I have another idea, later POD so less butterflies. What if Louis XVI died around year 1790 from natural cases (many of his ancestors including his father and great-grandfather died quite young, so why not him)? His son would be around 5 years old. He would look easy to manipulate. Could be kept as both pawn and hostage to calm royalists and stop European powers from intervention. Deposing regent would not be as controversial as deposing king. But for this to happen moderate revolutionists must prevail over radicals.
France and Germany are still (constitutional) monarchies today
- Thread starter Thane
- Start date
The problem with having France and Germany as constitutional monarchies is quite difficult to overcome; one rises after defeating the other. Keeping the Second Empire means a victory over Prussia, which likely means no Germany as we know it. Saving the German monarchy isn't that difficult to do: kill Wilhelm II early, have Friedrich III never get cancer, have the monarchy not be so discredited at the end of WWI, ex, ex. Could a unified Bourbon claim work in 1871 instead? By that I mean kill Henri V in say 1868, leaving the Legitimists to go over to the Orleanist side. That unifies the claims and unites the royalists under a common banner. At this point that's the only thing I can think of to have both countries as monarchies today.
I'm don't think it would be that incompatible, at least with a PoD in the early XIXth century. Maybe a bit weird, compared to IOTL, but reckognizable (admittedly more than France than for Germany).
I'm not so sure : it could actually efficiently break Legitimists in smaller blocks earlier and deeper than IOTL (when Henri de Chambord died).
The Legitimist/Orleanist divide is hard to overestimate (and almost single-handly explain the decline of french monarchism), even in the best years and you'd still end with enough Republicans to efficiently block down what would eventually be an enlarged Orleanist party, while an undiscolsed numbers of Legitimists would go all providentialists, ultra-traditionalists, hoping really really hard that Ducrot will pull a Monk, or lying around as "keepers of the temple".
It certainly not helped that Orleanist pretenders themselves (especially the grandsons of Louis-Philippe) were estpecially distant from Legitimists and not really enthusiastic about their support.
In fact, you could make a good argument on how preventing Louis-Philippe I to take the throne in 1830, and Orleanists to be less of a dynastic alternative, could give monarchism a better chance overall (altough such PoD would certainly give republicanism even more of a legitimacy basis to begin with). That's how important the Legitimist/Orleanist divide is.
There could be less bad blood between Orleanists and Legitimist if:
-Philippe Égalite hasn't voted for Louis XVI execution (how could Legitimist support claims of descendants of king's murderer ?)
-There is short period of republic after deposition of Charles X. So Louis Philippe is not blamed as much as IOTL for fall of the main Bourbon line by Legitimists.
Other option for compromise is extinction of both lines and survival of either Condé or Conti line from which candidate acceptable for both sides could be chosen.
-Philippe Égalite hasn't voted for Louis XVI execution (how could Legitimist support claims of descendants of king's murderer ?)
-There is short period of republic after deposition of Charles X. So Louis Philippe is not blamed as much as IOTL for fall of the main Bourbon line by Legitimists.
Other option for compromise is extinction of both lines and survival of either Condé or Conti line from which candidate acceptable for both sides could be chosen.
Last edited:
Saphroneth
Banned
Hm. One idea is to go back to 1848 - have the King of Prussia accept 'a crown from the gutter'.
Things are much more complicated than I expected but I see one more chance for reconciliation between lines. If Louis Philip left no sons but some daughters and instead of one Henry of Chambord there are two brothers-say younger of them dislike older brother. Older is conservative so younger one turn liberal to enrage him, older hates Orleanists so younger one marries princess from House of Orleans. After extinction of male line Orleans support of moderate monarchists turns to that younger prince (because of his moderate/liberal views and because he is married to Louis Philip daughter). During crisis simillar to OTL 1871 situation (similar, not identical, eh... butterflies)
Older brother supported by Legitimists died. Now legitimists have no other choice but to accept the younger, after all, they belived that Salic Law is Divine, so senior heir of Capetian Dynasty can not be denied the throne.
But that scenario require really big amount of luck to happen.
Older brother supported by Legitimists died. Now legitimists have no other choice but to accept the younger, after all, they belived that Salic Law is Divine, so senior heir of Capetian Dynasty can not be denied the throne.
But that scenario require really big amount of luck to happen.
To be honest, even if Orléans wouldn't have pulled that (it arguably disgusted even Robespierre), he would still have seen as one if the instigators of the French Revolution, either trough interested manipulation, or at least sheer blindness.
It would do its part, but wouldn't make bad blood and most of all, huge ideological differences disappear at the latest.
That's an actually intuitive idea there : I like it.
It would strengthen republican ideals (a bit like the short-lived IInd Republic did IOTL) in the same time it would make French monarchism more unified (and maybe *Legitimists more porous to some liberalism), but you'd have at least a more credible monarchical alternative by the end of XIXth at the leastest.
Thing is, you see, the dispute was far from being only dynastical : one could even say it was more how it looked like and less what it was.
Legitimism is above all a dynastical loyalty, and while it make it porous to various influence in the name of dynastical legacies (a bit like Carlism in Spain), will focuses more on anti-liberal politics in the name of either traditionalism, either direct link between a paternalist king and his people above politics (meaning a certain anti-parlementarism and anti-partisan stance).
Orleanism, however, is more "political". Orleanist representent are supporting Orléans less because of fidelity to their line or because of an immanent virtue of its chiefs, than because Orléans are favourable and readty to support liberal, parlementarians ideals.
We have two different conceptions of, not only monarchy, but state and politics there.
Giving the "ultra" nature of Condé and Conti in the early XIXth, you'd have basically Charles X on steroids; which is going to frighten a lot of deputies, politicians and journalists that were IOTL Orleanists; while Legitimists (even liberal ones) would accept the fact in the name of dynastical legitimacy.
ITTL, then, most of Orleanists supporters may look at another house but no one would have the prestige of Orleans and their reputation of liberals, and would likely be so far of the main succession body that it would be more or less pointless to call it a dynastical succession. In the end, most may simply abide by a liberal Republic (and powers as Britain may even think it would be better than a Carlist-like France).
If future Charles X and his sons are killed during revolution (did not flee country at right time) and Louis XVIII still dies childless, then Louis Philip would get the throne without July Revolution, what about this option?
Well, technically it could work, but I wonder how much impact it would have on Louis-Philippe and his sons' own political vision. IOTL, they were pretty much definied by their liberalism and opposition to main Bourbon branch.
ITTL, they're both prime target for liberal and Jacobin opposition right from the start, doesn't get the blank check that being part of the liberal opposition and eventually, wouldn't have the possibility appearing as a liberal at all : Louis XVIII himself had to deal with ultra and had not always the last word on it. An Orleans king that would personally benefit more from ultra decisions, even if he appears as somewhat not supporting them entierly, wouldn't be that different for a public eye (or even for middle-class liberals).
Basically, while it could be a viable PoD and TL, it makes Louis Phillipe another Louis XVIII (litterally so, it's unlikely that he wouldn't drop the Phillip part ITTL) maybe a bit more liberal, and french monarchy would have little to no transferability to another junior branch.
I think the possible (but not really that huge) benefits of having a more or less liberal king doesn't outweight the slightly more important dynastical and institutional vulnerability.
Of course, there's always the option of killing *Louis XVIII/Louis-Phillipe early in the 1820's and replace him with his son : but at this point it begins to look like a Vlad Tepes-awardable TL
ITTL, they're both prime target for liberal and Jacobin opposition right from the start, doesn't get the blank check that being part of the liberal opposition and eventually, wouldn't have the possibility appearing as a liberal at all : Louis XVIII himself had to deal with ultra and had not always the last word on it. An Orleans king that would personally benefit more from ultra decisions, even if he appears as somewhat not supporting them entierly, wouldn't be that different for a public eye (or even for middle-class liberals).
Basically, while it could be a viable PoD and TL, it makes Louis Phillipe another Louis XVIII (litterally so, it's unlikely that he wouldn't drop the Phillip part ITTL) maybe a bit more liberal, and french monarchy would have little to no transferability to another junior branch.
I think the possible (but not really that huge) benefits of having a more or less liberal king doesn't outweight the slightly more important dynastical and institutional vulnerability.
Of course, there's always the option of killing *Louis XVIII/Louis-Phillipe early in the 1820's and replace him with his son : but at this point it begins to look like a Vlad Tepes-awardable TL
Yes, exterminating Bourbons as way to keep them on the throne looks a bit crazy
Altough I mean Charles X is dead but Louis XVIII survived, so there is still Bourbon restoration after fall of Napoleon. Just few years later Louis XVIII dies without children and his heir is not Charles but Louis Philip.
Altough I mean Charles X is dead but Louis XVIII survived, so there is still Bourbon restoration after fall of Napoleon. Just few years later Louis XVIII dies without children and his heir is not Charles but Louis Philip.
Ah, sorry for misunderstanding.
Indeed, that could work : *Louis XIX's reign as a continuation of Louis XVIII is a good idea, with a smooth (if slow) liberalisation of the Charte's interpretation. Instead of Legitimists and Orleanists, you basically end with a continued three-partite division between ultras, conservateurs, libéraux.
But while it certainkly strengthen Restauration stronger, it can also makes it more vulnerable in face of middle-class and popular demands (especially with the economical crisis of the early XIXth in France), even if I admit that you could end with a younger Orleans being chosen by notables as king in a 1830-like situation, as *Louis XIX won't be able to pull half of the more or less liberal policies he went with in the first part of his IOTL reign.
Overall, tough, another good idea.
Indeed, that could work : *Louis XIX's reign as a continuation of Louis XVIII is a good idea, with a smooth (if slow) liberalisation of the Charte's interpretation. Instead of Legitimists and Orleanists, you basically end with a continued three-partite division between ultras, conservateurs, libéraux.
But while it certainkly strengthen Restauration stronger, it can also makes it more vulnerable in face of middle-class and popular demands (especially with the economical crisis of the early XIXth in France), even if I admit that you could end with a younger Orleans being chosen by notables as king in a 1830-like situation, as *Louis XIX won't be able to pull half of the more or less liberal policies he went with in the first part of his IOTL reign.
Overall, tough, another good idea.