Talk:Marie-Thérèse, Duchess of Angoulême

Citation styles
This page has some inconsistent citation styles, so I am editing to a single style based on the guidelines at WP: Citing sources. Best, Oldsanfelipe2 (talk) 21:11, 10 May 2023 (UTC)

Identity?
Was princes replaced in 1795 by her half sister Ernestine Lambriquet? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 193.198.138.84 (talk • contribs) 02:35, 11 December 2004

Royalist bias?
The entire article is highly biased towards the royal family and royalism making the revolution out to be a horrible thing while the royal family was, despite some minor failings, a wonderful thing filled with loving individuals that doted on their children and gave their earnings to the poor. It is ridiculously naive and I would suggest a serious editing of the entire article.


 * I certainly agree that the article has a distinct royalist POV in spots. Rather than arguing the merits of that POV (naive or not), the article should be made more neutral.  It also needs to be better sourced.  I don't understand the tag about it needing to be more formal however.  The formality of the writing style seems fine to me.  Kevin Nelson 07:04, 11 November 2006 (UTC)


 * I have added a neutrality tag to this article. The previous poster is right - this article is highly biased in favour of the French Royal family. --Kelmendi 18:15, 16 November 2006 (UTC)


 * Perhaps I have a bias because of my family history, but the French Revolution was a murderous and barbarous action. My ancestor was beheaded in the Great Terror on account of his being a Catholic priest.
 * Bias against the Royal Family is every bit as much of a POV.
 * --FidesetRatio 06:19, 28 November 2006 (UTC)


 * That's not really the point. Of course the French revolution was horrible and violent, and many innocent people died.  That doesn't mean that the royal family was made up of saints, though - and that's how they are being presented in this article.  The best way to pay tribute to your dead ancestor is to present the victims of the French Revolution the way they really were, rather than as idealised versions.
 * --Kelmendi 22:08, 31 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Definitely read this article with basic knowledge of the French Revolution and it seems extremely biased to the family. The part were the Marie is said to feel guilt for the suffering of the poor cannot be fully proven, only speculated. Just as well. This does not give accurate viewpoints of everyone, mainly the poor, even while it is only on a child of the Revolution.Nrenee218 (talk) 08:08, 11 February 2017 (UTC)

In addition to being heavily biased towards the French Royal family, it is factually inaccurate as well. It refers to the "fall of the Monarchy" as happening prior to the fall of the Bastille (July 14, 1789) and serving as a catalyst for licentious publishing against Marie-Antoinette; in actuality the Austrian alliance had never been popular, the queen had been especially hated since the Affair of the Necklace in 1785, and the use of pornography to slander political enemies dates back to the Middle Ages and was extremely prevalent in Enlightenment France (cf. Robert Darnton, Forbidden Best-Sellers of Pre-Revolutionary France.) The monarchy fell on August 10, 1792. The sexual charges made against the queen were of course ludicrous, but concerning the accusations of treason, it certainly cannot be claimed that "There was no evidence to support the charges." The queen had been exposing troop movements to her brother the Austrian emperor for several years, including after the declaration of war in 1792 (cf Thomas Carlyle, The French Revolution, 433), which is treason in any nation. At the time, treason was always given the death penalty; in the case of nobles like the queen, by decapitation, which is exactly what happened. The slandering of Jean Baptiste Drouet as a "former servant (who felt he had been mistreated by Louis XVI)" is ridiculous. He was a Postmaster and former soldier (Carlyle 391, Max Steel, Vive La Revolution, 117, William Doyle, French Revolution, 151). The entire article needs to be rewritten by someone with a more balanced approach, an attention to facts, and the citing of sources. Cypher z 01:54, 18 March 2007 (UTC)

Quite an informative article, well written on a relatively obscure topic —Preceding unsigned comment added by Drfcb (talk • contribs) 21:34, 11 November 2006

>>What is with this bit? "Louis XVI was an affectionate father, who delighted in spoiling his daughter and giving her anything she wanted. Marie-Thérèse appreciated him much more than her mother." Is there any evidence or sources to suggest this? It doesn't sound very academic at all. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 121.218.165.61 (talk) 01:56, 10 June 2010 (UTC)

