WI: Marie Therese Charlotte, Duchesse d'Anglouleme had a son?

OK for those of you who don't know, Marie-Therese Charlotte, Madame Royale and Duchesse d'Anglouleme, was the only surviving child of Louis XVI and Marie Antoinette. She spend three years imprisoned in the Tower, during which her father, mother and aunt were executed and her brother died. She was released to Austria in 1795, she later married her cousin Louis-Antoine Duc d'Angouleme and triumphantly returned from exile with her surviving family in 1814. Sadly, she was forced back into exile in August 1830 by the July revolution, dieing in Austria in 1851. She and her husband had no children.

This is the basic summery of her life. However, there is a little known fact about her not mention in any sources. In 1813, the Duchesse was pregnant, sadly she miscarried, and never conceived again. So what if she hadn't miscarried and had carried her child to term, and what if this child was a son? How would this affect history? Her son would be 17 at the time of the July revolution, so would he succeed to the throne instead of Louis-Philippe? What would a continued Bourbon dynasty look like? Would France be a more stable nation in the 19th century?
 
Last edited:
OK for those of you who don't know, Marie-Therese Charlotte, Madame Royale and Duchesse d'Anglouleme, was the only surviving child of Louis XVI and Marie Antoinette. She spend three years imprisoned in the Tower, during which her father, mother and aunt were executed and her brother died. She was released to Austria in 1795, she later married her cousin Louis-Antoine Duc d'Angouleme and triumphantly returned from exile with her surviving family in 1814. Sadly, she was forced back into exile in August 1830 by the July revolution, dieing in Austria in 1851. She and her husband had no children.

This is the basic summery of her life. However, there is a little known fact about her not mention in any sources. In 1813, the Duchesse was pregnant, sadly she miscarried, and never conceived again. So what if she hadn't miscarried and had carried her child to term, and what if this child was a son? How would this affect history? Her son would be 17 at the time of the July revolution, so wold he succeed to the throne instead of Louis-Philippe? What would a continued Bourbon dynasty look like? Would France be a more stable nation in the 19th century?

Was France still under Salic Law after the restoration? If so, he wouldn't have been able to inherit the throne.
 
Sucrose said:
Was France still under Salic Law after the restoration? If so, he wouldn't have been able to inherit the throne.
Actually yes he could have. Not because of his mother but because of his father: The Duke of Angoulême was the eldest son of Charles X. In fact, when his father abdicated, he technically became Louis XIX for twenty minutes before he himself signed his abdication/renounciation to the throne. If the Duke of Angoulême and Madame Royale had a son (Louis?), said son would be second-in-line before the Duke of Berry (Charles X's second son, assassinated in 1820) and the latter's son (Henri, Count of Chambord, later pretender under the name Henri V OTL).

That said, I'm not sure the son of Madame Royale and the Duke of Angoulême would be considered as a replacement for Charles X. It would depend a lot of his attitude, ideas and skills of course but given his family and their view of the French Revolution, I'm not sure he would be well seen by the Revolutionnaries of July.

What could be interesting though is that if events go as per OTL (July Monarchy, Second Republic, Second Empire and Franco-Prussian War), the son of the Duke of Angoumême would most likely be the candidate for the Monarchists looking for a Third Restoration if, as per OTL, Legitimists and Orléanist come to a compromise. Then again, his personna would be central: that's why Chambord lost his chance OTL.
 
M. Le duc was heir in his own right. His father was Charles X, brother of Louis XVI, who was father of Marie.

The succession was
Louis le Dauphin
Louis XVI
Louis XVII, son of Louis XVI (nominal, died during the revolution)
Louis XVIII brother of Louis XVI
Charles X brother of Louis XVII and Louis XVIII abdicated 1830
Louis XIX , (duc d'Anglouleme) son of Charles X, nominally king for a few minutes after his father abdicated , until he also abdicated
Hypothetical son of Louis XIX. Not sure why he would not be included in the mass abdications
de jure, Henri V , posthumous son of duc de Berri, younger son of Charles X , younger brother of Louis XIX.

