Latest news with #LouisXVI
Irish Independent
3 days ago
- Entertainment
- Irish Independent
Colin Farrell to narrate new RTÉ documentary series about the history of Ireland
The RTÉ series From The Small Island was shot on location in 17 countries, including Ireland, Barbados, Belgium, Singapore, Switzerland, the United States and the United Arab Emirates. It aims to tell the story of the Irish people, with the first episode going back to the ancient Céide Fields and the earliest settlers, including the discovery of the remains of a baby with the Down Syndrome gene who was cared for over 5,000 years ago. The series will also touch on the Viking invasions, the Christianisation of Ireland and the modern day. It will also include the television debut of the face of 'Rathlin Man', a 4,000-year-old ancestor whose face was reconstructed using cutting-edge DNA technology, the history of the first written reference to hurling and forgotten Irish explorers. The programme will also touch on the 'darker chapters of Irish history', from cannibalism and plague to Irish involvement in the transatlantic slave trade. A Mayo-born general who rose through the ranks to lead the Argentinian army will also have his story told alongside the tale of the Irish-language printing press in Leuven, Belgium, and the Longford priest who heard the final confession of King Louis XVI. From That Small Island - The Story of the Irish, which is produced by the team behind 1916: The Irish Rebellion, will premier on Sunday 8 June at 6.30pm on RTÉ One and RTÉ Player. According to the promotional material, the show will answer the questions: 'Who are the Irish? Where did they come from? Why does the world turn green every St Patrick's Day?' It is created by writer and fimmaker Bríona Nic Dhiarmada and directed by Rachael Moriarty and Peter Murphy, while actor Colin Farrell is the narrator. It will also feature an original score from Irish composer Colm Mac Con Iomaire.
Daily Mail
19-05-2025
- Entertainment
- Daily Mail
The lock of white hair 'cut from Marie Antoinette' hours before the French queen's execution
At its most extravagant, Marie Antoinette's hair-do was four feet high and boasted a replica of the French warship La Bella Poule, complete with masts and sails. And, according to legend, the French queen's luscious locks turned white from stress the night before her execution in 1793. Now, a piece of jewellery containing what is said to be some of the tragic royal's hair that was cut off before she was put to death has sold at auction for €7,500 (£6,313) in Paris - and the strands are white. The lock is tied with a ribbon and black thread and is curled under glass inside a decorated brass medallion. On the back, a handwritten note by a mystery author reads: 'The hair of Marie-Antoinette, Queen of France, was given to me by a Commune [revolutionary government] prosecutor in charge of inspections of the Temple prison at the time when this unfortunate woman was detained there.' The object sold to an anonymous buyer via Osenat auction house at Versailles outside the French capital. Auctioneer Jean-Pierre Osenat, told The Times: 'At the time, it was a tradition to give a lock of hair when you wanted to present a gift. 'It was considered to be a proof of love or friendship.' Marie Antoinette's prayer book went unsold at the same auction after its reserve price of €80,000 (£67,389) was not achieved. Marie Antoinette, the daughter of Holy Roman Emperor Francis I, married Louis XVI in 1774, when she was 14 and the royal just 15. It was said that her smile had an 'enchantment' that could win over 'the most brutal of her enemies'. Her jewellery collection was by far the biggest of any French queen and rivalled only by Empress Josephine, the wife of Napoleon Bonaparte. By the end of 1776, Marie Antoinette had a dress allowance of 150,000 livres, at a time when the price of an an average house in a French town was 200 livres. As she gambled, partied and lavished money on whatever took her fancy, she racked up bills of nearly 500,000 livres. Versailles was the centre of fashion at its peak of eccentricity. Wigs were packed with powder and adorned with ribbons, feathers, flowers, fruit and even stuffed birds. Marie Antoinette's biggest passion was her jewels. Louis raided the French crown jewels to allow his queen to indulge her love of rubies, and she was also a particular fan of pearls. But Marie Antoinette never said the words that are most famously associated with her: 'Let them eat cake'. The words were allegedly a dismissal of the suffering of the French people. Her popularity took a further hit in the saga that became known as the Affair of the Diamond Necklace. In 1791, two years after the French Revolution had begun, Marie Antoinette and her husband were captured as they tried to flee Paris. Nine months after her husband's execution, Marie Antoinette was tried and found guilty on exaggerated charges that included high treason, promiscuity and incest with her son. On October 16, 1793, her head was cut off and presented to the cheering crowd.
