WI Louis 16 and Marie Antoinette escaped
- Thread starter Derek Jackson
- Start date
If he takes option 3, how does Paris/France feel about this? Who takes over the regency for his son (after all the law had been changed that the age of majority was now 18, rather than the 13 of the ancien regime)? Since the same law which had changed the age of majority, had also changed the rules regarding the formation of a regency (no longer the queen as regent, but rather the senior prince du sang (on condition of his being resident in the kingdom). So if Provence or Artois stay in exile (most likely), then the senior prince is Égalité - ought to be interesting.
I think this may make the biggest difference. If the Bourbons are restored - and I can easily see events playing out the same - the Terror is unleashed on suspected royalists after the escape, the Directory is clueless, Bonaparte rises, conquers and is vanquished and the Allies put a young king on the throne instead of a gouty elderly one. I don't think Louis XVI would come back - he was NOT his brothers, if he saw if it was in his family and country's best interests to abdicate (and I'm certain many of the Allied powers would tell him so) for his son he would do so and remain in exile or in Rome (where Charles IV of Spain ended up, Louis' brother-in-law the King of Sardinia and so did most of the Bonapartes) someplace. IF Louis survives to say 1814 (which is not a certainty) he might even take holy orders (again like his Savoy brother in law did after Louis's sister died). Several historians have said Marie-Antoinette was already sick with cancer when she was killed and she might not have lived to a restoration.
I know many people say the French hated the Bourbons etc. but France still had a majority monarchist Parliament as late as the latter 19th century and a minority monarchist after that. Even now, the French President has one of the strongest constitutional powers of any European leader. So with a different Louis XVII we might get a different future for the Bourbons - a young leader, no doubt well known to the Allied Powers, probably not as despised as Louis XVIII was. Someone more attractive and malleable as well for constitutional monarchists exiles to get a hold of. I'm pretty sure England in some form would keep him out of harm's way in some form or another. They will not let what happened to the Duc D'Enghien happen to Louis Charles. Remember also that a lot of the Bourbons' (particularly Charles X and Marie-Therese, Madame Royale) ultra-conservative thinking came from a reaction to the triple executions of Louis, Marie-Antoinette and Madame Elisabeth and the brutual mistreatment of the Dauphin by the Revolutionaries. If the family escapes - none of that happens and Louis Charles can propagate a more liberal (though perhaps not too liberal) dynasty. I can definitely see him agreeing to the Tri-Color (which became the flag under Louis XVI though no one remembers that) as well as the title of "King of the French" (which also dates to Louis XVI). Louis-Charles could probably also lean on men like Lafayette who remained a constitutional monarchist much longer than the dynasty deserved.
usertron2020
Donor
Question: If the Bourbons are NOT martyred and the Terror is lessened compared to OTL (say the moderates emerge triumphant over Robespierre's faction) what does this do for Britain's role as Napoleon's most implacable enemy in the (assuming OTL) Napoleonic Wars?
Imagine the following:
1} The Bourbons (all of them) are living safe in Britain
2) A lessened Terror
3) Napoleon still comes to power, still crowns himself Emperor
4) Napoleon lets Spain drop out of the wars, and doesn't invade Portugal
5) Napoleon avoids the invasion of Russia
I KNOW you could do a doctoral dissertation on how ASB this scenario is, but I drew this up only for the problems I think that these events could create for Britain in terms of "maintaining the cause" against Napoleon.
What difficulties, if any, could be created with the other powers of Europe, Prussia/Austria/Russia, when Britain is pushing for unrelenting war against France ITTL? Would they be vulnerable to the charge that their sole goal was to effect a Bourbon Restoration?
The executions certainly helped to demonize the revolutionaries, especially the Dauphin's.
Britain's strategy was to oppose the most powerful nation on the Continent of Europe, regardless of politics. In 1789, that was France.
