The Sun King

by Nancy Mitford

Book by Crown

Genres: History, Biography, Nonfiction, France, Historical, Classics, 17th Century

255 pages, Paperback

First published January 1, 1966

About the author

Nancy Mitford, styled The Hon. Nancy Mitford before her marriage and The Hon. Mrs Peter Rodd thereafter, was an English novelist and biographer, one of the Bright Young People on the London social scene in the inter-war years. She was born at 1 Graham Street (now Graham Place) in Belgravia, London, the eldest daughter of Lord Redesdale, and was brought up at Asthall Manor in Oxfordshire. She was the eldest of the six controversial Mitford sisters.

She is best remembered for her series of novels about upper-class life in England and France, particularly the four published after 1945; but she also wrote four well-received, well-researched popular biographies (of Louis XIV, Madame de Pompadour, Voltaire, and Frederick the Great). She was one of the noted Mitford sisters and the first to publicize the extraordinary family life of her very English and very eccentric family, giving rise to a "Mitford industry," which continues.

Reviews

[Kelly · Rating 2 out of 5]

After reading two of Nancy Mitford’s historical biographies, I can say that I have at the very least learned exactly who Nancy likes to invite to her parties. Ladies should be elegant, witty, memorable, beautiful if at all possible, and at the very least aware that one must dress if not. They should be wise in the ways of men, conform to religious standards only as much as necessary to not end up on the front page, and above all be disinclined to fall into the vapors. Men are required to be elegant, witty, memorable, and handsome if at all possible, or dressed in a way that falls in to some sort of amusing stereotype if not (the crusty sailor, the coarse soldier, the court jester). Morality is unnecessary for either sex, however, the ability to both command a drawing room and a country (or a lover) is highly prized. Nancy Mitford likes clever managers of people and situations. She gives the approving nod to whichever characters can carry off their part with style and make the least trouble for everyone while still doing quite well for themselves. It is possible to tell which characters she is truly attached to because she allows them to have emotion and for people around them to properly grieve at their passing, whereas unworthy characters get “quite what they deserve."

This makes her treatment of Louis somewhat ambiguous. It is easy to tell that she would like to approve of him. He is, after all, the creator of that shining world of Versailles, which Nancy clearly considers to be the closest thing the nobility have ever created to heaven. She lovingly traces its origins through to its full flowering late in his reign, sometimes indeed giving the impression that if the building had had more love affairs and fought more wars, she would have written a history of the walls of Versailles itself. But Nancy’s interest is for “personalities,” as her stand-in character in Love in a Cold Climate always said. Thus Louis “l’etat c’est moi,” is the closest thing she can come to as a subject. This leads her to make the best case for him she can. His brilliance in creating Versailles is emphasized. The system required nobles to be at court and to bankrupt themselves trying to dress appropriately and kept everyone so busy with a constant round of parties that they could never look up to realize that they were not exercising any real power at all. Those few who did look up were sold offices at exorbitant prices, offices which were still dependent on the king and centered on the court. His mastery of etiquette, amazing self-control in all situations, and his ability to love strongly in select cases are all praised and described in detail. Louis is also defended against charges that he remained terrified of his subjects all of his life because of the Fronde (though I think there is an argument to be made that that is why he wanted all his nobles where he could see them at Versailles). She likewise feels the need to spend time discrediting paintings which make him look “quite Jewish” (which seems to mean a big nose and wrinkled all over- an offhand icky anti-Semitic reference typical of many writers of the early 20th century British ruling class).. instead telling of busts and descriptions that make him sound rather handsome when young. There’s a long section at the end detailing the trials of the War of the Spanish Succession and Louis’ courage in fighting on when everything seemed to be against him. She clearly approves of Phillip V enough to think that it was worth fighting for his throne.

The problem is that there are just too many factors that she doesn’t like. She faults Louis for not being witty enough. She faults his choice of boring companions at many points in his life. She does not like the children he chooses to love (especially the unworthy Duc du Maine), and she hates two out of his three principal mistresses. She tells stories of his cruelty (his lack of sympathy for any kind of illness is a standout example. He made many ill people travel when they were in no condition to. This included heavily pregnant women who he made travel with the court late in their term. A few lost their babies in the process), his hardness, and his frightening demeanor (though you can tell she sort of secretly approves of that- kings are God’s representatives after all). She can’t get over how stupid he is to keep stupid King James at his court and then shelter the Old Pretender after that, or his obsession with destroying Holland. She’s endlessly bored with his ventures into religion. It's telling the only joy she seems to take in that part of the story is the bits where Louis punishes courtiers he catches laughing in church. Princely authority asserted. Always hot.

Yet despite these efforts to sketch out a Louis that can worthily hold the center, she never really focuses the camera on him for any length of time. As I mentioned, it is clear that Louis is the choice of subject by default. He is simply a pivot point and a story structure, providing beginning, middle, end, and the plot points that motivate the actions of others. Stella Tillyard (whose own work as a historian I adore), in her introduction to the book, points out that the biography is truly the story of Louis’ three principal mistresses, whose reigns separate out the stages of his life. Louise de la Valliere when he was young, Madame de Montespan in his prime, and Madame de Maintenon in his late middle age and twilight years. I think that this is true insofar as we spend much more time following these women and the atmosphere of the court that they create (Queens seem to never count in these biographies) than Louis himself. Again, though, the problem is she only likes one of them, Madame de Montespan. She addresses her by her first name, and highlights her period as the most amusing, fun-filled part of the King’s life. Yet again, though, even she disappoints her by falling from favor, consulting the dark arts, and then turning bitter and angry and, biggest crime of all, uninteresting, in the last years of her life. Louise is whiny and insipid, a stereotype of a wilting flower. Madame de Maintenon is the symbol of Louis turning to religion. You can tell Nancy sees this as the horridly boring part of his life which ruined all the fun of Versailles. (For illustration's sake, its worth pointing out that her ultimate salute of her beloved Pompadour is to declare that after her death "a great dullness" settled over Versailles.)

