So Evident a Danger: The Consequences of War between Britain, Prussia and Russia in 1791

Ramontxo

Donor
Of course, the issue can be argued in more than one way. My point is that often it is more convenient for the cause to have a martyr than a living person. Especially when such a person is quite unimpressive as a leader. šŸ˜‚


Now, if Louis just fled, well, the whole thing is more or less an internal affair. Yes, Louis was inconvenienced but he was not overthrown and who said that he would be or that his life was in danger? Yes, after he fled the republic is declared but what his subjects were supposed to do? They need some kind of a government and their choice, while bad, is not an international crime.

But his flight causes obvious problems to other monarchs because he is not just a claimant to the throne and his social position requires much better accommodations than one of the Count of Provence. He is entitled to a palace and a court and most probably the Hapsburgs are ending up with a questionable pleasure to host and keep in state him and his family. Louis himself may be not (optimistically) a major issue: AFAIK, he was, at worse, stubborn. But MA was an energetic idiot (probably there is a consensus on this account šŸ˜‚) and she would be pestering her brothers about the military help. Regardless the results, the royal presence in Austria may, at least to some degree, deprive the Austrian diplomacy of a freedom of maneuver making settlement with France less likely unless restoration of the Bourbons is a part of a peace deal.

But, besides cutting off the heads, Revolution also confiscated and distributed a lot of the land and other properties belonging to the aristocrats so the happy return of the Bourbons in the 1790s would not be a welcomed perspective for the French peasantry (or at least a politically active part of it) and the people who were buying the estates, etc.

Then comes an army. While in 1815 the oath of a loyalty to Louis XVI. became pretty much an abstract notion and majority of the French military never made it, in the 1790s situation is quite different and a big part of the French military are traitors. OK, an amnesty can be a part of the deal but how about the ranks to which these upstarts rose? In 1815 France was thoroughly defeated with a massive foreign military presence, etc. and, anyway, the army was anything but ā€œrepublicanā€ in its spirit and the command cadres formed a new aristocracy, which could be accommodated with a relative ease. But in the 1790s this is not the case and how are you going to reconcile the existing situation with the Old Regimeā€™s traditions? Would Moreau get back to studying the law, Massena became a warrant officer, Bernadotte became a sergeant, Hoche a corporal, etc.? Iā€™d suggest that a more likely option is them overthrowing any republican government trying to negotiate that type of a deal but it is also rather hard to imagine that the returning ā€œfreshā€ emigrants would meekly agree to accommodate such a fundamental change.
It may very well be that the king is offered an ceremonial position with an better Palace than the one he gets in Vienna, honours and a civil list. But no real power. And if the offer is not after Robespierre falls but after an military coup, then the last part is for sure an precondition to his restoration.
 
Again, don't assume there'll be a return of the monarchy.

Everyone's talking about how an exiled monarch is a stronger figure to rally for; I would argue he's also a much stronger figure to rally against. Louis has now made an enemy of every faction in the revolution- people who risked a lot trying to accommodate him and his wife, even as the royal couple connived to crush the people, are going to fall over each other to be the first to denounce him.

There'll be no massacre of the Champs de Mars here- that means a stronger Lafayette for one thing.

Speaking personally I'll be hugely disappointed if yet another promising timeline of this period falls into the board's reflexive monarchism.
 
It may very well be that the king is offered an ceremonial position with an better Palace than the one he gets in Vienna, honours and a civil list. But no real power.

No real power is obvious. What is not obvious at all is a potential political annoyance caused by a former Archduchess. It would be rather difficult to fully isolate the court in exile and the emigrants coming to it. With LXVI on their hands, it would be close to impossible for Vienna to negotiate peace with the Republic so we are ending up with a permanent war close to the OTL scenrio.
And if the offer is not after Robespierre falls but after an military coup, then the last part is for sure an precondition to his restoration.
Something like that (but for surviving Louis XVII) had been played in Ā«Š—Š°Ń€Ń цŠ²ŠµŃ‚Š° ŠæŠµŠæŠ»Š°Ā» but it is not clear at all why any of the French military leaders after coming to power would be willing to play Monk instead of grabbing power for himself.
 

iddt3

Donor
Then comes an army. While in 1815 the oath of a loyalty to Louis XVI. became pretty much an abstract notion and majority of the French military never made it, in the 1790s situation is quite different and a big part of the French military are traitors.
Who's a traitor right now? Arguably, only the King. He broke faith first. Without chopping his head off, the political elite of France hasn't crossed the Rubicon. I think Louis is unlikely to get the crown back, but the Assembly could offer (or "offer) it to someone else, at which Louis's position is extremely weak. Even if they declare a Republic - he fled. Monarchs being deposed by the Commons and decapitated is rare. Monarchs losing control and being replaced while going into exile? Much less uncommon.
 
