Rival Claimants to the French Throne 1: Ending 2020

[vincent]

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???

 

[vincent]

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.

 

[MAfan]

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.

 

[The Grand Prince]

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.

 

[Marsel]

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.

 

[MAfan]

In this way, the claims of the Orleans are valid...

 

[amedea]

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.

 

[HIRM&DSS Darius]

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

 

[HIRM&DSS Darius]

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

 

[jonnydep]

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.....

 

[vincent]

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...

 

[COUNTESS]

There is no succession in France, nor likely to be, it doesn't matter who shall succeed whom. It is all nonsense.

 

[jonnydep]

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.........

 

[Warren]

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.

 

[Thribette]

Grand Prince, you asked :

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

 

[Thribette]

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)

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.

 

[Thribette]

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?

 

[jonnydep]

update on my last 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.......

 

[jonnydep]

some confusion here

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

 

[Marsel]

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.

 

[jonnydep]

family pact of 1761

hello,
another interesting point concerning as to wether the renunciation of king philip V of spain was valid or not, may concern the family pact of 1761.

can we assume that by the rununciation, he and his descendants ceased to be members of the french royal house or was it due to the fact they was royals of a another country ie spain ?.

on the 15 august 1761 kings louis XV of france and charles III of spain signed a family pact, whereby the kings of spain and naples were recognised members of "the august house of france".

surely as members of the french royal house, they (and descendants) had the full rights of succession to that throne ?.

ok, there was still the treaty of utrecht to consider barring the union of the two crowns........... but whats not stopping a monarch of spain ceding the kingdom of france to a male sibling or a younger son in the event that this may occur.
for lets face it, did not the adove king (charles III), cede the throne of naples to a younger son when he succeeded to the spanish throne.......

 

[Baseline Arcadia]

Bourbon Claimant, Prince of his Line, Chief of the House of Bourbon

Louis, called Louis XX, Duke of Anjou, Chief of the House of Bourbon and Prince of his Line is a claimant to the Bourbon succession to the throne of France. He is married and lives in Latin America in Venezuela. He is relatively organized and has a pretty good sensibily as to the Estates.
www.royaute.org is his website. He has the public allegiance of several thousands at least and the somewhat conditional support of a number of other people like myself. His claims are serious.

 

[Brian Dechaux]

There is another side of this charles v of france had another son from Biette Cassinel whos decedents have never been mentioned -they are alive and well

 

[semisquare]

if there was such a thing as a french king & queen who would have the title? duke and duchess of vendome or the one young spanish couple( i dont remember their names....sorry)

 

[Marsel]

The question of who's the rightful heir to the French Throne is a rather complicated one and has been discussed at lengths in this thread - Who is the Rightful Heir to the French Throne?

Here is a summary in a nutshell:

1) The Orléanist pretender to the French Throne is Henri, Comte de Paris, Duc de France. His claims will be succeeded by his eldest son, François, Comte de Clermont (who is disabled and is expected to be succeeded by his younger brother, Duc de Vendôme).

2) The Legitimist pretender to the French Throne is Louis Alphonse, Duke of Anjou. The Legitimists are those, who regard Philip V of Spain's renunciation of his rights to the French Throne as void and illegal. Louis Alphonse and his wife, Maria Margarita Vargas Santaella have only one daughter (as of now), Eugenia, born in 2007. If they don't have male Heirs, then the Legitimist pretender to the Throne will be King Juan Carlos of Spain.

3) The Napoleonic pretender to the French Throne is either Prince Charles Napoléon (Napoléon VII) or Prince Jean-Christophe Napoléon (Napoléon VIII). They are father and son. This division aroused because of Prince Louis Napoléon's will (the father of Prince Charles Napoléon), which stipulated that Prince Charles should be bypassed in the line of the succession by his only son, Prince Jean-Christophe (who is only 22 now).
The Napoleonic line is descended from Napoléon Bonaparte's younger brother Jerome Bonaparte.

 

[Domhangairt]

Legitimacy questions

It rather amuses me that supporters of Louis-Alphonse, Duke of Anjou, call themselves "legimitimists".

No one on this forum has cared to mention that there are several reasons why his claim is disputed by the Comte de Paris:

1. The Treaty of Utrecht was an international Treaty signed by both the King of France & Navarre, Louis XIV, and his grandson, Felipe V, King of Spain, renouncing any claims Felipe's descendants might have to the French Throne- this would include Carlists and the Dukes of Parma. This Treaty ended a 12 year war which claimed the lives of many men. It cannot be ignored or set asside, except by a referendum in France following a majority vote in the National Assembly, regardless of what some people may say about the Law of Succession to the French Throne.

2. There remain serious doubts about the legimitimacy of Louis-Alphonse's family, the descendants of King Alfonso XII of Spain. This is because Alfonso's mother, Queen Isabel II was unhappily married to her Borbon cousin, Francisco de Assis de Borbon, who was widely believed by contemporaries to be homosexual. Even today, many people believe that at least some, if not all of her children maynot have been fathered by Francisco de Assis, expecially since the hot blooded Queen was known to have enjoyed the favours of several men.

Until this controversy can be finally resolved by DNA tests, no member of this Spanish line should be allowed to claim the French Throne, since France's Salic Law makes it clear that only Males born in the legitimate male line can claim the French Throne- If Francisco was not the father of Alfonso XII, none of his descendants, including the Spanish king Juan Carlos, and the duke of Anjou can even think about claiming the French Throne. And what of the chances of Juan Carlos agreeing to DNA tests, and exhumation of royal tombs- slim chance if he wants to retain his own Throne!

The Comte de Paris remains the safest and most legal claimant- recent DNA tests linked his family to the dead king Louis XVII who died imprisoned during the French Revolution. Enough said.

If you support the Orléanists, then it's HRH Henri VII, Comte de Paris, formerly Comte de Clermont, Duke of France, Head of the Royal House of France;

If you think the Orléans are a usurping and regicidal branch of the Bourbon dynasty, loyalty would lie with Louis Alfonso, Duke of Touraine, Duke of Bourbon, Duke of Anjou, "Primogeniture Representative of the House of France."

If you are a Bonapartist you would support HIH Charles, Prince Napoleon, Head of the Imperial House of France;

BUT if you accept the intention to bypass Charles as stated in the will of his father, the late HIH Louis, Prince Napoleon, Head of the Imperial House, then the rightful Head of the Bonapartes is Charles's son, HIH Prince Jean-Chrisophe.

Plenty to choose from here! Most accept the Comte de Paris as the rightful heir to the Throne of France because he is the direct descendant of the last reigning King, Louis Philippe I.

Prince Charles Bonaparte is a descendant of Jerome Bonaparte, Napoleon's youngest brother, who reigned as King of Westphalia 1807-1813. Napoleon I's only son died in 1832 unmarried, and Napoleon III's only son was the Prince Imperial who died tragically in Zululand in 1879.
.

 

[Warren]

No one on this forum has cared to mention that there are several reasons why his claim is disputed by the Comte de Paris:

Both reasons 1 and 2 have been discussed extensively in this thread and others.

 

[GusPortelance]

Of course, the rightful heir to France, would be - although heavily handicapped - Prince Francois d'Orleans.

 

[larlincol7]

heir to the French throne

I would seriously disagree with you about your comments re. republics. The constitutional monarchies of Western Europe have some of the highest standard of livings in the world! Sweden, Denmark, Norway, the Netherlands, Luxembourg, etc. Yes, the majority of the French like their republic as most of the British like constitutional monarchy. You do not have to denigrate one to raise up another.

 

[The Walrus Club]

The Rightful Heir To The French Throne

Can someone tell me.If the stories are true about Marie-Therese Charlotte,"Madame Royale" actually escaping the tower by having someone impersonate her where would her decendants fit into the royal line?
She couldn't claim the crown herself, but wouldn't her decendants have more of a claim to the throne than either the House of Orleans or the Spanish Crown?