Tea at Trianon Forum
Always be polite. Courtesy is required of you.

Join the forum, it's quick and easy

Tea at Trianon Forum
Always be polite. Courtesy is required of you.
Tea at Trianon Forum
Would you like to react to this message? Create an account in a few clicks or log in to continue.
Tea with the Queen
Latest topics
» Looking for a good book about Madame Elisabeth
Madame Royale and the Substitution Theory - Page 2 EmptySat Jul 10, 2021 5:43 pm by Elena

» Recognition by the Church of Louis XVI and Marie Antoinette
Madame Royale and the Substitution Theory - Page 2 EmptySat Jul 10, 2021 5:38 pm by Elena

» Reposts: In Praise of Monarchy!
Madame Royale and the Substitution Theory - Page 2 EmptyWed Apr 15, 2020 10:20 pm by ViveHenriV

» Remembering Louis XVI
Madame Royale and the Substitution Theory - Page 2 EmptyWed Jan 22, 2020 10:04 am by ViveHenriV

» Mass for Louis XVI on live video
Madame Royale and the Substitution Theory - Page 2 EmptyTue Jan 21, 2020 6:10 pm by ViveHenriV

» Judges 17:6
Madame Royale and the Substitution Theory - Page 2 EmptyThu Jan 16, 2020 11:29 pm by ViveHenriV

» War in the Vendée/Guerre de Vendée
Madame Royale and the Substitution Theory - Page 2 EmptyThu Jan 09, 2020 4:37 pm by ViveHenriV

» The Comte de Chambord (Henri V)
Madame Royale and the Substitution Theory - Page 2 EmptySun Jan 05, 2020 5:24 pm by ViveHenriV

» Reflection: Les Membres et L'Estomac
Madame Royale and the Substitution Theory - Page 2 EmptySun Jan 05, 2020 2:35 am by ViveHenriV

Who is online?
In total there are 7 users online :: 0 Registered, 0 Hidden and 7 Guests :: 1 Bot

None

[ View the whole list ]


Most users ever online was 253 on Sat Apr 10, 2021 3:06 am
Social bookmarking

Social bookmarking reddit      

Bookmark and share the address of Tea at Trianon Forum on your social bookmarking website

Banner art courtesy of The Graphics Fairy.

Madame Royale and the Substitution Theory

+3
RoseMarie98
May
Elena
7 posters

Go down

Madame Royale and the Substitution Theory - Page 2 Empty Madame Royale and the Substitution Theory

Post  Elena Thu Oct 17, 2013 7:42 pm

First topic message reminder :

The myth of the Dark Countess emerges from time to time.
http://teaattrianon.blogspot.com/2013/10/the-myth-of-dark-countess.html
It is being brought up again, now that they are exhuming the body of Sophie Batta to test the DNA. According to The Daily Mail:
A 200-year-old mystery that links a castle in a German town, a mysterious 'Dark Countess' and the French royal family may be on the cusp of finally being solved. In 1807 a covered carriage arrived in the central German town of Hildburghausen. A man, now known to be Leonardus Cornelius van der Valck, a secretary in the Dutch embassy in Paris from July 1798 to April 1799, got out. With him was an enigmatic and secretive young woman who would go on to fire the imaginations of historians everywhere. Known as the 'Dark Countess', many believed she was none other than Marie Thérèse Charlotte de Bourbon - daughter of the French King Louis XVI and his wife, Marie Antoinette, who were executed during the French Revolution....They are exhuming her grave to collect DNA evidence that can prove once and for all whether the Dark Countess was in fact the ill-fated princess.

    After her parents were guillotined Marie Thérèse was imprisoned in the 'Temple', a notorious former fortress used as a prison during the Reign of Terror. Accepted historical dogma is that afterwards she was taken to Vienna, the capital city of her cousin, the Holy Roman Emperor Francis II, and also her mother's birthplace. It was speculated that she would have refused to rejoin society after her traumatic time in the Temple, where it is rumoured she was subjected to cruelties by the guards - and perhaps even pregnant from rape - and was replaced by Ernestine Lambriquet, her half-sister and childhood companion. The Count gave her name as Sophie Botta, a single woman from Westphalia and refused to confirm what the relationship between the pair was. When she died in November 1837 she was quickly buried, possibly without a religious service, intensifying the speculation. (Read more: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2461813/Dark-Countess-mystery-solved-grave-exhumed.html.)
The substitution theory claims that Louis XVI had an "operation" and was encouraged by his wicked brother Provence to test himself upon a serving maid. The maid, who was a married woman, gave birth to a daughter named Marie-Philippine Lambriquet. Marie-Antoinette eventually adopted the girl and renamed her "Ernestine" after a character in one of her favorite novels. Ernestine and Madame Royale were educated together.

