I debated even posting about it since I don’t feel like wading into potential arguments but this is just getting ridiculous....I honestly can’t believe that someone, especially someone who calls themselves a historian, is saying a diplomat spreading gossip is evidence that two of Louis XVI’s children are actually Fersen’s. Would she also argue that Marie Therese must be Artois’ child, since there were rumors circulating after her birth that said so? I mean, someone wrote it–therefore it’s damning evidence!Anna is absolutely right. Since when did court "gossip" become proof of anything? There is plenty of evidence that the Queen was a faithful wife but people keep insisting upon believing a fairy tale. Also, I have seen the so-called "love letters" which allegedly have secret romantic messages embedded in them: the interpretations seem spurious to me. But even if love messages are there, none of it is proof that Marie-Antoinette was Fersen's mistress and that she bore him children. I will go into it more in my new book which hopefully will be out in about a month. Such romantic nonsense is a waste of time when there are so many more important things to think about.
For those interested, HERE is my talk on the subject and HERE. Share