Rival Claimants to the French Throne 1: Ending 2020

[Warren]

How is Louis Alphonse senior to Juan Carlos in the French succession?

Another way of explaining it:
King Alfonso XIII had 3 sons:

1. Alfonso (1907-1938) renounced rights to the Throne of Spain; no issue.

2. Jaime (1908-1975) renounced rights to the Throne of Spain but assumed the title of Duke of Anjou as primogeniture representative of the House of Bourbon; two sons, the eldest being:
> Alfonso (1936-1989) succeeded his father as the primogeniture representative of the House of Bourbon; had one surviving son:
>> LUIS ALFONSO (1974- ) Duke of Anjou

3. Juan (1913-1993) Count of Barcelona; one surviving son:
> KING JUAN CARLOS (1938- )

So Luis Alfonso is dynastically significant in two ways: he has the "Legitimist" claim to the Crowns of both France and Spain as the senior primogeniture descendant of the House of Capet (Bourbon), and as the senior primogeniture descendant of King Alfonso XIII. His mere existence is seen as a "threat" by both the French and Spanish royals. Which is why the Spanish Court keeps him at arms length, and why he was more or less "stripped" of the HRH he previously bore, and downgraded to "Excellency" in 1987. The naming by the Comte de Paris of his nephew Prince Charles-Philippe d'Orléans as a rival duc d'Anjou in 2004 was an unsubtle attempt at undermining Luis Alfonso by the French Orléanists.

 

[ysbel]

Ah now I see! Thanks for the explanation Warren! So Luis Alfonso would have been King of Spain if his grandfather had not renounced the rights to the Spanish throne. Why was that? Was Jaime a hemophiliac?

That still doesn't answer why Jaime didn't renounce his rights in favor of his son.

Back to the French question, the plot gets thicker.

 

[Next Star]

The heir to the french throne will not be recongize as head of state upon him/her becoming king/queen because their monarchy is abolished.

 

[ysbel]

Ah now I see! Thanks for the explanation Warren! So Luis Alfonso would have been King of Spain if his grandfather had not renounced the rights to the Spanish throne. Why was that? Was Jaime a hemophiliac?

Duh, I just saw your previous post, Marie! I was reading challenged when I posted that! So Jaime was deaf. But I still wonder why Jaime didn't renounce his rights in favor of his son?

 

[Warren]

So Jaime was deaf. But I still wonder why Jaime didn't renounce his rights in favor of his son?

Jaime renounced his Spanish rights in 1933 and didn't marry until 1935. It would have made for a rather unique (read untenable) dynastic situation if he had claimed (or reserved) succession rights for unborn children while still unmarried.

 

[magnik]

I don't know if it was posted before but I've just found it on wikipedia:
Line of succession to the French throne (Legitimist) - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

 

[Marengo]

Marlene has posted an excellent remark about this matter on the Franco Iberian Royals MB, which pretty much sums up how I feel about the matter too..

[FONT=verdana, arial] (.......) Luis Alfonso is a commoner. Let's put it this way, and make it rather simple. The last king of France was Louis Philippe of the Orleans Branch. There is a direct line of descent to the present Count of Paris. Luis Alfonso, who is Spanish, is a descendant of Philippe Duke of Anjou who renounced his rights and the rights of his descendants when he became king of Spain. [/FONT][FONT=verdana, arial]If Louis Philippe had not lost his throne, and France remained a monarchy, the count of Paris would be king today. Period. Full stop. Luis Alfonso's father, Jaime, was the second son of Alfonso XIII, who in 1933, renounced his right of succession (and those of his descendants) because of his medical issues (deaf and mute). He married unequally, and his father, the king, in exile, pointed out that Jaime's children were not royal. After Alfonso's death, Jaime tried to reclaim the Spanish throne (his younger brother was the accepted heir), as well as the French throne and a few other places too. He was certainly poorly advised, and also suffered from mental health issues. The French throne succession took a detour after Philippe became king of Spain. Luis Alfonso was born in Spain, to a sadly dysfunctional family. His father was responsible for the car crash that killed his brother. His parents divorced. His mother has married several more times. None of this is his fault, of course. But he is Spanish, a great-grandson of King Alfonso XIII ...has a very distinguised genealogical line - and interesting historical line (also a descendant of Franco), but none of it makes him the de jure king of France. The present Count of Paris also has issues, and also grew up in a dysfunctional family ...but he is French - and his family has served France, including the military, and his family was exiled because of their position concerning the throne.[/FONT]

 

[magnik]

Thanks for the remind it
So....If you have a surname de Bourbon (Borbon etc.) you have rights to the French throne - no matter how the true really is.

