WI: National Convention convenes in Versailles

So, I was listening to the Revolutions podcast while doing my lifting today, and in this particular episode they were discussing the Trial of Louis XVI by the National Convention of France. While there are alot of interesting factors around that affair, what I found most curious was the reason the author gave for why the Girondans wanted to delay any execution and submit the verdict of the trail to the provincial assemblies in an "Appeal to the People". As later events would prove correct, the Girondans were worried about the legitimacy (perceived and practical) of any bussiness conducted under the eyes and within a brick's throw of the radical and easily agitated Paris Commune: a group hardly representative of the political beliefs as France as a whole. So, what if the Convention, taking this concern to it's logical conclusion, stumbled on the idea of writing their Constiution and holding the required debates in the relative safety of the "People's Palace" of Versailles and guarded by a mix of troops from the outer garrisons? Bonus points: much more comfortable luxary accommodations!

How might this security and isolation from the passions of the streets affect the government being established. Might we see a more decenteralized model emerge? Something modestly more conservative? What about the later violence of the mobs? If they had to have time for passions to cool between hearing and acting on news, and having it spread less by rumor and more by semiorganized press, would that calm things down? Could we have seen the system stabilize, rather than turn into the later 90's revolving door?
 
So, I was listening to the Revolutions podcast while doing my lifting today, and in this particular episode they were discussing the Trial of Louis XVI by the National Convention of France. While there are alot of interesting factors around that affair, what I found most curious was the reason the author gave for why the Girondans wanted to delay any execution and submit the verdict of the trail to the provincial assemblies in an "Appeal to the People". As later events would prove correct, the Girondans were worried about the legitimacy (perceived and practical) of any bussiness conducted under the eyes and within a brick's throw of the radical and easily agitated Paris Commune: a group hardly representative of the political beliefs as France as a whole. So, what if the Convention, taking this concern to it's logical conclusion, stumbled on the idea of writing their Constiution and holding the required debates in the relative safety of the "People's Palace" of Versailles and guarded by a mix of troops from the outer garrisons? Bonus points: much more comfortable luxary accommodations!

How might this security and isolation from the passions of the streets affect the government being established. Might we see a more decenteralized model emerge? Something modestly more conservative? What about the later violence of the mobs? If they had to have time for passions to cool between hearing and acting on news, and having it spread less by rumor and more by semiorganized press, would that calm things down? Could we have seen the system stabilize, rather than turn into the later 90's revolving door?
IIRC the Convention only voted to execute Louis Capet by one vote. If the less charged environment of Versailles causes one assemblyman to change his vote, that in and of itself could have major repercussions.

Edit: From what I've found, Philippe Egalite had previously assured friends in confidence that he would vote to spare his cousin, but turned because of Montagnard pressure at the last minute. Quite likely at Versailles the Montagnards are less effective at persuading him to change his mind and he votes to spare Capet, which because of the fact that there were an odd number of deputies in attendance would spare Capet by one vote.
 
Last edited:
Well, I think technically the other vote was "execution with a stay of sentience", which would still leave Louis subject to getting the close shave at a future date. Still, if he could be obliged as part of that to abdicate in the name of his whole dynasty that might give the Convention some more legitimacy for their Constitution once they've solidified the Republic on the battlefield.
 
Well I don't think they are likely to leave Paris in 1792 for Versailles, the old seat of royal power. But it could be possible for the seat of the Assemblée nationale to stay at Versailles from 1789 onward, which could butterfly a ton of events - we may never get to the OTL Convention being elected or the monarchy abolished.
 
Well I don't think they are likely to leave Paris in 1792 for Versailles, the old seat of royal power. But it could be possible for the seat of the Assemblée nationale to stay at Versailles from 1789 onward, which could butterfly a ton of events - we may never get to the OTL Convention being elected or the monarchy abolished.

What better way to exocrsise the ghoast of Absolutism than by drafting the document guranteeing freedoms and a Republic in the halls most associated with its tyranny? The French seem willing to use the palace for the sake of poetic justice (see Treaties of Versailles, 71' and 19'.)
 
What better way to exocrsise the ghoast of Absolutism than by drafting the document guranteeing freedoms and a Republic in the halls most associated with its tyranny? The French seem willing to use the palace for the sake of poetic justice (see Treaties of Versailles, 71' and 19'.)

In 1792 think the ancien régime is just too fresh in the minds of the population - and Paris too volatile - for the government to risk moving. This is the time when things are getting ugly with the September massacres. For the Convention to flee the city right then would not be well perceived.
 
Last edited:
In 1792 think the ancien régime is just too fresh in the minds of the population - and Paris too volatile - for the government to risk moving. This is the time when things are getting ugly with the September massacres. For the Convention to flee the city right then would not be well perceived.

