DBAHC: End the Bourbon Dynasty in France

I mean after the current succession crisis what's stopping the Bonapartes from seceding from France. They've already been printing their own money and have their own policy. Their vassalage is one of the last vestiges of the feudal age. Napoleon VII is one of the wealthiest men on the planet. He no longer has to pay tribute to the Bourbons. He might agree with the Spanish Compromise and put a Spanish puppet on the throne.


Someone wrote a ridiculous ASB timeline that Napoleon Bonaparte becomes "Emperor of The French Empire". It's well written in terms of style, prose, and theme, but just too unbelievable. Napoleon looks like the second coming of Alexander the Great for heaven's sake. Unplausible, but nice fiction reading.


Now, if this were to actually happen. I think the Holy Roman Empire might actually collapse prematurely... Is that too implausible even for a fiction story?

In fairness the HRE being destroyed from the outside instead of Germany bursting out would almost make more sense. The amount of idiocy the habsburgs were pulling while Prussia-Lotharingia conquered their neighbors is amazing. And since when do the Bonapartes not pay tribute or have anything close to that power? Their policy begins and ends at local law in Corsica. Regardless i think that you're ignoring one thing. Napoleon I was considered a new Alexander. The reason France decimated everyone who touched them for the first half of the nineteenth century? A taller than most Corsican man who formed the basis of warfare until the adoption of air technology. He beat up the Holy Roman Empire, got Catalonia for France (his nephew got that duchy before he rebelled.), and managed to conquer down to the papal states OTL when Britain and Austria came a knocking for revenge for those loans to the Americans (Austria getting involved because it's austria and they really don't know when to quit when it comes to losing to France).

Thinking about it... if Napoleon wasn't around for that war, Britain could've demanded the French Throne. There were minor dukes that would've flipped to George III in a heartbeat for a dime and a county. Austria would've sucked up the French armies because that's all they could do ever. Even if Britain didn't take the throne, without Bonaparte they definately could've nabbed back Normandy and Gascony, maybe Brittany. And no one could've survived that riot.
 

Dolan

Banned
I mean after the current succession crisis what's stopping the Bonapartes from seceding from France. They've already been printing their own money and have their own policy. Their vassalage is one of the last vestiges of the feudal age. Napoleon VII is one of the wealthiest men on the planet. He no longer has to pay tribute to the Bourbons. He might agree with the Spanish Compromise and put a Spanish puppet on the throne.
Remember that while definitely last vestiges of Feudalism, the autonomous duchies of Corsico-Sardinia, Switzerland, Savoy, Venice, Naples, Papal State, Croatia, Albania, Crete, Egypt, and Libya are de jure part of France who had their own sub-head of state (with the title of Duke, except for Papal State, which is de jure separate and equal of the King, but de facto under French protection instead) and theoretically has their own internal laws and customs separate from France.

Sure, the ones that actually mattered internationally now are Corsico-Sardinia (for owning practically a quarter of total shipping industry in the world), Papal State (The Pope!), and the two Muslim oddballs that is Egypt and Libya (for the Duchy of Egypt and Libya were still basically ex-Ottoman Emirs that sworn loyalty to French Throne). But even then, the other autonomous duchies still has the rights to have their own internal laws, specialized regional army (The Swiss Armored Infantry are still the top elite troops), and mint/print their own version of Livre (even if only Corsico-Sardinia, the Papal State, and Muslim Duchies seem to be keen on printing their own money these days).

Hell, Corsico-Sardinia only have Gendarmes, who are basically glorified Police Force nowadays, compare that to heavily militarized Swiss, or even Egypt, and you'll realize that the Napoleons powers are mostly financial ones nowadays.
 
Remember that King Louis XVI basically realized that Bonaparte is a genius that need something to be done, after the later managed to single-handedly kick Holy Roman Army twice as numerous with what could be said as a Corsican-Sardinian Penal Legion and a handful of Armed French Peasants. All while Previous French Governors of Corsica and Sardinia end up being either corrupt, or incompetent, or both.
That’s true. Louis XVI eventually realized this and was outraged when news of the Corsican governor’s cruelty and avarice reached his ears. Louis XVI is cited as the people’s King and even many fringe leftists who support Republicanism admire Louis XVI for his genuine concern and championing of the people. A second popular uprising emerged against the governor besieging his mansion, and when news that a French army arrived the people scattered expecting a violent crackdown. But much to everyone’s surprise the army began arresting the governor and his supporters. The King had issued a warrant of arrest citing charges of treason, corruption, and needless cruelty. He had also had a writ of Excommunication from the pope after personally writing to His Holliness about the issue. After the governor was arrested him and his followers were publicly executed via firing squad much to the joy of the jubliation population. The King had also had the governor’s wealth seized and distributed among the poor and also reduced their taxes considerably for a five year period. And thus the King had pragmatically put down and rebellious province and its place raised a loyal bastion for the French monarchy. Napoleon himself in his later memoirs and his own personal diaries expressed how this moved him into becoming a Royalist since the King was the one who genuinely cared for his subjects. Napoleon's beliefs in the monarchy was also cemented upon seeing the fractious nature of the American states. The Term Americanized refers to how the Republic of America failed and devolved into petty squabbling microstates that were dominated and later annexed by France and Spain. This discredited the idea of Republicanism in many people's minds and solidified Napoleon's later belief in the French Universalism: a universal empire or sphere dominated by France. This was also the main governing philosophy of the Bonapartist foreign policy that saw France utterly wreck the previous balance of power in Europe. Of course Napoleon wasn't alone in his thinking and he and King Louis formed an unlikely partnership in their vision of a Romanesque France dominating Europe and abroad. In recognition for his many achievents, Napoleon was made a Count and later Duke of Corsica-Sardinia with his famous son Napoleon the Younger also being granted the Duchy of Milan.

