what you think about Marie Antoineette she's good or bad ? she was innocent!!! Please real answers!!!?

Answer 1

Marie Antoinette was a very simple girl, never thought farther than what new fashion she could set at court, and was a great symbol of what was wrong for the bourgeoisie of Paris. She didn't deserve what she got, but she also could've bothered to open her eyes a little more as to what was going on in her country.

She never said "Let them eat cake", by the way.

Answer 2

Marie Antoinette was a product of her time. European royalty had become increasingly isolated from the people they were governing and increasingly interested in court intrigue, fashion and the display of wealth which was interpreted as displaying the glory of the nation. A good example of this would be the extravagances of Luis XIV, grandfather of Marie Antoinette's husband.
Marie Antoinette was never raised to rule. She was the coddled daughter of the emperor of Austria-Hungary. She had never been exposed to the realities of the people her husband or father governed and was in fact a pawn in the great diplomatic game to ensure peace between her father's empire and her husband's kingdom.
Marie Antoinette's death was not so much a punishment for her crimes as it was an act to guarantee that loyalists would not be able to reinstall them. The French Revolution had an active loyalist resistance just like the Russian Revolution did. The revolutionaries were very aware that England especially was interested in putting the royal family back on the throne. Thus the execution of the king and queen were practical steps to ensure the survival of the First French Republic.
Marie Antoinette was probably neither good nor bad, she just happened to be at the wrong place at the wrong time.

Answer 3

She wasnt a bad person, I guess. She was just a complete idiot, and compeltely oblivious to the suffering of the common people before the Revolution. She also made no attempt to understand the people, and seemed partly responsible for the economic problems that helped spur the Revolution, as she amounted massive gambling debts, throwing away national funds like there was no tomorrow. So while execution might have been a little harsh, especially by today's standards, to say she was completely innocent would be an overstatement.

Answer 4

Clueless. Her peasant playground at Versailles is all you need to see to understand how out of touch she was. Hardly a political person. She was neither guilty or innocent, just a kind of ignorant product of birth and her times.

Answer 5

I think the only thing she's guilty of is being a member of the royal family. She lived a sheltered life, so she didn't know about the plight of the people (she probably never said "let them eat cake"--it was just to show how ignorant she was of the situation).

Answer 6

I'd say she's innocent. But her ways did not endear people to her, obviously. She was a victim of the great bloodbath that took over France during the Revolution. I don't see why they had to kill her as she did not seem to pose a threat for their cause, good or ill. After Charlotte Corday stabbed Jean-Paul Marat, they really went after the imprisoned queen. Marat, you must remember, was Jacobin. He ordered the execution of virtually everybody in sight--the king, this man, that man, etc. Corday felt she had to kill him to save the lives of others. But shortly after she did her act, they killed the queen.

Answer 7

She's guilty mainly of being vain, spoiled, arrogant and clueless, like most of the royalty and nobility of her time.

Answer 8

She wasn't guilty. She was completely removed from the situation. She couldn't understand it and didn't have a frame of reference for poverty.