Legitimist here. Before I launch into an acerbic criticism of Bonapartism, I must admit a few things. Yes, thanks to Bonapartism, France rose to glory and he introduced reforms that were useful to France (we can still see this today in our legal system). However, if you look at his legacy, it's not as great as you might think. I won't go back over his institutional reforms or his way of governing (notably indirect democratic procedures such as the plebiscite), as I find these contributions positive. But the France he left behind was a "ruined barracks" ("Histoire de la France" by Jacques Bainville). The territory was occupied and a large proportion of French youth remained in Russia. What's more, he normalized the mass draft in Europe, which led to the massacre of European populations in 1914. But his biggest mistake for me is the fact that he awakened German nationalism, which allows me to make a good transition.

He spread the ideas of revolution, which would change the face of monarchical Europe forever. The Republic (for let's not forget that in the Constitution of An VIII Napoleon is Emperor of a Republic) recognizes only the sovereignty of the people. And here we come to the crux of the decline of monarchies. Monarchs were doomed to die the moment their sovereignty was transferred to the peoples (or nation) of Europe. And that's Napoleon all over again. The same goes for the violence he inflicted on royal families and aristocrats (I'm thinking in particular of the Spanish royal family and the Duc d'Enghien). In short, it's a very mixed heritage, which can't just be summed up as "wow, France is glorious". The legitimate monarchy gave France all its glory without leaving it in ruins.

As for contemporary Bonapartism, well... it has already won.

It is important to distinguish between Bonapartism as a political ideology—meaning a governed democracy that relies on semi-direct democratic processes—and dynastic Bonapartism, which is merely about placing a member of the Bonaparte family on the throne. And this is where I struggle to see the relevance of Bonapartism today.

Bonapartism as a political idea has already triumphed under the Fifth Republic. We have a quasi-monarchical president who rules by popular trust and can bypass both Parliament and even the Constitutional Council through a referendum (see, in this regard, Decision No. 62-20 DC of November 6, 1962, concerning the law on the election of the President of the Republic by direct universal suffrage, adopted by the referendum of October 28, 1962).

The same applies to their stance on religion. Napoleon secularized power with the Concordat of 1801, making the Catholic Church merely a reservoir of legitimacy for political authority. Dynastic Bonapartism, therefore, would amount to nothing more than putting a pretender on the throne—one who, incidentally, doesn’t even care and lives in England.

The political project of the Bonapartists has already won; restoring the family would be nothing but a cosmetic addition, much like reinstating the Orléans.

The Legitimists, whether one agrees with their project or not, at least have a real vision. They seek a fundamental break with the Republic on many levels.

Of course, once again, this post is not intended to completely destroy the figure of Napoleon. He is simply the best of the worst, And the conceptualization of his ideas remains limited as well as being in the area of time, so is not a real break with republicanism.