Tuesday, April 15, 2008

Marie-Thérèse, Child of Terror


Marie-Thérèse: Child of Terror by Susan Nagel is a greatly anticipated biography which provides an overview of the turbulent life of the courageous daughter of Louis XVI and Marie-Antoinette. Rare anecdotes and little-known incidents are pulled together into one volume to make for a consuming read. I would especially recommend it to the readers of the novel Madame Royale since it fills in many gaps which the novel, being a novel, did not cover. The Duchesse d'Angoulême, who was in looks and personality a total blending of both parents, is portrayed as emerging from a tragic situation to become one of the most powerful women in Europe. The reader shares in her triumphs, in her falls, in her heartbreaks.

I had reservations when first hearing that the new biography covered the Dark Countess legend, but since the story that Madame Royale was switched with another girl is all over websites and discussions boards, the author really had no other choice but to deal with it. Nagel presents the mystery of the Dark Countess and Dark Count (yes, there was a “Dark Count,” too) in a way that is intriguing, while making it clear that Madame Royale and the Duchesse d'Angoulême were unquestionably the same person. (Not that any doubt ever crossed my mind.)

I also must admit that in the opening chapters of the book I was a bit put off by the insinuations that Louis XVI had an affair with Madame de Polignac, Marie-Antoinette’s best friend. Not in any biographies of either Louis or Antoinette have I ever come across such an assertion, which includes Louis’ fathering of little Jules. Of course, I have not read everything and nothing is outside the realm of possibility, I suppose. It is known that Louis was close to Madame de Polignac and wrote her many letters, bestowing marks of honor upon her that he showed to no other lady. As outrageous as an allegation of an affair may be to those who are familiar with Louis XVI’s life, at least it goes against the stereotype of Louis as an impotent, asexual drone. However, I have to draw the line at the book’s claim of the king begetting a child with one of the servants. The image of Louis XVI chasing a helpless chambermaid produces too much cognitive dissonance. The biography is not footnoted as extensively as it could be, especially when otherwise unheard of claims are being made.

In most other respects, Nagel quotes directly from the various memoirs to produce a highly favorable portrait of the royal family, although their foibles and faults are not ignored. I do think that the scheming Louis XVIII is portrayed a bit too positively, though. The Revolution is seen mostly from Madame Royale's point of view, and her view is understandably not very benign, since as a young child she was forced to witness bloodshed and social chaos. One by one her immediate family members were led away to die. In the prison she could hear the tormented cries of her little brother but was not allowed to comfort him or visit him when he was sick. Did she hate the Revolution and all symbols of it? Yes.

With sensitivity and insight, Nagel does not hesitate to demonstrate how the faith of Marie-Thérèse sustained her through so many sorrows. The books also makes it clear that Marie-Thérèse was dedicated to France in almost the same way as a nun is dedicated to her vows. For Madame Royale, no sacrifice, personal or otherwise, was too great, if it benefited her country. She married, not out of love, but out of what she saw as her duty to France. Contrary to many past biographies, Nagel produces evidence that the marriage of Marie-Thérèse to her cousin the Duc d'Angoulême was indeed consummated. (It makes one feel more sorry for her; Angoulême was so unappealing.)

Rising above personal disappointments, Marie-Thérèse led a life rich in love, full of friends and devotion to the poor. I learned a great deal about her friendships with people such as Queen Louise of Prussia, Napoleon’s “beautiful enemy,” Louise’s mother being a childhood friend of Queen Marie-Antoinette’s. The Duchesse d’Angoulême’s love of simplicity and her ability to relate so well to small children are qualities of which ample evidence is given. Most remarkable was her talent for stealing the show at certain crucial events, when she would appear magnificently dressed, with jewels and plumes that heightened her regal bearing, leaving no doubt in the minds of onlookers that she was the greatest princess of all.

Marie-Thérèse’s struggles with her memories and sad feelings are explored and might have been explored a little more. The emphasis is on her energy and dynamism, which were certainly outstanding aspects of her character. The search for what happened to her brother and the various pretenders is touched upon, not exhaustively, but then there are other books which deal specifically with those phenomena. Many fascinating details of the life of the Duchesse d'Angoulême are included, most of which are taken from primary sources, and for those aspects I found it an enjoyable read. If a person is not an admirer of Marie-Thérèse and her family, they might find it all tiresome, but I hated for the book to end.
 












(*This book was sent to me by the publisher in exchange for my honest opinion.) Share

26 comments:

Anonymous said...

