Miscellaneous <1900 (Alternate) History Thread
- Thread starter RMcD94
- Start date
Louis is a Frankish name, so it would naturally be more prominent on the Continent than in Great Britain. It looks like the decisive figure whose existence made Louis the most likely name for a French monarch was Louis VI, the first non-Carolingian to bear the name; I reckon calling back to the Carolingians was an effort to compensate for his mother's unprecedentedly non-royal heritage. From him on there's two centuries of nothing but Louis and Philip.
If Fremont had won in 1856, then that election likely would have replaced 1860 on my list of most important elections.
August II Mocny
Banned
Arab chroniclers used to complain that every French king is named Louis, Charles or Henry
@BirdyWard had an interesting idea. I think, without too much difficulty, branches of the House of Wettin and its descendants could hold many throne.
In OTL< there were the electors, later kings of Saxony. Separating from Saxony centuries ago were the Ernestine duchies, whose lines have reigned in the United Kingdom, Portugal, Belgium, and Bulgaria. It's not particularly difficult with mid to late nineteenth century POD to expand that. Romania, Greece, Albania, Netherlands (Saxe-Weimar-Eisenach branch), Luxembourg, and Spain are all achievable. The right POD makes Finland a possibility too, and there are options outside of Europe, such as proposals before World War I that some British dominions could have had their own separate monarchs and ruling families. Hawaii and Peru are outside possibilities, maybe Madagascar too. The right circumstances might make the Philippines a possibility. Marital inheritances of Brazil and Mexico are not out of the question. Hungary is a possibility too. The main Saxon Wettins could have a Polish branch and perhaps one branch or another could rule the Czech lands. Depending on the Russian succession after Nicholas II, either the present Prussian or Leiningen claimants to his throne could well have been Wettin pairings instead.
In OTL< there were the electors, later kings of Saxony. Separating from Saxony centuries ago were the Ernestine duchies, whose lines have reigned in the United Kingdom, Portugal, Belgium, and Bulgaria. It's not particularly difficult with mid to late nineteenth century POD to expand that. Romania, Greece, Albania, Netherlands (Saxe-Weimar-Eisenach branch), Luxembourg, and Spain are all achievable. The right POD makes Finland a possibility too, and there are options outside of Europe, such as proposals before World War I that some British dominions could have had their own separate monarchs and ruling families. Hawaii and Peru are outside possibilities, maybe Madagascar too. The right circumstances might make the Philippines a possibility. Marital inheritances of Brazil and Mexico are not out of the question. Hungary is a possibility too. The main Saxon Wettins could have a Polish branch and perhaps one branch or another could rule the Czech lands. Depending on the Russian succession after Nicholas II, either the present Prussian or Leiningen claimants to his throne could well have been Wettin pairings instead.
When was the last (or most fun) opportunity for an independent medieval Aquitaine?
Not last, I don't think, but perhaps if Eleanor of Aquitaine had a son with Louis VII...?
August II Mocny
Banned
WI: Friedrich Wilhelm IV and Wilhelm I arr noth born as girls, Karl Hohenzollern ascends the throne as Karl I
The French Revolution was 74 years after Louis XIV's death. Many things can happen between 1715 and 1789.
Had Louis, duke of Burgundy (Louis XV's father) survived, the decentralization that he planned would've probably made impossible the French Revolution.
With Philippe, it is more difficult to say. On the opposite to Louis, Philippe was pro-centralization and pro-absolutism.
The duke of Orléans not becoming regent implies nobody would give back to parliaments their right of remonstrance. It means royal power would be stronger than in OTL. And Philippe would try to increase it as much as he can. Enough to impose reforms like those Louis XVI failed to impose in OTL? Hard to say.
Philippe's first wife Maria Luisa of Savoy would probably still die of tuberculosis as in OTL but Philippe, being dauphin of France and no longer king of Spain, would not remarry to Elisabeth Farnese: Louis XIV disapproved this marriage because he saw it as misalliance. So, who Philippe would marry? That's an open question but I guess one of the sisters of Emperor Charles VI would make sense: the war would be over and it would be the right time to cement peace with a marriage.
In Spain, our ATL Carlos III is likely to be a weak king. In OTL, Charles, duke of Berry, was known to be a nice guy and to have no ambition. It does not necessarily mean his reign would be catastrophic but it would be uneasy.
He would have a big problem: his wife, Marie-Louise-Elisabeth of Orleans (daughter of the duke of Orleans). She was an atheist, alcoholic, obese, adulterous, libertine and maybe incestuous with her father (though this last point is disputed). And the worst is that she managed to manipulate her husband while he did not even love her: when she discovered he had an affair with a servant, she encouraged him to continue and blackmailed him by threatening to inform Louis XIV.
If she has a surviving son, it is more than likely that many people will believe, maybe rightfully, that Charles/Carlos is not the father. It may lead to problems in Spanish succession. Maybe this hypothetical son could marry female Louis XV in order to strengthen his legitimacy as future king of Spain.
I do not know what political ideas Charles/Carlos had but I guess his brother would try to convince him to follow an absolutist policy while his wife and father-in-law would try to turn him into a liberal.
Even assuming Carlos III does not follow the same policy as Philippe VII (which is already a big assumption), the two are likely to keep the alliance between France and Spain. In OTL, the duke of Orleans, as regent, made France to join an anti-Spanish coalition (the Quadruple Alliance) because he wanted to be sure Philippe would respect the Treaty of Utrecht. Nothing like that here.
Last edited:
Was there ever a time in history where a side rejected an unconditional surrender from the other? Third Punic War: Rome rejected Carthage's unconditional surrender (?), preferring to just annihilate them?