Nouvelle Royaume de France

Just after the Franco-Prussian War the political climate in France turned to in favor of recreating France as a kingdom after the fall of the Second Empire, Henri, Count of Chambord would become Henri V and once he died the House of Orléans would take over. But Henri refused to have the tricolore, and to make a long story short France became a republic again. What if a compromise was made, what would the new flag look like? and would the Kingdom of France create a drastic change in history, especially for World War I?
 

Razgriz 2K9

Banned
I think it is borderline impossible given the fact that Henri was a bit stubborn. Maybe if he was willing to compromise, maybe he could accept the modified tricolour with the coat of arms. But I doubt that will come to pass.

If the monarchy is restored though...well, I doubt the policy would change towards Germany...but beyond that, France could generally go anywhere...

...An example I can give is Milarqui's TL, The Legacy of the Glorious, which featured an Orleanist restoration, as well as an aggressive colonial policy and policy against Germany and (exclusive to that TL) Hohenzollern Spain. But I digress.
 
It wasn't what happened exactly.

First, the elections weren't made in the better democratic conditions.
No political propaganda, no public meetings, all the elections in the occupied regions were under German watch...
While Republicans were divided on the question about continuing the war or not (even if hostilities effectively ceased), Royalists (Orleanist and Legitimist) saw in the defeat their chance to re-instaure a monarchy and made their political platform about peace.
They were elected because, while France wasn't particularly monarchist nor anti-monarchist, it was in great majority for the war's end.

When partial elections were made to replace empty seats (with 40% abstention, probably comparable to previous elections rate), Republicans had a better deal and monarchist (both Orleanist and Legitimist) represented eventually 53% of the assembly. Still a good number but nothing overwhelming.

Then, about disunity between Orleanist and Legitimist.
As René Remond demonstrated, these two were really, really, really different. Legitimists were, to caricature, hardliners or far-right while Orleanists composed a liberal right-wing.
Their only point of unity was they wanted a king : which one was still a debate.

They barely managed to agree on Henri V would be succeeded by an Orléans, and Henri V decided he didn't have to make a compromise (backed by many Legitimists that seems to have believed the Assembly was representative of France political situation).
It's more than only a flag, it's about two conceptions of monarchy : one being based on 1830, the other rejecting everything made after 1789.

The defeat of monarchists is less the failure of a man, than the effective separation of Orleanist and Legitimists since 1830.
 

Razgriz 2K9

Banned
It wasn't what happened exactly.

First, the elections weren't made in the better democratic conditions.
No political propaganda, no public meetings, all the elections in the occupied regions were under German watch...
While Republicans were divided on the question about continuing the war or not (even if hostilities effectively ceased), Royalists (Orleanist and Legitimist) saw in the defeat their chance to re-instaure a monarchy and made their political platform about peace.
They were elected because, while France wasn't particularly monarchist nor anti-monarchist, it was in great majority for the war's end.

When partial elections were made to replace empty seats (with 40% abstention, probably comparable to previous elections rate), Republicans had a better deal and monarchist (both Orleanist and Legitimist) represented eventually 53% of the assembly. Still a good number but nothing overwhelming.

Then, about disunity between Orleanist and Legitimist.
As René Remond demonstrated, these two were really, really, really different. Legitimists were, to caricature, hardliners or far-right while Orleanists composed a liberal right-wing.
Their only point of unity was they wanted a king : which one was still a debate.

They barely managed to agree on Henri V would be succeeded by an Orléans, and Henri V decided he didn't have to make a compromise (backed by many Legitimists that seems to have believed the Assembly was representative of France political situation).
It's more than only a flag, it's about two conceptions of monarchy : one being based on 1830, the other rejecting everything made after 1789.

The defeat of monarchists is less the failure of a man, than the effective separation of Orleanist and Legitimists since 1830.

And now my respect for the Legitmists went down a notch...considering that the Legitimists stubbornly wished to restore absolutism at a point where the only absolute monarchies left are the remaining non-colonial Asian and African states, and Russia.
 
And now my respect for the Legitmists went down a notch...considering that the Legitimists stubbornly wished to restore absolutism at a point where the only absolute monarchies left are the remaining non-colonial Asian and African states, and Russia.

And mine went up a notch. It's always nice when reactionary fools are atleast stupid enough to destroy their chances of success.
 

Razgriz 2K9

Banned
And mine went up a notch. It's always nice when reactionary fools are atleast stupid enough to destroy their chances of success.

Well, I'd probably support a Legitimist if I want to go for a Communist France (which is probably why you said what you said) ...still...you'd probably want to put someone other than the Count of Chambourd if you're looking for a restoration of the Kingdom. Though even then, the Orleans would have to do a lot of changes, lest they get overthrown.
 
