WI: Third French Kingdom after Franco-Prussian War

[Mort the Reaper]

One thing not a lot of people know is that the French Third Republic was almost replaced by a second restoration of the Kingdom of France. When Napoleon III was removed from power as a result of the Franco-Prussian War, France needed a new government, and since monarchists held the majority in the National Assembly, it appeared that the new government would be another monarchy. It was decided that Henri, Comte de Chambord should be the new French monarch. But Henri wanted to eliminate all traces of the Revolution, which the population was unwilling to do. So France's new government chose to continue the republic instead.

My question is this: what if Henri had been less reactionary and accepted the throne? What would the consequences be for France, and for the world?

 

[jb3]

One thing not a lot of people know is that the French Third Republic was almost replaced by a second restoration of the Kingdom of France. When Napoleon III was removed from power as a result of the Franco-Prussian War, France needed a new government, and since monarchists held the majority in the National Assembly, it appeared that the new government would be another monarchy. It was decided that Henri, Comte de Chambord should be the new French monarch. But Henri wanted to eliminate all traces of the Revolution, which the population was unwilling to do. So France's new government chose to continue the republic instead.

My question is this: what if Henri had been less reactionary and accepted the throne? What would the consequences be for France, and for the world?

I don't think it fair to say Henri wanted to eliminate all traces of the Revolution, he wasn't that reactionary. It was the tri-color vs the white Bourbon flag that was the sticking point. And he really had no need to yield on this point since his life in exile was pretty good and he did not want to be succeeded by the loathed (to him) Orleanist branch of the family. But if he did become King...

As for the world - there would be no consequences. Not short-term. Monarchies were still all over the place in 1870 and you would just be replacing a Bonaparte with a Bourbon - again.

Any return of the monarchy would not just be a constitutional one but pretty much a return to the liberal Orleanist monarchy. If Henri takes the throne, since he had no sons, his heir in fact would have been the Count of Paris, grandson of Louis Phillipe. So in the end you would have an Orleanist bourgeois liberal monarchy which may or may not last given at some point (just as in OTL) the royalists lost power and committed Republicans took over. Although given that the President of France in the Third Republic was largely just a figurehead (and not the Gaullist powerful figure we have today), a King as Head of State would not be too different.

 

[isabella]

I think who the best way for getting a restoration of the monarchy is killing off Henry (V) aka Chambord before the fall of the Second Empire so the crown will be offered directly to the Orleanists

 

[dcontreras]

I think who the best way for getting a restoration of the monarchy is killing off Henry (V) aka Chambord before the fall of the Second Empire so the crown will be offered directly to the Orleanists

I think if the monarchists were in control after the Franco-Prussian War, and it meant that much to them to keep some of the Revolutionists ideas and still have a monarchy, and if Henri was going to be a stickler over the trip-color vs white flag, they should have just by-passed Henri and offer the throne to the Count of Paris.

 

[mjwebb76]

I think if the monarchists were in control after the Franco-Prussian War, and it meant that much to them to keep some of the Revolutionists ideas and still have a monarchy, and if Henri was going to be a stickler over the trip-color vs white flag, they should have just by-passed Henri and offer the throne to the Count of Paris.

You are misunderstanding French political factions at this time. Within the Monarchist faction there were two groups. The first favored the idea of the King but preferred someone reasonably competent (i.e. the Comte de Paris). The second favored the legitimate descendent of Louis XIII (i.e. in 1870 the Comte de Chambord grandson of Louis XV's grandson Charles X (brother of Louis XVI)). To be blunt both Charles X and his grandson were reactionary fools. However, to the "legitimists" this did not matter. I do not know the exact numbers but imagine that Republicans comprised 40% of the assembly, Orleanists (the first faction) controlled 30% and Legitimists (the second faction) control 30%. While the Legitimists wanted a king it MUST be a legitimate King. Therefore they will not vote for the Comte de Paris because he is not of the eldest line (he was descended from the younger brother of the Louis XIV) Therefore while the elder line was still intact they would vote against him. In other words, using my hypothetical numbers above the vote would be 70% against the Comte de Paris (i.e. 40% of Republicans voting against and 30% of Legitimists voting against) The Monarchists (i.e. both factions) thought they had a solution because the Comte de Chambord was elderly and did not have a son. When he died the House of Orleans would become the eldest line and the Legitimists would accept the Comte de Paris. However, the Comte de Chambord messed up the deal by insisting on the Fleur de Lys rather than the tricolor (one example of the fact that he was a reactionary fool). The Orleanists would not support this, meaning you now have 70% voting against the Comte de Chambord (40% of Republicans and 30% of Orleanists). Therefore, a Republic was declared. By the time the Comte de Chambord died, and most legitimists accepted that the Comte de Paris should be king, Republicans held a majority . If you are interested, there is still a man styling himself Comte de Paris who is considered by French royalists (now a rather small faction) the King of the French (not King of France). https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jean,_Count_of_Paris

