Marie-Antoinette's Gambling Addiction

I have many times been accused of making Marie-Antoinette into a saint. Just because I believe, as most of the evidence indicates, that Marie-Antoinette was faithful to her husband, does not mean I think she was the Little Flower. Endeavoring to observe the sixth commandment is a basic duty which does not mean automatic sanctity. We all know many faithful spouses who are not saints (at least, not yet.) The New Advent article presents a fairly balanced view of Marie-Antoinette:

In her private life, Marie Antoinette may justly be blamed for her prodigality, for having, between 1774 and 1777 -- by certain notorious escapades (sleigh racing, opera balls, hunting in the Bois de Boulogne, gambling) and by her amusements at the Trianon -- given occasion for calumnious reports. But she confessed to Mercy that she indulged in this dissipation to console herself for having no children; and the tales of Besenval, Lauzun, and Soulavie, about the amours of Marie Antoinette, cannot stand against the testimony of the Prince de Ligne: "Her pretended gallantry was never any more than a very deep friendship for one or two individuals, and the ordinary coquetry of a woman, or a queen, trying to please everyone." De Goltz, the Prussian minister, also wrote that though a malicious person might interpret the queen's conduct unfavourably there was nothing in it beyond a desire to please everybody. Besides, the queen continued to give edification by her regular practice of her religious duties....

Her historian, M. de la Rocheterie, says of her: "She was not a guilty woman, neither was she a saint; she was an upright, charming woman, a little frivolous, somewhat impulsive, but always pure; she was a queen, at times ardent in her fancies for her favourites and thoughtless in her policy, but proud and full of energy; a thorough woman in her winsome ways and tenderness of heart, until she became a martyr."

 The "notorious" escapades of sleigh-riding, going incognito to the opera ball, hunting and watching the horse races in the Bois de Boulogne, were fairly innocent past-times for a twenty year old queen. The gambling, however, became a serious addiction. It must be kept in mind, however, that she was not the not the only one. Gambling was an entrenched part of court life from the days of Louis XIV. As scholar Ross Hamilton describes it:

Gambling obsessed all levels of French society during the Enlightenment. Louis XIV held appartements du roi given over to gambling three times a week at Versailles, the queen hosted a nightly game, and courtiers scheduled additional occasions for play. Hosts so frequently acted as bankers for games to entertain their guests that satirists, chroniclers, and moralists complained that compulsive gambling had destroyed other forms of social entertainment. In Paris ten authorized maisons de jeux operated games involving some degree of skill (jeux de commerce) but essentially they served as fronts for more lucrative chance-driven games (jeux de hasard). Gambling also took place at the two great Paris fairs during almost four months of the year, all year long at foreign embassies, and eventually at gambling houses at the Hotel de Gesvres and later at the Hotel de Soissons. In addition to these legal venues, the large number of clandestine Parisian gaming rooms, lighted by tripots, made one visitor comment that "flaming pots set Paris ablaze," and gambling was by no means restricted to Paris. (2) The "Age des Lumieres" was lighted by gambling. Although official prohibitions referred to both religious and sociological dangers from gambling, within the context of the period, risking large sums at play became an analogy for risking one's life in battle. Having the courage to risk and winning or losing with equal equanimity demonstrated indifference to material gain and thus served as a means of displaying hereditary status.

 Author Lisa Hilton in the biography Athenais (Back Bay, 2004) explains how gambling was one of the only "honorable" ways in which the often cash-strapped aristocrats, who were forbidden to engage in trade, could make money. It also replaced the thrill of war. As Hilton says:

Psychologically, gambling can be seen as a rebellion against logic, intelligence, moderation and renunciation, amorally appealing to those who in some way feel their lives constricted, and yet containing its own penance from the guilt it provokes from the losses it entails.

It required a certain amount of discipline to gamble well; one had to have mastery over facial expressions so as not to reveal one's thoughts about winning or losing, or one's strategy. A noble had to be able to lose with grace and promptly pay debts.

