What if the French Revolution Failed Early but No Claimant

Suppose that the Austrians kick butt early and do something like trick 300,000 (not a misprint, hundreds of thousands) conscripts into going into a trap (woods, pit traps, cannons, wall of musketballs, exploding boxes, something). So you have a "battle" that's really a massacre of hundreds of thousands of conscripts.

The Austrians then win several pitched battles (actual battles) and take areas in Burgundy, and secure the entire Mediterranean cost, while looting the cities. Then then give peasants they requisition material from script that says "to be redeemed (whatever currency Austria does) when the Monarchy of France is restored by its legitimate claimant" because... let's say they blame the cityfolk for the revolution.

Britain and Spain enter on Austria's side, causing the Directory to cave. Marie Anotnette and Marie Thérese of France are freed by their captors when they think they can get pardons for freeing them. Too bad they already guillotined Louis XVI and the sons died in captivity of something. Yay for Monarchy!

Oh, but there are no male descendants of Louis XIII of France left. Most of them are French nobles, so we can say they got caught by the rebels. Charles IV of Spain would obviously not be dead. OK, let's say either the Hapsburgs won the War of Spanish Succession or Charles IV died of Salmonella infection without a heir. My point being, no male decedents of Louis XIII left, not even in Spain, and not even through mistresses.

So... What do the three allies do now? Race to Paris and whoever gets there choses the new King? Or do you think they can agree on a claimant?

Would Maria Beatrice of Savoy work? She has good ancestry, Philip V of Spain, Charles Emmanuel III of Sardinia, Maria Theresa of Austria...

I don't know how the next claimant is going to be chosen.
 
It wouldn't be first to Paris wins. The stability of Europe depends on no large scale war breaking out which would've happened if someone had tried to impose their choice without negotiations. Because of this, the powers of Europe largely agreed that a restorationist approach was best for the stability of Europe and the survival of their own thrones.

Even if you can feasibly kill all the descendents of Louis XIII, the next legitimate inheritors as far as I can tell would be the House of Bourbon-Condé with the heir being Louis Joseph, Prince of Condé and prince du sang of France as a descendent of Charles of Vendôme grandfather of Henry IV. After the House of Condé you'd also have the House of Conti.

The thing about French Salic Law is that it basically prevented a foreign dynasty from gaining a superior claim to the throne than that of a native French dynasty regardless of how far back you had to trace the line. There will almost always be a Bourbon cadet branch to draw upon and the French knew it which is why they had the rank of prince du sang to identify possible back-ups monarchs.

But let's say screw it, the Bourbons couldn't be trusted to hold onto their throne so we need a non-French dynasty to rule, and if you want legitimacy just marry the agreed claimant to Marie-Thérese.

If you start tracing the French monarch through female descendents of Henry IV (having killed off the descendents of Louis XIII), then the Spanish Habsburgs if as you said are still extant would have a decent claim. But, the British and Prussians wouldn't tolerate a Habsburg on the throne of France.

After the Habsburgs would come a Savoy claim but I doubt if there would be much support for Savoy to grow massively in power overnight amongst the other European powers (you can't win a war against France and have the French leave with more territory, which'd be the case even if you ensured that the same person didn't sit on both thrones).

After the Savoyards comes my favourite option: the House of Stuart. The only surviving claimant would be Henry Benedict Stuart, Cardinal-Duke of York who was 68 in 1793, which I think would be a hilarious outcome if he became Cardinal-King but this would only postpone the succession crisis and anyway the British would not countenance a Stuart on the throne of France.
 
It wouldn't be first to Paris wins. The stability of Europe depends on no large scale war breaking out which would've happened if someone had tried to impose their choice without negotiations. Because of this, the powers of Europe largely agreed that a restorationist approach was best for the stability of Europe and the survival of their own thrones.

