WI: France declares bankruptcy without calling the Estates Generale?

What if, an earlier famine meant that anti-monarchy bread riots made the French King decide calling the Estates Generale was too threatening to his rule, and was forced to declare bankruptcy instead? How would that immediately impact the French state?
 
What if, an earlier famine meant that anti-monarchy bread riots made the French King decide calling the Estates Generale was too threatening to his rule, and was forced to declare bankruptcy instead? How would that immediately impact the French state?

Which date exactly? Pre-Revolutionnary France or early Ancien Régime? Because it happeneds in both.
 
The 1780s.

Okay.

First I'm not sure about the kingdom being in "banqueroute". Mostly because, while being a distinct social persona from the king, it would touch at the crown nevertheless.

Second, the Etats Généraux gathering was a bourgeois AND noble institutions. In fact, it was an old Noble reclamation to have the king regularly asking the EG for his policy. It wasn't because of anti-bourgeois policy that Louis XIV didn't asked them by exemple (in fact, He, more than any ruler, helped to their rise) but because it would give opportunity to the nobles to fulfill their long dream to "help the king to rule thanks to their advise" that once translated would give something like "noble republic with a king".

Third. The effects.
For me, it's likely that the kingdom would simply and purely "cancel" one part of the debt. It's why France did in 1797 by exemple. It would carry an huge reaction with the consequence of many individual bankruptcy among the loaners, their clientele, and even among the urban population (you had a lot of loaners that wanted to attract the bourgeois or even the workers by promiging them a return of their investments).

It's likely tough, that the royal houses would help the king by sharing money, and by buying new charges (the crown would be forced to sell them, for having money).

Fourth. The political effects.

It would be the accomplissment of the noble program : regain the power they lost since Louis XII and maybe more. It would be really threatening to the royal power.

It's why Louis XVI preferred to call the EG iOTL. Because between the certitude that nobles would take many parts of the royal power, and the possibility of the EG being more nice and respectful...The latter was less threatening.

That said, he didn't expected the EG being so coherant (he wanted them to have an inner opposition between nobles and Tiers Etat) and while "enlightened nobles" and TE united...He kind of flipped out.

---

To resume, in order to have Louis XVI, that was relativly "englightened" and continuing the long policy of french monarchs to oppose any form of noble political power, you would need something more organized, more radical and more power hungry than bread riots.
 
Last edited:
Sorry, I'm being a bit slow here. How does bankruptcy help the noble power? Is it from the additional charges that have been sold?

As a separate question, do you know why the Assembly of Notables wanted the decision passed to the Estates Generale? It's rare that a political institution gives power to another one without a good reason.
 
Sorry, I'm being a bit slow here. How does bankruptcy help the noble power? Is it from the additional charges that have been sold?
Yes but not only. After all, many bourgeois had the capacities to pay these charges (even if many of theses had a life and even some capacities that makes them more close to aristocracy than bourgeoisie).

The nobles houses would likely gives money to the king, as they did by exemple for the Rohan-Guemene when they had a bankrupcy, but only if the king acknowledges their demands.

You have too this : if the king want to pass reforms, why not. But if he want our support, he would have to respect not only our position but our demands.

And, of course, the nobles would benefit A LOT from their local influence and many riots and revolts against taxes during Ancien Régime were inspired by local nobles.

That's led us to :

As a separate question, do you know why the Assembly of Notables wanted the decision passed to the Estates Generale? It's rare that a political institution gives power to another one without a good reason.

Because the "Assembly of Notables" was chosen by the king, was only consultative and not reflect really the whole opinion of nobility. There you had mainly the REALLY great houses that benefited from their proximity to royal power and the submission of other houses of great nobility.

You had the Parlements that gathered the non-Versailles elites of both nobility and bourgeois and more about "help the king thanks to our advises".

The Etats Généraux were really approximatly composed of 1/4 of nobles, 1/2 of clergy (mainly nobles but also a good part of rural clergy) and 1/2 of Tiers Etats (mainly bourgeois not too tied with nobility) and therefore more a place with many struggles than a whole institutions.
The nobles regularly used their local influence on TE to impose decision thanks to EG. Unfortunatly for them, both "englightened nobles" favourable to reforms, a relativly educated TE led by bourgeois wanting someting more or less english failed these power-hungry nobles.
 
Last edited:
How likely is it the Assembly of Notables could do what the King wanted and pressure the Parlements into making some reforms, (in exchange for something else)?

I'm imagining either anti-monarchy riots or a war with Britain (perhaps over the Falklands) to make them more nervous about calling the Estates.
 
How likely is it the Assembly of Notables could do what the King wanted and pressure the Parlements into making some reforms, (in exchange for something else)?
Something near to "NEVER!".
Assembly of Notables was representative of people that beneficied A LOT from the actual situation and Parlements were...How to say that...An assembly of owners worrying only about how much they could make the king making an aristocratic policy.

In exchange, you'll have a great return of pré-Ancien Régime features and the whole majority of people wouldn't accept that, as well a confortable majority among the nobles.

