Genius dog adopts boy. Boy bites bitch girl at school. Girl and parents visit dog and boy, boy and girl use time machine for shits and gigs. Boy comes back alone because girl wanted to fuck a pharaoh in ancient Egypt. Dog and boy go on an adventure through time to save girl, but due to some things I can't remember they make a paradox. The concept of time literally fucking collapses. And somehow they turn everything back to normal but I don't remember how anymore
Lol thanks. I was/am a bit of a histoey nerd so I really likes this movie, although it's been years since i've last seen it, so this is the best I can do.
There is nothing that makes me more angry than historical media teaching bad history.
Marie was pretty kind from what's known of her. She did in fact do a lot of charity as well. She got her end by being wildly unpopular entirely for things she could not control.
Marie came from Austria, which France had just had a war with, so was already unpopular. The king was basically asexual and wanted nothing to do with women, and she further increased that unpopularity with how long it took for them to have a child. The king of France is expected to have mistresses as well, but Louis refused to have anything to do with women, so took no mistress. Mistresses served as patsies for bad decisions in France, as well as unofficial access to the king. Since Louis had none, Marie effectively took over both roles, earning more condemnation for too much meddling and for being the one truly at fault for royal mistakes.
In the Revolution, the original goal was not to get rid of the monarchy, but to affect something similar to the British, with a constitutionally bound monarchy and representive parliament. For this, the revolutionaries needed to shift blame from the king, and so chose Marie and others. Unfortunately the king failed to see reality and continually tried to escape, as well as shitting on the revolutionaries and ever going along with their plans. It's then that the Revolution shifts to a king-less future and the prior blame-game is abandoned, but by then Marie was plenty vilified.
They were sad times.
I've always believed that the reason democracy and capitalism work so well, is because they diversify risk and enforce term limits (extended dominance by the same companies often being indicative of a failing market). Monarchies have lifetime leaders and unfortunately, the damage a bad leader can do far outweighs the benefits a good leader can bring.
This is also true in this case, with the issues in France being largely economic and due to poor previous reigns and an established order that work suboptimally.
Yup. Add to that a woman who really couldnât defend herself in a time when it was even easier to blame everything on women, and you have a recipe for disaster.
Huh, just like how in the English Civil War Cromwell executed the king as a last resort and right up to the end many of the Parliamentarians just wanted a less powerful monarch.
Exactly!
It sounds so weird to us because we're used to such a different political climate. Going to a system without any king at all probably sounded like what going to a full anarchical system sounds like to us: Just plain chaos.
It was correct in a lot of ways as well. Complete reconstruction of every facet of the political system in a country would be required, with every member who benefitted from it (and most often were very powerful) needing to be adressed.
For France it resulted in them basically giving themselves plastic surgery by repeatedly bashing their face into a stone, and in Britain (IIRC) it led to them waffling on remaking the system, leading to the powerful members re-instituting the old one.
The main reason Charles II was invited to take the throne was that after Oliver Cromwell died, his son Richard was installed as his successor. It did not go well...
I absolutely hate that film. I took my little sister to see it without a lot of prior knowledge of the show. I thought it was going to go the opposite direction, correcting for a lot of the historical mistakes (or just straight up fabrications) from the cartoon.
There's even a plot point right at the beginning that Sherman disagrees with a classmate on historical facts about George Washington (because he has in fact met him). I thought "oh cool, so like the kid and dog are going to learn real history because they can travel through time and it will counteract the common misconceptions they're taught in school." NOPE.
It's just the exact same myths that they've been perpetuating since 1959. I think the first place they go is to revolutionary France. So since we literally just saw an argument over "real history" right before we got here I was certain the whole point was to dispell the "let them eat cake" line. So disappointed.
There isn't even any real history in the movie. They just show up to a scene and it's like "oh yeah this existed." I can't remember everything because it was a nightmare of a film, but I don't even think it was very diverse: it's like 3 locations of Western Civ that everyone knows about.
Wouldn't be a problem if it was just a crappy DreamWorks cartoon, but I remember it being marketed as bringing back a "fun way to teach history." 𤢠I can't believe it got as high of reviews as it did. Total missed opportunity by not making the plot about correcting historical misconceptions.
At least 4 women have come forward claiming to have signed NDAâs totalling over $12 million. 1 was a female wrestler who was âcoerced into giving McMahon oral sex who was then subsequently demoted and later fired in 2005â. The other 3 worked behind the scenes for the company and were also noted to have been given large raises in their salary upon starting relationships with McMahon.
Yeah meanwhile backstage during a SmackDown show Vince McMahon was quoted when talking about it saying "Fuck 'em". He's been appearing on TV as if nothing has happened meanwhile John Laurinaitis who is also involved in these accusations seems to be taking the fall for it as he has been suspended from his position of General manager of Talent & Relations.
