History UsefulNotes / TheFrenchRevolution

There was less daylight between the parish priests and the hierarchy on the subject of Church property, but it wasn't as big a deal as it seemed. While they all hated the principle of seizing Church property and railed against it in their sermons, this wasn't anything they hadn't seen before. Governments across Europe had seized Church property from time to time since the Middle Ages, and while the Church always made a big fuss about it, the resistance was usually limited to scathing oratory so long as the situation was dire (which the French Church admitted it was) and the state took only what it needed.[[note]]By way of comparison, Louis's distant ancestor, the [[UsefulNotes/ByzantineEmpire Byzantine Emperor]] Alexios I Komnenos, had seized Chuch property--including actual icons (images of Christ and the saints) to take their gold, silver, and jewels--but as he was using the proceeds to fight off a Turkish invasion, the Church could do no more than grumble.[[/note]] Besides, the priests had long grumbled about the extraordinary splendor of the prelates, and probably didn't care all ''that'' much so long as what was seized was just farms and jewels and such that happened to be Church-owned rather than actual church buildings and holy items. Indeed, parish priests probably would have had not a little bit of ''schadenfreude'' at the prospect of seizing property from the abbeys and monasteries, which were often seen as "[[LockedAwayInAMonastery refuges]]" for indolent and troublesome nobles and unproductive parasites that consumed Church income without ministering to the people or doing any productive work themselves.

Consequently, most French clerics wouldn't have seen the wage as ''that'' big an issue--just a beefier form of Gallicanism. While the tithe the wages were replacing had some biblical support, the way the tithes were distributed in ''Ancien Regime'' France--mostly to the high prelates, with practically nothing going to the parish priests--meant that for the vast majority of French clergy, the regular civil service wage the Civil Constitution promised was actually a better deal than they had been getting. While the parish priests would definitely have preferred the continuation of tithes, with the income stream being redirected at them, becoming a government employee wasn't a huge deal in itself--[[{{Schadenfreude}} especially if it meant that the prelates and abbots who had been getting the tithes were now getting payscale at best and nothing at worst]]. As for the bishops and abbots, they were almost to a man the younger sons of exactly the sort of high nobility who had come to the grim realization that this revolution meant their time was up.

Consequently, most French clerics wouldn't have seen the wage as ''that'' big an issue--just a beefier form of Gallicanism. While the tithe the wages were replacing had some biblical support, the way the tithes were distributed in ''Ancien Regime'' France--mostly to the high prelates, with practically nothing going to the parish priests--meant that for the vast majority of French clergy, the regular civil service wage the Civil Constitution promised was actually a better deal than they had been getting. While the parish priests would definitely have preferred the continuation of tithes, with the income stream being redirected at them, becoming a government employee wasn't a huge deal in itself. As for the bishops and abbots, they were almost to a man the younger sons of exactly the sort of high nobility who had come to the grim realization that this revolution meant their time was up.

* ''Film/MarieAntoinette''

* ''TabletopGame/{{Guillotine}}'' is a Creator/WizardsOfTheCoast card game in which every plays a rival executioner during the French Revolution and takes turns guillotining prisoners. Players compete by manipulating the line to claim the highest-value heads.

There was less daylight between the parish priests and the hierarchy on the subject of Church property, but it wasn't as big a deal as it seemed. While they all hated the principle of seizing Church property and railed against it in their sermons, this wasn't anything they hadn't seen before. Governments across Europe had seized Church property from time to time since the Middle Ages, and while the Church always made a big fuss about it, the resistance was usually limited to scathing oratory so long as the situation was dire (which the French Church admitted it was) and the state took only what it needed.[[note]]By way of comparison, Louis's distant ancestor, the [[UsefulNotes/ByzantineEmpire Byzantine Emperor]] Alexios I Komnenos, had seized Chuch property--including actual icons (images of Christ and the saints)--to take their gold, silver, and jewels, but as he was using the proceeds to fight off a Turkish invasion, the Church could do no more than grumble.[[/note]] Besides, the priests had long grumbled about the extraordinary splendor of the prelates, and probably didn't care all ''that'' much so long as what was seized was just farms and jewels and such that happened to be Church-owned rather than actual church buildings and holy items. Indeed, parish priests probably would have had not a little bit of ''schadenfreude'' at the prospect of seizing property from the abbeys and monasteries, which were often seen as "[[LockedAwayInAMonastery refuges]]" for indolent and troublesome nobles and unproductive parasites that consumed Church income without ministering to the people or doing any productive work themselves.

