What do you think?
Rate this book
Maria Antonietta: La solitudine di una regina
'Drama, betrayal, religion and sex, it's all here ... Fascinating' GUARDIAN
'Beautifully paced, impeccably written ... Don't miss it' INDEPENDENT
'Fraser is at her best here, lucid, authoritative and compassionate' SUNDAY TIMES
'Superbly researched ... the definitive work on the ill-fated queen' CATHOLIC HERALD
Marie Antoinette's dramatic life-story continues to arouse mixed emotions. To many people, she is still 'la reine méchante', whose extravagance and frivolity helped to bring down the French monarchy; her indifference to popular suffering epitomised by the (apocryphal) words: 'let them eat cake'. Others are equally passionate in her defence: to them, she is a victim of misogyny.
Antonia Fraser examines her influence over the king, Louis XVI, the accusations and sexual slurs made against her, her patronage of the arts which enhanced French cultural life, her imprisonment, the death threats made against her, rumours of lesbian affairs, her trial (during which her young son was forced to testify to sexual abuse by his mother) and her eventual execution by guillotine in 1793.
'Beautifully paced, impeccably written ... Don't miss it' INDEPENDENT
'Fraser is at her best here, lucid, authoritative and compassionate' SUNDAY TIMES
'Superbly researched ... the definitive work on the ill-fated queen' CATHOLIC HERALD
Marie Antoinette's dramatic life-story continues to arouse mixed emotions. To many people, she is still 'la reine méchante', whose extravagance and frivolity helped to bring down the French monarchy; her indifference to popular suffering epitomised by the (apocryphal) words: 'let them eat cake'. Others are equally passionate in her defence: to them, she is a victim of misogyny.
Antonia Fraser examines her influence over the king, Louis XVI, the accusations and sexual slurs made against her, her patronage of the arts which enhanced French cultural life, her imprisonment, the death threats made against her, rumours of lesbian affairs, her trial (during which her young son was forced to testify to sexual abuse by his mother) and her eventual execution by guillotine in 1793.
759 pages, Kindle Edition
First published January 1, 2001
1769 people are currently reading
69545 people want to read
About the author
Antonia Fraser
183 books1,498 followersAntonia Fraser is the author of many widely acclaimed historical works, including the biographies Mary, Queen of Scots (a 40th anniversary edition was published in May 2009), Cromwell: Our Chief of Men, King Charles II and The Gunpowder Plot (CWA Non-Fiction Gold Dagger; St Louis Literary Award). She has written five highly praised books which focus on women in history, The Weaker Vessel: Women's Lot in Seventeenth Century Britain (Wolfson Award for History, 1984), The Warrior Queens: Boadecia's Chariot, The Six Wives of Henry VIII, Marie Antoinette: The Journey (Franco-British Literary Prize 2001), which was made into a film by Sofia Coppola in 2006 and most recently Love and Louis XIV: The Women in the Life of the Sun King. She was awarded the Norton Medlicott Medal by the Historical Association in 2000. Antonia Fraser was made DBE in 2011 for her services to literature. Her most recent book is Must You Go?, celebrating her life with Harold Pinter, who died on Christmas Eve 2008. She lives in London.
Ratings & Reviews
Friends & Following
Create a free account to discover what your friends think of this book!
Community Reviews
Displaying 1 - 30 of 1,516 reviews
December 31, 2023
“The journey – that journey which had begun in an imperial palace in Vienna and finished in a squalid cell in Paris – was completed. The body of Marie Antoinette with its severed head was taken unceremoniously to the graveyard off the rue d’Anjou, where Louis XVI had been interred nine and a half months previously…The gravediggers took time off to have their lunch, leaving the head and body on the grass unattended. This meant that the future Madame Tussaud was able to sculp the Queen’s lifeless face in wax…Two weeks later the bill for the internment came in: for the coffin, six livres, for grave and gravediggers fifteen livres and thirty-five sous…”
- Antonia Fraser, Marie Antoinette: The Journey
Marie Antoinette is one of the most well-recognized figures in history, and yet it is her curious fate to be remembered for all the wrong reasons. Today, the onetime Queen of France is most known for words she did not say, and things she did not do. She did not – after all – ever tell anyone to eat cake. Despite her extravagant spending, she did not bankrupt France, thereby plunging it into revolution. And she was not the hidden power behind the French throne, moving her husband – King Louis XVI – like a pawn on a chessboard.
In many ways, Marie Antoinette’s trajectory mirrored that of modern-day celebrities, famous for being famous. Of course, unlike the stars of today, her path ended at the guillotine.
Antonia Fraser’s remarkable biography is fascinating for the way it refuses to oversell its subject. In Marie Antoinette, she does not make an argument for the world-historical greatness of the doomed queen with the prodigious hairdos. Instead, Fraser makes a compelling case for Marie Antoinette’s humanity, and the manner in which she faced the crumbling of her world.
***
Marie Antoinette is a marvelously old-fashioned biography. On the first page, the main character is born, and the story unfolds chronologically from there. Fraser writes in a narrative fashion, taking care – as she explains in an author’s note – not to let Marie’s eventual fate overshadow every prior moment of her life.
Though the focus is on storytelling, Fraser does take the time to weigh the evidence and discuss controversies, alerting the reader to those instances where the record is unclear. One major example of this is Fraser’s handling of the Swedish adventurer Axel von Fersen, who may have been Marie Antoinette’s lover, or may not have been, but certainly carried on a correspondence that suggests the physical act of love as a distinct possibility.
***
The thing about Marie Antoinette that stands out the most is the quality of its writing. Fraser puts you right there in a very tactile way. She fills her book with excellent descriptions of people, places, and – appropriately enough – the fashions. There are also gripping set-pieces, such as the flight to Varennes, which made my palms sweaty even though the outcome was determined over 230 years ago.
***
Some biographies attempt to capture both the person and their times. Marie Antoinette does not. Fraser tethers herself tightly to Marie, and does not stray far. We follow her from a young child in the court of Vienna – her mother being Maria Theresa, one of the great leaders of the age – to the pompous frivolity of the Palace of Versailles, and finally to the Place de la Concorde, where Marie Antoinette had a final audience with a ravenous mob baying for her blood.
The result is an incredibly intimate portrait that gives Marie Antoinette the dimensions denied her in life. Though a princess, she grew up as privileged property, a marriageable asset whose sole purpose was to strengthen foreign alliances. A case in point is her trip from Austria to France, where she was ritually stripped – before observers – at the border. Once in France, engaged to portly, socially-stunted Louis Auguste, she had to navigate the byzantine intricacies of court etiquette, where everyone had a role – and a salary – that they guarded fiercely.
Fraser does not airbrush away the failings and frailties of Marie Antoinette. Marie tried to balance dual loyalties to both Austria and France, with the result that she pleased no one. There is also no denying her free-spending ways, though relative to the nobility around her – both in France and elsewhere – this was not exactly shocking. In any event, she spent money like a person who never had to worry about money, and as the French economy teetered, this proved a really bad public relations move.
Nevertheless, Marie Antoinette’s reputation has been grossly distorted by eighteenth century slanders. Being a foreigner, and a woman, she became the target of scurrilous pamphleteers. In France, libel is a form of high art, and she was accused of an exhausting list of indiscretions, most of them sexual in nature. While Fraser eschews any interpretive lenses or labels, it is clear that Marie Antoinette was the victim of an incredibly vicious and sustained campaign of misogyny.
Leaving aside Thomas Jefferson’s quasi-obnoxious assertions to the contrary, nothing that Marie Antoinette did – or was alleged to have done, or alleged to have done with blood relations in bed – actually created the revolutionary conditions that consumed her. She did not – after all – rack up debts in the Seven Years’ War; decide to accrue more debts saving the American colonists across the ocean; cause bad harvests; fail to properly collect taxes; or engineer the unequal distribution of wealth. However, Marie became a lightning rod for the masses, a convenient – if irrational – focus for genuine anger and despair.
***
The downside to Fraser’s stay-close-to-Marie approach is that a lot of context gets lost. Fraser is far more interested in Marie’s maturation as a woman – from young spendthrift to devoted mother – than she is with the accumulating mistakes, miscalculations, and plain bad luck that culminated in the Terror. Obviously, Fraser discusses the French Revolution, but it is referenced indirectly, as experienced by Marie Antoinette.
In other words, if you want the big picture – which is arguably too complex to fit here anyway – you will have to look elsewhere. Having done a little bit of reading on the French Revolution beforehand, especially Jeremy Popkin’s A New World Begins, this did not bother me overmuch. Still, this might be an issue for readers who are new to the period.
***
To Fraser, Marie Antoinette was – with some marked exceptions – mostly apolitical. Certainly, she did not rule in her own right as did Elizabeth I or Catherine the Great or her own mother. Contrary to the accusations of her detractors, she was not a Machiavellian figure spinning webs within webs, a shadowy power. In fact, the throne lacked power in general, shadowy or otherwise, a reflection on its monarch, the poor, dithering Louis XVI, a reluctant autocrat with a great deal in common with Russia’s Nicholas II, right down to the propensity for getting his family killed.
Because she did not move the world herself, the resonance of Marie Antoinette’s tale comes from the sudden shift in her fortunes, and the dignity with which she handled them. For most of her life she had the kind of wealth and position experienced by only a fraction of a fraction of the people on earth. Yet in her final hours, she occupied a nasty little cell, watched over by unblinking guards, unable to change her clothes without their observation, and forced to undertake a slow tumbrel ride through the streets of Paris, a keen bit of psychological torture before she had her head sliced off.
It stands to reason whether anyone would accept years of luxury on condition of enduring those final moments of absolute horror.
- Antonia Fraser, Marie Antoinette: The Journey
Marie Antoinette is one of the most well-recognized figures in history, and yet it is her curious fate to be remembered for all the wrong reasons. Today, the onetime Queen of France is most known for words she did not say, and things she did not do. She did not – after all – ever tell anyone to eat cake. Despite her extravagant spending, she did not bankrupt France, thereby plunging it into revolution. And she was not the hidden power behind the French throne, moving her husband – King Louis XVI – like a pawn on a chessboard.
In many ways, Marie Antoinette’s trajectory mirrored that of modern-day celebrities, famous for being famous. Of course, unlike the stars of today, her path ended at the guillotine.
Antonia Fraser’s remarkable biography is fascinating for the way it refuses to oversell its subject. In Marie Antoinette, she does not make an argument for the world-historical greatness of the doomed queen with the prodigious hairdos. Instead, Fraser makes a compelling case for Marie Antoinette’s humanity, and the manner in which she faced the crumbling of her world.
***
Marie Antoinette is a marvelously old-fashioned biography. On the first page, the main character is born, and the story unfolds chronologically from there. Fraser writes in a narrative fashion, taking care – as she explains in an author’s note – not to let Marie’s eventual fate overshadow every prior moment of her life.
Though the focus is on storytelling, Fraser does take the time to weigh the evidence and discuss controversies, alerting the reader to those instances where the record is unclear. One major example of this is Fraser’s handling of the Swedish adventurer Axel von Fersen, who may have been Marie Antoinette’s lover, or may not have been, but certainly carried on a correspondence that suggests the physical act of love as a distinct possibility.
***
The thing about Marie Antoinette that stands out the most is the quality of its writing. Fraser puts you right there in a very tactile way. She fills her book with excellent descriptions of people, places, and – appropriately enough – the fashions. There are also gripping set-pieces, such as the flight to Varennes, which made my palms sweaty even though the outcome was determined over 230 years ago.
***
Some biographies attempt to capture both the person and their times. Marie Antoinette does not. Fraser tethers herself tightly to Marie, and does not stray far. We follow her from a young child in the court of Vienna – her mother being Maria Theresa, one of the great leaders of the age – to the pompous frivolity of the Palace of Versailles, and finally to the Place de la Concorde, where Marie Antoinette had a final audience with a ravenous mob baying for her blood.
