Loading ...
Sorry, an error occurred while loading the content.

Re: Writings support Louis's paternity to MA's son

Expand Messages
  • janet fauble
    Hi Dorit,   My intention is not to malign the king or the queen as that would be silly.  I just looked at all the photos of Axel Fersen which are in the
    Message 1 of 62 , Sep 26, 2008
    • 0 Attachment
      Hi Dorit,
       
      My intention is not to malign the king or the queen as that would be silly.  I just looked at all the photos of Axel Fersen which are in the photos pages in the Images site and then at a photo of a portrait of Louis Charles and one can see that they resemble each other in the portraits.  And in the portrait that I just saw which is through yahoo search his eyes are brown and he resembles Fersen.  However, again, I would not know if the portrait is a credible likeness or not.
       
      Genetically, his physical appearance could harken back to some ancestor whose eyes were brown and hair was brown as well.  Simply because one does not look like one's parents does not mean that that child is not theirs, but that the genetic code is connected to another member of the same family.
       
      It can be coincidence that he resembled Fersen to some extent, and all that would have done is add fuel to the fire about the Queen and her relationship.  Again, if he had had a physical characteristic that proved he was the son of Louis XVI, such as a nose or chin that was exactly the same, he would have been accepted as son of the king regardless.
       
      But when I browsed through photos which are placed on the board in February 13, 2004, I have noticed that anyone would see immediately a likeness to Axel Fersen in the face.
       
      So we just have the right to disagree.  I do know that there are books written by authors who believe in this theory that Antoinette and Axel Fersen conducted a longtime affair under the nose and with the approval of the King.  So all I can say is I wonder.  I certainly do not know.
       
      Strange things happen.  It is always quite difficult to believe that Fersen's interest was just that of a good friend when he put his own life and neck on the line as he did. In the end, it also cost him his life.
       
      Jan

      --- On Fri, 9/26/08, doritmi <drub@...> wrote:
      From: doritmi <drub@...>
      Subject: Re: Writings support Louis's paternity to MA's son
      To: Images_of_Marie_Antoinette@yahoogroups.com
      Date: Friday, September 26, 2008, 4:47 PM

      Fersen had dark eyes, Louis Charles blue eyes like his parents - he
      certainly had Louis XVI's coloring. I don't think he looked like
      Fersen; guess we'll have to agree to disagree on that.
      >  
      > I just find that the eyes of the boy in the portrait look like those
      of Fersen's portraits. Maybe the artists were able to see something
      that others refused to see or would not admit to seeing.  Again, it is
      like the Sally Hemings/Tom Jefferson case of one son looking just like
      Tom Jefferson... the proof of the pudding is in the dna.
      >  


    • janet fauble
      Hi Dorit,   Well, to me the phrase is a lot like leibling in German.  Everyone calls their pet loves by pet names so in and of itself it is just a term of
      Message 62 of 62 , Sep 26, 2008
      • 0 Attachment
        Hi Dorit,
         
        Well, to me the phrase is a lot like leibling in German.  Everyone calls their pet loves by pet names so in and of itself it is just a term of endearment. 
         
        Again, I just left a galley of photos which picture Louis Charles as both blonde and fairhaired and brunette with brown eyes.  So it is an issue with the artists.  However, my mother and her brother were both blondes as children but both had dark brown hair as adults so in fact hair color does change through time in many different families, all according to a genetic code.  And to me, because of the Hollywood emphasis on using Tyrone Power to play the role of Axel Fersen and Robert Morley as Louis XVI, an indelible impression has been made about the romantic qualities of each person.
         
        Again, the 30's are a different age than this current generation in terms of film making.
         
        There is little doubt that the cartoon about the knight and his lady which is also a part of the photo galleries implies that an affair of the heart was generally accepted in the minds of the cartoonists at least.
         
        Have you seen that one?
         
        Jan

        --- On Fri, 9/26/08, doritmi <drub@...> wrote:
        From: doritmi <drub@...>
        Subject: Re: Legitimacy of her son: MA's duty to dynastic state
        To: Images_of_Marie_Antoinette@yahoogroups.com
        Date: Friday, September 26, 2008, 4:41 PM

        Hi Jan,
        I don't see they would have a choice but to have the child passed off
        as in the line of succession if they had him illegitimately and
        wanted to hide that. He's the second child of the king at an era
        where children die often; he would have to be the heir if the first
        died.
        As to the phrase "chou d'amour", I'd really like to know how you
        explain the fact that it was used by other princesses to their
        children - such as Louis XVI's mother towards her first born, and she
        was strongly devoted to her husband - or how you'd explain MA using
        that phrase towards her son in public letters if it referred to
        illegitimacy. I'd think it's the last thing she would want to call
        attention to.

        --- In Images_of_Marie_ Antoinette@ yahoogroups. com, janet fauble
        <janetcfauble@ ...> wrote:
        >
        > HI Bill, In reading Dorit's response i discovered your response to
        my suggestion that it would not an act of treason.  September 10 was
        a long time ago so I suspect that this post lies in the back of my
        mail now. 
        >  
        > Well, having read that Dorit agrees with you wholeheartedly I
        should probably argue the opposite.  The real truth is that the two
        time periods are totally different as the laws of France are
        obviously not being enforced in the same way in the time of Louis XVI
        as were in the time period of Louis XIV and Louis XV.  But I see your
        point.  I do not believe that Axel Fersen or Antoinette would ever
        have tried to pass a child off as an heir or successor, but again the
        argument is moot since the revolutionaries prevented it from
        happening anyway.
        >  
        > The truth is that the child would have to be legally a bastard if
        the father had been Axel and naturally neither the king or queen
        would ever consent to that, so for all practical purposes, all the
        children would have been reared as that of the Kings. I choose to
        believe that the phrase child of love does mean that the child is
        probably conceived from an act of love with Fersen, but that is my
        choice to make for the reasons I have stated already.
        >  
        > duty or love, believe it or not, those code words can say a lot! 
        Jan
        >


      Your message has been successfully submitted and would be delivered to recipients shortly.