Who is the Rightful Heir to the French Throne?

[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.

[vincent]

That story about the "lois fondamentales du royaume" has been going on for too long; They simply do not exist.

-Where were they before the capetians ascended the throne of France in 987 ? Nowhere. During the Caroligiens or merovingiens times (they were the firts kings of France) the kindom was divided beteween all the heirs of the dead king. They were no "lois fondamentales" at the time.
-If one admits that they were established, which i doubt very much, during the capetian era, (between 987 and 1793) it means that they were established by human laws. God has definitely nothing to do with the french monarchy. And if they were established by humans the can be modified very easily by humans.

-When did god precisely said that "'l'aîné des capetiens doit être roi de France" ?
-The truth is that monarchy in France has been ruled during centuries by a corpus of laws which were modified owing to the political state of the kingdom; A famous example is the establishment of the "salic law" which banned females from the crown. It was "invented" after the death of Louis le Hutin in 1314.
-The traité d'Utrecht was another example of the modification of the kingdom's laws at the beginning of the XVIIIth century. The spanish branch became spanish at the time and that is final.
-If one does admits that these laws existed at one point, what is the meanning of using them to solve a succession which was openend in 1883 at the death of the comte de Chambord. Using laws dating from the middle age to deny any validity to a treaty established at the beginning of the XVIIIth century does not make sens.

-As for the title of duke d'Anjou, it was never a right of the spanish branch of the bourbon family. Need I remind everyone that it has been used by Louis XVIII as one of his secondary titles when he was comte de Provence; When the duke of Anjou became king of spain, this title went back to the french king, or nowadays to the head of the french royal family. The comte de Paris was perfectly entitled to give it too his nephew prince Charles Philippe.

-Talking about the "ainé des capétiens" lets get rid of another legend. Everyone knows that the elder of the capetien dynastie is not Luis Alfonso de Borbon but the comte de Bourbon Busset who is a descendant of LOuis de Bourbon, prince bishop (laïc) of Liège. That Branch was declared unable too succed because they were said to be bastards. Many historians claim today that it was not true. All the other Bourbons, French, spanish, Parme and naples, descend from Louis's younger brother.

-One may not like the Orleans, but it has nothing to do with their rights to the crown which are, by the way, recongnised by all their cousins : the king of spain, the duc of Castro (Naples) ans the duke of Parme. For those who like the Middle Ages and the laws used at the time is this not what was called a "jugement des pairs" "judgement of the equals" ?
Vincent

[Marengo]

A very sensible first post, vincent. Thanks for that! And I agree with you fully and suspected all along that the only reason for this entire Legetimiste-thing is people's dislike for the House of Orleans.

[vincent]

Thank you, the strangest thing is that the Orléans are awfully nice people very royal, as well easygoing and fun. The late comte et comtesse de Paris were very kind, chic, smart, and, above anything, so funny. I really don't understand why that family has that reputation of beeing wicked.

[Marengo]

Well, it probably dates back to the Orleans that betrayed Louis XVI. It was the father of Louis Phillipe I, if I am correct? Other than that, the internal quarrels doesn´t improve the families reputation either.
I don´t know anything about the late Count, though him spending the family fortune and jewels on his mistress didn´t strike me as terribly good. The late countess however comes across as an utterly charming lady. Her books are absolutely wonderfull.

[BillW65]

Originally Posted by vincent

That story about the "lois fondamentales du royaume" has been going on for too long; They simply do not exist.


-If one admits that they were established, which i doubt very much, during the capetian era, (between 987 and 1793) it means that they were established by human laws. God has definitely nothing to do with the french monarchy. And if they were established by humans the can be modified very easily by humans.

This point you have made has been my contention all along. Furthermore, if there is ever to be a French monarchy, which I highly doubt even though it is my wish, any succession laws will be made by the French government and they will not adhere to those outdated laws.

[Warren]

Self-proclaimed "legitimists" will use whatever ammunition they can muster, and if they can beat the Orléans over the head with a "fundamental law" and the behaviour of Philippe Egalité, they will do so. More realistic and pragmatic royalists will simply point out that the current comte de Paris and Head of the Royal House of France has perfectly legitimate descent from the last reigning King of the French. The faint possibility of a restored Bourbon-style ancien regime died with the comte de Chambord in 1883, and there it should stay.

[Jurgen Schalck]

It is now more than 220 years that France is not aware of a big secret, kept in darkness by the Vatican and high ranked people in our society.

I know this sounds strange as my first official post that I come up with something related to this matter.

