Plausibility Check: French Monarchist coalition?

Hi all, long time lurker here, big fan of the site, also my first ever post so please be gentle:openedeyewink:

Have been reading quite a few discussions on the restoration of the French monarchy lately and this got me wondering...

During the 1800's when the monarchist's still held a lot of influence, but after the Franco-Prussian war in the 1870's, is it at all possible that the three main monarchist camps could have formed some sort of factional alliance or political coalition?

My question has been in part inspired by the Nationalist faction of the Spanish Civil War where you had Carlists allied with Alfonsists against a common enemy!

Thus could it have been possible for the Orleanists, Legitimists (the Carlists) and the Bonapartists to put their differences aside, form either an insurrectionist/coup alliance against the Republic or a political coalition against the Republicans, and leave the issue of whose candidate should actually ascend the throne for a later day, presumably when they have achieved the upper hand against their political rivals!

Also when would be the best/most likely time for such an alliance and who would suggest such a thing?
Would such an alliance, like the Spanish Nationalists, have to include other far-right groups or could it exist as a solely monarchist political block? (If a uprising/coup scenario is more likely perhaps more groups from the right would be needed?)

I have only recently started becoming acquainted with this period of French history so my knowledge isn't what it should be sadly!

I know this must seem a bit unlikely but if the Carlists and Alfonsists could become allies in a broad coalition with no guarantees whatsoever that there would even be the possibility of a restoration after the fall of the Popular Front, couldn't something similiar work in France? Or like Spain would it require a civil war type-sitch?

Really look forward to your insight and the discussion (my second favourite past time;))

TB

Edit:

Probably unlikely but is any sort of marital union possible whereby 2 or all of the factions could've united their claims such as when Henry Tudor married Elizabeth of York uniting the Lancastrian and Yorkist claims to the English throne in one person?

Was Salic Law still strictly enforced during this time period or could some changes in the law be made to accommodate the needs of the monarchists?

Pardon my ignorance and thanks again;)
 
Last edited:
The Legitimists and Orleanists are not going to ally with the Bonapartists. Not in a million years.

However, a "joint candidate" between Legitimists and Orleanists may be possible through either marriage, or (more likely) one candidate family's male line becoming extinct.
 
The Legitimists and Orleanists are not going to ally with the Bonapartists. Not in a million years.

However, a "joint candidate" between Legitimists and Orleanists may be possible through either marriage, or (more likely) one candidate family's male line becoming extinct.

IOTL the two did agree on the Comte de Chambord, but he wouldn't agree to take the throne under the specified conditions. By the time he died (1883), the monarchists had lost their majority in the parliament.
 
Interesting, I had heard of the Comte de Chambord before but I never knew he had the support of both factions!

Are there any possible candidates for a potential marriage union? Or was there ever a time when one of the lines became endangered? (I'm fairly certain all three still exist, but correct me if i'm wrong isn't the current Legitimist a Spaniard?)

Yeah the odd one out seems to be the Bonaparte's:rolleyes:

This will probably fling this discussion somewhere close to ASB territory but when I mentioned this same question to an asian friend of mine he brought up the Japanese Empire! When Korea was annexed officially/technically the Emperor of Japan became the Emperor of Korea, while the fmr Korean Emperor became king, a ceremonial post subservient to the Japanese! My friend then suggested that the Orleanist/Legitimist could rule as King of France, while a Bonaparte could become Emperor of the French, ruling the Metropolitan and the colonial empire as a sort of proto French Union or Commonwealth of Nations (unified foreign affairs, merged economy??)!

Something along the lines of the proposed Imperial Commonwealth Federation? Wherein the Emperor would be like a common representative or head of an imperial parliament/estates-general of sorts, while the King governs Metropolitan France?

Despite sounding kinda cool it does seem to get more unlikely the more I thing about it:pensive:

Though if it were possible it could almost accommodate all three: the Orleanist heir on the French throne, the Bonaparte as head of an imperial union, and perhaps the Legitimist as King of Spain with French backing? Maybe Spain and its colonies could join the imperial union, making it a Latin organization?:hushedface:
 
Having another go at this, couldn't this potential alliance be made for the expressed purposed of gaining each house its own throne?

France for the Orleanists and Spain for the Legitimists!

