In the End, It Was Still Hard to Let Go

"My esteemed Queen, you must remain highly vigilant against the Marquis of Lafayette. What the Marquis of Lafayette says certainly has some merit; one could even say that, in its entirety, what he says can be considered irrefutable truth."

However, Your Majesty, you must know this: to deceive people, the truth is far more effective than lies. Often, those who are naturally intelligent, like Your Majesty, can see through lies at a glance. But the truth is different; with proper emphasis and hints, it is often more deceptive than lies. Lafayette was such a false Caesar who was adept at using the truth to deceive people.

"Times have changed," and "Constitutional monarchy is the future"—these are absolutely true. But the most crucial point, Lafayette probably hasn't mentioned to you, is: who exactly is in charge of this constitutional monarchy?

Under the current constitutional monarchy, and with all due respect, the king is merely a hostage; he does not receive genuine, widespread respect. I imagine Your Majesty has noticed the various newspapers in Paris, some of the more radical ones, such as * L'Ami du peuple *, which are advocating for a republic, a complete end to the Bourbon Dynasty's rule over France, and the transformation of France into a republic. This theory has considerable support within parliament, and even some previously moderates are showing signs of siding with them. This is a very alarming situation.

Why would these people make such a choice? The reason is simple: those thugs have demonstrated their power, people know they have power, and they know they are willing to use their power. But my Majesty, our King, because of his benevolence, has never been willing to use his power, or even to demonstrate it.

If a king wears a crown but is unwilling to display his power, what is there to awe about the crown? Your Majesty, in many situations, being unwilling to display power is almost equivalent to having no power at all.

On another point, Lafayette is right: the current Royalist Party are unreliable. With all due respect, Your Majesty, as Macbeth said, "Those who are closest to us by blood are the ones who want to drink our blood." You must be wary of them—even if they are your relatives.

But Your Majesty, on this matter, Lafayette has resorted to his usual methods. He tells you the truth, but he never tells you the whole truth. Facts and the whole truth are completely different. The Royalist Party and those republican rebels are completely different in one respect: the Royalist Party must rely on the king. The king has a natural authority over them. They may scheme against the king through various intrigues, even using tricks like having someone else do the dirty work, but they cannot directly confront the king with weapons. The king is their natural leader, whether some of them like it or not.

As for Lafayette, my wise Majesty, I call him the 'false Caesar's because Lafayette pretends to control the army, portraying himself as someone who can command thousands of troops with a single word, just like Caesar. In reality, Lafayette's control over the army is nowhere near that of the real Caesar.

The real Caesar commanded a legion that had fought under his command for a long time, and every aspect of this legion, including logistics and the selection and promotion of officers, was decided by Caesar. Therefore, Caesar could easily command them to do anything, including marching on Rome. But Lafayette did not have such an army; he only had so-called 'prestige.' How could this 'prestige' compare to His Majesty's legitimate status? He was able to control the situation not because of his own strength, but because of His Majesty's legitimate status. Only with His Majesty under his control could he control the France army.

Now, this 'false Caesar's is 'reforming' the army. Your Majesty, this is precisely Lafayette's attempt to compensate for his weaknesses. If he can maintain control over Your Majesty for a long time, he might one day truly control the army. At that time, the false Caesar will become the true Caesar. Perhaps Lafayette genuinely hopes to achieve a constitutional monarchy, but a constitutional monarchy achieved under such circumstances is extremely detrimental to Your Majesty. Because the continuation of any contract depends on mutual respect between the parties. Parliament has demonstrated its power, while the King has never demonstrated any power. In such a contract, Parliament becomes the superior bestower, while the King is practically a beggar. Such a constitutional system cannot last. There will always be those in Parliament who try to attract attention in more extreme ways, and humiliating the King will become their best way to gain popularity. In the end, they will ask: 'Why do we need a King?'

However, the Britain constitutional monarchy is different. The Britain monarchy has demonstrated its power in many ways, and Parliament and the monarch respect each other's power, and thus respect each other's interests. This is what makes a stable and reliable constitutional monarchy.

Your Majesty, regarding your inquiry on how the Royal Family should respond to the current situation, your humble subject offers the following suggestions.

First, you and His Majesty the King must feign great trust in Lafayette and appear subservient to Parliament to lull them into a false sense of security. On the other hand, you must make His Majesty the King understand just how dangerous the situation is and that he must take action.

