Louis XVI

Louis-Auguste Duke of Berry was born in 1754 in the Palace of Versailles.  As a childhood he displayed some of the enthusiasm for lock making and hunting two hobbies that would stay with him through his life.  He was  apparently a keen and reasonably able student although he was known to be shy.  His father and mother devoted more time to his elder brother Louis duc de Bourgogne who was instilled with the necessary education for a future monarch.  The elder Louis would die in 1761 of tuberculosis.   Louis-Auguste’s route to become sovereign ruler of France changed when he was ten when his father died of consumption.  Now he was the direct heir to Louis XV, his grandfather.

Due to the diplomatic revolution of the 1750s France allied herself the Austrian Empire of the Hapsburgs.  To cement this alliance Louis was betrothed to the daughter of Maria Theresa and Francis I, Maria Antonia (later to be turned into the more French Marie Antoinette).  This union was not entirely popular with the French people who saw Austria as a long term enemy.  When they had allied to the Austrians they had met with disaster at the hands of the Prussians and British in the Seven Years’ War.  There were more intimate problems with the young couple’s marriage as well as the two seemed incapable of producing an heir and indeed of consummating their union.  There have been many different views as to what was the cause of this some put it down to some anatomical problem with Louis or something to do with his crippling shyness.  As time progressed and no heir was apparent many in France were happy to lay the blame on Marie Antoinette.   This situation was not helped by other members of Louis’ family who did manage to reproduce.  It took a discussion with Marie Antoinette’s brother, Joseph for Louis to understand his royal duties.  Soon enough Marie Antoinette became pregnant and gave birth to Marie-Thérèse Charlotte in 1778.  Then in 1781 the long for Dauphin was born Louis Joseph.

Madam Campan first lady in waiting to the Queen reports on the King’s character.  Taken from Memoirs of the Court of Marie Antoinette, Queen of France, Complete Madame Jeanne-Louise-Henriette Campan, Echo Library, Teddington (2007) p78

Austere and rigid with regard to himself alone, the King observed the laws of the church with scrupulous exactness.  He fastened and abstained throughout the whole of Lent….. Though sincerely pious, the spirit of the age had disposed his mind to toleration.  Turgot, Malesherbes and Necker judged that this Prince, modest and simple in his habits, would willingly sacrifice the royal prerogative to the solid greatness of his people.  His heart, in truth, disposed him towards reforms; but his prejudices and fears, and the clamours of pious and privileged persons, intimidated him, and made him abandon plans which his love for the people had suggested.

The Marquis de Bouille on the character of Louis XVI.  Taken from Memoirs Relating to the French Revolution by the Marquis de Bouille, Cadell and Davies, London (1797) p15

Louis the Fifteenth however died, and was succeeded, by a prince young and inexperienced with all the virtues which are an ornament to private life, but none of those qualities which were to ,become necessary in a situation so difficult. Instead of retaining the ministers of his predecessor, he dismissed them all without exception, choosing for his counsellor and guide a man above seventy, who having been a minister at the age of fifteen, had retired from his employment in the prime, and vigour of his life, and was now to direct: a young monarch and govern a kingdom in the infancy of his old age.  He was a man without resolution, without virtues, without abilities, but at the same time mild, affable, and complying. He employed under him men by no means qualified for their office, remarkable rather for probity than talents.

Comte de Segur on the young Marie Antoinette and Louis XVI.  Memoirs of Louis Philippe Comte de Segur, The Folio Society, London (1960) p21

The throne was occupied by a young Prince who was already universally known by the goodness of his heart, the correctness of his mind, and the simplicity of his manners.  He appeared to feel no other passion than that of carrying out his duties, and making his people happy.  Averse to ostentation, to luxury, to pride, and to flattery, it seemed as if heaven had modelled this King not for his court, but for his subjects.

Queen Marie-Antoinette, endowed with all the charms of her sex, united that dignity of deportment which commands respect, and that grace which softens the pride of majesty.  The expression of her features alone retained a degree of Austrian pride.  Her manners and conversation were amiable, engaging, and truly French.  Too much wearied perhaps with the etiquette to which her Lady-in-Waiting, Madame de Mouchy, endeavoured to induce her to conform, she used too many efforts to free herself from its troublesome restraint in order to enjoy the sweets of private life; she felt the want of friendly intercourse, a want very seldom experienced by persons in so elevated a station….

For a young King, whose chief defect consisted in feeling too much diffidence in his own powers and in being ashamed of the careless education he had received, and a Queen who, though endowed with wit, was both thoughtless and inexperienced, it was a difficult task to govern a fickle, impassioned nation which thirsted after glory and novelty, at a time when the finances were in complete disorder and the minds of the people were aflame, all thirsting to avenge the disgrace of an unfortunate war and the shame of a licentious reign.

Madam Campan (one of the Queen’s lady in waiting) on Marie Antoinette.  Taken from Memoirs of the Court of Marie Antoinette, Queen of France, Complete Madame Jeanne-Louise-Henriette Campan, Echo Library, Teddington (2007) p112

On the 22nd of October, 1781, the Queen gave birth to a Dauphin.  So deep a silence prevailed in the room that the Queen thought her child was a daughter; but after the Keeper of the Seals had declared the sex of the infant, the King went up to the Queen’s bed and said to her, “Madame, you have fulfilled my wishes and those of France you are the mother of a Dauphin.” The King’s joy was boundless; tears streamed from his eyes, he gave his hand to everyone present; and his happiness carried away his habitual reserve.  Cheerful and affable, he was incessantly taking occasion to introduce the words, “my son,” or the “the Dauphin.”

Louis XVI recounts in his journal the birth of his son the dauphin taken from Madame De Lamballe by Georges Bertin,  Godfrey A. S. Wieners, New York (1901) p115-116

The queen passed a very comfortable night the 21st of October. She felt some slight pain on awakening, but this did not prevent her from bathing; the pain continued, but to no great extent. Until noon I gave no order for the shooting I was to do at Sacle. Between twelve and half-past the pain became greater; the queen went to bed, and just one hour and a quarter later, by my watch, she gave birth to a boy. There were present only Madame de Lamballe, the Comte d'Artois, my aunts, Madame de Chimay, Madame de Mailly, Madame d'Ossun, Madame de Tavannes, and Madame de Guemenee, who went alternately into the Salon de la Paix, which had been left empty. In the large cabinet was my household, that of the queen and the grand entries, and the under-governesses, who entered at the critical moment and who remained at the rear of the chamber so as not to cut off the air. " Of all the princes to whom Madame de Lamballe sent at noon to announce the news. Monsieur le Due d' Orleans alone arrived before the critical moment (he was hunting at Fausse Repose). He remained in the chamber or in the Salon de la Paix. Monsieur de Conde, Monsieur de Penthievre, Monsieur le Due de Chartres, Madame la Duchesse de Chartres, Madame la Princesse de Conty, and Mademoiselle de Conde arrived also; Monsieur le Due de Bourbon in the evening, and Monsieur le Prince de Conty the next day. The following day the queen saw all these in turn.   My son was carried into the large cabinet, where I went to see him dressed, and I laid him in the, hands of Madame de Guemenee, the governess.  After the queen had been delivered I told her that it was a boy, and he was brought to her bedside. . .

On the birth of the dauphin many wrote to the royal family including the women of La Halle taken from Madame De Lamballe by Georges Bertin,  Godfrey A. S. Wieners, New York (1901) p117

'Congratulations of the fishmongers of Paris on the birth of Monseigneur le Dauphin

To THE King.

Sire : Heaven owes a son to a king who looks upon his people as his family; m our wishes and our prayers we have long asked for him. These are at last answered. We are sure that our grandsons will be as happy as we are, for this cherished child must resemble you. You will teach him to be good like yourself; we will undertake to instruct our sons how they should love and respect their king.

To THE Queen.

Madame: All France has already proved to your Majesty its true and lively joy at the birth of Monseigneur le Dauphin. We have shown our delight with all the love we have for you; it is permitted us to-day to lay at the feet of your Majesty the expression of our hearts; this privilege is dearer to us than life. We have loved you, Madame, so long without daring to say so, that it requires all our respect not to abuse the permission to tell you of it.

To Monseigneur le Dauphin:

Our hearts have long waited for you; they were yours before your birth. You cannot yet hear the vows we make around your cradle, but some day they shall be explained to you; they all amount to seeing in you the image of those to whom you owe life.

