Talk:Margaret of Valois

Untitled

Removed the bit about Jeanne d'Albret and the shopping trip. I am pretty sure this is Dumas, because I just read several articles on Jeanne d'Albert, and only one, in Bautz's Kirchenlexikon mentioned that there was a rumor at the time that she'd been poisoned. apparently, Henry even ordered an autopsy, which revealed some kind of growth on one of her lungs -- this apparently strengthened the rumors. Still -- Jeanne isn't the subject of the article.

I'm a bit concerned about this article, as it's really more of a synopsis of the story in book and film, and really talks a lot about the events of the time, rather than Marguerite's place in them. Is there anybody more interested who'd like to give this more of a focus on the actual subject? JHK

A publication date for her Memoirs is given as 1628 in the Ext. link. --07:50, 15 Jun 2005 (UTC)

No evidence that Medici orchestrated the massacres!

There is no evidence that she orchestrated the massacres though there is some that she was involved in an assination attempt against Coligny which was conducted by royal troops and civilians heard and were alerted to. They took this as a sign of Royal support to rid the city of heretics and the Catholic civilians massacred the Huguenots. This information can be found in the French Wars of Religion by Mack Holt chapter 3.

Homely? In what sense?

In one of the bottom paragraphs it says she's homely, then in the next paragraph it says 'her beauty fading'. This seems like a contradiction, depending on what 'homely' is meant to convey in the preceding paragraph. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.157.213.241 (talk) 17:35, 17 June 2008 (UTC)

Francis Bacon

I've read on the wiki page for Francis Bacon that he and Marguerite fell madly in love with one another and enjoyed a passionate affair. Does anyone know if this was true? Contaldo80 (talk) 17:00, 7 July 2008 (UTC)

Incest

There really should be something about the alleged incest between Margot ad her brothers. Whether true or not, it is much talked about in history. She herself is said to have admitted to her confessor that she had "slept" with her brothers; she accused them of incest herself, and it is believed to be true at least when it comes to her youngest brother, and possibly Henri III. I'm not going to meddle in that, but it should be adjusted sometime! Just to point it out! --85.226.45.179 (talk) 13:38, 13 October 2008 (UTC)

I see now that even the French wiki-article mention this!--85.226.45.179 (talk) 13:41, 13 October 2008 (UTC)

Are her memoirs published e.g. in the 19th century somewhat expurgated? Facts are mentioned in Web articles which can't be found there. And they are often called scandalous – in the Gutenberg version, they are not at all, they are "clean".82.177.40.227 (talk) 19:04, 5 August 2017 (UTC)

The incest between Margaret and his brothers is a slander spread by the Huguenot propaganda, after the night of St. Bartholomew, with the pamphlettes Le Reveil-Matin des François. This news has been widely believed and unfortunately it has been revived, because the sources have not been adequately controlled, even by today's historians (for example Leonie Frieda in her bestseller Catherine de Medici). The claim that Margaret spoke of incest with the brothers in her Memoirs is a false history. There is no reference to this in it. --Chevalier d'Éon (talk) 12:49, 21 July 2019 (UTC)

It’s worth mentioning as a rumor created against her but I don’t think it should be given much credibility beyond that. Ivylyy (talk) 16:30, 17 January 2022 (UTC)

Move to Margaret of Valois

The following is a closed discussion of the proposal. 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 proposal was move to Margaret of Valois. Of the many arguments offered, it seems to me that the one to focus on is the similarity in usage numbers. In general, if the usage numbers are more or less the same, and assuming that academic references are not a deciding factor since the specific sources presented in this discussion also appear to be evenly divided, we should look at other encyclopedias for guidance. Britannica uses Margaret of Valois, and that is the deciding factor. --RegentsPark (sticks and stones) 03:12, 12 October 2009 (UTC)

Marguerite de Valois → Margaret of Valois — The proposed title is significantly more common than the current title. Compare the number of books which refer to Margaret of Valois (531) and the number of books which refer to Marguerite de Valois (202). Margaret of Valois is obviously the most common name and as such, it should be used as the title of the article. Surtsicna (talk) 19:19, 1 October 2009 (UTC)

Support - but as usual not entirely for the same reason. English is more important than frequent use, in my opinion. Should be the only determining factor in every case. SergeWoodzing (talk) 20:58, 1 October 2009 (UTC)

Support. The reason for frequent use is to determine what is English; for example, Leonardo da Vinci is his English name, despite the Tuscan preposition in the middle. But here, Margaret of Valois is the English for her; although I wouldn't mind if we resolved on Fat Margot ;-> Septentrionalis PMAnderson 17:50, 2 October 2009 (UTC)

• • We should first have a redirect from Fat Margot and then we'll think about your wish (you have it since the Margaret of Provence move request) :P Surtsicna (talk) 18:26, 2 October 2009 (UTC)
    • After the move; no double redirects. ;-> I see I also supported Margaret of Navarre; it's among the things I would support here too. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 21:43, 2 October 2009 (UTC)

Dear Septentrionalis: Interesting! In determining what's English I hope you mean, in principle and for more unknown royals, that we will use a name if it can be confirmed with legitimate etymology to be a correct English-language version (such as Charlemagne or Leonardo da Vinci have become for those big folks), but that we will not first count a bunch of instances created by people who didn't know of it or didn't bother with it or promoted their own national phonetics at the expense of English such. (Assume you have peeked at my user page?). Cordially, SergeWoodzing (talk) 20:35, 2 October 2009 (UTC)

PS: My only issue with the great artist is that correct English grammar would have to be Leonardo Da Vinci, but, like I say, let's not start changing history too much! SergeWoodzing (talk) 20:37, 2 October 2009 (UTC)

Da? The correct spelling (not grammar) is "Leonardo da Vinci", lower case for d, like in Italian: in Webster's Seventh New Collegiate Dictionary, Biographical Names p. 1089. Frania W.

Grammar, to me, not spelling, includes when surnames should begin with capital letters, which they always should in English, normally. Da Vinci in this discussion, to me, is a surname in English (not a preposition+location). That was my (moot) point. No need to discuss this detail at length, me thinks. SergeWoodzing (talk) 15:30, 3 October 2009 (UTC)

Do not support. I would keep her name totally in French Marguerite de Valois. I feel that in such a huge encyclopedia Wikipedia is going to become, names of individuals should be kept as much as possible in their own language, easier for identification & the sense of their origin: *Marguerite de Valois*, *Marguerite d'Anjou*, Marguerite de Provence* are French. Period. Should every *Marguerite*, *Margot*, *Margarita*, be translated into *Margaret*, how will we separate them? Is the fact that Marguerite de Valois was a queen reason enough to have her name translated? And if the reason is that this is English Wikipedia, are we, for instance, going change the name of the French writer *Marguerite Duras* to *Margaret Duras*. Examples of individuals whose name is not changed in English books & articles: *Leonardo da Vinci* (not Leonard of Vinci), *Ludwig van Beethoven* (not Lewis), *Pierre Renoir* (not Peter), *André Le Nôtre* (not Andrew), *Wolfgang Amadeus Mozart* (not Traveling Wolf Love of God). Frania W. (talk) 22:37, 2 October 2009 (UTC)

