Given the open and enquiring minds for which the French people are famed – it is the nation that gave the world Zola, Sartre and countless other great thinkers, after all – it would be surprising if a number of them were not, however reluctantly, having the same thought: can a republican form of government survive?
In light of the present Macron debacle, the question could shift from whether the Fifth Republic should be replaced by the Sixth, to whether there should be a republic at all.
France is, after all, one of the oldest organised polities on the planet. For most of its history, from the early Middle Ages until 1870 it was ruled by a monarchy.
Sometimes these monarchs were magnificent, and helped lead France to international greatness; at other times they were stupid, self-indulgent and, in the end, self-destructive.
Age of the constitutional monarchy
But that all happened before the age of constitutional monarchy, such as the United Kingdom enjoys to this day, where the King is a ceremonial head of state who leaves politics to politicians, and acts as a confidential counsellor, rubber-stamping what his democratically elected ministers and parliament decide should be the law of the land.
It works well, despite the rare Andrew Mountbatten-Windsor horror, and a YouGov poll in October found that 62% of Britons still support the monarchy.
Contrast this with poor old France. The President, as head of state, is also head of the government, though he has a prime minister to run it for him and to be scapegoated when necessary.
However, unlike King Charles, Emmanuel Macron is permanently dragged into politics, and soiled and degraded by the experience.
He is able to commit acts of stupidity – such as the elections he called in the summer of 2024 – and then has to deal with the fall-out.
This he has so far failed to do, and the more he continues, refusing to resign, the worse not just he, but the entire presidency, looks.
Let us consider, therefore, whether France would not benefit by emulating Britain, Spain, the Netherlands, Denmark, Norway, Sweden and Belgium, by returning to a constitutional monarchy in which a head of government can be tarnished without contaminating the office of head of state.
Royal dynasties
France is fortunate to have no fewer than three former royal dynasties with extant pretenders to choose from, should it take the obviously sensible decision to stroll down this particular boulevard.
We can forget the most recent one, the Bonapartistes, since they invented themselves only at the start of the 19th Century, had the throne effectively by usurpation and are not to be taken seriously.
The other two royal houses are of ancient lineage and embedded in the monarchical history of France: there is no point in having a Mickey-Mouse monarchy when you have proper ancient ones at your disposal.
Both houses, the Bourbons and the Orléanistes, are descendants of Hugh Capet, who became King of the Franks in 987.
The Orléaniste branch descends from Philippe, Duke of Orléans, son of Louis XIII and younger brother of Louis XIV, le roi soleil.
They occupied the French throne from 1830 to 1848 when Louis-Philippe I replaced the abdicated Charles X, to be replaced by Bonapartistes until the Third Republic was created in 1870.
In the 1870s it was thought the monarchy would be restored – even President Patrice de MacMahon was a royalist. The Bourbon heir, the comte de Chambord, had no children: but the Orléaniste claimant, the comte de Paris, did.
The Orléanistes were prepared to let the childless Count have the throne on the understanding that one of them succeeded him.
He, however, refused to recognise the tricolour as the national flag, so could not reign.
A chance to unite the houses and build a monarchy that might have lasted until today, despite the vicissitudes of World War Two (after all, look at Belgium) was therefore lost.
Legitimate claim
The house of Bourbon, from which the Orléanistes descend, dates back to 1272, and lasted (with the Bonapartiste interruption) until Charles X’s abdication, after a controversial six-year rule that culminated in the July Revolution of 1830.
Today, most monarchists regard the Orléaniste pretender as King of the French (a constitutionalist concept) and King of France and Navarre (the term used by legitimists seeking a Bourbon restoration).
The present comte de Paris is 60-year-old Jean who, if crowned, would be Jean IV. He succeeded his father, the putative Henri VII, as head of the dynasty in 2019.
The Bourbon claimant, supported by ‘legitimists’, is Louis Alphonse de Bourbon, Duke of Anjou, a 51-year old Spaniard.
He is descended from Louis XIV through Louis’ grandson Philip V, King of Spain: but sadly for the Duke, Philip V renounced his right to the French throne under the Treaty of Utrecht of 1713.
So the legitimists are not that legitimate after all: and as the Treaty of Utrecht still pertains (it is why Britain still has Gibraltar) he should not carry on as though it never happened.
Sadly, some who support a French monarchy appear almost to be fascists; others are merely inept and, despite the opportunity the presidency’s travails have offered, have not taken it.
The group Action française is the only one with any presence, but critics consider it well to the right of the Rassemblement national, with whom it appears to have strong sympathies. It is also, incidentally, strongly pro-Orléaniste.
Would Jean IV be so cack-handed as Mr Macron?
Would he whizz on his scooter to visit his mistress, as François Hollande did? Would he end up in jail like Nicolas Sarkozy, or narrowly avoid it like Jacques Chirac?
All these things are doubtful. How radical are the French prepared to be, to steady their very rocky ship?
Joyeux Noël!
Do you think there would be an advantage for France to have a monarch as head of state? Let us know at letters@connexionfrance.com
