As luck would have it, I'm actually reading this book right now! Since I'm testing out some new note taking methods, I'm working through it a bit slowly, but I'd love to come back here and give you a more thorough answer once I finish if that's okay!

First though, I definitely have some thoughts here. Hardman, the author, is a former lecturer in Modern History, having retired in the 1980s. Now that's not inherently a problem, however his vocation has been that of an author, and in my opinion this book reads far more like a "popular" history so far than a scholarly work. One way to identify this is the "pinch test". For any book turn to the back "notes" section, where the author cites their sources. Grab the whole notes section and give it a good pinch. Hardman's book is 450 pages long, and the sources are a pretty tiny section. Now I can also grab my copy of Liberty or Death, an overview of the French Revolution by Peter McPhee which is almost the exact same length, and I get a meaty chunk of notes at the back. This isn't a 1:1 comparison, so I'm not saying there is inherently a sourcing problem with Hardman's book, but that's a good initial "sniff test" to do.

That alone wouldn't bother me, but honestly what made me flip to the notes pretty early on was Hardman's repeated use of very biased phrases with nary a citation in sight. There are even sections where he is directly quoting someone where there is no citation at the end, which is never something you want to see. For me personally I went from being excited about this book (there aren't very many biographies of Louis XVI surprisingly!) to somewhat hostile towards it was the following line on page 19:"There followed a sequel to this episode which is intended as a happy ending but is in fact so nauseous that one hopes it is fabricated"

What was this 'nauseous' event? ....the child Louis telling his father, on his death bed, that time flies when he's studying. The conclusion Hardman draws? "Either [Louis], at the age of eleven, had become a consummate hypocrite, or the episode is apocryphal." Ummmm okay what about the fact that he was an eleven year old talking to his father on his deathbed so he just said that to make him happy? Maybe he did enjoy his studies? Maybe he just didn't want to be like "Actually pops while you're still alive here let's talk about the course of my education because I'm displeased with its present state." Seriously the fact that this episode is so nauseating is just.... bizarre to me, and frankly makes me think that this is a narrative book Hardman is trying to squeeze the excitement out of, rather than good solid history.

I do still want to finish, so I'll let you know once I get through it. I'm particularly interested in his claim that Louis wasn't trying to flee France in his ill-fated Flight to Varennes, but was just escaping Paris to "defend his legislative rights". This doesn't sit well with me off the bat, but I'm definitely open to what evidence he proffers.

Onto his main thesis, I have problems here as well. His book seems to hinge around how everyone else thinks that Louis XVI was stupid and moronic and couldn't possibly have been good at anything, but HE knows the truth. However once again this feels disingenuous. Perhaps when he first wrote this manuscript the tides were different, however I've read many scholars from ~1980s-Modern day and this doesn't seem to be the consensus on Louis at all. On the contrary, I wasn't surprised reading Hardman's book, as he ostentatiously claims I would 'no doubt' be, to find that Louis excelled in the sciences and had a particular fondness for cartography and geography, nor was I surprised to hear that he was very keen when it came to foreign policy (funnily enough, my French textbook just had a translation exercise and it was talking about how Louis XVI was good at foreign policy). All of these aspects of Louis are discussed often enough that I can't even pinpoint a singular source, it appeared to me a widespread consensus I never questioned-- until I encountered Hardman's claim that it wasn't. To put it simply, the 'general' argument in modern study of the French Revolution goes something like this:

Louis XVI was a genuinely good man, who honestly wanted what was best for his people. He kept around him able ministers, and attempted various reforms that would later be implemented during the Revolution, demonstrating he knew what ailed France and was at least ephemerally willing to make these changes. Louis's main fault, and the fault that would topple him during the Revolution, was that he was not at heart a strong leader. When things got tough, Louis went hunting as a method of pleasure and avoidance. When Louis was attempting to steer the ship of state, he was far too easily persuaded by those around him, all of who had their particular interests. He backed many reforms before the Revolution, only to wobble once he encountered opposition. As we can see when he first took the throne and recalled the parlement, he was far too influenced by personal love. He was a consummate people-pleaser, a characteristic that many of us can sympathize with, but one that is terrible for a King during a large crisis.

Louis didn't cause the Revolution, but Louis ensured the failure of the Constitutional Monarchy at every turn by his inflexibility and his wavering on previous promises. I personally find very compelling Timothy Tackett's argument in When the King Took Flight, a fantastic book I highly recommend, that the King's Flight to Varennes was truly the point of no return for the King. Up until that point we see all sides attempting to work together to make the Constitutional Monarchy work. After the King's flight and repudiation of his previous support for the Revolution, there doesn't seem to be any going back-- the people's faith in their "Citizen King" had been irrevocably shattered. Whether Louis was merely trying to escape Paris to reclaim his Legislative authority as Hardman seems to claim, or fleeing to safety in his garrison on the border of Austria, frankly it really doesn't matter. What matters is what he did and public opinion. Louis fled from his people, and left behind a 'manifesto' repudiating the Revolution. His people felt betrayed, and rightly so, and I don't think Louis should be let off the hook for that. But we'll see what Hardman has to say!