PC: July 1830 POD

The future Third Ordinance, rewriting the electoral law, in particular saw a number of dramatic proposals made. Polignac proposed a scheme of electing deputies by economic groups, with businessmen, landowners and professionals all having their own blocks of seats. Guernon-Ranville offered up an even bolder proposal: instead of raising the property requirement to vote, the ministry should lower it. As he saw it, the real enemy of the Bourbon Restoration were the bourgeois middle classes; by letting people who owed as little as 50 or even 20 francs vote, Charles could swamp the bourgeoisie with votes from loyal, salt-of-the-earth Frenchmen. But both proposals were rejected in favor of empowering the wealthiest 25 percent of voters to elect all the deputies. (Vincent W. Beach, Charles X of France: His Life and Times. 1971:345)

The Third Ordinance referred to above is of the infamous six ordinances of Charles X July 1830 that caused the July Revolution. Obviously this didn't happen and the ordinance went through in the form that led to the Revolution. Contrary to popular history portraying the revolution being caused by the ordinances, nothing Charles X did actually overstepped the Charte (he specifically used Articles 13 and 14 as justification). In fact, even Charles' dissolution of the chambers in May contained a date for a new election to be held on September 6 and 13 1830, with the new opening to be at the end of September (which dispells the rumour that he planned to rule absolutely). To the accusation of press censorship, it is worthwhile to note that a) the elections of 1827 had taken place under far stricter censorship laws and the opposition had still won enough seats to be able to pass the Martignac Law of 1828. Ironically, there was also a clause in the Charte that allowed the king "to unilaterally impose censorship when the Chambers are not in session".

While Guernon's suggestion might not net an entirely loyal "salt-of-the-earth" crowd (I imagine it would net a fair few Bonapartists and republicans, such as there were), it would certainly make the argument that Charles' "electoral changes" are the actions of an autocratic monarch. Especially since, most of the liberal newspapers that led the charge against the censorship laws were also publishing details about French troop movements in Algeria (Beach. 1971:349). This sounds suspiciously like treason (at least in modern terms).

So...what happens if Charles goes with Guernon-Ranville's suggestion? Guernon was no populist, he was known as a "good lawyer, a good orator and a good royalist", while another historian describes him as "a strange blend of royalist and reactionary", but also terms him the only member of Charles' cabinet capable of independent thought.

@DrakeRlugia @The_Most_Happy @FouDuRoy @Nuraghe @isabella @Emperor Constantine @moro
 
Could this lead to French troops withdrawing from Algeria? It seems likely that if the French public was allowed to know and learn what exactly the French troops in Algeria were doing, there could be a chance that demands to get out of Algeria become popular.
 
The Third Ordinance referred to above is of the infamous six ordinances of Charles X July 1830 that caused the July Revolution. Obviously this didn't happen and the ordinance went through in the form that led to the Revolution. Contrary to popular history portraying the revolution being caused by the ordinances, nothing Charles X did actually overstepped the Charte (he specifically used Articles 13 and 14 as justification). In fact, even Charles' dissolution of the chambers in May contained a date for a new election to be held on September 6 and 13 1830, with the new opening to be at the end of September (which dispells the rumour that he planned to rule absolutely). To the accusation of press censorship, it is worthwhile to note that a) the elections of 1827 had taken place under far stricter censorship laws and the opposition had still won enough seats to be able to pass the Martignac Law of 1828. Ironically, there was also a clause in the Charte that allowed the king "to unilaterally impose censorship when the Chambers are not in session".

While Guernon's suggestion might not net an entirely loyal "salt-of-the-earth" crowd (I imagine it would net a fair few Bonapartists and republicans, such as there were), it would certainly make the argument that Charles' "electoral changes" are the actions of an autocratic monarch. Especially since, most of the liberal newspapers that led the charge against the censorship laws were also publishing details about French troop movements in Algeria (Beach. 1971:349). This sounds suspiciously like treason (at least in modern terms).

So...what happens if Charles goes with Guernon-Ranville's suggestion? Guernon was no populist, he was known as a "good lawyer, a good orator and a good royalist", while another historian describes him as "a strange blend of royalist and reactionary", but also terms him the only member of Charles' cabinet capable of independent thought.

@DrakeRlugia @The_Most_Happy @FouDuRoy @Nuraghe @isabella @Emperor Constantine @moro
Honestly the idea of allying with the lower classes against the Bourgeoisie is so simple, it might even seem stupid, but in fact its brilliant!

Its actually tried and tested tactic that many governments have used in the past to shore up support. Napoleon I did this. And this was what his nephew Napoleon III did before he then also got the industrialists/middle class on his side further bolstering his government. The Prussians used this as a model for their government with Bismarck copying this and adding on to this with his policies of welfare and the like.

