Rival Claimants to the French Throne 1: Ending 2020

[vincent]

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]

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]

Question about the succession

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]

...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.

 

[Pepone]

I am writing a popular book on the subject of kingship and would love to learn more about your views on the subject (who is the rightful heir to the Frech throne). It seems to be utterly absurd to even consider an Orléans right to succession after the role their family has played in C18 France. Is there any further reading you can suggest on the subject. I'd be particularly interested in articles/essays discussing the role of today's Comte de Paris. Please help.

 

[PrincessKoreen]

Jurgen, I'm confused. As far as I know, Louis XVI has no descendants. His two surviving children were Louis XVII, who died without issue, and Marie Therese, I believe, did not have any children, either.

 

[Thribette]

No, Louis XVI had no grandchild.
His brother Charles X had one grandson (without descendance) and one granddaughter, Louise de France, who married the sovereign duke of Parma. They had issue, but as in France women cannot transmit the right to succeed, they are not the first in the order of succession. They are in this order, only by the dukes of Parma, who ara after the duke of Anjou, the spanish royal family, the dukes of Sevilla, and the royal family of Two Sicilies, the others descendants of Louis XIV; and they are before the Orléans family, who are descendants of Louis XIV's younger brother.

Warren, the duke of Anjou said, as his father did before him, "I do not pretend, I am".
This means, that he is not a "claimant", because there is nothing to claim, as he knows perfectly that French succession laws entitle him as king of France, and nobody else.
Of course, political considerations about the situation of France as a republic, may lead one to consider he is not likely to be, one day, de facto king of France. But if this happened, he would be the only person entitled to.

 

[Marengo]

But if this happened, he would be the only person entitled to.

A statement with which most royalists in France disagree. But considering the legitimists would probably prefer the descendants of the favourite dog of Charles X on the throne before they would accept an Orleans as a claimant I suppose Don Luis Alfonso de Borbon y Martinez-Bordiu comes in as a rather handy puppet for them.

Still Luis Alfonso has a healthy attitude concerning his own claims as it isn´t likely that France will be a monarchy any time soon, not under an Orleans, Borbon, Bonaparte or somebody else.

 

[Thribette]

Thank you, Marengo, for showing what French legitimists (who, as far as I know, are more numerous than orleanists, but this has nothing to do with dynastic laws) can see with orleanists : hate, depreciation, judgements on alleged (and false) intents... Sometimes I find some legitimists too agressive, but they are frank.
To me, Orléans are princes of the blood of France, and in case of extinction of the elder branch (extinction by male descent), they would be called to the throne.
At the moment, they are not because the dynastic laws are such. Point. I have affection for the heir of the French throne, because he is so.
I have also consideration for other dynasts, among them Orléans, simply this consideration is not above the dynastic laws. In France, a king cannot be chosen, he is determined by precise laws.
As you said, the monarchy is not likely to take again its place in France, so... don't you think your hateful declarations are excessive?

 

[vincent]

dynastic laws

once again we are back on the problem of dynastic laws in France. Where did anyone found that they had been established in France once and for all. And if it is the case what is the precise year of establishment of these famous dynstic laws. When did anyone said that the king of France could not dispose of their crown ? And that a member of the french royal family could not renounced his right to the succession to the crown ? That law does not exist. How do you think the first capetians seized the crown from the last carolingiens kings of France in The Xth century ? By sending them to convents or by simply ignoring them and keeping the crown by force.
Since 987, year of accession to the french throne by Hugues Capet, teh succession has been governed by a corpus of very oscure customs which were altered when politics or wars needed them to be; It was so imprecise at the time that the fist french capetian kings used to have their elder sons crowned as kings when they were still alive. Before that the last carolingiens and the fist capetiens alternated on the throne during half a century: one carolingien was succeeded by a capetiens and so on...
Need i remind every one on that board that the first capetiens ( and i mean those of the Xth and XIth century) were absolute usurpators of a french crown which belonged at the time to the descendants of Charlemagne.
They took the power and the crown at the time because they were stronger than the last carolingiens.
And do not talk to me of an intervention of god in establishing that famous law the so called legitimists are talking about all the time. god is not french and never was.
Dynastic laws as a formal text explainning the french succession once and for all did not exist untill the first monarchical constitution established after the revolution.
And if you want to mention the custom or the "usages", since the traité d'Utrecht by which the duke of anjou grandson of Louis The XIVth renonced his right to the french crown in order to become king of spain, his descendants have allways been mentionned in all the official act of the french monarchy as "the royal house of spain". Even by LOuis XVI, LOuis XVIII and Charles X.
Last point, if you adopt that "legitimist" line, you must consider that the current heir to the french crown, after don lui alfonso de Borbon y martinez Bordiu, is non other than his majesty the king of spain. And i doubt very much that king juan carlos agrees with that.

