WI: A Third Restoration

So after the Franco-Prussian War a third Restoration was practically assured. The Legitimists and Orleanists had agreed to a compromise, in which the Legitimist heir, Henri,Comte de Chambord, would assume the throne as Henri V and his heir would be Philippe Come de Paris. However the Restoration fell through because Henri wouldn't accept the revolutionary tricolor as the national Flag. So lets say Henri swallows his pride and accepts the flag, with the old Bourbon flag as his personal standard ( a deal offered and turned down OTL) and is restored in 1871. What would his reign look like like? What would France's domestic, Foreign, and Colonial policy be under the Third Restoration? In OTL Henri's wife was unable to produce a child, so would Henri divorce/annul her and remarry in an attempt to produce a new heir after the Restoration,thus annulling the deal with the House of Orleans? If not what would Philippe VII's reign look like?
 
Last edited:
The problem is, as usual, monarchists think the people would follow..

and it was clear actually that there would be, in the hearts of frenchmen, NO MORE KINGS. EVER.

Such an act from the top would have digusted the people.



(This trend of always wanting to put monarchs and nobles around in alt. history, too... )
 
The problem is, as usual, monarchists think the people would follow..

and it was clear actually that there would be, in the hearts of frenchmen, NO MORE KINGS. EVER.

Such an act from the top would have digusted the people.



(This trend of always wanting to put monarchs and nobles around in alt. history, too... )

If the people didn't want a monarchy then whey wouldn't have elected the monarchists. In the 1871 elections 396 deputies that were monarchists were elected. So if the French people were not open to the possibility of a Restoration they wouldn't have elected them.
 
If the people didn't want a monarchy then whey wouldn't have elected the monarchists. In the 1871 elections 396 deputies that were monarchists were elected. So if the French people were not open to the possibility of a Restoration they wouldn't have elected them.

That's not how politics works.

I vote for the Democratic party, but that does'nt mean I want everything they stand for, but rather to keep the other party out of power and because they're the only ones who're gonna get elected that are anywhere near my positions, essentially the same thing is ture, though to a lesser extent due to different politics, in late 19th century France.
 
That's not how politics works.

I vote for the Democratic party, but that does'nt mean I want everything they stand for, but rather to keep the other party out of power and because they're the only ones who're gonna get elected that are anywhere near my positions, essentially the same thing is ture, though to a lesser extent due to different politics, in late 19th century France.

OK I agree on that point. However whether or not everyone wanted another monarchy is not the point of this thread. The point is what would the politics and policies of late eighteenth century and early nineteenth century France be like under a monarchy.
 
That's not how politics works.

I vote for the Democratic party, but that does'nt mean I want everything they stand for, but rather to keep the other party out of power and because they're the only ones who're gonna get elected that are anywhere near my positions, essentially the same thing is ture, though to a lesser extent due to different politics, in late 19th century France.

Hang on, did the Monarchists stand for anything else in particular besides the monarchy?
 
OK I agree on that point. However whether or not everyone wanted another monarchy is not the point of this thread. The point is what would the politics and policies of late eighteenth century and early nineteenth century France be like under a monarchy.

The same as they were for the most part, since France did have a Monarchy most of that time period; the Kingdom of France existed until 1792, while France had a different Monarchy several times after that in the 19th century, specifically 1804-1814, 1815-1830, 1830-1848 and 1852-1870.

So, as we can see France was a monarchy 80% of the time in the late 18th century and 62% of the time in the 19th century.
 
If the people didn't want a monarchy then whey wouldn't have elected the monarchists. In the 1871 elections 396 deputies that were monarchists were elected. So if the French people were not open to the possibility of a Restoration they wouldn't have elected them.


Not quite true. The Monarchists won bwcause the were the peace party, whereas both Republicans and Bonapartists wished to fight on. Once the peace treaty with Germany had been signed, their support rapidly dwindled.
 
Hang on, did the Monarchists stand for anything else in particular besides the monarchy?

