Tea at Trianon Forum
Always be polite. Courtesy is required of you.
Tea with the Queen
Latest topics
» Remembering Louis XVI
Madame Royale and the Substitution Theory EmptyWed Jan 22, 2020 10:04 am by vendéenne d'âme

» Mass for Louis XVI on live video
Madame Royale and the Substitution Theory EmptyTue Jan 21, 2020 6:10 pm by vendéenne d'âme

» Judges 17:6
Madame Royale and the Substitution Theory EmptyThu Jan 16, 2020 11:29 pm by vendéenne d'âme

» War in the Vendée/Guerre de Vendée
Madame Royale and the Substitution Theory EmptyThu Jan 09, 2020 4:37 pm by vendéenne d'âme

» The Comte de Chambord (Henri V)
Madame Royale and the Substitution Theory EmptySun Jan 05, 2020 5:24 pm by vendéenne d'âme

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

» The Habsburg Appreciation Thread
Madame Royale and the Substitution Theory EmptySun Jan 05, 2020 12:45 am by vendéenne d'âme

» The Great Monarch
Madame Royale and the Substitution Theory EmptyThu Dec 19, 2019 11:21 pm by Elena

» Jews in Royal France
Madame Royale and the Substitution Theory EmptyFri Mar 23, 2018 10:49 pm by princess garnet

Who is online?
In total there is 1 user online :: 0 Registered, 0 Hidden and 1 Guest

None

[ View the whole list ]


Most users ever online was 70 on Mon Jul 27, 2015 8:35 pm
Social bookmarking

Social bookmarking digg  Social bookmarking delicious  Social bookmarking reddit  Social bookmarking stumbleupon  Social bookmarking slashdot  Social bookmarking yahoo  Social bookmarking google  Social bookmarking blogmarks  Social bookmarking live      

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

Go down

Madame Royale and the Substitution Theory Empty Madame Royale and the Substitution Theory

Post  Elena on Thu Oct 17, 2013 7:42 pm

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 Tumblr_ltdnj7gL9J1qatfdco1_500
Marie-Thérèse-Charlotte of France, circa 1800

_________________
Je pardonne à tous mes ennemis le mal qu’ils m’ont fait.
Elena
Elena
Admin

Posts : 1167
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 Empty Re: Madame Royale and the Substitution Theory

Post  May on Thu Oct 17, 2013 10:55 pm

What silly theories! As for the Madame Royale of later years not resembling Marie-Antoinette, I think she actually did! Her steely strength of character definitely reminds one of her mother.
May
May

Posts : 488
Join date : 2011-10-24
Location : United States

http://crossoflaeken.blogspot.com

Back to top Go down

Madame Royale and the Substitution Theory Empty Re: Madame Royale and the Substitution Theory

Post  Elena on Thu Oct 17, 2013 10:57 pm

She was a complete blend of both of her parents!

_________________
Je pardonne à tous mes ennemis le mal qu’ils m’ont fait.
Elena
Elena
Admin

Posts : 1167
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 Empty Dark Countess

Post  RoseMarie98 on Sat Jan 04, 2014 7:47 pm

Hiya
I am new
I wasn't sure if it was true if their had been a substitution or not, but it was kind of fun trying to find out myself. I compared portraits of young Marie with the older portraits. I noticed that the young Marie had a dimple on her chin.I guess the reason people don't think its her, is because she looks so different in the later ones. I think it is probably Marie, she may have been a bit like her mother and adopted the fashions of the times she was in.