What about other pretenders?

 

[Vanesa]

The heir to the french throne will not be recongize as head of state upon him/her becoming king/queen because their monarchy is abolished.

What the need to say that? We all know what happened in France history...But things are -luckyly! -static in History, and nobody really knows what could happen.

However, I dont think that the King or Queen of France (if it must be one), could be find among the Bourbons... They lost their touch with their duties. Who could honestly thing that Luis Alfonso de Borbón could be this proud King of France who should return to a past of glory? Ugh...with all my respect, I cant seriously thing about it, whithout feeling like crying and laughing at the same time...He is not a little bit interested in asuming an historic role, but in living whithout too much problems with the money of his rich Venezuelian father-in-law.

I think that M. Count of Paris is more suited for the "job". He is very conscient of who he is and what his family made for France (leting aside Philippe Egailté, a disgusting character for me). His father was interested in Politics and so he is. Even if he never said it, I think the current Count of Paris, supports "Action Française", like his father.His mother was also a great fighter for Monarchy.

As for the Bonapartes...Hmmm. They must have supporters, no doubt. But I never liked them (not even when Napoleon was the Emperor). THis "kinda Republic Monarchy" was not serious, even if it have some achievements.

Vanesa.

 

[Thribette]

[FONT=verdana, arial]Marlene's post, above cited, is a accumulation of false assertions!
Let us see...

She wrote :
"Luis Alfonso is a commoner. Let's put it this way, and make it rather simple. The last king of France was Louis Philippe of the Orleans Branch."

Louis-Philippe has never been, or pretended to be, king of France. He was "king of the French" in a new regime, as well as later, Napoléon III was "emperor of the French". It is well different! And Louis-Philippe recognized that after the extinction of the elder branch, his own branch would be preceeded by the on descending from Philippe V...

She wrote :
"There is a direct line of descent to the present Count of Paris."

They are princes of the French royal family, in a very far position.


She wrote :
"Luis Alfonso, who is Spanish, is a descendant of Philippe Duke of Anjou who renounced his rights and the rights of his descendants when he became king of Spain."

1)Luis Alfonso (Louis Alphonse) is French as well as Spanish in terms of modern nationality, but this has nothing to do with dynastic rights. For French dynastic laws, he is French as a Bourbon.

2) Philippe duke of Anjou, when he became king Felipe V of Spain in 1700, kept his rights on the French throne, as did before him Louis VIII (father of Saint Louis), king of England, François II (first husband of Mary Stuart), king of England, Scotland and Ireland, Henri III, king of Poland, and Louis-Alphonse de Bourbon (father of Henri IV), king of Navarra.

3) King Felipe V of Spain was forced, in 1712, by queen Anne of England, to renounce his roight on the French throne, for him and all his descendants. a) Such a renunciation is invalid in French dynastic laws; even lord Bolingbroke, queen Anne's foreign secretary, tried to make her understand this evidence.
b) This renunciation was for all descendants of king Felipe V; this includes all the Orléans family, as king Louis-Philippe of the French, their ancestor, married princess Amalia of Two-Sicilies, a descendant of Felipe V's. Enven the Napoléon princes descend from king Felipe V.


Marlene wrote :
"[/FONT][FONT=verdana, arial]If Louis Philippe had not lost his throne, and France remained a monarchy, the count of Paris would be king today. Period. Full stop."

He would be "king of the French", not "king of France". Still an usurpator.


She wrote :
"Luis Alfonso's father, Jaime, was the second son of Alfonso XIII, who in 1933, renounced his right of succession (and those of his descendants) because of his medical issues (deaf and mute)."

Alfonso XIII's first son, died childless in 1938.
Prince Jaime was Louis Alphonse's grandfather, not father.
He renounced his Spanish rights, not the French ones (any way, he couldn't have done so). Even for Spanish rights, his renunciation was invalid because not ratified by the Cortès (spanish Parliament).


Marlene wrote :
"He married unequally, and his father, the king, in exile, pointed out that Jaime's children were not royal."

In Spanish laws, unequal marriages did not deprive princes of their rights in succession, except if an exclusion was voted by the Cortès, which did not happen. Anyway, the marriage was not "highly unequal", nor was it unauthorised, so it is highly improbable that the Cortès would have accepted to exclude him.


