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
 
  #221  
Old 05-18-2009, 06:46 PM
Aristocracy
 
Join Date: Apr 2006
Location: Mutzig, France
Posts: 101
There have never been any rule against successibility of the children of an unequal marriage, and everybody recognized successible, for instance, the last Courtenay who were capetians descendants of Louis VI and had arrived, with the centuries, to the little nobility with even marriages out of nobility. But they were denied the rank of princes of the blood, and when the kings of France were entered of their situation, they favourized "progressively upgrading" marriages, the heir marrying a rich heiress of an illegitimate branch of Brittany ducal family. They had no child.
François I's second child, future Henri II, married Maria Medici, who was said "daughter of the duke of Urbino" whilever it was false (his father had had the gestion of this duchy during a few years, and when the right titular, a Della Rovere, was absolved of accusations, he naturally tookover his duchy); her father was belonging to a prominent family of Florence, and her mother was part of French high nobility, but I think that herself, stricto sensu, was a commoner, as I think nobody had conceded nobility to this branch of the Medici.
About the paternal authorization, 1) validity of marriages in French succession laws is that of the Catholic Church, so if catholic church, at a moment, requires parental authorization, it is necessary; if, like now, the Church doesn't require it, it is not necessary.
I must add that Alfonso XIII not only authorized Don Jaime's marriage, but organized it himself.
__________________

__________________
Reply With Quote
  #222  
Old 05-18-2009, 06:52 PM
Aristocracy
 
Join Date: Apr 2006
Location: Mutzig, France
Posts: 101
Vincent, I suppose you are preparing the parution of the book by Philippe Delorme upon the memories of the Count of Chambord... Although his opinions (that, as far as I know, he never expressed) are not the French succession rules, they are certainly of the highest interest. Will the book be translated in English?
__________________

__________________
Reply With Quote
  #223  
Old 05-18-2009, 07:52 PM
claypoint2's Avatar
Nobility
 
Join Date: Jan 2009
Location: Cambridge, United States
Posts: 363
Quote:
Originally Posted by MAfan View Post
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...
Thank you, MAfan. This is exactly what I was trying to ask.
__________________
Reply With Quote
  #224  
Old 05-18-2009, 08:14 PM
claypoint2's Avatar
Nobility
 
Join Date: Jan 2009
Location: Cambridge, United States
Posts: 363
Quote:
Originally Posted by vincent View Post
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 ?
Quote:
Originally Posted by Thribette View Post
Vincent, I suppose you are preparing the parution of the book by Philippe Delorme upon the memories of the Count of Chambord... Although his opinions (that, as far as I know, he never expressed) are not the French succession rules, they are certainly of the highest interest. Will the book be translated in English?
Vincent, at the risk of sounding "shrinky" (in American, that means "like a psychologist or psychiatrist"), I will say that in order to answer your question one would have to understand a great deal about the comte de Chambord's psychology and his individual circumstances. It would help to know a fair amount about his personality and the people who influenced him, as well as the general culture of his time and his immediate social milieu. I could imagine, for example, a personality type that might be paralyzed by conflict and would would postpone making a decision until it was too late because he wished to avoid controversy -- but, then again, I don't know enough about the Count to be able to offer an opinion.

I am sorry that I can't be more helpful, but this is simply an attempt to say that, if you know more about the comte de Chambord than we do -- and I have a strong feeling that you do! -- then you are probably the best person to venture a guess on this subject. I am sure that your opinion will make a great deal of sense. Would you let us know?
__________________
Reply With Quote
  #225  
Old 05-19-2009, 01:05 PM
Gentry
 
Join Date: Aug 2007
Location: paris, France
Posts: 55
Claypoint, this is exactly where i wanted to go. Please be shrinky... Let's try to give another light to that story.

We all know our opinions about that debate, i don't think we will change them. Simply, i find it strange that this man who held the future of the french monarchy in his hands, and who was the last claimant with a real chance to get his crown back, never gave his own opinion about a matter that was the purpose of his life.

What happened ? I really wonder. This mans is a sphinx. Very kindly you write that my own opinion would make a great deal of sense, but think about what his own opinion on the matter would have meant.

It would be very interesting to have a real shrink study the life of the comte de Chambord, examining his letters, actions and then give us a profile .