There was less daylight between the parish priests and the hierarchy on the subject of Church property, but it wasn't as big a deal as it seemed. While they all hated the principle of seizing Church property and railed against it in their sermons, this wasn't anything they hadn't seen before. Governments across Europe had seized Church property from time to time since the Middle Ages, and while the Church always made a big fuss about it, the resistance was usually limited to scathing oratory so long as the situation was dire (which the French Church admitted it was) and the state took only what it needed. Besides, the priests had long grumbled about the extraordinary splendor of the prelates, and probably didn't care all ''that'' much so long as what was seized was just farms and jewels and such that happened to be Church-owned rather than actual church buildings and holy items. Indeed, parish priests probably would have had not a little bit of ''schadenfreude'' at the prospect of seizing property from the abbeys and monasteries, which were often seen as "[[LockedAwayInAMonastery refuges]]" for indolent and troublesome nobles and unproductive parasites that consumed Church income without ministering to the people or doing any productive work themselves.

The plan was also implemented without full understanding of regional diversity. In relatively urbanized areas under close royal supervision, like the Paris Basin, people largely went along with the plan, even if there was some grumbling by the particularly devout (like, again, the King). By contrast, the Civil Constitution failed utterly in more rural regions, traditionally far away from royal influence; most priests in these regions refused to take the oath and thus became known as "nonjuring" priests (i.e. refusing to swear).

!!! The revolution's original sin: The Civil Constitution of the Clergy and the Revolt in the Vendée

!!! Crafting a new regime and other reforms

That's TheThemeParkVersion. The real history of the French Revolution was even more of [[GambitPileup a wild ride]]. Start with a series of nations (Britanny, Gascogne, etc. etc.) that have little in common with each other but are bound together by King and Church. France was drained by [[UsefulNotes/WarOfTheSpanishSuccession three]] [[UsefulNotes/SevenYearsWar major]] [[UsefulNotes/TheAmericanRevolution world]] wars in the last hundred years, and lots of smaller ones besides. There were these expensive-to-make-and-keep royal palaces, a new and very young king and queen who didn't have the experience or political will to make hard but necessary decisions, a nobility that did not want to pay exorbitant taxes even if they had money and didn't use it at all, with the emerging middle and lower-classes being asked to foot an exorbitant bill. All this in a nation with an obsolete form of government that had missed the reforms [[UsefulNotes/EnglishCivilWar that]] [[UsefulNotes/HanoverStuartWars modernized England]] in the intervening hundred years. Over and above, there was the escalating famine, where bread is too expensive for the average person in the Parisian Basin to buy.

* The Storming of the Tuileries marked the end of Constitutional Monarchy and the birth of the Republic, which led to calls for a new republican constitution. This event took place on August 10, 1792 and was led by Cordeliers, sans culottes, the Paris Commune, the National Guard as well as volunteers from the Province called Federalists. They came mainly from Marseilles and along the way they picked up a song and popularized it during their march, this became known as "La marseillaise".

The situation crystallized when the "National Assembly", upon finding out one day that their meeting hall was locked for some reason, chose to meet on their own in a tennis court. They took an oath not to disband until a new constitution was established for France, which was basically a dare for anyone else to challenge the "National Assembly's" authority.

The King himself shared some of this frustration, and he and his various finance ministers (Turgot, Necker, and Callonne) spent the better part of the 1780s trying to figure out a way to reform the royal finances and thus avert financial catastrophe. They had a number of good ideas (and a large number of not-so-good ones), but that didn't really matter because in order for any royal decree to come into effect as law, it had to be registered by the ''parlements'': local judicial and quasi-legislative assemblies of jurists across France that held an important role in France's legislative process. (You thought the King's word was law? He wished!)[[note]]Technically, the King could force registration by holding a ''lit de justice''--literally, a "bed of justice"--in which he personally appeared at a sitting of the ''parlement'' of Paris on a bed, sitting on a throne made of cushions. Seriously. However, this was extremely annoying for the King, as these sessions were set about with heaps of ritual and were thus a logistical nightmare, to say nothing of the fact that the ''parlement'' (correctly) regarded the ''lit de justice'' as an affront to their independence and would thus do their best to be as unhelpful as possible. Also, between the bed and the cushions and the stuffiness of the ''parlement'' chambers, it was painfully easy for the king to ''fall asleep'' in the middle of the ceremony, causing major embarassment to the Crown. (This actually happened to Louis XVI during the crisis years leading up to the Revolution.[[/note]] As it so happened, the ''parlements'' were made up of people who to the last man believed they would be adversely affected by any serious reform, and they used every trick in the book to prevent or at least delay registration of any reform laws--and very effectively, since they were all lawyers. They even got a good amount of popular support, as they argued that they were acting as defenders of French freedom and the ancient traditions of the French constitution--even though they were blocking legislation that would make the lives of most Frenchmen materially better.

