Could the Bourbon Restoration last?

I am pretty new to ah.com, though not to alternate history itself. I've been thinking of creating my own timeline.

While I was brainstorming ideas, this thought occurred tome: Could the Bourbon Restoration last? After Napoleon was defeated, the Bourbons regained control of France (except for the Hundred Days). In 1830, there was another revolution, effectively ending Bourbon rule over France forever. Was it possible for the Bourbons to hold onto France for much longer than that? IIRC, the Bourbons reformed the navy and army after they came back to power, became a constitutional monarchy, and made France rather powerful again (for a short period, of course). Would whether or not having the Hundred Days affect Bourbon power? What are your thoughts?

Maybe Charles can die before his brother, and his son could take over? Maybe Louis would be able to moderate and avoid antagonizing the populace as much.

Difficultly.
Bourbons never became really popular in the army, something that is always a problem in rebolutionnary eras, mostly because they cut it in 1815.

Politically, their reforms were too half-assed to really please anyone, including themselves.
Allow me to point one mistake in your post : the Chart, while constitutional, wasn't really a constitution, and Restauration was more close to a parlementarian monarchy as UK.

The Chart was indeed granted by the royal power, making royalists (except ultras thar wanted a return to pre-revolutionnary principles) arguing that the king was superior politically to the text; while doctrinaires argued of a dual power, and liberals superiority of the Charte and parlementarian power.

Right from the beggining, we have institutions that are heavily debated.

It doesn't help ultra-royalistes (reactionnary faction) was extremly dominant in court. Louis XVIII more or less understood he had to balance that, but even his son was raised (as a good part of former émigrés) in the trauma of the revolution, of the exile and never really managed to get over it at the exception of the whole population they ruled, including the Parliment that went more liberal in the 20's.

Even if for some reason Charles X grows the brain that he lacked since 1789, or if Louis grows the spine he always lacked, or if a skilled Bourbon takes the throne, they would have still to face economical crisis of the 20's.
This was really important, industrially but as well agriculturally (making a rural support for Bourbons harder to get)

Reject of part of population to begin with, blurry institution without real enthusiasm about it, economical generalized crisis, intellectual dominance of far-rightism in royal political elites and their opposition to parlementarian elites.

That's a lot to overcome.

So the Bourbons were doomed from the start of their restoration, huh? It definitely seems to be possible to overcome, but it seems like it would take a genius and national hero to pull it off- the likes of Napoleon or Frederick would be needed to have the Bourbons be successful, it seems.

For the timeline that I'm still working on, do you think it would be too hard to pull this off without ASB elements, or do you think there's something I can try to plausibly make the Bourbons the successful rulers they once were?

danfrancisko said:

So the Bourbons were doomed from the start of their restoration, huh?

Click to expand...

It's less the Restauration itself, they began with some potential, but the condition of this Restauration to begin with. There's reasons if Cent-Jours happened, and especially if Napoléon return in France was a walk in the park when it came to difficulties.

But it seems like it would take a genius and national hero to pull it off- the likes of Napoleon or Frederick would be needed to have the Bourbons be successful, it seems.

Click to expand...

Maybe not a genius, but someone less focused on a faction. Heck, even someone realist as Louis-Philippe (whom "genius" is certainly not the dominant trait) could do it.
The problem, again, is that almost all Bourbons were raised in a dichotomal vision of the royal power, either strong and based on tradition, or collapsing.

Even the Charte of 1815 was based on this principle : everything that happened between 1789 and 1815 was null and void. Men of 1789, trying to implement a policy from 1775, on a population of 1815.
It had to backfire some way or another.

or do you think there's something I can try to plausibly make the Bourbons the successful rulers they once were?

Click to expand...

I don't think so, or only trough a series of changes. As pointed above, the fall of Bourbons was the conjonction of both inner issues (whom they were partially responsibles) and external (again, the economical crisis).

It may be not impossible to do, strictly speaking, but I don't see howpersonally.
At the very best, you'd end with a ceremonial Bourbon king with a lieutenant-général ruling with the Parliment (and giving Orléans popularity and closeness to the throne, they would be prime candidates to both this post and replacement in case of a political crisis).

