Author Topic: Queen Marie Antoinette  (Read 301918 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Offline James_Davidov

  • Boyar
  • **
  • Posts: 248
    • View Profile
Re: Queen Marie Antoinette
« Reply #375 on: February 16, 2007, 04:49:09 PM »
Agreed.....nearlly any king or queen of the last few centuries, who did not have the support of their nobility, was in a dire situation....generally speaking.

xx
You are a member of the British royal family. We are never tired, and we all love hospitals.
Queen Mary

Offline imperial angel

  • Velikye Knyaz
  • ****
  • Posts: 4608
    • View Profile
Re: Queen Marie Antoinette
« Reply #376 on: February 16, 2007, 05:31:02 PM »
Well, I'm not sure that MA was supported by anybody, that I know of. History has given her a harsh verdict, as did her own times.

Alixz

  • Guest
Re: Queen Marie Antoinette
« Reply #377 on: February 19, 2007, 12:13:20 AM »
Just a note on Jayne Mansfield.  Her daughter is the actress Marishka Hargatay, who plays Olivia Benson on Law and Oder - SVU .  Also Marishka and her younger brother were in the car in the back seat when the accident took place.

What trauma for two very young children.

But then Marie Antoinette's children suffered trauma after she and her husband were deposed as did Alexandra's children in Yekaterinburg.

Offline James1941

  • Graf
  • ***
  • Posts: 399
    • View Profile
Re: Queen Marie Antoinette
« Reply #378 on: February 19, 2007, 02:05:52 AM »
When she became Queen in 1774 she was given a "state" entry into Paris. As she stood on the balcony of the Tuilleries Palace the garden and Louis XV Square were black with peole cheering her name to the heavens. The mayor of Paris (I think it was) remarked to her that today all Paris were her slaves. One has to ask why just eighteen years later she had to flee from that same palace with the same people howling for her death.
I would submit for consideration that Alexandra's children had it realatively easy in Ekaterinburg compared to what Marie Antoinette's children suffered. None of them were taken away from their mother, beaten on whim, made to learn filthy language to refer to their parents, or testify in court that their mother had sexually abused them, had to be walled up in a room to rot in their own filth and die from neglect of their medical condition. None of them spent years in a cell, alone, wondering what had happened to their parents, not knowing what was going to happen to them being the interest of unknown men who came to inspect them on unannounced occasion. No, getting three good meals a day, being allowed to exercise in the garden, having five  servants and a doctor to wait on them,  having the company of their parents, and being allowed to have mass said for them, no , that was a picnic compared to the French royal children.
« Last Edit: February 19, 2007, 02:07:38 AM by James1941 »

Offline Eric_Lowe

  • Velikye Knyaz
  • ****
  • Posts: 17001
  • I love YaBB 1G - SP1!
    • View Profile
Re: Queen Marie Antoinette
« Reply #379 on: February 19, 2007, 08:38:59 AM »
Yes...But Madame Royale survived to tell the tale, while the whole Russian Imperial family died... :(

Alixz

  • Guest
Re: Queen Marie Antoinette
« Reply #380 on: February 19, 2007, 10:33:49 AM »
The level of trauma was indeed different. 

The French Royal children were treated despicably.

The mention of the trauma of the children of all three ladies was meant only as another example of the similarity between them.

Not having any other example to compare it to, I would think that the children of Alexandra felt their trauma deeply and with no less private pain.  Their physical pain was obviously less and as long as they remained with their parents, they felt themselves lucky.  Did they fear they might ultimately be executed?  As in other threads, we have noted that we can not tell.  We have no notes or diaries that tell us so.

Not even Alexandra's, which is here I would have thought we would find it.

The French Royal children must have feared death daily.  How awful.  Just one more example of "man's inhumanity to man" and to those less able to defend themselves such a children.

