Talk:Marie Leszczyńska

Inconsistent citation styles

There is no consistent citation style on this page. I will work on this. Best, Oldsanfelipe2 (talk) 14:29, 11 May 2023 (UTC)

Why is titled "Marie Leszczynska of Poland"? She was of Polish origin but a French queen so it rather should be titled "Marie Leszczynska of France", or simply "Marie Leszczynska" (I don't think there were any other famous Marie Leszczynskas). 130.79.154.83 15:45, 22 Feb 2004 (UTC)

Good point. I moved it. -- Kpalion 17:46, 9 Nov 2004 (UTC)

• i dont think, that her name was "Maria Karolina Katarzyna Leszczyńska" .. Karolina is probably the english or french version of Katarzyna ;) .. so IMO her name ist "Maria Katarzyna Leszczyńska" ...Sicherlich 20:04, 17 Jan 2005 (UTC)

There is no doubt that her second name was Karolina. It is a Polish name, a feminine version of Karol (Charles). I can't confrim the information about her third name though. – Kpalion (talk) 22:47, 17 Jan 2005 (UTC)

According to Polski Słownik Biograficzny her name was Maria Karolina Zofia Felicja Leszczyńska h. Wieniawa, which agrees with the entry for Louis XV in Burke's Royal Families of the World, where she is called Marie-Caroline-Sophie -Fe'licite'.

Move to Marie Leczinska?

Since English language obviously doesn't have its own name for this woman (Mary Leszczyńska?), English-speaking historians have to choose between Polish spelling - Maria Leszczyńska - and French spelling - Marie Leczinska. French language was, and still is, naturally closer to English than Polish, which is probably why most English-speaking historians choose Marie Leczinska. A quick Google Book Search confirms this: Maria Leszczyńska gets 96 "English-language" results (though all I've seen are Polish books), while Marie Leczinska gets 808 English-langauge results.

Besides being closer to an Anglophone (for whom the article is written), the proposed title has another benefit: the lack of diacritics. I'm quoting an administrator of this Wiki: "Diacritics, especially Polish diacritics, make articles much more difficult to link to (it takes me about a minute to track down the proper letter and then copy/paste it), they interfere with proper alphabetization in category listings, are visually very intimidating to many English-speakers, cause confusion for pronounciation, and do not always display correctly on all web browsers."

Another posibility is Marie Leszczyńska; it is significantly more popular than Maria Leszczyńska (c. 400 hits), but Marie Leczinska is twice as popular as Marie Leszczyńska. Moreover, Marie Leszczyńska lacks the aforesaid benefit: it contains diacritics.

That being said, I informally propose moving the article to Marie Leczinska. Surtsicna (talk) 19:35, 1 September 2009 (UTC)

Oh, it turns out that the current title (rarely used by English-language sources) is as popular (or even less popular) than Mary Leszczyńska, which gets 75 hits (all of which are in English). The current title seems to be the least used version of her name. Surtsicna (talk) 20:22, 1 September 2009 (UTC)

Marie Leszczyńska: French wiki:

Maria Leszczyńska: Polish wiki

Maria Leszczyńska: German wiki

Maria Leszczyńska: Italian wiki

Maria Leszczyńska: Dutch wiki

Why should English Wikipedia be the only one to misspell her name?

This being said, I respectfully propose keeping the title Maria Leszczyńska.

Frania W. (talk) 20:24, 1 September 2009 (UTC)

Wow. I didn't expect a "no" from you, Frania, as you are always for gallicizing the names of Bourbon queens. Anyway, the answer to your question would be: because English-speaking historians misspell her name. Technically, the names of many French kings are misspelled (Philip, Hugh, John, Francis, Henry, etc), but that's how they are used in English. What about the name Marie Leszczyńska (twice as less popular than Marie Leczinska, but still four times more popular than Maria Leszczyńska)? Surtsicna (talk) 20:36, 1 September 2009 (UTC)

Surtsicna,

I am for respecting the spelling of a name in its own language as much as possible/feasible, that's a difference. For instance, I do not like Francis I for François I & Joan of Arc for Jeanne d'Arc, to which I even prefer Jehanne d'Arc but I shall not go on a crusade because I would have to fight the whole Anglo-Americano-Australiano Empire + you!

