So Charles X was pretty much the last legitimate leader France had, right...

So Charles X was pretty much the last legitimate leader France had, right? The July Monarchy and Second Empire were Freemason puppet states, as were the following Republics (with the exception of the Vichy Regime).

Pretty much.
>Freemason puppet states
I don't think you know what that means.

Yep.

The Fifth republic is definately not legitimate legally. The French republics have all been complete shit.

The Bonaparte Empire and Vichy France seem like the only good government they've had since the satanic freemason revolution.

France never had a legitimate leader, it's monarchy has always been shit, they never respected the rights of the French people and were always trying to expand the power of the monarchy at the expense of the aristocracy, the Church and the guilds.

>always trying to expand the power of the monarchy at the expense of the aristocracy, the Church and the guilds.
Oh how terrible...

If you are ok with it, why are you not ok with the French Revolution and the Republican regimes, that basically finished the job the monarchy began?

You see, I can understand socialists and progressives, I may disagree with them, but they are coherent. They want all power being concentrated in a central government authority to enact political change. I consider such policy disastrous in the long term, but they are ok with it.

What I don't understand is people who call themselves monarchists, "reactionaries", but then the thing they admire at monarchy is what the Republic did better, which was centralizing power at the expense of civil society.

Because the monarchy is paradoxically more libertarian. I think we can all agree that republics and democracies are terrible and worthless, so a monarchy allows for strong centralised power without needing to interfere too much in the minutia of the kingdom. They only need to stop things fucking up, and react to the will of the people if it's in the long term good.

The reason why monarchies didn't interfered much isn't because they didn't want, it was because they couldn't.

Louis XIV would love to be able to call a "Levée en masse", like the revolutionaries of 1789 did. He didn't do it because he knew everyone would call his shit out. The Parlements, the Church, even the common people, there were just too many checks on the power of the king. The revolution removed all that. In this context, restoring the king without restoring the checks on him wouldn't change anything. Which is why I'm a reactionary but not a monarchist.

Well there does have to be some kind of check, but more than just parliament. When it's the people as a whole, that makes far more sense because it then takes overwhelming majority for support, rather than passing whimsy.

>Which is why I'm a reactionary but not a monarchist.
Hah, i'm the other way around. Not a fan of the NRx beliefs.

What planet are you from?
Charles X was a fucking reactionary. He was run off the throne by the 1830 revolution.
Bye bye fucking bourbons for good.

Freeman, muh conspiracy bullshit, you retard.
WTF do you mean by legitimate?

Long live the French Republic!

WTF would ANY god-damn aristocrat know about the will of the people?

Death to Monarchists!
Death to the emigres!

Long live the Revolution!

But the Church and the Monarchy supported each other and created a holistic, organic society.

The levee en masse was called for by the Jacobin CfPS in 1793.

>Long live the French Republic!

You truly are the goodest of goys.

Butthurt legitimist detected

You're free Mason paranoia is not unfounded, though many anons here might think it /x/tier. Many Republican activists and politicians were Freemasons, and the society had a presence among rural society as well that said they weren't some demonic cabal but more like a social or drinking club where members could discuss politics and ideas freely. However, there were select instances thay could be interpreted as Masonic conspiracies, as when an army officer who was a free Mason sent secret reports to fellow members in the admin of the fifth republic about crypto Catholics or people with royalist sympathies

>Butthurt legitimist detected

He was objectivity the last rightful king of France. The rest were usurpers.

The "people" can't check the power of monarch because a liberal society by nature produces atomization of the individual. Parlements (the appeals courts staffed by local aristocrats) served as a check on the Kings powers before the revolution . a new monarchy would have to have an analogous body, such as an elected legislature, which OS effectively what the British system is

>WTF would ANY god-damn aristocrat know about the will of the people?
By listening to them? Hell it's in their own benefit to keep the plebs happy, otherwise they protest like spoiled tweens like the rest of your post.
>You just don't understand me, dad! I'm gonna go tear down the Bastille!

They're meant to, but they became too overarching.

