POD: he last two Bourbon kings of France, Louis XVIII and Charles X, are not complete tools.
Now, you could argue with a straight face that Louis was not, in fact, a tool. He wasn't very bright, nor did he have any talent for politics. But he accepted most of the social changes wrought by the Revolution, was not personally bitter and vindictive (unlike most of his court and associates) and did not instigate either of the White Terrors (though he didn't prosecute or condemn those who did). Perhaps more to the point, he was narrowly constrained by both internal and external pressures. On one hand, the Restoration inevitably brought a lot of bitter, angry reactionaries into power (the famous Chambre Introuvable, "more royalist than the King"), and on the other he had to constantly look over his shoulder at the Allies, who had an occupying army in place until 1818 and then were ready to re-invade France on short notice if any revolutionary turmoil took place. So Louis could not have been a lot more liberal than he was. OTOH, he could have been much more active in various ways, from improving the French educational system to reconciling with Republicans and Bonapartists to encouraging the first shoots of industrialization. (His second prime minister, Elie, made efforts along these lines, but he wasn't in power long enough to do very much.)
As for Charles X, oh dear, oh dear. Unlike many reactionaries, Charles seems to have been a likable enough cuss in person -- but his political views were simply impossible in the context of 1820s France, and he was stubborn stubborn stubborn. Pretty much any change would have been an improvement. Charles was just bright enough to be dangerous, and just energetic enough to make his ultra-reactionary views intolerable. In retrospect, it's a bit surprising he lasted as long as he did.
Okay, so. [handwave] Let's say some spermatozoa swim this way instead of that. We still have two Bourbon brothers, but they have different personalities. We're not going to see a Bourbon who's a political liberal -- that wouldn't happen until, what, 1975? -- but both princes are intelligent men who are competent politicians and reasonably good judges of the popular will. Further, let's say that Louis (at least) is tolerably well read, not reflexively hostile to any idea less than a century old, and capable of imagining that France might need something more than a return to Catholicism, political dominance by the traditional nobility, and his own wonderful self. For simplicity's sake, let's assume (1) we still have a Hundred Days (though arguably a non-tool Louis could have avoided that, or at least slowed Napoleon down), (2) Louis doesn't do anything radical enough to trigger Allied military intervention, and (3) that Louis still dies on schedule in 1824.
So. What changes?
Doug M.
Now, you could argue with a straight face that Louis was not, in fact, a tool. He wasn't very bright, nor did he have any talent for politics. But he accepted most of the social changes wrought by the Revolution, was not personally bitter and vindictive (unlike most of his court and associates) and did not instigate either of the White Terrors (though he didn't prosecute or condemn those who did). Perhaps more to the point, he was narrowly constrained by both internal and external pressures. On one hand, the Restoration inevitably brought a lot of bitter, angry reactionaries into power (the famous Chambre Introuvable, "more royalist than the King"), and on the other he had to constantly look over his shoulder at the Allies, who had an occupying army in place until 1818 and then were ready to re-invade France on short notice if any revolutionary turmoil took place. So Louis could not have been a lot more liberal than he was. OTOH, he could have been much more active in various ways, from improving the French educational system to reconciling with Republicans and Bonapartists to encouraging the first shoots of industrialization. (His second prime minister, Elie, made efforts along these lines, but he wasn't in power long enough to do very much.)
As for Charles X, oh dear, oh dear. Unlike many reactionaries, Charles seems to have been a likable enough cuss in person -- but his political views were simply impossible in the context of 1820s France, and he was stubborn stubborn stubborn. Pretty much any change would have been an improvement. Charles was just bright enough to be dangerous, and just energetic enough to make his ultra-reactionary views intolerable. In retrospect, it's a bit surprising he lasted as long as he did.
Okay, so. [handwave] Let's say some spermatozoa swim this way instead of that. We still have two Bourbon brothers, but they have different personalities. We're not going to see a Bourbon who's a political liberal -- that wouldn't happen until, what, 1975? -- but both princes are intelligent men who are competent politicians and reasonably good judges of the popular will. Further, let's say that Louis (at least) is tolerably well read, not reflexively hostile to any idea less than a century old, and capable of imagining that France might need something more than a return to Catholicism, political dominance by the traditional nobility, and his own wonderful self. For simplicity's sake, let's assume (1) we still have a Hundred Days (though arguably a non-tool Louis could have avoided that, or at least slowed Napoleon down), (2) Louis doesn't do anything radical enough to trigger Allied military intervention, and (3) that Louis still dies on schedule in 1824.
So. What changes?
Doug M.