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
 
  #241  
Old 07-01-2009, 05:46 PM
Gentry
 
Join Date: Aug 2007
Location: paris, France
Posts: 55
thribette, glad we agree on one point. Concerning the leuchtenberg i do not know exactly what their status is regarding the imperial succession of france. But maybe the exclusion you mention has got something to do with the heir marrying a russian grand duchess, maria Nicolaievna and thus acquiring rights of succession to the russian crown.
Only a guess???
__________________

__________________
Reply With Quote
  #242  
Old 07-01-2009, 05:49 PM
Gentry
 
Join Date: Aug 2007
Location: paris, France
Posts: 55
grand prince,
i am not sure i got your point, but keep in mind that concerning the french succession, women do not have any rights and do not interfere in the transmission of the crown. The duchesse de Berry, mother of the comte de chambord, was also a descendant of philippe duc d'anjou, and that did not exclude her son from the succession.
__________________

__________________
Reply With Quote
  #243  
Old 07-01-2009, 05:53 PM
MAfan's Avatar
Super Moderator
Royal Blogger
 
Join Date: Sep 2008
Location: N/A, Italy
Posts: 4,319
Now I remind that Eugene, Hortense and Stephanie de Beauharnais had been created Prince(sse) Français(e) and Imperial Highnesses; but I don't know if they were in the Line of Succession to the Imperial throne.
__________________
Reply With Quote
  #244  
Old 07-02-2009, 07:36 AM
The Grand Prince's Avatar
Aristocracy
 
Join Date: Jun 2009
Location: England, United Kingdom
Posts: 174
The point I am making vincent is that Phillip, Duc d'Anjou renounces the claim of the French thronse "without Limitation, Difference and Distinction of Persons, Degrees, Sexes and Time". This means the females ones as well.
Therefore surely, if those in the House of Orleans consider this so-called renunciation to be valid , it would also exclude them as well. Because although their claim to the throne does not come through the wife of Louis Phillipe I but Louis Phillipe I himself, the fact that they are descended from her, and she is descended from Phillip, Duc d'Anjou making them also descended from him, would render their claim invalid according to this renunciation.
__________________
There is little that can withstand a man who can conquer himself. - King Louis XIV of France
Reply With Quote
  #245  
Old 07-02-2009, 08:44 AM
Marsel's Avatar
Courtier
 
Join Date: May 2009
Location: Moscow, Russia
Posts: 966
Their claims would be invalid if their claims were through Philip, Duc d'Anjou.
But nowhere, not in one document does it say that all those who have claims to the French Throne, have no right to marry Philip's descendants. They just cannot claim the Throne through those descendants.
__________________
Audentes fortuna iuvat - Fortune favours the bold *** ... ***Amore, more, ore, re - Love, behaviour, words, actions *** ... ***Aquila non capit muscas - An eagle does not hunt flies
Reply With Quote
  #246  
Old 07-02-2009, 08:49 AM
MAfan's Avatar
Super Moderator
Royal Blogger
 
Join Date: Sep 2008
Location: N/A, Italy
Posts: 4,319
In this way, the claims of the Orleans are valid...
__________________
Reply With Quote
  #247  
Old 07-02-2009, 09:12 AM
amedea's Avatar
Courtier
 
Join Date: Nov 2007
Location: TORINO, Italy
Posts: 621
Grand Prince remember us that laws and treaties can be interpreted in many ways and that many times the strict literary meaning of them is not the correct interpretation... When the duke of Anjou renounced for his descendants, he and his counterparts intended to say that his descendants could not use the fact of being his descendants as the base of their claim. But if they have other base for the claim there is no problem.
Interpreting as Grand Prince suggests means saying that almost all royals nowadays are excluded from the French line of succession. And that also Charles X sons were excluded as they too descended from Philipp V of Spain through their mother. And if the interpretation was that even the marriage of the son of Louis XV with Maria Teresa Raphaela of Spain would be a non-sense.
__________________
Reply With Quote
  #248  
Old 07-02-2009, 09:31 AM
HIRM&DSS Darius's Avatar
Commoner
 
Join Date: Jun 2009
Location: RPB, United States
Posts: 18
Quote:
Originally posted by Moonlightrhapsody@Jun 16th, 2004 - 2:46 pm
I'm sure this is stupid of me to ask, but what does it mean when they say "pretender to the throne"? I've seen this phrase applied to the Russian and French royal circles. This isnt a dictionary perfect reference, however basicaly a Pretender to a throne is someone who 'pretends' to be king, or claiment of a throne after that throne has been officialy abolished. So Russia & France for example both have officialy abolished the monarchy, therefore the PRETENDER is the person who claims their 'pretence' to the throne following their belife in former dynastic rules of succession.

