipedia.org/wiki/Luis_XVI_de_Francia
 * https://pt.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lu%C3%ADs_XVI_de_Fran%C3%A7a
 * https://pl.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ludwik_XVI
 * same for all Louis from L.XIII on.
 * By the way, Navarre was an actual state until 1620. So, before changing French history on en.wiki, it might be a good idea to be a bit less severe denying titles which actually existed.
 * I agree that the entire title should not be used throughout the whole article, but it definitely has its place in the introduction.
 * --Blue Indigo (talk) 17:16, 17 June 2017 (UTC)
 * Mon dieu, you cannot cite Wikipedia as a source for Wikipedia! Britannica calls him simply "king of France", as do Catholic Encyclopedia, Encarta, the Dictionary of World Biography and every other biographical dictionary. The Bourbon Kingdom of Navarre was indeed an actual state until 1620, which is why I am not against describing Henry IV (III) and Louis XII (II) as kings of France and Navarre. To define their successors as kings of France and Navarre, however, is entirely misleading, since it suggests that the Kingdom of Navarre was on equal footing with France, in the same situation as under Henry and, well, that it still existed. Surtsicna (talk) 17:52, 17 June 2017 (UTC)
 * Surtsicna
 * 1. Let me apologize for accidentally removing part of your text as I was copying it to give it as a quote from you: He should be described in this encyclopedia the way he is described in all others - as king of France. I just noticed it & put it back.
 * 2. When I read the word "encyclopedia", I misunderstood it to mean 'wiki' in various languages. My mistake.
 * 3. However, going back to the beginning of this talk, I still stand by my argumentation that Roi de France et de Navarre as used by all kings of France since Henri IV is the correct title of all the Louis and the one Charles who followed him. In several subjects that concern France, I happen to often disagree with some of the encyclopedias you mention.
 * 4. Four mentions of "Roi de France et de Navarre" in Journal des débats et des décrets du 29 Août 1789
 * 5. Fourteen mentions in Jean-Christian Petitfils book Louis XVI, Perrin, 2005
 * Regards, --Blue Indigo (talk) 22:42, 17 June 2017 (UTC)


 * google scholar gives n= 143 hits in scholarly books and journals for "Louis XVI"  "France and navarre" in the last 50 years.  Leave out Navarre and get 19,000 books and articles for "Louis XVI"  "France ".  that's a usage ration of 132:1  --many of the navarre cites are quotes from official documents from his reign,  see for yourself https://scholar.google.com/scholar?q=%22Louis+XVI%22++%22France+and+navarre%22&hl=en&as_sdt=1%2C27&as_ylo=1967&as_yhi=2017    Rjensen (talk) 23:02, 17 June 2017 (UTC)


 * I maintain that the double title roi de France et de Navarre should be kept in the lede. Even if in the minority in hits, it was an official title, and skipping it altogether is not scholarly.
 * --Blue Indigo (talk) 08:45, 18 June 2017 (UTC)
 * Curiously enough, it is in the lede of this article. Surtsicna (talk) 11:07, 18 June 2017 (UTC)


 * Surtsicna -
 * Probably not expressing myself to be understood clearly, so here it goes again: What I meant "in the lede" is in the second line of the first sentence of the lede, where you changed "was the last King of France and Navarre before the French Revolution" to "was the last King of France before the French Revolution". Same argument for the info box.
 * The official title including Navarre may not be Google's majority hits, but it was the official title from Henri IV onward. Giving as a proof that one is right by providing the amounts of Google-hits is a strange way to get to the truth for an encyclopedia. So, Google-hits must always win over truth, even if it means that truth will end in the trashcan of history?
 * Pas d'accord! --Blue Indigo (talk) 14:01, 18 June 2017 (UTC)
 * It's not Google hits. It's Google Scholar hits. It's scholarship. It's historiography. And it's a perfectly reasonable way to ascertain what this man was. The truth is that Louis called himself King of France and Navarre. The truth is also that he was never actually King of Navarre. Which truth shall we present? If we simply define him as King of France and Navarre, we are most certainly telling no truth. Surtsicna (talk) 14:22, 18 June 2017 (UTC)
 * Our job as wiki editors is not to resolve debates but to follow the vast majority of scholars. Rjensen (talk) 14:40, 18 June 2017 (UTC)


 * Surtsicna
 * The truth is not what Louis XVI called himself or not, or whatever the number of Google-hits tells us what the truth is or should be: the truth is that the official title of the king of France starting with Henri IV was Roi de France et de Navarre, which is the reason why all kings of France starting with him began their addresses with "... par la grâce de Dieu Roy de France et de Navarre".
 * --Blue Indigo (talk) 21:50, 18 June 2017 (UTC)


