Talk:Madame de Pompadour

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

She was know to have a close friend that she truly loved. She died waiting for his return. He was known as the Doctor. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 173.170.149.94 (talk) 00:56, 16 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment[edit]

This article is or was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): Mirandaroseq23.

Above undated message substituted from Template:Dashboard.wikiedu.org assignment by PrimeBOT (talk) 03:05, 17 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Older[edit]

I would really like to know why she died so young. And why was she blamed for the Seven Years War? -- GIR 12:34, 9 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

The article starts well, but the latter half needs to be rewritten due to many grammar mistakes and poor overall organization. Lacking a good knowledge of the Madame and the time period during which she lived, I'll not attempt it.

I moved this here: She also had pet dogs named Mimi and Inés. Please start a List of dogs in history or something for this factoid. Wetman 23:43, 30 Sep 2004 (UTC)

The beginning about her real father and her 'formal' father are kind of hard to understand.

The page is contradictory. See paragraph 4 vs. the second to last paragraph. There is disagreement as to whether she procured girls for the king.

I love Wikipedia[edit]

We just looked up Madame de Pompadour while watching Dr Who. And of course someone had already updated this article ... - David Gerard 18:26, 6 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

This happens a lot. It seems quite inappropriate for an encyclopedia - unless someone gives a good reason to keep it, I will remove it. Birkett 20:28, 6 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I don't know - if you have a 'popular culture' section it seems absurd not to update it, and a great many articles like this have such sections. Wibbble 21:22, 6 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]


I agree with Wibbble - if this were included in the main body of the article then of course it would be absurd and unencyclopedic, but as it is, under a 'popular culture' section it very definitely should be added, lest it actually become less encyclopedic. -UK-Logician-2006 21:38, 6 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I am opposed to the Doctor Who reference on the basis that just about anything that happens in Doctor who could be added to wikipedia, but that doesn't mean it's relevant. For example, there was an episode with a wearwolf recently, and I would agree that mentioning the episode in an article about wearwolves is appropriate, since they are defined entirely by the fictional stories they appear in. For historical figures, the situation is somewhat different.
If someone set out to list stories with Madame de Pompadour in them and made a list, that is fair enough and should be included. See Queen Victoria for an example. My point is that wikipedia articles should be written for someone interested in the subject of the article, not for the amusement of someone interested in Doctor Who. Birkett 17:28, 7 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
As far as I'm aware, the popular culture section was already in existence before this episode of Doctor Who came about. It would therefore seem sensible to include this reference in there as Doctor Who is a massive part of pop-culture. Evil Eye 21:44, 6 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep it, harmless. --Doc ask? 21:42, 6 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Check the history of the article, either someone with a preview tape posted Madame's appearance in Dr Who before broadcast, or someone out there has a time machine.
No, no time machine, just IMDB. IMDB has a list of upcoming episodes including who is starring in them and the part that will be played. Madame's character has been posted there for several weeks. -- Hillary of Fark
It's been common knowledge amongst fns that she would be appearing in that episode for some time now. It didn't need a time machine or a preview tape. Anyway, I see no reason why the Doctor Who mention, and the entire popular culture section shouldn't stay. In fact, if anything, it would be good to see it expanded. This can hardly be the first time she's appeared in fiction.--MockTurtle 01:43, 7 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep it, it is good popular culture. Benjaminstewart05 17:20, 7 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
i aggree it should be kept Jamie-planetx 19:04, 7 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
It should remain whether good popular culture or not.--Belteshezzar 19:15, 7 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

only reason I am here is to find out more of the character because of dr who - the reference should stay

