Notes

Over the 107 years, the monarchs’ mistakes are accredited to causing the French Revolution. Louis XIV’s gravest errors were his overindulgence and excellence in metier de roi — so he spent far too much on military campaigns abroad, yet neglected the exacerbated economy, dooming his successors with this burden to the financial system. Louis XV’s failures in foreign policy and sleaze-filled scandals diminished any respect people had for him. As though Louis XVI’s marriage with Austrian Antoinette wasn’t scandalous enough, his indecisiveness to reach decisions in policy - which often ended in rejection - enraged the parlement and Estates. The results of the royalty’s weaknesses culminated in the opposition growing so fiercely and Louis XVI being rendered so powerless that the monarchy inevitably had no choice but to concede to the insurrection in 1789.

In Burke’s ‘Reflections on the Revolution of France, the historian argued that the kings of France created a build-up of “tyrannous distrust,”1 insinuating that it was the monarchy’s fault for causing antagonism against them. He claimed that a factor contributing to this was the kings’ trembling at what they viewed as “delusive plausibilities” from “moral politicians,”2 meaning the monarchs interpreted productive, beneficial policies as misleading and unrealistic. This is convincing as it is reflected in Louis XVI’s dismissal of Turgot as minister of finance, trade and public works and revocation of his reforms following the Flour Wars food riots in 1775 which protested the policy of free trade in grain, and the backlash of his 1776 replacement of the corveé system with a tax on property owners. It can be implied that Louis XVI viewed these policies as more disadvantageous than anything — his intimidation of the opposition leading him to believe these couldn't hold up in the long-term, leading his expulsion of Turgot. Burke went on to claim that the leaders of France “utterly disgraced the tone of lenient council [....] disarmed it of its most potent topics.”3 This is supported by Louis XV’s dissolving of all twelve Parlements under chief minister Maupeou, exiling 130 magistrates to deprive them on their offices, and choosing new magistrates for each court — following a judge strike.



However, Burke’s arguments are quite limited considering he took a broad perspective here, outlining the mistakes the monarchs made in a vague manner. For instance, he didn’t specify which “delusive plausibilities” he was referring to, meaning it is difficult to infer the effectiveness of the laws that were being suggested to the kings, so whether their repeals of them were detrimental remains unclear. In addition, Burke published this book in 1790: when the Revolution was in action and truly well into play, but only a year in when it had lasted until 1799. The accurate origins of the uprising may have been made more obvious in the almost-decade that came after Burke published this piece of writing. He was likely to have missed oodles of crucial information that would’ve provided a more realistic answer to whether the monarchy’s weaknesses were the most prominent cause of the great overthrow.

Moreover, his origins were Anglo-Irish; he spent much of his life residing in Great Britain. The possibility that his interpretation of the monarchy’s actions provoking the French to “rebel” and “revolt” is true is reduced as he provides a foreign outsider’s point of view of what brought about the Revolution. Furthermore, he condemned the discrimination against Catholics in Ireland, and believed that Britain’s king’s powers should be constitutionally restricted. This is expressed in his belief that the French should’ve handled the predicament as Britain did with the Glorious Revolution: a diplomatic negotiation like with the Bill of Rights, which was signed in 1689, removing absolutist powers from the Crown and permitted parliamentary privilege. Thus, he could have been excessively hostile towards the monarchs of France considering their adamant inclination towards the tradition of absolutism, especially intensified by Louis XV’s despotic tendencies. The harsh laws against Huguenots under Louis XIV and Jainists under Louis XV also continued to add to Burke’s criticism.

All in all, Burke’s interpretation remains rather valuable for providing an insight into the British perspective at the time of how the French Revolution had come about.