I am adding this to my "next book to read" list!

Catherine Delors said...

I had never heard either of Louis XVI's supposed dalliances. I agree that they are completely at odds with all of other reliable accounts of his life and character. A pity Dr. Nagel did not reveal her sources in this regard.

As for the fact that Marie-Therese hated the Revolution, if anyone had good personal reasons to do so, she certainly did.

Her charming portrait by Wertmuller on the cover of the book, by the way, is part of the current Marie-Antoinette exhibition at the Grand Palais.

elena maria vidal said...

One would think that if Louis had been dallying then Count Mercy would have recorded it is his reports to the the Queen's family. He did express a lot of misgivings about the influence of Madame de Polignac but he never mentioned that she was sleeping with Louis. Something like that would have been seen as diminishing Marie-Antoinette's influence with her husband, such as it was, and would have been a matter of great concern. Especially if Madame de Polignac had borne Louis a child....

Gareth Russell said...

I hope to get the book myself, but I must say the Polignac insinuation sounds frankly absurd. I have just finished writing a play about the final months at Versailles, which is to be put on in Oxford this summer. I took a decision to portray Gabrielle de Polignac's character more harshly than others might have given the context of when the play is set. However, I think that no matter what negative sides of her personality one chooses to show (and I certainly tried to balance my portrayal!), promiscuity is certainly not one of them. I think that there is frankly no evidence to support her supposed affair with the comte de Vaudreuil, let alone Louis XVI! The king, whilst certainly not asexual, was faithful to his wife (as, I believe, she was to him.) I think his fondness for La Polignac had much to do with her glamour and her charm - her ability to discomfort people when it suited her and her ability to dazzle them and flatter them when she wanted. I think her kindness to him made a long-lasting impression, especially since it was discerning. I doubt it was a sexual relationship, in any way. I am pleased to hear the rest of the book was sympathetic and unearthed more on the princess royal's life than simply the image of the frigid, traumatised victim of popular legend!

elena maria vidal said...

Hi, Gareth, I have heard of your play and would love to see it. I share your view of Gabrielle. Also, aside from the part about extramarital affairs, I think that Dr. Nagel's portrayal of Louis XVI is closer to the real Louis than many other biographies. The book is definitely a must read for anyone interested in Louis XVI, Marie-Antoinette, and especially Madame Royale.

elena maria vidal said...

I would also like to add that I received a kind note from Dr. Nagel, concerning her sources for certain matters in the biography. The hunch that Madame de Polignac's son Jules was fathered by Louis XVI is based upon information gleaned from letters among Maria-Theresa, Count Mercy and Marie Antoinette. Louis XVI's brothers also treated young Jules as a family member during the Bourbon Restoration with special appointments, etc...(see pages. 313-14 in the book). No other child of Polignac's was ennobled a prince nor treated as a member of the Bourbon family.

As for the story of Louis XVI's alleged daughter, "Ernestine," Montjoye, who was a contemporary of the murdered royal couple, referred to her in his account. Madame Campan referred to her as well as the "girl who is always with Madame Royale." The fact that she was mentioned at all is, according to some scholars, a signal that Ernestine's origins may have been unique.

Laurie said...

For those of us fascinated with the lives of Marie Antoinette and her family, this is a wonderful read.

elena maria vidal said...

I certainly thought so.

Unknown said...

Having just read this book, I agree that the Louis XVI affair / illegitimate child assertion is very odd. I rather wanted to believe it, but couldn't remember it in any other biography. Glad to know I wasn't the only one to clock it. Does anyone know where she got the info from?

El Jefe Maximo said...

You have a most interesting blog, and I will definitely take some time to page through it.

The poor Duchesse d'Angoulême is for me the most interesting member of Louis XVI's family (save possibly Comte d'Artois (later Charles X). Napoléon I called her (uncharitably) the only man in that generation of the Bourbon family.

I bridled just a shade at your saying that Louis XVIII was portrayed in this book a bit too positively. I've not read this book, but Louis XVIII comes in for so much bad press, so often, from so many different quarters, that I feel compelled to speak up for him a wee bit.

Louis XVIII was unquestionably a schemer, and this quality served him well, particularly after his exile and once he finally became king. I must say, also (and I'm rather on the Bonapartist side of things), that Louis XVIII, at the time he got the throne, proved to be a pretty good king, considering the circumstances he had to work with. At any rate, Louis XVIII certainly had a firmer grasp of political reality than either elder brother Louis XVI or his even more inept younger brother Charles X.

