Certainly Baron, It was from a french site..(sorry I do not have the link, but I had saved this part) Ambassador Creutz goes on to speak of Fersen so I included it......

Creutz, Comte de, Marianne Molander Beyer, ed., La Suède et les lumières: lettres de France d’un ambassadeur à son roi (1771-1783) (Paris, Michel de Maule, 2006), 620 pp., ISBN 2-87623-157-3. An essential new source on the court of Versailles, Franco-Swedish relations, and European diplomacy. Creutz claims on 5 September 1777 that Marie Antoinette had told Madame de Polignac that Louis XVI formerly ‘nul’ has suddenly become ‘a Hercules’. He also states that, under Louis XVI, the Royal Family had never been more popular, nor the court better attended.
* * *
Here is what Creutz wrote: in 1779..only one and a half years really into Louis being a "Hercules"......and evidently this was not a "new romance" by this time
On 10 April 1779, the Swedish Ambassador Creutz, writes to King Gustavus III of Sweden:

“I must confide to Your Majesty that the young Count Fersen is so well received by the Queen that it has given offence to several persons. I admit that I cannot refrain from thinking that she has a fondness for him: I saw signs of this that were too clear to leave any doubt (j’en ai vu des indices trop surs pour en douter). The young Count Fersen’s behavior on this occasion was admirable in its modesty and restraint and especially in his decision to go to America. By leaving, he removed all dangers, but of course wisdom and resolve beyond his years were required to overcome this seduction. The Queen could not take her eyes off him these last few days; as she watched him they filled with tears (La Reine ne pouvait pas le quitter des yeux les derniers jours; en le regardant, ils etaient remplis de larmes). I beg Your Majesty to keep this a secret for her sake and Senator Fersen’s”.
* * *
Truthfuly...even without any experience a young woman could tell a "null" and really anything in contrast to that...might seem a "Hercules" Perhaps her mistake was to confide this to her...("rather experienced") best friend. I am really hoping this is not the case.....

Thanks for the explanation. Did she use the word "nul" in French? Which is used now to describe a person who is useless, or did she say the experience was null? I somehow doubt the veracity of the Comte's words...this seems quite out of keeping with the Queen's nature, as she was quite reserved about such things. But maybe not...finally...with her friend Yolande? We'll never know...

"Nul" seems to me very modern slang - a bit like Dolly Madison saying that President Madison was "lame" (in a character sense).

Ca cloche. To my ear anyway.

True, it seems so...however I must admit to have been surprized more than once to discover so-called modern day slang expressions in 18th century texts, and to see that their origins went far back...can't remember examples offhand so please don't ask me to quote! I should always write everything down!

i am waiting for a reply that conclude the thread to a point. Because till now there is no reply which can get through it.

Why could Louis not get Marie Antoinette pregnant?

The logical answer is this - because they were not having sex. As I stated in an earlier post, once the marriage was consumated, Marie Antoinette did become pregnant within a short period of time.

There is convincing evidence of a condition which caused a physical impediment to the sex act and a surgery following Joseph's visit to Versailles. The condition has been mentioned in an earlier post and was allegedly phimosis which causes pain when the foreskin is pulled back in an erection. Hope this medical information isn't offensive to anyone here--at any rate it's reported Louis submitted to the knife and shortly MA reported to her Mother that her marriage had been fully consummated and more completely the second time.

I don't believe Louis ever had any such operation. Medical examinations showed him to be normal. Quite frankly what do we know about the exact nature of their relations? Was anyone in bed with them to see? If we are to believe for example the obsessively exhaustive studies of the "Girault de Coursac" MA and Louis probably made love a number of times during those seven years and MA may even have had more than one miscarriage. Which puts the visit of Joseph into a completely different light. Was it not more of a question of MA refusing herself to her young husband or making life impossible for him in bed? Was she not secretly very afraid of pregnancy as the factor that would tie her to Versailles and France for life and put an end to her youthful enjoyment? Remember their sexual relations were a state affair and therefore there was some duelling going on between the pro Austrian and the French factions at court, each wanting to blame the other for the absence of a royal baby. It was a reason for MA to be put aside and there was always the threat of a royal mistress, as Kings before her had systematically taken. For me that's where Ernestine comes into the picture: Louis must prove that the problem doesn't stem from him....

Baron,
I theorize as did Castelot' that both parties practiced avoidance of the marital responsibilities after years of frustrating failure. Joseph reported that LXVI could achieve an erection and introduce it but neither party made any movement before withdrawal. Phimosis has individual variances but could have interferred with the movement required to complete coitus.

Apparently there was a small operation and I believe Louis was in the saddle again (hunt)
the next day or shortly afterward. Within months MA was able to announce to her anxious mother the deed had been completely achieved more than once and that she was expecting a glorious event.

There must be a connection between Joseph's talk with Louis, a diagnosis (sounds like a mini circumsion or additional cut), a surgical procedure, coitus and pregnancy after years of nothing.
Susana

I doubt Louis had any operation. I believe Marie Antoinette didn't become pregnant right away because Louis refused to consummate the marriage. He simply would not do it. At the same time, who could blame him? He was a child, as was his wife at the time of their marriage and they were complete strangers to each other.