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