|This article is of interest to the following WikiProjects:|
I'm going to move this to Orléanist. Unless someone objects. Piet 09:41, 24 February 2006 (UTC)
- Done. Piet 21:10, 6 March 2006 (UTC)
The article on the Orleanist party, while providing the reader with great context, is often difficult to read and shows a bias towards the Orleanist party. The author of this article argues that the Orleanist party was extremely capable and benefited France but is now misunderstood in the context of history. The author downplays their failings during the Revolution of 1848 and instead emphasizes their progressive view of government, insinuating that the Orleanists were ahead of their time in looking to adopt a system of virtual representation as found in Britain and were responsible for creating political freedom during the Restoration. The author speaks of this move as “inevitable” but offensive to the French people. The author also refers to the Orleanists as being “very ably led” and their rule from 1830 to 1848 as being “profitable to France” and laments that the Orleanists were “unfairly associated with Philippe Petain’s National Revolution.” In writing this article, the author assumes that in cases where the Orleanists did not hold power, the legitimate government was somehow deficient. The author does not seem to think very highly of Legitimists, Bonapartists, or Republicans. When talking of these groups, the author always manages to mention the prestige and continued influence of the Orleanist party. The author also seems to assume that the French peasants and lower class were unwarranted in demanding that they too be included in the political process when the Orleanists granted suffrage to the middle class. It is this desire for equality on the part of the lower classes that the author blames for the downfall of Orleanist rule. I found these assumptions to be less than convincing. It is my opinion that the author has overstated the importance of the Orleanist party in French history. The Orleanists held power for only eighteen years in the nineteenth century and the author gives little information about what this government actually managed to accomplish. Though the author consistently refers to the able Orleanist leaders, the party’s continued prestige, and alludes to the party holding a leadership role during the Third Republic but he or she gives little evidence to support these claims. Additionally, I was not convinced that the Orleanists were not at fault for being ousted from power in 1848 as the author has not provided enough information about how they fell from power for the reader to make an objective judgment. What was convincing, however, was the author’s depiction of the Orleanists as a viable compromise between the Legitimist Monarchists and Republicans. By supporting a monarchy derived from the will of the people rather than from God and by putting forth a king who was not a territorial landholder but ruler of a people, the author has convinced me that this was an ideal government for France as it transitioned from the injustices of the Bourbon monarchy and the Republicans of the French Revolution. I was also convinced that the Orleanists had a continued influence in the social and artistic life of France, even after they fell from power. With members of the party including historians Guizot and Thiers and the banker Lafitte as well as their role in the press and the Academie Francaise, there is no doubt that Orleanists had an influence on the intellectual life of urban France in the nineteenth century. As far as sources for this article, the author has cited the Encyclopedia Britannica and several French works. While I think that using a French perspective in an article pertaining to French history is highly effective, two of the works were written by Guizot who, being an Orleanist himself, was probably biased towards his party. Some more up-to-date material could also have given a better perspective on the role of the Orleanist party in French history as all of the sources were either from the nineteeth or early twentieth century. Additionally, the coherence of this article was often problematic. The syntax and word choice as well as some grammar errors lead me to believe that this was translated or not written by a native speaker of English. Also, I was disappointed that the author omitted information as to what the Orleanists actually accomplished when in power and how exactly they fell from power in 1848. While I really appreciated the author establishing the context of the rise and existence of the Orleanist party in French politics, I wish that the article had included more on the individual Orleanist leaders and what their and the party’s beliefs and aims were in regards to international politics, economic policy, and religion. Again, it would also have been nice to know what the Orleanists managed to accomplish other than suffrage for the middle class.
-K. Englund 3/20/2006
Names and Numbers
Sorry. this does NOT directly relate to improving the article, but some information should be implemented regardless.
1)Louis-Philippe's grandson/heir name was also Louis-Philippe. His article states that he succeeded his grandfather in 1848(following Louis-Philippe I's abdication)as Louis-Philippe II. yet he is listed here as Philippe VII?
2)His successor's name was also Louis-Philippe. Thus he should have been Louis-Philippe III. Even if we accept that he took the Regnal name of "Philippe", he should still only have been Philippe VII not "VIII".
3)Why are the claimants from 1940-present Henri VI and Henri VII? Surely they should be(under Orleanist reasoning anyway) Henri V and Henri VI? The only Henri V was the Legitimist claimant from 1844-1883. This corresponded with the de jure reign of Louis-Philippe I, and claimed reign of Louis-Philippe II(or Philippe VII, or whatever his supporters are calling him now). Orleanists never had a Henri V. or do they recognize Legitimist claimants as valid?
- Henry V was childless. The Orleanists, ever expectant of inheriting/usurping the throne, recognized Henry, Count of Chambord, as Henry V of France. In return, they asked Henry to recognize them as his heir. Fortunately, the monarchy was overthrown, preventing a permanent, effective takeover of the throne by the House of Orleans. I don't know why it was done, but the style Dauphin was denied to the heir of the King of the French. Most importantly, royal princes and princesses were simply "of Orleans", not "of France", or "of the French". The designation "of France", was reserved for the senior-surviving Bourbons, the descendants in male line of Louis XIV - the Spanish Bourbons. Emerson 07 (talk) 13:55, 29 June 2011 (UTC)
Edits today have been reverted as extreme violations of NPOV because they insert the contention that Orleanists believe, in general, that "international treaties" may alter France's order of succession to the throne. This is biased because it assigns undue influence to a single historical incident in defining the political philosophy of Orleanists -- it has been asserted here more as an accusation than an objective statement. No Orleanist would describe his own political philosophy in this way. The fact is that most nations have accepted that losing a war, or the prospect of imminent loss in war, can generate upheaval which has extra-legal effects on that nation's fate and governance. Such was the War of the Spanish Succession which was ended by the Treaty of Utrecht, and which was negotiated, signed, ratified and adhered to by France's diplomats, lawful king (Louis XIV), Parliament, peiole and soldiers precisely as the only means left to end a war they could no longer wage pursuant to their king's ambition to retain for the House of Bourbon the crowns of both the French and Spanish Empires. England did not pretend that William I obtained the crown by lawful inheritance or national consent when, in fact, he obtained it by conquest -- as the crown of nearly every nation has been seized at one time or another. England simply acknowledges that this happened. Legitimists seek to ignore the fact that in 1789 the authority of the Crown and the separation by class of the Estates General were overturned by irresistable and irreversible events -- a fact that, by 1830, everyone else in France had finally accepted and, when the Comte de Chambord tried in the 1870s to turn back the clock on the French Revolution to the legitimist principles of the ancien regime, the nation -- even though monarchist and willing to hand the Crown to him -- refused to undo the French Revolution to do so. Yes, the Orleans accept that Utrecht was a game changer, and so was the Revolution. The fact is, most historians, jurists and Frenchmen do. Orleanism cannot be written here from the view of Chambord and the few Legitimists who turned to Spain's Carlist pretender as their rightful king when Chambord died in 1883. That is a fascinating and coherent perspective, but it is an extremely atypical POV. Additionally, the present Orleans pretender has repudiated his father's claim to have the right to deprive dynasts of their succession rights, so that assertion is outdated. What remains is the un-repudiated right to approve dynastic marriages from the outcome of the 1635 case of the forbidden marriage of Louis XIII's younger brother [[Gaston to Marguerite of Lorraine -- a monarchical principle which long pre-dates, but has historically been accepted by, Orleanism. FactStraight (talk) 03:58, 12 October 2011 (UTC)