Talk:Marie Antoinette/Archive 6

Van Meytens portrait
The van Meytens portrait depicts Maria Josepha of Austria, not Maria Antonia. That's how it's presented at Schönbrunn. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 179.7.75.30 (talk) 16:56, 29 August 2016 (UTC)
 * OK, I am no expert, but I just looked up all of the above and Martin van Meytens was born in 1695 and became a court painter in 1732. Maria Josepha was 33 by then, Maria Antonia not born yet.  He died in 1770 when Maria Antonia was 15.  It does not seem possible that he painted Maria Josepha as a 12-year old unless he really wanted to flatter her. Have you perhaps confused it with another portrait?  Mezigue (talk) 17:58, 29 August 2016 (UTC)
 * I was referring to this portrait File:Marie_Antoinette_1767.jpg and by Maria Josepha I meant Maria Antonia's sister, born in 1751.--179.7.75.30 (talk) 02:21, 31 August 2016 (UTC)
 * Contributor 179.7.75.30 is correct: the portrait is of Marie Antoinette's older sister, Archduchess Maria Josepha born in 1751.
 * --Blue Indigo (talk) 09:45, 31 August 2016 (UTC)

Lady Sophie Farrell
In the section titled "The French Revolution before Varennes," the final paragraph before Mirabeau mentions "Le Godmiché Royal" (which I found a copy of here: http://gallica.bnf.fr/ark:/12148/bpt6k56707s/f1.image that could be cited, or at least listed) and states that a person called "Lady Sophie Farrell" was alleged to be the queen's lover in this publication. However, I am unable to find any further information on this "Lady Sophie Farrell." Even "Le Godmiché Royal" doesn't seem to mention her by name (though I am rusty on my eighteenth century French). This section needs a citation.

Additionally, the final sentence in the second paragraph under "Trial and execution" contradicts itself by saying that the reaction of the mothers in the room comforted Marie Antoinette since they were not sympathetic to her. It seems like it should be that they were NOT comforting because they lacked sympathy, or they were comforting and sympathetic, both. I don't know which it is in this case.66.86.231.254 (talk) 05:03, 19 February 2017 (UTC)

Please consider these changes
In the section about the diamond necklace scandal, there is a sentence which begins with this: "Marie Antoinette, who had insisted on the arrest of the Cardinal was dealt a heavy personal blow," SUGGESTED EDIT: add comma just after "Cardinal"

Earlier in that same paragraph, I find this in parentheses: "except de La Motte and Réaux de Villette who managed to flee" SUGGESTED EDIT: assuming both of those people fled, insert comma just after "Villette", and consider inserting "both" just after "who"

In the preceding paragraph, I find "The main actors of the scandal" and "Others involved". I suggest you review those sentences with the view of changing some commas to semicolons. There may be some cases in the listings where the existing ", ___ ," construct is a description rather than a distinct person, and you should be using a semicolon instead of a comma at the end of such construct when that happens.

In the section about the French Revolution before Varennes, there is a phrase "remained by the king whose power was gradually being taken away". SUGGESTED EDIT: add comma after "king".

I find "After the death of her brother Joseph in 1790, his successor, Leopold". SUGGESTED EDIT: Insert comma after "Leopold". — Preceding unsigned comment added by 167.102.56.146 (talk) 20:48, 10 February 2017 (UTC)


 * @ 167.102.56.146 - Thank you for your suggestions: done
 * --Blue Indigo (talk) 19:51, 6 March 2017 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 9 March 2017
my request is to remove a word because it is a mistake in the text - it is in 'marie antoinette' under '9 trial and execution' and there last sentence first paragraph: "....their reaction brought her comfort since these women were not sympathetic to her.[197][198]" - the word "not' has to be removed! it distorts the sense of what is said in this sentence. Nurkorrigieren (talk) 01:54, 9 March 2017 (UTC)


 * @ Nurkorrigieren: There is no mistake in the sense that:
 * 1. The women who had come to watch Marie Antoinette's trial were commoners who held no love for the former queen. (They would bring their knitting with them and knit (fr. tricoter) during the processes they were watching, hence the nickname tricoteuses given them. But that's beside the point:)
 * 2. When Marie Antoinette was accused of incest by Hébert, she did not respond, and a few minutes later one of the jurés mentioned that fact. That is when Marie Antoinette said: Si je n’ai pas répondu c’est que la nature elle-même refuse de répondre à une telle accusation faite à une mère. J’en appelle à toutes celles qui peuvent se trouver ici.: "If I have not answered, it is because Nature itself refuses to answer to such an accusation made against a mother. I appeal to all those present here." After Marie Antoinette had uttered these words, the crowd - and mostly the women - applauded her.
 * 3. Summarizing: the women, who had gone to watch Marie Antoinette's trial, were against her. However, after the accusation of incest, and her answer to it addressing herself to the mothers in the room, the women "who were not sympathetic to her" applauded her, showing sympathy to the mother Marie Antoinette was, which brought comfort to Marie Antoinette, and more so because these women were basically against her->"not sympathetic to her".
 * I do not know if that is good enough an explanation, but that's it! Now, if you want to make it clearer, maybe you can change the sentence, but keeping in mind that the women, who had come to watch the former queen suffer during a trial set against her, found it in their heart to comfort her when she was basely accused of incest - the worst accusation one can make against a mother.
 * Best regards, --Blue Indigo (talk) 21:06, 9 March 2017 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 21 March 2017


}} 1.22.33.240 (talk) 06:47, 21 March 2017 (UTC)
 * Red question icon with gradient background.svg 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. &mdash; Train2104 (t • c) 05:20, 24 March 2017 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Marie Antoinette. 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/20090308053232/http://www.awesomestories.com/flicks/marie-antoinette/story-preface to http://www.awesomestories.com/flicks/marie-antoinette/story-preface

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) 14:30, 19 May 2017 (UTC)

Congratulations
This article can be congratulated for pointing out that there is no evidence that Marie Antionette ever said "Let them eat cake" or "Let them eat brioche". Vorbee (talk) 19:55, 20 June 2018 (UTC)

Given that she was Austrian by birth, a Habsburg indeed, it would be more authentic to refer to her as Maria Antonia. Her ancestry section is completely blank.§Smlark (talk) 17:12, 25 July 2018 (UTC)
 * Not so, because we are going off of WP:Common Name. She is most commonly referred to in history as Marie Antoinette. Not that it necessarily matters, but she also would have spoken French in Austria, as it was the language of the Austrian court. -- Willthacheerleader18 (talk) 19:58, 25 July 2018 (UTC)

Overly sympathetic tone
While it was entertaining to read about how poor Marie had her sensitive little hands bound roughly behind her back, how she tragically had smoke blown into her face by a guard, or -gasp- had to ride in an OPEN cart on the way to the guillotine instead of a dignified carriage, I think it's pretty obvious a huge portion of this article has been written by people who fetishize royalty. This is a person who doubtlessly would have been willing to brutally torture and execute tens of thousands if it meant maintaining her power and privilege. It is possible to acknowledge the abuse she has received without desperately trying to make people sympathise with her (like say the section on Muammar Gaddafi's death does, who has endured a significantly more violent and humiliating end) 2A02:2F0A:C412:7E00:55CF:BFD:5CDD:1B4A (talk) 10:34, 20 November 2018 (UTC)
 * "poor Marie had her sensitive little hands bound roughly behind her back, how she tragically had smoke blown into her face by a guard, or -gasp- had to ride in an OPEN cart on the way to the guillotine instead of a dignified carriage" .. sounds like you have your own WP:Bias to overcome. -- Willthacheerleader18 (talk) 15:44, 20 November 2018 (UTC)
 * The IP being biased does not mean this article is not. It is true that many Wikipedia articles about royal people exhibit a certain tone of reverence, this being one of them. Surtsicna (talk) 15:58, 20 November 2018 (UTC)
 * The tone of the article is taken from history books, and it seems adequate for the era: such treatment to royalty was unthinkable a few years before. The treatment given to royalty in the French Revolution was a novelty, and shocking for the time. The treatment received by Gaddafi was not. Fbergo (talk) 16:14, 20 November 2018 (UTC)
 * A king of England had been executed in the preceding century, and several queens in the century before him. Nothing really novel about Marie Antoinette's execution. The IP is right in saying that the treatment can be explained without presenting an overly sympathetic tone.I beg to differ about the source of the tone. To me it seems more like it comes from a 19th century biography or even an historical novel rather than a modern biography. Surtsicna (talk) 16:34, 20 November 2018 (UTC)
 * I agree with your remark about the source of the tone. The novelty in her case was not the execution of royalty, but the generalized executions that followed the french revolution and the general disregard for monarchy and the Ancien Régime. In the case of Charles I of England, his trial and execution appear to have followed a strict bureaucratic protocol, without any additional "small humiliations" such as the ones this section is about ("hands bound behind her back, smoke blown into her face, riding an open cart to the guillotine"). If a change of tone is decided, please use a reliable source to back it, free-form editorialization by wikipedians (always likely to follow their own political positions) would be worse than following a published source, in my opinion. Fbergo (talk) 17:12, 20 November 2018 (UTC)

libelles de la dame Sophie

 * Marie Antoinette was falsely accused in the libelles of having an affair with Lafayette, whom she loathed, and, as was published in Le Godmiché Royal ("The Royal Dildo"), and of having a sexual relationship with the English baroness Lady Sophie Farrell of Bournemouth, a well-known lesbian of the time.

There seems to be one "and" too many here.

Who was this well-known Lady Sophie Farrell? A quick web search turns up only this page (and a copy of it). Her title is given improperly: if she was a baroness she'd be Lady Farrell; a Lady Sophie is the daughter of an earl-or-higher. —Tamfang (talk) 18:17, 1 December 2019 (UTC)

Recent changes
Thewickedfae, first, are you Aubmn, who was indefinitely blocked by Bishonen years ago? Secondly, regarding edits like this and this, you need to cite the exact page number for the sources you are using to support your material. You should not be engaging in WP:Synthesis. And, third, it's best that you are honest about whether or not you are Aubmn. Also, there is no need to WP:Ping me if you reply. Flyer22 Frozen (talk) 01:55, 28 February 2020 (UTC)


 * Those edits both have page numbers on their citations..? Furthermore, I don't see that I am engaging in WP:Synthesis? Where did I use two sources to draw my own conclusions? All my cites have been either to Antonia Fraser's book—either of two editions of the same book as I have been retrieving exact page numbers from Google Books where sometimes not all editions are available to scan—due to not having a physical copy of the book on hand, or to knowledge established on other wiki pages, i.e. Louis XVI was 22 in April of 1777. No, I'm not Aubmn. I'm sorry I seem to have pissed you off to the point I seem to be acting like someone who was banned indefinitely... Thewickedfae (talk) 02:50, 28 February 2020 (UTC)


 * The fact that you're not allowed to delete previous edits that aren't your own makes it exceedingly difficult to add new information that doesn't always completely match with what's already there, if that is the synthesis accusation. I've tried very hard to understand what's acceptable. Thewickedfae (talk) 02:52, 28 February 2020 (UTC)


 * Since this is public, could you please verify here that I'm not the banned user whenever that is confirmed? Being that the user obviously has a really bad reputation, I don't want to be linked to them and have the accusation come across as an unresolved possibility on this talk page. Thewickedfae (talk) 14:27, 28 February 2020 (UTC)
 * Thewickedfae, I indented your post for you. See WP:Indent. As for citing sources, it looked to me like you were citing all of the pages in the books. This is because, for example, this piece states "pages=156." But I see that there are a lot more pages than 156 in the book. If you are citing page 156, it should state "page=156." "Page" shouldn't be plural. If you cite two or more pages, then "page" should be plural. It would, for example, be "pages=156-157." With this edit latest edit, you added "pages=207." That should be "page=207" if you are citing page 207. So please go back and fix the field for your page numbers.


 * As for WP:Synthesis, I mean that you should make sure you are not adding anything not supported by the sources. Also see WP:Editorializing.


 * You are allowed to delete previous edits that aren't your own. Wikipedia is all about building material, new or old, and overwriting existing material if the overwriting is an improvement. You just have to make sure that you are using sources that pass our WP:Reliable sources guideline, are sticking to what the sources state and aren't adding your own spin to things. WP:Due weight and conflicting sources are also a concern. For example, per WP:Verifiability, "If reliable sources disagree, then maintain a neutral point of view and present what the various sources say, giving each side its due weight."


 * You didn't upset me. It's just that you remind me a bit of Aubmn. Even above you mentioned Fraser. Aubmn was also focused on adding Fraser, to the exclusion of a number of other sources. Anyway, there is no need to clear your name. I asked if you are Aubmn, and you stated that you aren't. I haven't started a WP:Sockpuppet investigation on you. I was simply concerned. I appreciate you replying. Flyer22 Frozen (talk) 00:41, 29 February 2020 (UTC)


 * Actually, looking back at Talk:Marie Antoinette/Archive 5, Aubmn expressed concern about the article overly relying on Fraser. So I crossed out that part of my post above. Blue Indigo hasn't been around lately, but Blue Indigo can help. And Tamfang can help as well. Flyer22 Frozen (talk) 00:55, 29 February 2020 (UTC)

I used the visual editor to add sources, so if it said pages= as opposed to page= then there must have been an error while I was editing. The visual editor plays up on me sometimes, I've noticed. I will fix this. Btw, I posted on your talk page before seeing I had a notification. I'd left the window open while I was away doing something. Sorry about that and thanks for the information and replying. Still learning obviously. Thewickedfae (talk) 01:43, 29 February 2020 (UTC)
 * Yes, there can be issues with the visual editor. Thank you for fixing the references. And take your time learning; no rush. Flyer22 Frozen (talk) 02:23, 29 February 2020 (UTC)


 * One more thing, Thewickedfae: Keep WP:Copyright violations in mind as well. Flyer22 Frozen (talk) 02:36, 29 February 2020 (UTC)

Bonjour Flyer22 Frozen! just read a note on my talk page on 29 February stating that my name was mentioned on this page. You are correct: I have not been on wiki for quite a few months because there is also life outside en.fr.de.wikis and others!