She wrote :
"After Alfonso's death, Jaime tried to reclaim the Spanish throne (his younger brother was the accepted heir), as well as the French throne and a few other places too."

He was the legitimate successor of Spanish throne, until his acceptation of anew form of monarchy with Juan-Carlos as a king, in 1969.
He was also successor of the French throne, as was his father since 1936 (extinction of the previous line), and as his father affirmed. I was never entered of "a few other places too".


She wrote :
"He was certainly poorly advised, and also suffered from mental health issues."

I have never heard about "mental health issues". Far the contrary. I know two people who were close to him, and describe him as an intelligent, sensible prince.


Marlene wrote :
"The French throne succession took a detour after Philippe became king of Spain."


She wrote :
"Luis Alfonso was born in Spain, to a sadly dysfunctional family. His father was responsible for the car crash that killed his brother. His parents divorced. His mother has married several more times. None of this is his fault, of course."

Thank you, Marlene, for your elegance.
His father would drive fast, as it was usual in these times in spain, and this killed his son. His parents divorced, like many other, including Orléans, and this has nothig to see with royal capacity. His mother married twice more. Extraordinary, isn't it? I suppose that Marlene knows nobody in such case, this must be why she says "several more times".
Anyway, all these things are absolutely out of consideration regarding the french succession laws.


She wrote :
"But he is Spanish, a great-grandson of King Alfonso XIII"

He is French, regarding French dynastic laws, and has also the French nationality, but this has no importance in dynastic succession.


Marlene wrote :
"...has a very distinguised genealogical line - and interesting historical line (also a descendant of Franco), but none of it makes him the de jure king of France. "

What makes him de jure king of France, is the fact that he is the first in male primogeniture of the legitimate Capetians.


She wrote :
"The present Count of Paris also has issues, and also grew up in a dysfunctional family ...but he is French - and his family has served France, including the military, and his family was exiled because of their position concerning the throne."

Both are French.
King Alfonso XIII received the military medal from French government for his action in WWI, his son Jaime, of course, was disabled, and Louis Alphonse's father, Alphonse, was born in 1936, too young for WWII.
Anyway, this is absolutly exterior to the succession.

Anything else?
[/FONT]

 

[Warren]

What this shows is that the dynastic position of Luis Alfonso regarding potential claims to the French (and Spanish) Thrones is supported whole-heartedly by those who see succession in "legitimist" terms. Others may see succession rights in a more practical or 'realpolitik' manner.

There is nothing to say one is right or wrong; they depend on two different points of view. Those who believe in a strictly traditional dynastic line of descent will accept Luis Alfonso as not only the Senior Member of the Royal House of Bourbon, but as the rightful King of France. Those who accept the legitimacy of the Orléanist succession in 1830, and of the legitimacy of Juan Carlos as rightful King of Spain will view Luis Alfonso's claims (if he ever makes such claims) as irrelevant and invalid.

Other Royal Houses have disputed successions which are passionately argued by both sides in terms of validity of renunciations, original intent, interpretation of Family Statutes, House Laws, royal decrees, etc etc. Apart from the Bourbons, these Houses include Bourbon-Two Sicilies, Orléans-Bragança (Brazil), Grand Ducal House of Mecklenburg, and the Romanovs. It's also worth mentioning the long-standing Carlist claim to the Spanish Throne (now largely abandoned), which was also based on legitimist principles.

 

[Thribette]

My position is a bit different.
For Spain, of course the duke of Anjou's grandfather was the right heir, and his early renunciations, not validated by the Cortès (the Spanish parliament) were not valid, but in 1969, him and his elder son (who was the duke of Anjou's father, still unmarried) accepted the instoration, proposed by Franco, of a new form of constitutional monarchy, led by Juan-Carlos who became "prince of Spain". This instoration was approved by the Cortès. So, from 1969, Juan-Carlos has adquired legitimity, he is the legitimate king of Spain.

About the carlist claim, the fact is that the carlist dynastic line was extincted, and the next one, in the carlist logic (that, to me, was the right one, i.e. one cannot modify the 1713 laws of succession without the same formality) was the one come from Don Carlos' younger brother, infant Francisco de Paula, whose son had married Isabel II; this made that, at the end of the carlist line, in 1936, the two dynastic lines were reunited in the person of Alfonso XIII, king of Spain (who also succeeded to French - as virtual - throne). So, the Carlists had, as kings, the hated constitutionnal king! Some Stopped fighting, others followed the "regent of the Carlist Communion", the duke of Parma, named by the last carlist king, but the duke of Parma is only a chief of a political, philosophical, tradition-keeping movement, they cannot reasonnably consider him a "de jure king of Spain".