All history is biased.
I greatly sympathize with the French people before and during the revolution. But at the same time I also equally sympathize for the French Royal Family. They were born into the same world as the rest of France and Europe with the same codes applying. They may have been in a much nicer position, but they were still bound by the same traditional order. King Louis XVI was misguided and alone his whole life with no one to turn to, at least until Marie Antoinette arrived, and still neither of them had really been taught anything on how to run a country. It is true that Marie Antoinette was very immature when she first arrived in France, but after she became a mother she settled down and became more sympathetic to the French people. However, she didn’t know how to help them, and neither did King Louis XVI. Their court constantly put pressure on them and ultimately was much stronger than the royal family. You also must remember that the France he was born into and she arrived into, was not of their making. The dept left by Louis XIV and the almost completely ignoring of the country by Louis XV made it almost impossible for them to fix anything. I will admit that they did make many mistakes, but they also at least tried to make up for it in some ways. But in the end they were just people who were caught up in the same dangerous misfortune and revolution as the rest of the country. And because of whom they were, people were even more biased against them, making the revolution even harder for them in some cases. It's amazing that Marie Therese Charlotte survived, especially when you look at what the great revolution did to her brother. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by DukeDarrickofDrugarcio (talk • contribs) 17:02, 28 February 2007 (UTC).

Modern Sources Required
This article needs to have some balance, with modern sources.72.80.111.132 (talk) 17:49, 25 December 2007 (UTC)
 * Resolved - included several citations of Marie-Therese: The Fate of Marie Antoinette's Daughter by Susan Nagel (originally pub. 2008, cited edition 2009). This brought about the addition of a whole new paragraph and a bit more, but I'll reference to it on currently-standing bits of information. Kfodderst (talk) 07:34, 4 April 2011 (UTC)

Name change
Maybe the article should be changed to Marie-Thérèse-Charlotte, Dauphine of France-Croix129 —Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.224.56.169 (talk) 02:16, 22 May 2008 (UTC)

Correct name of Marie-Thérèse Charlotte
I changed the title of the article to Marie-Thérèse Charlotte de France because *de France* is/was the surname of the kings of France & of their direct descendants; accordingly, as the daughter of Louis XVI of France, her name is Marie-Thérèse Charlotte de France. Also, hyphen only between her first two first names: Marie-Thérèse. Frania W. (talk) 00:44, 21 June 2009 (UTC)

Madame Royale
"Until her marriage to Louis-Antoine, Duke of Angoulême, eldest son of Charles X, the court referred to her by the traditional honorific of Madame Royale."


 * I removed the above from introduction as Marie-Thérèse was given the honorific Madame Royale at birth, which should be said in the lead, not what happened after her marriage.
 * Are we sure that she lost this honorific at the time of her marriage?
 * 1. She was born a fille de France at which time she was also Madame Royale.
 * 2. She married the duc d'Angoulême, a fils de France (thank you Montjoy for this one!)
 * 3. Did she lose the honorific at the death of her brother in June 1795 when Louis XVIII became king (although he could not reign for cause of Revolution)? If she was to lose it because not daughter of the reigning king, then that is when she should have lost it - not at the time of her marriage.
 * 4. At the time of her marriage to the duc d'Angoulême in 1799, there were no other fille de France alive & no other Madame Royale had replaced her, as non-reigning-king-in-exile Louis XVIII had no children.
 * 5. Did her marriage make her automatically lose the honorific Madame Royale?

In other words, she was Madame Royale at birth because born the eldest daughter of a king, a fact that never changed throughout her life as she was never displaced by the daughter of any other king who followed her father Louis XVI on the throne. The only person who could have taken the honorific from her was... herself when she became Dauphine in 1824, or - even for only twenty minutes - Queen of France, in August 1830.

Which leads to the last question: What was she when the duc de Bordeaux received the crown from his uncle the duc d'Angoulême, Louis XIX? Dowager Queen addressed to as Sa Majesté?

Royalement vôtre, Frania W. (talk) 19:14, 22 August 2009 (UTC)

She was really called Madame Royale from birth? Not Mademoiselle Royale? She was called comtesse de Marnes in exile, no? john k (talk) 05:32, 28 May 2010 (UTC)


 * Madame Royale from birth.
 * Comte de Marnes was the title taken by her husband the duc d'Angoulême as they went into exile after the double abdication of his father & himself on 2 August 1830 . --Frania W. (talk) 11:30, 29 May 2010 (UTC)


 * Madame Royale was the title given to the eldest unmarried daughter of the French monarch. She lost this title when she married. This is different from the British title Princess Royal, which is given for life; Princess Anne is the current Princess Royal and Princess Charlotte cannot become Princess Royal until Anne dies. History Lunatic (talk) 13:42, 16 June 2018 (UTC)History Lunatic

Marie-Thérèse-Charlotte de France
"de France" was her surname/family name. References are given in lead of article.