Did a bit more reading on the Bonapartes and found something interesting I hadn't registered before! The Napoleonic Kingdom of Italy (northern Italy) was a client state in personal union with the French Empire and ruled by Napoleon himself as its King! Could France become the driving force behind Italian unification in order to place the Bonapartes on the throne of a united, French-aligned Italy?

This could form a new Triple/Latin Alliance controlled by France, but gradually balanced out by the other two! Maybe with marital alliances between the three houses to unite them by blood as well?? (same way you had the British, German and Russian Empires ruled by cousins!)

I think i'm grabbing at straws now, gonna go to bed:idontcare:
 
Interesting, I had heard of the Comte de Chambord before but I never knew he had the support of both factions!

Are there any possible candidates for a potential marriage union? Or was there ever a time when one of the lines became endangered? (I'm fairly certain all three still exist, but correct me if i'm wrong isn't the current Legitimist a Spaniard?)

They actually agreed upon the Comte de Chambord because he was childless. So when he died, the French Bourbon line would die out and the assumption by the Orléanists was that their candidate, the Comte de Paris, would then inherit the throne.

But in fact, when Henri died, the Légitimistes just switched their support to the Spanish line of Bourbons, deciding that the Treaty of Utrecht (which declared that the descendants of Philip V of Spain could not take the French throne) was invalid. IOTL this didn't matter because the pro-republican parties were now in the majority and the Third Republic was well-established. But in a timeline where France has an Henri V, there may be a succession crisis upon his death.
 
Having another go at this, couldn't this potential alliance be made for the expressed purposed of gaining each house its own throne?

France for the Orleanists and Spain for the Legitimists!

Did a bit more reading on the Bonapartes and found something interesting I hadn't registered before! The Napoleonic Kingdom of Italy (northern Italy) was a client state in personal union with the French Empire and ruled by Napoleon himself as its King! Could France become the driving force behind Italian unification in order to place the Bonapartes on the throne of a united, French-aligned Italy?

This could form a new Triple/Latin Alliance controlled by France, but gradually balanced out by the other two! Maybe with marital alliances between the three houses to unite them by blood as well?? (same way you had the British, German and Russian Empires ruled by cousins!)

I think i'm grabbing at straws now, gonna go to bed:idontcare:
After 1870 no one would care about the Bonapartists, look at the French election of 1871

Republicans Radical Republicans 38
Moderate Republicans 112
Right
Liberals 72
Orléanists 214
Bonapartists 20
Legitimists 182


What would happen is Henry V agrees on the compromise flag, or the Orleanists decide they can live with the Ancien Regime flag and then the monarchy is restored and everyone ignores the Bonapartists.


(THough in 1876 the Bonapartists actually won more seats than the Legitimists getting up to 76 - I just can't see them bothering the Savoys).

Henry V will live longer than most suspect and assuming he doesn't produce an heir we may get a succession crisis if he decides to back the Carlists.
 
Fascinating, thanks for the info! I never realized just how strong the monarchist factions were!

What would be the most plausible way to get the Legitimists to throw their weight behind the Comte de Paris? Henri Comte de Chambord naming him his successor? Would he have done that though? What kind of relationship, if any, did the two have?

Or would it simply be more convenient if the Comte de Chambord simply didn't live as long as he did OTL?

Edit:

Wow just realized that apart from the Comte de Chambord having no children, none of the Comte de Paris' sons had children either!!!

What if Chambord had a daughter, could she perhaps be a more suitable bride for Paris?
Or switch it up, Chambords son marries one of Paris' daughters?

Would such a scenario be out of the question for either Houses supporters?

Was Salic Law still so strictly adhered to in this post-monarchy period?
 
Last edited:
They actually agreed upon the Comte de Chambord because he was childless. So when he died, the French Bourbon line would die out and the assumption by the Orléanists was that their candidate, the Comte de Paris, would then inherit the throne.

But in fact, when Henri died, the Légitimistes just switched their support to the Spanish line of Bourbons, deciding that the Treaty of Utrecht (which declared that the descendants of Philip V of Spain could not take the French throne) was invalid. IOTL this didn't matter because the pro-republican parties were now in the majority and the Third Republic was well-established. But in a timeline where France has an Henri V, there may be a succession crisis upon his death.

Actually, the Legitimists in their overwhelming majority went to the Count of Paris. The so-called "Blancs d'Espagne", partisans of the Spanish Carlists, were very very few until the mid-20th c.

