Louis XVII - Did he die in the Tower?

Many thanks.

You're most welcome Ann, the best books or sources for more info on this are Antonia Fraser's 'Marie Antionette', Susan Nagel's 'Marie Therese' and Deborah Cadbury's 'The lost King of France' all are very good and the Deborah Cadbury book is particularly moving and quite hard going, describing the terrible, mental and physical cruelty visited upon the unfortunate boy, ( it had me in tears) it also gives a very balanced look at the recent science and process of elimination used to determine if the preserved heart was indeed that of Louis XVII.

Philippe Delorme's website is also very interesting, its in french, but 'google translate' seems to work fine. All the survivor stories were a real source of anguish and pain for the one irrefutable survivor, Marie Therese, Madame Royale. Her uncles and cousins found them a political nuisance but for her it was all very personal and heartbreaking. There were even stories that circulated around her in her lifetime that she was actually a double whilst the 'real' Marie Therese lived in secret in a German castle as the veiled 'Dark Countess'.

The truth unfortunately was not as colourful, the brutal facts are that the fate of both the children in the Temple prison was actually very straightforward and much, much more tragic than any of the fiction that grew up around them.

Thank you. I will look out for the Cadbury book in particular.

Incidentally, if anyone is a fan of C.S. Forester's 'Hornblower' books, Marie-Therese and the Duke of Angouleme make a brief appearance in 'Lord Hornblower', set in 1814-15.

Ann

I made a mistake on checking about the whereabouts of the heart from 1830 onwards- The Archbishop of Paris had it until 1830, it was then passed between various members of the Spanish Bourbons and didn't return to France until 1975! so sorry that part was not accurate.

If you can, get the book that Deborah Cadbury wrote---The Lost King of France. In it it tells of a Mrs. Simon who cared for Louis Charles in prison. On her death bed she is still swearing to the fact that the Dauphin escaped from the prison in a laundry basket and she went to her death saying that he was alive. Louis Charles's sister would not meet with many of the men who claimed that they were the lost dauphin.
Why not? If she was in agony over not knowing the truth about her brother---why wouldn't she want to see these men herself--so she would know.  But if she also knew like Mrs. Simon that he had escaped---then she would not HAVE to meet with any of these men to satisfy her knowledge of what happened to her brother.  She was also not allowed to see her dead brother in the prison. Why not?  If he was truly her brother--she would have known---but if he was not her brother, she would have known that another boy was substituted for him and that her brother had escaped!  I believe that the boy that died in the prison was not Louis Charles. I believe that all of this was done to cover up the truth. The boy that died in the prison had his TWELVE YEAR OLD MOLARS. How old was Louis Charles?  Ten years old?  Does all this make sense? They also stated that the boy had long legs and arms for a child only ten years old. Since there is these descrepencies and these things that do not add up---why is it that everyone will believe and take it for the truth?  Oh and yes, the mtdna test that they took should PROVE that he was the son of Marie Antoinette--not one of her sisters or any other things but that he was the son of Marie Antoinette---and that is not what was said at all. It was said that the mtdna proved that he was a relative of Marie Antoinette on her maternal side. It should have proven beyond a shadow of a doubt that the child was the SON of Marie Antoinette!

I did not add this but when a DNA test is done on a baby to prove who his father is---it will tell absolutely if the child belongs to whoever the mother claims is the father  or not--so the some is true of a mtdna  test to prove who the mother of the child really is as well.  These tests on a child will tell who their mother and father truely is. It is positive proof.

I have now got a copy of the Cadbury book and will respond when I've read it. On a quick skim of the later chapters, it looks as though the DNA work was done very thoroughly and carefully, and there is precious little room for doubt.

Ann

Just remember that test on a child will be positive test of his mother and his father.

I did not add this but when a DNA test is done on a baby to prove who his father is---it will tell absolutely if the child belongs to whoever the mother claims is the father  or not--so the some is true of a mtdna  test to prove who the mother of the child really is as well.  These tests on a child will tell who their mother and father truely is. It is positive proof.

This statement is not strictly accurate, as there are at least three different types of DNA tests that are used in different circumstances to confirm the possibility of paternity or maternity. Each type of test is only of value if there is a suitable test with which it can be compared.  A single DNA test of any type is meaningless on its own.  So, if the test is intended to confirm paternity with a specific father, for example, you need DNA samples of reasonable quality from both the father and the child.

The different types of DNA test that might be used to confirm relationships include:
(1) Y-DNA, which is inherited in the direct male line. It cannot distinguish between a father, grandfather, brother, uncle, or male cousin, but if there is no match, the relationship between suspected family members is disproved. Matches which are close, but not exact, leave the whole question open to doubt.

(2) mtDNA, which is inherited in the direct female line, though males as well as females inherit it from their mothers. It cannot distinguish between mother, grandmother, sister, aunt, or female cousin, but if there is no match the relationship between suspected family members is disproved. Again, close matches are suggestive, but not proof.

(3) A paternity test, using autosomal DNA values at standard sites on about 13 different chromosomes (CODIS values).  These are internationally standardised and are frequently used in forensic tests, paternity or maternity tests, and tests of siblings.  Although exact matches are usually diagnostic of relationships, near matches are much less certain, as people from similar geographic backgrounds can have similar DNA values, so results can often be inconclusive.

When they tested the heart that was supposed to be the heart of Louis Charles against hair that they had of Marie Antoinette---they had the DNA from both the mother and the child---so why did they say that the DNA from the heart matched with Marie Antoinette's sisters--and that they did not say that the DNA matched with Marie Antoinette's?  Wouldn't Marie Antoinette have the same mtdna that her sisters had? This would not prove which one of these sisters had this child. It could have been any of her sisters or her female cousin's from her mothers sisters.
Why wouldn't it positively prove who the mother was?  If it would NOT prove who the mother was, why was the test taken?

When they tested the heart that was supposed to be the heart of Louis Charles against hair that they had of Marie Antoinette---they had the DNA from both the mother and the child---so why did they say that the DNA from the heart matched with Marie Antoinette's sisters--and that they did not say that the DNA matched with Marie Antoinette's?  Wouldn't Marie Antoinette have the same mtdna that her sisters had? This would not prove which one of these sisters had this child. It could have been any of her sisters or her female cousin's from her mothers sisters.
Why wouldn't it positively prove who the mother was?  If it would NOT prove who the mother was, why was the test taken?
 

Who are "they", ie the people who did the test?  Do you have a link or a reference to these results? The answer will usually be found in the fine print.

It sounds to me as though at least two different sorts of DNA tests were done on these samples (mtDNA and CODIS tests), and the results would depend on many factors, including the quality of the DNA, and what matched or didn't match between samples in each test.

When they tested the heart that was supposed to be the heart of Louis Charles against hair that they had of Marie Antoinette---they had the DNA from both the mother and the child---so why did they say that the DNA from the heart matched with Marie Antoinette's sisters--and that they did not say that the DNA matched with Marie Antoinette's?  Wouldn't Marie Antoinette have the same mtdna that her sisters had? This would not prove which one of these sisters had this child. It could have been any of her sisters or her female cousin's from her mothers sisters.
Why wouldn't it positively prove who the mother was?  If it would NOT prove who the mother was, why was the test taken?

Since you reference Deborah Cadbury's book, I am surprised you do not seem to have taken in that she clearly stated there was insufficient viable DNA from Marie Antoinette's hair to make an effective comparison with the Pelletan heart.  This was why the comparison was made with hair from Marie Antoinette's sister Johanna Gabriella (the hair was from two different sources and thus in differing conditions). 

'When they tested the heart that was supposed to be the heart of Louis Charles against hair that they had of Marie Antoinette---they had the DNA from both the mother and the child---so why did they say that the DNA from the heart matched with Marie Antoinette's sisters--and that they did not say that the DNA matched with Marie Antoinette's?'

I've yet to read the book, but this sounds like the cautious approach of serious scientists. They very rarely express things in definite terms, but talk in terms of probability. Equally, forensic pathologists do not say that a wound was definitely made by a bayonet, but that it was made by a blade of particular shape and dimensions, and not inconsistent with its being made by a bayonet.

Ann