 

[Russian]

I read that the French legitimists consider Luis Alfonso de Bourbon as a legitimate heir to the French throne. Luis Alfonso is the great grandson of the Spanish King Alfonso XIII and the descendant of the grandson of the French King Louis XIV Philippe who became a Spanish King after the death of the previous suzerain of Spain Carlos II in 1700. But, unfortunately, there was a war for the Spanish inheritance, which ended with Utrecht Peacy Treaty. The Spanish King Philippe’s renunciation the French throne was one of the terms of the Utrecht Peacy Treaty. I read that the French legitimists consider Philippe’s renunciation as invalid because the right to the French throne was unalienable for each member of the Capetiens House. I read that the French legitimists consider Luis Alfonso de Bourbon as the eldest representative of the Capetiens House. So this prince is the head of the Capetiens House and therefore legitimate claimant to the French throne. But I think there is a little “but”. I suppose that French laws of succession to the throne must concern France and French throne, but mustn’t concern any foreign state. I think that the Spanish kingdom must be separate from the French laws of succession to the throne. I read that the grandson of the French King Louis XIV Philippe received the Spanish throne under the condition that Spain and France shouldn’t be united by the United Kingdom. But Louis XIV made a mistake when he set Philippe as an heir to the French throne. The war for the Spanish inheritance is the result of the mistake of Louis XIV. Philippe became a Spanish King, but he abdicated the rights to the French throne. Sicilian, Parmesan and Spanish Bourbons are the direct descendants of the grandson of Louis XIV Philippe. But I do not know, if they have rights to the French throne because their direct ancestor abdicated the French throne.

The Orleans family is the part of the Capetiens House. But sadly known Philippe Egalite (who voted for the execution of Louis XVI) and his only survived son Louis-Philippe (who is revolutionary king of the crowd and barricades) are the direct ancestors of the current Orleans family.

What is an ironical smile of the fate!!!!!!!

The descendants of the regicide and revolutionary king of the crowd and barricades are real heirs of the french throne!

By all means I am not a supporter of the Orleans family.

 

[Stefan]

I read that the French legitimists consider Luis Alfonso de Bourbon as a legitimate heir to the French throne...

According to the Legitimists there are the Fundamental laws of the Kingdom of France after which it was not possible to rennounce the succession rights of their unborn descendants and so Felipe V. renounciation for his descednats was not possible.

A lot of information can be found here
New Page 1

 

[Russian]

As I understood correctly, the right of each member of the Capetiens House to the French throne is inalienable. The Spanish Bourbons are the direct descendants of Louis XIV, but also they are Capetiens, so they have an irrefutable right to the French throne. The princes of the Orleans family are the direct descendants of Louis XIII (the father of Louis XIV) and the youngest line of the Capetiens House. Therefore the Spanish Bourbons have a preference over the Orleans House. The renunciation of the Spanish king Philippe is invalid for the French legitimists, so Luis Alfonso de Bourbon is the rightful heir to the French throne.

 

[NotAPretender]

I have to say that I thoroughly enjoy reading this thread, and now that I have registered, I can express my admiration.

The scholarship here is simply amazing.

 

[Julier von Badenth]

as France will never be a monarchy again this is ridiculous
furthermore Louis Alfonso is a great grandson of Franco he can never be anything in Spain- how could he ever be someone in France???
Orleans does not consider him worth talking about and in Spain
he ist just a joke

Gaston Roger Julier Freiherr v. Badenthal in Spain

 

[Warren]

Well, I guess there is a third way of looking at dynastic issues, and that is to just offhandly dismiss them. However, for those who have an interest in lines of descent and the various positions and claims of legitimists, pretenders, pragmatists and even opportunists, it is an issue of substance involving not just historic precepts but living people. Within a dynastic context it is real, and for many, rather fascinating. Some even take sides with a passion, a good indication there is life in the subject yet.

