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
 
  #341  
Old 11-06-2011, 01:27 AM
Newbie
 
Join Date: Nov 2011
Location: Jamestown, United States
Posts: 6
I don't know, perhaps the Return of the King is not so far off. I personally am standing for a meritocracy in France and all other countries as well.
__________________

__________________
Peter Patrik Anthony
Reply With Quote
  #342  
Old 06-22-2012, 11:47 PM
Newbie
 
Join Date: Jun 2012
Location: Abbeville, United States
Posts: 6
Catholic League

Hey, I was reading the forums and thought I should add my own opinions. First, When the Valois line was dying out The Catholic League almost changed the French succession (with lots of support). Almost. Henry of Guise was very popular too...But with his death the Catholic League fell apart.

Another issue is that the Salic succession was created to keep the throne from Edward III of England. Ancient Salic laws of the Franks applied to what became Germany..not France.

So in other words I don't think the Senior Bourbon has a superior claim. Politics play a bigger role. If Henry IV hadn't of converted to Catholicism then the throne wouldn't of been his. If Henry, Duke of Guise wouldn't of been murdered then I'm pretty sure Cardinal Bourbon followed by the House of Guise would of been the successors of Valois.

So yeah, I think Phillip IV and his descedents gave up their succession rights by Treaty and their claim as Senior Bourbon is weak. I really don't have a passion for either candidates..but as an outsider looking in this is what I see and a topic that really hasn't been brought up.
__________________

__________________
Reply With Quote
  #343  
Old 06-23-2012, 11:53 PM
Commoner
 
Join Date: Jul 2007
Location: Torgau, Germany
Posts: 11
Quote:
Originally Posted by Howtodrownfish View Post
Another issue is that the Salic succession was created to keep the throne from Edward III of England. Ancient Salic laws of the Franks applied to what became Germany..not France.
But the Capetiens are Franks and the Estates-General from 1317 fixed frankish Common Law (Salic Law) as order of succession for France.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Howtodrownfish
House of Guise would of been the successors of Valois.
The Guise are not Capetiens, no agnate line, no royal blood. Henry d'Navarre was premier prince du sang royal, the first agnate descendant of Saint Louis (1214-1270).

Sorry for my english. Konrad.
__________________
Reply With Quote
  #344  
Old 06-24-2012, 10:32 PM
Newbie
 
Join Date: Jun 2012
Location: Abbeville, United States
Posts: 6
Konrad, you exactly made my point. The Guise were not Capetien but were put forward and favored as possible successors to Henry III over the Bourbon Branch (after Cardinal Bourbon) or minor branches like the House of Courtenay. Remember the saying about Paris being worth a mass? Henry IV didn't become King only because he was Senior Capetien. He became King because he converted to Catholicism, and his biggest rival was dead. Lets also not forget that Henry V of England won Agincourt, and his son Henry VI was crowned King of France. Heck the fact that Louis Phillipe became King when Charles X, his son, and grandson still lived should demonstrate the power of politics and warfare.

Another fact is that the Spanish "Legitimist" Branch most likely died in 1936. I'd be safe to say The Duke of Cadiz may of been the legal father of Alphonso XII, but probably not the biological father. You may have to look outside the Spanish Branch for your "Legitimist" champion.

I really don't see France becoming involved with monarchy but if they did I'm pretty sure they would pick the French branch over the Spanish branch.
__________________
Reply With Quote
  #345  
Old 06-26-2012, 05:02 AM
Commoner
 
Join Date: Jul 2007
Location: Torgau, Germany
Posts: 11
Quote:
Originally Posted by Howtodrownfish
Konrad, you exactly made my point. The Guise were not Capetien but were put forward and favored as possible successors to Henry III over the Bourbon Branch (after Cardinal Bourbon) or minor branches like the House of Courtenay.
But Henri III favored on deadbed his capetien cousin Henri d‘Navarre for succession, in consens with the salic law.

