With a pod set after November 1918, when the first world war ended, devise a scenario in which the French monarchy is restored after WW2 or perhaps even before the war starts.

After the Franco-Prussian War, France elected a majority of monarchists, mostly legitimists and Orleanists into the Chamber of Deputies, but this fell through with the Henri, the Count of Chambourd essentially using the pretense of the "white flag" to screw over the Orleanists.

Afterwards the monarchists would still remain a significant player in France, but were largely divided among legitimists who were more fringe (now supporting the Spanish line of Bourbons), the Orleanists (they're still considered French), and the Bonapartists.

With the Third Republic starting off on such shaky foundations (it was initially structured as a caretaker gov't for a restoration), its quite surprising it endured as long as it did, enduring agitation from the right and left and making it through crises like Boulanger's popularity, the Dreyfus affair, the 1899 coup attempt, etc.

What could the monarchists do to try and set the stage for a monarchical restoration?

Would something like this require that the government including figures like Petain, retreat south, possibly establishing a base in Corsica/Algeria?
 
The obvious problem with a monarchical restoration, especially the later it happens, is the matter of these competing claims. Whichever you choose, you'll get the opposition from the republicans and the monarchists that back the other claimaints. And it isn't even just a matter of specific claimants, since Legitimists and Orléanists, at least, also tend to support different political programs...
 
Last edited:
Could the Bourbon monarchy defuse tensions after the cross of fire incident in 1934? A ruler dedicated to staying out of politics and a symbol of the National honour could prove vital in troubled times.
 
A ruler dedicated to staying out of politics and a symbol of the National honour could prove vital in troubled times.
What does "Staying out of politics" even mean? The modern form of the Westminister system now only truly became a thing arguably during the reign of Queen Elizabeth II as even during the reign of King George IV who set the foundation for such a reign, he was still involved in politics and had actual functions as "head of state."

The problem with such a system is that it wouldn't really work for France as the French monarchists didn't necessarily want an empty throne, but rather wanted the monarch to have some executive capacities. Looking at the cross of fires incident, you can see that there was no real organization going on, but was rather a set of demonstrations by multiple right wing and far-right groups.

Under a monarchy, the French Right would more or less would have had some semblance of unity, so instead of it being a right wing demonstration, it could have been agitation in ttl by Republicans or possibly socialists/anarchists.

The obvious problem with a monarchical restoration, especially the later it happens, is the matter of these competing claims. Whichever you choose, you'll get the opposition from the republicans and the monarchists that back the other claimaints. And it isn't even just a matter of specific claimants, since Legitimists and Orléanists, at least, also tend to support different political programs...
What about Henri d'Orleans? Charles De Gaulle was sympathetic to the Orleanists and came from an monarchist leaning family/social circle. He also had good relations with d'Orleans, and the expectation following the revocation of the law banning monarchical pretenders was that De Gaulle was paving the way for an Orleanist Restoration.

However in otl Charles DeGaulle put out some feelers for it, and the response he got was quite mixed/negative as there were quite a number of leftists (socialists/communists) active in French politics who would not have been happy with a monarchical restoration.

Though De Gaulle did initially struggle for legitimacy between "Free France" and Vichy France which was initially seen as the legitimate French government. De Gaulle in that regard did put out feelers for d'Orleans to join his government, to obtain his support.
 
@alexmilman @Emperor Constantine @NedStark @Thande @Sarthak @Lalli

This needs a fascist or far-right France.
What if monarchism as a force was more galvanized in the interwar period? In this regard I'm thinking of Kaiser Karl retaining his throne in Austria through the help of field marshal Svetozar Boroević who was loyal and gathered troops ready to put down the revolt against the Habsburgs in Vienna. From there I'm thinking this motivates the legitimists in Hungary to quickly enact a coup in Hungary taking out Bela Kun quickly and establishing a defensive line on the Musso River, with Austria-Hungary having survived by the skin of its teeth as an almost rump state.

Banat might survive (as it was recognized by Hungary) as a sort of buffer state, backed by the Entente powers to have some stability in the region.

The Habsburgs would be targeted by Hitler and Mussolini as Slovenia which had pro-Habsburg leanings would probably stay with Austria rather than reluctantly joining Yugoslavia in otl.

Romania would also want its pound of flesh too.

Instead of just Dolfuss being assassinated, the plot might also target Kaiser Karl too throwing the Empire into chaos as imperial forces clash with pan-German nationalists/pro-Nazi forces. Otto might flee to Switzerland, and from there establish a government in exile.

