Legitimist, Orléanist, or Bonapartist Sup Forums?

Legitimist, Orléanist, or Bonapartist Sup Forums?

Other urls found in this thread:

youtube.com/watch?v=VayzVkE_ea4
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Henri,_Count_of_Chambord
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/War_in_the_Vendée
youtube.com/watch?v=NiOELKvIaxQ
twitter.com/SFWRedditImages

Legitimist

France is beautiful in every state. youtube.com/watch?v=VayzVkE_ea4

Providentialist

Bonparte. VIVE L'EMPEREUR !

Thanks Russian Bro. Russian litterature is really god-tier !

Orléans all the way.

Longue vie au roi!

Kektist for now we'll see how things turn out

Legitimist.
Orleanists are cucks.

Légitimist with a Orlean king

Orleanist, fuck you spain.

Fashy

How did France come with sick flags to cucked shit tricoloured flags? lel

Bonapartist.

France could still be a monarchy today if not for that one autist pretender

>French parliament offers you the throne on a silver platter
>turn down your one and only opportunity to be a King because they won't get rid of the tricolour

When did that hapen?

Légitimiste.
Mort à la République !
Vive le Roi !

Hmm.. Ἔρεβος + Νύξ = Ποσειδῶν
Ποσειδῶν + Ἁλkυόνη = Meroveus

I'd go legitimist !

Napoopan

I mostly support him, he's based and I'm a reader of his blogs.

The Bourbons suck, only good dynasty were the original capetians, they were only saved by Richelieu and Mazarin.
Valois were "meh" aside of François Ier, Philippe VI should have known his place and let Edward III take the throne.

Bonapartists, it's obviously the most modern approach and likely in the current situation.

Spaniard monarchist here.

Bourbons are pest. The worst dynasty the world ever see. Only the carlist faction worth a minimum respect. I will not recommend you, my dear gabacho amigos, crowning another Bourbon.

For us, the habsburg are little bad. The Trastamara were the top dynasty. Sadly, if we don't clonning Isabella, the Braganca would be the interestest choice today.

The true redpill is to realise that Napoleon destroyed what was left of France. Now fuck off "Muh Homme providentiel"

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Henri,_Count_of_Chambord

:(

A man does not choose his king, faggot.

Legitimist. Conservative and a link to history.

No, it isn't.
France was crashing into fire with the revolutionnaries, the country was butchering itself between jacobins, vendéens, girondins, etc...
He extinguished the fire, reconciliated the church and the republic, reinvented warfare, give us (and the rest of Europe) an effective administration and brought to the top what was a declining nation since the 7 years war.
It had a demographic price but there wasn't 10 solutions by that time.

The only right motive to hate Napoléon is because he didn't manage to make his Empire surviving himself.

Bonapartism Ftw

Bonapartist is the only answer.

>educated with top jobs, don't take things for granted
>open-minded without being politicaly sectarian
>not inbred
>don't sell their heritage and jewels for profit like the Orleans but donate them to the nation

A liberal filoheretic can not be my king; Philippe is even okay, for his dynasty standards, but until he doesn't leader a coup or action against degeneracy he will not deserve loyalty. I prefer carlism than democratic kings, but there must have better options.
In chair of command, Christ is superior.

Normally Legitimist, but if the others are able to do a good job and leave proper legacy, i'd support the claim.

French 3rd Empire, when?

He does if he is not currently under a monarchy and he is thinking of bringing one back

Bonapartist but let's be realistic we're unlikely to get another great leader that used to be a General like Napoléon or De Gaulle

Doesn't matter, none of them could fight

You forgot 'destroyed by Prussia, twice'

>Got Btfo when we free'd the US
>Got Btfo'd for 5 coalitions against ONE SINGLE COUNTRY STILL RECOVERING FROM CIVIL WAR
>German defect and destroy a European Empire again
>BUT MUH WATERLOO ANGLO WON IT ALL BY THEMSELVES

The French fought like lions in WW1.
All your lions were killed.