Well, Legitimist (and far-right issued from Legitimist, according to René Remond) were...well, living caricatures.
They never managed to be in power in France, except when the country was defeated : 1814, 1815, 1870, 1940... and were almost always in the opposition passed 1830.

As they wouldn't have been to enforce their program, some tried to get in touch with Orléanistes since the 1840's, 1850's (with the support of Thiers and benevolence of Count of Chambord) but both Orléanistes and Legitimistes groups didn't really involved themselves : staunch Legitimist couldn't bear to negotiate with the guy that overthrow ed Charles X and many Orleanists didn't wanted to make concessions with guys ISOTed from 1788.

Now, except in great towns that were majorly republican, the population wasn't opposed, neither supporting monarchy. But it would have needed an earlier and better compromise between two monarchists currents.

The issue is that, as said, without defeat of the imperial regime (that benefited from a popular support, outside great towns and traditionally monarchist strongholds), it would have been hard for them to get back in business.
And this crushing defeat wasn't foreseeable.

Finally Henri de Chambord, keeping the subject of his succession in the most vague way, durably poisoned monarchism.

It's not even that they destroyed their chances of success, it what they were that destroyed it.
 
Well, I'd probably support a Legitimist if I want to go for a Communist France (which is probably why you said what you said) ...still...you'd probably want to put someone other than the Count of Chambourd if you're looking for a restoration of the Kingdom. Though even then, the Orleans would have to do a lot of changes, lest they get overthrown.
Communists would have never supported a monarchy, and a monarchy would have never support communism, in some cases they my look and act similar but they are ideological very far apart, if you want a communist France at about the same time period look up the Paris Commune
 
Communism? In 1870's?
Error 404 - Political movement not found.

Not only left-wing was crushed politically and physically after the Commune movement, but they were divided between radical republicans, jabobins, socializing idealists, Internationale (that was divided between pre-syndicalists, anarchists and some Marxists).

If a monarchy is proclaimed, they couldn't do but s**t
 
however the Paris Commune would be the best chance for turning into a communist state, which is what I was getting at
 
however the Paris Commune would be the best chance for turning into a communist state, which is what I was getting at

Well, I don't think so : it's kinda my above point.

The socialists represented a few part of Commune and they were extremly divided between Bakunisists, Proudonists,Blanquists few Marxists, remains of utopic socialist. The bulk of the Commune was made of Jacobins (far left republicans that were extremely defiant of socialists) and republicans from left-wing to center left.
You had nothing that resembled to a common ideology, apart from agreement on Republic, refusal of peace, popular measures.

You had even less socialist presence in provincial Communes, than in Paris' : I don't think you would have enough socialists (provided that they magically unite on the Marxist agreement of the necessity of state and economic program that would ask some ASB) in France to create a communist state.

At the very best, you would have a centralized left-wing republic based on Jacobinism, relativly close to 1848's one, with maybe more socializing elements. A Jauressian-like republic.
 
Well, I don't think so : it's kinda my above point.

The socialists represented a few part of Commune and they were extremly divided between Bakunisists, Proudonists,Blanquists few Marxists, remains of utopic socialist. The bulk of the Commune was made of Jacobins (far left republicans that were extremely defiant of socialists) and republicans from left-wing to center left.
You had nothing that resembled to a common ideology, apart from agreement on Republic, refusal of peace, popular measures.

You had even less socialist presence in provincial Communes, than in Paris' : I don't think you would have enough socialists (provided that they magically unite on the Marxist agreement of the necessity of state and economic program that would ask some ASB) in France to create a communist state.

At the very best, you would have a centralized left-wing republic based on Jacobinism, relativly close to 1848's one, with maybe more socializing elements. A Jauressian-like republic.
I agree, however it is much more likely (however small that chance) than the Legitimists making a communist France
 

Razgriz 2K9

Banned
Communists would have never supported a monarchy, and a monarchy would have never support communism, in some cases they my look and act similar but they are ideological very far apart, if you want a communist France at about the same time period look up the Paris Commune

Not what I was trying to convey...

I said what I said, that I would choose the Legitimists if I want communism, because there is a possibility that their will be another revolution down the road that would most likely install a communist state in its place.
 
I said what I said, that I would choose the Legitimists if I want communism, because there is a possibility that their will be another revolution down the road that would most likely install a communist state in its place.

The communal movement was politically and physically crushed.
For Paris alone (that was both the most important and most durable Commune) : close to 10 000 deaths minimum (without counting the death tool in jails, you can add 1 000), more than 40 000 under arrest, on more than 10 000 condemnations you have half deported in Algeria or New Caledonia, less than 100 executed and the remaining in jail.

Socialism and left-wing in France had to wait 10 years to be strong enough anew. Basically when the Legitimist and Orleanist couldn't even dream of a restauration.
 
Top