Thank you for listening to the rest is history. For weekly bonus episodes, ad free listening, early access to series and membership of our much loved chat community, go to therestishistory.com and join the club that is the restishory.com.

Human rights did not begin with the French Revolution. And I do not think anyone who knows their religious history or their greek history would suggest they did. We had 1689, our silent, quiet revolution where parliament exerted its will over the king. It was not the sort of revolution that Frances was. It was done quietly, without the bloodshed, liberty, egality, fraternity. They forgot obligations and duties, I think. And then of course, it was the fraternity that went missing for a long time. Well, it just did, did it not? It heralded an age of terror. Some of the arguments used, oh, you have to strike these people down because they will be counter revolutionaries. Oh, what familiar language to my generation. They have to be struck down, murdered. And not just the way the terrors were done, but with people loving to see the torture. Oh, it was an age of terror. It was an age of terror.

So dominic of tulip mania bust.There'd been a massive stock market bust and general at last met in 1614, 1615, and nobody can really remember what it was, how it was organized, who voted for it.It's the existence of the british parliament that is able to raise money. Is this something that, in the build up to the french revolution, people are looking at enviously and saying, why don't we have a system like this?Yes, as we will see, loads of people basically want France to have. A lot of the revolutionaries at the And Brienne also, entertainingly, there's a lot of skin disease in this series.There really is, isn't there?So, Brienne, I read he suffered from a skin disease that left his face, quote, mass of peeling scabs and tissue, and yet he was thought of as a personable and congenial man. So that says a lot for his personality.It does. Well, so we've had Louis XV, who died with his face covered in pustules and we're going to be meeting Marat, aren't we?Yeah. And, well, Mirabeau, the ugliest man in France.Mirabeau, yes, yes, his face. Well, yes. So lots of unpleasant skin complaints.Yeah. So Brienne had been an opposition figure and he had said, like a lot of the notables, I think Callon's stuff about the deficit is balderdash. I don't think there really is a deficit.Let's have a look in the books and just check.There'll be loads of money. And he looks at the books, he.Says, oh, my God.Well, it's true. Callan wasn't telling the truth about the deficit because he wasn't. It's not 80 million, it's 140 million.Oh, God.And so actually, Brienne then has to go back with his skin complaint to his old chums in the notables and he says, actually, we do need new taxes. He wants a land tax and a stamp tax. What could possibly go wrong with the stamp tax? Tom? Always very successful. Weeze and the notables say yet again, no, we dont either. Say, you know, you will have to call the estates general if you want new course, as famously as it's been remarked on this, they do not actually make the omelet.So basically, there is an intra elite attempt to grab the levers of power. But essentially that fight between the rival sections of the elite has been overtaken. Bye. Mass uprising.Yeah, it has. And actually, Simon Sharma is absolutely brilliant on this. It's one of the many, many fantastic insights in his book. And I should make this the Sharma fan cast. But he points out the judges are carried aloft by the crowd, the parliament judges. But he says it's not clear at this point, they're not the leaders of the riot there. It's kind of its trophies, a bit like the stuffed eagle, but they're also kind of its prisoners. Right.And this is something that will happen again and again. So, I mean, looking ahead, it's an experience that the royal family will soon be experiencing.Yeah. And some of the older judges are very anxious about this and end up actually leaving the city. They don't want to be associated with this, but there's a younger generation who are enthused and actually see in the disorder and the collapse of royal authority, a chance to lead, to profit. And the classic example of this is a guy who I think you can argue is the first true french revolutionary leader. So he's a young judge from Grenoble and he's called Jean Joseph Meunier. And he is just such a perfect example of a french revolutionary leader. He's the son of a cloth merchant, he's upwardly mobile. He's 29, so he's young, as so many of them were, and he's a lawyer. They're all lawyers. They're all young lawyers and he's really ambitious. They're basically like Athelstan members, Tom, they're young lawyers. Of the rest is history club. French revolution is in waiting. So he has bought the office of a royal judge and he has actually become a very, very. He's on the lowest possible rank of the nobility.And isn't that always the way, classically, in a revolution? It's not the poor, it's always the upwardly mobile who haven't got quite upwardly mobile enough.Exactly. And he sees this as a chance to jump up the ladder and to turn the ladder into his ladder. So he convenes a huge meeting on the 21 July 1788 outside Grenoble. The Chateau de Visel, the Chateau de Wiesel. If you go there today, it is the world's only museum of the French Revolution. And there's a reason for that, because you can argue again, this is one of the absolute places where the french revolution began.Well, particularly if you. The Grenoble tourist board.If you're the Grenoble tourist board. Exactly. And at this meeting, he says, listen, we want free elections. We want the estates general of Dauphine, each province to have its own estates