WI: No Bourbons Left To Restore

Deleted member 180541

What if the French House of Bourbon went extinct before Napoleon abdicated on April 11th 1814?
With no Bourbon Restoration possible, who becomes the ruler of France? Perhaps Napoleon II is placed on the throne, with his mother Marie Louise acting as regent?
 

Analytical Engine

IIRC, most senior French nobles are descended from the House of Valois by this point. There must be someone in line somewhere.

Otherwise, as @Metempsychosis said - the Spanish Bourbons offer some suitable candidate, whose line is then permanently excluded from the line of the Spanish succession.
 

Deleted member 180541

@Metempsychosis @Analytical Engine

The Valois and Bourbons are both cadet branches of the Capets. After the male line of the Valois died out the Bourbons were the most senior branch. The Bourbons are the last cadet branch of the Capets, with them gone there is no one else left to inherit. The Spanish Bourbons are banned from inheriting the French throne due to the Treaty of Utrecht which bans all descendants of Phillip V from inheriting the French throne, so they aren't an option.
 

Analytical Engine

Abbé Faria said:
@Metempsychosis @Analytical Engine

The Valois and Bourbons are both cadet branches of the Capets. After the male line of the Valois died out the Bourbons were the most senior branch. The Bourbons are the last cadet branch of the Capets, with them gone there is no one else left to inherit. The Spanish Bourbons are banned from inheriting the French throne due to the Treaty of Utrecht which bans all descendants of Phillip V from inheriting the French throne, so they aren't an option.
Click to expand...
That's never stopped anyone before. Besides, if the powers assembled in the Congress of Vienna say "ok, we'll make an exception - but they and their descendants are banned from inheriting the Spanish throne", who's going to contest?

At any rate, if the French are really desperate, they could just say "right, we're getting rid of Salic Law in favour of Semi-Salic Law. Hand me the genealogy books, there's plenty of female-line male candidates" and just pick someone.
 
Atterdag

Atterdag

There were otl candidates suggested who were neither Bourbons or Bonapartes, Jean Baptiste Bernadotte was one, but others could surely be pulled out of obscurity if this litany of misfortune ends the most legitimate line.
 
da Racontor

da Racontor

Abbé Faria said:
@Metempsychosis @Analytical Engine

The Valois and Bourbons are both cadet branches of the Capets. After the male line of the Valois died out the Bourbons were the most senior branch. The Bourbons are the last cadet branch of the Capets, with them gone there is no one else left to inherit. The Spanish Bourbons are banned from inheriting the French throne due to the Treaty of Utrecht which bans all descendants of Phillip V from inheriting the French throne, so they aren't an option.
Click to expand...
The thing is legally Philip V's the renouncing of of the French thrown is on shake ground. The he just wasn't legally allowed to under French law at the time. Everyone was happy to ignore it at the time as no one actually thought the scenario as probable anyway.

And if you have the "can't unite the kingdoms" thing persist which I can only see as probable to prevent a war. Then you still have the Parma Bourbons and Two-Sicily Bourbon. Which while both descendants of Philip V are not in Spanish Succession.

But if you do manage to maintain the renouncing the in the event of a house extinction technically it would be up to great nobles of the realm (who they would be at the time I'm not sure) to elect a new king. But since the last time this happened was Hugh Capet himself its going to be chaotic.
But Bonapartes, agnatics, and illegitimates are all on the table.
 

30PrincesAndAKing

Albeques said:
The thing is legally Philip V's the renouncing of of the French thrown is on shake ground. The he just wasn't legally allowed to under French law at the time. Everyone was happy to ignore it at the time as no one actually thought the scenario as probable anyway.
Click to expand...
Well, the thing is that the French estates did approve of the renunciation (if begrudgingly), and all the relevant powers in Europe at the time recognized it, so an argument could be made that this incident superseded whatever precedent was on the books before then (after all, laws change all the time, if slowly).

That said, the same logic would hold that a renunciation could be theoretically undone using the same process; the French estates approve of one candidate and all the other powers draw up a treaty to respect it. If I recall correctly, that's generally what happened to vacant thrones during this period anyway.
 
da Racontor

da Racontor

30PrincesAndAKing said:
Well, the thing is that the French estates did approve of the renunciation (if begrudgingly), and all the relevant powers in Europe at the time recognized it, so an argument could be made that this incident superseded whatever precedent was on the books before then (after all, laws change all the time, if slowly).

That said, the same logic would hold that a renunciation could be theoretically undone using the same process; the French estates approve of one candidate and all the other powers draw up a treaty to respect it. If I recall correctly, that's generally what happened to vacant thrones during this period anyway.
Click to expand...
The thing is the law was never changed, it was ignored for just one instance and continued after (albeit there wasn't a big reason to cite that law after that until after the revolution). No one at the time of the treaty expected a personal union to be a factor. The succession of the French thrown was already secure away from Philip V. So it was a convenient way for both side to end the war and save face.

