Power In and Out of the Bedroom
Rachael Rode
“The influence of France on the powers of Europe, [who were] formerly so accustomed to
respecting us, fearing us, and seeking us, was very much weakened, when the kind, attracted to
Trianon by debauchery, was struck by a mortal illness.” (278)
Women during the reign of King Louis XV of France were a typical aspect of the
everyday lives of the king and his court. The few women who managed to become part of the
court were his mistresses. These women had incredible power for their period in history, and
they also possessed considerable influence over the king. Ascertaining how these women gained
and kept power helps to show the weaknesses in the monarchy and the results this had with the
people of France. The three authors Colin Jones, Katie Scott, and Jeffery Merrick help to show
the power of one mistress in particular, and how the power of such women led to the diminishing
public view of King Louis XV. Madame de Pompadour, a mistress to the king, increased her
power as the belief by the people in Louis XV’s divine right to rule decreased.
In Colin Jones’ article, “The Fabrication of Madame de Pompadour,” Jones argues that
the power of Madame de Pompadour as a member of the royal court and in the life of the king
resulted from her position as Louis’ mistress and the “brand” she created for herself. From 1745
to her premature death in 1764, Pompadour proved to be not only a striking adornment at court,
but also one of the most remarkable and adept political figures of the long and troubled reign of
Louis XV (r. 1715-1774). 1 Born Jeanne-Antoinette Poisson in 1721, Pompadour, not born a
member of the upper class, had serious obstacles to overcome with regards to her background.
With an adulterous mother and the unclear paternity of her father, Pompadour would have barely
1
Colin Jones, “The Fabrication of Madame de Pompadour: Colin Jones Describes the Art and Artifice of the
Leading Mistress of Louis XV,” History Today, 52 no.11 (2002): 36, 40.
2
qualified to be classified as bourgeois. She managed to overcome these difficulties to marry in
1741, and shortly thereafter she met the king outside her husband’s château. After attending her
first royal ball in February of 1745, Pompadour became the king’s lover, and they installed her at
Versailles by March with a separation from her husband being arranged. 2
Once she officially took on the role of the king’s mistress she began her work of gaining
power. Obviously her power reached beyond Louis XV’s bedroom into the realm of the royal
court and included activities such as intimate confidante, governmental aide, ministerial adviser
(some said effective principal minister to boot), as well as outstanding artistic patron and cultural
impresario. 3 The power held by Madame de Pompadour grew so vast that many heads of state
would consult her on how to do their jobs or at the very least take suggestions from her. This
angered a many number of people on the court not to mention all the citizens of France who saw
the poor governance of the king a direct result of his life of constant sin. Pompadour differed
from the usual mistress in the fact that she eventually stopped having sex with the king. As
Jones shows with quotes from admirers and the king himself, the halt was not a result of the lack
of Pompadour’s beauty. She just did not choose to continue that part of the relationship with the
king. However, she knew she had to appease Louis’ sexual desires in some way so she chose to
bring in young beautiful women to slake his lust. 4 While providing the king with these many
women, Pompadour continued to expand her power into the areas of policy, armed forces, and
administration. All the while the heads of these departments were furious with her and the way
Louis XV ran the government. To make sure she kept her place as mistress she began having a
number of self-portraits painted in which she looked as young and striking as ever. Using social
2
Jones, “Fabrication of Pompadour,” 38.
Jones, “Fabrication of Pompadour,” 36.
4
Jones, “Fabrication of Pompadour,” 40.
3
3
and political insights, Jones depicts Pompadour as a woman ahead of her time with the great
amounts of power and influence she possessed.
Katie Scott, like Colin Jones, speaks at great length about Madame de Pompadour;
however, her argument takes a bit of a different stance. In “Framing Ambition: the Interior
Politics of Madame de Pompadour,” Scott intends to depict an accurate description of the many
apartments of Pompadour and how she used her architectural and decorative choices to gain and
keep power with the king. Similarities to Jones exists other than just with regards of the mention
of Pompadour; according to Scott, Pompadour was a preferred member at court in addition to the
mention of her status as a woman of low birth. 5 Both authors also recognize the wide ranging
power of the king’s mistress; however, the source of this power differs from Scott to Jones.
Scott’s cultural history attributes Madame de Pompadour’s power to her love of
architecture and decorating. Through the way she decorated her apartment, château, and upstairs
attic, Pompadour not only sought power, but she also became a front runner among other patrons
of the arts. She had a number of paintings commissioned, many of which were of her, as gifts or
decorations for the king. François Boucher, Pompadour’s artist of choice, says something about
her in and of itself. She had to have some sort of clout and power to have a work commissioned
by such an artist. Scott argues, “The scale [and] sheer mass of the work indicates that [her]
personal taste was of public consequence, that it framed a political ambition.” 6
5
Katie Scott, “Framing Ambition: The Interior Politics of Madame de Pompadour,” Art History 28, no. 2
(2005): 248-290; 256-257.
6
Scott, “Framing Ambition,” 252.
4
Without changing the architectural form of Versailles significantly, Pompadour
introduced a new pathways and routes inside the palace. 7 As evident in the floor plans of the
attic apartment that belonged to Pompadour, she cunningly gained access to the king through a
set of stairs that were all her own. Since her room connected to his, this allowed for many an
intimate meeting which resulted in the beginning of her power acquisition. Once she had the
power and continued to expand it, she would be close enough for the king to come consult or
confide in her whenever his fancy struck him to do so. With regards to her own apartments she
was a bit freer to explore her likes and dislikes. Since the space belonged to her, she could
decorate, paint, and arrange the rooms however she saw fit.
The third and final author, Jeffery Merrick tells a bit of a different story but one that still
relates to the power held by the mistresses of the king even though at the time of his death he
enjoyed the company of someone other than Madame de Pompadour. “Louis XV’s Deathbed
Apology” tells the story of the king’s final days and his last confession. The rather intriguing
fact about Merrick’s story is the drastic differences from one account of what was said to another
simply depending on eyewitness versus second-hand accounts and variations in political
associations. He argues that the final confession of King Louis XV was gravely contested
among witnesses as well as confidants of the king as a result of these previously mentioned
divisions.
The alleged story, according to Merrick, follows these basic principles. The king had
contracted small pox, presumably from one of his many mistresses of the day. The current head
7
Scott, “Framing Ambition,” 257.
5
mistress of the day was Madame du Barry, who many people referred to as a common whore. 8
Du Barry had been providing the king with many beautiful young women to keep him satisfied,
and this led to how he contracted small pox. Initially the doctors and his Abbé did not want him
to worry about his condition so they did not tell him how bad he was. When the king finally
realized he had smallpox, he sent Madame du Barry away to avoid any repetition of his
humiliating experience in 1744. 9 He continued to worsen, and on the 7th of April 1774, the king
asked for his confessor. From this moment forward nothing said by the king can be verified with
any degree of certainty. Merrick acknowledges a considerable amount of differing opinions as to
what the king truly said in the final confession.
According to Merrick, no matter what Louis XV told La Roche-Aymon (his private
confessor), no matter what the Grand Almoner actually said, people heard, thought they heard,
said they heard, or wanted to hear different messages in the king’s apology. 10 In comparison to
Jones and Scott, Merrick mentions the power and far reaching influence of Louis’s mistress, du
Barry. The mention for Merrick differs a bit though. The political power that du Barry had had
resulted in a following that had formed into a faction supporting her. For as many supporters as
she had, she had just as many bitter opponents. These political divisions led to a coloring of the
king’s apology. For instance, the baron de Besenval, who happened to be an ardent opponent of
du Barry, included the anecdote in his narrative that the king was forced to send his mistress
much farther away than Rueil before his confession would be heard. 11 Whereas, someone who
supported du Barry may not have mentioned her at all and mentioned that the king apologized to
8
Jeffery Merrick, “Louis XV’s Deathbed Apology,” European History Quarterly 38, no. 2 (2008): 206.
Merrick, “Deathbed Apology,” 209.
10
Merrick, “Deathbed Apology,” 214.
11
Merrick, “Deathbed Apology”, 212.
9
6
his people for letting them down. The apology of King Louis XV to his people reiterates the
point that many of them felt personally wronged and let down by their king. These feelings do a
great deal to explain the belief that the king had lost his divine right to rule as a resort of his
lifestyle of sin and debauchery.
Through the authors Colin Jones, Katie Scott, and Jeffery Merrick, a picture has been
painted of the great power held by the many mistresses of Louis XV. Even though a mistress
was a common occurrence in the life of royalty, kings in particular, Louis XV may have gone a
step too far one time too many. The people soon began to believe the king had lost his divine
right to rule and by the time of his death many of them expected more than an apology. Their
lack of faith in their ruler would carry over to the reign of the next king, and would eventually
lead to a complete overthrow of the government. But that is another story.