Louis XVIII of France has a son

Question say Louis XVIII of France and his wife had a son born in 1781, and say this son having grown up under the exile of the French revolution and having returned to France in 1814, determined to keep the institution of the monarchy on the throne at all costs, how might he go about doing this, and what would the consequences of this be?
 
Question say Louis XVIII of France and his wife had a son born in 1781, and say this son having grown up under the exile of the French revolution and having returned to France in 1814, determined to keep the institution of the monarchy on the throne at all costs, how might he go about doing this, and what would the consequences of this be?
The chances are he will understand that the monarchy as it stands can only survive using combinedly military strength and popular support. This means widening the franchise or at least respecting his father's Charte. I mean, Louis XVIII's nephews at the time also understood that. Also, chances are he might still invade Algeria, but not repeal the same freedoms as his uncle IOTL did afterwards.
 
The chances are he will understand that the monarchy as it stands can only survive using combinedly military strength and popular support. This means widening the franchise or at least respecting his father's Charte. I mean, Louis XVIII's nephews at the time also understood that. Also, chances are he might still invade Algeria, but not repeal the same freedoms as his uncle IOTL did afterwards.

Okay interesting, so if he does do that, would he then potentially have more of a chance at surviving on the throne-would he reside in Versaille or in Paris proper?- and also whom might he marry?

I suppose the boy would be called Louis.
 
Okay interesting, so if he does do that, would he then potentially have more of a chance at surviving on the throne-would he reside in Versaille or in Paris proper?- and also whom might he marry?

I suppose the boy would be called Louis.
Paris, in the Palais des Tuileries. Versailles will remind every Parisien of the Ancien Régime, and might actually trigger an uprising.
So, Louis XIX? The main ally of the time was England the UK, so it depends if there is a member of the British royal family, about the same age, available for marriage. Russia would be the second choice, if only because the Russian court is Francophone and thus it will simplify relations.
 
Paris, in the Palais des Tuileries. Versailles will remind every Parisien of the Ancien Régime, and might actually trigger an uprising.
So, Louis XIX? The main ally of the time was England the UK, so it depends if there is a member of the British royal family, about the same age, available for marriage. Russia would be the second choice, if only because the Russian court is Francophone and thus it will simplify relations.

Alright interesting. Hmm, perhaps Princess Sophia? Or if butterflies are in play Princess Amelia of Great Britain. If not one of them perhaps Grand Duchess Olga?
 
Alright interesting. Hmm, perhaps Princess Sophia? Or if butterflies are in play Princess Amelia of Great Britain. If not one of them perhaps Grand Duchess Olga?

Won't George III still be crazy? And consequently getting his daughters married will be difficult. Religion might also be an issue- Elizabeth wanted to marry Louis Philippe IOTL but had to turn it down due to his Catholicism and her mother's opposition.

Theoretically you could organise a betrothal before his first stint of madness (in 1788-89?) but you'd think any negotiations in the early 1780s would centre around Louis XVI's sons (the eldest of whom, Louis Joseph, was born in 1781 and so would be the same age as this cousin). But given George didn't do any of this IOTL it seems like a stretch.

Assuming George still goes crazy and his daughters get frustrated with spinsterhood there'll likely be unseemly rumours surrounding them- your suggestion, Sophia, supposedly had an illegitimate kid in 1800 and if such a rumour starts ITTL it'll ruin her marriage prospects.
 
Won't George III still be crazy? And consequently getting his daughters married will be difficult. Religion might also be an issue- Elizabeth wanted to marry Louis Philippe IOTL but had to turn it down due to his Catholicism and her mother's opposition.

Theoretically you could organise a betrothal before his first stint of madness (in 1788-89?) but you'd think any negotiations in the early 1780s would centre around Louis XVI's sons (the eldest of whom, Louis Joseph, was born in 1781 and so would be the same age as this cousin). But given George didn't do any of this IOTL it seems like a stretch.

Assuming George still goes crazy and his daughters get frustrated with spinsterhood there'll likely be unseemly rumours surrounding them- your suggestion, Sophia, supposedly had an illegitimate kid in 1800 and if such a rumour starts ITTL it'll ruin her marriage prospects.
Ah very true. So would a Russian marriage be more appropriate
 
I'm thinking after restoration

Because by that point most of the Russian Grand Duchesses are married- the youngest, Anna Pavlovna, married William of the Netherlands in early 1816, so there's a very small window for *Louis XIX to snag one of them.

Even a surviving Grand Duchess Olga would be 22 by that point and possibly already married.
 
Because by that point most of the Russian Grand Duchesses are married- the youngest, Anna Pavlovna, married William of the Netherlands in early 1816, so there's a very small window for *Louis XIX to snag one of them.

