Hello AN,
I just encounted some trouble understanding the "Memoir of the Princes of the Blood".
I had trouble understanding this exerprt;
Such is the unhappy progress of this agitation that opinions which a short time ago might have seemed reprehensible, today appear to be reasonable and fair; and that which good people are indignant about today will in a short time perhaps pass as regular and legitimate. Who can say where the recklessness of opinions will stop? The rights of the throne have been called into question; the rights of the two orders of the State divide opinions; soon property rights will be attacked; the inequality of fortunes will be presented as an object for reform; the suppression of feudal rights has already been proposed, as the abolition of a system of oppression, the remains of barbarism . . . .
May the Third Estate therefore cease to attack the rights of the first two orders; rights which, no less ancient than the monarchy, must be as unchanging as its constitution; that it limit itself to seeking the reduction in taxes with which it might be burdened; the first two orders, recognising in the third citizens who are dear to them, will, by the generosity of their sentiments, be able to renounce those prerogatives which have a financial dimension, and consent to bear public charges in the most perfect equality.
From what I can infer from the source, the memoir reflected the rightist attitude of the aristocracy, defending the priveliges of the cleric and nobility, additionally enticing the Third Estate to supress their critisizm on the first two estates for the renounciation of priveliges recieved by the nobility for more "perfect equality".
Is my inference correct?
Is there anytthing else I could comment on?
Thanks.