Bourbon Restoration absolute.

Right after the bourbons come back to France, they decide to be absolute monarchs again. The other monarchies promise to help destroy any rebellion in France. How does France develop?
 
Right after the bourbons come back to France, they decide to be absolute monarchs again. The other monarchies promise to help destroy any rebellion in France. How does France develop?

After the second rebellion, the British and Prussians loose appetite for being the Bourbons' police force and quietly arrange for Louis-Philippe of Orléans to ascend to the throne as constitutional monarch.
 
Right after the bourbons come back to France, they decide to be absolute monarchs again. The other monarchies promise to help destroy any rebellion in France. How does France develop?

Some basics: The French society was, at this point, thourougly opposed to Absolutism. This goes without saying for Republicans and Liberals; but most Royalists opposed absolute monarchy too. They wter either moderate monarchists/liberals, or dreamt of some kind of feudal revival with parliaments and estates checking royal power. Only very few of the ultra-Royalists advocated for a royal dictatorship. Furthermore, Louis XVIII himself was opposed to absolute monarchy. He observed contemporary English politics and concluded that constitutional monarchies work. This is why he implemented parliamentarism in France.

Now it would be easy to have Louis XVIII die in 1814 as a POD. He is replaced by the much more conservative, absolutist Charles X. What happens next? The French public is greatly worried. The peasants would fear the return of serfdom, the bourgeoisie the restoration of noble priviliges and the loss of the Bienx nationaux. The army was already angered by the post-Napoleonic austerity in OTL.

Once Charles X attack substantial public liberties, unrest will spread among all political groups. Napoléon returns in 1815, as per OTL. This time, the majority of the French society supports him. Even persons like Chateaubriand, a notorious Ultra, would prefer a liberal Empire to an absolute monarchy. To protect the monarchy, the European monarchies intervene as promised. France, standing united behind Napoléon and liberal ideas, fields a large and motivated army, crushing the foreign intervention. France develops into a democracy much earlier.
 
But could France have fielded a large & motivated army after almost a quarter cen-
tury of war? I also have to say Nappy turning into someone willing to be a demo-
crat is so far out of his character as to be
ASB(@ least in this regard he was like Hitler-
he was totally unwilling to have ANY con-
straints placed on his power & to hold power
in a democracy this is exactly what you must
be willing to accept). France therefore could
not have turned Democratic until after Nappy's death. IOTL this happened in 1821-
but ITTL he wouldn't have been imprisoned
on a remote island & probably would have
lived longer- maybe MUCH longer. Further-
more, before passing he would have done all
he could to set up a succession to his position- he would never have dreamed of
putting it up to the French people for a vote
(unless of course he had made sure it was
rigged). It's hard to see thus how France, in
this senario, could have become a democ-
racy.
 
Last edited:
Once Charles X attack substantial public liberties, unrest will spread among all political groups. Napoléon returns in 1815, as per OTL. This time, the majority of the French society supports him. Even persons like Chateaubriand, a notorious Ultra, would prefer a liberal Empire to an absolute monarchy. To protect the monarchy, the European monarchies intervene as promised. France, standing united behind Napoléon and liberal ideas, fields a large and motivated army, crushing the foreign intervention. France develops into a democracy much earlier.

You sure about that?
A Napoleonic France will certainly have more internal push towards some sort of representative government, it has to, the ideological basis of Napoleon's support demands it, but that doesn't mean that he or any of his successors are necessarily inclined to give in to that demand unless they are in danger of losing their positions as a consequence of it. You're not going to get a France that's ready to overthrow a Bonaparte in those early years of the 19th century and it's only the implicit threat of deposition that could move France toward a more democratic form of government.

Napoleon was a cut above the rest of the Ancien Regimes but he was still an authoritarian; limiting his own power in ways he can't take back isn't going to be a part of his agenda.

The only way I can see any sort of development like this is if Napoleon II has a long regency, that gives times for those more republican parts of society to develop under the new status quo of a nominally liberal monarchy.
 
You sure about that?

Kind of. You are right that Napoléon was an authoritarian ruler for most of his reign - however, not under the Hundred Days. He essentially transformed his regime into a liberal monarchy in 1815 by adopting the so-called Additional Act, which amended the previous Napoleonic constitutions. It greatly strengthened civic rights and parliament.

The most important provisions of the act were:
- the parliament was now (indirectly) elected by universal suffrage: this might be the basis for a movement towards democracy
- the government was accountable (to parliament)
- guarantee of certain rights, like the freedom of press

The question is: Will Napoléon uphold the act once he has vanquished his foreign enemies - or will he use the first opportunity to get rid of the new liberal constitution?
 
