Talk:Françoise-Athénaïs de Rochechouart, Marquise de Montespan

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

The feminine of "marquess"[edit]

The feminine of "marquess" (which is masculine) is marchioness. "Marquise" is more accurate, even in the English-language Wikipedia. Wetman 20:28, 27 Mar 2004 (UTC)

Madame de Montespan was in fact a marquise, howevere even when she never receive the tittle of duchess, she had all the rights that come whit that tittle in the court of Louis XIV. That is the reason why she is sometimes (overall in older books) entitled duchess of Montespan. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Unkown1 (talkcontribs) 22:01, January 11, 2006 (UTC)

The section entitled "Entry into acting as a courtesan" is rather confused - as someone unfamiliar with this topic I could make neither head nor tail of it. Would someone expert in this area care to tidy it up? Lou.weird (talk) 13:35, 27 November 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]

The Poison Affair[edit]

There are no sources or citations for the statement that a black mass was performed over her nude body.jeanne (talk) 13:28, 5 May 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]

There are no source nor citations for many statements... Am slowly trying to fill in the gaps. You're welcome to help! Frania W. (talk) 16:44, 5 May 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]
That accusation is addressed in the book: Anne Somerset — The Affair of the Poisons: Murder, Infanticide, and Satanism at the Court of Louis XIV (St. Martin's Press (October 12, 2003) ISBN 0-312-33017-0). I have a copy and can get the page numbers if you like.LiPollis (talk) 20:40, 7 May 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Here's some info - on pages 211 and 212 of the above mentioned book, the author suggests that the accusations regarding the Black Mass, Satanisn etc and so forth against de Montespan were the work of veiled innuendo by La Reynie and that la Voisin specifically denied knowing her well even under torture, stating that she had only red her palm. There is a lengthy quote from the interrogation on January 16, 1680 where La Reynie seems to be trying to get la voisin to state that she did perform such rites on behalf of de Montespan who was using a false name, that of Mlle des Oeillets. It's confusing to read but that seems to be the sense of it. On Page 227, La Voison finally implicates Mme de Montespan as an "habitee off the Abbe Guibourg's infamous Black Mass." There are another 8 or 9 pages with simialr accusations from historical records. Do you want those pages as well?LiPollis (talk) 20:57, 7 May 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Further to this, page 242 of the above mentioned book describes the contents of La Reynie's personal notebooks and his personal conclusions with regards to de Montespan's guilt in regard to Black masses, blood sacrifices and so on. it states that his notes conclude that he felt her guilty of these AND of participation in some Black masses with Abbe Guibourg. However on page 241, the author describes la Reynie as being careful not to go so far publicly due to fear of retaliation. Whether she did or didn't participate in such rites can never be known but it is notable that her chief investigator believed it all true. I would imagine that most of the Poison affair could be attributed to Satanic Panic of the times but that would be OR and as such, not appropriate for inclusion in the article. Perhaps their is a contemporary source that analyzes the Poison affair in such terms and which can be quoted to achieve some type of balance?LiPollis (talk) 22:15, 7 May 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]

The article reads like a novel.[edit]

I've removed some of the speculative comments and hyberbolic descriptions such as luscious figure, pouting mouth, sexual desire.This is an encyclopedia not a romance. Also the author quoted too many paragraphs verbatim from books-a few quotes is ok but not entire paragraphs.jeanne (talk) 15:11, 7 May 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Sculpture added to Nature and Appearance section[edit]

This sculpture does not belong in an article on Mme de Montespan, as it has nothing to do with Mme de Montespan's physical appearance when compared with portraits painted while she was alive. If used at all, this image should be put down in *Mme de Montespan in fiction*. Frania W. (talk) 16:26, 31 August 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]


Françoise-Athénaïs, marquise de Montespan seems to be a rather difficult name to search in my opinion. surely someting like Madame de Montespan (which already redirects to the page anyway) would be a much easier name for all to find. or even marquise de montespan maybe? what are other peoples thoughts on the matter? Tbharding (talk) 16:48, 28 May 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Françoise-Athenais needs to stay as that was her name, difficult or not. Marquise de Montespan was just her title.--Jeanne Boleyn (talk) 05:53, 29 May 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Why a difficult name to search? The article comes up with any of her names anyway. Keep title as is. Frania W. (talk) 13:45, 29 May 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]
It's probably difficult for some readers due to the dots above the letter i. My keyboard doesn't have that character. However, her name was Françoise-Athenais, therefore the title must remain as is. I like the name Athenais myself. Reminds me of an expensive perfume.--Jeanne Boleyn (talk) 13:49, 29 May 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I just googled her using only lower case letters, no *ç* and no accent of any kind. The first article to come up in English is Françoise-Athénaïs, marquise de Montespan; same result in googling *athenais* or *montespan*, so I do not see where the problem is in searching for her.
Jeanne, the perfume is Anaïs Anaïs by Cacharel. Removing *Athénaïs* from Mme de Montespan's article would be like diluting perfume. Quelle horreur! Frania W. (talk) 15:12, 29 May 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Oh yes, Anais Anais, I do remember that. It was rather too floral for my taste. I agree with you. The title of the article should definitely contain her full name.--Jeanne Boleyn (talk) 16:47, 29 May 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Why no "Montespan" in title?[edit]

Why is "Montespan" not in the title? Absurd. john k (talk) 02:48, 16 February 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]

That's why [1]
--Frania W. (talk) 13:11, 16 February 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Overhaul needed![edit]

This article is a mess. It is filled with factual errors and needs much editing. Many of the citations, when they are even present, are grossly outdated. There is too much reliance on just one or two sources. I have added a few from the one book I have with me, but other sources are needed. I am in France for dissertation research all summer and don't have access to my books, but when I get back I will begin going through the article, rewriting and fixing the citations. In the meantime I will try to clean it up when I can. I would welcome any assistance, I am a first-time editor here. BCS265 21:31, 16 May 2014 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Bcs265 (talkcontribs)

Assessment comment[edit]

The comment(s) below were originally left at Talk:Françoise-Athénaïs de Rochechouart, Marquise de Montespan/Comments, and are posted here for posterity. Following several discussions in past years, these subpages are now deprecated. The comments may be irrelevant or outdated; if so, please feel free to remove this section.

This article needs a concerted effort for stylistic, rhetorical, and grammatical content to bring it to an appropriate standard for inclusion in the Project France.

Last edited at 23:29, 7 August 2008 (UTC). Substituted at 15:32, 29 April 2016 (UTC)

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

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

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

Montague summers is not a trustworthy source[edit]

Montague summers is used throughout this topic of black mass. I am not an editor just someone interested in the topic and quite frustrated. Rera1234 (talk) 19:01, 15 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]