Misplaced Pages

Affair of the Diamond Necklace: Difference between revisions

Article snapshot taken from Wikipedia with creative commons attribution-sharealike license. Give it a read and then ask your questions in the chat. We can research this topic together.
Browse history interactively← Previous editContent deleted Content addedVisualWikitext
Revision as of 17:43, 18 February 2016 editMezigue (talk | contribs)Extended confirmed users19,724 editsm Reverted 1 edit by 204.129.220.72 (talk) to last revision by Materialscientist. (TW)← Previous edit Latest revision as of 16:18, 20 December 2024 edit undoMinturn (talk | contribs)Extended confirmed users1,853 edits What is it about referring to women by their first names, but men by their last? 
(193 intermediate revisions by more than 100 users not shown)
Line 1: Line 1:
{{Short description|1784–1785 scandal involving Marie Antoinette}}
{{for|the film based on these events|The Affair of the Necklace (2001 film)}}
] for his mistress, ]. At the death of the King, the necklace was unpaid for, almost bankrupting the jewellers and leading to various unsuccessful schemes to secure a sale to Queen ].]] ] of ] for his mistress, ]. At the death of the King, the necklace was unpaid for, which almost bankrupted the jewellers and then led to various unsuccessful schemes to secure a sale to Queen ].]]


The '''Affair of the Diamond Necklace''' ({{Langx|fr|Affaire du collier de la reine}}, "Affair of the Queen's Necklace") was an incident from 1784 to 1785 at the court of King ] of ] that involved his wife, Queen ].
The '''Affair of the Diamond Necklace''' was an incident in the 1780s (1781) at the court of ] of ] involving his wife, Queen ]. The reputation of the Queen, which was already tarnished by gossip, was ruined by the implication that she had participated in a crime to defraud the crown jewellers of the cost of a very expensive diamond necklace. The Affair was historically significant as one of the events that led to the French populace's disillusionment with the ], which, among other causes, eventually culminated in the ].

The Queen's reputation, already tarnished by gossip, was further sullied by the false accusation that she had participated in a crime to defraud the Crown's jewellers in acquiring a very expensive diamond necklace she then refused to pay for. In reality, she rejected the idea of buying it only to have her signature forged by ]. Although Valois-Saint-Rémy was later convicted, the event remains historically significant as one of many that led to the French disillusionment with the ], in that it was one of the contemporary scandals that gave moral weight and popular support for the ].


==Background== ==Background==
], France]] ]'' (Breteuil Castle), France.]]


In 1772, ] decided to make ], with whom he was infatuated, a special gift at the estimated cost of 2,000,000 ] (approximately $14 million in 2015 USD). He requested that Parisian jewelers Boehmer and Bassenge create a diamond necklace which would surpass all others in grandeur. It would take the jewelers several years and a great deal of money to amass an appropriate set of diamonds. In the meantime, Louis XV died of ], and du Barry was banished from court by his grandson and successor. In 1772, ] of France decided to make ], one of his mistresses, a special gift at the estimated cost of 2,000,000 ] (approximately US$17.5 million in 2024). He requested that ]ian jewelers Charles Auguste Boehmer and Paul Bassenge create a diamond necklace that would surpass all others in grandeur.


It took the jewellers several years and a great deal of money to gather an appropriate set of diamonds. In the meantime, Louis XV died of ] and his grandson and successor banished Madame du Barry from the court.
The necklace consisted of many large ] arranged in an elaborate design of ], ] and ]. The jewelers hoped it could be a product that the new Queen of France, Marie Antoinette, could buy and indeed in 1778 the new king, ], offered it to his wife as a present, but she refused.<ref name=antonia52>Fraser, 226&ndash;228.</ref> According to ], the Queen refused it with the statement that the money would be better spent equipping a ]. Some said that Marie Antoinette refused the necklace because she did not want to wear any jewel that had been designed for another woman, especially if that woman was a ] she disliked. According to others, Louis XVI himself changed his mind.


It was, according to the historian Thomas Carlyle, "a row of seventeen glorious diamonds, as large almost as ]... a three-wreathed festoon, and pendants enough (simple pear shaped, multiple star-shaped, or clustering amorphous) encircle it... around a very Queen of Diamonds".<ref name=":3">{{Cite book|title=The Diamond Necklace|last=Thomas|first=Carlyle|publisher=N.p.|year=1913}}</ref> The jewellers hoped it would be a product that the new Queen of France, Marie Antoinette, would buy and indeed in 1778 the new king, ], offered it to his wife as a present, but she refused.<ref name="antonia52">Fraser, 226&ndash;228.</ref> The queen initially turned it down stating (if Carlyle is to be believed) "We have more need of ] than of necklaces."<ref name=":3" /> Some said that Marie Antoinette refused the necklace because it was created for du Barry, whom she strongly disliked. According to others, Louis XVI himself changed his mind.<ref name="EB1911">{{EB1911|inline=1|wstitle=Diamond Necklace, The Affair of the|volume=8|pages=164–165}} This cites:
After having vainly tried to place the necklace outside France, the jewelers again attempted to sell it to Marie Antoinette after the birth of the ] ] in 1781. The Queen again refused.
*], ''Marie Antoinette devant l'histoire: Essai bibliographique'' (2nd ed., Paris, 1901)
*], ''Marie Antoinette et le procès du collier'' (Paris, 1863)
*P. Audebert, ''L'Affaire du collier de la reine, d'après la correspondance inédite du chevalier de Pujol'' (Rouen, 1901)
*F. d'Albini, ''Marie Antoinette and the Diamond Necklace from another Point of View'' (London, 1900)
*], ''L'Affaire du collier'' (1903)
*], ''Historical Mysteries'' (1904)
*] essay on ''The Diamond Necklace'' (first published in 1837 in '']'') is of historical literary interest.</ref>


