Who is the Rightful Heir to the French Throne?

[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?

[jonnydep]

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.....

[jonnydep]

Originally Posted by jonnydep

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.......

[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

[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.

[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)

Originally Posted by 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.

[Thribette]

Originally Posted by 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.

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?

[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.