The reference should go. This is an article about a real historical figure. There are countless fictional references to countless historical figures that "keep coming up" in a spooky Doctor Who way. If people really want to know more about this phenomena, they will read Dan Brown. If people keep watching Doctor Who and keep reading books, they will draw a parallel between the scene where the Doctor comes storming in through the mirror and the scene in Stephenson's Baroque Cycle when Jack Shaftoe does the same thing (only to Louis XIV instead of Louis XV and it's the fictional Eliza who is the focal point instead of the real live Madame de Pompadour). If people really really really want to know more about this phenomena, they will at some point read about the Comte de Saint-Germain and they will read about Foucault's Pendulum and they will eventually stumble across the biblical myth of Enoch who is also referenced by Stephenson. Ultimately these same people will either embrace Discordianism, jump on to the next X-Files-like bandwagon when it comes around again, or just get bored with it all and move on to other things. In conclusion, unless you can put as many pop culture references in this article as are in the Johnnie Cochran article (as elucidated above, except with Queen Victoria as the example), then you must acquit, I mean strike the reference to Doctor Who from this article. dvd 08:54, 8 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep it. It is currently of interest. I'd say in a few months it can be relegated to 'was mentioned in episode x of Doctor Who' with the relevant info on the episode page. Yes, for some historical figure, we may end up with 1,000 of references to pop culture, but if so, they can be split off e.g. Queen Victoria in Popular Culture --Doc ask? 10:28, 8 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
You say you only came to this page because Doctor who got you interested - good! That's great! But it's not really relevant that she was in Doctor who. If you came just to see if there was a reference back to Doctor who already, that seems pretty pointless - you already knew she was in Doctor who. Birkett 12:11, 8 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

This is a silly discussment. Of course it should be kept, and it is relevant to the article. Madame de Pompadour is a main character in this episode. --MorwenofLossarnarch 02:40, 9 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, Madame de Pompadour is a main character in the Doctor Who epsode, so she should certainly be mentioned in an article about the episode. It doesn't necessarily follow that the Doctor Who episode should be mentioned in an article about Madame de Pompadour... Birkett 18:08, 10 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
PS: you should probably go define "discussment" in wiktionary, I notice it's strangely absent.
I feel it should stay as it is relevant IMO. That is my vote. The only thing contrary I can imagine is the argument that she is a fictional character in the "Dr. Who" episode versus historical accounts used in popular culture. I believe that both are relevant and see this in many other articles. I definitely think it should stay until consensus is reached and so far those for it seem to outnumber those against. That is my two cents on the matter. :) UB65 (talk) 11:13, 25 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
PS In a way she is popular culture. I also learned of her from curiosity after seeing said episode but found her to be a fascinating historical figure. UB65 (talk) 11:18, 25 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
One of my favorite Doctor Who lines so far: I'm the Doctor! And I just snogged Madame de Pompadour! Alinnisawest (talk) 18:42, 18 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Doctor who?JGC1010 (talk) 01:12, 5 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I just watched it too for the second time. Only this time I thought to look up the character. --68.118.188.188 (talk) 03:22, 12 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Contradictions[edit]

Did she, or did she not, arrange lovers for the King? The article says she did and then, lower down, says that contrary to popular belief, she did not. Which is it?--Doc ask? 20:58, 6 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Did she wield political power or not. It starts with she had no direct influence. Well, none in an absolutistic monarchy wielded any direct political power but the king. And the two paragraphs "political role" and "position at the court" mark her clearly as a very influental and hardworking person who was involved direct or indirect in major Frensh policy making of the time, be it war, be it economy, be it arts. It's kind of nonsensical to call that "not wielding any direct power". She obviously did wield as much power as a common woman could ever hope for in this epoch and intervening to get one's favourites into important court position is a very direct way to gather political influence.

Citations[edit]

I suspect quite a few people will have looked at this article in the wake of her appearance in Doctor Who. Personally I noticed a distict lack of citations & references. The question of whether or not she arranged other liasons should clearly be referenced. Any takers? MGSpiller 00:20, 8 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Where actually is Pompadour?[edit]

I was agast that the article did not seem to contain any information as to where she got her name, then I discovered a reference to a residence from which it presumably derives. However there is no information as to where this residence is or anything about it… I have tried looking at our French article but can find nothing helpful: there is a commune but nothing links that to this lady. Help? —Phil | Talk 12:12, 8 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The name comes from Arnac-Pompadour in Correze. The King gave her the castle of the same name.—Preceding unsigned comment added by 87.89.238.127 (talk • contribs) 16:10, May 8, 2006

Arranging for Royal Mistresses[edit]

From everything I have read, Madame de Pompadour did not arrange for mistresses, but the populace often said that she did as an insult, and who knows, they may have thought that she did at the time. Let's not forget that Louis XV had the Parc au Cerfs as his own personal harem, and this place came into being(supposedly) after she was unable to make love with him (after 1750). Does anyone know why they had to cease sexual relations?

