Talk:Edict of Nantes

No Reignition of Violence?

The article states that following the Revocation of the Edict of Nantes the wars of religion did not reignite. However, there was significant conflict in the Cevennes region of France known as the Revolte des Camissards under the leadership of Abraham Mazel, Pierre Laporte, and Jean Cavallier. Does the statement in the article mean that no widespread civil war emerged after the revocation of the edict since the violence was localized in the Cevennes (despite lasting several years)? Please clarify in the article. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 97.102.177.26 (talk) 23:05, 22 September 2018 (UTC)

Vandalism at Edict of Nantes

The first paragraph was deleted and a juvenile graffito added 14:16, 2 October 2005, User:142.59.104.79, an anonymous passer-by. In erasing the graffiti, the next editor (14:22, 2 October 2005, User:156.143.138.178, another anonymous passer-by) did not revert the page, and the opening paragraph remained lost. Then, a "cleanup tag' was applied 04:49, 4 October 2005 by User:Andreww and a "Wikify tag" followed, 17:27, 4 October 2005, added by User:Acjelen. I have restored the original version, but some editorial care needs to be exercised before applying those tags, which have been so trashed by their mis-usage. --Wetman 05:35, 5 October 2005 (UTC).

Virtually alone..

"Such an innovative act of toleration stood virtually alone in a Europe, where standard practice forced subjects to follow the religion of their ruler — the application of the principle of cuius regio, eius religio."

Come one! Warsaw Confederation, anyone? Or rule of Bathory's in Siebenburgen? Szopen 07:57, 2 August 2007 (UTC)

• France under Henry IV was not the exception in Europe. In the Dutch Republic Freedom of conscience was the rule, implying freedom of religion at home: hence no cuius regio eius religio.

A.J.B. Sirks 163.1.128.155 (talk) 13:37, 2 June 2008 (UTC)

Yes, Henry IV had precedents, in fact the first universal toleration act should be acredited to the government of Isabella Jagellion and her son who produced the Edict of Turda - though I have found conflicting sources on this, probably because it's Eastern-European history and there is very little online that I actually understand! =) Also the French wouldn't have said "cuius regio, eius religio" as often as "Un foi, un roi, un loi" Dragonfang88 (talk) 17:01, 30 March 2009 (UTC)

So much as to use French, might as well do it correctly: "Une foi, une loi, un roi". I know, I know, it's hard. French has two genders: masculine and feminine, while English has only one. But it could be worse! German has three. And Latin had five or seven, depending on how you count. A native speaker of a lesser language should not attempt to master a greater one, except in extraordinary circumstances. Anglophones, keep away from French. It's out of your league. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.45.178.123 (talk) 17:29, 10 March 2010 (UTC)

Revocation: How about the new world?

I have ancestors who came to America after the revocation. It seems a little odd to leave this out or play this down.76.215.47.190 17:13, 25 August 2007 (UTC)

Edict of Nantes - temporary or permanent

I see that the francophone article states that a recent discovery shows that the Edict of Nantes was not sealed with green wax (implying a permanent edict) but with brown wax (implying a temporary edict). I was tempted to add this to the anglophone article, but desisted. Although the French article cites plenty of sources, it is not clear - at least not to me - what is the specific source of this stuff about the colour of the sealing wax. And the whole thing seems to be at variance with the assertion in the English wiki entry that the original Edict of Nantes has disappeared. So maybe it's an obscure hoax. Or an innocent misunderstanding. Or...? Does anyone know what this is about? If soundly based, it probably merits inclusion in the English wiki article. Nothing like a good conspiracy theory to stimulate interest....

Thanks d'avance for any sourced inputs....

Regards Charles01 (talk) 21:29, 27 March 2008 (UTC)

In a culture of lawyers, whether C16 or C21, text rules "permanence", not wax color. The conspiracy theory you search lies rather in the disappearance of the Paris copy compared to the retention of the copy in Protestant Geneva. --Wetman (talk) 06:48, 28 March 2008 (UTC)

According to Mousnier, the edict of 13 April is sealed with green wax on green and red and green cords and is declared "perpetual and irrevocable". The secret articles of May 2 are sealed only with yellow wax. I don't know if the yellow wax has gone a bit brown. qp10qp (talk) 07:35, 19 July 2008 (UTC)

30 instead of 13

on the francophone wikipedia it's indicated that it's the 30 and not 13 as usually indicated. 216.86.113.139 (talk) 04:42, 19 July 2008 (UTC)

I think we are safe with 13 April. That is the most probable day for the signing of the public edict of 92 articles. On the other hand, "secret articles" were drawn up throughout April. And on 30 April, Henry IV promulgated a supplementary brevet, or guarantee clause, allowing the Huguenots certain garrisons and forts and pledging money for their upkeep. The article does mention the 30th later on and shows that work on this edict went on till the end of the month. In fact, it went on slightly beyond. qp10qp (talk) 07:17, 19 July 2008 (UTC)

Perhaps then we should just stick with the month - April - and not specify a date???? Perhaps the dates of its registration are more important than date of it being signed? Dragonfang88 (talk) 09:10, 31 March 2009 (UTC)

If you're trying to make wikipedia a repository for all (adequately sourced..) knowledge then surely the answer is for someone with the good information and who knows the identiy of the source(s) to include (briefly) the known facts concerning the date of signing and explaining also about the date of the subsequent secret clauses and the supplementary document of 30 april. What we know and why we know it...what we believe and why we have good reason to believe it...

The reason for not spilling everything we known into a wiki article is to avoid the thing becoming unwieldy and minimise the risk of it beingg insufficiently sourced. But here the entire entry is reassuringly succinct and would remain so even with an extra 500 words. And if we don't enter what we know and why we know it to the entry itself, it is quite possible that someone will come along in ten years time and change the date because the francophone entry is different and someone somewhere thinks it more likely to be correct.

Regards Charles01 (talk) 09:22, 31 March 2009 (UTC)

13: impossible ! Henri IV was just arriving in Nantes. 30: probable, but in such edicts, there were only mentions of month and year (see French WP) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 143.126.203.251 (talk) 13:20, 4 November 2014 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Edict of Nantes. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20120714094231/http://booking-help.org/book_338_glava_314_Edict_of_Versailles_(1787).html to http://booking-help.org/book_338_glava_314_Edict_of_Versailles_%281787%29.html

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 11:45, 5 December 2017 (UTC)

Correct Spelling

`The Edict remained unaltered in effect, registered by the parliaments as "fundamental and irrevocable law", with the exception of the brevets, which had been granted for a period of eight years, and were renewed by Henry in 1606` Shouldn't parliaments be parlements? (Since the English and French idea of parliament differed a lot)TablemannDanny231 (talk) 13:44, 6 January 2022 (UTC)

fixed :) they're very different bodies Sovietblobfish (talk) 09:10, 2 January 2023 (UTC)