WI: the Comte d'Artois remarries after the Duc de Berry's assassination?

This is something that always struck me as odd. After the assassination of Charles-Ferdinand, Duc de Berry the Bourbons had no heir and even after the Duc de Bordeaux's birth the line was still hanging on a thread. However, during this time no one seemed to consider asking the Comte d'Artios, the future Charles X, to remarry and try to produce another son. Is there any real reason that no one considered it?

I mean yes d'Artois was in his early sixties, but had excellent health and was still considered attractive by many contemporaries. The only thing that I can find involved the supposed vow of perpetual chastity Artois reportedly swore after the death of his mistress, the Comtesse de Polastron, but I have a feeling that Artois could be released/go back on such a vow if necessary.

So my question is this: what if the Comte remarried after his son's death? Who would be the future Queen? Would a young family at all influence Charles X's reign? Would anything really change, other than the Bourbon line potentially continuing? Thoughts?
 
Sad to say, but no. Truth be told, how Charles would act would depend perhaps on who he would marry. Would it change his policies, probably not, but perhaps he would be more willing to defend his entitled birthright in the face of revolutionaries.
 
How about Maria Christina of Two Sicilies in 1824, shortly before coronation (I think the dying wish of his brother the King shall be sufficient final push for Comte to marry). Yes, she's younger sister of his late son's wife (which will make for awkward times at French court), yes, she's every bit as scandalous (see her second marriage), but as Carlist wars showed in OTL, she may be just the woman the French need.
 
Well, as to the who, there are the half-sisters of his Neapolitan daughter-in-law (the duchess of Cadiz and the queen of Spain), several of his late wife's nieces (duchesses of Modena and Parma, queen of Naples and the empress of Austria), the only Parmese princess was the OTL wife of the Prince Regent of Saxony, and the only Saxon princess available was rumored to be so pious that even her Spanish husband despaired at the prospect of an heir.

IDK if a Bavarian princess/Austrian archduchess would be considered (although the idea of Sophie in Paris rather than Vienna could be VERY interesting).

Then from the non-traditional homelands of the queens of France, Joao VI has enough daughters (most of whom died unmarried), Russia offered Anna Pavlovna for Berri, but she's married by now, so maybe one of her half-Russian nieces can step up to the plate (Mecklenburg, Weimar?) and Marianne of the Netherlands is too young in 1820.

As to how this might affect Charles' reign, IDK. Although personalities as strong as the duchess de Cadiz or Archduchess Sophie's might make 1830 happen a lot sooner. So, I think the challenge is really finding a queen who is "sexy" enough (for Charles) to be able to (successfully) walk Charles back from his bad ideas, but apolitical enough that it isn't felt that she dominates him.
 
Sad to say, but no. Truth be told, how Charles would act would depend perhaps on who he would marry. Would it change his policies, probably not, but perhaps he would be more willing to defend his entitled birthright in the face of revolutionaries.

Part of what I was thinking was having his new wife bring out part of Charles's former, pre-revolutionary personality. Before the French revolution d'Artois was known to be very charming and rather popular among some groups. Unfortunately this approachable charming part of his personality had mostly vanished with the death of the Comtesse de Polastron. So I thought a new wife to draw it out could help the King, if only to gain support among the population.

How about Maria Christina of Two Sicilies in 1824, shortly before coronation (I think the dying wish of his brother the King shall be sufficient final push for Comte to marry). Yes, she's younger sister of his late son's wife (which will make for awkward times at French court), yes, she's every bit as scandalous (see her second marriage), but as Carlist wars showed in OTL, she may be just the woman the French need.

I hadn't considered Maria Christina. I was thinking of the marriage happening in 1820/1821, shortly after the death of the Duc de Berry.

Well, as to the who, there are the half-sisters of his Neapolitan daughter-in-law (the duchess of Cadiz and the queen of Spain), several of his late wife's nieces (duchesses of Modena and Parma, queen of Naples and the empress of Austria), the only Parmese princess was the OTL wife of the Prince Regent of Saxony, and the only Saxon princess available was rumored to be so pious that even her Spanish husband despaired at the prospect of an heir.

