France and Monarchy

[Thribette]

Well, in monarchy, you don't have necessarily the right person, but you are more likely to have better governants than in republic, 1) because in republic, the persons who manage to take the power are nearly systematically the worse, 2) because there is some inheritability of genes favourizing government (it has not to be overvalued), 3) because they are educated to reign.
American Observer, a poll was made in 2007 (maybe end of 2006) that has shown that 17% of the French were in favour of monarchy, but they were not asked if they were against republic...
True monarchists must not be more than 1 to 5% of the French.
In French schools, History is taught with many, many "mistakes".

[silverstar]

you are right, there does nt seem to be much sentiment in France for the restoration of the monarchy... and yet the French monarchy was perhaps the most magnificent the world has ever seen..... what can compare with glory of Versailles ?
The English monarchy is but a pale shadow in comparison .

[Excalibur7]

Divine right of kings - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
What does LeAnn Rimes and mirrors have in common?

Follow the Path - 2000


Follow the path of age and time, it will address;
Blissful ignorance, sentiment youth once possessed.

Follow leaders of power for we can't discern,
Greed--arrogance, authority often do churn.

Follow the large masses, amongst the crowded we'll stand;
Misguided off course, stripping away our own stance.

Follow the logic of wisdom and then we'll see,
That not everything is what it seems to be.

Follow the unfortunate and terminal lives,
Ask what they desire? Nothing, just to survive.

Follow your heart when you are lost or a flounder;
Know you have choices, support from those around you.

Face these reflections, for mirrors* only foresee;
The one looking back is who you are meant to be.

Note on sonnet:

1) Each line of couplet has 12 syllables after French Pleiades' meters after poems written for Alexander
2) Sestet-octet form like Petrarchan
3) *Reference to Hall of Mirrors in Palace of Versailles
4) There was a historical dream that followed this poem

[silverstar]

We all remember the field of the cloth of gold and the meeting of Henry 8th and Francis 1st
There was of course a rivalry between them
but I think a friendship too ... they were both
after all in a similar, unique position.

Strange though how, in the 18th cent, there seems so little contact between the two
great monarchies of Europe, ... ie France and England.... can't think of any state visits on either side.
With all the wars and rivalry in Canada and
India... I dare say there was a deep emnity that protocol and diplomacy just could not heal.
There was a kind of pen friend contact for a time between Marie Antoinette and Queen Charlotte ( wife of George 3rd )
At one time Charlotte was making plans to set up appartments for the French Royal couple
if they sought exile to escape the French Revolution.

[chabot4me]

I also find it to be a mystery that there is not more friendship.

[RoyalistRiley]

I think the 2 houses did not get along for several reasons. It was due to the fact that the UK spent hundreds of years trying to eiter conquer France and to stop France from disrupting the status quo of Europe (eg. when Napoleon was ruling most of Europe). After the Revolution, I guess the British Royal Family didn't want to be connected with the deposed French Royal Family and their descendents in case the British people got ideas about abolishing the monarchy. This is one of the reasons why George V did not try and rescue the Tsar and his family in 1917, even though they were family.

[redrose_2121]

do you think that the British family should have done more to help out Louis XVI and Marie Antoinette and all their friends and family? What about the Romanovs. Do you think more should have been done for them no matter how unpopular the decision?

[RoyalistRiley]

Originally Posted by redrose_2121

do you think that the British family should have done more to help out Louis XVI and Marie Antoinette and all their friends and family??

No. It would have taken the British a large amount of force - and possibly and invasion of some sorts - to rescue Louis and his family. Remember that they did try to flee France but were apprehended and sent back to Paris. Louis's unpopularity would have been a risk to George III if he was seen to be saving a king who had lost the trust of his people: a people who werre simply fighting for liberty and equality. A rescue attempt by the British would have also given the republicans a rallying point for the abolition of the monarchy - in that the King had fled into the arms of France's traditional enemy. The British people themselves would most likely also be resentful of Louis's presence in their country and used their king's support of another King who was against the wishes of his people to stage some sort of uprising or even a revolution.

