
"Memorandum to Her Majesty the Queen Concerning the Diamond Necklace Affair" (1786)
Controversy surrounding the Queen reached a fever pitch in 1785–86 in what was known as the "diamond–necklace affair." A court schemer, Jeanne de la Motte, wove a complex web of intrigue, in which she convinced Cardinal Louis de Rohan—an aristocrat from a long–standing noble family who was determined to become the Queen’s lover—to purchase for Marie Antoinette an elaborate jewel necklace (made by two highly reputed jewelers) on which she had supposedly set her sights. In reality, the Queen had no knowledge of either the jewel or Rohan’s purchase, and de la Motte was able to make off with both Rohan’s money and the necklace. When the scheme came to light several months later, the cardinal was arrested along with de la Motte; during the ensuing trial, numerous pamphlets were published speculating on and mocking the Queen’s potential involvement in the intrigue, further damaging her reputation. This pamphlet, supposedly from the jewelers, describes their difficulties in obtaining payment from Rohan and asking the Queen herself to intervene.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
On 24 January 1785, the Cardinal of Rohan came to our store—Bohmer & Bassanges—and asked us to show him various jewels. We took advantage of this opportunity to show him a big diamond necklace—a unique and rare piece of its kind. After having examined it, this Prince told us he had heard about this jewel and that he had come because he was given the responsibility of checking the price. We told him that we wanted to sell the necklace because it had become a heavy burden on us. It cost 1,600,000 livres even though it cost us more to make it. Nevertheless we were determined to sell the necklace, and told him that we would be very happy that Her Majesty the Queen wear the jewel. . . .
The Prince told us that he would mention the meeting he had with us [to the Queen], and also that he would be responsible for buying the necklace. . . .
Two days later, the Prince asked us to come to his house and he told us that he could negotiate with us if we would keep everything secret. We promised we would, and he informed us of proposals to acquire the necklace. . . . After having read these proposals, he asked us if they would be suitable for us, and we answered yes. . . .
On the morning of February 1st, the Prince wrote us a letter without signing it: "I would like Monsieur Bohmer and his partner to come to my house as soon as possible with the object in question." We immediately went, and brought him the famous necklace. During the meeting, he told us that Her Majesty the Queen was going to acquire the jewel, and he showed us that the proposals we had accepted were signed by Marie Antoinette of France. We showed our joy and satisfaction, and the Prince assured us that he would deliver the necklace during the day. At the same time he told us that Her Majesty could not meet with them as mentioned in the proposals, but he hoped that we would receive the interest we claimed and he would represent them, as he considered our request fair. This is how ended the third meeting.
The same day, we received a letter from the Prince, written and signed by him: "Monsieur Bohmer, Her Majesty the Queen's intentions were that the interest due after the first payment at the end of August, be paid successively with capital until everything is paid for. Signed by the Cardinal Prince of Rohan." Paris, 1 February 1785.
A few days after we received this letter, we met the Prince who told us that as soon as we had the opportunity to meet Her Majesty the Queen, we should thank her for buying the necklace. But we never had the opportunity to meet her. We waited until July, when the Prince asked us to come to his house. He told us that the necklace was too expensive for the Queen. Her Majesty had the intention to give it back to us, unless we considered lowering its price to 200,000 livres. . . .
We were filled with sorrow and consternation after hearing this. We told the Prince of the misfortune these events were leading us into since, on one hand, we had refused to sell the jewel to the Spanish Court, where it had been asked for several times. On the other hand, we had committed ourselves to several creditors after the Prince had assured us that we would receive the first payments from Her Majesty.
The Prince promised us that he would mention these facts to the Queen. A few days later, he told us that Her Majesty had accepted our last settlements, and instead of receiving 400,000 livres, we would soon receive 700,000 livres, which would allow us to honor our commitments. At the same time, the Prince told us to thank the Queen. For fear that we would not be able to tell her verbally, we wrote her a thank you note, which was delivered by Bohmer to Her Majesty.
The end of July was the time of the first payment we were supposed to receive; the Prince asked us to come over and told us that this first payment could not be made; it was to be postponed to October 1st. Meanwhile, we received 30,000 livres in the interest. We gave him a receipt saying that we had received this amount from Her Majesty the Queen.
Signed Bohmer and Bassanges
Source: "Mémoire rémis à S. M. La Reine," in Anonymous, Réceuil de pièces authentiques et intéressants, pour servir d'éclaircissement à l'affaire concernant le cardinal prince de Rohan (1786)..