This might galvanize more monarchists to conspire against the Nazis, and Kronprinz Rupprecht who was an avowed anti-Nazi (something that got his family sent into a concentration camp), to try and lead a counter coup against Hitler. If something like the Valkyrie plot actually manages take out Hitler, Germany likely falls into civil and Rupprecht could possibly take power in Bavaria and would have a good amount of support to lobby/push for the restoration of his Crown something which would galvanize monarchism in other parts of Germany.
 
What if monarchism as a force was more galvanized in the interwar period? In this regard I'm thinking of Kaiser Karl retaining his throne in Austria through the help of field marshal Svetozar Boroević who was loyal and gathered troops ready to put down the revolt against the Habsburgs in Vienna. From there I'm thinking this motivates the legitimists in Hungary to quickly enact a coup in Hungary taking out Bela Kun quickly and establishing a defensive line on the Musso River, with Austria-Hungary having survived by the skin of its teeth as an almost rump state.
Monarchism is already tied to the political far right, surviving Haspburgs or not.
 
Could the Bourbon monarchy defuse tensions after the cross of fire incident in 1934? A ruler dedicated to staying out of politics and a symbol of the National honour could prove vital in troubled times.
The restoration of the Bourbons would pretty much entail the total victory of the radical right - there's no way the parties that made up the Popular Front IOTL are going to accept a restoration that pretty much only Maurras and the Action Française were calling for.
 
It wouldn't do it on it's own, but what if something like the Affaire des Feches caused a greater scandal &/or was larger?
Do you mind explaining the issue of the "Affair of Cards?"

The restoration of the Bourbons would pretty much entail the total victory of the radical right - there's no way the parties that made up the Popular Front IOTL are going to accept a restoration that pretty much only Maurras and the Action Française were calling for.
No one really wanted the Bourbons, and the Bourbon claimant at the time for the legitimists, was a Carlist, who were split in two with one being a "Red Carlist." The Legitimist Pretender was basically deaf after a botched childhood operation.

The other mainline candidate was Henri d'Orleans, the Comte de Paris. They were viewed more favorably as they were at least French. As for DeGaulle, he did try and invite Henri over to his side, but Henri in otl vacilated between Petain's Vichy government and the "Free French" state. Then again the former was initially seen by many as the legitimate government while the later only gained recognition later on.

Supposing Petain had a stroke you could potentially have more French officials relocate to Algeria choosing instead to fight on from there as Algeria was still part of the French metropole yet to be conquered by the Germans. If Henri d'Orleans and likely Napoleon VI do manage to arrive in Algiers and lend their support to Free France, it could give them a respective PR boost.
 
Do you mind explaining the issue of the "Affair of Cards?"
The very short of it is, from around 1900-1904 the French War Ministry blacklisted practicing Catholics from promotions in the army.
They relied on reports from certain soldiers & others to keep tabs on who was a "free-thinking nationalist" worthy of promotion & who was attending Catholic mass, paying tithes, etc. These notes were then kept on little cards, hence the name.
 
With a pod set after November 1918, when the first world war ended, devise a scenario in which the French monarchy is restored after WW2 or perhaps even before the war starts.

After the Franco-Prussian War, France elected a majority of monarchists, mostly legitimists and Orleanists into the Chamber of Deputies, but this fell through with the Henri, the Count of Chambourd essentially using the pretense of the "white flag" to screw over the Orleanists.

Afterwards the monarchists would still remain a significant player in France, but were largely divided among legitimists who were more fringe (now supporting the Spanish line of Bourbons), the Orleanists (they're still considered French), and the Bonapartists.

With the Third Republic starting off on such shaky foundations (it was initially structured as a caretaker gov't for a restoration), its quite surprising it endured as long as it did, enduring agitation from the right and left and making it through crises like Boulanger's popularity, the Dreyfus affair, the 1899 coup attempt, etc.

What could the monarchists do to try and set the stage for a monarchical restoration?

Would something like this require that the government including figures like Petain, retreat south, possibly establishing a base in Corsica/Algeria?