Atlantic
18-05-2025
- Politics
- Atlantic
Trump the Grifter
In the years before the Constitution was written, two of the most famous figures of the American Revolution were caught up in controversy over fears of undue foreign influence caused by their receipt of opulent gifts from European kings. One was a gold snuff box encrusted with 408 diamonds that King Louis XVI of France gave to Benjamin Franklin. The other was a horse, given to John Jay by the King of Spain. Both of these gifts were publicly reported to the new Confederation Congress, and despite vocal public objection, both men kept the gifts. The controversies were still ripe in the minds of American leaders when they soon went to draft a new constitution. They worried that large and valuable gifts might inappropriately influence American officials in their dealings with foreign states—that a snuff box or a horse could psychologically warm a person to another country, distorting his ability to put America's interests first. To prevent that distortion, the drafters made anti-corruption provisions a cornerstone of the new constitution. Indeed, if the frequency of their attention to a particular issue is a measure of how significant their concern was, then few issues were as alarming to them as corruption, which the original Constitution explicitly addresses in four separate instances—plus a fifth that was later added. President Donald Trump's instinct for self-enrichment is a horrific exemplar of what the Founders hoped to prevent: a president profiting from public office. Trump's ventures—intending to accept the gift of a Qatari jet, profiting from the sale of a self-referential cryptocurrency, auctioning off a chance to have dinner with him—all reflect his disregard for the Founders' concern. Two of the Constitution's efforts to restrict conflicts of interest are direct and distinct prohibitions on profiteering by the president. One of these (in Article II, Section 1) was an absolute ban on domestic gifts to the president: Aside from compensation for his service, 'he shall not receive within that Period any other Emolument from the United States, or any of them.' Emolument, a word first recorded in the 15th century, signifies a ' profit or gain arising from station, office, or employment.' That is, making money off one's position by, say, selling favors to fellow citizens (for example, the opportunity to dine with the president) is expressly prohibited. Yair Rosenberg: The darker design behind Trump's $400 million plane The second prohibition (in Article I, Section 9) was conditional. Presidents may not 'accept of any present, Emolument, Office, or Title, of any kind whatever, from any King, Prince, or foreign State' without Congress's consent. In other words, the answer to the offer of a personal gift (such as the use of an airplane either during or after presidential service) is a constitutionally required 'no,' unless Congress affirmatively authorizes it. Rejecting a gift is not ' stupid,' as Trump suggested—it's required by the law of the land, and for good reason. In addition to these direct limitations on presidential conduct, also notable is that the impeachment clause (Article II, Section 4), which generally authorizes impeachment for 'high crimes and misdemeanors' names two (and only two) crimes specifically as grounds for impeachment: treason and bribery—receipt of a gift in exchange for an official act. Not all gifts are bribes, but some are, and those would be grounds for removal from office. Beyond these three instances, the Constitution twice addresses the problem of possible profiteering by other federal officials, namely members of Congress: in Article I, Section 6 and in the Twenty-Seventh Amendment (which restricts Congress's ability to increase its own pay, and which was originally proposed in 1789). What animated the Founders' fear of conflicts of interest? An understanding of human nature and a respect for history. First they recognized that influence could be readily purchased from unprincipled leaders. As Alexander Hamilton put it in ' Federalist No. 22 ': 'One of the weak sides of republics, among their numerous advantages, is that they afford too easy an inlet to foreign corruption.' Commenting on human nature, he went on to explain: 'In republics, persons elevated from the mass of the community, by the suffrages of their fellow-citizens, to stations of great preeminence and power, may find compensations for betraying their trust, which to any but minds animated and guided by superior virtue, may appear to exceed the proportion of interest they have in the common stock, and to over-balance the obligations of duty.' In short, Hamilton argued, the average citizen might (unless he or she was a person of 'superior virtue') put their own financial interests above their duty to the country. Jonathan Lemire and Russell Berman: The MAGA-world rift over Trump's Qatari jet The requirement of congressional consent for foreign gifts persists today. When I served as a minor official at the Department of Homeland Security 20 years ago (I was the acting assistant secretary for international affairs and routinely interacted with foreign officials), any ceremonial gifts above a de minimis limit that foreign officials gave me as part of my official duties were, as constitutionally required, turned over to the department for receipt, processing, and storage. Congressional consent to keep a few small gifts was authorized by the Foreign Gifts and Decorations Act. Trump's proposed acceptance of the Qatari jet, which he plans to use after he leaves office, stems from his view that Qatar is a country 'we have successfully defended for many years' with a ' special royal family.' This sort of conflict of interest is precisely what the Founders feared. Americans cannot know now whether Qatari security continues to be in America's best interests or only in Trump's desire to please his 'special' friends. That doubt is exactly why the Framers adopted a formal practice of requiring the notice and consent of Congress before foreign gifts may be accepted. An unfortunate flaw in the Founders' design was that they anticipated ready compliance with the prohibition on gift receipt. I think they could have barely imagined a president accepting a personal gift without congressional consent despite the express words of the constitutional text. Nor could they have readily imagined a president soliciting personal benefits to himself or his family as a condition of access to and influence on his decision making. Perhaps even more to the point, in the absence of such compliance, the Framers no doubt anticipated aggressive congressional oversight to enforce the obligations of consent, buttressed by the ultimate remedy of impeachment to compel compliance. And they might even have anticipated enforcement of the anti-emolument provisions in the courts. But Congress today is supine—this, perhaps more than anything, is what they could not possibly have imagined. And when, in the first Trump administration, emoluments cases were brought in the courts, they were delayed until after Trump left office and ultimately dismissed, leaving open questions of standing and substantive scope. All of which puts the nation in an exceedingly uncomfortable place. The emoluments clauses were integral to how the Founders sought to constrain human nature, fearful as they were of self-interest triumphing over constitutional duty. But today, faced with a president who seemingly has no concern for constitutional limitations, the carefully crafted restrictions of the Constitution appear to be unenforceable; the courts are ineffective, and Congress doesn't seem to care. The Framers, one suspects, would weep.
Irish Independent
17-05-2025
- General
- Irish Independent
Enter an atmospheric Cork pub that once counted a legend of the Old IRA among its regulars
Le Chateau first welcomed customers when the French Revolution was raging and St Patrick's Street was still a river 1793: The French Revolution is escalating with the execution of King Louis XVI, in the United States, George Washington lays the cornerstone for the United States Capitol, and in Cork, the Huguenots set up a public house on the banks of a waterway which would become the city's most important thoroughfare. Boats sailed up and docked, enjoying fine wines and spirits, before carrying on along one of the city's many canals. Over 230 years later, the pub – now known as Le Chateau - has seen the great and good of the city, including sports stars, politicians, and an IRA general, among their regulars.
Daily Record
11-05-2025
- Entertainment
- Daily Record
BBC viewers urged to watch 'best period drama in a long time' as it's added to iPlayer
Marie Antoinette, which first aired in 2022, is now available to stream on BBC iPlayer and has been compared to popular Netflix show The Crown. Fans of Netflix's The Crown are being encouraged to check out an under appreciated historical drama now available on BBC iPlayer. Marie Antoinette, which first aired in 2022, is a period drama that, like The Crown, explores the lives of notable royal figures. The series chronicles the life of Marie Antoinette, France's last queen before the French Revolution, who was thrust into the court of Versailles through an arranged marriage to Louis XVI. Initially tasked with producing an heir for the nation, she eventually becomes a contentious figure, often linked to the downfall of the monarchy. Despite her largely negative reputation, this two-season show humanises the infamous queen and highlights the challenges she faced as a royal, reports Surrey Live. Russian actress Emilia Schüle stars as the eponymous queen, alongside Bridgeton's Louis Cunningham as King Louis XVI. They are joined by Jack Archer, known for his role in Virdee, and Jasmine Blackborow, who featured in Netflix's The Gentlemen. While it may not have a fanbase to rival The Crown, Marie Antoinette has garnered glowing reviews from those who have discovered it. Currently, it boasts a respectable 60 per cent critics' score on Rotten Tomatoes, and an even more impressive 80 per cent audience rating. Among the rave reviews, one viewer argued that the series deserves higher ratings from critics. One fan wrote: "This show is incredible, I'm really not sure why the critics didn't give it good reviews. Probably because they [the producers] didn't infuse it with modern day values, rather, they kept it as an accurate period piece. I much prefer it this way, how it actually was,". The series has also received widespread acclaim from viewers on IMDb, with comments including: "I really loved this imagining of Marie Antoinette. It was full of drama and kept me hooked." Another fan praised the show's historical accuracy, writing: "I thought the costumes were amazing and all the actors fit their roles perfectly- especially Marie and Louis, who's relationship is explored in an interesting way!". A third reviewer raved: "This is the best period drama I've come across in a long time. A lot of effort has gone into the hair, makeup and costumes and it shows. Even the quality of cinematography is super high."
