WI: The Bourbons weren't Restore

So I'm doing a reading on the end of the Napoleonic Wars for my 18th Century History of Europe class and apparently it was not assured that the Bourbons were to be restored by the Allies. Apparently there was some lobbying to install Napoleon II with his mother as a possible Regent, which I knew, but also the Russian Tsar wanted to install either a Bernadotte or an Orleans. Is there an Royal Family other then the Bourbons could take the French Throne?
 
Didn't the British monarchy still claim it at the time?

The Spanish line of Bourbons are an alternative, but ultimately there doesn't need to be any existing link - you could put any one of the million or so German princes in, a branch of one of the many ruling families of Europe, or even a great general like Bernadotte.
 
George III officially dropped the English claim to the French throne in 1800, as part of the Act of Union. The Treaty of Amien in 1802 also affirmed that the Hannoverians made no claim to the French throne.

The Jacobite Pretenders, however, never dropped their claim. King Charles Emmanuel IV of Sardinia was the Jacobite heir in 1812, although he never attempted to pursue the Jacobite claims.
 
So I'm doing a reading on the end of the Napoleonic Wars for my 18th Century History of Europe class and apparently it was not assured that the Bourbons were to be restored by the Allies. Apparently there was some lobbying to install Napoleon II with his mother as a possible Regent, which I knew, but also the Russian Tsar wanted to install either a Bernadotte or an Orleans. Is there an Royal Family other then the Bourbons could take the French Throne?

The thing is, when the Congress of Vienna started, the delegates decided very quickly that what they wanted to do was not punish France strongly, so much as punish Napoleon. Essentially they treated the French as almost as much of a wronged party as the rest of Europe, admitting that much of France had turned against Napoleon by that point and that to punish it would go too far; hence why territorial changes were backtracked to something like 1795 instead of the start of the French revolution. You still technically could get away with this idea, but dethroning Napoleon only to enthrone his son isn't exactly the way to place culpability on one man, and it risks something akin to Napoleon III happening - a descendent (Napoleon II here) growing older, learning of his heritage and deciding he wanted to become a new all-powerful European leader rather than obeying the considered rules of statesmanship. Also it's a pretty shockingly offensive backhanded slap to the Bourbons to tell them that, even though their family members were dethroned by the mobs and the mobs allowed the worst tyrant in history (pretty much how he was described then) to rule France with a reign of fire for 20 years, that now he had been brought to justice they'd decided that his son was a better candidate than the divinely-appointed dynasty of French kings who had lost their throne.

I'm pretty sure those supporting Napoleon II were those who stood to gain most from it anyway - that is to say, the Austrians who were his legal guardians and would have been able to control him and thus by extension rule France by proxy.
 
Didn't the British monarchy still claim it at the time?

The Spanish line of Bourbons are an alternative, but ultimately there doesn't need to be any existing link - you could put any one of the million or so German princes in, a branch of one of the many ruling families of Europe, or even a great general like Bernadotte.

Britain dropped the claim on the french throne in 1801, and nobody had activly bothered to pursue the claim for a century or more. George isn't going to be given the French throne.

As for the original question, Napoleon II was Napoleon's successor in theory, but he isn't going to be an acceptable ruler for most of, if not all of, the coalition. Bernadotte probably is also out, if only because he is the crown prince of sweden (not to mention the fact that he fought for Napoleon, or that he doesn't have any genealogical link to the throne). Orleans is a possibility; certainly he was considered by various conspirators during 1815 (I cannot recall if he was specifically discussed, but the possibility was probably broached at some point in 1814), but there is too much inertia to restore the Bourbons, specifically Louis XVIII.
 
Top