>nore than 200 years later, still makes chuddy pissbabies seethe
how did they do it?
Nore than 200 years later, still makes chuddy pissbabies seethe
Brayden Parker
Noah Sanders
it does not.
Louis XVI was a literal cuckold, his wife the worst collection of the worst traits in women, they really deserved to die.
This pathetic limp wristed faggot did nothing while his country was in turmoil.
He deserved to die.
Adolphe Thiers showed us how we should tread commie faggots.
Ethan Peterson
Louis XVI was unironically the best monarque since Charle V.
-won the American war
-rebuild the French navy
-rebuild the French army
-put the East Indian company on track
-supported the art and science
-spoke multiple language
quite literally any default found with him were invented by republican and bonapartist :
-he's only weakness was not shooting on the crowd of people rioting
-he wanted a more England like parliamentary monarchy
-he avoided war as much as possible
-he's wife is the only good point : she was frivolous and unable to get the hint to not spent taxe payer money.
Thomas Turner
Napoleon is also a faggot.
Wyatt Taylor
The pride of Frenchmen for their Kings:
"Upon this difference cast themselves into the protection of the Kings of France, who were the GREATEST Monarchs of Christendom; wherein they were not of their hope deceived"
"No greater proof of a stable state exists than was shown recently in the religious wars that flamed throughout all France. Although the leaders of the parties devastated everything with slaughter and fire, yet the splendor and prestige of the courts and of the greatest cities strangely enough was undiminished. Then many battles and great tumults were quieted in a short time by an edict of the best of kings, as swarms of bees may be checked by the throwing of a little dust. The prince forgot all injuries. Goodness of such a nature is innate in the race of the Valois."
"Yet could not our kings even for any most short time endure the servitude of the Bishop of Rome, nor be moved with any their excommunication, which the Popes used as firebrands to the firing of Christian Commonwealths. For these Popes interdictions, or excommunications, were wont with other nations, to draw the subjects from the obedience and reverence of their prince: but such has always been the love of our kings towards their people (and so I hope shall be forever) and loyalty of the people towards their kigns: that when pope Boniface the Eight saw himself nothing to prevail by his excommunication, nor that the people were to be drawn from the obedience of their king, after he had publically excommunicated Philip the Fair, he in like manner excommunicated all the French nation, with all them which took Philip for a king. But Philip having called together an assembly of his princes, and other his nobility, and pereceving in his subjects in general a wonderful consent for his defense of his state and sovereignty: he thereupon writ letters unto Boniface (which are common in every man's hand) to reprove him of his folly."
Julian Clark
Why is Papa Smurf so buff
Nathan Hernandez
And long times before Philip the Victorious, and his realm being interdicted by Pope Alexander the Third, who would have brought him into his subjection: answered him by letters, That he held nothing of the pope, nor yet of any prince in the world. Benedict the third, and Julius the second, had used the like excommunication against Charles the seventh, and Lewes the twelfth (who was called the Father of his country) that so as with firebrands they might inflame the people to rebellion: yet failed they both of their hope, the obedience of the subjects being nothing diminished, but rather increased: the Bull of excommunication which the Popes legat brought into France, being by the decree of the parliament of Paris openly torn to pieces, and the legat for his presumptuousness cast in prison…
Andrew Ward
Versailles painting depicting cities captured, including Strasbourg, during the reign of Louis XIV
Jaxon Stewart
Xavier Ortiz
France is painted in the center of the dome brandishing lightning while sheltering behind a shield adorned with the portrait of Louis XIV (crowned with laurel). She wears the fleurdelysé blue coat and a plumed helmet adorned with the crown of golden lilies. Pierre Rainssant (1687) specifies that the image of the king is painted "to convey that it is he who makes [France] victorious over her enemies, and who puts her under cover of their efforts". The principle of lightning from which lightning flashes that propagate in other compositions is taken from the Capture of the city and citadel of Ghent in six days .
Christian Hernandez
William Bell
It was 100% a British conspiracy to kill the monarchy of France as revenge for supporting the Americans and their revolution.
