Questions on an 1871 Restoration in France

Inspired by this thread: https://www.alternatehistory.com/fo...count-of-chambord-king-of-france-1871.399351/

I have two questions that pertain to a TL I'm planing that's about a Third Restoration in France. One, the White flag. If the National assembly decided to go f*ck it and gave way on the flag issue, what would the response be in France? Rioting and anger or more or less indifference? Or is there no real evidence as to what the reaction would be? I ask because apparently, at least according to the French Wikipedia, the Comte de Chambord received many representatives of his supporters from all social classes and after talking with them he was persuaded that the people of France weren't so attached to the tricolor.

And two, would there be any way to get Adolphe Thiers to support a restoration? I know that he backed the Republic as the government that divided France the least, but if the Royalists had a better majority or did better in the by-elections could he be convinced that a restored Monarchy was the best idea?
 
Last edited:
Inspired by this thread: https://www.alternatehistory.com/fo...count-of-chambord-king-of-france-1871.399351/

I have two questions that pertain to a TL I'm planing that's about a Third Restoration in France. One, the White flag. If the National assembly decided to go f*ck it and gave way on the flag issue, what would the response be in France? Rioting and anger or more or less interference? Or is there no real evidence as to what the reaction would be? I ask because apparently, at least according to the French Wikipedia, the Comte de Chambord received many representatives of his supporters from all social classes and after talking with them he was persuaded that the people of France weren't so attached to the tricolor.

And two, would there be any way to get Adolphe Thiers to support a restoration? I know that he backed the Republic as the government that divided France the least, but if the Royalists had a better majority or did better in the by-elections could he be convinced that a restored Monarchy was the best idea?

Is Thiers seemingly incorruptible? That should the king offer him a post (whatever it is he wants) that he'll say no? I seem to recall that after Napoléon III was deposed, it was a footrace in the new republic of who could get to which ministerial office first. Gambetta only got the one portfolio (or missed out on it, can't remember which) cause someone else beat him to the offices of that ministry. So, perhaps Chambord offers Thiers a post in the new government? Maybe as Président of the Chamber of Deputies?
 
Is Thiers seemingly incorruptible? That should the king offer him a post (whatever it is he wants) that he'll say no? I seem to recall that after Napoléon III was deposed, it was a footrace in the new republic of who could get to which ministerial office first. Gambetta only got the one portfolio (or missed out on it, can't remember which) cause someone else beat him to the offices of that ministry. So, perhaps Chambord offers Thiers a post in the new government? Maybe as Président of the Chamber of Deputies?

I think you might be confusing the Government of National Defence, which takes over when Napoleon III is deposed and features Gambetta as both War Minister and Interior Minister, with Thiers' Government formed after the election in Feb 1871 which Gambetta refuses to be a part of - Chambord's Government (which would offer Thiers a seat in your scenario) would be the second one and thus feature none of the footrace that you discuss.

Generally, though, Thiers valued order above everything. He'd lived through two monarchies and an Empire, all of which had in various ways been unstable or repressive (the Bourbons had broken up his Newspaper in 1830, he'd seen both right and left revolt against the July Monarchy, and had fractious relations with Napoleon III). More than anything else he craved order - so he might be tempted to support Chambord if he thinks it is in the best interests of a stable and conservative France. Personally I'm not sure he would, but that's just my feeling about his character.

The problem faced by Chambord in 1871, provided Thiers is either onside or not an obstacle, is this:

  • Unlike a moderate republic under Thiers, a legitimist restoration alienates many republicans on the left of centre. Chambord's Government will have to deal with these and, if its the same people as OTL, their dislike and disdain for the republicans (and visa versa) will make accommodating them difficult. Trouble is, do they suppress them and risk fueling:
  • ...the Paris Commune. This is going to happen if Chambord is King or not (his restoration won't butterfly this). Is it more widely supported by the anti-Monarchist republicans who OTL backed Thiers or stayed neutral?
  • If he does suppress the Commune successfully, what does he do with the occupied territories? OTL these voted in a healthy number of Republicans who balanced out the Monarchists and saw off Chambord's chance/ ITL does Chambord risk extending universal suffrage to them and end up with a load of Republican deputies? Or does he again have to suppress and risk antagonizing these areas by refusing them a vote?
  • Finally, on top of all this, one of the big obstacles is Chambord himself. He was, allegedly, not the nicest or easiest to work with. The reason the white flag story is told so much is that its a story that sums up how stubborn and politically naive he could be - even at what could have been his moment of triumph he was willing to put awkward points of protocol before political expedience (why not accept in 1871 and change the bloody thing in 1873 say?!).
 
I once heard the white flag issue explained thus.
It was the flag under which a good bit of his family had been murdered and was completely against his value.
It would be like a Jewish guy having to swear on the nazi flag.