>implying anglos can fight
The only way England ever managed to defeat France is by unleashing legions of angry krauts against it.
Waterloo or the Seven Years War it is always the same thing: Prussians winning the battles and you claiming the victory.

The british history is an astonishing scam built on prussian backs.

To be frank i don't blame the eternal Anglo as much as the ETERNAL KRAUT.
They literally cucked us out of a Sixth Coalition victory, literally order 66 style while at least Anglos had reason to be mad since we literally freed America just to fuck with you.
The kraut were just butthurt we actually managed to Bring the Roman Empire back more than they did with the HRE.
Also don't worry Lions aren't something that die easy.

Our empire was bigger than yours, we defeated Napoleon and we freed you in two world wars.

>we freed you in two world wars
>Implying you didn't just Damage control after realizing uniting the Krauts against us meant you were next
>Implying England freed anything and didn't just Blow American cock to not get ANSCHLUSS'D
>we defeated Napoleon
>after 5 different Coalition with at least 5 different allies "you" Defeated a Country which just suffered civil war and a Kraut defection
>Didn't even get Land out of it
Anglos are the most pathetic Empire ever, even the HRE was a Better Empire

Legitimist

>we freed you in two world wars

>we freed you in two world wars.
Like the first one when you felt by 1916 that your situation would go to hell if Germany absorbed our northern part and decided to send in emergency troops after we already held our ground during 2 years almost alone at 1v2 ?
Or like the second one when you just straight up fled on your island at the first sight of a german without even fighting then assassinated 1200 french in Mers El Kebir for no fucking reason then bombed the fuck out of our country during the next 4 years ?

>we defeated Napoleon
A kraut just made a good thread about it

>one line has had one monarch
>the other has had two
of course Legitimists. It will be funny to have France ruled by a Spaniard though

yes he does.

All frogs are passive-aggressive faggots and liberals too

Like the second one where the entire French army collapsed within a week despite being the best equipped and largest army at the time. Really made me think pierre.

Bonapartist indeed

He basically made 19th century France, and most of the things that are still working in our retarded country nowaday. More or less like de Gaulle (to a lesser extent tho).

Imagine a reign of 30 years for those two. The world would be ours.

Delusionist

Waterloo is to the Brits was is WW2 to the US.

Doing nothing and stealing the praise from everyone.

Not really since at least the US actually attacked Germany As it was almost at the Height of it's power.
Frankly WW2 was lost due to Normandy's D-day being a success, had they not succeded Germany would have likely fought a long drawn out war with Soviets and America might not have succeded to get the A-bomb before the Nazi and England would have been nuked and invaded.
Without the US WW2 was a likely win for the ETERNAL KRAUTS unlike WW1 was.
i think it's more apt to say waterloo is to the Brits what WW1 is to the US to a degree but then again at least the Brit took part in the 6 previous coalition and at least contributed HEAVILY to the wars, they just got btfo.

Republican
And fuck you.

>Current year
>Being Republican
>Not following Saint-Simon

This Anglo gets it.

Napoleon is responsible for consolidating our omnipotent state run by fonctionnaires.

Hundreds of thousands of French men died in Egypt and Russia for nothing.

He was great up to the Italian campaign. After that he was crap.

You're just a brainwashed French cunt who thinks Louis the XIV, Napoleon and De Gaulle were great. Well guess what they destroyed what made our country great: it's demographic power, it's powerful decentralized provinces.

dunno what any of this is...
>too lazy to bing it

>strengh comes from decentralization and Autonomy
>look at HRE for a Second
>woops Napoléon already conquered it because it was so divided
i swear to god you separatists and pro autonomy never learn that the strengh of a civilisation come from being able to unite and stay united otherwise you get fucked like a bickering shitty Gallic federation.

Gotta say bonapartist in all honesty, the napoleonic wars forced other european powers to switch from aristocracy to meritocracy and that benefited us all in the end.

Because France was not divided?

What is the fucking Vendeens genocide?