Conservatism in general.

The Republican parties were either liberal, socialist or while being Right of Center held views similar to the previous two in some areas and thus would not be seen as truly conservative.

Also, one of the reasons the Monarchists did so well is because they faovured peace with Prussia AND a good chunk of France was occupied during the elections; it's telling that when you go from Monarchists winning 416/675 (61.6%) seats in 1871 to only winning 140/533 (26.2%) in 1876.
 
Hang on, did the Monarchists stand for anything else in particular besides the monarchy?

Not particularly, no. The Legitimists and Orleanists stood for different types of monarchy but considering that the two monarchist factions had existed for decades their stances should have been known at that point.

The same as they were for the most part, since France did have a Monarchy most of that time period; the Kingdom of France existed until 1792, while France had a different Monarchy several times after that in the 19th century, specifically 1804-1814, 1815-1830, 1830-1848 and 1852-1870.

So, as we can see France was a monarchy 80% of the time in the late 18th century and 62% of the time in the 19th century.

How could they be exactly the same? There is a big difference between 1830/1848 and 1871. So I don't see how the politics could be the same. Also the people of France weren't ignorent. They would know that the monarchists planned to restore the monarchy or there would have at least been rumors to that effect. If the people were so against the idea then they would have been mass protests and riots in the streets. Its not like the French don't know how to over through a government. But there were no mass protests or riots so the people were either apathetic or somewhat pro-monarchy.
 
Last edited:
How could they be exactly the same? There is a big difference between 1830/1848 and 1871. So I don't see how the politics could be the same.

You said "The point is what would the politics and policies of late eighteenth century and early nineteenth century France be like under a monarchy.", not what would they be like under a specific Dynasty.
 
You said "The point is what would the politics and policies of late eighteenth century and early nineteenth century France be like under a monarchy.", not what would they be like under a specific Dynasty.

OK. So what would the politics look like under the Bourbons and what would they look like under the Orleans? And I mention specific Dynasties. Henri, Comte de Chambord for the Legitimists/Bourbons and Philippe Comte de Paris for the Orleanists/Orleans.
 
OK. So what would the politics look like under the Bourbons and what would they look like under the Orleans?

France from 1815-1830 was ruled by the Bourbons and from 1830-1848 was ruled by the Orléans, so you just have to look at those period and extrapulate general ideas; how the politics develop would be very much dependant on circumstances and how history plays out, their really is no definitave answer to the question.


And I mention specific Dynasties. Henri, Comte de Chambord for the Legitimists/Bourbons and Philippe Comte de Paris for the Orleanists/Orleans.

That's the late 19th century though.
 
Last edited:
Sorry I meant the late nineteenth and early twentieth centuries. Its difficult to guess how the would reign because of the amount of time that has passed between when the respective dynasties were deposed. For the Bourbons it would have been 41 years and for the Orleanists 23 years. Times change and so does politics. I find it heard to imagine that that they (the dynasties) would govern the same way when they were deposed because of their actions. At least for the House of Orleans, they would definitely change for the times, however I doubt the Comte de Chambord would change.
 
Well, in general you might end-up with a situation where France and Austria/Austria-Hungary develop better/closer relations in concern over Prussia.


So, here's a little scenarios;

It's the 1850s and France, under a the House of Orléans, has a youngish, liberal King who knows how far he can go and what's overstepping his boundaries and causing the potetnial for Revolution.

The King has developed some ideas similar to what Napoleon III did IOTL, that is that France should be a Constitutional Parliamentary Monarchy and the King's position should be that of a more or less politically neutral ruler who primarily reigned but also actively tries to ensure the continued growth and progress of the country, essentially hands off apart from exceptional times or in the name of the country.
Under this King France stabilizes politically somewhat and enters a period of economic and industrial growth.

The Crimean War comes and goes more or less as per OTL, though with France developing more of an interest in the OE afterwards.

In the late 1850's the threat of Prussia starts to become apparent, leading to Austria and France developing closer relations.

