Talk:Charles Tristan, marquis de Montholon: Difference between revisions
| Line 15: | Line 15: | ||
:In 1911 there were no reasons for believing Napoleon had been poisoned and so no need to look for an assassin. The assassination theory and its supporting evidence are the fruit of modern forensic investigation techniques. Further, while the evidence that Napoleon was poisoned is physical and very clear, the evidence identifying the culprit is circumstantial; Montholon is at most a likely suspect. Cheers, [[User:Vfp15|Vincent]] 02:36, 17 August 2006 (UTC) |
:In 1911 there were no reasons for believing Napoleon had been poisoned and so no need to look for an assassin. The assassination theory and its supporting evidence are the fruit of modern forensic investigation techniques. Further, while the evidence that Napoleon was poisoned is physical and very clear, the evidence identifying the culprit is circumstantial; Montholon is at most a likely suspect. Cheers, [[User:Vfp15|Vincent]] 02:36, 17 August 2006 (UTC) |
||
I have written a summary of the present state of knowledge on the issue. It |
I have written a summary of the present-day state of knowledge on the issue. It can be found [http://www.ifraagasaetterskan.se/summary_2010october08.pdf here]. I am not an expert just an ordinary [[scientific scepticism|sceptic]] with a reluctant fascination for [[Napoléon I|Napoléon]]. As long as you refrain from [[ad hominem]] attacks on me questioners will be answered to the best of my ability. |
||
2009- |
2009-12-29 Lena Synnerholm, Märsta, Sweden. |
||
== Birth year == |
== Birth year == |
||
Revision as of 16:27, 29 December 2010
 | Biography Start‑class | ||||||
| |||||||
 | France Unassessed | |||||||||
| ||||||||||
NPOV
If this is the 1911 Britannica article, Britannica should hang its head in shame. For the many people who believe Napoleon was murdered, deMontholon is the favorite suspect, the only plausible one, at that. Furthermore, deMontholon's military exploits were all made up, and he was once convicted of stealing his soldiers' payroll. It is now generally recognized that whether he murdered Bonaparte or not, he was a first-class scoundrel.
See Schama's Napoleon Bonaparte (link to an Amazon "Search Inside" for Montholon) Dan Lovejoy 07:22, 23 December 2005 (UTC)
- In 1911 there were no reasons for believing Napoleon had been poisoned and so no need to look for an assassin. The assassination theory and its supporting evidence are the fruit of modern forensic investigation techniques. Further, while the evidence that Napoleon was poisoned is physical and very clear, the evidence identifying the culprit is circumstantial; Montholon is at most a likely suspect. Cheers, Vincent 02:36, 17 August 2006 (UTC)
I have written a summary of the present-day state of knowledge on the issue. It can be found here. I am not an expert just an ordinary sceptic with a reluctant fascination for Napoléon. As long as you refrain from ad hominem attacks on me questioners will be answered to the best of my ability.
2009-12-29 Lena Synnerholm, Märsta, Sweden.
Birth year
Was he not really born in 1783? According to Sten Forshufvud Charles was a frequent liar. He may had lied about his age claiming to be one year older than he was. What is known from other sources than himself?
2009-03-02 Lena Synnerholm, Märsta, Sweden.
Portrait
A better portrait of Charles can be found here. It has considerable beautification as well but it is at least less misleading. The picture has no copyright. If there originally was any it has expired by now.
2010-12-29 Lena Synnerholm, Märsta, Sweden.