The Royal Forums Coat of Arms

Go Back   The Royal Forums > Non-Reigning Houses > Royal Families of France

Join The Royal Forums Today
Reply
 
Thread Tools Search this Thread Display Modes
 
  #201  
Old 04-30-2009, 01:45 PM
V.F.H.78's Avatar
Aristocracy
 
Join Date: Oct 2008
Location: Poissy, France
Posts: 112
Charles Philippe d'Orléans is NOT the duke of Anjou. The only one duke of Anjou is SAR Luis Alfonso de Bourbon.
Jean d'Orléans is the legitim heir of King Louis-Philippe and the Monarchie de Juillet, nothing more.
__________________

__________________
Reply With Quote
  #202  
Old 04-30-2009, 01:56 PM
Nico's Avatar
Serene Highness
 
Join Date: Jul 2007
Location: Paris, France
Posts: 1,314
Quote:
Jean d'Orléans is the legitim heir of King Louis-Philippe and the Monarchie de Juillet, nothing more.
Sorry to say that but it's a flagrant lack of culture and knowledge of the french history to make such a statement....
__________________

__________________
Reply With Quote
  #203  
Old 04-30-2009, 03:25 PM
V.F.H.78's Avatar
Aristocracy
 
Join Date: Oct 2008
Location: Poissy, France
Posts: 112
The heir to the french throne is necessary the elder of all Capetians. And the elder of the Capetians is Luis Alfonso de Bourbon ; Louis XX. All the true legitimists know that.
The Orléans are the younger branch of the Bourbon royal family.
Jean d'Orléans is the number 79 in the line of succession to the french throne.
__________________
Reply With Quote
  #204  
Old 04-30-2009, 03:42 PM
Nico's Avatar
Serene Highness
 
Join Date: Jul 2007
Location: Paris, France
Posts: 1,314
As you maybe know the last elder FRENCH capetian was the Comte of Chambord. He had no children so the succession rules passed to the younger branch: the Orleans. It's simple, it's history.

For now if you want to change French History (and of course the treaty of Utrecht)and have your very own "exotic" heir it's up to you

Sadly it's a never ending discussion...
__________________
Reply With Quote
  #205  
Old 05-01-2009, 03:46 AM
Warren's Avatar
Administrator
 
Join Date: Jan 2005
Location: Sydney, Australia
Posts: 15,399

Yes, the discussion is never-ending because there are two branches of the one dynasty whose supporters fervently believe they have 'right' on their side. Orléanists and Legitimists will never agree because there are two competing lines of descent, one represented by the senior primogeniture Bourbon and the other represented by the senior descendant of the last King of the French. As neither line is likely to die out anytime soon, the argument will continue indefinitely.

On the positive side, it's these sorts of disputes which make dynastic histories and genealogies interesting, and bring them into the present day.
__________________
Seeking information? Check out the extensive Royal A-Z
Reply With Quote
  #206  
Old 05-05-2009, 04:16 AM
Aristocracy
 
Join Date: Apr 2006
Location: Mutzig, France
Posts: 101
Nico, probably we don't have the same friends, as around me (not among royalists, of course), and in spite of the action of the orleanist and successful magazine Point de Vue, a long time managed by a grand-daughter of an Orléans princess, both princes are known the same way (i.e. little, unfortunately).
Among royalists I would say 50/50 (among the ones who have an opinion), but even when, because of the influence of Charles Maurras, orleanists were 80-90% of the royalists (about WWI to WWII), this had nothing to do with French succession rules, which say without any doubt that the (true) duke of Anjou, Louis de Bourbon, is the legitimate successor to the throne of France.
And about changing French history, well, of course who do it is who try to introduce a new rule in French succession laws, that not only would be new (then, why not) but that would be in contradiction with several previous accessions to the French throne, as well as belongings to dynasts.
__________________
Reply With Quote
  #207  
Old 05-05-2009, 04:19 AM
Aristocracy
 
Join Date: Apr 2006
Location: Mutzig, France
Posts: 101
Claudia, I understood that you consider Louis XX a commoner, I explained you why he is not, so merely repeating "he is a commoner" lacks argumentation...
__________________
Reply With Quote
  #208  
Old 05-05-2009, 06:23 AM
V.F.H.78's Avatar
Aristocracy
 
Join Date: Oct 2008
Location: Poissy, France
Posts: 112
It's a pity to see that orleanists always try to change the rules of succession to the throne of France to legitimate the descendants of the Orléans...
It's the same story since the death of the count of Chambord.
__________________
Reply With Quote
  #209  
Old 05-14-2009, 01:57 AM
Commoner
 
Join Date: Apr 2003
Location: Santiago, Chile
Posts: 38
It is a pity to see how folkloric legitimists are.

If for you Alfonso de Borbón y Dampierre, duke of Cadiz (by the grand father of his wife) was king of France, how can the french king be the Spanish embassador in Sweden?

How can the french king be the embassador of Spain? Very simple, because he was a spanish subject.
__________________
Reply With Quote
  #210  
Old 05-14-2009, 04:02 PM
Newbie
 
Join Date: Mar 2009
Location: Fermo, Italy
Posts: 7
Questions

Quote:
Originally Posted by V.F.H.78 View Post
The heir to the french throne is necessary the elder of all Capetians. And the elder of the Capetians is Luis Alfonso de Bourbon ; Louis XX. All the true legitimists know that.
The Orléans are the younger branch of the Bourbon royal family.
Jean d'Orléans is the number 79 in the line of succession to the french throne.
So far as I know, the senior Capetian line is that of the Barons of Busset... It is an illegitimate branch but they enjoyed the rank of Cousin of the King (so they where recognized as descents of the House of France)... Hence, if you consider invalid the Treaty of Utrecht (that is the pillar of the European modern order, and was registered by both the Cortes and the Parliaments of France), you can even not consider another little formality (the absence of a legitimate marriage): from this perspective Charles de Bourbon, comte de Busset is the rightful King of France!

I have two question for the "legitimists" (but I think that this denomination is misleading, since the Orléans' claim is to be the heirs of Henri V [who recognized the Orléans as legitimate Heirs as per the traditions and laws of the Monarchy], and not of Louis Philippe):
1) Why the Heir of Don Luis Alfonso, HM King Juan Carlos, as all the other Courts of Europe, recognizes the rights of HRH the Count of Paris? Isn't it a contraddiction?
2) If you consider "bastards" the Bussets, why you consider dynasts the descents of a morganatic marriage (that has the same effects of a mariage secret)?
Thank you for your kind answer.
__________________
Reply With Quote
  #211  
Old 05-14-2009, 10:23 PM
claypoint2's Avatar
Nobility
 
Join Date: Jan 2009
Location: Cambridge, United States
Posts: 363


I am jumping in here as a completely impartial observer -- someone who has a longstanding intellectual interest in this debate, but who doesn't feel an allegiance to one side or the other. I must say that the second question seems like a particularly good one... and it raises a point that I haven't come across before. I would truly appreciate hearing the legitimist argument. V.F.H., are you still here?
__________________
Reply With Quote
  #212  
Old 05-15-2009, 12:04 PM
V.F.H.78's Avatar
Aristocracy
 
Join Date: Oct 2008
Location: Poissy, France
Posts: 112
1) HM King Juan Carlos doesn't recognize SAR Luis Alfonso like the heir to the throne of France because, for him, Luis Alfonso represents a competitor for the throne of Spain. We don't have to forget that before he became king, Juan Carlos wasn't the legitim heir to the throne of Spain. Before to choose the king, Franco hesitated between Juan Carlos and Alfonso of Bourbon-Dampierre, his cousin and elder of the Capetians (and Luis Alfonso's father). Juan Carlos has never forget that.
2) Legitimists still consider the Bourbon-Busset like "bastards" because they were already bastards in the time when there was a king in France. They can't be considered as legitim heirs today if they weren't yesterday.
And the Bourbon-Busset never claimed anything.
__________________
Reply With Quote
  #213  
Old 05-16-2009, 02:21 PM
Newbie
 