RoseMarie98

Posts : 2
Join date : 2014-01-04

Back to top Go down

Madame Royale and the Substitution Theory Empty Re: Madame Royale and the Substitution Theory

Post  Elena on Sat Jan 04, 2014 7:55 pm

Welcome to the forum! Thank you for sharing your thoughts! Very Happy 

_________________
Je pardonne à tous mes ennemis le mal qu’ils m’ont fait.
Elena
Elena
Admin

Posts : 1167
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 Empty Re: Madame Royale and the Substitution Theory

Post  Sophie on Thu Mar 27, 2014 3:45 pm

I find it quite interesting how this substitution theory keeps exciting people in Austria. In the last few days, I found the following stuff all around in Vienna:

- In a little downtown bookstore behind the Stephansdom there's a "scientific"-like book (haha) that claims that the Dark Countess must have been Madame Royale. I quickly read the conclusions in the last chapter, and I wanted to laugh at it loud. Having some unprovable stuff like Ernestine as Louis XVI's illegitimate child or Antoinette's friendly connections to some German nobles can't simply lead to such a cathegorical statement in the end. I hope it's not very popular among such people who never read anything about the royal family but this.

- Inspired by that, I did some research and found this site: http://www.madame-royale.de/en/index.htm Did you know about it? It's a collection about Madame Royale AND the Dark Countess, and there are some interesting articles, some in English, about them. I downloaded one about the Madame Royale symposium in 2007 (also didn't know about it), and it speaks clearly against the substitution theory. I'm not surprised, anyway...

- In a university bookshop there's a novel with some original concept. I forgot the title, but I can check it again if someone is interested. There are some Spanish people who leave Europe after the revolutionary wars, and they take both Madame Royale and Louis XVII with them. One answer to both theories, it's easy then!  Laughing I don't plan to read it, because even the short description saddened me at once. It would have been so beautiful for those poor souls to remain together and begin a new life outside of France... Sad

+ Speaking about novels: if you are interested, I can write some short review and background information about the only novel I've ever read on the substitution theory, namely a masterpiece of a Hungarian romantic author from the 19th century, in the "Books and Movies" section. If you read it as fiction, it is highly remarkable - and has an online English translation available!
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 Empty Re: Madame Royale and the Substitution Theory

Post  Elena on Thu Apr 03, 2014 6:54 pm

Sophie, please do write a review of it. Sounds fascinating! Thank you for sharing your reflections with us once again.

_________________
Je pardonne à tous mes ennemis le mal qu’ils m’ont fait.
Elena
Elena
Admin

Posts : 1167
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 Empty Re: Madame Royale and the Substitution Theory

Post  Sophie on Thu Apr 03, 2014 8:02 pm

Thank you for your interest! Smile I'll write it in a few days, if I have time...
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 Empty Re: Madame Royale and the Substitution Theory

Post  Kaitlyn Lauren on Sun Jun 29, 2014 5:22 am

The tomb of the Dark Countess has been exhumed and DNA results are expected next month! Of course, the whole theory is ludicrous but I'm curious to see what they found.

Louis would NEVER have fathered a child out of wedlock. I have rarely heard of Ernestine being pointed to as his in any correspondence or court documents. Besides, Ernestine died in 1813, way before any of this Countess business occurred.

I have seen some people mention that other authors make note of Louis fathering other illegitimate children, including Jules de Polignac. This is absurd! He had no interest in other women and wanted so much to be different from his grandfather. These other biographers must be proponents of the Ernestine story and therefore wish to make it sound more plausible by insisting that Louis went around sleeping with and impregnating various ladies. Why should he do such a thing? Surely he wouldn't have done so based on character but also not to prove his virility and ability to father a child.

He was devout and loved his wife. He would not have "tested" himself on anyway, least of all maids. And surely if he had fathered illegitimate children, it would be certain. We know of Louis XIV and XV's illegitimate offspring. Why not Louis XVI's, had any existed?

In regards to the switch itself, many people testified to Madame Royale being her true self. Her family would have known and couldn't have bought off many people. Even Fersen knew who Marie-Therese was and did not doubt her true identity.
Kaitlyn Lauren
Kaitlyn Lauren

Posts : 144
Join date : 2014-06-28
Age : 25
Location : United States

Back to top Go down

Madame Royale and the Substitution Theory Empty Re: Madame Royale and the Substitution Theory

Post  Kaitlyn Lauren on Sun Jun 29, 2014 5:25 am

I am curious who these other biographers are and from where they draw their conclusions? What "evidence" do they have?

