Unexplained Phenomena

It sounds like Madame Royale had what we would call today, "an incompetent cervix." Here's a link from the Mayo Clinic discussing the condition of an incompetent cervix. Yes, sometimes there is a huge grey area when it comes to defining whether it is a stillbirth or a miscarriage. The definition varies depending on the law in your area. I live in Nevada, and the law here states that any pregnancy that ends after 20 weeks is no longer considered a miscarriage, but a live birth with a birth certificate. If the baby doesn't survive, a death certificate will also be issued.

An incompetent cervix can definitely impair your fertility. Within the opening of the cervix are a bunch of branch-like crypts that produce fluid to nourish sperm. If this is somehow damaged, that fluid is greatly reduced and it makes it very difficult to achieve a pregnancy. If there is a pregnancy, as the baby gets bigger and heavier, there is a strain against the cervix to cause it to start dilating and start premature labor. That's what sounds like what happened to the Duchesse. Nowadays there is In Vitro fertilization to get around the loss of cervical fluid, and sutures to keep the cervix shut, possibly with being bed-ridden to keep the weight off the cervix. This medical technology didn't exist in 1813. This also begs the question, "If this was why her fertility is impaired, how did it get damaged?" It was so well-documented that Louis Charles was raped in prison, how could ANYONE think that it didn't happen to Madame Royale? She did more time in the temple prison than anyone, this is just common sense. . . . There were rumors that she was raped and got pregnant. That is half true. She didn't get pregnant from being raped, her ability to get pregnant was taken from her as a RESULT of being raped. I can't imagine (or don't want to) just how violent that must have been in order for her to have been unable to bear children afterwards. I agree with Elena, it is ridiculous to believe that she and her husband never consummated their marriage. The public can really make some odd claims when gossiping about public figures. They are people, just like you and I! http://www.mayoclinic.org/.../basics/definition/con-20035375

I have my copy of the Child of Terror open to page 137 (I gave my copy to Trianon to a friend -- sorry):

"Both the Spanish and English Foreign Secretaries received information from their spies at the Temple Prison that prostitutes had been brought to the prison to rape and infect the eight-year-old boy with sexual diseases so that the Commune could manufacture 'evidence' against the Queen."

I agree, it is horrible. They didn't call it the "Reign of Terror" for nothing. People did some horrible things to one another. If you have ever studied the psychology of the mob, people do things they wouldn't ordinarily do because the energy of the mob takes over. What they did to Princess Lamballe was so disgusting, and then they taunted Marie Antoinette about it, which was even worse.

Question: did you read the link from the Mayo Clinic describing an incompetent cervix? That's the condition described as to why she lost the pregnancy -- her cervix couldn't take the weight of a growing baby anymore, so she went into premature labor. There are many reasons a cervix could be incompetent, such as previous medical procedures or tearing from a previous birth, etc. This simply begs the question, "Why was Madame Royale's cervix incompetent?" Rape is a possible answer to that question, especially since it has been documented that Louis Charles was raped. No, it is not a pleasant thought -- it is downright horrible. But to dismiss it as a possibility doesn't help. Madame Royale wrote about her time in prison, and Provence immediately demanded that she revise it. Later on she was blackmailed about her "unauthorized diary." It looks like she did try to publicly come forward about what happened to her in prison, which would have helped heal her. Instead she was forced to keep it inside to keep Provence from looking bad (another reason to have absence of any respect for him). There is evidence of rape -- it just requires a change of perspective to see it. Step back and look at the big picture. If more concrete evidence is needed, well people sure have enjoyed digging up dead bodies for scientific testing -- maybe someone could give her an internal exam, but after almost 200 years I don't expect the area to be too well preserved. You all can have a front row seat to that event, you can just tell me about it later.   

Kaitlyn, I love the way you are thinking about this!

I want to challenge you for a moment though: although you are 100% right that there is no written documentation that says, "MTC was raped," there is evidence right in front of us all. From one angle, we don't see rape. From another angle, we can. We are detectives and we have been given a bag of evidence at a crime scene. We may see a piece of broken glass here, a shred of fiber there, etc. Something that seems very ordinary might turn out to be significant if we hold it at the right angle under the right light. Sometimes though, we have to take a step back and look at the big picture once in a while.

Let's look at the facts with which we have to work:
1) MTC couldn't get pregnant for 13 years. When she did, her cervix could not handle the growing baby and she went into pre-term labor. The baby did not survive. She never got pregnant again.
2) MTC wrote a diary of what happened in prison. Provence demanded she revise it. Her revised diary is published (which never mentioned rape). Later MTC is blackmailed for the content of the unauthorized diary.

No one has been connecting the two sets of facts -- doesn't anyone wonder what was in that unauthorized diary? Doesn't anyone wonder why her insides were too damaged to get pregnant and carry a baby to term? Of course there would be no written documentation of rape if that's what they were trying to keep hidden. To get the real history, it's time to start thinking outside the box.

As far as the switch theory is concerned, that's an entirely different topic -- and I will turn that one completely on its ear:
There was no switch. The Dark Countess was a decoy to ensure MTC's safety. When you are a public figure, some are going to love you and some are going to hate you. Those that knew and loved MTC knew the switch wasn't true. Those that hated -- they were kept busy gossiping about one of the greatest conspiracy theories ever told. That was done to ensure her safety. It worked! MTC lived to be 72, and to this day people still think there might be truth to the switch theory.

I like the way you are thinking!   

Yes, of course there wouldn't be any evidence of rape, you are right!

And it is quite possible. Some people claim her marriage was never consummated but apparently she did indeed become pregnant. It does seem a bit odd that it would have taken so long unless they didn't consummate till late in the union.

