Question 1
Evaluate the interpretations in both of the two passages and explain which you think is more convincing as an explanation of the reasons for noble conspiracies against Richelieu in the
period to 1630.
Passage A
The Chalais conspiracy of 1626 can be traced to two immediate causes: the cardinal’s edict of that year ordering the destruction of private fortresses, and the projected marriage of Gaston d’Orléans and Marie de Montpensier. In part, a furious reaction against the authority of the cardinal, and in part a tangle of personalities and private ambitions.
In 1629, Richelieu initiated negotiations with Gustavus Adolphus [king of Sweden] which were to lead to an alliance with a Lutheran power, with the express object of saving the German protestant states from the dominion of the emperor. This new alignment was loathed by the dévots and the Spanish party at court. They had an alternative programme to offer, and their opposition to the cardinal, which came to the boil in the critical years 1629–1630, had a serious political content. Not all the enemies of Richelieu could claim, however, that they had a constructive purpose. The loves, hates, poses and ambitions of the great feudal magnates, their wives and mistresses, do not add up to a responsible opposition. But they had motives for disliking the cardinal.
Marillac’s conspiracy in 1630 had a little more coherence and centred around Marie de Medici who had the power to influence Louis against Richelieu. Marillac was not prepared to submit entirely to the cardinal’s direction. He opposed Richelieu’s foreign policy on grounds of expense and disliked the anti-Habsburg drift of the Italian campaign and negotiations in Germany. He was aware of the condition of the people and the domestic dangers of this policy. It is therefore not surprising that he demanded war was ended and by 1630 had the support of Marie.
Adapted from: G. R. R. Treasure, Seventeenth Century France, published in 1966.
Passage B
The aims of the plots were partly to remove Richelieu from court, and partly to have him replaced at the centre of power by whoever was doing the plotting. Another aim of the plots was to prevent the growth of centralised royal power so that the nobles, who had tasted a degree of freedom during the Wars of Religion, could behave as they wished. Many of the nobility wished to maintain a right to rebel. Although they were not opposed to a monarchy, the monarchy they wished to see would tolerate any behaviour by the nobility that liked to see itself above the law in all respects. An outsider might well see this type of behaviour as treason, but it was not viewed as such in France. Richelieu’s intention was to increase royal power at the expense of the nobility’s freedom of action. This was naturally disliked. Richelieu’s ability to place his own relatives and friends in positions of power and wealth also caused much resentment. The nobles wanted that right. It was mainly an ‘ins’ versus ‘outs’ quarrel; it should not be seen as the same as a quarrel between two parties with differing policies and beliefs. At times, some of Richelieu’s noble opponents used his anti-Catholic and anti-Habsburg policy against him, but there was little in their work that was anything more than naked ambition.
Adapted from: D. Murphy, M. Tillbrook and P. Walsh-Atkins, Europe 1450–1661, published in 2000.
[30]
Answer
