#Marie-Antoinette

[jlnccc]

[anotherhumaninthisworld]

Hello :)

I would like to know if you know who is behind the horrible false accusation against Marie Antoinette regarding her son. We know that Hébert presented the testimony in the revolutionary tribunal, and although he bears responsibility for it, I don't think he was alone in fabricating this false testimony.

While it is hard to know for sure exactly whose idea it was to make incest a charge against Marie-Antoinette, these are all the people involved in obtaining the information needed that I’ve been able to track:

When giving his testimony during Marie-Antoinette’s trial, Hébert claimed this ”fact” had been discovered by Antoine Simon, Louis-Charles’ caretaker in the Temple, who then told him, alongside mayor of Paris Jean-Nicolas Pache and prosecutor of the Paris Commune Pierre-Gaspard Chaumette, about it (cited in Histoire parlementaire de la Révolution française, volume 29, page 355-356):

…He (Hébert) adds that Simon having informed him that he had something important to communicate to him, he went to the Temple accompanied by the mayor and the prosecutor of the Commune. There they received a declaration from the young Capet, from which it was revealed that at the time of Louis Capet's flight to Varennes, La Fayette was one of those who had contributed the most to facilitating it; that for this purpose they had spent the night at the castle; that during their stay at the Temple, the inmates had continued for a long time to be informed of what was happening outside; that correspondence was sent to them in clothes and shoes. The little Capet named thirteen people as those who had partly cooperated in maintaining these intelligences, that one of them having locked him and his sister in a turret, he heard him telling his mother: I will get you the means of finding out the news by everyday sending a peddler to shout the evening newspaper nearby. Finally, young Capet, whose physical constitution each day was deteriorating, was discovered by Simon [while engaging] in indecent pollutions that were fatal to his temperament; that the latter having asked him who had taught him this criminal practice, he replied that it was to his mother and his aunt that he was indebted for the knowledge of this fatal habit. From the declaration, observes the deponent, that the young Capet made, in the presence of the mayor of Paris and the prosecutor of the Commune, it follows that these two women often made him sleep between the two of them, that he there committed acts of the most unbridled debauchery; that there was not even any doubt, from what fils Capet said, that there had been an incestuous act between mother and son. There is reason to believe that this criminal enjoyment was not dictated by pleasure, but rather by the political hope of annoying the physique of this child, who one still liked to believe was destined to occupy a throne, and whose morale one wanted by this maneuver to ensure the right to reign over while, by the efforts that one made him make, he remained attacked by a descent, for which it was necessary to put a bandage on this child; and ever since he no longer lives with his mother he has regained a robust and vigorous temperament.

The letter where Simon asks Hébert to come over to the Temple has been conserved and can be found cited in volume 1 of Histoire du tribunal révolutionnaire de Paris : avec le journal de ses actes (1880) by Henri Wallon:

The republican Simon to the patriot and damn patriotic Father Duchesne, The Temple, 30 September 1793, year II of the Republic one and indivisible Hello. Come quickly, my friend, I have things to tell you and would feel a lot of pleasure seeing you. Try to come today, you will always find in me a frank and brave republican.

Louis-Charles’ declaration, made on October 6 1793, can in its turn be found cited in Procès des Bourbons (1798). Besides Louis, Simon, Pache, Chaumette and Hébert, the document has been signed by Frery and Seguy, commissioners of the temple, Heousée, police administrator, and Laurant, council commissioner. According to The Dauphin (Louis XVII) (1921) by G. Lenotre, Louis-Charles’ signature is very clumsily written when compared to the handwriting in his schoolbooks, opening the door to the possibility his interrogators had threatened him or made him drunk in order to get him to put his name on the paper:

…He declared to them, furthermore, that having been surprised several times in his bed by Simon and his wife, charged with watching over him by the commune, committing indecency on himself that was harmful to his health, he admitted to them that he had been instructed in these very pernicious habits by his mother and his aunt, and that different times they had amused themselves by seeing him repeat the practices in front of them, and that very often this took place when they made him lie down between them. From the way the child explained himself, he made us understand that once his mother made him approach her; it resulted in copulation and a swelling in one of his testicles, as said by the citoyenne Simon, for which he wears a bandage, and that his mother recommended him to never speak of it: that this act had been repeated several times since.

