What If: Louis XVI of France dies March 1789

[Lord Atlas]

I'm reading Antonia Fraser's biography on Marie Antoinette, and she mentions an occasion where Louis XVI almost died in an accident. The passage goes

"On 26 March the King himself was nearly killed taking the air on the leads of the roof of Versailles, when a ladder on which he was leaning gave way; he was only saved from plunging to his death by the prompt action of a workman."

She even mentions the what if possibilities and a theory in an annotation:

"For connoisseurs of the 'What-might-have-been' (or Counterfactual) school of history, it is interesting to speculate on the possible results of Louis XVI's death in March 1789. He would have left a young child as his heir. and at this stage Marie Antoinette's strong claim to act as Regent, according to precedent, might have been allowed. It is at least possible that things would have gone better." [emphasis mine]


Also interesting is that at this point Louis Joseph, the first son and a very sickly child, would have been Louis XVII, but there's probably nothing that would have prevented his death in June of 1789 and Louis Charles (OTL Louis XVII) would have taken the throne at age 4 (as Charles X?). This is before the Estates-General meets.

I thought it'd be an interesting scenario to bring up. My immediate thoughts and questions are: Does Marie Antoinette really have enough backing at this point to become Regent? Could the Duke of Orleans take over as Regent (he does seem to be the most politically savvy out of the lot)? How does the Revolution continue with a very controllable and mold-able king?

 

[darthfanta]

I'm reading Antonia Fraser's biography on Marie Antoinette, and she mentions an occasion where Louis XVI almost died in an accident. The passage goes

"On 26 March the King himself was nearly killed taking the air on the leads of the roof of Versailles, when a ladder on which he was leaning gave way; he was only saved from plunging to his death by the prompt action of a workman."

She even mentions the what if possibilities and a theory in an annotation:

"For connoisseurs of the 'What-might-have-been' (or Counterfactual) school of history, it is interesting to speculate on the possible results of Louis XVI's death in March 1789. He would have left a young child as his heir. and at this stage Marie Antoinette's strong claim to act as Regent, according to precedent, might have been allowed. It is at least possible that things would have gone better." [emphasis mine]


Also interesting is that at this point Louis Joseph, the first son and a very sickly child, would have been Louis XVII, but there's probably nothing that would have prevented his death in June of 1789 and Louis Charles (OTL Louis XVII) would have taken the throne at age 4 (as Charles X?). This is before the Estates-General meets.

I thought it'd be an interesting scenario to bring up. My immediate thoughts and questions are: Does Marie Antoinette really have enough backing at this point to become Regent? Could the Duke of Orleans take over as Regent (he does seem to be the most politically savvy out of the lot)? How does the Revolution continue with a very controllable and mold-able king?

The monarchy most likely survives in this case.The screw ups of the ultra-royalists can probably be blamed on the regents rather than the king himself.Marie Antoinette will probably be regent,but she definitely won’t be able to keep power for long given how unpopular and incompetent she is.

 

[Falecius]

This is a very interesting what if. I don't feel competent enough to comment, but something akin to the Revolution is stil going to happen. It is however unlikely that it spirals out the way it did IOTL. With an infant monarch, a foreign Queen Regent, an a parallel royal line with some degree of sympathy to the Revolutionary movement, absolutism is not going to put put much resistance to the coming storm.
You might easily see a much smoother transition to a constitutional monarchy, along lines that resemble the British development more. This would benefit France in the long run, as external wars would be greatly reduced (and, with France posing no existential threat to other powers, they are less likely to end up in everyone ganging up upon France to break her).

 

[VVD0D95]

This is a very interesting what if. I don't feel competent enough to comment, but something akin to the Revolution is stil going to happen. It is however unlikely that it spirals out the way it did IOTL. With an infant monarch, a foreign Queen Regent, an a parallel royal line with some degree of sympathy to the Revolutionary movement, absolutism is not going to put put much resistance to the coming storm.
You might easily see a much smoother transition to a constitutional monarchy, along lines that resemble the British development more. This would benefit France in the long run, as external wars would be greatly reduced (and, with France posing no existential threat to other powers, they are less likely to end up in everyone ganging up upon France to break her).

Is constitutional monarchy really the best solution? Why not some form of executive monarchy?

 

[JonasResende]

Since Louis nearly died in an accident while he was taking potshots at a cat whose owner lived at Versailles I'm guessing animal rights activists would have a field day.

I'm not sure anything would change much though. Sure the monarchy might survive, but while Antoinette might have the strongest right traditionally, she might be a mere cipher. And the gentleman running the show is going to be the comte de Provence. And this ISN'T 1815 Louis XVIII whose exile made him wiser, this 1780s Provence who is AGAINST reform (alongside Artois). So there's going to be whispers of poison when Louis XVII dies in June1789 (like there weren't OTL).

Antoinette is no Anne of Austria or Caterina de Medici to lead a country. Although she WAS the royal brain during the Revolution since Louis XVI was in rather a depression so she wouldn't necessarily be all bad. But I fear the monarchy is going to lose a lot of power to the Estates/Assembly rather quickly. That it happens under her watch makes it unlikely she'd get a favourable review by some historians.

 

[Arlos]

It wouldn’t work, The French people asolutely HATED Marie Antoinette because of her extravagant expenses, there was a general feeling that she was responsible for the state of the country finance(which was wrong, even though she did spend money like there was no tomorrow).
It would have been even more brutal with her at the Helm.

 

[VVD0D95]

It wouldn’t work, The French people asolutely HATED Marie Antoinette because of her extravagant expenses, there was a general feeling that she was responsible for the state of the country finance(which was wrong, even though she did spend money like there was no tomorrow).
It would have been even more brutal with her at the Helm.

So the count of Provence could take the reigns?

 

[Valena]

So the count of Provence could take the reigns?

He would be the one aiming for this (and having the most right after the Queen). Orleans would naturally be the opposition.

 

[Lord Atlas]

He would be the one aiming for this (and having the most right after the Queen). Orleans would naturally be the opposition.

Would the Queen Mother and Provence be able to exercise their rights, or is respect for the monarchy low enough that the Estates could appoint Orleans or a compromise candidate as regent?

 

[darthfanta]

Would the Queen Mother and Provence be able to exercise their rights, or is respect for the monarchy low enough that the Estates could appoint Orleans or a compromise candidate as regent?

Queen Dowager is regent initially,but won’t be so for long.