Louie XVI

>Well heobjectively was a traitor
pls elaborate. iirc there was some pretty incriminating evidence at his trial but I can't remember much beyond that. Pretty much everywhere I can find says that he went along with a lot of the the revolutionaries wanted and he did genuinely care about the good of the french people. I'm not arguing with you, just want to hear why you say that

I've also heard that in less tumultuous times he would have been a fine ruler, but during the FR they just needed someone stronger and he was just too easily pushed around. That he was never a traitor, just not equipped to deal with his times.

I can see why his execution was seen as needed, especially if France was to have a republic like the revolutionaries wanted. It just does seem like he was willing to go along with the revolution had they let him

>Was he really that bad?

Nope. He was never particularly malicious, he was incredibly lenient when doling out punishments compared to his predecessors and contemporaries, and he was constantly trying to help his people, especially the poor. His first acts as king was to ask a former minister to return because he recognized that his youth and inexperience would hinder him. Then he asked this minister to help him plan sweeping social and financial reforms that would take the burdens from the poor. Most of them did not go through because the noble-led Parlements enacted a smear campaign that threatened the stability of the kingdom, accusing him of being a tyrant if he pushed the laws through--because the laws would mean the nobles would start paying taxes based on their income, and would no longer be entitled to free labor from peasants, etc.

He repeatedly refused to led his loyal guards and soldiers attack the people, even when (as in the case of Varennes) it meant he would be captured. Every reform the people wanted, they got--until it came to religion. That is when Louis XVI started using his veto. And then when it came to the confiscation of personal property, and the immediate designation of French emigres as enemies of the state and thus deserving a death sentence. And even though the constitution itself gave him the veto, when he used it he was deemed a tyrant. They wanted him to be a puppet who smiled and did whatever they wanted.

One of his last acts on the morning of his execution was to go up to a guard in his prison and apologize for speaking to him harshly the day prior. Like... damn, man. Damn.

I legit can’t read about the Revolution and Louis XVI, because it makes me unironically sad.

>did he do anything illegal?

This is where it gets a bit murky. Is it "illegal" for a king living in an increasingly volatile and dangerous country to write to European monarchs letting them know that the safety of himself, his family, and law-abiding citizens is in danger because the rest of the government is doing nothing to stop violent mobs and increasingly extreme factions from taking over? He technically only agreed to the potential of an armed intervention at the last hour, when he had exhausted his options for non-violent resolutions to the crumbling stability in France. Up until that point he and his wife were writing the European powers looking for political support, not armed invasion. Louis had her write more than once that armed invasion by foreign armies was unacceptable and would surely result in the death of French people. And he threatened his brothers in a private letter and then a public statement for daring to raise armies of French emigres and make declarations on his behalf.

>He accepted the new constitution and used his (legal) veto power and got executed?

He was executed because he was the king. It wouldn't have mattered if he had never written to other European monarchs asking for help, or if he had never used his veto, etc, they still would have executed him. In fact his trial and execution violated almost every single tenant of the Constitution and Penal Code of 1791, so the trial itself was illegal.

So instead they openly marched on France to install some other fat fuck related to him. Great job.

The closing statement of one of his lawyes from his trial:

>Louis ascended the throne at the age of twenty, and at the age of twenty he gave to the throne the example of character. He brought to the throne no wicked weaknesses, no corrupting passions. He was economical, just, severe. He showed himself always the constant friend of the people. The people wanted the abolition of servitude. He began by abolishing it on his own lands. The people asked for reforms in the criminal law… he carried out these reforms. The people wanted liberty: he gave it to them. … Nevertheless, it is in the name of these very people that one today demands … Citizens, I cannot finish … I stop myself before History. Think how it will judge your judgement, and that the judgement of Louis will be judged by the centuries.

The original closing statement was apparently so moving that Louis, who had tears streaming down his face by the end of it, requested it be changed because he did not want to be seen as playing on people's sentiments. Even this final version is quite moving and even some of the people who voted for Louis' death said it was a moving, though misguided, speech.

It makes me sad that he didn't have the authority to push through his early reforms because he was afraid of being seen as tyranncal. If he did, perhaps there would have been no revolution. True, the reforms would not have stopped the terrible weather and bad harvests which led to the food shortages in the 1780s, but if the poor had already benefited from the reformed tax laws and from the relief of oppressive feudal decrees, things might not have gotten out of control.