The result is an incredibly intimate portrait that gives Marie Antoinette the dimensions denied her in life. Though a princess, she grew up as privileged property, a marriageable asset whose sole purpose was to strengthen foreign alliances. A case in point is her trip from Austria to France, where she was ritually stripped – before observers – at the border. Once in France, engaged to portly, socially-stunted Louis Auguste, she had to navigate the byzantine intricacies of court etiquette, where everyone had a role – and a salary – that they guarded fiercely.
Fraser does not airbrush away the failings and frailties of Marie Antoinette. Marie tried to balance dual loyalties to both Austria and France, with the result that she pleased no one. There is also no denying her free-spending ways, though relative to the nobility around her – both in France and elsewhere – this was not exactly shocking. In any event, she spent money like a person who never had to worry about money, and as the French economy teetered, this proved a really bad public relations move.
Nevertheless, Marie Antoinette’s reputation has been grossly distorted by eighteenth century slanders. Being a foreigner, and a woman, she became the target of scurrilous pamphleteers. In France, libel is a form of high art, and she was accused of an exhausting list of indiscretions, most of them sexual in nature. While Fraser eschews any interpretive lenses or labels, it is clear that Marie Antoinette was the victim of an incredibly vicious and sustained campaign of misogyny.
Leaving aside Thomas Jefferson’s quasi-obnoxious assertions to the contrary, nothing that Marie Antoinette did – or was alleged to have done, or alleged to have done with blood relations in bed – actually created the revolutionary conditions that consumed her. She did not – after all – rack up debts in the Seven Years’ War; decide to accrue more debts saving the American colonists across the ocean; cause bad harvests; fail to properly collect taxes; or engineer the unequal distribution of wealth. However, Marie became a lightning rod for the masses, a convenient – if irrational – focus for genuine anger and despair.
***
The downside to Fraser’s stay-close-to-Marie approach is that a lot of context gets lost. Fraser is far more interested in Marie’s maturation as a woman – from young spendthrift to devoted mother – than she is with the accumulating mistakes, miscalculations, and plain bad luck that culminated in the Terror. Obviously, Fraser discusses the French Revolution, but it is referenced indirectly, as experienced by Marie Antoinette.
In other words, if you want the big picture – which is arguably too complex to fit here anyway – you will have to look elsewhere. Having done a little bit of reading on the French Revolution beforehand, especially Jeremy Popkin’s A New World Begins, this did not bother me overmuch. Still, this might be an issue for readers who are new to the period.
***
To Fraser, Marie Antoinette was – with some marked exceptions – mostly apolitical. Certainly, she did not rule in her own right as did Elizabeth I or Catherine the Great or her own mother. Contrary to the accusations of her detractors, she was not a Machiavellian figure spinning webs within webs, a shadowy power. In fact, the throne lacked power in general, shadowy or otherwise, a reflection on its monarch, the poor, dithering Louis XVI, a reluctant autocrat with a great deal in common with Russia’s Nicholas II, right down to the propensity for getting his family killed.
Because she did not move the world herself, the resonance of Marie Antoinette’s tale comes from the sudden shift in her fortunes, and the dignity with which she handled them. For most of her life she had the kind of wealth and position experienced by only a fraction of a fraction of the people on earth. Yet in her final hours, she occupied a nasty little cell, watched over by unblinking guards, unable to change her clothes without their observation, and forced to undertake a slow tumbrel ride through the streets of Paris, a keen bit of psychological torture before she had her head sliced off.
It stands to reason whether anyone would accept years of luxury on condition of enduring those final moments of absolute horror.
September 22, 2024
Unfortunate Princess! My marriage promised her a throne; now, what prospect does it offer her?
-Louis XVI
Everybody and their second cousins know who Marie Antoinette was and how and why her life ended, so I won’t go into details explaining the book. Suffice it to say, it is very well researched, beautifully written and painstakingly detailed.
Which brings me to...
The book was extravagantly detailed. Granted, I chose to read the book to know more about the ill-fated queen’s life and her character, but not particularly about what color underwear she used to wear on a daily basis or why such and such a blood princess was offended because such and such a Duchess had entered the ballroom before her. Or, to read pages and pages about the irrelevant conversation between the queen’s sister in law and some inconsequential individual.
On the other hand, as opposed to these deadly boring details, some names were thrown in without much of a back-story.
For example the assassination of King Gustav III of Sweden who was almost a fixture all throughout the book is mentioned in passing, without any elaboration. I had to google to find out more about the why and how.
Or more importantly, the execution of Louis XVI is just mentioned very briefly, like the author was in a hurry to go back to our Antoinette’s garters and stockings and didn’t care to tell us about the last minutes of the poor doomed king on this earth.
Notwithstanding these minor issues, the book is very much worth reading.
-Louis XVI
Everybody and their second cousins know who Marie Antoinette was and how and why her life ended, so I won’t go into details explaining the book. Suffice it to say, it is very well researched, beautifully written and painstakingly detailed.
Which brings me to...
The book was extravagantly detailed. Granted, I chose to read the book to know more about the ill-fated queen’s life and her character, but not particularly about what color underwear she used to wear on a daily basis or why such and such a blood princess was offended because such and such a Duchess had entered the ballroom before her. Or, to read pages and pages about the irrelevant conversation between the queen’s sister in law and some inconsequential individual.
On the other hand, as opposed to these deadly boring details, some names were thrown in without much of a back-story.
For example the assassination of King Gustav III of Sweden who was almost a fixture all throughout the book is mentioned in passing, without any elaboration. I had to google to find out more about the why and how.
Or more importantly, the execution of Louis XVI is just mentioned very briefly, like the author was in a hurry to go back to our Antoinette’s garters and stockings and didn’t care to tell us about the last minutes of the poor doomed king on this earth.
Notwithstanding these minor issues, the book is very much worth reading.
May 23, 2016
This was my second Antonia Fraser book, the first being The Wives of Henry VIII. Thorough research and minute attention to details is the clear mark of both. Personally I found the writing of Marie Antoinette: The Journey to be more lucid and less confusing.
Perhaps this passage in the Epilogue best sums up the book:-
“A scapegoat was in fact what Marie Antoinette became. Among other things, she would be blamed for the whole French Revolution, by those who optimistically looked to one “guilty” individual as a way of explaining the complex horrors of the past.”
I am inclined to think that Marie Antoinette probably had a lethal fault in her stars that put her in the wrong place at the wrong time. Be that as it might, she, and for that matter, the French aristocrats, could have used more common sense and curbed her/their appetite for pleasure-seeking and extravagance at a time when most French commoners were seen to be poverty-stricken. These vested interests were simply blind to the public’s seething disgust for their hereditary privileges (like exemption from taxes, among other things). Added to this apparent obtuseness on the part of the royalty was the rapaciousness of France’s monarchic neighbors (including Austria, the Queen’s homeland), who had been prowling on her borders and waiting for her domestic troubles to explode in her face. It would not be surprising, under these circumstances, to see the “Austrian woman” (as Marie Antoinette came to be called) becoming the receptacle of the French people’s full wrath, through the vicious manipulation of public opinion by power-hungry demagogues.
This biographical work on whom one might term as “the most slandered French Queen in the history of France” also reminds one of how deadly calumnious propaganda can turn out to be. Wicked lies, if repeated often enough, can very easily become verity in the minds of the less enlightened. It also brings to mind how little we’ve advanced in terms of achieving social equality and fairness since those revolutionary days.
October 9, 2010
Next Saturday, October 16th will be her 217th Death Anniversary. On that same day, 217 years ago, Marie Antoinette or Maria Antonia Josepha Johanna (1755-1793) was executed by guillotine. She was convicted of treason. Nine months prior to that her husband, King Louis XIV was executed. These all happened at the height of the French Revolution (1789-1799).
Marie Antoinette was a victim from birth to death. Her marriage to King Louis XIV was a move to forge alliances among the warring countries included in the Seven Years War. Included in these countries were Austria, where Marie Antoinette was an Archduchess and France, where Louis-Auguste (who became King Louis XIV) was a Dauphin. Prior to their marriage, France was used to be Austria's traditional enemy. Even at the time of her execution, peasants were shouting: "Hang the Austrian woman! Long live France!". Marie Antoinette did not dream of becoming a French queen. She just followed the wishes of her mother, Empress Maria Theresa who she did not have a good relation as the later had her favorite, Marie Antoinette's younger sister, Maria Carolina. Thus leaving Hamburg for Paris to live in Versailles was Marie Antoinette way of ending her jealousy of being the less-favoured daughter of the empress.
Unfortunately, King Louis XIV did not love her and it took time for their marriage to be consummated. They had 4 children and two of them died at their young age. Their eldest survived, Marie-Therese Charlotte (1778-1851)who later became Dauphine of France upon ascension of her father-in-law to the throne of France in 1824. After the death of the first son who died at the age of 7, the second son (third child) was born: Louis XVII (1785-1795). He, too died but this time, during the imprisonment of her parents in the palace tower.
The line "let them eat cake", with "them" being the hungry French peasants because of bread shortage, has not been proven to have come from her. It first appeared in Jean-Jacques Rousseau's Confessions but Rousseau did not name who the "great princess" was.
Marie Antoinette was never a political animal. She had no power and was content in playing her role as a queen attending social functions and doing civic works. Her unhappy marriage resulted to her becoming frivolous. She dressed herself up extravagantly and wanted to have all the luxuries despite the poor economic condition of the country. She was accused of everything from lesbianism, occult and having incestuous relation with her own son.
This is a heartfelt biography of a misunderstood famous figure in French history. She is said to be one of the 4 world-famous French figures in the history following Napoleon Bonaparte, Joan of Arc and Charles de Gaulle. According to Wiki, Fraser's depiction of Marie Antoinette here is kind. For me, that's baloney. This work presented the balanced view of Marie Antoinette and is well-documented as Fraser has all the footnotes and cross-references.
"Is anybody here a mother?" was her heartfelt line during her trial when her accuser brought up her alleged incestuous relation with her own son.
"Pardon me Sir, I meant not to do it" were her last words addressing her executioner when Marie Antoinette accidentally stepped on his toes on her way to the guillotine. Oh yes, like her king husband he faced her trial and execution with grace.
Those last words that should have come from the people who condemned her, in my honest opinion. Her being a political pawn and scapegoat was too tragic. A queen killed by her own people was too sad.
Excellent writing though. Well-researched. Amazing biography!
Marie Antoinette was a victim from birth to death. Her marriage to King Louis XIV was a move to forge alliances among the warring countries included in the Seven Years War. Included in these countries were Austria, where Marie Antoinette was an Archduchess and France, where Louis-Auguste (who became King Louis XIV) was a Dauphin. Prior to their marriage, France was used to be Austria's traditional enemy. Even at the time of her execution, peasants were shouting: "Hang the Austrian woman! Long live France!". Marie Antoinette did not dream of becoming a French queen. She just followed the wishes of her mother, Empress Maria Theresa who she did not have a good relation as the later had her favorite, Marie Antoinette's younger sister, Maria Carolina. Thus leaving Hamburg for Paris to live in Versailles was Marie Antoinette way of ending her jealousy of being the less-favoured daughter of the empress.
Unfortunately, King Louis XIV did not love her and it took time for their marriage to be consummated. They had 4 children and two of them died at their young age. Their eldest survived, Marie-Therese Charlotte (1778-1851)who later became Dauphine of France upon ascension of her father-in-law to the throne of France in 1824. After the death of the first son who died at the age of 7, the second son (third child) was born: Louis XVII (1785-1795). He, too died but this time, during the imprisonment of her parents in the palace tower.
The line "let them eat cake", with "them" being the hungry French peasants because of bread shortage, has not been proven to have come from her. It first appeared in Jean-Jacques Rousseau's Confessions but Rousseau did not name who the "great princess" was.
Marie Antoinette was never a political animal. She had no power and was content in playing her role as a queen attending social functions and doing civic works. Her unhappy marriage resulted to her becoming frivolous. She dressed herself up extravagantly and wanted to have all the luxuries despite the poor economic condition of the country. She was accused of everything from lesbianism, occult and having incestuous relation with her own son.
This is a heartfelt biography of a misunderstood famous figure in French history. She is said to be one of the 4 world-famous French figures in the history following Napoleon Bonaparte, Joan of Arc and Charles de Gaulle. According to Wiki, Fraser's depiction of Marie Antoinette here is kind. For me, that's baloney. This work presented the balanced view of Marie Antoinette and is well-documented as Fraser has all the footnotes and cross-references.
