For French national consciousness, Armand Jean du Plessis, Cardinal de Richelieu, is a symbolic figure, surrounded by legends that make it difficult to discern his true historical features. This is especially true since Richelieu himself, one of the first to launch information campaigns against his political opponents, worked hard on his own image and had no intention of confessing to posterity. As a result, we know an incredible amount about him (correspondence, many papers, numerous portraits, etc.) and at the same time, remarkably little.
Richelieu Was in Love with Anne of Austria
Verdict: This is not true.
This is mentioned in the memoirs of the Duke de La Rochefoucauld, who, many years after the events described, would go on to write “Maxims” and become the foremost connoisseur of human souls. However, this is a rumor possibly spread and supported by the queen’s entourage. For Anne of Austria, it was undoubtedly more advantageous to present herself as an innocent victim pursued by a rejected lover than as a participant in several failed state coups. As for Richelieu, although he was given a secular upbringing, he was, by all habits, a man of the clergy and not particularly inclined towards romantic emotions.
Richelieu Always Wore Red
Verdict: Partially true.
Richelieu was a cleric, that is, a man of the Church, so the color and style of his clothing were determined by tradition and his rank. From 1622, when he became a cardinal, he was entitled to a purple mantle and hat (the actual color could vary from scarlet to burgundy, depending on the dye), and that is how he is depicted in all portraits.
However, these were ceremonial garments; at court and especially during military campaigns, he sometimes wore secular clothing, which was not forbidden. There is a contemporary account of Richelieu riding before the troops “in an outfit the color of fallen leaves with some gold embroidery,” with a sword at his side and two pistols attached to his saddle.
Richelieu Was Very Old During the Siege of La Rochelle (but Dumas portrayed him as young)
Verdict: Not true.
Dumas found it important to contrast the energetic Richelieu with the apathetic and bored Louis XIII, so in the novel, the cardinal appears to be no older than 36-37. But the events described occurred before and during the Siege of La Rochelle, in 1626, when Richelieu was 41 years old. The cardinal was not in robust health; he suffered from headaches and nervous problems throughout his life. However, truly serious illnesses began to plague him after the age of 50.
Richelieu Personally Commanded Troops During the Siege of La Rochelle
Verdict: This is true.
During the Siege of La Rochelle, the king, who was falling into depression from inactivity, left overall command to Richelieu and temporarily withdrew. This was partly done to avoid rivalry among commanders, but in any case, the transfer of such important powers was rare. However, command of individual forces was not exceptional for a cleric: both Richelieu and, for example, his associate Cardinal de La Valette, who was a successful general, had such roles. Of course, this required permission (dispensation) from the Vatican.
Richelieu Conflicted With Louis XIII
Verdict: Mostly untrue.
The personal relationship between Richelieu and Louis XIII is a mystery for modern people, which some researchers try to solve using psychoanalysis. If we stick to the facts, the answer is no: there were no conflicts and could not have been because the minister’s power was entirely dependent on the king’s support. In most cases, they acted together, although they certainly experienced mutual irritation.
Richelieu Was Very Smart (and Louis Was a Fool)
Verdict: This is not true.
Louis XIII was a resolute and warlike king. It is important to remember that his father, Henry IV, gained the French throne with great difficulty, so one of Louis’s main tasks was to establish royal authority throughout the state, which he successfully began even before Richelieu. However, the king was a stutterer, an extreme misanthrope, and, apparently, not a very charming person, which affected his reputation. One of Richelieu’s secrets to success was his ability to clearly articulate the king’s political goals.
Richelieu Had a Personal Guard
Verdict: This is true.
By law, only the king could have a personal guard. In reality, nobles were always surrounded by armed supporters — this also applied to Richelieu. But after the conspiracy of Count de Chalais (who planned to kill the cardinal), which was uncovered in 1626, the king appointed Richelieu a guard — a hundred horse guards under a captain’s command. In 1632, they were joined by two hundred foot musketeers, and this number was later increased even further.
Richelieu Was a Cunning Intriguer
Verdict: This is true.
In the system of state governance that existed in France in the first half of the 17th century, intrigue was a way to achieve the desired result with minimal losses, as the alternative was direct violence. Even with Louis’s support, Richelieu had to maneuver between aristocratic clans, especially between factions associated with members of the royal family — the queen mother, the king’s brother, who remained heir to the throne until 1638, and the princes of the blood (the younger branch of the Bourbons). Naturally, he was well-versed in the art of intrigue; otherwise, his political career would have ended quickly and ingloriously.
Richelieu Was a Brilliant Politician
Verdict: Partially true.
There are different opinions on this, especially considering the changing concept of politics. Richelieu undoubtedly saw his function as serving the state, and the idea of state necessity was his justification for the decisions he had to make. In this sense, he was a politician in the modern understanding of the word. However, much of what is associated with his name, including alliances with Protestant countries against Spain, was actually a continuation of the policy begun under Henry IV.
Richelieu Was a Monstrous Villain
Verdict: Mostly untrue.
In Victor Hugo’s drama “Marion Delorme,” the heroine pleads with the cardinal for a pardon for her lover, who has been sentenced to death, but he replies, “There will be no pardon!” In reality, pardons were the exclusive prerogative of the king, who usually insisted on carrying out the sentence. This largely contributed to Richelieu’s bloody reputation, as several noble and influential nobles were executed during his ministry: some for participating in conspiracies (Chalais, Cinq-Mars), others for killing in a duel (Count de Boutteville). The cardinal himself apparently preferred to send his opponents to the Bastille or into exile.
