As basically everyone here knows, I have a soft spot for the late Bourbon dynasty, specifically the Bourbon restoration (1814/1815-1830). So what I'm wondering is what the long-term repercussions of the Restoration continuing would be. For the sake of argument lets say that Charles X never issued/ is talked out of the July ordinances and soon sacked the Prince de Polignac as Prime Minister. Without an event to light the fuse Charles X reigns until death in 1836 (or thereabouts). I recently read that the future Louis XIX wanted to bring glory to France by placing constitutional regimes in Spain, Naples and Piedmont, along with annexing the future Belgium. Would such ideas be possible or no? Basically what affects will a continued Bourbon restoration have on European and French politics?
Long term repercussions of a surviving Bourbon Restoration?
- Thread starter Emperor Constantine
- Start date
The thought of your interest in a surviving Bourbon Restoration both makes me smile (that someone considers doing so), and nervous (that if it would be even possible with Charles X still on the throne, personally I don't see him as pragmatic, or if he is, less so than his brother, Louis XVIII)
That being said however, long-term, is Louis XIX still does so, it's certainly plausible for the constitutional monarchy issue.
Spain still has to deal with the Carlist Wars if Ferdinand VII does not sire a male heir, and even if they don't, the Liberal faction isn't going to go away anytime soon.
The Two Sicilies, it's implied that Francis I had liberal ideas, but ultimately charted a conservative course upon acceding in 1825, so it's a matter of somehow convincing him to continue with the liberal ideas, even if it's not overly so (then again, that comes from Wikipedia so take that with a grain of salt).
Piedmont will be tricky, as it is ruled by Charles Felix, who is a true and true reactionary, convinced that all of the trends started in the French Revolution would be swept away and that the order prior to 1789, that is the style of absolutism without enlightenment, would be the law of the land now and forever. He dies in 1831 though, so make of that what you will...
Belgium...I see that as very unlikely, not unless it wants to risk war with the British, the Dutch (since it is the Southern Netherlands after all), and probably the Prussians.
Personally, long term effects of a surviving Bourbon Restoration, even if Louis XIX follows up on his constitutionalist policies, I can see some liberalization, but whether or not it'll placate the French Liberals is up to debate. And then here's also Algeria...
That being said however, long-term, is Louis XIX still does so, it's certainly plausible for the constitutional monarchy issue.
Spain still has to deal with the Carlist Wars if Ferdinand VII does not sire a male heir, and even if they don't, the Liberal faction isn't going to go away anytime soon.
The Two Sicilies, it's implied that Francis I had liberal ideas, but ultimately charted a conservative course upon acceding in 1825, so it's a matter of somehow convincing him to continue with the liberal ideas, even if it's not overly so (then again, that comes from Wikipedia so take that with a grain of salt).
Piedmont will be tricky, as it is ruled by Charles Felix, who is a true and true reactionary, convinced that all of the trends started in the French Revolution would be swept away and that the order prior to 1789, that is the style of absolutism without enlightenment, would be the law of the land now and forever. He dies in 1831 though, so make of that what you will...
Belgium...I see that as very unlikely, not unless it wants to risk war with the British, the Dutch (since it is the Southern Netherlands after all), and probably the Prussians.
Personally, long term effects of a surviving Bourbon Restoration, even if Louis XIX follows up on his constitutionalist policies, I can see some liberalization, but whether or not it'll placate the French Liberals is up to debate. And then here's also Algeria...
Last edited:
OTOH, if there is no 1830 revolution in France, the French crown will be well placed to take advantage of the revolution in Southern Netherlands. So OTL Belgium may well become French ITTL (minus Antwerpen and the whole of the Schelde estuary, I think, due to British pressure, but maybe with Maastricht added)
I don't think that the French July revolution affected the British opinion on the Southern Netherlands that much.
If the French monarchy survives long enough, then its' role will be like the European monarchies, which survive till this day. For instance IOTL the Dutch constitution became a lot more liberal in 1848 (the year of revolutions across Europe), when Willem II allowed a committee (presided by Thorbecke) to rewrite the constitution in a more liberal manner.
Last edited:
With Charles X staying, I can see growing unpopularity. Remember he was the one who enacted the Anti-Sacrilege Act, the indemnity of the émigrés, the re-establishment of censorship and the dissolution of the National Guard.
There will be conflict between him and the Chambre des Députés akin to what the Stuart monarchs experienced.Even without a revolution, his position will be untenable, either force his way through (article 14 of the Charter, the use of ordinances) ,capitulate by establishing a constitutional monarchy (something I don't see happening) or abdicates.For Louis XIX's plan, I think it is unrealistic. Europe isn't going to look well French intervention in other states , just 20 years after the Napoleonic Wars.
