France and Monarchy

[Cory]

Who would trust a branch like the Orleans who betrayed King Louis XVI and King Charles X?
Obviously only Prince Louis-Alphonse could be the future King.

 

[LouisXVI]

You can't be serious. Come back to a pre 1789 regime ? A divine right monarchy? Wake up Dear Versailles times are definitively over (they were already over in 1804 so in the 21st century ....).

My great great great grandfather was born in 1762, My great great grandfather in 1811, my great grandmother in 1853 and my grand father in 1883.

So even though I'm of the 21st century I'm still only 5 generations away from the time the revolution started. The average is 9 -10 for a person my age.

I'm not even thirty.
closer to history then most

 

[Nico]

And the Republic?The Republic brought what to France?

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"

 

[Madame Royale]

Le roi est mort, vive le Président

Who would trust a branch like the Orleans who betrayed King Louis XVI and King Charles X?

That is a very poor argument for the cause of which you speak.

Who would trust a branch like the Orléans? Incase it has gone unnoticed, those who perpetrated betrayal, and those who were betrayed, have been long dead and burried. Their misgivings do not reflect the integrity of those who now act as claimant to the defunct royal throne of France. It is the occasional familial quarreling which leaves a less than convincing impression.

Obviously only Prince Louis-Alphonse could be the future King.

Could, theoretically speaking, be 'a' future King. Not 'the' future King.

 

[David V]

The Fifth Republic, as said above, gave more power to a French head of state than any time since the monarchy, which was designed to ensure stability in contrast to what eventuated in the Fourth and the latter years of the Third. Even the restored monarchies of the 19th century, more particularly the July Monarchy, never repeated the pre-1789 absolutism. Heck, Napoleon ruled under a theoretically constitutional system too, but his power was derived from being commander of the military.

 

[LouisXVI]

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

Are you totally ignoring what happened to the people of france in this revolution? I won't go more into it cause its the wrong thread.

 

[LouisXVI]

Who would trust a branch like the Orléans?

Maybe cory is speaking of the ideals of the family line. Aren't they of totally different ideals then the boubon line?

 

[silverstar]

Yes the Duc D'Orleans... was nt he one of the main architects of the Revolution ? he may even have financed the mob too in the early days !


he was also an anglophile and a close friend of the Prince of Wales.
His private domain... the Palais Royal ... became a meeting place for the Jacobins and a place for sedition and plotting against the monarchy.

Clearly the Old Regime and the powers that be were losing the plot... allowing such goings on right in the heart of Paris.

Perhaps the anglophile and Rousseau loving Duc D'Orleans did more than anyone else to drive a steak into the very heart of the Royal Family .... bringing to an end 1000 years of French Monarchy.

 

[LouisXVI]

Yes, Louis helped the Americans, greatly. Much needed help. What he missed was why theose forces were fighting against the King of England. Not giving people their rights and the great overclass, spurred on the French Revolution. Simple explanation.

Louis tried many time to tax the clergy and nobles. The parliment of Paris was the leading court, with power over one third of france. Everytime he tried to tax them they rebelled. without the favour of this powerfull court the other parliments would not vote in favour. Why wouldn't the greedy rich want to start paying taxes. Louis even abolished the corvee in most of lower class provences. Given the chance he would have reformed the country. But he was murdered before he could.

 

[Nico]

Are you totally ignoring what happened to the people of france in this revolution? I won't go more into it cause its the wrong thread.

Oh Dear, oh dear, oh dear...

Your lack of sense of humour is impressive... I know perfectly my national history thank you Dear (and i presume better than you btw , after all i'm a member of this dear old "people of France" ) and sorry to have a relatively decomplexed view about this said history, it's my right hey after all i was raised with it (and still work with it in my daily life) ...

It's always important to have a little distance from all these historical events ( complex facts for french people so even more complex seen from abroad). Why to be so over sensitive? Why on earth the french monarchy thread always brings such drama ? (and why oh why some eccentric people abroad want to sent us a spanish king ? ).

Aaaah misère misère !

ps : the "revolutionnaire" word was from...Eric Cantonna (you know the Football player) , as you can see the sentence was very lighthearted

Pss : David V you're absolutely right

 

[Fürstin Taxis]

Funny thread!


Nico, you don´t know what you´re talking about! You want the king back! It´s just brainwash! (I´m just kidding)

 

[amedea]

(and why oh why some eccentric people abroad want to sent us a spanish king ? ).

Come on, Nico, is the prince of Bauffremont-Courtenay and his institute "people abroad"? Maybe they are eccentic but French ones.

 

[LouisXVI]

Are the british any worse off? Danish, Monaco ect... Do they not have the same rights france has? They have a royal. I don't get it. Are you looking at what a French monarchy could be today? or what it was like 200 years ago?

This is not Hitler or Starlin, Its a constitutional monarchy. Everyone has there own opinions, I'm just floored by the opinion that a monachy would be worst thing on earth. Is that what is taught in french schools?

 

[Madame Royale]

as mine is that god with have his devine rule france again. whether constitutional or not.

The above suggests a return to an autocratic state, as a possibility, should it be the will of God.

This is not Hitler or Starlin, Its a constitutional monarchy.

And now you talk of constitutions?

Interesting...

Are you looking at what a French monarchy could be today? or what it was like 200 years ago?

You should perhaps ask yourself, the very same question

 

[LouisXVI]

I believe in a devine right of kings. If France was the way I wanted it would be an absolute moarchy, but hello Its just my opinion.
reality is that only a constitutional monarchy could be achieved in todays world. better then a republic.
God is the KING of KINGS!!! devine right exsists!
there are religious people in political parties no? Does the queen of england still pray to god?, address people in gods name?
You betcha.

 

[Madame Royale]

Certainly you are speaking only on your behalf, and I acknowledge that fact

devine right exsists!

"Devine right" is an ideological thought which was used to suppress society and maintain autocratic authority. To put, for better use of a phrase, 'the fear of god' into people was a successful way of repressing the liberties of the indavidual and of society at large.

No monarch rules or reigns as a result of "devine right", but by way of 'accident of birth', election or abdication.

And I say this as someone who has herself a very strong sense of faith. I however prefer an astute path of contemplation.

If France was the way I wanted it would be an absolute moarchy

Because absolute monarchies have set such an excellent example...

You seem inclined to make this about "devine right", instead of the fundamental reasons as to why a return of the monarchy in this, the 21st Century, is what France needs. Infact, you have asserted no other argument. That's hardly grounds for a restoration.

In any such case, you'd need more than the pursuasion of "devine right" to influence any such motion. Especially when France is now a country of so many diverse cultures and faiths.

 

[Anne83]

I'd like to see the Orleans on the throne if a Restoration of the French Monarchy was possible

 

[Cory]

Who would trust an Orleans?

 

[LouisXVI]

No orleans!!! hahaha they commited treason!

 

[Furienna]

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

About monarchy in France, I think we have to agree, that the ship has sailed on that one. France has been a republic for too long. I like the modern constitutional monarchies as much as we all do on this forum. I could never imagine us having a president here in Sweden, for example. But still, France has been a republic for 140 years, so I think it's way too late to go back.

Of course, Spain went back to monarchy as recently as in 1975, but then, they had a proper royal house just waiting to return, and also, they had "only" been in exile for twenty-eight years. So that was a different situation altogether.

 

[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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

what issue?

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

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]

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).