Could the Bourbon Restoration last?

Mikestone8 said:
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.
Louis XVI would never had done that: it wasn't in his character.

Besides, shooting on mobs could have backfired heavily for Louis XVI. In fact, it probably would have been easier for Revolutionnaries to accuse him of being a Tyrant if he had done so.
 
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).

Does he have to be any more progressive than Louis XVIII?
 
Does he have to be any more progressive than Louis XVIII?

It's less a question of progressism than political realism. Louis XVIII had many flaws, but he understood a return to 1789 was impossible, but that accepting the revolutionnary legacy would weaken his power.
His reign was about searching the difficult balance that I mentioned earlier : he tried to not feed too much any faction (especially ultras), and to preserve the ambiguousity of the Charte as much he could, with the support of men as Richelieu and Decazes.

The problem is that such ambiguousity couldn't last forever, critically in the shadow of troublesome ultras (critically after the murder of the duke of Berry), and economical crisis (that is sometimes considered as worse than late 1780's)

It comes back to the usual difference between a man of state, and a man of a party.
Charles X, especially, was the leader of ultras since 1815, and enforced more of a faction policy than a realistic one.

Angoulême was similar, only less skilled, and without backbone.

You can blame the émigré mentality for this, Louis XVIII and his exile court being quite distinct, and more accepting or tolerating of the reality of the Revolution (while others went basically in "lalalalala I can't hear you" mode). And it was partially because of this he was expelled by a good part of european courts (Prussian, Russian) and basically in inner exile in UK.

Maybe if he had a son, that would be raised in a politically different context...
It would require a different wife, as he simply couldn't make love with her. She was apparently quite repulsive, physically speaking. And even when he managed to do that, pregnancies ended in miscarriages every time.

Of course it would require a PoD in the late 1760's (I think you begin to see the issue there), in order to find him another wife while he was still relativly healty (he became obese and more sickly after his marriage, for some reason).

In short, you need a king with a sense of reality, his own man rather than a man of factions, and with a personallity evocating more a king than a whelk.
 
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.:confused:

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

I have heard this was greatly overstated as the reason and the Chambord could have been convinced to compromise. As it was I think he gets a raw deal in this - if he compromises the principles (right or wrong) he lived his whole life with and were taught him by the two people he respected most (Charles X and Madame Royale) he would have what? Ten years as a constitutional monarch knowing he was the end of his line and that he would be succeeded by the great-grandson of the regicide Egalite and the grandson of Louis Phillipe the man who had ursurped the young Henry's own crown and betrayed his beloved grandfather (Charles) who had placed his trust in the Orleans despite the fact that L-P had been intriguing before and after Chambord's birth to become king? Why the heck would he want that? To leave his comfortable existence in Austria, without ever betraying his family all to make life easier for the Orleans branch? There's an interesting memoir that you can read in it entirety on Google Books by one of Louis-Phillipe's memories on how the governtment during L-P's foreign ministry made sure that no foreign nation (particularly Germany or Britain) allowed Henri to visit for longer than a month or allowed him to meet another royal or politician or allowed him to be addressed formally with any French titles. That's pretty petty if you asked me - especially given that offically during the Orleans era Henri (having been guilty of no crime) was still a French citizen. It's ironic that when L-P abdicated he ALSO did so in favor of an even younger grandson than Henry was. So I give Chambord a pass. If he had had a son I make a wager Chambord would have acted very, very differently.

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.
I think it would have arisen in any account. Louis-Phillipe was the son of the regicide Egalite who disclaimed for himself and for his heirs (as Philip V of Spain once did) and even said that he was not the real son of his father and not a Bourbon. During the reigns of Louis XVIII and Charles X, Louis-Phillipe was constantly angling for the throne and almost convinced Alexander I of Russia to put him on the throne following the Hundred Days (he even wrote several nasty articles - under a pseudonym when Henri of Bourdeux was born). There were a lot of legitimists who loathed the Orleanists and would continue to do so even today.

