The medieval French were far from monarchic, but were essentially democratic; indeed, they elected their chiefs, and these "warrior-nobles" elected Hugh Capet, and he began a feudal system in which they lost much of their personal liberties and built up a monarchy culminating in the absolutism of Louis XIV. The Revolution was really a restoration, and the present form of government is at basis the same as that of Hugh Capet except that the executive head is not elected for life.
These matters are now so universally recognized in Northwestern Europe, that no one bothers his head about the question of a monarchy or a republic - both are means to the same end. The old discussions have disappeared, and Bryce ventures the suggestion that the English democracy does not desire a republic. Perhaps the monarchy of some American republics has opened their eyes to the fact that there is nothing in a name. The most democratic and most Aryan nation on earth, the Norwegians, preferred a life executive to a short-term one, and elected their present king, after dismissing his predecessor. A few centuries ago this election would have been quite bloody, but it scarcely made a military ripple. Recent events in Germany also show that there, too, public opinion is a vital force to which princes are subject.
Now, it is interesting to note the jealousy with which Aryan peoples guard their freedom, and if they refuse to permit a king to share their sovereignty we should expect that they would refuse to share it with lower races. As democracy can only exist in a homogeneous people, it is an almost invariable rule that when Aryans conquer a country, they establish an aristocratic democracy, the sovereignty residing in themselves and never shared with the lower races. Greek slaves when freed never became citizens, even when of native stock, but remained in a state like resident aliens, under the patronage of former masters. They never shared the sovereignty, though Roman freedmen did in time. The Basques, on the other hand, are remarkably homogeneous. They are the probable descendants of the extreme western wave of Asiatics, though somewhat changed by intermixture with people they conquered or people around them, and exhibiting some physical differences amounting almost to two types of people. They have never been conquered, and are as independent to-day as when Caesar made them allies after despairing of subjugating them. Hence, they are remarkably democratic, and have no nobility. The same conditions existed among the Iroquois Indians who were solidly democratic because all were alike, "all clansmen and (strange to say) clanswomen had the right to vote in electing or deposing the officers of the clan".
If the southern drift of Aryans from Scandinavia has supplied the aristocracy, nobility and royalty of Europe for so many millenniums, it naturally follows that there should be no aristocracy in Scandinavia. To a certain extent this is true, for it is said that there are but five noble families in Norway. The Norwegians show no love of titles, and are so intensely democratic that the aristocratic element is smaller than in any other large Aryan country. Though there are 3,000 noble families constituting the aristocracy of Sweden, they are all modern creations, and many are intruding Scotch, Finns, Germans, Danes and French. But one house has existed three centuries, only twenty are over 200 years old, and the royal family rose from Marshal Berna-dotte who was once a private soldier and son of a Pyrenean peasant lawyer. Even in Denmark where the Aryan element is less, the aristocrats or higher families are untitled, and name and lineage are more prized than titles. The Dane is a democrat. But as we progress from these countries in any direction we find more and more aristocracy, because more and more differences of type are dwelling together.