I say this as someone who's a kinda expert on the Bourbon restoration and a fan of any alt-history that keeps the French monarchy: absolutism in France is dead and gone. No one's going to restore the Ancien Régime at this point. Plus remember that it was the Allies themselves who mandated Louis XVIII to grant a constitution in the first place. They aren't going to decide to support a return to absolutism. However the constitution that was granted was as close to legal absolutism you could have gotten. The King commanded the land and sea forces, declared war, made treaties of peace, alliance and commerce, appointed to all places of public administration, and made the necessary regulations and ordinances for the execution of the laws and the security of the state. Quite frankly the only power he legally lacked was financial and from what I remember the Parliament was never stingy with requested taxes. So ultimately it would be impossible to restore the 1789 régime and France was better off for it.

Though I will say this: in an absolute scenario that see's Charles as King in 1814 and pushed off the throne it won't be in favor of Louis-Philippe. It would see either his son the Duc d'Angoulême/Dauphin become Louis XIX or a surviving Duc de Berry become Charles XI. The British might be OK with the Duc d'Orléans but the Prussians and Austrians wouldn't be and they would be the ones providing the bulk of a interventionary army; the British appetite for war and conflict was pretty dead after Napoleon's Hundred days and I can't see the Liverpool Government supporting an army of at least 20,000 or more in a stay behind posting.

Kind of. You are right that Napoléon was an authoritarian ruler for most of his reign - however, not under the Hundred Days. He essentially transformed his regime into a liberal monarchy in 1815 by adopting the so-called Additional Act, which amended the previous Napoleonic constitutions. It greatly strengthened civic rights and parliament.

The most important provisions of the act were:
- the parliament was now (indirectly) elected by universal suffrage: this might be the basis for a movement towards democracy
- the government was accountable (to parliament)
- guarantee of certain rights, like the freedom of press

The question is: Will Napoléon uphold the act once he has vanquished his foreign enemies - or will he use the first opportunity to get rid of the new liberal constitution?

Quite frankly even the 1815 constitution was easily manipulated. The Parliament might be universally elected but it's easy to limit who can and cannot run for office. The Government is theoretically accountable but nothing stops the Emperor from pardoning someone impeached by the Parliament. Similarly it doesn't say that the Government can fall by a vote of no confidence. Finally freedom of the press can be censored easily by denying publications journalistic licenses. Effectively the 1815 charter was a Napoléonic spin on the Bourbon Charter.
 
Napoleon won't be vanquishing his foreign enemies. France in the Hundred Days was mobilising from a standing start while the Allies already had their armies in the field and thanks to the heavy casualties of 1812-14 the Allied armies were qualitatively superior. Even if he wins at Waterloo he is going to be snowed under by the Austrian and Russian forces which are only a week away and outnumber him 5 to 1 and while he beat those odds before that was with qualitatively superior troops and organisational and tactical advances that had become universal in the intervening years.

A more likely scenario if Charles X demonstrates he's learned nothing is an earlier Orleans monarchy.
 
The King commanded the land and sea forces, declared war, made treaties of peace, alliance and commerce, appointed to all places of public administration, and made the necessary regulations and ordinances for the execution of the laws and the security of the state. Quite frankly the only power he legally lacked was financial and from what I remember the Parliament was never stingy with requested taxes.

I fear that you don't read the 1814 Charter correctly. It wasn't "close to absolutism" as you wrote.

The most important sentence in the whole document is: "His ministers are responsible." What does this mean? 1) The ministers are responsible to the parliament. 2) No decision of the king has effect unless it is signed by a minister. 3) In practice, the king can use all the powers you named only in concert with his government, which in turn needed a majority in the lower House.

That meant that the Bourbon Restoration was a parliamentary monarchy, in which the decisions were taken by a government accountable to parliament. Certainly Louis XVIII and Charles X were more powerful than current constitutional monarchs, but even they couldn't use this power against the parliament.
 
Even if he wins at Waterloo he is going to be snowed under by the Austrian and Russian forces which are only a week away and outnumber him 5 to 1 and while he beat those odds before that was with qualitatively superior troops and organisational and tactical advances

I wouldn't say that. First, I would like to know where these Russian and Austrian troops were so that you can say that they were only a week away. Secondly, I'm not really convinced that the Austrian performance improved since 1809 and 1805. Thirdly, in the scenario of a restoration under Charles X, there would be great popular support for Napoléon, growing the ranks of the army and limitting the Allies' numerical superiority.
 
