Talk:Maria Theresa of Spain

The black nun of Moret

According to this blog, in 1664, the queen gave birth to a black girl that was said to die some days later. There is the hypothesis that this girl did not actually die, but became Louise Marie Therese, the black nun of Moret. She would have been a bastard of the queen and her black slave Nabo, who died (how?) while the queen was pregnant. The blog post gives no references, but quotes Voltaire's Century of Louis XIV and Anne-Marie-Louise de Orléans, Grande Mademoiselle. Do you know something about this? --Error 22:53, 3 October 2007 (UTC)

Voilà. Anne-Maire-Louise:

Monsieur me conta l'effroi que l'on avoit eu sur la maladie de la reine, le monde qui étoit au Louvre lorsque l'on lui apporta Notre-Seigneur, et comme M. l'abbé de Gordes, présentement évêque de Langres, son premier aumônier, s'étoit évanoui d'affliction ; que M. le Prince avoit ri, et tout le monde ensuite ; que la reine avoit fait une mine (je ne m'en étonnai pas ; quand l'on est dans cet état et que l'on voit rire, on n'est pas trop aise) ; que la fille, dont elle étoit accouché, ressembloit un petit maure, que M. de Beaufort avoit amené, qui étoit fort joli, qui étoit toujours avec la reine ; que quand l'on s'étoit souvenu que son enfant y pourroit ressembler, on l'avoit ôté, mais qu'il n'étoit plus temps ; que la petite fille étoit horrible ; qu'elle ne vivroit pas ; que je me gardasse bien de le dire à la reine ni qu'elle mourroit. Ces avis étoient assez inutiles : on ne dit guère de ces choses-là moins que de vouloir fâcher les gens, et on n'a pas cette intention pour la reine

It seems that Serge Bilé has published about it.

--Error 23:21, 3 October 2007 (UTC)

The above comments could be true !! after reading it, i put in black nun of moret and there was some infomation saying she was born in 1664 like you said and that she died in 1732. also i saw found that she was exiled, treated with care and attention at her convent, her father went away somewhere and after her birth was sent to the convent of Moret where she did die. read the info following sites

• found this pic [1]
• found this info [2]

on most sides, people said that Marie Therese was very boring; maybe she wasnt lol

86.164.90.95 (talk) 10:08, 11 June 2008 (UTC)

That is just a myth created by court gossip, Marie Therese was extremely pious and devoted to her husband. These rumors were spread by those who were not either not alive at the time, such as Voltaire, or by people who had conspired against the crown, such as the Grande Mademoiselle. If one wanted a truly reliable source I would suggest Elizabeth Charlotte of the Palatinate, wife of Louis XIV's brother Philippe I, Duke of Orléans. As sister-in-law of King and a member of the immediate royal family, Elizabeth usually had access to far more information regarding members of the royal family and royal births. In her memoirs she sheds some light on the myth of the 'Black nun of Moret'

"It is totally false that the Queen was delivered of a black child. The late Monsieur (Philippe), who was present, said that the young Princess was ugly, but not black. The people cannot be persuaded that the child is not still alive, and say that it is in a convent at Moret, near Fontainebleau. It is, however, quite certain that the ugly child is dead; for all the court saw it die."

The Queen gave birth in public, witnessed by the entire court, and the death of the child was also witnessed by the entire court. It is said that the child had dark skin caused by Cyanosis, which courtiers ignorant of the medical field and who were prone gossip could have mistakenly believed was black skin. Andrew0921 (talk) 02:30, 4 November 2010 (UTC)

I would also like to mention that the Grande Mademoiselle was NOT present at the birth, she was told about it afterward by Philippe I, Duke of Orléans. In her memoirs she states that...

"Monsieur (Philippe) told me of the trouble they had all been in during the illness of the Queen: of the crowd there was when the sacrament was administered; how Monsieur l'Abbe de Gordes, her first almoner, had nearly fainted away from affliction, whereat Monsieur le Prince and the rest had laughed, which vexed her Majesty extremely; that the infant very much resembled a little dwarf that Monsieur de Beaufort had brought with him from some foreign country, and that there was no chance of the child's living, although they had not stated this to the Queen."

In the memoirs of Philippe's wife, as stated earlier, she makes the point that Philippe clarified that the baby was ugly but not black. During the 17th century (and possibly even today) the average person had no idea what Cyanosis was, and when the Queen gave birth to a small baby with dark skin they rudely and ignorantly likened it to her black dwarf.

There are several other stories such as these, like the ridiculous theory by Louis-Pierre Anquetil (Who also was not alive at the time) that it was the legitimate child of Louis XIV and Marie-Therese, but that frequent and incautious admission of a black dwarf to her presence during her pregnancy, had affected the colour of the child; and that the birth being deemed monstrous, was thus secluded form the knowledge of the public. That is a ridiculous theory, as it is physically impossible for a child to come out black from staring at a black person. All of these stories, myths, and rumors should be taken with a grain of salt as they are not backed by science or reliable sources. Andrew0921 (talk) 04:18, 4 November 2010 (UTC)

Sources

This article needs primary sources. The use of biographies of Louis XIV provides some information on Marie-Thérèse, but only as his consort. Several monographs (Jean-Paul Bled; Joëlle Chevé) on Marie-Thérèse have been published in the past few years. These books provide a more germane discussion of Marie-Thérèse. --E. Lighthart (talk) 14:12, 8 August 2008 (UTC)

It's also problematical that the entire article comes from only one source, by Antonia Fraser. Softlavender (talk) 05:12, 12 March 2009 (UTC)

Quotes

Most of these quotations are attributed to Marie-Thérèse. There are no primary sources to verify the claim as quotations. What source material that has been indicated is vague: i.e. Louis refers to whom and what is the source.

Additionally, this is an article about Marie-Thérèse d'Autriche not an article about Marie-Antoinette. The discussion about the alleged statement "Let them eat cake" is superfluous as it demonstrates no plausible nor justified relation to Marie-Thérèse. --E. Lighthart (talk) 14:16, 8 August 2008 (UTC)

"This saying is commonly mis-attributed to the ill-fated Queen Marie-Antoinette, wife of Louis XVI; it has been speculated that he was actually referring to Maria Theresa of Spain, the wife of Louis XIV, or various other aristocrats." Thirteen lines to discuss a probable *mis-attribution* and a *speculation* of an unidentifed princess Rousseau could/would not name. Is this paragraph necessary?

If Rousseau knew *a princess* said: "S'ils n'ont plus de pain, qu'ils mangent de la brioche!", he did not name the princess, so why should we attribute the quote to Marie-Thérèse (who spoke French very badly) or to Marie-Antoinette who was a little girl in Austria at the time of Rousseau's writing, and did not speak French at the time anyway ? Why should Wikipedia keep on filling pages with such trivia when nothing is known on the veracity of the quote or the identity of its author? It might also be that that Rousseau himself is the author of the famous phrase which, in his Confessions, he attributed to a princess. Frania W. (talk) 22:51, 26 August 2008 (UTC)

I moved the whole paragraph over to Let them eat cake, continue discussion over there. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 217.10.60.85 (talk) 08:56, 2 October 2009 (UTC)

217.10.60.85: Why did not you "copy and paste" instead of "amputate"? - and I am not even sure that would be the correct thing to do. If done whenever someone found an interesting paragraph, there would not be much left in articles! I reverted you. Frania W. (talk) 14:07, 2 October 2009 (UTC)

Article title

1. This is a free encyclopaedia and I have right to undo all your work if I don't agree with it, especially when it comes to article titles. You do not own articles and therefore you cannot tell me to stop undoing your work if I have contra argements. Not only that; you've said like I go around and undo all of your edits, when in fact I undid only one.
2. It was what she would've gone by worths only for the period during which she lived in France. She called herself Maria Teresa while she lived in Spain, but that's unimportant. She is called Maria Theresia in Germany, Marie-Thérèse in France, Maria Teresa in Spain, Maria, Marija Terezija in my country, and Maria Theresa in English speaking countries. Since this is English language Wikipedia, we need to use English form of her name. Not to mention that Marie-Thérèse of Spain is half-French, half-English. If you insist on using French form of her name (which makes no sense here), then it should be either Marie-Thérèse d'Autriche or Marie-Thérèse d'Espagne. Surtsicna (talk) 18:51, 4 November 2008 (UTC)
3. When two users disagree, they can

• • try to reach consensus on their own;
  • request a move (user who proposes the new title requests the move) and then other users join the discussion.

When a user changes the title of article and the other user disagrees, status quo should be respected and the article should revert to the old title until a consensus is reached. Edit war is not allowed. Surtsicna (talk) 19:21, 4 November 2008 (UTC)

Please respect the status quo and leave the article where it was when you started editing. I am going to move this discussion to Talk:Maria Theresa of Spain. Surtsicna (talk) 23:27, 4 November 2008 (UTC)

No, she was born as María Teresa, not as Marie-Thérèse! Catherine of Aragon was born as Catalina, but we call her Catherine. Maria Theresa of Austria was born as Maria Theresia, but we call her Maria Theresa. Anglicization of names of princesses was and still is a common practice. It has nothing to do with not being able to pronounce a name. Surtsicna (talk) 23:30, 4 November 2008 (UTC)

Changing Maria Theresa to Marie-Thérèse

While there are Queens of France on wikipedia with their names anglicanized, there are those who have their actual name. Why can't this queen retain her name in French? She was born María Teresa. When she became Queen of France she became Marie-Thérèse. She is who she is, that hasn't changed. That's who she was and what people called her. That's how she is refered to in many history books, like Love and Louis XIV by Antonia Fraser. Sorry for being anoying before, I'm new at this stuff.

• You cannot claim that Marie-Thérèse was her actual name. She was born as María Teresa and probably preffered Spanish spelling as she never spoke French well enough. Choosing Marie-Thérèse over Maria Teresa is POV.
• This is English language Wikipedia. Anglicization of names of princesses was and still is a common practice. It has nothing to do with not being able to pronounce a name. I am not being Anglo-centric: English is not my first language, and I am pretty much NPOV when it comes to these issues. She is called Maria Theresia in Germany, Marie-Thérèse in France, María Teresa in Spain, Marija Terezija in my country, and Maria Theresa in English speaking countries.
• Titles should not be half-English, half-French (like Marie-Thérèse of Spain).
• Lady Antonia Fraser chose a French spelling, but most of the other authors (Haldane, Ashley, Sturdy, Birn, etc) haven't. Surtsicna (talk) 22:57, 5 November 2008 (UTC)

Fine, but then should she be mentioned as Marie-Thérèse, María Teresa, or Maria Theresa throughout the article?

There are two possibilities:

1. Use only Maria Theresa, but mention Spanish and French spelling in the lead sentence.
2. Use María Teresa for section In Spain, Marie-Thérèse for section In France, and Maria Theresa for the rest of the sections. I think we would both agree that the second one is better. Surtsicna (talk) 23:05, 5 November 2008 (UTC)

Okay, you win. The second one sounds good.