IDK if a Bavarian princess/Austrian archduchess would be considered (although the idea of Sophie in Paris rather than Vienna could be VERY interesting).

Then from the non-traditional homelands of the queens of France, Joao VI has enough daughters (most of whom died unmarried), Russia offered Anna Pavlovna for Berri, but she's married by now, so maybe one of her half-Russian nieces can step up to the plate (Mecklenburg, Weimar?) and Marianne of the Netherlands is too young in 1820.

As to how this might affect Charles' reign, IDK. Although personalities as strong as the duchess de Cadiz or Archduchess Sophie's might make 1830 happen a lot sooner. So, I think the challenge is really finding a queen who is "sexy" enough (for Charles) to be able to (successfully) walk Charles back from his bad ideas, but apolitical enough that it isn't felt that she dominates him.

My two potentials are Infanta Isabel Maria of Portugal, who OTL never married, and Princess Amalie Auguste of Bavaria, OTL Queen of Johann of Saxony.
 
Not happening. Making an heir at sixty is a hazardous task at best, and one should not forget that Charles X already had an elder son, Louis XIX, who was the Dauphin and still the rightful heir in spite of being impotent. Madame Royale, Louis' wife and Louis XVI's only surviving child, was still very popular and even seen by some monarchists as a last resort for ensuring the Bourbons' legacy, even if it meant throwing the Salic Law away. I think the ultras would be ready to call a member of the Spanish Bourbons instead of giving to the liberal Orléans (even if they were the family next in line in case of the end of the French main line). Or even the Parma line? The little Duchy of Parma was the only one not to recgonize the House of Orléans' rule.
 
An interesting thing here is that this isn't a situation like after the death of Princess Charlotte, where you know if you marry the British prince your kid has a good chance of being on the English throne. The duc de Bordeaux is healthy and ahead of any son that Charles has by his new wife. That combined with Charles being in his 60s is probably going to deter the *most* eligible young princesses. Not that he couldn't find someone, but I doubt a Russian or Austrian match is terribly likely.
 
Not happening. Making an heir at sixty is a hazardous task at best, and one should not forget that Charles X already had an elder son, Louis XIX, who was the Dauphin and still the rightful heir in spite of being impotent. Madame Royale, Louis' wife and Louis XVI's only surviving child, was still very popular and even seen by some monarchists as a last resort for ensuring the Bourbons' legacy, even if it meant throwing the Salic Law away. I think the ultras would be ready to call a member of the Spanish Bourbons instead of giving to the liberal Orléans (even if they were the family next in line in case of the end of the French main line). Or even the Parma line? The little Duchy of Parma was the only one not to recgonize the House of Orléans' rule.

OK none of that solves the succession crisis. The Dauphin and Dauphine had no children, so there's no heir coming from that branch. Second, legally the Houses of Spain, the Two Sicilies and Parma (in that order) had no right to the French throne thanks to the Treaty of Utrecht. While the legality of the renunciation remains in doubt even today (whether or not Felipe V could renounce his descendants rights and whether or not that violated the Fundamental laws of the Kingdom) during the Restoration and afterwards the elder branch of the Bourbons never made statement on the Borbóns rights one way or the other.

Third, there have been several examples in history of a King fathering a child late in life. Look at the list of Louis XV's unacknowledged illegitimate children, as a close example. Several of those children were born when the King was in his late 50s. Not to mention Pope Alexander VI, who fathered a daughter with his mistress when he was in his early 60s and Giovanni Borgia (Infans Romanus) in 1498, when he was in his late 60s. So clearly age wouldn't stop Charles from being able to father an heir, especially when one considers his health was quite excellent.

