Talk:History of the French line of succession

Sources? Also there is a format issue. Charles Matthews (talk) 11:21, 8 September 2008 (UTC)

I am not sure if it is right to not include the line of the spanish Bourbons in this orders of succession, you're ignoring legitimist and traditionalist views on succession, you may also have another little mistake in the line after Louis XIV's death as he made some arrangements in order to include his illegitime issue in the line, I know may be you'll argue that the congress derogued this some days after Louis XIV's death, however this lines are supposed to represent the condition immediatelly after the death of the reigning monarch. Lefairh (talk) 06:13, 11 December 2008 (UTC)

I am wondering if may be we can inclue a section of "alternate succession issues" including the spanish branch, explaining that in this section we consider the rennunciation of Philip V in the Treaty of Utretch as null and void. I'll be willing to do it if there is some consensus among experts in this topic. Lefairh (talk) 06:19, 11 December 2008 (UTC)

"Grandson of France"
In the succession list for Charles VI, it is noted that some of his nephews were "Grandsons of France". Does this title refer to anyone who is a grandson of *any* king or the *current* king. Thanks. DavidRF (talk) 04:38, 25 January 2009 (UTC)

The title "Grandson of France" is held by any male-line grandson of any King of France. Emerson 07 (talk) 20:36, 18 August 2010 (UTC)

History of the Bourbon Line's place in the succession
It might be interesting to note how far down the Bourbon cousins are at each point. Before Louis XI, they are nowhere to be seen. Several lines had to die out before they climbed the ranks of the succession. DavidRF (talk) 15:52, 25 January 2009 (UTC)


 * Actually, you could see four (#6-9) of them under the first ten in the line of succession to Charles IV.Emerson 07 (talk) 21:12, 18 August 2010 (UTC)

The succession at the Capet-Valois border (1328)
DavidRF (talk) 05:59, 14 March 2009 (UTC)
 * 1) Philip VI of France, son of Charles of Valois, grandson of Philip III of France (b. 1293)
 * 2) John II of France, son of Philip (b. 1319)
 * 3) Charles II of Alençon, son of Charles of Valois, (b. 1297)
 * 4) Charles d'Évreux, Count of Étampes, son of Louis d'Évreux, grandson of Philip III (b. 1305)
 * 5) Philip III of Navarre, son of Louis d'Évreux (b. 1306)
 * 6) Louis I, Duke of Bourbon, son of Robert, Count of Clermont, grandson of Louis IX of France (b. 1279)
 * 7) Peter I, Duke of Bourbon, son of Louis I (b. 1311)
 * 8) James I, Count of La Marche, son of Louis I (b. 1319)
 * 9) Peter of Clermont, Archdeacon of Paris, son of Robert, Count of Clermont (b. 1287)
 * 10) Robert III of Artois, great-great-grandson of Louis VIII of France (b. 1287)

Following Salic Law
Why does each king have the "Following Salic Law" in the heading if all of them have it anyway? Why not just state it in the beginning that the line of succession to the French throne is determined by Salic Law?Emerson 07 (talk) 20:44, 18 August 2010 (UTC)

Number of Capetians
Does anyone have enough information on how many legitimate male-line Capetians were living at the death of each king? Maybe we could include that here to know the rate at which the dynasty is growing. For example, from the "Legitimist line of succession to the French throne" article, the current number of Capetians today is 124.Emerson 07 (talk) 20:44, 18 August 2010 (UTC)

Son of France
From this article, the title "Son of France" is first seen among the heirs of Philip VI. Does this mean that the Valois dynasty were the first to use the title? If so, maybe we could add this information on the "Fils de France" article as to the origin of the title.Emerson 07 (talk) 21:09, 18 August 2010 (UTC)

"Son of France" "Grandson of France"
Can anyone point to any reliable source in English which regularly translates these terms? john k (talk) 21:51, 7 September 2010 (UTC)


 * What do you mean by "regular"? The translation is as regular as it can be. Son of France and Grandson of France are Fils de France and Petit-fils de France in French. The French "fils" means "son" in English. "Petit" means "little"; the transliteration would be "little-son." In English, that would be "grandson", analogous to "grandfather". Emerson 07 (talk) 08:58, 7 May 2011 (UTC)

Wrong Wrong Wrong
There is sufficient evidence that Philippe and his descendants WERE still regarded as being the Line of Succession. Likewise, where are the Courtenays? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 41.133.47.188 (talk) 09:03, 15 May 2011 (UTC)

