King Louis XVI (1754-1793) and Marie Antoinette of Austria (1755-1793)


If you have answers, please help by responding to the unanswered posts.
See posts with no answers
in case anyone is interested, a great book explaining life at the court just before louis xvi and marie antoinette is the memoires of the duc de saint simon.

Duc de Saint-Simon, Memoirs, Bayle St. John, trans., (London; Swan Sonnonschein & Co., 1900), pp. 357-365. Reprinted in: Mark A. Kishlansky, ed., Sources of World History, Vol. II (New York; Harper Collins, 1995) pp. 18-23.
Click to expand...
 
Yes, too bad Marie Therese never had children. I think she wanted children, but her husband was likely incapable, true. Had MT been married to the Austrian candidate for her hand, she likely would have had children- he was dashing and handsome ( Archduke Karl, I believe, according to the recently published bio of her), and she might have been happier. She was in and out of exile and poverty married to her french cousin, who in wasn't that handsome or anything, and likely couldn't beget children- nor was his personality at all interesting. She married him out of loyalty to her family and past, and did love him, according to her bio eventually- although at first his letters to her didn't sound interested. But had she married into a stable ( at the time) royal family like the Hapsburgs, her mother's family, she might have been happier- I feel she was too intertwined with her French royal past and her families's tragedy by marrying her cousin. She wasn't that happy in Vienna either though.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
Hi everyone,
I've got a rather important question...and I'm hoping to get an answer here:flowers:

You see, on this link: The Danish Monarchy - The Royal House - HM The Queen
above the picture of Margrethe, there is that M with the crown.
Well my question is, how do you call it? and did Marie-Antoinette have such a thing, too? and if yes, do you have a picture?
 
Did anyone here read Marie-Antoinettel's last letter, the one she wrote the morning of her death? It's a quite moving one.:cry:
Basically, she said to her sister-in-law Elisabeth, Louis XVI's sister, to take care of her children...to tell her son he should never tried to avenge her death and his father's execution. She is also devastated to leave Marie-Thérèse and the little Louis-Charles ( "My eyes don't have tears anymore to cry for my poor children.")
She also hopes being as brave as her husband during her last moments in public.
The letter was never given to Elisabeth (who was beheaded as well 6 months after the Queen).
 
That sounds moving indeed. :sad:
 
Last edited by a moderator:
Not that late I suppose

Hello I'm new in this... I mean the FORUMS, I have been in love with Marie Antoinette since I was 7 years old that I watch this manga series calle "Lady Oscar", I just want to say that apart from this I have read many bio's on her... for me the best written is the one from Antoine Fraser, and I think people every time just needs a villain. For the worst part is that this time was she the one who took the worst.

I think that people should just remember who really she was and at 14 just wanted to impress her husbands family. Cause there are facts that she use to support every stupidity of he brothers in law.

so I totally SUPPORT her...
 
Last edited by a moderator:
My blog is being hit hard with people curious about Marie Antoinette. It has literally come out of no where, and I can't understand why. The only major thing in MA news is that her tree fell. But to me, that doesn't explain the scores of people searching for blogs discussing MA. Is anyone experiencing this also? Does anyone have an explanation why the sudden interest in Marie Antoinette?
 
I must admit that I prefer Louis XVI to Marie-Antoinette.
 
JulieS said:
I must admit that I prefer Louis XVI to Marie-Antoinette.
Click to expand...

Me too. In my case is that the King was not frivolous at all, while Queen Marie-Antoinette was a very "light" person, at least until adversity hit her. After 1789, or better, after 1792, the Queen became a very different person. After 10 August 1792, she left aside her old personality and reach martyrdom.

But King Louis was a very humble and responsible man all time. Sometimes, he was a little boring, yes. But he was a good man, and he aroses tenderness on me. :D (That's my maternal side! :ROFLMAO:)

Vanesa.
 