Technical point: the Dauphin was not known to have been executed. He disappeared and no one knows what happened to him. The Dennis Wheatley novel "The Man Who Killed the King" has an story about what happened to him, but that is just one possibility. I would be interested in other works on the same topic
Wouldn't they be more likely to shelter in Austria, provided they could make it there?
usertron2020
Donor
I see your point, but its kind of like what happened to Joan of Arc after she signed her confession. Everything she had done, uttered, ATE, during her imprisonment was meticulously recorded, and those records have survived. But after her "confession", instead of being sent to a convent to be guarded by church guards-nuns-she was sent back to her original cell. For the next three days, her records of imprisonment was completely blank. Then, on the morning of the fourth day, she was found in her cell wearing her soldier's uniform again (no explanation for what her soldiers clothes was still doing there). When asked why she had become a "relapsed heretic" by putting her "man's clothes" on again, she angrily replied: "This would not have happened if you had left me with church guards!" After that, the record keeping started again. But even in the best cover-ups, some truth slips through. Like what was meant by the difference in a woman having male vs. female prison guards.
IOW, they deliberately subjected her to three days and nights of gang-banging, until she put back on her-provided-man's clothing.
No "proof", but like the Dauphin's disappearance, it falls under the heading of:
"You do the math"
Marie Antoinette and Captain Nelson could have a steamy affair if his ship smuggled them out. Now there's a miniseries!!!
Marie probably had sex less than a dozen times in her entire life, and may have had cancer.
We have invented a verb to this in spanish: "borbonear". So, go figure, that's a familial tradition.
I've always felt sorry for Louis XVI. Unlike his two arsehole predecessors, he genuinely was a nice guy, but, as you point out, this was not a situation for nice guys.
Especially in absolute monarchies. The irony is that Louis XVI probably would have been a more complacent constitutional monarch than either of his brothers turned out to be. It was only the Revolution decided to go really too far (for instance the massacres and the "Civil Constitution of the Clergy" which pretty much all historians now say was one a huge mistake and turned the Church on the Revolution and the Directory would repudiate just a few years later with seperation of church and state) that Louis knew he had lost control. Though I still think if he had just done nothing - no collaboration with the Austrians and just stayed where he was and kept vetoing bills the monarchy MIGHT have survived.
Realpolitik
Banned
I agree with you, but as others have said, being a nice guy can often be fatal in a power based environment, and one that is collapsing all around you to boot. This was something that needed competence, not niceness.
This is especially in a monarchy or dictatorship, but even in a democracy-Barry Goldwater and George McGovern were far more decent men by any measure than Lyndon Johnson or Richard Nixon, but they got absolutely spanked by them. Politics tends to attract shark like personalities. Not that this is a bad thing. They have to go somewhere.
I think Louis XVI was arguably Europe's unluckiest monarch. If he had just had a more tenable situation, he might have actually made some rather enlightened reforms.
John Fredrick Parker
Donor
I actually think this is the most likely scenario -- without the "king" under their control, the centrists in the National Assembly would be hard pressed to keep allegiance to him, but that doesn't mean they'll agree with the Jacobins that the monarchy is hence abolished. That pretty much leaves the heir in line who hadn't fled, namely Louis Philippe, Duke of Orleans.
Successful flight means civil war, IMHO.
At this point, the Pope hadn't explicitly denounced the Civil Constitution of the Clergy. He will now, which means Catholic insurrection in the west and the south. At the same time, with the King explicitly an opponent of the revolution now, power in Paris is going to shift in favor of the radicals even harder than in OTL.
I expect the radicals will have the upper hand unless foreign powers intervene, because the other side is going to be all over the map, from moderate constitutionalists to Catholics with some sympathies with the rest of the revolutionary program to hardliner monarchists. Similar to the OTL Russian Civil War.
At this point, the Pope hadn't explicitly denounced the Civil Constitution of the Clergy. He will now, which means Catholic insurrection in the west and the south. At the same time, with the King explicitly an opponent of the revolution now, power in Paris is going to shift in favor of the radicals even harder than in OTL.
I expect the radicals will have the upper hand unless foreign powers intervene, because the other side is going to be all over the map, from moderate constitutionalists to Catholics with some sympathies with the rest of the revolutionary program to hardliner monarchists. Similar to the OTL Russian Civil War.
While the talk about Britain is interesting, remember that Louis and Marie Antoinette were fleeing to Austria, i.e. Marie's homeland. They weren't interested in compromise, even the moderates like Lafayette were unacceptable to them. They wanted to restore everything back to the way it was because (in their minds) it was 'Gods Will' that they be absolute monarchs despite a complete lack of talent in the whole 'ruling' department.