If France Became A Monarchy?


If you have answers, please help by responding to the unanswered posts.

ImKevin

Commoner
Joined
Apr 24, 2014
Messages
33
City
Nanuet
Country
United States
What do you think would happen ?
 
a revolution shortly afterwards, but less violent than the last one.
 
How would the head of the French monarchy be decided?
Would the new sovereign be the Legitimist claimant to the French throne?
Would the new sovereign be the Orleanist claimant to the French throne?
Would the new sovereign be the Bonapartist claimant to the French throne?
:frenchbourbons::bourbonparma::houseoforleans::georgiaflag:
 
I have no idea. I wonder the same thing about my country, Portugal.

But I don't believe that France will be a monarchy.
 
How would the head of the French monarchy be decided?
Would the new sovereign be the Legitimist claimant to the French throne?
Would the new sovereign be the Orleanist claimant to the French throne?
Would the new sovereign be the Bonapartist claimant to the French throne?
:frenchbourbons::bourbonparma::houseoforleans::georgiaflag:

I don't think any of these people would volunteer for the dubious honor of being a royal. Sacrifice all your privacy, dignity and peace of mind just to become a public punching-bag. No Thanks!

If I were them I would be throwing yearly liberation parties to celebrate my private citizenship.
 
a revolution shortly afterwards, but less violent than the last one.


I would doubt it.

If a restoration were to happen in most European realms it would very likely be the result of some form of referendum - in essence the people standing up and saying they want the monarchy back. This isn't likely to face a revolution, not if the referendum wins by a clear majority, and if it did... Well, that would likely be a bloody political coupe, but that doesn't seem to be how politics works in most parts of Europe anymore.

I think it's unlikely that a restoration would happen in France for many reasons though - France has been a republic for too long, the people who have claims to the throne do so rather dubiously, and there are too many claimants in order for the monarchist cause to be united enough to gain momentum. It was different in the 19th century when the people putting themselves forward for the role were actually closely related to those who had held the role already (and foreign powers were willing to interfere).
 
I don't think any of these people would volunteer for the dubious honor of being a royal. Sacrifice all your privacy, dignity and peace of mind just to become a public punching-bag. No Thanks!

If I were them I would be throwing yearly liberation parties to celebrate my private citizenship.

But, let's not forget that "these people" are already French Royals, albeit defunct. The Legitimist claimant is the Duke of Anjou, whilst the Orleanist Claimant is the Comte de Paris, and the Bonaparte Claimant is the Prince Napoleon. Even though the Duke of Anjou lives in Spain with his family (his father was a cousin of the former King Juan Carlos of Spain), they all have some idea of what it's like to be a royal in France. :flowers:

It would be fascinating to see what would happen if France were to become a monarchy again, and who would assume the throne. I wonder how well known the French Royals are in France (ie. who is the more famous family out of the three claimants), and how popular they are over each other. When I went on a recent visit to the South West of France, I stayed in an area that was quite royalist as the magazines featured the Duke of Vendome and his family on the front cover in connection with the presentation and christening of Princess Louise-Marguerite. A sign in the local church said that despite the general French views on royalty, the village have always been royalists at heart, even during the revolution.

As Ish has said, France has been a republic for too long now and what with the revolution and all that, I doubt they would want to go back to the old days. I doubt there will be another revolution if the French monarchy ever does get restored, as the attitude towards royalty might have changed. European Royalty gets featured on a lot of French magazines (think Paris Match, People etc), and there are even French magazines devoted just to the royals.

It would be interesting to hear our French posters' views on this subject.
 
One can never be to sure but to me the hopes of restoration died with the previous Count and Countess of Paris. Compared to their son and grandsons they led a truly royal lifestyle and was accorded the prestige that came with their supposed position. The countess for instance was the true queen of Paris society for most of her life and was treated as an unofficial First Lady by most people. All this is off course my own opinion but based on what I've read and heard.


