So first off, what exactly is the POD here? Charles X keeps his throne and the July Revolution fails? The Duc d'Orléans becomes Regent for Henri V (similar to what I did in Miracle King?) or Artois dying before his brother? Without knowing the exact POD its hard to predict marriages.
@VVD0D95 and I were discussing a scenario where Charles X either dies BEFORE Louis XVIII or at least before whatever popularity Charles had wears off. Leading to Angoulême becoming king peacefully.
Still we are talking about Charles and chances who he do the right things are pretty low (Louis XVI also had more than one change to stop or prevent the French Revolution but I do not see him as able to take that decisions).
Not necessarily. Charles simply needed better advisors (both Charles and Polignac were pretty shockingly naive when it came to they way they planned their constitutional coup; they told none of the other ministers until like a week before publishing the Ordinances, no plans to deploy the army or the Police across Paris; no preparations to neutralize the opposition; nothing) that were able to implement his plans in a realistic way.
Interesting. So Charles X would stay king in such a scenario - albeit a king supported by bayonets?
Yes. Wouldn't it be that uncommon though? Absolute (or semi-absolute) monarchies existed in the Europe of early XIXth century. I think that Angouleme would tone down his father's policy a bit and we could end up with France similar to Prussia (there is consitution and parliament but position of monarch is still strong and the country is more authoritarian than democractic).
Could certainly be interesting to see the course that France winds up following. I imagine that Charles X would probably die a bit earlier than OTL here (due to increased stress)?
Could certainly be interesting to see the course that France winds up following. I imagine that Charles X would probably die a bit earlier than OTL here (due to increased stress)?
Yes, he'd. I think that France would be more pro-Austrian in it's policy, Napoleon III (we could call him "Napoleon the Fool" as well) supported unification of Italy in the name of his liberal mumbo-jumbo and against interests of France. France would side with Austria against Piemont.
I think that the French would support Neapolitan Bourbons as dominant power in such confederation. Or they'd just ignore Italian nationalists and divided Italy with Austria. IMHO the second option is more likely.Perhaps favour an Italian "confederation" headed by the pope, or "unification" or "Northern Italy" under the grand duke of Tuscany rather than the duke of Savoy, if anything
Pretty likely but not guaranteed...Was just thinking that his grandfather/uncle staying on the throne mean that mom doesn't cause such a scandal with a mesalliance as OTL, so she never gets removed from the scene, which means that the Comte de Chambord and his sister have a much more "balanced" life than OTL where they were placed inthe charge of Madame Royal. Here, Madame Royal would be a kindly aunt (at best), while I could imagine that the widowed duchesse de Berri would have control of her children's education, no? @Emperor Constantine @isabella
Yes. Wouldn't it be that uncommon though? Absolute (or semi-absolute) monarchies existed in the Europe of early XIXth century. I think that Angouleme would tone down his father's policy a bit and we could end up with France similar to Prussia (there is consitution and parliament but position of monarch is still strong and the country is more authoritarian than democractic).
Could certainly be interesting to see the course that France winds up following. I imagine that Charles X would probably die a bit earlier than OTL here (due to increased stress)?
Was just thinking that his grandfather/uncle staying on the throne mean that mom doesn't cause such a scandal with a mesalliance as OTL, so she never gets removed from the scene, which means that the Comte de Chambord and his sister have a much more "balanced" life than OTL where they were placed inthe charge of Madame Royal. Here, Madame Royal would be a kindly aunt (at best), while I could imagine that the widowed duchesse de Berri would have control of her children's education, no? @Emperor Constantine @isabella
Yes, he'd. I think that France would be more pro-Austrian in it's policy, Napoleon III (we could call him "Napoleon the Fool" as well) supported unification of Italy in the name of his liberal mumbo-jumbo and against interests of France. France would side with Austria against Piemont.
Perhaps favour an Italian "confederation" headed by the pope, or "unification" or "Northern Italy" under the grand duke of Tuscany rather than the duke of Savoy, if anything
I think that the French would support Neapolitan Bourbons as dominant power in such confederation. Or they'd just ignore Italian nationalists and divided Italy with Austria. IMHO the second option is more likely.
That's actually fairly close to what legally existed under the Charte Constitutionnelle that governed France under the Restauration, just not as strong as what existed in Prussia. But I really like the Prussian-French comparison and I can definitely see France having a similar system.