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/War_in_the_Vendée

What did France bring to the world since 1815? Socialism, post modernism, colonialism, defaitism, pacifism, white flagism, mass immigration, etc.

>bing
bing yourself

>muh Napoléon was bad
>cite bad things the Regime Napoléon overthrew did
the cognitive dissonance is real
also
>(((French Royalists)))
>Supported by (((Great Britain)))
Royalist influence from the outside were killed under the Years of terrors WHOWOULDHAVETHOUGHTABOUTTHAT?

>Legitimist
Absolutely disgusting and entirely arbitrary, relying on the arrogant assumption that they should rule because God wills it.

>Orléanist
Cowardly compromisers that didn't stick around long because, behind all the pretenses, a constitutional monarchy is still an ancien regime monarchy.

>Bonapartist
The best of the listet options, envorced by popular sovereignity and a natural consequence of republican ideals (Napoleon is to France what Caesar is to Rome).

Bonapartism >= Republicanism(Gaulliste) >>> Republicanism (Cucked) >>> My taint >>> Orléanism >>> My shit >>> [POWER GAP] >>> Légitimist
>Inb4 heellicking monarchists

And here's the problem with the ancien regime.

>The French Revolution caused post-modernism
Yeah, in the same way the Hundred Years War created the French Revolution. You're technically right but that doesn't stop you from being retarded.

>>>Rousseau>>>Revolution>>>Napoleon>>>Socialism>>>Communism

Hu?

I don't understand the attraction French reactionaries have with the monarchy. Everything the Revolution did, the monarchy was doing before. It could be said that the Jacobins did what Louis XIV wanted to do but couldn't.

I have much more sympathy for the Fronde than for the defeated of 1789. The monarchy of France has always been the main instigator of centralization, of submission of the Church, of destruction of regional institutions and cultures. Good riddance to them.

Obviously Bonapartist.

Napoleon's reign was a short summary of France's purpose in History.

This Brazil bro gets it.

Fucking frogs had amazing flag designs in the past and they went with gay three stripes...

>Napoleon>>>Socialism
Explain. Oh wait, you can't.

>I don't understand the attraction French reactionaries have with the monarchy.
It's the same reason why national socialism and totalitarianism is so popular among many Sup Forumsacks: they see things going wrong and rather than trying to think of a solution to solve these problems, they want to throw all of their liberties out of the window for the faint hope of an almighty daddy figure who will clean up everyone's booboos.

>Bonapartists
Edgy teens, supporters of a peasant manlet usurper, no legitimacy, haters of tradition and history

>Orleanists
Liberal traitors and usurpers, the cuckservatives of monarchism

>Legitimists
True rulers of France and her lands by the grace of God

Well, the HRE did survive for a thousand years and left a positive legacy for Central Europe. What is the median life expectancy of French revolutionary regimes? I guess the Third Republic was the longest lasting with its 70 years of existance, lol.

...

Négroiste

youtube.com/watch?v=NiOELKvIaxQ

R O P E

I think only a Bonaparte could manage to reconcile our republican heritage with a monarchy.

My family used to be pretty involved in monarchism, up until right after WW1. Very old noble family, they never really let the monarchy go. Though only my grandpa really has an opinion on which royalist candidate is the best nowadays.

What is destroying a country and it's historical provinces? Centralizing all powers even more.

Keeping the Droit du sol and destroying any ethnic unity of France.

Making people think that one person can change history and serving as an example for all despots and communist rules after him.

>Suppporting fat, inept, incompetent, inbred bastards because of magic blood when the real great men are out rising to Emperor and nearly conquering Europe by themselves
I bet you hate Caesar too

Who doesn't? He put an end to the Republic.

Muh shiny eagles

Read some de Maistre. I'd rather have mediocre but legitimate kings than some autistic usurpers. Fuck rationalism, fuck modernism, they are the very causes of why our modern world is shit. Fascism, national socialism, liberalism, nationalism, conservatism, it's all the same modernistic bullshit caused by abandonment of traditions and the law of nature,

Well, we were the original tree horizontal stripes, as far as I know.

