Talk:Charlotte Corday

Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment

This article is or was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): Sj.will.

Above undated message substituted from Template:Dashboard.wikiedu.org assignment by PrimeBOT (talk) 17:15, 16 January 2022 (UTC)

Mysogyny

Mysogyny
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
What is that about "Revolutionary mysoginism?" Wasn't the Revolution a more liberal force, promoting more rights for women? I'm not sure what I think of the phrase (BTW, in the article it is correctly "mysogyny", not "mysoginism"). I do believe that women in general were somewhat better off in terms of rights, especially economic rights, after the Revolution, but there were probably more truly influential women under the monarchy than during the Revolution. Olympe de Gouges was an impressive figure, but was guillotined, as was Madame Roland. Of course, so many of the revolutionaries were guillotined that it is hard to say that proves much. I'd love to know where the phrase came from; I doubt it was pulled out of thin air; I'd much rather see it quoted from whoever said it. -- Jmabel | Talk 19:16, May 8, 2005 (UTC) You are both wrong. In English the correct spelling is misogyny or misogynism from the Greek μισογυνία or μισογύνης, which is a contraction of μισέω (I hate) and γυνή (woman). It is the opposite of misandry or misandrism. But it is academic, as I believe that the phrase has already been removed from the article. But it raises the question wether Charlotte Corday was guilty of misandrism and that her actions actually promoted misogynism. But I will be bold and speculate that after her actions the hate of the revolution focused on Marie Antoinette (whom the French did not like anyway). But I will also go on record for saying that the issues concerning the French revolution are very complicated. When taught history at school, we were led to believe that the French were not necessarily against the monarchy but that the French poor had such massive problems that something had to be done. The Monarchy and the Aristocracy however, did not seem to be doing anything. The French had such massive problems that I do not think that promoting women's rights was a big priority. If you are interested in "Revolutionary Misogyny" it may be worth your while reading Leslie Ann Minot's entry in Le siècle de George Sand, pages 147 to 156 (Powell, David A., Le Siècle de George Sand., Amsterdam ; Atlanta (enquiries), 1998, 373p, ISBN 978-9042004738). --JHvW (talk) 19:52, 14 August 2010 (UTC)

Recently linked

At a quick skim, the recently linked Marat, premier de Corday looks like historical ("Marat, first of Corday"), by Gilles Marchal (in French) looks like it may be historical fiction. I gave it about 2 minutes and couldn't be sure. My French is not good enough for me to make a proper evaluation quickly. Could someone with good French please have a look at this and let us know just what it is (the title is by no means self-explanatory) so we can work out whether it should be linked? Thanks. -- Jmabel | Talk 05:13, August 18, 2005 (UTC)

• I gave it a bit more of a read and I think it is a somewhat fictionalized history (fictionalized at least in that it includes presumably imaginary dialogue) and that it is quite hostile to Marat, whose rhetoric it compares to Goebbels'. I don't think it's very useful, either here or in the article on Marat. Its first appearance in Wikipedia was an edit last month in the French Wikipedia by fr:Utilisateur:Adrienne who says on her personal page in the French Wikipedia, "je suis une fan inconditionnelle et fidèle de Gilles Marchal" (apparently for his singing) which doesn't exactly convince me that she would be the most objective judge of his writing. I'll give another day or two for someone to weigh in and explain why this belongs linked in the English-language Wikipedias (other than in the article on Gilles Marchal, where it would be fine), but if none is forthcoming, I will probably delete from both places it has been linked. -- Jmabel | Talk 06:07, August 19, 2005 (UTC)
  • No one is responding, so I will remove both here and from the article on Marat. -- Jmabel | Talk 04:27, August 20, 2005 (UTC)

It has been re-added, again anonymously. Possible linkspam: User seems to have been adding a bunch of links to one site: Contributions. Remove? - Jmabel | Talk 04:48, 7 March 2006 (UTC)

please, don't remove this links, They result from a very serious French site and can bring a new light on these articles concerning of the French events. It is not a question of linkspam. thank you in advance . Adrienne93 08:07, 9 March 2006 (UTC)

So Adrienne, what exactly is it? At a quick read, it looks like historical fiction. If you want it kept, please explain it in a way that gives some indication why someone would want to look at it. - Jmabel | Talk 04:02, 11 March 2006 (UTC)

Thank you very much, Jmabel to allow me to present these articles to you. Excuse me by advance, I do not write English very well. Let to me very introduce to abort the author of these articles to you: it acts of Gilles Marchal who is a very talented French artist years 1970; It does not sing any more but on the other hand, it writes very good texts on various events of the French history. These texts are not fictionalized, insofar as all that he writes true, is checked thanks to very precise research with the public records.

However, Gilles Marchal introduced there a new element: humour. All that is told true, and is often ignored of the public, but simply treated with much humour. By the French wikipédia, there were many people who adhered to this style of writing, in particular a club of professor of history and librarian of the university of Grenoble, which take for pretexte the texts of Gilles Marchal to feed their debates. I add that there is no financial aspect with these presentations. The site is completely free access. I think sincerely that these bonds, not only do not withdraw anything with quality articles, but can give a new and different approach to the manner of approaching them.

With regard to the aspect of the page (that you find very ugly), I am quite sorry, I am not very gifted in design, however, the texts can be read on a file pdf created to more easily print the accounts suggested. I thank you by advance for again considering with benevolence the maintenance of these bonds in the English wikipédia. In a friendly way. Adrienne93 16:53, 12 March 2006 (UTC)

Nothing here changes my view that these don't belong, but I personally won't delete these links myself, since I've said my piece. I'm going to bring the question to the administrators' notice board, and let them work out what to do. - Jmabel | Talk 17:45, 12 March 2006 (UTC)

Error?

This article says Marat had a lot of Girondists arrested in 1789. This seems very unlikely - too early a year, and I don't think Marat was in a position to order anyone arrested. The Girondists article doesn't mention this either. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Chelydra (talk • contribs) 13 July 2006.

Indeed. I don't think there were any Girondists as such in 1789. - Jmabel | Talk 06:18, 17 July 2006 (UTC)

The Girondins were actually arrested on 31 May 1793! :) Lizzie202.137.86.129 07:11, 19 August 2006 (UTC)

Essential texts

Thanks for every one for this article. I have a note: why there is internal or external link to two essential texts for this story, these are:

• The "Speech to the French who are Friends of Law and Peace" by Mary
• Maximilien Robespierre's words before the execution of King Louis XVI that were linked tp Mary's words "I killed one man to save 100000".