Surely, these wouldn't have been rumors going on at Versailles as the King was instead often depicted as impotent and infertile. Strange.
Kaitlyn Lauren
Kaitlyn Lauren

Posts : 144
Join date : 2014-06-28
Age : 25
Location : United States

Back to top Go down

Madame Royale and the Substitution Theory Empty Re: Madame Royale and the Substitution Theory

Post  Sophie on Sun Jun 29, 2014 10:40 am

This "illegitimate children"-theory is very weak. I have a copy of the Susan Nagel biography, and while she did a very professional research, the story of Ernestine has no footnotes or any references to other sources.

We don't know, anyway, how Louis felt in the beginning of their marriage. He was a bit scared of Antoinette, had a few prejudices against Austrians, and they didn't have much quality time together. But there aren't any evidences for his extramarital adventures even from these first years. Artois, for example, cheated on his wife from the very beginning. Nagel says that Louis couldn't have sex until 1777 (thanks a lot, Zweig, to anchor this rubbish in nearly all works about the royals), and then he "tested himself" on a servant and on Madame de Polignac. But it's illogical. If it had been well-known that his physical problem caused the infertility, he would have run to Antoinette to make her pregnant as fast as he can. But if we assume that Louis "tested" other women to see if himself or Antoinette was the cause of their infertility, then the phimosis theory is disproved again. Not to mention that Louis and Antoinette had sex since 1773, so why "testing" some other women 4 years later?

The main argument against the Ernestine-theory is the attitude of the era to illegitimate children. It was considered normal that kings have children outside their marriage. Louis XIV had a bunch of legitimized sons and daughters from various relationships. Ernestine was never legitimized - why not, then, if she was Louis' daughter? On the other hand, she was Antoinette's adopted child. We know Antoinette's opinion about royal mistresses (see the Du Barry-case), and it's unlikely to her character to close her eyes and adopt a child from her husband's lover. It could have been her worst nightmare that Ernestine's mother (a common woman, by the way) can steal her position in the Court.

And anyway, as Kaitlyn writes, Ernestine has practically nothing to do with this whole Dark Countess stuff. I don't know why people create such nonsense theories - if you puzzle with them, they even don't fit together. This is a 21th century illness, I suppose. People lost their balance due to the enormous information flow, and they lost confidence in traditional history writing. Partly rightful, of course. But interpreting history in new ways and promoting "vulgarhistoric" theories to get some attention are not the same. In my opinion, the Dark Countess should be left to rest in peace as well as the Duchesse d'Angouleme, too.
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 Empty Re: Madame Royale and the Substitution Theory

Post  Sophie on Sun Jun 29, 2014 11:01 am

Kaitlyn Lauren wrote:Surely, these wouldn't have been rumors going on at Versailles as the King was instead often depicted as impotent and infertile. Strange.

Just a remark: I don't know all sources, but I think people at the Versailles Court didn't consider Louis as impotent. Actually, the occasions when he slept by Antoinette were registered (that's why they built a secret passage between their rooms), and everyone knew that they have sex. Even Joseph II wrote Leopold about Louis "finishing too early" - it's ridiculous that people cite this letter as a proof for Antoinette's long-lasting virginity. Of course, it can be that he often really "finished too early" due to some psychological (and relatedly some physical) problems, and that's why they didn't have children for a long time, but nobody can say he didn't try.

So, I suggest that the "impotent Louis" was an image rather outside of Versailles, just like the "promiscuous Antoinette" was. (OK, the case of Antoinette is complicated because of those people, like the duc d'Orléans or Jeanne Lamotte, who spread rumors from Versailles to the outside world.) In the palace, the "disinterested Louis" and the "frigid Austrian" were common. They blamed Antoinette, not Louis. It's strange how she was depicted as a cold and rejective woman on the one hand and as a nymphomaniac, insatiable, lesbian-pedophile sex-monster on the other.
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 Empty Re: Madame Royale and the Substitution Theory

Post  Kaitlyn Lauren on Sun Jun 29, 2014 1:21 pm

I AGREE completely!!