"Is anybody here a mother?" was her heartfelt line during her trial when her accuser brought up her alleged incestuous relation with her own son.
"Pardon me Sir, I meant not to do it" were her last words addressing her executioner when Marie Antoinette accidentally stepped on his toes on her way to the guillotine. Oh yes, like her king husband he faced her trial and execution with grace.
Those last words that should have come from the people who condemned her, in my honest opinion. Her being a political pawn and scapegoat was too tragic. A queen killed by her own people was too sad.
Excellent writing though. Well-researched. Amazing biography!
September 2, 2007
As a former French major in college, I really enjoyed this book and learned so much about this period of time and the dynamics of the monarchy in France. While at times it was difficult to keep all the characters straight since they had multiple names/titles, I found that the overall narrative was compelling. Most people today have little sympathy for this queen, but I came away from this book with a much altered impression of her character and personality. She was truly in an impossible position...a queen in a country where the royalty was expected to live in a certain fashion, where, in fact, the people demanded it, and yet where the resentment for that lifestyle would eventually be her demise. It reminded me of the "hero worship" of athletes and entertainment celebrities yet the gratification many feel when they are brought down! It's as though we want them to be "bigger than life" and put them in that place, yet resent it at the same time. Anyway, an interesting read for the history buff. You will most certainly come away with a much greater understanding of and sympathy for Marie Antoinette!
March 2, 2011
Marie Antoinette / 0-385-48949-8
I love reading and learning about Marie Antoinette as a historical figure - she had such a fascinating life, and was such an interesting person - but I could not have been more disappointed with this book. I'm really surprised that it has so many high ratings, so take my review with a grain of salt, but I just found this book to be a complete chore to wade through.
It's really frustrating to see Fraser take such a fascinating historical figure and rob her of all interest with some of the dullest writing and bald assertions I've ever seen in a biography. I'm sorry to say that the book reads like the worst of high school history books - dryly vomiting up names and dates with very little context, and jumping about the map to cover events "chronologically" with very little effort made to tie events to one another with any sort of compelling or competent narrative. Fraser seems to regard name-dropping and quote-dropping as being most crucial details, and thus she never hesitates to drop in random quotes from various philosophers, sooth-sayers, and poets - even when doing so is distracting and detracts from the narrative flow.
Too much bald assertion is used here, and to ill effect. For example, Fraser insists that Marie Antoinette's memorable "re-dressing" ceremony was simply not bothersome or traumatic to the young woman, because it was the fashion of the time, not unusual at all, and that "she had, after all, been treated as a doll, to be dressed up in this and that at the adults' whim since childhood; this was just one more example of that process." This may be personal preference, but I dislike this style of writing in biographies - either tell us how the subject felt through actual, historical sources OR tell us how they *might* have regarded an experience, based on conjectures from personality documented through actual, historical sources. Do not, however, just attempt to "channel" the spirit of the biography from the depths of time, and tell us how they felt, because it's just not accurate - it's one woman's opinion. The entire book is written in this vein, and you just never get the impression that you're reading actual history, but rather Fraser's version of how she has decided it must have been. Whether you trust her to be the expert and know what she is talking about is another matter.
I recommend avoiding this book. As a source for Marie Antoinette, I found it sadly lacking, as much of what Fraser asserts as truth is undocumented at best. As reading material, I was repulsed by the turgid prose and by the jump-around-the-map, cram-everything-in-without-context, and drop-a-lot-of-cool-sounding-quotes approach to history.
~ Ana Mardoll
I love reading and learning about Marie Antoinette as a historical figure - she had such a fascinating life, and was such an interesting person - but I could not have been more disappointed with this book. I'm really surprised that it has so many high ratings, so take my review with a grain of salt, but I just found this book to be a complete chore to wade through.
It's really frustrating to see Fraser take such a fascinating historical figure and rob her of all interest with some of the dullest writing and bald assertions I've ever seen in a biography. I'm sorry to say that the book reads like the worst of high school history books - dryly vomiting up names and dates with very little context, and jumping about the map to cover events "chronologically" with very little effort made to tie events to one another with any sort of compelling or competent narrative. Fraser seems to regard name-dropping and quote-dropping as being most crucial details, and thus she never hesitates to drop in random quotes from various philosophers, sooth-sayers, and poets - even when doing so is distracting and detracts from the narrative flow.
Too much bald assertion is used here, and to ill effect. For example, Fraser insists that Marie Antoinette's memorable "re-dressing" ceremony was simply not bothersome or traumatic to the young woman, because it was the fashion of the time, not unusual at all, and that "she had, after all, been treated as a doll, to be dressed up in this and that at the adults' whim since childhood; this was just one more example of that process." This may be personal preference, but I dislike this style of writing in biographies - either tell us how the subject felt through actual, historical sources OR tell us how they *might* have regarded an experience, based on conjectures from personality documented through actual, historical sources. Do not, however, just attempt to "channel" the spirit of the biography from the depths of time, and tell us how they felt, because it's just not accurate - it's one woman's opinion. The entire book is written in this vein, and you just never get the impression that you're reading actual history, but rather Fraser's version of how she has decided it must have been. Whether you trust her to be the expert and know what she is talking about is another matter.
I recommend avoiding this book. As a source for Marie Antoinette, I found it sadly lacking, as much of what Fraser asserts as truth is undocumented at best. As reading material, I was repulsed by the turgid prose and by the jump-around-the-map, cram-everything-in-without-context, and drop-a-lot-of-cool-sounding-quotes approach to history.
~ Ana Mardoll
Read
November 17, 2025#Vive la Reine!
1/3
Antonia Fraser sabe, certamente, contar uma história e a prova disso é a rapidez com que se devoram estas quase 200 páginas dedicadas a Maria Antonieta. E se é verdade que apenas o nome "Maria Antonieta" é chamariz suficiente para cotar muitas das suas biografias com generosidade, também o é que há qualquer coisa de simultaneamente cândido e rigorosamente aprofundado nesta pequenina obra que a faz merecer uma boa avaliação. E talvez isso se deva ao facto de, longe de se manter no plano do luxo e da futilidade do absolutismo herdado por Luís Augusto e Maria Antonieta, Fraser dedicar grande parte desta biografia a desmistificar a figura de uma mulher injustiçada, mais conhecida pela atribuição errónea da expressão "se não têm pão, que comam bolo", felizmente, também aqui, desmentida.
E se a autora decide subtitular este livro de A Viagem, a história não podia mesmo ficar-se pelos anos de luxo e esbanjamento desenfreados a que associamos o reinado de Luís XVI.
Recuando a 1755 (nem Nostradamus poderia prever esta estranha coincidência), Fraser acompanha o leitor à origem, ao reino austríaco onde a imperatriz Maria Teresa se afadigava no valioso negócio da criação de herdeiros:
Assim, as décadas de 1740 e 1750 testemunharam o nascimento de uma pequena multidão de príncipes reais, tanto varões como fêmeas, no seio das famílias reinantes destes países. A Europa estava, positivamente, cheia de pequenos peões reais, prontos, assim parecia, a entrarem no grande jogo das alianças diplomáticas. Madame Antoine [futuramente, Maria Antonieta] tinha o seu valor específico, não como pessoa, mas como peça no tabuleiro de xadrez da sua mãe.
Nascida para ser casada com um estranho e enviada para longe de casa, Maria Antonieta é educada segundo os melhores preceitos - para obedecer e calar:
Para além desta necessidade de representar, a outra ênfase na educação das raparigas era colocada na docilidade e na obediência. O texto mais utilizado, crucial, era Les Aventures de Télémaque, de Fénelon, que sublinhava a importância, para o sexo feminino, do trabalho e da destreza, mas também da modéstia e submissão. Maria Teresa fazia questão de uma obediência total e inequívoca por parte das filhas. «Nasceram para obedecer e devem aprender a fazê-lo o mais cedo possível», declarou ela um ano após o nascimento de Antoine.
Infelizmente para a futura rainha de França, calar era coisa a que apenas a muito custo se conseguia obrigar. Com 15 anos de idade, desterrada para lá das fronteiras austríacas, casada com um rapazinho que lhe dedicava pouquíssima atenção e ainda menos interesse, Maria Antonieta cedo teve de lutar contra as pressões políticas e os estigmas sociais. O que se segue é uma das histórias mais badaladas de sempre: a revolta apaixonada, anos de luxo e luxúria, festas inigualáveis, escândalos, bancarrota e uma revolução que desaba sobre as cabeças reais. Mas o que fica pelo meio?
A narrativa de Fraser é rápida, muito rápida, mas, mesmo assim, há tempo para debater as condicionantes políticas, a corrupção e o favoritismo enraizados na corte de aristocratas que se alimentam da máquina do Estado. Entre as maquinações políticas e o levantamento popular, no entanto, sobressai o retrato dos últimos dias da família real, grande parte do tempo placidamemente alheada da realidade:
A Rainha passou o dia 14 de Julho, tal como o resto da corte, na ignorância do que se estava a passar em Paris. Também parecia que ninguém tinha pressa de informar o Rei. Luís XVI estava na cama quando o Duque de Liancourt, um aristocrata com simpatias liberais, lhe deu a notícia.
- É uma revolta? - perguntou Luís XVI.
- Não, Sire - replicou Liancourt -, é uma revolução!
Estamos em 1789, durante a tomada da Bastilha. Maria Antonieta é, por esta altura, uma matrona com quatro filhos (nem todos vivos, já), dedicada a um marido que conquistou após anos de persistência, extenuada pelas lutas constantes contra os três estados (clero, burguesia e povo), sem voz própria (as consortes francesas estavam um degrau abaixo das amantes reais) e condenada a despertar o rancor dos que a rodeiam. Falhada a reconciliação com as franjas extremistas e após duas tentativas de fuga goradas, chegam as últimas horas de Luís Capeto e da Austríaca:
Em vez da habitual cerimónia, naquela noite o quarto do Rei estava um verdadeiro caos, com pessoas sentadas por todo o lado, no chão, nas cadeiras, em cima das mesas. O próprio Luís XVI, ainda vestido (ou por despir), continuava com a casaca púrpura e a sua formal cabeleira empoada em desalinho.
A Rainha, Madame Elisabeth e as suas damas também não se despiram. Só as crianças se deitaram. À uma hora da manhã, Maria Antonieta e a cunhada estenderam-se num sofá numa das pequenas salas da galeria. Todos os adultos estavam acordados quando se começou a ouvir o toque a rebate, chamando os revolucionários de todos os bairros de Paris para o assalto há tanto esperado.
Cerca das cinco da manhã estimava-se em 10 000 os homens que se empurravam em direcção aos pátios e jardins das Tulherias.
Fraser não entra em grandes detalhes em tão poucas páginas, mas a forma como conta a história dos últimos momentos da monarquia francesa funciona como uma brecha que se abre no tempo e no espaço para levar o leitor ao encontro das figuras dos mártires da Revolução. A sua simpatia, no entanto, não vai para o sistema, mas antes para as engrenagens que o põem em movimento - tantas vezes, inadvertidamente:
«Coragem!», exclamou Maria Antonieta. Não é neste momento em que os meus tormentos vão acabar que a coragem me vai faltar.»
Assim, a cabeça de Antonieta, desejada por Hébert, foi cortada ao meio-dia e quinze minutos do dia 16 de Outubro de 1793, uma quarta-feira, e exibida perante um público jubiloso. Um homem excitado, que se meteu por baixo do cadafalso para tentar ensopar o seu lenço no sangue real, foi rapidamente afastado pelos gendarmes.
A viagem - que começara num palácio imperial, em Viena, e que acabara numa esquálida cela em Paris - estava completa. O corpo de Maria Antonieta com a cabeça cortada foi levado sem qualquer cerimónia para o cemitério da rue d'Anjou, onde Luís XVI tinha sido enterrado nove meses e meio antes. Primeiro, porém, os coveiros almoçaram, deixando o corpo e a cabeça à espera em cima da relva. A futura Madame Tussaud pôde assim modelar em cera a cabeça sem vida da Rainha.
