France and Monarchy

[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]

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]

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]

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

 

[Cory]

Wonderful song:

Didier Barbelivien Vive le Roi - YouTube

 

[Cory]

French royalists's video:

Vidéo: Restaurons la Monarchie - Néo-chouannerie

 

[An Ard Ri]

One of the most formidable French Regents was Anne de Beaujeu or Anne de France,born on the 3rd of April 1461.

Anne of France - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

 

[gabys]

Suppose for arguments sake that France is to become a monarchy, what are the chances of a Bonaparte to become Emperor of France against the Orleans and Bourbons? Do they have any real claim to the French throne as the the Orleans and Bourbons, other than Napoleon I being created Emperor by the then gov?

 

[Cory]

Jean Crisophe Napoleon does not seem interested in such a project.
I suppose the most active royalists nowadays are the legitimists who support the main branch of the Bourbons.

 

[An Ard Ri]

On the 28th of May 1825,the last ever Coronation of a French Monarch took place at the Cathedral of Notre Dame de Reims.The King was Charles X of France and Navarre,just over 5 years later he was forced to abdicate.

Charles X of France - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

The Coronation of Charles X of France

 

[Cory]

Unfortunately the Throne of Charles X was usurped by the son of Philippe Egalite'.

 

[Marengo]

Well, one could argue that without Louis Philippe, France would have turned republican in 1830, the autocratic tendencies of the Bourbons were thorougly out of fashion, and fortunately for France, remained so.

 

[Cory]

A member of the French Government says France maybe need a King:

Emmanuel Macron, plus royaliste que socialiste - Le Point

 

[wyevale]

France is already [in reality] a 'crowned republic', in that as Macron rightly says the President occupies the place of the monarch. The strong emotional 'centrepiece' that France has looked to since Louis xiv.
Recent Presidents like M. Sarkozy, and the current incumbent M. Hollande have proved too lacklustre, and divisive to adequately occupy that role, so crucial in the constitution of the current 5th Republic [which previous men like M. Mitterand or General de Gaulle could do well.
I doubt the French, [having been brainwashed by their educational system] for over 200 years with the rectitude of the revolution and Republican 'virtues' could even contemplate such a 'volte face' let alone restore the monarchy, but M. Macron is a brave man for saying it, and will doubtless be 'hung out to dry' for his trouble...

 

[Al_bina]

Will France be allowed to restore monarchy? I highly doubt that there is a French politician, who posseses Napoleon's charisma, or there is a charismatic candidate among the claimants.
Given the lackey Presidents, it is time to elect Madame President for a change.

 

[Duc_et_Pair]

France was a crowned republic, I would say. The last Présidents de la République with real grandeur were M François Mitterrand and M Jacques Chirac. The first one was a socialist but nevertheless used all trappings of the presidency when possible. The second one was a Gaullist but despite that, under his presidency the first signs of loosening protocol came in sight.

Under M Nicholas Sarkozy and M François Hollande the once so distinghuised and stately presidency became a chaotic mess.

 

[Duc_et_Pair]

[...]
I doubt the French, [having been brainwashed by their educational system] for over 200 years with the rectitude of the revolution and Republican 'virtues' could even contemplate such a 'volte face' let alone restore the monarchy [...]

Many people think that with the beheading of Louis XVI it was over and out with the monarchy in France. In reality in the past 200 years the French have had Napoleon I Bonaparte as Emperor (two periods), Louis XVIII de Bourbon as King (two periods), Napoleon II Bonaparte as Emperor, Louis-Philippe d'Orléans as King and Napoleon III Bonaparte as Emperor. Roughly half of the after-revolution time was still a monarchy...

 

[Mbruno]

Napoleon and his "Little Napoleon" nephew were dictators who styled themselves "emperors" (not unlike Bokassa for example). I don't count them as legitimate monarchs.

One might claim Louis-Philippe d'Orléans wasn't legitimate either, but, if his legitimacy is to be disputed, the same argument should apply e.g. to all British monarchs starting with William III and Mary II. In any case, after the demise of Henri, Comte de Chambord, the descendants of Louis-Philippe became the legitimate heirs to the French throne anyway as the only surviving male line that descends directly from Louis XIV has been "for ever and ever" removed from the succession to the French throne by the Treaty of Utrecht, as ratified by the kings of France, Spain and Great Britain.

 

[Furienna]

Napoleon and his "Little Napoleon" nephew were dictators who styled themselves "emperors" (not unlike Bokassa for example). I don't count them as legitimate monarchs.

You don't? Why not?

 

[Duc_et_Pair]

Mbruno has a point. Napoleon was "just" a general who stole the French Revolution and styled himself Emperor. One may argue however that Napoleon II (son of Napoleon I) and Napoleon III (nephew of Napoleon I) were rightful Emperors because they followed in a hereditary succession according the Constitution of that time. Napoleon III even was elected President (the first French president chosen by the people). France became an Empire again (2nd Empire) after a referendum was won by Napoleon. So it was not all that entirely illegal.

 

[Ish]

By that argument, William the Conqueror was just a general who killed the king and established himself as dictator.

 

[Furienna]

Exactly, Ish! We have to remember that every dynasty had to start somewhere, and it very often happened through warfare or a rebellion. I guess that Napoleon still is too relatively recent for some people, even if he too lived two hundred years ago now. But he was in no way different from any other monarch before him, who was the founder of his dynasty. Except for that his dynasty lost its power several times until they had no chance of returning again, while others have been going strong for many centuries.

 

[Nico]

Napoleon and his "Little Napoleon" nephew were dictators who styled themselves "emperors" (not unlike Bokassa for example). I don't count them as legitimate monarchs.

That's ridiculous, and thankfully not a point of view shared with historians ...

 

[Mbruno]

I am pretty sure Anglo-Saxon historians have no problem identifying Napoleon as an usurper and a tyrant. It is mostly the French who insist on celebrating him as some kind of hero even though he ruined France's economy and was directly or indirectly responsible for the death of nearly 6 million Europeans .