1783: Marie Antoinette's Mysterious Pregnancy

The year-long struggle for Louis XVI and Marie Antoinette to have children is well-known; once they did manage to consummate their marriage, Marie Antoinette found herself pregnant fairly frequently. The birth of Marie Thérèse in 1778 was followed by Louis Joseph in 1781, Louis Charles in 1785 and Sophie in 1786.

It is also known that the queen suffered a miscarriage in 1779; however, in 1783 something odd happened. That happened to be the year of the queen's mysteriously discreet pregnancy. Extremely few court sources mention the queen being pregnant in 1783 at all - except for the queen herself.

References to this mysterious pregnancy are found in the intimate correspondance between Marie Antoinette and her brother, Emperor Joseph II. In September 1783, Joseph II wrote to his sister: "I await with infinite impatience ... the news of your pregnancy". On first glance, this might just have been an expression of the emperor's wish to see his sister have another child; yet, the queen herself responded to the letter by informing him that "My pregnancy and health are marvelous" - then ... nothing. None of either Marie Antoinette or Joseph's ensuing letters ever referenced the pregnancy again. 

The obvious implication was that the queen miscarried again. In fact, it is widely accepted that the queen did indeed suffer a dramatic miscarriage in November, about the time of her own birthday. The pregnancy had apparently been difficult from the beginning and the ordeal made her health worse for months. However, this does not explain the utter silence of the courtiers on the subject. After all, the pregnancy of a queen was not personal news - it was state business. The fact that Marie Antoinette was apparently certain herself that she was pregnant implies that the pregnancy was established. Consequently, it ought to have been remarked upon by everyone. Yet it was not.

It is generally accepted that the queen's pregnancy was announced in June 1783 which would mean that she was at least three months pregnant by the time of the September letters. Consequently, when she lost the baby in November, she was at least five months along.

Marie Antoinette in 1783

The oddity of the radio silence of the court is the marked oddness of it. Nothing at court was ever truly secret, especially not when it came to the lives of the royals. It has even been suggested that the child was not even Louis XVI's but that of Count Fersen. This, alone, would have made it gold for gossip mongers set on further destroying the queen's reputation. Sadly, that particular story has been repeated by authors such as Evelyn Farr who remains convinced that Marie Antoinette not merely loved Fersen, but had a physical affair with him, too. Farr speculate that the queen had fallen pregnant by Fersen. The theory is extremely doubtful, at best. 

There is nothing concrete to suggest that Marie Antoinette and Count Fersen ever developed a physical liaison. On the contrary, throughout her life, the queen had shown marked distaste for adultery and relations outside marriage - even going as far as entirely snubbing Madame du Barry because of her role as royal mistress. While the subject of Marie Antoinette and Fersen deserves its own post, suffice it to say, that the theory lacks credibility of any kind.

Considering that the pregnancy was allegedly a difficult one it is puzzling that no one bothered to mention it. Discretion or consideration of the queen's loss seems unlikely. By this point in time, Marie Antoinette was already the object of remarkably vicious rumours and slander. There is nothing to suggest that everyone at court would suddenly have become gracious enough not to torment her on that head. The fact that no one then suggested that the child was not the king's adds to the unlikeliness of the Evelyn Farr-theory. Her detractors would have given anything to be able to pin such a story on the queen - just imagine the outrage it would cause, if the already deeply unpopular queen was thought to have fallen pregnant by another man! The story would have been too tantalizing to receive so little attention. 

As stated, few remarked on the pregnancy. Amongst these was the Marquis de Bombelles who wrote on 29 August 1783: 

"There is a worrying silence on the Queen's condition. Many people think that she had a miscarriage last Sunday; and conclude this from the fact that at 11.00, the queen sent for Madame de Polignac, who seemed sad and very worried when she returned..."

This snippet further murks the waters. It suggests that even at the time, the court was eerily silent on the matter, although the fear of a miscarriage in itself ought to have set tongues wagging. Bombelles' statement also confirm that the pregnancy was a difficult one. After all, he wrote the excerpt in late August, when the queen was still pregnant. If it was already suspected that she might have miscarried, it is fair to assume that there were considerable problems with the pregnancy. Furthermore, the queen was said to have been so big at just 4-5 months that doctors already predicted twins. Relying again on Bombelles, he himself reported in October that she queen already looked as if she was at least 6 months pregnant.

Bombelles goes on to comment on the fact that the queen's dame d'honneur, Madame de Chimay, was refused access to her mistress - something that was entirely unheard of as Madame de Chimay - in her capacity as dame d'honneur - had the right to enter the queen's apartment at any time. At any rate, the situation was deeply unusual for the court.

Another aspect must be considered which likely contributed to the aura of mystery of this pregnancy. The queen - and king - had already established a court life in which the monarchs were far more withdrawn from their own court than usual. The couple's love of privacy meant that they retired to their own apartments with a select group of friends whereas hitherto the lives of the monarchs were lived entirely in public. It was noted that Marie Antoinette withdrew even further during her difficult pregnancy. Being thus only surrounded by her entourage, the queen might have felt more comfortable, but to the excluded courtiers, the queen's condition became all the more mysterious. After all, it is far easier to conjure up shadows when kept in the dark.

Miscarrying in itself was - and remains - a deeply personal tragedy. Given Marie Antoinette's pride and determination not to appear weak, it is not unlikely that she consoled herself with her friends over her loss. There might have been nothing mysterious, at all, in the entire affair.

When the queen did miscarry in November, Bombelles is again remarkably well-informed. He felt sure enough of his knowledge to state outright that the miscarriage was luck in disguise, as the fetus was deformed. How would he have known? Unlike the birth of a child (stillborn or living) a miscarriage was not a court event; people were not summoned for it, nor had they the right to witness it. Considering that the miscarriage took place in the middle of the night, Bombelles would not have been anywhere near the queen herself. He cannot have seen the "deformed fetus" for himself. It makes it more likely, then, that he was speculating or repeating rumours he had heard elsewhere. 

As for the queen's own silence on the matter - especially in her correspondance with her brother - that has a far more reasonable explanation. The loss of a child in itself was harrowing enough; the situation was only made the worse for the health issues it brought it with. It was not until December 1783 that the queen once again remarked to her brother that her health was good. Interestingly, that same letter reveals her desire to have a second son, but her own assurance that "a few months rest will put me in a better condition to carry it (the pregnancy) through". Clearly the ordeal had been traumatic for both mind and body.

It has been speculated that the queen was remarkably - even unusually - silent about the episode. It can be argued that her behaviour was not different from her typical self. Having a sensitive nature, the queen was not the daughter of Maria Theresia for nothing. Sensitive, yes, but deeply devoted to duty and the image of herself as queen. The latter automatically required her to appear constantly composed - even in the throes of heartache. All in all, it is not unlikely that Marie Antoinette wished to put the episode behind her and focus on the two children she did have.

The Aftermath: The Men who Killed the King

21 January 1793 - the day cemented in history as the execution date of Louis XVI. The king's execution had had a remarkably short prelude; from his arrest on 13 August 1792 the king was still kept prisoner after the official abolition of the monarchy on 21 September 1792. The king was read his indictment on 11 December 1792 although the conclusion of the trial was already apparent - the king himself informed his counsel that he was prepared to die for the good of his country.

Considering that the king was already found guilty of colluding with invading, foreign powers, the question remained - what to do with the former king, now merely called citizen Capet?

That question was put to the 721 deputies. As predicted by Louis XVI, none of them had voted for his acquittal. A total of 693 deputies cast their votes while 23 abstained from voting at all. Most devastating to the king was the involvement of his own cousin - the Duc d'Orléans - who voted for the king's death. Sadly, the king's death was determined by just a single vote.

Several of the men who resisted the death penalty made eloquent responses in which they vehemently refused to act as judge or acknowledge the deputies' right to do so. As they rightly argued, they were not created as a court of law and as such had no authority to sentence anyone to death. Others made their vote of death dependent on certain events, such as invasion of foreign powers.

The vote took place on 15 January 1793; the following day, the deputies once again met to decide whether the king was to be reprieved from his sentence. The suggestion was rejected and five days later the 38-year old king was beheaded.

Besides the Duc d'Orléans, the assembly included several other noblemen, albeit of far lesser status than the king's own cousin. Amongst these were:

Jean Pierre André Amar - voted for execution

From a minor noble family from Dauphiné, his family had been in the lower ranks of the noblesse de robe

Paul de Barras, Vicomte de Barras - voted for execution

He had served in the American Independence War and was not a fervent anti-monarchist before the revolution but was somewhat radicalized during the late 1780s - early 1790s

Aubin Bigorie du Chambon - voted for execution

Another member of the noblesse de robe, he would himself be assassinated on 20 November 1793

Antoine Bonnier d'Alco 

Also a member of the noblesse de robe, he shared the fate of Chambon; Antoine was assassinated in 1799