He was a good man, and tried his best although unfortunately he couldn't stop the revolution not being a strong ruler. MA I think was just young and made errors of youth, and her frivolity was due to that, although sometimes it also got exaggerated. She never made the famous '' Let them eat cake'' remark for example.
 
Maybe it's a result of the recent movie about MA?
 
The increased visitors to her blog? But the movie was released in 2006, you'd have thought you would have seen more blog visitors sooner ( or back then).
 
iowabelle said:
Maybe it's a result of the recent movie about MA?
Click to expand...


Yes. I think so...I'm an historian and my specific period is XVIII Century. Back then there adolescence (teenager years) wouldn't exist as it's used today. I mean, there's people who claims that she was not allowed to live her teen years as any bourgeois teen, but in fact, people passed quickly from childhood to adult life...That's the main cause for we read about excellent politicians and artist, and musicians who culd be 25 years old or less. Today, people of this age are hearing rock and roll and rollerskating .They are still childish (I'm speaking in general terms. Not all people is that way today). I think it is the reason for Marie-Antoinette was considered as an immature at XVIII Century.

I've read Stefan Zweig bio about her, and even if I think it's a great essai on the Queen, it is mistaken in a very important point: he judges her as a teen from HIS times. He seems to forget that she lived at XVIII Century.

As for Louis XVI everybody seems to think he was weak. It was repeated for decades and decades...The truth it is that Louis XVI was not ready to face Revolution, as Nicholas II wasn't ready to it, either. They were raised in a very different world and their menthalities wouldn't allow any of the new ideas. They were opposed to them by education, beliefs and feelings. How could they cope with the very Revolution idea? It was absurd for them both.

Oh...Yes. Of course: Marie-Antoinette never said "Let'em eat cake..." :rolleyes:

Vanesa.
 
Like I've said earlier, I feel sorry for Louis XVI and Marie Antoinette. Yes, the people were of France oppressed. At the time, they were even almost starving, because there was a famine. It was time for changes. But executing the king and the queen was still taking it too far. Of course, they didn't have a good reputation after they had tried to flee from the country, but still... And yes, I have similar feelings for Nicholaus and Alexandra and their family in Russia.
 
Well, my impression is that Louis XVI was the person with most accurate view of what was happening in his time, and he just knew it was impossible to stop, and thought he was able to make it less violent by a patient attitude. In particular he made it clear he was to be executed, years before it happened.
He was a bit "liberal", although not in the worse sense. He liked reforms, was very open-minded.
I am not sure at all of the link between the 1789 low crops because of hard winter, and the happening of the French revolution, except that people was weaker to defend their king against the nobility and burgesy who revolted.
I am nearly sure that a better link could be made with the expulsion of Jesuits in 1763. Previously they held the best colleges where the children of the established and upcoming classes (because in France, social, technical etc progresses were more advanced then than elsewhere, I think, and middle class increased a lot, particularly an urban one) could find instruction.
After their expulsion, the colleges teaching seem to have changed a lot and led pupils to have very violent opinions/behaviours.
At the contrary, the nothing-less-than-catholic king of Prussia welcomed the refugees, made them build colleges, ant this was the origin of the strength of this country later, whilever previously it was retarded.
 
Thribette said:
I am not sure at all of the link between the 1789 low crops because of hard winter, and the happening of the French revolution, except that people was weaker to defend their king against the nobility and burgesy who revolted.
Click to expand...
Well, out in the countryside, the nobility wanted as much bread as always, leaving even less than usual to the ordinary people, who had actually worked the land and grown the crops. And in the towns and the cities, the bread prices went up, because there was less bread to be sold, so ordinary people could hardly afford to buy it. People had simply finally had enough and started revolting. But of course, it was also important, that people (especially the middle classes, who had some education) had started thinking differently, that everybody was equal. The famine and the new ideas were together the start of the French revolution.
 
Vanesa said:
Yes. I think so...I'm an historian and my specific period is XVIII Century...
Click to expand...
It's true that back then there was no '' teenagers'' as defined today. MA behaved like one, though, you are right. She was frivolous in her youth as her mother Maria Theresa pointed out to MA in her letters to her- I just read the new book In Truimph's Wake by Julia Gelardi which covers MA and Maria Theresa of Austria and their mother- daughter relationship. Maria Theresa often pointed out the danger that could come of MA's frivolous, rather irresponsible, approach to life. Maria Theresa was right.

Louis XVI was somewhat more favorable to changes in goverment than Nicholas II, in my opinion. Louis XVI was not perhaps a weak leader , but he had no charisma and not many leadership skills- it would have helped had he had charisma and not been so passive. He wanted to change some things, as he was doing by convening the Estates General for the first time since Louis XIV's reign to change taxation practices. He knew there had to be some change since the financial sitiuation in France was beyond saving. But events played out of his hands after the Estates General convened. MA I think was more resistant to reform than her husband. She was more of a decision maker anyway in the later years, such as when they were organizing the flight to Varennes.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
Grace Angel, about the lack of charisma, I agree (and he knew it, giving his wife the role of lauching fashions etc, which she did very well).
About MA's attitude from 1789, the problem is that, as she had not accepted a serious formation previously, she lacked the bases to act properly. Only when she was led to recognize her husband's abilities (moral strenght, faithfulness, capacity of decision, all what she hadn't seen before) they managed to act together.
 
I agree that once she saw her husband's better qualities they acted together more. Also, they were closer in their marriage after they had children and finally consummated their marriage which took awhile to do. MA grew up and also became more mature and could see her husband for what he was better. They were never in love, but they did come to be better partners. MA's strengths come out in adversity, but I agree, her frivolous reputation from the past haunted her.
 
(It's been a such a long time since my last post so forgive the length of this.....)

For me, Marie Antoinette had many virtues and many faults. I do like her very much (as well as her sisters) and have been reading a lot of sources on her and her Austrian family... although I would not go so far as calling her a martyr.

IMHO, she did show a lot of kindness when she personally encountered hardship by her subjects but in general, she had no clue on what was happening in France (she never saw anything of France except during her bridal journey, did she?) and how the people were suffering..... she did cut down on her expenditures but only because of the looming national bankruptcy. True, she was said to be charitable but let's not forget, France then had a population of around 20 million people --- how many had she helped -- hundreds, a few thousands perhaps, out of those millions? Her dresses, her jewelry, her headdresses, her gambling debts, and her pleasures were too conspicuous for the rest of the people....what was the ratio of the money she gave to charity compared to her other expenses?

It is true that she has calmed down after having children but did not also let go of her frivolous Private Society and her expensive (and sometimes dangerous) pleasures, not to mention spending more and more time in Petit Trianon; one play was intially banned by Louis XVI for being dangerous to monarchy/nobility yet she insisted on having it performed in her private theatricals. The writer of said play had previously written a lewd pamphlet on her husband's impotence and even had the gall to send a copy to the (enraged) Maria Theresa but she fought to have his play performed.......such an unwise decision, and all in the pursuit of pleasure and what was 'in'.

She disdained those lewd pamphlets about her yet did nothing effective to counter them..... she probably thought they weren't to be taken seriously and look what happened. She knew she offended many of the nobles at court yet did nothing to conciliate with them. I'm of the opinion that she was not stupid but she seemed to have no clue that the French monarchy was tottering or if she did, she did nothing effective to prop it up. She was initially very popular and had other chances when Marie-Therese and Louis-Joseph were born but did nothing to assure her popularity, either with the masses or the nobles (preferably both). It's true that she had no real political role as Queen but she had quite considerable patronage --- and all she seemed to do with it was grant her special friends favors and costly posts.