I agree with Tillyard that Mitford sees the women as her way into this bit of history. However, I also think that unlike with La Pompadour, she could never latch onto someone’s story for long enough to create a sense of a coherent world. She had to jump from place to place and person to person to keep the stories she liked center stage. This created a very confusing narrative that skipped back and forth in time, that zigzagged back and forth across the court amongst crowds of indistinguishable duchesses and princesses. She set up too many obligations for herself. I think that is probably what I’m trying to say. She said this book is about Louis, so she has to do him. She’s clearly made the choice to focus on the mistresses, so now she’s got to fill out their story. She likes gossip and scandal, so she wants to tell us every juicy story she knows no matter where it leads. And in the end, let us not forget her commitment to her dream castle of Versailles and describing its odyssey. This ended up in a confused place where peoples’ narratives got really and fully fleshed out in one part of the book, only to have their deaths or later doings summed up in two sentences later (even Madame de Montespan got this treatment) as an afterthought. The king appears strongly at the beginning and disappears for long stretches, only poking his head in when necessary. The mistresses give place to the courtiers they fight with, and some fascinating B plot men (the Prince de Conti, the Grand Conde) fade into the background and then pop back up again at points when the story should not be about them.

I think she would have done better to publish this as a collection of individual scandals from Versailles. The King didn't need to be here, for the most part. The supporting cast is large enough to have a story all their own, and they are clearly what fills in the background and makes Versailles the place that she loves. The King remains the constant, the story is how you revolve around him and work your way closer. But it is clear that Louis is far from her favorite thing about this time period. It is clear when we meet someone that she likes, and they are all over Versailles. But because of her obligations to the Sun King she can’t spend the time she would like to with them. I wish she’d just been honest about that and written a different book. As it is, this simply can’t compare to her biography of Pompadour. She deprived herself of the things she loved, which ruled Pompadour’s story, and gave herself a list of obligations instead. Page turning history, which is the only reason to read Mitford in preference to more scholarly efforts, is not made that way. I was by turns bored, unimpressed, all too fleetingly amused, and then confused, then the whole cycle started again. More Mitford charm in her study of Voltaire, I hope. That’s next.

[Jan-Maat]

I struggled with this book and up to about the hundredth page was sorely tempted to lay it aside for anything else, I found it very hard going, I am now strongly disinclined to touch Nancy Mitford's fiction. This book is not so much gossipy as bitchy - as we say in the vernacular, if you are a fan of Evelyn Waugh you might enjoy this, but personally I found it hard work.

To clarify matters, Mitford was an aristocrat writing in 1966, she is accepting of homosexuality, adultery and paedophilia (not that I wish to suggest they are all equivalent except in that in 1960s Britain they are all legally unacceptable), and doesn't see such habits as disruptive to a successful marriage, a state which can, one judges, be defined as the pooling of resources the better to be socially amusing. One ought to be naturally stoical and avoid using people's names, which is terribly vulgar - people have titles for a reason after all, emotion is something that you lavish on your dogs (up to a thousand at Versailles, not that all of them clustered at once round the king begging for snacks) or perhaps a lover, it is improper to beat your children excessively - if their limbs break it is a sign that you have gone a little too far. One should never be dull, in speech, while gambling or in religion. Dullness is a social sin. One of Nancy Mitfold's sisters was a huge fan of Hitler, another was married to the Oswald Mosley the leader of the British Union of Fascists and so just a moderate Hitler fan, Nancy recommended that sister be imprisoned during World War II, still, reading this I felt that the fruit doesn't fall far from the tree. One sees the overlap between aristocrats and fascists, both are dreadful snobs, comfortable with strict heirarchies and controlled social orders, both I guess liable to believe that the victims of bullying and oppression bring it on themselves. Nancy, with great charm as one might say when the mouth is suddenly full of feathers , parallels the fate of the French Protestants with that of the German Jews "The Protestants were deeply unpopular with all sections of the French - for the same reasons as the Jews were unpopular in pre-war Germany. They were too rich, successful and clannish" (p.122) which seems crass and nasty of her, but then,poor woman, she laboured under the disadvantages of her upbringing and class . In short it was hard for me to know if Mitford was describing the world of Louis XIV or that of early twentieth century English aristocrats, perhaps that is the point.

She ascribes Louis XIV's "decidedly oriental" appearance to "Jewish and Moorish Blood" and refers casually to his "Jewish" nose (p.7), quite why this is important for her to mention I don't know, Cleopatra's nose, we know, made history, I am not sure if the same claim has ever been made of Louis XIV's nose. At one point she dismisses some women of the same family as little black beetles, times have changed enough that an insult which was perfectly understandable in the 1960s bemuses me, I suppose we can credit her intense identification with the court of Versailles if she feels the need to belittle the long dead, she may be prejudiced and embittered, but she cares, it seems that she was as in awe of the gilded cage of Versailles as some of Louis's nobles.

Because it seemed to me that what this book is, is a portrait of reign of Louis XIV as a (or the) golden age for aristocrats, beyond that it doesn't make much sense, except as a love letter to the France that she adored. The Sun King of the title is not the main focus of the book, nor his palace at Versailles, nor even the women in his life, some of the chapters seem apropos to nothing in particular (I'm thinking here of the chapters about the school at Saint Cyr) beyond the general theme of the life of the Court, alternatively the book is simply a vehicle for Mitford's personality to shine through . Here for Mitford was a time when the King ruled and reigned - but Kings of course are dreadful parvenus lacking the endless pedigrees of the truly aristocratic - and one's place in society (ie high society) was determined purely on the grounds of how brilliant and amusing you were (neither notion is defined, but Mitford plainly feels these are the only virtues and qualities worthwhile).

