This is Charles X the last true King of France (The usurper Louis-Philippe doesn't count). Assuming he had been watching the Revolutions and political developments in nations like Austria, Prussia, and Russia more closely and had kept his conservatism and Neo-Absolute vision of government, what could Charles X have done to restore Bourbon power. Could he have been more tactful by avoiding stuff like trying to reintroduce the royal touch and compensating the old landed elite? What could Charles X have done to lay the groundwork of the re empowerment of the monarchy? Could the new assembly be reduced into a rubber stamp like the Estates General? The French Monarchy face worse circumstances before this after all. The Carolingian Monarchy was very weak with the nobles having very little power.
They had a small fief with a single castle and were mostly ceremonial in power much like the Merovingians. The Capets however starting with Hugh Capet, were the Counts of Paris who gradually expanded French power and went on to centralize the state turning it into the juggernaut the dominate Europe for centuries. Leaders like Louis XI and Phillip II did a lot to build France up with their efforts culminating with the reign of Louis XVI. Charles's son the Duke of Berry was pretty popular. His eldest son Louis XIX also showed some military ability as he did command military regiments during the Napoleonic wars. He was also appointed head of the army before Napoleon's 100 Days. Could the French Monarchy have gradually reasserted itself in French society with something like the rise of Communism being used to reinstate a Neo-Absolutist government in power?
 
i think that the monarchy would be in good hands but Absolutist being restored will not be easy and even if does it wont last long france is not rusia ( in a sense a medival economy and developing ) so neo absolutisim will cause a neo french revolution could happen
 
This is pretty difficult to achieve without changing Charles' personality and ideology, which would be ASB. I see two directions Charles could go to maybe have a more successful reign:

-He could try to take a more laid-back approach, using the bickering among the various factions in the assembly to appear as a moderating voice, like Louis XVIII did. Instead of issuing blanket ordinances, making his intentions very clear, he could try to discredit the more liberal factions through political scheming. This could make it more difficult to pin blame directly on him.

-He could also try to go in the complete opposite direction after leaving Paris in 1830. The Bourbons still had support in the countryside, and he could theoretically try to retake Paris by mobilizing the army and gathering support. However, I think this would make Charles, and the monarchy as a whole extremely unpopular long term, following such a tyrannical extreme measure. This could potentially trigger a civil war.

I think any talk of Charles being able to restore absolutist rule long term is ASB though. France in 1825 is not Russia, it will not accept a return to absolutist rule, no matter how the legacy of the French Revolution is percieved. For the monarchy to survive post 1789, you'd need a practical, liberal King, who would be willing to give enough political concessions to the assembly.
Comparing Charles' position to that of the Merovingians is also quite fanciful. The two are in entirely different cultural/political contexts. A Capetian powergrab just seems extremely unlikely in a world with nationalism, liberalism, socialism, parliamentarism and industrialism.
 
i think that the monarchy would be in good hands
I feel like if he had been tactful about his royalist and effectively capitalized on his initial popularity things could have been very different for him. Perhaps he could have created a new set of Bourbon propaganda that paints the republicans and Bonapartes as a flash in the pan that ruined France. Up until the revolution France had a fleet equally dangerous as HM’s Fleet. But the Directory and revolutionary government gutted the fleet and army with many officers leaving in droves. Napoleon however was a masterclass administrator and ruler so he rebuilt the army and revamped the legal system and financial system. Unfortunately he couldn’t undo the damage done France’s naval power, and British dominance was complete after Trafgar and the Battle of the Nile.

Absolutist being restored will not be easy and even if does it wont last long france is not rusia
It would be hard for sure. But Prussia and Austria nearly collapsed in 1848 and maybe without the inspiration of these revolutionary movements, the Age of Metternich continues. Maybe France could gradually sideline the Assembly with a stroke of good rulers like it had centuries ago. But a true absolute monarchy or state didn’t really exist until the 30’s when fascist and communist inspired totalitarian states emerged with control over technology like radio and industrialization that allowed them to exert control over the state in an unimaginable level. In Russia the Tsar had to contend with the oligarchy while in France the nobles still had significant political power. The French Parlement was a major obstacle to French power even at Louis XIV’s height.

