An experiment in government – such was how contemporaries viewed the Bourbon Restoration, according to Charles de Rémusat. Although partisan, Rémusat's observation was nevertheless insightful. For many, the political system established in 1814 was not necessarily definitive; it could be subjected to alteration, minor or major, and ultimately the public would decide whether the experiment was a success or failure.

The chief embodiment of the Restoration experiment was the Charter of 1814, a constitution wherein elements of the changes brought to society and polity after 1789 were blended with elements of the ancien régime. Implementing the new constitution thus entailed, at least in part, putting into practice the ideals of the Revolution in an enduring and stable fashion. Yet, as the Charter was drawn up in haste, with many details left for subsequent elaboration, it was natural to look upon the new constitution as at most a blueprint.

In many regards the Charter was ambiguous, leaving much open to interpretation. Given the fragility of the new regime, ambiguity served a certain purpose in that it allowed various groups to view the regime differently, but still give their approval. From its origins, however, the Charter was interpreted in two fundamentally different ways. For royalists, the constitution was entirely a product of royal sovereignty – it was granted by Louis XVIII of his own free will. For those who came to oppose this interpretation, the Charter was a contract between the monarch and the nation.