What was your take on Marie Antoinette? Do you feel that she was a pawn or a silly greedy woman?

Question

Do you think it was fair to execute her and torture her son and daughter? They killed Louis as well but do you think that was necessary?

Did the executions and torture hinder the new government policies in attaining allies?
And how did all of that benefit the people?
I dont see it do You?

Answer 1

Let's see here....she was fourteen when she married Louis XVI and shipped off to the alien Versailles, which was completely unlike the rigid court of Vienna, being silly, expensive, and etiquette-swamped. Although trained in classical endeavors of women at the time (etiquette, dancing, painting, blah blah) she really had no headstrong education to rule a country, and it didn't help that Louis was timid and made for a terribly inept political figure (unlike his grandfather and younger brother, Charles d'Artois, who were both respected by the French and pretty dashing by 18th century standards). At court she was at odds with the king's mistress, the Madame du Barry, and was a pawn of her aunts-in-laws (Victoire, Sophie, and someone else...I forget who). At first I think she was a naive pawn, but sometime after she became queen and produced an heir her lavish behavior began to settle down. Unfortunately she was caught with the stigma of being sumptuous due to her teenage years' excess spending. While I think she was incredibly naive and unprepared for her responsibilites, I believe she wasn't an intentionally cruel and overlooking monarch.

Getting to your question....she had two children at the Temple Prison when she was executed (the dauphin had died of a bone cancer/TB before)....what did the children ever do to the rebels, really, is the question. While they could POTENTIALLY grow up to usurp the power of the French throne back, why was it necessary to torture children? Whether Louis' and MA's deaths were "necessary"...it depends on what you mean by that. Whether it was "necessary" to form a new government, probably. The aristocrats would still back their monarchs, but as soon as they were gone, they would have nothing for which to stay in the country. Whether it was "necessary" to end some suffering and economical hardships of the peasantry, probably not. Executions would not put bread on the tables of hungry peasants.

Answer 2

The execution seems excessive, they could have sent her back to Germany. She could have exercised better judgement just before and during the 'revolution'. Don't forget that she was an arrogant aristocrat with little regard for the Fench people - an attitude not uncommon for 'nobles' in her time.
She attempted escape but was caught - seems like she refused to dress as a common person.

Answer 3

I think that the fact that Marie was a silly, greedy woman made it easier for "them" to make her a pawn. They probably killed the others to cover their tracks.

Answer 4

She was greedy, they didn't need to execute them.