Let them eat cake

She didn;t say it. It actually came from china where the statement was "the peasants are out of rice" and the emperor said "then let them eat meat". It was then twisted and then used as propaganda. The idea is that she was out of touch. If the ppl don't have bread they can't have cake which is a more expensive type of bread. It showed she was out of touch and unfit to rule

The phrase "Let them eat cake" or "Let them eat brioche", came from a book written when she was a child, I believe written by Rousseau (I may be wrong on who wrote the book).
This quote compared her to an aristocratic princess of the story, who was so ignorant of the struggle of the poor that she assumed the starving masses could eat sweets and such.
This comparison, mixed with the fact that she had a faux farm built in Versailles to "play peasant", proved to become staples in her tarnished pile of a reputation, a pile that would later collapse in the Diamond Necklace Affair.
>Huge Ouiaboo

Hello brother.
Thanks for the contribution.

Where is the Monarchist ball?
Louis XI and XIV at least deserve love.

It's at the bottom of the guillotine.

So I had to do a paper on this, here's some 2 am thoughts

To get a big more technical: she wasn't actually accused of saying "let them eat cake!" in her lifetime. The phrase played no part in the French Revolution. This association didn't come along until the mid 19th century and even then, it didn't really stick very well until the 1930s when for various reasons it exploded in popularity and has been a mainstay in Marie Antoinette popular culture ever since.

The French phrase ("Qu'ils mangent de la brioche") was written by Rousseau for his Confessions, written in 1766/published in the 1780s. However, it wasn't a phrase he came up with on his own: it was his own spin on a common folklore/myth, which is today classified in the Aarne–Thompson Tale Type Index as “[King/queen/ruler/wealthy person] ignorant of condition of subjects; lifestyle of the poor and that of the rich contrasted; and apathy or indifference to the plight of others.” Other versions include one from 1569 where a noble woman says "Why do the people complain and suffer hunger? There are rolls, bread, butter and [sweet bread] for sale in the market; with that, they could quiet their hunger." Another version dated to ancient China is a magistrate who, being told that the poor are starving because they cannot afford to eat [common staple rice dish at the time], asks why they don't just eat plain rice instead.

1/2

2/2

Another version was mentioned by Marie Antoinette's brother-in-law in his memoirs, written in 1791-1799 but published in 1824. He recounted how he had been taught that Louis XIV's wife, "hearing one day the poor people pitied for being in want of bread, replied 'But, dear me, why do they not eat pie-crust?'" He doesn't mention "Qu'ils mangent de la brioche" or Marie Antoinette at all in connection to this.

Yet another was recounted in an 1866 book written by a comtesse whose mother, having been a lady in waiting to a daughter of Louis XV, recounted a story her mother told her where the king's daughter, during a famine, said in despair: "But why cannot the poor put up with pie crust?" (She loathed pie crust.) As with Louis XVIII, no mention of Marie Antoinette.

>mixed with the fact that she had a faux farm built in Versailles to "play peasant",

The contemporary criticism against her hamlet wasn't related to playing peasant, which she didn't do except when performing in operas. It was related to the perceived cost of the hamlet [it was expensive, like all court buildings, but she was accused of basically bankrupting the country to build it] and the fact that it was a private estate, which she preferred over the public Versailles.

Members of the public couldn't go there and see her like they could at the palace, where she was by etiquette required to be on "public view" for a good portion of the day. Members of the court were also not allowed to see her on her private estate unless she invited them, and she preferred to invite people she liked rather than people who were by etiquette entitled to be around her.

So rumors began building up about what was really in the hamlet, and what she was doing there. She was accused of having rooms where the walls were lined with diamonds and precious jewels, she was accused of having orgies, plotting with Austrians, more orgies, plots against France in the summer of 1789, and so on.

People were hungry and she decided to give her cakes to them. Little did she know the french hated cakes

but did she have orgies?

this is very important

Nope. She was rather prudish, all things considered.

Although I do like how she described having full sex for the first time (it took her and her husband about 7 years to properly consummate; they had dabbled but even after they finally made it to penetration, Louis never came inside her because they had no idea what the hell they were doing):

>I am in the most essential happiness of my entire life. It has already been more than eight days since my marriage was perfectly consummated; the proof has been repeated and yesterday even more completely than the first time.