Louis ascended to the throne in 1774 at the age of nineteen when his grandfather died of smallpox.  France was faced many problems not least of which was a fragile economic position.  Louis decided to bring back parlements to French politics.  Parlements in France were provincial courts which performed a judicial function but also were crucial in terms of legislation as only at their assent would any edict from the King turn into a law.  Louis found that he was unable to pass new laws to restructure France’s antiquated taxation system.  So it was that Louis moved through a series of ministers such as Turgot and Malesherbes who could not get the nobles within the parlements to agree to waive their tax free existence.  

France had sought some form of revenge against the British who had defeated them in the Seven Years’ War.  The opportunity presented itself when the America colonies rose up against the British crown in 1776.  Soon Frenchmen would flock to America to assist in the war.  France also provided covert aid to the rebels.  There were increasing demands from America for France to play a more overt role in the war.  Many counsellors begged the King to remain unengaged Vergennes however would eventually convince the King that the war would be good for France.  This was formalised in the Treaty of Alliance on February 6th 1778.  Actual hostilities would start on the 17th March 1778 between France and Britain.  Within two years Spain and the Dutch Republic would also join the war against the British on the side of the American rebels.  The Americans would gain their victory in no small part to the assistance of French supplies and French arms.  The actual gains the French received from the war were minimal.  Alas the war had placed a huge strain on the already perilously weak French economy.

During this time the new controller of finances Jacques Necker sought to solve the economic woes of France by taking on large loans from international bankers.  In an effort to promote understanding Necker would also publish the Compte rendu au roi which was the royal families accounts and expenditure.  The French people were highly dubious of his accounting when it seemed to suggest the royal family were running at an economic surplus.  Soon enough Necker would be dismissed and replaced with Charles Alexandre de Calonne in 1783.  He would be forced to call an Assembly of Notables as his tax reforms could not be pushed through the parlements.  They too would not pass the new laws which would have seen the nobles taxed for the first time.

He was replaced by Etienne Brienne whose solution echoed those of his predecessors as he wanted to abolish the corvée and end tax exemption.  The Paris parlement however could not accept these changes.  They stated that only an Estate General a calling of the three estates of France could oversee these changes.  The King took swift and decisive action on August 8th 1787 he used a lit de justice to have a royal session of the parlements of Paris and Bordeaux both of whom he dissolved.  He then added to this by issuing a lettres de cachet to exile the magistrates to Troyes.  He hoped they would see sense and away from the political influences of their cities see sense and accept his demands, they did not.  The parlements in Troyes however wrote to their fellow parlements across France urging them not to accept Brienne’s reforms, which they did.  The King was forced into an embarrassing climb down and France’s much needed economic reforms were not enacted.

If possible relations between the King and parlements worsened.  The Paris parlement sought to make lettres de cachet illegal the king responded with lit de justice to try and nullify their decision.  Events spiralled further when the parlement issued a “Declaration of the Fundamental Laws of France” where they hoped to assert their complete independence.  The King then issued lettres de cachet to have two ministers arrested.  Louis went further and decided that a plenary court would be established to deal with all future legislation.  This triggered a wave of unrest and most famously in Grenoble on the so called Day of Tiles.  The King would eventually take the only route he saw out of this increasing gridlock and call an Estates General on August 8th 1788.

The opening of the Estates General was a throwback to an earlier age.  The First and Second Estate were allowed to wear their finery while the Third Estate were only entitled to wear dour black.  Annoyed at their treatment the Third Estate refused to remove their hats for the King who in turn doffed his to them.  The Third Estate began to act as an autonomous body and called on the other estates to join them as a National Assembly.  The King ordered them to desist and to dissolve themselves.  When they did not and instead took part in the Tennis Court Oath declaring they would not finish until a Constitution was created he was forced to accede to the new system.  At this point Louis was losing control of the situation.  This cannot have been helped that the Dauphin was finally succumbing to tuberculosis which had blighted his short life.  He sought to stamp his authority on the situation by circling Paris with troops.  This action and his sacking of the popular Necker led to a sudden outbreak of violence which saw the storming of the royal prison, the Bastille.  When the news was brought to him he is supposed to have asked, “Is it a revolt?” to which the messenger replied, “No sire it is a revolution!” Although no doubt apocryphal it summed up the situation that France and the King found himself in.

Tom Paine discusses Louis XVI. Taken from the Rights of Man, Penguin, London (1983) p70

When a man reflects on the condition which France was in from the nature of her government, he will see other causes for revolt than those which immediately connect themselves with the person or character of Louis XVI.  There were if I may so express it, a thousand despotisms to be reformed in France, which had grown up under the hereditary despotism of the monarchy, and became so rooted as to be in a great measure independent of it.  Between the monarchy, the parliament and the church, there was a rivalship of despotism, besides the feudal despotism operating locally, and the ministerial despotism operating everywhere.  

Wollstonecraft on Louis XVI and his personality.  Taken from A Vindication of the Rights of Man, Oxford University Press, Oxford (2008)  p324-325

Had the hapless Louis possessed any decision of character, to support his glimmering sense of right, he would from this period have chosen a line of conduct,  that might have saved his life by regulating his future politics.  For this returning affection of the people alone was sufficient to prove to him, that was not easy to eradicate their love for royalty; because, whilst they were happy to receive them as acts of beneficence from the king.  But the education of the heir apparent of a crown must necessarily destroy the common sagacity and feelings of a man; and the education of this monarch, like that of Louis XV, only tended to make him a sensual bigot……..

It has been the policy of the court of France, to throw an odium on the understanding of the king, when it was lavishing praises on the goodness of his heart.  Now it is certain, that he possessed a considerable portion of sense, and discernment; though he wanted that firmness of mind, which constitutes character; or, in more precise words, the power of acting according to the dictates of a man’s own reason.  He was a tolerable scholar; had sufficient patience to learn the English language; and was an ingenious mechanic.  It is also well known, that the council, when he followed only the light of his own reason, he often fixed on the sage measures, which he was afterwards persuaded to abandon.

By early October 1789 many in France began to question what gains had been made by the revolution.  The ending of feudal titles meant little to the poor especially as bread prices remained very high.  The King meanwhile had employed a new bodyguard, the Flanders Regiment for his own security.  The officers of the regiment on October 1st held a banquet.  The King and Queen attended the celebrations of the newly arrived troops.  Tales emerged from the event.  Some suggested that the troops had trampled on a revolutionary cockade and mocked the fledgling government and all who supported her.  Some reports claimed that the King and Queen appeared to give support to their rhetoric.  Many questioned the King’s own loyalty to the revolution when his brothers were so quick to flee France.  So it was on the 5th October 1789 that women emerged from the markets of Paris and marched on Paris with the aim of seeking a solution to the bread crisis and voicing their annoyance at the King and his Austrian wife.  What quickly became apparent was that the National Guardsmen could not and in some cases would not stop the march.  The night of the 5th October saw the Queen fleeing from a crowd intent on killing her and the King confronting an angry mob whom he largely manage to placate only by allowing himself to be taken to Paris and installed in the Tuileries Palace.

Madam Campan (one of the Queen’s lady in waiting) on events leading up to 5th October 1789.  Taken from Memoirs of the Court of Marie Antoinette, Queen of France, Complete Madame Jeanne-Louise-Henriette Campan, Echo Library, Teddington (2007) p156

The King had the Flanders regiment removed to Versailles; unfortunately the idea of the officers of that regiment fraternising with the Body Guards was conceived, and the latter invited the former to a dinner, which was given in the great theatre of Versailles…. The Queen told me she had been advised to make her appearance on the occasion, but that under existing circumstances she thought such a step might do more harm than good; and that, moreover, neither she nor the King ought directly to have anything to do with such a festival.  She ordered me to go, and desired me to observe everything closely, in order to give a faithful account of the whole affair….

The air “O Richard, O mon Roi!” was played and shouts of “Vive de Roi!” shook the roof for several minutes.  I had with me one of my nieces, and a young person brought up with Madame by her majesty.  They were crying “Vive le Roi!” with all their might when a deputy of the Third Estate, who was in the next box to mine, and whom I had never seen, called to them, and reproached them for their exclamations; it hurt him, he said, to see young and handsome French women brought up in such servile habits, screaming so outrageously for the life of one man, and with true fanaticism exalting him in their hearts above even their dearest relations; he told them with contempt worthy American women would feel on seeing Frenchwomen thus corrupted from their earliest infancy.  My niece replied with tolerable spirit, and I requested the deputy to put an end to the subject, which could mean by no means afford him any satisfaction, inasmuch as the young persons who were with me lived, as well as myself, for the sole purpose of serving and loving the King, the Queen, and the Dauphin enter the Chamber!...