Sometime in the first half of the 1860's Italian Unification becomes a major issue, however it poses a dilemna for France; on the one hand they don't want to endanger their developing relations with Austria on the other hand they want to improve their relations with Sardinia, ultimately a compromise is found, though not everyone is happy with it; France supports Sardinia in their conquest of northern and central Italy, excluding Lombardy-Venetia and the city of Rome and its environs, and in return is ceded most of the County of Nice (slightly smaller than OTL).
Essentially this created a situation in which Italia is split between the Kingdom of the Two-Sicilies in the South, the Kingdom of Sardinia in the Northwest and Central Italy, the Independent State of Rome and Austria in the Northeast.
This cools tensions and calls for unification for the time being and allows France to focus on other matters.

As a result of the butterflies from their relations with France Austria and the South German states don't support Prussia, leading the war to be seen as one between Europes two 'Armies with States', rather than a German war.

Tensions remain high in the 1860's, with Prussia seeing itself as the true power of the German lands, eventually leading to a dispute and ultimately war sparked by a Pan-German uprising in Baden in the 1880's with Prussia and the North German states on one side and France and Austria on the other and Sardinia wondering if siding with Prussia might just allow them to fulfill their goal of Italian Unification.
 
If the people didn't want a monarchy then whey wouldn't have elected the monarchists. In the 1871 elections 396 deputies that were monarchists were elected. So if the French people were not open to the possibility of a Restoration they wouldn't have elected them.

Half of France was occupied by Prussia. Elections were rigged. 5 years later a super majority of republicans was elected. There is no way the opinion would have changed so radically in 5 years.

How could they be exactly the same? There is a big difference between 1830/1848 and 1871. So I don't see how the politics could be the same. Also the people of France weren't ignorent. They would know that the monarchists planned to restore the monarchy or there would have at least been rumors to that effect.

Royalist were for peace. Republicans for war. Combine that with the obvious election rigging, and you have a monarchist majority.

If the people were so against the idea then they would have been mass protests and riots in the streets. Its not like the French don't know how to over through a government. But there were no mass protests or riots so the people were either apathetic or somewhat pro-monarchy.

No protest or riots ? I suppose the Commune of Paris, Lyon, Marseilles, Limoges, Saint-Etienne, etc... don't count. The various insurection were only put down because the prussians supported the monarchist government and besieged Paris with them.

You want to know the history of France after 1871 with a monarchist government ? Bloody. Bloody and unstable (like every minority regime) until another revolution happen and establish the republic again.

(This trend of always wanting to put monarchs and nobles around in alt. history, too... )

I also find this trend quite strange.
 
Half of France was occupied by Prussia.

Only about a quarter o it actually

Elections were rigged. 5 years later a super majority of republicans was elected. There is no way the opinion would have changed so radically in 5 years.

It hadn't changed. People weren't voting for Monarchy, but for peace. Once they had peace, there was no reason to go on voting for Monarchists.



No protest or riots ? I suppose the Commune of Paris, Lyon, Marseilles, Limoges, Saint-Etienne, etc... don't count. The various insurection were only put down because the prussians supported the monarchist government and besieged Paris with them.

The Prussians just stood aside during the Paris Commune, and let the French get on with it.

Lyon, Marseilles and Limoges were all far outside the area of German occupation, so German attitudes were irrelevant.
 
It hadn't changed. People weren't voting for Monarchy, but for peace. Once they had peace, there was no reason to go on voting for Monarchists.

Which still prove my point : there is now way that the French population would accept a king after the franco-prussian war. And i'm still not sure about the legality of the vote.

The Prussians just stood aside during the Paris Commune, and let the French get on with it.

They actively collaborated in the suppression of the Commune when they were half the troops besieging Paris. They didn't get dirty like the Versaillais when they had to finally get into the city, but they still blocked food getting into Paris. Whithout them, i'm not sure that the Versaillais would have been able to besiege Paris efficiently.
 
Top