Could the Bourbon Restoration last?

[Mikestone8]

If you don't mind waiting until the 1870's all you have to do is have Henri of Artois, Count of Chambord accept the Tricolor as the French national flag. Seriously, the royalists had a majority in the national assembly, and the Legitimist's and Orléanists had reached a compromise on the succession. The only reason the monarchy wasn't restored is because Henri refused to accept the crown unless France abandoned the Tricolor flag.

I'm serious he refused to become king of one of the most powerful states in Europe because he didn't like the nations flag.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Henri,_Count_of_Chambord

Alternatively, have Chambord either not get born, or be born a girl. Then Louis Philippe is the lawful heir tot the throne, and the Orleanist-Legitimist divide doesn't arise.

 

[Uhura's Mazda]

Alternatively, have Chambord either not get born, or be born a girl. Then Louis Philippe is the lawful heir tot the throne, and the Orleanist-Legitimist divide doesn't arise.

It still arises, because the Spanish branch would be championed as Legitimist heirs. Chambord was actually the last Bourbon both factions could basically agree to disagree on.

 

[Darth_Kiryan]

I always get sad when I think about this. It provides such an amazing POD that could change the future of Europe so much, but I absolutely despise the 20th century and the few decades before it. Breech-loaded rifles, tanks and submarines are not my forte.

yeah, i somehow do not think this POD would change that much. All of those weapons are still going to appear, whether you like it or not.

 

[Emperor Constantine]

I am pretty new to ah.com, though not to alternate history itself. I've been thinking of creating my own timeline.

While I was brainstorming ideas, this thought occurred tome: Could the Bourbon Restoration last? After Napoleon was defeated, the Bourbons regained control of France (except for the Hundred Days). In 1830, there was another revolution, effectively ending Bourbon rule over France forever. Was it possible for the Bourbons to hold onto France for much longer than that? IIRC, the Bourbons reformed the navy and army after they came back to power, became a constitutional monarchy, and made France rather powerful again (for a short period, of course). Would whether or not having the Hundred Days affect Bourbon power? What are your thoughts?

Ah one of my favorite topics. I actually started a TL on a surviving Bourbon France, Reign of the Miracle King, a few years ago. From my research I think that yes the Bourbons could have easily survived and remained France's rulers.

The entire July revolution, like most French revolutions, was basically done by Parisians with little input from the rest of the country. The rest of the country was basically apathetic to Paris's actions, but would have supported Charles X if he had a bit of a backbone. From the July revolution there are two ways to save the Bourbons: have Charles X call in the army and smash the rebels or make it well known that he and the Dauphin had abdicated in favor of Henri, Duc de Bordeaux. In OTL the Bourbons left Louis-Philippe to announce the abdications and accession of Henri V to the Chamber of Deputies and the people of Paris. Instead, he only announced the abdications, leaving the throne "vacant" and traitorously maneuvering himself to be King. The later was my POD but the former is also an option, albeit a bloody one.

 

[Emperor Constantine]

Alternatively, have Chambord either not get born, or be born a girl. Then Louis Philippe is the lawful heir tot the throne, and the Orleanist-Legitimist divide doesn't arise.

Not true. Before the pregnancy of the Duchesse de Berri was known the Chamber of Deputies were debating abolishing Salic law, making Marie Therese, Duchesse d'Angouleme & Madame Royale the heiress, followed by her niece (and only child of the Duc de Berri at the time), Louise Marie Thérèse. The discussion was only tabled after the Duchess's pregnancy became known. If she had miscarried or gave birth to a daughter chances are the Deputies would have gone ahead and abolished Salic law, making Madame Royale and her niece(s) next in line.

 

[JonasResende]

This, however, is also the era where the saying originated, though: "A shout from Paris and your hat [crown] flies off". But I agree with Constantine, the revolutions were Paris-centric, while the country tended to be far less. The countryside was the main support of the crown, while the cities tended to be more republican.

 

[Mikestone8]

This, however, is also the era where the saying originated, though: "A shout from Paris and your hat [crown] flies off". But I agree with Constantine, the revolutions were Paris-centric, while the country tended to be far less. The countryside was the main support of the crown, while the cities tended to be more republican.

I get the impression that the Bourbons, Legitimate and Orleans alike, had been "spooked" by the French Revolution and didn't really try very hard to retain their thrones in either 1830 or 1848. We don't know for certain if the troops would have obeyed if called in, but neither Charles X nor Louis Philippe even tried. They just bolted.

 

[Thoresby]

I get the impression that the Bourbons, Legitimate and Orleans alike, had been "spooked" by the French Revolution and didn't really try very hard to retain their thrones in either 1830 or 1848. We don't know for certain if the troops would have obeyed if called in, but neither Charles X nor Louis Philippe even tried. They just bolted.

