I think that with time Louis starts to genuinely like her, in his shyly way of course, and she stay with him until the end, she could run away with the others of the court, but choose to stay with him....At this point there's no reason for Marie to make a good appearance for the public at all (lie about their relationship) because everyone's concern was survive to the revolution, so I think she at some point liked him (even more when she had kids, after all... They made almost 4 kids... They could've stopped when the boy came since the objective was to have a boy to be King)

I believe they were at least friends. That´s probably the second best for these fixed marriages...

Considering Louis the XVI had no mistresses, this may have been a negative thing for Marie Antoinette. It meant she was more in the limelight and had to keep up appearances more-so. Which we know she desperately hated. Furthermore her affairs did lead to a failed escape with Marie attempting to leave the country with another man. (See Axel Von Fersen / Baron De Breteuil).

Louis and Marie are two kids when they got married.

@@Luizza_Oliveira some say that it was actually Louis refusal to get a mistress what trigger so much criticism towards Marie Antoinette. The royal mistress was supposed to be the center of gossip in and out of Versailles and without her the gossip was directed to the queen instead. :(

I know she never actually said "Let them eat cake', but no-one can deny that she and the rest of the aristocrats should've handled a lot of things better than they did. Unfortunately for them I don't think that many people see ignorance or naivety as a good enough excuse for bankrupting a country or not realising that being bored isn't the worst thing that can happen to a person.

Seems like all they had to do to prevent the revolution was find a way to supply bread & flour to the people! It's the king's job to make sure his subjects have food to eat in order to survive & he couldn't even do that!

Well its going to happen again to the whole world no more government and no more bs

"A normal queen"? You mean like Anderson Cooper??

Correct history shows that the last years of her life she showed incredible grit, determination, and dignity. Her husband the king Louis XVI was clueless and panic stricken, it was Antoinette who appealed to foreign governments for rescue and even unsuccessfully tried to charter their escape. So this proves that she had skills in her she wasn't an air head, but her development was thwarted at a young age by a difficult marriage and inadequate tutelage on the realities of life. And when she did get husband's love it was too late and when she did realize that being a queen wasn't a slumber party it was again too late.

@@maragathm I think both understood the weight of being the king and queen, they were just a lot more inept with handling all their duties since neither was trained for their position. Especially Louis was ill-fit to rule and lacked the necassary education and mentality to be a king. Marie Antoinette might have gotten a bit more power within the court after giving birth to a son, but before that she was basically powerless. The kings and queens before them also lived extremely lavish lifestyles, so it's not like they were any different from the rulers that came before them. France was already having some financial difficulties before the couple were handed their crowns and by agreeing to join the revolutionary war they basically speerheaded france into an economic collapse. They barely gained anything from it since their plan to turn the US into a trading partner wasn't materialized and it put a huge dent into France's national debt. We could blame LouisXVI for being the one who said yes to all of this, but you also got to remember that he was 1 to 2 years into being king and he was most likely convinced to do so by his advisors who had a lot to gain (fincancially). The kingdom tried to stabalize by increasing the taxes, which wouldn't have been catastrophic per se by itself, but due to several years of bad weather conditions France's agriculture took a big blow. Increasing taxes + food becoming more expensive = catastrophe. I don't think Marie Antoinette and Louis could have done anything to stop the French Revolution from happening.

@@maragathm she betrayed France.

@@OpheliaNL The problem wasn't increasing taxes per say. It was trying to get the aristocrats to pay taxes when they had never done so previously.

Because we know what will happen with Both...

Not exactly realistic either. For one I think the curtains and bed fabrics would’ve been stolen in real life because they were extremely valuable and one of a kind back then.

This film left out all the action & important parts that explain why things had to happen the way they did.

How did you not know her death at 13?! Omg

@@sammey3998 I get not knowing the details, I didn't know any of them either two years ago, but I thought most people knew that Marie Antoinette was beheaded, or at least died tragically? Not a bash at you, just strange as I thought most people knew this

I saw it when i was 6, i thought the same :")

That's what people want. To let them become just ordinary people somewhere else but robespierre disagree saying the royal family will take the throne back so he want the king dead. They upheld a vote and you know what's worse? Some of the King's family voted to execute him. Such a betrayal

If they never existed... Who lived in those palaces? Privileges abolished... Yes!

You need to calm down. Stop commenting on every single comment we are here to sympathise with rich people from 100s of years ago dammit!

Idk about love but they definitely grew to have a deep partnership as friends

@@vivienmartin225 exactly. How much in love with someone can you be if you're sleeping around?