The King himself shared some of this frustration, and he and his various finance ministers (Turgot, Necker, and Callonne) spent the better part of the 1780s trying to figure out a way to reform the royal finances and thus avert financial catastrophe. They had a number of good ideas (and a large number of not-so-good ones), but that didn't really matter because in order for any royal decree to come into effect as law, it had to be registered by the ''parlements'': local judicial and quasi-legislative assemblies of jurists across France that held an important role in France's legislative process. (You thought the King's word was law? He wished!)[[note]]Technically, the King could force registration by holding a ''lit de justice''--literally, a "bed of justice"--in which he personally appeared at a sitting of the ''parlement'' of Paris sitting on a throne made of cushions. Seriously. However, this was extremely annoying for the King, as these sessions were set about with heaps of ritual and were thus a logistical nightmare, to say nothing of the fact that the ''parlement'' (correctly) regarded the ''lit de justice'' as an affront to their independence and would thus do their best to be as unhelpful as possible. Also, between the bed and the cushions and the stuffiness of the ''parlement'' chambers, it was painfully easy for the king to ''fall asleep'' in the middle of the ceremony, causing major embarassment to the Crown. (This actually happened to Louis XVI during the crisis years leading up to the Revolution.[[/note]] As it so happened, the ''parlements'' were made up of people who to the last man believed they would be adversely affected by any serious reform, and they used every trick in the book to prevent or at least delay registration of any reform laws--and very effectively, since they were all lawyers. They even got a good amount of popular support, as they argued that they were acting as defenders of French freedom and the ancient traditions of the French constitution--even though they were blocking legislation that would make the lives of most Frenchmen materially better.

The King himself shared some of this frustration, and he and his various finance ministers (Turgot, Necker, and Callonne) spent the better part of the 1780s trying to figure out a way to reform the royal finances and thus avert financial catastrophe. They had a number of good ideas (and a large number of not-so-good ones), but that didn't really matter because in order for any royal decree to come into effect as law, it had to be registered by the ''parlements'': local judicial and quasi-legislative assemblies of jurists across France that held an important role in France's legislative process. (You thought the King's word was law? He wished!)[[note]]Technically, the King could force registration by holding a ''lit de justice''--literally, a "bed of justice"--in which he personally appeared at a sitting of the ''parlement'' of Paris sitting on a bed and supported by cushions. Seriously. However, this was extremely annoying for the King, as these sessions were set about with heaps of ritual and were thus a logistical nightmare, to say nothing of the fact that the ''parlement'' (correctly) regarded the ''lit de justice'' as an affront to their independence and would thus do their best to be as unhelpful as possible. Also, between the bed and the cushions and the stuffiness of the ''parlement'' chambers, it was painfully easy for the king to ''fall asleep'' in the middle of the ceremony, causing major embarassment to the Crown. (This actually happened to Louis XVI during the crisis years leading up to the Revolution.[[/note]] As it so happened, the ''parlements'' were made up of people who to the last man believed they would be adversely affected by any serious reform, and they used every trick in the book to prevent or at least delay registration of any reform laws--and very effectively, since they were all lawyers. They even got a good amount of popular support, as they argued that they were acting as defenders of French freedom and the ancient traditions of the French constitution--even though they were blocking legislation that would make the lives of most Frenchmen materially better.

