# The Royal Family of France (Henry)/Bourbons

VII.
BOURBONS.
The House of Bourbon descends from Robert the Strong, Duke de France, whose lineage can be distinctly traced through ten degrees up to Clodion, or Clodius the Hairy, supposed son of Pharamond. No doubt can be thrown on this statement The Charta of 799, discovered by M. de Vilevîeille, proves it clearly. Then the principle of hereditary right of succession to the Throne, instead of being controverted, was re-established by the elevation of Hugh Capet to the Throne.
The political vicissitudes of France are strong proofs how deeply Monarchical customs are rooted in the French soil, since during nine centuries the Crown has been hereditary "by an established custom," writes T. Bignon, "which is stronger than the law itself, this custom being engraved, not on marble or brass, but in the history and hearts of Frenchmen." The principle of Royalty is so powerful in France that during the space of fourteen centuries the French nation has had but three Races of Kings. France should have remained and should again be "the Christian Monarchy." Current History shows eloquently enough, that since the Monarchical principle has been violated in France, all other thrones have been trembling; the European balance is destroyed, lesser States vanish one after the other, power falls into the cleverest hands, rights are trodden underfoot by brutal violence, the scales of justice are replaced by the soldier's sword, the majesty of Royalty seems tarnished throughout the world. When France rises from her degradation and the Revolution in Europe is slain, then only European princes will resume their stability, and thrones regain their lustre. Putting aside all sentimental dislike to the brutal frankness of facts, who has not read in History that on the day on which Louis XIV, expired, men in Germany did exclaim: ​"The King is dead!" and this King was the King of France. Chateaubriand wrote: "If France possessed nothing but her Royal Family, whose dignity surprises us, yet might we excel in fame."
There is a Royal Family of France, reader, a Royal Family as old as the Gaelic soil, as ancient as the forests of Germany, as truly of the Royal Blood of France as Her Majesty Queen Victoria I. descends from Egbert. It took root in France, and France, to repay her debt, embodied herself in her Royal Family. The sword of Caesar had become the battle-axe of Tolbiac, and the labarum of Constantine the oriflamme of St. Denys. France not in a small degree forwarded during fourteen centuries the development of intellectual, political, social, and Christian excellences. She contributed her large, nay—we said so before—mighty, share in the impetus given to civilization, liberty and franchise; loyalty has borrowed her name. As "the Christian nation" in Europe, France was styled the "Eldest Daughter of the Church," because she created the Temporal Power of the Holy See as she created the Domain of the Franks. She drove the Saracens out of the West of Europe and evangelized Germany. Have not Princes of the Royal House of France fought with the Cross on their arm at Ptolemais and at Mansourah? Have they not decreed justice beneath an oak, and have they not died at the stake? They fought at Bouvines and at Marignan, at Crecy and at Poictiers. History knows not whether to extol their signal victories or their triumphant defeats. Thirty-two Princes of the Royal Family have been killed on the battle-field since the time of St. Louis … six a century! They formed the religion, the laws, the customs, the arts of their country, to-day carefully rejected (nor is the reason far to seek), as antiquated absurdities by political farceurs. From the Atlas to the Scheldt, from the banks of the Jordan to the shores of the St. Lawrence, from Pondicherry to Constantinople, the very frontiers of France, her colonies and missions recall the names of the Royal Princes, who ever appeared on the field from the day of the battle of Tolbiac to that of the 22nd of December, 1847, and in more recent days to that of 1870-71. History tells us of the glorious days of that country under Charlemagne, under Philip Augustus, ​St. Louis, Francis I., Henry IV., and Louis XIV., and the martyr-King, Louis XVI., who laid his innocent head on the scaffold, with hands bound behind, victim of his love for his people. And contemporary history relates how at Constantine, at the Smala, at St. John of Ulloa, at Patay, at Mans, these Princes were not unworthy of the parent stem, when their Royal Highnesses the Duke de Chartres and Prince de Joinville fought for their country in spite of the refusal of their proffered services by the National Committee of September 4th, 1870. This Royal Family is the Family of the French Princes lately in our midst and still near us; it is their own family, the family styled The House of France. (Read "Genealogical Tables," p. 14.)