So-called 'Legitimist' claims
The Line of Succession is a legal function that does not encompass all of the claims to the throne made by everyone. It is a legal function. Were the king to die who does law dictate should be the next king (not who do you think should be the next king). If the royal carriage crashes and kills the king and heirs A, B, and C, who would law dictate should succeed. If an asteroid strikes Paris and kills the king and heirs A-H, who does the law dictate should succeed. If we start giving alternative opinions, there are no end to these alternative opinions - you would need the Navarrist claimant, the Plantagenetist claimant - heck, probably even the Carolingianist claimant. And if you get to the point where no law exists to further define who was next, that is where you stop. Agricolae (talk) 15:49, 14 November 2011 (UTC)
 * It is on the basis of that very law you speak of that we cannot determine with certainty the actual successor to the throne of France. The kingdom of France had been terminated before the rightful successor - Legitimist or Orleanist - could be determined. Which is why, the page should not be limited to the Orleanist view. Legitimists consider the Treaty invalid, since the fundamental laws of the kingdom does not allow anybody to control the succession. There is no Navarrist claimant, since the Kingdom of Navarre had merged with France since the reign of Louis XIII; there is no Carolingianist claimant, since the Carolingian dynasty had long been extinct in the legitimate male line; the Plantagenet claim to the French throne contravenes the principle of agnatic primogeniture, and thus, unacceptable. Emerson 07 (talk) 14:39, 17 November 2011 (UTC)
 * You are missing the bigger point. If the legal succession was only defined to a given point, then we should not decide who it should have been beyond that point.  In saying that it hadn't been defined, you are effectively saying that it the material you are trying to insert is just personal opinion.  As to the other claims, of course if you decide which rules you want to apply, you get your result - that is the whole point.  If one were to apply other personal preferences, one would get a different outcomes, and your preferred whims have no special standing over the others.  You choose to determine legitimacy based on agnatic primogeniture, but there is no particular reason this should be the case.  Certainly Hugh Capet did not become king through agnatic primogeniture, and he did so when a legitimate male-line scions of the Carolingian house did survive, so your use of agnatic primogeniture to establish Capetian legitimacy over the Carolingian line is indefensible, but not unexpected. Further, just because you find the Plantagenet claim unacceptable doesn't mean that it is inherently less valid than your so-called 'legitimist' claims that are unacceptable to others. Again, that is the point. Again, to quote you, "It is on the basis of that very law you speak of that we cannot determine with certainty the actual successor", and so we shouldn't. Agricolae (talk) 20:22, 17 November 2011 (UTC)
 * There is a definition, certainly. What I'm saying is we cannot be sure about its correctness. The question of whether the Treaty of Utrecht can modify the fundamental laws of succession or not is a persisting point of dispute. You may say that the Legitimist succession is "my preferred whim", but let me remind you that I actually retain the Orleanist version of the succession. By choosing to show only the Orleanist succession, you are claiming that it has a "special standing" over others. Hugh Capet was an elected monarch, and he took his legitimacy from that. It was to be a different case for his descendants, for the fundamental laws of succession were formulated to keep the scepter within his male line forever. Not only is the Plantagenet claim against the principle of agnatic primogeniture, it was also resolved, through the end of the Hundred Years' War, that the King of England is not the King of France. That is the point. To quote you and myself, " "It is on the basis of that very law you speak of that we cannot determine with certainty the actual successor", and so we shouldn't"; yet it is clear that by showing only the Orleanist succession, you had determined that they have the superior right to the throne. The alternative line of succession is based upon the clamor of other editors on this discussion page to see the Spanish Bourbons on the line of succession.Emerson 07 (talk) 14:38, 18 November 2011 (UTC)
 * This isn't about versions. There were no versions.  France had a king and he had actual heirs.  It is not a question of who people today think should have been heirs, but the situation as it stood during their reign, and if it wasn't defined beyond the king and their children, that is as far as we should go.  We certainly shouldn't decide that those people back then didn't know the right heirs and we know better. I am not choosing to show only the Orleanist succession.  I am choosing to show the facts on the ground at the time, and not the alternative theories of a modern fringe.  This is not an opinion unique to France.  It doesn't matter if somebody today thinks an Australian farmer is the rightful king of England, in the treatment of the English succession, we do not show what it would have been under the beliefs of this group.  We show who George III's heirs were and hot the heirs of mythical king Ferdinand of England.  Likewise, we don't list the so-called James III as heir to England after the succession of his half-sister, whatever the Jacobite legitimists think should have been the case.  The law at the time excluded him, and it doesn't matter if the law was not constitutional - actual history trumps legal philosophy.  Even you accept this, but only when it serves you.  You accept that the succession is subject to treaty (at the end of the 100 Years' War) and at the same time reject that the succession is subject to treaty (Utrecht). And again, you apply to Henry's claim your rules and declare his reign invalid, when he never based his claim on your rules. They decided that Philip's line was ineligible for succession. This may not be balanced, that the point of view of the people in charge at the time takes precedence over our modern wishes that it had been different, but such is history. Agricolae (talk) 22:36, 18 November 2011 (UTC)
 * The end of the Hundred Years' War, in favor of France, is actually a precedent that tells us that the succession to the throne of France cannot be controlled (as with the Treaty of Troyes; France signed this treaty, which, if valid, made Henry VI of England the King of France. But the Capetian dynasts did not recognize his legitimacy by excluding him from the regnal numbering, as Henry II of France did). The history of the Capetian monarchy can be interpreted as a historical rewriting, always prejudicial against the claims of the non-agnatic, non-primogeniture "kings."Emerson 07 (talk) 03:18, 19 November 2011 (UTC)
 * . . . and against the line of Philippe, but you prefer to ignore that part. This is going nowhere - you cite historical precedent when it agrees with you and reject it when it doesn't. But this is not about you. Ask historians who were the immediate heirs of Louis XVIII, and the overwhelming majority of them are not going to start with the fringe legitimist claimant. Agricolae (talk) 03:28, 19 November 2011 (UTC)
 * As I have said, the Treaty of Troyes proved that the crown of France is unavailable; it cannot be given away, even by the terms of a treaty; nothing can divert the succession from the rightful heir. I believe my arguments are unified by consistency, not by selectivity of which things to cite. The immediate heirs of Louis XVIII would be his brother, Charles, and Charles' descendants. Emerson 07 (talk) 06:12, 20 November 2011 (UTC)
 * And you did it again, choosing one treaty as established law, and another as an illegal whim. The Treaty of Utrecht was fully ratified and never revoked. The article currently states that the treaty was the source of future conflicting claims - when, then is the first (documented) instance that the Treaty of Utrecht served as the basis for legitimate claims?  Can you document this being the case at the death of Louis XIV?  Until that time, the heirs were who they were thought to be, not who you think they should have thought them to have been. Agricolae (talk) 20:32, 21 November 2011 (UTC)
 * "Not who you think they should have thought them to have been". Not quite sure I can parse this syntactically, but it certainly gets the absurdity of the situation across quite well. :-) Fut.Perf. ☼ 20:44, 21 November 2011 (UTC)
 * [Off-topic argumentative passage removed. – Fut.Perf. ☼ 00:51, 22 November 2011 (UTC)]
 * Stop misusing this talkpage (and the articles) to argue your ideological case. This page is not for having arguments over whether this or that view of the succession is correct. If you continue your agenda-pushing, you will have to be blocked. Fut.Perf. ☼ 08:07, 20 November 2011 (UTC)
 * Determining which view of the succession is correct is essential for this article. If we do not know which view is correct, then how can we determine the line of succession? My purpose is to preserve the quality of the article, not to argue my "ideological case." However, to prevent further disruptions, I settled on the version which shows neither Orleanist or Legitimist agenda. Emerson 07 (talk) 10:09, 20 November 2011 (UTC)
 * "We" are not going to "determine" the line of succession at all. That's not what Wikipedia is about. We report what the literature says, giving all notable views on a topic, covering each according to the weight it has in independent published opinion. If you still haven't understood this much, you really, really need to take a big step back and reconsider what you are doing here. Please accept this from somebody who has a huge lot more experience with what Wikipedia is about than you have: you have been going about this whole thing in a totally wrong way, and the entirety of your activities on this project has been hugely detrimental. Fut.Perf. ☼ 13:39, 20 November 2011 (UTC)
 * Unfortunately, literature on "lines of succession" rarely exist. In Wikipedia, articles like this are based on the premise that there are rules to follow, and contributors build up the list from that. It is not in the nature of historians to create lists on lines of succession for every reign. There's just the king, and the heir, and that's that. Emerson 07 (talk) 11:40, 21 November 2011 (UTC)
 * Great. If "that's that" for historians, then that's that for us too. Because this is exactly the "premise" on which our articles are in fact based, contrary to what you claim they are: we follow what the literature says. So, based on what you say, I'll redirect the Line of succession to the French throne (Legitimist) page again, as being useless. Fut.Perf. ☼ 14:29, 21 November 2011 (UTC)

Having reviewed this a bit more:
 * I strongly object to the insertion of two competing lines of succession in each section, as was persistently edit-warred back in by Emerson . Reasons:
 * Between Louis XV and Charles X, the difference between the versions including the descendants of Philip V of Spain and those that don't never affects anything higher than the third rank in line at any one point of juncture. Thus, the difference is purely academic; it would never have come close to being actually relevant for deciding an actual succession.
 * There is no evidence that anybody at the time was computing the lines of succession in this alleged "legitimist" way. The view that wants to re-include the descendants of Philip V (i.e. on the basis of those arguments about the Treaty of Utrecht) appears to be a purely modern, ex-post-facto rationalization, proposed by a tiny fringe-within-the-fringe movement in the 20th century. It is of relevance only for the internal differences within the monarchist movement today, but of no relevance for anything this article is actually about.
 * The actual, historical legitimist movement of the 19th century had apparently little or nothing to do with this difference over the treaty of Utrecht, Philip V, or the Salic Law either. They were simply those who favoured the direct descendants of the deposed Charles X of France over their cousins from the House of Bourbon-Orléans line. The difference over Utrecht is completely irrelevant to this too, because the sons of Charles X would have been ahead of Louis-Philippe either way.
 * It seems the lead section of the Legitimists article also needs to change, because with its immediate focus on the Salic Law issue and the Treaty of Utrecht right in the lead sentence it gives a very misleading picture of what the legitimist movement was actually about. Unless somebody can provide sources demonstrating that arguments about Utrecht were already a defining feature of the movement back then. Fut.Perf. ☼ 20:12, 21 November 2011 (UTC)
 * In its beginning, the Legitimist movement counters the usurpational tendencies of the House of Orleans. The House of Orleans is ready to grab every opportunity to place themselves on the throne, thus gaining notoriety for its disrespect of the French principles of succession. By usurping the throne from Charles X and his descendants, the House of Orleans were ready to ignore the very principle of primogeniture, so long entrenched in the royal successions of the Kingdom of France. That is the Orleanist movement in contrast to the Legitimist one (at the beginning). However, with the extinction of the male line of the French House of Bourbon, the current Orleanist movement has changed direction. They now claim to be the rightful heirs based on Legitimist principles (but they still ignore primogeniture when it suits them). Emerson 07 (talk) 23:20, 21 November 2011 (UTC)
 * Final warning. STOP misusing this talkpage for arguing your ideological position. Is it really so difficult to grasp that this is not what this project is for? If you continue, I will ask to get you blocked, and believe me, such a block will happen. Fut.Perf. ☼ 23:46, 21 November 2011 (UTC)
 * I expected you to comment on the redirection, but, oh well. You seem confused by the nature of Legitimism, so I just explained them to you. In essentials, Orleanism of the past is a political movement, capitalizing on the dislike of the character of Charles X; Orleanism today has assumed a Legitimist character. Emerson 07 (talk) 00:38, 22 November 2011 (UTC)

