Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
1. No, but it might make their claim less valid than the claim of another royal house/branch which has a closer recent connection to this country.
Also, the Treaty of Utrecht might disqualify the Spanish Bourbons from becoming the monarchs of France in a restored French monarchy.
2. The thing is that I don't see why one's descendants should be disqualified from the line of succession simply due to what this individual himself did.
By that rationale, wouldn't the claims of Cyril Vladimirovich (1876-1938) and of his son, Vladimir Cyrillovich (1917-1992), to the former Russian throne be considered invalid/less valid as well? (I think that Cyril supported the Russian Revolution in 1917, which resulted in the overthrow of the Russian monarchy.)
Cyril Vladimirovich quibbles from some quarters aside probably had the strongest claim to the Russian imperial throne. His son and heir however due to questions regarding his marriage being equal is another story.
Being as all this may if Putin decided to pull a Franco on Russia and restore the Romanovs I'd put my money on Cyril Vladimirovich's line as it seems to be the least messy.
To be strictly accurate the Allies did not restore the Bourbons. The Napoleonic Senate did it, encouraged by Talleyrand and Fouche who were smart enough to know that such a restoration was France's best chance to get a lenient peace treaty.
Fair enough. But generally actions taken by a legislative body while its capital is occupied by one or more foreign armies are best understood, real world, as the actions of the occupying powers -- which frequently (and certainly in this case) would not permit the implementation of actions that they did not approve.
Futurist110:
«No, after Napoleon III got overthrown in 1870, France established a republican system of government.» So the allies input a new king from the rojalfamily before the revolution on the throne after Napoleon 1 lost the war? It seems so from this list of French monarks: List of French monarchs - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia. But the list says that it was both family of the family before the revolution and of Napoleon 1 that was put on the throne the following years. Does anyone has anything to say about this?
Out of curiosity--isn't the Orleanists' claim to the French throne more accepted than the Legitimists' claim to the French throne? After all, there is a little thing called the Treaty of Utrecht, and in addition, the Orleanists appear to have a greater family and historical connection to France than the Legitimists do (after all, the Legitimist claimants to the French throne lived in Spain for the vast majority of the last 300 years, whereas this is not true of the Orleanists).
They both have a claim, which would be considered more "official" is difficult to determine. The Treaty of Utrecht would make the Legitimists claims null, but they counter argue that it is impossible for the treaty to be an effect since the renunciation was illegal. Even at the time of the treaty there were arguments that it may not be "legally possible" for the Bourbon branches to give up the claims on the both of the thrones. Salic law is Salic law and endorsed by God afterall...or so the argument would go.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Petrolava
But how long did France have a king? Thanks
Define France. Define King.
If we are to go to the absolute beginning of the Frankish Kingdom then the first "king" was Clovis I and he is generally honored as such. He was crowned in 509 as "King of the Franks" and placed the Merovingian Dynasty in control of the young French kingdom. From there you have an essentially endless line of kings (through various houses and intrigues) through 1792 when the First French Republic was formed. So, the first and longest period (ancien regime) you have 1,283 years of rule by kings.
The First Republic gave way to the First French Empire in 1804 with the crowning of Napoleon as the French Emperor. Napoleon was defeated in 1814, but then had a restoration (known as the Hundred Days) in 1815. In 1814 the allies had restored the monarchy under Louis XVIII and he simply stepped aside during the Hundred Days and was then restored again. So, you have 10 years of Napoleon as "emperor".
From 1814-1830 the Bourbon monarchy ruled again. So, we have 16 more years of a king. We then have the "July Monarchy" which places the Orleans family on the throne from 1830-1848, so another 18 years of kings.
From 1848-1852 we have the Second French Republic, no king. In 1852 Napoleon III (who was president of the Republic) declared himself emperor of the Second French Empire. That lasted from 1852-1870 when he was overthrown and the Third Republic was established. So, we have another 18 years of an emperor. After 1870 there has not been another monarchy.
So...
1,283 years of kings to start off + 34 additional years of kings = 1,317 years of being ruled by a king
IF you want to count the imperial years of the Napoleons as "being ruled by a king" then you need to add another 28 years for a total of 1,345 years.