Marie-Antoinette had been taught as a child by her own mother to gamble, because the Empress knew that a princess who could not play well would soon be separated from her money. Futhermore, the stakes at the court of Austria were much higher than at the court of France, which made Antoinette an intrepid player. As a teenager, she became inordinately attached to the practice. As she began to have gambling debts, Louis XVI, who was trying to save the government finances and give an example of thrift, forbade her to play anymore games of chance. She begged her husband to let her have one last game. He gave permission, and naughty Antoinette made sure the game went on for three days. Louis was disgusted.

Gambling in France did not disappear with the fall of the monarchy. The revolutionaries who replaced Louis and Antoinette had their own share of gambling debts. According to historian Russell T. Barnhart:

The mania for gambling had been transferred from defunct, monarchical Versailles to the thriving, bourgeois Palais Royal, where the five main gaming clubs throbbed from noon till midnight. During the Revolution, Prince Talleyrand won 30,000 francs at one club, and after Waterloo in 1815, Marshal Blucher lost 1,500,000 francs in one night at another. To bring the situation under control and raise taxes for the state, in 1806 Napoleon legalized the main clubs, which from 1819 to 1837 grossed an enormous 137 million francs.

Gambling took up only a short period of Marie-Antoinette's life, and yet it is something for which she is remembered, even before her numerous charities. In order for the excesses of the Revolution to be justified, the failings of a teenage queen are held up for posterity.

Share

Iran Studied the Wrong War Game

 From Alexander Muse:

There is a particular species of institutional error that only becomes visible in hindsight, and only then at considerable cost. It is not the error of building the wrong weapon. It is the error of discarding the right one because it does not fit the threat you expect to fight. The US Air Force spent the better part of a decade trying to retire the A-10 Thunderbolt II, requesting $57M in its fiscal year 2026 budget submission to decommission the remaining 162 aircraft, two years ahead of its own previously stated schedule. Congress blocked the effort, mandating a minimum fleet of 103 aircraft through September 2026. And then Operation Epic Fury began, the Strait of Hormuz closed, and the aircraft the Air Force wanted to scrap became the one the joint force needed most. The irony is not that the Warthog proved useful. The irony is that the environment where it proved essential was one American planners should have anticipated for decades.

American carrier aviation and Aegis destroyer capabilities were engineered for the open ocean, for blue-water engagements against sophisticated adversaries operating capital ships, cruise missiles, and ballistic anti-ship weapons. That engineering represents the correct solution to the problem it was designed to solve. The Strait of Hormuz presented a categorically different problem. Iranian tactics relied on swarm attacks using fast, low-signature boats, often armed with rockets, mines, and short-range anti-ship missiles. These are targets that are difficult to detect and track using conventional high-altitude strike profiles. The IRGC operated more than 1,500 such craft, composite and fiberglass hulls mostly under 15 tons, running between 50 and 70 knots, each carrying a Naser-1 anti-ship missile with a 35-kilometer range and a terminal speed of Mach 0.9, sufficient to mission-kill a frigate. Their doctrine was swarm, overwhelm, and saturate, forcing the defender to choose which threat to engage while knowing that every defensive weapon fired costs more than every offensive boat it destroys. (Read more.)

Share

An Invitation to Premier 'Dune: Part Three' at the Anti-Communist Film Festival

 From Mark Judge at Hot Air:

At its heart, Dune and its sequels offer a powerful argument against big government, high taxes, and political messiahs who promise to save the world. In fact Dune: Part Three would be a perfect fit for the Anti-Communist Film Festival. Director Villeneuve and star Timothee Chalamet can consider themselves both invited.  

    The world and politics of Dune have been expertly analyzed by Daniel Immerwahr, a professor at Northwestern University. Immerwahr has explored the two sides of Dune author Frank Herbert: The environmentalist who grew up in Washington state, hung out with hippies and did drugs in the 1970s, and whose mentor was an American Indian, and Frank Herbert, the conservative Republican who hated taxes and leaders who promised people everything only to go on a power trip.

    Although raised by socialist parents, Herbert experienced commune living with Native Americans, and it filled him with hostility to the federal government. Herbert rejected  “any kind of public charity system” because he “learned early on that our society’s institutions often weaken people’s self-reliance.” Herbert worked for four Republican candidates, including very conservative Guy Cordon, the US senator from Oregon. Cordon was pro-logging, pro-business, pro-military, anti-labor, anti-regulation, and a supporter of Joseph McCarthy. A book Herbert wrote before Dune calls Soviet agents “the sinister embodiment of everything evil.” (Read more.)

Share

Jewels of Queen Marie-Amélie

 

 Niece of Marie-Antoinette. From The Royal Watcher:

After the July Revolution of 1830, the Duke was made the King of the French, and despite being loyal to the Bourbon Monarchy, the new Queen Marie-Amélie resigned herself to her new role, saying: “Since by God’s will this Crown of Thorns has been placed upon our heads, we must accept it and the duties it entails.” After a subdued reign marked by religious duties and charitable work, when the King was forced to abdicate after the 1848 Revolution, Queen Marie-Amélie said to the presiding minster “Ah Monsieur, you were not worthy of such a good king!”. The family went into exile in England and lived a private life at Claremont House, where the now widowed Queen Marie-Amélie supported her grandson’s reconciliation with the Count of Chambord, the head of the senior Bourbon line, who made him his Heir. When she died in 1866, the Queen asked to be buried as the Duchess of Orléans at the Chapelle Royale de Dreux. As she still supported the senior branch of the House of Bourbon, Queen Marie-Amélie famously refused to wear the French Crown Jewels but had a magnificent personal Jewellery Collection which was documented even in her day! (Read more.)

Share

Sedition? Treason? Where Are We?

 

Share

Shelby and Eli Steele’s New Film

 From Man of Steele:

The director (Eli Steele) shared his philosophy behind the film via his Substack platform.

”White guilt is the most important story no one is telling honestly. Not Marxism. Not woke ideology. Not suicidal empathy. Those are symptoms. White guilt is the disease that allows these other ideologies and behaviors to take hold. It’s the grease that makes all of it possible, and until we name it clearly, we have no chance of reversing it.”

And then Owen Anderson (his recent podcast with me is worth a listen) wrote in The Blaze:

Are you guilty? That depends. Are you white? Then yes, you are guilty. But whiteness is no longer the only offense. Believe in God? Believe Christ saves sinners? Believe in objective morality, the rule of law, or marriage between one man and one woman? Then skin color hardly matters. You are guilty anyway.

Guilty of what? Guilty of the sins of history, the inequities of the present, and whatever new offense the racial racketeers invent tomorrow. At least that is what grifters like Ibram X. Kendi and Robin DiAngelo have spent years selling to America, often for staggering sums underwritten by universities eager to flatter the ideology. Arizona State University, where I teach, has offered classes on the problem of whiteness. ASU’s Barrett Honors College teaches the evils of settler colonialism…

Much of the left’s social justice industry runs on a simple formula: Manufacture guilt, divide people by race, promise absolution, then collect money, influence, and institutional power. Sell moral panic to well-intentioned Americans, then invoice them for redemption.

Want to end racism? Write a check. Sign the DEI pledge. Sit through the seminar. Keep your head down while the consultants explain that your skin makes you complicit and your silence proves your guilt.

(Read more.)

Share

La Duchesse de Berry Dedicates Her Daughter to the Blessed Virgin

From the Versailles collection. Please do click on the picture. Caroline, the Duchesse de Berry, is shown kneeling in widow's weeds after the assassination of her husband the Duc de Berry on February 13, 1820. She is offering her year old daughter Louise d'Artois to be consecrated by the priest to the Blessed Virgin Mary. Meanwhile, Caroline is pregnant with the future Henri, Duc de Bordeaux. Behind her kneels Marie-Thérèse Charlotte of France, the daughter of Louis XVI and Marie-Antoinette. Behind the ladies kneels Louis XVIII, the Comte d'Artois (the future Charles X and grandfather of the little princess). The husband of Marie-Thérèse, Louis-Antoine, Duc d'Angoulême, stands beside his father Artois, hands clasped in prayer. Below is a picture of Louise d'Artois, Duchess of Parma, as a married woman with her own children. She was known to be very devout all of her life.