 

[Thribette]

Several false things here...
1) The dynastic laws in France have not been established once, but little by litte, since Hugues Capet, not before. Every time the preexistent laws are insufficient to determine the right king, another laws is established inside this corpus. As it is a convention, if not a faith, that there is a laws we discover little by little, new laws must not be in contradiction with past accessions.

2) Many kings and jurists said and wrote they could not change the order of succession, this includes Louis XIV, Louis XV : "puisque les lois fondamentales de notre royaume nous mettent dans une heureuse impuissance d'aliéner le domaine de notre couronne, nous faisons gloire de reconnoître qu'il nous est encore moins libre de disposer de notre couronne même" and Louis XVIII : "Le droit divin est une conséquence du dogme religieux, de la loi du pays. C'est par cette loi que, depuis huit siècles, la monarchie est héréditaire dans ma famille. Sans cette loi, je ne suis qu'un vieillard infirme, longtmps proscrit, réduit à mendier un asile; mais, par ce droit, le proscrit est roi de France".

3) As far as I know, neither Eudes, nor Robert, Robertians (i.e. ancestors of Capetians), sent anybody to convent nor usurpated the throne. First, they had interbred a lot with Carolingians, and were close parents. Second, Charles the Fat, Carolingian, was dismissed because of his behaviour in front of the Viking invasion, and Eudes was elected instead, because of his heroïc attitude. When Eudes died, his brother Robert refused the crown, and supported Charles the Simple, son of Charles the Fat, but this last king became tyrannic and the nobility revolted, electing Robert I who, this time, accepted. At Robert I's death, his son, Hugues the Great, refused the crown; as the nobility refused to restore Charles the Simple, they elected Raoul of Burgundy, a Niebelungen(?). At Raoul's death, Hugues the Great refused the crown and installed on the throne, Louis IV, son of Charles the Simple. Louis IV had two sons : Lothar and Charles of Lotharingia. Charles left Lothar to ally with their ennemy, Otto II of Germany, and fought against his brother and all the nobility. At Lothar's death, his son Louis V (his father had already crowned him, to avoid elections) became king, but died young, childless. The nobility refused to elect Charles of Lotharingia, in war against them, and elected Hugues the Great's son, Hugues Capet.

4) The customs you cited, neither are obscure, nor were altered. They were completed when necessary, but never altered. The fact is that, by the time of the first Capetians, the very concept of Capetian royalty was uncertain!

5) About God's intervention, it is a matter of faith. One may consider this laws was made, and protected, by God; others can consider it was made by men and protected by God (intervention of St Joan of Arc); other may consider that it was simply made by men, but it is an existing laws, thing highly appreciable at the time of electing a king, letting men picking among candidates always leading to troubles. I note that any idea of an intervention of God upsets you, and meanwhile, your opinion is not the third way.

6) The dynastic laws was supposed to be oral before French Revolution, but in fact, were written and commented so many times... particularly, Louis XIV repeated them in his testament...

7) Of course, Philippe V constituted the royal house of Spain, so what?
About Utrecht renouciation, I think I proved clearly enough they were not valid.