 

[Thribette]

In fact, Russian, if one considers the Utrecht treaties still valid, which is doubtful as they have been violated several times very early, the renounciation itself could not be considered as it violates French dynastic laws, but one may admit that French and Spanish crowns cannot be on the same head. Clearly, this does not concern de jure crowns, only real ones. And, as the French dynastic laws cannot be derogated whatever the form, it is the Spanish crown that must go on another head. If Luis Alfonso's father, Alfonso (Alphonse II of France) had been chosen by Franco as king of Spain, his position as de jure king of France would have been complicated as it would have implied political tensions in Spain. Instead, he chose his cousin, which as French, I prefer : Luis Alfonso is "only" king of France.
Julier, I have no doubt upon the fact that many Orléans princes, who, unfortunately, bear only the title of princes, lacking the content, depreciate their elder the duke of Anjou. Fortunately, other Orléans princes are real ones, some legitimist, other orleanist, but keep their dignity as does the duke of Anjou who is in everything a genuine prince (it is not the reason why he is de jure king of France, but I am very happy of it).

 

[BillW65]

I read through many if not all of the threads in this post. For years I had supported the Orleans branch of the French royal house as claimants to the vacant throne. I also have been posting on the The Franco-Iberian Royals Message Board as William F (I don't post often but lurk there daily) and from my experience there and reading the posts here I can say that on this topic I'm neutral. I believe both Louis Alphonse de Bourbon and Henri d'Orleans both have valid claims, which is why there are arguments from both sides. My point is: I would love for a constitutional and representative monarchy to be restored in France and I would support that situation whether it was under either Louis Alphonse de Bourbon or Henri d'Orleans. Right now getting the monarchy restored is more important in my opinion that who the rightful heir should be.

 

[vincent]

Lois fondamentales ?

That story about the "lois fondamentales du royaume" has been going on for too long; They simply do not exist.

-Where were they before the capetians ascended the throne of France in 987 ? Nowhere. During the Caroligiens or merovingiens times (they were the firts kings of France) the kindom was divided beteween all the heirs of the dead king. They were no "lois fondamentales" at the time.
-If one admits that they were established, which i doubt very much, during the capetian era, (between 987 and 1793) it means that they were established by human laws. God has definitely nothing to do with the french monarchy. And if they were established by humans the can be modified very easily by humans.

-When did god precisely said that "'l'aîné des capetiens doit être roi de France" ?
-The truth is that monarchy in France has been ruled during centuries by a corpus of laws which were modified owing to the political state of the kingdom; A famous example is the establishment of the "salic law" which banned females from the crown. It was "invented" after the death of Louis le Hutin in 1314.
-The traité d'Utrecht was another example of the modification of the kingdom's laws at the beginning of the XVIIIth century. The spanish branch became spanish at the time and that is final.
-If one does admits that these laws existed at one point, what is the meanning of using them to solve a succession which was openend in 1883 at the death of the comte de Chambord. Using laws dating from the middle age to deny any validity to a treaty established at the beginning of the XVIIIth century does not make sens.

-As for the title of duke d'Anjou, it was never a right of the spanish branch of the bourbon family. Need I remind everyone that it has been used by Louis XVIII as one of his secondary titles when he was comte de Provence; When the duke of Anjou became king of spain, this title went back to the french king, or nowadays to the head of the french royal family. The comte de Paris was perfectly entitled to give it too his nephew prince Charles Philippe.

-Talking about the "ainé des capétiens" lets get rid of another legend. Everyone knows that the elder of the capetien dynastie is not Luis Alfonso de Borbon but the comte de Bourbon Busset who is a descendant of LOuis de Bourbon, prince bishop (laïc) of Liège. That Branch was declared unable too succed because they were said to be bastards. Many historians claim today that it was not true. All the other Bourbons, French, spanish, Parme and naples, descend from Louis's younger brother.

-One may not like the Orleans, but it has nothing to do with their rights to the crown which are, by the way, recongnised by all their cousins : the king of spain, the duc of Castro (Naples) ans the duke of Parme. For those who like the Middle Ages and the laws used at the time is this not what was called a "jugement des pairs" "judgement of the equals" ?
Vincent

 

[Marengo]

A very sensible first post, vincent. Thanks for that! And I agree with you fully and suspected all along that the only reason for this entire Legetimiste-thing is people's dislike for the House of Orleans.

 

[vincent]

really nice people

Thank you, the strangest thing is that the Orléans are awfully nice people very royal, as well easygoing and fun. The late comte et comtesse de Paris were very kind, chic, smart, and, above anything, so funny. I really don't understand why that family has that reputation of beeing wicked.

