France and Germany are still (constitutional) monarchies today
- Thread starter Thane
- Start date
I think Prince Philippe was a decent man, unlike the lot ever since. I don't think he should have replaced IIIème République. I picked my account name for a reason.
So if there is any chance for lasting French monarchy without POD earlier than Late Pleistocene...
Maybe Louis XVI is like Louis XIV reborn. He took decisive action against revolutionaries and put down rebelion early.
It's not lack of reforms that led to collapse of tyrants-quite opposite: hestitation and and attemps of partial reforms, which is seen as sign of weakness and encourage oposition to take action. IOTL Louis XVI facing revolution behaved almost as bad as he could.
Maybe Louis XVI is like Louis XIV reborn. He took decisive action against revolutionaries and put down rebelion early.
It's not lack of reforms that led to collapse of tyrants-quite opposite: hestitation and and attemps of partial reforms, which is seen as sign of weakness and encourage oposition to take action. IOTL Louis XVI facing revolution behaved almost as bad as he could.
Of course : but any PoD set after the French Revolution have to be phenomenally good. Most people there don't really grasp how much of radical and verwelming change it was.
I doubt that Louis XIV would have attempted that : in fact, I think he wouldn't have let the situation goes as far as having people asking violently for Estates Generals. Not that he would have automatically reacted violently, but he would have rather somehow supported the movement up to the point such movement would have gone the way he wanted to, with relatively moderated ammount of violence.
And Louis XIV would have never, ever have done the same mistake than Louis XVI did with abandoning completly the Maupéou reform.
That said, the biggest problem with Louis XVI's rule isn't its incompetence and lack of political vision : it's about the incompetence and the lack of political vision of the French coutrly and high nobility, itself at odds with virtually all bourgeoisie (at the possible exception of high bourgeoisie) and all the rest of declassed or being declassed lower nobility that focused on symbolic privileges.
The sheer amount of Palace factions, intrigues and plots is brain-bleaching : Maupéou's problem was his lack of true political base : initially he was part of Choiseul's supporting people until he was eventually favoured at the latter's political decline.
Without a bit of political support (and critically in face of a general opposition from provincial nobility, high nobility, bourgeois elites, etc.), his reform would have been really hard to fully implement.
I think that a good PoD would be Louis XIV dying earlier than IOTL, as he did held great nobility on a tight leash, but his overlong reign outlived a bit the success of his reforms.
Such a PoD could allow a smoother transition : the problem being his successors didn't promised that much, even if his son may have been less inept than commonly tought).
But even with the TL going as IOTL until the XVIIIth century, things would have been salvagable if Louis XV had half of a working brain and remotely interested on politics or consersely, being ready to share power in most matters, instead of a "I don't want to rule everything because *yawn* but I won't let anyone being too efficient for my own sake".
So if Lou XIV dies earlier, maybe there is also chance to avoid War of Spanish Succesion? That should also help. Main problem with Philip taking throne in Madrid was fact that Louis XIV didn't want to exclude him from French succession and wanted all Spanish Habsburg's possesions for him, the very fact that Bourbon would sit on Spanish throne was acceptable for England and Netherlands, perspective of the same Bourbon holding also French crown was not (altought Philip on French throne would be much better than Louis XV).
Philippe had plenty of his own problems, mainly his deep depressive episodes. He was nervous and allowed his wives to have large influence. He wasn't exactly the best ruler himself, Charles III was the best of the Spanish Bourbons and he was the third son of Philippe and would likely be butterflied away. Honestly, I think Louis XV was the better option.
How about having the July Revolution fail or be repressed. France was still very conservative and rural, so it should be possible for the Bourbons and the Government to rally the army to besiege Paris and end the revolution. Thiers proposed the vary scenario in 1848 and did so in 1871, so it seems feasible enough. I saw something similar in an AAR for Victoria II on Paradox forums if anyone's interested:https://forum.paradoxplaza.com/foru...alternate-history-victoria-ii-aar-pod.735612/.
Not sure if Charles X would keep the throne or abdicate to the Dauphin and I doubt that the Ordinances would remain or that the Ultra-Royalists would be able to remain in power (Casimir-Louis-Victurnien de Rochechouart, Duc de Mortemart was named Prime Minister in the midst of the Revolution but never took the post, so he's likely to succeed Polignac here), but it could stabilize the situation for the time being. It also creates the opportunity to have a better educated Henri V, or have Madame Royale not be in charge of his education as here his mother the Duchesse de Berri has yet to disgrace herself and would be in theory be in charge of her children. Plus Louis XIX wasn't as radical as his father and wife, so maybe a more moderate, though still deeply conservative, monarchy could emerge.
