How Did King Louis Influence The French Revolution
The leadership of King Louis continued to fail miserably when he came to an impasse with the secret meeting of the Third Estate. Louis refused to align himself with the people even though he reminded himself of previous French king’s alliance, and instead, he gave a discreet answer to the people that proved unsatisfactory and vague. His refusal to choose an order highlighted his distance from the reality of the revolution and his non-committal answer revealed to the public his deficiency of leadership. The character of Louis became more noticeable to the public eye as his speeches and answers lacked substance and passion for France. From 1787 until his decision at the Etats-Généraux, King Louis sided with the unprivileged and after the Tennis Court Oath for the new constitution, he decided to bring in the privileged classes to make compromises with the Third Estate. King Louis betrayed the Third Estate and showed them his own indecisiveness—he
…show more content…
brought in others to form and resolve the agreements. The Tennis Court Oath incident offered the idea of a new constitution and new laws. This oath by the Third estate threatened all monarchical power and forced him into an alliance with the privileged classes because he was too weak to fight back and stand up for his beliefs in the strength of the popularity. His indecisive character caused distrust with the Third Estate and a deeper wound in the tension between the monarchy and the peasant class. Furthermore, the King and his advisors pretended as if this incident did not happen. Padover writes “ [The] King and ministers behaved as if nothing had happened and as if mere words were effective weapons with which to fight revolutionary demands … [and] Louis shrugged his shoulders.” The silence to the Etats-Généraux highlighted the incompetence of Louis to his country and for his country. He focused more of his attention on his political power with the nobility and clergy rather than the mounting discontent with the unrecognized Third Estate. The growing division between the royalty of the king and the peasants amplified as he lied to the Tiers Etat three times. The popular movement grew stronger and the number of demonstrators increased. To combat this, King Louis sent troops to Paris only by the command of his wife and his military advisors. Another instance where outside people and factors manipulated the actions of King Louis XVI. The troops served as a constant annoyance to the people in full rebellion mode even after they retreated. The people took up arms and stormed the Bastille, a military prison. John Hardman blamed Bastille and the ideas of a new constitution and a reorder of society on the unfaithfulness of the king and the lack of control by Louis; he writes “This mood had been created by a sense of betrayal by the King … the King’s volte-face had effected, to his disadvantage, a synthesis between two strands of thought … He had displayed inconsistency … [The King] had sowed dissention and, when it finally bore fruit, left it rotting in the field. King Louis, unfortunately, used his lack of leadership to cause one of the biggest events for the French Revolution. His highly influenced choice to send the troops and then, his on-a-whim decision to remove them stressed to his people the need for revolt because their so-called leader did not care about their desires. The poor character of the monarch continued to seal his fate. At this point of the revolution, Marie Antoinette involved herself more in the politics of her husband. Before, Louis XVI did not allow his Austrian wife to involve herself in foreign policy and politics or let her opinions influence the decisions of his political advisors. Around this time, she wrote many letters to her Austrian relatives to engage in diplomacy and to attempt to save her power from the monarchy. Her opinions and international power shaped the many choices of King Louis from 1789 to his death. This reversal of power for the queen signified the importance of royal power to Marie Antoinette, but also the passiveness of the King to speak up for his desires and act upon them. Marie Antoinette’s letters to the leaders of the Constitutional Left showed her adaptation to the dynamic revolution for the ultimate success of the monarchy.