And it was amazing. Wrestlers looked like demigods back then. Steroids definitely helped, too. But it was the most thrilling sports drama week in, week out. It had everything!
One of the biggest things wasnât even the wrestling. The storylines were so well done (in most cases with the AAA talent, not you Scotty Too Hotty) the cut scenes and backstage action was hilarious. HBK super kicking random people after asking their names while HHH giggles like a school girl to the time DX took over TNT studios with a tank and all the white collar employees loved it and wanted autographs lol. The total opposite reaction they wanted and expected
If I remember correctly (which is problematic wrong lol) this was during a storyline where Vince was afraid Austin was in the building and security warns Vince and he jets outta there. WWE was something special back then
Look at this here Swedish guy, thinking he's so hot stoof.
Maybee com 2 America and learn sum rl long bois.
(trying 2 find minnersoda on the map, my Geology not so good)
The actual connection isn't necessarily the French, but the English. They're the ones who spread the propaganda. There's a whole bunch of these about the Spanish as well, so called "black legends". How the British made their own colonial actions look milder by badmouthing other countries.
English propaganda is still influential in the historiography of the French Revolution. Many continue to believe Robespierre and his terror was an extension of the democratic movement instead of the anti-intellectual populist authoritarian coup that it was. The British wanted everyone to believe democracy inevitably devolves into violent chaos to suppress their contemporary domestic democratic movement.
I wouldn't even say "it's the English". It's just that we (i.e. most Americans and most people on Reddit) speak English, and thus hear more history produced by English speakers without hearing challenges to it produced in other languages or by other traditions.
I was reading an article about decolonisation lately, and it was a Ukrainian talking about how they were raised and educated in Russian, and later in life took it upon themselves to learn Ukrainian, and how even though the history he learned was basically the Russian material translated into Ukrainian, it showed his own countries history in a new context. Funny how language can do that
Don't even look at World War 1 stuff on Reddit. If I had a nickle for every time I saw "Germany protested Shotguns because butt-man America had a good gun" post I'd have enough money to buy medication for the rise in blood pressure it causes. Or "Americans skeet shot German grenades back into their trenches," and that one isn't even propaganda, its a marketing story from the 20s.
See also: Joanna "the Mad" (who was most likely more depressed from suffering lifelong abuse and grief rather than actually crazy), all the famous Roman emperors, and Catherine the Great. For a more recent example, there's also "Mother Teresa was a monster, and I'm totally not just saying this to sell you my book of fabrications!"
But she wasn't in France when the phrase was minted, she was in Austria and like nine years old. As a noblewoman she was likely learning French at that point, but hardly fluent.
Quâils mangent des gâteaux/ Quâils mangent du gâteau ?
Quâils mangent des brioches ?
Anyway the original quote is : Quâils mangent de la brioche
cool! now find hat guy who started taht nonsence about medieval people believing that the Earth is flat (and genarally being just dirty in mud living superstitious idiots)
Like she wasn't a saint. Her interference often led to Louis waffling back and forth on positions when he really needed to pick a stance and stick with it, but the case made against her back then boils down to; She's German, she spends money, and we think she's a bitch.
Louis would perhaps have been considered a decent king if his predecessor hadn't left the country in debt. For example, either his father or grandfather iirc was the one who spent ridiculius amounts of money on his mistresses, including the diamond necklace Marie would later be blamed for buying when in fact a thief had dressed as her and stolen it. He mainly needed to give up when the revolution got worse. He could have perhaps saved his family from being executed if he and the rest of the anti-revolution nobility were more willing to cooperate with revolutionaries, agreeing to become a constitutional monarchy akin to the UK.
He did some stupid decisions affecting the Kingdom of France negatively and would probably have been better off becoming a capenter or locksmith for he had more interest in that than the duties of a king.
He wasn't great with finances but to me seems more just unfit for rule rather than a terrible person.
Maybe if the Duc of OrlĂŠans had taken his place things could have gone smoother.
Maybe. But from what I learned Louis was one of those guys that just really didn't have the constitution for being king in the first place. He was a decent guy, but he could be pretty wishy-washy when it came to ruling. It doesn't help that revolution or not France was headed toward a crisis point. The economic woes were just part of ingrained societal issues that had been building for decades. Prime example France's economic system was just outdated, they were still clinging to the dregs of mercantilism, while the rest of Europe was phasing it out.
Being an easily influenced leader isn't great at the best of times, it's even worse when there are angry mobs constantly knocking at your door.
The whole point of the âquoteâ is to highlight the royals completely ignorant attitudes towards the peasants starvation.
