[20XX] Puy du Fou UK

[venny]

I see there are proportionally quite a few more indoor shows than the other parks - it’s good to see they’re catering for the poorer weather. There also looks to be two walkthroughs, along with the distinctive outline of both the chariot show in the colisseum and the bird show. Whilst I’m sure we’ll see some similar format shows to the other parks, but with different overlays, I’m also hoping for some innovation in at least some of the presentations to provide something truly unique for this park. It looks to be more ambitious than the park in Spain at the moment.

Whilst I’m sure we’ll have to sit through the continued, tedious mentions of fascism, I think this is a positive development for the UK industry.

 

[GooseOnTheLoose]

The Guardian has obtained correspondence between the UK Government and Puy Du Fou, via an FoI submission, chronicling how the former Conservative business and trade minister promised to “assist” Puy du Fou in finding a UK site, despite well known documented links to the far right and past praise for Putin.

De Villiers senior attended the funeral of far-right National Rally founder Jean-Marie Le Pen earlier this year. He hosts a weekly political television show in France on which he regularly rails against immigration and Islam.

Son, Nicolas de Villiers, and current head of the business, described Vladimir Putin as having "sweet eyes and sweet words", and claimed that the Russian president was misunderstood by the international community.

This is also the family who wanted to build a theme park in the then recently invaded and annexed Crimea, promoting the virtues of Russian superiority, despite international sanctions at the time.

French theme park firm won UK government support despite far-right ties

Tory trade minister promised to ‘assist’ plans to open £600m Puy du Fou site in Oxfordshire, emails shows

www.theguardian.com

I do appreciate the need for foreign investment, but I believe we have to ask if all money is good money. Are we really so desperate for investment that we'll actively assist a company whose leadership has praised Putin, tried to build a park in illegally annexed Crimea with a sanctioned oligarch, and associates with convicted hatemongers? Surely there are other investors who can bring jobs to Oxfordshire without this kind of toxic ideological baggage.

The company has tried to distance itself by saying the founder, Philippe de Villiers, is "no longer involved in management". This is a smokescreen. Philippe's extremist views are hardly historical; he's still on TV railing against immigrants and publicly stated of a convicted hatemonger, "What he defends is what I live for." This is a family business, and that family's ideology is current and clear.

I don't believe that the typical "it's just a theme park" will fly for me either. I find this the most naive defence. Puy Du Fou's entire brand is built on presenting a specific, highly politicised, nationalist, and traditionalist version of history. Their planned park in Crimea was explicitly to promote "Russian superiority". It is fanciful to believe a UK park, run by this family, would be a neutral historical attraction. It's a platform for their worldview, disguised as a day out.

This has nothing to do with cancelling someone for having a different opinion. This is about the UK government actively using public resources to "assist" and support a massive project. It is a legitimate and serious question of due diligence and national values. The same British values which are mandatory throughout UK education, as a tool in the PREVENT programme, to challenge extremist views. I would rather that the UK government didn't roll out the red carpet for a business whose leadership has supported hostile states and aligned itself with the extremist far-right.

 

[AT86]

Thank you for sharing that article.

The company has tried to distance itself by saying the founder, Philippe de Villiers, is "no longer involved in management". This is a smokescreen. Philippe's extremist views are hardly historical; he's still on TV railing against immigrants and publicly stated of a convicted hatemonger, "What he defends is what I live for." This is a family business, and that family's ideology is current and clear.

It is also worth noting that the convicted hatemonger you reference (Eric Zemmour) who is long time friend of De Villiers - in fact he funded Zemmour’s 2022 French presidential campaign - was a speaker at the recent Tommy Robinson far right march in London.

The links between Puy du Fou and the far right are many and varied, they are both historical and current, it is impossible to separate the business and the views of their owners.

Many things are more important than theme parks and the harm to society and citizens from the far right is one of them as far as I am concerned.

I certainly don’t want my money going to fund views such as:

De Villiers, a well-known rightwing politician, founded a party whose manifesto included a ban on the construction of new mosques and a prohibition on gay marriage and same-sex adoption.

