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

What was this 'petit' operation'?
http://forum.marie-antoinette.org/viewtopic.php?f=5&t=699
Page 6 of 11

Author:  Marie-Antoinette [ Tue May 29, 2007 6:54 pm ]
Post subject: 

:lol: ..well thats an interesting way to put it.

Author:  TsmnDs [ Wed May 30, 2007 9:07 am ]
Post subject: 

A colourful explanation Baron, and I completely agree. It is a shame that posterity points the finger of blame at Marie Antoinette and Louis for remaining childless for so long. I think it rather shows the strength of duty and character of both MA and Louis that they ever concieved at all. I suspect most couples would be so traumatised by these painful, futile and embarassing attempts, made under the spotlight that was Versailles, that they would have given up the endeavour long before.

Author:  Pimprenelle [ Wed May 30, 2007 1:58 pm ]
Post subject: 

And, after all, it is not THAT long... She was 22 when she became pregnant. Is that so old ? And don't tell me people married sooner back then ! Even Agrippina had Nero at 21...

Author:  Marie-Antoinette [ Thu May 31, 2007 12:22 am ]
Post subject: 

very true Pimprenelle.

Author:  TsmnDs [ Thu May 31, 2007 10:24 am ]
Post subject: 

Quote:
She was 22 when she became pregnant. Is that so old ?


No indeed!

I was in my early teens when I first became interested in Marie Antoinette and 22 did seem old back then. However from the perspective from which I now view 22, it is indeed very young! :)

Author:  markizimara [ Thu May 31, 2007 7:42 pm ]
Post subject: 

These is interestin subject but then WHAT was his operation?

Author:  Louis-Charles [ Thu May 31, 2007 7:49 pm ]
Post subject: 

We're not sure that he was operated :wink:

Author:  markizimara [ Thu May 31, 2007 8:00 pm ]
Post subject: 

True.. But how we have that information in almost every biography?

Author:  Therese [ Thu May 31, 2007 8:04 pm ]
Post subject: 

markizimara wrote:
True.. But how we have that information in almost every biography?


It is not in every biography, only those that follow Zweig. But even Fraser denies the operation.

Author:  markizimara [ Thu May 31, 2007 8:07 pm ]
Post subject: 

I said almost... :) I agree with u..

Author:  Louis-Charles [ Thu May 31, 2007 8:37 pm ]
Post subject: 

I agree with Therese...I do not believe to have read historian who claims that Louis XVI was operated… in general the doubt is left…
But Louis XVI suffered had a phimosis maybe, therefore if he was operated, it is for this :D

Author:  baron de batz [ Sat Jun 02, 2007 9:46 pm ]
Post subject: 

What's the difference between operating on a phimosis and a little operation? Dufour in her biography clearly states he had an operation on a phimosis but I don't know where she gets her authority from. As with many of these books, statements are made and passed off as final truths...

Author:  Pimprenelle [ Sat Jun 02, 2007 9:53 pm ]
Post subject: 

Quote:
It is not in every biography, only those that follow Zweig. But even Fraser denies the operation.

Exactely, Therese ! I would even say : "only those who still copy Zweig without verifying by themselves !" Simone Bertiere is completely sure, she checked the archives. There is not the slightest tack of any operation, either big or little. And Louis' diary states no inerruption at all in his hunting.

But such myths live for long, apparently ! :?

Author:  Louis-Charles [ Sat Jun 02, 2007 10:32 pm ]
Post subject: 

baron de batz wrote :

Quote:
What's the difference between operating on a phimosis and a little operation? Dufour in her biography clearly states he had an operation on a phimosis but I don't know where she gets her authority from


For me and according to the historians, an operation of a phimosis remained at the time a well known operation, even if there were nevertheless some risks… But nobody can say today if Louis XVI underwent any medical operation, big operation or not… :?

Author:  Pimprenelle [ Sat Jun 02, 2007 11:07 pm ]
Post subject: 

Was it so long, after all ? Simone Bertiere's analysis is very interesting. She quotes several testimonies showing that Marie Antoinette was but a little girl when she arrived at Versailles. Her monthly cycle was not even fixed yet.

It is thus possible that the young couple did not consummate their marriage for some years because of this.

Then, Marie Antoinette obviously suffered from a "narrowness of passage" causing big pains to both partners. Their marriage was finally consummated indeed... but after many painful tries.

You can also see from Marie Antoinette's letters to her mother that they did not sleep together that frequently. Sexual intercourses had become a sad routine for both of them (Marie Antoinette call it "épreuve").

Furthermore, considering the fact that Louis did not have mistresses, we can come to the conclusion that he may not have been very interested in sex.

All these facts are enough to explain why they had their first child after several years. No need to call a phimosis thesis !

Page 6 of 11 All times are UTC
Powered by phpBB © 2000, 2002, 2005, 2007 phpBB Group
http://www.phpbb.com/