Now that does not mean that the Legitimates are instantly going to be accepted and crowned king. Many, many people are going to be citing the Treaty of Utrecht in an effort to prevent a Spanish Bourbon from inheriting the throne. However, that would not change that there is a very strong legal case to declare the renunciation null and void. Which would leave the Spanish Bourbons as the legal heirs.
 
Godot

Godot

Abbé Faria said:
What if the French House of Bourbon went extinct before Napoleon abdicated on April 11th 1814?
With no Bourbon Restoration possible, who becomes the ruler of France? Perhaps Napoleon II is placed on the throne, with his mother Marie Louise acting as regent?
Click to expand...
I know that Napoleon II had no realistic shot of being on the throne with an OTL conclusion to the Napoleonic Wars, but the idea of Marie Louise governing, even as regent, would be amazing. The prospect of a Habsburg on the throne of France just tickles me!
 

Analytical Engine

Teiresias said:
A suitable person from Charles IV’s sons? That might prove easier said than done.
Click to expand...
Doesn't have to be from that line. Charles III has a few grandsons knocking about during this period.

Maybe the house of Bourbon-Braganza ends up on the throne.

Alternatively, the house of Bourbon-Parma gets the throne of France, and in exchange Parma gets a minor Habsburg after Marie Louise's death.
 

funnyhat

Abbé Faria said:
With no Bourbon Restoration possible, who becomes the ruler of France? Perhaps Napoleon II is placed on the throne, with his mother Marie Louise acting as regent?
Click to expand...
If there is no obvious Bourbon candidate, this could become an acceptable option, especially assuming his father still is exiled. Napoléon II is just three years old, and if he grows up without his father, he will become a very different ruler. And he will not even be of age for a long time.
 

WheelyWheelyLegsNoFeely

funnyhat said:
If there is no obvious Bourbon candidate, this could become an acceptable option, especially assuming his father still is exiled. Napoléon II is just three years old, and if he grows up without his father, he will become a very different ruler. And he will not even be of age for a long time.
Click to expand...
Not only that, but as a half-Habsburg I could easily see a scenario where Austria pushes more for Napoleon II to be on the throne of France, with Marie Louise and Talleyrand acting as regents until he comes to majority.

The question is does Napoleon I still launch the Hundred Days with his son on the throne? I'd wager not, which would have interesting implications for Europe, namely France keeping its natural borders and Murat staying in power in Naples.
 

funnyhat

WheelyWheelyLegsNoFeely said:
The question is does Napoleon I still launch the Hundred Days with his son on the throne? I'd wager not, which would have interesting implications for Europe, namely France keeping its natural borders and Murat staying in power in Naples.
Click to expand...
Agree. Not only would his son be on the throne, but I imagine Marie-Louise probably would give her husband the annual subsidy specified in the treaty of Paris - unlike Louis XVIII, who IOTL refused to pay it, which left Napoléon's government in Elba on the verge of bankruptcy.

France would not quite have the natural borders of 1802, but would have the 1792 borders, and would be spared the reparations, occupation and White Terror that followed the Hundred Days. The Marshals of the empire will likely be influential at the court of Napoléon II.
 
Last edited:

herkles

What about a British ruler? George III was the last British King to style himself as the King of France as part of his titles. So could this lead to the United Kingdom of Great Britain and France? :coldsweat:
 

Comte de Geneve

Oh the possibilities. Why not offer the Wettins France in exchange for Prussia getting all of Saxony? How about Leopold of Saxe-Coburg, he hasn't married Princess Charlotte yet and he seemed to be on speed dial when thrones became available. Ah the butterflies with that one. Or maybe the Savoia in exchange for giving Savoy to the Habsburgs?
 

Jonah Carter

The whole point of installing Louis XVIII on the throne was to make a point that the French Revolution hadn't really changed the fact that the Bourbons were still the divinely appointed monarchs of France. If the Bourbons are totally wiped out, that's never going to happen, so it's much better to pick somebody prominent, capable, and predictable rather than an unknown foreign noble. Either way there's been a break in continuity, might as well make the best of it.

I think Bernadotte is the best candidate, with Napoleon II as another distant possibility. They're both backed by a major foreign power (Russia and Austria respectively), they both have at least some credibility as kings, and most importantly, they're both French. I think what ultimately tips it to Bernadotte is two things. One, he's a proven monarch already, and the Coalition powers know he's a reliable opponent of revolution. Napoleon II is safe as long as it's really Marie Louise running things, but who knows if he might take after his father when he grows up? There's also the fact that it probably wouldn't sit right with anyone -- especially the British -- to leave a Bonaparte in power in France after fighting one for 15 years.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top
Top