general. And when that meets the third estate, the commons should have the same numbers as the other two estates the lords and the clergy put together, and they should all sit in one chamber, not multiple chambers like they have in Britain. Lords and commons, or one chamber, so that the commons can dominate. In other words, majority rule. The general will, will dominate over the privileges of the old order. And a lot of historians say that is so groundbreaking and seismic that that is the true kickoff point for the revolution, the chain of events that would lead to the revolution. There's two other things that I think are really revealing about that meeting at Wiesel. First of all, is the language is so 1793, it's all about patriotic fire sacrifices. The law should be the expression of the general will. But the other thing is there is a darker side to it. So for the first time these people say we are patriots, but our opponents are traitors to the Patri and they should be treated accordingly because there's a.Kind of incipiently totalitarian quality to saying that you are the embodiment of the nation.Definitely there is, Tom, because if you.Are the embodiment of the nation, your enemies therefore aren't and by definition are traitors.Yeah, I totally agree with you. Now, of course, you can say there's a great irony here that actually even Mounier and his friends have not really understood what happened in Grenoble, that riots as day. They think because they've been chaired aloft by the crowd, they think they're going to control it. And they are, of course, dead wrong. And some of these people are going to end up dead and literally dead. But I think what makes it so revealing is that it is indicative of this change in the language and the sentiment that is happening in 1788. Previously, all that stuff was about the old liberties of the French that the government, a modernizing government, is trying to squash. But in 1788, you can see that language changing and people are now saying, let's actually do something new. Who cares about the past? We can use this opportunity to draw up a new constitution. Sharma gives a brilliant example of a lawyer called Volney, who wrote a journal called the sentinel of the people. What does it matter to us what our fathers have done or how and why they have done it? The essential rights of man, his natural relations to his fellows in the state of society.These are the basis of any form of government. So in other words, theyre going to take that, the idea of starting again and they take the passion, the idea of virtue, all of that. And that gives them, you could argue, what Robert Darnton calls a radically simplified view of politics.Well, and also, I mean, its very contrary to the way that the constitution has evolved in Britain, where the whole point of the relationship of the monarchy to the House of Lords and the House of Commons has evolved over time and is rooted in the deep past. And so therefore, you can already see that Britain is starting to fade as a model for the more radical proponents of a new constitution.But also what is so interesting is it is also different from the american constitution makers because the american constitution makers are slightly trapped within the british mindset. So there it's about the separation of powers. They want to insure against a kind of mob democracy. They want to insure against somebody having too much power. Their constitution is hedged about with kind of nuances and qualifications. The french revolutionaries have no time for that. Sharma quotes a guy who was a friend of Rousseau's called the Comte d'entraigues, who said, the people is the state itself. By the immutable laws of nature, the people is everything. Everything should be subordinated to the people. That is not how british Whig politicians spoke. It's not really how american colonists spoke. This sense of it's very simple. There's us, the side of virtue and patriotism and liberty, and then there's them, despotism and depredations and corruption and all of that sort and traitors and traitors. So right there, even before the fall of the Bastille, you've got the lines being drawn very starkly. Now, meanwhile, Mister Brienne, with his pustules, the archbishop is sitting there in Versailles thinking, what on earth am I going to do?And clearly everything is all kicked off. His plan hasn't really worked. And he says to Louis, listen, we do have to call the estates general. We're going to have to do this. And Louis says to him, what, Archbishop? You must think we are lost. They might overturn the state and the monarchy. And Brienne says, I'm afraid we have no choice at all. So in the second week of August 1788, they go public and they say, we're going to call the estates general. We'll figure out how it will work in due course. We don't really know what the rules will be, how it will be elected, but we will call it all the same.What could possibly go wrong?And then, against this background, a massive development. On the 16 August, Brienne announces they have run out of money. They have been surviving all this time on loans, but the royal treasury is virtually empty. From now on, people will be paid in ious, in paper money which they don't really believe exists, which they hate. In other words, France is bankrupt.Well, Dominic, what a cliffhanger. So in the next episode, the estates general will be meeting. The revolution will be beginning. Or if you accept that it's already begun in Grenoble, it will be continuing. And if you just can't wait to find out what happens, you can hear it right now by joining the rest is history club at the rest is history. Alternatively, the next episode will be coming very soon. Either way, we'll see you then. Bye.