I can't see why a son of M. le duc would be acceptable, when his father was not ?

The odd thing about the childlessness of the Angloulemes was that everyone at the time seemed to accept it as an inevitable fact. Usually a childless royal heir, people keep hoping, there are rumours of pregnancies, "keep trying" and so on.

Whereas with them there seemed a near universal acceptance "not going to be anything in that quarter".(at the time of the miscarriage mentioned, they had been married 14 years).

That is why the assassination if the duc de Berri was so reviled and the birth of his posthumous son, le Dieu Donne (Henri V) so ecstatically received.

I wonder what the knowing ones knew?
 
Last edited:
M. Le duc was heir in his own right. His father was Charles X, brother of Louis XVI, who was father of Marie.

The succession was
Louis le Dauphin
Louis XVI
Louis XVII, son of Louis XVI (nominal, died during the revolution)
Louis XVIII brother of Louis XVI
Charles X brother of Louis XVII and Louis XVIII abdicated 1830
Louis XIX , (duc d'Anglouleme) son of Charles X, nominally king for a few minutes after his father abdicated , until he also abdicated
Hypothetical son of Louis XIX. Not sure why he would not be included in the mass abdications
de jure, Henri V , posthumous son of duc de Berri, younger son of Charles X , younger brother of Louis XIX.

I can't see why a son of M. le duc would be acceptable, when his father was not ?

The odd thing about the childlessness of the Angloulemes was that everyone at the time seemed to accept it as an inevitable fact. Usually a childless royal heir, people keep hoping, there are rumours of pregnancies, "keep trying" and so on.

Whereas with them there seemed a near universal acceptance "not going to be anything in that quarter". That is why the assassination if the duc de Berri was so reviled and the birth of his posthumous son, le Dieu Donne (Henri V) so ecstatically received.

I wonder what the knowing ones knew?

"Louis' '" father was seen as too reactionary (ironic, as Louis-Antoine was an admirer of England's Parliament) and because Henri V was so young Louis-Philippe was appointed Regent, but was able to manipulate the situation so that he (Louis-Philippe) became King. Here we would have a 17 year old as the next in line. It would be much more difficult to cut out a young man who's views aren't yet known. He could be liberal (I use that term loosely) or conservative. Either way, however, there would be no appointment of the Duc d'Orleans as Regent, but an automatic succession of Louis XX (I'm guessing Louis XIX's short reign would be recognized by his son).

And to the no hope part, not entirely true. In the early years of the Bourbon Restoration there was huge outpouring of hope that Marie Therese would have a child. I remember reading in my bio on her that some people promised to donate a a baby's wait in gold if the Duchesse were to have a child. But at that point there were large rumors that Marie had been given drugs to make her infertile while in the Tower prison. As she only conceived once, in England, many French probably believed the rumors.
 
Last edited:
And to the no hope part, not entirely true. In the early years of the Bourbon Restoration there was huge outpouring of hope that Marie Therese would have a child. I remember reading in my bio on her that some people promised to donate a a baby's wait in gold if the Duchesse were to have a child. But at that point there were large rumors that Marie had been given drugs to make her infertile while in the Tower prison. As she only conceived once, in England, many French probably believed the rumors.

Hm. But might not such extravagant promises indicate that the maker thought there was not much hope ?

Though I was really referring to the attitude of the 'knowing ones' , family, close courtiers, foreign ambassadors and such like. Even before the restoration they seemed to pin the succession on the Berri line (after M. le duc himself, of course) . But I may just be seeing that with hindsight.
 
Emperor Constantine said:
"Louis'" father was seen as too reactionary (ironic, as Louis-Antoine was an admirer of England's Parliament) and because Henri V was so young Louis-Philippe was appointed Regent, but was able to manipulate the situation so that he (Louis-Philippe) became King. Here we would have a 17 year old as the next in line. It would be much more difficult to cut out a young man who's views aren't yet known. He could be liberal (I use that term loosely) or conservative. Either way, however, there would be no appointment of the Duc d'Orleans as Regent, but an automatic succession of Louis XX (I'm guessing Louis XIX's short reign would be recognized by his son)
I still think it would be hard for the son of the Duke of Angoulême to be considered as the next King. He might be 17, but he is still the grandson of the reactionnary Charles X. Not to mention he is the son of Madame Royale, who herself was reactionnary (though who can blame her? her parents were beheaded, her younger brother died at 10 in prison after being mistreated and she was mistreated herself). Definitely not good on his curiculum. Of course, it will all depend on his character and uprbinging. Plus, because he is 17, some people might think he is more malleable.
Emperor Constantine said:
And to the no hope part, not entirely true. In the early years of the Bourbon Restoration there was huge outpouring of hope that Marie Therese would have a child. I remember reading in my bio on her that some people promised to donate a a baby's wait in gold if the Duchesse were to have a child. But at that point there were large rumors that Marie had been given drugs to make her infertile while in the Tower prison. As she only conceived once, in England, many French probably believed the rumors.
I think there were also rumors about the Duke of Angoulême being infertile.
 
For the fertility, it may have been something similar to William and Mary, with both spouses having trouble.

We don't have the slightest clue what caused William and Mary's infertility. It could have been him, her, or both of them, and could have been caused by any of a thousand things. Nothing has been proven or even generally agreed upon.

Cousin marriages are no more or less likely to be infertile than unrelated marriages. Daughters of cousin marriages, however, can experience reduced fertility, even if they marry outside the family.
 
We don't have the slightest clue what caused William and Mary's infertility. It could have been him, her, or both of them, and could have been caused by any of a thousand things. Nothing has been proven or even generally agreed upon.

Cousin marriages are no more or less likely to be infertile than unrelated marriages. Daughters of cousin marriages, however, can experience reduced fertility, even if they marry outside the family.

Well it was pretty obvious that it was both if you look at circumstantial evidence. Mary only had one pregnancy, miscarried and never conceived again. William had a relationship with Elizabeth Villiers for 15 years, and she had no pregnancies. However, once the relationship ended and Elizabeth married, she had three daughters in quick succession. So its pretty obvious that William had some issues in the bedroom.
 
Was France still under Salic Law after the restoration? If so, he wouldn't have been able to inherit the throne.

Yes he would, because the Duc d'Angouleme was the actual heir to the throne then. His existence might well have butterflied his own abdication...
 
Given that the Duchesse of Angouleme was at least as reactionary as Charles X and potentially more 'active' (when she tried to raise a royalist resistance in Bordeaux during the 100 Days Napoleon commented 'She's the only man in her family') the flag (white or tricolor) would have be an immediate issue.
 
I remember reading somewhere that the duchesse d'Angoulême thought she was pregnant in 1807, and again in 1818.

I can't seem to find any support for the '07 date, but Nagel and Fraser both suggest that the 1818 date was the onset of menopause.

Also, despite everything, the French people, while they HATED Charles X, they adored the duchesse d'Angoulême (IDK about in 1830 but in Louis XVIII's reign definitely). And that adoration was based partly on Louis XVIII's spin-doctoring of her life in exile (an occasion comes to mind of how during their exile, their coach broke down en route in Poland, and she walked alongside Louis XVIII (in the midst of a snowstorm) to the nearest inn). IDK if the story's true or not, but a print was published calling her "La Nouvelle Antigone" after the faithful daughter of Œdipus in Greek mythology.
The other part of her popularity came from how the French saw her at the Restauration as "the orphan of the Temple".

And the duc d'Angoulême's abdication is likely to remain OTL since SHE basically bullied/cajoled him to abdicate.

As to her son's education, he will turn 7 in 1820, when according to custom, his education would be turned over to men. In 1820, Louis XVIII was still alive, so he might pull a stunt similar to Charles II with Mary II and Anne, and give his grandnephew "more liberal" tutors than what his mother/grandfather have in mind. Thus, by 1824, the boy is 11, and has been under liberal tutwlage for about 4years, slightly more difficult to undo than for Chambord who was not yet 4 when Louis XVIII died.

