h2g2 The Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy: Earth Edition

Entry: The Court Of France - Intrigue Scandal And Charles Found A Wife - A87794437
Author: bobstafford - U3151547

Please comment

Hi bob

You really seem to make an effort to cover the whole history of Great Britain!

First of all, I don't think the title of this Entry is very good. The titles of the other Entries in the series are good, but this one is kind of... not sure how to say it. Bulky? But I'm never good in finding titles myself, so I shouldn't complain.

I think many people will not know about the custom of inspecting the sheets of a newly married couple, so you should rewrite this paragraph to first explain what it's about (which you do, but after you tell about the specific case).

'Political intrigue worsened when Louis came under the influence of Cardinal de Richelieu7 Richelieu wanted to isolate Anne and prevent her from having any effect on any of Louis political decisions.'
Why? What did he want to do with the influence he had on the king and how could Ann be a threat?

You have a few very short paragraphs in the section about Louis and Ann, you should try to combine some of them because it reads a bit strange.

Same here:
'Charles and his party were accommodated at the mansion of the Duchesse de Chevreuse in Paris.'
Please combine this sentence with the next paragraph and tell us again when that was, because after reading all the things about Louis and Ann I had to scroll up to the top to find out.

'The children of Charles Henrietta Maria were Charles II...'
Missing an 'and'.

'There may have been some truth in the story of the diamond studs. They did exist and two may have been given to Buckingham as a gift. They had to be swiftly reproduced to hide the loss.'
Huh? Which diamond studs? You didn't say anything about these before.

'There is also some evidence that Lady de Winter to have existed.'
Who?

Do you really want to name all the children of Charles in this Entry? Doesn't that rather belong to the Entry about his marriage, which is listed in the links at the top? It doesn't seem relevant here. Just like it doesn't seem relevant that Henrietta was not at the coronation, you can put that into the other Entry too.

On the other hand there seems to be too little information about other things. The title says you write about a scandal. I didn't read anything about a scandal in thie Entry. Please let us know! Where was the scandal?

You also say 'Buckingham made a lasting mark on history'. How did he do that? He was maybe the lover of a queen, but as you say all kings and queens had relationships next to their marriages, so it doesn't seem very unusual. How did he have more influence than others?

Thanks Tav I can reuly on you to cover thngs - I shall do this as soon as possable

Apart from dropping by to bow down (briefly) while in awe of the breadth of your historical knowledge - I wonder if you could do something about the footnoting.

It is a minor thing but having a footnote number next to a king's name and number leads to visual double takes. I am assuming your skills don't extend to reprogramming the H2G2 presentation systems so, is there another way to write this so that it looks cleaner on the page?

Some of the sub-eds who hand around these parts may have some ideas too.

I would generally put the footnote on a different word to avoid this problem

The 10th footnote, you've put the tag on lowercase, which prevents it displaying properly in Pliny.

Do we really need such detail about the sexual problems of the French King in an entry about an English King? You could omit about half of this entry as not being relevant.

You say that Buckingham made his mark on history, but you don't say what the mark was. He doesn't seem to have done anything, other than having an affair with the queen which you say was considered normal at the time.

Can you remove the th and st from your dates. The should be in the form 21 December, 1683.

The stuff at the end about the Dumas books doesn't make much sense unless the reader has read the books. You'll have to explain it for the reader who hasn't.

Is that any better, and the link to an excllent H2G2 entry about the Dumas books should explane the referance.

When you say "is that better", you don't tell us what you're done. I had to read it again to find that you still all the irrelevant stuff about the king of France's sexual problems, you still don't tell us in what way Buckingham made a mark as a political troublemaker, and your Dumas section still doesn't read properly to someone who hasn't read the books. Please either deal with these points in the entry or discuss them here.

At the moment one of the BBC's flagship programmes, 'The Musketeers', is loosely based on this period in French history, vaguely inspired by the Dumas novel you've mentioned here. So I can't help buy feel that now is the perfect time to get this one finished. So how have you got on addressing the points mentioned above?

