WI Louis XVI + Marie Antoinette escape France

It seems to me that had that happened the 'terror' would be less likely. I think the exiled King and Queen would find refuge but not deep popularity.

Might the Republic have survived and avoided war with England?
 
It seems to me that had that happened the 'terror' would be less likely. I think the exiled King and Queen would find refuge but not deep popularity.

Might the Republic have survived and avoided war with England?

This would not change many things, as European monarchs could not allow a country - especially one as powerful as France - to get rid of his king without reacting. Sooner or later, the British would be involved in the war. Louis XVI and Marie Antoinette, with their abysmal political sense, would not help their allies, making threatening proclamations, vowing to return its estates to the Catholic clergy and so on. I think internally, the Jacobin party would not know its OTL split, with maybe a larger popular support, as the King would have "betrayed the country, his vow and his constitutional position". If the building up of the Army is better managed (for example, recruiting more men in 1792 rather than in 1793), maybe the insurrections would not be as important as OTL.
 
Terror was a response to a position of significant weakness and danger to the revolutionary regime - civil war in the Vendee and South; invasion by reactionary powers; and the failure of the civil constitution of the clergy. The successful flight of the king and queen is likely to increase, not decrease the call for revolutionary terror from Marat et al
 
This would not change many things, as European monarchs could not allow a country - especially one as powerful as France - to get rid of his king without reacting. Sooner or later, the British would be involved in the war. Louis XVI and Marie Antoinette, with their abysmal political sense, would not help their allies, making threatening proclamations, vowing to return its estates to the Catholic clergy and so on. I think internally, the Jacobin party would not know its OTL split, with maybe a larger popular support, as the King would have "betrayed the country, his vow and his constitutional position". If the building up of the Army is better managed (for example, recruiting more men in 1792 rather than in 1793), maybe the insurrections would not be as important as OTL.

I think I largely agree with this assessment. Perhaps the biggest change, ITTL, would be that the Girondins and Montagnards would not be so split over what to do about the King when the time came to put him on trial. In this timeline, with the Royal Family abroad, there would be less opposition to the establishment of a Republic [which both factions supported] and no need to argue about whether to afford Louis a trial. Louis has damned the Monarchy - he left a series of letters in his palace essentially claiming that he'd never supported the Revolution at all, and these would thoroughly discredit the monarchy as they did OTL. Of course, his flight abroad gives more impetus to emigree groups, seeing more defections. Remember that OTL the French Officer Corps was decimated by defections abroad as noble officers fled.

Whether the Jacobins would hold together, as they had other differences and contained huge personalities, is up for debate.

But yes, I agree with @Cornelis that war is inevitable. It isn't as much about European monarchs not allowing the establishment of a Republic as much as it is about the fears of what this new France's ambitions would be.

Terror was a response to a position of significant weakness and danger to the revolutionary regime - civil war in the Vendee and South; invasion by reactionary powers; and the failure of the civil constitution of the clergy. The successful flight of the king and queen is likely to increase, not decrease the call for revolutionary terror from Marat et al

Terror was only a response to danger to some extent. By the time the Terror began to pick up, in the final months of 1793 the threats to the Republic had largely been neutralized. The Vendee rebels are on the run by October 1793, the reactionary powers had been pushed back from the borders, and the Jacobins were firmly in control. It was as much to do with lingering fears of further external threats - a sort of delayed reaction terror.

That said, ITTL the idea of the 'Many-Headed Hydra' of counter-revolution would be even more convincing for many. You might even see the Great Fear return, as the idea of an aristocratic opposition [both internal and external] is given more impetus by a King in exile. So yes, more calls for revolutionary terror and maybe from a wider group of people than just frothing-mouthed zealots like Marat.
 
France declared was on most of Europe during the "constitutional monarchy" phase of the Revolution. Louis XVI signed off on it. The flight doesn't change this. IOTL, the remaining European monarchies were remarkably lackadaisical in fighting the 1790s wars even with the execution of the King and Queen of France.

The French Republic is more united internally by not going through with the execution. Though the flight to Varennes didn't make the execution necessary, they could have kept the royal family imprisoned somewhere or just sent them into exile. There was no danger of counter-revolutionaries freeing them, unlike with the Russian royal family, and anyway as bad as the Jacobins could be, they weren't Bolsheviks. The execution of Charles I of England really hurt support for the Commonwealth, though the effects didn't take hold until years later. Charles I acquitted himself much better at his trial and execution than did Louis XVI, but the latter retained enough dignity that his execution was really something the Republic could have done without.

Incidentally, this lesson was learned. Nikolai II and his family was the only instance of the execution of a deposed European monarch after 1793. If you really want to stretch things, you can count Maximilian of Mexico and the assassination of the Portuguese royal family. But everyone was pretty much sent into exile. Even the Bonapartes and Wilhelm II. Even Stalin didn't execute the kings of Bulgaria and Romania.

The parallel is with James II and his descendants, who went into exile, caused some trouble, and eventually faded away.

