MISUNDERSTOOD MARIE ANTOINETTE

Wow, I never knew any of this! Like most people, I simply thought of her as the "Let them eat cake" lady. Thank you for this. You have piqued my curiosity. Where can I learn mreo about her? Can you recommend any good books?

Thanks for this.  I love history, and find it fascinating how and why we carry forward such myths and revisions.

Have you read her excellent biography written by Stephan Zweig? A great reading, in every respect... historical, literary, factual and psychological.

Blessings and best wishes - S.

Read that, and was going to recommend it also...but you jumped in first.

Not only read it, but have 2 copies, in case something happens to the first.  I'm also fortunate enough to have some rare, antique books on her and the revolution.  I even have a copy of Louis XVI's account of his last days before his execution, written by his servant, who was in prison with him.  It's copyrighted 1796!  (Yes, first edition, not a reprint) I also have a copy of Madame Royal's (Marie Therese Charolette) first hand account, and diary, of her emprisionment and release.  She, of course, was the oldest child, and daughter of MA and L XVI.  I have an entire bookcase that is nothing but my books on Marie Antoinette and the revolution.  Some of the books are first edition, rare, and/or the only copy left.  I'm quite proud of my collection.

I still also question what ever happened to the Dauphin, for I honestly don't feel that he died in prison as history tells us.

In fact, as an interesting aside...........Madame Royal, when release from prison, married her cousin, the son of Charles X.  She was, ironically, QUEEN of France for one day before abdicating with her husband!  She never bore any children, but did raise a niece and nephew.  She lived into her 80's or 90's and is buried in Austria, where she lived out her final days.

I saw, well tried to watch one movie about her, but it was so poorly done, I never got past the fist 20 minutes.

She is quite an interesting figure.

I saw a huge PBS documentary about her.  It was fascinating.

I wish I had seen that!  Our local PBS has not had anything on her in quite awhile.  They focus on the monarchy of Britian.  I guess their scandals are more impressive..........

If I remember it wasn't very flattering of her.  I got the impression that the bloodbath ended up being on her hands because she refused any power sharing ... and she was put in prison for treason because she did try to get her family's Country (forget which one) to invade France.

It seems (if I remember it all, now) she forced the revolution into the extremes it went into.   She played the role of dingbat when doing that hurt France, and then acted too bossy when it was too late, and was going the wrong way.

Unfortunately, all of that is so very historically inaccurate.  Compelling to get viewers, but historically inaccurate. 

She was blamed for attempting to buy a diamond necklace when the country was starving.  It was later proven that she did NOT sign for it, that it was a fraud perpetrated by the Cardinal for his own financial gain.  In other words, she was set up for the fall.  She had nothing to do with forcing the revolution; she was as much a victim as the pheasants.  She, nor Louis XVI had much of a say in anything.  The saddest part is that it was Louis IV (the Sun King) who lived the high life and spent outlandishly.  When he died of smallpox and Louis XVI inherited the throne (with MA as his Queen) he was not ready for it, and said so.  It was then that the church and others took over.  Louis XVI wasn't the sharpest tack in the box, and neither was MA.  BUT, look at how the royals are raised from infancy.  They have etiquette, social functions and behavior, grace, formality, etc, stuffed down their throat and academics take a very back seat, if at all.  It took Marie Antoinette until adulthood to read and write because she was never "encouraged" to do so.

She didn't "play" the role of dingbat.  She truly was a dingbat when it came to affairs of the state.  She did whatever she was ordered to do by Louis' aunts and the church.  The poor woman was not a smart woman, but she was passionate in her love for her husband and her children.

Louis XVI, in the meantime, was forced to sit for the Third Estates General while his eldest son, the first Dauphin, lay dying.  He begged to go to him and was denied.  Does that sound like a tyrant to you?

The entire story is just so sad; but, as they say, Louis XVI and MA "suffered for the sins of their fathers"............sad as that is.

"saddest part is that it was Louis IV"

Sorry; that should have read "Louis XIV" I left the X out.  My mistake.

The show I saw showed a lot of silly slander, from the time, against her.  There were a lot of political cartoons mocking her that were ridiculously bizarre and rude - and inaccurate.  Yes she was accused of all sorts of nasty things, that were untrue.

They also suggested that Marie's husband was so out of it that he didn't even know how to have babies.   And their bed wasn't private.  It caused the Country a lot of anxiety (having heirs seems to be the number one job in an aristocracy).

No, she didn't force the revolution at all, and the revolution actually went very well for a long time ... until the very very end.  It was at the end of it all that it was forced into the extremism of "aristocracy VS everybody else" (that being the middle class, really, not the peasants), and it went over the political edge into a bloodbath.

I'm sure the Roman Catholic church had a HUGE factor in fighting against power sharing since their religion tells them God doesn't want that to happen, that the aristocracy and King is God appointed.  No wonder why in revolutions (like in Spain) they just kill the priests first, since they are SO VERY in the way of progress.  Yes, she would have totally been a "rules girl" when it came to the church.