@@tsilva2183 I don't think she was sleeping around, we all know how badly Marie Antoinette was slandered. Let's be real why would the Queen of France want to sully herself by sleeping with her subjects? Like come on.

@Ryan yeah right. Sleeping around was a treasonous offence for a Queen consort, at the very least her reputation would be in tatters, and at the worst her children could be stripped of royal status and she could even be executed. Not to mention the dishonour it would bring to the king. Just finding someone else more attractive than your husband is not a good enough reason to put your and your loved ones neck on the line.

@Ryan in modern day you don't risk getting branded a whore by literally everyone with you facing capital punishment and your children too.

to me this is happiness, the oppressing class finally swept away by furious masses of people tired of starving and having no rights. #findyourpower

Francesco Pasquino well in their defense, Louis and Marie complete weren’t responsible for France’s troubles as it was already heading towards distraction before the two came to the throne

They really did ask for it and deserved it.

@@francescopasquino4334 Right. Is that why even after this France had two successive Kings (Louis XVIII and Charles X) along with two Emperors (Napoleon and Napoleon III)? Revolutionaries are all hypocrites. They destroy the "oppressing" class only to become oppressors themselves. That is why Robespierre ended up being guillotined himself in delightful irony. That is why communist countries aren't the fantasy lands dreamed up in theories by those who push for such ideologies.

@@francescopasquino4334 how does it feel to overthrow your King and then few years later someone from Corsica declares himself Emperor?

Guilherme Branco that was Louis Charles that was screaming...

That wasn’t Marie Therese

@@Whitneypyant it was her son right?

Sophia yes. The oldest child was Marie Therese. Marie Therese was the only one of her family who survived the reign of terror

@@Whitneypyant how horrible...

Exactly, the revolution seemed extremely tragic with thousands of people getting torchered & murdered with so much lawlessness. It looked really scary to live in revolutionary France.

During the real events, the heads of their royal guards were on pikes besides their carriage as they were escorted from Versailles to Paris. There was too much chaos going on during the revolution.

and imagine the life of the french people at that time

Sophia Coppola simply ignored the revolution.

She is not a good director.

He knew that the revolutionary dogs will not let him do some reforms what camed after the monarchy was a demonic republic led by robespierre and danton who were both executed after what they did to their king

@@user-wz7in1sd2w They weren’t executed for what they did to the monarchy.

@@CEB1896 yes but revolutions consume their children which it did

He's an American actor, playing in a historically inaccurate movie... What can you see in his eyes?

@@booliev3275 that is what acting means

@La Côte could you please stop spamming your video. Also, nobody you've said were "lucky" compared to whoever your talking about is luckier than them. They all suffered tragic deaths and don't need to be compared to one another. Different Time, Different Revolution

What stuns me with the Romanovs is that while the British Parliament were willing to take the children, they wouldn't take Nicholas II and Alexandra because the latter was German. But....the Tsarina's grandmother was none other than Queen Victoria. So I'm like ?????? The Bourbons I hear alternating accounts. I know Marie Antoinette was secretly trying to make arrangements for an escape to Austria (which makes sense). Then I heard an alternate one that said she was trying to get the Royal Family to Canada or the US.

@Hypothermic Dysrhythmia It could be either or since there's conflicting accounts on the matter.

That hit.............hard😕

So heartbreaking

It was mostly the fault of Louis XVI's grandfather, Louis XV. Louis XVI was a young king with no idea how to rule whose predecessor had bankrupted the state in foolish wars. Marie Antoinette did nothing except be Austrian.

What was their mistake?

Louis XVI seemed to be a people pleaser and said yes to everyone such as the nobility, clergy, his wife's spending, his foreign allies which got him broke.

He didn't have the spine needed to get the rich to pay their taxes.

He was not raised as a king. His eldest brother who died at the age of 9 was the true heir so his brother was taught the skills he needed to be a king.

@@darchitect4884 he could've use iron fist to stop revolution but since he is the kind king, he couldn't punish his people

@@justspittingsomefacts6425 Louis XVI's Great great great grandfather King Louis XIV ruled with an iron fist by giving himself absolute power by suspending the French parliaments and forcing all of the nobility families to live in the Palace of Versailles where he can keep a close eye on them during the 1600s & early 1700s.

Somebody else commented "Alexandra of Russia was once observed staring intently at a portrait of Marie inside the Winter Palace at St. Petersburg. She commented to one of her ladies in waiting how she felt a close kinship with Marie, seeing as to how both women were foreign princesses unappreciated and unloved in their adopted lands despite their efforts to wholeheartedly embrace them. Alexandra also predicted she would die violently as did Marie, and sure enough...."