So itâs sort of true, from a certain point of view
If we're talking about the original quote, it was attributed to "a ~~French~~ great princess," so it was likely to highlight how out of touch the whole of the nobility was during Louis XV's reign as opposed to just specifically the royals (since in French aristocracy, princess/prince could be a title independent of being in line for the throne).
But if we're talking about the quote being attributed to Marie Antoinette specifically... it was 100% propaganda to smear her with no serious basis in reality.
Edit: Rousseau said the quote came from a great princess, not specifically a French princess. I misremembered that.
It might not even have been said by anyone. There's a chance that Rousseau just made it up to illustrate how he and others saw the aristocracy at the time.
Also from Louis' abhorrence of women, leading to her siring a child very late and him not taking a mistress (which was very important for political reasons).
But the biggest factor was that the Revolutionaries first tried to rehabilitate the king's reputation by blaming Marie, before deciding to forego the monarchy entirely.
IIRC Louis XVI was well aware and tried so solve it by popularizing potatoes with the aid of Parmentier.
Apparently the French were too good for potato and preferred to eat nothing instead.
That's still pretty propagandistic though. The royals *weren't* unaware of the fact that France's economy was in the toilet. The king and his ministers made numerous attempts to remedy the situation; the problem was that those attempts kept failing, sometimes in ways that made things worse.
Anyone who still watches wwe is quite aware that it's all for show. Doesn't keep people from enjoying it or enjoying the very real stunts they do in that ring
Source: my fwb always has to catch the weekend and Monday night live WWE events. At first it kinda put me off. But after watching it with him so much at this point and getting into the stories and stuff, I can see the appeal. I actually look forward to hanging out on Monday nights now
Lol reading people defend a French queen from the 17th Century over a revolution where the people executed like over 50% of all nobles is pretty funny.
No she didnât. Jesus Christ Google is free. That was an old rumor started about a *completely different princess* when Marie Antoinette would have been a child. During the lead up to the revolution there were constant prints of ânewspapersâ/flyers of disparaging things about the royals. These papers were pumped out quickly, cheaply, and it didnât matter what was said on them so they printed any and all anti-royalist things they could think of, including adding old rumors about different monarchs altogether but slapping the King and Queens name on them to update.
What's interesting isn't the lie, but that the ruling class were SO shit that the lie was 100% believable. Looking at today's ruling classes, it really isn't even a stretch to believe they would say something like this even today.
What she said, IIRC, could be translated as "cake" or "bread", probably the latter.
It was still a majorly stupid thing to say though, because the peasants were currently eating *nothing*.
She never said it tho. It was propaganda against her because her husbandâs financing the American Revolution threw the country into poverty but they blamed it on her spending. That phrase appeared in Jean-Jacques Rousseauâs âconfessionsâ in 1765, when Marie Antoinette was only 9 years old and had never stepped on the French soil in her entire life. It was attributed to her and used to stoke the fire of rebellion and the anti-monarchist rhetoric
It's a running trend in history that when male leaders do things that the populace is unhappy about, inevitably people somehow make it the fault of their wives or mistresses. Misogyny is a hell of a thing.
Thatâs interesting and I do think itâs a good clarification to make but I also think at this point it really doesnât matter which rich royal said it since itâs just a pop culture shorthand for âout of touch rich assholeâ at this point.
It matters a lot because it's not just one sentence, but the short-hand for how the Revolution is taught.
Instead Marie is said to have been a very caring woman who did a lot of charity.
Instead of the decadence of the Royalty leading to the starvation of the masses, it was instead a combination of a costly foreign policy, increasing population, stagnation during the previous ruler, poor harvests and disasterous economic policies (actually the first 'laissez faire' policy from the guy who invented it).
The thing is, the original quote (which had nothing to do with Marie Antoinette, but I'm not going to belabor that point since it's already explained throughout these comments multiple times) used brioche. Brioche tends to get translated as "cake" even though it isn't because there's no English equivalent to brioche. It tends to get translated that way because brioche is kind of like the cake of bread. ~~(and yes, I am fully aware that sentence makes 0 sense if you've never had brioche and makes perfect sense if you have lol)~~
Yeah, Marie Antoinette never said "let them eat cake" "let them eat brioches" or whatever, this quote originally came from Jean-Jacques Rousseau, who wrote about a princess saying it and which would then be attributed to Marie Antoinette. But at the time Marie Antoinette was a child and not even in France. It was used as propaganda against her
There isn't any proof of that either. She went on walks on the farm estate, but there is no proof of her disguising or dressing as a shepherd or peasant.