After having vainly tried to place the necklace outside France, the jewellers again attempted to sell it to Marie Antoinette after the birth of ], in 1781. The Queen again refused.<ref name="EB1911"/>
==The Affair==
]


==Affair==
A ] who called herself ], also known as Jeanne de la Motte, conceived a plan to use the necklace to gain wealth and possibly power and royal patronage. A descendant of an ] son of ], Jeanne had married an officer of the ], the '']'' ], and was living on a small pension which the King had granted her.
]


A ]ster who called herself ], also known as Jeanne de la Motte, made a plan to use the necklace to gain wealth and possibly power and royal patronage. A descendant of an ] son of ], Jeanne had married an officer of the ], ], the ] "Comte de la Motte". She was living on a small pension that had been granted to her by the King.
In March 1785, Jeanne became the mistress of the ], a former French ] to the court of ].<ref>Joan Haslip "Marie Antoinette", page 167</ref> The Cardinal was regarded with displeasure by Queen ] for having spread rumors about the Queen's behavior to her formidable mother, the Austrian empress ]. The Queen had also learned of a letter in which the Cardinal spoke of Maria Theresa in a way that the Queen found offensive.


In March 1785, Jeanne became the mistress of the ], a former French ] to the court of ].<ref></ref> The Cardinal was regarded with displeasure by Queen ] for having spread rumors about the Queen's behavior to her formidable mother, Holy Roman Empress ]. The Queen had also learned of a letter in which the Cardinal wrote of Maria Theresa in a manner that the Queen found offensive.
At this time, the Cardinal was trying to regain the Queen's favour to become one of the King's ministers. Jeanne de la Motte, having entered court by means of a lover named ], persuaded Rohan that she had been received by the Queen and enjoyed her favour. On hearing of this, Rohan resolved to use Jeanne to regain the Queen's goodwill. Jeanne assured the Cardinal that she was making efforts on his behalf.


The Cardinal was then trying to regain the Queen's favor to become one of the King's ministers. Jeanne de la Motte, having entered court utilizing a lover named ], persuaded Rohan that she had been received by the Queen and enjoyed her favor. On hearing of that, Rohan resolved to use Jeanne to regain the Queen's goodwill. Jeanne assured the Cardinal that she was making efforts on his behalf.<ref name=" EB1911"/>
]]]
This began an alleged correspondence between Rohan and the Queen, Jeanne de la Motte returning replies to Rohan's notes, which she affirmed came from the Queen. The tone of the letters became very warm, and the Cardinal, convinced that Marie Antoinette was in love with him, became enamoured of her. He begged Jeanne to arrange a secret night-time interview for him with the Queen, and the supposed meeting took place in August 1784. In the garden of the ], the Cardinal met with a woman whom he believed to be the Queen but in fact was a prostitute, Nicole Leguay, who Jeanne had hired because of her resemblance to the Queen. Rohan offered Leguay a rose, and, in her role as the Queen, she promised him that she would forget their past disagreements.


]]]
Jeanne de la Motte took advantage of the Cardinal's belief in her by borrowing large sums of money from him, telling him that they were for the Queen’s charity work. With this money, Jeanne was able to make her way into respectable society. Because she openly boasted about her relationship with the Queen, many assumed the relationship was genuine.
Thus began an alleged correspondence between Rohan and the Queen. Jeanne de la Motte returned the replies to Rohan's notes, which she affirmed came from the Queen. As the tone of the letters became very warm, the Cardinal, convinced that Marie Antoinette was in love with him, became enamored of her. He begged Jeanne to arrange a secret night-time interview with the Queen on his behalf; the supposed meeting took place in August 1784. In the gardens of the ], the Cardinal met with a woman whom he believed to be Marie Antoinette. In fact, the woman was a prostitute, ], whom Jeanne had hired because of her resemblance to the Queen. Rohan offered her a rose. In her role as the Queen, she promised him that she would forget their past disagreements.<ref name="EB1911"/>

Jeanne de la Motte took advantage of the Cardinal's belief in her by borrowing large sums of money from him, telling him that they were for the Queen's charity work. With that money, Jeanne could make her way into respectable society. As she openly boasted about her mythical relationship with the Queen, many assumed that the affair was genuine.


] ]
The jewellers Boehmer and Bassenge resolved to use her to sell their necklace. She at first refused a ], but then changed her mind and accepted it. The jewelers Boehmer and Bassenge resolved to use her to sell their necklace. She, at first, refused a ], but then changed her mind and accepted it. According to ], Jeanne, pretending to be the Queen, sent several letters to the Cardinal, including an order to buy the necklace. They were signed "Marie Antoinette de France", but the Cardinal did not know or remember that French royals signed only with their given names.