Thank you --Thameen 19:44, 28 September 2006 (UTC)

Mary?? - Jmabel | Talk 03:17, 1 October 2006 (UTC)

Marie-Anne-Charlotte, I guess. --Wetman 04:09, 1 October 2006 (UTC)

Grisly souvenir

"It has been suggested that the skull of Corday remained in the possession of the Bonaparte family and their descendents (via the royal marriage of Marie Bonaparte) throughout the twentieth century." Seems to me that if this is not promptly cited, it should be removed. At best it is curiosa, but uncited it is not even that. - Jmabel | Talk 05:30, 22 November 2006 (UTC)

A skull reputed to have belonged to Charlotte Corday has been the subject of much research. The study of skulls (I believe that phrenology is the appropriate term) has known its ups and downs. Cesare Lombroso was one of the first to propose the idea that criminal behaviour may have a genetic base. This genetic defect could be seen in distinctive traits of, for example, the skull. There is no proof that it is actually the skull of Charlotte Corday or that the skull shows traits of criminality. I would agree that skulls from victims of the guillotine are grisly souvenirs and should preferably not be mentioned. --JHvW (talk) 21:18, 8 September 2010 (UTC)

While it may seem "grisly" to modern people, the keeping of a skull, preferably of an important person, was not unusual for an upper class household in the 19th century, and Craniometry was a serious attempt to scientifically link physical traits to personality traits. (nowadays discounted of course.) Goethe kept what he thought to be Schiller's skull in his house. As late as 1880 Kant's skull was exhumed and craniometrically examined. See also memento mori and vanitas. I see no reason why Corday's skull shouldn't be mentioned, as long as its use is put into the correct perspective. --BjKa (talk) 07:42, 13 July 2015 (UTC)

Good job on this page!

All the facts seem to check out and it's well-cited. Congratulations, editors!Levalley (talk) 19:01, 19 July 2009 (UTC)

Marat Responsible for Reign of Terror?

The article currently states, "In 1793, she was executed under the guillotine for the assassination of Jacobin leader Jean-Paul Marat, who was responsible for the Reign of Terror. "

I highly doubt this is accurate, since Marat was killed in July 1793 and the Reign of Terror didn't begin until September that year, at least according to Wikipedia.

Should I remove it?

Coralys | Talk 02:33, 7 September 2008 (UTC)

Coralys,

It is not the sentence in Charlotte Corday's article that should be removed, but the one in the Reign of Terror that gives its beginning as 5 September 1793. French historians agree on two reigns of Terror,

• The first one (10 August 1792 to 20 September 1792) which began with the attack on the Tuileries followed by the royal family imprisoned in the Temple, the September massacres, and the creation of institutions that were to govern during the second reign of terror.

• The second one (31 May/2 June 1793 to 27/30 July 1794) with a peak in terror called la Grande Terreur (loi du 22 prairial = 10 June 1794), which lasted to the fall of Robespierre.

Marat's inflammatory writings in his L'ami du peuple were definitely a cause of the Terror. Maybe more attention should be given to what he wrote before finding him innocent of the excesses of the Terror while his articles are considered to have led to the events of 10 August 1792 and the September massacres three weeks later.

Frania W. (talk) 14:49, 7 September 2009 (UTC)

English-language historians, at least, universally refer to the period between September 1793 and July 1794 as the Terror. I have never heard of the fall of the monarchy and the September massacres being considered "another" Terror. In any case, even if there are two Terrors, the statement that Marat "was responsible for the Reign of Terror" is at best ambiguous and in dire need of clarification. 24.16.139.34 (talk) 06:27, 20 July 2011 (UTC)

Picture of Charlotte Corday

Picture of Charlotte Corday
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
I am trying to find information about an old picture called "Charlotte Corday Before Her Execution (Victor Von Schubert)" I can be reached at (e-mail removed) Thanks hh You have posed a question in the Wikipedia. It is not usual to ask questions on the discussion page as you have done. Please remove the question when you have found the answer. Should you wish to do this again, please date your question. Otherwise it might linger for a long time. Also the e-mail address you have provided is invalid, so I have removed it. But in part, I will try to answer your question. The picture in question was probably made by Viktor Ritter von Schubert-Soldern, who was an Austrian/Czech artist and probably lived between 1834-1912. He has made many portraits of Ladies. If he painted Charlotte Corday it would have been long after her execution. He would probably have used a model. Maybe the painting is based on the etching that is in the article. Your best bet would be an encyclopedia of art history for that period. Or maybe a German language encyclopedia. JHvW (talk) 10:42, 10 August 2010 (UTC)

Hair and controversy

Does the color of Charlotte Corday's hair need a special section[1]? It seems rather trivial.

Soon after her death, confusion arose surrounding the color of Corday's hair: the opening sentence makes it sound as if in July 1793, at the time the Terror was gaining momentum, France & the Revolution stopped going on with their business because in a state of confusion as to the color of the hair of a woman who had just been beheaded.

Then the story goes on with how Corday had hired a local coiffeur to straighten and lighten her hair, followed with the most important historical discovery: Although this story rapidly became popular in Paris at the time, there is no historical evidence to support that it actually happened.

So... what's the purpose of mentioning it in an encyclopedia?

The whole section is based on a rumour and, even if it was true, it has no importance in Charlotte Corday's role in the French Revolution. It would have only if the colour of her hair had changed the course of History.

As for the conclusion of the section: Part of the reason for the discrepancy in descriptions of Corday can be attributed to the stigma attached to powdered hair. At the time, only nobility and Royalty ever powdered their hair, and in a time of violent anti-royalist revolt, such association can be powerful in influencing popular opinion.[8].

"Only nobility and royalty ever powdered their hair"? How about Robespierre??? - one of the most elegant men in France, who powdered his hair, and who was to head the Committee of Public Safety that sent thousands of people like Charlotte Corday to the guillotine.

The section should be removed.