The enthusiasm became general; the moment their Majesties arrived the orchestra repeated the air I have just mentioned, and afterwards played a song in “Deserter,” “Can we grieve whom we love?” which also made a powerful impression upon those present: on all sides were heard praises of their Majesties, exclamations of affection, expressions of regret for what they had suffered, clapping of hands, and shouts of “Vive la Roi! Vive la Reine Viv le Dauphin!”  It has been said that white cockades were worn on the occasion; that was not the case; the fact is, that a few young men belonging to the National Guard of Versailles, who were invited to the entertainment, turned the white lining of their national cockades outwards.  All the military men quitting the hall and reconducted the King and his family to their apartments.

Madam Campan (one of the Queen’s lady in waiting) on the Duc D’Orleans and his supposed role in the events of the 5th of October 1789.  Taken from Memoirs of the Court of Marie Antoinette, Queen of France, Complete Madame Jeanne-Louise-Henriette Campan, Echo Library, Teddington (2007) p174

Many have asserted that they recognised the Duc D’Orleans in a greatcoat and slouched hat, at half past four in the morning, at the top of the marble staircase, pointing out with his hand the guard room, which led to the Queen’s apartments.  This fact was deposed to at the Chatelet by several individuals in the course of the inquiry instituted respecting the transactions of the 5th and 6th of October.

Tom Paine discusses the events of the 5th to the 6th October 1789. Taken from the Rights of Man, Penguin, London (1983) p82-83

The only things certainly known are, that considerable uneasiness was at the time excited at Paris, by the delay of the King in not sanctioning and forwarding the decrees of the National Assembly, particularly that of the Declaration of the Rights of Man, and the decrees of the fourth of August, which contained the foundation principles on which the constitution was to be erected.  The kindest, and perhaps the fairest conjecture upon this matter is, that some of the ministers intended to make remarks and observations upon certain parts of them, before they were finally sanctioned and sent to the provinces; but be this as it may, the enemies of the revolution derived hope from the delay, and the friends of the revolution uneasiness.

During this state of suspense, the Garde du Corps, which was composed, as such regiments generally are, of persons much connected with the court, gave an entertainment at Versailles to some foreign regiments the arrived; and when the entertainment was at the height, on a given signal, the Garde du Corps tore the national cockade from their hats, trampled it underfoot, and replaced it with a counter cockade prepared for the purpose.  An indignity of this kind amounted to defiance.  It was like declaring war; and if men will give challenges, they must expect consequences……………

On the 5th of October, a very numerous body of women, and men in the disguise of women, collected round the Hotel de Ville or town-hall at Paris, and set off for Versailles.  Their professed object was the Garde du Corps; but prudent men readily recollect that mischief is more easily begun than ended; and this impressed itself with more force, from the suspicions already stated, and the irregularity of such a cavalcade.  As soon therefore as a sufficient force could be collected, M de Lafayette, by orders from the civil authority of Paris, set off after them at the head of over twenty thousand the Paris militia………………

He arrived at Versailles between ten and eleven at night.  The Gard du Corps was drawn up, and the people had arrived some time before, but everything had remained suspended.  Wisdom and policy now consisted in changing a scene of danger into a happy event.  M de Lafayette became the mediator between the enraged parties; and the King to remove the uneasiness which had arisen from the delay already stated, sent for the President of the National Assembly, and signed the Declaration of the Rights of Man, and such other parts of the constitution as were in readiness.

It was now about one in the morning.  Everything appeared to be composed, and a general congratulation took place.  By the beat of a drum a proclamation was made, that the citizens of Versailles would give the hospitality of their houses to their fellow citizens of Paris…..

In this state matters passed till the break of day, when a fresh disturbance arose from the censurable conduct of some of both parties, for such characters there will be in such scenes.  One of the Gard du Corps appeared at one of the windows of the palace, and the people who had remained during the night in the streets accosted him with reviling and provocative language.  Instead of retiring, as in such a case prudence would have dictated, he presented his musket, fired, and killed one of the Paris militia.  The peace being thus broken, the people rushed into the palace in quest of the offender.  They attacked the quarters of the Garde Du Corps within the palace, and pursued them through the avenues of it, and to the apartments of the king.  On this tumult, not the Queen only as Mr Burke had represented it but every person in the palace was awakened and alarmed; and M de Lafayette had a second time to interpose between the parties, the event of which was, that the Garde Du Corps put on the national cockade, and the matter ended as by oblivion, after the loss of two or three lives.

During the latter part of the time in which the confusion was acting, the King and Queen were in public in the balcony, and neither of them concealed for safety’s sake, as Mr Burke insinuates.  Matters thus being appeased, and tranquillity restored a general acclamation burst forth of Le Roi a Paris- Le Roi a Paris- The King to Paris.  It was the shout of peace and immediately accepted the part of the king. …..The King and his family reached Paris in the evening and were congratulated on their arrival by M. Bailley the Mayor of Paris, in the name of the citizens.

Letters XI from Helen Maria Williams detailing her visit to Versailles after the events of October 1789 Taken from Letters Written in France, Broadview Literary Texts, Ormskirk (2002) p98-99

We are just returned from Versailles, which I could not help fancying I saw, in the background of that magnificent abode of a despot, the gloomy dungeons of the Bastille, which still haunt my imagination, and prevented my being much dazzled by the splendour of this superb palace.

We were shown the passages through which the Queen escaped from her own apartment to the King’s on the memorable night when the Poissardes visited Versailles, and also the balcony at which she stood with the Dauphin in her arms, when after having remained a few hours concealed in some secret recess of the palace, it was thought proper to comply with the desire of the crowd, who repeatedly demanded her presence……..

All the bread which could be procured in the town of Versailles, was distributed amongst the Poissardes; who, with savage ferocity, held up their morsels of bread on their bloody spikes, towards the balcony where the Queen stood, crying in a tone of defiance, “Nous avons du Pain!” (We now have bread)

During the whole of the journey from Versailles to Paris, the Queen held the Dauphin in her arms, who had been previously taught to put his infant hands together, and attempt to soften the enraged multitude by repeating, “Grace pour maman.” (Spare mama).

Mons. De la Fayette prevented the whole Gardes du Corps from being massacred at Versailles, by calling to the incensed people, “Le Roi vous demande grace pour ses Gardes du Corps.” (The King begs of you to spare his body guard).  The voice of Mons. De la Fayette was listened to, and obeyed.

Edmund Burke on the events of the 5th to the 6th of October 1789.  Taken from Reflections on the Revolution in France, Penguin Classics, London (2004) p164-165

History will record, that on the morning the 6th of October 1789, the king and queen of France, after a day of confusion, alarm, dismay and slaughter, lay down, under the pledged security of public faith, to indulge nature in a few hours of respite, and troubled melancholy repose.  From this sleep the queen was first startled by the voice of her centinel at her door, who cried out to her, to save herself by flight- that this was the last proof of fidelity he could give- that they were upon him, and he was dead.  Instantly he was cut down.  A band of cruel ruffians and assassins, reeking with his blood, rushed into the chamber of the queen, and pierced with an hundred strokes of bayonets and poniards the bed, from whence this persecuted woman but just time to fly almost naked, and through ways unknown to the murderers had escaped to seek refuge at the feet of the king and husband, not secure of his own life for a moment.

The king, to say no more of him, and his queen, and their infant children (who once would have been the pride and hope of a great and generous people) were then forced to abandon the sanctuary of the most splendid palace in the world, which they left swimming in blood, polluted by massacre, and strewed with scattered limbs and mutilated carcasses.  Thence they were conducted into the capital of their kingdom.  Two had been selected from the unprovoked, unresisted, promiscuous slaughter, which was made of the gentlemen of birth and family who composed the king’s body guard.  These two gentlemen, with all the parade of an execution of justice, were cruelly and publicly dragged to the block, and beheaded in the great court of the palace.  Their heads were stuck upon spears, and led the procession; whilst the royal captives who followed in the train were slowly moved along, amidst the horrid yells, and shrilling screams, and frantic dances, and infamous contumelies, and all the unutterable abominations of the vilest of women.  After they had been made to taste, drop by drop, more than the bitterness of death, in the slow torture of a journey of twelve miles, protracted to six hours, they were under a guard, composed of these very soldiers who had thus conducted them through this famous triumph, lodged in one of the old palaces of Paris, now converted into a Bastille for kings.

