WI: Henri, Count of Chambord accepts the French throne without any demand?

As in the title, what if this guy didn´t demand the flag to be changed and just became king? What would have his power been? Would France be a constitutional monarchy? How would people view him as a Bourbon?
 
As in the title, what if this guy didn´t demand the flag to be changed and just became king? What would have his power been? Would France be a constitutional monarchy? How would people view him as a Bourbon?

There was also the fact that his marriage was childless, and he wouldn't get a divorce. The Spanish Bourbons were barred from the French succession, so in Henri's mind, if he accepted the throne and died without issue, the throne would likely pass to the House of Orleans, which since the revolution, were regarded as traitors by the main Bourbon branch.
 
There was also the fact that his marriage was childless, and he wouldn't get a divorce. The Spanish Bourbons were barred from the French succession, so in Henri's mind, if he accepted the throne and died without issue, the throne would likely pass to the House of Orleans, which since the revolution, were regarded as traitors by the main Bourbon branch.
What if he would have gotten a divorce or had children?
 
That would require him to change completely. He was a guy who wanted the ancien regime back. No way he would accept the tricolore, or a position that give him little power over the state.
 
That would require him to change completely. He was a guy who wanted the ancien regime back. No way he would accept the tricolore, or a position that give him little power over the state.
Why was he so extremist, more so when the crown was offered to him out of nothing after 2 revolutions throw his family off?
 
If you ask different peoples, he was to accept the alliance with Orleanists, he was to be more liberal, he was to so many things. Then Reality Ensues.
Given the huge division of french royalists and the "splendid isolation" of Chambord during decades, no wonder such "I sware, he totally told me so" made it, but it doesn't mean it had any chance to happen or even to be an actual project of the pretender.


Henri V was so dyed in the ultra-royalist wood 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.

Now, if Charles X suddenly changes his policy (but it would need a really good PoD) before 1826-1828 period, what happen after 1830 could be modified, and Henri d'Artois *could* be more liberal leaned by the grace of butterflies (seeing the legitimist court circles, not gonna happen easily).

After that, it's dead meat. 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 critically 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.
 
If you ask different peoples, he was to accept the alliance with Orleanists, he was to be more liberal, he was to so many things. Then Reality Ensues.
Given the huge division of french royalists and the "splendid isolation" of Chambord during decades, no wonder such "I sware, he totally told me so" made it, but it doesn't mean it had any chance to happen or even to be an actual project of the pretender.


Henri V was so dyed in the ultra-royalist wood 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.

Now, if Charles X suddenly changes his policy (but it would need a really good PoD) before 1826-1828 period, what happen after 1830 could be modified, and Henri d'Artois *could* be more liberal leaned by the grace of butterflies (seeing the legitimist court circles, not gonna happen easily).

After that, it's dead meat. 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 critically 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.
Is there any chance for a constitutional monarchy in France after the Second Empire?
 
Is there any chance for a constitutional monarchy in France after the Second Empire?
Well, there's the Fifth Republic...

Joke apart, not much.

You can't overestimate the influence that Republicanism had in France at this point, 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).

Even the elections, while giving royalists a majority, wasn't that devastating for republicans.

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

To be compared with the next election

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


Meaning 321 Republicans against 214 Orleanists and 182 Legitimists. Why don't I mix both of these?
Because they were hugely divided : while republicans were divided between radicals, moderate and liberals but all defining their immediate political objective as the establishment of the Republic; Orleanists and Legitimists had some bad blood between them and really different political stances.

Roughly :
- Orléanistes are the ancestor of center-right, more or less liberal/conservatives, more ready to act on concessions.
- Légitimistes range from traditionalist conception of state to outright counter-revolutionaries conceptions.

There was a really tiny and limited time window for a monarchic restoration, that depended on two really opposite conception of monarchy and state to suddenly get along.
Even assuming it somehow happened, giving the quick political decline, the said restoration would be over before anyone saying "Guillotine".
And after this window of opportunity gone, you never had any monarchist revival worth of mention.
 
Well, there's the Fifth Republic...

Joke apart, not much.

You can't overestimate the influence that Republicanism had in France at this point, 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).

Even the elections, while giving royalists a majority, wasn't that devastating for republicans.


To be compared with the next election

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

Meaning 321 Republicans against 214 Orleanists and 182 Legitimists. Why don't I mix both of these?
Because they were hugely divided : while republicans were divided between radicals, moderate and liberals but all defining their immediate political objective as the establishment of the Republic; Orleanists and Legitimists had some bad blood between them and really different political stances.

Roughly :
- Orléanistes are the ancestor of center-right, more or less liberal/conservatives, more ready to act on concessions.
- Légitimistes range from traditionalist conception of state to outright counter-revolutionaries conceptions.

There was a really tiny and limited time window for a monarchic restoration, that depended on two really opposite conception of monarchy and state to suddenly get along.
Even assuming it somehow happened, giving the quick political decline, the said restoration would be over before anyone saying "Guillotine".
And after this window of opportunity gone, you never had any monarchist revival worth of mention.
If the window of oppurtunity led to an "Orleanist" solution, would the moderate republicans really still go after the monarchy if the later has few powers or is not bad?
 
I doubt that it would lead to an Orleanist outcome, because that would mean Legitimist won't support them at all, and Orleanists didn't have a majority to begin with. A royalist restoration at the end of Franco-Prussian war have to go trough a compromise between Orleanists and Legitmists. And I think we see how insanely hard it is.
 
I doubt that it would lead to an Orleanist outcome, because that would mean Legitimist won't support them at all, and Orleanists didn't have a majority to begin with. A royalist restoration at the end of Franco-Prussian war have to go trough a compromise between Orleanists and Legitmists. And I think we see how insanely hard it is.
Why in the world couldn´t legitimist take a compromise in the chance of making the monarchy stronger in the future?
 
Why in the world couldn´t legitimist take a compromise in the chance of making the monarchy stronger in the future?
Because 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.

You 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.If Henri de Chambord somehow accepted some compromise, you can bet everything you have that another problem would have appeared.
 
Top