France and Monarchy

[Mbruno]

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

Yes, but William the Conqueror found a royal line that, collaterally at least, still reigns in Great Britain almost 1,000 years later. After all, even though the current BRF is not the most senior line descending from Charles I Stuart, they descend from James I who, in turn, descends from Henry VII Tudor, who is himself a descendant of Henri II Plantagenet, who then descends from William the Conqueror. A similar argument could be made regarding the Orléans pretenders to the French throne for example (who descend from Louis XIII and, through him, collaterally all the way back to Hugh Capet).

Comparing those centuries-old royal lines to the one-term "empire" of Napoleon is ridiculous.

 

[Nico]

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 .

Yeah sure ...
Maybe some Anglo-Saxon historians (because you know, the French ...) could teach you how Napoleon created the base of the French modern society with the civil code, still used nowadays. How France rose from the ashes after a desastrous and ruinous Revolution, to become, again, a powerful nation. How the country was modernized from a rural, almost middle aged region to a pre industrial nation. How France became again a leading nation in Arts and Science.
Maybe you could learn from the same historians that the "little nephew" gave to France the industrial revolution, rail transport, laws regarding women rights, child labour, education for all and that, basically, the Second Empire was one of the most prosperous time in the French History.
But as they are for you not "legitimate" enough to be in your very own version of the French history, who i am to contradict that ? Ah yes, one of those arrogant French. Damn it !

 

[Mbruno]

Yeah sure ...
Maybe some Anglo-Saxon historians (because you know, the French ...) could teach you how Napoleon created the base of the French modern society with the civil code, still used nowadays. How France rose from the ashes after a desastrous and ruinous Revolution, to become, again, a powerful nation. How the country was modernized from a rural, almost middle aged region to a pre industrial nation. How France became again a leading nation in Arts and Science.
Maybe you could learn from the same historians that the "little nephew" gave to France the industrial revolution, rail transport, laws regarding women rights, child labour, education for all and that, basically, the Second Empire was one of the most prosperous time in the French History.
But as they are for you not "legitimate" enough to be in your very own version of the French history, who i am to contradict that ? Ah yes, one of those arrogant French. Damn it !

The disastrous ending to both Napoleon I's and Napoleon III's "reigns" speaks for itself as evidence of the failure of their regimes. Of course, "perfidious Albion" is the one to blame as Napoleon I did in his diaries. As for Napoleon III, it was not I who called him "Little Napoleon", but rather, if I am not mistaken, your own revered author , Victor Hugo. But then, I guess we can also blame the evil Germans for his downfall, can't we ?

On the rest of the arguments, I suppose many neo-Nazis would also claim that Hitler "saved" Germany from the Great Depression, significantly cut unemployment, and made Germany "great again" after the "humiliation of WWI". Ditto for Stalin , who made the Soviet Union an industrial powerhouse, and many other 20th-century tyrants, all of whom took some inspiration from the glorious "Emperor of the French".

 

[Nico]

The disastrous ending to both Napoleon I's and Napoleon III's "reigns" speaks for itself as evidence of the failure of their regimes. Of course, "perfidious Albion" is the one to blame as Napoleon I did in his diaries. As for Napoleon III, it was not I who called him "Little Napoleon", but rather, if I am not mistaken, your own revered author , Victor Hugo. But then, I guess we can also blame the evil Germans for his downfall, can't we ?

On the rest of the arguments, I suppose many neo-Nazis would also claim that Hitler "saved" Germany from the Great Depression, significantly cut unemployment, and made Germany "great again" after the "humiliation of WWI". Ditto for Stalin in the Soviet Union and many other 20th-century tyrants, all of whom took some inspiration from the glorious "Emperor of the French".

You seem to enjoy some hazardous shortcuts with History in general, and the French one in particular.
History is a science with a lot of ramifications. To summarize and symplify some historic periods and figures like you're doing is not only wrong, but dangerous.
I'll be more than happy to suggest to you some bibliographies about the two French Empires, you'll be surprised.
You're welcome.

 

[Furienna]

Even if the Bonapartes weren't so successful in the long run, they were still emperors at different points in French history. So you can say what you want about them, but they still were monarchs. And I won't even bother with the comparisons to Hitler and Stalin (don't wanna open that can of worms).

 

[JR76]

The disastrous ending to both Napoleon I's and Napoleon III's "reigns" speaks for itself as evidence of the failure of their regimes.

When it comes to disastrous ends of reigns we can't overlook that out of the last four Bourbon kings of France three was ousted by popular uprisings and if we count the Hundred days as such they all four where. Adding to that while the legacy of few kings since the 1500s are anything the French celebrate the legacy of the two Bonapartes definitely is. The Second empire would've probably crumbled in the end anyway if not Empress Euginies plan for a constitutional monarchy under her son given time had managed to save it. Who knows?!
The difference to me between the Bonapartes and for instance Boukassa, Toussaint is that the former did indeed create a dynasty (of sorts) and made huge contributions to what today makes up the foundation of Western civilisation.