Even if you can feasibly kill all the descendents of Louis XIII, the next legitimate inheritors as far as I can tell would be the House of Bourbon-Condé with the heir being Louis Joseph, Prince of Condé and prince du sang of France as a descendent of Charles of Vendôme grandfather of Henry IV. After the House of Condé you'd also have the House of Conti.

The thing about French Salic Law is that it basically prevented a foreign dynasty from gaining a superior claim to the throne than that of a native French dynasty regardless of how far back you had to trace the line. There will almost always be a Bourbon cadet branch to draw upon and the French knew it which is why they had the rank of prince du sang to identify possible back-ups monarchs.

But let's say screw it, the Bourbons couldn't be trusted to hold onto their throne so we need a non-French dynasty to rule, and if you want legitimacy just marry the agreed claimant to Marie-Thérese.

If you start tracing the French monarch through female descendents of Henry IV (having killed off the descendents of Louis XIII), then the Spanish Habsburgs if as you said are still extant would have a decent claim. But, the British and Prussians wouldn't tolerate a Habsburg on the throne of France.

After the Habsburgs would come a Savoy claim but I doubt if there would be much support for Savoy to grow massively in power overnight amongst the other European powers (you can't win a war against France and have the French leave with more territory, which'd be the case even if you ensured that the same person didn't sit on both thrones).

After the Savoyards comes my favourite option: the House of Stuart. The only surviving claimant would be Henry Benedict Stuart, Cardinal-Duke of York who was 68 in 1793, which I think would be a hilarious outcome if he became Cardinal-King but this would only postpone the succession crisis and anyway the British would not countenance a Stuart on the throne of France.

Oh, right, there can't be ruling Queen of France. I totally forgot about that. So that's why I looked at the first relative with prestigious ancestry.

Louis Joseph Prince of Conde and Prince du Sange seems like a perfectly good choice. I thought he was descended from Louis XIII? I can't remember. Ok, let's say he's not. So the Hapsburgs and the Hannovers agree he is the rightful claimant. Since they dispersed the conscript armies, the powers to be crown Louis Joseph as Louis XVII of France and Maria Caterina Brignole as Queen Consort. The old royal family, in laws like Marie Anotnette (now widowed) and daughters Marie Thérese of France stay as esteemed guests or something, Louis Joseph must have felt sorry for what his relatives had to do.

I'm quite sure the captors who killed Louis XVI but decided to spare the rest when the Austrians got close in hopes for pardons are... not going to get pardons.

And then someone needs to pay the bill for all the destruction the Austrians caused in the cities when they blamed the city folk for the revolution. Who's paying for Marsielle, Toulon, Hyres, and Lyon after the Austrians took anything portable and edible? If the crown pays for it, they would need to raise taxes which... well that's just asking for a repeat. Let's say the royal treasury does not get involved. I guess the locals are going to rebuild with their own money. Maybe they can beg from the peasants that Austria had mercy on?

First rates are expensive ships, I think 3 times as much as a third rate... before you crew it and put guns on. Maybe they can sell some of them to raise funds.

If Louis Joseph Prince of Conde is not a descendent of Louis XIII, I guess that's all my thoughts for this post. The rest doesn't mean much.



If Louis Joseph IS descended from Louis XIII, then let's say he died in the revolution too.

Now what? Well, we agreed that a restorations approach will be done, so the big players will find a claimant.

I needed a way to get Charles IV of Spain out of the way. If he died without heirs, that line isn't usable for the French throne on the account of being dead. If that line didn't keep the throne because the Hapsburgs won the succession war, then that actually means the Austrian Hapsburgs would be sitting there, as the Spanish line went extinct, that's what caused the war to begin with! I don't think the Austrian line has a claim to the throne of France. If they do, I think the British might be OK with it. Hannover and Austria always got along well (they were on the opposite sides of the Seven Years War, but they were never at war with each other and the Hannovers even sold supplies to the Hapsburgs, although that's not exactly a gift) and the British Monarch are Hannoverans. The Hapsburgs felt betrayed at the War of Austrian Succession when Britain said "look, we fought for most of your inheritance, we can't fight for Silesia" but there wasn't anonymity from the other side. If the Austrian Hapsburgs do have a legit claim (I think only the Spanish Hapsburgs do), the British might be OK with that as long as the Hapsburgs continue to make friendly overtones. France was always a rival, having France be used to serve Austrian continental interests instead of opposing British commercial and colonization interests would be nice. On the other hand, if the new Hapsburg King doesn't redirect France's overseas expansion funds towards rebuilding France and severing Austrian continental interests, the British would regret letting that happen. So maybe they won't let that happen just in case the new king does that!