  • Sources I have seen do state that she did arrange other women - possibly courtesans - to sleep with the king. The reason was probably medical - maybe she did not want to experience more miscarriages - but the exact reason was probably known only to her personal physician and is lost to history - Skysmith 13:27, 9 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Also, in that section, it says that she didn't sleep with the king after 1950, but that she had two miscarriages in the 1950s. So who was the father of those pregnancies, hmm? RoseWill 05:07, 30 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Edit[edit]

Quote: "See paragraph 4 vs. the second to last paragraph."

I removed the fourth paragraph. It didn't seem to have any constructiveness in it. Nothing useful. Since the contradiction has been removed, should I remove the contradict template? --MorwenofLossarnarch 02:38, 9 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Edit War[edit]

I am not going to put the reference to Doctor Who back in as we are now at the W:3RR limit but I want to state clearly that there should be a reference to Doctor Who on the main page. I attempted to edit down the reference to a simple stament which effectively links to the episode where more information can be found. She was the main focus of that episode which was watched by millions, a simple statement which enables people to find more information is surely an effective compromise. There has certainly not been any consensus to delete this information. MGSpiller 19:17, 19 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I've re-added the the reference. I think it's really very poor behaviour to remove it given that there's been no consensus in the discussion - just waiting until after the discussion's died down and then acting regardless is inappropriate. Not impressed by User:Birkett's silent edit at all. Wibbble 21:15, 19 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Of course it's appropriate to remove what was a momentarily topical reference from this article; if it's important enough to be mentioned, it goes in the Dr. Who article. If, say, Charles Dickens had written a story about Madame de Pompadour, that might merit mention here. If the Dr. Who writing staff does, it doesn't. If the Dixie Chicks don't like George Bush, that goes in the Dixie Chicks article, not the George Bush article. If Jesus Christ appears in a Simpsons episode, it's potentially relevant to a discussion of the Simpsons but basically irrelevant to a discussion of Jesus Christ. Such references belong in the less prominent topic, not the more prominent: in short, don't use the Madame de Pompadour article to try to enhance the importance of a Dr. Who episode. - 06:24, 24 May 2006 (UTC)