I see. In the end, it sounds like too much of a hassle to write about. In that case, what do you think could have been done earlier in the 18th century to prevent the fall of the Bourbons at all? I know this post is about the Bourbon Restoration, but is there anything you think that could have helped the Bourbons stay in power and be relatively successful? Perhaps a victory in the Seven Years War or more decisive actions in the American Revolutionary War leading to better terms for France?

danfrancisko said:

For the timeline that I'm still working on, do you think it would be too hard to pull this off without ASB elements, or do you think there's something I can try to plausibly make the Bourbons the successful rulers they once were?

Click to expand...

If you don't mind waiting until the 1870's all you have to do is have Henri of Artois, Count of Chambord accept the Tricolor as the French national flag. Seriously, the royalists had a majority in the national assembly, and the Legitimist's and Orléanists had reached a compromise on the succession. The only reason the monarchy wasn't restored is because Henri refused to accept the crown unless France abandoned the Tricolor flag.

I'm serious he refused to become king of one of the most powerful states in Europe because he didn't like the nations flag.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Henri,_Count_of_Chambord

Valin Arcadius said:

If you don't mind waiting until the 1870's all you have to do is have Henri of Artois, Count of Chambord accept the Tricolor as the French national flag. Seriously, the royalists had a majority in the national assembly, and the Legitimist's and Orléanists had reached a compromise on the succession. The only reason the monarchy wasn't restored is because Henri refused to accept the crown unless France abandoned the Tricolor flag.

I'm serious he refused to become king of one of the most powerful states in Europe because he didn't like the nations flag.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Henri,_Count_of_Chambord

Click to expand...

Damn!
If he accepted it, then that'd be Kingdom of France vis-a-vis Empire of Germany? Wouldn't republicanism in the Old World be blunted, then? Well, if the Great War happens as OTL, USA would demand republics and stuffs, but seeing as one of the great republic of Europe is currently a Kingdom again.

Valin Arcadius said:

If you don't mind waiting until the 1870's all you have to do is have Henri of Artois, Count of Chambord accept the Tricolor as the French national flag. Seriously, the royalists had a majority in the national assembly, and the Legitimist's and Orléanists had reached a compromise on the succession. The only reason the monarchy wasn't restored is because Henri refused to accept the crown unless France abandoned the Tricolor flag.

I'm serious he refused to become king of one of the most powerful states in Europe because he didn't like the nations flag.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Henri,_Count_of_Chambord

Click to expand...

I always get sad when I think about this. It provides such an amazing POD that could change the future of Europe so much, but I absolutely despise the 20th century and the few decades before it. Breech-loaded rifles, tanks and submarines are not my forte.

My specific question though, is if France under the Bourbons can thrive, prosper, and become more successful than its OTL counterparts with a POD ranging from all the way back in the 1600's to the 1810's at the latest.

Valin Arcadius said:

Seriously, the royalists had a majority in the national assembly, and the Legitimist's and Orléanists had reached a compromise on the succession.

Click to expand...

Compromise on succession didn't meant they put away their deep political differences.
Orleanists were more liberals, while Legitimists were far more reactionnary.
They were far from being united, Orleanist being seen as regicid and revolutionnaries-lite by Legitimists, and Legitimists being seen as reactionnary idiots by Orleanists.

There was as much union between them because they were royalists, than Republicans and Democrats because they aren't.
So, yes, they tried to compromise. But the whole flag affair is a symptom of how it failed (Chambord never agreeing on encountering Orleans, for example), not the whole case.
Right after 1871, they were back to insult each other.

As for the assembly, counting with the complementary elections (1870 elections didn't managed to fill all the seats of the assembly), you have :
- 223 Republicans
- 23 Bonapartists
- 98 Liberals (non-monarchists)
- 214 Orleanists
- 182 Legitimists

A majority of royalists, while again extremly divided, but not representing that of a crushing presence (mostly due to low turn-out of 40%, and to german occupation).

And even if by some miracle, Henri decides to suddenly change of personality, giving the really low monarchist presence in 1876 (75% turn out) with 64 Orleanists and Legitimists, he would be out as fast you could say "guillotine".