of tulip mania bust.

There'd been a massive stock market bust and general at last met in 1614, 1615, and nobody can really remember what it was, how it was organized, who voted for it.It's the existence of the british parliament that is able to raise money. Is this something that, in the build up to the french revolution, people are looking at enviously and saying, why don't we have a system like this?Yes, as we will see, loads of people basically want France to have. A lot of the revolutionaries at the And Brienne also, entertainingly, there's a lot of skin disease in this series.There really is, isn't there?So, Brienne, I read he suffered from a skin disease that left his face, quote, mass of peeling scabs and tissue, and yet he was thought of as a personable and congenial man. So that says a lot for his personality.It does. Well, so we've had Louis XV, who died with his face covered in pustules and we're going to be meeting Marat, aren't we?Yeah. And, well, Mirabeau, the ugliest man in France.Mirabeau, yes, yes, his face. Well, yes. So lots of unpleasant skin complaints.Yeah. So Brienne had been an opposition figure and he had said, like a lot of the notables, I think Callon's stuff about the deficit is balderdash. I don't think there really is a deficit.Let's have a look in the books and just check.There'll be loads of money. And he looks at the books, he.Says, oh, my God.Well, it's true. Callan wasn't telling the truth about the deficit because he wasn't. It's not 80 million, it's 140 million.Oh, God.And so actually, Brienne then has to go back with his skin complaint to his old chums in the notables and he says, actually, we do need new taxes. He wants a land tax and a stamp tax. What could possibly go wrong with the stamp tax? Tom? Always very successful. Weeze and the notables say yet again, no, we dont either. Say, you know, you will have to call the estates general if you want new course, as famously as it's been remarked on this, they do not actually make the omelet.So basically, there is an intra elite attempt to grab the levers of power. But essentially that fight between the rival sections of the elite has been overtaken. Bye. Mass uprising.Yeah, it has. And actually, Simon Sharma is absolutely brilliant on this. It's one of the many, many fantastic insights in his book. And I should make this the Sharma fan cast. But he points out the judges are carried aloft by the crowd, the parliament judges. But he says it's not clear at this point, they're not the leaders of the riot there. It's kind of its trophies, a bit like the stuffed eagle, but they're also kind of its prisoners. Right.And this is something that will happen again and again. So, I mean, looking ahead, it's an experience that the royal family will soon be experiencing.Yeah. And some of the older judges are very anxious about this and end up actually leaving the city. They don't want to be associated with this, but there's a younger generation who are enthused and actually see in the disorder and the collapse of royal authority, a chance to lead, to profit. And the classic example of this is a guy who I think you can argue is the first true french revolutionary leader. So he's a young judge from Grenoble and he's called Jean Joseph Meunier. And he is just such a perfect example of a french revolutionary leader. He's the son of a cloth merchant, he's upwardly mobile. He's 29, so he's young, as so many of them were, and he's a lawyer. They're all lawyers. They're all young lawyers and he's really ambitious. They're basically like Athelstan members, Tom, they're young lawyers. Of the rest is history club. French revolution is in waiting. So he has bought the office of a royal judge and he has actually become a very, very. He's on the lowest possible rank of the nobility.And isn't that always the way, classically, in a revolution? It's not the poor, it's always the upwardly mobile who haven't got quite upwardly mobile enough.Exactly. And he sees this as a chance to jump up the ladder and to turn the ladder into his ladder. So he convenes a huge meeting on the 21 July 1788 outside Grenoble. The Chateau de Visel, the Chateau de Wiesel. If you go there today, it is the world's only museum of the French Revolution. And there's a reason for that, because you can argue again, this is one of the absolute places where the french revolution began.Well, particularly if you. The Grenoble tourist board.If you're the Grenoble tourist board. Exactly. And at this meeting, he says, listen, we want free elections. We want the estates general of Dauphine, each province to have its own estates general. And when that meets the third estate, the commons should have the same numbers as the other two estates the lords and the clergy put together, and they should all sit in one chamber, not multiple chambers like they have in Britain. Lords and commons, or one chamber, so that the commons can dominate. In other words, majority rule. The general will, will dominate over the privileges of the old order. And a lot of historians say that is so groundbreaking and seismic that that is the true kickoff point for the revolution, the chain of events that would lead to the