There's a surprisingly well-supported royalist movement in France; they want to 'replace the regime of 68' (and, by implication, that of 1789!) by reinstating a constitutional monarchy. The fleur-de-lis has become something of a symbol of rebellion/protest, and it's been especially visible since the Yellow Vest movement.Ain't that the truth! Raising my hand here. There's really something about British monarchy that, as a French, I find fascinating. But I'm very partial to England. I love the countryside, the history, the language, the culture, the eccentricity of the English. The French and English are so different, and yet we've had that love/hate relationship and we've been "enmeshed" with each other for so long, like an old couple. And I think we do have a kind of nostalgia for royalty. Maybe that's why we love to read about the British royal family.
I understand the appeal. The truncated understanding of monarchy Westerners today have is that it's a bad system of government because it's too much power for one man or woman. Absolute monarchism was rarely practiced though; power was shared or devolved between multiple institutions. The remaining monarchs today - in the West anyway - have no real power.
In their restoration scheme, French royalists would give the monarch the power to mediate between competing interests, acting as a kind of neutral, truly disinterested casting vote when parliamentary disputes were evenly split, or when certain core national interests come under threat of capture by oligarchy (which is effectively monarchial-rule-from-the-shadows).
And this, obviously, is endemic today. So the royalists are effectively calling for a form of democratic regime change by 'making honest' what is already, functionally, the case: permanent, quasi-dynastic rule by elite monied or bureaucratic interests.
For all the high-falutin' terminology about democracy and progress and The Enlightenment, the underlying psycho-social reality is that most people seek out and resonate with a 'king' or 'queen'. That's why, when a good leader is voted into office, people will vote for him or her repeatedly (if their constitution allows it - and if the oligarchy tolerates him or her).
I think that's why they instinctively abhor Putin, Jinping, Trump and - all the way back - Casear. "He wants to be king, thus a tyrant!" they warn. Well, yes and no. Though a politician, he is functionally 'king'. He doesn't want to be though; he has to be, for his people and his country. That's what separates - indeed, elevates - him from the other nobles. They are tyrannical, but project that quality onto the one keeping tyranny at bay.
It takes one good, strong leader to keep avaricious nobles in check. It's also why real power-holders like intel agencies spend time grooming Obamas and Macrons, to 'plug into' the population's archetypal need for the 'one good man', all the while ensuring their own 'divine right to rule' remains untouched.
QEII doesn't have the political power to keep the nobles in check, and so the British elite (in general) have gone from bad to worse during her time. Her influence is limited to teaching good values (duty, family, tradition) by way of setting an example. Within tight political confines, she excels at that.