The only reason the monarchy wasn't restored is because Henri refused to accept the crown unless France abandoned the Tricolor flag.

Click to expand...

It's more of an anecdote than the real cause. It's basically overlooking the aforementioned political differences.
And even that is a quick summary : develloping a bit the anecdote Orleaniststried to make a political campaign about how Henri said, we sware, that he accepted the tricolour flag.

That is, until Henri saying "Hell no, you idiots".

Again, I've to stress Bourbons were raised in the trauma of the French Revolution. Accepting the tricolour flag would have been like Ronald Reagan accepting the CPUSA flag. It's not because he didn't liked the colour, but because it implied a whole political program and the acceptance of the revolutionnary process.

LSCatilina said:

Again, I've to stress Bourbons were raised in the trauma of the French Revolution. Accepting the tricolour flag would have been like Ronald Reagan accepting the CPUSA flag. It's not because he didn't liked the colour, but because it implied a whole political program and the acceptance of the revolutionnary process.

Click to expand...

Though if you think about it, the French tricolor makes absolute perfect sense for a constitutional monarchy. (as long as its before the Napoleonic Wars). The white represents the royalty while the blue and the red represent Paris, or in other words the people. I'm actually planning for France's flag to switch to the tricolor in my TL once they become a constitutional monarchy. Of course, I still have to figure out a good POD!

Like I said earlier, perhaps a French victory in the SYW or more decisive French victories in the ARW leading to better terms for France? Maybe even other events that happened earlier in the 1700's, like something happening during the reign of the Sun King.

danfrancisko said:

So the Bourbons were doomed from the start of their restoration, huh? It definitely seems to be possible to overcome, but it seems like it would take a genius and national hero to pull it off- the likes of Napoleon or Frederick would be needed to have the Bourbons be successful, it seems.

For the timeline that I'm still working on, do you think it would be too hard to pull this off without ASB elements, or do you think there's something I can try to plausibly make the Bourbons the successful rulers they once were?

Click to expand...

It's super hard

danfrancisko said:

I see. In the end, it sounds like too much of a hassle to write about. In that case, what do you think could have been done earlier in the 18th century to prevent the fall of the Bourbons at all? I know this post is about the Bourbon Restoration, but is there anything you think that could have helped the Bourbons stay in power and be relatively successful? Perhaps a victory in the Seven Years War or more decisive actions in the American Revolutionary War leading to better terms for France?

Click to expand...

danfrancisko said:

Though if you think about it, the French tricolor makes absolute perfect sense for a constitutional monarchy. (as long as its before the Napoleonic Wars). The white represents the royalty while the blue and the red represent Paris, or in other words the people. I'm actually planning for France's flag to switch to the tricolor in my TL once they become a constitutional monarchy. Of course, I still have to figure out a good POD!

Like I said earlier, perhaps a French victory in the SYW or more decisive French victories in the ARW leading to better terms for France? Maybe even other events that happened earlier in the 1700's, like something happening during the reign of the Sun King.

Click to expand...

Choice A: Serious reforms following 7YW (doesn't matter who wins)
Choice B: Lafayette is a success. Lafayette held lots of power and at one point was the most powerful man in France. He appeased both the royalists and the mobs with his amazing speeches and ideas. he also wrote the Rights of Man of the Citizen and designed the national flag (originally for the National Guard). He had actually set up a constitutional monarchy that could have survived, but Louis decided to be a dick and screw it all up repeatedly. So basically shut down Louis (don't kill) and make his voice very small, then Lafayette can rule and stablise the nation.

Gurroruo said:

It's super hard



Choice A: Serious reforms following 7YW (doesn't matter who wins)
Choice B: Lafayette is a success. Lafayette held lots of power and at one point was the most powerful man in France. He appeased both the royalists and the mobs with his amazing speeches and ideas. he also wrote the Rights of Man of the Citizen and designed the national flag (originally for the National Guard). He had actually set up a constitutional monarchy that could have survived, but Louis decided to be a dick and screw it all up repeatedly. So basically shut down Louis (don't kill) and make his voice very small, then Lafayette can rule and stablise the nation.

Click to expand...