King Constantine of Greece is and isnt a pretender as although the monarchy has been abolished, he was crowned king. a pretender has usualy not ever been king but would have been if the regime hadnt been abolished.
Pretender to the throne is not the same in meaning as Pretending. It is from French meaning claimant- It means claiming the throne. De facto means to act as- without legal standing based on claim, De jure means legally recognised, De Divino means by God and was traditionally used by Monarchs, many still use this in full title. Remember also the public generally is shown very abbreviated title such as HRH many real titles are several pages long with many flourishments
__________________
by Grace of God HIRM&DSS IMPERATOR & GRAND CZAR Darius Adrik Salvo I Noto Von Holstein-Gottorp -Trifiro Kings. The Prince of Kings
The Imperial Sovereign House of Kings
Reply With Quote
  #249  
Old 07-02-2009, 10:00 AM
HIRM&DSS Darius's Avatar
Commoner
 
Join Date: Jun 2009
Location: RPB, United States
Posts: 18
Quote:
The title of the forum says "who is the rightful heir to the french throne", so i'll go ahead i give my opinion.
Personally i believe that since Louis XIV "The Sun King", the house of Bourbon has shown nothing but unfitness to rule a France that ceased to be the easy going absolutist France to grow into the Illustrated ever changing France of the 1780's.
The question is "who among the Orleans, Bourbons and Bonapartes is the rightful heir to the throne". Bourbons I believe will have the ghosts of the excess of the Revolution hunting them wherever they go; The classic waste and excess of Madame du Barry, la Marquise de Pompadour, Marie antoniette combined with Louis XV defeat during the crucial wars that preluded the loss of French supremacy in the seas and North America, his poorly handled political administration(after the death of Cardinal Fleury ), his poor moral values and the total disaster that meant the rule of Louis XVI(although the help he give to the Americans during the Indepence wars that came at the cost of paving the way to the revolution) give a painful result that still causes revolt for the Absolute system.
Orleans, well, they had a chance to give the monarchy a new oportunity in France the only problem was that they never new wich side to pick. Besides the Orleanists dont really have anything to support their claims(i mean historically, what have they done , what extraordinary achievement have they reach for France).
Bonapartes in the other side i think they mean a transition to a new era. I wrote before that Bourbons were never able to handle Post revolutionary France. if you look at the begginings of the revolution in France most people believed that monarchy was over for good(the excess, the terror were aimed at achieving that), most royalist were nothing more than emigres. And suddenly a soldier, a petit corporal, a man who shared the pain of his troops, someone who fought with them was there.
Napoleon Bonaparte had arrived to the scene, we all now what happened later, why do i say bonapartists have the strongest claim?, well, if it wasn t for Napoleon, monarchy would have stayed away from France for a long time.
Napoleon took the old system and adjusted it so it could fit the new revolutionary France, it gave Justice a chance, Introduced a Code we all know and gave France the chance to regain the prestige that Louis XIV had gave her hundreds of years ago. Since then if Bourbon mean pre -revolutionary humilliation and excess, Bonaparte means greatness, brilliancy and Bravery. A warrior dinasty founded by a warrior and one of the greatest of all times
I for the most part agree with the above statement. It should be noted Napoleon Crowned himself without being an heir to any line and against the churches command. That being said for all of the puritans and traditionalist that adhere to strict peerage laws, It should be remembered that in reality traditionally who has the strongest army, support and followers and is most willing to kill generally take the territory, crown and make the laws lol I hope we have reached a more diplomatic system. Looking at what goes on in the world I sometimes am left to wonder
__________________
by Grace of God HIRM&DSS IMPERATOR & GRAND CZAR Darius Adrik Salvo I Noto Von Holstein-Gottorp -Trifiro Kings. The Prince of Kings
The Imperial Sovereign House of Kings
Reply With Quote
  #250  
Old 07-02-2009, 04:32 PM
Nobility
 
Join Date: May 2009
Location: N/A, United Kingdom
Posts: 493
renunciation of the spanish king philip v to the french throne

to my understanding of the reasons behind the renunciation of the french throne was as follows......

it was felt at the time that the great powders of the day in europe would not accept a united spain and france under one monarch in the event of all the french descendants in the male line of his grandfather louis XIV becoming extinct. as this would upset the balance of power.

thus today if king juan carlos of spain was to claim the french throne it would be invalid, due to his ancestors renunciation.

thus i am in agreememt, if it so happened that a french monarch had married a spanish princess, this does not affect thier children rights to the french throne at all , IMO to say otherwise is a nonsense. besides which the spanish / french royal houses was governed by the salic law, there by females are barred from the succession anyway.

another classic example is when a descendant of a morganatic marriage marrys back into the main line, this does affects not the childrens rights to the succession - look at hesse (again governed by salic law), princess cecilie of greece, a descendant of prince alexander of hesse (he married morganatically) married her distant cousin georg, hereditary grand duke of hesse and the couples elder son ludwig was considered to be the next hereditary grand duke !!!!!

