Discussion:
Marie Antoinette The Portrait of an Average Woman
(too old to reply)
samsloan
2010-02-28 17:13:46 UTC
Permalink
Marie Antoinette
The Portrait of an Average Woman
By Stefan Zweig
Translated by Eden and Cedar Paul

Marie Antoinette is one of the most famous women in history, so famous
that my spell-checker recognizes her name.

The reason she is famous is, of course, because they chopped off her
head. Had her head not been chopped off, she would have been just
another obscure princess, a nearly forgotten footnote in history.

There were two schools of thought at that time: The prevailing view
was that she was a wanton whore, the promiscuous lover of many men,
who neglected and abused her children, who committed incest, who held
wild sex parties, who spent the people's money and said “Let them eat
cake”, and who gave birth to illegitimate children by unknown fathers
and not by her husband, King Louis XVI.

However, in 1815, 22 years after her execution on October 16, 1793,
those few members of the French Royal Family who were still alive and
had not lost their heads to the guillotine regained most of their
power and a different view of Marie Antoinette emerged: That she was a
pure and virtuous woman, devoted to her husband and her children. She
was depicted as wearing a halo over her head.

The point by the author, Stefan Zweig, is that the truth was in-
between. Marie Antoinette was neither the wanton whore nor was she so
utterly pure. In short: She was average, no better and nor worse than
any normal women.

Stefan Zweig was originally a writer of novels. Towards the end of his
career, he switched over to history. However, he wrote his history
books in a novelist style. He takes the known facts about a person,
does not do original research and writes the history in a pleasant,
easy to read, style. He does not use footnotes. His works are far more
popular than the scholarly works by others on the same subject.

Here you might read what Marie Antoinette was thinking when she sat on
the block waiting to have her head chopped off. Of course, there was
no way for Stefan Zweig to know what she was thinking, as she lost her
head a few minutes later. However, there were thousands of people
watching this spectacle. It was observed that Marie Antoinette
maintained her composure. She did not cry. She did not look nervous.
Of course, there was nothing to be nervous about. She knew she was
going to die in a few minutes and there was absolutely nothing she
could do about it. Her last words were of apology to her executioner
for accidentally stepping on his foot. With this information, Stefan
Zweig can reach conclusions about what she must have been thinking.

A myth about Marie Antoinette is that she was beautiful. Those who saw
her have said that she was not beautiful, not at all. There were
almost profuse apologies for her ugliness. Perhaps her interest in
fine jewelry was to compensate for her lack of physical
attractiveness. Men would be looking at her diamonds, not noticing her
face. Her mother, Maria Therese, was concerned that she was so ugly
that a suitable husband could not be found for her. Fortunately, they
found a fat boy who was willing to marry her for her dowry, sight
unseen. That fat boy, aged 15, who married Marie Antoinette when she
was only 14 years old, later on became King Louis XVI.

However, there is a new angle to the claim that she was a wanton
whore. The real reason King Louis XVI and his wife, Marie Antoinette,
were executed on the guillotine in 1793 was obviously that the
Republican Party wanted to make sure that they and the Royal Family
would never gain power again. For the same reason, Czar Nicholas II,
his wife Alexandra and their four daughters, their son and Anastasia's
dog were all executed was to make sure they would never come back to
power, as they certainly would have eventually, had they lived.

Therein lies a mystery: Marie Antoinette had four children, plus two
more who were stillborn. One daughter died at 11 months. Another
daughter was the only one to reach adulthood. She lived to age 72, but
had no children. The rule in France was a woman could never rule, so
she did not count.

That left two boys. One, Louis-Joseph, died at age 8, while Louis XVI
was still king, and his death was probably by natural causes.

The remaining boy was locked in a dungeon until age 10, when he was
reported to have died on June 8, 1795 from tuberculosis. He is known
as King Louis XVII, although he never ruled.

Therein lies the mystery, because that boy was believed to have
escaped and became known as “The Lost Dauphin”. In the succeeding
decades, dozens of boys claimed to be the Lost Dauphin. Even an
American Indian claimed it. The stakes were high. If any boy could
prove this, he would be made the King of France.

The Heart of the boy who died of tuberculosis in the dungeon at age 10
has been preserved and it was DNA tested in 2000. The results of the
tests were that he was a close relative, very likely the son, of Marie
Antoinette. DNA tests on all other known claimants have all been
negative. The American Indian, Eleazer Williams, was proven by DNA
testing to be a Mohawk Native American and not the King of France.

However, there is another test that has not been done. That is to
prove whether the boy who was DNA tested and found to be the son of
Marie Antoinette was also the son of King Louis XVI. Remember that one
of the charges against Marie Antoinette was that she was a promiscuous
whore and gave birth to children by men other than her husband. An
added factor in this charge was that Marie Antoinette was married for
eight years before she gave birth to her first child, and then she
gave birth to six children in fairly rapid succession. This tends to
suggest that her husband was impotent or incapable or just not
interested and she found another man to cure this inadequacy.

