Talk:Marie Louise d'Orléans

Move of article
DanyMountbatten: When you moved Marie Louise d'Orléans to Princess Marie Louise of Orleans, why did not you explain your reason for the move on this discussion page? It would have been appreciated by other contributors. Regards, Frania W. (talk) 15:12, 16 August 2009 (UTC)


 * this Orléans issue is silly now to be honest =\ Tbharding (talk) 05:54, 17 August 2009 (UTC)


 * Because that's her title and most articles of royalty in English Wikipedia have the titles of royalty first. Enough said. DanyMountbatten (talk) 17:54, 18 August 2009 (UTC)

Princess?
Why was the title of Princess added in the title of the article? On which Wikipedia conventions is this based? The only "princes" & "princesses" in France were in the Condé & Condi related families. The title of "Prince" & "Princesse" were officially given to the children of Louis-Philippe, King of the French (1830-1848). No d'Orléans was ever a "prince" or a "princesse" before that. Having the title "Princess" put in front of a 17th-18th century d'Orléans is a mistake & makes matters confusing with latter Prince/Princesse d'Orléans of 19th century.

Moreover, d'Orléans as a surname should not be translated. Frania W. (talk) 22:22, 17 October 2009 (UTC)

Proven facts vs suppositions
Frania,

Quoting you: ''why *it has been said*/*but this is probably not true*- →a famous, though inaccurate: *a witness wrote*? As an encyclopedia, is not Wikipedia's role to relate proven facts instead of suppositions?''

Regarding your comments, during the 19th century a romantic French novelist, Sophie Gay, wrote a tragic novel about Marie Louise. She made up the story that Marie Louise and the Dauphin were in love. Unfortunately later writers used Sophie Gay's novel as a source. As for the famous, though inaccurate, scene between Louis XIV and Marie Louise, it's another invention of the 19th century romantic French writers. The problem is that several modern writers mention this inaccurate scene in their books (for instance, Antonia Fraser in Love and Louis XIV). This is the reason why I think it should be mentioned in the article: if we just delete it without saying it's inaccurate, people may read it in a book (like Fraser's) and think it's true. DanyMountbatten (talk) 21:34, 20 October 2009 (UTC)


 * I'm sorry but the fact that Marie-Louise wanted to marry the Dauphin is absolutely not an invention by Sophie Gay. Marie-Louise was in love with him, but the Dauphin was not. And you will find this fact in the "Mémoires" of Mademoiselle de Montpensier (III, 1, 1676-1680), which are perfectly authentic...


 * "Je disois souvent à Monsieur : « Ne menez pas votre fille si souvent ici ; cela lui donnera des dégoûts pour tous les autres partis, et si elle n'épouse pas M. le Dauphin, vous lui empoisonnez le reste de sa vie par l'espérance qu'elle en aura eue. » M. le Dauphin ne donnoit nulle marque qu'il souhaitât ce mariage, ni le roi non plus. Quand on déclara celui d'Espagne, M. le Dauphin lui vint dire : « Ma cousine, de me réjouis de votre mariage ; quand vous serez en Espagne vous m'enverrez du touron : car je l'aime fort. » Cela la mit au désespoir, et elle ne l'oublia pas. Car après avoir pris congé du roi, qui l'étoit allé conduire dans la forêt de Fontainebleau, elle monta vite en carrosse sans dire adieu à Monseigneur."


 * For those who don't understand french, Mademoiselle de Montpensier is saying : "I had told to Marie-Louise's father that he should not have brought the young Marie-Louise in Versailles so frequently (because now she wanted to marry the Dauphin because she saw him almost every day), and if this wedding is finally impossible, she will be unhappy for the rest of her life. Neither the King nor the Dauphin wanted this wedding. When the Dauphin heard that Marie-Louise would marry the King of Spain, he only told to her : "My cousin, I'm very happy : when you'll be in Spain, you'll send some Turrón to me, because I like it so much" (!!!!) That made her completely dire, and she never forgave him, because when she left Fontainebleau for the Spain, she get in the coach whithout saying farewell to the Dauphin..."


 * (Sorry I'm french and I'm not very good in english)


 * XXX... —Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.226.245.146 (talk) 20:15, 9 July 2010 (UTC)


 * Dany,


 * Wikipedia is supposed to be an encyclopedia, not a Halloween bag filled with suppositions, untruths & gossips based on the writings of 17th through 21st century novelists, otherwise Wikipedia should change its name to Gossippedia or Ragotpedia.


 * When one writes "it has been said", that person must have read somewhere (in a book?) who the someone was who said *it*.
 * When an editor suggest "but it is probably not true", that editor is not saying much of anything as, within six words, there are three that cover uncertainty: *but*, *probably* and *not*. So why not leave out of the article that unknown stuff "that is probably not true"?
 * When an editor writes "a famous, though inaccurate...", how can that editor affirm that it is *inaccurate*? On what authoritative writing is that assertion based or is it the editor's own supposition?  If no source can be found, then the anecdote should be left out, or at best, be relegated to a foot note.
 * When an editor writes "a witness wrote", this editor must have gotten from somewhere who the witness was who wrote the given quote.