I would like to stress the royalist majority at the Assembly was a short-lived oddity in French politics, most likely due to the war situation and the short campaign. In the by-election of july 1871, when a 1/6th of the Assembly was renewed, the royalists managed only to score 10% of the votes.
 
Hmmm so key for the monarchists would seem to be either a more reasonably Comte de Chambord or that he is significantly less healthy!!

Actually, the Legitimists in their overwhelming majority went to the Count of Paris. The so-called "Blancs d'Espagne", partisans of the Spanish Carlists, were very very few until the mid-20th c.

I would like to stress the royalist majority at the Assembly was a short-lived oddity in French politics, most likely due to the war situation and the short campaign. In the by-election of july 1871, when a 1/6th of the Assembly was renewed, the royalists managed only to score 10% of the votes.

Interesting, so a very narrow window for the monarchists, or are you implying its just unlikely for a return to monarchy?
 
Actually, the Legitimists in their overwhelming majority went to the Count of Paris. The so-called "Blancs d'Espagne", partisans of the Spanish Carlists, were very very few until the mid-20th c.

I would like to stress the royalist majority at the Assembly was a short-lived oddity in French politics, most likely due to the war situation and the short campaign. In the by-election of july 1871, when a 1/6th of the Assembly was renewed, the royalists managed only to score 10% of the votes.
The by-election was for seats won by Thiers though was it not?

Given that those seats were already won by a republican candidate I'm not sure it is fair to extrapolate too much in terms of the sentiment nation wide.
 
The by-election was for seats won by Thiers though was it not?

Given that those seats were already won by a republican candidate I'm not sure it is fair to extrapolate too much in terms of the sentiment nation wide.

No, Thiers was elected in 26 districts ; the by-election was for 114 districts. And Thiers was not a public partisan of the Republic before november 1872.
 
Fascinating, thanks for the info! I never realized just how strong the monarchist factions were!

What would be the most plausible way to get the Legitimists to throw their weight behind the Comte de Paris? Henri Comte de Chambord naming him his successor? Would he have done that though? What kind of relationship, if any, did the two have?

Or would it simply be more convenient if the Comte de Chambord simply didn't live as long as he did OTL?

Edit:

Wow just realized that apart from the Comte de Chambord having no children, none of the Comte de Paris' sons had children either!!!

What if Chambord had a daughter, could she perhaps be a more suitable bride for Paris?
Or switch it up, Chambords son marries one of Paris' daughters?

Would such a scenario be out of the question for either Houses supporters?

Was Salic Law still so strictly adhered to in this post-monarchy period?

Henri/Chambord hated the Orleans family who had betrayed his own senior branch of the family several times (Phillipe Egalitie voted for Louis XVI's execution, and Louis Phillipe took the throne for himself - after being named Regent by the abdicated Charles X - from the child Henri V). The Orleanists spread it about that he had recognized the Count of Paris has his heir and even blessed his children, but the reaction of Chambord's widow in giving pride of place at Chambord's funeral to the Spanish Bourbons (which made the Orleanists princes not even bother to attend the funeral of the man they supposedly claimed to have recognized as Head of the House and King) speaks volumes.Given how he was raised in exile (and was not allowed to stay in other countries or be recognized by his titles in non-Austrian lands due to pressure by Louis Phillipe's government) and how he was educated, if HE DID have children (boy or girl) I can't see him allowing either to marry a member of the Orleans family (especially with all the Spanish Bourbon/Habsburg cousins around). I think you would need a very different man than Chambord to make peace between the Legitimatist/Orleanist factions.
 
Last edited:
IOTL the two did agree on the Comte de Chambord, but he wouldn't agree to take the throne under the specified conditions. By the time he died (1883), the monarchists had lost their majority in the parliament.
I wonder when this cliché will die, to be honest.

Henri V was so dyed in the ultra-royalist wool than any form of compromise when it came to its political program and ambitions was a nightmare to achieve and maintain.

Henri d'Artois was raised since the beggining as the "salvation" of the dynasty (even by Charles X, that had a...let say bad opinion of his son). The death of his father even before his death clearly influenced his life : raised in a really religious (if not borderline providentialist), it didn't began well for making it benevolent towards liberalism.

Raised by legitimist circles themselves, including the surviving daughter of Louis XVI, it basically made him seeing all progressism that wasn't issued from a straight catholicism or royal initiative as irreconciliable with the throne.
It's what made him definitely crush the hopes of a monarchic restauration in France after the fall of Second Empire : he was the guardian of monarchy, he didn't have to compromise it especially with liberalism (that was really tied with Orléanism, a movement he didn't liked *at*all*), while the Assembly (whom you can ask about its legitimacy at this time to debate about the nature of a regime) monarchist majority was practically begging him to take the power.