Not sure if Charles X would keep the throne or abdicate to the Dauphin and I doubt that the Ordinances would remain or that the Ultra-Royalists would be able to remain in power (Casimir-Louis-Victurnien de Rochechouart, Duc de Mortemart was named Prime Minister in the midst of the Revolution but never took the post, so he's likely to succeed Polignac here), but it could stabilize the situation for the time being. It also creates the opportunity to have a better educated Henri V, or have Madame Royale not be in charge of his education as here his mother the Duchesse de Berri has yet to disgrace herself and would be in theory be in charge of her children. Plus Louis XIX wasn't as radical as his father and wife, so maybe a more moderate, though still deeply conservative, monarchy could emerge.
The whole "France was rural and conservative" should really be downplayed : contrary to what monarchists want to believe really hard, it was far from being "only a Parisian affair". Most of the action took place at Paris because 1830 revolution was particularily short (which should be a clue for everyone, giving there was zero opposition to the events in the rest of the country). Even the half-assed tentative to rise up Vendean peasantry in 1832 comically failed.
In short : Charles X had as much chances to keep power in 1830 than François Hollande in 2017. Which is none.
And yet, he declared a state of siege for Paris, tried its best to be popular (expedition of Algiers), and gave the litteral order to "hold firmly" the situation. It didn't helped.
Even the most loyal parts of his troops in Paris asked him to rescind the Ordinances, the freagging second day of the revolt. This is as much support he had.
And thinking that Charles X, a man that was very about his good right to enact a reactionnary/conservative policy, would simply step down and change its policies because of a revolt is simply failing completly at understanding his psychology, his politics, his supports.
Again, I stress it : because Paris, due to pluri-centennial policies and because it was where evrything significant happened politically, did finish the whole thing in three days, doesn't mean provinces would have supported the king : the army was unsatisfied, the bourgeoisie was unsatisfied, the peasants couldn't care less about him (being largely dominated by either local elites or landowners)
I know you're or were abding by the "rural France was fine with monarchy and revolutions are only a Parisian affair" but that's, I'm afraid to tell you, an historiographical fallacy.
As for having Henri V succeeding him as he planned IOTL, that's simply not going to happen, except if Louis-Philippe d'Orléans and his sons dies or something. The political climate in France was huge, and an infant king would simply not deal with popular and bourgeois demands from one hand, bourgeois fear of anything remotly resembling republicanism or universal vote. As soon as Orléans was named lieutenant-général du royaume; it was bound to end either as an Orleanist throne, either as no throne at all.
The only real chance at a successful Bourbon restauration, would be having someone like Louis XVIII being in charge : an IATL son, or Charles d'Angoulême dying and having Louis either growing a brain, or a spine, or a political conscience, probably all of these. This, at least, is doable : by 1830, it's too late.
In short : Charles X had as much chances to keep power in 1830 than François Hollande in 2017. Which is none.
And yet, he declared a state of siege for Paris, tried its best to be popular (expedition of Algiers), and gave the litteral order to "hold firmly" the situation. It didn't helped.
Even the most loyal parts of his troops in Paris asked him to rescind the Ordinances, the freagging second day of the revolt. This is as much support he had.
And thinking that Charles X, a man that was very about his good right to enact a reactionnary/conservative policy, would simply step down and change its policies because of a revolt is simply failing completly at understanding his psychology, his politics, his supports.
Again, I stress it : because Paris, due to pluri-centennial policies and because it was where evrything significant happened politically, did finish the whole thing in three days, doesn't mean provinces would have supported the king : the army was unsatisfied, the bourgeoisie was unsatisfied, the peasants couldn't care less about him (being largely dominated by either local elites or landowners)
I know you're or were abding by the "rural France was fine with monarchy and revolutions are only a Parisian affair" but that's, I'm afraid to tell you, an historiographical fallacy.
Les dernières monarchies de France said:
As for having Henri V succeeding him as he planned IOTL, that's simply not going to happen, except if Louis-Philippe d'Orléans and his sons dies or something. The political climate in France was huge, and an infant king would simply not deal with popular and bourgeois demands from one hand, bourgeois fear of anything remotly resembling republicanism or universal vote. As soon as Orléans was named lieutenant-général du royaume; it was bound to end either as an Orleanist throne, either as no throne at all.
The only real chance at a successful Bourbon restauration, would be having someone like Louis XVIII being in charge : an IATL son, or Charles d'Angoulême dying and having Louis either growing a brain, or a spine, or a political conscience, probably all of these. This, at least, is doable : by 1830, it's too late.