Now, we might see how King Louis XVI rewarded him to be Count of Corsica (and later Duke of Corsico-Sardinia), to be a straightforward reward for his service, but back then, it was the biggest gamble since nobody knew where Napoleon's true loyalty is at that point.
It's not like Napoleon was unchallenged in his reign. Napoleon faced lots of opposition from traditionalists and many of the older aristocracy because of his origins as part of minor Italian nobility. Also while Louis XVI wasn't some sort of tactical genius he was still the sovereign King of France who held the loyalty of the army and the state. Louis also devoted a lot of attention during his reign before Napoleon and had a pretty competent grasp on grand strategy which was why he was able to time the re-conquest of New France from the British. A coup attempt by Napoleon would have failed from the onset because of Louis's and House Borboun's popularity. But Louis XVI was convinced of his loyalty during his suppression of the Orleanist-Republican Plot that nearly saw him assassinated. Napoleon became the new favorite of the King and the two formed a very good working relationship which developed into a friendship over the years. This friendship made Napoleon and later his son ardent supporters of the Bourbon dynasty and the French monarchy (OOC: French Bismarck). But though he was his friend, Louis XVI was still a very paranoid man who took no chances unless he was certain of victory or rigged the game in his favor. His reforms of the intelligence networks throughout France allowed him to snuff out plots in their cribs. Any coup attempt by Napoleon would have been rapidly crushed by the King. Heck the King even started spying on his own family after the Orleanist Plot. This information of course came later when the King's letters where later declassified and released to the public 200 years after his death. This is a testament to Louis the second coming of the Universal Spider, for after all many nobles and even some of the clergy were kept in line out of fear of the King.

Of course, the Napoleon family still serve as hereditary Duke of Corsico-Sardinia, who practically controls the flow of trades in Mediterranean. They did have several moments of thinking about declaring Independence in 19th century, but then they didn't want to stain the Loyal Service of Napoleon Bonaparte.
You're thinking of the plot by Lucien Bonaparte who became an ardent Revolutionary bent on having a Republic. He had a huge falling out with his brother Napoleon who later went on to disown him from the House of Bonaparte. Lucien and his later sons would later try to incite radical fervor in French held Italy, but it failed miserably. Many in Italy were in fact loyal to the King. In fact in Corsica which was once home to radicals and separatist activity, an angry mob basically ran him out of town. Plus "scholarship" regarding Bonapartes heading separatist movements was mostly written or funded by disgruntled French Aristocrats who hated the idea of an upstart Corsican gaining favor in the eyes of the King and praise all throughout France. Republican and academicians like Francois Bernard have been widely discredited by modern scholarship and actual evidence that we have. Napoleon the Younger who was also a great general in his own right was very close friends with King Louis XVIII. The two were childhood friends and their partnership in government mirrored the partnership between Louis XVI and Napoleon. The Bonapartes only gained their immense social status in France as a result of their merit and hard work. While the wealth of Bonaparte Industries was very large, the enormous wealth and resources of House Bourbon was larger many times over. The Bourbons are the richest men in continental Europe and France as well. The Bourbons are France's largest landowners and their collection of artwork is a sight to behold in the French Royal museum. Many of its works were also gained after France conquered Venice and took Vienna.

Had the Bonapartes realistically pursued secession from France it would have been the end of their House. Italy is well integrated into the Empire and many of its citizens have a very favorable view towards the monarchy. When France industrialized Italy grew very wealthy and experienced a massive population boom thanks to the French Kings looking for the well being of subjects French or otherwise. Napoleon's and Louis XVII's plan for universal citizenship also earned many supporters in France's newly acquired lands as well.

There are the Orléans side of the Bourbon royal family. Philippe the duke of Orléans is proper rank and avoid foreign entanglement, he is young well liked by the peoples.
Well he was popular and well liked until the Orleans-Republican Plot. What basically happened was that Phillippe hung around Republican circles and was taken by the radicals clamoring for a republic. This was tolerated by Louis and the other members of House Bourbon as long as Phillippe kept his feelings to himself when in public. Of course the attempted assassination of the King changed everything. The King liked to take public walks visiting orphanages, hospitals, and poorhouses talking with the poor of Paris. And apparently some radicals disguised as the King's personal guards tried to place a bomb under the King's Carriage while enroute back to the Royal Palace. This was detected by the King's spies and Napoleon who was the only high ranking military official in charge at the time marshaled a rag tag group of soldiers, peasants, and recruits in defense of the King. Luckily the bomb was found and the members of the plot and their accomplices were arrested. Of course the duc d'Orleans was implicated in the plot and was forced to flee Paris. His descendants maintain a claim to the throne of France but they were disinherited by Louis XVI.

Some anti-Bonapartists however speculate that the Duke of Orleans was innocent of the plot and that he was framed by Napoleon to get rid of his political rival. The two were of course pretty hostile to each other with Bonaparte's liberal autocratic view clashing with the ideas of Philippe Egalite. Though the validity of this cannot be verified as many of the documents related to this are classified by the French monarchy. Similarly the private correspondences by Napoleon relating to this event have also been omitted from the records by the current head of House Bonaparte.

I mean after the current succession crisis what's stopping the Bonapartes from seceding from France. They've already been printing their own money and have their own policy. Their vassalage is one of the last vestiges of the feudal age. Napoleon VII is one of the wealthiest men on the planet. He no longer has to pay tribute to the Bourbons. He might agree with the Spanish Compromise and put a Spanish puppet on the throne.
OOC: Something like this would be very unlikely to occur as Louis XIV and and Cardinal Richelieu worked to systematically strip the nobles of their taxation power. And under a successful Louis XVI friend or not there would no way that someone would be allowed to have such power over the King.

The Spanish Comprise is widely rejected in France after Spain's economic collapse in the 18th century with France basically propping it up under the guise of Louis XVII and Louis XVIII. If anything Spain is more of a puppet to France since France has a larger population and a booming economy. Plus there are closer relatives to Charles XIII than the Spanish Bourbons. The main controversy stems from Charles trying to make succession agnatic-cognatic to favor his daughters. But the traditional form of succession had been in place for many centuries and is still supported by many traditionalist and conservatives. If Charles somehow managed to issue a Pragmatic sanction it likely would cause a civil war or a very disputed succession for his daughter Charlotte. The other precedent for female inheritance in France goes back to Eleanor of Aquitaine whose inheritance saw more than 2/3 of France's lands go to the English. This led to centuries of warfare between the French and English over these lands.

Someone wrote a ridiculous ASB timeline that Napoleon Bonaparte becomes "Emperor of The French Empire". It's well written in terms of style, prose, and theme, but just too unbelievable. Napoleon looks like the second coming of Alexander the Great for heaven's sake. Unplausible, but nice fiction reading.
Oh yes its quite a popular alternate history book where the monarchy is overthrown in a revolution, and Napoleon is forced to become a monarch to restore order to France. Napoleon was very ambitious, and if he had been half as ambitious as he was presented to be in the book, its likely that he would have caused a giant coalition to form around overthrowing him. By sheer logistics this would have doomed him. But the comparison of Napoleon to famous military commanders like Scipion and Alexander is to be somewhat expected. Napoleon was probably the greatest military commander of his era and his many military reforms saw France ascend to its current status as a world power. His armies utterly smashed that of the other European powers bringing great wealth and glory to France. But while Napoleon was the great General Louis was often the master strategist balancing Napoleons tactical brilliance with his geopolitical aims and logistics systems. If anything Napoleon should be called the Belisarius of France. His stunning military achievements with little resources saved France many times and his method of making war saw many grow to both fear and admire him. Napoleon after all beat back a huge British and Austrian army with little more than a rag tag army of peasants and some conscripted convicts. This stunned the Austrians as the defeat was so humiliating that it gave France time to muster a proper army forcing the Austrians to a peace. Napoleon's later conquest of Egypt was also a masterful campaign as the King fully expected Napoleon to fail when he in fact ended up bringing France Great wealth and started a rebirth in Ancient Egyptian scholarship with the discovery of the Rosetta stone.

Now, if this were to actually happen. I think the Holy Roman Empire might actually collapse prematurely... Is that too implausible even for a fiction story?
Its actually amazing how that moribund institution stayed in effect for so long. Though its formal collapse was after Charles X or Charlemagne II was the one who destroyed the Holy Roman Empire with his massive invasion of Germany that saw France puppet Bavaria and other German states. The pope who was firmly under the Bourbon's thumb even gave Charles X the Imperial title. He even called him the true heir to Charlemagne and Rome. This of course was contested by the Habsburgs who were the Holy Roman Emperors for centuries. Based on Charles X's personality, had he not received the Imperial title he likely would have proclaimed himself as French Emperor of Gallic Emperor. He certainly saw himself as a Roman Emperor with his liberation of Greece and the Balkans from the Ottoman yoke. His lightning campaigns saw a puppet Tsardom of Bulgaria and Kingdom of Serbia emerge while he created the revived Basilea ton Rhomaion (Empire of the Romans) for the Greeks who held the Eastern Roman titles till Constantinople fell in 1453. He gave the Rhomaoi basically the pre 1204 borders with much of the Anatolian coast being made part of the state. He of course crowned his cousin who took the name Konstantinos XII (Constantine) in honor of Constantine XI.

Of course Charles XI's reign nearly saw the end of all the great gains made by his illustrious predecessor. Charles XI refused to take action while a strong and centralized Germany formed aimed as a dagger towards the heart of the Empire. Thankfully the fool died when he did allowing for the more capable Charles XII to maintain the dominance of the Empire.

Hell, Corsico-Sardinia only have Gendarmes, who are basically glorified Police Force nowadays, compare that to heavily militarized Swiss, or even Egypt, and you'll realize that the Napoleons powers are mostly financial ones nowadays.
Even at the height of the Bonaparte's political power they never had a chance to act against the Bourbons. The Bourbons were far wealthier with their large land estates and many stakes in large French companies that quadrupled their wealth. The army stationed in the provinces were also loyal to the King first and foremost. Also with the populations of the added French domains with the Universal Citizenship Decree, many were assimilated into France which presents itself as a universal Empire along the mantles of the Roman Empire of Antiquity.
 
I think you are confusing whom I am talking about when I spoke about Duke Phillipe of Orlean. I am talking about the current living duke and probably the future king of France.
 
I think you are confusing whom I am talking about when I spoke about Duke Phillipe of Orlean. I am talking about the current living duke and probably the future king of France.

The current duke of Orleans has better chance of being King of Ireland than King of France. The House of Orleans has been shunned by the French establishment for their crypto-republican views. With the Irish seceding from the United Kingdom and wanting a Catholic monarch, Phillipe the Duke would be the perfect choice for the Irish and their idea of a crowned republic.

In fairness the HRE being destroyed from the outside instead of Germany bursting out would almost make more sense. The amount of idiocy the habsburgs were pulling while Prussia-Lotharingia conquered their neighbors is amazing. And since when do the Bonapartes not pay tribute or have anything close to that power? Their policy begins and ends at local law in Corsica. Regardless i think that you're ignoring one thing. Napoleon I was considered a new Alexander. The reason France decimated everyone who touched them for the first half of the nineteenth century? A taller than most Corsican man who formed the basis of warfare until the adoption of air technology. He beat up the Holy Roman Empire, got Catalonia for France (his nephew got that duchy before he rebelled.), and managed to conquer down to the papal states OTL when Britain and Austria came a knocking for revenge for those loans to the Americans (Austria getting involved because it's austria and they really don't know when to quit when it comes to losing to France).

Thinking about it... if Napoleon wasn't around for that war, Britain could've demanded the French Throne. There were minor dukes that would've flipped to George III in a heartbeat for a dime and a county. Austria would've sucked up the French armies because that's all they could do ever. Even if Britain didn't take the throne, without Bonaparte they definately could've nabbed back Normandy and Gascony, maybe Brittany. And no one could've survived that riot.


He's no longer compelled to pay tribute and homage to the Bourbon. I was just equating wealth with power. In my mind, Napoleon was more like a Belisarius figure compared with Justinian figure of Louis XVI. After all, their close friendship forged a strong power base that created a resurgent France, more powerful than anything seen before. Yes, Napoleon was ambitious, but by no means was an Alexander. I equate Alexander as an independent ruler and Napoleon was not despite Napoleon's obvious military genius. In some ways, he was even an greater general. Napoleon I never lost a single battle and fought more battles than Alexander ever did.
 
Last edited:
I once saw this crazy fan fiction type thing where Louis XVI has no surviving male issue, so is succeeded as king first by his brother, the Comte de Provence (who likewise has no issue - as OTL) and then his youngest, the Comte d'Artois. The Comte d'Artois is the only one who has boys. The older one marries Louis XVI's daughter, but still has no children. The younger boy ends up being stabbed to death outside the opera by the jealous lover of one of his mistresses, with only three daughters by his two wives.
 

Dolan

Banned
Just watching the LIVE coronation of Charles XIV Yesterday. Kind of finally silencing all the rumors about the resurgence of Angevin Empire, but also kind of weird realizing that House Bourbon now Practically in control of Two Superpowers and related directly to one...

In the other side of Mediterranea, however, pro-indepenence riots just broke up in Algeria, piting Muslim Algerians against the French colonists there.
 
But at least the jokes about Return of The Angevin Empire is at all time high.

And while Charles XIII did tried to repeal the 1500 years Salic Law, the motion only get support from (very ironically) the rubber stamping first estate (nobility), since the Church and the People actually cares more about traditions.

I'm not trying to be the equalist in the room but, you know, it ain't 1500 years as our nice government tells us, it was invented by the uncle of Jeanne I de Navarre to steal his niece's throne. Which makes an illegitimate 700 years old invention.

If you want the Anarchiste Party to support a monarch, maybe the government should start tiding up their room with all that three orders system and agnatic discrimination.


But back to the PoD, maybe have the poor harvests of the first years of Louis XVI go on and on, after the catastrophic reign of Louis XV (economically speaking) that would make French people angry and the monarchy unable to help because they're broke. I guess.
 
Just watching the LIVE coronation of Charles XIV Yesterday. Kind of finally silencing all the rumors about the resurgence of Angevin Empire, but also kind of weird realizing that House Bourbon now Practically in control of Two Superpowers and related directly to one...

In the other side of Mediterranea, however, pro-indepenence riots just broke up in Algeria, piting Muslim Algerians against the French colonists there.

I mean that's what you get when you still have a strict adherence to Salic Law, but also don't want the Union of France and Britain. You're forgetting something, in the male-line, the present British Monarch is a Bourbon as well! So three kingdoms all Bourbon. This would have been a fever dream of Louis XIV
I think Algeria needs to secede from France and establish a secular republic run by both Native Algerians and Pied-Noirs. Following the recent succession crisis, I doubt more colonies want to be ruled by a foreign king who has never step foot in their lands.


Charles XIV should probably amend the succession laws, he has three daughters and no son and he is already 49. Charles XIV will probably change the Salic Law to Semi-Salic Law and he will it a requirement that all future French monarchs be descended from him with him as point 0. His daughter Princess Louise, formerly Archduchess Luisa, before that Infanta, will probably be named Grande Dauphine and her husband Karl Josef of Austria, the Dauphin Consort.


However, I doubt the French people will want to have this system continue. They might even try an elective monarchy where native nobles are candidates to the throne rather than foreign princes and princesses. The French just don't seem ready for a republic yet. Better yet, my friend says that the Duke of Corsico-Sardinia might finagle their way into the line of succession. I don't know about that, however.
 