Please don't say that I win! I hope we've agreed and reached a consensus! If you still disagree, feel free to give your reasons. I am always open for discussion ;) All newbies are "annoying" at first, but you're just trying to help and I appreciate your effort. Surtsicna (talk) 23:11, 5 November 2008 (UTC)

No I agree with your plan, I promise.

I'd like to raise the possibility of changing the article to "Marie-Thérèse of Austria".

First, judging by the convention, it appears customary to gallicise French queens' names rather than anglicising them or using their native tongues. Notice, for instance, how Louis XVI's queen is known by the French "Marie-Antoinette" and not the German "Maria Antonia" or the English "Mary Antonia". When a princess marries, she takes on the nationality of her adopted country. Thus, the Spanish princess María Teresa ceased to be Spanish upon her marriage, but rather became the French queen Marie-Thérèse. Her preferences for Spanish cannot be proven and, in any case, are of no consequence. This effectively means that "María Teresa" as the general designation would be inappropriate.

Moving on to "Maria Theresa" as a suggested term on the grounds of anglicisation, if we truly intended to anglicise names, she should be called "Mary Theresa", which is far more English than "Maria Theresa". But this would seem quite silly and absurd. Thus, "Marie-Thérèse" should be preferred over the Spanish "María Teresa" or the English "Mary Theresa", and arguably, considering the English language's propensity to absorb foreign words and names, "Marie-Thérèse" is anglicised as well.

Secondly, I have never heard her named as "Maria Teresa of Spain". To my knowledge, there have only been two Spanish Habsburg Queens of France, Marie-Therese and Anne. And I have not come across any conventional history that describes either as "of Spain". Both are always "of Austria". However, to name her "Maria Theresa of Austria" would confuse her with other "Maria Theresa's of Austria", such as the more famous Empress. "Marie-Thérèse of Austria" would conveniently avoid that conundrum, follow the convention of gallicising names of French queens and adhere to common practice in naming the queen.

Thus, I suggest that we maintain the status quo regarding her pre-marriage description as "María Teresa", but amend all other instances of her name to "Marie-Thérèse". The article title should be changed to "Marie-Thérèse of Austria", which really isn't a half-English half-French "title". To argue otherwise would be akin to insisting that "Mao Zedong of China" is a half-English half-transliterated Mandarin "title". Brian junhui sim (talk) 07:07, 30 July 2009 (UTC)

"Marie-Thérèse of Spain" is used by less than 29 authors, while "Maria Theresa of Spain" is used by 626. "Marie-Thérèse of Austria" is used by less than 90 authors and some of them do not even refer to this woman. Thus, the article currently uses the name which is the most common name and which should be used as the title of the article per Wikipedia:Common name.

It is not customary to gallicise names of all the Queens of France, nor is it customary to anglicise names of all the Queens of France. While most are anglicised (see medieval queens), some are not. The majority of historians refer to this woman as "Maria Theresa of Spain", as I have proven in the paragraph above. Thus, mentioning "Mary Theresa" doesn't make much sense. We are not here to invent hot water. She is "Maria Theresa of Spain" in English. Surtsicna (talk) 10:01, 30 July 2009 (UTC)

Surtsicna, Brian & others: In the Google search, the numbers are not the number of authors, but the number of times books are listed, with the same book listed several times. In the instance of *626*, Google is not listing 626 authors; ex:

• The life of Monsieur de Molière - Page 190: http://books.google.com/books?id=csaTEE3uBhIC&pg=PA190&dq=%22Maria+Theresa+of+Spain%22&lr=&ei=lM1xSo--HafuygSso9T5Dg is given on both the first & second pages.
• Chambers's encyclopædia: a dictionary of universal knowledge for the people‎ - is given 5 times (in a list of 10) on the fourth page.

This being said... There seems to be an ongoing argument over the title of the article & I'd like to give my two cents worth, as a previous queen of France was in the same situation:

a member of the Habsburg family,

born in Spain,

married a king of France.

The title of her article in English Wikipedia is:

• Anne of Austria. ***Born at Benavente Palace in Valladolid, Spain; baptised Infanta Ana María Maurícia de España, she was the daughter of Habsburg parents, Philip III, king of Spain, and Margaret of Austria. She bore the titles of Infanta of Spain and of Portugal, Archduchess of Austria, Princess of Burgundy and of the Low Countries.***

Throughout the article, Infanta Ana María Maurícia de España who became queen of France by her marriage to Louis XIII, and was the mother of Louis XIV, is referred to by her French name of Anne, NOT of Spain, BUT of Austria. (In France, she is referred to as Anne d'Autriche.)

Now let's look at her niece, Maria Theresa of Spain, also

a member of the Habsburg family,

born in Spain,

married a king of France.

• Maria Theresa of Spain: ***Born as Infanta María Teresa of Spain being paternal great-great-granddaughter of an Archduke of Austria, at the Royal Monastery of El Escorial, she was the daughter of Philip IV, King of Spain and his Queen consort, Elizabeth of France. Another Spanish infanta, her paternal aunt and mother-in-law, Anne of Austria, Queen of France, also used the Austrian archducal title, then still affected by the Spanish Habsburgs, denoting the origins of the family.***

Throughout the article, Infanta María Teresa of Spain, (which should read Infanta María Teresa de España, if we want to stay logical & not make a macédoine of languages), is referred to as Maria Theresa (in title), then as María Teresa of Spain, María Teresa. At time of her marriage to Louis XIV, she becomes Marie-Thérèse & remains with that name to the end of the article. (In France, she is referred to as Marie-Thérèse d'Autriche.)

There thus appears to be TWO problems

1. the choice of a first name in title
2. the choice between of Spain and of Austria

Since the first name is followed by *of*, Maria Theresa does not bother me, as Maria can be used in English. However, to remain logical with instance of Anne of Austria, I opt for of Austria. Following the same logic, I would say that the title of the article on Marie Antoinette should be Marie Antoinette of Austria.

Cordialement, Frania W. (talk) 18:10, 30 July 2009 (UTC)

Yes, the numbers listed are numbers of books, but "Maria Theresa of Spain" is used more often anyway. Having this article titled "Maria Theresa of Austria" would be very inconvenient because there are many other Archduchesses named Maria Theresa). I do not see why we should make the matter complicated when the situation is simple - there are more than enough books referring to her as Maria Theresa of Spain (perhaps because she brought the Crown of Spain to the Bourbons).

I agree with Frania - language mishmash should be avoided. This queen should be referred to as Maria Theresa throughout the whole article. She is Maria Theresa in English and that's it. Her name in French, Spanish, Chinese or any other language is irrelevant because English language has its own commonly used name for her. The fact that she was known as María Teresa in Spain and as Marie-Thérèse in France should be mentioned in the lead section, but the article should use the name which is most commonly used to refer to her. Surtsicna (talk) 18:51, 30 July 2009 (UTC)

I (regretfully) must disagree with Surtscina saying this article titled "Maria Theresa of Austria" would be very inconvenient because there are many other Archduchesses named Maria Theresa, the reason of my disagreement being that when you compare the other Maria Theresa of Austria, who are ALL related, not having her named as the others gives the impression to those who check the list without much knowledge of history that she does not belong to the Austrian Habsburg branch. If you notice, the other Maria Theresa are differentiated by their B&D dates, so she could be Maria Theresa of Austria (1638-1683).

À plus tard, après un esspresso! Frania W. (talk) 20:14, 30 July 2009 (UTC)

Then surely having the article titled "Maria Theresa of Austria (1638-1683)" would give impression to those who check the list without much knowledge of history that she was not daughter of a king of Spain, wouldn't it? The current title contains no ambiguity, while "Maria Theresa of Austria" would require artificial parenthetical disambiguation. Why use artificial parenthetical disambiguation when it is not needed? Why ignore the most common name?

Hajde moja, čujemo se poslije kahve! Surtsicna (talk) 20:29, 30 July 2009 (UTC)

Surtscina, I think we can argue back & forth, each one of us bringing a new counter-proposal to be counter-proposed! I also would like to take into consideration what Brian wrote, which, in my opinion, is very logical.

As for ***... would give the impression to those who check the list without much knowledge of history that she was not daughter of a king of Spain,...?*** How about Anne of Austria, (baptised Infanta Ana María Maurícia de España), who became queen of France when she married Louis XIII? Where in the title of her article does it give a hint that she was daughter of a king of Spain? And her first name has been gallicised to Anne, which happens to be the same in English.

Is *kahve* coffee in... Bosnian? Cordialement, Frania W. (talk) 21:28, 30 July 2009 (UTC)

Anne of Austria is known as such in English. Maria Theresa of Spain is known as such in English. There is no fixed rule for naming Austrian archduchesses who became French queens. There is, however, common usage. Common usage dictates: refer to Anne as Anne of Austria, but refer to Maria Theresa as Maria Theresa of Spain. As I said, it could be because the succession to the Spanish throne passed through Maria Theresa to the currently reigning royal house. We cannot force consistency where consistency would be artificial and unhelpful.

Yes, *kahve* is the genitive form of the word kahva, which means coffee. I said: "See you after coffee." ;) Surtsicna (talk) 21:49, 30 July 2009 (UTC)

Is Encyclopædia Britannica credible? FW

"Marie-Thérèse Of Austria." Encyclopædia Britannica. 2009.

http://74.125.95.132/search?q=cache:VnQet0pglXMJ:www.britannica.com/EBchecked/topic/365110/Marie-Therese-of-Austria+Encyclopedia+britannica+Louis+XIV+married+Maria+Theresa+of+Austria&cd=2&hl=en&ct=clnk&gl=us&client=firefox-a

Frania W. (talk) 22:57, 30 July 2009 (UTC)

Yes, it is, but paper editions refer to her as "Maria Theresa of Spain". Besides, the article you found uses a strange mishmash too - it refers to Maria Theresa's mother as Elizabeth of France rather than Elisabeth of France and we cannot ignore that if we are going to quote it. Surtsicna (talk) 09:07, 31 July 2009 (UTC)

First, I disagree with the use of the word "proof". Despite claims otherwise, the mere mention of a few names does not really constitute proof. To truly "prove" a point, one might have to compile various lists--of how many writers refer to Marie-Thérèse, hwo many times they refer to her, and in what ways they do so. One might then need collate these lists to reflect the percentage of scholarship using a particular name to "prove" (at least empirically) whether the majority of historians use that particular name. Speaking of "proof" in the current situation, where it consists merely of names without reference to books, publishers, dates, pages, etc, is unhelpful. Currently, it is unlikely that anything has actually been proven and effectively means that an argument along the lines of "In English, she is Maria Theresa" and "It is proven that she is Maria Theresa", with the expectation of silencing all dissent, is unconvincing, to say the least.

Second, the use of "Mary Theresa" shows the fallacies of Surtsicna's original third point--that "Maria Theresa" is best because it is English and this is English wikipedia. Taken to its logical conclusion, the argument that this is English wikipedia and that an English form of a name should be used means that the "most English" form "Mary Theresa" should be used. But as Surtsicna rightly says, that makes no sense. "Maria Theresa", as Surtsicna also says, is also English. The point then is, arguing for "Maria Theresa" citing the "Englishness" of English wikipedia is flawed because of its absurd results.

