WI: the Comte d'Artois died before the Restoration?

[Emperor Constantine]

So I've always been interested in the Bourbon restoration and have read/post many threads on the subject over the years but I never remember seeing this brought up before. Everyone who's studied the era can pretty much tell that it was Charles X's policies that brought down the dynasty. So what if Charles X died before the restoration? When doesn't matter but lets say 1811 or so. That leaves his son Louis-Antoine, Duc d'Angoulême as heir presumptive and King in 1824. From what I remember Louis-Antoine's views and politics were quite similar to Louis XVIII, so realistically he would continue the moderate-conservative position of his uncle. However, his wife was Marie-Thérese Charlotte, the ultra conservative surviving child of Louis XVI and Marie Antoinette. Madame Royale was definitely the one who wore the pants in the marriage, so she could just as easily advocate the same policies as Charles X did OTL. Though I will say that even she thought her father-in-law went too far by making the Prince de Polignac the Prime Minister and in issuing the July Ordinances so she might not encourage something as far as Charles X. Maybe only the Anti-Sacrilege Act.

So would the absence of Charles X's reign be enough to properly secure the Bourbon restoration or would they still lose the throne again?

 

[King of the Uzbeks]

Depends on exactly how much power she has over her husband. If it starts getting to be too much the moderate hold overs from Louis might ally with the liberals in a quasipalace coup,

 

[Raferty]

The issue that the Bourbons always had is that the power of the Paris mob, which was quite liberal and radical in sentiment, could turn them out of power at the turn of the hat, at least in the city.

Had Charles shown the backbone of the government of 1871, things could have been different. Raising a royalist force in the countryside and using it to return to power by force was indeed quite possible. The revolution had not spread from Paris at that time.

Of course, the most basic way that the Bourbons can hold power is to make sure that two things, work and bread, were maintained for the Parisian population. The measures taken in 1830 against seditious newspapers sent a lot of angry radicals onto the streets, and when bread became stressed in supply riots were inevitable, as in 1848. Being liberal was no guarantee of popular support.

But really, the best way for a French King in the 19th century to maintain support is to realize that Paris and the rest of nation are not in lockstep, and that just because Paris revolts, it doesn't mean support cannot be found elsewhere. The cleaves in values and the hatreds that became clear with the culture war type issues in the latter half of the 19th century showed that there were many people outside Paris who would like nothing more than to burn it all down, and that could have been utilized to a much greater degree.

 

[Jan Olbracht]

I once proposed that d'Artois and his sons do not flee France and are killed during Revolution. Thus after Louis XVIII throne goes swiftly to Louis Philippe (who is just Louis XIX ITTL) so there is no Legitimists-Orleanists quarrel that doomed monarchy.

 

[Cornelis]

The issue that the Bourbons always had is that the power of the Paris mob, which was quite liberal and radical in sentiment, could turn them out of power at the turn of the hat, at least in the city.

Had Charles shown the backbone of the government of 1871, things could have been different. Raising a royalist force in the countryside and using it to return to power by force was indeed quite possible. The revolution had not spread from Paris at that time.

Of course, the most basic way that the Bourbons can hold power is to make sure that two things, work and bread, were maintained for the Parisian population. The measures taken in 1830 against seditious newspapers sent a lot of angry radicals onto the streets, and when bread became stressed in supply riots were inevitable, as in 1848. Being liberal was no guarantee of popular support.

But really, the best way for a French King in the 19th century to maintain support is to realize that Paris and the rest of nation are not in lockstep, and that just because Paris revolts, it doesn't mean support cannot be found elsewhere. The cleaves in values and the hatreds that became clear with the culture war type issues in the latter half of the 19th century showed that there were many people outside Paris who would like nothing more than to burn it all down, and that could have been utilized to a much greater degree.