No because public opinion only shifted after hisattempt to flee.
And he fleed only so that foreign armies can smash the revolution.
There is also the claim that he purposely made french armies lose to lose the war faster but I'm not 100% sure.
Seriously look up his attempt to flee. One of the key events of the revolution
I don't hate him he probably was a better monarch than most.

>And he fleed only so that foreign armies can smash the revolution.

He wasn't fleeing the country at all, much less so foreign armies could "smash the revolution." He deliberately avoided using the safer and much faster route to Montmedy that would have taken him briefly across the border, because he did not want to ever be seen as trying to leave France.

He was fleeing to a stronghold in the countryside which could be fortified so that he and his family would no longer be at the whims of the mobs whom the extremist factions whipped up whenever he used his veto or otherwise expressed a dissenting opinion or, god forbid, tried to get the Assemblies to actually abide by the law which said the King would be an active part of the new government and not just a figurehead.

His plan was to get to safety and rally all "loyal Frenchmen" around him through the publication of a Manifesto "to be read to all Frenchmen." He had previously agreed to dismiss his personal guards, and would no doubt hope they would support him as well.

From the manifesto

>Frenchmen, and above all you, Parisians, inhabitants of a town which his Majesty’s ancestors found pleasure in calling the good town of Paris, beware the suggestions and lies of your false friends; come back to your King, he will always be your father and your best friend; with what pleasure will he forget all personal injuries and find himself in your midst again, when a Constitution which he has freely accepted ensures that our holy religion shall be respected, that government shall be established on a stable footing, and through its operation no one shall be troubled in their goods or their condition, that laws shall no longer be infringed with impunity, and finally that liberty shall be established on firm and unshakable foundations.

>And he fleed only so that foreign armies can smash the revolution.
I thought that he fled for his family's safety
>There is also the claim that he purposely made french armies lose to lose the war faster but I'm not 100% sure.
I've heard that this was brought up at his trial. That he had some letters or something like that that seemed to be written in his own handwriting that pointed towards that. I could be wrong, but I'm fairly confident.

>the great Revolution
Ah yes, the great revolution where french people were slaughtered by republicans just because they didn't agree with their ideas.

When men, women, childrens and elderies were drowned in the Loire river. When women were raped, when the pregnant ones had their kids taken out of their bellies with a bayonette.

Such a great revolution indeed.

Fuck the revolution, it's the worst thing to ever happen to my country.

Vive le Roi btw.

oh pssh
montmedy is close to the border and he threatenred to dismiss the national convent iirc

not denying that his family was at risk in Paris. But he fleed with political intent and it wasn't an overnight decision

He wasnt a strong enough king for the time, and had he escaped- it is possible he wouldve lead an army to reclaim his throne.

Nobody was willing to let that possibility rest. So his trial was somewhat of a kangaroo trial. Not the worst one of that time, but the republicans wanted him beheaded and the nobility obliterated.

He was sending letters and information to France's enemies in order to facilitate the removal of his own, lawful government, with the express desire to return to autocratic rule.

Literally Treason.

>montmedy is close to the border and he threatenred to dismiss the national convent iirc

You're recalling incorrectly. There was not even a National Convention in 1791. There was the National Constituent Assembly, which he did not want to disband--he wanted to remove the volatile clubs and factions which were steering it on an extremist course which held no respect for personal property, freedom of religion, public safety, or upholding the laws that the assemblies of 1789 and onward created.

>montmedy is close to the border

And? He was smart enough to know that he might have to send his family over the border to safety if things went sour.

The point is that he wasn't trying to flee the country when he fled Paris.

>He was sending letters and information to France's enemies in order to facilitate the removal of his own, lawful government, with the express desire to return to autocratic rule.
>with the express desire to return to autocratic rule.

Then why do those letters--which were asking European monarchs for their published support, in an attempt to show the factions in the Assembly and in the political clubs that he was not alone, not sending "information to France's enemies to facilitate the removal of his own lawful government"--along with the letters of Marie Antoinette, along with the Manifesto he published when he believed himself hours from total freedom, state that he desired to establish a lawful Constitutional Monarchy? And that he specifically did not want to roll back any reforms, but wanted to re-establish order in France--or should I say, order in Paris, because it's Paris where the political clubs used mob rule to force their decisions onto the king and thus the rest of the country?

