Marie Antoinette Online
  • FORUM
View unanswered posts | View active topics It is currently Tue Nov 21, 2017 1:01 am



Reply to topic  [ 32 posts ]  Go to page 1, 2, 3  Next
 Diamonds Are Not A Girl's Best Friend 
Author Message
Marquis/Marquise
Marquis/Marquise

Joined: Sat Mar 07, 2009 4:12 am
Posts: 89
Post Diamonds Are Not A Girl's Best Friend
I read this quite some time ago and can’t get it out of my mind. I’ve long been a champion of Louis XVI and Marie Antoinette and have been angered by the way history has slandered them. Equally disconcerting is the unnecessary cruelty and horrid treatment they received. I realized that Louis and Antoinette were victims of the ancien regime and the suffocating etiquette and wasteful protocols and customs that permeated daily life, and Louis inherited a bankrupt nation full of resentful unhappy and destitute citizens.

But when I read things like the attached, my feelings for the Royal couple diminish and I wonder just how empathetic and concerned they were with the unfortunates who made up 95% of the population.

(Background) Louis has called for the Estates Generaux in an attempt to diffuse the anti-monarchial feelings throughout France. Both Louis and Antoinette had to realize that this step was a major blow against the monarchy. In addition they had to be aware of the increased suffering of the poor who had barely survived one of the coldest winters in history; starvation was rampant. Her Majesty was referred to as ‘Madame Deficit’ This was the environment into which the Royal Family ventured forth to greet their subjects and the representatives of the Estates Generaux.

(What follows is an excerpt from “Marie Therese – Child Of Terror” by Susan Nagle, page 56)

Louis and Antoinette are on their way to the opening session of the Estates Generaux:

“The cortege continued, passing crowds of people along the streets shouting, ‘Vivat Orleans’, ‘Vivat Orleans’, but when the King, Queen and Madame Royale descended from their carriage at Notre Dame they were greeted with virtual silence.. Stepping out into the sun, Louis XVI blinded in gold cloth strewn with diamonds – diamonds as buttons, diamonds as buckles on his shoes, diamonds on his garters and on his ribbons and medals. He also wore the famous 140 carat cushion-shaped Regent diamond on his crown and a diamond sword. The Queen shimmered in violet and white embroidered with silver pailletes and displayed some of the world’s most famous diamonds: in her hair the pale yellow 55 carat flawless ‘Sansy’ and, on her body, the DeGuise and the Mirror Of Portugal, whose suite included the fifth and sixth Mazarin diamonds.”

What did Louis and Antoinette hope to accomplish by showing the unhappy, starving citizens a fantastic, priceless assortment of diamonds? What could Antoinette have been thinking as she placed a flawless yellow diamond in her hair when the scandal of the ‘affair of the diamond necklace’ was still fresh in everyone’s mind? I realize that royalty must ‘look the part’ with crowns, robes and jewels, but that has to be tempered with an understanding of the current environment and the affect the royal behavior will have on an already angry population (an example of this and its danger can be compared to the reaction of the British population at the death of Princess Diana and the damage to the monarchy that resulted until the Queen changed royal protocol and acted as the crowds demanded)..

If I had seen this spectacle and I and my family were victims of abject poverty, freezing and starvation, my voice would have been one of the loudest demanding action from the King and Queen
And, if none was forthcoming, their removal and the establishment of a constitutional monarchy. It would have made such a difference if they had left the diamonds, satins and silks at home, toned down the costumes, and in their demeanor and in Louis’ speech, made an effort to appease the crowds by, for example, trading the 55 carat diamond for foreign wheat to make bread for the starving, importing some of the massive amount of American grain the Americans would have gladly contributed in gratitude for France’s help during the American revolution. Look to France’s new ‘friend’ Austria for food to further consolidate the treaties and foster greater understanding between the two former enemies, and countless other actions to show the French citizens that the King and Queen did in fact care. And Louis’ gold cloth and diamon buttons were less important than the well being of his subjects.


Mon Mar 15, 2010 12:20 pm
Profile
Prince/Princesse
Prince/Princesse
User avatar

Joined: Wed Mar 07, 2007 10:21 am
Posts: 1545
Location: paris
Post Re: Diamonds Are Not A Girl's Best Friend
Sorry but this is a simplistic and emotional reaction to this subject.

