Yes, they might be free of hemophilia, because Bonapartes are not so much inbred like other European royal families?
Common Bonaparte W if true.Yes, they might be free of hemophilia, because Bonapartes are not so much inbred like other European royal families?
The perks of being an upstart family of impoverished minor nobles.Genetics and chances...
The same could be said of every single dynasty in Europe five or ten centuries back in time...The perks of being an upstart family of impoverished minor nobles.
Naturally. And i hope the children of Napoleon and Bess are free from the curse of the descendants of queen victoria: Hemophilia
Unluckily Beatrice was a carrier so is impossible who all her children will be safe from it.Yes, they might be free of hemophilia, because Bonapartes are not so much inbred like other European royal families?
I hope that at least their heir is free form it.Unluckily Beatrice was a carrier so is impossible who all her children will be safe from it.
Well, I may elaborate on that in a future post, but short answer : a seat at the table and a not insignificant compensation for the confiscations of their properties in 1852. But that's the short answer, mind you.What did the Bonapartist government offer the Orleanists for their support?
Can't wait for it! One branch the Bonapartes will not have to worry about. Hope theyc an get the Bourbons out of their hair for good tooWell, I may elaborate on that in a future post, but short answer : a seat at the table and a not insignificant compensation for the confiscations of their properties in 1852. But that's the short answer, mind you.
Napoléon III (1852-1873)
Napoléon IV (1873-..)
- Chasseloup-Laubat * : 1869-1870
- Emile Ollivier : 1870
- Cousin-Montauban : August 1870
- Prince Napoléon : 1870-1871
- Eugène Schneider I ** : 1871-1873
* : He was not formally prime minister, but Napoléon III had appointed him and the cabinet in the aftermath of the 1869 elections in reaction to the surge of the opposition. The "Ministry of New Men" with old regime figures was a transition between direct rule by Napoléon III and a parliamentary regime under Ollivier.
** : Baron Eugène Schneider, industrialist, and president of the Corps Legislatif in 1867-1870. For reference, the Schneider family was France's pendant of Germany's Krupp or America's Carnegie.
- Eugène Rouher : 1873-1882
- Bardi de Fourtou : 1882-..
I am obviously coming pretty late to this party and I have not read through yet. So forgive me if this has been discussed already.was the first of a series of Anglo-French agreements and treaties that would collectively come to be known as the "Entente Cordiale". The convention of 1875 formally delineated the respective limits of British and French spheres of influence in the Red Sea and in South-East Asia, but it essentially confirmed and established alignment and cooperation with Great Britain as a dogma of French foreign and colonial policy, begun under Napoléon III and continued under Napoléon IV
All valid. The convention of 1875, like the otl entente cordiale (the alliance did not come formally until the Great War began if I'm not mistaken), is no alliance, but more of an understanding. And the whole matter is essentially France conceding to Britain's interests. They retrocede to London half of the Egyptian shares to set up the 50-50 ownership of the canal, instead of retaining it all as @KingSweden24 did in his TL. They drop any project of expedition against Pekin, leave the British annex Burma and swear they'll let Siam stay independent. Overall, the UK is still into its splendid isolation phase, and unlike OTL entente cordiale, there has not been Germany antagonizing London with the naval arms race.I am obviously coming pretty late to this party and I have not read through yet. So forgive me if this has been discussed already.
However, 1875 is firmly in the territory of the Earl of Derby being Foreign Secretary in Britain under Disraeli. Derby would likely have been somewhat in favour of a delineation of interests as a means to avoid conflict. However, the exact terms of the settlement would be important. Disraeli was not one to want the perception of giving up British interests to be attached to his ministry.
In any case, however, no formal, or even informal tie between France and Britain would have been contemplated at this time. At this time Britain felt that alliances were an unnecessary constraint on their freedom of action and avoided them at all costs. They would work with whoever they felt aligned with their goals in whatever crisis came up. Derby was perhaps the epitome of splendid isolationism. So a pro-British policy on the part of the Quai d'Orsay would have to be a pretty one sided affair. You are not going to see a willingness for British politicians to consider longer term deals until at least the 1880’s.
Fair enough. Seems like compromises that Derby and especially Salisbury could work with. Though the later would negotiate vociferously. It would probably suite Granville and Gladstone even more, though the French would probably get even less obvious thanks from then for it.All valid. The convention of 1875, like the otl entente cordiale (the alliance did not come formally until the Great War began if I'm not mistaken), is no alliance, but more of an understanding. And the whole matter is essentially France conceding to Britain's interests. They retrocede to London half of the Egyptian shares to set up the 50-50 ownership of the canal, instead of retaining it all as @KingSweden24 did in his TL. They drop any project of expedition against Pekin, leave the British annex Burma and swear they'll let Siam stay independent. Overall, the UK is still into its splendid isolation phase, and unlike OTL entente cordiale, there has not been Germany antagonizing London with the naval arms race.
But this TTL convention/understanding is more or less a continuation of the anglophile orientation of French foreign policy started under Napoléon III, which the Third Republic interrupted for the next thirty years (between colonial rivalry and protectionism). Then, anglophile doesn't mean suppine, but more about avoiding big clashes with the British and keeping friendly or neutral, which essentially means Napoléon IV is not going to committ the mistakes Wilhelm II did.
Moving faster than Disraeli on Suez would be difficult. He was already looking into buying into the Canal when the Khedive came knocking and he cut basically every corner available to purchase them first. There were literally only 9 days between the first inkling of the Khedive meaning to sell and the British purchase. Nonetheless, it’s something I can accept as a possibility.In the Red Sea.
IOTL, the British took advantage of the Khedive's dire finances to captate Egypt's share of the Suez canal company. ITTL instead, de Lesseps and the French are faster; however, for diplomatic reasons, not to antagonize the British, Paris offers a 50-50 deal to appease London.