WI: Louis XVI Dies Before the Flight to Varennes?

[frustrated progressive]

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).

 

[frustrated progressive]

Hate to bother people but I wonder if our French contingent might have thoughts on this, perhaps especially @LSCatilina?

 

[LSCatilina]

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?

According the Constitution of 1791

If the king dies leaving a minor successor, a Regent will take charge until he reaches 18 years old : either the closest male relative to the king, or barring this, someone elected by a direct vote of active citizens; in any case, he would have to had previously pledged a civic oath.
(Under the same Constitution, Marie-Antoinette (Article 17. Section II) would be trusted with the tutelage of the minor king.)

Normally, that would have meant the future Louis XVIII, then Count of Provence, admitting he doesn't leave the kingdom as IOTL (that would, according the 2nd Article of the IIIrd Section immediately nullify his rights to regency). BUT, the count AFAIK did not made a civic pledge, and that would make his claim to regency technically void (even if that could be postdated easily if the needs comes).

Now, since the Count of Artois wouldn't have been considered either on constitutional or political grounds, it would leave the Philippe of Orléans a much more palatable candidate to Regency, even while much less popular he was in 1789 in boith the Assembly and the broader civil society.

Giving the division and indecisiveness of the Assembly, and the whole gradient between hostility to the court on principle (and some distrust of the monarchy) and those questing to find a stable status-quo, that does have all the bearings of a nice constitutional crisis.

The Count of Provence had little support for himself in the Assembly and was accused of conspirating against the revolution already in 1790, at the very least attempts to "buy out" députés. Being seen as both particularly ambitious and focused on the maintainance of royal authority but devoid of political principles (being compared to a strawman). Maybe députés, and primarily Mirabeau or Lévis, would turn to Louis in order to advance their own constitutional concepts especially as Louis would be relatively weak and with little room to navigate revolutionary politics.

The Duke of Orléans' star was significantly dimmed since 1789, but could appear as a more liberal, more Assembly-friendly and less "royal" regent that could advance the idea of a kingdom primarily led by the Assembly giving his own political concerns. But that would probably put his candidacy at odds with the right-wing half of the Assembly who wanted a constitutional balance between the royal authority and the elected representatives. Even among the left, a likely drum out of his support as Regent might be seen as uncomfortable and even rise hostility

 

[frustrated progressive]

According the Constitution of 1791

If the king dies leaving a minor successor, a Regent will take charge until he reaches 18 years old : either the closest male relative to the king, or barring this, someone elected by a direct vote of active citizens; in any case, he would have to had previously pledged a civic oath.
(Under the same Constitution, Marie-Antoinette (Article 17. Section II) would be trusted with the tutelage of the minor king.)

Normally, that would have meant the future Louis XVIII, then Count of Provence, admitting he doesn't leave the kingdom as IOTL (that would, according the 2nd Article of the IIIrd Section immediately nullify his rights to regency). BUT, the count AFAIK did not made a civic pledge, and that would make his claim to regency technically void (even if that could be postdated easily if the needs comes).

Now, since the Count of Artois wouldn't have been considered either on constitutional or political grounds, it would leave the Philippe of Orléans a much more palatable candidate to Regency, even while much less popular he was in 1789 in boith the Assembly and the broader civil society.

Giving the division and indecisiveness of the Assembly, and the whole gradient between hostility to the court on principle (and some distrust of the monarchy) and those questing to find a stable status-quo, that does have all the bearings of a nice constitutional crisis.

The Count of Provence had little support for himself in the Assembly and was accused of conspirating against the revolution already in 1790, at the very least attempts to "buy out" députés. Being seen as both particularly ambitious and focused on the maintainance of royal authority but devoid of political principles (being compared to a strawman). Maybe députés, and primarily Mirabeau or Lévis, would turn to Louis in order to advance their own constitutional concepts especially as Louis would be relatively weak and with little room to navigate revolutionary politics.

