France and Monarchy

[HRHofNothing]

Never say never- but there are a lot of near impossible things that will take place before the french restore their monrachy. The french people were not well served by their last Bonaparte rulers let alone Marie Antionette and Louis XV?.

A side question on the legitimacy of royal children. All the illegitimate children of kings never held any sucession rights so it does not seem fair that Isabella II's illegitimate son suceeded her on the Portugese throne and his decendents are still soverigns or pretenders today!

[MAfan]

You mean the Spanish throne...

[Kotroman]

Originally Posted by HRHofNothing

All the illegitimate children of kings never held any sucession rights so it does not seem fair that Isabella II's illegitimate son suceeded her on the Portugese throne and his decendents are still soverigns or pretenders today!

Who has said that Isabella II's children are not legitimate? She was married and her husband never publicly denounced paternity of her children, so in the eyes of law all children of Isabella II are perfectly legitimate and all of them were entitled to succeed to the Spanish throne.

[HRHofNothing]

But everyone assumed (correctly) that that was not the case. I guess since the Husband did not make a fuss about it...

[Kotroman]

Originally Posted by Warren

No royal house will allow posthumous DNA testing to determine their own legitimacy.

I'm not an expert, but DNA testing would probably prove nothing since Francis was Isabella II's double first cousin (their fathers were brothers and their mothers were sisters).

[Thribette]

Nowadays, with ancient corpses, there is virtually no hope of finding chromosomial DNA in order to prove the paternity. Only chromosomial DNA could be found... to prove maternity!
About portuguese throne, illegitimate children did succeed their fathers.
In Spain it is impossible, at the same time saying Isabel II's children were not from her husband is a bit hazardous (there were disputes and reconciliations between them). Legally, they were his children.
In France too, an illegitimate child cannot succeed, however legitimate children are the queen's children. We had the example of a regent queen (Isabeau of Bavaria) who affirmed that her son (Charles VII) was not from her husband (Charles VI) but from her brother-in-law (the duke of Orléans), and there was the intervention of Saint Joan of Arc to help his son be sacred as king...
A "princess of the blood" once (in XVIIIthe century of course) told her husband : "never forget that without you, I can have princes of the blood, while without me, you can only have bastards". Not very nice but a good resume!

[deCastelneau]

Salut,
My name is William Gambill Caumont deCastelneau and I am a direct descendant of the Ducs de La Force from Guyenne France. I have traced my genealogy back to the 1500s. My ancestral grandfather was god-son to King Henri IV (Henri of Navarre). It is my intention to bring attention to the families who lost their titles and lands at the time of the Huguenot Exodus in the 1700s. If anyone has any information that could further the cause, please post. I don't really seek to restore the French Monarchy but I would like to see responsibility taken for the actions that led to our being forced from our homeland. A ceremonial Monarchy could preserve the heritage. Especially if you believe that Kings are ordained by God. I think some are and others have stolen it. For this reason I beleive extensive study should be done to determine any validity to a claimant to the throne. If I were truly convinced of devine influence, which would be difficult to do, then and only then could I consider support. Highly unlikely! I think a stylized form of a monarchy can work such as using the Royals as public servants for humanitarian projects etc. lending their fame and fortune for worthy causes
Merci,
deCastelneau

[Thribette]

What I find a nice symbol, too, is that the duke of Anjou, by his father is a descendant of calvinist Jeanne d'Albret, and by his mother of a Bearnese Bourdieu, catholic who fleed religious prosecution by this queen... His grandmother too, has among her ancestors, the Reverends John Knox and John Welch.
DeCastelnau, is there a site with your genealogy? I would be very interested.

[RoyalistRiley]

DeCastelneau, you're right about the benefits of having a monarchy as a symbol of heritage and to lead by example in humanitarain and charity projects.

It's sad that some countries don't even adknowledge their monarchist pasts (eg. Austria, Germany, Russia, France) by recognising titles and restoring some confiscated property...

[vincent]

Royalist Riley,

I do not know much about austria and russia, but concerning germany,most of the ex royal families got to an agreement about their properties very soon after the end of monarchies in 1918.

In the ex western part of the country most of these families still own most of their ancestral properties, (bavaria, Wurtemberg, Bade, Hanover and even cobourg).

In the ex eastern part of germany it is true that the lands and castles confiscated by the communists were not given back, but all the works of arts, jewelry, silver and so on... which were private properties before 1945 have to be given back.
I think the law was passed after the fall of the east in the beginning of the 1990s;

Most of the families have allready reached an agreement with the curators of theses collections in Berlin, Dresden, Schwerin, Gotha... In conpensation for the works of art they agreed to leave in the museum they were given huge sums money and sometimes buildings and lands.
I think the most profitable deal was reached about the saxon works of arts. It concerned around 20 000 objects. A few thousands were actually given back and the others were compensated for the way i just explained.
Concerning Bavaria and Wurtemberg, believe me, the monarchist past is absolutely respected and the heads and members of these families are really considered as "non official" but still very respected "royals".
Members of governement attends their weddings and funeral and so on... And they are invited to official ceremonies. In Bavaria, duke Franz is really considered as a "king without a crown" and he still lives in some parts of schloss Nymphenbourg, (the bavarian Versailles).
The family also uses the main part of the castle for funerals and weddings.
And they even have a kind of court as part of the buildings is used for their offices called "werwaltung des herzog von Bayern".

About France, everythingthing which had not been sold during the revolution, was actually given back in 1814, or even by Napoléon. Most of the time these restitutions concerned the castles, (ok they were in a very bad state) and the forrest around them.

Some families even got back their "hotel particulier" in paris and a few still own them. Some of the castle still belong to the family as they were given back after the revolution : Brissac to the brissac, La Rochefoucauld to the Larochefoucauld, Uzès to teh Uzès, Luynes and Dampierre to the Luynes...

The main problem in France is the code napoléon who forbids to leave the family properties to the older son. For that reason many estates have been shared many times and sold. The latest one beeing the castle of Ansouis sold last year because the children did not reach an agreement between them.

That problem does not exist in Germany of Britain, as you can do what you want with you estate.

To tell you the truth, there is also a beginning of restitution in Russia, although it is very small. Apparently you can get back a property confiscated to one of your ancestors in 1917 if you can prove it was not confiscated in the legal way ( i mean with a legal decree).
I know one example of a family who managed to prove that two of their palaces in Moscow had been simply "occupied" and not officially "confiscated" and they got there properties back.

[Furienna]

Thank you for your information, Vincent!

[Shaiya]

Good luck getting this to happen. Too bad it won't happen. Nobody is interested in restoring a monarchy that's been long gone, has no training in how to run a state and whom the public aren't even aware of.

[silverstar]

I often wonder what do the French think about their historical Monarchy.....and the significant dates that come and go throughout the year.
Back in the days of the Sun King the French Monarchy was the most magnificent in Europe... The Palace of Versailles and the Royal Court set the fashion for all
of Europe ... the Monarchies ... Prussia, England...Russia... all looked to France as a model.

Marie Antoinette as Queen of France became a leader of fashion... then as her fate became more and more tragic she was the focus and subject of conversation in all the coffee houses.

The Republican French must see the remains of their magnificent Monarchy all around them... in historical buildings.... in museums... in street names...
does it all mean nothing to them ?... I wonder.......

[V.F.H.78]

Unfortunately the most part of the french are very republican and hate the Monarchy. When you talk to them about the King, they immediatly think about a despot, etc... And the most part of the french are very proud of the Revolution. They are proud to have fall down the Monarchy, to have decapitated the King Louis XVI and the Queen Marie Antoinette!
In France we can visit a lot of museums, a thousand of castles, cathedrals, etc... but it changes nothing in their mind.

[Tilla]

Fortunately, there is "Point de Vue" for those in France who still love Royals.

[Ashantai]

Hi there. New to the board. I'm actually going to Paris in a few days, so this thread caught my attention.

My main question is: What would France do if they had a King? Every French King/Emperor has been an absolute monarch with minimal representation by the people. I can't see France accepting that in the XXI century. So all you'd be getting would be a French Monarch who was like the British Constitutional Royal, but without the tradition and stability this implies. Basically you'd have to rework the whole French state - it's more than just replacing President with King.

As for whether the French actually want one, I'm not French, but I can point out a few important points. Firstly: Demographics have changed over the years; France now has only 51% Catholics. Since the French monarch was often (especially in the pre-Napoleon times) very much a champion of Catholicism, this is a significant barrier.
This is also combined with several million non-French such as North Africans, Turks, Cambodians, etc, and what you have is people who would be less inclined to support a monarch.

Besides, let's face it, 139 years since the fall of Napoleon III is a long time, and even longer for the traditional monarchy. While I support existing monarchs, one has to ask whether the French would gain anything from the considerable changes it would mean. After all, the previous monarchs were hardly great and caused lasting change. One has to go back to Louis XIV to find a monarch who left substantial, long lived, positive changes. Napoleon, after all, lost more men than Louis and gained nothing from it.

So yeah, that's my 2 cents.

[Furienna]

Yeah, we will probably never see a new king or queen of France again, at least not in a forseeable future.