AHC: Make France a constitutional monarchy and England absolutist

Your challenge is to make the kingdom (or empire) of France a constitutional monarch while having the kingdom of England (or UK) an absolute Monarchy. POD after the signing of the Magna Carta preferred. Bonus points for doing this with a POD after 1800.

I actually did this, or rather the situation developed as I plotted it out, in a TL I'm doing; I'll save the exacts and just provide the basic premise;

France does better in the 100 Years War leading to a more stable held together country coalescing sooner; Scotland in a series of wars (in which it was on the winning side) manages to take a bit of Northern England; during the ATL Reformation France and Scotland both go Protestant (with the French Church developing sort of like the Church of England did) while England remains staunchly Catholic; England loses and wins in a few more wars but never becomes the naval power of OTL, eventually founding a few colonies (though nowhere near as large or as many as OTL); a few Not-Quite-Civil-Wars in England in the 16th and 17th centuries lead to the House of York becoming the Dynasty and the nobility that was'nt loyal being stripped of rank or very much towed and no longer a threat; over time all of this comes together leading to the Monarchy able to grow more powerful, eventually leading to England being an Absolute Monarchy; France, not being founded on proto-nationalism develops along a more quasi-federal nature (think something like the German Empire, just not dominated by one part) and eventually develops into a Constitutional Monarchy as a result.

Charles II has a competent, legitimate son who continues his tactics for another generation.

France might not fight England as often in TTL, but its European ambitions still ultimately drain its treasury and trigger something like the early days of the Revolution, but more moderate -- and handled more reasonably by all concerned.

Making France a constitutional Monachy is relativily easy, just have Louis XVI be more charismatic and be able to steer the National Assembly towards greater freedom for the third estate.

From my reading I have always thought that this was a missed opportunity and prehapse the last chance of retaining a King in France.

The British angle is more difficult, my best guess is that if England stayed Catholic it is far more likely to have remained a absolutist state (after all there was only 110 years between the creation of the Church of England and the English Civil war).

There were no really popular monarchs after Mary II (and her husband was a drag on her popularity) so I can see no way that more power would head to the monarch, but rather the draining of power we see in OTL

Georgie Porgie said:

The British angle is more difficult, my best guess is that if England stayed Catholic it is far more likely to have remained a absolutist state (after all there was only 110 years between the creation of the Church of England and the English Civil war).

There were no really popular monarchs after Mary II (and her husband was a drag on her popularity) so I can see no way that more power would head to the monarch, but rather the draining of power we see in OTL

Click to expand...

Having Catherine of Braganza giving Charles II a bunch of children, including a heir would be a suitable POD. By the time Charles II died in OTL, he had England well on the way to becoming an absolutist state.

Georgie Porgie said:

Making France a constitutional Monachy is relativily easy, just have Louis XVI be more charismatic and be able to steer the National Assembly towards greater freedom for the third estate.

From my reading I have always thought that this was a missed opportunity and prehapse the last chance of retaining a King in France.

Click to expand...

France was a consitutional monarchy for a few years but Louis screwed it up by running

Gurroruo said:

France was a consitutional monarchy for a few years but Louis screwed it up by running

Click to expand...

Not exactly.

Things were more complicated because in fact, the National Assembly and the king were at war with one another.

What differs from England is that the National Assembly had proclaimed that it represented the nation and that as such it was the sovereign. Never in England did you see the Parliament formally declare itself the sovereign instead of the king.

If you don't take this into account, you miss the point on how radical the french revolution was from the start.

So I would say that it's not by fleeing in 1791 that Louis XVI screwed the possibility of a french constitutional monarchy. He screwed it in the years before the revolution because he was incompetent as a ruler.

A better starting point would have been a success of Maupeou's reform.

You could also have Louis XV die young, just a few years after his son's birth. France would go through long years of regency and during these years evolve into a more parliamentary regime because of the need to finance wars.

For England, it's different. You need Charles I to win the civil war.

Matteo said:

Not exactly.

Things were more complicated because in fact, the National Assembly and the king were at war with one another.

What differs from England is that the National Assembly had proclaimed that it represented the nation and that as such it was the sovereign. Never in England did you see the Parliament formally declare itself the sovereign instead of the king.

If you don't take this into account, you miss the point on how radical the french revolution was from the start.

So I would say that it's not by fleeing in 1791 that Louis XVI screwed the possibility of a french constitutional monarchy. He screwed it in the years before the revolution because he was incompetent as a ruler.

A better starting point would have been a success of Maupeou's reform.

You could also have Louis XV die young, just a few years after his son's birth. France would go through long years of regency and during these years evolve into a more parliamentary regime because of the need to finance wars.

For England, it's different. You need Charles I to win the civil war.

Click to expand...

Or as I have said before, Charles II to have a legitimate heir or heirs, in OTL he had a lot of children by women other than his wife.

Matteo said:

For England, it's different. You need Charles I to win the civil war.

Click to expand...

Not just win, but win decisively after a war that is half as long as OTL. He brings in the Irish right away and employs them for retaking London after making the Battle of Edgehill a decisive Royalist victory instead of a standoff. This assumes of course that Parliament adopts much more radical positions at the outset (that offsets the outrage of Charles' employing the Irish), instead of both sides going for moderation as OTL. Putting the Earl of Montrose in charge of the Royalist Army would do wonders, assuming he says yes. If somehow London can be taken by storm (less likely militarily more likely by collapsing morale I admit), the war could end relatively quickly, with Charles master of all he surveyed.

If organized resistance goes on, leading to a long war that the Royalists still win, that only helps Charles to build up his own power base, perhaps to the level of an absolute monarchy. Perhaps not. Post-Magna Carta, England had many kings that could be called absolute monarchs in all but name.