Marie Antoinette Online Forum
http://forum.marie-antoinette.org/

Discussion: Saint, sinner or a normal human being
http://forum.marie-antoinette.org/viewtopic.php?f=37&t=530
Page 1 of 3

Author:  Torin [ Wed Jan 10, 2007 7:36 pm ]
Post subject:  Discussion: Saint, sinner or a normal human being

Last discussion made me think what do you really think about Marie Antoinette. Sometimes when I read your posts I think that some of you treat her like a saint and are ready to put her one the pedestal, some are very neutral...some are reseved. Maybe she is a saint...or maybe she is a normal human being with her virtues and faults...or mabe she is a sinner.... Just a question ! So who was she in reality ?
Had she any negatives ?
Or is she just our imagination one way or another? Some people treat her like a complete saint, some treat her as a complete sinner, but...where is the middle ? :|
I invite you all to the discussion, can be interesting and maybe we put some fire in the topic on Marie Antoinette. :wink:

Author:  Pimprenelle [ Wed Jan 10, 2007 8:16 pm ]
Post subject: 

To me, it is not relevant at all, for I never think people are saints or sinners. People may enjoy their lives, and live for pleasure, I won't call them "sinners". On the contrary, people may be full of wonderful qualities, I'll never call them "saints".

In my view, Marie Antoinette was a fascinating lady, generous, loyal to her friends, sensitive, clever. She also had the soul of an artist, which matters to me. Generous, courageous, proud and wonderful. A burning heart.

Author:  Mique [ Thu Jan 11, 2007 1:48 am ]
Post subject: 

I do subray the above. And for me it doesn´t make any difference at all, and wouldn´t even care if she was officially considered a saint. I learn the facts, then feel appealed by a story, a remarkable-for me-character, one which has qualities you admire, and it becomes like a friend, so to say.

Author:  Arietta [ Thu Jan 11, 2007 2:45 am ]
Post subject: 

Hear, hear!!

Author:  Monsieur Royale [ Thu Jan 11, 2007 7:32 am ]
Post subject: 

Yeah I never think of her as a "Saint" or "Sinner" either.

She was a unique person. With different idea's, her own flare. She was an individual to the end.

Author:  Jasmine d'Adelaide [ Thu Jan 11, 2007 4:59 pm ]
Post subject: 

Hmm, interesting topic...

The question is, who is a saint and who is a sinner?

Well, I think all human being's have saint and sinner qualities. She was not perfect, because she was just human, yet she was made to pay for it when everyday me and you can get away with making mistakes, and just being human. Not to mention those 'crimes' were based on a lot of crap that wasn't real.

Yet I still think the way she handled situations out of her control, she did handle them like a saint.

Author:  Torin [ Thu Jan 11, 2007 6:58 pm ]
Post subject: 

Very interesting opinions...You say - burning heart, neither saint or sinner, individual till the end, remarkable person, fascinating one, not a perfect, just a human being., with one flare..I like it. :) These are words that can describe the queen when someone who doesn't know her history, will ask about her.
Yes, for me Marie Antoinette is a normal human being with virtues and faults. Neither saint nor sinner if we can generalize it. And her foibles, what is interesting, made her fascinating one. She had really great moments in her life. Besides her real interest of culture testifies that she was sensitive (yes Pim !)
But we usually don't like saying about her negatives. Why ? When I think about mistakes she made, I think about
1.spending lots of money on clothes,
2"treaty" with Austria during Revolution, what as you know was treated as a high treason
3.ignoring some people on the court what was in some cases dangerous and ignoring a public opinion.
And what is more interesting each of these negatives one can... explain or defend.

