Talk:Axel von Fersen the Younger

Untitled

"Louis-Charles, later dauphin of France, is believed to be the offspring of Marie Antoinette and Fersen. "

Believed by whom? It's at best unsupported, and I think fairly dubious. Unfortunately the recent mt-DNA testing of the Dauphin's heart has no bearing on his paternity.... -- Someone else 05:56 Mar 27, 2003 (UTC)

On a side note, the kid looks decidedly Nordic, with no visible southern European traits whatsoever. Compare to his mother's husband, Louis XVIL: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:Louis16-1775.jpg Aadieu (talk) 21:24, 30 May 2008 (UTC)

Further note that most if not all Nordic features are controlled by recessive genes (Marie Antoinette, Austrian princess and mostly German by blood has both the phenotype and the genotype - to provide only half of the genes necessary to make these traits part of the kid's phenotype). Aadieu (talk) 21:24, 30 May 2008 (UTC)

P.S. more to the point, heirs are a political matter. Producing heirs from a man who was unable or unwilling to do the deed even in his teenage years (when a healthy human male should be aroused by just about anything and everything) hardly seems like the greatest solution in the world. Subconsciously, despite no understanding of evolution, the people of the day knew that the traits of the parents had a good chance of being passed on. Someone who sorely needed to produce heirs would hardly look towards such horridly bad genetic material for her salvation. It may not have been von Fersen (although, in all likelihood, it was), but the father of her children was almost certainly not the king, and hardly due to promiscuity. There have been numerous homosexual, impotent, disfunctional, and somewhat mentally disabled kings in many different countries, and the wives of the majority of them produced quite a few heirs, simply because to do so was their duty and a matter of state, rather than of sex. Aadieu (talk) 21:35, 30 May 2008 (UTC)

It is not even proven that they were lovers anyway....

Recommend we remove the discussion of DNA test suggesting the heart in question comes from someone related to Marie Antoinette, possibly Louis XVII. It demonstrates nothing with respect to von Fersen - as previously noted. (Moreover, that paragraph in the article contains assertions, such as the names of the investigators, not supported by the China Daily article cited.)AndersW (talk) 07:15, 16 March 2008 (UTC)

I think that discussion is quite amusing! Up untill now, everyone who dislikes Marie Antoinette said they where lovers, and everyone who liked her said they where absolutely not; because it was considered a bad thing for a woman to have a lover, even though the marriage was arranged! I'm not going to take part in the discussion, because a find it a little ridicoulous (not mening to be rude to those who find it important of course!), but i think that it is fairly prowen that they were in love, (this is admitted by even the most stern defenders of Marie Antoinettes "virtue"!) and if they were lovers, why is it such a big thing that they had sex? Yes i know; because of her sons birth! And he is important to many rojalists! As for that, the king himself wrote in his diary at his birth in 1785: "The birth went as easy as when my own son was born." Now, unless your'e fanatically determined to defend the queens "virtue" because you think it would soil her to have a lover, that it clear enough, as is so many other things, such as the burning of many of their letters because they had the "wrong contence and would soil their memory", etc; if your'e just neutral, logic speaks for itself, and i find it amusing that this is such a big issue!

I do hope they make a paternal DNA-test about the fatherhood someday. It would not necesseraly proove anything of course- She could have had sex with Fersen without being pregnant by him after all- but it's interesting (and a little amusing!), that they seem unvilling to make such a test. It seems they do believe Fersen was the father, why else would they refrain from maing such a test. --85.226.235.208 (talk) 13:47, 8 June 2008 (UTC)

Article name

How on earth can a Swedish nobleman be "Axel von Fersen, Jr.", when that form of name (suffixing "Jr.") is almost exclusively American? Surely this is the wrong title. - Jmabel | Talk 03:27, 30 October 2006 (UTC)

He is known as Axel von Fersen den yngre ("the younger") in Swedish. What suffix should be used to differ him from his father with the same name then? Should it be moved to Axel von Fersen the Younger, like Sten Sture the Younger, or should it be at Hans Axel von Fersen even if his first name Hans was rarely used? /Slarre 21:34, 30 October 2006 (UTC)

I've moved the page to Axel von Fersen the Younger, which is the most common phrase for non-American people from history. I moved his father as well, of course. -- Eugène van der Pijll 16:39, 31 October 2006 (UTC)

Well done, Eugène. -- Picapica 23:23, 21 November 2006 (UTC)

NPOV

I have put a POV-template on this article. The reason is because of the way his relationship with Marie Antoinette are written. Parts of the article is perhaps written by someone who think that it, for some reason, would be wrong for them to have a sexual relationship and a child together, and therefore, it seems to be written entirely to proove that they did not. For example, the world "extremely" was used regarding the question of their alleged son's birth, "This is extremely unlikely", wich is hardly NPOV. Personally, i think that an article in Wikipedia should be as neutral as possible, so that the readers can have an opportunity to judge by themselwes. Here, we simply do not know the truth, whatever we want to believe. If a DNA-analysis can one day tell us who was the real father to Dauphin, and it prooves that it was Axel, it would proove that they consummated their affair, but if he prooves to be the son of the king, we are back were we started, and we would still have no idea. Of course you can state reasons to why they did not have sex, but those would not be more evidence than reasons to why they did; and you can also state reasons to why Dauphin was not their son, though those reasons are hardly any more proof than to state reasons to why he could be, but it really should be written more neutrally!--85.226.235.206 (talk) 09:43, 7 January 2008 (UTC)

While the article needs work, I respectfully disagree with this assertion about POV. During her life, the queen was the subject of seditious, libelous, pamphlets suggesting sexual misconduct. After her death, novelists have speculated about a possible liaison with von Fersen. According to historians speaking in the 2006 PBS program on the queen, these charges seem improbable. I suggest that mentioning these controversies is within the rules of NPOV. AndersW (talk) 07:26, 16 March 2008 (UTC)

My opinion in the matter is as follows; This is a sensitive question. During her life time, they were gossip about her sexual life, whith the intent to slander her. (There is, however, a difference in the gossip about her alleged affair with Fersen, and the gossip printed in phampletts about alleged orgys). This gossip was created during a period, when it was consideredd wrong for a woman, but not a man, to have sex outside of marriage, even if the marriage was an arranged marriage. People with a negative wiev on Marie Antoinette claimed it was true because it was considered wrong. People with a positive wiev on Marie Antoinette claimed it was false for the same reason; because it was considered wrong. Royalists deny them, because this would mean that Dauphin, who was considered to be King after his father, was in reality not the son of the King. Some royalists have claimed, that although she and Fersen were in love, it was only a "spiritual love". With a more modern perspective, it would not be considered wrong for a woman, who lived in an arranged marriage, to experience love the only way which was possible for her. Since then, authors, historians, all have had their wiev, and mentioned different materials to support it. No matter for what reason it was (or is) claimed to be true or false, it does not change the truth, no matter what the truth may be; and the truth is, that we do not kno what the truth was. If he was her lover, then republicans would say he was and royalists deny it for the same reason; because it was considered wrong. If he was not her lover, then republicans would still say he was and royalists would deny it for the same reason; because it was considered wrong. To summarize; this is a sensitive question for many, for several different reasons; it still is to this day, it seems, otherwise they would perhaps test the remainings of Dauphin. It seems to be very difficult to maintain a neutral point of weiv on this subject, and this article truly deserves the neutrality template. I trust no one can protest, that the article must be neutral. This means, of course, that controversies can and should be mentioned, but it should be clearly stated in the article, that this is not facts, no matter how likely or unlikely they are considered, but oppinions. To say that the relationship is extremely unlikely, is an oppinion, even if it is made by an historian, not a fact. If such a phrase must be used, one should say; It is considered extremely unlikely by (and then source). A good summary would be, that no one knows if they had a sexual affair, and that it was in the interest for republicans to say that they did, and in the interest of royalists to say they did not. Personally, I don't think Wikipedia is the place for discussions, for and against anything; it is a place where one states neutral facts. The template should stay until the article is made/phrased neutral by some one with a neutral perspective. --Aciram (talk) 13:25, 9 April 2008 (UTC)

The NPOV-template is gone now, and the article is improved form that perspective know, I think. Royalists, wether they are biographists, historians or writers, generally states that they never had sex. The reason seemes to be the above mentioned; that it is considered wrong for female royality to have had lovers. On the other, hand, the existence of the mistresses of male royalty are seldom denied. Antonia Fraser, for example, is, I believe, a royalist. Perhaps those deniels are not always to be taken to serioulsy. Often, they seem to be created because the historian wish to defend Marie Antoinette from something they, for some reason, consider to be wrong. I do hope people with these ideas can free themselwes from the notions that it is wrong for someone in an arranged marriage to experience love. --85.226.235.208 (talk) 13:39, 8 June 2008 (UTC)

Government of Charles XIII guilty?

As a Swede I must say that I've never heard that the riot was something that the government had planned. From which source is that? - Björn Knutson 22 January 2008 18:41 (CET) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 90.230.92.78 (talk) 17:41, 22 January 2008 (UTC)

I do not know that much about that, but as far as I understand, the actual fact was something in the middle. The government had nothing to do with it, but when it happened, they did nothing to stop it.--85.226.235.208 (talk) 13:47, 8 June 2008 (UTC)

In Historien om Sverige by Herman Lindqvist, it is guessed that Charles XIII refrained from stopping the riot because of personal resentment towards Fersen, partly maybe because Fersen had at one point been the lover of his wife. As far as I remember, the king heard that there was a risk of a riot, but neglected to take any steps to prevent it, and to stop it when it had begun. --85.226.41.61 (talk) 14:13, 14 November 2008 (UTC)

Alf Åberg, in Vår svenska historia, describes the riot and the events leading up to it, and at the end he strongly implies that the King and the people close to him were quite indifferent to protecting von Fersen, who of course was one of the highest stewards of the country. Any attack on him was, potentially, a challenge to the government and the monarchy. So their indifference can't be seen as other than deliberate (he finishes with the bitingly ironic line "With pomp and circumstance, Axel von Fersen received his last rites in the Riddarholmen church" /the exclusive grave church of the Swedish royalty/).

It's a less explicit argument than Lindqvist, and Åberg is a more cautious historian too, but you know, different historians land at different points in how assertive and open they want to be with some of their conclusions - it's a matter of 'researcher's temper'. Both Lindqvist and Åberg, though, take the view that the old King was gravely neglectful (he can't have been in the dark about how important it was to uphold order, with the future of the nation and the monarchy at stake) and/or wanted to direct the anger at von Fersen, accepting to have him lynched if it came to that.Strausszek (talk) 03:02, 23 June 2009 (UTC)

Og?

The section "Fersen's relationship with Marie Antoinette" discusses the impossibility of knowing whether their relationship was platonic. It says, "Unless we uncover some original documents by Fersen og Marie Antoinette, it is an open question...." What is "og"? I couldn't find a relevant definition in a brief Google search. I think it should say "by Fersen to Marie Antoinette" but didn't want to change it in case it has some specialized meaning in this context. Alsd2 (talk) 01:26, 6 December 2009 (UTC)

The "og" comes from an edit on October 17 by someone from Denmark, whose other edits include a couple of spelling errors. It's probably just an error. Tedickey (talk) 01:52, 6 December 2009 (UTC)

Og is the danish word for and (as in by Fersen and Marie Antoinette). He probably did a copy-paste from the danish wiki and then missed in his translation. 213.114.25.80 (talk) 19:46, 21 January 2010 (UTC)

Actually, several of the letters in the correspondence between Fersen and Marie Antoinette where in fact later destroyed by relatives of Fersen because they where considered to be indiscreet and blacken the queen's name. I can see no other reason for that act than the fact that those letters where indeed "some original documents by Fersen of Marie Antoinette", and destroyed just for that reason.--85.226.42.215 (talk) 16:49, 25 July 2010 (UTC)

Marie Antoinette was known familiarly as "Antoinette" - all her sisters were "Maria" something. Not a one of them went by "Maria" or "Marie" if I'm correct, probably as all of them shared that as a first name. Whoever wrote this and referred to the Queen as "Marie" obviously hasn't been well-read on history, especially history concerning the Queen. I suggest it either be changed to "The Queen," or "Marie Antoinette" or merely "Antoinette" if anyone feels they are so familiar. I'll fix it myself if I see it there in 2 more weeks, but at the moment, I was merely looking something up and may just fuss up the page being short on time. Surprised another Bourbon history buff or Hapsburg history buff hasn't fixed it yet!(2014) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.217.208.123 (talk) 01:35, 21 April 2014 (UTC)

References

I object to the extensive use of references to Barrington Beaumont: this work has long ago been dismissed as a fabrication and has little or none historic relevance. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Iwanhoe1 (talk • contribs) 10:18, 14 September 2015 (UTC)

NPOV about the love affair

I have just tried to make that section more neutral. It was somewhat ironic: first, it stated that it was impossible to know whether they consummated their relationship physically (which is correct) and that it is wishful thinking on the part of some that it was (which is of course also true) then it goes on to argue that it was not consummated and present reasons to why it was not, and that memoirs of contemporaries "seem to suggest that it was platonic"?

Truly, that is ironic, because: just as it is wishful thinking that they consummated their relationship sexually, it is also wishful thinking that they did not; and just as the memoirs of contemporaries "seem to suggest it was platonic" there are letters and memoirs by contemporaries that suggest the opposite.

It is somewhat disturbing that people seem to have such a trouble being neutral about this matter.

I know that there are those who wish to believe that they were not physically lovers, because in their opinion, it would be morally wrong that they were, and that would soil the image they have of Marie Antoinette as a Catholic martyr Queen and a woman of virtue, and it she had sex with some one other than her husband, they could not have a high opinion of her. It is very common to see all kinds of censuring and pushing of this view in every article that treat the subject, even though wee are suppose the maintain NPOV.

I myself belong to those who think that it is truly sad, that there are people who would look down upon some one who valued love and freedom more than religious doctrines and social status, and would admire some one for giving up love for the sake of an arrange marriage and admiration of religious doctrines and social status, and my regard or disregard for Marie Antoinette is not affected by the very human need to experience love, if indeed they were lovers: that kind of people belong to a conservative kind of moral which are given more pity from me than sympathy, put I do not try to put my own view in these articles. :Truly, try to respect the policy of NPOV more than conservative morals.--Aciram (talk) 21:44, 30 September 2015 (UTC)

Ahnentafel section

I have tried and failed to fix the ahnentafel section for von Fersen. I used the ahnentafel for William, Duke of Cambridge as an example, but it doesn't work on this page. Can anyone else fix this page? Thank you. June w (talk) 18:32, 31 October 2015 (UTC)

Other love affairs

I don't know whether it is of interest to the article to include his love affairs to Hedvig Elisabeth Charlotte of Holstein-Gottorp and Eva Löwen? This first notable because of her position, of assume, and the second attracted some attention. They are referenced in the article of these women. I don't know, so I thought I should mention it here. --Aciram (talk) 15:12, 5 February 2016 (UTC)

Von / von or non von?

I've completed the edit of "Von" to "von" started by 82.214.89.18 , because I'm kind like that. I wonder, though, if we actually need to include the "von" in his oft-repeated name at all. There were several points in the article where he was referred to as simply "Fersen", as well as several sources and books in the bibiolgraphy that call him such. (I have to say, from what I remember of my 'A' level studies - many moons ago - we called him just Fersen.) Otto von Bismark, I notice, is plain "Bismark" right through his article; likewise Joachim von "Ribbentrop", Manfred von "Richthofen". On the other hand, Kenneth "von Heidecke" and Wernher "von Braun" both keep their vons throughout.Misha An interested observer of this and that 01:12, 25 November 2016 (UTC)

I went back and forth on this as well. I couldn't find a specific mention in the Style manual, and I don't really care whether it's 'von Fersen', 'Von Fersen', or just 'Fersen'; it just bugs me when it's not consistent. The other articles that I looked at used 'Von', which is why I changed it to that, though I obviously missed some - thanks for catching that. Leschnei (talk) 23:22, 25 November 2016 (UTC)

"I shall love you until death"

I know nothing about this subject, but in researching something else I came across this 2010 article in 'Cryptologia' https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/abs/10.1080/01611191003621212 on deciphering the letters between MA and AvF. The synopsis (which is all I have read) and the title, certainly imply that this was in one of her enciphered letters to him. That is not the sentiment of a platonic relationship, that is one physical lover to another. 109.144.27.148 (talk) 17:13, 1 May 2021 (UTC)