HMCM Louis XX, current Legitimist (And only rightfull) Titular King of France
In 1700 Charles II of Spain died childless, the last king of the most senior House of the Austrias, the Spanish Habsburgs, was a sick person unable to procreate even he marries twice, he was deformed and was sterile.
As the male line of the Spanish Habsburgs died with Charles II, then the throne should pass (According to the traditional law of succession followed by the Spanish Monarchy) to the eldest daughter of the previous monarch, Philip IV of France, and then to her issue, the Infanta Maria Theresa of Spain that was already deceased but had left her own issue.
The family tree shown above demonstrates how the Bourbons were the next in line of succession to the then heirless Spanish throne.
Maria Theresa was the queen consort of Louis XIV and their only surviving son was, Louis the Grand Dauphin, then in normal conditions he would have been the next monarch of Spain, however he was destined to become King of France at teh death of Louis XIV, and thus unable to accend another throne.
In those times the theories of the Balance of Power were already very popular and thus no european power would allow a single monarch to become king of two very powerfull countries as it were both Spain and France.
The Grand Dauphin had three sons of his own: Louis, Duke of Bourgogne (Also expected to become king of France at some time), Philip, Duke of Anjou and Charles, Duke of Berry, it was decided then that Philip was going to be selected as the heir to the Spanish crown so the thrones of France and Spain would remain separated.
However in XVIIIth century Europe the life was ephimeral and the deseases took the lives of both royals and commoners, as that the succession issues were common as life expectancy was short. Even the succession to both French and Spanish thrones was already separated, countries as Prussia, the HRE and England feared that in near future it would be possible that both countries will be unified in a personal union.
Then in 1700 Philip, Duke of Anjou became Philip V of Spain, but was still in the line of succession to the French Throne, the War of Spanish Succession then erupted, as the archduke Charles of Austria (Future Charles VI, Holy Roman Emperor) contested the accession of Philip V.
At the end of the War, Philip V could assure his new crown, however he was FORCED to rennounce to his rights to the French throne. According to the then popular "Divine right of Kings" it was impossible to rennounce to one's divine destiny, Philip V as a capetian had al the rights to become King of France in the eventuality of the loss of the heirs apparents, according to modern International Law any treaty signed under coersions is illegal and thus null and void.
The so called rennunciation of Philip V was thus illegal in both traditional and modern law, a Prince du Sang can not simply rennounce his right of blood, and the centuries old French Salic tradition could not be affected by a treaty of such nature.
It was never necessary to call Philip V back to France since the little Louis XV could survive infancy and produce his own issue, however unfortunately this line became extinct in 1883 at the death of the Count of Chamboard, thus according to Salic Law the succession devolved to the descendants of Philip V of Spain.
Under no means a French Prince can be deprived of it's right to succession, this did not happened even when the protestant Henry IV acceeded to the throne, and at the time that tyhe succession devolved to descendants of Philip V, the most senior Bourbon was not reigning as King of Spain thus no violation to the Balance of Power happened.
Juan, Count of Montizon (Pictured above) of the Carlist Branch of the Spanish Bourbons was then the next rightfull king of Spain, his line became extinct in 1936 and then it passed to the royal line of Spain with Alfonso XIII of Spain, however both the spanish and french lines became separated again in 1941, the second son (Jaime, Duke of Segovia) of Alfonso XIII succeeded to the french crown while the youngest (Juan, Count of Barcelona) succeeded to the spanish.
Even today both lines are separated, with HMCM Louis XX as the pretender to the french throne, and HM Juan Carlos I as the present and reigning King of Spain, then there it is no reason to use the argument of the personal union to avoid Louis XX becoming King of France.
In brief the rennunciation was null and void, the spanish and french lines of the Bourbons are now again separated and thus there it is no valid reason to reject Louis XX as the only rightfull pretender of the throne.
Remember that since 987 the following formula was always true:
Most senior Capetian= King of France
HMCM Louis XX= King of France DEI GRATIA
8 comentarios:
Vive l'Roi!
es extraño como te puede encantar algo que en su momento fue tan criticado, pero creo que es el ideal estilo disney de la riqueza y la nobleza, jajaja me agrada su blog querido
saludos
You should take into account that renounciations were ideed valid regarding the Sapnish throne. I mean, the old tradition in Spain (and more precisely in Castille) was that one could renounce his own rights to the Crown, and son forth.
The whole point is that the Infanta María Teresa, upon marrying Louis XIV, renounced his rights to the Spanish crown, for her and her descendants. It is from her that Philip V descends. So one could legitimately think that some Austria-related descendant is the de iure king of Spain.
