Some people don’t learn from events and are very stubborn.
It is alike "Let them eat cake": a popularised myth to explain à la méthode de "For Dummies" why France did not become a monarchy. It is really not because of that little textile after all Protestant Henri IV gave the example:
"Paris is well worth a Mass" (he converted to Catholicism to obtain that throne of France).
Henri d'Artois, the Comte de Chambord, saw insufficient support and momentum for a succesful and lasting restoration. And he was right. The first Elections for the Third Republic unexpectedly gave a majority for the monarchists.
But the monarchists themselves were hopelessly divided. The Chambre des Députés had 650 members. With 396 members the monarchists had the majority. However: 182 of them did support Henri d'Artois (the Legitimists) and 214 did support Louis-Philippe, the Comte de Chambord (the Orléanists).
And in the best tradition of sectionalism, see the Carlist Wars in Spain, both factions were hostile. This insufficient support, the factionalism and the waning momentum were the real reasons why the monarchy was not restored.
Was there really a chance on a lasting and succesful new monarchy, the Comte de Chambord would not have fallen for a piece of textile: "
Paris is well worth a tricolore". But the old man saw that his own support base was smaller than those of Orléans and that the majority of the two combined was not convincing, neither in numbers nor in geographical spreading of the supporting constituencies.