What are your thoughts on Bourbon France? Was revolution against it inevitable? Could it have lasted?

Should have just became a constitutional monarchy and gave plebs illusion of liberty.

Attached: Flag_of_the_Constitutional_Kingdom_of_France_(Proposed).svg.png (2000x1333, 268K)

Same as all the other French kingdoms, barbarians ruining Europe.

I'd argue they only really ruined themselves, French Kingdom under Bourbons didn't really fuck anyone over aside from the UK.

Fun fact, after the Second Empire was out, the Bourbon heir was offered to lead a constitutional monarchy, but he refused because he wanted them to abandon the tricolor and adopt and they refused and he wouldn't budge on it.

But the choices of the French monarchs directly led to the revolution and Napoleons war on Europe.

first revolution was an unlucky bunch of events
But the july revolution was entirely and 100% Charles' fault. Heck he handled it so badly he's even largely responsible for the entire mess that's 1848

this

>Louis and Marie were absolutely hated.

Marie Antoinette was loathed in Paris, the hotbed of the propaganda machines against her. Louis XVI was loved almost wholly in Paris and outside Paris until the flight to Montmedy. Although his reputation dropped after that, by the time he signed the Constitution his reputation recovered enough that he was once again being cheered in the theaters and public houses. His reputation was never particularly poor outside of Paris, although it's hard to say since most accounts of the revolution and Louis' public perception are from Parisians.

He was sentenced to death only by a thin margin, in any case.

Didn't they want him to live on as Citizen Louis Capet initially?

>the pleb never achieved shit.
Except actually fighting and winning the revolution when the liberal deputies were just going to give up and write a Stern letter about the king suppressing the freedom to gather

They did and he was for a time a citizen king, but being under house arrest and constant threat his family tried to pull a runner and got caught. After that, the Republic increasingly spiraled into delusional paranoia and saw the continued existence of the king as a threat.

History could have changed several times for any of the last three kings of France, had they been less stubborn or able to lead

Was Mao the only revolution that didn't kill its own King? That said, the Chinese communists spent most of the time fighting warlords. Puyi was irrelevant by the time they came into power fully.

After the fall of the monarchy, you mean? Almost half of the votes for punishment at his trial wanted him to be exiled from France with his family, not killed. They didn't want him in the country because of the potential for civil war and foreign invasion to put him on the throne.

The gap between the emperor being deposed and Mao rising to power is really long, so it's kind of pointless even grouping them in the same revolution.

Should've been Protestant fucking H*nry that dirty traitor

no but you could characterize bourgeois ideals as corresponding with the enlightenment.

was it because she was a slut

or german

or both

Well, she wasn't a slut, she was rather prudish. Would only bathe in a gown, required anything her ladies read to be read by her first to ensure it was proper, kicked someone out of a court ball for coming there with his mistress, etc.

The initial attacks against the queen started in the French court, primarily from pamphlets funded by Louis XVI's brother, who wanted to undermine his reign. The easiest way to do that was to slander his wife by commissioning pamphlets which portrayed her as a foreign entity--a morally bankrupt Austrian woman who didn't care about the French crown but Austrian glory.

Then, when she finally had a child, he carried this further by commissioning pamphlets and satirical cartoons which said that the child wasn't Louis' but was illegitimate. Over her years as queen, she began dropping standard French court etiquette in favor of simpler customs, and the nobles who were spurned were only too keen to flee to various salons (mostly in Paris) and isolated social circles, and the pamphlets went from being something funded by nobles who had reason to want to damage Louis' reputation as a monarch to the realm of public gossip which blamed her for... just about everything wrong with France. Women having children out of wed lock? Must be because Marie Antoinette is a slut. Women spending money on clothes? They're copying that Austrian woman. Etc.

As her reputation dropped, any remote scandal (the chemise dress portrait, the diamond necklace affair especially, etc) was a blow to the public perception of her. Various scandals over the years damaged her reputation to the point where, when the revolution happened, it was easy enough for the propaganda to go from "she's spending all our money on diamonds and fucking any man or woman that moves" to "she is an Austrian agent who literally wants to murder the French people and dance around in the puddles of their blood."

Didn't it result in the revolutionaries drawing in a lot of conservatives too though? They needed an example of the French court being decadent as fuck to rally more people to their side. And best way to do propaganda is to use what's already out there, whether its true or not.

Were they just inept? When Napoleon took power, he shut down any rumors about himself and his spouse with armed force. Putting down newspaper publishers and anyone who dared spread gossip. The manlet Corsican knew what was doing, but apparently these guys 'raised to rule' were so incompetent they had no counter.

