Execution of LouisXVI
(From the unpublished book “The Occultism of the Great French Revolution”)
220 years ago, on January 21, 1793, Louis XVI (1754-1793), the sixty-sixth king of France, was executed. His reign lasted 6666 days.
He was, if not brilliant, then quite an attractive monarch: educated, moderate in his demands, not inclined, like his predecessors, to constant entertainment, striving for the benefit of the kingdom and making the life of his people easier. But, nevertheless, after the revolution, the punitive justice (is it justice?) of France fell upon him and his family. The king himself and his wife Marie Antoinette were executed, the heir to the throne Charles-Louis died under unclear circumstances, Louis's sister, Elizabeth, and several princes and princesses were executed.
Getting acquainted with many strange events preceding the fall of the French monarchy, you involuntarily come to the conclusion that the financial disorder and personal indecision of Louis XVI, despite all the assurances of historians, were not the main reasons that led to the revolution. The real reason the destruction of the monarchy lies elsewhere - in the widespread spread of Freemasonry. It was the Masons, who for decades disguised their activities with educational goals, calling for universal brotherhood and freedom from religious shackles, persistently undermined the spiritual foundations of the kingdom, striving for a violent change in society based on certain occult principles.
What kind of beginnings these were, and what this occult teaching (or religion) was in its pure form, one can only guess, since the French Freemasons at that time did not manage to fully implement their undertakings. Too quickly they were swept away by the turbulent events of their century. But their appearance, even for a brief moment, marked the beginning new era in the history not only of France, but of all mankind - the era of occultism. The Masonic morning was breaking out over the world. And its beginning, contrary to the slogan of its leaders - “freedom, equality, brotherhood!” - brought with it suffering and tyranny to entire nations. And the most characteristic feature construction of a new Masonic world order - freedom, equality and brotherhood were necessarily sprinkled with streams of human blood.
Louis, who received the title of Duke de Berry at birth, was the second son of the Dauphin Louis (his elder brother died in 1761). Father and mother were very demanding in raising their children. Louis studied Latin, history, and mathematics seven hours a day. Twice a week his father meticulously checked his progress. The strict upbringing given to the Dauphin did not please his grandfather Louis XV, and it seemed excessive to many others. Moreover, Louis was not at all distinguished by either good health or special abilities. He grew up as a frail, sickly teenager with large blue eyes and uneven teeth, a distrustful, timid and unhappy expression on his face, a waddling gait and a high, nasal voice.
In 1765, after the death of his father, he became heir to the throne, and nine years later - king. By this time, three distinctive features of his character had already clearly emerged: shyness, secrecy and charity. As much as he was reserved with the king, his grandfather, and the persons of the royal house, he was just as sociable with his subordinates. He was especially pleased when meeting workers in the palace courtyard or in the garden. There was no end to his questions about lime, carpentry work, and pavements. If it happened, he willingly helped move logs or drag stones. The Dauphin achieved particular success in the arts of blacksmithing and metalworking. He also had a strong passion for hunting. Games, noisy pleasures and theatrical performances occupied him little. His favorite pastime was drawing geographical maps and turning of various iron products.
The furnishings of his chambers spoke a lot about the character of the king. In the gilded hall were hung drawings of the canals dug by his order, there was a model of the Burgundy Canal and a description of the work in the port of Cherbourg. A collection of geographical maps and globes was kept in the next room. Here were also maps, very skillfully made by the king himself or just begun by him. Nearby there was a carpentry room, in which, in addition to a lathe, there were many different tools (he inherited them from Louis XV). The library, located on the floor above, contained all the books published during his reign. Next was a large library, where publications and manuscripts that belonged to previous kings since the time of Francis I were kept. In two separate adjacent rooms there were many other interesting books collected by himself. By the way, here was located large number English works, which Louis always read with pleasure (including reports on parliamentary sessions). Separate cabinets contained papers related to each of the European ruling houses: Habsburg, Hanover, Romanov and others. Above the library was the king's favorite refuge. It was a workshop with a forge and two anvils, many locks and various iron tools. Even higher was a belvedere with a special lead floor, where the king, sitting in an armchair, with the help of an excellent telescope, watched everything that happened in Versailles, as well as along the road leading to Paris, and in Paris itself, as far as possible. Duret was almost the only servant who carried out all the personal orders of the king. He helped Louis in cleaning the carpentry room, sharpened and cleaned tools, washed the anvil and covered geographical maps.
Although Louis was born with rather poor health, the work and movement to which he constantly indulged developed sufficient strength in him. The king had a wonderful memory. He stored countless names and place names in his head. The numbers and their meanings were imprinted in his memory with amazing clarity. One day, the report presented to him included an item that had already been paid for the previous year. “This is written for the second time,” said Louis, “bring me last year’s report, I will prove it to you.” The report was presented, and the king found what he wanted without difficulty. Justice and honesty were the inalienable virtues of Louis. He became strict to the point of rudeness if he dealt with someone suspected of deception. Then he got angry, shouted, stamped his feet and demanded obedience. His thinking was always distinguished by consistency and clarity: everything he wrote was always correctly divided into articles.
The king was immensely bored at the theater, did not like balls, went to bed at eleven in the evening and got up at six in the morning. His day was mostly filled with prayer and work. After drinking lemon juice in the morning and eating dry bread, he took a short walk. At eight in the morning there was a public rise. Louis then went to his office and worked with his ministers. At one o'clock in the afternoon he listened to mass and went to lunch. As a rule, the dishes were the simplest. The king drank ordinary water.
After resting a little, Louis returned to business and worked until seven in the evening. Then, until nine, a meeting of the State Council took place. After dinner, Louis went to bed around eleven.
Marie Antoinette with children
Contemporaries judged Louis very harshly. His bourgeois virtues seemed ridiculous and worthless to many, especially since he did not have the character traits necessary for a king. His main shortcomings were weak will, timidity, indecisiveness, eternal hesitation and lack of energy. The era demanded a sovereign with completely different qualities. Louis took power at a difficult time: the treasury was empty, the kingdom was burdened with a debt of four billion livres, the people were weighed down by duties and lived in terrible poverty. Louis was very well aware that the poverty of the people was the main misfortune of his time. He had a kind heart and a sincere desire to stop plight subjects, but he had neither the skill nor the talents to choose the right path to this. The main problem of France, which the government unsuccessfully fought during the entire reign of Louis, was a severe financial disorder. Although the king had good financiers at his disposal (perhaps the best of those that were in France throughout the entire 18th century), this misfortune was never corrected.
(From the book: Konstantin Ryzhov. All the monarchs of the world. Western Europe. Moscow, 1999).
What gives reason to assume that the execution of King Louis was ritual?
Let us dwell on the events preceding this execution.
The events that soon followed the victory of the 1792 revolution are filled with bloody dramas. On August 17, an Extraordinary Tribunal was created to combat counter-revolution. By decision of this punitive body, arrests were made of the royalists, i.e. supporters of the monarchy, as a rule, representatives of the nobility and aristocracy. On the night of September 2, their executions began - or rather, a brutal massacre that lasted until the 5th. Several thousand people, practically the entire flower of the French nobility, were executed in these three days.
September murders in Paris
It was a cruel and senseless destruction that had no serious political motives for its implementation. More than three years have passed since the storming of the Bastille and the restriction of royal power, during which the royalists did not take a single step in defense of the monarchical regime. Even the noble society during this time completely agreed with the idea that royal power was unnecessary. Therefore, the revolution of August 10 is unlikely to have caused a powerful counter-revolutionary movement among the upper class of the kingdom. As subsequent events showed, there were not so many determined defenders of absolutism in France.
Therefore, the events of September 2-5 must be viewed in a different light. I am sure that this was nothing more than a bloody sacrifice to certain Masonic idols, whose names remained unknown.
