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: 2,768
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
Serene Highness
 
Join Date: Dec 2013
Location: Conneaut, United States
Posts: 1,406
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: 288
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: 2,187
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: 1,023
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: 2,187
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: 2,187
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: 2,187
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
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 09-20-2014 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
birth charlene chris o'neill crown prince haakon crown princess letizia crown princess mary crown princess mette-marit current events duchess of cambridge dutch royal history fashion genealogy grand duchess maria teresa grand duke henri hohenzollern infanta sofia jordan king abdullah ii king carl xvi gustav king felipe king felipe vi king harald king juan carlos king philippe king willem-alexander luxembourg nobility olympic games olympics ottoman picture of the month poland pom president hollande president komorowski prince albert prince albert ii prince carl philip prince constantijn prince felipe prince floris prince pieter-christiaan princess anita princess astrid princess beatrix princess charlene princess laurentien princess mabel princess madeleine princess margriet princess marilene princess mary princess mary fashion princess of asturias queen letizia queen mathilde queen maxima queen rania queen silvia queen sofia royal royal fashion russia sofia hellqvist spain state visit sweden visit wedding winter olympics 2014



All times are GMT -4. The time now is 01:02 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]