Then he seems to have been a stubborn ass. "They learned nothing and forgot nothing"
 
A poster on soc.history.what-if argued,

"I have always seen it as more than simple stubbornness. He was a
traditionalist and had little love for the modernistic profiteers of
revolution he saw in the Orleanist line. Why should he leave his
tranquil exile home in Austria and become king for the probably short
rest of his life, when in the grand view this only meant enabling the
Orleanist heirs-of-regicides? IMO the flag issue was just the symbol,
not the reason.

"Having Chambord die before 1870 and the Legitimist line extinct in
1871, thereby uniting the claims (save the Carlist ones, which no one
in France took seriously) looks like a vastly better way to restore
Bourbon monarchy - the offer is made to the one remaining claimant, the
comte de Paris, to become the "King of the French".

"Again, IMO, a constitutional Orleanist monarchy after 1871 with
tricoleur and 1831 coat of arms [1] would probably look a lot like the
Third Republic in nearly all important regards, except perhaps for a
bit (but not that much) less anti-clericalism, and might survive to the
current day just like the monarchy in the Netherlands and Belgium has."

https://groups.google.com/d/msg/soc.history.what-if/1Fx_b_t70Zw/F_q0U-KNVhkJ
 
I think you might be confusing the Government of National Defence, which takes over when Napoleon III is deposed and features Gambetta as both War Minister and Interior Minister, with Thiers' Government formed after the election in Feb 1871 which Gambetta refuses to be a part of - Chambord's Government (which would offer Thiers a seat in your scenario) would be the second one and thus feature none of the footrace that you discuss.

Generally, though, Thiers valued order above everything. He'd lived through two monarchies and an Empire, all of which had in various ways been unstable or repressive (the Bourbons had broken up his Newspaper in 1830, he'd seen both right and left revolt against the July Monarchy, and had fractious relations with Napoleon III). More than anything else he craved order - so he might be tempted to support Chambord if he thinks it is in the best interests of a stable and conservative France. Personally I'm not sure he would, but that's just my feeling about his character.

The problem faced by Chambord in 1871, provided Thiers is either onside or not an obstacle, is this:

  • Unlike a moderate republic under Thiers, a legitimist restoration alienates many republicans on the left of centre. Chambord's Government will have to deal with these and, if its the same people as OTL, their dislike and disdain for the republicans (and visa versa) will make accommodating them difficult. Trouble is, do they suppress them and risk fueling:
  • ...the Paris Commune. This is going to happen if Chambord is King or not (his restoration won't butterfly this). Is it more widely supported by the anti-Monarchist republicans who OTL backed Thiers or stayed neutral?
  • If he does suppress the Commune successfully, what does he do with the occupied territories? OTL these voted in a healthy number of Republicans who balanced out the Monarchists and saw off Chambord's chance/ ITL does Chambord risk extending universal suffrage to them and end up with a load of Republican deputies? Or does he again have to suppress and risk antagonizing these areas by refusing them a vote?
  • Finally, on top of all this, one of the big obstacles is Chambord himself. He was, allegedly, not the nicest or easiest to work with. The reason the white flag story is told so much is that its a story that sums up how stubborn and politically naive he could be - even at what could have been his moment of triumph he was willing to put awkward points of protocol before political expedience (why not accept in 1871 and change the bloody thing in 1873 say?!).

First off, thanks for the detailed response. And yes I'm meaning after February 1871, when Thiers was Chief of State/President of France. From what I found on the French Wikipedia page for the Third Republic (maybe not the best source but the French Wikipedia definitely has more info on the subject) Thiers only turned towards a Republic as the best scenario in late 1872, after the Monarchists started fighting among themselves. In a speech in November 1872 he said: "The Republic exists, it is the legal government of the country. Wanting something else would be a new revolution and the most formidable of all." So until mid 1872 or so he seemed to be willing to accept a Monarchy.

Also the Monarchists agreed to not push for a restoration until peace was achieved with Germany and possibly (not 100% about this) once the Prussian army leaves French soil. So Thiers would still be in charge either way until May or June at the earliest. Part of my idea, without giving too much away if your really interested I'll PM you what I'm thinking) , involves a larger monarchist majority and the Legitimists being the larger party, rather than the Orléanists. I also had the idea of the Monarchists successfully taking advantage of the Paris commune to campaign against the Republicans for the July by-elections. If they can when that then they could argue that the country is against a Republic.

Towards your third point, I'd also thought of that. Chambord had already promised and supported universal suffrage, albeit similar to how the US Senate was elected before the 17th amendment: universal suffrage elects department/provincial assemblies and in turn they elect the deputies to the lower house. But to keep the Republicans, or at least a Republican majority, out of the Chambre des Députés I'd look to Restoration Spain (and Portugal to a lesser extent). Via electoral manipulation (made easier via the two step election system for the national parliament) it would be theoretically possible to alternate among two or three parties, like the right-wing and center-right, while still keeping out the radicals.

