Let's say for some reason or another (doesn't matter if he dies in the Revolution or as a result of his lifestyle catching up with him during his exile as he was 59 when he was King and was quite obese), Louis-Stanislas, younger brother of Louis XVI is too dead to assume the throne when Napoleon falls and the Bourbons are restored. With that in mind, this scenario leads to the arch-reactionary Charles X becoming King of France ten years earlier than OTL as opposed to the relatively moderate Louis XVIII. With a hardline reactionary being restored as opposed to the situation IOTL where the Restoration entailed a relatively moderate King on the French throne at first, how does the Bourbon Revolution (and the Hundred Days) proceed?
Bourbon Restoration if Louis XVIII dies before 1814
- Thread starter Whiteshore
- Start date
Hmm, well, for one, Talleyrand's quote that the Bourbons "learned nothing and have forgotten nothing" would probably be much closer to the true. The Restoration would be more forceful, perhaps what happened after the Hundred Days would happen at the beginning. This would make the already weak hold of the Bourbons even less powerful and popular discontent could become even more considerable.
Now, the Hundred Days would perhaps remain unchanged, Charles would probably be even more forthright in his intentions not to pay Bonaparte anything and perhaps would push for his removal to an island of the Atlantic; on the other hand, popular discontent would be larger than OTL. Now, if Charles has decided to move decisively against the Napoleonic establishment, instances such as Ney's defection wouldn't happen, which also means that Napoleon would have lost the services of some capable friends; on the other hand, it's more probable perhaps that the army itself, the NCOs and the soldiers, would rise up in favour of Napoleon. There is also the chance that if Charles pushed with sufficient stubbornness for measures such as the active restoration of Catholicism in France (the missions across the country , the sacrilege laws etc) and the compensation of the emigres with the country already not in an ideal financial situation, then there is also a strong possibility that opposition to Napoleon's return would be less severe and Vendee - like events much more limited and unlikely.
This doesn't mean that Napoleon could hope to return and win, because that ship had long sailed. But it would probably lead to more resistance on the part of the population, or the allies would expect that. This in turn could bring about a change of hearts, with the British, previously the main supporters of the idea of Bourbon restoration, deciding to withdraw their support from Charles X.
This leads to the question of who becomes the king of France.
One option is Bernadotte: Alexander could certainly try to push one more time for his favourite candidate, especially now that he could claim that the other allies (Austria and Britain) were in the wrong for backing the Bourbons. Of course, in this he would encounter resistance from Metternich and Castlereagh and even Bernadotte himself would probably be unwilling to abandon the secure Swedish throne for a "throne of thorns on moving sand". But Alexander might be able to use this more effectively as a bargaining chip in order to extract concessions elsewhere, particularly on the matter of Poland.
The British would probably back Louis Philippe of Orleans, who in many ways would be the ideal candidate: connected to the old dynasty, he would be the best guarantee for moderate and constitutional rule which London would consider of paramount importance in order to restore peace and order across the Channel. The Austrians would probably go along, since I think they could expect of him to keep France at distance from Russia and Alexander.
However there is a slim chance of the former being killed perhaps during the Restoration by some royalist zealots if he had returned to France at the time. If the allies (or most of them) didn't want someone connected with Charles at all (and therefore Angouleme and Berry would be out too), then perhaps, stronger Bonapartist feelings and perhaps the population being more radicalised could result in the option of Napoleon II and his mother being brought forward. Of course, all this would stand very little chance of success, if at all. Nevertheless, if Louis Philippe had been eliminated and the only other choices were deemed too pro-Russian, the British and the Austrians could end reluctantly backing that option; if the French population seemed to be behind that idea, then Alexander and the Prussians could back down and accept Napoleon II on the throne.
However, this wouldn't come free of charge: Hardenberg would probably suggest that the elevation of a half - Habsburg most likely under Vienna's influence on the throne of France necessitated a redressing of the balance in Germany and would perhaps push for the whole of Saxony and the fort of Mainz along his other claims; Alexander would demand concessions in Poland and a definitive role in the organisation of Germany and the negotiations over the Confederation, perhaps even a seat at any directing body (Wilhelm of Württemberg would certainly).