 

[Marengo]

Well, it probably dates back to the Orleans that betrayed Louis XVI. It was the father of Louis Phillipe I, if I am correct? Other than that, the internal quarrels doesn´t improve the families reputation either.
I don´t know anything about the late Count, though him spending the family fortune and jewels on his mistress didn´t strike me as terribly good. The late countess however comes across as an utterly charming lady. Her books are absolutely wonderfull.

 

[BillW65]

That story about the "lois fondamentales du royaume" has been going on for too long; They simply do not exist.


-If one admits that they were established, which i doubt very much, during the capetian era, (between 987 and 1793) it means that they were established by human laws. God has definitely nothing to do with the french monarchy. And if they were established by humans the can be modified very easily by humans.

This point you have made has been my contention all along. Furthermore, if there is ever to be a French monarchy, which I highly doubt even though it is my wish, any succession laws will be made by the French government and they will not adhere to those outdated laws.

 

[Warren]

Self-proclaimed "legitimists" will use whatever ammunition they can muster, and if they can beat the Orléans over the head with a "fundamental law" and the behaviour of Philippe Egalité, they will do so. More realistic and pragmatic royalists will simply point out that the current comte de Paris and Head of the Royal House of France has perfectly legitimate descent from the last reigning King of the French. The faint possibility of a restored Bourbon-style ancien regime died with the comte de Chambord in 1883, and there it should stay.

 

[Jurgen Schalck]

France can only be ruled by descendant of Louis XVI

It is now more than 220 years that France is not aware of a big secret, kept in darkness by the Vatican and high ranked people in our society.

I know this sounds strange as my first official post that I come up with something related to this matter.

Since 1998, I have personaly investigated the matter of the only boy left from the french royal family Louis Charles de Bourbon.

I found many interesting information and evidence of his exitence in exile.

Not far away from his land and kingdom he lived his live between people that took care of him like he was of their own blood.

Louis Charles lived under the name of Franciscus Rombaut, later he ordered his descendants to change the name into Rombout, because they were not related with blood to this family.

Many people have warned me for the danger that looks around the corner if I would continue my efforts to bring this to public.

I have spoken to the Ambassador of Austria long time ago, and he in person warned me that it could lead to a very large conflict.

I went on personal invitation to the castle of descendants of king Charles X, the family Wurmbrand zu Stuppach in Frohsdorf in December 2000.

My communications lurned me that they knew about his living in exile but they where in acknowledge about his name.

At this moment he have more than 300 descendants and a man named Marcel Rombout is the first in line to become King of France.

I know that in Rome there are files that can bring this to a positive end.
But the anger of them is that it would bring many high positioned people in a difficult position.

Louis Charles de Bourbon became 90 years, he died November 1, 1875 in Wachtebeke near Gent. (Belgium)

Jurgen Schalck

 

[Thribette]

Warren, the Orléans are effectively the heirs of Louis-Philippe Ier, but to be true, as the only monarch of his kind, who usurpated consciously the French throne and ruled 17 years 1/2, his legacy remains far less significant than the Bonaparte one, as two Bonaparte emperors reigned, none usurpated the throne (they took vacant power) and ruled (including Consulate for Napoléon I and from power taking as president to emprisonment for Napoleon III) 32 years. Of course, the Bonaparte legacy is so, so far from the Capetian!

 

[Thribette]

Russian, you asked many questions, a long time ago. I hope you managed to get answers for most of them.
May I answer them, anyway?

1) These laws exclude laws of succession of women on the French throne?

Women are totally excluded, wether as kings, whether to transmit rights.
Anyway, they have a prominent role : as only legitimate children are considered for succession, this means the queen's children get king or successible prince, not all the kings'. Furthermore, they can be regent, and most she-regents have shown great competence.

2) If grandson Louis XIV has borrowed the Spanish throne and could not apply simultaneously for the French crown on conditions of Utrecht contract, all the same new Spanish king from the French dynasty remains a member French Hugo Capet At home, all the same it kept the rights to the French throne, all the same its descendants are considered as members of Hugo Capet House and have the right to borrow the French throne?

