Why do some reject the French Revolution?

Larrey

Ad Honorem
Sep 2011
4,948
Are you absolutely sure? Seems to me that, in the case of France for example, the Republic has never really got rid of symbols and customs of the monarchy in the way the state is run.
Yes. I live in one of the still existant European monarchies. There is nothing left of pre-revolutionary society, either here or in France. So it's safe to idealise and fill that with all kinds of bunk for them that likes to.
 
Nov 2010
1,254
Bordeaux
Yes. I live in one of the still existant European monarchies. There is nothing left of pre-revolutionary society, either here or in France. So it's safe to idealise and fill that with all kinds of bunk for them that likes to.
Well, I live in France and I can assure you that the French Republic is in many ways a monarchy in disguise, with lots of pre-revolutionary characteristics still in place, only painted in a different colour...
The Republic has recycled many things from the pre-revolutionary era, just as the Church has recycled most, if not all, pre-christian symbols, dates, celebrations, etc...
 
Last edited:
Likes: Linschoten

sparky

Ad Honorem
Jan 2017
3,584
Sydney
Well I can assure you that the US is a monarchy type society like France , in fact it's a presidential system
the President is not accountable to the elected chambers ,save for gross misbehavior

a monarchy main characteristic is the right of inheritance by a family ,
by this mark , the US are a tiny little bit closer to a monarchy than any other presidential country save North Korea
 

betgo

Ad Honorem
Jul 2011
5,767
Well I can assure you that the US is a monarchy type society like France , in fact it's a presidential system
the President is not accountable to the elected chambers ,save for gross misbehavior

a monarchy main characteristic is the right of inheritance by a family ,
by this mark , the US are a tiny little bit closer to a monarchy than any other presidential country save North Korea
It isn't an inherited monarchy. However, the President has close to the powers of king of Britain at that time. Britain was a constitutional monarchy, but the king had power. The US does have some characteristic of the 18th century British system. There are some things in the US and different ones in Latin America that are more similar to 17th century Europe than Europe today is.

There were also many aspect of the Imperial Russian system in the Soviet Union. Similarly, there were aspects of Imperial China in the Republic of China, Communist China, and China today.
 
Nov 2010
1,254
Bordeaux
Well I can assure you that the US is a monarchy type society like France , in fact it's a presidential system
the President is not accountable to the elected chambers ,save for gross misbehavior

a monarchy main characteristic is the right of inheritance by a family ,
by this mark , the US are a tiny little bit closer to a monarchy than any other presidential country save North Korea
In France the President is accountable to no one, and we do not have anything close to the Impeachment system...
The political elites are also just a different version of aristocrats, with the "modern" version of privileges.

The difference with the US being that this caste's influence does not derive from wealth, but from the ENA, the National Administration School. They may be members of different parties, but they all come from the same mould.

Anyway, this is all being slowly levelled by the advent of the a new worldwide Feudal system based on a massively unequal distribution of wealth enforced by law, which is rendering all political ideologies and systems more and more irrelevant.
 
Likes: sparky

betgo

Ad Honorem
Jul 2011
5,767
As for pagan influences on religion. That was a protestant objection and much of it was eliminated in protestantism. The Catholic Church also has less emphasis on saints of this and that, saint days, and shrines than it did in the 15th century. Those were clear parallels to pagan festivals, Gods of this and that and shrines.
 

betgo

Ad Honorem
Jul 2011
5,767
In Britain, there is a constitutional monarchy and a class system. There is a line between those who go to private school and others. The petty aristocracy dominates government jobs, finance, universities, and so on.

In the US money is more important and class lines are less clear and important, although a small elite really runs things. Business is more important and has power. The country was founded by smugglers and land speculators. The state and federal governments parallel the colonial governments and the central government in London. Presidents represent the king, and state governors royally appointed or hereditary colonial governors. Political parties are weaker than elsewhere, again following the situation in 18th century Britain. There are older practices no longer common in Europe, for example you can buy your way into schools or buy government offices.

In some of Spanish America, there are echos of medieval Europe, such as a predatory aristocracy and the old corrupt Catholic Church.

Communism in Russia seemed to take Czarist absolutism a step further. There was a new elite, which unlike in France was not descended from the old aristocracy. Putin seems like a strong leader reminiscent of the great Czars.
 

sparky

Ad Honorem
Jan 2017
3,584
Sydney
A revolution is essentially the overthrow of a governance to replace it with new men
an evolution is the slow measured dilution of a governance by the co-opting of new members in the old form

the evolution is only possible if the governance understand it's best interest
Queen Victoria threatened to create one hundred new peers to pass her government reform if the crusty house did try to block them
she understood evolution
the French and Russian aristocracy were way to stupid and corrupt to comprehend their best interest
good riddance
 

betgo

Ad Honorem
Jul 2011
5,767
Queen Victoria threatened to create one hundred new peers to pass her government reform if the crusty house did try to block them
she understood evolution
This happened twice with William IV when the House of Lords was blocking the Reform Act of 1832 and with Edward VII when it was blocking limitations on its own power to block legislation. It was not Queen Victoria, and in both cases the king did not initiate the legislation. Also, in both cases, there were private discussions where the king convinced the House of Lords to pass the legislation.
 
Likes: sparky

sparky

Ad Honorem
Jan 2017
3,584
Sydney
Thanks for the precision ,
I was thinking of the 1867 reform , read somewhere than Victoria did threaten to expand the peerage to see it passed
just to prove one should not believe what one believe
 

Similar History Discussions