Germaine De Staël on events of the 5th to the 6th October 1789.  Taken from Considerations on the Principle events of the French Revolution, Germaine De Staël, Liberty Fund, Indianapolis (2008) p228-229

The people demanded with great clamour that the King and royal family should remove to Paris; an answer in assent had been given on their part, and the cries, and the firing which we heard, were signs of rejoicing from the Parisian troops.  The Queen then appeared in the hall; her hair dishevelled, her countenance pale, but dignified; everything in her person was striking to the imagination.  The people required that she should appear on the balcony, and, as the whole court, which is called the marble court, was full of men with firearms in their hands, the Queen’s countenance discovered her apprehensions.  Yet she advanced without hesitation along with her two children, who served as her safeguard.

The multitude seemed affected on seeing the Queen as a mother, and political rage became appeased at the sight: those who that very night had perhaps wished to assassinate her, extolled her name to the skies.

The populace, in a state of insurrection, are in general, inaccessible to reasoning, and are to be acted on only by sensations rapid as electricity, and communicated in a similar manner.  Mobs are, according to circumstances, better or worse than the individuals which compose them; but whatever be their temper, they are to be prompted to crime as to virtue, only by having recourse to a natural impulsion.

Gouverneur Morris airs his views on Louis XVI and his position in January 1790. Witnesses to the Revolution American: American and British Commentators in France 1788-1794, Weidenfeld and Nicolson, London (1989) p108

Poor man, he little thinks how unstable is his situation.  He is beloved, but it is not with the sort of love which a monarch should inspire; it is that kind of good natured pity which one feels for a led captive.  There is, besides, no possibility of serving him, for at the slightest show of opposition he gives up everything, and every person.

Louis would attempt to maintain some kind of power based in Paris through secret negotiations with Mirabeau and with other moderate politicians.  His plans were undone by his own reticent nature and his brothers rallying support across Europe for some form of counter revolutionary action leading to suspicion from the revolutionaries.  Some disliked his obvious distaste of the Civic Oath that all clergy were meant to sign.   Events escalated when Parisians stopped the King trying to leave the Tuileries Palace and attend mass at Saint Cloud.  The event was even more alarming when the National Guard refused to follow Lafayette’s orders and did not disperse the crowd but supported the mob and blocked the royal family.  So it was on the 20th June that they made an attempt to flee Paris.  The escape descended into farce and Louis was recognised and captured at Varennes.  The royal family were returned once again to Paris under armed guard.  There was an unsettling silence as they made their way to the capital.  On their return Joseph Barnave was one of the politicians who rode in with the royal family.  It seems he became enamoured with the Queen and struck up an unlikely political partnership.  Others would not be so cordial to the royal family.  Now no one believed that the King was loyal to the constitution or revolution.  Soon groups would emerge who no longer wished to maintain the King at all.  The Flight to Varennes had made the possibility of a constitutional monarchy all but impossible.

The Marquis de Bouille recounts the King informing him of his intention to flee Paris in January 1791.  Taken from Memoirs Relating to the French Revolution by the Marquis de Bouille, Cadell and Davies, London (1797) p267-269

About the latter end of January I received notice from the king, that he hoped to be able to accomplish his departure from Paris in the month of March March or April ; he desired me to inform him what route he must pursue to arrive at Montmedy, and what plan I had adopted to secure his retreat to that place. I wrote him word, that there were two roads which led from Paris to that fortress ; one through Rheims and Stenay, upon which there were very few towns which it was essential to avoid ; the other through Chalons, Saint Menehoud, and either Varennes, or Verdun, a fortified town the more dangerous, as its garrison, inhabitants, and municipalities were debatable. To avoid this inconvenience then, it was necessary to take the road of Varennes, in which town however no post-horses were to be procured ; another disagreeable circumstance which must be submitted to. I next urged his majesty to engage the emperor to march a body of troops to the frontier of Luxembourg near Montmedy, in order that I might have a pretext for assembling an army on my side, and for making all the preparations necessary for the camp I had projected ; this would likewise, I observed be an additional security to his majesty,  when he should arrive at the place of his retreat.

In a few days I received an answer to this from his majesty,. in which he informed me, that he preferred the road to Varennes, wishing to avoid Rheims, where he had been crowned, and where he was more known to the people; he at the fame time told me, that he had received a formal promise from the emperor to march a body of twelve or fifteen thousand men to the frontiers, on the shortest notice.

What his majesty's projects were on his arrival at Montmedy, or what conduct he intended to adopt towards the assembly, I never could learn ; though whoever is acquainted with the religious character of the king can entertain no doubt, that when his majesty solemnly engaged to support the constitution, it was his intention scrupulously to observe his oath…

I imagine then that his majesty would have been guided in his conduct by the disposition of the people and army, and that he would not have employed force, unless he found it impossible to make any reasonable arrangement with the assembly, which, however, was earnestly desired by several of its principal members, at the head of whom were Mirabeau, Duport, and even the Lameths. These clearly perceived the defects of their constitution ; they faw that it naturally paved the way to a republic, which they did not desire, and, perhaps, to an anarchy, which they dreaded; the greater part of them confessed that they had followed no plan in the fabrication of their government, and had been unavoidably carried farther than they intended.

The king reports on the royal families attempt to attend mass at Easter 1791 at Saint Cloud and being stopped by an angry mob.  Taken from from Madame De Lamballe by Georges Bertin, Godfrey A. S. Wieners, New York (1901) p194

" April 1 8th.—We were prevented from leaving for Saint Cloud at half-past one o'clock,"

The mood of France towards their monarch did not improve when on the 27th August when the sovereigns of Prussia and Austria issued the Declaration of Pillnitz which made vague demands that the French would suffer repercussions if they harmed the King or his family.  Deteriorating relations between the Revolutionaries and the kings of Europe led to the Legislative Assembly declaring war on Austria on the 20th April 1792.  With emigres, Prussians and Austrians with the support of Louis’ exiled family marched on France the King’s position looked perilous.   On the 20th June 1792 a mob stormed the Tuileries and confronted the King and demand his loyalty and to wear the liberty cap.  The situation teetered on violence only for the mob to retreat for the time being into Paris.  The disastrous start to the war saw revolutionary armies melt away.  With Verdun taken the Brunswick Manifesto was issued on the 25th July stating that the King would be restored and all who opposed would be executed.  Instead of shoring up the King’s position this made it clear to many revolutionaries that the King was not acting in the people’s interest.  On the 10th August 1792 the Tuileries Palace was stormed and his Swiss Guard cut down.  The royal family took refuge in the Legislative Assembly for their short lived safety.  Three days later the King was arrested and he and his family was sent to the Temple prison.  On the 21st September the National Assembly declared France to be a republic.  Louis was thenceforth called Citizen Capet.  

Jean-Baptiste Cléry (the King’s valet) reports on details of the occurrences on August 10th 1792 from A Journal of the Terror, The Folio Society,  London (1955) p4-7.

I again went out. And walked along the quays as far as the Pont-Neuf, everywhere meeting bands of armed men, whose evil intentions were very evident; some had pikes, others had pitchforks, hatchets or iron bars.  The battalion of the Marseillaise were marching in the greatest order, with their canon and lighted matches, inviting the people to follow them, and assist as they said, “in dislodging the tyrant, and proclaiming his deposition to the National Assembly”.  I was but too well convinced of what was approaching, yet impelled by a sense of duty, I hastened before this battalion, and made immediately for the Tuileries, where I saw a large body of National Guards, pouring out in disorder through the garden gate opposite to the Pont Royal.  Sorrow was visible on the countenances of most of them, and several were heard to say: “We swore this morning to defend the King, and in the moment of his greatest danger we are deserting him.”  Others, in the interest of the conspirators, were abusing and threatening their fellow soldiers, whom they forced away.  Thus did the well-disposed suffer themselves to be overawed by the seditious, and that culpable weakness, which had all along been productive of the evils of the Revolution, gave birth to the calamities of this day…..

Roederer (Procurator-General-Syndic law officer of the Directory of the Department of Paris), doubtless in concert with the conspirators, strongly persuaded the King to go with his family to the Assembly, asserting that he could no longer depend upon the National Guard and declaring that if he remained in the Palace, neither the Department nor the Municipality of Paris would any longer answer for his safety.  The King heard him without emotion, and then retired to his chamber with the Queen, the Ministers, and a few attendants, whence he soon returned to go with his family to the assembly.…..

Compelled to remain in the apartments, I awaited with terror the consequences of the step the King had taken, and went to a window that looked upon the garden.  In about half an hour after the Royal Family had gone to the Assembly, I saw four heads carried on pikes along the terrace of the Feuillants, towards the building where the Legislative Body was sitting.  This was, I believe, the signal for attacking the Palace, for at the same instant there began a dreadful firing of cannon and musketry.  The Palace was everywhere pierced with balls and bullets.  As the King was gone, every man endeavoured to take care of himself , but all the exits were blocked, and certain death seemed to await us.  I ran from place to place, and finding the apartments and staircases already strewn with dead bodies, took the resolution of leaping from one of the windows in the Queen’s room down upon the terrace, whence I made across the parterre with utmost speed to reach the Pont-Tournant.

