Talk:French dynastic disputes

...

Article written from a pro-Legitimist POV
This article starts from an assumption of the validity of the Legitimist interpretation of the rightful claim to the French crown, omitting or minimizing other monarchist points of view. Or it distorts alternative theories by viewing them predominantly through the Legitimist lens so as to shift the heaviest burden of proof to Orleanism and Bonapartism, rather than explaining the rationale of each monarchist theory/history/law on its own terms, e.g., it asserts "To consider the Bourbons as non-dynasts in France, the Orleanists based their claims on an anachronistic interpretation of the Arrêt Lemaistre". It mentions the Orleans principle of foreignness only in the context of dismissing it. It assumes that the Treaty of Utrecht was invalid ab initio and irremediably, that Louis XIV as France's head of state considered it both invalid and non-binding, thus committed France to its adherence in bad faith, and that this act of bad faith provided no valid recourse for parties, domestic or foreign, who deemed the treaty substantially valid and acted upon it in good faith (i.e., Louis XIV and France got peace and Louis's son Philip got to keep {and to this day retains} the crown of Spain-- rather than that, e.g., the treaty constituted a modification of France's fundamental laws at a constitutional level or a one-time carve concerning Philip V of Spain and his male-line descendants. It fails to address the language and implications of letters patent issued/revoked concerning the preservation of specific princes' dynastic rights (e.g. Henri III of France as King of Poland in 1573, Philippe, Duc d'Anjou as King of Spain in 1700 and 1713); or apparent contradictions (e.g., how France's "fundamental laws" applied in 1590 to determine and identify France's king at that point); or European international principles as they were understood at the time of the Treaty of Utrecht with regard to unilateral repudiation of executed treaties (e.g., the 1911 Encyclopedia Britannica's article "Treaties", in listing the 7 characteristics of a valid treaty, notes at #6, "It is sometimes said that a treaty must have a lawful object, but the danger of accepting such a statement is apparent from the use which has been made of it by writers who deny the validity of any cession of national territory...", relevant since treaties to end wars have usually done so by establishing binding international agreements about changed boundaries -- or some other change forbidden by national law); or the post-ancien régime constitutionality of the "un-amendable" nature of any monarchy's laws ("...Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed, That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it"). In short, there are many issues relevant to "French dynastic disputes" which are not addressed at all or are addressed from a pro-Legitimist bias in this article. Thus I tag it POV. FactStraight (talk) 10:53, 20 April 2015 (UTC)
 * What is clear is this: under the ancient laws, the Senior Capet should be the heir. This is how the French cancelled the legitimacy of Henry VI of England, since no treaty could divert the throne from the customary heir. Subsequent historical changes brought about by Utrecht, the undesirability of France-Spain union, and the Revolution overthrew the foundations of those ancient laws, so the Orleans line has an equally valid claim. Reigen (talk) 11:06, 20 April 2015 (UTC)
 * Louis XIV had made many treaties with bad faith, which is why so many European powers fought against him. Reigen (talk) 11:09, 20 April 2015 (UTC)
 * The succession laws of France predated the existence of letters patent concerning succession. If the issuance of letters patent is enough to disinherit an heir, then Charles VI could have done just that for his son, who became Charles VII. Reigen (talk) 11:12, 20 April 2015 (UTC)


 * In 1590 the fundamental laws pointed to the King of Navarre as the King of France, which French history has upheld by dating Henry IV's reign since 1589. Catholicism seems a novelty requirement, since Henry IV was still Protestant at that point. Reigen (talk) 11:16, 20 April 2015 (UTC)