• • Comment: Frania, Pmanderson and I have explained that the most common name is the English name. Therefore, Marguerite Duras is Marguerite Duras in English as well, which makes that argument pointless. Furthermore, you do not have to distort our arguments by translating Wolfgang Amadeus Mozart to Traveling Wolf Love of God. Have I proposed moving this article to "Pearl of the Land of the Free"? Anyway, I must notice that, even though you now speak of the sense of their origin, you've never proposed having the article Marie Antoinette titled Maria Antonia von Habsburg-Lothringen. Wouldn't that title describe her origin? Regarding identification, you cannot convince me that using the name which may be the most common name in French but is not the most common name in English makes identification easier. Surtsicna (talk) 10:21, 3 October 2009 (UTC)
• Answer: Surtsicna, since the day *French fries* became *Freedom fries*, which, in fact, only showed the ignorance of the guy who rebaptised the pommes frites since *French* means *free*, I would find the renaming of France *Land of the Free* rather sympathique.
• I often raise contrary views on the name given individuals in Wikipedia (id. on fr:wiki & others). Wikipedia is very messy on the subject with one supposed rule, and then exceptions, which result in discussion like the one we are having. What of titles of articles that are half in one language with the other half in another? Ex: Catherine de' Medici (Caterina de' Medici in Italian): why give her first name in English/French & keep her last in Italian? Same for Marie de' Medici (Maria de' Medici in Italian) with Marie in French & surname in Italian? As for Marie Antoinette, the name was given her upon her arrival in France, she adopted it right away as shown on the document signed the day of her marriage. RE the title of her article: I believe that I suggested on at least one occasion that either *of Austria* or *Queen of France* be added to the title. If I had nothing else to do, I would battle (but I realise that would be battling windmills) against *Joan of Arc* for Jeanne d'Arc and *Francis I* for François Ier for the king of France, and Franz I for the Emperor of the Roman Empire, father of Marie Antoinette, which would give an immediate idea of the origin. Just trying to make a point.

Frania W. (talk) 13:55, 3 October 2009 (UTC)

• • In other words, you would banish English from the titles of articles? That's how I get it, as you would battle Francis I (Francis the First) for François Ire (François le Premiere). Regarding Joan of Arc, I agree with you: you would certainly be battling windmills, as the article is featured (meaning top quality article with top quality title) and there has never been any serious attempt to rename it. Surtsicna (talk) 16:20, 3 October 2009 (UTC)

• Oppose. I would say that in my experience, "Marguerite de Valois" is more common in English. Google Books is bad for things like this, because it includes a lot of 100 year old sources that always anglicized. Anglicization is much less common in recent sources, in my experience. john k (talk) 01:55, 3 October 2009 (UTC)

• • Comment Considering the fact that everyone can refer to their own experience, we will need a more reliable source. Google Book Search is the best way to determine the most common name that I know of. If you know of a better way, please let me know. Google Book Search can be adjusted to include only books published during a certain period of time. Thus, it is easy to demonstrate that English language books published since 1980 also use Margaret of Valois (585) more often than Marguerite de Valois (528). English language books published since 2000 also use Margaret of Valois (589) more than Marguerite de Valois (501). Surtsicna (talk) 10:21, 3 October 2009 (UTC)

Sursticna, did you notice how a) those numbers don't actually make any sense (How can there be 200 books, total, that use "Marguerite de Valois", but 501 since 2000?), and that b) the Google Books search for the more recent years, in fact, merely proves that the two names are now used about the same amount? 585 to 528 is hardly an impressive enough victory to warrant changing the title. It should also be said that we cannot know that all of the people coming up in your search are the subject of this article. In addition to the daughter of Henry II, there was also a daughter of Francis I, a sister of Francis I, a short-lived legitimate daughter of Charles VII, possibly a bastard daughter of Charles VII, a short-lived daughter of John II, and a sister of Philip VI. The first two of those, at least, are fairly significant figures who might come up (although Francis I's sister is not normally called "of Valois," I don't think). At any rate, the Google Books search is imprecise, and shows that the French form is used just as commonly as the translated form in recent years. I see no reason for a move. john k (talk) 14:32, 3 October 2009 (UTC)

If one name is in French and one name is in English and they seem to be used about as much (I don't actually care about usage), it's impossible to me to understand how we can motivate having the article's title in French. N'est-ce pas wikipedia anglais, ça? Je crois que je deviens fou. SergeWoodzing (talk) 15:30, 3 October 2009 (UTC)

So John Charles I of Spain, then? Nicholas Sarkozy? Just to go further - there is no obligation in the English language to translate names. Most names are, in fact, not translated. A small number of names, almost all of them of royalty, are translated because the anglicized forms are more common in English. If the anglicized form and the original form are about as common as one another, why should we perpetuate the dying tradition of translating the name? For the foreseeable future, usage is going to move further and further in the direction of using the original names. The anglicized forms are old-fashioned and unnecessary. john k (talk) 15:33, 3 October 2009 (UTC)

Juan Carlos I of Spain is English for Juan Carlos de España. Nicolas Sarkozy is English for Nicolas Sarkozy. "English name" is not always the anglicized version of the name; "English name" of a subject is the name used in English to refer to the subject. Anglicization of names is falling out of usage, but while it is still used more often than the original names (of historical royalty), we cannot just decide to dismiss it because we don't like it. Surtsicna (talk) 16:12, 3 October 2009 (UTC)

Serge was saying that usage didn't matter, so I was responding to that. And "Marguerite de Valois" is used as much in English language sources as "Margaret of Valois" so I don't see why it's not just as much the "English name" as the other. john k (talk) 20:33, 3 October 2009 (UTC)

John Kenney has pointed out that "Juan Carlos I of Spain, has maintained his Spanish names, and has not become John Charles I of Spain, then why translate Marguerite into Margaret?

On the other hand, Surtsicna wrote, "Anglicization of names is falling out of usage, but while it is still used more often than the original names (of historical royalty), we cannot just decide to dismiss it because we don't like it." Well, if "anglicization of names is falling out of usage", why should the super modern tool Wikipedia is supposed to be or become be among the last to stay old-fashioned? In the eternal battle between "Ancients and Moderns" the Ancients always lose. Frania W. (talk) 19:12, 3 October 2009 (UTC)

We do not decide which names are to be translated. Sources decide. Wikipedia should stay old-fashioned as long as the majority of sources stay old-fashioned. Don't forget that Wikipedia is a tertiary source which relies secondary sources. Wikipedia does not on our opinions and our points of view. Therefore, the argument I don't like it doesn't ouutrank any source (even if it is unreliable). Surtsicna (talk) 19:51, 3 October 2009 (UTC)

The balance of usage is, by your own evidence, about even. That is not much of a reason to move to a title which you yourself admit is becoming increasingly archaic. john k (talk) 20:33, 3 October 2009 (UTC)

Even if it is becoming archaic (and it is not), it isn't archaic yet. Wikipedia:Wikipedia is not a crystal ball with powers to foresee which name is about to become archaic. The name Marguerite de Valois has been coming into usage since the beggining of the 20th century and is still less common than Margaret of Valois. It is worth noting that it came into usage through the works of fiction; in fact, Marguerite de Valois is significantly more popular among the works of fiction than Margaret of Valois. Surtsicna (talk) 21:20, 3 October 2009 (UTC)

The fact that a well known Dumas novel uses the French form is a reason to use it. And, again, at present the two names are pretty comparable in terms of use - most common name only makes sense when there is one name which is clearly the most common name. That is not true in this case, and as such, other considerations should come into play. My view is that if we have two forms that are both in common use, we should use the native name form, and only translate when the native name form is very uncommon in English. john k (talk) 22:58, 3 October 2009 (UTC)