The Guise are the leaders oft he Catholic League, the enemies of the protestantic Hugenotts (Bourbon). After the death of Henri III, against his will the League proclamed the catholic cardinal de Bourbon, the oldest catholic(!) Capetien in agnatic line, but in consens with salic law. The Guise can’t ignore the traditionel law of succession, but they attempted to terminate the protestants out of succession. Then cardinal Bourbon died childless, the Guise taking over the throne as the powerfull catholic house, so their hope. The capetien Courtenay (the oldest capetien line in France!) play no role in this game, they never have political power.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Howtodrownfish
Remember the saying about Paris being worth a mass? Henry IV didn't become King only because he was Senior Capetien. He became King because he converted to Catholicism, and his biggest rival was dead.
But the cardinal refused for his nephew, the senior-capet in agnatic line Henri d’Navarre, protestant but the son of his older brother. The cardinal placed the terms of the salic la wand the bloodline over religious confessions. Then cardinal Bourbon died in 1590 the leader of the League, Charles de Lorraine, duc de Mayenne (the first Guise-Pretender), failed to proclaim himself as new king, the Estate-General 1593 refuse his claim. Henri IV know the majority of France was catholic and do not accept a protestant king anymore, also the catholic european powers (roman Emperor, King of Spain). To end the civil war in France he convert to the catholic side (Paris being worth a mass), is crowned in Chartres (Reims was in blockade by the League) and tolerate the Hugenottes in the edict of Nantes.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Howtodrownfish
Lets also not forget that Henry V of England won Agincourt, and his son Henry VI was crowned King of France. Heck the fact that Louis Phillipe became King when Charles X, his son, and grandson still lived should demonstrate the power of politics and warfare.
The base of the Lancaster claim was military power. The Dauphin Charles VII do not accept the tready of Troyes, as his father Charles VI take over the right of succession to Henry V. Jeanne d’Arc destroy the english hegemony in France and Charles VII is crowned king in Reims 1429. Henry VI is crowned in Paris 1431 as antiking against Charles VII, but he lost the war in France (and later in England too).
__________________
Reply With Quote
  #346  
Old 06-26-2012, 06:43 PM
Heir Presumptive
 
Join Date: Mar 2010
Location: Dublin, Ireland
Posts: 2,766
Today none of the two Pretenders are really known by the majority of French.
__________________
Reply With Quote
  #347  
Old 06-28-2012, 11:05 PM
Newbie
 
Join Date: Jun 2012
Location: Abbeville, United States
Posts: 6
Yep

Quote:
Originally Posted by Konrad der Rote View Post
But Henri III favored on deadbed his capetien cousin Henri d‘Navarre...
Cool Story Bro. We all know how it went down. Narrating history like a wikapedia page doesnt put forth any intelligent debate. The Lancaster claim was through descent from Edward III. Edward III was the nearest male relation by proximity of blood to the previous King of France. But yeah conquest does triumph over Salic Law. We all know Henry IV would never have gained the throne without converting to Catholicism. Anyway, who would you say the senior bourbon is? It is pretty wide known that Francisco De Paula was probably not the son of Charles IV, and that the Duke of Cadiz is not the father of Alphonso X11. That may not matter for Spainish Succession since that claim is from Isabella II but for France and the claim of Head of House it is. Just a nasty can of worms.

By the way the law was for descendants of Saint Louis only. The Courtney's were passed by non Capetian houses in the succession. So yeah, politics.
__________________
Reply With Quote
  #348  
Old 12-07-2013, 09:57 PM
Royal Highness
 
Join Date: Dec 2013
Location: Conneaut, United States
Posts: 1,553
Francois III?

The Comte de Paris has the title of Henri VII. Will his eldest son have any chance to be Francois III?
__________________
Reply With Quote
  #349  
Old 08-06-2014, 06:43 PM
ImKevin's Avatar
Commoner
 
Join Date: Apr 2014
Location: New York, France
Posts: 12
Is there any legit Monarch Family in France?

