A successful July monarchy that lasts to the modern day

With a POD no later then crowning of Louis Philippe in 1830, make the July monarchy last until the modern day, with an Orléan on the throne, and a constitution that is a direct continuation of the Charter of 1830, however amended.
 
Apparently guys of a famous french hsitory forum (Passion Histoire) talked of this subject, and the conclusion was that frenchmen would never return to Old Regime anymore. Napoleon also had still some prestige, as he basicaly, we forget it, pushed and solidifed the changes brought by the Revolution.

Ironicaly Napoleon was it's saviour, saviour of its ideals, to a point...
 
Apparently guys of a famous french hsitory forum (Passion Histoire) talked of this subject, and the conclusion was that frenchmen would never return to Old Regime anymore. Napoleon also had still some prestige, as he basicaly, we forget it, pushed and solidifed the changes brought by the Revolution.

Ironicaly Napoleon was it's saviour, saviour of its ideals, to a point...

The July Monarchy wasn't the Ancien Régime though. Louis Philippe did away with the Restoration of Louis XVIII and Charles X's time. The King was no longer King of France, but King of the French. There was no more coronations at Rheims, but rather one in Paris where he swore upon the Constitution in front of La Fayette.

A big reason the July Monarchy fell was because of it's restrictive franchise, which although it was widened from the times of 1816, 1824, and 1829, was still less than 100,000 people IIRC. Guizot was a particularly hated figure too (he quipped, "If you want to vote, get rich."), as while the July Monarchy began as something progressive, it quickly became more conservative. Republicans attempted a coup in Paris in 1832, and there was an attempted assassination of Louis-Philippe too. So however bourgeois he attempted to act, as a king of the people, there was definitely some resentment there.

Still, I think it can hold on. The franchise definitely needs to be expanded. French voters looked on at the Reform Act in Britain and were hoping for something similar. I'm not saying Universal Suffrage needs to come right away, but it could probably be accomplished in steps. After all, French suffrage was often quite unwieldy. Universal Manhood suffrage definitely wasn't formally gained until 1871--before that, it had been granted but was often reduced or abolished in favor of a more reduced franchise. The Directoire loved to do this, and Louis XVIII was a huge gerrymander as well when elections in 1814 brought in Ultra-Royalists who were more conservative than the king himself.

The death of Louis-Philippe's son may have had an effect on the collapse of the July Monarchy, too. If I recall, he was fairly popular, and his life was mourned. A lost king of sorts.
 
Not going to happen. The most French were against the restoration of the monarchy; regardless of who was on the throne. The rein of Louis-Philippe did nothing to accommodate them to the July Monarchy.

Looking forward the 1848 Revolutions will still take place in Italy, Germany, Hungary without the February Revolution as those revolutions began independently of that of France. Indeed the probability of a revolution ousting the regime is still likely throughout the period. Further down the road the foreign support the July Monarchy had in the beginning of the regime will slip away as it did IOTL.

Honestly, asides from the conservatives, mostly the nobles, there really wasn't any foundation to speak of within France for the regime. I'm not sure how you could change that. Perhaps, as DrakeRlugia suggests, expanding the franchise will stabilize the regime but the ultra-royalist controlled the parliament and they're not likely to support such a maneuver. The POD will likely need to be in the way the regime comes into force to begin with, so you'll have to change the July Revolution to a degree.
 
Not going to happen. The most French were against the restoration of the monarchy; regardless of who was on the throne. The rein of Louis-Philippe did nothing to accommodate them to the July Monarchy.

Looking forward the 1848 Revolutions will still take place in Italy, Germany, Hungary without the February Revolution as those revolutions began independently of that of France. Indeed the probability of a revolution ousting the regime is still likely throughout the period. Further down the road the foreign support the July Monarchy had in the beginning of the regime will slip away as it did IOTL.

Honestly, asides from the conservatives, mostly the nobles, there really wasn't any foundation to speak of within France for the regime. I'm not sure how you could change that. Perhaps, as DrakeRlugia suggests, expanding the franchise will stabilize the regime but the ultra-royalist controlled the parliament and they're not likely to support such a maneuver. The POD will likely need to be in the way the regime comes into force to begin with, so you'll have to change the July Revolution to a degree.

