Search Results

The reign of Louis XV was marked by ministerial instability, but also the consolidation of a model of ministerial disgrace that had first taken shape under Louis XIV. This chapter examines the continuities between the two reigns as well as the reasons behind that instability and argues that despite the rapid turnover in ministers the state machine had a certain permanence which meant that disgrace was not enough on its own to destabilize government. It also examines the changes in ministerial recruitment and the decline of the system of survivance that had underpinned the great ministerial dynasties of the reign of Louis XIV.

The court of Louis XV has been depicted as if it was a dusty museum, re-enacting the rituals and ceremonies of the Sun King, but without any vitality as cultural pre-eminence passed to Paris. Using the perspective of disgrace, this chapter takes a fresh look at the court in the eighteenth century, and argues that Louis XV showed dexterity in managing his court using intermediaries and access to his person in intimate settings such as his famous supper parties. Versailles was not immune to change, and in the course of the king’s reign the court experienced a form of ‘politicization’ resulting from changing patterns of ministerial recruitment and the influence of the political crises in the parlements. The infamous Revolution of 1771 demonstrates how Louis XV used his power to divide the opposition to his policies and to uphold his position as the head of the House of Bourbon.

The power to disgrace was not limited to individuals and it formed an essential part of the king’s strategy for managing the great corporations of the realm. The episcopate, cities, and provincial estates were all examples of institutions or corps that felt the effects of royal displeasure, but nothing better illustrated the phenomenon than the treatment of the parlements. This chapter explains the structure of judicial politics under the Bourbon monarchy, and looks at the many ways in which the king could use imprisonment, the internal exile or transfers of individuals or groups of magistrates from one city to another, disciplinary edicts, and many other often subtle techniques to impose his authority. It also considers the limitations of disgrace, how it could sometimes rebound to the disadvantage of the crown and the obstacles to the settlement of political crises resulting from the act of disgrace.