Good redirect. But for all the trouble this is worth, I suggest you redirect every line of succession article, not merely the Legitimist one, for literature does not support them. This geekwork is, as can be said, unique to Wikipedia. Emerson 07 (talk) 23:00, 21 November 2011 (UTC)
 * So it is not really a legitimist position after all, just an anti-Orleanist position. Kind of makes it hard to apply this reasoning to the line of succession in 1715. Agricolae (talk) 01:12, 22 November 2011 (UTC)
 * The best adjective for this would be the "Capetian" position - the senior line is preferred over the junior line.Emerson 07 (talk) 13:09, 29 November 2011 (UTC)

FP makes a good point that "There is no evidence that anybody at the time was computing the lines of succession in this alleged 'legitimist' way." On the other hand, I wonder if there is any evidence that anybody official was computing lines of succession that had the Louis XV line succeeded by the Orleanists? Just asking. --BlueMoonlet (t/c) 20:36, 23 November 2011 (UTC)


 * What? Is the whole page made up of WP:OR? absolutely.  Same goes for History of the Jacobite line of succession, which should be deleted, and perhaps History of the British line of succession. Did the French tabulate who was in line to succeed? Yes. Everyone knew that Henry of Bourbon was next in line. Did they compute it to 10, exactly 10, successors.  Of course not.  More importantly, though, has any reliable source (even a modern one) published such a tabulation?  If not, it is original research even if people at the time paid attention to such things. I wouldn't be opposed to deleting all three pages - the British page was already significantly pared of OR going all the way from William the Conqueror (what remains is somewhat defensible as the 1707 Act of Succession explicitly defined eligibility for succession based on several factors, and there has been a body of published material analyzing the effects of this at various points in time). Agricolae (talk) 21:36, 23 November 2011 (UTC)
 * WP:OR may be removed anytime. Emerson 07 (talk) 13:09, 29 November 2011 (UTC)

I'll give up on this for now, but in the future I'll either 1) introduce the Legitimist line of succession or 2) remove the lines of succession from Louis XIV onwards under WP:BURDEN. What's the consensus on this? I'm also willing to have this page redirect somewhere else. I just can't stand this article the way it is now.Emerson 07 (talk) 15:01, 29 November 2011 (UTC)

I'm a bit confused by the idea that this was entirely academic. Between 1715 and 1729, how you view the legitimacy of Philip V's renunciations and the Treaty of Utrecht determine who the actual heir to the throne was - and this was certainly an issue people at the time were interested in, not just something made up post facto. The participation of France in the War of the Quadruple Alliance, for instance, had everything to do with the Regent's fears of Philip V's claims to the French throne, and, iirc, when Louis XV was ill with smallpox in 1728, Philip V was actually planning on crossing the Alps to claim the French throne if he should die. This is not just something made up by ultra-legitimists after it became clear that the Count of Chambord couldn't have children. john k (talk) 21:28, 30 November 2011 (UTC)

Compromise suggestion
I just made what I hope will be considered a compromise edit. Given that we have no sources indicating what people actually thought was the official line of succession at any particular time, IMO the only alternative to deleting the page is to at least mention all the reasonable points of view. For each section, the numbered line of succession is according to the principles professed by the deceased monarch (including the Treaty of Utrecht), but the senior representative of any extant alternative line(s) is also mentioned, and a parenthetical is included in the place where Philip V's descendants might have gone. I cautiously hope people might find this acceptable. --BlueMoonlet (t/c) 16:53, 29 November 2011 (UTC)


 * I'm skeptical about projecting "points of view" back in time when we have no reason to believe anybody was holding those points of view back then. Another solution that would avoid much of the OR problem would be if we shortened the lists to only those candidates whose rank was not just theoretical but turned out to be relevant for subsequent events and was thus confirmed by these events – i.e. those persons who actually became kings, or who passed their status on to somebody who became king, or who died before they could succeed to the throne and thus made the way free for the next in line; up to and including Charles X. Fut.Perf. ☼ 18:01, 29 November 2011 (UTC)
 * But not Angouleme or Chambord? At any rate, the issue of the legitimacy of the Utrecht renunciations is not just projecting a point of view back in time.  It was an issue that was seriously debated in France, and was a live political issue at least until the birth of the Dauphin in 1729. john k (talk) 21:31, 30 November 2011 (UTC)
 * I applaud this thoughtful and carefully crafted effort. I have tweaked the language a bit and deleted excessive titulature (which is largely given in the individual articles). The order of succession was not controversial after Henri IV's accession except as duly noted in the article, and follows from the order of birth in the dynasty as straightforward application of Salic primogeniture to any given king, a permissable arithmetic computation so long as the principles of Salic law and primogeniture are themselves properly sourced. More problematic are the lists prior to Henri IV, since succession order depended upon which of the "fundamental laws" of succession had been accepted by French jurists as applicable at the time. If a way can be found round that difficulty, I would support retention of this article's content, which reflects an admirably NPOV and herculean research effort. FactStraight (talk) 12:44, 30 November 2011 (UTC)


 * FactStraight, it seems to me that the best way to deal with any alternate succession lines is to discuss them forthrightly, as I did with the Spanish (Philip V) line. I just spruced up the discussion of the Courtenays and of Edward III of England.  It seems to me that strict Salic Law was fundamental to the king of France's claim from Philip VI onward, so I'm not sure what you mean by other "fundamental laws" that might have been advanced during the Valois period.  Can you be more specific about other controversies that need to be mentioned?  It might be good to conclude each section with a note describing whether the crown passed smoothly to the next heir or whether there was controversy worth mentioning, as is done in the History of the British line of succession article.  --BlueMoonlet (t/c) 16:43, 30 November 2011 (UTC)
 * I have now done the latter. --BlueMoonlet (t/c) 20:10, 30 November 2011 (UTC)
 * There are seven (official) fundamental laws. Prior to Philip VI's succession, the crown had been made 1) hereditary, passing by 2) primogeniture, and later 3) limited to males (succession of Philip V). Under the Valois kings, the following laws had been added: 4) it could only pass to male relatives in the male line (succession of Philip VI); 5) the crown is unavailable (nothing can divert the succession from the most senior male heir; invalidity of the Treaty of Troyes), passing 6) immediately to the next king upon the death of the previous monarch (succession of Charles VII upon the death of Charles VI). With the succession of Henry IV, the requirement of 7) Catholicity had been added. Consistent with the law of unavailability and immediacy, Henry's reign is dated in 1589, at the death of Henry III, not in 1593, when he converted. Even though he was Protestant in 1589 (thus failing the Catholic requirement), the "reign" of his uncle, the Cardinal de Bourbon (as Charles X), the most senior Catholic male heir at the time, was de-legitimized. The 'fundamental' character of the laws was that they could be supplemented in order to clarify, but not to change or ignore any or all of the basic laws to change the direction of the whole. For this reason, primogeniture outranks Catholicity. Apart from these, there is also the requirement of legitimate birth, which applied to most Catholic monarchies in Europe. The only example I could think of right now is the House of Bourbon-Busset. Genealogically, they were senior to the House of Bourbon-Vendome, to which Henry IV belonged. However, when the Valois went extinct, nobody proposed them as viable alternative candidates against the Protestant heir. Emerson 07 (talk) 14:06, 2 December 2011 (UTC)
 * Earlier example - Charles de Valois, Duke of Angoulême, an illegitimate son of Charles IX, passed over in favor of Henry III. Emerson 07 (talk) 14:32, 2 December 2011 (UTC)


 * What I mean is that the fundamental laws of the French crown's succession were deemed by jurists to have been "discovered" as potential alternative successors presented themselves: one candidate emerged as king rather than the other, thereby establishing one or more rules of succession. These rules were established gradually, by judicial acknowledgement. None was an applicable rule beforehand. So none could exclude anyone from the line of succession beforehand. For example, prior to Henry of Navarre's declaring that "Paris is worth a mass" and abjuring his Calvinism in 1593, there was no known law that the king had to be Catholic, so until that date non-Catholics (such as Henry himself) must be included in any line of succession, whereas after that date they must be excluded (thus arises the question: Who was king of France in 1590? Did that person meet all the requirements to be king? If not, how could he be king? If there was no king, how is it possible to claim that one of the "fundamental laws" of the crown is "continuity"? Or was there an interregnum? Neither jurists then nor Legitimists now agree on an answer to these questions). Therefore, upon the death of Henry III in 1589 the infant Prince de Condé stood in the line of succession immediately after his childless cousin Henry of Navarre, both being Protestant. In 1593 Henry of Navarre becomes Catholic and king, but his theoretical heir presumptive, Henri of Bourbon-Condé, was still a Calvinist -- and so must disappear (at least retroactively) from the line of succession. In 1595 King Henry IV, on the Pope's order, has the boy removed from the dungeon in which his mother was imprisoned and christened Catholic, whereupon he re-appears in the line of succession. Thus, each of the following rules of succession (however worded or numbered) -- once it becomes "fundamental" -- must be applied to each dynast, and no dynast may take the crown without meeting the requirements of all the rules:
 * Heredity: A descendant of a king of France takes the crown of France.
 * Legitimacy of birth: A person who descends from a king of France through lawful marriages takes the crown. ("One cannot transmit a right that one has not")
 * Masculinity: A man takes the crown.
 * Patrilineality: a descendant in the male line from a king of France takes the crown. "One cannot transmit a right that one has not".
 * Primogeniture: The eldest among the previous king's sons, if there be any, takes the crown.
 * Collaterality: in the absence of a son, the nearest relative of the king takes the crown.
 * Catholicity: A Roman Catholic takes the crown.
 * Catholic birth: A person born of a marriage contracted according to Roman Catholic rite takes the crown.
 * Nationality: A Frenchman, who descends from a king of France through Frenchmen, takes the crown. ("One cannot transmit a right that one has not.")
 * Inalienability of the crown: The heir of the last king takes the crown, being neither able to refuse it previously, nor to abdicate it subsequently, nor to alter the order of succession.
 * Continuity (or immediacy) of the crown: The heir of the previous king takes the crown immediately. The King is dead; Long live the king!. There can be no "interregnum". FactStraight (talk) 04:28, 5 December 2011 (UTC)

The "nationality" requirement is questionable at best, and nonsense at worst. Henri of Navarre took the French throne in 1589, despite his not being French. The idea that someone must be "French" is something Francois Velde seems to have come up with. "Nationality" as we understand it today would have been a strange concept during this timeline. The understanding was more to do with dynasties than nationalities. In fact, that was a large part of the Revolution, the idea of the Nation coming to the fore, against the Ancien Regime idea of the Dynasty. Whoever the senior Capet was, regardless of what he was, made him Head of the House. Superimposing modern concepts onto ancient kingdoms is deceptive and wrong. 41.132.117.121 (talk) 05:43, 5 December 2011 (UTC)


 * I am not sure that it is right to say that Henry of Navarre was not a Frenchman. Although it is true that he was king of a neighboring realm, that realm was closely tied to the French people, with French being at least one commonly-spoken language.  Furthermore, Henry was a vassal of the king of France through some of his other titles, and as IP has pointed out, modern concepts of the nation-state were not yet fully developed.
 * Henry III was King of Poland at the time of his accession. Was he thereby a foreigner?  Since he took the throne with no controversy, the nationality rule would not survive if the answer is yes, but I suspect the real answer is that he was considered a Frenchman despite ruling another realm.
 * More to the point, though, is whether the nationality requirement was ever added to the "rules" as FactStraight described them. Was there any case in which a foreigner stood to inherit the throne and was denied?  If not, then how can you say that that rule was codified?  Furthermore, even though Henry IV was required by his contemporary political situation to convert in order to take possession of his realm, was a religious requirement later codified into any official set of rules?  One answer to FactStraight's question (and, I think, the one I would favor) is that Henry IV was king in 1590, despite being politically unable to control his realm, and that religion does not actually disqualify one from kingship.
 * As for FactStraight's concerns about differing lines of succession, I still think the solution is to include contested claimants in the lists, but with appropriate notes. Henri of Bourbon-Condé is not a good example, because he was a Catholic by the time Henry IV died, but any other post-1589 Calvinist who might appear in the list should be accompanied by a note saying that his place might have been contested on religious grounds.  Doesn't that give a simple-enough principle to follow?  --BlueMoonlet (t/c) 16:16, 5 December 2011 (UTC)