I know it is very difficult to rewrite history, but let's try :

1) Had i been the comte de Chambord myself. Considering that i had little reason to like the orleans because they had stolen my grand father's crown in 1830 and knowing they were not my legal heirs, i would have surely made my opinion very clear : my succession lies in the spanish royal family, they are my legal successors and the orléans princes are usurpers if after my death they try to claim the crown.
And further more, having no children , i would have left my fortune to my nephews, which he did, but a share of it with all the historical souvenirs would have been left to the spanish heirs.

Himself did not say a word or wrote a line; His estate was divided between his 4 nephews and his wife. And it is only after the death of the comtesse de Chambord, in 1886 i think, who was his mother's sister that the duke of Madrid received Frohsdorf castle with a very small part of the Chambord fortune.

2)On the other hand, had i been the comte de Chambord, if i had knew that the orléans were my legal heirs and having many reasons not to like them very much, i would have said nothing, and left my belongings to my sisters family; A way to say, ok, there is nothing i can do about it, but at least they won't get my money nor my blessing.

3)There is another possibility, which is very shrinky indeed, I am the comte de Chambord, and i know this is gone forever, because my dream of a monarchy will never come back, maybe i would have said : "who cares ?" "I have no children of my own, the whole thing is gone, let them arrange themselves after i am gone".


What do you think ?

P S : I know this pure speculation and i don't intend it to have any meanning whatsoever on the issue of the debate, but let's try to go beyond the actual question which is, by all means, very hypothetical anyway. And further more, maybe i am the only one interested by this "shrinky" way of dealing with the problem.
P S : Thribette, i have not read the comte de Chambord's journal which will be published within a few days, and i don't know if there is something really interesting regarding his opinion, but i will surely try to find out when i get a copy of it. I don't think there is any translation prepared yet.
__________________
Reply With Quote
  #226  
Old 05-19-2009, 01:25 PM
maria-olivia's Avatar
Heir Presumptive
 
Join Date: Oct 2006
Location: Brussels, Belgium
Posts: 2,228
Very interesting Vincent,
Do you think it should be possible to speak or write books about the Comte de Chambord when the late Count de Paris was still alive ??
__________________
Reply With Quote
  #227  
Old 05-19-2009, 01:38 PM
MAfan's Avatar
Super Moderator
Royal Blogger
 
Join Date: Sep 2008
Location: N/A, Italy
Posts: 4,327
Thanks, Vincent...maybe the second hypothesis is the most probable, since is the one with more logical meaning...

However, I heve read from several sources that the Count of Chambord designed the Count of Paris as his dinastyc heir; now I don't remember all my sources, but I will check them, and refer here. One of them was Wikipedia (that is not the most reliable one, but...)
__________________
Reply With Quote
  #228  
Old 05-28-2009, 10:06 AM
Aristocracy
 
Join Date: Apr 2006
Location: Mutzig, France
Posts: 101
Claypoint, we have exactly the same impression about Count of Chambord, and the same doubts upon the rightness or not of this impression.
Vincent, I would add a 1) b) : Count of Chambord knowing the Spanish branch was successor to his, also knowing that his immediate successor (the Count of Montizón, then living in Brighton) was a liberal, exactly at the opposite of his ideas and those of his helps (and we can add a private reason for hating him : the Count of Montizón had married Beatrix of Austria-Este, Count of Chambord's great love, and made her unhappy), while his sons were much more in the same mood as French legitimists.
Count of Chambord may have thought that, while Count of Montizón was alive, any declaration to tell he was the successor, might have had the right opposite result, the legitimists polluted by modern nationalism (who later effectively became orleanists in order not to follow a prince they considered Spanish and not French) going to the Orléans because of his "nationality" (mostly not as a theory but because of an irrational exacerbated nationalism), and the more "morally rigorist" refusing allegeance to a liberal prince.
Thus, Count of Chambord may have preferred postponing any declaration, hoping that the Count of Montizón would die before him, which did not happen.

MAfan, all the sources I have read about this question, were Orléans followers.
__________________
Reply With Quote
  #229  
Old 05-28-2009, 11:39 AM
V.F.H.78's Avatar
Aristocracy
 
Join Date: Oct 2008
Location: Poissy, France
Posts: 112
Thank you very much for the explanations you give Thribette.
I had forgotten that Maria Beatrix of Austria-Este was Henri's first love.
Maria Beatrix was really pretty and her sister Maria Theresa was ugly. But finally, the count of Chambord had to marry with the elder sister. It was certainly a big deception for him.
So maybe Henri was jealous of Juan, the count of Montizón.
But don Juan was the legitim heir to the french throne after the death of Henri V. Before to die, Henri knew that.
__________________
Reply With Quote
  #230  
Old 06-06-2009, 11:52 AM
The Grand Prince's Avatar
Aristocracy
 
Join Date: Jun 2009
Location: England, United Kingdom
Posts: 174
Has Louis Alphonse, the Duke of Anjou, ever made a public statement about his claim to the throne of France or ever publicly claimed it?

