France and Germany are still (constitutional) monarchies today
- Thread starter Thane
- Start date
Put a "WI" on the title.
One of these states is possible to be done: either have the German Kaiser's popularity linger after a less humiliating defeat in WWI, or have Napoleon III's French Second Empire survive (by either defeating Prussia, being just outright lucky, or surrendering after the Battle of Sedan, which could have a 50% chance for Nappy III to have his throne spared, etc.), or have France's post-franco-prussian-war political situation favour a return of the Bourbon monarchy, there are many ways to do this. Though having both monarchies survive is much more difficult.
One of these states is possible to be done: either have the German Kaiser's popularity linger after a less humiliating defeat in WWI, or have Napoleon III's French Second Empire survive (by either defeating Prussia, being just outright lucky, or surrendering after the Battle of Sedan, which could have a 50% chance for Nappy III to have his throne spared, etc.), or have France's post-franco-prussian-war political situation favour a return of the Bourbon monarchy, there are many ways to do this. Though having both monarchies survive is much more difficult.
As for France, apart from a survival of the Second Empire (which is relatively unlikely on the long term, given the strong-man and charismatic rulership nature of the regime) that would probably be unrecognizable compared to the PoD's date (see how the IInd Empire changed between the 50's and the 60's), I don't think that's really doable.
Bourbon restauration WI are especially popular in AH.com (in spite of Legitimist being largely far-right), but the often discussed 1871's restauration have zero chances to go anywhere.
Indeed, Henri V was so dyed in the ultra-royalist wool than any form of compromise when it came to its political program and ambitions was a nightmare to achieve and maintain.
Henri d'Artois was raised since the beggining as the "salvation" of the dynasty (even by Charles X, that had a...let say bad opinion of his son). The death of his father even before his death clearly influenced his life : raised in a really religious (if not borderline providentialist), it didn't began well for making it benevolent towards liberalism.
Raised by legitimist circles themselves, including the surviving daughter of Louis XVI, it basically made him seeing all progressism that wasn't issued from a straight catholicism or royal initiative as irreconciliable with the throne.
It's what made him definitely crush the hopes of a monarchic restauration in France after the fall of Second Empire : he was the guardian of monarchy, he didn't have to compromise it critically with liberalism (that was really tied with Orléanism, a movement he didn't liked *at*all*), while the Assembly (whom you can ask about its legitimacy at this time to debate about the nature of a regime) monarchist majority was practically begging him to take the power.
We can't overestimate the influence that Republicanism had in France in the XIXth century and the Orleanist and Legitimist success depended as well from their pacifist program as because the election was failsafed just short of the point we'd have to say it was rigged (low turnout, campaigning illegal in occupied départements, some fight still occurring).
Even the elections, while giving royalists a majority, weren't that devastating for republicans.
Eventually, there was a really tiny and limited time window for a monarchic restoration, that depended on two really opposite conception of monarchy and state to suddenly get along.
Even assuming it somehow happened, giving the quick political decline, the said restoration would be over before anyone saying "Guillotine".
And after this window of opportunity gone, you never had any monarchist revival worth of mention.
You might have earlier possibilities of Bourbon Restauration either working out, or living on in the first part of XIXth century, and they're not incredibly likely. For exemple :
1) Louis XVIII having a son, raised in a politically different context...
It would require a different wife, as he simply couldn't make love with her. She was apparently quite repulsive, physically speaking. And even when he managed to do that, pregnancies ended in miscarriages every time.
Of course it would require a PoD in the late 1760's (I think you begin to see the issue there), in order to find him another wife while he was still relativly healty (he became obese and more sickly quickly after his marriage).
2) Charles X suddenly changes his policy (but it would need a really good PoD) before 1826-1828 period, what happen after 1830 could be modified, and Henri d'Artois *could* be more liberal leaned by the grace of butterflies (seeing the legitimist court circles, not gonna happen easily).
But again, by the mid XIXth, it's roughly too late for a return of monarchism in France, would it be constitutional.
Bourbon restauration WI are especially popular in AH.com (in spite of Legitimist being largely far-right), but the often discussed 1871's restauration have zero chances to go anywhere.
Indeed, Henri V was so dyed in the ultra-royalist wool than any form of compromise when it came to its political program and ambitions was a nightmare to achieve and maintain.