Choice B sounds very interesting. So you're basically saying, find a way to reduce Louis and turn him into a figurehead, while Lafayette is the "true" ruler? Something along the lines of that, I suppose?

For Choice A, what kind of reforms are you talking about here?

danfrancisko said:

Choice B sounds very interesting. So you're basically saying, find a way to reduce Louis and turn him into a figurehead, while Lafayette is the "true" ruler? Something along the lines of that, I suppose?

For Choice A, what kind of reforms are you talking about here?

Click to expand...

Choice B: Lafayette was the true ruler, but Louis was able to still do stupid stuff that pissed off everyone, so basically shut him down so he can't

Choice A: Lots of economic returns were needed

Gurroruo said:

Choice B: Lafayette was the true ruler, but Louis was able to still do stupid stuff that pissed off everyone, so basically shut him down so he can't

Choice A: Lots of economic returns were needed

Click to expand...

I do highly appreciate your input. So let me have a bit more clarification. If Louis can be shut down and not allowed to make idiotic decisions like he did IOTL, Lafayette can pull all the strings, and the Bourbons can continue ruling France as a constitutional monarchy instead of falling into a long period of war against all of Europe?

danfrancisko said:

I do highly appreciate your input. So let me have a bit more clarification. If Louis can be shut down and not allowed to make idiotic decisions like he did IOTL, Lafayette can pull all the strings, and the Bourbons can continue ruling France as a constitutional monarchy instead of falling into a long period of war against all of Europe?

Click to expand...

Yeah it would also keep the American-French Alliance.

A nice book is Lafayette by Harlow Giles Unger, published by John Wiley & Sons Inc.

Gurroruo said:

Yeah it would also keep the American-French Alliance.

A nice book is Lafayette by Harlow Giles Unger, published by John Wiley & Sons Inc.

Click to expand...

I see. I'll have to find some time to read it some day. Thank you very much for your input, it will help me greatly.

Lafayette was far from ruling France between 1789 and 1791 (nobody "ruled" alone then, it was a mix of parlementarian and factional ruling). That's probably what wanted to think monarchists, as it allowed to just ignore the deep social issues by pointing out "Cromwell", but it didn't work like that.

First, Lafayette was considered too close of the royal family by many, especially after Varennes (and the whole "No, we sware, he didn't fleed : he was kidnapped!" stuff) but even before, his actions against mobs in 90/91 significantly eroded his popular support, to say nothing of the Fusillade du Champs de Mars.

Then, he was too opposed to the royal family (his opposition to the Count of Provence, for example) to be credible for royalists, including Louis XVI.

Eventually, he drowned with the rest of Feuillants (as Barnave), unable to impose themselves on critical matters as the war, destroying their best efforts to maintain the fiction of a king working with the Assembly.

Too much of a centrist and opportunist (not negativly, but he basically tried to support both sides in the same time, playing balance on a growing gap) to be a credible strong man. I can't think of anyone having the possibility to do that after 1789, to be honest. Napoléon did, but at the cost of an extremly authoritarian policy and after 10 years of revolutionnary wars and growing importance of the army.

This is assuming that Napoleon doesn't escape Elba and return to France, then perhaps it could have. But you have to remember the Bourbon that was restored knew very little about what he was actually doing and Napoleon's prosperous France was driven into economic depression and the pre-Revolution France was restored. It is possible that a second French Revolution would have begun because the idea of Republic was already deep in the minds of the French people.

TheBrunswickian said:

This is assuming that Napoleon doesn't escape Elba and return to France, then perhaps it could have. But you have to remember the Bourbon that was restored knew very little about what he was actually doing and Napoleon's prosperous France was driven into economic depression and the pre-Revolution France was restored. It is possible that a second French Revolution would have begun because the idea of Republic was already deep in the minds of the French people.

Click to expand...

That is indeed a problem I noticed. Adding on to what I said earlier about the tricolor being a perfect flag for a constitutional France without the Napoleonic Wars, the Napoleonic Wars definitely changed France forever. But as discussed earlier, I'm sure it was possible to have the Bourbons be successful rulers again, just that it would be extremely difficult. Which is why I started to think about earlier changes to France to ensure there is never even a need for a restoration.