--Frania W. (talk) 03:22, 13 August 2010 (UTC)

I do not disagree with you, but removing trivia from a Wikipedia article is very difficult, as I have learned on many occasions. You are certainly right about Robespierre too, and one could mention many other individuals from the Bourgeoisie and Petite bourgeoisie who engaged in the practice. The section is poppycock. Dr. Dan (talk) 21:50, 15 August 2010 (UTC)

Well Dr. Dan, although I am in the proces of becoming a Dr (or Ph.D. or whatever), I find it odd that it is difficult to eradicate meaningless trivia, whereas editors and administrators have no problems removing trivia that are interesting or removing stuff that has no bearing on the content of the article, like removing first names of the subject. I am sorry if I sound bitter, but I have just given up on the WP and am in my final throes (and I have quickly removed all references to ). ----JHvW (talk) 22:40, 15 August 2010 (UTC)

I agree with Frania W. that the section should be removed. Another argument would be that evidence is based on a painting. The artist might have painted her hair in a fashion that was in vogue at the time and not how her hair really was. If you look in the French Wikipedia (if you can read French and are interested in Corday, this is a very interesting article), there are already marked differences between the pastel and painting by Hauer. There can be many problems with paintings. If you look, for example, at Rembrandt's The Anatomy Lesson, a left arm is being dissected. This arm seems much larger than it should be and it could even be a right arm! A British Royal once viewed a portrait of a lady who was proposed as a candidate for marriage. His remark was that she could not be that attractive. One of his courtiers asked if he knew the lady in question, to which he replied: "No, but I know the court painter". Although this evidence is anecdotal and not fact, it illustrates that no conclusions can be drawn about Corday's hair based on a portrait. Beside which I agree with Frania W. that Corday's place in history and in the Wikipedia has no relation to her hair. Again, the section about Corday's hair should be deleted.

If you look at the picture of Corday being conducted to her execution, you will see that a man is carrying a red robe. She wore this, as she was instructed to wear red as was customary for murderers and assassins.

There are many other things that are much more interesting like a good translation and references, for the letter she wrote to her father about her actions, or some of her other quotes, like:

• All true patriots will meet in heaven. ( patriotism).
• It is the toilet of death, but it leads to immortality. ( being guillotined).
• You die only once and it is for such a long time. ( death).
• I did not kill a man, I killed a beast. ( the assasination of Marat).

Or a good translation of her "Address to the French laws and friends of peace", her apology of her actions (this is a translation I found on Google, it should of course be "Address to the French friends of laws and of peace").

--JHvW (talk) 18:43, 15 August 2010 (UTC)

