AHC: Most powerful Bourbon monarchy to survive the French Revolution?

[Socrates]

With a POD not before 1750, what is the most powerful Bourbon monarchy that could survive the French Revolution? Could it even be strengthened via a weakened nobility and church?

[Georgie Porgie]

Since the Bourbon's returned after Napoleon was defeated the strenght of the throne will be dependant on the state the country was left in.

With the 100 Days then the throne would be much stronger certainly, so my POD would involve Napoleon not leaving Elba.

[Clandango]

Try having the Spanish Bourbons do what the Portuguese Braganzas did. Head to the colonies. Maybe have them then split amongst the four Viceroyalities like how the Roman Empire was split amongst four Tetrarchs. Have the one for Peru take the title of Inca. The Spanish King can head back to Europe at the end and try to go for Imperator totius Hispaniae, maybe grabbing the Kingdoms of Sardinia, Sicily, and Naples. And Andorra, since there is no French King to co-rule it with.

[Ironstark]

Charles X was the first weak link. Give Louis XVIII an heir that he can tutor and teach to be a moderate King like he was, and I expect you can maintain a strong bourbon rule

[isabella]

Originally Posted by Ironstark

Charles X was the first weak link. Give Louis XVIII an heir that he can tutor and teach to be a moderate King like he was, and I expect you can maintain a strong bourbon rule

This is almost impossible... but if the Duke of Berry was not killed (and maybe his assassin kill instead his father or brother or both) you can have that.
Or maybe kill the Duke and the Duchess of Angouleme (your choice if assassinated or accident) instead of the Duke of Berry.
With the liberal and loved Duke of Berry as Dauphin, Charles X can not make ending the Bourbon dynasty: if he abdicated as OTL the new King and Queen will be a liberal couple, most likely with many children and they can surely maintain a strong rule and a stable France and teach that to their children and successors.

The really problem for the Bourbons of France was not Charles X but the assassination of his second son, the Duke of Berry

[Ironstark]

Indeed, I had forgotten about him. You make a good point, avoiding his early death is probably a better solution.

[DrakeRlugia]

The Duke of Berry was far from liberal. He was loved by the people because of his frank and open manners but that doesn't make him a liberal. He fought with the emigres during the early stages of the revolution and was considered just as conservative as his father at some points. He even sat upon the Conseil du Roi in 1814 before Napoleon's return and had been a pretty strong supporter of the White Terror in 1815. Angoulême was actually considered the more moderate of the pair, although his brother was often overshadowed by his wife, the ill-fated Madame Royale who was intensely conservative and supportive of Charles X and his measures as King of France.

The only pros of Berry surviving is a much better education for his son. After 1830, the Count of Chambord received a traditional Jesuit education overseen by his aunt, who even turned away offers from Chateaubriand to tutor the boy and give him a modern education. I don't see Berry surviving completely cementing the Restoration. He certainly wouldn't make the blunders of his father, but it's wrong to paint him as a liberal, because he was far from it.

[Ironstark]

Originally Posted by DrakeRlugia

snip

Oh yes, I agree with you there. I was just saying that he (or anyone really) would do a better job than Charles X

[isabella]

Originally Posted by DrakeRlugia

The Duke of Berry was far from liberal. He was loved by the people because of his frank and open manners but that doesn't make him a liberal. He fought with the emigres during the early stages of the revolution and was considered just as conservative as his father at some points. He even sat upon the Conseil du Roi in 1814 before Napoleon's return and had been a pretty strong supporter of the White Terror in 1815. Angoulême was actually considered the more moderate of the pair, although his brother was often overshadowed by his wife, the ill-fated Madame Royale who was intensely conservative and supportive of Charles X and his measures as King of France.

The only pros of Berry surviving is a much better education for his son. After 1830, the Count of Chambord received a traditional Jesuit education overseen by his aunt, who even turned away offers from Chateaubriand to tutor the boy and give him a modern education. I don't see Berry surviving completely cementing the Restoration. He certainly wouldn't make the blunders of his father, but it's wrong to paint him as a liberal, because he was far from it.

Yes, sorry. I intended moderate in the style of his uncle Louis XVIII (who was pretty liberal for being a Bourbon). Really was the Duke of Angouleme the more moderate of the two brothers? I ever heard and think of the Duke of Berry as the more moderate of his family (maybe the trouble with Charles X's sons is who their wives are better know then them).

However, whatever was his ideas, Berry was popular and foremost a grown man, intelligent, perfectly capable of understanding that times had changed and act accordingly (and educate well his son, after all Caroline was horrified by the kind of education given to her son by her father-in-law and sister-in-law but she can make nothing for changed it).

[DrakeRlugia]

Originally Posted by isabella

Yes, sorry. I intended moderate in the style of his uncle Louis XVIII (who was pretty liberal for being a Bourbon). Really was the Duke of Angouleme the more moderate of the two brothers? I ever heard and think of the Duke of Berry as the more moderate of his family (maybe the trouble with Charles X's sons is who their wives are better know then them).

However, whatever was his ideas, Berry was popular and foremost a grown man, intelligent, perfectly capable of understanding that times had changed and act accordingly (and educate well his son, after all Caroline was horrified by the kind of education given to her son by her father-in-law and sister-in-law but she can make nothing for changed it).

Well, Berry was much more loved by the people, but he has been described by a lot of biographers as being as reactionary by his father. I think his open and frank manners would save him though, as he'd not make the same blunders as his father: he had been born in a different time and wouldn't make the same mistakes Charles X made, such as awful anti-sacrilege act (which essentially made it a crime punishable by death to steal sacred hosts).

Angoulême was pretty conservative too, but he was actually pretty moderate. The only issues with Angoulême was that he was very timid and shy. He was essentially dominated by the Duchesse d'Angoulême, who as I said, was the most conservative member of the family aside from Charles X. As such, any potential ideas were pretty much nipped in the bud. He wavered on abdicating for the twenty minutes he was king in 1830, for instance, because of his wife berating him and telling him not to abdicate.

Louis XVIII himself wasn't exactly liberal, but merely pragmatic. I would say the Bourbons were intensely conservative to their undoing; there are just certain kings of that dynasty that made those blunders and paid dearly for them (ie. Charles X in France, Ferdinand VII in Spain, the various Kings of the Two Sicilies, ect.) which sort of tarnishes the family as a whole. We can't really forget some of the good Bourbon monarchs, such as Henri IV; he reunited France, ended the civil wars, and even extended religious tolerance to the Huguenots, although this was quickly undone in the next reign. Louis XVI was also far from a tyrant, although he merely on the losing side of history.