L’Assassinat d’Henri IV, by Jean-Christian Petitfils

When a powerful person is assassinated, it is entirely natural that conspiracy theories will spring up. It is almost impossible to rise to power without making a host of enemies, and it is definitely impossible to maintain it without creating yet more. When a potentate is then murdered, the list of suspects is by necessity long.

I decided to read L’Assassinat d’Henri IV by Jean-Christian Petitfils because I had read his biography of Louis XIV and found it an interesting and thorough, yet entirely readable, book. I didn’t know much about the circumstances surrounding the assassination of Henri IV, only that it led to the troubled regence of Marie de Médicis.

The book goes into great detail describing the last year of the king’s life. He had become enamored with the young Charlotte de Montmorency, whom he married off to his cousin the Prince of Condé because he knew Condé was homosexual and would not make advances on his newest love interest. Unfortunately for Henri, although Condé was not attracted to the beautiful Charlotte, he didn’t particularly enjoy being the object of ridicule at court, either. He dragged her against her will across the border into the Spanish Netherlands (known today by the ugly and drab name of Belgium) and begged for asylum.

The Archduke Albert was only to happy to grant him asylum, and his troops thwarted several clandestine efforts by the French to retrieve the mignonne of the king. After some time the Prince was sent to Milan for safety, and Charlotte was held as a virtual hostage in Brussels. Henri was not amused and used a crisis over the succession of Cleves to threaten war on Albert and his sovereign, the King of Spain. An army was raised. Cannons started rolling to the borders of France. Cavalry companies were readied.

And then, on May 14, 1610, the day after his wife had finally been crowned as Queen of France, while stuck in traffic on a side street in Paris, Henri was stabbed to death by two blows of a knife wielded by François Ravaillac, by any standard a religious fanatic and madman. Ravaillac’s biography is treated briefly, and it becomes clear that he was not merely a devout Catholic, but also prone to delusions, hallucinations and even perhaps involved in attempts at performing sorcery.

Ravaillac was caught on the spot and tortured for weeks, yet insisted he had acted alone. How, then, does a conspiracy theory form? The two most sensational claims of conspiracy came from unbalanced individuals whose stories are filled with logical gaps wide enough to drive the dead king’s carriage through. It would seem the matter was an open-and-shut case.

And yet…numerous reports reached the king even while he was still alive that in the Spanish Netherlands, word was spreading that Henri was dead or soon would be by an assassin’s knife. Prayers had been said in churches to bless the “enterprise”. The official correspondence of Albert, which is voluminous through the end of 1609 and starting again in the latter part of 1610, has disappeared entirely or been destroyed for the first half of 1610.

Not only that, but Ravaillac, even though he seemed barely able to understand the workings of state, said that he had waited until after Marie de Médicis had been crowned queen to avoid turbulence in the kingdom. Petitfils expressed extreme doubt that a simple person like Ravaillac would understand the implications of his actions well enough to make that decision.

The author dispenses with the most popular conspiracy theories, involving Henriette d’Entragues and the Duc d’Epernon. Although Henriette had almost become queen herself (if only she could have delivered a living male child rather than a stillborn one) and had just been cast aside in favor of Charlotte, she had too much to lose. Her children with Henri following his broken promise to her were legitimated and given ranks in the state. Finally, nothing links either Henriette or d’Epernon with the crime.

Likewise, the King of Spain appears to be innocent of the charges sometimes leveled against him. This leaves one culprit. Albert, the Archduke, was harboring Charlotte and knew that Henri’s intervention in Cleves was partially to justify invading Albert's lands, taking Brussels and freeing his favorite from Albert’s hospitality. Bound by Spanish notions of honor from freeing her without the consent of Condé, Albert could not release Charlotte. He was also fearful that his fief, which had only begun to recover from its wars with the Free Provinces of the Netherlands, would again be plunged into war. He had the motive, the means and the record appears to show that he took active steps to send assassins into France. Whether Ravaillac was a lucky find or actively sought out, Albert’s men seem to have steered him in the “right” direction and encouraged the regicide.

All of this is to say that I found Petitfils’ theory highly compelling. It may be that Ravaillac was actually and sincerely acting alone, but even without him Henri was a walking target that fateful May. Ironically, the assassination proved that individuals only change history to a certain degree, and cannot change the course of nations against the nature of that nation. France was headed for conflict with the House of Habsburg, and even though the assassination postponed the collision, it could not stop it.

I am not sure if the book has been translated into English, but it was an extremely interesting forensic analysis of an assassination. It reminds the reader that witnesses are often unreliable, that motive does not create guilt and that conspiracy theories will always be popular when discussing assassinations. I enjoyed reading it.