I was told there was 3? but if there was 3 then only 1 of them could've been the real one. Unless they all are connected then i dont see why they're separated but in your opinion, whom do you believe is the legit family?
__________________
Reply With Quote
  #350  
Old 08-06-2014, 08:19 PM
titiromi's Avatar
Nobility
 
Join Date: Nov 2009
Location: Paris & Salon-De-Provence, France
Posts: 289
Apparently from what I ve read, the Orleans family is the legit Monarch Family in France even if I don t know why. But personally, I would prefer the Bourbon family to rule France if Monarchy is ever to be back. They seem to be more modern, and more glamorous, they would attract the media more I think and they maybe will be as famous and popular as the British royal family is. And a royal family is based on the image it sells.

And I don t really want the Napoleon family to take over France because I think this family is not "old" enough, unlike the Bourbon family (and The Orleans). Just my opinion of course!
__________________
My blog about Pauline
My channel about the Monaco princily family
"*La simplicité est la sophistication suprême.*"
Léonard de Vinci
Reply With Quote
  #351  
Old 08-06-2014, 11:45 PM
Ish's Avatar
Ish Ish is offline
Heir Presumptive
 
Join Date: Feb 2013
Location: Vancouver, Canada
Posts: 2,261
Quote:
Originally Posted by ImKevin View Post
I was told there was 3? but if there was 3 then only 1 of them could've been the real one. Unless they all are connected then i dont see why they're separated but in your opinion, whom do you believe is the legit family?
It's entirely possible for one throne to have multiple claimants. This kind of dispute arises in a few ways - primarily either monarchs are deposed resulting in rival lines or there is a dispute between two lines about how succession rules.

In the case of France, there's a lot of disposing that happened and a bit of disputing about the succession rules. There are 3 Royal Houses, the Legitimists, Orleanists, and Bonapartists.

The Legitimists take their claim from an interpretation of the post-Bourbon succession. The French Revolution started with Louis XVI on the throne, and after the fall of Napoleon Louis XVI's brothers, first Louis XVIII then Charles X, reigned. Charles was forced to abdicate during the July Revolution, and after his death his claim to the throne passed on to his son, then his grandson, Henri. Henri was the last male member of this line and died without children, so the claim, according to the Legitimists, passed to the descendants of Philip V of Spain. As such, according to this line the current claimant is Louis Alphonse, Duke of Anjou.

The Orleanists come into play first during the Revolution. They were a cadet branch of the family, but during the revolution the head of the family, Philippe, presented himself as an alternative - as a royal who was willing to act as the balance between the principles of a monarchy and the rights of men, which the king was not altogether willing to do. It really was, on Philippe's part, a power grab that didn't work the way he wanted it to. Following the July a Revolution, Philippe's son, Louis Philippe, presented himself as a candidate for monarch and was named king. He reigned for 18 years until another revolution happened and a Second Republic was established. The Orleanists descend from this line, and currently have Henri, Count of Paris as the claimant.

There is also a Legitimist-Orleanists line, which claims that the line follows the Legitimist line up until the death of Charles X's grandson, then passes to the Orleanists line up to the present. The reason for this is that in order for the descendants of Philip V of Spain to claim the throne of France the Treaty of Utrecht is invalid. This line still puts Henri, Count of Paris as the current claimant.

The Bonapartists come into play after the French Revolution with the rise of Napoleon Bonaparte. He ruled until he was defeated, lived in exile for awhile, then came back only to be defeated again and sent into a more permanent exile. During the Second Republic Napoleon I's nephew, Napoleon III, was named it's first president, then turned the Republic into the Second Empire with him as the Emperor. He ruled for 18 years until the disaster of the Franco-Prussian War lead to the establishment of the Third Republic. The current Bonapart claimants are descended from Napoleon III's cousin, Jerome, as Napoleon III's line has died out. There are 2 claimants here, Charles, Prince Napoleon and his son Jean-Christophe, Prince Napoleon. The reason why there are two claimants here is because Charles is a republican who remarried without his father's permission, and so his father, the late Louis, Prince Napoleon, willed that his successor would be his grandson and not his son.