In http://www.heraldica.org/topics/france/frroyal.htm#names, at Family Names and Titles of Younger Sons, the second paragraph reads as follows: "Although the king of France had no family name, and his children were born "de France", there was a sense in which a certain house was on the throne. The legitimized children of kings took as family name the name of the house: for example, the son of Charles IX, was known as Charles de Valois, duke of Angoulême (the name of the house was officially Valois because François I had been made duc de Valois in 1498 before ascending the throne). The legitimized children of Henri IV and Louis XIV all had Bourbon as family name."

--Frania W. (talk) 14:12, 18 September 2010 (UTC)


 * I'd be fine with adding Charlotte. The fact that her surname was "de France" seems irrelevant to me.  Infante Gabriel of Spain had the surname "de Borbón y Sajonia," but we don't need to put that in the article title.  The Spanish Wikipedia does that, but we don't follow the same conventions. john k (talk) 15:11, 18 September 2010 (UTC)

John, the problem is not "Charlotte", she either signed "Marie-Thérèse" or "Marie-Thérèse-Charlotte", but the surname "de France". Is not the name of someone supposed to be given in the first sentence of the lead? A contributor keeps on reverting to "of" France her surname "de" France, which is a real surname/last name/family name, as explained in the various sources I have added to the article. She is "Marie-Thrèse-Charlotte de France, Countess of Angoulême", like we have "Philippe d 'Orléans, Duke of Orléans", "Louis de Bourbon, Prince of Condé" etc.