revolution. There's two other things that I think are really revealing about that meeting at Wiesel. First of all, is the language is so 1793, it's all about patriotic fire sacrifices. The law should be the expression of the general will. But the other thing is there is a darker side to it. So for the first time these people say we are patriots, but our opponents are traitors to the Patri and they should be treated accordingly because there's a.Kind of incipiently totalitarian quality to saying that you are the embodiment of the nation.Definitely there is, Tom, because if you.Are the embodiment of the nation, your enemies therefore aren't and by definition are traitors.Yeah, I totally agree with you. Now, of course, you can say there's a great irony here that actually even Mounier and his friends have not really understood what happened in Grenoble, that riots as day. They think because they've been chaired aloft by the crowd, they think they're going to control it. And they are, of course, dead wrong. And some of these people are going to end up dead and literally dead. But I think what makes it so revealing is that it is indicative of this change in the language and the sentiment that is happening in 1788. Previously, all that stuff was about the old liberties of the French that the government, a modernizing government, is trying to squash. But in 1788, you can see that language changing and people are now saying, let's actually do something new. Who cares about the past? We can use this opportunity to draw up a new constitution. Sharma gives a brilliant example of a lawyer called Volney, who wrote a journal called the sentinel of the people. What does it matter to us what our fathers have done or how and why they have done it? The essential rights of man, his natural relations to his fellows in the state of society.These are the basis of any form of government. So in other words, theyre going to take that, the idea of starting again and they take the passion, the idea of virtue, all of that. And that gives them, you could argue, what Robert Darnton calls a radically simplified view of politics.Well, and also, I mean, its very contrary to the way that the constitution has evolved in Britain, where the whole point of the relationship of the monarchy to the House of Lords and the House of Commons has evolved over time and is rooted in the deep past. And so therefore, you can already see that Britain is starting to fade as a model for the more radical proponents of a new constitution.But also what is so interesting is it is also different from the american constitution makers because the american constitution makers are slightly trapped within the british mindset. So there it's about the separation of powers. They want to insure against a kind of mob democracy. They want to insure against somebody having too much power. Their constitution is hedged about with kind of nuances and qualifications. The french revolutionaries have no time for that. Sharma quotes a guy who was a friend of Rousseau's called the Comte d'entraigues, who said, the people is the state itself. By the immutable laws of nature, the people is everything. Everything should be subordinated to the people. That is not how british Whig politicians spoke. It's not really how american colonists spoke. This sense of it's very simple. There's us, the side of virtue and patriotism and liberty, and then there's them, despotism and depredations and corruption and all of that sort and traitors and traitors. So right there, even before the fall of the Bastille, you've got the lines being drawn very starkly. Now, meanwhile, Mister Brienne, with his pustules, the archbishop is sitting there in Versailles thinking, what on earth am I going to do?And clearly everything is all kicked off. His plan hasn't really worked. And he says to Louis, listen, we do have to call the estates general. We're going to have to do this. And Louis says to him, what, Archbishop? You must think we are lost. They might overturn the state and the monarchy. And Brienne says, I'm afraid we have no choice at all. So in the second week of August 1788, they go public and they say, we're going to call the estates general. We'll figure out how it will work in due course. We don't really know what the rules will be, how it will be elected, but we will call it all the same.What could possibly go wrong?And then, against this background, a massive development. On the 16 August, Brienne announces they have run out of money. They have been surviving all this time on loans, but the royal treasury is virtually empty. From now on, people will be paid in ious, in paper money which they don't really believe exists, which they hate. In other words, France is bankrupt.Well, Dominic, what a cliffhanger. So in the next episode, the estates general will be meeting. The revolution will be beginning. Or if you accept that it's already begun in Grenoble, it will be continuing. And if you just can't wait to find out what happens, you can hear it right now by joining the rest is history club at the rest is history. Alternatively, the next episode will be coming very soon. Either way, we'll see you then. Bye.