This is far from saying he was likable. Louis XVIII was a much better king than he was a brother or subject.

elena maria vidal said...

Welcome, el jefe. Do read the book and perhaps you will see what I am talking about in regard to Louis XVIII. He was indeed a competent ruler, but his plotting against Louis XVI contributed to the Revolution. I thought the book was a bit soft on his misdeeds.

SuzanneG said...

Elena~
I just started this the other day, along with "Mistress of the Revolution" and can't decide which one I should read first! (Love it when that happens... :)

Anyway, I just came over here to read about them on your blog and am enjoying your reviews an ensuing discussions/comments.

Hope you are having a wonderful weekend!
Happy Feast of the Baptism of Our Lord,
Suzanne

jehanbosch said...

No, I very much suspect that Louis XVI had an affair with the married chambermaid Philippine Lambriquet. There are strong indications Louis did not know how to procreate and having asexual traits. He might not have liked it from a moral viewpoint but had to learn how to get an heir, that was the greater duty. And mrs. Lambriquet was richly awarded for her efforts. While the child, Ernestine Lambriquet, was born three months BEFORE Madame Royale. Something strange on the Lambriquet birth certificate; no father is mentioned! In addition the girls looked like twins. Small wonder as Marie Therese looked more like her paternal aunt and Louis than the Queen. Something Empress Maria Theresia immediately remarked from an accurate drawing of the baby. All other flirts of Louis, a couple only , were entirely platonic.

elena maria vidal said...

JB, you are making many wild assertions without giving any sources to back up your claims. Yes, MT resembled her Aunt Elisabeth, as several people remarked, including Louis XVIII. I have never heard of Louis XVI being described as "asexual." As we know from Bertiere's book, which I quote in my own bio of MA, the delay of total consummation was not the fault of Louis XVI but of Marie-Antoinette.

jehanbosch said...

I am not taking Berthiere's book too serious; it is situated next to me. It is too longwinding for a history book and contains an awful mistake. Berthiere maintains that the marriage between the Count and Countess of Provence was never consummated. The Countess got a miscarriage twice and was not into male lovers. This makes me doubt her research. Sorry, no offence meant but i dislike novels because they give false impressions. And lots of people describe Louis XVI as asexual; i am not the first. Did not Du Barry note that Louis was not as other men. By the way : I am more into MT than MA. My grandparents had a library on the last Bourbons and Habsburgs so I grew up with them. Again my apologies for displaying my dislike..

elena maria vidal said...

Bertiere may be incorrect about the Comtesse de Provence but she is right about Louis XVI and Marie-Antoinette and their marriage, and her theories are confirmed by other biographers.

Here is a passage from Ch 5 The Temple of Love in my biography Marie-Antoinette: Daughter of the Caesars: 'In the summer of 1777, Louis XVI and Antoinette fully consummated their marriage at last. On August 30, 1777, Marie-Antoinette wrote her mother: Je suis dans le bonheur le plus essential pour toute ma vie. “I am in the most essential happiness of my entire life.”31 Mercy’s letter to the Empress confirmed the joyful event. On August 19 at 10 in the morning, while Antoinette was leaving her bath, Louis came in and stayed with her for an hour and fifteen minutes.32 The doctor Lassone had instructed Louis and later assured him the marriage was completely consummated. They were aged twenty-two and twenty-one years respectively. The bride had physically matured and was emotionally ready for the duties of being a wife and mother. Her readiness can be attributed in part to her friendship with Madame de Polignac, who helped Antoinette overcome any fears about sex and pregnancy that she had absorbed from her sister Maria Carolina’s letters and perhaps also from watching her sister-in-law Isabella die after great sufferings in childbirth. As for Louis he told Madame Adélaïde that he had such pleasure in his relations with his wife that he wished it had happened sooner.33 In the future he would usually make his romantic visits to her in the mornings, slipping into her room quietly, even when she would stay at Petit Trianon.34 The Empress found it appalling that they did not sleep together the entire night; Antoinette had to explain that it was not the French custom. To celebrate their matrimonial success, in 1778 Antoinette commissioned the architect Mique to design and build the neo-classical structure called the Temple of Love. It became a marriage which all the forces of hell could not sunder.'
(The footnotes have the sources but you have to get the book for those.)

jehanbosch said...