-He could also try to go in the complete opposite direction after leaving Paris in 1830. The Bourbons still had support in the countryside, and he could theoretically try to retake Paris by mobilizing the army and gathering support. However, I think this would make Charles, and the monarchy as a whole extremely unpopular long term, following such a tyrannical extreme measure. This could potentially trigger a civil war.
This might cause the Congress of Vienna to intervene in behalf of the French as they might be galvanized by the New Revolutionary fervor.

I think any talk of Charles being able to restore absolutist rule long term is ASB though.
France never was an absolute monarchy though. During Louis XIV’s reign at the height of the Ancien Regime, he basically was playing a balancing game with the nobles whom he got away from their centers of power. France’s taxation system was very archaic and many times France’s warmaking ability was limited because of this system. When Louis XV and Louis XVI tried to reform the system but the nobles refused. In 1786 when France was bankrupt Charles supported removing the nobles’ financial privileges not social privileges. Maybe Charles in his time in London and his observations of Prussia and Austria see that some reforms are needed.

For the monarchy to survive post 1789, you'd need a practical, liberal King, who would be willing to give enough political concessions to the assembly.
Both the First and Second French Empires were technically Constitutional monarchies when in reality they were akin to Absolute monarchies pretending to be a Constitutional Monarchy. Maybe Charles X being more tactful with his eldest son Louis XIX showing military ability will be able to accomplish something similar. Louis XIX was given command of the army before Napoleon’s Hundred Days and had comanded a Regiment before. So maybe if he can prove himself as a skilled commander during the Conquesr of Algeria, he could perhaps earn some popularity among the people and the military. Charles’s Second son the Duke of Berry was pretty popular as well. Maybe if his assassination is avoided the Bourbons could regain some favor.

Comparing Charles' position to that of the Merovingians is also quite fanciful. The two are in entirely different cultural/political contexts.
I wasn’t directly comparing the two together though. I used it as a means to show that France had subverted expectations before. When the Ottonian HRE emerged it was more centralized and powerful than the Kingdom of France. But it devolved while France over the centuries rebuilt itself. The British Monarchy also retained significant powers as well. It wasn’t inevitable that they become figureheads in a Crowned Republic.
If Charles could have found a way to effectively use his ultra-royalist coalition and his initial popularity without jeopardizing in otl then maybe he could be seen as another strong monarch. Perhaps he could preside over industrialization in France and channel some of its wealth back into the Monarchy. After stable rule by his successors, an active monarchy might present itself as a stablizing against Communists and Socialists like how the German Hohenzollerns did despite it being a Constitutional Monarchy.
 
This might cause the Congress of Vienna to intervene in behalf of the French as they might be galvanized by the New Revolutionary fervor.
This could make for an interesting TL, where France breaks into some kind of civil war in 1830, with the other monarchies in Europe taking sides if it gets extremely heated.

Maybe Charles in his time in London and his observations of Prussia and Austria see that some reforms are needed.
The problem here is that I think you would have to, again change Charles' personality. Charles by this point was an old man, he had left France before the constitutional period of 1791, and was extremely reactionary. I find it pretty hard to believe he would be convinced of reform, when he thought that even his pretty conservative brother was going too far.

Both the First and Second French Empires were technically Constitutional monarchies when in reality they were akin to Absolute monarchies pretending to be a Constitutional Monarchy
The difference between the two though is that Napoleon III atleast had the appearance of popular legitimacy as he had been elected. Napoleon I also remained extremely popular, especially among the military, which gave him further legitimacy.
Charles doesn't really have any of this in his favour.