Who's a traitor right now? Arguably, only the King. He broke faith first. Without chopping his head off, the political elite of France hasn't crossed the Rubicon. I think Louis is unlikely to get the crown back, but the Assembly could offer (or "offer) it to someone else, at which Louis's position is extremely weak. Even if they declare a Republic - he fled. Monarchs being deposed by the Commons and decapitated is rare. Monarchs losing control and being replaced while going into exile? Much less uncommon.
Or at the very least, whoever gets the crown may find their powers altered a lot.

People are not gonna be amused at this betrayal.
 
Why do we assume the mid-1790s will go on schedule? One of the big inciting incidents of the Terror has just been removed, and the military landscape is vastly different- France won't be under anywhere near as much pressure as OTL, though of course they'll have no way of knowing it.

When OTL's Directorate saw a monarchist resurgence, it's perfectly possible that in this timeline major players will still include figures who died in the period 1792-1795- Robespierre, Danton, Desmoulins, Brissot, etc.

Perhaps most interestingly of all, a Republic that avoids the worst of the purges may still have the strongest proto-feminist scene in the world- Madame Roland, Olympe de Gouges and other disproportionately Girondin women.
 
Very interesting update!

If Louis XVI and his family manage to reach the border, then the counts of Provence and Artois (Louis Stanislas and Charles) could probably decide to unite with him; Louis Stanislas could perhaps dither a bit longer without the news of Varennes, and perhaps head to Luxembourg instead of Coblenz (where Charles was based at the time); a lot of emigres would most likely do the same, in order to be able to influence events. This leads us to another question, of whether the emigres would change their attitudes ITTL by dropping their more antagonistic attitude towards the monarchy, which had been rather evident in the late 1780s.

On the one hand, the elimination of manorialism, the burning of the chateaux and the feudal contracts, and the events of the Great Fear that led to the abolition of feudalism have already taken place, which could result in a change of mentality and a greater willingness to subordinate to royal authority in view of the danger at home. On the other hand, their leader wouldn't be the counts of Provence and Artois, who had often been involved with the politics of the nobility before the Revolution, but the very king they attacked in the 1787 - 1789 period, which could complicate matters; furthermore, the demand to recognise a "contractual" relationship of the monarchy with the first two orders, but especially the former second estate, many representatives of which had "rushed" as emigres to assist the king, and restore the privileges such as the hereditary offices would still be there.

Furthermore the divisions among the royal family itself would most likely come to surface. IIRC, Louis Stanislas was rather opposed to Marie Antoinette and her faction, and this could manifest itself in a number of ways - for example, the attempts to involve Austria in domestic situation of France. We would probably see Louis Stanislas and Charles angling for greater influence among the emigre movement and over the king, which would most likely in turn accentuate Louis XVI's relative distance from them; their potential insistence that the king couldn't "destroy the old constitution" with its relationships between royal power and estates wouldn't help things, although the fact Louis XVI wouldn't be a prisoner coud mean that both siblings would be more circumspect in their criticisms. Other questions would concern the future position of the two princes in the government - IIRC, Calonne for example had written IOTL that both should be included in the council of state (which Louis Stanislas had requested both shortly after the accession of Louis XVI to the throne, and in 1789), and both brothers would most likely want to control ministerial appointments as well as be able to advance their own interests and agendas.
 
Why do we assume the mid-1790s will go on schedule? One of the big inciting incidents of the Terror has just been removed, and the military landscape is vastly different- France won't be under anywhere near as much pressure as OTL, though of course they'll have no way of knowing it.

When OTL's Directorate saw a monarchist resurgence, it's perfectly possible that in this timeline major players will still include figures who died in the period 1792-1795- Robespierre, Danton, Desmoulins, Brissot, etc.

