On November 14, according to the registers of the parish of Braye, “s’en est allée de vie à trépas noble dame Suzanne de la Porte, dame de Richelieu.” The Bishop of Luçon writes to his brother Alphonse:
“My dear Brother,—I regret much that you must learn by this letter our common loss of our poor mother, although I know that for you it will be the more bearable in that, having yourself renounced the world to gain heaven, her life and her death give you certain assurance of meeting her again there; since in the latter God gave her as much grace, consolation, and sweetness as in the former she had suffered contradiction, affliction and bitterness.... For myself, I pray God that in future her good example and yours may so profit me that I may amend my life.”
M. Avenel gives a letter from Henry de Richelieu, the head of the family, to his sister Nicole (afterwards Madame de Maillé-Brézé), begging her to lay their mother’s body, as honourably as possible, in the chapel of the château, there to await himself and the Bishop, “that we may all together bear her to the grave.”
It was not till December 8 that “noble dame Suzanne de la Porte” was laid in the family vault under the church of Braye. But it appears that her son Armand was waited for in vain. There was question of a special embassy to Spain on the affairs of the Duke of Savoy; there was the immediate prospect of becoming a Minister of France. Indeed, he was already one of a triumvirate—Barbin, Mangot, Richelieu—on whom, under Concini, depended all affairs of State. Between his mother’s death and her funeral, he was writing letters vowing eternal gratitude both to the Maréchal and to Leonora, through whose favour and consideration alone, he declared, their Majesties had been pleased to appoint him Secretary for Foreign Affairs.
CHAPTER VI
1617
A contemporary view of the state of France—Barbin, Mangot, and Richelieu—A new rebellion—Richelieu as Foreign Secretary—The Abbé de Marolles—Concini in danger—The death of Concini—The fall of the Ministry—Horrible scenes in Paris—Richelieu follows the Queen-mother into exile.
The Sieur de Pontchartrain, in his Memoirs, gives a vivid account of the state of France in the winter of 1616-17. He was not exactly an impartial judge, since he had himself been a Minister of State under the Duc de Villeroy, and he saw things from his patron’s point of view. But he was an honest man.
Like Sully, he entirely failed to realise the political genius of the Bishop of Luçon, treating him and his colleagues as contemptible creatures of Concini. He writes of “the bad management of affairs, the small regard shown by the Queen-mother for the King, from whom all affairs are concealed, the unjust detention of M. le Prince de Condé and the alienation of all the other princes and great men, the ambitious designs, hurtful to France, of the Maréchal d’Ancre and of his wife, the banishment from affairs of all the old Ministers of State, and the establishment of two or three who have neither merit nor experience, except as ministering to the passions of the Maréchal and his wife (these were M. Mangot, Barbin, and Richelieu-Luçon).... Thus all things were embroiled; and in order to fortify herself against evil designs, the Queen-mother, assisted by the counsel of the said Maréchal d’Ancre and of the said sieurs Barbin, Mangot, and Richelieu, Bishop of Luçon, resolved to prepare openly for war.”
Pontchartrain concludes that the sole motive of this worthless and tyrannical council was to maintain the Maréchal in absolute power: also that under the confusion of war expenditure might be concealed the “great gifts, pensions and appointments” which he took from the national finances.
That the Queen-mother was wrong-headed and foolish, that Concini’s haughty swagger and Leonora’s avarice and secret intrigues were hateful and degrading elements in both Court and government, no one can deny. But those who stand farther off than Pontchartrain may see what was hidden from him, and probably from many worthy persons of his day—that Barbin, Mangot and Richelieu were not unpatriotic in advising war against the rebel princes and nobles, whose motives, after all, were no purer than those of Concini.