8) It is a fact that the current order of succession to French crown is :
1/ Louis de Bourbon, duke of Anjou
2/ Juan-Carlos, king of Spain;
3/ Philip, his son, prince of Asturias;
4/ Francisco de Borbón y Escasany, duke of Sevilla;
5/ Francisco de Borbón y Hardenberg, his son
etc
I am absolutely not sure that the king Juan-Carlos would be pleased to become de jure king of France; it would create him many real problems on his real Spanish throne, for a very hypothetic French throne. But what he wants is one thing, what he is is another.

 

[Marengo]

As the King of Spain doesn´t recognise his the claims of Don Luis Alfonso de Borbon y Martinez-Bordiu to the French throne or even to the Cadiz title I suppose you are right and Juan-Carlos would certainly want to get himself mixed up between legetimists and Orleansists.

 

[Thribette]

King Juan-Carlos has a complex position : personally preferring the Orléans (for reasons, also complex, in his past history), he recognized implicitely Louis' father in 1983 (resolution of the case of the Two Sicilies succession) but when asked, years after, his services wrote that the Spanish royal house recognized the Orléans "as the successors of Louis-Philippe" (what they are, doubtlessly) "because his predecessor Isabel II had recognized Louis-Philippe". In this logic, he would not recognize the Orléans, but the Napoléon family, as Napoléon III reigned after Louis-Philippe and was also recognized by Isabel II...
I must admit that Spanish situation is particular, abit difficult, with a lot of lies in the past, so I wait and see; and I hope Louis and Margarita wil have many sons...

 

[branchg]

Juan-Carlos has made it quite clear he does not recognize the claim of Dom Luis Alfonso de Borbon. Luis Alfonso is an extended member of the Spanish royal family and subject to the will of Juan Carlos as the King of Spain and Head of the House of Bourbon.

The French legitimists refuse to recognize the Treaty of Utrecht, but that doesn't make it invalid with regard to renouncing the Bourbon claim to the French throne. The House of Orleans succeeded the Bourbons and Louis-Phillippe was the last King of France.

 

[vincent]

I do not think i would say anyone on this board is writing something "false" or that i have "proved" someting. Let's try to be cool on the matter. After all, we are debating in a gentle way about something very hypothetical.
However Thribette i do agree on one point with you :"The dynastic laws in France have not been established once, but little by litte", this has been my point from the beginning.
French monarchy never had an official text or constitution dictating laws of succession to the crown once and for all. These laws were established little by little, and i would add "modified" . The traité d'Utrecht, signed by the new king of spain, the king of France, registrated by the french parlement at begenning of the 18th century, after many years of war in Europe to solve the question of the spanish succession after the death of the last habsbourg, is definitely one those historical events which added to the french dynastic laws. At that very time, one branch of the capetien family became spanish and renounced it's rights to the french crown. That is all.



since Hugues Capet, not before.

 

[Thribette]

Vincent, I am sorry for having employed the word false, but if you read what I wrote then, I suppose you understood why. Maybe am I taking a bit too seriously the importance of this forum for people's information, so, I thought it was necessary for people who maybe wouldn't have read further, to express this reverve upon your message. About the word proved, I wrote : "I think I proved clearly enough", which is a bit different. It meant that, if you were not convinced by what I had written above about Utrecht, I could try to formulate it differently or give mor sources, but I thought it was not necessary in this message.
About the left of your message, I repeat : the laws were established little by little, but never modified. The treaty of Utrecht added nothing to French dynastic laws, because indisponibility of the crown was already a laws an one could not modify it. More about it in my next message.

BranchG, I wrote what Juan-Carlos had written, it is clearly a recognition of the Orléans, not as heirs of the realm of France, as they pretend today, but as heirs of Louis-Philippe, what they are doubtless.
King Juan-Carlos is not head of the house of Bourbon, and does not pretend to it. If you can see his coat of arms, he did not take the arms of the chief of the House, but kept them "broken" (I don't know the word in English) as of Anjou.
If the Utrecht renounciations had been valid, Louis-Philippe would have succeeded Louis XIX (as Henri V was a descendent of Philip V) but his own children would have been excluded, as Louis-Philippe's wife was a descendent of Philip V. So, people who believe the Utrecht renounciations could be valid, cannot sustain the Orléans claims, as the Orléans are excluded by these renounciations (even the Napoléon family, since the end of the XIXth century!)

 

[Marengo]

That is most interesting Thribette, this is the coat of arms of the King of Spain, right? Could you point out what you mean with ´broken´? Or is it the wrong coat-of-arms?

Another thing what made me wonder, why is the branch of Luis-Alfono the head of the house of Bourbon, you are right that the King of Spain seems to have that opinion, but why? Wouldn´t the marriage of Prince Jiame be considered morganatic?

Has the King made any comments about the Orleans/Legitimist cause after the death of the Countess of Paris?

Another thing, did the treaty of Utrecht exclude any descendants of Felipe V from inheriting the Spanish throne, or just the members with dynastic rights, so the men untill the constitution was changed in favour of Isabel II?

 

[Thribette]

The arms are "broken" by the red border around the arms of France (that are of golden lily flowers upon blue).
The history of this bordure, is that when renouncing the duchy of Anjou, Philip V kept the arms (these arms of France with bordure) and these were the arms of the Bourbons of Spain, when cadets. In 1936 the last de jure king of France of the carlist line, died. Alphonse XIII, exiled king of Spain, then became de jure king of France, suppressing the bordure, but after his death, not his elder son became king of Spain, so were separated again, the head of the House of Bourbon, who kept with plain arms, and the Royal House of Spain, who uses the Anjou arms (upon the arms of Spain).
Thank you for your help! I don't know, in fact, terms of heraldry in English.

The marriage of don Jaime was unequal, but for more explanations upon the difference between unequal and morganatic, I think the best would be to go to the excellent site of François Velde, in English (he is orleanist, I must precise) : Unequal Marriages in Spain: the Pragmática of 1776 . It is a fact that a great majority of Spanish, today, believe that a 1776 laws excudes people in case of unequal marriage. Probably, they have not read the laws, even less the case law about it.

I read none intervention of H.M. the king of Spain, upon the French succession question, after the death of HRH the countess of Paris. The one I evoqued, was of 1990 or 1991.

The Utrecht renounciation, that can also be read (in French and English) on François Velde's site, is very clear, and the formula is repeated several times in the promise : "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" ("me and my children, heirs and descendants, perpetually for excluded and inhabile, absolutely and without limitation, difference nor distinction of persons, degrees, sex and time"). It was what required Queen Anne, who refused to consider, in any way, the specificities of her ennemies' dynastic laws.

Sixte de Bourbon-Parme: Documents

 

[BurberryBrit]

I'm just starting to understand this whole thing after doing some research on the internet but there is much more to learn! I need to look up the treaty of Utrecht. It seems to me that the Bourbon line would be the rightful heirs, then princes of the Blood (orleans).

 

[Thribette]

I don't know if there is an English version of this renunciation.
What I find funny, is that Louis XIV considered Philip V too honest to make a renunciation he would know invalid, so Torcy (French Minister of Foreign Affairs) wrote the princess Orsini (Philip V's closer councillor) to make him believe the renunciations would be valid, as his previous promises to the Spanish people forced him to sign the renunciations... They explained him much later!
And Louis XIV, foreseing the difficulties such a solemn signature could develop, made publish by his best legists, who had participated to the negociations (trying to convince Queen Anne of the invalidity of such renunciations, at first, he was not "totally dishonnest"), a book explaining their invalidity...

 

[jabrownell]

Duke of Anjou (Louis XX)

I find the renunciation of Philip V of Spain to be completely invalid. Royalty is based on blood and tradition, and the King has no legal right to disinherit his heirs in perpetuity. As such, Louis Alphonso the Duke of Anjou and Bourbon is the rightful heir to the throne. He is descended directly from Louis XIV.

Those descendants of the Duc d'Orlean hold no legitimacy based on their history (a history of traitors, supporting the throne only when they are on it).

 

[jabrownell]

I believe that certain things are beyond the power of king, and line of descent is one of them. Simply because the Duc de Berry said that the only pretenders would be the Orleans does not make it just. We must also consider outstanding circumstances. Louis XIV never fathomed that his line would come to an end so quickly and so brutally. Also, the actions of the house of Orleans makes them traitors to the French throne.

 

[vincent]

Once again we are changing the subject. These are very personnal remarks about a family which still exists.
However, trying to stick on the subject of "who is the rightfull heir to the throne of France" I would disagree on one point "it is beyond the power of kings to change the laws".
Of course it is not.
What power would prevent him to do so ? Where is it written "on the wall" ? The all disscussion is about that.
Was there ever a law in France stating that the elder son of the capetien family should be the king of France ?
When was it established ? Obviously after the years 800. Before that the capetiens ancestors were first, german or belgium peasants, and then unknown warriors who suddenly became famous when one of them became an important lord at the court of a french caroligien king.
By whom was it established once and for all ? God ? The french people ? The last carolingiens kings ?
Does this "law" applies to all France ? Or does it only apply to the kingdom as it was in the 10th century ? Mainly the center around Paris and a few other territories around.
One may not like the orleans family, this is not a reason to deny their rights.
Catherine the great killed her husband, her grandson alexander the 1st killed his father, not to mention Peter the great who killed his son, does that mean that all the Romanov after them were ursupators ?
In turkey it was customary to kill all your brothers when you became sultans , that never made anyone an usurpator.
Was elisabeth the 1st no longer queen of england because she had her cousin marie stuart executed ?
I am not excusing political crimes, they are bad, but they have never been a reason in a monarchy to exclude a whole line of the succession.

 

[Thribette]

I would disagree on one point "it is beyond the power of kings to change the laws".
Of course it is not.

In fact, this depends on the countries.
In Russia, clearly, dynastic laws should not be very rigid, as the dynastic discussers seem to believe it; even if since the accession of the Romanov dynasty, it became a bit less unforeseeable.
In England, there is a kind of a tradition of usurpations (at least, I call them usurpations, but if one consider the succession rules in England, admit unexpected successions, then they are not usurpations).
In Portugal, for instance, king Fernando I had legitimate daughters, and half brothers, of which one at least was legitimate, and it is an illegitimate half brother who succeeded.

Spain is much more legalist, with a process for alteration of the rules (the Cortes de castilla).
France is particularly legalist, too, with rules that appeared since the accession of Hugues Capet in 987, inspired by carolingian rules but different. They were told little by little, and they are supposed, every time, to be preexistent to the case, which makes that, if one situation already happened and was resolved in a way, the same situation happening later, cannot be solved differently. From what I red, it seems that theorisation of these rules, in the modern sense, started in XVth century with Jean de Terre-Vermeille : "La dix-huitième conclusion est que le roi de France ne peut ôter la succession à celui qui doit lui succéder dans ce royaume […]
La dix-neuvième conclusion est que l’ingratitude à l’égard du roi ou une autre semblable cause ne font pas perdre la succession au premier-né et autre successeur et que le roi ne peut, à cause de cela, le priver de la succession par une déclaration de sa volonté […] " (The eighteenth conclusion is that the king cannot remove the succession from the one who must succeed him in the realm (...)
The nineteenth conclusion is that the ungratefulness [in private French laws, ungratefulness of heirs can deprive them of the inheritance, NdT] to the king or another similar cause do not make lose the succession to the first-born and other successor and that the king cannot, because of this, deprive him of the succession by a declaration of his will(...)).
It was expanded later by many lawyers.

 

[serenissima]

It sounds as though the majority of the people of France are pro-republic and appear to have no desire to have the monarchy restored in France. However, I wonder, if they are ever asked a question such as "if you have to choose a monarchy for France, which house will you choose to be the French monarchy; Louis Alphonse the Duke of Anjou, the Count of Paris or the Prince Napoleon ? I have a feeling that the majority will name the Prince Napoleon regardless of his current social position, his own personality etc.

The legacy of Napoleon I seems to have such an impact upon the history of France & the minds of the people of France.

 

[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]

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.

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.