Which leads as to the black horse candidate: Murat. The turncoat general would be perhaps the pre - penultimate last resort candidate, he could perhaps be trusted with maintaining the Napolenic reforms inside France without attempting to export the ideas of the Revolution to Europe and thus restoring peace and stability in France without antagonising the population. The Austrians (Metternich) would probably reluctantly back him, since he would offer the possibility of maintaining the popular changes brought by the Revoulution without attempting to spread them and an independent stance on foreign policy matters (at least not pro-Russian); the British would be perhaps willing to back him, since he didn't have the best relations with the Bonaparte family but he could govern moderately enough (also, he wouldn't press for the title of emperor and be content with the title of king, so that's a plus too). He would be more acceptable to the Prussians as well and perhaps the Russians.
But this would demand that he doesn't rise up during the Hundred Days, and if Napoleon seems to be doing even better than OTL at the beginning, he would most likely throw his lot with him, which automatically bars him from any such candidacy. Assuming that the previous scenario still stands, then the allies, in desperation, might turn to a member of the Bonaparte family which was dissociated enough from Napoleon himself: the former king of Holland, Louis. Again, this would have even a faint chance of happening only if the other candidates are no longer considered. Louis would most likely accept.
(Eugene de Beauharnais could perhaps be considered as well, if nothing well according to plan).
(perhaps what I suggested is outlandish)
Now, the Hundred Days would perhaps remain unchanged, Charles would probably be even more forthright in his intentions not to pay Bonaparte anything and perhaps would push for his removal to an island of the Atlantic; on the other hand, popular discontent would be larger than OTL. Now, if Charles has decided to move decisively against the Napoleonic establishment, instances such as Ney's defection wouldn't happen, which also means that Napoleon would have lost the services of some capable friends; on the other hand, it's more probable perhaps that the army itself, the NCOs and the soldiers, would rise up in favour of Napoleon. There is also the chance that if Charles pushed with sufficient stubbornness for measures such as the active restoration of Catholicism in France (the missions across the country , the sacrilege laws etc) and the compensation of the emigres with the country already not in an ideal financial situation, then there is also a strong possibility that opposition to Napoleon's return would be less severe and Vendee - like events much more limited and unlikely.
This doesn't mean that Napoleon could hope to return and win, because that ship had long sailed. But it would probably lead to more resistance on the part of the population, or the allies would expect that. This in turn could bring about a change of hearts, with the British, previously the main supporters of the idea of Bourbon restoration, deciding to withdraw their support from Charles X.
This leads to the question of who becomes the king of France.
One option is Bernadotte: Alexander could certainly try to push one more time for his favourite candidate, especially now that he could claim that the other allies (Austria and Britain) were in the wrong for backing the Bourbons. Of course, in this he would encounter resistance from Metternich and Castlereagh and even Bernadotte himself would probably be unwilling to abandon the secure Swedish throne for a "throne of thorns on moving sand". But Alexander might be able to use this more effectively as a bargaining chip in order to extract concessions elsewhere, particularly on the matter of Poland.
The British would probably back Louis Philippe of Orleans, who in many ways would be the ideal candidate: connected to the old dynasty, he would be the best guarantee for moderate and constitutional rule which London would consider of paramount importance in order to restore peace and order across the Channel. The Austrians would probably go along, since I think they could expect of him to keep France at distance from Russia and Alexander.
However there is a slim chance of the former being killed perhaps during the Restoration by some royalist zealots if he had returned to France at the time. If the allies (or most of them) didn't want someone connected with Charles at all (and therefore Angouleme and Berry would be out too), then perhaps, stronger Bonapartist feelings and perhaps the population being more radicalised could result in the option of Napoleon II and his mother being brought forward. Of course, all this would stand very little chance of success, if at all. Nevertheless, if Louis Philippe had been eliminated and the only other choices were deemed too pro-Russian, the British and the Austrians could end reluctantly backing that option; if the French population seemed to be behind that idea, then Alexander and the Prussians could back down and accept Napoleon II on the throne.
However, this wouldn't come free of charge: Hardenberg would probably suggest that the elevation of a half - Habsburg most likely under Vienna's influence on the throne of France necessitated a redressing of the balance in Germany and would perhaps push for the whole of Saxony and the fort of Mainz along his other claims; Alexander would demand concessions in Poland and a definitive role in the organisation of Germany and the negotiations over the Confederation, perhaps even a seat at any directing body (Wilhelm of Württemberg would certainly).
Which leads as to the black horse candidate: Murat. The turncoat general would be perhaps the pre - penultimate last resort candidate, he could perhaps be trusted with maintaining the Napolenic reforms inside France without attempting to export the ideas of the Revolution to Europe and thus restoring peace and stability in France without antagonising the population. The Austrians (Metternich) would probably reluctantly back him, since he would offer the possibility of maintaining the popular changes brought by the Revoulution without attempting to spread them and an independent stance on foreign policy matters (at least not pro-Russian); the British would be perhaps willing to back him, since he didn't have the best relations with the Bonaparte family but he could govern moderately enough (also, he wouldn't press for the title of emperor and be content with the title of king, so that's a plus too). He would be more acceptable to the Prussians as well and perhaps the Russians.
But this would demand that he doesn't rise up during the Hundred Days, and if Napoleon seems to be doing even better than OTL at the beginning, he would most likely throw his lot with him, which automatically bars him from any such candidacy. Assuming that the previous scenario still stands, then the allies, in desperation, might turn to a member of the Bonaparte family which was dissociated enough from Napoleon himself: the former king of Holland, Louis. Again, this would have even a faint chance of happening only if the other candidates are no longer considered. Louis would most likely accept.
(Eugene de Beauharnais could perhaps be considered as well, if nothing well according to plan).
(perhaps what I suggested is outlandish)
The Congress of Vienna would not allow for some of these alternate candidates when it so strongly supported as part of its agenda "Legitimacy" among the restoration of some of the monarchs of post Napoleonic and French Revolutionary Europe. That would include Louis Philippe who was 4th in line of succession after Charles and his two sons when Louis XVIII was restored, and after Charles X's abdication, he was third in line of succession behind Angouleme and his nephew the young Henri (Before he usurped the young Chambord whom Charles had left in his charge.). The only alternative if the Congress of Vienna was going to be that steadfast on it's legitimacy issues, is if Charles backed down to pressure by the victorious allies, (Britain, Austria, Russia and Prussia), and Angouleme would then be restored as "Louis XVIII, (not a short reigned Louis XIX), after all he was also the son in law of his late uncle and aunt Louis XVI and Marie Antoinette having married their lone surviving child and daughter. They had no heirs themselves and that would be interesting to see how his brother and later nephew would fall in line, or even he himself, to post Napoleonic and Revolutionary France once the Bourbons were restored, without Charles spewing his absolutism and revenge minded policies on them.
Last edited:
The specific battle itself most likely.
I can still see the Hundred Days going more or less the same here as OTL however. Maybe Nappy gets a bit more popular support when he makes his play for the throne but unless something truly bizarre happens the numbers game is too severe for him to overcome.
Maybe Wellington/Blucher don't beat him and the Austrians or Russians drive the nail in the coffin instead?
A more interesting question is absent Waterloo does Wellington become Prime Minister in this timeline?
Most of the time, Louis XVIII's success is explained by the fact that he was concilient while Charles X 's failure is explained by the fact that he was intransigent.
It is actually more complicated.
In 1814 and 1815, France was defeated, had lost many soldiers and much money. It was a country that needed to recover.
In 1830, France had recovered. Liberals considered that they did not need the Bourbons anymore and that it was time to pursue the French Revolution. At the same time, there was a new generation of young people in their twenties who were still children in the Napoleonic times. These young people saw essentially Napoleon's military glory without actually realizing the price to pay (fights and death of innocent people). As a result, they despised the Bourbons. Without this generation, it is likely that the Revolution of July would never have occured.
It is true that Charles X was more absolutist than Louis XVIII (at least after they came back to France: Louis XVIII was very absolutist too in exile). Before becoming king, he criticized Louis XVIII and his Charter very much. However, when he became king himself, he accepted said Charter and respected it. He probably realized how much it would've been dangerous to refuse it. Before dissolving the Chamber in 1830 (which the Charter authorized), he hesitated very much because he knew it was a risked move. He decided to take the risk. It was a mistake.
Considering all ot that, I think it is highly likely that an agreement would've been found in 1814, just as in OTL, even with Charles X instead of Louis XVIII. Then, the Hundred Days would've likely followed the OTL path too.
Things become more complicated after that.
Here, I see two options:
1. Charles X comes back to the throne.
2. The Allies are not confident enough in him and refuse to let him come back.
If Charles X comes back, he is unlikely to dissolve the Chambre Introuvable as Louis XVIII did. There, either the liberals win and there is a new revolution in 1815, either the royalists win and the Restoration becomes more absolutist than in OTL.