• Comment I've just noticed that this article is inconsistent with other articles about members of the House of Valois. See Category:House of Valois. This queen is the only female member of the dynasty called "de Valois". Numerous Joans and Maries are "of Valois". Consistency matters. Surtsicna (talk) 16:16, 3 October 2009 (UTC)

Well, it depends if "de Valois" is used as the name of the "House of Valois" or as the surname "de Valois". Ex: "Marguerite de Valois was a member of the House of Valois." Frania W. (talk) 19:12, 3 October 2009 (UTC)

Consistency matters? Sure, but in the naming of minor royals wikipedia has never been even slightly consistent, and I don't see why it should start here. If you want to go to naming conventions and work out a consistent format, that would be fine. But it's not really an argument to just note that other articles are titled differently and leave it at that. And why "Marie"? Don't you think that should be "Mary"? john k (talk) 20:33, 3 October 2009 (UTC)

The articles in the category Category:House of Valois are almost all consistent and this is one of few articles that stand out in that category. Making one article consistent with the majority is an improvement, no matter how minor. This, however, is not a main reason for the move. Regarding Mary vs. Marie, I've already explained it twice and Pmanderson has explained it once. Please read one of those three explanations. I really don't have patience to explain it again. Surtsicna (talk) 21:20, 3 October 2009 (UTC)

Where? I don't see any mention of "Mary" in this talk page before I brought it up. You can't expect me to be familiar with what you've said on other pages without pointing me to them. john k (talk) 22:58, 3 October 2009 (UTC)

On this talk page and in this section. We've explained why Leonardo da Vinci instead of Leonard of Vinci and other examples. Is it really neccessary to explain why Marie instead of Mary? Surtsicna (talk) 12:34, 4 October 2009 (UTC)

When your arguments do not convince the other side, yes, it is necessary to explain. Frania W. (talk) 13:29, 4 October 2009 (UTC)

Usage doesn't matter, I meant, if a lot of it is by Swedes behind English texts about Swedes, Frenchmen behind English texts about Frenchmen, and so forth (see my user page). What legitimate and etymologically viable English-language sources are counted matters. - And I agree - we sorely need established guidelines, if nothing else so as not to take up so much time in discussing things like this. No encyclopedia would ever have been done, or respected, if there were'nt guidelines to iron out as many inconsistencies as possible, inconsistencies which otherwise make us all look ridiculous for even trying to do one and tie up our time in thousands of hours of bickering.

Because you believe that ces messieurs de l'Académie française do not bicker for thousands of hours in their painstakingly efforts to create a new dictionary? Why then does it take them so long to cover just one letter? Great friendship have been lost forever because of the dropping of an old French word or the addition of a foreign one.

The Académie has completed eight editions of the dictionary, which were published in 1694, 1718, 1740, 1762, 1798, 1835, 1878, and 1935. The 8th edition of 1935 contained approximately 35,000 words. The Académie continues work on the ninth edition, begun in 1986, of which the first volume (A to Enzyme) was published in 1992, and the second (Éocène to Mappemonde) in 2000. As the work goes on, additional parts of the Dictionnaire are published in the Documents administratifs of the Journal Officiel, and posted online. The finalized ninth edition is expected to contain more than 15,000 new words. In part because the current edition dates from 1935, other dictionaries (such as those published by Larousse and Le Robert) are more commonly used as everyday reference sources than the Académie's.

excerpt from English Wikipedia article Dictionnaire de l'Académie française, yes with title in... French! However, for entertainment, I invite you to read the article in French wiki:

http://fr.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dictionnaire_de_l%27Acad%C3%A9mie_fran%C3%A7aise

next, go to the Académie française site for its introduction of foreign words in latest edition:

http://www.academie-francaise.fr/dictionnaire/

Like tennis which is far from the gentlemen's game it used to be, culture is quickly being democratised in a global manner thanks to education, travelling, the outpouring of writing of fiction and non-fiction, the opening & availability of archives, films, the Internet, etc. Even good old Encyclopædia Britannica is shaking its cobwebs & uses French surnames in French in its 2009 online edition, and none dare call it treason!

Frania W. (talk) 14:21, 4 October 2009 (UTC)

For example, it's hardly any use discussing things like this, in my opinion, if some people really think de Valois or De Valois is a surname for English use (are you serious?), not a geographic designation (preposition+location) in French. Margaret is this woman's known name in English, Marguerite in French. That's all there is to her name strictly speaking. If people are dicsussing things just to make this page longer and longer - what a waste of time and effort! Sorry! SergeWoodzing (talk) 22:08, 3 October 2009 (UTC)

What do Swedes have to do with anything? At any rate, you are simply assuming that usage of "Marguerite de Valois" is by French people, and not by native English-speakers. You have presented no evidence whatever that this is the case. Moreover, if most references to a person in English are by non-native speakers, usage is still the predominant consideration. In this case, usage is indeterminate, so we really have to look to other concerns. My arguments for keeping the page where it is are that there is a trend towards use of the untranslated name and a general preference for not translating names except when necessary to make them recognizable. As to whether "de Valois" is a surname or a territorial designation, that's a meaningless question. Territorial designations became surnames, and it's more or less impossible to pinpoint a precise date when the transition was complete. I would say that in the sixteenth century, when the House of Valois' connection to the territory of Valois was in the rather distant past, it makes more sense to think of it as a surname, although obviously it was both. At any rate, we're not going to get anywhere. It's obvious we have different priorities for naming, and as such we're not going to agree. At the moment, there's no consensus for a move, as it's 3-2 in favor. So it's going to stay where it is unless a bunch of new people show up and want to move it. Let's see if that happens, and await the results. john k (talk) 22:58, 3 October 2009 (UTC)

Very sad that you had to be so rude to me this time to make your points. Sigh! I obviously only used Swedes as an example, but believe me they (any many other nationals) should not be allowed to decide anything ever about the English language or its usage, no matter how much linguistic garbage they put out in what they think is "English" or are willing and able to pollute our language with. The trend toward untranstaled personal names (as I explain on my user page) concerns only people of the 20th and 21st centuries, as far as I have noticed. Marguerite/Margaret had no surname, so you needn't try to give her one here. Anyway, why bother, sir, with anything I write, since you apparently only find it all useless, ignorant and "meaningsless"? I asked you on your user talk to look at my page to try to understand me. Assume you haven't bothered. We need guidelines to shut both of us up. SergeWoodzing (talk) 23:48, 3 October 2009 (UTC)

In spite of the pedantic are you serious?, I'd like to add something concerning "de Valois" as a surname. In 1785, there was a woman who became well-known because of her involvement in the scandal known as the Affair of the Diamond Necklace. The comtesse de La Motte, or comtesse de La Motte-Valois was born Jeanne de Valois-Saint-Rémy in a family issued from a bastard branch of the House of Valois. Her great-great.. grandfather was King Henry II of France, and "de Valois" was her surname. Henry II had by Nicole de Savigny: a son, Henri (1557–1621). He was given the title of Comte de Saint-Rémy. One of his last descendants was Jeanne de Valois-Saint-Rémy, Comtesse de la Motte, famous for her role in the Affair of the Diamond Necklace. (from Wikipedia sourced article on Henry II of France)

Frania W. (talk) 14:21, 4 October 2009 (UTC)

OK, to any- and everyone who might like to argue with me about these things:

• I sincerely apologize to any editor who does his/her best to contribute good factual material to en.WP even if errors often are made in the language because you are not so fluent in English. The rest of us will very gladly do our best to fix things up and help you, as long as you do not behave in ways that give us the impression that you are (1) so unaware of your limitations in English, plus (2) so headtrong, as to be disruptive. That (1 + 2) is a terrible combination (no offense intended to anyone in particular.)