These differences between Orleanists and Legitimists were far from being just dynastical choices : Legitimists were as caricaturally counter-revolutionarist as you could get.
For them, making the monarchy stronger was certainly not about making compromise with liberals that named themselves from the guy that voted for the death of Louis XVI, that chased off Charles X to put Louis-Philippe on the throne, and generally considered as a Trojan Horse of the revolution.
We could as well wonder why Carlists couldn't compromise in Spain.

Now, Legitimists pinched their nose and tried that, but their ideology and political program was still vastly different from Orleanists. Heck, if by some miracle or ASB, Chambord somehow acceepts the compromise, the deep ideological and political differences between Orleanists and Legitimists will kick in pretty much, while republicans managed to present a relatively united front between conservative and moderates.

One could say that Orleanists were more about politics than Legitimists, hence why the main part of the former eventually banded with conservative republicans.

I know the monarchist narrative made it on the board with "we totally could have if...", but frankly, past the 1830's, restauration stopped to be a realistic prospect. They had their fun in the immediate post-war, and it ended nearly as quickly it appeared.

Let's compare 1871 elections results which actually include later votes

- 223 Republicans
- 98 Liberals (non-monarchists)
- 23 Bonapartists
- 214 Orleanists
- 182 Legitimists

with the 1876's


- 291 Left-wing Republicans
- 102 Moderate Republicans
- 76 Bonapartists
- 40 Orleanists
- 24 Legitimists


I don't think I need to point the obvious, but just in case : any Orleanist-Legitimist coalition would have been particularily vulnerable to divisions, and at the first political crisis between these, Republicans would have the number preventing them doing anything funny, just long enough to go back to the institutional order being settled for decades.

We can't overestimate the influence that Republicanism had in France in the XIXth century and the Orleanist and Legitimist success depended as well from their pacifist program as because the election was failsafed just short of the point we'd have to say it was rigged (low turnout, campaigning illegal in occupied départements, some fight still occurring).
 
Last edited:
I wonder when this cliché will die, to be honest.

I'm not sure where we disagree; I don't mean to suggest that there was an enduring alliance between the two factions, or that the desire for monarchism across France lasted a long time. I'm only saying that in 1871 the Orléanists were willing to accept Henri on the throne because he was childless, thinking that Philippe d'Orléans would get his chance after, but the national mood changed dramatically and by the time Henri finally died, there was little remaining desire for restoration.
 
I'm not sure where we disagree
Mostly the part where you say Orleanists accepted Henri's claims.
See, the whole process went pretty quickly :
- 8 May 1871, Henri of Artois publically publish a private but quasi-programmatical letter where he claims not belonging to any party or faction save France and God
- 24 May 1871, he writes another letter where he rejects virtually all the liberal and political legacy of the French Revolution : the famous "flag affair". It would be gradually known
- 2 July 1871, he encounters the Marquis de la Fereté, to give him knowledge of his planned manifesto. La Fereté is disappointed about Henri of Artois' irrealism and the ecounted ends violently.
- Between the 2th and the 6th, he encounter recently elected députés that point that his manifesto is ill-concieved. He ignores them.
- 6th July 1871, publication of the manifesto in L'Union, where he proclaims that he will never accept any compromise and prefers to leave France, only to return thanks to providential changes.

You didn't have time to have an actual agreement between Orleanists and Legitimists (even if Philippe of Orléans tried to support some fantasmed compromise Henri of Artois was totally going to do just you see), because Henry of Artois systemaltically torpedoed any attempt, ruining any chance of a restauration in litterally less than a month.

Of course, it's not his doing entierly, but the irremediable political and cultural gap between the two factions, but the only result was it divided Legitimists and Orleanists : the former between hardliners and "Ohmygod why did it have to be a lunatic" lines; the latter between "oh well, better chances in 1876" and "screw this I'm out of there" lines.

The 1873 temptative could have been more serious, but Henri's policies particularily damaged the situation, as well confidence about his political competence.
Which didn't, of course, prevent him to do the exact same thing he did in 1871 when an actual agreement was tought being possible.
Even this old rloyalist codger of MacMahon was too cautious to encounter Henri at this point.
 
Top