 

[Benzin]

It's the question of how much is someone willing to ignore in order to have some leisure.

Much like the quandary facing those wishing to ride Falcon's Flight.

I also doubt that any historical attraction would actually dare to include all the truth. Given the current response to anyone daring to say that England kinda did some bad stuff (underselling it I know) historically.

 

[Islander]

There'll be a number of people on this forum (myself included) that can say they went to PDF in France and had a fantastic day. Does this make us bad people?

 

[pluk]

As someone who's never been, one thing I dont think I've seen much comment in is to what extent do the owners beliefs leach out into the entertainment they provide?

It's one thing for a horrible business owner to be making money by providing entertainment for the sake of business, it's another if they are using that business to impart those beliefs on visitors within the entertainment they provide. If the entertainment is based on culture and history, are they being disturbingly selective in their source material or skewed in their narrative?

 

[GooseOnTheLoose]

There'll be a number of people on this forum (myself included) that can say they went to PDF in France and had a fantastic day. Does this make us bad people?

No, of course it doesn't make you bad people, and I am sorry if my post has caused some to question that. I would like to think that I not seen as that reductive or dismissive.

I do not think that buying a Sodastream makes you complicit in genocide. I do not think that driving a Subaru Impreza, and getting 18 miles to the gallon, makes you complicit in the destruction of the environment. I do not think that listening to the music of Michael Jackson makes you a paedophile sympathiser. None of these things make you a bad person.

That being said, it is important to be informed of these connections so that you can make an informed choice. I am not privileged enough to not feel the impact of some of De Villiers proposed measures and rhetoric. I am not privileged enough to be able to visit Saudi Arabia without fear of my own safety, or the safety of those who live there full time and are part of the same community as me.

There is nuance to everything, but if the government is going to harp on about British Values, they probably oughtn't be backing a project by a family whose extremist views are opposed to those.

 

[venny]

I’m not sure I can buy into this type of piety. It seems to be a tedious contemporary human instinct to focus only on pearl-clutching about some very specific issues, whilst ignoring others.

Whilst we’re worrying about Puy du Fou imparting far right beliefs into its visitors, most of those same people haven’t even visited the two existing parks. We’re probably wearing clothes and using electronics that are made using exploitative labour practices, whilst being extraordinarily concerned by a planning application for a visitor attraction.

I’ve been to both Puy du Fou parks. They’re great. I’ll admit some of the nuances of all those alleged Nazi undertones might have passed me by due to not being a native French or Spanish speaker, but I didn’t notice any of this supposedly pervasive far right ideology.

Maybe I’m just naive though, and visit theme parks to be entertained, rather than using it form my political beliefs.

 

[Plastic Person]

I’m not sure I can buy into this type of piety. It seems to be a tedious contemporary human instinct to focus only on pearl-clutching about some very specific issues, whilst ignoring others.

Whilst we’re worrying about Puy du Fou imparting far right beliefs into its visitors, most of those same people haven’t even visited the two existing parks. We’re probably wearing clothes and using electronics that are made using exploitative labour practices, whilst being extraordinarily concerned by a planning application for a visitor attraction.

I don’t really have the time or capacity to delve into or deconstruct the accusation that it's "pearl clutching" to be concerned about one issue, while not making room for the literally countless others that impact us in modern consumer society. But I will note that it tends to screech all discussion to a halt. And besides, as @GooseOnTheLoose and a few others have highlighted concisely here, there is a more specific issue at play, which is the current Labor government's intersection with an organization whose leadership has explicit links to the far right. Given the current climate, I find this troubling, regardless of the context being a new theme park or any other form of industry.

 

[Benjsh]

Marine la Pen is not 'Far right' guys just to clear things up. She's absolutely on the right, there's little doubt about that, but she's not exactly Adolf Hitler.

France is not a far right country. Far from it actually and she has an 18pt lead in the polls last time I checked a few weeks ago.

I think the left need to stop labelling everything they dont agree with far right.

USA, Italy, Germany, France and UK are all moving to the right together in a spectacular way right now. Is that a coincidence? I dont think it is.

 

[Matt N]

Marine la Pen is not 'Far right' guys just to clear things up. She's absolutely on the right, there's little doubt about that, but she's not exactly Adolf Hitler.

France is not a far right country. Far from it actually and she has an 18pt lead in the polls last time I checked a few weeks ago.

I think the left need to stop labelling everything they dont agree with far right.

USA, Italy, Germany, France and UK are all moving to the right together in a spectacular way right now. Is that a coincidence? I dont think it is.

We aren’t talking about Marine Le Pen, are we? I thought Puy du Fou was run by somebody different?

 

[GooseOnTheLoose]

Marine la Pen is not 'Far right' guys just to clear things up.

From Wikipedia, the completely independently publicly edited encyclopedia:

Marion Anne Perrine "Marine" Le Pen (French: [maʁin lə pɛn]; born 5 August 1968) is a French lawyer and politician. She served as the president of the far-right National Rally party (RN) from 2011 to 2021, and ran for the French presidency in the 2012, 2017 and 2022 elections.

Le Monde:

Marine Le Pen hosts Europe allies in show of far-right unity https://www.lemonde.fr/en/politics/...ies-in-show-of-far-right-unity_6742155_5.html

The Guardian:

Marine Le Pen’s far-right National Rally won 33% of the vote in the first round of the legislative election

Far-right National Rally on 'doorstep of power' in France after first round of election – video

Marine Le Pen’s far-right National Rally won 33% of the vote in the first round of the legislative election, according to official results

www.theguardian.com

The BBC:

BBC News - What makes Marine Le Pen far right?

France elections: What makes Marine Le Pen far right?

Marine Le Pen is appealing to the French mainstream, but what policies define her as far right?

www.bbc.com

CNN:

Far-right leader Marine Le Pen banned from 2027 presidential race, throwing French politics into disarray

https://edition.cnn.com/2025/03/31/europe/marine-le-pen-embezzlement-trial-verdict-france-intl

Associated Press:

Marine Le Pen brought the far right to France’s front door

Marine Le Pen brought the far right to France’s front door

For years, Marine Le Pen stood at the gates of power — poised, relentless and rising.

apnews.com

---

USA, Italy, Germany, France and UK are all moving to the right together in a spectacular way right now. Is that a coincidence? I dont think it is.

Germany, Italy and Spain also moved together right, in a spectacular way, in the 1930s. What's your point?

 

[Benjsh]

From Wikipedia, the completely independently publicly edited encyclopedia:

Le Monde:

The Guardian:

The BBC:

CNN:

Associated Press:

---

Germany, Italy and Spain also moved together right, in a spectacular way, in the 1930s. What's your point?

And yet shes massively in the lead in the polls in a democratic country that isnt a far right leaning.

What gives then?

It might be that mass uncontrolled immigration into these major western superpowers has almost gone past the point of no repair.

Or are we going to carry on pointing fingers, ignoring the evidence and just say America, Italy, Germany, France and the UK all got massively racist all at once?

Holland, Denmark, Sweden and Spain either already have done or are currently in talks to ban the burqa in public in their nations and scale back the promotion of Islam too.

Everyone hasnt become racist. Everyone is just waking up to the fact nobody is listening to their valid concerns over migrants.

 

[Benjsh]

And btw im in the centre and have never voted for anyone but labour in my whole life.

However im starting to see the bigger picture. I dont believe in coincidences on this scale. I dont believe the whole world has gone racist all at once.

 

[GooseOnTheLoose]

Everyone is just waking up to the fact nobody is listening to their valid concerns over migrants.

What does the construction of a French theme park in the UK, by a French theme park company, which will definitely consist of a large number of migrants by the way, have to do with the world leaning more right, or people allegedly being racist? Could we please at least remain on topic?

And are currently in talks to ban the burqa in public

This is a perfect example of conflation. You're taking a complex and highly divisive issue. Whether the state should be allowed to dictate what women wear, which many (including many on the left) would call profoundly illiberal and trying to present it as simple "common sense" that everyone is "waking up" to. If we're going to ban the burqa, we probably ought to ban the Nun's habit, beekeeper's suit, hazmat suits, clean room suits, diver's outfits, fencing uniforms, Motorsport racing suits and firefighters turnout suits in public too.... As they all cover up the same parts of your body.