As to your final point, that depends on which source you read. Chambord was very protective of his values and ideals, and when he felt those were threatened he could become somewhat nasty in defending them. Otherwise, he was described an agreeable man who greatly cared about his country; a true country gentlemen. And totally agree that he did things quite stupidly: get on the throne first then decide things like the flag. However, that just wasn't in his personality. He was more James III than Bonnie Prince Charlie.

What do you think about forcing the flag itself? Lets say that either the Legimists are the dominant force in the Monarchists and push through a restoration with the white flag or both parties agree to restore the flag with the understanding that it would be for Henri V's life only, reverting to the tri-color at his death. What would the response be among the population? Rioting and anger, indifference or even celebrations? I can't seem to get an idea on the actual opinions of the country at large and what would happen.
 
A poster on soc.history.what-if argued,

"I have always seen it as more than simple stubbornness. He was a
traditionalist and had little love for the modernistic profiteers of
revolution he saw in the Orleanist line. Why should he leave his
tranquil exile home in Austria and become king for the probably short
rest of his life, when in the grand view this only meant enabling the
Orleanist heirs-of-regicides? IMO the flag issue was just the symbol,
not the reason.

I think the first part is key. If you are Chambord, why compromise? His life was pretty good where he was and he maintained his principles handed down by his grandfather and his beloved aunt (both of whom died in a second exile thank to Louis-Phillipe), all to inherit a not-so-stable throne for a few years that would be inherited by the heirs of Louis Phillipe (aka the same man who was son of regicide Egalitie, the same man who betrayed his own family - after being named by Charles X as Regent for the young Henri V - seized the crown, and sent them into exile, the same man who as king had his government watch and monitor Chambord himself and diplomatically threatened other countries who acknowledged Chambord's titles, presented him to their rulers or even allowed Chambord to visit their states for any extended period of time, the same man who faced with the same situation as Charles X in 1830 ALSO desperately tried to abdicate for an infant grandson) and a family - the Orleans - who only saw to make peace with Henri and acknowledge him as head of the family and the king once it was clear he would have no sons. Why would Chambord, given the way he was raised, give way to make life easier (by handing a throne to them) to the hated Orleans dynasty which he KNEW would follow him? In that light his behavior makes perfect sense. I've always thought Henri would behave differently in 1870 or even earlier if he had a biological heir of his own.

F


As to your final point, that depends on which source you read. Chambord was very protective of his values and ideals, and when he felt those were threatened he could become somewhat nasty in defending them. Otherwise, he was described an agreeable man who greatly cared about his country; a true country gentlemen. And totally agree that he did things quite stupidly: get on the throne first then decide things like the flag. However, that just wasn't in his personality. He was more James III than Bonnie Prince Charlie.

What do you think about forcing the flag itself? Lets say that either the Legimists are the dominant force in the Monarchists and push through a restoration with the white flag or both parties agree to restore the flag with the understanding that it would be for Henri V's life only, reverting to the tri-color at his death. What would the response be among the population? Rioting and anger, indifference or even celebrations? I can't seem to get an idea on the actual opinions of the country at large and what would happen.

In many ways Henri is quite admirable compared to the opportunistic Bonaparte and Orleans dynasties. In the same way "James III" could have been King if he had given up his faith for political expediency but never did.

I think the White Flag is a red herring. It could have been overcome. The tri-color was created by Lafayette (hardly a radical or a regicide) and accepted by Louis XVI and the other Bourbons at the start of the Revolution (the White in the flag is from the Royal banner) before it all went bad. I've seen where Chambord himself made modifications of it (like putting the fleur-du-lys in the middle) as a compromise. If Chambord wanted the throne enough he would have accepted it (and the White Flag could have been the King's standard). But he didn't want it bad enough, I think.
 
Last edited:
Chambord would never accept the Tri-color. Period. It was so against his beliefs and values that its unthinkable. It would be like James III converting to Anglicanism in 1714. To get either to do these things would require a completely different personality and a POD so far earlier that 1871 wouldn't happen. If Henri was more flexible he would have probably been called to the throne during the Second Republic, but he wasn't. We've more or less figured out that Thiers could be persuaded to support a third Restoration if he's convinced its the best way to maintain peace and order. The question I'm trying to get an answer to now is could the White flag be accepted, grudgingly or not, by the populace to the point were they don't riot or revolt.

Maybe have a different flag for the army (not that strange, after all there are Naval standards for the navy that are different from the national flag) could win over the military. It was suggested OTL but dismissed. Or hell, have army units use the White flag in the suppression of the Commune. Give it something good to be associated with for France at large. Either way, point blank the White Flag and Chambord go hand in hand. I just need a way for the Flag to be OK for France.
 
Top