However Mitford has her cake and eats it too. Versailles she protests was not a trap for the nobility, but then again, you had to ask permission to leave, you could be commanded to wear new clothes for special occasions, and the King read your mail, or more likely just read the seditious highlights.

I was interested by her claim that Louis XIV probably never saw the palace so associated with him without scaffolding, she is insistent too that Versailles in the seventeenth century had no fewer toilets than the British Buckingham Palace in the early twentieth century - and she has a few anecdotes about women having to wait for hours to get a chance to access a chamber pot. Louis XIV comes across as a petty figure in a nasty way, although he liked getting women pregnant, he didn't like to see pregnant women, and he liked to see them return to court life rapidly after the birth reminding me of the stories of French female government ministers returning to work slightly more than half an hour after giving birth, or something like that . Occasionally the King's eye is caught by women of less than impeccable heritage, they may be attractive but Mitford tells us that they were dull.

Mitford is always very certain and absolute in her judgements, when a convert is shut down and a courtier put down on account of Quietism, she lets us know that quietism is silly, even reprehensible, without ever telling us what is was. Likewise the etiquette of the Spanish court is described as stultifying as though that of the French court with the pulling on clothes and physical jostling with ambassadors to enforce precedence was somehow acceptable and a sensible way to proceed.

It is plainly no Norbert Elias we gain no insight into Louis' politics from Mitford's focus on the Court unless the King's anal fistula really was to blame for the revocation of the edit of Nantes, everything is decorative, the surface is the substance.

[Jill H. · Rating 2 out of 5]

I am not a particular fan of Nancy Mitford's work and, after reading this book, I'm still not a fan. So I am keeping this review short.

It read like a gossip columnist's description of a high society party......who was there, what they wore, who had the most jewels, behind the scenes back-stabbing, who was sleeping with whom, ad nauseam. I realize that the lifestyle of Louis XIV was flashy, to say the least, but there was more going on at Versailles than fun and games.

At least I finished it!

[Eric Byrd · Rating 3 out of 5]

Philippe I, Duc d’Orléans and his second duchess, Elizabeth Charlotte of the Palatinate, are hands down the most amusing couple in the royal family:

Madame the second was a great blonde Teutonic tomboy; delicate little Monsieur seemed to be his wife’s wife. When he first saw her he told his friends, despairingly, that he would never be able to manage. However, by dint of hanging holy medals in a certain place, rather impeding any pleasure Madame might have felt, he did manage and they had three children.

Indifferent to clothes and jewels (the Monsieur monopolized their diamonds), Liselotte’s wardrobe only had full dress gowns and riding habits. “She rode hard, eight hours on end, looking like an enormous policeman, until well over sixty.” Saint-Simon said she liked dogs and horses and wore a man's wig while out hunting. She collected a large library and read widely, examined tissue through her microscopes, and wrote 60,000 letters, of which 5,000 survive.


For all his delicacy, the Monsieur distinguished himself in the Devolution War of 1667-68, at the sieges of Douai and Tournai:

In his youth Monsieur was partial to battles. He would arrive rather late on the field, having got himself up to kill; painted, powdered, all his eyelashes stuck together; covered with ribbons and diamonds – hatless. He would never wear a hat for fear of flattening his wig. Once in action he was as brave as a lion, only afraid of what the sun and dust might do to his complexion; and he proved an excellent strategist.

In 1701 the Monsieur quarreled with his brother the King. His son, the Duc de Chartres, later Regent, was reproached by Louis for a sexual gluttony that embraced a public affair with one of his mother’s maids and the simultaneous pregnancies of his wife and a Parisian actress; the Monsieur defended Chartres to the King, ascribed his son’s dissipation to enforced idleness and thwarted ambition, and further scoffed that Louis was “hardly one to blame people for flaunting their mistresses and upsetting their wives - what about the time when he took La Vallière and Montespan to Flanders in the same coach as the Queen?” The brothers’ shouting match died down in time for dinner, after which the Monsieur returned to his residence at Saint-Cloud and that night suffered a fatal stroke. “The courtiers, both at Saint-Cloud and at Versailles were plunged in gloom. Monsieur arranged parties better than anybody and kept things in a hum.” With his death Liselotte was in danger:

Having detested her husband for years, she had just begun to be rather fond of him and was touched that his last thought should have been for her; but above all she was terrified that she would be obliged to leave the Court and go to a convent. As soon as the breath was out of Monsieur’s body she set up shrieks of “no convent.” Very loyally, the first thing she did was to look through his private papers, all scented with violet; she burnt hundreds of letters to him from boys; only when that business was dispatched did she get into her coach and go to Versailles. There she pocketed her pride and sent for Mme de Maintenon. How could she have had the face to do so? She knew quite well that for years the King, and presumably his wife, had been reading the letters in which she had called Mme de Maintenon every name under the sun; old horror, old ape, witch, whore, manure heap and so on, attributing her every action to the vilest motives. Mme de Maintenon came at once; Madame invited her to sit down for the first time in their lives. Then she humbly asked if she would intercede with the King for Madame to keep her flat at Versailles. Mme de Maintenon, who always looked at Madame with a special expression, raising the corners of her mouth and drooping her lower lip, made no reply, but drew a letter from the bosom of her dress and handed it to Madame who was appalled to see that it was in her own writing - she was even more appalled when she opened it. It was to some German relation and said that nobody really knew for certain whether the old brute was the King’s wife or concubine. Almost worse, the letter went on to describe the misery of poor people in France, always a sore subject with the King and one he would not care to have bruited about foreign courts. Madame fell into hysterics.

