Source A also supports the view that popular unrest was the main reason for the fall of the monarchy, giving an eyewitness account of the demonstrations that took place in July 1792-the first attack on the Tuileries, this demonstration showed the unrest felt by the people, it was at high enough levels for them to walk miles and to risk their lives taking part in dangerous shows of resistance. Both sources A and B were written at the time that the event was taking place, allowing the sources to be useful as they show exactly what was being done and thought of at that time. A is also biased due to similar reasons as the author of the source is a person that can be associated with the Jacobins, this leads us to believe that he also would have shared their extreme views and hope for Republicanism.
Source C also supports the argument that places popular unrest as the most important cause for the fall of the monarchy. Much like source B it is a description of the second attack on the Tuileries, showing the popular unrest felt as although it does not give a positive account of the actions taken it does show that the unrest was popular as it mentions how the sans-culottes arrived in force at the Tuileries. The source may be biased if one guesses that a Frenchman living in England with such negative views on the event could be an emigre, if so then the negativity would be due to biased opinions on the revolutionaries. Source D also briefly mentions popular unrest saying that it was caused by the Brunswick manifesto and was felt by all- “french nation as a whole, alarmed”.
Another cause of the demise of the monarchy was the Kings actions. Source D shows Louis ignorance and inclination to make situations worse for himself. His disconnection with the views of his people is clear form the fact that the source tells us that he was sending money to emigres and paying for royalist propaganda, when many peasants could not afford bread. Although source D may lead one to believe that the actions taken by the King only made his situation worse, this however is not the case. Source A shows how by trying to show solidarity with the sans-culottes by wearing the bonnet rouge a symbol of liberty, this with his calm demeanour displayed at the first attack on the Tuileries probably saved his life, as it was a public display of him agreeing with the constitution . However it is not because of the Kings correct actions that make the Kings actions a cause of the fall of the monarchy, it is his lack on actions in some cases or the wrong ones. Source A also shows what he did wrong that deeply angered the people. The king vetoed a series of reforms proposed by the Assembly. The refusal of permission acerbated tension between the king and the people as his action were seen as him showing resistance and opposing the revolution, it was due to this incident that the King fled to Varennes. Another action of the King that did him no favours was the dismissal of Roland, the Girondin Minister of the Interior and other Girondin ministers, when he protested about the unfair vetoes. Both of these mistakes are mentioned in source A.
Yet another cause was the rise of the radical clubs. Radical clubs had become immensely popular, this is seen in Source B as it states that many of the 48 electoral districts of Paris were dominated by the radicals. However this large popularity in Paris may not have been the same in rural areas, so source B only shows us the popularity of the radial clubs in Paris.Source B is again an insight into how the republicans would communicate and spread morale. Robespierre uses adjectives such as 'glorious' to describe the Tuileries attack. Source B is enlightening, it is very one sided, and is a clear example of how the radicals would have been thinking at the time. Source C showed how when the Jacobin club were enraged they could help gather both sans-culottes and National guards to fight, this shows how powerful and important they were within society, as the actions taken by those who participated in the attack on the Tuileries was called- “uncontrolled patriotism”.
War can also be factored in as a cause of the fall of the monarchy. The Brunswick manifesto which is mentioned in source D made things considerably worse for the King. The manifesto was issued by the commander in chief of the Austro-Prussian army, it was intended to secure the Kings position. The effects were disastrous and and had opposite effects to those intended. The people of France were maddened by it as they saw it as foreign intervention into something that was strictly Frances business. This in turn caused the following events;on the 3 August the Mayor of Paris went to the Legislative Assembly demanding the removal of the monarchy. When the Assembly refused him it finally persuaded many that a rising was necessary. Source D was written by a modern historian many years after the event took place, this increases the reliability of the source as it has the advantage of hindsight and the fact that the author is a historian backs up points made as they would have had to be researched and cross examined and scrutinise, it also can be said that the source is complete as it discusses many reasons for the demise of the monarchy, and there is no reason for it to be biased as the historian would have nothing to gain from being so, unlike other sources.
I conclude in writing that I believe that popular unrest was not the main reason for the fall of the monarchy, it was a combination of the factors mentioned above that created situations for the revolution to take place. Popular unrest could be considered to be the main cause, however popular unrest would not have happened if it was not for the Kings unwise actions,the war or radical clubs promoting the need for the dethronement of the King. From all the sources D is the most useful as it is the most complete and reliable.
