As it says on the tin: there were four candidates to succeed as Louis XV during the Sun King’s reign – his son, Le Grand Dauphin (1661-1711); the dauphin’s eldest son, Mgr le Duc de Bourgogne a.k.a. le Petit Dauphin (1681-1712); Bourgogne’s eldest son, Mgr le Duc de Bretagne (1707-1712) and finally his younger son, Mgr le Duc d’Anjou (OTL Louis XV) (1709-1774). How they get onto the throne (i.e. Louis XIV dying earlier, them living longer (esp. in the case of Bourgogne and/or Bretagne)) doesn’t matter. How would the government of France developed under their reign? How would Europe have been changed if they had succeeded? Happy voting.
The Best Possible Louis XV?
- Thread starter JonasResende
- Start date
I believe Louis, Dauphin of France, Duke of Burgundy, had the best to offer as King Louis XV.
Even at his young age, he was already surrounded by a close number of statesmen who became known as the "faction de Bourgogne" (Burgundy's faction.)
These included:
- His old tutor Fénelon
- His old governor Paul de Beauvilliers, Duke of Saint-Aignan
- His brother-in-law Charles Honoré d'Albert, Duke of Chevreuse, as well as the renowned memorialist, Louis de Rouvroy, Duke of Saint-Simon.
All of whom were high-ranking aristocrats, who although sought personal gains from him reign could have led to a more democratic France, meaning a revolution was not needed.
As their idea for the governemtn was the monarchy to be less absolute and less centralised, with more powers granted to the individual provinces. They believed that the government should work through councils and intermediary organs between the king and the people.
Although, these intermediary councils, would not be made up of commoners from the bourgeoisie (like the ministers appointed by Louis XIV) they would be aristocrats who perceived themselves as the representatives of the people and would assist the king in governance and the exercise of power.
Many, as I too believe, that if the Duke of Burgundy had succeeded to the throne, he may have applied this concept of monarchy, which over time would have led to a more direct constitution monarch.
Even at his young age, he was already surrounded by a close number of statesmen who became known as the "faction de Bourgogne" (Burgundy's faction.)
These included:
- His old tutor Fénelon
- His old governor Paul de Beauvilliers, Duke of Saint-Aignan
- His brother-in-law Charles Honoré d'Albert, Duke of Chevreuse, as well as the renowned memorialist, Louis de Rouvroy, Duke of Saint-Simon.
All of whom were high-ranking aristocrats, who although sought personal gains from him reign could have led to a more democratic France, meaning a revolution was not needed.
As their idea for the governemtn was the monarchy to be less absolute and less centralised, with more powers granted to the individual provinces. They believed that the government should work through councils and intermediary organs between the king and the people.
Although, these intermediary councils, would not be made up of commoners from the bourgeoisie (like the ministers appointed by Louis XIV) they would be aristocrats who perceived themselves as the representatives of the people and would assist the king in governance and the exercise of power.
Many, as I too believe, that if the Duke of Burgundy had succeeded to the throne, he may have applied this concept of monarchy, which over time would have led to a more direct constitution monarch.
How was Fénelon a bigot?
He was a campaigner for human rights and would question the young prince on what it was to be a "Good King" he had a bitter hatred of Abosolute Power, and saught to change it, if he had tutored the next generation of French Kings, we may have avoided the French Revolution.
Huh ? There seems to be quite a jump between "idealised" Saint Louis and "bigot". Could you provide definitions for your terms, or perhaps specific examples ? By all accounts, the statecraft of Saint Louis was wildly successful.
Machiavellianism and success are not synonymous.
The fact of the matter, as far as I can tell, is that a King of France who preserved the intermediate bodies and local rights of the different orders would have been more successful than those who championed the model most popular at Versailles. As such, I vote for Bourgogne. Reform could have manifested itself in many different ways. There were not, as so many seem to believe, only two options -- status quo or liberalism. To suggest that the dévot party surrounding Bourgogne would have advocated the same things as the faction of Orléans or even the same policies as were advocated by such people like Montesquieu or Voltaire is quite silly. The dévot party would likely have restored the intermediate bodies, municipal constitutions, local rights, etc., and strengthened them while integrating them into a more streamlined hierarchical structure. Also, they would not have created laws based on the view of the world engendered by a belief in rationalism (cf. Descartes) and a mechanical universe (cf. Newton), and they likewise would have countered the fanatical regalism and Gallicanism of the grand siècle. One cannot easily predict what the ramifications of such reforms would have been. The are radically different than what did in fact occur.
