As the title says. Louis XIV built his magnificent palace in the 17th century and it remained home to the French kings until the Revolution, but it also led to a growing isolationism of the king and court from the general population.

So WI Louis decides to go no further than improving the hunting lodge? I know there are going to be arguments in favour of Louis leaving Paris due to his bad experience of the mob during the Fronde as a child, so where else might Louis go? Saint-Germaine? Fontainebleau? Or might he just decide to knuckle down at the Louvre/Tuileries complex (Colbert would've certainly approved, since he despised the king's decision to move to Versailles, but bowed to the royal whim when he saw that that what was what Louis wanted)? Maybe overhaul Vincennes? It would certainly be fortified enough to protect from the mob.
 
Saint-Germain en Laye is an interesting prospect, and offered good possibilities of extensions. It's unlikely that anything of the Château-Vieux would be kept: the whole ensemble wasn't that esthetic, and the inner court is still a bit weird. The Château-Neuf, on the other hand, could be a good departure point being an already existing royal palace.
And that might be the problem : Louis XIV wanted to stress the personal relationship that he wanted to have with the kingdom, not limit his program to the old frames. Ideologically, Versailles had a more important value IMO than Saint-Germain (that would have fit any other king).

Fontaineblau was certainly too far from Paris to serve as a good meta-capital ensemble : Versailles could effectively serve as a royal residence AND an executive center, because of its closeness to Paris and its administrative and institutional functions.

Vincennes is probably too close to Paris to serve nearly as much, including on the matter of expansion and royal private demesne.

Maybe Saint-Cloud?
 
Saint-Germain en Laye is an interesting prospect, and offered good possibilities of extensions. It's unlikely that anything of the Château-Vieux would be kept: the whole ensemble wasn't that esthetic, and the inner court is still a bit weird. The Château-Neuf, on the other hand, could be a good departure point being an already existing royal palace.
And that might be the problem : Louis XIV wanted to stress the personal relationship that he wanted to have with the kingdom, not limit his program to the old frames. Ideologically, Versailles had a more important value IMO than Saint-Germain (that would have fit any other king).

Fontaineblau was certainly too far from Paris to serve as a good meta-capital ensemble : Versailles could effectively serve as a royal residence AND an executive center, because of its closeness to Paris and its administrative and institutional functions.

Vincennes is probably too close to Paris to serve nearly as much, including on the matter of expansion and royal private demesne.

Maybe Saint-Cloud?

Wasn't Saint-Cloud already in Monsieur's possession? I know Mazarin left him the Palais Mazarin (later the Palais Royal) in his will, but I seem to recall Saint-Cloud was bought with the aim of creating a ring of royal residences around Paris.

I like the Saint-Germain idea. But admittedly, I look at the 'could've been' wings erected at the Chateau de Vincennes in the 17e/18e centuries, and I wonder...
 
Wasn't Saint-Cloud already in Monsieur's possession?
And Monsieur would probably give up after a while if Louis XIV was determined to build his palace there : I don't think that's an obvious event, but it's one of the few places besides Versailles or even Saint-Germain where I could see an alternate Versailles happening (due to distance and relative isolement).

But admittedly, I look at the 'could've been' wings erected at the Chateau de Vincennes in the 17e/18e centuries, and I wonder...
It's not impossible, but it would ask for a different king and a different situation (on which neither Versailles or Louvre are fitting)
 
And Monsieur would probably give up after a while if Louis XIV was determined to build his palace there : I don't think that's an obvious event, but it's one of the few places besides Versailles or even Saint-Germain where I could see an alternate Versailles happening (due to distance and relative isolement).


It's not impossible, but it would ask for a different king and a different situation (on which neither Versailles or Louvre are fitting)

Would Louis be obliged to recompensate Monsieur for Saint-Cloud? And considering that Louis got a lot of his inspiration for Versailles from Vaux-le-Vicomte and Saint-Cloud OTL, his palace here could look very different I'm guessing
 
Would Louis be obliged to recompensate Monsieur for Saint-Cloud?
Really technically, he wouldn't be. But he would certainly do so.