Perhaps most interestingly of all, a Republic that avoids the worst of the purges may still have the strongest proto-feminist scene in the world- Madame Roland, Olympe de Gouges and other disproportionately Girondin women.
Of course, more than one scenario is possible including a complete absence of a foreign intervention. For example, the royal family successfully escapes and nobody feels obligation to do anything beyond providing suitable accommodations. There are still bands of the emigrants who may even try a military action but little comes out of it. No mass mobilization, no extreme measures and, in an absence of the existential danger, the bloody bunch is not coming to power, etc.

Honestly, I suspect that even under this scenario there is a good chance for the Terror: the Enemy is outside but his agents are inside and have to be dealt with.
 
Of course, more than one scenario is possible including a complete absence of a foreign intervention. For example, the royal family successfully escapes and nobody feels obligation to do anything beyond providing suitable accommodations. There are still bands of the emigrants who may even try a military action but little comes out of it. No mass mobilization, no extreme measures and, in an absence of the existential danger, the bloody bunch is not coming to power, etc.

Honestly, I suspect that even under this scenario there is a good chance for the Terror: the Enemy is outside but his agents are inside and have to be dealt with.
Quite.
I expect a Terror that is terribly traumatic for France but is still milder in length and absolute terms than the one in OTL. Not that that's any consolation for the poor people going to the national razor, of course.
 
Well, if the royal family and the emigres are alone and near the border - on the French side, with intervention from other Great Powers looking unlikely - I guess Spain and Russia would probably be eager to restore the Bourbons to their old position, but Britain, Austria and Prussia would probably be less enthusiastic, if not unwilling, I think that at least some in the Assembly would probably consider the idea of capturing this party fast, before they could stir trouble or escape. On the other hand, there would be a real possibility of the royal family and their partisans escaping right across the border, which would complicate things to say the least, by rousing fear in ambivalent European courts and also destabilising the domestic situation (both because royalists could become agitated, and the attack on the prominent political and social symbol of the monarchy could open the road for more radical changes in the country - at least in the mind of the more conservative and moderate members of the Assembly), which could strengthen the case of those arguing in favour of an understanding with the king. Another factor would be the state of the royal forces, since their state would heavily affect Louis' bargaining position - money to maintain the loyalty of the troops would be needed, and perhaps Louis could secure the subsidies until then paid to the emigres massing in the territory of the Holy Roman Empire, in addition to more aid (Spain could help there), thus keeping the army battle-worthy.

Of course, the opponents of the monarchy wouldn't sit idly. Robespierre and the Jacobins would attack the escape and any attempt to negotiate with the king, and they could try to push things to an extreme that would eliminate the possibility of a settlement with the monarchy; therefore I guess measures like the mass arrest of many real - or suspected, allies of the king in the country could be implemented, as a way to remove potential support, force Louis XVI to back down or force a showdown. Of course, this also depends on the actions of the emigres, and with Louis XVI with them, perhaps we would see bolder action by some of them - Louis Stanislas and Charles had urged their allies to stay put in France while at Coblentz, so here I guess they could make one more step and start trying to organise them - it would also benefit their efforts to assert their power and influence in the counterrevolutionary movement.

Under these circumstances, it could prove very challenging to avoid a confrontation; however, there might be a possibility for Louis XVI and Paris to reach an agreement. Louis could become concerned about the possibility of more strife in the country, and irritated to some extent by the actions and schemes of the aristocrats around him, and be unwilling to call for foreign intervention (iirc, he wasn't exactly in accord with the plans of his wife to bring about an Austrian invasion); the assembly could still be ambivalent, and the supporters of the monarchy have a respectable presence and be worried about the possibility of a successful counterrevolution cancelling most of the gains they had made since 1789 and manage perhaps to keep the Jacobins and their allies under some degree of control. How a compromise could take place is a difficult question: there would most likely be serious pressure in the Assembly and from various political groups to seriously restrict royal power, to a large extent because of the escape of the king, and on the other side, Louis XVI would most likely be unwilling to become a mere head of state with some government functions. Other bones of contention would most likely be the status of expropriated Church (and aristocratic) property, the existence of the National Guard and perhaps the political position of the first two orders.