It's not treason to fight against usurpers.

Ahahah oh wow, imagine being this buttmad.

Indoctrinated royalist idiots are hopeless.

The People, from whom Louis gained his Sovereignty, by definition cannot be Usurpers. They were his bosses, and he tried to stab them in the back.

Sic semper tyrannis [spoiler]even though I agree he was a nice enough fellow, just incompetent and a poor leader overall[/spoiler].

He wasn't even an ounce bad. He was a good man, entirely. He didn't deserve it.

>The People, from whom Louis gained his Sovereignty, by definition cannot be Usurpers. They were his bosses, and he tried to stab them in the back.

Nah. When extremist factions are taking over the Assembly and using brute violence and paranoia to threaten the safety and stability of not just the king, not just this family, but the entire French nation, it is not "stabbing them in the back" to try to steer the country back onto a stable course.

>Indoctrinated
By whom? Who is "indoctrinating" people with Royalist ideas? The French government?
No. You're the indoctrinated republican swine.

>steer the country back onto a stable course
Stable course? Like the "stable course" France had been on under Louis? Remind me, wasn't the entire nation starving and collapsing under impossibly high debt?

The Comte de Provence, and wife, didn't mind going across the border, but he naturally never made it back across towards Montmedy and instead fled to safety to the Comte d'Artois. There's actually some recent scholarship that suggests the Comte de Provence knew the flight plan would fail and was even working with Axel Fersen and that the pair either ensured Louis would be captured by not discouraging his decision to take the longer route or they both simply recognized the plan was likely to fail; and then after Louis was captured, Provence could be declared regent because of Louis being immobilized, and thus Provence would be able to order the invasion of emigre and foreign armies that Louis refused to sanction.

If true, it's pretty horrid. There's some previously unknown letters between the two that makes me think it was possible. Also casts a fun little pall on the "but Fersen was Antoinette's twu wuv" crowd.

Fringe far-right memers who've trained you to repeat stupid shit ad nauseam, embarassing yourself in public again and again.
But obviously, only the government can indoctrinate people. I would suggest you read the fuck up on this subject you philistine rat, but you think that all literature but your recommended royalist literature is also indoctrination, right? And of course, you probably mistrust higher education. Universities and schools are just indoctrination centers pushing an agenda against (you) and your beliefs. It's all so tiresome. You're pathetic.

Nice strawmen.

>Remind me, wasn't the entire nation starving and collapsing under impossibly high debt?

Remind me, did Louis control the weather that caused the bad harvests which caused food shortages? No? He did control the relief teams who went from town to town delivery food provisions, firewood, and warm clothing, though. He did control the kitchens of Versailles which were opened up to any and all to get free food and a warm fire. He did control the palace where he reduced unnecessary expenses and sold off china, plateware and furniture so he could import food and give it to the people.

France was collapsing into anarchy under the National Constituent Assembly's complete lack of authority and inability to wrest control from the factions who were suggesting things like the death penalty for priests who wouldn't take what would amount to a blasphemous oath. Mobs were allowed to kill people and destroy property unchecked and unpunished, as long as those people happened to be accused of being enemies of the people. What laws were passed were ignored as long as it suited the factions. Laws against threatening people and murder? Not as long as you're declaring yourself as acting for "the people"!

>Historical facts that I don't like are ROYALIST INDOCTRINATION

Hahahaha

>Was he really that bad?
He was

>It seems like his trial was a sham and he never really deserved it
Trust me, he did

>did he do anything illegal?
High treason for one

>Jean-Luc Mélenchon

That guy also said he couldn't stand to live in a place with only white people, and that there is no future for France without maghrebis immigrant

Gouverneur Morris said it best:

>To a person less intimately acquainted than you are with the history of human affairs, it would seem strange that the mildest monarch who ever filled the French throne should be prosecuted as one of the most nefarious tyrants that ever disgraced the annals of human nature--that he, Louis the Sixteenth, should be prosecuted even to death.

desuarchive.org/his/thread/3658966/#3662156
Lot of good posts here, too.
I'm still putting off making that comprehensive screencap.

You seem very well-educated, if it's you who has made so many great posts in this thread. Have you simply read a few good books? Taken classes? And are you actually French?

he was complete garbage as a leader, and unironically couldn't give two shits if his life depended on it (as the result of his rule clearly demonstrates).
The worst part is, everybody knew before he took the throne that he would be a shit leader and that he didn't give a damn about being king, yet some retard still decided that it would be okay to make him King of France.
Louis XVI /was/ that bad

>He accepted the new constitution
This was his mistake.

Once a king gives up the position as an absolute sovereign ordained by his country's god, he's completely fucked. Never compromise with rebels even a little bit, because once you give that up, you've given up the entire ideological structure on which the legitimacy of the monarchy depends.

Well, since the only people that still believe the revolution wasn’t a completely unnecessary, immoral, disaster are Marxists; it’s safe to assume that almost all the charges against Louis were false.

France was far poorer even in 1812, than it was before 1789. I think most living in France today (those that are French and actually care about history) deeply suspect the revolution was a mistake; ushered in by violent mediocrities, reacting against a changing world. France would be denied even the constitutional stability that Britain enjoyed.

Not like you can decide to have the heir to the throne not be king.

That said, you think there would've been some clever Richelieu or Mazarin type to step in and make sure the ship didn't sink.

Nope, I'm not French! I'm pretty passionate about 18th century French history, especially the reign of Louis XVI and the revolution as a whole. No classes, except this guided online course on the revolution few years ago guided by Peter McPhee. At this point I've read a few dozen books/journals/theses about that era in history.

List of books? And are you British?

>French revolution was a mistake
I've never been more butthurt from a post before. Like what books or information could possibly lead you down that narrative. Look at 19th century Europe and the revolutions of 1848.
I mean just..

American.

I don't have a list off hand, but I can make one later tonight based on my shelves.

>1848
>a good thing

I'm not saying it's "inherently good" but shit had to happen. People wanted more rights. I just don't understand how much of a monarchy boo you have to be to think we need to go back to pre 18th century ancient regime.

Ancien regime in France I was trying to say. Do you really not like the modern world anaon?

This

You can argue about Louis XVI having it coming, but Louis XVII didn't deserve any of what the republicans did to him.

The Ancién Regimes of Europe weren't perfect, but at least, as governmental types, they were better than what we currently have.
We must go to the true logical extreme of liberalism, Ancapism, and then we can have our monarchies back, as well as guarantee our rights.
Here's a half-pasta about it, I wrote for some other thread a while ago.

Ancap is not a political ideology. And Ancap state can be a republic, a monarchy, a commune, or anything else. It can be authoritarian, libertarian, or even minarchist. It doesn't even need to be a state.
Ancaps believe in strong property rights and Natural Law, or, law that holds always, everywhere, even in a vacuum or when it's not respected. Natural Law concerns property. For example, murder is Naturally Illegal, as it's the non-consentual destruction of another person's property, his body. A man owns many things, his body, his land, his toothbrush, and his contracts, to name a few.
That last one is very important. Now, in an Ancap society, every man is born free, but can sign contract with other people to join an organization very alike to our modern state. A government. Likely(And I say only "likely," because every Ancap state could be very different) what I call a Contractual-Constitutional State. They would have a constitution that acts like a detailed contact, including measure to, for example, incorporate the privately-owned land of new citizens into the state, which might be a necessity for people to join the state. Now, many of these new states would likely be monarchies with strong parliaments of other land owners, who might be a different class from landless citizens, as thee landowners would bring in more to the state, signing their land into the state.
CONT

I could go into more detail of potential states in an Ancap society, but I'll just skip to secession. Many states would likely allow anyone to just move and leave, though taking owned land out, or properly seceding, might be out of the question. But if the state is found to have violated its contract, for example, by ordering the assassination of a druglord, even though their contract states that they will never punish people without due process, people could sue for secession.
Why would the state allow this? Well, for one, because, if they denied it, all of their citizens would be furious. Riots could occur. Not to mention international relations. If nearly all other states are Ancap, they wouldn't take lightly to some state transitioning away from Ancap, by denying a man his right to secede.
Do you have any other questions?

