• We have updated the guidelines regarding posting political content: please see the stickied thread on Website Issues.

Marie Antoinette Was Framed Using Slanderous Propaganda

EnolaGaia

I knew the job was dangerous when I took it ...
(ACCOUNT RETIRED)
Joined
Jul 19, 2004
Messages
29,622
Location
Out of Bounds
Disinformation is not a new phenomenon ...

The one thing most people (think they ...) know about Marie Antoinette (other than her death via the guillotine) is her insulting comment that the poor should "eat cake." This comment is twisted via mistranslation, originated prior to the queen's allegedly having uttered it, and wasn't even attributed to her until the late 19th century.
Did Marie Antoinette really say 'Let them eat cake'?

No, it was part of a concerted and sexist effort by revolutionaries to undermine the queen.

The quick answer to this question is a simple "no." Marie Antoinette, the last pre-revolutionary queen of France, did not say "Let them eat cake" ... The better question, perhaps, is: Why do we think she said it?

For background, the quote has been slightly exaggerated in its translation from French to English. Originally, Marie Antoinette was alleged to have said, "Qu'ils mangent de la brioche," or "Let them eat brioche." ...

But the "brioche" quote is problematic, too, because there's no reliable evidence that the queen ever said it. "Marie Antoinette never uttered these words or anything else along these lines," said Denise Maior-Barron, an adjunct professor at Claremont Graduate University in California, whose research examines contemporary portrayals of Marie Antoinette's character. ...

France has endured no shortage of revolutions. The first, in 1789, ended very badly for Marie Antoinette and her husband, Louis XVI. The following century then saw the country flip flop between monarchies and republics, with each side fighting a propaganda war in addition to armed skirmishes. It was during one of these later revolutions, long after Marie Antoinette's execution, that the misquote first came to pass.

"It did not come to be misattributed to Marie Antoinette during the 18th century, but during the Third French Republic starting in 1870, when a careful program of reconstructing the historical past took place," Maior-Barron told Live Science. ...

In fact, the "brioche" quote wasn't even original, and even had a history of being used against noble women. The philosopher and writer, Jean-Jacques Rousseau, whose work later influenced the revolution, may have been the first person to pen the phrase in 1767. "'Let them eat brioche' is initially found in one of Jean-Jacques Rousseau's novels, in which he attributed this line to one of his fictitious characters belonging to the 18th-century French aristocracy," Maior-Barron said. ...

FULL STORY: https://www.livescience.com/let-the-eat-cake.html
 
No, what she actually said was 'let them eat madeleines'.
Mysteriously, all the women in France called Madeleine disappeared, never to be seen again.
 
My take on it is that she might actually have said so just because she suffered from a severe case of Ivory Tower Syndrome, without any bad intentions. Like, if you don't have this to eat, just eat that.
 
My take on it is that she might actually have said so just because she suffered from a severe case of Ivory Tower Syndrome, without any bad intentions. Like, if you don't have this to eat, just eat that.
I think that's exactly what happened. It was a case of her being unconcerned and out of touch with the common people, but there may have been no deliberate bad intentions.
 
My take on it is that she might actually have said so just because she suffered from a severe case of Ivory Tower Syndrome, without any bad intentions. Like, if you don't have this to eat, just eat that.
I think that's exactly what happened. It was a case of her being unconcerned and out of touch with the common people, but there may have been no deliberate bad intentions.

Why do you two seem to be laboring to explain why she said what folklore says she said, when the article clearly states there's no evidence she ever said such a thing and the earliest evidence for the claim she said it was several decades later (and in the context of making her look bad)?
 
Why do you two seem to be laboring to explain why she said what folklore says she said, when the article clearly states there's no evidence she ever said such a thing and the earliest evidence for the claim she said it was several decades later (and in the context of making her look bad)?
Sorry, forgot the OP...
 
Why do you two seem to be laboring to explain why she said what folklore says she said, when the article clearly states there's no evidence she ever said such a thing and the earliest evidence for the claim she said it was several decades later (and in the context of making her look bad)?
Fair enough, but regrettably it is not possible to prove somebody did not say something.
 
Fair enough, but regrettably it is not possible to prove somebody did not say something.

True, but ... If (as folklore would have it ... ) her alleged comment really served to inflame sentiment against her (and the monarchy in general) why is there no mention or evidence of it at the time (i.e., the 18th century)?
 
True, but ... If (as folklore would have it ... ) her alleged comment really served to inflame sentiment against her (and the monarchy in general) why is there no mention or evidence of it at the time (i.e., the 18th century)?
Because the country was a terrible mess then? Maybe at the time they had access to documents no longer available today. Maybe it was slander.

The argument is good enough, I acknowledge it. If there is no proof of her saying it back then, the discussion would, for example in a tribunal, end.
 
There's lots of documentation from the 18th century. There was a lot of anti-royalist activity and many broadsides and pamphlets survived, just as in the US and the UK. It's reasonably significant if this nice bit of propaganda hasn't been seen in any of it.
 
There's lots of documentation from the 18th century. There was a lot of anti-royalist activity and many broadsides and pamphlets survived, just as in the US and the UK. It's reasonably significant if this nice bit of propaganda hasn't been seen in any of it.
Good to know, thanks for the information!
 
A classic case of “Give a dog a bad name”.

[IRONY]lt couldn’t happen today, blessedly.[/IRONY]

maximus otter
 
Back
Top