In 1789, how was common identity of "French" in Occitan stronger than that of Polish in what is now western Ukraine, or Swedish in Finland, or Slovene in the Habsburg monarchy?
I can't exactly tell you about these places on which my knowledge is limited, but here's roughly the situation.
To begin with, it was definitively present not only among all elites (nobiliar and bourgeois alike), but as well among other social layers.
Not only trough centuries of unifying policies, of domination of french as a language, but as well (for reasons more close to XVIIIth century) modernisation of transportation in France, structured military (when you mix different peoples inside one same army, you create trans-regional solidarities or at least identity), creation of more tied up town/countryside relations (it was not uncommon by the XVIIIth century, to have peasants surrounding cities able to speak French in non-francophonic regions)
While you certainly had as well included identities they were extremly localist or somewhat representative of a certain political traditionalism (as with the aforementioned Etats de Provence), they were not exactly conflicting with French Identity.
Again, the only exception I can think of would be Corsica at this time. Apart that, I simply can't think of one.
Of course, you had
no Occitan identity whatsoever to speak of. That simply didn't existed and you had at best a more or less develloped provincial/regional/urban localism.
(I'm not sure about the implication of French identity being the only one put in commas there, to be honest.)
Yes, I understand it didn't really exist even among the Girondins, in our timeline. What I'm arguing is that some leading thinker could come up with the idea of proper federalism for France along the lines of the American example, and in the chaos of an alternate French revolution manage to come to a leadership position.
That would be extremly hard. French Revolution is all about the exhaltation of the nation as the one body politically, socially and culturally.
For a true federalist position coming out of nowhere, without real social or political support, without at least would it be a limited faction to have emmited such ideas, and to win the day looks terribly implausible.
Basically, if it didn't existed IOTL, there's usually good reasons, not just because they didn't tought about it.
Could you elaborate on these more?
Well, some elites were more tied up with regional institutions. For exemple, provincial Estates that were the usual social basis for provincial nobility and bourgeoisie (while not exactly determinating), and their dissolution being threatening to their social position.
Eventually, these links were more or less existant among other layers of the population, brigging a certain resentment on this regard.
I'd point out that their importance in the revolutionary crisis is definitely far less important than economic crisis, Civil Constitution of the Clergy and war and conscription.
It all depends on what you need to count as a "revolution". But I'm imagining a scenario where the calling of the Estates still happens, and the King realises he can court popularity by speaking up for the "people" and curbing noble privileges, while cementing his own position at the top.
Not regarding it would go, once again, again the royalists and court principle of the royal power...
Well, that would most certainly backfire. Estates Generals were what was more close of a popular representation : hopes were simply gigantic that EG would resolve the crisis, and not only among elites but as well popular layers.
Having the king trying to bypass them would at best encounter incomprehension, most probably riots, at worst some equivalent to the
Great Fear.
Fair enough, but that clearly indicates there were elements of a revolutionary south back in the 18th century.
It doesn't. It simply clearly indicates that you have a strong revolutionary element during the French Revolution (I'm not sure it comes out as a scoop for many people there).
Furthermore, these revolutionary elements were tied to the overall revolutionary movement in France, rather than being a specifically "southern revolutionarism".
As for before the French Revolution, what you had was more ponctual riots that were never based on culture or identity, but on fiscal and economic points, such as the
Day of the Tiles.