Sent from my iPhone using The Royals Community mobile app
 
How would the head of the French monarchy be decided?
Would the new sovereign be the Legitimist claimant to the French throne?
Would the new sovereign be the Orleanist claimant to the French throne?
Would the new sovereign be the Bonapartist claimant to the French throne?
:frenchbourbons::bourbonparma::houseoforleans::georgiaflag:


I doubt France will ever be a monarchy again, but, if it were, the Orleanist pretender would probably be chosen as monarch given that he is the legitimate heir following Philip V's renunciation of his succession rights in France upon being recognized King of Spain and the later demise of Henri of Artois, the last known male descendant in male line of the senior branch of House of Bourbon who had ruled France since Henri IV.
 
Wouldn't a referendum about choosing among the most suitable (and willing) clairmants/candidates/whatever be a logic solution?
 
Last edited:
They'd end up getting rid of them again like the last 10x. In all seriousness what is the point of going backwards? France is one place that does not need help with tourism or a global mascot. I don't know how long they've been a republic but it seems to be working fine for them.
 
The possibility of any restoration [of any claimant] to the Throne of France is infinitesimally small, since the Republican establishment is so heavily dependant on maintaining the 'status quo'.The whole ethos of society and education is predicated on the maintenance of the way things ARE.

French children are indoctrinated from birth [and throughout school] with the founding revolutionary myth of 'liberty, equality & fraternity', and the absolute moral rightness of republican 'virtue' as opposed to the evil of the Ancien Regime. Until very recently dissenting voices [questioning the justice of the events of 1789-93] were taboo, and are still howled down as reactionary.

In very much the same way as the US does with its own Revolution, France fetishises this phase, as cathartic & 'cleansing' [ a cursory look at the words of the 'Marseillaise', tells you all you need to know about how Royalists ,and monarchism are portrayed there..] '

To arms citizens Form your battalions
March, march
Let impure blood
Water our furrows

What do they want this horde of slaves
Of traitors and conspiratorial kings?
For whom these vile chains
These long-prepared irons?
Frenchmen, for us, ah! What outrage
What methods must be taken?
It is us they dare plan
To return to the old slavery!'


Enough said..


Restoration is an interesting, and enjoyable fantasy, but a fantasy nonetheless.
 
Last edited:
It won't happen. "La République" is, for most French people, synonymous with democracy and this view is reinforced by the media and the state.
 
Any monarchist restoration, not matter is that Legitimists, Orleanists or Bonapartes, is currently very implausible. France is strongly republican and last monarch has ousted almost 150 years ago. It is very long time so not chances for this. In early 20th century it might had been possible in right circumstances but probably any possibility died after WW2. Not sure if even current claimants of Legitimists, Orlanists and Bonapartes believe for that.
 
In what sense? Has anything happened in the last few years to make you feel that the Republic is not likely to last?


When Antoine Griezmann shouts in the world's camera "Vive la France! Vive la République!" after winning the World Cup, when people spontaneous burst into chanting La Marseillaise (a revolutionary song) and when at e-ve-ry police station, prefecture, mairie and department we see the tricolore with Liberté - Égalité - Fraternité, it is hard to imagine the Fleur-de-Lys waving again. It will never happen.
 
Taking about French Royalty, what happened to Louis XVI of France and Marie Antonette's descendants after French Revolution?
 
They have no direct descendants unfortunately.

Their son and heir little Louis XVII died of tuberculosis aged ten, in June 1795.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Louis_XVII_of_France


Their daughter Marie Thérèse Charlotte (titled Madame Royale) survived three years of being a prisoner in the Temple. the revolutionaries sent her to Austria in 1795 by exchanging her with French prisoners. She later married in exile her cousin the Duke of Angoulême but they had no issue. She only came back to France in 1815 when her uncle became the new King Louis XVIII. She went to exile a final time after the 1830 revolution and died in 1851 at Frohsdorf Castle in Austria.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Marie_Thérèse_of_France

So there are no direct descendants of them.
 