Though considering Charles X was basically in a bubble surrounded by like-minded sycophants, he'd be loathe to listen to a dissenting view unless Guernon-Ranville had done something to be in the King's esteem or had some other voices alongside him to persuade the King. The dude was one of the few Ultra-Royalists (though calling him an ultra is more of a stretch tbh) with a firm grasp of reality. And had the Duc d'Berry not been assassinated, the two probably would have teamed up providing a voice of moderation for Charles steering away from such a tactless course of action. Then again avoiding d'Berry's assassination changes things greatly as his death kicked off the polarization of politics under Charles that led to the revolution in the first place.

Had the Duc d'Berry lived, the army could have been more easily rallied to their side as he himself was quite popular if not at least favorable in the eyes of many French troops and citizens, and even some Parisians.

Part of Charles X's issues is the heavy handed and tactless manner in which he acted. He seemed at times naive of the events occurring around him such as when he disbanded the National Guard without disarming them, something which totally blew up in his face.

Even with the July Ordinances, he there were still quite a number of avenues for him to hold onto his throne. Had he not sent his troops into Algeria, these troops which tended to be Royalist leaning ones could have been used to put down the uprising.

Not to mention, Charles had he not been a more timid old man, but rather a "hard-ass" (in the mold of the Orangist (referring to the Orange Order) Ernest Augustus) so scared of suffering his brother's fate, could have held on to his throne. The Revolution itself was after all more or less centered around Paris, and the speed in which it took place meant that there was still time before it spread to the rest of France.

Charles while unpopular in Paris was not overly so in the rest of France particularly in the Vendee, Bordeaux, and other parts of Southern France where Legitimism was strong. Charles could have easily rallied support, through his son the Duc d'Angoulême, Louis XIX, who prior to Charles's abdication was met his father at the Grand Trianon at the head of some troops.

While many of them were disorganized and there were some deserters like in Versailles which the National Guard had taken over, it didn't mean order under a senior ranking commander like d'Angoulême couldn't have been restored. Heck in 1848, the Prussian King was besieged by Revolutionaries in Berlin, and there were still supporters from the countryside such as a young Otto von Bismarck who marched at the head of a peasant levy he cobbled together in support of his King (he was dismissed by the Prussian Army, but its still kinda funny ngl).

Considering the controversy surrounding Charles' abdication which Legitimists at the time contested, Louis' had he been able to speak sense into his father, or force his hand, storming out and deciding to fight for his (Charles') throne and their family's legacy, the Bourbons could have eventually put down the rebellion.

Just because rebellions and revolutions take place via an armed uprising take place, it doesn't mean they couldn't be put down. And considering how the stubborn King Willem I of the Netherland handed the Belgians butts to them during the Ten Days Campaign (it was only made worse by Leopold deciding to take personal command of the Belgian forces), staying his hand because the UK and France (the July Monarchy) was supportive of Belgian independence.

Revolutions are only really successful if various key elites or other new elites wanting to usurp the power held by those in the existing order throw their hat into the ring. The French Revolution only got off the ground because the revolutionaries initially included many prominent French nobles such as Lafayette and d'Orleans, the King's own cousin who voted to grant him the death penalty.

Regarding Belgium with Charles busy with managing France, I doubt support for Belgian independence would materialize as Britain was wishy washy on the prospect of French expansion. And with Charles putting down a revolution, it might galvanize the other members of the Holy League to to encourage Willem to suppress the Belgian revolt, and without a continental power on side Britain would see little reason to change the status quo.

As for Belgium, Charles might try to eek out something of a PR victory for his regime by saber rattling against Willem I. It wouldn't be too out of character as Charles was growing more reliant on foreign adventures to sore up domestic support at home. Charles, through Talleyrand might just be able to negotiate the cessation of the provinces lost in 1815 following Napoleon's Hundred Days giving the Bourbons something they can use to save face and claim victory playing the nationalist card up somewhat, hoping for a "rally around the flag."

Alternatively if you had Lord Castlereagh live, Britain would be more amenable towards supporting Charles X.
 
Last edited:
While Guernon's suggestion might not net an entirely loyal "salt-of-the-earth" crowd (I imagine it would net a fair few Bonapartists and republicans, such as there were), it would certainly make the argument that Charles' "electoral changes" are the actions of an autocratic monarch. Especially since, most of the liberal newspapers that led the charge against the censorship laws were also publishing details about French troop movements in Algeria (Beach. 1971:349). This sounds suspiciously like treason (at least in modern terms).
Correct—expanding the franchise isn't necessarily going to get a whole new bulwark for Charles X's reign, but it is worth getting considering. It's hard to say how much of the lower classes supported what would later become the Legitimist movement: plenty of peasants had complex relationships with the local lords who had in some cases become their landlords. However, there is data and studies to show there was a certain amount of popular support for legitimism in later decades, especially in alliance with Catholicism. 1848 saw the Parti de l'Ordre triumph, which had a large monarchist contingent, while 1871 saw the domination of monarchist parties. Ideas of expanding the franchise date back as to as early as 1816. Plenty of parishes in this period had priests who were sympathetic to the Bourbons and would later become mouth pieces of Legitimism.

Charles X is unlikely to get much support out of the urban working classes (unemployment had swelled throughout the summer, and spiked in late July when businessmen protested the July Ordinances by shuttering their factories), but he could build an alliance with the rural peasantry. I think the main issue is that by July 1830, Charles' regime is already underwater. Even if he offers up an expansion of the franchise, Paris will likely still remain aflame, and it's not as if it will appease opponents of Charles' regime (for all of the liberals alleged sympathies, they looked upon the lower classes and the idea of "mob rule" with horror)—the liberal opposition was happy to use these men as it were to topple the Bourbon's, but had no interest in giving them a genuine say in government.

If he goes with Guernon's idea, Charles X will likely need to be more forceful too—Ragusa seemed to have no initiative during the crisis, so he'll likely need to command him to call up additional troops (men were available in Saint-Denis, Vincennes, Lunéville, and Saint-Omer) and to seek support from the reservists / Parisians who remained loyal to Charles X. Despite the king's unpopularity in Paris, there were still some in many quarters who supported him. Despite Ragusa's liberal sympathies, he felt bound to Charles X and later followed him into exile: I think he would do what the king commanded, since he refused to act even when pressed by both sides (supporters of the revolt wanted him to arrest Polignac; supporters of the Bourbons wanted him to arrest the rioters).
 
Could this lead to French troops withdrawing from Algeria? It seems likely that if the French public was allowed to know and learn what exactly the French troops in Algeria were doing, there could be a chance that demands to get out of Algeria become popular.
Regarding Belgium with Charles busy with managing France, I doubt support for Belgian independence would materialize as Britain was wishy washy on the prospect of French expansion. And with Charles putting down a revolution, it might galvanize the other members of the Holy League to to encourage Willem to suppress the Belgian revolt, and without a continental power on side Britain would see little reason to change the status quo.
actually, from what I've read recently on Léopold (doing research on his business dealings for Frankie), Charles was planning to involve himself in Belgium when the Algerian bey slapped the French ambassador with the fan. So that could still have a French support

spiked in late July when businessmen protested the July Ordinances by shuttering their factories
does it sound too quasi-populist for Charles X to try to get some of those unemployed on side by pointing out 'they hate me, so to show how much they hate their king, they are putting you all out of work". A sort of "evolution" of the traditional king-on-the-side of the little guy. It won't make him any fans amongst the industrial captains, but given they're shuttering their factories to protest him, I doubt he had those on side to begin with.
 
does it sound too quasi-populist for Charles X to try to get some of those unemployed on side by pointing out 'they hate me, so to show how much they hate their king, they are putting you all out of work". A sort of "evolution" of the traditional king-on-the-side of the little guy. It won't make him any fans amongst the industrial captains, but given they're shuttering their factories to protest him, I doubt he had those on side to begin with.
I think it would depend on how he goes about it—after all, it was only about a decade and a half after 1830 that Louis Blanc coined the term the "right to work" and the provisional republic brought about the national workshops... disastrous as they were. Given the mythos that the Bourbon Restoration (and Louis XVIII in particular) attached to Henri IV, perhaps Charles X could lean into that? After all, Henri IV was the king who allegedly told the Duke of Savoy: ‘If God keeps me in life, I will ensure there is no laborer in my realm who does not have the means to have a chicken in his pot.’ There was definitely a reason why the early Bourbon Restoration leaned into Henri IV and his story—he was a genuinely popular king who cared about the welfare of his subjects (or at least, the French of the 19th century wanted to believe so). I do think there would be a way for Charles X to champion the lumpenproletariat ala Henri IV.

Pickings are pretty slim for the Bourbons if they're looking for a king to lionize of their own dynasty—Louis XIII was milquetoast, Louis XIV, while a great sovereign in the pursuit of gloire and French domination (economic, cultural, ect) of Europe... but I do not think many people would lineup to say that Louis XIV cared about his subjects. Plus, after all the brouhaha concerning Napoleon and the French Empire... probably better to focus on another sovereign. Louis XV was a serial adulterer who closed his eyes to France's stagnation ("Après moi, le déluge," and all that) while he shrugged his shoulders, passing the buck onto his successor. That just leaves Louis XVI; he tried his best to be a good sovereign to his people, but was wholly unequipped for the top job. His only allure as a symbol for the Restoration is as a martyr—but probably not the best route to take when trying to win over the lower classes: the euphoria felt in 1815 after Napoleon's fall was driven primarily by peace and undone by some of the mistakes that Louis XVIII made during that First Restoration: this included Louis XVI and Marie-Antoinette's remains (or rather, what remained...) being exhumed for burial at Saint-Denis.