yes the orleans claims are valid, as their rights to the french throne derives via the male lineage from the younger brother of louis XIV.....
__________________
Reply With Quote
  #251  
Old 07-02-2009, 06:21 PM
Gentry
 
Join Date: Aug 2007
Location: paris, France
Posts: 55
grand prince,
you can turn it another way, as woman were not concerned by the succession to the french crown, the renonciation do not concern them or their descendants.
Therefore...
__________________
Reply With Quote
  #252  
Old 07-02-2009, 08:09 PM
Heir Presumptive
 
Join Date: Aug 2007
Location: Spring Hill, United States
Posts: 2,436
There is no succession in France, nor likely to be, it doesn't matter who shall succeed whom. It is all nonsense.
__________________
Reply With Quote
  #253  
Old 07-03-2009, 12:46 PM
Nobility
 
Join Date: May 2009
Location: N/A, United Kingdom
Posts: 493

no matter, as neither the orleans and bonaparte families is ever likely to occupy a throne, the question and the adove disscussion is largely a academic one.........
__________________
Reply With Quote
  #254  
Old 07-04-2009, 09:03 AM
Warren's Avatar
Administrator
 
Join Date: Jan 2005
Location: Sydney, Australia
Posts: 15,281
Quote:
Originally Posted by COUNTESS View Post
It is all nonsense.
A rather pointless comment. Since we are The Royal Forums, these are the subjects our members discuss, and I trust they continue doing so.
__________________
Seeking information? Check out the extensive Royal A-Z
Reply With Quote
  #255  
Old 07-06-2009, 05:05 PM
Aristocracy
 
Join Date: Apr 2006
Location: Mutzig, France
Posts: 101
Grand Prince, you asked :
Quote:
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?
It is right that, if this renunciation was valid, all descendants of Philip V would be excluded, whilever they don't hold their "rights" to French throne from the "excluding parent". Even Princes Napoléon are descendants of Philip V since the end of XIXth century.
Fortunately, such a renunciation was totally impossible — and invalid — in French succession laws, as it was stated by the publication, a few months later, of the argumentation against the validity of such renunciation, by France's best jurists (leaded by future chancelier d'Aguesseau, then procureur général at the Paris Parliament), on request of Louis XIV.
Source : Heraldica.org
__________________
Reply With Quote
  #256  
Old 07-06-2009, 05:10 PM
Aristocracy
 
Join Date: Apr 2006
Location: Mutzig, France
Posts: 101
Well, her son was not excluded from the succession, simply because the renunciation of Philip V was invalid!
Even king Louis-Philippe wrote it... (in fact, Louis-Philippe considered it partly valid, i.e. as far as it prevented the reunion of the two crowns)


Quote:
Originally Posted by vincent View Post
grand prince,
i am not sure i got your point, but keep in mind that concerning the french succession, women do not have any rights and do not interfere in the transmission of the crown. The duchesse de Berry, mother of the comte de chambord, was also a descendant of philippe duc d'anjou, and that did not exclude her son from the succession.
__________________
Reply With Quote
  #257  
Old 07-06-2009, 05:15 PM
Aristocracy
 
Join Date: Apr 2006
Location: Mutzig, France
Posts: 101
Quote:
Originally Posted by Marsel View Post
Their claims would be invalid if their claims were through Philip, Duc d'Anjou.
But nowhere, not in one document does it say that all those who have claims to the French Throne, have no right to marry Philip's descendants. They just cannot claim the Throne through those descendants.
Marsel, in France the crown can be transmitted only by male line; therefore, the expression "whatever (...) sex" can even less be ignored. In a succession where only males can succeed, why could appear this expression referring to the sex, if not to exclude even people who do not hold their French rights from the same line?
__________________
Reply With Quote
  #258  
Old 07-14-2009, 05:39 PM
Nobility
 
Join Date: May 2009
Location: N/A, United Kingdom
Posts: 493
Exclamation update on my last post

Quote:
Originally Posted by jonnydep View Post
it was felt at the time that the great powders of the day in europe would not accept a united spain and france under one monarch in the event of all the french descendants in the male line of his grandfather louis XIV becoming extinct. as this would upset the balance of power.
following the war of the spanish succession, it was laid down by the treaty of utrecht (1713) that the crowns of france and spain were never to be united - a renunciation was made by both france and spain of the union of their two crowns.

