Could a Pittite Britain ally with a calmer Revolutionary France

Ora_Poix

Picture this. The French Revolution stabilized with the constitutional monarchy instead of turning republican, and the National Assembly endured. I know that the British public was quite receptive of the French Revolution in its earlier stages, before the republic and execution of Louis XVI. Is it possible that Pitt the Younger, which seems to be quite the centrist for the time, hears the British public opinion and considers an alliance with France at a later date?

If not, and if a Whig government under Fox is needed, how the hell do I get the guy in power? Could this moderate France result in a moderate Fox, and the Whigs remain united, maybe using reform to the House of Commons (initially shot down in 1785) as the main campaign?
 

Tanaka did nothing wrong

Not an expert.

A lot would depend on how French foreign policy would develop; following the treaty of Versailles in 1783, the French government seems to hae hoped that some sort of understanding with Britain might be within reach perhaps, but by 1788, such ideas weren't really fashionable. The British support for the Prussian intervention to the Netherlands in 1787 and the domestic opposition to the Eden treaty and its repercussions for domestic producers were already two sources of controversy; furthermore, Louis XVI never really abandoned his efforts to reduce, if not dislodge British influence on the continent, and British attempts to rebuild ties with other European powers would most likely be a cause of distress among French political and diplomatic circles.

A constitutional monarchy - perhaps Louis manages to reach Montmedy, keep the army together and negotiate on the constitution with the Assembly, reaching a compromise that doesn't crumble in a few months could help diffuse the domestic situation to some/a large extent and thus take out some of the pressures on politics; perhaps the rest of the 1790s could pass with France continuing the previous system of foreign policy, trying to maintain stability in the European diplomatic system as it reforms and restructures. Perhaps that could help ameliorate British fears about France planning to reopen colonial conflicts during that period. However, the causes of economic competition between the two countries would be there, and free trade as an idea would still be neither that well established nor particularly popular; France would probably continue the efforts to expand its economic and commercial influence in continental Europe, via commercial treaties (aiming, among other things, to reduce British economic presence in the area), expand its naval capabilities, and many in the new political system would most likely have colonial and commercial aspirations, or be close to such interest groups. As such, I think that a war would most likely take place between the two countries, probably in the early 1800s.
 
Gwrtheyrn Annwn

Gwrtheyrn Annwn

Ora_Poix said:
Picture this. The French Revolution stabilized with the constitutional monarchy instead of turning republican, and the National Assembly endured. I know that the British public was quite receptive of the French Revolution in its earlier stages, before the republic and execution of Louis XVI. Is it possible that Pitt the Younger, which seems to be quite the centrist for the time, hears the British public opinion and considers an alliance with France at a later date?

If not, and if a Whig government under Fox is needed, how the hell do I get the guy in power? Could this moderate France result in a moderate Fox, and the Whigs remain united, maybe using reform to the House of Commons (initially shot down in 1785) as the main campaign?
Click to expand...
Having looked into this period in both Britain and France quite a lot, this really depends on more than just France going to a constitutional monarchy.

The revolution not going off the deep end would certainly endear France to the British political opposition of the period, Fox, Burke, Portland, other 'Whigs', and they probably would push for closer alliances with this newly reformed France much as they did IOTL. Public opinion is a somewhat overestimated force in Britain in this period imho tho. People like to throw stuff around about public opinion being pro-America in the ARW, pro-France pre-execution, anti-France after the execution, pro-Naploen right up to the end (the story about Napoleon not being allowed on shore in case his mere presence caused a lower class uprising). It had an influence certainly, but only when it could translate to political pressure and British politics of the period were very geared up to avoid that. The franchise was tiny, most 'liberals' tended to be city merchants who were liberal because they wanted free trade, etc. So 'public opinion' as a voice didn't really have much sway and there is a strange tendency to turn the voice of the political opposition into 'public opinion', perhaps because Fox, Burke et al. and their allies in the press liked to claim that they were the voice of the people.