What I try to point out is that if you take succesion law too serously, some strange results will arise. There is an article in the English Wikipedia ("Alternate successions of the English crown") that shows this.
The problem with English Succession law is that although there WAS(and in de jure Law, still IS) a Rightful Law of Succession, the various usurpations have led the True Royal Line further and further away from the throne, until the present de jure King of England is an Australian rice farmer!
However, apart from 1830, no junior French(or illegitimate as in the case of Henry Tudor in England) branch has ever usurped the throne. Thus it is obvious under strict French Law that the only de jure French King is Louis XX. However, due to the various English usurpations and false pronouncements, there are at least 4 different people who could all claim to be the "legitimate" English sovereign. Following English Succession Law to the strictest letter however leads to the aforementioned King...
To Guillermo, SPANISH succession rights may be renounced, altered etc., however this article is about FRENCH succession rights.
Louis XX's line may very well have renounced their claims to be King of Spain, and this may very well be legally valid, however the article is about Louis XX's rights to be the King of France. Under the exact French succession Laws of 1713, the ONLY Titular King of France is Louis XX, and the so-called "Henri VII" is only about 80th in the Line of Succession. The Orleans branch are still Male-Line Legitimate Descendants of Hugh Capet, but unless the Bourbon-Spain, Bourbon-Parma, Bourbon-Two Sicilies etc. branches all become extinct, the Orleans branch have no claim.
What I tried to poit out with the reference to the Spanish and English succession controversies is that such things should be treated from a historical point of view, rather that a strictly legal one. Historically, both the Orléans and the Legitimist Bourbons have actively claimed the French throne.
From my point of view, the fact that the French throne has never been usurped prior to the July Revolution does not constitute enough basis for excluding the historical argument in the French case.
Thus, in my opinion, both pretendants could be choosed for a restored French monarchy, and both have historical backgroung for pretending the throne. At least, until and unless a political decision is made on the issue.
And no, adopting a republican constitution is not a "political decision on the issue", for a variety of reasons.
Anyway, it is obvious to me that both claims would falling in the same line would be great for the force and consistency of the French monarchist movement.
It is great discussing this topics with serious people, really.
If the current French Republique did choose to restore the Monarchy, that would not mean that the Proper Monarch would be restored. Theey may choose the Legitimist, the Orleanist, the Bonapartist, or even someone else entirely. However, the LEGITIMATE Monarch is only one person, presently HMCM Louis XX.
What is also interesting is that the Orleanists have a whole book of rules about renouncing and foreigners. Someone tried to explain the Orleanist position, and needed several articles to explain why Phillip de Anjou's renunciation is valid, but then Henri IV's and Egalite's renunciations are not valid. Likewise why is Louis XX born in Spain not allowed, but then Henri IV born in Navarre IS allowed? Also, when French Republique court said that Philippe Anjou left France for Spain, Orleanists state that Republique court is valid. But then when Republique court state that Louis XX can call himself "Duc de Anjou" Orleanists state that Republique court is invalid?
The Orleanists need a whole catalogue of rules and subclauses, and also a lot of LIES, to make their position. Did you know that the Orleanist "Henri VI" removed people from succession, but then "Henri VII" put those people back in? Do the Orleanists think that Orleans-Braganza is eligible to succeed? Orleanists can't make up their minds, as their whole case is an elaborate house of cards, contradictions, and lies.
Meanwhile, Legitimists have only one rule. That the Senior Legitimate Descendant of Hugues Capet by Salic Law is Rightful King of France.
Orleanists also trip themselves up on one major point that is often overlooked. As part of the renunciations of Utrecht, Philip was forced to renounce any claim to the French throne for his descendants, regardless of sex, however they come to the throne. In other words ANY person who is a blood descendant of Felipe V of Spain is removed from succeeding to the French throne, regardless of HOW they are descended from Felipe V.
Louis=Philippe married Maria Amalia of Naples and Sicily, who was a direct descendant of Felipe V. Thus, following the Treaty of Utrecht to the letter any children, grandchildren etc. resulting from this union are barred forever from the French throne. The self-styled "Henri VII", as a descendant of Felipe V must either recognise that the Treaty of Utrecht is valid unconditionally, which would then therefore make him himself ineligible for the French throne, or he must recognise that the Ancient French Law overrides any treaty, making HMCM Louis XX the Only Rightful King.
There is no logical and legal way that permits "Henri VII" to claim the throne, while simultaneously removing HMCM Louis XX. Orleanism is a sham. Vive le Roi!
Publicar un comentario