>>455477
It depends. Napoleon III was basically the historical Stannis Baratheon.

>>457713

Not everyone watches GoT, what the fuck does this mean?

>>455477
Bonaparte won an election and his rise to emperor was approved by a referendum, though. His name obviously helped but it wasn't the ground to his legitimacy.

>>457767
>was approved by a referendum

>>457771
Well there was a referendum and he won. Not to say it was done fairly and constitutionally but it was democratic in appearance at least. As opposed to just "I'm the closest heir so gibs me dat".

>>457758
Royal family usurps another then gets usurped itself and claims it's the true heir.

>>457771
It was. One of the pillars of the second Empire and today's bonapartists is the use of referendums and plebiscites.

If you think it was rigged keep a couple of things in mind: Napoleon III was a very modern politician, he knew how to use his image and the media to his advantage, and to make his political decisions popular with the masses. In fact the referendum organized a couple of months before the Franco-Prussian war to plebiscite his son's succession to the throne was overwhelmingly positive (excluding in some big cities which had turned Republican) although the Empire was by then very liberal and the press could spout whatever they wanted against him.

>>457784
The Bonaparts never claimed they were heirs to anything. No Bonaparte -or rather Napoleon- today family member would ever step up to say "I am the rightful heir to the throne of France".

>>457788
>today's bonapartists
What do you mean by that? Gaullists/neo Gaullists?

>>457800
>never
>today
There is a considerable difference between the present and the past. Read a book. Now.

>>458210
Monarchists that support the Bonaparte's claim to the imperial throne of France.

>>458210
They're about as rare as Stalinists.