Firstly, as you rightly say, the King and Queen were expected to turn out in full court apparel for the solemn opening of the Estates General. Anything less than this would have shocked and, believe me, they would have been criticised for not showing sufficient respect for this ancient institution. It was hard enough as it is to get Louis to dress up in any new clothes or look smart: he was notorious for wearing out his clothes and was naturally thrifty. The jewels they wore belonged to the Crown and were heirlooms, not personal property. You could say they had them on hire, like certain modern day stars for the Cannes film festival. As for the starvation, it is true that the winter had been terrible and the previous year's harvest very poor, but the 1789 harvest was promising to be a bumper one , so measures were being taken to protect it. Good and bad harvests were a thing of the times, and remember that the Court alone could not solve all the country's problems, they could only try and encourage ministers to legislate in favour of the starving masses. This was what Calonne with Louis' full approval had been trying to do with his tax reforms and other measures, but met with tbe opposition of the old nobility and high ranking clergy ,who were loath to part with their priviliges and their money. Do not forget that Louis agrees to the doubling of the vote of the Third Estate and the Queen proclaims herself Queen of the Third Estate! When you look to Louis XVI for the causes of the French Revolution, you look for the wrong culprit.

_________________
"Fidelité et constance, sans espoir de récompense."


Mon Mar 15, 2010 2:27 pm
Profile
Prince/Princesse
Prince/Princesse
User avatar

Joined: Mon Oct 20, 2008 5:32 am
Posts: 294
Post Re: Diamonds Are Not A Girl's Best Friend
Without agreeing with everything le Baron says, I do think that there is a long-standing tradition of monarchs showing magnificence as expressions not only of their own wealth but of the prosperity of their own country. And yes, even starving - maybe especially starving - people want to see that.

This was something Napoleon understood very well, and the fact that the French welcomed his own excesses in this regard so eagerly so soon after the overthrow of the monarchy speaks volumes.

The equivalent in democracies would be the popularity of Busby Berkeley's extravaganzas during the Depression. Magnificence is uplifting.

It's also true that MA, for instance, was as criticized for simplicity of dress as for any excess. And for similar reasons.

This does not mean that I accept with equanimity MA's more oblivious behavior in this regard, in terms of spending money on her favorites, running up gambling debts, indulging her own entertainments, etc. But that Louis looked magnificent at a public occasion was perfectly normal and probably even a source of pleasure to his subjects. Because it meant that France itself, with whom they unquestioningly identified at that point, looked magnificent.

_________________
Jim Chevallier
North Hollywood, CA
http://www.chezjim.com


Mon Mar 15, 2010 4:50 pm
Profile
Prince/Princesse
Prince/Princesse
User avatar

Joined: Sat Nov 25, 2006 12:04 am
Posts: 253
Location: Texas.
Post Re: Diamonds Are Not A Girl's Best Friend
Quote:
Artois says: But when I read things like the attached, my feelings for the Royal couple diminish and I wonder just how empathetic and concerned they were with the unfortunates who made up 95% of the population.


I think it's necessary when coming upon information like this, to keep things in perspective. While there are clues, nobody really knows the true breakdown of the economic situation in 1789 France, but I should think 95% living in destitution is a little steep, even for those times. It's generally conceded that the nobility comprised 1% of population (this seems to hold true throughout time, regardless of the society, religion, style of government or size of economy---1% always end up at the top). Going by the 1% rule, that leaves only 4% living somewhere between abundance and subsistance. Given the size of French economy in 1789, the number of cities, the degree of literacy, upward mobility, and a dozen other indicators; I think it's safe to say that considerably more than 4% of the population was living above subsistance level. Even being very pessimistic, I'd at least triple that percentage.


Quote:
What did Louis and Antoinette hope to accomplish by showing the unhappy, starving citizens a fantastic, priceless assortment of diamonds? What could Antoinette have been thinking as she placed a flawless yellow diamond in her hair when the scandal of the ‘affair of the diamond necklace’ was still fresh in everyone’s mind? I realize that royalty must ‘look the part’ with crowns, robes and jewels, but that has to be tempered with an understanding of the current environment and the affect the royal behavior will have on an already angry population (an example of this and its danger can be compared to the reaction of the British population at the death of Princess Diana and the damage to the monarchy that resulted until the Queen changed royal protocol and acted as the crowds demanded)..


Again, perspective: Louis and Antoinette did not have an army of PR consultants to keep them abreast of popular perception and advise them on crafting a public 'image,' as virtually every political leader does today, including the present Queen of England. They were guided exclusively by tradition,the way things had always been done; and tradition does not adapt itself to changing moods or public whim. You seem to be critical of them for adhering to the 'Old World' way, instead of adopting the 'Modern' political mindset, which really didn't exist yet.

Quote:
It would have made such a difference if they had left the diamonds, satins and silks at home, toned down the costumes, and in their demeanor and in Louis’ speech, made an effort to appease the crowds by, for example, trading the 55 carat diamond for foreign wheat to make bread for the starving, importing some of the massive amount of American grain the Americans would have gladly contributed in gratitude for France’s help during the American revolution. Look to France’s new ‘friend’ Austria for food to further consolidate the treaties and foster greater understanding between the two former enemies, and countless other actions to show the French citizens that the King and Queen did in fact care. And Louis’ gold cloth and diamon buttons were less important than the well being of his subjects.


Much of the rest of Europe (including Austria) experienced the same harsh winter and poor harvests as France had: I doubt there was a lot of grain available to buy in. America was still raw frontier--not the bread basket it became a century or so later--and was not able to produce much more than it needed for itself at that time (the French economy was probably 20 times as large as the newborn United States in 1789). Even supposing that somebody had a bumper crop that year with large surpluses to sell; there were no railroads yet, no mass-market distribution centers, no preservatives; how do you transport so much grain say, from Russia, to France, and then store and distribute it before it goes bad? An impossible feat in 1789. The technology and infrastructure were not in place to make it feasable.
Hunger was ever-present in pre-industrial Europe, a fact of life as unavoidable as disease and infant mortality. Some years it was less severe, others worse, but always a part of life. The Revolution did not cure this, nor Napoleon, nor anything but time and scientific advancemet.

_________________
"One grows accustomed to one's enemy, and by making it familiar one loses the desire to get rid of it...." Marquise de la Tour du Pin, in a letter to her friend Mme. de Duras.


Mon Mar 15, 2010 7:17 pm
Profile
Prince/Princesse
Prince/Princesse
User avatar

Joined: Sat Mar 25, 2006 4:04 pm
Posts: 2266
Post Re: Diamonds Are Not A Girl's Best Friend
baron de batz wrote:
Sorry but this is a simplistic and emotional reaction to this subject.

Firstly, as you rightly say, the King and Queen were expected to turn out in full court apparel for the solemn opening of the Estates General. Anything less than this would have shocked and, believe me, they would have been criticised for not showing sufficient respect for this ancient institution. It was hard enough as it is to get Louis to dress up in any new clothes or look smart: he was notorious for wearing out his clothes and was naturally thrifty. The jewels they wore belonged to the Crown and were heirlooms, not personal property. You could say they had them on hire, like certain modern day stars for the Cannes film festival. As for the starvation, it is true that the winter had been terrible and the previous year's harvest very poor, but the 1789 harvest was promising to be a bumper one , so measures were being taken to protect it. Good and bad harvests were a thing of the times, and remember that the Court alone could not solve all the country's problems, they could only try and encourage ministers to legislate in favour of the starving masses. This was what Calonne with Louis' full approval had been trying to do with his tax reforms and other measures, but met with tbe opposition of the old nobility and high ranking clergy ,who were loath to part with their priviliges and their money. Do not forget that Louis agrees to the doubling of the vote of the Third Estate and the Queen proclaims herself Queen of the Third Estate! When you look to Louis XVI for the causes of the French Revolution, you look for the wrong culprit.



I quite agree!

_________________
I forgive all my enemies the harm they have done me.


Tue Mar 16, 2010 7:47 pm
Profile
Prince/Princesse
Prince/Princesse
User avatar

Joined: Sat Mar 25, 2006 4:04 pm
Posts: 2266
Post Re: Diamonds Are Not A Girl's Best Friend
jimcheval wrote:
I do think that there is a long-standing tradition of monarchs showing magnificence as expressions not only of their own wealth but of the prosperity of their own country. And yes, even starving - maybe especially starving - people want to see that.