I’ll stop Mitford here and let Saint-Simon finish the scene: “Mme de Maintenon coldly triumphed over her whilst she wept, explained, and wrung her hands. What a terrible humiliation for that proud and haughty German! At last Mme de Maintenon let herself be mollified, as she had fully intended, after enjoying her revenge. They embraced, they promised a fresh start and a new friendship.” Liselotte would rebound from this posture of supplication at the death of Louis XIV, when her son Chartres, become Philippe II, Duc d’Orléans, was confirmed Regent.

[shakespeareandspice · Rating 2 out of 5]

Fluffy & ‘pretty’ history. Meh.

[Jamie Collins · Rating 3 out of 5]

This is a fun book, a rather chaotic collection of anecdotes and gossip about Louis XIV and his women, centered around their lives at Versailles. The author's narrative is sarcastic and amusing with little attempt at objectivity. This edition is a softcover but it's the size of a textbook with enough illustrations to make it a nice coffee table book.

The Sun King comes across as a disagreeable person, despite the author's admiration of his kind treatment of his exiled cousin James II. Louis was indifferent to the suffering of common people. He allowed his oldest son and heir to be cruelly treated in childhood, although he lavished attention on his favorite illegitimate son. Enjoying robust health himself, he was intolerant of human frailty in his friends and family: "When he travelled from one his houses to another he only took women with him in his coach... The ladies were expected to be merry, to eat a great deal (he hated people to refuse food) and to have no physical needs which would force them to leave the coach. If by any chance they were taken ill, fainted, or felt sick, they could expect no sympathy; on the contrary, disfavour set in."

I enjoyed the author's disgust with 17th century medical professionals, who killed nearly everyone they laid their hands on, particularly children, with bleeding and purging. Although she doesn't seem to have had a particularly good experience with modern (1960's) health care: "In those days, terrifying in black robes and bonnets, they bled the patient; now, terrifying in white robes and masks, they pump blood into him. The result is the same: the strong live; the weak, after much suffering and expense, both of spirit and of money, die."

[Sketchbook · Rating 4 out of 5]

Nancy plays the Palace -- the greatest palace in the world.
An SRO headliner, she encores the mischief, treachery,
duplicity and debauchery in this blazing complex - surely
the first of its kind - which the Sun King called "home"
and where 15,000 residents bowed to His Majesty.

Hers isn't a bio. She focuses not on the King but on
Versailles -- his most famous creation. Topping a huge cast,
Louis 14th ambles through episodes of court life that interest
Mitford : masked balls, tournaments, garden parties, theatricals, boudoir bouts. She sees boulevard farce when teasing wives find substitutes to impersonate them in bed and a freak show when dancing partners spread small pox.

Scribbler Saint-Simon lamented the smell that pervaded Versailles : there were no wc's until 1768. Mitford avoids this period detail, but catches the essence of everything else. She's best w the social
history of what I define as a tres Hollywood Housing Project.

[Redsteve · Rating 3 out of 5]

While this biography of Louis XIV is quite readable and reasonably well-researched, it is less about historical analysis and more about individual people (with a LOT of anecdotes and gossip) , the only exception being Versailles itself- there is a lot of information about the building and evolution of the French King's masterwork. While not a "coffee table book," this edition does include almost 200 illustrations, including reproductions (many in color) of period paintings, furniture, architecture, and decorations. Mitford is an entertaining writer, but, based on this book, she's probably kind of a horrible person: referring to Louis XIV's "Jewish and Moorish blood" and his "Jewish nose," referring to homosexuals simply as "perverts," and generally coming off as a gossip and snob. I'll give this a low 3 stars.

[Josh Friedlander · Rating 3 out of 5]

Basically high-class gossip, like reading the Tatler or Vanity Fair but historical. You probably have to be at least a bit of a royalist to enjoy all the minutiae of life at the court of the Sun King: endless plotting by mistresses and courtiers, games and palatial splendour while the peasants starve, constant rumours about people being poisoned and the Man in the Iron Mask. Mitford herself, part of a famous sextet of socialites and fascists, had much experience with that kind of scene. (For example: "Versailles was not unique in depending upon the chamber-pot and the chaise percée for all sanitation; most houses and palaces did so until the twentieth century. The present writer well remembers arriving at Buckingham Palace to be presented, in 1923, after a long, chilly wait in the Mall; and finding that the only possibility offered was a chamber-pot behind a screen in the ladies’ cloakroom.")

Racine (many of whose lines serve as chaptier epigraphs) figures prominently, reading out loud to the king and translating on the spot from Latin into beautiful French. "He left a wish to be buried at Port-Royal — the courtiers said he would never have been brave enough to have been buried there in his life-time." The king's reign saw turbulence both on the domestic ("the Protestants were deeply unpopular with all sections of the French — for the same reasons as the Jews were unpopular in pre-war Germany. They were too rich, successful and clannish.") and foreign front, with the War of the Spanish Succession absorbing much blood and treasure before a fortunate twist at the end. The king's demeanour never changed. Much loved by his subjects, the longest-reigning monarch in recorded history, Louis XIV died in 1715; his successor's successor (his great-great-great-grandson) would go to the guillotine.

[Adam Ford · Rating 3 out of 5]

This is not a history of France during the reign of Louis XIV, the Sun King. It is a history of the day-to-day life of the King and his court at Versailles. Which is interesting. But not really what I was looking for. It didn't feed my desire to understand history. If you are looking to understand all the intricate political maneuvering among the courtiers in France during the late 1600s and early 1700s--this is your book.