Post your paper.

It's not really worth posting. I can find some of the research/articles re: Let them eat cake that I used to write it tomorrow if the thread is still up, they're more worthwhile to read than my paper.

What an adorable creature

On the topic of Marie, did you know she was friends with Georgiana Cavendish, the duchess of Devonshire? Two fashion icons being friends! I get excited from this for some reason.

On the topic of Versailles, I still sour over pic related
>tfw no Porcelaine Trianon ;-;

She could be cute

When she was still dauphine (so 14-17) she once fell off her donkey while riding. She had a habit of poking fun of Versailles strict etiquette which governed every little thing you did. She was laughing on the ground afterward and refused to be helped up, instead saying "leave me on the ground, we must wait for [her 1st lady of honor], she will show us the proper way to pick up a dauphine who has tumbled from her donkey!"

>"SHE DIDNT SAY THAT"
Cool it with your swelling autism you stupid underage dipshits

(Since this so obscure, I'll expand)
Louis XIV had a small palace built on Versailles grounds for Madame De Montespan. This building was known as a Trianon, and was THE building to making them popular among nobility. It was made in honor of Chinese porcelain trade, and what could not be made of porcelain was painted to look as such. Building it was apparently easier than anticipated, as it was started early winter and it was completed the following spring. Many commented that due to this, it was like it had grown like a flower from the earth. By all accounts, the place was heavenly and beautiful, and put all that saw it in awe. Sadly, the Trianon was not to remain. Louis grew tired of it as it was no longer serving as a hideaway from court as he intended, and Madame de Maintenon, his mistress turned wife, felt the place was too cold and bulky. He ordered it demolished.

Thus,
>tfw no porcelains Trianon ;-;

>Porcelaine Trianon

God damn it Madame de Maintenon!

I'm sad that nothing remains of the Chinese pavilion and merry-go-round that Marie Antoinette had built. It wasn't an architectural marvel or anything, but still. At least most of the hamlet is still around and being restored. Thanks, Dior.

Fucking mistresses and peasants destroying our shit!

And here we are worrying about Muslims...

did someone say TRIANON?

The greatest loss IMO is the loss of the historic gardens from the storm of 1999. 10,000+ trees, many of which dated back to Louis XVI's era, gone. Looking at photos from pre-1999 to now is sometimes startling, especially the hameau de la Reine and the gardens as a whole. Although they replanted some trees, they are nowhere near as tall or lush, giving the entire garden a completely different feel and appearance.

That is a pitiful site....

>hameau de la reine

if I could live there I would. It's like an enchanted garden. And tourists don't care for it because it's not flashy so it's never particularly crowded.

it wasn't every day, it was once a month

it can't be helped

I miss the times when fabulously wealthy aristocrats could just let the poor starve and crack jokes about it. French revolution was the worst thing that even happened to Europe

>it wasn't every day, it was once a month

Marie Antoinette took a bath every day, or almost every day depending on what palace they were at and her whims, as part of her morning routine. It was unusual in France and it was called a "German" custom to take so many baths. Normally you wouldn't take a bath (meaning an immersion bath where you get in a big tub) so often, perhaps every 2 weeks or once a month, and would instead sponge bathe (wiping yourself with a cloth) every day.

what makes you say that?

None of the people quoted actually said those things. They're all part of a social folklore trend, where wealthy people are quoted as saying something ignorant/callous about the poor needing food due to their inability or unwillingness to understand the problem.

Because it was basically the end of the cultural revolution that began in the Renaissance. Antiquity and master morality was regaining the upper hand at last over christendom and its slave morality poison.Then boom: the reformation, French revolution, and everything went straight to the devil again. Napoleon was the dying gasp of antiquity. After his defeat, Judea had triumphed over Rome for good.

>Judea had triumphed over Rome for good.
I don't follow

Christianity = Judea (ressentiment, Good and Evil, the slave revolt in morals)

Antiquity = Rome (sentiment, Good and Bad, the world order of masters)

>tfw will never bath this elaborately

>The Queen bathed in a large gown of English flannel buttoned down to the bottom; its sleeves throughout, as well as the collar, were lined with linen. When she came out of the bath the first woman held up a cloth to conceal her entirely from the sight of her women, and then threw it over her shoulders. The bathers wrapped her in it and dried her completely. She then put on a long and wide open chemise, entirely trimmed with lace, and afterwards a white taffety bed-gown. The wardrobe woman warmed the bed; the slippers were of dimity, trimmed with lace. Thus dressed, the Queen went to bed again, and the bathers and servants of the chamber took away the bathing apparatus. The Queen, replaced in bed, took a book or her tapestry work

so you consider good morals to be laughing as peasants starve?

you could do all this and more if you wanted to, you don't have to be one of the richest people in the country either

what a time to be alive, eh?

Where am I going to get ladies in waiting to act as my attendants? And servants to do the servanty things This, I do not have

Who was laughing as the peasants starved?

Dirty g*rman woman got what she deserved for mistreatment of superior frenchies.

>I miss the times when fabulously wealthy aristocrats could just let the poor starve and crack jokes about it. French revolution was the worst thing that even happened to Europe

Place job listings for domestic workers, or use a staffing agency. Have you never hired staff for your household before?

Okay but... who... was doing that?

he did, whether his conception of the past is accurate or not that's what he's pining for and thinks that the revolution is bad because it apparently did away with that

>Another version was mentioned by Marie Antoinette's brother-in-law in his memoirs, written in 1791-1799 but published in 1824. He recounted how he had been taught that Louis XIV's wife, "hearing one day the poor people pitied for being in want of bread, replied 'But, dear me, why do they not eat pie-crust?'"
this seems to be the emost reliable source, unless you want to split hairs over whether it was pie crust or cake.

I consider it bad morals that the nobles should throw away all their rights and privileges to go starve with the peasants

What Louis XVIII was recounting was just another version of a similar fable to "Then let them eat pastry," which is part of a social folklore type that dates back thousands of years and can be found all over the world.

She was kind of a bitch too. She was one of the leading ultra-royalist figures and it was her prodding which convinced Louis XVI to try and leave France because she wanted to go back to Austria and come back with an army to kick out all the Revolutionaries and revert France to absolute monarchism.

So she's directly responsible for the fate of herself, her husband and her family.

Austrian whore i hope she suffered a painful death

>this writing style

Hmmmm....

I appreciate the Marie user for posting all the information. We need more of you.

>She was one of the leading ultra-royalist figures and it was her prodding which convinced Louis XVI to try and leave France because she wanted to go back to Austria and come back with an army to kick out all the Revolutionaries and revert France to absolute monarchism.

Neither she or Louis XVI attempted to leave France. The initial plan was to head for Rheims, but Louis XVI wanted a location with a fortified stronghold so it would be protected, which is why Montmedy was ultimately chosen. One of the reasons that the flight to Montmedy failed is because Louis XVI rejected all routes which would have taken them briefly across the border and then back again.

They never intended for a foreign army to "kick out all revolutionaries" or to revert to absolute monarchism. Louis XVI and Marie Antoinette initially rejected the idea of an armed Congress making statements in their defense, threatened Louis XVI's brothers for raising an emigre army, and Louis even declared that any foreign countries which housed emigre armies needed to disband them or be declared enemies of France. They only accepted the possibility of armed interference when their lives had been threatened for years and when it became clear that control over France would not be regained naturally.

1/2

2/2
Marie Antoinette's intention was Louis XVI's intention, which he laid out in the manifesto he left behind before their flight:

>with what pleasure will he forget all the personal injuries and find himself in your midst again, when a Constitution which he has freely accepted ensures that our holy religion shall be respected, that government shall be established on a stable footing, and through its operation no one shall be troubled in their goods or their condition, that laws shall no longer be infringed with impunity, and finally that liberty shall be established on firm and unshakable foundations.

Louis XVI have no problem with a constitutional monarchy. What he had a problem with was the utter violence, chaos and lawlessness that was prevailing in France.

Now, Louis XVI's brothers--the comte de Provence and comte d'Artois--and his sister, Elisabeth, wanted a return to absolute monarchism. Provence and Artois made no secret of their attempts to raise a foreign+emigre army to invade France. They were even going so far as to release declarations in Louis' name, claiming that he was not acting under his own influence and needed foreign intervention. Louis had to send them a letter after he sanctioned the Constitution:

>... any obstacle I had placed in the way [of signing the Constitution] would have caused the war I was anxious to avoid, and would have prevented the people from judging of the Constitution, because they would have seen nothing but my constant opposition. By adopting their ideas and following them in all good faith they will learn the cause of their troubles; public opinion will change; and since without this change one can hope for nothing but fresh convulsions, I shall bring about a better order of things by my acceptance than by my refusal ... I wished to let you know the motives for my acceptance, so that your conduct should be in accord with mine.

the royal family werent all radically conservative anyway, they were willing to bend to demands, they had compassionate hearts, theyre weakness hurt the country but they were not evil people. Their main problem was bad counsel that they took because they were so weak and indecisive.

They were in a bad place at a bad time, facing a global revolution of liberal ideas and being torn between actually agreeing with them and agreeing with poor counsel from their staff. The revolution needed heads to plant on their pikes, and the royal family was unfortunate enough to follow counsel that lead straight to that.

Everybody knows Louie smashed them in court, they had no case to kill him

Yeah, Louis XVI was incredibly relatively liberal when it came to his beliefs and his willingness to agree with what we would consider "revolutionary" ideals. A significant portion of the early reforms in 1789-1790 were reforms that Louis XVI had tried repeatedly to do himself but he was cockblocked by the noble-led Parlements. He sanctioned and agreed over and over with what the people wanted.

The only reforms he disagreed with were those that diminished respect for the monarchy... which, his instincts were right on this, because the more diminished the monarchy became, the more they were considered ornaments rather than an active part of the government, and the more he clashed with the new government because he wanted a say in how his country was run, etc, we know what happened there.

>Napoléon supporting La Terreur

I'm French and only retards support it.

edgy and cringy af

unironically 4

...

Are you kidding

I'm starting to picture french nobility as a bunch of clueless autistic kids.

That, or anime MCs

They got married when she was 14 and he was 15, so there were a lot of factors which contributed to their lack of sex.

Louis had been neglected as a child because no one expected him to ever reign, so he was very shy and often kept to himself even after he became the dauphin. He was never properly taught about sex.

Marie Antoinette was physically underdeveloped at 14 (Louis XV described her as still being physically akin to a child when she first arrived) and the only education she got on sex was a letter from her elder sister which described consummation as being painful and horrible.

Louis XVI was extremely shy, and he refused to regularly visit Marie Antoinette's bed chambers until a private passageway was built between them. This is because when he would walk down the halls to go to her at night, people would see him and tease him about the fact that he was going to his wife's bed.

By 1772 they had started attempting consummation, with the ambassador reporting that Louis had told Antoinette that he was waiting until they were both older. This same year Louis told his grandfather that he had "made attempts to consummate his marriage, but was always stopped by painful sensations." He also said that they made progress but "both felt pain and it is still a thorny matter." By July 1773, Marie Antoinette told her mother that she believed the marriage was consummated, though she knew she wasn't pregnant.

The Austrian ambassador to France once compared their situation to that of a previous king, who took months to consummate his marriage due to the "narrowness of the passage."

She finally got pregnant after her brother talked with Louis. Supposedly, Louis told him that he had firm erections and entered but always left without releasing inside. The brother told him that unless he released then she could not get pregnant, they started having proper sex, a few months later she's pregnant. Then regularly pregnant after that.

Very interesting. I assume you are actually an historian, right?

Was being clueless a common occurence amongst englihment era nobility?

>Louis XVI was extremely shy, and he refused to regularly visit Marie Antoinette's bed chambers until a private passageway was built between them. This is because when he would walk down the halls to go to her at night, people would see him and tease him about the fact that he was going to his wife's bed.

oh god it's an anime

VN when

>I assume you are actually an historian, right?

Nope, no degree, just super invested in this area of history.

>Was being clueless a common occurence amongst englihment era nobility?

Not particularly. Problems with consummation in royalty or nobility were more often simple fertility problems or in some cases the man just not wanting to have sex with his wife.

>VN when

Well, there is Rose of Versailles!

France is a nation of whores and sluts like Marie Antoinette and Jeanne de arc

t. lindybeige

>Louis XVI was extremely shy, and he refused to regularly visit Marie Antoinette's bed chambers until a private passageway was built between them. This is because when he would walk down the halls to go to her at night, people would see him and tease him about the fact that he was going to his wife's bed.
is he our guy?

He eventually built up the confidence to kiss her in public so probably not

Fuck 'em.

Is it Veeky Forums approved?

He was really into locks which has to be the nerdiest and most autistic hobby possible. Probably the 18th century equivalent of coding in some obscure programming language or something. So yeah, kinda.

Nothing, because she never actually said it.

S'all right. Not particularly historically accurate but then, it's not meant to be. It's visually fun I guess.

I prefer the 1938 Marie Antoinette film for its lush costumes. Or the movie L'Autrichienne for more attention to historical detail, since almost all the dialogue is from the transcript of her trial.

She was too pure for this world.

Meh, it's okay.
The main part I disliked about the Dunst Marie Antoinette was the fact that it couldn't decide whether or not it wanted to be a period piece or not.
Throughout most of the film, it's a straight period piece, but every once and a while they'll throw in a random anachronism, like in one scene she's wearing canvas vans, and another some pop music song will play.

I get what it was trying to do, but the fact that it only happens once or twice is bizarre

I seem to remember them using a lot of modern music? It's been a while since I've seen it all the way through, though.

I think Coppola got too caught up in her idea of having people identify with Antoinette using modern touches. You don't need Chuck Taylors or Laduree macarons to have people identify with a young woman stuck in an awkward marriage and a life filled with too many restrictions and pressure

Yeah, that's what they were trying for, but it was so haphazard it just felt bizarre.
I only remember it once or twice, with the rest being standard ambiance OST stuff.

Anyway, Amadeus is pure, unadulterated Rococo Kino

>I only remember it once or twice, with the rest being standard ambiance OST stuff.

It's about half and half. Half are modern pop/rock songs, other half is classical music/ambiance.

Also man, this made me forget how much I love Opus 36: youtube.com/watch?v=Yzxo0YCxAA0

>1938 Marie Antoinette

Forever fuck Louis B. Mayer for axing the planned technicolor and replacing Sidney Franklin with W.S. Van Dyke just to shove it to Norma Shearer.

has anyone else looked up the drawings they made about her during or just before the revolution? They're truly bizarre. Riding a giant penis ostrich, sticking dildos into her friends, etc

here's a nonsexual one

Some are pretty hot, desu.

Some less so.

THE FRENCH, EVERYONE

"Stop being poor."

Lmao it sounds like trying to breed galapagos tortoises or some rare type of endangered species that goes in into heat only once every few years

Here's another one with Louis.

Captioned "Ah you big thief, you are disbursing!" Aka he came too early and stole the sperm she needs to make babies.....

A bizarre one, dated from the brief period with the royal family + some of their companions were imprisoned in the Temple. It's from a pamphlet that basically describes how Marie Antoinette and the prisoners in the temple were having a bunch of orgies. Instead of what they were really doing which was fearing for the lives of their friends and children, but, hey.

Here is Marie Antoinette shoving a dildo up the princesse de Lamballe, who would be brutally murdered in about 2 weeks after its publication.

>Ah my good friend, ah ah! I can not take anymore, I'm going to come!

(Or literally "I'm going to soul" but you get the idea)

>Now this one's got a shy little pecka, doesn't he? He wants to go mate with his right pretty sheila but take a look at how the other ones are stampin' their feet when he walks by... they know what he's up to and they won't let him forget it! So he's gotta find a way to get to his mate without the others seein'. Let's see how he does!

You gotta be rich to do that.

Here's another. The rumor then was that the hero of two worlds, Lafayette, was the lover of the Queen. As is shown here in a really subtle way.

Heard rumors that Louis XVI had a big rooster