Maybe Charles X being more tactful with his eldest son Louis XIX showing military ability will be able to accomplish something similar
This could help, although I'm not entirely sure how much. This was kind of Charles' strategy IOTL. He thought that a quick war in Algeria could distract people from his ordinances and rally them around the monarchy. It didn't work, so I'm not sure if this would either.
 
This could make for an interesting TL, where France breaks into some kind of civil war in 1830, with the other monarchies in Europe taking sides if it gets extremely heated.


The problem here is that I think you would have to, again change Charles' personality. Charles by this point was an old man, he had left France before the constitutional period of 1791, and was extremely reactionary. I find it pretty hard to believe he would be convinced of reform, when he thought that even his pretty conservative brother was going too far.


The difference between the two though is that Napoleon III atleast had the appearance of popular legitimacy as he had been elected. Napoleon I also remained extremely popular, especially among the military, which gave him further legitimacy.
Charles doesn't really have any of this in his favour.


This could help, although I'm not entirely sure how much. This was kind of Charles' strategy IOTL. He thought that a quick war in Algeria could distract people from his ordinances and rally them around the monarchy. It didn't work, so I'm not sure if this would either.

yeah i agree with this
 
the
I feel like if he had been tactful about his royalist and effectively capitalized on his initial popularity things could have been very different for him. Perhaps he could have created a new set of Bourbon propaganda that paints the republicans and Bonapartes as a flash in the pan that ruined France. Up until the revolution France had a fleet equally dangerous as HM’s Fleet. But the Directory and revolutionary government gutted the fleet and army with many officers leaving in droves. Napoleon however was a masterclass administrator and ruler so he rebuilt the army and revamped the legal system and financial system. Unfortunately he couldn’t undo the damage done France’s naval power, and British dominance was complete after Trafgar and the Battle of the Nile.


It would be hard for sure. But Prussia and Austria nearly collapsed in 1848 and maybe without the inspiration of these revolutionary movements, the Age of Metternich continues. Maybe France could gradually sideline the Assembly with a stroke of good rulers like it had centuries ago. But a true absolute monarchy or state didn’t really exist until the 30’s when fascist and communist inspired totalitarian states emerged with control over technology like radio and industrialization that allowed them to exert control over the state in an unimaginable level. In Russia the Tsar had to contend with the oligarchy while in France the nobles still had significant political power. The French Parlement was a major obstacle to French power even at Louis XIV’s height.

there is a problem charles was not going to last long his succeros would have to be really competent and even in prussia

Rather than returning to bureaucratic rule after dismissing the Prussian National Assembly, Frederick William promulgated a new constitution that created a Parliament of Prussia with two chambers, an aristocratic upper house and an elected lower houre
and in the regin of whilem there was bismark who had at times more control than the king himself

(so france would have to do simlar reforms )

austria huungary just declined and became another sick man
 
Rather than returning to bureaucratic rule after dismissing the Prussian National Assembly, Frederick William promulgated a new constitution that created a Parliament of Prussia with two chambers, an aristocratic upper house and an elected lower houre
Frederick Wilhelm wasn’t the most competent of Prussian Kings either. The 1848 revolt was inspired by the 1848 revolution against the Orléanists. A survivor Charles X could butterfly this away. Another contributing factor is that there was a crop failure in Central Europe which crashed the economy. If the Prussians responded better to this, it would likely take much of the steam out of the revolt.

Perhaps Charles X instead of trying to bring back the Ancien Regime is slow and pragmatic about it. Perhaps the realities of ruling makes him come to similar conclusions as his brother. So instead of giving compensation to many of the nobles which took billions of Francs out of the Treasury during a crisis, he instead restored primogeniture. This allows large landed families to better maintain their estates. It also lessens the chances of France’s birth rate falling.

Instead of Charles sending loyalist troops to Algeria, he could likely have them close to him in case of an insurrection. If he does decide to invade Algeria maybe some of the old Napoleonic officers could be sent to Algeria away from France.

