Two monarchy questions (about France and Italy)

I felt that it's best to put these two questions in a single thread in order to avoid creating an extra thread.

Anyway, here are my questions:

1. Had France lost World War I, would there have been a realistic chance of the French monarchy eventually being restored?

2. Had Mussolini not entered World War II and thus would have avoided being overthrown, would Italy have kept its monarchy after the Fascist regime in Italy would have been replaced by a democracy (which would have likely occurred sometime after Mussolini's death in this TL)?
 
1. Why? They'd go politically radical, sure, but by this point monarchy is far too German to gain traction with the French, especially if they've just suffered what would be their most humiliating defeat ever.

2. Quite probably. Knowing the tendencies of the current Italian pretender (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vittorio_Emanuele,_Prince_of_Naples) what you'd probably see is a sham "democracy" arise post-Mussolini that is headed by an oligarchic shadow government with an iron fist - with the House of Savoy at its centre.
 
1. Why? They'd go politically radical, sure, but by this point monarchy is far too German to gain traction with the French, especially if they've just suffered what would be their most humiliating defeat ever.

Can you please elaborate on the German part?

2. Quite probably. Knowing the tendencies of the current Italian pretender (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vittorio_Emanuele,_Prince_of_Naples) what you'd probably see is a sham "democracy" arise post-Mussolini that is headed by an oligarchic shadow government with an iron fist - with the House of Savoy at its centre.

The problem with this, though, is that Italians might not tolerate such an arrangement forever. Thus, eventually, there could very well be a real democracy in Italy.
 
1. Had France lost World War I, would there have been a realistic chance of the French monarchy eventually being restored?

Seems quite unlikely, unless a shrewd Bourbon successfully manages to pass himself as protector of the parliamentary system.

2. Had Mussolini not entered World War II and thus would have avoided being overthrown, would Italy have kept its monarchy after the Fascist regime in Italy would have been replaced by a democracy (which would have likely occurred sometime after Mussolini's death in this TL)?

It feels likely; Mussolini had slowly encroached on the powers of the King. However, Umberto di Savoia was a good soldier and would have found a lot of support, and Mussolini wouldn't have wanted a civil war. So I would say yes, but only when Vittorio Emanuele III died and It the Fascists felt confident enough to escalate.
 
Seems quite unlikely, unless a shrewd Bourbon successfully manages to pass himself as protector of the parliamentary system.

OK.

I'm curious about this since there is the possibility of France eventually becoming a dictatorship (such as during the Great Depression) after a French WWI defeat--which makes me wonder if a French dictator could restore the French monarchy in order to provide legitimacy to his rule.

It feels likely; Mussolini had slowly encroached on the powers of the King. However, Umberto di Savoia was a good soldier and would have found a lot of support, and Mussolini wouldn't have wanted a civil war. So I would say yes, but only when Vittorio Emanuele III died and It the Fascists felt confident enough to escalate.

I strongly doubt that Mussolini will escalate anything after VE III's death.
 
Can you please elaborate on the German part?
A victory for the German Empire in WW1 would be a victory for monarchism. This would cause problems in Britain (the British royals had German heritage, and even if George V discarded them as OTL a Teutonic triumph would probably lead to them becoming increasingly unpopular), but in France it would simply galvanise the entrenched Republican system as one intrinsically French, at least in my opinion. Even if Fascists or Communists did come to power, they would keep a republican framework to maintain continuity and national unity.
The problem with this, though, is that Italians might not tolerate such an arrangement forever. Thus, eventually, there could very well be a real democracy in Italy.
Well they didn't OTL, although an entrenched Italian monarchy in on the scheme could certainly keep the shadow movement going longer. However, there is of course the possibility that different developments in the 1940s that keep Italy out of the war mean that Vittorio Emanuele has less corrupt dispositions than OTL, and keeps on the straight and narrow. Then constitutional monarchy in the country could be pretty solid.
 
I felt that it's best to put these two questions in a single thread in order to avoid creating an extra thread.

Anyway, here are my questions:

1. Had France lost World War I, would there have been a realistic chance of the French monarchy eventually being restored?