Also, as proof of an argument, I do not want to rely on the number of results given in a Google search: the same book can be listed many many times. For instance, on a page giving ten books, it often happens that from four to eight are the same.

As for the simplification by the French of Leszczyńska to Leczinska, it is against my principles: a name is a name.

Finally, an encyclopedia is supposed to educate people, not lower the level; otherwise, why not accept that articles adopt "cemetary" for "cemetery", "should of" for "should have", "it's" for "its", "their" for "there", "recieve" for "receive"?

Please Surtsicna, do not take this personally! I know we'll work it out, as others will give their opinion on the matter & consensus will be reached. Regards, Frania W. (talk) 22:48, 1 September 2009 (UTC)

I'll try not to take it personally, but it's hard since you've said that you're fighting me. Also, if you are for respecting the spelling of name in its own language, why did you support moving the article about Maria Theresa of Spain to Marie-Thérèse of Austria? Marie-Thérèse certainly isn't Spanish spelling (nor German, for that matter).

According to your arguments (respecting the spelling of a name and a name is a name), Wikipedia should refer to Germany as Deutschland. A name is a name - and so a country's name is a name too. We could easily list all books which refer to her as Marie Leczinska, Maria Leszczyńska and Marie Leszczyńska. Although this is unneccessary, given that hardly any English-language book calls her Maria Leszczyńska. Surtsicna (talk) 09:24, 2 September 2009 (UTC)

Surtsicna, I hope you heard the humourous tone in my + you! My argument in support of the move of the article about Maria Theresa of Spain to Marie-Thérèse of Austria was on "of Spain" vs "of Austria" because of the similarity of situation between Anne of Austria & MT of Spain or Austria, both of Habsburg ancestry born in Spain & becoming queens of France so, logically, if Anne was "of Austria", MT should also have been. Now for the name part, and I believe that you know what I am referring to, it does not concern Germany vs Deutschland or Spain vs España, but the very personal name of a person and his/her acceptance of what contemporaries turned it into, i.e. while Maria Antonia Josepha Johanna accepted to become Marie Antoinette for the French (even de:wiki has her under that name), did anyone bother asking "Maria Leszczyńska" what she felt about her Polish last name being mutilated? The difference in the spelling is explained in the article and I think this is sufficient, while the title of the article should have her real name. And I am not "fighting" you on this, only explaining my point of view: you have your opinion on the matter, I have mine, so do others, which means that it is up to consensus. Cordialement, oops, forgive me! this being en:wiki: Cordially Frania W. (talk) 13:42, 2 September 2009 (UTC)

I'm sorry, I honestly didn't hear the humourous tone. I have hard time understanding your humour, due to language barrier and the fact that I can't see your face, but probably due to its specific nature too :) Now, concerning the queen's first name, the fact that the name Maria is rarely (if ever) used when referring to her and that Marie is usually (if not always) used when referring to her, followed either by Leczinska or Leszczyńska, deserves more than a few sentences. Since common name rule outranks our POV, one can understand why I proposed a new title. Surtsicna (talk) 15:25, 2 September 2009 (UTC)

Surtsicna, as I said, we have a difference of opinion & others will have to weigh in, in what hopefully will stay a courteous exchange aiming at consensus.

Now, as to my humourous tone: Surtsicna, I thought you could detect it even in writing, specially + you coming after the whole Anglo-Americano-Australiano Empire. Was not it obvious??? And I will even add that you vs that Empire make the scale tip on your side! I could even be more humourous, but fear I might not be understood because of the three language barriers separating us. Cordially, Frania W. (talk) 15:45, 2 September 2009 (UTC)

Don't get me wrong; I love your humourous tone, but unfortunatly my hearing is not good enough to detect it every time. Oh, and the three language barriers don't help my hearing either. Cordialement! Surtsicna (talk) 16:01, 2 September 2009 (UTC)

Wow! We finally got that one straight! Diplomatic boo-boo avoided, and I will not have to close my embassy in your country. Aurevoir, Surtsicna, as I must shut off the beast (= computer) for a few hours. Frania W. (talk) 16:16, 2 September 2009 (UTC)

• How about the same compromise as the New Cambridge Modern History: Marie Leszczyńska? Septentrionalis PMAnderson 16:58, 2 September 2009 (UTC)