 * Laws, ancient or recent, are such insofar as they declare what shall be and how. A custom, even when articulated by jurists, which says merely what "should" be is not an assertion of law, but an opinion about law. Opinions vary and they change: this article may not reflect only Legitimists'. The letters patent didn't attempt to "disinherit" an heir, but to preserve him from disinheritance -- precisely because it was recognized that a dynast's rights were forfeited by abandonment of residence in France, a notion that reflected the prevalent understanding of French dynastic law as enforced by the Crown, Letters patent purporting to plausibly establish non-abandonment attest to that notion, and constitute appropriate tools for interpretation of how that law was to be applied and enforced. The notion that the letters can or should simply be dismissed reflects a Legitimist dismissiveness which presumes the point it seeks to prove: that French nationality was not required to accede to the throne. That pov biases this article. Either the fundamental laws identify the King or they don't, either Catholicity was one of those laws or it wasn't (its "novelty" is not alleged or accepted by other Legitimist apologists -- why is their pov absent here?) The assertion that "In 1590 the fundamental laws pointed to the King of Navarre as the King of France, which French history has upheld by dating Henry IV's reign since 1589" is a Legitimist legal fiction -- a pov omitted from this article is that Navarre was not Catholic in 1590, so if he was King of France, France has had a non-Catholic king contrary to fundamental law, and if he was not King of France, the fundamental laws were not applied -- so they are "disposable" and "available" when France finds it convenient for them to be so -- like any other law. As a practical matter, Louis de Bourbon's bad faith in treaties obliged his erstwhile enemies to beware, but as the executive authority of France, whose concessions had been duly ratified by the Parlement of Paris, his treaty commitments were binding on France since, in return, he got peace and a Bourbon today wears the crown of Spain. Nothing said here adequately refutes the objections outlined in this section to the tendency and bias of this article passim to interpret French succession disputes more from a Legitimist than Orléanist pov, which only re-writing that text to reflect an acknowledged consensus view, with sources will achieve. FactStraight (talk) 12:44, 20 April 2015 (UTC)
 * If the simple issuance or revocation of letters patent is enough to grant or deprive succession rights/nationality, such act constitutes an ability for the monarch to change the line of succession to the throne, an illegal act under the ancien regime. Reigen (talk) 12:22, 20 April 2015 (UTC)
 * Legitimists and Orleanists disagree on the implications of the letters patent, and therefore on their relevance to the succession. You've explained the Legitimist view but that of Orleanists is omitted from the article: the lp attest to two facts: 1. the King understood that without some record acknowledging in advance the expectation that Henri d'Anjou or his descendant might return to France to live, his right to succeed to the throne would be forfeit. 2. he sought, therefore, to make legal record of such intention, whether or not sincere, to prevent foreignness from precluding Anjou becoming king of France. Because visiting abroad and emigrating are both possible, the distinction turns upon "leaving without intention to return". It is reasonable and possible for those intentions to be expressed in advance, ergo lp. This pov about French nationality, its importance to dynastically and how to preserve it is expressed in the lp, and the issue was not manufactured by Orleanists when Louis XIV sent Philippe to reign in Spain in 1700, it had been raised in 1573 when Henri went to Poland, yet in the intervening 125 years no interpretation of French "fundamental law" had rendered the issue moot or obviated the need for lp. Of course you won't agree, but that is a cogent pov which contrasts with the Legitimist view, yet is absent from the article -- and worse, it is dismissed as an Orléanist invention, although Henri III was a Valois! FactStraight (talk) 15:13, 20 April 2015 (UTC)
 * How could the "intent to return" even be secured by a lp? Intention exists only in the mind. It would be impossible to evaluate whether every would-have-been descendant of Henry of Valois would have the "intent to return" just because a lp said so. Reigen (talk) 22:23, 20 April 2015 (UTC)
 * I'll just copy a discussion of what these letters patent are from somewhere. Reigen (talk) 22:54, 20 April 2015 (UTC)
 * Catholicism is a non-issue; whether or not it is a part of the French succession laws does not matter, since they're all Catholics. It is a "novelty" because there was then no law that required the king to be a Catholic. Most of the French just thought that he "should" be. Catholicism became a precedent because Henry IV converted. In other words, religion did not exclude him from the throne, because it was not yet a precedent (law) during his time, but it became a precedent (law) after him. Had the Orleans line succeeded to the French throne after the Bourbon-Artois became extinct, the principle of nationality would have a valid precedent, and therefore a valid claim to inclusion among the fundamental laws.
 * This smacks of original research, because most of what I have read of Legitimist argumentation treats Catholicity as one of the so-called fundamental laws to which Henri had to adhere, not to which he happened to adhere. If it was not a requirement, and since he became king in 1589 rather than after his conversion in 1603, then why, how and when did it become retroactively a precedent? It is inconsistent with the other fundamental laws in this crucial regard, and can be deemed to conform to them only by falsifying history. It is relevant because 1. the contention that the fundamental laws of France are precise, known and indispensable is part of a theory of those laws which is challenged in Orleanist thinking on the grounds that they are not so "ideal", i.e. inflexible, as Legitimists insist, and that the gap in their applicability from 1589 to 1603 suggests that other "gaps" and "flexibilities" may also be allowed. 2. Legitimists insist that Capetian agnates not born of Catholic marriage (as distinct from being Catholic -- like Henri IV) are excluded from the line of succession to the French throne right up to the present day. Since we are writing articles about French succession, that is a relevant point -- and a distinction between Legitimist and Orléanist pov, since the latter do not insist upon it. If Legitimists no long adhere to that assertion, true, that excuses them from defending the illogic and inconsistency of 1589-1603, but at the expense of admitting that the fundamental laws are not so clearly "known" and agreed upon as they have previously insisted; it potentially impugns the integrity of their chain of argumentation. Again, this is just one more example of why more balanced and sourced statements are needed in the article. FactStraight (talk) 15:13, 20 April 2015 (UTC)
 * Each fundamental law emerged from precedent. When the French foresaw that Navarre would be a king, his religion was unacceptable to them, so they formed the notion that he should be Catholic. They knew he was the king under the old laws then in existence; hence, the hesitation around 1590 to elect a new king. But the Parisians insisted that they would not accept a non-Catholic king. Hence, since Henry IV converted (1593), it became a fundamental law that the king had to be Catholic. Reigen (talk) 22:31, 20 April 2015 (UTC)
 * As I've said, I agree that Utrecht is valid as long as France thinks its valid, but its repudiation is also valid as soon as France upholds the supremacy of the fundamental laws. Reigen (talk) 13:20, 20 April 2015 (UTC)
 * The genius of the French can be found in the principle of unavailability; since it is not the king, or a party, or a body, who determines who can succeed to the crown, but the law, they could easily set aside any treaty that attempted to control the French succession, as soon as they find it convenient. They did this with Troyes, and could apply it to Utrecht. The fact that they didn't, meant that Orleans should be the rightful heir; the simple fact that they could, meant that Anjou also had a "valid" claim. Reigen (talk) 13:49, 20 April 2015 (UTC)
 * Cogent but heretical. I have never heard Legitimists argue that the Orleans "should" be the rightful heir under the fundamental laws. Given that their identifying characteristic is unremitting hatred of the Orleans, I'm not surprised. But again it sounds like original research: sources? FactStraight (talk) 15:13, 20 April 2015 (UTC)
 * Orleans "should" be the heir not from the fundamental laws, but from the practical operation of laws (post-Utrecht, Revolution, Napoleon, etc.) and changes in ideas that existed during the last years of the monarchy in France; the Legitimist heir would still be the one from the fundamental laws. Only ancient Blancs d'Espagne have an unremitting hatred of the Orleans; newer Legitimists reject them just because they were of a junior line, but they would be acceptable once they became the eldest of the Capetians. Reigen (talk) 22:37, 20 April 2015 (UTC)
 * "Foreignness" is a non-issue to French succession prior to the Orleans claim. No Senior Capetian had ever been excluded based on his foreignness, so there is no precedent for this claim. Note that all laws on the French royal succession are based on, and validated by, historical precedents. Reigen (talk) 11:30, 20 April 2015 (UTC)
 * Whether or not Utrecht could be elevated as a law superior to the fundamental laws has been discussed in the article; legally this was impossible in the ancien regime, but practically it could be upheld either if France wishes to maintain it, or if other nations are willing to make war on France to maintain it. Reigen (talk) 11:36, 20 April 2015 (UTC)