>You're free Mason paranoia is not unfounded
Kind of is. Or at least you're putting the cart before the horse.

>The "people" can't check the power of monarch because a liberal society by nature produces atomization of the individual
I just can't agree there. If they're doing so poorly, then all accountability is on them, and the people can rise up and give them the boot. Anything short of that can be addressed by decreased productivity.
Anything elective just turns into popularity contests based on short term whims.

The brit royals have no political power.
They make no decision nor do they have veto or approval power.

His point was that if louos had the ability to mobilize and coordinate human resources on a national level like the Jacobins during the terror, he wouldn't have hesitated for a second, except for the fact that the nobles were ever vigilant of their centuries old privileges (running their own private judicial corts on their estates, hunting on peasant fields, paying no taxes) and would have seen a mas mobilization as dangerous since a French King would use otbto subdue them

>The brit royals have no political power.
They do, they just agree to not use it.

What?
The only king after chuck was Louis of Orleans.
Why not "legit"?
Kings are in power by force anyway.

Like the kings of France ever listened to the people?

The revolution happened because the aristocracy and clergy had privilege, which means private law.
They paid no taxes, squeezed every last sou from the peasantry, who were effectively serfs.

These monsters finally got their due.

Death to ALL kings & queens.

The people want security and peace above all. It is just fact that most are apathetic, apolitical and downrigjt ignorant. What you're asking for is really the same as asked by "classical republicans" of their ideal state; an active citizenry that is politically educated and constantly aware of their political and economic condition and willing to stand up for that freedom. Such a state has never worked except on the level of the city state (Athens, early Rome, arguably Florence)

The revolution happened because France's economy was fucked and the people were starving (ironically, because the king had bankrupted the country helping a certain republic spouting Enlightenment memes win a war against a traditional enemy).

Revolutions happen, and then leaders and ideologies appear to direct them. France threw off its traditional order to go completely nuts, and then get its shit put back in order by Napoleon.

>Like the kings of France ever listened to the people?
Some did. But my point was that they CAN, not that they did. And look what happened.
>They paid no taxes,
Yea, because otherwise they would have had representation, which the monarchs didn't want because the aristos were dicks.
>who were effectively serfs.
So? Are you not now?
>Death to ALL kings & queens.
Yea, childish and uneducated.

Oh yes, i agree for the most part, but it's less of a concern for a politically educated citizenry, because we've never had that and probably never will. I mean that if shit gets bad enough, they'll grab the pitchforks. Bad enough that it would unsettle the comfortable pleb. Anything short of that could be addressed individually.

> French Nationalist prefer the Republic over the Empire

gay as all fuck desu

Nappy is arguably the only legitimate leader that France ever had.

Go ahead and shitpost now.

>Like the Kings of France ever listened to the people

>Because the monarchy is paradoxically more libertarian.
I guess that's why Charles X wanted to suppress freedom of speech and freedom of press and that's why he was taken down...
More libertarian, as if it was the greatest of things anyway.

>French masonic revolt happened 227 years ago
>No end to degeneracy in sight
>Russian masonic revolt, later hijacked by Jewish Bolsheviks, happened 99 years ago
>"Almost there, last Soviet generation will die or go senile and Russian Empire will be great again"

I have some really bad feels about this. Stalin was a pretty shitty substitute for Napoleon too.
Interesting notice - the state and monarchy were, before XIX century, anthropomorphised as male figures, seeing that both state and monarchy derived from male hunting pack and its leader.
After French revolt somehow states, monarchies and republic all prefer female symbols. Pic very much related.
Russia was Otchizna, "Fatherland". War with Napoleon was Otechestvennaya voyna, "War for Fatherland". Great Patriotic War is actually Velikaya Otechestvennaya. "The Great(er) War for Fatherland".
Commies for some reason substituted it for Motherland, just as French Republic has Marianne.

>More libertarian, as if it was the greatest of things anyway.
Didn't mean that it was. Just that a monarchist government doesn't need the same level of red tape and bureaucracy as most others.