Even a surviving Grand Duchess Olga would be 22 by that point and possibly already married.
Very true. So would it be better for him to marry in exile?
 
Very true. So would it be better for him to marry in exile?

Maybe, but a prince of an exiled dynasty that may or may not be reinstated is less of a marital catch than a Dauphin of France (as he'd be post-restoration).

And depending on when during his exile there's the added complication of some countries being allied with/not wanting to piss off Napoleon (especially with regards to Russia- they were friendly-ish for a while).
 
It's quite interesting to assume that the birth of somebody in 1781 wouldn't change the French Revolution, the rise of Bonaparte or the Restauration.
 
It's quite interesting to assume that the birth of somebody in 1781 wouldn't change the French Revolution, the rise of Bonaparte or the Restauration.
Well how could the birth of the boy stop the French Revolution? Is his birth going to allow for reforms to go through when otl they were blocked, and if so why? Is his birth going to stop the storming of the Bastille? If so how? Thirdly how would he able to stop the rise of napoeloen? Is he going to issue orders to a republic?
 
Well how could the birth of the boy stop the French Revolution? Is his birth going to allow for reforms to go through when otl they were blocked, and if so why? Is his birth going to stop the storming of the Bastille? If so how? Thirdly how would he able to stop the rise of napoeloen? Is he going to issue orders to a republic?
But alright I'll bite say butterflies stop the rise of napoeloen what happens then?
 
Are you sure those are butterflies and not just the wishful thinking?

The birth of a human can change many things in history of mankind. For example, Louis XVI and Louis XVIII will have to spend some time differently (even if the major part of the education is done by other nobles - then again, those occupied with the education play a different role in the following years). Maybe Louis XVIII's son will be affected of the same disease as Louis Joseph, Louis XVI's first son?

Sure, the Revolution will still happen, because, as you said, "Well how could the birth of the boy stop the French Revolution? Is his birth going to allow for reforms to go through when otl they were blocked, and if so why?"

But then the butterflies start to strike. "Is his birth going to stop the storming of the Bastille? If so how?"

The people of Paris did not storm the Bastille on a whim. It had specific reasons you can read here, reasons which would not unconditionally exist if Louis XVIII had a son - maybe as a father, he would advice his brother to be more careful? Or, au contraire, he his even more reactionary than OTL and the storming of the Bastille is more bloody? So the revolution becomes radical much faster than OTL?

"Thirdly how would he able to stop the rise of napoeloen?"

It cannot be ruled out that Napoleon will still rise very high - the birth of Louis' son will not remove his military talent or his ambition. But it will not happen under the same conditions than OTL. And you can be sure that the year 1814 and the return of the Bourbons, if it happens at all, will not be as OTL.
 
The birth of a human can change many things in history of mankind. For example, Louis XVI and Louis XVIII will have to spend some time differently (even if the major part of the education is done by other nobles - then again, those occupied with the education play a different role in the following years). Maybe Louis XVIII's son will be affected of the same disease as Louis Joseph, Louis XVI's first son?

Sure, the Revolution will still happen, because, as you said, "Well how could the birth of the boy stop the French Revolution? Is his birth going to allow for reforms to go through when otl they were blocked, and if so why?"

But then the butterflies start to strike. "Is his birth going to stop the storming of the Bastille? If so how?"

The people of Paris did not storm the Bastille on a whim. It had specific reasons you can read here, reasons which would not unconditionally exist if Louis XVIII had a son - maybe as a father, he would advice his brother to be more careful? Or, au contraire, he his even more reactionary than OTL and the storming of the Bastille is more bloody? So the revolution becomes radical much faster than OTL?

"Thirdly how would he able to stop the rise of napoeloen?"

It cannot be ruled out that Napoleon will still rise very high - the birth of Louis' son will not remove his military talent or his ambition. But it will not happen under the same conditions than OTL. And you can be sure that the year 1814 and the return of the Bourbons, if it happens at all, will not be as OTL.

Alright fair enough.

From what I've read Louis does seem quite reactionary, so is that going to change with a son? Or is it merely going to heighten it? If it's the latter I am of the opinion that the storming of the bastille will still happen.

If the revolution is more bloody than otl, could that lead to the eventual comedown being one of horror, as the republic did use quite terrible means to restore order, which led to a lot of deaths, many of which were needless. Could this as well as military failures abroad, lead to the republic fast losing support?
 
On second thought, what if Louis XVIII hoping to perhaps be seen as a the saviour of the monarchy and a listener of the people, decides to support the liberals and proposes reforms? Is that smething he'd do?
 
Top