Basically it is the nobility representative that where part of the liberal/constitutional monarchist proto-party in the first constituant assembly who were sitting with the nobility during the general estates.
Interesting, thanks.
149 deputies from the clergy joined the third estates in the tennis court oath.
Hmm. However, this did happen after the Third Estate had already declared themselves the National Assembly. Thus there's probably a chunk of the clergy that joined them that wouldn't have initially gone along with it, but felt they had to choose sides. Still, I suppose this shows how much sympathy the Clergy backed the Third Estate, which would be surprising for most observers at the time. It seems like we're going to be in a situation where the First and Third Estates will gang up on the Second Estate then. The question is how the King would react to that dynamic.
For the progressive nobility, some form of constitutional monarchy would be a must have. The reactionnary part of the nobility wanted to weaken the king's power, to reafirm old feudal right not used since at least a 100 years. i could see a deal within the nobility for a form of constitutionnal monarchy, but the role that the third estates should play would bring it to the ground. For the clergy it is harder to see, as they were very divided (even among the high clergy which had IIRC it's own progressive) and a lot of them left the orders after the start of the revolution.
I'm imagining in this scenario that the first legislation passed would be a motion calling for the Estates to be called every, say, five years. I think the King would have to accept this due to the overwhelming support it would get. In short order, it would probably be followed on motions condemning abuses of public office and rights to fair trial etc. Again, these would get passed.
The question is what happens when the low-hanging fruit is gone. I imagine the nobility, once they realise the First and Third Estate are ganging up against them, will want to try to split them. Any ideas what would be a good issue to do this?
In fact the biggest problem for all those theories is how the parisian people react. It was the conjunction of the soft revolution of the third estates representatives and the harder revolution of the parisian people during the events of the 12-14 july that forced the king to accept the legitimity of the national assembly (he already had begun to bring more troops around Paris) and then the widespread peasant revolts that kickstarted a movement that led to the abolition of privileges.
I believe, although correct me if I'm wrong, but the catalyst for this was when the third estate started going against established procedure by forming the National Assembly. In this timeline, they don't have numerical superiority so there'd be no point in doing this. Thus the King won't move to adjourn them and start moving troops. Thus no Tennis Court Oath, no subsequent public outrage and no huge urban violence.