Who is the Rightful Heir to the French Throne?

[Danielane]

Originally Posted by ysbel

How is Louis Alphonse senior to Juan Carlos in the French succession?

His grandfather was older than Juan Carlos's father, but he had to give up his rights due to health problems (he was deaf).

[Warren]

Originally Posted by ysbel

How is Louis Alphonse senior to Juan Carlos in the French succession?

Another way of explaining it:
King Alfonso XIII had 3 sons:

1. Alfonso (1907-1938) renounced rights to the Throne of Spain; no issue.

2. Jaime (1908-1975) renounced rights to the Throne of Spain but assumed the title of Duke of Anjou as primogeniture representative of the House of Bourbon; two sons, the eldest being:
> Alfonso (1936-1989) succeeded his father as the primogeniture representative of the House of Bourbon; had one surviving son:
>> LUIS ALFONSO (1974- ) Duke of Anjou

3. Juan (1913-1993) Count of Barcelona; one surviving son:
> KING JUAN CARLOS (1938- )

So Luis Alfonso is dynastically significant in two ways: he has the "Legitimist" claim to the Crowns of both France and Spain as the senior primogeniture descendant of the House of Capet (Bourbon), and as the senior primogeniture descendant of King Alfonso XIII. His mere existence is seen as a "threat" by both the French and Spanish royals. Which is why the Spanish Court keeps him at arms length, and why he was more or less "stripped" of the HRH he previously bore, and downgraded to "Excellency" in 1987. The naming by the Comte de Paris of his nephew Prince Charles-Philippe d'Orléans as a rival duc d'Anjou in 2004 was an unsubtle attempt at undermining Luis Alfonso by the French Orléanists.

[ysbel]

Ah now I see! Thanks for the explanation Warren! So Luis Alfonso would have been King of Spain if his grandfather had not renounced the rights to the Spanish throne. Why was that? Was Jaime a hemophiliac?

That still doesn't answer why Jaime didn't renounce his rights in favor of his son.

Back to the French question, the plot gets thicker.

Originally Posted by Warren

Another way of explaining it:
King Alfonso XIII had 3 sons:

1. Alfonso (1907-1938) renounced rights to the Throne of Spain; no issue.

2. Jaime (1908-1975) renounced rights to the Throne of Spain but assumed the title of Duke of Anjou as primogeniture representative of the House of Bourbon; two sons, the eldest being:
> Alfonso (1936-1989) succeeded his father as the primogeniture representative of the House of Bourbon; had one surviving son:
>> LUIS ALFONSO (1974- ) Duke of Anjou

3. Juan (1913-1993) Count of Barcelona; one surviving son:
> KING JUAN CARLOS (1938- )

So Luis Alfonso is dynastically significant in two ways: he has the "Legitimist" claim to the Crowns of both France and Spain as the senior primogeniture descendant of the House of Capet (Bourbon), and as the senior primogeniture descendant of King Alfonso XIII. His mere existence is seen as a "threat" by both the French and Spanish royals. Which is why the Spanish Court keeps him at arms length, and why he was more or less "stripped" of the HRH he previously bore, and downgraded to "Excellency" in 1987. The naming by the Comte de Paris of his nephew Prince Charles-Philippe d'Orléans as a rival duc d'Anjou in 2004 was an unsubtle attempt at undermining Luis Alfonso by the French Orléanists.

[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.

[ysbel]

Originally Posted by ysbel

Ah now I see! Thanks for the explanation Warren! So Luis Alfonso would have been King of Spain if his grandfather had not renounced the rights to the Spanish throne. Why was that? Was Jaime a hemophiliac?

Duh, I just saw your previous post, Marie! I was reading challenged when I posted that! So Jaime was deaf. But I still wonder why Jaime didn't renounce his rights in favor of his son?

[Warren]

Originally Posted by ysbel

So Jaime was deaf. But I still wonder why Jaime didn't renounce his rights in favor of his son?

Jaime renounced his Spanish rights in 1933 and didn't marry until 1935. It would have made for a rather unique (read untenable) dynastic situation if he had claimed (or reserved) succession rights for unborn children while still unmarried.

[magnik]

I don't know if it was posted before but I've just found it on wikipedia:
Line of succession to the French throne (Legitimist) - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

[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?

[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.

[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.