I had a realization in church today, and unfortunately it had nothing to do with the improvement of my character. Instead, I realized that the reason I am consistently bothered with "Mormon lore" is that such stories are usually untrue in terms of historical events and facts. It's the historian in me that gets bugged when I hear a bit of Mormon lore.Today I had to refrain from shaking my head in disagreement during sacrament meeting, when a woman stood up to tell a story about Louis XVII (shown on the right in a 1792 portrait by Kucharsky). To give you a little bit of (accurate) historical background: this young prince was the son of Louis XVI and Marie Antoinette. During the French Revolution, he and his family members were taken into captivity. Louis XVII was imprisoned in the tower of the Paris Temple from 1792 until his death in 1795.
The speaker in today's sacrament meeting decided to quote a story which seems to have originally appeared (among LDS circles) in a New Era article by Vaughn J. Featherstone (1975). According to this alleged historical account, Louis XVII maintained high standards of morale and character during his imprisonment, despite his captors' attempts to introduce the boy to foul language, lewd women, rich foods, etc. Instead of buckling to slavish appetites and crude ways, the boy defiantly resisted, saying, "I cannot do what you ask, for I was born to be a king." Countless LDS speakers, articles, and church manuals have since used this quote (for example, it appeared last year in a talk by Elaine S. Dalton), and Steven R. Covey apparently references the story in his book The Seven Habits of Highly Effective Teens. In fact, when I did a Google search for this quote, almost all of the references were from LDS sources - none of them were from scholarly, historical accounts.
Now, for a little bit of accuracy and scholarship: as of yet, I have never come across any historical source that discusses Louis XVII resisting foul language and worldly pleasures. Perhaps he may have resisted at some point, or perhaps this story originated by a group who was sympathetic to the royal family - but I am not familiar with any such account. Actually, the history books I have read (including one that I read just over a year ago) tell quite an opposite story: captors did want to affect the boy's morale, and were delighted to see him using foul and rude language. I remember reading something about a doctor visiting the prince, and noting that the boy had formed uncouth habits (which I will leave to your imagination - you can email me if you want specifics). Louis XVII was taught to say horrible things about his mother and sister (who would have been able to hear the boy say these things from another floor in the tower) and to sing the Carmagnole. The list goes on and on. Really, the story is quite sad, especially since Louis XVII was only seven years old when he was brought into captivity. This was a very young, impressionable boy who died after a few years in his captivity. Despite stories of a "Lost Dauphin" prince who escaped from the prison, DNA testing proved in 2000 that the boy actually died in the Temple tower.
If the "for I was born to be a king" quote and story did not originate from a royalist sympathizer in the late 18th century, it's very likely that it originated in the early 20th century. In 1903, this quote appeared in a book that contained moral stories ("illustrations") which were intended to be used from the pulpit to help "save a sermon from unbroken dulness [sic]."1 The Princeton Theological Review suggests that this Louis XVII quote might have been "absolutely new" at the time (perhaps inferring the story would have been a new addition those "illustrations" which were currently used in religious sermons, but I think it also could suggest that the story had been concocted around the time of the book's publication). I think that Featherstone became familiar with this Louis XVII story in the 1970s because it had become popular among religious circles and used in sermons. The story obviously continues to be popular, at least among Mormons. And the rest, my friends, is history. Mormon lore history.
P.S. I know that there is a nice sentiment behind the "for I was born to be a king" story, and I don't mind that. If people can derive some type of moral or inspiring message from the story, go for it. But I really dislike propagating or telling these kinds of stories, because they simply are not true or cannot be verified. If we're going to tell a story from the pulpit, can't it just start with "once upon a time?" The meaning of the message will be just as clear, and then we won't be propagating historical inaccuracies.
1 Princeton Theological Seminary, The Princeton Theological Review, vol. 2 (MacCalla & Co. Inc., 1904), 353. Available online here.
Posts
