The Rules of Evidence were not required and no proof of any crime was mandated.
Chat with our AI personalities
This was a vicious excuse during Marie Antoinette's trial to have the jury (who were already scared to death their heads might role next) vote to have her executed (since evidence of treason for which she was tried was lacking!). This never actually happened.The child in question, Louis Charles, was taken away from Marie Antoinette after Louis XVI was executed and he was put under the custody of a certain monsieur Antoine Simon who abused him and made him drink alcohol. He forced the child to sign a document stating his own mother had sexually abused him.Even the jury was appalled by this during Marie Antoinette's trial because they knew exactly how this "evidence" had been gained. Therefore it was thrust aside and never used as official evidence in the case.
King Louis XVI reigned from 1774 to 1793.
what is the disadcantages of trial by ordeal
Louis XVI and Marie-Antionette had two daughters and two sons. Two of these died before the Revolution. The two royal children alive during the Revolution were Louis the Dauphin, heir to the Throne, and Marie-Therese. Marie-Therese and Louis were separated from their parents when they were imprisoned (both their parents were put on trial and executed). The Dauphin died in prison; it is not clear whether it was a deliberate murder or whether he simply died of illness in the unsanitary conditions of the prison. He was never put on trial. Louis was later known as "Louis XVII" despite the fact that he was never crowned as King. A number of people attempted to impersonate him in later life and claim the French throne. Marie-Therese survived the Revolution and died in 1851.
Inciting counterrevolution Well, he was acused of treason and the judges (who were all afraid of their own heads would soon be separated from their necks if they voted not guilty), voted guilty. At that time, all enemies to the revolution were executed. Mostly without trial, so the judges had every right to be afraid. There was never any evidence found that Louis XVI was actually guilty of treason, so the trial was all hot air, and even beforew the trial even begun, the verdict was already clear: death penalty. Now we know that Louis XVI was indeed guilty of treason, but only to save the lives of his children and family and the monarchy of which he was King. Louis XVI had always been a very good man and King. Unfortunately, the revolution blamed all that WA swrong in the country on the King and Queen and believed the only way to get a better life, was to end that of their monarchs so they would never be able to recapture the reign of France again. The French would soon learn that they were wrong and the revolution was a disaster.