Over a century later and the Romanovs made the same mistake ... Being blind to the suffering of their people

True, but still however changed. The absolute monarchy was gone for good.

Oh definetely, Lenin also acknowledged the French Revolutionaries, describing Danton as "The greatest master of revolutionary tactics yet known", if I'm getting that quote right.

They were heavily involved being nurses and visiting the poor. The kids giving away their allowances. They lived middle class lives and we're ridiculed for it. They were not far removed.

Never could have imagined??? Loool if they had truly been sovereigns that listened to their people they would have KNOWN what was going on in Paris

@@annaelisavettavonnedozza9607 Louis tried to fix the situation by taxing the nobility but the nobles wouldn't let him. Louis XVI was hardly to blame for the french revoloution or the suffering that caused it. Its the French nobility, along with Louis XV who bankrupted the state with his foolish wars who is really to blame.

Marie Théresè (the eldest child) was the only one to reach adulthood. Her 2 younger brothers, Louis Joseph and Louis XVII both died before the age of 10 and her youngest sister (Sophie Hélène Beatrix) died when she was almost 1 year old.

Beneditch Cratesofbooze thank you

Two of her children, a son and daughter, died of TB long before the family left Versailles. One was a baby and the other was only 7. It was sad, but common enough in those days. Her surviving son, who would be the next king, was imprisoned until his death from an infection at 10 (the lymph nodes associated with TB became infected). Her other daughter survived the whole ordeal and lived for 72 years.

Gianella their son died in prison from abuse and neglect. But their daughter survived

effooo2000 and Nieva Abuse and neglect will soon lead to infections, just as TB, infectious and rampant in all populations at that time, would so contribute the pathogens that, left neglected, would lead to death.

wow! how could they put a child in prison? So mean...

@@somewereinwisconsin The deuphin was imprisioned in a prision without a window, he lived in the dark practically, and they served him stale food only once in a while so that he would die soon. So you can imagine, those were subhuman conditions, it would have been more humane to kill him.

@@somewereinwisconsin he was the heir to throne. They didn’t want monarchy anymore

@@somewereinwisconsin while it was cruel It served a purpose, he could have rose back to the throne and the common people wanted to prevent that from ever happening. It's probably also why Marie Antoinette's daughter never had children. The monarchy had to end.

@@MariposaV no matter what its still a cruel and inhumane act

Louis XIV sowed the seed of discontent in the country with the taxes and the war against Holland and with the construction of that monumental work of Versailles. There were already riots like that of Terror during his reign. He therefore condemned his descendants to hatred of the people as a despicable and tyrannical monarchy, and the people were in great need during the rule of Marie Antoinette and Louis XVI. But Marie Antoinette and Louis XVI did not bother to improve the conditions of the French people, they lived in a cloud, she did not even worry about knowing her own people only in a frivolous and meaningless life, wasting more money than she owned and mortgaging the crown. Their main problem was money. Louis kept sending money to America to pay for the wars there and Marie Antoinette wasted it on stupid things with her friends. Their youth is no excuse for so much indolence. And that indolence had its price. Her children were the ones who really suffered.

@@barbarablue2571 Perhaps they really didn't know how bad things were. But then you ask "You're the king and queen of France, you're supposed to know." And when people are angry and desperate, not knowing really isn't a good excuse. In fact it's never a good excuse for grown adults.

@@agenttheater5 No they knew full well. France was an absolute monarchy, the King was heavily involved in running the nation.

@@barbarablue2571 couldn't have said it better. I kind of annoyed when Marie antoinette role-playing as a "peasant" in her own "village" while the real peasants are starving to death.

Ecesu Gök they did but all attempt is failed, because of Napoleon

They did try to save her but most of the attempts failed, and once the Revolution was at its best (if we may say so), former politicians and deputies discovered the huge correspondance between Louis XVI and Marie-Antoinette's brother, involving the Holy Roman Empire's possible attack to free them. Once they put it up to the light, Louis XVI was sentenced to the guillotine, and so was Marie-Antoinette and Madam Elizabeth, the king's sister. High treason, they said. Her siblings could have tried to save her, but the Frenchs were perhaps not the best enemy to fight with at that time...

Napoleon came up a few years later. By then Marie had already been guillotined

Rosae Don't forget to note that the monarchy was already abolished at this point and Marie Antoinette, as well as Louis, didn't have royal titles some months before their execution.

