Middletown transcript., 1874-04-04
WAS THIS THE REAL HEIR TO
THE FRENCH THRONE?

After the execution Of Louis XVI. in
January. 1898. his son. the Dauphin,
who was then bright. intelligent boy Of
eight years Of age, was recognized by the
European courts aud by the Vendean
chiefs ss King Of France under the title
of Louis XVII. The royal family were
then imprisoned in an old fortress in Paris
called the Temple ; but in the following
July the young Prince was torn from the
arms Of bis mother and carried to a remote
part Of the building. where he was placed
under the control Of shoemaker named
Simon. He was treated by his jailer with
unvarying cruelty aud neglect From
July. 1898. until the end of the Reign of
Terror in, 1874 be was kept in solitary
confinement in his cell, from which the
light and air we're shut out. His cloth.
ing was unchanged for over year and
his bed was net made up for months. He
was fed scantily and given stagnant water
70 drink. .ftr
After Simon had been guillotiued in
1874 the rigor Of the Dauphin's imprison-
ment Was somewhat relaxed. In May,
1895. physician who was called iu pro-
noupced hin to be dying Of scrofula I; and
it 10 said that he died on June IL. On the
day following his death We are told that
his body .uas identified and certified to by
four members Of the Committee Of Safety
and some twenty Of the prison officisls,
and four distinguished physicians held an
autopsy on the body before ito interment
in the cemetery Of St. Marguerite.
A case 10 now occupying the attention
Of tho Court of Appeal 10 Paris, in which
Jules Favre appears for the claimants /;
and this case depends entirely upon the
question whether the Dauphin really died
in the Temple or not M. Favre contends
that in sccordance with plot Of Barras.
the President Of the Directory. and some
OF the members Of the convention, such as
Camhaceres. Foudhs and Ma,hieu. Louis
XVII was rescued from the plisan by
substituting the body of another child,
and that be lived until l845. and was
known by the name OF Charles William
Naundortf. The present case is an appeal
from the decision Of the tribunal Of the
Seine il 1851, against the ciai,n oflNaun-
dorff on the grounds that from August
10. 1892. until 1895. ths Temple WAS 90
strictly watched that the alleged substitu-
tion could net have taken place that the
autopey was attended by 80 wide publi-
city as to leave no room for doubt; that
Nsundorfrs ignorance Of the French Lam
guage up to 1889 suiiced to refute his a.
legged origin and that had the story of the
eseaps bssn true. some Of che participants
iu IL wculd have revealed the secret after
the Restoration 10 1914 The appellants are
Naundorif's son, Count Albert de Bour-
bos. and his oldest daughter, Amelia ~
The Count Is forty. Eve. and has the gen.
uine Bourbon look. His sister. Who il
now farty-two. il said to bear striking
rssamblsnse to Marie Autoinette
Naundorif's story wss that after the es-
caps from the Temple he was kept for
years 10 seclusiou by his friends. at one
time in Z chateau and sftervard in prison.
and thHt afteruafd he travelled in England
and ID Italy There SCENE to be no doubt
that be vas 10 Berlis when about twenty
6ve yeaFs Of age. where be followed the
esoutAtie6S q vitshnskes. and thst
when aanmoasd bsfors thes poiioe suthor-
tiles be declared himself 10 6e tho Dauph-
in. The Prussian suthorities sent him to
6pandau. whore be lived in obacurity. still
pursuing ths sems oocOpasinn. snd here
u 1919 te married 4 msrchsnt's daughter
nsmed Frederiks Heinert. Aflsr The Res
teration 10 EtsnSe he prots to.ths Datch-
- 4 d'AnHtslsuo, 1aughter Of Louis XVI.
Feeal|!ng . her mind The incidents Of the