Henri d'Orléans was the Orleanist pretender when WW2 broke out and he largely tried not to take a side between the Vichy and Exiled governments. De Gaulle did make overtures and there was still some monarchist sentiment among the French at this point so it wouldn't have been out of the question for him to pick a side. De Gaulle seemed to think that having Henri on board would have been meaningful but how reasonable was that? What would the alternative monarchist tone of this Free France mean both for the war and after?
Orleanist Free France/Henri VI Backs De Gaulle
- Thread starter Maegor
- Start date
De Gaulle is never going to allow anyone else, let alone a King, to steal his limelight.
I mean, De Gaulle was a monarchist and he did try to get Henri to join his government in exile and I don't see any reason to assume he would have retracted the invitation if Henri accepted. I'm not sure what else Henri could really offer that wouldn't put him in the limelight
The main problem is that De Gaulle tried to be pragmatic regarding the internal situation in France. As said before, De Gaulle was a monarchist, but he supported the Republic because he knew it was te only way for him to gain support. After WWI, Royalists'popularity crumbled in France (at least for the Orleanist branch, the legitimists are another case) because the liberal Right was now formed by moderate republicans and no more Orleanists, like it had been the case in the late 19th century. In a context of World war and de facto exile, De Gaulle coulnd't get closer with Henri, if so he would have lost many supports in France, and he could never have been able to rule the Resistance Movement from London like he did in 1942-1944, and he would have been sidelined when the Liberation occured (Apart from that, it wouldn't have changed WW2's course). To sum up, inviting Henri and proclaming himself a monarchist would have been political-suicide for De Gaulle.
I get what you're saying, my only issue is that De Gaulle still made the invitation. Henri explained that he didn't want to divide France and De Gaulle complained about it in an autobiography. My question isn't "What if Henri was declared King in exile," it's "What if Henri supported Free France?" It seemed to me that giving the regime a monarchist tone would alienate French resistance and damage what little legitimacy De Gaulle had. It sounds like you agree but you think someone else would take De Gaulle's place and the London government would be like irl?
Fearless Leader
Donor
The Americans likely wouldn't be thrilled to say the least.
The problem for the UK is that there aren't that many alternatives to De Gaulle to lead the Free French.
I don't want to derail your thread, but I can't help but wonder if this POD would have longer legs if the dates were slightly different. Say Henri's father dies a bit earlier and thus Henri gets the invitation to London earlier and accepts before Operation Catapult. The decision to attack the French fleet was a very near run thing and even a small divergence such as Henri's arrival could lead to a more peaceful outcome. Without an Operation Catapult, Henri and De Gaulle might be able to overcome whatever baggage a more monarchist Free French movement would have, perhaps also altering the course of the war.
Henri could also push for a referendum to restore the monarchy after the war. Though doing so would require planetary sized balls in 1940.
The problem for the UK is that there aren't that many alternatives to De Gaulle to lead the Free French.
I don't want to derail your thread, but I can't help but wonder if this POD would have longer legs if the dates were slightly different. Say Henri's father dies a bit earlier and thus Henri gets the invitation to London earlier and accepts before Operation Catapult. The decision to attack the French fleet was a very near run thing and even a small divergence such as Henri's arrival could lead to a more peaceful outcome. Without an Operation Catapult, Henri and De Gaulle might be able to overcome whatever baggage a more monarchist Free French movement would have, perhaps also altering the course of the war.
Henri could also push for a referendum to restore the monarchy after the war. Though doing so would require planetary sized balls in 1940.
Did Henri have real intentions to become king, was he willing if the opportunity arose but otherwise not actively seeking to make anything change, or was he at heart a private citizen - but one with supporters who wanted him to be king and never thought to ask him what he thought?
Even if actively wanting to be king he could well argue that the interests of France come first and take a stand based on that to get his supporters on board. An agreement to have a referendum or government vote after the war may then be an acceptable demand. But in the other cases, he could simply say what he thinks and ask or tell his supporters to back him.
OTL faced with the possibility for splitting France on the monarchy when large parts of France are under German occupation it looks like a careful neutrality was a sensible call.
Even if actively wanting to be king he could well argue that the interests of France come first and take a stand based on that to get his supporters on board. An agreement to have a referendum or government vote after the war may then be an acceptable demand. But in the other cases, he could simply say what he thinks and ask or tell his supporters to back him.
OTL faced with the possibility for splitting France on the monarchy when large parts of France are under German occupation it looks like a careful neutrality was a sensible call.
When the War would be over and France liberated, the communists either wouldn't be pleased. If De Gaulle is still the head Of Free France in 1944 and France doesn't become a puppet state Of the US, then a communist takeover or a bloody civil War could be a possibility ITTL (we already came rather close to that OTL).
De Gaulle‘s seeking the limelight was a conscious decision to push Free France onto the high table and he postured extravagantly to carry it off. He was a pragmatist underneath the overt deliberately annoying posturing. He wanted Henri publicly on side for the show but not in any active political role. Doubtless he would have dropped Henri when he needed to look republican.