I have no strong position as to whether to include the reference or not, but I find it rather curious that the accusation is that those who want the reference in want to enhance the importance of the Doctor Who episode, particularly since all the recent interest in this article is because of that episode. If anything, the importance of this article has been enhanced by Doctor Who, not the other way around. But... neither here nor there. Just an observation. --khaosworks (talk • contribs) 06:37, 24 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Publicity and importance are two different things. - Nunh-huh 07:10, 24 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Fair enough. In which case, then I would question the intellectual snobbery of the assumption that this article is too important to mention the likes of Doctor Who. Perhaps a way out of this impasse is to create a brief section on media portrayals of Madame de Pompadour (of which there have, I believe, been several films). --khaosworks (talk • contribs) 07:17, 24 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Good judgement and intellectual snobbery are also two different things. - Nunh-huh 08:08, 24 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Indeed they are - and I don't think the former is being exercised in this case. But instead of sniping, what about considering the proposal? --khaosworks (talk • contribs) 08:25, 24 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I'm gald you're going to stop sniping<g>. If you want to create an article on fictional depictions of Madame de Pompadour, I imagine it will be judged as to whether it's "encyclopedic" the same way other articles are. To me, it sounds like it would either be a collection of trivia or an essay. - Nunh-huh 09:07, 24 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Not an article, but a section within this one to list notable fictional depictions. --khaosworks (talk • contribs) 10:51, 24 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Even after a discussion showed a clear consensus to keep? Even though it's in a section labelled "In popular culture"? I think this is just snobbery and nothing more - it's certainly not an attempt to constructively improve the article. Wibbble 16:13, 24 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Your opinion is noted. There's no such "clear consensus to keep", and even if there had been, such consensuses can change. A recent "contributor" tried to add "xander on buffy was infected with syphilis along with other illnesses" to the Syphilis article. This is a similar addition. It is uninformative and tells us nothing about the subject of the article. - Nunh-huh 01:27, 25 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Did you actually look at the discussion? To call that anything other than a clear consensus to keep is absurd - simply waiting for a couple of weeks after the event isn't improving the article, it's just ignoring the consensus. A consensus might change, but that didn't happen in this case - the reference was removed unilaterally without further discussion. I think this does add to the article, as it shows how Madame de Pompadour is being depicted in modern media. This is hugely important to give an understanding of how people today will know this historical figure. It provides context for how people today would come to hear of Madame de Pompadour and for her place in modern popular culture. Your mention of the Syphilis article is a non sequitur - we're talking about Madame de Pompadour not Syphilis. Anyway, since you haven't reverted it (yet), I assume that you're happy with the latest compromise that's been made for the benefit of the couple of people who started this edit war? Wibbble 11:37, 25 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, of course I looked at the discussion. And the mention of the syphilis addition, for those following at home, is an analogy. The latest compromise (by Angmering) is a significant improvement over what previously appeared here, as it avoids (the absurd) suggestion that appearing as a character in a Dr. Who episode is, in itself, noteworthy. . - Nunh-huh 06:54, 26 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Of course, if you felt that only mentioning Doctor Who wasn't appropriate, you were perfectly free to improve the article by adding the other references to Madame de Pompadour in media yourself, instead of engaging in a revert war that removed relevant information from the article. Wibbble 14:19, 26 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
It was irelevant as an isolated "factoid", and intrusive as phrased. - 22:33, 26 May 2006 (UTC)
Perhaps if a similar situation arises in future you might want to consider trying to rephrase it, then, rather than removing it and engaging in edit warring. The whole point of wikipedia is that you can improve articles (or parts of articles) that you think are lacking. The entire drama could've been avoided if you and the one or two others had worked constructively instead of destructively. It's all a pretty sorry situation, but at least the pointless warring is finished now. Wibbble 01:18, 27 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Though the warring for the "moral high ground" apparently wages on. - Nunh-huh 01:27, 27 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Mostly I've just been hoping that you might behave in a decent manner next time, although perhaps my optimism is unfounded. Wibbble 17:11, 27 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I've behaved just fine, thank you, and the article is now slightly less crappy as a result. - Nunh-huh 04:45, 28 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
From WP:DR: Be respectful to others and their points of view. This means primarily: Do not simply revert changes in a dispute. When someone makes an edit you consider biased or inaccurate, improve the edit, rather than reverting it.
This does not describe your behaviour. If you want to debate it further, I suggest taking it to my talk page instead of trying to justify your actions here. Wibbble 17:35, 28 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
It certainly doesn't describe your behavior. I imagine somewhere in the morass of Wikipedia instructions there's something about misrepresenting consensus, as well. A useful addition to that morass would be a quideline stating that just because a TV show makes a reference to something, it doesn't necessarily belong in an encyclopedia, and that if it does, it belongs in the article about the TV show and not that of the thing referenced, unless it adds something to the discussion of the thing referenced. And no, I have no interest in "justifying" the removal of a silly, trivial, distracting item from the article to you on your talk page, though of course I thank you for that invitation. - Nunh-huh 09:52, 29 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Madame de Pompadour and Skull and Bones?[edit]

OK. I hate to interrupt the debate over Doctor Who (Though I do like the current compromise), but i have something that may cause even more contention. According to Alexandra Robbins's book, Secrets of the Tomb, the members of Skull and Bones believe that they possess Madame de Pompadour's skeleton. (Cited in page 92 of the paperback edition.) 65.12.115.249 13:41, 30 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Citations needed and a compromise[edit]

1. This article has NO citations. This is shameful. This is one of the best-known mistresses of all time. There are plenty of books on her. At least start with Sex with Kings.

