What do you think?
Rate this book
L'aiglon, napoléon deux.
Napoléon II (3/20/1811–7/22/1832), after 1818 known as Franz, Duke of Reichstadt, was the son of Napoleon I, Emperor of the French, & his 2nd wife, Marie Louise of Austria. By Title III, article 9 of the French Constitution of the time, he was Prince Imperial, but he was also known from birth as the King of Rome which Napoleon I declared was the courtesy title of the heir-apparent. He was widely known in France as "the Eaglet". When his father abdicated on 4/4/1814, he named his son Emperor, but the coalition partners that had defeated Napoleon refused to acknowledge his son as successor, so he was forced to abdicate unconditionally a week later. Altho he never actually ruled France, he was the titular Emperor & he's still generally referred to by historians as Napoleon II.
Paperback
First published January 1, 1960
1 person is currently reading
20 people want to read
About the author
André Castelot
235 books12 followersAndré Castelot, born André Storms was a French writer, historian and scriptwriter born in Belgium. He was the son of the Symbolist painter Maurice Chabas and Gabrielle Storms-Castelot, and the brother of the film actor Jacques Castelot. He wrote more than one hundred books, mostly biographies of famous people.
Ratings & Reviews
Friends & Following
Create a free account to discover what your friends think of this book!
Community Reviews
Displaying 1 - 3 of 3 reviews
August 2, 2023
I read this biography when I was in school and it stayed in my memory as a good, if not great biography of a young man doomed to be a footnote, and a very minor one in the history of his father's life and times. This biography tries to convince that there was a physical affair between Prince Franz (as he had been renamed since his baptismal name of Francis was to French and since the age of 12 titled the Duke of Reichstadt) with the Archduchess Sophia, the mother of the Emperor Franz Josef and more importantly the Archduke Maximilian (the future ill-fated Emperor of Mexico), and tries through sentimentality rather then evidence to prove that Maximilian was his son. There is not a shred of evidence to support the idea and even a passing understanding of the character of the Archduchess Sophie or how the Hapsburg court functioned makes it not simply impossible but inconceivable.
Aside from this sentimental idiocy it is a perfectly adequate biography of the limited facts and information about the one time King of Rome (it is hard to know how to refer to him, for someone who died at 23 he had a bewildering selection of names and titles, official and unofficial yet none of them, not even the name he was called by, was fixed by him nor did he have any control over what he was called. It is possible, but very unlikely, that there may be titbits of information amongst the archives in Austria, Italy, France or Germany but it is unlikely that there is anything to be discovered that will change what little is known about Prince Francis/Franz one time King of Rome, de jure Emperor of France and finally Duke of a Bohemian territory he was never allowed to visit.
That does not mean he does not deserve a new biography, in many ways the utter powerlessness of this son and grandson of emperors, is the most fascinating thing about him. The 'idea' of him terrified the court of France and was an inspiration to the nascent Bonapartist movement through long dull years of the Bourbon restoration. His power as a symbol was in sharp contrast to his utter powerlessness in real life. Everything and one who came with him from France was taken away; his mother abandoned him to be raised by her father while she went off to be monarch of Parma in Italy a territory and title he knew he had no claim to and knew he would not inherit.
Even his title Duke of Reichstadt was almost as much a joke, admittedly an in-joke, as a sign of honour or kindness on his grandfather's part. The last and only famous holder of the Reichstadt territory was Gian Gaston de Medici during his very unhappy marriage to Anna Maria Franziska the chatelaine of the Reichstadt lands. Giasn Gaston was the last Medici Grand Duke of Tuscany but had never had the freedom to do what he wanted, he was unable to live were he wanted, he was forced to marry a woman who loathed as much as loathed her and even his wishes regarding who should be grand duke of Florence after he died, being childless, were ignored (though he did cleverly separate the Medici's vast art collection from the state and ensured that it would remain forever in Florence). Gian Gaston's high position by birth and descent yet utter powerlessness was so obvious that the one time King of Rome could not have been unaware of the parallels (surprisingly neither this nor any other biographer has noted the connection).