I think the two sides could agree on repealing the civil constitution of the clergy for one, as well as acknowledging the abolition of internal tariffs; any form of suffrage would almost certainly remain rather limited and based on the census. On the question of exproriated property, perhaps recognition of the event, but with the option of the former owners to buy back lands not sold at favourable prices and compensation for the lands and property not restored; Louis XVI seems to have been planning to fully restore the ecclesiastical lands expropriated to the Church by having it buy the assignats issued against them, together with reimbursement for the buyers of said lands, and a partial default similar to the one Terray carried out in 1770, but I think that such measures would be seriously unpopular with many in thr Assembly and the notables in the country and thus not really possible.

On the question of the National Guard, I am not sure what could be mutually acceptable. Louis would have wanted a personal bodyguard at the very least, as a guarantee of his safety, and there would be a lot of pressure from the emigres community to restore their dominant position in the army. Perhaps a solution might be to integrate at least parts of it to a royal army, make promotion for non-noble officers easier and open more, if not most ranks, to them.

About the political position of the clergy and the nobility, a potential solution might be that they would constitute an upper house - as a way to limit their potential role to some extent; about the potential similarity of such a body to the House of Lords, on the one hand, it wouldn't be Louis XVIII in 1814, with his years of living in Britain that would be negotiating the new constitutional order, on the other hand Louis XVI was familiar with the workings of the British political system and could thus draw some inspiration from that quarter, and the plans of more pragmatic/moderate emigres like Calonne seem to have aspired to a system resembling British - style government, which was hoped to help secure the support of most but the more die-hard emigres. The powers of the king could probably include an wide-ranging veto (in the OTL manifesto he asked for an absolute one, but this could be rather difficult to agree on), the right to negotiate treaties that would have to be ratified by the Assembly, and rather complete control of the executive - both ministers and officials, but not the right to declare war (which alongside the financial powers would most likely go to the Assembly).

Of course, even if such an agreement was reached, there would still be serious opposition, from the more anti-monarchical elements in Paris and the country in general, and the more ultra emigres, but it wouldn't be that impossible for both of these groups to find themselves lacking a serious power base, especially without the radicalisation of 1792 - 1793.
 
Well, if the royal family and the emigres are alone and near the border - on the French side, with intervention from other Great Powers looking unlikely - I guess Spain and Russia would probably be eager to restore the Bourbons to their old position

At least as far as Russia is involved, the ā€œeagernessā€ would be more theoretical than practical. CII had more serious problems to attend to and, anyway, there was a technical impossibility for Russia to do anything on that account due to the obvious geographic reasons. Even Paul, a man of ā€œprincipleā€, got involved only when asked by Austria and after the French captured Malta and even then was ready to make peace at the first available excuse: there was no love lost between Russia and the Bourbons who more often than not were Russian opponents.


 
At least as far as Russia is involved, the ā€œeagernessā€ would be more theoretical than practical. CII had more serious problems to attend to and, anyway, there was a technical impossibility for Russia to do anything on that account due to the obvious geographic reasons. Even Paul, a man of ā€œprincipleā€, got involved only when asked by Austria and after the French captured Malta and even then was ready to make peace at the first available excuse: there was no love lost between Russia and the Bourbons who more often than not were Russian opponents.
Honestly if Paul plays his cards right, he can potentially leave Russia out of this whole mess while Europe slaughters one another
 
Thank you everyone for the fascinating discussion, it's all very interesting and I'm just disappointed I can't respond to all of it. So I'll just reply to some particular points that I can touch on without giving too many spoilers.
Of course, the issue can be argued in more than one way. My point is that often it is more convenient for the cause to have a martyr than a living person. Especially when such a person is quite unimpressive as a leader. šŸ˜‚


Now, if Louis just fled, well, the whole thing is more or less an internal affair. Yes, Louis was inconvenienced but he was not overthrown and who said that he would be or that his life was in danger? Yes, after he fled the republic is declared but what his subjects were supposed to do? They need some kind of a government and their choice, while bad, is not an international crime.

