On the 21st January 1815, the remains of Louis XVI and Marie Antoinette were moved from their resting place close to the Madeleine in Paris to the Basilica St Denis, there to lie for eternity alongside the bodies of their ancestors.
Their bodies rest in the crypt below the main church, but above there stands their beautiful memorial statues by Edme Gaulle and Pierre Petitot. The statues that commemorate the royal couple here at St Denis are very different to those at the Chapelle Expiatoire and have a regal dignity and solemnity.
I really like that Marie Antoinette is shown wearing clothes from the early nineteenth century, although it makes me sad that she wasn’t there to preside over the changing fashions.
I don’t know, and nor do I wish to know, why her breasts are so shiny in comparison to the rest of the statue.
Beautiful but so sad.
The statue of Louis XVI bestows the maligned and ridiculed King with a dignity that he was denied in real life.
I felt very moved standing in front of the memorials to Louis and Marie Antoinette. As with the Chapelle Expiatoire you can’t help but be moved by the sad fates of the unfortunate King and Queen and it is impossible not to wish that their story had had a very different end. It is a comfort though that they ultimately ended up at St Denis just as they must always have assumed that they would do before the outbreak of revolution.
To see the actual final resting place of Louis and Marie Antoinette, you have to descend to the chilly and gloomy crypt of the Basilica, where the remains of dozens of Bourbons lie.
Louis XVI’s tomb in the crypt, where he is buried alongside his wife and brother Louis XVIII. There are also memorials to Mesdames, Louis XVII and Madame Elisabeth.
Stunning. I have never seen these statues and they really do have a beautiful solemnity about them. Something about the way the light falls, and how you have captured it in these pictures and your words is very moving.
Thank you! They are a very different style to the way that you usually see Louis and Marie Antoinette represented – more solemn and mournful (the ones in the Chapelle Expiatoire are more dramatic) but it suits them. It feels really sad though.
I was very moved when I visited there. I slipped my hand into the queen’s and prayed for a long time.
Oh, that must have been lovely. It really does inspire prayer and reflection doesn’t it? Although our visit was ruined by horrible jazz being played on a stage that had been erected by the altar, alas!
Such a thing was inconceiveable before the Second Vatican Council. The French revolution ruined Germany. It is to be hoped that the German Pope’s efforts to support moderate traditional Catholicism will succeed in reversing the suicidal, revolutionary, destructive course of the French episcopate, eevn more arrogant than the German one.
Thank you for sharing these images and thoughts with us, this is beautiful. But very, very sad.
Thank you. It is so sad – the atmosphere there is very gloomy!
I have only once been to the Basilica of Saint-Denis, in 1983, but I spent several hours there. Strangely, I had never realised how beautiful those statues were until I saw your photographs, for which many thanks.
You write:
“On the 21st January 1815, the remains of Louis XVI and Marie Antoinette were moved from their resting place close to the Madeleine in Paris to the Basilica St Denis, there to lie for eternity alongside the bodies of their ancestors.”
One or two corrections are in place here. Marie-Antoinette’s ancestors are buried in the crypt of the Capuchin church in Vienna, and the only ancestor of Louis XVI beside whom he lies is Louis XV, as during the Terror the royal tombs were desecrated by diabolical revolutionary thugs and the remains flung irretrieveably here and there in the grounds of the church. They however did not dare to open Louis XV’s tomb as he had died of syphilis and they were afraid of catching it. I learnt this from reading a notice on the spot; is it no longer there?
Regarding the floor-level tombs of Louis XVI and his collaterals and descendents, I happened to stumble lightly against one of them and so discover that what appeared to be a black stone surface bearing the inscription was in fact a piece of polished black wood exactly covering the raised top of the tomb and so minutely fitted as to appear to be part of it, yet lying freely, without any form of attachment or adhesive device. Having just read the story of the desecration, I presume and continue to presume that a lesson has been learnt from 1794 (which I think from memory is the year in which the graves were violated). One never knows: the Expiatory Chapel was nearly pulled down when the anti-clericals were in power at the beginning of the last century.