Campbell in ‘The Origins of the French Revolution’ attributes “the failure by the monarchy to seize the initiative in the early days of the Estates [General], in May [1789], was disastrous” and implies it was the catalyst for the events that followed. Exasperation leading to the formation of the National Assembly, the Storming of Bastille until internal disorder grew to the point where “the king could not prevent political revolution.” This is a compelling argument since it was the divide between the nobility, clergy and Third Estate and their inability to agree to a common program and whether to vote by head, giving the Third Estate the advantage, or by Estate is what triggered the Third Estate (along with some members of the other Estates whose line of thinking lined with theirs), to hold their own meeting and establish the National Assembly. This group stormed Bastille largely due to rumours of the king planning to use military force and arrest them. The event made it clear Louis XVI lost absolutist control when this could have been prevented if he had been capable of negotiating between the Estates initially and catered for their needs.

However, Campbell also argued that “the Enlightenment’s critique of society and institutions, especially of despotism and the Church, laid the foundations for a new order.” He isn’t found to be very convincing here as Voltaire, for instance, was a significant Enlightenment thinker who had gained quite a lot of esteem, and believed in freedom of thought, religious tolerance and the protection of people’s rights - but under a constitutional monarchy. He doesn’t indicate any desire to overthrow them in his writings, so the French people didn’t have much material that would give them this need to abolish this monarchy, implying the existence of a different factor sparked the French revolution, which can be argued to be the monarchy’s weaknesses.



Campbell is a senior lecturer in history, generally specialising in early modern history along with European history, with a penchant for the period of the ancién regime, widely writing several books for it including the power and politics at the time and the reign of Louis XIV, so he has a high chance of having a deep understanding of the time before the French Revolution, therefore why it happened – thus his arguments are convincing. However, he had written and published The Origins of the French Revolution in 2005. This means that Campbell’s interpretation may have been influenced by the background behind 9/11 in 2001 as the influence that the spreading of terrorist ideology had on the attack may have impacted him, so he overstated the role of the Enlightenment movement playing a part in the Revolution.



This is why Campbell’s opinion differs from Burke’s, who has a firmer focus on the monarchs’ flaws. Campbell highlights how “exasperation led to radicalism” while Burke disregards the aspect of the Enlightenment entirely due to the fixation of his distaste for absolutism. Although Burke writes closer to the time of the Revolution, Campbell is more convincing he has the foresight that Burke lacked amid the 1780 chaos. Campbell had been studying and reviewing the Revolution for almost 2 decades by the time he published The Origins of the French Revolution as he has writing about the topic going back to 1989. Burke lacked the resources to efficiently evaluate what the uprising was caused by that modern-day historians such as Campbell have, making Burke’s interpretation less convincing.

The economic crisis was prevalent throughout the reign of the three kings. Louis XIV’s and XV’s ignorance and lack of interest in solving it made the French’s hatred for the royals grow, and forced Louis XVI to manage a strenuous situation that wasn’t helped by his tentative nature. The system of economy was severely flawed for centuries, so the fiscal crisis that arrived was inevitable; it relied on taxation that focused on the poorest Third Estate, while the wealthiest First and Second Estates were exempt.

As he spent an exponential 25 million livres of a state budget on the Versailles palace building project, Louis XIV seemed to not care for the problems that came from this. On 6 May 1682, Versailles was made the headquarters of the government. This displays the king’s tunnel vision towards Versailles – he was so focused on it he would neglect important matters, like the national financial decline to come. Although his expenses of Versailles didn’t accumulate debt, the following French invasion of Palatinate in 1668 that brought about the Nine Years’ War from 1688 to 1697 where it’s estimated more than one billion was spent, and the later War of Spanish Succession that commenced in 1701 led to France bearing 170 million livres of debt in 1706 alone. He ended up leaving France near bankruptcy with a debt of 2.5 billion livres, showing he was far too ambitious in expanding the French Empire and consolidate his power as a ‘great military leader’ at the cost of the French economy. Although kings were expected to follow metier de roi so domestic affairs were subordinate to foreign policy, this ambition led to an enormous deficit predetermined the next monarchs’ own dire struggles with the French budget. If Louis XIV had limited his ventures and focused on legislation at home, the next kings to come wouldn’t have the tremendous debt the state owed imposed on them, which means the French public wouldn’t have felt the need to turn against the monarchy since the poor economy was the root of many of their problems: inflation and famine.

