Should the French Monarchy be Restored?

[Kingpoleon]

Yes, the Bonapartist one.

[Kingpoleon]

Louis XX of the House of Bourbon

Vs.


Napoleon VIII of the House of Bonaparte

Vs.


Henry VII of the House of Orléans



Clearly Henry VII is the most handsome of the trio of contenders.

[Kingpoleon]

No, and anyone who proposes such a thing is un-American.

I forget, was it the 1st or 2nd French Republic that enabled the American colonies to win their war of independence ?

Enemy of my enemy, lesser of two evils, etc.

The 1st French Republic was a repressive totalitarian regime that could send you to the guillotine for sneezing like a Royalist. The 2nd French Republic was a trojan horse for the resumption of the Bonapartist regime, which was a basically an elective dictatorship. The Third French Republic was both at once an unstable model to carry France through the World Wars and secondly was one of the most repressive colonial regimes.

Let us not act like 19th century French Republic's are so noble construction that a respecting American is obligated by virtue of being American to support.

Napoleonic Emperors were exceedingly popular, and carried more popular support than any democratic government ever has to my knowledge. Napoleon I, at least, was a staunch supporter of liberty and human rights. He and James Madison could have been great allies, if not for Washingtonian isolationism.

[Kingpoleon]

Do you really intend to suggest that a constitutional monarchy with a great deal of individual liberty is worse than authoritarian and even semi-authoritarian democracies?

[Kingpoleon]

Do you really intend to suggest that a constitutional monarchy with a great deal of individual liberty is worse than authoritarian and even semi-authoritarian democracies?

The irony here is that I thought I made quite clear I regard the Napoleonic regimes as the latter far more than the former. That doesn't even get into the kind of foreign policy adventurism that eventually saw France defeated and wrecked as a country, twice.

I understand. I would have liked to see Napoleon establish a legislature, as well, but it just wasn't realistic considering all of Europe hated him because of how much liberty he allowed his people. Napoleon III is decidedly less defensible.

Personally, as a strong supporter of Madisonianism, it's hard for me to understand how little people appreciate Napoleon I. On every single issue of individual liberty, his regime was better than that of his enemies. Besides the ones in America at the time, he even was the first post-Roman leader to allow homosexuality to such an extent as he did.

[Kingpoleon]

No. Historically, there have been occasions when the advocates of monarchy have been on the "right side" in comparison to their republican antagonists; this does not change the fact that, as a matter or principle, hereditary rule - whether constitutional or absolute - is inimical to the idea that "all [people] are created equal" and entirely illegitimate as a rational foundation for government.

The French Revolution was a disaster, and France would no doubt have been better off under a constitutional monarchy than under the Committee of Public Safety; today, however, France has a stable republican constitution that manages both to uphold the ideals of democratic equality and avoid guillotining innocent people. Why on earth would we exchange that for a system founded on the premise that some individuals, by virtue of being born to fancy parents, have a God-given right to rule a nation?

Well I wouldn't, but that isn't the point. Had such a situation developed as a stable constitutional monarchy, like say a July Monarchy that survived, progressed and democratized, then today France might have a situation that resembles Britain today. But I think much of this conversation revolves around relative comparisons of a past state to another past state, as opposed to today. In other words, dis thread been hijacked.

My philosophy makes me a strong believer in the republican institutions in America. At the same time I don't think we should export or monopolize just how a democracy should be structured. Though not the case in France, many of these "Republics" are parliamentary democracies with a President instead of a King, some of which are elected by the legislative branch even. I can see some argument to having a non-partisan head of state, that serves to connect the country to tradition and at the same time encourages reason, unity and compromise.

If a country opts for that route and it works, I don't think it is in America's interest to create chaos where it does not exist in the name of some purist interpretation of Jeffersonian Democracy. I think that was a mistake that we made in the past and it ended up causing more repression, turmoil and death then any Constitutional Monarch offending your strict sensibilities. Ironically, one example where that did not happen was under President Truman, the US did not force Hirohito to abdicate.

If it didn't become like the British country, would you support a constitutional elective monarchy in France that usually elected a Bonaparte?

[Kingpoleon]

There are men made for governance, for being good political leaders, and there are men made for adventures, for being saviors.

I can almost guarantee you that, if he had defeated his enemies, Napoleon would have strengthened the legislature, if only to give himself something to do. In the meantime, do you care to respond to my prior hypothetical question?

[Kingpoleon]

No, and anyone who proposes such a thing is un-American.

I forget, was it the 1st or 2nd French Republic that enabled the American colonies to win their war of independence ?

Enemy of my enemy, lesser of two evils, etc.

?

What's to question?

relevance.

I realize I didn't word that very well. My point was that the United States and the French Monarchy having a common enemy in England doesn't necessarily mean that the French Monarchy stood for the same values as the United States.

Faure, Murat, and Fouché were almost certainly the main three who convinced Napoleon to repress certain liberties, as well as the advice of his brother Lucien, and they may have assured him that it was "temporary". Fouché managed to take almost everyone of his enemies out, and generally showed himself to be not too nice.