An interesting thing here is that this isn't a situation like after the death of Princess Charlotte, where you know if you marry the British prince your kid has a good chance of being on the English throne. The duc de Bordeaux is healthy and ahead of any son that Charles has by his new wife. That combined with Charles being in his 60s is probably going to deter the *most* eligible young princesses. Not that he couldn't find someone, but I doubt a Russian or Austrian match is terribly likely.

True, your child might not take the throne but the Princess would still be the future Queen of France, a not unattractive prospect. Not to mention Charles wasn't bad looking. While Princesses might not be lining up to be the second Comtesse d'Artois, some will be interested, along with their families.
 
OK none of that solves the succession crisis. The Dauphin and Dauphine had no children, so there's no heir coming from that branch. Second, legally the Houses of Spain, the Two Sicilies and Parma (in that order) had no right to the French throne thanks to the Treaty of Utrecht. While the legality of the renunciation remains in doubt even today (whether or not Felipe V could renounce his descendants rights and whether or not that violated the Fundamental laws of the Kingdom) during the Restoration and afterwards the elder branch of the Bourbons never made statement on the Borbóns rights one way or the other.

My understanding was that both Louis XVIII and Charles X made statements suggesting that they understood the duc d'Orléans to be next in line after the duc de Bordeaux. Not any formal acknowledgement or anything, but certainly a broad feeling that this would be inevitable. Who, besides the most ultra of ultras, would want Ferdinand VII as King?

Even in OTL, with the memory of Louis Philippe's betrayal, and with a much smaller and more extreme group of Legitimists, the vast majority of them accepted the comte de Paris as their candidate after 1883. Only a derisory number of loons backed the Count of Montizón. The restored Bourbons are dependent on a much broader swathe of support than even those who remained Legitimists in 1830, much less the post-1883 Blancs d'Espagne. Most obviously, they're dependent on an army largely led by Bonapartist officers. Assuming no miracle baby or remarriage by Charles X, I don't see how you don't end up with the orderly succession of the House of Orléans. The Legitimists weren't even strong enough to get Chambord on the throne after 1830. Assuming we butterfly the July Revolution and see the elder line die out in 1844 with Angoulême, how on earth are the Ultra-Ultras going to manage to get anyone else to back a defeated Spanish pretender for the French throne ahead of Louis Philippe?
 
Last edited:
OK we're getting off topic. Any thoughts on the proposed idea of Charles X remarrying?

It would be interesting if only to see the ramifications should there be another spare heir (after the Duke of Bordeaux/Chambord). Louis-Phillipe really hungered for the throne (and young Henri's birth stymied him - temporarily) but if history still plays out the same and Chambord has a half-uncle heir (possibly with sons) I think we could see a very different version of 1873 and that Chambord WOULD make concessions and compromises for a restoration of HIS family. I have always thought that Chambord acted as he did because he knew that since he would have no kids, any acceptance of compromise for the throne would only in the end benefit the next in line - the loathed Orleans, who not only were the descendants of Egalitie, had not only kept him from the throne as a child, but had exiled for a second time his beloved grandfather and aunt (Madame Royale, who he looked to more as a mother than his own). Why do anything to give THEM a throne. But if there was another direct line Bourbon - say a potential Charles XI - I think the last chance for a Restoration in the 1870s might have gone differently.
 
It would be interesting if only to see the ramifications should there be another spare heir (after the Duke of Bordeaux/Chambord). Louis-Phillipe really hungered for the throne (and young Henri's birth stymied him - temporarily) but if history still plays out the same and Chambord has a half-uncle heir (possibly with sons) I think we could see a very different version of 1873 and that Chambord WOULD make concessions and compromises for a restoration of HIS family. I have always thought that Chambord acted as he did because he knew that since he would have no kids, any acceptance of compromise for the throne would only in the end benefit the next in line - the loathed Orleans, who not only were the descendants of Egalitie, had not only kept him from the throne as a child, but had exiled for a second time his beloved grandfather and aunt (Madame Royale, who he looked to more as a mother than his own). Why do anything to give THEM a throne. But if there was another direct line Bourbon - say a potential Charles XI - I think the last chance for a Restoration in the 1870s might have gone differently.