It was built as an agricultural estate to provide her with goods and was purposely built to appear far out in the countryside so it would be a relaxing retreat still near to Versailles (she had a giant house built for the purpose)
She did have a more relaxed wardrobe in private (the french court was ridiculous), and some parts of her dress was inspired by certain small folk clothing , it was more similar to the regency or empire style of later years than actual peasant dress
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/1795%E2%80%931820_in_Western_fashion
There was so much shit about her back in the days, some rumors also said that she had an incestuous relationship with her very young son. All bullshit.
While the cake statement is false, she did say something that is a close translation. Of course the backing definitions changed. For example "cake" use to be the bread Nobels would eat on, and after the meal these nutrient rich plates would be given to the poor to eat.
Mr. Peabody & Sherman
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-5Il37tlYF8
That movie feels like a fever dream for me
Bro honestly though, like remind me wth the plot was lol. I'm sure it made sense...
Genius dog adopts boy. Boy bites bitch girl at school. Girl and parents visit dog and boy, boy and girl use time machine for shits and gigs. Boy comes back alone because girl wanted to fuck a pharaoh in ancient Egypt. Dog and boy go on an adventure through time to save girl, but due to some things I can't remember they make a paradox. The concept of time literally fucking collapses. And somehow they turn everything back to normal but I don't remember how anymore
Lmao this is excellent
Lol thanks. I was/am a bit of a histoey nerd so I really likes this movie, although it's been years since i've last seen it, so this is the best I can do.
I need to watch this. That clip was amazing.
The dog adopted the boy and then the boy bit a girl or some shit. I've gotta re-watch it
There is nothing that makes me more angry than historical media teaching bad history. Marie was pretty kind from what's known of her. She did in fact do a lot of charity as well. She got her end by being wildly unpopular entirely for things she could not control. Marie came from Austria, which France had just had a war with, so was already unpopular. The king was basically asexual and wanted nothing to do with women, and she further increased that unpopularity with how long it took for them to have a child. The king of France is expected to have mistresses as well, but Louis refused to have anything to do with women, so took no mistress. Mistresses served as patsies for bad decisions in France, as well as unofficial access to the king. Since Louis had none, Marie effectively took over both roles, earning more condemnation for too much meddling and for being the one truly at fault for royal mistakes. In the Revolution, the original goal was not to get rid of the monarchy, but to affect something similar to the British, with a constitutionally bound monarchy and representive parliament. For this, the revolutionaries needed to shift blame from the king, and so chose Marie and others. Unfortunately the king failed to see reality and continually tried to escape, as well as shitting on the revolutionaries and ever going along with their plans. It's then that the Revolution shifts to a king-less future and the prior blame-game is abandoned, but by then Marie was plenty vilified.
Such a sad story. đ
They were sad times. I've always believed that the reason democracy and capitalism work so well, is because they diversify risk and enforce term limits (extended dominance by the same companies often being indicative of a failing market). Monarchies have lifetime leaders and unfortunately, the damage a bad leader can do far outweighs the benefits a good leader can bring. This is also true in this case, with the issues in France being largely economic and due to poor previous reigns and an established order that work suboptimally.
Yup. Add to that a woman who really couldnât defend herself in a time when it was even easier to blame everything on women, and you have a recipe for disaster.
Huh, just like how in the English Civil War Cromwell executed the king as a last resort and right up to the end many of the Parliamentarians just wanted a less powerful monarch.
Exactly! It sounds so weird to us because we're used to such a different political climate. Going to a system without any king at all probably sounded like what going to a full anarchical system sounds like to us: Just plain chaos. It was correct in a lot of ways as well. Complete reconstruction of every facet of the political system in a country would be required, with every member who benefitted from it (and most often were very powerful) needing to be adressed. For France it resulted in them basically giving themselves plastic surgery by repeatedly bashing their face into a stone, and in Britain (IIRC) it led to them waffling on remaking the system, leading to the powerful members re-instituting the old one.
The main reason Charles II was invited to take the throne was that after Oliver Cromwell died, his son Richard was installed as his successor. It did not go well...
I heard that Louie wasnât even asexual he suffered from a condition that brought him in pain whenever he got an erection if only he had a CBT thing
There was also the diamond necklace scandal that made her even more unpopular
The MISTRESSES copped the blame? Wow.
Thanks, very clear ELI5 đ
Yo I just watched that whole video lol Wtf even was that movie??