Exactly! So true!

_________________
I forgive all my enemies the harm they have done me.


Tue Mar 16, 2010 7:48 pm
Profile
Prince/Princesse
Prince/Princesse
User avatar

Joined: Sat Mar 25, 2006 4:04 pm
Posts: 2266
Post Re: Diamonds Are Not A Girl's Best Friend
Christophe wrote:
Quote:
Artois says: But when I read things like the attached, my feelings for the Royal couple diminish and I wonder just how empathetic and concerned they were with the unfortunates who made up 95% of the population.


I think it's necessary when coming upon information like this, to keep things in perspective. While there are clues, nobody really knows the true breakdown of the economic situation in 1789 France, but I should think 95% living in destitution is a little steep, even for those times. It's generally conceded that the nobility comprised 1% of population (this seems to hold true throughout time, regardless of the society, religion, style of government or size of economy---1% always end up at the top). Going by the 1% rule, that leaves only 4% living somewhere between abundance and subsistance. Given the size of French economy in 1789, the number of cities, the degree of literacy, upward mobility, and a dozen other indicators; I think it's safe to say that considerably more than 4% of the population was living above subsistance level. Even being very pessimistic, I'd at least triple that percentage.


Quote:
What did Louis and Antoinette hope to accomplish by showing the unhappy, starving citizens a fantastic, priceless assortment of diamonds? What could Antoinette have been thinking as she placed a flawless yellow diamond in her hair when the scandal of the ‘affair of the diamond necklace’ was still fresh in everyone’s mind? I realize that royalty must ‘look the part’ with crowns, robes and jewels, but that has to be tempered with an understanding of the current environment and the affect the royal behavior will have on an already angry population (an example of this and its danger can be compared to the reaction of the British population at the death of Princess Diana and the damage to the monarchy that resulted until the Queen changed royal protocol and acted as the crowds demanded)..


Again, perspective: Louis and Antoinette did not have an army of PR consultants to keep them abreast of popular perception and advise them on crafting a public 'image,' as virtually every political leader does today, including the present Queen of England. They were guided exclusively by tradition,the way things had always been done; and tradition does not adapt itself to changing moods or public whim. You seem to be critical of them for adhering to the 'Old World' way, instead of adopting the 'Modern' political mindset, which really didn't exist yet.

Quote:
It would have made such a difference if they had left the diamonds, satins and silks at home, toned down the costumes, and in their demeanor and in Louis’ speech, made an effort to appease the crowds by, for example, trading the 55 carat diamond for foreign wheat to make bread for the starving, importing some of the massive amount of American grain the Americans would have gladly contributed in gratitude for France’s help during the American revolution. Look to France’s new ‘friend’ Austria for food to further consolidate the treaties and foster greater understanding between the two former enemies, and countless other actions to show the French citizens that the King and Queen did in fact care. And Louis’ gold cloth and diamon buttons were less important than the well being of his subjects.


Much of the rest of Europe (including Austria) experienced the same harsh winter and poor harvests as France had: I doubt there was a lot of grain available to buy in. America was still raw frontier--not the bread basket it became a century or so later--and was not able to produce much more than it needed for itself at that time (the French economy was probably 20 times as large as the newborn United States in 1789). Even supposing that somebody had a bumper crop that year with large surpluses to sell; there were no railroads yet, no mass-market distribution centers, no preservatives; how do you transport so much grain say, from Russia, to France, and then store and distribute it before it goes bad? An impossible feat in 1789. The technology and infrastructure were not in place to make it feasable.
Hunger was ever-present in pre-industrial Europe, a fact of life as unavoidable as disease and infant mortality. Some years it was less severe, others worse, but always a part of life. The Revolution did not cure this, nor Napoleon, nor anything but time and scientific advancemet.


Excellent, Christophe. I have also read that grain speculators bought up the available grain, keeping it from getting to the starving people, thus making the famine much worse.

