I have gotten the feeling that the people around Napoleon had no problem believing that Napoleon would have ruled France until his death. He seemed strong enough to face the continual wrath of his enemies.
Assuming his rule until his death had been possible which even Napoleon on St. Helena viewed as impossible (though he hated to acknowledge that anything could be impossible), then his son would have taken over. Napoleon felt he had to be aggressive to maintain power against so many autocrats which led to that famous overreach that we hear so much about concerning Napoleon.
The other main preoccupation of Napoleon was that he foresaw that the world would become enslaved to England’s massive debt that they had incurred in part by bribing so many to bring him down.
He also foresaw that the English government, which he absolutely viewed as operating in “bad faith”, would come to tyrannise Europe one way or another. I personally suspect that the public is lied to today about the true nature of that government’s “overreach” but that most of the public has been so dumbed down with garbage media propaganda that they can’t even see all the lies they are told anymore.
The perception at the time of Napoleon was that maybe through strong man tactics (the only that could’ve kept the autocrats at bay), Napoleon could have maintained his throne but then all his enemies would’ve swarmed his son.
I don’t really see anyone in the Napoleon memoirs thinking that any son of Napoleon’s could’ve faced the combined wrath of all his enemies. Even if Napoleon had had the kind of strength to maintain his rule, because of massive infiltration - he did not. A divided house could not stand and many betrayed the best interests of Europe so they could sell out and get theirs.
The story is fascinating and our present situation directly originates from it:
https://www.thetanster.com/blog/2019/2/11/napoleon-memoirs-links