And considering that Louis got a lot of his inspiration for Versailles from Vaux-le-Vicomte and Saint-Cloud OTL, his palace here could look very different I'm guessing
As long same artists and architects are hired, which is really likely as "classical" french baroque really fit the royal and post-humanist ideas in France, it would look similar : maybe the old castle would be utterly destroyed as it was originally intended for Versailles, making this ATL palace a better model of french baroque.
 
A lots of work was already done on the Louvre palace before he lost interest but maybe if he change his mind he could finish to reunit the Tuileries and the Louvre together and finish "le Grand Dessein" wanted by Henry IV (there are two projects in 1661 and 1665).
 
Is the Monsieur being used here a name, or is it a title used for someone who the first name was avoided? Monsieur Gaston, brother of the king? Not sure which king but... ahhh right, different one for Versailles, right? This brother was encouraged by his mother to wear dresses and makeup as a child, so as to make him less attractive a candidate for enemies of his older brother to rally around. Turned out the younger brother was a good general, so naturally the king never let him fight again. If we are going with him being the guy losing his place, is there anywhere close by where he would move to? Unless he was given an appenage, which would probably be more desirable for him.
 
Not after the Fronde, tough : Louis XIV resided only passingly in Paris proper, the royal family preferring to lodge in peripherical palaces.
 
Is the Monsieur being used here a name, or is it a title used for someone who the first name was avoided?
It's mostly a style : Monsieur (and never Monsieur [Name]), as a mark of civility, coming from the original sense (litterally my lord). It's not that the name was avoided, but Monsieur (or Monsieur le frère du roi) was generally clear enough. When a distinction was to be made, as between Gaston of Orléans and Philippe of Orléans, you had "Grand Monsieur", "Petit Monsieur".
 
It's mostly a style : Monsieur (and never Monsieur [Name]), as a mark of civility, coming from the original sense (litterally my lord). It's not that the name was avoided, but Monsieur (or Monsieur le frère du roi) was generally clear enough. When a distinction was to be made, as between Gaston of Orléans and Philippe of Orléans, you had "Grand Monsieur", "Petit Monsieur".
Indeed, but which one? I looked around, but I didn't see who in specific if was used for. I though Mazarin at first, but I think it is Monsignor for clergy and that it was speaking less directly about him.
 
Indeed, but which one? I looked around, but I didn't see who in specific if was used for. I though Mazarin at first, but I think it is Monsignor for clergy and that it was speaking less directly about him.
Monsieur, short of any precision, is always the younger brother of the reigning king. In this case, Philippe d'Orléans. Who was, according a romanticist historiography, raised as a girl as he was dressed with girl clothes (as everyone, while admittedly, his mother didn't mind continued doing so later than usual). But I'm not sure being (in addition of probably homosexual) particularily interested in clothes and frivolities is something really plannable (a bit like people arguing you can "raise" a child gay or not).
Which is true, tough, is that Mazarin then Louis XIV didn't really pushed him to act differently, or to be interested in politics (mostly because Gaston d'Orléans was an endless, if pitiful, schemer), and that Louis XIV wasn't at all happy that his brother displayed real commanding abilities.

It's less a case of being raised as an innefective person, than being cornered into this role.
 
Monsieur, short of any precision, is always the younger brother of the reigning king. In this case, Philippe d'Orléans. Who was, according a romanticist historiography, raised as a girl as he was dressed with girl clothes (as everyone, while admittedly, his mother didn't mind continued doing so later than usual). But I'm not sure being (in addition of probably homosexual) particularily interested in clothes and frivolities is something really plannable (a bit like people arguing you can "raise" a child gay or not).
True, true. I just got that, true or not, from a documentary on the building of the palace I saw half a year ago. Given it came out around, and used footage of, some tv series about the king so might have been less than academic. And yes, clothing and make up was used rather differently back then. Might also be they just suppressed or beat out the interest in first born sons who didn't fall into traditional gender roles.
 
Might also be they just suppressed or beat out the interest in first born sons who didn't fall into traditional gender roles.
Well, it's not that they weren't interested on him (he had a particularily chosen education), but NOT as a possible king or regent (which almost backfired).
 
Gonna use this thread to ask a silly question which hopefully won't derail much.

Do you people know how historically accurate the serie "Versailles" is?
 
Top