First name

Corday, Charlotte Corday or Marie-Anne Charlotte de Corday d'Armont: A case in Wikilawyering and the MoS.
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
Question: Is last-name-only applying mostly to modern women artists, assassins, politicians, scientists, writers etc., or is it to cover every woman in history? Reason for question: First name has been removed from article [2], with no directing of readers to Wikipedia convention prohibiting use of subject of article's first name; this leaves some readers in the dark as to Wikipedia policy on (non)use of first name. --Frania W. (talk) 17:42, 15 August 2010 (UTC) Answer: This is not the place for such questions. You should ask that here. First name was only removed from sentences whose subject was clearly Charlotte Corday. There is absolutely no need to mention the subject by both name and surname when the surname alone is enough. Nicolas Sarkozy is not called "Nicolas Sarkozy" throughout the entire article about him; he is normally referred to as "Sarkozy", per common sense and Wikipedia:Manual of Style (biographies)#Subsequent uses of names. The use of the first name is not prohibited; it's simply deprecated if a surname can be used. Surtsicna (talk) 18:21, 15 August 2010 (UTC) Dear Frania, this is why I am quiting the WP. To much discussion about things that are not factual or important. Have fun here, do not get discouraged like I did. BTW, I will remove our little discussion about hair colour, people might think we are not serious ;-) --JHvW (talk) 18:42, 15 August 2010 (UTC) The reason of my question had a direct relation with the fact that the first name "Charlotte" was removed from the article on "Charlotte Corday", so I do not see why Talk:Charlotte Corday is not the place to ask the question. How can the naming of Charlotte Corday, an 18th century historical figure known by that name, be compared to that of 21st century Nicolas Sarkozy? --Frania W. (talk) 21:24, 15 August 2010 (UTC) You asked: "Is last-name-only applying mostly to modern women artists, assassins, politicians, scientists, writers etc., or is it to cover every woman in history?" I do not see the name of Charlotte Corday here. What I see is "modern women artists, assassins, politicians, scientists, writers, etc" and "every woman in history". Thus, I believe that the question should be asked at Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style (biographies). Both Charlotte Corday, an 18th century historical figure known by that name, and Nicolas Sarkozy, a 21st century figure known by that name, had a first name and a last name, didn't they? Would you now please tell me why we are having this discussion? Do you think that the first name should be restored and that she should always be referred to as "Charlotte Corday" and never simply as "Corday"? If so, why? Surtsicna (talk) 22:50, 15 August 2010 (UTC) Why are we having this discussion? Because the first name of this 18th century woman, who has always been known as "Charlotte Corday", has been arbitrarily removed, and because: "Corday" not preceded by "Charlotte" sounds like (American) journalistic lingo in addressing women by their last name only. Please look at the following pre-20th century subjects of en:wiki: Madame de Sévigné remains so in her article, not "Rabutin-Chantal" or "Sévigné"; Françoise d'Aubigné, marquise de Maintenon is never mentioned as "d'Aubigné" or "Scarron"; Madame de Pompadour is not "Poisson"; Comtesse du Barry is not "Bécu"; Sophie Rostopchine, comtesse de Ségur is "comtesse de Ségur", not "Rostopchine" or "Ségur". One exception: George Sand, "Sand" most of the time, which would have been fine with her as she chose a masculine "nom de plume" and loved to act like a man, which was not the case of Charlotte Corday. Yes, and why are we spending time on removal of names or wikipediazing them instead of putting real meat on the subject, like having a translation of the following text in the article, instead of stupid trivia on the color of her hair? Adresse aux Français amis des lois et de la paix. « Jusqu’à quand, ô malheureux Français, vous plairez-vous dans le trouble et dans les divisions ? Assez et trop longtemps des factieux, des scélérats, ont mis l’intérêt de leur ambition à la place de l’intérêt général ; pourquoi, victimes de leur fureur, vous anéantir vous-mêmes, pour établir le désir de leur tyrannie sur les ruines de la France ? « Les factions éclatent de toutes parts, la Montagne triomphe par le crime et l’oppression, quelques monstres abreuvés de notre sang conduisent ces détestables complots […] Nous travaillons à notre propre perte avec plus de zèle et d'énergie que l'on n'en mit jamais à conquérir la liberté ! Ô Français, encore un peu de temps, et il ne restera de vous que le souvenir de votre existence ! « Déjà les départements indignés marchent sur Paris, déjà le feu de la discorde et de la guerre civile embrase la moitié de ce vaste empire ; il est encore un moyen de l'éteindre, mais ce moyen doit être prompt. Déjà le plus vil des scélérats, Marat, dont le nom seul présente l'image de tous les crimes, en tombant sous le fer vengeur, ébranle la Montagne et fait pâlir Danton, Robespierre, ces autres brigands assis sur ce trône sanglant, environnés de la foudre, que les dieux vengeurs de l'humanité ne suspendent sans doute que pour rendre leur chute plus éclatante, et pour effrayer tous ceux qui seraient tentés d'établir leur fortune sur les ruines des peuples abusés ! « Français ! vous connaissez vos ennemis, levez-vous ! Marchez ! que la Montagne anéantie ne laisse plus des frères, des amis ! J'ignore si le ciel nous réserve un gouvernement républicain, mais il ne peut nous donner un Montagnard pour maître que dans l'excès de ses vengeances […] Ô France ! ton repos dépend de l'exécution des lois ; je n'y porte pas atteinte en tuant Marat : condamné par l'univers, il est hors la loi. Quel tribunal me jugera ? Si je suis coupable, Alcide l'était donc lorsqu'il détruisait les monstres ! [...] « Ô ma patrie ! Tes infortunes déchirent mon cœur ; je ne puis t'offrir que ma vie ! et je rends grâce au ciel de la liberté que j'ai d'en disposer ; personne ne perdra par ma mort ; je n'imiterai point Pâris (le meurtrier de Lepeletier de Saint-Fargeau) en me tuant. Je veux que mon dernier soupir soit utile à mes concitoyens, que ma tête portée dans Paris soit un signe de ralliement pour tous les amis des lois ! que la Montagne chancelante voie sa perte écrite avec mon sang ! que je sois leur dernière victime, et que l'univers vengé déclare que j'ai bien mérité de l'humanité ! Au reste, si l'on voyait ma conduite d'un autre œil, je m'en inquiète peu : Qu'à l'univers surpris cette grande action, Soit un objet d'horreur ou d'admiration Mon esprit, peu jaloux de vivre en la mémoire, Ne considère point le reproche ou la gloire. Toujours indépendante et toujours citoyen, Mon devoir me suffit, tout le reste n'est rien, Allez, ne songez plus qu'à sortir d'esclavage !... « Mes parents et mes amis ne doivent point être inquiétés, personne ne savait mes projets. Je joins mon extrait de baptême à cette adresse, pour montrer ce que peut être la plus faible main conduite par un entier dévouement. Si je ne réussis pas dans mon entreprise, Français ! Je vous ai montré le chemin, vous connaissez vos ennemis; levez-vous ! Marchez ! Frappez ! » or this, her last letter to her father - with the advantage of being shorter: « Pardonnez-moi, mon cher papa, d’avoir disposé de mon existence sans votre permission. J’ai vengé bien d’innocentes victimes, j’ai prévenu bien d’autres désastres. Le peuple, un jour désabusé, se réjouira d’être délivré d’un tyran. Si j’ai cherché à vous persuader que je passais en Angleterre, c’est que j’espérais garder l’incognito, mais j’en ai reconnu l’impossibilité. J’espère que vous ne serez point tourmenté. En tout cas, je crois que vous auriez des défenseurs à Caen. J’ai pris pour défenseur Gustave Doulcet : un tel attentat ne permet nulle défense, c’est pour la forme. Adieu, mon cher papa, je vous prie de m’oublier, ou plutôt de vous réjouir de mon sort, la cause en est belle. J’embrasse ma sœur que j’aime de tout mon cœur, ainsi que tous mes parents. N’oubliez pas ce vers de Corneille : Le Crime fait la honte, et non pas l’échafaud ! C’est demain à huit heures, qu’on me juge. Ce 16 juillet. » --Frania W. (talk) 01:04, 16 August 2010 (UTC) This is Wikipedia and it is in English. "'Corday' not preceded by 'Charlotte' sounds like (American) journalistic lingo in addressing women by their last name only." Men are also addressed by last name only. It is not a journalistic lingo; every biography refers to its subject by the subject's last name. This is just one example of a book that calls Charlotte Corday simply "Corday". "Yes, and why are we spending time on removal of names or wikipediazing them instead of putting real meat on the subject, like having a translation of the following text in the article, instead of stupid trivia on the color of her hair?" Wikipediazing Wikipedia articles is what I can do to improve them and, for some reason, I believe that Wikipedia articles should be... wikipediazed. How odd. As for those pre-20th century women, they are referred to by their noble titles because they had them. Had you bothered to read the Manual of Style, you would've found out that a "person may be referred to by given name in the case of royalty, or as 'Prince John', 'Princess Jane', 'The Duke', 'The Earl', 'The Duchess', 'The Countess', etc" and that "a member of the nobility may be referred to by title if that form of address would have been the customary way to refer to him or her; for example Robert Dudley, 1st Earl of Leicester may become 'the Earl of Leicester' or just 