Third, "Marie" and "Thérèse" can also be said to be English names. English has absorbed so much of other languages that, in my opinion, hardly any name can be considered foreign anymore. English is, to a certain extent, linguistic "mishmash". To argue for "Maria Theresa" on the grounds of avoiding linguistic mishmash thus lacks merit.

The fact of the matter is that the argument for "Maria Theresa of Spain", citing evidence of "proof", the "Englishness" of English wikipedia, and linguistics consistency, fails. Rather, consistency with the naming of other Spanish-born Habsburg princess(es) who became French queens leads one to the conclusion that the article should be entitled "Marie-Thérèse Of Austria", with the necessary gallicisation and "of Austria". Such consistency is both helpful and not artificial as it preserves the regularity of French-queen-naming conventions especially such queens from the same background as Marie-Thérèse.

On a sidenote, I think it is worth noting that the online version of Encyclopædia Britannica, which refers to her as "Marie-Thérèse Of Austria" is dated 2009, whereas the latest printed version, according to Surtsicna's link, was published in 1970. Brian junhui sim (talk) 11:28, 31 July 2009 (UTC)

At the risk of repeating myself, doing exactly that: Surtscina, I think we can argue back & forth, each one of us bringing a new counter-proposal to be counter-proposed! I also would like to take into consideration what Brian wrote, which, in my opinion, is very logical. Frania W. (talk) 14:11, 31 July 2009 (UTC)

There is no need to repeat yourself, Frania. We are supposed to discuss and that's what we are doing. What would you like us to do?

@Brian - "Mary Theresa" is purely your invention. I have never proposed using that name. You are the one who says that "Mary Theresa" is "the most English" form, so don't put words in my mouth. I maintain that we should use the name which is most commonly used by historians who write in English (this being Wikipedia in English) and that's Maria Theresa of Spain. The name of the article is supposed to be familiar to the speakers of English and I have proven that it is, given that it is used 30 times more often than "Marie-Thérèse Of Austria". Not to mention the fact that "[Marie-Thérèse] Of [Austria]" is incorrectly capitalized. "Englishness" is a valid arguement as this is Wikipedia in English. Englishness and common usage are more important than consistency between articles about Austrian archduchesses who became French queens (of which there are no more than two). Arguing about "consistency with the naming of other Spanish-born Habsburg princess(es) who became French queens" doesn't really make any sense, as there were only two of them. Frania, I do not see how arguing about consistency between two articles is logical, especially when such artificial consistency would be against two most important Wikipedia conventions.

Adressing the sidenote: if the online version of Britannica is so authoritive, then the article would have to be moved to Marie-Thérèse Of Austria, even though it is incorrectly capitalized, and the name of Maria Theresa's mother would have to be anglicized to Elizabeth. That would create major inconsistency, because the preposition "of" is never capitalized.

The conventions say: "Use the most commonly used English version of the name of the subject as the title of the article." Surtsicna (talk) 15:01, 31 July 2009 (UTC)

First, I apologise for my possibly confusing suggestion--"Marie-Thérèse Of Austria". As all reasonable individuals may guess, I really meant "Marie-Thérèse of Austria". Now that's done with, let's move on to more important points.

I shall now try to explain "Mary Theresa". Surtsicna argued the following: this is English wikipedia; thus a "more English" name, instead of a "less English" one, should be used; therefore "Maria Theresa" should be preferred to "Marie-Thérèse" because the former is "more English" than the latter. The logical conclusion of this argument (i.e., that a "more English" name should be preferred to a "less English" one) is that the "most English" name should be preferred to all others. Thus, the argument results in what is arguably the "most English", but also quite absurd, version--"Mary Theresa". Therefore, this means that the argument (that the degree of "Englishness" should decide an article's name) loses its value.

Admittedly, Surtsicna has changed tack throughout this discussion, a fact which renders my point not completely pertinent now. However, it is directed to what he impliedly argued in his first post's second point. I hope my explanation may turn our attention from preserving the "Englishness" of English wikipedia to other more important issues.

Next, Google is notoriously unreliable, and any "research" or "proof" based on Google remains, to me, somewhat dubious. Moreover, the "proof" here is merely a number on the top of a screen--greatly unconvincing! Additionally, Frania observed that Google lists the same book multiple times. Neither 626 nor 30 times are definitive then. Without a thorough examination of scholarly terminology, which would be very inconvenient, the "most commonly used English version of the name" remains relatively obscure. Thus, it would be best to avoid arguments claiming to forward the "most commonly used English version of the name".

Furthermore, in Surtsicna's link, some sites referred not to Louis XIV's queen, but Louis XV's daughter-in-law, the Dauphine. While she was similarly born in Spain and married to French royalty, the Dauphine was not of the House of Austria, but of France (or Bourbon) in Spain. Anne of Austria remains the closest analogy for Marie-Thérèse of Austria.

Lastly, given the obscurity of common usage and the correct degree of "Englishness", arguments citing these serve little purpose. Rather, let's look at "Anne of Austria". I think that version is uncontroversially gallicised and "of Austria". It stands to reason then, that to solve the controversy surrounding a similar queen, we should follow the example of the uncontroversial, i.e., name her "Marie-Thérèse of Austria". This would be logical.

Nonetheless, as an olive branch, I am prepared to offer as a compromise Frania's suggestion: "Maria Theresa of Austria (1638-1683)". Brian junhui sim (talk) 09:07, 1 August 2009 (UTC)

1) Mary Theresa: Use the most commonly used English version of the name of the subject as the title of the article. That is the Englishness arguement. As Mary Theresa is not the most commonly used English version of the name of the subject, your arguement loses its value. If you are trying to discredit Wikipedia:Naming conventions (use English), please refer to Wikipedia talk:Naming conventions (use English).

2) My tack: I haven't changed my tack. I have just explained it better. In my first post, I said: "She is known as Maria Theresa in English speaking countries." I didn't say: "Maria Theresa is the English form of her name." My point was quite clear.

3) Google Book Search test: Google Book Search test is commonly used on Wikipedia to determine the most commonly used English version of the name. The definite number of the books can be found on the last page of results, which is 562, while the definite number of books which refer to a "Marie-Thérèse of Austria" is 84. Note that this "Marie-Thérèse of Austria" could be either one of four archduchesses named Maria Theresa, while Maria Theresa of Spain refers to this woman or, more rarely, to her daughter-in-law. I have offered some evidence, which, no matter how "dubious" it might be, is better than no evidence offered by you.

4) Artificial consistency: It wouldn't be logical to name the article against Wikipedia:Common name and Wikipedia:Naming conventions (use English). Anne of Austria is both the common name and the most English name (the latter phrase being coined by you), so it would be logical to follow those same two rules when it comes naming this woman.

5) Incorrect capitalization: Unlike you, I do not want to assume what my conversational partner meant. I adress what he or she said, rather than assuming what he or she was thinking. If you meant "Marie-Thérèse of Austria", then you can't use the online version of Britannica as evidence because Britannica clearly uses "Marie-Thérèse Of Austria". If you cite a source, you cannot choose what you like and change what you don't like about that source.

6) Compromise: A compromise was already proposed by me and accepted by Dalv. The title of the article adhers to the convention of using the most commonly used English version of the name of the subject as the title of the article, while the article itself uses Spanish or French form of her name in different sections. Frania suggests using ambiguous name even though an unambiguous name is available and, more importantly, is commonly used by English-language sources. Surtsicna (talk) 11:43, 1 August 2009 (UTC)

1. The sides of the argument have been exhaustively covered above by both Brian/Frania on one side & Surtsicna on the other, and the positions are more entranched than ever.
2. Surtsicna's compromise was between him & Dalv, which means that if we take it in consideration, we have two on each side = no consensus.
3. More readers need to enter the discussion in order to arrive at a consensus.

In the meantime, I propose that the article be left as is (as far as the name is concerned) in order to avoid an edit war. Cordialement, Frania W. (talk) 13:50, 1 August 2009 (UTC)

I agree. Let's respect status quo. Surtsicna (talk) 14:06, 1 August 2009 (UTC)

Surtsicna clearly fails to understand my "Mary Theresa" argument. While evidently quite disconcerting (because I tried to simplify it as much as possible), admittedly the point is now moot because, as noted earlier, I am prepared to accept "Maria Theresa".

Next, as Frania and I have observed, the 626 figure on the Google booksearch list is not definitive because the same books are repeatedly listed and even then, not all books refer to the woman presently under discussion. If evidence is essential, then Frania's and my suggestion, "Maria Theresa of Austria", garners 6 290 mentions. Obviously, one might object that 6 290 includes many individuals of that name. But then so too does "Maria Theresa of Spain".

The point is, Surtsicna cited a source, but seemingly has not investigated it thoroughly to show exactly how many individual books and writers have used the name he suggests. Accordingly, a mere Google booksearch is not "proof" enough. The fact that wikipedians "commonly use" Google "to determine the most commonly used English version of (a) name", without further investigation, is of no matter. A community, say a prison community, may solve its problems most commonly by murder, but murder is not thereby made acceptable. Therefore, to speak of "the most commonly used English version of (a) name" and merely cite a number (without further investigation) from a source, which lists everything without discernment, is ridiculous.

Therefore, Surtsicna's argument lacks merit, even if he is oblivious to it. Frania has proposed a compromise, and a just one if I may add. It seeks regularity and consistency because the "most common English version" has currently failed us. I wholly agree with her. But as Frania has also pointed out, we have reached an impasse. After all, what can mere men do in the face of such intransigent obstinacy and irrational stubbornness! And so without choice, I must accept and await other readers to break the impasse.

Addressing the issue of incorrect capitalisation, I think my intentions were clear to any reasonable person. People make genuine mistakes. Sometimes these concern punctuation, sometimes, grammar, sometimes, spelling. It is necessary to be generous about some of these errors for a better, more conducive environment. Harping on other's genuine mistakes after receiving an apology is quite petty. If, for instance, I behaved like Surtsicna, I would be completely stumped by his repeated mistakes such as "arguement" or "adress". What ever could this mean! What ever could Surtsicna mean! Overlooking or perhaps pointing out certain errors in passing is certainly better than buzzing around them like mosquitoes. Brian junhui sim (talk) 02:27, 3 August 2009 (UTC)

Mary Theresa: I did understand what you confess now: your argument about "Mary Theresa" doesn't make sense.

Books: I will only repeat what I said once before: "Maria Theresa of Spain" can refer either to Maria Theresa, Queen of France (primary usage), or Maria Theresa, Dauphine of France (less known and less notable princess). "Maria Theresa of Austria", on the other hand, may refer to either one of three queens and countless archduchesses equally.

Murder comparison is so silly that it doesn't deserve a serious answer.

Intransigent obstinacy and irrational stubbornness: What can people with common sense do in the face of those who only ignore them and keep pushing against the conventions which are accepted by the rest of Wiki community?