Of course, it wasn't her fault that the French monarchy and economy were on the brink of ruin (Louis XV reportedly said, 'After me, the deluge.') but her lifestyle and decisions did not help things either. She was warned enough by her mother and brother (Joseph II). All in all, I think she had very little political acumen and that was her downfall...... even in familial matters, she did not bother to look into the future. One telling situation was her relationship with brother Leopold. She didn't have much to do with him, who left Vienna when she was 10, it was said that they never got along. Yet he was to be ruler of Austria.... but MA did not bother to cultivate any real relationship with him in all those years. As it were, she had to admit when Joseph died that she had absolutely no influence on her other brother.... so the kind of help that she wanted was not assured.

Having said all this, I do like her a lot and have a lot of sympathy for her.... as Dauphine, as Queen, and as the 'Widow Capet'. She did not deserve death. I think she had a good heart and wanted to do good (only what she did wasn't enough) and was courageous, especially in her last months. She was also, after all, a mere pawn of her mother. To send an almost illiterate, untrained, lazy, frivolous, and flighty (no matter how pretty, charming and affable) 14-year old to represent Austrian interests in a court that was anti-Austrian and one that resembled a snake pit (IMHO) seems like a recipe for disaster to me. Maria Theresa may have assuaged her conscience by sending her daughter numerous letters and advice as well as her best and most trusted diplomat, the ever-vigilant Count Mercy, to guide young Antoine, but she also had no personal idea of what her daughter was facing. Her scolding, nagging letters also did not help for they only assured that MA would rebel (albeit in a subtle matter, by lying and evasion). I don't think Maria Theresa ever considered how hard things were for her daughters --- she just wanted total obedience at all times. I admit that I find a lot of her advice good and quite practical -- IMO, the problem was her dictatorial tone as well as the incomplete/false reports that she took as gospel truth (she distrusted her children to a great extent, even when they were mere children).

MA's sisters, Maria Amalia and Maria Carolina, were also married to unsatisfactory men -- although they did not have the humiliation of an unconsummated marriage like hers for 7 years. Both sisters coped with their situation in their own way but they, at least, managed to hold on to their thrones until the Napoleonic Wars. Of course, Naples/Sicily and Parma were not as 'problematic' as France but I also think that Marie Antoinette's sisters had a lot more energy than she did in terms of public service and cultivating their people's affection....Perhaps that was why, despite being noted as proud, interfering/dominating consorts as well spending money like water and having (rumored) lovers (same accusations as with MA),they were not hated by their people (I should note that Maria Carolina also experienced a decline in popularity in the 1790s onwards so perhaps she was hated at a lesser degree). All 3 archduchesses were said to be capricous, frivolous, and willful...all had their enemies and were certainly viewed as pro-Austrian but MA's sisters definitely survived their situation (albeit being exiled)....Of course, MC had a seat in the state council and was the de facto ruler of her husband's kingdom while Marie Antoinette had no such official role in the government. Not sure about Amalia, I think she had no official role too, but just interfered as she pleased. Nevertheless, she was popular and seemed to have had an extraordinary reputation (in a good way) in Parma (despite the many 'scandals' earlier) to the day when she left in exile.

Just my two cents...... :)
 
I am sympathetic to MA too, she was so young when sent to France and had to grow up in front of the whole world as well as dealing with her marriage and husband which didn't go well at first, she didn't produce an heir for years. Maria Theresa knew she was sending her daughter unprepared to France, but felt she had to do so due to the Austrian- French alliance which MA's marriage to Louis cemented. She thus put diplomatic reasons ahead of wisdom and her daughter's personal happiness. She really did want the alliance with France to suceed though, and they had been enemies before. So many royals in those centuries were sacrificed on the altar of marriage due to diplomatic reasons. MA was hardly alone, nor was what Maria Theresa did uncommon. She sent letters that were wise and forewarned her daughter who was too young to understand or listen, by the time she was, Maria Theresa was dead, and MA's reputation for being frivolous was so built up that no one took her seriously.
 