An interesting idea, and one that does have a few potential routes that I haven't seen explored before. The obvious one would be the 6 February 1934 crisis turning into a March on Rome style situation, leading to the Far Right coming to power and restoring the monarchy, but that's kinda boring (and would require the monarchy surviving being restored by the Facists). Instead, I'd focus on something in the 1940s-1960s, around Charles de Gaulle and the Comte de Paris. I'm gonna quote this directly from the Comte's page on Wikipedia:
"
In 1954, Henri met Charles de Gaulle and continued their relationship through correspondence.[14] In 1958, Henri gave his support to de Gaulle, who was called back from his self-imposed exile to save the French Republic from insurrection in Paris. Thereafter, Henri became a frequent visitor to the Élysée Palace, where de Gaulle waited for Henri "by the staircase or outside, reserved a special armchair for him and lit his cigarette." There, they frequently discussed French history together, with Henri noting that de Gaulle loved to pronounce the word 'king'.

In 1960, de Gaulle told Henri that "Monseigneur, I believe deeply in the value of the monarchy, and I am certain as well that this regime is the one best suited to our poor country."[12] The following year, de Gaulle dispatched Henri on a tour to Libya, Ethiopia, Iran, and Lebanon, with the purpose of explaining France's Algeria policy, serving as de Gaulle's special representative, or "pro-consul." During this time, Henri befriended Hassan II of Morocco and Habib Bourguiba. In 1962, de Gaulle informed Henri in strict confidence that he had arranged the French presidential election so that the head of the royal house could succeed him as president of the Republic. Georges Pompidou confirmed this, telling a close friend that "I know the general has made up his mind in favor of the count of Paris." However, by 1964, de Gaulle changed his mind and told Henri of his decision to run for re-election, which he won. By 1968, Henri ceased publication of his paper over his increasing disagreements with the Gaullists. The Countess of Paris remarked that "Under de Gaulle, Henri came two fingers close to becoming king. But by 1968, it was all over, finished."

So going by the above, there's definitely an opening for the Comte to emerage as de Gaulle's protegé and political heir, being elected as Prince-President in 1965. If this happened (the heir to the throne democratically elected by the French public as Head of State), I can easily see this lead to a restoration of the Monarchy. Now, I have no idea how this would effect French politics or if this would mean a Kingdom of France in which the Crown has similar powers to the modern President, but its a very interesting scenario to go down. And, before anyone says its impossible for Paris to win an election, remember that he would be backed by the ultra-popular President de Gaulle (who easily won reelection in 1965) and the Gaullists (who remained the largest party in Parliament from the 1962 election). Moreover, there is an existing, modern example of a Prince winning a democratic election; between 2001 and 2005 Simeon II, the last Tsar of Bulgaria, served as Prime Minster of the country after his party won a massive majority (defeating both dominant political parties).

Another idea is the Comte de Paris accepting de Gaulle's invitation to London in 1940/41. Again quoting from Wikipedia:


"Between 1940 and 1941, the Gaullist camp offered Henri an invitation to go to London, which he declined. Henri feared that if he accepted the offer, he would have become an émigré, like the Bourbons who returned to France after Napoleon's defeat. Henri was staunchly opposed to the idea of siding with one political party, wishing instead to pursue a path of unity and not contribute to France's "infernal divisiveness."[9] Charles de Gaulle later confided to his biographer, Phillipe Saint-Robert, that "Had the count of Paris joined me in London in 1940, he would have become France. Together, we could have done great things."

So, going by that quote, a Comte de Paris that got over his fear of being an émigré could easily emerage as a hero of WWII alongside de Gaulle. What that means for the post-war government, I do not know. Could mean a third restoration instead of a 4th Republic, or a boost for him in a later '50s and '60s TL.

The obvious problem with a monarchical restoration, especially the later it happens, is the matter of these competing claims. Whichever you choose, you'll get the opposition from the republicans and the monarchists that back the other claimaints. And it isn't even just a matter of specific claimants, since Legitimists and Orléanists, at least, also tend to support different political programs...

Actually, not true. The Monarchist movement was almost completely united behind the Orléanist (or Fusionist as they were known after the Comte de Chambord's death in 1883) claimants, with none of the major parties (including Action Française) supporting the Blancs d'Espagne (Spanish Whites, the derisive name for the small minority of Legitimists who insisted on the Spanish rights). As for the Bonapartists, their supporters never really had much support due to their awkward mix of populism, right wing and left wing ideologies. So, in the event of a restoration, the House of Orléans would be crowned.
 