In the same work we also find the interrogation held with Louis’ sister Marie-Thérèse-Charlotte the following day. She was then among other things asked ”if, when playing with her brother, he did not touch her where he didn’t get to touch her; if one didn’t make her brother jump on a blanket, and if his mother and aunt hadn’t made him sleep between them?” Thérèse responded with a no. The protocol then documents the following:

We immediately called for Charles Capet, and invited him to tell us if what he said yesterday, regarding the touching of his person, was true? [He] persisted in what he had said, repeated and maintained it in front of his sister, and persisted in saying that it was the truth. Asked a second time to state whether this was indeed true, he replied yes, it is true; his sister claimed to never have seen it.

This document is signed by Jacques-Louis David, Pache, Chaumette, Heussé, Laurent and Danjou. The same people plus one Séguy also signed the interrogation of Madame Élisabeth held the very same day. The childrens’ aunt was she too questioned about the incest:

Has she read Charles' statement, regarding the indecencies mentioned in the document, dated the 15th of this month? Responded that a similar infamy is too far below and too far away from her to be able to respond to it; that moreover the child had had this habit for a long time; and that he must remember that she and his mother scolded him for it several times. Charles was asked to explain on this subject: he attested that he had told the truth. She read the rest of Charles' statement on the same subject, in which he persisted, adding that he did not remember the times, but that it happened frequently. She said that as it only concerns her, she will not respond to it any more than to the rest; she believes that her conduct must protect her from suspicion. Charles asked to declare who had first instructed him in this practice. The two together. Did it happen during the day or during the night? He doesn’t remember, but he thinks it was in the morning.

The secretary who wrote the interrogations down was one Daujon. His colleague, the municipal officer Goret, wrote that he had told him the following about the incident (cited in The last days of Marie-Antoinette (1907) by G. Lenotre):

It was this same Daujon who was acting as secretary when the young prince was subjected, in the Temple, to an examination on the subject of the slanderous and infamous statements that had been circulated with in regards to the Queen. Here, word for word, is what Daujon told me on the subject of that examination, and I may say that I considered him a man worthy of belief. The young prince, he told me, was seated in an armchair, swinging his little legs; for his feet did not reach the ground. He was examined as to the statements in question, and was asked if they were true: he answered in the affirmative. Instantly Madame Elizabeth, who was present, cried out: ”Oh, the monster!” As for me, added Daujon, I could not regard this answer as coming from the child himself, for his air of uneasiness and his general bearing inclined me to believe that it was a suggestion emanating from someone else, — the effect of his fear of punishment or ill treatment, with which he may have been threatened if he failed to comply. I fancy that Madame Elizabeth cannot really have been deceived either, but that her surprise at the child's answer wrung that exclamation from her.

[hymntosappho]

three fanarts challenge

[andebretz]

Gojira: Ah! Ça Ira.

[maggiec70]

Antoinette Redux...

...and doubtless for far longer than I'm around.

Some time ago I replied to an earnest but largely inaccurate defense of Marie-Antoinette that bemoaned the alleged myths surrounding her. I only remembered this when someone “liked” my response, and I looked at it again. This time, I noticed the five added comments extolling Antoinette and Louis and tossing out red herrings and additional historical bloopers. More important, however, was that the original poster shut it down to any further comments. I wonder why? Disapproves of criticism? Dislikes historical accuracy when it challenges the pretty view she extolls of her historical heroine? Wants the two “fans” to have their say but no more from the nay-sayers?

I will not let this pass, petty as it may seem.  Besides, there are times that I refuse to allow crap about specific historical figures to pass unchallenged.

These are the comments posted in Antoinette’s defense. I haven’t changed a word, but I deleted the names because they are unimportant. My responses are in italics.

Commenter #1:

“There is evidence King Louis XVI and Queen Marie Antoinette gave to the poor, provided education and other needs to the poor, and that the queen took a special interest in local children in need.”

In my reblog, I described specifically how Antoinette treated the poor; this is a regurgitation but more generalized, perhaps to make this charity seem much more extensive and continuous than it was. One point here for some accuracy, though marred by clear exaggeration.

King Louis was very 'wholesome' and was the first king not to take a mistress. Yet cartoons of the time portrayed all the royals and nobles as debauched.

Louis had some well-documented physical issues—the two most critical were tight, painful phimosis, which generally inhibits erection and ejaculation, and hypogonadism, which causes diminished libido. I suppose those conditions would preclude a mistress. These conditions also meant that he did not consummate his marriage until Antoinette’s brother, Joseph II, came to Paris to explain the mechanics of sex to Louis. Nevertheless, Antoinette didn’t have a child until eight years later. The contemporary historical records, including reports from his doctors, are replete with medical details. Quite a few are on Gallica, and even more are in the various French archives. Have a look, why don’t you?

