Marie Antoinette
Perhaps it is because her story is so well known and infamous, but I have recently realized that my entire education has been entirely void of Marie Antoinette’s story. I knew little pieces that are easy to pick up from popular media, but nothing substantial. I knew her famous (albeit untrue)”Let them eat cake” line to the starving populace of France and that she was beheaded primarily for her selfish and exorbitant consumption. That said, I found myself wondering how accurate this picture was. How much influence and responsibility can reasonably be said to rest with her?
For those who have had a similar lack of insight into the life of Marie Antoinette to mine, some basics are necessary for context. Maria Antonia Josepha Joanna was born in Vienna, Austria on 2 November, 1755 to Maria Theresa, the Empress of Austria and Francis I, the Holy Roman Emperor. In an effort to seal a fragile alliance, she was betrothed to the future King Louis XVI of France when she was just 10 years old. Her French tutor found her more intelligent than expected, but lazy and frivolous. In May 1770, she finally made the trip to France and married Louis. Four years later with the death of Louis XV, she became the last Queen of France. She was just 19.
Marie Antoinette is remembered for her high fashion and as the catalyst for the fall of the French monarchy. Louis XVI is generally passed over for primary responsibility because his personality and lifestyle were so drastically different from Marie’s and did not receive the degree of public scorn that hers engendered. He was introverted and solitary with simple tastes while Marie was social and extravagant in both her taste and spending. She also had a not-so-private affair with a Swedish military diplomat Count Axel Fersen. Louis, on the other hand, remained loyal to Marie and never took a lover. Despite these differences, Marie did have four children with her husband.
Yet, it was not just Marie’s spending that was costing the French populace. Louis XVI was spending significantly to help support the Americans in their revolution against France’s traditional enemy, England. However, Louis contribution to the national debt was less visible, while Marie’s was painfully obvious. To make matters worse, she was framed in a scandal involving the theft of a 4.7 million dollar necklace. The fact that she was innocent went unnoticed and unheeded by the public. She was guilty in their eyes and nothing she said made any difference. Further, the fact remained that she strongly supported an absolute monarchy in France, and simultaneously failed to listen to her people when they were truly in need.
Can it be said though that she was the problem and sole reason for revolt? Was it all her fault? Clearly, no. Louis was just as unwilling to notice that his people were starving as she was. She also cannot be said to have caused failed crops. However, Marie Antoinette came to represent the extreme misuse of public taxes and misgovernment. Her spending was extreme and flaunted before the public as if there was nothing to be ashamed of. The two monarchs remained cloistered in Versailles and blind to their faults. Her reputation is not wholly undeserved, but her death was most certainly unnecessary.
Columnist: Erin Johnson
Editor: Mark Krause
The Cave 