I am quite curious what was written in her unauthorized account now! Maybe there was something in their to suggest she was violated...interesting. We will never know for sure. But, as you said, we can certainly sift through the evidence as well as the nature of the revolution and how cruel and unforgiving it was.

Great discussion!

So does this mean you won't buy a copy of my book when it is out?   

I appreciate your thoughts, and it doesn't change my mind one bit. I am the second most stubborn person on this planet, so it is out of pure defiance that I will enjoy getting this book published. Some will be inspired, others will rip me to shreds. It's just the nature of the beast, so I have decided a while back to simply not worry about it. I've always been a rebel, and it's what I do best. I'm not here to follow the rules, I am here to break every last one of them and create my own path!

I would have the utmost respect for what has been written in history -- if it were written accurately, and that's a big if. I have found that too much about what has been written so far has been flawed (at least with regard to Madame Royale). I too, have done my own research -- and some of it clashes with what has been documented in historical writings. I can't really disclose my sources at this time because I'm not ready to go into publication. Once I am out for publication, I'd be happy to disclose my sources. [HINT: I brought up rape because she was raped. No, I don't expect anyone to take that seriously without full disclosure of my sources, so that's why I pointed out that there are hints at rape based on what is already known in historical writings.] I'm also working with two co-authors at this time, and possibly picking up a 3rd co-author -- so my progress is not going as quickly as I would like, but it will be ready when it is ready. I'm hoping to be done writing by the end of this year.

I am gathering from this blogging site that historians are not about to change their rigid view. I was under the impression that people with this similar interest would gather to exchange ideas, learn from one another, and share it with the public. While I get that historians are very well-versed on what other people have said, that leaves very little room to learn something new. I am more of a detective than a reporter. Sometimes you have to go beyond historical writing to get the answers which you seek. We are more intelligent about our passions when we learn to ask the right questions, not by having all the answers. Having said that, this is where Elena really stands out. In my opinion she is a walking library of information about the French Revolution, particularly the Bourbons. You can also feel her love of teaching, and wanting to educate as many people as possible. Instead of writing biographies, she is writing fictional novels -- because she thinks that people are more likely to pick up a novel than a biography, and it's a perfect example of thinking outside the box. It was a brilliant move, because there are more people out there like me than like yourselves -- and I find her books very easy to read. She uses her talent to engage an audience, rather than exclude it. I'm not saying everyone should write a fictional novel, I am saying that if you are in a position where you possess a lot of knowledge, it is your responsibility to engage people in your passion as much as possible -- whatever method that may be.

I am speechless, I have never had my words so badly twisted and doused with assumptions before. I am here to learn and discuss, encourage others, have an open mind, and be positive. After all, there are many intelligent minds on this blogging site -- with this much diversity, we could all really learn from one another. I am simply not going to reply to assassination of anyone's character -- whether it is my own, my co-authors', Cadbury's, Nagel's, or anyone else's.

Back to the original discussion, the Duchesse's loss of her pregnancy. The pregnancy was lost relatively late (post-1st trimester). It was called a miscarriage, but "pre-term labor" may be a bit more accurate of a term given how far along in her pregnancy she was. I personally would like to know if anyone has any more information about this, or if this is the extent of what is written about it. As I said before, it sounds like it was described that she had an incompetent cervix based on the circumstances which she lost the baby. Inquiring minds would like to know. . . .

I didn't follow your discussion here, but I here is my opinion on the topic. Based on my experiences, there are two main arguments for the alleged rape of Madame Royale:
1. She had miscarriages in her post-revolution life, and it had to be a physical reason, like a previous rape.
2. One version of the substitution theory states that Madame Royale had to be exchanged with another girl because she was raped, and therefore she as a princess wasn't precious enough anymore.
The problem with both theories is that they contain an error in argument, the suspection of causality without evidence. Madame Royale's miscarriages can mean that she was raped, but you can't use her miscarriages as a 100% proof for her alleged rape. It's the same with the substitution theory, too: I don't think Madame Royale was exchanged with another girl, but even if it had happened, it could have had hundreds of other reasons than "the real princess was raped". The same wrong causality again. This is why I say that this question is opened forever, because the written sources are neither for nor against the rape, and the two popular arguments for the rape use nothing else but later events and speculations to justify it.

The substitution theory has now been proven false. The Dark Countess is NOT Marie-Therese as Tiny posted elsewhere.

What I find interesting is all the stories circulating after 200 years, a lot of which just doesn't make any sense -- both rumors and supposed facts. What the public doesn't know is what makes them the public. Lots of events happened behind the scenes that none of us will ever know. All we can do is chisel away at the layers, sometimes we'll find something and it's significant and sometimes it is nothing. . . .

One of the topics I find so confusing in terms of the possibility of rape is that automatically someone wants to jump to the conclusion that it gives credibility to MTC going into hiding for the rest of her life. I don't know where the jumping conclusions occurred -- if that was around the time it happened, or just stories being passed on over time and inevitably getting blurry. What is acceptable today might not have been so acceptable 200 years ago, and there would be reason to keep quiet about certain events -- that's just how it is. At times people have said that morale is down in modern times, and I just don't think that's true -- morale has always been down, but previously people have made an effort to conceal things. If the things that happened to Madame Royale happened today she would be able to publicly speak of things that happened to her without repercussions, a luxury she did not have then. For argument's sake, if she had been raped, it was during a time when you didn't talk about these things. The victim gets abused twice -- once when it happens, and a second time when they are forced to keep their mouth shut for whatever reason. Luckily nowadays we are erasing the stigma that the victim has it coming to them, but that wasn't the case 200 years ago. Being seen as "damaged goods" was not good for public image. Even though her aunt taught her to protect herself as much as possible, she would have been no match as a young girl for 2 or more men overpowering her, beating her, and forcing themselves on her. Rape is not about sex, it is about power. Madame Royale was a tough cookie, even strong enough to overcome what happened to her. She tried to talk about it with her diary, which Provence ordered her to revise and she was later blackmailed for its contents. Someone brought up a point that we should not automatically jump to the conclusion that it was about rape, that it could be because it "wasn't political" enough. As I recall, Provence wanted her to write about her personal experiences as propaganda to gain public sympathy -- which had nothing to do with politics. Also, you don't get blackmailed for not being political enough. You get blackmailed for something personal.