In her letters, she adopted the opinions of Barnave—one of her political influences for the Constitutional Monarchy—for the sole purpose of swaying her husband to agree. Her letters spoke for the both of them, but she only used the pronoun ‘I’. She writes “we had both thought (the King and I) that a proclamation could not be helpful to enlighten all French people on the King’s real intentions. The one I send you a copy of herewith seems to me very good.” Louis’s true political opinion hid underneath the authority and weight of his wife. The power of his wife strengthened the limitations of the monarch during the revolution and further ruined his reputation as strong. Even though Marie’s political ideas differed strongly from his own, Louis’s weak and docile personality caused him to fail miserably at maintaining his own thoughts and crawling to his wife for
guidance. Once Louis left for Paris, he faced the reality of the people’s revolution for the first time. The people of Paris held King Louis hostage in the Palace of Tuileries and he soon believed escape was more noble and advantageous than captivity where his power could be used against him. While the intentions of his escape looked great on the outside, the goals of the flight would remove Louis from the situation, reinforcing his apathetic personality. The monarch knew the National Assembly would finalize the new Constitution in July, so he hoped to leave Paris before he must accept the document by the force of the citizens. The night of his flight he left a note on his desk which complained of the removal of all his royal powers and attempted to justify his escape to the people of France. The complaints of Louis were justified, however, they continued to show the nobility and the peasants the inability of the King to confront problems of the revolution, stand up for his beliefs, and effectively make decisions. This weakness in the monarch cultivated more distrust and unease with the people because Louis lied and bent the truth. The people of France expressed their unbelief and discontent with the King in the National Assembly as soon as the King took off, even though they heard the rumor incorrectly. The assembly issued a statement regarding the king:
The King and the royal family have been abducted … France wants to be free, and she will be free. They want to retrograde revolution, and the revolution does not retreat … Under the constitution, the king is the executive chief … If he leaves his post, the representatives of the nation have the right to replace him … Frenchman, the absence of the king will not stop the activity of the government.”
This announcement informed the citizens that France could manage without a king or executive. King Louis XVI betrayed the trust of the National Assembly and the peasants so much that they believed he was unnecessary for the revolution, let alone government. King Louis did not even show any attempt to help or return to Paris; he remained passive out of strong influence of his wife and advisors. The character of the King caused huge chaos in Paris and around the country because he could not control his own desires to save his power and remain quiet. Axel von Ferson orchestrated the grand escape with little input from the king or his family. He says “Without me their escape would be impossible. I alone have their confidence. There is no one else whose discretion they can count on to carry out such plans.” The inaction of the monarch to plan his own escape, once again, stemmed from his lack of willpower. His advisors planned out every detail of the escape and the goals for the restoration of the King’s power and legitimate authority to France. He allowed his counselors to administer the plan for redemption for him. He relied so much on his ministers that he did not have a clue on what to do when he actually made it to Montmédy as his advisors never heard of the King’s intentions after his flight. King Louis XVI could not think for himself or devise his own plans to solve the problem of the constitution and government. From the beginning of his escape, the poor character of Louis shone through.
brought in others to form and resolve the agreements. The Tennis Court Oath incident offered the idea of a new constitution and new laws. This oath by the Third estate threatened all monarchical power and forced him into an alliance with the privileged classes because he was too weak to fight back and stand up for his beliefs in the strength of the popularity. His indecisive character caused distrust with the Third Estate and a deeper wound in the tension between the monarchy and the peasant class. Furthermore, the King and his advisors pretended as if this incident did not happen. Padover writes “ [The] King and ministers behaved as if nothing had happened and as if mere words were effective weapons with which to fight revolutionary demands … [and] Louis shrugged his shoulders.” The silence to the Etats-Généraux highlighted the incompetence of Louis to his country and for his country. He focused more of his attention on his political power with the nobility and clergy rather than the mounting discontent with the unrecognized Third Estate. The growing division between the royalty of the king and the peasants amplified as he lied to the Tiers Etat three times. The popular movement grew stronger and the number of demonstrators increased. To combat this, King Louis sent troops to Paris only by the command of his wife and his military advisors. Another instance where outside people and factors manipulated the actions of King Louis XVI. The troops served as a constant annoyance to the people in full rebellion mode even after they retreated. The people took up arms and stormed the Bastille, a military prison. John Hardman blamed Bastille and the ideas of a new constitution and a reorder of society on the unfaithfulness of the king and the lack of control by Louis; he writes “This mood had been created by a sense of betrayal by the King … the King’s volte-face had effected, to his disadvantage, a synthesis between two strands of thought … He had displayed inconsistency … [The King] had sowed dissention and, when it finally bore fruit, left it rotting in the field. King Louis, unfortunately, used his lack of leadership to cause one of the biggest events for the French Revolution. His highly influenced choice to send the troops and then, his on-a-whim decision to remove them stressed to his people the need for revolt because their so-called leader did not care about their desires. The poor character of the monarch continued to seal his fate. At this point of the revolution, Marie Antoinette involved herself more in the politics of her husband. Before, Louis XVI did not allow his Austrian wife to involve herself in foreign policy and politics or let her opinions influence the decisions of his political advisors. Around this time, she wrote many letters to her Austrian relatives to engage in diplomacy and to attempt to save her power from the monarchy. Her opinions and international power shaped the many choices of King Louis from 1789 to his death. This reversal of power for the queen signified the importance of royal power to Marie Antoinette, but also the passiveness of the King to speak up for his desires and act upon them. Marie Antoinette’s letters to the leaders of the Constitutional Left showed her adaptation to the dynamic revolution for the ultimate success of the monarchy.