1/3
Antonia Fraser sabe, certamente, contar uma história e a prova disso é a rapidez com que se devoram estas quase 200 páginas dedicadas a Maria Antonieta. E se é verdade que apenas o nome "Maria Antonieta" é chamariz suficiente para cotar muitas das suas biografias com generosidade, também o é que há qualquer coisa de simultaneamente cândido e rigorosamente aprofundado nesta pequenina obra que a faz merecer uma boa avaliação. E talvez isso se deva ao facto de, longe de se manter no plano do luxo e da futilidade do absolutismo herdado por Luís Augusto e Maria Antonieta, Fraser dedicar grande parte desta biografia a desmistificar a figura de uma mulher injustiçada, mais conhecida pela atribuição errónea da expressão "se não têm pão, que comam bolo", felizmente, também aqui, desmentida.
E se a autora decide subtitular este livro de A Viagem, a história não podia mesmo ficar-se pelos anos de luxo e esbanjamento desenfreados a que associamos o reinado de Luís XVI.
Recuando a 1755 (nem Nostradamus poderia prever esta estranha coincidência), Fraser acompanha o leitor à origem, ao reino austríaco onde a imperatriz Maria Teresa se afadigava no valioso negócio da criação de herdeiros:
Assim, as décadas de 1740 e 1750 testemunharam o nascimento de uma pequena multidão de príncipes reais, tanto varões como fêmeas, no seio das famílias reinantes destes países. A Europa estava, positivamente, cheia de pequenos peões reais, prontos, assim parecia, a entrarem no grande jogo das alianças diplomáticas. Madame Antoine [futuramente, Maria Antonieta] tinha o seu valor específico, não como pessoa, mas como peça no tabuleiro de xadrez da sua mãe.
Nascida para ser casada com um estranho e enviada para longe de casa, Maria Antonieta é educada segundo os melhores preceitos - para obedecer e calar:
Para além desta necessidade de representar, a outra ênfase na educação das raparigas era colocada na docilidade e na obediência. O texto mais utilizado, crucial, era Les Aventures de Télémaque, de Fénelon, que sublinhava a importância, para o sexo feminino, do trabalho e da destreza, mas também da modéstia e submissão. Maria Teresa fazia questão de uma obediência total e inequívoca por parte das filhas. «Nasceram para obedecer e devem aprender a fazê-lo o mais cedo possível», declarou ela um ano após o nascimento de Antoine.
Infelizmente para a futura rainha de França, calar era coisa a que apenas a muito custo se conseguia obrigar. Com 15 anos de idade, desterrada para lá das fronteiras austríacas, casada com um rapazinho que lhe dedicava pouquíssima atenção e ainda menos interesse, Maria Antonieta cedo teve de lutar contra as pressões políticas e os estigmas sociais. O que se segue é uma das histórias mais badaladas de sempre: a revolta apaixonada, anos de luxo e luxúria, festas inigualáveis, escândalos, bancarrota e uma revolução que desaba sobre as cabeças reais. Mas o que fica pelo meio?
A narrativa de Fraser é rápida, muito rápida, mas, mesmo assim, há tempo para debater as condicionantes políticas, a corrupção e o favoritismo enraizados na corte de aristocratas que se alimentam da máquina do Estado. Entre as maquinações políticas e o levantamento popular, no entanto, sobressai o retrato dos últimos dias da família real, grande parte do tempo placidamemente alheada da realidade:
A Rainha passou o dia 14 de Julho, tal como o resto da corte, na ignorância do que se estava a passar em Paris. Também parecia que ninguém tinha pressa de informar o Rei. Luís XVI estava na cama quando o Duque de Liancourt, um aristocrata com simpatias liberais, lhe deu a notícia.
- É uma revolta? - perguntou Luís XVI.
- Não, Sire - replicou Liancourt -, é uma revolução!
Estamos em 1789, durante a tomada da Bastilha. Maria Antonieta é, por esta altura, uma matrona com quatro filhos (nem todos vivos, já), dedicada a um marido que conquistou após anos de persistência, extenuada pelas lutas constantes contra os três estados (clero, burguesia e povo), sem voz própria (as consortes francesas estavam um degrau abaixo das amantes reais) e condenada a despertar o rancor dos que a rodeiam. Falhada a reconciliação com as franjas extremistas e após duas tentativas de fuga goradas, chegam as últimas horas de Luís Capeto e da Austríaca:
Em vez da habitual cerimónia, naquela noite o quarto do Rei estava um verdadeiro caos, com pessoas sentadas por todo o lado, no chão, nas cadeiras, em cima das mesas. O próprio Luís XVI, ainda vestido (ou por despir), continuava com a casaca púrpura e a sua formal cabeleira empoada em desalinho.
A Rainha, Madame Elisabeth e as suas damas também não se despiram. Só as crianças se deitaram. À uma hora da manhã, Maria Antonieta e a cunhada estenderam-se num sofá numa das pequenas salas da galeria. Todos os adultos estavam acordados quando se começou a ouvir o toque a rebate, chamando os revolucionários de todos os bairros de Paris para o assalto há tanto esperado.
Cerca das cinco da manhã estimava-se em 10 000 os homens que se empurravam em direcção aos pátios e jardins das Tulherias.
Fraser não entra em grandes detalhes em tão poucas páginas, mas a forma como conta a história dos últimos momentos da monarquia francesa funciona como uma brecha que se abre no tempo e no espaço para levar o leitor ao encontro das figuras dos mártires da Revolução. A sua simpatia, no entanto, não vai para o sistema, mas antes para as engrenagens que o põem em movimento - tantas vezes, inadvertidamente:
«Coragem!», exclamou Maria Antonieta. Não é neste momento em que os meus tormentos vão acabar que a coragem me vai faltar.»
Assim, a cabeça de Antonieta, desejada por Hébert, foi cortada ao meio-dia e quinze minutos do dia 16 de Outubro de 1793, uma quarta-feira, e exibida perante um público jubiloso. Um homem excitado, que se meteu por baixo do cadafalso para tentar ensopar o seu lenço no sangue real, foi rapidamente afastado pelos gendarmes.
A viagem - que começara num palácio imperial, em Viena, e que acabara numa esquálida cela em Paris - estava completa. O corpo de Maria Antonieta com a cabeça cortada foi levado sem qualquer cerimónia para o cemitério da rue d'Anjou, onde Luís XVI tinha sido enterrado nove meses e meio antes. Primeiro, porém, os coveiros almoçaram, deixando o corpo e a cabeça à espera em cima da relva. A futura Madame Tussaud pôde assim modelar em cera a cabeça sem vida da Rainha.
September 16, 2008
Not only does Antonia Frasier dispell the rumor that Marie Antoinette ever uttered “let them eat cake” when told that the French were starved for bread, she gives a fuller picture of the queen that shows her more than just an extravagant self-involved royal out-of-touch with reality. Frasier packs in gossipy details that keep this from being a dry read.
Marie Antoinette is born to be a pawn in her mother’s (Hapsburg Empress Maria Theresa) bid to expand Hapsburg power and influence. At the age of 14, a deal is cut for Antoine to marry the future king of France, sealing an alliance between the two empires. Immediately, preparations begin to prepare her for the marriage. Since birth, Marie Antoinette, like all good royal girls, is groomed to be a feminine and submissive royal wife, with lessons in dance, music and etiquette - unfortunately she is otherwise poorly educated, even by 18th century standards.
At 15, she is wed to the French dauphin and shipped to France, where she is expected, (with not-so-gentle prodding by her mother and the French royal court) to deliver a future king. Until she delivers, her position in France is uncertain.
Frasier details the early struggles of the teenage couple’s marriage and the years it took them to finally consummate it, while painting a vivid picture of royal life with the full court. Marie Antoinette is dressed by ladies in waiting, who get to help based on rank. The royals are crazy – her mother through Antoinette’s servants monitors her monthly periods, others knew the details about when the queen and king tried or had sex. When she finally gives birth, it’s before a gathering of those invited based on rank. Of course, in 18th century France, these were all matters of national importance indicating the future direction of the country. It goes a long way to explaining why Marie Antionette and Louis XVI were so unprepared when they became king and queen. They were born to rule – via a trusted circle of advisers, of course – but when the rules changed after the French Revolution, neither Louis nor Marie Antionette (who apparently had little influence in her husband’s political decisions) were bright enough politicians or visionary enough to see a new role for the monarchy and instead fought every measure to limit their power, eventually even trying to get Austria to send in troops to help restore them to the throne.
By the time the revolution rolls around, Frasier has drunken the kool-aid and is fully on the King and Queen’s side, explaining why the royals did what they did. Whether it be trying to preserve the King’s power or their eventual failed escape from Paris, she paints a picture of a king and queen who were devoted to their children and believed the future of France was best served by keeping the king in power. It would have been interesting to get more perspective on the problems going on in the country and whether the King and Queen were totally disconnected as at least Marie Antionette seemed to be.
The French Revolution was bloody and eventually led to leaders killing previous leaders in a near-continual cleansing and it’s easy to believe that by the time of King Louis’ execution and then Marie Antoinette’s that revolution leaders had gone too far. Even Thomas Paine argued that the family should be allowed to leave the country and resettle in America. Because Frasier seems to be so behind the royal cause doomed to history, it’s hard to feel like an impartial observer and I at times ended up arguing with the book for its characterization of the King and Queen’s actions, which comes off as a defense. Frasier gives great insight into Marie Antionette’s life and experience up to the end, but she doesn’t apply her critical eye to their actions leading to the revolution and during it. At the same time, she (rightfully) doesn’t spare the revolutionaries.
Marie Antoinette is born to be a pawn in her mother’s (Hapsburg Empress Maria Theresa) bid to expand Hapsburg power and influence. At the age of 14, a deal is cut for Antoine to marry the future king of France, sealing an alliance between the two empires. Immediately, preparations begin to prepare her for the marriage. Since birth, Marie Antoinette, like all good royal girls, is groomed to be a feminine and submissive royal wife, with lessons in dance, music and etiquette - unfortunately she is otherwise poorly educated, even by 18th century standards.
At 15, she is wed to the French dauphin and shipped to France, where she is expected, (with not-so-gentle prodding by her mother and the French royal court) to deliver a future king. Until she delivers, her position in France is uncertain.
Frasier details the early struggles of the teenage couple’s marriage and the years it took them to finally consummate it, while painting a vivid picture of royal life with the full court. Marie Antoinette is dressed by ladies in waiting, who get to help based on rank. The royals are crazy – her mother through Antoinette’s servants monitors her monthly periods, others knew the details about when the queen and king tried or had sex. When she finally gives birth, it’s before a gathering of those invited based on rank. Of course, in 18th century France, these were all matters of national importance indicating the future direction of the country. It goes a long way to explaining why Marie Antionette and Louis XVI were so unprepared when they became king and queen. They were born to rule – via a trusted circle of advisers, of course – but when the rules changed after the French Revolution, neither Louis nor Marie Antionette (who apparently had little influence in her husband’s political decisions) were bright enough politicians or visionary enough to see a new role for the monarchy and instead fought every measure to limit their power, eventually even trying to get Austria to send in troops to help restore them to the throne.
By the time the revolution rolls around, Frasier has drunken the kool-aid and is fully on the King and Queen’s side, explaining why the royals did what they did. Whether it be trying to preserve the King’s power or their eventual failed escape from Paris, she paints a picture of a king and queen who were devoted to their children and believed the future of France was best served by keeping the king in power. It would have been interesting to get more perspective on the problems going on in the country and whether the King and Queen were totally disconnected as at least Marie Antionette seemed to be.
The French Revolution was bloody and eventually led to leaders killing previous leaders in a near-continual cleansing and it’s easy to believe that by the time of King Louis’ execution and then Marie Antoinette’s that revolution leaders had gone too far. Even Thomas Paine argued that the family should be allowed to leave the country and resettle in America. Because Frasier seems to be so behind the royal cause doomed to history, it’s hard to feel like an impartial observer and I at times ended up arguing with the book for its characterization of the King and Queen’s actions, which comes off as a defense. Frasier gives great insight into Marie Antionette’s life and experience up to the end, but she doesn’t apply her critical eye to their actions leading to the revolution and during it. At the same time, she (rightfully) doesn’t spare the revolutionaries.