But his flight causes obvious problems to other monarchs because he is not just a claimant to the throne and his social position requires much better accommodations than one of the Count of Provence. He is entitled to a palace and a court and most probably the Hapsburgs are ending up with a questionable pleasure to host and keep in state him and his family. Louis himself may be not (optimistically) a major issue: AFAIK, he was, at worse, stubborn. But MA was an energetic idiot (probably there is a consensus on this account šŸ˜‚) and she would be pestering her brothers about the military help. Regardless the results, the royal presence in Austria may, at least to some degree, deprive the Austrian diplomacy of a freedom of maneuver making settlement with France less likely unless restoration of the Bourbons is a part of a peace deal.

But, besides cutting off the heads, Revolution also confiscated and distributed a lot of the land and other properties belonging to the aristocrats so the happy return of the Bourbons in the 1790s would not be a welcomed perspective for the French peasantry (or at least a politically active part of it) and the people who were buying the estates, etc.

Then comes an army. While in 1815 the oath of a loyalty to Louis XVI. became pretty much an abstract notion and majority of the French military never made it, in the 1790s situation is quite different and a big part of the French military are traitors. OK, an amnesty can be a part of the deal but how about the ranks to which these upstarts rose? In 1815 France was thoroughly defeated with a massive foreign military presence, etc. and, anyway, the army was anything but ā€œrepublicanā€ in its spirit and the command cadres formed a new aristocracy, which could be accommodated with a relative ease. But in the 1790s this is not the case and how are you going to reconcile the existing situation with the Old Regimeā€™s traditions? Would Moreau get back to studying the law, Massena became a warrant officer, Bernadotte became a sergeant, Hoche a corporal, etc.? Iā€™d suggest that a more likely option is them overthrowing any republican government trying to negotiate that type of a deal but it is also rather hard to imagine that the returning ā€œfreshā€ emigrants would meekly agree to accommodate such a fundamental change.
The point about soldiers, or rather officers, being unlikely to be willing to return to their previous ranks or professions is a good one. Indeed, they didn't IOTL during the Restoration. And as has been said, they will likely refuse ITTL as well. But I also think it's unlikely they will ever be asked too unless the whole thing gets nipped in the bud very early. Leave it much longer, once they start climbing the hierarchy, and they will simply be too strong to purge. Either because they will coup the government, as has been said, or because they will simply not go along with it. Self-interested career officers could potentially become the biggest power base if the events of the revolution goes the wrong way.
Again, don't assume there'll be a return of the monarchy.

Everyone's talking about how an exiled monarch is a stronger figure to rally for; I would argue he's also a much stronger figure to rally against. Louis has now made an enemy of every faction in the revolution- people who risked a lot trying to accommodate him and his wife, even as the royal couple connived to crush the people, are going to fall over each other to be the first to denounce him.

There'll be no massacre of the Champs de Mars here- that means a stronger Lafayette for one thing.

Speaking personally I'll be hugely disappointed if yet another promising timeline of this period falls into the board's reflexive monarchism.
I'm very interested in exploring the different paths available, I think an immediate divorce from monarchy in France is probably unlikely, they might experiment with a stand-in at first, but it will surely happen eventually. And once they go, there's a whole range of fascinating factions, as you and others have said, within France in his period who can have their own struggle internally in a very different way to IOTL.
Who's a traitor right now? Arguably, only the King. He broke faith first. Without chopping his head off, the political elite of France hasn't crossed the Rubicon. I think Louis is unlikely to get the crown back, but the Assembly could offer (or "offer) it to someone else, at which Louis's position is extremely weak. Even if they declare a Republic - he fled. Monarchs being deposed by the Commons and decapitated is rare. Monarchs losing control and being replaced while going into exile? Much less uncommon.
And this is exactly, what I mean by experimenting with a stand-in. It's tempting to have France throw itself entirely into massive revolutionary chaos but the decline will be slow, as it was IOTL. Other forks of monarchism, other forms of republicanism, some strange mix of both, all are possible in France. And if there is no great war against them, there may yet be but there may not be, then France could well serve as a sandbox of political ideas battling between themselves.
 
On the question of the monarchy, I quite like the idea of the assembly declaring that XVI has abdicated and instating Philippe Egalite as the new king. Way I see it he's got enough legitimacy to be at least somewhat palatable to the other courts of Europe, while at the same time being personally liberal and presumably totally beholden to whichever faction installs him, meaning there's still potential for the revolution to radicalize. Especially as the conflict with the now exiled Bourbons and Habsburgs escalates.
 
