Duc de Bourgogne as Louis XVI

While we're talking about Habsburgs - quixotic or no (IIRC the Josephine era is where the Viennese expression ein schöne leich comes from, and the thing about him and funerals was because of the expense many of the nobility went through for a funeral (where some bourgeoisie ended up bankrupted)) - how might Antoinette domarried to Bourgogne rather than weak-willed, duty bound Berri? Maybe a sooner pregnancy, and Bourgogne more willing to take a mistress during said time?
 
I'd argue that while Joseph II's ideas weren't unreasonable (like reigning in the Church's power or centralizing his domains) the way there were implemented (schizophrenic micromanaging) is what led to the failures. To much to soon and way to invasive, but a better Monarch could have pulled it off. I'd say that France needed in enlightened monarch similar to Frederich II and Catherine the Great and maybe a bit of Carlos III, rather then Joseph II.

Actually what you really want is a George I. A monarch with neither the aptitude nor ability (in George's case because of the language barrier) to rule meaning authority de facto passes to ministers who might not be Bismarcks but the very fact that they've risen to the top bodes relatively well for their competence.
 
Actually what you really want is a George I. A monarch with neither the aptitude nor ability (in George's case because of the language barrier) to rule meaning authority de facto passes to ministers who might not be Bismarcks but the very fact that they've risen to the top bodes relatively well for their competence.

Wouldn't that require such ministers, and more to the point, a situation where they don't need royal backing to stay there (on top)?
 
They had the ministers with the right idea's Turgot for example but you are right that under the Ancien Regime they need Royal backing to do anything.
 
Interestingly enough, a few years ago, I began work on TL on this very subject, several of the drafts of which are floating around the archives of this board.

A very good source to consider is Colin Jones' The Great Nation, which covers French political history and development from the death of Louis XIV to the rise of Napoléon. It's important to remember that throughout most of the reign of Louis XVI, the revolution was far from inevitable (France had arguably recovered from worse fiscal crises in the past), and Jones points out quite a few aborted opportunities that presented themselves (all of which are heavily detailed in other sources, but the work provides at least a sound introduction).

One POD that is often understated here is Le Triumvirat of Aiguillon, Terray and Maupeou that was in power during the final years of Louis XV's reign.

Despite opposition, Terray enjoyed a great deal of early success as contrôleur-général with reforming the tax system and stabilising the state's finances before his dismissal and, perhaps more importantly, he worked well with the financiers.

Maupeou is also far too underrated IMO, considering his reforms as chancellor. The suppression of the parlements and their replacement with the purely judicial cours supérieures was, arguably, necessary to any long term reforms that preserved the king's prerogative intact. It's important to remember that the greatest opponents to reform in the 1780's were not the noblesse d'épée but the noblesse de robe, who tended to be highly conservative as a social group. It was Louis XVI's great mistake to repeal the cours and re-institute the parlements, since their remonstrances were a constant thorn in the side of any minister with serious aspirations to reform (and Louis XVI, for the most part, lacked the strength of will to force through his ministers suggestions).
 
Interestingly enough, a few years ago, I began work on TL on this very subject, several of the drafts of which are floating around the archives of this board.

A very good source to consider is Colin Jones' The Great Nation, which covers French political history and development from the death of Louis XIV to the rise of Napoléon. It's important to remember that throughout most of the reign of Louis XVI, the revolution was far from inevitable (France had arguably recovered from worse fiscal crises in the past), and Jones points out quite a few aborted opportunities that presented themselves (all of which are heavily detailed in other sources, but the work provides at least a sound introduction).

One POD that is often understated here is Le Triumvirat of Aiguillon, Terray and Maupeou that was in power during the final years of Louis XV's reign.

Despite opposition, Terray enjoyed a great deal of early success as contrôleur-général with reforming the tax system and stabilising the state's finances before his dismissal and, perhaps more importantly, he worked well with the financiers.

Maupeou is also far too underrated IMO, considering his reforms as chancellor. The suppression of the parlements and their replacement with the purely judicial cours supérieures was, arguably, necessary to any long term reforms that preserved the king's prerogative intact. It's important to remember that the greatest opponents to reform in the 1780's were not the noblesse d'épée but the noblesse de robe, who tended to be highly conservative as a social group. It was Louis XVI's great mistake to repeal the cours and re-institute the parlements, since their remonstrances were a constant thorn in the side of any minister with serious aspirations to reform (and Louis XVI, for the most part, lacked the strength of will to force through his ministers suggestions).


I remember that TL! One of my favorites. Anyway your pretty much right on about the parlements and Terray. Many of Louis XVI's early actions may have one him popularity, but they ended up screwing over the state in the long run. In a way it would have been better for France if Louis XV had lived as long as his great-grandfather, and Maupeou and Terray continued to carry out their reforms, rather then the weak-willed Louis XVI.
 
Yeah, I've always found the end of Louis XV's reign to be damn tragic.

LOUIS XV: That's it! I'm done pussy-footing around with you people! Change is going to come, and this time--this time, I'm sticking to my guns! No more double-guessing myself--no more backing away from what I know to be right because someone said 'boo'! France is going to move forward and I'm the one who's... (keels over) ARRRRGH! Curse you, syphilis! Did you have to act up now? Just when... I was getting things in order...

What can I say? I like to make tragedy into black comedy.
 
Louis XVI was a good, intelligent man but he had no backbone, took forever to make decisions and tended to just follow his advisers lead. Having a monarch that's more or less the exact opposite would have huge consequences for France.

So, a wicked, stupid man with a whim of iron who makes snap decisions and listens to no one.

