Marie Antoinette Online Forum

What was this 'petit' operation'?
Page 5 of 11

Author:  Therese [ Thu Mar 15, 2007 6:32 pm ]
Post subject: 

Yes, dorit, I completely agree.

Author:  oceane [ Tue Apr 10, 2007 3:59 pm ]
Post subject: 

Oh ... ok... :? What exactly does that have to do with any part of what this site is about ???

Author:  markizimara [ Mon May 14, 2007 11:56 pm ]
Post subject: 

He operated fimosis.. circumsizion..

Author:  Therese [ Mon May 14, 2007 11:58 pm ]
Post subject: 

Actually, several authors, such as Vincent Cronin and Simone Bertiere dispute that. There is no proof that an operation was ever performed.

Author:  markizimara [ Mon May 14, 2007 11:59 pm ]
Post subject: 

I think that that is important cause without his operation MA and Louis would never had children and she would be sent back to Austria..

Author:  Therese [ Tue May 15, 2007 12:06 am ]
Post subject: 

No, it had nothing to do with that. Marie-Antoinette had a narrowness of passage which made the consummation difficult, as Bertiere explains.

Author:  Pimprenelle [ Tue May 15, 2007 4:06 am ]
Post subject: 

You are right, dear Therese. This thesis of the operation was developped by Stephen Zweig. He relied on letters between Antoinette and Marie Therese. It is true that an operation was suggested, but never made, after all. Louis was examined by several doctors of the court, who concluded that there was nothing wrong with him.

As Simone Bertiere said, Zweig had not this so important letter Joseph sent to his brother after his visiting Versailles. Louis had no operation because he did not need it. As Therese wrote, Marie Antoinette suffered from a "narrowness of passage", that means that they did not "match". This caused both partners huge pains.

Unfortunately, it seems people still prefer this old Zweig's theory, even if wrong, to more accurate researchs. Of course, this old freudian thesis seduces the public... it's so romantic ! This poor virgin waiting for this heaven door to finally open, and eventually hearing the sound of angels in the arms of some Swedish gentleman, for her husband was impotent... poor girl ! :lol:

Author:  markizimara [ Sun May 20, 2007 7:32 pm ]
Post subject: 

Well by yours opinions MA was the problem? 7 years she was childless.. An how she fixed her problem?

Author:  Louis-Charles [ Sun May 20, 2007 7:50 pm ]
Post subject: 

Marie-Antoinette was not 15 years old when she arrived in versaille… she was very young, timid and no interested by the sex… moreover she preferred the festivals, the dances and the recreations, and not the sex… Thus time to time she closed her door so as to avoid that Louis XVI came to sleep with her…
The Coursac speak about it in their book "Louis XVI et Marie-ANtoinette, vie conjugale et vie politique", and they are right…
But under the pressure of her mother and other people, Marie-Antoinette was obliged to give a child to France… then her relations with Louis XVI clearly improved :wink:

Author:  markizimara [ Sun May 20, 2007 8:33 pm ]
Post subject: 

Very informative... :D

Author:  Pimprenelle [ Mon May 21, 2007 9:37 am ]
Post subject: 

I would not call it a "problem" that she would have to "fix", marquis. Many very young girls suffer from a "narrowness of passage". As Simone Bertiere wizely notices, we are not equal before pubery. Some girls at 14 are real women, ready for love, others are still babies...

Contemporaries noticed that the new arrived archuchess of Austria was small and delicate. She obviously was among the second category, then !

It also depends from the boy. When you have a strong temper and a burning desire, you can deflower your wife, even if a baby, even with her narrowness, even if she cries and suffers terribly.

Well, obviously, Louis was not that kind of guy. And, considering the fact that Marie Antoinette was so small, she could thank him for not having the temper of a raper. Would she survive to childbirthing, still being a child herself ?

Author:  markizimara [ Mon May 21, 2007 3:26 pm ]
Post subject: 

Very interesting.. But in true what is narrowness of passage? Louis was a really good guy..

Author:  Marie-Antoinette [ Tue May 29, 2007 12:50 am ]
Post subject: 

I do not wish to get far into detail being that this should be a respectable topic and not something immature...but having a "narrowness of passage" only means that a women or a girl (more so) is just too small "down there" and so she can not easily make or have children. Thats why it is known to have been painful for both.

Reply for markizimara question. I hope this helps. And hopefully that was what you were asking cause if not I am going to look awfully silly. :lol:

Author:  Louis-Charles [ Tue May 29, 2007 5:31 am ]
Post subject: 

Yes you're completely right Marie-Antoinette :wink:

Author:  baron de batz [ Tue May 29, 2007 9:56 am ]
Post subject: 

From my modest experience of the domain narrowness of passage is one factor but the chemistry between the woman and the man is another vital factor as well. Everything between MA and Louis was missing to, putting it simply, offer the necessary lubrication that makes life so much easier. Here were two young virgins, little in common, nervous and apprehensive, compelled by circumstance and by the expectations of their circumstances to provide an heir (never much of a turn on), not necessarily attracted to each other physically, at least she was not particularly attracted I feel, and with no idea how to go about matters. We're talking Gobi desert and cactuses here...ouch!

Page 5 of 11 All times are UTC
Powered by phpBB © 2000, 2002, 2005, 2007 phpBB Group