 * Henri of Bourbon-Condé was merely an example of the problem which exists trying to nail down France's unique "fundamental laws" of succession. Because they were only recognized as "fundamental" in retrospect, it is impossible to specify when one of these laws first applied. Once "discovered" to be applicable, all jurists agreed it must henceforth be applied (but anon we'll see why that doesn't work either). When Louis X and his posthumous son Jean I die in 1316, for the first time a king left no son to succeed him. The crown did not go to the infant king's sister, Joan II of Navarre, but to his uncle, Philip V, thereby establishing two rules: 1. masculinity: women are excluded, and 2. collaterality: when the king dies without male descendants, his nearest kinsman inherits the crown. But Philip III had died in 1285 leaving three sons (Philip IV, Count Charles of Valois and Count Louis of Évreux), but our line of succession cannot state conclusively that his two daughters Duchess Blanche of Austria and Queen Margaret of England, were not in line behind their brothers, because until 1316 no king's daughter or sister would be bypassed in favor of a more distant male relative.
 * Henry IV was deemed a Frenchman -- most of his satellite kingdom of Navarre was occupied and of what remained (Béarn) he possessed far larger fiefs within France, where he sat in the Parlement of Paris as a peer. Nationality was not determined by whether you owned lands or how much time you spent abroad, but whether you had violated the principle of pérégrinité, i.e. moved abroad without intent of resuming permanent residence in France (i.e. emigration). That it was fundamental was established simultaneously with the principle of patrilineality, both of which jurists maintained had (along with the Hundred Years War) awarded France to Philip of Valois when Charles IV died in 1328 rather than to Edward III of England. Edward was closer in kinship to King Charles, but was related in the female line and was king of a rival realm; jurists stated that for the same reason princesses are excluded (the prospect of France being dominated by foreign rulers) descendants of princesses are excluded, the applicable judicial principle being that "one may not transmit a right one has not". Since French jurists explicitly and repeatedly state this principle going back to the 16th century, it can't be dismissed as "trumped up" to rebut Legitimists, most of whom acknowledge its applicability anyway, merely denying that it is insuperable.
 * As for the argument that nationality and Catholicity weren't fundamental laws, just as the Hundred Years War vindicated the former, the conversion of Henry IV after his failure to conquer Paris during the Huguenot Wars vindicated the latter. It is entirely reasonable for you to conclude that Henry IV became king of France when Henry III died in 1589 but was logistically unable to reign until 1593, but the jurists we must cite are by no means united on this point. The meaning of the fundamental laws of indiponibilité (inalienability) and of constancy (or "immediacy") is that all the fundamental laws must be applied to determine who is king simultaneously and none of them may be delayed in application ("The King is dead, long live the King!"). That's why French jurists, historians and, especially, Legitimists deny that there was an interregnum from 1589 to 1593: constitutionally, that is impossible, for it would imply that the fundamental laws may be suspended. This contradiction is resolved by legal fiction: Henry IV is said to have become king in 1589 even though he was not Roman Catholic -- while Catholicism remained an indispensable requirement to be king of France. That is the real issue here: the "fundamental laws" of the ancien régime succession are contradictory. We cannot and need not "resolve" those contradictions here. But the article must not ignore or rationalize them away. They are a judicial conundrum which various jurists explain in various ways. Although it is often asserted that France's royal succession law was the "simple" principle of the premier né ("first born"), in fact it was as fascinatingly convoluted as the history of the French monarchy itself -- which is probably why that regime is no more (what do you expect of a 1,000 year-old law that could never be amended?) I understand the beau geste of Chambord's "towel" and the indignant resurgence of modern-day Legitimists: there is honor, dignity, even beauty in adherence to a venerable principle, come what may. But Wikipedia needs to get this right, lest "those who do not learn from history are doomed . . ." FactStraight (talk) 09:04, 6 December 2011 (UTC)
 * This is interesting and sensible, but for purposes of the article I have two comments: 1) Nothing I read here seems to raise any problems with the approach I suggested above, and 2) It would be nice for these "jurists we must cite" to actually be cited in the article.  --BlueMoonlet (t/c) 12:50, 6 December 2011 (UTC)


 * Point noted, and I have inserted a RS cite in the article and, for ready reference, here (Société d'Histoire Générale et d'Histoire Diplomatique: Société d'Histoire Diplomatique. Éditions A. Pedone, 1889. Paris. P. 190. Revue d'Histoire Diplomatique, volume 3), the attribution is to Dumoulin, one of France's most respected jurists, writing long before Orleanism or Legitimism came into existence. Of course, no one is expected to cite sources in a talk page discussion, but I note that no other reliable sources are cited on the lois fondementales in the article. I, too, am not a French monarchist, viewing these matters historically for purposes of editing these French succession articles, whereas discussion on these talk pages is too often diverted to a debate as if this were Paris in 1870 after the fall of Napoleon III or in 1883 after the death of Chambord, when the issue was "who is rightful king of France", rather than our mission here, which is "what were the relevant issues in determining which of the historical candidates for the crown acceded or was supported by significant factions in France". On the matter of presenting the lois fondamentales, the notable context is that, except for the period 1589-1593, France was uniquely blessed for 1,000 years with kings and pretenders descended from Hugh Capet who embodied all of the lois fondamentales -- until 1883. Thus they came to be regarded as indiponible ("indisposable"), i.e. France was a kingdom whose kings had to meet criteria which were "discovered" over time but which, once recognized, had to be applied, could not be changed, and could not be postponed. Most of those laws emerged as a result of contests over the throne, but some came to be accepted because they were observed by jurists to have been consistently true of all past kings of the House of Capet, e.g. legitimacy of birth, Catholicity of birth, and French nationality. 1589-1593, 1792-1815, 1830-2011 represent problems the "no exceptions" theory of the lois fondamentales determination as to who is king, but that's a problem of law and history, not of Wikipedia editing -- unless we fail to report it. Where conflicts occur in our editing over interpretations or applicability of these laws, reliable sources will be needed to include them in the article -- regardless of discussion here. I think the overall approach you have taken is as good a compromise as we are likely to reach for these pages, emphasizing NPOV and comprehensibility for readers. FactStraight (talk) 22:43, 6 December 2011 (UTC)
 * The fundamental laws are applied this way: Heredity > Primogeniture > Masculinity > Male collaterality > Unavailability > Continuity > Catholicity. Earlier fundamental laws outrank later ones. If these are applied simultaneously, then the requirement of Catholicity might defeat the purpose of primogeniture, leading to a situation wherein the king is Catholic, but not the "first-born". The argument on simultaneous application cannot hold; in case of conflict, one rule must be superior to another. Since the fundamental laws are based on precedent, and precedents take the past into account, then the earliest ones are superior over the later ones. This "nationality requirement" has never prevented a Senior Capetian from becoming king. The theoretical rule against the succession of foreigners do not count as precedent, since it has never yet happened. Therefore, the opinions of jurists regarding this "nationality requirement" are utterly without value. Their opinions can only be taken into account if it justifies an actual succession, not a theoretical one. Emerson 07 (talk) 15:21, 6 December 2011 (UTC)
 * Note on Edward III of England - excluded only on the basis of male collaterality. The dominant ideology of the time was dynasty, not nationality. Edward was "foreign" because he is of a different dynasty (Plantagenet, itself originally a French noble family before becoming Kings of England), not nationality. Besides, even if nationality applied (an anachronistic concept), Edward could hardly qualify as "not French". He is French in his mother's side, and it is in his interest to come to France from time to time, since he ruled extensive lands there as Duke of Aquitaine. Emerson 07 (talk) 16:00, 6 December 2011 (UTC)

I would be very keen to know where exactly these "fundamental laws of the French crown's succession" were obtained from? Certainly not the 1791 Constitution or the 1814 Charter. It appears they have either been pulled from some pro-Orleanist wwebsite or are just plain OR. This whole article looks like whole cloth to promote a POV. 41.132.117.121 (talk) 05:31, 6 December 2011 (UTC)
 * Sainty has them - French Legitimist Case. Sadly, the nationality requirement has been promoted by Orleanists, even though it is clear that it has never been an established precedent. Emerson 07 (talk) 15:21, 6 December 2011 (UTC)

FactStraight has given a long response, without single WP:RS. The entire response is FactStaright's own POV. This is not a forum. There is not even one unreliable/questionable source in everything FactStraight said. Going to Stair Sainty's website, and more specifically the long list of Reliable Sources(books, treaties, documents etc.) we see that FactStaight's response is indeed one man's POV. The French DID lay down the Succession laws in both the 1791 constitution and the 1814 charter. I challenge someone to show us where, in either or both of those, it mentions a "nationality requirement" or where it states that Felipe V's descendants are no longer in the Line of Succession to the French Throne.41.132.117.121 (talk) 16:02, 6 December 2011 (UTC)

