6 ms·

Her last letter, written the night before she was executed, is so tender and touching; revealing a very different person from what we were generally taught [1].

Her last letter, written the night before she was executed, is so tender and touching; revealing a very different person from what we were generally taught [1]. The French Revolution was no exception to "History is written by the victors." [1] https://teaattrianon.blogspot.com/2007/05/last-letter-of-marie-antoinette.html https://teaattrianon.blogspot.com/2007/05/last-letter-of-mar...

coliveira 6y ago
Her tenderness didn't stop her from exploiting peasants like every other noble at the time. Let's not forget the situation.
- seibelj 6y ago
  I don't think beheading anyone, even a noble who benefited from serfdom, is an outcome we should all praise. Such beliefs will only lead to another horrible period of murder and senseless violence.
  - coliveira 6y ago
    I don't praise the means, but the outcome should be celebrated nonetheless. I imagine this was the only way they found to make the revolution stick.
    - seibelj 6y ago
      I’m not sure how much you have read up on the French Revolution but the murder and decapitation of Marie Antoinette along with thousands of other people did not solve any problems. This is why all modern democracies do not rely on violence to solve political differences. The Directory is about the worst possible outcome for a revolution you can imagine.
      - coliveira 6y ago
        They didn't solve all problems, but they removed a large part of the ruling class of the time. And the French Revolution was the most important popular revolution of the western world, no question about it. Trying to minimize it because of the civil-war that resulted is nonsense.
        seibelj 6y ago
        I simply cannot rationalize nor approve of senseless and indiscriminate murder. Such rationalization is what leads to the holocaust. All human life is sacred. I hope you learn to separate politics from violence.
        koheripbal 6y ago
        I wonder how many "ruling class" people you'd be willing to murder to get your way today...
    - pjc50 6y ago
      As with the Romanovs, the fear was that so long as the legitimate bloodline existed so did the motivation for putting it back on the throne. It is difficult to see these things through modern eyes, especially in the human rights era. But we have to remember that hereditary monarchs tended to do this to each other a lot. Of necessity - most of the European rulers were blood relatives; power struggles inevitably meant disputing an inheritance. Antoinette's brother was the Holy Roman Emperor. When he died her nephew lead the invasion of France by Austria. And the punishment for disloyalty was death. If somehow the Bourbons had restored their position, they would have had all the revolutionary leaders executed. As with the Romanovs. Or Elizabeth I'd execution of her cousin Mary.
  - bergstromm466 6y ago
    This seems like a bad take. Just because it’s slow-violence doesn’t meant it’s not violence or murder to be an exploited starving peasant.
- dang 6y ago
  "Please respond to the strongest plausible interpretation of what someone says, not a weaker one that's easier to criticize. Assume good faith." https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html Also, let's please not fight the French Revolution here.
- watwut 6y ago
  Old system was fundamentally unfair and dysfunctional, that is true. But, in what way was she personally exploiting peasants? It is not like she would do business or made decisions of this sort, she did not even picked her own husband.
speedgoose 6y ago
I'm French and I think I read this letter at school before, not 100% sure it's a long time ago, but I remember learning about her correctly. We do learn about the atrocities before, during, and after the revolution. And no one is only good or bad. History is not a Disney movie.
- watwut 6y ago
  It might be that non-french learn about it less. I grew in post-communist block and French Revolution was basically "good peasants rose up for libertee fraternite and egualite, against bad aristocracy". That is however not French victors writing history, it is more of foreign Communists writing history.
  - TheTrueTDF 6y ago
    I would like to point out that we also are taught that "good peasants rose up for liberte fraternite and egualite, against bad aristocracy" (is there a good aristocracy ?), but we are taught of the massacres and other bad aspects too. The revolution is still a founding moment of the french "identity", and apart from a few late-to-the-party 2020's monarchists, we pretty much all believe that we did the right thing by kicking out the nobility.
    - watwut 6y ago
      We were not taught massacres and such is the difference I mean. That Robespierre was not like "good guy" or that French Revolution is actually completely complicated event with many fighting parties was completely unsaid. There was French Revolution and then was the freedom and happiness, basically. > is there a good aristocracy I think that feudalism is fundamentally bad. But, I think that answer to this question is yes, there are non-evil aristocrats. Aristocracy is class you get born into, set of duties and privileges. Aristocracy holds power and have interests opposed to those who live under them. The image where all individuals belonging to that group are basically ugly and evil is not correct. It is not like all the the tortured and executed aristocrats deserved that. And then there is question of huge amount of non-aristocratic victims of revolution which went completely unmentioned in our version of history.
peignoir 6y ago
I’m French too and never read this letter before. But I don’t see much difference in the letter with who she was. She s just saying goodbye and ask for redemption as any catholic would. I don’t agree with the article who tries to focus on her personality and manner. She was wether she liked it out not a ruler, the French did not kill her and the king because of their manners and their personality (the king was a nice guy too) They did because of the course of history and because so many were suffering at the time and a greater effort was asked from them (paying debt / while Marie Antoinette kept burning cash) It was awful and bloody and many revolutionary were awful people uneducated and prompt to bloodbath. But it soon inspired so many nations to move towards democracy that sometimes if not always history shows that awful people can build great things (pirates in New York etc..) I remember she hated Lafayette for example to put some USA perspective she must have hated Washington too. Rulers should be judged indeed on victory or defeat this current fashion of looking back at history to say individuals had good or bad personalities is dangerously capable of transforming the worst people into adorable ones. Her story is the story of the Romanov in Russia or the Shah in Iran. People who loved to party and who had great education would be people You would love to hang out with today for sure. But they did so while their own people were on the verge of collapsing... I don’t see a parallel with Hillary neither, if Hillary was burning millions of dollars when her husband was in power and partying all the time in the poorest city with people dying in the street then you would have had Marie Antoinette but Hillary acted as a ruler and worked hard to help her country (wether you like her politics or not)
- Tainnor 6y ago
  How many nations became democracies specifically because of the French Revolution? I would argue that in many cases, the French Revolution might have had the opposite effect. Everyone was so scared of another reign of terror and the devastating revolutionary and Napoleonic wars that it directly led to the conservatism of Metternich and supported the conservative crackdowns in 1848. Monarchism in much of Europe - except France - was abolished after WWI, not after the French Revolution. In the places where democracy was later established - say, Latin America - I think the US were much more of an influence than France.
  - 6y ago