Dolan

Banned
Charles XIV should probably amend the succession laws, he has three daughters and no son and he is already 49.
His Wife, Princess Caroline of Sweden, is still 33 years old. Sure, she already has three daughters, but trying changing succession law when he could still get a son is a foolish endeavor. It's the female who has limited time to conceive, Charles XIV has been proven fertile and so his wife, they could afford to have three or four more children and with IVF tech, they will definitely aim for a son. Money is never a problem

Charles XIII tried to change the Salic Law and failed. 1500 years of tradition won't go over some decades.

At the very least, British Bourbons would try to get spare princes too...
 
Just watching the LIVE coronation of Charles XIV Yesterday. Kind of finally silencing all the rumors about the resurgence of Angevin Empire, but also kind of weird realizing that House Bourbon now Practically in control of Two Superpowers and related directly to one...
The two main superpowers are France and Spain. Thanks to Louis XVI's shrewd geopolitical maneuvers France was able restore its empire in North America. The whole idea of a restored Angevin Empire is kind of ridiculous since the main cause of the succession crisis was that Charles XIII tried to remove salic law. His cousin Charles XIV was the duke of York thanks is to his mother. The whole controversy was whether or not Charles XIII's claim to throne is legitimate. People feared that this would mirror the Carlist crisis in Spain that nearly led to civil war. However the Pope, the army, the nobles,and much of the public all support Charles XIV despite his half English heritage. The Princess Charlotte's laughable attempt of a coup turned most of France and the empire against her. She now lives in Russian court in exile. I feel like the media hype around the Angevins was encouraged so that everyone would forget Princess Charlotte's disgraceful coup attempt.

In the other side of Mediterranea, however, pro-indepenence riots just broke up in Algeria, piting Muslim Algerians against the French colonists there
This is mostly a fringe group. Most French Algerians are quite supportive of the monarchy despite Catholicism being the official state religion. Most religious were tolerated and gained legal recognition under Charles X also known as Charlemagne II for adding Italy and many German lands in the empire. His smooth conquests of North Africa was mostly owed to the great respect he showed to the customs and traditions of the newly conquered lands. This is why the French Empire who followed the idea of peaceful cooperation and integration still stands while the British empire after Louis XVI the Great and Duke Napoleon the Elder were done thrashing it, collapsed rapidly.

I think Algeria needs to secede from France and establish a secular republic run by both Native Algerians and Pied-Noirs. Following the recent succession crisis, I doubt more colonies want to be ruled by a foreign king who has never step foot in their lands.
Algeria and North Africa are all very well integrated provinces of France. Most French Algerians either Muslim or Catholic are generally supportive of the Monarchy. The Duke of Algeria's cousin is married to a French Algerian.

Why a republic of all things? That's such a fringe ideology that ended in disaster for most counties who experimented with. Remember the American Republic? Louis XVI supported them in his 4d chess game to gain revenge against Britain. That failure of state remained an economic backwater, and with mob rule thanks to its dysfunctional government it Americanized into several tiny starlets that France and Spain were easily able to divide and rule and eventually annex. The British Revolution or British Anarchy was so bad and violent that England went from a rival of France to third rate regional naval power allied to France within a generation. The Hanovers were executed and many fled to France to escape the bloodshed. It was the direct intervention of Louis XVIII that restored the monarchy back into power. The Bourbon reforms of Britain brought stability to it at the cost of their great power status.

After Austria was crushed by France Charles X who took the rightful Imperial title of Holy Roman Emperor and Germany went into anarchy. Charles XI the idiot failed to take action as Germany United under the radical Republican ideology. But after the Great Economic Crisis of the 20's Germany turned to Equalism. The menace that dragged Europe into a decade of total war. Equalism was crushed by Charles XII who managed to bring true peace in Europe. Luckily the Hohenzollerns, Wittlesbachs, and Hapsburgs were able to survive the equalists. Other German houses were not so lucky.

Charles XIV should probably amend the succession laws, he has three daughters and no son and he is already 49. Charles XIV will probably change the Salic Law to Semi-Salic Law and he will it a requirement that all future French monarchs be descended from him with him as point 0. His daughter Princess Louise, formerly Archduchess Luisa, before that Infanta, will probably be named Grande Dauphine and her husband Karl Josef of Austria, the Dauphin Consort.
He can very well try but it will likely fail especially when Charles brother Marshall-General and Duke of Normandy Philipp is very popular with the general public. He is also a very well respected military leader who has many sons. Unless some weird ASB event wiped the entire male line of Bourbons I don't see Salic law being repealed.

However, I doubt the French people will want to have this system continue. They might even try an elective monarchy where native nobles are candidates to the throne rather than foreign princes and princesses.
An elective monarchy was why the Holy Roman Empire failed. Plus the nobles will always vote for weaker candidates for the throne. The French monarchy was originally elective by Germanic tradition until centuries of combine efforts of French Kings made France have hereditary succession. The HRE was originally more powerful than France as France but as France consolidated and reorganized itself the HRE devolved into a failed state. Also France has had hereditary succession for almost 1000 years. I doubt anyone will go against a near millennium of traditions. Any French Kinf who tried will likely cause a coup.

The French just don't seem ready for a republic yet.
The French monarchy's popularity is at an all time high right now anyways. France never went Republican despite the idiocy of Louis XV and Charles XI jeopardizing France's geopolitical position. Also most of the world is run by monarchies except for some tiny microstates like the Swiss Confederation. Also the anarchy in Britain really damaged the credibility of the republic.

