Does killing Louis Philippe I prevent or delay the Revolutions of 1848?

[IchBinDieKaiser]

Doing some research for the European parts of an American centric timeline, and I was curious about the assassination attempt on Louis Philippe in 1835. From what I've gathered, his son, Ferdinand Philippe, was more liberal than his father, which implies that he might be more open to the institutional changes that were wanted by French liberals. If Ferdinand Philippe ascends to the throne earlier, we might see the Kingdom of France get an actual constitution rather than continuing on the 1814 Charter, which would kneecap the 1848 revolutions, at least temporarily.

Without the French part of the 1848 revolutions, I don't think the rest of Europe erupts like it did IOTL. However, I do think that some kind of Europe-wide popular uprising was bound to happen at some point in the 19th century, but without France I think it is put off by a decade, give or take, and is more concentrated further east, possibly involving the Poles and Ukrainians in Russian.

So like it says in the title, Does killing Louis Philippe I prevent or delay the Revolutions of 1848, if so, by how much, and how different would it be?

 

[Matteo]

There was going to be very serious turmoil in european capitals by the middle of 19th century. As the word says itself, the industrial revolution was a revolution, that is a violent process which was painful for many people, which causes reactions on the political field.

And there was no need of a successful 1848 French Revolution to have revolutionary outbursts elsewhere.

Anyway, it would have been quite easy, although painful, to halt the revolution in France : just deciding to exert a harsh repression.

Louis Philippe I just left the country instead of maintaining order.

In 1871, the French did not make the same mistake : they crushed the radical parisians and it was over once and for all.

 

[Socrates]

Yes, I think you are correct. Rebellion was in the air, but the fall of the French monarchy really shocked people and awakened revolutionary belief elsewhere.

 

[DrakeRlugia]

If Ferdinand Philippe makes concessions—there is a chance that the House of Orleans can weather the storm. The Habsburgs and Hohenzollerns, not to mention the numerous German royal houses survived the tumults of 1848—though in most of Germany proper (including Prussia), the princes had to concede to some form of reform, such as constitutionalism. Only in Austria was there a brief return to Absolutism. There's no reason why the monarchy can't continue to survive—sure, France had the brief history of the revolutionary Republic, but Bonaparte quickly swept it away with his own Empire.

The big issue is that Louis Philippe was raised to the throne by the big financiers and liberals that had been opposed to the House of Bourbon. In the same way that the landowners and aristocracy made up the bulwark of the Restored Bourbons in the aftermath of 1815, the liberal Orleanists were reliant up the financiers for their own support. The burst of revolution in Paris had anger directed towards Charles X, but Louis Philippe wasn't exactly who they wanted... the Parisians quickly became disillusioned and revolted in 1832. Paris was a hotbed of revolutionaries during the period of the July Monarchy, with opposition from the working class, the students, and members of newborn Socialist movement. They wanted a Republic, but they also wanted radical social reforms.

The biggest issue was the fact that the franchise was limited during the July Monarchy. It was slightly extended from the strict franchise that had existed under the Bourbons, but not by much. While the Bourbons had gerrymandered the franchise laws to favor the landowners, the July Monarchy did nothing more than cosmetic reforms: it abolished the double vote, reduced the poll tax to 200 francs, allowing men over 25 to vote. To be elected to the Chamber of Deputies, the poll tax was set at 500 francs and one had to be at least 30 years old. These reforms doubled the electoral body, but didn't really change it's composition: it just let the financiers and capitalists take part for once—the electorate was about 240,000 people in 1846, out of a population of 36 million. It was an extremely narrow—Britain's electorate following the Reform Act was about 500,000-800,000 people. Still very narrow, but France's suffrage was much more restricted in the period.

 

[Magyarország]

As for Austria, 1848 is very likely going to be different:

The panic caused by the revolution caused a run for the banks, followed by more panic and protests that led to Metternich's dismissal. With him still part of the government, they can hopefully avoid the abysmal mismanagement of the events; after all, the French Revolution won't butterfly away the rumblings that had been happening for well over a decade.

The events in Hungary were very much coincidental and gave them a massive opportunity. Without the situation turning sour in Vienna, the government won't be forced to accept the Hungarians' demands outright, but the situation there was about to lead to something regardless of what happens in France. The majority of their demands will likely be met (basically, Vienna is unlikely to let the Hungarians have its own army at this time and especially not relinquish control of the existing Hungarian regiments), but it won't be the OTL April Laws.

In the end, the sudden turn of events doesn't happen in Austria, keeping both neo-absolutists/reactionaries and "liberal" centralists from power with Metternich still at the helm. Ferdinand remains on the throne and Franz Joseph isn't pushed onto the position unless something happens that pushes the conservatives to need a stronger monarchical presence.

The Hungarian-Croatian is not likely avoided, but Vienna is much more likely to be able to organise a settlement between Pest and Jellačić before it goes out of control; the horrible mismanagement of that conflict was what got the Hungarians to seceed, so that can be avoided.

Metternich isn't likely to stay in power for very long, but a more gradual process of liberalisation could potentially weaken both centralists (mostly German nationalists that wanted to, obviously, centralise the empire and piss off the traditionaly autonomous and coincidentally-ethnic (mostly) crownlands) and reactionaries (that put a 18 year old and violently repressed the entire Empire iOTL, leading to near-fatal discontent) and create a more lasting system in the Empire.