Maybe Charles could then tour the countryside to boost his popularity. Perhaps he compromises with the clergy and shows himself as a King who maintains French traditional values that made it great. He could use the clergy to help spread loyalist propaganda among the peasantry in the countryside.

he had left France before the constitutional period of 1791, and was extremely reactionary. I find it pretty hard to believe he would be convinced of reform, when he thought that even his pretty conservative brother was going too far.
The loyalist peasantry in the countryside was generally monarchist. Perhaps he could use that to his advantage to build a new Royal French academy. In keeping with his reactionary attitude, he could elevate the people massacred at Venedee as martyrs for France. The Clergy who were killed during the Revolution could similar be raised to this status. I think the Pope would support this. Maybe he creates new National holidays and censors the press to control the narratives. Perhaps he could organize a royalist reactionary coalition to prevent the liberals from taking power.

I wonder what @Emperor Constantine would say about this. He has lots of insight into monarchism. He even made a timeline about the French monarchy surviving with Henri V as King with Louis-Phillipe as his regent.
 
I would say to kill off Charles early (either shortly after his ascension or instead of his son) and let rule Louis XIX then Charles X/XI followed by Henry V...
 
The loyalist peasantry in the countryside was generally monarchist. Perhaps he could use that to his advantage to build a new Royal French academy
This seems like a good idea on paper, but the problem is that it would completely alienate the existing military. Keeping the army firmly on the side of the monarchy was key in trying to preserve it, as is clearly demonstrated by the Hundred Days. When Louis XVIII was restored he made damn sure to keep the army content, and to jump on a successful expedition that would make the monarchy look strong (which the Spanish Expedition did excellently).

Trying to create a new academy would make some kind of coup extremely likely. Charles is better of trying to please the existing military, which he tried to to IOTL, but it simply wasn't enough.

The Clergy who were killed during the Revolution could similar be raised to this status. I think the Pope would support this. Maybe he creates new National holidays and censors the press to control the narratives. Perhaps he could organize a royalist reactionary coalition to prevent the liberals from taking power.
The problem with this is that you would have to fundamentally change Charles' personality, which would require ASB. Charles simply wasn't the type of master manipulator to pull this off, and even if he was, I don't know if it would work. France in 1830 was a far cry from France in 1791, blatantly undoing the Revolution would be unacceptable to a large chunk of Parisians (even Louis XVIII, despite his moderate tendencies was pushing it).

To preserve the Bourbon Restoration after Louis XVIII I only see 3 options:

-Charles is a completely different person than who he was IOTL.
-Charles gets a heart attack and dies shortly after his coronation, leaving Louis Antoine as Louis XIX (Louis Antoine was also pretty reactionary, but he did atleast have a succesfull military record, and could perhaps be more open to compromise than his father)
-Charles gets thrown out of Paris in 1830, but instead of leaving France he decides to start an insurrection, possibly kickstarting a French Civil War. If he succeeds he will be seen as a bloodthirsty tyrant, but he may be able to stay on the throne until he dies, and preserve the monarchy for a while after his reign.

Any kind of lasting return to Absolutism by this point is ASB imo.
 
Any kind of lasting return to Absolutism by this point is ASB imo.
But France wasn’t really absolute under Louis XIV. Napoleon was far more absolute than he ever was. Louis XIV called himself the Sun King to gravitate the center of power away from the nobles to the King. The title was propaganda. In reality Louis’s reign was a balancing act between himself and the nobility. He lived in his own self-inflicted hell where he had his entire life publicized and made part of ritual and ceremony. Yet after his death, the nobles reasserted themselves. The Parlement which blocked necessary reform for the survival of the Ancien Regime was dominated by the nobility.