I think there are several ways a Bourbon restoration (as opposed to preventing the Republic) could last (especially since they still have raised a majority Royalist block as late as the 1870s).
1) Louis XVI escapes with his family. Returns instead of his brother when Nap falls. Or alternately he dies in exile and a young adult king Louis XVII is raised to the altar. This could butterfly any resistance to liberalism I think if there is no confinement in the Tower, no execution of Louis XVI and Marie Antoinette and Madam Elisabeth and no torture (I consider it such) and neglect of Louis XVII. Marie-Therese's experiences as well as Charles X were fundamentally because of what happened to the family at the hands of the Revolutionaries.
2) Louis XVIII has a son (not that far fetched given that his wife was pregnant once or twice) who married Marie-Therese instead of Angeloume and is raised in the more pragmatic tradition of his father. This would mean said grandson (who is also the grandson of a martyred king and queen) would be raise in the tradition (Marie-Therese didn't have nearly the influence over Louis XVIII as she did over Charles X).
3) The Hundred Days actually could have been the best thing for the Bourbons since not only discredited Bonaparte in the eyes of many (not the least of which the army who blindly followed him) and took him off the board for the rest of his life but it also gave them an excuse to purge those who had betrayed the family during the 100 days. Outside of Ney though pretty much everyone got off easy. The White Terrors don't count. I mean just sending every Marshal and Paris bourgeois to Cayenne or life exile or something. Many of those who led the Parisian-based "revolution" of 1830 had been involved in the Hundred Days opposed to the Bourbons as well.
4) The Duke of Berri lives (or there is an assassination attempt and he still lives which would make the family all the more sympathetic). No, Berri is no more liberal than his older brother but he was more popular and could sire even more sons with his young wife and during the events of 1830 if they still happen the same way there is no abdicating to a child and asking the Duke of Orleans to be a regent.
 
If he had had a son I make a wager Chambord would have acted very, very differently.

This is actually an exciting POD: Chambord and Maria-Theresa have a son, say born around 1850. I think this makes only small butterflies during the Second Empire. Come 1871, we now have a legimitist pretender with, at least, a dashing young prince as a Young Pretender. He is also connected to the Habsburgs.

The main effect of this is to throw a spanner in the works of the Legitimist-Orleanist détente: a full restauration of Henri V is no longer an acceptable compromise solution (even if Henri, now at the head of a dynasty, will probably be a bit more active). I think both sides will camp on their positions and a “provisional” Republic be set up just the way it was OTL.
 
This is actually an exciting POD: Chambord and Maria-Theresa have a son, say born around 1850. I think this makes only small butterflies during the Second Empire. Come 1871, we now have a legimitist pretender with, at least, a dashing young prince as a Young Pretender. He is also connected to the Habsburgs.

The main effect of this is to throw a spanner in the works of the Legitimist-Orleanist détente: a full restauration of Henri V is no longer an acceptable compromise solution (even if Henri, now at the head of a dynasty, will probably be a bit more active). I think both sides will camp on their positions and a “provisional” Republic be set up just the way it was OTL.

Like I said if Chambord had a son I think he would have acted very, VERY differently to secure his dynasty (instead of knowing he was the last of his line and any throne would go to the treacherous Orleansists). Henri was not very pro-active in his own cause and pretty much let those who believed in him succeed or fail on their own. That could change and he might be willing to compromise.

Or how about this POD - Henri and his wife have a sole daughter who marries the Prince Imperial. Empress Eugenie was a monarchist at heart who wanted her son to marry a Bourbon Spanish Infanta. If Chambord had a daughter she would have set her sights on that instead - solidifying her son's claims with that of the last of the senior Bourbons and bringing peace to both at least. In a way its like Gustav V of Sweden who married Victoria of Baden - finally uniting the new Bernadotte dynasty to the ancient Vasa line.
 
Except Chambord was unable to have kids due to (I think) a horse riding accident when he was a kid that left him sterile. Also, Chambord was originally in love with his half-aunt, Maria Carolina Ferdinanda of the Two Sicilies (not his mother, her half-sister, with confusingly the same name). Maria Carolina's mother, the Infanta Isabella of Spain, didn't want the marriage to go through since she was holding out for the far richer duc d'Aumale (son of Louis Philippe). However, Maria Carolina ended up marrying neither Frenchman, but rather to her maternal cousin, Don Carlos II, the older brother of Henri's future brother-in-law, Juan III.

a link to his obituary
Alexander Palace said:
When his restoration was quite literally right around the corner, Henri sent a letter to a politician which he wanted the politician to publish. It said that he would be delighted to return to his rightful place as king and that he planned to unite the French people under the white flag of Henri IV. I think his goal was to suggest that, like Henri IV, he wanted to end the divisions between his people. He didn't realize that choosing a flag that Henri IV had used as a battle standard against Frenchmen was not a good idea for a potential constitutional monarch. Henri IV, had he found himself in a similar situation, would have waved the tricolor over his head and sung the Marseillaise to get the throne back, but he grew up in a very hard school and was a practical man as a result. Henri was a naive idealist who'd been raised on stories about how great the ancien regime was. He'd lived the life of a private country gentleman, surrounded by people who hated the changes that had taken place in France. He knew people who had suffered thanks to the upheavals in France, such as his beloved mother figure, Marie Therese, Duchess d'Angouleme. To him, the tricolor was the flag of revolution and disorder. He felt that using it would dishonor him, Marie Therese, etc. His letter was inflammatory in other ways: he endorsed the divine right of kings and suggested (a la the Blues Brothers) that he was on a mission from God. Unlike the Blues Brothers, he didn’t want to bring people together with music in order to save an orphanage. He wanted to bring the French people together and keep them obedient to his will through force. He didn't think that the republicans could muster enough support to block his restoration when he wrote this letter. At that time, his restoration was thisclose to being a done deal, so he thought that he was in the catbird seat and could dictate terms.