Actually I'm not sure about Louis-Philippe. While I'm not one to defend the Orléanists by any means, from what I've read recently it seems that his sister Madame Adelaide was the driving force behind the usurpation. But I'm off topic.

I think having an assured elder Bourbon line would definitely have profound changes on the Legitimist movement and on the Comte de Chambord. For instance, we could see Chambord as an older Pretender figure and his half uncle(s) as similar to the young pretender, more taking action than waiting to be restored. After all, a more take charge Legitimist movement could have restored Henri V in 1848 instead of seeing Napoleon III come to power. Or like you said come 1871/1873 we could see a restoration by National assembly, assuming that they have enough Legitimist votes without the need for the Orléanists.

But my main thought was to have Charles X keep the throne in 1830, not have a restoration later. A French Theodora could get Charles to stand against his Nike riots and potentially save the Dynasty's throne.
 
Is there any real reason that no one considered it?

Remarriage possible but, however, it is not occurred.
There is something that we do not know.
Something that we do not know more.

Interrogated, Louis Pierre Louvel, the murderess, had said that he had «thought and meditated on the project for several years», that he had «no personal enmity against his victim [the Duke of Berry]», that his purpose was «to eradicate the stump of the Bourbons» (because in fact it, at that time, the main branch did not have a direct male heir) called by him during the process «cette race de traîtres».
Chateaubriand wrote that «he had wanted to kill the entire race at one time».
Now, why Louvel, who has declared that he has meditated the project for several years, has assassinated equally the Duke of Berry?
Why he did not consider the possibility that the Count of Artois, who
had excellent health and was still considered attractive by many contemporaries
, could remarry and generate a new heir?
And why the Count of Artois did not consider the possibility to remarry and generate a new heir?
For example, the Grand Duke of Tuscany Ferdinand III in 1821, after twenty years of widowhood, decided to remarry and he chose the sister of his daughter-in-law because his heir Leopold had not yet produced a male heir and the direct succession was at risk.
There is something that we do not know...

after the Duc de Bordeaux's birth the line was still hanging on a thread
, but for his uniqueness the child grew under a strenuous attention from everyone, even the "enemies" who have always afraid of being blamed for every possible problem of the royal child: for example the Duke of Orléans said: «at the first colic [of the Duke of Bordeaux], I would be accused of having poisoned him» (Guy Antonetti).

The age of the Count of Artois, in principle, could be not a problem; for example one of the daughters of Charles de Rohan (1765-1843), Prince de Rochefort [and brother of Charlotte of Rohan, the "secret wife" of the Duke of Enghien], Hermine (1785-1843), married in 1809 Gabriel Joseph de Froment Fromentès (1747-1826) and has had three daughter: the last, Charlotte, was born in 1822, when Gabriel de Froment has seventy-five years, and there is no doubt that he was the father.
But, contrariwise, the age of the Count of Artois could be the problem: Louvel has acted because he knew that the Count of Artois could not have more children?

We have already discussed here the fact that, probably in reality, the problem of succession for the Comte d'Artois was not a real problem, and that he had already provided a "fallback solution" with the Duke of Orléans, and about the distinction between "famille et maison" and "Couronne" of France.

The suggestion of a marriage with a Russian princess can be fascinating, but as we wrote here and Valena here, would be very difficult for the difference of faith.

The question is whether the Count of Artois, in the choice of a bride who most likely would prove useless, being him unable reasonably to generate heirs, if would have limited the choice only to the families, as was written by Talleyrand, deemed "worthy" (Bourbon and Habsburg, and at most Savoy and Saxony), or if he would have looked even princesses from families "inferior", but always Catholic...
 

