Marie Antoinette was executed a few months later.
“Order! Order! Who’s the defendant today?” asked the judge.
“Indeed, Your Honor. This is Marie Antoinette, the Queen of France who was notorious for living in opulence while the peasants starved,” replied the prosecutor.
“That is sensationalist slander. Marie Antoinette had little power over her circumstances and spent her brief life trying to survive in a turbulent, foreign country,” said the defense attorney.
“You mean she wasn’t French? That’s right, Your Honor. She was born in 1755 as the Hapsburg Archduchess Maria Antonia. After two of her older sisters passed away, she became the only choice for a political marriage to Louis-August, heir to the French throne. Essentially, she was sacrificed to secure peace between Austria and France, all at the age of 14,” the attorney continued.
“She seemed to have had adjusted to this ‘sacrifice’ by 1774 when her husband was crowned king. She lived a life of luxury, wearing elaborate headdresses, importing foreign fabrics— she even had her own private chateau near Versailles! Meanwhile, France was in an economic tailspin. Bad harvests resulted in mass food shortages, wages were falling, and the cost of living had skyrocketed. Marie Antoinette’s expensive tastes were completely insensitive to the plight of her subjects,” the prosecutor argued.
“She was the Queen! If she hadn’t looked glamorous, she would have been criticized. Besides, she sometimes used her image for good. After convincing the King to be vaccinated against smallpox, she commissioned a special headdress to make the treatment fashionable for all. She also used her influence to appoint unqualified friends and admirers to important posts. Even more disastrous, she encouraged the King to get involved in the American Revolution, a conflict that cost France 1.5 billion francs,” the prosecutor added.
“Objection! The Queen had very little influence over her husband’s political decisions at that time. Besides, France’s financial crisis was much more related to the country’s outdated tax system and lack of an effective central bank,” the defense attorney interjected.
“How so? While France’s nobility and clergy had numerous tax exemptions, peasants often paid more than half their income in taxes. This system buried France in debt long before the Queen’s arrival. Her personal expenses were merely a scapegoat for decades of financial negligence,” the attorney responded.
“That doesn’t change that Marie Antoinette spent tax money on luxuries while the masses starved! She was so oblivious that when she heard people couldn’t afford bread, she recommended they eat cake instead,” the prosecutor argued.
“This is almost certainly a fabrication attributed to the Queen by her enemies. In fact, Marie Antoinette frequently engaged in charity work focused on addressing poverty. Her reputation as a heartless queen was based on rumors and slander. Even the most famous case against her was a complete fraud,” the defense attorney countered.
“Pardon?” the judge asked.
“In 1784, a thief forged fake letters from the Queen to purchase an outrageously expensive diamond necklace. The truth came out eventually, but the public already saw her as a wasteful spendthrift. Meanwhile, it’s really her husband who ruined France’s finances,” the attorney replied.
“On that, we agree. Louis XVI was an incompetent king. Even after the revolution began and he lost much of his power to the newly formed National Assembly, he refused to yield control. Louis vetoed numerous pieces of legislation— and he was supported by his conservative Queen. To a point. Marie Antoinette believed in the divine right of kings, but despite personal reservations, she tried to work with reformers. Though all she got in return were false reports that she was sleeping with them,” the prosecutor said.
“No amount of charity work could counter this avalanche of slander. The revolutionaries also prevented the King’s family from leaving Paris— how could she negotiate with people keeping her prisoner?” the defense attorney asked.
“Well, they were right to do so! In 1791, the royal couple tried fleeing to Austria to gather support and regain power. Even after they were caught, the King and Queen continued to pass military secrets to their Austrian contacts,” the prosecutor replied.
“Isn’t that treason?” the judge inquired.
“Certainly, and Louis was executed for it, alongside 32 other charges. Marie Antoinette was executed a few months later,” the attorney concluded. Even though some may argue that the King’s execution was justified, there is no excuse for how the new government treated Marie Antoinette. She was separated from her son and kept in a cell with no privacy. The tribunal prosecuting the Queen had no proof of her treason, so they resorted to baseless accusations of incest and orgies. Despite this, Marie Antoinette remained composed until the very end. Her last words were an apology to her executioner for stepping on his foot. Marie Antoinette was willing to betray her country in order to stay in power, and she remains a symbol of the wrongs of monarchy. She has become a convenient symbol, and an example of the public’s tendency to smear prominent women with their own fantasies and frustrations. So, was she guilty of being Queen? Should monarchs be judged by their personal qualities or the historical role they occupied? Can even the powerful be victims of circumstance? These are the questions that arise when we put history on trial.