ONE LAST LOOK AT THE POISONING THESIS
François de Candé-Montholon, a fifth-generation descendant of the Comte Charles de Montholon, will himself tell you how we came into possession of these documents, which shed light on a chapter of history that has long been controversial. (see following letter)
"These archives had long lain in the attics of the property of Comte François de Montholon, probably without his knowledge. When he died with no children of his own, his heirs sold the property, unaware of the existence of the documents, which had doubtless been hidden by the General himself. Thus it was that my father, who had become head of the family, received a call from the new owner. In the course of renovations, he had just stumbled upon the documents and immediately attempted to return them to the family.
Although my father was a renowned biographer with a keen interest in history, he looked over the documents rapidly without immediately apprehending their importance. He then called me: "Someone has just brought me some archives concerning the Montholon family. I don't know what to do with them; could you come and pick them up, since Montholon seems to have always been such a passion of yours?"
I received a delivery of several boxes of yellowed papers, which I took to the country without paying any further attention to them for several months, perhaps to forget them in my turn. The following summer, I went through them very methodically, and to my astonishment, I discovered whole series of previously undiscovered letters, still bearing their wax seals, dated between 1819 and 1821. They were written in the hand of my ancestor, general Monththolon, and addressed to his wife Albine. I should point out that Albine Montholon left Saint Helena on July 2, 1819, on the pretext of feeling unwell."
Here then is the translation of his letter :
François de CANDE-MONTHOLON
Manoir de la Mesnardière
49520-NOYANT-la-GRAVOYERE
INTERNATIONAL NAPOLEONIC
2875, Chemin Bates Road
MONTREAL-QUEBEC-Canada
October 2, 2002
It was with a great sense of joy that I received your letter of September 12, together with the accompanying documents.
Since our last contact, I have worked, read and reflected a lot on the subject that interests us both so deeply.
Thanks to your research, I realize that I am ever more convinced that your analysis of the reasons that led my ancestor to follow the Emperor into exile is the correct one.
On my side, I have arrived at the following conclusions, with the support of family documents that I am continuing to decipher and analyze.
I shall not pronounce on the causes of Napoleon's death, since I do not consider myself competent in that particular regard. Speaking from the perspective of an observer, however, I will say that those who refute the arguments that you put forward do so in such bad faith and with such obvious arrogance as can only serve the cause you defend.
If we accept this first hypothesis —that Napoleon was poisoned— as proven, it would be quite dishonest on my part not to recognize that among those who were in close contact with Napoleon, my ancestor was the one who stayed next to the Emperor on a daily basis for the entire period during which he displayed the symptoms. If the poisoning had been the result of natural causes, the other companions would, unless I am mistaken, have displayed the same symptoms. This was not the case.
Furthermore, Professor Maury sent for analysis the hair of Albine de Montholon that I had given to him, and which she very probably cut in order to give to her husband when she left Saint Helena. This hair contains a normal level of arsenic, consistent with the level found in hair today. Incidentally, I shall conserve this lock carefully should you wish to carry out a fresh analysis.
Finally, I must confide to you that the latest documents that I have deciphered demonstrate the very important, if unacknowledged, role of the Marquis de Sémonville in this whole affair. Very close to Maret, Duke of Bassano, but also to Louis XVIII, Sémonville’s influence in the choice of Montholon as one of those who would follow Napoleon into exile is crucial. In the light of the documents in my possession, I now feel bound to admit that I was wrong in asserting that my ancestor had acted alone. It now appears highly probable to me that he was at the very least charged with a surveillance mission on Saint Helena and inasmuch as we admit his responsibility in the poisoning affair, he could only have acted in league with accomplices. Furthermore the relationship he entertained with Hudson Lowe, both during and after the exile, as well as the portrait that he painted of him to his daughter Napoléone, who included this in her memoirs, prove that the two men were in close, regular contact for this entire period. I have only today arrived at the conclusion that the analysis that you have always supported seems to me the most credible.
In cooperation with the celebrated French scriptwriter Marcel Jullian, I have just completed a play Napoléone’s Secret, rather in the style of a historical novel, and am sending you a copy of the manuscript. I would very much like to have your opinion on the credibility of the dialogue that we have constructed.
Marcel Jullian found the entire story fascinating and our publisher commissioned us to write a novel in the form of a veritable historical panorama covering the period 1815-1821. Since it is in the form of a novel, we will be free to construct the scenario which seems to accord most closely with the truth, and which, as it so happens, is the one that you have always defended. General de Montholon left for Saint Helena with a secret mission entrusted to him by the King, under pressure from his adoptive father, the Marquis de Sémonville. However, several unexpected developments were to turn the situation in Napoléon’s favour. Through his exceptional abilities, the Emperor was able to defuse all the intrigues, and through the pardon he granted before his death to the one he called his son, remained until the very end the master of his destiny and the true hero of this ultimate epic.
Like you, I regret that so many who claim the title of historian demonstrate such bad faith when it comes to admitting that they may have committed an error. These same people, who hope to conquer through division tell me: Mr. Weider, that great admirer of Napoleon who has always maintained that your ancestor assassinated Napoleon, can only hate his descendant, all the more so since you appear to subscribe to his thesis. Well Ben, my dear friend, today I shall give you another opportunity to detest me even more by subscribing to the latest step in your argument!
With all my friendship
Yours sincerely
François de Candé-Montholon F.I.N.S.
François de Montholon, who deserves to be paid tribute for the courage and intellectual integrity he has shown in choosing to defend historical truth rather than cover up what today appears to be the reprehensible actions of his ancestor, has now confirmed what I have been repeating for over 20 years in my conferences, namely:
"General Charles de Montholon, acting as an agent of the Bourbons, at the cost of great self-denial and long moral anguish, succeeded in carrying out to perfection a special mission on behalf of the King. He triumphed where generals as famous as Pichegru and Cadoudal, and aristocrats of the very highest rank, such as the Marquis de Rivière and the brothers Jules and Armand Polignac, had failed miserably."
To the scientific evidence of the poisoning of Napoleon, we should add the historical proof of the complicity between Governor Hudson Lowe and Count Charles de Montholon in carrying out the assassination. This historical evidence, which we presented in great detail during the conference of June 1, has just been reinforced by a letter addressed to me on October 2, 2002 by François de Candé-Montholon, a direct descendant of Comte Charles de Montholon."
Ben Weider
clic here to read a translation of Philip F. Corso's article :
Napoleon's hair, external arsenic or arsenic ingestion ?
and Doctor Kintz's reply :