Personally... I tend to be a Legitimist-Orleanist. I think that Charles X was the rightful monarch and Louis Philippe was an opportunist who got lucky. However, with that in mind, I also believe the Treaty of Utrecht was valid and thus the descendants of Philip V of Spain cannot claim the French throne, making the Orleanists better claimants after the death of Charles X's grandson. While I don't deny that Napoleon I and III were both rightful rulers of France, I don't think either of them did enough to actually establish a dynasty - I think if you are the first of your dynasty and are deposed then your descendants don't have much a claim. Nor do the descendants of your brother, or uncle. The current Bonapartists aren't descendants of either of the two Napoleons who actually ruled, so I don't see their claim as being valid.
__________________
Reply With Quote
  #352  
Old 08-07-2014, 03:37 AM
Serene Highness
 
Join Date: Mar 2014
Location: Lapalisse, France
Posts: 1,199
I share your view. I am also a legitimist-Orléanist. The ancestors of Don Luis Alfonso de Borbón exactly hold the position of Kings and Infantes of Spain because of that very same Treaty of Utrecht which established the Spanish branch of the Bourbons.

That Treaty made sure that the two mighty kingdoms would never come into one hand, all major European powers of the time have countersigned and ratified this Treaty. The very same Treaty also regulates unexpected cases as assignating Gibraltar as British territory, handing over the French Canadian territories, etc.

What Don Luis Alfonso de Borbón and his supporters do is declaring the Treaty of Utrecht (with the solemn signatures and ratfications of France and Spain) null and void. They however speak with a double tongue: considering the Treaty as a worthless piece of paper also means that the Bourbon Kings of Spain are "illegal" and I am sure Don Luis Alfonso's grandfather considered himself very much the son of a King, the heir to a King and an Infante de España... If the supporters of Don Luis Alfonso reject the Treaty of Utrecht, then the rightful King of Spain probably should come from the House of Habsburg.
__________________
Reply With Quote
  #353  
Old 08-07-2014, 04:44 PM
Ish's Avatar
Ish Ish is offline
Heir Presumptive
 
Join Date: Feb 2013
Location: Vancouver, Canada
Posts: 2,261
I don't think they're claiming the whole of the Treaty is invalid, just specifically Philip V's renunciation of his and his descendants' rights to inherit the French throne.

The argument of the Legitimists is that within the Ancien Régime laws of the early French monarchy the succession cannot be altered by anyone, even the king. As such, when Philip renounced his succession rights he actually had no right to do so, according to the Legitimists. He was within his rights to accept the Spanish throne, as there was no successor - the Habsburg line having died out. The Spanish were within their rights to set the succession in accordance to their own rules. But the French's rules, according to this line of thinking, prevented the French from ever changing the rules. That's also why the claimant is Louis Alphonse and not Juan Carlos or Felipe, as Louis Alphonse's grandfather was the elder brother to Juan Carlos' father, but renounced his rights to the Spanish throne (Louis Alphonse also claims that he should be on the Spanish throne as well as his grandfather's renunciation was coerced).
__________________
Reply With Quote
  #354  
Old 08-07-2014, 09:38 PM
Ish's Avatar
Ish Ish is offline
Heir Presumptive
 
Join Date: Feb 2013
Location: Vancouver, Canada
Posts: 2,261
Quote:
Originally Posted by CyrilVladisla View Post
The Comte de Paris has the title of Henri VII. Will his eldest son have any chance to be Francois III?

This isn't entirely accurate.

The Count of Paris styles himself as Henri VII in his claim to the throne of France. In that regards his eldest son is expected to one day style himself as François III. In time it is also possible that Henri's second son will be styled as Jean IV.
__________________
Reply With Quote
  #355  
Old 08-08-2014, 12:33 AM
Ish's Avatar
Ish Ish is offline
Heir Presumptive
 
Join Date: Feb 2013
Location: Vancouver, Canada
Posts: 2,261
According to Wikipedia, because of his mental handicap, François has been displaced in the line of succession by his brother... As such, he might never claim the title François III at all (or have anyone claim it for him).
__________________
Reply With Quote
  #356  
Old 10-08-2014, 09:20 PM
Newbie
 
Join Date: Oct 2014
Location: Hertfordshire, United Kingdom
Posts: 1
Alot of orleanists are saying that the claim of Louis duke of anjou is baseless because of the treaty of utrecht and other reasons, but really Henry count of paris is the one who's claim is baseless and i can prove it.