If you look at my OP, it's that very volatility and "do what WE, Paris, want or we'll hurt you" doctrine of the Commune mobs that I cited as the motivation for the Convention to chose to convene outside the city, so the provincial assemblies (For example, the ones who are going to go into the Federalist revolts in the near future over the tyranny of Paris) that the Constitution for the nation as a whole isen't perceived as being dictated by the Commune.
 
This raises a more interesting question. What would be the effect of Louis XVI deposed but not executed?

Perhaps imprisonment rather than exile would end up being the prefered option by the Mountain, so he's on hand to get the close shave if things change (new evidence of plotting, bad behavior, ect.). That could easily translate into at least less neglect for his son, so Louis XVII might be around. There were plans to raise him as a Republican by the Revolutionaries, so it could be interesting if he manages to dodge death long enough what a Citizen King at heart would give in a Restoration scenario
 
If you look at my OP, it's that very volatility and "do what WE, Paris, want or we'll hurt you" doctrine of the Commune mobs that I cited as the motivation for the Convention to chose to convene outside the city, so the provincial assemblies (For example, the ones who are going to go into the Federalist revolts in the near future over the tyranny of Paris) that the Constitution for the nation as a whole isen't perceived as being dictated by the Commune.

I just think it would too be out of character for the leadership of the Convention. They saw themselves as representatives of the nation and Paris was its capital. To flee to Versailles would be a cowardly move characteristic of the ancien régime, running away from the people.
 
I just think it would too be out of character for the leadership of the Convention. They saw themselves as representatives of the nation and Paris was its capital. To flee to Versailles would be a cowardly move characteristic of the ancien régime, running away from the people.

Paris is not the nation, and they've clearly demonstrated their interests are not represenative of the other departments and cities and that they're not above street violence to get THEIR way, the rest of the Nation be dammed. I would have suggested a different, less violent city, but Versailles is a compromise as it's still close enough to Paris to get a steady read on their mood and provide them with information on the proceedings.
 
Perhaps imprisonment rather than exile would end up being the prefered option by the Mountain, so he's on hand to get the close shave if things change (new evidence of plotting, bad behavior, ect.). That could easily translate into at least less neglect for his son, so Louis XVII might be around. There were plans to raise him as a Republican by the Revolutionaries, so it could be interesting if he manages to dodge death long enough what a Citizen King at heart would give in a Restoration scenario

If the Napoleonic Empire still happens in this scenario, it raises the question of what Napoleon does with who we know as Louis XVII. The smart move would be to marry him to Hortense and to adopt him into the family, but with Napoleon you never know.
 
Perhaps imprisonment rather than exile would end up being the prefered option by the Mountain, so he's on hand to get the close shave if things change (new evidence of plotting, bad behavior, ect.). That could easily translate into at least less neglect for his son, so Louis XVII might be around. There were plans to raise him as a Republican by the Revolutionaries, so it could be interesting if he manages to dodge death long enough what a Citizen King at heart would give in a Restoration scenario

If you want to get a citizen king, might it be better to declare Phillipe Egalite next in line to the throne?
 
If you want to get a citizen king, might it be better to declare Phillipe Egalite next in line to the throne?

I'm not saying I WANT that, per say. Just that Louis XVII would be the legitimate heir to the Bourbon monarchy, and he would be raise in Republican ideals and certainly wouldent be as authoritarian as Charles X. The monarchy has already been abolished by this point, and no 1793 Constitution is going to have a monarchy, so we're looking at potential lines of succession if a Restoration takes place.
 
If you want to get a citizen king, might it be better to declare Phillipe Egalite next in line to the throne?

IIRC, technically Egalité was next in line. The brief Constitutional Monarchy had determined the line of succession conditional of the prince residing in France. Provence, Artois and his kids, were already over the border. Thus, the succession would've run Louis XVI>Louis XVII>Philippe Egalité (if Provence, and Artois and his kids refused to return)
 
IIRC, technically Egalité was next in line. The brief Constitutional Monarchy had determined the line of succession conditional of the prince residing in France. Provence, Artois and his kids, were already over the border. Thus, the succession would've run Louis XVI>Louis XVII>Philippe Egalité (if Provence, and Artois and his kids refused to return)

No, but to essentially work corruption of blood on Louis XVI, forbidding him and his descendants to hold the throne and making Egalite the immediate heir?

FillyofDelphi said:
I'm not saying I WANT that, per say. Just that Louis XVII would be the legitimate heir to the Bourbon monarchy, and he would be raise in Republican ideals and certainly wouldent be as authoritarian as Charles X. The monarchy has already been abolished by this point, and no 1793 Constitution is going to have a monarchy, so we're looking at potential lines of succession if a Restoration takes place.

Sure, but in that case, aren't you better off somehow making sure that the man of proven Republican sympathies is next in line?
 
No, but to essentially work corruption of blood on Louis XVI, forbidding him and his descendants to hold the throne and making Egalite the immediate heir?

My mistake, I misunderstood the laws about regency for a minor monarch (which stipulated that the regency would fall to the senior royal male resident in the country) as being a sort of succession law
 
Top