For the Louis XIX political views, I think they are going to be the same as his father and the duke of Angloulême was already too much associated with his father and the émigré community, so it is for the better if he is put aside. Which leaves us with the duke of Bordeaux, the "miracle child" (Lamartine). He is not associated with the émigré/ultraroyalists and is still a boy .
I think you already made a timeline about this and I believe he is the best hope for the Bourbon as well as the acceptance for Louis-Philippe of the lieutenancy-general only . With Henri as king, France can continue its industrialization, try to bulid up a new colonial empire and spend the 1830's in " a bit isolationist" manner . For Belgium, I really don't know, dependig on the situation the govt could be neutral or intervene since there will be a lot of support fro the liberal bourgeoisie. But would again Europe tolerate French expansionism.
But the biggest challenge for Henri will be to reconcile the heritages of before-1789 and after-1789. But if he manages to be popular and to gain the trust of the people he could end up as "le Père du Peuple" or pater patriae, the same way as his namesake did during the War of Religions. Just beware of strikes , bonapartist (OTL Napoleon III) and republican plots and political unstability . In the long end,you could have the eldest Bourbon branch surviving and still on the throne, something as a Legitimist I would love to see.
There will be conflict between him and the Chambre des Députés akin to what the Stuart monarchs experienced.Even without a revolution, his position will be untenable, either force his way through (article 14 of the Charter, the use of ordinances) ,capitulate by establishing a constitutional monarchy (something I don't see happening) or abdicates.For Louis XIX's plan, I think it is unrealistic. Europe isn't going to look well French intervention in other states , just 20 years after the Napoleonic Wars.
For the Louis XIX political views, I think they are going to be the same as his father and the duke of Angloulême was already too much associated with his father and the émigré community, so it is for the better if he is put aside. Which leaves us with the duke of Bordeaux, the "miracle child" (Lamartine). He is not associated with the émigré/ultraroyalists and is still a boy .
I think you already made a timeline about this and I believe he is the best hope for the Bourbon as well as the acceptance for Louis-Philippe of the lieutenancy-general only . With Henri as king, France can continue its industrialization, try to bulid up a new colonial empire and spend the 1830's in " a bit isolationist" manner . For Belgium, I really don't know, dependig on the situation the govt could be neutral or intervene since there will be a lot of support fro the liberal bourgeoisie. But would again Europe tolerate French expansionism.
But the biggest challenge for Henri will be to reconcile the heritages of before-1789 and after-1789. But if he manages to be popular and to gain the trust of the people he could end up as "le Père du Peuple" or pater patriae, the same way as his namesake did during the War of Religions. Just beware of strikes , bonapartist (OTL Napoleon III) and republican plots and political unstability . In the long end,you could have the eldest Bourbon branch surviving and still on the throne, something as a Legitimist I would love to see.
Yes, but in Spain it was to protect the monarchy (something acceptable for European powers) and in Belgium it was because of public support although Russia, Austria, Prussia and Great Britain were in favour of king William. Prussia couldn't intervene because of they had to settle their debt. Russia and Austria were occupied by Polish troubles. Circumstances put the holy alliance inoperable. Moreover, the powers were against the French annexation of Belgium, because they thought it will only restart French expansionism. If we take the scenario of a Regency for Henri with a government composed of moderate but not only liberal, things could change about the intervention (although it is still likely to happen)
EDIT : Just like Noblesse Oblige said an intervention in Belgium can upset European powers and drag France in an European conflict.
And it is something France would be set to lose, all things considered. If anything, Louis would have to ultimately scuttle that plan real quick.
True, France have to focus more overseas instead and be less focus on their dream about a frontier on the Rhine .
For Belgium I think it depends heavily on Britain. If the British can be persuaded to accept something similar to the Talleyrand plan then France could gain about half of today's Belgium. As to Charles X, that also depends. His actions were unpopular but unpopularity doesn't automatically mean he'll be deposed. George IV was unpopular for most of his regency and reign but he was never in any real danger of being overthrown. From what I've recently read most of France was willing to accept the Charte and the present government, which guaranteed the monarchy a lot of political power.
Most of Charles's close advisors and the rest of the Royal family were apposed to his actions in 1829-1830, especially the Dauphin, who apparently had a good amount of political influence and wasn't brought around to his father's way of thinking until early 1830. Keep him from being brought over to his father's way of thinking and the King might not be willing to commit the fatal actions he did in 1830.
Most of Charles's close advisors and the rest of the Royal family were apposed to his actions in 1829-1830, especially the Dauphin, who apparently had a good amount of political influence and wasn't brought around to his father's way of thinking until early 1830. Keep him from being brought over to his father's way of thinking and the King might not be willing to commit the fatal actions he did in 1830.
