Who is the Rightful Heir to the French Throne?

[MAfan]

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...

[Thribette]

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...

[Penitent]

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.

[Thribette]

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.

[maria-olivia]

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

[Thribette]

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.

[maria-olivia]

Tribette , who was John III de Montizon ????

[pamk]

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.

[Warren]

Originally Posted by pamk

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.

Yes, even at the time the wedding was interpreted as a warning to Prince Juan Carlos.
Franco was making it clear he had an alternative future King of Spain in his back pocket if need be.

[iloveroyals]

Check out the long front page article in yesterday's Wall Street Journal dedicated to Prince Jean's engagement and his right or wrong claim to the throne. Fascinating !

[1880 or so]

Responding to Thribette's post #187, the numerous marriages that almost immediately started to take place between French and Spanish dynasts, to which absolutely no one objected, make the intention of the Utrecht renunciations very clear: that no one in future, apart from Felipe V and his heirs, should claim Spain in succession to the Queens of Louis XIII and XIV, and no one should claim France in succession to Felipe V. It was never intended that any descendant of Felipe V should be excluded from France, and any descendant of the other French princes from Spain. Even though certain of the various renunciations could be read that way, what actually happened, without protest, shows the intent. The actual proscriptions on succession were faithfully observed until 1883, when it happened that the person who would have been in succession to France from Felipe V had been excluded from Spain, so decided to ignore the most solemn oath of his ancestor. And so have his successors since.

I happen to believe that the oaths of Kings should be observed. The argument that Felipe V had no power to make such an oath is contentious to say the least, and Vincent among others on this thread has countered it most ably. The situation had never arisen before, that by ordinary laws of descent the Crowns of Spain and France would descend to one head. This was obviously intolerable to the other Powers, and no one suggested it should happen. The obvious solution was that a French prince not in direct line should succeed to Spain, renouncing France, while all other French princes renounced Spain (which no one ever argues about). This is what happened, though it was far from straightforward, the little matter of the War of the Spanish Succession occurring first. It was a precedent, so what? Precedents had been set before, the inheritance of Spain and the Indies was surely a grave enough matter to justify setting another one.

If you hadn't gathered, I am not at all a supporter of Luis Alfonso, and entirely one of the Comte de Paris. It is true that there is little possibility of the Kingdom of France ever being restored. The possibility is reduced still further by monarchists being unable to decide on even whom to support. I wish that all could agree on the true legitimate candidate, the Comte de Paris. But that, I suppose, is even less likely than a restoration of either candidate!

[Thribette]

Maria Olivia,
Juan III was the son of "Don Carlos", the brother of Fernando VII, king of Spain, who refused his niece Isabel II could become queen of Spain instead of him. This was not the only reason, in fact, there were acute political and social problems, such a conservative prince as Don Carlos could not accept the new government that was violently at the opposite.
His son Juan III (III for France), who was rather more liberal, did not follow his father's way and took the "incognito title" of "conde de Montizón", after having abdicated (for his carlist "rights" upon the throne of Spain) in favor of his elder son, who was more combative.
Although the Count of Chambord didn't like much Juan III (who had married the princess Count of Chambord loved, and made her unhappy), he had to follow the dynastic laws...

[Thribette]

Pamk, you are just proving the efficiency of the Orléans strategy from about 1870.
In France, a prince is not forced to marry a princess, as we say "the cock anoblishes the hen", which is not a very delicate expression... :-))

1880,

It was never intended that any descendant of Felipe V should be excluded from France, and any descendant of the other French princes from Spain.

Yes, it was, and it was repeated several times in the act of renunciation, and this is really what was written and intended.
Felipe V signed the renunciation sincerely because his grandfather Louis XIV, who knew he was too honest to lie, had made him believe the renunciation was valid. At the same time, Louis XIV asked the duke of Saint-Simon to write a little book stating that only the Chamber of Peers of France could valid such a renunciation, in order to calm Queen Ann who wanted to make it valid by the États-Généraux, which Louis XIV didn't want, of course, it would have given much more strength to the renunciation...
Only three months after the renunciation, Louis XIV's best lawyers published a book proving that Felipe V's renunciation was invalid.
It is not known when Felipe V was entered of the fact his renunciation was invalid, but in 1721, when his nephew Louis XV, still a child, got sick, he sent a letter to the French Parliament, to be opened in case of death of Louis XV, where he announced his coming back from Spain as king of France, as it was his duty.

[Camilo2002]

Thribette, I couldn't agree more with you.

The Orleans belong to a cadet branch of the Bourbon Royal House which descends from Louis XIII. The only member of such house who reigned in France for 18 years was Louis Philippe (LP); amongst LP's ancestors we will find many illegitimate descendants of Louis XIV and his mistress Madame de Montespan. LP was a corrupt and ambitious king who caused economic chaos and left the Country soon after the first sign of revolt appeared; he had no guts to defend his throne and flew right away. LP, however, married into legitimate royalty and promoted royal marriages for his children.

In order to understand who would be the righteous claimant/heir to the French throne we have to see succession laws in France and how they were applied in history.

On the death of the last direct Capetian, King Charles IV (1294-1328), the throne went to Philip VI of Valois (1293-1350) who was a grandson of King Philip III (whose father was Louis IX "Saint Louis") of the direct Capetian Dinasty. The throne passed from father to son until the death of Charles VIII on 1498 (Philip VI- John II-Charles V- Charles VI- Charles VII- Louis XI- Charles VIII).

Upon the death of Charles VIII, the throne was claimed by Louis XII as great grandson of Charles V.

Louis XII only had 2 daughters, then the throne passed to Francis I, as great great grandson of Charles V; Francis I was smart enough to marry Louis XII's elder daughter.

Upon the death of Francis I the throne passed to his only son Henry II and then to Henry II's sons Francis II, Charles X and Henry III; the Valois dynasty came to an end with Henry III who was childless.

The first Bourbon who became King of France was Henry IV "the gascon" (born in Pau - Kingdom of Navarre), a ninth generation descendant in direct male line of Louis IX "Saint Louis". After Henry IV, it is very easy to follow who was the right heir to the French Throne as kings were his direct male descendants (Henry IV- Louis XIII- Louis XIV- Louis XV- Louis XVI- Louis XVII- Louis XVIII- Charles X).

Whether we like it or not, if we stick to the Succession Law which started with the first Capet on 987, we will come to the conclusion that the rightful claimant/heir to the throne of France is Louis Alfonso of Bourbon.

Given that the direct male line of Louis XV became extinct with “Henry Count of Chambord” also known as Henry V (grandson of Charles X), we have to observe the direct male line of Louis XIV, no matter the number of generations in between:

Louis XIV- Louis de Bourbon (dauphin du France)- Philip V (King of Spain)- Charles III- Charles IV- Infante Francisco de Paula of Bourbon- Francisco de Asis of Bourbon (Infante and King Consort of Spain)- Alfonso XII- Alfonso XIII- Infante Jaime of Bourbon- HRH Alfonso of Bourbon- HRH Louis Alfonso of Bourbon.

The Orleans have right to claim as descendants of Louis XIII, but under traditional succession law in France direct male descendants of Louis XIV have a better right.

[amedea]

If we consider valid the renunciation of king Felipe V for him and his descendants to the french throne and we consider that Orleans lost their rights by voting the death of Louis XVI and by accepting the Constitution of 1830, the correct legimitimist pretender to the french throne are the descendants of Henry de Chambord's sister, Luise, and so .. Bourbon Parma; am I right?
however I've never heard that this branch of the family claims that throne

[BELTRANEJA]

I found this story, this is obviously old, but I think this may be useful in resolving the question of succession in France, is the burial of Count of PAris. look!! the guests
THE FIRST:LUIS ALFONSO DE BORBON
..........................

http://i399.photobucket.com/albums/p...2/paris005.jpg
http://i399.photobucket.com/albums/p...paris002-1.jpg
http://i399.photobucket.com/albums/p...paris003-1.jpg
http://i399.photobucket.com/albums/p...2/paris001.jpg
http://i399.photobucket.com/albums/p...ana2/paris.jpg


I like the photo of the two pretenders to the throne of France shaking hands.

But later, the controversy has continued in France

(I do not know if this story was posted in this forum)

[eshalis]

A descendant of Jean De Bourbon-Soissons is the only legitimate heir to the Throne of France. Someone moved my post to a different forum for some reason. I have a huge container of documents now. This was a family secret kept for hundreds of years due to the fact that we were/are? hunted by some unknown organization.

Sorry but all descendants of Louis XIV are illegitimate.

[Warren]

Originally Posted by eshalis

...due to the fact that we were/are? hunted by some unknown organization.

It sounds very Dan Brown.
Your original post was moved here. The French Royalty subforum is for recognised French Royalty and not mysterious claimants with fertile imaginations.

[PssMarie-Elisabeth]

Please Support Louis XX: Louis-Alphonse de Bourbon

Louis Alphonse, Duke of Anjou - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

*List of French monarchs - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia*

[Tatiepot1]

The Orleans branch are the rightful heirs to the French Throne. The preent Comte de Paris heads that branch & therefore should be acknowledged as the rightful heir.