Who is the Rightful Heir to the French Throne?

[kimebear]

Assuming a Napoleon would even want the job. From what I understand, the current Prince Napoleon shuns his royal title, even though there was a big stink about him keeping it.

[serenissima]

Originally Posted by claudia

The real heirs to the French Throne are the Orléans.

It seems that it is a matter of dispute re: which house should be more legitimate etc. I understand that the Count of Paris claims to be the King of the French whereas Louis Alphonse claims to be the King of France.

The King of Spain seems to take his side to those who are related to his late mother that I do not know if his support makes the Count of Paris rightful over Louis Alphonse. The King of Spain also supports Infante Don Carlos, the Duke of Calabria, who is related to the king's late mother as the head of the House of the Two Sicilies but all the members of the House of the Two Sicilies as well as other royal houses treat Prince Carlo of Bourbon-Two Sicilies, Duke of Castro, as such. The Count of Paris is related to the King of Spain through the king's maternal side.

Oh, and, the Count of Paris, in an attempt to establish his legal rights as head of the Royal House of France, launched an unsuccessful court case (1987 - 1989) in which he challenged his rival Louis Alphonse's right to use the undifferenced Royal Arms. The French courts denied that they had jurisdiction over the dispute and did not address the merits of the case.

I suppose that the Bourbons in France has long forgotten and it is a republic after all that this sort of dispute is quite irrelevant to many French men and women today.

Originally Posted by H.M. Margrethe

I really don´t think that HM Queen Elizabeth II is the person who are going to be the real heir to the French crown and neither the rest of her family becaus they have allredy spoilede the English crown.

Traditinally, the English monarchs used the title of the King of France as one of their titles. Still today the Queen uses the title of the Duke of Normandy since she reigns over the Channel Islands as such.

[Madame Royale]

Don Juan Carlos I supports Henri Philipe d'Orléans, Count of Paris, Duke of France as claimant to the French throne.

[Alison20]

It seems to me that you can't give up your rights to one throne (France) and marry into another family (Spain) with a reasonable expectation of getting close to the throne there, and then decide that you want to ignore all this at a later date.

I believe the last genuine claimant of the Bourbon line died without male heir in 1936. At this point, the right that the Bourbons had to the French throne moved across to the Orleans Branch. Louis Alphonse's line is a part of the Spanish Royal Family and out of the French one.

I believe it is the same for The Bourbon Two Sicilies line. The second son of Pr Alfonso, Head of the Royal House of BTS, Pr Carlo, became an Infante of Spain on his marriage to Infanta Maria de las Mercedes of Spain, and gave up any rights to the BTS line. This, as with the French case, was because the Spanish line kept looking as if it was going to die out, and there were only female heirs. When these Infantas married it was important that their decendants were only heirs to the Spanish throne and didn't muddy the waters by also being in line to any other throne . It is wrong to say, therefore, that Pr Don Carlos (who is married to Pss Anne of Orleans) is the Head of the Royal House of BTS. (The Don in his title gives it away - he is in the Spanish RF.) When Pr Alfonso of BTS's eldest son (Ferdinando) died without a male heir (1960), the right to be Head of the RH of BTS skipped over Carlo's line (who had 'abdicated') and landed on Pr Ranieri, the third son. With the death of Pr Ranieri's only son, Ferdinando, just recently, the Headship of this family passes to Pr Carlo. He is Fernando's only son - and at present he only has 2 daughters, I believe. So there may be problems with the succession in the future if this situation does not change!

I do not believe that King Juan Carlos of Spain supports the claim of either of his family members to the hypothetical 'thrones' of France or the Two Sicilies. After all their ancestors gave up their claims to become members of the Spanish Royal House.

[Thribette]

Alison, there are things you seem not to know in European history.

It seems to me that you can't give up your rights to one throne (France) and marry into another family (Spain) with a reasonable expectation of getting close to the throne there, and then decide that you want to ignore all this at a later date.

