Interesting that you use the term 'murder' to describe the executions of Bourbons, but not the judicial murders of Ney and Labedoyere, along with the outright murders of such as Brune...
Interesting that you think, or vainly hope that I would think something for one and not the other. But no. I would count judicial murder, which is unjust, murder as well. And if you were wondering I chose the wording so as to avoid artlessly saying murder a billion times in a paragraph.
Napoleon became First Consul because he was recruited for the coup, he was not the originator of it. The conspirators needed a competent general officer to lead the coup and Napoleon was not their first choice. That they used an officer much more competent than they was fortunate for France as Napoleon did restore law and order and returned France to a new normalcy. Napoleon first asked to become a Director, but was told he was too young, which he thought nonsense. And he found out that one of the Directors, Barras, was contemplating returning the Bourbons to power, which no one wanted.
Hm. One must be overstretched if it becomes necessary to bring up that travesty of justice, and at the same suggest I left it out, rather than actually paying attention and noticing that I was speaking of the succession crisis following the Glroious Revolution of 1688, not the Civil wars of 1642-57 or The Restoration of 1666.
You left out Charles I-would you label that an execution or murder? It was clearly done because he lost to the Parliamentarians.
There most certainly a great aspect of propaganda to the issued of the period, especially in regard to Napoleon. There are no 'legal niceties' regarding d'Enghien-he dabbled in treason, was in the pay of a foreign power at war with France, and planned to fight against her. That's guilt, pure and simple.