In conclusion, here is an ironic fact. Louis XVI and his wife were first buried in the cemetery of the Madeleine because that was the parish in which the guillotine was at the time situated, and the custom still obtained that people were buried in the churchyard of the parish in which they had died. The law abolishing this and providing for cemeteries outside the city limits was however about to be passed. One of its results was the establishment of the big Melaten cemetery here in Cologne at a time when the city had become the sub-prefecture of the French Department of the Roer and its Cathedral been reduced to the status of a parish church, which status in fact it has retained, though once again a Cathedral. It was only then that the ‘Chapel’ of Aix-la-Chapelle/Aachen became a Cathedral for the first time, with a French bishop in residence alongside the French Prefect of the Roer.
Actually, I very deliberately referred to them as mutual ancestors as Marie Antoinette was descended from the brother of Louis XIV and so they were her family too. There is still a memorial to Louis XIV in the crypt, although his body has not been returned there. I didn’t like to think of Marie Antoinette being buried away from her own family in Vienna (thanks for reminding me that I’ve planned for a while to write at greater length about the Habsburg crypt there) and prefer to consider that she is actually buried with relatives after all.
I don’t recall seeing the tomb of Louis XV amongst the myriad of Bourbon tombs in the Basilica’s crypt.
I wrote a similar post about the Chapelle Expiatoire, although I didn’t get into too much detail about the actual history of the site.
Thanks for the comment!
According to what I read on the spot at the time, there’s no one in any of the the pre-revolutionary tombs except Louis XV in his, which I remember seeing. You speak as if Louis XIV’s body might still be around somewhere, but it must surely have been a prime target of the desecrators of St-Denis. Have you seen the vessel which used to contain his heart in the main church of the Marais (I’ve forgotten its name for the moment)? At some time during the same infamous period it was confiscated and its content auctioned and knocked down to an artist, who made a pigment out of it of which he made use to paint pictures some of which could allegedly still be seen in the 1980s.
As for Marie-Antoinette’s Habsbürgerlichkeit, the family apart from Otto and his surviving siblings now call themselves Habsbutg-Lothringen (see Vienna phone book) or Habsbourg-Lorraine, and in fact from M-A’s generation on they should have called themselves not Habsburger but simply Lothringer, just as the British royal family should according to the rules have gone on calling itself Saxe-Coburg and Gotha until 1952 and then (not Mountbatten but) Battenberg. It was as Franz von Lothringen that M-A’s father was elected King of the Romans and crowned Holy Roman Emperor Franz I. It was because not he but his wife was the immediate ruler of the lands of the Austrian Archduchy that their son even as the Holy Roman Emperor Joseph II could not get his own way in Austria until his and M-A’s mother died in 1780.
I agree that the Chapelle Expiatoire is a different matter altogether, very impressive in its own decently understated way. Reading Louis XVI’s wonderfully-expressed will for the first time on the brass plates was one of the most moving experiences I have had in my life. I hope you get round to doing a piece of investigative journalism on French politics as regards the Chapelle; 1789-1815 rivals 1940-44 as far as skeletons in the cupboard are concerned. I haven’t seen the Girondins’ hall in the Conciergerie, converted in the expiatory Restoration period into a church with as sacristy M-A’s cell which gives on to it, since 1983 either, and imagine that the organisers of the 1989 celebrations will have taken the opportunity of having it deconsecrated once more in the context of refurbishments and with the blessing of the French episcopate. By the way, by chance I found to-day, while looking for something else and before discovering your site my transcription of Louis XVI’s will and will send it to you if you like; in that case provide me with an email address (I must have the original file still somewhere). Regards, IA.
Um, no, sorry I didn’t say anything about Louis XIV’s body being anywhere. I just said that it wasn’t in Saint Denis – it’s presumably entirely lost. I don’t believe that there are bodies in any of the earlier graves, but to me that doesn’t diminish the significance of it being their resting places and the home of their official funereal monuments.
I have been to the Girondin’s chapel in the Conciergerie more than once between 1989 and earlier this year. It hasn’t changed much at all in all that time – I can’t comment on any deconsecration though, obviously.
Thank you for the offer but I have a copy of Louis XVI’s will here. :)
If you know it from 1989 as the Girondins’ chapel, I presume that in spite of my misgivings good sense prevailed in the hour of need, and am relieved.
(I note incidentally that you have subjected the orthography which I permit myself to repeat above, since I am persuaded of its accuracy, to a process known here as “Verschlimmbesserung”. Why? Or is it possible that the chapel exists to honour the memory of the one who stabbed himself to death at their funeral feast the night before they all went to the guillotine?)
The will, of course. I was just struck by the coincidence, which must surely be meaningful in some way. Just a couple of days ago, as a further coincidence, I read or heard read someone else’s will (Tolstoy’s?) with an unacknowledged quotation of that wonderful “si elle croyait avoir qúelque chose à se reprocher”.
I don’t want to tread too heavily on your lovely flowers, but if the bodies are not in the graves, how can these be their resting-places? Perhaps, though, “being” is a misprint for “having been”, which would lead on to the official funeral monument idea?… but no, in the five French republics ones and indivisibles we have seen so far there have been no official monuments, funeral or otherwise, for Bourbons or even Orléans, or in fact for any monarchist qua monarchist, with the single exception of the ethnic Italian artillery officer who invented total war.
I’ve only ever known it as the Girondin’s Chapel. I don’t know if it is consecrated.
I’ve never come across the term ‘Verschlimmbesserung’ before and have no idea what it means or what you are trying to say here.
It’s called the chapel because it was the prison chapel of the Conciergerie, where the prisoners were able to hear Mass before that was banned. The Girondins were held there during their trial and before their execution. These two facts would appear to have collided and provided the name – it isn’t a memorial chapel to their memories. There are memorials in an alcove at the back of the chapel to Louis XVI, Marie Antoinette and Madame Élisabeth.
Sorry, it’s the middle of the night here, I have a cold and am literally about to go to sleep – I meant ‘having been’ as opposed to ‘being’ as in the graves were the original and intended resting places of the bodies, even if they are not there now. To me they have the same significance as the stone plaques made for people who have been cremated – their bodies are not present but their relatives and friends almost certainly regard them as akin to actual graves, as a place that can be visited so the actual presence of a body is, to me, beside the point.
Maybe I’m being overly sentimental about the relevence of the despoiled royal tombs but I think that is okay. :)
I must be off to bed myself, but it does not seem superfluous first to reveal that my attitude to words (and to notes) is what I presume yours to be to paint-pots. I will therefore explain two things.
a) Besser means better. Verbessern means to better, to improve, to corrrect. A Verbesserung is an improvement. Schlimm means bad. So far, no need for German words. But there is as far as I know no English word for Verschlimmbesserung, which denotes an attempted improvement which in fact due to the would-be improver’s incompetence (mostly coupled with his unquestioning ignorance of that incompetence) makes the thing deemed worthy of improvement worse than it originally was. Applying this to the specific case in question:
b) You wrote the Girondin’s chapel, which means the chapel of the Girondin. I wrote the Girondins’ chapel, which means the chapel of the Girondins. You then for one reason or another repeated your spelling, whereupon I repeated mine, this time specifically drawing attention to what I was doing. Given that it has since become clear that we are both talking about the Girondins and not about a single Girondin (although in this case that happened to be a real, if somewhat remote possibility), I am forced to adopt one or more of several hypotheses:
1. You have never learnt the distinction in meaning between ‘s and s’.
2. You do not think it necessary to make the distinction.
3. You do not think that other people should make the distinction.
4. You are out to destroy the distinction in the interests of ‘wholeness’.
5. You do not notice warning signals.
6. You notice warning signals but deliberately choose to appear to ignore them.
Needless to say, I have nothing like enough data to enable me to make a considered choice even within this narrow range of hypotheses. Secondly, I resent having to waste time on such elementary matters as a condition of having dealings with a fellow human being, however interesting that human being may be.
