Question: how long could the Bourbon Ancien Régime at Versailles last?

so here's my question how long could the system of absolute monarchy centered around the court at the Château de Versailles, the system of the Monarchy set up by Louis XIV and maintained by Louis XV and Louis XVI till 5 October 1789, last? in OTL its extreme absolutism and centralism around the person of monarchy was very out of step with the rest of Europe, but could it have lasted longer with a stronger or smarter King then OTL's Louis XVI or was he doomed from the start no matter what he did?
 
so here's my question how long could the system of absolute monarchy centered around the court at the Château de Versailles, the system of the Monarchy set up by Louis XIV and maintained by Louis XV and Louis XVI till 5 October 1789, last? in OTL its extreme absolutism and centralism around the person of monarchy was very out of step with the rest of Europe, but could it have lasted longer with a stronger or smarter King then OTL's Louis XVI or was he doomed from the start no matter what he did?

Well, TBH, it really depends on whether or not Louis XVI, or his ATL replacement, is willing to make reforms, and how far he's willing to go. If her(or she?) does acquiesce to such, then Monarchist France could perhaps last half a century, maybe even slightly longer. But if not....possibly two decades at best.
 
have loius not make an escape attempt while he was a constitional monarch. he. that set the bourbons (and the Anienc Regime) to be completely discarded. dont know how longer it would have though.
 
Well, France, given its size and position in Europe, would be reached by the winds of the Industrial Revolution and Ancien Regime-governments simply cannot exists in their pure form with a more capitalist economy...so, in the best of cases, the monarchy would implemment gradual reforms over the century, becoming something like OTL Germany or even the UK by 1900 or it would collapse by the force of the new players created by the capitalist economy....maybe something around 1850 - 1860
 
so here's my question how long could the system of absolute monarchy centered around the court at the Château de Versailles, the system of the Monarchy set up by Louis XIV and maintained by Louis XV and Louis XVI till 5 October 1789, last?
It couldn't, and actually didn't lasted after Louis XIV's death.

Louis XIV system was absolutist in the strictest meaning of the word : meaning all ministeries weren't responsibles, the king was. Not to say the kingdom was centralised, the shitload of different, overlapping and rivaling juristiction was quite the contrary, it's not because absolutism was the political model used that it was omnipresent (such as it's not because you're living in a democracy that every aspect of your life is based on it)

But the point was the king ruled alone, was the sole responsible of policies but could give a power of delegation to his councilors (usually not old nobles, but recently annoblished persons, something that was quite new in France) and people he delegated power were responsible before him only.
It's the system that asked both a skilled ruler and the minorisation of ambitious nobility (as in, let's make then inhabit Versailles if they want anything from me, and once there, make them my puppets) that had no other choice than remain provincialist in a time where Versailles was the power, or to be under scrutiny.

Attempts as polysynody backfired hilarously, but it was the beggining of the end of Louis XIV personal system, the remains being kept half because nobody had a better idea, half because of the prestige of it, eventually fossilizing it while being twisted (as the idea itself of absolutism changed over time.

Basically, you'd need someone else than Louis XV. Anyone else. Pick the first guy you'd found and it would be statistically better.

(Okay, okay, i'm exxagerating it a bit)

He simply got absolutism wrong. As in "I'm always right" rather than "I have to be always right" that was more on Louis XIV, hence he didn't really minded paying attention to councils or ministers, and did as he wanted. Add that a character being interested only at times with administration and politics...

Even Philippe d'Orléans would have made a better king, or maybe one of Louis XIV's bastards (that he legitimized, and tried to make heirs, but the testimony was broken).

in OTL its extreme absolutism and centralism around the person of monarchy was very out of step with the rest of Europe,
Prussia and Spain would disagree. Absolutism was relativly "fashionable" as monarchism was during the Roman principate, as in the idea of a strong man being able to overthrow bureaucracy, oppresive middle-men, and to tie a real personal link with his subjects.

but could it have lasted longer with a stronger or smarter King then OTL's Louis XVI or was he doomed from the start no matter what he did?
I don't think it could have lasted as such : reforms were necessary, as they were during Henri IV or Louis XIII's reigns, rather than putting all of it in a relic chest and get on with it.