I can definitely see France aim to get Savoy and Nice like Napoléon III did OTL but the Bourbons won't abandon their relatives in Parma and Naples. So I think that France would likely try to take advantage of any Alt 1848 drama in Italy to reestablish their credentials as the protectors of the Papacy, again like Napoléon III did, and team up with Austria to smack down Sardinia-Piedmont. That way they get influence in Italy and annex some lost territory (Savoy was originally retained by the Bourbons in 1814 but lost in 1815 after the Hundred days).
I know, that's why I think that further development of this system would lead to similar situation as in Prussia/Imperial Germany.
That's what I thought about when I typed: "divide Italy with Austria". Although they could annex more than Savoy and Nice, I definitely see France annexing everything between Savoy and Nice and Sardinia proper (island). France could ally with Austria also against Prussia which would have interesting consequences in alt-expy of OTL war of 1866.
I admit I REALLY like the idea of a Prussian system in France! Its something that's unique and never been done before.
That would likely put them into direct conflict with Austria, as they would then share a border. Plus France going on an annexation spree would freak out the other Great powers and might lead to war against them. But I can see a Franco-Austrian alliance partitioning up Prussia in an alt Seven Weeks war, with Austria regaining Silesia and France annexing her "natural border" to the left bank of the Rhine.
But before we start thinking about 1860's we shoud answer the question if Bourbon France would engage in Crimean War. And I doubt it.
I'm not sure. The Turks are the traditional ally of the French so France MIGHT take none-too-kindly to Russia looking covetously at the straights (the Bourbons had no great love for the Romanovs). I'm not saying they would necessarily DO anything (I suppose it'll depend in what shape the French army is in by the 1850s; as much as who is on the throne - the older Louis XIX (since as Constantine pointed out, the Bourbons were a long-lived bunch, and his PTSD aside, having a country to rule might give Angoulême a reason to hang on longer than OTL) or the younger Henri V (who would feel the need to assert himself, Angoulême might've charted a cautious via media policy between England and Austria, Henri might want to show that France doesn't take orders from London or Vienna).
Of course this DOES raise the spectre of 1848? Will those revolts still happen (especially since they happened all over Europe) with no successful revolt in 1830 (who can say if a Belgian Revolt like OTL - since France's revolt was in July, Belgium's in August, Poland's in November 1830, so Paris might not spark the gunpowder TTL).
Hell, a successfully Charles X might even agree to partition Belgium with the Dutch king (Talleyrand's plan IIRC)
Continuing Congress Poland as quasi-independent state in personal union in Russia means worse relations between Prussia and Romanovs. Prussians would wait for occassion to destroy Congress Poland, while Poles would want Prussian Partition back.The Bourbons had no great love for Romanovs, yes. But they won't have the same longing for la glorie as Napoleon III had (not to mention that his regime was entirely built on fame of his greatuncle being famous military commander), so they would rather not want to waste French resources on worthless campaign. They'd join if there was something to gain from joining. Your question about revolts in 1830 is very well-thought and I'd bet my money of lack of these revolts, which were inspired by revolt in Paris. Belgians would stay under Dutch king (at least until 1838), and November uprising would be avoided which would have rather...interesting consequences @Jan Olbracht
Continuing Congress Poland as quasi-independent state in personal union in Russia means worse relations between Prussia and Romanovs. Prussians would wait for occassion to destroy Congress Poland, while Poles would want Prussian Partition back.
The Bourbons had no great love for Romanovs, yes. But they won't have the same longing for la glorie as Napoleon III had (not to mention that his regime was entirely built on fame of his greatuncle being famous military commander), so they would rather not want to waste French resources on worthless campaign. They'd join if there was something to gain from joining.
Interesting
The campaign in Algeria wasn't exactly what one could call a "worthwhile" campaign (IIRC, Charles X intended it as a sort of "bread and circuses"). But I don't think that the Bourbons would be any less militaristic than Napoléon le Petit. The reason I say this is that Henri's growing up during a "successful" Algerine campaign, his dad was popular with the army (IIRC), I'm not sure if his uncle had any say ni govt during grandpa's reign, but I could definitely see Angoulême (himself a soldier) enacting army reforms of a sort. Especially after a "near miss" like July 1830. Also, Henri's the youngest ruler France has had since 1774 when he comes tothe throne (if we discount Napoléon II, which the Bourbons likely will), it's not unthinkable that he's a bit rash, eager to prove that France is still "the" power to back in Europe.