The Parliament wasn't dominated by the Ultra-Royalists. The 1830 Parliament had a majority of Liberals, while the Ultras had some 100 seats. The Legitimist's share dwindled to 20 seats in 1839. Indeed, throughout the July Monarchy, there was a growth of liberal opposition within Parliament--so the issues with expanding suffrage laid with Louis-Philippe and Guizot, not with Parliament. The Ultras were insignificant during the July Monarchy, as they believed Louis-Philippe was illegitimate. Rather than recognize him as king, the great majority withdrew to their estates. Louis-Philippe was risen to the throne by the great bourgeoisie, not the nobility. They ceased to play any important role after 1830. One of the important amendments to the Charter was restricting to the Chamber of Peers to life peerages and abolishing hereditary peerages.

I don't really understand the whole French being against the monarchy. They certainly had no issue accepting Napoleon III as Prince-President and later Emperor, not to mention the importance of the monarchists (both Orléanists and Legitimists) as important founts of opposition to him. The Parliament after the collapse of the Second Empire was also dominated by the monarchists, but I'd consider that more a reaction to Napoleon III more than anything else. Still, I don't think just because 1789 happened that the French were permanently against a monarchy, especially a constitutional one.

Another good POD would be a different outcome to the Spanish 'succession' crisis in 1846. I know it eroded British support for the regime, as Louis-Philippe was basically angling for his son Montpensier to be eventual King of Spain (as Isabella II had married her husband who was widely believed to be homosexual, or at the very least, impotent). Thus Montpensiers marriage to Isabella's sister was basically the pretense to raising him to the throne. Aside from that, I'm not sure what other foreign support Louis-Philippe's monarchy had. But you can definitely keep the regime in force from 1830--you don't have to change how it was conceived, just how it operated after that.
 
The so-called liberals of the July Monarchy were the reactionaries and conservatives of the II Republic, II Empire, and early III Republic. The July Monarchy just barely staggered through one government after another as various affairs would bring the previous cabinet down. It was only through the compromises of a slim, though wavering, majority of moderates that it lasted even as long as it did IOTL. When the February Revolution came the central issues were a financial crisis coupled with a poor harvest. No liberal state completely falls apart simply because of one bad winter or recession. Perhaps I'm looking back on the July Revolution from my own, largely inadvertent, biases due to my research on the 1848 period, but it seems like the July Monarchy was simply destined to fail. Too many internal factors pulling it apart.

Regarding Louis-Napoléon there was significant opposition to him from the masses. During his coup Paris was under martial law and thousands were arrested; the countryside remained a pinnacle point of republican restiveness as the party reorganized and spread through popular culture. On the other side the reactionary monarchists opposed Louis-Napoléon's rule as not being conservative enough and essentially viewed him as an usurper or pretender, at best.

I'm not saying that France wasn't somehow inherently predisposed against monarchy or towards republicanism. I said you'd have to have a significant POD during the July Revolution or even before the Bourbon Restoration to significantly alter the way the regime was viewed within France, especially within Paris. Further, I'm not sure 1846 leaves enough time for butterflies; though the Affair of the Spanish Marriages did significantly weaken the regime it was already weak as is; its like fixing a blown tire when the engine is bleeding oil like a stuck pig.
 
The so-called liberals of the July Monarchy were the reactionaries and conservatives of the II Republic, II Empire, and early III Republic. The July Monarchy just barely staggered through one government after another as various affairs would bring the previous cabinet down. It was only through the compromises of a slim, though wavering, majority of moderates that it lasted even as long as it did IOTL. When the February Revolution came the central issues were a financial crisis coupled with a poor harvest. No liberal state completely falls apart simply because of one bad winter or recession. Perhaps I'm looking back on the July Revolution from my own, largely inadvertent, biases due to my research on the 1848 period, but it seems like the July Monarchy was simply destined to fail. Too many internal factors pulling it apart.