Share

Rubio Is Impressive, DeSantis Is Formidable, but Vance Is the Future of the GOP

 From Alexander Muse:

Vance is the heir apparent not because of proximity to power, though that matters, but because of ideological coherence. He did not arrive at the America First agenda because a president asked him to implement it. He arrived there on his own. His 2022 Senate campaign in Ohio was built on the same economic nationalism, immigration hawkishness, and skepticism of elite consensus that defines the MAGA coalition. His 2016 conversion story, the man who wrote about Appalachian working-class disintegration and then found in Trump a political vehicle for addressing it, is authentic in a way that cannot be manufactured. When Vance argues that illegal immigration drives up housing demand, depresses wages for working Americans, and strains public services, he is not reading from a briefing book. He is articulating a worldview he has held and defended for years. That is an enormous political asset. Voters, especially the working-class voters who form the backbone of the MAGA coalition, have finely tuned instincts for distinguishing a true believer from an executor. Vance is the former.

His voting record confirms it. On April 23, 2024, Vance voted against the supplemental spending vehicle that contained Ukraine aid, placing himself firmly in the domestic-first, skeptical-of-foreign-entanglement wing of the party at a moment when that vote carried real political cost. He did not hedge. He did not triangulate. He voted the way a man who genuinely believes the US should put its own border before someone else’s would vote. That kind of documented consistency is worth more than any speech.

Now, the most common criticism of Vance right now is that he is invisible. Voters who follow politics closely see Marco Rubio on every front page, at every summit, managing every diplomatic crisis, and they ask a reasonable question: what is JD Vance doing? The answer, though it requires some civic patience to appreciate, is that he is doing his job. The vice presidency is constitutionally modest by design. The VP casts tie-breaking Senate votes, represents the administration at ceremonial functions, provides counsel in private, and, most importantly, prepares to assume the presidency if called upon. Vance has executed that role with discipline and loyalty. He has not upstaged the president. He has not freelanced on policy. He has not leaked to reporters or positioned himself as a rival power center inside the administration. For a man who is widely regarded as the leading candidate to succeed Trump, this restraint is a feature, not a bug. The problem is that restraint is hard to photograph. (Read more.)

Share

Russia after Putin

 From Paul Gilbert:

Despite Western predictions of Russia’s pending economic collapse, the country appears to be adapting to sanctions imposed by the United States, Great Britain, and European Union. Growing demand for Russian energy imports has helped keep the country’s besieged economy afloat. China and India, Asia’s biggest and third-biggest economies, respectively, have been the biggest drivers of the trend. This includes crude oil, pipeline gas, liquefied natural gas and coal.

According to Fareed Zakaria: “Russia’s performance in the war has been poor, but it is doing better, especially at holding territory. Russia has also been able to stabilize its economy, which the IMF projects will do better this year than the UK’s or Germany’s. Russia is trading freely with such economic behemoths as China, and India, as well as neighbors like Turkey and Iran. Because of these countries and many more, outside of the advanced technology sector, it has access to all the goods and capital it lost through the Western boycott. There is now a huge world economy that does not include the West, and Russia can swim in those waters freely.”

In addition, the Russian ruble has gained against the dollar after collapsing immediately after the Ukraine invasion.

While Putin remains unpopular in the West, his popularity among his own people remains high. In January 2023, over 80 percent of Russians approved of activities of the Russian President Vladimir Putin. The popularity level saw an increase compared to September 2022, when it stood at 77 percent.

Contrary to Western media hype, President Vladimir Putin, now 70, looks remarkably healthy and shows no sign of stepping down any time soon . . . but, “what if” he decided to step down as president, “what if” he was forced from office or “what if” he died in office, who would succeed him? Would Putin repeat Franco’s historic decision, and restore the monarchy in modern day Russia? (Read more.)

Share