Was she a pretty lady?
Was she really evil?
Should she be the one to blame for everything?
Are any of her blood relatives still living today?
2007-07-17 16:16:34 · 8 answers · asked by Princess 2 in Arts & Humanities ➔ History
She was supposed to have been very beautiful. There are many paintings of her, at different ages and by different artists.
No. Immature and fun-loving in her youth. She changed after she had her children and more so after her imprisonment. Contemporary historians are revindicating her. It seems she was vilified in her time to justify sending her to the guillotine.
Not at all. There were deeper causes.
No direct descendants. Indirectly, through her brothers and sisters, probably.
If you're really interested, look up her biography by Antonia Fraser.
2007-07-17 16:51:16 · answer #1 · answered by Letizia 6 · 2⤊ 0⤋
Marie Antoinette was considered a fair beauty, but definitely one who set fashion and had a great deal of personality. You can research painting of her on the web. Not many on the web of her as a young woman. There's a really wonderful painting of her by Lebrun in the New Orleans Museum of Art. She has a radiant tone. However, you can see where there were prettier, but she was refined and in control of her person.
Many of her blood relatives are living today. All of Europe's royalty are related somehow. Marie Antoinette originally came from Austria.
Was she evil? no more than Paris Hilton is evil really. It's the same sort of self absorption and classist attitude.
While there are lots of things she was not guilty of, she was guilty of trying her best to protect the monarchy, and she was hatching a rather awful plot with her brother in Austria. However, I don't know if she was any worse than most others of her class. She was powerful for her position.
Hope this helps.
2007-07-17 23:46:39 · answer #2 · answered by Shanna S 4 · 2⤊ 0⤋
She was not evil, she was raised in the rarified air of the Austria court. She was the daughter of Maria Teresa the Empress of Austria. She was reported to be beautiful, but I cannot say she was the blame, more than than you can say that you can control the weather. If anyone is to blame, you need to blame the Americans. The french helped the Americans in the revolution, some historians say to excess, because the americans bleed the french white with amount of money the americans borrowed from the french. In the year shortly after the revolution, the americans declared they could not pay the debt, that is where jefferson helped he was able to get more credit to pay the french soldiers that served in the american army. However, when the famine came there was nothing left for the crown to do. secondly, it was Louis the 16th that decided to defy the State assembly, and treat them like they were peons. This gave them the right excuse for the french revolution to move right. The Capes broke with the protection of french law by attempting to flee the country, when he was discovered, with many other things cooked Louis' goose.
2007-07-18 21:35:49 · answer #3 · answered by datalj12 3 · 0⤊ 0⤋
1. I'm sure she was very pretty.
2. No, she just didn't have any idea of what the monarchy was doing to the people of France.
3. No but she does take part of the blame for raping the French treasury for buying clothes, jewelry, etc.
4. I doubt it.
2007-07-18 00:52:28 · answer #4 · answered by chrstnwrtr 7 · 0⤊ 0⤋
1. Yes very.
2. No not really but she did annoy alot of people for her lifestyle
3. In terms of the French Revolution, it was both her fault and her husband due to their extravagant lifestyle as well as her infamous quote "If they have no bread, then let them have cake". You don't need much imagination about how stupid it was to say that at the time of a famine.
4. She did conceive though I'm not sure if her descendants survive to this day.
2007-07-18 03:13:52 · answer #5 · answered by Lin Gai Va 4 · 1⤊ 0⤋
History states that she was pretty.
Most of the bad things written about her could be compared to today's tabloids. She was spoiled, but from what I have read not evil.
No she should not.
Its possible. She was one of eleven children. There are no direct descendants from her though. Three of her children died as children and the other did not have children.
2007-07-17 23:23:21 · answer #6 · answered by ? 7 · 2⤊ 0⤋
it seems that she couldn't keep her head in certain matters
2007-07-17 23:25:55 · answer #7 · answered by sshueman 5 · 2⤊ 0⤋
Yes.
No.
No.
I have no idea.
2007-07-17 23:23:42 · answer #8 · answered by Anonymous · 2⤊ 0⤋