Maybe an earlier death of Louis XIV would be a good thing, his end of reign was put in the shadow of his better years, and that really didn't helped to a more dynamic change.
 
Philippe of Orleans was weakened ruler because he was, well, Regent, and needed support of Parlement to cancel Louis XIV-s will - needing to answer with concessions.

How would Petit Dauphin have ruled, had he lived and reigned to advanced age like Louis XIV and XV?
 
How would Petit Dauphin have ruled, had he lived and reigned to advanced age like Louis XIV and XV?

It's hard to really answer, giving the relativly short lived time he was the focus of the court.
We can still tell he was a devout person, and generally dwelled in the same circles Orleans did. His reign would probably look like Regency, mixed with more royal interests.
Basically a mix between Philippe d'Orléans and Louis XV's son. I'm not sure his reign would be really helping in regard of the OP (for the rest, well, it could be an interesting reign, à la Louis XV).

For the Grand Dauphin inheriting in late XVIIth, fortunatly all the good courtiers of the era are still alive, because Louis de France wasn't exactly too bright for his own sake.

More military-minded than Louis XIV (that if warring regularly knew it was to be used cautiously), he'll probably make some diplomatic mistakes, but the earlier death of his father before he remarries would prevent *Louis XV to be too much opposed to his father legacy.

Contrary to Louis XIV, and if the crisis is not adverted, he would support more early and more convingingly his son's claims to Spain, maybe not really trying to go trough the negociations process.

Eventually, he does have the capacity of being a great king (more than the IOTL Louis XV) but would suffer to be sacred in a relativly uneasy time. It can go either quite well, briging a new fresh wind to Versailles (that really suffered from reactionnarism of the late reign of Louis XIV), but he wouldn't have much mistakes to be allowed in the early reign
 
For the Grand Dauphin inheriting in late XVIIth, fortunately all the good courtiers of the era are still alive, because Louis de France wasn't exactly too bright for his own sake.

More military-minded than Louis XIV (that if warring regularly knew it was to be used cautiously), he'll probably make some diplomatic mistakes, but the earlier death of his father before he remarries would prevent *Louis XV to be too much opposed to his father legacy.

Contrary to Louis XIV, and if the crisis is not adverted, he would support more early and more convingingly his son's claims to Spain, maybe not really trying to go trough the negociations process.

Eventually, he does have the capacity of being a great king (more than the IOTL Louis XV) but would suffer to be sacred in a relativly uneasy time. It can go either quite well, briging a new fresh wind to Versailles (that really suffered from reactionnarism of the late reign of Louis XIV), but he wouldn't have much mistakes to be allowed in the early reign

Someone once said that our opinion of the Grand Dauphin not being too bright is an oft-cited claim, but that if your dad was LXIV, you'd also be flying rather low under the radar so as not to be a dangerous leader of opposition.

But as to the Petit Dauphin, he wasn't so much a part of the Orléans circle as what he was seen as the leader of the dévots and the nobility who favored a less centralized state.
 
Someone once said that our opinion of the Grand Dauphin not being too bright is an oft-cited claim, but that if your dad was LXIV, you'd also be flying rather low under the radar so as not to be a dangerous leader of opposition.
To which I answered in the mentioned thread that he didn't risked too much. He prooved being quite opposing to his father on many subjects (as in Edict of Fontaineblau, Spanish Succession), without risking anything, despite having his own court made of various dissenters (and he wasn't alone on this).

Louis XIV had no real interest bashing the son for the sake of it, and actually tried to give him a political role, but he was just not that skilled (while he would probably have beneficied eventually, if cautious enough, from his father's council experience).

But as to the Petit Dauphin, he wasn't so much a part of the Orléans circle as what he was seen as the leader of the dévots and the nobility who favored a less centralized state.
Point is, it's the same nobles elements that gravitated around Orléans, and that imposed their pitful tentative of nobiliar rule in the mid-1710's. His reign would have looked much, at least in the first part, as OTL Regency.
 
Top