France and Monarchy

[Furienna]

I just wonder, are you talking about the early 1700s or the late 1700s here? You both talk about 1709/1710 and 1792/1793, as it was the same time. I'm sorry, but I'm a little confused here.

[PrincessKoreen]

Louis XIV didn't rule in the late 1700s. Louis XVI did. His wars gained little and cost much, as did his building.

[Furienna]

Excactly! Louis XIV ruled then, not Louis XVI! There were five generations between these two kings. (Louis XIV was Louis XVI:s great great great grandfather.)

[Thribette]

Please, excuse me, I wrote twice 1792-1793, instead of 1692-1793!

[Furienna]

Okay, good to know. We just wanted to get things right.

[jabrownell]

As much as I think monarchy would benefit France, it is not likely to happen...EVER. The French people have a decidedly anti-authoritarian streak. After all, they riot when their presidential candidate doesn't win. Some have argued, and I tend to agree with them, that France is not a very democratic country (meaning that the nation has difficulty accepting the validity of opposition parties--hence the rioting when Sarkozy won fair and square). As far as acceptance of authority is concerned, I am convinced that monarchy in the United States would be easier than it would in France.

[Furienna]

And let's not forget the problem with choosing which dynasty to put on a French thrown. Would it be the Bourbons or the Bonapartes?

[jabrownell]

Originally Posted by Furienna

And let's not forget the problem with choosing which dynasty to put on a French thrown. Would it be the Bourbons or the Bonapartes?

That is a question, but I wonder why the Bonapartes are even a consideration. Just because one gains power through a military coup does not make them royalty. Napoleon wore a crown, but royalty he was not, and neither are his progeny. Dictators are dictators, not Kings.

[Furienna]

But there still were no less than three Bonaparte emperors (Napoleon I, II and III) in France. And most kings and emperors, who were the first of their dynasties on their throwns, came to power through military coups. I guess the Bourbons didn't become kings peacefully either.

[Madame Royale]

If the French one day came to the realisation that the monarchy is worth reinstating, it would not be the Bonaparte's they turn too. Let me make that emphatically clear.

Whether each dynasty came to form through military muscle and flex is not the question. Napoleon crowned himself. He was no royal, no prince and certainly no Emperor by right of birth. A mere power hungry dictator who sought to gain an authoritarian standing beyond the limitations of any political power which resulted in his own undoing.

Napoléon was no more an emperor than Marie Antoinette was a commoner.

[Domhangairt]

After the fall of the Second Empire under Napoleon III, the French National Assembly was ready to bring back the Bourbons, but the pretender, Henri, Comte de Chambord, refused to accept the French tricolor as the National flag, insisting on the old Bourbon flag. The monarchy issue was deferred until the death of Henri. At this point the Orleanists wanted the crown, but by this time, the National Assembly had beome dominated by republicans. So ended any possiblity of a French restoration. Charles de Gaulle is said to have planned a monarchy restoration, but instead replaced the Fourth Republic with the Fifth Republic in 1958.

The French monarchy could only now be restored as a result of a great national disaster, such as war or collapse of democratic government. Bourbons really had their chance, but blew it because of their arrogance, nothing else.

Orleanist line is probably the most likely, since legitimist line of Louis Alphone, Duc d'Anjou was excluded by Treaty of Utrecht, 1713. Furthermore, Louis Alphonse' family maybe illegitimate, since the children of Isabel II of Spain are believed to have been fathered by a lover, not her husband, Francisco de Asis de Borbon, who was believed to be homosexual.

[Warren]

Originally Posted by Domhangairt

Furthermore, Louis Alphonse' family maybe illegitimate, since the children of Isabel II of Spain are believed to have been fathered by a lover, not her husband, Francisco de Asis de Borbon, who was believed to be homosexual.

It doesn't matter who the father is as the royal line passes through the mother, the Queen Regnant Isabel.
Fernando VII > Isabel II > Alfonso XII > Alfonso XIII [omitting Amadeo I to illustrate the direct line]
No royal house is going to allow posthumous DNA testing to determine their own legitimacy. In any case Juan Carlos and Luis Alfonso are both descendants of Alfonso XIII.

[Kotroman]

All children of Isabella II were legitimate: they were all born to a married woman whose husband never publicly questioned their paternity. As far as succession to the Crown is concerned, it doesn't matter who is their biological father - in the eyes of law, Francis is their father.

Originally Posted by Warren

It doesn't matter who the father is as the royal line passes through the mother, the Queen Regnant Isabel.