The Duke of Orléans' star was significantly dimmed since 1789, but could appear as a more liberal, more Assembly-friendly and less "royal" regent that could advance the idea of a kingdom primarily led by the Assembly giving his own political concerns. But that would probably put his candidacy at odds with the right-wing half of the Assembly who wanted a constitutional balance between the royal authority and the elected representatives. Even among the left, a likely drum out of his support as Regent might be seen as uncomfortable and even rise hostility

Thanks so much for your thoughtful response!

One of the conceits I had was that, since the Constitution was adopted in September 1791, Louis dying before the Flight to Varennes means that the entire document might come out significantly different, and its succession provisions wouldn't apply, but you're right in that they probably frame how the Assembly would have wanted a Regency to be determined, even if it happens before the constitution goes into effect.

I suppose the other main question about the Constitution is-what broader aspects of it would likely turn out differently ATL? Wikipedia’s article on the conservative Feuillant faction (which coalesced immediately after the Flight to Varennes) is under the impression that the Champ de Mars affair created a temporary surge of support in the Assembly for conservative forces, so that the Constitution as finally passed in September was more royalist than it was expected to be a few months earlier. But I don't know if that's true.

A good point about the civic oath, tho I believe that in the circumstances (and especially to prevent Orleans from taking the office) Louis would probably assent to it-with some mental reservations naturally. A fun constitutional crisis is indeed possible tho.

I didn't know about Provence's 1790 scandal, that's some very useful information. I could totally see him in his weak position being handed the regency by someone like Mirabeau as an intended puppet-though who knows if he needs to stay as a puppet.

Paradoxically, I could see Orleans ultimately benefiting if he's passed over for the Regency-he has a decent chance of leading the opposition to Provence's more controversial actions, and since he's in opposition he can still try to be all things to all men. Still, it'd be interesting to see how the Duke manages it if he gets the nod after all-I didn't know his fall from grace had already started by early 1791, but the pitfalls that you describe for his candidacy seem very plausible.

Interesting point about Marie-Antoinette. I had just assumed she was so politically toxic that basically everyone agreed that her influence on the king in his minority should be kept at a minimum. Her being allowed a major presence in Louis-Charles' upbringing would probably be very good for the king's happiness and future personality. Attacks on Marie-Antionette and by extension the monarchy would lose a lot of their sting if they are just reduced to "the Dowager Queen who is without any explicit political role is influencing her young son" rather than the more incendiary stuff alleged during her time as Queen, but I'm sure Marat and his ilk would still try something.

Ultimately, I just don't know enough about what French politics was like in early 1791 to forecast who could be advantaged by this ATL, and what the ultimate political results might be. My knowledge of the Revolution (and my sources on it) basically just skip from early 1790 and the Civil Constitutions of the Clergy to the aftermath of Louis' failed escape a year later. So some pretty basic questions come to mind:

What men were prominent in the Assembly at this point? Had Robespierre and the proto-Montagnards split off from the "Girondins"? Had the polarized sorting of "centralist radicals and relatively federalist conservatives" been consolidated yet? If our POD is between the Day of Daggers (February 28th 1791, when Lafayette and the National Guard quelled a disturbance of noblemen) and Varennes, when Lafayette's popularity and his identification as a symbol of constitutional monarchy seemed to be highest, could he have maintained the National Guard as an effective and politically subordinated force, and perhaps even used that as a springboard for supreme power? Had resistance to the Civil Constitutions of the Clergy already become intractable?

Thanks again.

 

[Arachnid]

Had resistance to the Civil Constitutions of the Clergy already become intractable?

Putting the other points to one side the resistance to the Civil Constitution of the Clergy was unavoidable from Day One, while some elements were compatible with Catholic Doctrine e.g. requiring Bishops to live in their Dioceses' (rather than Paris) being Catholic and abjuring the authority of the Pope were contradictory in 1533 when Henry VIII of England did it and were even more impossible after the Counter-Reformation.

Now that doesn't mean that the resistance couldn't be overcome, roughly half the lower clergy took the oath a level of compliance comparable to the implementation of the Reformation in various countries in the 16th century. Given a generation the new Gallican Church, and within the a few years the pretation that France could remain Catholic and keep the Civil Constitution would fade) could probably establish itself as the dominant religion in France but it wouldn't be instant or easy.