'Leicester' in subsequent mentions". Sand is not the only exception and I am sure you know that. Unless, of course, Victor Hugo and hundreds of others did not live before the 20th century. Surtsicna (talk) 09:54, 16 August 2010 (UTC) In this case I will defend Frania W. for the following reasons: First of all the book continually refers to Marie-Anne Charlotte de Corday d'Armont as Charlotte Corday and not Corday, so I do not understand the point. Also if the article needs to be wikipediazed why not refer to Charlotte Corday by her first name, it will give the article a much more intimate feel. Maybe wikipediazing is important. Prioritizing what should be done is also important. The Wikipedia is filled with (untrue) trivia, urban legends and myths. Why not limit those first? There are many issues to address. Many contributors add information that is important, even though an administrator or editor may not think so. Trivia is eradicated if it is stated that it may be trivia (I am familiar with WP policy) but disguising it as DYK (do or did you know), or incorporating (I prefer hiding) it in text, is allowed never the less. International law has such a thing as "transparency", it should be the same in the Wikipedia. And going through administrative procedures when wronged is just a waste of time (for many). Why does the Wikipedia have a DYK section on the main page? Is this not tempting potential readers with trivia? And at the same time contravening it's own policy? These discussion pages, were they not made to discuss issues in a civil manner, so they could be resolved, rather than what is happening now: administrators and editors removing facts, names and what have you not, without any discussion. Claiming to be following guidelines or policies or referring to manuals as a defense I have heard many times before (but I am not going on record to say where, I wish to keep this civil). Many foreigners contribute to this Wikipedia, in some countries the Pope is referred to as the Holy Father, should that be wikipediazed? In France important women were referred to as Madame, for example Madame Élisabeth, whereas in English she is usually referred to as Princess Élisabeth of France or just Élisabeth of France. In the article in the Wikipedia she is referred to as both Madame Élisabeth and Élisabeth. In the article about Élisabeth of France it also says There is much evidence to suggest but the evidence is not offered or referenced. It is not my opinion that that article should be wikipediazed, it just goes to show that it is very difficult for contributors to know what is allowed or not. Also I have seen discussion pages where it is clear that that a reader does not know the difference between a mistress, a lover and a prostitute. Are contributors going to have to write everything in "postman Pat" language? If a new article is published, however short, it can sometimes be edited by three different administrators within the hour, leaving practically nothing. Please give contributor's some time to substantiate their claims and/or do this by asking them to do so on the discussion page. The task of an encyclopedia is not only to provide facts but also to educate (in my opinion). Just as it is not usual for a contributor to make the life of an editor difficult. What is important can be very subjective, sometimes common sense has to prevail. Or as Mark Twain once said: "I never let schooling interfere with my education". --JHvW (talk) 14:12, 16 August 2010 (UTC) "First of all the book continually refers to Marie-Anne Charlotte de Corday d'Armont as Charlotte Corday and not Corday, so I do not understand the point." On the pages 182-185, it refers to "Corday". "Also if the article needs to be wikipediazed why not refer to Charlotte Corday by her first name, it will give the article a much more intimate feel." Because the article is not supposed to have an "intimate feel". It is supposed to have an encyclopaedic feel. None of us had a coffee with Corday and none of us was intimate with her. Wikipedia:Manual of Style (biographies)#Subsequent uses of names says that "it is preferable to refer to the person by surname, not given name, even if the subject is not controversial. The use of the given name gives the impression that the writer knows the subject personally, which, even if true, is not relevant." The article may have other issues, but its prose and tone are not less important than those issues. Surtsicna (talk) 14:25, 16 August 2010 (UTC) As I clicked on the "Save page" key, I met an edit conflict: the following was meant as an answer to Surtsicna ahead of the two above exchanges: Before putting my final period to this discussion: Men are and have been generally addressed/talked about by their last name, yes; some women in modern times, and now by their last name only in what I call "(American) journalistic lingo": because of the equality of sexes, everybody is treated the same, and George Sand was a very particular case in 19th century France, so I am not making her the rule, but rather the exception. Frédéric Chopin is "Chopin", Robert Schumann is "Schumann", while his wife Clara is usually referred as "Clara Schumann" or "Clara Wieck". If you care to read her en:wiki article, either of these names is used and, only once, toward the end, is her first name dropped: "Wieck-Schumann was the authoritative editor of her husband's works for the publishing firm of Breitkopf & Härtel." I see no attempt at having her being called only "Schumann" throughout the article. The same with Constanze Mozart who is either "Constanze" or "Constanze Mozart" in her en:wiki article, never "Mozart" alone. So, should we treat Charlotte Corday like an 18th century historical personage or like a 20th/21st century "animal de média"? What I mean by "wikipediazing", and I should have written "anglo-wikipediazing", does not have to do only with the dropping of first names in the case of historical women personages (Joan of Arc: Arc?), but the abomination of the use of "titles" in the titles of articles, where "Princes", "Princesses", who never bore these titles in their own time & country, trip over each other in en:wiki, "Prince + Comte + Duc" added one on top of the other like excess of crème chantilly in a chou à la crème to the point of indigestion: on the one hand, names are dropped, on the other titles are piled up. This is my beef - not the talk page for this, of course, but try mentioning those on appropriate discussion pages & your voice is quickly drowned by the owners of these pages who have made it their place of residence. As for the titles of nobility & way of address, I have not waited for the apparition of en:wiki to learn about their use and I do not spend my waking hours trying to learn (or should I say "unlearn") things from what has been written by not infallible wikipedians. What arrogance on my part! Going back to Charlotte Corday: 217 years after being beheaded, must her name be beheaded also? --Frania W. (talk) 15:32, 16 August 2010 (UTC) Obviously, referring to Constanze Mozart as simply "Mozart" might mislead the reader into thinking that the subject of a sentence is her husband. Unlike Constanze Mozart and Clara Schumann, Corday is not notable for being someone's wife. Anna Gottlieb, who wasn't notable for being wife of a Gottlieb, is called "Gottlieb". The articles about other women who were not notable for being married to someone, such as Maria Theresia von Paradis, Maria Anna de Raschenau and Amélie-Julie Candeille, refer to their subjects by the subjects' last names. Even some figures known for their relationship with a more significant person, such as Elisabeth de Vaudey, are referred to by their last name (in the case of de Vaudey, it could be due to the fact that she did not share her last name with a a more famous relative). So, should we treat Corday as a person notable for being someone's wife or as a person notable in her own right? Surtsicna (talk) 16:10, 16 August 2010 (UTC) My apologies for the edit conflicts, it was I and I was really getting going, so it was taking a little longer than I expected. So I will add my thoughts in abbreviated form. In the book that is mentioned Corday is named Charlotte Corday on pages 181, 182, 183, 185 and 186. In the French Wikipedia Corday is named Charlotte Corday, Miss Corday or Citizen Corday, but never Corday. So is it better to be consistent with the manual of style or with sister Wikipedia's? Your example: Robert Dudley, 1st Earl of Leicester may become 'the Earl of Leicester' or just 'Leicester' in subsequent mentions, is incorrect, he is generally referred to as 'Dudley'. This has a reason. 'X' the nth Earl of 'Y' and the nth Earl of 'Z' is referred to as 'X' and not 'Y' or 'Z'. Robert the Bruce was officially King Robert I of Scotland, but he is generally known as Robert the Bruce, so calling him that in an article would not get any complaints. Madame Élisabeth should be referred to as the princess in English although the French would probably refer to her as Madame Élisabeth. Is readability for foreign language speakers not also an issue? Many foreigners contribute to this Wikipedia. Are we going to abolish calling the Pope our Holy Father? Some of the readers do not understand the difference between a mistress, a lover and a prostitute. Are contributors going to have to write in "postman Pat" English? "The Simpsons" occupy many pages in the Wikipedia. The main characters have their own pages and these pages are sometimes considered showpiece articles. Is this is what being serious means in the Wikipedia? These are cartoon characters! And are we going to call Bart Bartholomew because that is what the manual of style says? When he is generally known as Bart, which is claimed to be an anagram of brat? Common sense says to call Marie-Anne Charlotte de Corday d'Armont just plain old Charlotte Corday. If you wish I can cite many other inconsistencies like this, do you really want to go there? I could go on and on and on......... And it is unlikely that Charlotte Corday drank coffee. --JHvW (talk) 16:38, 16 August 2010 (UTC) And I agree with Frania, in daily life leading by example is common enough. The fact that the Wikipedia is filled with inconsistencies makes the life of administrators and editors hard. But what about the contributors (do not forgot that they are also volunteers)? --JHvW (talk) 17:10, 16 August 2010 (UTC) On page 182, Cordelia Scharpf (the author) refers to Corday as Corday eight time and then cites a letter in which the subject of the article refers to Corday only once and thus, naturally, calls her "Charlotte Corday". "Frenzel introduced a carriage ride from Caen to Paris that brings Corday together with Pontmartin..." "Frenzel employed a flashback in which Corday encountered Marat..." "After Corday stabbed Marat..." "...she researched on Corday..." "In addition to compiling archival materials and finding new publications about Corday, Buchner visited the sites where Corday had spent some time." "...where Corday had decided..." "...she wrote about Corday..." "...she wrote the biographical portrait of Corday." The situation is the same in the rest of the book. If you need to cite all five pages in order to prove my point, I will do so. Do I have to? "In the French Wikipedia Corday is named Charlotte Corday, Miss Corday or Citizen Corday, but never Corday. So is it better to be consistent with the manual of style or with sister Wikipedia's?" Is this even a serious question? Of course consistency with the manual of style is far more important than consistency with "sister Wikipedia's". Otherwise we'd refer to Pál Schmitt as Schmitt Pál. The example is not mine. The example was given by the community. Besides, he is referred to as Leicester when talking about events that took place after he was created Earl of Leicester. The Manual of Style explains why: "Be careful not to give someone a title too soon; for example, one should use 'Robert Dudley' or 'Dudley' when describing events prior to his elevation to the peerage in 1564." "Robert the Bruce was officially King Robert I of Scotland, but he is generally known as Robert the Bruce, so calling him that in an article would not get any complaints." Relevance? "Is readability for foreign language speakers not also an issue? Many foreigners contribute to this Wikipedia." Readability for English language speakers should be the only issue. I doubt someone who does not speak English would read a text in English. "Are we going to abolish calling the Pope our Holy Father?" Do we call him "Holy Father"? I haven't seen any reference to a Holy Father in the article about Pope Benedict XVI. The reason is simple - he is not everyone's holy father. Not mine, for example. But what is the point of this argument? "Some of the readers do not understand the difference between a mistress, a lover and a prostitute. Are contributors going to have to write in 'postman Pat' English?" I am not a native speaker of English. Could you please explain to me how the difference between a mistress, a lover and a prostitute is relevant to the Corday vs. Charlotte Corday dispute? "'The Simpsons' occupy many pages in the Wikipedia. The main characters have their own pages and these pages are sometimes considered showpiece articles. Is this is what being serious means in the Wikipedia? These are cartoon characters! And are we going to call Bart Bartholomew because that is what the manual of style says? When he is generally known as Bart, which is claimed to be an anagram of brat?" Another comment whose relevancy I can't see. I was not aware that Bart Simpson was a person. Wikipedia:Manual of Style (biographies)#Subsequent uses of names discusses persons, not cartoon characters. Surtsicna (talk) 17:24, 16 August 2010 (UTC) Constanze Mozart & Clara Schumann are called so in their respective article because that is the way they are always mentioned outside of Wikiland & no one has thought (yet) of wikipediazing them. Then we have Martha Washington, who is never mentioned by either her maiden name only nor her husband's, although (strange how the Mozart's case is not applied in the "Bush" case; or someone should review his comment on Constanze Mozart: "Obviously, referring to Constanze Mozart as simply "Mozart" might mislead the reader into thinking that the subject of a sentence is her husband."), since Laura Bush is sometimes called "Bush" only, which makes readers have to reread the sentence because they do not know whether it is about her or her husband, while "Laura Bush" would have avoided the hesitation in the following: "Bush's political involvement began with her marriage" - only after tripping on "her marriage" does the reader really understands that it is "her" political involvement, not her husband's - "Laura Bush's political involvement..." would have made it clear immediately. Also, I simply cannot resist as, taken out of context, the next two excerpts are eyebrow raising sensations: "By some accounts, he had been Bush's boyfriend at one time.[10]" and: "Bush became the First Lady of Texas...". Going back to the 19th century, and whether her wiki creator ever had coffee or tea with her, Juliette Drouet resides in en:wiki as either "Juliette Drouet" or "Juliette". In other words, the sacrosanct Wikipedia "rules & regulations" can be "thrown to the wind" in some instances, while "rigidity only" is forced down people's throat in others. As for Charlotte Corday, she drank cidre de Normandie[3]. --Frania W. (talk) 17:47, 16 August 2010 (UTC) You do not have to cite every example in the book. My point is that you quote a book that in itself is inconsistent. My point about understanding language and references to popular culture can be combined. You enforce the 'manual of style' yet you are not a native speaker. A visitor to the Wikipedia might think different, they are not aware that the 'manual of style' is different for cartoon characters. They will only be interested in what they have come to look up. If the article makes sense they will probably accept it. But style has no influence on meaning, that is why I included an example of people who did not even grasp basic idea's. Another irrelevant example but which illustrates this point is "Bridges of Madison County" a book by Robert James Waller. The main character is a photographer for the National Geographic Society. Do you have any idea how many people tried to get a back issue from the NGS? Do you know that the film "The madness of King George the Second" was released in the United States as "The madness of King George" because the distributors were afraid that people who liked the film would also want to see the first film. And I believe you are wrong about foreign language speakers. You yourself have stated that you are not an native speaker. Judging by the fact that Frania regularly uses French expressions it is my guess that she is not a native speaker of English either. As she is obviously a contributor, she probably also references the English Language Wikipedia. Cutting short names is not a way of helping people or the Wikipedia, rather the contrary. If you go to pages like The Stig, it is clear that there is a difference in interpretation of the character and his identity between both sides of the Atlantic, but is this really what the Wikipedia should be about? There are many articles (probably written by devout Catholics) who refer to the Pope as our Holy Father. I recently edited an article in which Pope John Paul II was referred to as our Holy Father (I changed it to Pope John Paul II because I felt that was appropriate, but I would be willing to discuss it on a dicussion page). The 'manual of style' is more important than sister projects. What a laugh. As if facts in another country would be different. I would agree that a consistency in style is desirable. I can even accept that referring to a sister project is not desirable. If Pál Schmitt is called Schmitt Pál in Hungary, fine, it should say so in the article or there should be a reference to an article about the way names are put together in different cultures. Good luck on editing more than three million articles (or so it is claimed). You quote the article on Robert Dudley, saying: The example is not mine. The example was given by the community. Besides, he is referred to as Leicester. This is not correct. If you go to the article Robert Dudley, 1st Earl of Leicester, you will see that he is referred to as Dudley, Robert Dudley or Lord Robert, not consistently one or the other. But he is not called Leicester. Administrators and editors should also check their facts before imposing misguided rules on contributors. And if you do not agree with the community, do not mention it. Just one more thing, Standard American Sign Language is not the same as Standard English Sign Language, so American deaf and British deaf cannot communicate with each other using sign language. Have you ever thought about the differences in meaning of the same language between the different cultures? I have lived in the United Kingdom and have travelled extensively within the UK. I have also lived in the United States and have travelled through Canada. I now a little about these things. OK, we have wasted enough of each others time. The Wikipedia is clearly an encyclopedia for Wikiland and not the real world. Have fun here. And by the way, I am a native speaker of English but that proves nothing. --JHvW (talk) 18:45, 16 August 2010 (UTC)