 

[mjwebb76]

I think it could have had a fairly profound impact although I am not sure about the direction of the impact. The two key facts that I will start with are the tremendous economic growth France experienced from 1870-1900 (which allowed it to quickly repay what were intended by the Prussians to be crushing indemnities within a few years) and the fact that the Third Republic was rather unstable. Beginning with this second fact, it is worth noting that constitutional monarchies typically are much more stable than republics without a strong executive (compare the UK and Italy; the US and France both have strong executives). Therefore, perhaps a constitutional monarchy would have been more stable and would have allowed France to more effectively counterbalance Germany in Europe. Conversely, the monarchy might have allowed more corruption and rent-seeking that would have undermined French growth. For example, if a non-trivial number wealthy bourgeois preferred to spend resources gaining noble titles rather than building factories economic growth could be significantly reduced. As such France would be a less effective counterweight to Germany.

 

[Deleted member 109224]

I would imagine there'd be less royalist grumpiness in France if there is a Liberal Kingdom rather than a Republic.

If there is a Kingdom, does that mean France remains officially catholic? If so, then the muslims of Algeria will be better off. No secular republic means no Laïcité, which means no irking muslims in their religious practice.

 

[Ultima Ratio]

The Monarchists (i.e. both factions) thought they had a solution because the Comte de Chambord was elderly and did not have a son.

How old was he exactly? What if he dies before the war?

 

[mjwebb76]

He was born in 1820 so he was in his early 50s by 1871. In OTL he died in 1883. Its not implausible to have him die in 1868, but it is also not super-likely.

 

[mjwebb76]

He was born in 1820 so he was in his early 50s by 1871. In OTL he died in 1883. Its not implausible to have him die in 1868, but it is also not super-likely.

I should also note that he had been married for many years and had no children. Since divorce was not a possibility there was little chance (in 1871) he would have a son.

 

[funnyhat]

I would imagine there'd be less royalist grumpiness in France if there is a Liberal Kingdom rather than a Republic.

If there is a Kingdom, does that mean France remains officially catholic? If so, then the muslims of Algeria will be better off. No secular republic means no Laïcité, which means no irking muslims in their religious practice.

Algeria's citizenship laws were not related to the 1905 law separating church and state. They were established half a century before that.

 

[Ultima Ratio]

He was born in 1820 so he was in his early 50s by 1871. In OTL he died in 1883. Its not implausible to have him die in 1868, but it is also not super-likely.

So if he does die (either accident or illness), that means the prime candidate is the Comte de Paris, who would be less of an ass about the flag business (among other things)?

 

[mjwebb76]

Precisely. The Orleanists explicitly supported the tricolor flag. Most historians of this time period accept that if the Comte de Chambord not been around the Comte de Paris would have become King.

 

[Ultima Ratio]

Precisely. The Orleanists explicitly supported the tricolor flag. Most historians of this time period accept that if the Comte de Chambord not been around the Comte de Paris would have become King.

Sounds like an interesting TL.