On 21 January 1785, Jeanne told the Cardinal that Marie Antoinette wanted to buy the necklace but, not wishing to purchase such an expensive item publicly during a time of need, the Queen wanted the Cardinal to act as a secret intermediary. A little while later, Rohan negotiated the purchase of the necklace for 2,000,000 livres, to be paid in installments. He claimed to have the Queen's authorization for the purchase and showed the jewelers the conditions of the bargain in the Queen's handwriting. Rohan took the necklace to Jeanne's house, where a man, whom Rohan believed to be a ] of the Queen, came to fetch it. The diamond necklace "was promptly picked apart, and the gems sold on the black markets of Paris and London" by Madame de la Motte.<ref name=":12">{{Cite book|title=Private Lives and Public Affairs|last=Maza|first=Sarah C.|publisher=University of California Press|year=1993}}</ref>
According to Madame Campan, Jeanne, pretending to be the Queen, sent several letters to the cardinal, including an order to buy the necklace. They were signed "Marie Antoinette de France"; the Cardinal either did not know or did not remember that French queens signed with their given names only.


When the time came to pay, Jeanne de la Motte presented the Cardinal's notes, but they were insufficient. Boehmer complained to the Queen, who told him that she had neither ordered nor received the necklace. She had the story of the negotiations repeated for her,<ref name="EB1911"/> and by August began making arrests, following which the scandal broke loose.
On 21 January 1785, Jeanne told the Cardinal that Marie Antoinette wanted to buy the necklace; but, not wishing to purchase such an expensive item publicly during a time of need, the Queen wanted the Cardinal to act as a secret intermediary. A little while later, Rohan negotiated the purchase of the necklace for 2,000,000 ], to be paid in installments. He claimed to have the Queen's authorization for the purchase, and showed the jewellers the conditions of the bargain in the Queen's handwriting. Rohan took the necklace to Jeanne's house, where a man, whom Rohan believed to be a ] of the Queen, came to fetch it. Jeanne de la Motte's husband secretly took the necklace to ], where it was broken up to sell the large individual diamonds separately.


== Scandal ==
When time came to pay, Jeanne de la Motte presented the Cardinal's notes, but these were insufficient. Boehmer complained to the Queen, who told him that she had neither ordered nor received the necklace. She had the story of the negotiations repeated for her. Then followed a '']''. On 15 August 1785, the ], while the court was awaiting the King and Queen to go to the chapel, the Cardinal de Rohan, who was to officiate, was taken before the King, the Queen, the Minister of the Court ] and the Keeper of the Seals ] to explain himself. Rohan produced a letter signed "Marie Antoinette de France". On reading this, the King became furious that Rohan, a '']'', could have let himself be fooled, since royalty do not use surnames. Rohan was arrested and taken to the ]; on the way he sent home a note ordering the destruction of his correspondence. Jeanne was not arrested until three days later, giving her a chance to destroy her papers.
The controversy of the event stems from the arrest of the Cardinal in the ] at Versailles and the trial that declared him innocent and Jeanne de la Motte Valois and her accomplices guilty.


On 15 August 1785, the feast of the ], while the court was awaiting the King and the Queen to go to the chapel, the Cardinal de Rohan, who was to officiate, was taken before the King, the Queen, the Minister of the Court ] and the Keeper of the Seals ] to explain himself. Rohan produced a letter signed "Marie Antoinette de France". Royalty signed with only the baptismal name, but that fact was missed by Rohan and brought up during his trial and "prejudiced the King against Rohan" as he "breath royal etiquette since birth... and could not understand how a courtier, and above all a Rohan, a member of a family so keen on the details of status, could make such a mistake".<ref name=":02">{{Cite book|title=The Diamond Necklace|last=Thomas.|first=Carlyle|publisher=N.p.: Houghton Mifflin|year=1913}}</ref>
The police arrested the prostitute Nicole Leguay and Rétaux de Villette, who confessed that he had written the letters given to Rohan in the queen's name, and had imitated her signature. The noted ] ] was also arrested, although it is doubtful whether he had any part in the affair. <s>The</s> <s>claim that Cagliostro was convicted as a sorcerer by a court of the Inquisition in the Vatican jurisdiction is not strictly correct. He was accused of being a Freemason, which was contrary to two papal edicts previously issued. He was condemned to death later commuted to life imprisonment. One author believes that Cagliostro was a convenient scapegoat, used to reinforce the propaganda that Freemasons were the architects of the French Revolution, and part of a conspiracy to topple monarchs all over Europe<nowiki><ref>Wade N.V.,"Count Cagliostro, "Freemason or Fraud?", lecture to the Stationers' Company's School Lodge No 7460, 11 December 2015, Mark Masons' Hall ,London (Full text to be published in 2016) </ref></nowiki>.</s>


Rohan was arrested and taken to the ]. On the way, he sent home a note ordering the destruction of his correspondence. Jeanne was not arrested until three days later, giving her a chance to destroy her papers.{{sfn|Chisholm|1911}}
The Cardinal de Rohan accepted the '']'' as judges. ] was incensed, since he believed that the cardinal should be tried by his natural judge (i.e., himself). However, his notes remained unanswered. A sensational trial resulted in the acquittal of the Cardinal, Leguay, and Cagliostro on 31 May 1786. Jeanne de la Motte was condemned to be whipped, ] with a V (for ''voleuse'', "thief") on each shoulder, and sent to life imprisonment in the prostitutes' prison at the ]. In June of the following year, she escaped from prison disguised as a boy.<ref>Haslip, page 179</ref> Meanwhile, her husband was condemned '']'' to the ]s for life. The forger Villette was banished.


