Talk:Louis XVII

Wikipedia should be factual and encyclopaedic

Large sections of this article are vague, speculative and unencyclopaedic. At least half of it is devoted to possible theories of Louis escape from prison, consisting of unverifiable speculation, written in a sensationalist style, and of course entirely unsourced. While wikipedia should give appropriate weight to alternative points of view, the historical consensus is that Louis did indeed die in the Temple Prison, and that the stories of his possible escape (and the subsequent claims by pretenders) should be seen in the same light as those surrounding Edward V of England, Dmitri I of Russia, etc etc. The article in no way reflects this consensus. It requires dramatic amendment. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.162.71.239 (talk) 08:02, 28 July 2008 (UTC)

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)

Ok Cameron876 (talk) 05:35, 29 June 2020 (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)

Louis XVII was never officially crowned king. However, as his father was dead and Louis-Charles was the the Dauphin, he was rightly seen by royalists as the successor to the French throne and therefore although there was never a coronation, it was correct to put the regnal number XVII to him. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Nick363 (talk • contribs) 18:42, 28 November 2010 (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)

Well, he would still look like hes brther because they had the same mother. Isn't it amusing somehow, that her alleged sexual relationship with Fersen is always denied by everyone who sympathise with her? Everyone who likes her, say it is terrible slander, as if it would be wrong for a woman in an arranged marriage to have a lover. It is just natural. For her own happiness sake, I hope she did have lovers. In those days, it was considered wrong, but now, we should be more modern about this. I do hope they would do a DNA test on her son someday. I know they have, but if there is possible to do one who shows the fatherhood, I hope they will do one. If it is possible, I wonder why the havent? Are they affraid for what it will show? It doesnt have to proove anything, of course: even if they had sex, they didn't have to have children toghether, so her son could be the son of the king anywhay. But if he prooves to be the son of Fersen, then perhaps historians could aknowledge the fact that it is just natural and human to have a lover in an arranged marriage, and that it doesnt make her a bad person. It simply seems to me, that historians make the alleged affair to slander, because they believe this would make her to a bad person. Not so strange, perhaps, because the debate started in a time when the moral values had this view. If they are prooved to be lovers by such a test, then perhaps this old view of the subject will change to a more modern one. Just an observation! --85.226.41.61 (talk) 14:41, 14 November 2008 (UTC)

True or not, Count Axel von Fersen the Younger should be mentioned in the article. -- Petri Krohn (talk) 05:13, 3 May 2009 (UTC)

To 85.226.41.61 (talk), who wrote: Isn't it amusing somehow, that her alleged sexual relationship with Fersen is always denied by everyone who sympathise with her? I beg to differ, as many of those who symathise with her tend to believe the two may have been lovers - André Castelot, a French historian and, I believe, Mme Fraser. The only problem with such an assertion is that there is nothing to prove it, one way or the other. Frania W. (talk) 16:26, 3 May 2009 (UTC)

Question: Since DNA testing was able to etablish that the heart believed to be that of Louis XVII, was either the heart of Louis XVII or the heart of another member of the royal family, and also establish that one of the individuals who claimed to be Louis XVII was no relation to the royal family, would DNA testing also be able to show if the heart also contained the DNA of the von Fersen family? I'm not taking sides regarding the possibility that Count von Fersen was the biological father of Louis XVII, but could another round of DNA testing answer the question? (71.22.47.232 (talk) 08:00, 13 July 2010 (UTC))

The DNA from the heart is not "strong enough" (in lack of a better word) to measure it against the father. The DNA we get from mour mother (and her mother and sisters) are the ones that were used in this case.

All that aside, it is impossible (yes, I use that word) that a born and bred princess and later Queen would ever commit adultery. Ever. I don't think the thought even crossed her mind. She knew that the child she had, had to be the King's son. She would never have deared. Some women are not that sexual, and I think she found a perfect match in her husband. Antoher thing that speaks volumes, is her trial. Her enemies would have done everything possible to slander her, and they sure did that with the horrible incest accusation, but Fersen's name was only mentioned once. As the the man providing the carriage for the flight to Varennes. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Montespan (talk • contribs) 12:37, 13 August 2010 (UTC)

Er, you might tell that to Queen Caroline Matilda of Denmark, who certainly committed adultery, and was of exactly the same generation. Among many other royal ladies who have committed adultery. That being said, it seems that there is little evidence one way or the other about his relationship with Marie AntoinetteI've never specifically heard of Fersen as Louis XVII's father. The article on Fersen suggests that most biographers have rejected the idea and explains why it was unlikely. john k (talk) 19:50, 13 November 2010 (UTC)

There are plenty of cases of women born Princesses that cheated on their husband. There is even a book by Eleanore Hermann called Sex with the Queen about it. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.77.127.106 (talk) 18:37, 29 September 2011 (UTC)

It does certainly seem a little naive to suppose that in her situation, and with the contemporary quite lenient view on it regarding the upper classes, she never had a lover on the side, but in this case it is quite irrelevant what we as editors think. The main point is what does the secondary sources, ie academia say about it. I am not sufficiently versed in this particular matter to make a decision, but since this seems to be a controversial subject, anyone making a claim about the likely fatherhood of either Fersen or the king, does need to present some acceptable scholarly sources as citation. --Saddhiyama (talk) 20:43, 13 November 2010 (UTC)

It is weird that we are two sets of contributors speaking on the same subject at two different sections of this discussion page. Lena of Sweden left a comment to which I answered at Fatherhood down below [1]

Too bad these two sections are not combined.

--Frania W. (talk) 22:18, 13 November 2010 (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)

Needs general cleanup and rewriting

There's no doubt at the time that how Louis XVII was treated was controversial. I'd say that it can still carry a symbolic controversy today, seen as a symbol by proxy for the French revolution and its humanity or lack thereof. Given this, it's not overly surprising that the article seems to be written based on a lot of loose claims with few verifiable sources mentioned. Did he really contract Syphilis and was threatened with the Guillotine? What is supposed to be the exact meaning of saying that "Marie Jeanne, in fact, took great care of the child's person"? In my view this article would be served best by a complete rewriting, with at least a section on his early life which everyone can agree on, and an academically oriented section (hence, referencing a number of sources) of what is more or less known of his life under the Revolutionaries.158.143.136.183 (talk) 17:29, 18 October 2009 (UTC)

Well, it is all cited, which is more than can be said for the section "Prison and Rumors of Escape" which should probably be deleted, given it is an unreferenced section that conflicts with a referenced section. Sir rupert orangepeel (talk) 10:08, 3 December 2009 (UTC)

Made this change: "The wildness of this tale refutes itself." This sentence means to say that the tale refutes itself by its wildness. I substituted with the less highfalutin " Williams' story is generally regarded as false." Do what you want, but the first sentence makes no sense; it says that the wildness refutes itself, which makes no sense. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.76.5.12 (talk) 10:13, 5 December 2009 (UTC)

Venereal Disease

The article states he was made to sleep with prostitutes and contracted venereal diseases; this is apparently based on a single Romanian language source. Yet he died at the age of ten. Few male children are capable of sexual intercourse at such a young age.218.14.53.8 (talk) 07:38, 25 December 2009 (UTC)

Male children who didn't reach puberty nevertheless have erections, so would be perfectly capable of "performing" if led to do so. 2A02:8440:3441:432:2440:7F55:40C5:CEB6 (talk) 22:06, 7 July 2024 (UTC)

Fatherhood

Is not Louis Charles’ fatherhood disputed? His mother Marie Antoinette is known to have had a lover named Axel von Fersen Jr. She had the opportunity to be alone with him during the time she could have become pregnant. As such Louis Charles was not necessary the son of his mother’s husband.

2010-06-04 Lena Synnerholm, Märsta, Sweden.

Lena Synnerholm, what do you know of the relationship between Marie Antoinette and Fersen? What allows you to affirm that they were lovers and that Fersen was Louis Charles' biological father? If they were lovers, proof of their relationship has been destroyed. All we know is that they were attracted to each other, but nothing else permits us to say more, not even the fact that through Mme Coppola's movie Hollywood states otherwise. During her lifetime, libelles & pornographic caricatures did a splendid job of character assassination, the whole of which was picked up & even made worse with accusations of incest by her "judges" at her trial. No woman in history has been so lied about. If she was guilty of any of the crimes of which she was accused, she paid the ultimate price on the scaffold. So, is not it time to stop paying attention to the rumours & let her rest in peace?

--Frania W. (talk) 16:52, 4 June 2010 (UTC)

The main point is that he was officially declared the son of Louis XVI and Marie Antoinette at his birth. For want of evidence that disproves this acknowledgement, this is what most historians accepts as fact, as anything else would be conjecture. Obviously, following the Wikipedia rule of using reliable sources, the consensus result will be that Louis XVII was legitimate. Simple as that. --Saddhiyama (talk) 20:20, 4 June 2010 (UTC)

Another point is that, no matter what the accepted fact is, there will always be someone ready & willing to adopt accusatory tactics & "go after" Marie Antoinette. The poor woman has been accused of everything under the sun and was executed. Is she to be put on an eternal trial because some people cannot stop looking through the keyhole of History in the hope of finding her in bed with Fersen?

--Frania W. (talk) 21:57, 4 June 2010 (UTC)

I don't exactly agree with that sentiment. If a historian or another scholar finds definite proof of her either sleeping with Fersen or having a child with him, it is our job to mention it in the artice. Personal sympathies should not weigh in when it comes to article content. --Saddhiyama (talk) 22:05, 4 June 2010 (UTC)

It is not a question of personal sympathy, but the realisation that Marie Antoinette has been accused of every sin & crime through libelles & other publications & that many would love to add to her "crimes" that of lèse-majesté by adultery. Maybe she & Fersen were lovers and, if they were, traces were carefully erased. So, we have no proof until more DNA test leads us to Fersen. Then we would not be dealing with rumours.

--Frania W. (talk) 22:24, 4 June 2010 (UTC)

Marie Antoinette may have been accused for just about anything. However, this does not mean that she was innocent of everything she was accused for. I consider it historically verified that she had a lover named Axel von Fersen Jr. I also think it is verified that she and Axel meet at the about the time she become pregnant. Consequentially, the father of her son Louis Charles could have been either her husband or her lover. Please note that I only feel a bit pitty for Marie Antoinette. Otherwise I have no special emotions for or against her. Anyway, I would try to find the objective truth without my emotions getting in the way.

2010-11-13 Lena Synnerholm, Märsta, Sweden.

Lena: You are not the only one convinced that Fersen was Louis-Charles' father and I agree that counting to nine on one's fingers is tempting, but it is no proof, and if proof there ever was as to the two going to bed together, that proof has carefully been removed with correspondence destroyed. All we have to go by is our own feeling and that is not wikipediable.

In chapter La Reine Marie-Thérèse de France p. 298 of his book Madame Royale published in 1962 by Perrin, André Castelot gives his thoughts on the matter, mentioning as reference, not Marie-Thérèse's published Journal, but her original manuscript annotated in margin by her uncle Louis XVIII.

--Frania W. (talk) 14:06, 13 November 2010 (UTC)

I am not saying that Axel von Fersen Jr was the father of Louis Charles. What I am saying that he could have the son of either his mother's husband or her lover. The problem here is people denying that she ever was unfaithful to the husband she had never been allowed to choose herself. Wanting to choose your partner yourself is common to all humanity. I consider it known beyond a reasonable doubt that Louis Charles' mother Maria Antonia had a sexual relationship with Axel and had the opportunity to be alone with her at the approximate time of conception. My previous critics probably apply the bad analogy of comparing this fact of history to all those accusations lacking in judgement she has also been subject to. That Maria Antonia had Axel as a lover there are some credible evidence of while the other accusations are highly doubtful. My previous critics don't seem to realise this difference.

2011-01-05 Lena Synnerholm, Märsta, Sweden. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 212.247.167.71 (talk) 17:35, 5 January 2011 (UTC)

How on earth can you know beyond a reasonable doubt the unrecorded sexual habits of individuals who died over two hundred years ago? Fersen and Marie Antoinette obviously had a close emotional connection. Whether they engaged in sexual intercourse is, at this point, unknowable. john k (talk) 18:06, 5 January 2011 (UTC)

Lena von Sweden! When you wrote "Is not Louis Charles’ fatherhood disputed? His mother Marie Antoinette is known to have had a lover named Axel von Fersen Jr. She had the opportunity to be alone with him during the time she could have become pregnant. As such Louis Charles was not necessary the son of his mother’s husband.", you may not have said that Fersen was Louis Charles' father, but you certainly did imply it very heavily!

And while we can discuss all we want here about Marie Antoinette & Fersen having been lovers, the facts are, as I wrote a few months ago, that we have no proof because if there was any it has been destroyed.

Now, you can think what you want, and even be right, but your thoughts are not wikipediable, no more than mine are. Adjö!

--Frania W. (talk) 22:56, 5 January 2011 (UTC)

Well, all I have learned is that Maria Antonia had a lover named Axel von Fersen Jr. My Dad may have gone too far when he claimed that her son Louis Charles had also been Axel's. Perhaps I should ask him why he thinks so. I thought there was written confessions from at least one of them matching in time when others have witnessed they had the opportunity to be alone with each other. If so we can't take it for granted that Louis Charles was the son of his mother's husband. Anyone who can verify the existence of such evidence? I thought this would be much more appropriate than just presupposing the statement to be in pair with all those ill-funded accusations against her.

2011-01-06 Lena Synnerholm, Märsta Sweden.

Dear Lena från Sverige, you are not saying anything newer than what you have been saying over the years, and it is becoming tiresome to engage in this type of duel with you, so I shall not dégainer ma plume to counterattack your argument; however, you just mentioned that you got the info from your Dad: by any chance, is your Papa old enough to have been a witness to the couple's ébats amoureux to be so certain that Louis Charles was Fersen's son?

That really would be newsworthy! - the age of your Papa, that is.

--Frania W. (talk) 02:55, 7 January 2011 (UTC)

Preserved heart

Some people have suggested that the embalmed heart is not that of Louis Charles but instead comes from his brother Louis Joseph. Has an unbroken chain of owners been traced? If so we can be as certain as possible that the heart comes from the boy who died in prison in 1795.

2010-06-04 Lena Synnerholm, Märsta, Sweden.

Louis Joseph's heart was embalmed at his death and then lost during the revolution. The heart that was tested was not embalmed, and examination when the DNA was taken showed that the aorta was cut raggedly as if done in a hurry.

I actually refereed to the heart claimed to be from Louis Charles. If there was no kind of preservation – either intentional or unintentional – there would have been no DNA to analyse. What I wondered was how we can know that the heart in question really is from the boy who died in prison in 1795.

2010-08-22 Lena Synnerholm, Märsta, Sweden.

Title and NPOV

I wonder if the title of this article breaks NPOV... He was, after all, never King of France. France was a Republic in 1793-1795. He was only considered to be "King Louis XVII of France" by the royalists. Would not this mean, that it is POV to call him this? Would it not be better to call him Louis, Dauphin of France? He was dauphin, but he was never King. Is it not to be POV to call him what only the monarchists called him?

I am not making this query to provoce any one, I am neutral when it comes to this issue, but it think it is an important question. What is the policy about titular monarchs? --85.226.42.215 (talk) 02:30, 25 July 2010 (UTC)

The article title is reasonable, because that is what people are most likely to search for: Louis XVII was the one in between Louis XVI and Louis XVIII. The article makes it clear that although some considered that he held the title of "king" he was never in fact the ruler. Aymatth2 (talk) 03:00, 25 July 2010 (UTC)

Le Roi est mort, vive le Roi! is the traditional phrase said at the death of a king of France, which means that, at the time of death of a king, the next in line became king immediately. So, when Louis XVI was executed, the second his head fell, his son was king Louis XVII of France, which, of course, was not recognised by the Republic, but was by the royalists. When Louis XVII died, his uncle, the comte de Provence became king Louis XVIII, although he was living in exile.

--Frania W. (talk) 02:32, 29 July 2010 (UTC)

That rationale leads into a debate about whether he could legitimately be styled "king" when France was a republic. The title is correct simply because it is the most likely search term, regardless of rights and wrongs. Aymatth2 (talk) 15:21, 29 July 2010 (UTC)

That rationale (yours) leads into a debate about whether the comte de Provence should have been crowned king of France as Louis XVII instead of Louis XVIII.

--Frania W. (talk) 17:02, 29 July 2010 (UTC)

His supporters considered he was Louis XVIII and the supporters of the republic or the empire presumably did not recognize his legitimacy at all. The simplest way to avoid arguments about the "right" title is just to use the most common title, and explain in the text of the article. Aymatth2 (talk) 17:21, 29 July 2010 (UTC)

I agree. Just mentioning him as Louis XVII without any explanation will only confuse more than it will enlighten. --

He was considered to be king, but he was not. According to the royalists, he became King upon the death of his father automatically. To say he was not recongized as king makes it sounds like he was in reality king, even tough this "fact" was not "recognized"; it makes it sounds like he became king biologically, by nature. But this is not reality. France was a republic, even though the royalists disagree. This is a fact, not a question of recognition. It is POV to take the side of the royalists. The comte de Provence did not become king in 1795; he considered himself to have become king, but in reality, he did no become king until 1814. His uncle took his number because he was POV because of his views: this is not to be regarded as any proof that his nephew had been king, only that he was considered to have been king. and indeed, his uncle did take the wrong number, because of his POV. The fact is, that France was a Republic in 1792-1804, and wp should present the reality as it was, not the reality according to royalist POV. Of course many people will use the name "Louis XVII of France" in their search here, just as Aymatth2 says above. But this will have the same function if we redirect "Louis XVII of France". Thereby, that problem is solved. Wikipedia should, according to its rules of NPOV, redirect this name and adjust to facts as they truly where, not to facts as they where considered to be. --85.226.42.215 (talk) 20:17, 6 August 2010 (UTC)

Frania W, you removed the fact that France was a Republic in 1792-1795 and that he was therefore not a king. That was POV. It does not matter whether we are royalists ourselves. In wp, we must see to reality. Please try to be neutral. Your text gave the impression, that he was in reality king, although he was not recognized as such. This is royalist POV. Why not vote about the title? --85.226.42.215 (talk) 20:27, 6 August 2010 (UTC)

TO: 85.226.42.215,

According to your logic, as France was a republic & this child had lost his titles, he would not have been Dauphin de France either, only Citoyen Louis Charles Capet.

And since his father (I dare not say "the King" for fear of being accused of royalist leanings!) had lost his crown long before losing his head and was called by the republicans "Citoyen Capet", why not rename his article Citoyen Capet, Sr. and that of his son Citoyen Capet, Jr.?

Cordialement,

--Frania W. (talk) 02:17, 7 August 2010 (UTC)

Inconsistencies

The DNA testing that proves he died in prison as a boy is covered in the article, but earlier the article states the mystery is open and another section says evidence favors his escape. The imposter theories certainly need coverage, but it should also be made clear that they've been disproven rather conclusively.

Requested move

The following discussion is an archived discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the move request was: no consensus to support move. Arbitrarily0 ^(talk) 16:29, 29 September 2010 (UTC)

---

Louis XVII of France → Louis XVII — "Louis XVII" is completely unambiguous. Furthermore, it is the title here not because he was king of France (he was not), but because this is the most common way to refer to him. While I don't really think we should pre-emptively disambiguate in general, there is truly no need to pre-emptively disambiguate per WP:NCROY for Louis XVII, because he wasn't actually a king. john k (talk) 15:53, 11 September 2010 (UTC)

Survey

Feel free to state your position on the renaming proposal by beginning a new line in this section with *'''Support''' or *'''Oppose''', then sign your comment with ~~~~. Since polling is not a substitute for discussion, please explain your reasons, taking into account Wikipedia's policy on article titles.

• Oppose This is not a matter of disambiguating. He's not referred to just as "Louis XVII", but as "Louis XVII of France". If there were a flower named after him, or a passing reference to him in an article on children's clothing, then he would not be called just "Louis XVII". Let's give him his full name which includes "of France". It's just plain incorrect to suggest that most royals can be referred to merely by their first names and without some country designation. Napoleon is an exception - but so too is Cher. Noel S McFerran (talk) 13:38, 12 September 2010 (UTC)
• Oppose, as I agree with Mcferran for the same reasons, so I won't repeat them. -- fdewaele, 15 september 2010, 16:27.

There are all kinds of situations where we provide additional context for in articles on children's clothing. The fact that one sometimes needs to provide additional context doesn't have anything to do with what an article should be titled. john k (talk) 15:04, 15 September 2010 (UTC)

• Oppose. The title does not state he was king, but because this is the manner used for kings, I understand your concern about what it implies. Personally, I think the article titles of royals should be given in the manner of "Louis XV, King of France", which would help avoid any implications or confusion with this article. [tk] XANDERLIPTAK 14:12, 15 September 2010 (UTC)
• Oppose - Whether he ever reigned or not, he was king; of course, not in the eyes of the revolutionaries who kept him prisoner in the Temple & let him die like a dog, but as the continuation of the line of the Kings of France. For whatever reason, his uncle, the comte de Provence, took the title Louis XVIII, not Louis XVII, which means that, historically speaking, he considered his nephew to have been Louis XVII. Consequently, if all the others are Henry, Charles or Louis (number) of France, Louis XVII has his place among them. --Frania W. (talk) 14:53, 15 September 2010 (UTC)

He was not king because the Republic was the de facto government of France. Is Louis XX (or Henri VII) also king of France? I don't see how Louis XVII's claim to have actually been king is much stronger than theirs. john k (talk) 15:04, 15 September 2010 (UTC)

Indeed he was not. His uncle Louis XVIII merely took the regnal numerial XVIII, because he personally (and the monarchists) considered the monarchy as having (retroactively) never been abolished. He considered his nephew as having been King from 1793 to 1795 & himself as King since 1795. GoodDay (talk) 15:52, 15 September 2010 (UTC)

Hugh Magnus of France and Philip of France have both been crowned kings yet neither of them is assigned an ordinal. Do ordinal numbers make people monarchs? Surtsicna (talk) 16:12, 15 September 2010 (UTC)

Since "the Republic was the de facto government of France", which had deposed Louis XVI, who thus was not king when he was executed in 1793, but "Citizen Louis Capet", making his wife, the ex-Queen of France, the "Widow Capet", and since their son is referred to on his death certificate as "Louis Charles Capet", not acknowledged as King Louis XVII of France, why not reflect these in the title of their respective articles with the names given them by the de facto Republic: "Citizen Capet", "Widow Capet" and "Citizen Louis Charles Capet"?[2]

--Frania W. (talk) 18:27, 15 September 2010 (UTC)

Those are the highest positions they held (King & Queen-regnant). As for their son? blame the historians for that one. GoodDay (talk) 20:29, 15 September 2010 (UTC)

Whether or not Louis XVI was king at his death, he certainly had been king before 1792. That is an entirely different matter from Louis XVII, who was never king. He is best known as Louis XVII, so that should appear in his article title, but he wasn't actually king. john k (talk) 20:32, 15 September 2010 (UTC)

To add further, it's made quite clear in the Louis XVII article's infobox & content, that the little guy was never King. GoodDay (talk) 20:45, 15 September 2010 (UTC)

Then, why is he known as Louis XVII? --Frania W. (talk) 22:22, 15 September 2010 (UTC)

Why is this American country musician known as "Hank Williams III"? Surtsicna (talk) 13:39, 16 September 2010 (UTC)

The title of king is hereditary, and passes to the heir upon the death or abdication of his predecessor, just like any other title. When a monarchy is overthrown, the new republic will of course ignore numbering the heirs of the monarchy because the republic, in order to claim sovereignty, must abolish and make illegal the royal title. However, the dynasty always counts the heirs because they will argue the coup illegal or invalid, and declare the republic had no right to claim sovereignty because the monarchs never abdicated sovereignty to the republic. Also, simply because a nation declares a royal title illegal does not obliterate it from the face of the earth, and other countries may still recognize the abolished title, if not the full sovereignty of the deposed monarch, over the authenticity of the new republic. So such things are often contentious and debatable, over who has proper and legal authority. It seems, then, a fair compromise to number the deposed heirs according to tradition, customs and (former) laws of the dynasty, but withhold the actual title from the article name to avoid confrontation with republicans and the new laws that contradict the old. [tk] XANDERLIPTAK 13:32, 17 September 2010 (UTC)

In total agreement with the above argument by Xanderliptak. And while en:wiki is discussing whether this little guy should be Louis XVII, King of France and of Navarre or not, what do we do with the proclamation by the comte de Provence, new Régent du Royaume, made from Hamm on 28 January 1793, and accepted by European countries, plus the United States of America? Are we supposed to ignore it or decide that it is not valid?

• "Nous déclarons que le Dauphin Louis-Charles, né le vingt-septième jour du mois de mars 1785, est ROI DE FRANCE ET DE NAVARRE, sous le nom de Louis XVII, et que par droit de naissance, ainsi que par les dispositions des lois fondamentales du royaume, nous sommes et serons Régent de France durant la minorité du Roi notre neveu et seigneur......

Ce 28 janvier de l'an 1793, et du règne du Roi, le premier."

You can read the whole proclamation here [3]

--Frania W. (talk) 15:51, 17 September 2010 (UTC)

Ought we have James III of England, as well? john k (talk) 16:26, 17 September 2010 (UTC)

John, (I hate to disagree with you!), but who are we to judge in the case of Louis XVII? Is Wikipedia an encyclopedia reporting the facts as they happened - on one side the Republicans, who abolished the monarchy and executed the king; on the other the Royalists, who never recognized the death of the monarchy which lived through a child, and who eventually restored it -, or is this the Tribunal of History, seating both as Judge & Jury?

If you look at the history of France in the 19th century, First Empire, Restoration, July Monarchy, Second Republic, Second Empire, Third Republic, while none of these regimes ignored its predecessor(s), they all took the next number of the "family" to which they belonged, and all are acknowledged by the name they were known at the time: Louis XVIII is not named Louis XVII in French history books. France is now in its fifth Republic, and it acknowledges all previous regimes as having existed, it does not throw them into limboland, which is what en:wiki wants to do to Louis XVII.

--Frania W. (talk) 17:14, 17 September 2010 (UTC)

We can judge on the basis that reliable sources do not consider Louis XVII to have ever reigned. Neither did the people who offered the throne to Louis XVIII, whom they called "Louis Stanislas Xavier". The reign of Louis XVII, as well as the reign of Louis XVIII prior to 1814, exist only in the beliefs of legitimists, and perhaps in the momentary recognition of the great powers for a king ho did not actually reign. Obviously Louis XVIII should be called such, just as Pope Alexander VI should be called that, even though Pope Alexander V is not normally considered to have been a legitimate pope. We call people by how they are known. If they take ordinals that don't make sense, so be it. Louis XVII is obviously a well known personage under that name, but he was not king of France; France was a republic from 1792 to 1804. Beyond that, you didn't answer my question about James III. The Old Pretender was, like Louis XVII, recognized as King of England by various foreign monarchs, including Louis XIV. His supporters also had intermittent control of parts of the British Isles on his behalf, especially parts of Scotland in 1715-1716 and 1745-1746, which is at least as much as Louis XVII ever got (I believe that Toulon recognized him for a while in 1793). But we don't call him king, because he didn't actually reign. The same is true for Louis XVII, except that we have to call him Louis XVII because this is how he is known. john k (talk) 17:59, 17 September 2010 (UTC)

"...we don't call him king, because he didn't actually reign." What kind of reign did 12-year old Edward V of England have? What did he accomplish during his two months of actually being (not crowned) King of England while locked up in the Tower of London?

In my eyes, the fate of Louis XVII is more to be compared to that of Edward V with the conduct of his uncle Richard similar to that of the French revolutionaries who dragged France into the Terror. I know, you are going to tell me that things did not happen in the same order for the two boys as, after the death of his father, Edward V was the rightful king of England, then was imprisoned in the London Tower on the order of his uncle the usurper, stripped of his kingship, thanks to the claim hat he & his brother were illegitimate, and left to die only God knows how; while, Louis-Charles de France had been stripped of all his royal titles, inheritance & rightful name, before being imprisoned in the Temple Tower, then left to die as citoyen Charles Capet in a cubicle only God knows how.

A similar end for two innocent young boys, one, Edward V, a real king, according to en:wiki, but not according to his uncle who had dispossessed him; the other, Louis XVII, not a king because “he did not reign”, and also according to the revolutionaries who had dispossessed him.

--Frania W. (talk) 07:19, 18 September 2010 (UTC)

Edward V was actually recognized as king for a couple of months, and actions were carried out in his name. This is not the case for Louis XVII. The fact that both had unfortunate fates has nothing to do with the fact that Edward V was recognized as king of England for several months, while Louis XVII only "succeeded" to the throne after France had been a republic for five months and his "regent" was living in exile and had no authority in the country either. The situations are not analogous. john k (talk) 16:46, 18 September 2010 (UTC)

• Support as IMHO, the Monarch # of country style is archaic. GoodDay (talk) 15:47, 15 September 2010 (UTC)

Archaic, perhaps, but it still in use to this present day. We can not simply ignore titles because they have origins that date back several centuries, to say "Let's not do that, because it's old." The biggest problem with the current format is the implication of sovereignty, even to those who do not have such powers. So the kings with sovereignty are titled as John I of Narnia, and the princes as John of Narnia. Now, since the former is king, one might assume the latter to be a king since the article title is set up in the same format. Or confuse the latter for the former, or assume the latter was the only John to be of Narnia because they are unaware that there are to be numerals in the article title. Putting in the full royal title leaves no room for mistakes, nor wastes the readers time searching around for the right article. John I, King of Narnia is quite clear and distinct from Prince John of Narnia. [tk] XANDERLIPTAK 13:30, 17 September 2010 (UTC)

• Support, I find the oppose arguments incoherent. Here we have someone who is clearly most commonly known as "Louis XVII", and who is the only person called "Louis XVII". Any "disambiguation" is superfluous (as indeed it is for the other King Louis's), and inconsistency with the others is no bad thing in any case, as this unfortunate boy was not a king in the same way that they were.--Kotniski (talk) 15:10, 18 September 2010 (UTC)

Then the disambiguation page should be a redirect page. I find it more incoherent to have one article named "John I of Place", then the successor's article titled "John II", followed by "John Smith", then back to "John IV of Place". [tk] XANDERLIPTAK 23:59, 22 September 2010 (UTC)

Discussion

Any additional comments:

That would be the title if we agreed to get rid of pre-emptive disambiguation, as John K has proposed - We'd have:

Capetian kings of France.

1. Hugh Capet - or Hugh, King of France
2. Robert II, King of France
3. Henry I, King of France
4. Philip I, King of France
5. Louis VI, King of France (or Louis VI, if he is the primary topic as I believe he is)
6. Louis VII, King of France (or Louis VII, if he is the primary topic as I believe he is)
7. Philip II, King of France
8. Louis VIII, King of France (or Louis VIII, if he is the primary topic as I believe he is)
9. Louis IX, King of France (or Louis IX, if he is the primary topic as I believe he is)
10. Philip III, King of France
11. Philip IV, King of France
12. Louis X, King of France (or Louis X, if he is the primary topic as I believe he is)
13. Philip V, King of France
14. Charles IV, King of France
15. Philip VI, King of France
16. John II, King of France
17. Charles V, King of France
18. Charles VI, King of France
19. Charles VII, King of France
20. Louis XI
21. Charles VIII, King of France
22. Louis XII
23. Francis I, King of France
24. Henry II, King of France
25. Francis II, King of France
26. Charles IX, King of France
27. Henry III, King of France
28. Henry IV, King of France
29. Louis XIV
30. Louis XV
31. Louis XVI
32. Louis XVII - currently proposed
33. Napoleon I - already there
34. Napoleon II - already there
35. Louis XVIII
36. Charles X, King of France
37. Louis Philippe I - already there
38. Napoleon III - already there

For kings between Hugh and Philip II, we might use "King of the Franks" instead of "King of France" - since we use Wenceslaus, King of the Romans instead of Wenceslaus, King of Germany. Surtsicna (talk) 16:21, 11 September 2010 (UTC)

Indeed. In this case, though, I don't think we need to change the convention. john k (talk) 16:34, 11 September 2010 (UTC)

Philip II, Philippe Auguste, who became "Roi des Francs" (Rex Francorum) at the death of his father, gave himself the tile "Roi de France" (Rex franciæ) in 1190. Consequently, should he not be listed with the "Kings of France" since he was the first to bear such a title?

--Frania W. (talk) 15:34, 12 September 2010 (UTC)

Who suggested otherwise? Surtsicna (talk) 16:13, 15 September 2010 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

Of course he was king

Louis XVII was still king even if he was prevented from ruling because the barbaric and evil revolution was illegal and had no lawful power to abolish the monarchy. In any case he is known to history as Louis XVII so this should not be chnaged. (92.11.234.214 (talk) 11:09, 25 November 2010 (UTC))

I wouldn't call the revolution barbaric and evil per sé, but Louis XVII is indeed counted as a King (more so because otherwise the numbering with Louis XVIII - who styled himself the XVIIIth - would be off).

As to the legality of the Revolution, it had some legal base as the Convention and other institutes were created by Louis XVI himself as was the early Constitution of which he formally approved by signing it. Besides as to legality, one could also put forth the claim that Kingship itself had no original legal base either. After all, it only was some dude in way past time who grabbed power by force and made himself King. -- fdewaele, 25 November 2010, 16:06 (CET)

Louis XVII is called Louis XVII, but he is not normally considered to have been king. For the most part, we can really only recognize de facto rulers, because the legitimacy of de jure claims can only be a matter of opinion. Where do we stop? If Louis XVII was king, what about Louis XIX and Henry V? Presumably even 1883 doesn't really end the question, because the republic is just as illegal under the ancient law of France in 1883 as it was in 1793. So wasn't either Philip VII or John III (depending on your interpretation of the treaty of Utrecht and its legality) king of France to exactly the same way that Louis XVII was? Was James III and VIII still king even if he was prevented from ruling because the not-all-that-barbaric Glorious Revolution was illegal and had no lawful power to overthrow James's father and appoint the pretender's half-sister and her husband as monarchs in his stead? I don't dispute that he was generally called "Louis XVII" and that we should stick with this in the article title. But it's fairly absurd to claim Louis XVII was a real king - he was a child who was imprisoned for his whole nominal reign and never in the slightest governed France. john k (talk) 07:28, 26 November 2010 (UTC)

"I wouldn't call the revolution barbaric and evil per sé...", maybe, but, depending on the side of the guillotine one stood, a lot of the "revolutionaries coupeurs de têtes" were.

--Frania W. (talk) 17:25, 26 November 2010 (UTC)

It's not as if the ancient regime was the perfect example of human rights and justice for all either -- fdewaele, 26 Novembe 2010, 19:00 CET.

OK. But you cannot lump the whole Ancien Régime into one that stood against human rights & justice for all. If there is one king in particular who cannot be identified with violation of human rights, it is Louis XVI; and the only "bloodbath" in which he ever participated was his own execution.

--Frania W. (talk) 18:59, 26 November 2010 (UTC)

His uncle Louis XVIII was quite right and knew what he was doing. (92.8.137.211 (talk) 11:10, 28 November 2010 (UTC))

Note that in any case, he was 'recognised' informally by his family (Marie Antointte, Marie-Therese and Madame Elizabeth) at the time of Louis's death. Either, he needs the 'of France', since he was nonetheless a Dauphin of France, and would have been the heir if he had not died. It does not say he was king, do note. Kfodderst (talk) 11:35, 4 April 2011 (UTC)

Article Needs Significant Work to Reduce Messiness and Improve Clarity

It's messy, under-referenced and poorly structured at the moment. There are numerous resources for Louis Charles: eg, Marie-Therese: The Fate of Marie Antoinette's Daughter by Nagel, Catelot's version, etc. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Kfodderst (talk • contribs) 11:41, 4 April 2011 (UTC)

Biography is (Copyright Violation) Copied Right Out of Encyclopedia Britannica

Pretty much the entire biography section is taken word for word from The Encyclopædia Britannica, and no source credit is provided. The phrase "the little Dauphin was again separated" should have been a clue here! Copied and pasted straight out of the prestigious Britannica.

http://books.google.com/books?id=o0EOAQAAMAAJ&lpg=PA45&ots=vkJK3vwe85&dq=%22the%20little%20Dauphin%20was%20again%20separated%22&pg=PA45#v=onepage&q=%22the%20little%20Dauphin%20was%20again%20separated%22&f=false — Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.115.124.196 (talk) 03:47, 24 November 2011 (UTC)

And just to clarify, because I'm sure it will come up: even if a source is in the public domain (this source is), you still have to cite it to avoid possible plagiarism, and you sure as heck can't just copy and paste it (blatant plagiarism) just because it's "public domain." — Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.115.124.196 (talk) 03:53, 24 November 2011 (UTC)

DNA tests in 1993 *and* 2000?

Was there really a separate DNA test in 1993 before the one in 2000 performed by Delorme? I have no access to the book cited for 1993. It seems strange anyway. KarlFrei (talk) 13:24, 6 March 2014 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Louis XVII of France. 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/20081006063500/http://louis17.ifrance.com/ to http://louis17.ifrance.com/

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 17:38, 13 September 2016 (UTC)

Boris Serov

"The tales told by royalist writers of cruelty inflicted Simon... on the child are not proven"

But you write: "Dr.Pelletan was shocked to see the countless scars with covered the body Louis Charles. The scars were result of the phisical abuse the shild suffered" "Good Simon" was not monster ? Who did tortured Louis Charles ? Were is logic ? P.S. Sister Louis Charles, Marie Terese, wrote in memories too, about "monster Simon" ... Amberlinn (talk) 12:02, 28 February 2017 (UTC)

That is indeed very strange.

If dr. pelletan account is an accepted source then that part should be edited accordingly.

The child suffered so greatly that he died at 10 and had a great number of scars, together with the accepted fact that he was coerced to lie against his mother and stopped talking there should be no doubt his life was extremely difficult. His sister's comments reflect that. Of course his sister and pelletan have reason to lie or exxaggerate, this goes the same for those denying the accusation. We might never know for sure as as far as we know the article should be changed to reflect evidence which is brought not even 2 paragraphs below where it is disputed. 46.132.31.195 (talk) 12:35, 9 July 2022 (UTC)

Fersen and impact

The story of Fersen being the father was an important factor in the life of the child and was debated by many historians. Also the impact of the pregnancy on the mother and the family. Finally the importance of a new major source like Fraser. Marc dolphin (talk) 18:40, 11 April 2017 (UTC)

@ Marc dolphin

1. It has never been proven that Fersen was the child's father

2. Fraser has not brought any *newer news* or opened any newer debate than had been brought before. It just happened that she was read by a lot of English-speaking (Americans ?) & that a film (with many non-truths) was made right after publication of her book. This brought about a lot of new contributors to Wikipedia who swear by Fraser & Coppola as if they were quoting the Bible!

3. A couple of years ago, I got caught in a situation where a wiki contributor opened a debate on an article talk page. The debate soon turned into a circus, wasting the time of many other contributors, and I am not going to be caught in same situation, so will not come back on this page or any other to discuss with you something that will never be resolved, since you refuse to understand that what you are adding to an article has nothing to do with it, and belongs to another article - and even might not, because it is pure gossip & trivial stuff. As long as you are going to objectify Marie Antoinette & bring up only her supposed massive gain of weight, towering height, poofs, mentions of her becoming a good wife or mother - she was never a bad one - then there is no discussion possible with you. Instead, what you are doing now is making it impossible for anyone to work on the article. In other words, you are holding it, and similar ones hostages.

Conclusion: this article and others where you have put your mark will stay the way they are, i.e. of poor quality & filled with trivial stuff, until someone takes it into his/her hands to deal with it in a different manner than just playing the revert game - which I refuse to do.

NOTE: Try & find any other article in the whole of Wikipedia where a woman's appearance has been so dissected & where so many trivial matters have been included: the article on Marie Antoinette (now protected for one year) used to be & the ones on her children are no better than the libelles that dirtied her during her lifetime.

--Blue Indigo (talk) 21:16, 11 April 2017 (UTC)

Hello my Friend, I already removed some material. I already developed my arguments so let's respect the community and wait . Regards. Marc dolphin (talk) 06:13, 12 April 2017 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Louis XVII of France. 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/20090513073022/http://www.genebase.com/blog/?p=44 to http://www.genebase.com/blog/?p=44

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 04:14, 27 July 2017 (UTC)

Main portrait is his older brother

Block evasion by User:HarveyCarter
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
The article's main portrait is of his older brother Louis-Joseph, who died in 1789. No portraits were painted of any member of the Royal Family after the revolution. The portrait with the yo-yo is the only surviving portrait of Louis XVII. (86.159.61.202 (talk) 11:55, 27 December 2018 (UTC)) If you would like to change this, by proving your point, you should start at the image category page at Commons. You'd need to provide a reliable source (not just your opinion) to get the images (several of them) name-changed. That might prove difficult, since this image has been used as Louis XVII for hundreds of years in thousands of publications. --SergeWoodzing (talk) 21:24, 27 December 2018 (UTC) Commons is another project. English Wikipedia is not bound to it. Very quick Googling confirms that there is indeed doubt about the identity of the sitter. Can the IP user provide some reliable sources (national gallery websites, scholarly works, books and such) that echo this doubt? The portrait should then certainly still be in the article because it is so commonly associated with Louis-Charles, but perhaps not in the infobox and definitely with the reservation in the caption that it might actually be Louis-Joseph. Surtsicna (talk) 21:52, 27 December 2018 (UTC) Since the portrait (in 2 versions) is identified for Wikimedia projects at Commons, I believe it would be a good idea to start there, and I agree, as I said, about a reliable source being needed. Googling, we can find all sorts of inreliable doubts, theories, conjecture and opinionated material. Without reliable sources, googling is worthless. --SergeWoodzing (talk) 22:09, 27 December 2018 (UTC) Yes, the place I found where this doubt is expressed does not look like a reliable source. It seems to quote someone authoritative, but I cannot trace it. Of course, it would be very helpful to make suitable changes at Commons if we agree on something here, but from my experience, it is rather difficult to get feedback there. Surtsicna (talk) 22:55, 27 December 2018 (UTC) They're not so much into feedback there, but they do like reliable sources added whenever possible. --SergeWoodzing (talk) 23:43, 27 December 2018 (UTC) You heard it, IP. Cite it or lose it! :D Surtsicna (talk) 23:51, 27 December 2018 (UTC) The portrait has been confirmed as his older brother Louis-Joseph, who died a month before the revolution. The portrait with the yo-yo is the only portrait of Louis-Charles. (86.183.112.121 (talk) 11:59, 28 December 2018 (UTC)) Says who? Give us a reputable source. Surtsicna (talk) 12:49, 28 December 2018 (UTC) Indeed, your mere say so isn't a reputable source. Especially as it up to now has always been attributed to Louis XVII and you are the one wanting to change the status quo. Especially as the offical website of the museum of the Château de Versailles uses this painting for Louis XVII (http://www.chateauversailles.fr/decouvrir/histoire/grands-personnages/louis-xvii) -- fdewaele, 28 December 2018, 14:35 CET. Museums have often made mistakes. The main portrait on this page for Louis XVII is of his older brother. (81.159.82.116 (talk) 19:13, 29 December 2018 (UTC)) Any museum would be a much more reliable source than just the personal opinion of one IP user, or any other user, for that matter. Wikipedia is not a forum for the unsubstantiated personal opinions of any of us users. Material that is not supported by reliable sources, cited in the article, is unsubstantiated and cannot be used for anything on Wikipedia. --SergeWoodzing (talk) 21:58, 29 December 2018 (UTC) The monarchy had been deposed by the time the portrait was supposedly painted. It was actually a portrait of Louis-Joseph in 1788. (81.159.82.90 (talk) 15:31, 30 December 2018 (UTC)) Please give us a reliable source for your claim, or else stop this repetitious annoyance! --SergeWoodzing (talk) 18:05, 30 December 2018 (UTC) A biography of Louis XVI described the portrait as of his eldest son. It seems unlikely any royal portraits would have been allowed after the disastrous Flight to Varennes in 1791. (DickDurbane (talk) 19:11, 30 December 2018 (UTC)) [Which page of] which biography? Surtsicna (talk) 23:23, 30 December 2018 (UTC)