Join Date: Mar 2009
Location: Fermo, Italy
Posts: 7

So, according to the King of France the Bussets were bastards. No doubt.
And according to the "legitimist" king of France Alphonse II (Alfonso XIII of Spain) the descendants of his son, Jaime, were non dynastic, because of his unequal marriage (like a secret marriage)... Hence, that line is not entitled of any right to neither the throne of Spain nor that of France.
Consequently, the "legitimist" pretender would be HM Juan Carlos of Spain!
__________________
Reply With Quote
  #214  
Old 05-17-2009, 08:22 AM
Warren's Avatar
Administrator
 
Join Date: Jan 2005
Location: Sydney, Australia
Posts: 15,399
Without wishing to enter the debate on either side, the Spanish Royal Family's internal dynastic marriage rules have no relevance to the succession rules of the throne of France. They are two separate and unrelated issues. There has never been morganatic marriage in France and morganatic marriage never existed in French laws.
__________________
Seeking information? Check out the extensive Royal A-Z
Reply With Quote
  #215  
Old 05-17-2009, 09:07 AM
V.F.H.78's Avatar
Aristocracy
 
Join Date: Oct 2008
Location: Poissy, France
Posts: 112
Here is the line of succession to the french throne :

Current pretender : Luis Alfonso de Borbon y Martinez-Bordiu, duke of Anjou

1. Juan Carlos de Borbon y Borbon, king of Spain
2. Felipe de Borbon y Grecia, prince of Asturias
3. Francisco de Borbon y Escasany, duke of Seville
...
77. Henri d'Orléans, count of Paris
78. François d'Orléans, count of Clermont
79. Jean d'Orléans, duke of Vendôme
__________________
Reply With Quote
  #216  
Old 05-17-2009, 02:05 PM
Gentry
 
Join Date: Aug 2007
Location: paris, France
Posts: 55
I have been there before, don't we all ? And i am not going to argue about it again. But there is one question that has allways intrigued me : Why, oh why, the comte de Chambord never gave an indication about his beliefs in the matter of his own succession ?
( Please don't screem i am not saying that his opinion would have changed anything on one or the other possibility), i am simply i wondering.
-Was it because he thought monarchy was gone for good in France and their was no need of an heir ?
-Was it because he disliked the orléans so much that he did not want to recognise their claim ?
-Was it because he thought the spanish succession was completely clear?

What do you all think ?
__________________
Reply With Quote
  #217  
Old 05-17-2009, 02:37 PM
Newbie
 
Join Date: Mar 2009
Location: Fermo, Italy
Posts: 7
I don't think he considered the Spanish succession clear. You have only to see what really happened in the history: the only real threat to the 3rd Republic were the Orleans... Somewhere in the net you can find some letters and documents written by Louis XVIII and Charles X that are mainly in favour of the Orleans and allude at the possible nullity of the Treaty of Utrecht (pillar of the European order) only in order to threaten the Orleans and keep them at their place.

I'd like to respond to Warren about the marriages of the princes of France. If France law didn't know the morganatic marriage, it was however necessary the royal assent for the marriages of the princes de sang:

"A partir du XVI s., l'Etat s'efforce de ressaisir la juridiction en matière de mariage qui relevait, depuis le Moyen Age, de l'Eglise. L'A. montre comment le pouvoir royal a été amené à formuler, en dehors du droit canonique, les trois empêchements de mariage: l'absence de consentement du père de famille, la nécessité du consentement du roi pour la validité des mariages des princes du sang, la nécessité de l'autorisation royale pour permettre le mariage des Français à l'étranger." http://cat.inist.fr/?aModele=afficheN&cpsidt=12506758

Alphonse II/Alfonso XIII, as king of Spain and of France, didn't recognise the marriage of his son, Jaime; that's why this is a non dynastic line even for French succession.

Of course this is just my opinion.
__________________
Reply With Quote
  #218  
Old 05-17-2009, 09:52 PM
claypoint2's Avatar
Nobility
 
Join Date: Jan 2009
Location: Cambridge, United States
Posts: 363
Quote:
Originally Posted by Warren View Post
There has never been morganatic marriage in France and morganatic marriage never existed in French laws.
Warren, just to make sure that I understand: Are you saying that the concept of morganatic marriage doesn't exist under the laws of the French Republic, or are you saying that the Royal House of France never had a rule against unequal marriages?

The first is quite possible -- but I'm not sure if that's what you mean, because it doesn't seem very relevant to the argument above. It would be odd indeed if the laws of any republic encompassed issues of monarchic succession (such as morganatic marriage), but precisely for that reason those laws are probably neither helpful nor determinative in deciding who is the pretender to the throne.

On the other hand, the second possibility also seems strange. To think that La Maison Royale de France did not have a rule against unequal marriages... oufff! That would be a surprise indeed. If it were true, any French Dauphin could have married a lowly baroness or even a commoner and retained his place in the succession. That doesn't sound right. However, I don't have first-hand knowledge of the subject and will happily defer to you.

But I also have a feeling that I'm missing something. Can you please clarify?
__________________
Reply With Quote
  #219  
Old 05-18-2009, 08:39 AM
Warren's Avatar
Administrator
 
Join Date: Jan 2005
Location: Sydney, Australia
Posts: 15,399
I think we are talking about different things. The concept of morganatic marriage is Germanic in origin (Holy Roman Empire) and is not the same as an unequal or unapproved marriage. I don't need to go into the definitions here but morganatic marriage did not exist in royal France, a legal situation in common with England/Britain.
__________________
Seeking information? Check out the extensive Royal A-Z
Reply With Quote
  #220  
Old 05-18-2009, 08:47 AM
MAfan's Avatar
Super Moderator
Royal Blogger
 
Join Date: Sep 2008
Location: N/A, Italy
Posts: 4,350
But does the concept of unequal marriage exist? If so, the descendants of unequal marriages are excluded from the line of Succession or not?I know that the late Count of Paris recognised the weddings of some of his sons as unequal...

Paul Theroff's site reported that the late Count of La Marche married Marion Gordon Orr "morganatically, according to Orlèanist house law". If morganatic marriages don't exist, I wonder: 1-which is the status of their son? 2-which are these "Orleanist house law" he quotes?
__________________

__________________
Reply With Quote
Reply


Currently Active Users Viewing This Thread: 1 (0 members and 1 guests)
 
Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are Off
Pingbacks are Off
Refbacks are Off


Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
Queen Victoria (1819-1901) TOMMIX British Royal History 326 Yesterday 04:50 AM
Monarchy and Restoration; Rival Families and Claimants aj00192557 The Imperial Family of Russia 954 08-26-2014 05:28 AM
Stuart Succession and Jacobite Pretenders hillary_nugent British Royal History 132 06-30-2014 09:55 PM




Additional Links
Popular Tags
abdication birth charlene chris o'neill crown prince frederik crown prince haakon crown princess letizia crown princess mary crown princess mette-marit current events engagement fashion genealogy grand duchess maria teresa grand duke henri hohenzollern infanta leonor infanta sofia jewellery jordan king abdullah ii king carl xvi gustav king constantine ii king felipe king felipe vi king harald king juan carlos king philippe king willem-alexander luxembourg nobility olympics ottoman pom president hollande president komorowski prince albert prince albert ii prince carl philip prince constantijn prince felipe prince floris prince maurits prince pieter-christiaan princess aimee princess anita princess astrid princess beatrix princess charlene princess claire princess letizia princess marilene princess mary princess mary fashion princess of asturias queen anne-marie queen letizia queen mathilde queen maxima queen rania queen silvia queen sofia royal royal fashion russia sofia hellqvist spain state visit the hague wedding



All times are GMT -4. The time now is 06:53 PM.

Social Knowledge Networks

eXTReMe Tracker
Powered by vBulletin
Copyright ©2000 - 2014
Jelsoft Enterprises

Royal News Delivered to your Email!

You can get the latest Royal News right in your inbox.

unsusbcribe at anytime with one click

Close [X]