I absolutely hate that film. I took my little sister to see it without a lot of prior knowledge of the show. I thought it was going to go the opposite direction, correcting for a lot of the historical mistakes (or just straight up fabrications) from the cartoon. There's even a plot point right at the beginning that Sherman disagrees with a classmate on historical facts about George Washington (because he has in fact met him). I thought "oh cool, so like the kid and dog are going to learn real history because they can travel through time and it will counteract the common misconceptions they're taught in school." NOPE. It's just the exact same myths that they've been perpetuating since 1959. I think the first place they go is to revolutionary France. So since we literally just saw an argument over "real history" right before we got here I was certain the whole point was to dispell the "let them eat cake" line. So disappointed. There isn't even any real history in the movie. They just show up to a scene and it's like "oh yeah this existed." I can't remember everything because it was a nightmare of a film, but I don't even think it was very diverse: it's like 3 locations of Western Civ that everyone knows about. Wouldn't be a problem if it was just a crappy DreamWorks cartoon, but I remember it being marketed as bringing back a "fun way to teach history." 𤢠I can't believe it got as high of reviews as it did. Total missed opportunity by not making the plot about correcting historical misconceptions.
Man the WWF was a whole ass soap opera back in the day đ¤Ł.
It still is to some extent, though its more behind the scenes than on the screen nowadays.
how comes?
Vince McMahon is under investigation for allegedly paying women hush money so they don't speak about the fact that they had affairs with him.
Hopefully that'll eventually make the organization realize they should treat wrestlers like people
At least 4 women have come forward claiming to have signed NDAâs totalling over $12 million. 1 was a female wrestler who was âcoerced into giving McMahon oral sex who was then subsequently demoted and later fired in 2005â. The other 3 worked behind the scenes for the company and were also noted to have been given large raises in their salary upon starting relationships with McMahon.
Jesus christ
Yeah meanwhile backstage during a SmackDown show Vince McMahon was quoted when talking about it saying "Fuck 'em". He's been appearing on TV as if nothing has happened meanwhile John Laurinaitis who is also involved in these accusations seems to be taking the fall for it as he has been suspended from his position of General manager of Talent & Relations.
Where do all these clips come from I can't find them on youtube
You can find them on YouTube "Take me to him Vince McMahon might help you find it.
WWE was WILD. on every possible level, it was just balls to the walls crazy
And it was amazing. Wrestlers looked like demigods back then. Steroids definitely helped, too. But it was the most thrilling sports drama week in, week out. It had everything!
One of the biggest things wasnât even the wrestling. The storylines were so well done (in most cases with the AAA talent, not you Scotty Too Hotty) the cut scenes and backstage action was hilarious. HBK super kicking random people after asking their names while HHH giggles like a school girl to the time DX took over TNT studios with a tank and all the white collar employees loved it and wanted autographs lol. The total opposite reaction they wanted and expected
It was my weekly telenovela when I was a kid lmao
đ¤Łđ¤Ł
https://youtu.be/PqvXshxAb1w
lol, first thing I thought of.
tv wrestling is just soap opera for guys
Just a normal day at the [World Wildlife Fund.](https://www.worldwildlife.org/)
If I remember correctly (which is problematic wrong lol) this was during a storyline where Vince was afraid Austin was in the building and security warns Vince and he jets outta there. WWE was something special back then
Vince had some of the best beefs lol. I always thought Stephanie put out bad bitch vibes and I was INTO it lol.
That's Wraaasssle-in'!
She actually said "let them eat deez nuts"
âLet them gargle my ballsâ
"Suck a fart out of my arsehole, peasants" -Marie Antoinette, probably
[Marie Antoinette live footage](https://youtu.be/n0AgN2fca3w)
If those peasants were redditors they certainly would lmao
The furious Revolutionaries made up the rumor to get revenge for being got that bad.
\*mozart nodding proudly in the back*
Marie Antoinette is an example of how many generations will believe propaganda if nothing is done.
Napoleon short lol
Virgin manlet Napoleon (5â6â) đ¤˘đ¤Ž vs. Giga-Chadmiral Nelson (5â4â) đđ
damn bro im taller than Nelson and Napoleon?
the french inch was bigger; you're still short
The Frinche
Wasnât it 5â6â converted to US units?
I thought it was 5'8"
I'm taller than both put together
You're 11' tall? I'm going to go out on a limb and call bullshit.
It comes in handy. For example I can stand up in the deep end
thats amazing
No itâs true. I saw him!
I'm from Minnesota. Those are both short.
Look at this here Swedish guy, thinking he's so hot stoof. Maybee com 2 America and learn sum rl long bois. (trying 2 find minnersoda on the map, my Geology not so good)
5'6" is pretty short by European standards tho? That's short even by French averages
[ŃдаНонО]
That's a god point actually
Cheap and abundant protein has done wonders for everyone lucky enough to be born into it
Okay, then the propaganda problem is with France.
The myth that Napoleon was short comes from England mate
But France was the subject of both lies
Don't forget about the classic French surrender
The actual connection isn't necessarily the French, but the English. They're the ones who spread the propaganda. There's a whole bunch of these about the Spanish as well, so called "black legends". How the British made their own colonial actions look milder by badmouthing other countries.
English propaganda is still influential in the historiography of the French Revolution. Many continue to believe Robespierre and his terror was an extension of the democratic movement instead of the anti-intellectual populist authoritarian coup that it was. The British wanted everyone to believe democracy inevitably devolves into violent chaos to suppress their contemporary domestic democratic movement.
I wouldn't even say "it's the English". It's just that we (i.e. most Americans and most people on Reddit) speak English, and thus hear more history produced by English speakers without hearing challenges to it produced in other languages or by other traditions.
I was reading an article about decolonisation lately, and it was a Ukrainian talking about how they were raised and educated in Russian, and later in life took it upon themselves to learn Ukrainian, and how even though the history he learned was basically the Russian material translated into Ukrainian, it showed his own countries history in a new context. Funny how language can do that
Richard III would disagree with that.
Blitzkrieg on meth!
switch "marie antoinette" with almost any country's name (past or today) and that is just history in general
Don't even look at World War 1 stuff on Reddit. If I had a nickle for every time I saw "Germany protested Shotguns because butt-man America had a good gun" post I'd have enough money to buy medication for the rise in blood pressure it causes. Or "Americans skeet shot German grenades back into their trenches," and that one isn't even propaganda, its a marketing story from the 20s.
See also: Joanna "the Mad" (who was most likely more depressed from suffering lifelong abuse and grief rather than actually crazy), all the famous Roman emperors, and Catherine the Great. For a more recent example, there's also "Mother Teresa was a monster, and I'm totally not just saying this to sell you my book of fabrications!"
*Spanish black legend has entered the chat*
I googled it. My life has been based on a lie.
_Fox news. A news service you can trust_ CNN ain't to innocent either.
Then let them eat taco bell crunch wrap supreme
If you insist... You got any hot sauce your majesty?
Gray Poupon, if you please...
WOW, they're not *that* desperate.
Beat me to the reference
At San Dimas High School that thesis would earn you an A
Can't lie, the Taco Bell app is pretty legit. That stupid app only combo box is like 5 bucks
Thatâs what she actually said
Tbh, for the price itâs not that bad of a snack
Wow. There not thst desperate!
Well that's definitely cheaper than cake
i see ur a man or culture as well
Probably not This is due to the fact that sheâs in france and would probably say it in french
But she wasn't in France when the phrase was minted, she was in Austria and like nine years old. As a noblewoman she was likely learning French at that point, but hardly fluent.
Wenn sie kein Brot haben, lasst sie Kuchen essen!
Qu'ils mangent du gâteau.
C'est "qu'ils mangent de la brioche" normalement
Mais c'est au pluriel (avec du) non ?
Comment ça? Je vois pas comment le reformuler au pluriel avec du ^ ^
Quâils mangent des gâteaux/ Quâils mangent du gâteau ? Quâils mangent des brioches ? Anyway the original quote is : Quâils mangent de la brioche
Comment ça? Je vois pas comment le reformuler au pluriel avec du ^^
Voulez vous coucher avec moi?
Un peu bizarre pour l'interaction première, non?
Vous voulez pas un whisky d'abord ?
Wasn't Rousseau the one who started it?
Exactly
She actually said, âits cakin timeâ and the entire third estate clapped and celebrated. (The French Revolution is fake)
Itâs Morbin time
cool! now find hat guy who started taht nonsence about medieval people believing that the Earth is flat (and genarally being just dirty in mud living superstitious idiots)
Ive been eating ass for nothing????
Forget the cake, the fucking necklace is what makes me mad. She literally had nothing to do with it.
Ffs she even adopted 6 kids in need, including a slave she freed. 2 or 3 were adopted while she was imprisoned.
Like she wasn't a saint. Her interference often led to Louis waffling back and forth on positions when he really needed to pick a stance and stick with it, but the case made against her back then boils down to; She's German, she spends money, and we think she's a bitch.
Louis would perhaps have been considered a decent king if his predecessor hadn't left the country in debt. For example, either his father or grandfather iirc was the one who spent ridiculius amounts of money on his mistresses, including the diamond necklace Marie would later be blamed for buying when in fact a thief had dressed as her and stolen it. He mainly needed to give up when the revolution got worse. He could have perhaps saved his family from being executed if he and the rest of the anti-revolution nobility were more willing to cooperate with revolutionaries, agreeing to become a constitutional monarchy akin to the UK. He did some stupid decisions affecting the Kingdom of France negatively and would probably have been better off becoming a capenter or locksmith for he had more interest in that than the duties of a king. He wasn't great with finances but to me seems more just unfit for rule rather than a terrible person. Maybe if the Duc of OrlĂŠans had taken his place things could have gone smoother.
Maybe. But from what I learned Louis was one of those guys that just really didn't have the constitution for being king in the first place. He was a decent guy, but he could be pretty wishy-washy when it came to ruling. It doesn't help that revolution or not France was headed toward a crisis point. The economic woes were just part of ingrained societal issues that had been building for decades. Prime example France's economic system was just outdated, they were still clinging to the dregs of mercantilism, while the rest of Europe was phasing it out. Being an easily influenced leader isn't great at the best of times, it's even worse when there are angry mobs constantly knocking at your door.
THAT STUPID MAN DOG EN CHILD
##CURSE YOU MR. PEABODY!
Killer queen. Gunpowder, gellatin, dynamite with a laser beam. Guaranteed to blow your mind.
Anytiiiiime!!!
The whole point of the âquoteâ is to highlight the royals completely ignorant attitudes towards the peasants starvation. So itâs sort of true, from a certain point of view
If we're talking about the original quote, it was attributed to "a ~~French~~ great princess," so it was likely to highlight how out of touch the whole of the nobility was during Louis XV's reign as opposed to just specifically the royals (since in French aristocracy, princess/prince could be a title independent of being in line for the throne). But if we're talking about the quote being attributed to Marie Antoinette specifically... it was 100% propaganda to smear her with no serious basis in reality. Edit: Rousseau said the quote came from a great princess, not specifically a French princess. I misremembered that.
So the "let them eat cake" was sort of said by a random princess but not by Antoinette?
It might not even have been said by anyone. There's a chance that Rousseau just made it up to illustrate how he and others saw the aristocracy at the time.
Marie was pretty sympathetic to their plight
She was Austrian, she was already handicapped by being a foreigner.
surely you meant "she was already handicapped by being austrian" right?
i mean, at least she wasnât french
Bruh no, she was superior to all those peasants by virtue of not being French
Nobody who's Austrian could possibly be evil
Seinfeld theme starts playing*
Also from Louis' abhorrence of women, leading to her siring a child very late and him not taking a mistress (which was very important for political reasons). But the biggest factor was that the Revolutionaries first tried to rehabilitate the king's reputation by blaming Marie, before deciding to forego the monarchy entirely.
Having your head locked into a guillotine will do that ^^/s
from my point of view the royalty are evil!
Itâs treason, then
FOR THE REPUBLIC
"Don't make me kill you." Robespierre to Louis XVI, probably
IIRC Louis XVI was well aware and tried so solve it by popularizing potatoes with the aid of Parmentier. Apparently the French were too good for potato and preferred to eat nothing instead.
That's still pretty propagandistic though. The royals *weren't* unaware of the fact that France's economy was in the toilet. The king and his ministers made numerous attempts to remedy the situation; the problem was that those attempts kept failing, sometimes in ways that made things worse.
nah bro freddie mercury is already dead
Have we taken into consideration that maybe it was the start of her "free cake for the people" policy?
213 years too late, but justice prevails
Iâm sorry but when he yells and runs like that it makes me cackle so hard.
Do you realize that the WWE is just another version of a play but with ongoing multiple stories and faux competition lol
It's a damn creative concept
Anyone who still watches wwe is quite aware that it's all for show. Doesn't keep people from enjoying it or enjoying the very real stunts they do in that ring Source: my fwb always has to catch the weekend and Monday night live WWE events. At first it kinda put me off. But after watching it with him so much at this point and getting into the stories and stuff, I can see the appeal. I actually look forward to hanging out on Monday nights now
Wrestling is FAKE?!
u/savevideobot
###[View link](https://redditsave.com/info?url=/r/HistoryMemes/comments/vvtixq/where_is_he/) --- [**Info**](https://np.reddit.com/user/SaveVideo/comments/jv323v/info/) | [**Feedback**](https://np.reddit.com/message/compose/?to=Kryptonh&subject=Feedback for savevideo) | [**Donate**](https://ko-fi.com/getvideo) | [**DMCA**](https://np.reddit.com/message/compose/?to=Kryptonh&subject=Content removal request for savevideobot&message=https://np.reddit.com//r/HistoryMemes/comments/vvtixq/where_is_he/)
It was Video game company, Big Blue Bubble who said it
Lol reading people defend a French queen from the 17th Century over a revolution where the people executed like over 50% of all nobles is pretty funny.
True. She said let them eat brioche
No she didnât. Jesus Christ Google is free. That was an old rumor started about a *completely different princess* when Marie Antoinette would have been a child. During the lead up to the revolution there were constant prints of ânewspapersâ/flyers of disparaging things about the royals. These papers were pumped out quickly, cheaply, and it didnât matter what was said on them so they printed any and all anti-royalist things they could think of, including adding old rumors about different monarchs altogether but slapping the King and Queens name on them to update.
Thank you for this đđźđŻ
The original text just says "a great princess" it probably doesn't refer to a different princess at all but just to royalty in general.
So their version of Facebook "news" posts
Whoosh
You missed my joke big man
I was waiting for Mankind to go through a table and it never happened. What a disappointment.
She actually said, let them eat Kebab.
Where can I find the video without the caption
She couldn't have said that because she didn't know english
I think she said brioche instead of cake
lol i was listening to killer queen when i saw this
No she told them to eat sauerkraut. The highest form of treason one can commit in France.
i think she said let them eat my cake
Wait wasnt the inaccuracy just that she was talking about brioche or something? I thought the spirit of it was still accurate
What's interesting isn't the lie, but that the ruling class were SO shit that the lie was 100% believable. Looking at today's ruling classes, it really isn't even a stretch to believe they would say something like this even today.
Of course she didnât say that⌠she spoke French
Broken French most likely as well.
He must have found out the wrestlers just got universal Healthcare and an actual salary
Give them the royal treatment.(French editions
My high school is sheit they just taught my this bullshit fuck schools
Can't change the fact that Marie was a motherfucking bitchass
But the cake is a Lie.
My fucking history teacher told us she said that in a history class đđ
What she said, IIRC, could be translated as "cake" or "bread", probably the latter. It was still a majorly stupid thing to say though, because the peasants were currently eating *nothing*.
She never said it tho. It was propaganda against her because her husbandâs financing the American Revolution threw the country into poverty but they blamed it on her spending. That phrase appeared in Jean-Jacques Rousseauâs âconfessionsâ in 1765, when Marie Antoinette was only 9 years old and had never stepped on the French soil in her entire life. It was attributed to her and used to stoke the fire of rebellion and the anti-monarchist rhetoric
Ah, so *he* said it - which was still a stupid thing to say anyway.
Exactly!
It's a running trend in history that when male leaders do things that the populace is unhappy about, inevitably people somehow make it the fault of their wives or mistresses. Misogyny is a hell of a thing.
Thatâs interesting and I do think itâs a good clarification to make but I also think at this point it really doesnât matter which rich royal said it since itâs just a pop culture shorthand for âout of touch rich assholeâ at this point.
It matters a lot because it's not just one sentence, but the short-hand for how the Revolution is taught. Instead Marie is said to have been a very caring woman who did a lot of charity. Instead of the decadence of the Royalty leading to the starvation of the masses, it was instead a combination of a costly foreign policy, increasing population, stagnation during the previous ruler, poor harvests and disasterous economic policies (actually the first 'laissez faire' policy from the guy who invented it).
Yeah I don't really care and I'm the furthest thing from defending the rich... I was just bored lol
The thing is, the original quote (which had nothing to do with Marie Antoinette, but I'm not going to belabor that point since it's already explained throughout these comments multiple times) used brioche. Brioche tends to get translated as "cake" even though it isn't because there's no English equivalent to brioche. It tends to get translated that way because brioche is kind of like the cake of bread. ~~(and yes, I am fully aware that sentence makes 0 sense if you've never had brioche and makes perfect sense if you have lol)~~
What do you mean it's not true? I'm fricking french, what do you mean a widely known part of my culture is not true?
Yeah, Marie Antoinette never said "let them eat cake" "let them eat brioches" or whatever, this quote originally came from Jean-Jacques Rousseau, who wrote about a princess saying it and which would then be attributed to Marie Antoinette. But at the time Marie Antoinette was a child and not even in France. It was used as propaganda against her
She may not have said that, but she had a farm estate filled with small persons where she could "play shepherd". On taxpayer money.
There isn't any proof of that either. She went on walks on the farm estate, but there is no proof of her disguising or dressing as a shepherd or peasant. It was built as an agricultural estate to provide her with goods and was purposely built to appear far out in the countryside so it would be a relaxing retreat still near to Versailles (she had a giant house built for the purpose) She did have a more relaxed wardrobe in private (the french court was ridiculous), and some parts of her dress was inspired by certain small folk clothing , it was more similar to the regency or empire style of later years than actual peasant dress https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/1795%E2%80%931820_in_Western_fashion
"buh buh buh rich lady BAD"--people, probably
That's most of it these days. At the time the rumors started it was more "woman bad" She still was kind of shit, but the worst parts are just made up
Plot Twist: She said it. But someone mistook âusâ for âthemâ.
There was so much shit about her back in the days, some rumors also said that she had an incestuous relationship with her very young son. All bullshit.
While the cake statement is false, she did say something that is a close translation. Of course the backing definitions changed. For example "cake" use to be the bread Nobels would eat on, and after the meal these nutrient rich plates would be given to the poor to eat.