You may well ask: But why is this so important to you?
I would answer: I personally am of the opinion that the distinction in question is broadly comparable with that between red and green, and therefore should be dispensed with only in a (theoretically possible) society in which eyes capable of interpreting traffic lights are no longer needed.
I also feel obliged to offer this explanation once, in the hope that it will be understood.
Si vous allez plus loin, vous me couperez la parole.
Veuillez bien agréer, Madame, l’expression de mes hommages dévoués.
Um, I do know the distinction between s’ and ‘s. I hadn’t noticed that I call it the Girondin’s chapel – I must have picked it up somewhere along the line – in my head I always think of it as ‘chapelle des Girondins’, so I expect I’m getting muddled between the French and English somewhere along the line as I write.
I’m sorry that you think that I am incompetent and ignorant and that you resent talking to me, when it is you that chose to leave a comment on my blog. I think I’ll leave it there.
It would be really bad form to call a German a grammar Nazi…
Ian
I think what seems to be a failing here is that this blog offers a perspective and an insight to surroundings and experiences. While it is good to really “know your stuff”, sometimes it’s also good to just share the experience.
Comments are great for making observations and pointing the author and subscribers to other details and facts. However, this is not a lecture, and a high handed attitude is neither constructive nor helpful.
Your points are not invalid, Ian, but I’m sure this could have been put across in a friendlier way.
Must agree with Pete here, Ian. You’re obviously passionate about your subject, but there was no need to subject Melanie to such patronising comments, especially over a misplaced apostrophe!
Your are a visitor to her blog, and no one forced you to come here. I’d hope you wouldn’t behave in the same way if you went into someone’s home, and this is basically Melanie’s home on the web. Do give her the respect she deserves.
What impassioned me was her arrogant and extremely un-French refusal (to put it mildly) to react to my deliberate repetition (without labouring the point) of my correct apostrophe. Any Frenchman would have taken my meaning without failure and either apologised or held his peace.
Okay, that’s enough. You are a rude, nasty, horrible, ridiculous bully.
I’M NOT FRENCH and nor are you, as evidenced by your own rude and really horrifically conceited behaviour. I and many other people have come to the conclusion that you are nothing but a ghastly, mentally ill, CREEPY troll, a creature to be pitied and not courted.
I didn’t notice your repetition because your responses were so long winded and BORING that I didn’t bother reading them properly.
As for someone like you having the temerity to call ANYONE ELSE arrogant? That’s the funniest thing I’ve heard all day.
You are no longer welcome to comment on this blog, not that you were anyway. You decided to comment here and have subjected us all to totally psychotic, dribbling, deranged nonsense ever since.
Now fuck off.
Jesus wept. LOL!
I’m sorry, Melanie, you know I adore you and think this blog is fab, but I am crying tears of laughter here at your troll.I’ve never seen anyone accused of not being French enough before during all my years in the blogosphere. Best laugh I’ve had all day.
It is extremely funny isn’t it? :D
I’m going to be informing people how un-French they are for ages. It’s the ultimate insult!
“You are so un-French’ is sure to end up in the Urban dictionary, as the newest insult. It’s got so much more class than ‘Yo Mama’ ;-)
Well said Sally. A blog is based on opinion.
Anyway it must be a good post if is sparking so many comments…take it as a form of flattery.
Good grief!
I really liked this post and the beautiful pictures. Thank you Melanie.
I was also enjoying the historical discussion and debate in the comments, right up until that post about ‘warning signals’. How very rude.
I think Pete has hit the nail on the head – high-handed indeed, and completely unnecessary.
Do please carry on with this lovely blog, just as it is.
What a lovely piece, both the photos and your writing conveying the poignancy perfectly.
Such a shame that commenters frequently feel the need to prove that they are as expert on the topic by belittling and lecturing the writer.
You are doing a great job with this blog, and I hope it continues to provide you with as much pleasure as your readers, despite the odd blip.
I see that this weblog is no place for me, but would like to point out before I go something I would not normally regard as relevant. I am neither a German nor a Frenchman, but an Australian of Irish and Scottish extraction who has long lived in Germany and before that lived in France, That is the one of the reasons why I am in a better position than most others to make factual contributions on the subjects here in question. I am certainly a grammar Nazi in the sense in which your correspondent uses his expression, but then so was the late Prof. Bernhard Neumann, F.R.S., a Berlin Jew who corrected my first German c. v. It is an undeniable fact that the Nazis insisted on normal grammatical behaviour – one might almost say “stinknormal”, a German word I recommend to him -, but what does that prove? Does he refuse to drive on motorways because Hitler popularised them? The Nazis insisted on keeping to the right. Does he for reasons of political correctness insist on driving on the left when in Germany? (The official German word for such people is Falschfahrer ‘falsefarer’, but ordinary people say Geisterfahrer ‘ghostfarer’.)
The citizeness Mélanie Guillotine is a person who likes flowers and 18th century dresses. So do I, and as already said I don’t want to tread all over her flower beds in my hobnailed boots. But why didn’t Marie-Antoinette see that her childhood friend Mozart got a job when he was in Patis with his mother looking for one in 1779? Why didn’t all those refined people in their beautiful clothes in the sparkling drawíng-rooms go further away than the corridor when they wanted to relieve themselves?
Louis XVI was a nice man, but his attitude to the Internet would in all likelihood have been somewhat to the right of the Chief Ayatollah of Iran’s.
Addressing all those who have written in reply to my contributions of last (European) night, and of necessity including any silent minority, I presume to borrow the words of the King of Saxony as he left his palace for the last time in 1918: “Macht euren Dreck alleene!”
No, I don’t think this is the place for you. You talk as though people have attacked you and yet the only person who has said anything to upset anyone else is you. I am now considering giving up blogging altogether thanks to your comments last night. Possibly that was your intention – I don’t know.
I’m very sorry that the misuse of one apostrophe was deemed to be so appalling and offensive that you felt the need to patronise and belittle me in the comments of my own blog, but as I said, I am ill and was very tired when I posted last night. Also I was thinking in French as I wrote and lost sense of what I was saying. Your comments upset me very much though – I can’t help but wonder why you would post such long comments on my blog then claim that talking to me is a waste of your time? I did not ask you to comment or indeed to continue doing so. It’s very perplexing to me.
No, I misunderstood or couldn’t even begin to penetrate a great deal of what you said. However, you write in an extremely long winded way and also seem to have decided that I am some sort of empty headed, frivolous idiot who deserves to be patronised and lectured, even though I do actually know my stuff and have troubled to write a blog about it. I don’t mind people correcting me, I don’t even mind a bit of a debate but this incident has left me shaken and doubting whether it is worth my while carrying on. Imagine if you will, my feelings when I write what I think is quite a nice post with some pictures and a few thoughts about how I felt walking around St Denis only to have my grammar ceaselessly nit picked and to be called both incompetent and ignorant.
Incidentally, you seem to have some misconceptions about both my religious leanings (I’m not a Catholic) and my royalism (I am indifferent). I don’t know what you are trying to say about Marie Antoinette and Mozart or indeed the toilet habits of the aristocrats at Versailles as once again your meaning is very obscure, but I’m guessing they are intended as further aspersions on my character. Let me assure you that although I may get tired and misplace my apostrophes, I am still, nonetheless fully house trained.
This may be a lovely end to my blogging career, so thanks for that. I hope you start a blog of your own.
Thanks and goodbye.