---

The discussion continues at Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style (biographies)#Charlotte Corday. Surtsicna (talk) 08:38, 17 August 2010 (UTC)

---

FYI, this whole debate happened a long time ago for Ada Lovelace (Augusta Ada King, Countess of Lovelace). Ada Lovelace is referred to as "Lovelace" in her article and Charlotte Corday should be referred to as "Corday". It doesn't matter if the pseudonymous surname was part of their real name or not, nor does it matter if they lived in the 20th Century or the 15th Century, nor does it matter if they had a more famous husband. The guidelines are actually pretty clear about this now, so I'm not sure why there is so much confusion and controversy about it. Kaldari (talk) 00:29, 1 September 2010 (UTC)

This is interesting. We have decided to end this discussion long ago. I just dropped by to clean the mess up (and made a hash of it). Your remark is misplaced and it reminds me of a a quote by Douglas Adams, a man I have met and greatly admire: “It is …like a man saying: And another thing…, twenty minutes after admitting he's lost the argument”. From So long, and thanks for all the fish. --JHvW (talk) 19:23, 3 September 2010 (UTC)

The difference is that Kaldari has not "lost" the argument. Besides, everyone can reply at any time (unless the discussion has been archived). His reply might serve in a future discussion. It might bring up another discussion whose goal would be an improvement of the article. It is in an appropriate section and certainly is not misplaced. Surtsicna (talk) 13:27, 8 September 2010 (UTC)

