Elected French Monarchy

How could we get, in the 19th Century, an arrangment where France had a monarch with at least some real powers, but the monarchy was elective/selective and was picked periodically from among a Bourbon candidate, an Orleans candidate, and a Napoleonic candidate. Perhaps each of those three factions could have their own distinct method for choosing their candidate (e.g., the Bourbons, strict hereditary? The Orleanists, universal manhood suffrage?)
 
Hmmm....interesting. While I haven't yet thought of HOW such a system would come about, I think there might be two methods that the French could use.

#1: Seeing that I'm a hardcore fanatic of the Holy Roman Empire, possibly second only to the legendary Susano himself, I suppose you could have something similar to the Prince-Electors, only instead of having seven as in the HRE, you'd have three here. Each royal house would be free to use any method it wanted for selecting its heir/elector, and the three electors would choose the next king from their number. Since there's only three of them, there might have to be a rule that no elector could vote for himself, otherwise you'd probably just end up with a 1-1-1 tie most of the time... So whichever elector can garner two of the three votes would become the next king.

#2. Maybe a "rotating kingship", just like the President of the EU Council, except in this case it would obviously be for life instead of a fixed term. Just as in #1, each royal house would be free to use any method it wanted to pick its heir. Since the Bourbon line is arguably the most prominent, perhaps the current Bourbon heir would become the first king. Then whenever that Bourbon king died or abdicated, whoever was the current Orleans heir at the time would become the next king, and when the Orleans king died, the current Bonaparte heir would become the next king, and upon his death it would revert back to whoever is the current Bourbon heir, and the cycle starts all over again.

I actually like this idea a lot...a compromise between the royal houses like this might be just what the monarchy needs to put an end to all those pesky pretenders to the throne that threatened its stability. Thoughts?
 
It was reading about the French governments dominated by monarchists, but that remained republican because the monarchists couldn't agree on a monarch, that set me wondering. (Spanish monarchists had similar problems; the Carlists and the Borbonists couldn't agree).

In theory, I wonder if some scheme like this might give the monarchy more stability because it allows the monarchy to coopt different factions into a loyal opposition without them becoming revolutionary. The royalists and ultramontanist Catholics support the Bourbon faction, the socialists and radicals support the Orleanists, the middle class and the aspirational types suppor the Napoleonists . . . Much unrest and unhappiness still exists, but its dampened because 'our turn's coming.'
 
Personally I doubt it would happen in France, partly because the monarchy was absolutist longer.

I have imagined a scenario in which it happens in Britain. I don't know what the POD would be, but suppose e.g. the Whigs supported the Hannoverians and the Tories supported some protestant Stuart descendants (yes, I know, there weren't any protestant Stuart pretenders, that might be the POD).

So, when Whigs are elected the majority in Parliament, they bring in their Hannoverian monarch; then next election the Tories win and recall the Stuart claimant. After a handful of change overs, 'king' becomes essentially a non-executive president (like what Israel has today, e.g.).

It would be really tough to do this peacefully even in England. I can't see it happening in France.
 
Personally I doubt it would happen in France, partly because the monarchy was absolutist longer.

I don't see how that makes much of a difference. I would figure that the ideal time for such a system to be instituted would be at the end of the Second Empire and before the founding of the Third Republic. IIRC, the French were actually very enthuastic about a monarchy, although they wished it to be a parliamentary one like Britain had. There was no doubt that they wanted a king, but the biggest roadblock was that they couldn't decide who king should be. The Legitimists were pushing for their man while the Orleanists were doing the same thing with their heir. There were of course Bonapartists too in the National Assembly, lobbying for their candidate, but they didn't really have too many seats, and given the recent defeat and dethroning of Napoleon III, I don't think they were ever really in the running for it. So maybe instead of a threeway rotating kingship, a compromise could've been reached between them with the throne alternating between the Legitimist heir and the Orleanist one. Because like I said, France overwhelming would've still preferred a monarchy even then, and a rotating kingship would satisfy both factions.
 
What kind of country do you think they are, Naboo?

Huh? Is it really ridiculous? Because if there has been such a thing as a rotating presidency for fixed terms in the past, then why couldn't France have simply taken it one step further and had what would essentially amount to a rotating president-for-life?
 
An elected French monarchy isn't going to be in the cards in the 19th century. The monarchists dominated post-1871 France because the country wanted the stability that a hereditary monarchy provided. That kind of stability does not exist if you don't know who is going to be the next monarch.

Kill the Capets during the early part of their dynasty. The ability of the Capets to produce son after son is really remarkable, almost ASB if you were writing a timeline about this era. If you lose the Capets early in the dynasty's history, then you'll get an elected monarchy. I don't know if you'll have the same kind of electoral system as was developed in the HREGN, since I don't think the French had a similar set of stem duchies or powerful prince-bishops.

Instead of a unifying France next to a disintegrating Germany, I think you could see two elecotral systems: one in the HREGN and the other in France covering the expansive Carolingian borders.
 
An elected French monarchy isn't going to be in the cards in the 19th century. The monarchists dominated post-1871 France because the country wanted the stability that a hereditary monarchy provided. That kind of stability does not exist if you don't know who is going to be the next monarch.

Fair enough, but would a rotating kingship like I proposed work, with the throne alternating back and forth between the two royal houses as each of they both essentially "take turns at being king"? Because that would solve the instability problem that 19th century France had, since they'd always know exactly who the next monarch was going to be ahead of time, namely the current heir for the royal house that isn't in power at the time.
 
Fair enough, but would a rotating kingship like I proposed work, with the throne alternating back and forth between the two royal houses as each of they both essentially "take turns at being king"? Because that would solve the instability problem that 19th century France had, since they'd always know exactly who the next monarch was going to be ahead of time, namely the current heir for the royal house that isn't in power at the time.
While this would make for a very interesting French monarchy, I think that the most likely outcome for the monarchists would be a compromise, by which the legitimist heir (Henri V) becomes king, and since he didn't have any issue, the next in line would be the Orleanist heir (whose name I don't recall right now).

After that, there could be some agreement to bring in a spanish candidate to continue the legitimate branch, but I think the former option is the most likely one.
 
Fair enough, but would a rotating kingship like I proposed work, with the throne alternating back and forth between the two royal houses as each of they both essentially "take turns at being king"? Because that would solve the instability problem that 19th century France had, since they'd always know exactly who the next monarch was going to be ahead of time, namely the current heir for the royal house that isn't in power at the time.

The Legitimist pretender, who would have been Henry V if he was crowned, demanded that the French tri-color be abandoned in favor of the fleur-de-lis. Henry V was also old and childless, so the Orleanist pretender was going to be his heir. The problem was that Henry V refused to be crowned without the fleur-de-lis, and the Legitimist members of the French government refused to accept the Orleanist pretender. If Henry V would allow himself to be crowned King, then he dies a decade later in 1883, and the Orleanist pretender, the Comte of Paris, will be crowned Louis Philippe II. With LP's coronation, the Legitimist and Orleanist lines will have reunited, and the Orleanist monarchy has clear sailing, for at least until some kind of alt-WWII.
 

Susano

Banned
Thats not true. Only an ultra"legitimist" fringe refused to accept the Orleans candidate, now candidate of the "unionist" movement. Of course, it isnt right to call them legitimist anymore - the Spanish branch (specificalyl of course the Carlist branch) which they favoured had rejected all rights in France with their founder Philip (IV? V? Cant remember) of Spain. So, the Unionists surely have and had more legitimacy. Anjouist fits better maybe (with the Spanish Bourbon branch being Bourbon-Anjou).

That being said, Orleans is House of Bourbon, too. Line Bourbon-Orleans. This is a mistake that always get repeated...
 
Top