Without the French revolution would Versailles be/remain the capital?

Hi again.

So according to Wikipedia's article on Versailles and of the Kingdom of France, it mentions how it was the capital of France from 1682 till 1789 and after the revolution Returned to Paris as the capital and has not been changed back since then. But my question is...

If the French revolution is either somehow avoided or ended really early, would Versailles remain the French capital till this alternate present?

I know the monarchs Louis XIV, XV & XVI had their royal palace there (and probably lived there too idk.), but would there be any change that Paris becomes an extension of Versailles. And not the other way around?
 
It very well could be. However, the future of the monarchy (i.e. if it gains a constitution or stays absolutist) will lead to he legislative center staying in Versailles or moving to Paris. Should it move to Paris, the de jure capital coild still be Versailles, but with the legislature and most of the government body in Paris. If the monarchy were to fully reform and become a monarchy akin to Britain early on, the most likely option, they'd probably officially move the capital back to Paris, while the Head of State's official housing was in Versailles.
 
Hi again.

So according to Wikipedia's article on Versailles and of the Kingdom of France, it mentions how it was the capital of France from 1682 till 1789 and after the revolution Returned to Paris as the capital and has not been changed back since then. But my question is...

A precise quote:
"Versailles was the seat of political power in the Kingdom of France from 1682, when King Louis XIV moved the royal court from Paris, until the royal family was forced to return to the capital in October 1789."

Paris never ceased to be a capital even if the main royal residence was not there.

If the French revolution is either somehow avoided or ended really early, would Versailles remain the French capital till this alternate present?

I know the monarchs Louis XIV, XV & XVI had their royal palace there (and probably lived there too idk.),

What is a probability of Louis XIV spending all these enormous amounts of money if he did not plan to live there? ;)

but would there be any change that Paris becomes an extension of Versailles. And not the other way around?

Rather unlikely, keeping in mind that Paris always remained a capital and the biggest city in France. Versailles was never planned to be anything but the royal residence with the attached "infrastructure".
 
Versailles was crowded enough as it was. I doubt the King would want to bring the mobs and bourgeois they were trying to get some distance form, and bring them all to their grand, smell, cramped house.maybe some other captures some distance away, between Versailles and Paris or some canal or major road network, could be used to send forth orders? Then again, the Sun King, whatever number that Louis was, worked hard to make it so that you only got stuff done if you spent a lot of time at Versailles. Otherwise he would snub you.
 
Rather unlikely, keeping in mind that Paris always remained a capital and the biggest city in France. Versailles was never planned to be anything but the royal residence with the attached "infrastructure".
That reminds me. Anyone know if the procession to Rheims for coronations would have started from Versailles or from Paris?
 
If the center of government remains at Versailles, with time, at some distance from the actual royal palace and grounds, you'll need to have new public buildings for the inevitable bureaucracy of a modern government - monarchy, republic, or whatever. This certainly can be done, just think or Brasilia or Canberra where capitol cities were built in the middle of nowhere.
 
Versailles was also seat of government between 1871 and 1879.
The big question is how much unrest there is with Parisian mobs. If they're calm, government is in Paris. If they get too excited, it's in Versailles
 
If the center of government remains at Versailles, with time, at some distance from the actual royal palace and grounds, you'll need to have new public buildings for the inevitable bureaucracy of a modern government - monarchy, republic, or whatever. This certainly can be done, just think or Brasilia or Canberra where capitol cities were built in the middle of nowhere.

The same goes for St-Petersburg (which was in a closer time frame) but, AFAIK, Versailles was not supposed to be a true "center of government" except in the sense of "I'm the state": Louis XIV (the center of everything :)) was there, which means that his ministers had to be there on a regular basis. However, the same did not apply to the lower levels of the state administration. As I understand, Louis would not even want any meaningful transfer of the administrative infrastructure: why would try to convert a pleasure area into a stinking crowded 2nd Paris? Especially if Paris was within a reasonably short ride.

Of course, as far as "stinking" part is involved, Versailles was a rather stinky place: the bathing facilities had been practically absent and the same goes for the toilets: during the court festivities people had to relieve themselves into the fireplaces, shrubs, etc. The whole palace was bug infested and, to put it mildly, ill-equipped for the winter. Except for the royal family and very few "top" personages, people had been forced to live in the tiny rooms, which was adding to a general smell. But, of course, the living standards and perceptions were quite different from our times (who today would consider a honor to be present while the head of the state is relieving himself?) so the people had been getting by.

On a positive side, it seems that a LOT of attention was paid to the fruit gardens and we can assume that the pears and plums had been quite tasty. :)
 
Of course, as far as "stinking" part is involved, Versailles was a rather stinky place: the bathing facilities had been practically absent and the same goes for the toilets: during the court festivities people had to relieve themselves into the fireplaces, shrubs, etc. The whole palace was bug infested and, to put it mildly, ill-equipped for the winter. Except for the royal family and very few "top" personages, people had been forced to live in the tiny rooms, which was adding to a general smell. But, of course, the living standards and perceptions were quite different from our times (who today would consider a honor to be present while the head of the state is relieving himself?) so the people had been getting by.
It might have been the point though. Those people were nobles who were used to their big castles in the countrysides where they were the center of attention.
And here they were forced into tiny studios, forced to relieve themselves in the bushes like animal, all because the king said so and you don't refuse the king.

The serie "Versailles" shows all these rituals as an exercise in humiliation and I think there's at least a kernel of truth to it. Versailles and its rituals were made to humiliate the nobility into submission and occupy them with petty power plays and keep them away from what actually mattered. No time to conspire about whether you should have more power when you need to compete to hold the King's night slippers
 
I guess the question is how important it is that the King is directly available/present for actual day-to-day government work or functional affairs.
 
It might have been the point though. Those people were nobles who were used to their big castles in the countrysides where they were the center of attention.
And here they were forced into tiny studios, forced to relieve themselves in the bushes like animal, all because the king said so and you don't refuse the king.

Indeed. To start from the beginning, the whole idea behind building that monstrosity was to show the aristocracy who is the real boss. Louis XIV never said this, (the quote belongs to Paul I of Russia) but he could: "In my state the only important person is one to whom I'm talking and he keeps being important only as long as I keep talking to him." A noble could stay in his estate but his social position would dwindle, potentially, all the way to "aristocratic nobody": all things French nobility was interested in had been coming from the court. Versailles was a way to show the French aristocracy that time of Fronde is over and they are just glorified servants of the king who is completely free to do to them pretty much whatever he wants.

And it worked miracles: within a very short period of time French aristocracy completely lost its backbone. Take, for example, the person as highly places as the Great Mademoiselle (Duchess of Montpensier), daughter of Gaston of Orleans. During the Fronde, she "captured" Orleans for her father from a royal garrisson and later ordered artillery of Bastille to fire on the royal troops, thus saving Prince Conde's posteriors. But when during the "Versailles era" she fall in love with Antonin Nompar de Caumont (better known as de Lauzun) their love letters were full of expressions of love ..... to the King (".... but first and foremost I'll love the King...." type of thing). Son of the Great Conde was routinely sleeping on a trunk outside the royal bedroom to be 1st on the morning royal dressing (and, sorry to tell, relieving himself) ceremony.

A long-term effect of the arrangement was multifaceted: it strengthened the royal power vs. nobility but it also turned nobility into a bunch of the useless parasites (few exceptions here and there) because connections at the court had been much more important than merits. By the time of the 7YW a well-connected officer could just leave an army if he felt himself unappreciated or offended and there would be no punishment.


The serie "Versailles" shows all these rituals as an exercise in humiliation and I think there's at least a kernel of truth to it. Versailles and its rituals were made to humiliate the nobility into submission and occupy them with petty power plays and keep them away from what actually mattered. No time to conspire about whether you should have more power when you need to compete to hold the King's night slippers

Well, there is a Russian expression "collective farm 'Red Cranberry'", which fits these series quite nicely but you are making the right conclusion about the true meaning of that charade. ;) BTW, the slippers aren't to bad comparing too a highly important duty of guarding the King's "night vase" (IIRC, there were 2 court officers assigned to this duty).
 
Last edited:
That reminds me. Anyone know if the procession to Rheims for coronations would have started from Versailles or from Paris?