On the other hand sticking around didn't work very well for Louis XVI, though nothing he did worked well tbh. I think the Legitimist Bourbon line can survive by one simple measure. Some time between 20 February 1820 and 14 December 1821 Louis XVIII, his brother the Count of Artois (Charles X) and the Duke of Angoulême all eat some really bad fish and die leaving Henri, Count of Chambord as Henri V. Now this is really great news because this Henri is an infant and Duke of Richelieu, the sanest and most practical of the emigres is Prime Minister. Now there is the risk that the Duchess of Berry may try and get herself appointed Regent or the Duke of Orleans but Richelieu had the prestige and rank that if anyone could hold them off it would be him. He's a moderate who accepts that France has changed between 1790 and 1815 but is still popular in ultra circles. All in all he's the best bet to ensure a gradual transition towards a more constitutional Monarchy. Even better even if Richelieu fails because of the economic difficulties of the 1820's Henri V as an child is unlikely to get the blame and deposed.

 

[Gurroruo]

Lafayette was far from ruling France between 1789 and 1791 (nobody "ruled" alone then, it was a mix of parlementarian and factional ruling). That's probably what wanted to think monarchists, as it allowed to just ignore the deep social issues by pointing out "Cromwell", but it didn't work like that.

First, Lafayette was considered too close of the royal family by many, especially after Varennes (and the whole "No, we sware, he didn't fleed : he was kidnapped!" stuff) but even before, his actions against mobs in 90/91 significantly eroded his popular support, to say nothing of the Fusillade du Champs de Mars.

Then, he was too opposed to the royal family (his opposition to the Count of Provence, for example) to be credible for royalists, including Louis XVI.

Eventually, he drowned with the rest of Feuillants (as Barnave), unable to impose themselves on critical matters as the war, destroying their best efforts to maintain the fiction of a king working with the Assembly.

Too much of a centrist and opportunist (not negativly, but he basically tried to support both sides in the same time, playing balance on a growing gap) to be a credible strong man. I can't think of anyone having the possibility to do that after 1789, to be honest. Napoléon did, but at the cost of an extremly authoritarian policy and after 10 years of revolutionnary wars and growing importance of the army.

Yeah after varennes Lafayette was screwed

Lafayette was able to appease the mobs themself for a times, but never the revolutionaries and radicals.

 

[Mikestone8]

On the other hand sticking around didn't work very well for Louis XVI, though nothing he did worked well tbh.

Louis XVI's mistake was to let that mob bully him into going to Paris. He should either have summoned troops to Versailles and given the mobsters a whiff of grapeshot, or else moved himself to where the troops were. Once he moved to Paris he was no better than a captive.

 

[Zajir]

White terror

Around 1815 you had a period of legal purges and executions, it killed about 500 people including Marshall Ney.

What if you had a far greater period of terror with 10s of 1000s killed, mass proscriptions etc.?

 

[danfrancisko]

Around 1815 you had a period of legal purges and executions, it killed about 500 people including Marshall Ney.

What if you had a far greater period of terror with 10s of 1000s killed, mass proscriptions etc.?

You mean like having the royalists execute all the revolutionaries, republicans and imperialists they can find as like a sort of "revenge" for the Reign of Terror? Interesting but not entirely sure if this would work out better for France in the long run. What would be the effects of this counter Reign of Terror, both internally for France and externally?

 

[AzureMagikz]

This is one of my favorite topics. I like to think that, if the French had went ahead and scored a few major victories against the British during the American Revolutionary War (Yorktown was amazing, but it was a joint Franco-American thing. Chesapeake was quite spectacular, however.), then they could have pushed for better terms at the Treaty of Paris. Perhaps the French win another major naval battle or even if the French coordinate an attack with the Spanish and successfully take Gibraltar. The French could get more than what they got in OTL.

Though this wouldn't change the French Revolution it would help alleviate some of the financial burden on France following the ARW. Perhaps the king and royal family are a bit less hated and they are able to somehow guide France through a constitutional monarchy.

 

[danfrancisko]

On the other hand sticking around didn't work very well for Louis XVI, though nothing he did worked well tbh. I think the Legitimist Bourbon line can survive by one simple measure. Some time between 20 February 1820 and 14 December 1821 Louis XVIII, his brother the Count of Artois (Charles X) and the Duke of Angoulême all eat some really bad fish and die leaving Henri, Count of Chambord as Henri V. Now this is really great news because this Henri is an infant and Duke of Richelieu, the sanest and most practical of the emigres is Prime Minister. Now there is the risk that the Duchess of Berry may try and get herself appointed Regent or the Duke of Orleans but Richelieu had the prestige and rank that if anyone could hold them off it would be him. He's a moderate who accepts that France has changed between 1790 and 1815 but is still popular in ultra circles. All in all he's the best bet to ensure a gradual transition towards a more constitutional Monarchy. Even better even if Richelieu fails because of the economic difficulties of the 1820's Henri V as an child is unlikely to get the blame and deposed.

This sounds like a good POD, not entirely sure if I want it though. I really prefer a POD either from the 1810's or in the 1700's. I'll keep this in mind, however. Thanks!