It isn't. It's a specific, controversial policy, not a sign of some global awakening. And a long-running, internal French political debate about religious attire hasn't got a lot to do with a new commercial theme park being built in the UK.

However im starting to see the bigger picture.

I'm glad that your horizons have been broadened, and that you have a larger television.

I dont believe in coincidences on this scale.

The similarities between the assassinations of US Presidents Abraham Lincoln (1865) and John F. Kennedy (1963) are one of the most famous and extensive historical coincidences.

Election Years: Lincoln was elected to Congress in 1846, Kennedy in 1946. Lincoln was elected President in 1860, Kennedy in 1960.

Both were succeeded by Vice Presidents named Johnson (Andrew Johnson and Lyndon B. Johnson), who were both Southern Democrats. Andrew Johnson was born in 1808, and Lyndon B. Johnson was born in 1908.

John Wilkes Booth (born 1839) assassinated Lincoln. Lee Harvey Oswald (born 1939) assassinated Kennedy.

Both presidents were shot in the head on a Friday, whilst seated next to their wives.

Lincoln was shot in Ford's Theatre. Kennedy was shot in a Lincoln limousine, made by Ford.

Booth shot Lincoln in a theatre and fled to a warehouse. Oswald shot Kennedy from a warehouse and fled to a theatre. Both assassins were themselves killed before they could stand trial.

I dont believe the whole world has gone racist all at once.

This isn't the 'bigger picture' you think it is. This is a false choice.

It’s not a binary choice between "everyone is suddenly racist" and "all concerns about migration are valid." The reality is that legitimate concerns (like infrastructure strain) are being used as a Trojan horse to smuggle in and normalise illegitimate prejudices. The 'bigger picture' is that political actors have realised they can gain power by exploiting economic anxiety and redirecting it as cultural or racial resentment.

Much like the actors behind Puy du Fou, to remain on topic.

 

[Matt N]

I think the fundamental question for me would be how or if the political leanings of the owner manifest themselves in the final product.

If the park itself is actively promoting stuff like far-right political ideology through its attractions, then that’s very different to if the owner simply has these views without promoting them in the park itself, in my view.

Just because of the owner’s views, I don’t see how a portrayal of history at the park would necessarily need to be far-right leaning. From what I ascertain, the parks in France and Spain are not overtly far-right in their nature or overt in their promotion of fascist propaganda, so I don’t see why the park in Britain wouldn’t be the same.

The hard truth is that in the world we live in, many things we do will have been funded by actors we strongly disagree with. Many billionaire owners of some of our biggest businesses probably lean far-right (look at Elon Musk, for example), so it’s hard to avoid your money going to sources you personally disagree with. For the most part, however, the owners’ political views do not manifest themselves in the companies they own and the products they promote (granted, the aforementioned example of Musk is possibly an exception to this with Twitter).

 

[Benjsh]

What we need to do is stop trying to silence and cancel people and organisations we dont agree with. We need healthy debate and conversation in society however the younger generation just seem hell bent on cancel culture.

The world is in a scary place right now. Very black or white when it comes to the major topics that are impacting people's lives and nothing inbetween.
Charlie Kirk is a sad example of what can happen when people forget that. He was taken out because somebody disagreed with his views.

If you want to go to Puy du Fou to have a good time and learn about history then go.

 

[GooseOnTheLoose]

I think the fundamental question for me would be how or if the political leanings of the owner manifest themselves in the final product.

If the park itself is actively promoting stuff like far-right political ideology through its attractions, then that’s very different to if the owner simply has these views without promoting them in the park itself, in my view.

Just because of the owner’s views, I don’t see how a portrayal of history at the park would necessarily need to be far-right leaning. From what I ascertain, the parks in France and Spain are not overtly far-right in their nature or overt in their promotion of fascist propaganda, so I don’t see why the park in Britain wouldn’t be the same.