One can see DeGaulle’s pragmatism when he took on board the Vichy military at the expense of the existing Free French and brought France out of Algeria when he came back into power despite the improvement in the military stability in Algeria. He was never stupid enough to believe his own propaganda and stage performances.
that's it. De Gaulle was always a royalist at heart, but he was always pragmatic enough to know that the future of France was the Republic (since the 1870s the royalists have continued to be more and more marginalized). He translated his royalist ideas by reforming the republic so that it adopted certain monarchist features (as in 1958 with the 5th republic), but he never went further. during the war, his goal was always to establish himself as the leader of Free France and increase the influence of his movement, which is why he would have at best used Henri as a tool before getting rid of him as soon as he could be an obstacle. To get an actual royalist Free France, you'll have to kill De Gaulle or replace him by someone else, maybe a member of the Action Francaise in a TL where Charles Maurras refuses to follow Petain
I'm just gonna plug this from @Emperor Constantine where he discuses the topic in another thread.
Honestly if he does this, the only way he has a chance of winning is if joins de Gaulle in London and publicly shows off his support for "Free France." Being attached to de Gaulle would considerably increase his profile and public standing. And depending on how you change up things prior to Vichy France being setup, you could have people like Maurras and Action Francais, which were both historically anti-German, turn against the Royalists.
Publicly endorsing the Free French cause could thin out Vichy's support from the church, army, and other sources of collaborators, to different degrees of non-cooperation or outright involvement in armed resistance, in turn compelling the German occupation to invest more in suppressing partisan activities. Seeing Italy's postwar state of some stability and the Christian Democrats fairly competing with the Communist Party, and France's geography even further opposite the USSR, Stalin could be comfortable yanking the leash on Thorez and compelling the PCF to play hard but fair with a Catholic-conservative coalition in postwar elections. The trouble is that Henri's mere endorsement of resistance would not be enough. Near-ASB/defeatist foresight and quiet involvement in politics by reaffirming ties to Action Francais figures and playing some concrete role in raising resources for the Free French could make a difference.
Not just the communists, but everyone previously involved in the Popular Front would demand several plums in exchange for even a referendum on the monarchy: continued legality of socialist and communist parties, state Catholic activity largely minimized to inaugurations/weddings/funerals, noncompulsory contributions to the Church, and continued strength of the elected parliament (as all Allies would expect). As much as millions in France would appreciate Henri casting his historic family name and blood with the Resistance, few even among them would be inclined to let go of their country's past experience with liberalism, so he would never be King of France, only King of the French.
If a Kingdom of France emerges in 1945/46, it could be like Belgium or Italy with similar culture wars, but much more organized labor activity. I don't see how the Kingdom would maintain its colonial empire any better than the Republic(s) IOTL. An Orleanist postwar restructuring of the constitution and government would cause decades of writers and politicians picking at old culture war scabs and making sense of how France as the historical forefront of insurrection and liberalism ended up as a crowned republic like the United Kingdom. Could it draw so much energy toward domestic affairs that the Kingdom is more willing to slink away from Indochina and Africa ITTL?
Not just the communists, but everyone previously involved in the Popular Front would demand several plums in exchange for even a referendum on the monarchy: continued legality of socialist and communist parties, state Catholic activity largely minimized to inaugurations/weddings/funerals, noncompulsory contributions to the Church, and continued strength of the elected parliament (as all Allies would expect). As much as millions in France would appreciate Henri casting his historic family name and blood with the Resistance, few even among them would be inclined to let go of their country's past experience with liberalism, so he would never be King of France, only King of the French.
If a Kingdom of France emerges in 1945/46, it could be like Belgium or Italy with similar culture wars, but much more organized labor activity. I don't see how the Kingdom would maintain its colonial empire any better than the Republic(s) IOTL. An Orleanist postwar restructuring of the constitution and government would cause decades of writers and politicians picking at old culture war scabs and making sense of how France as the historical forefront of insurrection and liberalism ended up as a crowned republic like the United Kingdom. Could it draw so much energy toward domestic affairs that the Kingdom is more willing to slink away from Indochina and Africa ITTL?
Well there was Giraud and his Notzis! in Algiers for a while. I remember reading somewhere that a lot of moderate French Liberals like Jean Monnet supported him initially over De Gaulle not because they were closet Nazis or Petain Simps who just happened to hate the Germans because they regarded him as being just a apolitical soldier if with really repellant personal views and thus preferable to that damn Crypto Fascist De Gaulle who would definitely go full failed Artist if he took over after the Germans were expelled and he did have Old Frankies backing for a while, and while I am unsure about his views on the Monarchy specifically and I doubt he’d be smart enough to do this considering his OTL track record....maybe he could gain more support by trumpeting his support and loyalty for the Republic?
Then Henri Giraud probably would have won the power struggle within Free France and De Gaulle became sidelined, unlike IOTL. Publicly declaring for restoring the republic is an easy promise to make, even for Giraud.
@Kronistry IMO I think he understood that nobody would have accepted the idea of giving OTL Fifth Republic Presidential executive powers to a monarch.
Last edited:
I doubt De Gaulle would be influential like IOTL, even until 1942 (When Giraud became an important figure) if he supports the restoration of Henri d'Orléans as a king of France from the start in 1940. He would be completely sidelined by the British and the French resistants who were in their vast majority whether moderate republicans or communists (from June 1941 onwards). I think ITTL, we would have a completely different Free France, ruled with Giraud who has always been loyal to Petain and his government. indeed he subscribed to the idea that the Marechal had saved what could be saved during the 1940 armistice and therefore he didn't consider him a traitor unlike De Gaulle IOTL.
Even if ITTL the Restored King is an entirely symbolic figure without any power or influence, almost all of the French elites and even the population would be for a Republic. And in 1944-1945, the communists were the most influential political movement in France. I think a royalist restoration in 1958 is more likely than in the 1940s.