This is difficult to believe, since the human mind refuses to perceive the thoughtful, cold rationality of such actions. It is psychologically easier for us to explain crimes by an explosion of mass indignation, accumulated hatred of the people, etc. Therefore, historians, describing this massacre of prisoners, which for some reason began at night, seek an explanation and justification for it in the inability of the crowd to restrain their passions. But someone raised this crowd and led it to the prisons at night, opened the prison gates and cell doors, pointed out to the crowd its real (or imaginary!) enemies...
One can see in all this only the unbridled passions of the crowd, submitting to the moods of outright fanatics and sadists. But it is noteworthy that all the murderers and executioners who participated in the September massacre were hired in advance and received a set payment for their atrocities! In 1795, after the destruction of the Jacobin dictatorship, an investigation was conducted into the September events, which established the facts of the hiring of such fanatics. In particular, it was established that 13 pre-hired people took part in the murder of Princess de Lamballe, the favorite of Queen Marie Antoinette, who also died these days. It is also very interesting that the Princesse de Lamballe was a member of the Masonic lodge.*
*Marie-Thérèse-Louise, Duchess of Savoy, Princess de Lamballe (1749-1792), a descendant of French kings, one of the most noble and wealthy women in France, was elected in 1781 as a grand master of one of the Masonic lodges. Subsequently, she served as chief chamberlain at the court of Marie Antoinette and was her close friend. After revolutionary performances in Paris in 1789, she left for London, but, driven by sincere affection for Marie Antoinette and compassion for her fate, she returned to support the queen in difficult times of her life. After the coup on August 10, she was arrested, sent to the Temple along with the royal family, but on August 20 she was transferred to La Force prison, where a large number of prostitutes, thieves and several French aristocrats were already being held. Two weeks later, on September 3, their executions began.
The murder of the Princesse de Lamballe
They killed her in the most brutal way and her body was dismembered into several parts. At the same time, many aristocrats were killed, but their bodies were not subjected to such mockery.
We can conclude that the murder of the princess was prepared in advance and was most likely of a ritual nature. She was killed because she belonged to the royal family. Another reason was that she, as a great craftswoman, could expose Masonic secrets. She was not shot, not guillotined, not handed over to the crowd, which could have spared her, but given into the hands of pre-paid executioners, who put her to death in compliance with some terrible ritual. And the latter was especially important to her judges. This is evidenced by the next episode.
After the murder of the princess, drummer Ervelen brought to Legislative Assembly the wallet of the murdered woman, which he found in the scraps of her dress. He was sent to the Public Safety Supervisory Committee, where he handed over his find. Here he was interrogated, and asked the following very strange questions:
“Who held the head or any other parts of the princess’s body at the end of a pike?
Was the aforementioned woman's head lying on the counter of the tavern where they were drinking?
Wasn't the heart of the former Princess Lamballe fried at the request of people and even himself in a hot stove in this establishment and then didn't he eat this heart?
Did he not carry Lamballe's genitals on the point of his saber?
Did he not take part in the procession that walked through the streets with the head and other parts of the body of the murdered woman?”
From the nature of these questions, it can be understood that the person who interrogated Ervelen was interested in the ritual of killing the princess and observing a certain order of mocking her body. Apparently, every detail of the murder had been discussed in advance with the fanatical mercenaries, and now the commissioner confirmed them through witnesses.
The crowd demands that Marie Antoinette kiss de Lamballe's head
The words about the princess’s heart, which was supposed to be eaten, sound especially scary. It’s hard to believe in such fanaticism, but in the history of the Great French Revolution we find similar examples. Robespierre visited a certain Jean-Jacques Arthur, a member of the Commune, famous for the fact that he ordered to roast and ate the heart of a Swiss defender of the Tuileries Palace, whom he executed on August 10, 1792. Perhaps this was part of some terrible ritual of secret satanic cults introduced by the revolution.
After these massacres of aristocrats, it was the king's turn.
On September 20, the Legislative Assembly dissolved itself, giving way to the National Convention, elected on the basis of the law on August 10, which had unlimited powers of both legislative and executive branch. At the second meeting on September 21, the Convention adopted a law “on the abolition of royal power in France.” A special commission was tasked with examining the king's papers found in the Tuileries and his correspondence with his brother, the Count of Provence, who was in the royalist army. On November 6, the commission reported that it had found enough evidence to accuse the king of treason and put him on trial (indeed, letters were found from which it was clear that Louis called on foreign armies to attack France).
On November 7, the question of the trial was resolved in the affirmative. On December 3, the Convention formed a special commission of 21 people to prepare an indictment report. It was presented on December 10, the indictment on the 11th. Louis, brought to the Convention, had to answer 33 questions concerning his behavior during the main events of the revolution. He calmly denied all the accusations brought against him.
The debate about the king's guilt continued until January 15, 1793. On this day, three questions were posed to the deputies. To the first of them: “Is Louis Capet guilty of conspiracy against public freedom and an attack on the security of the state?” - The Convention almost unanimously answered in the affirmative. A second question was then proposed: “Should the sentence pronounced by the Convention on Louis Capet be submitted to the approval of the people?” The majority of deputies responded negatively. Sentencing was postponed for two days. On January 17, in response to the question: “What punishment should Louis Capet be subjected to,” 387 deputies voted for the death penalty, and 334 for imprisonment.
The question of how many deputies voted for the death penalty for the king is rather obscure. Eat serious evidence that this decision did not pass the first votes. Certain forces who wanted the death of the king used bribery, manipulation, and even secret murders of some deputies. Ultimately, the death penalty was approved by a narrow margin. Some contemporaries of those events left evidence that the decision was made by a margin of just one vote!
According to Malzerbe, Louis, having learned about the decision of the Convention, remained calm and said: “Death does not frighten me, I trust in the mercy of God.”
He wrote a will, as well as posthumous letters to family and friends. Then he said goodbye to his wife and son, consoling whom he said: “Calm down, friends. Let us better thank Providence for bringing me to the end of my suffering.”
The day before his death, he attended the liturgy and partook of the holy mysteries.
On the morning of January 21, Louis was taken to the place of execution. As he was led to the scaffold, he turned to the crowd and said in a firm voice: “I die innocent of all the crimes of which I am accused, and I pray God to forgive my enemies.” However, his words did not make any impression on the mob. A minute later, the guillotine knife cut off his head. When it was shown to the crowd, the square shook with frantic cries: “Long live the nation! Long live the republic!”
The king takes communion before his execution
The head of the executed King Louis is shown to the crowd
The ritual nature of the king's execution is indicated by one episode that is usually never mentioned by historians. When the head of the monarch fell into a basket of sawdust under the guillotine, a man in black jumped onto the platform, wet his hands with royal blood and shouted into the crowd: “Jacques de Molay! You are avenged!
Here it is necessary to explain that the distant ancestor of Louis XVI, Philip the Fair, destroyed the Templar Order in France. After several years of imprisonment, on March 18, 1314, they were executed and senior officials order together with Grand Master Jacques de Molay. The king ordered them to be burned. Subsequently, many mystically colored legends appeared related to the activities and secrets of this order.
Freemasons of modern times, fascinated by such mysticism, willingly included the Order of the Templars and Jacques de Molay in their initiations. It is characteristic that the adherents of this initiation were consciously instilled with an undying hatred of thrones and altars. Apparently, even centuries did not soften in the hearts of the new Templars the thirst for revenge that they inherited from their predecessors. It is noteworthy that the main slogan of revolutionary France became the words of the Masons of the Templar initiation - “death to thrones and altars.”
Jacques de Molay
One can, of course, assume that it was not a high-ranking Freemason appointed specially for this occasion who rose to the scaffold where the king’s execution had just taken place, but just an overly exalted admirer of mystical teachings. And he spontaneously uttered words about the accomplished revenge, which do not at all reflect either the mood or the official position of the Masonic lodges...
And really, what is the connection between these executions?..
If the Freemasons wanted to emphasize the ritual nature of the king’s murder, they could have guillotined him, say, on October 13 (on this day in 1307, the arrests of the Templars began), or on March 18, the day of the burning of Jacques de Molay.