Someone else has stated that they didn't start this thread as MTC's pregnancy to be talking about something as ugly as rape. It would have been wonderful if that baby had been able to survive, to be able to give the world the grandchild of Louis XVI and Marie Antoinette. Unfortunately it left a giant wound for all, especially MTC and Antoine. Part of healing is acknowledging where it originated -- by an ugly event that happened by a couple of ugly individuals, ordered by the most contemptuous, remorseless sociopath at that time -- the Comtesse De Provence.

Whoa, Diane! You just gave out one harsh accusation. . . WHERE ON EARTH DID THIS COME FROM?

Three things that cannot be hidden for long: the sun, the moon, and the truth. I'm tired of hiding the truth because it implies there is something wrong. The energy I am using to hide is better used on other things. I'm letting go of a lot of unnecessary energy in my life lately, and 2015 is all about self-healing and FINISHING MY BOOK.

Sometimes in our lives we have harsh and unique problems, and sometimes no matter what you do they just won't go away -- and as a last resort you may decide to seek alternative help by digging into your past lives. I was having a problem with a guy and this intense hold he had on me, and I decided to see where in the past this has happened. Low and behold there was a love triangle between he, my husband and I every century for the longest time. I always seem to marry the same guy over an over, but we never have enough chemistry and our marital problems always seem to result in one or both of us cheating on the other. The guy I cheat with -- we are absolutely mad about each other, but he's really not husband material because he's a major philanderer and is just not a very responsible person. In one of my recent lives, as usual I am married to the one I am usually married to, and have my usual lover on the side -- but it's in the 1800's, I'm in royalty and I have no children. I don't know my name, or where I live. It was a mild curiosity at best, but I started Internet searches for fun to see if I could figure out who I was. Then my life changed forever on September 13, 2013 when I stumbled on to a page about Marie Therese Charlotte. I wasn't 100% convinced it was me until I read about her husband Antoine -- "Puny, shy, timid. . ." and my jaw hit the floor. It's not a flattering description of Tom (my ex-hubby, we were married 11 years and I got really tired of being in a passionless marriage), but I knew I had the right identity. As soon as I started reading about the Duke of Berry it wasn't difficult to figure out he was my lover. I love how Susan Nagel points out that our relationship was solid, but platonic. If a historian goes out of their way to point out a relationship is platonic, it probably isn't. Besides, Berry wasn't the type of person to waste time on a woman that wasn't going to be entertaining him between the sheets.

Look, I am not a historian. In fact, I have always hated history and did everything I could to avoid studying it. I never even knew Marie Antoinette even had children until this night. It's been a whirlwind of emotions and reading things I never would have researched. I have two different piles of research going on -- stuff written about MTC, and when I read something that doesn't make sense that I read and I go into my past lives again. Sometimes things match up and each pile of research brings clarity to the other. Some of the stuff written by historians is a tad off, and other stuff is just blatantly false. Some of the stuff that's false is the bias of the writer, combined with distortions over time, and other stuff that is false is stuff the House of Bourbon deliberately kept from the public.

As I said, I am not a historian. I am a spiritual teacher and healer, a Reiki Master, a clairsentient, an empath, an ordained minister, and I was born a medium -- being able to see and communicate with spirits in the non-physical world. I've been wanting to write a book for several years in this field but never had anything unique to write about, and now I do. This definitely falls into the category of New Age/Spirituality, but with the marriage of world history. You guys are not my audience, and I am not trying to win you over. You have your iron-clad opinions that if it wasn't written somewhere and backed up with lots of footnotes that it's to be dismissed. That's fine, to each his own. Or maybe there are a few of you that are open-minded enough to realize you have a unique opportunity on your hands to learn something new and make a unique contribution to humanity -- that's who I'm hoping to team up with. As of today, November 22, 2014 I have now identified TWENTY-ONE (21) people within my social circle that had a life during the French Revolution as a member of the House of Bourbon and other influential people. I expect that number to keep growing as I am forced outside my comfort zone by studying history.

Back to the rape. I was gang-raped by a priest and his bastard son while I was in prison. Someone tipped me off that I needed to read about Joseph Fouche. It gave me chills reading about someone so evil, and yes, with 100% certainty that's who my [main] rapist was. There was so much tearing I was never able to have children, and then I was victimized a second time when I was not able to speak of it publicly when my contemptuous uncle silenced me. It made him look bad when it was his loathsome wife that gave that order. She hated me and she wanted to make sure I suffered as much as possible. I don't intend to make that same mistake twice. I am publicly speaking of the rape and exposing the cowards behind it. Nothing is more empowering than looking your offenders straight in the eye and saying, "You may have temporarily hurt me, but YOU COULD NOT BREAK ME." And that is exactly what I intend to do. I am writing about it, will speak of it, and will look Fouche, his son, and the Comtesse straight in the eye and say, "You could not break me. I am, however, breaking you."