Last edited:
Someone should really do a TL with a surviving Bourgogne as its POD, but I've also always wondered if Bourgogne's idea of decentralizing France's absolutism a la polysynodie wouldn't perhaps run into the same problems the Regence ran into.
This is where I am saying that a surviving Bourgogne would have been a bad king. The devot party just wanted to go backwards. What they called intermediate bodies just actually was resto ring the full hereditary local power of the nobility.
That's what they finally tried just Before the revolution and it was firstly the doom of the nobility, the the doom of the monarchy.
This party just hated the fact that the administrative monarchy of Louis XIV favoured competent non nobles. They wanted to close back the dor and keep power for the established aristocracy.
Their political program was a dead-end.
When I say that the Saint Louis model was a catastrophee, I mean the christian moral given as a model of government while It should have remained just a model for personal life.
This is what drove Louis XV making the most stupid decision of his century (not annexant the austrian Netherlands It had conquered because this would not have been Christian !) and caused the beginning of the divorce between the emerging french national concoursness and its dynasty.
This is what made Louis XVI such a stupid ruler. The man did not want to use force in order to have order prevail. Young Napoleon called him "the big asshole" when he witnessed the chaos into which Louis XVI's moral inability to take his responsibilities and make decisions plunged the country.
Last edited:
How might Bourgogne's dévot-influenced reforms differ from le Regent's? Would there still be the repeal of the bull against Jansenism for instance?
Also, an important factor to take into account is the duchesse de Bourgogne. She could just as easily turn into an Antoinette or Eugènie as a Anne of Austria.
Also, an important factor to take into account is the duchesse de Bourgogne. She could just as easily turn into an Antoinette or Eugènie as a Anne of Austria.
The duchess of Bourgogne was not a Mary-Antoinette. But like Anne of Austria at some times, she was an agent giving secret information to her birth country.
The real point is that her husband was incompetent and that he was a real asshole with a terrible temper. What is deceptive is that Fenelon and Saint-Simon, who were the 2 brains of the devot party, depicted Bourgogne as a model new-king, a new Saint-Louis, when he adhered to the devot party and became its natural figure-head.
The best Louis XV could be either Louis the great dolphin, only son of Louis XIV, living longer.
It could also be OTL Louis XV being given a different education which implies giving to him someone else than Fleury as tutor.
The real point is that her husband was incompetent and that he was a real asshole with a terrible temper. What is deceptive is that Fenelon and Saint-Simon, who were the 2 brains of the devot party, depicted Bourgogne as a model new-king, a new Saint-Louis, when he adhered to the devot party and became its natural figure-head.
The best Louis XV could be either Louis the great dolphin, only son of Louis XIV, living longer.
It could also be OTL Louis XV being given a different education which implies giving to him someone else than Fleury as tutor.
I tried to get a surviving Petit Dauphin POD going awhile back but no takers. Odd, because of all the options his survival is the cause of the biggest butterflies and the biggest changes to France (and any Revolution - which might not happen - would be very different in a decentralized France). Also the Orleans are screwed in the short and long term if Bourgogne has more sons and his sons produce more sons (and obviously in this TL Anjou - our timeline Louis XV - would not need to marry an older Polish princess to secure the line).
If the Grand Dauphin takes the throne I think we will see the status quo - he's man who liked to hunt more than statecraft and OTL Louis XV, Anjou, we know what we're going to get ("after me, the deluge").
I've also toyed with creating a TL where the smallpox passes Bourgogne and his family by in 1712. He becomes Louis XV and his oldest son, Louis-Bretagne, eventually becomes the model prince of Fenelon (the new Telemarchus) instead of his father and is the one who allies with the Habsburgs and brings constitutional monarchy to France on his own term instead of waiting for the Estates-General. A Louis XVI the Great perhaps? Anjou meanwhile just becomes a younger son. Just a thought. Should I continue it?
