A Richelieu or Mazarin for Louis XVI

Clearly I'm on a Louis XVI kick. Anyway, from my reading its clear that at least part of the problem Louis XVI had was a lack of governing skill and a lack of a take charge Chief Minister. So was there any person skilled enough in France to act as a Cardinal Richelieu or Mazarin to Louis XVI's Louis XIII?
 
The problem is less the existence of skilled persons, the problem is that it became impossible really hard to have a Prime Minister, even de facto, that could have a coherent policy with royal support (see Choiseul).

It wouldn't be that bad with skilled and politically-minded kings enough to manage well enough a government, but Louis XV and XVI while retaining the "I rule myself" part of Louis XIV's reforms, weren't able to do so and couldn't abdicate too much of their power without giving room for nobiliar revendications (remember that, even at the apogeee of their mandates, Richelieu and Mazarin always had to abide by a certain form of nobiliar power; when Louis XIV simply bypassed it by using bourgeois elites).
 
The problem is less the existence of skilled persons, the problem is that it became impossible really hard to have a Prime Minister, even de facto, that could have a coherent policy with royal support (see Choiseul).

It wouldn't be that bad with skilled and politically-minded kings enough to manage well enough a government, but Louis XV and XVI while retaining the "I rule myself" part of Louis XIV's reforms, weren't able to do so and couldn't abdicate too much of their power without giving room for nobiliar revendications (remember that, even at the apogeee of their mandates, Richelieu and Mazarin always had to abide by a certain form of nobiliar power; when Louis XIV simply bypassed it by using bourgeois elites).

So basically it was damned if you do, damned if you don't. Give to much power to a Minister and you risk a noble reaction. Keep to much power for yourself and you have a failure in government. Would there be a way to have a middle ground, like a really respected person acting as Chief Minister? Or giving the nobles the appearance of power (appointing them as Ministers and Secretarys of State) while retaining true power with the Chief Minister and his own advisers (ie under secretaries and ministers)? Or would neither really work?
 
So basically it was damned if you do, damned if you don't.
To be honest, you had a nobiliar backleash after Louis XIV, and even if it failed largely and comically its effects lasted longer than Polysynody or even Regence.*

Louis XIV held great nobility on a tight leash, but his overlong reign outlived a bit the success of his reforms, IMO. An earlier death could allow a smoother transition (the problem being his successors didn't promised that much, even if his son may have been less inept than commonly tought).

But all of that would have been salvagable if Louis XV had half of a working brain and remotely interested on politics or consersely, being ready to share power in most matters, instead of a "I don't want to rule everything because *yawn* but I won't let anyone being too efficient for my own sake".
 
There was no Lous XIII

In order for a Mazarin or Richelieu to be successful in helping Louis XVI save the monarchy there would have needed to be a couple of necessary alternatives to the earlier events that were Richelieu and Mazarin.

First, considering the times, a strong prime minister would have needed to be "enlightened" and ready to force Democratic ideals on the staunchly conservatively entrenched Nobility and overly protective church. The prime minister unlike Richelieu and Mazarin, both men of the cloth, would need to be most likely a lower ranking nobleman with close ties to the Bourgeoisie.

But the real missing part was the king himself. Both Richelieu and Mazarin had the backing and support of Louis XIII. Louis XIII has never been given credit for his role in the "partnership" he shared with Richelieu that created the power of the crown and ascendency over the nobility. It goes to say, Louis XVI was no Louis XIII.
 
Isn't Maupeou the man that fits the criteria? He was Chancellor of France and had succeeded in reforming the parlements to allow for reforms to be made that displeased the nobility.

Louis XVI just had the foolish decision to fire him.
 
I'm not sure Maupeou was the right man. He did play a role not unlike that of Richelieu, however, would he have been able to satisfy the growing ambitions of the Bourgeoisie and limit church and nobility, in other words could he have strengthened Louis XVI and made him beloved in the eyes of what eventually became the Revolution?
 
Louis XVI just had the foolish decision to fire him.

The problem with Maupeou, was his lack of true political base : initially he was part of Choiseul's (I personally think Choiseul could have been just the right candidate for a Prime Minister*) general base until he was eventually favoured at the latter's political decline.

Without a bit of political support (and critically in face of a general opposition from provincial nobility, high nobility, bourgeois elites, etc.), his reform would have been really hard to fully implement.

Maurepas had an easy time replacing him with Louis XV's death, critically with his closeness with Louis XVI (not that Maurepas was particularly incompetent, but his policies asked for a bit of social support from nobility)

*Let's hope the thread won't devole into a Choiseul vs. Maupeou discussion :D
 
Last edited:
The problem with Maupeou, was his lack of true political base : initially he was part of Choiseul's (I personally think Choiseul could have been just the right candidate for a Prime Minister*) general base until he was eventually favoured at the latter's political decline.

Without a bit of political support (and critically in face of a general opposition from provincial nobility, high nobility, bourgeois elites, etc.), his reform would have been really hard to fully implement.

Maurepas had an easy time replacing him with Louis XV's death, critically with his closeness with Louis XVI (not that Maurepas was particularly incompetent, but his policies asked for a bit of social support from nobility)

*Let's hope the thread won't devole into a Choiseul vs. Maupeou discussion :D

So could a recall of Choisel, perhaps combined with a continued Maupeou, be a team able to get things done or no?
 
Richelieu was able to performance what he did only because he had the constant and enduring support of king Louis XIII.

Louis XIII was a good king for hard times. Louis XVI was not and everybody knew it : this destroyed his authority and made him fail whatever he attempted.

Now, assuming Louis XVI had been a decent king, he would have needed just to mai tain Maupeou's réforme.

If It had come to the 1787/89 mess, he would have needed a Richelieu.

Or anyone not afraid to spill a little blood of the east parisian mob. That's what young Napoleon or Fouché both thought, said (and did for for the revolutionary oligarchy).
 
Richelieu was able to performance what he did only because he had the constant and enduring support of king Louis XIII.

Louis XIII was a good king for hard times. Louis XVI was not and everybody knew it : this destroyed his authority and made him fail whatever he attempted.

Now, assuming Louis XVI had been a decent king, he would have needed just to mai tain Maupeou's réforme.

If It had come to the 1787/89 mess, he would have needed a Richelieu.

Or anyone not afraid to spill a little blood of the east parisian mob. That's what young Napoleon or Fouché both thought, said (and did for for the revolutionary oligarchy).

What about the tax reforms? Which finance minister's ideas would have been best?Abbé Terray, Turgot, Calonne or Brienne? To me Malesherbes seemed to have good ideas for aiding in reforming the legal system.
 
Top