When I say liberals, I'm talking about the opposition, who made massive gains in the 1842 elections. I know the 'liberals' who brought the Citizen King to power were the men like Adolphe Thiers and would have in their ranks people like de Mac-Mahon.

The July Monarchy certainly had it's share of collapsing governments, but so did the Third Republic. It wasn't the perfect government, no, and certainly had a lot of things tugging at it such as the Republicans, Bonapartists, and the Legitimists, but I don't think it means it's destined to collapse. You just need more than superficial changes to the Charter: the 1830 Charter did have some great improvements, such as removing the king from instigating legislation (I believe under the 1814 Charter, it was the King alone who could bring legislation before the Chambers). The poll tax was reduced and the double vote abolished, but all it did was double the electorate from before the July Revolution: it didn't alter it the way the Reform Acts had in Britain. So the July Monarchy needs something similar.

Regarding Louis-Napoléon there was significant opposition to him from the masses. During his coup Paris was under martial law and thousands were arrested; the countryside remained a pinnacle point of republican restiveness as the party reorganized and spread through popular culture. On the other side the reactionary monarchists opposed Louis-Napoléon's rule as not being conservative enough and essentially viewed him as an usurper or pretender, at best.
Paris was often the hot-bed of radical politics, though. I would be surprised if it wasn't under martial law. From the the sans-coulettes of '89 to the Communards a century later, I wouldn't really describe Paris as a bellwether of France as a whole. Point on the countryside, although wasn't it the countryside that had brought the Prince-President the election? I've read that Carvagniac did quite awfully against him, and the legislature was largely composed of Orléanists and Legitimists. Even the Loi Falloux and a more conservative electoral law in 1850 following Republican gains doesn't seem directed against the countryside. It merely required proof of three years of residency in the direct tax records. This didn't harm the peasantry in countryside, but rather the growing industrial working class.

I'm not saying that France wasn't somehow inherently predisposed against monarchy or towards republicanism. I said you'd have to have a significant POD during the July Revolution or even before the Bourbon Restoration to significantly alter the way the regime was viewed within France, especially within Paris. Further, I'm not sure 1846 leaves enough time for butterflies; though the Affair of the Spanish Marriages did significantly weaken the regime it was already weak as is; its like fixing a blown tire when the engine is bleeding oil like a stuck pig.
True, the large problems with the July Monarchy began in 1846. It wasn't just one winter that brought the regime to heel; there was a financial crisis in 1846 along with bad harvests which definitely continued into the next year and into 1848. This economic downturn actually favored the progressives in Parliament, as they united themselves got and received many reforms during the 1847 Parliamentary Session, such as the lowering as the cens tax. It was only then that Guizot's cabinet became more authoritarian, such as the banning of the Campagne des Banquets.
 
A good POD to have the July Monarchy last longer would be to have Louis Philippe's eldest son, Ferdinand Philippe, not kill himself accidentally in 1842. The Prince Royal was a very popular figure among the French people: he was viewed as a liberal, had peacefully put an end to a worker uprising in the early days of the July Monarchy and also had some military glory from his campaigns in Algeria.

Of all those who did the February 1848 Revolution, the majority was composed by moderates and Républicains du lendemain (Republicans of the day after), the latter being named so for being opportunists more than anything. OTL, The reason these people supported Louis-Napoleon Bonaparte was because he was famous (nephew of Napoleon I) and seemed like an idiot easy to manipulate: there is a quote from Adolphe Thiers, one of the most important French politicians of the time, which more or less says this.
The background of the Prince Royal might be enough for the 1848 Revolution to result only in the abdication of Louis Philippe and the coronation of Ferdinand I, King of the French, instead of a Second Republic. Of course, it would depend on how Ferdinand acted during the Revolution, on his opinion on Guizot and his policies and of wether or not the die-hard Republicans fail to unite like they did in 1830.
 