Louis XIV definitely started it from Paris by the obvious reasons so I suspect that his successors had been following the suit: Paris was never completely abandoned as the royal residence.
 
The other commentators did a good job of explaining the difference between a royal residence and the capital. Some of the confusion here is that during the post Fronde era of absolutism, the Bourbons nullified all the features of French national government except for the monarch.

Now despots at the time did create planned capitals, though all the examples are Asian examples. OK, and also Russia. So an interesting POD is that a Bourbon king decides to really put the capital at Versailles, having architects and engineers build a city there, maybe like Washington, on the grounds that Paris had gotten too crowded. The problem is that I have no idea how they would finance this, though the Romanovs seemed to be able to find money for St. Petersburg.
 
The other commentators did a good job of explaining the difference between a royal residence and the capital. Some of the confusion here is that during the post Fronde era of absolutism, the Bourbons nullified all the features of French national government except for the monarch.

Now despots at the time did create planned capitals, though all the examples are Asian examples. OK, and also Russia. So an interesting POD is that a Bourbon king decides to really put the capital at Versailles, having architects and engineers build a city there, maybe like Washington, on the grounds that Paris had gotten too crowded. The problem is that I have no idea how they would finance this, though the Romanovs seemed to be able to find money for St. Petersburg.

Louis XIV was regularly out of money and bankrupted the bankers who were foolish enough to lend him too much money (after being courted by the king himself) and this is for Versailles only (plus his wars and entertainments).

As for the Romanovs, it took more than a century to build St. Petersburg (and their complex of the summer residencies at Petergoff) into what it is now so you are talking about the different time span and probably the different resources as well: while Russia was not a very rich country, its rulers had been quite rich and free to spend ALL available money as they wanted (budget of the imperial family was separated from the general state budget only at the end of the XVIII century).
 
Is Versailles really that far away that it couldn't be still considered part of "Paris". I mean, come on, what 14 miles right? Westminster has been the British seat of power and it wasn't considered part of "London" for much of that history.
 
Versailles was also seat of government between 1871 and 1879.
The big question is how much unrest there is with Parisian mobs. If they're calm, government is in Paris. If they get too excited, it's in Versailles

If one defines "capital" as the place where government meets, one might also add Bordeaux (twice: 1914, 1940), Tours (1940), Clermont-Ferrand (1940), Bayeux (1944) and of course Vichy...
Granted, in Versailles' case, this arrangement was at least official, at least since the constitutional laws of 1875.
 
If one defines "capital" as the place where government meets, one might also add Bordeaux (twice: 1914, 1940), Tours (1940), Clermont-Ferrand (1940), Bayeux (1944) and of course Vichy...
Granted, in Versailles' case, this arrangement was at least official, at least since the constitutional laws of 1875.
Hmm, I'd say you're technically right but I still disagree. All those were picked because the former capital, Paris, was not available. Vichy is a why not as it wasn't technically a government in flight
Versailles on the other hand was a conscious choice when Paris was still there and functional, it was a political choice, not a military one
 
Is Versailles really that far away that it couldn't be still considered part of "Paris". I mean, come on, what 14 miles right? Westminster has been the British seat of power and it wasn't considered part of "London" for much of that history.

It's a nice parallel, but the situation is still a bit different: the cities of Westminster and London are immediately adjacent and we already de facto merged in one urban entity by 1789. During the same period of time, Versailles and Paris were were still very much distinct entities, separated by 4h walk (faster by horse, of course) through a set of fields and smaller villages. (I'm not sure about the route at that time, but modern day route would probably be through Viroflay (825 inhabitants in 1793), Chaville (537), Meudon (2 250), Sèvres (2 700) and Issy-les-Moulineaux (1 400). The latter three are certainly large-ish settlements for 18th century non-urban standards, but even for Issy-les-Moulineaux, that means a population density of just 329 h/km²). It certainly would've been considered as a seperate place by the average Frenchman at the time.
 
Is Versailles really that far away that it couldn't be still considered part of "Paris". I mean, come on, what 14 miles right? Westminster has been the British seat of power and it wasn't considered part of "London" for much of that history.

Versailles is slightly too far to be a part of Paris even now but it was close enough even to the Paris of the XVII century for communications not to be a major problem.
 
Top