Re: Peregrinite
Posted by Guy Stair Sainty
on 2/5/2019, 17:49:22, in reply to "
Re: Peregrinite"
The actual renunciations were annexes to the treaty of Utrecht (of which there were three different treaties with different wordings), and the princes concerned did not sign the treaties, only the renunciations. To understand this you also have to understand there were already renunciations to Spain made by Infanta Anna in 1612, 1615 and 1619 when she married Louis XIII, none of which were considered binding and which did not prevent the Duke of Orleans acquiring succession rights to which he too was required to renounce in 1712/13. Likewise Infanta Maria Teresa renounced in 1660 - from the very beginning this was stated by Spanish officials to be without effect, but it was conveniently claimed that the reciprocal payment of a dowry not having been paid, would make the renunciation void. However, one must separate the treaty (signed by the representatives of the monarch) from the actual renunciations, signed by the person renouncing. The renunciation by Philip V was made reciprocal to the renunciations of his brother the Duke of Berry and his cousin the Duke of Orleans to Spain - although both descended from marriages where the Infantas their great-grandmother and grandmother in the first case and grandmother in the other, had renounced their rights to Spain (so why would they have to renounce these rights that they supposedly did not have? Because these renunciations were never valid). In turn, the renunciations by the Dukes of Berry and Orleans were both reciprocal on the renunciation by the Emperor Karl VI (styled Carlos III, King of Spain, etc), but he did not sign this renunciation until 1725 by which time Berry and Orleans were dead. Their deaths invalidated any act that had not been completed - if, for example, you are selling your house and you have signed your part but the other party has not signed his or hers, and you die before they sign, the deal is off. It is no different here - once the Duke of Berry died, without the reciprocal renunciation of the Emperor, his renunciation was voided. The same with Orleans. This was made clear in a 1730 Opinion of the French ministry of Foreign affairs and that is why in 1846 the French and Spanish governments agreed that the renunciations that would otherwise have prevented the issue of Antoine d'Orleans, Duke of Montpensier and Infanta Luisa Fernanda from being able to succeed should (as was expected) Isabel II had no issue (Louis-Philippe had agreed to her marriage rather than to her son because it was thought, wrongly, to be unlikely that she would have issue). And the whole question of whether even with full reciprocity Philip's renunciation was valid was answered by the Marquis de Torcy, French foreign minister, who wrote to the British government in advance, stating that whatever was signed could not be valid if it broke the fundamental principle of primogeniture succession. Previous Message That reasoning line certainly excludes Luis Alfonso from the french succession. If one despises the wording of the Utrecht Treaty...
|