Perhaps Charles could recognize this and try to have the Assembly slowly reduced over time to something like an Estates General. The Charter of Louis XVIII also preserves the King’s Royal Authority. Perhaps Charles could influence Louis XVIII in regards to the Charter giving the Crown more power in regards to taxation and the national budget. Perhaps the King and his ministers create a budget and the Deputies and Peers can make suggestions about it to advise the King.

Charles gets a heart attack and dies shortly after his coronation, leaving Louis Antoine as Louis XIX (Louis Antoine was also pretty reactionary, but he did atleast have a succesfull military record, and could perhaps be more open to compromise than his father)
What sort of compromise do you think he would accept? Would he see the sharing of power over taxation as a continuation of the dynamic France had with its nobles and the Parlement?

Charles gets thrown out of Paris in 1830, but instead of leaving France he decides to start an insurrection, possibly kickstarting a French Civil War. If he succeeds he will be seen as a bloodthirsty tyrant, but he may be able to stay on the throne until he dies, and preserve the monarchy for a while after his reign.
Perhaps he effectively used force to crush insurrections. Maybe he comes down as the hammer upon Liberals and the Republicans. Maybe when he dies his son can then broker a more favorable compromise for the Monarchy. It could work like in Game of Thrones where Maegor ruthlessly crushes rebellions until his death, and then his successor negotiates a favorable peace.

Would this civil war fail as Charles would be fighting against mostly middle class and Parisians with an army recruited from the Countryside loyal to the King. Perhaps he slowly recruits them in time for the Civil war?

Wasn't THAT what was done OTL?
I meant troops like the National Guard.

But what about if Charles was King during the White Terror? Would he have been able to root out Bonaparte and anti-Royalists? Could he have have forcefully added a more ultra-royalist leaning government?
 
Sorry to bump this guys, but I just now got some time to properly respond to it. Anyways, first off, @Basileus_Komnenos, it depends on what your aiming for as a POD; something around Charles X's accession in 1824 or him fighting off the July Revolution? Because both are doable, just need a different set of circumstances. So I'll go with a 1824-ish change first, then detail the July Revolution POD.

Before I start, everyone needs to understand Charles X's goals. He never planned a full restoration of the absolutist Ancien Régime, with its built in seigneurial rights for the Nobility and Clerical privileges. That's a bad myth that's been perpetuated over the centuries. Charles knew that ship had sailed. Instead he favored a very strong constitutional monarchy. Look at the Ordinances of Saint Cloud; even at his most absolute he never attempted to strip the Parliament of its powers nor change the Chartre. In fact everything he did in July 1830 was within the powers granted to him by the Charte Constitutionnelle, so any accusation of illegal action was something thrown around by the opposition during and after the July Revolution. Instead his goal was the restoration of the spirit of pre-revolutionary society as based on the traditional three estates. He and Polignac saw the Chamber of Peers as a bastion of a revived aristocracy consolidated by a renewed primogeniture on land inheritance, tried to restore the Church's role in education and excluded certain taxes (the patente, the window and door taxes) from the criteria of the tax threshold for eligibility to vote, to block as many of the bourgeois from the franchise as possible. In this Charles used the concept of monarchy espoused by Louis XVI in a speech to the Estates-General in 1789. Now that that's out of the way, I can get to the details.

First off, Charles X was in a very good place at his accession in 1824. He was quite popular at the time, enjoying public sympathy from the murder of his son Berri in 1820, while the regimé itself had reestablished its credentials in the successful intervention in Spain. At the legislative elections later that year, the Ultras won 96% of the vote, securing 417 out of 430 seats in the Chambre des Deputies. That these advantages were squandered in three years was pretty bad but not entirely Charles's fault. The controversial Émigré indemnity and Anti-Sacrilege acts both originated under Louis XVIII but were only introduced in the 1825 legislative session. These laws were never going to be popular but formed a core part of the Ultra program, so they would be introduced no matter who was King. I suppose you could move these two laws up a bit earlier, to 1823, that way its Louis XVIII that takes the hit, but that's all I can think of there. Aside from these laws, there were several avoidable mistakes taken in the early years of the reign that can be easily changed in Charles's favor; the back and forth on press censorship, the dismissal of Chateaubriand as Minister of Foreign Affairs and the failed attempt to reestablish primogeniture.

