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

monarchy or MA?-
http://forum.marie-antoinette.org/viewtopic.php?f=37&t=695
Page 3 of 4

Author:  baron de batz [ Thu Mar 08, 2007 9:09 pm ]
Post subject: 

I agree in a sense Thérèse, in as far as religion was in part possibly a screen for him to hide behind to avoid taking the brave decisions that his illness (I imagine you mean depression?) prevented him from taking. As you know MA was tearing her hair out at times, especially when he tucked into a good meal after the 10th August riot.

Author:  Axel von Fersen [ Thu Mar 08, 2007 9:20 pm ]
Post subject: 

baron de batz wrote:
I would be interested in hearing the reasons why you don't like monarchy as an institution...before I run you through with my sword! (Only joking!!)

Monarchy is a complex matter. We have to ask ourselves if the idea of monarchy is still feasible in modern society with modern technology and the near impossibility for any figure of state to enjoy any privacy. If MA had lived today, she would have been exposed to slander and attacks everyday on the Internet! In my opinion, and this is as far as I can see a new element in this forum, the idea of monarchy and religion, in particular the Christian religion, as we are talking about European monarchies, are indissociable.


I have not thought about it but there does seem to be a link between monarchy and religion.

To the extent that is so, that's another reason i prefer republics.

I dont like the idea of a state religion. I like the American Bill of Rights and the 1st amendment protection against establishment of a state religion - the right of every American to worship or not worship as he or she chooses.

Author:  Therese [ Thu Mar 08, 2007 9:21 pm ]
Post subject: 

Religion was not a "screen" for him, Monsieur le baron. It was a sincere conviction, or else he would not have vetoed the order of the National Assembly to send the non-juring priests to French Guyana. The veto fused the attack on the Tuileries in June 1792. Louis knew this would happen, but he did what he thought was the right thing.

Yes, the king probably suffered from depression. Also, in the winter of 1790 he was spitting up blood. Yes, he had health problems, which he attributed to being deprived of the strenuous excercise to which he was accustomed.

I would recommend reading Bernard Fay's biography of Louis XVI as well as the writings of the Coursacs to get a more accurate picture of him than the one you have.

Author:  Pimprenelle [ Fri Mar 09, 2007 8:21 am ]
Post subject: 

Quote:
I would recommend reading Bernard Fay's biography of Louis XVI as well as the writings of the Coursacs to get a more accurate picture of him than the one you have.


You are right, Therese ! I once read Louis XVI's coronation description. It is a very strong and emotional ceremony, a true holy ritual, with the death and resurrection of the everlasting king.

A man having experienced this initiation ritual must not longer remain the same. For sure Louis, being a very spiritual person, deeply felt this ritual he went through.

He considered himself chosen by God and having a sacred mission. He died for it, sacrifying himself for his people. This was the way he felt it, it is obvious from his testament.

Author:  Therese [ Fri Mar 09, 2007 12:22 pm ]
Post subject: 

Yes, Pimprenelle, I have read the same. His sincerity at his coronation as he uttered aloud his oath moved many of the spectators, including Marie-Antoinette, who wept so much she had to leave her seat in the gallery.

Author:  baron de batz [ Fri Mar 09, 2007 12:25 pm ]
Post subject: 

Madame,

You are absolutely right that Louis XVI's religion was sincere. I never doubted that and the phrasing of my supposition that religion may have been a screen for him is indeed inaccurate. What I really wanted to say is that there is a little of the Hamlet in Louis XVI in that "conscience makes cowards of us all" - his inaction in the face of adversity is, I maintain, in his sub-conscious somewhat justified by his enacting of a rôle of martyr, which I have to say may have been in some ways easier to do than to face up to the matters in hand, instead of relying on his wife to do so. Look at the way he repeatedly reads the story of Charles I at this time, as if he were empathizing to the point of writing a similar script for himself. There wasn't just the future of the State at stake but also that of his family, and he did not fight like he may have done to save them. Depression and within this state the real belief that maybe death was that which the Almighty had in store for him in his Holy plan, led Louis XVI to go to his death in a far different way than MA who fought her fate right to the end because of her will to stay and protect her childen. I shall definitely read Bernard Fay's biography, thank you Madame for the recommendation, and perhaps this will enlighten me further.

