frustrated progressive
SLPing Through the Cracks
Given that the model of a reformed French monarchy hadn't completely discredited itself until Louis XVI tried to flee the country in June 1791...what if Louis just randomly dies earlier that year, before he can attempt an escape?
This is a France that's still monarchical, at peace, and one where the Champ de Mars massacre hasn't happened yet (and since the republican street demonstrations were triggered by the Flight to Varennes, it isn't likely to). However, the Civil Constitution of the Clergy is already a thing, along with a lot of other revolutionary measures, so a radical turn in the future is still quite possible. Is a constitutional monarchy actually sustainable, even without Louis' blunders to push it to the graveside? Is a war with the reactionary powers inevitable by this point anyway, without the Flight to Varennes showing just how powerless the monarchy was, and without the radicalization it triggered?
What would the immediate consequences be?
First off, there's the matter of a Regency for Louis XVII. Might it go to the Duc d'Orleans (the future "Louis Egalite" and father of Louis-Philippe)-safely pro-Revolution, but perhaps scheming to put the crown on his own head? How much could the Assembly try to insert itself in the process? Marie Antoinette would probably be immediately marginalized (likely not good for the young King's happiness) which would irritate the Austrians-but enough to trigger war?
Any other considerations?
Edit: I forgot to look at Louis XVIII's Wikipedia page-it says:
"In March 1791, the National Assembly created a law outlining the regency of Louis Charles in case his father died while he was still too young to reign. This law awarded the regency to Louis Charles' nearest male relative in France (at that time the Count of Provence), and after him, the Duke of Orleans, thus bypassing the Count of Artois [the future Charles X]. If Orleans were unavailable, the regency would be submitted to election."
So (assuming this is accurate, I don't have access to the article's one reference and I couldn't find any other direct evidence of the measure's existence) if Louis XVI died at some point after February, this law would take effect-the Count of Provence (the future Louis XVIII) left France in tandem with the Flight to Varennes and should still be in the country at any earlier date.
His initial assumption of the Regency would probably not be contested by anyone, save perhaps Artois, who fled back in 1789 and may consider any Regency enabled by decree of the National Constituent Assembly to be automatically illegitimate. And however much Artois may complain, I don't think the powers of Europe would be eager to fight for his notional right to govern when his own brother is ruling France.
Louis was generally hostile to the Revolution, but as his later reign would show, the man was usually pretty canny and not an inflexible reactionary. I don't know what he would have done to try to reverse the flow of the past three years, but I'd rate his chances of at least partial success as higher than either of his brothers'.
If the King dies before March, the situation is more fluid. Obviously the Count of Provence had a strong body of support in the Assembly (at least on this issue), since it gave him the presumptive Regency later that year, and he's Louis XVII's closest male relative who isn't currently in exile. However, I think Orleans has a decent chance of snatching it. His relations with the Assembly are generally better than Provence's, and, as Duc d'Orleans and Prince of the Blood, he's the senior aristocrat of the realm. Indeed, a previous Duc d'Orleans, the incumbent's great-grandfather Philippe, was the Regent during Louis XV's minority-so the Duke may be sanctified by both tradition and political expediency. Whatever the outcome, a contested Regency would probably become a major political fault line, and the issue may destabilize France badly (though still probably less than the Flight to Varennes did).
This is a France that's still monarchical, at peace, and one where the Champ de Mars massacre hasn't happened yet (and since the republican street demonstrations were triggered by the Flight to Varennes, it isn't likely to). However, the Civil Constitution of the Clergy is already a thing, along with a lot of other revolutionary measures, so a radical turn in the future is still quite possible. Is a constitutional monarchy actually sustainable, even without Louis' blunders to push it to the graveside? Is a war with the reactionary powers inevitable by this point anyway, without the Flight to Varennes showing just how powerless the monarchy was, and without the radicalization it triggered?
What would the immediate consequences be?
First off, there's the matter of a Regency for Louis XVII. Might it go to the Duc d'Orleans (the future "Louis Egalite" and father of Louis-Philippe)-safely pro-Revolution, but perhaps scheming to put the crown on his own head? How much could the Assembly try to insert itself in the process? Marie Antoinette would probably be immediately marginalized (likely not good for the young King's happiness) which would irritate the Austrians-but enough to trigger war?
Any other considerations?
Edit: I forgot to look at Louis XVIII's Wikipedia page-it says:
"In March 1791, the National Assembly created a law outlining the regency of Louis Charles in case his father died while he was still too young to reign. This law awarded the regency to Louis Charles' nearest male relative in France (at that time the Count of Provence), and after him, the Duke of Orleans, thus bypassing the Count of Artois [the future Charles X]. If Orleans were unavailable, the regency would be submitted to election."
So (assuming this is accurate, I don't have access to the article's one reference and I couldn't find any other direct evidence of the measure's existence) if Louis XVI died at some point after February, this law would take effect-the Count of Provence (the future Louis XVIII) left France in tandem with the Flight to Varennes and should still be in the country at any earlier date.
His initial assumption of the Regency would probably not be contested by anyone, save perhaps Artois, who fled back in 1789 and may consider any Regency enabled by decree of the National Constituent Assembly to be automatically illegitimate. And however much Artois may complain, I don't think the powers of Europe would be eager to fight for his notional right to govern when his own brother is ruling France.
Louis was generally hostile to the Revolution, but as his later reign would show, the man was usually pretty canny and not an inflexible reactionary. I don't know what he would have done to try to reverse the flow of the past three years, but I'd rate his chances of at least partial success as higher than either of his brothers'.
If the King dies before March, the situation is more fluid. Obviously the Count of Provence had a strong body of support in the Assembly (at least on this issue), since it gave him the presumptive Regency later that year, and he's Louis XVII's closest male relative who isn't currently in exile. However, I think Orleans has a decent chance of snatching it. His relations with the Assembly are generally better than Provence's, and, as Duc d'Orleans and Prince of the Blood, he's the senior aristocrat of the realm. Indeed, a previous Duc d'Orleans, the incumbent's great-grandfather Philippe, was the Regent during Louis XV's minority-so the Duke may be sanctified by both tradition and political expediency. Whatever the outcome, a contested Regency would probably become a major political fault line, and the issue may destabilize France badly (though still probably less than the Flight to Varennes did).
Last edited: