The French Revolution - was it worth it?

[Tammuz]

Do you think the French Revolution was justified or not? It brought a lot of bloodshed, and made the way for murderous ideologies such as communism, but it also gave way to freedom, secularism and democracy which make up the bedrocks of our modern societies. While the evolutionary way (as opposed to revolutionary) that for example Sweden and the UK took might be preferrable (though I can't say the evolution is finished - we still have monarchs), but on the other hand, would the evolutionary way be possible without the French Revolution? How would the world be today if the French Revolution never happened?

[Trout]

Sort of a pointless debate don't you think? Far too many variables to make any real conclusions.

Sort of like debating if the development of gunpowder or the colonization of the new world was worth it.

[general_koffi]

The French Revolution was part of a general trend. The event itself may not have happened, and democratization would still have occured eventually.

Don't forget that France reverted to an absolute monarchy after the revolution, and that the American Revolution (possibly more significant) began before the French one.

[figuer]

The French Revolution was part of a general trend.Better speak of an 'Atlantic Revolution' commencing in Angloamerica, but with its main scenario in continental Europe (from the fall of the Bastille to the fall of Napoleon), and with a side episode in Hispanic America, with the various wars of independence.

[Sabine Grant]

Actually better speak of an intellectual revolution as being the motivation for several social revolutions on various continents. Also better speak of that intellectual revolution referred to as the Period of Enlightenment mostly predominant in France and the UK as having found its roots in ancient philosophies such as Greek. An important detail when it comes to associating democratic concepts to revolutions resulting in an attempt to establish :

-either constitutional monarchies(separation of the three powers... thank you Montesquieu) to replace despotic monarchies.
- or republics with a constitution and relying on a government for the people and by the people (elected).

Was 1789 worth it? As a demonstration of popular rejection of despotism, yes. As an entry into a constitutional monarchy, yes. It was necessary to eliminate the Bourbons to defeat despotism and allow for the creation of a legislative body (Le Tiers Etat).The downfall of the first French revolution was not its initial intent but the extremism exhibited by some members of the newly created legislative body. Thus followed the Regime de La Terreur which precipitated a regression back into a despotic mentality.

[Sabine Grant]

Do you think the French Revolution was justified or not? It brought a lot of bloodshed, and made the way for murderous ideologies such as communism, Can you clarify that? I am trying to connect communism to the works of various French philosophers who were predominant within the Period of Enlightenment. I could see a distant connection between Rousseau and socialism but communism? I see no trace of it with Voltaire or Diderot or Montesquieu.

but it also gave way to freedom, secularism and democracy which make up the bedrocks of our modern societies. While the evolutionary way (as opposed to revolutionary) that for example Sweden and the UK took might be preferrable (though I can't say the evolution is finished - we still have monarchs), but on the other hand, would the evolutionary way be possible without the French Revolution? How would the world be today if the French Revolution never happened? I can envision that a revolution would have been inevitable. Possibly would France be a constitutional monarchy instead of a Republic. But I do not think that the absence of the specific 1789 revolution would have affected other revolutionary movements such as in Russia.

As for the Anglo American revolution and resulting entry into democratic principles, the works of Montesquieu and Locke would still have influenced the US Constitution.

As an aside, we do have a monarchist political party in France. The Nouvelle Action Royaliste. However, supporting a constitutional monarchy with separation of the three powers. The expected King would not be a descendant from the Bourbons family but from the Duke of Orleans. An important detail as the d'Orleans branch represented progressive thinkers willing to rid France off of a despotic monarchical system. The current survivor and still aspiring to the throne of France is the Comte of Clermont. How do I know all those details? I am a constitutional monarchist, a rare "animal" in the US.

[figuer]

The expected King would not be a descendant from the Bourbons family but from the Duke of Orleans. An important detail as the d'Orleans branch represented progressive thinkers willing to rid France off of a despotic monarchical system. The current survivor and still aspiring to the throne of France is the Comte of Clermont. How do I know all those details? I am a constitutional monarchist, a rare "animal" in the US.Then you should know that:

1. The Orleans are a junior branch of the house of Bourbon and even want to change their name back (courts refused).

2. The elder house of Bourbon still has a pretender, the Duke of Anjou.

[Sabine Grant]

The expected King would not be a descendant from the Bourbons family but from the Duke of Orleans. An important detail as the d'Orleans branch represented progressive thinkers willing to rid France off of a despotic monarchical system. The current survivor and still aspiring to the throne of France is the Comte of Clermont. How do I know all those details? I am a constitutional monarchist, a rare "animal" in the US.Then you should know that

1. The Orleans are a junior branch of the house of Bourbon and even want to change their name back (courts refused). Incorrect. It was not about "changing their name back". It was a dispute with Louis Alphonse over the symbols on the Royal Arms for each branch. The courts dismissed the case as not being under their jurisdiction.

2. The elder house of Bourbon still has a pretender, the Duke of Anjou. The officially recognized pretender by the NAR is Le Comte de Clermont, grand son of Henry de France, Comte de Paris, now deceased. The Nouvelle Action Royaliste is the largest royalist party in France. That is why I specifically brought up le Comte de Clermont. Further, Louis Alphonse as Franco's great grand son is only supported by a small group of monarchists , "legitimists", in France who have claimed him to be the sole heir to throne of France. (the movement is mostly motivated from Spain).

Not that any of that has anything to do with the OP. But if you wish to discuss the intentions and motivations behind the NAR having rejected the Duke of Anjou, I will gladly do so in MD. Feel free to start a thread.

[figuer]

Not that any of that has anything to do with the OP. But if you wish to discuss... Feel free to start a thread.Not interested enough to start a thread but I have read enough to suspect that some of your information might be incomplete.

Some interesting 'gossip': The current Spanish Royal family and the pretender Louis XX of France are descendants of queen Isabel II and her plebian lover, thus they do not qualify as French dynasts as this requires exclusive male descent. For some reason the Orleanists do not use this well known fact as a weapon. Perhaps they want to avoid upsetting the Spanish King, whose support they probably crave. Not that this matters in Spain, which is ruled by other customs.

[Bomb#20]

As an aside, we do have a monarchist political party in France. The Nouvelle Action Royaliste. ... I am a constitutional monarchist, a rare "animal" in the US.
Have you read Steinbeck's novel about a restored French monarchy, "The Short Reign of Pippin IV"? It's a treat.

[Sabine Grant]

Not that any of that has anything to do with the OP. But if you wish to discuss... Feel free to start a thread.Not interested enough to start a thread but I have read enough to suspect that some of your information might be incomplete.

Some interesting 'gossip': The current Spanish Royal family and the pretender Louis XX of France are descendants of queen Isabel II and her plebian lover, thus they do not qualify as French dynasts as this requires exclusive male descent. For some reason the Orleanists do not use this well known fact as a weapon. Perhaps they want to avoid upsetting the Spanish King, whose support they probably crave. Not that this matters in Spain, which is ruled by other customs. Figuier...my previous post was a heavy hint that if we pursue to discuss the details of the whys and hows such controversy exists as to the pretenders to the throne of France, we are derailing this thread big time.

If you need to absolutely focus on the information I gave, now that I have clarified those, starting a separate thread would be expected.:)

[figuer]

If you need to absolutely focus on the information I gave, now that I have clarified those, starting a separate thread would be expected.:)Should I interpret that you are REQUESTING that I start such a thread? :)

[Sabine Grant]

If you need to absolutely focus on the information I gave, now that I have clarified those, starting a separate thread would be expected.:)Should I interpret that you are REQUESTING that I start such a thread? :) Non. Only that if you want to pursue details about my information, a new thread should be started so that we do not derail this one.