So, a popular story is that after the collapse of the Second Empire the Count of Chambord was going to be crowned King of France. However, he refused the crown when the country would not adopt the white Bourbon flag, even after a compromise of the tricolor defaced with the coat of arms was proposed. What if a different compromise flag was proposed let's say the blue flag with white cross (similar to the Quebec flag)? This design had historical significance could it have made any difference?
A Different Compromise Flag for France, 1870
- Thread starter da Racontor
- Start date
Deleted member 6086
It would look very similar to the Greek flag of that era:
Not sure if that would stop them.
It's a true story, although the proposed compromise was that he could personally use the fleur de lys as the royal standard but the national flag would remain the tricolore.
By 1871 it is probably too late to change the national flag. By then it has been used by two republics, two empires and the July monarchy. It is the national symbol and Henri does not have the leverage to change it by himself. He also does not want to compromise - by nature he is too committed to principle to accept anything but the fleur de lys.
Deleted member 109224
The White of the flag represents royalty whereas the red represents republicanism, no?
Why not remove the red stripe and slap a bourbon fleur de lys on the flag?
Why not remove the red stripe and slap a bourbon fleur de lys on the flag?
The white represented the monarchy but the blue and red did not really represent anything - they were old colors of Paris added to the flag. (Also, they were colors of the new USA which was probably not a coincidence.) The association of red with radical politics came later on.
The problem with changing the national flag is that most people do not want it to change by this time. Henri is making a demand without the popular support to back it up. What is really stupid of his part is that he has no heir so the comte de Paris (who supported the tricolore) is going to succeed him and his cherished flag will not last anyway.
FillyofDelphi
Banned
To quote Lamartine during the Revolution of 48
"This is the flag of France, it is the flag of our victorious armies, it is the flag of our triumphs that must be addressed before Europe. France and the tricolor is the same thought, the same prestige, even terror, if necessary, for our enemies! Consider how much blood you would have to make for another flag fame! Citizens, for me, the red flag, I am not adopting it, and I'll tell you why I'm against with all the strength of my patriotism. It's that the tricolor has toured the world with the Republic and the Empire with your freedoms and your glory, and the red flag was that around the Champ-de-Mars, dragged into the people's blood"
The Tricolor is way too tied to the Nation of France by 1870 for it to be touched, and France definitely saw itself as a Nation, not a Dynastic possession that was the King's personal domain (That died with Charles X). At best, maybe put the royal white and Fleur in the corner hoist?
"This is the flag of France, it is the flag of our victorious armies, it is the flag of our triumphs that must be addressed before Europe. France and the tricolor is the same thought, the same prestige, even terror, if necessary, for our enemies! Consider how much blood you would have to make for another flag fame! Citizens, for me, the red flag, I am not adopting it, and I'll tell you why I'm against with all the strength of my patriotism. It's that the tricolor has toured the world with the Republic and the Empire with your freedoms and your glory, and the red flag was that around the Champ-de-Mars, dragged into the people's blood"
The Tricolor is way too tied to the Nation of France by 1870 for it to be touched, and France definitely saw itself as a Nation, not a Dynastic possession that was the King's personal domain (That died with Charles X). At best, maybe put the royal white and Fleur in the corner hoist?
ISTR reading that the red had to do with the oriflamme. Blue with something else. Ergo there WAS a historical connection to it.
I don't think the the colours of "Old Glory" had an impact on the French. Britain's flag colours were likewise blue, red and white.
That was EXACTLY why he did it. He hated the Orléans clan (despite the duc de Nemours working for reconciliation between the two branches) and saw the Count of Montizon, his brother-in-law (Juan III) as his legal heir, not the comte de Paris.
He was willing to adopt the Prince Impérial as his heir for God sakes! (sound like a man who was as archreactionary to turn down a crown over a flag?)
He knew he had no children. That when he died France's throne would once more be considered open season between the blancs (supporters of Montizon), the Orléanists (supporters of the comte de Paris) and the Bonaparte heir.
His INSISTENCE on the flag was a very loud, very clear "fuck you" to the Orléans clan (and ruining their chances of getting the throne in the process). Was he conservative and out of touch? Probably. But you have to admit that for someone who HATED who his successors were, and who didn't have a brilliant hand to play, he played it very well. It meant that the Orléans wouldn't get the throne but also that the FRENCH had declared against a monarchy. Not Chambord, therefore the Orléanses couldn't blame him (beyond being a seemingly sentimental old man).