During the Restauration the government went back and forth over Press censorship; in 1814 the press was liberalized but censorship returned partially in December 1814 and fully after the Hundred days; then it was abolished under the liberal era of 1815-1820, under Decazes and Richelieu, restored it during the Ultra reaction in 1820, abandoned again at the governments objection in 1822, restored in 1826, abandoned it again in 1828 and attempted to restore it in 1830. Basically the Ultras wanted a controlled but free press (ignoring that major contradiction) and could never agree on a unified policy. So in my opinion the best bet would be to keep the 1820 censorship laws intact and simply change the enforcement to match the mood in the country. Or, if your only wanting a POD of 1824 or later, have the harsh 1826 "law of reason and love" stay on the books rather than being repealed in 1828 in an overture to the left. That way the liberal press stays as muzzled as possible and aren't able to sure up the country at large. Now the dismissal of Chateaubriand happened in the last months of Louis XVIII's reign but caused major damage to Charles X. Chateaubriand, besides being one of Franc's most famous 19th century writers, was also a major Royalist politician during the Restauration, serving as Foreign minister in the Villéle Ministry, where he was the major advocate of the Spanish intervention, against what the Prime Minister wanted. Despite its ultimate success, Villéle was unhappy with Chateaubriand and secured his dismissal over his lukewarm support of a conversion loan. This sent one of the most talented literary minds in France into opposition, where he became a major writer in liberal newspapers. So either keep Louis XVIII from dismissing him or get Charles X to find him a position in the government/Court to keep him from supporting the opposition. An even better solution would be to put him in charge of government newspapers, utilizing his talents to support the Government in the public sphere. Finally, the failed attempt in 1826 to restore primogeniture, the Law of Inheritance, was rejected by the Liberal Peers created during the liberal era, so have the King make some new Peers and get the law passed. This would be another victory for the Ultras, despite its unpopularity, and, going hand in hand with the Indemnity law, begins to restore the nobility to its pre-revolutionary dominance (in this the King was influenced by the British Peerages dominance and prestige).

Second; the real decline of Charles X's reign started in 1827. That's the year the Garde Nationale nearly revolted when the King reviewed it and the legislative election that broke the power of the Ultras. In April 1827 the King reviewed the Garde Nationale de Paris; the militia was hostile, shouted "Long live the Charter" and "down with the Ministers/Jesuits!", and nearly turned into a riot. The next day the King and Villéle disbanded, but didn't disarm, the Guard. This was the first major mistake. The weapons of the Guard resurfaced three years later during the July Revolution. Instead the King should have disarmed, but not disbanded, the Guard. This is what Napoléon I did. That keeps a revolutionary institution around (a plus for popularity) and removes a threat in the heart of Paris (another plus). The second mistake was the early election Villéle called in November 1827. Now the reason for the early election is unknown but its believed that Villéle saw the rising unpopularity of the Ultras and dissolved the Chambre as to either get a new seven-year mandate before the unpopularity got worse or to unite the Ultras in their fear of renewed liberalism. Either way, it failed miserably; the Ultras split between the Ultras and the super-Ultras while the Liberals gained 170 seats (very similar to the 1830 election in Britain that saw the Tories split over Catholic emancipation and the Whigs make major gains). Now there was no reason to call an election at that point: a change in the electoral law in 1821 meant that, instead of a fifth of the Deputies being up for election every year, they were all up for election every seven years (just like Great Britain). So Villéle had another four years to rebuilt the Ultras popularity and no need for an early election. So avoid calling an early election or wait until the Ultras popularity recovered before calling one.

