Paris and the Parisians in 1835 (Vol. 1)Trollope, Frances Milton
History
Paris and the Parisians in 1835 (Vol. 1)
Trollope, Frances Milton
Paris (France) -- Description and travel; Paris (France) -- Social life and customs -- 19th century
In speaking of the parties into which France is divided, the three
grand divisions of Carlists, Doctrinaires, and Republicans naturally
present themselves first and foremost, and, to foreigners in general,
appear to contain between them the entire nation: but a month or two
passed in Paris society suffices to show one that there are many who
cannot fairly be classed with either.
In the first place, the Carlist party by no means contains all those
who disapprove of treating a crown like a ready-made shoe, which, if
it be found to pinch the person it was intended for, may be disposed
of to the first comer who is willing to take it. The Carlist party,
properly so called, demand the restoration of King Charles the Tenth,
the immediate descendant and representative of their long line of
kings--the prince who has been crowned and anointed King of France,
and who, while he remains alive, must render the crowning and
anointing of any other prince an act of sacrilege. Wherefore, in
effect, King Louis-Philippe has not received "_le sacre_:" he is not
as yet the anointed King of France, whatever he may be hereafter.
Henri Quatre is said to have exclaimed under the walls of the capital,
"Paris vaut bien une messe;" and it is probable that Louis-Philippe
Premier thinks so too; but hitherto he has been able to have this
performed only in military style--being incapable, in fact, of going
through the ceremony either civilly or religiously. The Carlists are,
therefore, those only who _en rigueur_ do not approve of any king but
the real one.
The legitimate royalists are, I believe, a much more numerous party.
As strictly attached to the throne and to the principle of regular
and legitimate succession as the Carlists, they nevertheless conceive
that the pressure of circumstances may not only authorise, but render
it imperative upon the country to accept, or rather to permit, the
abdication of a sovereign. The king's leaving the country and placing
himself in exile, is one of the few causes that can justify this; and
accordingly the abdication of Charles Dix is virtual death to him as a
sovereign. But though this is granted, it does not follow in their
creed, that any part of the nation have thereupon a right to present
the hereditary crown to whom they will. The law of succession, they
say, is not to be violated because the king has fled before a popular
insurrection; and having permitted his abdication, the next heir
becomes king. This next heir, however, choosing to follow his royal
father's example, he too becomes virtually defunct, and his heir
succeeds.
This heir is still an infant, and his remaining in exile cannot
therefore be interpreted as his own act. Thus, according to the
reasoning of those who conceive the abdication of the king and the
dauphin to be acts within their own power, and beyond that of the
nation to nullify, Henri, the son of the Duc de Berri, is beyond all
doubt Henri Cinq, Roi de France.
Public-domain text, read in full here on John Shaqi.
Reviews
Reviews
No reviews yet
Be the first to share your thoughts on this work.
Elsewhere in the archive
Join the Discussion
Join the discussion
Sign in to leave a comment or review.
Sign InorCreate an account