Replies

Just another way of looking at this, from my admittedly emotional and unreasonable point of view, when I see the tricolor, like the fleur-de-lys, I don't see just a flag, but everything done under it. It was the flag of the Reign of Terror, of the regicide of the Royal Family and the near genocide of the Vendeeans.

To me, asking Chambord to reign under the tricolor would be like asking the Romanovs to accept the Soviet red banner after all the massacres, purges and oppression in that country. Now, I'm not bothered by the tricolor (it's never jumped down and attacked me), I simply cannot regard it as the 'true' emblem of France. Especially given the origins of the fleur-de-lys, I don't know if I could have ever accepted another, and I just don't think Chambord should be dismissed as a "damn fool" for not doing so either.

As I said at first, in the game of power-politics his choice makes no sense whatsoever, but I do think there are other factors that should be taken into consideration. Besides which, if France was sincere in desiring a monarchy, the powers-that-be could have established one without Chambord, though as I said, I think any such attempt would be doomed from the outset because of this very mindset and refusal to break with the revolution and face the facts of its horrific nature.

I don't disagree with any of your points. Remember that I have the fleur-de-lis flag on my own wall. If I may somewhat pompously refer to my own essay, I guess I'm still a little torn between neomonarchism and paleomonarchism. You seem to have moved more firmly into the latter camp, am I correct? Probably because I'm still not a Christian, I'm more committed to the narrow goal of preserving or restoring as many monarchies as possible, no matter how many compromises must be made, than to a comprehensive counterrevolution. I may come around to your point of view eventually though...just give me time. :)