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
On 24 January 1785, the Cardinal of Rohan came to our store—Bohmer & Bassanges—and asked us to show him various jewels. We took advantage of this opportunity to show him a big diamond necklace—a unique and rare piece of its kind. After having examined it, this Prince told us he had heard about this jewel and that he had come because he was given the responsibility of checking the price. We told him that we wanted to sell the necklace because it had become a heavy burden on us. It cost 1,600,000 livres even though it cost us more to make it. Nevertheless we were determined to sell the necklace, and told him that we would be very happy that Her Majesty the Queen wear the jewel. . . .
The Prince told us that he would mention the meeting he had with us [to the Queen], and also that he would be responsible for buying the necklace. . . .
Two days later, the Prince asked us to come to his house and he told us that he could negotiate with us if we would keep everything secret. We promised we would, and he informed us of proposals to acquire the necklace. . . . After having read these proposals, he asked us if they would be suitable for us, and we answered yes. . . .
On the morning of February 1st, the Prince wrote us a letter without signing it: "I would like Monsieur Bohmer and his partner to come to my house as soon as possible with the object in question." We immediately went, and brought him the famous necklace. During the meeting, he told us that Her Majesty the Queen was going to acquire the jewel, and he showed us that the proposals we had accepted were signed by Marie Antoinette of France. We showed our joy and satisfaction, and the Prince assured us that he would deliver the necklace during the day. At the same time he told us that Her Majesty could not meet with them as mentioned in the proposals, but he hoped that we would receive the interest we claimed and he would represent them, as he considered our request fair. This is how ended the third meeting.
The same day, we received a letter from the Prince, written and signed by him: "Monsieur Bohmer, Her Majesty the Queen's intentions were that the interest due after the first payment at the end of August, be paid successively with capital until everything is paid for. Signed by the Cardinal Prince of Rohan." Paris, 1 February 1785.
A few days after we received this letter, we met the Prince who told us that as soon as we had the opportunity to meet Her Majesty the Queen, we should thank her for buying the necklace. But we never had the opportunity to meet her. We waited until July, when the Prince asked us to come to his house. He told us that the necklace was too expensive for the Queen. Her Majesty had the intention to give it back to us, unless we considered lowering its price to 200,000 livres. . . .
We were filled with sorrow and consternation after hearing this. We told the Prince of the misfortune these events were leading us into since, on one hand, we had refused to sell the jewel to the Spanish Court, where it had been asked for several times. On the other hand, we had committed ourselves to several creditors after the Prince had assured us that we would receive the first payments from Her Majesty.
The Prince promised us that he would mention these facts to the Queen. A few days later, he told us that Her Majesty had accepted our last settlements, and instead of receiving 400,000 livres, we would soon receive 700,000 livres, which would allow us to honor our commitments. At the same time, the Prince told us to thank the Queen. For fear that we would not be able to tell her verbally, we wrote her a thank you note, which was delivered by Bohmer to Her Majesty.
The end of July was the time of the first payment we were supposed to receive; the Prince asked us to come over and told us that this first payment could not be made; it was to be postponed to October 1st. Meanwhile, we received 30,000 livres in the interest. We gave him a receipt saying that we had received this amount from Her Majesty the Queen.
Signed Bohmer and Bassanges
Source: "Mémoire rémis à S. M. La Reine," in Anonymous, Réceuil de pièces authentiques et intéressants, pour servir d'éclaircissement à l'affaire concernant le cardinal prince de Rohan (1786)..
I think it is a lack of respect for Mr. Bohmer and his partner from the cardinal Louis de Rohan because he promised to buy the jewel in an already agreed price and afterwards not only change the paying date but the price of the jewel.
ReplyDeleteI think this was all planned (to postpone) the day of the payment, because it was realy expensive and it was easier to say "I'll pay it later" than actually paying it. It was unfair from the Prince to postpone the payment of such an expensive piece. But If I were the jewelers I would have been more decided to not change the price or date of the payment. But it was the Queen of France. What could they do?
ReplyDeleteThis comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDeletei think is a very unrespectful situations... ones you have a deal you have to keep it on or discusss it with the other person, otherwise it will be understand as a insult and creat problems.
ReplyDeletepeople need to think befor actinf...
This comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDeleteI think that is unfair that cardinal louis de rohan didnt pay the agreement he promised to buy maria antonieta neckless att:valentina cadavid
ReplyDeletei think is a disrespect what the cardinal did to Mr.Bohmer, because when you buy something and you agree to pay something in a certain date you have to keep the promess because if you don't there are going to be many problems you are going to have a bad reputation and people are not going to trust in your any more so you have to be honestly and if you promise you have to keep on with in and be always loyal :)
ReplyDeleteI think that although the action of Prince did was disrespectful and a complete insult to the jewelers. Bohmer and his partner were very naïve and they make a fool of themselves by letting the Prince did what he wanted and when he demand it. They were the owners of the piece that was being sold, they should have demand to be paid or at least insist a little more about the punctuality of the payment. And if the situation was taking them nowhere they should have at least send a letter telling the Prince that if they weren’t going to paid the will sell the necklace to the Spanish Court that was so desperately asking for it.