**But why didn’t Marie-Antoinette see that her childhood friend Mozart got a job when he was in Patis with his mother looking for one in 1779? Why didn’t all those refined people in their beautiful clothes in the sparkling drawíng-rooms go further away than the corridor when they wanted to relieve themselves?**
(sorry don’t know how to do quoty things)
You can hardly blame Melanie because Marie Antoinette failed to give her friend a job! Or expect her to question why they peed in the corridors. And if you were a proper student of history (and you clearly seem to be insisting that you are and Melanie is not) you would know that you should not look back at an era and judge their morals and behaviour on the morals and behaviour of our time. During the Renaissance they peed and defacated on straw in the rooms they used in which to dine, and rode on the backs of naked prostitutes. But I think you’ll find most people like to talk about the Cistine Chapel!
If Melanie chooses to concentrate on the beauty and glamour of her chosen time that is surely her business. There are many blogs and websites out there dedicated to different times of history, including Elizabethan and Regency that don’t always mention the injustices of the time, or the fact that many people were starving. They concentrate on the fashion, the architecture and literature, along with the behaviour of those in the higher reaches of society. It is a perfectly acceptable practice for anyone interested in history, either as a hobby or as a career, to concentrate on a particular aspect of that time. It doesn’t mean they’re ignoring everything else, only that it’s not within their remit.
I daresay there’s a place and time for such debates and to ask such questions, if that’s what interests you, but to come to a personal blog that is MELANIE’S and deals with her interests on the subject and complain because she hasn’t addressed your own particular concerns about the time is astoundingly bad manners!
I’m another one who has visited the Saint-Denis basilica. I certainly don’t recall the “notice on the spot” to which Ian refers. I would have been rather surprised to see a notice anywhere stating that Louis XV died of syphilis, because he didn’t – he died of smallpox. (Source: Marie Antoinette l’insoumise, by Simone Bertiere, Paris: Editions de Fallois, 2003).
What I do recall seeing is…a vault which contained the remains, all mixed together, of Louis XVI’s ancestors.
Wondering if my memory could be deceiving me, I decided to do some research.
Suzanne Glover Lindsay, ‘Mummies and Tombs: Turenne, Napoleon and Death Ritual’, The Art Bulletin, vol. 82, no. 3 (September 2000), pp. 476-502, states that the royal tombs at Saint Denis were exhumed in four stages: August 1792 (removal of some of the metal tombs for recasting or protection); 8-10 August 1793 (exhumation of the oldest royal tombs, in the upper church); 12-16 October 1793 (exhumation of about sixty Bourbons); and 17-25 October 1793 (exhumation of all other bodies, including the Valois). The remains were reburied in outdoor pits close to the basilica.
Ms Glover Lindsay: “Most of the remains were destroyed by their move to the pits rather than by deliberate assault. Those that emerged complete from their coffins suffered damage when dumped “pell-mell” into the trenches by workers excited to “rage”…and consumed by quicklime thrown on top. In 1817, when Louis XVIII’s administration (1814-24) returned the remains to the basilica, despite careful handling…the fragments of about 158 once sacred bodies fit into two large coffers.” (pp. 476-478).
These coffers were installed in a vault in the crypt (numbered 8 on the “Plan de la crypte” on this map of the basilica: http://uk.tourisme93.com/document.php?pagendx=10124&project=basilique.
So yes, Louis XVI and Marie Antoinette do indeed lie alongside the bodies of their ancestors.
Alexandre Lenoir, founder of the Musee des monuments francais, was present at the exhumations. The article quotes his comments on the state of Louis XV’s corpse, (source: Alexandre Lenoir, “Notes historiques sur les exhumations faites in 1793, dans l’abbaye de Saint-Denis,” in Musee des monumens francais, Paris: Imprimerie d’Hacquart, n.d. [c.1801], cxviij) confirming that Louis XV was indeed exhumed with the others, rather than left buried for fear of contagion. Lenoir made watercolours of some of the royal corpses, including Louis XV’s, and an album of photographs of the watercolours is held by the Bibliotheque Nationale (Maurice Pascal, “Corps des rois de France”, c.1895, BNF Cabinet des Estampes et de la Photographie ms Pe 103,4).