Iā€™ve always thought an interesting scenario would be a (small c) conservative republic where the alienated elites of Lafayette and co still have a place in the mix.
 
When you get the chance it would be nice to see an American update. Their reactions to the war and the French Revolution (along with the changes)
 
On the question of the monarchy, I quite like the idea of the assembly declaring that XVI has abdicated and instating Philippe Egalite as the new king. Way I see it he's got enough legitimacy to be at least somewhat palatable to the other courts of Europe, while at the same time being personally liberal and presumably totally beholden to whichever faction installs him, meaning there's still potential for the revolution to radicalize. Especially as the conflict with the now exiled Bourbons and Habsburgs escalates.
That does seem to be a popular idea on this forum! I think there is a chance for it...at least to be floated as an idea. I'm not sure how long it might last, any form of civil conflict is always going to provoke further radicalism and it didn't take long for even Phillippe Egalite to become a pariah IOTL.
Iā€™ve always thought an interesting scenario would be a (small c) conservative republic where the alienated elites of Lafayette and co still have a place in the mix.
I think the problem with that is Lafayette and his fellow liberal minded elites aren't really republicans. So they're not going to end up in that situation by choice imho. Its possible, but it would certainly require some major leaps in events.
When you get the chance it would be nice to see an American update. Their reactions to the war and the French Revolution (along with the changes)
I do hope to get to an American update, and indeed updates on other neglected countries like Spain. Perhaps it would make some good interludes after the Flight to Montmedy is done.
 
I think the problem with that is Lafayette and his fellow liberal minded elites aren't really republicans. So they're not going to end up in that situation by choice imho. Its possible, but it would certainly require some major leaps in events.

Agreed. At the very least you need Phillippe off the board. I can just about squint and imagine that his son is too young and enough of an unknown quantity in 1792-3 that people opt for a regency that slides into a republic instead.

Itā€™s certainly unlikely, to put it generously.
 
Chapter 2 - Part 3 - "How much does this provision not diminish the Royal Majesty in the eyes of the people" Testament Politique de Louis XVI, p. iv
Part 3 - "How much does this provision not diminish the Royal Majesty in the eyes of the people" Testament Politique de Louis XVI, p. iv

Duke of Choiseul.png
Jean Sylvain Bailly.png

A later portrait of Claude-Antoine-Gabriel de Choiseul, Duke of Choiseul and Jean Sylvain Bailly

On the night of the 12th June 1791, the royal family performed their usual rituals, dismissed their servants for the night and went to bed. A short time later, timed to coincide with the departure of the Tuileries' many servants for their own beds, they rose again, donned, or were helped to don, their disguises and departed the palace one by one in the crowds. As a final flourish, von Fersen, perfectly imitating a Parisian coachman, picked up each member of the family in an ordinary hackney cab and ferried them to the prepared berline that was waiting on the outskirts. The execution was as brilliant as the plan and before any of the many suspicious eyes and minds of Paris, that had stopped the royal departure for Saint-Cloud only 2 months before, had realised, Louis XVI, Marie Antoinette, their children, his sister and their attendants had been spirited out of the city. It was an almost miraculous escape, free of delays or even much in the way of trouble. Louis XVI might perhaps have wondered if his previous procrastination had not been a pointless delay. It is more likely, though, that the royal family would have been doing nothing more than celebrating their success without a care in the world as they left behind the sleepy streets of Paris for the empty fields of the surrounding countryside.

Louis XVI had firmly believed that, once outside Paris, he would not only be free but that the French people would acclaim their loyalty and rally to him. This was a lasting effect of his only other journey outside Paris and the ring of royal palaces, his visit to Cherbourg in 1786. He had been cheered to high heaven then and he saw no reason why he shouldn't be on this occasion too, especially as Mirabeau had assured him only months before that the people of France were only waiting for his signal to oppose the National Assembly. [1] Indeed, it hadn't occurred to anyone in the royal coterie that they wouldn't be welcomed with anything other than loyalty. That particularly rude awakening would have to wait for at least one more night as, for now, everything continued to go smoothly. Indeed, as his family slept, Louis XVI himself treated it as a rare opportunity to inspect his kingdom, counting every mile posts along the roadsides, naming each village they passed through and keeping track of their progress with a time-table that had been prepared by von Fersen and his fellow conspirators.