Monsieur de Clermont reports on conditions in the Temple.  Taken from from Madame De Lamballe by Georges Bertin, Godfrey A. S. Wieners, New York (1901) p230

" The court," he says, " is sad, and painful to look upon. Surrounded by spies, it would be a crime for the royal family to favour any one; the moment one receives a welcome or any mark of preference, he is suspected and watched. The queen has given up the dinners and teas at Madame de Lamballe's, because they displeased Monsieur Petion, and she goes there only in secret to spend a few moments of recreation or to summon the princess to her in private."

M. Hue one of the King’s servants reports on the royal family adapting to their new home in the Temple after the events of the 10th of August 1792 from  A Journal of the Terror, The Folio Society, London (1955) p11-14

The Royal Family first entered the part of the buildings known as the palace, from the fact that it was the customary residence of the Comte d’Artois whenever he came to Paris.  The Officers kept close to the King, wearing their hats, and giving him no other title than that of Monsieur.  A man with a long beard, whom I had first of all taken for a Jew, repeated this word on every possible occasion.

The day when the Royal Family were shut up in the Temple seemed to be a feast day for the Parisians; crowds gathered round the buildings, shouting out Vive la Nation! Lanterns, placed on the projections of the outside walls, lit up this scene of barbarity……..

One of the Officers, breaking the dreary silence which he had kept during our walk, said to me, “Your master has been accustomed to gilded halls.  Well, now he is going to see how we lodge the assassins of the people! Follow me.”

I went up several steps: a narrow, low doorway led me to a spiral staircase.  When I left this principal staircase for a smaller one which led me to the second floor, I found that I was in a tower.  I entered a room lit by one single window, largely destitute of even the most necessary furniture, and having only one poor bed and three or four seats.  “That’s where your master will sleep.”

Arguments raged in the National Assembly over what was to be done with the deposed monarch some such as the Girondins called for leniency a majority did not.  Unfortunately for the King it was at this point in November 1792 that an iron chest was found in the Tuileries Palace.  Inside were letters to his exiled brothers and the other monarchs of Europe as well as letters to Mirabeau.  It was now clear he had been conspiring against the the revolution.  On the 11th December 1792 he was put on trial in the National Convention.  He was defended by amongst others his former minister Malesherbes.  When on the 15th January 1793 the verdict came from the Convention it was not a surprise 693 found him guilty 23 abstained.  When it came to deciding his father the vote was far closer 288 of the deputies voted against death, 72 of the deputies voted for the death penalty, but sought some national referendum. 361 of the deputies voted for Louis's immediate execution (amongst them the former Duke D’Orleans).

Jean-Baptiste Cléry (the King’s valet) reports on details of the King’s trial in December 1792 from A Journal of the Terror, The Folio Society, London (1955) p83

The mayor told the king that he came to conduct him to the Convention, by virtue of a decree, which the Secretary to the Commune would read to him.  The import of the decree was, “that Louis Capet should be brought to the bar of the National Convention”. “Capet”, said the King, “is not my name: it is that of one of my Ancestors.”  He added, “I could have wished, Sir, that the Commissioners had left my son with me during the two hours that I have passed waiting for you: but this treatment is of a piece with the rest I have met with here for these four months.  I am ready to follow you, not in obedience to the Convention but because my enemies have the power, in their hands.”

Barère on the trial of Louis XVI at this point he was President of the National Convention.  Taken from Memoirs of Bertrand Barère Volume 2, H. S. Nichols, London (1896) p50-52

Towards eleven o'clock I sent for M. Pouchard, commander of the Guard of the Convention, and M. Santerre, commander-in-chief of the Paris National Guard. I informed them of the reports which had just been handed to the secretaries and president concerning the safety of Louis XVI., and I gave them an express order to take all the measures in their power to answer for the life of the King, and to prevent his person from being insulted by the actions or words of any seditious persons. " Yon will answer for the King with your heads," I said to them ; "you, M. le Commandant of the Paris Guard, from the Temple to the door of the Assembly; and you, M. Ic Commandant of the Guard of the Convention, from the door of the Assembly until the return of the King to that door, and the handing of his person to the commander of the National Guard." The orders were very punctually carried out. Everything was quiet, and, about half-past twelve, the King appeared at the bar of the Convention. The officers of the staff and Commander Pouchard, as well as Commander Santerre, were behind him. Before his arrival, there were several noisy demonstrations of disapproval on several untimely and imprudent motions of order which had been made. Cheers were raised from some quarters, while the occupants of other parts of the House shouted. About noon I thought it expedient to direct the minds of those present in another direction and to induce a better disposition in the galleries. I rose, and, after a moment of silence, I called upon the numbers of citizens of all classes who filled the hall to be calm and silent. " You owe respect to august misfortune and to a prisoner descended from the throne ; the eyes of France are on you as well as the attention of Europe and the judgement of posterity. If, what I cannot expect or anticipate, signs of disapproval or murmurs are manifested or heard in the course of this long sitting, I shall be obliged to clear the galleries immediately. National justice must not be affected by any outside influence." The effect of my speech was as sudden as it was efficacious. The sitting lasted until seven o'clock in the evening, and in that space of time not a murmur, not a movement was noticeable in the entire hail. Several persons of various political opinions, and even several royalists whom I knew, complimented me that evening and the next day on the energy and wisdom which I had displayed, as well as on my manner of presiding…

Republican as I was, I nevertheless found it very unbecoming, and even painful to support, to see Louis XVI., who had convened the States-General, and doubled the number of deputies of the Commons, brought thus before those same Commons, there to be questioned as a prisoner. This feeling oppressed me several times, and, although I was well aware that I was severely observed by the Spartan deputies of the Left, who asked for nothing better than to see me at fault to do me the injury of demanding that I should be superseded as president, I nevertheless ordered two attendants, who were near me, to carry an armchair to Louis XVI at the bar. The order was immediately carried out. Louis XVI seemed sensible of it, and his eyes looking towards me thanked me a hundredfold for a just action and a delicate attention, which I included in the scope of my duties. Nevertheless, the King remained standing with noble self-possession. He did not for one instant lose the dignity of the throne, and at the same time did not seem to remember his power.

Germaine De Staël on Louis XVI’s trial .  Taken from Considerations on the Principle events of the French Revolution, Germaine De Staël, Liberty Fund, Indianapolis (2008) p337-338

The want of respect shown to Louis XVI during his trial is more striking than even his condemnation.  When the President of the Convention said to him who was his King: “Louis you may sit down!” we feel more indignation even than when he is accused of crimes which he had never committed.  One must have sprung from the very dust not to respect past obligations, particularly when misfortune has rendered them sacred; and vulgarity joined to crime inspires us with as much contempt as horror.  No man of real superiority has been remarked amongst those who incited the convention to condemn the King; the popular tide rose and fell at certain words and certain phrases, while the talent of so eloquent an orator as Vergniaud could not influence the public mind.  It is true that the greater part of the deputies who defended the King took a detestable ground.  They began by declaring that he was guilty; and one among them said at the tribune that Louis XVI was a traitor, but the nation ought to pardon him; and this they called the tactics of the Assembly!  They pretended that it was necessary to humour the reigning opinion, that they might moderate it at a proper time.  With such cautious prudence as this, how could they resist their enemies, who sprang with all their force upon the victim?  In France, they always capitulate with the majority, even when they wish to oppose it; and this miserable finesse assuredly diminishes the means instead of increasing them.  The power of the minority can consist only in the energy of the conviction.  What are the weak in numbers if they are also weak in sentiment?

Charles-François-Gabriel Morrison speaks at the trial of Louis XVI on  13th November 1792.  Taken from Regicide and Revolution speeches at the trial of Louis XVI, Columbia University Press, New York (1992)  p120

Whereas it would be strict justice to cause Louis XVI to expiate his crimes on the scaffold; but if the French Nation wishes to show him mercy, it has the incontestable right to keep him imprisoned as an enemy conquered and taken while armed, and it could equally exile him from its territory, as a vicious and dangerous man, unworthy of partaking in the advantages of the social contract.

Whereas a penalty, however just, should be applied only when it serves the interest of society, and as the death of Louis XVI can of be no public utility, as France is too strong, both in principle and in the infinite resources of its territory, ever to be enslaved by Louis XVI and all the despots of the world.