Sent from my iPhone using The Royals Community mobile app

 

[Ish]

There is a difference too in that Napoleon was recognized as a monarch by the French (and other countries), and was crowned as such by the pope.

His may have been a conflicted rule and there may be problems in looking at only the good he achieved - although placing all of the problems of France at his feet is a bit ridiculous, given as France wasn't in a good state before he came to power to begin with) - but to dismiss him as simply a dictator comparable to Hitler or Stalin is to be a bit absurd. Hitler and Stalin may have taken some inspiration from Napoleon, but the basis of private law in Italy, the Netherlands, Belgium, and Portugal (to name a few countries) is the Napoleonic Code. Not everything the man did was bad.

 

[augeron lafourche]

Very true,Napoleon was a great man,

 

[Blog Real]

There is some movement in support of the monarchy in France?

 

[Marengo]

Posts about the United States have been moved here.

 

[Blog Real]

Support for the monarchy is growing in France:
31% of citizens believe that a King would give better image abroad that a President of the Republic.
El apoyo a la monarquía crece en Francia

 

[Duc_et_Pair]

It is a bit a nonsense poll. The President of France has -as only one in West-Europe- a powerful executive role. In other West-European republics the President has a mainly ceremonial role. They are heads of state, not heads of Government. In fact little difference with Europe's monarchies.

A French King with executive powers will be shortlived. Look what happened in Bulgaria with the former King, Simeon von Sachsen-Coburg und Gotha. When someone can be hold accountable for decisions and policy, it often puts a toll on appreciation. See Merkel. See Obama. See former King Simeon.

When France wants to restore the monarchy, it needs a total different systematic in the state. All executive powers (as held now by Hollande) should be executed by the democratically elected and accountable Premier Ministre, not by the inviolable King.

Of course the monarchists need to be united too. The fragmentation into bonapartists, orléanists or that faction behind Luis Alfonso de Borbón is not helping the monarchic ideal.

 

[Nico]

Support for the monarchy is growing in France:
31% of citizens believe that a King would give better image abroad that a President of the Republic.
El apoyo a la monarquía crece en Francia

Nothing is "growing" ... This poll is a joke and everyone is laughing about it. It was made by Alliance Royale (oh suprise) with about 1100 people ...from the far right ! Big deal !
The question of Monarchy in France is a dead end issue. period.

 

[Andy T]

Yeah sure ...
Maybe some Anglo-Saxon historians (because you know, the French ...) could teach you how Napoleon created the base of the French modern society with the civil code, still used nowadays. How France rose from the ashes after a desastrous and ruinous Revolution, to become, again, a powerful nation. How the country was modernized from a rural, almost middle aged region to a pre industrial nation. How France became again a leading nation in Arts and Science.
Maybe you could learn from the same historians that the "little nephew" gave to France the industrial revolution, rail transport, laws regarding women rights, child labour, education for all and that, basically, the Second Empire was one of the most prosperous time in the French History.
But as they are for you not "legitimate" enough to be in your very own version of the French history, who i am to contradict that ? Ah yes, one of those arrogant French. Damn it !

In my opinion, Napoleon I is overrated but Napolen III is underrated.

What's clear is that Napoleon I had a major effect on France which can still be felt to this day, for better or for worse. He fits very much into the tradition of the military strong man/saviour of the people at the apex of a hierarchical system between Louis XIV and De Gaulle. He "borrowed" many of the trappings of monarchy from the ancien régime and invented a new Imperial iconography in his own style. Much as certain C20th dictators have done, he 'restored greatness' by prosecuting external wars, leading his country to rack and ruin within little more than a decade. His 'revolution' was to install his own family on thrones across Europe.... His 'civil code' was designed to facilitate his regime's control over his subjects (and as such proved handy to the régimes that replaced him).

Napoleon III, however, doesn't seem to get the credit he deserves for his domestic policies - a normal phenomenon because "La République", the régime that succeeded him, had an interest in selling the idea that it had made things better. He had some of the vain and grandiose ambitions of his predecessor (notably in wanting to annex parts of neighbouring countries) and this played a major part in his downfall.

 

[Duc_et_Pair]

In my opinion, Napoleon I is overrated but Napolen III is underrated.

[...]

Napoleon III, however, doesn't seem to get the credit he deserves for his domestic policies - a normal phenomenon because "La République", the régime that succeeded him, had an interest in selling the idea that it had made things better. He had some of the vain and grandiose ambitions of his predecessor (notably in wanting to annex parts of neighbouring countries) and this played a major part in his downfall.

A phenomenon we can witness in former monarchies as Greece, where King Constantine is kept in poor esteem despite the fact that all governments after him have led to the technical bankruptcy of Greece, a state which only exists thanks to unbelievable transfers from foreign debtors... The Kings might have had their faults, it was by no means that poor as what came after...