As for the industrial captains and business classes—fig on them. Like you said, these were not the men who were on Charles X's side to begin with (these were the very same men that Charles X was attempting to strip voting rights from). Funnily enough, the commercial and industrial bourgeoisie were not so much upset that their electoral rights were being restricted (the gerrymander of the electorate was after all nothing new within Bourbon France: it was both expanded and restricted numerous times under Louis XVIII's reign) but rather that they were also losing their right to stand for office / be a part of the Chambre des Députés, which served as a form of social cachet for the urban bourgeoisie—not dissimilar to salons in the Faubourg Saint-Germain where titles and etiquette still mattered most. While the aristocracy valued titles, the bourgeoisie valued the positions they might attain in parliament.
 
was a genuinely popular king who cared about the welfare of his subjects (or at least, the French of the 19th century wanted to believe so). I do think there would be a way for Charles X to champion the lumpenproletariat ala Henri IV.
Interesting, Charles playing into the Henri IV image could be fun. Especially if puts it about that the bourgeoise are trying desperately to stand against every worker having a chicken in their pot.
 
Interesting, Charles playing into the Henri IV image could be fun. Especially if puts it about that the bourgeoise are trying desperately to stand against every worker having a chicken in their pot.
Exactly. It would be a useful cudgel for Charles X to use against the bourgeoisie—if he’s successful, Charles X may be able to transform the French lower classes into something akin the Neapolitan Lazzaroni who were intensely conservative / monarchist, using them as a vehicle to increase royal power and dilute the political power of the liberal movement.
 
Honestly the idea of allying with the lower classes against the Bourgeoisie is so simple, it might even seem stupid, but in fact its brilliant!

Its actually tried and tested tactic that many governments have used in the past to shore up support. Napoleon I did this. And this was what his nephew Napoleon III did before he then also got the industrialists/middle class on his side further bolstering his government. The Prussians used this as a model for their government with Bismarck copying this and adding on to this with his policies of welfare and the like.

Though considering Charles X was basically in a bubble surrounded by like-minded sycophants, he'd be loathe to listen to a dissenting view unless Guernon-Ranville had done something to be in the King's esteem or had some other voices alongside him to persuade the King. The dude was one of the few Ultra-Royalists (though calling him an ultra is more of a stretch tbh) with a firm grasp of reality. And had the Duc d'Berry not been assassinated, the two probably would have teamed up providing a voice of moderation for Charles steering away from such a tactless course of action. Then again avoiding d'Berry's assassination changes things greatly as his death kicked off the polarization of politics under Charles that led to the revolution in the first place.

Had the Duc d'Berry lived, the army could have been more easily rallied to their side as he himself was quite popular if not at least favorable in the eyes of many French troops and citizens, and even some Parisians.

Part of Charles X's issues is the heavy handed and tactless manner in which he acted. He seemed at times naive of the events occurring around him such as when he disbanded the National Guard without disarming them, something which totally blew up in his face.

Even with the July Ordinances, he there were still quite a number of avenues for him to hold onto his throne. Had he not sent his troops into Algeria, these troops which tended to be Royalist leaning ones could have been used to put down the uprising.

Not to mention, Charles had he not been a more timid old man, but rather a "hard-ass" (in the mold of the Orangist (referring to the Orange Order) Ernest Augustus) so scared of suffering his brother's fate, could have held on to his throne. The Revolution itself was after all more or less centered around Paris, and the speed in which it took place meant that there was still time before it spread to the rest of France.

Charles while unpopular in Paris was not overly so in the rest of France particularly in the Vendee, Bordeaux, and other parts of Southern France where Legitimism was strong. Charles could have easily rallied support, through his son the Duc d'Angoulême, Louis XIX, who prior to Charles's abdication was met his father at the Grand Trianon at the head of some troops.

While many of them were disorganized and there were some deserters like in Versailles which the National Guard had taken over, it didn't mean order under a senior ranking commander like d'Angoulême couldn't have been restored. Heck in 1848, the Prussian King was besieged by Revolutionaries in Berlin, and there were still supporters from the countryside such as a young Otto von Bismarck who marched at the head of a peasant levy he cobbled together in support of his King (he was dismissed by the Prussian Army, but its still kinda funny ngl).

Considering the controversy surrounding Charles' abdication which Legitimists at the time contested, Louis' had he been able to speak sense into his father, or force his hand, storming out and deciding to fight for his (Charles') throne and their family's legacy, the Bourbons could have eventually put down the rebellion.

Just because rebellions and revolutions take place via an armed uprising take place, it doesn't mean they couldn't be put down. And considering how the stubborn King Willem I of the Netherland handed the Belgians butts to them during the Ten Days Campaign (it was only made worse by Leopold deciding to take personal command of the Belgian forces), staying his hand because the UK and France (the July Monarchy) was supportive of Belgian independence.

Revolutions are only really successful if various key elites or other new elites wanting to usurp the power held by those in the existing order throw their hat into the ring. The French Revolution only got off the ground because the revolutionaries initially included many prominent French nobles such as Lafayette and d'Orleans, the King's own cousin who voted to grant him the death penalty.

Regarding Belgium with Charles busy with managing France, I doubt support for Belgian independence would materialize as Britain was wishy washy on the prospect of French expansion. And with Charles putting down a revolution, it might galvanize the other members of the Holy League to to encourage Willem to suppress the Belgian revolt, and without a continental power on side Britain would see little reason to change the status quo.

As for Belgium, Charles might try to eek out something of a PR victory for his regime by saber rattling against Willem I. It wouldn't be too out of character as Charles was growing more reliant on foreign adventures to sore up domestic support at home. Charles, through Talleyrand might just be able to negotiate the cessation of the provinces lost in 1815 following Napoleon's Hundred Days giving the Bourbons something they can use to save face and claim victory playing the nationalist card up somewhat, hoping for a "rally around the flag."

Alternatively if you had Lord Castlereagh live, Britain would be more amenable towards supporting Charles X.
Disraeli after torpedoing Gladstones voting reform bill in 1866 passed an even more expansive one the next year which helped the Tories gain an advantage
 
Honestly the idea of allying with the lower classes against the Bourgeoisie is so simple, it might even seem stupid, but in fact its brilliant!

Is it really realistic though when the Bourbons are so involved with the old nobility? Trying to play the top and bottom against the middle is clever in theory but very hard to pull off. I don't see a king as legitimist as Charles X pulling off the common touch. I might be wrong, but that doesn't feel like it fits with the Restoration.
 
Is it really realistic though when the Bourbons are so involved with the old nobility? Trying to play the top and bottom against the middle is clever in theory but very hard to pull off. I don't see a king as legitimist as Charles X pulling off the common touch. I might be wrong, but that doesn't feel like it fits with the Restoration.
A lot of people like to paint the Bourbons upon their return / restoration as dusty, out of touch reactionaries who cavorted with the nobility of the ancien régime—dreaming of the day that they could dispense with the Charte and return to reigning as kings had before 1789, but that simply isn't true.

The Bourbons returned to a country that had drastically changed in the intervening period of 1789 to 1815—while there were some that sought to turn back the clock such as the Ultra-Royalists, that was not the wide spread view. Louis XVIII in particular, sought to do what he could to reconcile the revolution with the monarchy; the Duc de Descazes in particular stated that the aim of the Doctrinaires was to nationalize the monarchy and royalize France. While Charles X was certainly more conservative than his brother and patronized the Ultras, he wasn't a fuddy duddy trapped in the past. Some point to his coronation in 1825 as part of his being out of touch (it was held in Reims where the Kings of France were traditionally crowned; Louis XVIII had foregone the ceremony due to his health and to avoid controversy) but in reality, Charles's coronation was designed as a reconciliation between tradition and the charter: the traditional anointing's and oaths were connected to the oath of fidelty that the king took to uphold the charter. A commission also also charged to simplifying / modernizing the ceremony to make it compatible with the principals of the monarchy according to the charter (ex. the king no longer swore to uphold the struggle against heretics and infidels; references to Hebrew royalty were removed). Charles X's coronation was meant to be a bridge between the old France and the new. Charles X could certainly be flexible when he wanted to be.

It's also worth remembering that both Louis XVIII and Charles X did what they could to reconcile the old nobility to that of the "new" nobility—those ennobled by Napoleon. While the old nobility were overrepresented in the governments of the Restoration, this was likely for financial reasons: especially for the émigrés who lost lands and estates, their positions were definitely weakened compared to the new nobility and the growing financial classes. The old nobility made demands upon the governments for financial support—not just the indemnity eventually given by Charles X, but for jobs and salaried positions. The abolition of the old court system and the destruction of the old noble sinecures meant that many noblemen were forced to support themselves: they served as police officers, justices of the peace, tax collectors, tax receivers, comptrollers, ministerial employees, road surveyors, and even postmasters—a large change from the period before 1789. Even the court had represented a fusion of sorts, at least before the Hundred Days, but there were attempts to reform the court in the period after that: primarily to dilute the influence of the old nobility and to win over the wealthy and discontented Napoleonic nobility. A Maison des Pages was formed in 1820, which pulled pages from "both sides" of the nobility, and the Maison du Roi was streamlined and reformed in some capacity in 1820—indeed, a former Bonapartist became the Ministre de la Maison in 1820, the Marquis of Lauriston, and the Napoleonic nobility were integrated to some extent into the Restoration Court. Charles X even had favorites that had Napoleonic heritages, such as Marshal Oudinot, while Marshal Marmont, the Duke of Ragusa stayed loyal to Charles X despite his opposition to the king's policy, even following him into exile.
 
A lot of people like to paint the Bourbons upon their return / restoration as dusty, out of touch reactionaries who cavorted with the nobility of the ancien régime—dreaming of the day that they could dispense with the Charte and return to reigning as kings had before 1789, but that simply isn't true.

I appreciate the way you correct some of the misconceptions about the Restoration and this is genuinely interesting material.

It's also worth remembering that both Louis XVIII and Charles X did what they could to reconcile the old nobility to that of the "new" nobility—those ennobled by Napoleon.
Even the court had represented a fusion of sorts, at least before the Hundred Days, but there were attempts to reform the court in the period after that: primarily to dilute the influence of the old nobility and to win over the wealthy and discontented Napoleonic nobility.

