France and Monarchy

[Domhangairt]

After the fall of the Second Empire under Napoleon III, the French National Assembly was ready to bring back the Bourbons, but the pretender, Henri, Comte de Chambord, refused to accept the French tricolor as the National flag, insisting on the old Bourbon flag. The monarchy issue was deferred until the death of Henri. At this point the Orleanists wanted the crown, but by this time, the National Assembly had beome dominated by republicans. So ended any possiblity of a French restoration. Charles de Gaulle is said to have planned a monarchy restoration, but instead replaced the Fourth Republic with the Fifth Republic in 1958.

The French monarchy could only now be restored as a result of a great national disaster, such as war or collapse of democratic government. Bourbons really had their chance, but blew it because of their arrogance, nothing else.

Orleanist line is probably the most likely, since legitimist line of Louis Alphone, Duc d'Anjou was excluded by Treaty of Utrecht, 1713. Furthermore, Louis Alphonse' family maybe illegitimate, since the children of Isabel II of Spain are believed to have been fathered by a lover, not her husband, Francisco de Asis de Borbon, who was believed to be homosexual.

 

[Warren]

Furthermore, Louis Alphonse' family maybe illegitimate, since the children of Isabel II of Spain are believed to have been fathered by a lover, not her husband, Francisco de Asis de Borbon, who was believed to be homosexual.

It doesn't matter who the father is as the royal line passes through the mother, the Queen Regnant Isabel.
Fernando VII > Isabel II > Alfonso XII > Alfonso XIII [omitting Amadeo I to illustrate the direct line]
No royal house is going to allow posthumous DNA testing to determine their own legitimacy. In any case Juan Carlos and Luis Alfonso are both descendants of Alfonso XIII.

 

[Kotroman]

All children of Isabella II were legitimate: they were all born to a married woman whose husband never publicly questioned their paternity. As far as succession to the Crown is concerned, it doesn't matter who is their biological father - in the eyes of law, Francis is their father.

It doesn't matter who the father is as the royal line passes through the mother, the Queen Regnant Isabel.

Right of succession to the French crown does not pass to/through females and female lines, so it does matter who the father is. Isabella II never had any rights to the French crown, not even according to the Legitimists. If her sons had any rights to the French crown (according to the Legitimists), then one can assume they had those rights as children born in the marriage of Francis and Isabella II.

 

[maria-olivia]

I saw recently on RF pictures of the royal wedding of Henri the Dauphin with Marie Thérèse of Wurtenberg (1957). At this time General de Gaulle was not against the restauration of the monarchy..and this very wedding was so important to the Count de Paris.
I don't remember what happened , but the refendum that de Gaulle wanted was cancelled (Darlan's affaire.?.) With at the end of de Gaulle 's predency all the hopes of the Count dissapeared.. and then divorce and.. and..and

 

[MAfan]

What was the Darlan's affaire?

 

[Domhangairt]

French Succession

It doesn't matter who the father is as the royal line passes through the mother, the Queen Regnant Isabel.
Fernando VII > Isabel II > Alfonso XII > Alfonso XIII [omitting Amadeo I to illustrate the direct line]
No royal house is going to allow posthumous DNA testing to determine their own legitimacy. In any case Juan Carlos and Luis Alfonso are both descendants of Alfonso XIII.

I must disagree with you Warren. The legitimacy issue is absolutely relevant in determining the French succession. As Kotroman rightly points out, the French succession is by the strict application of the Salic Law. Therefore, the paternity of Alfonso XII is absolutely relevant. Furthermore, as Orleanists have long been at pains to point out, biological legitimacy is relevant- they have used the case of Alfonso's paternity to strengthen their claims for years. In England, to this day, there exists a Law which entitles the State to execute any man who has been found to have engaged in an extramarital affair with the wife of the Heir to the English Throne. This is precisely because such an affair undermines the position of the royal children by calling into question their legitimacy, and paternity. Such scandals in the past have led to strife and even civil war. In fact some consipiracy theorists have even gone as far as to suggest that the late Princess Diana was "removed" by agents of the British state because of her affair with Dodi Al Fayed, and other men, before and after her divorce from Prince Charles.

I agree with you on the issue of DNA testing. It is very unlikely that Juan Carlos would allow such testing to take place, expecially in the current climate- there has been an increase in republican sentiment in Spain in recent years. Interestingly enough, the French Royal Family did allow DNA testing to be used to determine the true identity of the boy king Louis XVII who is burried along with other Bourbon kings. There had long been speculation that he had not died in the Bastille, but had escaped to Germany. That theory has now been destroyed- the DNA evidence positively identified him.

Another, unsubstantiated, argument put forward by some supporters of the Orleanist line, is the suggestion that Louis XIV, himself, was illegitimate, on account that he was conceived "before" the reconciliation of Louis XIII and Anne of Austria, while Philippe, Duc d'Orleans, was legitimate since he was conceived "after" the reconciliation of Louis XIII and Anne, and bore the looks and personality traits (including bisexuality) of Louis XIII, whereas Louis XIV bore no resemblance at all to Louis XIII either in appearance or character. Questions about biological legitmacy, whether fair or unfair, have always been used to undermine the position of kings and princes, which is why the spouses of princes and kings were were often secluded in mediaeval times, to avoid other men gaining access to them- the best way to prevent paternity disputes!

 

[Stefan]

But according to the salic law it goes not through Isabel II.It goes through her husband.
There where male line descendants of Fernando VII. as he had no sons. Next was his brother Infante Carlos but his male line died out in 1936. Next where the descendants of Infante Franciso de Paula and his older son was the husband of Isabel II.

 

[Kotroman]

...and, since Francis publicly recognized all of Isabella II's children as his own children, they were all perfectly legitimate and entitled to the right of succession. It's very simple: a child born to a married woman is assumed to be the child of her husband and is automatically legitimate.

 

[Warren]

I must disagree with you Warren. The legitimacy issue is absolutely relevant in determining the French succession.

I stand corrected.
I was focussed on the Spanish line of succession at the expense of the French.

 

[maria-olivia]

Mafan , the assassination of amiral Darlan by Fernand Bonnier de la Chapelle in Algerie in 1942 is a long and strange story . The personnality of Darlan was confused and the Comte de Paris was involved (?)in this assassination because he wanted to take Darlan's place.
Again this affair should take pages and pages , but in the years 1960 this story came back..

 

[HRHofNothing]

Never say never- but there are a lot of near impossible things that will take place before the french restore their monrachy. The french people were not well served by their last Bonaparte rulers let alone Marie Antionette and Louis XV?.

A side question on the legitimacy of royal children. All the illegitimate children of kings never held any sucession rights so it does not seem fair that Isabella II's illegitimate son suceeded her on the Portugese throne and his decendents are still soverigns or pretenders today!

 

[MAfan]

You mean the Spanish throne...

 

[Kotroman]

All the illegitimate children of kings never held any sucession rights so it does not seem fair that Isabella II's illegitimate son suceeded her on the Portugese throne and his decendents are still soverigns or pretenders today!

Who has said that Isabella II's children are not legitimate? She was married and her husband never publicly denounced paternity of her children, so in the eyes of law all children of Isabella II are perfectly legitimate and all of them were entitled to succeed to the Spanish throne.

 

[HRHofNothing]

But everyone assumed (correctly) that that was not the case. I guess since the Husband did not make a fuss about it...

 

[Kotroman]

No royal house will allow posthumous DNA testing to determine their own legitimacy.

I'm not an expert, but DNA testing would probably prove nothing since Francis was Isabella II's double first cousin (their fathers were brothers and their mothers were sisters).

 

[Thribette]

Nowadays, with ancient corpses, there is virtually no hope of finding chromosomial DNA in order to prove the paternity. Only chromosomial DNA could be found... to prove maternity!
About portuguese throne, illegitimate children did succeed their fathers.
In Spain it is impossible, at the same time saying Isabel II's children were not from her husband is a bit hazardous (there were disputes and reconciliations between them). Legally, they were his children.
In France too, an illegitimate child cannot succeed, however legitimate children are the queen's children. We had the example of a regent queen (Isabeau of Bavaria) who affirmed that her son (Charles VII) was not from her husband (Charles VI) but from her brother-in-law (the duke of Orléans), and there was the intervention of Saint Joan of Arc to help his son be sacred as king...
A "princess of the blood" once (in XVIIIthe century of course) told her husband : "never forget that without you, I can have princes of the blood, while without me, you can only have bastards". Not very nice but a good resume!

 

[deCastelneau]

Huguenot Angst

Salut,
My name is William Gambill Caumont deCastelneau and I am a direct descendant of the Ducs de La Force from Guyenne France. I have traced my genealogy back to the 1500s. My ancestral grandfather was god-son to King Henri IV (Henri of Navarre). It is my intention to bring attention to the families who lost their titles and lands at the time of the Huguenot Exodus in the 1700s. If anyone has any information that could further the cause, please post. I don't really seek to restore the French Monarchy but I would like to see responsibility taken for the actions that led to our being forced from our homeland. A ceremonial Monarchy could preserve the heritage. Especially if you believe that Kings are ordained by God. I think some are and others have stolen it. For this reason I beleive extensive study should be done to determine any validity to a claimant to the throne. If I were truly convinced of devine influence, which would be difficult to do, then and only then could I consider support. Highly unlikely! I think a stylized form of a monarchy can work such as using the Royals as public servants for humanitarian projects etc. lending their fame and fortune for worthy causes
Merci,
deCastelneau

 

[Thribette]

What I find a nice symbol, too, is that the duke of Anjou, by his father is a descendant of calvinist Jeanne d'Albret, and by his mother of a Bearnese Bourdieu, catholic who fleed religious prosecution by this queen... His grandmother too, has among her ancestors, the Reverends John Knox and John Welch.
DeCastelnau, is there a site with your genealogy? I would be very interested.

 

[RoyalistRiley]

DeCastelneau, you're right about the benefits of having a monarchy as a symbol of heritage and to lead by example in humanitarain and charity projects.

It's sad that some countries don't even adknowledge their monarchist pasts (eg. Austria, Germany, Russia, France) by recognising titles and restoring some confiscated property...

 

[vincent]

Royalist Riley,

I do not know much about austria and russia, but concerning germany,most of the ex royal families got to an agreement about their properties very soon after the end of monarchies in 1918.

In the ex western part of the country most of these families still own most of their ancestral properties, (bavaria, Wurtemberg, Bade, Hanover and even cobourg).

In the ex eastern part of germany it is true that the lands and castles confiscated by the communists were not given back, but all the works of arts, jewelry, silver and so on... which were private properties before 1945 have to be given back.
I think the law was passed after the fall of the east in the beginning of the 1990s;

Most of the families have allready reached an agreement with the curators of theses collections in Berlin, Dresden, Schwerin, Gotha... In conpensation for the works of art they agreed to leave in the museum they were given huge sums money and sometimes buildings and lands.
I think the most profitable deal was reached about the saxon works of arts. It concerned around 20 000 objects. A few thousands were actually given back and the others were compensated for the way i just explained.
Concerning Bavaria and Wurtemberg, believe me, the monarchist past is absolutely respected and the heads and members of these families are really considered as "non official" but still very respected "royals".
Members of governement attends their weddings and funeral and so on... And they are invited to official ceremonies. In Bavaria, duke Franz is really considered as a "king without a crown" and he still lives in some parts of schloss Nymphenbourg, (the bavarian Versailles).
The family also uses the main part of the castle for funerals and weddings.
And they even have a kind of court as part of the buildings is used for their offices called "werwaltung des herzog von Bayern".

About France, everythingthing which had not been sold during the revolution, was actually given back in 1814, or even by Napoléon. Most of the time these restitutions concerned the castles, (ok they were in a very bad state) and the forrest around them.

Some families even got back their "hotel particulier" in paris and a few still own them. Some of the castle still belong to the family as they were given back after the revolution : Brissac to the brissac, La Rochefoucauld to the Larochefoucauld, Uzès to teh Uzès, Luynes and Dampierre to the Luynes...

The main problem in France is the code napoléon who forbids to leave the family properties to the older son. For that reason many estates have been shared many times and sold. The latest one beeing the castle of Ansouis sold last year because the children did not reach an agreement between them.

That problem does not exist in Germany of Britain, as you can do what you want with you estate.

To tell you the truth, there is also a beginning of restitution in Russia, although it is very small. Apparently you can get back a property confiscated to one of your ancestors in 1917 if you can prove it was not confiscated in the legal way ( i mean with a legal decree).
I know one example of a family who managed to prove that two of their palaces in Moscow had been simply "occupied" and not officially "confiscated" and they got there properties back.