Not only has the heart of King Louis XVII been preserved and DNA
tested, but the heart of his elder brother has been preserved too.
That heart, however, has not been DNA tested.

The test on the elder brother is not as important because he was never
king because he died too soon and there was no reason to fake his
death.

What does this all have to do with this book, “Marie Antoinette The
Portrait of an Average Woman”?

The answer is that this book is in part concerned with a man who was
believed to have been the lover of Marie Antoinette. His name was
Count Axel von Fersen (1755-1810). He is famous as the alleged lover
of Marie-Antoinette. Historians disagree about whether they were
lovers or not.

There is a lot of reason to believe that Count Fersen was more than
just an acquaintance. They met at a masked ball when both were young.
She arranged her private living quarters so that nobody, not even the
King, could see who was visiting her and entering her private bed
chamber. There is reason to believe that King Louis XVI knew that her
first born child was not his. Perhaps most importantly, even while she
was prisoner awaiting the guillotine, Count Fersen was able to visit
her and he risked his life in an unsuccessful attempt to help her
escape.

Both Napoleon and Tallyrand stated categorically that Count Fersen, a
minor member of the Swedish Royalty, had been the lover of Marie
Antoinette. As a member of the Swedish Royalty, Count Fersen could not
be subjected to the guillotine, but Napoleon insulted him for this,
refusing to address him by his proper title.

Therein lies this book. This book has been made into as movie. The
1938 movie stars Norma Shearer as Marie Antoinette, Tyrone Power as
Count Axel de Fersen, John Barrymore as King Louis XV and Robert
Morley as King Louis XVI.

http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0030418/

There is also a 2006 movie based on the same story line, but the name
of Stefan Zweig is not included in the credits.

So, while reading this book, we await a DNA test on King Louis XVII
and his elder brother to determine who was their real father. Some day
the test will me made and then we will know who their real father was.
Was it Count Fersen, King Louis XVI or some other man?

Sam Sloan
New York NY
February 28, 2010

ISBN 4-87187-855-4
978-4-87187-855-5

http://search.barnesandnoble.com/booksearch/isbninquiry.asp?ISBN=4871878554
http://www.amazon.com/dp/4871878554
Turenne
2010-02-28 21:42:56 UTC
Permalink
I can't really see what you're getting at; the above is a rehash of an
old story.

RL
Martin
2010-03-01 18:24:55 UTC
Permalink
"samsloan" <***@gmail.com> wrote in message news:f46c6ec5-27ff-4e1a-b8bc-***@e23g2000yqd.googlegroups.com...
Marie Antoinette
The Portrait of an Average Woman
By Stefan Zweig
Translated by Eden and Cedar Paul

Marie Antoinette is one of the most famous women in history, so famous
that my spell-checker recognizes her name.

The reason she is famous is, of course, because they chopped off her
head. Had her head not been chopped off, she would have been just
another obscure princess, a nearly forgotten footnote in history.

There were two schools of thought at that time: The prevailing view
was that she was a wanton whore, the promiscuous lover of many men,
who neglected and abused her children, who committed incest, who held
wild sex parties, who spent the people's money and said “Let them eat
cake”, and who gave birth to illegitimate children by unknown fathers
and not by her husband, King Louis XVI.

That is of course the attractive, intriguing side of her...

However, in 1815, 22 years after her execution on October 16, 1793,
those few members of the French Royal Family who were still alive and
had not lost their heads to the guillotine regained most of their
power and a different view of Marie Antoinette emerged: That she was a
pure and virtuous woman, devoted to her husband and her children. She
was depicted as wearing a halo over her head.

Halo - never a good sign! If she had really been so dull and boring, she'd have been long forgotten.

The point by the author, Stefan Zweig, is that the truth was in-
between. Marie Antoinette was neither the wanton whore nor was she so
utterly pure. In short: She was average, no better and nor worse than
any normal women.

This is true of all historical characters, who have accounts and descriptions written of them by benevolent and hostile chroniclers and diarists. You have to read between the lines. Look at Richard III (the classic example), almost a saintly man according to some, yet a wicked traitor guily of regicide, infanticide and multiple murder, not to mention crass incompetance. They argue to this day..

Stefan Zweig was originally a writer of novels. Towards the end of his
career, he switched over to history. However, he wrote his history
books in a novelist style. He takes the known facts about a person,
does not do original research and writes the history in a pleasant,
easy to read, style. He does not use footnotes. His works are far more
popular than the scholarly works by others on the same subject.

Here you might read what Marie Antoinette was thinking when she sat on
the block waiting to have her head chopped off. Of course, there was
no way for Stefan Zweig to know what she was thinking, as she lost her
head a few minutes later.

