French Revolution: What if equal representations of the three estates?

In OTL, when the Estates General of 1789 were called, the Third Estate was granted numerical representation twice that of each the other estates. This was highly unexpected a considered a victory out of the blue for reformers at the time. Later it emerged that voting by estate would neutralise this numerical advantage, but expectations had now been raised, and it caused the Third Estate to demand they all sit and vote together. Aware of their numerical majority, they declared themselves the national assembly, feeling comfortable to invite the other two estates to join them.

But what if the initial representation had not been granted? What if the Third Estate turned up in Paris with only a third of the delegates? Would they continue to sit separately? They has some sympathisers in the First Estate: would they gang up on the nobility by protecting the Church from taxes or some other deal? Would reforms get through? If so, how much more moderate would they be?
 
In OTL, when the Estates General of 1789 were called, the Third Estate was granted numerical representation twice that of each the other estates. This was highly unexpected a considered a victory out of the blue for reformers at the time. Later it emerged that voting by estate would neutralise this numerical advantage, but expectations had now been raised, and it caused the Third Estate to demand they all sit and vote together. Aware of their numerical majority, they declared themselves the national assembly, feeling comfortable to invite the other two estates to join them.

But what if the initial representation had not been granted? What if the Third Estate turned up in Paris with only a third of the delegates? Would they continue to sit separately? They has some sympathisers in the First Estate: would they gang up on the nobility by protecting the Church from taxes or some other deal? Would reforms get through? If so, how much more moderate would they be?

I think that the Tiers Etats would still ask for an head vote instead of an estate vote. They knew they would have the support of a sizable faction of the nobility (90 out of 290), and that with so much deputies of the clergy from the lower orders (220 members of the bas-clergé out of 308 members of the clergy) they would have support for that. But anyway, if the vote proceed by estate, nothing is done as i guess the nobility will have enough clout in the clergy to oppose any tax raise against it and their is enough low-level priest to oppose tax raises on the third estate. So bankrupt it is.
 
I think that the Tiers Etats would still ask for an head vote instead of an estate vote. They knew they would have the support of a sizable faction of the nobility (90 out of 290), and that with so much deputies of the clergy from the lower orders (220 members of the bas-clergé out of 308 members of the clergy) they would have support for that. But anyway, if the vote proceed by estate, nothing is done as i guess the nobility will have enough clout in the clergy to oppose any tax raise against it and their is enough low-level priest to oppose tax raises on the third estate. So bankrupt it is.

Where do your numbers on the nobility come from?

Do we know what fraction of the 220 lower clergy were actually supportive of the Third Estate? If more than 150 do, then it doesn't make much difference whether vote occurs by head or by order: the Third Estate is dependent on the lower clergy either way. I believe only a fraction joined for the Tennis Court Oath.

What sort of reforms would be first on the list for the 90 and the 200 respectively? What sort of deals would have to be made?
 
Bumping... I'd really like to think through the most likely way this would develop, and I always think better in communication with others, so would love to get as many ideas as possible here. I'm really trying to understand just how much reform could get through the Estates-General here: whether it's insufficient reform, sufficient reform, or spiralling off into revolution again.
 
This would be a very important change. The Tiers Etat not having the majority on its own is forced to make more compromise than it did.

But you would still have to deal with the revolutionnary populace of Paris that was instrumental for a good part of the representatives of the Tiers Etat. And in fact more important, you would still have the problem of the vast majority of the population who lived in the countryside, who wanted to abolish the last privileges of the land lords and who wanted a part of the lands.

But this TL would make much more probable an english type evolution of the french monarchy, maybe with 2 assemblies : a "low" assembly where the Tiers Etat would stand alone, and a "high" assembly where the nobility and church would stand, each assembly having the power to block the decisions of the other.
 
This would be a very important change. The Tiers Etat not having the majority on its own is forced to make more compromise than it did.

But you would still have to deal with the revolutionary populace of Paris that was instrumental for a good part of the representatives of the Tiers Etat. And in fact more important, you would still have the problem of the vast majority of the population who lived in the countryside, who wanted to abolish the last privileges of the land lords and who wanted a part of the lands.

I thought most of the Third Estate delegation were actually bourgeosie lawyers. I imagine they would look to reduce the suffering on both the rural and urban poor.

But this TL would make much more probable an english type evolution of the french monarchy, maybe with 2 assemblies : a "low" assembly where the Tiers Etat would stand alone, and a "high" assembly where the nobility and church would stand, each assembly having the power to block the decisions of the other.

I'm not sure this would work. The combined nobility-clergy alliance could block all reforms. I think there will either be (a) a three assembly parliament, with two of them capable of outvoting the third or (b) a unitary parliament with all of them voting together. In (a), nothing is ever going to get past the nobility, so the balance of power seems to lie with the lower clergy. In (b) the third estate would have more flexibility to leverage different coalitions with moderate nobles or the lower clergy on a case by case basis.

I think (a) is the more likely solution. Is it possible the Church could get a much more privileges in exchange for the nobles getting clobbered?
 
Where do your numbers on the nobility come from?

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.

Do we know what fraction of the 220 lower clergy were actually supportive of the Third Estate? If more than 150 do, then it doesn't make much difference whether vote occurs by head or by order: the Third Estate is dependent on the lower clergy either way. I believe only a fraction joined for the Tennis Court Oath.

149 deputies from the clergy joined the third estates in the tennis court oath.

What sort of reforms would be first on the list for the 90 and the 200 respectively? What sort of deals would have to be made?

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.

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.
 
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.
 
Top