Henri d'Artois was raised since the beggining as the "salvation" of the dynasty (even by Charles X, that had a...let say bad opinion of his son). The death of his father even before his death clearly influenced his life : raised in a really religious (if not borderline providentialist), it didn't began well for making it benevolent towards liberalism.
Raised by legitimist circles themselves, including the surviving daughter of Louis XVI, it basically made him seeing all progressism that wasn't issued from a straight catholicism or royal initiative as irreconciliable with the throne.
It's what made him definitely crush the hopes of a monarchic restauration in France after the fall of Second Empire : he was the guardian of monarchy, he didn't have to compromise it critically with liberalism (that was really tied with Orléanism, a movement he didn't liked *at*all*), while the Assembly (whom you can ask about its legitimacy at this time to debate about the nature of a regime) monarchist majority was practically begging him to take the power.
We can't overestimate the influence that Republicanism had in France in the XIXth century and the Orleanist and Legitimist success depended as well from their pacifist program as because the election was failsafed just short of the point we'd have to say it was rigged (low turnout, campaigning illegal in occupied départements, some fight still occurring).
Even the elections, while giving royalists a majority, weren't that devastating for republicans.
Eventually, there was a really tiny and limited time window for a monarchic restoration, that depended on two really opposite conception of monarchy and state to suddenly get along.
Even assuming it somehow happened, giving the quick political decline, the said restoration would be over before anyone saying "Guillotine".
And after this window of opportunity gone, you never had any monarchist revival worth of mention.
You might have earlier possibilities of Bourbon Restauration either working out, or living on in the first part of XIXth century, and they're not incredibly likely. For exemple :
1) Louis XVIII having a son, raised in a politically different context...
It would require a different wife, as he simply couldn't make love with her. She was apparently quite repulsive, physically speaking. And even when he managed to do that, pregnancies ended in miscarriages every time.
Of course it would require a PoD in the late 1760's (I think you begin to see the issue there), in order to find him another wife while he was still relativly healty (he became obese and more sickly quickly after his marriage).
2) Charles X suddenly changes his policy (but it would need a really good PoD) before 1826-1828 period, what happen after 1830 could be modified, and Henri d'Artois *could* be more liberal leaned by the grace of butterflies (seeing the legitimist court circles, not gonna happen easily).
But again, by the mid XIXth, it's roughly too late for a return of monarchism in France, would it be constitutional.
I've read once that Charles de Gaulle briefly considered reviving constitutional monarchy in France during the Fourth Republic, but then dropped the idea.
A more straightforward way is for Napoleon III to let his generals do the fighting and not get captured at Sedan (or better, not fight that war at all).
A more straightforward way is for Napoleon III to let his generals do the fighting and not get captured at Sedan (or better, not fight that war at all).
The main proponent of this thesis was the Count of Paris, who was convinced that, somehow, de Gaulle created the Fifth Republic in order to make him his successor.
Which led de Gaulle to say, learning about this : "the Count of Paris? Why not the Gipsy Queen?"
Even if de Gaulle somehow had his brain leaking troigh his ears and went with this, anyone in the room would exchange akwards looks and make someone fetch for a medic.
The problem with the second Empire is its growing impopularity, and its huge reliance over a personal, charismatic rulership. In spite of appearance, napoleonic France was relativelt weak institutionally and vulnerable to the first big crisis.
Contrary to what happen with a king or a president, that can be blamed and hated without the whole institution being vulnerable; bonapartist institutions so identified regime with the emperor that if one goes down, the whole thing does.
Napoleon III also had a son (named, of course, Napoleon) who fled to Britain and eventually died fighting against the Zulus in 1879. Until then, he was the last hope for a Bonaparte restoration. I'm not sure how likely it was that he could have become Napoleon IV, but there was apparently talk of him marrying one of Queen Victoria's daughters...
I've read that Louis Phillippe's eldest son (who predeceased his father) was quite popular. Had he lived could he have done anything to improve the chances of Orléanism or was that a lost cause from day one?
After 1870? Virtually none : bonapartism was toasted, finished, achieved, crushed and scattered into lil' pieces.
More or less like he was, incidentally.
Meh, if you go by every apologetic text on royal houses in France, it generally goes down to "oh, all right this one was bad, altough not that bad, but his son was immensely popular and would have been great, you'd have seen so much".