coliveira 6y ago

Her tenderness didn't stop her from exploiting peasants like every other noble at the time. Let's not forget the situation.

seibelj 6y ago
I don't think beheading anyone, even a noble who benefited from serfdom, is an outcome we should all praise. Such beliefs will only lead to another horrible period of murder and senseless violence.
- coliveira 6y ago
  I don't praise the means, but the outcome should be celebrated nonetheless. I imagine this was the only way they found to make the revolution stick.
  - seibelj 6y ago
    I’m not sure how much you have read up on the French Revolution but the murder and decapitation of Marie Antoinette along with thousands of other people did not solve any problems. This is why all modern democracies do not rely on violence to solve political differences. The Directory is about the worst possible outcome for a revolution you can imagine.
    - coliveira 6y ago
      They didn't solve all problems, but they removed a large part of the ruling class of the time. And the French Revolution was the most important popular revolution of the western world, no question about it. Trying to minimize it because of the civil-war that resulted is nonsense.
      - seibelj 6y ago
        I simply cannot rationalize nor approve of senseless and indiscriminate murder. Such rationalization is what leads to the holocaust. All human life is sacred. I hope you learn to separate politics from violence.
      - koheripbal 6y ago
        I wonder how many "ruling class" people you'd be willing to murder to get your way today...
  - pjc50 6y ago
    As with the Romanovs, the fear was that so long as the legitimate bloodline existed so did the motivation for putting it back on the throne. It is difficult to see these things through modern eyes, especially in the human rights era. But we have to remember that hereditary monarchs tended to do this to each other a lot. Of necessity - most of the European rulers were blood relatives; power struggles inevitably meant disputing an inheritance. Antoinette's brother was the Holy Roman Emperor. When he died her nephew lead the invasion of France by Austria. And the punishment for disloyalty was death. If somehow the Bourbons had restored their position, they would have had all the revolutionary leaders executed. As with the Romanovs. Or Elizabeth I'd execution of her cousin Mary.
- bergstromm466 6y ago
  This seems like a bad take. Just because it’s slow-violence doesn’t meant it’s not violence or murder to be an exploited starving peasant.
dang 6y ago
"Please respond to the strongest plausible interpretation of what someone says, not a weaker one that's easier to criticize. Assume good faith." https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html Also, let's please not fight the French Revolution here.
watwut 6y ago
Old system was fundamentally unfair and dysfunctional, that is true. But, in what way was she personally exploiting peasants? It is not like she would do business or made decisions of this sort, she did not even picked her own husband.