Ahem... self -proclaimed 'real historians' might well use nasty words like 'fantasy', 'nonsense' and 'irrelevant!' to describe that, but I would never be so impolite - having done similar things myself...

However, there were thousands of people
watching this spectacle. It was observed that Marie Antoinette
maintained her composure. She did not cry. She did not look nervous.

And wore two shirts so she didn't shiver, fearing someone might assume it was fear... oh no, hang on, that was someone else?
Being a royal (especially then) required iron will, incredible selfishness and instilled enormous pride! The indignity of being consigned to history as a coward who blubbed on the scaffold would have been greater than any fear of Hell - its amazing what even the worst weaklings can manage with a bit of preparation?
I hesitate to say that about MA, who I know little of - but what I do know, she was proud and determined. Hats off to her... or should that be heads? Oh dear...

Of course, there was nothing to be nervous about. She knew she was
going to die in a few minutes and there was absolutely nothing she
could do about it. Her last words were of apology to her executioner
for accidentally stepping on his foot. With this information, Stefan
Zweig can reach conclusions about what she must have been thinking.

I agree, no doubt to the horror of serious historians. These little, anecdotal incidents give more clues about the real nature of famous people than any amount of flattering accounts or character assassinations. This interest in personalities is unfortunately sniffed at by most modern academics, who seem sadly determined to remove any trace of romance from history, and view it as a rather dull science. To me, the very essence of history is in the people who made it, not what they ate, grew and were expected to live to. What they thought, feared, loved and wanted are the real interest AFAIAC, and what they were really like as people is top of my list.

A myth about Marie Antoinette is that she was beautiful. Those who saw
her have said that she was not beautiful, not at all. There were
almost profuse apologies for her ugliness. Perhaps her interest in
fine jewelry was to compensate for her lack of physical
attractiveness. Men would be looking at her diamonds, not noticing her
face. Her mother, Maria Therese, was concerned that she was so ugly
that a suitable husband could not be found for her. Fortunately, they
found a fat boy who was willing to marry her for her dowry, sight
unseen. That fat boy, aged 15, who married Marie Antoinette when she
was only 14 years old, later on became King Louis XVI.

Products of the absurd, obsolete conventions and protocols of the day, and of course the political climate and dynastic ambitions. Not my type at all, pale, haughty, proud... so she looks in her portraits. But then, you don't care about that (and her other feminine shortfalls) when looking at mountains of cash, prestige and a useful alliance... so it went then, and so it sadly seems to go on. There are few ''real royals' left these days, I fear those we have left in England are but pale shadows of their ancestors - though they can still be pushed into ill advised, disastrous marriages it seems?

Looks apart, I can in a way sense her beauty, in the same way I sense that of Elizabeth 1st of England, our greatest and most admirable monarch IMHO. Unfortunately for MA, she did not have such intelligence, craftiness, diplomacy and charm - only similar pride and guts

However, there is a new angle to the claim that she was a wanton
whore. The real reason King Louis XVI and his wife, Marie Antoinette,
were executed on the guillotine in 1793 was obviously that the
Republican Party wanted to make sure that they and the Royal Family
would never gain power again. For the same reason, Czar Nicholas II,
his wife Alexandra and their four daughters, their son and Anastasia's
dog were all executed was to make sure they would never come back to
power, as they certainly would have eventually, had they lived.

Very dangerous to leave potential figureheads alive, no matter how well locked up.Necessity has unfoirtunately to be ruthless, hence the fate of the Princes in the Tower, Prince Arthur, Richard II, Edward II and many others... has to be done to prevent even more bloodshed (albeit usually the blood ofr the executioner, ahem!)

Therein lies a mystery: Marie Antoinette had four children, plus two
more who were stillborn. One daughter died at 11 months. Another
daughter was the only one to reach adulthood. She lived to age 72, but
had no children. The rule in France was a woman could never rule, so
she did not count.

And therefore was allowed to live. No such nonsense here, as Queen Jane discovered!

That left two boys. One, Louis-Joseph, died at age 8, while Louis XVI
was still king, and his death was probably by natural causes.

The remaining boy was locked in a dungeon until age 10, when he was
reported to have died on June 8, 1795 from tuberculosis. He is known
as King Louis XVII, although he never ruled.

Therein lies the mystery, because that boy was believed to have
escaped and became known as “The Lost Dauphin”. In the succeeding
decades, dozens of boys claimed to be the Lost Dauphin. Even an
American Indian claimed it. The stakes were high. If any boy could
prove this, he would be made the King of France.

I see a familiar theme developing here, and hope that wishful thinking and romantic prejudice will play no part in this investigation?

The Heart of the boy who died of tuberculosis in the dungeon at age 10
has been preserved and it was DNA tested in 2000. The results of the
tests were that he was a close relative, very likely the son, of Marie
Antoinette. DNA tests on all other known claimants have all been
negative. The American Indian, Eleazer Williams, was proven by DNA
testing to be a Mohawk Native American and not the King of France.

Oh dear - not DNA? I see an uncanny theme in the offing! However, the DNA of our missing Princes is still locked up in Westminster Abbey, and closely guarded by various powerful interests - including some highly dishonest people who claim to be historians...
One current red-herring doing the rounds is that Her Majesty the Queen is resolutely opposed to DNA analysis in any form, through fear of it being discovered that one of her grandsons does not share a father with the other. It would of course be very wrong for any loyal Englishman like myself to say more, but a quick look at their pictures should... no more, I have said too much!

However, there is another test that has not been done. That is to
prove whether the boy who was DNA tested and found to be the son of
Marie Antoinette was also the son of King Louis XVI. Remember that one
of the charges against Marie Antoinette was that she was a promiscuous
whore and gave birth to children by men other than her husband. An
added factor in this charge was that Marie Antoinette was married for
eight years before she gave birth to her first child, and then she
gave birth to six children in fairly rapid succession. This tends to
suggest that her husband was impotent or incapable or just not
interested and she found another man to cure this inadequacy.

Not only has the heart of King Louis XVII been preserved and DNA
tested, but the heart of his elder brother has been preserved too.
That heart, however, has not been DNA tested.

The test on the elder brother is not as important because he was never
king because he died too soon and there was no reason to fake his
death.

What does this all have to do with this book, “Marie Antoinette The
Portrait of an Average Woman”?

The answer is that this book is in part concerned with a man who was
believed to have been the lover of Marie Antoinette. His name was
Count Axel von Fersen (1755-1810). He is famous as the alleged lover
of Marie-Antoinette. Historians disagree about whether they were
lovers or not.

There is a lot of reason to believe that Count Fersen was more than
just an acquaintance. They met at a masked ball when both were young.
She arranged her private living quarters so that nobody, not even the
King, could see who was visiting her and entering her private bed
chamber. There is reason to believe that King Louis XVI knew that her
first born child was not his. Perhaps most importantly, even while she
was prisoner awaiting the guillotine, Count Fersen was able to visit
her and he risked his life in an unsuccessful attempt to help her
escape.

Both Napoleon and Tallyrand stated categorically that Count Fersen, a
minor member of the Swedish Royalty, had been the lover of Marie
Antoinette. As a member of the Swedish Royalty, Count Fersen could not
be subjected to the guillotine, but Napoleon insulted him for this,
refusing to address him by his proper title.

Just as HenryVii refused to acknowledge Perkin Warbeck and Lambert Simnel as princes Edward or Richard - a wise decision! That of course never stopped him beheading anyone he fancied... the French are somewhat more polite?

Therein lies this book. This book has been made into as movie. The
1938 movie stars Norma Shearer as Marie Antoinette, Tyrone Power as
Count Axel de Fersen, John Barrymore as King Louis XV and Robert
Morley as King Louis XVI.

http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0030418/

There is also a 2006 movie based on the same story line, but the name
of Stefan Zweig is not included in the credits.

So, while reading this book, we await a DNA test on King Louis XVII
and his elder brother to determine who was their real father. Some day
the test will me made and then we will know who their real father was.
Was it Count Fersen, King Louis XVI or some other man?

If I didn't know better, I might think this was some sleazy, croos-posted advert!

It does however raise some interesting points and questions. It really is time this long running constitutional crisis was finally resolved! Sadly, I fear heads will never roll...
t***@comcast.net
2010-03-02 20:12:24 UTC
Permalink
On Mar 1, 12:24 pm, "Martin" <***@outgun.com> wrote:

[QUOTE]
Oh dear - not DNA? I see an uncanny theme in the offing! However, the
DNA of our missing Princes is still locked up in Westminster Abbey,
and closely guarded by various powerful interests - including some
highly dishonest people who claim to be historians...
One current red-herring doing the rounds is that Her Majesty the Queen
is resolutely opposed to DNA analysis in any form, through fear of it
being discovered that one of her grandsons does not share a father
with the other. It would of course be very wrong for any loyal
Englishman like myself to say more, but a quick look at their pictures
should... no more, I have said too much!
[END QUOTE]

She's worried about Grandsons when there have always been rumors that
none of her sons share the same father ?? !!!
a***@hotmail.com
2010-03-01 19:53:31 UTC
Permalink
Post by samsloan
Marie Antoinette
The Portrait of an Average Woman
By Stefan Zweig
Translated by Eden and Cedar Paul
I tried to read it while ago and, unlike Zweig's books about Mary
Stuart or Joseph Fouche, this one looked so boring that I never made
over the half of it. Can't exactly map what you are saying to what was
in the 1st half of the book because author's main stress is on the
fact (or at least his opinion) that she was a mentally-lazy cow with
the nice legs (don't remember his comments on the rest of her
appearence but, anyway, for a Hapsburg she was a nice looking woman).