general at last met in 1614, 1615, and nobody can really remember what it was, how it was organized, who voted for it.

It's the existence of the british parliament that is able to raise money. Is this something that, in the build up to the french revolution, people are looking at enviously and saying, why don't we have a system like this?

Yes, as we will see, loads of people basically want France to have. A lot of the revolutionaries at the And Brienne also, entertainingly, there's a lot of skin disease in this series.There really is, isn't there?So, Brienne, I read he suffered from a skin disease that left his face, quote, mass of peeling scabs and tissue, and yet he was thought of as a personable and congenial man. So that says a lot for his personality.It does. Well, so we've had Louis XV, who died with his face covered in pustules and we're going to be meeting Marat, aren't we?Yeah. And, well, Mirabeau, the ugliest man in France.Mirabeau, yes, yes, his face. Well, yes. So lots of unpleasant skin complaints.Yeah. So Brienne had been an opposition figure and he had said, like a lot of the notables, I think Callon's stuff about the deficit is balderdash. I don't think there really is a deficit.Let's have a look in the books and just check.There'll be loads of money. And he looks at the books, he.Says, oh, my God.Well, it's true. Callan wasn't telling the truth about the deficit because he wasn't. It's not 80 million, it's 140 million.Oh, God.And so actually, Brienne then has to go back with his skin complaint to his old chums in the notables and he says, actually, we do need new taxes. He wants a land tax and a stamp tax. What could possibly go wrong with the stamp tax? Tom? Always very successful. Weeze and the notables say yet again, no, we dont either. Say, you know, you will have to call the estates general if you want new course, as famously as it's been remarked on this, they do not actually make the omelet.So basically, there is an intra elite attempt to grab the levers of power. But essentially that fight between the rival sections of the elite has been overtaken. Bye. Mass uprising.Yeah, it has. And actually, Simon Sharma is absolutely brilliant on this. It's one of the many, many fantastic insights in his book. And I should make this the Sharma fan cast. But he points out the judges are carried aloft by the crowd, the parliament judges. But he says it's not clear at this point, they're not the leaders of the riot there. It's kind of its trophies, a bit like the stuffed eagle, but they're also kind of its prisoners. Right.And this is something that will happen again and again. So, I mean, looking ahead, it's an experience that the royal family will soon be experiencing.Yeah. And some of the older judges are very anxious about this and end up actually leaving the city. They don't want to be associated with this, but there's a younger generation who are enthused and actually see in the disorder and the collapse of royal authority, a chance to lead, to profit. And the classic example of this is a guy who I think you can argue is the first true french revolutionary leader. So he's a young judge from Grenoble and he's called Jean Joseph Meunier. And he is just such a perfect example of a french revolutionary leader. He's the son of a cloth merchant, he's upwardly mobile. He's 29, so he's young, as so many of them were, and he's a lawyer. They're all lawyers. They're all young lawyers and he's really ambitious. They're basically like Athelstan members, Tom, they're young lawyers. Of the rest is history club. French revolution is in waiting. So he has bought the office of a royal judge and he has actually become a very, very. He's on the lowest possible rank of the nobility.And isn't that always the way, classically, in a revolution? It's not the poor, it's always the upwardly mobile who haven't got quite upwardly mobile enough.Exactly. And he sees this as a chance to jump up the ladder and to turn the ladder into his ladder. So he convenes a huge meeting on the 21 July 1788 outside Grenoble. The Chateau de Visel, the Chateau de Wiesel. If you go there today, it is the world's only museum of the French Revolution. And there's a reason for that, because you can argue again, this is one of the absolute places where the french revolution began.Well, particularly if you. The Grenoble tourist board.If you're the Grenoble tourist board. Exactly. And at this meeting, he says, listen, we want free elections. We want the estates general of Dauphine, each province to have its own estates general. And when that meets the third estate, the commons should have the same numbers as the other two estates the lords and the clergy put together, and they should all sit in one chamber, not multiple chambers like they have in Britain. Lords and commons, or one chamber, so that the commons can dominate. In other words, majority rule. The general will, will dominate over the privileges of the old order. And a lot of historians say that is so groundbreaking and seismic that that is the true kickoff point for the revolution, the chain of events that would lead to the revolution. There's two other things that I think are really revealing about that meeting at Wiesel. First of all, is the language is so 1793, it's all about patriotic fire sacrifices. The law should be the expression of the general will. But the other thing is there is a darker side to it. So for the first time these people say we are patriots, but our opponents are traitors to the Patri and they should be treated accordingly because there's a.Kind of incipiently totalitarian quality to saying that you are the embodiment of the nation.Definitely there is, Tom, because if you.Are the embodiment of the nation, your enemies therefore aren't and by definition are traitors.Yeah, I totally agree with you. Now, of course, you can say there's a great irony here that actually even Mounier and his friends have not really understood what happened in Grenoble, that riots as day. They think because they've been chaired aloft by the crowd, they think they're going to control it. And they are, of course, dead wrong. And some of these people are going to end up dead and literally dead. But I think what makes it so revealing is that it is indicative of this change in the language and the sentiment that is happening in 1788. Previously, all that stuff was about the old liberties of the French that the government, a modernizing government, is trying to squash. But in 1788, you can see that language changing and people are now saying, let's actually do something new. Who cares about the past? We can use this opportunity to draw up a new constitution. Sharma gives a brilliant example of a lawyer called Volney, who wrote a journal called the sentinel of the people. What does it matter to us what our fathers have done or how and why they have done it? The essential rights of man, his natural relations to his fellows in the state of society.These are the basis of any form of government. So in other words, theyre going to take that, the idea of starting again and they take the passion, the idea of virtue, all of that. And that gives them, you could argue, what Robert Darnton calls a radically simplified view of politics.Well, and also, I mean, its very contrary to the way that the constitution has evolved in Britain, where the whole point of the relationship of the monarchy to the House of Lords and the House of Commons has evolved over time and is rooted in the deep past. And so therefore, you can already see that Britain is starting to fade as a model for the more radical proponents of a new constitution.But also what is so interesting is it is also different from the american constitution makers because the american constitution makers are slightly trapped within the british mindset. So there it's about the separation of powers. They want to insure against a kind of mob democracy. They want to insure against somebody having too much power. Their constitution is hedged about with kind of nuances and qualifications. The french revolutionaries have no time for that. Sharma quotes a guy who was a friend of Rousseau's called the Comte d'entraigues, who said, the people is the state itself. By the immutable laws of nature, the people is everything. Everything should be subordinated to the people. That is not how british Whig politicians spoke. It's not really how american colonists spoke. This sense of it's very simple. There's us, the side of virtue and patriotism and liberty, and then there's them, despotism and depredations and corruption and all of that sort and traitors and traitors. So right there, even before the fall of the Bastille, you've got the lines being drawn very starkly. Now, meanwhile, Mister Brienne, with his pustules, the archbishop is sitting there in Versailles thinking, what on earth am I going to do?And clearly everything is all kicked off. His plan hasn't really worked. And he says to Louis, listen, we do have to call the estates general. We're going to have to do this. And Louis says to him, what, Archbishop? You must think we are lost. They might overturn the state and the monarchy. And Brienne says, I'm afraid we have no choice at all. So in the second week of August 1788, they go public and they say, we're going to call the estates general. We'll figure out how it will work in due course. We don't really know what the rules will be, how it will be elected, but we will call it all the same.What could possibly go wrong?And then, against this background, a massive development. On the 16 August, Brienne announces they have run out of money. They have been surviving all this time on loans, but the royal treasury is virtually empty. From now on, people will be paid in ious, in paper money which they don't really believe exists, which they hate. In other words, France is bankrupt.Well, Dominic, what a cliffhanger. So in the next episode, the estates general will be meeting. The revolution will be beginning. Or if you accept that it's already begun in Grenoble, it will be continuing. And if you just can't wait to find out what happens, you can hear it right now by joining the rest is history club at the rest is history. Alternatively, the next episode will be coming very soon. Either way, we'll see you then. Bye.