 

[JonasResende]

On the other hand sticking around didn't work very well for Louis XVI, though nothing he did worked well tbh. I think the Legitimist Bourbon line can survive by one simple measure. Some time between 20 February 1820 and 14 December 1821 Louis XVIII, his brother the Count of Artois (Charles X) and the Duke of Angoulême all eat some really bad fish and die leaving Henri, Count of Chambord as Henri V. Now this is really great news because this Henri is an infant and Duke of Richelieu, the sanest and most practical of the emigres is Prime Minister. Now there is the risk that the Duchess of Berry may try and get herself appointed Regent or the Duke of Orleans but Richelieu had the prestige and rank that if anyone could hold them off it would be him. He's a moderate who accepts that France has changed between 1790 and 1815 but is still popular in ultra circles. All in all he's the best bet to ensure a gradual transition towards a more constitutional Monarchy. Even better even if Richelieu fails because of the economic difficulties of the 1820's Henri V as an child is unlikely to get the blame and deposed.

IDK what's wrong with the duc d'Angoulême, he was by far the most progressive-thinking of the family, unfortunately, he didn't have a strong will AFAIK (added to his hypochondria and neuresathenia), so he let his wife take the decisions. She was the one who wouldn't stop nagging him to abdicate in favor of Henri V for those 30 minutes he was king.

That said, the duchesse de Berri was likewise far more progressively-minded than her father- or sister-in-law, or perhaps she was just more of an opportunist in that sense. She was all for the modern education Chateaubriand wanted to give Bordeaux, unfortunately, Charles X and Madame Royal countermanded this decision and handed the boy off to the Jesuits. Her comment thereon was something along the lines of: "they educate a king for the 19th century as though we were still living before the Revolution". And needless to say, after her secret remarriage became public and she was denied custody of her kids, Madame Royal assumed custody and went ahead to turn them into proper little 18th century princes.

 

[Gurroruo]

This sounds like a good POD, not entirely sure if I want it though. I really prefer a POD either from the 1810's or in the 1700's. I'll keep this in mind, however. Thanks!

How about killing the French republic early on with the coalition being successful?

 

[danfrancisko]

How about killing the French republic early on with the coalition being successful?

I've thought about this. It could work, though I think I would need to have the French royalists themselves to defeat the revolutionaries, or the credibility/strength of the crown is still just as bad if they need foreign powers to help them.

I've been toying with this idea, and I wanted to see what you guys think about it. What if Napoleon was raised learning to like and respect the Bourbon crown? When he joins the army, he joins on the side of the royalists. After the crown regains control, Napoleon becomes a general of the French royal army. Thoughts on that?

 

[Thoresby]

IDK what's wrong with the duc d'Angoulême, he was by far the most progressive-thinking of the family, unfortunately, he didn't have a strong will AFAIK (added to his hypochondria and neuresathenia), so he let his wife take the decisions. She was the one who wouldn't stop nagging him to abdicate in favor of Henri V for those 30 minutes he was king.

That said, the duchesse de Berri was likewise far more progressively-minded than her father- or sister-in-law, or perhaps she was just more of an opportunist in that sense.

The problem with Anglouleme is that he will reign as King and even as a progressive and sensible King he wouldn't be able to do what France needs which is for the French Royal family to step back and accept they are now figureheads like the British Monarchs, extremely influential, immensely rich figureheads with considerable powers of patronage but figureheads nonetheless. Infant Henri isn't going to be exercise and if that authority can be transferred to the office of Prime Minister by the time he's grown in 1840 up then France will have had 20 years of Constitutional, Parliamentary government and he won't be able to turn the clock back, even if he wants to.

 

[Gurroruo]

I've thought about this. It could work, though I think I would need to have the French royalists themselves to defeat the revolutionaries, or the credibility/strength of the crown is still just as bad if they need foreign powers to help them.

I've been toying with this idea, and I wanted to see what you guys think about it. What if Napoleon was raised learning to like and respect the Bourbon crown? When he joins the army, he joins on the side of the royalists. After the crown regains control, Napoleon becomes a general of the French royal army. Thoughts on that?

Maybe Nappy doesn't get bullied in early military school and some of the aristocratic students become his friends leading him to being a royalist. I think an early personality POD like being accepted instead of rejected would have helped

 

[LSCatilina]

Calling Angoulême progressist is really pushing it.
Even not considering his oyster backbone, he was the man that reinstaured Ferdinand in Spain against liberals, had the same education than other émigrés sons (as in, a reactionnary one) and never really went against his father's policy (actually supporting it).

To be frank, I don't know where this legend is coming from.

As for "revolutions are only from Paris", while it's a current myth of royalist historiography ("only one city, whatever its demographical or political importance, was against us! The whole kingdom was for us!"), it really have to be nuanced, if not outright criticized.
Grande Peur, for instance, prooved enough that the revolutionnary movement of 1789 was if not supported by countryside, actually feared from Paris revolutionnaries.

Regarding 1830 : indeed, it was mostly a Parisian event. It also lasted 3 days, not a enormous time given to widespread. Giving the lack of legitimist support in countryside (not only Louis Philippe managed to impose himself on less than ten days; but Legitimists tentatives of insurrection failed comically).
All of this point for an at least passive support of the 1830 Revolution, and a Charles X resorting to civil war would probably be in a really bad position.