I'm listening through the Revolutions Podcast currently and was curious what cultural, political, and social differences let the British monarchy remain into the Age of Democracy while the French crown was not able to do the same.
Any information regarding other monarchies during the 19th century (specifically 1848 year of Revolutions) would be greatly appreciated as well.
Thank you!
Why was the British Monarchy able to survive revolutions when the French was not able to?
That's news to the French Monarchy! ;)
This may be more of a misunderstanding on French history of the Revolution onward. We don't call the current French government the Fifth Republic for nothing!
I think a lot of the confusion around the French Revolution & beyond comes from the way that it's taught. It's usually compressed into a timeline of rapid-fire events that starts with the Estates General in 1789, and more often than not ends at the fall of Robespierre in Thermidor Year II (July 1794). Of course the Revolutionary apparatus didn't fall with Robespierre, and the republic went on trucking even through the coup of Napoleon, until he officially abolished it after becoming Emperor.
Wherever you date the end of the Revolution--some do end it as early as Thermidor, others see Napoleon as its continuation--there is no denying that a hard wall forces even the most optomistic of historians to bring it to (at least a temporary) halt in 1814, when Napoleon was finally forced to abdicate by the allied powers. The allies certainly didn't entertain rebuilding the republic--they brought back the Bourbons.
In exile since 1791, the comte de Provence (Louis XVI's younger brother), returned to France as King Louis XVIII. (Louis XVII had been the title bestowed upon the little dauphin, son of Louis XVI and Marie-Antionette who died in 1795.) Louis XVIII ruled for around a decade (minus the Hundred Days Napoleon reclaimed in there), and was succeeded by the family's youngest, and most conservative member, the comte d'Artois.
d'Artois, for all intents and purposes, wished to turn the clock back as far as he could crank the knob--eventually, he managed to rip the knob off altogether. For six years he ruled as Charles X, always pretty hated by just about everyone, and finally, pushing the French too hard in defense of a favorite minister (a bit of role playing of his English namesake, perhaps?) Charlie managed to get the Bourbons kicked out of France a third time, when Paris rose up in the Revolution of 1830, for the "three glorious days." Though he and his family managed to leave with their extremities intact, the French were very much done with the Bourbon dynasty who, as Talleyrand (maybe) said, had "forgotten nothing, and learned nothing."
So was it time for the Second Republic of France? Nope! Though the idea was considered, the shadow of the Terror cast a long pall. Many men had parents who had lived through--or failed to live through--the Revolution; others were still puttering around who had lived through it personally. However, others looked hopefully on the republic as a net positive, tarnished only by the exegencies of warfare & counterrevolutionary discord that had plagued the nation. The uncertaintly was broken, however, by Lafayette's "republican kiss."
Lafayette, who had survived the Revolution by being locked in an Austrian prison, had returned to France as a beloved figure of all that was good about the Revolutionary ideals. Known to believe in both constitutional monarchy, and the idealistic principles of republicanism, his opinion was highly respected among those who carried out the Revolution of 1830. Very conveniently, if the Borbouns were door number one, and democracy was door number two, there was a highly attractive door number three: Louis-Philippe, the duc d'Orleans, a cadet branch of the Borbouns.
Anyone familiar with the original Revolution will recognize the duc d'Orleans--or Philippe Egalite, as he restyled himself during its more radical periods. Well, Louis-Philippe was Egalite's son, who had returned to France along with his Borboun cousins. Far more liberal than the Borbouns, and raised on Enlightenment values, Louis-Philippe was willing to be the constitutional monarch--the "King of the French"--that everyone had tried so hard to make Louis XVI fit back in 1791. Offered the crown, with Lafayette's blessing, Louis-Philippe accepted.
The citizen-king would reign until 1848--and yes, the French were the first to rise up in the Revolutions of 1848! While the action technically started to heat up first in the Italian penninsula, it was Paris that would erupt, toppling the rule of Louis-Philippe, who had been too slow to adapt to changing calls for increased representation; in his stead finally came the Second French Republic, nearly 50 years after the first. It lasted, oh, about three or four years, before it was hastily turned into the Second French Empire, under Napoleon's nephew, who would see it through until the Third French Republic, which would take the record for longevity, running from 1870-WWII.
So, did the French Monarchy fall with the Revolution? Absolutely not. The Republic lasted about 7 years, if we date its end at the coup of Napoleon. For the next half a century, France was again run by a single man, with a brief 4 year interlude, before another 20 years of monarchical rule. Therefore, there truly wasn't a sharp contrast to say the Britain accepted kingship, while France did not. Amazingly, the Commonwealth of England, established during the English Revolution, lasted for a full decade--their experiment with republicanism actually lasted longer than that of the French!
There are, of course, an enormous amount of differences between the two states, and their cultural views of their governments. But the longevity of the monarchy was not necessarily one of the differences; in fact, it wouldn't be too big of a stretch to compare the Glorious Revolution in England with the French Revolution of 1830, when power was similarly handed over, without violence, to another branch of the royal family--one more amenable to their subjects.
One question that may come up in this discussion is why the French were seemingly amenable to bounce from monarchy --> republic --> emperor, after all, wasn't the French Revolution a radical fight to establish a republic? This comes up a lot, and I actually have an answer to that here, for anyone interested!
Hopefully this helps clarify the history, and let me know if you have any more questions!