I admit I'm biased because I think Marie-Adelaide is one of the most intriguing and charming royal figures in history - pretty much everyone she met seemed to love her (except the ones SHE purposely made enemies of) and she had them twisted around her figure - that includes Louis XIV himself (Marie-Adelaide is along with the Sun King's mother the only other woman he is said to have truly loved), Madame de Maintenon (who regarded her as a daughter), her grandfather the Duke of Orleans, her husband (who worshipped her and probably died because he would not leave her side), his brothers (including her double brother-in-law Philip V of Spain), and her siblings (which included Maria Luisa of Spain). She was quite something and I think most biographers (including Antonia Fraser in her bio of Louis XIV) now pretty much rebuke the notion she was giving state secrets back home to Savoy. She was close to her birth family yes, but she never wrote them anything damaging. She was also extremely close to the king and, by the end, her husband who she actually attended lessons on statecraft with.
Marie-Adelaide was much more the cannier political mind than Bourgogne was and had the backbone that Bourgogne lacked and unlike Marie-Antoinette the commons LOVED her. This is stated in several sources. Both Bourgogne and Marie-Adelaide were seen by many nobles and the lower classes as the hope for a New France and by 1712 were the center of their own court. Bourgogne was NOT incompetent (except perhaps in actually leading troops in battle). Even the Duchess of Orleans, Lisolotte, who never had much good to say about anyone (save the King himself) in her memoirs/letters pointed out the effect the new Dauphine and Dauphin had the people and how their deaths were a blow to France. This from a woman who profited by their deaths since her son became Regent and moved ever closer to the throne.
While I would have liked to see le Grand Dauphin get his moment on the throne I think that Bourgogne would be the best choice for Louis XV. He was his grandfather's favorite and was basically groomed from his early years to become King. That's why I think some of what you guys have been saying is a bit wrong. First off, the party/faction that surrounds the heir rarely comes into power when that heir ascends the throne. Just look at the Hanoverians across the channel. Second, even if they come into power with Bourgogne, there is no guarantee that the Devot party would remain in power. Much of their reforms were similar to that of the Polysynody of the Regent and look what happened there. It lasted a few years then failed and the model of Louis XIV was restored. Chances are the same thing would happen under ATL Louis XV.
Third, I think many are unjustly dismissing Marie-Adélaïde's influence and power in the new reign. Her husband and much of the court practically worshiped the ground she walked on and from what I've read she basically dominated her husband. Chances are she would have a very prominent role in her husband's reign, both socially and politically. I'd compare her to either Elisabeth Farnese of Spain or Queen Caroline of Great Britain, wife of George II. She'd be very powerful.
Finally, I think with Bourgogne we'd see more of Louis XIV's influence bleed through. Louis XIV was religious but not to the point of it affecting foreign policy decisions (unlike Louis XV). I think we'd see the same of Bourgogne. All in all, while we can't be completely sure what his reign would look like, its bound to be more successful than his son's was.
Third, I think many are unjustly dismissing Marie-Adélaïde's influence and power in the new reign. Her husband and much of the court practically worshiped the ground she walked on and from what I've read she basically dominated her husband. Chances are she would have a very prominent role in her husband's reign, both socially and politically. I'd compare her to either Elisabeth Farnese of Spain or Queen Caroline of Great Britain, wife of George II. She'd be very powerful.
Finally, I think with Bourgogne we'd see more of Louis XIV's influence bleed through. Louis XIV was religious but not to the point of it affecting foreign policy decisions (unlike Louis XV). I think we'd see the same of Bourgogne. All in all, while we can't be completely sure what his reign would look like, its bound to be more successful than his son's was.
Yes, any discussion of Bourgogne's potential reign has to take into account Marie-Adelaide. A powerful Queen of France would not be a factor in any of the other options for a Louis XV (particularly the Grand Dauphin).
As I said, unlike M-A, she was loved by pretty much everyone (and even though Savoyard, she was French through her mother and the Savoy royals spoke French patois in Turin) and that includes the commons. Her sister, Maria Luisa was loved by her Spanish subjects and I don't think it would be any different with M-A. She was also a cannier political player than her husband (and was not as weak) and routinely got rid of her enemies before they could strike (she ruined the Duc de Vendome because he started spreading stories of her husband's incompetence as a soldier). By the time she became Dauphine she had left the frivolity of her past behind her and was her husband's closest confidant (and Louis XIV and Madame Maintenon adored her). She was not always right - for instance selecting Marie Louise Elisabeth of Orleans as a spouse for her brother-in-law, Charles, Duke of Berri (which turned out to be a disaster) - but even that only showed her power. Her brother in-laws were devoted to her as well. You would definitely see the Orleans and the Duke of Orleans (who's personality was as different as the devout Bourgogne as night and day) drift out of the picture and if M-A has more sons (she already had given birth to 3, not including miscarriages) then the main Bourbon line would be secured.