Taking about French Royalty, what happened to Louis XVI of France and Marie Antonette's descendants after French Revolution?
Their son Louis was murdered in prison aged 9 and their daughter Marie-Therese ended up rallying the masses of Bordeaux against Napoleon (but ended up leaving the city to spare the inhabitants) and was nominally Queen of France for about 20 minutes in 1830 between the abdications of her father-in-law and her husband (who was her cousin).
 
Taking about French Royalty, what happened to Louis XVI of France and Marie Antonette's descendants after French Revolution?


Only their eldest daughter, Marie-Thérèse, survived past the revolution. She was able to escape France for Vienna, then to Courland, where her uncle (the future Louis XVIII) lived. He arranged a marriage between her and his nephew/her cousin, Louis-Antoine (the future Louis XIX according to monarchists). The couple then moved to Britain, where they lived until the fall of Napoleon. She returned to France during her uncle’s reign, and even tried to orchestrate a French opposition to Napoleon’s return. When Louis XVIII died her father-in-law became Charles X, and her husband became heir apparent. However, after the Revolution of July 1830, the Bourbons (including Marie-Thérèse and her husband) were exiled from France once again as the Orleans came to the throne. The family returned to Britain at first, before going to what was then Austria. Marie-Thérèse outlived her husband, but died in 1851. She and Louis-Antoine never had children.

Of her siblings, all died young; Louis Joseph died age 7 of a fever and Sophie died at age 11 months due to complications from tuberculosis, both before the revolution. Louis Charles (styled as Louis XVII by monarchists) was imprisoned during the revolution and died at the age of 10.
 
It would almost certainly be the House of Orleans that would be restored (neither the Legitimists nor the Bonapartists have anywhere near enough support to make it happen, while the Orleanists might conceivably be able to pull it off if there were a sufficient seachange in public opinion with regard to the republic). It's not an entirely great likelihood for the Orleanists either, though.



Speculatively, I don't necessarily think it's a given that the monarchy would be overthrown soon the hypothetical restoral of the House of Orleans, though. The reaction of the Count of Paris to the Yellow Vests (calling for national unity, but recognizing that the grievances of the Yellow Vests are legitimate and must be resolved) leads me to suspect that, were he to accede to the Throne, the French Monarchy would, by the end of his reign, ultimately be more popular than it has ever been under any other of the descendants of Henry IV. I get the impression that Jean seems to understand the French people better than Macron does, which says a lot seeing as Macron was elected by the French people.
 
It would almost certainly be the House of Orleans that would be restored (neither the Legitimists nor the Bonapartists have anywhere near enough support to make it happen, while the Orleanists might conceivably be able to pull it off if there were a sufficient seachange in public opinion with regard to the republic). It's not an entirely great likelihood for the Orleanists either, though.



Speculatively, I don't necessarily think it's a given that the monarchy would be overthrown soon the hypothetical restoral of the House of Orleans, though. The reaction of the Count of Paris to the Yellow Vests (calling for national unity, but recognizing that the grievances of the Yellow Vests are legitimate and must be resolved) leads me to suspect that, were he to accede to the Throne, the French Monarchy would, by the end of his reign, ultimately be more popular than it has ever been under any other of the descendants of Henry IV. I get the impression that Jean seems to understand the French people better than Macron does, which says a lot seeing as Macron was elected by the French people.

France has enough with one Disney land...:whistling:
 
I get the impression that Jean seems to understand the French people better than Macron does, which says a lot seeing as Macron was elected by the French people.

The point is not that Jean has to understand the French people, i that the French people has to understand him. Knowing that he's barely acknowledged by the VAST majority of the people, a part seeing him as a dusty Catholic traditionalist totally out of touch with the man of the street and the other part asa living museum piece from a bygone area.
French people barely tolerate an elected Head of state, you can imagine if they had an unelected one...
 