Reading the various contributions to wiki.en by Thewickedfae leads me to believe that he/she is not our unforgettable Sockpuppet Aubmn of years past. Of course, it is only a feeling on my part. However, the subjects he/she treats & the language used - plus his/her knowledge of French in various small details - lead me to believe that contributor Thewickedfae is not a Sockpuppet. Naturally, I may be mistaken, and only future will tell.

Best to all & aurevoir. --Blue Indigo (talk) 15:49, 12 March 2020 (UTC)

New section
Hello. I am thinking about adding a new section before the "Legacy" section on Marie Antoinette's page. I have put the new section below. Please feel free to give any feedback and/or suggestions for improvement. Thanks.

'''== Style and public reception == Due to her royal status as princess and queen, Marie Antoinette consistently dressed in luxurious and expensive clothes and spent exorbitantly on hair and style.[1] When she relocated to France to marry Louis XVI, her style changed dramatically from the fashion of Austria to fit the fashion of France.[1] A number of scholars have argued that Marie Antoinette used fashion as a way to express herself.[1][2] From gaudy and flamboyant dresses and hairstyles to natural and earth-toned looks, Marie Antoinette faced harsh criticism for nearly everything that she wore.[2] In recent decades Marie Antoinette has been seen as a fashion icon and has inspired fashion designers, celebrities, and others to imitate her styles on and off the runway.[1]

As a member of the French court, Marie Antoinette was expected to adopt any and all customs of the court, including attire and hairstyles.[1][3] Dresses worn in French court included form-fitting corsets, large hoop skirts, and fabric that had ruffles, lace, jewels, and other decorations.[1] She believed it was incumbent on Marie Antoinette to dress like the French, as it showed her conversion from Austrian to French.[3] Her style would eventually shift as a result of her growth in age and maturity.[2]

Marie Antoinette believed that she needed to be seen as entirely French. In addition to the lavish dresses she wore, she believed her hair needed to match the overall look, as it tied the entire ensemble together.[3] Léonard-Alexis Autié, a well-known hairdresser, served as Marie Antoinette’s hairdresser for a period of time.[3] He created Marie Antoinette’s elaborately styled hair, which included jewels, feathers, and other embellishments.[1][3] The height of her hair was a force to be reckoned with as it reached new highs as a result of the intricate construction.[3] Soon, the majority of noblewomen in France wanted to imitate Marie Antoinette’s hairstyle, no matter the expense.[3]

Her style quickly shifted once she gave birth to her first child because she did not feel the need to wear lavish and luxurious clothes.[2] Marie Antoinette abandoned the glitzy dresses and gaudy hairstyles and opted for a more natural look.[2] She wore simple and plain dresses instead of huge dresses with embellishments and decorations.[2] Her hairstyles followed suit.[3] They were natural and did not include intricate decoration or height.[3] Léonard-Alexis Autié suggested that she cut her hair as a symbol of her maturity.[3]

All of Marie Antoinette’s fashion choices were met with great disdain, scrutiny, and judgment.[1] People in the French court blamed her for France’s deficit because of her excessive spending on materialistic objects, such as dresses, shoes, and hairstyles.[1][4] Given her limited political power, her style was one of the few things that Marie Antoinette could control in her life and she continued to wear what she liked, despite the opinions of others.[2] '''

Sources used: [1] Weber, Caroline (2008). Queen of Fashion: What Marie Antoinette Wore to the Revolution. London: Aurum Press. p. 3. ISBN 9781845133153.

[3] Hosford, Desmond (2004). "The Queen's Hair: Marie-Antoinette, Politics, and DNA". Eighteenth-Century Studies. 38, no.1: 183–200.

[2] Ferriss Suzanne, Young Mallory (2010). "Marie Antoinette": Fashion, Third-Wave Feminism, and Chick Culture". Literature/Film Quarterly. 38, no.2: 98–116.

[4] "Marie Antoinette". The Irish Monthly. 34, no. 393: 151–160 – via JSTOR.

