Was it good for the French to abolish the monarchy?

Answer 1

yes it was- with all the rebellions from radical groups such as the national assembly and the jacobins, france was out of control
-once they formed a constitutional type government-which was only after Naploean- they regained order
with all the surrounding countries abolishing the monarchies and it spreading- there was no way that it couldnt happen

Answer 2

Although the French Revolution (1789 etc.) involved an abolition of the monarchy when Louis XVI was executed in 1793, it did not actually end monarchy in France. Napoleon the First made himself effectively "king" of France, even though (for then politically-correct reasons) he called himself "Emperor" instead.
And the "legitimate" Bourbon monarchy was, of course, restored in 1814 (and again in 1815), lasting until 1830, when cousin-branch-related Louis Philippe made himself "King of the French". And he only lasted until Napoleon the Third (the Second never got to rule) ousted him.

So, although many people think that the French Revolution (the 1789 one) abolished the monarchy, in fact monarchy in one form or another continued to be the predominant form of government in France until 1871. If any one event led to the permanent abolition of the monarchy in France, it was not the Revolution: it was the Prussian victory in the war of 1870-71.

Was it good NOT to have a king? (Apologies to Mel Brooks)

Yes and No. France has never quite managed to settle down, to stabilize itself, since that 1789 Revolution. The French have concocted a whole bunch of constitutions to redefine how they think they should govern themselves without a king, and none of them have made any sense at all --- except presumably to the French.

The great failing of France since the monarchy is that the French want to be GOVERNED, really told what to do by whoever is the boss; but, at the same time, they want to retain the right to hate whoever it is that is the current boss, and to overthrow him/her just whenever it takes their fancy. If the current constitution says that they shouldn't overthrow their government by force, tant pis (too bad) -- they will do it anyway, just like they change their socks every 20 years or so.

And then, there is corruption. Oh my! French political leaders are masters of the bribe.

So ... maybe it would be OK for the French if they get around to restoring some version of their monarchy one of these days. At least they might end up with an incorruptible person in charge for a change.

Answer 3

Over time it has worked our for the French, but when the French Revolution started there was pure havoc in France. When the monarchy was re-established many French people wanted it gone. They eventually got their way and now I believe they are on their Fifth Republic. Though they have not had the success of many of their fellow Republics I would have to say it was a good thing overall.

Answer 4

Had they gone about it in a more orderly, peaceful way, it would have been very good for the country. There is no question that the French peasants were terribly oppressed, but their wholesale slaughter of their ruling class left a power vacuum, as well as an administrative nightmare which allowed Napoleon to step in as a dictator.

Answer 5

Not at first. It caused more problems than the political leaders of the time could have ever predicted. If the people of the National Assembly in the fall of 1789 knew what their actions started, they would have never tried to wrestle power from Louis XVI. Louis might not have been a spectacular King but he seemed to care for his subjects, he just didn't have the ability to help them much. Besides, it put Europe in chain reaction series of wars for years after.

Answer 6

because Napoleon did not rule as a monarch. He topped himself emperor. Fance grow to be now no longer a kingdom, yet an empire. i understand the version looks little or no border to none, yet on the time, emperial is a goverment for the persons. (Granted liberal activists has been combating Napoleon over the years for more beneficial potential of the law which contain Napoleon's ruling, yet universal, you are able to not say Napoleon's rule a monarch's rule)

Answer 7

while there was a monarchy there was a general population that was living in poverty while you had those of nobility living a nice life. all the voting was held by those from nobility so those living in horror had no way of changing it. you were born into nobility or born to farm and make ends-meat. revolution was needed.

Answer 8

They were just a bunch of posers. The US did it better than them, and we managed to avoid the whole Reign of Terror and Napoleon problem.

Answer 9

Well, it made it easier to obtain an Emperor.

Answer 10

Im possible to know... they might have more tourists if they still had one... like England.