PC/WI: Louis XV Suppresses the Parlements Earlier?

[Kellan Sullivan]

In 1771 Louis XV suppressed the Parlements and he and Chancellor Maupeou replaced them with councils manned by appointed officials. While the move may have been unpopular, it was lauded across Europe (even Voltaire - normally so scant in his praise for monarchy - called it a great move). But unfortunately, it was done too late in Louis XV's life and when Louis XVI succeeded to the throne, re-establishing the Parlements was one of the first things he did.

But were there any earlier poitns Louis XV could have abolished the Parlements? And what would have been the result if he had abolished them in 1751 or 1766 versus 1771?

@isabella @VVD0D95 @Jan Olbracht @Archduke @Zillian @chateauroux @Comte de Dordogne

 

[VVD0D95]

In 1771 Louis XV suppressed the Parlements and he and Chancellor Maupeou replaced them with councils manned by appointed officials. While the move may have been unpopular, it was lauded across Europe (even Voltaire - normally so scant in his praise for monarchy - called it a great move). But unfortunately, it was done too late in Louis XV's life and when Louis XVI succeeded to the throne, re-establishing the Parlements was one of the first things he did.

But were there any earlier poitns Louis XV could have abolished the Parlements? And what would have been the result if he had abolished them in 1751 or 1766 versus 1771?

@isabella @VVD0D95 @Jan Olbracht @Archduke @Zillian

Well, as you know, I'm building up to him abolishing them in around 1750 ish. I think if he manages to do that, then he's going to make quite a clear point. Authority rests with him, not the Parlements, and certainly not the nobility, who will have lost a valuable tool to use to put forward their concerns about his taxation policies. This might actually vive him the chance to properly reform France's finances. At least that's my two cents.

 

[Kellan Sullivan]

The interesting thing I found on the French wikipedia was that the Parlement of Normandie (and several other provincial parlements) were suppressed in 1560, but were re-established in June 1568 by Charles IX. I can't seem to find why these parlements were suppressed in 1560, but it's an interesting what if as well.

 

[Urbanus VII]

I can't seem to find why these parlements were suppressed in 1560, but it's an interesting what if as well.

For the same reasons as Louis XV.
The Parliaments of the Provinces (especially the Parliament of Paris) stated that they had the right to refuse to register an edict promulgated by the King (that is, to prevent the entry into force of a law desired by the King): this "right / power" in practice put the Parliaments on the same level as the King (if not above, being able to overrule the laws issued by the King!), and not below.

In 1560, the Chancellor Michel de L'Hospital argued that the King's powers are legislative while those of parliament are purely judicial; for L’Hospital the Parliaments can advise the King, but not refuse to register a law desired by the King because this would be a legislative act.

There are also 2 major problems that push the Monarchy to dissolve the Parliaments:
1) the beginning of religious unrest, caused above all by the nobles who want to weaken the centralizing power of the Monarchy: Parliaments could therefore become instruments in the hands of the noble rebels-heretics against the King.
2) the Monarchy is in its moment of greatest weakness: Francis II is a weak, sick and guarded king; Charles IX is a minor and therefore under the Regency. And the nation is rocked by religious unrest: in this situation strong Parliaments are a danger to a weak Monarchy.

 

[Kellan Sullivan]

Thanks for that.

in this situation strong Parliaments are a danger to a weak Monarchy.

Well, I don't think Louis XV's suppression is necessarily a "weak monarchy" versus a "strong parlement". Since from what I can make out, the Seance de Flagellation of March 1766 was because the king wanted to pass reforms and the parlements were being obstructive because the reforms would damage their own privileges

 

[Urbanus VII]

Well, I don't think Louis XV's suppression is necessarily a "weak monarchy" versus a "strong parlement".

I know not to express myself in the best way in this language, but I never wrote that Louis XV was weak: I wrote that under Francis II and the Regency for Charles IX the MONARCHY appeared weak.
I have instead written that the reason for dissolving the Parliaments in 1560 as well as in 1760 was the same: Parliaments attributed to themselves a legislative power that went against the desire for absolute power of the Monarchy, and therefore it was better for the Monarchy to eliminate such potentially dangerous enemies in the management of power. 🤗

 

[Kellan Sullivan]

I know not to express myself in the best way in this language, but I never wrote that Louis XV was weak: I wrote that under Francis II and the Regency for Charles IX the MONARCHY appeared weak.
I have instead written that the reason for dissolving the Parliaments in 1560 as well as in 1760 was the same: Parliaments attributed to themselves a legislative power that went against the desire for absolute power of the Monarchy, and therefore it was better for the Monarchy to eliminate such potentially dangerous enemies in the management of power. 🤗

That makes more sense. Thanks for clarifying.

Any thoughts on what would happen if the parlements were (and remained) suppressed?

 

[da Racontor]

That makes more sense. Thanks for clarifying.

Any thoughts on what would happen if the parlements were (and remained) suppressed?

Well there would still be a lot of unrest. What the king needs a good PR victory somewhere. As being accused of tyranny can't be avoided.