For Belgium, I think you are right, but I do not see Charles X robbing some land to a fellow monarch with an intervention with Liberal connotations . I agree that unpopularity isn't equal to deposition, all great monarchs were at some point of their reign unpopular. It is just that knowing Charles X if he want to keep his authority over Paris and the liberal political class he need to be more moderate (perhaps with the help of some serious influence, we are talking about his core beliefs) . He is some kind of French "James II ", I don't see him backing down. And Paris isn't London and the Parisians have a good experience of barricades ( war of religions, the Fronde, etc.) . France is willing to acccept the Charter but Paris is the hotbed of dissent. As for the Dauphin, you maybe right, but I will check his political background.
As said by a French academician about Charles X : " Il aurait été un grand roi à une autre époque". It sums everything, he had good values that weren't those of time, although you could change that .
As said by a French academician about Charles X : " Il aurait été un grand roi à une autre époque". It sums everything, he had good values that weren't those of time, although you could change that .
Last edited:
The Bourbons probably have a better chance of surviving if the Duke of Berry doesn't bite the bullet in 1820. Out of the next generation of Bourbons, he was definitely one of the more popular members, or well, the only member with any semblance of likability at all. I don't remember the Duke of Angoulême being very well liked, or hell, even very liberal: everything I've read about him paints him in a very reactionary light. He had absolutely no backbone or initiative within him.
His wife, Madame Royale, wasn't very well liked in broader society either, but she definitely had a lot of other issues that couldn't possibly be reconciled: returning to the very country that had killed her parents, ect. She was awfully reactionary too and had some degree of political influence as a sort of Grand Dame of the Legitimist Party, and half the reason the Count of Chambord turned out the way he did, as he was educated under her auspices.
Charles-Ferdinand was definitely more affable than his older brother, but I don't know very much of his political leanings. Anything I've read seems to sound out that he was probably as conservative as other members of his family. Aside from the blacksheep that Louis-Philippe eventually became, none of late Bourbons were particularly liberal, or even pragmatic in a lot of issues.
His wife, Madame Royale, wasn't very well liked in broader society either, but she definitely had a lot of other issues that couldn't possibly be reconciled: returning to the very country that had killed her parents, ect. She was awfully reactionary too and had some degree of political influence as a sort of Grand Dame of the Legitimist Party, and half the reason the Count of Chambord turned out the way he did, as he was educated under her auspices.
Charles-Ferdinand was definitely more affable than his older brother, but I don't know very much of his political leanings. Anything I've read seems to sound out that he was probably as conservative as other members of his family. Aside from the blacksheep that Louis-Philippe eventually became, none of late Bourbons were particularly liberal, or even pragmatic in a lot of issues.
Personally I think if push came to shove Paris could be dealt with, like the Commune was by the Third Republic. Place the city under Siege and full blockade and starve them out. As the Third republic proved, Paris can be defeated if the government devoted enough resources to do so. If the Parisians push to far and the Bourbons retain the throne we could see a return to Versailles.
That is indeed true, if push came to shove, rather than abdicate, they could always try to put down revolt without actually having to turn it into something out of the Russian Revolution.
That's basically what I was thinking. Russia in 1917 was much more similar to France in 1789 rather than 1830. It would be better for everyone if Paris was brought to heal earlier. Maybe it would be less destructive than 1871.
Okay, but you forget the monarchical principle that a king shouldn't spill the blood of his people. Just as a father shouldn't kill his own children, that is why Louis XVI refused to let the Royal Allemand regiment fire on the crowd and with what army he is going to do the siege, most of it is in Algeria, Belgian frontier and in Normandy in order to help the population . Charles has the Swiss Guards and St-Cyr students plus some men under Raguse.I don't think a siege would be a good idea and Charles isn't Adolphe Thiers (the same guy who engineered the 1830 coup)
Yes, that is what I thought, they were overall pretty much conservative if not reactionary. The only one who was politically safe was the Duke of Bordeaux
Bad news for Bismarck.
A France still run by Legitimist Bourbons is likely to be on good terms with Austria, and they'll probably collaborate to keep Prussia in its place.
A France still run by Legitimist Bourbons is likely to be on good terms with Austria, and they'll probably collaborate to keep Prussia in its place.
Yep and bad news also for the Italian unification, because as you said as fellow Catholic countries , Austria and France will not tolerate that the Italian states ruled by their respective cadet branches (Two-Siciles, Modena, Parma, Tuscany) be eaten up by the Kingdom of Sardinia. Also ,French kings were the official "protectors" of the Papal States since its creation, so I can't see the Bourbon allowing Italian nationalists threaten his Holiness.