_________________
I forgive all my enemies the harm they have done me.


Tue Mar 16, 2010 7:51 pm
Profile
Marquis/Marquise
Marquis/Marquise

Joined: Sat Mar 07, 2009 4:12 am
Posts: 89
Post Re: Diamonds Are Not A Girl's Best Friend
Baron – I couldn’t agree with you less. Simplicity and emotion would have been a welcome change to the rigidity, unvarying protocols turmoil and inequity that continued on to result in revolution. It had been approximately 100 years since the last Estates Generaux; none of the starving and frozen were alive to witness this “solemn” and “ancient institution” and I seriously doubt that the peasants would have been “shocked” and “critical” if the King and Queen were anything less than magnificent. That would have been the reaction of the court and the nobility, already angry with the changes made in protocol by Louis and Antoinette. We’re talking peasants here, Baron. I don’t think the third estate cared who owned the diamonds and jewels worn, the fact is they were displayed to those living in abject poverty. Do you really think that, if reminded that the jewels were ‘on hire’, the crowd would have reacted with acceptance and approval? If ‘magnificence’ was OK:, why the fuss over the diamond necklace? What better example of magnificence could there be? We all know what magnificence did in that case. Yet Antoinette thought it appropriate to wear a 55 carat diamond in her hair. Elizabeth II demonstrates ‘magnificence’ by her attitude, deeds and demeanor while carrying large vinyl purses and less than stylish attire. Except for an occasional brooch, the mega-jewels are kept for special occasions, as it should be. As far as the third estate was concerned, Louis and Antoinette were sow’s ears trying to be silk purses. Clothes don’t make the man (or woman). Perhaps the diamonds would have, as Jim says, been a symbol of personal and national magnificence if Louis was not considered an incompetent and Antoinette was not considered ‘the Austrian Whore’ and ‘Madame Deficit’.

Talk about a “simple approach”. I’m sure that the peasants would be ecstatic to hear that future crops will be more plentiful; I’m sure that cured their hunger pains they suffered yesterday and today. Of course the starvation took their minds off of the frostbite. You state: “The Court alone could not solve all the country's problems, they could only try and encourage ministers to legislate in favour of the starving masses.” This obviously didn’t and doesn’t work due to the caste system in place and the corruption and inequities present. The peasants looked to the King as the ‘chief executive’ rightly or wrongly, and it was up to him to demonstrate his efforts to resolve the problems, starting with those responsible for taking care of the “starving masses”. Even minor changes would have been received as a portent of hope for the future. Louis was, after all, chosen by the divinity.as ‘His Most Christian Majesty’.

There are too many “culprits” to mention as the cause of the revolution. If I had to pick one, it would be Louis XV and his “après moi le deluge”; he was fully aware of the problems and did nothing. Louis XVI inherited a mess and didn’t help matters by some examples of poor behaviour and indecisiveness on important issues. His heart was in the right place and he would have, in time, made a good king.. A close second would be Empress Maria Theresa who treated her own daughter like an ‘Austrian whore’ by ‘selling’ an innocent thirteen year old child to the most vicious and dangerous court in Europe headed by a perverse satyr whose first question after the ‘sale’ was finalized was, “How are her breasts?” Selling Antoinette was bad enough, but to do it to a country that had been Austria’s enemy for two hundred years is inexcusable as is the lack of support and constant criticism the Empress heaped on Antoinette, who was hated before she set foot in France.

I find it hard to believe that you would be so tolerant and understanding with frostbite and rickets.


Tue Mar 16, 2010 8:39 pm
Profile
Prince/Princesse
Prince/Princesse
User avatar

Joined: Sat Nov 25, 2006 12:04 am
Posts: 253
Location: Texas.
Post Re: Diamonds Are Not A Girl's Best Friend
Again, Artois,

You are judging the past by present standards. Should our age be condemned by the future because we do not farm on the moon yet, or because people still die of cancer? Will they judge us because we of the West drive in automobiles and shop in abundant super-markets while the third-world dies of famine and disease?

You are lavishing criticisim on Louis and Antoinette because they did not think like you do, with your modern education and 20/20 hindsight.

_________________
"One grows accustomed to one's enemy, and by making it familiar one loses the desire to get rid of it...." Marquise de la Tour du Pin, in a letter to her friend Mme. de Duras.