One case and not in a reigning family :rolleyes:
«One coincidence is just a coincidence. Two coincidences are a clue. Three coincidences are a proof»:D:D:D

For that matter, the conversion to Catholicism was not strictly necessary: the Holy See would also have granted the wife to maintain her faith, as long as the children were raised in the Catholic faith.
But «The First Daughter of the Church» [the France] with a queen not Catholic..., bah!, we see this difficult :cool::)
 
One case and not in a reigning family :rolleyes:
«One coincidence is just a coincidence. Two coincidences are a clue. Three coincidences are a proof»:D:D:D

For that matter, the conversion to Catholicism was not strictly necessary: the Holy See would also have granted the wife to maintain her faith, as long as the children were raised in the Catholic faith.
But «The First Daughter of the Church» [the France] with a queen not Catholic..., bah!, we see this difficult :cool::)

True, but while many in Europe were uncomfortable with the July Monarchy, no one kicked up too much of a fuss when the Prince Royal married a Protestant who didn't convert. Napoléon III proposed to Victoria's niece (a princess of Schleswig-Holstein-something) who was likewise a Protestant (though IDK if conversion would've been part of the marriage contract, it certainly wasn't for Hélène de Mecklembourg AFAIK). Louis Philippe said to a minister: "as to religion, you believe it is nothing, the Carlists believe it is everything, and as for myself, I find it to be neither here nor there". Hell, his daughter the queen of the Belgians wrote that "we have nothing to prove by allying ourselves with the house of Lorraine [Austria]" and that she would prefer to see her brother married to a plain, sensible girl from Waldeck or Lippe (both Protestant states AFAIK).

As to Maria Nikolaïevna's marriage being an anomaly, her sister Olga was mentioned as a possible wife for the future Max II of Bavaria or Archduke Stephen of Austria, Palatine of Hungary (both Catholic marriages)
 
"possibility" does not mean "credibility"

Reaffirm: appears to us very difficult that a Catholic king of France would decided to marry a non-Catholic and the main branch of the Bourbons is different to the junior branch of the Orléans, also and especially for ideas: it's no correct to compare the choices made after 1830 by the July Monarchy (or by the Second Empire) with what could have made the Legitimate Monarchy in 1820.
The Europe post 1830 is very different from the pre-1830 Europe, because again marked by revolutions :cool:
Reaffirm: the Holy See would also have granted to the wife to maintain her faith, but for the marriage contract, the children would be raised in the Catholic faith.

Beyond the fact that Grand Duchess Maria Nikolaevna of Russia not married a reigning king but a prince of a inferior rank [and for this reason the family have could stay to live under the protective wing (and profitable) of the Czar], citing the same wikipedia, «[Maximilian's] mother Princess Augusta of Bavaria in particular, was against this marriage» and again «his mother feared that his descendants, brought up in the Orthodox faith, would be completely Russified». And the children of the couple have married protestants or Orthodox or relatives of the Russian imperial family.
The (new) reigning House of Bavaria [Zweibrücken-Birkenfeld] has never considered a problem the interfaith marriages, if they had brought advantageous dynastic connections. Maximilian Joseph, when he was only an obscure prince cadet and a military in the French army, married firstly a lutheran princess of a cadet branch of the House of Hesse-Darmstadt, because this branch was bound by close ties of friendship with the Queen of France Marie Antoinette (her elder brothers and sisters were very good and close friends of the Queen since her childhood in Vienna): a wedding, therefore, desired for the connexions which provided. Maximilian Joseph, when he was Duke of Zweibrücken and only heir of the Electorate of Bavaria and the Palatinate, married secondly with a lutheran princess of Baden (and a close relative of his first wife) for the same reason, the connexions: the Csar Alexander I of Russia, and then, the king Gustav IV Adolf of Sweden.
Maximilian's son, Ludwig, married quickly Therese of Saxe-Hildburghausen even though she was Lutheran and has always refused to convert to Catholicism, because Ludwig was afraid to follow the fate of his sister Augusta, who had been forced to marry the Napoleon's stepson Eugène de Beauharnais: «I need to marry me. Once that is done, these attacks on my freedom from Paris will no longer be made»; Maximilian himself advised his son to choose a princess of Saxe-Hildburghausen: «One of the princesses of Hildburghausen [...] would be loving, kind and sweet and could become an excellent wife. Of course, the dowry will be small [the ancestors of the princess had brought brink of bankruptcy the duchy, with their excessive spending, so as to oblige the Emperor Joseph II to form, in 1769, an Imperial Commission time to handle the refund of amounts borrowed. The Commission ceased to operate only in 1806, without have fully tidied the financial condition of the family] [...], but it would be a marriage politically harmless». And Therese was first cousins once removed of Ludwig.
Not surprising that Maximilian II married a Prussian princess: in the mid-1800s, it was celebrating the funeral of the Ancien Régime.
Stephen of Austria, Palatine of Hungary, had all the possibilities to marry a woman of other faith: his father had married firstly Aleksandra Pavlovna of Russia, but she maintained her Orthodox faith; the Stephen's mother came from a Protestant family, and her cousin, also she coming from a Protestant family, married a brother of Stephen's father.
But the branch of the the Palatine of Hungary or the branch of the Dukes of Teschen were not a reigning families.
But, in the reality, Stephen never married.

And then, a "marriage proposal" is different from a real marriage: the first is an idea, often developed during a certain state policy and proposed in order to benefit a certain political condition; the second is reality.
In the panorama of the "marriage proposals", Philip V of Spain proposed his son Charles (future king Charles III) as husband for Maria Theresa of Austria; the Duke Francis III of Modena conducted negotiations for the marriage of his granddaughter Maria Beatrice Ricciarda, unbeknownst to of the same girl's father, with one son of king George II of Great Britain (because Este and Hanover-Brunswick were branches of the same House of Welf); the Czar Peter the Great proposed her daugther Elisabeth as wife for the young Louis XV; Caroline of Ansbach, wife of George II, before was proposed as wife for the Arciduke Charles, brother of the Emperor Joseph I and "one" of the kings of Spain, etc.; some of the most illustrious "marriage proposals", fascinating for a novel, but in reality they did not find a way to realize.
"Credibility", a close relative of "reality", often shatters the idea more fascinating.

My observation was only that "possibility" does not mean "credibility" of a thing and, therefore, its potential "reality" and "feasibility" :)
 
Remarriage possible but, however, it is not occurred.
There is something that we do not know.
Something that we do not know more.

Interrogated, Louis Pierre Louvel, the murderess, had said that he had «thought and meditated on the project for several years», that he had «no personal enmity against his victim [the Duke of Berry]», that his purpose was «to eradicate the stump of the Bourbons» (because in fact it, at that time, the main branch did not have a direct male heir) called by him during the process «cette race de traîtres».
Chateaubriand wrote that «he had wanted to kill the entire race at one time».
Now, why Louvel, who has declared that he has meditated the project for several years, has assassinated equally the Duke of Berry?
Why he did not consider the possibility that the Count of Artois, who , could remarry and generate a new heir?
And why the Count of Artois did not consider the possibility to remarry and generate a new heir?
For example, the Grand Duke of Tuscany Ferdinand III in 1821, after twenty years of widowhood, decided to remarry and he chose the sister of his daughter-in-law because his heir Leopold had not yet produced a male heir and the direct succession was at risk.
There is something that we do not know...

, but for his uniqueness the child grew under a strenuous attention from everyone, even the "enemies" who have always afraid of being blamed for every possible problem of the royal child: for example the Duke of Orléans said: «at the first colic [of the Duke of Bordeaux], I would be accused of having poisoned him» (Guy Antonetti).

The age of the Count of Artois, in principle, could be not a problem; for example one of the daughters of Charles de Rohan (1765-1843), Prince de Rochefort [and brother of Charlotte of Rohan, the "secret wife" of the Duke of Enghien], Hermine (1785-1843), married in 1809 Gabriel Joseph de Froment Fromentès (1747-1826) and has had three daughter: the last, Charlotte, was born in 1822, when Gabriel de Froment has seventy-five years, and there is no doubt that he was the father.
But, contrariwise, the age of the Count of Artois could be the problem: Louvel has acted because he knew that the Count of Artois could not have more children?