That's what I already proposed as an alternative in my first comment. Among English-speaking historians, Marie Leszczyńska is at least four times more popular than Maria Leszczyńska. It should be noted that most (if not all) "English-language" books that call her Maria Leszczyńska are actually in polish, meaning that Marie Leszczyńska could even be 40 times more popular than Maria Leszczyńska. If someone doubts the numbers, I am willing to count all books which use Maria Leszczyńska and those which use Marie Leszczyńska. Surtsicna (talk) 19:33, 2 September 2009 (UTC)

Marie or Maria is fine with me as long as the original spelling of her Polish name is respected. Frania W. (talk) 15:51, 3 September 2009 (UTC)

Why didn't you say so? Do we have an agreement? Surtsicna (talk) 16:31, 3 September 2009 (UTC)

Surtsicna, my only problem was having her last name mutilated in the title of the article... Then reference for the shortened version within the article is fine if it is the name she was the most known under, as long as it is clear that it is what the French did to her name, which is already mentioned. So, you have my stamp of approval for the above proposition. Bonne journée! Frania W. (talk) 17:26, 3 September 2009 (UTC)

That "n" with an accent over it is not in the English alphabet. This is the English-language Wikipedia. We English-speakers should be able to read it. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.168.149.180 (talk) 12:50, 15 January 2016 (UTC)

Of 99

She was of 99 eligible princess to marry the King! The other was Mariana Victoria of Spain. Who were the other 97?--Queen Elizabeth II's Little Spy (talk) 02:52, 28 November 2010 (UTC)

Hmm !

Have also been wondering... unless someone is confusing "princesses" & "mistresses" !

--Frania W. (talk) 23:07, 20 December 2010 (UTC)

Mariana Victoria of Spain was not on the list: she was already in France as his fiancee, and the list was created because she was to be sent home and discarded as bride. The list initially simply included near to all unmarried princesses in Europe of roughly the right age, mainly Catholic but also non-Catholic (which was expected to convert upon marriage), and most of them was removed when the list was reduced to seventeen: it was the list of seventeen brides that included those truly considered as possible choices.

The list of 99 Princesses considered as suitable brides of Louis XV:

• Marie Leszczyńska - initially removed because her parents was too poor and her father was deposed.
• Landgravine Caroline of Hesse-Rotenburg - removed "on account of her bad temper".

Part of the list when the 99 was reduced to 17:

• Elizabeth of Russia - removed because of her mother's commoner background.
• Barbara of Portugal - removed because of the bad health of her family.
• Princess Charlotte Amalie of Denmark - removed because it could cause conflict with the France's ally Sweden (enemy of Denmark).
• Elisabeth Therese of Lorraine - removed because the House of Lorraine was too closely related to the Habsburgs.
• Enrichetta d'Este - removed because of the disorderly situation within her family.

The last remaining when the list of 17 was reduced to four:

• Anne of Great Britain - removed because of the fear that she would benefit the Huguenots if she should become regent of a minor regency.
• Amelia of Great Britain - removed for the same reasons as her sister above.
• Élisabeth Alexandrine de Bourbon - removed when her brother the Duke of Bourbon pointed out that she was not as pretty as her sister.
• Henriette Louise de Bourbon - initially chosen as bride, but removed when Madame de Prie and the Paris Brothers Joseph Paris Duverney retracted their support, Cardinal Fleury already being opposed to it, which resulted in the selection of Marie Leszczyńska.--92.35.237.251 (talk) 15:07, 23 June 2019 (UTC)

How many grandchildren?

I have maybe made some errenous calculations, as to think she became a grandmother at the age of 38 or so. Is it so? In that case, I thought Queen Victoria was a bit early with becoming a grandmother?--85.164.223.189 (talk) 22:14, 20 December 2010 (UTC)

Pronunciation

The German Wiki article contains an audio pronouncer of this difficult Polish name:

https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/9/96/Maria_Leszczy%C5%84ska_audio.ogg

Perhaps it could be added here. – Sca (talk) 13:15, 23 June 2019 (UTC)

Unsourced information

Special:Diff/1158014871 added a lot of new information, including the languages Marie Leszczynska spoke, that doesn't seem to be connected with any of the references. Can someone verify the info? Yxtqwf (talk) 14:19, 14 November 2023 (UTC)