I simply ask because I remember at his wedding, none of his Legitimist supporters were invited something which many people found rather strange and could be interpreted as him snubbing them or rejecting his claim.
__________________
Reply With Quote
  #231  
Old 06-08-2009, 11:11 PM
claypoint2's Avatar
Nobility
 
Join Date: Jan 2009
Location: Cambridge, United States
Posts: 363
On the comte de Chambord's possible motives for failing to name a successor

Very interesting conversation! I'm sorry that I somehow lost track of it over the past weeks. Thank you Vincent, Maria-Olivia, MAfan, and Thribette for your responses & contributions.

Weaving together several strands from the posts above, it sounds indeed like the comte de Chambord might have been motivated by his profound dislike of his possible successors. On the one hand, he despised the Orléans for usurping his grandfather's crown. On the other, he couldn't abide the marriage of the conde de Montizón to Beatrix of Austria-Este.

If that was truly the state of affairs, I can imagine him reaching what is known in psychology as an "avoidance-avoidance conflict" -- that is, an internal state that results from feeling forced to choose between two undesirable alternatives. Most often it leads to paralysis or inaction because the subject wishes to avoid both outcomes.

However, if the comte de Chambord genuinely hated the other parties very much, I can also imagine that he could reach a position similar to what Vincent suggested in No. 3: "Who cares? To the devil with all of them!" In that case, he may have even derived some perverse (mildly sadistic) pleasure in knowing that he would cause distress and confusion to everyone by his failure to name a successor.

Now, Vincent, aren't you sorry that you encouraged my "shrinkiness"?
__________________
Reply With Quote
  #232  
Old 06-11-2009, 04:36 AM
lucien's Avatar
Majesty
 
Join Date: Jun 2005
Location: Amsterdam, Netherlands
Posts: 6,210
As to the initial question.I prefer a member of the Napoléon family over any Orleans.
__________________
Reply With Quote
  #233  
Old 06-13-2009, 02:33 PM
Gentry
 
Join Date: Aug 2007
Location: paris, France
Posts: 55
Claypoint, i am not sorry at all, on the contrary, i think i would definitely agree on the the 3rd solution. The comte de Chambord was a very strange man indeed and your theory about the avoidance conflict is really interesting. Maybe he thought it was the end of the system which he was born in and there was no need to name his successor.

And maybe his refusal to do so gives a very democratic sound to our fights about who is the rightful heir. The rightful heir will be the one who restores the monarchy whoever he may be.

That reminds me something the late comte de Paris told me once. It went more or less like this : "To tell the truth, if the french want to give the crown one day to M. Smith or M. Brown, no one could prevent them to do so..."

So why not agree with lucien and vote for the Napoléon heir.The family and the heir have a lot of style...
__________________
Reply With Quote
  #234  
Old 06-13-2009, 04:47 PM
MAfan's Avatar
Super Moderator
Royal Blogger
 
Join Date: Sep 2008
Location: N/A, Italy
Posts: 4,327
Quote:
So why not agree with lucien and vote for the Napoléon heir.The family and the heir have a lot of style...
But which heir? Charles or Jean Christophe?
__________________
Reply With Quote
  #235  
Old 06-14-2009, 02:19 PM
Gentry
 
Join Date: Aug 2007
Location: paris, France
Posts: 55
Mafan,
Now that is a tricky one; I woudl suggest the one you prefer.
But the Napoléon dynastic situation is very special. If you agree that each royal family's
dynastic law, even if they do not reign any more, is the one in use when they were reigning, the napoléon family is ruled by the laws enforced by the two emperors and these laws are very special.
The emperor has more or less every right to do whatever he wants; You do not need a religious wedding to succeed and succession can even pass trough adoption. These are the legal terms used in the dynastic laws of the first and second empire.
Therefore, if you refer to the strict dynastic point of view, the decision made by the late prince Napoléon to transfer all his rights to his grandson Jean Christophe is absolutely valid.
So my vote would go to jean christophe, but you have every right to choose his father.
__________________
Reply With Quote
  #236  
Old 06-14-2009, 02:55 PM
maria-olivia's Avatar
Heir Presumptive
 
