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
 
  #161  
Old 11-12-2008, 09:21 AM
MAfan's Avatar
Super Moderator
Royal Blogger
 
Join Date: Sep 2008
Location: N/A, Italy
Posts: 4,349
Quote:
Originally Posted by Thribette View Post
Well, Beltraneja, sorry for answering you so late, but all what you wrote is wrong...
But in 1712 it was stated that the Crowns of France and Spain had to be separate, and Felipe V of Spain renounced for himself and his descendants to theyr roghts to the French Throne, so Jaime and his descendants have no rights to the French Throne.
__________________

__________________
Reply With Quote
  #162  
Old 11-12-2008, 01:55 PM
V.F.H.78's Avatar
Aristocracy
 
Join Date: Oct 2008
Location: Poissy, France
Posts: 112
That's what say the Orleanists who want Henri, count of Paris, and his son Jean, duke of Vendôme to be the king of France.
But the Legitimists don't think that at all. Luis Alfonso de Bourbon, "Louis XX", IS the king of France by right.
__________________

__________________
Reply With Quote
  #163  
Old 11-12-2008, 02:20 PM
MAfan's Avatar
Super Moderator
Royal Blogger
 
Join Date: Sep 2008
Location: N/A, Italy
Posts: 4,349
But if Orleanists state that Felipe renounced, a proof of that has to exist somewhere, I hope...
__________________
Reply With Quote
  #164  
Old 11-13-2008, 07:38 AM
Warren's Avatar
Administrator
 
Join Date: Jan 2005
Location: Sydney, Australia
Posts: 15,395
The argument is not about the renunciation, but whether such a renunciation was valid. Orléanists say it was, legitimists say it wasn't. Take your pick.
__________________
Seeking information? Check out the extensive Royal A-Z
Reply With Quote
  #165  
Old 11-13-2008, 09:28 AM
MAfan's Avatar
Super Moderator
Royal Blogger
 
Join Date: Sep 2008
Location: N/A, Italy
Posts: 4,349
And why the renunciation has not be valid?
__________________
Reply With Quote
  #166  
Old 11-14-2008, 03:29 AM
Warren's Avatar
Administrator
 
Join Date: Jan 2005
Location: Sydney, Australia
Posts: 15,395
Without getting into the whole can of worms, legitimists hold that he had no right (or legal validity) to "renounce" succession for either himself or his descendants.
Whether the renunciation was valid or not is for the proponents of either side to argue. They have been arguing the point for a very long time and continue to do so.
It gets down to interpretation of "Fundamental Laws". There are similar issues involved in the Two Sicilies and Brazilian succession disputes.
__________________
Seeking information? Check out the extensive Royal A-Z
Reply With Quote
  #167  
Old 11-14-2008, 09:41 AM
MAfan's Avatar
Super Moderator
Royal Blogger
 
Join Date: Sep 2008
Location: N/A, Italy
Posts: 4,349
So, the matter is that a Prince can't renounce to his rights??
__________________
Reply With Quote
  #168  
Old 11-14-2008, 11:35 PM
Warren's Avatar
Administrator
 
Join Date: Jan 2005
Location: Sydney, Australia
Posts: 15,395
... and cannot renounce the rights of his descendants, yes, along those lines.
There is detailed discussion of the "Fundamental Laws" throughout this thread and in the Luis Alfonso thread(s).
It boils down to "cannot" vs "can" and "was invalid" vs "was valid"; Bourbons vs Orléanists, legitimists vs pragmatists. As I said earlier, take your pick.
__________________
Seeking information? Check out the extensive Royal A-Z
Reply With Quote
  #169  
Old 11-15-2008, 10:32 AM
MAfan's Avatar
Super Moderator
Royal Blogger
 
Join Date: Sep 2008
Location: N/A, Italy
Posts: 4,349
Quote:
Originally Posted by Warren View Post
... and cannot renounce the rights of his descendants, yes, along those lines.
There is detailed discussion of the "Fundamental Laws" throughout this thread and in the Luis Alfonso thread(s).
It boils down to "cannot" vs "can" and "was invalid" vs "was valid"; Bourbons vs Orléanists, legitimists vs pragmatists. As I said earlier, take your pick.
I'm sorry, but this seems to me foolish...A man can't renounce to his rights...In this way, a King cannot abdicate, and so Alfonso XII has never reigned, since his mother died after him...
__________________
Reply With Quote
  #170  
Old 12-02-2008, 04:12 PM
Gentry
 
Join Date: Aug 2007
Location: paris, France
Posts: 55
so right

Absolutely agrees with you Mafan. Is you apply this rule, alfonso XII was never king of spain. And Juan Carlos of Spain was not not the true king of Spain untill his father died.
As i said before, where is it stated once and for all that a prince could not renounce his rights to a crown ? Nobody has ever been able to prove the existence, as a formal corpus of rules which would apply forever, of these famous fundamental laws. And for a good reason, France had no constitution before the revolution.
Does it really make sense to use hypothetical laws dating from the midle age to deny a renounciation made in 1712, in order to solve a dynastic succession which was opened in 1883 at the death of the Comte de Chambord, last heir of the eldest line of the french royal family ?
We could also use the merovingienne laws or customs, at this time the estate of the late king was divided between his heirs.
__________________
Reply With Quote
  #171  
Old 12-02-2008, 04:28 PM
MAfan's Avatar
Super Moderator
Royal Blogger
 
Join Date: Sep 2008
Location: N/A, Italy
Posts: 4,349
And, if I remember correctly, the Comte de Chambord appointed the Duc d'Orleans as his heir, in 1870s...I don't know what to think...
__________________
Reply With Quote
  #172  
Old 12-10-2008, 07:26 PM
Aristocracy
 
Join Date: Apr 2006
Location: Mutzig, France
Posts: 101
Quote:
But in 1712 it was stated that the Crowns of France and Spain had to be separate, and Felipe V of Spain renounced for himself and his descendants to theyr roghts to the French Throne, so Jaime and his descendants have no rights to the French Throne.
Effectively, for France (I don't know for other countries... In Spain, abdication is possible but remember king Philip V became king again after the death of his elder son to whom he had abdicated), any renunciation is invalid.
King François I renounced to French territories in 1526, this was later judged invalid. This indisponibility of French crown was theorized as soon as 1420.

May I, too, remember that, if the 1712 had been valid, its text, imposed by Queen Anne of England, and very explicit about it, would also exclude the contemporary Orléans family?
If one says the Utrecht renounciation is valid, this person cannot support the Orléans...
__________________
Reply With Quote
  #173  
Old 12-10-2008, 07:36 PM
Aristocracy
 
Join Date: Apr 2006
Location: Mutzig, France
Posts: 101
Vincent, in Spain a king/queen can abdicate.
For very realm there are specific succession rules, for some it even permits usurpation (England)...
We legitimists hold these rules so important, mainly because of their many centuries history and because we believe God himself sent Saint Joan of Arc to secure their respect.
Pragmatically, they are important too, because they are a very precise corpus with a long history, so the most evident choce for the designation of a king. If one starts asking for another system, well, one can start another system, but later, this new system will lack stability because anybody will be able to try to put it down and install new laws. So, better stay with this one. After all, why do so many people absoluely want to change our rules?
About Comte de Chambord, as far as I know he made no public declaration about who was his successor (maybe he wanted the orleanists to be totally back in the royalist family to tell them), but it is a fact that he made heir of all the insigns of all the French sovereign orders, his successor we know as John III, count of Montizon, of the Carlist line that extincted in 1936.
__________________
Reply With Quote
  #174  
Old 12-11-2008, 09:52 AM
MAfan's Avatar
Super Moderator
Royal Blogger
 
Join Date: Sep 2008
Location: N/A, Italy
Posts: 4,349
The renounciation was signed by Philip V for Himself and his descendants; the Orleans Pretenders are not male descendants of Philip, because they descend from the brother of Louis XIV, the grandfather of Philip V...
__________________
Reply With Quote
  #175  
Old 12-16-2008, 01:31 PM
Aristocracy
 
Join Date: Apr 2006
Location: Mutzig, France
Posts: 101
MAfan, they are not male descendants of Philip V of Spain, but they are not less excluded from French succession as the text of Philip V's renunciations is very precise :
"je renonce par le présent acte pour toujours et à jamais, pour moi-même, et pour mes héritiers et successeurs, à toutes prétentions, droits et titres que moi ou quelqu'autre de mes descendans que ce soit, aie dès-àprésent, ou puisse avoir en quelque tems que ce puisse être à l'avenir, à la succession de la Couronne de France, je les abandonne et m'en desiste pour moi et pour eux, et je me déclare et me tiens pour exclus et séparé, moi et mes enfants, héritiers et descendans perpétuellement pour exclus et inhabiles, absolument et sans limitation, différence ni distinction de personnes, de degrez, sexe et tems, de l'action et du droit de succéder à la Couronne de France"

In blue : "I declare and hold myself as excluded and separated, me and my children, heirs and descendants perpetually as excluded and unable, absolutely and without limitation, difference nor distinction of persons, of degrees, sex and time, of the action and of the right to succeed to the Crown of France".

It is perfectly clear that if this renunciation was valid, all his descendants would be excluded, wether they are by male line or not.
This fact is one more violation of French succession laws, but if one believes such a renunciation could transgress French succession laws about indisponibility, why not by this disposition?
The text was written under the orders of Queen Anne of England, who, I suppose, feared Louis XIV could change the French succession laws in order to get the French and Spanish thrones on the same head. As nobody had managed to make her understand that any modification of French order of succession was invalid in France, it is logical that she could fear any change of rules...
__________________
Reply With Quote
  #176  
Old 12-17-2008, 01:08 AM
Penitent's Avatar
Newbie
 
Join Date: Dec 2008
Location: De Pere, United States
Posts: 1
Thank you for all your informative posts. I have read all of the posts in this thread. I feel that Luis Alfonso of Bourbon is the Heir of the Throne of France.
__________________
Reply With Quote
  #177  
Old 12-17-2008, 07:48 AM
maria-olivia's Avatar
Heir Presumptive
 
Join Date: Oct 2006
Location: Brussels, Belgium
Posts: 2,236
Mafan item 183
Concerning le Comte de Chambord , the very last Bourbon , he was supposed to be Henri V , King of France , he refused the 3 colors flag and wanted the white flag..
As he had no Children, his agreed that his his successor would be Louis- Philippe d' Orléans , King of the French (Not King of France like the Bourbons).
Therefore is our King Albert II , is King of the Belgians and not King of Belgium
__________________
Reply With Quote
  #178  
Old 12-19-2008, 04:55 PM
Aristocracy
 
Join Date: Apr 2006
Location: Mutzig, France
Posts: 101
Maria Olivia, orleanists have said that the comte de Chambord had said his successors were the Orléans. But this affirmation was never proved, and at the contrary, he transmitted all the royal symbols of his succession (particularly the insigns of grand master of the royal orders) to his successor (legitimist way), John III, aka conde de Montizón, whilever he knew this last was a liberal (but he went to preside comte de Chambord's funerals). I think he hoped much more from John III's sons, but eventually he died before him.
__________________
Reply With Quote
  #179  
Old 12-19-2008, 07:07 PM
maria-olivia's Avatar
Heir Presumptive
 
Join Date: Oct 2006
Location: Brussels, Belgium
Posts: 2,236
Tribette , who was John III de Montizon ????
__________________
Reply With Quote
  #180  
Old 12-19-2008, 08:09 PM
Courtier
 
Join Date: May 2006
Location: Kirkland, United States
Posts: 682
This is all so fascinating!
I must side with Henri - Comte de Paris. All of the brouhaha with Luis Alfonso just doesn't make sense to me. His mother was certainly not royal, his own wife is not royal and any pronouncements from his mother's grandfather, General Franco, as to who should reign, the distribution of royal titles, etc. are a joke.
I remember very well the wedding of Carmen and Alfonso - a great show of pomp and all. A union of an older man with a roving eye and a very young woman who just couldn't believe her good luck. It was like the Franco family had hit the royalty jackpot and look where it has all ended.
What hath King Louis XIV wrought? A fine mess in this day and age.
__________________

__________________
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 325 Today 09:44 PM
Monarchy and Restoration; Rival Families and Claimants aj00192557 The Imperial Family of Russia 954 08-26-2014 05:28 AM
Stuart Succession and Jacobite Pretenders hillary_nugent British Royal History 132 06-30-2014 09:55 PM




Additional Links
Popular Tags
abdication birth charlene chris o'neill crown prince haakon crown princess letizia crown princess mary crown princess mette-marit current events fashion genealogy grand duchess maria teresa grand duke henri hohenzollern infanta leonor infanta sofia jordan king abdullah ii king carl xvi gustav king constantine ii king felipe king felipe vi king harald king juan carlos king philippe king willem-alexander luxembourg nobility olympic games olympics ottoman 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 letizia princess mabel princess margriet princess marilene princess mary princess mary fashion princess of asturias queen anne-marie queen letizia queen mathilde queen maxima queen rania queen silvia queen sofia royal royal fashion russia sofia hellqvist spain state visit sweden the hague wedding



All times are GMT -4. The time now is 10:31 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]