Marie Antoinette and the Downfall of RoyaltyImbert de Saint-Amand
History
Marie Antoinette and the Downfall of Royalty
Imbert de Saint-Amand
France -- History -- Revolution, 1789-1799; Marie Antoinette, Queen, consort of Louis XVI, King of France, 1755-1793
While Marie Antoinette was thus turning towards Austria for assistance,
the National Assembly at Paris repelled with energy all thought of any
intervention whatsoever on the part of foreign powers. January 1,
1792, it issued a decree of impeachment against the King's brothers,
the Prince de Conde, and Calonne. The confiscation of the property of
the _émigrés_ and the taxation of their revenues for the benefit of the
State had been prescribed by another decree to which Louis XVI. had
offered no opposition. January 14, Guadet said in the tribune, while
speaking of the congress: "If it is true that by delays and
discouragement they wish to bring us to accept this shameful mediation,
ought the National Assembly to close its eyes to such a danger? Let us
all swear to die here rather than--" He was not allowed to finish.
The whole assembly rose to their feet, crying: "Yes, yes; we swear it!"
And in a burst of enthusiasm, every Frenchman who would take part in a
congress having for its object the modification of the Constitution,
was declared an infamous traitor. January 17, it was decreed that the
King should require the {27} Emperor Leopold to explain himself
definitely before March 1.
By a curious coincidence, this date of March 1 was precisely that on
which the Emperor Leopold was to die of a dreadful malady. He was in
perfect health on February 27, when he gave audience to the Turkish
envoy; he was in his agony, February 28, and on March 1, he died. His
usual physician asserted that he had been poisoned. The idea that a
crime had been committed spread among the people. Vague rumors got
about concerning a woman who had caused remark at the last masked ball
at court. This unknown person, under shelter of her disguise, might
have presented the sovereign with poisoned bonbons. The Jacobins, who
might have desired to get rid of the armed chief of the empire, and the
_émigrés_, who might have reproached him as too luke-warm in his
opposition to the principles of the French Revolution, were alternately
suspected. The last hypothesis was hardly probable, nor does anything
prove that the Jacobins had any hand in the possibly natural death of
the Emperor Leopold. But minds were so overexcited at the time that
the parties mutually accused each other, on all occasions, of the most
execrable crimes. For that matter, there were Jacobins who, out of
mere bravado, would willingly have gloried in crimes of which they were
not guilty, provided that these crimes had been committed against kings.
Public-domain text, read in full here on John Shaqi.
Reviews
Reviews
No reviews yet
Be the first to share your thoughts on this work.
Join the Discussion
Join the discussion
Sign in to leave a comment or review.
Sign InorCreate an account