So, Ian, I think you have some of your facts wrong. That is certainly no crime, but I do wish you could have made your points in a less offensive manner.
Mme Guillotine, thank you for a lovely and informative post, as always.
Thank you for doing that research! I didn’t know that – how amazing! I knew that Louis XV’s corpse was pretty offensive so I guess they must have opened it to realise this – I also seem to recall reading somewhere that he was still so loathed that they made a point of chucking his remains into a pit.
My pleasure, it’s a fascinating subject! It seems Henry IV was treated very differently – he was actually put on display, although one woman knocked him to the ground because he had “dared to hold the sceptre.”
Thank you for this contribution, the only practically useful reaction I have read so far to mine. It was such a reaction that I hoped, perhaps blue-eyedly (as the Germans say; my eyes are in fact blue) to provoke. The Musée des monumens français is not my usual stamping-ground, so please excuse me for asking: is it available on line, or elsewhere than in Paris? And could you please oblige by passing on the sources SGL presumably quotes as having drawn on for her statements, if they are other than Lenoir?
I did not pretend to be doing anything more than mentioning a few things from memory, and memory is often untrustworthy, particularly after a long lapse of time. For exanpIe, it may well be that the “touristy” notice I was quoting from did say smallpox in the case of Louis XV and not syphilis, that my memory had filed the statement under the wider heading “contagious fatal disease” and that retrieval was faulty.
In “Louis XVI and Marie Antoinette [...] lie alongside the bodies of their ancestors”, would you accept an amendment of “alongside the bodies” into “in proximity to the remains”? (And, as a consilium perfectionis, the French spelling ?)
Now I come to think of it, he account I read in St-Denis was suspiciously reminiscent of the desecration of St-Irénée in Lyons, where the Vaudois Protestants violated the tombs of the early Christians martyred in the nearby Roman amphitheatre, mixed their bones with those oof animals and scattered them around the countryside.
Obiter dictum: I have read somewhere recently (First World War? Executions in Victoria/Australia?) that quicklime does not accelerate the decomposition of bodies but in fact helps to preserve them. Any comment?
“I can always leave off talking, when I hear a master play” (Browning, A toccata of Galuppi’s; comma sic)
There is a difference between disputing details for accuracy and trolling. I fear that someone has erred on the side of trolling.
Thank you for this beautiful post. History, without sentiment, is dead. You breathe some life back into it and make us remember that the cold stone, though lovely, has significance.
Please forgive any of my typographical errors, as I am updating from my phone which seems to enjoy not allowing me to see what I am entering into the input field.
what is trolling?
You wouldn’t like it, Ian. It’s a very un-French thing to do.
You’ve been banned. I am very keen on freedom of speech but as you rudely ignored my informing you that you were no longer welcome to comment on my blog and then began harassing other commenters, I felt that I not only had the right to prevent you from commenting but also that it was the best thing to do as I don’t see why other people should be subjected to your deranged, egotistical and woefully mispelt ramblings.
There is no doubt in my mind and that of a LOT of other people that you are a troll. I have your IP address – if you persist in harassing me or anyone else, I will be informing your internet provider.
Well said, Madame Guillotine. I’m all for debate but trolls don’t want to debate, they want to cause trouble and the only thing to do is to ban them. I support your decision 100%.
Thank you! I hated doing it as I am very opposed to censorship but he was clearly not here to have a civilised discussion or be friendly, nice or polite. He just wanted to be rude, abrasive and upsetting to everyone. I didn’t see any benefit to anyone in his being able to carry on commenting here as he actually had nothing worth listening to so decided to prevent it.
What a lovely blog.
A great pity that the comments for this particular post have suffered an attempted hijacking and how honorable that you left them open to public view.
It is a pity that a mutual love of history has been subverted into a knowledge contest. Good manners could have led to a guest blog spot or a generous link to Ian’s material, wherever it is published (if indeed he is published in any capacity other than in the comments sections of peoples blogs).