The police arrested the prostitute Nicole Le Guay as well as Rétaux de Villette, who confessed that he had written the letters given to Rohan in the queen's name and had imitated her signature.<ref name="EB1911" /> The noted ] and ] ] was also arrested although it is doubtful whether he had any part in the affair.<ref>Wade N.V.,"Count Cagliostro, "Freemason or Fraud?", lecture to the Stationers' Company's School Lodge No 7460, 11 December 2015, Mark Masons' Hall, London (Full text to be published in 2016)</ref>
==The scandal==
] was much excited by this trial. Most historians{{Who?|date=September 2015}} come to the conclusion that Marie Antoinette was blameless in the matter, that Rohan was an innocent dupe, and that the La Mottes deceived both for their own ends. This was also broadly the finding of the Paris Parlement, although they did not comment on the actions of the Queen.


The Cardinal de Rohan accepted the ] de Paris as judges. ] was incensed, since he believed that the cardinal should be tried by his natural judge (himself). However, his notes remained unanswered. A sensational trial resulted in the acquittal of the Cardinal, Leguay and Cagliostro on 31 May 1786. "Rohan's choice of the Parliament, whatever the verdict, both prolonged matters and took them into the political arena".<ref>{{Cite book|title=Marie Antoinette: The Journey|last=Fraiser|first=Antonia|publisher=DoubleDay|year=2001}}</ref> Jeanne de La Motte was condemned to whipping, branding with a V (for ''voleuse'', 'thief') on each shoulder, and sent to ] in the prostitutes' prison at the ].<ref name=":12"/> In June the following year, she escaped from prison by being disguised as a boy.<ref>Haslip, page 179</ref> Meanwhile, her husband was ] and condemned to be a ]. The forger Villette was banished.{{sfn|Chisholm|1911}} That made the event a matter of public interest, rather than being handled quietly and privately.
Despite the findings to the contrary, many people in France persisted in the belief that the Queen had used the La Mottes as an instrument to satisfy her hatred of the Cardinal de Rohan. Various circumstances fortified this belief. There was the Queen's disappointment at Rohan's acquittal, and the fact that the Cardinal was afterwards deprived by the King of his charges and exiled to the Abbey of ]. In addition, the people assumed that the ]'s acquittal of Rohan implied that Marie Antoinette was somehow in the wrong. All of these factors led to a huge decline in the Queen's popularity and encouraged an image of her among the masses as a manipulative spendthrift, interested more in vanity than in the welfare of France and the French.


] was much excited by the trial. The Paris Parliament did not comment on the alleged actions of the Queen. The trial found Marie Antoinette blameless in the matter, Rohan an innocent dupe, and that de La Mottes deceived both for their own ends.{{Clarify|date=April 2019}}<ref name="EB1911" />
Jeanne de la Motte took refuge in London and in 1789 she published her ''Mémoires Justificatifs'', in which she once again accused the Queen.

Despite findings to the contrary, many people in France persisted in the belief that the Queen used the La Mottes as an instrument to satisfy her hatred of the Cardinal de Rohan. Various circumstances fortified that belief: the Queen's disappointment at Rohan's acquittal and the fact that he was afterwards deprived by the King of his charges and exiled to the ].<ref name="EB1911"/> In addition, the people assumed that the ]'s acquittal of Rohan implied that Marie Antoinette had somehow been in the wrong. All of those factors led to a huge decline in the Queen's popularity and impressed an image of her to the public as a manipulative spendthrift who was more interested in vanity than in the welfare of her people.

Jeanne de la Motte took refuge in London, and in 1789, she published her ''Mémoires Justificatifs'' in which she once again libelled Queen Marie Antoinette.


==Significance== ==Significance==
]
The affair of the diamond necklace was important in discrediting the ] in the eyes of the French people, four years before the ]. ] became even more unpopular, and malicious gossip about her made her even more of a liability to her husband.<ref name=antonia54>Fraser, 239.</ref> She was never able to shake off the idea in the public imagination that she had perpetrated an extravagant fraud for her own frivolous ends. Nonetheless, the affair prompted Louis XVI to become closer to his wife, and may have inclined him to be more defensive of and more responsive to her leading up to and during the revolution.
The affair of the diamond necklace was important in discrediting the ] in the eyes of the French people four years before the ]. ] became even more unpopular, and malicious gossip about her made her a greater liability to her husband.<ref name="antonia54">Fraser, 239.</ref>


After the affair broke out to the general public there was an increase in literature defaming the Queen. Her "unpopularity was so great after the Diamond Necklace Affair that it could no longer be ignored by either the queen or the government. Her appearances in public all but ceased."<ref name=":2">{{Cite journal|last=Barker|first=Nancy|date=Summer 1993|title=Let Them Eat Cake: The Mythical Marie Antoinette and the French Revolution|journal=The Historian|volume=55|issue=4|pages=709–724|doi=10.1111/j.1540-6563.1993.tb00920.x}}</ref> As she was associated with the scandal and already considered by some to be an enemy of the French people, her reputation was irreversibly destroyed.<ref name=":02"/>
==The affair in fiction==

Marie Antoinette's reputation never recovered from this incident. Her early history of excessive spending had already ] her popularity, but the Diamond Necklace Affair catapulted public opinion of her into near-hatred, since she appeared to have plotted to misuse more of the kingdom's depleting money for personal trinkets.

