Rival Claimants to the French Throne 1: Ending 2020


If you have answers, please help by responding to the unanswered posts.
Status
Not open for further replies.
Don Juan Carlos I supports Henri Philipe d'Orléans, Count of Paris, Duke of France as claimant to the French throne.
 
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.
 
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.
 
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.
 
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)
 
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.
 
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.
 
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.
 
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.
 
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
 
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.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
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...
 
Last edited by a moderator:
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?
 
Last edited by a moderator:
Without getting into the whole can of worms, legitimists hold that he had no right (or legal validity) to "renounce" succession for either himself or his descendants.
Whether the renunciation was valid or not is for the proponents of either side to argue. They have been arguing the point for a very long time and continue to do so.
It gets down to interpretation of "Fundamental Laws". There are similar issues involved in the Two Sicilies and Brazilian succession disputes.
 
So, the matter is that a Prince can't renounce to his rights??
 
Last edited by a moderator:
... and cannot renounce the rights of his descendants, yes, along those lines.
There is detailed discussion of the "Fundamental Laws" throughout this thread and in the Luis Alfonso thread(s).
It boils down to "cannot" vs "can" and "was invalid" vs "was valid"; Bourbons vs Orléanists, legitimists vs pragmatists. As I said earlier, take your pick. :)
 
Last edited:
... and cannot renounce the rights of his descendants, yes, along those lines.
There is detailed discussion of the "Fundamental Laws" throughout this thread and in the Luis Alfonso thread(s).
It boils down to "cannot" vs "can" and "was invalid" vs "was valid"; Bourbons vs Orléanists, legitimists vs pragmatists. As I said earlier, take your pick. :)
I'm sorry, but this seems to me foolish...A man can't renounce to his rights...In this way, a King cannot abdicate, and so Alfonso XII has never reigned, since his mother died after him...
 
so right

Absolutely agrees with you Mafan. Is you apply this rule, alfonso XII was never king of spain. And Juan Carlos of Spain was not not the true king of Spain untill his father died.
As i said before, where is it stated once and for all that a prince could not renounce his rights to a crown ? Nobody has ever been able to prove the existence, as a formal corpus of rules which would apply forever, of these famous fundamental laws. And for a good reason, France had no constitution before the revolution.
Does it really make sense to use hypothetical laws dating from the midle age to deny a renounciation made in 1712, in order to solve a dynastic succession which was opened in 1883 at the death of the Comte de Chambord, last heir of the eldest line of the french royal family ?
We could also use the merovingienne laws or customs, at this time the estate of the late king was divided between his heirs.
 
And, if I remember correctly, the Comte de Chambord appointed the Duc d'Orleans as his heir, in 1870s...I don't know what to think...
 
Last edited by a moderator:
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.

Effectively, for France (I don't know for other countries... In Spain, abdication is possible but remember king Philip V became king again after the death of his elder son to whom he had abdicated), any renunciation is invalid.
King François I renounced to French territories in 1526, this was later judged invalid. This indisponibility of French crown was theorized as soon as 1420.

May I, too, remember that, if the 1712 had been valid, its text, imposed by Queen Anne of England, and very explicit about it, would also exclude the contemporary Orléans family?
If one says the Utrecht renounciation is valid, this person cannot support the Orléans...
 
Vincent, in Spain a king/queen can abdicate.
For very realm there are specific succession rules, for some it even permits usurpation (England)...
We legitimists hold these rules so important, mainly because of their many centuries history and because we believe God himself sent Saint Joan of Arc to secure their respect.
Pragmatically, they are important too, because they are a very precise corpus with a long history, so the most evident choce for the designation of a king. If one starts asking for another system, well, one can start another system, but later, this new system will lack stability because anybody will be able to try to put it down and install new laws. So, better stay with this one. After all, why do so many people absoluely want to change our rules?
About Comte de Chambord, as far as I know he made no public declaration about who was his successor (maybe he wanted the orleanists to be totally back in the royalist family to tell them), but it is a fact that he made heir of all the insigns of all the French sovereign orders, his successor we know as John III, count of Montizon, of the Carlist line that extincted in 1936.
 
The renounciation was signed by Philip V for Himself and his descendants; the Orleans Pretenders are not male descendants of Philip, because they descend from the brother of Louis XIV, the grandfather of Philip V...
 
MAfan, they are not male descendants of Philip V of Spain, but they are not less excluded from French succession as the text of Philip V's renunciations is very precise :
"je renonce par le présent acte pour toujours et à jamais, pour moi-même, et pour mes héritiers et successeurs, à toutes prétentions, droits et titres que moi ou quelqu'autre de mes descendans que ce soit, aie dès-àprésent, ou puisse avoir en quelque tems que ce puisse être à l'avenir, à la succession de la Couronne de France, je les abandonne et m'en desiste pour moi et pour eux, et je me déclare et me tiens pour exclus et séparé, moi et mes enfants, héritiers et descendans perpétuellement pour exclus et inhabiles, absolument et sans limitation, différence ni distinction de personnes, de degrez, sexe et tems, de l'action et du droit de succéder à la Couronne de France"

In blue : "I declare and hold myself as excluded and separated, me and my children, heirs and descendants perpetually as excluded and unable, absolutely and without limitation, difference nor distinction of persons, of degrees, sex and time, of the action and of the right to succeed to the Crown of France".

It is perfectly clear that if this renunciation was valid, all his descendants would be excluded, wether they are by male line or not.
This fact is one more violation of French succession laws, but if one believes such a renunciation could transgress French succession laws about indisponibility, why not by this disposition?
The text was written under the orders of Queen Anne of England, who, I suppose, feared Louis XIV could change the French succession laws in order to get the French and Spanish thrones on the same head. As nobody had managed to make her understand that any modification of French order of succession was invalid in France, it is logical that she could fear any change of rules...
 
Thank you for all your informative posts. I have read all of the posts in this thread. I feel that Luis Alfonso of Bourbon is the Heir of the Throne of France.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
Mafan item 183
Concerning le Comte de Chambord , the very last Bourbon , he was supposed to be Henri V , King of France , he refused the 3 colors flag and wanted the white flag..
As he had no Children, his agreed that his his successor would be Louis- Philippe d' Orléans , King of the French (Not King of France like the Bourbons).
Therefore is our King Albert II , is King of the Belgians and not King of Belgium
 
Maria Olivia, orleanists have said that the comte de Chambord had said his successors were the Orléans. But this affirmation was never proved, and at the contrary, he transmitted all the royal symbols of his succession (particularly the insigns of grand master of the royal orders) to his successor (legitimist way), John III, aka conde de Montizón, whilever he knew this last was a liberal (but he went to preside comte de Chambord's funerals). I think he hoped much more from John III's sons, but eventually he died before him.
 
This is all so fascinating!
I must side with Henri - Comte de Paris. All of the brouhaha with Luis Alfonso just doesn't make sense to me. His mother was certainly not royal, his own wife is not royal and any pronouncements from his mother's grandfather, General Franco, as to who should reign, the distribution of royal titles, etc. are a joke.
I remember very well the wedding of Carmen and Alfonso - a great show of pomp and all. A union of an older man with a roving eye and a very young woman who just couldn't believe her good luck. It was like the Franco family had hit the royalty jackpot and look where it has all ended.
What hath King Louis XIV wrought? A fine mess in this day and age.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top Bottom