And Brienne also, entertainingly, there's a lot of skin disease in this series.

There really is, isn't there?

So, Brienne, I read he suffered from a skin disease that left his face, quote, mass of peeling scabs and tissue, and yet he was thought of as a personable and congenial man. So that says a lot for his personality.

It does. Well, so we've had Louis XV, who died with his face covered in pustules and we're going to be meeting Marat, aren't we?

Yeah. And, well, Mirabeau, the ugliest man in France.

Mirabeau, yes, yes, his face. Well, yes. So lots of unpleasant skin complaints.

Yeah. So Brienne had been an opposition figure and he had said, like a lot of the notables, I think Callon's stuff about the deficit is balderdash. I don't think there really is a deficit.

Let's have a look in the books and just check.

There'll be loads of money. And he looks at the books, he.

Says, oh, my God.

Well, it's true. Callan wasn't telling the truth about the deficit because he wasn't. It's not 80 million, it's 140 million.

Oh, God.

And so actually, Brienne then has to go back with his skin complaint to his old chums in the notables and he says, actually, we do need new taxes. He wants a land tax and a stamp tax. What could possibly go wrong with the stamp tax? Tom? Always very successful. Weeze and the notables say yet again, no, we dont either. Say, you know, you will have to call the estates general if you want new course, as famously as it's been remarked on this, they do not actually make the omelet.So basically, there is an intra elite attempt to grab the levers of power. But essentially that fight between the rival sections of the elite has been overtaken. Bye. Mass uprising.Yeah, it has. And actually, Simon Sharma is absolutely brilliant on this. It's one of the many, many fantastic insights in his book. And I should make this the Sharma fan cast. But he points out the judges are carried aloft by the crowd, the parliament judges. But he says it's not clear at this point, they're not the leaders of the riot there. It's kind of its trophies, a bit like the stuffed eagle, but they're also kind of its prisoners. Right.And this is something that will happen again and again. So, I mean, looking ahead, it's an experience that the royal family will soon be experiencing.Yeah. And some of the older judges are very anxious about this and end up actually leaving the city. They don't want to be associated with this, but there's a younger generation who are enthused and actually see in the disorder and the collapse of royal authority, a chance to lead, to profit. And the classic example of this is a guy who I think you can argue is the first true french revolutionary leader. So he's a young judge from Grenoble and he's called Jean Joseph Meunier. And he is just such a perfect example of a french revolutionary leader. He's the son of a cloth merchant, he's upwardly mobile. He's 29, so he's young, as so many of them were, and he's a lawyer. They're all lawyers. They're all young lawyers and he's really ambitious. They're basically like Athelstan members, Tom, they're young lawyers. Of the rest is history club. French revolution is in waiting. So he has bought the office of a royal judge and he has actually become a very, very. He's on the lowest possible rank of the nobility.And isn't that always the way, classically, in a revolution? It's not the poor, it's always the upwardly mobile who haven't got quite upwardly mobile enough.Exactly. And he sees this as a chance to jump up the ladder and to turn the ladder into his ladder. So he convenes a huge meeting on the 21 July 1788 outside Grenoble. The Chateau de Visel, the Chateau de Wiesel. If you go there today, it is the world's only museum of the French Revolution. And there's a reason for that, because you can argue again, this is one of the absolute places where the french revolution began.Well, particularly if you. The Grenoble tourist board.If you're the Grenoble tourist board. Exactly. And at this meeting, he says, listen, we want free elections. We want the estates general of Dauphine, each province to have its own estates general. And when that meets the third estate, the commons should have the same numbers as the other two estates the lords and the clergy put together, and they should all sit in one chamber, not multiple chambers like they have in Britain. Lords and commons, or one chamber, so that the commons can dominate. In other words, majority rule. The general will, will dominate over the privileges of the old order. And a lot of historians say that is so groundbreaking and seismic that that is the true kickoff point for the revolution, the chain of events that would lead to the revolution. There's two other things that I think are really revealing about that meeting at Wiesel. First of all, is the language is so 1793, it's all about patriotic fire sacrifices. The law should be the expression of the general will. But the other thing is there is a darker side to it. So for the first time these people say we are patriots, but our opponents are traitors to the Patri and they should be treated accordingly because there's a.Kind of incipiently totalitarian quality to saying that you are the embodiment of the nation.Definitely there is, Tom, because if you.Are the embodiment of the nation, your enemies therefore aren't and by definition are traitors.Yeah, I totally agree with you. Now, of course, you can say there's a great irony here that actually even Mounier and his friends have not really understood what happened in Grenoble, that riots as day. They think because they've been chaired aloft by the crowd, they think they're going to control it. And they are, of course, dead wrong. And some of these people are going to end up dead and literally dead. But I think what makes it so revealing is that it is indicative of this change in the language and the sentiment that is happening in 1788. Previously, all that stuff was about the old liberties of the French that the government, a modernizing government, is trying to squash. But in 1788, you can see that language changing and people are now saying, let's actually do something new. Who cares about the past? We can use this opportunity to draw up a new constitution. Sharma gives a brilliant example of a lawyer called Volney, who wrote a journal called the sentinel of the people. What does it matter to us what our fathers have done or how and why they have done it? The essential rights of man, his natural relations to his fellows in the state of society.These are the basis of any form of government. So in other words, theyre going to take that, the idea of starting again and they take the passion, the idea of virtue, all of that. And that gives them, you could argue, what Robert Darnton calls a radically simplified view of politics.Well, and also, I mean, its very contrary to the way that the constitution has evolved in Britain, where the whole point of the relationship of the monarchy to the House of Lords and the House of Commons has evolved over time and is rooted in the deep past. And so therefore, you can already see that Britain is starting to fade as a model for the more radical proponents of a new constitution.But also what is so interesting is it is also different from the american constitution makers because the american constitution makers are slightly trapped within the british mindset. So there it's about the separation of powers. They want to insure against a kind of mob democracy. They want to insure against somebody having too much power. Their constitution is hedged about with kind of nuances and qualifications. The french revolutionaries have no time for that. Sharma quotes a guy who was a friend of Rousseau's called the Comte d'entraigues, who said, the people is the state itself. By the immutable laws of nature, the people is everything. Everything should be subordinated to the people. That is not how british Whig politicians spoke. It's not really how american colonists spoke. This sense of it's very simple. There's us, the side of virtue and patriotism and liberty, and then there's them, despotism and depredations and corruption and all of that sort and traitors and traitors. So right there, even before the fall of the Bastille, you've got the lines being drawn very starkly. Now, meanwhile, Mister Brienne, with his pustules, the archbishop is sitting there in Versailles thinking, what on earth am I going to do?And clearly everything is all kicked off. His plan hasn't really worked. And he says to Louis, listen, we do have to call the estates general. We're going to have to do this. And Louis says to him, what, Archbishop? You must think we are lost. They might overturn the state and the monarchy. And Brienne says, I'm afraid we have no choice at all. So in the second week of August 1788, they go public and they say, we're going to call the estates general. We'll figure out how it will work in due course. We don't really know what the rules will be, how it will be elected, but we will call it all the same.What could possibly go wrong?And then, against this background, a massive development. On the 16 August, Brienne announces they have run out of money. They have been surviving all this time on loans, but the royal treasury is virtually empty. From now on, people will be paid in ious, in paper money which they don't really believe exists, which they hate. In other words, France is bankrupt.Well, Dominic, what a cliffhanger. So in the next episode, the estates general will be meeting. The revolution will be beginning. Or if you accept that it's already begun in Grenoble, it will be continuing. And if you just can't wait to find out what happens, you can hear it right now by joining the rest is history club at the rest is history. Alternatively, the next episode will be coming very soon. Either way, we'll see you then. Bye.