What the continued existence of Louis XVI does is to present a political problem for the Coalition, assuming they defeat Napoleon on schedule. The problem was that he simply wasn't a very good king. Most likely they will persuade him to step aside in favor of his son, but if for some reason that can't be done, re-establishing the Republic or continuing the Empire under a Napoleon II under tutelage become more attractive options than IOTL.
 
France declared was on most of Europe during the "constitutional monarchy" phase of the Revolution. Louis XVI signed off on it. The flight doesn't change this. IOTL, the remaining European monarchies were remarkably lackadaisical in fighting the 1790s wars even with the execution of the King and Queen of France.

The French Republic is more united internally by not going through with the execution. Though the flight to Varennes didn't make the execution necessary, they could have kept the royal family imprisoned somewhere or just sent them into exile. There was no danger of counter-revolutionaries freeing them, unlike with the Russian royal family, and anyway as bad as the Jacobins could be, they weren't Bolsheviks. The execution of Charles I of England really hurt support for the Commonwealth, though the effects didn't take hold until years later. Charles I acquitted himself much better at his trial and execution than did Louis XVI, but the latter retained enough dignity that his execution was really something the Republic could have done without.

Incidentally, this lesson was learned. Nikolai II and his family was the only instance of the execution of a deposed European monarch after 1793. If you really want to stretch things, you can count Maximilian of Mexico and the assassination of the Portuguese royal family. But everyone was pretty much sent into exile. Even the Bonapartes and Wilhelm II. Even Stalin didn't execute the kings of Bulgaria and Romania.

The parallel is with James II and his descendants, who went into exile, caused some trouble, and eventually faded away.

What the continued existence of Louis XVI does is to present a political problem for the Coalition, assuming they defeat Napoleon on schedule. The problem was that he simply wasn't a very good king. Most likely they will persuade him to step aside in favor of his son, but if for some reason that can't be done, re-establishing the Republic or continuing the Empire under a Napoleon II under tutelage become more attractive options than IOTL.

Although they did make a great deal about it later, the execution of Louis XVI did not cause a great uproar in France. The massive conscription and the continuing religious problem were the events which triggered the Vendée insurrection, but there were almost no reaction at the news of the King's execution.
 
The flight to Varennes took place in June 1791, nearly a year before the OTL war, and while the constitution (which provided a role for the monarch) was being finalized. If Louis makes it out of the country, is it certain that a republic is declared? I wonder if the National Assembly would have simply declared Louis to have abdicated and chosen a new candidate (Philippe d'Orleans?).
 
Though the flight to Varennes didn't make the execution necessary, they could have kept the royal family imprisoned somewhere or just sent them into exile. There was no danger of counter-revolutionaries freeing them

I agree with your post in the main, but its worth bearing in mind that at the time OTL revolutionaries did think that it was a possibility that counter-revolutionaries might free the royal family. That wasn't why they were executed, sure, but we shouldn't underestimate the paranoia and uncertainty of any revolution.

The flight to Varennes took place in June 1791, nearly a year before the OTL war, and while the constitution (which provided a role for the monarch) was being finalized. If Louis makes it out of the country, is it certain that a republic is declared? I wonder if the National Assembly would have simply declared Louis to have abdicated and chosen a new candidate (Philippe d'Orleans?).

Not certain, as nothing in alternate history or history generally is certain.

My two cents would be that yes, a Republic is the most likely outcome ITTL. Louis flight, with his family and his vindictive anti-revolutionary brothers, would have stimulated the Jacobins and discredited the moderate constitutional monarchists. This is probably deepened if, as OTL, Mirabeau's dealings with the Royal Family in 1790-1791 become known to the public and further damage the moderate cause after his death in April 1791.

You would see a lot of uncertainty and horse-trading go on around what form of Government should come, but as OTL the Jacobins might well make use of the Parisian crowds to exert pressure on the Assembly. You might see Philippe d'Orleans emerge as a candidate, or maybe Lafayette as a Washington-style president [although the US model had little currency in France generally] with no Champ de Mars massacre to blot his copybook. But really, I think the Jacobins would be successful in steering towards a Republic.
 
The flight to Varennes took place in June 1791, nearly a year before the OTL war, and while the constitution (which provided a role for the monarch) was being finalized. If Louis makes it out of the country, is it certain that a republic is declared? I wonder if the National Assembly would have simply declared Louis to have abdicated and chosen a new candidate (Philippe d'Orleans?).

The 1791 constitution contains a weird provision on the crown succession stating that "the effect of the renunciations is not foretold". In other words, the Spanish Bourbons are not automatically excluded. Yet, I can imagine no other candidate than Orléans, but in june 1791 OTL he specifically wrote he did not want to play an official role. If ITTL the Kings flees, he, then his son, then his brothers, then his nephews would all successively be judged as having abdicated (art. 6, "not having opposed the actions of an army acting against the Nation"). The Spanish Bourbons are excluded after a quick vote, Orléans refuses the throne, Condé and Conti are not even considered (fun though to have the old Prince of Conti - who never left France OTL - ending up being the second King of the French). A constituant assembly elected on universal male vote is summoned and the Republic created.
 
Top