While the far-right has always emphasized the Paris uniqueness in political history (as in as "corrupted capital" v. "true France"), research has long shown this is not true. For instance, if you look the political affiliations of deputies 1827-1830 (with the electoral system of the times, all were members of the élite), you can see only three regions where "ultras" were the most important group : the West (Vendée-Brittany), the North, and, by a narrow margin the South-East ; three regions where the left was the most important group : Paris Area (up to Picardy and down to Berry), Normandy and, by a narrow margin, the North-East. Elsewhere, the moderate right was in majority. Even if it is perilous to link popular feeling to these elections result (as ordinary people could not vote), it can show us regions political tendencies. Not only Paris was the most left-wing spot in France, but the regions close to it came second. With the communication means of the time, it was quite impossible for any ultra leader to lead a reactionary assault on Paris from the western stronghold of the ultras, as almost every region between Brittany and Paris leaned to the left. As we already know, the 1832 attempt of chouannerie was a complete failure.

PS : Figures from Higonnet 1968.

 

[Emperor Constantine]

Depends on exactly how much power she has over her husband. If it starts getting to be too much the moderate hold overs from Louis might ally with the liberals in a quasipalace coup,

Like I said it's hard to tell. Marie-Thérese was definitely a strong influence but because her husband never reigned we can't really predict whether or nor she would set specific policies. Ultimately I think she had a much better sense of how far she could push the Ultra politics than her father-in-law did and wouldn't risk another revolution.

The issue that the Bourbons always had is that the power of the Paris mob, which was quite liberal and radical in sentiment, could turn them out of power at the turn of the hat, at least in the city.

Had Charles shown the backbone of the government of 1871, things could have been different. Raising a royalist force in the countryside and using it to return to power by force was indeed quite possible. The revolution had not spread from Paris at that time.

Of course, the most basic way that the Bourbons can hold power is to make sure that two things, work and bread, were maintained for the Parisian population. The measures taken in 1830 against seditious newspapers sent a lot of angry radicals onto the streets, and when bread became stressed in supply riots were inevitable, as in 1848. Being liberal was no guarantee of popular support.

But really, the best way for a French King in the 19th century to maintain support is to realize that Paris and the rest of nation are not in lockstep, and that just because Paris revolts, it doesn't mean support cannot be found elsewhere. The cleaves in values and the hatreds that became clear with the culture war type issues in the latter half of the 19th century showed that there were many people outside Paris who would like nothing more than to burn it all down, and that could have been utilized to a much greater degree.

We have the exact same opinion! If Charles X gave Paris another whiff of Grapeshot the Restoration would have likely continued. Though it wouldn't be necessary to raise a new force; he could have easily used the Army and the Royal Guard (25,000 or so). I remember that the units in Paris did fight during the Trois Glorieuses but lack of supplies, orders and numbers led to them slipping away or dissolving. A major issue was the invasion of Algiers; a good deal of the army was therefore absent when the revolution took place, so perhaps if the more elite loyal regiments are kept in France while the disloyal ones are sent to Algeria the Bourbons might have enough men to put the Parisians in their place. However this is a bit off topic to what I'm proposing. You are right about this part though; Paris was a beast to keep happy and it almost wasn't worth it.

I once proposed that d'Artois and his sons do not flee France and are killed during Revolution. Thus after Louis XVIII throne goes swiftly to Louis Philippe (who is just Louis XIX ITTL) so there is no Legitimists-Orleanists quarrel that doomed monarchy.

Not at all the way I'm interested in. Plus the Orléans were WAY to closely associated with the revolutionaries to be acceptable monarchs for the Royalists. If anything Louis XVIII would likely adopt one of the Spanish Borbóns, like Infante Carlos or Infante Francisco, as his heir. With the stipulation that they forever renounce any rights to Spain and any kind of Franco-Spanish union. Hm, that could actually be a cool idea. Also Louis Philippe would likely be Philippe VIII; that was the regnal name proposed OTL when it was debated whether or not he would be traditional King of France or popular King of the French.