2. Had Mussolini not entered World War II and thus would have avoided being overthrown, would Italy have kept its monarchy after the Fascist regime in Italy would have been replaced by a democracy (which would have likely occurred sometime after Mussolini's death in this TL)?

1. It is possible. There was some monarchist movements like Action Francaise but that they would be succesful is bit unlikely but not impossible.

2. If Italy not enter to WW2 monarchy would remain surely even after Mussolini's death. Even Mussolini wasn't fan of monarchy but kept that due practical reasons. Probably Mussolini wouldn't try abolish monarchy even after VEIII's death.
 
A victory for the German Empire in WW1 would be a victory for monarchism. This would cause problems in Britain (the British royals had German heritage, and even if George V discarded them as OTL a Teutonic triumph would probably lead to them becoming increasingly unpopular), but in France it would simply galvanise the entrenched Republican system as one intrinsically French, at least in my opinion. Even if Fascists or Communists did come to power, they would keep a republican framework to maintain continuity and national unity.

What about if the Action Francaise comes to power?

Well they didn't OTL, although an entrenched Italian monarchy in on the scheme could certainly keep the shadow movement going longer.

When did Italy have such a scheme in our TL?

However, there is of course the possibility that different developments in the 1940s that keep Italy out of the war mean that Vittorio Emanuele has less corrupt dispositions than OTL, and keeps on the straight and narrow. Then constitutional monarchy in the country could be pretty solid.

OK.
 
1. It is possible. There was some monarchist movements like Action Francaise but that they would be succesful is bit unlikely but not impossible.

Were there any other prominent monarchist forces in France in the early 20th C other than the AF?

2. If Italy not enter to WW2 monarchy would remain surely even after Mussolini's death. Even Mussolini wasn't fan of monarchy but kept that due practical reasons. Probably Mussolini wouldn't try abolish monarchy even after VEIII's death.

Would Italians actually want to keep the monarchy after the Fascist regime in Italy is replaced with a democracy, though?
 
Were there any other prominent monarchist forces in France in the early 20th C other than the AF?

Action Francaise was probably one of most prominent but I don't know about other monarchist movements.

Would Italians actually want to keep the monarchy after the Fascist regime in Italy is replaced with a democracy, though?

Depends what kind of government there is and would there be refenrendum after fall of Fascist regime. Even in OTL referendum over Italian monarchy was very close.
 
Last edited:
1 Well, in 1934 there was an attempted right-wing coup that only narrowly failed. Charles Maurras and his Action Francoise were a main force after the coup, they were strongly pro-monarchy and Maurras was a great germanophobe. So I can imagine a successful coup restoring the Monarchy (in the Legitimist Line) in a defeated France after a period of militar dictatorship to suppress communist revolts (Petain as Hindenburg maybe?)

2 Umberto II di Savoia was a silent anti-fascist and a popular figure so probable he would be successful in restoring democracy after Mussolini's death (in '60s, I guess) and taking credit for this. But '70s are going to be turbulent years: right-wing and former fascists try to regain power (Junio Valerio Borghese's failed coup) while Left, reborn on students protests in 1968, is highly critical of Savoia role during Fascist Regime. After Umberto II's death, Vittorio Emanuele IV becomes an incompetent, obnoxious, a little authoritarian with violent and criminal tendencies, scandal-tainted King. After Tangentopoli Scandal and a connection between Royal Family and Mani Pulite (Washed Hands) Investigation, King's low popularity plums badly and, with his son Emanuele Filiberto, Prince of Naples, incompetent and drug addicted, I can see easily a Republican victory in an special constitutional referendum.
 
1 Well, in 1934 there was an attempted right-wing coup that only narrowly failed. Charles Maurras and his Action Francoise were a main force after the coup, they were strongly pro-monarchy and Maurras was a great germanophobe. So I can imagine a successful coup restoring the Monarchy (in the Legitimist Line) in a defeated France after a period of militar dictatorship to suppress communist revolts (Petain as Hindenburg maybe?)

The Legitimists supported the Spanish Bourbons, no? If so, that would be rather problematic for a nationalistic, fascist France.

