Misunderstanding de Gaulle
Sam White
Paris It is now ten years since General de Gaulle retired after his defeat in the 1969 referendum and the event is being celebrated by a fresh flood of books on the man. When the tone is not frankly idolatrous, there is a mea culpa air about some of the books written by former critics — especially those on the left. The atmosphere has changed considerably from the days when the General could be dismissed as at best a bleak reactionary, and it is now fashionable to confess one's past misjudgments of him. Thus, for example, probably no one misunderstood de Gaulle more often in his lifetime than Jean Daniel, the editor of the left-wing Nouvel Observateur; now, in his latest volume of reminiscences, Daniel makes honourable if posthumous amends'for past mistakes.
The seeds of doubt over de Gaulle's abilities were of course sown by French socialist refugees in London during the war, who delighted in depicting 'him to their horrified British counterparts as a royalist and a member of the ultra-reactionary Action Francaise. Now, 40. years later, comes a book written by no less an authority. than the pretender to the French throne, the Count of Paris, which seeks to slap some flesh on that alleged skeleton in de Gaulle's cupboard. The Count, a stout-hearted if inept intriguer all his life, was never more active as such than during thQ war --first in Vichy, to which he offered his services, and later in Algiers.
In the turmoil that followed the assassination of Admiral Darlan by a young royalist, the Count saw the possibility that he might be _entrusted with some kind of mission by de Gaulle. Nothing came of it and he remained missionless after the liberation of France. It was not until de Gaulle's return to power in 1958 that something like a solid relationship was struck up between the two men. By then de Gaulle had apparently given some thought to the role the French royal family might play in the nation's affairs and had decided to back the Count (the* move failed, incidentally) for the presidency of the French Red Cross.
The' Count, however, in his account of their relationship, especially during the years 1961 to 1963, would have it otherwise. Recording to him de Gaulle had by theh decided to*restore the monarchy and wished him to succeed de Gaulle as a kind of king-president in the presidential elections of 1965. 'Prepare yourself' was according to the Count,. de Gaulle's repeated advice to"-him during the lengthy conversations they had — usually late at night, so that their Meetings might_ pass unnoticed. If that was the purpose of holding them at unusual hours then it failed, sincelt was at about that time that the French-press began openly to speculate about de Gbaulle's supposed intention to restore the monarchy. It was really too good a chance to mi4s, especially with new elections looming, and the left-wing press made the most of it.
As the 1965 elections approached, the Count. began to detect something of the absurdity of his position. He then explained to de Gaulle that it would, obviously, be a contravention of monarchic principles for him to stand for election, and he would only consider doing so if he had de Gaulle's endorsement. He would then be, as it were, the beneficiary of the legitimacy that the nation had already conferred on de Gaulle. To the Count's Consternation de Gaulle refused.his request and the entire story ends on a note of farce with the Count baffled over the reasons why the General should have let him down. The answer is obvious enough, however — the Count mistook the respect and consideration. de Gaulle showed him as a descendant of 'the forty kings who had made France' for a declaration of intent to restore the monarchy.
The Count's book has created an enorim ous stir here but, fortunately, another book has appeared almost at the same time which corrects some of his more extravagant meanderings on the subject of de Gaulle and the monarchy. This is a book by that master of contemporary French historY, Jean-Raymond Tournoux, and it sketches with meticulous documentation de Gaulle's views on the subject. Here is for example de Gaulle spelling it out to his former secret service chief, Colonel Passy, who had some royalist sympathies: 'the monarchy is well and truly finished in France. It has abs0lutely no chance.' And here he is quoted bY Beuve-Mery the founder-editor of Le Monde from an interview in 1958: 'natio' ally you think me a monarchist. I have 3 great respect for it. The monarchy made France but it did not know how to adapt itself. Today all this is finished. It would be ridiculous. . . Or this from his statement to a Cabinet meeting when the speculation in the press regarding his relationship with the Count of Paris was raised: 'I have respect for what the Count of Paris repres; ents. As a candidate for the presidency 0! the republic, however, he does not exist. One could fill an entire chapter With similar quotations, and Tournoux does. By the end there is nothing left of the Count 5 claims except the possibility, indeed the likelihood, of a major misunderstanding. It is tempting to blame the Count entirely for this but, on the other hand the ambiguities of the General's style were notorious and be may not therefore have been entirelY blameless. Respect, yes, but a political role for the Count of Paris, never — this, according to Tournoux, was de Gaulle's consistent attitude to the' royal family throughout. And, as he says, he cannot find a single member of de Gaulle's entourage or any member of the de Gaulle family who will contradict him on that point. Sentiment might have made de Gaulle a royalist, reason however made him a republican. This is Michel Debit's verdict on the inat,", ter also,-and it is a verdict which history NYI" uphold.
Previous page
