#turreau

Here is an excerpt from Turquant in which she gives her opinion on Joséphine-Ludmille Fouché:

“One should certainly not equate Mlle Fouché, daughter of the Duke of Otranto, who married Monsieur de Terme, with those people. Aside from her avarice, she was irreproachable, and her husband was highly respectable. However, when someone asked the Dauphine if she would receive her, she replied with a certain melancholy: ‘I see so many others!...’”

(Excerpt from The Last Dauphine: Madame the Duchess of Angoulême )

Given her well-known aversion to Joseph Fouché—particularly because of his vote in favor of the execution of her father, Louis XVI—it appears that she did not believe in guilt by association. This statement, along with the melancholy tone she adopts when speaking about Joséphine-Ludmille Fouché, seems to support that view. Her refusal to receive her was likely motivated more by the need to preserve the appearances required by her rank and court etiquette than by any personal hostility toward Fouché’s children (that's my interpretation) .

Castelot also notes that she got along rather well with Archduchess Sophie of Austria. Of course, both shared strongly absolutist views of monarchy, along with other similarities. However, given that Sophie admired Napoleon I while Madame Royale detested him, this remains particularly noteworthy.

Castelot further recounts that in March 1815, General Turreau received her and the Duke of Angoulême as they were heading toward Bordeaux. He writes:

“The Restoration found Turreau a baron of the Empire and a Grand Officer of the Legion of Honour... Louis XVIII appointed him a Knight of the Order of Saint Louis. The former soldiers of Charette, who had fought for Louis XVII, could hardly believe their eyes at the official spectacle before them: the daughter of Louis XVI offering her hand to be kissed by the incendiary.”

What I find troubling is not, paradoxically, Madame Royale’s attitude toward Turreau. Rather, it highlights the fact that Turreau—who served under successive regimes—was never held accountable for his actions during his lifetime. Meanwhile, his daughter, Alexandrine Turreau, who was herself a victim of her father, bore the consequences of his actions and never received support, unlike other families who had served under the Napoleonic regime or during the Restoration.

I found an excerpt about the separation of Marie-Angélique Turreau, widow Ronsin, and Turreau, but I don't know from which source this excerpt comes. Moreover, this text uses the absurd term "reign of Terror," a term I have often had to explain the absurdity of in this post https://www.tumblr.com/nesiacha/744763300619878400/i-never-understood-the-term-reign-of-terror-i?source=share , and furthermore, the way Turreau met his second wife doesn't seem very coherent to me. For the rest, I am willing to believe everything.

I have already talked about the shameful way Turreau treated his wife in several posts, including here: https://www.tumblr.com/nesiacha/758106798113914880/fate-of-marie-ang%C3%A9lique-lequesne-wife-of-ronsin?source=share https://www.tumblr.com/nesiacha/766957071556067328/the-day-a-judge-finally-confronted-turreau-for-his?source=share and the complex relationship Turreau had with the Ronsin couple when Charles-Philippe Ronsin was alive: https://www.tumblr.com/nesiacha/766971097091538944/letter-from-turreau-to-ronsin-and-the-complex?source=share

Here is the way he separated from her according to this excerpt (I found it on JSTOR in an article about Thornton's life, but I can no longer find the exact title):

Dr. Thornton was a magistrate. During the reign of terror in France, General Louis Marie Turreau de Garambouville was imprisoned. On the door of his cell, there was chalk marking him for the exercises the next day. The jailer's daughter, out of compassion, wiped away the chalk, and the general remained, eventually becoming the French minister to the United States and marrying the jailer's daughter to take her with him. It was an act of gratitude that turned out to be an act of ingratitude. Mrs. Madison declared: "I have heard terrible things about Turreau— that he whips his wife and abuses her horribly; I sincerely pity her; she is a kind and sensible woman" (June 4, 1805). The general had as his attaché the talented Count de Carbre. The Count, with his flute, knew how to translate passions. With the flute, he tried to stifle the cries of pain of Mrs. Turreau. A year and a half after Mrs. Madison's letter came the climax of the Turreau affair.

The general declared in writing on October 29, 1806: "I declare positively that after many refusals by Mrs. Turreau to go to France, in accordance with my orders as her husband and as plenipotentiary minister of His Imperial and Royal Majesty, my intention was to use force to make her go; that, therefore, after preparing her departure on a ship (in Annapolis), I gave her repeated orders to leave, when her screams, despite my efforts to calm her, attracted a crowd of citizens (Americans) around my house; and despite my public position as minister to France and the privileges that it entails, I went to the door of my house, where a magistrate among them told me that the people had gathered due to the noise they had heard from my house; to which I asked him to enter my house to see the interior and satisfy his fellow citizens."

The magistrate's written statement, in part, is as follows: "In consequence of the invitation given above to the aforementioned magistrate (W. T.) as well as to Wm P. Gardner, last night around ten o'clock, we went to the house of the French minister and were led to an upstairs room where we found his wife with three French sailors or soldiers who were ready to take her by force. She tearfully declared that she sought the protection of the United States from such violence. The general turned to the sailors and said: 'Mark this, citizens; she is asking for the protection of the United States and thus renounces mine.' She said that the French government would not protect her now, but that she would seek protection from France later. We intervened in a friendly manner and asked if it would not be more appropriate, in the title of an officer of the Legion of Honor, to allow his wife to leave in peace, rather than subject her to the brutal insults of ordinary sailors who had been ordered to take her by force? It was also mentioned to her by W. T. that the crowd was waiting quietly to see if an attempt would be made to take her by force; for if that was attempted, they had said they were determined to free her. He said that the heartbreaking details of the separation are omitted, except to say that, on her knees, she pleaded to see her children one last time, and at his categorical refusal, he finally gave in, but only at the prayer of her foreign friends in his arms to 'take the infant.' She left the house, at the corner of Seven Buildings (Pennsylvania Avenue and 19th Street), with the magistrate and his associate."

So yes, this poor woman was indeed separated from her children. Fortunately, it seems that Alexandrine Turreau (who died in poverty according to some sources—she did not deserve her fate, even though she was Turreau's daughter she was not responsible for her father's actions just as Louis XVI's son was not responsible for his parents) was, according to some sources you will find in the post, forcibly placed in a convent by her father until her mother managed to free her from this convent. Perhaps she sided with her mother, and Turreau decided to punish her. Or perhaps he was just as violent toward his children (after all, according to Thomas Fleming, as you can see in this post, he frequented prostitutes whom he invited to the marital home in front of his children).

Letter from General-in-Chief Turreau to Ronsin

At Headquarters in Banyuls-les-Aspres, near Perpignan, on the 8th day of the 2nd decade of the 2nd month of the Year II of the one and indivisible Republic.

You are absolutely right, my dear Ronsin; I was not made to withstand intrigue, and I have never seen as many schemers as in the Army of the Eastern Pyrenees. I would have already yielded to their efforts, given how little importance I attach to my position, if the most powerful interest of all—the interest of the homeland—had not compelled me to resist with all my means. I have already written to the Minister and to the Committee of Public Safety, informing them that the public good could suffer from the lack of harmony here between the people's representatives and the generals. These dispatches were sent by a special courier at least fifteen days ago, and I have received no response. I am sending another, stating very clearly to the Minister and the Committee of Public Safety that either I must be withdrawn from here, or the people's representatives must be.

I believe these representatives to be pure and genuinely desirous of the public good, but they wish to play soldiers. They take their dreams for campaign plans and are surrounded by men who continually flatter them and adopt their projects in order to gain commissions as generals. This results in countless appointments and promotions, and the harm would not be so great if these advancements were limited to true patriots. But here, there are many men who preach patriotism yet harbor only insatiable ambition in their hearts.

My friend, you love the public good; in the name of the homeland, implore the Committee of Public Safety and the Minister, if he can, to quickly remedy the disorder reigning in this army, which is on the brink of complete dissolution. Who can set things right? Any man who sincerely desires the good and whose operations are not hindered by the national representation with this army; any man who will tell the truth despite the threats of those who have an interest in hiding it; any man who will dare to tell the Minister not to confirm a promotion for someone who is unworthy of it due to incapacity or lack of civic virtue. This would be someone who, without regard for private considerations, would denounce any military agent known to be inept or dangerous due to his opinions. He would be someone who can uncover the traitor beneath the mask of hypocrisy and patriotism, etc.

My friend, I do not have enough talent to be that man. Let them assign me another mission. I would not mind stepping down, but before I move to another post, I feel obliged to inform the Minister and the Committee of Public Safety of the dangers threatening this part of the Republic. I must go to Paris, be heard, and even if I only get fifteen minutes with the Committee of Public Safety, I will use it to demonstrate the urgent need for significant and swift action to address the peril, which is close to its peak.

My dear Ronsin, you love the public good; assist me in this matter and believe that none of what I am telling you is exaggerated. You know my feelings for you, nothing can alter them.

Greetings and fraternity.

Turreau

Despite of calling him a friend, Turreau would backstab Charles Philippe Ronsin by blaming him for a defeat in Vendée, as you can see here, when in fact it was Turreau himself who was responsible. This betrayal came despite Turreau calling Ronsin a friend, and it happened at a time when Ronsin was under attack and in need of support, such as during his first imprisonment and the factional struggles.

Moreover, historian Antoine Resche clarifies that Ronsin was actually an honest and competent administrator who gained no personal profit from his position, contrary to the infamous reputation attributed to him. While Ronsin was far from saintly and certainly had his share of faults, this sets the record straight on certain misconceptions. On the other hand, Turreau… (well, let’s just say that the contrast is stark).

Marie-Angélique Lequesne, who seems to have already been politically engaged back when she lived with Ronsin (some claim she served as a canteen worker for the Republic in 1792, according to Généanet, which may have been when she met Ronsin, who was keeping an eye on Dumouriez), frequented ultra-revolutionary clubs, according to the memoirs of Jean-Balthazar de Bonardi du Ménil, and even dressed in an Amazonian style.

warning: talk about domestic violence

Turreau treated his wife, Marie-Angelique Lequesne, née widow Ronsin, with extreme cruelty. He served as ambassador to the United States under Bonaparte, where he was disliked for his behavior. In contrast, his wife charmed the political elite and even influenced the political development of one of America’s most prominent First Ladies, Dolley Madison, with whom she was also a close friend. Despite Turreau’s notorious past in Vendée and elsewhere, no one dared confront him over his domestic abuse, though many disapproved. His status as ambassador, and the influence he wielded, kept even Congress members and other high-ranking officials silent.

This changed, however, when one day a judge put an immediate stop to Turreau’s mistreatment of his wife. He forced the door and confront Turreau about this. Below is an excerpt from a letter written by Dolley Madison:

"My Dearest Anna,—I wrote to you from my bed, where I have been confined for ten days with a bad knee. It has become very painful, and two doctors have applied caustic, hoping it will heal me, but Heaven only knows! I feel as if I shall never walk again. My dear husband insists on taking me to Philadelphia to be under Dr. Physic's care, but he cannot stay with me, and I dread the separation. Yesterday we had brother George, Thornton, and Lawrence Washington over for the day, and I enjoyed the sound of Virginian laughter echoing through the house; George coughs incessantly, looking thin and hoarse, but has no thought of dying. Since I wrote you two days ago, I have heard troubling news about Turreau—that he whips and abuses his wife dreadfully; I pity her sincerely, as she is an amiable, sensible woman. I received a letter from Mount Vernon begging me to visit, but alas! I shall walk no more. Yours ever, Dolly."

The relief was, however, short-lived, as revealed in another letter by Dolley Madison:

"Mrs. Madison’s kind words were for Madame, the wife of General Turreau de Garambonville, the French Minister. He had been marked for the guillotine and was saved by a trick played by the jailer’s daughter. Gratitude became the basis for a marriage without real substance. She followed him to the United States, where he appeared in society resplendent in diamonds and gold—but without Madame. Tayloe’s reminiscences mention that Madame’s cries often disturbed Turreau’s neighbors in the Seven Buildings, and his accomplished secretary, Count de Carbre, who played the flute exquisitely, tried to drown out her cries with his music. Eventually, the neighbors became indignant and threatening. At the height of the uproar, the eccentric Dr. Thornton arrived and stopped the beating. When Turreau fiercely told Thornton, 'Dr. Thornton, you do not know de law of de nation,' Thornton replied, 'But I know the laws of humanity, and I intend to enforce them.' Madame had, in fact, been crying out in grief, protesting the General’s insistence that she return to France. She ultimately did. Dr. Thornton, acting as a justice of the peace, documented the incident in sworn testimony."

As a reminder, Marie-Angélique Lequesne had at least one son in the United States (perhaps more), though her daughter, Alexandrine, was likely at a boarding school in France. This separation likely caused her considerable distress. According to this site https://rembarre.fr/g_tur_ec.htm when Turreau later attempted to place their daughter Alexandrine in a convent, her mother fought successfully for her release after their divorce. Alexandrine, unfortunately, died in poverty years later (Yes I feel sorry for her because just like the young Louis XVII she does not deserve contempt for the faults of their fathers although Louis XVI was at least a good father, where Turreau….)

The judge initially transferred Marie-Angélique to safer quarters, but Turreau punished her by leaving her in poverty. Once again, the judge intervened, organizing collections to fund her return to France in 1809 after three years of hardship. Once in France, she divorced Turreau.

Turreau was truly a fool—a man who spoke disrespectfully to judges, harmed his reputation (and that of France, as ambassador), and mistreated the one person capable of damage control: his wife, who was beloved by Washington's political elite. Cruel people often reveal their own stupidity. Napoleon’s lack of intervention was no surprise, given his disregard for women’s rights, which he reduced to levels even lower than those in Spain or Italy. Still, he should have recalled Turreau based on his string of misdeeds alone.

In a world filled with people like Turreau, strive to be like Dr. Thornton. Do not intervene directly, however, as it can be very dangerous. Call the necessary authorities instead.

Source:

Letter of Dolley Madison

In this link https://www.tumblr.com/nesiacha/758106798113914880/fate-of-marie-ang%C3%A9lique-lequesne-wife-of-ronsin?source=share, @chickenmadam rightly pointed out that if Turreau was a horrible person with his wife Marie Angélique (an understatement), it's therefore likely that he was also a terrible father to his children.

On this site https://rembarre.fr/g_tur_ec.htm, it seems that Louis Marie was indeed awful to his daughter Alexandrine Cléophée, who was a boarder at the Maison de la Légion d'Honneur in Saint Denis, either in 1809 or 1813. However, her father removed her and forced her into a convent in Conches. Marie Angélique was not able to secure permission to remove her daughter, despite a court order on September 22, 1814.

I feel like this was a final petty act by Turreau, especially since they were apparently separated from 1806 (the official divorce took place later, in 1813). The municipal authorities even had to move her to safer quarters, forcing her to live in poverty to the point that William Thornton collected funds for her so she could return to France. He wrote these words: "It is a shame that such a man represents a nation." A member of Congress stated that Turreau was a savage. Madison Dolley, the politically active First Lady of the United States and a friend of Marie Angélique, despised Turreau. As has been mentioned before, the way Turreau treated his wife shocked the political class. In addition to what he had done in Vendée did nothing to improve his reputation.

According to Plumer, Thomas Jefferson remained cautious and paid no attention to Turreau's private life (in my opinion, to avoid a diplomatic incident, though surely he had his own opinions). As for Napoleon, he didn't recall Turreau until 1811, so I don't get the impression he understood the severity of Turreau's actions. I mean, I wouldn’t expect much from a man (Bonaparte) who laughed at the suggestion/joke that a man could knock out his wife to bring her back forcibly to their home. But honestly, Turreau represented France in the United States, and his frequent mistreatment of his wife shocked the Washington political class, who were charmed by her. Apparently, some Americans even wondered when they saw him if all Frenchmen treated their wives that way. So, if Napoleon didn't see the moral reasons to reprimand Turreau (after all, he promoted quite a few bloody and oppressive laws regarding women), he should have recognized the pragmatic reasons to reprimand him. Fouché was just as criminal and detestable as Turreau but at least he was a good husband and father unlike him.

As for the fate of Turreau’s daughter, here’s an excerpt from the Bien Public of March 24, 1878: “We draw the attention of the Minister of War to a grave misfortune in need of relief. It concerns the daughter of Republican General Louis-Marie Turreau, aged 78, who lived in Nancy, in the Faubourg Sainte-Anne. Miss Turreau, one of our correspondents writes, has no resources; she has lived for a long time in true destitution. In 1876, a local newspaper, La Sentinelle, organized a subscription in her favor, which yielded the meager sum of 225 francs, and that was all.”

When I’m very sick, I love rewatching classic films (yes, it makes no sense). Anyway, I rewatched the Godfather trilogy today . And then I had a "flash" – a parallel between new historical figures and Carlo Rizzi. When I was a teenager, Carlo Rizzi reminded me of Darnley, Mary Stuart's second husband. Although I never liked Mary, Queen of Scots, I honestly felt bad for her having to endure the abusive behavior of this parasitic, hurtful, and incompetent man (the murder of Rizzio, in which Darnley was an accomplice, while Mary was pregnant, was horrifying). Just like Carlo, he could have had a chance to rise to the top if he had rolled up his sleeves and worked for it (though in the mafia, a sane person would avoid it altogether), but instead, he chose to reveal himself as a parasite who wanted everything, immediately. In the end, he got what he deserved, in my opinion (though I condemn murder as a matter of principle, even for people as vile as Darnley, rest assured, sorry for the fans of this character just my opinion). And according to Alison Weir (if I’m not mistaken), Catherine de Medici thought that if Mary had killed Darnley, he would have deserved it. That says a lot.

What people like Catherine de Medici disapproved of, and what ultimately led to Mary Stuart’s downfall, was how the Queen of Scots handled the consequences of this murder (quite long story and not the subject) . But now, Rizzi also reminds me of Tallien for his "loser" (if you know what I mean) and parasitic side, but also of Turreau for his incompetence and violence towards his wife, Marie-Angélique Lequesne Turreau, who was the widow of Ronsin, and for his treacherous nature. In fact, I’ll share a correspondence soon, but Turreau called Ronsin his friend and showered him with words of friendship. Then, as you saw in one of my posts, he blamed Ronsin for a defeat for which he was responsible, which was a treacherous move at a time when Ronsin was being attacked (but I feel like treachery and violence, coupled with incompetence, are in Turreau's nature), a bit like how Carlo betrays the Corleones.

The worst part is that I wonder if Ronsin introduced Marie-Angélique to Turreau when they were friends (a bit like Sonny Corleone introducing Carlo Rizzi to his sister Connie), which might have influenced Marie-Angélique and Turreau’s marriage later on after the execution of Ronsin. It’s really strange and frightening as a parallel.

Turreau demonstrated both great cruelty and significant incompetence in Vendée. But here is proof that he could also be cowardly ( One day, someone said that the cruelest and most cowardly people are often the most stupid.)

"From June 1793, he was present in Vendée, participating in various operations—he was even caught up in a defeat for which he shifted the blame onto General Santerre and Ronsin. Promoted to divisional general, he was assigned to the Pyrénées-Orientales, before returning to Vendée as commander-in-chief of the Army of the West in November 1793, at the age of 37," an excerpt from Le cas de Turreau et des colonnes infernales by Jean Clément Martin.How did he manage to deceive Marie Angélique Lequesne, widow of Ronsin, and marry her? I ask myself this because she was known for her kindness and her proactive involvement in politics. He married her despite blaming Ronsin for a defeat for which he himself was responsible. In my opinion he must have demonstrated the "superficial charm" that toxic people give at first glance. To be fair, under Bonaparte, it seems he had some victories. Here is another excerpt: "After a few years of inactivity, he again commanded a division of the Army of Sambre-et-Meuse, thanks to Bonaparte's support. He was then sent to Valais, at the head of the occupation troops, with which he achieved successes against the coalition forces, particularly before Suze, which he brilliantly captured."

In any case, yes, according to genealogical records, it appears that Marie Angélique finally divorced him in 1813, likely tired of the domestic violence he inflicted on her. Or perhaps it was Turreau who divorced her, anticipating the imminent Restoration and not wanting to have the widow of an ultra-revolutionary by his side.

I have already spoken about the fate of Marie-Angélique Lequesne, widow Ronsin, here: https://www.tumblr.com/nesiacha/758712930449637376/reedit-while-looking-for-more-information Here is "Marie-Angélique Lequesne was caught up in the measures taken against the Hébertists and incarcerated on the 1st of Germinal at the Anglaises detention center. Released in Brumaire, year III, she returned to ultra-revolutionary circles and remarried General Turreau, a former associate of Ronsin in the Vendée operations. In Vendémiaire of year V, she appeared, dressed as an Amazon, at the head of a column of Jacobins from the Faubourg Saint-Antoine, going to congratulate the Directory on its victory." (Memoirs, 1760-1820 by Jean-Balthazar de Bonardi du Ménil.)

On the other hand, I am not saying that Ronsin is the epitome of sainthood—he has his share of unforgivable faults—but he didn’t break the “records” set by Turreau. Although he bears some responsibility for the Vendée, he was a more honest and competent administrator than Turreau. However, this shows that long before succeeding in diplomacy to the point that Washington was charmed by her, as well as by her qualities according to an excerpt from a letter (not to mention her close friendship with Dolley Madison), she was involved in revolutionary events. On the other hand, these are memoirs, so much caution is advised.

According to the website La Maraîchine Normande, a rather royalist site, so caution is required, Marie-Angélique Lequesne divorced Turreau on March 3, 1813, and honestly, I hope this is true because he was atrocious to her. In any case, I hope she got custody of the children, but this information about the divorce surprises me because, at that time, it was very difficult, if not impossible, for a woman to divorce her husband by her own decision, no matter how much of a danger he was to her. (But it's possible that in his stupidity, he may have beaten his wife outside their main residence—based on what I understood from the Civil Code, I might be wrong though, but the husband could beat his wife as long as it wasn’t in their marital home. Since he often beat her in front of his servants, there were witnesses. Anyway, sometimes I wonder just how stupid Turreau could be.