• What the world needs now (besides Love, sweet Love...) is a closer, not a sloppier, adherence to the PHONETICS of each language within itself. Please forgive the fact that I felt I had to raise my voice on that one key word! If you had been so kind as to check my user page you would probably understand.

What this means becomes very clear to anyone constructively inclined if you, as I have, ever have worked with radio or television documentaries or (as I also have) with the reading of texts to children and/or to the blind. English (and any other language I have read things in) works like a charm when as much of such a manuscript or such a book text is in viable English phonetics (Margaret or Reginald or Gothenburg or Copenhagen) and so does not cause unnecessary trouble for the actor or oral reader with the phonetics of the original languages (Marguerite in French - which can be pronounced three different ways in English - , Ragnvald and Göteborg in Swedish, København in Danish).

Having English as the foremost international language of the world (so far) is enough of a huuuuuuge responsibility for us anyway, just trying to stick to feasible English. Our also being expected to know and pronounce thousands of names in hundreds of other languages, often completely unneeded knowledge, makes the whole task so gargantuan that it would overwhelm even more clever linguists. I know I am stupefied by the very idea. We need the help and understanding of other peoples to try to maintain this language as the somewhat effective tool it's supposed to be for worldwide communication.

This, in a nutshell, is the whole reason why I know that we should stick to English phonetics, as much as we can, when writing and reading English, French phonetics when writing and reading French, Swedish when Swedish, Spanish when Spanish, German when German and so forth. The only times when we can't do that here on en.WP, in my opinion, are when people in general have/had legal names with legal spellings and legal ID's such as passports (beginning about the year 1900 all over the world) and when personal and geographic names do not have known equivalents in English.

Phonetics always have been, are now and will always be the indiscardable tool for effective communication in any language. Let's not make them too out-dated as such! Would somebody please tell me if he/she understands what I mean? SergeWoodzing (talk) 17:59, 4 October 2009 (UTC)

Answer to Monsieur le Professeur Serge Woodzing who wrote:

I sincerely apologize to any editor who does his/her best to contribute good factual material to en.WP even if errors often are made in the language because you are not so fluent in English.

As the only participant in this discussion who did not have the honour & privilege of being born with English words spilling out of my mouth, I do take your remarks as addressed directly to me, and the condescending tone in which your apologies are uttered leaves me no choice but to turn them down.

The rest of us will very gladly do our best to fix things up and help you, as long as you do not behave in ways that give us the impression that you are (1) so unaware of your limitations in English, plus (2) so headtrong, as to be disruptive. That (1 + 2) is a terrible combination (no offense intended to anyone in particular.)

Before you entered the scene, I happened to have "worked" with some of the "rest of us", and must admit to you that, until now, no one (except myself) had ever pointed out to me my "limitations" in English or in any other subject I may have tackled.

Also, when someone finishes a comment with no offense intended to anyone in particular, it means without a doubt that "offense was intended to someone in particular". Touchée! (and if English is your forte, why don't you write offence instead of using the Americano bastard English offense?)

Please tell me what you mean by headtrong, and forgive me for not knowing this English word, unless, of course, you are expressing yourself in Swedish...

... which brings me to the subject of the Swedes: what do you have against them and/or many other nationals? Why this attack on them?: I obviously only used Swedes as an example, but believe me they (any many other nationals) should not be allowed to decide anything ever about the English language or its usage, no matter how much linguistic garbage they put out in what they think is "English" or are willing and able to pollute our language with.

(I always was told that in good English, a sentence should not end with a preposition.)

May I remind you, as an etymology dictionary will show you, that the English language (or was it Anglo-Saxon?) has been polluted for many centuries when England was invaded in 1066 by the Norman-French, in what is known as the Norman conquest of England. Whether amicable or not, the relations between England & France left indelible traces (garbage? rubbish?) in the English language. Why do you use words such as Renaissance, coup d'état, café au lait, carte blanche, cause célèbre, déjà vu, chef d'œuvre, cuisine, cul de sac, débutante, c'est la vie, esprit de corps, fait accompli, faux pas, femme fatale, folie à deux, ménage à trois, laissez faire, nom de plume, nouveau riche, soupe du jour, hors d'œuvre, Honi soit qui mal y pense...

As for the rest of your spiel, do you mind if I ignore it?

Frania W. (talk) 20:48, 4 October 2009 (UTC)

P.S. Now, if Monsieur le Professeur Serge Woodzing would stop patronising some of us, maybe we could go back to the business at hand, that of deciding whether to keep la Reine Margot a Marguerite or turn her into Margaret or into a Daisy. Frania W. (talk) 01:42, 5 October 2009 (UTC)/FW

Your nasty and cruel sarcasms and your shocking arrogance speak for themselves and need no further comment from me except to point them out to others. You aren't even discussing the issue any more, just being belligerent. You probably never make mistakes, but I make lots of them, often out of temper, and am always apologizing sincerely (believe it or not) about them. So I'm sorry about the typo. I wrote headtrong but (rather obviously?) meant headstrong or in French têtu. I great word for you to have a look at. I do not understand you and have now given up on you. J'pas [raspberry sound] - as we used to say in Paris when I lived there. Bye-bye! SergeWoodzing (talk) 05:02, 5 October 2009 (UTC)

May I remind Serge Woodzing that, in my last comment, the highlighted parts, which are the parts to which he must be referring as your nasty and cruel sarcasms and your shocking arrogance, were quotes taken from his previous comment, which I felt were aimed at me, as well as Swedes and many other nationals.

This being the discussion page for Marguerite de Valois, I shall not continue on the path Mr. Woodzing has chosen to lead this conversation. Frania W. (talk) 16:16, 5 October 2009 (UTC)

---

I would dismiss Frania's comments on the grounds of being against the basic Wikipedia conventions (use English and use common names). The fact is illustrated by her claim that Marguerite d'Anjou would be a better title for the article about English queen Margaret of Anjou. What's next, moving Catherine of Aragon to Catalina de Trastámara (or better yet, Catherine d'Aragon, as the French call her)? John Kenney at least tries to assert that Marguerite de Valois is more common than Margaret of Valois (even though the only evidence he gives is his own experience). Frania, on the other hand, refers only to her point of view, which, I repeat, is against at least two Wiki conventions.