 

[dcontreras]

You are misunderstanding French political factions at this time. Within the Monarchist faction there were two groups. The first favored the idea of the King but preferred someone reasonably competent (i.e. the Comte de Paris). The second favored the legitimate descendent of Louis XIII (i.e. in 1870 the Comte de Chambord grandson of Louis XV's grandson Charles X (brother of Louis XVI)). To be blunt both Charles X and his grandson were reactionary fools. However, to the "legitimists" this did not matter. I do not know the exact numbers but imagine that Republicans comprised 40% of the assembly, Orleanists (the first faction) controlled 30% and Legitimists (the second faction) control 30%. While the Legitimists wanted a king it MUST be a legitimate King. Therefore they will not vote for the Comte de Paris because he is not of the eldest line (he was descended from the younger brother of the Louis XIV) Therefore while the elder line was still intact they would vote against him. In other words, using my hypothetical numbers above the vote would be 70% against the Comte de Paris (i.e. 40% of Republicans voting against and 30% of Legitimists voting against) The Monarchists (i.e. both factions) thought they had a solution because the Comte de Chambord was elderly and did not have a son. When he died the House of Orleans would become the eldest line and the Legitimists would accept the Comte de Paris. However, the Comte de Chambord messed up the deal by insisting on the Fleur de Lys rather than the tricolor (one example of the fact that he was a reactionary fool). The Orleanists would not support this, meaning you now have 70% voting against the Comte de Chambord (40% of Republicans and 30% of Orleanists). Therefore, a Republic was declared. By the time the Comte de Chambord died, and most legitimists accepted that the Comte de Paris should be king, Republicans held a majority . If you are interested, there is still a man styling himself Comte de Paris who is considered by French royalists (now a rather small faction) the King of the French (not King of France). https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jean,_Count_of_Paris

Thank you for the lesson on this period of time. It makes more clearer sense as to what happened.

 

[Mort the Reaper]

Sounds like an interesting TL.

Yeah, and it wouldn't be hard to come up with a POD. Just have Henri take a bad fall down some stairs or something.

 

[LordKalvan]

For example, if a non-trivial number wealthy bourgeois preferred to spend resources gaining noble titles rather than building factories economic growth could be significantly reduced. As such France would be a less effective counterweight to Germany.

Which is what happened in the 1860s, with industrialists from the south-west of France moving to Paris and canvassing for titles under the 2nd empire (the phenomenon was much less evident in the North-east of France, but a good chunk of the troubles that plagued the second half of Louis Napoleon's reign came from this).

I believe that overall France was lucky to escape a monarchical restoration, also because the previous two restorations of the 19th century (the Bourbons in 1815 and the Orleans in 1830) lasted less than 20 years each before being toppled by insurrections.

 

[VictorLaszlo]

So if he does die (either accident or illness), that means the prime candidate is the Comte de Paris, who would be less of an ass about the flag business (among other things)?

The Coount of Chambord could have had an accident similar to the one the Count of Paris' father, the Duke of Orléans suffered, dying in 1842, aged a mere 31, when the horses of his carriage ran out of control and he lost his balance and was thrown head on against the wall of a building lining the street, fatally fracturing his skull. Just have the fates of the 2 men reversed and Ferdinand Philippe, Duc d'Orléans would have most likely become King of the French in 1870.

 

[mjwebb76]

Which is what happened in the 1860s, with industrialists from the south-west of France moving to Paris and canvassing for titles under the 2nd empire (the phenomenon was much less evident in the North-east of France, but a good chunk of the troubles that plagued the second half of Louis Napoleon's reign came from this).

I believe that overall France was lucky to escape a monarchical restoration, also because the previous two restorations of the 19th century (the Bourbons in 1815 and the Orleans in 1830) lasted less than 20 years each before being toppled by insurrections.

I tend to agree. I think the answer to both points you raise depends critically on whether the king is politically astute enough to adopt the Queen Victoria approach of remaining largely apolitical. With regard to the Comte de Chambord I think the answer is definitely no. I will admit I do not know enough about the Comte de Paris to have an opinion.

 

[LordKalvan]

I tend to agree. I think the answer to both points you raise depends critically on whether the king is politically astute enough to adopt the Queen Victoria approach of remaining largely apolitical. With regard to the Comte de Chambord I think the answer is definitely no. I will admit I do not know enough about the Comte de Paris to have an opinion.

The persona of the king will certainly have a negative impact if a guy like de Chambord is chosen. However even a "liberal" king will not be in a good position since he'll have to rely on ultra-royalists and hard Catholics, a mixture which will be the same or worse than the Mameluke faction which opposed the late attempts of Louis Napoleon to turn back the empire in a more liberal way. I would expect that republicans and liberals will play a hard opposition, and I don't see how a brand new king - even with the best intentions - would be able to manage this situation. The wounds of the lost war and of the Commune would still be open and bleeding.