Tell me, candid reader. Of the three Republics and of the two Empires, what have their men done with this Royal Family, their allies, their exchequer, their frontiers? They had full power; all that terror, military force, and gold could effect, was given into their hands, was it not?
The Royal Princes? They have slaughtered them, with their wives, their sisters, their children. The Duke d'Enghien: a lantern was tied to his breast to direct the aim of his executioners. The Duke de Berry: they despatched him with a dagger.
The people? They drowned them wholesale, and shot them down in columns. Maidens and youths they stripped and cast into the Loire; and when the graves at the Brotteaux were over-full with old men and children, these were sunk lower down with the points of swords. They killed thousands of people by the knife, and a million soldiers in senseless wars.
The allies of France? All Europe was armed against her, terrified as it was at her revolutionary doctrines and her covetousness. People and King have been trodden under foot; neither the Royal Arms nor the old national escutcheon found and still find favour in their eyes. They would have overthrown and levelled all things, even the tiara, the sign of France's greatness, and the Cross, the symbol of human liberty. They imprisoned and insulted the Holy Father; later they betrayed him after the fashion of Judas. They sowed hatred, they have reaped and are reaping of the same. Prussia in the north, Savoy in the south, Russia in the east, the United States in the Western Hemisphere, ​are all instruments in the hand of Providence for the teaching of modern nations.
The Exchequer of France? The three Republics and the two Empires have cost France fifty-five thousand millions up to 1871 only! Under Napoleon III. alone loans were allowed to the Government: March, 1854, to the extent of 250 millions (850 millions 'had been tendered to them); in July, 1855, of 750 millions (3,652 millions were tendered); in 1859, of 500 millions (2,500 millions having been tendered); in 1864, of 300 millions (over 2,000 millions were tendered), etc.; and who now will doubt that Prince Bismack had become by 1867 infernally covetous of the French gold for his poor people? At present the fact that half the kingdom stands mortgaged confronts any man who may care to undertake the burden of the French administration.
The frontiers? All have vanished. Trafalgar and Aboukir, Leipzig and Waterloo, Queretaro and Sedan; the Capitulation of Paris, the disasters of Mans and Pontarlier: these form the schedule of their achievements. Yet, in 1870, when Napoleon III. was again bending under the weight of popular disaffection, the sum of 373 millions was voted for the Army estimates for that year, besides 3 millions for extraordinary expenditure; and without the calls made upon the exchequer of Algeria, 163 millions were voted for the navy estimates, besides over 10 millions for extraordinary expenditure. 26,229,516 francs only were the Educational vote! Can one be surprised at the just anger and maddening despair that decreed the last fall of the accursed star of the Bonapartes? Sit tibi terra levis!
​Wretched Governments! What have they done with the splendour of the Monarchical inheritance of their country? In any case History has the right of questioning the conspirators of 1793 and of 1812, the rebels famed for their barricades of February, 1848, and the bandits of December, 1851, the demagogues of September, 1870, and March, 1871, dictators who decreed victory and immortality to anarchy. Have not their administrations ever been, and are they not at this hour, a source of danger to all Europe? Have they been and are they the government that Europe likes? All of them put together, let them throw their claims into the scales and let truth and justice weigh them!
The diseases of the human mind are sometimes so intense that the most skilful physician has to compound with them; and when it is clearly evident that the impulse is irresistible, the only thing that can be done is to become its leader; because it has been truly said that nations do not reason, but they feel. The French more than any other nation is governed by a spirit of contradiction; and no other nation could in truth outlive so contradictory notions as those advocated in contemporary France about national patriotism, law, conscience and international decorum. To a stranger they look comical; to Frenchmen they incite them to nought but madness and spite against each other to gratify their native vanity. The yoke of the French must be bitter yet brilliant, it must be oppressive yet dazzling; else will they despise their rulers and thwart and resist every impetus lent it. We have declared that the task of governing them has become difficult and next to impossible; and all loyal attempts to benefit contemporary Frenchmen will meet with only saddening causes of irritation and despondency, as long as anti-Christian with Republican policies are not abandoned and new socialist and revolutionary ideas mercilessly nipped in the bud. France must give herself the government that Europe likes—a government like that of all the European States—and Frenchmen must bear that in mind for the third time.