Also, Frania, you forget that I did not have the honour & privilege of being born with English words spilling out of my mouth either. That makes two of us ;) Surtsicna (talk) 19:42, 5 October 2009 (UTC)

I have given my arguments on the issue & voted against the move. My position remains unchanged. It's time for others to give their opinion. Frania W. (talk) 21:19, 5 October 2009 (UTC)

I have given my concerns about your arguments above. Don't you have anything to say to that? I'll say it again, since you somehow missed it: your arguments are against the basic Wikipedia conventions (use English and use common names). Furthermore, your argument is based only only on your point of view. You've presented no evidence which would confirm that Marguerite de Valois is the name commonly used by English language sources. Perhaps you find it irrelevant or unnecessary? Surtsicna (talk) 21:38, 5 October 2009 (UTC)

My contention is not that the current title is more common. It's that, in recent works, it's about equally common, and as such there is no single "most common name." My evidence for that is not anecdotal, but based on the google books search you yourself presented, which found about 500 results in English since 1980 for both titles, and about 500 results in English since 2000 for both titles. It is true that the search gave more results for your preferred title, but only slightly more, and I don't think that "common name" is supposed to mean "marginally more common name among two names that are both commonly used." Once we get to a situation where we have two names in about the same amount of use, my feeling is that other considerations than common name interpose themselves, and my preference in such a case is not to anglicize names when the non-anglicized version is common. I don't know that there are any policies or guidelines that clearly address this issue, so I will admit that this is little more than a personal preference, but I think that there is a real tendency in academic writing against anglicization, and that it's foolish for Wikipedia to fight against it when both names are actually in common use. john k (talk) 00:52, 6 October 2009 (UTC)

Surtsicna, if Wikipedia conventions, rules & regulations were that easy to interpret & follow, we would not be here having a kilometer long discussion. From the naming conventions, I could pick several instances that leave the door open to act differently when the situation warrants it, the Google search being a case in point, and the sentence: Sometimes, English usage is divided. John K. has explained it very well & I concur with him. Frania W. (talk) 01:48, 6 October 2009 (UTC)

I would be interested to know why John, whose work I greatly respect,

• feels,as it would seem, that we should ignore the basic Wikipedia guideline use English (a good guideline that obviously has been adopted for good reasons - see below re Phonetics), in this particular instance;

Serge - I don't think that "use English" comes into play here - both names are used in English. "Use English" does not mean "Anglicize," and never has. Nor does it even mean "all other things being equal, anglicize." In this case we have two forms used in English - one is anglicized, and one is not. The fact that the one is anglicized ought not give it a preference in our deliberations, because both names are used in English. The case here is difficult because we have both forms used, but when we go to other examples, we find that it's not so difficult at all. The Spanish king who sent the Armada is almost universally called "Philip II" in English. There may be a few sources which use the Spanish "Felipe II," but they are few and far between. As such, "Use English" demands that we use the anglicized form - but not because it is anglicized. We use it because it is universally used in English. On the other side we have, for instance, Philip's contemporary, Tsar Ivan IV of Russia. There is an anglicized form available for him - we could call him "John IV," which is, of course, anglicized. But his name is virtually never anglicized in any recent work in English. As such, "Ivan IV," despite not being an anglicized name, is in fact the English name, and "use English" does not demand we use "John IV."

• also what he bases his view on that "there is a real tendency in academic writing against anglicization", when it comes to pre-1900 people (I am a heavy reader and have seen no such thing, with all due respect);

This is hard to quantify, admittedly, and is largely anecdotal. What is clear is that both forms are commonly used. john k (talk) 20:03, 6 October 2009 (UTC)

Phonetics

• also how he or anyone else qualified would comment on my valid (?) points above about phonetics - I am bit hurt that everyone has ignored that very vital (?) factor so far, perhaps I am the only WP contributor who cares about oral reading - and has blind friends? - and making that possible to accomplish without undue phonetic complications (this is a perfect case of that, where Valois is hard enough for about 75% of English readers to interpret without Marguerite also being in there for no fathomable reason - would John pronounce that de as deh or duh or döh or dih or dee, and just what is a phonetically viable English pronunciation of Marguerite in his opinion)? Sincerely, SergeWoodzing (talk) 04:21, 6 October 2009 (UTC)

John, that's the kind of discussion I want to lead. I don't care about anyone's opinion; I want to discuss the most common name and other conventions. Thus, if Margaret of Valois is not significantly more common than Marguerite de Valois (but it is nevertheless more common), we should refer to consistency. See Category:French princesses; I see five princesses named Margaret and one Marguerite. See also Category:French queens consort; there are two Margarets and one Marguerite. There is no good enough reason for this article to be inconsistent with such a great number of articles. Surtsicna (talk) 18:42, 6 October 2009 (UTC)

Surtsicna, several of your comments sound dismissive toward what some of us are saying as you seem to have attributed to yourself the role of judge & jury in a discussion into which half a dozen of us have entered to give our opinion regarding your proposal to change the title of this article. The discussion has turned into a professorial lecture led by you & Serge Woodzing that "dismisses" any & all arguments that do not go your way, as shown in your latest I would dismiss Frania's comments and I don't care about anyone's opinion, to mention only these two. If the kind of discussion you “want to lead” is one in which you "don't care about anyone's opinion", you are not going to “lead” very long in the democratic institution Wikipedia represents & where no self-proclaimed leader leads by dismissing the opinion of others. Frania W. (talk) 23:17, 6 October 2009 (UTC)

...in the democratic institution Wikipedia represents? Wikipedia is not a democratic institution, Frania. I explained why I dismiss your comments and why I do not dismiss John Kenney's comments. He tries to prove that Marguerite de Valois is the most common name and that Wiki conventions are in favour of that name, etc. Please see the research (below) he did to prove his point. You are just giving your opinion, based on no evidence, which amounts to no more than your point of view. Furthermore, as your latest comments shows, you frequently ignore other people's arguments and instead give comments like the one above. I do not care about anyone's opinion; neither should you care about my opinion. Personal opinions are rarely relevant on Wikipedia because Wikipedia is based on secondary sources, not on our opinions. Surtsicna (talk) 06:07, 7 October 2009 (UTC)

Yes, in my eyes, Wikipedia is a democratic institution in the sense that the choice of its articles & their redaction is left up to people who have the freedom to create, edit & discuss, otherwise, Wikipedia would be a for-scholars-only private club. And, as far as I understand its policies, no one is refused the right to give his/her point of view as long as that point of view remains in the discussion page & is not carried into the article itself. The discussion page has been put at the disposal of users as space for exchange of ideas, points of view, opinions, reference material etc. Everyone is equal here, and an authoritarian dismissal of someone's opinion & argumentation is not compatible with the ways things are done in a democracy. Even if the change of name of this article is your proposal, you do not run the show here, you're on equal footing with the rest of us. You propose & we discuss at the wiki round table.

John K. has brought evidence to his claims & mine; now, in order to fall in your good graces instead of being "dismissed" for not having met your demands, am I supposed to go through the Google search process & bring you the same figures & sources that he brought? By the way, in all the books John has given below, I noticed that, even in those where "de Valois" has been translated into "of Valois", "Marguerite" has been kept. Furthermore, in those on the side of the "de Valois" argument, please note that one can read: Élisabeth de Valois, Marguerite de Navarre, Marguerite de Lorraine, Marguerite Chabot, dame de Pagny, Jean Cardinal de Lorraine, Charles de Lorraine, Claude duc de Guise, Antoinette de Bourbon..., i.e. all baptismal names, surnames & even titles kept in French.

I expressed earlier my thoughts on the subject here at hand, at a time when amicable discussion was the order of the day; however, I will not continue on the path it has taken. Frania W. (talk) 14:59, 7 October 2009 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the proposal. 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.