Later, the legend claims, while Madame Royale was in prison, she was raped and impregnated. She was sent off to Germany to a small town where she was made to wear a green veil and given the name of "Sophie Batta," also known as The Dark Countess. Meanwhile, her wicked uncle Louis XVIII replaced her with her alleged "half-sister" Ernestine, who became the Duchesse d' Angoulême. The Dark Countess rumor was perpetuated by Marie-Thérèse's moroseness and lack of beauty. How could she be the daughter of the beautiful lively Marie-Antoinette? So they assumed that she was someone else.

Here are some glaring points as to why this story is untenable:
1) Louis XVI had no illegitimate children. There is no proof that he had an operation. He was known for his devotion to his wife, fidelity to his marriage vows and his religious scrupulosity. He did not have an affair with a chambermaid and beget Ernestine. There was an Ernestine, a child of servants, whom Marie-Antoinette adopted. (She adopted two other children as well. The queen came from a large family and liked having lots of children around.) There is no evidence that Ernestine was the secret daughter of Louis XVI or of any of the other princes.

2) Louis XVIII would have had to pay off a huge amount of people to buy their silence, and he really did not have all that much money - not enough for that kind of blackmail. He had been an impoverished exile for over 20 years. When he did get hold of some cash, he immediately deposited it in an English bank. The Bourbon family lived on his savings the next time they were all exiled.

3)Louis XVIII may have been clever and devious enough to carry off that kind of a hoax, but the other members of the family were not. His brother Artois (Charles X) was notorious for his lack of discretion. His nephew the Duc d'Angoulême, Madame Royale's husband and cousin, was deeply pious and scrupulously honest, in spite of other innumerable short-comings. He would never have been able to live that kind of a lie. The other nephew, the Duc de Berry, was like his father Artois, completely unable to be devious, no matter how hard he tried.

4) Many faithful retainers and childhood friends of Madame Royale, such as Pauline de Bearn and her mother the royal governess Madame de Tourzel, were close to Marie-Thérèse before and after the Revolution. Both mother and daughter were known as women of honor and to insinuate that they would participate in such a hoax is outrageous to say the least. There were many, many others, who had lost fortunes through being faithful to the royal family and were not the type to sacrifice their principles over such a charade that really served no purpose.
Madame Royale and the Substitution Theory - Page 2 Tumblr_ltdnj7gL9J1qatfdco1_500
Marie-Thérèse-Charlotte of France, circa 1800
Elena
Elena
Admin

Posts : 1169
Join date : 2011-10-18
Location : East of the Sun, West of the Moon

http://www.emvidal.com/

Back to top Go down


Madame Royale and the Substitution Theory - Page 2 Empty Re: Madame Royale and the Substitution Theory

Post  Kaitlyn Lauren Sun Jun 29, 2014 2:58 pm

Great points! Yes, Louis and Antoinette did break from tradition and I believe they were in love with one another. Smile it happened gradually but I believe they did love one another and were attracted to each other.

Louis having sex with any other woman is completely ludicrous. He was actually made fun of for NOT having a mistress, practically unheard of from a French King. Therefore I don't think he had a fling with a maid. It just doesn't make sense.

I repeat, I don't know where these other biographers come up wih that! I've never seen it anywhere besides Nagel. Has anyone else read other works that speak of Louis and Lambriquet or other women?