And then about monarchism and its benefits.
Democracy is inherently unstable. One leader will use some unrealistic promise that the numerous and unknowledgeable lower classes will see as appealing, and be elected on it. He will do what little he can to convince them that it's working, often in a way that wastes money and hurts freedoms, to be elected a few times, before retiring to Florida, while the rotten fruits of his labor ripen. A democrat must be a skilled talker and nothing else to get into office, unlike a monarch, who needs nothing, but will, ideally, be educated to be a good ruler. A democrat does not own his country, unlike a monarch, and so can only use his stewardship of the country for a limited time. In fact, he must use his stewardship to his benefit, because if he doesn't, and enemy of his could, next, someone from an opposite party. So he uses his power to make money in his short-term rule, unlike a monarch, who owns his country. A monarch will want to take the long-term approach, the approach that will get him and his decedents the most wealth, the approach that will most benefit the people, because a wealthy people, in the long run, means more money gained each tax season, with less potential for the people to, say, revolt. Beyond that, a monarch would, ideally, also be a moral paradigm for his people to look up to, a symbol of his people, and a wealthy man with much interest in uplifting the populace through charity measures. Of course, some rulers are bad, but many aren't, and under a Contractual-Constitutional monarchy, there's so much more reason to be good.
I can continue, if you wish. I've been needing to create a proper pasta, anyway. I'll cut this up into one, I think, after answering some questions.

>The Ancién Regimes of Europe weren't perfect, but at least, as governmental types, they were better than what we currently have.
We must go to the true logical extreme of liberalism, Ancapism, and then we can have our monarchies back, as well as guarantee our rights.
You know what if you really think an extreme ancap situation could have arisen from the political and socio economic situation of Europe late 18th century, then ok. I just don't think that very likely. If we didn't have "nationalistic" France stomping through Europe then it would have been another country where revolution happened.
The thing about your theory it reminds me about the tree and sun argument. If every one followed thoss rules to the letter then yea that ancap place could work. It just takes one asshole to shit over everything though. Like trees, they could all be the same height and every one get the exact same amount of sun. But damnit if one asshole had to get taller and block other trees, then the race was on.
You honestly think that our current form.of governance democracy/republics/oligarchy's is worse than Ancien regime Europe?
I feel like in corruption alone it's better

>You know what if you really think an extreme ancap situation could have arisen from the political and socio economic situation of Europe late 18th century, then ok.
I don't at all. But I do believe it will happen in the future. States will still be very similar to the ones we currently have, I think, but there will be many tiny ones, making for horrible mapgore.
If you look at things like taxation rates, war rates, debt amounts, et cetera, compared to the Ancién Regimes, our current states aren't doing too well.
"Advances" in government often take credit for the benefits of technology's advance.

Things will be better in the future, user, no matter your political view. Wanna live in a Republic? There'll be options that are more efficient and less corrupt than anywhere today. You're a Communist? There won't be world-wide revolution, but you can stink it up with a bunch of hippies without any capitalists around! You're racist? There's be plenty of states with nobody but your favorite kind of people.
It'll be great.

The UNSC wishes to have a word with you.

It'll be nothing violent, my friend, it'll be a peaceful transition. Except, maybe, in third-world countries.

Bump

>I here declare, to the face of his enemies, and in all the sincerity of my heart, that I have never observed, that I have never seen, even by surprise, in this monarch treated with such cruelty, a single voluntary movement, a single sentiment derived from his own soul, and properly his own, which was not exactly conformable to the laws of morality and honour; and which did not display to an attentive observer his desire of doing good, his compassion for the people, the natural sweetness and moderation of his temper.

--Jacques Necker

He tried to flee, so he could be considered a traitor, but him betraying the revolution made perfect sense and he probably knew he would have been executed anyway.
He can be considered tragic because he was not a bad guy, he was just incompetent, and incompetent kings end up bad, like nicky.

He didn't try to flee the country, just extremist-mob ruled Paris

Why is it that after several years on Veeky Forums im pretty sure im less educated about history than I was before?

What do you mean?

From here, this thread went to Shit.

The only real question is whether or not the hidden hand behind the rebels really killed him or staged a fake execution, while they cut deals with many of his relations which comprised Nobility across Europe.