Offline James1941

  • Graf
  • ***
  • Posts: 399
    • View Profile
Re: Queen Marie Antoinette
« Reply #381 on: February 19, 2007, 11:40:52 AM »
One reason that little Louis Charles was treated so much differently than his sister might have been due to the rumors about his parentage. Madame Royale was undoubtedly the daughter of Louis XVI and Marie Antoinette. She was indeed a Child of France. There were many however who were willing to believe that Louis Charles was illegitmate, the result of a love affair between Marie Antoinette and Axel Fersen. Thus he was only half royal. Even his own uncle, Louis XVIII seemed to be strangely unresponsive to this boy. When he returned as king he made a great show of exhuming the remains of his brother and sister-in-law and burying them in the royal crypt at St. Denis. But, although the site of the grave was well known, he made no effort to exhume his nephew's body and rebury it.
I am not sure the dates match about Fersen's access to the queen and the birth of the boy. I would have to do some research on it. The DNA tests on the boy's heart proved he was indeed the son of Marie Antoinette but I don't think any test were done to establish paternity. Another missed opportunity.

Offline imperial angel

  • Velikye Knyaz
  • ****
  • Posts: 4608
    • View Profile
Re: Queen Marie Antoinette
« Reply #382 on: February 20, 2007, 08:44:27 AM »
It is a good point about the trauma to MA's children. They were not treated well. But, the French Revolution took place in an earlier time and country, and perhaps in a more brutal frame of mind in regards to the royal family than Russia. It was the 18th century in France, and the royal family was widely hated. This is versus the 20th century in Russia where I know the Imperial Family wasn't liked, but I don't know if they were as widely hated. I think the hate tended to center around Alexandra in particular and of course Nicholas, but I think the children weren't blamed. Whereas in France, I think the children were. This could because by the 20th century, the role of teenagers and young adults as otmaa were, was seen as different than in the 18th century It was easy to see them as being more responsible and less innocent, so I think how they were treated reflects in the differences in eras between these two events, perhaps. That's just my theory.

Offline ilyala

  • Velikye Knyaz
  • ****
  • Posts: 2063
  • il y a
    • View Profile
Re: Queen Marie Antoinette
« Reply #383 on: February 23, 2007, 12:29:18 AM »
One reason that little Louis Charles was treated so much differently than his sister might have been due to the rumors about his parentage. Madame Royale was undoubtedly the daughter of Louis XVI and Marie Antoinette. She was indeed a Child of France. There were many however who were willing to believe that Louis Charles was illegitmate, the result of a love affair between Marie Antoinette and Axel Fersen. Thus he was only half royal. Even his own uncle, Louis XVIII seemed to be strangely unresponsive to this boy. When he returned as king he made a great show of exhuming the remains of his brother and sister-in-law and burying them in the royal crypt at St. Denis. But, although the site of the grave was well known, he made no effort to exhume his nephew's body and rebury it.
I am not sure the dates match about Fersen's access to the queen and the birth of the boy. I would have to do some research on it. The DNA tests on the boy's heart proved he was indeed the son of Marie Antoinette but I don't think any test were done to establish paternity. Another missed opportunity.

marie therese and louis joseph (the first dauphin) were born before fersen came back to the court from fighting in the american revolution (on the american side). louis charles and his little sister sophie (who died at 9 months old) were born after he did.

however, there were rumours even on louis joseph's paternity. a courtier named lauzun, i believe was suspected of being his father.

i believe this shows a pattern of behaviour that i think issues mainly from louis xviii who wanted to be king and tried to get there by discrediting his nephews.

as a side note, one can't help but notice the difference between the two dauphins, the sickly louis-joseph and the 'healthy as a peasant boy' (i believe marie antoinette stated something of that sort) louis-charles. that doesn't necessarily mean they had different fathers, but if you are inclined to believe that, you could also use the 'new blood' (of fersen or someone else) as an argument for louis-charles' health, as opposed to the massive inbreeding that affected louis-joseph.
'loving might be a mistake, but it's worth making'
ilya


Offline Eric_Lowe

  • Velikye Knyaz
  • ****
  • Posts: 17001
  • I love YaBB 1G - SP1!
    • View Profile
Re: Queen Marie Antoinette
« Reply #384 on: February 23, 2007, 01:18:00 AM »
Indeed...The timing of Louis Charles's birth made Fersen a suspect being the father. However no question about Madame Royale's birth.  ;)

Offline pers

  • Boyar
  • **
  • Posts: 181
  • I love YaBB 1G - SP1!
    • View Profile
Re: Queen Marie Antoinette
« Reply #385 on: February 23, 2007, 07:55:32 AM »
Please bear in mind that contraception was widely practiced in those days by the nobility.  Axel de Fersen was a real man for the ladies and had a string of mistresses.  So you can be assured that he in all probability would have used condoms when having sex.  So assuming he had sexual relations with Marie Antoinette, I think he would have seen to it to take care of the situation...

Offline ilyala

  • Velikye Knyaz
  • ****
  • Posts: 2063
  • il y a
    • View Profile
Re: Queen Marie Antoinette
« Reply #386 on: February 23, 2007, 08:19:29 AM »
Please bear in mind that contraception was widely practiced in those days by the nobility.  Axel de Fersen was a real man for the ladies and had a string of mistresses.  So you can be assured that he in all probability would have used condoms when having sex.  So assuming he had sexual relations with Marie Antoinette, I think he would have seen to it to take care of the situation...

i'm not sure how widespread contraception was among 'honourable' women. after all, marie's own friend, madame de polignac, had a child while her husband was away (and he couldn't have possibly been the father, no matter how you looked at it). had contraception been so widely practiced, i'm sure she would have rather used it.

not that i believe louis charles was the son of fersen. it's not even proven that fersen and marie antoinette slept together.
'loving might be a mistake, but it's worth making'
ilya


Offline James1941

  • Graf
  • ***
  • Posts: 399
    • View Profile
Re: Queen Marie Antoinette
« Reply #387 on: February 23, 2007, 11:35:22 AM »
Yes, that will be one of history's great mysteries.
I just found it strange that Louis XVIII went to so much trouble to exhume the "supposed" remains of his brother and sister-in-law and rebury them in the royal crypt at St. Denis, and had a chapel expiatoire built over the site of their graves (a lovey little monument in Paris today) but did absolutely nothing similiar for his nephew. Why? It would seem to me that reburial of the little boy's body would have been a great "photo op" for the restored monarchy, and confirmed the continuation of the royal line. Possible reasons:

1. the rumor that the child wasn't the king's (Louis XVI)
2. pique that the child got on the stand and accused his mother and aunt of deviant practices. This was a way to "punish" him.
3. that the body in the grave wasn't the real Louis Charles. Madame Royale and King Louis XVIII knew he had been spirited away. They feared that any mention of him might possibly bring out the real dauphin who would claim the throne.
4. just sheer indifference to the child. I don't think that in 1816/1817 he had become the iconic figure he was to become later in history.

Offline Eric_Lowe

  • Velikye Knyaz
  • ****
  • Posts: 17001
  • I love YaBB 1G - SP1!
    • View Profile
Re: Queen Marie Antoinette
« Reply #388 on: February 23, 2007, 07:59:54 PM »
Yes...Louis XVIII did have doubts about his nephew being the son of his brother. His actions speak louder than words here.  ???

Offline ilyala

  • Velikye Knyaz
  • ****
  • Posts: 2063
  • il y a
    • View Profile
Re: Queen Marie Antoinette
« Reply #389 on: February 24, 2007, 01:30:06 AM »
Yes, that will be one of history's great mysteries.
I just found it strange that Louis XVIII went to so much trouble to exhume the "supposed" remains of his brother and sister-in-law and rebury them in the royal crypt at St. Denis, and had a chapel expiatoire built over the site of their graves (a lovey little monument in Paris today) but did absolutely nothing similiar for his nephew. Why? It would seem to me that reburial of the little boy's body would have been a great "photo op" for the restored monarchy, and confirmed the continuation of the royal line. Possible reasons:

1. the rumor that the child wasn't the king's (Louis XVI)
2. pique that the child got on the stand and accused his mother and aunt of deviant practices. This was a way to "punish" him.
3. that the body in the grave wasn't the real Louis Charles. Madame Royale and King Louis XVIII knew he had been spirited away. They feared that any mention of him might possibly bring out the real dauphin who would claim the throne.
4. just sheer indifference to the child. I don't think that in 1816/1817 he had become the iconic figure he was to become later in history.

i think it's either 2 or 4. i don't think anyone could have been sure of the child's paternity either way and i am pretty certain louis died in the tower.
'loving might be a mistake, but it's worth making'
ilya