HHonore22 (talk) 20:26, 28 April 2020 (UTC)HHonore22
 * You should cut the "public reception" piece of the title. Different parts of the article deal with her public perception. Flyer22 Frozen (talk) 22:42, 28 April 2020 (UTC)

Ancestral table
Sources said, these would be used as newer references:

But recently outdated:

So I hope which one is it? --Frontman830 (talk) 01:36, 24 May 2021 (UTC)

Timeline of relationship with her mother
Empress Maria Theresa dies in 1780, but the "Declining popularity (1782–1785)" section lists the following:
 * De Mercy wrote to the Empress: "It is almost unexampled that in so short a time, the royal favor should have brought such overwhelming advantages to a family".
 * Her mother again expressed concern for the safety of her daughter, and she began to use Austria's ambassador to France, comte de Mercy, to provide information on Marie Antoinette's safety and movements.

If both sentences refer to events and letters that happened before Maria Theresa's death, they should probably be moved to one of the previous sections, or the article should clarify that these are earlier events given for context. Enthymemes (talk) 07:45, 3 August 2021 (UTC)

Heading text
Marie Antoinette’s Secret’s

This is true, Mari Antoinette had secret diary, unfortunately this diary does not exist anymore, it has not been found in over 3 centuries, the cover for this diary was a light cover made out of leather and played with gold, sources state inside this diary was Marie Antoinette’s private life and what she really was like as a person, similar sources state that Marie Antoinette had noted that she had hated King Louis VXI due to him being verbally abusive to her and her hair which she beloved, tin that diary she had quoted that she had sducidal thoughts everyday due to King Louise’s verbal abuse, and in anger, ended up murdering her hair stylist. This Diary is not ver well known amongst many people, later, this diary was caught in a fire and eventually burned to ashes Ago Lisanier (talk) 08:52, 28 January 2021 (UTC)
 * Red information icon with gradient background.svg Not done: please provide reliable sources that support the change you want to be made. RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 13:25, 28 January 2021 (UTC)
 * In addition to this being unsourced BS full of spelling mistakes, "it has not been found in over 3 centuries" is just mathematically wrong, as from this person's death to now there have been barely 230ish years... RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 13:27, 28 January 2021 (UTC)
 * "this diary" be ca-ca ...  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 50.111.2.158 (talk) 13:32, 16 October 2021 (UTC)

Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment
This article was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment, between 16 March 2020 and 1 May 2020. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): HHonore22. Peer reviewers: Russiacarter.

Above undated message substituted from Template:Dashboard.wikiedu.org assignment by PrimeBOT (talk) 03:22, 17 January 2022 (UTC)

Lead image change
Hello. I feel that the new lead image for Marie Antoinette is rather a bit worse than the older one. I have made a similar argument on John Tyler's talk page so if you would like more background on my lead image philosophy then you can read that.

1.) Sandwiching and crowding
Marie Antoinette's article is rife with sandwiching. If you scroll down it, you can count 7-8 counts of sandwiching. There are simply too many pictures. There are more 18th century oil paintings in this article than some art galleries I've been to, and that's a fact. There are over 40 images in this article. Removing 1 picture is hardly going to deprive the article of pictures, and will help it look less crowded and garish.

2.) Consistency
Semi-recently, the lead image on Louis the Beloved's Wikipedia article was changed from this by Maurice Quentin de La Tour to this  by renowned Catalan-French artist Hyacinthe Rigaud and once more changed to this  by Louis-Michel van Loo. If full-length portraits are favoured for the lead images on monarchial articles rather than facial close-ups (like they are for this, this, this, this, this, this, this, this, this and this. I could go on and on.) then we should continue using this image.

Thank you for reading this. Please consider my argument, and if more people prefer the current image rather than the older one, then I will concede. Tim O&#39;Doherty (talk) 16:46, 26 January 2022 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 13 March 2022
Please add the category Category:Royal reburials 67.173.23.66 (talk) 17:43, 13 March 2022 (UTC)
 * ✅. Heartmusic678 (talk) 11:41, 23 March 2022 (UTC)

Marry Antoinette
If they 2409:4073:4D84:34BD:91D0:4FC6:21A6:5F65 (talk) 15:20, 9 August 2022 (UTC)

