Now, About that French Revolution . . . .

Last September, DH and I splurged and stayed overnight at a new bed and breakfast in Denver, the Patterson Inn.  It is a late nineteenth-century red sandstone “when-I-grow-up-I-want-to-be-a-chateau” residence, lovingly renovated into a luxurious urban inn — what’s not to love?  We did in fact like it, though I do have quibbles with some of the interior restoration work.

But then there are the descriptions of the rooms, in particular this rather mind-boggling mangling of history, in which the room was linked to “the decadence and femininity of Marie Antoinette’s French Revolution.”  Really.  The French Revolution was many things, but it was NOT decadent, it was NOT feminine, and it most assuredly did NOT belong to the hapless queen.

Someone must have pointed out the problems with that particular description, because the current description invites guests to “think back to the French Revolution and the decadence and femininity of Marie Antoinette.”  I suppose it is a tad better, since Marie Antoinette no longer owns the revolution.  But do the innkeepers really want their guests to think about the French Revolution at all?  I mean, it was a revolution — there was nothing romantic about it: it was messy, it was bloody, and there was a reason why during the chaos, the radical turn for the worse became known as the Reign of Terror.

I know nothing about the owners, Kerri and Travis McAfoos — but this much I know: they clearly need to go borrow a book on the French Revolution, or failing that, at least to take a look at the Wikipedia entry.  Sheesh.

Spring snow!
Spring snow!

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Google photo

You are commenting using your Google account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s