What were the good things about King Louis XVI?

Answer 1

He was indecisive, weak hearted and lacking in power and strength of character, he was unable to give the necessary support to his ministers, including Anne-Robert-Jacques Turgot and Jacques Necker, in their efforts to stabilize France's tottering finances.

He did not have the strength of character or foresight to pursue needed reforms when possible or to deal with the Revolution when it occurred. His undoing of the judicial reforms of his grandfather cost him prestige and his reign was marked by the increasing strength of the aristocrats, who opposed most economic and administrative reforms.

He was a decent man though, and wanted nothing but the best for his French people, he just didn't know how to provide it and hesitated about every decision that had to be made. He also was a good father to his children and a faithful and (eventually) loving (though clumsy husband to Marie Antoinette. He might not have been the King that France really needed, though he was a good man that due to his upbringing never had any selfesteam and was never taught anything about how to reign a country.

Answer 2

No, he didn't have the authority over the First and Second Estate during that whole general assembly era, had inherited a country already in trouble and didn't have the skill to pull it out of it and to top it off consented to send France to war against England during the American war for independence.

He did appoint people who did have skills, but apparently caved into petty palace squabbles and removed them.

Seemed to be a bit aloof too, not exactly in touch with his people or country's needs.

Answer 3

1774 Louis XVI placed Turgot in charge of finances and introduced free circulation of grain. Founded School of Medicine in Paris.

1775 Droits d'octroi were reduced, prison reform begun, and the death penalty for deserters was abolished.

1776 The king signed the six edicts of Turgot comprising the abolition of the corvee. The parlements resisted the edicts, preventing them from becoming law. In the same year he reduced his household.

1778 More taxes reduced.

1779 The king abolished servitude and other reforms were made.

1780 Further reductions in the Royal household were made, hospital reform was begun, prison reform continued, most torture was abolished.

1784 Relief given to Jews.

1786 More hospital reform, aid to the deaf, and provisions made for lost children.

1787 Steps taken towards the total abolition of the corvee, more reductions in royal household, civil rights accorded to Jews and Protestants.

1788 All forms of torture were abolished, greater freedom given to press, steps towards abolition of lettres de cachet.

All of the above is taken from Nesta Webster's Louis XVI and Marie-Antoinette during the Revolution, but it is a matter of public record. Anyone who thinks Louis XVI was a lazy, sluggish, do-nothing king need only examine the six volumes of laws passed during his reign. He wanted to reform the feudal tax system, which is why he called the Estates-General. If all the nobles and wealthy clergy had been minimally taxed, there would have been no deficit.

Answer 4

No. Louis XVI is considered a poor king for two main reasons. One, he failed to keep a balanced budget. During the American Revolution, he spent so much money to supply the French military that he accrued massive debts at home. He should have been more diligent with his money instead of attacking the British with such zeal. Two, he was unwilling to make serious compromises with the general French citizenry. After convening the Estates-General, which made clear that the Third Estate wanted more rights - especially the bourgeoisie, a good leader would begin to implement reforms to convince the moderates to move away from the ardent revolutionaries and support the government. Because of Louis XVI's refusal to make any serious concessions outright, the moderates sided with the revolutionaries, allowing the French monarchy to be overthrown.

Answer 5

He was a very kind man, a good father and a faithful husband. He did not like fights or arguments and always gave in to his wife. He was a very good and gentle king to his subjects.