In her letters, she adopted the opinions of Barnave—one of her political influences for the Constitutional Monarchy—for the sole purpose of swaying her husband to agree. Her letters spoke for the both of them, but she only used the pronoun ‘I’. She writes “we had both thought (the King and I) that a proclamation could not be helpful to enlighten all French people on the King’s real intentions. The one I send you a copy of herewith seems to me very good.” Louis’s true political opinion hid underneath the authority and weight of his wife. The power of his wife strengthened the limitations of the monarch during the revolution and further ruined his reputation as strong. Even though Marie’s political ideas differed strongly from his own, Louis’s weak and docile personality caused him to fail miserably at maintaining his own thoughts and crawling to his wife for
guidance. Once Louis left for Paris, he faced the reality of the people’s revolution for the first time. The people of Paris held King Louis hostage in the Palace of Tuileries and he soon believed escape was more noble and advantageous than captivity where his power could be used against him. While the intentions of his escape looked great on the outside, the goals of the flight would remove Louis from the situation, reinforcing his apathetic personality. The monarch knew the National Assembly would finalize the new Constitution in July, so he hoped to leave Paris before he must accept the document by the force of the citizens. The night of his flight he left a note on his desk which complained of the removal of all his royal powers and attempted to justify his escape to the people of France. The complaints of Louis were justified, however, they continued to show the nobility and the peasants the inability of the King to confront problems of the revolution, stand up for his beliefs, and effectively make decisions. This weakness in the monarch cultivated more distrust and unease with the people because Louis lied and bent the truth. The people of France expressed their unbelief and discontent with the King in the National Assembly as soon as the King took off, even though they heard the rumor incorrectly. The assembly issued a statement regarding the king:
The King and the royal family have been abducted … France wants to be free, and she will be free. They want to retrograde revolution, and the revolution does not retreat … Under the constitution, the king is the executive chief … If he leaves his post, the representatives of the nation have the right to replace him … Frenchman, the absence of the king will not stop the activity of the government.”
This announcement informed the citizens that France could manage without a king or executive. King Louis XVI betrayed the trust of the National Assembly and the peasants so much that they believed he was unnecessary for the revolution, let alone government. King Louis did not even show any attempt to help or return to Paris; he remained passive out of strong influence of his wife and advisors. The character of the King caused huge chaos in Paris and around the country because he could not control his own desires to save his power and remain quiet. Axel von Ferson orchestrated the grand escape with little input from the king or his family. He says “Without me their escape would be impossible. I alone have their confidence. There is no one else whose discretion they can count on to carry out such plans.” The inaction of the monarch to plan his own escape, once again, stemmed from his lack of willpower. His advisors planned out every detail of the escape and the goals for the restoration of the King’s power and legitimate authority to France. He allowed his counselors to administer the plan for redemption for him. He relied so much on his ministers that he did not have a clue on what to do when he actually made it to Montmédy as his advisors never heard of the King’s intentions after his flight. King Louis XVI could not think for himself or devise his own plans to solve the problem of the constitution and government. From the beginning of his escape, the poor character of Louis shone through.