The true conservatives were staunchly absolute monarchists, regardless of their opinion on Marie Antoinette. By the time that the revolution had turned from establishing a constitutional monarchy to abolishing it all together, rallying the people to action was less about the decadence of the ancien regime and more about the perception of the dangerous disloyalty of the king to "the people" as a whole. Her reputation and her status as a symbol of the decadent ancien regime was definitely used against her at her trial though, as evidenced by the opening/closing speeches made by the public prosecutor and the "evidence" used against her which was an endless parade of gossip and accusations.

Louis XVI and Marie Antoinette both believed in the right for people to express opinions without being persecuted for them. Though there were times where Louis wanted to go after the printers for particularly nasty pamphlets and Marie Antoinette told him not to, because she didn't want people becoming imprisoned solely for not liking her or spreading gossip. Neither one of them realized how important public perception was and how reputation and gossip would do irrecoverable damage to your status, at least until it was too little too late.

So a Nicholas II situation, and I say this as a Sovietboo, where while a lot of what the Tsarist regime did was bad, the actual figureheads and leaders were just too much of 'nice guys' to actually do whats needed to hold onto power (A lot of the "White Russian" forces were mostly Chinese-style warlords claiming to be following the Tsar, but some were even republican, people forget this often about the Russian Civil War). Its the nice guys finish last meme, but applied onto politics, basically.

More or less. Louis XVI thought that the people could be reasoned with, that if he did as the people asked that there would be peace and stability. There's a reason why someone an American ambassador in France wrote to Thomas Jefferson:

>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.

And why the closing statement of his defense lawyer laid out how Louis had done everything the people wanted:

>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 [the king] will be judged by the centuries!

Did Bourbon France have any kind of irredentism? Did they still claim the left bank or did it start with the Republic?

Attached: France_1800.png (250x250, 75K)

The July Monarchy that superceded the Bourbon dynasty was ostensibly constitutional and Republican. It flowed like this:

>Absolutist french monarchy
>First french revolution. Constitutional Monarchy forced on the king. Suffrage is limited by property/wealth
>Constitutional Monarchy is superceded by Republic after Louis is tried and executed for treason. Universal male sufferage
>The Republics National Convention is unequipped to handle the clusterfuck France is in. The Committee of public safety is established as an emergency gov and the Constitution suspended. France is essentially an oligarchy
>Robespierre and the council burn out in a glorious clusterfuck. A bicameral parliament is established led by a 5 man executive council called the directory
>The Coup of 18 Brumaire seizes power from the directory by force with Napoopan as co conspirator, establishing the Consulate with Napoleon as Consul
>Napoleon crosses the Rubicon and declares himself first Emperor of France
>Napoleon eventually loses against literally the rest of the world, the alliance of nations reinstate the Bourbons as monarchs of France. The new Bourbon King keeps the Constitution but rules as an absolutist, maintaining the rights of the citizens as a gift from him and not something inalienable. Voting rights are once again attached to wealth with only large land owners able to vote
>Napoleon returns and briefly seizes control only to be defeated again and exiled for good. The Bourbons are reinstated AGAIN and this time a foreign garrison is left for several years
>The Bourbons are overthrown and exiled in the 3 glorious days and the Duke d'Orlean, a more liberal relative from a cadet branch. Dubbed the July Monarchy, the Duke d'Orlean agrees to rule as King of the French and adhere to the constitution and laws of government as a conservative but not absolutist monarch. Sufferage is loosened but remains tied to wealth, the middle class cannot vote

Finally, the July Monarchy would be over thrown by the second revolution when the French National Guard, pissed off about that whole not being able to vote thing, seized control of Paris and forced the king to abdicate or have to declare war on his own people to maintain power. The king abdicates, but events quickly get away from everyone and instead of the kings Grandson becoming the next King the monarchy gets thrown out entirely. Universal sufferage is instated.

The fucking socialists immediately begin to ruin everything

*Universal MALE sufferage, sorry. Women wouldn't be able to vote for a long time

Napoleonic France was GOAT France honestly. Bourbon France I'd put at the bottom of the list.

>Was revolution against it inevitable?
No, there was no reason to think the events would get so insanely out of hand. Some economic reforms could've avoided it all

So why hasn’t anyone drawn Bomber HarrisXMarie Antointete

Not edgy enough, plus plenty of porn was drawn of her by her enemies in the court as said.