I think these steps should quiet the domestic front for the time being and keep Charles away form the fateful missteps of appointing Polignac and issuing the ordinances. Long-term it should also help strengthen Restoration France, especially when combined with the popular conquest of Algeria (would still likely happen as it was mentioned off and on sense Napoléon's reign). I'll add additional posts on foreign affairs and a failed July Revolution POD later.
 
Addendum to the domestic post. Charles and his government would also need to pursue some populist policies to balance out their unpopular agenda. Now I'm not entirely sure what constituted popular politics in the early 19th century, but I'd guess things like lowering taxes (has a double advantage of shrinking the electorate, as the Franchise is based on how much you pay), subsidized grain, playing up nationalism at home, major public works, laws keeping out keep foreign goods (think the Corn laws in Britain), as well as some new protections to traditional industries (like the mines, metallurgy, textiles, specifically the Silk workers, and maybe the wool industry) and the restoration of certain protections abolished with the Revolution (like the guild system and the foundations that had been set up to provide an annual stream of revenue for hospitals, poor relief, and education). I think this could help boost the domestic populism but again not my exact expertise.
 
Now for Foreign policy. Under Charles X France was already moving towards a more bellicose and semi-populist foreign policy. The intervention in favor of the Greeks (the Battle of Navarino and the Morea expedition) in the Greek war of independence was partially a populist move, as public opinion was heavily in favor of the Greek revolt and against the Turks. I would also describe the invasion of Algeria as a populist invasion; it allowed France to begin to claim a new Colonial Empire, ended forever the threat of Barbary piracy, freed the remaining Christian slave in Algiers and offered a new frontier and new lands to the lower classes. As the Algerian war was quite popular during the July Monarchy, I imagine that it would be so under the TTL Restauration if given time.

In my opinion, the real question is what France does with the Belgian revolution. While the July revolution is what finally triggered the Belgian revolt, the pressure was already there and I think it would still happen either way. Now one of Charles X's major goals was to restore the international prestige and influence that France had enjoyed under the Ancien Régime and lost at the end of the Napoléonic wars. In fact both Charles and the Dauphin feverishly wished to restore France to her "natural borders" as existed under the Directory and Consulate, ie the annexation of Belgium, Luxembourg and the left bank of the Rhine. Just look at the grandiose plan endorsed by the Poligac Cabinet in 1829, during the Russo-Turkish war. France would make an alliance with Russia and aid the Tsar in sizing Ottoman territories in Europe and Asia; in exchange, the French would recover certain German territories lost in 1814, including Saarlouis, Saarbrücken and Landau, as well as annexing Belgium and Luxembourg. The rest of the Netherlands and Saxony was to be annexed by Prussia, with the House of Orange reigning over Constantinople and a revived Latin or Byzantine Empire (the French Wikipedia page isn't clear here). The Saxon King would rule over a Kingdom on the Left bank of the Rhine. The retreat of the Russians ended this project. Now this entire thing was bonkers and ignored what the rest of the Great powers would accept, but it shows the depths of French ambition.

I assume the French would intervene the same as OTL, though whether its in favor of the Belgians (placing a French Prince on the throne?) the Dutch (occupying parts of Belgium, perhaps forcing the Dutch to cede the territories France lost at the Second Treaty of Paris and some deal on Belgian coal) or even as an outright invasion and annexation (the Belgians were split between independence and joining France, so they could use support for the Belgians as a smokescreen for their army). At the very least the French would heavily campaign for something like the Talleyrand partition plan and try to get as much territory or influence as possible. Now the rest of the Great powers would heavily oppose the annexation of Belgium by France, but I think if they play their cards right, France could regain her 1814 border in the North and some economic concessions from Amsterdam. There is one addendum to Belgium that I've never been able to fully confirm but will mention here. In 1832 the Duchesse de Berry, mother of Henri V (Comte de Chambord, widow of the murdered Duc de Berri and daughter-in-law of Charles X, made a sojurn across Europe to drum up support for the Legitiists and persuade the European Monarchs to launch an invasion of France. Everyone turned her down but one; Willem I of the Netherlands promised to cede Belgium to France if Henri ascended the throne. Now the only source I can find this in is Child of Terror by Susan Nagel, a biography of Marie-Thérése Charlotte of France and unfortunately there's cite on it, so I don't know how real this was. So this could perhaps suggest that Willem I would be willing to cede parts of, or the entirety of, Belgium. I mean his son tried to sell Luxembourg to Napoléon III so perhaps its not as crazy as it sounds.