With that in mind, it doesn't really matter if public opinion likes post-revolution, pre-execution France. I'm not sure they did, they probably either didn't care or just hated France in instinct, but either way, it doesn't really matter. Pitt was perfectly able to ignore them as long as he could manage Parliament and the political opposition was rarely strong enough to matter. So far so bad for your idea, but there is good news. Pitt himself had little interest in going to war with France pre-execution. He was generally adverse to major wars before the Revolutionary Wars IOTL and felt pushed into them by France becoming a dangerous pariah. So if you just want to avoid a war, it's quite plausible for Britain and France to not go to war if France goes constitutional.

An alliance, and indeed enduring neutrality, is harder and really depends on what France does. Someone like Fox was probably mad/ideological enough to leap straight into an alliance out of a principle of standing together with a constitutional monarchy if he somehow got into power. His government would probably collapse in short order afterwards. Pitt, or any similarly kinder successors if the political figures are similar to OTL, might agree a defensive alliance or some kind of treaty of friendship at a later date, after a period of warming relations. France was still the great national enemy at the start of the 1790s, no war might be preferable but that doesn't necessarily translate into a full alliance. If constitutional France starts trying to make an alliance with Britain, perhaps as some kind of constitutional front or something, then it could happen with the right terms but bith countries woukd nees to move in that direction.

One possible fulcrum for that could be around Britain's main foreign policy concern before the French Revolution, the rise of the central/eastern European powers that was threatening to push both Britain and France out of the European continental game. Britain had tried to fracture this with Prussia and the Netherlands in the 1780s and even tried to bring Austria into an anti-Russian alliance but by 1791, the Prussian alliance has broken and the Austrian alliance never agreed. So if TTL avoids the grand strategy changes of OTL's French Revolution and priorities are still directed against an alliance of Prussia, Austria and Russia then it's possible, just possible that Britain and France could do a diplomatic revolution to ally against the 'autocratic menace' as 'constitutional' allies. But as I say, this would require more steps then just France not going full on with the revolution.
 

Ora_Poix

Gwrtheyrn Annwn said:
An alliance, and indeed enduring neutrality, is harder and really depends on what France does. Someone like Fox was probably mad/ideological enough to leap straight into an alliance out of a principle of standing together with a constitutional monarchy if he somehow got into power. His government would probably collapse in short order afterwards. Pitt, or any similarly kinder successors if the political figures are similar to OTL, might agree a defensive alliance or some kind of treaty of friendship at a later date, after a period of warming relations. France was still the great national enemy at the start of the 1790s, no war might be preferable but that doesn't necessarily translate into a full alliance. If constitutional France starts trying to make an alliance with Britain, perhaps as some kind of constitutional front or something, then it could happen with the right terms but bith countries woukd nees to move in that direction.
Click to expand...
So for it to happen the National Assembly has to work hard to improve relations with France, which could mean some harsh economic concessions, which from my pretty limited knowledge of this period is what Britain was after? I think that a war with other continental European powers is unavoidable, especially if Louis XVI goes into exhile in 1792 or some later date. If the National Assembly is at all competent (which they weren't, but shh), I believe they could've seen this coming and would've prioritized an alliance over their century-long rivalry, even if it means giving up your economy to Britain somewhat.

To hear that any Fox government would've quickly collapsed and that public opinion doesn't really matter is disheartening lol, but it makes sense, the man wasn't all too popular and Britain was more of a plutocracy than an actual democracy at this point in time. I just wanted an EU in the late 19th century :(
 
Gwrtheyrn Annwn

Gwrtheyrn Annwn

Ora_Poix said:
So for it to happen the National Assembly has to work hard to improve relations with France, which could mean some harsh economic concessions, which from my pretty limited knowledge of this period is what Britain was after? I think that a war with other continental European powers is unavoidable, especially if Louis XVI goes into exhile in 1792 or some later date. If the National Assembly is at all competent (which they weren't, but shh), I believe they could've seen this coming and would've prioritized an alliance over their century-long rivalry, even if it means giving up your economy to Britain somewhat.

To hear that any Fox government would've quickly collapsed and that public opinion doesn't really matter is disheartening lol, but it makes sense, the man wasn't all too popular and Britain was more of a plutocracy than an actual democracy at this point in time. I just wanted an EU in the late 19th century :(
Click to expand...
Hundreds of years of rivalry are always going to be hard to unravel. I'm not sure massive economic concessions would be necessary, or even plausible, but the issue of the economy is probably another one that friendlier relations could be built around. Some kind of trading relationship would be a good start and was already in progress in some form before the revolution.