April 6, 2010
I am not a history buff, so it's hard for me to judge if this book is historically accurate. What I can attest to is that Antonia Fraser knows how to write a very engaging non-fictional narrative. And from my limited experience with non-fiction, it is a hard thing to do.
"Marie Antoinette" doesn't appear to be an overly objective book, the tone of it is very involved and I guess that's what makes it so readable. Fraser paints a very sympathetic portrait of Marie Antoinette, who at some point in French history was the most hated woman in the country and was accused of being sexually deviant (to the point of incest), an Austrian spy, an enemy of French people, of bankrupting the country... the list goes on.
Fraser's French queen is extremely likable. Not raised for the high throne, lacking education and crucial understanding of politics, Marie Antoinette is a tragic figure more than anything else. She marries French Dauphin at the age of 14 almost by default, when her sister dies. Without proper tutoring, with her marriage unconsummated for over 7 years, Marie Antoinette keeps herself busy by frivolous occupations: she organizes parties, she dances, she gambles, she buys jewelry and dresses. She is kept in the dark about politics and current events, her first obligation is to be a decoration, not to rule French people who are struggling under heavy taxes. As the years pass, Marie Antoinette becomes a mother, and a great mother at that. She is still apolitical, and yet strangely held responsible for everything bad happening in the country.
Marie Antoinette's political awakening finally happens when France is taken over by the revolutionary forces. When her husband (as inexperienced in politics as she is) finds he has no courage or ability to make decisions about their future, it is Marie Antoinette who takes charge and attempts to salvage monarchy for her son. Unfortunately, due to the lack of clear understanding of politics, she is unable to make the right decisions, and her entire family eventually meets an awful demise.
"Marie Antoinette" is an interesting (and sad) story of a woman whose only aspirations are her family and peaceful life. She is thrown into the world of politics without any preparation and is quickly consumed by it.
Recommended to those readers who are interested in history and biographies of royalty.
"Marie Antoinette" doesn't appear to be an overly objective book, the tone of it is very involved and I guess that's what makes it so readable. Fraser paints a very sympathetic portrait of Marie Antoinette, who at some point in French history was the most hated woman in the country and was accused of being sexually deviant (to the point of incest), an Austrian spy, an enemy of French people, of bankrupting the country... the list goes on.
Fraser's French queen is extremely likable. Not raised for the high throne, lacking education and crucial understanding of politics, Marie Antoinette is a tragic figure more than anything else. She marries French Dauphin at the age of 14 almost by default, when her sister dies. Without proper tutoring, with her marriage unconsummated for over 7 years, Marie Antoinette keeps herself busy by frivolous occupations: she organizes parties, she dances, she gambles, she buys jewelry and dresses. She is kept in the dark about politics and current events, her first obligation is to be a decoration, not to rule French people who are struggling under heavy taxes. As the years pass, Marie Antoinette becomes a mother, and a great mother at that. She is still apolitical, and yet strangely held responsible for everything bad happening in the country.
Marie Antoinette's political awakening finally happens when France is taken over by the revolutionary forces. When her husband (as inexperienced in politics as she is) finds he has no courage or ability to make decisions about their future, it is Marie Antoinette who takes charge and attempts to salvage monarchy for her son. Unfortunately, due to the lack of clear understanding of politics, she is unable to make the right decisions, and her entire family eventually meets an awful demise.
"Marie Antoinette" is an interesting (and sad) story of a woman whose only aspirations are her family and peaceful life. She is thrown into the world of politics without any preparation and is quickly consumed by it.
Recommended to those readers who are interested in history and biographies of royalty.
March 25, 2025
A balanced account of Marie Antoinette’s life. She experienced luxury and grief, hopes and tragedy, love and hatred. This biography is readable and informative. The author tries to be neutral in how she interprets the well-known events in the Queen’s life.
March 2, 2024
3,5 stars. This story is unsatisfactorily, to me, zoned in on Marie Antoinette herself, in that the world the book presents is very claustrophobic - she is almost like a cut-out, isolated from anything but her family, several closest friends (including an unquestionable favourite, if not a lover) and politicians, especially Count Mercy.
The purpose of her marriage to Louis XVI was to strengthen the tenuous alliance between France and Austria, an alliance nobody much believed in: after all, Austria attacked France some twenty years after Louis' and Marie Antoinette's wedding. This probably explained the atmosphere in which MA lived, and the increasing hostility of the French nation towards "the Austrian", but there books provides little in the way of wider historical background. In the Epilogue, the author attempts - and quite successfully - to explain what factors precisely led to Marie Antioinette's death, but this came at a point when I was already quite frustrated with how little we learn about the 'whys' of the whole thing. I would love to know much more about the libellous pamphlets about the queen (and the entire politics of printing them), as well as people's mindset at the time, including their opinions on the royal family. While I was touched to learn that the queen definitely had learning difficulties (as a teacher, I would also suspect dyslexia and ADHD), the returning question of the exact nature of her relationship with Fersen means nothing to me compared to the background I would love to know.
The most frustrating part of the story, and the one that makes one feel sorry for the royal couple and their entourage, was the failed flight to Varennes, and - after the king was executed - the fact that while some some private citizens devised more or less abortive plots to save her, her family abroad, who had potentially a much greater chance of success, did nothing to save her, because she hasn't fulfilled her role as a representative of Habsburgian dynastic interests. Which she had no chances of succeeding in from the start.
This, and what happened to Princess de Lamballe.
The purpose of her marriage to Louis XVI was to strengthen the tenuous alliance between France and Austria, an alliance nobody much believed in: after all, Austria attacked France some twenty years after Louis' and Marie Antoinette's wedding. This probably explained the atmosphere in which MA lived, and the increasing hostility of the French nation towards "the Austrian", but there books provides little in the way of wider historical background. In the Epilogue, the author attempts - and quite successfully - to explain what factors precisely led to Marie Antioinette's death, but this came at a point when I was already quite frustrated with how little we learn about the 'whys' of the whole thing. I would love to know much more about the libellous pamphlets about the queen (and the entire politics of printing them), as well as people's mindset at the time, including their opinions on the royal family. While I was touched to learn that the queen definitely had learning difficulties (as a teacher, I would also suspect dyslexia and ADHD), the returning question of the exact nature of her relationship with Fersen means nothing to me compared to the background I would love to know.
The most frustrating part of the story, and the one that makes one feel sorry for the royal couple and their entourage, was the failed flight to Varennes, and - after the king was executed - the fact that while some some private citizens devised more or less abortive plots to save her, her family abroad, who had potentially a much greater chance of success, did nothing to save her, because she hasn't fulfilled her role as a representative of Habsburgian dynastic interests. Which she had no chances of succeeding in from the start.
This, and what happened to Princess de Lamballe.
February 28, 2019
«Madame, vistes vós da Áustria para isto»
Luís XVI
«Maria Antonieta era uma inquestionável amante do prazer e na perseguição desse prazer foi extravagante. O facto de a família real francesa, no seu todo, ser pródiga nos seus gastos, o que explica a atmosfera em que Maria Antonieta vivia, não a isenta de culpa. No entanto, devemos acrescentar em sua defesa não só a beleza que criou à sua volta, mas também o gosto genuíno pelas artes, especialmente a música em todas as suas formas, o que fez dela uma protetora generosa.
(…)
Há ainda a questão de a sua frivolidade ser o resultado de uma situação extremamente infeliz e humilhante durante os primeiros sete anos e meio do seu casamento.
(…)
O azar perseguiu-a mal pôs os pés em França, embaixatriz indesejada e inadequada de uma grande potência, esposa-menina rejeitada até ao fim, até se tornar o bode expiatório de uma monarquia em decadência.»
Sofia Coppola inspirou-se neste livro para realizar o conhecido filme Marie Antoinette. Do filme, fica-nos essa ideia de futilidade e pouco mais. Terminada a leitura, lamento a ligeireza com que a realizadora passou sobre a figura de Maria Antonieta, sobretudo sobre a parte final da sua vida, onde o dramatismo se acentuou. Fuga, prisão, cativeiro, julgamento, condenação e morte. Segundo esta biografia, provou o quanto era dedicada ao rei e aos filhos, e manteve a dignidade e humildade até ao último minuto.
Luís XVI
«Maria Antonieta era uma inquestionável amante do prazer e na perseguição desse prazer foi extravagante. O facto de a família real francesa, no seu todo, ser pródiga nos seus gastos, o que explica a atmosfera em que Maria Antonieta vivia, não a isenta de culpa. No entanto, devemos acrescentar em sua defesa não só a beleza que criou à sua volta, mas também o gosto genuíno pelas artes, especialmente a música em todas as suas formas, o que fez dela uma protetora generosa.
(…)
Há ainda a questão de a sua frivolidade ser o resultado de uma situação extremamente infeliz e humilhante durante os primeiros sete anos e meio do seu casamento.
(…)
O azar perseguiu-a mal pôs os pés em França, embaixatriz indesejada e inadequada de uma grande potência, esposa-menina rejeitada até ao fim, até se tornar o bode expiatório de uma monarquia em decadência.»
Sofia Coppola inspirou-se neste livro para realizar o conhecido filme Marie Antoinette. Do filme, fica-nos essa ideia de futilidade e pouco mais. Terminada a leitura, lamento a ligeireza com que a realizadora passou sobre a figura de Maria Antonieta, sobretudo sobre a parte final da sua vida, onde o dramatismo se acentuou. Fuga, prisão, cativeiro, julgamento, condenação e morte. Segundo esta biografia, provou o quanto era dedicada ao rei e aos filhos, e manteve a dignidade e humildade até ao último minuto.
February 11, 2021
I read this Marie Antoinette biography, by a British historian, in tandem with another with the same title by a French historian, which made for a fascinating exercise. Fortunately, both books are quite good. There’s a wealth of information out there about Marie Antoinette and the authors often chose different details to highlight, which kept both interesting, but reading them together makes the books almost impossible to separate now!
At just over 450 pages of text, Antonia Fraser’s biography is by far the longer one, featuring strong storytelling with a clear passion for her subject; there’s a lot of information but she also takes time for explanation and analysis, and her research is clearly extensive. At the same time, there’s sufficient tension and momentum to make a novelist proud.
Here’s the gist of what I learned from both books: despite her exalted position, Marie Antoinette was basically the world’s most average person. In a way, it’s refreshing to read a biography of someone so personally unexceptional—for most of her life, a party girl who couldn’t be bothered to understand politics—and unsuccessful—to the extent Marie Antoinette stood for anything, it was the maintenance of absolute monarchy in France (which she did believe in strongly come the Revolution, at which point she discovered some personal strength and grace under pressure). Most biographies, after all, are about exceptional people, while Marie Antoinette would probably be forgotten if not for her beheading. That said, she wasn’t as personally abhorrent as many made her out to be: she probably didn’t say “let them eat cake” (a phrase attributed to various French royal women before she ever came along) and did engage in some charity and attempt to bring up her children with some semblance of humility. She did attempt to promote Austria’s interests at court, under severe pressure from her family back home (who married her off to the dauphin at the age of 14) and her mother’s ambassador, but was generally unsuccessful at swaying policy. I suspect looking out for their homelands’ interests is standard for foreign-born queens, and that the larger problem was that the French hated the Austrian alliance.
Both authors are very sympathetic to Marie Antoinette and come across as weirdly monarchist for modern writers (though Fraser is the daughter of a British earl so I suppose she is a literal monarchist). For instance, both seem outraged by revolutionary offenses such as failures to kneel. But Fraser is the much more partisan of the two. Lever frankly calls it treason when the former queen, while the royal family is held hostage in Paris, attempts to incite a foreign invasion to rescue them, and passes on information about French troop movements to her friends abroad. Fraser argues that as a prisoner she had no culpability. Lever highlights Marie Antoinette’s ill-fated attempt to control judicial decisions around the Diamond Necklace Affair while Fraser does not, though both agree that she had no involvement in the scam (in which a con artist convinced a cardinal to buy an absurdly expensive necklace “for the queen,” then sold the diamonds herself), which nonetheless tarnished her reputation because it seemed in line with her general behavior. Fraser tries to exonerate the queen for her extravagance not just because it was in line with the general court culture, but with the argument that good taste and the creation of beauty justifies anything (even if others are starving for it, really?).