IMHO the accession of her son, call him Louis XX, might be regarded by some the same as Foxe attributed the succession of Elizabeth I as queen to God's justice declaring Anne Boleyn's innocence. Granted, this is in a less spiritual time, but MT was very pious and would've definitely seen it as God's exoneration of her parents and aunt's "crimes". I could even see her maybe commissioning artworks to that effect, like a painting of her as France, handing the crown to her son, pointing at a painting of her father. I realize that such paintings were going/completely out of fashion, but it's a suggestion.
 
Last edited:
I remember reading somewhere that the duchesse d'Angoulême thought she was pregnant in 1807, and again in 1818.

I can't seem to find any support for the '07 date, but Nagel and Fraser both suggest that the 1818 date was the onset of menopause.

Also, despite everything, the French people, while they HATED Charles X, they adored the duchesse d'Angoulême (IDK about in 1830 but in Louis XVIII's reign definitely). And that adoration was based partly on Louis XVIII's spin-doctoring of her life in exile (an occasion comes to mind of how during their exile, their coach broke down en route in Poland, and she walked alongside Louis XVIII (in the midst of a snowstorm) to the nearest inn). IDK if the story's true or not, but a print was published calling her "La Nouvelle Antigone" after the faithful daughter of Œdipus in Greek mythology.
The other part of her popularity came from how the French saw her at the Restauration as "the orphan of the Temple".

And the duc d'Angoulême's abdication is likely to remain OTL since SHE basically bullied/cajoled him to abdicate.

As to her son's education, he will turn 7 in 1820, when according to custom, his education would be turned over to men. In 1820, Louis XVIII was still alive, so he might pull a stunt similar to Charles II with Mary II and Anne, and give his grandnephew "more liberal" tutors than what his mother/grandfather have in mind. Thus, by 1824, the boy is 11, and has been under liberal tutwlage for about 4years, slightly more difficult to undo than for Chambord who was not yet 4 when Louis XVIII died.

IMHO the accession of her son, call him Louis XX, might be regarded by some the same as Foxe attributed the succession of Elizabeth I as queen to God's justice declaring Anne Boleyn's innocence. Granted, this is in a less spiritual time, but MT was very pious and would've definitely seen it as God's exoneration of her parents and aunt's "crimes". I could even see her maybe commissioning artworks to that effect, like a painting of her as France, handing the crown to her son, pointing at a painting of her father. I realize that such paintings were going/completely out of fashion, but it's a suggestion.

That's similar to what I was thinking as well. Louis (lets call him Louis-Charles after Marie Therese's brother) would be educated by appointees from Louis XVIII, who, if not liberal was at least pragmatic. So he'll be seen as a more moderate heir compared to his grandfather. Plus, his father Louis-Antoine was a keen admirer of Britain's Parliament, gained during his time in exile. So combining the influence of his great-uncle and father, Louis should be fairly moderate, though respective of the French Royal traditions and power.

And to the paintings, I like the idea! It sounds like something Marie Therese would commission. I wonder what the titles of the former Charles X and the Dauphin and Dauphine would be? Retaining their Royal style and form of address, or revert to other titles, like Comte d'Artois and Duc et Duchesse d'Angouleme?
 
I think that that is entirely possible that Louis XVIII and XIX (would he still give into his wife's bullying though and abdicate, neurasthenia aside?) would raise this Louis Charles as more liberal, and I think motherhood would have had very healing properties for MT. And according to official reports when her 1820 "pregnancy" turned out to be menopause, she was extremrly upset about it, and withdrew from court.

So could she maybe have more than one child? In 1813 she was only 32 which is young enough for another child to be born between there and the 1820s.