Since this HAS taken on forum-like tones, what do the Orleanist people feel about the Treaty of Troyes, the subsequent de facto succession of Henry VI of England, and this reign being revised out of history? There was a definite period where the House of Plantagenet-Lancaster was clearly in control of the majority of France with a reigning and annointed King, legally by ratified Treaty. By the same token, during 1589-1590 Henri's uncle took the Regnal name "Charles X", yet his reign is likewise ignored and the King who succeeded in 1824 was THE Charles X. It is clear that for French monarchists, there is a difference between what is claimed, de facto, or endorsed by Treaty, and what is deemed to be Legitimate. None of Henry VI of England, "Charles X", Louis-Philippe I and Louis-Philippe II are recognised as de jure Monarchs by Legitimists, despite de facto reigns, one "succedding" due to the Catholic "requirement" and one "succeeding" by virtue of a ratified Treaty which France signed after losing a war(sound familiar)? And again, Royal Houses are apart from "nationality". The "nation" is the commoners. The Dynasties are something completely different. 41.132.117.121 (talk) 17:00, 6 December 2011 (UTC)


 * I'm not sure to whom you are referring as "the Orleanist people". It certainly should not be me, as I have no preference in that debate.  In general, it is not a good idea to use partisan names to refer to other editors; personal comments could be perceived as personal attacks, especially if the other editor rejects the label.  I recommend striking ( like this ) the phrase "the Orleanist people" in your comment above, and replacing it with something like "the other editors."
 * As for the substance of your question, I have no comment. --BlueMoonlet (t/c) 18:29, 6 December 2011 (UTC)

And I suppose that creating an article about the "History of the French Line of Succession" out of whole cloth, making references to "fundamental laws" without a single RS, and referring to the "so-called Legitimists" is NPOV and non-partisan? What i meant by "Orleanist people" is anyone who has made edits and/or comments in a POV fashion without RS, that is clearly tilted towards the Orleanist position. I find your response above unnecessary and a personal attack in itself. Rather than address the issues, you have made a personal attack, and then said said that you "have no comment" as to the actual substance! Is this an attempt to deflect discussion away from the substance?

Again, as far as these (still unsourced) "fundamental laws", how do the Treaty of Troyes, and the de facto reigns of Lancastrian Henry VI and "Charles X" effect that? Does it state in any constitution or charter that French nationality is required and/or Felipe V's descendants are excluded? 41.132.117.121 (talk) 19:42, 6 December 2011 (UTC)


 * I never said anyone is NPOV or non-partisan. But labeling others is an indication that you are considering people as allies or enemies, rather than considering their edits for their own merits.  If that doesn't accurately describe your orientation, then you should avoid labeling others.  And I don't see the sense in accusing me of a personal attack simply for discussing some principles of civility.
 * I declined to comment on the substance of your question because it wasn't really directed at me. I have no strong opinion on this topic, but I am interested in hearing and weighing the arguments.  --BlueMoonlet (t/c) 21:30, 6 December 2011 (UTC)

If someone is making edits/comments that show a clear POV, then mentioning that is hardly a "personal attack". And please stop trying to divert the discussion from the article and its content. As another comment, giving numbers and then adding "this is where Philippe's descendants would be if...) in brackets is hardly a "compromise solution". I notice that the Line of Succession to the French throne(Legitimist) article was redirected to Legitimists for lacking WP:RS. Well, where are the WP:RS for this? With (present-day) Legitimists it is perfectly clear what their beliefs are, but here we are trying to find ONE WP:RS for numerous Lines of Succession. Does anyone have a WP:RS that Philippe's descendants were actually excluded? And in fact even in a case such as the death of Louis XII, yes well know what the Line of Succession was, but WP:V. Source? 41.132.117.121 (talk) 05:04, 7 December 2011 (UTC)

The root of this issue is historical. For instance, had Louis XV died during his youth, without any children, Philip V would have returned to France to claim the throne. He would have the forces of Spain at his disposal, the forces of Europe against him, and France will be torn between those who believe in the fundamental laws and those who will abide by the treaty. However, Louis XV and his line lived on. As generations passed, both the people of France and the Spanish Bourbon line began to forget about the rights of Philip V of Spain. By the time that the male line of Louis XV became extinct, the majority of the French were not even aware of the potent historical claim that the Spanish Bourbons had over the French throne. The Legitimist resurgence today is brought about by an expanded knowledge on the French monarchy – university theses, research made by medievalists and lawyers, and the Capetian millenium of 1987. As this discussion shows, the Orleanist position is blessed with contradictions which are taken for granted, a feature that does not exist in Legitimism. Emerson 07 (talk) 12:59, 7 December 2011 (UTC)

I propose using this - for the descendants of Philip V. The text will normally be hidden, but can be viewed by those who are interested. Emerson 07 (talk) 12:14, 7 December 2011 (UTC)

I think your choice of wording is unfortunate. There never were any(or certainly there are no existing) written-down Lines of Succession, which is what this article is about. Nobody ever "forgot about" the Bourbons in Spain(or Italy). The French people would obviously have been aware of their descent, but as long as Louis XV had legitimate male-line descendants, it didn't matter. Again, there is ENORMOUS WP:OR and WP:POV for anyone today to make these "historical lines of succession" without any WP:RS. AGAIN, neither the Constitution of 1791 nor the Charter of 1814 make any reference to the descendants of Felipe V being excluded. In fact, surviving letters written by and to members of both the Senior(Louis XV) stem, as well as the Orleans stem make it clear that they believe that the Anjou stem retained their rights. The problem here is that there are three French Monarchist claims: Legitimist(heir to Hugues Capet), Orleanist (heir to Louis-Philippe) and Bonapartist(heir to Napoleon I). The Orleanists want their claimant to ALSO be the Legitimist heir, despite all the documented evidence to the contrary. If the Treaty of Utrecht were still legally binding then Juan Carlos could never have become King of Spain. In fact, I know it's personal and WP:OR, but in conversations I've had with pro-Henri VII supporters, Utrecht has never really been an issue. Their issue is that in 1883 the senior FRENCH-BORN and FRENCH-RAISED member of the House of Capet was the Duke of Orleans. In fact, in a sense, the Orleanists "rediscovered" Utrecht as a way of boosting their claim. The central issue has always been the nationality issue. However, since we have yet to see one WP:RS which states that there ever was a "nationality requirement", Utrecht is used as a back-up. The same Utrecht that would prevent Juan Carlos from being King of Spain today. 41.132.117.121 (talk) 13:31, 7 December 2011 (UTC)
 * You should have elaborated on this point about Juan Carlos you are talking about. Some might be unfamiliar with the specifics. Emerson 07 (talk) 16:31, 7 December 2011 (UTC)

The Treaty of Utrecht stated that in addition to Philippe renouncing claims to French throne, the then-Duke of Orleans would renounce ANY claim to the Spanish throne for ALL his descendants no matter HOW they descended form him. Although Juan Carlos' Spanish claim comes from his father, his mother is a descendant of that same Duke of Orleans. under Utrecht, he therefore was ineligible for the Spanish throne. 41.132.117.121 (talk) 16:54, 7 December 2011 (UTC)
 * Some of your points are worth considering, but I'm afraid this one doesn't work. As I read the treaty, Philip V renounced "the rights which his birth might at any time give him" to the French crown, and Berry and Orleans "likewise renounce" their rights in Spain.  This means that no descendant of Berry or Orleans may base a claim to the Spanish crown on their descent from Berry or Orleans.  This is not the same as saying that Orleans' descendants may not benefit from rights to the Spanish crown that may come to them from a source other than Orleans' birth.  There is no contradiction here.  --BlueMoonlet (t/c) 17:33, 7 December 2011 (UTC)