The hard truth is that in the world we live in, many things we do will have been funded by actors we strongly disagree with. Many billionaire owners of some of our biggest businesses probably lean far-right (look at Elon Musk, for example), so it’s hard to avoid your money going to sources you personally disagree with. For the most part, however, the owners’ political views do not manifest themselves in the companies they own and the products they promote (granted, the aforementioned example of Musk is possibly an exception to this with Twitter).

That's a fair question, but I think it rests on a misunderstanding of what Puy du Fou is.
You argue that the "fundamental question" is if the views manifest in the park. For a park like this, the views are the park. The Product IS the Narrative

This isn't like a right-wing billionaire who owns a company that makes baked beans. The product is a historical narrative, and history is never neutral. The choice of which stories to tell, who to frame as heroes and villains, and which events to omit entirely is in itself a political act. The De Villiers' entire brand is promoting a specific traditionalist, nationalist, and Catholic-centric version of history.

The claim that the French park isn't "overtly far-right" is a bit of a strawman. No one is expecting fascist salutes. The park, however, has been widely criticised in France by numerous historians for exactly what you're talking about. There's even a book by academics called Le Puy du Faux ("The Peak of Falsehoods") detailing its "Catholic traditionalist... slant on history". It's known for pushing a royalist, anti-revolutionary narrative (especially glorifying the Vendée uprising) and framing history as a clash of civilisations. My previous example of the planned Crimea park (to promote "Russian superiority") is the perfect admission: the parks are propaganda, just very well-produced.

The "Elon Musk" argument is a deflection. Many people do have a serious problem with Musk's views manifesting on X, so it's a poor example to prove the opposite.

This isn't just about a private individual. This is about the UK government actively using public resources to "assist" and "support" a £600m project run by this family. We should, and must, have a higher standard for due diligence than "well, other billionaires are also bad".

This isn't about the "owner's views" being separate from the "product". At Puy du Fou, the owner's views are the product. They are selling an ideology disguised as a history lesson with fireworks.

 

[GooseOnTheLoose]

What we need to do is stop trying to silence and cancel people and organisations we dont agree with. We need healthy debate and conversation in society however the younger generation just seem hell bent on cancel culture.

The world is in a scary place right now. Very black or white when it comes to the major topics that are impacting people's lives and nothing inbetween.
Charlie Kirk is a sad example of what can happen when people forget that. He was taken out because somebody disagreed with his views.

If you want to go to Puy du Fou to have a good time and learn about history then go.

Let's acknowledge the classic attempt to derail the conversation by crying "cancel culture" to shut down legitimate criticism, just for this one post. Also, double post, whip me.

Criticism is not "cancelling". Pointing out a company's documented links to the far-right, its praise for hostile leaders like Putin, and its past plans with sanctioned oligarchs is not "cancelling". It is called scrutiny. This is the "healthy debate" you're supposedly asking for, presenting facts and having a discussion. Labelling any criticism you don't like as "cancel culture" is an attempt to silence that debate.

The point is not personal Choice, it's public policy. Nobody is trying to "stop" an individual from buying a ticket. The entire point of my original post, based on the Guardian's FoI request, is about the UK Government using its resources, ministers, and civil service to "assist" and "support" this £600m project. The question is not "Should you go?" but "Why is our government rolling out the red carpet for them?", especially considering that legally our proclaimed "British Values" are diametrically opposed to them.

The Charlie Kirk comparison is morally repugnant and is a truly staggering false equivalence. To compare criticising a corporation's ethics with a literal political assassination is an obscene and desperate argument. It is an offensive tactic designed to shut down all rational discussion by conflating journalism with violence.

You claim the world is "black or white," but you are the one presenting a simplistic, black-and-white view ("It's just a theme park, go have fun"). The original post is providing the "inbetween", the complex and troubling grey area behind the shiny PR. It's asking people to look past the simple "jobs and investment" narrative and examine who we are getting into partnership with as a country.

This isn't about "woke" generations. It's about basic due diligence and whether the British public should be comfortable with its government actively supporting a business whose owners have a history of praising our enemies and associating with extremists.