however king philip V of spain had renounced his rights of succession to the french crown for himself and his descendants on the 5 nov 1712. this was due to many strange deaths in the french royal family, leaving a delicate child (the future louis XV) as heir to the throne. thus the next heir, after his brother charles duke of berry (who had no surviving sons) was philip II duke of orleans (the future regent). by this time king philip V was regarding himself as spanish in outlook rather than french, he was clearing the path for his cousins the orleans family !! (whom gained the throne in 1830 and today is the only serious competitors for the french throne, even a younger branch has inherited the claims to the short lived empire of brazil)

thus i am of the opinon that this has nothing to do with the renuncaition of king phililp V as to why a spanish royal male can not succeed to the french throne, but by the terms of the adove treaty. for example, in 1883 with the death of "henry V" (he fled france in 1830), the senior heir male of hugh capet was none other than the carlist claimant to the spanish throne and after his son's death in 1936, the next heir male was alphonso XIII of spain. it has been said that both men (both descendants of philip v) was inhibited from claiming the french throne, due to the adove treaty and there was no was mention about the philip V's renunciation at all !!. any claims to the french throne by the heirs of alphonso XIII has been reduced by the accession to the spanish throne of juan carlos in 1975.

perhaps the adove treaty has cancelled or made philip V's renunciation invalid due to the fact it is not merely a domestic matter as it was at the time of the renunciation (1712) and it is now regarded as a international matter via the terms of the treaty of utrecht (1713) ?

but regarding matters with royalty nothing is that black and white or that clear cut, is it folks.......
__________________
Reply With Quote
  #259  
Old 07-14-2009, 06:58 PM
Nobility
 
Join Date: May 2009
Location: N/A, United Kingdom
Posts: 493
Thumbs down some confusion here

Quote:
Originally Posted by HIRM&DSS Darius View Post
It should be noted Napoleon Crowned himself without being an heir to any line and against the churches command.
somewhat odd , wasnt the pope present at the crowning of napoleon ?.
this would sugguest the church approved of the act !!.

just a thought of mine
__________________
Reply With Quote
  #260  
Old 07-15-2009, 03:57 AM
Marsel's Avatar
Courtier
 
Join Date: May 2009
Location: Moscow, Russia
Posts: 966
Quote:
Originally Posted by jonnydep View Post
somewhat odd , wasnt the pope present at the crowning of napoleon ?.
this would sugguest the church approved of the act !!.

just a thought of mine
I wouldn't say that the Pope had much choice though; Napoleon de facto controlled Rome. His relationship with Pope Pius VII was always strained: at one point, Napoleon forbid the Pope's return to Italy and Pope Pius remained confined for 5 years, until he was finally able to return to Rome in 1814.

Most of the details of Napoleon's coronation (like self-crowning) were practically forced upon the Pope and the clergymen.
__________________

__________________
Audentes fortuna iuvat - Fortune favours the bold *** ... ***Amore, more, ore, re - Love, behaviour, words, actions *** ... ***Aquila non capit muscas - An eagle does not hunt flies
Reply With Quote
Reply


Currently Active Users Viewing This Thread: 2 (0 members and 2 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
Stuart Succession and Jacobite Pretenders hillary_nugent British Royal History 135 07-02-2014 01:40 PM
Queen Victoria (1819-1901) TOMMIX British Royal History 312 06-15-2014 09:58 PM
Monarchy and Restoration; Rival Families and Claimants aj00192557 The Imperial Family of Russia 911 05-23-2014 09:26 PM




Additional Links
Popular Tags
birth charlene chris o'neill crown prince felipe crown prince frederik crown prince haakon crown princess letizia crown princess mary crown princess mette-marit crown princess victoria current events fashion grand duchess maria teresa grand duke henri hohenzollern infanta cristina infanta elena jordan king abdullah ii king carl xvi gustav king felipe king felipe vi king harald king juan carlos king philippe king willem-alexander luxembourg olympic games ottoman pom prince albert prince albert ii prince carl philip prince constantijn prince felipe prince floris prince laurent prince pieter-christiaan princess princess alexia (2005 -) princess anita princess ariane princess beatrix princess catharina-amalia princess charlene princess claire princess eleonore princess elisabeth princess haya princess laurentien princess letizia princess mabel princess madeleine princess margriet princess marie princess mary princess of asturias queen letizia queen mathilde queen maxima queen paola queen rania queen silvia queen sofia royal russia spain state visit wedding william


Our Communities

Our communities encompass many different hobbies and interests, but each one is built on friendly, intelligent membership.

» More about our Communities

Automotive Communities

Our Automotive communities encompass many different makes and models. From U.S. domestics to European Saloons.

» More about our Automotive Communities

RV & Travel Trailer Communities

Our RV & Travel Trailer sites encompasses virtually all types of Recreational Vehicles, from brand-specific to general RV communities.

» More about our RV Communities

Marine Communities

Our Marine websites focus on Cruising and Sailing Vessels, including forums and the largest cruising Wiki project on the web today.

» More about our Marine Communities


Copyright 2002-2012 Social Knowledge, LLC All Rights Reserved.

All times are GMT -4. The time now is 04:08 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]