ReplyDeleteI think this is a show of disrespect and dishonesty, but it isn't sure if she was the one who did it or if it was the Prince the one risponsible for the theft. Whoever did it it's even worst because they both are a part of the royalty and are a role model to the whole country and they also lost the trust of everyone who knew about the inscident.
ReplyDeleteI think that Mr. Rohan was dishonest with the jewelers because he postponed the day of the payment many times, and they just wanted to the queen have it, thats why they didn't sell it to the spanish court. Also it was very unfair for the queen to get damaged get reputation because of something she didn't know.
ReplyDeleteI think it is a show of desrespect of the prince to do not pay the dept and ask for other momment to pay it, it proves that they are not a good royalty for the country becoause for that act they show irresponsability!!
ReplyDeletei think that it was disrespectful what cardinal do because he dont pay the agreement and after all he change the price of the jewel and at the end he start to involve maria antonieta
ReplyDeletei think it was very disrespectful from the prince to the jewlers to make them low the price of the jewl and also postponing the due dates, and also becasue they didn't sell it to the sapnish court because they were waiting the queen's response and they were suffering some bad times and they need the money and the prince didn't give it. The queen got a bad reputation because of the prince.
ReplyDeleteI think this situation is very delicate. I think it's a great disrespect to the sellers. because when they agreed to sell the necklace to Marie Antoinette they would do the same price it had before but then they told them that they paid only if they lowered the price. and on the other hand, when they had the exact date to pay them, they move the date.
ReplyDeleteI think that the Prince's way of acting was disrespectful, he wasn't being honest to Bohmer (jewelry seller) , if he promised him something since the beginning he should do it as he said it was going be, continue that promise until the end, because what he did wasn't an excellent role model, or life styling.... as he should do it! he had an entire society to showed and taught them, how a Prince SHOULD really act, but it seems that he wanted to have a bad reputation as he did with Marie Antoinette in front of everybody and everything because of his fault. We should learn that promises are promises and if we break those, problems can come for us.
ReplyDeleteI THINK THIS IS VERY DESRESPECTFUL FROM THE CARDINAL ROHAM BECAUSE HE PROMISE TO PAY ALL THE NECKLACE BUT HE DIDNT, HE ALWAYS POSTPONE THE DATE OF THE PAYMENT
ReplyDeleteI think is a lack of respect of the cardinal, because he postponed the date he was going to pay the money many times, and he dont want to pay all the amount of money.and it is unfair that they damage the reputation of the queen on something she is not involved on.it was very disrespectuful doing that to the jeweleres.
ReplyDeleteIn the situation the prince wasnt respectful at all, a deal is a deal and there arent negotiations.Even though mister bohmer could have accepted the change of prices and due dates he must have shown some respect to himself and his company and make clear to the prince that what he was doing wasnt good at all and could only be accepted in an special situation.what the ancedote shows us is that anyybody acted as they must have done, but in the end the prince ended up wining what he wanted.
ReplyDeleteI think that it was disrespect what the cardinal did to Mr. Bomher, because he didnt pay the neckless of mariantonieta, and he promised that. And when you promise something you should do it to show respect. by ana maria lopez
ReplyDeletethis act from part of the prince was too bad. firt the jewerles were trying to do the best they arrive the jewerly to every part the prince whanted, they also mantain the sell of this jewerly in secret, but from part of the prince it was the opposite he was dishonest with them, firt he made a promes of price, but he brek it. this act wasnt unfair with the jewerles because they were ilusioneted with this sell and they werte doing the best, when the prince broke the promesse of the price ( he low the pice alot) the jewer was loosing mony because the price was too low. prince`s have to be a model for the community but this one obeously wasnt. he also posponned the first payment. if the prince whants to buy an expencive thing he have the responsability to assume the price. this text help us to know that not all prince`s are honest. escrito por: antonia martinez
ReplyDeleteI think that the prince acted in a bad way because there was already a deal. The jewerles acepted and the prince too. So there weren't any more negociations. Also, he postponed the due day and changed the price ok the jewel for the queen.
ReplyDeleteFor my, the queen to obtain the necklace abused of her power and was inhonest with the jewelers and mainly with the prince, because he was the one buying the necklace sent by the queen, also the jewelers can`t complain because is the queen of France.
ReplyDeletei do not agree that marie antoniette's lover fooled jewelers telling them he was buying the diamond necklace at a price he will not pay. so when the paying date arrives, he doesnt pay, and he envolves marie antoniette saying that now she was the one that will buy the necklece.
ReplyDeleteI think that the prince was not honest because he agree the price of the necklace knowing he culdnt paid it , and he agree whith the day of the paid.I think too that the queen abuses of her power changing the necklace price and the day of the paid.(that was disrecpectful too). by : Sara Bermudez
ReplyDeletein these situacion we can find how dishonest the pince was;that was also a lack of respect to the owners of the neacke because they have loose lots of negociations because they tough the neackle was already sold.
ReplyDeleteThe prince should never ask for a change in the deal bacause a deal is something very serious and you have to rescpect it also as you have to respect a seller and its due date for payment!
I think that what the queen and the prince done was not right,they made a deal with the jewerles to bougth a expensive necklace and they knew that they coudnt paid it, i think that if you are going to buy something is because you know you can afford to it, even know they were the royalty of France if they made a deal is because they are going to accomplish it, they didnt had the power to obtained thing for free and less a necklace of 1,600,000 livres, they were dishonest with the jewerles and this caused that they didnt sold the necklace to other people that wanted and could afford to it.....
ReplyDeleteBy: Ma Antonia Chinkousky G!
I think the princce was abusing from the trust the owners of the neckales gave to him because they had a deal about the price and he was trying to change the date and the price, but in my opinion the owners of the necklace made a huge mistake by asepting the new offer, even thought they already had a deal by isabella posada
ReplyDeleteI think Jeanne de la Motte was the guilty of all this problem because first convienced Cardinal Louis de Rohan to pay a really expencive thing,and with that money he would get benefit to him self and also the jewerlers where stolen because they didnt pay what they say they would pay,and obviously the first person for being the jewerlers suspect would be marie antoniette so she also get in trouble because jeanne de la mote...i think he was a really bad man making all this trouble to all this people and its bad to get money from the hard work of others.by:Maria Camila Del Toro
ReplyDeleteI think it wasn't fair for the Prince to postpone the deadline because Bohmer and Bassanges spent a lot of money making the necklace and the fair thing to go would be to pay the asked price at the accorded time but because they kept postponing it the hard working jewlers didn't get paid. On the other hand, the royalty didn't have any money so they couldn't pay but if they were unable to pay they shouldn't have bought the necklace in the first plave
ReplyDeleteI think, in first place, that if the Queen had not enought money to pay for the necklace she would have never asked for it. The Prince was also very unfair to postpone the paying day, because the jewerlers needed the money and they could have sell it to the Spanish court that agreed to pay for the price they were asking for. By: Susana Panesso 8A
ReplyDeletei think is a disrespect what the cardinal did to Mr.Bohmer, because when you buy something and you agree to pay for ti in a certain date you have to keep the promess because it can causes many problems
ReplyDeleteI think the prince abused of Mr.Bohmer's trust, because if you agree to pay for something with an specific price and in a specific time you have to do it, regardless in what situation you're on, because this object had a lot of value and many people were asking for it. And if I were Mr. Bohmer I would have considered to ask the Prince to give the necklace and sell it to the spanish court, because the Prince and the Queen weren't making much effort to get it.
ReplyDelete-Carolina Pineda 8a
veronica velez medina:
ReplyDeletewell i think is very disrespectful from the queen and her royalty to agree to buy the necklace and then say no. i think its a lack of commitment with the dealing of bussines, if they had agreed to the purposes of th purchase they should done it how they accorded it and its very unfair to use the excuse of being of the royalty to do whatever they whant to.
The real causer of the problem was De la Motte, the prince was just a puppet in the con and Marie Antoinette ended up involved there because of her big influence, because Bohmer & Bassanges wouldn't have said "no" to the Queen and when prince Rohan asked them to change the price they couldn't say No. What was really at stake was Marie Antoinette's reputation and Bohmer & Bassanges income because they needed the money. By postponing the agreed date and not letting Bohmer & Bassanges see the Queen in person, the jewlers should've known there was something weird going on. I think it was a really bad decission from De La Motte because at the end everyone lost: De La Motte and Prince Rohan ended up in jail; Bohmer & Bassanges lost the necklace, a lot of money and got tricked; and Marie Antoinette's reputation was destroyed
ReplyDeleteBy: Alejandra Ortega
Well, as this shows, the Queen wasnt that stupid. I think she already had palnned this situation and postposing the payment day so the sellers wont get the promised money. This is a disrespectful situation for the sellers, and worst coming from the Queen.
ReplyDeleteBut also we have to understand that Marie Antoniette was just a girl who was taught to live that way, she didnt know what was the right thing to do, and she was sure Prince Rohan and De La Motte were helping her and trying to to the best but what they just made was a bad reputation for the Queen, they were the real causers of the problem with the Jewl´s sallers, and they got pressed.
i think the prince was so disrespect with Mr.Bohme, because if you agree with someone an certain date and an specific price you have to do it.
ReplyDeleteif the queen had no money to pay the necklace she would never ask for it if she would never buy it, the people that was selling the necklace need the money. i think also ir was planned because the necklace was so expensive and it was easier to postpone the date.
is an act of disrespect from the prince that he promised them something and they trusted him but the prince did not fulfilled, but I also find it very sad Bohmer was left to handle only sell the necklace while they were losing money because they strove to make the necklace and they will sell at a much lower price.
ReplyDeleteI Think as I’ve understood and read more about this situation, the one who was disrespectful and dishonest was Jeanne de la Motte. The Queen never actually knew anything about the necklace; de la Motte was the one who cheated on all of them. She was the one who told Rohan to purchase the piece of jewel for Maria Antoinette saying that she wanted it, but the Queen didn’t even knew anything about it. The cardinal obtained the necklace from Bohmer and gave it to de La motte, expecting the Queen to pay for it. Of course, Marie Antoinette never saw the necklace so there was no way she was going to pay for it. De la motte gave the diamonds to her husband, who took them to London and sold them.
ReplyDeleteIt was Rohan’s mistake to trust in Jeanne and try to seduce the Queen, but I think it wasn’t fair that they arrested him.
De la Motte ended up being in jail, without having the money and having the King and Queen against her.
It’s very sad that a country can completely collapse because of a situation like this, that the same people in the government can cheat on others and can make a complete fool of even the Queen.
-Sara Zuluaga 8A
I think is very disrespectful from the price to promised something he would not meet.Is also unfair that they were planing to buy something to Maria Antoniette with her money with out consulting her. Mr.Bomher mad a complete ass of his own.
ReplyDeleteI think that what they done was very disrespectful. I think they plan it all to cheat Mr.Bohmer, and they did have the money to pay the necklace but they wanted to pay it in a lower price so they had to cheat Mr.Boher. Mr.Bohmer should have reject the offer when they lower the price and should have accepet the offer from the Spanish Court
ReplyDeletepoli, the first part I did'nt understand it well, but the second part I did.
ReplyDeleteIs a shame that the queen do such a thing, she knew that she didn' had enough money and even do she accepted to buy it at the normal price, and then she asked to lower the price, and wen they accepted she didnn't pay ant the time was planed, and they didn't accept to sell to othr part because the queen assured that she was going to buy it.
I think is a irrespectfull act from the queen part...
Manuela Valencia
This comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDeleteI think that is so disrespectful what the cardinal did to Mr. Bohmer because if them agree that he was going to pay in a cetain day and he dident pay. So that was unfair because he promaise to buy Marie Antoinette neckless.
ReplyDelete-Daniela Velez
I think this situation was very unfair with the jewerls because Rohan was "abusing" of them and I also think that the fault of this problem was of Jeanne de la Motte because she was the one of the idea but also of Rohan because he accepted. It was very disrespectful because the Prince change the price of the neckless and once you promise somthing, you should not change it.
ReplyDelete- Marcela Arango 8A
I think that's totally unfair with the jewerls because the prince had promise them that he will pay and he didn't do it on time he even apologize!! so I think thet if you are going to agree something with anybody you should do what you promise!!! :D Julia 8°a!
ReplyDeleteI think this event wasn't fair to some of them. All started because of Jeanne de la Motte, she was the one that made Rohan buy the necklace to Marie Antoinette, she was the one who told him to do it, and he didn't know a lot about it, so he just bought it. Then Rohan was disrespectful and not very honest with Bohmer and his partner, because in first place if he didn't have the money to purchase it he shouldn't bought it, then he accept the price of the necklace and set a date for the first payment, which he kept on changing, then he started asking for a lower price or to turn it back, and finally he got Marie Antoinette involved in the problem, so it was unfair and disrespecful from Janne de la Motte, and Rohan side.
ReplyDeleteThe prince was disrespectful, they already had a deal and he didn't carry it out, this showed how dishonest he was, it was very unfair when he postponed the date of the payment but it was also Jeanne de la Motte because he was the one that made them buy the necklace when they didn't have enough money to pay it.
ReplyDeleteI think the story reflects an abuse of the monarchy because they used the money to pay people for community benefit and who spent it on a whim of Marie Antoinette
ReplyDelete