Austin Brooks
>unwashed dysgenic ugly peasants rallied by proto-bolsheviks
>chads
thanks for the laugh, the state of le kingless France speaks for itself
libertè, egalitè, fraternitè, negritude
Aiden Young
The only "people" who dont like the idea of putting politicians to the axe are leftists. You didnt even try.
Christian Wood
Bossuet on the true riches of a King
"Men are the true riches of a king… One is delighted when he sees, under good kings, the incredible multitude of people and the astonishing largeness of the armies. By contrast one is ashamed of Achab and of the kingdom of Israel exhausted of people, when one sees his army encamp "like two little flocks of goats"–while the Syrian army which faced it covered the face of the earth… In the enumeration of the immense riches of Solomon, there is nothing finer than these words: "Judah and Israel were innumerable, as the stand of the sea in the multitude."…But here is the pinnacle of felicity and of richness. It is that this whole innumerable people "ate and drank of the fruit of its hands, every one under his vine and under his fig-tree, and rejoicing. For joy makes bodies healthy and vigorous."
Hudson Turner
The duality of a man who's both based and a faggot.
Camden Morris
Jean Bodin:
Sovereign monarchy isn't diminished because there are assemblies or parliaments –
>Wherefore we conclude the majesty of a prince to be in nothing altered or diminished by the calling together or presence of the states: but to the contrary his majesty thereby to be much the greater, & the more honorable, seeing all his people to acknowledge him for their sovereign; albeit that in such assemblies, princes not willing to reject their subjects, grant, and pass many things, whereunto they would not otherwise yield their consent, if they were not overcome by the requests, prayers, and just grievances of the people, afflicted and vexed oftentimes without the knowledge of the prince, who yields many things unto them all, which he would deny unto them in particular; or at leastwise not so easily grant them: either for that the voices of every one in particular, are less heard, than of all together: or for that the prince at other times commonly uses to see but by other mens eyes and to hear but by other mens ears and reports: whereas in parliament he sees and hears his people himself, and so enforced with shame, and fear of religion, or his own good disposition, admits their just requests.
>And in that the greatness and majesty of a true sovereign prince, is to be known; when the estates of all the people assembled together, in all humility present their requests and supplications to their prince, without having any power in arny thing to command or determine, or to give voice, but that that which it pleases the King to like or dislike of, to command or forbid, is held for law, for an edict and ordinance. Wherein they which have written of the duty of magistrates, & others such like books, have deceived themselves, in maintaining that the power of the people is greater than the prince; a thing which oft times causes the true subjects to revolt from the obedience which they owe unto their sovereign prince, & ministers matter of great troubles in Commonweals.
Lincoln Brown
>As for the right to impose taxes, or imposts upon the subjects, is as proper unto sovereign majesty, as is the law it self: not for that Commonwealth cannot stand without taxes and tallages, as the President the M. hath well noted, that taxes were not levied in this realm, but since the time of Saint Louis the king. But if it must needs be that they must for the public necessity be levied or taken away; it cannot be done but by him that hath the sovereign power; as it hath been judged and by a decree of parliament, against the duke of Burgundy; and many times since, aswell in the high court of parliament, as also in the privy council.
>But here might some object and say, "That the estates of England suffer not any extraordinary charges and subsidies to be laid upon them, if it be not first agreed upon and consented unto in the high court of parliament: for so it is provided by an ancient law of Edward the first, king of England, wherewith the people as with a buckler hath been oftentimes seen to defend itself against the prince. Whereunto mine answer is, "That the other kings have in this point no more power than the kings of England: for that it is not in the power of any prince in the world, at his pleasure to taise taxes upon the people, no more than to take another man's goods from him; as Philip Commines wisely showed in the parliment holden at Tours, as we read in his Commentaries: and yet nevertheless if the necessity of the Commonwealth be such as cannot stay for the calling of a parliament, in that case the prince ought not to expect the assembly of the states, neither the consent of the people; of whose good foresight and wisdom, next unto God, the health & welfare of the whole state dependeth.
