Louis XVI le Fou

I was wondering something. After the dauphin's death, Louis XVI went into a depression. OTL, it wasn't a big thing. History went on as normal (and we all know how that went). But what if it had been? Say the king has a complete mental/nervous breakdown, and becomes completely (well, more) incapable of governing. The États-Generaux is assembled, but the king isn't in possession of his wits, so I'd imagine that a regent would be appointed (French tradition is the king's wife or the senior royal male, so Marie Antoinette and/or the Comte de Provence is in charge), and have to deal with them instead. How does Louis' mental state change things? Especially if he follows George III's lead?
 
Would it be an official regent, officially recognised by all or something more informal, with the king still formally holding the authority?
 
Would it be an official regent, officially recognised by all or something more informal, with the king still formally holding the authority?

No idea. Would there be time to cobble together an ad hoc regency council? Or is it a case of, "Louis' indisposed this morning, until he gets better, I'm in charge"?
 
The last time France had had a "mad" king was with Charles VI. However, since Louis is suffering from a nervous breakdown rather than a break with reality here, I would imagine that things might not work the same. Also, with Charles VI, his wife was supposedly sleeping with every fish in the ocean (which will probably be said of Marie Antoinette as well), and the country was half-occupied by invaders. I would fear what the court doctors would prescribe as a "treatment" since it was in many cases more the cure than the disease that killed. But, perhaps Rev. Willis can be persuaded to make a trip to France. He made one to Portugal to inspect D. Maria I, so Paris is reasonably closer, and not unthinkable.
 
Question: if Louis is "indisposed", how might events proceed from there? He's summoned the États-Generaux, but in the meantime, his son has died and he's suffered a nervous breakdown, which means that the Crown is sort of rudderless (?) at this point. Would the members of the États be easier or more difficult to handle if they sense a sort of weakness on the part of the Crown?
 
Question: if Louis is "indisposed", how might events proceed from there? He's summoned the États-Generaux, but in the meantime, his son has died and he's suffered a nervous breakdown, which means that the Crown is sort of rudderless (?) at this point. Would the members of the États be easier or more difficult to handle if they sense a sort of weakness on the part of the Crown?
In that case, if he's indisposed at a crucial moment, a relevant minister might take the helm I'd imagine.
 
In that case, if he's indisposed at a crucial moment, a relevant minister might take the helm I'd imagine.

Makes sense. But what might this mean for the course of events? Who might be the minister, and would he be capable, and have enough authority to be able to act in the crown's best interests?
 
Well, another point. If Louis is truly non compos mentis, and everyone knows it, would the revolutionaries execute him? Lock him up and kill him with neglect, maybe, but executing a helpless sick man would be squicky.
 
If the King is incapable, his son and heir minor, the regent would be Monsieur, or Monseigneur le comte de Provence if you like full titles. The OTL Louis XVIII is a far more capable man than either of his brothers. In 1788 he was a partisan of the Third Estate, seen as a Enlightenment man, aware of the importance of public relations. He would likely have his own men in control : his favorite the Duke Gaston of Lévis (the son of the Chevalier of New France fame), his money man Cromot de Fougy and his chancellor Orceau de Fontenette.
 
Last edited:
Well, another point. If Louis is truly non compos mentis, and everyone knows it, would the revolutionaries execute him? Lock him up and kill him with neglect, maybe, but executing a helpless sick man would be squicky.

Didn't they do that to Louis XVII (basically)?

If the King is incapable, his son and heir minor, the regent would be Monsieur, or Monseigneur le comte de Provence if you like full titles. The OTL Louis XVIII is a far more capable man than any of his brothers. In 1788 he was a partisan of the Third Estate, seen as a Enlightenment man, aware of the importance of public relations. He would likely have his own men in control : his favorite the Duke Gaston of Lévis (the son of the Chevalier of New France fame), his money man Cromot de Fougy and his chancellor Orceau de Fontenette.

Alright, Provence is capable - that much we know. But at the time, wasn't he leaning on the more royalist side of the spectrum? I know he was opposed to his brother. But, that aside, how might Lévis, Fougy and Fontenette do? And more importantly, what would/could they do about the situation in 1789?
 
The thing is,with Louis clearly indisposed,the monarchy might not fall--since someone else will take the blame in the event they still screw up.
 
Didn't they do that to Louis XVII (basically)?



Alright, Provence is capable - that much we know. But at the time, wasn't he leaning on the more royalist side of the spectrum? I know he was opposed to his brother. But, that aside, how might Lévis, Fougy and Fontenette do? And more importantly, what would/could they do about the situation in 1789?

He certainly was not the more liberal-minded prince in the family, but he was a partisan of the doubling of the Tiers in 1788. Anyways, I think he would oppose the fusion of the Estates at first, but, seeing the events in Paris, allowing it under his direction. Finances-wise, I think (but I lack info on his positions on this matter) he could go along the sale of the Clergy's estates. In fact, considering both Moreau's influence on Provence and his own interests, I see it as an enlightened despot-in-being, but with enough intelligence to play the election game with both the aristocracry and the upper middle class.
 
He certainly was not the more liberal-minded prince in the family, but he was a partisan of the doubling of the Tiers in 1788. Anyways, I think he would oppose the fusion of the Estates at first, but, seeing the events in Paris, allowing it under his direction. Finances-wise, I think (but I lack info on his positions on this matter) he could go along the sale of the Clergy's estates. In fact, considering both Moreau's influence on Provence and his own interests, I see it as an enlightened despot-in-being, but with enough intelligence to play the election game with both the aristocracry and the upper middle class.

Alright, so the Tiers would still get doubled, and "force" the Estates to meld. Is there a way he could start small with the clerical estates, for instance, like I've got Louis XVI do in my TL, where they sell off the lesser real estate first, and slowly gather momentum from there? Or should they start big to shake the tree and see what falls out of it?
 
Top