Louis, Dauphin of France lives.

Question for all of you. Louis, Dauphin of France (b. 1729: d. 1765) was the eldest son of Louis XV, he died as previously mentioned in 1765, from what I've read about him, he seems to have noticed that there was a rot in the system, and tried to change it, and or fix it. But he died before he could bring about any really change.

What sort of things might change if he had survived and ascended the throne in 1774 when his old man had kicked it?
 
Well, for a start you'd have an older, more strong-willed and morally minded monarch on the French throne during Robert Turgot's attempts at free-market reform on French Wheat supplies. Louis XVI (This one) wouldn't have likely allowed such changes even if Turgot had managed to get into office without being able to leverage the influence of his friends close to OTL's Louis XVI. While that doesn't change the fact France is still... well, broke and suffering form poor harvests during the late 18th century, having the Monarchy continue to stabilize the price of bread in the cities and towns would go a long way to keeping the good graces of the urban working class that would eventually develop into the sans-culottes become the front line forces of governmental change during the French Revolution. An eventual Revolution would probably still emerge anyway; as radical changes and a calling of the Estates General would still be needed to get France back on solid financial footing, but it would likely have a far sharper rural/urban divide. The Middle Class, instead of identifying downward with the peasants, would likely identify upwards to those nobility favorable to constitutional reform and dedicated to dismantling Louis XIV's absolutism , facing off against a strong Catholic clergy (Who the pious Louis XVI would use as a power base) and their rural parishes who'd be on the short end of their stick as their feudal dues wracked up and farmers found it difficult to stay afloat as the monarchy forced them to sell their crops for much less than they're worth to keep the urban classes placated.

Alot however depends on what kind of political stances Louis develops once he gets a taste of governing. That could butterfly off in any number of directions, and we'd need a clearer idea of what he did during the 9 years between his historic death and his ascendance to the throne.
 
Well, for a start you'd have an older, more strong-willed and morally minded monarch on the French throne during Robert Turgot's attempts at free-market reform on French Wheat supplies. Louis XVI (This one) wouldn't have likely allowed such changes even if Turgot had managed to get into office without being able to leverage the influence of his friends close to OTL's Louis XVI. While that doesn't change the fact France is still... well, broke and suffering form poor harvests during the late 18th century, having the Monarchy continue to stabilize the price of bread in the cities and towns would go a long way to keeping the good graces of the urban working class that would eventually develop into the sans-culottes become the front line forces of governmental change during the French Revolution. An eventual Revolution would probably still emerge anyway; as radical changes and a calling of the Estates General would still be needed to get France back on solid financial footing, but it would likely have a far sharper rural/urban divide. The Middle Class, instead of identifying downward with the peasants, would likely identify upwards to those nobility favorable to constitutional reform and dedicated to dismantling Louis XIV's absolutism , facing off against a strong Catholic clergy (Who the pious Louis XVI would use as a power base) and their rural parishes who'd be on the short end of their stick as their feudal dues wracked up and farmers found it difficult to stay afloat as the monarchy forced them to sell their crops for much less than they're worth to keep the urban classes placated.

Alot however depends on what kind of political stances Louis develops once he gets a taste of governing. That could butterfly off in any number of directions, and we'd need a clearer idea of what he did during the 9 years between his historic death and his ascendance to the throne.

Alright interesting. From my reading of him, it seems he was kept out of the governing council by his father, and thus was more susceptible to the Devots. Is it possible that between 1765-1774, seeing just how shit his father is doing at managing the economy and France itself, Louis considers implementing some industrialization when he comes to the throne? Could he also decide that reforming the central administration is necessary to ensuring proper governance, he is a Capet afterall, I doubt he'd want to completely remove the absolute monarchy.
 
Alright interesting. From my reading of him, it seems he was kept out of the governing council by his father, and thus was more susceptible to the Devots. Is it possible that between 1765-1774, seeing just how shit his father is doing at managing the economy and France itself, Louis considers implementing some industrialization when he comes to the throne? Could he also decide that reforming the central administration is necessary to ensuring proper governance, he is a Capet afterall, I doubt he'd want to completely remove the absolute monarchy.
The Dauphin from what I have read had mixed emotions regarding his father. He loved him father to son supposedly, but he was not agreeable to his father's lifestyle. As for governing, I think it is possible he would be open to reforms that would benefit the people and the nation, but he also was very religious and devoted to the Catholic Church so I doubt he would do anything to alter the Estates General at least as far as the privileges given the First Estate, (Clergy).
 