 * When taken from memoirs, then it is fine to mention the scene & quote the quote, but the name of the original writer has to be given, instead of a vague "someone said", or "it has been said", and "but it is probably not true".


 * Frania W. (talk) 00:52, 21 October 2009 (UTC)

Marie Louise d'Orléans
Her surname being "d'Orléans", I just moved the article from Marie Louise of Orléans (1662–1689) to Marie Louise d'Orléans (1662–1689), as d'Orléans officially became the surname of the French royal cadet branch with Louis XIV's young brother, Philippe I, Duke of Orléans, who was born Philippe de France, and whose children all had the surname d'Orléans, which the branch has kept to today: Prince Henri, Count of Paris, Duke of France

Cordialement! Frania W. (talk) 23:29, 13 November 2009 (UTC)


 * Dear Chicken =] twas me who moved it to Princess Marie Louise of Orléans (1662–1689); i am one of the few who seem to follow your point that d'Orléans should not be translated when as a surname; however! Marie Louise is often better known as Marie Louise of Orléans for whatever reason i do not know lol! everyone else in our Orléans clan should otherwise be d'Orléans and not of Orléans; i do feeeel that ML is an exception thoughh..

anyone else have a point?! =]

LouisPhilippeCharles (talk) 17:45, 15 November 2009 (UTC)


 * Cher Louis Philippe Charles: a while back, you or someone else had moved the article to Princess Marie Louise of Orléans (1662-1689). A couple of days ago, someone else moved it to Marie Louise of Orléans (1662-1689), removing the word Princess which had allowed for the of.  Now that she is given only by her name with no title, she is a d'Orléans like all her Orléans relatives, so I simply moved her with the rest of her brood.


 * May I respectfully mention the work you are doing on the Bourbon tribe, removing the *Condé*, *Condi*, *Penthièvre* etc. attached to *de Bourbon*, keeping de Bourbon for all members of the family.


 * Monsieur le Duc, I remain your most (dis)obedient, Chicken. Frania W. (talk) 00:09, 16 November 2009 (UTC)


 * My deaar chicken, this is a good point to make, these Bourbons really are rather irritating are they not?! Marie Louise d'Orléans (1662-1689) it must be =]

p.s. im liking my new style of M. le Duc ha

LouisPhilippeCharles (talk) 12:32, 16 November 2009 (UTC)

The history of this article.
 The editor user:LouisPhilippeCharles who used to edit under the name User:Tbharding has cut and pasted this article a number of times and the page has been moved a number of times. The result is that the history of the article which was originally created in 2005 is now fragmented over five pages:


 * At 07:10, 24 October 2007 the content of Marie Louise of Orléans (1662–1689) was moved to Maria Luisa of Orléans, That was moved again to Marie Louise of Orléans So here is a full history of the article which thanks to a number of edits by the same editor using two different names is spread out over five articles.
 * Maria Luisa of Orléans First history from creation as a stub in 2005 up to 02:29, 4 August 2008
 * Marie Louise of Orléans Second history created by a cut and past move by User:Tbharding (alias User:LouisPhilippeCharles) on 17:11, 13 August 2008 to 16:03, 1 July 2009 when User:Tbharding redirects it to  Marie Louise d'Orléans
 * Marie Louise of Orléans (1662–1689) Third history, created by a cut and past move by User:Tbharding at 16:03, 1 July 2009 under the name Marie Louise d'Orléans which gets moved several times but the last time by Anthony Appleyard as a requested move to Marie Louise of Orléans (1662–1689)
 * Marie Louise of Orléans, Queen of Spain Fourth history, a short history 3 to 12 February 2010 cut and past moves by User:LouisPhilippeCharles to which was then moved in a good faith move by DanyMountbatten from  Marie Louise d'Orléans (1662–1689) to Marie Louise of Orléans, Queen of Spain.
 * Marie Louise d'Orléans (1662–1689) Fifth history, created with a cut and past move by user:LouisPhilippeCharles at 11:05, 16 February 2010 and is the current article.

See the histories of the various article for a full list of copyright holders of this current location for the article and proof if it is needed that this is an original work and not copied from another source. -- PBS (talk) 00:20, 19 August 2010 (UTC)

I have now wound all the histories into this one article -- PBS (talk) 02:41, 29 August 2010 (UTC)

Move August 2010
After I had finished the merge of the article's histories I moved Marie Louise d'Orléans (1662–1689) to Marie Louise of Orléans (1662–1689) which restored the last WP:RM move. If anyone wants to move it back to Marie Louise d'Orléans (1662–1689) do not use cut and past. Do put in a WP:RM request. -- PBS (talk) 03:12, 29 August 2010 (UTC)

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