This is of course all based on picking 509 with the crowning of Clovis I as "King of the Franks" as our start date.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Lieneke
I think you're right ... Louis XVI was the last of the monarchs, and the French monarchy was abolished after the French Revolution.
No he wasn't and no it wasn't. The monarchy was restored following the defeat of Napoleon. See the notes above and earlier in the thread.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Mikestone8
I didn't think royal pretenders usually called themselves pretenders.
That is a word normally used by their opponents. The pretender himself usually just calls himself King, or maybe "de jure king" or similar.
You are right, most don't call themselves "pretenders".
Quote:
Originally Posted by Petrolava
So, any conclusions? Was the last king dismissed by the revolution, or did the allies put another person from that royal-family on the throne again after Napoleon lost the war? Thanks
The Bourbon family was on the throne in the person of Louis XVI when the revolution started. Following the revolution and the rise and defeat of Napoleon, the Bourbon family was placed back on the throne in the person of Louis XVIII. See above for events following that.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Petrolava
Futurist110:
But the list says that it was both family of the family before the revolution and of Napoleon 1 that was put on the throne the following years. Does anyone has anything to say about this?
French politics are complicated?
Seriously, there isn't much to say. The Bourbons were overthrown in the Revolution. Napoleon then rose to become emperor. Napoleon was forced into exile by the Coalition and they restored the Bourbons. The Bourbons were then overthrown by the Orleans. The Orleans were then overthrown by another republic headed by Louis Napoleon, the nephew of the Napoleon. He then declared himself emperor, but then was overthrown himself. There has not been a ruler since.
So, three families can currently claim a "right" to the throne...the Bourbons, Orleans and Napoleons.
Cyril Vladimirovich quibbles from some quarters aside probably had the strongest claim to the Russian imperial throne. His son and heir however due to questions regarding his marriage being equal is another story.
Being as all this may if Putin decided to pull a Franco on Russia and restore the Romanovs I'd put my money on Cyril Vladimirovich's line as it seems to be the least messy.
My point here was that if you are going to disqualify/remove Philippe Egalite and all of his (male-line) descendants from the French line of succession based on what one man (Philippe Egalite) himself did, then a similar rationale might be applied to the claims of Cyril Vladimirovich and of his descendants to the Russian throne due to the fact that, AFAIK, Cyril Vladimirovich supported the Russian Revolution of 1917 (the first one, not the Bolshevik one) which overthrew his cousin Tsar Nicholas II as well as the entire Russian monarchy.
1. They both have a claim, which would be considered more "official" is difficult to determine.
2. The Treaty of Utrecht would make the Legitimists claims null, but they counter argue that it is impossible for the treaty to be an effect since the renunciation was illegal. Even at the time of the treaty there were arguments that it may not be "legally possible" for the Bourbon branches to give up the claims on the both of the thrones.
3. Salic law is Salic law and endorsed by God afterall...or so the argument would go.
1. I wasn't talking about the more "official" claim, but rather about the stronger claim.
2. OK, but several questions:
A. Couldn't one argue that a multinational treaty is superior to French (domestic) law? (Also, as a side note, even if such arguments already existed back then, I don't think that the other European powers would have been particularly happy if they found out that Philip only approved of this treaty because he considered it to be invalid and thus non-biding.)
B. By such a rationale, wouldn't Gaston, Comte d'Eu's removal of himself and of his male-line descendants from the French line of succession until all of the other male-line branches become extinct (or something such as this) be considered invalid as well?
C. Would a French King hypothetically making his second-oldest/third-oldest/et cetera son his heir instead of his first-born son (if this first-born son of his is obviously still alive) be considered invalid as well under Salic law?
3. OK, but then this raises the question--if Salic law is endorsed by God, then how about God shows up on Earth right now in plain sight so that everyone can indisputably see and hear him and say this himself/herself? Until and unless this occurs, I am not sure that the claim that Salic law is endorsed by God (if God even exists) should have much merit.