As for Bourgogne himself. With him living the ties to Spain would extremely tighter than they were with the young Louis XV. It was actually said that Philip V loved no one better than his older brother and was shattered by his loss (which also was accompanied by Marie-Adelaide's and then just a short while later by his wife Marie-Luisa). A stronger Philip V, not given over to melancholy, stronger bonds of alliance between Bourbon Spain and France, and if Maria-Luisa still dies then I can definitely see Marie-Adelaide having a hand in picking Philip V's new wife and it may not have been Isabel Farnese (I can't see M-A liking someone who's will was equally as strong as her).
There would also be quite a difference in raising the future Kings/heirs (Bretagne and Anjou). Unlike OTL Louis XV who saw his whole family perish in the manner of weeks as a toddler, became King at 5, controlled by Regents, married off extremely early to an older Polish princess that brought no alliances, and was raised to be a libertine and do whatever he wanted, we would have a living Bourgone and M-A raising their sons (with Bretagne as the heir) to be virtuous princes (I'm positive Bourgogne would do this) with smarter political minds (I'm positive M-A would see to that) and who would not gain power until possibly adulthood. This produces a radically different France. For all OTL Louis XVI's faults the seeds of the French Revolution were sown in Louis XV's reign. A change in 1715 is early enough to change the course of what would happen.
Last edited:
Exactly. Though I will say that getting rid of the Duc de Vendome may not have been the smartest thing (Vendome being an excellent general) but it did show her power. Same with the Berry marriage. She knew that the Princesse de Condé was an enemy and prevented Mademoiselle de Charolais, her daughter, from gaining influence by marriage. Also I agree that chances are she would have had more children. This would no doubt push the Orléans much farther back in succession, especially if de Berry survives and has a living child with his wife.
This will also no doubt mean that Franco-Spanish relations will be much closer, as the Sovereign's will be brothers and (if Maria Luisa survives) brothers-in-law. This could easily change the War of the Quadruple Alliance. Spain might regain much of its Italian possessions and France could gain the Austrian Netherlands. We'd also no doubt see a wedding between the Dauphin (Bretagne) and an Infanta as well.
Finally this could influence the Jacobites as well. James III & VIII was raised as a brother to le Grand Dauphin's sons, which is one of the reasons Felipe V always supported him. Here French support, which lapsed under d'Orléans and the Duc de Bourbon, remains. We could see a very different '15, perhaps even a restoration. That would mean a triple alliance between England, France and Spain. This would completely change the balance of power and the course of history.
I don't say M-A was always prudent (I actually think Bourgogne was right in that she sometimes thought before she acted) but she WAS shrewd. She knew her enemies at court were and cut them off before they could hurt her and she knew who (the King, Madame Maintenon, her husband, her brothers-in-law, even the Orleans family who were her close relatives) to keep the favor of. She noticeably couldn't be bothered with the King's illegitimate sons/daughters by Madame de Montespan who would be eclipsed should M-A and Bourgogne come to power. Given the relative political unintelligence of the French Bourbons (and the Spanish ones save Charles III), a living M-A and possibly Maria-Louisa in Spain (which means the offspring of Isabel Farnese never come to power outside of Parma) alone would lift the potential of the Bourbons remaining in power.
It would be interesting to see if a Bourgogne Louis XV would take the Austrian Netherlands in the way OTL Louis XV did not. If M-A and Bourgogne (and both of their sons naturally) and have more sons, and if Berri survives (which would be very easy to butterfly since he simply had an accident one day) then Berri could be given a Belgium-like state of his own (perhaps as King of Flanders, with French-speaking Wallonia incorporated into France proper). In that manner all sides of the French border - Spain, Flanders, Savoy (ruled by M-A's father and then brother), Switzerland (neutural) would be governed by people with close blood ties to Bourgogne/Louis XV.
As for the Old Pretender, I never thought of that. But it is an interesting thought. Louis XIV didn't give him much help in OTL 1715 but with Bourgogne in the war council and M-A in the King's ear, things might be different. Things could be also be very different when it comes to Princess Louisa Stuart who died just a few months after Bourgogne and M-A in OTL, from the same smallpox epidemic that killed them. If the smallpox passes them by it would probably do the same for her AND Louisa was a BFF of Marie-Adelaide and was a darling of the French court, having been born and raised there. There is no way with a King Louis XV (Bourgogne) and Queen Marie-Adelaide that any pressure on the part of the British/Hanoverian government would work to have her kicked out of France and sent to a life in exile across Europe (which is what happened to the Stuarts in OTL). The greater reality is that M-A would have found someone for Louisa to marry (she was only 19 when she died) and the Jacobites would have continued even if the 1715 rising didn't work or if the main Stuart line didn't die out.
True. IDK about Louis XIV's illegitimate sons, but his daughters were closely attached to their half-brother le Grand Dauphin in the Cabal de Meudon and were hopping to come to power with him. The success of their reign will depend on their foreign policy and their ability to reform the financial institutions of France. If they and their advisers could develop a central bank similar to the Bank of England, then there's a chance that France could, like Britain, be able to remain at war without major damage to their economy. If they could stabilize France's finances then the opinion of the Parlements could be ignored. But it will depend on the King and Queen finding good advisers.
Considering how close Bourgogne was to his grandfather, I think if he had a chance to add the Austrian Netherlands to France he would take it. Even if the Netherlands are completely kept, returned to Austria/Spain or never conquered, Berri and his line will play an important role, his children being Petit-Fils de France or Princes du Sang (not sure which). This pushes the Orléans down the line considerably and would make the d'Alençons (as Berry's descendents would be called) the eventual Premier Princes du Sang.
Finally, to James III, his connection with le Grand Dauphin's sons is a key matter that is forgotten by many. I think the reason the Sun King didn't give him support in '15 was a combination of the losses in the Spanish succession war and the losses in the family. With his grandsons, favorite granddaughter-in-law and great-grandsons alive, thinks would be different. Chances are either Louis would give more support to the '15 and, if they could land an army somewhere, then the whole rising would play out very differently. Even if they only shipped over the Irish brigade or money and arms, it would still give the Jacobites a better chance and the potential to convince more those on the fence in England and Scotland to take the chance.
However, I will say that the whole exiling James to Lorraine thing was partially a political decision by both James and Louis. They were trying to separate James from France in the minds of the British Parliament, hoping for a second 1660. But your right, if the '15 failed then chances are James would be welcomed back to Saint-Germaine (his sister, if she survived, would have probably remained in France with her mother either way). Another interesting change could be in an unexpected Stuart-Borbón connection. If Maria Luisa still dies, Louisa Maria could be considered as a second Queen to Felipe.
I never considered Louisa a bride for Philip V but you are right it fits - her age (early 20s) when Maria Luisa dies and her closeness to Marie-Adelaide and the fact that Philip V already knew her. I have no doubt it would be M-A who would pick the bride who replaces her sister and Philip V would go along with it.
This leads to several questions:
1) Who does Isabel Farnese marry instead in this scenario? Perhaps James Edward Stuart himself?
2) How does the British/Hanoverian govt. react? Remember their policy was to make sure the Stuarts were broke (for instance William, Mary and Anne keeping Mary of Modena's dowry despite the fact they had no right to it) and without a country. When James eventually became engaged to Clementina Sobieski they applied political pressure to the Austrian to have her jailed so she could not consumate any union (she escaped). If Louisa is the Queen of Spain, she WILL protect her brother and if she has children then Infante of Spain could become Jacobite heirs, with a French/Spanish military might behind them. Then what?
LeopoldPhilippe
Banned
Louis le Grand Dauphin experienced a rough education under a very strict tutor.
Whenever Prince Louis did not know something or acted incalcitrantly, the tutor beat him.
Louis XIV encouraged the punishment so Louis le Grand Dauphin would not grow up egotistical.
Prince Louis detested books.
Whenever Prince Louis did not know something or acted incalcitrantly, the tutor beat him.
Louis XIV encouraged the punishment so Louis le Grand Dauphin would not grow up egotistical.
Prince Louis detested books.