Tue Mar 16, 2010 10:11 pm
Profile
Marquis/Marquise
Marquis/Marquise

Joined: Sat Mar 07, 2009 4:12 am
Posts: 89
Post Re: Diamonds Are Not A Girl's Best Friend
I'm not ignoring you, Christophe. I'll answer your posts as soon as I can go over them more carefully. I'd be interested in knowing where your statistics and figures come from. They seem, well, strange.

I would add that I enjoy and look forward to discussions about 18th century France and appreciate your comments. It does seem, however, that you take my comments personally, like I've insulted you directly and anger and condesention replace an open minded, lively discussion of our mutual interests. If I think that a 55 carat diamond didn't belong in Antoinette's hair, it's my opinion and should be respected, just as I respect your differing views.

I'd like to see more interesting topics discussed with an open-minded approach. I'd also like the two groups of cheerleaders ('gimmee a B_A_R_O_N. WHAT HAVE WE GOT? THE BARON!!!!) to do more than just comment on their group's postings. How unproductive and useless to write "exactly!", "that's right!", etc. They should try to contribute something, anything to become a true, productive member of the group.

Now I'm going to start reviewing Chris' posts.


Wed Mar 17, 2010 12:55 am
Profile
Marquis/Marquise
Marquis/Marquise

Joined: Sat Mar 07, 2009 4:12 am
Posts: 89
Post Re: Diamonds Are Not A Girl's Best Friend
JIM - Thank you for your constructive comments about the "Diamonds" post. I though of a possible clarification to enhance the 'magnificence' issue; it didn't turn out as I hoped. I thought it interesting to see how many monarchs were deposed in the 18th century to see if 'magnificence' played a part. Here's the list:

(by country, not monarch)
1 Aceh Darussalam
2 Ansbach
3 Ambohimanga
4 Ambohitrabiby
5 Banganapalle
6 Bayreuth
7 Benares
8 Bentheim
9 Brunswick-Wolfenbüttel
10 France
11 Hanau
12 Haiti
13 Hawaiʻi
14 Hohenlohe-Bartenstein
15 Isenburg-Marienborn
16 Junagadh
17 Kantipura
18 Kelantan
19 Knyphausen
20 Kanokupolu
21 Lalitapura
22 Lippe-Alverdissen
23 Lippe-Detmold
24 Lorraine
25 Mecca
26 Modena
27 Naples
28 Palatinate-Zweibrücken-Birkenfeld
29 Parma
30 Poland
31 Russia
32 Sicily
33 Spain
34 Sweden
35 Tallo
36 Tuscany
37 Vava'u

Thirty-seven deposed in one hundred years. Plus, I never heard of many of them. It does in a round about way reveal that magnificence and the display of personal/national wealth is not a throne keeper. I'm thinking of the British Parlementarian who, every year when Parlement opens and the Queen arrives in full regalia, begins his anti-monarchy speeches. His efforts help have the Royal Family pay taxes, foot the bill for repairs to Windsor Castle after the fire, and eliminate the civil list (the Queen now has to pay the entire Royal Family from her purse).

With regard to 'magnificence' and the 'third estate', I think that the difference between magnificence and fantasy has to be made. Busbee Berkley used fantasy to uplift. The crowds knew that there would not be fifty girls in swaying hoop skirts playing lit violins anywhere.

Your points about Napoleon are well taken. To add to the situation was Napoleon's choice of a second wife. Marie Louise, Marie Antoinette's niece, an Auetrian prrincess. How quickly they forget.


Thu Mar 18, 2010 8:01 pm
Profile
Prince/Princesse
Prince/Princesse
User avatar

Joined: Sat Jan 12, 2008 2:50 pm
Posts: 1681
Post Re: Diamonds Are Not A Girl's Best Friend
I must say that I had some moments of doubts like you Artois because I tend to relate to the third estate. The reason is that my country had a very tough political situation for many years when common people had to wait for hours in the queues for basic supplies, didn't have electricity for several hours during the day and inflation was huge. The rêgime was changed by the action of people, without civil war or bloodshed. As a person who had a grasp of all that, it is not easy for me to clinch to the glittery world of aristocracy ignoring the emotion of people who wanted to bring them down. That's why at some moments I tend to question Louis XVI and Marie Antoinette wondering how truly they were devoted to their people, especially as I admire one monarch who used to get up every morning at 7 o'clock and successfully deal with matters of the people, quickly transforming the country in the economical and cultural way (but never rejecting the wealth that comes with the title). Still, one mustn't take the things out of the context, of the context of the time, country, people... Rejecting that sort of magnificence of presentation at that moment would have been something scandalous and I believe counterproductive, as it gave some kind of dignity and greatness to the much hated royals, and even gave them a few cheers.