Ladies and gentlemen, this is THE NEW BOURBON RESTORATION OF 2015. Obviously we are not trying to take back a non-existent throne, but we are working on healing ourselves and healing others. As it turns out, sound is an excellent healer because sound alters matter. I'm using a combination of sound and Reiki to heal these stubbirn cell memories.There are quite a few of us walking around with bad cell memories. The soul that was once Marie Antoinette (close friend of mine) has some major neck phobias and mother issues. While I was doing Reiki on her one day I couldn't detect energy from the neck up. In terms of energy, she is walking around without a head. No one is more messed up than the friend I have that used to be Louis Charles. He is 6'0" and weighs 140lbs, looks very sickly and emaciated. With no medical explanation he has had extreme difficulty digesting food and regurgitates what he cannot digest. He also has inexplicable heart issues and cannot exercise. He's an extreme neat freak and is terrified of filth and dark places. He also talks non-stop, and I suspect that is proof of life for him since he died having no one to talk to. It's going to take a lot of work to undo the damage done to him.

Remember a few lines up I said that I was born a medium in this life? I was a medium in that life too. At first I was getting frustrated that I couldn't find this anywhere and it hit me very hard why I couldn't find it anywhere: it was a secret. I take for granted that today in 2014 I go to my Reiki circles and I hang out with shamans, Reiki Masters, psychics, and mediums and we're all very open about it. Even fifty (50) years ago, you didn't talk about these things and kept it to yourself. How about 200 years ago? I would have been labeled a "heretic" and I would have been executed. I wouldn't have gotten something as "luxurious" as the guillotine, either -- they would have made an example out of me and made me suffer. So take a moment to replay in your minds everything you know about my time in prison with my family while under heavy guard. They took so much away from us, periodically popping in to take more privileges from us. No matter what they took, they never took away my God-given gift of being able to see and communicate with my guides and angels and to relay comforting messages to my family. They said I invented a secret sign language, and I think that's just the story given to the public. I was just relaying messages as I received them, that's all. While in solitary confinement, Louis Charles visited me in ghost form when he died. His death was so traumatic he literally had no idea he was dead. I had to council him and convince him he was dead and to go into the light. When he saw the doctor cut his heart out it helped convince him he was dead and he was able to move on into the light. Of course, I had to keep this to myself. Now you can imagine just how angry I got every time a fraud came forth claiming to be the "real Louis Charles." I knew for a fact they weren't and I was not able to say why without tipping anyone off. The search for Louis Charles was a bounty to find a dead body because I felt that was the only way to stop these fraudulent claims. His body was never found, so a bounty was never collected. His body was dumped out in the open where the majority of his remains were consumed by animals, and the rest just decayed. The only remains of the body of Louis Charles is his heart at the family crypt.

So yes, Madame Royale was actually "Madame Medium." There was no way I didn't know the fate of my mother, my aunt and my brother. Sometimes in life, in order to truly be holding all the cards, is to act like you don't. The fact remains that I had survived prison by abnormal means, and that meant even though I walked out alive I had to fear being killed because of my secret and the hatred for my bloodline. When you are a public figure, some are going to idolize you, and others are going to hate you and there is nothing that can be done about it. In order to keep your haters from figuring out what's really going on, you feed the public a good conspiracy theory to keep them distracted -- like I switched places with a look-alike.

All of this and more will be in my book. I have decided on a title. It will be called, "In the Name of My Mother, Marie Antoinette: Healing the Broken Souls of the French Revolution" and it's by Thomas and Diane Taylor. I have decided that 100% of the profits are going to St. Jude Children's Research Hospital to reflect the true nature of Marie Antoinette. A lot of you on here love her (as do I), and there is nothing I wouldn't do for her. She gave me life and she kept me hidden from Versailles as much as possible at Petit Trianon while her haters speculated about her hosting orgies and other nonsense. At her trial she was forced to listen to ridiculous accusations, as well as hearing the most disgusting accusation of all -- that she had a sexual relationship with her son. She was an excellent mother, and not only is all of that untrue, but she took my secret all the way to the guillotine on October 16, 1793. I want to give her her life back now, because she still carries these wounds in her aura that still aren't healed 221 years later.

Feel free to follow me on Facebook. I won't add anyone I don't know personally, but I do allow followers for my public content. I don't get on here much because I find it difficult to navigate, so I really just hang out on Elena's page. Also, the people here and I do not speak the same language -- most of you are going to dismiss all this because it is not "scholarly." That's fine, I'm revealing it out of professional courtesy to know what will be released relatively very soon and I think you all deserve to know that what you thought you all knew is going to be challenged. Just imagine what new information you could get from us while under hypnosis. . . . I think all our minds will be challenged by this.

Good luck to everyone!
Diane Marie

Diane Marie Taylor wrote:What I find interesting is all the stories circulating after 200 years, a lot of which just doesn't make any sense -- both rumors and supposed facts.  What the public doesn't know is what makes them the public.  Lots of events happened behind the scenes that none of us will ever know.  All we can do is chisel away at the layers, sometimes we'll find something and it's significant and sometimes it is nothing. . . .

No contest here. Historical figures, Madame Royale included, undoubtedly did lots of things we have no evidence for. It's not that questionable anecdotes are inherently false, it's just that we have no reason to believe they're true. As a dear friend once explained to me (and shout out to Estella if she ever wanders onto this forum for whatever reason), everything is manifested in degrees and probabilities. In theory, a story we made up a minute ago could come closer to what happened than multiple archival sources from the time…it's just not probable. There's nothing certain in probability but we need it or else we lose all boundaries in the field. If anything could have happened then we can just choose whatever narrative we like best because, wul, you cant prove it didn't happen, now can you? But at this juncture, what is even the point of studying history?