To summarize:
 * Foreignness is debunked, for reasons I have already stated; its origin is spurious and anachronistic;
 * The Orleans claim is just as valid as the Bourbon claim, depending on the legal norm:
 * The Legitimist legal norm is an idealist legal norm, since it believes the ancient laws of the French succession are unbreakable;
 * The Orleans legal norm is a practical legal norm, since it believes that between the laws of French before and after the Revolution, the laws of the latter supersedes that of the former, and changes in the succession law are perfectly acceptable modifications.
 * The Orleans claim has been complicated by its claim to an idealist legal norm, which it pursues by the introduction of the foreignness principle. Reigen (talk) 11:58, 20 April 2015 (UTC)

It would be helpful if you tag specific sections with the specific issues. Reigen (talk) 12:11, 20 April 2015 (UTC)


 * The notion that, in an article describing French dynastic disputes, you have or can "refute" a non-Legitimist pov, and that such "refutation" allows its omission or dismissal, or renders the article free of anti-Orléanist bias misunderstands the NPOV to which this article must conform. Nothing said here adequately refutes the objections outlined in this section to the tendency and bias of this article passim to interpret French succession disputes more from a Legitimist than Orléanist pov, which only re-writing that text to reflect an acknowledged consensus view, with sources will achieve. FactStraight (talk) 12:44, 20 April 2015 (UTC)
 * It would be really helpful if you add the appropriate tags by section. This is a translation from French wikipedia, so I may be unfamiliar with most of the sources they used or omiited. Nevertheless, I'll attempt to find them if I can. Reigen (talk) 13:25, 20 April 2015 (UTC)
 * I understand. I have not attempted to write a complete, neutral article on French succession because I do not have all the sources or time necessary to do so. So feel free to remove content, per my comments in this section, until you have the resources to write a version that does not favor the Legitimist more than the Orléanist cause. That is what NPOV requires, at the least -- since far more sources treat the Orleanist rather than the Legitimist Head of House as the relevant candidate for the French throne in the event of restoration, and have done so since 1883. FactStraight (talk) 13:48, 20 April 2015 (UTC)
 * The dominance of the Orleanists is mentioned in this article. I think I'll just tone down the "anachronistic origin" of the nationality requirement. Reigen (talk) 13:55, 20 April 2015 (UTC)

Done. I think only that section has a Legitimist bias. The rest seem fine to me. If you could still find some biases, please point them out; thanks for your meaningful input. Reigen (talk) 14:18, 20 April 2015 (UTC)
 * Titles such "foreign prince" and "French prince", meant "non-Capetian prince" and "Capetian prince", respectively, as you may well be aware. Hence, foreign could be "dynastic" or "national", and it was re-framed like that in the article, as if it was uncertain, though I am inclined it meant the former. Reigen (talk) 22:51, 20 April 2015 (UTC)


 * My understanding is that "foreign prince" was used to refer to one who is of dynastic descent, recognized as such in France, but whose dynasty reigns or reigned elsewhere than France. So it is not distinct from "foreign" in the ordinary meaning of that word: alien to the nation from whose pov nationality is being defined. Blurring that distinction to add, "or alien to Capetian patrilineage" introduces a novel meaning to the concept of "foreign" which buttresses the Legitimist emphasis on the Arrêt Lemaistre. FactStraight (talk) 08:56, 23 April 2015 (UTC)


 * It does not necessarily buttress the Legitimist interpretation, but just makes it possible for the interpretation to go either way, which is why until now this matter is disputed. The purpose of the article is to explain the disputes, not to promote the Orleanist branch. Reigen (talk) 10:48, 23 April 2015 (UTC)

Pieces of the puzzle
Arrêt Lemaistre is made specifically to reserve the rights of the rightful king, Henry of Navarre, the Salic heir, against the pretension/election of "foreign princes" - the Spanish Infanta of the House of Habsburg, and the French Duke of Guise, of the House of Lorraine.