OK next comes the Savoy claim. Actually, the Hapsburgs and the Hannoverans considered the Savoy friends. I think they wouldn't mind them becoming a power. Maria Theresa from a generation ago called them honest. polite, and friendly. There were intermarriages. The only problem with this is that France lost a war, why should it gain land? Savoy is a Duchy and someone who has that title and the Kingdom of France ill consider himself the French King first. As you said you can't win a war against France and have the French leave with more territory! Maybe split it between different dynasts?

And most amusing the Stuart claim. Is there anything wrong with an unmarried Stuart being King of France? He's not going to start a dynast there as King-Cardinal. That would be absolutely hilarious?

OK, if Louis Joseph is descended from Louis XIII, then what claimant do you think the British (Hannoveran) and Austrians (Hapsburgs) will agree on?
 
Huh, I just realized if Louis Joseph is alive, he's probably leading some dragoons (or whatever the French had for unarmored light cavalry) trying to free his cousin. He might even be with the Austrians on their mission.
 
Just curious, why is the line drawn at descendants of Louis XIII? Why not, for arguments sake, all male-line descendants of Hugh Capet? That way you can be sure that there is NO ONE with a male-line claim to the throne of France, and you can move to female-line descendants.

By the way, the Austrian Hapsburgs are descended through the female line from the Spanish Hapsburgs (all those uncle-niece and cousin-cousin marriages) - so if the Spanish Hapsburgs female-line claim is considered valid, then that claim could have passed to the Austrian Hapsburgs (although, strictly speaking the Spanish Bourbons were the elder female-line heirs to the last of the Spanish Hapsburgs than the Austrian Hapsburgs, which is why they ended up on the throne of Spain, but we're assuming that the Spanish Bourbons are killed off too)
 
Even if you can feasibly kill all the descendents of Louis XIII, the next legitimate inheritors as far as I can tell would be the House of Bourbon-Condé with the heir being Louis Joseph, Prince of Condé and prince du sang of France as a descendent of Charles of Vendôme grandfather of Henry IV. After the House of Condé you'd also have the House of Conti.

The thing about French Salic Law is that it basically prevented a foreign dynasty from gaining a superior claim to the throne than that of a native French dynasty regardless of how far back you had to trace the line. There will almost always be a Bourbon cadet branch to draw upon and the French knew it which is why they had the rank of prince du sang to identify possible back-ups monarchs.

But let's say screw it, the Bourbons couldn't be trusted to hold onto their throne so we need a non-French dynasty to rule, and if you want legitimacy just marry the agreed claimant to Marie-Thérese.

This is what will probably happen. And if the Condes are the first ones out of Dodge (or in this case France) when the Revolution hits (in OTL Louis Joseph fled in 1789 with his son and grandson after the Storming of the Bastille and were the leaders of the Royalists emigres armies) then you have the historical irony that with the main line of the Bourbons (and presumably the Orleans) wiped out the ultimate SURVIVING heir to the throne (given his grandfather and father unlikely to produce more legitimate children) will be Louis Antoine, the Duc de Enghien and we all know what happened to him in OTL.
 
Woops, I didn't check Louis Joseph de Conde's mother's family which is descended from Louis XIII. Also incidentally invalidated is the house of Conti. These incestous Bourbons don't make it easy to find heirs who aren't decended from Louis XIII.
 
