Rival Claimants to the French Throne 1: Ending 2020

[claypoint2]

I am jumping in here as a completely impartial observer -- someone who has a longstanding intellectual interest in this debate, but who doesn't feel an allegiance to one side or the other. I must say that the second question seems like a particularly good one... and it raises a point that I haven't come across before. I would truly appreciate hearing the legitimist argument. V.F.H., are you still here?

 

[V.F.H.78]

1) HM King Juan Carlos doesn't recognize SAR Luis Alfonso like the heir to the throne of France because, for him, Luis Alfonso represents a competitor for the throne of Spain. We don't have to forget that before he became king, Juan Carlos wasn't the legitim heir to the throne of Spain. Before to choose the king, Franco hesitated between Juan Carlos and Alfonso of Bourbon-Dampierre, his cousin and elder of the Capetians (and Luis Alfonso's father). Juan Carlos has never forget that.
2) Legitimists still consider the Bourbon-Busset like "bastards" because they were already bastards in the time when there was a king in France. They can't be considered as legitim heirs today if they weren't yesterday.
And the Bourbon-Busset never claimed anything.

 

[FortitudoEjus]

So, according to the King of France the Bussets were bastards. No doubt.
And according to the "legitimist" king of France Alphonse II (Alfonso XIII of Spain) the descendants of his son, Jaime, were non dynastic, because of his unequal marriage (like a secret marriage)... Hence, that line is not entitled of any right to neither the throne of Spain nor that of France.
Consequently, the "legitimist" pretender would be HM Juan Carlos of Spain!

 

[Warren]

Without wishing to enter the debate on either side, the Spanish Royal Family's internal dynastic marriage rules have no relevance to the succession rules of the throne of France. They are two separate and unrelated issues. There has never been morganatic marriage in France and morganatic marriage never existed in French laws.

 

[V.F.H.78]

Here is the line of succession to the french throne :

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

1. Juan Carlos de Borbon y Borbon, king of Spain
2. Felipe de Borbon y Grecia, prince of Asturias
3. Francisco de Borbon y Escasany, duke of Seville
...
77. Henri d'Orléans, count of Paris
78. François d'Orléans, count of Clermont
79. Jean d'Orléans, duke of Vendôme

 

[vincent]

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 ?

 

[FortitudoEjus]

I don't think he considered the Spanish succession clear. You have only to see what really happened in the history: the only real threat to the 3rd Republic were the Orleans... Somewhere in the net you can find some letters and documents written by Louis XVIII and Charles X that are mainly in favour of the Orleans and allude at the possible nullity of the Treaty of Utrecht (pillar of the European order) only in order to threaten the Orleans and keep them at their place.

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

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

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

Of course this is just my opinion.

 

[claypoint2]

There has never been morganatic marriage in France and morganatic marriage never existed in French laws.

Warren, just to make sure that I understand: Are you saying that the concept of morganatic marriage doesn't exist under the laws of the French Republic, or are you saying that the Royal House of France never had a rule against unequal marriages?

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

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

But I also have a feeling that I'm missing something. Can you please clarify?

 

[Warren]

I think we are talking about different things. The concept of morganatic marriage is Germanic in origin (Holy Roman Empire) and is not the same as an unequal or unapproved marriage. I don't need to go into the definitions here but morganatic marriage did not exist in royal France, a legal situation in common with England/Britain.

 

[MAfan]

But does the concept of unequal marriage exist? If so, the descendants of unequal marriages are excluded from the line of Succession or not?I know that the late Count of Paris recognised the weddings of some of his sons as unequal...

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

 

[Thribette]

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.

 

[Thribette]

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?

 

[claypoint2]

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.

 

[claypoint2]

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 ?

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?

 

[vincent]

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.

 

[maria-olivia]

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 ??

 

[MAfan]

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...)

 

[Thribette]

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.

 

[V.F.H.78]

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.

 

[The Grand Prince]

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.

 

[claypoint2]

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"?

 

[lucien]

As to the initial question.I prefer a member of the Napoléon family over any Orleans.

 

[vincent]

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...

 

[MAfan]

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?

 

[vincent]

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.

 

[maria-olivia]

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 ?

 

[MAfan]

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...

 

[kdLucky28]

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....

 

[Thribette]

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?

 

[The Grand Prince]

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?