When I say liberals, I'm talking about the opposition, who made massive gains in the 1842 elections. I know the 'liberals' who brought the Citizen King to power were the men like Adolphe Thiers and would have in their ranks people like de Mac-Mahon.

So 'liberal' in this sense would mean Lamartine and his ilk? That's still fairly conservative/reactionary in character.

The July Monarchy certainly had it's share of collapsing governments, but so did the Third Republic. It wasn't the perfect government, no, and certainly had a lot of things tugging at it such as the Republicans, Bonapartists, and the Legitimists, but I don't think it means it's destined to collapse. You just need more than superficial changes to the Charter: the 1830 Charter did have some great improvements, such as removing the king from instigating legislation (I believe under the 1814 Charter, it was the King alone who could bring legislation before the Chambers). The poll tax was reduced and the double vote abolished, but all it did was double the electorate from before the July Revolution: it didn't alter it the way the Reform Acts had in Britain. So the July Monarchy needs something similar.

Agreed, which, as I've stated, considering the political landscape of the July Monarchy means you'll need a POD either in the July Revolution or before to substantially change the character of the July Monarchy. There's really no saving it without significantly altering its character, and at that point it might be easier to discuss the 'alt-government that replaced the Bourbon Restoration' as opposed to an 'alt-July Monarchy.'

Paris was often the hot-bed of radical politics, though. I would be surprised if it wasn't under martial law. From the the sans-coulettes of '89 to the Communards a century later, I wouldn't really describe Paris as a bellwether of France as a whole. Point on the countryside, although wasn't it the countryside that had brought the Prince-President the election? I've read that Carvagniac did quite awfully against him, and the legislature was largely composed of Orléanists and Legitimists. Even the Loi Falloux and a more conservative electoral law in 1850 following Republican gains doesn't seem directed against the countryside. It merely required proof of three years of residency in the direct tax records. This didn't harm the peasantry in countryside, but rather the growing industrial working class.

Consider that prior to his actual time in office Louis-Napoléon was something of a wild-card. He was largely unknown in Paris asides from his uncle's name and his attempted 'invasions' in 1836 and '40. He courted both moderate conservatives and radicals by telling each group exactly what they wanted to hear. The people, both urban and rural, voted for him in droves; Louis-Napoléon won the 1848 election by a sweeping 74.4% of the vote, with the only real opposition coming from conservatives. It was only after he was elected to office that he started to appoint these same reactionaries and undo much of the progressive work of the past year. This trend accelerated greatly after his coup d'état.

True, the large problems with the July Monarchy began in 1846. It wasn't just one winter that brought the regime to heel; there was a financial crisis in 1846 along with bad harvests which definitely continued into the next year and into 1848. This economic downturn actually favored the progressives in Parliament, as they united themselves got and received many reforms during the 1847 Parliamentary Session, such as the lowering as the cens tax. It was only then that Guizot's cabinet became more authoritarian, such as the banning of the Campagne des Banquets.

Granted, however those were only the immediate details. The underlining weaknesses had been with the regime since its inception and it was those fault lines that lead to its downfall. When the people threw up barricades throughout Paris it wasn't because of the shortage of grain or the rising costs of things, or even the banning of the Campagne des Banquets. Things could have turned it differently, however the staunchly bourgeois, conservative-controlled, Municipal Guards laid into the protesting crowds with sabers, muskets, and bayonets. That's when the February Revolution truly began.
 
Of course it COULD happen, thats the whole point of alternate history. A good start would be to have Ferdinand not die in a carriage accident

Best Regaarrdds
Grey Wolf
 
So 'liberal' in this sense would mean Lamartine and his ilk? That's still fairly conservative/reactionary in character.

Yes, Lamartine, so basically the core of the moderate republicans. Not the Parties of Resistance or Movement, as they were fringe groups (with the droit du travail, ect). And yes, but in context of the July Monarchy they were considered progressive and formed the opposition.