His Wife, Princess Caroline of Sweden, is still 33 years old. Sure, she already has three daughters, but trying changing succession law when he could still get a son is a foolish endeavor. It's the female who has limited time to conceive, Charles XIV has been proven fertile and so his wife, they could afford to have three or four more children and with IVF tech, they will definitely aim for a son. Money is never a problem

Charles XIII tried to change the Salic Law and failed. 1500 years of tradition won't go over some decades.

At the very least, British Bourbons would try to get spare princes too...
There are also the Scottish Bourbon and Spanish Bourbon as well. Don't forget the Greek ones in the Basileia tom Rhomaion. The Bonapartes are a cadet branch to the House of de Bourbon in all but name with all the times tneh intermarried. Prince Philip the heir apparent to the throne is 28 and his son is the current heir to Spain so if there's a King Phillips III of Spain and France this would realize Louis XIV's dream. Of course now no one would really declare war to prevent this union. The Qing Emperor and the Tsar might grumble but there is not much they could do. Since France and Spain are so intertwined at this point an official Franco-Spanish union will likely be called the Western Roman Empire reborn. The Kings of France officially use the title of Holy Roman Emperor anyway. It's why Charles almost didn't proclaim him Imperator Francorum.

But back to the PoD, maybe have the poor harvests of the first years of Louis XVI go on and on, after the catastrophic reign of Louis XV (economically speaking) that would make French people angry and the monarchy unable to help because they're broke. I guess.
It would have to be a cartoonish level of incompetence for the French monarchy to fail that badly. Maybe Louis XVI comes to the throne younger and thus is more easily influenced by the nobles and fais to reform France. Though that would be a major change in personality for Louis the Great.
 
Last edited:
His Wife, Princess Caroline of Sweden, is still 33 years old. Sure, she already has three daughters, but trying changing succession law when he could still get a son is a foolish endeavor. It's the female who has limited time to conceive, Charles XIV has been proven fertile and so his wife, they could afford to have three or four more children and with IVF tech, they will definitely aim for a son. Money is never a problem

Charles XIII tried to change the Salic Law and failed. 1500 years of tradition won't go over some decades.

At the very least, British Bourbons would try to get spare princes too...
Also, worst comes to worst you marry Charlie's eldest daughter Marie Christine (or if she's too old one of her sisters Antoinette or Marguerite) to whoever ends up being his heir. Problem solved and Salic law intact
 
The two main superpowers are France and Spain. Thanks to Louis XVI's shrewd geopolitical maneuvers France was able restore its empire in North America. The whole idea of a restored Angevin Empire is kind of ridiculous since the main cause of the succession crisis was that Charles XIII tried to remove salic law. His cousin Charles XIV was the duke of York thanks is to his mother. The whole controversy was whether or not Charles XIII's claim to throne is legitimate. People feared that this would mirror the Carlist crisis in Spain that nearly led to civil war. However the Pope, the army, the nobles,and much of the public all support Charles XIV despite his half English heritage. The Princess Charlotte's laughable attempt of a coup turned most of France and the empire against her. She now lives in Russian court in exile. I feel like the media hype around the Angevins was encouraged so that everyone would forget Princess Charlotte's disgraceful coup attempt.




After Austria was crushed by France Charles X who took the rightful Imperial title of Holy Roman Emperor and Germany went into anarchy. Charles XI the idiot failed to take action as Germany United under the radical Republican ideology. But after the Great Economic Crisis of the 20's Germany turned to Equalism. The menace that dragged Europe into a decade of total war. Equalism was crushed by Charles XII who managed to bring true peace in Europe. Luckily the Hohenzollerns, Wittlesbachs, and Hapsburgs were able to survive the equalists. Other German houses were not so lucky.


Did you hear that the little rebellious statelets ruled by the Spanish and French in North America have tried to elect a Prussian prince as their King. The English and French speaking North Americans want an Emperor who can take care of them and support them domestically. North American nationalism is very anti-French or Bourbon, yet ultra-Catholic and being under the Bourbon yoke has made them ready for a second revolution. They won't make the silly mistakes of having a republic again. Prince Heinrich von Hohenzollern seems like their best choice, but the French and Spanish will never agree to this. The Duke of New York, Charles de Guelph ,a descendant of the Hanoverian kings, wants to make himself King. I doubt the Grand Duke of New England, Francois III de Bostoun would allow a Hanoverian or a Protestant to rule over him. With so many little principalities, duchies, and fiefdoms under Spanish and French suzerainty, it would be hard to elect an American Emperor.

How do you think has the best chance to rule over the American states? I personally think the Duke of Pennsylvania, Etienne II, has the best chance. He is a descendant of the French colonial nobility and many of the Royal families of Europe. If America is to have an Emperor or King or whatever, I think it will be Etienne II.
 
North American nationalism is very anti-French or Bourbon, yet ultra-Catholic and being under the Bourbon yoke has made them ready for a second revolution. They won't make the silly mistakes of having a republic again. Prince Heinrich von Hohenzollern seems like their best choice, but the French and Spanish will never agree to this.
But the old Anglo-American population that mostly has this sort of separatist feeling is mostly restricted to the Cheseapeake and New England region. The Heart of French North America is Montreal and New Orleans after all. The Franco-Amerindian population and the French settler population also greatly exceeds that of that region. Keep in mind that thanks to the Financial revolution started by Louis XVI with his many reforms and merchant friendly court, France's economy and population experienced a great boom. This huge population forced many to leave France for the other provinces. Some moved to North Africa while many moved to French America. The city of New Orleans and Mexico City are the two largest cities in North America right now as well. The Viceroyalty of Louisiana also experienced a huge population boom thanks to the emigration from France and later Germany. The failed American statelets suffered many generations of war against each other in the name of that failed ideology of republicanism. Many cities were left depopulated and as a result the Anglo-American population live there are a small minority compared to the more loyal French citizens. Independence from France is more of a joke than anything. It's kind of like those weird demonstrators in Spain who demand Catalonian independence. Nobody really takes them seriously and if any real independence revolt took place, the Spanish and French Army would likely crack down on it.