"They also suggested that Marie's husband was so out of it that he didn't even know how to have babies.   And their bed wasn't private.  It caused the Country a lot of anxiety (having heirs seems to be the number one job in an aristocracy)."

No; the truth was that Louis XVI had a condition called 'phimosis' and, after 8 years of suffering with it, had some pretty painful surgery just so he and his wife could have relations.

The lies and rumors seem to get worse with each generation, and that's a shame, for our children are taught tainted history, not accuracy. I guess it's true that history is only as accurate as the person recording it wants it to be.

As for me, after spending a few years studying MA and the revolution, I came away with a totally different view that what I was taught.  I began to see that she was a remarkable woman who loved her family above all else.  She was strong, yet vulnerable, and just in the wrong country at the wrong time.  The saddest part is that, during the revolution, her own brother turned his back on her, not to lose favor with the French.  I would never want to be a royal.  Not with the emotional scarring it causes.

i love her.

I'm sure that most of the royals' histories were re-written to suit the prejudices of the revolutionaries of the period.  But if you've ever seen Versailles, you know that they didn'l exactly live in a hovel.  Plus the ruling classes was pretty protected from contact with the "rabble", so they had little idea of how their subjects lived.

La Reine may not have said the words, but the attitude expressed does reflect the aristocracy's cluelessness and distain for the common people.  The people would have been easily convinced that their lives were so miserable because those who had the power to change the status quo just didn't care.

Two misconceptions.  First, I've seen Versailles, and, while beautiful, keep in mind that it was Napoleon who had it re-done.  There was nothing left of it after the revolution.  To say that the French royals lived in such opulance is pure conjecture.  What was of Versailles came well before Louis XVI and Marie Antoinette. 

Second, it was not the Royals attitude that upset the apple cart so to speak.  They were actually figure heads.  It was the church who ruled, and ruled with an iron fist.  So much was done during her reign to discredit Marie Antoinette it wasn't funny; right down to Louis XVI's sisters-in-law and aunts.  It wasn't about the subjects; it was about who would produce the first heir.  From all that I have read (diaries, journals, first hand accounts, etc) I find no "disdain" just lament that this woman was never and would never be, accepted, as part of the family, nor as a fellow countryman. 

She cared plenty; she just was not allowed to show it.

"La Reine may not have said the words, but the attitude expressed does reflect the aristocracy's cluelessness and distain for the common people.  The people would have been easily convinced that their lives were so miserable because those who had the power to change the status quo just didn't care."

As Maryann said, that was not her attitude.  I got the impression that it was the attitude of the aristocracy and the Clergy.

Yes Maryann, "She cared plenty; she just was not allowed to show it."  Also, she was being punished for having a caring attitude.

That reminds me of a joke, when I first heard this false story as a kid, I thought the people were asking for pay raises ("we want bread").  Ah the problems of translation and modern slang.  Even "cake" isn't what we think it is.

interesting information!

Thanks for the info.  I'll try to do some research myself.  I doubted the "Let them eat cake" story, but could not locate its source.  Many of the problems that brought about the tragedy was not even their fault.  They inherited most of it and the nobility and the clergy were putting their agendas and self-interests above the needs of the country.

One author even linked a natural event (big volcanic eruption I think) that caused a climate change that just worsened (maybe caused?) their low agricultural production.

thanks for the info

She was an interesting person.  I thought the movie about her a few years back brought a lot of that to light but also was kinda weird and overdone.

I LOVE this topic. Check out my group...Historic Women....I saw a few documentaries about her and I have to say...she was villianized. I admire her sense of devotion to the crown and I would be curious to see what her decendants would be like had she any.

I truly feel that she DID have decendants, for I feel that the Dauphin never died in prison; I have absolute reams on this subject!  Please send me a link to your group!

interesting info! 

I can only add that there's some mysterious commection between her fate and that of the unfortunate Alexandra Romanova...

Blessings and best wishes - S.

I have noticed that, Svet, and I also feel it is too easy to all of a sudden "confirm" the body found is "so-and-so"

There certainly seems to be a lot of cover-up & secrecy when it comes to things like this!

This is a most interesting study you have passed to us who have not studied the subject but who has not heard of Marie Antoinette, it is taught in school.

We are all aware of her name, but do not remember our history when we are grown.

Wow, poor thing. I cannot imagine a life of such tyranny, frustration and unwanted royalty for one who was thorn into stardom so young. Thanks for sharing!  :)

my most favorite thing to read has always been historical fiction and non fiction.......

pif

I am also interested in Marie Antoinette.  I read a good biography and also visited Versailles.  She was a child who lived a fair tale life with a tragic ending.

What an interesting read. Thanks for sharing. PIF

I think Marie Antoinette was misunderstood too, but I have to say that I loved the movie with Kristen Dunst, even if I don't love Kristen Dunst.  I thought it showed a fun loving side to Antoinette that demonstrated why so many of her friends remained loyal to her in their hearts at least, if not with their heads.