Personal attacks: Dear Brian junhui sim (what ever could either of those words mean, assuming those are words), any user with no intention to personally attack another user would see that I did not accuse you of any mistake. I pointed out that Britannica made the mistake and that we would have to use "Marie-Thérèse Of Austria" if we cite Britannica. This attack made it obvious that you are looking for a reason to attack those who disagree with you and that you'll invent a reason if you can't find one. Anyway, thank you for pointing out mistakes made by the person who learned English using Wikipedia. Surtsicna (talk) 16:23, 3 August 2009 (UTC)

I really don't understand why Surtsicna is still so stubborn. Giving a number and providing a link to a Google searchlist is not proof. Nor is making random assertions. I do not ask for much, only for a bibliography of sorts, with verifiable details like author, publisher and date, which use the version of the name he suggests--"Maria Theresa of Spain". If he can provide overwhelming evidence in this form, then I am happy to oblige and accept that name.

What is greatly frustrating is that he does not. He merely cites a number found on a website which almost always churns out links (and repeats these links if I may add) without any discrimination. If he had then practised some discernment and noted the exact number and publication details of those which refer to this woman, rather than only citing the number of random links, I would eagerly accept. But he has not. Nonetheless, I continue to hope he will.

My argument simply is this. If he will not or cannot provide us with further detail, then his claim that "Maria Theresa of Spain" is the most commonly used English version is dubious. Given this doubt, we should resort to other means, hence, my proposed compromise--"Maria Theresa of Austria (1638-1683)", which Frania had earlier suggested. It maintained the consistency with the other Spanish-born Habsburg French queen. Surtsicna has rejected our offer of compromise most obstinately.

Lastly, the reasonable neutral observer will note that I promptly apologised for my genuine mistake (regarding Britannica's "Marie-Thérèse Of Austria") after Surtsicna repeatedly highlighted it. To lighten the mood, I also said jokingly, and with not a little fun irony, that all reasonable individuals might guess my true intentions. Surtsicna promptly pounced on it again and ripped open old wounds. As most will agree, to have someone harp on one's own errors after having made an apology for it is highly annoying. So if I lashed out unreasonably, then I regret it. Having said that, I nevertheless do not think it appropriate to insult and accuse in the manner to which I have been subjected.

P.s. Surtsicna, I don't understand your gripe about my name. If you intended it as a retort to "What ever could Surtsicna mean?" (which really meant "what ever could he (Surtsicna) mean?"; see how it follows "what ever could this mean?"), then you either do not quite understand the importance of context in English or are not particularly pleasant. To insult another's name is not very polite. Brian junhui sim (talk) 01:53, 4 August 2009 (UTC)

I am not going to address your arguments, as they are not supported by any evidence. What you call bad evidence is certainly better than no evidence. Frania rightfully closed this discussion.

Again, you try to make it look like I accused you of making a mistake. You did not make that mistake and you do not have to apologize to anyone because Britannica made the mistake. As I said earlier, I do not want to assume what you meant. I cannot see your face, I can only read what you wrote and you wrote: "what ever could this mean" and "what ever could Surtsicna mean". What you said isn't offensive, but it is offensive when I say it? Playing a victim after attacking another user personally is, to say the least, gross. Surtsicna (talk) 12:29, 4 August 2009 (UTC)

I agree. This argument does us no good. However, just for the record, I only seek an interpretation of your figures. A list of books, writers, publishers and dates would be more helpful than a mere number with an assertion. That is all I seek. After all, the former gives credence to an argument, the latter bewilders.

As for the rest, I honestly have no idea how our mutual "attacks" arose. If I had meant to insult your name, I would have written "what ever could 'Surtsicna' mean?", not "what ever could Surtsicna mean?". The former refers to your name in particular, while the latter merely refers to you. But as this is hardly the place for such a discussion, and as I'd like to bury any hatchet between us, I ask you to look to your talkpage so that we may amicably settle our personal disagreements. Brian junhui sim (talk) 15:32, 4 August 2009 (UTC)

Bonjour Brian & Surtsicna: Now that we seem to have entered calm waters, could we go back to business on the name to give our dear Queen of France? And since I have given my opinion (from which I shall not budge!!!) I am going to let the two Of you (oops! of you) discuss the affair, reassuring you that I shall accept whatever you come up with, as long as the two of you come up with the same. Cordialement, Frania W. (talk) 05:26, 5 August 2009 (UTC)

Surtsicna, I'm glad everything's cleared up now. It's really a relief! In retrospect, I'm quite amused as to how the discussion got so heated, especially when it was a discussion over the naming of a relatively unknown queen (at least when compared with others).

But coming back to "business", I persist with my, or more rightly Frania's, suggestion of "Maria Theresa of Austria (1638-1683)" (no typos I hope!). I don't suppose you might have changed your mind? Haha... Brian junhui sim (talk) 15:14, 5 August 2009 (UTC)

Frania and Brian. don't start it ;) I made it clear that the mistake is made by Britannica and all Britannica's articles about royalty seem to make the same mistake. Anyway, I agree with Frania; we should wait until more people join the discussion. When somebody sees the article and doesn't like its title, he or she will come here to discuss it. Surtsicna (talk) 16:45, 5 August 2009 (UTC)

Surtsicna & Brian: No more mention of the above: it's long enough & we all made our point. Since, to the best of our knowledge (which can always be improved) there is nothing wrong with the article, let's give the argument of the name a break & wait for others to give their thoughts. Aurevoir! Frania W. (talk) 16:57, 5 August 2009 (UTC)

Can't resist going back to what I wrote yesterday "to the best of our knowledge (which can always be improved) there is nothing wrong with the article...": please read new section below. What a joke!!! Frania W. (talk) 18:07, 6 August 2009 (UTC)

Quoting Frania from a post above:

There thus appears to be TWO problems

1. the choice of a first name in title
2. the choice between of Spain and of Austria

Frania and Surtsicna,

The Spanish Habsburgs used de Austria as a surname, not Habsburg. The Habsburgs began to be referred to as Habsburgs until the 18th century, but before that, the family's name was de Austria (in Spain) and von Osterreich (in Austria). Anne's full name, i.e. surname, was Ana Maria Mauricia de Austria, and her titles were: Infanta of Spain and Portugal, Archduchess of Austria, etc. Obviously there's some confusion because both her surname and one of her titles are the same: de Austria (surname) and Archduchess of Austria (title). The problem is that the French automatically translated her full name (i.e. surname): Ana de Austria into Anne d'Autriche. DanyMountbatten (talk) 20:11, 1 November 2009 (UTC)

Dany,

Please forgive me, but I do not understand what you are saying. Frania W. (talk) 14:15, 2 November 2009 (UTC)

Frania,

What I'm saying is that de Austria is a surname, the surname of the Spanish Habsburgs. And French authors always referred to both Anne and Maria Theresa as d'Autriche because that's a translation into French of the surname de Austria. I hope this time it's clear. By the way, you were saying in another discussion that surnames should not be translated, but the French do it. This is one example. DanyMountbatten (talk) 14:24, 2 November 2009 (UTC)

Dany,

For any of the sovereigns, archdukes, archduchesses, infantas to which the French refer as d'Autriche, "d'Autriche" is not a surname, but an indication that these sovereigns, archdukes, archduchesses & infantas are issued from the Austrian Habsburg dynasty. On the other hand, "de France" IS a surname for the royal family of France - but not of the kings or would-be kings issued from the ~Bourbon-Orléans branch, who have surname "d'Orléans", never "de France", i.e. Louis-Philippe I, and Prince Henri, Count of Paris, Duke of France.

Frania W. (talk) 15:16, 2 November 2009 (UTC)

Frania,

The surname de Austria is an indication that they are issued from the Austrian Habsburg dynasty (which was not called Habsburg at the time, by the way). During the era, the word Austria was used as the family's name, not to designate a country, as the Spanish historian Gabriel Maura has shown in his research. When the French refer to the members of the family as d'Autriche, "d'Autriche" is an automatic translation of the surname de Austria.

Here's some evidence that Anne and Maria Theresa's surname is de Austria. There are too many examples, but I'm only giving a few from Google books:

http://books.google.com/books?id=0_YFHAAACAAJ&dq=%22ana+de+austria,+infanta+de+espa%C3%B1a%22&lr= “El ajuar de Ana de Austria, Infanta de España, Reina de Francia”

http://books.google.com/books?id=nNxhRX1bf-IC&pg=PA766&dq=%22de+austria,+infanta+de%22&lr=#v=onepage&q=%22de%20austria%2C%20infanta%20de%22&f=false On p. 766 Ana de Austria, Infanta de España & Ma. Teresa de Austria, Infanta de España

http://books.google.com/books?id=6hEc6sFRYQ0C&printsec=frontcover&dq=%22maria+teresa+de+austria,+infanta+de+espa%C3%B1a%22&lr=#v=onepage&q=&f=false Book from 1684, “Breve historia de la vida de… María Teresa de Austria, Infanta de España y Reina de Francia”

http://books.google.com/books?id=F6D2ba4128kC&pg=PA96&dq=%22ana+de+austria,+infanta+de+espa%C3%B1a%22&lr=#v=onepage&q=%22ana%20de%20austria%2C%20infanta%20de%20espa%C3%B1a%22&f=false On p. 96 Ana de Austria, Infanta de España & María Teresa de Austria, Infanta de España

http://books.google.com/books?lr=&id=djIJAQAAIAAJ&dq=%22ana+de+austria%2C+infanta+de+espa%C3%B1a%22&q=%22de+austria%2C+infanta+de+espa%C3%B1a%22 On p. 224, 308, 532, 548, 626 , Ana de Austria, Infanta de España & María Teresa de Austria, Infanta de España

http://books.google.com/books?id=rw81F07WtrkC&pg=PP1&dq=%22maria+teresa+de+austria,+infanta+de+espa%C3%B1a%22&lr=#v=onepage&q=%22de%20austria%2C%20infanta%20de%22&f=false On p. 289, 356, 357 Margarita de Austria, Infanta de España & María Teresa de Austria, Infanta de España

http://books.google.com/books?id=yBQLAAAAQAAJ&pg=PA423&dq=%22maria+teresa+de+austria,+infanta+de+espa%C3%B1a%22&lr=#v=onepage&q=%22de%20austria%2C%20infanta%20de%22&f=false On p. 416, 423 Ana de Austria, Infanta de España & María Teresa de Austria, Infanta de España

http://books.google.com/books?id=8ZAnILRtDtQC&pg=PA252&dq=%22maria+teresa+de+austria,+infanta+de+espa%C3%B1a%22&lr=#v=onepage&q=%22de%20austria%2C%20infanta%20de%20espa%C3%B1a%22&f=false On p. 252, María Teresa de Austria, Infanta de España

http://books.google.com/books?lr=&id=NgnSAAAAMAAJ&dq=%22maria+teresa+de+austria%2C+infanta+de+espa%C3%B1a%22&q=%22de+austria%2C+infanta+de+espa%C3%B1a%22 On p. 401, María Teresa de Austria, Infanta de España

http://books.google.com/books?id=qd6rPX2iuxsC&pg=PA271&dq=%22maria+teresa+de+austria,+infanta+de+espa%C3%B1a%22&lr=#v=onepage&q=%22de%20austria%2C%20infanta%22&f=false On p. 271, María Teresa de Austria, Infanta de España, Reina de Francia

DanyMountbatten (talk) 17:30, 2 November 2009 (UTC)

What Dany said makes sense; John of Austria is known as Juan de Austria. He was recognized as son of an Archduke of Austria of the House of Austria, but was never considered (or referred to as) Archduke of Austria, which may indicate that de Austra was a surname. Nevertheless, I am not entirely sure what's Dany's point. Surtsicna (talk) 19:53, 2 November 2009 (UTC)

Surtsicna, I bring this up because there has been so much talk above about Anne and Maria Theresa being referred to as of Austria or of Spain in the titles of the articles. I think the more accurate titles for the articles would be "Maria Theresa of Spain" and "Anne of Spain" because that's their most important title from birth, although Anne is commonly known as "Anne of Austria" (for the reason I mentioned above). Perhaps we could reach an agreement on this. DanyMountbatten (talk) 20:22, 2 November 2009 (UTC)

I am having a problem following Dany's argumentation or the direction he wants to take this discussion. Whether "de Austria", "d'Autriche" or "von Österreich" is a surname or not was not part of the original discussion & I cannot see why it should be introduced now.

• The discussion began one year ago in November 2008 when Surtsicna moved the article from Marie Thérèse of Spain to Maria Theresa of Spain, moved contested by Dalv89, with a revert duel lasting two days on 4/5 November 2008, duel which Dalv89 lost.

• The discussion picked up again between 30 July & 6 August 2009, between Brian junhui sim (talk), Surtsicna & myself, this time with Brian's suggestion of moving the article to Marie Thérèse of Austria. It is at the time of this discussion that I wrote:

There thus appears to be TWO problems

1. the choice of a first name in title
2. the choice between of Spain and of Austria

As we could not agree at the time, I suggested that we leave the title alone until someone else enter the discussion.

Here are the choices:

• Maria Theresa of Spain
• Maria Theresa of Austria
• Marie Thérèse of Spain
• Marie Thérèse of Austria

Dany, what do you mean here: "...the Austrian Habsburg dynasty (which was not called Habsburg at the time, by the way)."  ? What were they called "at the time" and "what time" are you talking about?

Regards, Frania W. (talk) 01:49, 3 November 2009 (UTC)

Frania,

Regarding your questions: What were they called "at the time" and "what time" are you talking about?

What were they called? They were called Austria, not Habsburg. What time? The early modern period, which includes the seventeenth century, when Anne and Maria Theresa lived.

From The meanings of 'Austria' and 'Austrian' by Grete Klingenstein, in Royal and republican sovereignty in early modern Europe, edited by Robert Oresko , G.C. Gibs and H.M. Scott (Cambridge University Press, 1997):

On p. 440

'Austria', not Habsburg, had become the family name long before, during the fourteenth and fifteenth centuries.

On p. 441

The socio-legal hierarchy of states is reflected in the very names of Europe's dynasties. In France the ruling family similarly came to be called the 'Maison de France'. Unlike the House of Austria, however, that of France already held sway over a defined and indivisible kingdom at the beginning of the early modern period. ... In contrast, the House of Austria ruled not simply one kingdom but a number of separate kingdoms and other territories.

Regards, DanyMountbatten (talk) 11:48, 3 November 2009 (UTC)

Dany,

Yesterday, you picked up on a discussion dormant since the beginning of August 2009 with : The Spanish Habsburgs used de Austria as a surname, not Habsburg.", and I am still having a problem figuring out what you are trying to convince me of & feel you are giving the original discussion a different direction.

If you are saying that "de Austria" was the surname given members of the House of Habsburg in Spain, then it gives an additional argument for renaming this article Maria Theresa of Austria or Marie Thérèse of Austria.

Regards, Frania W. (talk) 13:10, 3 November 2009 (UTC)

Frania,

Quoting you: If you are saying that "de Austria" was the surname given members of the House of Habsburg in Spain

Yes, that's what I'm saying. It's clear, Surtsicna understood it perfectly well at once. If you still doubt it or cannot understand what that means, then I'm sorry but you have problems.

Quoting you: it gives an additional argument for renaming this article Maria Theresa of Austria or Marie Thérèse of Austria.

You said it yourself: it gives an additional argument for renaming this article. There you have it, that's the connection with the previous discussion.

However, in another discussion (Louise Elisabeth of France), you said that surnames should not be translated, especifically that de France is a surname and cannot be translated into English as of France. And now you talk about renaming this article Maria Theresa of Austria or Marie Thérèse of Austria, given that de Austria is a surname. If you say that it's alright to translate the surname de Austria into of Austria, then it is also alright to translate the surname de France into of France.

Regards, DanyMountbatten (talk) 14:23, 3 November 2009 (UTC)

Dany,

• The proposal of the (re)naming of this article had nothing to do with a surname, it was on

- which version to give her first names, choice we had narrowed down to Maria Theresa & Marie Thérèse, and

- on Spain vs Austria.

• The if in my answer to you meant that if "de Austria" is a surname, then this should give preference to renaming the article "of Austria" instead of "of Spain". However, now that you are offering proof that, like "de France", "de Austria" was a surname, I will add the Spanish version of her name to the list of proposed titles for the article:

• Maria Theresa of Spain
• Maria Theresa of Austria
• Marie Thérèse of Spain
• Marie Thérèse of Austria
• Maria Teresa de Austria

Finally, from the tone you are using in hardly 24 hours that this new discussion has begun after you picked it up yesterday, it is becoming clear to me that you are trying to antagonise me by pointing out to other discussions in which we disagreed. I sincerely hope this is not or was not your purpose, and that I simply misread / mis-heard the tone of your words. This type of behaviour leads to a real waste of time. When on Wikipedia, I like to accomplish something useful, for instance, fixing a real problem attached to this article since someone added material copied from a book (see Copyright violation below). This needs time & concentration to accomplish without losing good material that may have been added since plagiarism occurred. So this is adieu on this one.

Before ending this conversation with you, I would like to say that when addressing a contributor with whom you do not agree, it is uncalled for to write: then I'm sorry but you have problems. Whatever the problems you are implying, when contributors have disagreements, the "problems" are shared.

Frania W. (talk) 19:11, 3 November 2009 (UTC)

Frania,

Quoting you: The proposal of the (re)naming of this article had nothing to do with a surname

Originally it had nothing to do with a surname indeed. But now that I'm offering proof that de Austria was a surname, it has.

Anyway, I find it funny that you're still adding Maria Theresa/Marie Thérèse of Austria in your list of proposed titles, because according to you, surnames should not be translated. Yes, you added the Spanish version, that's fine. However, by also adding Maria Theresa/Marie Thérèse of Austria as proposed titles, you're agreeing that it's alright to translate the surname.

I was not trying to antagonise you, but just pointing out a contradiction related to other discussion in which we disagreed.

DanyMountbatten (talk) 20:09, 3 November 2009 (UTC)

Speaking of contradictions, I'm curious as to your assertion that "de Austria" is their surname. Considering that from this link[3] that YOU posted, it shows ...."de Austria" and yet on the same page, XXV. Luis de Francia, Delfin de Veinnois...... Yet according to YOU, "de France" is not a surname;[4]

Just because they are referred to as de France in the books you quoted? If you want to show a real proof that de France was their surname, prove it by showing a statement in an academic publication which clearly states that de France was their surname.

If anyone is contradicting themselves then you appear to be that person. None of the links you've listed clearly states that de Austria was their surname. I would believe it prudent that if you are going to make demands of showing a statement in an academic publication, that you abide by your own demands. --Kansas Bear (talk) 06:31, 4 November 2009 (UTC)

What I said in the other discussion is that I wanted proof that de France is a surname; I didn't state that it is not a surname, so please do not twist my words.

It seems that you didn't take the time to read this discussion properly. I will post again the statement in an academic publication, which clearly states that de Austria was their surname:

From The meanings of 'Austria' and 'Austrian' by Grete Klingenstein, in Royal and republican sovereignty in early modern Europe, edited by Robert Oresko , G.C. Gibs and H.M. Scott (Cambridge University Press, 1997):

On p. 440

'Austria', not Habsburg, had become the family name long before, during the fourteenth and fifteenth centuries.

DanyMountbatten (talk) 14:00, 4 November 2009 (UTC)

Interesting. So you didn't say this[5],They are referred to as "de France" because it's a short way to say "Fils/Fille de France", not because it's their surname.

Yet according to your own statement in an academic publication, it compares Maison de France to House of Austria regarding a surname, The socio-legal hierarchy of states is reflected in the very names of Europe's dynasties. In France the ruling family similarly came to be called the 'Maison de France'. Oddly this statement can be used by you to support your claim, and yet you are quite adamant about "de France" NOT being a surname. Intriguing.

If you wish to make an argument/discussion concerning whether Maria Theresa should be called "of Spain" or "of Austria", you can start here[6],here[7] and here[8]. I find your entire argument to be more driven by personal animosity than historical accuracy. --Kansas Bear (talk) 22:22, 6 November 2009 (UTC)

Originally I didn't think de France was a surname, but I've changed my mind since reading some proof. So you're wrong when you say that I am adamant about "de France" NOT being a surname, because that was in the past.

Actually I think that your entire 'argument' is more driven by personal animosity than historical accuracy. I've already posted evidence that de Austria was their surname, so it's not my invention. If you claim that my argument is historically inaccurate then you have to prove it by providing evidence that Austria was not a surname.DanyMountbatten (talk) 16:00, 7 November 2009 (UTC)

Dany,

Exactly, at the beginning, the (re)naming of this article had nothing to do with a surname, but for the reasons largely discussed above & which I am not going to repeat.

You have brought to this discussion a list of books claiming that de Austria was a surname, which I did not know, and since I do not have time to find authors that may speak differently, I must go by the books you have offered, which say that "de Austria" is a surname. Reason why I added it to the list of possible titles.

Now, why didn't I remove Maria Theresa/Marie Thérèse of Austria from the list? People who establish a list of candidates who present themselves at elections do not remove the names of the candidates they do not intend to vote for. This is not MY list, the names represent the various choices we had come up with last August, and it is from that list that those who want to have a voice in the matter will be able to pick. Consequently, I put down all the names, independently of whether I like them or not and, instead of criticising me, you should appreciate my courtesy toward the other persons who contributed to this discussion earlier. I even must add a "compromise" which I had inadvertently skipped.

• Maria Theresa of Spain
• Maria Theresa of Austria
• Marie Thérèse of Spain
• Marie Thérèse of Austria
• Maria Teresa de Austria
• Maria Theresa of Austria (1638-1683)

Regards, Frania W. (talk) 00:00, 4 November 2009 (UTC)

Frania,

Thanks for your explanation. I thought it was your personal list, but now that you're explaining that you're taking into account the various choices of proposed titles from everyone, it is fine.