Prince Heinrich von Hohenzollern seems like their best choice, but the French and Spanish will never agree to this.
The problem is that the Hohenzollerns would never agree to this. Grand Duke Heinrich would never risk angering his French overlord especially after the French saved his family from the equalists. The Hohenzollerns were nearly wiped out by the Equalists and he and his family took refuge in the French court and were treated well.

he Duke of New York, Charles de Guelph ,a descendant of the Hanoverian kings, wants to make himself King. I doubt the Grand Duke of New England, Francois III de Bostoun would allow a Hanoverian or a Protestant to rule over him. With so many little principalities, duchies, and fiefdoms under Spanish and French suzerainty, it would be hard to elect an American Emperor.
For there to be an empire to begin with you would have to see a continental wide independence movement which is implausible since most of the North America is either Francophone or Spanish speaking. Also the French and Spanish armies stationed in the colonies would have to be defeated and then forced out of their garrisons and fortresses which is highly unlikely.

In regards to the whole protestantism vs catholicism debate, most citizens of the empire have really stopped caring and most French subjects simply see each other as fellow Christians thanks to the acts of universal toleration of all Abrahamic religious groups much to the chagrin of the pope at the time. Some nobles are Protestant while some are Catholic while others are even Orthodox or Coptic. Much of the local nobility in Egypt for example are Coptic Christians.

How do you think has the best chance to rule over the American states? I personally think the Duke of Pennsylvania, Etienne II, has the best chance. He is a descendant of the French colonial nobility and many of the Royal families of Europe. If America is to have an Emperor or King or whatever, I think it will be Etienne II.
Despite the calls of the vocal minority of separatists for independence, many of them are still divided over who to pick as their leader or on the matter of government they want to have. Some fringe groups within the separatist movements still call for equalism or republicanism. Etienne II also has explicitly said that he would never accept any crown of America. He has publicly proclaimed loyalty to King Charles XXIV during the ceremony of fealty between the nobles and the crown at the Palace of Versailles. Not even Charles XI despite how incompetent he was, would be dumb enough to let the Anglo-Americans try to secede.

Honestly the only realistic pod for an independent Anglo-American state would have to go back centuries. It would likely only come about if the General George Washington proclaimed himself King. Many in the army supported him and he likely would have adopted the competent Alexander Hamilton as his heir. With the support of the army and the financial talents of Hamilton, the Kingdom of America could have had a shot of maintaining its independence and prospering. But the pro-business reforms would likely have caused a revolt or backlash among the Southern planter-elites. But if America managed to survive this they maybe could have taken controlled of New Orleans and thus the Mississippi river. At the time the French had a demographic disadvantage in their colonies compared to the Americans. But its likely that Louis XVI would have never let them take control of Louisiana. So its likely than any independent America would have been a regional power at best under the French or Spanish sphere of influence. But this scenario didn't become reality because Washington was killed by some of the radicals which started a huge civil war that left America ruined and a depopulated economic backwater to be dominated by Louis XVI and Louis XVII. And most people living in the shattered America welcomed the French since their own governments failed miserably while life under French colonial rule was far more prosperous. Because of the depopulation and devastation America faced, the subsequent renewal and reinvestment by the French made much of America a magnet for French settlers. It parallels the situation with Constantinople actually when the city fell to the Turks. The city was so ruined and depopulated that the Turks had to encourage settlers from Anatolia to settle within it and revive the city. While the Americans are a sizable minority in the West Coast of French North America, they simply lack the numbers or resources to ever wage a war the French.
 
But the old Anglo-American population that mostly has this sort of separatist feeling is mostly restricted to the Cheseapeake and New England region. The Heart of French North America is Montreal and New Orleans after all. The Franco-Amerindian population and the French settler population also greatly exceeds that of that region. Keep in mind that thanks to the Financial revolution started by Louis XVI with his many reforms and merchant friendly court, France's economy and population experienced a great boom. This huge population forced many to leave France for the other provinces. Some moved to North Africa while many moved to French America. The city of New Orleans and Mexico City are the two largest cities in North America right now as well. The Viceroyalty of Louisiana also experienced a huge population boom thanks to the emigration from France and later Germany. The failed American statelets suffered many generations of war against each other in the name of that failed ideology of republicanism. Many cities were left depopulated and as a result the Anglo-American population live there are a small minority compared to the more loyal French citizens. Independence from France is more of a joke than anything. It's kind of like those weird demonstrators in Spain who demand Catalonian independence. Nobody really takes them seriously and if any real independence revolt took place, the Spanish and French Army would likely crack down on it.


The problem is that the Hohenzollerns would never agree to this. Grand Duke Heinrich would never risk angering his French overlord especially after the French saved his family from the equalists. The Hohenzollerns were nearly wiped out by the Equalists and he and his family took refuge in the French court and were treated well.