Point 1 - probably she did not spend more than other queens
Point 2 - she was the queen, who wanted to defend her life, her family and first of all monarchy,
Point 3 - she was individual and did not want to bow her head before creatures
Point 4 - she lived in golden cage and in reality didn't know what is life outside

Of course I can be wrong. But go on :) , let's discuss it. How was the queen ? :)

Author:  Pimprenelle [ Thu Jan 11, 2007 7:22 pm ]
Post subject: 

You cite characteristic that I would not call "fauts", torin. Well, she spent much for clothes... you couldd add perfumes and jewels and all those wonderfulf things women are crazy about... :wink:

She spent a lot, it's true... but she had to ! Wasn't she the queen ? The queen of France, the most wonderful country of the world (at least, the French thought it was) ? She had to be seen all the time, and to shine like a diamond. Remember, she had to change her clothes three times a day !

The most beautiful woman of the world, that's what people wanted Marie Antoinette to be. When she wore simpler dresses, she was insulted. She is dressed up like a chambermaid, they said !

In my view, spending for her physical appearence was part of her contract.

Now, point 2. Yes, she fought like a tigress to defend monarchy, I mean, she only political regime she believed in, kingship by divine right. Her husband had been chosen by God to guide and protect the people of France. That was his mission. And she was his wife. To give her life for saving the throne in danger was so logical.

In this view, she made no treason at all. For the enemy was not outside, they were inside. Thus, she called the big family of European royals to help her.

As several French historians said, Marie Antoinette could not have this notion of "nation". It would be an anachronism to say so.

In my view, it would be an anachronism to say that she was guilty of high treason.

Author:  Pimprenelle [ Thu Jan 11, 2007 8:11 pm ]
Post subject: 

Let's jump to point 3. Do you think it is a faut to ignore boring people ? I don't... Well, as a queen, she was supposed to greet all those old magpies... She did not, and she prefered to hide away with her own friends in little Trianon eden.

Maybe it is a faut... but what a sweet and nice faut ! I love her for that especially, as you wrote, for not bending her head before any authority. Etiquette and all this maskerade was a kind of authority she refused to recognize.

Maybe she was wrong. But it was in her temper. Couldn't help...

Point 4 I really detest. What about poverty ? First of all, Marie Antoinette had no political power about that. Secundly, she did not see many of those injuries, and, those she saw, she tried to correct... her own way, I admit, and this was not always the right one, as we can say about Armand.

She gave to the poor, she adopted children, she employed poor people in her farms... for the rest, she had no power.

Are we responsible for all those poor people who die from hunger everywhere in the world ? :?

Author:  Torin [ Thu Jan 11, 2007 9:52 pm ]
Post subject: 

Pim ! Very convincing arguments, I admit. You could be a good lawyer ! :)

But the point 1 - yes, I would spent a lot being the queen those times, I am afraid :D . The queen had to be beautiful. That is what everybody expected from the majesty.
But one thing makes me wondering - if I rememeber well the Louis XVI told Marie Antoinette once that she shouldn't spend more money, because treasure house is almost empty or something in the style. And she...ignored it. Well, a typical woman :wink: I would do the same...

Author:  Therese [ Thu Jan 11, 2007 11:30 pm ]
Post subject: 

Jasmine d'Adelaide wrote:
Hmm, interesting topic...

The question is, who is a saint and who is a sinner?

Well, I think all human being's have saint and sinner qualities. She was not perfect, because she was just human, yet she was made to pay for it when everyday me and you can get away with making mistakes, and just being human. Not to mention those 'crimes' were based on a lot of crap that wasn't real.

Yet I still think the way she handled situations out of her control, she did handle them like a saint.


Well said. I agree.

Author:  Therese [ Thu Jan 11, 2007 11:31 pm ]
Post subject: 

Pimprenelle wrote:
You cite characteristic that I would not call "fauts", torin. Well, she spent much for clothes... you couldd add perfumes and jewels and all those wonderfulf things women are crazy about... :wink:

She spent a lot, it's true... but she had to ! Wasn't she the queen ? The queen of France, the most wonderful country of the world (at least, the French thought it was) ? She had to be seen all the time, and to shine like a diamond. Remember, she had to change her clothes three times a day !

The most beautiful woman of the world, that's what people wanted Marie Antoinette to be. When she wore simpler dresses, she was insulted. She is dressed up like a chambermaid, they said !

In my view, spending for her physical appearence was part of her contract.

Now, point 2. Yes, she fought like a tigress to defend monarchy, I mean, she only political regime she believed in, kingship by divine right. Her husband had been chosen by God to guide and protect the people of France. That was his mission. And she was his wife. To give her life for saving the throne in danger was so logical.

In this view, she made no treason at all. For the enemy was not outside, they were inside. Thus, she called the big family of European royals to help her.

As several French historians said, Marie Antoinette could not have this notion of "nation". It would be an anachronism to say so.

In my view, it would be an anachronism to say that she was guilty of high treason.


Excellent.

Author:  Therese [ Thu Jan 11, 2007 11:32 pm ]
Post subject: 

Pimprenelle wrote:
Let's jump to point 3. Do you think it is a faut to ignore boring people ? I don't... Well, as a queen, she was supposed to greet all those old magpies... She did not, and she prefered to hide away with her own friends in little Trianon eden.

Maybe it is a faut... but what a sweet and nice faut ! I love her for that especially, as you wrote, for not bending her head before any authority. Etiquette and all this maskerade was a kind of authority she refused to recognize.

Maybe she was wrong. But it was in her temper. Couldn't help...

Point 4 I really detest. What about poverty ? First of all, Marie Antoinette had no political power about that. Secundly, she did not see many of those injuries, and, those she saw, she tried to correct... her own way, I admit, and this was not always the right one, as we can say about Armand.

She gave to the poor, she adopted children, she employed poor people in her farms... for the rest, she had no power.

Are we responsible for all those poor people who die from hunger everywhere in the world ? :?


D'accord! She probably did more for the poor than most of us will ever do. Vive la reine!!

Author:  Pimprenelle [ Fri Jan 12, 2007 8:07 am ]
Post subject: 

Quote:
But one thing makes me wondering - if I rememeber well the Louis XVI told Marie Antoinette once that she shouldn't spend more money, because treasure house is almost empty or something in the style. And she...ignored it. Well, a typical woman I would do the same...

Could you please quote the exact passage, dear torin, for I don't remember it...

I'd like to know what was really meant by the king, if he said so to Marie Antoinette. For her expenses concerned not only her dresses but also her complete house. As she replied on her trial, she had many people "who were paied for their charges".

And this specific point has been examined by very serious historians for long. Actually, there were abuses in the house of the queen. Some unfair people got rich by declaring expenses and keeping the money for themselves.

Finally, I am tempted to believe that Marie Antoinette was not that extravagant personally. Her extravagancies have been exaggerated by revolutionary propaganda (see her trial, I am in the middle of this for the moment. It's one of their "chevaux de bataille" favorite argument).

Later, Josephine would be known for spending far more for her clothes than Marie Antoinette. But times had changed... and she was allowed to...

Author:  Jasmine d'Adelaide [ Fri Jan 12, 2007 8:34 am ]
Post subject: 

Yes! Look at the royals today around the world. Infact anyone in high political power over people. How much money do they spend on themselves whilst people starve in their own countries.

And yes, as a royal MA definately had a appearance to uphold, so spending money on clothing was a neccesity. Didn't she even set new fashions in Paris, many copied her style's?

And I remember reading in 'The Journey' that people even said that others in France spent more on their gardens than she did in the Petit Trianon, I forget where but I am pretty sure I read that somewhere in there.

Really if she was excessive in spending, she was no worse than anyone who is rich, famous and/or royal today or back then, only difference was compaired to most, she had substance.

Page 1 of 3 All times are UTC
Powered by phpBB © 2000, 2002, 2005, 2007 phpBB Group
http://www.phpbb.com/