Hopefully everything which I wrote here makes sense. Unfortunately, I am still a little tired and drowsy right now due to a nasal surgery which I had earlier today (which reduced my turbinates and which fixed my deviated septum).
1. I wasn't talking about the more "official" claim, but rather about the stronger claim.
Well that depends widely on one's interpretations doesn't it?
Quote:
2. OK, but several questions:
OK, but approach this from the perspective of 18th century man, not 21st century man...
Quote:
A. Couldn't one argue that a multinational treaty is superior to French (domestic) law? (Also, as a side note, even if such arguments already existed back then, I don't think that the other European powers would have been particularly happy if they found out that Philip only approved of this treaty because he considered it to be invalid and thus non-biding.)
Considering that the parties and governments who signed the Treaty of Utrecht are now largely defunct and the primary issues long forgotten, the supremacy of that treaty vis-a-vis French law is only of concern to the French. Something tells me that England and Austria aren't going to go to war over whomever the French decide is rightfully next inline to a defunct monarchy. So, it all comes down to ones perspective over the validity of the renunciation of the right.
Quote:
B. By such a rationale, wouldn't Gaston, Comte d'Eu's removal of himself and of his male-line descendants from the French line of succession until all of the other male-line branches become extinct (or something such as this) be considered invalid as well?
By my understanding of the ancient legal tradition, one cannot remove oneself from the line of succession, but one may choose to abdicate once crowned leaving the crown to the next in line. Whom is to be crowned is a matter of codified law and tradition, not personal feelings. For instance, I know in the English tradition (which is very similar to the French) Prince Charles cannot "refuse" the crown in deference to his son, but he could choose to abdicate as soon as he was named king and the crown would pass to his son.
Quote:
C. Would a French King hypothetically making his second-oldest/third-oldest/et cetera son his heir instead of his first-born son (if this first-born son of his is obviously still alive) be considered invalid as well under Salic law?
Yes and no. This is basically an unsettled matter. One camp would say that since Salic Law is "ordained by God" it is impossible to short circuit it. The heir is the heir is the heir. The other group would say that the king or queen as "ordained by God" could name or disenherit and heir as they deemed necessary. Hence why you end up with so many skipped heirs becoming "rallying points" for revolts.
Quote:
3. OK, but then this raises the question--if Salic law is endorsed by God, then how about God shows up on Earth right now in plain sight so that everyone can indisputably see and hear him and say this himself/herself? Until and unless this occurs, I am not sure that the claim that Salic law is endorsed by God (if God even exists) should have much merit.
Like I said, this is not a 21st century question, it is an 8th century question, lol. You may reject the "will of God" in this debate, but I assure you it was central to the people of the time. You're being too myopic to reject it out of hand.
By my understanding of the ancient legal tradition, one cannot remove oneself from the line of succession, but one may choose to abdicate once crowned leaving the crown to the next in line. Whom is to be crowned is a matter of codified law and tradition, not personal feelings. For instance, I know in the English tradition (which is very similar to the French) Prince Charles cannot "refuse" the crown in deference to his son, but he could choose to abdicate as soon as he was named king and the crown would pass to his son.
Actually both are perfectly possible, but either would require an Act of Parliament, transferring the right of succession to a different person from the one entitled to it under the 1701 Act of Settlement.
Actually both are perfectly possible, but either would require an Act of Parliament, transferring the right of succession to a different person from the one entitled to it under the 1701 Act of Settlement.
There is no such thing as "choosing" abdication of the British crown, indeed the process does not formally exist. When a demise occurs in the crown the next heir (of Electress Sophia of Hanover), becomes monarch at once.
In the case of Edward VII Parliament created a "demise" and thus the next heir Prince Albert of York became George VI as the former king was simply treated as dead for dynastic purposes. If the POW had married and produced that child would have inherited ahead of his uncle, provided it met the other requirements.
Parliament and the crown did *NOT* like making this decision and it haunts the Windsor family to this day especially the Queen. There was a chance the whole apple cart would have been upset with the monarchy simply done away with instead. Edward VII let the "family firm" down in failing to do his duty and thus you'll never see that sort of thing again.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