Simon Schama

The Last Will and Testament of Louis XVI:

>In the name of the Very holy Trinity, Father, Son and Holy Ghost.

>To-day, the 25th day of December, 1792, I, Louis XVI King of France, being for more than four months imprisoned with my family in the tower of the Temple at Paris, by those who were my subjects, and deprived of all communication whatsoever, even with my family, since the eleventh instant; moreover, involved in a trial the end of which it is impossible to foresee, on account of the passions of men, and for which one can find neither pretext nor means in any existing law, and having no other witnesses, for my thoughts than God to whom I can address myself, I hereby declare, in His presence, my last wishes and feelings.

>I leave my soul to God, my creator; I pray Him to receive it in His mercy, not to judge it according to its merits but according to those of Our Lord Jesus Christ who has offered Himself as a sacrifice to God His Father for us other men, no matter how hardened, and for me first.

>I die in communion with our Holy Mother, the Catholic, Apostolic, Roman Church, which holds authority by an uninterrupted succession, from St. Peter, to whom Jesus Christ entrusted it; I believe firmly and I confess all that is contained in the creed and the commandments of God and the Church, the sacraments and the mysteries, those which the Catholic Church teaches and has always taught. I never pretend to set myself up as a judge of the various way of expounding the dogma which rend the church of Jesus Christ, but I agree and will always agree, if God grant me life the decisions which the ecclesiastical superiors of the Holy Catholic Church give and will always give, in conformity with the disciplines which the Church has followed since Jesus Christ.

(1)

>I pity with all my heart our brothers who may be in error but I do not claim to judge them, and I do not love them less in Christ, as our Christian charity teaches us, and I pray to God to pardon all my sins. I have sought scrupulously to know them, to detest them and to humiliate myself in His presence. Not being able to obtain the ministration of a Catholic priest, I pray God to receive the confession which I feel in having put my name (although this was against my will) to acts which might be contrary to the discipline and the belief of the Catholic church, to which I have always remained sincerely attached. I pray God to receive my firm resolution, if He grants me life, to have the ministrations of a Catholic priest, as soon as I can, in order to confess my sins and to receive the sacrament of penance.

>I beg all those whom I might have offended inadvertently (for I do not recall having knowingly offended any one), or those whom I may have given bad examples or scandals, to pardon the evil which they believe I could have done them.

>I beseech those who have the kindness to join their prayers to mine, to obtain pardon from God for my sins.

>I pardon with all my heart those who made themselves my enemies, without my have given them any cause, and I pray God to pardon them, as well as those who, through false or misunderstood zeal, did me much harm.

>I commend to God my wife and my children, my sister, my aunts, my brothers, and all those who are attached to me by ties of blood or by whatever other means. I pray God particularly to cast eyes of compassion upon my wife, my children, and my sister, who suffered with me for so long a time, to sustain them with His mercy if they shall lose me, and as long as they remain in his mortal world.

(2)

>I commend my children to my wife; I have never doubted her maternal tenderness for them. I enjoin her above all to make them good Christians and honest individuals; to make them view the grandeurs of this world (if they are condemned to experience them) as very dangerous and transient goods, and turn their attention towards the one solid and enduring glory, eternity. I beseech my sister to kindly continue her tenderness for my children and to take the place of a mother, should they have the misfortune of losing theirs.

>I beg my wife to forgive all the pain which she suffered for me, and the sorrows which I may have caused her in the course of our union; and she may feel sure that I hold nothing against her, if she has anything with which to reproach herself.

>I most warmly enjoin my children that, after what they owe to God, which should come first, they should remain forever united among themselves, submissive and obedient to their mother, and grateful for all the care and trouble which she has taken with them, as well as in memory of me. I beg them to regard my sister as their second mother.

>I exhort my son, should he have the misfortune of becoming king, to remember he owes himself wholly to the happiness of his fellow citizens; that he should forget all hates and all grudges, particularly those connected with the misfortunes and sorrows which I am experiencing; that he can make the people happy only by ruling according to laws: but at the same time to remember that a king cannot make himself respected and do the good that is in his heart unless he has the necessary authority, and that otherwise, being tangled up in his activities and not inspiring respect, he is more harmful than useful.

(3)

>I exhort my son to care for all the persons who are attached to me, as much as his circumstances will allow, to remember that it is a sacred debt which I have contracted towards the children and relatives of those who have perished for me and also those who are wretched for my sake. I know that there are many persons, among those who were near me, who did not conduct themselves towards me as they should have and who have even shown ingratitude, but I pardon them (often in moments of trouble and turmoil one is not master of oneself), and I beg my son that, if he finds an occasion, he should think only of their misfortunes.

>I should have wanted here to show my gratitude to those who have given me a true and disinterested affection; if, on the one hand, I was keenly hurt by the ingratitude and disloyalty of those to whom I have always shown kindness, as well as to their relatives and friends, on the other hand I have had the consolation of seeing the affection and voluntary interest which many persons have shown me. I beg them to receive my thanks.

>In the situation in which matters still are, I fear to compromise them if I should speak more explicitly, but I especially enjoin my son to seek occasion to recognize them.

>I should, nevertheless, consider it a calumny on the nation if I did not openly recommend to my son MM. De Chamilly and Hue, whose genuine attachment for me led them to imprison themselves with me in this sad abode. I also recommend Clery, for whose attentiveness I have nothing but praise ever since he has been with me. Since it is he who has remained with me until the end, I beg the gentlemen of the commune to hand over to him my clothes, my books, my watch, my purse, and all other small effects which have been deposited with the council of the commune.

(4)

I guess I should have asked yesterday but, any particular topics you're looking for? There's too many to list without it being obnoxiously long.

>I pardon again very readily those who guard me, the ill treatment and the vexations which they thought it necessary to impose upon me. I found a few sensitive and compassionate souls among them – may they in their hearts enjoy the tranquillity which their way of thinking gives them.

>I beg MM. De Malesherbes, Tronchet and De Seze to receive all my thanks and the expressions of my feelings for all the cares and troubles they took for me.

>I finish by declaring before God, and ready to appear before Him, that I do not reproach myself with any of the crimes with which I am charged.

>Made in duplicate in the Tower of the Temple, the 25th of December 1792.

andrewcusack.com/2006/the-last-will-and-testament-of-louis-xvi/

(5)

Seeing the will posted reminds me. One of the greatest requiem compositions ever was created in honor of Louis XVI.

Cherubini's requiem in C minor. Absolutely stunning work. youtube.com/watch?v=laO7Zi6Zsm8

Such a sad, well composed document. Written on Christmas Day, no less. It's interesting to compare the composition of his letter with that of Marie Antoinette's or other people guillotined without as much time to prepare.

>I beseech my sister to kindly continue her tenderness for my children and to take the place of a mother, should they have the misfortune of losing theirs.

How chilling, since Elisabeth followed Marie Antoinette in death about 6 months later.

Agreed. I'm not even French, but I think he was such a good and gentle soul. I wouldn't even feel so bad if they did this to a tyrant (like King John of England), but here we are remembering Louis Capet hundreds of years after his murder. It's kind of weird.

I hope he's in heaven.

Oops, meant to reply to you. ()

I've gotta proselytize, man.

>I hope he's in heaven.
Don't hope, my friend, be certain.

>I hope he's in heaven.
>tfw he'll never be a saint

Strange how Madame Elisabeth has a small but persistent group following petitioning for her sainthood but I've never seen the same done for Louis XVI, even though arguably it was his unwillingness to sanction the laws regarding Catholic priests and other religious positions that started the chain of events that led to the downfall of the monarchy and his death.

Found this vintage prayer card on a blog, the card was made by a group petitioning for Elisabeth's sainthood.

Louis XVI on.. himself:

>I am sure they will make me perish; they have the power and the will to do so. That does not matter. Let us concern ourselves with my trial as if I could win; and I will win, in effect, since the memory that I leave will be without stain.

Louis XVI, particularly, I think.
Beyond that, just the whole of the Revolution, the years before and after, as well.

sure thing! Here's books about Louis specifically or with a focus on Louis. I can tackle the revolution itself in a broader sense in a bit.

