WI: Louis XVII survived?

[Rudi Maxer]

As a descendant of a noble of Polish-Lithuanian Commonwealth, I co-sign with that - 20% of PLC population were technically nobility. The daughter of elected King whose grandfather was merely a low-ranked noble and who had no descent in any way to either Princely families of HRE or early rulers of either Poland or Lithuania, is probably the lowest ranked person ever to be a Queen of France. In fact, a daughter of any POTUS would have been in the same position as her - her father being ELECTED King, holding a position for a few years and then exiled. So Marie Leszczynska is a very definition of a commoner Queen - a mere noble descent being meaningless in the country where 20% of population counted as nobility.

Stanisław Leszczyński came from magnate family. Among his ancestors and relatives were several Poland's ministers, voivodes, hetmans and bishops. Hardly a mere noble. If you want to compare him to US President, then it would be Kennedy or Bush.

 

[Emperor Constantine]

Stanisław Leszczyński came from magnate family. Among his ancestors and relatives were several Poland's ministers, voivodes, hetmans and bishops. Hardly a mere noble. If you want to compare him to US President, then it would be Kennedy or Bush.

Exactly. He might not have been a hereditary King, but he was no minor noble. Its not like the King was marrying the daughter of a British Baronet.

 

[Marc Pasquin]

Then he might as well marry one of Napoleon's sisters. That would technically be the best bet.

Some might see this as bringing together both of France's monarchial's houses while some royalists might have an issue with him marrying the sister of "The Usurper". Could go both ways really.

 

[Yorel]

Then he might as well marry one of Napoleon's sisters. That would technically be the best bet.

Some might see this as bringing together both of France's monarchial's houses while some royalists might have an issue with him marrying the sister of "The Usurper". Could go both ways really.

In my opinion, the opinion of the royalists doesn't matter much: it's Napoleon who would have the cards in hands. If he wants to marry Louis XVII to one of his sister, he will do it and there will be no opposition.

The main problem would come from the timing. Of Napoleon's three sisters, Elisa is most likely ruled out: she married Felix Bacciochi in 1797 and they remained married until her death in 1820.

Pauline Bonaparte is a more likely case. She was first married in 1797 but her husband, Charles Leclerc, died in 1802. She remarried to Camille Borghese in 1803 but Napoleon could consider her as a brider for Louis XVII if he choose to restore the monarchy. To further this idea is the fact that Napoleon and Pauline were extremly close: so the idea of making his beloved sister Queen of France would be a wonderful gift for Napoleon. Louis XVII would also be 17 in 1802, so he would be in age to marry Pauline if he already isn't by that point.

Then there is Caroline. She married Murat after Brumaire, but on January 1800 so a few months after the coup. That makes her technically available for Louis XVII, but I'm not sure the idea of restoring the monarchy and the idea of marrying one of his sister to Louis XVII would come to Napoleon such a short time after his coup.

There is another person Napoleon could choose to marry to Louis XVII of course: his stepdaughter, Hortense de Beauharnais. Napoleon always cherished the children of Joséphine, so having Hortence marrying Louis XVII could be an interesting choice. And Hortense didn't marry Louis Bonaparte before 1802.

That being said, all of this still depends on Napoleon's personna and on what he decides to do with Louis XVII.

 

[Kellan Sullivan]

In my opinion, the opinion of the royalists doesn't matter much: it's Napoleon who would have the cards in hands. If he wants to marry Louis XVII to one of his sister, he will do it and there will be no opposition.

The main problem would come from the timing. Of Napoleon's three sisters, Elisa is most likely ruled out: she married Felix Bacciochi in 1797 and they remained married until her death in 1820.

Pauline Bonaparte is a more likely case. She was first married in 1797 but her husband, Charles Leclerc, died in 1802. She remarried to Camille Borghese in 1803 but Napoleon could consider her as a brider for Louis XVII if he choose to restore the monarchy. To further this idea is the fact that Napoleon and Pauline were extremly close: so the idea of making his beloved sister Queen of France would be a wonderful gift for Napoleon. Louis XVII would also be 17 in 1802, so he would be in age to marry Pauline if he already isn't by that point.

Then there is Caroline. She married Murat after Brumaire, but on January 1800 so a few months after the coup. That makes her technically available for Louis XVII, but I'm not sure the idea of restoring the monarchy and the idea of marrying one of his sister to Louis XVII would come to Napoleon such a short time after his coup.

There is another person Napoleon could choose to marry to Louis XVII of course: his stepdaughter, Hortense de Beauharnais. Napoleon always cherished the children of Joséphine, so having Hortence marrying Louis XVII could be an interesting choice. And Hortense didn't marry Louis Bonaparte before 1802.

That being said, all of this still depends on Napoleon's personna and on what he decides to do with Louis XVII.

Pauline was an airhead - almost of all of Napoleon's friends and relatives thought so. When she was given the principality of Piombino it was said "if it were to be governed by a wand trailing flowers she would take it", unfortunately, she had no interest in it and sold it back to Napoleon who then added it to Elisa's domains. Caroline was a schemer par none, and Elisa a blue-stocking (neither quality will endear her to a French Restauration court who will see her as foisted on them in any case).

Marrying the king to Hortense is not going to improve the Bonapartist view of the Beauharnais wholesale. After the divorce from Josephine was final Madame Mere said: "first a Bonaparte, and then another outsider" and then proceeded to marry Napoleon off to one of Lucien's daughters from a first marriage. Ergo, the Bonapartes are going to ask the question of why they weren't good enough, but his spoilt spendthrift French widow's brats are.

And then you will have the problem of Hortense being Queen of France. She'll have the Bonapartes against her, the ultra-royalist French nobility will dislike a "low-born" queen. In fact, I can go so far as to see Madame Royale hating her and passing a few well quoted remarks on her low birth. The ultras are also going to see it perhaps that Napoleon is trying to play Kingmaker, and keep the king on his side by marrying him to a girl who would otherwise maybe be his mistress.

Also, while Mesdames de Pompadour, de Maintenon et du Barry were mere bourgeoisie, the Mailly, La Montespan and La Valliere were higher up on the aristocratal foodchain than Hortense (the daughter of a mere Vicomte).

 

[RandomYT05]

Just what it says in the title. What if Louis XVII survived his captivity in the Temple? Lets say he wasn't held in such deplorable conditions and subsequently didn't die of Scrofula or Tuberculosis or what ever he actually died of (the whole thing, from his imprisonment to his death is pretty much shrouded in mystery). What happens next? Would he be traded along with his sister in a prisoner exchange? Or would he be kept in France as a hostage? Would he remain in Vienna, where his sister was initially sent, or would he continue to join his uncle and technical Regent in Courland? Who would he marry? Would a surviving Louis XVII lead to an earlier Restoration? If he's restored at the same time as his uncle, how would he reign? How would the long imprisonment at the Temple effect him? Would he be a more liberal King or an arch-conservative?

Definitely an arch-conservative. Prison would make him so embittered, that I doubt he would even let the 1830 revolution succeed, and would likely act aggressively against the revolutionaries both foreign and domestic during the 1848 revolutions.

 

[CalBear]

Definitely an arch-conservative. Prison would make him so embittered, that I doubt he would even let the 1830 revolution succeed, and would likely act aggressively against the revolutionaries both foreign and domestic during the 1848 revolutions.

Remember that warning box you clicked through? The one that told yopu the thread had been dead for 3,600 days?

Should have heeded the warning.

See ya' in 7