The Praslin Murder and the Fall of a Kingdom

How a Bedroom Murder Became a Revolution’s Spark

By Jaime Pasquier

At half past four on the morning of August 18, 1847, a bell rang desperately through the Hôtel Sebastiani on the rue du Faubourg Saint-Honoré. When servants finally broke through the locked bedroom door of the Duchesse de Choiseul-Praslin, they found a scene that would sear itself into France’s collective memory: forty-seven stab wounds, a throat slashed to the bone, blood on every wall, overturned furniture marking the path of a woman’s ferocious fight for her life.

The accused was her husband—Charles de Choiseul-Praslin, peer of France, heir to a lineage stretching six centuries to the Crusades. Within days he would be dead in his gilded prison cell at the Luxembourg Palace, officially by his own hand. But his death settled nothing. It transformed a domestic horror into something far more dangerous: proof that the French aristocracy considered itself above the law, and that the institutions of the monarchy would sooner bury a scandal than deliver justice.

The Murder That Exposed a System

The Praslin case was never about one man killing one woman. It became a mirror that reflected every hypocrisy the French elite had labored to conceal. A duke whose ancient title was supposed to certify his moral superiority had committed an act of savage, prolonged brutality. The institution of marriage—the cornerstone of bourgeois respectability—was exposed as a cage where rage festered for years before detonating.

The investigation peeled back layers of scandal: the Duke’s obsession with the family governess, Henriette Deluzy-Desportes. The Duchess’s anguished letters documenting years of emotional torment—isolation from her own children, the systematic destruction of her possessions, the slow erasure of her role as wife and mother. A marriage that had produced ten children and five infant graves while producing no love whatsoever. This was not a crime of passion. It was the terminal eruption of a relationship built on convention rather than consent, on property rather than partnership.

What made the affair truly explosive was what followed the arrest. When the Duke died in custody on August 24, Chancellor Étienne-Denis Pasquier—the king’s closest adviser, a man who had navigated every regime change since the Revolution through ruthless pragmatism—moved to contain the damage with surgical speed. No trial. No public accounting. A burial conducted at night, in secrecy. The investigation was interred alongside the body.

From Bedroom to Barricade

The French public understood instantly what the hasty burial signified. In cafés and working-class districts, in bourgeois drawing rooms and radical newspapers, the conclusion was the same: the aristocracy would protect a murderer before it would permit a reckoning that might expose its own corruption. Justice existed for the poor. For those with the right bloodline, there were quieter arrangements.

The outrage was not theoretical. It was visceral. A woman had been butchered in her own bedroom—a woman the peasantry had called “the good lady of Praslin” for her charity—and her murderer had been spirited into the ground before justice could touch him. If a duke could literally get away with murder, what did law mean? What did the monarchy’s claims of constitutional governance actually guarantee?

When crowds attacked the funeral cortege, demanding to see the body, demanding proof that the Duke was actually dead, they were not simply grieving. They were withdrawing their consent to be governed by a class they no longer believed in. Many refused to accept the official account at all, insisting that noble families had arranged the Duke’s escape to England or beyond. The rumors were never fully dispelled.

Six months later, France exploded. The Revolution of February 1848 swept away Louis-Philippe and the July Monarchy in three days. When revolutionaries stormed the Tuileries, many carried banners referencing the Praslin affair. The connection was explicit: private violence had destroyed public legitimacy. The forty-seven wounds that killed the Duchess became forty-seven fractures in the monarchy’s foundation.

The Architecture of Collapse

The Praslin case crystallized multiple fault lines in French society simultaneously—gender, class, and the nature of power itself—in a way that made each crisis amplify the others.

The Duchess embodied the impossible position of aristocratic women: educated enough to recognize her confinement, powerless to escape it. She had wealth but no autonomy, status but no freedom. Her private letters—discovered after the murder and later published to considerable literary acclaim—documented years of systematic cruelty with devastating eloquence. When the press initially suspected the governess Henriette Deluzy of complicity rather than the obvious perpetrator, they revealed how deeply society mistrusted women who did not fit neatly into the categories of wife, mother, or servant.

The Duke’s escape from accountability demonstrated that aristocratic privilege functioned as a parallel legal system. The same regime that celebrated bourgeois meritocracy was forced to confront the reality that birth still trumped merit, that titles still shielded killers. And Chancellor Pasquier’s role in containing the affair—whether by negligence or design—showed how thoroughly corruption had penetrated the highest levels of government. If the king’s own chancellor would sacrifice a murder victim’s justice to protect the monarchy’s reputation, what other crimes lay buried? Once the public imagination opened that door, it could not be closed.

Where Fiction Meets History

This is where the novels enter the story not merely as fiction but as a form of historical inquiry. By imagining Charles de Choiseul-Praslin’s survival and exile to Nicaragua—a premise grounded in family oral traditions and the genuinely suspicious circumstances of his death—the narrative forces us beyond the political symbol to confront the human reality beneath it.

The historical record gives us the murder, the investigation, the hasty burial, and the revolution it helped ignite. But it does not give us the man—the psychology of someone capable of forty-seven stab wounds, the interior architecture of aristocratic violence, the question of what a killer does with the decades he was never supposed to have. Fiction can explore what archives cannot preserve: the weight of guilt carried in exile, the paradox of hands that destroyed one life learning to save others, the question of whether transformation matters when it cannot undo the act that made it necessary.

By following Charles into his Nicaraguan exile—as a village doctor practicing medicine that had been merely an intellectual pastime in Paris, as a husband and father building a second family on the foundation of a monstrous lie—the novels ask questions the French courts never had the chance to pose. Can someone who destroyed one life atone by saving hundreds? Does thirty-five years of service balance the scales, or is that even the right frame? These are not abstract moral puzzles. They are questions about how individuals carry guilt, how societies process elite violence, and how private acts reverberate through public life for generations.

Reading the Past, Understanding the Present

The Praslin case reminds us that political revolutions are not driven by economics or ideology alone. They are driven by legitimacy—and legitimacy depends on the stories societies tell themselves about who deserves power and why. The July Monarchy told a story about enlightened aristocrats governing through reason. The Praslin murder shattered that story by exposing the savagery beneath the civilized veneer.

The pattern repeats. When ruling classes are revealed as morally bankrupt, when their claims to superiority are exposed as performance, when private corruption becomes public knowledge—that is when revolutions shift from unthinkable to inevitable. We still live in societies where the powerful appear to operate under different rules. We still watch personal scandals erode political authority. We still debate whether justice delayed is justice denied, whether good acts compensate for terrible crimes, whether redemption is available to those who have committed the unforgivable.

The novels refuse to resolve these tensions. Charles’s decades of healing in Nicaragua do not solve the murder of his wife. The question “¿Es suficiente?”—Is it enough?—hangs over the narrative because it should. Some acts are irreparable. Some wounds never close. But by following a murderer through transformation and guilt and partial, contested redemption, the novels force us to sit with the discomfort rather than dismiss it.

Historical fiction at its best uses imagination to illuminate reality, individual stories to expose systemic failures, and the past to sharpen how we think about the present. The forty-seven wounds that killed the Duchess opened wounds in French society that helped bring down a monarchy. The novels exploring their aftermath open wounds in our comfortable assumptions about justice, power, and what we owe the dead.

Some wounds need to stay open. Some questions need to keep being asked.

The Scandal That Shook the Throne are available now.

© 2025 Jaime. All rights reserved.