speedgoose 6y ago

I'm French and I think I read this letter at school before, not 100% sure it's a long time ago, but I remember learning about her correctly. We do learn about the atrocities before, during, and after the revolution. And no one is only good or bad. History is not a Disney movie.

watwut 6y ago
It might be that non-french learn about it less. I grew in post-communist block and French Revolution was basically "good peasants rose up for libertee fraternite and egualite, against bad aristocracy". That is however not French victors writing history, it is more of foreign Communists writing history.
- TheTrueTDF 6y ago
  I would like to point out that we also are taught that "good peasants rose up for liberte fraternite and egualite, against bad aristocracy" (is there a good aristocracy ?), but we are taught of the massacres and other bad aspects too. The revolution is still a founding moment of the french "identity", and apart from a few late-to-the-party 2020's monarchists, we pretty much all believe that we did the right thing by kicking out the nobility.
  - watwut 6y ago
    We were not taught massacres and such is the difference I mean. That Robespierre was not like "good guy" or that French Revolution is actually completely complicated event with many fighting parties was completely unsaid. There was French Revolution and then was the freedom and happiness, basically. > is there a good aristocracy I think that feudalism is fundamentally bad. But, I think that answer to this question is yes, there are non-evil aristocrats. Aristocracy is class you get born into, set of duties and privileges. Aristocracy holds power and have interests opposed to those who live under them. The image where all individuals belonging to that group are basically ugly and evil is not correct. It is not like all the the tortured and executed aristocrats deserved that. And then there is question of huge amount of non-aristocratic victims of revolution which went completely unmentioned in our version of history.

peignoir 6y ago

I’m French too and never read this letter before. But I don’t see much difference in the letter with who she was. She s just saying goodbye and ask for redemption as any catholic would. I don’t agree with the article who tries to focus on her personality and manner. She was wether she liked it out not a ruler, the French did not kill her and the king because of their manners and their personality (the king was a nice guy too) They did because of the course of history and because so many were suffering at the time and a greater effort was asked from them (paying debt / while Marie Antoinette kept burning cash) It was awful and bloody and many revolutionary were awful people uneducated and prompt to bloodbath. But it soon inspired so many nations to move towards democracy that sometimes if not always history shows that awful people can build great things (pirates in New York etc..) I remember she hated Lafayette for example to put some USA perspective she must have hated Washington too. Rulers should be judged indeed on victory or defeat this current fashion of looking back at history to say individuals had good or bad personalities is dangerously capable of transforming the worst people into adorable ones. Her story is the story of the Romanov in Russia or the Shah in Iran. People who loved to party and who had great education would be people You would love to hang out with today for sure. But they did so while their own people were on the verge of collapsing... I don’t see a parallel with Hillary neither, if Hillary was burning millions of dollars when her husband was in power and partying all the time in the poorest city with people dying in the street then you would have had Marie Antoinette but Hillary acted as a ruler and worked hard to help her country (wether you like her politics or not)

Tainnor 6y ago
How many nations became democracies specifically because of the French Revolution? I would argue that in many cases, the French Revolution might have had the opposite effect. Everyone was so scared of another reign of terror and the devastating revolutionary and Napoleonic wars that it directly led to the conservatism of Metternich and supported the conservative crackdowns in 1848. Monarchism in much of Europe - except France - was abolished after WWI, not after the French Revolution. In the places where democracy was later established - say, Latin America - I think the US were much more of an influence than France.
- 6y ago