Regards, DanyMountbatten (talk) 14:00, 4 November 2009 (UTC)

I believe Frania will be delighted to read that, one year later, I have slightly changed my views regarding the titles (though I still insist on referring to sources first and then to our opinions). This is what I have to say about the choices:

• Maria Theresa of Spain - I still believe this is the best choice. Very common (if not the most common name) and unambigious.
• Maria Theresa of Austria - Impossible. There is a much better known Maria Theresa of Austria.
• Marie Thérèse of Spain - Illogical. It is not the most common name. I generally don't pay much attention to native names of historical persons when discussing article titles but it is important to note that one can't even argue that Marie Thérèse was her native name.
• Marie Thérèse of Austria - See Marie Thérèse of Spain.
• Maria Teresa de Austria - An English speaking user of Wikipedia would probably be puzzled by this title.
• Maria Theresa of Austria (1638-1683) - I would not oppose it as much as I opposed it last year but if we do agree on replacing of Spain with of Austria, I would prefer having the article titled Maria Theresa of Austria, Queen of France. Though I am still not sure that we should pick an ambigious name over an unambigious name; only a lot of sources would convince me. Surtsicna (talk) 18:37, 4 November 2009 (UTC)

I agree. Maria Theresa of Spain is the best choice. DanyMountbatten (talk) 20:00, 4 November 2009 (UTC)

Going back to my earlier comparison between Anne of Austria & Maria Theresa of Spain, as they are named in English: as a matter of logic (which does not seem to translate well in Wikipedia), both were closely related "Habsburg", "born in Spain", "Infantas of Spain" & "queens (consort) of France". Yet, because of a weird historical reason, one is called "of Austria", the other "of Spain". Then we have Marie Antoinette "tout court"... another Austrian "Habsburg", "born in Austria" & "queen (consort) of France". I fail to see the logic. Adding Queen of France to all three, no matter what name has been chosen (my preference being "of Austria" for all three), would be an improvement on the titles of the articles. At least it would tell us immediately that Anne was not a queen of Austria, Marie Theresa not a queen of Spain & Marie Antoinette not just a film. In fact, the title for Marie Antoinette's article should be Marie Antoinette of Austria, Queen of France. Frania W. (talk) 05:57, 5 November 2009 (UTC)

The weird historical reason is just that the French have always translated the name Ana de Austria into Anne d'Autriche. And the English-speaking historians, in turn, have always translated Anne d'Autriche into Anne of Austria.

Bearing in mind your points, I propose Maria Theresa of Spain, Queen of France and Anne of Spain, Queen of France. It would tell us immediately that both were infantas of Spain and queen consorts of France, and they wouldn't be mistaken for anyone else.

I don't want to argue with you, Frania, but you have said that your preference is "of Austria" for all three. That would be fine with me, personally I don't have anything against the translation of surnames, but then I would also change de France into of France in the articles of the daughters of Louis XV. DanyMountbatten (talk) 11:34, 5 November 2009 (UTC)

I am not at all convinced that "d'Autriche", "de Austria", "of Austria" are the translation of an Austrian surname "von Österreich", but that "von Österreich" with its various translations is meant to show that all the Archduchesses, Infantas etc. were issued from the same Habsburg House of Austria . That is my reason for the titles I proposed. It does seem illogical to me that the first two mentioned, coming from the same type of mold & both born in Spain should be named one "of Austria" & the other "of Spain". And when adding the third Austrian archduchess, it becomes logical to rename the article on Marie Antoinette, using the same pattern.

As for the argument, if we use "of Austria", then we must use "of France" instead of "de France", my reply is "no", because "de France" was a surname, i.e. Louis de France, Dauphin of France, as are "de France" the daughters of Louis XV, king of France.

Regards, Frania W. (talk) 06:00, 7 November 2009 (UTC)

Do you have any evidence (quotes in books, etc) that prove that de Austria was not a surname? DanyMountbatten (talk) 15:50, 7 November 2009 (UTC)

The Encyclopedia of the Middle Ages, by Norman Cantor, p210, ...by the end of the century, the Habsburgs had gained more territories in Upper Alsace and northern Switzerland and began using the Habsburg surname.

"The Oxford Companion to German Literature, by Mary Garland, p322, Habsburgs, family name of the emperors of the Holy Roman Empire, from 1438 to 1806 and emperors of Austria from 1804 to 1918.

Here are two that indicate your reference isn't what it seems. --Kansas Bear (talk) 06:12, 13 November 2009 (UTC)

Unfortunately for you, the source I posted as reference, Royal and Republican Sovereignty in Early Modern Europe, is more authoritative regarding royal usage of titles and surnames than your references.

The article which I referred to within the book, The meanings of 'Austria' and 'Austrian' in the eighteenth century, is specifically an analysis on the subject of the history of the name Austria and the Habsburgs, while your references are just a general encyclopedia of the Middle Ages and a volume on German literature, nothing specific on the Habsburg dynasty and their usage of titles and surnames. A book on the Middle Ages or German literature can be excellent on its subject, but it can hardly be authoritative on the topic of a dynasty’s titles and surnames against a book which specifically deals with the subject.

The author I quoted, Grete Klingenstein, is an Austrian historian who specializes on Austrian history and has made a lot of research on the history of the Habsburg dynasty. In her article, The meanings of 'Austria' and 'Austrian' in the eighteenth century, she devotes 55 pages (pp. 423-478) of extensive research and in-depth analysis on the subject of the history of the name Austria and how it is related to the Habsburg dynasty, while your references are just a couple of paragraphs (not even half page!) from two sources which do not deal specifically with the subject.

In any case, several modern historians refer to the Habsburgs as such in their early days because nowadays it has become the norm to refer to them as that. But in earlier centuries the Habsburgs didn't call themselves Habsburgs, certainly not the Spanish Habsburgs. It is true that they used the title Count of Habsburg, but they didn't use that as a family name. It was until the 18th century that they began to be referred to as Habsburgs, and not by themselves, but by others. And besides, there’s more evidence that Austria was their surname. See “Was Heißt “Haus Österreich”? by Alfons Lhotsky, in Europäisches Mittelalter: Das Land Österreich (Vienna, 1970).

The best proof that the Spanish Habsburgs used the surname Austria is that all Spanish documents of the era refer to them as de Austria, and not Habsburg. Spanish documents from the era are authoritative on that topic and they are primary sources. There are too many examples, but I’m going to post just a few documents issued in Spain during the dynasty’s reign which refer to them as de Austria, from the catalogue of the National Library of Spain:

• Comentarios de las alteraciones de los Estados de Flandes, sucedidas despues de la llegada del señor Don Iuan de Austria a ellos, hasta su muerte, Martín Antonio Delrío, En Madrid : En casa de Pedro Madrigal, 1601

• Historia de Don Juan de Austria, by Lorenzo van der Hammen y León, Madrid : Luis Sánchez, 1627

• Retrato panegirico del Serenissimo Señor Carlos de Austria, Infante de España ..., Gabriel Bocángel y Unzueta, En Madrid : en la Imprenta del Reino : a costa de Alonso Perez ..., 1633

• Catalogo Real de España : al Serenisimo D. Baltasar Carlos de Austria, Rodrigo Mendes da Silba lusitano, Madrid : Imprenta del Reyno, 1637

• Lagrimas de las musas a la muerte del señor Cardenal Infante D. Fernando de Austria, by Gregorio Rodríguez, En Alcala : por Antonio Vazquez, 1642

• Lagrimas sentidas, sentimientos devidos, canciones funebres al transito Del Principe ... Balthasar Carlos de Austria, by Agustín de Palacios y de la Encina, Con licencia En Madrid : Por Diego Diaz de la Carrera, 1646

• Verdadera relacion del nacimiento y baptismo de la Serenissima Infanta D. Margarita Maria de Austria, hija de los Reyes nuestros señores Don Phelipe IIII y Doña Maria Ana, Rodrigo Méndez Silva, En Madrid : por Iulian de Paredes, 1651

• Causa y origen de las felicidades de España, y Casa de Austria, Pablo de Granada, Madrid : Por Gregorio Rodriguez, 1652

• Nacimiento y bautismo del Serenisimo Ynfante de España D. Fernando Tomas de Austria, Rodrigo Méndez Silva, Madrid : por D. Francisco Nieto y Salcedo, 1659

• Cancion funebre a la llorada, y sentida muerte de ... Don Iuan de Austria, Antonio de Somoza y Quiroga, Madrid : vendese en la imprenta de Lucas Antonio de Bedmar, 1679

I have already posted some titles of documents issued in Spain during the era of the dynasty, which refer to them as de Austria and these are primary sources. If you want to prove the contrary, then post references of documents issued in Spain during the reign of the dynasty which refer to them as de Habsburgo. That would be a real proof. DanyMountbatten (talk) 18:00, 14 November 2009 (UTC)

i sayy change to Marie-Thérèse d'Autriche, even in English bio's relevant or related to her she is nearly always known as that; definitely not the ridiculous Maria Theresia business.. LouisPhilippeCharles (talk) 17:50, 15 November 2009 (UTC)

Copyright violation at Death, Court life & Marriage sections

IP 69.251.180.224 has left a comment & flagged Death section for possible copyright violation. Indeed! The whole section is verbatim Antonia Fraser - what else could it be since she is the only source (see Marie Antoinette article for similar over use of a single author) The copyrighted text can be found in Fraser's Love and Louis XIV pp.196-197. Frania W. (talk) 13:30, 6 August 2009 (UTC)

Copyright violation was done on 4 November 2008 at 00:31 by User:Dalv89.

Further copyright violation by same user was done earlier on same date in Court life section, taken from Fraser's book Love and Louis XIV chapter Peace and the Infanta (pp. 40-60) & chapter Our Court's laughing face (pp. 61-81).

Frania W. (talk) 14:28, 6 August 2009 (UTC)

What are we supposed to do now? Is it too late to simply rewrite the section? I suppose Brian is a native speaker of English so he could rewrite it, but is that enough? I'm worried because the tag was placed by an IP. Surtsicna (talk) 15:38, 6 August 2009 (UTC)

1. What to do? Simply go back to 4 November 2008 at 00:31 when copyright violation was done, copy previous text & bring to Death section in replacement of Fraser's text; then we shall go from there.
2. Do the same with Court life done on same date, before, I believe (on 4 November 2008, Dalv89 did a lot of editing & had a long revert session with you! You must remember the guy!)
3. Go over the whole article for more violations, i.e. go through all of Dalv89 contributions here. (He/she must have done it to all the articles he/she touched.)
4. I left a note at the IP talk page because the IP could be a regular user who forgot to log in: it has happened to me, although every time I go back & leave a note saying that I was the IP. Checking this IP "three" contributions, they are OK.

Cordialement, Frania W. (talk) 16:56, 6 August 2009 (UTC)

Tagged Court life & Marriage sections for copyright violation(s). All references to Antonia Fraser's book, at least those given by Dalv89 in the period September/November 2008, are verbatim Fraser on pages mentioned in footnotes. FW/Frania W. (talk) 17:20, 6 August 2009 (UTC)

Of course I remember him, I mentioned him in the section above. Isn't it better to rewrite the sections, given that Dalv added a lot of new information which we want to keep? Surtsicna (talk) 19:41, 6 August 2009 (UTC)

Dalv may have added a lot of information but... when faced with the quantity (whole pages!) he took from Fraser, how will we know that what we keep is not copyrighted material?

What I would do is: copy text before his addition of September thru November 2008 & stick it back in, then look at what there was in his additions that was not copyrighted material & could be used.

In view of the large amount of copyrighted material, I would do the removing first, meaning immediately for one good reason: people who read the article believe it is an article by Wikipedia, while it is stolen material. It is not fair to author Antonia Fraser. If she read that article, she would have every right to sue! That's why I say: first remove copyrighted material, then work from there.

From a legal point of view, now that we are aware that a large percentage of the article is original work by an author, we, in fact, have no choice but remove it.

Lastly, I would leave a note at Dalv89 talk page. He has not contributed since 10 February 2009.

Cordialement, Frania W. (talk) 20:11, 6 August 2009 (UTC)

I see that another problem has cropped up in this article! I have not read Antonia Fraser's books on Maria Theresa, and so cannot confirm assertions regarding copyright violation.

However, what I will say is that the problem is hardly too big to handle.

To clarify matters, I'd like to ask how the copyright has allegedly been violated. If by wholesale quoting, then adding quotation marks or paraphrasing the relevant sections should suffice. If the violation is only insofar as using her opinion, then that is hardly a violation in my opinion. Nonetheless, footnotes must still be used, whatever the case, to acknowledge provenance. Whatever the case too, I see no need to remove whole sections of the article. It isn't theft to use Fraser's work. She published, if I am not wrong, as non-fiction.

I suggest that the offending section simply be rewritten with footnotes acknowledging provenance. I don't mind trying my hand at the task, but a tonne of work has just landed most conveniently on my shoulders. And so, if I do take some time to finish it, I ask for your indulgence. After all, as some may notice, I took days, even weeks, to rewrite the "Louis XIV" article.

Frania, if your suggestion only entails removing the offending section first to avoid a lawsuit and then doing what I have suggest above in the background, then I am all for it. Brian junhui sim (talk) 15:22, 10 August 2009 (UTC)

Brian,

1. Marriage section is 99.99 percent Fraser's text from her book Love and Louis XIV, chapter Peace and the Infanta: p. 57 thru 60, i.e. verbatim, in the first two paragraphs not even one word changed.
2. Court life idem, out of chapter Our Court's Laughing Face, starting on p. 61. Every sentence with a numbered footnote is borrowed verbatim with no quotation marks. If we put quotation marks at every borrowed/footnoted sentence, the whole piece is going to be between quotation marks.
3. Death section 99.99 percent Fraser's text from chapter Madame Now, p. 196 thru 198.

In the three above, all of Fraser is not used, but all that is used is Fraser's.

Fraser's book has been published, and although there are no quotation marks, she is footnoted, so this is not Plagiarism per se, but it is pretty close to it. One does not write a book (or in this case an encyclopedic article) by using another author's work word for word for 99 per cent of the text, even if original author is mentioned.

Again, I suggest that we go back to pre-4 November 2008 edits by Davl89 & go from there. I am willing to do it, but not right now as I am buried under my own work in real life - then you can re-write if you want & whenever you have the time.

I thought of putting the article on this talk page & highlighting all borrowed material, but it would take too much space and time.

I also realise that some Wikipedia editors who take whole paragraphs from a book may not be aware of the rules of publication & authors' intellectual property rights. If this article was in a book form & for sale in a bookstore, Mme Fraser would have every right to sue the author & the publisher of said book. She will not sue Wikipedia because Wikipedia is giving her a lot of free publicity by acknowledging the use of her published books (I bought her Marie Antoinette & Love and Louis XIV just to check articles in Wikipedia); however, in the instance of this article, Wikipedia giving away whole pages is not right.

These are my thoughts; waiting for others to give theirs. À bientôt!

Frania W. (talk) 18:55, 10 August 2009 (UTC)

P.S. The reason we are having this discussion is because IP 69.251.180.224 pointed out the problem at the Death section & put up Wikipedia template

This section appears to have been copied and pasted from a source, possibly in violation of a copyright.

so I am pretty sure we 'll be doing the right thing if we remove the material in question. FW

Frania,

I agree with you. However, while the section definitely requires rewriting, I hope you do not intend to permanently remove information which could still be saved. Nonetheless, I will bow to your discretion as it seems that, accompanied with Fraser's own books, you seem better placed to right this wrong. Brian junhui sim (talk) 01:04, 12 August 2009 (UTC)

Brian, Surtsicna & other co-slaves to Wikipedia:

If you do not have the book under your eyes, you have no idea of the plagiarism involved! What I intend to remove are the parts that are taken out of the book, i.e. put the article back to previous 4 November 2008. However, while doing this, I must also check for addition by other editors that should not be removed. The best is to work section by section. As you know, when something is changed, nothing is removed from the history of the article & one can always go back & check. In order not to disrupt the reading, I will work only one section at a time. If you want, I can bring one section here on the discussion page & highlight the portions borrowed verbatim from Mme Fraser's book. That will give you an idea of what I am talking about. Please also take into consideration that, like you, I am très busy outside of Planet Wikipedia and once in a while I have to go back to Planet Earth!!! Bonne journée! Frania W. (talk) 03:37, 12 August 2009 (UTC)

Plagiarism of Antonia Fraser's book Love and Louis XIV

Early life

[...] 4th paragraph:

It could be said that María Teresa had somewhat of a difficult childhood. Her mother, a beautiful French princess, died when she was just six years old. Her father loved her greatly though. He married his niece, Mariana of Austria, whose mother was his sister, a Spanish infanta. She didn't offer María Teresa the harmony which her affectionate nature craved. Many stepmothers at this time of high maternal mortality stepped easily into the real mother's place and provided loving support for the existing family. The new Queen of Spain, who was only four years older than María Teresa herself, was lazy and rather greedy. Mariana was also resentful of her stepdaughter's position and her father's tender feelings for her. (Taken verbatim from Antonia Fraser “Love and Louis XIV”, chapter “Peace and the Infanta”, p. 54/FW)

Marriage

[...] 2nd & 3rd paragraphs:

After a marriage by proxy to the French king in Fuenterrabia, María Teresa became known as Marie-Thérèse. Her father, Philip IV, and the entire Spanish court accompanied the bride to the Isle of Pheasants, in the Bidassoa, where Louis and his court met her. On 7 June 1660, she departed from her native country of Spain in a flood of tears, moaning to her chief lady, the Duchess of Molina: 'My father, my father...' Like her father, the new bride knew that they were unlikely to ever see each other again during their lifetime; it was not customary for foreign princesses to revisit the land of their birth: emotional ties were to be severed. It would take an extraordinary event for her to return to Spain, such as the annulment of her marriage. Two days later, on 9 June, the 'real' marriage or the French marriage, took place in Saint-Jean-de-Luz Saint Jean-Baptiste church, which had recently been rebuilt on the site of the former 13th century church burned several times in the 15th and 16th centuries. Marie-Thérèse, technically already Queen of France, wore a gown covered in the royal fleur-de-lys: her uncovered hair proved to be so thick that it was difficult to attach a crown to it. Her train was carried by two of the younger Orléans princesses. Louis wore black velvet and was richly jeweled.(Antonia Fraser’s book is given as reference, but the sentences taken from p. 59 of her book are not between quotation marks./FW)

After the marriage ceremony, Louis wanted to consummate the marriage as quickly as possible. Consummation of a royal marriage was quite important, as it confirmed the marriage, officially binding it. After dinner, he suggested retirement. Marie-Thérèse was quite nervous at first, and gave vent to a few maidenly demurs, claiming it to be too soon. But when she discovered Louis was awaiting, she quickly told her ladies-in-waiting to speed up the process of elaborate rituals, of dressings and undressings thought necessary for a queen to meet a king for the first time in bed. It was Louis's mother who closed the bed-curtains on the bride and groom before departing.(Again, Antonia Fraser’s book is given in reference, even with page number, however, with a couple of exceptions as to rewording part of a sentence, whole sentences are “borrowed” from Fraser./FW)

Court Life

The King and new Queen of France paraded through the streets of Paris on 26 August 1660, in the traditional ceremony of the Royal Entry. This was to be Marie-Thérèse's introduction to her husband's subjects. She smiled and waved graciously. She would not have a separate coronation, it was seen as bad luck (reworded from “Since the Queen would have no separate coronation – it was considered unlucky because Henri IV had been assassinated etc…/FW). During the next few months, Louis assiduously courted his wife, as he would continue to do so in his own fashion throughout the rest of their marriage. (Very close to Fraser’s text in p. 62. If not plagiarism, I do not know what to call it./FW) There is a story that Marie-Thérèse used the opportunity of the wedding night to make her husband swear never to abandon her but to sleep every night at her side. (Verbatim Fraser p. 62/FW) While it would be surprising if the former infanta had at this point sufficient worldly knowledge to extract such a brilliantly aimed promise, it is true that the King did end up almost every night - including some very late ones as time went on - in his wife's bed. (Verbatim Fraser p. 62/FW) In the morning, Louis would depart for his own official lever, or dressing ceremony, leaving his wife to that longer, lazier Spanish sleep, so beloved by his own mother, Queen Anne. (Verbatim Fraser p. 62, except for a couple of minor changes such as replacing “so beloved of Queen Anne” by “so beloved by his own mother”, p. 62/FW) ref name="ReferenceA"/> When love-making took place, Marie-Thérèse made it clear that she was content by blushing, rubbing her little white hands together, and accepting teasing the next morning. (Verbatim Fraser, p. 62/FW) She would also ritually take communion to indicate a royal conjunction the night before, with prayers that the result might be a child in nine months' time. (Verbatim Fraser, p. 62/FW)

Louis was faithful to his wife for the first year of their marriage, even going so far as to command the Grand Maréchal du Logis that "the Queen and himself were never to be set apart, no matter how small the house in which they might be lodging". He enjoyed the legitimate passion that his wife felt for him. However, the couple would later have difficulty in matching their personalities. Louis later found Marie-Thérèse to be somewhat dull. She was uninterested in the arts, formed a little Spanish-speaking world of her own, with her pet dogs and equally pet dwarves, the traditional companions of royal women in Spain as seen in many Diego Velázquez's paintings. Her one enthusiasm, for gambling, although a frequent pastime at all courts - both Anne and Mazarin gambled - could hardly be called inspiring. (Only changed “portraits” by “paintings”, Fraser, p. 63/FW) While all Paris glorified the good looks of the King, Marie-Thérèse continued to put on weight with her delight in hot chocolate and to withdraw into her circle of dwarfs. It seemed Marie-Thérèse was always the last to know that her husband had found a new mistress. Despite this neglect, it is said that the King would perform his conjugal duties every night. Nonetheless, Louis' taking Louise de La Vallière as his first official mistress, caused the Queen much emotional pain. In later years, Louise would make a public apology for her wrongs against the Queen. Marie-Thérèse in her kindly fashion raised her from the floor, kissed her on the forehead and said that she had been forgiven long ago.