Fraser also tiptoes a bit around Marie Antoinette’s affairs; she admits the queen probably had one with the Swedish Count Fersen but generally downplays his role, while Lever emphasizes him as the love of the queen’s life. Lever’s willing to accept that she also flirted with others, which Fraser dismisses. Both have little time for the allegations that the queen had affairs with close female friends as well, and even less for the claims that she molested her young son. Both authors do have a tendency to make bold statements about people’s feelings that aren’t always supported, and are pretty clearly drawing their own conclusions based on their research.
It was fascinating to see this up-close-and-personal view of the French Revolution, but at the same time, I can’t entirely share these authors’ sympathies. Marie Antoinette may not have been extraordinary in her spending or debauchery, but she and all the royals were still parasites, living off the toil of ill-paid workers and slaves across France and its colonies. Her story is sad but no more important than any of theirs. It’s interesting to see all the ways Louis XVI bungled everything to do with the revolution though. He seems to have been too unimaginative, indecisive and awkward to lead but too conservative and intransigent to follow, with the result that he more or less let the revolution happen, pretended to go along with it but then lost its leaders’ trust when they realized he’d been lying all along.
The final odd thing about reading two biographies side-by-side is the number of inconsistent facts, not just the authors’ views on people’s feelings and motivations, but concrete details. Was Jeanne de la Motte’s husband sentenced in absentia to the galleys (Lever) or flogging, branding and life imprisonment (Fraser)? Was baby Sophie missing from the family portrait of Marie Antoinette and her children because she had already died and been painted out (Fraser) or because she wasn’t yet born, while the cradle was painted to show anticipation (Lever)? When Madame de Polignac went into exile, did she have a tearful good-bye scene with the king and queen (Fraser) or out of fear of spies, did Marie Antoinette only send her a note and some money (Lever)? Since both authors seem to have done original research, perhaps they relied on different sources; I don’t have the information to say whether one’s research is better than the other’s.
At any rate, to those interested in the subject, or who enjoy colorful stories from history, this book is definitely worth a read—as is Lever’s for those looking for a more concise or slightly less partisan version. This one has many color plates with paintings and other illustrations, which I particularly appreciated, though its family trees are unhelpful. I enjoyed this and while I didn’t come away sharing Fraser’s love for Marie Antoinette, I did appreciate the depth of her research and her storytelling flair, and would read more of her work.
At just over 450 pages of text, Antonia Fraser’s biography is by far the longer one, featuring strong storytelling with a clear passion for her subject; there’s a lot of information but she also takes time for explanation and analysis, and her research is clearly extensive. At the same time, there’s sufficient tension and momentum to make a novelist proud.
Here’s the gist of what I learned from both books: despite her exalted position, Marie Antoinette was basically the world’s most average person. In a way, it’s refreshing to read a biography of someone so personally unexceptional—for most of her life, a party girl who couldn’t be bothered to understand politics—and unsuccessful—to the extent Marie Antoinette stood for anything, it was the maintenance of absolute monarchy in France (which she did believe in strongly come the Revolution, at which point she discovered some personal strength and grace under pressure). Most biographies, after all, are about exceptional people, while Marie Antoinette would probably be forgotten if not for her beheading. That said, she wasn’t as personally abhorrent as many made her out to be: she probably didn’t say “let them eat cake” (a phrase attributed to various French royal women before she ever came along) and did engage in some charity and attempt to bring up her children with some semblance of humility. She did attempt to promote Austria’s interests at court, under severe pressure from her family back home (who married her off to the dauphin at the age of 14) and her mother’s ambassador, but was generally unsuccessful at swaying policy. I suspect looking out for their homelands’ interests is standard for foreign-born queens, and that the larger problem was that the French hated the Austrian alliance.
Both authors are very sympathetic to Marie Antoinette and come across as weirdly monarchist for modern writers (though Fraser is the daughter of a British earl so I suppose she is a literal monarchist). For instance, both seem outraged by revolutionary offenses such as failures to kneel. But Fraser is the much more partisan of the two. Lever frankly calls it treason when the former queen, while the royal family is held hostage in Paris, attempts to incite a foreign invasion to rescue them, and passes on information about French troop movements to her friends abroad. Fraser argues that as a prisoner she had no culpability. Lever highlights Marie Antoinette’s ill-fated attempt to control judicial decisions around the Diamond Necklace Affair while Fraser does not, though both agree that she had no involvement in the scam (in which a con artist convinced a cardinal to buy an absurdly expensive necklace “for the queen,” then sold the diamonds herself), which nonetheless tarnished her reputation because it seemed in line with her general behavior. Fraser tries to exonerate the queen for her extravagance not just because it was in line with the general court culture, but with the argument that good taste and the creation of beauty justifies anything (even if others are starving for it, really?).
Fraser also tiptoes a bit around Marie Antoinette’s affairs; she admits the queen probably had one with the Swedish Count Fersen but generally downplays his role, while Lever emphasizes him as the love of the queen’s life. Lever’s willing to accept that she also flirted with others, which Fraser dismisses. Both have little time for the allegations that the queen had affairs with close female friends as well, and even less for the claims that she molested her young son. Both authors do have a tendency to make bold statements about people’s feelings that aren’t always supported, and are pretty clearly drawing their own conclusions based on their research.
It was fascinating to see this up-close-and-personal view of the French Revolution, but at the same time, I can’t entirely share these authors’ sympathies. Marie Antoinette may not have been extraordinary in her spending or debauchery, but she and all the royals were still parasites, living off the toil of ill-paid workers and slaves across France and its colonies. Her story is sad but no more important than any of theirs. It’s interesting to see all the ways Louis XVI bungled everything to do with the revolution though. He seems to have been too unimaginative, indecisive and awkward to lead but too conservative and intransigent to follow, with the result that he more or less let the revolution happen, pretended to go along with it but then lost its leaders’ trust when they realized he’d been lying all along.
The final odd thing about reading two biographies side-by-side is the number of inconsistent facts, not just the authors’ views on people’s feelings and motivations, but concrete details. Was Jeanne de la Motte’s husband sentenced in absentia to the galleys (Lever) or flogging, branding and life imprisonment (Fraser)? Was baby Sophie missing from the family portrait of Marie Antoinette and her children because she had already died and been painted out (Fraser) or because she wasn’t yet born, while the cradle was painted to show anticipation (Lever)? When Madame de Polignac went into exile, did she have a tearful good-bye scene with the king and queen (Fraser) or out of fear of spies, did Marie Antoinette only send her a note and some money (Lever)? Since both authors seem to have done original research, perhaps they relied on different sources; I don’t have the information to say whether one’s research is better than the other’s.
At any rate, to those interested in the subject, or who enjoy colorful stories from history, this book is definitely worth a read—as is Lever’s for those looking for a more concise or slightly less partisan version. This one has many color plates with paintings and other illustrations, which I particularly appreciated, though its family trees are unhelpful. I enjoyed this and while I didn’t come away sharing Fraser’s love for Marie Antoinette, I did appreciate the depth of her research and her storytelling flair, and would read more of her work.
August 31, 2020
I am giving for stars to this book which I cannot in conscience recommend to anyone. Fraser's extensive research and brilliant discernment ultimately prove beyond a doubt that Marie Antoinette was a non-entity who did not affect the cataclysmic events of her era either one way or the other. Fraser's nominal objective was to show that was made the scapegoat for the sins of several generations of the Bourbon dynasty of which she bore none of the responsibility. However, Marie Antoinette's critics were so highly disreputable and such obvious liars that it is questionable that any defense of hers was ever needed.
A strong point of Fraser's book is the remarkable portrait of the elaborate protocols and rituals of the Bourbon court that prevented Marie Antoinette and her husband Louis XV I from seeing what was happening in the world. Fraser is similarly brilliant at describing the how the courtiers at Versailles swarmed about Marie Antoinette extracting privileges and appointments for their family members while giving nothing in return neither warning her of the approaching dangers nor doing anything to save her once the revolution had begun.
Although quite aware Fraser neglects to point out that the elaborate rituals and practices of the Bourbon court had been created to undermine the power of the aristocracy of France by Louis XIV. By calling the nobles to his court, he cut them off from their power bases and through his complex protocol he had them scurrying about like rates in a labyrinth. Unfortunately his dimwitted grandson Louis XVI fell into the trap created for the nobles and perished.
Fraser does however spend a great deal of time on the incompetency of Louis XVI in bed and the psychological distress that it caused Marie Antoinette. Anyone who enjoys good writing about sex will enjoy this book.
A major thesis of Fraser is that the extravagance of Marie Antoinette has been exaggerated since her day to the present time. Her spending was quite in line with the traditions of both the Bourbon dynasty and her own Habsburg dynasty. The spending of the Versailles court accounted for a modest 7% of the Royal Budget. The real problem was that the interest on the debt created to fund the Seven Years War and the American Revolution ate up 41% of revenues.
The depth of the research and the quality of insight make "Marie Antoinette" an excellent book. The problem for me was that Marie Antoinette truly was not a player of any significance in the great events. Fraser demonstrates clearly that she was badly treated by her family, her husband, her friends and her adopted country. Moreover she was unjustly blamed for many things by the propagandists of the Revolution and by later historians. All of this makes her a victim not a person of historical importance.
A strong point of Fraser's book is the remarkable portrait of the elaborate protocols and rituals of the Bourbon court that prevented Marie Antoinette and her husband Louis XV I from seeing what was happening in the world. Fraser is similarly brilliant at describing the how the courtiers at Versailles swarmed about Marie Antoinette extracting privileges and appointments for their family members while giving nothing in return neither warning her of the approaching dangers nor doing anything to save her once the revolution had begun.
Although quite aware Fraser neglects to point out that the elaborate rituals and practices of the Bourbon court had been created to undermine the power of the aristocracy of France by Louis XIV. By calling the nobles to his court, he cut them off from their power bases and through his complex protocol he had them scurrying about like rates in a labyrinth. Unfortunately his dimwitted grandson Louis XVI fell into the trap created for the nobles and perished.
Fraser does however spend a great deal of time on the incompetency of Louis XVI in bed and the psychological distress that it caused Marie Antoinette. Anyone who enjoys good writing about sex will enjoy this book.
A major thesis of Fraser is that the extravagance of Marie Antoinette has been exaggerated since her day to the present time. Her spending was quite in line with the traditions of both the Bourbon dynasty and her own Habsburg dynasty. The spending of the Versailles court accounted for a modest 7% of the Royal Budget. The real problem was that the interest on the debt created to fund the Seven Years War and the American Revolution ate up 41% of revenues.
The depth of the research and the quality of insight make "Marie Antoinette" an excellent book. The problem for me was that Marie Antoinette truly was not a player of any significance in the great events. Fraser demonstrates clearly that she was badly treated by her family, her husband, her friends and her adopted country. Moreover she was unjustly blamed for many things by the propagandists of the Revolution and by later historians. All of this makes her a victim not a person of historical importance.
June 8, 2017
And it only took me 11 years to finish it...
January 16, 2020
This is an interesting and extremely readable biography of the late Queen.
This somewhat removes the Queens actual power and agency.
As the monarchy failed under Louis XVI, Marie Antoinette stepped up politically.
She was a major player in revolutionary events. For details check out John Hardman's 'Marie-Antoinette: The Making of a French Queen" which focuses almost exclusively on her actions leading up to and during the revolution.
Her death is memorialized in every detail.
Yet many of my ancestors no doubt died at her and her husband's hands- chattel slavery in Haiti was unbelievably awful.
Where are their names?
Where is the story of their deaths?
What effort has been made to restore their treasures to their descendants?
Government is responsible for it's crimes.
There was gross mismanagement of resources causing massive poverty and starvation throughout France.