So I've done more exploration and have found only a single unbroken line of male descent from Hugh Capet still extant at the time of the French Revolution which does not go through Louis XIII. This is the Royal House of Portugal, the House of Branganza. Sadly the reigning King of Portugal Joao VI is descended from Louis XIII in his mother's line (but I think given he was King of a foreign state he'd be spared any revolutionary fallout so is still suitable) The lineage goes Hugh Capet to Robert II of France to Robert I, Duke of Burgundy to Henry, Count of Portugal to King Alfonso I of Portugal then down to Joao VI. But there are two legitimised sons of Joao V of Portugal still alive (António de Brangança, and José de Brangança - who incidentally was the head of the Portuguese Inquisition) and who are also unbroken descendents of Hugh Capet in the male line but don't have Louis XIII ancestry.

Now the other important part I've learnt is the naming of the non-Capetian House of Lorraine as the successor House to the House of Bourbon in France under the terms of the Treaty of Monmatre 1662. By the Revolution the House of Lorraine had become the House of Habsburg-Lorraine and Holy Roman Emperors. In the original timeline because of the elevation of the Lorraines to the HRE the Spanish Bourbons had pledged to secure the French throne for their family if the French Bourbons died off to prevent it from falling into the hands of the Austrians through the Treaty of Escorial 1733, but with the butterflying away of the Spanish Bourbons this wouldn't occur.

So we have a few options:

Salic Law suggest that it's: Joao VI of Portugal
Salic Law + No Louis XIII descendents: António de Brangança, Filho de Palhavã
Treaty of Monmatre: probably Holy Roman Emperor Francis II of Habsburg-Lorraine
(Treaty of Escorial: Charles IV de Bourbon of Spain)

None of these would get universal support but if there are no Bourbons then maybe some second son of Portugal could be given the French Crown.

Or it might be easier to just crown Napoleon.
 
The reality is that if the main line of the House of Bourbon (males) are kiled then the next in line are Orleans, if they are killed then it is the Condes (who had already fled in 1789 before the Flight to Varennes or Reign in Terror when the country was still a monarchy). Louis Joseph, Prince of Conde would be crowned king if the Allies crushed the Revolution. That was how the law worked.

If for some reason the Condes are killed as well, then the obvious likelihood is that the victors who crush the Revolution will marry off Marie-Therese to either a cadet member of the Spanish Bourbons or, a version of OTL Habsburgs original plan when they traded prisoners with the Directory for Madame Royale in the hopes she would marry Archduke Charles, eventual Duke of Teschen, and claim the Kingdom of Navarre (which did not have Salic Law and had been ruled by Henri IV's mother) but in this timeline they would just claim the whole of France (since Archduke Charles was the senior member of the House of Lorraine - the next heirs if the Bourbons are completely extinguished - who did not already rule another county). If Marie Antoinette is alive she certainly would be the instigator of this (the only reason Marie Therese married her cousin the Duc of Angeloume was because Louis XVIII told her it was her dead parents' wish) and Marie Therese would agree to it. This would be a similar situation to Christian IX becoming King of Denmark, due to Salic Law, even though he was many, MANY times removed from the King before him, Frederick VII. He was more than acceptable, in public opinion, however, because his wife was the niece of Christian VIII and thus (along with her siblings who renounced their right to the throne) the ACTUAL closest linear heir.

Besides, since the Revolution in this timeline is crushed and the allies and royalists rule the roost in France, who is going to argue about Salic Law on this point?
 
So I've done more exploration and have found only a single unbroken line of male descent from Hugh Capet still extant at the time of the French Revolution which does not go through Louis XIII. This is the Royal House of Portugal, the House of Branganza. Sadly the reigning King of Portugal Joao VI is descended from Louis XIII in his mother's line (but I think given he was King of a foreign state he'd be spared any revolutionary fallout so is still suitable) The lineage goes Hugh Capet to Robert II of France to Robert I, Duke of Burgundy to Henry, Count of Portugal to King Alfonso I of Portugal then down to Joao VI. But there are two legitimised sons of Joao V of Portugal still alive (António de Brangança, and José de Brangança - who incidentally was the head of the Portuguese Inquisition) and who are also unbroken descendents of Hugh Capet in the male line but don't have Louis XIII ancestry.

