Ludy wrote:

It was a matter of money, not a matter of ideology.

I beg to differ with you there Ludy. The pamphlets were largely political, diffusion was not significant enough to make anyone a lot of money, and those probably behind their publication had money enough (Certain leading figures of the Revolution and maybe even the Duc d'Orléans?). They were a political tool, serving those who wished to attack the monarchy to further the republican cause, or those who wished to replace the existing monarchy by another one (Duc de Provence?) And MA was an easy target, a woman, a foreigner (Austrian to boot) and whose private life was thought to be known to everyone, as never was a woman more spied on. So fantasies were rife....and fantasies feed the press.

We can consider for certain that Orleans was implicated into thes awful pamphlets, as well as Provence. They wanted the throne for themselves, so, an easy way was to attack the queen, wasn't it ?

They thus opened the road for the revolutionary propaganda, that just had to follow so useful tracks !

Money was necessary too. Foreign governments paid for seing France, their old and powerful enemy, destroied.

Nil novi sub sole...

So did Artois want the throne/help the pamphleteers or was he more on Louis and Antoinettes side?

I have never heard of Artois being involved in the pamphlets, other than the fact that he was also a victim of the propaganda. He was the man most usually shown as Marie-Antoinette's lover in the pamphlets. But he would never have been involved in such sordid undertakings; it was not his way. He liked to think of himself as chivalrous. He was on the king and queen's side except that he thought that they were too moderate in handling the Revolution.

Oh thankyou Therese

Yes I had a feeling Artois was the better brother out of him and Provence

He certainly became better by the end of his life.

Thank you for the link Pimprenelle....but i saw more than I wanted to see...there were some pornographic picture ads

Unfortunately so did I.....

Please do.
Some of the royalties indeed used pamphlets in their own interests, but I think that a minority of pamphlets were produces by them. Most of them were, in my book, written by people such as Hebert or Marrat and it was a breadwinner for them.
I might have been a bit excessive or not precise enough. Of course thoses pamphlets were political. But it was not, I persist in thinking, ideological. That is to say that the authors used them to promote their interests in the short run : earning money, garnering influence ... We should not, in analysing the overwhelming consequences of their actions, ascribe to them a political awareness that they had not. They didn't foresee the Revolution and didn't mean to bring down the monarchy, just as you said promoting their very concrete interests, whatever they are. See the critical newspapers or programs in France for instance, I wouldn't say that they convey deep, well pondered political plans in the long run : they merely aim at pleasing an audience, making money, gaining influence ... Consequences can however be tragic (or sometimes positive).