THE THRONE OF FRANCE.

Waikato Times, Volume 101, Issue 16947, 9 November 1926, Page 11

THE THRONE OF FRANCE.

A COUP THAT FAILED. Two claimants to the throne of France have recently died—the head of the House of France, who died at Palermo, left no son, so his claim descends to the Duke of Guise. The head of the house of Bonaparte died in Brussels, leaving a son. The descendants of Napoleon seem to have abandoned any effective claim, but with the "sons of St. Louis" it is otherwise. The heads of both houses become exiles by law as soon as they reach the status of headship. The Duke of Guise was not even allowed to attend the requiem mass for his dead cousin in the Cathedral of Notre Dame. All his life, however, he has lived "sumptuously and sagaciously" the life of a model citizen and great landowner in France and French Africa. He is popular and well known, whereas his dead kinsman, a life-long exile, was only a name to modern France. In his youth the late Duke of Orleans made a claim to enter the French army, and suffered imprisonment for it. To-day the enforcement of the law of exile excites indignation on all sides. But Mr Walter Frewen Lord, writing in the "Nineteenth Century and After," maintains that from the Republican point of view it is justified. The House of France had never abandoned its claim. It is wealthy, and its chiefs are able men of strong personality,. The Royalist Press is active, aggressive, well-informed, well-written. The Republic has been by no means an unqualified success. Political stability has never been achieved, and ,it has never succeeded in producing anything better than political mediocrities. The Republican Consti--'tution was passed by the majority of only a single vote in 1875. The throne of France was, says Mr Lord, in 1875 practically at the disposal of the Count of Chambord, known as Henry V., but he threw it away in a mad attempt to come back on his own terms, unfettered by any constitutional pledges. Mr Lord says that the transformation of a country passionately monarchial into a country sullenly republican was the work of the Count himself. With all his personal charm and intellectual distinction he suffered from a delusion, harmless in itself, but fatal to his cause; he really believed himself to be a profound diplomatist. He was readily accessible, but only to those who accepted him as King of : France. Even to these he would abate not a jot of'his claim. "Henry IV. made concessions, sir," said a perplexed courtier. "No doubt," returned the King; "but Henry IV. was a hero, whereas I am only a fat old man with a limp." Instead of waiting and bargaining honestly for the invitation which on terms the Houses and President (Marshal MacMahon) were waiting to give, "Henry V.„ attempted a coup. He tried to force the hand of MacMahon by coming secretly to Paris, but the Marshal was not prepared to make him an absolute monarch by force, and the Count sadly returned to exile. One of the causes of the quarrel was the flag of France. The traditional Jlass of the Count's house were, for battle red, with golden lilies (oriflarnme), for peace, white with golden lilies, for coronation blue, also powdered with golden lilies. The only Hag the people saw was white. Wtien Louis XVI. was dragged to Paris his colour (white) was united with the colours of the city of Paris (red and blue). Thus originated the tricolour, to symbolise the reconciliation of king and city, a Hag which, in the light of its origin, the unfortunate Count dc Chambord might well have accepted.