Talk:Marie Thérèse Louise of Savoy, Princesse de Lamballe

gang raped or kill then raped ?
the English article say that she has been gang raped.

The French version say that she has been slain, then when she was already dead, they raped her. ("Ses bourreaux, avinés, après l' avoir massacrée, violent son corps, sans vie, devant la foule, sur la voie publique")

So when she was raped... she was still alive or dead ? Froggy helps ;-) 06:03, 6 November 2006 (UTC)

It says her father-in-law finally succeeded in gaining her body and it was interred in his crypt. Her father-in-law duke of Penthièvrewas long dead in 1814 so that last sentence needs to be removed.

This is definitely wrong. Glory and Terror is very specific in stating that the reports of her brutal murder and desecration of her corpse had been wildly exaggerated for propagandistic purpose. -Jonathan Chin   —Preceding unsigned comment added by 140.109.140.196 (talk) 10:22, 1 July 2009 (UTC)


 * The bodies of the princesse de Lamballe and of Philippe Égalité who were executed during the French Revolution were never found, and thus are not interred in the Chapelle Saint Louis at Dreux which, before becoming the necropolis of the Orléans family was that of the Toulouse-Penthièvre family. If the duc de Penthièvre had been able to retrieve her body, it would be there as, after he died, HIS body was brought to Dreux.
 * As for the gang rape etc. this is to be taken with as much doubt as the story of young Louis XVII being made to sleep with prostitutes. The only thing we can be sure of is that her head was severed from her body, put on a pike & brought to the Temple Tower for Marie Antoinette to see.  For the rest, everything & its contrary has been said.
 * Another thing: in the sentence in French the words "violent son corps" do not mean that she was "raped", but that *her body was desecrated*, which could be head cut off, certain parts of her body removed etc., but not necessarily "raped". Later apocryphal writings are not to be trusted for the truth and, in my opinion, should not be used as *reliable sources* in an encyclopedic article.
 * Frania W. (talk) 15:44, 1 July 2009 (UTC)
 * After she was killed, her body parts were in fact desecrated - as a general example, her sexual parts were mutilated and some parts cut off, etc. Kfodderst (talk) 11:32, 6 April 2011 (UTC)

sentiments
What happened to Princess de Lamballe, a gentle and relatively progressive soul (as demonstrated by what she would swear to and what she wouldn't), that horrific end at the hands of a degenerate mob, was always to me, the cautionary tale against reform through violent revolution, where fury over past grievances resided over reason and morality; the victory of the people then forever shadowed with bloodlust and madness in the ages to come. To Killy-the-frog, it was the first, at least in the English books I've read of the subject it was. - T'Sura (2007 March 8th)

Illegitimate son?
Research of my family tree by my father led him to believe that she gave birth to a son whilst in England, the father unknown. The name De Lamballe became Lamble and her son was left in England when she returned to France and faced her death. Any other information regarding this claim would be much appreciated. -S. Lamble May 2010

Question...
...about this sentence in the lead:
 * Her death in the massacres of September 1792 during the French Revolution sparked a movement of anti-revolutionary propaganda[citation needed], which ultimately led to the development and implementation of the Reign of Terror.

Which "movement of anti-revolutionary propaganda" was "sparked" by her death, which "ultimately led to the development and implementation of the Reign of Terror" ?

Where is the source for this & where is this 'fact' developed in the article?

--Frania W. (talk) 15:02, 19 December 2010 (UTC)
 * Cannot be agreed with. Of course, everything contributed to a certain extent to the Terror, as did every event help build up to the Revolution, even in the minutest of events. But "ultimately led to ... [the] Terror"? Definitely not. Kfodderst (talk) 11:37, 6 April 2011 (UTC)

Wrong portrait
This portrait attributed to Duplessis and (here and there) supposed te be the princess of Lamballe is wrong. First, it's not her face at all... But above all, NEVER a princess of such a high rank like she was (born princess of Savoy, by marriage 'princesse du sang' in France and member of the royal family) would have been painted with this plunging neckline, showing her nipples. Absolutely impossible... 2A01:E35:2E2F:5920:FC64:6B97:22DF:160 (talk) 19:35, 30 June 2012 (UTC)

Absolutely impossible? Why? Have you ever seen portraits of that period of other noble women in a similar rank? I come from such an old French family and even among my female ancestors we have a lot of portraits with "such a plunging neckline". Look at portraits showing Marie Antoinette! I don't know what you mean. --ReneSMdFA (talk) 06:29, 7 September 2014 (UTC)

how stupid can people be?
YES this is LouisPhilippeCharles but my real name is tom because that is a username and not a real person morons. I have reverted this page about 5/6/7 times due to the facts that a large amount of the info on the page is misleading incorrect and just embarressing to read due to the level of incompetence that people IE factstraight insist on putting in it. for one not SHE WAS ITALIAN BORN SO NOT M L THERESE BUT MARIA TERESA LUISA and carignano is a title AND NOT a name and therefore pretty much irrelevant bar the fact her father was the prince of C it amazes me that people regarding this princess have been soooooo painfully stupid childish and seem to think they have some sort of ownership over an article on an internet encyclopedia also her husband was a bourbon no more no less what is the issue with adding people paternal titles to names like Savoy and Bourbon it is just stupid beyond belief as well as greatly frustrating I AM HELPING NOT CAUSING A PROBLEM I AM CORRECTING INFORMATION NOT BEING A VANDAL but users such as factstraight are moronic, he is probably a middle aged balding married man with no job anyway. pathetic to be honest — Preceding unsigned comment added by 92.24.46.152 (talk) 15:11, 2 August 2013 (UTC)
 * Hi LouisPhilippeCharles. Flattered to hear that you are so very interested in me and my lifestyle, but I'm afraid that's not relevant to editing Wikipedia -- maybe one day we'll meet, catch up on each other's lives while having a pint and become chums, no? Meanwhile, the point of reverting your edits has nothing whatsoever to do with whether you are right about this Savoy princess or not. It is about the fact that we want and need you back editing Wikipedia with all of your special knowledge and deep caring about dynasties, especially the Bourbons. But you cannot come back and your edits on Wikipedia will be reverted without regard to content whatsover until you have done what admins have repeatedly told you on your talk page is minimally necessary: to get unblocked you must completely cease editing all versions of Wikipedia for at least six months, including no sockpuppets or anonymous accounts. Unfortunately, every time you edit this or any article, you start the clock ticking again, so you will have to stay away from all editing of Wikipedia for a minimum of six months before being eligible to be un-blocked. The reverts to this and other articles you keep editing are simply your reminders that your edits have no right to be here and will not be allowed -- no matter how correct -- until you are unblocked. See ya in six? FactStraight (talk) 15:36, 2 August 2013 (UTC)

Requested move 28 September 2023

 * The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review after discussing it on the closer's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

The result of the move request was: Not moved to the proposed title. Alternative proposals may be raised as a new request. (non-admin closure) BegbertBiggs (talk) 16:19, 11 October 2023 (UTC)

Marie Thérèse Louise of Savoy, Princesse de Lamballe → Marie Thérèse Louise of Savoy – Present title is unnecessarily long, in violation of WP:CONCISE. The proposed title is also more WP:CONSISTENT under the guideline of WP:NCROY as most deceased royal women have article titles using their birth name. The proposed title is also a primary redirect, so there’s no ambiguity here. estar8806 (talk) ★ 02:19, 28 September 2023 (UTC)
 * Support Marie Thérèse Louise of Savoy is already a redirect to this page. No need for unnecessarily long titles when we can keep it concise. Keivan.f  Talk 13:06, 28 September 2023 (UTC)
 * Oppose I understand the point: normally, royal people is not named after their full title, so this appears like an uneccessarily long disambiguation. However, the rule in Wikipedia is that people should have the name they are most known under in their title. This person is generally known in literature simply as "the princesse de Lamballe". That is the name she is known under, and the rule that people should be named after the name they are most known under, is more important than the rule about being concise. She is not known in history as Marie Thérèse Louise of Savoy. She is a well known historical figure to all scholars and everyone else interested in the history of Marie Antoinette, but the name "Marie Thérèse Louise of Savoy" is not the name she is known under and she is not recongized as such, so it will be moving her to a name people do not recognize and do not know her by. --Aciram (talk) 17:22, 28 September 2023 (UTC)
 * The rule is equally that names should be as concise as possible. Unless you're proposing that the article should simply be "The Princesse de Lamballe", the point on common name is moot. estar8806 (talk) ★ 03:56, 29 September 2023 (UTC)
 * Oppose. The problem is that "Princesse de Lamballe" is actually a far better-known name than her given name. Removing it would lead to a loss of clarity. It would be akin to retitling the article on Arthur Wellesley, 1st Duke of Wellington to simple Arthur Wellesley. More concise, indeed, but far less clear and not his common name. To quote WP:CONCISE: The goal of concision is to balance brevity with sufficient information to identify the topic to a person familiar with the general subject area. Her given name alone would not do this. The proposal also, incidentally, conflicts with WP:NCROY. -- Necrothesp (talk) 13:04, 3 October 2023 (UTC)
 * Oppose. WP:COMMONNAME would suggest Princess de Lamballe, but other articles on nobility from the French Revolution generally give their birth name and the title they're commonly known by:
 * Honoré Gabriel Riqueti, comte de Mirabeau
 * Henri Evrard, marquis de Dreux-Brézé
 * Victor François de Broglie, 2nd Duke of Broglie
 * This would suggest that the current title is the best option. Tevildo (talk) 14:24, 7 October 2023 (UTC)
 * I would point out that those men were all the holders of the titles, so it's a little different here, not that different though. I see the points raised that Princess de Lamballe is the COMMONNAME, and I respect that. I wold alternatively propose Marie Thérèse Louise, Princesse de Lamballe in that case, as the "of Savoy" has been deemed unnecessary here, so why include it if it's not sufficient to be the actual title. estar8806 (talk) ★ 15:45, 7 October 2023 (UTC)