]

The Diamond Necklace Affair heightened the French general public's hatred and disdain for Marie Antoinette since it was "designed to leave the queen in a state of scandal, with the impossibility of claiming any truth for herself".<ref>{{Cite journal |jstor = 1343862|title = Terrorizing Marie Antoinette|journal = Critical Inquiry|volume = 20|issue = 3|pages = 379–400|last1 = Saint-Amand|first1 = Pierre|last2 = Gage|first2 = Jennifer Curtiss|year = 1994|doi = 10.1086/448718| s2cid=153443672 }}</ref> The ] nightmare led to an increase in salacious and degrading pamphlets, which would serve as kindling for the oncoming French Revolution. It could be said that "she symbolized, among other things, the lavishness and corruption of a dying regime" and served as "the perfect scapegoat of the morality play that the revolution in part became", which made her a target for the hatred of the French Republic and groups like the ] and the '']''.<ref name=":2" />

She was never able to shake off the idea in public imagination that she had perpetrated an extravagant fraud for her own frivolous ends. Nonetheless, the affair prompted Louis XVI to become closer to his wife and may have inclined him to be more defensive of and more responsive to her before and during the Revolution.

==In fiction==
* ''The Great Cophta'', by ] (1791)
* ''Diamond Necklace'', by ] (1837) * ''Diamond Necklace'', by ] (1837)
* '']'', by ] (1848) (ISBN 1-58963-209-5) * '']'', by ] (1848) ({{ISBN|1-58963-209-5}})
* "The Queen's Necklace", by ] (1905) (An Arsène Lupin Story) * "The Queen's Necklace", by ] (1905) (An Arsène Lupin Story)
* '']'', starring Norma Shearer, Tyrone Power, John Barrymore, and Robert Morley (1938)
* ''The Queen's Necklace'', by ] (1943) * ''The Queen's Necklace'', by ] (1943)
* '']'', a film directed by ] and starring ] (1946)
* '']'', a film starring ] (1949), an adaptation of ]'s novel ''Joseph Balsamo'' (''Mémoires d'un médecin: Joseph Balsamo'', 1846–48) (a.k.a. ''Memoirs of a Physician'', '']'', '']'', ''The Countess Dubarry'', or ''The Elixir of Life'') the first of his ] romances.
* ''The Queen of Diamonds'', by ] (1958) * ''The Queen of Diamonds'', by ] (1958)
* "il diavolo in giardino", Comedy by Luchino Visconti, Filippo Sanjust and Enrico Medioli. Music by Franco Mannino (Palermo, 1963)
* '']'', by ] (part of the ] comic series) (1967) * '']'', by ] (part of the ] comic series) (1967)
* '']'', by ], first published 1973 (]); ] TV series, 1979 * '']'', by ], first published 1973 (]); ] television series, 1979
* ''Norby and the Queen's Necklace'', by ] (1986) * ''Norby and the Queen's Necklace'', by ] (1986)
* ''Blade of the Guillotine'', by ] (part of the ] series) (1986) * ''Blade of the Guillotine'', by ] (part of the '']'' series) (1986)
* ''"The Necklace of Love"'', a romantic novel by Barbara Cartland (1989) in which the necklace was smuggled to England and is owned by the heroine's family
* '']'', a 1949 film starring ]
* '']'' (2001 film) * '']'' (2001 film)
* In the ''Feddal Castle Series'' by H.C. Delaval, the second novel ''The Fourteenth Lady of Feddal'', the necklace is revealed to have been secreted into a chandelier in the drawing room of Feddal Castle. This is why it is dubbed ''The Versailles Chandelier'' in the series as it was supposedly sent before the French Revolution by Louis XVI to the then Lord Burdon of Feddal.
* ''Dress-Up! Time Princess'', as part of the ''Queen Marie'' story and ''The Affair of the Necklace'' mini-story (2017 game)
*''Stealing the World's Most Expensive Necklace'' (2020 YouTube video) by Watcher Entertainment's Shane Madej in the ] Series.
* In '']'', the necklace is one of the several on display in the fictional ] exhibit.
* The Affair of the Necklace is the main story told in the 2023 musical "Cake: The Marie Antoinette Playlist"<ref>{{cite web | url=https://www.whatsonstage.com/shows/norwich-theatre/cake-the-marie-antionette-playlist_293492 | title=Cake - the Marie Antionette PLAYlist tickets &#124; Norwich &#124; reviews, cast and info &#124; WhatsOnStage | date=17 May 2023 }}</ref> by Morgan Lloyd Malcolm, with music and lyrics by Tasha Taylor Johnson and ]
* ], directed by ], refers to the necklace, thus obliquely to the affair, in a scene where the queen refuses the king's offer of it.