Ludwig Grundberg Yes, of course, thank you for adding this detail. Louis XVI was executed four months after his titles (he became a citizen following the failure of the Constitutional monarchy, on the 21st of January 1793 (yes, exactly 4 months, his head fell in the basket on the 4 month anniversary of the First Republic). Marie Antoinette died almost 13 months afterwards. It might have provoked rage among Marie-Antoinette's siblings but it was far too late to save her, at least they did so with her daughter Marie-Thérèse.

It really wasn't that long ago.

That’s a good interpretation. You could also say that she was also simultaneously saying goodbye to Versailles (as well as her previous home). Versailles was build in accordance to the sun’s movement, and had imagery of the god of the son Apollo. Therefore, the sun also symbolizes her home.

He's a great actor.

No wonder he did not look like the real Louis XVI.

Well he certainly set the stage for it.

@@beckyweiss6072 its always been upsetting to me that Louis XV got to fuck up the country and do whatever he wanted and still die an old man, while his grandson paid for it

@@simonrooney2272 I feel it's a little known fact that Louis XVI actually tried to make reforms to the country and fix his grandfathers mistakes. The problem was he was facing a behemoth of a machine that was rotten to the core.

get educated, they tried to flee together when the French people still wanted them as monarchs in a constitutional monarchy... They failed and were arrested . If they had succeeded, they would have come back with the enemy, shed innocent blood and reinstalled the absolute monarchy.

@@booliev3275 As a person who comes from a country that was inspired by the French Revolution to become independent, and as someone who values democracy, I cannot say that what happened should not have happened, but the cost of the revolution was probably longer than what happened. it would have been to reinstate the monarchy, and France was seen for more than a century as a barbarous and cruel land like all the atrocities it committed in the name of "freedom", so it is difficult to know if the cure was better than the disease.

Her oldest daughter was almost 11 years old and her son was almost 4 years old when the family was taken away

I searched her daughter up and she always looks so sad in the adult paintings of her. 😢

The Cure - All cats are grey

Are you admiring your lime avenue?

Thank you

because they were arrogant and thought they could reinstate the absolute monarchy

Louis: Are you admiring your lime avenue? Marie: I'm saying goodbye.

THANK YOU

Megan Lunn - Yes, thank you. 🤪

That's funny! Lol. I couldn't understand what Louis was saying either!

It's just the symbolic way of showing the downfall of House of Bourbon I believe.

@@keetard No, that's a scene of a real-life event--the destruction of the interiors of the palace, especially the Queen's bedchamber (which is what you see in that clip). The reason why the royals were taken away from Versailles against their will was that in October 1789, a band of very angry peasant women gathered in Paris to rustle up a huge crowd to march on that palace. There was still a terrible bread shortage, people were starving. Rumors swirled around that the King had bread at Versailles. So this crowd--20,000 strong--marched on Versailles, stormed it by killing a bunch of guards, and almost killed the Queen and her children (thankfully she fled through a secret door off to the side). It was an exceptionally brutal chapter of the Revolution. They just tore up the place--which is what you see in that last clip. That clip was not wrong.

@Zu How does it have anything to do with what i wrote.

@Zu No they didn't they just replaced it by something worse.

@Zu History has always been written or rather re-written by the winners. What's in your book is not History, it is simply what some people want you to know.

@Zu France has won many wars under monarchy

so stupid, you cant blame the French for the excess of the revolution, Robespierre led the terror and he payed with his own head. Get a bit of education and you will learn that very few revolution went smoothly

Antoine Martin i

No they're not, they paid for their mistakes.

Killing people isn't the answer

the revolution should have happened over a hundred years earlier, millions died of starvation {check numbers}?? while Versailles was being built, and the monarchs income was being poured into luxury goods businesses while the countryside lacked any investment for producing enough food

@@cristiten sometimes it's necessary

@@cristiten the actions of the aristocrats led many to their deaths. Eye for an eye. The people wanted to see them suffer how they suffered. Would you have said the same for the rich?

Marie had a big dowry she did not bankrupt France

In what way?

@@NadiaGirl1 In her communications with the Austrians who were by then ennemies of France.

@@patriciabrenner9216 you mean when she was under house arrest and she sent letters to her brother begging him to save her?

@@simonrooney2272 She was a traitor tto France writing to an enemy... This is what was perceived.

@@patriciabrenner9216 ITS HER BROTHER MY GOODNESS…

He was a teen when he inherited the throne and he didn’t even have any life skills to help him be ready to be a king

@@GoblinAttacForce listening to his wife’s boyfriend to leave Paris like a coward cost him his life