course, as famously as it's been remarked on this, they do not actually make the omelet.

So basically, there is an intra elite attempt to grab the levers of power. But essentially that fight between the rival sections of the elite has been overtaken. Bye. Mass uprising.

Yeah, it has. And actually, Simon Sharma is absolutely brilliant on this. It's one of the many, many fantastic insights in his book. And I should make this the Sharma fan cast. But he points out the judges are carried aloft by the crowd, the parliament judges. But he says it's not clear at this point, they're not the leaders of the riot there. It's kind of its trophies, a bit like the stuffed eagle, but they're also kind of its prisoners. Right.

And this is something that will happen again and again. So, I mean, looking ahead, it's an experience that the royal family will soon be experiencing.

Yeah. And some of the older judges are very anxious about this and end up actually leaving the city. They don't want to be associated with this, but there's a younger generation who are enthused and actually see in the disorder and the collapse of royal authority, a chance to lead, to profit. And the classic example of this is a guy who I think you can argue is the first true french revolutionary leader. So he's a young judge from Grenoble and he's called Jean Joseph Meunier. And he is just such a perfect example of a french revolutionary leader. He's the son of a cloth merchant, he's upwardly mobile. He's 29, so he's young, as so many of them were, and he's a lawyer. They're all lawyers. They're all young lawyers and he's really ambitious. They're basically like Athelstan members, Tom, they're young lawyers. Of the rest is history club. French revolution is in waiting. So he has bought the office of a royal judge and he has actually become a very, very. He's on the lowest possible rank of the nobility.

And isn't that always the way, classically, in a revolution? It's not the poor, it's always the upwardly mobile who haven't got quite upwardly mobile enough.

