Who is the Rightful Heir to the French Throne?

[Russian]

What is the lines of succession to the Headship of the French Royal House, after Prince Louis Alphonso of Bourbon, Duke of Anjou and Bourbon; Prince Henri of Bourbon-Orleans, Count of Paris and Prince Charles Napoleon of France?

Jean-Christophe is the unique napoleonic successor. As to Orleans, I think, someone should be one of numerous descendants of 11 children of the previous Parisian count. If Luis Alphonso will be the father only girls or remains childless, I think, someone from Spanish (either from Parma, or from Sicilian) relatives becomes legitimist pretendent on the French throne.

[kelly9480]

Originally Posted by Russian

Jean-Christophe is the unique napoleonic successor.

According to Theroff, Jean-Christophe has an unmarried uncle, Jérôme, born 1957, so two heirs.

[Russian]

According to Theroff, Jean-Christophe has an unmarried uncle, Jérôme, born 1957, so two heirs.

As I have correctly understood, Jerome Bonaparte still single and childless by the 50 years. I am afraid, that it never will change the marital status. So Jean-Christophe the unique napoleonic successor.

[Danielane]

Originally Posted by Russian

As I have correctly understood, Jerome Bonaparte still single and childless by the 50 years. I am afraid, that it never will change the marital status. So Jean-Christophe the unique napoleonic successor.

As long as Jean-Christophe is alive and able to have a descendancy, it is pointless to discuss of Jérôme like heir of the Bonaparte family.

[bleu roi]

First post. Can anyone tell me how the Maison de Savoie fits into the French succession issue, if at all? Forgive my ignorance, but various people appear on FRENCH TV who are all presented as successors; recently a member of the Savoie branch was introduced as such... (maybe wrongly)

[Warren]

The French succession concerns three families: The Orléans, the Bonapartes, and the Bourbons (in the person of Luis Alfonso).
The Royal House of Savoy, which is the former reigning House of the Kingdom of Italy, doesn't enter into it.

[Next Star]

The heir to the french throne will not be recongize as head of state upon him/her becoming king/queen because their monarchy is abolished.

[Vanesa]

Originally Posted by Next Star

The heir to the french throne will not be recongize as head of state upon him/her becoming king/queen because their monarchy is abolished.

What the need to say that? We all know what happened in France history...But things are -luckyly! -static in History, and nobody really knows what could happen.

However, I dont think that the King or Queen of France (if it must be one), could be find among the Bourbons... They lost their touch with their duties. Who could honestly thing that Luis Alfonso de Borbón could be this proud King of France who should return to a past of glory? Ugh...with all my respect, I cant seriously thing about it, whithout feeling like crying and laughing at the same time...He is not a little bit interested in asuming an historic role, but in living whithout too much problems with the money of his rich Venezuelian father-in-law.

I think that M. Count of Paris is more suited for the "job". He is very conscient of who he is and what his family made for France (leting aside Philippe Egailté, a disgusting character for me). His father was interested in Politics and so he is. Even if he never said it, I think the current Count of Paris, supports "Action Française", like his father.His mother was also a great fighter for Monarchy.

As for the Bonapartes...Hmmm. They must have supporters, no doubt. But I never liked them (not even when Napoleon was the Emperor). THis "kinda Republic Monarchy" was not serious, even if it have some achievements.

Vanesa.

[Marengo]

Marlene has posted an excellent remark about this matter on the Franco Iberian Royals MB, which pretty much sums up how I feel about the matter too..

(.......) Luis Alfonso is a commoner. Let's put it this way, and make it rather simple. The last king of France was Louis Philippe of the Orleans Branch. There is a direct line of descent to the present Count of Paris. Luis Alfonso, who is Spanish, is a descendant of Philippe Duke of Anjou who renounced his rights and the rights of his descendants when he became king of Spain. If Louis Philippe had not lost his throne, and France remained a monarchy, the count of Paris would be king today. Period. Full stop. Luis Alfonso's father, Jaime, was the second son of Alfonso XIII, who in 1933, renounced his right of succession (and those of his descendants) because of his medical issues (deaf and mute). He married unequally, and his father, the king, in exile, pointed out that Jaime's children were not royal. After Alfonso's death, Jaime tried to reclaim the Spanish throne (his younger brother was the accepted heir), as well as the French throne and a few other places too. He was certainly poorly advised, and also suffered from mental health issues. The French throne succession took a detour after Philippe became king of Spain. Luis Alfonso was born in Spain, to a sadly dysfunctional family. His father was responsible for the car crash that killed his brother. His parents divorced. His mother has married several more times. None of this is his fault, of course. But he is Spanish, a great-grandson of King Alfonso XIII ...has a very distinguised genealogical line - and interesting historical line (also a descendant of Franco), but none of it makes him the de jure king of France. The present Count of Paris also has issues, and also grew up in a dysfunctional family ...but he is French - and his family has served France, including the military, and his family was exiled because of their position concerning the throne.

[magnik]

Thanks for the remind it
So....If you have a surname de Bourbon (Borbon etc.) you have rights to the French throne - no matter how the true really is.

What about other pretenders?

[Thribette]

Marlene's post, above cited, is a accumulation of false assertions!
Let us see...

She wrote :
"Luis Alfonso is a commoner. Let's put it this way, and make it rather simple. The last king of France was Louis Philippe of the Orleans Branch."

Louis-Philippe has never been, or pretended to be, king of France. He was "king of the French" in a new regime, as well as later, Napoléon III was "emperor of the French". It is well different! And Louis-Philippe recognized that after the extinction of the elder branch, his own branch would be preceeded by the on descending from Philippe V...

She wrote :
"There is a direct line of descent to the present Count of Paris."

They are princes of the French royal family, in a very far position.


She wrote :
"Luis Alfonso, who is Spanish, is a descendant of Philippe Duke of Anjou who renounced his rights and the rights of his descendants when he became king of Spain."

1)Luis Alfonso (Louis Alphonse) is French as well as Spanish in terms of modern nationality, but this has nothing to do with dynastic rights. For French dynastic laws, he is French as a Bourbon.

2) Philippe duke of Anjou, when he became king Felipe V of Spain in 1700, kept his rights on the French throne, as did before him Louis VIII (father of Saint Louis), king of England, François II (first husband of Mary Stuart), king of England, Scotland and Ireland, Henri III, king of Poland, and Louis-Alphonse de Bourbon (father of Henri IV), king of Navarra.

3) King Felipe V of Spain was forced, in 1712, by queen Anne of England, to renounce his roight on the French throne, for him and all his descendants. a) Such a renunciation is invalid in French dynastic laws; even lord Bolingbroke, queen Anne's foreign secretary, tried to make her understand this evidence.
b) This renunciation was for all descendants of king Felipe V; this includes all the Orléans family, as king Louis-Philippe of the French, their ancestor, married princess Amalia of Two-Sicilies, a descendant of Felipe V's. Enven the Napoléon princes descend from king Felipe V.


Marlene wrote :
"If Louis Philippe had not lost his throne, and France remained a monarchy, the count of Paris would be king today. Period. Full stop."

He would be "king of the French", not "king of France". Still an usurpator.


She wrote :
"Luis Alfonso's father, Jaime, was the second son of Alfonso XIII, who in 1933, renounced his right of succession (and those of his descendants) because of his medical issues (deaf and mute)."

Alfonso XIII's first son, died childless in 1938.
Prince Jaime was Louis Alphonse's grandfather, not father.
He renounced his Spanish rights, not the French ones (any way, he couldn't have done so). Even for Spanish rights, his renunciation was invalid because not ratified by the Cortès (spanish Parliament).


Marlene wrote :
"He married unequally, and his father, the king, in exile, pointed out that Jaime's children were not royal."

In Spanish laws, unequal marriages did not deprive princes of their rights in succession, except if an exclusion was voted by the Cortès, which did not happen. Anyway, the marriage was not "highly unequal", nor was it unauthorised, so it is highly improbable that the Cortès would have accepted to exclude him.


She wrote :
"After Alfonso's death, Jaime tried to reclaim the Spanish throne (his younger brother was the accepted heir), as well as the French throne and a few other places too."

He was the legitimate successor of Spanish throne, until his acceptation of anew form of monarchy with Juan-Carlos as a king, in 1969.
He was also successor of the French throne, as was his father since 1936 (extinction of the previous line), and as his father affirmed. I was never entered of "a few other places too".


She wrote :
"He was certainly poorly advised, and also suffered from mental health issues."

I have never heard about "mental health issues". Far the contrary. I know two people who were close to him, and describe him as an intelligent, sensible prince.


Marlene wrote :
"The French throne succession took a detour after Philippe became king of Spain."


She wrote :
"Luis Alfonso was born in Spain, to a sadly dysfunctional family. His father was responsible for the car crash that killed his brother. His parents divorced. His mother has married several more times. None of this is his fault, of course."

Thank you, Marlene, for your elegance.
His father would drive fast, as it was usual in these times in spain, and this killed his son. His parents divorced, like many other, including Orléans, and this has nothig to see with royal capacity. His mother married twice more. Extraordinary, isn't it? I suppose that Marlene knows nobody in such case, this must be why she says "several more times".
Anyway, all these things are absolutely out of consideration regarding the french succession laws.


She wrote :
"But he is Spanish, a great-grandson of King Alfonso XIII"

He is French, regarding French dynastic laws, and has also the French nationality, but this has no importance in dynastic succession.


Marlene wrote :
"...has a very distinguised genealogical line - and interesting historical line (also a descendant of Franco), but none of it makes him the de jure king of France. "

What makes him de jure king of France, is the fact that he is the first in male primogeniture of the legitimate Capetians.


She wrote :
"The present Count of Paris also has issues, and also grew up in a dysfunctional family ...but he is French - and his family has served France, including the military, and his family was exiled because of their position concerning the throne."

Both are French.
King Alfonso XIII received the military medal from French government for his action in WWI, his son Jaime, of course, was disabled, and Louis Alphonse's father, Alphonse, was born in 1936, too young for WWII.
Anyway, this is absolutly exterior to the succession.

Anything else?

[Warren]

What this shows is that the dynastic position of Luis Alfonso regarding potential claims to the French (and Spanish) Thrones is supported whole-heartedly by those who see succession in "legitimist" terms. Others may see succession rights in a more practical or 'realpolitik' manner.

There is nothing to say one is right or wrong; they depend on two different points of view. Those who believe in a strictly traditional dynastic line of descent will accept Luis Alfonso as not only the Senior Member of the Royal House of Bourbon, but as the rightful King of France. Those who accept the legitimacy of the Orléanist succession in 1830, and of the legitimacy of Juan Carlos as rightful King of Spain will view Luis Alfonso's claims (if he ever makes such claims) as irrelevant and invalid.

Other Royal Houses have disputed successions which are passionately argued by both sides in terms of validity of renunciations, original intent, interpretation of Family Statutes, House Laws, royal decrees, etc etc. Apart from the Bourbons, these Houses include Bourbon-Two Sicilies, Orléans-Bragança (Brazil), Grand Ducal House of Mecklenburg, and the Romanovs. It's also worth mentioning the long-standing Carlist claim to the Spanish Throne (now largely abandoned), which was also based on legitimist principles.

[Thribette]

My position is a bit different.
For Spain, of course the duke of Anjou's grandfather was the right heir, and his early renunciations, not validated by the Cortès (the Spanish parliament) were not valid, but in 1969, him and his elder son (who was the duke of Anjou's father, still unmarried) accepted the instoration, proposed by Franco, of a new form of constitutional monarchy, led by Juan-Carlos who became "prince of Spain". This instoration was approved by the Cortès. So, from 1969, Juan-Carlos has adquired legitimity, he is the legitimate king of Spain.

About the carlist claim, the fact is that the carlist dynastic line was extincted, and the next one, in the carlist logic (that, to me, was the right one, i.e. one cannot modify the 1713 laws of succession without the same formality) was the one come from Don Carlos' younger brother, infant Francisco de Paula, whose son had married Isabel II; this made that, at the end of the carlist line, in 1936, the two dynastic lines were reunited in the person of Alfonso XIII, king of Spain (who also succeeded to French - as virtual - throne). So, the Carlists had, as kings, the hated constitutionnal king! Some Stopped fighting, others followed the "regent of the Carlist Communion", the duke of Parma, named by the last carlist king, but the duke of Parma is only a chief of a political, philosophical, tradition-keeping movement, they cannot reasonnably consider him a "de jure king of Spain".

[Russian]

I read that the French legitimists consider Luis Alfonso de Bourbon as a legitimate heir to the French throne. Luis Alfonso is the great grandson of the Spanish King Alfonso XIII and the descendant of the grandson of the French King Louis XIV Philippe who became a Spanish King after the death of the previous suzerain of Spain Carlos II in 1700. But, unfortunately, there was a war for the Spanish inheritance, which ended with Utrecht Peacy Treaty. The Spanish King Philippe’s renunciation the French throne was one of the terms of the Utrecht Peacy Treaty. I read that the French legitimists consider Philippe’s renunciation as invalid because the right to the French throne was unalienable for each member of the Capetiens House. I read that the French legitimists consider Luis Alfonso de Bourbon as the eldest representative of the Capetiens House. So this prince is the head of the Capetiens House and therefore legitimate claimant to the French throne. But I think there is a little “but”. I suppose that French laws of succession to the throne must concern France and French throne, but mustn’t concern any foreign state. I think that the Spanish kingdom must be separate from the French laws of succession to the throne. I read that the grandson of the French King Louis XIV Philippe received the Spanish throne under the condition that Spain and France shouldn’t be united by the United Kingdom. But Louis XIV made a mistake when he set Philippe as an heir to the French throne. The war for the Spanish inheritance is the result of the mistake of Louis XIV. Philippe became a Spanish King, but he abdicated the rights to the French throne. Sicilian, Parmesan and Spanish Bourbons are the direct descendants of the grandson of Louis XIV Philippe. But I do not know, if they have rights to the French throne because their direct ancestor abdicated the French throne.

The Orleans family is the part of the Capetiens House. But sadly known Philippe Egalite (who voted for the execution of Louis XVI) and his only survived son Louis-Philippe (who is revolutionary king of the crowd and barricades) are the direct ancestors of the current Orleans family.

What is an ironical smile of the fate!!!!!!!

The descendants of the regicide and revolutionary king of the crowd and barricades are real heirs of the french throne!

By all means I am not a supporter of the Orleans family.

[Stefan]

Originally Posted by Russian

I read that the French legitimists consider Luis Alfonso de Bourbon as a legitimate heir to the French throne...

According to the Legitimists there are the Fundamental laws of the Kingdom of France after which it was not possible to rennounce the succession rights of their unborn descendants and so Felipe V. renounciation for his descednats was not possible.

A lot of information can be found here
New Page 1

[Russian]

As I understood correctly, the right of each member of the Capetiens House to the French throne is inalienable. The Spanish Bourbons are the direct descendants of Louis XIV, but also they are Capetiens, so they have an irrefutable right to the French throne. The princes of the Orleans family are the direct descendants of Louis XIII (the father of Louis XIV) and the youngest line of the Capetiens House. Therefore the Spanish Bourbons have a preference over the Orleans House. The renunciation of the Spanish king Philippe is invalid for the French legitimists, so Luis Alfonso de Bourbon is the rightful heir to the French throne.

[Julier von Badenth]

as France will never be a monarchy again this is ridiculous
furthermore Louis Alfonso is a great grandson of Franco he can never be anything in Spain- how could he ever be someone in France???
Orleans does not consider him worth talking about and in Spain
he ist just a joke

Gaston Roger Julier Freiherr v. Badenthal in Spain

[Warren]

Well, I guess there is a third way of looking at dynastic issues, and that is to just offhandly dismiss them. However, for those who have an interest in lines of descent and the various positions and claims of legitimists, pretenders, pragmatists and even opportunists, it is an issue of substance involving not just historic precepts but living people. Within a dynastic context it is real, and for many, rather fascinating. Some even take sides with a passion, a good indication there is life in the subject yet.

[Thribette]

In fact, Russian, if one considers the Utrecht treaties still valid, which is doubtful as they have been violated several times very early, the renounciation itself could not be considered as it violates French dynastic laws, but one may admit that French and Spanish crowns cannot be on the same head. Clearly, this does not concern de jure crowns, only real ones. And, as the French dynastic laws cannot be derogated whatever the form, it is the Spanish crown that must go on another head. If Luis Alfonso's father, Alfonso (Alphonse II of France) had been chosen by Franco as king of Spain, his position as de jure king of France would have been complicated as it would have implied political tensions in Spain. Instead, he chose his cousin, which as French, I prefer : Luis Alfonso is "only" king of France.
Julier, I have no doubt upon the fact that many Orléans princes, who, unfortunately, bear only the title of princes, lacking the content, depreciate their elder the duke of Anjou. Fortunately, other Orléans princes are real ones, some legitimist, other orleanist, but keep their dignity as does the duke of Anjou who is in everything a genuine prince (it is not the reason why he is de jure king of France, but I am very happy of it).

[BillW65]

I read through many if not all of the threads in this post. For years I had supported the Orleans branch of the French royal house as claimants to the vacant throne. I also have been posting on the The Franco-Iberian Royals Message Board as William F (I don't post often but lurk there daily) and from my experience there and reading the posts here I can say that on this topic I'm neutral. I believe both Louis Alphonse de Bourbon and Henri d'Orleans both have valid claims, which is why there are arguments from both sides. My point is: I would love for a constitutional and representative monarchy to be restored in France and I would support that situation whether it was under either Louis Alphonse de Bourbon or Henri d'Orleans. Right now getting the monarchy restored is more important in my opinion that who the rightful heir should be.