What is acceptable today might not have been so acceptable 200 years ago, and there would be reason to keep quiet about certain events -- that's just how it is.  At times people have said that morale is down in modern times, and I just don't think that's true -- morale has always been down, but previously people have made an effort to conceal things.  If the things that happened to Madame Royale happened today she would be able to publicly speak of things that happened to her without repercussions, a luxury she did not have then.  For argument's sake, if she had been raped, it was during a time when you didn't talk about these things.  The victim gets abused twice -- once when it happens, and a second time when they are forced to keep their mouth shut for whatever reason.  Luckily nowadays we are erasing the stigma that the victim has it coming to them, but that wasn't the case 200 years ago.  Being seen as "damaged goods" was not good for public image.  Even though her aunt taught her to protect herself as much as possible, she would have been no match as a young girl for 2 or more men overpowering her, beating her, and forcing themselves on her.  Rape is not about sex, it is about power.

   Madame Royale was a tough cookie, even strong enough to overcome what happened to her.  She tried to talk about it with her diary, which Provence ordered her to revise and she was later blackmailed for its contents.  Someone brought up a point that we should not automatically jump to the conclusion that it was about rape, that it could be because it "wasn't political" enough.  As I recall, Provence wanted her to write about her personal experiences as propaganda to gain public sympathy -- which had nothing to do with politics.  Also, you don't get blackmailed for not being political enough.  You get blackmailed for something personal.  

I…didn't really want to play "that card" in our discussion but I am a victim of the sort of assault we are discussing and I find your analysis of the present day treatment of survivors to be a tad optimistic. But yes, I agree with your overall point in the first paragraph: Madame Royale would have had sound motive to maintain silence regarding her alleged assault. But I reiterate what I said earlier, in which I cite how other women chose not to maintain silence regarding their alleged assaults and historians discount their testimonies. Whether the reasons for their omission is for sound, analytical reasons, political ax-grinding, or sheer misogyny, is neither here-nor-there in this specific arena of discussion: my question is, if the presence of a woman's testimony regarding sexual assault is apparently not proof of assault, how can the absence be? True, the lack of evidence is not evidence of a lack, but in regards to the realm of historical analysis, it leads us to a dead end.

I'm less clear on your second paragraph. I do believe you misread me. I didn't say that Madame Royale's memoirs were not political enough - I said that she may have been edited because she was too political, as her opinions deviated from those of the king's. Specifically, I said, "Isn’t it possible she had political sentiments that Louis XVIII wanted edited out because they might offend or because they didn’t mesh with his?" I was listing a litany of possible reasons why her memoirs may have been edited and also speculated, " Isn’t it possible he felt her memoirs were too personal as written and needed to be more ‘professional,’ socially speaking?" (And now, looking at the quote, I can't help but wonder if I paraphrased someone else again...)

Unfortunately it left a giant wound for all, especially MTC and Antoine.  Part of healing is acknowledging where it originated -- by an ugly event that happened by a couple of ugly individuals, ordered by the most contemptuous, remorseless sociopath at that time -- the Comtesse De Provence.

Whoa, Diane!  You just gave out one harsh accusation. . . WHERE ON EARTH DID THIS COME FROM?

...

Back to the rape.  I was gang-raped by a priest and his bastard son while I was in prison.  Someone tipped me off that I needed to read about Joseph Fouche.  It gave me chills reading about someone so evil, and yes, with 100% certainty that's who my [main] rapist was.  

I understand that you've come to these conclusions using methods that are, indeed, outside of my area of expertise. In Antonia Fraser's biography on Marie-Antoinette, she chooses not to debate whether or not Antoinette's ghost could possibly exist but whether the ghost stories, as they are known, gel with historical fact. She operates on the assumption that the unknown should complement the unknown, not contradict it, and I feel the same.

Fouché was indeed an unsavory character, if you will allow my saying so. Certainly he was an unscrupulous politician; his role in the mass-executions of Lyons are debated but I find his apologists' arguments flat, relying heavily on his own apologetic memoirs which contradict his contemporaneous statements at the time. Which is to say, I'm not defending him because I favor him but rather because the accusation of 'rape' is a heavy one and I don't like it being superfluously attached to anyone…even  Fouché.

In regards to character, Fouché was a family man and apparently as devoted to his wife as he was disloyal to all political factions. We have so many snapshots of the time because he appeared to keep voluminous correspondence with his family. He wrote to his sister - an apolitical figure - regarding the upcoming overthrow of Robespierre. Likewise, one of his more touching complaints against Robespierre is that he feared the Committeeman's ire so much he was unable to sit by his daughter's deathbed, for that would have required him to come home. True, he seems to have considered annulling his marriage to his wife in order to marry Charlotte Robespierre (obviously this was before the deathbeds and overthrow) but all-in-all ---- I have trouble seeing him commit a rape, really and truly. Yes, I allow that he was a mass-murderer, but the evils of 'rape' and 'mass-murder' are of different breeds of evil, to me, the former being performed on an individual basis and the latter - at least how it was conducted in Lyons - institutionally. Fouché was an institutional criminal. Of course, this is my weakest argument on two fronts. One, I'm by no means the encyclopedia on Fouché, so it's possible that my analysis here is skewered. Two, humans are fluid creatures and incredibly contradictory. Ted Bundy worked on the suicide hotline and murdered co-eds; it can all come from the same source.