Google Books

Okay, looking at it, I'm not sure where Surtsicna is getting his numbers. Doing a google books search of English language sources, here's what I get -

Type of Search	"Marguerite de Valois"	"Margaret of Valois"	"Marguerite of Valois""
Google Books, English	1,445	931	705
Google Books, English since 1980	825	639	556
Google Books, English since 2000	732	619	296
Google Scholar, English	1,230	381
Google Scholar, English since 1980	511	99
Google Scholar, English since 2000	352	77

Surtsicna's version, for some reason, seems to have insisted only on using sources which include the word "Queen," which seems unnecessary - almost all the references appear to be to the subject of this article, for both searches. At any rate, this suggests that, in fact, it is "Marguerite de Valois" which is more common in English all around, both recently and long ago. When you add in the use of "Marguerite of Valois," which is not uncommon, you find that use of "Marguerite" seems to be considerably more common than "Margaret." As far as specific sources go,

Marguerite de Valois

• R.J. Knecht, The Rise and Fall of Renaissance France, 1483-1610
• Mack Holt, The French Wars of Religion, 1562-1629
• Stuart Carroll, Noble Power during the French Wars of Religion
• Leonie Frieda, Catherine de Medici

Marguerite of Valois

• John Elliott, Europe Divided 1559-1598
• Philip Benedict, Rouen during the Wars of Religion
• James Thompson, The Wars of Religion in France 1559-1576

In my searches for recent academic biographies of Henry IV and Catherine de Medici, or for recent academic works answering to a search on "French Wars of Religion," I wasn't able to find any that used Margaret. More general reference works like Britannica and Encarta (soon to be discontinued!) use "Margaret," but personally I prefer to base our usage on specialist literature, rather than works of general reference, when possible. john k (talk) 20:33, 6 October 2009 (UTC)

My numbers are from the last page of the search results. The numbers seen on pages other than the first page always include some books listed more than once. Thus, the number given on the last page is the definite number and the number of books that use Marguerite de Valois is 308, not c. 1500. Why I used the word queen? Because Marguerite de Valois (even when you search for books in English) gets a lot of French language results which are, of course, irrelevant (like this one and this one, for example). I do not understand your argument regarding the name Marguerite of Valois (Marguerite of Valois is used less often than Margaret of Valois, right?). I wouldn't oppose Marguerite of Valois. I will study the numbers you gave (thank you for taking time to do the research yourself) later this day. Surtsicna (talk) 06:26, 7 October 2009 (UTC)

Surtsicna - by including "Queen" you exclude any English results that are talking about her before she became queen - as for instance, any casual reference to her relating to the St. Bartholomew's Day Massacre is unlikely to call her "Queen." I had no argument about "Marguerite of Valois," except that adding together the results for "Marguerite de Valois" and "Marguerite of Valois" shows that the clear majority of sources call her "Marguerite." That being said, looking through, as you like to do, to the last page, the version that has the most non-phantom hits actually seems to be "Marguerite of Valois." I would not object to a move to that location, either. john k (talk) 04:03, 8 October 2009 (UTC)

Any casual reference to to the St. Bartholomew's Day Massacre would surely mention her mother who was a queen at that time. We could argue about the numbers for days; does anyone else object to Marguerite of Valois? It seems to be a nice compromise. Surtsicna (talk) 12:37, 11 October 2009 (UTC)

Objection Yes, I object. Thanks for asking! Let's not be elitist here! Margaret is English, Marguerite is not. Many native English-speakers are not 100% sure how to pronounce the French name. WP should not go into the business of giving lessons in foreign languages in cases like this where it is totally unnecessary, nor should we even get close to creating such a need. Please do not disregard phonetics! English phonetics in English, French phonetics in French and so forth... That is a large and important part of creating workable naming guidelines and should not be ignored. It is also the only way to communicate as effectively as possible within any given language. SergeWoodzing (talk) 16:25, 11 October 2009 (UTC)

I understand your point, SergeWoodzing. However, Marguerite of Valois is a good compromise; John Kenney retains Marguerite, we translate de into of and Valois is kept for everyone's pleasure. Surtsicna (talk) 19:56, 11 October 2009 (UTC)

Mr. Woodzing, should Wikipedia decide to go into the business of "phonetics", or address its articles only to kindergarteners or first through fifth grade children, then it will have to change the titles of 99.99 percent of its articles or, better, eliminate all articles that are not on an Anglo-American subject, and even then would we encounter unavoidable rivalry between English English & American English editors/readers.

And, should Wikipedia opt to go into the business of English-only phonetics, why don't you propose renaming the following articles found in en:wiki, such as Blitzkrieg, Luftstreitkräfte der NVA, Bundeswehr, Champs Élysées & Tuileries Palace, with its Tuileries a typical French word meaning "tile factories", and to boot unpronounceable? I already can see the title Palace of the Tile Factories. Should not Rue de la Paix become Peace Street and, following your logic, all the kings "Louis" renamed Lewis, and "Marie de' Medici" changed to Mary of Medici?

If "Many native English-speakers are not 100% sure how to pronounce the French name" Marguerite, what are we going to do with the title of this Wikipedia article: Marguerite? Changing its name to Margaret might run into a controversy with some Californians.

Speaking only for myself, after having read an article, I want to feel that I have learned something, even if only the meaning of one single word, not that the text I just read was simplified for the comprehension of a two-year old.

Frania W. (talk) 21:44, 11 October 2009 (UTC)

I don't understand Serge's point. His argument that English-speakers can't pronounce "Marguerite" would seem rather nonsensical (my dad had an aunt named Marguerite who lived her whole life in Cleveland, Ohio, for example). Even beyond that, his arguments are exactly as contrary to the naming convention guidelines as Frania's, so far as I can tell. Frania believes, so far as I can gather, that we should not anglicize French names. Serge seems to believe that we should anglicize all French names, regardless of prevalence of usage, so long as there is an anglicized form which has ever been used. If I had to choose between these two ideas, I'd go with Frania's, because Serge's preference hearkens back to nineteenth century usage, while I think modern usage is tending towards Frania's preferences (although it's not there yet). But, fortunately, we don't have to choose between these, because Wikipedia naming policy is based on the most common name. In this case, that is somewhat unclear, but there's absolutely nothing in policy which suggests "use an anglicized form if it exists and is ever used" is the appropriate rule. john k (talk) 21:56, 11 October 2009 (UTC)

It is getting to amaze me very very highly that no one with English as a main lannguage is willing to touch the subject of phonetics seriously. I was just going to ask last time if anyone has a relative named Marguerite! That's often the problem when someone pushes for a name that will not work as well as another alternative (my tongue is half in cheek, here, John, so don't get too huffy now!). Please please please try harder never to misquote me or misrepresent what I have said. I very clearly wrote "Many native English-speakers are not 100% sure how to pronounce the French name." That factual statement - probably at least 60% of older children and adults - is a far cry fro the nonsense I am now accused of saying, and very unfair. I have also never said or implied we should "anglicize all French names, regardless of prevalence of usage, so long as there is an anglicized form which has ever been used". I have said that in my opinion, and in this case, frequency of use should not be the most important determining factor and that 20th and 21st century people should never ever have their names anglicized. Huge difference there too from some kind of an idiosyncratic or eccentric rigidity which now is being painted into what I actually have said and mean. Let's go with Margaret, in regular English this time, and I'll send a box of chocolates to your Aunt Marguerite's heirs or flowers to her grave. I promise. SergeWoodzing (talk) 22:16, 11 October 2009 (UTC)

John, "Frania" always presents & defends her way of thinking, as she feels it is important to express one's views and, enriching on the other hand, to listen to the opinion of others; however, in the end, "Frania" always bows to consensus, even if she does not like it.