Actually, not true. The Monarchist movement was almost completely united behind the Orléanist (or Fusionist as they were known after the Comte de Chambord's death in 1883) claimants, with none of the major parties (including Action Française) supporting the Blancs d'Espagne (Spanish Whites, the derisive name for the small minority of Legitimists who insisted on the Spanish rights). As for the Bonapartists, their supporters never really had much support due to their awkward mix of populism, right wing and left wing ideologies. So, in the event of a restoration, the House of Orléans would be crowned.
The monarchist grassroot support was minuscule after WW2 since too many of pre-War monarchists became collaborators (and frankly since 1876 they never got close to a plurality let alone a majority in terms of popular support). De Gaulle decided not to toy with a monarchist restoration because he wouldn’t have had any support here. The left and the center rejected it and the majority of the right also rejected it (yes, the majority of the Gaullist party was republican).
 
The monarchist grassroot support was minuscule after WW2 since too many of pre-War monarchists became collaborators (and frankly since 1876 they never got close to a plurality let alone a majority in terms of popular support). De Gaulle decided not to toy with a monarchist restoration because he wouldn’t have had any support here. The left and the center rejected it and the majority of the right also rejected it (yes, the majority of the Gaullist party was republican).
A possible POD could be having Action Francaise and Maurras himself reject collaboration. Considering how deeply anti-German they were, I can't imagine this would be too difficult to accomplish with just a few key changes, and this would probably do a lot to sanitize the image of monarchism among the people. From there, AF would likely have to moderate a lot of their positions in the wake of WW2 (especially their anti-Semitism), but if they go through enough reforms they could end up forming the right-most end of the French political spectrum, increasing the level of support for a new monarchy enough for de Gaulle to not renege on the Comte de Paris, which could then potentially lead to a restoration.

Of course, I say potentially because even in the scenario that he gets elected, that doesn't mean he'll necessarily get restored. After all, Simeon of Bulgaria who was mentioned earlier ended up being elected, but obviously he was never restored. There's also enough of a radical tradition in France at this point (both liberal and socialist) that a monarchist restoration could lead to significant backlash enough to force the new King to abdicate. All that being said though, I don't think it would be impossible, especially if they lean into the idea of being "citizen kings" like the first Orleanist monarchy.

Alternatively, as others have mentioned, you could have the far-right succeed in France and then proceed to have France go down a similar path to OTL Spain, restoring the monarchy and eventually liberalizing again, leading to France becoming a standard constitutional monarchy by the present day.

Another potentially important factor in AF's success (since any modern monarchist revival will be at least somewhat dependent on them) would be its reception by the Church. IOTL, AF was condemned on account of taking a very utilitarian/consequentialist view of the Church, with Maurras himself being an agnostic who viewed the Church as simply a convenient institution for society rather than a salvific body. If this part of AF's ideology is deemphasized and Maurras remains (at least nominally) Catholic, this could help bolster AF's popularity among the French right.
 
The monarchist grassroot support was minuscule after WW2 since too many of pre-War monarchists became collaborators (and frankly since 1876 they never got close to a plurality let alone a majority in terms of popular support). De Gaulle decided not to toy with a monarchist restoration because he wouldn’t have had any support here. The left and the center rejected it and the majority of the right also rejected it (yes, the majority of the Gaullist party was republican).
Well ... yes and no. While its true that the number of ideologically driven monarchists were indeed quite few, there were plenty of people who would have been sympathetic if not unopposed to a monarchical restoration. This was the case in 1870's and even up until WW1, which was why the Third Republic was so scared of a monarchist revival. The Monarchists themselves were sort of split for most of the 19th Century which essentially fractured/diluted their power. But as @Emperor Constantine mentioned, the monarchists more or less coalesced around d'Orleans.

The Comte de Paris' predecessor was actually getting popular in France during WW1, where after the gov't/the Republican press held a banquet to try and discredit him, he turned the tables on them by rejecting it and asking for a "soldier's mess tin." There were also a number of monarchists/those with sympathies towards a more conservative/royal government. And had the Orleanist pretender been allowed to serve in the war, there was a fear he'd be popular enough to take the throne. Honestly had the Mutinies been more coordinated, or simply had France lost WW1, there was a good chance for the Orleanists to ride that wave back to their throne, carried by the "will of the people," to embrace their roles as "Le Roi Citoyen."