Jean Dyzès, Comte d'Arène - voted for execution

Having bought the barony of Samadet, he was eventually made Comte d'Arène although his primary occupation was as a lawyer at the parliament of Navarre

Antoine Joseph Marie d'Espinassy de Fontanelle - voted for execution

From a very old but provincial aristocratic family, he served in the military but was eventually accused of leaving his post without leave

Louis-Michel Lepeletier de Saint-Fargeau - voted for execution

Descending from a long line of magistrates, he was also a noblesse de robe, even owning a large château in Paris. He was confronted by an old bodyguard of the king's who requested if he had voted for the death of the king. Upon answering in the affirmative, the bodyguard stabbed him to death.

Antoine de Mailly, Marquis de Châteaurenaud - voted for execution

His family had been raised to the marquisate by Louis XV and he himself would seek out Voltaire - he became his secretary before becoming a member of the parliament 

Ironically, several of these men also faced their own demise on the scaffold:

• Louis-Philippe, Duc d'Orléans - beheaded on the very same scaffold that he sent his cousin to
• Charles Jean Marie Barbaroux, guillotined on 25 June 1794
• Claude Basire, guillotined on 5 April 1794
• Jacquirs Boilleau d'Ausson, guillotined on 31 October 1793
• Pierre Bourbotte, guillotined on 17 June 1795
• Jean-Baptiste Boyer-Fonfrède, guillotined on 31 October 1793
• Jean-Baptiste Carrier, guillotined on 16 December 1794
• François Chabot (former cleric), guillotined on 5 April 1794
• Georges Couthon, guillotined on 28 July 1794
• Joseph-Marie Cusset, shot on 10 October 1796
• George Jacques Danton, guillotined on 5 April 1794
• Jean-François Delacroix, guillotined on 5 April 1794
• Camille Desmoulins, guillotined on 5 April 1794
• Jean Duprat, guillotined on 31 October 1793
• Jean-Michel Duroy, guillotined on 17 June 1795
• Marc-Antoine Huguet, shot on 9 October 1796
• François Joseph Antoine de Hell, guillotined on 22 April 1794
• Élie Guadet, guillotined on 19 June 1794
• Armand Gensonné, guillotined on 31 October 1793
• Jean-Bertrand Féraud, massacred on 20 May 1795
• Fabre d'Églantine, guillotined 5 April 1794
• Claude Javogues, shot on 10 October 1796
• Charles-Nicolas Osselin, guillotined on 26 June 1794
• Pierre Philippeaux, guillotined on 5 April 1794
• Maximilien de Robespierre, guillotined on 28 July 1794
• Louis Antoine de Saint-Just, guillotined on 28 July 1794
• Pierre-Amable de Soubrany, guillotined on 17 June 1795
• Pierre Victurnien Vergniaud, guillotined on 31 October 1793

Execution of Robespierre

Other fates of the men involved included:

• François Buzot - committed suicide in 1794. He would likely have been guillotined if he had not taken his own life first.
• Étienne Nicolas de Calon - became mayor of Saint-Leu-la Fôret. He was a very old man at that point, as he had served Louis XV as a general; he had also voted for the execution of Louis XVI.
• Jean-François Delmars - died in 1798 (at 47 years old) after having been committed to a mental institute.
• Ernest Dominique François Joseph Duquesnoy - also committed suicide in 1795. He had just been found guilty and was sentenced to the guillotine.
• Thomas-Augustin de Gasparin - died of gangrene in November 1793
• Joseph-Pierre-Marie Fayau - was arrested but finally released in the grand amnesty in 1795. He returned to his native village where he was initially elected to a minor post before having his election overturned. He then died at just 33. 
• Claude Dominique Côme Fabre - despite being a lawyer by trade, he was involved in the attacks on the French from the Catalonian coast. He was killed in battle and his widow awarded a pension by Robespierre 
• Philippe-François-Joseph Le Bas - remained a loyal follower of Robespierre, even after his downfall. Committed suicide on 28 July 1794.
• Jean-Paul Marat - assassinated by Marie Anne Charlotte Cordray d'Armont, an aristocrat with a vengeance 
• Jérôme Pétion de Villeneuve - found himself with the tables turned when he was accused of wrongdoing following the insurrection of 2 June 1793. He fled the capital but was recaptured which prompted him to commit suicide.