>main instigator of centralization, >destruction of regional institutions and cultures.

Are you implying that any of this is bad? Also, it was the church that was the king's bitch, not the contrary. They even invented a name for it, "Gallicanisme".

France's purpose in history is creating retarded ideologies that are adopted elsewhere in the world but not in France itself.

>anticlericalism

I know France enacted separation of church and state in 1905, but it doesn't compare to the radical anticlericalism you exported to Latin America in the XIXth century)

>revolutionary violence

Lenin and Trotsky got it from Blanqui, Mussolini and Hitler got it from Sorel, meanwhile French kept its boring parliamentarism)

>modernist architecture

Le Corbusier wanted to destroy Paris, he didn't. But architects influenced by him destroyed Brazilian cities)

>anti-racism and multiculturalism

France has created the theoretical model that was exported to other countries in Europe where migrants are allowed to live in culturally isolated enclaves to preserve their culture, but they don't apply it in France itself, where assimilation is enforced by the State

And the most egregious one for me, personally.

>Michel Foucault's theories on crime and punishment

If Brazil is one of the most violent countries in the world, Foucalt has some of the blame, considering his influence in law schools and in the judiciary of the country, where many judges refuse to punish criminals because they are only "victims of society" and punishment doesn't work anyway.

So, in a sense, Bonapartism is the opposite of that. It's the application in France of what you intend to the rest of the world. Napoleon wanted a civil code and centralized government for the rest of Europe, so he did in France. Napoleon III wanted apply modern urban theories, so he did in Paris.

I have no sympathy for Bonapartism, be it classical or in its Gaullist form, but I have to respect that, at least.

>Are you implying that any of this is bad?

Yes. I think the strenghtening of the central state and the destruction of every intermediary corp of society between the individual and the government is not healthy for a society.

>Also, it was the church that was the king's bitch, not the contrary. They even invented a name for it, "Gallicanisme".

That's what I said. Submission OF the Church, not TO the Church.

...

Legitimist.

Orléaniste.

This piece of shit doesn't even speak French, dude

Bonapartist

WE WUZ ROMAN

>I have much more sympathy for the Fronde
fuck off mate

I'm surprised at the amount of Orléanists. You guys actual Orléanists, or just recognize the Legitimist cause more or less had to choose the Oléans and the Blancs d'Espagne are autists?

Pol needs to really learn what Reactionary politics are, instead of being a bunch of Naziboos.

we have autistic usurpers because of mediocre kings though

I see you have swallowed the ultimate redpill.

>What is destroying a country
Wot?

>And it's historical provinces
That's called reorganization. It has happened multiple times in multiple countries.

>destroying any ethnic unity of France
There was no ethnic unity because there was no French people prior to the Revolution. Only 25% of the country even spoke French to begin with.

>Making people think that one person can change history
Clausewitz wrote the "Great Man" theory of history. It was a consequence of the French Revolution, but not any of its aims.

>serving as an example for all despot
Funny that you should use that term, because "Enlightened Despot" was already a thing before Napoleon.

>And communist
Name one communist ruler directly influenced by Napoleon in his actions.

>This piece of shit doesn't even speak French, dude
Kek, these are the guys who "muh ethnic unity" reactionaries support.

Who is that

Jean-Christophe, one of the potential heads of House Bonaparte.
The other proposed candidate is Charles Bonaparte, his father. Ironically enough, Charles himself acknowledges Jean-Christophe as the head of House Bonaparte.

Also, he's a New York banker who barely cares about France. But hey, he's handsome. That's something.

Charles Bonaparte is a socialist loving cuck #NotMyEmperor

Also we don't know much about Jean Christophe aside that he is not a degenerate like so many of the "royalties" and that he observes political neutrality so that's already something good for me.

He really does have the family look, holy shit.

That's why Legitimisme splintered off, because most people decided it was better off to support the Comte de Paris over a foreign King after 1883.