Now the other important part I've learnt is the naming of the non-Capetian House of Lorraine as the successor House to the House of Bourbon in France under the terms of the Treaty of Monmatre 1662. By the Revolution the House of Lorraine had become the House of Habsburg-Lorraine and Holy Roman Emperors. In the original timeline because of the elevation of the Lorraines to the HRE the Spanish Bourbons had pledged to secure the French throne for their family if the French Bourbons died off to prevent it from falling into the hands of the Austrians through the Treaty of Escorial 1733, but with the butterflying away of the Spanish Bourbons this wouldn't occur.

So we have a few options:

Salic Law suggest that it's: Joao VI of Portugal
Salic Law + No Louis XIII descendents: António de Brangança, Filho de Palhavã
Treaty of Monmatre: probably Holy Roman Emperor Francis II of Habsburg-Lorraine
(Treaty of Escorial: Charles IV de Bourbon of Spain)

None of these would get universal support but if there are no Bourbons then maybe some second son of Portugal could be given the French Crown.

Or it might be easier to just crown Napoleon.

Well, Treaty of Escorial is moot since the Spanish Bourbons are decedents of Louis XIII.

Napoleon here is either a Corsican revolutionary traitor or maybe he's a Corsican royalist who heroically tried to stop the inevitable before realizing he had to cooperate with the Hapsbrugs to get stuff done. I didn't think about him, so I haven't decided. He might be made a count or marquess in the later case, but I don't think it would be easier to just crown him. Does he have Savoy ancestry? That might give him a legitimate claim if we ignore Salic Law.

OK, so we'll have five options here. We have Archduke Charles, António de Brangança, Francis II, Cardinal Henry Benedict Stuart, and a Savoy claimant. I don't think the Hapsburgs would like António de Brangança over Charles, Francis, or a Savoy claimant.

Let's say Marie-Therese thinks Charles, future Duke of Teschen and pretender to Navarre is cute and available. Well, it doesn't matter to you Marie-Therese, mom's family is choosing for you. Good thing her first choice is yours.

Someone said that Paris was controlled by the Royalists and allies. No, it's the allies. I don't think there was more than 1,000 royalists who were not noble born or working for the Catholic Church. There might have been some people who tagged along with the royalists, but I don't think there were that many actual royalists. The Revolution overthrew Louis XVI for a reason. So you can't really say something is controlled b the royalists if there aren't that many royalists left to be in control.

@Young Lochinvar

Which of the five options do you think the British would be OK with? Which do you think would be their first choice?

I'm sure they'd be OK with Francis II of Habsburg-Lorraine... IF he used France's resources to help Austrian continental interests rather than expanding French overseas postings. And I'm not sure they trust him enough for that.
 
Last edited:
Having looked up said Prince of Condé, it turns out he is descended from Louis XIII, via his paternal grandmother Louise Françoise de Bourbon (one of Louis XIV's daughters).

The Condé line does trace back to Louis IX, though.

Bourbon-Wiki.png


Louis Henry I is Louis Joseph's son, BTW.

At any rate, wouldn't the Spanish Bourbons have a greater claim though? I'm sure a spare Spanish prince could be found if needed.
 
I sus
Well, Treaty of Escorial is moot since the Spanish Bourbons are decedents of Louis XIII.

Which of the five options do you think the British would be OK with? Which do you think would be their first choice?

I'm sure they'd be OK with Francis II of Habsburg-Lorraine... IF he used France's resources to help Austrian continental interests rather than expanding French overseas postings. And I'm not sure they trust him enough for that.