There's no guarantee Louis XVI goes into exile in a constitutional monarchy imho. He actually supported a lesser form of one for a while. Say Mirabeau doesn't die when he did IOTL and him and Montmorin are able to steer politics towards a constitutional monarchy that way. Louis XVI would be set up fine as a constitutional monarch then, probably with an amount of power that he would find acceptable. That could actually help the path of an alliance as Louis XVI was a strong anglo-phile on a personal level.

Yeah, a plutocracy is a fair description. And Fox was not as popular as he believed/liked to make out.

But if your goal is an EU in the late 19th century then you have literally a century of changes you can make. If you're set on one in the late 18th century then this is a fair place to start, certainly, just remember that you can guide diplomatic relations in the intervening period. Alternatively, there were strong movements for Anglo-French rapprochement at various points in the 19th century that you could also look at.
 

Beatriz

Gone Fishin'
A proto-EU of France+sister republics in Holland, Germany, Italy and Spain and Britain+ Portugal could work vs. Prussian-Austrian-Russian autocracy
 

Ora_Poix

Gwrtheyrn Annwn said:
There's no guarantee Louis XVI goes into exile in a constitutional monarchy imho. He actually supported a lesser form of one for a while. Say Mirabeau doesn't die when he did IOTL and him and Montmorin are able to steer politics towards a constitutional monarchy that way. Louis XVI would be set up fine as a constitutional monarch then, probably with an amount of power that he would find acceptable. That could actually help the path of an alliance as Louis XVI was a strong anglo-phile on a personal level.
Click to expand...
Seriously? I always had the impression Louis XVI wasn't exactly pleased with the French Revolution. He did try to escape and set up counterrevolutionary efforts, and from what I remember, he wasn't exactly strong-willed, and the escape to varennes had a lot of influence from Marie Antoinette and the rest of the royal family. I decided to not do it, but I expected him to turn against the revolution sooner or later. I guess if this isn't true it simplifies things, especially regarding Britain, just need another cause for the war.
 
Gwrtheyrn Annwn

Gwrtheyrn Annwn

Ora_Poix said:
Seriously? I always had the impression Louis XVI wasn't exactly pleased with the French Revolution. He did try to escape and set up counterrevolutionary efforts, and from what I remember, he wasn't exactly strong-willed, and the escape to varennes had a lot of influence from Marie Antoinette and the rest of the royal family. I decided to not do it, but I expected him to turn against the revolution sooner or later. I guess if this isn't true it simplifies things, especially regarding Britain, just need another cause for the war.
Click to expand...
Louis XVI's attitudes are not wholly consistent, over time and between public and private. He was indeed, as you put it, not exactly pleased with the Revolution but that wasn't an objection to reform entirely just the direction the Revolution went. This was the monarch who called the Estates General to overhaul the finance system of the kingdom in the first place.

Even with the Flight to Varennes and his Political Testament, which so famously typified his rejection of the Revolution, he didn't reject all of it, he 'only' wanted to undo the events of 1791 especially and 1790 to an extent. The Civil Constitution, his gilded cage in the Tulieres, the limited veto, etc. He genuinely believed the populace at large agreed with him as well. A Mirabeau/Montmorin constitutional monarchy would resolve a lot of his immediate issues and would be, at least according to Mirabeau's plan, supported by the public beyond Paris. So that resolves Louis XVI's main issues and can keep him on the throne.

Marie Antoinette would probably object as well but does seem to have had close links to Mirabeau so it's possible things could stay together.
 

Ora_Poix

Gwrtheyrn Annwn said:
Louis XVI's attitudes are not wholly consistent, over time and between public and private. He was indeed, as you put it, not exactly pleased with the Revolution but that wasn't an objection to reform entirely just the direction the Revolution went. This was the monarch who called the Estates General to overhaul the finance system of the kingdom in the first place.