This execution would have looked more expressive if the Masons had attributed it to the following year, 1794. Then it would have taken place in the year of the 480th anniversary of the death of the Grand Master.
In the same year, 1794, another remarkable anniversary occurred - the 666th anniversary of the official approval of the Templar Order (approved on January 14, 1128 at a council in the city of Troyes). It would seem that if the French Freemasons were fans of dark cults, then they should have executed the king in January 1794. And thereby demonstrate your commitment to Satanism. But he was executed in January 1793. Thus, the accusation of Satanism seems to disappear. The accusation of the ritual nature of the king's execution also becomes untenable.
And here it’s worth asking: how accurate are the chronological dates in the history of the Templar Order?
European chronology is a very confusing and dark thing. And the point is not even that in medieval Europe they did not know how to keep track of time. The fact is that the beginning of the year in European chronology has changed several times. According to some chronology, the year began on September 1st, according to others on March 1st (or March 25th), and on December 1st. The starting point of the era also changed. The beginning of chronology was carried out, imitating the Romans, from the founding of Rome (753 BC), from the beginning of the reign of Augustus (43 BC), etc. Then they began to count from the “creation of the world”, but this account did not bring order to the chronology. In Europe, there were about 200 variants of counting years from the beginning of this era!
Although the counting of years “from the Nativity of Christ” was developed in the 6th century AD, it began to be widely used much later. In the 8th century, the first documents with a date from the “Nativity of Christ” began to appear. Secular calendars in the XII–XIII centuries. This new dating was already widely used, but not everywhere. It was only from the time of Pope Eugene IV (1431) that this era began to be regularly used in the documents of the papal office. Around the same time, Portugal was the last country in Western Europe to begin counting the years since the “Nativity of Christ.”
Now imagine the situation faced by the chroniclers of medieval Europe. Let's say on January 1st they started counting down the new year 1100. After some time, a papal edict follows, ordering the beginning of the year to be counted from March 25. The question immediately arises: what year is March 25th? 1100 or 1101?
The next papal edict orders the beginning of the year to be counted from the 1st day of September. And this is where the situation gets completely confusing. It seems that the new year 1101 should be considered from September 1st. But then the previous year 1100 is reduced to 8 months. If we assume that the year 1100 begins again on September 1, then the previous year increases to 20 months.
This is precisely the situation that can be traced in Russian chronology. The March counting of years changed to September, which led to confusion in the dates. Now most historians have little doubt that the Battle of Kulikovo took place not in 1380, as we were taught at school, but in 1379. You can, of course, correct this date, but this single correction will only aggravate the problem. Doesn't this mean that we must correct all the dates of Russian history, starting with The Tale of Bygone Years?
The great Transformer of Russia, Peter I, also made his contribution to the domestic chronological confusion. By his decree, he ordered that January 1, 7208 “from the creation of the world” be counted as January 1, 1700 “from the Nativity of Christ.” Since in Russia at that time the calendar era was in use, starting on September 1, the year 7208 turned out to be the shortest - only four months (September-December).
Let’s add here two more March epochs of time counting, which were used by Russian chroniclers, and as a result we get such a complicated situation with time counting that historical science still cannot cope with. And until now, scientists constantly stumble and make a lot of mistakes when translating Russian chronicle dates into European chronology.
Joseph Scaliger (1540-1609), an Italian who lived in France, introduced some order into European chronology. He proposed keeping track of time from noon on January 1, 4713 BC, and called this account Julian. The Julian period of Scaliger is 7980 years.
J.J. Scaliger, father of scientific chronology.
Modern historical dating of events in world history is based on Scaliger's chronology. But does this mean that she is flawless? Already during Scaliger’s lifetime, many pamphlets were published criticizing and mocking his system. This criticism continues today. Here's just one quote:
Therefore, it is quite appropriate to assume that the official dating of events related to the history of the Order of the Templars is not entirely correct. And French scientists, such as the famous mathematician and astronomer Laplace, could correct it in the 18th century. It was his revolutionary (read, Masonic) government of France who attracted him to work on a new calendar, and then to work on calculating the length of a meter. And Laplace, together with other members of the commission, calculated this meter. And he received a frankly satanic standard of length. French academics managed in the most amazing way to combine the latest scientific achievements of their century with outright Satanism. But more on that later...
Pierre-Simon Laplace
Therefore, we can assume with a fair amount of confidence that the Council of Troyes took place not in 1128, but in 1127. Consequently, January 1793 marked the 666th anniversary of the official approval of the Templar Order. It was on this day (taking into account amendments to the Gregorian calendar) that King Louis XVI was executed.
Strange coincidences in the life of the executed monarch also attract attention. It has already been mentioned that he was the sixty-sixth king of France and his reign lasted 6666 days, if we count from the day of the death of King Louis XV (May 10, 1774) to the day of the revolution on August 10, 1792. It was on this day that he was removed from the throne.
Perhaps this is an accident that should not be paid attention to special attention. But the following coincidence can hardly be attributed to chance.
In astronomy there is such a thing as precession, i.e. displacement of the vernal equinox point relative to the stars. This value is measured both in seconds of time and in degrees. The precessional shift of the vernal equinox between two events (the execution of Jacques de Molay and the execution of King Louis XVI) on January 21, 1793 reached a value of 6.66°.
Precession is a very interesting and very complex phenomenon that can be likened to the clock of the universe. For thousands of years, the vernal equinox point silently glides along the celestial equator, counting down the seconds, minutes and hours of eternity. Essentially, this is the most accurate chronometer that was given to us by the unknown creator of the Cosmos.
The only drawback of these watches is that the magnitude of the precessional shift in astronomy has not yet been finally determined. It depends on those reference stars from which the countdown is carried out. In our part of the visible universe, all stars are constantly moving, which affects the results of determining the precessional shift.
During the years of the French Revolution, it was Laplace who began studying precession. He needed this not only for scientific, but also for applied purposes - to calculate a new revolutionary chronology. It is possible that Laplace determined the moment when the precessional shift (counting from the execution of Jacques de Molay) would reach a value of 6.66°.
It was on this day that Louis XVI was executed. More precisely, he was sacrificed to the unknown gods of dark Masonic cults.
In the future, we will more than once encounter other similar cases in the history of the Great French Revolution, in which remarkable astronomical phenomena were marked by human casualties. All this makes us suspect that the French Freemasons created a secret cult, which in the most bizarre way combined the latest achievements of science with dark occultism. This phenomenon can be called scientific occultism. Or scientific Satanism.
Vladimir Kukovenko
LOUIS XVI(1754–1793) – King of France (1774–1791, from 1791 bore the title “King of the French,” which he was deprived of in 1792). Born on August 23, 1754 in Versailles, the grandson of Louis XV, from childhood he was committed to religion, was distinguished by an indecisive character, showed no interest in the humanities, was interested in geography and plumbing, and was famous for his passion for food.
His character intertwined opposite traits: timidity and stubbornness. He was convinced of the divine origin of his power. His marriage to Marie Antunette, an Austrian princess, meant the rapprochement of two dynasties - the Bourbons and the Habsburgs, which had been at odds for a long time. In the first years of Louis's reign, public opinion in the country was in favor of the king. They even forgave the queen’s exorbitantly luxurious image. The king sought to get the country out of the difficult situation in which France found itself in recent years reign of Louis XV. But the attempt to carry out the necessary reforms failed. The decisive minister, philosopher and economist Turgot, and his successor, the banker Necker, were dismissed by the king. The court nobility and nobility did not want any changes. The queen was the support of the aristocrats; it was on her initiative that people were appointed who meekly fulfilled all the whims of the court.