I'm not sure about the credits on the old movie but why the new one
should give any credits to Zweig and not numerous others who wrote on
the same subject?

In purely practical terms, Marie Antoinette was a disaster for Louis
XVI in exactly the same way as Alexandra was a disaster for Nicholas
II: their absense would not guarantee survival but their presense
surely added to the probability of a fall. Both had been average women
(and perhaps even below average) who, by their behavior, managed to
alienate their subjects thus greately contributing to the fall of
their husbands. IIRC, more or less the same applies to the wife of
Charles I but she was considerably more lucky on a personal level.
None of them was excessively evil (and indignation with anybody's
promiscious behavior in pre-revolutionary France was a pure
hypocricity, taking into an account the contemporary habits) but they
had been lacking tact and, of course, brains. Unfortunately, the same
applied to their husbands who were unlucky enough to reign in the
times that required above the average brainpower. M.A.' "martyrdom"
promoted by the surviving Bourbons is just as laughable as Alexandra's
"martyrdom" promoted by the surviving Romanovs: during their lifetimes
both of them had been thoroughly disliked by most of their relatives
by marriage (see, for example, comments made by the Grand Duchess
Maria Pavlovna about ALexandra in "Education of the Princess").
samsloan
2010-03-02 14:51:56 UTC
Permalink
If I didn't know better, I might think this was some sleazy, cross-posted advert!
It does however raise some interesting points and questions. It really is time this long running constitutional crisis was finally resolved! Sadly, I fear heads will never roll...
This IS a sleazy, cross-posted advert.

I reprinted the book yesterday. In a few days you will see it
advertised at

ISBN  4-87187-855-4
978-4-87187-855-5

http://search.barnesandnoble.com/booksearch/isbninquiry.asp?ISBN=4871878554
http://www.amazon.com/dp/4871878554


Sam Sloan
Martin
2010-03-02 16:17:57 UTC
Permalink
If I didn't know better, I might think this was some sleazy, cross-posted advert!
It does however raise some interesting points and questions. It really is time this long running constitutional crisis was finally resolved! Sadly, I fear heads will never roll...
This IS a sleazy, cross-posted advert.

I reprinted the book yesterday. In a few days you will see it
advertised at

ISBN 4-87187-855-4
978-4-87187-855-5

http://search.barnesandnoble.com/booksearch/isbninquiry.asp?ISBN=4871878554
http://www.amazon.com/dp/4871878554

Oh well... good luck with it, whatever!
micky
2010-03-03 10:51:20 UTC
Permalink
Post by samsloan
Marie Antoinette
The Portrait of an Average Woman
By Stefan Zweig
Translated by Eden and Cedar Paul
Marie Antoinette is one of the most famous women in history, so famous
that my spell-checker recognizes her name.
The reason she is famous is, of course, because they chopped off her
head. Had her head not been chopped off, she would have been just
another obscure princess, a nearly forgotten footnote in history.
There were two schools of thought at that time: The prevailing view
was that she was a wanton whore, the promiscuous lover of many men,
who neglected and abused her children, who committed incest, who held
wild sex parties, who spent the people's money and said “Let them eat
cake”, and who gave birth to illegitimate children by unknown fathers
and not by her husband, King Louis XVI.
However, in 1815, 22 years after her execution on October 16, 1793,
those few members of the French Royal Family who were still alive and
had not lost their heads to the guillotine regained most of their
power and a different view of Marie Antoinette emerged: That she was a
pure and virtuous woman, devoted to her husband and her children. She
was depicted as wearing a halo over her head.
The point by the author, Stefan Zweig, is that the truth was in-
between. Marie Antoinette was neither the wanton whore nor was she so
utterly pure. In short: She was average, no better and nor worse than
any normal women.
Stefan Zweig was originally a writer of novels. Towards the end of his
career, he switched over to history. However, he wrote his history
books in a novelist style. He takes the known facts about a person,
does not do original research and writes the history in a pleasant,
easy to read, style. He does not use footnotes. His works are far more
popular than the scholarly works by others on the same subject.
Here you might read what Marie Antoinette was thinking when she sat on
the block waiting to have her head chopped off. Of course, there was
no way for Stefan Zweig to know what she was thinking, as she lost her
head a few minutes later. However, there were thousands of people
watching this spectacle. It was observed that Marie Antoinette
maintained her composure. She did not cry. She did not look nervous.
Audiences to guillotinings told numerous stories of blinking eyelids,
speaking, moving eyes, movement of the mouth, even an expression of
"unequivocal indignation" on the face of the decapitated Charlotte
Corday when her cheek was slapped. Anatomists and other scientists in
several countries have tried to perform more definitive experiments on
severed human heads as recently as 1956. Inevitably, the evidence is
only anecdotal. What appears to be a head responding to the sound of its
name, or to the pain of a pinprick, may be only random muscle twitching
or automatic reflex action, with no awareness involved. At worst, it
seems that the massive drop in cerebral blood pressure would cause a
victim to lose consciousness in several seconds.[17]