But there is also a matter of logistics. I believe you implied that Marie-Antoinette was aware of the rape of Madame Royale and so heroically defended her daughter's reputation. You did not mention Louis XVI, so presumably this assault took place somewhere between 21 January, which was the king's execution, and 2 August 1793, which was when Marie-Antoinette was separated from her daughter: any subsequent assault would have been outside her sphere of knowledge to protect us from. But Joseph Fouché was on mission throughout the majority of this period: he left as a representative on mission to Nièvre a little after hostilities broke out - and hostilities came to a head 10 March. I'm just speculating and google isn't giving me a solid grounding right now, but I'd speculate that Fouché left for his mission no later than April. I suppose it's still possible that in the two month gap he could have assaulted Madame Royale -- but in this period of high tension (we've executed the king, we've declared war, the counterrevolution is flaming across the Vendee) how could Fouché ever visit Madame Royale without anyone commenting on it? Understand that Fouché assaulting Madame Royale would have been devastating for his own political reputation - and likely his his life. Not because the Republicans necessarily would weep over Madame Royale's stolen virtue but because it would be perceived as an attempt to claim the French throne. Kill the father, marry the daughter, establish a new dynasty. It requires a great deal of wishful thinking and a circumvention of the Salic Law but --- well, that didn't stop anyone from speculating Robespierre wanted to marry Madame Royale for the same reasons. If Fouché had visited Madame Royale to do her good or for ill, he would have been vulnerable to political attacks. I do not see how he could have, logistically, reached her without someone taking notice. Oh, maybe they wouldn't say anything then, but perhaps later when Fouché became less popular, "Well, you know, O My Committee, Fouché did visit Madame Royale that one time. Why? I don't know. Always seemed to be a little too inclined to those Bourbons, y'know what I'm saying?"

EDIT: I see now that I misread your post and that the "secret" Antoinette took to her grave was not the assault but Madame Royale's status as a medium. I apologize for that. However, while my point bout Fouché's missions no longer stands, my point regarding his not being able to enter Madame Royale's cell sans risking his head stands. Just substitute 'Directory' for 'Committee' in my invented quote and it's seamless.

And there's the little thing about how Fouché could hardly be mistaken for a priest in the time period specified and how his oldest son was born in 1793, making him a little too young to participate in any brutalities. You did note that the child was a bastard, so possibly a secret one but --- why did he never show up anywhere before or after this incident? When his father became a respected Duke, why did he never ask to be given his due? Fouché's close enough with his bastard to take him on a family assault but not close enough to acknowledge him, ever?

I mean, I'm also a little curious about the Comtesse de Provence and her motives in all this. Why does she want Madame Royale to hurt so much? Why did Fouché do it? Was the Mountain right, and was the far-left really in the pay of monarchists who intended to turn the Terror into the express lane and to discredit the Revolutionaries? I always thought that was just the Mountain blowing smoke up its tush. But it should be noted that your contention that Fouché and Provence were in cahoots fits snugly in with the Committee of Public Safety's indictment against Hébert and co. It also rather blackens the Bourbons, as we could not argue with some merit that Fouché's excesses in Lyons were done at the behest of the royal family.... This would make your announcement of their (metaphorical) restoration very terrifying indeed.

Even fifty (50) years ago, you didn't talk about these things and kept it to yourself.  How about 200 years ago?  I would have been labeled a "heretic" and I would have been executed.  I wouldn't have gotten something as "luxurious" as the guillotine, either -- they would have made an example out of me and made me suffer.  

Well, there were many-of-spirit mediums during the French Revolution - Catherine Theot is a famous one. They're doing that "Dechristianization" thing so tend not to mind heretics. Fouché could actually tell us all about that.

But I feel that I am wasting my time, given that your source is, again, beyond my peripheral. I am sorry you are having these memories as I wouldn't wish them on anyone, given the level of trauma. If this is a way of coping than cope-away. I just ask that you try to minimize the damage done to reputations: rape is such a heavy accusation, and as I said, I'm loathe to see it flung superfluously against anyone. It sounds as though your book will provide funds to a good cause and, allowing that it is not rooted in historical analysis, might find a good niche in the market of spirituality. Good luck.

As I said before, history was always my weakest subject, had no interest in it, and did everything I could to avoid studying it. If you told me about 18 months ago I would be studying Marie Antoinette and her family I would have looked at you as if you had 5 heads. It's just not in me to do this. My background is new age, spirituality and metaphysics. When you are born with the ability to see and communicate with people in the room that no one else can see and they try to convince you that you are crazy, you are going to feel crazy. At that point you have a choice: roll over and play dead or fight the good fight and seek answers. Obtaining these answers lead to more questions, and then more answers. The next thing you know you have dedicated your life to it, and you humbly admit you don't even come close to having all the answers -- this was where I was.

And you are absolutely right, what I am writing is not a biography or can even be classified as history. I'm telling the story of my life and how I got thrown into all this against my will. I have a lot to teach about spirituality, so it is most definitely a spirituality book. However, there are a lot of references to world history and what is written about me and my family as former public figures. My audience is someone looking for answers to life -- but it may cause them to pick up a history book or two that they ordinary would not have done otherwise. The reverse could be true too -- those of you that would never pick up a spirituality book might actually pick up my book out of morbid curiosity to see what I have written. . . . I see nothing but a win-win all around. If the point is to raise public awareness and educate, then that's what we're doing.