The treaty of utrecht is null and void, Philip 5th of spain had no legal right to renounce his claim for himself and his decendants because under the fundamental laws of the kingdom france the throne can pass only by the sheer force of custom, not by the testament of the king, or by any edict, decree, or TREATY, or by the generosity of any person. These laws do exist and do still apply and always will because no one has the legal right to change or get rid of them
.
The crown is not the personal property of the King so no person or body could divert the succession from the lawful heir.

Think about it ! can i sell my neighbours house ? if i sign a contract selling my neighbours house would it be valid ? no it would be null and void because i have no legal right to sell my neighbours house. Its the same thing with Philip 5th he had NO LEGAL RIGHT !

Now lets have alook at the orleanists principles of succession.

1. The Crown descends to males born in the male line of Hugh Capet.

Thats right its one of the fundamental laws.

2. The succession normally passes by primogeniture in the male line.

Thats also right its also one of the fundamental laws

2. Only children born of legal marriages conforming with the canon law of the Catholic Church are dynasts.

I admit i'm not sure on that one.

3. The Sovereign or Head of the House must be Roman Catholic.

Wrong !! Henry 4th of france the first bourbon King was not a Roman Catholic he was a Protestant and when Henry 3rd of france died france followed the fundamental laws and Henry 4th became King. If being a catholic is a rule then Henry 4th should not have become King because he did not meet the requirement of being a catholic and if Henry 4th had no claim then all of his male line would have no claim as well including Henry count of paris and Louis duke of anjou for they are both of his male line.

4. The Sovereign or Head of the House must be French and inherit succession rights through a dynast of French nationality.

Wrong again !! Henry 4th was not french at all ! he was born in the kingdom of Navarre and he was king of Navarre before he was king of france. Navarre is a part of spain so Henry 4th was spanish not french. If being french is a rule then henry 4th should not have become king because he did not meet the requirement of being french and if Henry 4th had no claim then his male line has no claim and that includes Henry count of paris and Louis duke of anjou for they are both of his male line.

5.Rules of succession to the Crown are governed by the Constitution and/or laws of the realm.

I'm not sure what there trying to say here but the only rules of succession are governed ONLY by the fundamental laws of the kingdom france and the laws are very clear that the throne can pass only by the sheer force of custom, not by the testament of the king, or by any edict, decree, or TREATY, or by the generosity of any person.
Some orleanists may accept the fundamental laws but stand by the principle that the claimant must be french and a catholic and that while Louis duke of anjou is a catholic he is not french and so he can't be king but this is false as i have alredy explained Henry 4th was spanish just like Louis the duke of anjou but Henry 4th became king. And if the orleanists are right and being french and a catholic is a rule then they have no claim because they are of Henry 4ths male line and if Henry 4th had no claim then none if his male line have any claim either.

If there are any orleanists that have an argument against what i have just said then please tell me your argument and please explain in DETAIL why I'm wrong.
__________________
Reply With Quote
  #357  
Old 10-09-2014, 03:34 AM
Ish's Avatar
Ish Ish is offline
Heir Presumptive
 
Join Date: Feb 2013
Location: Vancouver, Canada
Posts: 2,261
Where to start...

Okay, well first of all I'm interested in where you got the "Orleanist principles of succession." These aren't Orleanist, as the succession under these rules is the Legitimate one.

The Wikipedia page on the Orleanist line of succession lists 8 pre-Treaty of Utrecht requirements for the succession which, to quote Wikipedia, "were deemed to have evolved historically and additively, rather than to have been legislated or amended" and as such formed the fundamental laws of succession prior to the Treaty. These are:
  1. Inalienability of the crown: no one has the power to change the dynastic order.
  2. Continuity of the crown: the throne cannot be declared vacant and a new ruler succeeds as soon as his predecessor dies
  3. Heredity: The crown is hereditary in the House of Capet
  4. Primogeniture: The elder son is preferred over the younger; the senior descendant represents his deceased ancestor in the line of succession.
  5. Masculinity: The heir must be male.
  6. Male collaterality: In the absence of male descendants in male line, the closest male collateral relative of the King is the heir.
  7. Catholicism: the King must be Catholic.
  8. Nationality: the heir must be French.
The page on the Legitimists has the same requirements, but doesn't list them as neatly.

I'm going to first address your comments on these "fundamental laws" and then comment on them myself, as well as the Treaty.

First of all, in your analysis of the laws you discredit two of them - that the sovereign must be Roman Catholic and that he must be French.

Henry IV was baptised a Catholic at birth, but raised Protestant. He converted to Catholicism in order to strengthen his hold on the French throne - I don't know much about France's struggle with the issue of religion at the time, but I would guess that the idea that the French king had to be a Catholic became a "fundamental law" about the same time as Henry IV converted to Catholicism. Before then the monarchs had always been Catholic, but it wasn't a requirement. It's kind of comparable to what James II of Britain faced, with the difference that Henry did what was necessary to keep his throne and James didn't.

The idea that the monarch has to be French but Henry was allowed to continue to be monarch means that however much these laws are "fundamental" and cannot be ignored in theory, they can be ignored and changed in practice. You cannot argue that if these laws are valid then Henry IV could not have been monarch while at the same time saying that these laws mean that Philip V of Spain could not have renounced his French succession rights. It doesn't work that way; you can't say it's okay for them to be changed this one time, or for this one rule to be changed, but not for any other rules to be changed at any other time.

Now, looking at the list of the "fundamental laws" according to Wikipedia, the real issue is the inalienability of the crown, although in looking at that inalienability you also have to question the continuity of it. This inalienability argues that no one has the right to change the succession. This is, in my opinion, a load of... well, a word that I can't use on this site. A government, in whatever its form, has the right to change the laws which govern the succession of its monarchy if it so wishes. It has the right to dissolve its monarchy if it so wishes. Claiming otherwise is to say that every French government since 1830 has been invalid. Which is absurd, it's essentially anti-democratic. I'm a monarchist, but I don't agree with the idea that a monarchy should be forced upon a people or that a monarch who is not fit to rule should rule.

I disagree with the idea that the Treaty of Utrecht is invalid, or at least the parts pertaining to the Spanish and French successions are invalid, simply because of French law. Men make laws, men change laws. In signing the Treaty of Utrecht, the French government and the French king were saying "the succession to the throne of France can be changed." They were changed, and the Legitimatists are simply upset because their ancestor inadvertently screwed them over. I don't believe for a moment that if the French monarchy was restored - under the Legitimatists, Orleanists, or Bonaparts - that Salic law will be retained, or even that male-preference primogeniture will be retained. Nor do I actually expect that the provision that the monarch be Catholic be retained. Times change, rules get changed. These "fundamental laws" are not ones that were ever legislated, they were simply traditions that had been accepted as inalienable, and yet we know that with time traditions and customs have to change.
__________________

__________________
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 328 Yesterday 07:26 PM
Stuart Succession and Jacobite Pretenders hillary_nugent British Royal History 136 09-28-2014 08:12 AM
Monarchy and Restoration; Rival Families and Claimants aj00192557 The Imperial Family of Russia 954 08-26-2014 05:28 AM




Additional Links
Popular Tags
abdication birth charlene chris o'neill crown prince frederik crown prince haakon crown princess mary crown princess mette-marit crown princess victoria dutch royal history engagement fashion grand duchess maria teresa grand duke henri 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 olympic games olympics ottoman poland pom pregnancy president hollande 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 laurentien princess letizia princess mabel princess margriet princess mary queen anne-marie queen letizia queen mathilde queen maxima queen paola queen rania queen silvia queen sofia royal royal fashion russia sofia hellqvist spain state visit sweden the hague visit wedding



All times are GMT -4. The time now is 06:37 AM.

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]