Louis most likely had no operation and was disgusted at the behavior of his predecessors. Why follow in their footsteps? He wouldn't have justified having sex with a maid just for the sake of fulfilling duty. He definitely would have gone to his wife. And he did. Sooner than most people think, although not "fully" as you said.

This was probably due more to Antoinette's own virginity and a "narrowness of passage" which made sex painful. I admire him all the more if this were the case! Many men would not care and just do what needed to be done. I don't believe he thought she was barren and that he therefore needed to "test" himself with another woman.

It's such an odd theory. And surely, being the honest man he was, he would have legitimized or claimed Ernestine as his own child, had she been. And I definitely agree with the adoption. MA NEVER would have let her place be threatened. Ergo, Ernestine was not the child of her husband's lover.

I don't know of any contemporary accounts that people thought she was Louis'. And we knew what they were up to constantly. I also don't believe it was just common knowledge around court or kept within the family. There's too much room for doubt to take this seriously. I have never read anything about it besides in Nagel but apparently other biographers like to say Louis slept around. It goes against his nature completely. But, in some ways, I guess it's a welcome change from his usual depiction of being asexual.

At least people see him as a man in these cases. But I believe he was only "a man" with his wife. And whatever prejudice and marital problems they had earlier faded and he fell in love with her and could appreciate her beauty and enjoyed "relations" with her.

And yes, I agree, we should let Marie-Therese AND the Dark Countess rest in peace. I'm as curious as the next person to know who this lady was but she wasn't MTC. She might have been a noblewoman or a Hapsburg.
Kaitlyn Lauren
Kaitlyn Lauren

Posts : 144
Join date : 2014-06-28
Age : 25
Location : United States

Back to top Go down

Madame Royale and the Substitution Theory Empty Re: Madame Royale and the Substitution Theory (WAG THE DOG!)

Post  Diane Marie Taylor on Sun Jun 29, 2014 2:24 pm

I read all the posts, very interesting. Everyone brought up some excellent points, and it pleases me to see that they are using their heads and thinking through it logically. Of course the switch theory isn't true! I invite everyone to take a moment and step back to look at the big picture for a moment, because they're so caught up in the switch theory that they can't see the forest for the trees. Madame Royale went through hell in prison, it was a miracle she even survived. When she was released, she still had to fear for her life because there was such hatred for the Bourbons. She was very carefully smuggled into Austria, keeping a low profile and traveling under an assumed name. That wasn't the extent of her security measures. More was done to ensure her safety. When you are a public figure, some people are going to love you, and others are going to hate you and there is nothing that can be done about that. The public was fed this ridiculous rumor that there was a switch. Those that loved Madame Royale never bought into it, and those that hated her were given a conspiracy theory to chew on. The Dark Countess was a decoy, bought and paid for by the Bourbons. It worked too -- Madame Royale lived to age 72, and people to this day are still talking about the switch theory. The powers that be always do this to some degree because there will always be haters. Just watch the 1997 movie, Wag the Dog. Dustin Hoffman and Robert DeNiro create the illusion of a war for the public because the President has been caught in a sex scandal 11 days before re-election. So DNA results on the dark countess will be released next month? I can assure you, she is not "the real Madame Royale." But losing this element of mystery is bad for business in Germany, so I wouldn't be surprised if those results come back "inconclusive," or "too badly deteriorated to determine."


Last edited by Diane Marie Taylor on Sun Jun 29, 2014 3:52 pm; edited 1 time in total (Reason for editing : Making sure this is relative to the Subsitution Theory, not a new topic.)
Diane Marie Taylor
Diane Marie Taylor

Posts : 16
Join date : 2014-06-29
Age : 42
Location : Las Vegas, NV

Back to top Go down

Madame Royale and the Substitution Theory Empty Re: Madame Royale and the Substitution Theory

Post  Sophie on Sun Jun 29, 2014 2:32 pm

Kaitlyn Lauren wrote:I admire him all the more if this were the case! Many men would not care and just do what needed to be done.