In 1700, Philippe, grandson of Louis XIV, became king of spain, because Louis XIV's wife, eldest sister of the dead king Carlos II, had put a condition to her renunciation to Spanish rights, that was the payment of a dow that was never paid. In addition, Carlos II chose him as successor (he had not the power for it) and the Spanish parliament, the solemn assembly of the Cortès de Castilla, who had this power, admitted it (normally, it is Philippe's father who should have reigned, later his elder son, not Philippe, but Louis XIV chose Philippe and the Cortès accepted). Philippe kept his French rights.
Only in 1714, Queen Ann of England required a renunciation of Philippe, for him and all his descendants without exception, to the French throne; but, if the succession to the Spanish throne can find accomodation with the consent of the princes and the Cortès, the succession to the French throne cannot, it is compulsory, inalienable (except by regicide, I think). So, Queen Anne had not chosen the right solution.

3) the Spanish King Ferdinand has entered the so-called Pragmatical sanction in 1834 on which its daughter Isabella became the successor of the Spanish throne owing to absence of man's posterity at this Spanish king. But unless it did not contradict the French laws?

What made the Carlist war is that Fernando VII did not make a new succession law, which would have been theorically possible by convoking the solemn assembly of the Cortès, he merely published a law voted without required conditions, only as a test, by an ordinary session of the Cortès in 1789 and abandoned then because of troubles.
Anyway, this law concerned only Spain, not France.

4) Why carlist supporters considered the Pragmatical sanction as infringement of laws of inheritance of a throne?

Cf above... Felipe V, in 1714, modified the succession law, and introduced the salic law (as in France) (but after extinction of all his descendants by males, he stated that women could acceed to the throne, and after, the Savoy house), by vote of the solemn assmbly of the Cortés, each member having received from its electors a special mandate for voting this law.
The Carlists consider that the same form was necessary for a modification.

5) why carlist supporters lifted revolts against queen Isabella with the purpose to protect the rights carlist applicants for the Spanish throne?
There is the legal claim, but there is also a deeper problem : queen Isabelle was a little girl, and the persons who had the true power were liberal and anti-catholic; in 1836, they spoliated the Church by stealing all convents etc, and did hard persecutions.

6) whether carlist applicants for the Spanish throne have been recognized Le Comte Chambord as successors of the French throne in 1883?

He refused to make his opinion public, thinking the moment had not come, he wanted first pacified conditions but died before. Later, both parties pretended he had given an opinion favorable to them. I do not think it was true.

7) why Luis Alphonco it is considered chapter Hugo Capet of the House, in fact it is the lineal descendant of queen Isabella?

He is descendant of queen Isabella, but this has nothing to see with his rights : his rights come from Isabella's husband, her cousin Francisco de Asis, who was son of Infant Francisco de Paula, youngest brother of Fernando VII (who had no son) and don Carlos (whose line extincted by males in 1936, after a reconciliation with Alfonso XIII in 1931).

 

[Thribette]

Vincent, your post is very interesting.
In fact, the Fundamental laws were not dicted by God, they rose one by one, but with the impression they were implicite before. Once meanwhile, God intervened appearently and spectacularly to rescue the laws, with St Joan of Arc (you may believe or not).
More pragmatically, and this is my point of view, we have, with this laws, a corpus that defines who is king, without doubt (OK, I recognize that in case of adoption, or in case of legitimation by marriage of an elder prince than the previous heir, there would still be problems of interpretation). This is a priceless treasure! Because the worst, when you have to name a king, is when there are several candidates. This is why, in case of a restoration of monarchy, I would support loudly the respect of the Fundamental Laws.

About the opinion of foreign kings,
1) it is not them who decide who is king,

2) their opinion is alterated, first by ignorance of the content of the Utrecht renunciation (that eliminates Orléans as well as elder princes), secundly by the fact most of them have Orléans ancestors and own parts of the fortune Louis-Philippe had taken.

3) King Juan Carlos of Spain recognizes the elder as chiefs of the House of Bourbon, and at the same time consider the Orléans as the French royal family, not as descendants of the kings of France, but as descendants of the usurpator Louis-Philippe, as queen Isabella has recognized him as king of the French.
The so-said duke of Castro is not the king of Sicilias de jure, he is only a prince, it is his cousin, infant Carlos, who is king of Sicilias, so recognized by the elder princes of the House of Bourbon, the princes of France (then, Alphonse II, father of Louis Alphonse), Spain (Juan Carlos I) and Parma, which makes legitimity for this realm as it is a part of the Spanish empire inherited by Felipe V, their common ancestor. The infant don Carlos married princess Anne of Orléans, sister of the present orleanist claimant, but is legitimist (maybe because his wife inherited nearly nothing from her father who had dilapidated his fortune?).
I have never heard any position from the duke of Parma.