While the far-right has always emphasized the Paris uniqueness in political history (as in as "corrupted capital" v. "true France"), research has long shown this is not true. For instance, if you look the political affiliations of deputies 1827-1830 (with the electoral system of the times, all were members of the élite), you can see only three regions where "ultras" were the most important group : the West (Vendée-Brittany), the North, and, by a narrow margin the South-East ; three regions where the left was the most important group : Paris Area (up to Picardy and down to Berry), Normandy and, by a narrow margin, the North-East. Elsewhere, the moderate right was in majority. Even if it is perilous to link popular feeling to these elections result (as ordinary people could not vote), it can show us regions political tendencies. Not only Paris was the most left-wing spot in France, but the regions close to it came second. With the communication means of the time, it was quite impossible for any ultra leader to lead a reactionary assault on Paris from the western stronghold of the ultras, as almost every region between Brittany and Paris leaned to the left. As we already know, the 1832 attempt of chouannerie was a complete failure.

PS : Figures from Higonnet 1968.

I can see your point but disagree. The elections from 1814 to 1848 are almost impossible to use as a way to gauge popular support due to the drastic limitations of the Franchise. They're more useful in telling us how the French elites of each prefecture/region felt about the government. But I do agree that it would be quite difficult to raise a royalist/popular force anywhere in the north of France outside of the Vendée and even then it's very difficult to get a peasant force to defeat a professional army. Though if the Government had the time to gather royalist units into the Île-de-France to put down the revolt we could see the Parisian revolt crushed.

 

[Cornelis]

We have the exact same opinion! If Charles X gave Paris another whiff of Grapeshot the Restoration would have likely continued. Though it wouldn't be necessary to raise a new force; he could have easily used the Army and the Royal Guard (25,000 or so). I remember that the units in Paris did fight during the Trois Glorieuses but lack of supplies, orders and numbers led to them slipping away or dissolving. A major issue was the invasion of Algiers; a good deal of the army was therefore absent when the revolution took place, so perhaps if the more elite loyal regiments are kept in France while the disloyal ones are sent to Algeria the Bourbons might have enough men to put the Parisians in their place. However this is a bit off topic to what I'm proposing. You are right about this part though; Paris was a beast to keep happy and it almost wasn't worth it.

I am afraid you are overestimating the loyalty of the Army towards the Bourbon. The NCO and junior officers were, in their majority, former soldiers of Napoléon's army, which memory, as time went on, was more and more leaning towards the "golden legend". During the 1830 Revolution, at least two full regiments (5th and 53th of Foot) went on the Revolution's side, two others (15th and 56th) were sent to Versailles by Marmont because they were on the verge of doing so, and some sub-units of the 50th rebelled as well. Only the Royal Guard, especially the Swiss units, remained loyal to Charles X.

Even if Marmont had managed to crush the Revolution by sending for artillery and blowing up borough after borough, how long can the regime hold ? Their own élites did not support them any longer, the Army loyalty hanged by a thread, and you can imagine the love of Paris people after such a repression.

Not at all the way I'm interested in. Plus the Orléans were WAY to closely associated with the revolutionaries to be acceptable monarchs for the Royalists. If anything Louis XVIII would likely adopt one of the Spanish Borbóns, like Infante Carlos or Infante Francisco, as his heir. With the stipulation that they forever renounce any rights to Spain and any kind of Franco-Spanish union. Hm, that could actually be a cool idea. Also Louis Philippe would likely be Philippe VIII; that was the regnal name proposed OTL when it was debated whether or not he would be traditional King of France or popular King of the French.

No, he could not. His hands are tied with his own legitimacy : the fundamental laws. The throne can only go to two persons, depends on which system of succession you chose : Louis-Philippe of Orléans or King Ferdinand IV. Louis XVIII cannot adopt (adoption did not exist under Ancien Régime law and was severely restricted under Napoléon's Code civil). He must either choose an inept absolutist King who needed a French expedition to keep his own throne, one which succession in France would likely create a major international crisis, or an intelligent if unfaithful Frenchman with extensive political influence and national recognition. Louis XVIII was an intelligent man : who do you think he would choose ?

Sure, the Ultras would not like Philippe VII (not VIII), but Louis XVIII was not an Ultra himself and, ITTL, Decazes would continue to stay PM (no Berry, so no Berry assassination). Decazes, Louis' favorite, went along with Louis-Philippe perfectly well after 1830. He would probably advise for an Orleans succession in the 1820' and Louis would probably follow.