Montholon se plaint du médecin de Napoléon qui a été chassé pour s'inquiéter beaucoup pour lui.
Here we are translating letters between the mysterious Montholons. There is a strong argument that Count Charles de Montholon and his wife Albine played a central role in the poisoning of Napoleon. Forensic evidence showed that Napoleon’s hair revealed poisoning consistent with a method made famous by a Marquise de Brinvilliers. A book about this just so happened to be a subject of Albine’s reading materials.
Montholon seems angry at Napoleon’s doctor who had been expelled by the Governor of St. Helena. Sir Hudson Lowe. To my knowledge O’Meara is generally credited as being a good man and Montholon is not (his personality has even flipped in these letters) so we have to wonder either did O’Meara expose Montholon? Or is Montholon writing this knowing the Governor will be reading this correspondence and that the Governor wants to hear complaints against O’Meara. From Count de Las Cases in his memoirs, we learned that Lowe eventually sues O’Meara.
Also, we can note that Albine was not driven from country to country like a threat to the authorities, according to these letters, by the hatred of Napoleon’s enemies like we read about in the memoirs of Las Cases, Savary, Lavallette and those of Hortense. Valet Marchand’s account of the expulsion of O’Meara is available here.
…
From the COUNT TO THE COUNTESS OF MONTHOLON
Longwood, November 5, 1819.
A brochure from O'Meara (3) happened to come to us here, it is such a fabric of nonsense, triviality, that I cannot imagine that a reasonable man could have printed it. (4)
How foolish it is to always put one’s name before the public and to want to play a role at any cost!
As for me, I find it very bad that my name is mixed in all these writings.
If libels are written against me, I will answer them by my conduct; but certainly I do not -
…
1. This seems to indicate that the negotiations with Holmes were not entirely finished.
2. Ibbetson had taken on the charge of purveyor (supplier) for the Longwood establishment.
3. An exhibition of some of the transactions that have taken place at Saint Helena, since the appointment of Sir Hudson Lowe as Governor of that island. London, 1819, in-8.
4. OʻMeara's work was treated less harshly by two men, however hostile: 1st Gors, secretary to the French commissioner, found there "much less exaggeration and much more truth" than Hook's work which O'Meara refuted (Facts illustrative of the treatment of Napoleon Buonaparte at Saint Helena, London, Stockdale, 1819, in-8 (Report of October 14, 1819, Archives of Foreign Affairs, Memories and documents, 1804 bis, p. 140, Exhibit 38); Surgeon W. Henry saw in it “a specious, but sophistical book, yet more remarkable for the suppressio veri than the assertio falsi” (Events of a military life, II, p. 41. London, Pickering, 1843, in-8). Probably Montholon did not express his true thought there.
…
want to be in the running for the list of follicular traitors (1) (?)
All of this is intriguing and smells bad. Flee from these people, sooner or later they will find a way to use your name without knowing it, or to take money from you in the discount of bills of exchange that you have on M. Baring (2); for I see that, without being authorized in any way, M. Holmes has become our charge d'affaires, and writes to us that he will do honor to our bills. (3)
I repeat, this is all intriguing, and I very much regret having written to you, at the first moment that I learned of M. Holmes' letter, that you could address him to cash your bills of exchange on M. Baring (4), unless M. Baring refers you to him.
…
1. Sic. - There is probably an error from the English scribe. 2. See the letters of July 3 and October 4, 1819.
3. The attempts of Holmes (no doubt encouraged by his friend O'Meara) to become the charge d'affaires of Longwood in Europe, date back to 1818; but the letters which contained his first offers and the account of his first services were seized, and did not reach Napoleon (Forsyth, t. III, chap. XXI). - When did the new proposal of which Montholon speaks here date? It is difficult to say. Did Holmes write only after getting along with Madame de Montholon? This seems impossible, since the agreement was not made until October 1819, and Montholon could not have known of it on November 5. Holmes had therefore probably made new offers before seeing Mme. de Montholon.
4. We do not have this letter. - This distrust of Holmes, Montholon expressed it on several occasions in conversations with Sir Hudson Lowe, July 17, 1820 (British Museum, Additional Mss 20130, p. 233 sqq.), August 27 1820 (Record Office, Colonial office records, St Helena, Colonial Correspondence, t. 29), January 27, 1821 (Ibid., T. 32), but I explained in my thesis on the Origins of the Napoleonic legend (chap. VIII) and I touched in the notes to the letter of June 9, 1820, the reasons which make me think that these speeches and letters unfavorable to O'Meara and Holmes were intended for the English authorities and of pure diplomacy. - It is certain that, approved or not, Holmes was an intermediary in Europe between the Napoleonic people and the main available source of funds belonging to Napoleon, namely the 800,000 francs in deposit with Prince Eugène. In 1820, Prince Eugène paid Holmes 72,000 francs.
…
Nous traduisons ici des lettres entre les mystérieux Montholons. Il y a un argument fort selon lequel le comte Charles de Montholon et sa femme Albine ont joué un rôle central dans l'empoisonnement de Napoléon.
Des preuves médico-légales ont montré que les cheveux de Napoléon révélaient un empoisonnement conforme à une méthode rendue célèbre par une marquise de Brinvilliers. Un livre à ce empoisonnement était justement un sujet de lecture pour Albine.
Montholon semble en colère contre le médecin de Napoléon qui a été expulsé par le gouverneur de Sainte-Hélène, Sir Hudson Lowe.
À ma connaissance, O’Meara est généralement considéré comme un homme bon et Montholon ne l’est pas. (Montholon a changé beaucoup déjà dans ces lettres.) Nous devons donc nous demander si O’Meara a exposé Montholon?
Ou est-ce que Montholon écrit ceci en sachant que le Gouverneur lira cette correspondance et que le Gouverneur veut entendre les plaintes contre O’Meara. Le comte de Las Cases, dans ses mémoires, nous apprend que Lowe poursuit finalement O’Meara.
I’m attaching an excerpt from where credible historian Frederic Masson writes in his book, Saint Hélène, that Montholon lies all the time in his writings.
…
Je joins un extrait de l’historien crédible Frédéric Masson qui écrit dans son livre, Sainte Hélène, que Montholon ment tout le temps dans ses écrits.