Agreed, which, as I've stated, considering the political landscape of the July Monarchy means you'll need a POD either in the July Revolution or before to substantially change the character of the July Monarchy. There's really no saving it without significantly altering its character, and at that point it might be easier to discuss the 'alt-government that replaced the Bourbon Restoration' as opposed to an 'alt-July Monarchy.'
I don't see why the political landscape needs to be radically altered: it's not as if there was one single strand of Orléanist thought at the time. Maybe during the time of the Bourbon Restoration that was true (as Orléans was a figure for the opposition, whether he wanted to be or not), but by the late 1830s you had the Orléanist dominated chambers split into the dynastic left under Barrot who sought the extension of the electorate to include the petty bourgeoisie, the Orléanists under Thiers who were more center-left, and then the right of Orléanist thought under Guizot and Count Molé who supported the status quo.

Considering before Guizot's long tenure in office, Louis-Philippe was basically shuffling between Molé and Thiers (with the occasional Soult) in the position of Prime Minister, we merely have to make Barrot's party much stronger. I know that the Prince Royal was an especially important supporter of that strand of Orléanist thought, so there's a start.

I'm not sure how much you could really alter any alternate government. Even with an earlier POD that involves the collapse of the Restoration under the senior line, Louis-Philippe is likely to be brought to the throne by the great bourgeoisie who had been muzzled by the Bourbons. What other outcome is there, really? I think 1830 is too early for a Republic, and I'm not sure the Bonapartists had much pull at that point either. It's either Louis-Philippe or the Assembly decides to accept the abdications of Charles X and the Duc d'Angoulême in favor of the Duc de Bourdeaux--which would have interesting implications, especially if he was reared as a ward of the state. But that's a different topic for a different thread, and I don't think that outcome is likely to happen either. Just as the Republic divided the French least later in the 19th century, I think it was Louis-Philippe who filled that role in 1830.


Granted, however those were only the immediate details. The underlining weaknesses had been with the regime since its inception and it was those fault lines that lead to its downfall. When the people threw up barricades throughout Paris it wasn't because of the shortage of grain or the rising costs of things, or even the banning of the Campagne des Banquets. Things could have turned it differently, however the staunchly bourgeois, conservative-controlled, Municipal Guards laid into the protesting crowds with sabers, muskets, and bayonets. That's when the February Revolution truly began.
I'd say the guards laying into the crowds was the explosion that triggered the February Revolution, but it's something that's not going to happen without the fuses being lit. The poor harvests had profound impact, because it precipitated a cycle of overproduction, layoffs, and strain on the financial system (credit crunches, bankruptcies, collapse on the stock markets). The importation of Russian wheat also served to create a negative balance of trade which further cut into government funds. Toss in a few political scandals (Teste-Cubières, Choiseul-Praslin killing his wife and committing suicide, ect) and it's not really surprising why the shots fired by the Municipal Guards provoked a revolution. When have such a nasty negative cycle like that going around, things are going to be in a crunch: especially when you have a government as weak as the July Monarchy. Yet it doesn't mean it's an end for a system. After all, the Third Republic was structurally weak and had ever shifting governments and elections but still managed to hobble through crises of it's own, as well as a World War.

I think another reason the monarchy might've collapsed was because of the awkward position in which it was conceived. It was in the midst of that early industrial society that was not wholly separated from proto-industrial society. You had new phenomenons like the exodus' of peasantry into the cities and the birth of the working poor. The system of the Ancien Régime had ceased to exist and instead you had workers toiling away for long hours, poor pay, no unions. I think that evolution is enough to put a strain on the existing social system, as many people were reduced and plunged into utter poverty, with registered beggars and millions of others registered in charity offices, and in Paris alone a third of the city was probably on assistance in 1848. It could be easily compared to Great Britain, who had her own issues with early industrial society, but also saw some of it's oldest laws retooled to fit this new and changing society (the poor laws, ect). In France, you had the old system completely abolished and replaced with nothing in return.
 
So basically without some serious reform the July monarchy is doomed? Then I have to ask:
1. What would be the best action of reform?
2. How would be the easiest and best way to pass said reforms?
 
So basically without some serious reform the July monarchy is doomed? Then I have to ask:
1. What would be the best action of reform?
2. How would be the easiest and best way to pass said reforms?