Marie A page does not agree with Amilcar page - EVEN THO they reference the same source?!
Marie A: Amilcar, as he was evicted from the boarding school when the fee was no longer paid, and reportedly starved to death on the street. Amilcar: This resulted in Jean Amilcar being expelled from his school. The traditional assumption has been that he died after he was turned out from the boarding school and starved to death on the street. However later research has proven this to be false. Jean, by that time eleven years old, was taken care of by one of his teachers, Quentin Beldon, who applied to the government to provide for Jean's schooling with reference to the support the revolutionary government granted to people who had been enslaved during the former regime. Displaying a talent for drawing, Jean Amilcar was able to enroll at the Liancourt Academy in Paris with state support in 1796. However, he died from an illness in a hospital in Paris later that same year. 97.114.178.210 (talk) 02:31, 3 October 2022 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 15 October 2022
In the Issue section of the infobox template, please change the link Louis XVII of France to Louis XVII of France, as it currently links to her brother-in-law, not her son. 2601:241:300:B610:193A:2B99:A09A:E278 (talk) 18:46, 15 October 2022 (UTC)


 * ✅. EmilySarah99 (talk) 00:02, 16 October 2022 (UTC)

VERY IMPORTANT
If you took a DNA test and it has shown that you are related to her reply below! Would that be cool. They could have been royalty. OoO TabNoesEverything (talk) 03:44, 8 August 2022 (UTC)


 * How is this important? This is not a fourm for discussion. EmilySarah99 (talk) 00:00, 16 October 2022 (UTC)
 * Do you even realize how many descendants the House of Habsburg-Lorraine has had since its establishment in the 1730s? Maria Theresa's descendants include several monarchs of Spain, Belgium, Portugal, Luxembourg, and Italy. Dimadick (talk) 09:06, 17 October 2022 (UTC)
 * Exactly Versailleslover123 (talk) 14:53, 2 March 2023 (UTC)

Source 135 link doesn’t go anywhere
I’m not a contributor but noticed source 135 letter volume 2’s link doesn’t seem to work. If there’s a full reference to these letters it would be nice if it were more explicit where this source was found. 2600:8805:1808:A130:B815:5831:6ABD:A67 (talk) 03:00, 3 April 2023 (UTC)


 * Thanks for pointing that out. The reference that best matches it is Lillian C. Smythe, The Guardian of Marie Antoinette: Letters from the Comte de Mercy-Argenteau, Austrian Ambassador to the Court of Versailles, to Marie Thérêse, Empress of Austria, 1770-1780, Volume 2, originally published in 1902. The reference was added to wikipedia in April 2015 (by this edit ) and it was incorrectly formatted from the start. I have quickly browsed a scanned copy of the book (here:, seems to be geo-restricted to US), and I have not seen any material refering to the dismissal of Necker (he is the subject of the last chapter). I'll remove the reference as it seems misplaced and does not confirm the statement (Necker's dismissal on 11 July 1789). Fbergo (talk) 14:43, 3 April 2023 (UTC)

Infobox photo issue
Hi! Dialuanny0 here! Back in January/February 2022, I saw a Wikipedia user make a topic on this article’s talk page about the infobox photo. They were talking about reverting it the original one/changing it to something else, which I can agree with. They made a good argument about it. It has been awhile since then, and I’m ready to talk about changes with the infobox photo! Here are some photos that I think we could possibly change the infobox image to:







Dialuanny0 (talk) 03:42, 4 May 2023 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 18 June 2023
"As a result of all these fashion activities, Marie Antoinette presided over one of the most important and fashionable courts in history and she was dominant over all of the other ladies of the court; as for her bearing and appearance the queen was very majestic and charismatic in spite of the fact that she gained a lot of weight over the years due to her many pregnancies. In spite of her very ample proportions, Marie Antoinette represented and played the role of the queen better than anyone in her court with her grace and demeanor."

Change to: As a result of all these fashion activities, Marie Antoinette presided over one of the most important and fashionable courts in history and she was dominant over all of the other ladies of the court. As for her bearing and appearance the queen was very majestic and charismatic. She gained a lot of weight over the years due to her many pregnancies. Marie Antoinette represented and played the role of the queen better than anyone in her court with her grace and demeanor. 89.19.79.27 (talk) 10:41, 18 June 2023 (UTC)

So you basically propose to delete "In spite of her very ample proportions ...". I agree, this is insensitive and fat-shaming. PatGallacher (talk) 14:03, 18 June 2023 (UTC)
 * Honestly, I feel like that whole section above could be deleted. While I'm certainly not an expert on Marie Antoinette, I can't see how talking about her 'bearing' is relevant in the slightest - if this is somehow relevant and I'm simply missing context please do correct me though. This section was added all at once with no other content, and the editor who inserted it also made this edit - SeriousHist, would you mind explaining why this content is important? Tollens (talk) 04:14, 19 June 2023 (UTC)
 * I have decided to be bold and delete the offending phrase. More serious changes may merit discussion. PatGallacher (talk) 06:45, 19 June 2023 (UTC)

Hello I simply added the impact of Marie Antoinette on her court and the fashion of her days ; Marie Antoinette life was affected deeply first by her fashion impact ; she was a model in fashion who was followed in all Europe. In addition this was a very important political issue with time, the people of France began to turn on their queen because of her lifestyle and this affected her popularity leading to the French Revolution. If you read any book on Marie Antoinette this was a very important issue for her before the birth of her children. Frankly a controversy over an issue who defined 20 years of the queen life : she was called the queen of fashion in spite that she gained a lot of ample proportions ; I’am simply describing the historical fact and not fat-shaming her but glorifying her as the queen of fashion in history despite her fat (fat is beautiful if you want ) ; but that is not the crux of the matter, it is one line in a whole paragraph. We can’t judge people who live 200 years ago according to our modern standards; their ideas were different than us. This is not an ideological article but an historical one SeriousHist (talk) 16:01, 20 June 2023 (UTC) To have consensus I agree to the change already made and I hope we can all work together. — Preceding unsigned comment added by SeriousHist (talk • contribs) 16:13, 20 June 2023 (UTC) European History is my speciality ; this article is good but It need some sources who are missing. To see how I work I saw in the article of another important queen Elizabeth Tudor that the establishment of the first colony in North America is not mentioned and the fondation of the Eastern Company for India ; I added both ; here I saw the same problem; a major fact of Marie Antoinette life and impact was missing. Thank you all. SeriousHist (talk) 16:24, 20 June 2023 (UTC) https://www.thecollector.com/marie-antoinette-controversial-fashion-queen/ — Preceding unsigned comment added by SeriousHist (talk • contribs) 17:23, 20 June 2023 (UTC) https://www.itsbeyondmycontrol.com/18th-century-fashion-marie-antoinette-the-queen-of-haute-couture/ — Preceding unsigned comment added by SeriousHist (talk • contribs) 17:26, 20 June 2023 (UTC) https://www.nationalgeographic.com/history/history-magazine/article/daily-life-france-fashion-marie-antoinette — Preceding unsigned comment added by SeriousHist (talk • contribs) 17:28, 20 June 2023 (UTC) SeriousHist (talk) 17:38, 20 June 2023 (UTC)

https://www.savoirflair.com/fashion/100411/marie-antoinette-inspired-runway-collections SeriousHist (talk) 17:38, 20 June 2023 (UTC) In conclusion I added important new sources here to show the impact of that subject in Marie Antoinette life. This was a very important feature who defined her life for more than a decade with a massive social, political and cultural impact felt all over the world for a long period of time. I think it is worth a new paragraph who should be added to the article. Also it is very important to diversify the sources in that article who depend heavily on Fraser ( A great historian but who should not be the only or even major source of her life ). Thank you all. SeriousHist (talk) 17:43, 20 June 2023 (UTC)

Not done: removing from edit request backlog until there's a clearer consensus about what changes to make. (My unsolicited opinion is that if any of the material is to remain, it be rewritten to be more encyclopedic and with inline attribution to Fraser as he is apparently the sole source of it.) Xan747 (talk) 19:45, 1 July 2023 (UTC)

RFC: Ancestry
I proposed the inclusion of in "ancestry" section (with reliable and non-trivial sources, but only can extend to great-grandparents) for this article, which had been removed last 25 October 2019, and another one in 22 May 2020, for these names of the subject's great-great-grandparents are trivial, but Wikipedia is not a genealogy database.

2001:4451:824F:B700:10CD:87C9:EEE7:A19C (talk) 07:36, 15 July 2023 (UTC)