Even with the Flight to Varennes and his Political Testament, which so famously typified his rejection of the Revolution, he didn't reject all of it, he 'only' wanted to undo the events of 1791 especially and 1790 to an extent. The Civil Constitution, his gilded cage in the Tulieres, the limited veto, etc. He genuinely believed the populace at large agreed with him as well. A Mirabeau/Montmorin constitutional monarchy would resolve a lot of his immediate issues and would be, at least according to Mirabeau's plan, supported by the public beyond Paris. So that resolves Louis XVI's main issues and can keep him on the throne.

Marie Antoinette would probably object as well but does seem to have had close links to Mirabeau so it's possible things could stay together.
Click to expand...
Don't wanna bother you to much lol, but this should be the final one.
I just have two questions. First of all, can Louis XVI even help much with for cordiality between Britain and France. I don't expect them to be allies, but when war eventually comes, I want Britain to back France, in much the same way they did with Spain a few years later. I just don't know how much Louis XVI can actually do. If he has power over foreign affairs, great, but if he doesn't might make it a bit more complicated. Though I guess he could ease the idea to both Britain and France.
I'm also starting to acclimate to the idea of a Mirabeau National Assembly, instead of, or at least in alliance with, Lafayette. It does seem like the most realistic path for a stable constitutional monarchy. From a little reading, it seems Mirabeau wanted a more conservative constitution, namely by giving the king a full veto. Would the radicals support this tho? Though I guess either way, the moderates still had majority inside the assembly. Plus, if Louis XVI supports it fully, it legitimizes the constitution to the moderates and legitimizes the king for the radicals, and I've already conceded to the radicals in some other areas. I just want to know if they would maybe try to do a republic either way, given the more conservative constitution.
But in any way, thanks so much for your help. I don't have much knowledge in this part of history and your replies helped a lot :)
 

Yorel

I don't think that's a real possibility.

The problem for Pitt wasn't the regime, it was France becoming much too powerful for his liking. Not to mention this whole Franco-British rivalry that had been going on for years and centuries that don't help each side of the channel like each other much, unless Germany or Spain are a problem...

This French Revolution also happened a few years after a certain Lafayette chap helped those pesky colonists of the Americas get their independance...

Finally... Well, the whole situation always gave Britain a chance to seize French colonies. And there is nothing more than Pitt loved to do.

Basically, even a calmer Revolution doesn't really feel like it would be a friend of Pittite Britain.
 
Gwrtheyrn Annwn

Gwrtheyrn Annwn

Ora_Poix said:
Don't wanna bother you to much lol, but this should be the final one.
I just have two questions. First of all, can Louis XVI even help much with for cordiality between Britain and France. I don't expect them to be allies, but when war eventually comes, I want Britain to back France, in much the same way they did with Spain a few years later. I just don't know how much Louis XVI can actually do. If he has power over foreign affairs, great, but if he doesn't might make it a bit more complicated. Though I guess he could ease the idea to both Britain and France.
I'm also starting to acclimate to the idea of a Mirabeau National Assembly, instead of, or at least in alliance with, Lafayette. It does seem like the most realistic path for a stable constitutional monarchy. From a little reading, it seems Mirabeau wanted a more conservative constitution, namely by giving the king a full veto. Would the radicals support this tho? Though I guess either way, the moderates still had majority inside the assembly. Plus, if Louis XVI supports it fully, it legitimizes the constitution to the moderates and legitimizes the king for the radicals, and I've already conceded to the radicals in some other areas. I just want to know if they would maybe try to do a republic either way, given the more conservative constitution.
But in any way, thanks so much for your help. I don't have much knowledge in this part of history and your replies helped a lot :)
Click to expand...
Sorry for the slow response, I've had a busy week.

1) He probably can't, especially not with a constitutional monarchy where an elected government actually decides policy. He was always willing to bow to 'national interest' anyway, see going to war with Britain in the ARW. But if relations are warming anyway, then he would be a good conduit and/or mouthpiece for them.
2) The radicals wouldn't support it. But when Mirabeau was attempting the scheme, the radicals were not a major force in France or Paris. They existed, absolutely, but were a minority force until the Flight to Varennes. They would not doubt object and may ferment opposition, but I'm not sure how much they could achieve if Mirabeau's system can get embedded.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top
Top