Foreign policy was also controversial. During the American Revolution, France helped the rebellious States: Lafayette, Washington's assistant, was recognized as a hero in France. And in 1786 France concluded an agreement with England that was extremely unfavorable for the development of French industry. French industrialists were outraged. In 1788, a financial crisis broke out, accompanied by an unprecedented crop failure, famine and popular riots. The Estates General, a collection of representatives of the three estates, could not contain the approach of the revolution. Representatives of the third estate refused to obey the king and declared themselves the highest legislative assembly of the country. The king was quickly losing control of the situation. On July 14, 1789, Parisians took the Bastille, the main prison of France, by storm. This meant the first victory of the revolution. August 26, 1789 was adopted Declaration of the Rights of Man and Citizen, which the king was forced to sign in October. Revolutionary Paris became his residence. The only hope for the court was the victorious intervention of foreign monarchies. An attempt by the king and his family to flee the country failed. Louis XVI was detained on June 21, 1791 in Varenna and returned to Paris in disgrace. In the spring of 1792, troops of Austria and Prussia invaded French territory.
France declared war on these powers. The patriotic movement increased the revolutionary intensity in the country. The Legislative Assembly no longer enjoyed authority; there were many monarchists there. Austria and Prussia did not hide their plans to strangle the revolution. The commander of the combined forces, the Duke of Brunswick, declared that he would destroy Paris if even one hair fell from Louis’s head. These words caused a storm of anger in France. On August 10, at the call of the Parisian sections, armed citizens moved towards the royal palace, guarded by Swiss mercenaries. At the beginning of the battle, the Swiss were able to hold off the assault, but the king ordered a ceasefire and withdrew under the protection of the Legislative Assembly.
But the revolutionary authorities of Paris arrested Louis XVI with their power and imprisoned him in the Temple Castle. The Legislative Assembly was replaced by the National Convention, elected by universal suffrage.
On September 21, the Convention began to work and one of the first things in its work was to bring Louis XVI to trial. The king reacted unusually calmly to the attempts of the commissars of the Paris commune to treat him as a prisoner. This lack of initiative and indecisive man showed great restraint when it came to his personal destiny. At the trial, the king completely denied all counts of the indictment. The king's trial was the scene of a struggle between radical revolutionaries and moderate members of the Convention.
A majority, albeit a small one, voted for the execution. On January 20, the Convention decided to execute Louis XVI. On the same day, the verdict was announced to the king. The guillotine awaited him on the Place de la Revolution in Paris. He reacted calmly to the verdict and wrote a letter to the Minister of Justice asking him to be allowed a final meeting with his family. In the evening he said goodbye to his family. Then he returned to prison, where he spent part of the night confessing his sins to his confessor. And then I slept for several hours.
Even revolutionary newspapers were forced to write that the king on the scaffold showed more firmness than on the throne. He himself went up to the place of execution and took off his coat. On January 21, 1793, he was beheaded by guillotine on the Place de la Revolution in Paris. Most historians believe that this man, being very decent in his personal life, showed himself to be a weak-willed and irresponsible politician in political life.
Anatoly Kaplan
On January 16, 1793, the National Convention began a roll call vote on three questions: "Whether Louis XVI?" ("yes" - 683 people, that is, an overwhelming majority), "Should any decision made be submitted to the people for discussion?" ("no" - by majority vote), "What punishment does Louis XVI deserve?" (for the death penalty without 387 people voted for any conditions, 334 people voted for a suspended death penalty or imprisonment). Thus, by a majority of 53 votes, the king was sentenced to death. But the debate continued for several more days. Finally, on January 19, the Convention decided to guillotine the king within 24 hours.
Upon learning of the decision of the Convention, Louis, who was imprisoned in the Temple, asked that Abbot Edgeworth de Fremont be allowed to see him. After the priest arrived to Louis, they remained alone for several hours. According to Edgeworth's recollections, at first both burst into tears, but soon the king pulled himself together.
Forgive me, monsieur, a moment of weakness, if it can be called weakness,” he said. “I have been living among enemies for a long time, and habit seems to have made me akin to them, but the sight of a faithful subject tells my heart something completely different: this is the sight from which my eyes were unaccustomed, and he touched me. The king invited the priest to follow him into his study. Edgeworth was struck by the poverty of the office: it was not upholstered with wallpaper and had no decorations, the fireplace was a poor earthenware stove, and all the furniture consisted of a table and three leather armchairs. Having seated Edgeworth opposite him, the king said:
“Now I have only one great thing left to do, which occupies me entirely. Alas, this is the only important thing left for me...
Edgeworth relates that when it came to the Duke of Orleans, the king was very well informed about his behavior. Louis spoke about this without bitterness, rather with regret than with anger.
“What have I done to my cousin,” he said, “that he pursues me like this?” He is more worthy of pity than I am. My situation is terrible, but if it were even worse, I wouldn’t want to be in his place even then.
At this point, the conversation between the abbot and the condemned man was interrupted by the commissioners, who informed the king that his family had come down from the upper cells of the prison for a meeting.
“At half past eight, the door to the hall opened,” recalls the king’s valet Clery, “the queen appeared first, leading her son by the hand, then Madame Royale and the king’s sister Elizabeth; they all rushed into the king’s arms. Silence reigned for several minutes, broken only by sobs. The Queen moved to take His Majesty to the inner room, where Edgeworth was waiting, which they did not know. “No,” said the king, “let’s go to the dining room, I can only see you there. They entered there, and I closed the door that.” was glass. The king sat down; left hand him, Princess Elizabeth - on the right, Madame Royale - almost opposite, and little prince stood between his father's knees. They all leaned towards the king and often hugged him. This sad scene lasted an hour and three quarters, during which we could hear nothing; we could only see that whenever the king spoke, the sobs of the princesses intensified and continued for several minutes; then the king began to speak again."
Finally, the tears stopped, because there was no more strength left for them... Saying goodbye, the queen asked:
- Promise that you will see us again tomorrow.
- Oh, yes, yes, again; and now go, dear, beloved; pray to God for yourself and for me!
After this, the king returned to the abbot in a state of deep shock. Edgeworth remained alone with him until late at night and, noticing Louis' fatigue, suggested that he rest a little. At the king's request, the abbot went into the small cell where Clery's servant usually slept, separated by a partition from the king's room. Edgeworth heard Louis give orders in a calm voice to Clery, who remained vigil in prayer at the monarch's bedside tomorrow.
At 5 o'clock in the morning, according to orders, Clery woke up Louis. The valet was combing the king's hair, and Louis was trying to put on his finger his wedding ring, which he hid in his pocket watch. A little later the king sent for the abbot. They went into the office again and talked for about an hour. Then, in the next room, turning the chest of drawers into an altar, the abbot celebrated mass. The king listened to Edgeworth kneeling on the bare floor and then took communion.
The abbot left the king for a while, and when he returned, he found him sitting near the stove. Louis had a chill and could hardly warm himself. The morning dawn flared up more and more. Already the beat of drums could be heard in all quarters of Paris. These sounds were clearly distinguishable through the walls of the prison tower, and soon they were supplemented by the voices of officers and the horse tramp of a cavalry unit that entered the courtyard of the Temple. The king listened and said calmly: “They are approaching.” From 7 to 8 o'clock in the morning, under various pretexts, the jailers kept knocking on the doors.
Returning to the room after one of these checks, Louis said, smiling:
“These gentlemen see daggers and poison everywhere.” They are afraid that I will commit suicide. Alas, they don't know me well. To commit suicide would be weakness. No, if necessary, I can die!
At eight o'clock the members of the municipality came to the king. Louis gave them his will and 125 louis, which he asked to return to one of the creditors. He also had other assignments. At first, reluctant, the visitors nevertheless agreed to fulfill the king’s requests. For some time, Louis was again left alone with Edgeworth. Finally, officers knocked on the door with orders to pack up.
“Wait a few minutes,” the king said firmly, “and I will be at your disposal.”
Closing the doors, he threw himself on his knees in front of the priest.
- It's over. Give me your final blessing and ask God to support me to the end.
Three minutes later, a reminder came from behind the door: it was time to leave. “We’re going,” Louis answered decisively.
...Amidst the eerie silence, the carriage drove up to the unpaved Place de la Revolution (formerly Place Louis XV). A large space was fenced off around the scaffold, which was guarded by cannons pointed at the crowd. However, the crowd was also armed.
When the king realized that the carriage had arrived, he turned to the priest and whispered:
- If I'm not mistaken, we have arrived.
One of the executioners hastily opened the carriage doors. The gendarmes guarding the king were about to leave first when Louis stopped them.
“Gentlemen, I recommend this gentleman to you,” he put his hand on Edgeworth’s knee. “Take care that after my death he is not insulted.” You have a responsibility to take care of him.
After these words, Louis left the carriage. The steps of the scaffold were very steep, and the king had to lean on the priest's shoulder. However, having reached last stage, the king pushed Edgeworth's shoulder away and walked the entire length of the scaffold with a firm step.
All the while the drums were beating annoyingly loudly. The king could not stand it and shouted in a broken voice:
- Shut up!
The drummers standing at the foot of the scaffold lowered their drumsticks. The executioners approached Louis to remove his clothes, but the king, contemptuously pushing them away, took off his brown camisole, leaving him in a white flannel vest, gray trousers and white stockings. The king's self-control embarrassed the executioners, but they soon came to their senses and surrounded Louis again.
- What do you want? - asked the king, withdrawing his hands.
“We must tie you up,” said the chief executioner Sanson.
- Tie? Me? - Louis narrowed his eyes angrily. - I will never agree to this! Do as you're told, but don't try to tie me up.
The executioners insisted, raising their voices. It seemed that they were about to decide to use force.
Seeking support, Louis turned to the priest. Edgeworth was silent, but as the king continued to look at him questioningly, the abbot said with tears in his voice:
“In this new insult I see only your Majesty’s resemblance to Christ.”
At these words, Louis raised his head to the sky for a moment.
Do what you want,” he then turned to the executioners.
“I’ll drink the cup to the bottom.” And loudly to the people:
- Frenchmen, I die innocent of the crimes of which I am accused; I tell you this from the scaffold, preparing to appear before God. I forgive my enemies and pray to God that France...
General Santer, who commanded the execution, jumped forward on a white horse. He shouted an order furiously and the company beat their drums. The king could not be heard. The executioners grabbed Louis to tie him to the board. Resisting, the king showed remarkable strength, but there were six executioners, and the fight quickly ended. The board with Louis assumed a horizontal position.
As soon as Edgeworth, leaning toward the king, had time to whisper: “Son of Saint Louis, ascend to heaven,” the fatal blow of the guillotine knife was heard. The wild cry of the crowd shook the square: “Long live the Republic!” Edgeworth fell to his knees. He remained in this position until one of the executioners, almost a boy in appearance, seizing the severed head to show it to the crowd, dripped the king's blood onto the abbot's neck.
Philippe d'Orléans (Egalite), who flirted with the revolutionaries, voted in the Convention for the death sentence of Louis.
Daughter of Louis XVI and Marie Antoinette, Duchess of Angoulême.
Versailles, Kingdom of France
Paris, First French Republic
daughters: Maria Teresa of France (Madame Royale), Sophia Beatrice
Characteristic. Beginning of reign
It was a man kind heart, but of insignificant intelligence and indecisive character. Louis XV did not like him for his negative attitude towards the courtly way of life and contempt for DuBarry and kept him away from state affairs. The education given to Louis by the Duke of Vauguyon gave him little practical and theoretical knowledge.
He showed the greatest inclination towards physical activities, especially plumbing and hunting. Despite the depravity of the court around him, he retained the purity of morals, was distinguished by great honesty, simplicity of manners and hatred of luxury. With the kindest feelings, he ascended the throne with the desire to work for the benefit of the people and to eliminate existing abuses, but he did not know how to boldly move forward towards a consciously intended goal. He submitted to the influence of those around him, now aunts, now brothers, now ministers, now the queen (Marie Antoinette), canceled decisions made, did not complete the reforms begun.
Turgot's reforms
Louis in 1775
The rumor about his honesty and good intentions aroused the most optimistic hopes among the people. Indeed, Louis’s first action was to remove DuBarry and the previous ministers, but his choice of first minister was unsuccessful: Maurepas, an old courtier, reluctantly followed the path of reform and at the first opportunity turned away from it.
The feudal duty of 40 million was abolished and the “droits de joyeux avènement”, that is, special royal privileges before the law, were eliminated; Sinecures were destroyed and court expenses were reduced. Such talented patriots as Turgot and Malesherbes were placed at the head of the department. The first, simultaneously with a number of financial reforms - uniform distribution of taxes, extension of the land tax to privileged classes, redemption of feudal duties, introduction of freedom of grain trade, abolition of internal customs, guilds, trade monopolies - undertook transformations in all sectors folk life, in which Malesherbe helped him, trying to destroy lettres de cachet, establishing freedom of conscience, etc.
But the nobility, parliament and clergy rebelled against the pioneers of new ideas, holding tightly to their rights and privileges. Turgot fell, although the king spoke of him like this: “Only I and Turgot love the people.” With his characteristic indecisiveness, Louis wanted to mitigate the abuses, but not to eradicate them. When he was persuaded to abolish serfdom in his domains, he, “respecting property,” refused to extend this abolition to the lands of the lords, and when Turgot presented him with a draft for the abolition of privileges, he wrote in the margins of it: “what a crime was committed by the nobles, the provincial states and parliaments to destroy their rights."
After Turgot's removal, real anarchy reigned in finances. To correct them, Jacques Necker, Sh.-A. were successively called upon. Calonne and Loménie de Brienne, but in the absence of a definite plan of action, the ministers could not achieve any definite results, but took either a step forward or a step back, either fought with the privileged classes and stood for reforms, or yielded to the ruling classes and acted in the spirit of Louis XIV .
Counter-reforms
The first manifestation of the reaction was the city regulations, which allowed the promotion to officers only of nobles who had proven the antiquity of their nobility (4 generations). Access to the highest judicial positions was closed to persons of the third estate. The nobility made every effort to free itself from paying not only the taxes created by Turgot, but also those that were established in the city. It prevailed in a dispute with farmers over dîmes insolites - the distribution of church tithes to potatoes, sown grass, etc. Priests were forbidden to gather without the permission of their superiors, that is, those against whom they sought protection from the state. The same reaction was noticed in feudal relations: the lords restored their feudal rights, presented new documents, which were taken into account. The revival of feudalism was evident even in the royal domains. Trust in royal power weakened. Meanwhile, France's participation in the North American War increased the desire for political freedom.
Financial crisis and convening of the Estates General
Finances fell into increasing disarray: loans could not cover the deficit, which reached 198 million livres a year, partly due to mismanagement of finances, partly due to the extravagance of the queen and the generous gifts that the king, under pressure from others, lavished on the princes and courtiers. The government felt that it was unable to cope with the difficulties and saw the need to turn to the public for help. An attempt was made to reform the regional and local government: the power of the intendants was limited, part of it was transferred to provincial assemblies while maintaining class differences - but they were introduced only in some places, as an experiment, and the reform did not satisfy anyone. A meeting of notables was convened, which agreed to the establishment of a general land tax and stamp duty, the abolition of road duties, etc.
Parliament refused to register these decrees, boldly pointing out the extravagance of the court and the queen, and for the first time demanding the convening of the Estates General. King in lit de justice forced Parliament to register the edicts and exiled him to Troyes, but then promised to convene the Estates General in five years if Parliament approved a loan to cover expenses during this time. Parliament refused. Then the king ordered the arrest of several of its members and issued an edict on January 8, which abolished parliaments and established in their place courses plenières from princes, peers and high court, judicial and military officials. This outraged the whole country: Brienne had to leave his post, and Necker was again appointed in his place. Parliament was restored. The new meeting of notables came to nothing; then the Estates General was finally convened.