Article I.  Louis XVI is forever banished from the soil of the French Republic

Article II.  If after his expulsion from France, Louis XVI should ever return, he will be punished by death.  In this case all citizens are enjoined to attack him as an enemy, and a reward of 500,000 pounds will be paid to anyone who can furnish proof of having taken and slain him on French soil.

Gouverneur Morris comments on Louis XVI trial and his probable fate in December 1792.  Taken from Witnesses to the Revolution American and British Commentators in France 1788-1794, Weidenfeld and Nicolson, London (1989) p179

It would seem strange that the mildest monarch who ever filled the French throne, one who is precipitated from it precisely because he would not adopt the harsh measures of his predecessors, a man whom none could charge with a criminal act, should be prosecuted as one of the most nefarious tyrants that ever disgraced the annals of human nature….. I think it highly probable that he may suffer (execution), and that for the following causes: The majority of the Assembly found it necessary to raise against this unhappy prince the national odium, in order to justify dethroning him… and to induce the ready adoption of a republican form of government…. The rage which has been excited was terrible; and, although it begins to subside, the Convention are still in great straits-fearing to acquit, fearing to condemn, and yet urged to destroy their captive monarch.

Saint-Just speaks at the trial of Louis XVI on  13th November 1792.  Taken from Regicide and Revolution speeches at the trial of Louis XVI, Columbia University Press, New York  (1992)  p124

He oppressed a free nation; he declared himself its enemy; he abused its laws; he must die to assure the tranquillity of the people, since to assure his own, he intended that the people be crushed.  Did he not review the troops before combat? Did he not take flight rather than halt their fire?  What steps did he take to quell the fury of the soldiers? The suggestion is made that you judge him as a citizen, whereas you recognise that he was not a citizen, and that, far from protecting the people, he had them sacrificed to people.

I will say more: a Constitution accepted by a king did not bind citizens; they had, even before his crime, the right to proscribe him and to send him into exile.  To judge a king as a citizen, that will astound a dispassionate posterity.  To judge is to apply the law; law supposes a common share in justice; and what justice can be common to humanity and kings? What has Louis in common with the French people that they should treat him well after he betrayed them?

A man of great spirit might say, in another age, that a king should be accused, not for the crimes of his administration, but for the crime of having been king, as that is an usurpation which nothing on earth can justify.  With whatever illusions, whatever conventions, monarchy cloaks itself, it remains an eternal crime against which every man has the right to rise and to arm himself.  Monarchy is an outrage which even the blindness of an entire people cannot justify; the people, by the example it gave, is guilty before nature, and all men hold from nature the secret mission to destroy such domination wherever it may be found.

No man can reign innocently.  The folly is all too evident.  Every king is a rebel and an usurper.

Robespierre speaks at the trial of Louis XVI on  3rd December 1792.  Taken from Regicide and Revolution speeches at the trial of Louis XVI, Columbia University Press, New York (1992)  p138

The death penalty in general is a crime since, following the unchanging principles of nature, it can be justified only in those cases where it is vital to the safety of private citizens or of the public.  Public safety never calls for the death penalty against ordinary crimes because society can always prevent them by other means and render the guilty man incapable of doing further harm.  But a deposed king, in the midst of a revolution as yet unsupported by just laws; a king whose very name draws the scourge of war on the restless nation: neither prison or exile can render his existence indifferent to the public welfare.  And that cruel exception to the laws ordinarily accepted by justice can be imputed to the nature of his crimes alone.

Regretfully I speak the fatal truth- Louis must die because the nation must live.  Among a peaceful people free and respected both within and without their country, it would be possible to listen to the counsel of generosity which you are given.  But a people which is still struggling for its liberty after so much sacrifice and so many battles; a people among whom the laws are not yet inexorable save for the unfortunate; a people among whom the crimes of tyranny are a subject of dispute, such a people must wish to be avenged; and the generosity with which you are flattered would resemble more closely that of a troop of brigands dividing their spoils.

Concordet speaks at the trial of Louis XVI on  27th December 1792.  Taken from Regicide and Revolution speeches at the trial of Louis XVI, Columbia University Press, New York (1992)  p156

The question here, without doubt, is whether society has the right to sentence a man to death; whether such a penalty maybe so necessary as ever to render it just.  But the nature of this general question is such that, once it has been raised, there is an obligation to express an opinion.  I believe a capital sentence to be unjust whenever it is applied to a guilty man who can be imprisoned without danger to society; and this truth is subject to rigorous demonstration.  I believe that, with the exception of this case alone, which should not occur under a truly free constitution once it is well established, the absolute suppression of the capital penalty is one of the most efficacious means for the perfection of the human species, by destroying that penchant to ferocity which has too long been a dishonour to man.  

Saint-Just speaks at the trial of Louis XVI on 27th December 1792.  Taken from Regicide and Revolution speeches at the trial of Louis XVI, Columbia University Press, New York (1992)  p176

Some will say that the Revolution is over, that we have nothing more to fear from the tyrant, and that henceforth the law would decree the death of a usurper.  But, citizens tyranny is like a reed which bends with the wind and which rises again.  What do you call a Revolution? The fall of a throne, a few blows levied at a few abuses?  The moral order is like the physical; abuses disappear for an instant, as the dew dries in the morning, and as it falls again with the night, so the abuses will reappear.  The Revolution begins when the tyrant ends.

Robespierre speaks at the trial of Louis XVI on 28th December 1792.  Taken from Regicide and Revolution speeches at the trial of Louis XVI, Columbia University Press, New York (1992)  p194

Citizens’ whoever you are, set up a watch around the Temple; arrest, if it is necessary, perfidious malevolence, even deceived patriotism, and confound the plots of our enemies.  Fateful place! Was it not enough that the despotism of the tyrant weighed so long on this immortal city? Must his very safekeeping be a new calamity for it? Is the trial to be eternal so as to perpetuate the means of slandering the people who took him from the throne?

I have proven that the proposal to submit the question of Louis to the primary assemblies would lead to civil war.  If I cannot contribute to the salvation of my country, I wish at least to be recorded, at this moment for the attempt I have made you warn you of the calamities which threaten it.  I ask that the National Convention declare Louis guilty and worthy of death.

Vergniaud speaks at the trial of Louis XVI on 31st December 1792.  Taken from Regicide and Revolution speeches at the trial of Louis XVI, Columbia University Press, New York (1992)  p208

Any act emanating from the representatives of the people is an attempt against their sovereignty if it is not submitted for formal or tacit ratification.  The people alone, who promised inviolability to Louis, can declare that they wish to make use of the right to punish, which formerly they had renounced.  Powerful considerations should hold you to these principles; if you are faithful to them, you run no risk of reproach.  If the people desire the death of Louis, they will command it; if, on the contrary, you take their power from them, you will incur at least the reproach of having strayed from your duty; and what a terrifying responsibility such a deviation will bring upon your heads… I have no more to say.

Marat speaking at the trial of the king.  Taken from Jean Paul Marat: The People’s Friend by Ernest Belfort Bax, Grant Richards, London (1901) p246

In the firm conviction that Louis is the principal author of the crimes which caused the blood of the loth of August to flow, and of all the massacres which have stained France since the Revolution, I vote for the death of the tyrant within the twenty-four hours.

Thomas Paine speaks at the trial of Louis XVI on 7th January 1793.  Taken from Regicide and Revolution speeches at the trial of Louis XVI, Columbia University Press, New York (1992)  p212

Let then those United States be the safeguard and asylum of Louis Capet.  There, hereafter, far removed from the miseries and crimes of royalty, he may learn, from the constant aspect of public prosperity that the true system of government consists not in kings, but in fair, equal, and honourable representation.

In relating this circumstance, and in submitting this proposition, I consider myself as a citizen of both countries.  I submit it as a citizen of America, who feels the debt of gratitude which he owes to every Frenchman.  IU submit it also as a man who, although the enemy of kings, cannot forget that they are subject to human frailties.  I support my proposition as a citizen of the French republic, because it appears to me the best, the most politic measure that can be adopted.

Jean-Baptiste Cléry (the King’s valet) in discussion with Madame Elizabeth the youngest sibling of Louis XVI about his upcoming execution in January 1793 from A Journal of the Terror, The Folio Society, London (1955) p84-85.