<BB<

Any ideas from you would be welcome??? I am busy at the moment but will get on to it asap

As for the TV I had not noticed

What would my advice be regarding this entry? Well, I've had a think and a read through

I would prefer an introduction to introduce this article and briefly summarise what came before. With University projects etc we can't assume that the reader has read previous articles, and so begin in a way that eases the reader into this article without saying too much of what happened before.

I’d also consider having the key characters' dates in brackets after their names to possibly cut down the number of footnotes, and otherwise see if you can incorporate the footnotes into the text. (Yes, I know I am guilty of footnote abuse). For instance, footnotes 8 and 9 could and I think should be added to the text, as knowing who he is is important and relevant to your article, rather than an interesting aside. The sentence that currently reads:

'Political intrigue worsened when Louis came under the influence of Cardinal de Richelieu8 Richelieu wanted to isolate Anne and prevent her from having any effect on any of Louis political decisions.'

Could have the footnotes added to become:

''Political intrigue worsened when Louis came under the influence of Cardinal de Richelieu (1585-1642). Richelieu, Louis XIII's chief minister from 1624 until his death, wanted to isolate Anne and prevent her from influencing Louis' political decisions.'

One thing is that this seems to me to be an article of two different bits, rather than a clearly defined article that's focused on one subject. Most of it is about Louis and Anne, while the end has a little bit about Charles. Yes, it is an article in the series about the life of Charles, but it reads more like an article on Louis and Anne.

Have you considered using this entry as a basis for an entry on Anne of Austria? I enjoy what you've written about Anne and Louis' relationship, and the bit about the Diamond studs, but Charles is only mentioned in Paragraph 1, 13, 16 and 17 where there's a list of his children. This seems a little disjointed. If it was me, I would consider using much of this to form the basis of an article on Anne and Louis', which means that the rest can concentrate purely on Charles and Buckingham arranging to marry Henrietta Maria.

That's my suggestion - feel free to disagree and ignore me and ask for second opinions.

<BB<

Good idesa there I shall look into them..

Hello BB I have made a rough cut of your suggestion they can be found as

ID TITLE
A87842370 Edit-The Return From Spain To England BB suggestion rough
A87842361 Edit-Louis rough

They look weak any suggestions for extra content

Any comments

new title

At Bluebottles suggestion
A87842370 The Stewarts VI The Return From Spain To England

A87842361 The Stewarts VII Louis Of France

No more refined and with additions are these two entries adequate to replace the one below



A87794437 The Stewarts VI. The Court Of France - Marriage Negotiations

Comments pleasec

As I said before, you've a huge amount of irrelevant information about the marriage and love life of King Louis XIII of France. This should not be in an entry about the Stuarts, unless you can show that it is directly relevant to the history of the Stuarts. Please remove it or move it to an entry about King Louis XIII of France.

Which version are you asking for comments on? Personally I agree with Gnomon that using a lot of what you have written in a separate entry on Louis (not part of the Stewart series) makes sense. An entry purporting to be about the Stewarts should not be dominated by information about someone else entirely, but it has the making of a very fine entry about Louis XIII, especially if you add some more about later events and have a separate section to make it clearer when you are discussing Dumas' stories rather than real historical events.

For the 'BB suggestion rough' version, the first thing I would consider is incorporating some footnotes into the text. Having three footnotes in the second sentence interrupted my flow when reading it.

<BB<

OK chaps Gnomon and BB

I have already responded to BBs suggestion and I propose to split this entry A87794437 2 to put this on the right course. questions please

1 The Return From Spain To England as BB suggested rough in rough edit A87842370 is this strong enough as a stand alone entry


2 Louis XIII Of France rough edit A87842361 Edit Louis XIII Of France any ideas for inclusion or is this all that is necessary. This will be a separate entry from the Stewart group

NB both new entries need a good polish, Thank you both for your opinions so far I look forward to your reply