 * Rjensen
 * You wrote: "Our job as wiki editors is not to resolve debates but to follow the vast majority of scholars." My answer: there was no debate until en.wiki decided to change the official title of the kings of France.
 * Furthermore, does the argument that Google-hits by scholars in majority in favor of dropping Navarre suggest that the scholars who do not agree with the majority are less scholarly & their opinion should automatically be dismissed? Does that mean that their judgment is wrong? Galileo comes to mind :)
 * --Blue Indigo (talk) 21:50, 18 June 2017 (UTC)
 * Wiki ignores tiny fringe viewpoints. when you have a 130-1 ratio the "fringe" rule applies--too minor to need inclusion. (Actually I think some of these few are probably just quoting old documents.) Rjensen (talk) 22:22, 18 June 2017 (UTC)
 * Seems to me we do not read ratios the same way, or are not talking about the same subject. Where in the case of interest here do you see a 130 to 1 ratio? I must be missing something. Please explain. At the google scholar link you gave, there are 143 hits, 59 of them including Navarre, which amounts to 41 per cent of results -, in the minority, but not that tiny, and not exactly something to be ignored. If this was a presidential vote, the 41 per cent would lose, but Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, a tool of learning, not a straitjacket. It can always explain in one sentence or a footnote the why & because of something, or send reader to an article on the subject. On the other hand, not mentioning de Navarre will only lead to someone eventually adding it.
 * --Blue Indigo (talk) 09:39, 19 June 2017 (UTC)
 * Wikipedia has never used the "official title" for Louis, as it never called him king "by the grace of God". Wikipedia doesn't use "official titles" for monarchs of other countries, so why should it do so for the French kings? Because the French kings are the only in which you are interested? Or because you would be against defining George II as "King of Great Britain, France and Ireland"? Surtsicna (talk) 22:37, 18 June 2017 (UTC)
 * Mon Dieu ! Which Wikipedia are you talking about? There are nearly 300 of them. Which one are you referring to that only holds the truth?
 * And, no, French kings are not my only subject of interest, but attract my attention when I notice something that does not sound right to me.
 * And, yes, somewhere in the article of George II of Great Britain, which I have not read, I would mention France & send readers to article explaining why that was a part of the title of English/British monarchs from the beginning of the Hundred Years' War until 1801. That would be a nice way to extend their knowledge.
 * --Blue Indigo (talk) 09:39, 19 June 2017 (UTC)
 * The full title, including France, is mentioned somewhere in the article about George - in a section of its own. George's official title is not mentioned in the lead, which is where you want Louis' official title to be mentioned (if I understand you correctly). Surtsicna (talk) 11:37, 19 June 2017 (UTC)
 * You understood correctly.
 * If one takes into consideration the history of each country, in France's point of view, the young Henry VI, king of England, being crowned king of France because he was the son of the king of France's daughter married to an English king, was judged as the English way of stealing the throne of France from its rightful heir. One reason for that point of view of the French was the Salic Law, in force in France. Another reason was the signing of the Treaty of Troyes by the unfortunate French mad king Charles VI, which disinherited his son, the rightful Dauphin. That's how England managed to add France to its title. Right or wrong, that's a part of the history of England, and it needs to be told/explained at some point, just like Navarre, which was a real country brought to the French realm by the very king of that country - hence Navarre in the title of the kings of France.
 * The kings of England/Britain kept France in their title until 1801. That is a part of their history, and when they removed it, they did it in an official manner, so, it would not shock me if the full title was given in the lede, with proper comment/explanation either in a footnote, or later on in the article. That's my way of thinking, and I don't think it is unreasonable since it is based on historical facts.
 * Regards, --Blue Indigo (talk) 12:43, 19 June 2017 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Louis XVI 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/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
 * Added tag to http://www.tigerandthistle.net/tipu315.htm
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20110929061344/http://historyproject.ucdavis.edu/ic/standard/5.00/5.3_1.00/13161.html to http://historyproject.ucdavis.edu/ic/standard/5.00/5.3_1.00/13161.html

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

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 12:49, 5 December 2017 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 17 April 2020
The sentence "Louis XVI was initiated[when?] into masonic lodge Trois-Frères à l'Orient de la Cour.[4][Cite book verification needed]" should be removed. Even if it's accurate, there's no indication given as to why this piece of information is important enough to be situated in the overview of his life at the top of the page, right after a sentence about the storming of the Bastille. 2604:2000:12C0:5C97:20D2:6DCB:346E:55D9 (talk) 04:36, 17 April 2020 (UTC)
 * Yes check.svg Done The cited source is to an 1895 book which depends on old letters. The actual text: "Ce point d'histoire est la participation de Louis XVI ...a une loge maconnique qui est le denommee dans le trevail de M Monin de loge des Trois-Frères à l'Orient de la Cour." This makes it clear that Amiable is only reporting what Monin claimed, and cannot be considered a WP:RS.  This sentence seems to have been added solely to justify inclusion in the category of French Freemasons. Eggishorn (talk) (contrib) 18:49, 19 April 2020 (UTC)

Move discussion in progress
There is a move discussion in progress on Talk:Louis XIV of France which affects this page. Please participate on that page and not in this talk page section. Thank you. —RMCD bot 21:30, 21 June 2020 (UTC)

Misleading Description of Trial
The description of Louis' trial makes it appear that Michelet spoke against Louis' execution at his trial. Actually, he was a historian who made the point decades later. VERY misleading.