From the Estates General to the National Assembly. The beginning of the revolution
The Estates General met on 5 May 1789 at Versailles. In all cahiers (see State ranks) a radical transformation of the old order of things was required. Next in line was, first of all, the question of whether the States should retain their old, class form. The Third Estate resolved it in the sense of a break with the past, declaring itself the National Assembly on June 17 and inviting other estates to unite on this basis. Louis, succumbing to the admonitions of the aristocracy, at a royal meeting on June 23 ordered the restoration old order and vote by class. The National Assembly refused to obey, and the king himself was forced to ask the nobility and clergy to unite with the third estate. Constantly hesitating, Louis took the side of the people, then the side of the courtiers, coming up with them always unsuccessful plans for coups d'etat. On July 11, he dismissed Necker, which greatly outraged the people.
The concentration of 30,000 troops near Paris only added fuel to the fire: on July 14, an uprising broke out in Paris, the Bastille was taken by the people. In vain did Marshal Broglie persuade the monarch to become the head of the troops and retire to Lorraine. King, fearing civil war, on July 15, went on foot to the National Assembly and declared that he and the nation were one and that the troops would be removed. On July 17, he went to Paris, approved the establishment of a national guard, and returned accompanied by a jubilant crowd. On September 18, he approved the assembly's decree on the destruction of the remnants of feudalism. After the mutiny of October 5 and 6, he moved to Paris and fell into complete apathy; power and influence increasingly passed to the constituent assembly. In reality, he no longer reigned, but was present, amazed and alarmed, as events changed, sometimes adapting to the new order, sometimes reacting against them in the form of secret appeals for help to foreign powers.
Attempted escape. Constitutional monarch
On the night of June 21, Louis and his entire family secretly left, accompanied by three bodyguards, in a carriage towards the eastern border. The escape was prepared and carried out by the Swedish nobleman Hans Axel von Fersen, who was madly in love with the king's wife Marie Antoinette.
In Saint-Meneu, postmaster Drouet saw the king in the leaving carriage, but to make sure of this, he jumped on his horse and set off in pursuit. In Varennes, recognizing the page as Louis in disguise, he sounded the alarm. People came running. The king and queen were detained and returned to Paris under escort. They were met by the deathly silence of the people crowded in the streets.
On September 14, 1791, Louis took the oath of the new constitution, but continued to negotiate with emigrants and foreign powers, even when he officially threatened them through his Girondin ministry, and on April 22, with tears in his eyes, he declared war on Austria. Louis's refusal to sanction a decree of assembly against emigrants and rebel priests and the removal of the patriotic ministry imposed on him gave rise to a movement on June 20, 1792, with a popular demonstration ending in the invasion of the royal palace of the Tuileries, and his proven intercourse with foreign states and emigrants led to the uprising of August 10 and the overthrow of monarchy (September 21).
Arrest and execution
Execution of Louis XVI
Louis was imprisoned with his family in the Temple and accused of plotting against the freedom of the nation and a number of attacks on the security of the state. On January 11, the trial of the king in the Convention began. Louis behaved with great dignity and, not content with the speeches of his chosen defenders, he himself defended himself against the charges brought against him, referring to the rights given to him by the constitution. On January 20, he was sentenced to death by a majority of 383 votes to 310. Louis listened to the verdict with great calm and on January 21 ascended the scaffold. His last words on the scaffold were: “I die innocent, I am innocent of the crimes of which I am accused. I am telling you this from the scaffold, preparing to appear before God. And I forgive everyone who is responsible for my death."
- During the American Revolution, the city of Louisville, Kentucky, was named after the king because France aided the rebels against England.
- When Louis XVI was led to the scaffold from the Temple, he asked the executioner, the last person to whom he could turn:
World political consequences of the execution of Louis XVI
Immediately upon receiving news of the execution of Louis XVI, the French envoy was removed from London. On February 1, 1793, ten days after the execution of Louis XVI, the French Convention responded by declaring war on England and the Netherlands, and on March 7 - on Spain.
See also
Literature
- Soulavie, “Mémoires du règne de L. XVI” (P., 1801);
- Bournisseaux, “Hist. de L. XVI" (P., 1829);
- Tocqueville, “Coup d’oeil sur le règne de L. XVI” (P., 1850);
- Droz, “Hist. du règne de L. XVI" (P., 1839-1842, 2nd ed. 1858);
- Jobez, "La France sous L. XVI" (1877 et seq.);
- Semichon, “Les réformes sous L. XVI” (P.);
- Amy-Cherest, “La chute de l’ancien régime” (P., 1884 et seq.);
- Gertanner, “Schilderung des häusslichen Lebens, des Characters und der Regierung L. XVI” (B., 1793);
- Barrière, “La cour et la ville sous L. XIV, XV et XVI” (P., 1829);
- Cléry, "Journal de la captivité" (L., 1798);
- Nicolardot, "Journal de L. XVI" (1873).
- D'Ezek F. Defrance. From the memoirs of a page of Louis XVI / Trans. E. P. Chaleeva // Voice of the Past, 1913. - No. 6. - P. 106-132.
- D'Ezek F. Defrance. From the memoirs of a page of Louis XVI / Trans. E. P. Chaleeva // Voice of the Past, 1913. - No. 7. - P. 174-185.
| |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Louis XVI of France. Personality and character
Rarely has a monarch faced so many difficult problems as Louis XVI. To cope with the situation in extremely difficult times, a king was needed with the dexterity, resourcefulness, insight and intelligence of Henry IV and with the energy, willpower and tenacity of Louis XIV. Louis XVI had many good qualities, although this was denied by both the enlightenment-freethinking, anti-monarchist and aristocratic propaganda of the time and was subsequently supported by many historians. The unfortunate Louis was by no means a man who had “nothing but sweetness, stupidity and blindness,” but difficulties and extraordinary circumstances broke him.
Like all people, Louis XVI was influenced by his innate abilities, environment and upbringing. Born on September 23, 1754, the third of seven children of the Dauphin Louis Ferdinand (1729 - 1765) and the Dauphine Maria Theresa of Saxony (1731 - 1767), according to tradition he received the title of Duke de Berry. He grew up in an almost burgher family of the Dauphin, in which, to the surprise of the court, the prince and princess themselves took care of the children and their upbringing. Father Louis Ferdinand, from whom Berry inherited some qualities, was like the Dauphin (crown prince) and the only surviving son of Louis XV and Marie Leszczynska (1703 - 1768) second in command in the kingdom, but on many issues he was in opposition to his father and had with him a tense relationship. Being the head of the “party of the pious” at court, he condemned the king’s debauchery and called Pompadour disparagingly “mother whore.” Like many other crown princes, he was impatient to rule the country himself.
In appearance and character he was not like Louis XV. In contrast to this royal “most beautiful man in the kingdom,” Louis Ferdinand was overweight, very gluttonous, untempting, did not like frivolous morals, games and balls, and even hunting did not interest him. But he willingly played the organ and sang chorales.
His second wife, Maria Josepha of Saxony, had a difficult time with him at first, because he, remaining inconsolable after the death of his first beloved wife, treated the 15-year-old Saxon with complete indifference. But this young princess big nose And bad teeth, according to Croy, “a pretty plain girl, behind whom you can keep your eyes peeled,” managed to win first her father-in-law and mother-in-law, the courtyard, and finally her most obstinate husband. She had a great sense of home, tact, piety, education, nobility, but at the same time she was strict and consciously tried to adapt to her husband.
Berry, three years younger than his older brother, the Duke of Burgundy, born on September 13, 1751, was born 6 months after early death his brother the Duke of Aquitaine. The child was "fat and larger" than the Dauphin's other children; together with his brothers, he was entrusted to one governess. The child grew up silent, withdrawn, ugly and not even cute, and soon began to suffer like an “unloved prince” from the preference given to his older and younger brothers. The Duke of Burgundy, lively, but at the same time capricious and extremely arrogant, full of consciousness of his future role as a ruler, a handsome and sweet boy, was the pride of his parents and court, so he concentrated “all the love of his parents” on himself. The little Duke de Berry, on the contrary, lived in his shadow and in comparative isolation. When in 1760 the elder brother became seriously ill with tuberculosis and became bedridden, Berry was assigned to him as a companion in games and labors. The older brother treated the younger brother as a subject. At that time, everything revolved around a spoiled, capricious patient, and Berry seemed to become a whipping boy, to whom the shining image of Burgundy was constantly set as an example and instilled with a feeling of his own inferiority. When the beloved eldest son died on March 24, 1761, Berry, not to the joy of his parents, became the next heir to the throne after his father. But he got infected from his brother and therefore had to fight against lung disease throughout his childhood and youth. Berry, in comparison with the Burgundian, seemed to be a little outstanding figure. Somehow, without expressing it directly, he was blamed for taking the place of the adored eldest child. Under the personal supervision of his parents, Comte la Vauguillon raised the prince. Bishop Ketloske of Limoges became his home teacher.
