In the morning paper, there was a report that the kid who died in 1795 was really the dauphin. Apparently, some doctor had kept his heart as a souvenir and they were able to compare its DNA with some from Marie Antoinette’s hair.
I do disagree with one point made in the article. The article says
Of course, I do not approve the imprisonment and death of a child, but it seems to me easy to understand why the revolutionaries would prefer a dead Louis XVII. The child, if allowed to reach adulthood, would be the focus of many plots to restore the monarchy. In the article, a historian makes a comparison to killing Mrs. Hitler. The difference is that the king was an inherited position, whereas Hitler’s chancellorship was not. So was the decision cruel? Yes. Needlessly? debatable.
why did the revolutionaries refer to the king and dauphin by the last name “Capet”? I appreciate that Hugh Capet was the founder of the line of French kings, but by the time of the revolution there had been several changes of dynasty - Valois and Bourbon, for example. So why Louis Capet?
Thanks for doing your bit to advance the cause of human knowledge.
Because Louis XVI was descended fom Hugh Capet by strictly male lineage (Salic Law, although the custom appears largely to have been invented to satisfy the power-hunger of Louis X’s brothers, and to keep Isabelle of France, Louis X’s sister and Edward III of England’s mother, well away from the French throne – not a bad idea per se). The descent is from Robert, Count of Clermont, fourth son of St. Louis (IX). The division into Capetians, Valois, and Bourbons marks (some) breaks in the direct succession, and is largely a convenience for historians.
“I don’t just want you to feel envy. I want you to suffer, I want you to bleed, I want you to die a little bit each day. And I want you to thank me for it.” – What “Let’s just be friends” really means