If Charles X can't come back, I agree with dcontreras. There are good chances that his son Louis-Antoine would've become king instead of him.
(However, he would've still been numbered Louis XIX and not Louis XVIII as Louis-Stanislas would've still been numbered Louis XVIII just like Louis-Charles was numbered Louis XVII. Except of course if the POD is that Louis-Stanislas dies even before Louis-Charles.)
Louis-Antoine becoming king before his father's death may have been presented as a legitimate move. After all, at the beginning of the Capetian dynasty, the king's eldest son was crowned and held the title of king before his father's death. Louis VII even had passed effective power to Philippe-Auguste before dying.
I guess it is hard to figure what Louis XIX's reign may have looked like. Louis-Antoine is known to be the least absolutist of the immediate family but he was far from being like Louis-Philippe. The Charter was perfect in his eyes. I guess liberals would've still seen him as too absolutist. He may have been more prudent than his father though.
Louis XVIII wanted the Bourbon-Anjou to be the successors if the eldest branch went extinct. Charles X, on the opposite, favored the Orléans.
(I know: it is surprising. The opposite may have been more expected.)
It is actually more complicated.
In 1814 and 1815, France was defeated, had lost many soldiers and much money. It was a country that needed to recover.
In 1830, France had recovered. Liberals considered that they did not need the Bourbons anymore and that it was time to pursue the French Revolution. At the same time, there was a new generation of young people in their twenties who were still children in the Napoleonic times. These young people saw essentially Napoleon's military glory without actually realizing the price to pay (fights and death of innocent people). As a result, they despised the Bourbons. Without this generation, it is likely that the Revolution of July would never have occured.
It is true that Charles X was more absolutist than Louis XVIII (at least after they came back to France: Louis XVIII was very absolutist too in exile). Before becoming king, he criticized Louis XVIII and his Charter very much. However, when he became king himself, he accepted said Charter and respected it. He probably realized how much it would've been dangerous to refuse it. Before dissolving the Chamber in 1830 (which the Charter authorized), he hesitated very much because he knew it was a risked move. He decided to take the risk. It was a mistake.
Considering all ot that, I think it is highly likely that an agreement would've been found in 1814, just as in OTL, even with Charles X instead of Louis XVIII. Then, the Hundred Days would've likely followed the OTL path too.
Things become more complicated after that.
Here, I see two options:
1. Charles X comes back to the throne.
2. The Allies are not confident enough in him and refuse to let him come back.
If Charles X comes back, he is unlikely to dissolve the Chambre Introuvable as Louis XVIII did. There, either the liberals win and there is a new revolution in 1815, either the royalists win and the Restoration becomes more absolutist than in OTL.
If Charles X can't come back, I agree with dcontreras. There are good chances that his son Louis-Antoine would've become king instead of him.
(However, he would've still been numbered Louis XIX and not Louis XVIII as Louis-Stanislas would've still been numbered Louis XVIII just like Louis-Charles was numbered Louis XVII. Except of course if the POD is that Louis-Stanislas dies even before Louis-Charles.)
Louis-Antoine becoming king before his father's death may have been presented as a legitimate move. After all, at the beginning of the Capetian dynasty, the king's eldest son was crowned and held the title of king before his father's death. Louis VII even had passed effective power to Philippe-Auguste before dying.
I guess it is hard to figure what Louis XIX's reign may have looked like. Louis-Antoine is known to be the least absolutist of the immediate family but he was far from being like Louis-Philippe. The Charter was perfect in his eyes. I guess liberals would've still seen him as too absolutist. He may have been more prudent than his father though.
The succession line was not that clear. No official document of the Restoration precised it and it was likely on purpose.
Louis XVIII wanted the Bourbon-Anjou to be the successors if the eldest branch went extinct. Charles X, on the opposite, favored the Orléans.
(I know: it is surprising. The opposite may have been more expected.)
Last edited:
@FouDuRoy There was, by 1830, also an issue with the politicians and the press as well. Politicians who actually bought newspapers (or something) and published criticisms of the monarchy which further undermined its base IIRC. Charles X's dissolution of the Chambre is often depicted as "absolutist", but AIUI, what he ACTUALLY wanted to do was to summon the Etats-Généraux (which would've theoretically been directly answerable to him/the people, and OVERRULING the Chambre).
@VVD0D95
@VVD0D95