The French Revolution to me, brings to mind images of how the people wore traces of the revolution on their persons with even the ladies featuring short cut locks with ribbons round their necks, the homage to guillotine executions. But also bright colors with red, white, and blue ribbons; a glorification of the cause for the people.
It's not right to claim the queens were not royal themselves, they were. Not only before their marriage, when they were royals at their parent's court, but later as royals through marriage in their husband's court. The family of the king was called the royal family for a reason. Of course they were still below the king, but they were royals nonetheless, both by birth and by marriage.
Whats up with this 'Habsburg rose' business... that totally isnt a thing at all. I have never heard, a single reference to a rose representing the House of Habsburg ever... Her simply wearing the color black isn't a reference to them either.
Im goin to say this again about colors.. 'purple of the Habsburgs' what? Their colors were black and gold and I'm not sure I've ever seen a portrait of MA wearing gold. Regardless, I don't think color symbolism played much of a role in court dress in Louis XVI's court, it was all frivolity. There was no hidden symbolism. The only symbolism was the ermine and blue robes with gold fleurs de lis in royal portraits, otherwise, no symbolism really at all IMO.
I'm enjoying this but I can tell you all that it was definitely NOT flour that they put on their wigs and hair. It was powder like talcum or face powder
No, according to household recipe books of the 18th and 19th centuries, such as The Toilette of Flora(1) and (2) ‘Five thousand receipts in all the useful and domestic arts‘ , published in 1779 and 1829, wheat, potato and rice starch were used most throughout the 18th and 19th century to make powders for the hair and body and not just plain normal flour! Wheat flour would be used as the start to a white, wheat starch and, if one couldn't get refined starch, white wheaten flour, which was an expensive and not common form of flour, used for every day, would serve well. The important thing , for men and women of the correct classes was TO BE POWDERED at all social events, to be unpowdered was considered very bad form, crude, rude and déclassé. But one could also use chalk or ground up fish bones in place of fine starch powders, as both were perfectly white and lightened the complexion a bit when applied. The mixture you chose was then perfumated with fresh or ground up flowers, spices or with florentine orrice root or essential oils. You could use what you wanted to smell like and there was no right or wrong when it came to hair powders! You could also colour your hair powder to your liking. (light pink or violet or grey hair powder was a thing back then!) It is still possible to get all the ingredients they used in the 18th and 19th century today. Even the ground up fish bones which smell…not really nice and people still do make them for personal uses. (1) The toilet of Flora; or, A collection of the most simple and approved methods of preparing baths, essences, pomatums, powders, perfumes, and sweet-scented waters. With receipts for cosmetics of every kind, that can smooth and brighten the skin, give force to beauty, and take off the appearance of old age and decay. For the use of the ladies by Buc'hoz, Pierre-Joseph, 1731-1807 Publication date 1779 (2) Five thousand receipts in all the useful and domestic arts : constituting a complete and universal practical library, and operative cyclopædia by MacKenzie, Colin; Mussey, Robert D., former owner Publication date 1829
She plays too much to the auddience, and makes some glaring errors. Marie Antoinette was certainly Royal, a princess of Austria, Count Fersen was certainly not the father of any of her children and dismissing Madame du Barry as a an ‘awful’ woman is a disservice to history. Must do better !
This lady is a very good speaker and certainly held my interest but there are certain "facts" she reveals that I would query...e.g. the hairdresser Autie planned the escape from Paris. I dont think so, that credit belongs to Axel Fersen. That Axel Fersen was the father of one of her children, that is very doubtful and has never been proved. Plus the death of Marie Antoinette's son from TB, again has not been proved. There are a few other questionable statements that she makes, which although they dont spoil the lecture would have been much better if she had them correct in the first place.
Oh Lord 🤨 More inaccurate info- She’s Laughable in her ignorance.🤪 MA’s hairdresser Leonard Autie was “rumored” to have taken the Queen’s jewels- In Reality she kept her jewels in a wooden box which was given to Ambassador Mercy to take to Austria, which he did and eventually they were given to Marie’s daughter “Madame Royale” who was allowed to live in Austria after the Revolution. *Secondly the idea that Leonard’ planned the escape is beyond laughable 🤣 It was Count Axel Ferson who planned the escape & it would have succeeded if MA hadn’t insisted, instead of 2 smaller, faster coaches-she wanted one large luxurious Berline coach for the whole family Plus more & Louis XVI told Ferson to leave them halfway to safety & after that the carriage broke down & they lost time fixing it, they got lost, more delay, finally because of their lateness, they missed the troops they would need to take them to Safety, instead they were recognized in Varennes, captured and taken back to Paris. Had they followed Ferson’s plan they probably would have escaped. He also paid for the expenses with his own money & that of his mistress & her Husband & was never paid back 💰by Austrian relatives of MA. Leonard escaped to Russia. 🏃🏻♂️ Geez ! Has this woman ever read a book 📖 Antonia Fraser’s book has the info ! 🙄
This was an excellent and delightful lecture. Thank you.
This is such an excellent lecture.
I know this is from 2009, but please credit the lecturer and the organization where she gave this lecture. Thanks.
Ms Sagona, you are a true scholar and a born teacher. I hung on every image and word!! Merci milles foix.
If wildly inaccurate!
@@jenylogan1 You ain’t kidding. I doubt she knows anything on 18th c. France except from movies 🍿
Excellent lecture, held my attention completely although I am rather on the side of the Republic.
The French Revolution to me, brings to mind images of how the people wore traces of the revolution on their persons with even the ladies featuring short cut locks with ribbons round their necks, the homage to guillotine executions. But also bright colors with red, white, and blue ribbons; a glorification of the cause for the people.
It's not right to claim the queens were not royal themselves, they were. Not only before their marriage, when they were royals at their parent's court, but later as royals through marriage in their husband's court. The family of the king was called the royal family for a reason. Of course they were still below the king, but they were royals nonetheless, both by birth and by marriage.
I think she means 'monarch'
Especially since until relatively recently royals had to marry other royals which generally meant that one's spouse was by definition foreign.
He waited 4 years after Mme. Pompadour’s death before he took Madame DuBarry as his Mistress 🥱 Hardly the blink of an Eye 👁
Whats up with this 'Habsburg rose' business... that totally isnt a thing at all. I have never heard, a single reference to a rose representing the House of Habsburg ever... Her simply wearing the color black isn't a reference to them either.
Im goin to say this again about colors.. 'purple of the Habsburgs' what? Their colors were black and gold and I'm not sure I've ever seen a portrait of MA wearing gold. Regardless, I don't think color symbolism played much of a role in court dress in Louis XVI's court, it was all frivolity. There was no hidden symbolism. The only symbolism was the ermine and blue robes with gold fleurs de lis in royal portraits, otherwise, no symbolism really at all IMO.
I like your name!
The vermin in terms of the hair is incorrect
I think they mean lice but everyone thinks mice!
Marie Antoinette did nothing wrong.
@Private Person She made donations to help poor people.
I'm enjoying this but I can tell you all that it was definitely NOT flour that they put on their wigs and hair. It was powder like talcum or face powder
No, according to household recipe books of the 18th and 19th centuries, such as The Toilette of Flora(1) and (2) ‘Five thousand receipts in all the useful and domestic arts‘ , published in 1779 and 1829, wheat, potato and rice starch were used most throughout the 18th and 19th century to make powders for the hair and body and not just plain normal flour! Wheat flour would be used as the start to a white, wheat starch and, if one couldn't get refined starch, white wheaten flour, which was an expensive and not common form of flour, used for every day, would serve well. The important thing , for men and women of the correct classes was TO BE POWDERED at all social events, to be unpowdered was considered very bad form, crude, rude and déclassé.
But one could also use chalk or ground up fish bones in place of fine starch powders, as
both were perfectly white and lightened the complexion a bit when applied.
The mixture you chose was then perfumated with fresh or ground up flowers, spices or with florentine orrice root or essential oils. You could use what you wanted to smell like and there was no right or wrong when it came to hair powders!
You could also colour your hair powder to your liking. (light pink or violet or grey hair powder was a thing back then!)
It is still possible to get all the ingredients they used in the 18th and 19th century today. Even the ground up fish bones which smell…not really nice and people still do make them for personal uses.
(1) The toilet of Flora; or, A collection of the most simple and approved methods of preparing baths, essences, pomatums, powders, perfumes, and sweet-scented waters. With receipts for cosmetics of every kind, that can smooth and brighten the skin, give force to beauty, and take off the appearance of old age and decay. For the use of the ladies
by Buc'hoz, Pierre-Joseph, 1731-1807
Publication date 1779
(2) Five thousand receipts in all the useful and domestic arts : constituting a complete and universal practical library, and operative cyclopædia
by MacKenzie, Colin; Mussey, Robert D., former owner
Publication date 1829
She plays too much to the auddience, and makes some glaring errors. Marie Antoinette was certainly Royal, a princess of Austria, Count Fersen was certainly not the father of any of her children and dismissing Madame du Barry as a an ‘awful’ woman is a disservice to history. Must do better !
This lady is a very good speaker and certainly held my interest but there are certain "facts" she reveals that I would query...e.g. the hairdresser Autie planned the escape from Paris. I dont think so, that credit belongs to Axel Fersen. That Axel Fersen was the father of one of her children, that is very doubtful and has never been proved. Plus the death of Marie Antoinette's son from TB, again has not been proved. There are a few other questionable statements that she makes, which although they dont spoil the lecture would have been much better if she had them correct in the first place.
Oh Lord 🤨 More inaccurate info- She’s Laughable in her ignorance.🤪 MA’s hairdresser Leonard Autie was “rumored” to have taken the Queen’s jewels- In Reality she kept her jewels in a wooden box which was given to Ambassador Mercy to take to Austria, which he did and eventually they were given to Marie’s daughter “Madame Royale” who was allowed to live in Austria after the Revolution.
*Secondly the idea that Leonard’ planned the escape is beyond laughable 🤣 It was Count Axel Ferson who planned the escape & it would have succeeded if MA hadn’t insisted, instead of 2 smaller, faster coaches-she wanted one large luxurious Berline coach for the whole family Plus more & Louis XVI told Ferson to leave them halfway to safety & after that the carriage broke down & they lost time fixing it, they got lost, more delay, finally because of their lateness, they missed the troops they would need to take them to Safety, instead they were recognized in Varennes, captured and taken back to Paris. Had they followed Ferson’s plan they probably would have escaped. He also paid for the expenses with his own money & that of his mistress & her Husband & was never paid back 💰by Austrian relatives of MA. Leonard escaped to Russia. 🏃🏻♂️ Geez ! Has this woman ever read a book 📖 Antonia Fraser’s book has the info ! 🙄