I agree that the alliance with the Bourbons, particularly Bourbon-France, was very important to Maria Theresa. But what actually happened is another matter...... France was a lukewarm ally and even Joseph commented that in 30 years, Austria never benefited from it. France also had a reputation of being an ally only when it is to her distinct advantage and known for duplicity when it suited her; see how France secretly thwarted Austria in the War of Bavarian Succession (1777-79)..... True, many princesses and princes were sacrificed in the name of alliance but it seems to me that MA and her sisters were ruthlessly sacrificed --- and for so little at that. I would have felt better for them had the alliance produced the results that MT wanted but alas..... it never happened.

IMHO, MT had an intense hatred of Frederick the Great--- as well as a tenacious need for revenge --- that she reversed alliances, plotted the Seven Years War, and sacrificed her children... and all for what? Frederick the Great was as strong as ever and Silesia was never recovered. IMHO, all in all, despite being an intelligent ruler, she seemed to have miscalculated on that (big time)... and it was her children who paid for it. MT (on her deathbed) was very much aware of the sad destinies she had forced on them.
 
Madame de Pompadour I believe worked for the Austro- French alliance. MA's brother Leopold certainly didn't try to help her out after the French Revolution, and indeed the Austro- French alliance never really took off. MT saw Frederick as a personal enemy, so that doubtless played into her actions as regards him. MA and her sisters certainly didn't have happy marriages- except MT's favorite daughter who she let marry for love, I believe a Prince of Saxony. But MA would likely have been sacrificed for some alliance, somewhere if not France. She wasn't the wisest choice for a marriage with Louis and thus France, given her personality, youth with regards to frivolousness. Had MA been married into one of the royal houses her sisters were married into, things might have been better. But then, I think any queen of Louis XVI would have been in a hard position, given the state of France.
 
Yes, Madame de P worked on the alliance. MT's official Kaunitz approached her ... she certainly worked on the alliance, and later on, the minister Choiseul (spelling?) did.

Perhaps MA's sister Maria Carolina could have done better. I think MT also considered Carolina for France but Charles III of Spain rejected Amalia for being 5 years older than his son -- and the Spanish Bourbons were expecting an archduchess-bride as soon as possible. That was already a done deal --- the deal with France did not happen until middle of 1769. While there are reports of Carolina being cruel, that was after MA was executed and the Jacobins took over Naples and one of her sons died while they were aboard the ship to Sicily. I think she did very well from 1768 until 1790 or so, considering she was also hardly trained like MA; MC was also reportedly intelligent and politically astute like their mother.

As far as I know, the other princesses considered for Louis XVI (aside from Marie Antoinette. that is) were Maria Amalia of Saxony (daughter of the Elector and niece of the Dauphine Maria Josepha) who married Karl of Zweibrucken ---Archduchess Amalia's ex-sweetheart and the one she wanted to marry--- and one of the Savoyard princesses, the one that became Comtesse de Provence (Josephine?).... not very 'exciting' choices either. I cannot see either princess having the character to 'save' France.....

I rather think Marie Antoinette would have suited Ferdinand of Parma than, say, Ferdinand of Naples. I think both Maria Carolina and Maria Amalia settled into compatibility with their husbands as time went by. They both had a large brood (MC with 17 or 18 children, Amalia with 9). They didn't have love matches, true, but I don't think they were unhappy 24/7 either.... they did settle into compatibility and had other things to keep them occupied..... although the first months for Carolina were a nightmare and Amalia's marriage was said to be rocky for years. MT's favorite daughter Mimi indeed had a love match with Albert of Saxony. Until a few months ago, I thought she was totally-ever-happy but a biography of Joseph pointed out that she had an affair with an official of Hungary.... so truly happy? I don't know. She also lost her baby girl after one day and didn't have any more children so I don't know. At least her sisters had children.
 
I didn't know that about Mimi. I think MA did settle into more compatibility with her husband over the years, and perhaps more had she lived, so perhaps in that way she mirrors her sisters, from what I've read they were assumed to have had lovers in later years. Yes, one of the Savyard princesses wouldn't have made a great Queen Consort of France, although they would likely have built up less of a reputation for frovolity than MA. They were plain and unattractive. MA's beauty was in some ways her doom. I don't know much about the Saxony Princess who might have married Louis XVI. Who did she later marry? I think MA would have had more children, but she got started so late, so that's why she didn't have more kids while her sisters had many.
 