Author:  Therese [ Fri Mar 09, 2007 12:38 pm ]
Post subject: 

M. le baron, I see what you are saying. Nesta Webster makes the point that Louis also thought that once they killed him, they would let his family go. And don't forget, he did try to escape with his family.

Author:  Moose [ Fri Mar 09, 2007 2:05 pm ]
Post subject: 

I feel that in this day and age, Monarchy is not a necessary institution. Other than act as a figurehead, I am not quite sure what Britain's royal family DO (there is a widespread myth that they 'bring in the tourists' which I think is untrue. A survey of visitors to the UK that I saw showed that just as many would come here as previously even if there was no royal family..).

Author:  Pimprenelle [ Fri Mar 09, 2007 2:14 pm ]
Post subject: 

Quote:
What I really wanted to say is that there is a little of the Hamlet in Louis XVI in that "conscience makes cowards of us all" - his inaction in the face of adversity is, I maintain, in his sub-conscious somewhat justified by his enacting of a rôle of martyr, which I have to say may have been in some ways easier to do than to face up to the matters in hand, instead of relying on his wife to do so.

Interesting comments... I have to disagree, however, deeply. First of all, in my opinion, activity/inactivity are no reactions that we choose. We are, by temper, active or inactive, and not responsible for this.

For instance, having studied Marie Antoinette's psychology for years, I think she was rather of the active kind, and that this supernatural courage that held her was due to her temper. She no doubt inheritated it from her mother...

That's for the psychological side of the problem.

Now, back to Louis XVI. Are you so sure of your analyse ? Have you read Joel Felix's book, already ? It is fascinating... His analyses take us miles and miles away from this apathetic man you describe...

Louis XVI, following Felix, was a man of strong will, he made his own decisions. As a consequence to this development, we find a rather discreet Marie Antoinette, who alway remained in the shadow of his king, and served him.

Louis wanted to meet people, and sent Marie Antoinette as his emissary. So he did with Mirabeau, Barnave... so he did with the escape to Montmedy, his own plan. To schedule this flight, the king used the queen for transmitting his orders to Fersen and Bouillé, and the others.

Interesting view, isn't it ?

Author:  Therese [ Fri Mar 09, 2007 2:38 pm ]
Post subject: 

Pimprenelle, I totally agree with your analysis.

Webster says: "Louis XVI was by temperament and conviction a Liberal....Devoted as he was to the people...he could not imagine that in the end the appeal to reason would not prove wiser than the appeal to force." (p 43) And so he made concessions.

Then she quotes the Comte de la Marck: "'Emboldened by their successes, the revolutionaries did not hesitate to designate Marie-Antoinette as the great culprit because they guessed she had in her an energy and a courage which would offer a firm resistance to them.'" (p 47)

From Louis XVI and Marie Antoinette during the Revolution by Nesta Webster

Hence the campaign of libel against the queen which endures to this day.

Author:  baron de batz [ Fri Mar 09, 2007 5:45 pm ]
Post subject:  action or inaction

Thanks for this, that's why I'm here.

I throw my humble stone out into the lake and learn from the ripples coming back to me....and I've lready got a month's reading!

Author:  Therese [ Fri Mar 09, 2007 6:28 pm ]
Post subject: 

We all learn from each other!

Author:  mayumi [ Tue Mar 13, 2007 9:23 am ]
Post subject: 

WHY ONLY MODERATORS CAN WRITE NEW POSTS?i have interesting new posts but i cannot write as im not moderator..so what kind of forum is this?do u think this is good way?if people cannot write new informations or posts then this forum is like dead :shock:

Author:  baron de batz [ Tue Mar 13, 2007 11:16 am ]
Post subject: 

Apparently one can ask a moderator permission to open a new forum....suppose it stops the site getting out of hand.

Author:  Pimprenelle [ Tue Mar 13, 2007 11:53 am ]
Post subject: 

Quote:
WHY ONLY MODERATORS CAN WRITE NEW POSTS?i have interesting new posts but i cannot write as im not moderator..so what kind of forum is this?do u think this is good way?if people cannot write new informations or posts then this forum is like dead

As I already explained to you on another topic, it has been discussed here :
http://www.marie-antoinette.org/forum/v ... t=adrienne

Please find my message to you here :
http://www.marie-antoinette.org/forum/v ... 7&start=30

Page 3 of 4 All times are UTC
Powered by phpBB © 2000, 2002, 2005, 2007 phpBB Group
http://www.phpbb.com/