Kaitlyn Lauren
Kaitlyn Lauren

Posts : 144
Join date : 2014-06-28
Age : 29
Location : United States

Back to top Go down

Madame Royale and the Substitution Theory - Page 2 Empty Re: Madame Royale and the Substitution Theory

Post  Kaitlyn Lauren Sun Jun 29, 2014 3:17 pm

(Cont.) Does anyone know which other historians have come to this conclusion and from where they derive this opinion? Any reputable sources from the time?
Kaitlyn Lauren
Kaitlyn Lauren

Posts : 144
Join date : 2014-06-28
Age : 29
Location : United States

Back to top Go down

Madame Royale and the Substitution Theory - Page 2 Empty Re: Madame Royale and the Substitution Theory

Post  Kaitlyn Lauren Sun Jun 29, 2014 4:52 pm

To back track a little, yes, Louis and Antoinette started trying to have sex in 1773 but not "fully" until 1777. I do wonder if knew it wasn't sufficient enough to conceive? I don't believe he was too ignorant or would have come to the conclusion that she simply couldn't conceive after these attempts and so 4 years later he needed to try to impregnable someone else, especially not a married woman.

If he knew that the love-making was not complete then the argument that he tested himself, along with Sophie's earlier points, do not make sense. Given what we know about him anyway, I don't believe it. But it would be interesting to know where people are getting this theory and what it's based on.

Why should he believe that Antoinette was to blame for their infertility? Surely he must have known that they were not "fully" having sex, not to completion anyway. And I don't think he would have run to another woman after an operation, had one existed, or even after the consummation because Antoiette was taking too long to get pregnant.
Kaitlyn Lauren
Kaitlyn Lauren

Posts : 144
Join date : 2014-06-28
Age : 29
Location : United States

Back to top Go down

Madame Royale and the Substitution Theory - Page 2 Empty Re: Madame Royale and the Substitution Theory

Post  Sophie Sun Jun 29, 2014 7:14 pm

I've never heard about other historians but Nagel claiming this. I think people who write books to well-known topics feel obliged to have some new interpretations. This was hers. I don't blame her because the book is well researched, but this could really have been left out.

Kaitlyn Lauren wrote:To back track a little, yes, Louis and Antoinette started trying to have sex in 1773 but not "fully" until 1777. I do wonder if knew it wasn't sufficient enough to conceive? I don't believe he was too ignorant or would have come to the conclusion that she simply couldn't conceive after these attempts and so 4 years later he needed to try to impregnable someone else, especially not a married woman.

My theory about it is a mixture of two historians' opinions (the Hungarian Péter Hahner and the French Simone Bertiere). If you define sex as losing virginity, then they definitely had sex after 1773. Antoinette was so sure that she not only wrote it to her mother, but she also persuaded her husband to inform Louis XV about the fact. But I'm pretty sure that they were only proud of fulfilling their duty and in fact didn't enjoy it. If there were physical problems, the "problematic" one was rather Antoinette than Louis. I would say, based on Bertiere's theory, that she had vaginism. She was also scared from pregnancy (puerperal fever was common) and had no desire for a child with 15-17 years of age. She just wanted to "live", to be with friends, go dancing, gambling, staying up late. And so did she. And people blamed her for that. In this sense, she was a too modern woman in a traditional world. (Zweig says she went partying because she was sexually frustrated. I don't understand how could he assume this about a 15-17-year-old girl.)

So I think that "fully" consumating means: 1. sex is a "finished" process, they don't have to interrupt the act because of his or her pains; 2. they enjoy it. Hahner says there was no physical problem, their sex life evolved from "not so bad" to "the greatest happiness", and Antoinette's letter in 1777 is about her first orgasm. Some people think still today that orgasm helps women to get pregnant, and it was a common belief in the 18th century. (They also didn't have an own word for orgasm.) This 1777 letter had nothing to do with Joseph II's visit (this alleged orgasm or "full consummation" happened months later), even if Joseph thought that his councils helped the couple. Antoinette's first pregnancy happened then in 1778. I think the story is quite easy: after she realized that sex can be enjoyable, she encouraged Louis to visit her more often. They were ready, physically as well as psychologically, to have children, not just having them by duty in favour of other people.