The next foreign policy question for Charles X's reign would be Poland. Now realistically the Poles have no chance in hell at independence and any French support for the revolt would damage relations with Russia (and potentially Prussia and Austria). Plus, despite the influential Polish exiles in Paris and the previous positive relations with the old Commonwealth, I doubt very seriously that Charles X would ever support a revolution (possible support for Belgian rebels notwithstanding). However, I think overt French support for Russia could help balance out her bellicrose invasion of Algeria and intervention in Belgium. Either direct armed support with an expeditionary force (not sure how it would get to Russia, either marching across Germany or sailing via the Baltic or Black seas) or major economic and matérial support. It would help France ingratiate herself with Nicholas I and gain a major ally.

Finally there's the Iberian peninsula. In the late 1820s and early 1830s Spain and Portugal experienced civil wars that were ostentatiously over the succession but were in fact conflicts between liberals and conservatives. First is Portugal. In 1828 Maria II, the absent child Queen, was overthrown by her Regent, uncle and fiance Dom Miguel, who became Miguel I. Miguel heavily suppressed the liberal across Portugal until only the island of Terceira in the Azores. However, he had little support in England or France and as such his government harassed English and French foreign nationals provoked them to protest. Eventually Admiral Albin Roussin, was ordered by Louis Philippe I (who, like England, could not obtain any diplomatic satisfaction), to take action; he sailed up the Tagus, captured eight Portuguese ships and forcibly imposed a treaty (July 14, 1831). Both nations heavily supported the King's older brother, the former Pedro IV/I of Brazil, who ultimately defeated Miguel and restored his daughter and the constitutional monarchy. However, here France remains neo-absolutist and would likely give Miguel major support (not sure if Charles's government had officially recognized Miguel before the July Revolution, but if not then that recognition would be forthcoming) in the form of the French fleet and perhaps an expeditionary force. In such a scenario I imagine that Miguel would be able to firmly establish himself on the throne and that Pedro IV would fail. Perhaps we'd see a peace treaty that sees Maria II rerecognized as Queen and married to her uncle (the original agreement in 1826) after Pedro I's death. Either way though, Portugal remains heavily conservative.

Finally I reach Spain, which is the one I have the most issues figuring out. As a preface this all assumes that Fernando VII still has two daughters and implements the 1789 suggested abolition of Salic law to make Infanta Isabel his heiress. Usually I would assume that the French would support the Carlists and Carlos V, as their views were very close to Charles X's own, and the French had already fought a war to restore absolutism in Spain previously (the Hundred Thousand Sons of Saint Louis expedition in 1823). However, on the other hand, Charles' daughter-in-law Madame de Berri was the half-sister of Fernando VII's forth Queen Maria Christina and thus aunt to Isabel II. So blood relations would favor the Isabelines. At the very least I think that, in the interest of Family, Charles X (more likely Louis XIX, as the First Carlist war didn't end until 1839, after Charles died) would likely favor a compromise in which Isabel II is deposed but marries his son, Carlos de Montemolín (ie Carlos VI). Maybe they ascend jointly but I doubt it.

OK that's basically every major foreign crisis for Charles X's TTL reign. I could be wrong but I think this forms a likely basis for what his foreign policy would look like. I'll post my failed July Revolution notes either Thursday or Friday.
 
Top