We have already discussed here the fact that, probably in reality, the problem of succession for the Comte d'Artois was not a real problem, and that he had already provided a "fallback solution" with the Duke of Orléans, and about the distinction between "famille et maison" and "Couronne" of France.

The suggestion of a marriage with a Russian princess can be fascinating, but as we wrote here and Valena here, would be very difficult for the difference of faith.

The question is whether the Count of Artois, in the choice of a bride who most likely would prove useless, being him unable reasonably to generate heirs, if would have limited the choice only to the families, as was written by Talleyrand, deemed "worthy" (Bourbon and Habsburg, and at most Savoy and Saxony), or if he would have looked even princesses from families "inferior", but always Catholic...

First off, he assassinated the Duc de Berry because he was the only Bourbon married to a fertile wife. There's no proof one way or the other that the Comte d'Artois couldn't father another child. I think that his lack of remarriage had more to do with his vow of chastity he took after the death of the Comtesse de Polastron then any medical problems.

Second, how could Louvel know whether or not the Comte could father an heir? He wasn't a government official, he had no ties to the court and no hidden medical knowledge. He made an assumption, nothing more and nothing less.

Finally, I don't understand what the problem with brides would actually be. There were several available Catholic Princesses in the 1820s that were high enough ranked to become Queen of France; several Infantas of Portugal, at least three Archduchesses of Austria, a Princess of Bavaria and no doubt others I'm forgetting.

I posted about Catholic to Orthodox conversion being really hard to obtain, the other way (Orthodox princess marrying a Catholic) has been done OTL:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Grand_Duchess_Maria_Nikolaevna_of_Russia_(1819–1876)

Actually, from what I've found, its not. In The Comte de Chambord by Martin Brown Jr. (the only English bio I can find on Chambord) there was several attempts to marry the Comte to a Russian Grand Duchess, either Olga Nikolaevna or Elizabeth Mikhailovna. During the negotiations Tsar Nicholas I made remarkable concessions, only wanting an Orthodox wedding, with the understanding that the bride could convert after they were married.

So if a Russian marriage was to happen, clearly the Imperial Court was willing to allow their Grand Duchess to make the conversion to Catholicism that would be considered necessary by the Bourbons.

True, but while many in Europe were uncomfortable with the July Monarchy, no one kicked up too much of a fuss when the Prince Royal married a Protestant who didn't convert. Napoléon III proposed to Victoria's niece (a princess of Schleswig-Holstein-something) who was likewise a Protestant (though IDK if conversion would've been part of the marriage contract, it certainly wasn't for Hélène de Mecklembourg AFAIK). Louis Philippe said to a minister: "as to religion, you believe it is nothing, the Carlists believe it is everything, and as for myself, I find it to be neither here nor there". Hell, his daughter the queen of the Belgians wrote that "we have nothing to prove by allying ourselves with the house of Lorraine [Austria]" and that she would prefer to see her brother married to a plain, sensible girl from Waldeck or Lippe (both Protestant states AFAIK).

As to Maria Nikolaïevna's marriage being an anomaly, her sister Olga was mentioned as a possible wife for the future Max II of Bavaria or Archduke Stephen of Austria, Palatine of Hungary (both Catholic marriages)

This is a really bad example. Maybe no one made a public objection, but the heir to the throne of France marrying an unimportant Protestant Princess from a minor German state was basically the ultimate humiliation, even if the Orléans tried to spin it differently. They acted like it was their choice to have the future Queen be a Protestant, but it was really because all the Royal houses that traditionally provided her said no.

If anything that marriage would have been another mark against the usurpers in many circles. Héléne wasn't popular at all among the French and I think her religion did have something to do with it.

As to the Russian marriages, that's true. But there's a big difference between marrying a non-reigning Prince or the King of a German state and becoming an Orthodox Queen of France or Spain or Empress of Austria. The major Catholic nations would need her to convert.
 
Top