Was there an aristocratic point of view of the french revolution?

Question:Yes, and it usually involved a view of the guillotine as they stepped onto the platform.

The aristocracy in France was tremendously wealthy and tremendously unconcerned with the rampant poverty and the miserable situation of the majority of the French people. The situation was the type where approximately 5% of the people hold 95% of the wealth (those aren't actual numbers--I don't remember the actual numbers, but mine cannot be too far off), and while there were decent aristocrats who cared about the people who worked their estates and served them in their mansions, they were a very small minority.

The excesses of Louis XVI and his wife Marie Antoinette were well-known, and his example encouraged the aristocracy to spend like crazy on entertainments and silly things like clothing. He actually was not a bad man, and she was not a bad woman. He was handed a throne which was fairly corrupt and which had been overspending for years and years. The sad thing is that he was, if anything, weak, and completely unequal to the task of reforming the French monarchy. Marie Antoinette's famously misquoted "let them eat cake" was not meant as a callous remark--she really did not realize that the common man was so poor that neither bread nor cake was within his reach.

It was the other aristocrats who were so smug and comfortable and spending like mad who were the source of the problem. They, quite naturally, liked having a monarchy, because a monarchy means everyone gets to keep their hereditary titles and land. They, in general, had no interest in changing a system which had been in place for what seemed to them to be forever. The Revolution actually had two parts--the dissatisfaction of the common people, and a firm foundation of intellectuals who were familiar with the writings of the Enlightenment, which proclaimed that men (meaning all people, not just males) had certain natural-born rights, such as food, clothing, and shelter. (They were influenced by the same writers who influenced the framers of the Constitution of the United States--they had the same intellectual foundation.) In France, the two sides, the aristos and the common man and intellectuals, were at odds. It was an untenable situation, and there had to be reform. Unfortunately, the reform was bloody. The aristocrats were familiar with the writings of the Enlightenment, but they thought it didn't really pertain to them. They felt that all that really mattered was that they were born into families with money and land--surely if that's where they were born, they were meant to enjoy their position. Why would God have placed them there if not for them to enjoy their power and wealth?

The bourgeoisie, meaning the Middle Class, which was mainly merchants and skilled people, like teachers and doctors (anyone NOT poor, but also NOT aristocracy) were caught in the middle. In the frenzy to eliminate all traces of a rigidly-classed society, many of them lost their lives along with the aristocracy.

The aristocrats faced trials, and their workers (peasants who worked their land) were allowed to give testimony against them. Many of them were simply put in prison, but a lot of them were found to be guilty of such horrible crimes that they were sentenced to death. That's why the French Revolution is often called the Reign of Terror--the people on the bottom got their hands on some power, and many of them misused it to accuse people who were not really guilty of anything. A lot of people were killed in things like rioting, and a lot went to the guillotine. Sadly, many of them went with a complete lack of understanding about why they were being killed.

I hope that is helpful to you and aids your understanding.

Best Answer - Chosen by Asker: Yes, and it usually involved a view of the guillotine as they stepped onto the platform.

The aristocracy in France was tremendously wealthy and tremendously unconcerned with the rampant poverty and the miserable situation of the majority of the French people. The situation was the type where approximately 5% of the people hold 95% of the wealth (those aren't actual numbers--I don't remember the actual numbers, but mine cannot be too far off), and while there were decent aristocrats who cared about the people who worked their estates and served them in their mansions, they were a very small minority.

The excesses of Louis XVI and his wife Marie Antoinette were well-known, and his example encouraged the aristocracy to spend like crazy on entertainments and silly things like clothing. He actually was not a bad man, and she was not a bad woman. He was handed a throne which was fairly corrupt and which had been overspending for years and years. The sad thing is that he was, if anything, weak, and completely unequal to the task of reforming the French monarchy. Marie Antoinette's famously misquoted "let them eat cake" was not meant as a callous remark--she really did not realize that the common man was so poor that neither bread nor cake was within his reach.

It was the other aristocrats who were so smug and comfortable and spending like mad who were the source of the problem. They, quite naturally, liked having a monarchy, because a monarchy means everyone gets to keep their hereditary titles and land. They, in general, had no interest in changing a system which had been in place for what seemed to them to be forever. The Revolution actually had two parts--the dissatisfaction of the common people, and a firm foundation of intellectuals who were familiar with the writings of the Enlightenment, which proclaimed that men (meaning all people, not just males) had certain natural-born rights, such as food, clothing, and shelter. (They were influenced by the same writers who influenced the framers of the Constitution of the United States--they had the same intellectual foundation.) In France, the two sides, the aristos and the common man and intellectuals, were at odds. It was an untenable situation, and there had to be reform. Unfortunately, the reform was bloody. The aristocrats were familiar with the writings of the Enlightenment, but they thought it didn't really pertain to them. They felt that all that really mattered was that they were born into families with money and land--surely if that's where they were born, they were meant to enjoy their position. Why would God have placed them there if not for them to enjoy their power and wealth?

The bourgeoisie, meaning the Middle Class, which was mainly merchants and skilled people, like teachers and doctors (anyone NOT poor, but also NOT aristocracy) were caught in the middle. In the frenzy to eliminate all traces of a rigidly-classed society, many of them lost their lives along with the aristocracy.

The aristocrats faced trials, and their workers (peasants who worked their land) were allowed to give testimony against them. Many of them were simply put in prison, but a lot of them were found to be guilty of such horrible crimes that they were sentenced to death. That's why the French Revolution is often called the Reign of Terror--the people on the bottom got their hands on some power, and many of them misused it to accuse people who were not really guilty of anything. A lot of people were killed in things like rioting, and a lot went to the guillotine. Sadly, many of them went with a complete lack of understanding about why they were being killed.

I hope that is helpful to you and aids your understanding.

I can't begin to match the answer above me. Very detailed. My own opinion is that the Aristocracy certainly viewed the French Revolution as a redistribution of wealth revolution and a challenge to the monarchy which ensured their greater piece of the economic pie. While these same aristocracts supported the American Revolution, they found themselves the target of their own Revolution, which was really different from the American Revolution.

Louis XVI to his wife, "it will soon pass away, lets not try to loose our heads over it."

Most assuredly. You should se the writings of Joseph de Maistre for example. Less philosophical than Edmund Burke, but he put forward a political programme that did not finally fizzle out till 1975 with the death of Franco.
The 'Tale of Two Cities' view of the French aristocracy is anachronistic at best. All this terrible oppression hadn't happened for hundreds of years if then.
In some ways, you could say that there was a monarchical revolution hovering in the wings, (as with Joseph II in Austria) but Louis XVI didn't have the strength or the vision to implement it. It would still have been against the aristocrats.