You can find that bit on Mimi and her love affair in the book, Joseph II: In the Shadow of Maria Theresa by Derek Beales. The book is very well researched and highly detailed so it is (likely) true.

Maria Carolina and Maria Amalia did settle into compatibility with their husbands at some point. If Maria Carolina and Maria Amalia indeed had lovers, I do not blame them. Their spouses were hardly dream husbands to put it mildly, were they? Their husbands also (Ferdinand of Parma included, highly religious and bigoted as he was) had extra-marital affairs...... not that that excuses MC and Amalia, but their husbands seemed to have set the tone of their relationship by having mistresses/affairs first so......I have not come across any definite proof that MC and Amalia had lovers but with their situation, I agree that it was likely.

I read that Marie Antoinette thought 4 children were enough and wrote Joseph so after the birth of Sophie-Beatrix. She was only 31 at that point, so it struck me as rather strange... her sisters were having babies in their 40s. Some writers attribute it to her (supposed) love affair with Fersen.... if she was sleeping with him and got pregnant, that child would be an 'Enfant of France' and that would not do; they also theorized that MA could not come into terms with sleeping with both men at the same time. I agree that MA's beauty and youth offended some of the old ladies at Versailles. Her sisters-in-law at Versailles, the Savoy princesses, were indeed unattractive physically and otherwise..... though I agree that they would not have been as conspicuous as Marie Antoinette.

Maria Amalia of Saxony was the daughter of Elector Frederick Christian of Saxony and Maria Antonia of Bavaria. She was the first cousin of Louis XVI and Louis XVI's mother, the Dauphine Maria Josepha (Maria Amalia's aunt), was very keen on match. She was said to have been matched also with the Comte d'Artois and even Emperor Joseph II (if so, the Saxon court must have been dreaming since Joseph said he would not marry for the 3rd time). She married Duke Karl August of the Palatinate-Zweibrucken-Birkenfeld, older brother of King Maximilian I of Bavaria and the ex-sweetheart of Archduchess Amalia (Marie Antoinette's elder sister). I don't know much about this Saxon princess either except that she wasn't attractive --- at least I don't think so -- and seemed 'bland'. She was quite obscure although she was said to be amiable. I think she didn't have a happy marriage either. Karl of Zweibrucken was reportedly very stubborn, difficult & complicated, and he couldn't love her. They had an 11-year age gap (Karl born in 1746---same age as Archduchess Amalia -- and his wife was born in 1757), that may have contributed to the difficulty as well. He had an influential, long term mistress (whom he loved and wanted to marry but his family won't allow it --- a rather reverse situation with his failed romance with Archduchess Amalia) that he made into the chief-lady-in-waiting to his wife so husband, wife, and mistress lived under one roof at some point! They had one son, an only child, who died young. It seems that rather than trying for a second child, Karl made his younger brother Maximilian marry ASAP to ensure the continuity of the Zweibrucken (and Wittelsbach) line. So I think..... not a happy marriage and no happy ending either.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Similar threads

Blog Real
King Louis XVIII of France and Marie Joséphine of Savoy
Replies
2
Views
603
An Ard Ri
An Ard Ri
Marengo
Scoop (2024) Netflix Film about the Newsnight Interview of the Duke of York
Replies
9
Views
1K
victor1319
V
Blog Real
King Lodovico I, King Lodovico II and Kingdom of Etruria
Replies
3
Views
662
Blog Real
Blog Real
Blog Real
King Vittorio Emanuele I (1759-1824) and Queen Maria Teresa of Austria-Este
Replies
2
Views
498
Blog Real
Blog Real
Blog Real
King Carlo Emanuele IV (1751-1819) and Queen Marie Clotilde of France
Replies
1
Views
350
CyrilVladisla
CyrilVladisla

Latest posts

Back
Top Bottom