==Footnotes== ==See also==
* ]

==References==
{{reflist}} {{reflist}}


==Further reading== ==Sources==
{{commonscat|Collier de la reine}}
* Beckman, Jonathan. ''How to Ruin a Queen: Marie Antoinette and the Diamond Necklace Affair'' (2014), scholarly study * Beckman, Jonathan. ''How to Ruin a Queen: Marie Antoinette and the Diamond Necklace Affair'' (2014), scholarly study
*{{cite book |last= Fraser |first=Antonia |authorlink=Antonia Fraser |title= Marie Antoinette, The Journey |year=2001 |publisher=Anchor |isbn=0-7538-1305-X}} * {{cite book |last= Fraser |first=Antonia |author-link=Antonia Fraser |title= Marie Antoinette, The Journey |url= https://archive.org/details/marieantoinette00anto_0 |url-access= registration |year=2001 |publisher=Anchor |isbn=0-7538-1305-X}}
* Sarah Maza, ''Private Lives and Public Affairs - The Causes Célèbres of Prerevolutionary France'', University of California Press, 1993. {{ISBN|0-520-20163-9}}.
* {{EB1911|wstitle=Diamond Necklace, The Affair of the|volume=8}}
* ], ''The Great Nation'', 2002, chapter 8.A (Penguin 2003, {{ISBN|9780140130935}})
* Sarah Maza, ''Private Lives and Public Affairs - The Causes Célèbres of Prerevolutionary France'', University of California Press, 1993. ISBN 0-520-20163-9.
* Mossiker, Frances, ''The Queen's Necklace''.
* ], ''The Great Nation'', 2002, chapter 8.A (Penguin 2003, ISBN 9780140130935)

*Mossiker, Frances, 'The Queen's Necklace'.
== External links ==
* {{commons category-inline|Collier de la reine}}

{{Authority control}}


] ]
] ]
] ]
]
] ]
]
] ]
] ]
]
]
]

Latest revision as of 16:18, 20 December 2024

1784–1785 scandal involving Marie Antoinette
The diamond necklace was commissioned by Louis XV of France for his mistress, Madame du Barry. At the death of the King, the necklace was unpaid for, which almost bankrupted the jewellers and then led to various unsuccessful schemes to secure a sale to Queen Marie Antoinette.

The Affair of the Diamond Necklace (French: Affaire du collier de la reine, "Affair of the Queen's Necklace") was an incident from 1784 to 1785 at the court of King Louis XVI of France that involved his wife, Queen Marie Antoinette.

The Queen's reputation, already tarnished by gossip, was further sullied by the false accusation that she had participated in a crime to defraud the Crown's jewellers in acquiring a very expensive diamond necklace she then refused to pay for. In reality, she rejected the idea of buying it only to have her signature forged by Jeanne de Valois-Saint-Rémy. Although Valois-Saint-Rémy was later convicted, the event remains historically significant as one of many that led to the French disillusionment with the monarchy, in that it was one of the contemporary scandals that gave moral weight and popular support for the French Revolution.

Background

"The Queen's necklace", reconstruction, Château de Breteuil (Breteuil Castle), France.

In 1772, Louis XV of France decided to make Madame du Barry, one of his mistresses, a special gift at the estimated cost of 2,000,000 livres (approximately US$17.5 million in 2024). He requested that Parisian jewelers Charles Auguste Boehmer and Paul Bassenge create a diamond necklace that would surpass all others in grandeur.

It took the jewellers several years and a great deal of money to gather an appropriate set of diamonds. In the meantime, Louis XV died of smallpox and his grandson and successor banished Madame du Barry from the court.

It was, according to the historian Thomas Carlyle, "a row of seventeen glorious diamonds, as large almost as filberts... a three-wreathed festoon, and pendants enough (simple pear shaped, multiple star-shaped, or clustering amorphous) encircle it... around a very Queen of Diamonds". The jewellers hoped it would be a product that the new Queen of France, Marie Antoinette, would buy and indeed in 1778 the new king, Louis XVI, offered it to his wife as a present, but she refused. The queen initially turned it down stating (if Carlyle is to be believed) "We have more need of seventy-fours than of necklaces." Some said that Marie Antoinette refused the necklace because it was created for du Barry, whom she strongly disliked. According to others, Louis XVI himself changed his mind.

After having vainly tried to place the necklace outside France, the jewellers again attempted to sell it to Marie Antoinette after the birth of Louis Joseph, Dauphin of France, in 1781. The Queen again refused.

Affair

Jeanne de Saint-Rémy de Valois (Jeanne de la Motte)

A confidence trickster who called herself Jeanne de Valois-Saint-Rémy, also known as Jeanne de la Motte, made a plan to use the necklace to gain wealth and possibly power and royal patronage. A descendant of an out-of-wedlock son of Henry II of France, Jeanne had married an officer of the gendarmes, Nicholas de la Motte, the self-proclaimed "Comte de la Motte". She was living on a small pension that had been granted to her by the King.

