Bonapartism Revisited: Defending Revolutionary Royalty
Arguing for the Restoring France’s Lost Synthesis
Not long after my publication of “Revolutionary Royalty,” my arguments for a Bonapartist restoration have already been challenged in recent discussions with fellow monarchists. Critics have questioned the legitimacy of a Bonapartist restoration. They asserted that Bonapartism as an ideology has moved beyond its namesake.
In this essay, I present these criticisms alongside my responses, defending the unique role of dynastic continuity in sustaining a political tradition that fuses revolutionary ideals with royal stability.
I. Criticism: The Exclusivity of the Bonapartes
Critic’s Claim:
One critic argued that true Bonapartism should not be limited by the requirement that only a member of the Bonaparte family can claim power. They contended that the Bonapartist method—synthesizing the past with the present—is diluted by its reliance on hereditary lineage. According to this view, anyone should be free to “grab the wings of destiny” and become king, rather than having power monopolized by the Bonaparte family.
Response:
The power of “true Bonapartism” lies not only in its ability to merge revolutionary energy with royal authority but also in its insistence on hereditary continuity. Without unbroken dynastic rule, Revolutionary Royalty would be revolutionary without royalty. The Bonaparte family is not an arbitrary gatekeeper; it is the living embodiment and custodian of a political tradition that has repeatedly reconciled the will of the people with the stabilizing force of monarchy. Allowing anyone to claim the mantle risks diluting this very synthesis, transforming a durable system of governance into a fleeting moment of opportunism.
II. Criticism: The Question of Legitimacy
Critic’s Claim:
The critic further contended that the Bonapartes have no unique claim to establish themselves as royalty. They argued that Napoleon merely founded a new dynasty—one among many—and that his legitimacy, like that of the Carolingians and the Capetians, is a product of ex post facto justification following his coup d’état. Moreover, they suggested that since legitimacy can be derived from the consent of the nation (as with the Bourbons’ divine right), the Bonaparte family does not hold an exclusive monopoly on monarchial legitimacy.
Response:
While it is true that dynastic legitimacy has been claimed by various houses throughout history, the Bonaparte legacy is distinct because its authority is rooted in the active, ongoing consent of the nation. Unlike claims based solely on ancestral right or divine mandate, Bonapartism emerged from a revolutionary crucible, synthesizing the radical impulses of the French people with traditional monarchical stability. This dynamic foundation makes Bonapartism uniquely adaptable—it is not an inheritance of divine favor but a living institution that continually renews its bond with the people.
In light of this, it must be acknowledged that because Bonapartist legitimacy hinges upon the consent of the nation. The door remains open for a new Bonapartist leader to emerge from a different dynasty through plebiscitary Caesarism. However, until such an alternative can be found and proven, House Bonaparte continues to embody the political tradition and ideological synthesis that bears its name.
III. Criticism: The Challenge of Dynastic Renewal
Critic’s Claim:
A further critique questions why the Bonapartes, who have been out of power for 150 years, should have the sole right to restore the French monarchy. The critic observes that the Bonaparte family has become no different from previous dynasties. They point out that if continuity and respect for historical monarchy are paramount, then historical examples—such as the Carolingians overthrowing the Merovingians and the Capetians replacing the Carolingians—demonstrate that dynastic continuity does not preclude the possibility of renewal and change.
Response:
The fact that past dynasties were overthrown or transformed does not invalidate the principle of dynastic continuity; rather, it underscores the necessity of periodic renewal within that continuity. The Bonaparte legacy represents such a renewal.
While the Carolingians and Capetians did indeed redefine legitimacy in their eras, the Bonaparte model not only redefined it but also established a political framework that continuously adapts. Moreover, while other houses (such as the House of Orleans) claim legitimacy through more recent constitutional models, those models ultimately failed to reconcile France’s revolutionary heritage with stable monarchy. In contrast, the Bonapartist synthesis—demonstrated by both Napoleon I and Napoleon III—integrates plebiscitary rule with progressive governance, offering a forward-looking vision for national renewal.
IV. Criticism: Bonapartism Has Evolved Beyond the Bonapartes
Critic’s Claim:
A final criticism from another fellow monarchist suggests that the Bonapartist ideology has evolved beyond its namesake. They point to Charles de Gaulle as the last true Bonapartist leader, arguing that de Gaulle’s leadership—marked by strong national unity and a synthesis of revolutionary and traditional values—demonstrates that the model no longer depends on a dynastic lineage.
Response:
Charles de Gaulle indeed adopted certain Bonapartist traits: strong personal leadership, national unity, and a direct relationship with the people through referenda. Nonetheless, by operating within a republican framework, de Gaulle did not transform his leadership into a monarchical system.
A true Bonapartist leader would bring about the logical culmination of democracy: a synthesis of monarchy and popular legitimacy as was achieved by both Napoleons. Whether due to inability or unwillingness, de Gaulle did not accomplish this transformation. His resignation in 1969, following a failed referendum, underscored that his authority derived from institutional republicanism rather than the plebiscitary Caesarism that is central to Bonapartism.
If Bonapartism were an ideology that had truly “moved on” from the Bonaparte family, France would have already found a stable alternative. Yet, the collapse of the Fourth Republic, the instability of the Fifth, and persistent dissatisfaction with modern republican governance indicate that France has yet to find a lasting synthesis of authority and popular legitimacy. A Bonapartist restoration remains relevant precisely because it offers a tested model of governance rooted in national unity, progress, and stability—values uniquely embodied by the Bonaparte name.
It goes without saying that De Gaulle was a great leader, one who has incorporated elements of Bonapartism. Nonetheless, he ultimately remained a republican in practice if not in principle. Therefore, he was not a Bonapartist leader in practice, even if so in principle.
Conclusion
Throughout history, legitimacy has been a contested concept. It has been shaped by revolutions, transformative dynasties, and evolving notions of sovereignty. The Bonapartist legacy stands apart by enshrining a unique synthesis: a revolutionary spirit that is continuously guided and reaffirmed through dynastic continuity. Critics may argue that true Bonapartism should be open to anyone or that it has been superseded by figures like de Gaulle. Yet such critiques overlook the core strength of Bonapartism—the living institution that merges the revolutionary with the royal, ensuring both adaptability and stability.
In an era marked by political fragmentation, the erosion of traditional republican models, and growing disillusionment with transient forms of leadership, the Bonapartist framework offers a compelling alternative. It is not a nostalgic return to the past but a reinvigoration of a tradition that has repeatedly proven its capacity to reconcile the demands of the present with the enduring values of history.
As I’ve stated before, I would be willing to accept a new dynasty should France find another Caesarean figure from another house. But until then, the Bonaparte family remains the essential custodian of a political synthesis that is as necessary for France now as it has ever been.