Requested move 27 January 2019

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 section.

The result of the move request was: Not moved. (non-admin closure)  samee  converse  20:28, 3 February 2019 (UTC)

---

Louis XVII of France → Louis-Charles, Dauphin of France – The article Legitimists already calls him this name. This person never actually reigned, he was only claimed to be king. PatGallacher (talk) 13:40, 27 January 2019 (UTC)

• I quote WP:NCROY: "Do not apply an ordinal in an article title for a pretender, i.e., someone who has not reigned; instead call them what independent secondary sources in English call them. For example, use Louis Alphonse, Duke of Anjou, not Louis XX, for the legitimist pretender to the French throne. Such a person may however be referred to by a title, for example, Victor Emmanuel, Prince of Naples for the last Italian Crown Prince. But he should not have his article titled Victor Emmanuel IV even though Italian royalists call him so. (Such a name should redirect to the article.)" PatGallacher (talk) 14:03, 27 January 2019 (UTC)
• Oppose the subject is best known & reliably sourced most under the current name. That's what Wikipedia goes by. --SergeWoodzing (talk) 15:12, 27 January 2019 (UTC)
• Oppose, while he may not have actually reigned France and it stems from the Bourbon propaganda and the theory that the thone is never vacant, this name (Louis XVII) is the name under which history knows him. There is no need to go against the common name use and rename the article to a name which is less common. -- fdewaele, 27 January 2019, 16:25 CET
• Oppose - it's true that he was never king of France, as by the time of his father's execution, there was 'no throne' to succeed to. But, he's still most commonly known as Louis XVII. Note - his uncle took the name Louis XVIII upon restoration of the throne in 1814. GoodDay (talk) 16:58, 27 January 2019 (UTC)
  • Reply - I am aware of that point about Louis XVIII, that doesn't necessarily clinch the argument. PatGallacher (talk) 17:53, 27 January 2019 (UTC)

WP:Commonname still applies. GoodDay (talk) 20:21, 27 January 2019 (UTC)

Not sure that is his common name, you may find that histories of the time just refer to him as "the Dauphin". PatGallacher (talk) 20:31, 27 January 2019 (UTC)

• Comment: Britannica calls him Louis (XVII). That might be a reasonable compromise. The title proposed by PatGallacher is not optimal, but I understand the desire to differentiate a pretender from actual kings (e.g. Louis XII of France, Louis XV of France, etc). Surtsicna (talk) 00:00, 28 January 2019 (UTC)
• Oppose - the current article name is his most common name in the literature (as stated by SergeWoodzing above), renaming the article is not an improvement. Fbergo (talk) 00:02, 28 January 2019 (UTC)
• Oppose as Terry Pratchett wrote “The only thing known to go faster than ordinary light is monarchy, according to the philosopher Ly Tin Wheedle. He reasoned like this: you can't have more than one king, and tradition demands that there is no gap between kings, so when a king dies the succession must therefore pass to the heir instantaneously." עם ישראל חי (talk) 19:19, 28 January 2019 (UTC)
• Comment - I suppose, one could equally wonder why we don't have Louis XIX of France & Henry V of France, as those two individuals have a stronger claim of having been French monarchs. GoodDay (talk) 23:59, 28 January 2019 (UTC)

Because they are not widely known by those name versions? --SergeWoodzing (talk) 06:51, 30 January 2019 (UTC)

---

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page or in a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

Dauphin is the heir apparent

the article currently starts out with "he became the heir apparent to the throne and the Dauphin of France", but that's one thing, not two things. it should be "he became the Dauphin of France, the heir apparent to the throne, and..." — Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.7.201.234 (talk) 22:28, 12 November 2019 (UTC)

Move discussion in progress

There is a move discussion in progress on Talk:Louis XIV of France which affects this page. Please participate on that page and not in this talk page section. Thank you. —RMCD bot 21:30, 21 June 2020 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 13 March 2022

Please add the category Category:Royal reburials 67.173.23.66 (talk) 17:46, 13 March 2022 (UTC)

 Done by SergeWoodzing on 02:02, 14 March 2022. --Jhertel (talk) 17:29, 30 April 2023 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 30 April 2022

Please add the category Category:Heirs apparent who never acceded. 67.173.23.66 (talk) 17:16, 30 April 2022 (UTC)

 Done ★Ama ^{TALK CONTRIBS} 17:20, 5 May 2022 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 30 April 2023

Please add the following template to the bottom of the article:

2601:249:9301:D570:ED46:5CCB:F533:719E (talk) 16:21, 30 April 2023 (UTC)

 Done, and thanks. --Jhertel (talk) 17:14, 30 April 2023 (UTC)