That's the point. In the age of the Sun King or Louis XV, marriage was a kind of duty. Most of the people separated marital sexuality (producing heirs) from extramarital (love, passion, fun). Although many of them, especially wives, remained loyal (which doesn't mean that they had an absolutely happy marriage, they just didn't have a desire for another man - see Antoinette's sister Carolina), historians tend to believe that cheating on spouses was something general in this age.

BUT. Louis and Antoinette lived exactly in times that were changing. ("When the children of tomorrow dream awaaaay in the wind of change..." Very Happy) They were even catalysators of it with promoting Rousseau's thoughts, hating the impersonal and cold court life, escaping to a nearly bourgoise way of life (Trianon, Hameau), living as a family instead of married strangers who don't even know their own children... they were also revolutioners in their own ways. Meeting with your husband/wife secretly? Educating your children by yourself? Sending the crowd away when giving birth? Not wearing corsets? Breastfeeding? Not having a love affair? Walking arm in arm with your husband/wife? It's all so natural today, but those days they were brand new ideas. And I don't care what people say about Lambriquet or Fersen or anyone, I don't believe in any "mandatory" love affairs.

Sometimes I think that Antal Szerb was right in his "The Affair of the Necklace"-book. It was a suicide of a whole system. The king wants to be like a common man - then why having the monarchy anyway? Ironically, Louis and Antoinette had the most difficult times in the Temple, but they became a happy and warm "civilian family" there (I stole this from Schama), the way they always wanted to live but weren't allowed to.  If Louis had remained the symbolic, unreachable king, if he had suppressed the French Revolution from the very beginning (he could have done that!), the monarchy could have survived. But he didn't want to save *that* kind of monarchy that the Sun King was so proud of. He died totally apathetically and relieved. Anyhow I see it, it's a kind of suicide.

Kaitlyn Lauren wrote:And yes, I agree, we should let Marie-Therese AND the Dark Countess rest in peace. I'm as curious as the next person to know who this lady was but she wasn't MTC. She might have been a noblewoman or a Hapsburg.

I suppose she was a married woman who left her husband and lived secretly with another man. In The Nameless Castle, there's a stunning subplot based on this idea (I don't want to write spoilers - you should read the novel itself, I posted the link in the "Books and Movies"-section).
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 Empty Re: Madame Royale and the Substitution Theory

Post  Kaitlyn Lauren on 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 : 25
Location : United States

Back to top Go down

Madame Royale and the Substitution Theory Empty Re: Madame Royale and the Substitution Theory

Post  Kaitlyn Lauren on 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 : 25
Location : United States

Back to top Go down

Madame Royale and the Substitution Theory Empty Re: Madame Royale and the Substitution Theory

Post  Kaitlyn Lauren on 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 : 25
Location : United States

Back to top Go down

Madame Royale and the Substitution Theory Empty Re: Madame Royale and the Substitution Theory

Post  Sophie on 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 Empty Re: Madame Royale and the Substitution Theory

Post  Kaitlyn Lauren on 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 : 25
Location : United States

Back to top Go down

Madame Royale and the Substitution Theory Empty Re: Madame Royale and the Substitution Theory

Post  Tiny-Librarian on 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 : 32

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

Back to top Go down

Madame Royale and the Substitution Theory Empty Re: Madame Royale and the Substitution Theory

Post  Diane Marie Taylor on 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 : 42
Location : Las Vegas, NV

Back to top Go down

Madame Royale and the Substitution Theory Empty Re: Madame Royale and the Substitution Theory

Post  Kaitlyn Lauren on 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 : 25
Location : United States

Back to top Go down

Madame Royale and the Substitution Theory Empty Re: Madame Royale and the Substitution Theory

Post  Sponsored content


Sponsored content


Back to top Go down

Back to top


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