Showing posts with label Napoleon Bonaparte. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Napoleon Bonaparte. Show all posts

September 1 – He Might Have Been King - But Turned Down The Job...Because of a Flag?

Posted on September 1, 2019

Should a nation have a king and/or queen, who makes and enforces laws? (This is a monarchy.)

Or should it be ruled by representatives who are elected by the people? (This is a republic.)

Or should it be ruled by elected officials but still have a king and/or queen as a figurehead? (This is a constitutional monarchy.)

Most European governments throughout the Middle Ages were monarchies (nations ruled by kings/queens), but currently republics are much more common. Still, there are 12 monarchies in Europe, including small principalities - most of them constitutional monarchies in which the royals have no say in political matters.

This diagram contrasts monarchies and republics in 1913 (left) and
2013 (right). The red/maroon represents monarchies, and the blue
represents republics. Note that most modern monarchies are
representative democracies with the addition of royal figureheads.


Citizens rebelled against Louis XVI, who was THIS  ^fella's great-great-grandson!

French citizens rebelled against their monarchs way back in 1792 and formed one of the first republics in Europe. Actually, that republic is called France's "First Republic" - so you can probably guess that the nation's governance zigged and zagged a bit. 

To oversimplify:

Napoleon on his
Imperial Throne! Wow!
France's First Republic was dissolved when Napoleon I declared France an Empire - and of course himself the Emperor - in 1804. Napoleon swiftly took over many European lands, plus Egypt, but Russia's winter and several nations' combined forces defeated him in 1814. Napoleon I was exiled, and France's monarchy was re-established. 

Soon (in February of 1815) Napoleon escaped exile and grabbed control of France again. He had to be defeated again - which happened in June of 1815; then he had to be exiled again. 

This time Napoleon stayed exiled and out of power for good.

Royalists once again installed a king to rule France. This period of monarchy lasted a bit longer, until 1830, when the July Revolution established France as a constitutional monarchy - with yet another king. 

Aaaannnd that government, too, was overthrown. This occurred in 1848, and the Second Republic was formed.

Unfortunately, the president chosen by democratic election was Louis Napoleon Bonaparte, the nephew of Napoleon I. And this Napoleon also grabbed all the power and, in 1851, declared himself to be Napoleon III, Emperor of the Second Empire!

When Napoleon III was defeated in a war, on this date in 1870, there was a tussle within the French people. Quite a few people were still royalists, convinced that France was better off with some sort of king (even a figurehead king), but many were republicans who saw no need for any kind of monarch. 

The royalists had more power in 1870, so Parliament offered the throne to a rather old, childless man who had a legit claim to be king. Henri, Comte de Chambord, was the grandson of France's King Charles X had been intended by Charles X to become the new king - but that was way back in 1830. 

But Henri had not been declared king back then. For forty years he had lived in his chateau, not being the king; I can't help wondering if he resented this. As I read about Henri, I assumed that, in 1870, when he finally was offered the throne, he'd jumped at the chance.

But I was wrong!

Henri agreed to be the king on the condition that the red-white-and-blue tricolor French flag be abandoned and the old royal flag - white with gold-colored fleur de lis - be adopted. 



That was a big nope for the people of France, including the nation's Parliament. Henri was offered a compromise - he could have the white-and-gold flag as his personal standard, but the nation would keep the tricolor.

Henri wouldn't accept the compromise, and so once again he didn't become the king. By the time all of those shenanigans played out, republicans were more popular. And so, in 1870, France's Third Republic formed. Since that time, France has never had a king or queen. (The nation is now functioning as the Fifth Republic, but the tale of the Third through Fifth Republics will have to wait for another day!)





Posted by at No comments:
Labels: , , , , , , , , ,

August 15, 2012 - Chauvin Day


This is a weird “holiday.” It commemorates a bad belief, or maybe an unfortunate personality trait!

Have you ever wondered where the word “chauvinism” comes from? (Actually, have you ever heard the word “chauvinism” before?)

A chauvinist is someone who loudly and aggressively says blindly patriotic things—you know, the things that boil down to “my country is always right.” A chauvinist may also be unreasonably enthusiastic about military glory.

The "Give it to your wife...It's her job" part
of this label is an example of male
chauvinism.
The word “chauvinist” has now been generalized for anyone who is overly, absurdly enthusiastic about his or her own religion, ethnic group, sex, or any other group—if that person's devotion is biased and especially if it spills over into disparagement of other religions or groups, or patronization of the opposite sex.

So, where did the word come from?

In the late 1700s a man named Napoleon Bonaparte rose to fame as a successful military leader of the French armed forces. In the early 1800s he declared himself Emperor of the French. One of Napoleon's soldiers idolized him so greatly that this soldier eventually became ridiculous and the butt of others' jokes. This soldier often and loudly proclaimed blind devotion and loyalty to Napoleon and to anything French—and he was named Nicholas Chauvin.

It's not many of us who get our names memorialized in a word in the dictionary. In this case, it is not an honor!

By the way, nobody knows when Nicholas Chauvin was born, so Chauvin Day is held on the birthday of Napoleon.

Oh, and one more thing: some historians are skeptical that Chauvin ever really existed. He may be a fictional character that people who were sick of Bonapartism created!

A legendary character that never ever existed is called apocryphal. Of course, it's difficult to know if people like King Arthur and Robin Hood are based on someone who really lived (or, more likely, more than one person who really lived) or are wholly apocryphal, because their legends concern times from the Sixth and Fourteenth Centuries. I would think that it would be a bit easier to figure out if Chauvin really lived, because Napoleonic times were only a few centuries ago; the fact that some historians think he didn't exist makes me think that there is no evidence—no birth certificate, no written military records—that he did.


Also on this date:


Posted by at No comments:
Labels: , , , , , ,
Subscribe to: Posts (Atom)