Replies

Some of us are monarchists of a less absolutist sort, thinking a moderately conservative constitutional monarchy on the lines of the English monarchy might have been a good thing for the French and Europe.

CR: I'm actually quite pleasantly surprised to see you go that far.

G4E: While I share your theoretical belief in traditional monarchy, I'm afraid I'm firmly of the opinion that a constitutional monarchy, even a totally powerless figurehead one, is still better than a republic, and therefore I wish Chambord had been willing to compromise. Our mutual friend Charles Coulombe once wrote me, "Better a Bourbon than an Orléans, but better the latter than a republic!" and I agree. Never underestimate the importance of symbols. Queen Elizabeth II never has and never will overrule a British government, but British republicans correctly understand that her very existence denies total victory to the cause of egalitarianism; that is why they oppose the monarchy so ferociously despite its lack of power.

I think we monarchists must always be mindful of the words of Prince Philip, "most of Europe's monarchies were really destroyed by their greatest and most ardent supporters." Of course this is unfair in the sense that the monarchies never would have fallen had they not been under attack in the first place. But what I think HRH meant is that too often supporters of the throne have been willing to make the Perfect the enemy of the Good, and I think that is a mistake. (Was Tsar Nicholas II best served by those who urged him to refuse any concessions to the Duma and who understated the seriousness of the Petrograd riots in 1917?)

On the other hand, I'll say one thing in defense of Chambord's position: the fact that the French were so unwilling to give up the Tricolor suggests that a restored constitutional monarchy may not have lasted any longer than the first attempt (1830-48). In that sense you could say that Chambord was just sparing himself and his de jure subjects the trouble of yet another revolution.

As much as I remain a committed republican for These States, I do indeed think that the French would have been a lot better off under a moderate constitutional monarchy after the debacle of the Second Empire and the Franco-Prussian War: Bonapartism both early and late was an unmitigated disaster for the French, however much they liked it until the bills came due in 1815 and 1871. The French are an excitable and passionate people, and their understanding of what it takes to make a republic work has been, and remains, lamentably lacking. The very things that make the French French, stand in their way. I wish them well, but think they'd do better with a symbolic head of state upon which to lavish their passions, rather than the "grandeur" of France.

If it was really as simple as it looks on the surface I would agree. However, you hit on it at the end, and I tried to point this out earlier. France had already tried having a "republican monarchy" and it did not work. Chambord was trying to force the French government to look the crimes of the revolution in the face and firmly refute the horrific nonsense. Otherwise, any 'tame monarchy' would be doomed.

You should know that I would favor most any kind of monarchy over a republic (and for the record, let me say again, traditional does not mean absolute) however, figure-heads can give repubilcans just as much ammo by being on the public payroll and not doing anything. If monarchies are nothing more than tourist attractions, there are probably much cheaper ways than that.

It is an argument that can be twisted in both directions. If monarchs say nothing or make compromises with politicians, they run the risk of having their dignity tied with the party in question. King Sihanouk is still trying to live down his cooperation with the KR. If the monarch can have some viable role in government they can at least resist such things, even if they cannot stop them.

One of the big worries I have is that, from the look of things, whenever royals start giving in to the popular opinions of the moment, they don't make the people more conservative, the people make them more liberal. Eventually you'll end up with royal heirs who want to disestablish the national church, and future queens who used to be drug addicts and everyone thinks its-all-okay.