Alright interesting. From my reading of him, it seems he was kept out of the governing council by his father, and thus was more susceptible to the Devots. Is it possible that between 1765-1774, seeing just how shit his father is doing at managing the economy and France itself, Louis considers implementing some industrialization when he comes to the throne? Could he also decide that reforming the central administration is necessary to ensuring proper governance, he is a Capet afterall, I doubt he'd want to completely remove the absolute monarchy.

Our Louis XVI actually DID try to liberalize the economy to encourage economic growth; that was the logic behind Turgot's reforms. The problem was the readjusting of the French economy not only was bad for consumers in the short term; compounding on the increase in bread prices caused by bad harvests, but that the French peasent didn't have a lot of disposable income since he was weighed down by the archaic feudal dues and mandatory tithes still widespread in France at the time. Add that to the monarchy already being deep in debt from the 7 Years War and stuck with a bloated tax exempt and economically privlaged noble class (courtesy of grandpa Sun King's sale of offices), and the economic conditions simply aren't there for France to grow its way out of the problem. Remember, by the time the Revolution kicks off half the French income is being used up simply to pay the interest in it'd debt: far greater than the measly 6% spent by the court in Versailles. Any major administrative reforms would also need the approval of the very nobility who's powers he'd be taking away... not likely if he's under the sway of the pro-noble Devots.

What could change is the specifics of the Estates General meetings and how the people at large perceive noble intentions if the King has an actual backbone and interest in governing. Perhaps he could get the 1st and 3rd estates to support the Anti-Privlage laws and reform feudalism out of France if he gets into a fight with the 2nd estate, using the mob as a blunt instrument. Building up a reputation as a "Citizen-King" of Catholic piety and charity could go a long way towards deflecting the blame for France's hardships away from his person, possibly leading to some kind of Constitutional Monarchy surviving the turmoil and cramming through the needed changes in the crisis.

The key though is he has to find some method to get bread to the people. A starving or bankrupt population usually isn't peaceful or loyal in the long run, and a different King won't change the weather or basic market realities.
 
Very true points.

I do think seeing him grapple with wanting to reform things and being stuck behind his principles would be very interesting. I do imagine he'd fight very hard to avoid a constitutional monarchy. After all those don't have any teeth.
 
I can't recall the specifics, but I recall XV's last finance minister was making modest gains on getting debt under control, when OTL XVI sacked him and reversed XV's very modest reforms. our Utopian (or at least better) TTL XVI might continue/improve those policies. And he might be a bit smarter about engaging whole hog in the American Revolution, thereby not incurring even more debt.

It took a perfect storm of events to create the successful AR and the French Revolution. change the king and his policies, you could easily change the course of both (if the FR even happens)
 
I can't recall the specifics, but I recall XV's last finance minister was making modest gains on getting debt under control, when OTL XVI sacked him and reversed XV's very modest reforms. our Utopian (or at least better) TTL XVI might continue/improve those policies. And he might be a bit smarter about engaging whole hog in the American Revolution, thereby not incurring even more debt.

It took a perfect storm of events to create the successful AR and the French Revolution. change the king and his policies, you could easily change the course of both (if the FR even happens)

This is very true, I do imagine that TTL Louis XVI might share his father's dream of damaging Britain though, perhaps he could invest moderately with men and ships for the revolutionaries, but not provide the huge finance that his son did otl? And I suppose a process move to industrialisation would help massively as well.
 
damaging Britain was easily attainable with modest clandestine aid. just enough to bleed Britain dry. But, joining the war was also about making gains elsewhere, taking other colonial possessions. France ended up tying themselves at the hip to the Patriots, thereby diminishing their ability to make those gains. Spain did it the right way: not directly joining the rebels, limiting the amount of clandestine aid they gave, and focusing on regaining Florida and Gibraltar. Gibraltar was too tough a nut to crack, but Florida was reasonably easy. Of course, it wouldn't have been so easy if France weren't so heavily involved elsewhere.
 
damaging Britain was easily attainable with modest clandestine aid. just enough to bleed Britain dry. But, joining the war was also about making gains elsewhere, taking other colonial possessions. France ended up tying themselves at the hip to the Patriots, thereby diminishing their ability to make those gains. Spain did it the right way: not directly joining the rebels, limiting the amount of clandestine aid they gave, and focusing on regaining Florida and Gibraltar. Gibraltar was too tough a nut to crack, but Florida was reasonably easy. Of course, it wouldn't have been so easy if France weren't so heavily involved elsewhere.

Hmm very true, so do you think then that Louis would focus more on India and Louisiana, than perhaps giving the rebels their money as his son did otl? If so, could this therefore prevent the debt shooting up, thus lessening the impact of the failed harvests somewhat?
 
Top