# The 1786 Diamond Necklace judgment publicises court fraud around Marie-Antoinette while treating her role as allegation, not proven theft

Date: 1786

## The fact

Versailles’s necklace key-date page and Britannica record the Parlement judgment season of 1786 that exposed Jeanne de La Motte’s fraud using the queen’s forged reputation. Cardinal de Rohan and the jewelers share the scam file. She is not stored here as the thief.

It is one event.

## Context

The 1785 allegation row is neighbouring.

Marie-Antoinette’s documented role is bounded by other offices and collaborators named in the sources below. Sharing a field with them is not a reason to drop a documented act, and it is not a reason to assign later consequences done in the name after death.

Parlement politics, Rohan’s humiliation, and pamphlet amplification; allegation remains allegation.

Named person as heading of the dated public instrument. Later editors, museums, printers, or offices share publication. Complex where later carriers are the surviving public file.

## Evidence and sources

Versailles necklace page and Britannica independently describe the Affair’s 1785–1786 fraud and judgment without proving her theft.

Official or archival record: Château de Versailles — Affair of the diamond necklace, 1784–1785 (https://en.chateauversailles.fr/discover/history/key-dates/affair-diamond-necklace-1784-1785; Établissement public du château, du musée et du domaine national de Versailles).

## Significance

A public fraud judgment that weaponised the queen’s name is an institutional-corruption and trust path.

## What is established and what is not

Established: 1786 judgment publicity in the palace/encyclopedia file. Not established: that she ordered or received the necklace.

What would change the picture: a contradictory original with a different date or name, or a measured series that can be argued, with lag and alternatives, as a consequence of this instrument rather than of later institutions.

The date is the date of this instrument, not a licence to back-date every later harm or benefit.

Established here: a sourced, dated public instrument with a named contribution by Marie-Antoinette.

They are not a public rating.

The driver `institutional-corruption` is attached because the mechanism named in Significance follows from this instrument, not because a standing list of welfare headings needed another tick. Marie-Antoinette did not file a later UNESCO form, a later Loeb colophon, or a later museum label as a personal act. A portrait or conventional bust is not this mechanism. Allegation, reconstruction, and established occurrence stay distinct. Never store her as convicted necklace thief. Never cake. Keep the carrier date of later English distinct from the received historical year stored in the date field. Do not read a later English edition as a recovered autograph of Marie-Antoinette.

## People

- Marie-Antoinette: https://factrail.ai/people/marie-antoinette

## Drivers

- Institutional Corruption: https://factrail.ai/drivers/institutional-corruption

## Sources

- https://en.chateauversailles.fr/discover/history/key-dates/affair-diamond-necklace-1784-1785
- https://www.britannica.com/biography/Marie-Antoinette-queen-of-France

## Methodology

https://factrail.ai/methodology

Canonical: https://factrail.ai/facts/ma-necklace-judgment-1786