Replies

My views of both Charles X and Chambord were framed by Roger Williams, one the the 20th centuries most distinguished American historians of 19th century France, who was not, as I have said, a leftist.

I grant you Chambord's courage of his principles, such as they were, but am convinced there was no way a man of such principles could succeed as a French monarch in the last quarter of the 19th century, let alone any other time after 1789. By your own statement in an earlier post, Chambord sought a traditional, conseravtive and Church-based monarchy in the old style. That is saying he sought an absolutist monarchy along the lines of Louis XIV. That's no liberal lie, it's just the fact.

History give Chambord an opportunity to restore the French monarchy, albeit on terms not precisely to his liking. Chambord chose not to restore the monarchy on those terms. The French chose not to respre the monarchy on Chambord's terms. No one compromised. Some historians, among whom I number myself, think the French might well have been better off had Chambord been more flexible and a constitutional monarchy been established. You obviously don't think so, rather you seem to think there should have been a return to the pre-revolutionary monarchy. Fine. It didn't happen either way. History is full of might have beens, and Chambord will be right there with the Young Pretender and the Emperor Norton.

You said he was a liberal (liberals are on the left--that's how it works). You are basing your argument on information I consider inherently flawed. I do not believe that traditional and conservative is the same as absolutist. No one, even Louis XVIII, did or is advocating a complete return to the style of Louis XIV, only that the monarch should have a real and active role in running the government.

Your kind of monarchy was tried in France, and it failed completely. The liberals hated any monarchy inherently and the conservatives felt that they had been sold out in favor of the left. The revolution and all of its monstrous results must be recognized and thrown out. The Kingdom of France lasted for centuries, once it was gone look how many demi-monarchies and republics have come and gone.

And, BTW "Emperor" Norton was not a 'might-have-been', nowhere comparable to Charles Stuart, he was simply a nut with a lot friends and a sense of civic-duty and delusions of grandeur.