While learning about the French Revolution, I was fascinated by Philippe Egalite, the cousin of King Louis XVI, who supported the Third Estate, the Jacobins, and the liberal reforms of the Revolution's first wave. I was struck by how he seemed to be true believer in the need for a shift toward a constitutional monarchy and other major societal changes, despite the fact that he was in a prime place in the royal line of succession and benefited from the old regime.
My question is, since his goal seemed to be a constitutional monarchy in France, was he in a position to use his resources and privileges to stop the Revolution once that had goal seemingly been achieved? (E.g. via claiming the throne, as Louis XVI seemed to fear, or other measures taken from his noble perch.) Was he in a position to anything that might have been able to satisfy the reformers/general public sufficient to avoid the insurrection of August 10, 1792? Or was the revolutionary fervor in France at the time too intense, the push toward a French republic so inevitable, that even an ally in high places wouldn't have been able quell it?
This is a difficult question to answer because it’s basically a “what if.” While that’s hard enough to approach in general, a turbulent period like the French Revolution is especially difficult to speculate on, where so many seemingly illogical twists and turns happened due to a population that largely responded based on passion, fear whether real or imaginary, and a desire for self-preservation. Trying to piece together a “logical” path for an individual to turn the tide into another direction is hardly a conclusive analysis. Nevertheless, I would argue that the Duke was in no position to change the course of events, but I’m sure it could be possible to argue otherwise, even if I don’t see that “alt-history path.”
First, there is a very obvious comparison that can be made between another noble hero of the revolution who was opposed to the deposition of the monarchy. Lafayette. And his support of the constitutional monarchy didn’t exactly go well for him, and his attempts to defuse the situation ended with a warrant for his arrest as an enemy of the revolution and his exile in Austria for the remainder of the revolution and for some time beyond. Lafayette was arguably more popular among the general population involved in the insurrection, even after the Champs de Mars massacre. The Duke of Orleans was more of an intellectual figure popular among the more learned of the deputies and did not enjoy the same level of popularity among the bulk of the urban population who would ultimately materialize the insurrection. Not to say he was unpopular, just that relatively speaking Lafayette had a far more intimate relationship with the everyday population of Paris, who would be the participants of the insurrection along with other urban classes who would’ve held similar connections.
There were others who had a much more prominent voice among the everyday revolutionaries who would be deeply opposed to the Philippe if he had made such an attempt, and they would likely be able to run an extremely effective smear campaign against him that he would be unlikely to be able to counter. Figures like Marat particularly, the “Friend of the People” and writer of a newspaper of the same name, was extremely revolutionary and commanded a widespread audience among the urban working classes. Philippe’s ability to largely avoid the scrutiny placed on other nobles was particularly due to his property and by extension himself being a safe haven for revolutionary activity, particularly among Jacobins, who themselves were republican. His position’s precariousness is highlighted by his initial decision to vote against the execution of the king, but the pressure against the king was so overwhelming that he felt the need to go against his initial decision and vote in favor of execution. Indeed, he would himself be executed for treason based on quite weak charges only a year later. He was the father of a treasonous son, but there was no evidence he committed any treason himself. Nevertheless, he was executed anyway, which goes to show how fragile it was to be a noble in revolutionary France. Any direct personal opposition would likely be met very harshly.
If Philippe had made any attempt to save the monarchy, he would’ve abandoned the very things that gave him safety, and he would have alienated himself from the most fervent and outspoken voices of the revolution. His position as a noble put him under much greater scrutiny, and his position as a powerful Duke would likely mean greater backlash for opposition to the main revolutionary currents than if he had a humble background. A fate in exile like Lafayette who had a similar background and actually did attempt such a reconciliation would likely be a generous outcome, but his position as a much greater noble and proximity to the throne would likely mean an even harsher backlash than Lafayette had faced.