In March 1785, Jeanne became the mistress of the Cardinal de Rohan, a former French ambassador to the court of Vienna. The Cardinal was regarded with displeasure by Queen Marie Antoinette for having spread rumors about the Queen's behavior to her formidable mother, Holy Roman Empress Maria Theresa. The Queen had also learned of a letter in which the Cardinal wrote of Maria Theresa in a manner that the Queen found offensive.

The Cardinal was then trying to regain the Queen's favor to become one of the King's ministers. Jeanne de la Motte, having entered court utilizing a lover named Rétaux de Villette, persuaded Rohan that she had been received by the Queen and enjoyed her favor. On hearing of that, Rohan resolved to use Jeanne to regain the Queen's goodwill. Jeanne assured the Cardinal that she was making efforts on his behalf.

Cardinal de Rohan

Thus began an alleged correspondence between Rohan and the Queen. Jeanne de la Motte returned the replies to Rohan's notes, which she affirmed came from the Queen. As the tone of the letters became very warm, the Cardinal, convinced that Marie Antoinette was in love with him, became enamored of her. He begged Jeanne to arrange a secret night-time interview with the Queen on his behalf; the supposed meeting took place in August 1784. In the gardens of the Palace of Versailles, the Cardinal met with a woman whom he believed to be Marie Antoinette. In fact, the woman was a prostitute, Nicole Le Guay d'Oliva, whom Jeanne had hired because of her resemblance to the Queen. Rohan offered her a rose. In her role as the Queen, she promised him that she would forget their past disagreements.

Jeanne de la Motte took advantage of the Cardinal's belief in her by borrowing large sums of money from him, telling him that they were for the Queen's charity work. With that money, Jeanne could make her way into respectable society. As she openly boasted about her mythical relationship with the Queen, many assumed that the affair was genuine.

Marie Antoinette, Queen of France

The jewelers Boehmer and Bassenge resolved to use her to sell their necklace. She, at first, refused a commission, but then changed her mind and accepted it. According to Madame Campan, Jeanne, pretending to be the Queen, sent several letters to the Cardinal, including an order to buy the necklace. They were signed "Marie Antoinette de France", but the Cardinal did not know or remember that French royals signed only with their given names.

On 21 January 1785, Jeanne told the Cardinal that Marie Antoinette wanted to buy the necklace but, not wishing to purchase such an expensive item publicly during a time of need, the Queen wanted the Cardinal to act as a secret intermediary. A little while later, Rohan negotiated the purchase of the necklace for 2,000,000 livres, to be paid in installments. He claimed to have the Queen's authorization for the purchase and showed the jewelers the conditions of the bargain in the Queen's handwriting. Rohan took the necklace to Jeanne's house, where a man, whom Rohan believed to be a valet of the Queen, came to fetch it. The diamond necklace "was promptly picked apart, and the gems sold on the black markets of Paris and London" by Madame de la Motte.

When the time came to pay, Jeanne de la Motte presented the Cardinal's notes, but they were insufficient. Boehmer complained to the Queen, who told him that she had neither ordered nor received the necklace. She had the story of the negotiations repeated for her, and by August began making arrests, following which the scandal broke loose.

Scandal

The controversy of the event stems from the arrest of the Cardinal in the Hall of Mirrors at Versailles and the trial that declared him innocent and Jeanne de la Motte Valois and her accomplices guilty.

On 15 August 1785, the feast of the Assumption of Mary, while the court was awaiting the King and the Queen to go to the chapel, the Cardinal de Rohan, who was to officiate, was taken before the King, the Queen, the Minister of the Court Louis Auguste Le Tonnelier de Breteuil and the Keeper of the Seals Armand Thomas Hue de Miromesnil to explain himself. Rohan produced a letter signed "Marie Antoinette de France". Royalty signed with only the baptismal name, but that fact was missed by Rohan and brought up during his trial and "prejudiced the King against Rohan" as he "breath royal etiquette since birth... and could not understand how a courtier, and above all a Rohan, a member of a family so keen on the details of status, could make such a mistake".

Rohan was arrested and taken to the Bastille. On the way, he sent home a note ordering the destruction of his correspondence. Jeanne was not arrested until three days later, giving her a chance to destroy her papers.

The police arrested the prostitute Nicole Le Guay as well as Rétaux de Villette, who confessed that he had written the letters given to Rohan in the queen's name and had imitated her signature. The noted Freemason and occultist Alessandro Cagliostro was also arrested although it is doubtful whether he had any part in the affair.

The Cardinal de Rohan accepted the Parlement de Paris as judges. Pope Pius VI was incensed, since he believed that the cardinal should be tried by his natural judge (himself). However, his notes remained unanswered. A sensational trial resulted in the acquittal of the Cardinal, Leguay and Cagliostro on 31 May 1786. "Rohan's choice of the Parliament, whatever the verdict, both prolonged matters and took them into the political arena". Jeanne de La Motte was condemned to whipping, branding with a V (for voleuse, 'thief') on each shoulder, and sent to life imprisonment in the prostitutes' prison at the Salpêtrière. In June the following year, she escaped from prison by being disguised as a boy. Meanwhile, her husband was tried in absentia and condemned to be a galley slave. The forger Villette was banished. That made the event a matter of public interest, rather than being handled quietly and privately.

