January 2, 2013 1:51 pm
Hankie Coated in Beheaded Louis XVI’s Blood Found in Dried Squash
Photo: Joseph-Siffred Duplessis
When the French people beheaded King Louis XVI on January 21, 1793, accounts from the time report that many dipped their handkerchiefs in their executed ruler’s blood. Now, two centuries after that fateful day, researchers think they’ve found one of those revolutionary souvenirs, Discovery News writes.
The hankie in question turned up two years ago when an Italian family submitted the souvenir for genetic testing. They found it stuffed within a dried, hollowed squash decorated with portraits of revolutionary heroes. The squash reads, “On January 21, Maximilien Bourdaloue dipped his handkerchief in the blood of Louis XVI after his decapitation.” Monsieur Bourdaloue likely placed the fabric within the gourd and then had it pridefully embellished.
DNA tests hinted that the blood may be authentic, since it indicates that the bleeder had blue eyes and other physical features matching up to Louis XVI’s description. But the forensics team lacked DNA from Louis or any of his family members (their bodies were mutilated and strewn about the streets after the spree of executions), so at first they could not prove definitively that the handkerchief’s stain is genuine.
However, a mummified head saved the day. The head belonged to Henri IV, who held the French throne 200 years prior to Louis’ gruesome demise. A mysterious individual rescued the severed head from the grave-ransacking chaos of the revolution, and it was passed down through the years and kept in secretive collections. A rare genetic signature preserved through seven generations and shared by the two rulers confirmed the blood’s authenticity. Discovery explains:
“This study shows that (the owners of the remains) share a genetic heritage passed on through the paternal line. They have a direct link to one another through their fathers,” French forensic pathologist Philippe Charlier said.
Genetic markers in hand, the researchers think they may be able to use the newly identified code to identify any living relatives of France’s absolute monarchs of years past.
More from Smithsonian.com:
A Lavish Legacy
Marie Antoinette
Sign up for our free email newsletter and receive the best stories from Smithsonian.com each week.
6 Comments »
RSS feed for comments on this post. TrackBack URI
They have plenty of DNA from Louis’ close relatives. His parents are undisturbed in their tombs in the cathedral of Sens. His brothers, Louis XVIII and Charles X, were not removed from their graves; neither was that of his daughter, the Duchesse d’Angouleme, which is probably in Austria, where the family lived in exile after Charles was deposed in 1830. Turin probably contains the body of his sister, Clotilde, Queen of Sardinia, who was beatified.
Comment by John Yohalem — January 2, 2013 @ 5:21 pm
Barbaric. I wonder if we will ever evolve beyond violence. Now that would be great news.
Comment by pamella — January 4, 2013 @ 7:44 am
Not only DNA from the close relatives cited above, but from living Bourbons, including Henri d’Orleans, Comte de Paris and pretender to the French throne, and King Juan Carlos of Spain.
Comment by Paul Heymont — January 4, 2013 @ 9:05 am
Sadly, I doubt the human race will evolve beyond violence or beyond tyranny in my lifetime.
Comment by Hank — January 4, 2013 @ 9:51 am
Try to focus on the purpose of the article – not on the way King Louis’ DNA sample was “collected”.
As to the latter, before we call it “barbaric”, put yourself into the time and place of the people who were actually there to witness such momentous events, gruesome though they may have been – in many/most cases, there was someone in the crowd of witnesses who had deep feelings for the deceased – regardless if the former were in the minority.
Remember, it’s been a common practice throughout human history to save locks of hair of the dead before burial, to dip cloth into their blood (witness historical accounts of the deaths of Christian martyrs), and even (in the US in the 1800′s through the early 20th century) to photograph our recently-deceased children in their “dressed-up” burial clothes. (Should we toss out the blood-stained pillow on which Lincoln’s head rested when he died in the Petersen house across the street from Ford’s Theater? Was it barbaric to keep it? Should it have been tossed into the trash can? Of course not.)
This is not barbarism; for ages we humans have felt the need to retain physical tokens of affection of the dearly departed. It serves to give the living witnesses a physical item to hold, to see, to FEEL – all for a simple, very human reason: to help ease awful grief.
For this same reason we rub the noses on bronze statues of our heroes, saints, etc. We laugh when our children do the same – who would scold them for “barbarism” when they participate in this worldwide custom? Have any of us walked past a statue of Lincoln that did not have its nose all shined up? Why not? – because we know it is good to be allowed to literally feel a physical connection – and thus remember better – those whom we should revere from the past.
Comment by Joe Veedock — January 12, 2013 @ 2:15 am
@JV:
Well put, but I believe pamella referred to the dismemberment.
Comment by ron — January 25, 2013 @ 11:47 am