Since 1998, I have personaly investigated the matter of the only boy left from the french royal family Louis Charles de Bourbon.

I found many interesting information and evidence of his exitence in exile.

Not far away from his land and kingdom he lived his live between people that took care of him like he was of their own blood.

Louis Charles lived under the name of Franciscus Rombaut, later he ordered his descendants to change the name into Rombout, because they were not related with blood to this family.

Many people have warned me for the danger that looks around the corner if I would continue my efforts to bring this to public.

I have spoken to the Ambassador of Austria long time ago, and he in person warned me that it could lead to a very large conflict.

I went on personal invitation to the castle of descendants of king Charles X, the family Wurmbrand zu Stuppach in Frohsdorf in December 2000.

My communications lurned me that they knew about his living in exile but they where in acknowledge about his name.

At this moment he have more than 300 descendants and a man named Marcel Rombout is the first in line to become King of France.

I know that in Rome there are files that can bring this to a positive end.
But the anger of them is that it would bring many high positioned people in a difficult position.

Louis Charles de Bourbon became 90 years, he died November 1, 1875 in Wachtebeke near Gent. (Belgium)

Jurgen Schalck

[Thribette]

Warren, the Orléans are effectively the heirs of Louis-Philippe Ier, but to be true, as the only monarch of his kind, who usurpated consciously the French throne and ruled 17 years 1/2, his legacy remains far less significant than the Bonaparte one, as two Bonaparte emperors reigned, none usurpated the throne (they took vacant power) and ruled (including Consulate for Napoléon I and from power taking as president to emprisonment for Napoleon III) 32 years. Of course, the Bonaparte legacy is so, so far from the Capetian!

[Thribette]

Russian, you asked many questions, a long time ago. I hope you managed to get answers for most of them.
May I answer them, anyway?

1) These laws exclude laws of succession of women on the French throne?

Women are totally excluded, wether as kings, whether to transmit rights.
Anyway, they have a prominent role : as only legitimate children are considered for succession, this means the queen's children get king or successible prince, not all the kings'. Furthermore, they can be regent, and most she-regents have shown great competence.

2) If grandson Louis XIV has borrowed the Spanish throne and could not apply simultaneously for the French crown on conditions of Utrecht contract, all the same new Spanish king from the French dynasty remains a member French Hugo Capet At home, all the same it kept the rights to the French throne, all the same its descendants are considered as members of Hugo Capet House and have the right to borrow the French throne?

In 1700, Philippe, grandson of Louis XIV, became king of spain, because Louis XIV's wife, eldest sister of the dead king Carlos II, had put a condition to her renunciation to Spanish rights, that was the payment of a dow that was never paid. In addition, Carlos II chose him as successor (he had not the power for it) and the Spanish parliament, the solemn assembly of the Cortès de Castilla, who had this power, admitted it (normally, it is Philippe's father who should have reigned, later his elder son, not Philippe, but Louis XIV chose Philippe and the Cortès accepted). Philippe kept his French rights.
Only in 1714, Queen Ann of England required a renunciation of Philippe, for him and all his descendants without exception, to the French throne; but, if the succession to the Spanish throne can find accomodation with the consent of the princes and the Cortès, the succession to the French throne cannot, it is compulsory, inalienable (except by regicide, I think). So, Queen Anne had not chosen the right solution.

3) the Spanish King Ferdinand has entered the so-called Pragmatical sanction in 1834 on which its daughter Isabella became the successor of the Spanish throne owing to absence of man's posterity at this Spanish king. But unless it did not contradict the French laws?

What made the Carlist war is that Fernando VII did not make a new succession law, which would have been theorically possible by convoking the solemn assembly of the Cortès, he merely published a law voted without required conditions, only as a test, by an ordinary session of the Cortès in 1789 and abandoned then because of troubles.
Anyway, this law concerned only Spain, not France.

4) Why carlist supporters considered the Pragmatical sanction as infringement of laws of inheritance of a throne?

Cf above... Felipe V, in 1714, modified the succession law, and introduced the salic law (as in France) (but after extinction of all his descendants by males, he stated that women could acceed to the throne, and after, the Savoy house), by vote of the solemn assmbly of the Cortés, each member having received from its electors a special mandate for voting this law.
The Carlists consider that the same form was necessary for a modification.

5) why carlist supporters lifted revolts against queen Isabella with the purpose to protect the rights carlist applicants for the Spanish throne?
There is the legal claim, but there is also a deeper problem : queen Isabelle was a little girl, and the persons who had the true power were liberal and anti-catholic; in 1836, they spoliated the Church by stealing all convents etc, and did hard persecutions.

6) whether carlist applicants for the Spanish throne have been recognized Le Comte Chambord as successors of the French throne in 1883?

He refused to make his opinion public, thinking the moment had not come, he wanted first pacified conditions but died before. Later, both parties pretended he had given an opinion favorable to them. I do not think it was true.

7) why Luis Alphonco it is considered chapter Hugo Capet of the House, in fact it is the lineal descendant of queen Isabella?

He is descendant of queen Isabella, but this has nothing to see with his rights : his rights come from Isabella's husband, her cousin Francisco de Asis, who was son of Infant Francisco de Paula, youngest brother of Fernando VII (who had no son) and don Carlos (whose line extincted by males in 1936, after a reconciliation with Alfonso XIII in 1931).

[Thribette]

Vincent, your post is very interesting.
In fact, the Fundamental laws were not dicted by God, they rose one by one, but with the impression they were implicite before. Once meanwhile, God intervened appearently and spectacularly to rescue the laws, with St Joan of Arc (you may believe or not).
More pragmatically, and this is my point of view, we have, with this laws, a corpus that defines who is king, without doubt (OK, I recognize that in case of adoption, or in case of legitimation by marriage of an elder prince than the previous heir, there would still be problems of interpretation). This is a priceless treasure! Because the worst, when you have to name a king, is when there are several candidates. This is why, in case of a restoration of monarchy, I would support loudly the respect of the Fundamental Laws.

About the opinion of foreign kings,
1) it is not them who decide who is king,

2) their opinion is alterated, first by ignorance of the content of the Utrecht renunciation (that eliminates Orléans as well as elder princes), secundly by the fact most of them have Orléans ancestors and own parts of the fortune Louis-Philippe had taken.

3) King Juan Carlos of Spain recognizes the elder as chiefs of the House of Bourbon, and at the same time consider the Orléans as the French royal family, not as descendants of the kings of France, but as descendants of the usurpator Louis-Philippe, as queen Isabella has recognized him as king of the French.
The so-said duke of Castro is not the king of Sicilias de jure, he is only a prince, it is his cousin, infant Carlos, who is king of Sicilias, so recognized by the elder princes of the House of Bourbon, the princes of France (then, Alphonse II, father of Louis Alphonse), Spain (Juan Carlos I) and Parma, which makes legitimity for this realm as it is a part of the Spanish empire inherited by Felipe V, their common ancestor. The infant don Carlos married princess Anne of Orléans, sister of the present orleanist claimant, but is legitimist (maybe because his wife inherited nearly nothing from her father who had dilapidated his fortune?).
I have never heard any position from the duke of Parma.

[vincent]

Originally Posted by Thribette

In fact, the Fundamental laws were not dicted by God, they rose one by one, but with the impression they were implicite before. Once meanwhile, God intervened appearently and spectacularly to rescue the laws, with St Joan of Arc (you may believe or not).
More pragmatically, and this is my point of view, we have, with this laws, a corpus that defines who is king, without doubt (OK, I recognize that in case of adoption, or in case of legitimation by marriage of an elder prince than the previous heir, there would still be problems of interpretation). This is a priceless treasure! Because the worst, when you have to name a king, is when there are several candidates. This is why, in case of a restoration of monarchy, I would support loudly the respect of the Fundamental Laws.

Sorry, i will not argue with that. Our way of thinking are too different. And, as I wrote before, I will not enter a disscussion involving an intervention of god, god in a political or historical matter.

[Thribette]

This is why I expose both points of vews : the religious one, and the pragmatic one; because in France, there are not only catholics, and the king of France is their king too! The French model of monarchy needs a general assentment. It cannot be a dictature.
The legitimity of a person as a king is not a matter of religion : I recognize the king of Morocco the legitimate king of his country, as descendent of Idriss I who funded the realm wich the general assentment of his governees, exhausted by the Vandals (subject to verifications, as I know very little about it).
For me, if one pass to a monarchy, it is highly recommendable to have a clear, precise and unalienable way of designing the monarch. Clear and precise, in order to avoid wars between two or more possible monarchs; unalienable, to avoid the attempts of modification in order to favorize such or such prince. The mere possibility of a contestation or change, will get people's mind trend to change it as they wish (what they wouldn't even wish if the laws were unalienable) and to contest the king's action, it is counter-productive for the country. In French model, we have the expression : "authority up, freedoms down". The king can much and little : he can much in case of abuse (for instance, a monopolistic industry or cartel or corporation, or for arbitrages), he can little everyday, as the system is not a state-directed one but a subsudiary one (in the true meaning of subsidiary). The problem of XVIIIth century was of a development that was economically good (except speculation on cereals in the winter 1788-1789), that needed social adaptations wished by Louis XV and Louis XVI, for which many were reluctant (mainly people), and that generated a new upper-middle class, who had received unadapted education and manipulated concepts without mastering them. This is why happened French Revolution, and, as far as I know, only Louis XVI understood what it was (maybe Louis XVIII? He didn't express it), but it was too late (even at his accession to the throne, it was too late).

For me, the only two clear, precise and unalienable ways of designing a king, are the Fundamental Laws and lottery. The first solution is to me better, because it allows a good education and background.

[maidmarion]

What ever happened to the gentleman in India that was discovered to have the true lineage to the French Throne?

The Telegraph - Calcutta : Nation

MM

[Thribette]

No, they do not have the true lineage to the French throne.
They descend from a Jean de Bourbon, who arrived in India and asked for being named so, but ther is no evidence he was a Bourbon.
Further, there is evidence that he was not a legitimate Bourbon, i.e. born in legitimate marriage : as the person whose son he may have been, the connétable (i.e. supreme commander of the armies) de Bourbon, left king of France François I to serve emperor Charles V of Austria and Spain, because his wife died without surviving child and her inheritance was attributed to her cousin, Louise de Savoie, mother of François I. Afterwards, he hoped to marry Charles V's daughter, so he didn't marry again. It is not impossible that he has had an illegitimate son (whose name would have been Bourbon if recognized, but he didn't recognize any bastard, as far as I know).
So, the Bourbons of India may be, whether an illegitimate branch of the Bourbons (so, without access to French throne), whether the descendence of a servant or officer of connétable de Bourbon who wanted to honor his lord by taking his name (if it is the case, I think they honored him greatly), whether the descendence of an affabulator.

[maidmarion]

Originally Posted by Jurgen Schalck

It is now more than 220 years that France is not aware of a big secret, kept in darkness by the Vatican and high ranked people in our society.

I know this sounds strange as my first official post that I come up with something related to this matter.

Since 1998, I have personaly investigated the matter of the only boy left from the french royal family Louis Charles de Bourbon.

I found many interesting information and evidence of his exitence in exile.

Jurgen Schalck

Mr. Shlack, you are stating here that you believe this exiled person to be the rightful heir to the French Throne, are you also stating that you believe this person to be the so called and prophesised " Great Monarch" that is yet to return from exile and who is of "The House of the White Lillies?" Just curious as to your thoughts or anyone elses!
MM

[alex322]

HI, I'm new on these boards. I know that by the Salic law, women are not allowed to reign, but what about male descendants of female members of the royal family?
There are still living descendants of King Charles X by his granddaughter Louise Marie, sister of the Comte de Chambord and last male member of the Bourbon house.
There is as well princess Louise Elisabeth, daughter of Louis XV, who married the infante Phillip of Bourbon, son of Phillip V of Spain, who would later become Duke of Parma. They were parents to Maria Louisa who would later become Queen of Spain by her marriage to Charles IV. In that case it would make the Spanish bourbons descendants from Louis XV as well. However they are also descendants of Phillip and therefore unable to claim the Spanish throne.
I know that the debate is between the Orleanists and the Legitimists, but morally shouldn these people have more rights beign direct descendants form the kings than the other two? (Especially descendants of Louise Marie)
I'm not a monarchist and I'm happy with France being a Republic, but I just don't understand by Luis Alfonso can claim the title of king, he's a descendant of Phillip V as is King Juan Carlos, the claim is pointless. King Juan Carlos would have as much right as him, regardless of an older ancestor. I read he has French citizenship. But he only has a French grandmother and both his his parens are Spanish. He doesn't even live in France or Spain. It just doesn't sound right. Thanks for your help

[Warren]

Originally Posted by alex322

...but I just don't understand by Luis Alfonso can claim the title of king, he's a descendant of Phillip V as is King Juan Carlos, the claim is pointless. King Juan Carlos would have as much right as him, regardless of an older ancestor. I read he has French citizenship. But he only has a French grandmother and both his his parens are Spanish. He doesn't even live in France or Spain. It just doesn't sound right. Thanks for your help

Luis Alfonso makes no claims to be King Of France. He is the primogeniture representative of the House of Bourbon. As the "senior" Prince of the Bourbon dynasty some see him as the rightful King of France.