Charlotte Corday's final resting place

Charlotte Corday's final resting place.
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
Like those of many of the victims of the Terror, her remains are at the Paris Catacombes with access Place Denfert-Rochereau in the 14th arrondissement: http://www.google.com/images?hl=fr&lr=&client=firefox-a&hs=bjT&rls=org.mozilla:fr:official&channel=s&q=les+catacombes+de+Paris&um=1&ie=UTF-8&source=univ&ei=0EJhTPzxGsP_lge7iOmrCw&sa=X&oi=image_result_group&ct=title&resnum=5&ved=0CDgQsAQwBA&biw=961&bih=584 Charlotte Corday was buried at the Madeleine cemetery[4] & remains transferred first to the ossuaire de l'ouest in 1844, then to the Catacombes in 1859 [5] --Frania W. (talk) 12:45, 10 August 2010 (UTC) This is correct. Charlotte Corday was buried in the Madeleine cemetery, as were many victims of the Terror decapitated on the Place de la Révolution: Louis XVI, Marie Antoinette, Madame Élisabeth, Philippe Égalité (whose remains were never found), the Girondins, Madame du Barry... Also the Swiss Guards killed at the Tuileries on 10 August 1792. For sanitary reasons, that cemetery was closed in March 1794, with all remains transferred to the Ossuaire de l'ouest in 1844 before their final journey to the Catacombes in 1859. --Frania W. (talk) 20:50, 10 August 2010 (UTC) Would you mind telling me what "Wikipedia guidelines" Frania W. is not respecting... while she "correctly states" ? --Frania W. (talk) 00:44, 11 August 2010 (UTC) Because I do not think Charlotte Corday merits any more of my attention I have removed my edits and will leave the rest to the administrators and editors. JHvW (talk) 08:03, 11 August 2010 (UTC) I have read your writing. Dommage que l'on ne puisse continuer cette conversation autre part. Summarizing, Charlotte Corday was beheaded, then buried at the cimetière de la Madeleine, then her remains probably moved to the ossuaire de l'ouest, then probably to the catacombes, but since we have no official document following every step her remains took, and since whatever remained of the remains at time of transfer to the ossuaire de l'ouest in 1844 made identification impossible (the skull?), we cannot say that it is what happened. As far as I know, aside from Marie Antoinette, none of the victims of the the Terror were identifiable when remains exhumed - have you read the search report for those of Louis XVI? You have stated that Philippe Égalité's remains were never found although he is reputed to have been buried in cimetière de la Madeleine after his beheading. There could be many reasons why this was. Most bodies (I believe that L. XVI was an exception as his body was put in coffin) were thrown in the graves & covered with quick lime. The bodies at the bottom of the pile must have turned into powdered chair à pâté after being buried under additional bodies & more quick lime. FW The same may be true of Louis XVI. Maybe even Marie Antoinette. There are few hard facts. This is supposed to be an encyclopaedia, only hard facts count. The discussion about Charlotte Corday's hair or her sexual status, I believe are irrelevant. What I call "wikitrivia". The articles on Marie Antoinette, Louis XVI, Louis XVII are filled with them. FW What I find much more interesting is wether she acted alone or not. In any case I am not aware of any suspected co-conspirators. If a young woman goes to a man's house planning to kill him, using only a knife, she must have been either very brave or criminally insane. In time such as revolutions, some people find a certain "courage" to do things they would not do otherwise (kill someone). In my unwikipedian way of thinking, I do not see her as "criminally insane", more like an "on the other side of the fence" patriot, as far as the revolutionaries were concerned. FW For all she knew, Marat could have been a big man who could have easily disarmed her. She should be remembered as the woman who killed Marat (rightly or wrongly). Only the details of her personal life that are relevant should be mentioned. The French Revolution, The Terror were very interesting periods in French history. Many people played a part, Charlotte Corday was a small player. You will probably be aware that the catacombs contain the remains of more than six million people. Most of the remains can no longer be identified. It is reputed that people who were buried at Errancis (now also gone) like Madame Élisabeth, Danton and even Robespierre were later reinterred in the catacombs. But as you say, this is speculation, not fact, because the remains could not be identified. I am aware of the above. FW My interest is not really in this period but in other periods. My special interests are the Huguenots and the Communards. I am also interested in the cemeteries of London and Paris that were founded between 1800 and 1850'ish (among others), which I visit regularly. How about the Romanov family? There are many cases where we have to accept with no further proof that people died & were "buried" in certain places: the victims of the nazi concentration & extermination camps, and the GIs who died in the English Channel on D-Day and whose bodies were never found. FW Nice talking to you. Now, what are you going to delete? If you delete your part & leave mine, it is going to make for bizarre reading! FW You raise valid and interesting points, but they should be argued in the appropriate sections of the Wikipedia. And I agree, the Wikipedia is filled with (untrue) trivia, urban legends and myths. But we can not verify every article, just like we can not read every book that has ever been written. I will ask this. This section has gotten out of hand. I would like to ask you to clean it up, so the relevant part about Charlotte Corday remains. You can remove anything that I have written. I will not argue with what is left. This has been a long discussion which went beyond Charlotte Corday, but its thread came from details found in her article, so I do not think it has gotten "out of hand", although I agree that it must end at some point. On the other hand, I am not going to delete any part of it, but will leave the decision to do so to an administrator. --Frania W. (talk) 11:57, 12 August 2010 (UTC) Salut. JHvW (talk) 20:45, 11 August 2010 (UTC) Salut à vous ! --Frania W. (talk) 21:50, 11 August 2010 (UTC) In the meantime, Charlotte Corday's remains did end up somewhere... probably at the Catacombes; unless that, like those of Jeanne d'Arc, they were blown to the wind... Or, are we allowed to say that on a Wikipedia discussion page? Au revoir! --Frania W. (talk) 17:32, 11 August 2010 (UTC) P.S. I crossed out Madame Élisabeth because it was a mistake on my part to include her with those buried at the Madeleine cemetery which had been closed two months prior to her execution in May 1794, and she was buried at the Errancis cemetery, called a charnier at the time. In spite of a search undertaken in 1815, her body was not found either, so her remains could not be transferred to Saint Denis, and I shall admit to "speculating" that her remains probably ended up at the Catacombes. FW "Bizarre, comme c'est bizarre !", dixit Jouvet. --Frania W. (talk) 11:40, 11 August 2010 (UTC) Ending this interesting exchange. Tot ziens !, or rather, Adieu ! --Frania W. (talk) 11:57, 12 August 2010 (UTC)

Error regarding mother's birth and death dates?

"While Charlotte was a young girl, her mother, Charlotte Marie Jacqueline Gaultier de Mesnival (1837–1882) and her older sister died." These 19th-century dates cannot be correct for the mother of someone who was executed before the end of the 18th century.71.246.234.242 (talk) 15:53, 10 November 2011 (UTC)

The dates have been removed. Thanks for pointing out this blatant error.--Jeanne Boleyn (talk) 16:48, 10 November 2011 (UTC)

Descendants?

"Corday is also known to be an ancestor of the pioneering French photojournalist Henri Cartier-Bresson ... she was found to be virgo intacta (a virgin)" -- one of these is wrong, but which one? Given the lack of mention of a husband/marriage, I'm going to guess M. Cartier-Bresson is mistaken. Before I remove him from this article, does anybody have more definite knowledge? Biblioteqa (talk) 00:51, 30 January 2014 (UTC)

• On the one hand, it's actually impossible to determine that via physical examination. However, if there's nothing to indicate that she ever had kids? My guess would be that he was descended from the same family, but not directly from Corday. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.162.158.161 (talk) 22:31, 13 June 2014 (UTC)

Political Factions

At the end of "Political influence" it says Marat was a "Montagnard", while in the first sentence of the next section "Marat's assassination" it says Marat was a "Jacobin". I'm really not interested in whether one statement is correct and the other wrong, or whether they may both be correct. I just want to make the point that this is confusing for casual readers not intimately familiar with the political details of the time and needs a correction or explanation. --BjKa (talk) 07:42, 13 July 2015 (UTC)

Talkpage

This is the first time that I see this "discussion has been closed" construction. I feel the more usual archiving mechanism would improve the usability of this page. (Whole lotta scrollin' goin' on.) --BjKa (talk) 07:42, 13 July 2015 (UTC)

I feel that there can be some improvement to this page; as it relates to the influence that her actions had on society. Women during that time had specific roles, and her stance changed some views. Also, her bibliographical information is not that extensive, I'm hoping to find more information about who she was as an individual instead of just the act she was known for.

Kindleberger, Elizabeth R. “Charlotte Corday in Text and Image: A Case Study in the French Revolution and Women's History.” French Historical Studies, vol. 18, no. 4, 1994, pp. 969–999., www.jstor.org/stable/286725.

Thomas, Chantal. “HEROISM IN THE FEMININE: THE EXAMPLES OF CHARLOTTE CORDAY AND MADAME ROLAND.” The Eighteenth Century, vol. 30, no. 2, 1989, pp. 67–82., www.jstor.org/stable/42705725.

Sj.will (talk) 04:44, 20 February 2017 (UTC)

Parents

What's the relevance in the beginning of the Biography section for saying her parents were cousins? Especially among the nobility and people from small towns/villages, practically everyone married a cousin of some degree or another. So why even mention it? To try to make it sound like there was something nefarious, incestuous going on? 76.202.192.102 (talk) 21:07, 22 November 2022 (UTC)