The Third Republic simply was a dysfunctional mess that barely managed to avoid collapse multiple times, and with its ultimate fall during WW2, many would have felt that the Republic was disgraced. This was the initial sentiment which the Vichy regime tapped into to gain power in the first place. Of course Petain and his cronies alienated many during the course of the war by choosing to be as Petain himself said, "a Province of Germany" rather than having France "fused to a corpse," (the cause of the British Empire).

Of course people like De Gaulle balked at this idea which was what led to the genesis of Free France and the French Resistance.

However, by 1964, de Gaulle changed his mind and told Henri of his decision to run for re-election, which he won. By 1968, Henri ceased publication of his paper over his increasing disagreements with the Gaullists. The Countess of Paris remarked that "Under de Gaulle, Henri came two fingers close to becoming king. But by 1968, it was all over, finished."
I've heard of this too, but I didn't realize how close it came.

And, before anyone says its impossible for Paris to win an election, remember that he would be backed by the ultra-popular President de Gaulle (who easily won reelection in 1965) and the Gaullists (who remained the largest party in Parliament from the 1962 election). Moreover, there is an existing, modern example of a Prince winning a democratic election; between 2001 and 2005 Simeon II, the last Tsar of Bulgaria, served as Prime Minster of the country after his party won a massive majority (defeating both dominant political parties).
Though as for the Bulgarian example, the people were tired of the hated Communist rule, and looked to the monarchy with nostalgia where they actually existed as a "free nation." Honestly Tsar Simeon weird insistence that he stay as President instead of restoring the monarchy like everyone thought he would, was probably one of the biggest missed opportunities I've seen in a while.

But as for Henri, what about the Socialists? They were quite a sizable portion of the electorate, and would not want a Catholic monarch enthroned. A Catholic King would be a living symbol standing in opposition to their ideals.

Another idea is the Comte de Paris accepting de Gaulle's invitation to London in 1940/41. Again quoting from Wikipedia:


"Between 1940 and 1941, the Gaullist camp offered Henri an invitation to go to London, which he declined. Henri feared that if he accepted the offer, he would have become an émigré, like the Bourbons who returned to France after Napoleon's defeat. Henri was staunchly opposed to the idea of siding with one political party, wishing instead to pursue a path of unity and not contribute to France's "infernal divisiveness."[9] Charles de Gaulle later confided to his biographer, Phillipe Saint-Robert, that "Had the count of Paris joined me in London in 1940, he would have become France. Together, we could have done great things."

So, going by that quote, a Comte de Paris that got over his fear of being an émigré could easily emerage as a hero of WWII alongside de Gaulle. What that means for the post-war government, I do not know. Could mean a third restoration instead of a 4th Republic, or a boost for him in a later '50s and '60s TL.
Actually this a idea I quite like a lot @Emperor Constantine!

It actually parallels what Franco did with the Bourbons with them serving as a symbol for legitimacy. But this time The Orleanist presence would also help de Guaule present a united front in terms of both the right and left wings of French politics all united against the Germans. Assuming you change things around, and the Vichy regime doesn't really get off the ground, then you might just have the Nazis place a different Quissling-style collaborator in charge.

But with Henri more closely associated with the Free French Regime, it would nonetheless boost his standing not unlike Napoleon III during the days of the Second Republic where he stood apart from the others unblemished and representing the romantic nostalgia of the Napoleonic age. Henri d'Orleans on the other hand would be associated with Free France with the ones who "saved France." If he could play his cards right, he could end up like Rupprecht of Bavaria a popular figure in Bavaria as a vocal public opponent of the Nazis.

What that means for the post-war government, I do not know. Could mean a third restoration instead of a 4th Republic, or a boost for him in a later '50s and '60s TL.
I'm not necessarily sure de Gaulle would jump straight to a Royal Restoration straight away. If anything he might try to ease France into it similar to what Patrice de MacMahon tried to do for Henri de Chambourd in 1873 setting the stage up for a monarchical restoration. De Gaulle though in this regard would push for the repeal of the laws against pretenders to the French throne and would allow for more Royalist propaganda to circulate in France, allowing time for the idea of a monarchical restoration to marinate in the ideas of the public.