Some articles with French titles in English wiki:

House of Plantagenet / Dieu et mon droit / Honi soit qui mal y pense

Au revoir, les enfants! Frania W. (talk) 00:54, 12 October 2009 (UTC)

P.S. to Mr. Woodzing: USS Marguerite (SP-193) (I could not resist! FW)

What on earth is the basis for your assertion that most English-speakers cannot pronounce "Marguerite," a name which, as I noted, is used as a given name for native English-speakers? That was my only point about my great-aunt (who died when I was a baby, I think). Not that I was familiar with it, but that the name is to be found among native anglophones, and is thus not especially unfamiliar. And why should it even matter whether English-speakers can pronounce it? Beyond that, I simply don't understand your argument here. You say usage is irrelevant, and also that we should never anglicize twentieth century people, but apparently, should always anglicize earlier figures if there's an anglicization that is ever used. I'm not trying to misrepresent your position, I just don't really understand it. john k (talk) 17:56, 12 October 2009 (UTC)

Absurd

There was clearly no consensus for a move, and the closing admin acted wrongly in moving because he was personally more convinced by the arguments for a move. Completely ridiculous. john k (talk) 17:49, 12 October 2009 (UTC)

Absurd? Not at all! He/she (who you are attacking personally here just as you did me) may have noted that people such as you were arguing above without even reading the points you are arguing about, valid points others were trying to make. You did it again just above here. Once again you are asserting that I have pushed this issue on grounds that I in fact never used. Misquoting again, misrepresenting again. Such arguments as yours would then have to be considered invalid by any user who actually had bothered to read what I realy wrote. As far as pronunciation goes, I suggest you ask 10 fellow Americans on the street to pronounce that French name and see how they do - oh, sorry that's right, you don't care about pronunciation. You wrote that clearly yourself now, so I am hardly misquoting you. You would just as soon use a name that many people will not be sure how to say - to children, the blind, and so forth - as use an established and basic English name familiar to one and all, which also is used in English literature as much as that lovely French one. So now we know your attitude toward phonetics. I think I am going to have to give up on you. Sorry, I just don't like to have my opinions twisted to suit your way of arguing. It's not a very nice one, beginning with your heading here, in my opinion. SergeWoodzing (talk) 20:10, 12 October 2009 (UTC)

Mr. Woodzing, yes, it is "absurd", because the vote for consensus was not over since the discussion was going on in the section Google books, in which John Kenney & Surtsicna had just come to the agreement of keeping the French first name Marguerite, followed by of Valois. In this change of direction of the discussion, we, i.e. previous voters & other readers who may have joined us, should have been allowed to give or not our consent. I was going to give my vote for Marguerite of Valois, as I felt it was a compromise. Now this choice was taken away from us when the Administrator made an arbitrary move to Margaret of Valois.

As for your marotte on phonetics, I have failed to find anywhere in Wikipedia conventions that a word (supposedly) difficult to pronounce should be banned from an article. Frania W. (talk) 02:32, 13 October 2009 (UTC)

Comment on move closure

Please note that a move closure is not an admin action and, except for the limited rationale applied in that closure, says nothing about policies in general. This move closure only says that sources and usage of Margaret of Valois vs Marguerite de Valois are divided and therefore the argument that we should look at other encyclopedias for guidance is persuasive. Obviously, if further research reveals that any one of these does not hold up, particularly if it is found that reliable sources largely refer to her as Marguerite de Valois, or if arguments in favor of an alternative title such as Marguerite of Valois are found convincing, then the move should (and must) be reconsidered. --RegentsPark (sticks and stones) 17:33, 21 October 2009 (UTC)

Child

I heard a rumor that Margaret had a child with de Harlay. Does anybody know the child's name. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 122.148.14.53 (talk) 06:58, 3 January 2015 (UTC)

There are many doubts among historians about Margaret's ability to conceive children. The ambassadors of the time themselves were doubtful of the fact and were convinced that the queen was sterile. Later it was said that the child born of the extramarital affair between Margaret and Champvallon would be Louis de Vaux, who became a Capuchin friar with the name of Frére Ange. But there are numerous doubts about the truth of the fact, being the friar close to the family of Henriette d'Entragues and therefore involved in a series of intrigues against Henry IV of France, during the early seventeenth century. --Chevalier d'Éon (talk) 12:58, 21 July 2019 (UTC)

portrait

The main portrait here looks to me rather strongly to be a portrait of Marie de' Medici, not Margaret. So what's the deal with that? john k (talk) 06:07, 5 October 2015 (UTC)

Which portrait to use?

I recently undid a change of Marguerite's portrait on the top of the page. The one in place now is from a much more credible source, has definitely been identified as a portrait of Marguerite and is the most used of her. Does anyone object? Meghana34 (talk) 01:56, 15 April 2017 (UTC)

POV issues / unclear wording at end of lead

This section at the end of the lead should be clarified. It feels like Wiki is taking a point of view by calling her the "victim of a historiographic tradition", which is inappropriate as per WP:POV. It is also not a clear sentence; it seems to mean that she was mistreated by some historians but also seems to imply those historians were calling her beautiful and cultured. I would fix it myself, but I have no idea what the author is trying to say here.

She has been a victim of a historiographic tradition that has demolished the importance of her actions in the political sphere of the era, to reinforce the dynastic transition from the Valois to the Bourbon, giving credit to libel and slander circulated on her account and created and handed down through the centuries the myth of a beautiful woman, cultured, nymphomaniac and incestuous.

Ikjbagl (talk) 20:41, 15 August 2018 (UTC)

Agree with Ikjbagl: that paragraph sounds as though it was lifted practically verbatim from somewhere. Poor/incorrect translation is also an issue throughout, but without access to the sources there's nothing I can do to fix it. Cheers, Awien (talk) 17:25, 18 August 2018 (UTC)

Agree about translation, which I also cannot fix. Pincrete (talk) 18:28, 24 March 2019 (UTC)

I added in a note to this incipit an interesting article written by Moshe Sluhovsky of the Hebrew University of Jerusalem and a book by Cesarina Casanova professor of Modern History at the University of Bologna. --Chevalier d'Éon (talk) 11:02, 21 July 2019 (UTC)

Margaret of Valois: a living legend?

The term "living legend" that I had inserted some time ago in the beginning of the article, was canceled by User:Kansas Bear. Although later added a source in Italian, the only one I can cite (I am Italian and the English language is not my native language), I was deleted again stating that this is English Wikipedia and that it is preferable to use texts in English. I used as a source the Italian translation of the essay by Margaret's most important French scholar: Éliane Viennot. In a discussion with Kansas Bear, I was asked to quote here a part of Viennot's book, never translated in English, in order to make the text understood. There are seven lines of a 479-page book:

La donna che muore di fronte al Louvre nel marzo 1615 è un personaggio già entrato nella leggenda. L'epoca la vuole così. Tutti i grandi che sono riusciti a sopravvivere al caos di quarant'anni di guerre civili (...) passano per degli eroi. Sono stati afferrati dalla gloria, che riempie d'episodi favolosi le zone d'ombra delle loro vite, alimentandosi dell'odio e dell'ammirazione seminati per via (...)

— Éliane Viennot, Margherita di Valois. La vera storia della regina Margot, p. 241.

Translated in English:

The woman who dies in front of the Louvre in March 1615 is a character already entered in the legend. The age wants it this way. All the great ones who managed to survive the chaos of forty years of civil wars (...) pass for heroes, they have been seized by glory, which fills the shadowy areas of their lives with fabulous episodes, feeding on hatred and admiration sown on the street (...)

I wonder: can this statement by a well-known scholar of the subject be enough to make Margaret define a "living legend" of her time? --Chevalier d'Éon (talk) 10:50, 21 July 2019 (UTC)

I said English sources are preferred, and that this was the 3rd time Chevalier had attempted to write this into the article(thus a reason for suspicion). And I asked for quotes from the 4 pages you indicated for the source(s).