Does this low libido and physical condition make Louis “wholesome?” Absolutely not. But it does explain why he never had a mistress. And yes, the cartoons and broadsheets more often showed Louis as impotent and hopeless, watching as Antoinette frolicked with legions of men. Louis was undoubtedly sexually dysfunctional, but Antoinette was not debauched or promiscuous.  These broadsides were the late 18th century’s equivalent of X, formerly known as Twitter, where folks trashed royals and aristocrats.

“Marie apologized to the executioner for stepping on his toe.”

Excuse me, but why on earth does this matter? After almost a lifetime of indifference at best toward anyone not in her intimate circle, Antoinette’s “apology” means squat. However, if this means a great character trait, go right ahead.

Commenter #1, second comment:

“Some of the worst treatment was meted out toward their son, a helpless child, while imprisoned. It is too horrific to repeat here.”

No, this treatment is not “too horrific” to repeat here or anywhere if you want people to know what happened. However, you have to be careful here or regarding any other subject regarding what sources you use. Yes, indeed, the removal of the then eight-year-old dauphin, Louis-Charles, from his mother and sister, Marie-Therese, was harsh. His imprisonment was brutal: cold, filthy, with little water and less food, and no human contact other than his jailers who kept him under constant surveillance and who beat him almost daily, continually criticized Antoinette and Louis, as well as trying to force him to deny God, sing bawdy songs, and learn how to curse. The more gruesome allegations of sexual abuse are plentiful as well but not confirmed in the historical record. All the other types of abuse are documented in plentiful archival documents.

Commenter #2:

“…yes...and this poor child was litterally [sic] taken from his mother [sic] arms... Knowing how difficult it was for Marie Antoinette to have children in the first place ( in the Sofia Coppola movie my heart sinks every time when the young Queen runs to her private chamber to cry when her SIL gives birth) that was the worst thing her enemies could do to hurt her.”

Removing a child from its mother’s arms is a dreadful experience, but certainly not unique to Antoinette. So why is this an issue? Because it truly is not. Think of the many thousands of impoverished French mothers whose children dead from disease and starvation were removed from their arms for burial. Changes the perspective a bit, or it should.

The danger of using movies for any historical knowledge should be obvious. Coppola’s version certainly failed to explain any of the real reasons and backstory for these tears. And they are also exaggerated. You don’t read any history—real history, not Wikipedia, not historical novels, do you?

Commenter #1, third comment:

“Too horrible to imagine.”

I was tempted to omit this part of the chorus as too inane and uninformative, but, you know, truth.

I have no idea this will change anyone’s mind—it probably won’t, since breathless fangurl love for Antoinette, Anne Boleyn, and any one of the Romanov girls is generally firmly in place and generally idealistic.

However, I’m a historian, and I don’t often let misinformation unsupported by archival, primary, and even valid secondary sources go unchallenged. I also know how to evaluate those sources regarding when and by whom they were written and in what political, social, religious, and economic environment.

So here we are. I’ve said my piece—again—about Antoinette. Disagree all you like, but please state on what your disagreement is based: fact, or opinion.

[chicinsilk]

"Ligne Flèche"

"Bal de Printemps"

Christian Dior Haute Couture Collection Spring/Summer 1956. Cannes Film Festival 1956. The actress Michèle Morgan in a magnificent evening ensemble in double silk Aleutian gauze by Staron. Model worn on the occasion of the presentation of the film "Marie-Antoinette" by Jean Delannoy in which she plays the main role.

Christian Dior Collection Haute Couture Printemps/Été 1956. Festival de Cannes 1956. L'actrice Michèle Morgan dans un magnifique ensemble du soir en gaze aléoutienne double soie de Staron. Modèle porté à l'occasion de la présentation du film "Marie-Antoinette" de Jean Delannoy dans lequel elle incarne le rôle principal.

Photo Jack Garofalo

[curiositysavesthecat]

*This poll was submitted to us and we simply posted it so people could vote and discuss their opinions on the matter. If you’d like for us to ask the internet a question for you, feel free to drop the poll of your choice in our inbox and we’ll post them anonymously (for more info, please check our pinned post).

[postcard-from-the-past]

In the park of the Marie-Antoinette dairy farm of Rambouillet, Yveline region of France

French vintage postcard

[sisitodloverme]

잔다르크와 마리앙투아네트가 만났다면 어땠을까? 새로운 상상.