As stated above, the electoral franchise needs to be expanded. The electoral tax (cens) was lowered twice: in 1830, which doubled the amount of electors, and again in 1847. Yet at the end of the July Monarchy, the amount of men eligible to vote was probably only around 240,000 men (up from 100,000 or so in 1830). The fact of the matter is, the lowering of the electoral tax expanded the franchise, but it didn't greatly alter the classes from which it was drawn. So up until 1848, the July Monarchy was very much dominated by the haute-bourgeosisie. You need a serious electoral reform akin to what Britain received in 1832. The more liberal Orléanists under Barrot wanted to expand the franchise to include the petty bourgeoisie, so it's a start.

But expanding the franchise doesn't change the fact that the July Monarchy was very much like the Third Republic. Lots of short lived governments, lots of trouble on all sides, especially from Socialists and Republicans on the far-left and the Legitimists on the far-right. There's also the issue as I don't think any minute POD is going to butterfly away the awful weather that decimated the crop and had a long domino affect--so even with some electoral reform in the early 1840s, France will probably slump into an economic recession. Boom and bust is the natural cycle of any capitalist economy, so it is bound to happen anyways. But the July Monarchy was in the awkward stage of industrial development which made things particularly vulnerable. The old congregational system of the Ancien Régime that included the manorial rights of the landowners and the medieval guilds had been fully abolished. By the time of the July Monarchy, the burgeoning proletariat were working long hours for poor wages and had no right to assemble. They were especially vulnerable for economic downturns in that a poor harvest not only impacted their own purchasing power, but turned the entire economic system upside down which saw industrial overproduction, layoffs, bank runs and bankrupticies, and stock prices on the Bourses collapsed, too. Even the importation of cheap wheat didn't help things, as it cut into the balance of trade, thus forcing the government to cease public works, which again, had another terrible impact on those who had been put out of the factories. It's not just political issues, but profound social ones too.
 
DrakeRlugia, based on your responses in our discussion so far it would appear that you seem to be agreeing with me that the July Monarchy was too structurally weak to survive. You argue that merely extending the franchise could potentially save the regime while also positing that it won't extend the July Monarchy's lifetime. :confused:

It feels like we're arguing with each other from the same position and either don't realize or don't want to admit it.
 
DrakeRlugia, based on your responses in our discussion so far it would appear that you seem to be agreeing with me that the July Monarchy was too structurally weak to survive. You argue that merely extending the franchise could potentially save the regime while also positing that it won't extend the July Monarchy's lifetime. :confused:

It feels like we're arguing with each other from the same position and either don't realize or don't want to admit it.

I agree that it was structurally weak and with many of your points, but I disagree that it was doomed to fall apart. Without any changes of any kind? Then yes, it's certainly going to collapse upon it's self like a house of cards. But to say it can't be saved at all seems awfully deterministic. The Third Republic was structurally weak and was probably France's longest form of government since 1789. I was merely stating that I understood the reasons for it's collapse IOTL--it was a mix of politics as well as economics. Any political POD isn't likely to change the weather, so even with political restructuring, there's still likely to be some kind of social problems in the late 1840s.

The forces of reaction ultimately prevailed in all the cases of the 1848 Revolution, so I don't see why the reaction in France can't be the July Monarchy continuing on instead of Louis-Napoléon. If there is some genuine electoral reform that actually enfranchises a new class within the electorate (rather than slowly expanding the electors from within the upper middle classes), I think it would allow the July Monarchy to catch it's breath. Obviously saving the July Monarchy goes beyond just expanding the franchise, or the Prince Royal surviving his carriage wreck. But I think a ministry under the dynastic left that can push through some genuine reforms in the early 1840s and avoiding Guizot's ministry could go a long way and it could certainly limp through 1848. The Parliamentary form of government was certainly 'unstable' in that it a ministry can fall at the flick of a pen, but France seems to have preferred such a system rather than one that invested more powers in the executive.

