6,147 reputation
1453
bio website
location
age
visits member for 2 years, 1 month
seen Nov 20 at 9:20


Jul
14
comment Was Marie Antoinette considered a fully legitimate bride for the heir apparent to the French throne in 1770?
@MarkC.Wallace The question should now be deleted (see above). (Countess Chotek wasn't "legitimate" by some rules. There may have been such rules in France, which is what I was asking about.)
Jul
14
comment Was Marie Antoinette considered a fully legitimate bride for the heir apparent to the French throne in 1770?
@FelixGoldberg Theoretically. In practice the fact that theirs was also a Catholic royal house was perhaps even more key. But without better evidence I'm still not convinced that the French court would would normally have considered Vienna (first) when choosing a heir's bride in the late 18th century.
Jul
14
comment Was Marie Antoinette considered a fully legitimate bride for the heir apparent to the French throne in 1770?
@Semaphore Here is an example that involved a later Habsburg and his non-eligible (by some standards) bride.
Jul
14
comment Was Marie Antoinette considered a fully legitimate bride for the heir apparent to the French throne in 1770?
Another strange downvote on this site. I would delete this question but cannot as it already has received an answer. Bye ...
Jul
14
comment Was Marie Antoinette considered a fully legitimate bride for the heir apparent to the French throne in 1770?
Where's the evidence for the Habsburgs being the most prestigious European royal house in the 18th century? +1 for the concrete list of names, as there are some who traveled West to France (i.e. not from Spain), which I was not aware of.
Jul
14
asked Was Marie Antoinette considered a fully legitimate bride for the heir apparent to the French throne in 1770?
Jul
2
awarded  Inquisitive
Jul
2
awarded  Curious
Jun
28
awarded  Popular Question
Jun
11
awarded  Nice Question
May
21
awarded  Nice Answer
May
15
awarded  Nice Question
Apr
29
awarded  Nice Answer
Apr
8
awarded  Notable Question
Apr
3
awarded  Nice Answer
Mar
21
comment Why only in the last few hundred year has science and technology progressed like it has
Imagine a future historian (or shall I say geek :) asking an analogous question on SE.H (still beta? :) say in a millennium from now when a lot of further technological progress may have occurred: would it be any different? If not, the fact that there is growth and progress may be your (and her) sufficient answer.
Mar
21
reviewed Reviewed Is history always written by the victors?
Mar
20
comment Did the Tamil People discover that the earth was round 2000 years ago?
related: History of scientific regression
Mar
20
comment Why is the Spanish-American War not called the Spanish-Cuban-American War?
Why not put this information (plus your sources) into the question? I guess naming wars is not a science, but an art :) Are you saying that it is referred to as Spanish-Cuban-American War in Cuba? Now that would not seem to be be all that surprising. On the other hand: "History is written by the victors." (Churchill)
Mar
20
revised Why is the Spanish-American War not called the Spanish-Cuban-American War?
added 264 characters in body