I think you asked the question of titles in Miracle King, too. Artois and Angoulême HAVING titles would probably be dependent on them staying in the country. If they do, Artois might be addressed as Majesté, Monsieur le Roi, or Majesté, Monsieur le Comte d'Artois/duc d'Auvergne/duc de Mercœur (all pre-accession titles). Angoulême (if he abdicates) could be Majesté, Monseigneur le Dauphin.
 
I think that that is entirely possible that Louis XVIII and XIX (would he still give into his wife's bullying though and abdicate, neurasthenia aside?) would raise this Louis Charles as more liberal, and I think motherhood would have had very healing properties for MT. And according to official reports when her 1820 "pregnancy" turned out to be menopause, she was extremrly upset about it, and withdrew from court.

So could she maybe have more than one child? In 1813 she was only 32 which is young enough for another child to be born between there and the 1820s.

I think you asked the question of titles in Miracle King, too. Artois and Angoulême HAVING titles would probably be dependent on them staying in the country. If they do, Artois might be addressed as Majesté, Monsieur le Roi, or Majesté, Monsieur le Comte d'Artois/duc d'Auvergne/duc de Mercœur (all pre-accession titles). Angoulême (if he abdicates) could be Majesté, Monseigneur le Dauphin.

Yeah I read the same thing about Marie Therese. She was devastated.And I think it's entirely possible that Louis XVIII and Louis-Antoine could influence Louis-Charles to be more moderate (I'm always reluctant to say liberal). At the very least a good balance between the Crown and the Parliament could be created.

As for more then one, hm I'm honestly not sure. It seems to be both Louis-Antoine and Marie Therese had fertility trouble, so I think the most would be two. Its a shame there's no real info about their fertility problems, well besides the rumors that Marie Therese was given drugs to make her infertile while in the Tower. Actually, it is very odd that there wasn't even real rumors about either one. Maybe it was a mark of respect for the Orphan of the Tower.

And yeah I did. In Miracle King I reverted them to their previous titles but it might end up different here. I will say there's no real precedence one way or the other. The UK and the Netherlands have their monarch's revert to their previous titles upon abdication, but on the other hand Queen Isabella and King Consort Francis of Spain were always called Queen and King, even after abdication. Same for Emperor Ferdinand of Austria after he abdicated to Franz Joseph. Other examples are Belgian Monarchs Leopold III and Albert II. Both were (and for Albert is) referred to as King____ roman numeral, after abdication. Honestly, I think here we would see new precedence created. Louis-Antoine and Marie Therese could be made King Father and Queen Mother, in deference to their 20 minute reign and their status as the parents of the new King. As for Charles, I would say either Monsieur le Roi or King-Grandfather.

But I do think that, with a son, Louis-Antoine might have more of a backbone and not abdicate. It would be interesting to see whether or not that would be accepted. I mean the July Revolution was essentially a Parisian affair was it not? So push comes to shove, Louis XIX might be able to hold onto his throne.
 
Another thought: With a continuing Bourbon Dynasty, Belgium might remain in the Netherlands, sense the French wouldn't intervene to support the Belgians.
 
Wasn't the duc de Nemours offered the Belgian throne but forced to decline after LP became king of the French?

And as to the titles it might work as Majesté, le Roi de France et Navarre for Louis Charles, while as Majesté, Charles, roi de France. France had had three kings in residence at court before - between the proclaimation and departure of the duc d'Anjou to Spain - the kings of France, Spain and England (James II) were all present.
 
Last edited:
Wasn't the duc de Nemours offered the Belgian throne but forced to decline after LP became king of the French?

And as to the titles it might work as Majesté, le Roi de France et Navarre for Louis Charles, while as Majesté, Charles, roi de France. France had had three kings in residence at court before - between the proclaimation and departure of the duc d'Anjou to Spain - the kings of France, Spain and England (James II) were all present.

I thought the Duc de Nemours was offered it after not before. LP was already the King when the Belgians offered it, as a way to try and gain French support.

As for titles, what about Roi Grand-pere for Charles X and Roi pere for Louis-Antoine?
 
Top