But it's hardly "Man of the People" stuff. Even if - since this is alt-history after all - Charles X decided to play populist, wouldn't he in the process lose the support of these upper classes that were the pillars of his regime? It will be very hard to say "I'm on your side, sans-culottes, and so are my friends over there who still like powdered wigs. It's just those urban guys with the businesses and money that are against us all, yeah, those guys who keep shouting about the constitution and stuff and say I'm a despot".

The example of Napoleon III is instructive but he never had the associations with the the old regime and old elites and therefore had a much easier task pulling off his populist gambit. At least IMO.
 
What would be the long term consequences of the July Revolution being prevented/put down be anyway?

Wouldn't it just kick the can down the road until 1848 comes along and deposes the Bourbons regardless? By 1848, assuming deaths are roughly the same, Henri V would be King. I don't know if he would handle the situation that much better than Louis-Philippe did. Would the Bourbon foreign policy be meaningfully different from Louis-Philippe's in the interim?
 
But it's hardly "Man of the People" stuff. Even if - since this is alt-history after all - Charles X decided to play populist, wouldn't he in the process lose the support of these upper classes that were the pillars of his regime? It will be very hard to say "I'm on your side, sans-culottes, and so are my friends over there who still like powdered wigs. It's just those urban guys with the businesses and money that are against us all, yeah, those guys who keep shouting about the constitution and stuff and say I'm a despot".

The example of Napoleon III is instructive but he never had the associations with the the old regime and old elites and therefore had a much easier task pulling off his populist gambit. At least IMO.
Not necessarily. Guernon who proposed the expansion of the suffrage was a member of the old nobility. Winning over the urban poor in Paris may be a bit more difficult—they aren’t going to become out and out royalists overnight—but the rural majority would likely be much easier. If it is a choice between Charles X being able to maintain his throne and being deposed, his support within the upper classes likely will not oppose such a measure—especially if it means they’re able to maintain their influence within the court and government.

Napoleon III was a bit more nebulous—I’m not sure I’d say if he ever pulled off the “man of the people” shtick either. His initial support in 1848 came from the conservative Parti de l’Ordre, and of course the appeal / nostalgia of Bonapartism.

What would be the long term consequences of the July Revolution being prevented/put down be anyway?

Wouldn't it just kick the can down the road until 1848 comes along and deposes the Bourbons regardless? By 1848, assuming deaths are roughly the same, Henri V would be King. I don't know if he would handle the situation that much better than Louis-Philippe did. Would the Bourbon foreign policy be meaningfully different from Louis-Philippe's in the interim?
A lot can happen in eighteen years. 1848 could play out. A lot differently than IOTL.

For the July Monarchy, its credibility quickly vanished among the urban poor in the early 1830s. Instead of the old nobility, the grand bourgeoisie (bankers, stock exchange magnates, railroad barons, owners of coal and iron mines, of forests and landowners) had come to support the government. While the industrial bourgeoisie (those who owned the land their factories sat upon but not much more) were not favored and tended to side with the middle and working classes.

Louis-Philippe’s governments became more conservative going into the 1840s—there were issues outside of the governments control like bad weather / harvests—but there was also a growing a reform program that wanted to see the suffrage expanded. During the July Monarchy, only about one percent had the right to vote. An expansion may not prevent further issues, but it could help.
 
Useless question, but if the Restoration keeps chugging along would they keep the White flag or switch it up to something else?
The White Flag though was never really an official flag. It was more of a royal standard of which there were multiple. Honestly I see them going back to the blue with the standard fleur de lis or the flag of Henry IV as those are the more practical ones.

It would probably be something like this, the 1643 Royal standard, but probably simplified as a national flag with the the Fleur de Lis over a blue shield on a white field.
1920px-Royal_Standard_of_King_Louis_XIV.svg.png


Honestly I don't see the Tricolor emerging unless as part of the compromise design, but that would only happen if the Bourbons win a pyrrhic victory, with Charles forced to abdicate and his grandson Henri ruling under a more liberal Constitutional Monarchy.

What would be the long term consequences of the July Revolution being prevented/put down be anyway?

Wouldn't it just kick the can down the road until 1848 comes along and deposes the Bourbons regardless?
Depends tbh. Without the major divide the Royalists would still have a strong base of support unless they manage to really mess up. And considering Charles was not going to live that much longer, a younger Louis XIX would probably rule without much issue, commanding more respect and having a greater presence due to his age and his position in the military.

But it's hardly "Man of the People" stuff. Even if - since this is alt-history after all - Charles X decided to play populist, wouldn't he in the process lose the support of these upper classes that were the pillars of his regime? It will be very hard to say "I'm on your side, sans-culottes, and so are my friends over there who still like powdered wigs. It's just those urban guys with the businesses and money that are against us all, yeah, those guys who keep shouting about the constitution and stuff and say I'm a despot".
Charles X simply wasn't this guy. You're more likely to see this under his other son Charles-Ferdinand the Duc d'Berry who actually was decently popular and seen as a relatively moderate and open to reform and conciliatory policies. That alone would allow the Bourbons to rule unhindered without stupidly squandering the system Louis XVIII setup through their lack of tact.

Simply put, the regime Louis XVIII inherited was arguably better and far stronger than the Ancien Regime. Sure it had a Constitution, but that's merely a document firmly defining the legal bounds and functions of a state. That makes it inherently more stable than an old style "Absolute" monarchy which had to rely on archaic statues and vague feudal principles. This was why Louis XIV's system fell apart after his death as they're too dependent on the personage of the King.

Strong firmly established institutions prevent the sort of bs that hampered the Ancien Regime. It also would streamline administration and taxation something that was a huge problem for France. The Ancien regime was wealthy and more populous than England but, the later regularly competed with it on an even footing punching above its own weight whereas France never fully exploited its potential in wars, always losing momentum right before things really turned their way due to things like running out of funds.

A lot of people like to paint the Bourbons upon their return / restoration as dusty, out of touch reactionaries who cavorted with the nobility of the ancien régime—dreaming of the day that they could dispense with the Charte and return to reigning as kings had before 1789, but that simply isn't true.

The Bourbons returned to a country that had drastically changed in the intervening period of 1789 to 1815—while there were some that sought to turn back the clock such as the Ultra-Royalists, that was not the wide spread view. Louis XVIII in particular, sought to do what he could to reconcile the revolution with the monarchy; the Duc de Descazes in particular stated that the aim of the Doctrinaires was to nationalize the monarchy and royalize France. While Charles X was certainly more conservative than his brother and patronized the Ultras, he wasn't a fuddy duddy trapped in the past. Some point to his coronation in 1825 as part of his being out of touch (it was held in Reims where the Kings of France were traditionally crowned; Louis XVIII had foregone the ceremony due to his health and to avoid controversy) but in reality, Charles's coronation was designed as a reconciliation between tradition and the charter: the traditional anointing's and oaths were connected to the oath of fidelty that the king took to uphold the charter. A commission also also charged to simplifying / modernizing the ceremony to make it compatible with the principals of the monarchy according to the charter (ex. the king no longer swore to uphold the struggle against heretics and infidels; references to Hebrew royalty were removed). Charles X's coronation was meant to be a bridge between the old France and the new. Charles X could certainly be flexible when he wanted to be.

It's also worth remembering that both Louis XVIII and Charles X did what they could to reconcile the old nobility to that of the "new" nobility—those ennobled by Napoleon. While the old nobility were overrepresented in the governments of the Restoration, this was likely for financial reasons: especially for the émigrés who lost lands and estates, their positions were definitely weakened compared to the new nobility and the growing financial classes. The old nobility made demands upon the governments for financial support—not just the indemnity eventually given by Charles X, but for jobs and salaried positions. The abolition of the old court system and the destruction of the old noble sinecures meant that many noblemen were forced to support themselves: they served as police officers, justices of the peace, tax collectors, tax receivers, comptrollers, ministerial employees, road surveyors, and even postmasters—a large change from the period before 1789. Even the court had represented a fusion of sorts, at least before the Hundred Days, but there were attempts to reform the court in the period after that: primarily to dilute the influence of the old nobility and to win over the wealthy and discontented Napoleonic nobility. A Maison des Pages was formed in 1820, which pulled pages from "both sides" of the nobility, and the Maison du Roi was streamlined and reformed in some capacity in 1820—indeed, a former Bonapartist became the Ministre de la Maison in 1820, the Marquis of Lauriston, and the Napoleonic nobility were integrated to some extent into the Restoration Court. Charles X even had favorites that had Napoleonic heritages, such as Marshal Oudinot, while Marshal Marmont, the Duke of Ragusa stayed loyal to Charles X despite his opposition to the king's policy, even following him into exile.
Yup! The main issue though was that they had bad PR and a general lack of tact where it counted. This was why Napoleon after doing away with the Revolution established himself through the tenets of legalism, as essentially a Constitutionally Absolute monarch, imposing upon Europe something which hadn't been seen since the Carolingians, and using that with the Concordat of Fontainebleau to essentially try and recreate the Avignon Papacy, carrying out the Ghibbeline vision which the Holy Roman Emperors never could achieve, losing the investiture controversy.
 
Honestly I don't see the Tricolor emerging unless as part of the compromise design, but that would only happen if the Bourbons win a pyrrhic victory, with Charles forced to abdicate and his grandson Henri ruling under a more liberal Constitutional Monarchy.
I think it's inevitable they settle on a different flag eventually. There's a reason even the most stubbornly reactionary states like Russia or Austria eventually settled on a simpler flag. As nationalism becomes more widespread and printing technology becomes easier, there's no way a major country like France is still sticking to suck a complicated, cumbersome and unpopular flag.
I imagine two scenarios.

1) Following some upheaval, a more liberal King passes reforms that also change the flag. Maybe to appease the liberal groups, the Tricolor gets re-adopted with the royal standard in the middle (much as what happened in the Kingdom of Two Sicilies).
il_570xN.4797501799_k4o9.jpg
2) Or some King eventually, for practicality's sake, opens a contest to design a new, simpler flag, like what happened in Spain. Maybe a blue/white /bicolor with the royal standard or something like that.
france-flag-png.695001

Depends tbh. Without the major divide the Royalists would still have a strong base of support unless they manage to really mess up. And considering Charles was not going to live that much longer, a younger Louis XIX would probably rule without much issue, commanding more respect and having a greater presence due to his age and his position in the military.
Thing is, 1848 happened for more reasons than just politics. The 1840's were a decade of a ton of civil strife, both from bad harvests (the hungry forties), poor work conditions and lack of much political reform or representation. The only reason the UK was able to avoid similar unrest was due to having made fairly rapid government/electoral reforms in response to the July Revolution in France. Unless the Bourbons push through major reforms like the UK did, the famines, poor working conditions and electoral issues aren't going to go away and will light a spark regardless.
 
I think it's inevitable they settle on a different flag eventually. There's a reason even the most stubbornly reactionary states like Russia or Austria eventually settled on a simpler flag. As nationalism becomes more widespread and printing technology becomes easier, there's no way a major country like France is still sticking to suck a complicated, cumbersome and unpopular flag.
Per Wikipedia, the flag of the Bourbon Restoration was just a blank white field. I don't see how this could be any less complicated.
Thing is, 1848 happened for more reasons than just politics. The 1840's were a decade of a ton of civil strife, both from bad harvests (the hungry forties), poor work conditions and lack of much political reform or representation. The only reason the UK was able to avoid similar unrest was due to having made fairly rapid government/electoral reforms in response to the July Revolution in France. Unless the Bourbons push through major reforms like the UK did, the famines, poor working conditions and electoral issues aren't going to go away and will light a spark regardless.
Of course, revolts could be put down like they were in other regions of Europe (Germany, Hungary, etc.).
 
I think it's inevitable they settle on a different flag eventually. There's a reason even the most stubbornly reactionary states like Russia or Austria eventually settled on a simpler flag. As nationalism becomes more widespread and printing technology becomes easier, there's no way a major country like France is still sticking to suck a complicated, cumbersome and unpopular flag.
The Bourbons used the plain white flag during the restoration. It wasn't complicated or cumbersome—nor exactly unpopular in the period of 1815-1830. If the Restoration holds beyond 1830, it will only cement the Bourbon flag. I cannot see any of the main line Bourbons advocating for any return of the Tricolor.

The White Flag though was never really an official flag. It was more of a royal standard of which there were multiple. Honestly I see them going back to the blue with the standard fleur de lis or the flag of Henry IV as those are the more practical ones.
The plain White Flag (previously used as the naval flag) was used officially. The royal standard (of which you posted) was one of many, along with the white flag + golden fleur-de-lys. The white flag was official enough, as seen in this famous painting here. Other paintings of the period show the white flag flying from atop government buildings, so it had some official sanction, as seen here.

Charles-Ferdinand the Duc d'Berry who actually was decently popular and seen as a relatively moderate and open to reform and conciliatory policies.
People liked Berry because of his frank and open manners, but he was not a liberal or what we'd call a moderate. He was politically closer to his father, and had close connections with the Ultra-Royalists. There is a reason why Charles X, Angoulême and Berry were not readmitted into the royal council following Louis XVIII's second restoration in 1815. The Maison de Monseiur, that is the household of Charles X during the time that Louis XVIII lived was considered the domain of the Ultra-Royalists—this extended to both of his sons, as well. Angoulême was frankly the more moderate of the two brothers, but he had none of Berry's 'flair' so to speak.
 
The Bourbons used the plain white flag during the restoration. It wasn't complicated or cumbersome—nor exactly unpopular in the period of 1815-1830. If the Restoration holds beyond 1830, it will only cement the Bourbon flag. I cannot see any of the main line Bourbons advocating for any return of the Tricolor.
I'm responding to the suggestion about the white flag with the standard being used. Which is both complicated and cumbersome. Complicated in the sense that it's too hard to draw/memorize, and cumbersome in the sense that it would lead to a lot of accidents during warfare as the white flag increasingly becomes the international symbol of surrender (the plain white flag would be even worse at this). Not to mention that it just isn't distinguishable enough in general, which is exactly the reason the Spanish Bourbons changed their flag. The standard could be kept, after all if Spain and Portugal still keep theirs to this day, I don't see why France couldn't. But those have been able to preserve it because it's displayed on a clearly distinguishable and easily recognizable pattern.

Also to my understanding, the white flag was never popular among the general public during the Restoration. There's a reason France reverted back to the tricolor in 1830 and never looked back since. Even failing to restore the monarchy over restoring this exact white flag in 1870. The only ones it really appealed to were the Ultras, as seen for example by naming one of their main newspaper La Drapeau Blanc.
 
Top