The King himself shared some of this frustration, and he and his various finance ministers (Turgot, Necker, and Callonne) spent the better part of the 1780s trying to figure out a way to reform the royal finances and thus avert financial catastrophe. They had a number of good ideas (and a large number of not-so-good ones), but that didn't really matter because in order for any royal decree to come into effect as law, it had to be registered by the ''parlements'': local judicial and quasi-legislative assemblies of jurists across France that held an important role in France's legislative process. (You thought the King's word was law? He wished!)[[note]]Technically, the King could force registration by holding a ''lit de justice''--literally, a "bed of justice"--in which he personally appeared at a sitting of the ''parlement'' of Paris sitting on a bed and supported by cushions. Seriously. However, this was extremely annoying for the King, as these sessions were set about with heaps of ritual and were thus a logistical nightmare, to say nothing of the fact that the ''parlement'' (correctly) regarded the ''lit de justice'' as an affront to their independence and would thus do their best to be as unhelpful as possible. Also (as Louis XVI learned), between the bed and the cushions and the stuffiness of the ''parlement'' chambers, it was painfully easy for the king to ''fall asleep'' in the middle of the ceremony, causing major embarassment to the Crown.[[/note]] As it so happened, the ''parlements'' were made up of people who to the last man believed they would be adversely affected by any serious reform, and they used every trick in the book to prevent or at least delay registration of any reform laws--and very effectively, since they were all lawyers. They even got a good amount of popular support, as they argued that they were acting as defenders of French freedom and the ancient traditions of the French constitution--even though they were blocking legislation that would make the lives of most Frenchmen materially better.

The King himself shared some of this frustration, and he and his various finance ministers (Turgot, Necker, and Callonne) spent the better part of the 1780s trying to figure out a way to reform the royal finances and thus avert financial catastrophe. They had a number of good ideas (and a large number of not-so-good ones), but that didn't really matter because in order for any royal decree to come into effect as law, it had to be registered by the ''parlements'': local judicial and quasi-legislative assemblies of jurists across France that held an important role in France's legislative process. (You thought the King's word was law? He wished!) As it so happened, the ''parlements'' were made up of people who to the last man believed they would be adversely affected by any serious reform, and they used every trick in the book to prevent or at least delay registration of any reform laws--and very effectively, since they were all lawyers. They even got a good amount of popular support, as they argued that they were acting as defenders of French freedom and the ancient traditions of the French constitution--even though they were blocking legislation that would make the lives of most Frenchmen materially better.

* ''La Marseillaise'' (Creator/JeanRenoir film). 1938 film which chronicles the early years from Bastille to the Storming of Tuileries and ending at the Battle of Valmy. Features costumes by UsefulNotes/CocoChanel, a shadow theatre scene by exiled German animation pioneer Lotte Reiniger and amazing battle scenes. The linking thread is the development and MemeticMutation of the song that would become France's National Anthem in a fictionalized portrayal of the volunteer battalion from Marseilles that brought it to Paris.

A few voices even suggested doing away with the King and declaring a republic, but most were still skeptical that a republic could govern such a large nation since republicanism had hitherto mostly been observed in Italian city-states and the ancient world, and in both cases these republics covered smaller areas. The only republic of comparable size was the United States, and even the most sympathetic French rightly viewed it skeptically; the first government under its new federal constitution had met that very spring, and even then it still didn't have full control of its claimed territory (North Carolina would not join until November; Rhode Island held out until May 1790).[[note]]Before you say, "what about the Roman Republic?", recall that while the Roman Republic ''controlled'' vast territories, the people of the provinces in the Republican era were not Roman citizens but subjects and tributaries of the Roman state. The business of government was controlled by Roman citizens who either physically lived in Rome or could make it to Rome in time for all the important votes. If you were out in the provinces, the local Roman governor had full policy discretion, limited only by directives from Rome and whatever treaties and deals governed the relationship between Rome and the local cities and tribes. The governor certainly wasn't at all responsible to the locals, as would happen in a modern republic; at best, the locals' deal would require the governor to consult with and inform their leaders about major decisions. A particular town/city might even be inhabited by Roman citizens (being Roman colonies or cities granted citizenship) and have its own republican constitution, but even then the local governor was still not responsible to them and needed only to respect certain legal rights of citizens (e.g. procedural rights in the courts). TL;DR: the Republican era Roman empire was an empire in the same way as, say, Persia's was, just with the monarch replaced with the Roman state, in which only Roman citizens in Rome could participate.[[/note]] The largest stable republic anyone had ever seen was the Netherlands, and even that was seen as [[HereditaryRepublic more or less a monarchy]] (since the Prince of Orange was almost inevitably the stadtholder of all or most of the constituent provinces). The only precedent they had for stable popular government in a country that size was Great Britain's constitutional monarchy.

