To what extent was Charles X responsible for his own downfall?
When Charles X stood down to Louis-Philippe, after his monarchy, many said that this was his own doing and he was fully responsible for his own downfall. However this was not entirely true, Louis unorthodox methods may have contributed to his downfall in the long term however short term causes are just as important and appointment of ministers such as Villele was a crucial fault in Charles’s system.
One could say that the polarisation of political ideologies in the Chamber of Peers and Chamber of Deputies after the white terror could have been a key contribution to the downfall of Charles X. Charles seemed weak and feeble when he was in power and could not securely control the Chamber of Peers and chamber of Deputies. This led to on-going tension over land + privilege and debate about the nature of the monarchy.
The primary downfall was said to be the Kings appointment of Villele. Villele was very unpopular amongst his colleagues and the public, he was known to always choose a safe option and not take any risks, however he was very clever, cunning and always preformed remarkably, for example there would be careful control of the budget. This being said, the downfall of Villele led to a large downfall in Charles X also. The fall of Villele in 1828 was due to polarised political positions at the time; there was hardly any agreement in parliament. There was opposition to villele from the left and the right and there was also underground liberal movements e.g Les Chevaliers de la Liberté.
Charles and Villele worked closely together to bring back a more absolute monarchy, as the Ultras wanted and Charles was refusing to embrace liberalism. He did not want an absolute monarchy as there had been before the revolution, and he did not want another revolution which would give more power to the bourgeoisie and proletariat. He wanted to control a stable monarchy, which allowed a certain degree...
Please join StudyMode to read the full document