I don't believe this overall question has been addressed on the forums, but how did the European hereditary monarchs get to be kings, princes, dukes, grand dukes, etc?
Napoleon is usually criticized for becoming Emperor of the French from somewhat humble beginnings as a Corsican minor noble and beginning to rule as a monarch.
He was a self-made man who began as a soldier, a sword, and became the head of state of France in 1799 beginning as First Consul and then becoming Emperor of the French as well as King of Italy and Protector of the Confederation of the Rhine.
How did the Hohenzollerns, Hapsburgs, and Romanofs begin and then become kings, king/emperors, and Tsars?
Did they not have to begin somewhere?
It's a matter of marrying a beautiful princess after solving three stupid questions. A bit like participating in First Dates and Weakest Link.
Isn't the point rather more the betrayal of the revolution that was entailed? Hereditary monarch was rather close in principles to what others were doing in the European nations at the time. As you yourself have said, the concept was not unusual, but as the man inheriting (claiming) France in the wake of revolution, he was winding the clock back on that element of governance to 1789. Therein lay a betrayal of the revolutionary principle, and that's where the criticism comes from. Had he toppled the Bourbons in 1789, for sake of argument, and there had been no revolution, then there wouldn't be a case to answer.
I don't see how Napoleon had 'betrayed' the Revolution. He did end it, successfully, and his political and social reforms solidified the gains of the Revolution without the violence or corruption that was rampant in the revolutionary governments.
@Kevin F. Kiley I suspect you won't want to accept my argument, but put even more simply:
French Revolution: topples hereditary monarchy in France
Napoleon Bonaparte: restores hereditary monarch in France
Hence my comment: "he was winding the clock back on that element of governance to 1789. Therein lay a betrayal of the revolutionary principle, and that's where the criticism comes from. Had he toppled the Bourbons in 1789, for sake of argument, and there had been no revolution, then there wouldn't be a case to answer."
@Zack White To what 'revolutionary principle' do you refer?
And it should be noted that France had no tradition of non-monarchial self-government. People usually fall back on what they know.
When Napoleon became head of state in 1799, the country was financially bankrupt, there was little law and order in the countryside, education was a wreck, and the Directory which was supplanted was corrupt.
Napoleon restored the nation's finances, restored law and order, the people went back to paying taxes, and Napoleon not only provided the needed security, but maintained the civil rights won in the Revolution. And I believe I have posted this before, the elevation of Napoleon to Emperor of the French (not Emperor of France-there is a definite distinction) might not have happened if the royalists, supported by the British government had not attempted Napoleon's assassination at least twice.
The French were comfortable with Napoleon as First Consul and later Emperor. It was more their 'choice' than Napoleon's when he was named First Consul for life and then Emperor of the French. And it should be also noted that Napoleon placed the crown on his head, instead of the pope, to demonstrate to the French people that he gained the crown from the people, and not the Church.
Napoleon completed, thus ending, the French Revolution and the government and social and political gains of the Revolution were guaranteed by his government.
@Kevin F. Kiley the notion of kingship had certainly undergone evolution, and it was not universal. The UK for example had a constitutional monarchy. The first instinct would be to compare that to Napoleon, because he had a constitution, but you would be dead wrong. The house of Hanover was invited. George III reigned, he did not govern. It’s the state opening of Parliament today. It encapsulates the relationship between the monarch and parliament, particularly the commons. It has almost zero commonality with a self-styled Emperor who ruled by decree and came to power and imposed his constitution at the point of a bayonet. Napoleon had more in common with Cromwell!
Whoever reported this post as 'offensive' - I'm not upholding your complaint - there is nothing offensive in this post. It offers an explanation of how monarchy operated in the UK, before making a judgement that there is commonality between Napoleon and Cromwell (which scholars have discussed in the past anyway - quite logically given the reputation both have as dictators).
"The French were comfortable with Napoleon as First Consul and later Emperor. It was more their 'choice' than Napoleon's when he was named First Consul for life and then Emperor of the French. And it should be also noted that Napoleon placed the crown on his head, instead of the pope, to demonstrate to the French people that he gained the crown from the people, and not the Church." I'm afraid that reads simply as casuistry to me. Is there any essential difference between "of the French" or "of France"? The key word there being 'Emperor,' by which a hereditary monarchy was reinstated. And if Napoleon claimed that the theatre of his crowning himself was a demonstration of popular acclaim, does that mean it was incontrovertibly so? The key word there, surely, would be 'coronation.'