The third person narrator who relates the story provides so much insight into Mathilde Loisel’s thoughts, emotions and feelings that the reader gets a clear picture of her point of view. However, because the story is related by the narrator, who is removed from the action that takes place in the story and is not one of the characters in it, it might not be technically accurate to say that "The Necklace" is told from Mathilde Loisel’s point of view.

The story, in fact, opens with a description of Mathilde that tells us right from the start something about her point of view. She was pretty and charming and believed that she should have been born to a family with a higher social status than that of her own family. Because she had no path to meet and marry a “man of wealth and distinction,” she married someone she looked down upon. The narrator communicates her feeling of superiority to her husband and his status by telling the reader that “she let herself be married” to him—as if she were completely passive in the act of entering into the marriage—and by using the word “minor” to describe his situation and career. Moreover, she was “unhappy” with her lot in life and “suffered.” She felt that she deserved and was entitled to more.

As the story continues, we get further insight into her thoughts and point of view through description and through her actions. For instance, when her husband proudly brings home the invitation to the Ministry party, mistakenly believing that she will be delighted, she cries and shouts at him in anger. We get some minimal insight into his character after the necklace is lost because we know about his effort to retrace their steps to find it and the sacrifice they both make to replace it. However, it is always Mathilde's feelings that are described most vividly, which gives the reader knowledge of her point of view.

Guy de Maupassant utilizes third person limited narration in his short story "The Necklace." Using the third person limited point of view, the reader knows the thoughts and feelings of one character, primarily the main character in the story, and all the characters are described using the pronouns 'he,' 'she,' or 'they.' Unlike the third person omniscient point of view, where the reader knows the thoughts and feelings of every character, the third person limited narrator allows Guy de Maupassant to create a surprise ending. In the story, Mathilde Loisel's thoughts and feelings are vividly described and the reader senses that she is a completely superficial, shallow woman, who values appearances and desperately wishes to experience a life of luxury. Her husband's thoughts and feelings are rather insignificant and Madame Forestier's thoughts are never revealed. For example, when Mathilde Loisel returns the genuine necklace, she is nervous about what Madame Forestier will think if she opens the box. Maupassant writes,

"She [Madame Forestier] did not open the case, as her friend had so much feared. If she had detected the substitution, what would she have thought, what would she have said?" (13).

If the story were written using the third person omniscient point of view, the reader would know Madame Forestier's thoughts. Also, the reader would more than likely know that the lost necklace was simply an imitation. By writing the story using third person limited narration, Guy de Maupassant is able to create a surprise ending when Mathilde Loisel discovers that the necklace she lost was a worthless imitation.

Author Guy de Maupassant is the narrator of the story, and he uses Mathilde's point of view, while not using Mathilde herself, to tell her story from her perspective. 

This type of narrative is, therefore, third person omniscient objective. This is a narrator who knows everything that is going on in the story, even the innermost feelings of the characters. This narrator does not take sides, either, and just comments based on the facts. Evidence of this narrative style can be found in the following examples.

First, the narrator is able to identify everything that Mathilde feels, and is even able to describe how she fantasizes about the things that she cannot have:

She thought of silent antechambers hung with Oriental tapestry, illumined by tall bronze candelabra, and of two great footmen in knee breeches ...

The author is also able to touch upon the feelings and thoughts of all the other characters, regardless of whether they are central to the story or not. Notice here how Maupassant even knows what are the plans and feelings of Mathilde's husband (who is not central to the story) upon finding out that his wife needed 400 francs to buy a dress

He grew a little pale, because he was laying aside just that amount to buy a gun and treat himself to a little shooting next summer on the plain of Nanterre...

Maupassant is even detailed enough to show Madame Forestier's thoughts. This woman, who was the lender of the necklace for which the story is named, is the pivotal character that moves the plot forward once she offers Mathilde "any" piece of jewelry that her friend would wish to have for the ball. 

It is Forestier's necklace that gets lost and replaced by one which costs ten times its price, simply because the Loisels decided not to tell her about the loss. Maupassant tells us that the owner of the original necklace receives Mathilde "cooly" and even expresses a bit of frustration while still maintaining the courtesies that keep their friendship alive. 

All this being said, the third person omniscient narrator is able to use the points of view of different characters and focalize the narrative from that perspective, while shifting on to that of another character. This helps to pique the interest of the reader, who gets to know the innermost thoughts of other characters who are related to the main one. 

What is the point of view in "The Necklace" by Guy de Maupassant?

While the narration is, indeed, third-person, it is also omniscient point of view. That is, the narrator knows what the characters think and feel. Thus, Maupassant's is a non-judgmental point of view that is intended to focus upon solely the actions of the characters, and the readers are left to form their own conclusions. Yet, even though the narrator reserves judgment, Maupassant employs words with pejorative connotations, such as his mention of the material things that Mme. Loise values, such as an evening dress and jewelry. And, rather than using point of view, Maupassant employs heavy irony to convey his theme of the price to be paid for vanity. She borrows a necklace so she can feel beautiful and receives attention at the ball; however, this very necklace becomes her nemesis.

The Necklace is told from third-person point of view.

The narration is nondescript in this story; the narrator, if there is one, never addresses the audience or comments upon the story in a subjective or personal way. Thus we may assume that there is no actual "narrator" in the sense of an individual with their own point of view through which we see the story.

The majority of the story is a subjective and limited point of view; we might also think of this as "over the shoulder" narration. This means that we learn what a character is seeing, thinking and feeling, but only from their own point of view, or that of the people they're immediately interacting with. We spend most of our time following Mathilde Loisel and being told about her experiences and feelings, but we don't learn much about anyone else. This is crucial to the plot for two reasons; it makes us sympathetic to the Loisels by "sharing" in their misery, and makes the twist ending possible.

From what point of view is "The Necklace" told?

The story goes back and forth between background narration and dramatic narration of the events surrounding the necklace. The background narration is supplied by an omniscient narrator. This narrator quickly fills the reader in on Madame Loisel's family, her past, and how she ends up married to a minor official. This narrator also notes Madame Loisel's dissatisfaction and supplies the information that most women of her class would have been satisfied with her lot. The omniscient narrator also describes the romantic notions of a life of luxury Madame Loisel has developed from reading novels, and, after the loss of the necklace, this narrator sums up the many hard years of penny-pinching Madam Loisel endures to replace the necklace.

However, when it comes to the actual story of the necklace—the party invitation, her husband's suggestion that she borrow the necklace, her visit to her friend to choose a necklace and the discovery of the loss of the necklace—is told entirely from Madame Loisel's point of view. This is important to understand, for the surprise we experience at the end of the story hinges on us buying into Madame Loisel's limited perspective. Like her, the reader must believe the lost necklace was a real diamond for the ironic twist of the tale's ending to have its effect.

The point of view of this story is that of a third person narrator.  The story is not told from the point of view of Madame Loisel or anyone else who is actually involved in the story.  Instead, it is just some uninvolved narrator.

The narrator is omniscient.  The narrator can see what the characters are thinking, although this ability is not used much in the story.  However, we are told, for example, that Madame Loisel is not happy because she thinks she has married beneath her -- that she married someone who was not high class enough for her.

From what point of view is "The Necklace" by Guy de Maupassant told?

Guy de Maupassant's short story "The Necklace" (sometimes referred to as "The Diamond Necklace") follows the tale of Madame Mathilde Loisel, who has married a clerk who makes very little money but valiantly attempts to make her happy nonetheless. Madame Loisel has always been desperate to be a part of the aristocracy, and she believes she finally has the opportunity to do so when her husband manages to secure an invitation for them to attend the Ministry of Education's party.

Madame Loisel initially throws a fit and refuses to go to the party because she does not believe she has anything fancy enough to wear and does not want to be embarrassed. Later, her husband gives her 400 francs to purchase new attire—money he had been saving to buy a hunting rifle. Madame Loisel buys a dress but is still displeased that she had no jewelry to go with it. Thus, she visits her friend Madame Jeanne Forestier, who allows her to borrow a huge diamond necklace.

After the party, Madame Loisel realizes that she has lost the necklace. Distraught, she decides to replace it rather than own up to her mistake, but she learns that the necklace will cost 40,000 francs to replace. Madame Loisel and her husband sell everything they own and take out high-interest loans to pay for the replacement. Ten years later, Madame Forestier runs into Madame Loisel (who is now in a horrific state of poverty) on the Champs-Élysées. It is then revealed that the original necklace was a fake made out of paste, worth a mere 500 francs. Madame Loisel has destroyed her life for nothing.

In order to give us the full scope of the events and the thoughts and feelings of each character, this story is told from a third-person omniscient perspective.

The clue to knowing from which point of view "The Necklace" by Guy de Maupassant is told can be found in the first sentence of the story.

She was one of those pretty and charming girls born, as though fate had blundered over her, into a family of artisans.

Actually, the first word, she, is enough to let the readers know that the story is told from a third-person point of view. As the story progresses, we learn that the narrator knows what every character in the story thinks, which means the story is told by a third-person omniscient narrator.

What this means, of course, is that we get every character's perspective in the story, and it is the perfect choice for this particular tale. If Mathilde had been our narrator, we would have been made aware of everything she desires and deserves, but we would not have known that she actually has a pretty good life and just wallows in her discontent. We might have believed her dissatisfaction was merited if we had only heard her side of things; instead, we realize that she is just a discontented woman who has overestimated her own value.

If Monsieur Loisel had been our narrator, we would have been fairly clueless about what Mathilde is so upset about; and if Madame Forestier had narrated the story, we would not have had a clue about anything. A limited narrator might have given us the facts but not the feelings.

So, the third-person narrator is the best choice for this story.