Last class period I made an error in reporting Queen Mother Anne's response to the rebellion of the Parisian Parlaiment. While many rebels did die, the leader of the rebellion Monsieur de Broussel, was spared.
In my research I have read the account of the rebellion by Madame de Motteville, one of the queen's ladies in waiting. According to her, the queen did not act entirely alone. She needed the help of two people, one direct and one indirect. These two people were the king's uncle, the Duke of Orleans, and the prince of Conde who indirectly helped by winning a victory over the Spanish at the Battle of Lens. The Prince of Conde's assistance was that he freed up troops that could be returned to the capital and (unsuccessfully) this was supposed to distract the people.
I think its safe to say that the French Revolution was not spontaneous and that the groundwork had already begun. When the queen sent men to the home of Monsieur de Broussel one of Broussel's servants ran to the window and started shouting into the street for help. She yelled, "They are taking my master! They are taking our liberator!" and the people rushed to his defense. Madame de Motteville tells us that the king's men valiantly defended themselves after having arrested Broussel but that they people were on them, placing chains in the city streets to block their carriage.
Eventually the king's men were rescued by a larger regiment of soldiers who "dispersed the crowd" which to me, implies that there was a significant amount of violence. It should be noted that this is written to put the crown in the best possible light, the people are depicted as villains and the king's men as doing their sacred duty.
Broussel was taken prisoner and the people surrounded the royal palace. Eventually the people were able to take royal ministers hostage and the queen traded Broussel for her ministers. This was probably something she did not wish to do, but was forced to do. However, it made her appear merciful after Broussel's betrayal and she was able to avoid a much larger rebellion. Broussel did promise not to instigate further rebellion as a condition for his release, and the demands of the parliament were dropped. This is probably because Broussel had been dragged out of his home by the king's men and knew that if he reneged on the deal he could be very easily reacquired and mercy might not be shown again.
Sounds to me like the Queen Regent ran the show on this one. If you want to look into how this act by his mother when he was young affected his mentality as a man, maybe you should check out some theories in Psycological development. Some philosophy theories on perception and such may also be relevant. It would be interesting to find an act by Louis XIV and compare it to the act by the Queen Mother using these theories.
ReplyDeleteI appreciate the corrected version of events, but have to still question whether it can serve as the best primary example of Louis XIV's absolutism in his reign. Even more so, the release of the Broussel, as well as the back-up needed by the King's men, demonstrates that the rebellion posed a real threat to the throne, perhaps suggesting the King inherited a shaky position, one in which he had to build his power beyond the Queen's earlier navigation out of the problem above. I did wonder, your mention of the French revolution was interesting, do you mean to connect his absolutism to this event beyond his lifetime? It could be an interesting example of the impact of his reign.
ReplyDelete