As night turned to day, the carriage was joined by a second, carrying the children's nurses, and kept moving whilst France woke up around them. The royal family were blissfully unaware of the chaos engulfing Paris, though Marie Antoinette did jokingly remark on how shocked 'Mr Lafayette' must be [2], and so were the peasants waking up to tend the fields. As far as any of them knew, a strange cavalcade, probably belonging to a noble family to judge from its ostentation, was travelling on an every day journey. It was hardly an unusual sight. This was another stroke of luck, one of the bodyguards later recalled that they had nearly purchased livery in the colours of hated local noble before choosing better made, but more expensive, outfits. [3] Paris, meanwhile, was the opposite of this country idyll and was in an emergency. No-one had realised anything was amiss until the royal servants drew back the bed curtains in the morning to find that their master and mistress were absent. From there, the news had spread like wild fire. The palace staff and guards had combed the buildings and grounds in the vain hope that the royal family had somehow just gone for an early morning stroll. But it was all to no avail and news that the king had either betrayed the revolution or been kidnapped by traitors and foreign agents quickly filled the streets of Paris.

As soon as they heard what had happened, less than an hour after those servants had first drawn back the curtains, Lafayette and Bailly both rushed to the scene of the crisis. Arriving at the Tuileries with a hastily assembled body of National Guards, their party was booed and jeered by portions of the crowd that was massing at the palace gates. The two men, and the National Guard, were already being blamed by some of the Parisian mob for either incompetence or complicity in the King's departure. The crowds had no idea, of course, of Lafayette and Bailly's very real shock and feeling of betrayal, both men had been due to meet Louis XVI in the palace that very day, and it probably wouldn't have mattered even if they had known. In a France that still believed in Louis XVI and his many promises to them, the idea that he had abandoned Paris by his own free will was simply inconceivable.

It was with this in mind that Lafayette and Bailly joined the search of Tuileries themselves, but they too found no trace of the royal family or any indication of a reason for their departure. As a result they jointly issued a proclamation declaring that the royal family had been kidnapped by unknown agents and stolen away as either hostages or future puppets for the enemies of France. A very similar proclamation was issued shortly afterwards by the National Assembly, which had met almost spontaneously as the news reached its members and they could only think to gravitate to their meeting hall. The Assembly also declared a national emergency by unanimous vote and dispatched messengers in all directions to join the many that had already been sent out by Lafayette, by Bailly, by the Jacobin Club and other political clubs and by numerous private individuals. The first messengers had borne simple message 'The King has left Paris'. Their later, more official, counterparts were now told to say that the King had been kidnapped instead. This convenient fiction, which at least had nothing to disprove it as yet, had become the official line already and would remain so. [4]The alternative was too alarming about for all but a select number of radicals, primarily centred around the Cordeliers Club.

With messengers in pursuit, the royal cavalcade trundled onwards at a stately pace, occasionally stopping to change horses. By noon, Louis XVI was convinced enough in his own safety to climb down from the carriage at these stops to talk with the locals. [5] This had been one of his favourite past-times, even at Versailles, and demonstrated his sincere interest in the concerns and ideas of his people, even if he was seemingly unable to grasp how to actually help them. On this occasion, few knew who he was, though many would later claim to have recognised him. These conversations nonetheless added to the almost holiday atmosphere as the royal family made its way to their final destination at Montmedy. [6] The only dampener was that von Fersen had left the party in the morning to ride off to the Austrian Netherlands, his job well done. In his stead, the royal family would soon be joined by the first of BouillĆ©'s German and Swiss cavalrymen commanded by Claude-Antoine-Gabriel de Choiseul, Duke of Choiseul, at Somme-Vesle. Then the royal procession would be complete and it would only be a short and well-guard route to Montmedy.​

[1] This was part of Mirabeau's plan to persuade local governments across France to write petitions against the National Assembly. Mirabeau's death prevented it ever being tested.
[2] She reportedly made the same joke or very similar one during IOTL's Flight to Varennes as well.
[3] A minor change, but it may have helped the royal family get caught IOTL.
[4] Louis XVI is persuaded not to leave before his Declaration to the French People is completed, so he takes it with him ITTL.
[5] He did this IOTL as well.
[6] Contrary to popular belief, they had no intention of fleeing the country.
 
Last edited:
Top