The point is not that Jean has to understand the French people, i that the French people has to understand him. Knowing that he's barely acknowledged by the VAST majority of the people, a part seeing him as a dusty Catholic traditionalist totally out of touch with the man of the street and the other part asa living museum piece from a bygone area.
French people barely tolerate an elected Head of state, you can imagine if they had an unelected one...

Yes,ask Louis XVI and Marie Antoinette...
 
The point is not that Jean has to understand the French people, i that the French people has to understand him. Knowing that he's barely acknowledged by the VAST majority of the people, a part seeing him as a dusty Catholic traditionalist totally out of touch with the man of the street and the other part asa living museum piece from a bygone area.
French people barely tolerate an elected Head of state, you can imagine if they had an unelected one...
Like I said, I don't believe the House of Orleans has a great chance of being restored to begin with. My thoughts I primarily concerned with the hypothetical scenario unfolding after the undoubtedly unlikely event.

At that point, whether or not a head of state is elected does not matter so much. To illustrate what does matter, I'll quote Pierre-Joseph Proudhon:
Every revolution first declares itself as a complaint of the people, an accusation against a victorious state of affairs, which the poorest always feel the first. It is against the nature of the masses to revolt, except against what hurts them, physically or morally. Is this a matter for repression, for vengeance, for persecution? What folly! A government whose policy consists in evading the desires of the masses and in repressing their complaints, condemns itself: it is like a criminal who struggles against his remorse by committing new crimes. With each criminal act the conscience of the culprit upbraids him the more bitterly; until at last his reason gives way, and turns him over to the hangman.

There is but one way, which I have already told, to ward off the perils of a revolution; it is to recognize it. The people are suffering and are discontented with their lot. They are like a sick man groaning, a child crying in the cradle. Go to them, listen to their troubles, study the causes and consequences of them, magnify rather than minimize them; then busy yourself without relaxation in relieving the sufferer. Then the revolution will take place without disturbance, as the natural and easy development of the former order of things. No one will notice it; hardly even suspect it. The grateful people will call you their benefactor, their representative, their leader. Thus, in 1789, the National Assembly and the people saluted Louis XVI as the "Restorer of Public Liberty." At that glorious moment, Louis XVI, more powerful than his grandfather, Louis XV, might have consolidated his dynasty for centuries: the revolution offered itself to him as an instrument of rule. The idiot could see only an encroachment upon his rights! This inconceivable blindness he carried with him to the scaffold.
This is why, hypothetically speaking, if the unlikely event of the restoration of the House of Orleans were to unfold, I do not believe it would be quickly followed by a revolution to overthrow the House of Orleans: Jean's reaction to the Yellow Vests suggests that, were he head of state and faced with a growing lot of discontent people, he would do exactly what Proudhon suggests would be necessary to "ward off the perils of a revolution"; namely, to ameliorate the underlying cause of popular discontent by addressing the movement's grievances.
 
Considering that a good part of the Yellow vests movement is/was against any form of authority, i have my doubts (and i guess with a Crowned autorithy things would have been far worse).
But its always fun to make hypothesis indeed ...
 
Considering that a good part of the Yellow vests movement is/was against any form of authority, i have my doubts (and i guess with a Crowned autorithy things would have been far worse).
But its always fun to make hypothesis indeed ...
Opposition to established authority is symptomatic to a revolutionary movement, not causal. To reiterate what Proudhon (himself a virilent revolutionary who earned the moniker of the Father of Modern Anarchism) said in the quote I provided above, "it is against the nature of the masses to revolt, except against what hurts them".


What hurts them, in the case of the Yellow Vests, is not authority, but what those in positions of authority have been doing. Namely, the underlying cause of the Yellow Vest movement has been neoliberal policies that have made it more difficult for lower-income people to maintain an adequate standard of living. The abolition, under Macron, of the wealth tax, coupled with increases in the fuel tax and austerity measures, among other policies that reduced burdens on the rich by placing them on the poor, is what caused this (and what earned Macron the title of président des très riches).
 
Last edited:
Back
Top Bottom