A good Louis XVI is a dead Louis XVI?

Using the same principle as the Washington thread (let's hope this one has more success).
What if Louis XVI had died sometime after summoning the Estates-Generals but before their opening? Who's going to be regent? Would they rescind his decision? And of course, what about the Revolution (or lack thereof)?
 
One of his brother would most likely be regent, either the Comte d'Artois (Charles X) or a little less likely the Comte de Provence (Louis XVIII). If the Comte d'Artois becomes regent, than the revolution will most likely radicalise significantly earlier as a reaction to his intransigent reactionary attitudes, if the Comte de Provence takes over the regency, than it will probably continue with about the same pace as in OTL.
 
One of his brother would most likely be regent, either the Comte d'Artois (Charles X) or a little less likely the Comte de Provence (Louis XVIII). If the Comte d'Artois becomes regent, than the revolution will most likely radicalise significantly earlier as a reaction to his intransigent reactionary attitudes, if the Comte de Provence takes over the regency, than it will probably continue with about the same pace as in OTL.

Possible, but it's actually more likely Marie-Antoinette becomes Regent. Go back in French history, especially the early modern period. We have Marie de Medicis and Anne of Austria as Regents for their sons; Catherine de Medici served as Regent for her son, Charles IX. While Salic Law barred women from the throne and power of the wife was not included, the power of the mother was highly respected and she was often the one who was Regent. These were women living in times where the eldest Prince of the Blood could've claimed the Regency (such as Antoine, King of Navarre, the Bourbons ancestor), but typically the mother served as Regent. Louis XV only had the Duke d'Orléans as his Regent because he was a virtual orphan. His closest family such as his mother had died, and the remainder of his other close relatives were in Spain, after Philippe d'Anjou became King.

If the Estates have no been open yet. it is Marie-Antoinette who would be Regent. Artois and Provence would likely play some influence, but she would be the official Regent. The only way a different Regent would be named is if the Estates had already formed the National Assembly. In that case they might choose Orléans. I know the first constitution before Vargrennes allowed either of Louis XVI's brothers to be Regent, Provence first, but as this is all before it, tradition would dictate Marie-Antoinette has the best right to serve as her son's regent.
 
And the revolution? Are we going to see a republic or is an infant king pliable enough? Plus there's also the question of whether there's going to be an French-Austrian war ITTL (it could start over the deposition of regent Marie-Antoinette).
What d'ya think?
 
Possible, but it's actually more likely Marie-Antoinette becomes Regent. Go back in French history, especially the early modern period. We have Marie de Medicis and Anne of Austria as Regents for their sons; Catherine de Medici served as Regent for her son, Charles IX. While Salic Law barred women from the throne and power of the wife was not included, the power of the mother was highly respected and she was often the one who was Regent. These were women living in times where the eldest Prince of the Blood could've claimed the Regency (such as Antoine, King of Navarre, the Bourbons ancestor), but typically the mother served as Regent. Louis XV only had the Duke d'Orléans as his Regent because he was a virtual orphan. His closest family such as his mother had died, and the remainder of his other close relatives were in Spain, after Philippe d'Anjou became King.

If the Estates have no been open yet. it is Marie-Antoinette who would be Regent. Artois and Provence would likely play some influence, but she would be the official Regent. The only way a different Regent would be named is if the Estates had already formed the National Assembly. In that case they might choose Orléans. I know the first constitution before Vargrennes allowed either of Louis XVI's brothers to be Regent, Provence first, but as this is all before it, tradition would dictate Marie-Antoinette has the best right to serve as her son's regent.

If Marie-Antoinette became regent we would have a much bloodier revolution on our hands.
 
If Marie-Antoinette became regent we would have a much bloodier revolution on our hands.

Propaganda has made her way worse than she actually was. Louis XVI was instilled from birth with Austrophobia by his governor, to fear the "dominance" and "encirclement" of the House of Habsburg. When he was married to Marie-Antoinette, she was firmly in her place and exerted no control over policy. Anytime she attempted to intervene, such as nominating allies for certain government posts, ect, she was always shot down. Louis only began to heed her advice after 1789. Her only period of any actual power was when Louis suffered a nervous collapse; even then, all she was doing was forging his name on royal documents.

As Queen, her influence was nill. I fail to see how having her as Regent will make a bloodier Revolution. She was a convinient scape goat for the Revolutionaries, and that's it. She was no more a spendthrift than other members of the Royal Family. Louis XVI paid off Artois and Provence's debts on numerous occassions, especially Provence, who had wracked up some one million livres around 1783 that the King paid off. The King's aunts also spent a lot of money in order to take the waters at Vichy. Once Marie-Antoinette had her children, she was pretty devoted to them. The late card parties and shopping sprees ended.

Let them eat cake
. Is a myth, when Voltaire spoke of it, Marie-Antoinette was still a little girl in Vienna. Louis XVIII in his memoirs attributes it to Louis XIV's wife. Even when she was supposedly "hated," when Versailles stormed Marie-Antoinette made a show of stepping out on the balcony. The people cheered. Many also mourned her during her trial and subsequent death. She did nothing wrong except she was born at the wrong time and not properly raised to handle this situation. She wasn't a politician like her mother, and any half hearted attempts at doing so were quickly quashed by Louis XVI's Austrophobia.
 
Infant kings aren't expected to do much legislative business, so I don't think he'd serve as a lightningrod the way Louis XVI did. Marie-Antoinette would be Regent, Lafayette would not be thwarted by his own idiot monarch (M-A hated him, but I don't think he'd treat an order from her the same way he'd treat one from L16) and a constitutional monarchy is the most likely result.

Even if Marie-Antoinette was replaced with Charles d'Artois, though, he wouldn't be all that bloody-minded or intransigent at this point. The murder of his son by a Bonapartist caused a major change in Charles X's persona; previously he had been conservative but basically rational and reasonable, after he was obsessed with erasing every trace of the Empire and Revolution.
 
Infant kings aren't expected to do much legislative business, so I don't think he'd serve as a lightningrod the way Louis XVI did. Marie-Antoinette would be Regent, Lafayette would not be thwarted by his own idiot monarch (M-A hated him, but I don't think he'd treat an order from her the same way he'd treat one from L16) and a constitutional monarchy is the most likely result.

Even if Marie-Antoinette was replaced with Charles d'Artois, though, he wouldn't be all that bloody-minded or intransigent at this point. The murder of his son by a Bonapartist caused a major change in Charles X's persona; previously he had been conservative but basically rational and reasonable, after he was obsessed with erasing every trace of the Empire and Revolution.

Even if Marie-Antoinette got replaced, it's more likely that Provence would be Regent, not Artois. Provence would be favored because he was extremely liberal before the Revolution got really out of hand, and Artois was already particularly hated (there's a reason why Louis XVI had him leave the country when he did, with the Polignac clique: there were fears he might be assassinated). He already had a reputation as one of the most conservative members of the Royal Family, along with Madame Elisabeth.
 
Bumping this, to add an idea I've had in the meantime: only the Estates-Generals would've the legitimacy to name a new regent (though the last time they did was during the HYW if my memory serves well). That might effectively kill the idea of declaring themselves the National Assembly, or at least they would keep both titles or even seat in parallel. Pterodactyl-sized butterflies in view...
 
If Marie-Antoinette became regent we would have a much bloodier revolution on our hands.

It may, at worst, get bloody earlier, if not bloodier as a whole. Marie-Antoinette, not neccessarily from any undue fault of her own (I don't think she could bring about some sort of White Terror or anything, if she took power as regent-the National Guard wouldn't let her, if nothing else), was utterly hated by many of the people. (My predominate source for this is Simon Schama's "Citizens".) The image of l'Austrichienne assuming power as a regent, rather than the relatively benign Citizen-King, could shorten the Bourbon lifespan significantly.
 
No, a good Louis XVI is a powerless Louis XVI. Killing him is just one way of achieving that objective, but there are several other, far less crude way of getting rid of troublesome dictatorial French monarchs. The British had a most elegant method of placing them on remote islands in the South Atlantic.

300px-Indian_Ocean_satellite_image_location_map.jpg


Now, France doesn't have any islands in the South Atlantic (as far as I am aware of), but there does in fact exist a little archipelago in the South Indian Ocean (halfway between Madagascar and Antarctica) called the Crozet Islands, discovered and proclaimed French in 1772. A rather boring climate, I grant you that, Wikipedia herself states that the temperature "may rise to 18 °C (64.4 °F) in summer and rarely go below 5 °C (41 °F) even in winter." So, it'll be cold and fairly Spartan, but hey, there's penguins there:

220px-Marion_Dufresne_-_Crozet.jpg


A wonderful place for Louis to bring Marie-Antoinette and the children. What, scarcity of food? Well, as we say in Revolutionary France, let them have cake! :)

The Call at Crozet Islands - Online Travelling Diary
Discover France: French Colonies - Crozet Islands
 
No, a good Louis XVI is a powerless Louis XVI. Killing him is just one way of achieving that objective, but there are several other, far less crude way of getting rid of troublesome dictatorial French monarchs. The British had a most elegant method of placing them on remote islands in the South Atlantic.

300px-Indian_Ocean_satellite_image_location_map.jpg


Now, France doesn't have any islands in the South Atlantic (as far as I am aware of), but there does in fact exist a little archipelago in the South Indian Ocean (halfway between Madagascar and Antarctica) called the Crozet Islands, discovered and proclaimed French in 1772. A rather boring climate, I grant you that, Wikipedia herself states that the temperature "may rise to 18 °C (64.4 °F) in summer and rarely go below 5 °C (41 °F) even in winter." So, it'll be cold and fairly Spartan, but hey, there's penguins there:

220px-Marion_Dufresne_-_Crozet.jpg


A wonderful place for Louis to bring Marie-Antoinette and the children. What, scarcity of food? Well, as we say in Revolutionary France, let them have cake! :)

The Call at Crozet Islands - Online Travelling Diary
Discover France: French Colonies - Crozet Islands


Why not ship her to the Southern USA? A lot of the pseudo-aristocracy would be willing to take her in. Far enough away from Europe not to cause problems and may help relations with the US. The last isn't particularly important at the time but can't hurt.
 
I remember reading an anecdote about how, shortly before the death of his son Louis Joseph, Louis XVI took a near-fatal fall which he survived in OTL. Just have things go a little bit differently, and the new king of France is a four-year-old. :D IIRC either Louis's brother (the future Charles X) or the Duke of Orleans would serve as regent. If it's the latter, his revolutionary sympathies could change the course of the French Revolution ITTL...
 
Louis XVI was far beyond incompetent, period. I don't think the crisis he's faced was as severe as religiously divided France his ancestor Henry IV had faced.
 
It may, at worst, get bloody earlier, if not bloodier as a whole. Marie-Antoinette, not neccessarily from any undue fault of her own (I don't think she could bring about some sort of White Terror or anything, if she took power as regent-the National Guard wouldn't let her, if nothing else), was utterly hated by many of the people. (My predominate source for this is Simon Schama's "Citizens".) The image of l'Austrichienne assuming power as a regent, rather than the relatively benign Citizen-King, could shorten the Bourbon lifespan significantly.

Yeah, from what I've read, Marie Antoinette was about as popular as head lice at the time.

Louis XVI was far beyond incompetent, period. I don't think the crisis he's faced was as severe as religiously divided France his ancestor Henry IV had faced.

Not quite as severe, no, but there were still big problems. Mounting debt, bad harvests, righteous fury and justified resentment among the Third Estate...
 
Top