I wouldn't say that. First, I would like to know where these Russian and Austrian troops were so that you can say that they were only a week away. Secondly, I'm not really convinced that the Austrian performance improved since 1809 and 1805. Thirdly, in the scenario of a restoration under Charles X, there would be great popular support for Napoléon, growing the ranks of the army and limitting the Allies' numerical superiority.

The Austrian Army performed well in 1813-14 and even if Napoleon has more recruits the repeated defeats post Moscow gutted the junior officer and NCO ranks of the French army. Wellington himself said that the rank and file of the French Army at Waterloo was worse than those he'd faced in Spain. As the map shows the Allies had 800,000 to Frances 180,000 with the bulk on the Rhine i.e. as week to ten days away.
 

Attachments

  • Strategic Situation of Western Europe 1815.jpg
    Strategic Situation of Western Europe 1815.jpg
    358 KB · Views: 91
I fear that you don't read the 1814 Charter correctly. It wasn't "close to absolutism" as you wrote.

The most important sentence in the whole document is: "His ministers are responsible." What does this mean? 1) The ministers are responsible to the parliament. 2) No decision of the king has effect unless it is signed by a minister. 3) In practice, the king can use all the powers you named only in concert with his government, which in turn needed a majority in the lower House.

That meant that the Bourbon Restoration was a parliamentary monarchy, in which the decisions were taken by a government accountable to parliament. Certainly Louis XVIII and Charles X were more powerful than current constitutional monarchs, but even they couldn't use this power against the parliament.

Not really. That line is so open-ended it's not even funny. That article, 13, of the Charter fully says "The person of the king is inviolable and sacred. His ministers are responsible. To the king alone belongs the executive power." That doesn't at all imply responsibility to Parliament in any legal way. Nor do I see anywhere that says a minister has to co-sign a decree or law. Hell article 22 says that "The king alone sanctions and promulgates the laws." that implies no ministerial signature is necessary.

No historical source has ever described the Charter of 1814 as Parliamentary. In fact it's typically described as "Constitutional, not Parliamentary monarchy". So I stand by my description of the Restoration as close to absolutism. Or more correctly semi-absolute.
 
Not really. That line is so open-ended it's not even funny. That article, 13, of the Charter fully says "The person of the king is inviolable and sacred. His ministers are responsible. To the king alone belongs the executive power." That doesn't at all imply responsibility to Parliament in any legal way.

It does, it does. That's one of the odd things of the time: They said the "ministers are responsible", but they meant: "the ministers are responsible to the parliament". If you want to see an undisputed example, take a look at the Belgian constitution:

"Article 63. La personne du Roi est inviolable ; ses ministres sont responsables."
"Article 64. Aucun acte du Roi ne peut avoir d'effet, s'il n'est contresigné par un ministre, qui, par cela seul, s'en rend responsable."

"Article 63. The King’s person is inviolable; his ministers are accountable." (This disposition, now as article 88, can still be found in the current version).
"Article 64. No act of the King can take effect without the countersignature of a minister, who, in doing so, assumes responsibility for it." (Now article 106).

Now it's pretty much undisputed that Belgium was a parliamentary monarchy since it's foundation in 1831. And still, its constitution didn't expressly state that the ministers are responsbile to Parliament. But it didn't have to. It was clear to everyone that "responsibility" meant "responsibility to Parliament" and not to Julius Caesar, to the Emperor of China or to any other possible authority.

Nor do I see anywhere that says a minister has to co-sign a decree or law.

And how do you want the ministers to assume responsibility without contersigning the monarch's acts? You can only be accountable for what you saw and approved. That's another implicit disposition (and confirmed by practice: all laws and other acts under Louis XVIII were signed not only by him, but also by at least one of his ministers).

So I stand by my description of the Restoration as close to absolutism. Or more correctly semi-absolute.

The Restoration was parliamentary, if not because the 1814 Charter was designed as such, but because Louis XVIII acted just like a parliamentary monarch. In 1815, after the White Terror and the election of the Chambre introuvable, he dismissed Talleyrand and appointed a more conservative government under Richelieu, which was in line with the majority of Parliament. In 1818, Richelieu in turn lost the confidence of the Chamber and resigned. He was replaced by Dessolles, who was in turn replaced by Decazes in 1820... It wasn't a perfect parliamentary monarchy, I agree, but it was already quite parlamentarian.

Compare is to the more authoritarian government of Bismarck, for example.
 
Top