And how people see it today? That Antoinette remained virgin until 1777, that it was Louis' fault (phimosis, impotency, awkwardness, shyness, indifferency, or simply being the "ugly fat" one, whatever), and poor little innocent Antoinette was a victim of this bad bad marriage. (Khm, I'm also a woman, and I know that a relationship, even its physical side, depends on both partners. Blaming only one for the problems is injustice.) Then Joseph came and helped the couple to solve the problems, so she could have sex and get pregnant. But nobody cares that 1. apart from Joseph, who was an annoying wiseacre, neither Louis nor Antoinette claimed that he helped them (Joseph mentions to Leopold that they thanked for it, but historians don't find this thankyou-letter - it can be that only Joseph invented it); 2. the pregnancy came a whole year later.

This is it  Razz


Last edited by Sophie on Sun Jun 29, 2014 7:32 pm; edited 1 time in total
Sophie
Sophie

Posts : 167
Join date : 2011-10-26
Location : under the free blue sky

Back to top Go down

Madame Royale and the Substitution Theory - Page 2 Empty Re: Madame Royale and the Substitution Theory

Post  Kaitlyn Lauren Sun Jun 29, 2014 7:32 pm

I definitely agree!! Smile

I guess they were having sex in 1773 but that they were not able to "finish" because it was painful for her. So they must have known that they weren't completing the act enough to result in pregnancy. Therefore he would have had no reason to think she was barren and need to "test" himself on other women.

I wonder what the difference was in 1777 aside from her being older and physically and emotional more mature. I do wonder if Joseph offered Louis any advice on how to make it more comfortable for her. But I agree, Joseph really had nothing to do with the consummation. They figured it out on their own. It still took her a little while to get pregnant though but that's normal.

And I definitely agree that they experienced pleasure in the marriage bed after the initial painful attempts. I think they found each other attractive and enjoyed sex.

Louis loved his wife and wouldn't have jumped into bed with another woman. I believe the did understand that they had not been making love completing before and that's why she had not conceived. There was also no operation so he would not need to "test" himself really. They were not that desperate for an heir.

Great points!! Very Happy
Kaitlyn Lauren
Kaitlyn Lauren

Posts : 144
Join date : 2014-06-28
Age : 29
Location : United States

Back to top Go down

Madame Royale and the Substitution Theory - Page 2 Empty Re: Madame Royale and the Substitution Theory

Post  Tiny-Librarian Tue Jul 29, 2014 1:11 am

So they've finally completed the DNA testing on the remains of the infamous "Dark Countess" and it proved, as we all could have told them I'm sure, that she was NOT Madame Royale.

I saw this on the lovely ViveLaReine's post: and just had to share it with everyone.

I'm so thrilled they can finally put the ridiculous rumour to rest, it almost reminded me of the debacle with Anna Anderson claiming she was Anastasia Nikolaevna.
Tiny-Librarian
Tiny-Librarian

Posts : 39
Join date : 2013-06-16
Age : 36

http://tiny-librarian.tumblr.com/

Back to top Go down

Madame Royale and the Substitution Theory - Page 2 Empty Re: Madame Royale and the Substitution Theory

Post  Diane Marie Taylor Tue Jul 29, 2014 3:04 am

Thank you for posting this, Tiny. I'm not surprised at the results, but I am surprised that the findings were disclosed to the public. That whole mystery was a good for the economy in that area. I thought for sure they would announce that the results were "inconclusive," and it would cause the rumor to continue to live.
Diane Marie Taylor
Diane Marie Taylor

Posts : 16
Join date : 2014-06-29
Age : 46
Location : Las Vegas, NV

Back to top Go down

Madame Royale and the Substitution Theory - Page 2 Empty Re: Madame Royale and the Substitution Theory

Post  Kaitlyn Lauren Wed Jul 30, 2014 1:08 am

Yes! We all knew this rumor was ridiculous and I am glad to see it put to rest. I am curious who the lady really was though. I'm glad they publicized their findings. They could very well have let the rumor live on.
Kaitlyn Lauren
Kaitlyn Lauren

Posts : 144
Join date : 2014-06-28
Age : 29
Location : United States

Back to top Go down

Madame Royale and the Substitution Theory - Page 2 Empty Re: Madame Royale and the Substitution Theory

Post  Sponsored content


Sponsored content


Back to top Go down

Back to top

- Similar topics

 
Permissions in this forum:
You cannot reply to topics in this forum