I never really attacked her theories about the royal marriage, just some details. Like I said the book in question is laying next to me. But I also do not like the fact she never pays attention to the FOUR ADOPTED children. I had to publish the whole story on Quora which is not academic by a long shot. Ernestine Lambriquet looked like MT like a twin. By the way i have a large library on the final Bourbons, almost only French but often old. I am in the process of buying all RECENT biographies of MT avoiding the Dark Countess fiction. .

elena maria vidal said...

I include the four adopted children in my books; Marie-Antoinette would have adopted more if she could. I have never heard that Ernestine and Madame Royale looked like twins. Could you tell me what book says that? But I am glad you do not believe the Dark Countess myth.

Rennette's Flower Garden said...

If Ernestine Lambriquet was closely related to MTC in some way, perhaps she was an illegitimate child of one of Louis XVI's brothers? The "Princes du Sang" were known to have courted many lovers, after all. That may explain why she looked so much like "Madame Royale" and why she was given special treatment by the French royal family, unlike the other adopted children of Louis and Antoinette. I wonder if Ernestine's mother had any relationship with say, the Comte d'Artois, for example? What do you think?

elena maria vidal said...

I have wondered that myself although I have yet to receive any information from a reliable source that Ernestine did indeed resemble Madame Royale, or seen any portraits of her.

elena maria vidal said...

Here is the Wikipedia entry. Very interesting. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ernestine_Lambriquet

jehanbosch said...

As a serious academic scholar with degrees on a SECULAR West European University i have a wellfounded suspicion about Wikipedia articles because they can be altered without any problem. Read the entry about King Carol II of Romania for instance: in one alinea he is described as a fascist, in another alinea as an anti-fascist. The more East you get in Europe the more counterfactual the Wikipedia articles are. I rely on books, scholarly magazines and PDFs , not on this..I use them for dates and scans only.

jehanbosch said...

As a male Puritan without much medical knowledge i have to go into the affairs of the Count of Artois and the Count of Provence, the usual suspects. Artois had a string of lovers but not a single bastard of Artois is known. So he either had a low fertility or that was damaged by an unmentionable disease. With his unloved Consort he sired three children, starting at an early age. Maybe the Countess was unusually fertile. From Casanova's wretched memoirs i know condoms were in use but no royal mistress would use them because a bastard child meant a higher allowance.Provence is a highly unlikely suspect. He was obese due to a gland malfunction and/or diabetes. His mistress ,one Balby got a child but the date was wrong, after 10 months or so. Children born long AFTER 9 months are known but they usually arrive dead. My own sister was two weeks or so late but that was in 1938. Provence refused to recognize Balby's child and he was probably right. Any medical comments are most wellcome

jehanbosch said...

Apologies for the late reaction but going through old biographies without a workable index takes time.I did not find anything about the adopted children in my fairly extensive collection of old biographies on MT and MA. Nagel deals only with Ernestine: ressembling MA and Louis XVI: page 17 and 47, birth certificate WITHOUT father p. 47, putative half-sister of MT page 48 and 344, HER FATHER NOT HER BIOLOGICAL FATHER page 102, MISTAKING ERNESTINE FOR MT page 126. I am planning to buy three more recent biographies of MT: Becquet, Muratori and Desmond. I knew of the adopted children BEFORE Nagel; i suspect articles in the magazines HISTORIA and L'HISTOIRE but mine are in storage.The Dark Countess theory seriously damaged modern biographies. And I surely wish a good likeless of Erenestine would surface.. Even so, many portraits of MT are not that good.

elena maria vidal said...

JB, if you are such a scholar then why can't you name a single book or article substantiating your claims? I find the Wiki article was interesting, not infallible. I am fascinated that they mentioned all of Marie-Antoinette's adopted children. The books and articles I used in my research can be found in the back of my biography Marie-Antoinette, Daughter of the Caesars.

As far as Artois and Provence, it is known that Louis XV used condoms with his mistresses as he had one bastard and did not want more. Artois may have done the same. There was certainly nothing wrong with his fertility. Provence never fathered a living child.

elena maria vidal said...

JB, Nagel's book is the subject of this review and I am aware of what it says but I do not always trust her use of sources. If Nagel's book, which I am aware of, is the only one you can quote to me, then please do not bother. Do not presume to teach us when you cannot come up with any new sources, and have no credentials except to proclaim yourself a great scholar with a vast library. As for Alice Curtis Desmond's book, it is more of a novel than a scholarly work, mostly taken from Madame de Gontaut's memoirs.