France and Monarchy

[Madame Royale]

Maybe they did, but that was a long time ago, wasn't it?

There will always be those who's prejudices prohibit their ability to move on...

[amedea]

Originally Posted by Nico

Liberté, Egalité, Fraternité

The French Republic, and more exactly the Vth republic since 1958 (and i know it well because, well, i'm french ) is a subtil mix of people democraty, revolution, socialism, gallic pride, frustratred monarchy with strong napoleonic influences. Seems complicated ?.. well it's french my dear

To be french it's above all being "révolutionnaire"

And the soccer national team demonstate it, right?

[David V]

Originally Posted by amedea

And the soccer national team demonstate it, right?

Yes and they were all "guillotined" (figuratively, not literally) for it

To expand on my prior points: the monarchist groups in France are a minority, but they are a minority whose ability to influence things socially and politically is not always seen but very much acknowledged by the French establishment.

The change from First Republic to First Empire made no difference to the fact that Napoleon was the man in charge, even though both systems were constitutional on paper. The Bourbon Restoration of 1815-30 did not restore absolutism, lessons had been learned from the Revolution. The Orleanist "July Monarchy" was more liberal in character.

The Second Republic became the Second Empire under Napoleon III, and once more you saw a familiar pattern: constitutionalism on paper, a somewhat militaristic state in practice. Ironically, the forces that defeated the Empire and led to the final demise of monarchy in France, would be the same forces defeated in WWI.

During the Third Republic, there was a widespread assumption that it was only a temporary solution before some form of monarchy would be restored. The chance of it was quite high during the presidency of MacMahon, but after he left office the movement declined even though the monarchy v republic debate (and the internal Legitimist v Orleanist v Bonapartist one) remained part of political discourse until World War I at the latest.

World War I was a traumatic experience for France, which profoundly affected its society, politics and position in the world. In practice, the "monarchy debate" took back stage to the fact that not only the Third Republic but democracy in general was under threat from new, extremist movements. And then there was World War II. There's no doubt that the failings of the later Third Republic (basically the interwar years) and the Fourth Republic, where chronic instability ensued, may have been seen by monarchists as an opportunity for restoration that was missed.

It wasn't to be but what De Gaulle created was a Fifth Republic whose President was the most powerful head of state since the last monarchy.

Even though that won't happen, there's no doubt the monarchist movements in France remain active and continue to wield influence however subtle in modern French politics. The "monarchist vote" is a bloc that politicians do silently acknowledge as having potential to influence things. They can integrate themselves into whatever base they find suitable.

[Nico]

And the soccer national team demonstate it, right?

Rather OT and bizarre point ...

[LouisXVI]

Originally Posted by David V

To expand on my prior points:...

Thank you for this valid content. Makes it easier to understand.

Do the french have a vote for monarchy vs republic?

Us aussies had one in 1900 and then again in 1998. It was rejected by a huge margin. I think only cause the terms stated we couldn't elect our own president.

[David V]

Never a referendum. However, if you look at the results of the first election in the Third Republic, monarchists and more specifically the Orleanists and Legitimists won a combined majority. It was this parliament which elected MacMahon as President of the French Republic. At that time, the Third Republic (like the Second) was viewed as a mere stop-gap before a supposed restoration could take place. However, the monarchists lost control in 1877 and MacMahon finished his term in 1879, and with it the prospects of a restoration went. But popular monarchist sentiment has seemingly come and gone in the years since.

It was also a Legitimist v Orleanist issue. That's one of the major reasons a restoration could not happen. And hence a comparison of the three monarchist currents:

• Legitimists are supporters of the senior line of the House of Bourbon. Ideologically, Legitimists tend to be Traditionalist, ultra-conservative, anti-liberal, counter-revolutionary and staunchly Catholic (similar to the Carlists in Spain), and in favour of a powerful monarchy (albeit with a constitution as 1815-30). They rejected the symbols etc of post-Revolution France.
• Orleanists are supporters of the House of Orleans. Ideologically, they are more liberal than the Legitimists, favouring a modern constitutional monarchy. Orleanists embraced many of the changes of the French Revolution. They embraced the Tricolour and other post-Revolution symbols.
• Bonapartists are supporters of the House of Bonaparte. Bonapartism defends the changes brought by the Revolution while combining this with support for a strong monarchy and military. What has to be noted is that Napoleon did support some progressive reforms- in the client states in Germany and Poland, serfdom was abolished, while equality of all classes before the law as well as religious freedom were introduced. They too accepted the Tricolour, etc.

To this day, you have various associations and individuals who belong to one of those three currents, as well as being active in French politics. Bertrand Renouvin, a veteran and well-known monarchist, was a presidential candidate in 1974.

Us aussies had one in 1900 and then again in 1998. It was rejected by a huge margin. I think only cause the terms stated we couldn't elect our own president.

It was 1999, because no clear model was offered. And the issue, IMHO, will not be revisited while Elizabeth II is still Queen.

[LouisXVI]

Originally Posted by David V

It was 1999, because no clear model was offered. And the issue, IMHO, will not be revisited while Elizabeth II is still Queen.

what issue?

