Question 1
Evaluate the interpretations in both of the two passages and explain which you think is more
convincing as an explanation of the threat of the noble conspiracies to Richelieu.
Passage A
The conventional view of the years when Richelieu dominated France – between 1624 and 1642 – is that he was constantly bothered by a large number of serious plots against both himself and the degree of absolutism that he was trying to impose on France in the King’s name. Certainly, in Louis XIII’s reign there were plenty of examples of treasonable rebellion led by relatives of the King. They ranged from his own mother to his younger brother. They were never seriously out to replace the King. Their aim seems to have been to make their presence felt and assert their rights. The main aim of most of the noble rebels was personal ambition and greed. They were upset by the fact that the King took advice from Richelieu and not them. The fact that they might have little advice to give and no desire to stay at Court and administer France seems irrelevant. The lack of unity or clear policies on their part indicates that they were not the threat to royal absolutism or to Richelieu that has sometimes been made out. At times, some of Richelieu’s noble opponents used his anti-Catholic and anti-Habsburg policy as a slogan against him. If they had stuck with it consistently they might have had some success, but in many cases there was little in their work that was anything more than naked ambition. Richelieu was completely loyal to the French monarchy and his master, Louis XIII. He expected the same from others. This was a new idea in seventeenth century France. If people behaved correctly and along these lines, they were rewarded.
Adapted from: D. Murphy, M. Tillbrook and P. Walsh-Atkins, Europe 1450–1661, published in 2001.
Passage B
Richelieu’s tenure of office was not easy. Even after the Day of Dupes in 1630, there were six major attempts to break his grip on France and her King, most of them engineered by other members of the royal family. In 1632, Louis XIII’s mother and his brother persuaded the governor of Languedoc to lead the rebellion of the province against Richelieu’s misguided attempt to abolish the estates. In 1633 the Queen managed to replace Richelieu during one of his serious bouts of illness; in 1636 Gaston arranged to have Richelieu murdered. These conspiracies were all fairly amateur affairs and none of them stood much chance. However, the last two were different. In 1641 the Count of Soissons, and the Duke of Bouillon issued a manifesto at Sedan which promised to restore everything to its former place. The conspirators had an army, and it defeated a royalist force. If the Count had not been killed he would have been welcomed by half of Paris. Indeed such was the general feeling of all France that the whole country would have rallied to his side. The conspiracy of 1642 had a good deal in common with the Soissons plot. It was only the discovery that Cinq-Mars had made a secret treaty with Spain, promising to place Gaston on the throne in place of Louis, that caused the failure of the plot and the execution of the royal favourite.
Adapted from: G. Parker, Europe in Crisis 1598–1648, published in 1979.
[30]
Answer
