The division of the Legitimists and Orleanists is logical up until the death of Henri V/count of Chambord. Just like the Carlists movement is Spain remained logical until the heir became the reigning king of Spain.
Keeping up a division out of resentment is a bad idea and in that Luis-Alfonso and Carlos Xavier both need to realise their claims are futile and unhelpful. Both only claim on the basis of resenting supporters unwilling to accept that their supported line has ended and the rival claimant has ended up outliving their rival.
Even if you were to consider the Spanish Borbons as heirs to the throne of France (and i don't) it is inconceivable to argue that King Alfonso XIII/Alphonse I would have deemed the marriage of his second son to Emanuelle Dampierre unequal for the Spanish succession but equal for the French succession. Had he thought so the title of Duke of Segovia would not have been needed for he could have styled his second son Dauphin de France and his new daughter-in-law Dauphine.
He did not but made them Duke and Duchess of Segovia and had his son renounce his right to the throne (of Spain as Alfonso himself did apparently not consider himself King of France, had he done so it would have been thrones).
Yes Luis Alfonso represents the senior genealogical line of the House of Bourbon (excluding the Bussets as a bastard line) but he represents a non-dynastic line. The oldest dynastic line is that of Juan-Carlos and Felipe they reign in Spain, junior branches represent various Italian dominions and actually reign as Nassau's in Luxembourg. Another junior branch presents the claimants to the thrones of France and Brazil.
That is partly true; the question of nationality is in a way relevant not only to the succession to the throne, but other successions, but not necessarily as a barrier to succession. This was also connected to the issue of feudal fealty, with several major fiefs of the crown (Aquitaine, Burgundy, Normandy, etc) being held by foreign sovereigns, they could still hold these, but only paying homage for their duchy and not as subjects. The Angevin Kings of Naples and the Courtenay Latin Emperors of Byzantium never lost their French rights, despite ruling far off kingdoms. "Foreignness" was not really the reason for disqualification and was certainly eventually trumped by male primogeniture, which was established for the first several Capetian monarchs by the reigning king having his son crowned in the father's lifetime. This was a sensible precaution when even hereditary succession was not necessarily the certain grounds for succession - the promise of fealty on the part of the nobles who would have to accept the heir as their future ruler was far more important in the 9th-12th centuries. Hence Duke Robert of Normandy, not having any other male heir, insured his 7 year old son William's succession by having the Norman nobles swear fealty to him, despite his bastardy (it helped that Robert's uncle was the immensely powerful Archbishop of Rouen). William's own claim to the English crown as certainly not based on hereditary right. So by having the eldest son crowned, and thereby obtaining the fealty of the great nobles, the male line succession was established and then became the sole criteria. When the infant King John I of France died with only a surviving sister, he was the 13th Capetian king of France, so the system of male succession had become established and defensible (even though challenged a few years later by Edward III of England) and most importantly was upheld by the Estates General. The later objection to Edward's candidacy, however, was nothing to do with his foreign nationality (although it was certainly a political objection) but was justified on the basis that male primogeniture had been established as a fundamental principle - the next Kings after Jean I were his father's younger brothers, with Charles IV who died in 1328 leaving no issue. While Charles IV's nearest relation was Edward III, the throne instead passed to Philippe of Valois (admitted there was a 100 years war!). Charles VI of France excluded his own son by claiming he was illegitimate and adopted Henry V. As the latter pre-deceased Charles by two months in August 1422, on Charles's death Henry VI of England was proclaimed King. It was not until 1431, however, that Henry was crowned in Notre Dame, two years after Charles VII had been crowned in Rheims, thanks to Joan of Arc. The English usurpation, however, was illegal because neither Henry V or VI were male line Capetians (and of course not the primogeniture heirs). When Henri III of France became King of Poland, however, letters patent were issued affirming his continuing right to the French throne, and the proponents of the French nationality requirement argue that this was both necessary and sufficient to negate the effects of his foreign nationality. But equally it demonstrates that the fact of Henri IV's father being supposedly French and him being a French peer, was not the reason that foreign nationality was overlooked - after all Henri III's father was king of France and he too was a peer. So the argument here below that Henri IV's succession despite being a foreign monarch was possible because his father was French is insufficient in the light of the letters patent for Henri III. In fact the objection to Henri III's succession by the Catholic League was on two fold grounds - he was a foreign king and he was Protestant. Henri III, however, lying on his death bed after the attempted assassination (which killed him two weeks later) summoned Henri IV of Navarre and made it clear before the entire court that he must succeed, despite any other factor, because he was the primogeniture heir - although he was 13 generations removed from male descent from a King (Saint Louis). In 1660, when Louis XIV tried to exclude the most junior Capetian line, the Courtenay's, because they lived as impoverished provincial nobility, and instead name the Lorraine as heirs after him, his brother and the Conde-Contis (as there were no other legitimate male lines aside from the Courtenays), in the Treaty of Montmartre, the Parlement of Paris refused to register the treaty and it was never effected. In 1713, with Philip V off in Spain, his other grandsons dead and only one direct heir in the person of the future Louis XV, the Duke of Orleans having just one ten year old son, the