Nitpick: hardly [i[that* brief. France was a monarchy continuously from 1804 to 1848 and again from 1852 to 1870.
Did someone mention conspiracy theories? Let me help out. 
The County of Vermandois was one of the last possessions of the Carolingian dynasty; it passed father-to-so as follows:
Charlemagne –> Pepin IV –> Pepin V –> Herbert I –> Herbert II –> Albert I –> Herbert III –> Eudes I –> Herbert IV –> Eudes II the Insane
Vermandois was taken away from Eudes II (presumably because he was insane) and given to his sister, wife of a Capet. The insane man (Googlers: Was there some particular psychosis diagnosed?) ended up with Saint-Simon as a consolation prize.
The present-day family of Rouvroy-Saint Simon claims descent from Eudes. Since little is know about the ancestry of the 17th-century Rouvroy family, nor about the descendants of 11th-century Eudes II de Vermandois, some genealogists are suspicious that there may a flaw in the 500 years of made-up(?) names filling the gap. AFAIK the Rouvroy-Saint Simon family has never pressed any claim for the Frankish Empire.
On only slightly firmer ground is the St.Clair of Rosslyn family, made famous in a Dan Brown book/movie. Their pedigree gets fuzzy by the 14th century, but they are sometimes reckoned as agnatic descendants of Eticho (legendary common ancestor of the Houses of Hapsburg and Lorraine); or of William the Conqueror; or of Charles Martel’s half-brother; or even of Clovis the Great. As you can see with a click, even Wikipedia knows little about Martel’s half-brother, beyond that he had a son named Nibelung. (But if this family is connected to the mythical(?) Kings of the Nibelunglenlied, their claim to parts of France may precede that of the Merovingians. :eek: )
Who gets the ring?
Hadn’t Monaco decided that Caroline and her children were going to inherit after Prince Albert of Monaco, if he hadn’t eventually married and reproduced? Despite the rule that Monaco would revert back to France if there was no male heir?
Monaco changed its constitution in 2002 to allow succession by the descendants of the monarch’s siblings. A previous constitution limited the succession to the descendants of the reigning monarch only, which would have left the throne vacant if Albert had inherited but never reproduced.
The Monegasque rule hasn’t been “male heir only” in a very long time–certainly not in the last three centuries anyway. (Louise Hippolyte was reigning princess early in the 18th century.) It’s just that males are preferred and take precedence over their sisters. Caroline had been the heiress presumptive of Monaco from her birth until her brother was born the following year; had he not been born (or predeceased their father), Caroline would have inherited the throne anyway.
Yes, but that’s still a male preference rule; Albert and his heirs rank before Caroline and her heirs, even though Caroline is older.
That Wikipedia article is a nice way to go down a rabbit hole for a morning; the ones that aren’t “hereditary” are particularly interesting. I may start putting “Reincarnation of Jebtsundamba Khutuktu VIII, the last reigning Khan (1911–1924)” on my resume.
If your monarchy is around less than a single person’s lifespan it’s pretty brief as far as monarchies go.
Dan Brown? Feh. He stole his badly written balderdash from Holy Blood, Holy Grail. Which is much more sophisticated & witty balderdash. But the authors presented it as non-fiction, so were unable to successfully sue Brown. They wove bits of real, fascinating history & ancient legend together in ways that did not really fit. But they kept saying “can this be”? And some of it’s a Surrealist joke…
France was a monarchy for most of the nineteenth century. That’s not a “brief return” of monarchy. The first French Republic lasted 12 years; the second 4 years. It took about 90 years from the French Revolution for the French to establish a republic that actually endured - the Third Republic, established in 1870. Prior to that, it was more or less continuous monarchy, with a couple of republican interruptions.
Who had learned nothing and forgotten nothing.
I think that quote was originally applied to the immediate Restoration monarchy, under Louis XVIII and Charles X - hence the revolution of 1830. Louis Philippe obviously didn’t learn enough to stave off the revolution of 1848, but he had enough to adapt the monarchy to some extent. It certainly wasn’t applied to the Second (Bonaparte) Empire - though perhaps, in view of Louis Napoleon’s failures in international grandstanding, it should have been.
Well, that’s a relief.
Mon dieu, we 'ave missed a few. Someone fetch Monsieur Sanson…
That’s news, and would have upset Disreali, who from contemporary commentary was quite pleased that Louis Napoleon, Prince Imperial, was skewered by Zulus in the 1880s thereby ending Napoleonic dynastic pretensions.
So when exactly did this change happen in the UK ?
EDIT: just checked, apparently the Succession to the Crown Act of 2013 changed everything.
Yes, it’s the Bourbon (on the rocks?) Talleyrand nifty.
Before posting I spent some time wondering just how pejorative the assessment is, as applied to anyone, Leo Bloom, for one. All in all it could be worse, supposing that pre-“no learning” you had some good stuff under your belt. But of course in real life, as a national shopkeeper also said about the challenge of diplomacy/politics/sentient Leo-life, there always comes “events, my dear boy, events.”
At worst, maybe it’s akin to that semi-jokey definition of madness where somebody holds on to an idea monomaniacally, the text or author of which I can’t remember at the moment.
are you drunk?
No, when I posted that, nor now for that matter. Why?
I see no reason to assume insobriety .
I assume that some of his allusions (eg “national shopkeeper” … “events dear boy, events”) just pass you by … in which case you will indeed have found his post on the eclectic side.