A diligent, responsible student, the future Louis XVI studied Latin, history, mathematics and modern languages for seven hours every day; his parents checked him very strictly and meticulously twice a week. He was instilled with the virtues identified by Bossuet and necessary for a king, such as piety, kindness, justice and determination. When his father 12/20. 1765 died of consumption, and his mother plunged into inconsolable grief, Louis at the age of 11 became the second person in the kingdom. The sickly, awkward prince was somewhat alien to the elegant Louis XV. When his grandfather-king appeared, the timid boy became even more frightened and therefore even more clumsy.
From his tutor La Vauguillon, he received Fenelon's book Telemachus. The future king was greatly influenced by the thought of the virtuous life of a monarch who received his power from God and whose duty is to love his subjects and strive for their happiness. He was also greatly impressed by works that preached the natural equality of people and patriarchal royal rule.
At the age of 12 and a half, on 2.2.1767, the Dauphin, who, as Croy noted, “was very sickly and short-sighted,” but had a “meek character,” was knighted in the Order of St. Michael. Soon after this, on March 13, 1767, his mother also died of consumption, his serious illness worsened again, and at court it was already believed that he would vacate the place of heir to Louis XV to his more brilliant younger brother.
In 1770, the education of the recovered Dauphin was basically completed. It impressed upon him first of all his future responsibilities, but at the same time it raised doubts about his abilities and prevented him from studying and understanding the realities of his time. Therefore, the prince dreamed of an impossible golden age in which he could provide happiness to his subjects. There is an opinion among researchers that the prince was a weak-willed, unintelligent young man. Pierrette Girol de Courcac, in research published in 1972, comes to a completely different conclusion. She believes that La Vaugillon gave him a very good upbringing and knowledge that corresponded to the then level of knowledge in all areas. Louis proved himself, as she proves on the basis of many sources, to be a very diligent, inquisitive, intelligent and exceptionally persistent student with “many-sided intelligence.” He was a persistent, unshakable young man who learned to overcome his selfishness and control himself.
The future Louis XVI was a frail, sickly teenager with large blue eyes and uneven teeth, distrustful and timid, with an unhappy expression on his face, a waddling gait and a high, nasal voice. This awkward teenager had little contact with his grandfather, did not engage in long conversations with him, and in his presence became even more withdrawn than usual. Lever remarks on this matter: “Unloved, always repulsed and put aside, the Dauphin is unable to express the slightest feeling of affection for anyone.”
At Choiseul's insistence, to strengthen the Franco-Austrian alliance, it was decided to marry the Dauphin with one of Maria Theresa's daughters. For this they chose Maria Antonia (in France Marie Antoinette), born on November 2, 1755, a princess whose education they decided to continue until 1768. Now she was intensively trained and prepared for the future duties of the French queen, although she showed much more interest in games and festivities. On April 19, 1770, in the Augustinian Church in Vienna, the marriage took place by proxy, with the Dauphin represented by her brother Archduke Ferdinand, and after stunning festivities on April 21, accompanied by 376 horsemen, she moved towards France. On 8.5 she crossed the Rhine and on the 14th she was met by the royal family at Compiègne. While the 15-year-old Austrian princess, blue-eyed, with a pointed nose and blond hair, was gallantly received by Louis XV, her husband, who had not yet reached her 16th birthday, only helplessly and embarrassedly kissed her on the cheek, but could not utter a word of greeting. His grandfather, accustomed to female company, carried on the conversation for him.
After a church wedding in the beautiful palace chapel of Versailles and large celebrations in the park and the new opera hall of the palace, it was time for the newlyweds to go to bed. The young Dauphin's comment in his diary about this wedding night was brief: "Nothing."
The young couple subsequently had great difficulties in their intimate life. A lot was said and written about this, both then and later. Obviously, Louis XVI had difficulties, and Marie Antoinette was not too eager to help him overcome them, but rather even refused, as Fay emphasizes. She willingly entertained herself at holidays and in court society. The critical observer Abbé de Berry wrote that the queen, unfortunately, "does not try to entertain the king, who does not have qualities that are seductive in the eyes of women." Croy noted that she was "extremely greedy for entertainment" and was constantly "surrounded by the most brilliant young people." Only when the queen's elder brother, Emperor Joseph II (1765 - 1790) arrived incognito at Versailles in 1770 and had long conversations with the couple, did they finally manage to fully consummate their marriage and Marie Antoinette became pregnant.
So, during the time of the Crown Prince, Louis and Marie Antoinette became little closer. Contrary to popular belief, in the period from 1770 to 1774, Louis XVI, with great zeal and thirst for knowledge, having abandoned his passion - hunting, prepared for his duties, and his grandfather, with whom he now had friendly relations, introduced him to the course of state affairs . “Thanks to his directness and openness, he finally found a friend - the king” (Fay).
Honest, conscientious, and with a sense of responsibility, the Dauphin, who inherited some qualities from his Saxon mother, was rather bourgeois, and therefore did not fit well into the then court society. What could one think of the crown prince, who secretly liked to decorate his chambers himself, when it was generally not appropriate for nobles to work physically? The imperial ambassador to Versailles, Mercy, in a letter to Maria Theresa dated July 17, 1773, reported with surprise: the 19-year-old Dauphin “is always making something in his apartments; He, along with the workers, removes material, beams, stones, and since he is occupied for hours with this tedious work, he often arrives more tired than if he had participated in maneuvers. I noticed that Madame Dauphine expressed extreme despair and anger at his behavior." Probably the young Louis, clumsy due to his myopia, who felt awkward at court with its ceremonies, where his every gesture was noted and critically evaluated, received the opportunity to escape from this court in his work with the workers in order to feel like a man.
When Louis XV died of smallpox on 5/10/1774, the 19-year-old king and his wife enjoyed the love of the people and gave everything high hopes to Louis XVI. Since the ministers were in quarantine, the young monarch was initially alone. He felt too great demands on himself and was not yet experienced enough to be the center of government as an “absolute” king without any help. Therefore, following the example of Telemachus, which he had carefully studied, he began to look for a mentor. At the insistence of his godmother Adelaide, he chose the former Secretary of State, Count Maurepas. He wrote the following letter to him in his own hand on May 12, 1774: “Monsieur, in the deep sorrow that struck me... I am a king. This word alone contains many obligations, but I am only 20 years old and I do not believe that I have already acquired all the knowledge necessary for this ministry. In addition, I cannot meet with any of the ministers as they are all in quarantine due to their contact with the sick king. I have always heard of your conscientiousness and good reputation, which you have rightly acquired through your deep knowledge of public affairs. This prompts me to ask you to help me with your advice and your knowledge...”
Count Maurepas, grandson and son of secretaries of state, secretary of state of Louis XV, was dismissed in 1749 at the insistence of the Marquise de Pompadour, but gathered in his Pontchartrain castle famous physiocrats, members of parliament and educators, such as Tourgaud, Malescharbes, Bury, and was considered something of an eminence grise.
Maurepas, experienced, with sound judgment and a sharp mind, eloquent, decent, did not have an “iron will,” as the Abbé de Berry noted: “His thoughts are basically correct if they are not suppressed. They are no stronger than his will.” Was this experienced courtier and politician, a resourceful, insinuating, weak-willed and weak-willed man, capable of guiding the inexperienced young king, guiding politics and helping the monarch gradually get into the swing of things? complex tasks, as the wise and purposeful Fleury once did under Louis XV? Hardly. Then Louis XVI would have been a different man and with a different character. More will be said about his nature later.