For there to be an empire to begin with you would have to see a continental wide independence movement which is implausible since most of the North America is either Francophone or Spanish speaking. Also the French and Spanish armies stationed in the colonies would have to be defeated and then forced out of their garrisons and fortresses which is highly unlikely.

In regards to the whole protestantism vs catholicism debate, most citizens of the empire have really stopped caring and most French subjects simply see each other as fellow Christians thanks to the acts of universal toleration of all Abrahamic religious groups much to the chagrin of the pope at the time. Some nobles are Protestant while some are Catholic while others are even Orthodox or Coptic. Much of the local nobility in Egypt for example are Coptic Christians.


Despite the calls of the vocal minority of separatists for independence, many of them are still divided over who to pick as their leader or on the matter of government they want to have. Some fringe groups within the separatist movements still call for equalism or republicanism. Etienne II also has explicitly said that he would never accept any crown of America. He has publicly proclaimed loyalty to King Charles XXIV during the ceremony of fealty between the nobles and the crown at the Palace of Versailles. Not even Charles XI despite how incompetent he was, would be dumb enough to let the Anglo-Americans try to secede.

Honestly the only realistic pod for an independent Anglo-American state would have to go back centuries. It would likely only come about if the General George Washington proclaimed himself King. Many in the army supported him and he likely would have adopted the competent Alexander Hamilton as his heir. With the support of the army and the financial talents of Hamilton, the Kingdom of America could have had a shot of maintaining its independence and prospering. But the pro-business reforms would likely have caused a revolt or backlash among the Southern planter-elites. But if America managed to survive this they maybe could have taken controlled of New Orleans and thus the Mississippi river. At the time the French had a demographic disadvantage in their colonies compared to the Americans. But its likely that Louis XVI would have never let them take control of Louisiana. So its likely than any independent America would have been a regional power at best under the French or Spanish sphere of influence. But this scenario didn't become reality because Washington was killed by some of the radicals which started a huge civil war that left America ruined and a depopulated economic backwater to be dominated by Louis XVI and Louis XVII. And most people living in the shattered America welcomed the French since their own governments failed miserably while life under French colonial rule was far more prosperous. Because of the depopulation and devastation America faced, the subsequent renewal and reinvestment by the French made much of America a magnet for French settlers. It parallels the situation with Constantinople actually when the city fell to the Turks. The city was so ruined and depopulated that the Turks had to encourage settlers from Anatolia to settle within it and revive the city. While the Americans are a sizable minority in the West Coast of French North America, they simply lack the numbers or resources to ever wage a war the French.


True, true. I must concede that the current state in North America doesn't lend itself to an independence movement yet. I think the French should watch their backs. The system of American Neo-Feudalism isn't going to work for France and Spain in the long run. North America needs centralization. Some sort of consolidation movement will definitely occur, with the French King made the overlord of these territories with some fancy title.

The counterfactualist in me wants there to be some sort of Holy American Empire akin to the former Holy Roman Empire, but it's most certainly ASB. For sure.

What do you think will happen to the Anglo-American ethnicity in the coming years?

The Mughal-Qing Alliance has developed something called an "atom bomb", should we be worried?
 
I think the French should watch their backs. The system of American Neo-Feudalism isn't going to work for France and Spain in the long run. North America needs centralization. Some sort of consolidation movement will definitely occur, with the French King made the overlord of these territories with some fancy title.
It’s not really neo-Feudal anyway. Most noble titles are ceremonial unless the land is owned by the House of Bourbon. Louis XVI’s Lex Francorum removed most of the nobility’s powers anyway. Plus North America is so big. You can’t centralize in the same manner of Europe. The French colonies are subdivided into local viceroyalties who have smaller provincial governorships below them. It reminds me of a modern version of the ancient Persian satrapy system.

I think the French should watch their backs.
The militancy of some of those seperatist groups is becoming a problem. They started attacking royal estates and government buildings. Of course this had the effect of making them lose support from any moderates in the Anglo-American population. Plus King Charles XIII dispatched the military and the Imperial Security Bureau to root out the rebels.

The counterfactualist in me wants there to be some sort of Holy American Empire akin to the former Holy Roman Empire, but it's most certainly ASB. For sure.
The official title of King Charles XIV is Sacrum Imperator Romanorum. The French kings since Charles X have made it the official way to reference them after they seized the imperial title from the Hapsburgs. But most people out of convenience refer to Charles XIV as le Roi or le Empreur.
What do you think will happen to the Anglo-American ethnicity in the coming years?
I think that they will gradually become ore Francophone. Many of the younger generations are starting to speak French more rather than English and there has also been a recent upswing in Catholicism in the traditionally Anglican and Baptist dominated communities much to the joy of the pious Charle XIV. Though Lutheranism is still alive and well in the Midwest where is a sizeable Franco-German population.

The Mughal-Qing Alliance has developed something called an "atom bomb", should we be worried?
That’s a natural consequence of them being great powers. But their weapons don’t have the capability of ever reaching mainland France or its North American holdings. But the Mughals have more to worry about as the local Hindu population is becoming more restless with growing calls for a state of Hindustan. The Catholic French controlled portions of Southern India however don’t want to be part of such a state or join the Mughals. This was a bone of contention between the Mughals as they officially claim sovereignty over all India.

The Qing are however France’s main trading partner and ally. The two nations have generally maintained good relations and they are close partners ever since Louis XVIII helped the Qianlong Emperor. Also both nations allied against the Japanese Empire during the pacific war.
 
Top