I mean one of the biggest causes of Revolution was the revival by ennoblished (sort of) bourgeois of feudal rights. It wasn't about taxes ("Pay 1/8 of a chicken!") but about the forms, the rites that were felt as humiliating and insultings.

I'm imagining either anti-monarchy riots
Not totally ASB, but not far from it.
The anti-monarchist feeling is almost inexistant before 1790's. And by almost inexistant, i mean trotskyist-scale.

or a war with Britain (perhaps over the Falklands) to make them more nervous about calling the Estates.
A war over the Channel Islands would have been far less silly. And it would have been objectivly one of the stupidiest move ever. Both because it would have been insane, but also because of the AWI still happening and France kicking some British ass already.

After the end of the war, the treasure was empty. Nothing, Rien, Nada. They couldn't have launched a war, even if they would have tried so.
 
Something near to "NEVER!".
Assembly of Notables was representative of people that beneficied A LOT from the actual situation and Parlements were...How to say that...An assembly of owners worrying only about how much they could make the king making an aristocratic policy.

I can understand why the King might not accept their offer, but it seems strange they didn't come up with one. Clearly the nobles in the AoN are going to be better off if they make an agreement with the King than if the EG does?

In exchange, you'll have a great return of pré-Ancien Régime features and the whole majority of people wouldn't accept that, as well a confortable majority among the nobles.

What features specifically would be asked for?

Not totally ASB, but not far from it.
The anti-monarchist feeling is almost inexistant before 1790's. And by almost inexistant, i mean trotskyist-scale...
...A war over the Channel Islands would have been far less silly. And it would have been objectivly one of the stupidiest move ever. Both because it would have been insane, but also because of the AWI still happening and France kicking some British ass already...
After the end of the war, the treasure was empty. Nothing, Rien, Nada. They couldn't have launched a war, even if they would have tried so.

This all dealt with by other changes in the timeline :)
 
I can understand why the King might not accept their offer, but it seems strange they didn't come up with one. Clearly the nobles in the AoN are going to be better off if they make an agreement with the King than if the EG does?

To resume it.

Agreement with nobles : royal power is suerly going to suffer from it.
Agreement with EG : royal power would probably suffer from it, but it's still room for negotiate, for trying to have a better deal by playing hot and cold.

What features specifically would be asked for?
Something like the return of Polysynody probably. Maybe in a way less flawed.

This all dealt with by other changes in the timeline :)
Okay, I was just saying about OTL features, not knowing your ATL ones.
 
To resume it.

Agreement with nobles : royal power is suerly going to suffer from it.
Agreement with EG : royal power would probably suffer from it, but it's still room for negotiate, for trying to have a better deal by playing hot and cold.

Why do the nobles care if Royal Power suffers?
 
Fair enough. But it was the AoN in our timeline that recommended calling the Estates Generale. I don't know why they did that rather than cut a deal themselves.

Because, they thought they could impose it via the EG. Remember, I said that the AaN were a consultative institutions while EG were an elective one. Basically, their plan was to impose their views thanks to the "vote-by-estate" (to resume, one vote per order) and to their influence (they overestimate).
 
Look like that could turn into a new "Fronde"

I'm not sure about it. During the Fronde you had still an important cohesion between all the layers of nobility, while in 1780's they were really divided between

-The princes that benefited from Royal power
-The high nobility who wanted his power back
-The enlightened nobility (that was from high one or rural) that was OK for reforms
-The poor nobility that was more close from TE than anything else
-The high clergy.
EDIT : - And an awful lot of bourgeois that brought lordship and castles to play at the noble. Many of them, I mean REALLY a lot.

In the late 1650 and even up to XVIII, nobility had a better influence on people too, including bourgeois, that they lost in great part in 1780's
 
Ok, so let's say in this timeline, that the King, scared of mob violence among the third estate, does what the nobility wants and goes with a third representation for each estate, so only half the Third Estate members are called and they're outnumbered. What would you reckon would happen then?
 
Ok, so let's say in this timeline, that the King, scared of mob violence among the third estate, does what the nobility wants and goes with a third representation for each estate, so only half the Third Estate members are called and they're outnumbered. What would you reckon would happen then?

You mean, apart the TE asking for a vote by head, the king refusing it, the TE and the englishtened nobles, the rural nobles, the rural clergy unite themselves to form an assembly, like OTL?

That's the problem, by 1780's, you had the factors of a rejection by vote by order. If the king refuses to acknowledge that : revolution.

For the mob violence, as I said, the whole majority (no, almost ALL the TE representatives) was not popular but bourgeois, master artisans or even nobles elected by TE, as Mirabeau. So...I don't see how it would have mattered.

Again, the problem is you had no longer ONE united nobility, but many ones that I tried to describe here. Some didn't wanted EG at all, some wanted a vote by head, some were more close to TE, some...

To resume, you'll have probably an earlier Révolution, as the king would make almost the same mistakes than OTL.
 
Top