Not really. Catilina is pretty solid on this, most people weren't convinced monarchists but rather Anti-Jacobin. People were nervous things might get out of hand again, but this didn't mean Republicanism was utterly discredited. It's why the Opportunist Republicans ended up winning, because most monarchists were idiots who had no political acumen. Thiers was one, but he was a liberal and a patriot first, which is why the IIIème République won.
OK now I'm confused. I mean the 1830 revolution, not the Paris Commune. In 1830 no one's going to accept a Republic, least of all the other great powers (this is barely 10 years after French intervention in Spain and, what, a few years after Austrian intervention in Naples). Also, just because Catilina has dismissed it doesn't mean they're right.
Actually, Great Britain is probably the great power that would care less about it : a more or less liberal republic may proove to be stable enough (we all agree that a neo-Jacobin republic would be extremely frowned upon). Others, especially Prussia, may be more militant and more "political", but really : what can they do without British support?
Not that, of course, it would be cheered, at the contrary. But it admittedly had ffair chances to pass, would Thiers (whom nobody can deny he was a very skilled political animal) or Orleans be more hesistant.
But I digress : nobody say that a Republic was bound to happen in 1830, and I think you misinterpreted my post on this.
All that was said is that a Bourbon restauration surviving 1830, with a PoD set only mere years from it, was extremely unlikely to happen. Rather than some tactical changes, you need strategically different PoDs sets in the reign of Louis XVIII to make it work.
Yeah, I just "dismissed" it : I didn't provided any source for supporting anything. It's just that the winds blow this way today.
1934, Henri V, of the House of Lyautey restores the throne of France.
The people rejoice.
1934, Henri V, of the House of Lyautey restores the throne of France.
The people rejoice.
You're far too conservative : Henri V, of the House of Lyautey makes a coup and becomes Amīr al-Mu'minīn, Sultan of Morroco and Lord Protector of France
Deus vult brother, on to Antioch we goYou're far too conservative : Henri V, of the House of Lyautey makes a coup and becomes Amīr al-Mu'minīn, Sultan of Morroco and Lord Protector of France
Saphroneth
Banned
Heh.
Actually looking quite doable at this point in Open Sea, no position of power for Bismarck is really all you kneed to knock things into a very different course.
Getting rid of absolutism would be good start. Weakened monarchy may result in weakened state (like in Poland, where things went too far and monarchy turned into anarchy over time) but may not (like in Britain). If king's position is so weak that you barely notice that he exist there are fewer reasons to depose him, of course there must be also effecive parliament to run the country in such situation to avoid Polish situation. But it must be done way before end of 18th century.
Good way to reduce power of monarch is uncertain succession (so maybe all legitimate Capetian lines died out, there are several pretenders, either illegitimate or female line descendants, but their rights are not uncontested, better if none of claimants have estabilished long lasting dynasty and situation repeated). During times of interregnum . periods when country have to be ruled somehow parliamentarism may rise.
Good way to reduce power of monarch is uncertain succession (so maybe all legitimate Capetian lines died out, there are several pretenders, either illegitimate or female line descendants, but their rights are not uncontested, better if none of claimants have estabilished long lasting dynasty and situation repeated). During times of interregnum . periods when country have to be ruled somehow parliamentarism may rise.
Last edited:
Thing is, no absolutism may mean no French Revolution. And no French Revolution likely means no Germany as a unified state of whatever form perhaps.
My thought was that the French Revolution popularised the idea of the Nation in Germany. No French Rev could mean constitutional monarchIES in Germany; hundreds of little principalities all with their Diets and town councils, but no Germany, constitutional or otherwise, unless you count Zombie HRE as one.
Without French absolutism, a Budget crisis like the French in the 1780s may well lead to unrest, but not to a world-turning paradigm shift like the French Revolution, and thus the Inspiration that led to a United Germany would lack.
German nationalism may rise anyway. Without French Revolution Prussia would not get Rhineland, so maybe Austrians will prevail over weaker Prussia and we will see Großdeutschland?
And about France-if French monarchy during late 18th century is as weak as, say Polish one, there may be movement supporting increase, not decrease of royal power if parliament happened to be inefficient, or attempt of Coup D'État by charismatic monarch or general instead of revolution (but such anarchised France is equal to Frenchscrew, so better avoid this scenario).
And about France-if French monarchy during late 18th century is as weak as, say Polish one, there may be movement supporting increase, not decrease of royal power if parliament happened to be inefficient, or attempt of Coup D'État by charismatic monarch or general instead of revolution (but such anarchised France is equal to Frenchscrew, so better avoid this scenario).
Last edited: