Talk:Marie-Thérèse-Charlotte of France

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

	This article is within the scope of WikiProject Biography. For more information, visit the project page.	Biography Portal
???	This article has not yet received a rating on the project's quality scale. [FAQ] Please rate the article and, if you wish, leave comments here regarding your assessment or the strengths and weaknesses of the article.
More information about this article... The following comments have been left for this page: This just seems to need a lot of stylistic editing. Many run-on sentences, unclear paragraphs, and a lack of a strong 'theme', I suppose - I came here knowing nothing about this person, and left....knowing a little more but feeling as if much of the information was lost or muddled due to unclear writing. Some re-writing and reorganization will greatly improve the article and make the information within more accessable and easily retained. I agree with the above but I would like to add: 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. --193.252.7.203 20:05, 2 November 2006 (UTC) I agree about the previous suggestion that the writing needs to be tightened, however I don't find it biased - the fact that the revolution is obliquely mentioned as an event which violently took the lives of those related with the person being discussed and adversely affecting that person doesn't necessarily mean it is royalist. That these things happend is indiputable - reasons why are wisely avoided. Perhaps there isn't enough objectivity in discussing the subject's actions, but this has more to do with style than missing facts. 213.172.255.217 00:03, 8 December 2006 (UTC)SL I agree with the above opinion. Since it's a biography, it's logical to write it from the princess' point of view - that is to say, the French Revolution was a great personal tragedy. However, some statements need to be sourced, such as: "I should have liked to have given you all these as New Year's gifts," the queen said, "but the winter is very hard, there is a crowd of unhappy people who have no bread to eat, no clothes to wear, no wood to make a fire. I have given them all my money; I have none left to buy you presents, so there will be none this year." --Lareine 18:06, 14 December 2006 (UTC) (edit)

was princes replaced in 1795 by her half sister Ernestine Lambriquet?

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)

Quite an informative article, well written on a relatively obscure topic drfcb

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)

[edit] 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).

[edit] Modern Sources Required

This article needs to have some balance, with modern sources.72.80.111.132 (talk) 17:49, 25 December 2007 (UTC)

[edit] 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)