AHC:Keep the European aristocracy powerful as long as possible

If I understand my history, one of the reasons the aristocracy declined in the 19th century is that they continued to keep most of their wealth in land even when it did not make economic sense to do so. Many British nobles married wealthy heiresses from America because their financial position was growing weaker over time due to lower food prices and increasing taxes, making them "cash poor". These changes were highly noticeable at the time, since the decline of the old nobility was an important theme in Marxism.

I'm not as familiar with the fate of the continental aristocracy, unfortunately. Perhaps someone can enlighten me on that.

How might the European aristocracy maintain their political or economic through the great changes of the Industrial Revolution?

(No, monarchs selling titles to random commoner businessmen does NOT fulfill the spirit of the challenge, by the way. :p)
 
If I understand my history, one of the reasons the aristocracy declined in the 19th century is that they continued to keep most of their wealth in land even when it did not make economic sense to do so.

Hardly a nobility thing, the same was practiced by continental bourgeoisie since the XVIIth century, going often trough de facto "annoblishement" (without official title).

On many regards, the nobility of the late Middle-Ages up to XIXth century managed quite well to find a place in the new social-economical order (take a look at the names in european diplomatic offices, or great entreprises). What is going to be really hard is to maintain an aristocratic order (as in, in a country ruled by few, implied nobles there).

Mostly because aristocracy as a regime never really existed, after the XVIth century (so far earlier than Industrial Revolution). Increasing royal and principal authority crushed it enough to let only a nobility (with its intrigues and own ambitions, admittedly) orbitating over the throne.
Centralisation and bureaucratisation of state eventually rang the death knell for aristocracy; and it was a general tendency less than an event that you could butterfly away.
 
Hardly a nobility thing, the same was practiced by continental bourgeoisie since the XVIIth century, going often trough de facto "annoblishement" (without official title).

On many regards, the nobility of the late Middle-Ages up to XIXth century managed quite well to find a place in the new social-economical order (take a look at the names in european diplomatic offices, or great entreprises). What is going to be really hard is to maintain an aristocratic order (as in, in a country ruled by few, implied nobles there).

Mostly because aristocracy as a regime never really existed, after the XVIth century (so far earlier than Industrial Revolution). Increasing royal and principal authority crushed it enough to let only a nobility (with its intrigues and own ambitions, admittedly) orbitating over the throne.
Centralisation and bureaucratisation of state eventually rang the death knell for aristocracy; and it was a general tendency less than an event that you could butterfly away.

So perhaps less powerful monarchies for whatever reason might do the trick?

(Whether constitutional reforms or a succession of weak kings)

I knew about the "nobility of the robe", but what I was going for was more that the process of "ennoblement" would stop before major industrialization, making the descendants of that class of "noble birth" eventually.

What kept the nobles from being integrated into the bureaucracy, or am I understanding your post wrong?
 
So perhaps less powerful monarchies for whatever reason might do the trick?
Every monarchy on the whole continent? That would be really pushing coincidences.


I knew about the "nobility of the robe", but what I was going for was more that the process of "ennoblement" would stop before major industrialization, making the descendants of that class of "noble birth" eventually.
You misunderstood me : I wasn't talking about "nobility of the robe" or "nobility of the bell", but nobility of wealth that was more or less official : sometimes annoblished de jure, sometimes "illegally" trough buying a land (but not its title), sometimes just completly made up (especially in republican countries, or issued from post-napoleonic order).

Even in Britain, a good part of the current nobility comes from XVIth/XVIIth century, in a time where order privileges cristallized while royal power reinforced itself.

In France, for instance, the ennoblement process didn't really stop before the end of the Second Empire, even if this nobility is seen as bogus by the ANF, and not counting the adoption of titles (that aren't mark of nobility itself, but can count as mark of aristocracy even if not nobiliar) during Republican eras.

What kept the nobles from being integrated into the bureaucracy, or am I understanding your post wrong?
They were integrated into the bureaucracy, making them orbitating around the royal power AND working with non-nobles elites (eventually annoblished themselves before the XIXth century); poiting out that their power was already less aristocratic than part of the monarchic power (preluding to the nation-state power).
 
Butterflying away the Agricultural Revolution might help, since less food production = higher prices = farming is more profitable.

Alternatively, if you could somehow butterfly away the aristocracy's resistance to engaging in trade, they might do better out of industrialisation.
 
Best bet is some powerful aristocratic republics, the problem is those were often very badly managed (with Venice being something of an exception).
 
Top