The following report was written by a Dr. Beaurieux, who experimented
with the head of a condemned prisoner by the name of Henri Languille, on
28 June 1905:

Here, then, is what I was able to note immediately after the
decapitation: the eyelids and lips of the guillotined man worked in
irregularly rhythmic contractions for about five or six seconds. This
phenomenon has been remarked by all those finding themselves in the same
conditions as myself for observing what happens after the severing of
the neck …
I waited for several seconds. The spasmodic movements ceased. […] It was
then that I called in a strong, sharp voice: "Languille!" I saw the
eyelids slowly lift up, without any spasmodic contractions – I insist
advisedly on this peculiarity – but with an even movement, quite
distinct and normal, such as happens in everyday life, with people
awakened or torn from their thoughts.

Next Languille's eyes very definitely fixed themselves on mine and the
pupils focused themselves. I was not, then, dealing with the sort of
vague dull look without any expression, that can be observed any day in
dying people to whom one speaks: I was dealing with undeniably living
eyes which were looking at me. After several seconds, the eyelids closed
again […].

It was at that point that I called out again and, once more, without any
spasm, slowly, the eyelids lifted and undeniably living eyes fixed
themselves on mine with perhaps even more penetration than the first
time. Then there was a further closing of the eyelids, but now less
complete. I attempted the effect of a third call; there was no further
movement – and the eyes took on the glazed look which they have in the
dead.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Guillotine

m.

---
Jan Böhme
2010-03-03 18:21:48 UTC
Permalink
Post by samsloan
Both Napoleon and Tallyrand stated categorically that Count Fersen, a
minor member of the Swedish Royalty, had been the lover of Marie
Antoinette. As a member of the Swedish Royalty, Count Fersen could not
be subjected to the guillotine, but Napoleon insulted him for this,
refusing to address him by his proper title.
Axel von Fersen was a Swedish Count, and thus a member of the Swedish
aristocracy, but he didn't belong to any Royalty - be it minor, major,
dorian, or mixolydian - whatsoever.

Jan Böhme
Turenne
2010-03-05 22:58:20 UTC
Permalink
Post by Jan Böhme
Axel von Fersen was a Swedish Count, and thus a member of the Swedish
aristocracy, but he didn't belong to any Royalty - be it minor, major,
dorian, or mixolydian - whatsoever.
It depends on what you call 'royal'.

Count Fersen's mother was a De la Gardie. Pontus De la Gardie married
an illegitimate daughter of John III of Sweden, and Magnus Gabriel De
la Gardie who was a favourite of Queen Christina, married her cousin
Countess Maria Eufrosyne of Zweibrücken (who was a sister of Charles X
Gustav of Sweden).

Richard Lichten
Jan Böhme
2010-03-07 11:18:32 UTC
Permalink
Post by Turenne
Post by Jan Böhme
Axel von Fersen was a Swedish Count, and thus a member of the Swedish
aristocracy, but he didn't belong to any Royalty - be it minor, major,
dorian, or mixolydian - whatsoever.
It depends on what you call 'royal'.
Count Fersen's mother was a De la Gardie. Pontus De la Gardie married
an illegitimate daughter of John III of Sweden, and Magnus Gabriel De
la Gardie who was a favourite of Queen Christina, married her cousin
Countess Maria Eufrosyne of Zweibrücken (who was a sister of Charles X
Gustav of Sweden).
No, it doesn't really. The de la Gardies are not, and were never,
considered Royalty of any sort in Sweden, not even Magnus Gabriel. who
had been dead for more than a hundred years at the time. Furthermore,
there was a considerable number of Swedish aristocrats with closer
Royal family connections than Axel von Fersen the younger in his day,
whom nobody dreamed of calling Royal. And if having an illegitimate
child of a monarch within seven generations up in one's pedigree makes
one Royal, then I'm afraid you'll have to curtsey even before me. :)

Jan Böhme
samsloan
2010-03-05 23:29:04 UTC
Permalink
The book is out now. Great cover design by Sam Sloan

ISBN  4-87187-855-4
978-4-87187-855-5

http://search.barnesandnoble.com/booksearch/isbninquiry.asp?ISBN=4871878554

http://www.amazon.com/dp/4871878554
samsloan
2010-03-06 12:11:54 UTC
Permalink
DNA tests on the heart of the boy who died in prison have proven that
he was either the son of Marie Antoinette or else a close relative.

http://www.genebase.com/blog/?p=44

However, there have apparently been no reported DNA tests to prove
whether or not his father was King Louis XVI. There is a lot of reason
to believe that his real father was Count Axel von Fersen.

This book has been made into as movie. The 1938 movie stars Norma
Shearer as Marie Antoinette, Tyrone Power as Count Axel de Fersen,
John Barrymore as King Louis XV and Robert Morley as King Louis XVI.

http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0030418/

This was one of the most expensive and elaborate movies ever made at
that time, with period costumes. I played the movie last night. It
clearly shows a sexual relationship between Marie Antoinette and Count
Fersen to the extent that censors would allow it at that time.

I am wondering why they do not do a y-chromosome DNA test. It would
not be because it would overthrow the monarchy because the boy left no
descendants.

It would solve an interesting historical question. Could it be part of
a cover-up?

ISBN  4-87187-855-4
978-4-87187-855-5

http://search.barnesandnoble.com/booksearch/isbninquiry.asp?ISBN=4871878554

http://www.amazon.com/dp/4871878554

Sam Sloan
a***@hotmail.com
2010-03-06 17:36:28 UTC
Permalink
Post by samsloan
DNA tests on the heart of the boy who died in prison have proven that
he was either the son of Marie Antoinette or else a close relative.
http://www.genebase.com/blog/?p=44
However, there have apparently been no reported DNA tests to prove
whether or not his father was King Louis XVI. There is a lot of reason
to believe that his real father was Count Axel von Fersen.
So? There is a lot of reason to believe that father of Emperor Paul I
was not Peter III but, AFAIK, this did not impact Romanov's monarchy.
There were also rumors that Charles VII of France was not the son of
his father but it did not prevent him from ascending the throne, etc.
Post by samsloan
This book has been made into as movie.
Actually, Zweig got credits but the movie has little in common with
the book.
Post by samsloan
The 1938 movie stars Norma
Shearer as Marie Antoinette, Tyrone Power as Count Axel de Fersen,
John Barrymore as King Louis XV and Robert Morley as King Louis XVI.
http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0030418/
This was one of the most expensive and elaborate movies ever made at
that time, with period costumes. I played the movie last night. It
clearly shows a sexual relationship between Marie Antoinette and Count
Fersen to the extent that censors would allow it at that time.
I am wondering why they do not do a y-chromosome DNA test.
In the movie?
Post by samsloan
It would
not be because it would overthrow the monarchy because the boy left no
descendants.
What are you talking about? AFAIK, there was no DNA testing available
in the early XIX and conversation about overthrowing the Bourbon
monarchy in France is irrelevant after the fall of Charles X.

Besides, illegitimacy of a boy did not mean overthrow of the French
monarchy; there were quite legitimate King's brothers in the line of
succession.
Post by samsloan
It would solve an interesting historical question. Could it be part of
a cover-up?
Only in one of the versions of the Scarlet Pimpernel. :-)

Who was going to cover-up what exactly? For all practical purposes,
the child was Dauphin of France AND, short of being mysteriously saved
and never heard about ever after, he died during the French
Revolution. Taking into an account that he was not the last
representative of a Bourbon dynasty and that this dynasty was returned
after overthrow of Napoleon, who would gain from what and in which way
exactly?
samsloan
2010-03-06 19:23:23 UTC
Permalink
Post by a***@hotmail.com
Post by samsloan
DNA tests on the heart of the boy who died in prison have proven that
he was either the son of Marie Antoinette or else a close relative.
http://www.genebase.com/blog/?p=44
However, there have apparently been no reported DNA tests to prove
whether or not his father was King Louis XVI. There is a lot of reason
to believe that his real father was Count Axel von Fersen.
So? There is a lot of reason to believe that father of Emperor Paul I
was not Peter III but, AFAIK, this did not impact Romanov's monarchy.
There were also rumors that Charles VII of France was not the son of
his father but it did not prevent him from ascending the throne, etc.
Post by samsloan
This book has been made into as movie.
Actually, Zweig got credits but the movie has little in common with
the book.
Post by samsloan
The 1938 movie stars Norma
Shearer as Marie Antoinette, Tyrone Power as Count Axel de Fersen,
John Barrymore as King Louis XV and Robert Morley as King Louis XVI.
http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0030418/
This was one of the most expensive and elaborate movies ever made at
that time, with period costumes. I played the movie last night. It
clearly shows a sexual relationship between Marie Antoinette and Count
Fersen to the extent that censors would allow it at that time.
I am wondering why they do not do a y-chromosome DNA test.
In the movie?
Post by samsloan
It would
not be because it would overthrow the monarchy because the boy left no
descendants.
What are you talking about? AFAIK, there was no DNA testing available
in the early XIX and conversation about overthrowing the Bourbon
monarchy in France is irrelevant after the fall of Charles X.
Besides, illegitimacy of a boy did not mean overthrow of the French
monarchy; there were quite legitimate King's brothers in the line of
succession.
Post by samsloan
It would solve an interesting historical question. Could it be part of
a cover-up?
Only in one of the versions of the Scarlet Pimpernel. :-)
Who was going to cover-up what exactly? For all practical purposes,
the child was Dauphin of France AND, short of being mysteriously saved
and never heard about ever after, he died during the French
Revolution. Taking into an account that he was not the last
representative of a Bourbon dynasty and that this dynasty was returned
after overthrow of Napoleon, who would gain from what and in which way
exactly?
These are all good points.

However, somebody on this list suggested that the two sons of Princess
Diana might have different fathers. They do not look much alike.
Therefore, Queen Elizabeth will not agree to a DNA test of them. That
would really be a scandal.

If that was true, would the next king after Price Charles be
determined by DNA testing? Suppose Prince William had a diffeent
father, but Prince Henry really was the son of Prince Charle. Suppose
the father of Queen Victoria was not really her father. (This is quote
likely.)

Would this change the entire Royal Family rights?

Sam Sloan

http://search.barnesandnoble.com/booksearch/isbninquiry.asp?ISBN=4871878554

http://www.amazon.com/dp/4871878554
a***@hotmail.com
2010-03-07 20:29:05 UTC
Permalink
Post by samsloan
Post by a***@hotmail.com
Post by samsloan
DNA tests on the heart of the boy who died in prison have proven that
he was either the son of Marie Antoinette or else a close relative.
http://www.genebase.com/blog/?p=44
However, there have apparently been no reported DNA tests to prove
whether or not his father was King Louis XVI. There is a lot of reason
to believe that his real father was Count Axel von Fersen.
So? There is a lot of reason to believe that father of Emperor Paul I
was not Peter III but, AFAIK, this did not impact Romanov's monarchy.
There were also rumors that Charles VII of France was not the son of
his father but it did not prevent him from ascending the throne, etc.
Post by samsloan
This book has been made into as movie.
Actually, Zweig got credits but the movie has little in common with
the book.
Post by samsloan
The 1938 movie stars Norma
Shearer as Marie Antoinette, Tyrone Power as Count Axel de Fersen,
John Barrymore as King Louis XV and Robert Morley as King Louis XVI.
http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0030418/
This was one of the most expensive and elaborate movies ever made at
that time, with period costumes. I played the movie last night. It
clearly shows a sexual relationship between Marie Antoinette and Count
Fersen to the extent that censors would allow it at that time.
I am wondering why they do not do a y-chromosome DNA test.
In the movie?
Post by samsloan
It would
not be because it would overthrow the monarchy because the boy left no
descendants.
What are you talking about? AFAIK, there was no DNA testing available
in the early XIX and conversation about overthrowing the Bourbon
monarchy in France is irrelevant after the fall of Charles X.
Besides, illegitimacy of a boy did not mean overthrow of the French
monarchy; there were quite legitimate King's brothers in the line of
succession.
Post by samsloan
It would solve an interesting historical question. Could it be part of
a cover-up?
Only in one of the versions of the Scarlet Pimpernel. :-)
Who was going to cover-up what exactly? For all practical purposes,
the child was Dauphin of France AND, short of being mysteriously saved
and never heard about ever after, he died during the French
Revolution. Taking into an account that he was not the last
representative of a Bourbon dynasty and that this dynasty was returned
after overthrow of Napoleon, who would gain from what and in which way
exactly?
These are all good points.
However, somebody on this list suggested that the two sons of Princess
Diana might have different fathers.
List of potential fathers of Paul I did not consist of his official
father either and these rumors had been circulating during his life
time. Still, the Romanovs _ruled_ until 1917.
Post by samsloan
They do not look much alike.
Therefore, Queen Elizabeth will not agree to a DNA test of them. That
would really be a scandal.
(a) DNA tests not being available in XVIII establishment of a
parenthood was more or less up to the father and Louis XVI seemingly
did not have any problems with this issue; (b) in the terms of
survival for the Bourbon monarchy birth of these children was totally
unimportant because Louis would be succeeded by his brother(s) and, if
needed, the cousins.

Scnadal regarding the parenthood among the British royalty would just
mean the choice of a different clown (after Charles?) from the same
family.
Post by samsloan
If that was true, would the next king after Price Charles be
determined by DNA testing?
Would it make any _practical_ difference if a heir is a (house-
trained) ape or a parrot?
Post by samsloan
Suppose Prince William had a diffeent
father, but Prince Henry really was the son of Prince Charle. Suppose
the father of Queen Victoria was not really her father. (This is quote
likely.)
OK. What would happen? Besides a possibility that the Queen of England
would not be everybody's grandmother? Not that this specific fact
prevented WWI.
Post by samsloan
Would this change the entire Royal Family rights?
The question is not family rights but the whole arrangement. In both
cases under discussion, dynasty would survive.

Continue reading on narkive:
Loading...