The Orleanists were French and were thus better candidates for this, though they might have been perceived as being too liberal for a fascist France.

2 Umberto II di Savoia was a silent anti-fascist and a popular figure so probable he would be successful in restoring democracy after Mussolini's death (in '60s, I guess) and taking credit for this. But '70s are going to be turbulent years: right-wing and former fascists try to regain power (Junio Valerio Borghese's failed coup) while Left, reborn on students protests in 1968, is highly critical of Savoia role during Fascist Regime. After Umberto II's death, Vittorio Emanuele IV becomes an incompetent, obnoxious, a little authoritarian with violent and criminal tendencies, scandal-tainted King. After Tangentopoli Scandal and a connection between Royal Family and Mani Pulite (Washed Hands) Investigation, King's low popularity plums badly and, with his son Emanuele Filiberto, Prince of Naples, incompetent and drug addicted, I can see easily a Republican victory in an special constitutional referendum.

Couldn't Italian monarchists try getting Emanuele Filiberto to abdicate in favor of either his eldest daughter or his cousin, though?
 
1 One moment, please, unfortunately Europeans dynastic links are a great mess. So I think it's better a little background:
A) The Bourbons were the Royal Dynasty of France after Religion Wars in XVI Century. The French Succession Law is very strict: this is based on a Salic Law, allowing only Catholics Kings, not including the possibility of an abdication and declaring the present law unchangeable (only God in person can change the Law).
B) In 1700, following the (manipulated) testament of Charles II of Spain, a Bourbon became King of Spain, diving the family in French and Spanish Bourbons (and technically also Parma, Naples,... but now this is irrelevant). In change of this, after Spanish Succession War, Spanish Bourbons renounced their succession rights on French Crown with the peace Treaty of Utrecht.
C) In 1830 Bourbon Monarchy was overthrowed during the July Revolution and replaced by a cadet branch, the Orleans.
D) In 1833 Ferdinand VII of Spain changed Spanish succession law in favor of his daughter Isabell II against the male Salic line of his brother Charles. This is the beginning of Carlists Wars, that Carlists lost.
E) In 1848 Orleans are overthrowed by republicans: now in France there are two Pretendets, the Legitimist Bourbon Line and the Orleanist one.
F) In 1870, after a failed attempt to restore the Monarchy, the last Legitimist Pretendent Henry, Count of Paris, who is childless, agrees to declare the Orleanist Pretendent as his heir.
G) After Henry's death in 1885, the most part of Legitimists merges with Orleanist under old Orleanist and now Legitimist-Orelanist United Line.
H) But a minority, leaded by Henry's widow, opposes, arguing that the Treaty of Utrecht violated Succession Law (if abdication is forbidden, also the rejoice of their rights is) and so the Crown was of the last Spanish male Bourbon Line: the Carlists. This minority is called White Legitimists.
Meanwhile France becomes a republic with a President that has more power than a King.
So, when I said "Legitimist" I thought about main Legitimist Line, so Orleanist Line (Points F and G). Its Pretendent at time, John III, was strongly linked with Action Francoise and protested when AF was excommunicated by the Pope Pious XI in 1924 and Maurras himself pledged support to John's father, Philip VII, in 1909. Only problem for him is that John's son, Henry VI, was anti-fascists so could be some problems when John III will die in 1940.

2 Well, actually old Italian Succession Law was based on Salic Law so woman are excluded (and Filiberto's first daughter is born in 2003, so too late). Vittorio Emanuele IV has only sisters and so his father Umberto II. Umberto's grandfather, Umberto I, had only one son (Vittorio Emanuele III) so the next in line is a member of cadet branch of Savoia-Aosta, directly linked to Vittorio Emanuele II, first King of modern Italy, thorough Amedeo I, briefly King of Spain, and Emanuele Filiberto, General during World War I. Emanuele's first son Amedeo died during World War II with only daughters, so the heir is his brother Aimone, briefly King of Croatia, only son, Amedeo, Duke of Aosta. It's possible but would be a little traumatic.
 
Top