“The Queen and myself”, replied she, “look for the worst, and do not deceive ourselves as to the fate preparing for the King.  He will die a sacrifice to the goodness of his heart, and love for his people, for whose happiness he has never ceased to labour since he mounted the Throne.  How cruelly is this people deceived!  As for him, his Religion, and that perfect reliance he has upon Providence, will support him in this sad moment of adversity.  “You, Cléry”, continued this virtuous Princesses, with tears in her eyes, “will now be the only person with my brother: redouble, if possible, your attentions to him, and omit no opportunity of giving us intelligence respecting him; but on no other account expose yourself, for then we should have no one on whom we can rely.”

On the 21st January 1793 Louis was beheaded at the  Place de la Révolution.  As Louis XVI mounted the scaffold, he appeared dignified and resigned.  He made a short speech where he declared himself innocent of the crimes he had committed and wished that his blood would not fall back on France.  His last words were cut off by  drum roll.

The will of Louis XVI taken from A Journal of the Terror, The Folio Society, London (1955) p102-107

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

Jean-Baptiste Cléry (the King’s valet) reports on the preparations on the King’s execution from A Journal of the Terror, The Folio Society, London (1955) p113-114

I got everything ready for the King to shave.  He put on the soap himself, standing up and facing me while I held his basin.  Forced to stifle my feelings, I had not yet had resolution to look at the face of my unfortunate Master; but my eyes now catching his accidentally, my tears ran over in spite of me.  I know not whether seeing me in that state put the King in mind of his own situation or not, but he suddenly turned very pale.  At this sight, my knees trembled and my strength forsook me; the King, perceiving me ready to fall, caught me by both hands, and pressing them warmly, said, in a gentle voice, “Come, more courage.”  He was observed; the depth of my affliction was manifested by my silence, of which he seemed sensible.  His countenance was reanimated, he shaved himself with composure, and then I dressed him….

“You have heard”, said the King to me, “the account of the sentence pronounced against me?” “Ah!  Sire,” I answered, “let us hope that it will be suspended; M. de Malesherbes believes that it will.”  “I seek no hope,” replied the King, “but I grieve exceedingly to think that Monsieur d’Orléans, my relation, should have voted for my death: read that list.”  He then gave me the list of voters, which he had in his hand.  “The public”, I observed, “murmurs greatly: Dumouriez is in Paris; it is said that he entertains favourable intentions, and that he brings with him the sentiments of his army against your majesty’s trial.  The people are shocked at the infamous conduct of Monsieur d’Orléans.  It is also reported that the foreign Ambassadors will meet and go the Assembly.  Indeed it is confidently asserted, that the Members of the Convention are afraid of a popular insurrection.”  “I should be very sorry to have it take place,” replied the King “for then there would be new victims.  I do not fear death,” added His Majesty, “but I cannot, without shuddering, contemplate the cruel fate which I leave behind me, to my family, to the Queen, to our unfortunate children.  And those faithful servants, who have never abandoned me, and those old men, whose subsistence depended upon the little pensions I allowed them, who will succour and protect them? I see the people delivered over a prey to anarchy, to become the victims of every faction, crimes succeed crimes, long dissensions tear France in pieces.”  Then, after a moment’s pause: “Oh! My God!” he exclaimed, “is this the reward which I must receive for all my sacrifices?  Have I not tried everything to ensure the happiness of the French people?” In pronouncing these words, he seized and pressed both my hands: I bathed his with my tears, and in that state I had to leave him.

Jean-Baptiste Cléry (the King’s valet) reports on the final moments the King spends with his family from A Journal of the Terror, The Folio Society, London (1955) p126-127.

At half past eight, the door opened.  The Queen came first, leading her son by the hand; Madame Royale and Madame Elizabeth followed.  They all threw themselves into the arms of the King.  A melancholy silence prevailed for some minutes, only broken by sighs and sobs.  The Queen made an inclination towards His Majesty’s chamber.  “No,” said the King, “let us go into this room, I can see you only there.” They went in, and I shut the glass door.  The King sat down; the Queen was on his left hand, Madame Elizabeth on his right, Madame Royale nearly opposite, and the young Prince stood between his legs.  All were leaning on the King, and often pressed him in their embraces.  This scene of sorrow lasted an hour and three quarters, during which it was impossible to hear anything.  It could, however, be seen that after every sentence uttered by the King, the agitation of the Queen and Princesses increased, lasted some minutes, and then the King began to speak again.  It was plain, from their gestures, that they received from himself the first intelligence of his condemnation.

At a quarter past ten, the King rose first; they all followed.  I opened the door.  The Queen held the King by his right arm: their Majesties gave each a hand to the Dauphin.  Madame Royal, on the King’s left, had her arms round his body and, behind her, Madame Elizabeth, on the same side, had taken his arm.  They advanced some steps towards the door, breaking out into the most agonising lamentations.  “I assure you”, said the King, “that I will see you again to-morrow morning at eight o’clock.” “You promise?” said they all together.  “Yes, I promise.” “Why not at seven o’clock? Said the Queen. “Well! Yes, at seven,” replied the King, “farewell!” He pronounced “farewell” in so impressive a manner that their sobs were renewed, and Madame Royale fainted at the feet of the King, to whom she had clung.  I raised her, and assisted Madame Elizabeth to support her.  The King, wishing to put an end to this agonising scene, once more embraced them all more tenderly, and had the resolution to tear himself from their arms.  “Farewell! Farewell!” said he, and went into his rooms.

Abbe Edgeworth who attended to the King in his last hours including the scaffold.  Before he is taken to his execution he reports on a discussion he had with the King over who is responsible for the King’s pleasant plight. As published in A Journal of the Terror, The Folio Society, London (1955) p147

The conversation then changed to the subject of the Duke of Orléans.  “What have I ever done to my cousin” , said the King to me, “that he should seek my downfall? … But after all, he is more to be pitied than I.  My position is tragic, no doubt, but most certainly I would not change it for his.”

Abbe Edgeworth who attended to the King in his last hours including the scaffold. As published in A Journal of the Terror, The Folio Society, London (1955) p157-158

As soon as the King had got out of the coach, three of the executioners surrounded him, and tried to remove his outer clothes.  He pushed them away with dignity, and took off his coat himself.  He also took off his collar and his shirt, and made himself ready with his own hands.  The executioners, disconcerted for a moment by the King’s proud bearing, recovered themselves and surrounded him again in order to bind his hands.  “What are you doing?” said the King, quickly drawing his hands back.  “Binding your hands”, answered one of them.  “Binding me!” said the King in a voice of indignation, “never! Do what you have been ordered, but you shall never bind me.”  The executioners insisted; they spoke more loudly, and seemed about to call for help to force the King to obey.

This was the most agonising moment of this terrible morning; one minute more, and the best of Kings would have received an outrage a thousand times worse than death, by the violence that they were going to use towards him.  He seemed to fear this himself, and turning his head, seemed to be asking my advice.  At first I remained silent, but when he continued to look at me, I said, with tears in my eyes, “Sire, in this new outrage I see one last resemblance between Your Majesty and the God who is about to be your reward.”

At these words he raised his eyes to heaven with an expression of unutterable sadness.  “Surely”, he replied, “it needs nothing less than His example to make me submit to such an insult.” Then turning to the executioners, “Do what you will; I will drink the cup, even to the dregs.”

The steps of the scaffold were extremely steep.  The King was obliged to lean on my arm, and from the difficulty they caused him, I feared that his courage was beginning to wane: but what was my astonishment when arrived at the top, he let go of me, crossed the scaffold with a firm step, silenced with a glance the fifteen or twenty drummers who had been placed directly opposite, and in a voice so loud that it could be heard as far away as the Pont-Tournant, pronounced these unforgettable words. “I die innocent of all the crimes with which I am charged.  I forgive those who are guilty of my death, and I pray God that the blood which you are about to shed may never be required of France.”