Exactly. And he sees this as a chance to jump up the ladder and to turn the ladder into his ladder. So he convenes a huge meeting on the 21 July 1788 outside Grenoble. The Chateau de Visel, the Chateau de Wiesel. If you go there today, it is the world's only museum of the French Revolution. And there's a reason for that, because you can argue again, this is one of the absolute places where the french revolution began.

Well, particularly if you. The Grenoble tourist board.

If you're the Grenoble tourist board. Exactly. And at this meeting, he says, listen, we want free elections. We want the estates general of Dauphine, each province to have its own estates general. And when that meets the third estate, the commons should have the same numbers as the other two estates the lords and the clergy put together, and they should all sit in one chamber, not multiple chambers like they have in Britain. Lords and commons, or one chamber, so that the commons can dominate. In other words, majority rule. The general will, will dominate over the privileges of the old order. And a lot of historians say that is so groundbreaking and seismic that that is the true kickoff point for the revolution, the chain of events that would lead to the revolution. There's two other things that I think are really revealing about that meeting at Wiesel. First of all, is the language is so 1793, it's all about patriotic fire sacrifices. The law should be the expression of the general will. But the other thing is there is a darker side to it. So for the first time these people say we are patriots, but our opponents are traitors to the Patri and they should be treated accordingly because there's a.

Kind of incipiently totalitarian quality to saying that you are the embodiment of the nation.

Definitely there is, Tom, because if you.

Are the embodiment of the nation, your enemies therefore aren't and by definition are traitors.

Yeah, I totally agree with you. Now, of course, you can say there's a great irony here that actually even Mounier and his friends have not really understood what happened in Grenoble, that riots as day. They think because they've been chaired aloft by the crowd, they think they're going to control it. And they are, of course, dead wrong. And some of these people are going to end up dead and literally dead. But I think what makes it so revealing is that it is indicative of this change in the language and the sentiment that is happening in 1788. Previously, all that stuff was about the old liberties of the French that the government, a modernizing government, is trying to squash. But in 1788, you can see that language changing and people are now saying, let's actually do something new. Who cares about the past? We can use this opportunity to draw up a new constitution. Sharma gives a brilliant example of a lawyer called Volney, who wrote a journal called the sentinel of the people. What does it matter to us what our fathers have done or how and why they have done it? The essential rights of man, his natural relations to his fellows in the state of society.

These are the basis of any form of government. So in other words, theyre going to take that, the idea of starting again and they take the passion, the idea of virtue, all of that. And that gives them, you could argue, what Robert Darnton calls a radically simplified view of politics.

Well, and also, I mean, its very contrary to the way that the constitution has evolved in Britain, where the whole point of the relationship of the monarchy to the House of Lords and the House of Commons has evolved over time and is rooted in the deep past. And so therefore, you can already see that Britain is starting to fade as a model for the more radical proponents of a new constitution.

But also what is so interesting is it is also different from the american constitution makers because the american constitution makers are slightly trapped within the british mindset. So there it's about the separation of powers. They want to insure against a kind of mob democracy. They want to insure against somebody having too much power. Their constitution is hedged about with kind of nuances and qualifications. The french revolutionaries have no time for that. Sharma quotes a guy who was a friend of Rousseau's called the Comte d'entraigues, who said, the people is the state itself. By the immutable laws of nature, the people is everything. Everything should be subordinated to the people. That is not how british Whig politicians spoke. It's not really how american colonists spoke. This sense of it's very simple. There's us, the side of virtue and patriotism and liberty, and then there's them, despotism and depredations and corruption and all of that sort and traitors and traitors. So right there, even before the fall of the Bastille, you've got the lines being drawn very starkly. Now, meanwhile, Mister Brienne, with his pustules, the archbishop is sitting there in Versailles thinking, what on earth am I going to do?

And clearly everything is all kicked off. His plan hasn't really worked. And he says to Louis, listen, we do have to call the estates general. We're going to have to do this. And Louis says to him, what, Archbishop? You must think we are lost. They might overturn the state and the monarchy. And Brienne says, I'm afraid we have no choice at all. So in the second week of August 1788, they go public and they say, we're going to call the estates general. We'll figure out how it will work in due course. We don't really know what the rules will be, how it will be elected, but we will call it all the same.

What could possibly go wrong?

And then, against this background, a massive development. On the 16 August, Brienne announces they have run out of money. They have been surviving all this time on loans, but the royal treasury is virtually empty. From now on, people will be paid in ious, in paper money which they don't really believe exists, which they hate. In other words, France is bankrupt.

Well, Dominic, what a cliffhanger. So in the next episode, the estates general will be meeting. The revolution will be beginning. Or if you accept that it's already begun in Grenoble, it will be continuing. And if you just can't wait to find out what happens, you can hear it right now by joining the rest is history club at the rest is history. Alternatively, the next episode will be coming very soon. Either way, we'll see you then. Bye.