Following the death of his chief minister Fleury in 1743, Louis XV exhibited a similar disinterest in resolving the economic flaws of France to his predecessor. While Controller-Generals of Finances Forts and Orry managed to stabilise the currency and balance the budget in 1726-1730 and 1739-40 respectively, Louis failed to continue this success. Even though he initially tried to reduce the debt by approving a decree in 1749 which abolished the dixième tax that the clergy and aristocracy were exempt from to replace it with the vingtième which included the two groups. Upon fierce opposition from parlements throughout the country and the clergy, the king issued a decree in 1750 that cancelled the tax. Louis XV clearly couldn’t exhibit the authority necessary to mend the economic state of his nation and was far too intimidated by the privileged classes. Although he was burdened by the inherent system of Estates, as someone who had the ‘divine right’ to rule, he should’ve been more courageous and pushed through regardless as it would’ve put French economy more out of debt over the years, preventing the strong vendetta that would be built up over the years against the monarchy due to how poor France became. Moreover, nothing was learnt from Louis XIV’s endeavours as Louis XV continued to fight in wars; the most damaging one was the Seven Years’ War (1756-63). Prior to it, the government was in debt of 1.2 billion livres, but this considerably grew to 2.3 billion livres by 1764. This reduced the ability to fund the basic needs of the French people – low money meant low wages in jobs, or cuts leading to employment, struggles with household living and being able to afford food to eat. This would inevitably build up antagonism towards the monarchy who were supposed to be responsible to be looking after them. Though Louis was born and raised and had died in the Palace of Versailles, leading to him being in a similar bubble there as his predecessor and experiencing a disconnect to the rest of society and public opinion (meaning his inaction wasn’t his own weakness but rather a result of his circumstances), the king wasn’t limited to his circumstances and certainly had free will to overlook the state of the country and see beyond Versailles and his international affairs.

Louis XVI’s proved his incompetence to deal with the economy during his reign. He was lacked the resolve to advocate for policies which would have greatly improved the financial circumstances of the time. Source One is Calonne's speech to the Assembly of Notables in 1787 about ‘Programs of Reform’ highlights the severity of the economic crisis when he says that he “never mentioned [repealing the gabelle] without his being deeply grieved that he cannot rid his subjects of it altogether”. This increases the value of the source as the implication that Louis couldn’t abolish the gabelle — which proved to be troublesome as it was an expensive salt tax forced upon the poorest of the population, who despised it so strongly that smugglers would buy salt in a cheap area to resell where the legal price of salt was higher — emphasised his substandard management in his inability to even consider it from his own finance minister due to his personal upset at it, in spite the amount of opposition again. This supports the idea of the monarchy being at fault for the Revolution that would occur, as Louis was reluctant despite him having the ability to prevent such backlash from his subjects. Moreover, Calonne makes these proposals on the king’s behalf as he mentions phrases such as “His Majesty brought” and “the King intends to impart to you.” Louis XVI’s incapability to confront the Assembly of Notables himself and inform them of his plans is revealing of his ineptitude and hesitance to truly follow these policies through. If he was completely determined to see them through, he would’ve showed up himself.

As Source One is from the king’s finance minister, he would’ve been in direct communication with the monarch. This raises its value since he would have thorough knowledge of how Louis XVI felt, especially regarding economic policy. Additionally, since the source is a speech, Calonne likely prepared what he would say in advance, so examined whether his words were accurate — ensuring that what he was claiming about the monarch was true. However, as his purpose was to persuade the Assembly of Notables, Calonne could've catered his wording to take a softer approach, which led to him taming Louis XVI’s beliefs and reactions to these policies, which means he could've been more adamant on passing these new taxations than he claims.

The series of scandals the monarchs had were detrimental to triggering the Revolution. Even though Louis XIV’s reign didn’t have scandals that tainted his reputation enough to the point that they could be recognised as being a significant reason for the Revolution occurring, his successors certainly did possess scandals to this degree.