Kathleen Weber — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2600:1700:30C0:6E50:CDB4:3EDB:CCCB:17CD (talk) 09:28, 6 July 2020 (UTC)

'Louis, Dauphin of France, he became the new Dauphin.' This is incorrect grammar as it is saying the new Dauphin twice by using the noun "HE". So this sentence should read: Louis, Dauphin of France, became the new Dauphin.

Restorer of Liberty
Just to expand a bit on my edit summary, if he's known as Restorer of Liberty, this should be discussed in the body of the article. The lead summarizes the article. If it's not important enough to discuss in the article, then it doesn't belong in the lead. And the source doesn't say that he is known by that name. It just says that there exists a cotton weave museum piece whose title is "Louis XVI Restorer of Liberty". GA-RT-22 (talk) 23:21, 1 June 2021 (UTC)

Images of French monarchs
Do you think we should make the images of Louis XV, Louis XVI, Louis XVIII, and Charles X them in normal attire instead there coronation robes? Just a question.--Orson1234 (talk) 06:46, 22 October 2021 (UTC)Orson1234

Semi-protected edit request on 11 February 2022
In the section 'Absolute Monarch of France (1774-1789)', add a hyperlink to the wikipedia article 'compte rendu au roi' where the name appears in this article.

Article in question: https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Compte_rendu 194.230.148.125 (talk) 08:53, 11 February 2022 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 6 March 2022
Please add the following template to the end of the article: 67.173.23.66 (talk) 18:07, 6 March 2022 (UTC)
 * ✅  — Paper9oll  (🔔 • 📝)  07:30, 13 March 2022 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 13 March 2022
Please add the category Category:Royal reburials 67.173.23.66 (talk) 17:42, 13 March 2022 (UTC)
 * ✅. Heartmusic678 (talk) 11:40, 23 March 2022 (UTC)

Louis' intellect
The reference added recently by @Dialuanny0 regarding the claim "none doubted his intellectual ability to rule France" does not sufficiently support this claim, in my view. The cited source says:


 * "While there is no doubt that Louis’ leadership and political judgement were lacking, it is simplistic and unfair to attribute the revolution to his errors alone. The king was no intellectual or visionary but nor was he reckless or stupid. In a more settled age, he might have made a capable old regime ruler. With better judgement, he might have overseen France’s transition to a constitutional monarchy. Instead, Louis found himself in a situation beyond his control and perhaps beyond his understanding."

and


 * "The young Louis XVI was moderately intelligent..."

I think whilst it certainly supports the claim that Louis was intelligent, it doesn't cover the claim of "none doubted his intellectual ability to rule France." Saying someone is intelligient is not the same as saying no one ever claimed he was unintelligent enough to rule France. Therefore I have added a failed verification tag, as I still think the reference has some value. And as always, appreciate any attempt to improve references so please don't take this as criticism @Dialuanny0! Happy to discuss further. SamWilson989 (talk) 23:26, 21 May 2022 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 13 September 2022
Louis 14th in Roman Numerals is XIV. Please change XVI to XIV throughout article. 70.80.20.84 (talk) 17:42, 13 September 2022 (UTC)
 * Red information icon with gradient background.svg Not done: The article is most certainly about Louis 16th. Favonian (talk) 18:02, 13 September 2022 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 3 March 2023
Change émigrés to include the link to that page. I think the format would be émigrés Richardgomes7d (talk) 14:42, 3 March 2023 (UTC)
 * Red information icon with gradient background.svg Not done for now: No point in linking a French word to an article that doesn't exist. M.Bitton (talk) 17:33, 3 March 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)

Ancestry
23 and me states I'm in the same haplogroup as Louis the xvi 2601:409:C100:A330:9426:5CC:BFA:234F (talk) 03:22, 28 October 2023 (UTC)

Hoverbox showing Saša Ostojić
When you hover over this article link from another article, you get that "Saša Ostojić was the last king of France". I would edit this myself but I'm new to Wikipedia editing and unsure how to do so (also this article appears to be protected so I don't want to make any changes on a new account). Just bringing this to someone's attention. Aurangzebra (talk) 04:30, 20 December 2023 (UTC)

Sst
whom did louis XVI get married to? 106.221.74.72 (talk) 07:36, 6 March 2024 (UTC)


 * Marie Antoinette, or in her real name Maria Antonia Josepha 2001:D08:2920:BE3F:C914:52:8726:43A7 (talk) 06:34, 5 July 2024 (UTC)