I will share with you the two best (most interesting to me) antidotes from the book.

1. The labor and delivery of Louis XIV's grandson, Le Petit Dauphin (who died before his grandfather, leaving his son, the Sun King's great-grandson, to become Louis XV King of France--more on that below). So Maria Anna Victoria of Bavaria (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Maria_An...) married the Sun King's son and become next in line to be Queen of France. She was ugly (odd brown splotches on her face and a massive hooked nose) and sickly and dull and did not fit in a the grand court at Versailles at all. "She was certainly very ugly and this was bad luck on her in a court where nearly all the women were beauties." (Remember this book was written by a woman.)

But she did her duty and became pregnant at age 22. Her labor and delivery is one of the most amazing things I have ever read. Maria had previously had two miscarriages so a doctor was present to deliver the baby instead of a midwife. When she went into labor in the early morning hours, a festive party sprung up in the palace. The courtyard was illuminated and messages stood at the ready to take word throughout the kingdom. The room filled with all the most important people to watch the birth and more crowded the hall as close as they could get.

It was August and a grilling heat wave was in progress. The labor was difficult and progressed slowly. At about lunchtime the relics (body parts) of the long dead St. Margaret were brought and shown to poor Maria laboring along as best she could. This was supposed to help speed things along, I guess.

The King came and went, feeding Maria by his own hand food and wine at one point. Eventually he went to a State dinner. A special bed was brought in with hand-holds and foot pegs and Maria was transferred over. All the Ambassadors from all the nations in Europe were ushered into the room--it was important they could report first hand regarding the birth of a male heir to the throne should the boy every take the Crown, there would be no question of his legitimacy. The German-born Maria continued to labor with dozens of strange male eyes on her.

The Sun King came back and stayed with her all night. The others came and went, in and out. Maria felt that she was about to die and thanked the King for his kindness to her, that she was sorry to leave him. All felt that she was fading fast, the labor too long. So they bled her. Twice. While she was continuing to labor hard.

The King said that he would even be glad to see the baby be born a girl if Maria could live and the suffering end. This astounded all those present, girls were so little valued, being barred from the throne due to Salic law (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Salic_La...). All night long the labor continued, no sleep came for Maria. The bleedings continued periodically all night long.

At dawn all were miserable and tired and Maria had been going for over 24 hours. She was on death's doorstep and a priest was called to give her last rites. Still no baby. Then it came. A baby boy. And heir (then second in line after his father, the Sun King's son).

Crowds went wild. Shouts and cheers and church bells. A huge bon-fire in the courtyard was kindled with even furniture piled on for wood. The Sun King let them go, saying only "I hope they don't burn the house down". He was so happy and filled with joy. Le Grand Dauphin, son of Louis XIV, father of the baby, left straightway for a hunt and was seen no more that day.

Maria, the Dauphine of France, had served her purpose and lay still suffering in her bed, seemingly forgotten by the Sun King and her husband. The doctor kept his head and had just the cure for her (thankfully not more bleedings). He had a large sheep brought into the room and had it flayed alive right in the birth room and wrapped Maria up in the bloody-fresh skin. "Naturally this cured her at once," says the author sarcastically. She only wanted to go to sleep, but the doctor thought this dangerous and forced her to stay awake for another 3-4 hours.

Then her room was hermetically sealed up and Maria was forced to stay in bed, with the sheep skin around her, without even the light of a candle, in that terrible August heat wave, for another nine days. And you thought your birth experience was hard. Wow.

Maria lived another 8 years, giving birth to two other children, dying at age 30 from unknown ailments (she was always sick apparently).

2. At the end of his life, The Sun King was dying slowly as a very old man. He had ascended to the throne at the age of 5 in 1643 and ruled France for 72 years and 110 days--the record for longest reign of all the monarchs in all of European history.

As he was dying in 1715, his five-year-old great-grandson was brought in to him and sat upon his lap on the bed. There was the old King dying. The only King that anyone alive in France could remember. And because of the death of the le Grand Dauphin (the Sun King's son) and le Petit Dauphin (the Grandson of the birth story above), there was the next King, so young, with an unknown and difficult future ahead of him. They two stared into each other's eyes and the old King wished the child well. A poignant scene for sure.

A few hours later, the little boy became Louis XV, Louis The Much Beloved. He would rule for until 1774, another 59 years. Together those two men on that bed, at the different ends of life, ruled on of the most powerful nations on Earth for 131 consecutive years. Amazing.

They didn't care enough about the poor and downtrodden citizens of France and set a standard for high living that fostered resentment. Eventually the House of Bourbon would fall in a revolution of the people, in large part to their mistakes. But they ruled for a century and a third between the two of them, crossing paths only briefly there at Versailles. The tender meeting would have been quite a sight to behold.

[João Sá Nogueira Rodrigues · Rating 5 out of 5]

É a segunda biografia que leio escrita por esta autora (Nancy Mitford)... Não posso dizer que seja uma biografia tão aprofundada e detalhada que qualquer outra que se leia não traga informações novas,mas posso dizer que é uma belíssima biografia e escrita,mais uma vez,de uma forma excelente!Quando lemos um livro sem repararmos que as páginas estão a passar e sentimos pena quando acabamos a última página, então não há dúvida que foi um bom livro! Aliás,que melhor crítica se pode fazer a um livro a não ser que não demos sequer pelas páginas a passarem?!E depois,uma biografia sobre o Rei Sol... Personalidade fascinante que Nancy Mitford conseguiu fazer reviver neste livro! Aconselho!