_________________
If you have men who will exclude any of God's creatures from the shelter of compassion and pity, you will have men who will deal likewise with their fellow men. St. Francis of Assisi


Sat Mar 20, 2010 4:19 pm
Profile
Marquis/Marquise
Marquis/Marquise

Joined: Sat Mar 07, 2009 4:12 am
Posts: 89
Post Re: Diamonds Are Not A Girl's Best Friend
Marija Vera--thank you for your polite and constructive comments on my post. Your points are well taken and illuminate the topic even further. Having lived under such circumstances, you speak with an understanding and with experiences I can only imagine.

Your thoughts and coments are appreciated.


Sun Mar 21, 2010 4:30 pm
Profile
Prince/Princesse
Prince/Princesse
User avatar

Joined: Sat Jan 12, 2008 2:50 pm
Posts: 1681
Post Re: Diamonds Are Not A Girl's Best Friend
Thank you Artois, this is a very interesting topic and I hope it will develop further. First I have to disagree with one of your passages -

Artois wrote:
A close second would be Empress Maria Theresa who treated her own daughter like an ‘Austrian whore’ by ‘selling’ an innocent thirteen year old child to the most vicious and dangerous court in Europe headed by a perverse satyr whose first question after the ‘sale’ was finalized was, “How are her breasts?” Selling Antoinette was bad enough, but to do it to a country that had been Austria’s enemy for two hundred years is inexcusable as is the lack of support and constant criticism the Empress heaped on Antoinette, who was hated before she set foot in France.


It is quite tough to say that Maria Theresa had sold her daughter treating her like a whore. Arranged marriages were a normal thing in the 18th century especially in the higher circles where it was always a question of preserving or enlarging family wealth and keeping the position strong by marrying someone of the same rank. It is true that Maria Theresa's daughters were a strong political tool but then again, it was normal at the time when royal families used family connections for creating alliances. That was a common practice that existed for ages. At that point no one could dream about the destiny of Marie Antoinette and she was considered the luckiest of all Maria Theresa's daughters. Her destiny was meant to be great. And masses greeted her with hope and joy but that emotion was soon to change. I don't think at that time M.A.'s destiny could be considered any least fortunate than destinies of other royal princesses and that Maria Theresa, who by the way I consider a very good monarch, can be particularly blamed. Her blame may lie in not monitoring the education of her daughter closer or later being very harsh in her critics, which caused young M.A. a lot of pressure, but I've never doubted her maternal feelings and good intentions.

_________________
If you have men who will exclude any of God's creatures from the shelter of compassion and pity, you will have men who will deal likewise with their fellow men. St. Francis of Assisi


Sun Mar 21, 2010 10:45 pm
Profile
Prince/Princesse
Prince/Princesse
User avatar

Joined: Wed Mar 07, 2007 10:21 am
Posts: 1545
Location: paris
Post Re: Diamonds Are Not A Girl's Best Friend
I fully agree with you Marija, these political marriage placements had been going on for centuries, across Europe. There is no element of aristocratic prostitution in this, tough as it often was on the Princesses who found themselves uprooted in this way. I recommend one reads the letters of the Princesse Palatine, Louis XIV's sister in law to see her view of Versailles and of her own transposition there from Germany.

_________________
"Fidelité et constance, sans espoir de récompense."


Mon Mar 22, 2010 10:32 am
Profile
Display posts from previous:  Sort by  
Reply to topic   [ 32 posts ]  Go to page 1, 2, 3  Next

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 1 guest


You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot post attachments in this forum

Search for:
Jump to:  
cron
Powered by phpBB © 2000, 2002, 2005, 2007 phpBB Group.
Designed by STSoftware for PTF.