Connor Roberts
Did you visit Versailles, user?
Kevin Roberts
>And yet for all that the just Monarchy, hath not any more assured foundation or stay, than the Estates of the people, Communities, Corporations, and Colleges: For if need be for the king to levy money, to raise forces, to maintain the Estate against the enemy, it cannot be better done, than by the estates of the people, and of every Province, Town, and Community. For where can things for the curing of the diseases of sick Commonwealth, and of the members thereof; there are heard and understood the just reforming of the Estate, be better debated and handled, than before the Prince in his Senate before the people? There they confer of the affairs concerning the whole body of the Commonwealth, and of the members thereof; there are heard and understood the just complaints and grievances of the poor subjects, which never otherwise come unto the prince's ears; there are discovered and laid open the robberies and extortions committed in the Prince's name; whereof he knoweth nothing, there the requests of all degrees of men are heard. Besides that, it is almost a thing incredible to say, how much the subjects are eased, and how well they are also pleased, to see their king to sit as chief in the assembly of the estates, and to hear him discouring; how every man desirabeth to be seen of him, and if it please him to hear their complaints, and to receive their requests, albeit that they be often times denied the same; yet O how it pleaseth them to have had access unto their Prince…[Although] Our Kings do not so often call together the assemblies of their estates, as do the kings of England.
Jaxson Lee
No, but I would love to.
Versailles is the quintessential demonstration of how Monarchy is the rule of a household, reflected by the palace of the King.
"My old home the Monarchy, alone, was a great mansion with many doors and many chambers, for every condition of men." -Joseph Roth
"For as household management is the kingly rule of a house, so kingly rule is the household management of a city, or of a nation, or of many nations." -Aristotle
"The rule of a household is a monarchy, for every house is under one head." -Aristotle
"Visitor: Well then, surely there won't be any difference, so far as ruling is concerned, between the character of a great household, on the one hand, and the bulk of a small city on the other? – Young Socrates: None. – It's clear that there is one sort of expert knowledge concerned with all these things; whether someone gives this the name of kingship, or statesmanship, or household management, let's not pick any quarrel with him." -Plato
"So that Aristotle following Xenophon, seems to me without any probable cause, to have divided the Economical government from the Political, and a City from a Family; which can no otherwise be done, than if we should pull the members from the body; or go about to build a City without houses… Wherefore as a family well and wisely ordered, is the true image of a City, and the domestical government, in sort, like unto the sovereignty in a Commonwealth: so also is the manner of the government of a house or family, the true model for the government of a Commonwealth… And whilest every particular member of the body does his duty, we live in good and perfect health; so also where every family is kept in order, the whole city shall be well and peaceably governed." -Jean Bodin
Camden Howard
>still makes chuddy pissbabies seethe
oh no, we need another one
Jeremiah Jackson
Political & Economic, No Different
>Aristotle gives the lie to Plato, and those that say that political and economical societies are all one, and do not differ specie, but only multitudine et paucitate, as if there were 'no difference betwixt a great house and a little city'. All the argument I find he brings against them is this: 'The community of man and wife differs from the community of master and servant, because they have several ends. The intention of nature, by conjunction of male and female, is generation. But the scope of master and servant is only preservation, so that a wife and a servant are by nature distinguished. Because nature does not work like the cutlers at Delphos, for she makes but one thing for one use.' If we allow this argument to be sound, nothing doth follow but only this, that conjugal and despotical [lordly / master] communities do differ. But it is no consequence that therefore economical and political societies do the like. For, though it prove a family to consist of two distinct communities, yet it follows not that a family and a commonwealth are distinct, because, as well in the commonweal as in the family, both these communities are found.
What I think by both communties, – means the State likewise has public servants. That an economic household, with its division of labors and servants, like a chef, tutor for the master's children, and maids, are no less modeled for the City: there's no difference between political (the city) and the household (economic).
James Sanders
Everyone with a bit of brain knows that had Louis XVI been like his grandfather the revolution would be remembered as the day half of Paris was burned on a bonfire outside of the city. Grow soft, end up on the chopping block.