I think Britain would tolerate a Lorraine like Teschen but only if the Houses of Austria and Spain are seperate. Let me explain. If the Habsburgs are on the throne of Spain still then the Habsburg-Lorraines are probably just the Lorraines as they won't need to appeal to continuing the Habsburg line to legitimate their HRE claim. This seperation of the Houses might make Charles future Duke Teschen married to Marie-Therese an acceptable compromise for Britain and Austria.

If not then probably the Portuguese claim for being distant both dynastically and geographically would be the compromise. Or maybe Savoy but I can's see Austria going for it.
 
Suppose that the Austrians kick butt early and do something like trick 300,000 (not a misprint, hundreds of thousands) conscripts into going into a trap (woods, pit traps, cannons, wall of musketballs, exploding boxes, something). So you have a "battle" that's really a massacre of hundreds of thousands of conscripts.

The Austrians then win several pitched battles (actual battles) and take areas in Burgundy, and secure the entire Mediterranean cost, while looting the cities. Then then give peasants they requisition material from script that says "to be redeemed (whatever currency Austria does) when the Monarchy of France is restored by its legitimate claimant" because... let's say they blame the cityfolk for the revolution.

Britain and Spain enter on Austria's side, causing the Directory to cave. Marie Anotnette and Marie Thérese of France are freed by their captors when they think they can get pardons for freeing them. Too bad they already guillotined Louis XVI and the sons died in captivity of something. Yay for Monarchy!

There are some anachronisms here. Marie-Antoinette was executed in 1793, a few months after her husband (and two years before their son died). The Directory did not take power until 1795, three years into the war (so not really an "early" failure of the Revolution). If you mean the Convention, then Louis XVII is still alive...

And it doesn't make any sense why Austria would try to conquer the Mediterranean coast of France. They want to occupy Paris ASAP and put their daughter and her husband back to power (if still alive). They're trying to help out their ally (the French royal family) not destroy it.
 
Whoops, I thought it was the Directory... Change the date of Guillotining Louis XVI to whatever makes this work, I just wanted to see how the Powers to be would figure out the succession with the obvious candidates gone

The Austrians weren't conquering. The coast was occupied for the Army's use, to give them more routes to Paris and to provision their own troops. The military commander's best case scenario is to reach Paris quickly. To do that he needs to have military victories. He needs to secure his flanks.

But if that flank is threatened, he needs to destroy that threat. Also, let's say the immediate road to Paris is blocked by a threat that is entrenched while the flank threat is on open ground? Ok, go destroy that. Well, there is a city 3 days away. You know what, that food there is probably better than army rations. We destroyed the army blocking, let's sack it. Oh, looks like the road to Paris is still blockaded. We don't want to make a full frontal assault on fortifications (see Bunker Hill) and avoiding the road means we have to stop using wagons for the supply train, which is BAD. Let's find another road, we need to march West.

In short, sometimes tactical decisions override operational objectives. Many times a military commander did so.

And is the commander going to get sacked? He won battlefield victories AND the objective of securing Maria Antoinette physically unharmed was achieved.

Alternately, multiple Austrian armies fight. The North one keeps running into the teeth of the conscript defenses while the diversionary central commander makes his gains West.

I don't doubt the initial Austrian goal. It's easy to think of multiple ways the "wrong" direction is the one advanced in.

Anyways, do you agree with Lochivair that Charles of Teschen will be acceptable tot he British?
 
Can you explain this? The Plantagenets are dead, the Hundred Years War is over.
"From 1340 to 1801, with only brief intervals in 1360–69 and 1420–22, the kings and queens of England (and, later, of Great Britain) also assumed the title of King or Queen of France."

More of a formality than an actual claim (sort of like the Spanish kings with the Duchy of Burgundy) but they didn't get rid of the title until the French people got rid of their king. The joke here being that the Stuarts claimed the English throne for a very long time and led intermittent armed conflicts to regain the English throne over about a century. Had they inherited the French throne while continuing to claim the English throne, then it could lead to another war of succession (probably not successful but so were the Jacobites anyways), this time France over England. Just thought it would be an amusing parallel.
 
Top