The French Revolution and the Roles of Louis XVI, Marie Antoinette and Robespierre

Abstract 

This paper investigates the influential roles of three of the key figures leading up to, and even prompting, the French Revolutionary War: Louis XVI, Marie Antoinette, and Maximilien de Robespierre. As demonstrated by Neely (2008), the political indecisiveness and ineptitude of Louis XVI, along with the Queen’s perceived extravagance during a time of famine, led to a disillusionment of the ancien régime by the common populous. The notorious “Affair of the Diamond Necklace” further incensed the common people with visions of court intrigue and political corruption (Neely, 2008, p. 38). This atmosphere of unrest, hunger, and political questioning, combined with Robespierre’s public, intense idealism about a pure and innately good lower class (McPhee, 2012, p. 108), instilled the common people with a momentum towards revolution. 

The French Revolution and the Roles of Louis XVI, Marie Antoinette and Robespierre

The French Revolution was brought about by many different factors: economic and financial challenges following the Seven Year’s War, a new questioning of tradition by some of the populous, and a burdensome system of taxation that kept the poor undermined and the rich wealthy. Each of these factors emerged within a setting perfectly suited for revolution. A new ideology born of Enlightenment philosophers, such as Voltaire and Rousseau, was stoking the bonfire of Revolution, with famine and corrupt aristocratic behavior as fuel. The American Revolution demonstrated that the will of the common people could prevail, which crept into the consciousness of the common French citizen. While the ideological environment of France was shifting dramatically and hunger pushed common people to anger, perhaps the most influential roles that roused the French Revolution existed in three people: Louis XVI, the Queen Marie Antoinette, and Maximilien de Robespierre. 

Louis XVI was a ruler concerned with public opinion, which caused him to make a fateful decision in 1749 to restore the parlements, or courts run by aristocrats, which were previously dismissed to enable reforms (Neely, 2008, pp. 35, 39). By restoring the parlements, Louis XVI enabled the upper class of aristocrats to once again use their power to reinforce their own positions and wealth. Growing resentment for the upper classes and the king was also bolstered by a war tax that remained in effect after the Seven Year’s War had ended due to the large debt the conflict had incurred (Neely, 2008, pp. 31-32). The burden rested heavier on the lower classes since they had less ability to obtain tax exemptions (Neely, 2008, pp. 7-9). The tax, combined with bad harvests that resulted in famine and rioting over scarce bread, provided the middle and lower classes with rising insecurity and anxiety over the traditional government, the ancien régime. 

Despite the fact that Louis XVI attempted to initiate tax reforms to alleviate the problem, the parlements, preoccupied about weakening their own statuses, would not agree on the changes brought forth (Neely, 2008, p. 34). The stalemates with the parlements, the Assembly of Notables, and later the Estates-General, made up of clergy, aristocrats, and (obligatorily) commoners, continued to aggravate the economic hardships and infuriate the suffering public (Neely, 2008, p. 46). Louis XVI also appeared both locally and internationally impotent in the area of foreign policy, which was regarded as uniquely the king’s responsibility. In 1787, only two years into an alliance with the United Providences of the Netherlands, France was unable to offer support when their partners faced an “incident”, due to the financial hardships France suffered from the war (Neely, 2008, p. 41). It became clear to the commoners that traditional means for solving financial and international problems, as well as how the country should proceed after reform, were no longer effective.

Along with the political facets, the social aspects of Louis XVI did not incur the confidence of the people, except for his coonection with the poet, Moliere. After seven years of marriage to his queen, Marie Antoinette, they had still not consummated and produced no children. It took the visit of Antoinette’s brother Joseph, who advised Louis XVI to consummate the royal marriage and work to produce an heir (Neely, 2008, p. 35). As a husband and king, Louis XVI was distant from his wife due to her being from the Austrian court, which was the traditional enemy of France (Neely, 2008, p. 37). Unfortunately, it was not only the social behaviors of the king but also the queen, accurate or not, that became another powerful factor in initiating revolution.

Bored and lonely from a king that chose not to consummate their marriage and distrusted for her Austrian heritage, Marie Antoinette lavished herself with gambling, bought expensive court dresses, redesigned chateaus and cottages, and engaged in other costly trivialities (Neely, 2008, p. 34). The common people loathed and resented what appeared to them to be overindulgences and frivolity during times when the famine was rampant and crime was rising. She was even singlehandedly blamed by the people for the enormous financial debt due to her extravagant spending, even being nicknamed “Madame Déficit” (Neely, 2008, p. 37). She was also shamelessly satirized in print media as promiscuous, lascivious and dimwitted. 

Her unpopularity was likely sealed by the notorious “Affair of the Diamond Necklace”, in which a group of unsavory characters attempted to commit fraud by using the queen’s identity to obtain a luxurious diamond necklace. Louis XVI was so enraged at the scandal that he demanded everyone involved be punished, but the court acquitted at least one of the people involved, believing him to have been legitimately fooled in the scheme. His acquittal suggested that the court found scandalous behavior around the queen unsurprising, which smeared her reputation even further (Neely, 2008, p. 38). With the “Affair of the Diamond Necklace”, not only was Marie Antoinette cemented into the public imagination as an excessive, extravagant, spendthrift, but also as disreputable and deceitful. With the public suffering under oppressive taxes, inept government, and famine, all that was left was a force to stir them into action. They found that momentum, and later, the Terror, in Maximilien de Robespierre.

Robespierre was an idealist and a firm advocate for the poor. He was heavily influenced by Jean-Jacques Rousseau and his philosophy that “the people” were innately good but were made corrupt through the irresponsible use of power by self-centered elites (McPhee, 2012, p.108). He was involved in the efforts to alleviate the financial troubles of France and represented the interests of the common people in the Estates-General in 1789. He gained even more power after the Estates-General was reformed by the commoners into the National Assembly (McPhee, 2012). Through his appointments, he passionately argued for revolution, the arrest and trial of the royal family and the execution of Louie XVI in 1793 (McPhee, 2012, p. 143). Also in 1793, Robespierre found himself elected into the Committee for Public Safety, but his momentum would soon come to a bitter end. Robespierre spearheaded the “Reign of Terror” in which the provisional government began executing thousands of people in the name of protecting the revolution from counter-forces. He even promoted the suspension of the right to due process to promote terror, which he saw as virtuous (McPhee, 2012, pp. 186-190). He ended up being a victim of his own institutional Terror, executed without a trial by his beloved revolutionary government in 1794.

The three figures: Louis XVI, Marie Antoinette, and Maximilien de Robespierre, were instrumental in promoting and initiating the French Revolutionary War, intentionally or not. Louis XVI was publicly viewed as inept, passive, and ultimately impotent as a king, sparking popular frustration and unrest towards the traditional government. Marie Antoinette was mercilessly mocked by media satire, plagued by scandals, real or not, and reviled for her seemingly frivolous and entitled spending. Although his ideals and passion thrust Maximilien de Robespierre through the revolution, the execution of the king and queen, and into the chaos of the aftermath, they became the source of his own undoing when they were eventually taken to extremes. Had the perfect storm of environment, social change and key people not been present at the time, the French Revolutionary War may well have never have occurred. While many circumstances and people were instrumental in the French Revolution, the roles of these three figures were doubtlessly among the most influential and provocative. 

References

McPhee, P. (2012). Robespierre: a revolutionary life. New Haven: Yale University Press.

Neely, S. (2008). A concise history of the French Revolution. Lanham: Rowman & Littlefield.