 * Support inclusion I don't see how this is trivia. Genealogy is important for the understanding of the interconnectedness of European states at the time. And given how Marie Antoinette ended it is also relevant to reactions of other states to the French revolution. Also a lot of articles have these and I believe that a lot of people expect this information to be available in the article. -- Random person no 362478479 (talk) 14:36, 15 July 2023 (UTC)
 * Support For reasons above. I dont think the information is trivial, especially for someone of Marie Antionettes status. EmilySarah99 (talk) 00:41, 16 July 2023 (UTC)
 * Support inclusion Genealogy is not trivia, it is a core element of history. Dimadick (talk) 02:55, 16 July 2023 (UTC)
 * Support inclusion, genealogy of members of ruling houses isn't trivia, but an important piece of information.Marcelus (talk) 07:46, 17 July 2023 (UTC)
 * Support inclusion. Genealogy is central to understanding historic European royals and their interests. If this was an article about some scientist or popstar then we might dismiss their hitherto-unknown grandparents as trivia, but when they're Holy Roman Emperors, and when that ancestry led directly to Marie Antoinette's role in life (and her notability), that would be foolish. bobrayner (talk) 20:24, 23 July 2023 (UTC)
 * Support The genealogy of nobles and royal families is significant. On the other hand, I don't have an informed opinion about this template in particular. --Macrakis (talk) 21:19, 23 July 2023 (UTC)
 * Support From the genealogical WikiProject page: "While Wikipedia is not and never was intended as a genealogy software, this area may still be further improved. Nearly all royalty articles include a section of brief ancestry, as well as a list of spouse(s) and issue." Seems to me that Marie Antoinette can indisputably claim generational data on her page. Pistongrinder (talk) 22:51, 26 July 2023 (UTC)
 * Comment Can the ancestry table can be referenced with reliable sources? I have my doubts about Mathieu Delaunay's(author of the source presented by the IP), reliability. --Kansas Bear (talk) 23:53, 26 July 2023 (UTC)
 * This 18th-century genealogy book Genealogie ascendante jusqu'au quatrieme degre inclusivement de tous les Rois et Princes de maisons souveraines de l'Europe actuellement vivans has been outdated, and replace with a recent version of Les ancêtres de Marie-Antoinette d'Autriche (see above). 2001:4451:8285:B00:4161:DF21:E022:9C70 (talk) 12:08, 30 July 2023 (UTC)
 * Support, I think it would be useful and not trivial.--Ortizesp (talk) 06:26, 28 July 2023 (UTC)

Last Words
The source for Marie Antoinette's last words on this article is a clickbait listicle which gives no source. I have tracked this quote down to Marie Antoinette: The Journey (2001), by Antonia Frasier (ISBN-13: 9780385489492), p. 580. No source is given in the book itself for this quote, which I find distressing considering how pervasive these supposed last words have become. In the Memoirs of the Sansons, Vol. II (1876), by Henri Sanson (ISBN-13: 978-1172710188), p. 56, Henri Sanson records the last words of Marie Antoinette as "Farewell, my children; I am going to join your father."

I see no reason why an unsourced quote in a random online article should be allowed as a valid source. And even beyond that, I see no reason why an unsourced quote written in a book over 200 years after the death of Marie Antoinette occurred is allowed to persist at all on Wikipedia as the purported last words of such a significant historical figure. Fraser's book is a tertiary source (and that is a generous evaluation on my part) which contains no reference whatsoever to any contemporary recordings of this quote. Henri Sanson's records are a secondary source that draw from the diary and notes of Charles-Henri Sanson, the man who put Antoinette to death himself, and his own experiences on the scaffold during the First French Republic. The conclusion I have come to many months after first discovering this discrepancy is that the last words of Antoinette currently on this article are a balatant fabrication by Fraser. Past that, Fraser's book is not even cited on this article. From where does "thoughtcatalogue.com" get any credence? The article on that site does not reference any sources at all. Anyone with a lick of experience on the internet can see that this "Famous Last Words" article was designed from the ground up to only draw in ad revenue.

The currently listed last words of Antoinette do garner a lot of sympathy, but it is unjustifiably gained. As Sanson relates in the memoirs, any real sympathy should come from the fact that this woman was forced into her position as queen and lost her husband and all of her children within such a short period of time. But that is enough for me, and I see no reason why clearly fabricated last words should be used to bring her any more sympathy than the awful circumstances of her life should evoke in any human. Ct00 (talk) 07:37, 19 August 2023 (UTC)

Family tree instead of ahnentafel
While everyone, including me, is in agreement that genealogy is relevant, I question the choice of information presented here. Biographies of Marie Antoinette abound, and a survey of those cited in the article shows that they do not present genealogy in the form of an ahnentafel. Instead they use charts that include siblings, aunts, uncles, and cousins, and illustrate Marie Antoinette's relationship to Louis XVI and the French royal family. Therefore I propose replacing the ahnentafel with a chart modelled after those found in the biographies of Marie Antoinette. Surtsicna (talk) 02:15, 20 August 2023 (UTC)

Here is an example modelled after the family tree from Fraser's biography of Marie Antoinette:

Notes: Solid vertical lines indicate parent-child relationship, while dashed lines represent more distant ancestor-descendant connections.


 * Support - for this & all monarch/consort bios. GoodDay (talk) 04:16, 20 August 2023 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 18 January 2024
Rename the article from 'Marie Antoinette' to Marie Antoinette of Austria. She was royal and just baptismal names isn't how royalty is represented. 'Of Austria' is included in many other pages, such as in the French and Spanish articles. ImperialFabrics (talk) 01:50, 18 January 2024 (UTC)
 * Red information icon with gradient background.svg Not done for now: please establish a consensus for this alteration before using the template. RudolfRed (talk) 02:48, 18 January 2024 (UTC)