I love how the question posed in the title is answered in the title, but the entire article tries to make it sound like a mystery. > She could not but be guilt

I love how the question posed in the title is answered in the title, but the entire article tries to make it sound like a mystery. > She could not but be guilty since she was a royalist in a republic, and her own future depended on overthrowing that republic. Uh, yeah. But then the article absurdly, yet somehow so unsurprisingly, drags Hillary Clinton into it. > It is difficult to resist the parallel with Hillary Clinton, who despite her educated manner, sober clothing, and wonky intelligence was similarly dragged through the mud because she was a woman close to and possibly actually in power. Hillary Clinton who, after Muammar al-Gaddafi was sodomized with a bayonet then shot, as Libya descended into violent anarchy: "We came, we saw, he died." Well, I'm still not sure about parallels between Clinton and Antoinette, but I can see a parallel in the author's way of interpreting politics. A couple weeks ago an article rehabilitating Nero came through the HN front page. We know why Marie Antoinette was hated. We know why Nero was hated. But why do HN readers seem so interested in rehabilitating the most detestable monarchs?