I'll give a brief explanation in spirituality to help explain myself a little further, but not to go over anyone's heads. People often say that we're humans and we have souls, which is untrue -- we ARE souls! Souls are energy, and energy is eternal. Albert Einstein said that energy could not be created, nor destroyed -- but only changes form. We all have changed form many, many times. All of us that are alive today are on a cycle of reincarnation. Different lives, different lessons. I am an old priest soul, and I have always been a spiritual teacher and healer in some form or another. I have taught individuals and I have taught the masses. My guides tell me that this is my 257th life, which makes me really old in terms of experience. I don't really fit in with people anymore, I tend to be a loner, and I am truly half-in this world and half-in God's world. I am to use my knowledge to teach others. Because I am so old I am given huge tasks -- I am not better than anyone, but I do have a lot of experience. In my life right prior to being MTC I died in my twenties when I drowned in a tsunami on November 1, 1755 in Morocco. I don't know if I charted a short life like that, or if I was released from my contract early because I was needed in the House of Bourbon. Lots of times when major events are coming up, we are approached because experienced souls are needed for events unfolding -- and I think that's what happened at that time. The French Revolution was upon us, and certain souls were needed for different reasons. King Louis XVI, Marie Antoinette, Madame Elisabeth, myself, and Louis Antoine were all old priest souls. Our job was to ease the sufferings while France inevitably shifted from an antiquated system to being the Republic that it is today. Even though I was a princess, which technically made me a politician, I was not a politician! I was a healer, as always. Not only did we contribute financially as much as we could, but Antoine and I traveled and spoke to the people. They experienced our energy, and that was the healing agent.

The term, "soul mate" gets misused a lot. A lot of people tend to think that it automatically has a romantic meaning, and it does not. It just means that they are the people you have a tendency to incarnate with a lot. They are your best friends that you don't see or speak to for years and when you do it's like no time has gone by at all. They can take on any form: your siblings, a parent, a child, a neighbor, a co-worker, etc. Sometimes there is a romantic connection. Souls have a tendency to marry the same souls over and over again. My ex-hubby (Thomas) and I have been married at least 6 times to each other over the last 1000 years that I know of. We've always had the same marital problems where it starts hot and then we get bored with each other quickly. I say this with a little bit of tongue-in-cheek, but I think part of it is just that we're sick of each other and have absolutely nothing new to offer each other. Many of you have speculated that he was "probably impotent," or a "homosexual." That's just not true. Today we are the best of friends and live 2 minutes from each other (and that's if you drive really slowly), but there is no romantic involvement. He is definitely one of my closest soul mates and I am so grateful I've had him around for the last year since I discovered I was Marie Therese Charlotte. I may be the outspoken and ballsy one, but he has a very calming effect on me and I always have and always will love him very much. Introverts get such a bad rap. Introverts will talk your ear off once you give them something to talk about, they hate mindless chit-chat. To the untrained eye, they come off as shy and nothing could be further from the truth. Most things are unimportant to him, but he will seize anything that is of importance to him. Lots of times we had battles of will between us and I can attest to his temper.

We're all a lot more connected than we think. When I was reading Child of Terror and Madame Royale I was recognizing people by their personalities. I could be reading a page and it would hit me very hard instantly recognizing people in my life today that I knew then. Curiosity would get the better of me and I would do Internet searches on their portraits. Interestingly, the physical resemblance remains the same even if they are not the same gender and/or ethnicity as before. I've identified 21 people as of right now -- all of them identified 100% by their personalities. God did not give me this for my own amusement, I was given this to heal my own wounds, heal those closest to me, and to TEACH! I believe that number of 21 will continue to grow. Everyone writing books about the House of Bourbon is suspicious to me because I think they would be people I knew then. What's closest to our hearts doesn't come from nowhere. We all have past lives, many with each other -- so a lot of people alive today had a past life during the French Revolution in some form or another. Your personality will give you away.

I decided it was time to come out as MTC after I identified #21 a few days ago. On Facebook I received a friend request from Will Bashor -- someone I do not know. I look at his page and I see that he's a big fan of the House of Bourbon. I also figured out that he wrote a book about Marie Antoinette's hairdos. This is the lighter side of history, but I find it interesting that he was drawn to do this. So I do an Internet search on Marie Antoinette's hairdresser and I see that Will looks just like him. I accepted his request and wrote him a note saying I think he was her hairdresser in a past life. He hasn't written back yet. I am blunt, yes. So now on Facebook I'm a little more visible. I allow followers for my public content, and all my French stuff is public content. Feel free to check out my photo gallery, although I don't have everyone on there yet. Charles X and the Comtesse D'Artois are not on there yet because I haven't found time to dig in the garage and scan photos. The Duc De Berry and I are not on speaking terms, so he's not on there -- but seriously, all you need to do is find a portrait of Berry, shave his head and cover him in tattoos -- that's what he looks like in 2014. Marie Antoinette, whom I will call "Sarah" for now is not on there. I am not doing that until she gives me permission to do so. She likes to keep a low profile, but I can be a real pain. I am encouraging her to want to come forward as I think this will help heal her past life wounds faster. Still, it needs to be in her time. I am at https://www.facebook.com/DianeTaylor257.

[We got bumped here by Ms Vidal because we were naughty and apparently distracting from the topic at hand. Oop! ]

Diane Marie Taylor wrote:

And you are absolutely right, what I am writing is not a biography or can even be classified as history.  I'm telling the story of my life and how I got thrown into all this against my will.  I have a lot to teach about spirituality, so it is most definitely a spirituality book.  However, there are a lot of references to world history and what is written about me and my family as former public figures.  My audience is someone looking for answers to life -- but it may cause them to pick up a history book or two that they ordinary would not have done otherwise.  The reverse could be true too -- those of you that would never pick up a spirituality book might actually pick up my book out of morbid curiosity to see what I have written. . . .  I see nothing but a win-win all around.  If the point is to raise public awareness and educate, then that's what we're doing.  

But that is precisely the point I was quibbling about earlier. You cannot simultaneously argue that you're not an historian and therefore aren't concerning yourself with the historical details yet simultaneously hope that your work will spark more interest in the field. I'm concerned it will be seized by the popular public to play a game of "rape tally," which I defined in the last thread (hint: it's disgusting). I'm wary of accusing non-rapists of rape, even dead men. I reiterate, I don't much like Fouché. Yet seeing him marked 'rapist' in spite of all the documentary evidence we have that points otherwise rubs me wrong.

That being said, I am having a great deal of fun speaking with you. I can't say I believe as you do but that just makes life more interesting.

I see the conversation has been moved over here and that's okay -- I feel like there is a lot more freedom here now.

I can see your confusion about "not being a historian, not interested in the details, and yet sparking more interest in the subject." I'll try to explain myself better. I'm writing a spirituality/new age book. I'll be discussing why we're here, what we are trying to learn as souls, that we write detailed contracts about what we will experience in life, our guides, our angels, our purpose, spirits visiting from the non-physical world vs. ghosts, some commentary about religion in general, etc. I'll also be discussing past lives, latent memories, cell memories, etc. My audience is absolutely people that are into this kind of thing. However, I found in doing my own past-life work I "accidently" stumbled onto one of my identities as a public figure during a very big piece of world history. (Trust me, if I have heard of it, it is famous -- and I have heard of Louis XVI, Marie Antoinette, and the French Revolution. I didn't know anything about, but I had heard of it). The brief commentary I have to say about certain things I have read might cause my audience to start studying this piece of history that they might not have done otherwise. Thus, an awareness has been made.

So far I have been able to name 20+ people so far that I've read about that have been in my life this time around, and I want to emphasize that NO ONE has conscious memories of who they were more than 200 years ago. The memories we have a very latent, just a very sad and distant feeling with somehow "just knowing" about certain things. I don't have any conscious memories of my rape and I have mixed feelings about that. I tried to see it under hypnosis once with no success. I figured that if I lived through it once, I could certainly muster up the balls to see it from the observation point. My guides stepped in an blocked me -- even though they knew I was doing this through my own free will, there was something there that I would not be able to handle. Any time someone feels they need to go through a past-life regression, they are not going to be needlessly tortured by making you relive anything truly horrendous. For example, my friend "Sarah" went through her past-life regression over 30 years ago and she saw several lifetimes. In one life she was viewing she was asked what her name was, blurted out, "Marie Antoinette," and immediately thought that what she said couldn't possibly be right. She had some validation about it because she has always had some neck phobias. But she saw a few events from her life, and when she was directed to see her death, she started crying. When the therapist asked her why she was crying, she said, "because I don't want to die." She saw herself in the cart, but did not see anything after that. Sarah and I both have the opinion that to see some of your most traumatic events would be torture. You already lived through it once, you don't need to experience it again. I, on the other hand, am very stubborn. Even though I know the rape I went through was very traumatic, I want to see it anyway so that I know what exactly it is that I am healing from. It's something I do work on daily and I know I am far from being healed, but the last thing I am going to do is keep it hidden. As far as any phobias I may have related to said incident -- even though I am sexually attracted to men, I don't have much respect for them and have an extremely difficult time trusting them. I have been heavy my whole life, which is the classic "please don't look at me" symptom of being raped -- and then that is compounded when I grew up in the same household as my rapists -- my father and brother in this life. We have free will when we make our contracts, and I don't know why I agreed to that. I guess I was confident I could throw the knock-out punch in this life. When I knew I had been raped I immediately smelled a rat where my father in this life is concerned. I immediately got my answer that the one who did it to me was a priest, as well as his son. I suppose it is entirely true that it may not necessarily be Fouche, but after reading about him, that is my father's personality 100%. I have no doubt at all it was Fouche. I don't think I need to convince anyone how horrible it was growing up with him.

On to Louis Charles. As far as cell memory is concerned, no one has it worse than him. In this life, his name is Rich, and he became my roommate shortly after my divorce. The guy has a lot of phobias and drove me crazy with his quirks. It wasn't until after he moved out and I was digging around in my past lives and studying the House of Bourbon that I figured out that "screwy roommate" used to be my brother that died in his prison cell. I am working on him big time. He's going to be my poster child for healing bad cell memories from past lives. Good thing I love a challenge.

The period during the French Revolution was torture for a lot of people. If anything, I'd like to offer humanity some comfort by saying that what happened during that time was just ACT ONE. We're in the middle of ACT TWO -- healing it all. There is no wound so big that God cannot heal it. If that inspires at least one person, then I have done my job.

I'd respond publicly but I believe Elena said in another thread that she'd prefer we not discuss these matters on her forum as some would view them as relating to the occult. I'm going to accede to her wishes. However, I would be more than happy to continue this discussion via PM or other means.

The history of tea drinking in India dates back to 750 BC. Tea in India is generally grown in the North Eastern regions and the Nilgiri Hills. Having evolved since those early days, tea drinking in India has now come a long way. Today this nation is proud to be one of the largest tea producers in the world. Buddhist monks in India have used tea for its medicinal value since thousands of years.

According to a very interesting legend, the history of tea drinking in India began with a saintly Buddhist monk about almost 2000 years ago. It so happened that this monk who later became the founder of Zen Buddhism, decided to spend seven sleepless years contemplating the life and teachings of Buddha. While he was in the fifth year of his contemplation and prayer, he almost fell asleep. He took some leaves from a nearby bush and began chewing them. These leaves revived him and enabled him to stay awake as he chewed on them whenever he felt drowsy. Thus he was able to complete his penance for seven years. These were the leaves of the wild tea plant.

As per the history of tea drinking in India, local people used to brew and drink tea using the leaves of the wild native tea plants. Since that time, different varieties of tea have emerged; the most famous among them is the Darjeeling tea.