 

[Shaiya]

Good luck getting this to happen. Too bad it won't happen. Nobody is interested in restoring a monarchy that's been long gone, has no training in how to run a state and whom the public aren't even aware of.

 

[silverstar]

What do the French think ?

I often wonder what do the French think about their historical Monarchy.....and the significant dates that come and go throughout the year.
Back in the days of the Sun King the French Monarchy was the most magnificent in Europe... The Palace of Versailles and the Royal Court set the fashion for all
of Europe ... the Monarchies ... Prussia, England...Russia... all looked to France as a model.

Marie Antoinette as Queen of France became a leader of fashion... then as her fate became more and more tragic she was the focus and subject of conversation in all the coffee houses.

The Republican French must see the remains of their magnificent Monarchy all around them... in historical buildings.... in museums... in street names...
does it all mean nothing to them ?... I wonder.......

 

[V.F.H.78]

Unfortunately the most part of the french are very republican and hate the Monarchy. When you talk to them about the King, they immediatly think about a despot, etc... And the most part of the french are very proud of the Revolution. They are proud to have fall down the Monarchy, to have decapitated the King Louis XVI and the Queen Marie Antoinette!
In France we can visit a lot of museums, a thousand of castles, cathedrals, etc... but it changes nothing in their mind.

 

[Tilla]

Fortunately, there is "Point de Vue" for those in France who still love Royals.

 

[Ashantai]

Hi there. New to the board. I'm actually going to Paris in a few days, so this thread caught my attention.

My main question is: What would France do if they had a King? Every French King/Emperor has been an absolute monarch with minimal representation by the people. I can't see France accepting that in the XXI century. So all you'd be getting would be a French Monarch who was like the British Constitutional Royal, but without the tradition and stability this implies. Basically you'd have to rework the whole French state - it's more than just replacing President with King.

As for whether the French actually want one, I'm not French, but I can point out a few important points. Firstly: Demographics have changed over the years; France now has only 51% Catholics. Since the French monarch was often (especially in the pre-Napoleon times) very much a champion of Catholicism, this is a significant barrier.
This is also combined with several million non-French such as North Africans, Turks, Cambodians, etc, and what you have is people who would be less inclined to support a monarch.

Besides, let's face it, 139 years since the fall of Napoleon III is a long time, and even longer for the traditional monarchy. While I support existing monarchs, one has to ask whether the French would gain anything from the considerable changes it would mean. After all, the previous monarchs were hardly great and caused lasting change. One has to go back to Louis XIV to find a monarch who left substantial, long lived, positive changes. Napoleon, after all, lost more men than Louis and gained nothing from it.

So yeah, that's my 2 cents.

 

[Furienna]

Yeah, we will probably never see a new king or queen of France again, at least not in a forseeable future.

 

[Mitar]

But hasn't Yugoslavia done without a king since before the second world war? There was no king during the time of Tito, and after that, the former union of Yugoslavia started falling into parts like Slovenia, Croatia, Bosnia-Hercegovina, Serbia, Montenegro and Macedonia. I hardly suspect any re-installment of the monarchy there. It was too long ago, that the monarchy was overthrown. Even if Spain re-installed its monarchy after decades, the serbs have been without a monarchy for a much longer time than what the spanish have. I don't think so. Sorry.

Serbia is in such a big trouble today that restoration of the monarchy seems to be quite possible. The heredity prince and the princess are getting more popular day by day. I see Serbia a monarchy in the next ten years.

 

[American Observer]

I was in Paris this past January and visited the Place Louis XVI. In the park, I met an elderly couple who came to pray for the restoration of the monarchy at the chapel. They were upset that the chapel was closed for renovations. It was an interesting encounter (fortunately they had lived in the USA and spoke fluent English) to hear their thoughts on the future of monarchy in France. Unfortunately, they were the only monarchists I met in France this winter. I asked other Parisians I met whether they were interested in a restoration, but all said "Non!".

 

[An Ard Ri]

Jeanne d'Albret or Jeanne III Queen of Navarre is a fascinating Royal Lady,she's not very likeable though

 

[COUNTESS]

I was in Paris this past January...

I am sure that is true. Although, politicians are "bloodsuckers" to some degree, royalty is constant. They give little and take much. Plus, they inherit. So, Good King (Queen), miserable child, etc. You cannot choose or try and place the right people in the right place. Doesn't work in politics, also, but you can change.