Do not be disheartened. I’m not really sure why a stranger elected himself as examiner for this blog post, or why he became so aggressive. Some people misunderstand blogs as providing an opportunity for verbal fencing. Others do not understand the etiquette surrounding the bloggers interaction with readers. Blogs are not lectures or academic publications. They are wonderful vehicles for sharing enthusiasm, knowledge, good writing and wonderful images.
Take what was useful, discard what was not….and keep blogging. :)
Best wishes,
Alison
Goodness! What a to do. Normally I read MmeG’s blog with pleasure, and indeed, the blog post was very enjoyable. I appreciated you taking the time to share your photos and knowledge with us, and the thought and care that went into writing your post.
So it is especially jarring to read the comments of a boorish Besserwisser (who does not need the translation of “know-it-all”) berating MmeG for a misplaced comma. To then go on to accuse MmeG of being incompetent is extremely rude, and it is not surprising that she should be hurt and filled with doubt upon reading these comments.
Every writer, every blogger shares a common insecurity about their work and while constructive criticism is welcome, impolite remarks and corrections are not.
I would hope that the comments of those readers who appreciate and enjoy your blog will persuade you to carry on blogging and to continue sharing your insightful stories and photos with us.
No, but you need to be told that what you mean is “know-all”, whatever your English teacher taught you.
I spy numerous punctuation errors in this thread…and I’m not talking about the single apostrophe under discussion…
I know. It’s tragic isn’t it? It’s always the way though – when people arrogantly decide to comment on the grammar and spelling of others, their own always tends to be far worse. Hilarious.
u r a nob Ian.
leave nice miss gilloteen alone or I’ll cum roudn ya yard n stab ya wiv me oozy. Word.
Source: Lucky Jim, if I’m not mistaken, but what about the palls from the Works?
I adore the blog, the photos, what you write…it matters not to me if it is 100% correct in 100% of every readers eyes/mind. I simply put enjoy and look forward to your blog. So please do not stop!
Aww, thank you so much! I know that it’s not for everyone – I’m an art history graduate so I like to focus on the more frivolous side of things as that’s the academic background that I’m coming from. I am enjoying myself with this blog – if other people do then that’s an immense bonus!
For every bad comment I’ve had on here, I’ve had thousands more complimenting it so, y’know, *shrugs Frenchly with my pasty Scottish shoulders*.
In the words of one of the Mr Men (Mr Rude, the one from the new series who talks in a French accent):
Nincompoop!
And I don’t mean MmeGuillotine!
fuck me sideways with a stiff kipper.
Madame G might be lacking in the odd apostrophe, but certain posters here seem to be lacking in a personality or, indeed, an actual life beyond the internetz. Dude, have a cup of tea, and look up night classes in your area. A spot of salsa or zumba would do you a whole heap of good.
Beautiful postings as ever, Madame! I salute you.
Oh lovely Melanie, I’m sorry you’ve been upset but Ian is a freakin genius and frankly deserves to be given his own show ;)
x
good lord, never in my life have i encountered such a pompous fool as ian,fear not mmeG we are not fooled by his pretence of constructive criticism and can clearly see it for what it is, an attack, keep the faith and keep being unfrench
Good grief!Keep doing what you do and don’t let anyone make you feel inadequate. I see this behavior a lot on the Royalty forums and boards with all the experts.I never understood that behavior, It’s sad that one individual can cast doubt and kill your passion and interests. Don’t you dare stop!
On a side note. The shiny breasts remind me of a story of a statue on Harvard Yard. I wont tell you what some nasty people do that. But we warned to rub it at our own risks.LOL!
Great photos.
Thanks a lot.
These photos are gorgeous! I am reading Antonia Fraser’s Marie Antoinette. The statues are stunning; are they quiet large? I am glad that I found your blog!
The statues are quite large and largely quiet, though I believe that sometimes Maria Antonia’s talks to Lady Antonia Fraser.