Two Sicilies: rival claims, 2014 reconciliation and succession issues

[Benjamin]

Oh, several board members tend to be ready on hand to criticize the Castros.

Whether the Calabria support is so strong outside of the online realm is quite up for debate.

The Duke of Castro certainly has a strong and visible network in Italy.

[Duc_et_Pair]

Originally Posted by Benjamin

Oh, several board members tend to be ready on hand to criticize the Castros.

Whether the Calabria support is so strong outside of the online realm is quite up for debate.

The Duke of Castro certainly has a strong and visible network in Italy.

On January 24th 2014 the Duke of Castro signed an act of reconciliation at 5:30 p.m., at the Excelsior Hotel in Naples. Prince Carlo, the Duke of Castro, solemnly placed his signature:

In the presence of the Duchess of Calabria née Princess Anne d'Orléans;
In the presence of the Duchess of Castro née Camilla Crociani;
In the presence of the Duke of Noto;
In the presence of the Duchess of Noto née Doña Sofía Landaluce y Melgarejo;
In the presence of Archduke Simeon of Austria-Lorraine;
In the presence of Archduchess Simeon of Austria-Lorraine née Princess María of Bourbon-Two Sicilies;
In the presence of the Marchioness of Laserna and of Laula née Princess Teresa of Bourbon-Two Sicilies;
In the presence of Nobile Michele Carrelli Palombi dei Marchesi di Raiano;
In the presence of Princess Inès of Bourbon-Two Silicies, Madame Michele Carrelli Palombi dei Marchesi di Raiano;
In the presence of Princess Beatrice of Bourbon-Two Sicilies, formerly Princess Napoléon;
In the presence of Prince Casimiro of Bourbon-Two Sicilies;
In the presence of Princess Maria Cristina of Bourbon-Two Sicilies née Princess of Savoia-Aosta;
And in the presence of the Duke of Bragança.

With his signature Don Carlo promised that at all occasions connected with the dynasty, the family members attending will represent the whole family and the heads of each branch will be considered equal, sharing their historic responsibilities. "The whole family is determined not to reignite the dispute and instead to work together in a spirit of unity for the common good, in a spirit of Christian reconciliation inspired by the aims of the Constantinian Order". He solemnly promised that, in attendance of a whole group of most illustrious witnesses... Is Don Carlo a man of honour? Is his given word as a nobleman, a Prince indeed his given word? The ink of this solemn declaration has not been dry, so to speak, and Don Carlo is already sabotaging it!

[duke of poliganc]

the Calabria branch of the family claim comes after prince carlos renounced his rights of succession to the Crown of Two Sicilies on 14 December 1900 so there is no need to trash the duke of castro for something the other claimants have done if edward viii divorced wallis simpson can just simply reclaim the british throne ?!

[Duc_et_Pair]

That so-called "Act of Cannes" is NO Act of Abdication. The only renunciation was for an eventual (!) succession to the Crown, as the Pragmatic Decree of 1759 only required a renunciation of the Two Sicilies Sovereignty in the event of their union with the person of the Spanish Sovereign or Heir Apparent. The crux is in the words eventuale successione alla Corona delle Due Sicilie (the eventual succession to the Crown of the Two Sicilies) which no longer existed; one cannot renounce an eventual succession in civil law, nor does civil law enable a renunciation of something which does not exist.

There was a legal counsel between between the Regentess of Spain (the mother of Doña Mercedes de Borbón, the bride) and the Count of Caserta (the father of Don Carlo di Borbone delle Due Sicilie, the groom). The Regentess' counsel had determined that the only needed renunciation was that of the nationality: in order to marry her daughter, the Prince should give up his Italian nationality and become Spanish indeed. Also this can not be a point because all princes di Borbone delle Due Sicilie have lost their original nationality (of the Kingdom of the Two Sicilies) anyway and became a citizen of a new state.

Don Carlo specifically renounced his rights to properties in the House of the Two Sicilies, he did not specifically renounce the Headship itself. The renunciation of the properties was made because Don Carlo was marrying into a very wealthy royal family and his brothers were impoverished. The so-called Act of Cannes ensured an eventual succession of his issue to the throne of Spain (which never happened) and by this Act he, the eldest son and heir of the House of Bourbon-Two Sicilies, cared for his family's financial future by renouncing his claim to the House's wealth.