15 41.132.117.121 (talk) 18:57, 7 December 2011 (UTC)


 * The fundamental laws of succession are unwritten laws based upon precedent. This thing started in the Middle Ages, and people back then were not keen on writing everything down. People did not forget that the Spanish Bourbons were Capetians; what most of them forgot is the strength of the claims that the Spanish branch had on the French throne. By the time of Chambord, the French were willing to recognize the Orleans as Chambord's heirs. Fortunately, the restoration did not occur at that time. When the succession devolved to the Carlists, they were more interested in their prospects in Spain than in France. Emerson 07 (talk) 15:45, 7 December 2011 (UTC)
 * Only the most learned would recognize that the nationality requirement is an invention. It is, at best, a "proposed" fundamental law, but it never entered the canonical fundamental laws that governed the succession to the Kingdom of France. A canonical fundamental law is one based on precedent, and one whose addition would not jeopardize the provisions of the older laws. There had been frequent references to Dumoulin, who predated the Legitimist-Orleanist dispute. However, his opinion is entirely without value, since it is not based on any precedent. It was a jurist's opinion made on his spare time, taken up and expanded upon by the Orleans to promote their claim to the throne. What is done here is generally supportive of the Orleanist side, since it is popular back then. However, popularity doesn't necessarily reflect correctness. Though the Orleanist position is utterly defective, it has to be repeated here since a few generations of Frenchmen have believed in its veracity. Emerson 07 (talk) 15:45, 7 December 2011 (UTC)

No. Nobody "forgot" anybody's claim. It was just accepted that Chambord would likely have at least one son, thereby making the claims of any cadet branch irrelevant. If, as you say, the fundamental laws were established by precedent, then the succession of Charles VII, despite his being removed and the Treaty of Troyes had established that no Treaty could remove the legitimate heir. Likewise Louis XV's Edict of 1717 legalised that the succession could not be diverted. The successions of Henri III and Henri IV meanwhile established that being sovereign of another state still did not divert the succession, although Anjou rather than burgundy's succession to Spain established that the two crowns must remain separate.

As far as the 1870's restoration, it is most unfortunate that it did NOT occur. Had Chambord succeeded, he would have had to recognise his heir-presumptive, and he would have recognised Montizon. There were documents at the time establishing this. Likewise, Chambord's leaving the instruments of state to Montizon's son show where he felt the succession passed to after his death. Even if the monarchy had been overthrown again, it would have firmly established the Legitimist Laws, and no Orleanist could ever claim to be a "Legitimist-Orleanist", nor claim as gospel the idea that "Chambord recognised Orleans as his heir". 41.132.117.121 (talk) 16:31, 7 December 2011 (UTC)


 * It is hard to conceive how things would play out if things turned out differently. The political environment of the time - the Fusion - was united behind Chambord only because he had recognized Orleans as his heir. If he is to turn against this, he may risk losing the solid support of French royalists. What is necessary, prior to a restoration, is for the French people to learn the true fundamental laws (the seven I had mentioned), and forget about the false additions (like the nationality requirement). Emerson 07 (talk) 16:45, 7 December 2011 (UTC)
 * This, however, may shed light to the actions of the Count of Chambord, which I consider one of the most irrational acts in the history of the French monarchy. With the fusion of the Legitimists and Orleanists, all that Chambord had to do was to accept the Tricolor flag. This he would not do; even the compromise of the fleur-de-lys as the royal standard and the Tricolor for the country was rejected. This, however, may have been his test case on testing his power. If they would accept the fleur-de-lys again as the national flag, then perhaps he could endorse Montizon as his heir as well. And even when this was declined, he stood his ground. He made the sacrifice of not becoming de facto king so that the fundamental laws of the kingdom would not be broken (an event which would happen if the Spanish branch is to be bypassed in favor of the Orleans line). Emerson 07 (talk) 12:29, 8 December 2011 (UTC)

Here's an interesting link

41.132.117.121 (talk) 16:54, 7 December 2011 (UTC)

And here (read links too, some in French)

41.132.117.121 (talk) 17:12, 7 December 2011 (UTC)

Surnames
In accordance with the French royal tradition, princes with the rank of "Son of France" - sons of the king or the Dauphin, are surnamed "de France". These princes are given an appanage, from which their descendants derive their surnames. An example would be Louis, Duke of Orleans, a younger son of Charles V of France. His descendants belong to the House of Valois-Orleans, a cadet branch of the House of Valois, and are surnamed "d'Orleans". When members of this House ascended the throne (Louis XII, Francis I), their children are surnamed "de France", no longer "d'Orleans". Emerson 07 (talk) 12:33, 2 December 2011 (UTC)
 * But this is not helpful in distinguishing claimants from one another. In fact, it's not clear to me that surnames need to be in this page at all, unless the person has no other title.  For example, the heirs of Louis XV should be listed as Louis-Auguste, Dauphin of France, Louis-Stanislaus, Count of Provence, and Charles-Philippe, Count of Artois.  Adding "of France" does nothing to help identify them, and just takes up space.  --BlueMoonlet (t/c) 15:04, 2 December 2011 (UTC)
 * Another good purpose of having surnames on this page is that they help the reader to keep track of the families from which the various claimants come: Valois, Bourbon, Conde, Alencon, etc. Using "of France" does not accomplish this purpose.  --BlueMoonlet (t/c) 17:07, 2 December 2011 (UTC)
 * Using "of France" indicates that the person has the rank of Son of France, which means that 1) he is a descendant of the previous king; 2) he is either the future king, or the founder of a cadet branch of the dynasty. For instance, a prince named "X de France, Duke of Y", could be identified as the founder of the "House of Y", with his descendants bearing the surname of "de Y" (surname branch-off/deviation starts with princes with the rank of Grandson of France). Emerson 07 (talk) 15:36, 6 December 2011 (UTC)

The "nationality" of Edward III of England
Important questions:
 * 1) When did the concept of nationality arise? Did it come before or after the time of Edward III? If it occurred after, then this nationality requirement could not have been formed during Edward III's time. A fundamental law could not be formed based on a concept that is not known.
 * 2) If it occurred before the time of Edward III, and the people of the time had "nationality", what were the criteria that determine the nationality of a person? Emerson 07 (talk) 14:22, 8 December 2011 (UTC)

The idea of the "nation" is a modern concept. The main objection to Edward III was that he was already King of England, and it was feared that he may give land and titles in France to English nobility. Remember that every Monarch has their "inner circle" whose livelihood depends on said Monarch staying power. Edward III was however a Plantagenet(and his mother a Capet). The "English" nobility spoke French, and French was the official language of the English courts. Going with Valois over Plantagenet was to maintain the power of the nobles in France, and to prevent a union of the crowns, Remember that as late as the 1880's more than 75% in France couldn't speak French.