Seriously though, the man spent more of his life outside than inside France and it was the July Monarchy which made it difficult for him (even in exile). They stole the girl he wanted (Caroline of Salerno, OTL duchesse d'Aumale), made it difficult for him to travel anywhere (July Monarchy told foreign courts not to receive him as "heir to the French throne" but only as the "comte de Chambord"), FORCED him to either remain unwed or marry the half-lame daughter of one of the few kings who thumbed their nose at Paris etc etc. Is it any wonder he hated them as he did?
@Emperor Constantine
Well yes, blue and red (particularly blue) had been used by the state before, but more to represent Christian ideals and saints (saint Denis, saint Michel) which was not really the intention of the revolutionaries. The traditional explanation is that they were now associated with Paris and thus, with the people, though some recent historical research suggests that the connection with the American revolution may be stronger than people think. The US had just adopted its own constitution (1787-88) when the French Revolution began and figures like Lafayette had taken inspiration from it. The UK and Netherlands were similarly regarded as states with some respect for individual liberty.
If he wanted to screw over the Orléans he definitely did, though he cut off his nose to spite his face there. The Spanish Bourbon idea was not going to happen.
He did, but as I said, he'd lived outside of France longer than he'd lived in Paris. I think he knew he wouldn't be able to have a free hand if he went back to Paris (and I'm not talking in an absolutist sense, I'm talking in the sense of politicians telling him what "should" be done even if it wasn't in the best interests of the nation long-term). I don't think Chambord was a genius, but then again, neither were Louis Philippe or Napoléon III. He knew his line ended with him, and he knew that he was being used by the Orléans clan - that if he'd had a son and heir they would never have even given him a courtesy call.
Because the alternate designs aren't the problem. The issue isn't what would replace the Tricolour; the issue is the Tricolour itself.
In 1871, France was a nation, and the Tricolour was the symbol of that nation. Chambord was symbolically insisting on the right of the King to have his personal preferences supercede the will of the nation.
That was an issue that even the most ardent royalists in 1871 felt had been thoroughly debated in 1789, 1792, 1830 and 1848.
So any alternate design is at best tangential to the actual issue.
In 1871, France was a nation, and the Tricolour was the symbol of that nation. Chambord was symbolically insisting on the right of the King to have his personal preferences supercede the will of the nation.
That was an issue that even the most ardent royalists in 1871 felt had been thoroughly debated in 1789, 1792, 1830 and 1848.
So any alternate design is at best tangential to the actual issue.
VVD0D95
Banned
That's quite interesting given modern day events, but yeah Chambord was a bit of an idiot.
See my posts about Chambord above. It wasn't so much idiocy as a silent protest. Cutting off your nose to spite your face, yes. But to boil it down to an issue of a flag is really to oversimplify his hatred for his cousins. The fact that he's willing to ADOPT Napoléon IV and marry said prince to one of Isabel II's daughters should show just how far he was willing to go to not have an Orléans as his heir.
@Kellan Sullivan is basically right. While we have no true smocking gun on Chambord's feelings for the Orléans (no personal letter or reported conversation among advisors) as the guy was too gentlemanly to say such things out loud, we can pretty easily read between the lines. The flag definitely comes across as a manufactured crisis brought upon by a man that was the last of his line and thoroughly disliked the likely succession of his presumptive heir. Now there is the possibility that we're wrong and it really WAS over something as simple as a flag, but I don't think so. I mean here's the often cited "compromise flag" supposedly designed by Chambord in his earlier years:
This doesn't suggest a man unwilling to compromise, at least in his early years. Of course, it was probably designed before Chambord knew he and his wife would never have children. However, I will say there were options for Chambord to peruse, if he had been devious enough to do so. Chambord could have easily accepted the throne, then turned to the Pope for an annulment in order to remarry and father an heir to the main Bourbon line. After all, the Church under Pius IX was willing to bend over backwards to get a restoration, so it's highly likely that the Pope, if asked, would grant an annulment to the King in order to remarry and produce an heir. Though then there's the possibility that Henri would fail to produce a son and still leave the throne to the Comte de Paris.