[duke of poliganc]

...Here present is His Royal Highness Prince Don Carlo our dearest loved Son and he has declared that he shall be entering into marriage with Her Royal Highness the Infanta Doña Maria Mercedes, Princess of the Asturias, and assuming by that marriage the nationality and quality of Spanish Prince, intends to renounce, and by this present act solemnly renounces for Himself and for his Heirs and Successors to any right and rights to the eventual succession to the Crown of the Two Sicilies and to all the Properties of the Royal House found in Italy and elsewhere and this according to our laws, constitutions and customs of the Family and in execution of the Pragmatic Decree of King Charles III, Our August ancestor, of the 6th October 1759, to whose prescriptions he declares freely and explicitly to subscribe to and obey.

i don't see anything in it about eventual succession to the spanish Crown . passing the family wealth and properties from one son to another doesn't require renouncing any rights of succession to the Crown of the Two Sicilies

[Duc_et_Pair]

Originally Posted by duke of poliganc

i don't see anything in it about eventual succession to the spanish Crown . passing the family wealth and properties from one son to another doesn't require renouncing any rights of succession to the Crown of the Two Sicilies

The "eventual succession" to the Crown of the Two Sicilies would clash when a descendant of Prince Carlo, an eventual successor to this Crown would also succeed to the Crown of Spain. It was not allowed to hold these two Crowns in one hand. This eventuality never happened: there is no succession to the Crown of the Two Sicilies since it was (and is still) non-existent. And there is no succession to the Crown of Spain either since the brother-in-law of Don Carlo, King Alfonso XIII, had issue and his direct descendant Don Felipe is on the throne today.

The second part of the Act of Cannes specifically dealt with the renunciation of claims on the inheritance of the House Bourbon-Two Sicilies. As said: Don Carlo married into a wealthy family and by doing so he ensured that his impoverished brothers would enjoy a inheritance, regardless any "eventual succession".

[eya]

Italy: Re-Discovering the Italian Kingdom of Two Sicilies

[Katrianna]

Prince Carlo has given an interview to El Mundo. The reconciliation seems to be all but definitely broken. The link and translation was provided by Manuel on the Franco-Iberian Royals Message Board.





The Franco-Iberian Royals Message Board: Interview with the Duke of Castro

[baena]

Originally Posted by MAfan

If I don't mistake, the Dukedom of Franco will be eventually indeed inherited by his daughter, since she is the first born child.


However, back to the Two Sicilies, I'm wondering:
- what do the other Princes think about this decision?
- what will happen to the Grand Mastership of the Constantinian Order?

Luis Alfonso will no inherited the dukedom of Franco. His mother, Carmen Martinez-Bordiú, signed an agreement with her younger brother Francisco Franco Martinez-Bordiú. When the present Duchess of Franco dies the dukedom will pass to her son Francisco and Carmen will inherit the tittle of marquis of Villaverde. Francisco is the present holder of the title of marquis, inherited by his father . So the daughter of Luis Alfonso will inherit the title of marchioness of Villaverde.

[MAfan]

Thanks for the clarification, I was not aware of that agreement.

[Duc_et_Pair]

Originally Posted by baena

Luis Alfonso will no inherited the dukedom of Franco. His mother, Carmen Martinez-Bordiú, signed an agreement with her younger brother Francisco Franco Martinez-Bordiú. When the present Duchess of Franco dies the dukedom will pass to her son Francisco and Carmen will inherit the tittle of marquis of Villaverde. Francisco is the present holder of the title of marquis, inherited by his father . So the daughter of Luis Alfonso will inherit the title of marchioness of Villaverde.

So, for my understanding:

Doña María del Carmen Franco y Polo, Dowager Marchioness of Villaverde (the only child of General Francisco Franco) is the current Duchess of Franco.

Her eldest son Don Francisco Martínez-Bordiú y Franco is the current Señor de Meirás and Marquès de Villaverde.

Her eldest child Doña Carmen Martínez-Bordiú y Franco, will not inherit her mother's Dukedom of Franco, it will go to her brother Francisco instead. In return she receives her brother's marquessate of Villaverde?

Is that correct? Is this legally allowed to swap titles? "You get title X in return you give me title Y"?

[baena]

Originally Posted by Duc_et_Pair

So, for my understanding:

Doña María del Carmen Franco y Polo, Dowager Marchioness of Villaverde (the only child of General Francisco Franco) is the current Duchess of Franco.

Her eldest son Don Francisco Martínez-Bordiú y Franco is the current Señor de Meirás and Marquès de Villaverde.

Her eldest child Doña Carmen Martínez-Bordiú y Franco, will not inherit her mother's Dukedom of Franco, it will go to her brother Francisco instead. In return she receives her brother's marquessate of Villaverde?

Is that correct? Is this legally allowed to swap titles? "You get title X in return you give me title Y"?