next in line the Duc de Bourbon only married in 1713 (and he had no children by his first wife), while Bourbon's brother, the Count de Charolais, was just 12 years old in 1713 (he never married) and the next and last in line, the Prince de Conti, also only married in 1713, the future of the house was at risk. So with the possible extinction of the male line, Louis XIV declared his legitimated sons heirs after the Prince de Conti and enforced this in the Paris Parlement by a lit de justice(an antiquated enforcement procedure) over the strenuous objections of the Dukes of Orleans and Bourbon, and also from Philippe V. When this edict was annulled in 1717, the decree was emphatic in upholding the principle of both primogeniture and legitimacy. When Louis XV was dangerously ill in the 1720s, Philip of Spain prepared his return, abdicating the Spanish throne to his son Luis I - I have published previously a long "opinion" issued by the French ministry of Foreign Affairs in 1730 stating clearly that the renunciations of 1712-13 were void because of the reciprocity between those of Philip and the Dukes of Orleans and Berry and in the latter 2 cases with the Emperor - who, however, refused to renounce and when he finally signed his renunciation the dukes of Orleans and Berry were already dead, so as their renunciations had not been validated by the Emperors, they lost any validity with their deaths, which in turn meant any validity that the renunciation of Philip might have had also lost its validity. This principle was upheld by the Assemble Nationale (formed from the Estates General) in 1789, and in 1846 by both the French and Spanish governments which agreed that the renunciations were void (a position disputed by Palmerston). The question of nationality arose in 1908 with Gaston Comte d'Eu's demand to be reintegrated into the House of France which the Duke of Orleans refused, then made a compromise by which the Orleans-Bragança line would supposedly recover their rights but after the other later Orleans lines (now extinct anyway) - whether the Duke of Orleans had any authority in the matter is another issue, but either the O-B line was able to succeed or it was not, and changing the order of succession was far beyond the capacity even of a reigning king. I recently had the opportunity reading Gaston's letters to his eldest son in which he hotly disputed the Duke of Orleans's interpretation of the agreement, which is in any case now irrelevant. The so-called Orleans-Borbon line of the Dukes of Galliera claims the title of Royal Highness as French dynasts (which they surely must be if nationality is not a bar).
The reality is that concepts of nationality have become far more open as it is possible to have dual nationality (as in the case of Louis-Alphonse, Duke of Anjou). It was actually Napoleon who imposed a particularly strict interpretation of the effects of nationality - so, for example, when the Duke of Leuchtenberg became Russian he lost his right to succeed to the Duchy of Navarre (nothing to do with the kingdom) and its vast estate, which reverted to the French state. A French Prince of the Napoleonic dynasty had to be a French citizen, and one had to be French to succeed to a French majorat. But why should nationality matter today, when it is possible to hold joint citizenship and is it a bar to future generations or does it only ban a foreigner from succeeding as long as he is only foreign?
It seems to have gained a special exemption: if the French heir that succeeds a throne elsewhere himself becomes the king of France than it's all right. It also has to do with being French by birth and of lineage.
Had Louis XV died young than there is little doubt his uncle Felipe V would have been able to return to France to reign there. Probably leaving one of his younger sons to succeed him in Spain.
The Borbons of Spain were no longer French by birth from the sons of Felipe V onwards and as such not eligible to succeed. Not unlike the rules in Portugal.
Gaston could have fitted in had he become the head of the dynasty after his return. He did not and his sons were born as Brazilian nationals not Frenchmen so no longer able to resurrect a claim to the French succession.
The same thing applies to the Spanish and Italian Borbons. After Felipe V they were not French so could not transmit French rights.
The entire French succession laws have always been to prevent a foreign dynasty or foreign rulers to take over the French throne. That is why women were shut out (princesses married foreign rulers as the result of international diplomacy, by not giving them succession-rights they remained French but their heirs were foreigners).
Henri of Bourbon was able to succeed as Henri IV not because his mother was the first cousin of Henri II but because his father was a male line descendant of Saint Louis in an unbroken French line. Henri inherited his mother's kingdom of Navarre but was also French as the heir of his father's French dominions. He had been one of the figureheads of a French political party/lobby group.
The french succession law considered that any prince called to reign in a foreign country would loose his rights to the throne on the grounds of pérégrinité .
It happened with Felipe V (Bourbon) called to reign in Spain, and with Gaston, count of Eu, married to the Emperor of Brazil's daughter and heiress.
The cases of Felipe and Gaston are purely hypothetical. There was never a time when either was heir and was passed over.
There are, however, several examples in French history when a prince who reigned in a foreign country became heir. In every single one of those cases, the prince actually did succeed to the French throne and was not passed over.
In 1573 Henri, duc d'Orléans, younger brother and heir apparent of King Charles IX, was elected king of Poland. The following year Charles IX died and Henri succeeded as King Henri III.
In 1589 King Henri III died and was succeeded by his distant cousin Henri III, King of Navarre, as King Henri IV.
In 1420 the Treaty of Troyes was signed, affirming that the heir apparent of King Charles VI was King Henry V of England. Two years later Charles died and Henry succeeded (but not without opposition).
Pérégrinité is a theory when it comes to the French succession. Every time it has been put to the test it has been shown not to count.
530
Message Thread | This response ↓
« Back to index