2. The dispute over Doctor Who. I'm thinking do it like the other articles out there who have listed historical figures who've appeared in popular culture and label it something like legacy: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Marie_Antoinette and mix in it things like this: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/George_Washington that will get rid of some of the problems with the trivia and also bring it into a more encyclopedic article. Does that make sense Instead of fighting about if or what, show precedence and also wikipedia pages themselves. There is a precedence, however, you need to balance it out with OTHER stuff in addition. Comprimise. That's where both sides lose. --Hitsuji Kinno 02:36, 15 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The Doctor Who dispute was resolved nearly a year ago, so I don't think there's a need for both sides to do much of anything now. Wibbble 09:26, 15 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]


what i would like to know is what madam de pompador died of as i have not found any where that seams to know. misfit 14.10 8th august 2008 (uk) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 88.105.95.238 (talk) 13:15, 9 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Mother a prostitute?[edit]

I do not believe her mother was a prostitute, as the article say know. She had a "bad reputation", she had several sexual partners, yes, but she was not a prositute. In those days, people had the opinion that a woman who had several lovers was a prostitute, but we should hardly use this definition in wikipedia - and still, I have seen it on several places; Madame Dubarry was not a prostitute during the period of 1774-89, but was called so here earlier, because she had lovers. These things should really be corrected. --85.226.45.121 (talk) 10:25, 28 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • Algrant says on page 6 "The gossip of the day attributed many lovers to her, and this gossip became more widespread and more prurient in later attempts to blacken her daughter's name." Mitford and Foreman state, "The mother,” says Madame d la Ferte-Imbault, “Had such a bad reputation that we could not possibly have made friends with her; the daughter,hwoever, was quite another story.” (p. 28). Other authors describe her as "dissipated" and having "free and easy morals", but I can't actually find a citation that describes her mother as an actual prostitute (nor is it likely that she was so.) Madame Dubarry is often described as a former prostitute, however, and that description could be cited as such. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Malkin (talk • contribs) 01:59, 24 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Bah, forgot my signature. I'm not convinced people thought women with several lovers were automatically prostitutes, however. Court life was a bit more complex than that! Kate (talk) 02:03, 24 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Removed offensive qualification of mother as a prostitute. Frania W. (talk) 15:03, 24 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Good edit, the characterisation seemed a bit harsh! Thank you. Kate (talk) 15:40, 24 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I agree with you & find it very sad that some of the articles on famous French women are linked to Category:French courtesans and prostitutes http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Category:French_courtesans_and_prostitutes. Placing in that list Marie de Rohan-Montbazon, duchesse de Chevreuse, Stéphanie Félicité Ducrest de St-Albin, comtesse de Genlis, Thérésa Tallien and the French actress Rachel is beyond my comprehension of the words *courtesan* and *prostitute* used in English speaking Wikipedia! I believe Anglo-Saxon puritanism (probably more American than British) has a lot to do with such opinions. The French have a more liberal view on the behaviour of women. Why should a man with many feminine conquests be called a *libertine*, a *Don Juan*, a *womaniser* or a *great lover* (but never a *male-whore*!) while women doing the same are categorised as *prostitutes* ? Frania W. (talk) 19:12, 24 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
This is very true, Frania! I believe you are correct. I find it very sad to call a woman a prostitute merely because she, according to the moral of those days, (which of course are included in contemporary references) was wrongly considered to be one. I have noticed before that many actresses, singers, and other women of the 17th century-19th century here on wikipedia have the category courtesans/prostitutes; they may have been called prostitutes because of the moral in those days, but they should not still be labelled so in our age: only the women, who actually charged money for sex, should have the category prostitue or courtesan. I think it will benefit wikipedia more if we are carefull about hese things. --Aciram (talk) 14:43, 31 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Aciram: Thank you for the above comment. I do not agree with English language wikipedia as to its 17th century-19th century judgment of women. In France, the 17th & 18th centuries (except for the years Mme de Maintenon reigned over the morals at Versailles), and the beginning of the 19th were not a time of puritanism. The morals at Court & in higher classes of society were rather loose & women having romantic affairs with men other than their husband were not considered to be *prostitutes*! From the bourgeoisie on up to the royal family (even in lower class families where parents wanted their daughter to "faire un bon mariage", i.e. marry someone rich), marriages were pre-arranged *business deals* from which love was excluded. This was bound to lead to latter *love affairs* when two persons happened to meet & fall in love. One day when I have time, I am going to remove many names from that ghetto-like Category:French courtesans and prostitutes http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Category:French_courtesans_and_prostitutes. Frania W. (talk) 18:55, 31 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, I understand. I agree with you in what you say about the weiv on sexuality in 18th century France. I was in fact also talking about the matter in general, the view on this in Europe in general; also, for example, an 19th century English actress, who had affairs, could be considered to be a prostitute, even if she was not: she could be described as such by her time, and therefore categorized as such in wikipedia, when the article is based upon such sources and tradition. I wish you good luck in adjusting this, and hope that you will also remove such wrongful labels from women of all nationalities as you find them, as I have done myself. I am glad if this puritanical wiev could be corrected toward a more neutral point of view. -Aciram (talk) 19:36, 31 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

It will take time! Frania W. (talk) 22:20, 31 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Of course, if the fact that her mother had a "bad reputation" made it difficult for her parents to arrange her marriage, then that should still be mentioned, but phrased: "The fact that her mother had several sexual partners, and had a bad reputation because of it", rather than the incorrect and untrue: "her mother was a well known prostitute".--85.226.44.74 (talk) 13:09, 3 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
It does seem, that although her mother was not a prostitute at all, she had a "bad reputation", and that this had effects upon her daughter's possibilities on the marriage market. This should defenitely be inserted in to the article. I know France had a different view on sex than England, but let's not pretend that it did not belong to the same masculin culture as the whole of Europe, which gave a woman and not a man a "bad reputation" if she had several sexual partners. France is not an exception from this all-European wiev. --85.226.47.151 (talk) 20:24, 11 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I se that everything about this have been deleted. If I may say so, Frania; to delete everything about sex wherever you find it, is also to be a puritan.--85.226.47.151 (talk) 20:27, 11 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Death[edit]

Minor edit to move the information related to her death into its own section instead of having it in the "Versailles" => "Postion at Court" subsection. No change to actual information. cswpride (talk) 00:19, 24 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Neutrality?[edit]

"Talented and beautiful lady" seems a little too opinion for Wikipedia. I suggest "regarded as a talented and beautiful lady" Whigg (talk) 13:35, 18 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Given that Mme Pompadour was born in 1721, how is it that she attended the club d'entresol which was founded in 1724 and was suppressed in 1731. This error is repeated in the article on the club d'entresol that states that she attended its meetings (even though membership was restricted to men). She was no doubt a bright nine-year old, but he connection with the Enlightenment think-tank seems to be an exaggeration. (cmurdock70.7.172.142 (talk) 16:55, 20 April 2013 (UTC))[reply]


"Essentially, she had the mind of Margaret Thatcher in the body of Marilyn Monroe - with the kindness of Mother Theresa". What utter Bullshit. This whole article sounds like a hagiography not a biopic at all. BTW using Margaret Thatcher as an example of a mind worthy of praise is enough to make anyone who had to live during her "reign" throw up.

This article needs help![edit]

There are sections of this article that are badly written, either they are cut & paste jobs from another source or they are written by a nonnative English speaker. I'm not sure what to think of statements like this:

The Marquise de Pompadour directed political life in France she was king and prime minister for almost 20 years

Huh? And later comments about how she, with her obese body, physically dominated the king despite the fact that they stopped having sex? Sources, anyone? Bad writing and poorly sourced. Are there any experts out there on 18th century French history? 69.125.134.86 (talk) 22:31, 17 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

She was indeed the acting PM of France for quite some time - as Louis was utterly disinterested in being the head of state. She was in great shape and reportedly had exceptional beauty - which she constantly worked on to maintain. They did indeed stop having sex after a while, but due to her marvelous personality and devotion to the king, he did not mind at all. Essentially, she had the mind of Margaret Thatcher in the body of Marilyn Monroe - with the kindness of Mother Theresa. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 216.231.159.16 (talk) 23:35, 12 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Madame de Pompadour or Jeanne-Antoinette Poisson?[edit]

It seems kind of funny that when I clicked on a link for Poisson's actual name, I was redirected to an article title that is merely her nickname. I'd like to suggest that the article be retitled using her actual name, in the same way that searching for "Honest Abe" redirects you to an article titled "Abraham Lincoln." — Preceding unsigned comment added by 130.132.199.113 (talk) 22:48, 23 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

It's not a nickname, it's a title of nobility. It is, and has for centuries, been the practice in Western usage that members of the nobility are referred to by their title, like Arthur Wellesley, Camillo Benso or Gilbert du Motier. Occasionally a holder of a noble title might be better known by their personal name, like most holders of Napoleonic titles or British prime ministers who were ennobled after already having held the premiership; in such cases, Wikipedia finds it inappropriate to follow the formally correct practice and instead very sensibly uses the subject's more common name as its title. But Madame de Pompadour is not commonly known to anyone as Jeanne-Antoinette Poisson, and therefore Wikipedia very correctly has located her article here. Binabik80 (talk) 22:04, 19 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Madame Pompadour[edit]

Shouldn't simply 'Madame Pompadour' be listed as a name she is known by in English? Going by the use of that version of her name in film/television/operetta/novels and the flower named for her, down in the popular culture section.219.88.68.195 (talk) 00:46, 18 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Just to revisit, seeing as it got no replies at the time, -as per WP:NCUE, and WP:COMMONNAME, shouldn't the article be renamed 'Madame Pompadour', given that in the popular culture section and appearances this would appear to be the more common form of her name that she is referred to by in English. 219.88.68.195 (talk) 03:08, 18 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Infobox Misinformation[edit]

The infobox on this page is completely wrong. It seems to contain information for Maria Antonia Ferdinanda of Spain, not Jeanne Antoinette Poisson, Marquise of Pompadour. I'm afraid I don't know enough on editing and correcting entries to remedy this myself, but it seems a large oversight that should be corrected. 38.98.94.10 (talk) 17:48, 6 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

great education?[edit]

She received, "a private education at home with the best teachers of the day who taught her dancing, drawing, painting, engraving, theatre, the arts, and the ability to memorize entire plays." Really. "The Best Teachers of the Day" weren't instructing a would-be courtesan in the essentials of her trade. Care to name who they were?

She was expensively educated, before marrying a rich man. The classic background for a king's mistress. She was never a courtesan. Johnbod (talk) 12:51, 21 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Rank[edit]

We state that "The King purchased the marquisate of Pompadour on 24 June [1745] and gave the estate, with title and coat-of-arms, to Jeanne Antoinette, making her a Marquise" and then state that "she was elevated on 12 October 1752 to duchess". But we continue to refer to her as a marquise, rather than a duchess, and even Louis XV is then said to have referred to her as "la marquise" after her death. So was she a duchess, and if so of what ("Duchesse de Pompadour", or some other title)? (Nothing appears to be listed on our list of French dukedoms.) And if so why does that title seem to have been ignored in favour of the lower one? Proteus (Talk) 16:14, 24 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The French article begins: "Jeanne-Antoinette Poisson, marquise de Pompadour et duchesse de Menars[1], dite Madame de Pompadour, est une maîtresse-en-titre du roi..."
  1. ^ L'acte de décès de Madame de Pompadour en date du 17 avril 1764 à Versailles, mentionne ses titres sans toutefois respecter l'ordre d'accession : {{citation}}: Empty citation (help).

Johnbod (talk) 16:21, 24 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you, but unfortunately that raises further questions. Our article on the Château de Menars records that it was not acquired by Mme de Pompadour until 1760, eight years after she was apparently raised to be a duchess, and only mentions it being raised to a 'marquisat' (which appears to be borne out by Mme de P's brother, Abel-François Poisson, who inherited it from her, being referred as as "marquis de Menars" rather than "duc de Menars"). Do we perhaps have the dates wrong? Proteus (Talk) 15:48, 21 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Madame_de_Pompadour&oldid=1219144073"