Yes its correct. It is legal and allowed by the spanish legislation to swap titles. Is not the only case, if the family members make an agreement it is legal. In this case Carmen Martinez-Bordiu, the mother of Luis Alfonso, takes the marquessate In compensation of the dukedom. Since the succession law change establishing the inheritance of hereditary noble titles by the firstborn regardless of gender, some families make agreements and swap titles in compensation to the eldest daughter.

The eldest son of the Duchess of Franco surnames are, Franco Martinez-Bordiú. When he was born his parents reverse the surnames. Its legal In spain to put the mothers surname first.

[SirGyamfi1]

Originally Posted by Marengo

I suppose his eldest daughter was not his heir yet, hence the Palermo title. So now that that has been changed he also re-introduced the Calabria title. When you burn bridges you might as well burn them all.

The duke of Calabria could reply in a multitude of ways, from a twitter war to suffering in silence I suppose. But the present course of action seems well adviced: making clear to his supporters that he is -in his vision- the only true heir to the Two Sicilies ánd at the same time taking the moral high ground.

I find these title disputes in former reigning houses rather curious. IMHO the house of Wittelsbach is one of the prime examples where it is well managed and the entire family behaves with dignity while still accepting new realities and changes. Of course Duke Franz did not change succession yet to include his brother's daughters, but who knows what will happen in the future .

The difference is that with the Bavarian royals is that the main branch has sons and other branches aren’t changing successions to suit themselves. The succession with the Bavarians is also much clearer and simpler.

[Tatiana Maria]

Originally Posted by SirGyamfi1

The difference is that with the Bavarian royals is that the main branch has sons and other branches aren’t changing successions to suit themselves. The succession with the Bavarians is also much clearer and simpler.

Not sure what you mean by "clearer and simpler" or "The difference is that with the Bavarian royals is that the main branch has sons". The current head of the Bavarians, who is the one who changed the succession, has no children, and at the moment that the Two Sicilies succession dispute originated in 1960, both the incumbent head of the house and the challenger had sons who were their declared heirs.

[SirGyamfi1]

Originally Posted by Tatiana Maria

Not sure what you mean by "clearer and simpler" or "The difference is that with the Bavarian royals is that the main branch has sons". The current head of the Bavarians, who is the one who changed the succession, has no children, and at the moment that the Two Sicilies succession dispute originated in 1960, both the incumbent head of the house and the challenger had sons who were their declared heirs.

it is clearer in the case of the Bavarians because the current Head has no children, the heir presumptive only has daughters, but their first cousin Luitpold has two sons who will continue the succession. It’s not that complicated for them. However with the Two Sicilies family, that’s a more complicated issue.

[Stefan]

Originally Posted by SirGyamfi1

The difference is that with the Bavarian royals is that the main branch has sons and other branches aren’t changing successions to suit themselves. The succession with the Bavarians is also much clearer and simpler.

Thee have also no renunciations who then are said to have been no renunciations or only in special cases (like with the renunciation of the great-grandfather of Prince Pedro) in the bavarian RF and therefore not 2 rival claimants

[Tatiana Maria]

Originally Posted by Stefan

Thee have also no renunciations who then are said to have been no renunciations or only in special cases (like with the renunciation of the great-grandfather of Prince Pedro) in the bavarian RF and therefore not 2 rival claimants

But there could have been (at least) two rival claimants in the future, if the branch which lost its position as next in line had disputed Franz's changes to the line of succession, or even just the retroactive working of his changes. I believe the point of Marengo's comment was that a (future) headship dispute was avoided because of the goodwill of the members of the family who lost out by the change.

[Stefan]

Originally Posted by Tatiana Maria

But there could have been (at least) two rival claimants in the future, if the branch which lost its position as next in line had disputed Franz's changes to the line of succession, or even just the retroactive working of his changes. I believe the point of Marengo's comment was that a (future) headship dispute was avoided because of the goodwill of the members of the family who lost out by the change.

As far as i recall the retroactive recognition of the not approved marriages was made in a Family Council. This would mean that probably all males over 18 where involved in it.

[SirGyamfi1]

I wonder what the dynastic (third) branch thinks of this? But they are very quiet and don’t seem to care much for this.

[SirGyamfi1]

Originally Posted by Benjamin

Oh, several board members tend to be ready on hand to criticize the Castros.

Whether the Calabria support is so strong outside of the online realm is quite up for debate.

The Duke of Castro certainly has a strong and visible network in Italy.

They are criticized because they are too glitzy, and somewhat frivolous. Plus the fact that the Duke of Castro first made an agreement with the Calabria family, but then makes changes without discussing it with the Calabria family and stirring up mess.