Yeah, that'll have huge consequences.
 
I remember that TL! One of my favorites. Anyway your pretty much right on about the parlements and Terray. Many of Louis XVI's early actions may have one him popularity, but they ended up screwing over the state in the long run. In a way it would have been better for France if Louis XV had lived as long as his great-grandfather, and Maupeou and Terray continued to carry out their reforms, rather then the weak-willed Louis XVI.

If the abolition of the parlements occurs, how would it be forced through? Might the États-Generaux be summoned earlier or would the king use a lit de justice?

And I remember seeing it put that the nobles and clergy were against the abolition of their tax exemption because it would be like a flock of turkeys voting for an early thanksgiving/Christmas. But should the parlements be successfully abolished (Voltaire lauded such an idea) would the nobles/clergy have to be recompensated for a further loss of power or not?
 
If the abolition of the parlements occurs, how would it be forced through? Might the États-Generaux be summoned earlier or would the king use a lit de justice?

And I remember seeing it put that the nobles and clergy were against the abolition of their tax exemption because it would be like a flock of turkeys voting for an early thanksgiving/Christmas. But should the parlements be successfully abolished (Voltaire lauded such an idea) would the nobles/clergy have to be recompensated for a further loss of power or not?

Technically the King wouldn't need anyone's approval. That's what people tend to forget. The King of France was an Absolute Sovereign, he didn't need the Parlements support or approval. So realistically the King could make any reforms he wanted.
 
Technically the King wouldn't need anyone's approval. That's what people tend to forget. The King of France was an Absolute Sovereign, he didn't need the Parlements support or approval. So realistically the King could make any reforms he wanted.

The question, of course, is how the king handles those who decide to defy that - subtly or otherwise.

It doesn't do much good to make reforms only for the nobility and clergy to make them exist only on paper.
 
Technically the King wouldn't need anyone's approval. That's what people tend to forget. The King of France was an Absolute Sovereign, he didn't need the Parlements support or approval. So realistically the King could make any reforms he wanted.

There is a big difference between de jure and de facto. Quite a lot of regimes have had de jure absolute power concentrated in one man. Not even Stalin's Soviet Union managed de facto total power. Louis can push the nobility of the sword and the robe a long way but there is a limit. The fronde can happen again under the right circumstances.
 
There is a big difference between de jure and de facto. Quite a lot of regimes have had de jure absolute power concentrated in one man. Not even Stalin's Soviet Union managed de facto total power. Louis can push the nobility of the sword and the robe a long way but there is a limit. The fronde can happen again under the right circumstances.

Um no it can't. The nobles no longer had their own private armies or regiments. It would be a rag tag militia versus one of the most powerful armies in Europe, not exactly difficult to figure out who would when.
 
Um no it can't. The nobles no longer had their own private armies or regiments. It would be a rag tag militia versus one of the most powerful armies in Europe, not exactly difficult to figure out who would when.

That assumes that the army is completely loyal to the king in this, which is not necessarily something to trust too blindly.

But even short of open rebellion, if the nobility of the sword and/or the nobility of the robe decide to be uncooperative, but not openly treacherous, things get complicated.
 
Um no it can't. The nobles no longer had their own private armies or regiments. It would be a rag tag militia versus one of the most powerful armies in Europe, not exactly difficult to figure out who would when.

Remind me who officered the professional French Army? I'm not saying it would be a precise repeat of the fronde but there are sound reasons why no country especially an autocracy should piss off its army officer corps.
 

TFSmith121

Banned
Who are the natural allies and opponents of an autocrat pushing for change?

Who are the natural allies and opponents of an autocrat pushing for change?

This isn't a situation, after all, when the monarch can portray himself as the champion of the people.

Given the twists and turns of French history in the half-century between (say) 1790 and 1840 (three dynasties, a republic, an empire, two kingdoms, various tries at democracy, dictatorship, oligarchy, aristocracy, etc.) I'd guess anything was possible; liklihood is a different thing, however.

Best,
 
Who are the natural allies and opponents of an autocrat pushing for change?

This isn't a situation, after all, when the monarch can portray himself as the champion of the people.

Given the twists and turns of French history in the half-century between (say) 1790 and 1840 (three dynasties, a republic, an empire, two kingdoms, various tries at democracy, dictatorship, oligarchy, aristocracy, etc.) I'd guess anything was possible; liklihood is a different thing, however.

Best,

I would think your really powerful families - the Rohans, the de la Trémoïlle, the Rohans, the Lorraines and the princes du sang might have a sort of objection to the abolition of their power. AFAIK the OTL comte de Provence was sort of leader against the abolition of the power of the nobles and clergy.
 
I think we are also interpreting Bourgogne's reign as a doppelganger OTL Louis XVI's. He might not support the American Revolution. And also, if he's stronger willed than Berri, while OTL LXVI generally moved towards the right ideas by default, a stronger willed LXVI might push for a more absolutist/tyrannical form of government.

What I also think we're overlooking is that Bourgogne/Berri would succeed as Louis XVI. If Bourgogne lives (1761) then the potential exists for the dauphin (d. 1765) might likewise live and succeed as LXVI instead.
 
While I agree that it is probably likely for Louis Ferdinand, Dauphin de France to succeed as alt-LXVI, I'm not sure when it was that he contracted the tuberculosis that killed him.

Also, I've been reading a bit up on Mgr le Duc de Bourgogne and it seems he was kind as a child (not telling anyone about the friend who pushed him from the toy-horse), and it would be interesting to see what kind of personality he'd develop if he lives longer. In fact, that kindness might make him resemble OTL LXVI.
 
Top