The French Constitution of 1791 described the succession law of the kingdom of France. This can be confirmed in English versions of the text, which may be found in public domain. Note that the sentence "Nothing is prejudged on the effect of renunciations in the race on the throne" meant that in 1791 there were still Frenchmen who thought that: Utrecht itself betrays the nationality requirement; if it existed at that time, then it should have been invoked in the treaty itself, instead of, or in addition to, the renunciations, which Louis XIV, Philip V and the contemporary Parliament thought of as non-binding.
 * the renunciation of the Spanish branch may have been void;
 * the defect of foreignness is not set in stone (this is 78 years after Utrecht, and the Spanish branch has become thoroughly Spanish).


 * Again, your focus on this point, newly emphasized in the article, tends to make the article more rather than less biased, because it renders the Orléanist position less coherent from its own pov -- leaving it increasingly difficult to understand why the Orléanist heir has been predominantly regarded as the claimant par excellence in France (including among that majority of Legitimists who upheld the claims of Charles X and the Comte de Chambord) since 1883 (a fact which, again attesting to the article's bias is, as you say, no more than "mentioned"; whereas in an article on "French dynastic disputes" one might expect that predominance to be the fulcrum of the article, which a neutral pov ought to accept as its responsibility to elucidate and contextualize). The continued dismissal of the failure of the application of the fundamental laws to name the rightful King of France between 1589 and 1603; how and why Legitimism requires not only Catholicity in its claimant, but birth from Catholic marriage of its dynasts; the failure to present the Orléans view of the significance of the letters patent of 1573, 1700 and 1713 as both decrees declaring retention/abandonment of nationality and as affidavits attesting to such (supporting the Orleanist contention that the "defect of foreignness" is as much and as applicable a fundamental law as any, and that it is not an Orléanist invention but an interpretation of fundamental law that was known, understood and acted upon by France's kings prior to the existence of the Orléans Capetians); the implication that there is Orléanist violation of the fundamental laws in the acts of the late and current Comtes de Paris with respect to the order of succession while ignoring the "violations" of the abdication and renunciations of Charles X and his eldest son in 1830, accepted then by Legitimists as acceptable concessions to reality, and the fact that neither occurrence has had any manifest effect on the transmission of the crown-in-exile; and above all, the de-legitimization of the Orléanist critique that the Treaty of Utrecht constituted a one-off amendment to the fundamental law which France's ancien régime accepted perforce, i.e. in order that the French nation and its Crown might survive intact -- undermined by the insertion in this article of the flagrantly pov allegation that Louis XIV and the institutions of France continued, after the 1713 Treaty of Utrecht, to treat the exclusion of the Anjou Bourbons from the French succession as ultra vires by relying upon obscure, exceptional dissents by various individuals and factions while minimizing the King's and Parlement's official ratifications of that change and the failure of the Estates General, the National Assembly or any other lawful organ of the French state to revoke it throughout the reign of the Bourbons. These are among the discrepancies which show that the article continues to unfairly cast the Legitimist interpretation in the most coherent light while leaving that of the Orleans to appear less cogent. FactStraight (talk) 08:56, 23 April 2015 (UTC)
 * To address some of these issues:
 * From 1589 to 1593 the fundamental laws of France named the King of Navarre as the rightful monarch; the principle of Catholicity was in its embryonic stages, and applied to Navarre only in the sense that it prevented him from gaining complete mastery over the kingdom, instead of excluding him completely. His position as heir by the Salic law maintained him in the interim.
 * Legitimism requires birth from Catholic marriage since it was then the sole recognized form of legitimate birth.
 * I have already added a section on the letters patent, with an explanation of how the Orleanists and Legitimists viewed them.
 * The Orleanist violations on the fundamental laws made by the late Count of Paris suggests that he did not understand the theoretical position of his Legitimist (Unionist) supporters
 * There is actually a section in the article that deals with the actions of Charles X: The principle of the unavailability of the crown since 1789 - subsection, House of Bourbon
 * There was in the ancien regime no legal way to change the succession law. This was only possible with the change of regime (circa after 1790), when Louis XVI was overthrown and the old order was abolished, and the fundamental laws were no longer fully respected. Reigen (talk) 11:51, 23 April 2015 (UTC)

I prefer to think of this article as historically accurate, rather than pro-Legitimist; the intersection between them is incidental rather than intended. Reigen (talk) 07:05, 22 April 2015 (UTC)


 * Of course you do, and it is your privilege to characterize your pov as you wish. But please understand and accept that others may not and some do not share the assessment that your pov is either accurate or, more relevantly, neutral. Recall that NPOV on Wikipedia does not require and is not satisfied by either "truth" or "equal treatment" of viewpoints: Rather, it requires articles to reflect prevalent POVs, and do so proportionate to their relative prominence in reliable sources. Nothing said here adequately refutes the objections outlined in this section to the tendency and bias of this article passim to interpret French succession disputes more from a Legitimist than Orléanist pov, which only re-writing that text to reflect an acknowledged consensus view, with sources, will achieve. FactStraight (talk) 08:56, 23 April 2015 (UTC)
 * Again, actual Orleanist dominance is mentioned in the article, on the Details of dynastic controversies since 1883. I'll add another one somewhere in the beginning of the article. Reigen (talk) 11:51, 23 April 2015 (UTC)


 * I have again read the article thoroughly and consider that it suffers, in every section in which Legitimism's tenets/history are contrasted with those of Orléanism, from undue and favorable emphasis on the former at the latter's expense. The article could be published as "Legitimism" and serve as an uncontradicted apologia therefor. Nothing said here adequately refutes the objections outlined in this section to the tendency and bias of this article passim to interpret French succession disputes more from a Legitimist than Orléanist pov, which only re-writing that text to reflect an acknowledged consensus view, with sources, will achieve. FactStraight (talk) 02:43, 24 April 2015 (UTC)

Problem of Orleanist claims
The Orleanist claim to the French throne has two distinct arguments:
 * The first relies on the change of the national order. The ancien regime is no longer; the succession law could then be changed freely, so the validity of Utrecht becomes acceptable.


 * Orléanism does not agree that there is any more of a change in "the national order" than in Legitimism's retroactive attribution of Catholicity to Henri IV in 1589, which is done to preserve the contention that the fundamental laws have never been contradicted, i.e., that there has never been a non-Catholic Capetian King of France -- when there has been. If the fundamental laws can tolerate that falsification of reality they are not and have not been indiponible ("indisposable". The translation "unavailable" does violence to English as a neologism and would need to be sourced).
 * Technically never, since the principle of Catholicity did not emerge until 1593, when Henry IV converted. It is an error to think that all of the succession laws emerged at the same time; the exclusion of women emerged only in 1316, of distaff descendants in 1328, etc. "Unavailable" simply means "not available", or "out of reach", as these laws were meant to be. Reigen (talk) 16:14, 23 April 2015 (UTC)
 * Another way to put it, which would preserve the harmony of the fundamental laws, is that all Capetian kings of France were Catholic. This principle may be more relaxed than the others, with regard to the period from 1589-1593, since religion is a "mutable" quality, whereas descent is "immutable".
 * It is undeniable that there is indeed a change in the national order; after the overthrow of Louis XVI the laws of the ancien regime no longer applied. It was in this environment, after the collapse of the old order, that Orleanism arose, after the French learned to change kings in the fashion of the English. Hence Louis XVIII was replaced by Napoleon, Napoleon replaced by Louis XVIII, Charles X replaced by Louis Philippe, and Louis Philippe overthrown.
 * Indisposable does more violence to English, because it gets a red underline by spell check. I know that "defect of foreignness" also sounds awkward, and I am considering to use the original French "vice de pérégrinité", with "defect of foreignness" as a one-time explanation. Reigen (talk) 16:25, 23 April 2015 (UTC)

Hence the principles by which the Orleans claim the throne contradict each other, so I am having a difficult time on how to include this in the article. Help me around this point. Reigen (talk) 10:51, 23 April 2015 (UTC)
 * The second values the traditions of the ancien regime, and the fundamental laws of the ancient kingdom. But in the ancien regime the ability to change the succession law belongs to no one, hence the Treaty of Utrecht is void. To remedy this, it is suggested that there is a vice de pérégrinité (defect of foreignness), wherein non-French nationals are excluded from the throne. But if this principle existed, then it should have been invoked in Utrecht, so as not to produce a change in the law of succession.


 * Orléanism also "values" the dynasty's traditions, but the law of survival is the first law of nature -- including for nations. Thus Orléanism accepts the necessity of contracting treaties in good faith in principle and the Treaty of Utrecht in particular as a one-off necessary for the survival of the French nation and crown intact. From 1713 on, the exclusion of the Anjou Bourbons is treated as a unique exception to the "indisposability" principle because that is, in fact, how French law, French policy, the French state and the international order treated it. It is Legitimism's theory that this completely unravels the fundamental laws of the ancien régime. But that interpretation cannot be presented as fact merely because Legitimism declares it so.
 * This law of survival is no longer necessary, since the monarchy no longer exists, hence the purely legal power of the principle of unavailability (as understood in the ancien regime) reaches a juristic high ground. Reigen (talk) 16:14, 23 April 2015 (UTC)


 * Since letters patent of 1573 implicitly acknowledge the vice de pérégrinité, it is a (novel -- where is it sourced?) Legitimist distortion of history to insist it was manufactured by Orlėanists to exclude the Anjou Bourbons. Even more novel (i.e. unsourced) is the argument that if it existed it had to be cited in the Treaty of Utrecht -- as if the Continental Powers who negotiated Utrecht with France were or had an obligation to be French jurists. The letters patent of 1713 retracting those of 1700 is sufficient proof that France was obliged to and did officially recognize that the assertion of a preserved right of French succession for Anjou was retracted.