In my humble opinion, remaining in Paris is of no benefit to the King or the Royal Family. Therefore, given the opportunity, the King should immediately leave Paris for a safer location. I believe such a location should possess the following characteristics.

First, this region should generally support the monarchy and legitimacy.

Secondly, this location should be far from the border. This was for several reasons. First, it was to show the people of the whole country that the king was not colluding with foreign powers as those scoundrels claimed in vulgar tabloids like "L'Ami du peuple"; second, it was also to prevent ambitious individuals who were not truly loyal to the king but were trying to use foreign power to gain more benefits from the Royalist Party.

Taking all these factors into account, I personally believe that Lyon would be the most suitable location.

Your loyal servant

Honoré Gabriel Riccetti

Honoré Gabriel Richter was the Speaker of the National Assembly, a staunch revolutionary, and one of the leaders of the France Revolution—the renowned Marquis Mirabeau. He has always been considered one of the most steadfast and radical revolutionaries. Therefore, if this letter he wrote to Queen Marie Antoinette were to be seen by others, it would certainly cause a huge uproar. In fact, in the original historical account, after Mirabeau's death, his remains were honored with burial in the Panthéon for his contributions to the revolution. However, shortly afterward, the King was arrested, and these correspondence between Mirabeau and the Queen were discovered in the palace, revealing that Mirabeau had actually sided with the royal family. The enraged crowd then dragged his body from the Panthéon and threw it into the rubbish heap. (Of course, this man, who, like Louis XIV, believed in "after me, the deluge," probably wouldn't have cared about such things.)

Mirabeau was a man of extravagant lifestyle, keeping a large number of mistresses, so his expenses were always very high. Normal, legal income was insufficient to support his lifestyle. Ever since Lafayette exiled his good friend (good wallet) Duke of Orleans from France, Mirabeau's life became increasingly difficult, and it is said that he was once again charged higher interest rates on loans by the Jews.

After being taken hostage by the National Guard and brought to Paris, the King and Queen, practically prisoners of Paris, desperately needed someone influential in Parliament who could speak on their behalf. At this time, Jean-Baptiste Mark, a scholar and biologist with connections to the court, recommended his friend Mirabeau to the Queen.

Mark was one of the earliest proponents of evolutionary theory. In his original work, he published * Philosophie zoologique * in 1809, proposing Mark's theory of evolution. That same year, another leading figure in evolutionary theory, Charles Robert Darwin, was born in Britain. While Mark's two main principles of evolution—use and disuse and the inheritance of acquired traits—have largely been refuted by later research, his academic contributions remain indelible.

Through Mark's introduction, Mirabeau, who was once again on the verge of bankruptcy, secretly contacted the Queen. In fact, as early as July of the previous year, after the storming of the Bastille, Mirabeau had tried to contact the Queen. But at that time, the Queen looked down on a libertine like Mirabeau. She dismissed his proposal without a second thought, as if he were nothing more than an annoying fly.

But now, bribing this man would cost much more. It is said that the Queen prepared four checks for Mirabeau, each worth 250,000 Livre, in order to obtain Mirabeau's help. It was also under Mirabeau's secret influence that the royal family was able to move from the Tuileries Palace, which was closer to the city center and therefore more difficult to escape from, to the Saint-Cloud Palace, which was easier to escape from.

"My dear, do you think Mirabeau is right?" Queen Marie Antoinette asked. But the man she called "my dear" was not King Louis XVI, but another Sweden named Axeld Fiesen. He was the son of a highly respected member of the Sweden House of Nobility, and also Queen Marie Antoinette's secret lover and true confidant.

"Mirabeau is a very talented and capable man," Ferson sighed, "But precisely because of that, I don't know if we can trust him."

Queen Marie nodded. "You're right. Lafayette wasn't loyal to the King, but at least he was a man of ideals and principles. But Mirabeau, he's a scoundrel who deserves to go to hell! I really find it hard to believe him. And if it weren't for them..."

Ferson sighed. He knew that neither he nor the Queen could outwit Mirabeau, that old fox. Moreover, the Queen still harbored resentment over Mirabeau's leadership of the rebellion. Although everyone knew that now was not the time to pursue such matters, the resentment in their hearts remained difficult to quell.