A few voices even suggested doing away with the King and declaring a republic, but most were still skeptical that a republic could govern such a large nation since republicanism had hitherto mostly been observed in Italian city-states and the ancient world, and in both cases these republics covered smaller areas. The only republic of comparable size was the United States, and even the most sympathetic French rightly viewed it skeptically; the first government under its new federal constitution had met that very spring, and even then it still didn't have full control of its claimed territory (North Carolina would not join until November; Rhode Island held out until May 1790).[[note]]Before you say, "what about the Roman Republic?", recall that while the Roman Republic ''controlled'' vast territories, the people of the provinces in the Republican era were not Roman citizens but subjects and tributaries of the Roman state. The business of government was controlled by Roman citizens who either physically lived in Rome or could make it to Rome in time for all the important votes. If you were out in the provinces, the local Roman governor had full policy discretion, limited only by directives from Rome and whatever treaties and deals governed the relationship between Rome and the local cities and tribes. The governor certainly wasn't at all responsible to the locals, as would happen in a modern republic; at best, the locals' deal would require the governor to consult with and inform their leaders about major decisions. TL;DR: the Republican era Roman empire was an empire in the same way as, say, Persia's was, just with the monarch replaced with the Roman state, in which only Roman citizens in Rome could participate.[[/note]] The largest stable republic anyone had ever seen was the Netherlands, and even that was seen as [[HereditaryRepublic more or less a monarchy]] (since the Prince of Orange was almost inevitably the stadtholder of all or most of the constituent provinces). The only precedent they had for stable popular government in a country that size was Great Britain's constitutional monarchy.

A few voices even suggested doing away with the King and declaring a republic, but most were still skeptical that a republic could govern such a large nation since republicanism had hitherto mostly been observed in Italian city-states and the ancient world, and in both cases these republics covered smaller areas. The only republic of comparable size was the United States, and even the most sympathetic French rightly viewed it skeptically; the first government under its new federal constitution had met that very spring, and even then it still didn't have full control of its claimed territory (North Carolina would not join until November; Rhode Island held out until May 1790).[[note]]Before you say, "what about the Roman Republic?", recall that while the Roman Republic ''controlled'' vast territories, the people of the provinces were not Roman citizens but subjects and tributaries of the Roman state. The business of government was controlled by Roman citizens who either physically lived in Rome or could make it to Rome in time for all the important votes. If you were out in the provinces, the local Roman governor had full policy discretion, limited only by directives from Rome and whatever treaties and deals governed the relationship between Rome and the local cities and tribes. The governor certainly wasn't at all responsible to the locals, as would happen in a modern republic; at best, the locals' deal would require the governor to consult with and inform their leaders about major decisions. TL;DR: the Republican era Roman empire was an empire in the same way as, say, Persia's was, just with the monarch replaced with the Roman state, in which only Roman citizens in Rome could participate.[[/note]] The largest stable republic anyone had ever seen was the Netherlands, and even that was seen as [[HereditaryRepublic more or less a monarchy]] (since the Prince of Orange was almost inevitably the stadtholder of all or most of the constituent provinces). The only precedent they had for stable popular government in a country that size was Great Britain's constitutional monarchy.

* ''The Married Couple of the Year Two'', a comedy starring Jean-Paul Belmondo as a man who returns to Nantes during the Terror to get a divorce from his estranged wife and gets between the fronts of various revolutionary and royalist factions. One of the few movies involving the Revolution that does not contain a single scene set in Paris.

* ''Literature/ATaleOfTwoCities'' is probably the most famous depiction of the French Revolution in Anglosphere pop culture. It is, after all, a Creator/CharlesDickens novel and has naturally received numerous adaptations. Taking place before and during the Revolution, the story focuses on a group of fictional characters in both London and Paris, which are the two cities of the title. In particular, it centers on a LoveTriangle, with French aristocrat Charles Darnay and English lawyer Sydney Carton vying for the affections of Lucie Manette, whose father was once imprisoned in the Bastille.

* ''Literature/ATaleOfTwoCities'' is probably the most famous depiction of the French Revolution in Anglosphere pop culture. It is, after all, a Creator/CharlesDickens novel and has naturally received numerous adaptations. Taking place before and during the Revolution, the story focuses on a group of fictional characters in both London and Paris, which are the two cities of the title.

* ''Literature/ATaleOfTwoCities''

* ''The French Revolution'', a 1989 film produced for the 200th anniversary of the French Revolution. Noteworthy for being surprisingly neutral in regards to the events. The movie is divided into two parts, ''La Révolution française: les Années lumière'' ("The French Revolution: The Years of Hope") and ''La Révolution française: les Années terribles'' ("The French Revolution: The Years of Terror"). The first half, directed by Robert Enrico, begins with a brief prologue in 1774 before skipping forward to the summoning of the Estates General and then following events through to the deposition of Louis XVI. As you might have guessed, the second half, directed by Richard T. Heffron, focuses on the Reign of Terror, picking up where the first one left off and ending with the execution of Robespierre.

* ''The French Revolution'' (1989 movie, Robert Enrico). The film was produced for the 200th anniversary of the French Revolution. Noteworthy for being surprisingly neutral in regards to the events.

On top of this, a significant contingent of liberal nobles sympathetic to the Third Estate's concerns had won election to the Second Estate, including both the UsefulNotes/MarquisDeLaFayette (a great liberal hero in those days) and the King's cousin Louis Philippe, the Duke of Orléans (a great supporter of liberal causes who had also been a gleeful thorn in the side of the royal ministry during the Assembly of Notables[[note]]By the by, the King and the ministry almost certainly knew how annoying Cousin Phil was going to be well ahead of the Assembly of Notables and would gladly have let him out if they could. Unfortunately for them, the Duke held the title "First Prince of the Blood" and as such his right to sit in the Assembly was beyond challenge. See what we mean about how Louis ''wished'' his word was law?[[/note]]). (The Duke of Orleans's love of taking the piss out of his crowned cousin probably informed his liberalism almost as much as actual conviction.) While they were hardly a majority, there were enough liberal nobles that the Second Estate's meetings were not the picture of aristocratic unity the Crown might have hoped them to be. (The Duke of Orléans in particular took joy in being as much of a pest as he had been in the Assembly of Notables.)

On top of this, a significant contingent of liberal nobles sympathetic to the Third Estate's concerns had won election to the Second Estate, including both the UsefulNotes/MarquisDeLaFayette (a great liberal hero in those days) and the King's cousin Louis Philippe, the Duke of Orléans (a great supporter of liberal causes who had also been a gleeful thorn in the side of the royal ministry during the Assembly of Notables[[note]]By the by, the King and the ministry almost certainly knew how annoying Cousin Phil was going to be well ahead of the Assembly of Notables, but unfortunately for them, the Duke held the title "First Prince of the Blood" and as such his right to sit in the Assembly was unchallengeable. See what we mean about how Louis ''wished'' his word was law?[[/note]]). (The Duke of Orleans's love of taking the piss out of his crowned cousin probably informed his liberalism almost as much as actual conviction.) While they were hardly a majority, there were enough liberal nobles that the Second Estate's meetings were not the picture of aristocratic unity the Crown might have hoped them to be. (The Duke of Orléans in particular took joy in being as much of a pest as he had been in the Assembly of Notables.)

On top of this, a significant contingent of liberal nobles sympathetic to the Third Estate's concerns had won election to the Second Estate, including both the UsefulNotes/MarquisDeLaFayette (a great liberal hero in those days) and the King's cousin Louis Philippe, the Duke of Orléans (a great supporter of liberal causes who had also been a gleeful thorn in the side of the royal ministry during the Assembly of Notables[[note]]By the by, the King and the ministry almost certainly knew how annoying Cousin Philippe was going to be well ahead of the Assembly of Notables, but unfortunately for them, the Duke held the title "First Prince of the Blood" and as such his right to sit in the Assembly was unchallengeable. See what we mean about how Louis ''wished'' his word was law?[[/note]]). (The Duke of Orleans's love of taking the piss out of his crowned cousin probably informed his liberalism almost as much as actual conviction.) While they were hardly a majority, there were enough liberal nobles that the Second Estate's meetings were not the picture of aristocratic unity the Crown might have hoped them to be. (The Duke of Orléans in particular took joy in being as much of a pest as he had been in the Assembly of Notables.)