List of PDF software and Talk:Louis XVII: Difference between pages

Old unsigned undated comment

not all the kings and presidents are given in succession... this kind of helps figure out eras by political/philosophical attitudes of the monarchy/theocracy/etc.

Date ?

"Taken from his mother in 1795". While she was executed in 1793 ?

---

I believe that the child was seperated from his mom in 1792, provided somewhere down the article: "The remaining 3 years of his life".

Patrickov 16:14, 28 Aug 2004 (UTC)

I'll edit accordingly. -- Jmabel 00:13, Aug 29, 2004 (UTC)

Rollback

I am rolling back a recent anonymous edit (by User:129.67.17.22). I don't doubt that it came from a public domain source, but it is full of trivia ("Both parents noted that the child was particularly frightened by loud noises, especially a dog's barking") and purple prose ("Savagely taken from his distraught mother..."). I believe it detracts from, rather than adds to, the article. However, it may contain some useful facts; I'd welcome someone combing through and seeing if there is something worth restoring. -- Jmabel 19:24, Oct 7, 2004 (UTC)

Deleted reference to student play

Trivial —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 66.74.198.222 (talk • contribs) 3 Nov 2005.

Louis XVI's children

Louis XVI had four children but only 3 are listed in the list on the side, the one that's missing is the youngest daughter Sophie Beatrix. I don't know how to change it as I don't know how to change side banners like that.

• Done. If you want to do it in the future, go to "Edit this page" and choose the template for the family, and edit that. Prsgoddess187 20:19, 13 January 2006 (UTC)

how proper is it to put the regnal number to him?

He never reigned. ObRoy 12:00, 20 May 2006 (UTC)

But he is nonetheless counted in the lineage, and traditionally known as Louis XVII. - Jmabel | Talk 00:22, 3 June 2006 (UTC)

Real Father

There were several rumours at the time that the real father was not Louis XVI but Axel von Fersen. Even a letter by Louis XVI saying somehting about him "being as healthy and strong as my own son". —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 83.178.7.84 (talk) 08:17, 29 April 2007 (UTC).

Yes, it is entirely possible that the Louis-Charles is the natural son of Count Fersen. DNA analysis could tell us. However, he looks like his older brother, the Dauphin to me. Therefore, I am inclined to think he is the son of Louis XVI. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.208.59.220 (talk) 01:23, 18 September 2007 (UTC)

Story "After his father's death"

The first paragraph is largely a story, that while plausible doesn't cite any refrences and therefore likely contains some inaccuracies. I don't think it's necessary and probably breaks some neutrality rules. If there was a source where the information that lead to the writing of the story comes from, or if it is quoted from a notable work and changed format to reflect that I wouldn't have a problem with it. ASA-IRULE 04:57, 5 October 2007 (UTC)

The changes made on 16 December 2007 to the third paragraph are taken from an article by Mircea Platon that lists no sources. The paragraph should be reversed to its pre-changes state. False evidence and unverifiable stories have no place in Wikipedia, no more than in any encyclopedic article.

Frania W. (talk) 04:19, 19 December 2007 (UTC)

Agree with that, see next paragraph.91.148.159.4 (talk) 19:36, 2 May 2008 (UTC)

My edits

I had an edit conflict that I don't have time to continue. Details below:91.148.159.4 (talk) 19:36, 2 May 2008 (UTC)

Copied from Ave Caesar's talk page):

Hi, why did you revert this? Explain reverts. Regards, 91.148.159.4 (talk) 18:52, 2 May 2008 (UTC)

Now, you still haven't answered, and I don't have time to engage in a discussion that takes long. So I'm just going to repeat my edits one by one and then you can revert what you really mean to, I won't come back. Explanation for my edits (I'll copy it to the article talk, too):

1. "This use of a surname was a deliberate insult, since royalty do not normally use surnames." >> "This use of a surname was an anti-royalist statement ..." etc. Now, monarchy in France was abolished. He was not "royalty" any more. Hence, it was normal to refer to the boy by his name and surname, unless one didn't recognize the republic. In the same way, all the aristocrats, including many revolutionaries, had changed their names and their titles were not supposed to be used any longer. To say the opposite would be pro-royalist/pro-feudal POV.

2. Deletion of the last paragraph. - It depicts the same events that the next section depicts, so there is a duplication. It also depicts them from another, royalist POV, so it contradicts the next section. It describes cruelties that the next section disputes or refutes. It also includes rather wild and unusual claims such as the one that Simon led 8 year old Louis to prostitutes to contract venereal diseases!! So all in all, I think the article is better without it.

Regards, 91.148.159.4 (talk) 19:30, 2 May 2008 (UTC)