Right of succession to the French crown does not pass to/through females and female lines, so it does matter who the father is. Isabella II never had any rights to the French crown, not even according to the Legitimists. If her sons had any rights to the French crown (according to the Legitimists), then one can assume they had those rights as children born in the marriage of Francis and Isabella II.

[maria-olivia]

I saw recently on RF pictures of the royal wedding of Henri the Dauphin with Marie Thérèse of Wurtenberg (1957). At this time General de Gaulle was not against the restauration of the monarchy..and this very wedding was so important to the Count de Paris.
I don't remember what happened , but the refendum that de Gaulle wanted was cancelled (Darlan's affaire.?.) With at the end of de Gaulle 's predency all the hopes of the Count dissapeared.. and then divorce and.. and..and

[MAfan]

What was the Darlan's affaire?

[Domhangairt]

Originally Posted by Warren

It doesn't matter who the father is as the royal line passes through the mother, the Queen Regnant Isabel.
Fernando VII > Isabel II > Alfonso XII > Alfonso XIII [omitting Amadeo I to illustrate the direct line]
No royal house is going to allow posthumous DNA testing to determine their own legitimacy. In any case Juan Carlos and Luis Alfonso are both descendants of Alfonso XIII.

I must disagree with you Warren. The legitimacy issue is absolutely relevant in determining the French succession. As Kotroman rightly points out, the French succession is by the strict application of the Salic Law. Therefore, the paternity of Alfonso XII is absolutely relevant. Furthermore, as Orleanists have long been at pains to point out, biological legitimacy is relevant- they have used the case of Alfonso's paternity to strengthen their claims for years. In England, to this day, there exists a Law which entitles the State to execute any man who has been found to have engaged in an extramarital affair with the wife of the Heir to the English Throne. This is precisely because such an affair undermines the position of the royal children by calling into question their legitimacy, and paternity. Such scandals in the past have led to strife and even civil war. In fact some consipiracy theorists have even gone as far as to suggest that the late Princess Diana was "removed" by agents of the British state because of her affair with Dodi Al Fayed, and other men, before and after her divorce from Prince Charles.

I agree with you on the issue of DNA testing. It is very unlikely that Juan Carlos would allow such testing to take place, expecially in the current climate- there has been an increase in republican sentiment in Spain in recent years. Interestingly enough, the French Royal Family did allow DNA testing to be used to determine the true identity of the boy king Louis XVII who is burried along with other Bourbon kings. There had long been speculation that he had not died in the Bastille, but had escaped to Germany. That theory has now been destroyed- the DNA evidence positively identified him.

Another, unsubstantiated, argument put forward by some supporters of the Orleanist line, is the suggestion that Louis XIV, himself, was illegitimate, on account that he was conceived "before" the reconciliation of Louis XIII and Anne of Austria, while Philippe, Duc d'Orleans, was legitimate since he was conceived "after" the reconciliation of Louis XIII and Anne, and bore the looks and personality traits (including bisexuality) of Louis XIII, whereas Louis XIV bore no resemblance at all to Louis XIII either in appearance or character. Questions about biological legitmacy, whether fair or unfair, have always been used to undermine the position of kings and princes, which is why the spouses of princes and kings were were often secluded in mediaeval times, to avoid other men gaining access to them- the best way to prevent paternity disputes!

[Stefan]

But according to the salic law it goes not through Isabel II.It goes through her husband.
There where male line descendants of Fernando VII. as he had no sons. Next was his brother Infante Carlos but his male line died out in 1936. Next where the descendants of Infante Franciso de Paula and his older son was the husband of Isabel II.

[Kotroman]

...and, since Francis publicly recognized all of Isabella II's children as his own children, they were all perfectly legitimate and entitled to the right of succession. It's very simple: a child born to a married woman is assumed to be the child of her husband and is automatically legitimate.

[Warren]

Originally Posted by Domhangairt

I must disagree with you Warren. The legitimacy issue is absolutely relevant in determining the French succession.

I stand corrected.
I was focussed on the Spanish line of succession at the expense of the French.

[maria-olivia]

Mafan , the assassination of amiral Darlan by Fernand Bonnier de la Chapelle in Algerie in 1942 is a long and strange story . The personnality of Darlan was confused and the Comte de Paris was involved (?)in this assassination because he wanted to take Darlan's place.
Again this affair should take pages and pages , but in the years 1960 this story came back..