>Biographies

The Life of Louis XVI by John Hardman
Louis XVI: The Silent King by John Hardman
Louis XVI, or the End of a World by Bernard Fay
The Last Days of Louis XVI and Marie Antoinette by Rupert Furneaux

>Reign of Louis XVI (Pre-Revolution)

How the French Saved America: Soldiers, Sailors, Diplomats, Louis XVI, and the Success of a Revolution by Tom Shachtman
The Flour War by Cynthia Bouton
Preserving the Monarchy: The Comte de Vergennes 1774-1787 by Munro Price
Overture to Revolution: The 1787 Assembly of NOtables and the Crisis of France's Old Regime by John Hardman

>The Revolution and Louis XVI

Louis XVI and the French Revolution, 1789–1792 by Ambrogio A. Caiani
Louis XVI and the French Revolution by Alison Johnson
The Road from Versailles: Louis XVI, Marie Antoinette, and the Fall of the French Monarchy by Munro Price
Traumatic Politics: The Deputies and the King in the Early French Revolution by Barry M. Shapiro
When the King Took Flight by Timothy Tackett
Threshold of Terror: The Last Hours of the Monarchy in the French Revolution
Compromising Of Louis XVI: The armoire de fer and the French Revolution by E. Freeman
The King's Trial: Louis XVI vs. the French Revolution by David P. Jordan
The Deaths of Louis XVI: Regicide and the French Political Imagination by Susan Dunn

>Memoirs Related to Louis XVI

A journal of occurrences at the Temple, during the confinement of Louis XVI, king of France by M. Cléry
Memoirs of the Abbé Edgeworth: Containing His Narrative of the Last Hours of Louis XVI by C.S Edgeworth
The Life and Letters of Madame Elisabeth de France, Sister of Louis XVI. [This actually contains 3 narratives: one, a short biography and complilation of letters written by Elisabeth in 1786-1792; two, the above Cléry journal; three, the revised edition of Marie-Thérèse Charlotte's memoir]

Oh dang it. I forgot

The Trial at Large of Louis XVI [An English translation of the transcripts of Louis' trial, with the addition of his will and other text by the London publisher; the trial transcript is what you want from this book.]

I'll be checking these out, man. Thanks a lot. Louis would be happy.

And here's some revolution specific books. Not including biographies or books about the royals

>The Revolution: Specific Studies

Last Letters: Prisons and Prisoners of the French Revolution by Olivier Bernier
Words of Fire, Deeds of Blood: The Mob, the Monarchy, and the French Revolution by Olivier Bernier
Glory and Terror: Seven Deaths Under the French Revolution by Anto de Baecque
Compelled to Witness: Women's Memoirs of the French Revolution by Marilyn Yalom
Rebel Daughters: Women and the French Revolution by Sara E. Melzer and Leslie W. Rabine
Twelve Who Ruled: The Year of Terror in the French Revolution by R. R. Palmer
Fashion in the French Revolution by Aileen Ribeiro

>The Revolution: Broad Overviews

A Critical Dictionary of the French Revolution by Francois Furet
The Old Regime and the French Revolution by Alexis de Tocqueville
Liberty or Death: The French Revolution by Peter McPhee
A Concise History of the French Revolution by Sylvia Neely
The Oxford History of the French Revolution by William Doyle
Living the French Revolution, 1789-1799 by Peter McPhee

>The Revolution: Primary Document Collections

Regicide and revolution: Speeches at the Trial of Louis XVI by Michael Walzer
The French Revolution and Human Rights: A Brief Documentary History by Lynn Hunt
The French Revolution Sourcebook by John Hardman
Paris in the Revolution: A Collection of Eye Witness Accounts by Reay Tannahill

that's not what Robespierre would say

Reminder that the (((French Revolution))) was orchestrated by the forebears to the Rothschilds and Illuminati-infiltrated-Freemasons. Any shit talking done against King Louis XIV and Marie Antoinette is anti-trad nonsense. Vive le Roi.

*beheads you*
psssh nothin personnel monarchist

>The Ancién Regimes of Europe weren't perfect, but at least, as governmental types, they were better than what we currently have.
stopped reading right there

how much of a fucking sheep do you have to be to want to give up all your rights and live under the boot of a lord?

why did you place french revolution in parentheses?

Because it’s Jewish.

pretty sure its french, hence the name

You’re only looking on the surface, user. The puppeteer back then is the same puppeteer as now. You know who. They date back to the Hyskos and the Cult of Amun.

*Hyksos

prove it