Viennot, Margherita di Valois. La vera storia della regina Margot, p. 241.

Viennot, Margherita di Valois, pp. 335-337.

• "The term "living legend" that I had inserted some time ago in the beginning of the article, was canceled by User:Kansas Bear."

And if you are going to misrepresent what happened then I will show exactly the situation.

1.Chevalier added unsourced information(concerning "living legend" and some other details, here. I removed it stating it was unsourced.

2.Then Chevalier re-added the information using 5 pages out of Wellman's book, in which Wellman makes no mention of "living legend"(which is original research) or Dumas inventing the nickname for Margaret(source misrepresentation). I removed it.

3.Then Chevalier re-added the information again using different sources, which I removed(June 30th) after no response from Chevalier on their talk page(June 27th).

As it stands now, I do not find this quote enough to justify "living legend". --Kansas Bear (talk) 21:14, 21 July 2019 (UTC)

In a long discussion with Kansas Bear, which I do not care to continue, he had already explained to him that reading for more than ten years books on Margaret and the French wars of religion, I do not remember sometimes where I read a precise information. I own the book by Kathleen Wellman, which I read about two years ago, and I inadvertently used it as the quoted source, because I seemed to remember that the two information was explained and I preferred to use a book written in English for English Wikipedia. Instead I was wrong. I only used the Italian translation of book by Viennot as a last resort, because in this I was 100% sure that I could find the necessary information.

Regarding the nickname invented by Alexandre Dumas père, "La Reine Margot", I quote verbatim from the biography written by Viennot:

Solo nel 1845, però, Margherita diventa la principessa più popolare di Francia, grazie a un romanzo di Alexandre Dumas che trova per l'occasione un soprannome destinato a suggellare la leggenda: La regina Margot. (...) Il successo folgorante del romanzo (venti riedizioni fino al 1914, di cui una ogni anno per i primi quindici anni dopo la prima apparizione) condiziona in modo determinante l'immaginario dei decenni a venire, influenzando non solo il popolo, ma anche gli uomini seri, sebbene nello stesso periodo essi plaudano la nascita di una storiografia finalmente «scientifica».

— Éliane Viennot, Margherita di Valois. La vera storia della regina Margot, pp. 335-337.

Translated in English:

Only in 1845, however, does Margaret become the most popular princess in France, thanks to a novel by Alexandre Dumas who finds a nickname for the occasion destined to seal the legend: La Reine Margot. (...) The dazzling success of the novel (twenty reissues until 1914, of which one every year for the first fifteen years after the first appearance) has a decisive influence on the imagination of the decades to come, influencing not only the people, but also serious men, although in the same period they applaud the birth of a finally «scientific» historiography.

On the influence and use of the famous nickname of the queen in scientific historiography, I refer to the interesting article by Moshe Sluhovsky: «History as Voyeurism: from Marguerite De Valois to La Reine Margot». The nickname invented by Dumas derives from the union of two nicknames that accompanied the queen during her life: the first is "Margot" with which her brother Charles IX had called her since childhood and the second is "Queen Margaret" (la Reine Marguerite), as it was named, on the orders of her ex-husband, after the annulment of their marriage. Despite the divorce and the new marriage of Henry IV with Marie de Medici, Margaret retained the title of queen (see Robert J. Sealy, The Myth of Reine Margot: Toward the Elimination of a Legend, pp. 183-184).

As for the concept of "living legend", I take a sentence from the article that seems to me more suitable to describe the situation in which Margaret could have been reflected in the last years of life, from returned to Paris in 1605: "The status (...) has also been attained for extreme notoriety". I hope for a cordial comparison of more opinions about it. --Chevalier d'Éon (talk) 18:10, 23 July 2019 (UTC)

Why didn't you answer this debate anymore? Have you convinced yourself? --Chevalier d'Éon (talk) 10:24, 15 October 2019 (UTC)

I have removed,

• Les reines de France au temps des Valois: Les années sanglantes, Simone Bertière, Librairie générale française, 1995 - Fiction.

which is listed as a work of fiction.[1] Works of fiction are not reliable sources for history. --Kansas Bear (talk) 17:40, 26 September 2019 (UTC)

But it's not true. I have read this book and it is not a work of fiction. There are no invented dialogues. It is a good summary historical reconstruction with a bibliography. The term "misogynist" was used by Viennot in her biography on Margaret referring to numerous historians, in particular Jules Michelet, who transmitted the various anecdotes of the legend.Chevalier d'Éon (talk) 19:27, 13 October 2019 (UTC)

And again, it is not your opinion that decides what is fiction and what is not. --Kansas Bear (talk) 20:23, 13 October 2019 (UTC)

You're right, but I also have a critical sense that I apply about what I read. Considering that I know the subject in depth. I also know that Bertière's works have received various prizes in the historical-biographical field. However, I don't insist, I don't want to create an edit war for these nonsense.--Chevalier d'Éon (talk) 10:24, 15 October 2019 (UTC)

• "She has been a victim of a misogynist historiographic tradition that has demolished the importance of her actions in the political sphere of the era, to reinforce the dynastic transition from the Valois to the Bourbon, giving credit to libel and slander circulated on her account and created and handed down through the centuries the myth of a beautiful woman, cultured, but nymphomaniac and incestuous."

Either needs to have corresponding supporting information in the article or else should not be in the lead of the article. --Kansas Bear (talk) 17:47, 26 September 2019 (UTC)

It seems to me if we talk about it enough in the paragraph: The myth of Queen Margot. Moreover the sources quoted, including the article by Sluhovsky, seems to me quite exhaustive... Did you read it?Chevalier d'Éon (talk) 19:27, 13 October 2019 (UTC)

Did you read what I said? Feel free to read this;

• 1) If the information is not in the body of the article it should not be in the lead.
• 2) Unless the source(s) explicitly state something, you can not interpret the information and write your own intrepretation. That is Wikipedia:OR. --Kansas Bear (talk) 20:23, 13 October 2019 (UTC)

Well, I rewrote the entire paragraph by entering the sources. I think it's better now. --Chevalier d'Éon (talk) 10:24, 15 October 2019 (UTC)

Unsourced sentences from the section mentioned:

• Queen Margaret's life is obscured by the legend of "Queen Margot", the myth of a nymphomaniac and incestuous woman in a damned family.
• The historian Jules Michelet instead exploited the figure of Princess Valois to denounce the "depravity" of the Ancien Régime.
• Kathleen Wellman..[..].. contributed to rehabilitating the image of the last Valois and to distinguishing between the historical figure of Margaret of Valois and the legend of Queen Margot.
• However, these studies remained marginal and did not affect official texts.
• However, literary works and cinematographic works, such as La Reine Margot by Patrice Chéreau, continued to perpetuate the image of an obscene and lustful woman.
• The most successful defamation was Le Divorce Satyrique (1607), which described Margaret as a nymphomaniac: nevertheless, these defamatory accusations do not stand up to a careful examination of the sources.--Kansas Bear (talk) 01:11, 14 October 2019 (UTC)

Soon I will try to add the sources. At this point I ask if I can use the Italian version of Margaret's biography written by Viennot...--Chevalier d'Éon (talk) 10:24, 15 October 2019 (UTC)

A Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion

The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion:

• MargueritedeValois Best.jpg

Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. —Community Tech bot (talk) 19:42, 18 September 2022 (UTC)