“France is proud of its political violence”

Marin de Viry was a French writer and literary critic, member of the management committee of the Revue des deux Mondes. He taught at Sciences Po Paris, from which he graduated in 1988, and was communications adviser to Dominique de Villepin during the 2012 presidential election campaign. morning fool (ed. JC Lattes, 2008) and The Memoirs of a Damned Man (ed. Pierre-Guillaume de Roux, 2012), he published in 2017 A King soon (ed. Pierre-Guillaume de Roux).

LE FIGARO.- This January 21st marks the 230th anniversary of the execution of Louis XVI. How do you think the monarchy feels today?

MARIN DE VIRY.- I believe that there was a sort of automatic repudiation of the Old Regime, which corresponded to most French people with the darkness that preceded the Revolution, with a black base that freed itself from political modernity, that allowed it to unfold until that bright time. we know … We can clearly see this state of mind in the manner of Philippe de Villiers’ Cabu caricature: surrounded by a fanatical shaved monk in homespun robes and a hooded executioner with pincers, to torment opponents; or again, Balladur in a roller wig, with a protruding double chin, sitting in a stretcher chair.

This rejection makes it impossible for any study of the regime to be one-sided, outside cultural or scientific circles. From now on, the execution of Louis XVI disturbed everyone a little, because it was finally discovered that he was a rather wise and inspired king, whom the nascent United States of America wanted to save. His death sentence might be considered an act a little exaggerated – albeit justified in the spirit of social revenge of the time -, in a series of globally shining history. By clinging to false notions of isolated moments, of timely violence, we forget to think about the derailment of the Revolution by terrorists in all its causes.

Also readThe failed revolution of Louis XVI

And we left the door open to political violence, even developing a certain fondness for it and for state terrorism. In short, France prides itself on its political violence, to the point of unknowingly condoning its crimes. This is what is most annoying in the culture of our republic. A political assassination seems to us a good start. There is little from the Place de la Concorde, touristy and spectacular, to the Place de la Révolution (the name given during the Revolution to the Place de la Concorde, Ed.), dramatic and bloody.

Action francaise has lost its influence. What is the structure of the royalist movement today?

I’m under the impression that Action Française isn’t all that bad. I believe that many quite educated and active young people have joined, which gives it a certain appeal, and that’s very good. As far as I’m concerned, I think that Maurras, who remains present in the mind of the monarchy, rejects everything he wants to promote: monarchy and Catholicism. To reach this conclusion, I remind myself that monarchy is King, and that Catholicism is God, and when I read Maurras, I simply do not see where his support for God and King is, in whatever comes to mind. .

If the monarchy can’t put together a presidential candidate, I don’t see the point of the Action Française.

Trusting a purified, revisited and modernized Maurra to promote the idea of ​​monarchy is, in my opinion, a waste of time. But I’m open to discussion, maybe I misread. Moreover, the feature of the monarchical party, whatever it may be, is that it is doomed to disband with the emergence of the monarchy. It is a project structure, a movement, indeed. At a minimum for this movement to put forward a presidential candidate, which has not happened since 1974. If the monarchy cannot put forward a presidential candidate, I don’t see what the point of France’s action is.

Emmanuel Macron spoke himself about “no king figurein French politics, which createsHole“. What makes a monarchy different from a republic?

Emmanuel Macron said this because the job description of the President of the Fifth Republic is contradictory terms, and he lives by it every day. He was asked to be Saint-Louis and Pinay, Charles X and Mélenchon, etc. However, he could be both Pinay and Mélenchon, but on the side of the sacred, essential, and permanent, he was completely deprived by the Constitution. Monarchy will solve the problem.

Also readRequiem, torch relay… This young Frenchman resonates with the memory of Louis XVI

Our political system must be based on the one hand on the democratic government of incidental, short-term, final, indirect world affairs, which will be managed by a Prime Minister who is strongly legitimized and disposes of constitutional rights. basis that guarantees a certain stability between popular elections. And on the other hand to be based on the long term, essential, historical dimension, spiritual dimension and the notion of destiny community. When you separate the two orders, you make each one better. Naturally, there must be points of contact between the two dimensions: the incidental must not miss the essential, and vice versa.

A 2016 BVA poll showed that 17% of French back then supported the head of state as king. Do you think recovery is possible?

Possible condition number one is test presidential candidate Republican candidate who will promise institutional reforms to establish a king and a democratic regime together. When you do politics in a democracy, it’s best to show up. The rest is literature.

If monarchy returns, who will become king of France?

The election of the king is fateful and elective. Destiny, because the crown falls on the head of a man among all men, and choice, because he is chosen by the assembly. Things started like that for Hugues Capet. In France, Jean d’Orléans is a candidate in a sense of destiny because he is a descendant of our kings; and if France agrees, then he will be the elected candidate. He was given to us on the throne and we will give him the throne in return, in other words.

Also readLouis XX, pretender to the French throne, “yellow vest” majesty

I know there was a Spanish suitor, the head of the House of Bourbon, who must have been sympathetic, but he was Spanish and, perhaps in spite of himself, his followers were highly respected but felt in a world other than ours. Even Saint-Simon would find them a bit stiff.

Queen Elisabeth II’s death once again demonstrated France’s interest in the British monarchy. Why did the British ruler arouse so much interest, unlike other European monarchies?

The British monarchy is at the end of the road where the televised coronation of Elizabeth II leads it. Since then it has become a valuable intangible asset of “soft powerEngland, and this is what makes its place and brilliance unmatched in Europe. But the other consequence is that everything is now happening as if the investors in these monarchical assets are holding leaders accountable: what is our return on investment? What’s your governance? How are you doing? The legitimacy of this monarchy is moving dangerously, for this monarchy and perhaps for Great Britain, from a field of tradition and the sacred to economic and social efficiency.

Cyril Hanouna will become our king’s nightmare

Like what, when you become king, you can’t give in to the power of the media, let alone bring it into power. The media wants direct, both in terms of time and in terms of direct access to information sources; now the monarchy is full of intermediaries, gradations, hierarchies and lives at its own pace. BFM not knowing how to get to the vestibule and never knowing; media is not designed for that. Cyril Hanouna will be our king’s nightmare. It must be defended against it, and as far as I am concerned, I find that it is worth the trouble, it will justify a political life. It was clear that the British media wanted to destroy everything around the king, so that there would no longer be anyone between them and Charles, and that they could finally talk power to power, preferably before their king. I hope that won’t happen.