Public opinion was much excited by the trial. The Paris Parliament did not comment on the alleged actions of the Queen. The trial found Marie Antoinette blameless in the matter, Rohan an innocent dupe, and that de La Mottes deceived both for their own ends.

Despite findings to the contrary, many people in France persisted in the belief that the Queen used the La Mottes as an instrument to satisfy her hatred of the Cardinal de Rohan. Various circumstances fortified that belief: the Queen's disappointment at Rohan's acquittal and the fact that he was afterwards deprived by the King of his charges and exiled to the Abbey of La Chaise-Dieu. In addition, the people assumed that the Parlement of Paris's acquittal of Rohan implied that Marie Antoinette had somehow been in the wrong. All of those factors led to a huge decline in the Queen's popularity and impressed an image of her to the public as a manipulative spendthrift who was more interested in vanity than in the welfare of her people.

Jeanne de la Motte took refuge in London, and in 1789, she published her Mémoires Justificatifs in which she once again libelled Queen Marie Antoinette.

Significance

Marie Antoinette depicted as a Beast

The affair of the diamond necklace was important in discrediting the Bourbon monarchy in the eyes of the French people four years before the French Revolution. Marie Antoinette became even more unpopular, and malicious gossip about her made her a greater liability to her husband.

After the affair broke out to the general public there was an increase in literature defaming the Queen. Her "unpopularity was so great after the Diamond Necklace Affair that it could no longer be ignored by either the queen or the government. Her appearances in public all but ceased." As she was associated with the scandal and already considered by some to be an enemy of the French people, her reputation was irreversibly destroyed.

Marie Antoinette's reputation never recovered from this incident. Her early history of excessive spending had already blemished her popularity, but the Diamond Necklace Affair catapulted public opinion of her into near-hatred, since she appeared to have plotted to misuse more of the kingdom's depleting money for personal trinkets.

Marie Antoinette's Execution on 16 October 1793

The Diamond Necklace Affair heightened the French general public's hatred and disdain for Marie Antoinette since it was "designed to leave the queen in a state of scandal, with the impossibility of claiming any truth for herself". The public relations nightmare led to an increase in salacious and degrading pamphlets, which would serve as kindling for the oncoming French Revolution. It could be said that "she symbolized, among other things, the lavishness and corruption of a dying regime" and served as "the perfect scapegoat of the morality play that the revolution in part became", which made her a target for the hatred of the French Republic and groups like the Jacobins and the sans-culottes.

She was never able to shake off the idea in public imagination that she had perpetrated an extravagant fraud for her own frivolous ends. Nonetheless, the affair prompted Louis XVI to become closer to his wife and may have inclined him to be more defensive of and more responsive to her before and during the Revolution.

In fiction

See also

References

  1. ^ Thomas, Carlyle (1913). The Diamond Necklace. N.p.
  2. Fraser, 226–228.
  3. ^  One or more of the preceding sentences incorporates text from a publication now in the public domain: Chisholm, Hugh, ed. (1911). "Diamond Necklace, The Affair of the". Encyclopædia Britannica. Vol. 8 (11th ed.). Cambridge University Press. pp. 164–165. This cites:
    • Maurice Tourneux, Marie Antoinette devant l'histoire: Essai bibliographique (2nd ed., Paris, 1901)
    • Émile Campardon, Marie Antoinette et le procès du collier (Paris, 1863)
    • P. Audebert, L'Affaire du collier de la reine, d'après la correspondance inédite du chevalier de Pujol (Rouen, 1901)
    • F. d'Albini, Marie Antoinette and the Diamond Necklace from another Point of View (London, 1900)
    • Frantz Funck-Brentano, L'Affaire du collier (1903)
    • Andrew Lang, Historical Mysteries (1904)
    • Carlyle's essay on The Diamond Necklace (first published in 1837 in Fraser's Magazine) is of historical literary interest.
  4. Joan Haslip "Marie Antoinette", page 153
  5. ^ Maza, Sarah C. (1993). Private Lives and Public Affairs. University of California Press.
  6. ^ Thomas., Carlyle (1913). The Diamond Necklace. N.p.: Houghton Mifflin.
  7. ^ Chisholm 1911.
  8. Wade N.V.,"Count Cagliostro, "Freemason or Fraud?", lecture to the Stationers' Company's School Lodge No 7460, 11 December 2015, Mark Masons' Hall, London (Full text to be published in 2016)
  9. Fraiser, Antonia (2001). Marie Antoinette: The Journey. DoubleDay.
  10. Haslip, page 179
  11. Fraser, 239.
  12. ^ Barker, Nancy (Summer 1993). "Let Them Eat Cake: The Mythical Marie Antoinette and the French Revolution". The Historian. 55 (4): 709–724. doi:10.1111/j.1540-6563.1993.tb00920.x.
  13. Saint-Amand, Pierre; Gage, Jennifer Curtiss (1994). "Terrorizing Marie Antoinette". Critical Inquiry. 20 (3): 379–400. doi:10.1086/448718. JSTOR 1343862. S2CID 153443672.
  14. "Cake - the Marie Antionette PLAYlist tickets | Norwich | reviews, cast and info | WhatsOnStage". 17 May 2023.

Sources

External links

Categories: