Mont St. Michel has been built, rebuilt and restored many times in the past. Lots of buildings from 1200 don’t exist anymore and collapsed over the years.
The spire isn’t necessarily a new invention either. Here’s an illustration from 1772 that does seem to show a (more romanesque) spire on the top as well:
It’s a different spire, but a lot of things have changed over the years. Viollet le Duc restored the site in the 19th century and added a neogothic spire (the famous one we all know now). Similar spires popped up all over the world, a notable example being the Notre Dame’s spire (which after the fire had to be rebuilt in the same way due to its heritage value).
The idea of a spire on the island isn’t new at least, and the neogothic spire does fit the island very well, both in looks but also in spiritual meaning. I certainly wouldn’t describe it as a “fake” just for tourism purposes.
That’s a bit of a strange way of describing it.
Mont St. Michel has been built, rebuilt and restored many times in the past. Lots of buildings from 1200 don’t exist anymore and collapsed over the years.
The spire isn’t necessarily a new invention either. Here’s an illustration from 1772 that does seem to show a (more romanesque) spire on the top as well:
It’s a different spire, but a lot of things have changed over the years. Viollet le Duc restored the site in the 19th century and added a neogothic spire (the famous one we all know now). Similar spires popped up all over the world, a notable example being the Notre Dame’s spire (which after the fire had to be rebuilt in the same way due to its heritage value).
The idea of a spire on the island isn’t new at least, and the neogothic spire does fit the island very well, both in looks but also in spiritual meaning. I certainly wouldn’t describe it as a “fake” just for tourism purposes.
Maybe fake was not the best word. I just don’t really like the 19th century neo* styles, and that they are celebrated as something very historic.