In terms of the marriage, the person whose highest hopes were actually fulfilled was Queen Anne, Louis' mother. Marie-Thérèse became very close to her mother-in-law/aunt. Having lost her biological mother very young, Marie-Thérèse found a mother figure in Queen Anne, and Anne found the daughter she never had in her niece/daughter-in-law, Marie-Thérèse.) Both women were immensely devout. Together, the two queens had an excellent time visiting convents, praying together, and taking part in religious practices. Marie-Thérèse and Anne formed a kind of pious unit, speaking to each other entirely in Spanish (as a result, Marie-Thérèse's French never really improved, so it was fortunate that the King spoke some Spanish). (A few words changed here & there, but 99.99 per cent Fraser, p. 63/FW) Marie-Thérèse, in a sense, was very lucky to have found such a friend in her mother-in-law, as many princesses in lands foreign to them would not. Marie-Thérèse continued to spend much of her free time playing cards and gambling, as she had no interest in politics or literature. Consequently, she was viewed as not fully playing the part of Queen designated to her by her marriage. However, she joyously became pregnant in early 1661, thus fulfilling what many would have seen as being her only function. The pregnancy left her young and attractive husband with time to spare.(Fraser beg. p. 64/FW)

The long awaited son was born on 1 November 1661. During the twelve hour labor, Spanish actors and musicians danced a ballet beneath the royal windows, with harps but also guitars and castanets to remind Marie-Thérèse of her native land). (Verbatim Fraser, p. 76/FW) It is to be hoped that these Spanish sounds diverted the poor Queen, who kept crying out in her native language: 'I don't want to give birth, I want to die.' However, within a few months, she was pregnant again. (Verbatim Fraser p. 76-77/FW) In Spain, five days after the birth of the dauphin, Marie-Thérèse's stepmother, Queen Mariana, gave birth to Carlos II, who was unfortunately born with many defects due to his family's interbreeding. This set the question for the future Spanish succession, since Spain's heir was practically disabled mentally and physically.

[...]

Death

During the last week of July 1683, Marie-Thérèse was seen wandering the gardens of Versailles, admiring the new fountains. Her health appeared to be perfect. A few days later she fell ill of a tumor that turned purple and became an oozing abscess underneath her arm. (Verbatim Fraser in chapter “Madame Now”, pp. 196-197/FW) In spite of the best efforts of the doctors, the Queen became progressively worse and her pain increased. (Summary of a longer sentence, but all words kept, p. 197/FW) To the amazement of her doctors she hardly complained.

As the situation became worse, the need for Holy Sacraments from the chapel became acute and Louis ordered for the Sacraments to be kept nearby. Marie-Thérèse, Infanta of Spain and Queen of France, died a painful death on 30 July 1683, at Versailles. Louis spoke his own epitaph on this shy, unhappy, dull, but ever dutiful woman to whom he had been married for over twenty years: 'This is the first trouble which she has given me.' (Fraser p. 197/FW)

Her state funeral was magnificent, and Jean-Baptiste Lully's requiem was played.

Of her six children only one survived her, Louis, who died in 1711. Marie-Thérèse's grandson, Philippe, duc d'Anjou, would eventually inherit her rights to the Spanish Throne. He acceded to that throne in 1700.

To the best of my knowledge, this is the extent of the plagiarism of Fraser's book done on 3/4 November 2008. Although Death section has been cleaned by contributor Kansas Bear (talk), there are still traces of Fraser's writing. Frania W. (talk) 07:04, 7 November 2009 (UTC)

Removed copyrighted material taken from Antonia Fraser's book Love and Louis XIV.

Frania W. (talk) 04:49, 9 November 2009 (UTC)

References

Plagiarism of Antonia Fraser's book Love and Louis XIV, done again in March 2010

Contesting edits done by 74.166.2.185, which are obvious plagiarism & copyright violation of Antonia Fraser's Love and Louis XIV, pp. 54 thru 60:

Early life

• "Mariana was lazy, greedy, and resentful of her step-daughter/cousin's position and the affection she recieved (sic) from her father."

• • Fraser's p. 54: "'The new Queen ... was lazy, and rather greedy: she also was resentful of her stepdaughter's position and her father's tender feelings for her."

Marriage

• "She left in floods of tears, moaning to her chief lady, the Duchess of Molina, 'My father, my father..."

• • Fraser's p. 59: "Marie-Thérèse departed Spain on 7 June in floods of tears, moaning to her chief lady the Duchess of Molina: 'My father, my father... "

• "After the marriage ceremony, there was a dinner party. Louis suggested retirement immediately afterwards; he wanted to consummate the marriage as quickly as possible. A nervous Marie-Thérèse gave vent to her ladies-in-waitng stating that it was too soon. But when she was told the king was waiting she quickly chaned (sic) her tune and told them to hurry with the elaborate rituals of dressing and undressing. The new queen was granted by her mother-in-law (and aunt) the privilege of a private consummation, which was not the custom. It was Anne who closed the bed-curtains on the bride and groom before the consumation. The weeding night was a success, unlike many other royal nights in history."

• • Fraser's p. 60: "Immediately after dinner, he suggested retirement. Marie-Thérèse gave vent to a few maiden demurs - it was too soon - but on being told that the King was waiting for her, changed her tune and begged her ladies - Hurry, hurry! - to speed the elaborate rituals, dressings and undressings thought necessary for a Queen to meet a King for the first time in bed. Appropriately enough, it would be Louis's mother who closed the bed-curtains on bride and groom before departing. The wedding night was a success, unlike most royal wedding nights throughout history...."

I have reverted twice lines added by IP 74.166.2.185 who, in turn, reverted me twice.

IP 74.166.2.185 does not seem to understand that "rewording" a sentence by changing a couple of words still falls under "plagiarism", as stated in Plagiarism: 'Plagiarism, as defined in the 1995 Random House Compact Unabridged Dictionary, is the "use or close imitation of the language and thoughts of another author and the representation of them as one's own original work."

I also left a note on IP 74.166.2.185s talk page.

--Frania W. (talk) 19:05, 26 March 2010 (UTC)

When something is reworded, it is not considered plagiarism. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Dal89 (talk • contribs) 02:00, 29 March 2010 (UTC)

Since you believe this isn't plagiarism, I'll be more than happy to get the opinion of an Admin. --Kansas Bear (talk) 03:40, 29 March 2010 (UTC)

To Dal89:

Should this be your philosophy as a writer, you'd be sued for every word you put down on paper because:

Plagiarism, as defined in the 1995 Random House Compact Unabridged Dictionary, is the "use or close imitation of the language and thoughts of another author and the representation of them as one's own original work.

--Frania W. (talk) 03:24, 29 March 2010 (UTC)

Austria or Spain

Was she know more as Maria Theresa of Spain or Maria Theresa of Austria? Please give reliable sources instead of stating Austria was her highest title.--Queen Elizabeth II's Little Spy (talk) 18:12, 25 November 2010 (UTC)

My sense is that in Spain and France she, like like her mother-in-law would have been known as "Maria Teresa de Austria" or "Marie Thérèse d'Autriche," not because Austria was her title, but because it was her surname. The Habsburg rulers of France bore the surname "de Austria" just as the Bourbon rulers are "de Borbón". The French follow them in this. This is most clearly seen with the aforementioned Anne of Austria, Marie Thérèse's aunt and mother-in-law, who is normally referred to that way in English as well. I'm less certain of English usage for the niece, though. john k (talk) 17:47, 26 November 2010 (UTC)

In practically all sources referring to Marie Thérèse, she is known as of Austria. Just as John K says, like her aunt and fellow queen of France. She should really be renamed methinks. She was an Infanta of Spain yet as a male line descendant of the Austrian House of Habsburg, she was known as Austria. As I said, she should be renamed to be fair. LPC (talk) 17:59, 26 November 2010 (UTC)

I'm not convince, and don't move it LPC unless you request for it. I'm not going to request it since I'm fine with it being here. Plus we have to disambiguate her from the many other Maria Theresa of Austria if we do. LPC you had this argument with Surtsicna before over her sister Margarita Teresa of Spain, and "of Spain" was the victor in that one. Does the sources really favor Austria for her (not her aunt or any other relative) in the use of "of Austria"? My opinion is that everyone of them should be "of Spain" because we don't have the later infantas and infantes of Spain being of Bourbon, do we? --Queen Elizabeth II's Little Spy (talk) 09:00, 28 November 2010 (UTC)

This sounds like a déjà vu discussion:

• Anne of Austria

a member of the Habsburg family,

born in Spain,

married a king of France.

• Maria Theresa of Spain

a member of the Habsburg family,

born in Spain,

married a king of France.

With use of (dates) when necessary:

de:wiki "Anna von Österreich" & "Maria Theresia von Österreich"

es:wiki "Ana de Austria y..." & "María Teresa de Austria"

fr:wiki "Anne d'Autriche" & "Marie-Thérèse d'Autriche"

--Frania W. (talk) 14:48, 28 November 2010 (UTC)

It should be of Austria. I think me and Frania are on the same wavelength ;) LPC (talk) 16:33, 3 December 2010 (UTC)

earthshaking news... --Frania W. (talk) 20:04, 3 December 2010 (UTC)

It'd be nice to see what reliable sources in English use. I'd note that other wikis aren't reliable sources. For example, I've been to Versailles and various other places in France with pictures of Marie Antoinette. The captions in such museums always refer to her as "Marie Antoinette de Lorraine." The fr article is at "Marie Antoinette d'Autriche," for reasons that are completely unclear to me. Other wikipedia articles are not reliable guides to usage. john k (talk) 22:23, 3 December 2010 (UTC)

At the time of her judgment, asked by Herman, the juge d'instruction, her name, age & profession, she answered: "Marie-Antoinette de Lorraine d'Autriche, âgée de 37 ans, veuve du roi de France."

Now, by what name(s) is she known in English language reliable sources? Je ne sais vraiment pas, à vous de trouver.

--Frania W. (talk) 03:17, 5 December 2010 (UTC)

LPC: By doing this[9] in the infobox, and since the title in the infobox is supposed to be the same as title of article, it looks to me as if you are slowly working your way into moving the article to Marie-Thérèse of Austria while there has been no vote & no consensus on the matter.

The question asked by Queen Elizabeth II's Little Spy was not a hint to change anything, only a question, and the comments (mine included) following that question are simply part of a discussion.

--Frania W. (talk) 14:52, 5 December 2010 (UTC)

Intelligence

I do not see it mentioned here, but some historians believe that the queen may have been somewhat "developmentally delayed" (though not to the degree that her half-brother Charles II was). There are anecdotes about her giving childlike responses to serious questions (of which the "qu'ils mangent de la brioche" is only the most famous). Do we want to mention that, or is it considered mere speculation? 12.239.145.114 (talk) 01:49, 21 June 2012 (UTC)

article name

like a majority of other wikis she actually has of Austria in her page name & it baffles me as to why this page is wrongly called of spain. yes she was born in spain was a daughter of a king of spain BUT WAS A HABSBURG so the article should be moved asap to Maria Theresa of AUSTRIA, Queen of France or Marie Thérèse Queen of France this just seems logical to me she was in the exact same situation as her aunt cum mother in law Anne of Austria. so is contradictory confusing and just a tad stupid?! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 89.243.39.243 (talk) 22:54, 17 July 2013 (UTC)

Refimprove tag added December 2016

Very sparse sources—in particular, the 'Queenship' section has a single cite, more should be easily available for the Queen of the Sun King and grandmother of his successor. — Neonorange (talk) 14:06, 21 December 2016 (UTC)