Sure some poor folks had it harder in other nations but that's in effect irrelevant.
When an individual or a family choose to be monarchs they know this is a possibility.
Just like presidents and prime ministers are aware of political assassinations.
Don't be a corrupt leader.
Don't be married to one.
Don't be the child of one.
Hold your family to account for their behaviors and choices if you do belong in the family of a highly placed government official.
I don't have a problem morally with the death of the royal family🤷🏽♀️
Many died because of their ineptitude.
This somewhat removes the Queens actual power and agency.
As the monarchy failed under Louis XVI, Marie Antoinette stepped up politically.
She was a major player in revolutionary events. For details check out John Hardman's 'Marie-Antoinette: The Making of a French Queen" which focuses almost exclusively on her actions leading up to and during the revolution.
Her death is memorialized in every detail.
Yet many of my ancestors no doubt died at her and her husband's hands- chattel slavery in Haiti was unbelievably awful.
Where are their names?
Where is the story of their deaths?
What effort has been made to restore their treasures to their descendants?
Government is responsible for it's crimes.
There was gross mismanagement of resources causing massive poverty and starvation throughout France.
Sure some poor folks had it harder in other nations but that's in effect irrelevant.
When an individual or a family choose to be monarchs they know this is a possibility.
Just like presidents and prime ministers are aware of political assassinations.
Don't be a corrupt leader.
Don't be married to one.
Don't be the child of one.
Hold your family to account for their behaviors and choices if you do belong in the family of a highly placed government official.
I don't have a problem morally with the death of the royal family🤷🏽♀️
Many died because of their ineptitude.
August 5, 2007
This was a good for a beach-ready kind of history. Fraser's good in terms of readability, but she bends over backwards to explain how Antoinette was misunderstood without really coming to terms with the complexity of her public face. I would have liked more footnotes, although I'm probalby not the target audience in that regard. I REALLY would have liked some more editing, not just in terms of overall repetitiousness, but in terms of readability. Fraser writes engagingly and well most of the time, but every now and then, you arrive at these sentences that make no sense at all. I prefer histories that try to stir up an argument or some kind of engagement with the reader. I felt more like I was being handed a bill of goods.
February 7, 2012
I have a slight fascination with Marie Antoinette. She is what led me to study the French Revolution whe I did my minor in History. While in Paris, I wanted to visit everything related to her, and when anything on the History Channel comes on about the French Rev., I must watch it. She is probably one of the most misunderstood monarchs. I suppose it's unjust of me to sympathize with her, but she too, was just a girl. Married at 14 to a prince who knew nothing about how to rule a kingdom. Forced to learn the French language and the French ways. Taught that decadance was her right and then punished for living up to that expectation. Forced to see friends and loved ones beheaded. I can never get over how they lifted the Princess de Lamballe's head on a stake just for her to see; just out of cruelty. I'm sure her mother, the Empress of Austria, had no idea what kind of life she was sending her daughter to live. Had she known, she probably would have sent her to a nunnery at birth.
December 5, 2007
This book was one of Sofia Coppola's primary sources for her movie "Marie Antoinette" and anyone who's seen the movie will enjoy finding all the quotes used in the movie that the historical figures actually said. It's a good biography and, unlike Coppola's movie, actually tells you what happened to Marie-Antoinette and her family after the mob arrested them and brought them to Paris. Fraser goes a little out of her way to portray Marie-Antoinette as just a misunderstood but good-hearted person (the woman was an idiot, Fraser. A nice idiot, but an idiot.), but I didn't mind a little fawning since Fraser's book has a lot of good details about life at Versailles and Marie-Antoinette herself. For instance, did you know that she hated the color orange so much she wouldn't even allow it to be near her? Neither did I, but apparently it's true.
February 7, 2017
I've read some great historical fiction on Marie Antoinette (Juliet Grey's trilogy starting with Becoming Marie Antoinette comes to mind) but this was my first nonfiction read on this doomed queen. It was comprehensive and packed full of information, but never dragged. This book also reinforced why I prefer to read nonfiction history books in paperback/hardcover rather than on my Kindle--there were lots of pictures included throughout the text. I really like it when history books do this because when an author talks about a certain artifact or painting, it's helpful to have the picture immediately available for reference.
The text itself was quite good. I appreciated how the author also interpreted the emotional states and personalities of the main players, because this made them come alive in my mind. I regarded Marie Antoinette as a sympathetic historical figure before I ever read this book, but this biography does an especially good job of outlining the ultimate tragedy of Marie Antoinette--that she was in the wrong place at the wrong time. The author does present a balanced picture of her strengths and faults (along with those of her husband Louis XVI), but in the end, whatever her faults were, Marie Antoinette was a completely different person than how she was portrayed in the libellous pamphlets of the time and how some people still regard her today. I enjoyed learning more details about her life with this excellent biography.
The text itself was quite good. I appreciated how the author also interpreted the emotional states and personalities of the main players, because this made them come alive in my mind. I regarded Marie Antoinette as a sympathetic historical figure before I ever read this book, but this biography does an especially good job of outlining the ultimate tragedy of Marie Antoinette--that she was in the wrong place at the wrong time. The author does present a balanced picture of her strengths and faults (along with those of her husband Louis XVI), but in the end, whatever her faults were, Marie Antoinette was a completely different person than how she was portrayed in the libellous pamphlets of the time and how some people still regard her today. I enjoyed learning more details about her life with this excellent biography.
November 15, 2010
LOVE LOVE LOVE. This book took me a while to get through because of Mrs. Fraser's dense style of writing but also because I tried to savor each moment of this biography. Somehow Antonia Fraser writes in a no nonsense way yet allows the reader to hear the music, and the swish of Marie Antoinette's skirts as she walked through Versailles. This book takes the reader on a journey through an incredible life, causing me to laugh, cry and at one point throw the book I was so incensed at the injustices against this tragic figure. I enjoyed how Antonia Fraser analyzed both sides of the argument and presented the Queen's life in an impartial way. However this did not feel like other biographies I have read that are cold and impersonal because Mrs. Fraser allows her opinion (she clearly states that it is her opinion though) and that draws the reader in as if she is telling you a secret. This long, involved book feels too quick and at the end truly you feel as if you have lost a good friend.
July 26, 2009
I've yet to read a book of Fraser's I didn't like.
January 27, 2016
An absolute intriguing historical figure. I think all the injustice she faced makes me just love her more!
April 21, 2025
De manier waarop het verhaal van de Franse Revolutie wordt verteld als je het voor de eerste keer hoort, is de manier waarop je er je leven lang naar zult kijken. Dat is althans mijn ervaring geweest.
De eerste keer dat ik het hoorde, was toen mijn vader me uitvoerig over de tragische ondergang van een van Europa's mooiste monarchieën vertelde - ik was niet ouder dan drie. Het personage Marie Antoinette maakte toen al enorme indruk op me, omdat ze op een sprookjesachtige manier tot de verbeelding spreekt. Mijn moeder weet nog maar al te goed hoe ze me korte tijd later meenam naar de supermarkt, waar ik een nietsvermoedende Westerwoldse dame met hoog opgestoken haar aanwees en uitriep: 'Kijk! Marie Antoinette!'
Ik dwaal af.
Deze biografie van Marie Antoinette is inmiddels de tweede die ik gelezen heb. Vergeleken met die andere, door Stefan Zweig, blijft Antonia Fraser dichter bij de bronnen en geeft ze een zuiverder beeld van het verleden 'wie es wirklich gewesen' (shoutout naar dr. Peters voor zijn vergelijking tussen deze twee).
Op twee manieren is Fraser nauw verbonden met het narratief dat ze bouwt. Zo kiest ze, terwijl ze nuchter en onbevooroordeeld naar de bronnen kijkt, uiteindelijk toch een kant - die van de koningin. Is het een bewuste, normatieve keuze geweest? Of laat het historisch bestuderen van de Revolutie geen andere conclusie toe dan dat het lot van Marie Antoinette, haar tekortkomingen ten spijt, door geen enkele factor zo sterk werd bezegeld dan door het feit dat ze een vrouwelijke buitenlander was die gemakkelijk kon worden beschuldigd en gedemoniseerd in een tijd waarin Frankrijk in zwaar weer verkeerde?
En dan: Fraser blijft bij de bronnen, maar het boek, vooral het laatste kwart, leest weg als een trein. De vlucht naar Varennes, de bestorming van de Tuilerieën, het schijnproces waaraan haar echtgenoot en zijzelf werden onderworpen... Is het aan haar schrijfstijl te danken, of was de rauwe werkelijkheid zelf al meeslepend genoeg?
Het leven van Marie Antoinette blijft één vraag oproepen: wat als? Wat als ze beter was voorbereid op haar rol? Wat als ze beter politiek inzicht had gehad? Wat als Lodewijk XVI daadkrachtiger was geweest, wat als de vlucht naar Varennes geslaagd was, als gematigde revolutionairen hadden gewonnen, de koninklijke familie naar Amerika was uitgeweken?
Maar het heeft geen zin om daar te lang bij stil te staan. De geschiedenis is nu eenmaal gelopen zoals ze gelopen is. Het verhaal van Marie Antoinette blijft voor mij dus het bitterzoete verhaal van de teloorgang van een ontzagwekkend koningshuis, van razernij die zegeviert, en van een miskende vrouw die haar leven lang nooit vrijheid heeft gekend.
De eerste keer dat ik het hoorde, was toen mijn vader me uitvoerig over de tragische ondergang van een van Europa's mooiste monarchieën vertelde - ik was niet ouder dan drie. Het personage Marie Antoinette maakte toen al enorme indruk op me, omdat ze op een sprookjesachtige manier tot de verbeelding spreekt. Mijn moeder weet nog maar al te goed hoe ze me korte tijd later meenam naar de supermarkt, waar ik een nietsvermoedende Westerwoldse dame met hoog opgestoken haar aanwees en uitriep: 'Kijk! Marie Antoinette!'
Ik dwaal af.
Deze biografie van Marie Antoinette is inmiddels de tweede die ik gelezen heb. Vergeleken met die andere, door Stefan Zweig, blijft Antonia Fraser dichter bij de bronnen en geeft ze een zuiverder beeld van het verleden 'wie es wirklich gewesen' (shoutout naar dr. Peters voor zijn vergelijking tussen deze twee).
Op twee manieren is Fraser nauw verbonden met het narratief dat ze bouwt. Zo kiest ze, terwijl ze nuchter en onbevooroordeeld naar de bronnen kijkt, uiteindelijk toch een kant - die van de koningin. Is het een bewuste, normatieve keuze geweest? Of laat het historisch bestuderen van de Revolutie geen andere conclusie toe dan dat het lot van Marie Antoinette, haar tekortkomingen ten spijt, door geen enkele factor zo sterk werd bezegeld dan door het feit dat ze een vrouwelijke buitenlander was die gemakkelijk kon worden beschuldigd en gedemoniseerd in een tijd waarin Frankrijk in zwaar weer verkeerde?
En dan: Fraser blijft bij de bronnen, maar het boek, vooral het laatste kwart, leest weg als een trein. De vlucht naar Varennes, de bestorming van de Tuilerieën, het schijnproces waaraan haar echtgenoot en zijzelf werden onderworpen... Is het aan haar schrijfstijl te danken, of was de rauwe werkelijkheid zelf al meeslepend genoeg?
Het leven van Marie Antoinette blijft één vraag oproepen: wat als? Wat als ze beter was voorbereid op haar rol? Wat als ze beter politiek inzicht had gehad? Wat als Lodewijk XVI daadkrachtiger was geweest, wat als de vlucht naar Varennes geslaagd was, als gematigde revolutionairen hadden gewonnen, de koninklijke familie naar Amerika was uitgeweken?
Maar het heeft geen zin om daar te lang bij stil te staan. De geschiedenis is nu eenmaal gelopen zoals ze gelopen is. Het verhaal van Marie Antoinette blijft voor mij dus het bitterzoete verhaal van de teloorgang van een ontzagwekkend koningshuis, van razernij die zegeviert, en van een miskende vrouw die haar leven lang nooit vrijheid heeft gekend.