More seriously, Orleans dynasty wasn't that that popular to begin with : Louis-Philippe's coronation essentially comes from a compromise between former Bourbon legislatures and bourgeois that weren't quite thrilled at the popularity of republicanism (especially in its neo-jabocine form) among the lower classes.
Not to say Ferdinand-Philippe was hated either, at the contrary. But remember that when people say he was popular, it generally means being popular among who counted politically, meaning there middle and small bourgeoisie that wanted to beneficy from the same freedoms than their higher counterparts (and indeed, Ferdinand-Philippe seems to have supported boarder voting rights, for instance).
Giving that the mid XIXth economical crisis is still going to play fully there, it's not really with a more or less supporting or benevolent urban group he would have to deal, but disgruntled popular classes on which anti-monarchist/anti-royalist tendencies played fully.
So, I wouldn't say it was a lost cause, but I wonder how significant his survival (after all, he wouldn't have played a major political role so far) could have changed things on such short term.
Okay I get you're not a fan of the Bonapartes but honestly that statement is in quite poor taste.
You don't get much, actually : it does have nothing to do with what I think with Bonapartes or bonapartism. It's simply that I'm fond of black and dry humour, and would have done with roughly another house or regime.
Henri V dies before the end of the Franco-Prussian War, the two Bourbon parties recognise the Orleanist as King of the French.
Facist regime in France could re-install monarchy during 1930s, but it would be far from constitutiolal monarchy like in UK or Norway, rather someting simillar to Kingdom of Italy during fasist rule.
Most french fascists were, in line with the modernist definition of fascism, more or less anti-monarchists anyway.
Even today, french monarchism (while largely being reactionnary and authoritarians) is the laughing stock of most of French far-right.
Even today, french monarchism (while largely being reactionnary and authoritarians) is the laughing stock of most of French far-right.
Fascism is not democratic, so it is not that important what majority thinks. Say that French fascist leader (popular, charismatic war hero) is personaly supporter of monarchy. Problem is that such monarchy would not survive collapse of fascist dictatorship.
I think the only way that really happens is if Louis-Philippe maybe ends up assassinated and Ferdinand has to actual wield political power. However, he'd then have to temper reaction as a result of such assassination. Even then he'd be young, inexperienced, and have to maintain a balancing act that his father failed OTL.
I say this as someone sympathetic to the idea of Constitutional Monarchy, but the elder Bourbons frittered away a good deal of the Restauration's hope of success.
I guess Anglos don't really know about Boulanger that well, he almost accomplished such. That said, who knows if he really would have restored the monarchy if he did become President.
Fascism, for all its pretence of personal power, is really about a certain political and ideological balance : you caean't have a leader just "hiding" his monarchist tendencies and expect, when he suddenly reveals them (admitting that, among the paranoia that caracerize fascist polities, he's not spot on) and be accepted just like that.
Italians fascists accepted monarchy because it was convenient and easier to deal with : but virtually everywhere else, fascists preverred to create their own state, that got rid of the folkloric concepts such as a king.
Not being democratic doesn't mean that one person decides everything : just look at the joke Furherprinzip was.
That leader doesn't need to be literally fascist, just authoritarian and conservative.
Tfw FN supporters make fun of you for liking your country's heritage....
Then it's not really the same political situation, isn't?
Now, it might be a better ground (at least on paper) to attempt this : after all Maurras underwent a relatively important popularity, and Action Française beneficied from a certain prestige.
Thing is, in the same time, 30's French politics were importantly concerned by a trend called sinistrisme. Meaning that right-wing politicians were more or elss ashamed to be conservative and went great lengths to say "at heart, they're moderated".
Maurrassisme never really had, in spite of its very real influence in intelligential, real popular roots.
And, of course, Action Française and Maurras were opposed to constitutionalism under any form; favouring a mix of traditionalist and regional legal basis.
But, yes, some sort of half-butchered restauration could take place, à la Franco. But giving the very important republican support you had in France (and that even French State didn't really managed to get rid of), it's indeed more or less doomed.
Not only FN, but fascist or quasi-fascists as well. Exemple.
That said, Action Française is as much about liking one's country heritage, than Lost Causers are about preserving American's heritage.
Well I'm not a real monarchist, Action Française is a joke. I just like medieval history a lot more than most people.
La maison d'Orléans has no credibility anymore.