Letters from Helen Maria Williams on the execution of Louis XVI.  Taken from Letters Written in France, Broadview Literary Texts, Ormskirk (2002) p163-164

The calmness which Lewis the sixteenth displayed on this great trial of human fortitude, is attributed not only to the support his mind received from religious faith, but also to the hope which it is said he cherished, even till his last moment, that the people, whom he meant to address from the scaffold, would demand that his life might be spared.  And his confessor, from motives of compassion, had encouraged him in this hope.  After ascending the scaffold with a firm step, twice the unhappy monarch attempted to speak, and twice Santerre prevented him from being heard, by ordering the drums to beat immediately.  Alas! Had he been permitted to speak, poor was his chance of exciting commiseration! Those who pitied his calamities had carefully shunned that fatal spot; and those who most immediately surrounded him only waited till the stroke was given, in order to dip their pikes and their handkerchiefs in his blood

Letters from Helen Maria Williams on the execution of Louis XVI and Burke’s predictions.  Taken from Letters Written in France, Broadview Literary Texts, Ormskirk (2002) p166-167

There is another reproach of more importance to be made to Mr Burke: it is, that, in all probability, his predictions, and those of the writers who followed him on the same side in France, were in a great measures the causes of evils they foretold.  Mr Burke predicted the deaths of Louis the sixteenth, at a time when not a human being in France had such an idea in his mind; and the eloquent and specious description he gave of the imaginary disgrace and distress of royalty, most certainly had a considerable effect on the mind of that unfortunate prince, and still more on that of the queen, and the persons of her court.  We all know that the king had no reason to be discontented with his situation as it was determined by the Constituent Assembly; but we also know, nothing is so easy for an able man, as to render a weak man discontented with his condition, by persuading him that he is ill-treated, and painting to him by delusive pictures of advantage that he ought to enjoy, or of inconveniences that he ought not to suffer.  But for Mr Burke, and his associates in France, it is highly probable Louis the sixteenth might now have been reigning peaceably on his throne.  I do not mean to accuse their intentions; but I am warranted to say, that their writings contributed at once to render the court discontented with the revolution and the nation suspicious of the court.  Of consequence, they had a great share in producing the calamities of the monarch and his unfortunate family.

Madam De La Tour Du Pin on the execution of the king.   Taken from Escape from the Terror The Journal of Madam De La Tour Du Pin, The Folio Society, London (1979) p142

On the morning of 21 January, the gates of Paris were closed and orders given that no reply was to be made to those outside who asked the reason why.  We guessed the reason only too well, my husband and I, and leaning from a window of our house overlooking Paris, listened for the rattle of musketry which would give us some hope that so great a crime would not be committed unchallenged.  We waited in shocked silence , hardly daring to say a word to one another.  We could not believe that such a price would be exacted and my husband was greatly distressed at having left Paris, to believe such a tragedy possible.  Alas! The deepest silence lay like a pall over a regicide city.  At half past ten, the gates were opened and the life of the city resumed its course, unchanged.  A great nation had that day soiled its history with a crime of which future centuries would hold it guilty, yet not the smallest detail of this daily round had changed.

Germaine De Staël  discusses Louis XVI and his wife.  Taken from Considerations on the Principle events of the French Revolution, Germaine De Staël, Liberty Fund, Indianapolis (2008) p46-47

The Queen, Marie Antoinette, was one of the most amiable and gracious persons who ever occupied a throne: there was no reason why she should not preserve the love of the French, for she had nothing to forfeit it.  As far, therefore, as personal qualities went, the King and Queen might claim the hearts of their subjects; but the arbitrary form of the government, as successive ages had moulded it, accorded so ill with the spirit of the times, that even the virtues of the sovereigns were overlooked the amid the accumulation of abuses.  When a nation feels the want of political reform, the personal character of the monarch is but a feeble barrier against the impulse.  A sad fatality placed the reign of Louis XVI in an era in which great talents and profound knowledge were necessary to contend with the prevailing spirit, or, what would have been better, to make a fair compromise with it.

Joseph Barnave explains as to why the King was incapable of solving France’s problems Power, Property and History Joseph Barnave’s Introduction to the French Revolution and Other Writings, Harper Torchbooks, New York Evanston San Francisco London (1971) p124

The existing government had nevertheless reached the time of its maturity.  Deprived of the bonds of respect and affection, it continued to rule, so to speak, only by mechanical means.  The two privileged orders which still formed the machinery of government had ruined themselves in their luxury and debased themselves morally.  The third estate, on the contrary, had acquired extensive enlightenment and immense wealth.  The nation was held in check only by its habituation to slavery and its sense of the impossibility of breaking its chains.  But opinions, which the government still curbed, had made immense progress in the depth of the nation, and already in the rising generation the precepts of Helvétius and Rousseau began to cause Voltaire to be forgotten.

For royal authority to sustain itself in such circumstances would have required that the throne be occupied by a tyrant or a great man….

Louis XVI was neither one nor the other.  He was too virtuous not to try and correct the abuses he had been scandalised to observe; he had neither the character nor the talents which could have restrained an impetuous nation whose actual condition and monarch’s summoned it to reform.

His reign was a succession of attempts for the good, acts of weakness and ineptitude.

The Marquis de Bouille defends Louis XVI’s reign as king.  Taken from Memoirs Relating to the French Revolution by the Marquis de Bouille, Cadell and Davies, London (1797) p71

Frenchmen! When I reflect: on the crimes with which a great number of you are polluted, my pen drops from my hand! With what savage barbarity did you treat the most humane, the most benevolent of princes, and the best of men! What sacrifices did he not make, if not for your happiness, at least to comply with your wishes!

If these are effaced from your memory, I will remind you of them. On his accession to the throne, you earnestly desired the restoration of the parliaments which Louis the Fifteenth had been obliged to abolish this he granted. The ministers he chose appeared to him to be men of the greatest wisdom, integrity, and abilities and such he always fought during the whole of his reign if he sometimes erred, it was the public opinion which misled him. He abolished the corvée, and changed the ancient penal code, which still contained too many vestiges of the ignorance and barbarity of your forefathers. He first tried the experiment of provincial administrations, which he wished to establish over the whole kingdom, for the purpose of introducing economy into the collection of the public taxes, and to prevent partiality in levying and assessing them. He destroyed the abuse of lettres de cachet a moderate use of which your prejudices rendered still necessary. He emptied the state prisons, which soon contained only men dangerous to society, confined from motives of humanity. Constantly studying the ease and happiness of his people, he assembled the Notables of the kingdom, to prepare the means of accomplishing his purpose. You have seen with what ardour he desired the abolition of the gabelle and other taxes of a burdensome nature if this was not affected, the fault must not be imputed to him.

In the middle of the most: corrupt court he preserved the pious morals, a mild and enlightened piety in the midst of irreligion and atheism, and personal economy in the midst of unbounded luxury. Ever steady in the principles of goodness, and ever ready to comply with your requests, he freely consented again to assemble the States General, which the policy, or rather the wisdom and prudence; of his predecessors had long discontinued. He resigned into the hands of your representatives, intoxicated with the fumes of liberty, his sovereign authority, desiring only to reserve the portion necessary to secure your happiness; they stripped him even of that, whilst a licentious and ungovernable mob insulted him and threatened his palace.  Witness the 14th of July, and the 5th of October, when, still more insolent and outrageous, they came to tear him from his residence by force. He was earnestly solicited to put himself at the head of his troops, to escape from and repress their fury. He could have done it, and he would then have disconcerted all the projects of those conspirators who have involved you in guilt; but from motives of humanity he refused. He was dragged like a criminal to your capital, where the palace of his ancestors became his prison; loaded with injuries and insults, his life and that of his family were continually in danger; the bitterest reproaches and most indecent invectives were heaped upon them. Eluding at last the vigilance of the villains who meditated his death, he escaped from their hands, wishing to save them from still greater crimes. Far from the walls of Paris he fought a place of refuge whence he might make you hear the voice of reason, and explain to you your real interest: but he was arrested as a fugitive, reconducted to his prison, and from thence, being first stripped of his sceptre and his crown, after a long and final confinement, he was led to the scaffold. His august head fell under the hands of the executioner, and the fame fate awaited that part of his family which remained still exposed to the barbarity of his sanguinary judges. The Athenians, whom you formerly resembled in politeness, in the elegance of your manners, and in the delicacy and futility but whom you now much more resemble in levity and cruelty, put to death Socrates the wisest of men, and they repented of it; you have deprived of life the most virtuous of kings, and still celebrate the anniversary of a day which fixed upon the French nation a stain that no time can efface, nor all the laurels of your conquering chiefs can cover from the eyes of astonished and terrified posterity.  Prove at least by your repentance, that the crime of a few was not that of all; show that, enchained by the tyrants who then governed, and whose crimes divine vengeance has already punished, the French nation has not been the accomplice to their monstrous cruelties, but the instrument, or rather the victim, of their sanguinary ambition!

Rousseau on kings.  Taken from The Social Contract or Principles of Political Right, Jean-Jacques Rousseau, Wordsworth Classics of World Literature, London (1998) p76

If according to Plato, a king by nature is so rare a personage, how many times will nature and fortune conspire to crown him?  And if the royal education necessarily corrupts those who receive it, what should be expected from such a succession of men trained to rule?  It is, then, voluntary self-deception to confuse royal government with that of a good king.  To see what this government is in itself; we must consider it under incapable or wicked princes: for such will come to the throne, or the throne will make them such.