Marie Antoinette

She dragged France into expensive wars and got Austria concessions, both of which were widely unpopular among the general French public.

>She dragged
Didn't realise She was a general.
>and got Austria concessions
She was part of the treaties with Austria, so that's not a surprise. The plebs were just pissants.

To be fair, it wasn't technically completely made up. It was a spin on a common folklore saying which dates back to ancient China: Wealthy and/or royal person is told that the poor people are starving because they lack (basic diet staple) they reply by suggesting the poor could eat (something that only a wealthy person could afford).

A similar saying was attached to one of Marie Antoinette's aunts by marriage. That, being told the poor were starving, she remarks: "Oh, they cannot even put up with pie crusts?" Because she notoriously hated them and associated them with pig slop.

>Hell, they even had prostitutes rape her kids to give them STDs to imply that she'd be abusing them.

Not quite, although some people have speculated that--but there's no evidence and I doubt it happened since it wasn't necessary for what the revolutionaries wanted to use Louis Charles for. In any case, STDs were not part of the supposed evidence of sexual abuse, but masturbation.

What happened was her youngest son, Louis Charles, was forcibly removed from her a few months after Louis XVI's execution. He was taken to be re-educated by revolutionaries at the Temple prison. He was physically and verbally abused for months, made to drink alcohol and generally treated very poorly. He was coerced into signing a statement accusing his mother and aunt Elisabeth of sexually abusing him.

At the trial, Herbert said

>Young Capet, whose constitution became every day impaired, was surprised by Simon in practices destructive to his health, and at his period of life very uncommon; he was asked who had instructed him in these practices; he replied that it was his mother and his aunt. There is reason to believe that this criminal indulgence was not dictated by the love of pleasure, but by the political hope of enervating the constitution of the child, whom they supposed destined to sit on the throne, in order that they might acquire ascendancy over his mind.

So she was accused of sexually abusing her own son for political gain. Though, to be fair, even the crowds thought this was too much. When she was pressed to respond to the charges, she stood up in her chair, faced the spectators and said

>If I have not replied it is because Nature itself refuses to answer such charges against a mother. I appeal to all mothers present here! Could such a thing be true?

People began expressing sympathy and the charge was ignored for the rest of the trial.

>Not quite,
Aye, just one of those rumours i heard recently and it gave a laugh, but little detail.

Her aunt isn't her.

>What happened was her youngest son, Louis Charles, was forcibly removed from her a few months after Louis XVI's execution. He was taken to be re-educated by revolutionaries at the Temple prison. He was physically and verbally abused for months, made to drink alcohol and generally treated very poorly. He was coerced into signing a statement accusing his mother and aunt Elisabeth of sexually abusing him.
Why are liberals such scum?

No duh?

Literally dindu nuthin

>Celts and Gauls led by Jews/Freemasons massacre the Germanic overclass

>Germanic
into the trash it goes.

Bad time to practice marriage alliances when your finances are in shambles and you are taxing your tax base back to the Stone Age.

It was kinda the point. Make friends (or at least peace) with the people who contributed to the finance shambles to try and undo it. Yes, XV was a fuckup, but in the end, it was the bally weather causing bad harvests which were the crux of the problems. Then America being Jews and not paying what was owed (which hilariously started the rebellion).
XVI made endeavours towards austerity, after all.

Well, not quite. The shit weather and bad harvests were part of the problem but so was the entire political structure. The shit was completely unsustainable and any attempts to restructure it were road blocked by those in power

>be Louis XVI
>try to introduce reforms that would take the burden of taxes from the poor and require the wealthy to pay more and basically eliminate or drastically reduce many of the unfair social regulations that harmed the common people
>nobles complain and start spreading propaganda in Paris amongst the common people
>people complain that Louis XVI will be a tyrant if he forces these reforms that will help them
>?????
>be Louis XVI
>people complain about lavish royal expenditures
>cut unnecessary aspects of households, including selling the gilded plates and dozens of useless titles/positions (Supervisor to the Royal Groomers of the Stables, etc)
>nobles are pissed because they now no longer get free money for basically doing nothing by having a useless title/position
>nobles complain and start spreading propaganda about in Paris amongst the common people
>people complain that Louis XVI is destroying France's prestige
>?????
>be Louis XVI
>revolution happens, people want massive reforms
>go along with them every step of the way
>people want royal approval on the Constitution which is shitty
>approve it and go along with it to the letter to show them that it's not going to work
>people complain that Louis XVI expects the laws of the Constitution (specifically those guaranteeing freedom of movement, religious practice, and protection of property) to be upheld
????

guy couldn't win

Yes