A possible POD could be having Action Francaise and Maurras himself reject collaboration. Considering how deeply anti-German they were, I can't imagine this would be too difficult to accomplish with just a few key changes, and this would probably do a lot to sanitize the image of monarchism among the people. From there, AF would likely have to moderate a lot of their positions in the wake of WW2 (especially their anti-Semitism), but if they go through enough reforms they could end up forming the right-most end of the French political spectrum, increasing the level of support for a new monarchy enough for de Gaulle to not renege on the Comte de Paris, which could then potentially lead to a restoration.
That's why I went back to my other pod, where I had the Habsburgs remain in power, but then end up as victims of the Nazis. In otl Kronprinz Otto von Habsburg was set to be restored by Chancellor Dolfuss, but one week before his plan could be carried out, Dolfuss was assassinated and the Aschluss proceeded. I can see Hitler orchestrating something similar in ttl as he had a personal hatred of the Habsburgs, something he'd no doubt be even more pissed about had they managed to stay in power. In otl Hitler gave orders for Kronprinz Otto to be shot on sight.

Considering how there was a strong wave of pan-German sentiment in Austria, particularly in Vienna, where Hitler was exposed to these ideas as well as Semitic ideas, Kaiser Karl assuming he regains his nerve would no doubt use Boroević's troops to crush the revolutionaries, cracking down hard on the pan-German nationalists.

The Nazis being implicated in the death of Kaiser Karl and then forcing Kronprinz Otto to flee would no doubt be a shock for many monarchists in Europe. More monarchists in Germany who were open to collaboration with Hitler and his cronies might just end up conspiring against them. Of course this fiction could lead to Hitler cracking down on royalism within Germany, throwing prominent royals in prison (not too dissimilar to what Franco did with the Carlists and the monarchists, neutering them as obstacles to his power).

This could be what pisses off French monarchists like Maurras who was also anti-German like you said. Though as for the semitism, it was unfortunately quite mainstream in European politics up until the brutality of the Holocaust shocked even many of the more hardline anti-semites.

From there, AF would likely have to moderate a lot of their positions in the wake of WW2 (especially their anti-Semitism), but if they go through enough reforms they could end up forming the right-most end of the French political spectrum, increasing the level of support for a new monarchy enough for de Gaulle to not renege on the Comte de Paris, which could then potentially lead to a restoration.
This might be the basis by which A-F sort of mellows out and reinvents itself as the face of a "Christian-Democrat" style political party in France similar to the CDU in postwar Germany.

This could likely lead to a restoration of the Concordat reached with Napoleon as opposed to the Republic's harsh measures of secularism in the form of Laïcité.

Though this opens the question of when Henri would run for office. Then there’s the issue of Algeria something which will cause issues as well.

Alternatively, as others have mentioned, you could have the far-right succeed in France and then proceed to have France go down a similar path to OTL Spain, restoring the monarchy and eventually liberalizing again, leading to France becoming a standard constitutional monarchy by the present day.
Assuming they take power in the interwar years and France initially loses to the Germans, that would also end up discrediting the monarchy.

Another potentially important factor in AF's success (since any modern monarchist revival will be at least somewhat dependent on them) would be its reception by the Church. IOTL, AF was condemned on account of taking a very utilitarian/consequentialist view of the Church, with Maurras himself being an agnostic who viewed the Church as simply a convenient institution for society rather than a salvific body. If this part of AF's ideology is deemphasized and Maurras remains (at least nominally) Catholic, this could help bolster AF's popularity among the French right.
That's also a good pod. Then again in 1939, the Papacy reversed its stance on AF, following the outbreak of the Spanish Civil War.
 
Last edited:
Well ... yes and no. While its true that the number of ideologically driven monarchists were indeed quite few, there were plenty of people who would have been sympathetic if not unopposed to a monarchical restoration. This was the case in 1870's and even up until WW1, which was why the Third Republic was so scared of a monarchist revival. The Monarchists themselves were sort of split for most of the 19th Century which essentially fractured/diluted their power. But as @Emperor Constantine mentioned, the monarchists more or less coalesced around d'Orleans.
My point is that there were not enough monarchists (I mean not just the figureheads like Maurras but also the grassroots) after 1877 to enable them to get to power legally. There were quite a few monarchists and monarchist sympathizers but they never came close to a plurality in the French society - by the early 20th century they were not even the largest faction on the right. Besides, as their presence after Boulanger was exclusively extra-parliamentary (Action Francaise was a league, I mean, those far-right leagues in French context), their governmental/institutional powers certainly were certainly severely limited.
The Third Republic simply was a dysfunctional mess that barely managed to avoid collapse multiple times, and with its ultimate fall during WW2, many would have felt that the Republic was disgraced. This was the initial sentiment which the Vichy regime tapped into to gain power in the first place. Of course Petain and his cronies alienated many during the course of the war by choosing to be as Petain himself said, "a Province of Germany" rather than having France "fused to a corpse," (the cause of the British Empire)
The Third Republic was not stable, but it certainly lasted long enough (longer than all three posts-Napoleonic War monarchies combined) for most of its population/electorate to accept the republican form of government as law of the land.
But with Henri more closely associated with the Free French Regime, it would nonetheless boost his standing not unlike Napoleon III during the days of the Second Republic where he stood apart from the others unblemished and representing the romantic nostalgia of the Napoleonic age. Henri d'Orleans on the other hand would be associated with Free France with the ones who "saved France." If he could play his cards right, he could end up like Rupprecht of Bavaria a popular figure in Bavaria as a vocal public opponent of the Nazis.
Except that the Resistance was predominantly non-monarchist and would not recognize Henri as one of their leaders even though they might welcome him into their ranks. Plus, one could speculate that the Comte refused to join De Gaulle that early because he favoured Petain (which was true at the beginning of the Vichy regime).
de Gaulle would jump straight to a Royal Restoration straight away. If anything he might try to ease France into it similar to what Patrice de MacMahon tried to do for Henri de Chambourd in 1873 setting the stage up for a monarchical restoration. De Gaulle though in this regard would push for the repeal of the laws against pretenders to the French throne and would allow for more Royalist propaganda to circulate in France, allowing time for the idea of a monarchical restoration to marinate in the ideas of the public.
Except that De Gaulle also came to consider monarchy to be a thing of the past (according to his minister Alain Peyrefitte). Plus, his political vision, which was about strengthening Head of State’s executive powers, also clashed with a restoration. Absolutely nobody would have accepted the idea of giving a monarch the powers of OTL Fifth Republic Presidents.
 
A possible POD could be having Action Francaise and Maurras himself reject collaboration. Considering how deeply anti-German they were, I can't imagine this would be too difficult to accomplish with just a few key changes, and this would probably do a lot to sanitize the image of monarchism among the people. From there, AF would likely have to moderate a lot of their positions in the wake of WW2 (especially their anti-Semitism), but if they go through enough reforms they could end up forming the right-most end of the French political spectrum, increasing the level of support for a new monarchy enough for de Gaulle to not renege on the Comte de Paris, which could then potentially lead to a restoration
It does not help that AF was anti-democracy on top of anti-republican - so, AF did not look like supporters of constitutional monarchy.
 
Another potentially important factor in AF's success (since any modern monarchist revival will be at least somewhat dependent on them) would be its reception by the Church. IOTL, AF was condemned on account of taking a very utilitarian/consequentialist view of the Church, with Maurras himself being an agnostic who viewed the Church as simply a convenient institution for society rather than a salvific body. If this part of AF's ideology is deemphasized and Maurras remains (at least nominally) Catholic, this could help bolster AF's popularity among the French right.
Agreed, if the AF's or at least Maurras can be replaced as a primary monarchist advocate, that would do a lot.
Not all Catholics were monarchist, but the monarchist couldn't afford to lose, at minimum, Catholic ambivalence.



The other thing with preventing the monarchist from becoming collaborators.
Radicalism, regardless of direction, often grows through a perceived "lack of alternatives."

If the monarchist are able to maintain some level of influence in the government, there may not be a "need" for many of them to collaborate.

And even if plenty of them do, it may come off as something that person did rather than something the ideology supports.
 
Last edited:
The best way to get a monarchist restoration in my view is for some monarchists to get in Petain's circle and convince him to restore it, at least in name. Then said monarch pulls the same move pulled in Romania; getting the actual leader ousted then switching sides. The monarch engages in secret communication in 1944 with the Allies about switching sides. The two coordinate and just days after Petain is ousted, Allied troops begin landing in Southern France, to meet the inevitable German forces sent in retaliation. As such, there is no D-Day, as Allied troops land in Southern France and head north.

After the war, things get awkward given the Allies were previously allied with the Free France movement. The monarch invites De Gaulle to negotiate. The two come to a compromise in that the monarch will stay only as the ceremonial head of state while the actual governance is done by a democratic government. In the interim, De Gaulle is appointed prime minister of the Interim government.

The monarch/or his successors manage to play off politics to prevent their unpopularity causing an abolition long enough to get to the point where most French just acquiesce to monarchy; thus setting the French monarchy on a new level of stability.
 
Top