Was wäre, wenn Zandarc und Marie-Antoinette sich getroffen hätten? Neue Vorstellungskraft.

Et si Jeanne d'Arc et Marie-Antoinette se rencontraient ? Une nouvelle imagination.

Что было бы, если бы Жанна д'Арк и Марианна встретились? Новое воображение.

ジャンヌ·ダルクとマリー·アントワネットが会ったらどうだっただろうか？ 新しい想像。

[empirearchives]

Excerpt from Thierry Lentz on Napoleon and Women:

There is a widely held idea that the Consulate and the Empire put an end to the Revolutionary episode of the gradual accession of women to, if not equality with men, at least to a more equable place in society. This episode is often symbolised by the struggles of emblematic figures, such as the famous Manon Roland, Théroigne de Méricourt and Olympe de Gouges, the lesser-known Pauline Léon and Claire Lacombe, and even the more surprising Charlotte Corday and Marie-Antoinette. After the women’s march on Versailles on 5 and 6 October 1789, “women citizens” – who were in fact not legally citizens – took part in other “great Revolutionary days”, created clubs, published pamphlets and, more generally, demanded or petitioned for what was still far from being called “parity” or “gender equality”. Limited in numbers, this movement was nipped in the bud by the Convention, which repressed the leaders (several of the aforementioned heroines were guillotined), closed the women’s clubs, even postponed plans to develop education for girls and reversed the weak legislative advances that had been conceded. The first discussions on codification which began at this time confirmed this opposition, despite the maintenance of partial equality between spouses (particularly in matters of divorce) and the reduction, also very relative, of the scope of exclusions from professional life (which were not completely abolished until 1965). Social consensus, essentially created by men who alone had access to education, to the means of communication and to power, was then contrary to any idea of legal and political equality (that equality would not come until the 1970s!!). Any challenges on this point were stifled using an arsenal of different justifications, drawing on science, physiology, history, religious precepts, etc.

(Source)

[fierce-little-miana]

Young Marie-Antoinette from the “Des cheveux et des poils” (“Hair and hairs”) exhibit in the Paris museum of decorative arts.

[vitali-s]

Marie-Antoinette

https://www.etsy.com/fr/shop/MinibrandAtelier

[emvidal]

People frequently ask me why I write about Marie-Antoinette. One of the reasons is that I keep encountering educated people who really think she said, “Let them eat cake.” I continue to encounter Christians who think Marie-Antoinette was killed as punishment for some egregious wickedness or, at least, for unforgivable stupidity. Having read books about her since childhood, I knew she was misunderstood; it was only after a great deal more research that I came to see how completely false are the common beliefs about her.

[jailujaivu]

Marie-Antoinette, la jeunesse d'une reine

(Manga, Fuyumi Soryo, 2016 - Glénat)

L'autrice de Cesare, que je n'ai malheureusement pas lu, a véritablement un trait sublime. Ce one-shot a été conçu en collaboration avec l'équipe de conservateurs du Château de Versailles, et on ne peut en douter vu le raffinement des décors.

Je suis assez familière avec l'histoire de Marie-Antoinette; après tout, La Rose de Versailles fait partie des nombreuses raisons qui m'ont poussée à entamer des études d'histoire avant de m'orienter vers la bibliothéconomie. J'étais heureuse de trouver ici un point de vue différent, le manga s'attardant surtout sur les jeunes annèes de la reine en tant que Dauphine à Versailles.

Le fait de se concentrer sur une seule partie de son histoire permet de développer plus en détail son caractère, plus nuancé. Néanmoins, cela donne une impression de trop peu aussi, j'aurais suivi avec bonheur une série complète en dix tomes reprenant toute la vie de Marie-Antoinette par la même autrice!

Merci d'avoir lu cette première critique sur ce blog. Cela ne sera pas toujours développé, ni pertinent, j'essaie juste de garder une trace de mes lectures et visionnages du moments.

[whencyclopedfr]

Louis XVII

Louis XVII de France était le nom de règne de Louis-Charles de France (1785-1795), le fils cadet du roi Louis XVI (r. de 1774 à 1792) et de la reine Marie-Antoinette (1755-1793). Bien que Louis-Charles n'ait jamais régné en tant que roi, il fut reconnu par les royalistes en tant que monarque légitime de la France après l'exécution de son père pendant la Révolution française (1789-1799).

Lire la suite...