One of the references I brought to a previous discussion in another article was Diderot's Encyclopédie méthodique, Jurisprudence dédiée à ... Tome sixième, Paris 1786: et présentée à Monseigneur Hue de Miromesnil, Garde ... which explains the origin of surnames. On page 159, you can read: And it goes on on page 160 with explanation on the surname Orléans etc. --Frania W. (talk) 16:25, 18 September 2010 (UTC)
 * "Le nom de famille de nos rois de France & tous nos princes sont de la maison de France, en prenant ce nom, non comme un titre de dignité qui indique la possession de la couronne, mais comme un nom propre de famille ... (my underlining)
 * "Les filles de nos rois, lesquelles n'ont point d'apanage, portent distinctement le nom de France, comme nom de famille [...] Le surnom de France appartient aux filles des rois de France. "
 * "Les fils de France qui n'ont point d'apanage, parce qu'ils doivent hériter la couronne, portent toujours le nom de France. Le duc de Bourgogne ... s'appelle Louis de France, duc de Bourgogne".
 * "Les fils de France qui ont des apanages, joignent au nom de France comme nom de famille celui de leur apanage..." etc.
 * http://books.google.fr/books?id=IUk_AAAAcAAJ&pg=PA159&dq=nom+de+famille+%22de+Lorraine%22&hl=fr&ei=2jI7TPPbGMGB8gaG2qynBg&sa=X&oi=book_result&ct=result&resnum=9&ved=0CFwQ6AEwCA#v=onepage&q=nom%20de%20famille%20de%20France&f=false
 * Hmm, yeah, I think it should be de France in the first line. Just not in the title. john k (talk) 21:56, 18 September 2010 (UTC)
 * Hmm, hmm, yeah, yeah, I do not see why her real name could not be in the title, since it is her name... but I know that I am fighting windmills; however, in view of the fact that, unlike children of kings of other European countries (I think), the legitimate children of the kings of France had a surname, and it was "de France", I do not see why it cannot be used.
 * --Frania W. (talk) 02:17, 19 September 2010 (UTC)
 * The legitimate children of kings of Spain, Portugal, and the Two Sicilies definitely had (have, in the case of Spain) surnames. So also the legitimate children of (Farnese and Bourbon) dukes of Parma and Piacenza, (Este) dukes of Modena and Reggio, (Medici) grand dukes of Tuscany.  The Bernadotte kings of Sweden can probably also be considered to have surnames, as also the Tudor and especially Stuart kings of England and Scotland, and maybe the (Savoy) Kings of Sardinia.  Lack of surnames is a status that largely seems to pertain to the various dynasties of German origin. john k (talk) 05:13, 19 September 2010 (UTC)
 * The members of the Swedish Royal Family in male line descent from the first Bernadotte king do not have surnames. For instance, look in the tax registry of Sweden. The crown princess, among others, lack a surname. This is an outstanding example of a house rising from time memorial and shedding its surname. Most of the other examples you give are families whose names derive from territories and lands... Pseudo-surnames at best when "Grecia" can be one of the Prince of Asturias' names (although we can probably call this a surname for a contempory person today). I wouldn't called the Savoys surnamed either, since they considered themselves of the House of Savoy and enumerated themselves as such. The Portuguese were "of Braganza", as the ducal title indicates and the names of the princesses who married abroad. Parma... Is it even clear what and when? Zita, for instance, signed as "Zita de Bourbon, Princesse de Parme" (French). The late duke called himself "di Borbone Parma" (Translated! And a different form! But with the title prince preceding...). It's hard to call these surnames when they use the native form of "of" in their native languages. Contemporary documents (generally) separate a surname from the rest of a name. Unless a field on a birth certificate, etc, indicates the identifier at the end of the name to be a surname, we can't assume it is for royalty where such distinctions are anachronistic. Of all given examples perhaps only the English and Scottish are clearly and unambiguously surnamed. Tudor and Stuart certainly are not territorial or titular designations. Seven Letters 19:53, 22 September 2010 (UTC)
 * So Honoré of Balzac did not have a surname either? I don't see how the fact of translation makes things which are clearly surnames any less surnames.  You are imposing a particular modern standard onto this.  Plenty of people who are not royalty would translate their name if they moved to another country.  The name "Stuart," which you have already conceded is a surname, was the French translation of the original surname "Stewart."  I don't see how you can deny that Farnese, d'Este, Gonzaga, and de' Medici are surnames.  The Este, I suppose, were very old territorial nobility, and perhaps you can argue that that is a territorial designation.  One could more distantly make that argument about the Farnese, but at that point you have basically reached the point of dismissing any surname which at some point derived from a territorial designation.  The Medici, though were a middle class family of bankers, and the Gonzaga were, apparently, a family of officials, so probably from the urban patriciate rather than the territorial nobility.  I don't see how one can claim that either Medici or Gonzaga is not a surname.  Did the surnames of early modern European royalty function in exactly the same manner as a surname today?  Probably not, although we shouldn't imagine that "a surname today" is a unitary concept that can only work in one particular way.  That doesn't mean that they weren't, effectively surnames.  I'd add that I think it's at least arguable that "Bernadotte" remains the surname of members of the Swedish royal house, but simply isn't used for princes and princesses of Sweden.  As soon as the titles are disclaimed, their surname reverts to Bernadotte.  That's a rather different case from actually surnameless folks like the Greek royal family; when Prince Philip gave up his titles, a surname had to be invented for him. john k (talk) 22:58, 22 September 2010 (UTC)


 * John, I referred only to examples which I brought up and why. I never said that Farnese, Este, Gonzaga and Medici were not surnames. I can't remember how to search the Swedish tax registry (it had to be pointed out to me) but Crown Princess Victoria is entered as "Victoria Ingrid Alice Desirée *". The asterisk taking the place of a surname. I agree if any of her agnates became titleless that they would assume the surname Bernadotte but until and unless, surnameless. Same with the British royals... No Windsor for princes. Seven Letters 00:56, 23 September 2010 (UTC)
 * I suppose it's fair to say that the Swedes don't have surnames (although I think one can make the argument that they have surnames which are only used in the event that they don't have a royal title). I don't think it makes much sense to generalize about all royals.  Just because something is a territorial designation does not mean it is not also a surname.  Even the much vaunted surnamelessness of German royals seems exaggerated to me.  Certainly we treat mediatized aristocrats in the 19th century as having surnames, and the way they used their names was virtually indistinguishable from how they were used by members of reigning houses.  What is the different between a Prinz zu Hohenlohe-Schillingsfürst and a Prinz von und zu Liechtenstein, namewise?  I just don't think that it makes sense to draw firm lines.  Some royals clearly don't have surnames (Greece, Norway, Belgium, Denmark).  Some clearly do (Stuart, Gonzaga, Medici).  And then there's a whole continuum in between where we have to make a judgment call as to where the line is between "territorial designation" and "surname".  Braganza and Bourbon (for the Spanish and Italian lines) are very close to being surnames, I think, as is d'Orléans.  Bernadotte and Windsor are surnames which exist in the ether, never used by actual royals but always ready to be used if royal status is lost.  Then there's a bunch of long-standing territorial designations, like Savoy, Lorraine, many of the German lines, which generally function as noble titles, surnames, and territorial designations all at once.  One can just as easily say that the country we now call "Austria" is named for the House of Habsburg, and the German state we call "Saxony" is named for the House of Wettin, as the reverse.  Is that a territorial designation?  The country of Liechtenstein is explicitly named for the House, although I believe the house was originally named for a different place called Liechtenstein.  We ought to accept diversity and not try to corral it into pre-made categories.  Although I fear we've gotten very far afield of the topic at hand. john k (talk) 02:36, 23 September 2010 (UTC)