 

[Andy T]

A phenomenon we can witness in former monarchies as Greece, where King Constantine is kept in poor esteem despite the fact that all governments after him have led to the technical bankruptcy of Greece, a state which only exists thanks to unbelievable transfers from foreign debtors... The Kings might have had their faults, it was by no means that poor as what came after...

Absolutely! As a twenty-something young man cornered by a very powerful (internally) military, he didn't handle the coup situation as well as, say, his much older brother-in-law 15 years later but he certainly did not merit the demonisation he underwent at the hands of successive governments, both right and left. Perhaps it's (still) easier for many Greeks to blame him than to examine the wider and deeper issues.

 

[Blog Real]

31% of citizens believe that a King would give better image abroad that a President of the Republic.

El apoyo a la monarquía crece en Francia

 

[wyevale]

Long live the King, and M. Macron [IF he really means it]..

Emmanuel Macron's policies, beliefs and philosophy | British GQ

 

[Mbruno]

Long live the King, and M. Macron [IF he really means it]..

Emmanuel Macron's policies, beliefs and philosophy | British GQ

I suppose Macron's quote could be interpreted as bonapartism rather than nostalgia for the monarchy. Or, at least, he is identifying the void left by the abolition of the monarchy as the source of both bonapartism and gaullism.

 

[Al_bina]

Long live the King, and M. Macron [IF he really means it]..

Emmanuel Macron's policies, beliefs and philosophy | British GQ

President Macron could be a catalyst for the Restoration 2.0. There are various kinds of pretenders available.

 

[Blog Real]

President Macron could be a catalyst for the Restoration 2.0. There are various kinds of pretenders available.

Does this mean that there is a possibility of the monarchy being restored in France?

 

[Al_bina]

Does this mean that there is a possibility of the monarchy being restored in France?

I highly doubt there will be the second restoration. There might be a lack of charismatic politicians to lead France during the times of hardship. It does not mean that the current political elites in France are ready to restore monarchy.

It's safe to say that Duc_et_Pair can provide more accurate information on the topic.

 

[Nico]

Does this mean that there is a possibility of the monarchy being restored in France?

Ah ah ah not a single chance

 

[Mbruno]

It is a bit a nonsense poll. The President of France has -as only one in West-Europe- a powerful executive role. In other West-European republics the President has a mainly ceremonial role. They are heads of state, not heads of Government. In fact little difference with Europe's monarchies.

A French King with executive powers will be shortlived. Look what happened in Bulgaria with the former King, Simeon von Sachsen-Coburg und Gotha. When someone can be hold accountable for decisions and policy, it often puts a toll on appreciation. See Merkel. See Obama. See former King Simeon.

When France wants to restore the monarchy, it needs a total different systematic in the state. All executive powers (as he now by Hollande) should be executed by the democratically elected and accountable Premier Ministre, not by the inviolable King.

Of course the monarchists need to be united too. The fragmentation into bonapartists, orléanists or that faction behind Luis Alfonso de Borbón is not helping the monarchic ideal.

I would change the question slightly. What would it have taken for the so-called July monarchy to have survived the Revolution of 1848 ? What were the mistakes of Louis-Philippe and his regime and how would French and European history have been different if the constititutional monarchy had survived until our days ?

 

[Pranter]

I'd wonder how many years it would take to sort out who is the legitimate heir ...at least a couple of claimants!


LaRae

 

[Blog Real]

France was the first country in Europe to become a republic, I doubt there is any possibility of restoring the monarchy.

 

[Al_bina]

Ah ah ah not a single chance

It would be nice to see Jean-Christophe, Prince Napoléon, as a monarch of France. He is very dashing. One might assume that political election technologists could whip up support for the restoration 2.0.

 

[Nico]

France has been a Republic for 147 years now. Never say never but it would be extremely surprising to see the Monarchy back. As pointed out, a clear contender, popular with that, is for the moment out of the question.
But the Presidential regime from 1958 is well and alive and let's face it, is more Monarchical than ever. The new President, Emmanuel Macron , wants to underline all the regal aspects of the 5th Republic ( he wants, his words a "Jupiterian Republic"). And boy it's starting well : after his first steps as President at the Louvre, we learnt this afternoon that he will host Mr Putin at Versailles next week, not less.
France is maybe a Republic, but a frustrated Monarchy as well !

 

[Al_bina]

President Putin's visit

Veering off the topic ...

Technically speaking, President Putin will come to inaugurate the exhibition devoted to the 300th anniversary of Peter's I visit to France. Following recommendations of his advisers, President Macron invited President of Russian Federation.

 

[Nico]

Veering off the topic ...

Technically speaking, President Putin will come to inaugurate the exhibition devoted to the 300th anniversary of Peters' I visit to France. Following recommendations of his advisers, President Macron invited President of Russian Federation.

Well strangely we had a different version of the story in this western part of Europe