Duc de Bourgogne as Louis XVI

[JonasResende]

I know this is the umpteenth time the question has been asked - but even the thread that ran with the idea went dead after a few postings.

What would happen to France if the duke of Bourgogne, Louis Joseph Xavier de France (1751-1761) hadn't died at the age of ten, but instead went on to succeed as king. Of course his father - the dauphin - might live longer, but I think he was already terminally ill so whether he would die or succeed Louis XV is up in the air.

But this boy seems to have been universally loved by his parents, his governesses/tutors, and siblings, not to mention his grandfather who he had the great tact to resemble. According to an account by the governess of the children of France at one point, he was blessed with something that neither Louis XV or OTL Louis XVI seems to have had - a sort of willfulness sadly lacking in the aforementioned.

So, we assume he doesn't die in 1761, Marie Josephe is unsuccessful in lobbying for her niece, Maria Amalia to come to Paris as queen - though she maybe marries the duc de Berri (OTL Louis XVI) - and marries Maria Carolina/Maria Antonia of Austria on schedule. I somehow think his wife would not have a problem finding herself with child soon after the wedding.

Also, might we see him becoming as great as if not greater than the Sun King? A Louis le Grand for the 18th century? Or a Louis le Fainéant like his grandfather/Louis le Pieux like his father?

 

[JonasResende]

No one have any thoughts?

 

[Thoresby]

France isn't in the same position as when Louis XIV came to the throne. Then it was balkanised and politically weak but economically solvent and with significant untapped power. By Louis XVI's era whoever he is France is united, has massive debts and a growing intelligentsia and bourgeois completely isolated from the existing power structure. He might not end up as Louis the Martyr but he isn't going to be Louis the Great. Not that anyone outside France calls Louis XIV The Great.

 

[Emperor Constantine]

France isn't in the same position as when Louis XIV came to the throne. Then it was balkanised and politically weak but economically solvent and with significant untapped power. By Louis XVI's era whoever he is France is united, has massive debts and a growing intelligentsia and bourgeois completely isolated from the existing power structure. He might not end up as Louis the Martyr but he isn't going to be Louis the Great. Not that anyone outside France calls Louis XIV The Great.

OK your REALLY underestimating the situation in France when Louis XVI came to the throne. Yes the French finances were a clusterf*ck at this point, but not unnavigable. Having an active, competent monarch with confidence would make a HUGE difference. Louis XVI was a good, intelligent man but he had no backbone, took forever to make decisions and tended to just follow his advisers lead. Having a monarch that's more or less the exact opposite would have huge consequences for France.

 

[Xgentis]

OK your REALLY underestimating the situation in France when Louis XVI came to the throne. Yes the French finances were a clusterf*ck at this point, but not unnavigable. Having an active, competent monarch with confidence would make a HUGE difference. Louis XVI was a good, intelligent man but he had no backbone, took forever to make decisions and tended to just follow his advisers lead. Having a monarch that's more or less the exact opposite would have huge consequences for France.

I agree a King who is not indecisive would be able to enforce the needed reforms.

 

[Elfwine]

Active and confident monarchs tend to be spenders. Exceptions exist, but what exactly is going to make this alt-Louis XVI fiscally savvy enough to deal with "massive debts"?

I'm not saying it can't be done, but I have to question the logic that a more confident monarch will solve that particular problem.

I agree a King who is not indecisive would be able to enforce the needed reforms.

Would that king recognize what reforms are needed, though?

 

[Emperor Constantine]

Active and confident monarchs tend to be spenders. Exceptions exist, but what exactly is going to make this alt-Louis XVI fiscally savvy enough to deal with "massive debts"?

I'm not saying it can't be done, but I have to question the logic that a more confident monarch will solve that particular problem.



Would that king recognize what reforms are needed, though?

Well I think it depends on what type of man Bourgogne ended up being. For one EVERYONE knew reforms were needed by Louis XVI's ascension, most were simply divided about what should be reformed and how. And as to exceptions, we have a perfect example across the channel. George III (pre-crazy) was an active and confident monarch. Hell he was probably the most active British monarch sense Queen Anne or William III. So its not to much of a stretch to have a new monarch mimic a contemporary.

As to the massive debt that plagued France, I agree that it would be difficult for any person to tackle, but having a monarch that knows what to do and how to do it would be a good start.

 

[Elfwine]

Well I think it depends on what type of man Bourgogne ended up being. For one EVERYONE knew reforms were needed by Louis XVI's ascension, most were simply divided about what should be reformed and how. And as to exceptions, we have a perfect example across the channel. George III (pre-crazy) was an active and confident monarch. Hell he was probably the most active British monarch sense Queen Anne or William III. So its not to much of a stretch to have a new monarch mimic a contemporary.

George III would be a perfect example of how active and confident are not necessarily traits that lead a monarch to good decisions, though.

As to the massive debt that plagued France, I agree that it would be difficult for any person to tackle, but having a monarch that knows what to do and how to do it would be a good start.

Sure. But "active and confident", and "willful", may or may not help there.

Especially if this Louis grows up wanting to be the return of Louis XIV - even if he's smart enough to know what kind of financial reforms are in France's best interests, pursuit of glory is expensive.

It's a problem without any good solutions without getting a particularly splendid specimen of kingship.

 

[Vanity 6]

Willful and active might mean standing up to the nobility and enacting his reforms over their objections. Siding with the middle class could help here. The Church could provide revenue pickings too. Joseph II took this route in Austria.