One of the most notable aspects of Louis XV’s reign was his ‘sleaze’ factor. It wasn’t improper for monarchs of France of this time to have mistresses, but Louis XV’s error was having affairs with non-aristocratic women. Pompadour, who remained close with the king from 1744 until her death in 1764, was of the bourgeois class. This already made her unpopular, but this dislike was heightened as she took part in the nation’s politics - such as her influencing Louis to form an alliance with Austria in 1756, and her making and unmaking generals during the Seven Years’ War. The former decision was particularly sparked a public outrage as Austria had been a consistent enemy for many years, so this alliance made France appear weaker than them as they were ‘submitting’ to the other country. Pompadour’s poor reputation harmed the king’s by association, so he was viewed as an impracticable leader; as a result, Revolution seemed more necessary. Stories of scandalous debauchery were exaggerated or false but were harmful to how Louis XV was perceived nonetheless: many believed the king to have “bathed in the blood of virgins” and be the father of ninety illegitimate children. Louis XV’s final mistress du Barry wasn't a noble either, but what made matters worse was she was a public prostitute. This removed essentially any reputability the king had left, which was already little, reducing him to anything but a worthy monarch who his people should abide to. As much respect for Louis was lost, the idea of an uprising against the monarchy grew more reasonable, attributing his scandalous behaviour as a crucial factor to the Revolution.

Similarly, the scandal of Louis XVI’s time acted as a catalyst for the Revolution. His wife, Antoinette, was subject to much contempt. Though an archduchess, she was Austrian – married to the king to solidify alliances with Austria. This was still very much an issue in 1774, the inappropriateness of associating with the country having been previously explained. Several salacious libelles were created of her which demeaned Louis XVI’s status. Source Two is a 1789 libelle of which abbreviated title is ‘The Royal Orgy’. In this, the Queen welcomes the man she’s having an affair with, the Count of Artois, with “come in, good friend,” while the count “[pinches] her buttocks” and tells compliments her “nice bottom.” This familiarity between the two suggests that in the story of this libelle, they had sexual encounters in the past, meaning Louis XVI wasn’t enough to satisfy Antoinette. This implication also suggests Louis as an incompetent person overall, worsened by how Antoinette had a poor reputation, so not even a woman of her low standard thought he was enough. This suggestion is further strengthened by how the Count of Artois was the king’s younger brother; Antoinette turned to someone else still in Louis’ family, but younger. The Queen says that “soon [the king] will be here to annoy us,” viewing the monarch as a troublesome inconvenience. As he’s so problematic to Antoinette who she’s expected to at the very least tolerate as his wife, the audience, i.e. the French public, was encouraged to see Louis XVI in the same way, thus inciting the need to revolt against him.

Whilst the author of Source Two is anonymous, the fact that it was published as a libelle is valuable in reflecting opinions of Antoinette as it’s one of many that represent her as an unruly lustful being, consolidating existing knowledge of how she was perceived. This aids the ability to learn how this affected attitudes towards Louis XVI as they were closely tied together due to their marriage. However, it was published at the end of the assigned time period, meaning this could be interpreted as a mere short-term factor, indicating it was not the monarch’s weakness that caused the revolution. Moreover, the purpose of this libelle was to just attack the monarchy, so doesn’t demonstrate its effect on their merit.

Therefore, perhaps the Enlightenment movement deserves more credit in provoking the Revolution. Although Voltaire’s writings didn’t highlight deposition, his work along with others’ emphasised a burning need for equal rights for all; this was considered very radical as society during this period was far from meeting this.

Source Three is Rousseau’s 1762 ‘The Social Contract’ which declared that “no man has any natural authority over men”. This suggested the king didn’t inherently have power over his people, arguing against his ‘divine right’ to rule - so they weren’t obligated to obey him. This insinuated that an insurrection was sensible and fair. He went on to say, “under the supreme direction of general will [...] we receive every member as an indivisible part of the whole,” essentially calling for the whole people come together for the common good (like through a popular uprising) so equality for all of them can be achieved. This was desirable to them as the absence of it led to struggles like the corveé that made the poorest of the Third Estate pay tax and carry out labour for the superior Estates, and anyone richer than them as they were ‘inferior’.