[Erik Graff · Rating 3 out of 5]

Having recently read 'Sisters', a biography of the Mitford sisters, I was attracted to this book about the court of Louis XIV by Nancy, the novelist and biographer.

Although the title, 'The Sun King', suggests a study of Louis, the book is actually more of a assembly of biographies of those who surrounded him at Versailles. Very little attention is paid to the political and military aspects of his reign. The focus is on the social life of the court.

[Filip · Rating 4 out of 5]

Delightful old-school Great Men history. What the author lacks in broader historical insight or political correctness, she largely makes up for by her intuitive understanding of court culture. Her snobbery shines through the entire book, as for her people of high birth are all beyond reproach (at most they may be a bit eccentric); yet given the subject matter at hand it is illuminating. I'm keen to look at her other biographies now.

[Daniel Polansky]

yeah, this was a brisk, pleasant history of the life of Louis the XIV. I’ve been getting rid of most of the books on my shelves and I probably have about 5-6 which cover this topic, so it was hard to get quite that excited about it but it was breezy and fun and also a lot lighter than most of the other books I have regarding the Sun King and so Keep.

[Madeline · Rating 4 out of 5]

The Sun King is surprisingly dense, for a book that wouldn't hold up in peer-review (I assume? history is not my field) - which is a terrible thing to say, I guess. I mean: it's not an academic book, but it's still quite accomplished. Which is also terrible. But Nancy Mitford wasn't an academic. She was an aristocrat, with a keen eye for social interactions and obligations, and those hadn't changed as much as we might think in the 200ish span of years that separated her and Louis XIV. (There are some bits about hunting that seem to strike a personal chord.)

I think The Sun King is about three things, really: Louis XIV (Mitford likes him a lot); Versailles (Mitford likes it a lot); 17th century medicine (Mitford HATES it). Really, The Sun King is enough to scare you off the idea of time travel, because what if you get a cold and well-meaning people want to take care of you? Antonia Fraser did a really nice job in The Weaker Vessel of underlining how constantly-pregnant women were; Mitord's book is less systematic than that, but she does pay really close attention to the way illness affects people - all kinds of people. Well, all kinds of rich people.

This was originally published as a kind of coffee table book. The NYRB edition doesn't have any of those illustrations, and I certainly felt their absence. Since it's as much a story about Versailles and about material culture (I think that is the term) as about a person, the lack of visual record is sort of sad.

Mitford also has rather frequent flashes of perspective about the people she talks about. For example, she's very clear about Louis XIV disdain for the poor, and about what a failing this is, and she is harshly ironic about Colbert and the galley slaves. She's also casually anti-Semitic.

One other interesting thing about The Sun King: it's sort of a study of megalopropreia in action. Okay, two: there was more same-sex activity in Versailles than you might think. I don't mean Monsieur, everyone knows about Monsieur already.

[Margaret · Rating 4 out of 5]

Once again, Nancy Mitford is the gossipy friend who happens to know quite a lot about 17th century France. The Sun King is a biography of both the French monarch and his home, Versailles. From the building of the palace to Louis XIV's many relationships, Mitford takes her informed but light-hearted attitude towards the different aspects of the court of the Sun King.

Instead of a comprehensive biography, Mitford focuses on the goings on and relationships within Versailles. There are, of course, more than a few bastard children, mistresses, intrigues, and (my personal favorite) public trials of suspected poisoners. Instead of appearing self serious or respectful merely because of the weighty historical personages, Mitford takes elements that humanize the historical figures as well as characterize their times. Her work is always a combination of academic history and glossy magazines, and she does a splendid job again of walking that line.

I do prefer Mitford's historical works (like Voltaire in Love) over her novels (The Pursuit of Love), and The Sun King is another excellent addition.

[Joe Miguez · Rating 5 out of 5]

Most fun I've had reading history since Suetonius's "The Twelve Caesars." Mitford is a hell of a writer, and a wonderful tour guide through the rein of Louis XIV and the halls of the palace at Versailles.

[Judy · Rating 3 out of 5]

I keep trying to understand European history, and Louis XIV was involved in a lot of that history, so I thought this would be a good start. However, this was an odd approach to the history. It sort of jumps from subject to subject and doesn't stray far from his life at Versailles. As others have noted it is sort of a gossipy approach to history. One of my problems with it was that she alternated between titles and nicknames, many of which were confusingly similar, so I was not always sure which of the King's mistresses and/or wives we were talking about. There were some interesting little tidbits, but overall, I'm sure there have to be more comprehensive histories.

[Mark · Rating 3 out of 5]

Actually, another 3 1/2 star review!

This biography deals mostly with court intrigues, romances, and (less so) politics than the wider European events of Louis XIV's reign, such as the War of the Spanish Succession. That said, it covers those court events in fascinating and commendable detail.

The louche, almost languid, writing style, familiar to anyone who has read Nancy Mitford's novels (I have) helps too.

A good read.

[stefan · Rating 3 out of 5]

Judging by the bibliography, quite a lot of research seems to have gone into the writing of this biography, but it still looks as if Nancy Mitford was trying to entertain and hope people rather than teach and hope people are entertained.

As fascinating as royalty gossip can be!

[Rachel C. · Rating 3 out of 5]

A quick, gossipy portrait of Louis XIV at Versailles. The serious history reader would likely not tolerate the liberties Mitford took, but it was a readable overview of the period sufficient for my purposes. On to his great-grandson, Louis XV.

[Big Al · Rating 3 out of 5]

A bit disjointed for a biography (especially in the first quarter as it keeps jumping timeframes), but man oh man is there some juicy history in here!

[Patrick Stuart · Rating 4 out of 5]

This is a very moreish book which sets a medium goal and achieves it in style.

I picked up the fancy Folio Society edition for cheap in a small bookshop (two people only under CornonaLaw), read a few fragments and just kept going, diving back in whenever I had the opportunity, like an inflatable swimming pool.

The book does not really suffer from being swum in and out of, it is a chatty, gossipy bit-by-piece lowdown on the Sun King and his mirror-prison for Aristocrats, history with the boring parts taken out, left in are the scandals, dramas and personal nuggets which serve o break up and personalise more serious histories, like mozzeralla in an omlette.

Its interesting to read about how *bored* the ruling class were at Versailles, I remember reading this in I think Tuchman? Not sure.


Madame de Maintenon;

"How can I make you realise the boredom which devours the great of this world and the trouble they have in occupying their time? Can't you see that I am dying of grief in spite of my incredible destiny? And that only love of God keeps me from going under? I was once young and pretty; I tasted the pleasures f this life and everybody loved me. Later on I lived for years in a brilliant society; then I came into favour. I swear to you, my dear daughter, that all these conditions produce a fearful emptiness, an anxiety, a lassitude, a longing for a different existence because all are unsatisfactory. One is only at rest with God..."



Fascinating how little Louis actually liked, or could even tolerate, the common people of his own nation. Even when other French aristocrats start going on to him about the sad plight of the peasants etc etc, he freezes them out, obsessively even. It seems not even a dislike but a kind of mad neurotic aversion to hearing about them.

Details on the prison of mirrors and ceremonies Louis built for his infinite frenemies are fascinating. Strange how these rituals breed, they are not eternal, but if they are in place only a short time they feel as if they are.

Its incredible how diseased, grimy, desperate, bored and wealthy many of these people are, how brutally they die of diseases, insane doctors, of freezing to death in some cases in huge unheatable rooms, at one point a minor old noble woman is brought up in conversation and they realises she is still alive and still living in Versailles, only forgotten in his apartments and possibly starving to death.



On the King;

"When he travelled from one of his houses to another he only took women with him in his coach - his mistresses, later on his daughters or great friends. He thought if he spent several hours alone with a man he would be sure to ask for some boon and embarrass the King.

These journeys, except for the prestige they gave, were a real tormet to his companions. In the coldest weather all the windows had to be kept open as he could not bear stuffiness. The ladies were expected to be merry, to eat a great deal (he hated people to refuse food) and to have no physical needs which would force them to leave the coach. If by any chance they were taken ill, fainted or felt sick, they could expect no sympathy; on the contrary, disfavour set in.

One of his closest friends, the Suchesse de Chevreuse, Colbert's daughter, went alone with him from Versailles to Fountain bleau, a journey which took about six hours. Hardly had they left Versailles when she was seized with a pressing and seemingly irresistible need to retire. She knew that there was nothing to be done, though every mile that went on increased her misery.

About half-way there they King stopped the coach and a meal was served; she ate and drank as little as she possibly could but even tha made her condition worse. She cast longing glances at a peasants house nearby but dared not go to it. They started off again. Several times she nearly fainted, but she hung on and at last they arrived. her brother-in-law, the Duc de Beauvillier, was waiting in the courtyard to meet htem and she hissed in his ear the state she was in, saying she would never be able to get as far as her own room. he hurried her to the chapel and mounted guard while she relieved herself there."



And how busy, crowded and loud their lives were. The King, Louis is often woken by an orchestra outside his window, followed around by one also, dressed, undressed multiple times and day. Never alone. Madame de Maitnont trying to fall asleep in her bed while the king carries on ministerial councils in the same room late into the night (windows open of course as he hates them closed and does't know of care that she is freezing her tits off.

The king is reading everones letters and they half know this but he pretends he hasn't read them and they pretend they don't know he reads them (unless they actually don't know), making Versailles being a kind of anarchic surveillance state. The king watching everyone, everyone watching everyone else through schedules of ceremony and leisure and precise gradations of precedence and mood, yet also, with the most intelligent and capable people kept with nothing to do at all (deliberately in many cases, they might prove a threat if given power).


Lord Portlands Embassy

"Here the King sent his own first lord-in-waiting to call on Portland with his compliments. Of course this nobleman received the _Door_ (greeted at it), the _Hand_, the _armchair_ and the _Coach_ (taken to it, put in and seen off), in fact the whole works.

Then came the Marqui de Villacerf representing the little newly married Duchesse de Bourgogne who, the QUeen and the Dauphone being no more, was now the first lady in the land. M. de Boneuil, the _introducteur des Ambassadeurs_ (what is called now the _Chef du Protocole_) wanted Portland to go half-way down the stairs to meet Villacerf.

Portland refused to budge further than the antechamber. Beneuil flew into a temper and hit the banisters with his cane. Portland took no notice. He and Villacerf then sent messengers to and fro.

After a good long time Portland said he would go down two steps and no more. If this did not suit M. de Villacerf he had better withdraw. So up he came.

However, there was more trouble when he left; Portland saw him downstairs (the _Door_) but did not wait to see him leave (the _Coach_). Boneuil, beside himself, seized POrtlands coat-tails but Portland shook him off and went his way. 'The _Introducteur_ made great complaints to me.'

Then Monsieur's representative arrived and the same difference arose; and again with Madame's. 'Things may have been very different', he wrote to William, 'when the English King [Charles II] was ruled by the French; but this is no longer the case'. Boneuil, 'confounded and irritated', left the hose abruptly, though he was supposed to sup there with Portland.