I wouldn't really consider us to be arguing, though. More of a lively debate. France is an oft neglected topic here on the forums (unless it happens to include Napoleon: although I have to admit, there have been more French geared TLs as of late), and the periods of the Restoration and the July Monarchy are especially neglected. So I'm glad some discussion could be generated at any rate.
 
So, as I've stated earlier in the thread, with a significant enough POD and butterflies to save the July Monarchy, the point becomes moot, as at that point you are discussing 'the French polity which followed the Bourbon Restoration' as opposed an 'alt-July Monarchy.' In order to save the regime, you have to fundamentally changed some of the defining characteristics of the regime. You might save the Orléanist throne for a short time, but without a major overhaul of the system it will still fall apart due to factors outside of France's political control (i.e. changing the immediate conservative domination doesn't fix the underlying issues at hand).

In general I feel that, as two out of the perhaps baker's dozen in this community read in this area, that we are agreeing with each other's points without actually conceding the point :p

As well, even extending the franchise wouldn't appear to even solve the short-term issues. The extended franchise IOTL elected a large conservative majority in 1848 and 1849, brought in Louis-Napoléon; as well as his conservative government in the 1860s as he withdraw from active governmental policy, and elected the conservative majority during the initial stages of the III Republic. While radical and moderate republicans made in-roads into the countryside following the February Revolution, for the most part this was the land of the nobility, the priesthood, and the bourgeois capitalists - conservatives and reactionaries. So, ITTL passing a 'French Reform Law' may extend the franchise, but this would still lead to the OTL events of 1848, though they may play out differently.

A thought; IOTL when Louis-Philippe abdicated the throne it initially was passed to his grandson, Prince Philippe, with a regency under his mother, Duchess Helene. This is the position that many conservatives in the Chamber of Deputies attempted to argue for, including Barrot, before Lamartine announced the formation of the provisional (republican) government. Conceivably ITTL with an extended franchise and stronger (liberal) conservative position within the Chamber the regency could be secured, with Prince Philippe was Philippe II, Roi des Français...

... However, the events of the June Days will still be right around the corner for the new regime, and a maintenance of the monarchy will turn even moderate and conservative republicans such as Lamartine to the 'second revolution' in droves. This would mean a slightly extended life for the July Monarchy, only to be overthrown in the establishment of a 'social and democratic republic' with very strong, quasi-socialist, ideals.
 
Okay, let me see if I understand the electoral issue, under the Bourbon Restoration only 1% of the male population could vote, so the July Monarchy's sollution was to double the number of men who could vote to a whole 2%? Something like that?
 
Okay, let me see if I understand the electoral issue, under the Bourbon Restoration only 1% of the male population could vote, so the July Monarchy's sollution was to double the number of men who could vote to a whole 2%? Something like that?

Actually, less. Even under the July Monarchy less than 1% of the population had the right to vote. Only land-owners were permitted to vote, which excluded the petty bourgeois, let alone the increasingly proletarianized working classes and the rural peasantry.
 
Okay, let me see if I understand the electoral issue, under the Bourbon Restoration only 1% of the male population could vote, so the July Monarchy's sollution was to double the number of men who could vote to a whole 2%? Something like that?

Around 100,000 men had the right to vote in 1830, a number which rose to be around 240,000 or so by the end of the regime in 1848. Before the July Revolution the franchise had been even more limited, and Louis XVIII and Charles X much more freely restricted it on numerous occasions to make Parliament more pliable to their demands. France at this time had a population of around 30 million or so, so like Wolf_Paw said, the numbers probably never even reached 1%, let alone two. The Restoration had weighted votes on top of this restrictive system: this basically meant that the more money you paid in taxes, the more your vote counted. The July Monarchy merely deceased the amount of money one had to pay to qualify as a elector. So, the electorate was enlarged prior to how it was before the July Revolution, but as Wolf said, was still made up of the rich property owners.
 
I didn't mean litterally 2%, more like "1% doubled is still only 2%" as in, even though the number doubled it was still unacceptably small. It was just a figure of speach to help me understand it a bit better.
 
Top