How to butterfly First French Republic ?

True, but the could also just disolve the Monarchy at the dead of Louis XVI ...



Yes, I guess if he was really trusting his advisors he could have just enforced this ... some kinid of enlighted despotism ?
Monarchy still had considerable support in 1789.Most of the people in power then were constitutional monarchists like Lafayette.

Not sure why you mentioned enlightened despotism.
 
Monarchy still had considerable support in 1789.Most of the people in power then were constitutional monarchists like Lafayette.

Not sure why you mentioned enlightened despotism.

Enlightened despotism is a King taking all decisions but still listening to his advisors, chosen among brilliant and cultured people, so if he listens to Necker and acts without caring about nobility, it's enlightened despotism, right ?
 
Enlightened despotism is a King taking all decisions but still listening to his advisors, chosen among brilliant and cultured people, so if he listens to Necker and acts without caring about nobility, it's enlightened despotism, right ?
That’s not really it. Enlightened despotism is where the king has all the power but he tries to improve the lives of his subjects as much as possible.Listening to ‘brilliant and cultured’ people is only the means to an end.

At any rate,Necker was anything but a good advisor and minister. He was a con-man.He wasn’t one of the philosophes anyway,Turgot was.
 
I'm just talking about French people volunteerely keeping Monarchy (and Louis XVI)...
If you allowed for a different monarch, I would've suggested the Bourbons escaping during the flight to Varennes, leading to the Assembly offering the crown to Phillipe Egalitie; but if keeping Louis on the throne is the goal, that's a different thing.
 
That’s not really it. Enlightened despotism is where the king has all the power but he tries to improve the lives of his subjects as much as possible.Listening to ‘brilliant and cultured’ people is only the means to an end.

At any rate,Necker was anything but a good advisor and minister. He was a con-man.He wasn’t one of the philosophes anyway,Turgot was.

Well Louis XVI was quite into welfare for his time, and Marie-Antoinette too (she was even spending time with her children sewing clothes for poor people). But you are right, I made a mistake between Turgot and Necker
 
It's worth bearing in mind that the parlement reforms of his father were abandoned by Louis XVI, demonstrating that he gave away power at least once: just to the nobility, not the people.
 
That’s not really it. Enlightened despotism is where the king has all the power but he tries to improve the lives of his subjects as much as possible.Listening to ‘brilliant and cultured’ people is only the means to an end.

At any rate,Necker was anything but a good advisor and minister. He was a con-man.He wasn’t one of the philosophes anyway,Turgot was.

Widely agreed.

However it did not matter that Turgit was a kind of philosopher and Necker was not.

The point was that Necker was but a crook who dramatically degraded the already poor quality of the French public debt. And when this darling of investors was called back to government under the pressure of his supporters who feared for their capitals and revenues, he could but show his true colors.
 
Top