 

[Thoresby]

OK your REALLY underestimating the situation in France when Louis XVI came to the throne. Yes the French finances were a clusterf*ck at this point, but not unnavigable. Having an active, competent monarch with confidence would make a HUGE difference. Louis XVI was a good, intelligent man but he had no backbone, took forever to make decisions and tended to just follow his advisers lead. Having a monarch that's more or less the exact opposite would have huge consequences for France.

France didn't need an active confident monarch, monarchs like that tend to be keen on starting wars to acquire gloire. It needed twenty years of peace, a substantial reduction in the size of the armed forces and a monarch who hates public display and extravagance to cut spending at Versailles. While such a monarch could enable France to have the fiscal cushion to fix it's underlying problems a.) such a monarch is vanishingly unlikely and b.) he certainly wouldn't be called "the Great" in the history books. Fiscal pragmatism isn't sexy.

 

[Elfwine]

Willful and active might mean standing up to the nobility and enacting his reforms over their objections. Siding with the middle class could help here. The Church could provide revenue pickings too. Joseph II took this route in Austria.

Certainly. But that would require a monarch who is not merely "willful and active" but driven in the same direction Joseph II was in - which might be influenced by his upbringing.

Hard to tell what "willful" would turn into in the adult king when he died at all of ten, however. It could just be a perversely stubborn streak when questioned, which is not necessarily the same as the qualities of focus and drive to make a successful reform program.

Which raises the most substantial question. Was he loved as a charming boy, or did people see him as (potentially) a bright and thoughtful student?

The latter is far and away more promising.

 

[fhaessig]

Agreed.

The 2 biggest spending points in the french disastrous fiscal situation were:
+ The support to the Americam independence
+ Versailles/the court/subsidies to the useless nobles

Any King which has the backbone to cut on both will win enough time to enact a fiscal reform which will raise income a lot (by removing the nobles and clergy exemption from taxes - that was not a new idea; it had been proposed by Vauban to Louis XIV -).

However, that does not solve the other major issues; the lack of political power for the Bourgeoisie and the glacial pace of social mobility (there was some but it was extremely expensive)

BTW: No one in France calls Louis XIV the Great, the sun-king, yes, but not the Great

 

[JonasResende]

Agreed.

The 2 biggest spending points in the french disastrous fiscal situation were:
+ The support to the Americam independence
+ Versailles/the court/subsidies to the useless nobles

Any King which has the backbone to cut on both will win enough time to enact a fiscal reform which will raise income a lot (by removing the nobles and clergy exemption from taxes - that was not a new idea; it had been proposed by Vauban to Louis XIV -).

Who would be the best ministers circa 1774 to enact such reforms?

And I agree, everyone I've discussed this with maintains that supporting the American Revolution was the worst thing for French finances at the time. And I don't think 3 years is sufficient time to recover from the excesses of LXV's reign OTL or TTL.

 

[fhaessig]

Who would be the best ministers circa 1774 to enact such reforms?
.

ACtually the one which was in place then, Turgot. But he needs a strong support from the King and possibly from some other misnisters and/or important figures. OTL, his proposed reforms were what was needed, at least in fiscal matters, but he was prevented from apllying them and then pushed out.

 

[Xgentis]

BTW: No one in France calls Louis XIV the Great, the sun-king, yes, but not the Great

Actually he is both know as the great and the sun-king, in French you say: Louis XIV le Grand dit le Roi Soleil.

 

[fhaessig]

Actually he is both know as the great and the sun-king, in French you say: Louis XIV le Grand dit le Roi Soleil.

Je ne l'ai jamais entendu appelle Le Grand, ni lu ceci dans aucun livre contemporain serieux.

 

[Circonflexe]

Je ne l'ai jamais entendu appelle Le Grand, ni lu ceci dans aucun livre contemporain serieux.

Well, there is always the Lycée Louis-le-Grand in downtown Paris. Even with all the Louis, there is no doubt about which one of them is Grand.

 

[Space Oddity]

Certainly. But that would require a monarch who is not merely "willful and active" but driven in the same direction Joseph II was in - which might be influenced by his upbringing.

Whose reign--as people on this board tend to forget--ended in complete and utter disaster. The man suggested his own epitaph read "Joseph II--he failed at everything he tried to undertake". Having the right ideas is one thing. Having the skill and ability needed to make them work is another.

 

[Elfwine]

Whose reign--as people on this board tend to forget--ended in complete and utter disaster. The man suggested his own epitaph read "Joseph II--he failed at everything he tried to undertake". Having the right ideas is one thing. Having the skill and ability needed to make them work is another.

If memory serves - I might be mixing up my quixotics - Joseph was the one who thought coffins were silly (among other things, but that just came to mind as exceedingly out of touch).

That sort of thing is a sign that he might not even have had the right ideas.

Monarchs with Ideas are less valuable in the context of this discussion than a monarch with a firm grasp on the reality of the situation France is in, which is based on exceedingly dull attention to the details of how the state actually works (and what areas really aren't working).

Not sure how you encourage that. And to make matters more complicated: the money paid to the nobles wasn't just for kicks and giggles, so doing away with that means finding some other way to keep them where you want them.

 

[Emperor Constantine]

Whose reign--as people on this board tend to forget--ended in complete and utter disaster. The man suggested his own epitaph read "Joseph II--he failed at everything he tried to undertake". Having the right ideas is one thing. Having the skill and ability needed to make them work is another.

I'd argue that while Joseph II's ideas weren't unreasonable (like reigning in the Church's power or centralizing his domains) the way there were implemented (schizophrenic micromanaging) is what led to the failures. To much to soon and way to invasive, but a better Monarch could have pulled it off. I'd say that France needed in enlightened monarch similar to Frederich II and Catherine the Great and maybe a bit of Carlos III, rather then Joseph II.