Join Date: Oct 2006
Location: Brussels, Belgium
Posts: 2,228
Vincent , Prince Jean Christophe is so young. His grandmother the widow of the late Prince Napoleon and his mother Princess Beatrice of Bourbon seem to have such a great influence on him.
By the way did you read his father's book Napoléon vu par Napoléon ?
__________________
Reply With Quote
  #237  
Old 06-14-2009, 03:38 PM
MAfan's Avatar
Super Moderator
Royal Blogger
 
Join Date: Sep 2008
Location: N/A, Italy
Posts: 4,327
Quote:
So my vote would go to jean christophe, but you have every right to choose his father.
Totally agree, also my vote goes to Jean Christophe: I think we have to bet on the young royals if we want a restauration of a monarchy...
BTW, I guess I prefer the Orleans...
__________________
Reply With Quote
  #238  
Old 06-16-2009, 12:21 AM
Newbie
 
Join Date: Jun 2009
Location: Denver, United States
Posts: 1
Well I for one think Louis Alphonse is the rightful heir BUT...realistically if there ever were a restoration in France (which is unlikely in itself) it would probably be the Orleans. The French people don't really know the Bourbons or the Orleans....or for that matter the Bonapartes anymore. But they do unfortunately know a little more about the Orleans simply because they reside in France. Do I think that its right NO I tend to be more legitimist in my views but I'm one of few who realizes how truly long gone the old days are....
__________________
Reply With Quote
  #239  
Old 06-25-2009, 11:09 AM
Aristocracy
 
Join Date: Apr 2006
Location: Mutzig, France
Posts: 101
Grand Prince, please excuse me for answering you so late.
Yes, the duke of Anjou said repeatedly that he was the legitimate successor to the French throne, but also that any restoration was not to hope soon...
At his wedding, he invited a few legitimists, but really few, and many ones were sad or angry not to be invited. He has always shown some distance with many legitimists (hm, being myself a French legitimist, may I write I understand him... starting with myself...) and his wedding was for "the young and the rich". Not the right portray of the legitimists he may know. Prudence required he should avoid inviting them.

Claypoint, I agree with Vincent, your explanation about avoidance-avoidance is quite interesting, even if he did not get to the extreme of the phenomenon.

Vincent, I thought adopted children were excluded from bonapartist succession!
If they were not, why should the dukes of Leuchtenberg, descendants of Napoléon I's adopted son, Eugène de Beauharnais, have been excluded from bonapartist succession?
__________________
Reply With Quote
  #240  
Old 06-25-2009, 02:50 PM
The Grand Prince's Avatar
Aristocracy
 
Join Date: Jun 2009
Location: England, United Kingdom
Posts: 174
Thank you for your answer Thribette.

I have one more question if I may ask it. I have read the original writing of the Treaty of Utrecht and the renunciation of Philip the Duke of Anjou and it says:

"I, Don Philip, by the Grace of God King of Castile etc... do... for myself, for my Heirs and Successors, renounce, quit, and relinquish for ever and ever all Pretensions, Rights and Titless which I have, or any Descendent of mine hath at present, or may have at any time to come, to the Succession of the Crown of France; and I declare, and hold myself for excluded and separated, me, and my Sons, Heirs, and Descendents for ever, for excluded, and disabled absolutely, and without Limitation, Difference and Distinction of Persons, Degrees, Sexes and Time, from the Act and Right of succeeding to the crown of France.... "

Surely that shows that if it is valid then the House of Orleans has no right to the throne either seeing that Louis Philipe I married Marie Amelie of Bourbon-Two Sicilies which means that all of the present House of Orleans are descendents of Phillip, Duc d'Anjou as well?
__________________

__________________
There is little that can withstand a man who can conquer himself. - King Louis XIV of France
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 322 Yesterday 01:44 PM
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 haakon crown princess letizia crown princess mary crown princess mette-marit crown princess victoria 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 felipe king felipe vi king harald king juan carlos king philippe king willem-alexander luxembourg olympics ottoman pieter van vollenhoven pom pregnancy president hollande president komorowski prince albert prince albert ii prince carl philip prince constantijn prince felipe prince felix prince floris prince pieter-christiaan princess alexia (2005 -) princess anita princess ariane princess beatrix princess catharina-amalia princess charlene princess laurentien princess letizia princess mabel princess madeleine princess margriet princess mary queen anne-marie queen letizia queen mathilde queen maxima queen rania queen silvia queen sofia royal russia sofia hellqvist spain state visit sweden wedding



All times are GMT -4. The time now is 01:56 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]