January 14, 2020
P. 183- "A atitude dos Austríacos em relação a Maria Antonieta nos últimos anos de vida da rainha foi fria, onde a dos Franceses foi brutal; os dois países comportaram-se de acordo com as exigências da sua própria situação, não da dela. Isto prolongou-se até Outubro de 1793. As rainhas, geralmente, não eram mortas, eram encarceradas, banidas, mas mortas? No entanto, na Convenção Nacional, Hébert pediu a cabeça de Antonieta para unir todos em redor do seu sangue. Tal como o seu casamento, a morte de Maria Antonieta foi uma decisão política."
[Ainda recordo, numa visita à Conciergerie, a representação da sua cela... é impossível não despertar em nós um certo sentimento de lástima.
https://www.parisciudad.com/fotos/cel...]
[Ainda recordo, numa visita à Conciergerie, a representação da sua cela... é impossível não despertar em nós um certo sentimento de lástima.
https://www.parisciudad.com/fotos/cel...]
July 29, 2016
Conoscevo sommariamente la vita e la tragica fine di Maria Antonietta ma, averne letto dettagliatamente ogni fase della sua vita fino al momento della sua violenta morte, è stato a dir poco commovente.
Una biografia accuratissima questa della Fraser che ci fa conoscere una bambina trascurata alla corte d'Austria, poi usata come pedina e merce di scambio per i disegni politici di due nazioni, quindi sposa bambina che dovette attendere più di sette anni per consumare il matrimonio con Luigi XVI, un giovane insicuro,taciturno, timido, senza acume politico, ma studioso ed intelligente cresciuto sotto l'ala e le pressioni psicologiche di un nonno con una forte personalità.
Figura storica travisata, calunniata, vilipesa, demonizzata persino dal suo stesso figlioletto poco prima della morte. Non esente da colpe ma non tali da giustificare tanta ferocia, fu in realtà una giovinetta sicuramente impreparata, con una grande sensibilità artistica e musicale che, man mano, concepì il suo ruolo sempre più come privato piuttosto che politico o pubblico.
La grande dignità e coraggio che dimostrò durante i giorni della sua prigionia, malgrado le continue umiliazioni e privazioni sopratutto affettive e poi, davanti ai suoi aguzzini durante il processo farsa che precedette la sua morte, fu davvero esemplare. Capro espiatorio fin dall'inizio della sua avventura/sventura alla corte di Francia, pagò non per ciò che aveva fatto ma per ciò che era stata, per la sua regalità al di là di tutte le falsità e atrocità di cui fu accusata.
Due curiosità a conclusione: fu la futura e famosa Madame Tussaud, a modellare nella cera la testa mozzata della povera Maria Antonietta. Il calco tuttavia non fu mai esposto. Lo stesso Conte Fersen, che tanto si prodigò per la Regina con la quale ebbe una relazione, probabilmente più sentimentale che sessuale, morì a sua volta di morte violenta, aggredito e fatto a pezzi dalla folla svedese durante il corteo funebre di Cristiano, l'erede al trono di Danimarca, accusato di averlo avvelenato.
La storia ha sempre generato mostri e vittime innocenti....
Una biografia accuratissima questa della Fraser che ci fa conoscere una bambina trascurata alla corte d'Austria, poi usata come pedina e merce di scambio per i disegni politici di due nazioni, quindi sposa bambina che dovette attendere più di sette anni per consumare il matrimonio con Luigi XVI, un giovane insicuro,taciturno, timido, senza acume politico, ma studioso ed intelligente cresciuto sotto l'ala e le pressioni psicologiche di un nonno con una forte personalità.
Figura storica travisata, calunniata, vilipesa, demonizzata persino dal suo stesso figlioletto poco prima della morte. Non esente da colpe ma non tali da giustificare tanta ferocia, fu in realtà una giovinetta sicuramente impreparata, con una grande sensibilità artistica e musicale che, man mano, concepì il suo ruolo sempre più come privato piuttosto che politico o pubblico.
La grande dignità e coraggio che dimostrò durante i giorni della sua prigionia, malgrado le continue umiliazioni e privazioni sopratutto affettive e poi, davanti ai suoi aguzzini durante il processo farsa che precedette la sua morte, fu davvero esemplare. Capro espiatorio fin dall'inizio della sua avventura/sventura alla corte di Francia, pagò non per ciò che aveva fatto ma per ciò che era stata, per la sua regalità al di là di tutte le falsità e atrocità di cui fu accusata.
Due curiosità a conclusione: fu la futura e famosa Madame Tussaud, a modellare nella cera la testa mozzata della povera Maria Antonietta. Il calco tuttavia non fu mai esposto. Lo stesso Conte Fersen, che tanto si prodigò per la Regina con la quale ebbe una relazione, probabilmente più sentimentale che sessuale, morì a sua volta di morte violenta, aggredito e fatto a pezzi dalla folla svedese durante il corteo funebre di Cristiano, l'erede al trono di Danimarca, accusato di averlo avvelenato.
La storia ha sempre generato mostri e vittime innocenti....
November 6, 2014
It is always the sign of a good book when you find yourself slowing down upon nearing the end instead of speeding up, reluctant to come to a close. All the more so when the book is the story of a life and, in slowing down, you somehow try to put off the inevitable death at the end. I definitely found that with this excellent biography of Marie Antoinette; knowing her fate from the outset I still found myself dreading the last few pages, utterly engrossed in this fascinating personality.
From the moment of her death Marie Antoinette has intrigued and beguiled, her true tender heart, kind nature and compassion for the poor and suffering utterly obscured by the myth of 'let them eat cake', replaced with an image of frivolity, empty-headedness and blithe obliviousness. In these pages Marie Antoinette comes across as a woman who would perhaps have been far happier without a crown, replacing a dead elder sister in the intended marriage to the Dauphin, a personality utterly unsuited to the life of political influence and intrigue intended for her, a woman who disliked the overwhelming pomp and ceremony of the French Court, who was far happier in simpler surroundings, with simpler clothes and ceremonies, a woman utterly devoted to her children.
Antonia Fraser's books are always a delight, and this one is no exception. Despite her claim to be casting a 'dispassionate' eye on Marie Antoinette, one feels she has a real affection for her subject, and this comes across on every page. I think I fell in love a little with Marie Antoinette, fell under her spell as almost all who actually met her tended to do, and I greeted the end of this book with a real pang.
From the moment of her death Marie Antoinette has intrigued and beguiled, her true tender heart, kind nature and compassion for the poor and suffering utterly obscured by the myth of 'let them eat cake', replaced with an image of frivolity, empty-headedness and blithe obliviousness. In these pages Marie Antoinette comes across as a woman who would perhaps have been far happier without a crown, replacing a dead elder sister in the intended marriage to the Dauphin, a personality utterly unsuited to the life of political influence and intrigue intended for her, a woman who disliked the overwhelming pomp and ceremony of the French Court, who was far happier in simpler surroundings, with simpler clothes and ceremonies, a woman utterly devoted to her children.
Antonia Fraser's books are always a delight, and this one is no exception. Despite her claim to be casting a 'dispassionate' eye on Marie Antoinette, one feels she has a real affection for her subject, and this comes across on every page. I think I fell in love a little with Marie Antoinette, fell under her spell as almost all who actually met her tended to do, and I greeted the end of this book with a real pang.
March 15, 2018
2.5 stars - It was alright, an average book.
Certainly not textbook dry, but it is still a 600+ page biography, so not exactly a page turner either. I did however want to high-five the author when she sarcastically referred to convents as the place to put Queens and noble wives that were no longer convenient for their husband/father/brother.
-------------------------------------------
First Sentence: On 2 November 1755 the Queen-Empress was in labour all day with her fifteenth child.
Certainly not textbook dry, but it is still a 600+ page biography, so not exactly a page turner either. I did however want to high-five the author when she sarcastically referred to convents as the place to put Queens and noble wives that were no longer convenient for their husband/father/brother.
-------------------------------------------
First Sentence: On 2 November 1755 the Queen-Empress was in labour all day with her fifteenth child.
January 3, 2025
A misunderstood queen who became the scapegoat for her adoptive country’s many problems, with heartbreaking consequences. It was really moving!
September 23, 2016
I saw the movie based on this book in the theater when it came out, and I didn't like it that much. I guess it was too subtle for me. I saw it again recently and liked it more.
So I decided to read the book. The movie only goes up to the leaving of Versailles, not the horrible denouement of the story. In some ways, that fits the tone of the film better--the fall from grace, the decline of Eden, and we all know what happens next. And the book turns at this point from an analysis and interpretation of history (the common stereotypes of Marie Antoinette, whether those can be documented historically, the context of women's roles in diplomatic history, the various factors playing into the way things all turned out, etc) to a more straight-up narrative: this happened, then this happened, then they killed Louis XVI, then Marie Antoinette.
But Fraser's epilogue is masterful. She reminds us of the queen's traits: her lack of (and neglected) education, her frivolity (likely born from her attempts to find joy in the absence of purpose--when Louis wouldn't have sex with her and wouldn't let her influence his political decisions), her desire to please, her beautiful grace and charm. She reminds us of the period, the changes taking place toward the end of the eighteenth century (the simplification of court rituals and dress, the growing deficit in France, the need for reforms, the unrest growing). And she provides an important reading of Marie Antoinette's fate--her status as a foreigner and a woman made her the scapegoat for the entire Revolution. She may have had royal blood, she may have given birth to the next generation of French royalty, but she herself was an outsider. And a woman! It's not just that she was a foreigner, it's also that she was a woman. Her nickname in the papers, "L'Autrichienne" shows this: it's not just "the Austrian woman," it also sounds like a combination of the French words for "ostrich" and "female dog/bitch." It's not just her outsider status, it's her gender that makes her the easy target. Sure, Marie Antoinette wasn't perfect, but to blame her for the entire Revolution is to neglect a wide range of other causes. The book suggests how easily people make up their minds about public figures, especially women, based on scanty information or outright lies. It's an indictment of the sexism of the time and of the historians and writers who perpetuate it in the present. Fraser presents a flawed yet sympathetic figure for us to see, and then points how various social factors and real, actual people came together to torture her and finally kill her.
It's an interesting book to be reading in this election season, that's for sure.
So I decided to read the book. The movie only goes up to the leaving of Versailles, not the horrible denouement of the story. In some ways, that fits the tone of the film better--the fall from grace, the decline of Eden, and we all know what happens next. And the book turns at this point from an analysis and interpretation of history (the common stereotypes of Marie Antoinette, whether those can be documented historically, the context of women's roles in diplomatic history, the various factors playing into the way things all turned out, etc) to a more straight-up narrative: this happened, then this happened, then they killed Louis XVI, then Marie Antoinette.
But Fraser's epilogue is masterful. She reminds us of the queen's traits: her lack of (and neglected) education, her frivolity (likely born from her attempts to find joy in the absence of purpose--when Louis wouldn't have sex with her and wouldn't let her influence his political decisions), her desire to please, her beautiful grace and charm. She reminds us of the period, the changes taking place toward the end of the eighteenth century (the simplification of court rituals and dress, the growing deficit in France, the need for reforms, the unrest growing). And she provides an important reading of Marie Antoinette's fate--her status as a foreigner and a woman made her the scapegoat for the entire Revolution. She may have had royal blood, she may have given birth to the next generation of French royalty, but she herself was an outsider. And a woman! It's not just that she was a foreigner, it's also that she was a woman. Her nickname in the papers, "L'Autrichienne" shows this: it's not just "the Austrian woman," it also sounds like a combination of the French words for "ostrich" and "female dog/bitch." It's not just her outsider status, it's her gender that makes her the easy target. Sure, Marie Antoinette wasn't perfect, but to blame her for the entire Revolution is to neglect a wide range of other causes. The book suggests how easily people make up their minds about public figures, especially women, based on scanty information or outright lies. It's an indictment of the sexism of the time and of the historians and writers who perpetuate it in the present. Fraser presents a flawed yet sympathetic figure for us to see, and then points how various social factors and real, actual people came together to torture her and finally kill her.
It's an interesting book to be reading in this election season, that's for sure.
Displaying 1 - 30 of 1,516 reviews