A perfectly adequate biography of someone who deserves the attention of a really imaginative and insightful biographer who while retaining the facts could look beyond them to find to look behind and beyond both the legend and the symbol to see what the short, unhappy, pointless life of Francis/Franz King of Rome/Duke of Reichstadt can tell us about identity, fame and significance.
Aside from this sentimental idiocy it is a perfectly adequate biography of the limited facts and information about the one time King of Rome (it is hard to know how to refer to him, for someone who died at 23 he had a bewildering selection of names and titles, official and unofficial yet none of them, not even the name he was called by, was fixed by him nor did he have any control over what he was called. It is possible, but very unlikely, that there may be titbits of information amongst the archives in Austria, Italy, France or Germany but it is unlikely that there is anything to be discovered that will change what little is known about Prince Francis/Franz one time King of Rome, de jure Emperor of France and finally Duke of a Bohemian territory he was never allowed to visit.
That does not mean he does not deserve a new biography, in many ways the utter powerlessness of this son and grandson of emperors, is the most fascinating thing about him. The 'idea' of him terrified the court of France and was an inspiration to the nascent Bonapartist movement through long dull years of the Bourbon restoration. His power as a symbol was in sharp contrast to his utter powerlessness in real life. Everything and one who came with him from France was taken away; his mother abandoned him to be raised by her father while she went off to be monarch of Parma in Italy a territory and title he knew he had no claim to and knew he would not inherit.
Even his title Duke of Reichstadt was almost as much a joke, admittedly an in-joke, as a sign of honour or kindness on his grandfather's part. The last and only famous holder of the Reichstadt territory was Gian Gaston de Medici during his very unhappy marriage to Anna Maria Franziska the chatelaine of the Reichstadt lands. Giasn Gaston was the last Medici Grand Duke of Tuscany but had never had the freedom to do what he wanted, he was unable to live were he wanted, he was forced to marry a woman who loathed as much as loathed her and even his wishes regarding who should be grand duke of Florence after he died, being childless, were ignored (though he did cleverly separate the Medici's vast art collection from the state and ensured that it would remain forever in Florence). Gian Gaston's high position by birth and descent yet utter powerlessness was so obvious that the one time King of Rome could not have been unaware of the parallels (surprisingly neither this nor any other biographer has noted the connection).
A perfectly adequate biography of someone who deserves the attention of a really imaginative and insightful biographer who while retaining the facts could look beyond them to find to look behind and beyond both the legend and the symbol to see what the short, unhappy, pointless life of Francis/Franz King of Rome/Duke of Reichstadt can tell us about identity, fame and significance.
January 28, 2016
Although considerably more information was available when this was written in comparison to Aubrey's biography of Napoleon II, I still prefer Aubrey's.
Castelot's does little to make Marie Louise look good (though no fault of his own--- it would be a difficult task for any writer, unless they wrote fantasy), is convinced of the prince's poor constitution starting at an early age, and does not reveal much about his short romantic life except in a few short sentences.
His death is explained in great detail, however, the author having the poor Duke of Reichstadt suffering through about a hundred pages, and enforcing what he had prophecized himself, that: "My birth and my death---that is the whole of my story"..."Between my cradle and my tomb there is a great naught".
Castelot's does little to make Marie Louise look good (though no fault of his own--- it would be a difficult task for any writer, unless they wrote fantasy), is convinced of the prince's poor constitution starting at an early age, and does not reveal much about his short romantic life except in a few short sentences.
His death is explained in great detail, however, the author having the poor Duke of Reichstadt suffering through about a hundred pages, and enforcing what he had prophecized himself, that: "My birth and my death---that is the whole of my story"..."Between my cradle and my tomb there is a great naught".
February 15, 2014
My version is entitled The King of Rome. This is a very sad tale of a child who was basically thrown away. Once his father Napoleon was exiled, his mother Marie-Louise took him back with her to the Austrian court, where he was pretty much an embarrassment hidden away. The child was fairly bright but not well-educated and suffered from ill health. He died very young. Tragic story!
Displaying 1 - 3 of 3 reviews