WI: Louis-Philippe I assassinated in 1835

His elder son, Ferdinand Philippe, gets on the throne under the name Philippe VII. He is young (25), charismatic, popular and liberal-minded. He would probably support Odilon Barrot's opposition dynastique (Dynastical opposition, left-wing Orleanists) and generaly the parti du mouvement against Broglie's resistance. The first decisions to make, however are not matters of home policy : marriage (Philippe VII is unmarried and many dynasties are not comfortable with marrying an Orléans "usurper") and Algeria (1835 is right in the middle of Abd-el-Kader's resistance).
 
His elder son, Ferdinand Philippe, gets on the throne under the name Philippe VII. He is young (25), charismatic, popular and liberal-minded. He would probably support Odilon Barrot's opposition dynastique (Dynastical opposition, left-wing Orleanists) and generaly the parti du mouvement against Broglie's resistance. The first decisions to make, however are not matters of home policy : marriage (Philippe VII is unmarried and many dynasties are not comfortable with marrying an Orléans "usurper") and Algeria (1835 is right in the middle of Abd-el-Kader's resistance).

Who knows, he might do somewhat better for a wife than a princess of Mecklenburg-Schwerin (doubtful, though) as king of the French than as heir to the throne.

Though this is assuming the crown descends to him peacefully, no French ruler in the last two decades has left the crown to his son. It would be nice if Chartres COULD break the precedent. It could also be interesting to see how the Légitimist Bourbons react - see it as Divine Providence, most likely (Madame Royal's reaction to hearing of Louis Philippe's deposition and failure to pass the crown to his grandson was a little too gleeful to be decent (though understandable). didn't she actually order a Te Deum sung or something?) Maybe a rising or two in favour of the comte de Chambord, the Bonapartes don't really have someone to rally behind - the king of Rome is dead, and Joseph, Comte de Survilliers is as unprepossessing as any Bourbon prince; to say nothing of hypochondriacal Louis and spendthrift Jérôme. Would be cool to see Chambord and Chartres duking it out;)
 
Who knows, he might do somewhat better for a wife than a princess of Mecklenburg-Schwerin (doubtful, though) as king of the French than as heir to the throne.

Though this is assuming the crown descends to him peacefully, no French ruler in the last two decades has left the crown to his son. It would be nice if Chartres COULD break the precedent. It could also be interesting to see how the Légitimist Bourbons react - see it as Divine Providence, most likely (Madame Royal's reaction to hearing of Louis Philippe's deposition and failure to pass the crown to his grandson was a little too gleeful to be decent (though understandable). didn't she actually order a Te Deum sung or something?) Maybe a rising or two in favour of the comte de Chambord, the Bonapartes don't really have someone to rally behind - the king of Rome is dead, and Joseph, Comte de Survilliers is as unprepossessing as any Bourbon prince; to say nothing of hypochondriacal Louis and spendthrift Jérôme. Would be cool to see Chambord and Chartres duking it out;)

1835 is hardly the best of times for legitimism. Chambord is only 15, his mother's second marriage has cast doubts on her character, the fact that both his grandfather and uncle still live confuses the die-hard legitimists. Compared to his cousin, Chambord, while not unknown and possibly popular, is seen as a child, not a leader.
 
1835 is hardly the best of times for legitimism. Chambord is only 15, his mother's second marriage has cast doubts on her character, the fact that both his grandfather and uncle still live confuses the die-hard legitimists. Compared to his cousin, Chambord, while not unknown and possibly popular, is seen as a child, not a leader.

Hardly the best time, but it could be worse - i.e. Chambord could have been out of France for the last 40yrs like in the 1870s with no heir except one he doesn't want; or he could still be underage requiring a regency. As to his uncle and grandfather, I'm sure that it could be arranged that they stay outside of France or that their 1830 abdications are binding
 
Hardly the best time, but it could be worse - i.e. Chambord could have been out of France for the last 40yrs like in the 1870s with no heir except one he doesn't want; or he could still be underage requiring a regency. As to his uncle and grandfather, I'm sure that it could be arranged that they stay outside of France or that their 1830 abdications are binding

That is the problem with divine right : you cannot intervene with God's designation. Ergo, abdications are not even possible. This is the reason many OTL legitimists were not Henriquinquistes until 1844.

Chambord was - barely - of legal age according to the medieval rules. But these rules did not make him a man in the eyes of 19th c. men
 
That is the problem with divine right : you cannot intervene with God's designation. Ergo, abdications are not even possible. This is the reason many OTL legitimists were not Henriquinquistes until 1844.

Chambord was - barely - of legal age according to the medieval rules. But these rules did not make him a man in the eyes of 19th c. men

There goes that idea. So, what might the future hold for King Philippe? Might his marital chances improve? Can he avoid a carriage accident? Will he keep his father's friendship with England? Or go with France's traditional allies?
 
Top