Posted by Jane
on 4/11/2009, 4:11:32, in reply to "Another conspiracy theory"
71.113.151.43
Conspiracy theories seem to abound in royal history (consider, as another famous example, the alleged substitution of some peasant woman's son for the infant born to Mary of Modena -- wife of King James VII/II of Scotland and England).
What I find somewhat puzzling is the perceived need -- whatever might be said about preference (entirely understandable, in light of the historical context) -- of a son for Alfonso XII. Certainly the king himself was in no position to say anything about the matter of gender -- since he died before the birth of his third child.
As it was, even with two daughters and no son, his widow (Queen Maria Cristina) was named regent for the elder (Infanta Maria de las Mercedes) -- rightfully acknowledged as the conditional queen regnant of Spain.
Otherwise, if daughters were not regarded as having succession rights -- as in the case of the Salic law -- then the Alfonso faction in the country (being descended from Queen Isabel II) stood to basically lose their very raison d'etre. After all: that was precisely what the Carlists were about -- at least in part (I understand the issue raised in an earlier thread, which was that Carlism was really more about politics than some kind of right to the throne by blood).
To sum: while I can understand the PREFERENCE for a son, I have a hard time understanding why the birth of a male heir was deemed imperative to the point that there would even arise a conspiracy theory (granted that it was nothing more than just a theory).
Message Thread:
« Back to thread