Also keep in mind that the French and British were not related, unlike the Romanov's and Saxe-Coburg-Gotha's (I think they might have been the Windsor's by 1917 though)

[Anne-fan]

I agree with you. If the British king had helped Louis, the revolutionists would have had another reason to hate the monarchy. After all, one of their longest enemy would have interfered. This for sure would have had bad results for the French and the British monarchy. And the British people themselves for sure wouldn't have liked to see their king go and rescue the enemy.
And if you switch their positions, can you imagine France doing such a thing for Britain? - No way.
I think one shouldn't interfere in private affairs of others. In this case the revolution was the private affair of France. Although it's result had an impact to all the other countries as well. If the monarchies were related, it would be something else. But as a matter of fact, they were not, they were enemies.

I know I'm repeating myself, but it's late, I'm tired - sorry

[Westminster]

I am interested in monarchy in a historical context and I respect the countries which still have a monarch, but for France I'm absolutely happy that we have a republic and democracy. The monarchy is gone too long, we do not need that back.

Originally Posted by Thribette

True monarchists must not be more than 1 to 5% of the French.

I bet and I hope that those 1 to 5% will never bring the monarchy back.

I do not see that in a republic the persons who manage to take the power are systematically worse. At least the people can drop them whereas in a monarchy...... well our experiences with that have been bloody!!

[COUNTESS]

Monarchies, by and large were disasters. Constitutional monarchies function far better, as despots cannot not assume total power. Where on this earth did she get her information that those in republics are worse? What statistics does she have, data? Just a banal statement. What made the French revolution what it was, is that those who had so little were willing to risk getting something better than nothing. The monarchy was corrupt and uncompassionate and many times plain stupid. Oh, please, excuse me, not just in France.

[Madame Royale]

It's largely circumstantial. An Autocratic system is very different to a constitutional one.

On the whole, Constitutional monarchies are said to be the most stable form of government. Though most republics seem to hold their own just as well. It's all relative though.

[AdmiralSteven]

Originally Posted by COUNTESS

Monarchies, by and large were disasters. Constitutional monarchies function far better, as despots cannot not assume total power. Where on this earth did she get her information that those in republics are worse? What statistics does she have, data? Just a banal statement. What made the French revolution what it was, is that those who had so little were willing to risk getting something better than nothing. The monarchy was corrupt and uncompassionate and many times plain stupid. Oh, please, excuse me, not just in France.

Didn't Louis XVI try and reform the monarchy? I may not be remembering my history correctly, but I'm wanting to say that I had read that somewhere and that one of the problems was that Louis was indecisive. I need to start reading up on my history again.

[MAfan]

Louis XVI was indeed indecisive, under several points; the first one that comes to my mind regards his phimosis, he needed almost 8 years after the wedding for deciding to undergo surgery (and finally be able to have children and an heir).
But Louis' indecision was imo just one of the hundreds of problems of the French Monarchy at the time.

[COUNTESS]

Louis was not a bad man, he was an indecisive man and he was, really incapable of ruling. He appointed the Comte de Maurepas to act in his behalf. Too many mistakes, too little support, too many whose nests were feathered under a monarchy. Inherited positions give people who have little competence a lifelong job. Constitutional monarchies, make the inherited position, little power, a viable alternative. Republics, are constitutional monarchies, without the show.

[Madame Royale]

Inherited positions give people who have little competence a lifelong job

That statement has little to no credibility.

Their life is a set path. They are not in the position to pursue career alternatives after their tertiary education has been completed.

One example which dispells your theory...

Queen Margrethe II.

Studied prehistoric archaeology at Girton College, Cambrige, political science at Aarhus University, at the Sorbonne, and at the London School of Economics, and is a Fellow of the Society of Antiquaries of London.

And Margrethe really is but one example of an 'inherited position' who, should she have not been Queen, would have no doubt made a career as a professor of the highest calibre.

[COUNTESS]

Sorry, I should have said "can". It wasn't a statement that all people in these positions have little or no competence. It was a statement that I meant to point out you "can" get people who have little competence. And, in Constitutional Monarchies, it really doesn't make a difference. The monarch is not running the nation. In Autocratic societies, it makes a big difference.

[Madame Royale]

Thanks for clarifying COUNTESS.

I'd agree that in an Autocracy, it would be a serious issue if the monarch was a sandwich short of a picnic.

[COUNTESS]

Oh, yes, and, unfortunately, it has occurred.

[Nico]

People abroad seem to forget that France is STILL in monarchy . Well virtually in fact, without the name but that's clear that we have the most regal, and costly, republic of the world, a sort of "frustrated monarchy" if you want.