), descending from the Duke of Viseu, never challenged D.Miguel's renunciation, in spite of his 3 children being already born when he did it. 
Previous Message
Indeed that is the logic for many, but from what I have read there are others who simply hold that one cannot legally renounce another person's rights. There are Russian monarchists who believe that Nicholas II's abdication in favor of Michael was invalid because he could not renounce for Alexei, even though the latter was a minor. It would go ever more so for someone not yet born. (I don't agree with this argument, but I have seen it made by multiple sources.) Previous MessagePrevious Message
First a small point: Otto's title was king of Greece. The "of the Hellenes" styling was introduced with George I.
This question of whether one can renounce a throne for one's future descendants is a very controversial one. It comes up a lot with claims to the various Bourbon thrones (France, the Two Sicilies). The general understanding by those who were parties to the treaty installing Otto/Otho was that he could and did renounce for his future descendants.
Similarly, Maximiliano of Mexico renounced his claim to the Habsburg thrones, Felipe V to France, etc. French Legitimists of the "Spanish White" variety argue precisely that Felipe's renunciation was illegal and therefore invalid.
I guess, at least in the case of French Legitimists, it could be about the King having been given the throne by God, and therefore it is not possible for any dynast to deprive his descendants of that devine position.
Message Thread
« Back to index