Louis XIV and Twenty Million Frenchmen by Pierre Goubert

There was a deconsecration of the figure of the king during the Revolution, and a transfer of sovereignty from the king to the people through the Assemblée nationale, but the English example with the execution of Charles I was an example the king knew of. He managed to play the Plantagenets against each other and ended up seizing most of their territory while establishing much greater control over France proper (helped by annexing the former English possessions, as well as seeing the Cathar lords crushed).Ĭlick to expand.While I don't find the 'best' and 'worst' categorisation to be pertinent for a number of reason, and do not believe in ultra-personnalisation around the figure of the king (even for a king like Louis XIV this can be stated, read Louis XIV et vingt millions de Français by Pierre Goubert if you have any doubts), on Louis XVI you should nuance the capacity of rising up and overthrowing.

He started off in an extremely weak position, with limited control over his country, and Henry II of England ruling over most of France. Charles X had seen exactly that happen, and decided to do his level best to repeat the process. Louis XVI, for all his myriad faults, had the excuse of not realizing the French might rise up and overthrow him. If we are indulging the French monarchist effort to retcon the Lancastrian interlude out of existence, the runner up would have to Charles X, for more or less the same reasons.And he even managed to get kicked off the English throne twice. It takes a very special kind of incompetence to manage to be kicked off of not one but two thrones, for completely separate reasons.

Worst: Henry VI of England (hey, he was technically crowned as King of France! in France even, and ruled a good chunk of it for most of his reign).

Louis XIV and Twenty Million Frenchmen by Pierre Goubert