The politician begged him to change the letter. Henri insisted that it should be published as it was so that there would be no confusion about what he stood for. It united people all right, just not the way that Henri had hoped. It stiffened the spines of his enemies and alienated many of his supporters. It proved that he was out of touch with French politics and would not be a satisfactory constitutional monarch. It had the bonus of allowing his enemies (old and new) to rally around the tricolor and get the French press and people all worked up about it.

I don’t think that Henri acted out of spite towards the Orleans. He really wanted to be king and to reign over France. He believed that his letter would win support and was flabbergasted when it backfired. He reportedly made a quiet trip to France in the wake of the publication of his letter and tried to get politicians to present him to the army, etc., as king, thus side-stepping any need on his part to make concessions about the flag or anything else. The politicians had bent over backwards trying to restore him to the throne in a way that would make him happy: they’d agreed to say that he ruled by hereditary right, not by the grace of the people, etc. They were done making concessions to someone who wasn't willing to make return concessions, so they shooed him out of the country.

He reconciled with the Orleans branch of the family before he issued his letter and also recognized them as the heirs to the throne. Those who hate the Orleans have claimed that he later cut them out of his will as a sign that he never made peace with them in his heart, etc. It was also claimed that at the end of his life, he supported the (non-existent) claim of the Spanish Bourbons to the French throne. For all his faults, he was an honorable man. He didn’t make the decision to recognize the Orleans as his heirs lightly, nor did he ever (AFAIK) formally repudiate them as such. However, it’s fair to say that he didn’t like them (and vice-versa) and that his will was his way of thumbing his nose at them.
 
Last edited:
As for the comtesse de Chambord (I discovered she was the sterile one, not her husband apparently):
The most significant event in his early days as pretender was his marriage to Marie Thérèse, daughter of Francis IV of Modena and sister of Francis V, who had just come to the throne....
Rather than turn to a German princess, the royal matchmakers next concentrated on the Lorraine-Habsburg-Este House in Modena. Inevitably much opposition would have developed in Paris to any marriage of a prominent reigning family with an exiled prince. But while great concern would have been felt at the Palais Royale if, for instance, a Romanov princess had exchanged vows with Henri, a marriage with the House of Modena could scarcely be regarded as doing more than uniting the exiled family with a house which to all intents and purposes already recognized the elder branch of the family.
The Duke of Modena apparently expected that his elder daughter, Marie Thérèse, would go into a convent. But however unmarriagable she might have been, the Duchesse d'Angoulême and the Empress of Austria seem to have decided that she should marry the Comte de Chambord. The story that Metternich and Louis Philippe arranged this union, thinking that the rumored sterility of Marie Thérèse would bring an end to the elder Bourbon line, has no foundation, but its later currency well illustrates a frame of mind springing from dynastic rivalry. When asked whether she would be willing to marry Henri, she is supposed to have replied, "With joy!"-words which were reported to Henri, who, starved for joy, seems to have been doubly impressed. Moreover, she was described to Henri, correctly enough, as religious, with the result that he regarded her as the proper choice. Arrangements were soon made, and on 16 Nov 1846 they were married at Bruck-am-Mur in Styria, a marriage described by the Marquis de Belleval as the "prime obstacle to restoration of the monarch." This judgment may be a bit strong, but the fact the Comte de Chambord had no heir certainly had some bearing on his role as pretender. While he always listened politely to his wife, Marie Thérèse could not reciprocate because she was deaf. She was little inclined toward practical affairs, which she was apt to dismiss with religious platitudes, and of no direct political influence upon him. On the other hand, she was so haunted by the guillotine and her hatred of the Orleans that she certainly helped foster the hesitant atmosphere in which the Comte de Chambord was prone to drift. She seems to have feared restoration, its perils, and the demands which would have been made on her as Queen, and to have encouraged the Comte de Paris to be content in exile. She has been called son mauvais génie. In any case, while she was an obedient spouse, she had none of her husband's charm or regal qualities.
There were similarities and differences between the life of the Comte de Chambord and the exiled court at Frohsdorf and at Venice, but one of the unifying features was the presence of the Comtesse. She was always with him. While she was ever in the shadow of her husband, she cast a certain shadow of her own on him and the entourage. Her gloom was well-known. She once said: "The more one is a royalist, the more one should long for my death, since I have no children." And whatever rays of hope did come to her when assured she would be more fortunate in the Tuileries must have been fleeting, for she later commented: "It would be better for everyone if someone would kill me." Somewhat differing descriptions have been given of her appearance and grace, or lack of it. She was tall, had black hair, and her face was definitely deformed at birth, one side appearing a bit smaller than the other. Her voice has been described as "unpleasant," and her timidity was very noticeable to the large number of people whom she had to receive. While altogether lacking in charm, she was dignified in spite of these detractions. Her conduct towards her husband was always correct, and in her way she was loving. Henri never complained of her, and his constancy and courtesy to his wife were notable. But while in a way she was an appropriate companion for him in exile, even a "Henri V en pantoufles," she lent an air of especial sadness to Henri's exile and was definately a major liability to him as the pretender.
- The Comte de Chambord: The Third Republic's Uncompromising King:

It was Ferdinando II who wanted to marry his sister, Maria Carolina Fernanda, to Henri V. But Louis Philippe refused, threatening the king of the Two Sicilies to sever diplomatic relations.

But, for Marie-Therese, everybody is unanimous. She was absolutely sinister, and the worst is that she knew it... The comtesse de Chevigné, one day, hade to make a promenade with Marie-Therese. It was so sad that, overwhrought, she ended up saying out loud to herself (Marie-Therese was deaf too, from a young age... ) : "My God! What a bore!". But for once, Marie-Therese understood. She said :"My poor child! I'm sorry..."

The only woman who had pleased Chambord was Grand Duchess Elizabeth Mikhailovna of Russia whom he had fallen for, he met her in Jüterlock in 1843. The king of Prussia asked to his brother-in-law, the Czar, if he would be okay with the marriage. Nikolai I was delighted, and authorized her niece's conversion to Catholicism. But the duchesse d'Angoulême was opposed to this alliance. For the proud princess, Romanov were a too recent dynasty, definitively not prestigious enough for a future Queen of France... The talks between Henry and Nikolai were stopped. Anyway, Elizabeth died very young, but she most probably would have had time enough to give a child (and maybe a son?) to Henri... And even the Pope (Gregory XVI) agreed to it, the czar's only condition was that the conversion to Catholicism take place after the wedding, which Henri agreed to (unlike when Anna Pavlovna had been proposed to his father, Louis XVIII had insisted on before the wedding, and the Romanovs refused, so the match was dropped). However, Madame Royal was dead set against this marriage and did everything to make the negotiations fail. What a pity...

But a Russian queen of France always fascinates me.​
 
Last edited:
Like I said if Chambord had a son I think he would have acted very, VERY differently to secure his dynasty (instead of knowing he was the last of his line and any throne would go to the treacherous Orleansists). Henri was not very pro-active in his own cause and pretty much let those who believed in him succeed or fail on their own. That could change and he might be willing to compromise.

Or how about this POD - Henri and his wife have a sole daughter who marries the Prince Imperial. Empress Eugenie was a monarchist at heart who wanted her son to marry a Bourbon Spanish Infanta. If Chambord had a daughter she would have set her sights on that instead - solidifying her son's claims with that of the last of the senior Bourbons and bringing peace to both at least. In a way its like Gustav V of Sweden who married Victoria of Baden - finally uniting the new Bernadotte dynasty to the ancient Vasa line.

Well, there is something completely stypefying, which almost nobody knows.

In 1874, the Queen of Spain, Isabel II, talked to Empress Eugénie, Napoleon III's widow. And she suggested her to organize the adoption of the Prince Imperial, Louis-Napoleon, by the comte de Chambord.

The Queen wrote:"Here's my proposition. Monseigneur would adopt the prince imperial and would have the merit to constitute a new dynasty, which would combine the antiquity and the glory, for the happiness of France."

The Empress Eugénie was quite okay.

But Henry? The reactionary, obtuse, obscurantist Henry? Of course he must have been outraged by such a dynastic heresy?

Here's what he answered to his cousin Isabel II:

"This could make definitely the happiness of France. And, without doing harm to my dignity, I perfectly could pass down my ancestor's heritage to this young man, who, this way, would join two conceptions which today are clashing a little. But, it's too late now, I'm too old and nobody would understand me..."

And even after this, the relationship between Eugénie and Henry remained always affectionate, up to Henry's death.
 
Sorry if it looks like I'm spamming, I just found a lot of this stuff and thought it might be useful to consider? I'll shut up now:eek:
 
Top