There are clear indications that the men above were subjected to downright threats in the effort to force a verdict of guilty and punishment of execution. Several of those who refrained from sentencing clearly mention the "menacing" they experienced as well as the "tricks" employed; including perhaps physical threats (at least one referred to the threat of weapons). Louis XVI was seemingly quite right in assuming that his fate was already decided.

The Queen Versailles Did Not Want: Marie Leszczynska

When the Duc de Bourbon proclaimed that the then-15 year old Louis XV was to marry the 22-year old Marie Leszczynska, the reaction was prompt. Neither the court nor the Parisians - for once on the same page - considered the young woman suitable for the throne of France.

For one, who was she? Marie Leszczynska was the daughter of Stanislaus I Leszczynski and Catherine Opalinska - the deposed king and queen of Poland. Not only had her father lost his throne, her mother had lost her immense fortune. The family had fled to one place after another before being finally granted permission to reside in Wissembourg. As such, they were under the protection of the king of France (as France had annexed Alsace where Wissembourg is located) but they had no influence, no power, no money. Even more bleak, there was nothing to suggest that they would ever regain their former grandeur. 

Thus, the main question was - what did Marie Leszczynska bring to France? As far as the public was concerned, it was not much. Her marriage would not provide France with a new, powerful ally nor with a significant dowry. In fact, her father had to borrow heavily to even scrape one together for her.

Also, there was no prestige in the marriage. To the French, the king of France was the most eligible match in the world (literally). The idea that he should be "squandered" on an unknown, impoverished princess - seven years his senior even - was completely unfathomable. Therefore, it did not take long before vicious tongues started wagging; rumours soon began that Marie Leszczynska was not just a poor choice but a dangerous one.

The entire point of importing a royal bride was to produce an heir. Therefore, her health was vital and any doubts were immense causes for concern. It is not difficult to see, then, why the rumour of Marie Leszczynska being epileptic started.

Alarmed, the court of France demanded that she be subjected to a medical exam - performed by French doctors, of course. The examination took place on 6 May 1725 by doctors Duphénix and Mouges. Their report was unequivocal - the princess was not epileptic. The rumour had it that her mother had frequently taken her to a nunnery where one of the sisters aided the symptoms. The Duc de Bourbon promptly - and discreetly - sent out scouts to discover the truth. As it happens, Catherine Opalinska was a frequent visitor to the nunnery but - as it was found - the nun was a life-long friend of hers.

Their good report was further bolstered by Marie's personal doctors who proved that her menstrual cycle was "perfectly regular" - thus alleviating accusations of infertility. On the contrary, the doctors found her health to be robust.

Marie Leszczynska

Other unpleasant accusations were hurled her way too - that some of her fingers were webbed or even entirely paralysed (the latter being reported directly to the Duc de Bourbon by Cardinal Rohan), that she was hideously ugly etc. Neither were true nor did they need to be particularly counter proven.

Her nationality was a thorn in the eye of most people. It was said that the French "could not love" the Polish; they were considered to be republican (because their king was elected, not born to the role) and far too different from the French. There were even fears that her Polish-ness would result in a massive European war - however, this seems unlikely. Augustus II (the reigning king of Poland) was understandably not pleased at this development but upon being assured that France would not attempt to replace him with Stanislaus, he backed down.

The other European powers were equally stunned - few mentioned anything about the bride herself with the exception of the king of Sardinia. He was Louis XV's grandfather and thus in a position to publicly disclaim that the marriage was a massive mésalliance. To his shame, the Sardinian king also repeated the rumours of physical disabilities. Madame (Elizabeth Charlotte of the Palatinate) were equally aghast at the marriage, writing to her friend that the trend of mésalliances had even reached the king himself. Some has claimed that the rumour of epilepsy originated in the court of Lorraine where none other than Madame's own daughter was the reigning duchess. The point was that the Duchesse de Lorraine had several, very eligible daughters herself whom she considered to be far worthier of Louis XV - after all, they were already related!

Other, anonymous letters arrived, all warning against the ghastly deformities said to plague the queen-to-be. Hunchbacked, one-eyed - if even half the things said against her were true, she would truly have been an unfortunate woman. Some even pointed to the fact that Marie was unmarried at the ripe old age of 22 - surely something must be wrong with her? Poor Marie!

The people were quickly won over by Marie Leszczynska as she travelled toward Versailles. Once they saw her, they could dismiss the rumours of hideousness and her grace and kindness did much to endear her to them. It certainly helped that she would become pregnant very quickly after the marriage which further disproved any theory of infertility - on the contrary, as she would go on to be pregnant for a decade in total.