[LouisXVI]

Originally Posted by Louis14

It should be known that the French Republican laws do not authorize the creation of Royalist parties, whereas the Republican parties can have a legal existence and profit, under certain conditions, of a public financing. This is the Republican democracy in France!

Is this true? If it is then the republicans are just as tyranical as they accused the royals of being. Liberty and freedom for those who think like us, but if you don't we will hush you up. thats not a democracy, thats socialism.

[Furienna]

Originally Posted by LouisXVI

what issue?

The issue of Australia becoming a republic instead of a member of the Brittish commonwealth.

Originally Posted by LouisXVI

Is this true? If it is then the republicans are just as tyranical as they accused the royals of being. Liberty and freedom for those who think like us, but if you don't we will hush you up. thats not a democracy, thats socialism.

I agree, that just sounds wrong.

[Warren]

Originally Posted by Furienna

The issue of Australia becoming a republic instead of a member of the British commonwealth.

They are two separate issues. If Australia became a republic we would likely remain a member of the Commonwealth of Nations. There is no connection between the two.
Member states of the Commonwealth include monarchies with EIIR as Head of State (eg Canada), other monarchies (eg Malaysia) and republics (eg India).

[David V]

I'm not sure if that's the case. Monarchists were politically organised and active in the Third Republic, and titled nobility remained prominent then too. I heard somewhere that the Third Republic did not officially de-recognise the estate of nobility (a similar situation to Finland), and this didn't change with the Fourth or Fifth. It's true there are no stand-alone monarchist parties, but they are are doubtless integrated into French mainstream politics.

[Furienna]

Originally Posted by Warren

They are two separate issues. If Australia became a republic we would likely remain a member of the Commonwealth of Nations. There is no connection between the two.
Member states of the Commonwealth include monarchies with EIIR as Head of State (eg Canada), other monarchies (eg Malaysia) and republics (eg India).

Yes, I realised that right after I had written that, when I made some research about it. Until then, I had been under the impression, that only dominions (like Australia, New Zeeland and Canada) were commonwealth members. After all, Ireland left the commonwealth, when they became a republic.

[An Ard Ri]

Originally Posted by Furienna

Yes, I realised that right after I had written that, when I made some research about it. Until then, I had been under the impression, that only dominions (like Australia, New Zeeland and Canada) were commonwealth members. After all, Ireland left the commonwealth, when they became a republic.

The Republic of Ireland severed all ties with the British Monarchy following their 'divorce' in 1948/49 .

[PrincessKaimi]

So much history here, and so many well-informed people. It's unusual to see an informed and yet civil discussion on modern events on any internet forum. The conclusion I draw is that many people like the tradition, pomp and predictability of having one family, with all its familial convulations involved, as at least part of the state.

But most people do not want biological roulette to choose their leaders.

DNA testing could play a role in some people's thinking, of course (and there are many ways to do it, and more of it being done every day). Monarchs have been known to adopt or legitimize offspring that were not biologically their own; sometimes it was a cause for disruption among the people (who usually have no way of knowing), mostly it's only known way after the fact (or speculated about).

The emphasis on male line, and the rejection of adoption as a legitimate way of family building seem to me to be fundamentally against the way most French (and Americans) think these days. Monarchists are described as conservative for many reasons - these are two of them.

A person doesn't have to donate an egg or sperm to a child to consider that child their own; women are capable of ruling.

[Lenora]

Exposition «*Napoléon, une jeunesse corse*» au château de La Malmaison | Noblesse & Royautés

[Cory]

Why some of the legitimists are not anymore close to Prince Louis-Alphonse?

[latinist]

With either of the three families claiming the throne (legitimists, orleanists, bonapartists), I personally think for France would be much better than it is now, with this republican system.
This type of republic, presidential (like the U.S) or half-presidential like in France, is a catastrophy. It would be much more normal a parlamentary system, with a strong prime-minister who actually governs the country.
Why spend so much money and efforts in those presidential election campains, with so many manipulations, in media, on TV, with stupid tv-debates between the candidates? Why the whole pathetic circus?
In fact it's a system created by the politicians for them, the politicians, to have access to more power, influence, control. To not be bothered by some monarchs. Why not have some president who can be easily controlled, or blackmailed?
It's already proven that the constitutional monarchies are the most democratic, stable and modern forms of government.
I really can't understand why would someone prefer a republic...

[NGalitzine]

Originally Posted by latinist

I really can't understand why would someone prefer a republic...

Perhaps because the French history of monarchy has not been especially wonderful. Revolutions happen for a reason.

[Furienna]

That migth be true, but I have to agree with Latinist, that having both a president and a prime minister is weird. Having only a president, like in the US, is understandble enough. But why have two elected offices? The only thing I can think of is, that the president of France (and other similiar republics) somehow is equivalent of a monarch, except that they're elected and didn't inherit the office. But I do the prefer constitutional monarchy system, or the system of countries of the British commonwealth, which are technically a part of a monarchy, though I guess the average Australian and Canadian hardly considers themself as a subject of Elizabeth II. In the case of France, I can understand how they have historical difficulties with royals. But what about the other countries with the same system?

[Cory]

French royalists:

Jean-Louis : le royalisme au XXIe siècle