#reflexions

[hellodailycuriosity]

As above,so below

[midnight-blue-blog]

When two Souls meet, Tenderness always Blooms. — Start with Smiles, as they are Hugs from the Soul and a way to attract Happiness💐🦋✨♥️

[a-girl-from-another-era]

“He had a heart that could have held the entire empire of the world; and, in the end, he had to content himself with a cellar.” —Gaston Leroux, in the Epilogue of ‘The Phantom of the Opera’.

He was not a ghost, nor an angel, nor a monster. He was Erik: a genius, a madman, a lover. He tried to love and, even if the beginning was tumultuous, he ended up loving better than most men do.

[ortussum]

vestida na camisola branca e folgada, ultrapassando o limite, caminho no parapeito de uma grande questão: ser ou estar. uma linha tênue entre ser viva e estar morta. o que vem depois? em alguns momentos até o mais completo vazio, que foge da percepção humana de "nada", me agradaria. não porque não acredito, ou porque seria só mais "simples". mas porque a ideia de sentir vazio, solidão em vida me desagrada muito mais. sentir só, mesmo quando pessoas da minha linhagem caminham pelos corredores e cômodos da casa com risadas e piadas. mesmo quando dizem que estão aqui. mesmo quando ainda são presentes. não seria simples deixar pra trás quem eu amo, não seria simples saltar mas ainda poderia cair. e quando escolho ficar, a quem essa escolha pertence, realmente?

é medo ou consciência? não me sinto viva na maior parte do tempo. sinto sobrevivência. talvez por não ter encontrado "meu grande porquê", talvez porque não tenho amor próprio suficiente. ou me esforçado o suficiente pra sentir a vida. ou talvez isso nem precisasse de esforço, mas eu fiz mesmo assim. não posso mais mascarar o que sinto mas também não posso deixar sair, se todas as vezes vou me sentir incompetente, inadequada e até arrependida. idiota. fútil. fraca. tem dores e feridas que não se explicam, porque as palavras fogem, correm como loucas para prevenir que eu encontre uma suficiente para descrever algo que parece me aniquilar de dentro para fora.

é uma imagem abstrata que se alimenta de pequenos detalhes, se consome de fora pra dentro, ciclos e ciclos de repetição de um mesmo estado: não morre nem renasce, apenas se transforma. caos. a mente libera os flashs, que por si só alteram todo o comportamento, de dentro para fora. a cabeça esquenta e lateja: vítimas amarradas à dispositivos explosivos controlado por terceiros (nunca sabe quando vai explodir), coração intercepta e erra os batimentos, como quem ainda aprende a tocar bateria, o pulmão capta a mensagem e falha como quando alguém te segura pelo pescoço, chegando a tirar seus pés do chão. a visão turva pela tempestade, o corpo tremendo como placas tectônicas que se chocam, a percepção se perde e tudo que sobra é caos e controle lutando para coexistir ou determinar quem vai me levar pra casa hoje. linha tênue. saltar ou cair. saltar ou sentar. cair ou ficar. segurar ou largar.

o que me cabe? e o que é o outro? existem diversas alternativas, mas hoje, como em muitos outros, não posso pensar tão adiante: minha bomba relógio tiquetaqueando no meu ouvido, estremece todo o corpo, afeta todo meu sistema nervoso e cerebral causando grave turbulência com risco de queda, e não sobreviveria. luta constante entre saltar ou ficar.

mas e cair?

— ortus sum

[nesiacha]

Reflection Post on Marie-Thérèse

I am not as well-versed in the subject of Marie-Thérèse of France as I am in other topics, as I have only encountered a few serious historians on the matter. My study of her has mainly been through the lens of André Castelot and Waresquiel (although I never had the chance to finish Hélène Becquet’s biography of Marie-Thérèse, having unfortunately lost the book). Furthermore, at some point, I will talk more about historical events than about Marie-Thérèse herself.

The more I read about her, the more I find myself torn between two feelings: compassion for whatshe went through as a child and a sense of contempt for her ultra-royalist views. She didn’t listen to her uncle, Louis XVIII, who, on the whole, was the wisest in the family, even though she remained loyal to him all her life. Instead, she leaned toward the political views of her other uncle, Charles X (who was a fool during his reign, trying to turn back French ideals without learning from the failures of Louis XVI). Some have claimed that, because Marie-Thérèse had a difficult character that her mother, MarieAntoinette, tried to correct, her flaws only worsened after she endured her trials. Personally, I don’t believe this. Let’s not forget that when she threw tantrums as a child, she was probably just testing her limits, like any other child (although I have no doubt that her parents and aunt taught her that absolute monarchy was the best system). In short, she witnessed the execution of her parents and her aunt (though let’s be honest, Louis XVI was solely responsible for his own demise, betraying the nation in his attempt to restore absolute monarchy. He accepted war, knowing that the soldiers had little chance of survival, allowed his wife to correspond with the enemy despite the little she knew, and, at the very least, we are dealing with a case of massive involuntary manslaughter. Even in the 21st century, a leader could be condemned to death for what Louis XVI did). Furthermore, as much as Marie-Antoinette was made a scapegoat for many of the regime’s ills, and Elisabeth too, I find it hard to sympathize with them, although I was against theirs executions with so little evidence. Regardless of what can be reproached to them, nothing could have been worse than what happened. She saw her brother forcibly separated from her, her mother, and her aunt (and on this point, I sympathize—there should never have been such a forced separation, regardless of how guilty her mother and aunt were), and he died not long after. Therefore, I believe that Marie-Thérèse of France, no matter how right the revolutionary government may have been and how wrong her family’s actions were, had the right to bear no grudge against them, especially since she was the only one in her family—along with her brother— who wasn’t guilty. She suffered simply because she was born into the wrong family, which loved her dearly, despite everything. In fact, I don’t fault her for having ultra-royalist views, because, first of all, everyone has the right to hold different political opinions, and second, as I’ve mentioned, she suffered from a young age, in a time when therapists didn’t exist. So imagine the damage… It is especially when she returned to France that I feel compelled to make some criticisms.

Of course, she wasn’t at the head of the Kingdom of France and didn’t make the decisions, but let’s not forget two things: she was on track to become the next queen consort (since she married LouisAntoine de Bourbon), and she approved of ultra-royalist ideas. First, when Louis XVIII returned to the throne for the second and final time, facing Bonaparte, Marie-Thérèse naturally wanted to erase all traces of Napoleon. This seems understandable, as a new regime was being established, and it needed to be clear that Bonaparte’s reign was over. Here’s an excerpt from André Castelot’s book: "All the walls of the palace, the furniture, the hardware, the lamps, are covered in imperial crowns and the cursed 'N'. Eagles soar on the ceiling, bees flutter on the draperies, and the carpets are covered with violets. Efforts were made with fervor to hunt down the bees, to turn the eagles into swans, and to change the 'N' into two 'L's back to back. But the task was considerable! The Count of Artois found that nothing was progressing. Urged by Madame, he came to complain bitterly to his brother, who shrugged. Had he not promised to pardon even the symbolic violets of the Empire?"

Now, here are two things that struck me. At a time when the situation in France was catastrophic, with foreign powers demanding terrifying compensation, not to mention the issues of the White Terror and the loss of territories, she advised (although Artois would have done this with or without her) focusing on real estate, rather than advising him to deal with much more urgent matters. Moreover, I feel like these works cost quite a bit of money, particularly in silverware. Again, this is in poor taste when considering the state of France’s finances.

She would quickly oppose, as I mentioned earlier, the fact that Louis XVIII was a bit more flexible than they were, although she should have listened to him. Nevertheless, it’s important to note that she deserves credit for remaining loyal to him.

This ultra-royalism that Marie-Thérèse supported would do a lot of harm to France. To begin with, it veered into mysticism, with some ridiculous aspects, such as the Thomas Martin case. This peasant, convinced that an archangel had sent him to the king to ask for a counter-revolutionary crusade, was even received by Louis XVIII. While the right (some insincerely) claimed that they were right, the left considered him a victim of hallucinations. The ultras, faced with what they saw as revolutionary individualism, advocated for a society based on divine right, where man has no rights but only duties toward God. There was a rejection of the concepts of liberty and equality, claiming that man would be happier accepting the place God had for him, rather than attempting to transform the world.

It goes without saying why this idea was a catastrophe.

Finally, the assassination of the Duke of Berry, made a martyr (who had been a worldly and libertine figure previously looked down upon by the ultras), ensured that the ultras succeeded in pushing out the liberal minister Decazes, leading to an even harsher regime. As a result, figures like Lafayette found themselves at the head of movements like the Carbonari, composed of Bonapartist nostalgics, republicans, and royalists loyal to Decazes. In 1820, the “French Bazaar” plot, aimed at a coup, was discovered and suppressed with moderation. Other uprisings were planned, particularly in the West. In 1822, there was the affair of the four sergeants of La Rochelle: these noncommissioned officers, accused of conspiring against the regime, were arrested and sentenced to death despite the lack of concrete acts (they had only had discussions about their opposition). Their execution turned them into martyrs for the liberal-royalist opposition, republicans, and Bonapartists.

Once again, Marie-Thérèse is clearly not the person responsible for this fiasco, and I don’t believe she wanted the death of these four sergeants. It wasn’t her who led France, and she wasn’t the minister. However, the fact that she supported this ultra-royalism, despite seeing the damage it was causing, shows that she didn’t realize ( or didn’t want to see) the the dangers of ultra politics.

It seems that she approved of the coronation ceremony of Charles X in Reims, which cost a vast sum of money—an imprudent reminder of the time of absolute monarchy and a justified anger from Parisians. There was even a law that Charles X enacted which pleased the ultras: the death penalty for sacrilege, which caused an outcry. Although this law was not adopted, the dangers of such a measure were clear. Another law was the one on the billion, compensating émigrés who had lost their properties sold as national goods during the revolution. Again, not only was this not a priority for rebuilding the country, but it also showed a condemnation of the revolution. Furthermore, this decision ultimately angered even the most meticulous ultras who simply wanted the restitution of their properties. The amount paid didn’t reach the billion, which might have frustrated the recipients, but it was still significant enough to further irritate the opposition.

Honestly, even some of the successes achieved by the minister Villele (who, although more reactionary than Decazes and detesting liberalism, didn’t want to strengthen the position of the ultras) under Charles X don’t make me want to praise him, especially regarding Haiti. Charles X would have liked to, but he knew it wasn’t possible to reconquer Haiti. He would, therefore, force this new country, under the threat of war (which Haiti knew must be avoided), to pay France 150 million gold francs as compensation. It wasn’t until the 20th century that this debt was paid, showing the financial difficulties Haiti had to face. This is dishonest, because if we look at the facts, it was really France that should have compensated Haiti, given the harm they had done, especially when Bonaparte attempted to restore slavery, as you can see in this post:https://www.tumblr.com/nesiacha/758502228409614336/here-we-come-about-a-shocking-act-by-french-army?source=share .

Then, Charles X would go even further into ultra-royalism by appointing Polignac. Upon taking office, Polignac’s government, seen as ultra-royalist, sparked strong liberal opposition. Polignac, though aware of the limitations of his actions, struggled to align his policy with the Constitutional Charter, leading to conflicts with the Chamber of Deputies. In March 1830, an address passed by 221 deputies clearly manifested their opposition to the king, who responded by dissolving the Chamber and organizing new elections. However, despite dubious maneuvers to influence the results, the liberals won an even greater victory, deepening the political crisis. Meanwhile, the economic situation worsened: a banking crisis, poor harvests, and rising unemployment weakened the population, while social and generational tensions heightened.

The frustrations of students, workers, and peasants fueled a climate of unrest conducive to revolt. Faced with this growing opposition, Charles X attempted a power grab in July 1830, imposing ordinances to dissolve the Chamber, strictly control the press, and reform the electoral system to favor the aristocracy. These measures provoked an immediate reaction: the press called for resistance, workers and students rose up, and barricades multiplied in Paris.

The incompetence of the government and the absence of military reinforcements (which shows Charles X’s narrowmindedness since his best fighters were sent to Algeria,Charles having waged this war of conquest in order to distract people from real political problems ) facilitated the insurgents’ victory, and they took control of the capital on July 29. Faced with this insurrection, Charles X withdrew his ordinances and attempted a government reshuffle, but it was already too late. On July 30, his regime was condemned, paving the way for a dynastic change and the July Monarchy.

What about Marie-Thérèse? She didn’t hesitate to support the ultra-royalism advocated by Charles X, against all common sense. She let her personal grudges take precedence over the good of France and its people, to whom she was destined to be queen consort. As I said earlier, her convictions could have been forgiven if she had chosen not to get involved in politics. But the moment she decided to participate, whether directly or indirectly, since she held the position of first lady of the court, she had the responsibility not to act on her grudges and to push aside her overly reactionary ideas for the good of her country and its people. Many people suffered as much as, if not more than, she did during the French Revolution, and they decided to fulfill what they considered their duty for the good of their country.

There are even leaders in history who suffered before being crowned and later worked with people who had directly or indirectly harmed them personally.

Yet they adopted the right attitude, surely they despised them in public, but they set aside their grudges for the good of their countries, which was the essential thing to do (although, to be fair, the monarchs I have in mind didn’t face cases of regicide themselves and were horrified by it, and were called to obey the sovereignty, even though Elizabeth I did ultimately have Mary Stuart executed after much hesitation—though that’s a complex story).

Marie-Thérèse didn’t do that. Yes, she was charitable, loyal and very courageous, but that’s not enough when you see that she supported policies that wasted money for nothing. Severe, atrocious measures came from those who supported the ultra-royalism she backed, and she saw how this affected grieving families (especially with the case of the four sergeants of La Rochelle), but she was too rigid to change her attitude, disconnected from reality, and stubborn.

In the end, she and her husband, Louis XIX, could only be king and queen for 20 minutes because they were too tied to ultra-royalism, which ended up being the best thing. We can only understand the general indifference when Charles X, his son, and Marie-Thérèse left once again.

However, far from me the idea that this woman was a bloodthirsty person—that’s not true. But it would be a good idea if one day there were a historically accurate series from 1789 to 1848 (without demonizing the government of Year II or over-glorifying Bonaparte, as we see nowadays). It would be so interesting to follow Marie-Thérèse’s journey from a joyful child to a sad teenager due to all the misfortunes she endured, and then to a stubborn ultra-royalist woman. That would be fascinating.

P.S. After some hesitation, I didn’t mention how the regicides who rallied to Bonaparte were exiled and suffered from that exile, as one might argue it was a necessary repression since they supported Bonaparte, who had ousted Louis XVIII from the throne. For the same reasons, I didn’t include the story of the so-called repression of the patriots in 1816. Sources :

Hélène Becquet

André Castelot

Antoine Resche

P.S : To see the complexity of the political scale (there is a short excerpt on the Restoration period here: https://www.tumblr.com/nesiacha/758891467906465792/mini-history-on-a-short-period-concerning?source=share)

[netarchivist]

[branquinhoart]

Instagram

A scene where the statue, representing oneself, is positioned amidst a beautiful landscape but facing away with it’s eyes shut, symbolizes a sense of isolation or detachment. Evonking a feeling of loneliness or introspection, while hinting at the idea of the statue conforming to its surroundings or perhaps representing a personal struggle with conforming to societal norms or expectations. Overall, invokes a reflection on isolation, introspection, and the pressure or need to conform.