 * The letters patent of 1573 actually clarifies that the law of aubain does not apply to princes of the royal blood; the descendants of the Kings of France cannot be excluded from the succession to the throne based on a law that prohibited lower-ranked Frenchmen from succeeding to estates after becoming foreigners. The laws of succession to fiefs do not apply to the Crown; the Crown has its own succession laws. The letters patent serve only as a record of succession rights, rather than a source of those rights, which were ultimately derived from the fundamental laws. Reigen (talk) 16:14, 23 April 2015 (UTC)


 * As a work-around, I had stated the relative statuses of the Legitimists and Orleanists, with Orleanist dominance, of course, near the beginning of this article. Reigen (talk) 13:26, 23 April 2015 (UTC)


 * That violates undue emphasisis which requires that the evolution and concept of Orléanism receive greater treatment than Legitimism in any comparison of the two and reflect the former's dominance since 1713 and since 1883. A one time mention is minimizing and distortionate. FactStraight (talk) 15:29, 23 April 2015 (UTC)
 * The evolution of Orleanism has already been heavily discussed elsewhere; it has its own article and an extra article on its line of succession. This article would be of better service to present things side by side, each assertion followed by the opponent's rebuttal, and vice versa. Reigen (talk) 16:14, 23 April 2015 (UTC)

Simple History
From the institution of Utrecht in 1713 to the constitution of 1791, there was no need to discuss the claims of the Spanish branch, while the French descendants of Louis XIV still flourished. But at the French Constitution of 1791, the rights of the Spanish Bourbons were reserved, despite Orleanist claims that their exclusion should already have been assured (for having spent at least 78 years in Spain). This is not an anecdotal evidence, but an evidence from a legal document, from a constitution no less, and one formed right after the abolition of the old order, when the succession laws of the preceding regime were still remembered. This undeniable historical fact denies the existence of the nationality requirement as late as 1791; had it existed, there would be no need to protect the rights of the Spanish Bourbons, since they had lost their French nationality anyway. Hence, the fact that the clause protecting the Spanish branch's rights made its way in the Constitution of 1791 meant that the dominance of the Orleanists cannot be dated before that year; it was only after 1830, when they managed to usurp the throne from Charles X, that they could claim to be the dominant royalist party. Reigen (talk) 02:51, 24 April 2015 (UTC)


 * In 1713 Louis XIV signed and the Parlement registered the provisions of the Treaty of Utrecht excluding the Anjou Bourbons from the French succession. In 1791 that branch's claim on France's throne was not restored, rather the National Assembly incorporated into the Constitution these words, La Royauté est indivisible, et déléguée héréditairement à la race régnante de mâle en mâle, par ordre de primogéniture, à l'exclusion perpétuelle des femmes et de leur descendance. - (Rien n'est préjugé sur l'effet des renonciations, dans la race actuellement régnante)., i.e. "The monarchy is indivisible and is delegated to the reigning house, hereditarily from male to male, by order of primogeniture, perpetually excluding females and their issue. (Nothing is prejudged as to the effect of renunciations in the house currently reigning.)" This last parenthetical phrase simply is not synonymous with "Renunciations to the French throne are null ab initio and will be treated as void". This wording was adopted following three days of bitter debate among more than 800 men, with many amendments to the motion, for which there survives no verbatim transcript. You are entitled to your opinion that those words unequivocally prove that "the rights of the Spanish Bourbons were reserved" and that their adoption thereof "denies the existence of the nationality requirement as late as 1791", but others are entitled to their opinion and I to mine, and I do not consider that the NA's collective action was to "reserve" any "rights" to the Anjou Bourbons. Rather, in the context of fearing either to offend their neigbhor, the king of Spain, or the European parties to the 1713 treaty, they opted to reserve to the French nation the explicit right to decide the validity of dynastic renunciations to the throne if and when the line of Capetians senior to the Spanish branch becomes extinct (which would not occur until 1883). There was no legislative acknowledgement that the Anjou Bourbons retained or obtained any automatic right to inherit the French throne ahead of the Orléans. Certainly, the decision indicated that the NA foresaw the possibility of revoking the exclusion of Utrecht -- but it did not do so then, and France never explicitly did so afterward. However if, for the period between 1789 and 1830, you wish to assert that it was in doubt whether the French legislature considered the Anjou Bourbons excluded, I can agree to that point, provided that the article explicitly acknowledges that from 1713 until 1789 France's official policy, foreign and domestic, was that the Spanish branch was excluded. FactStraight (talk) 07:24, 24 April 2015 (UTC)


 * The King may be sovereign and absolute in France, but his powers are still limited by the fundamental law, which stops him from choosing who shall or shall not be his heirs. Parliament is not a sovereign body; it was merely a guardian of the law, it could protest against the king's abuses but could not resist if he compels them (lit de justice). By "reserved rights" I meant that their rights were not immediately dismissed (a surprising result, since the Orleanists claim that a nationality requirement exists; if it did, it could immediately have quashed the pretensions of the Spanish branch in 1791). French policy on the years 1713 to 1789 is one of ambiguity; while in the European theater they refrained from supporting the Spanish branch's succession rights outright (since it was potentially dangerous yet practically unnecessary, while the French branch still flourished), the statesmen still remembered the law, and fought for the inclusion of the clause which protected the Anjou rights. I agree, however, that the clause "Nothing is prejudged..." may mean that the statesmen deferred, rather than resolved, the matter. Nothing but the affection for the laws of the old regime could have pushed them to take this course of action; there was more to fear from England and the Empire (whom policy would render hostile to this act), than from Spain, whose only powerful ally was France. Reigen (talk) 09:27, 24 April 2015 (UTC)

Section Evaluations
Alright, in order to narrow down the scope of evaluation, I'll enumerate the sections which I believe to be neutral beyond contest: 1) The throne of the Valois, 2) The dispute of the Bourbons and Orleans, 4) The Bonapartist bid, 5) Naundorffism, 6) Form of monarchy. This just leaves one section for improvement, 3) The Fundamental Laws of the Kingdom of France.

Now I'll discuss the subsections of section 3. The Law of succession according to the French Constitution of 1791 is an important historical document, formed right after the collapse of the ancien regime form of monarchy. I cannot refrain from mentioning Philip V in this section, since the parenthetical sentence was especially intended for the Spanish branch.

Vice de pérégrinité and Catholicity: Arrêt Lemaistre discusses the "late-comer" additions to the fundamental laws. Catholicity has been accepted by both parties, while peregrinite was rejected by one and supported by the other. I believe this had been discussed neutrally, and explains why one party rejects, while the other supports.

Letters patent concerning succession rights comes from a work of Giesey, an authority on hereditary succession in France. Again the variable interpretations of the two parties are stated.

The treaties of Utrecht (1713) and their consequences discusses the Treaty of Utrecht, one of the cornerstones of Orleanist claims to the French throne. Even so, the Treaty of Utrecht was primarily an affair related to Philip V and Louis XIV, so the Orleans are less prominent in the historical account of this treaty. On the legal questions, the two parties again make their opposing claims.

On Fusion and Details of dynastic controversies since 1883, I think they're already okay. Reigen (talk) 11:02, 24 April 2015 (UTC)


 * Since you wrote these sections and know Wikipedia's requirements for NPOV, I am surprised that you present some as neutral and others as disputable, given the extensive identification of the problem areas expressed in this section. I concur only with respect to the apparent neutrality of section 5 on Naundorfism. The other sections I consider biased in favor of Legitimism, either in the assertions made or in the undue focus on Legitimism's perspective relative to that of Orléanism and Bonapartism. I defer on any agreement as to neutrality to others who have expressed concerns by tagging the article, tags which I support. FactStraight (talk) 14:47, 24 April 2015 (UTC)
 * The sections above are areas for improvement, in accordance with the issues you had raised, but my own position is that there is no problem with them as is. That this article should have an extensive discussion of Legitimism and Orleanism is owing to the fact that this article is actually about disputes, rather than Orleanism alone; the claims of these parties clash directly, whereas Bonapartism's claim is imperial, and therefore a separate issue altogether. Reigen (talk) 23:05, 26 April 2015 (UTC)
 * Far more sources treat the Orléanist rather than the Legitimist Head of House as the relevant candidate for the French throne, and have done so since 1883. Thus we reach an apparent impasse: You assert here, and in the "Problem of Orleanist claims" section above, that this article should be exempt from Wikipedia's undue emphasis restriction, which requires that when comparing POVs, that view which is prevalent is to be given substantially greater elucidation and emphasis, overall and in specifics, than that which has significantly less support. Because Legitimism (along with Ultra-royalist) has, like Orléanism, a lengthy article which details the arguments in its favor, I can't concur that this article, which compares the two (and others), should be exempted from Wikipedia's requirement for balance. This article suffers fundamentally from an approach which fails to put the "disputes" in the context of how one (Orléanism) has come to be viewed as standard in monarchist politics, interest and coverage for at least the last 130 years while the other (Legitimism) remains more marginalized (although championed with recently increased fervor), leaving Wikipedia's handling of the issue lopsided and distorted. Granted that from the current republican perspective(s) in France, both factions should get little more than stubs, that observation doesn't resolve the difference in their relative notability or that of the rationales underlying each movement. FactStraight (talk) 02:33, 27 April 2015 (UTC)
 * It is difficult to elucidate the Orleanist claims with more erudition than what has already been done, because as the dominant position, their claims ought to be taken at face value. Further examination of their principles would be detrimental to the fabric upon which their principles are built, because of the inherent inconsistencies in their position. However, in consideration of your perseverance in reviewing this article, I shall consult an Orleanist website and its defense of vice de peregrinite, and devote a new section under Vice de pérégrinité and Catholicity: Arrêt Lemaistre, with a purely Orleanist explanation. Reigen (talk) 03:14, 27 April 2015 (UTC)


 * Occupying the ideological "dominant position" doesn't mean an encyclopaedic article should stint on that position's rationale, certainly not when it is being explicitly compared to rival rationales: explication of that which is elsewhere "taken at face value" is what people turn to encyclopaedia to probe. Your assertion regarding the Orléanist rationale, "Further examination of their principles would be detrimental to the fabric upon which their principles are built, because of the inherent inconsistencies in their position" amply illustrates the bias which their viewpoint faces in the current editing of this article. FactStraight (talk) 06:12, 27 April 2015 (UTC)


 * What I basically meant, is that the Orleanist position is what they say it to be: For them, the renunciations in Utrecht are valid (how could I expand on that, apart from saying that such renunciations were held invalid in the past?), and vice de peregrinite exists (I already expanded that pov on a new section, though, as I have repeatedly stated elsewhere, it is an ahistorical position, since the concept was absent as late as 1791). Reigen (talk) 09:06, 27 April 2015 (UTC)

Done. I have added a new section on vice de peregrinite. I will refrain from adding the following statements in the article, but I maintain, that this is a principle of spurious origin, for the Capetian monarchy is the most dynastic in all of Europe. Such a concept did not exist until many years after the Revolution, a clever counter, admittedly, to the claim of the Spanish branch. But it was not recognized as a fundamental law by Frenchmen at the time of the 1791 Constitution, or of the parties in the Treaty of Utrecht (1713), which could have been done with lesser objections had such principle been invoked. Reigen (talk) 03:58, 27 April 2015 (UTC)

I hope that would be enough for you to reduce your multiple issues overkill. Reigen (talk) 03:58, 27 April 2015 (UTC)


 * I have read your most recent edits to the article and don't see substantial improvement for reasons explained in depth on this page. I have not tagged the article with "multiple issues", although I agree with most of those enumerated. FactStraight (talk) 06:12, 27 April 2015 (UTC)


 * I apologize for that. The tagger was silent on this talk page, I assumed it was you. Reigen (talk) 06:17, 27 April 2015 (UTC)

Factual accuracy tag
I don't know what this is about, so please recap the specific disputed factual accuracies. Reigen (talk) 04:56, 5 May 2015 (UTC)
 * See above comments on this talk page. FactStraight (talk) 06:18, 5 May 2015 (UTC)
 * I cannot distinguish between your fact and neutrality challenges. All this time I can only see neutrality challenges; I did not see any factual accuracy challenge, and did not notice any factual inaccuracy for this article. Mentioning the title of the subjects on fact challenges would be fine. Reigen (talk) 06:32, 5 May 2015 (UTC)
 * I just ran across this page and find it absolutely fascinating for myriad reasons. While the vast majority of your information is accurate to some degree or another, I do agree with the statements made on this talk page that the other parties in the succession dispute are neglected in favour of a pro-Legitimist argument. The Bonapartes get virtually no space on this page and the Orléanists certainly appear maligned, regardless your intent. While I, as a dynastic historian of the Capetian dynasty, largely agree with your assessments regarding the Spanish Borbóns, your approach is too heavy-handed, too one-sided, and lacks even a modicum of cited evidence. Browsing through the footnotes, I find that most come from questionable sources when they should be coming from published books and articles (or, for more recent information, newspapers and court recordings). This article smacks of original research when it could be a well-written discussion on the succession dispute. Were there citations, I would even consider accessing those for my own use. As it stands, though, this article suffers numerous issues:
 * It is overly-long and non-encyclopaedic in nature for a Wikipedia article. It reads more like a legal discussion for a journal than a summary article on a topic as Wikipedia articles should be.
 * It needs good citations. Without them, this article is literally trash according to all Wikipedia standards. I have seen many similar articles deleted wholesale due to lack of cited evidence. Use books and articles. If all else fails, provide a link to a relevant Wiki article on the topic.
 * It needs a thorough re-write. It is clear that the author is either a second-langauge learner or needs to improve their grammar. Many sentences are poorly-written or could be stated better. I suspect that most of this article is translated directly by the original author from the French-language version.
 * It needs to balance perspectives with the politically dominant Orléanist view and the still potent Bonapartist view. This is an article, not a treatise, so there is no need to come to a definitive conclusion regarding the topic. There should be no argument – the positions should just be outlined and their legal merits and demerits compared, but not judged unduly.
 * If the above improvements are made, this article may actually prove to be a fair discussion on the topic of monarchism in France, but as it currently sits, I fear it will get nominated for deletion. Much of the material is good, but remember this website is meant to be an encyclopaedia, not a public blog where one can write treatises on whatever they wish without citation or brevity. Keep the article simple, stick to the facts, leave opinions to others, and cite everything. – Whaleyland ( Talk •  Contributions ) 07:31, 3 January 2017 (UTC)


 * Alas, the struggle over how English Wikipedia should present French legitimism, in isolation or in contrast with Orleanism, is very old and convoluted. Although the various articles, talk pages and posters' names have changed, the debate drags on involving largely the same antagonists, employing mostly the same arguments, encountering the same obstacles and, appallingly, disrespecting Wikipedia with the same lack of citations that was complained of by Jimbo Wales years ago here. While there have been more polite dialogues and fewer edit wars recently, we come no closer to consensus. IMO that is because of the stumbling block that Legitimists and Orleanists remain locked in death spiral feud over: the role that "change" has played and should have been allowed to play in French history. A feud that has everything to do with the eternal, Manichaean struggle over tradition vs reform, conservatism vs liberalism and right vs wrong, in which advocates for both sides are too personally invested to care much about the objective of comprehensively and neutrally informing Wikipedia's readers. It all began long ago in a far away galaxy: Wikipedia has become just one of the current fronts in a 20 year-old online war (23 December 2018 As this link seems to be subjected to restricted access by Google.com, I add here the information that the link is to the launching of an online debate on 9/5/1996 by François R. Velde with Guy Stair Sainty on the newsgroup alt.talk.royalty in a thread named "Orleanism vs. Legitimism: the background (1)"). FactStraight (talk) 13:25, 3 January 2017 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on French dynastic disputes. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20100130085550/http://royaute.ifrance.com/royaute/les_opinions.htm to http://royaute.ifrance.com/royaute/les_opinions.htm

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 22:27, 7 October 2017 (UTC)