I agree. Actually what I wonder is how this would have impacted the Dreyfus affair (assuming it happens). On the one hand I could see if the king Has somehow acted as a force for moderation the monarchists might not have gotten into bed with the more vile elements of the reaction. On the other hand, if the monarchy was already unstable you could imagine the king actually promoting the more foul anti Semitic conspiracies (as the tsar did at the same time). Given the importance the Dreyfus affair had both in France and worldwide (was the impetus for modern Zionism) this could have profound changes to the world.
 
The controversy about Chambord refusing to accept the French crown over the tricolor is one of the most misunderstood issues in 19th century French politics. This is in no small part because the French Radical Left which came to power in the 1880's after Chambord's death deliberately misrepresented his views in order to discredit the restoration of the monarchy, and the splintered Royalists did very little to defend his actions. The count became a convenient scapegoat for why monarchy failed to reestablish itself after 1871, with the wild story of a man who refused to be king over a flag capturing the minds of generations of young amateur historians. However, the truth is somewhat more complex and paints Chambord in a much better light.

The normal justification given for why the count rejected the flag is that he associated it with the French Revolution when many of his ancestors were murdered, and that he would only accept a return to the pre-1789 Ancien Régime political system of absolute monarchy. This is patently false, Chambord was willing to accept a constitution, and the flag was really a secondary issue during this crisis. Years ago I managed to find an article online that gives one of the best summaries of Chambord's position including direct quotes from his correspondence.

https://wwwchivalryandhonour-turcopilier.blogspot.com/2015/12/the-comte-de-chambord-and-1873.html

Some choice selections from the article below sheds some light on what forces were really at play during the first years of the Third Republic:

...
The famous meeting then took place on the 5th August, at which the Comte de Chambord made his remark about the political opinions of the Comte de Paris. The statement following, however, stated clearly that there had been no discussion regarding the circumstances that would lead to a monarchical restoration, which would be in the exclusive competence of the National Assembly. “Mais il est établi par cette visite que les princes d’Orléans ne seront plus un obstacle à la réconciliation de la France et du prince qui représente la monarchie traditionnelle.”

The drapeau blanc, however, was not the real obstacle that prevented the Comte de Chambord from returning, as is usually claimed. The constitutional problem was in reality the interpretation of the powers of the King, which if there was an immediate confrontation with the Assembly, would have led to a constitutional crisis; but it was the evident political divisions among the royalists that prevented a compromise from being found. This compromise could have worked, because the Comte de Chambord understood that the army would not accept the abandonment of the tricolore and any proposal to re-establish the drapeau blanc would likely have been postponed, at least until the new King had found a way to persuade the army to accept some workable compromise solution. This, however, was eventually sabotaged at the last minute by the Orleanists Vicomte d’Haussonville and Duc Decazes (the latter through an agent, a M. Savaray). Their hope was that their actions would provoke the Comte de Chambord to abdicate in favor of the Comte de Paris; indeed, apparently Haussonville stated that he would prefer a republic to the return of Chambord...

...Chambord was not the ultra-reactionary he has been portrayed, as he had earlier made it clear (19 September 1873) that he rejected the “fantôme de la dîme, des droits féodaux, de l’intolérance religieuse, de la persécution contre nos frères séparés… [and that he rejected the]… gouvernement des prêtres, de la prédominance des classes privilégiées”, the very allegations against him made by the republicans led by Gambetta and Thiers. He considered himself above party, but that his act of reconciliation with the Comte de Paris had been “de rendre à la France son rang, et dans les plus chers intérêts de sa prospérité, de sa gloire et de sa grandeur.”

Nonetheless he did not fully comprehend the reality of the divisions between the differing groups which, on some or other terms, were prepared to support the restoration. Perhaps this was why, on 14th October, he did not receive the deputies who had accompanied Chesnelong. The position of the Church was also uncertain; some, on the extreme right, vigorously demanded that the Comte de Chambord reject the tricolore because it symbolized the sovereignty of the people; yet the Pope, in an audience accorded to the royalist deputy Keller said “La couleur du pavillon n’a pas une grande importance. C’est avec le drapeau tricolore que les Français m’avaient rétabli à Rome. Vous voyez qu’avec ce drapeau on peut faire de bonne choses, mais M. le Comte de Chambord n’a pa voulu me croire.”

Really fascinating stuff that completely altered my view on the subject. Actually, Chambord comes across as far more sympathetic than MacMahon and Thiers as the whole farce unwound. He had a far more pragmatic understanding of what he was facing if he became king than is usually credited to him. He may have very well made the best choice for himself, if not the nation of France.
 
Last edited:
The issue about Chambord refusing to accept the French crown over the tricolor is one of the most misunderstood issues in 19th century French politics. This is in no small part because the French Radical Left which came to power in the 1880's after Chambord's death deliberately misrepresented his views in order to discredit the restoration of the monarchy, and the splintered Royalists doing very little to defend his actions. The count became a convenient scapegoat for why monarchy failed to reestablish itself after 1871, with the wild story of a man who refused to be king over a flag capturing the minds of generations of young amateur historians. However, the truth is somewhat more complex and paints Chambord in a much better light.

The normal justification given for why the count rejected the flag is that he associated it with the French Revolution when many of his ancestors were murdered, and that he would only accept a return to the pre-1789 Ancien Régime political system of absolute monarchy. This is patently false, Chambord was willing to accept a constitution, and the flag was really a secondary issue during this crisis. Years ago I managed to find an article online that gives one of the best summaries of Chambord's position including direct quotes from his correspondence.

https://wwwchivalryandhonour-turcopilier.blogspot.com/2015/12/the-comte-de-chambord-and-1873.html

Some choice selections from the article below sheds some light on what forces were really at play during the first years of the Third Republic:



Really fascinating stuff that completely altered my view on the subject. Actually, Chambord comes across as far more sympathetic than MacMahon and Thiers as the whole farce unwound. He had a far more pragmatic understanding of what he was facing if he became king than is usually credited to him. He may have very well made the best choice for himself, if not the nation of France.

Yes, like I wrote, Henri was nowhere near as reactionary as people want to make him. The Orleanists blamed him for the lack of (their) restoration so he got hit by both royalist and republican historians. But by the 1870s he had no son and heir, a comfortable life in exile in Austria, and why should he give up the principles he was raised with for a tottering throne, an eventual anti-clerical and republican parliament, and succession by the branch of the family who was LITERALLY the ones responsible for his own lifetime of exile (and their jailing of his mother when she tried to reclaim his throne, and the last exile of his aunt, Madame Royale, who he regarded as a saint). Why would Henri want to make the Orleans dynasty's life better just so he could have a few years as king? His behaviour makes perfect sense in that light.
 
Top