Ghosts or time travel? - "the Ghosts of Petit Trianon"

[Ninshub]

I just came upon this strange case.

From Wiki:

The Moberly–Jourdain incident (also the Ghosts of Petit Trianon or Versailles, French: les fantômes du Trianon / les fantômes de Versailles) is a claim of time travel and hauntings made by Charlotte Anne Moberly (1846–1937) and Eleanor Jourdain (1863–1924).

In 1911, Moberly and Jourdain published a book entitled An Adventure under the names of "Elizabeth Morison" and "Frances Lamont". Their book describes a visit they made to the Petit Trianon, a small château in the grounds of the Palace of Versailles where they claimed to have seen the gardens as they had been in the late eighteenth century as well as ghosts, including Marie Antoinette and others. Their story caused a sensation and was subject to much ridicule.

Claims

According to Moberly and Jourdain, the two women decided to visit the Palace of Versailles as part of several trips. On 10 August 1901, they travelled by train to Versailles. They did not think much of the palace after touring it,[5] so they decided to walk through the gardens to the Petit Trianon.[9] On the way, they reached the Grand Trianon and found it was closed to the public.[5]

They travelled with a Baedeker guidebook, but the two women soon became lost after missing the turn for the main avenue, Allée des Deux Trianons. They passed this road, and entered a lane, where unknown to them they passed their destination.[9] Moberly noticed a woman shaking a white cloth out of a window[10] and Jourdain noticed an old deserted farmhouse, outside of which was an old plough.[10]

At this point they claimed that a feeling of oppression and dreariness came over them.[11] They then saw some men who looked like palace gardeners, who told them to go straight on. Moberly later described the men as "very dignified officials, dressed in long greyish green coats with small three-cornered hats."[12] Jourdain noticed a cottage with a woman and a girl in the doorway. The woman was holding out a jug to the girl.[10] Jourdain described it as a "tableau vivant", a living picture, much like Madame Tussauds waxworks. Moberly did not observe the cottage, but felt the atmosphere change. She wrote: "Everything suddenly looked unnatural, therefore unpleasant; even the trees seemed to become flat and lifeless, like wood worked in tapestry. There were no effects of light and shade, and no wind stirred the trees."[13]


The Comte de Vaudreuil was later suggested as a candidate for the man with the marked face allegedly seen by Moberly and Jourdain.

They reached the edge of a wood, close to the Temple de l'Amour, and came across a man seated beside a garden kiosk, wearing a cloak and large shady hat.[14] According to Moberly, his appearance was "most repulsive... its expression odious. His complexion was dark and rough."[15] Jourdain noted "The man slowly turned his face, which was marked by smallpox; his complexion was very dark. The expression was evil and yet unseeing, and though I did not feel that he was looking particularly at us, I felt a repugnance to going past him.[15] A man later described as "tall... with large dark eyes, and crisp curling black hair under a large sombrero hat" came up to them, and showed them the way to the Petit Trianon.[16]


Portrait of Marie Antoinette by Wertmüller.

The figure that Moberly saw near the Petit Trianon was claimed to bear a resemblance to the Queen as depicted in this painting
After crossing a bridge, they reached the gardens in front of the palace, and Moberly noticed a lady sketching on the grass who looked at them.[17] She later described what she saw in great detail: the lady was wearing a light summer dress, on her head was a shady white hat, and she had lots of fair hair. Moberly thought she was a tourist at first, but the dress appeared to be old-fashioned. Moberly came to believe that the lady was Marie Antoinette. Jourdain, however, did not see the lady.[18]
After this, they were directed round to the entrance and joined a party of other visitors.[19] After touring the house, they had tea at the Hotel des Reservoirs before returning to Jourdain's apartment.

Slightly annoying narrator, but a description of the case:



The BBC made a movie about it. Here it is:

I just came upon this strange case.

From Wiki:

Slightly annoying narrator, but a description of the case:



The BBC made a movie about it. Here it is:

A very famous case in time slip literature. The film is a fun watch, but I recall reading it contained numerous inaccuracies. Here's the book:

An Adventure

A strong case has been made that much of the evidence wasn't recorded in detail until some time after the event, and that the women's recollections were influenced by the idea that they had visited the 18th century. Mrs Sidgwick took this line at the time. But both had other paranormal experiences, so it may not be the whole explanation.

There is a recent book on the case by Mark Lamont, which I haven't read, but which Tom Ruffles reviewed very positively:
https://www.spr.ac.uk/book-review/myster...ark-lamont

There are some really great timeslips around, I find them a really fascinating phenomena for consideration. Carl Jung and mistress had a now famous timeslip experience when travelling - published in his autobiography. It's all the more gritty and believable because it's Jung. You can feel the psychologists squirming when you read what is written in that book. Whatever spin they like to put onto the writings in his other works, that autobiography reasserts the correct context under which they should be understood.

Yes, I find these interesting too. There's a good collection entitled "Adventures in Time" by Andrew MacKenzie, published in 1997. But one interesting aspect is that a couple of the cases related there, involving sightings of buildings that couldn't subsequently be found, initially seemed just as baffling as the others, but when investigated turned out to have perfectly normal explanations.

There is a recent book on the case by Mark Lamont, which I haven't read, but which Tom Ruffles reviewed very positively:
https://www.spr.ac.uk/book-review/myster...ark-lamont

I've now read the book. It is certainly very detailed, and more sceptical than I had expected. But in conclusion Lamont points to four aspects of the experience that he finds interesting, and that he implies couldn't be explained by a mixture of "mal-observation and confused memories" - in contrast to other aspects:

(1) The ladies encountered two men wearing small three-cornered hats and long greyish-green coats, whom they initially described as gardeners. Their uniforms were incompatible with those of officials and gardeners of 1901.

(2) The Petit Trianon appeared to be shuttered as they approached it, but a few minutes later they entered it and discovered it wasn't shuttered.

(3) Miss Moberly saw a lady [whom they came to believe was Marie Antoinette] but Miss Jourdain did not, even though she was adamant that she had been looking around in all directions at the time.

(4) When the ladies were on a terrace outside the house, they saw a man who appeared from one of two doorways which were no longer used in 1901, and they said he walked up to them on the level, which was impossible in 1901.

Some of these points may be a bit debatable, but the anachronistic uniforms of the "gardeners", which are described in Miss Moberly's original account, do seem difficult to understand.

There are some really great timeslips around, I find them a really fascinating phenomena for consideration. Carl Jung and mistress had a now famous timeslip experience when travelling - published in his autobiography. It's all the more gritty and believable because it's Jung. You can feel the psychologists squirming when you read what is written in that book. Whatever spin they like to put onto the writings in his other works, that autobiography reasserts the correct context under which they should be understood.

Jung and his secretary's witnessing of the mosaics (if that is what you're referring to, Max ?) which did not actually exist but they both examined, was not described by Jung as a "time-slip," though was it ?

Certainly was a very strange occurrence, though.

I can’t remember what he called it, but what he describes is a time-slip.

I can't remember either, Max and the book is in the attic. Can I be bothered to go up and get it ? No.

Seeing as you admitted that PR was under burst suppression, I'll let you have that.