As already mentioned, Louis XVI was outwardly unattractive. He ate a lot and willingly and soon became fat and round. The Marquise de la Tour du Pin very plastically portrayed Louis XVI, who was not very suitable for a life determined by etiquette: “Nothing majestic, nothing royal in behavior, always constrained by his sword, he didn’t really know what to do with his hat.” In his portraits, the first thing that catches your eye is the long curved nose on a not very harmonious face, but at the same time beautiful, friendly blue eyes, radiating kindness, inner resilience and inner peace.
This man, who did not give the impression of a courtier and gallant, felt rather uncomfortable at court with all its inhuman ceremonies, just like Louis XV. He also loved to go hunting for balance and throw out his energy there. But if Louis XV then went to his mistresses, then the virtuous, simple-minded Louis XVI found release in work. In his attic workshop, he was especially willing to do metalwork and watchmaking, but he also valued other physical activities. For example, the Abbé de Bery wrote in 1775: “He is often occupied with sweeping the floor, hammering and pulling out nails.”
In addition to these activities, which were not typical for courtiers and had little resemblance to royal activities, which the aristocrats observed with wrinkled noses, criticism of noble society was caused by its often harsh and grumpy tone and uncouthness. Bury sternly commented on this: "... his tone and manner are awkward and rude, he lacks dignity, and is engaged in work that is low and incompatible with the office of a king." The monarch, convinced of the natural equality of people, put up with the fact that his brothers and others treated him with familiarity. He often walked around the courtyard without his retinue; he appeared alone in the theater, not allowing it to be solemnly announced, as was customary. All this was condemned by the court as unheard of. It also caused a sensation that he alone, without the Life Guards, went to the people and willingly talked with peasants and ordinary people. The monarch already had many of the traits of future bourgeois kings.
If the crown prince was portrayed as sickly due to tuberculosis, then, after becoming king, Louis XVI, going hunting, acquired a good healthy constitution, as can be seen from his diary. According to him, he rarely got sick. It was only about minor colds. Contemporaries considered the main negative character traits of the young king to be a lack of energy and willpower, timidity, weakness, and above all hesitation and lack of determination. Many quotes can be given on this topic: “The most significant thing in his character was weakness” (Saint-Prix); “he saw correctly, had an open spirit, but was afraid to make decisions” (Croy); “The king is always weak and distrustful” (Fresen). Bury also spoke of the king's "indecisive character" and "weak will."
Another feature of Louis XVI is often called his mediocre intelligence. At the same time, exaggeration should be avoided, since often highly critical memoirists, such as Bury, considered most ministers and even Pope Pius VI to be of average intelligence. Therefore, when assessing the judgments of such free-thinking educators as Fay, it should be emphasized that the fact that Louis XVI, being a deeply religious, convinced Christian, also thought differently than them, also played a role.
However, the king had many positive traits: integrity, good will, hard work and sense of duty, good nature, greatness of soul, virtue and honest piety, comprehensive education, and the ability to make clear judgments. He was a deeply decent man of good will. But the enormous tasks facing the absolute monarch, who, as the decisive center the whole system as the personification of the judicial, executive and legislative powers, he was supposed to make quick and clear decisions, he did not quite live up to it.
The king's day was filled mainly with prayer and work. He got up between 6 and 7 o'clock in the morning, drank a little lemon juice, ate dry bread and took a short walk. At 8 o'clock there was a public rise. He then headed to the audience room and worked with his ministers. Around 1 p.m., a quiet quarter-hour Mass was celebrated, after which he proceeded to a simple lunch. He drank water. After spending a short time with his family, he worked again and every evening from 7 to 9 p.m. he held a meeting of the State Council, gave orders to the officers on duty, and then dined with his family. At 11 pm he usually went to bed. Thus, his sleep often lasted less than six hours. Twice a week, on days of hunting or celebrations, the king’s routine, which was spent in “labor and solitude,” changed. Despite this, he showed patience, a “cheerful disposition” (Fay), tried to resolve conflicts in his family, among the courtiers and ministers, and had to constantly pay the gambling and other debts of his wife and brothers.
Probably, at least initially, he needed an outstanding prime minister with a strong will, who would work with him in close cooperation and trust and would make most of the decisions for him or with him, as Cardinals Fleury did under Louis XV and Richelieu under Louis XIII. But Maurepas, chosen by Louis XVI as a “mentor,” was weak-willed and indecisive. He could not and did not want to play the role of Richelieu or Fleury. Therefore, the decision-making center, on whose activity the entire system was based, was relatively weak, which had negative consequences for politics, primarily domestic ones.
After the death of Maurepas at the end of 1781, Louis XVI, to the surprise of everyone, writes Croy, took the helm firmly in his hands and tried to become the center of decision-making and coordinator in relation to his ministers. Croy, again emphasizing the king’s weakness and indecisiveness, wrote in January 1892: “... without showing his favor to anyone, he really independently governed in basic matters, since each department had many areas within its competence, but no more even with restrictions, because in every more important matter the king took an extract from it with him and then, after a few days, if he wanted, he sent the decision to the minister.”
Croy's picture of the reign of the 28-year-old king shows that, after a period of training and indoctrination, he conscientiously endeavored to meet the demands and tasks of an absolute monarch. Schippe, in a recent three-volume biography, also emphasizes the competence with which Louis XVI ruled after initial difficulties. He considers the balance of this reign to be entirely positive until 1787, when, in the face of seemingly insurmountable challenges, the monarch's strength and enthusiasm began to wane. Louis XVI lacked the qualities of Louis XIV, especially firmness and assertiveness.
Important character traits of Louis XVI were also his fearlessness and great courage, which he demonstrated in a variety of circumstances, such as in the “war of torment” and the related riots at Versailles in 1775 or during the revolution, under threat of death. But, as Very emphasizes, “the courage of Louis XVI is the courage of a martyr, not a king.”
All contemporaries speak of the king’s deep religiosity and sincere piety, which gave him inner fortitude and spiritual greatness in life. hard days imprisonment and during execution. When the court nobility and the upper strata, under the influence of the ideas of enlightenment philosophers, became increasingly “de-Christianized” and became non-believers, he, like his predecessors, attended mass daily, fasted and confessed regularly. Like no other monarch of this century, his entire life and work were imbued with Christian principles. Without giving it wide publicity, out of love for his neighbor, he allocated most of the funds that personally belonged to him for the distribution of alms. According to Necker, in 1788 he used approximately 117,000 thousand livres (about 70%) of the 1,652,000 livres allocated to him as the “king's allowance” to support numerous poor families. Louis XVI, in the words of his minister Malescharbes, who was close to the philosophers, “is pious and believes as much as possible,” he cared about the welfare of his church, sought higher salaries for ordinary priests and vicars, who often lived in poverty, and in 1777 allowed Jesuits as private individuals to return to the country again, accepted the members of the order expelled by Joseph II, but, on the other hand, did not succumb to the influence of the intolerance of some clerical circles and had little appreciation for the bishops and abbots who often appeared at that time, who practically became atheists. He did not flaunt his piety. Despite his religious beliefs and life as a faithful son of the church, he showed quite a lot of tolerance towards others. In any case, even during the revolution he fought for tolerance and freedom of conscience of his brothers in faith.
Louis XVI's most important goal was to work for the benefit of his subjects. This is what distinguished him from most selfish people, who thought only about their own advantages and maintaining the privileges of the upper strata. Since he considered himself the father of his subjects, who loved his neighbor in a Christian manner, and was responsible for their happiness, in many respects he did not correspond to the spirit of the time and did not quite correctly perceive its tendencies. In theory, as an absolute monarch, he continued to personify the highest executive, legislative and judicial powers, but in practice his power was quite limited, and his rule was comparatively liberal and tolerant.
When Louis became king in 1774, he had to form a “government of his trust” and determine the main milestones of foreign policy.