torture
I don't like the fact that we say Louis XVII was "tortured." I think there's an implication of physical torture there, which Frania admits in the inline note there is no evidence for. Isn't there some way to phrase it so as to make clear that he was not physically tortured? The whole sentence also needs a source. john k (talk) 21:59, 18 September 2010 (UTC)


 * "Tortured" has to go, working on it. Since the women in their apartment could hear him cuss & sing the Marseillaise, they would have heard his screams had he been "tortured", and Marie-Charlotte never mentioned any such screams in her mémoires.The boy was treated harshly, no one can deny it. Being separated from his mother must have been unbearable, psychologically something akin to torture, but not what's implied in the text. Words like "abuse", "neglect" come to mind.
 * --Frania W. (talk) 03:30, 19 September 2010 (UTC)
 * Maybe we should say he was neglected and mistreated, or something along those lines? john k (talk) 05:09, 19 September 2010 (UTC)
 * I agree, as the only 19th century "eyewitness" accounts of him being "tortured" are from people who were not there. He definitely must have been "traumatized" when his father was executed & when he was separated from his mother, and his sister suffered the same traumas. The role of Simon was to re-educate his young royal pupil and turn him into a good little Republican, in which task he must have succeeded, the proof being in the "brainwashed" child loudly singing the Marseillaise, and signing the deposition against his mother. After the departure of the Simon couple in January 1794, the child locked into a room & left to die was certainly willfully "neglected".
 * --Frania W. (talk) 13:38, 19 September 2010 (UTC)
 * In fact, these details on the treatment of Louis-Charles do not belong in the article of his sister, so I took the bold decision of removing them... Now, we must turn to the article of the "little king who never reigned" & make corrections there: it needs major surgery.
 * --Frania W. (talk) 20:11, 19 September 2010 (UTC)
 * If he was not tortured, he was at least significantly beaten - Marie-Therese recorded hearing her brother's cries of pain as he was beaten, as I have incorporated into the article. They were both subject to torture - at the least, harsh and physical interrogation - for several hours, to get them to testify at Marie Antoinette's trial. But yes, this does not belong to this particular article. Kfodderst (talk) 07:32, 4 April 2011 (UTC)

Hildburghausen and Castle Eishausen Theories
These few incidents should be included into this article. Some references to aid writing a section for this: The Dark Count by Ludwig Bechstein, The Mystery of Hildburghausen by Brachvogel and Nevtelen Var (The Nameless Castle in English) by Jokai Mor for purporting the theory; in contrast, and a nice summary/overview, which dismantles the theory rather effectively, was done by Sophie Nagel in her book on Marie-Therese, Marie-Therese: The Fate of Marie Antoinette's Daughter. The inclusion should be done as soon as possible. I will be able to contribute as well, but maybe not immediately. If anyone has anymore references/sources or information, please mention them here so they can be included into the article. Kfodderst (talk) 07:41, 4 April 2011 (UTC)

Assessment comment
Substituted at 21:51, 26 June 2016 (UTC)

Another image is available, but may not be needed
Please see this edit where I removed a text fragment that didn't make sense. It looks to be part of an image caption for an image which is not included here. See the main image at Victoire de Rohan. The baby in that picture is Marie Thérèse of France, sitting in the lap of Victoire de Rohan. Opinions may differ whether that drawing is well-suited here. EdJohnston (talk) 02:50, 21 April 2017 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Marie Thérèse 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/20050428002828/http://www.royaltymonarchy.com/opinion/articles/russell.html to http://www.royaltymonarchy.com/opinion/articles/russell.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) 11:33, 1 December 2017 (UTC)