He died at ten, so Bourgogne can basically be anything you want him to be, I guess. I'm playing with that idea in my TL (shameless plug
)Successful bourbon restoration in 1795
- Thread starter VVD0D95
- Start date
He died at ten, so Bourgogne can basically be anything you want him to be, I guess. I'm playing with that idea in my TL (shameless plug
)He died at ten, so Bourgogne can basically be anything you want him to be, I guess. I'm playing with that idea in my TL (shameless plug
Okay interesting. He seems as if he might had some brains aha. Could he have reformed the system?
Nancy Mitford called the French government "the terrible web spun by terrible ancestor [Louis XIV]", when speaking of how the Régent's attempts at the Polysynodie had failed, stating "the nobles had become useless at everything. Including their previous two chief aims - making war and governing", so like she says, Philippe d'Orléans settled down to govern France like it was 1661 again. The system was broken. If Le Grand Dauphin or le Petit Dauphin had succeeded Louis XIV, the chances are that how Louis XIV governed wouldn't be seen as holy writ, more like a suggestion, not a roadmap. That said, I think to reform the system needed a king who wasn't constantly second-guessing his decisions (like LXV and LXVI OTL), but someone who decided something, and for better or worse, stuck with it. The character I've moulded Bourgogne into is basically what I think he could've logically grown into. The crises he deals with are the same problems that generally came (earlier or later) to LXVI. However, because he was OTL a stronger personality - it was said that the dauphine wept at his death since she knew her other sons were of lesser stuff - he tends to have slightly better results.
Because, Louis XV looked back with a sort of sentimentality for what he had lost, and spent his whole life attempting to be Louis XIV - he made war, he made love. While both his father and grandfather had grown up around and perhaps even in opposition to Le Roi Soleil (the Cabal de Meudon being the Dauphin's party, while the Dévots (or whatever they were called) were Bourgogne's), both were waiting for their turn to change things - which never came. Louis XV is five when great-grandpa dies, he has no recollection or understanding of why people wanted things to change. And I don't opine that the Dauphin or Bourgogne would've been more/less any more successful than the Régent, but they were very different people to him.
A interesting aspect are that if the French Revolution failed, Louis could have set up a true absolute regime, where the nobility, clergy and the Catholic Church lost their political and economic privileges, and where the local estates, which was left was abolish (of course a exception would likely be made for loyalist regions). The result would pretty much be that the France entering the 19th century would be much stronger. We could fundamental see the late 18th century continue, until a new round of revolutions hit.
Of course in foreign politics, we would likely see a new Bavarian Succession crisis in 1799. I could see the Austrians accept the second partition of Poland (if it have happen) for Prussian accept of Austria trading the Austrian Netherlands for Bavaria. Second we would likely see enlighten absolutism continue, including freeing the serfs and universal education being pushed. At the same time modern nationalism would likely develop slower.
Of course in foreign politics, we would likely see a new Bavarian Succession crisis in 1799. I could see the Austrians accept the second partition of Poland (if it have happen) for Prussian accept of Austria trading the Austrian Netherlands for Bavaria. Second we would likely see enlighten absolutism continue, including freeing the serfs and universal education being pushed. At the same time modern nationalism would likely develop slower.
If it overthrow the revolutionaries, it would be logical to set up the old regime, but remove the worst problems (the tax exception for nobility and Church). Unless the king regain power with the help of moderate among the revolutionaries, there's no reason to give them anything. Of course we will likely see a revolution again down the road (I think 1812/13 are likely years), but it's likely to be more moderate revolutionaries at that point. If that fail we will likely see a new revolution around two decades again, and at that point, I think the regime will get the message and compromise.
Isn't this the story of what Napoléon for all intents and purposes did - when he wasn't going around conquering everyone. His concordat with the pope made the Church in France subservient to him (IIRC he also had the power of the keys on appointments), and his aristocracy was completely dependent on him (though that didn't stop them being a bunch of selfserving jackals), new men he'd raised "from the gutter" (as one author put it). And yet, when the First French Empire fell, it wasn't really because of the popular will of the people that France no longer had an emperor, it was because France was tired of war, she wanted/needed peace, and the allies were unlikely to give her peace if Napoléon stayed in power.
Yes, it's the story of Napoleon, and I expect that the restored regime will be somewhat popular, because the removal of privileges will allow the king to lower taxes on the peasantry. While the privileged will just be happy that the king is back in charge after the brutality of the revolutionaries.
The nobility loosing their privileges I could see if the revolution failed relative late, with most of the moderate royalists either being executed or radicalized out of wanting revenge on the revolutionaries. I can't see any way the clergy would loose all of their privileges though, a slight decrees or modification of but not a removal.
ACtually, the end of Noble and Clergy privileges was voted by the assembly, including the Nobles and Clergy, on 4 August 1789 (La nuit du 4 Aout).
And even Charles X did not dare to put them back, despite 'La Loi du milliard des emigres'
So with a now taxed nobility and clergy, in what direction do you see the monarchy moving? An attempt to restore absolutism (more like growing pains) while they grope their way to a "true" constitutional monarchy a la Britain?
That would actually depends on who is the King. OTL, Louis XVIII was going toward a constitutional monarchy. He died on his throne. Charles X tried an ansolute one ('plutot scier du bois que regner a la facon d'un roi d'Angleterre'). He lost his throne. Louis-Philippe was a constitutional monarch. He still lost his throne (mainly because the people wanted more say in parliament)
Would be interesting to see what would happen had the Comte d'Artois died before Louis XVIII
It would be Madame, the daughter of Louis XVI, who will held the reality of the power, as Angoulême or Louis XIX is not the luminary of his dynasty. She was far from progressive, but not an idiot and maybe she could manage to tune down her instincts and play ball with the parliament.