Consequences of an Orleanist Restoration in the 1870s

Glass Onion

First of all, I'm not sure precisely how plausible this is, but here it goes. The point of divergence here is that Henri Comte De Chambord is out of the picture by 1873 at the latest. With the would-be Henri V dead, as they did historically, most monarchists embrace the Orleanist heir, the comte de Paris, as the new pretender to the French Throne. Phillipe recognizes the tricolor flag, unlike Henri historically, and is restored to the throne by the national assembly.

How long can the restored monarchy last? Can it survive through Phillipe's life time at least? What kind of King would Phillipe be? Since he served in the American Civil War, would his accession to the throne have any impact on Franco-American relations? How does France politically evolution differ here after 1873? How much political power would the Comte de Paris have as King. More generally, how are European politics affected by this turn of events?
 
Xgentis

Xgentis

Well the king power would be limited. You get a classic constitutional monarchy. The foreign policy will still be mostly the same. And France would still do everthing to get back Alsace-Lorraine.
 

Glass Onion

Still, how long can the monarchy last here? Would Louis Phillipe II be at risk of overthrow at some point between 1873-1894? Is there any event that under these circumstances would have led to his deposition? And what of domestic French politics in the period? How would they differ from those pursued under the Third Republic between 1873-1894? And what of his successors? How long could they maintain their grip on the throne?
 

King of Rome

As far as maintaining the throne, if the Orleans are constitutional monarchs a la Great Britain, they should fine as long as the orleanist faction of politicians don't screw things up.

ED: Oh, and there might be a new royal marriage or two.
 

Razgriz 2K9

Banned
That's the funny thing about governments, they always change with the times. Keeping the Orleanist King on the throne will depend on how well their policies hold. Of course their foreign policy would be directed to taking back Alsace-Lorraine of course, as well as scrambling for more of Africa.
 

Wolfpaw

Banned
I wonder how the laissez-faire Orleanists will deal with socialism? And presumably the Catholic Church will begin retrenchment.
 

wolf_brother

Banned
Wait. How does Prince Philippe end up on the throne to begin with? Because there's surely no way that the republicans simply roll over and accept any monarchist restoration in the 1870s, let alone the growing socialists.
 

Razgriz 2K9

Banned
Well, there is the coup de'tat option, considering the chaotic political situation of the early 1870's, it would certainly be a strong possibility.
 

bill_bruno

The monarchists had a majority in the National Assembly and the Orleanists had agreed to back Henri. The question is, if Chambord is out of the picture, do enough Legitimists agree to back the Orleanists candidate to preserve that majority?
 

jkay

But, I"m afraid it wouldn't be that easy, would it? You'd talking constitutional change, no doubt needing decidedly more than a majority. And, was the President on board?

And, their last King hadn't exactly worked out so well had he, resulting in the most massively embarassing loss ever, still terribly recent? So, wouldn't it be a litttle hard to get the change?

And how would a coup help? Aren't those, like Nappy I's, generally in favor of the couper?
 

wolf_brother

Banned
bill_bruno said:
The monarchists had a majority in the National Assembly and the Orleanists had agreed to back Henri. The question is, if Chambord is out of the picture, do enough Legitimists agree to back the Orleanists candidate to preserve that majority?
Click to expand...

And how will the people on the streets react to backroom deals leading to the nearly constituted republic being overthrown and a (foreign) monarch instated? Its not going to be so easy. You simply can't say "and now France is a kingdom again" without invoking some heft levels of handwavium.
 

miguelrj

jkay said:
But, I"m afraid it wouldn't be that easy, would it? You'd talking constitutional change, no doubt needing decidedly more than a majority. And, was the President on board?

And, their last King hadn't exactly worked out so well had he, resulting in the most massively embarassing loss ever, still terribly recent? So, wouldn't it be a litttle hard to get the change?

And how would a coup help? Aren't those, like Nappy I's, generally in favor of the couper?
Click to expand...
There was no President but a "Chief of the Executive Power of the French Republic" selected by the National Assembly. The "Republic" was meant by most of the National Assembly members as temporary.
The monarchists were a majority, I didn't find out for how much but they were a majority. Most constitutions indeed need a 2/3 majority for revision but at the time the Constitution for this post-Second Empire regime was yet to be drafted.

The monarchists had a fairly good chance if only they were united.
 

wolf_brother

Banned
miguelrj said:
Foreign?
Click to expand...

He'd been out of the country since he was a boy; first Saxe-Weimar-Eisenach, then Britain, then the US. He spoke French with a noticeable foreign accent from his time abroad. Its going to be a hard sell for the monarchists to cast Philippe as a proper French sovereign.

Oh it won't be peaceful. But the French did elect a majority monarchical parliament...
Click to expand...

In the sense that the bourgeois of France, as the 1871 elections operated under very limited suffrage, as well excepting the occupied territories, and Paris, elected a a majority of monarchists in the February elections - and then in the July by-elections, which included those regions, the republicans won the majority in that round. The 1876 elections also saw a massive swing towards the republicans. So to say that "the French" were for a Second Restoration is more than a bit of a stretch. You can also look at the 1877 elections, which took place after the monarchist President of France, Patrice de Mac-Mahon, attempted a constitutional coup in line with what bill_bruno suggested by which Mac-Mahon dismissed the republican Prime Minister, installing a monarchist in his place; the coup back-fired terribly, and the republicans won over 60% of the vote in that election. Hell, the bloody bonapartists were the other leading party, winning 20% of the vote (the monarchists took 10%, with the remaining ten going to various independents).

Remember, the republic is "the government that divides us least."
 
Last edited:

miguelrj

wolf_brother said:
In the sense that the bourgeois of France, as the 1871 elections operated under very limited suffrage, as well excepting the occupied territories, and Paris, elected a a majority of monarchists in the February elections - and then in the July by-elections, which included those regions, the republicans won the majority in that round. The 1876 elections also saw a massive swing towards the republicans. So to say that "the French" were for a Second Restoration is more than a bit of a stretch.
Click to expand...
I didn't mean to imply that "the French" wanted a Monarchy only that the French voters voted for Monarchists (being the franchise limit as it may - the post-ww2 Italian referendum for the Republic also saw several franchise issues and yet it stood). With this, we can see that it wasn't just a fringe elite that would welcome or tolerate a Monarchical Restoration... The Monarchists had the power and could have done something about it IMO.
 

wolf_brother

Banned
miguelrj said:
With this, we can see that it wasn't just a fringe elite that would welcome or tolerate a Monarchical Restoration... The Monarchists had the power and could have done something about it IMO.
Click to expand...

What power? And what could they have done? :confused:

If there was going to be a Restoration forced upon France it would have happened IOTL (and it did - in 1814).

They certainly couldn't stand up against a popular uprising, they lacked enough wide-spread support for such. Remember, it was the moderate republicans that put down the Paris Commune (and the 1848 Revolutions some three decades prior). The monarchists were a fringe elite - they were traditional oligarchs left-over from the Restoration, and in some cases even from the pre-Revolutionary days, and they were attempting to maintain their traditional, feudal, power structure in the modern, post-Revolutionary, environment.

Prince Phillipe would do better to run for President or Prime Minister of the country under the republic than he would to attempt to foster a monarchy via a coup upon the French. In other words the French monarchists needed someone to do for them what Bismark had done for the Junkers in Prussia-Germany - and Philippe d'Orléans, the exiled Comte de Paris, was not that person.
 

Razgriz 2K9

Banned
So it would be assumed that by 1870 it would be impossible for any monarchy to be imposed upon the French then? Because personally, I think the only way it would be possible would be by a coup IMHO.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top
Top