1) In France, a prince cannot lose his position by this way. It is a laws. Philip V went in Spain knowing he would keep his French rights, and he was, 12 years later, deceived by his own counsillors to make him believe he could resign them (only solution for him as he had jurated to serve the Spanish people and was forced by the war); his counsillors obeyed in this to the king of France, Louis XIV, who saw no other way of ending the war, and knew such renunciation would be invalid.
2) He didn't marry a Spanish woman, he married first a princess of Savoie, later an italian princess, heiress of Parma. His grandfather (Louis XIV) and grandgrandfather (Louis XIII) did marry spanish princesses.

I believe the last genuine claimant of the Bourbon line died without male heir in 1936. At this point, the right that the Bourbons had to the French throne moved across to the Orleans Branch. Louis Alphonse's line is a part of the Spanish Royal Family and out of the French one.

The "last genuine claimant" you are citing, is the last prince of the Carlist line, who were descendants of Philip V, parts of the Spanish royal family (although they were excluded) and claimants to the Spanish throne. Why should it be different later? Alfonso XIII was in exile when he succeeded in 1936...

I believe it is the same for The Bourbon Two Sicilies line. The second son of Pr Alfonso, Head of the Royal House of BTS, Pr Carlo, became an Infante of Spain on his marriage to Infanta Maria de las Mercedes of Spain, and gave up any rights to the BTS line. This, as with the French case, was because the Spanish line kept looking as if it was going to die out, and there were only female heirs. When these Infantas married it was important that their decendants were only heirs to the Spanish throne and didn't muddy the waters by also being in line to any other throne . It is wrong to say, therefore, that Pr Don Carlos (who is married to Pss Anne of Orleans) is the Head of the Royal House of BTS. (The Don in his title gives it away - he is in the Spanish RF.) When Pr Alfonso of BTS's eldest son (Ferdinando) died without a male heir (1960), the right to be Head of the RH of BTS skipped over Carlo's line (who had 'abdicated') and landed on Pr Ranieri, the third son. With the death of Pr Ranieri's only son, Ferdinando, just recently, the Headship of this family passes to Pr Carlo. He is Fernando's only son - and at present he only has 2 daughters, I believe. So there may be problems with the succession in the future if this situation does not change!

About the Two-Sicilies, I don't know enough to argue, sorry.

I do not believe that King Juan Carlos of Spain supports the claim of either of his family members to the hypothetical 'thrones' of France or the Two Sicilies. After all their ancestors gave up their claims to become members of the Spanish Royal House.

This is absolutely wrong.
Felipe V went to Spain keeping with his French rights, twelve years later was forced (and deceived) to "resign" them, when he understood he could not valably do so, and his nephew king Louis XV of France, still a child, was ill, he sent letters to the French parliament to prepare his accession to the French throne, as unalienable laws entitled him. Eventually Louis XV survived and had descendance.

[Warren]

Originally Posted by Alison20

I do not believe that King Juan Carlos of Spain supports the claim of either of his family members to the hypothetical 'thrones' of France or the Two Sicilies.

Without gettring involved in the dispute over the rightful head of Bourbon-Two Silciles, the decison of King Juan Carlos to honour Don Carlos, Duke of Calabria, as an Infant of Spain in 1994 made a most definite statement as to whom he believed to be the Head of the Royal House.

[Thribette]

Sorry, I had not seen this part of Alison's post...
In 1983, the heads of the French (Alphonse of Bourbon, duke of Anjou and of Cadiz) and Spanish (king Juan-Carlos) royal houses (and of Parma ducal house? Not sure) published (in italian, later in spanish with a change in the order of signatures...) a joint statement, asserting that the head of the Two-Sicilies royal house, was the infant don Carlos.
It is not a proof of his legitimity, some kings of France or Spain have already failed in finding the right heir of a neighbour kingdom, but this shows the position of king Juan-Carlos.
More information here (site in English) :
Two Sicilies Succession, detailed examination of the dispute (Borbone-Due Sicilie disputa)

[Jo of Palatine]

Originally Posted by Thribette

1) In France, a prince cannot lose his position by this way. It is a laws. Philip V went in Spain knowing he would keep his French rights, and he was, 12 years later, deceived by his own counsillors to make him believe he could resign them (only solution for him as he had jurated to serve the Spanish people and was forced by the war); his counsillors obeyed in this to the king of France, Louis XIV, who saw no other way of ending the war, and knew such renunciation would be invalid.
2) He didn't marry a Spanish woman, he married first a princess of Savoie, later an italian princess, heiress of Parma. His grandfather (Louis XIV) and grandgrandfather (Louis XIII) did marry spanish princesses.

The Spanish inheritance war started because the male line of the Habsburgs of Spain got extinct and the right to the Spanish throne knew female inheritance (the Habsburg got to the power through the marriage of the heiress of the Spanish crowns to a Habsburg-archduke).

Both Louis XIII., his son Louis XIV and emperors Leopold I. and Ferdinand III: were married to Spanish Habsburg-princesses but the French kings had in both cases married the older sister with the more senior inheritance rights. Thus it made sense that finally the French contestor got the throne, even though the French inheritance law didn't know of the possibility to renounce the rights to the throne for a male descendant of the French king.

And as we talk Bourbons here, we should accept that Philip V.'s renounciation was invalid and thus his descendants still have the more senior right to the French throne of the Ancien Régime, pre-revolution.

[Thribette]

About the Spanish succession, normally queen Marie-Thérèse of France had lost her rights when she married Louis XIV, but 1) (as argued the French legists) her renunciation was not perfectly clear about the nature of her renunciation in case of unpayment of her dow (that was un paid), so they pretended her renunciation to Spanish throne was invalid, while normally the unpayment of the dow only entitled her to claim for Spanish possessions (provinces, colonies) as for a normal inheritance in these times; 2) above all, what made her right perfectly legitimate, is that both king Charles II, her brother, and the Spanish "Cortès" (special parliament), declared that they refused the validity of her renunciation. In Spain, the king and the Cortes, when they agree, can change the royal succession, this is what happened.

[BELTRANEJA]

In my opinion, if it would be posible, the king of France would be the descendents of Luis Felipe of France

About Luis Alfonso of Bourbon:

First, after being in the throne of France the Bourbons, they were the Bonaparte.
Secondly, Jaime, grandfather of Luis Alfonso, were not inheriting to the throne of Spain, because he was incapable, he was deaf dumb. The law that governed the Spanish monarchy until the Constitution of 1978, was the law of Felipe V, who was the first Bourbon of Spain, this law was the same that governed in France for the Bourbons, it said that a dumb deaf person could not be King, was incapable.
If Don Jaime could not be King of France ,neither could be Kings of France his descendents.
Third, Fernando VII of Spain 1812 had a brother, Carlos Maria, Los Carlistas.why luis Alfonso? and Los Carlistas?

Finally,In the web of magazine Hola! and other magazines, in section of news of the royals, it includes the news about Sarkozy and Carla Bruni as that they are royals.

[Thribette]

Well, Beltraneja, sorry for answering you so late, but all what you wrote is wrong.
1) If you consider the last reigning dynasty in France as the most entitled to reign now, then it is not the Orléans one, but the Bonaparte one.
2) For Spain. Don Jaime, second son of Alfonso XIII, who got nearly deaf and mute early in his childhood, was never excluded from succession while his father was on the throne (he was 22 when they went in exile), still his father knew that his elder son, don Alfonso, was haemophilic and was likely to die childless. When in exile, Alfonso XIII managed to obtain renunciations from Don Jaime, but these renunciations were never ratified by the Cortes, so after Alfonso XIII's death, Don Jaime was the legitimate heir of Spain, until 1969 (vote of the Cortes to introduce a new monarchy, with the assent of Don Jaime and his eldest son).
3) In France, never has a laws considered a handicapped person could be excluded from the throne, far the contrary (in Spain it is possible, with a king's wish and a Cortes vote; in France it is impossible to modify the order of succession).
In France, when a king cannot govern, whatever the reason, there is a regency, that's all.

[maria-olivia]

The first son of the actual Count de Paris and Marie-Thérèse of Wurtenberg is François d'Orléans . He is unfortunataly "trisomique" and it is his younger brother Jean and not him who is now the Duc de Vendome and future Count de Paris

[MAfan]

Originally Posted by Thribette

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.

[V.F.H.78]

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.

[MAfan]

Originally Posted by V.F.H.78

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.

But if Orleanists state that Felipe renounced, a proof of that has to exist somewhere, I hope...

[Warren]

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.

[MAfan]

Originally Posted by Warren

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.

And why the renunciation has not be valid?