The next day Portland went to Versailles to inform Torcy of these incidents and to tell Monsieur and Madame ho very sorry he was that they had occoured. However, Monsieur, 'who knows about these things', said that he had been quite right. Bneuil was reproved; and after that Portland never had any more reason to protest, all was plain sailing."


Must you be mad to be a king? How can we possibly judge their psychology? We would need maybe, a range of kings and then have to compare them to find a baseline.

[Annalisa · Rating 4 out of 5]

The only bad thing about this book was the densely packed typesetting of the HP edition, which really didn't do it justice, and the lack of a Bourbon family tree. By virtue of being put off by the cramped pages, I set the book aside for awhile. In the meantime, coincidentally, my son gave me the Antonia Fraser book on Louis XIV, which I ended up reading first. I'm so glad this happened! When I got back to Mitford's Sun King, it was with great delight that I realized that Antonia had blazed the trail for me with her excellent book, leaving Nancy to follow up with the apres ski, like a big luxurious dollop of whipped cream.

It was sheer pleasure to read Nancy at her witty, intelligent best, producing three dimensions where other historical accounts manage only two. While Fraser was my trail blazer on Louis XIV, I expect Mitford blazed the trail for historical biographers with her original vibrant style, writing the Sun King in 1966 when many history books came with their own cobwebs.

I think I would have struggled with the book a little without the benefit of having Fraser's Bourbon family tree to revisit when I needed a little help sorting out all the Monsieur's and Duchesses. But what this edition of The Sun King lacks in useful accessories was overcome in large part by sentences like this:

"Seven or eight doctors made notes of their gruesome findings and pronounced the causes of death; the only cause which invariably escaped their notice was their own incompetence."

Vive Nancy Mitford! And Vive Antonia Fraser. Two fine books, best read together.

[Hasdrubal Barca · Rating 4 out of 5]

Ok, I will freely admit that this may not be considered by some to be a scholarly historical assessment. I have been interested in the reign of Louis XIV since childhood when my mother purchased for me a coffee table book of photographs of Versailles. I wondered what could possibly have taken place at such a monstrous and wonderful palace. Since then I have read at least a dozen books on the period which tend to focus on the development and impact of absolutism in 17th century Europe. But this little book is a gem because of its author. Nancy Mitford was the daughter of an English Baron and spent her life as both an academic and a socialite. Her telling of the lives that swirled around Versailles palace is authenticated by the impression one gets that she would have been completely at ease in that setting. This book was written in 1966, just 7 years before her death. Her style sounds more like gossip than history, but is generally regarded as very well-researched. I warn you that if you read this book or one of her other historical biographies, you are in danger of becoming hooked on Mitford and will probably seek out some of her other well-loved books. This was a very enjoyable book and I find myself going back to certain chapters from time to time. One of the most memorable portions is the end where she describes a ghoulish sacrilege; the looting and desecration of the tombs during the revolution. As any good book will, it fascinated me and left me wanting to know more.

[Bettie · Rating 4 out of 5]

quietism = a form of religious mysticism requiring withdrawal from all human effort and passive contemplation of God

---

256 pages here.

I so want an orange tree in a silver pot!

---



Bernini also gained royal commissions from outside Italy, for subjects such as Louis XIV, Cardinal Richelieu, Francesco I d'Este, Charles I of England and Henrietta Maria. The last two were produced in Italy from portraits made by Van Dyck (now in the royal collection), though Bernini preferred to produce portraits from life - the bust of Charles was lost in the Whitehall Palace fire of 1698 and that of Henrietta Maria was not undertaken due to the outbreak of the English Civil War. source - wiki

[Grace · Rating 4 out of 5]

So far she has some interesting facts laced through the narrative, but a lot of antiquated assumptions (copyright 1966)that make my eyebrows go up. My biggest issue is the very non-linear structure of this book. Mitford is all over the place with the time line in chapters. It's nearly impossible to keep up with what events are taking place when with such a scattershot approach. If I wasn't already familiar with some of the history of Louis XIV and his morganatic wife, I'd be lost.

Updated - In the end, I enjoyed this book. Mitford has a sharp wit that comes through in her observations of history and beliefs for the period. I still found the non-linear composition of events off-putting, but that was minor when set against Mitford's tone, interesting anecdotes and the beautiful pictures of the stunning art of the day included in the book. I'm giving it 4 stars because I really liked the book and will probably read it again in the near future.

[Tim Stretton · Rating 3 out of 5]

Nancy Mitford's biography of Louis XIV reveals her, perhaps unsurprisingly, to be anti-Semitic, racist, homophobic, snobbish and superficial. In many ways this makes her an ideal chronicler of the Sun King's court, which largely embodied the same values (with the exception of the homophobia - nobody seemed too concerned about the exploits of "Monsieur", the King's brother).

Mitford, and the court at Versailles, place a great premium on wit, frivolity and personal attractiveness. Madame de Montespan is forgiven almost everything for the vivacity of her conversation, while better-natured mistresses like Louise la Valliere are dismissed for vacuity.

Nonetheless the study is written with verve and energy, and the protagonists spring to vivid life. The illustrations are excellent too...

If you are an aficionado of the period this is worth a read, even if you have to hold your nose at times; if your interest is more casual there are much better places to start.

[Lauren Albert · Rating 3 out of 5]

A fun and very opinionated picture of life at the Sun King’s court. Gossip more than history, as others have pointed out. Yet, in some ways, the limited view of the “outside” world in the book gives one a real sense of how blinded the court (and the Crown) was to it leading to later fatal consequences for the royal family.

[Sarah weber-gallo]

This book is a little schizo - interesting history a bit blandly written for Nancy Mitford. And while the copious illustrations are beautiful and informative, they make the book feel too much like a coffee table book...meaning I will never complete the text.