Likewise, there are no such things as "Spanish Bourbons". There are Bourbons who reign in Spain, but regardless of their language, they are still Bourbons. The idea of the House was everything. The War of the Spanish Succession was an attempt to prevent the single House of Bourbon being in possession of both crowns. The Treaties of Utrecht maintained that no single man could ever be King of both France and Spain. However, this did not exclude Philippe's descendants from their plane in line to the French throne. As the will of Carlos II stated, should it ever come to pass that one person finds themselves being Head of both states, they must relinquish one crown.... As far as nationality, the French Revolution was largely brought about by Louis XVI"s lack of understanding of the then-new concept of the "nation". As the Head of the House of Capet, he regarded himself as "by the grace of God, King of France". However, the people had other ideas. By 1713 standards, nobody would have regarded Philippe has having "become Spanish". He and his male-line descendants are and were Capetians. Where they live, what language they speak, can never change that fact. Strictly speaking, Juan Carlos is a Frenchman. Just like Elizabeth II is a German(as is her husband). 41.132.117.121 (talk) 15:23, 8 December 2011 (UTC)


 * This makes some sense. In fact, the quote from Dumoulin might even be open to interpretation along these lines.  Furthermore, even Dumoulin was writing several hundred years after the Valois succession, and the context of his comment is missing as we only have it as quoted by a 19th-century partisan source.  --BlueMoonlet (t/c) 18:35, 8 December 2011 (UTC)


 * I am confused by this statement. Charles Dumoulin's comment does not come to a Wikipedia talk page as just another of a group of anonymous editors tossing in his opinion here on French law, nationality and succession. He is one of France's greatest jurists -- among those who defined the lois fondamentales of the ancien regime -- a period this article must cover. When he says "Common sense requires that princes of the blood who have become foreigners be excluded from the throne just as the male descendants of princesses. The exclusion of both is in the spirit of the fundamental custom, which overlooks the royal blood in princesses only to prevent the scepter from falling in foreign hands," he need not prove to us that such a thing as "foreigners" existed, nor define further what is meant by "male descendants of princesses", nor convince us here that the "fundamental custom" was shaped by the principle of keeping France under the rule of Frenchmen, nor provide us with online access to translations of his every word in order for his constitutional commentary to be treated as a reliable source. If there are those who want to argue that Edward III, whose claim on the crown of France was a prime cause of the Hundred Years War, was not regarded by the French and the Parlement of Paris as a foreigner, it is for them to produce reliable sources to that effect rather than be free to delete relevant sourced content by demanding that others "prove a negative" -- that King Edward III of England was not a Frenchman -- while editing this article without sourcing such speculations. Where are the citations of other jurists of Dumoulin's stature who support alternative readings of French law on "foreigners", "succession" and France's "fundamental customs"? FactStraight (talk) 09:33, 10 December 2011 (UTC)
 * Sadly, the opinions of Dumoulin had never been considered by contemporaries of Edward III. What we are talking about here is the opinions of contemporary Frenchmen, not of jurists who lived over a hundred years after the event. On the fundamental laws, he admits it himself - it was just his "common sense", not a matter of precedent. The fact that this "nationality requirement" could be traced to a single jurist makes it all the more likely an invention. None of the other requirements could be traced to any single jurist. Perhaps Louis XIV could have done better with his succession law-changing schemes if he asked some "great jurist" to say that what he is doing is in the "spirit of fundamental custom."Emerson 07 (talk) 16:11, 10 December 2011 (UTC)
 * Also, the claim is made that Edward III is not French. I challenge that, so it will have to be sourced. Also mentioned are the criteria of the "Salic premise", which I also challenge, and therefore must be substantiated with a source. Finally, "Common sense requires that princes of the blood who have become foreigners be excluded from the throne just as the male descendants of princesses..." Now it is clear that he is referring to two different sets of things, which, I will repeat - princes of the blood who have become foreigners, and male descendants of princesses. Edward III qualifies as a male descendant of a princess, but he does not qualify as a prince of the blood. Because of this, it can be safely said that Dumoulin did not refer to Edward III at all. The use of this source to refer to Edward III's exclusion is, for the reason given above, improper, and must be removed. [Also, my sarcastic comments are improper, sorry for that, and had been removed.] Emerson 07 (talk) 16:11, 10 December 2011 (UTC)
 * I think both of you need to look more closely at the source. You'll see that the quotation marks, which look like curved brackets «» in the European style, are only around the second sentence that FactStraight quoted.  So Dumoulin is known to have said only that "The exclusion of both is in the spirit of the fundamental custom, which overlooks the royal blood in princesses only to prevent the scepter from falling in foreign hands."  On the other hand, it appears that the 19th-century partisan source is responsible for the statement that "Common sense requires that princes of the blood who have become foreigners be excluded from the throne just as the male descendants of princesses."  In fact, we don't really known the antecedent of Dumoulin's pronoun "both", as I'm not sure I trust the 19th-century source to have correctly identified it.  I stand by my comment that IP's argument could be consistent with what we have of Dumoulin, with "foreigner" meaning a rival kingdom rather than a non-French ethnic group.
 * FactStraight, another important point is that, as long ago as Dumoulin's time seems to us, he wrote more than two centuries after the Valois succession and we do not know how well he reflected 14th-century views on the question. So we should avoid using him as a support for a statement of what people thought in 1328, at least unless clearer statements emerge.
 * Emerson, your sarcasm is out of place. FactStraight is working in good faith towards the truth, as I hope are we all.  I will say more of this on your own talk page.  --BlueMoonlet (t/c) 02:12, 11 December 2011 (UTC)
 * Two editors have now suggested something that flies in the face of what is supposed to be happening here. On Wikipedia, it is not our goal to figure out what people in the 14th century thought about Edward.  Our goal is to find out what the scholarly consensus is.  It doesn't matter is the scholarly consensus is wrong, if it is anachronistic, if it doesn't reflect what really happened.  Wikipedia is not based on truth, it is based on verifiability and the more editors try to argue what really happened, the farther away from the goal it takes things. Agricolae (talk) 03:14, 11 December 2011 (UTC)
 * The thing is, using Dumoulin as a source for the exclusion of Edward III, when it is clear that he is not referring to Edward III at all, would be deviating from what the source intended to say. Emerson 07 (talk) 04:04, 11 December 2011 (UTC)
 * Absolutely, if Dumoulin wasn't talking about Edward, then his words are out of place, but your statement that "What we are talking about here is the opinions of contemporary Frenchmen, not of jurists who lived over a hundred years after the event" is completely backwards. The last thing we as editors should do is try to figure out the opinions of Frenchmen at the time. We leave that to the scholars. Agricolae (talk) 04:46, 11 December 2011 (UTC)
 * I agree with that. What I meant is that the opinions of 1328-Frenchmen (if any is to be given) would be supreme over the reinterpretation of later generations. Such opinion, given in 1328, would actually have helped determine the rightful heir, unlike a supplementary comment written as an afterthought. Note that Dumoulin is cited in his capacity as a jurist, not in his capacity as a scholar. His opinion did not reflect the opinions of the 1328-Frenchmen, but rather his own interpretation of French law. Emerson 07 (talk) 05:18, 11 December 2011 (UTC)
 * Agricolae, while I agree that this discussion has often veered unhelpfully away from a focus on how to edit the page, I'm not sure I understand your point that "to figure out what people in the 14th century thought about Edward" "flies in the face of what is supposed to be happening here". We absolutely do need to ascertain what people thought in 1328 if we are going to say something about why Philip VI was chosen instead of Edward.  Of course, if the answer is not self-evident, we need to (as you say) rely on scholarly consensus about the 1328 decision, and if we cannot do that we must consider saying less so that we don't say something wrong.  But still the focus is on the decision itself, not on how partisans in the past century or two have interpreted the event in light of their contemporary ideologies.  --BlueMoonlet (t/c) 15:31, 12 December 2011 (UTC)


 * No, we don't. To do so is original research, which is explicitly prohibited.  We need to be content with what reliable sources say people in the 14th century thought.  We need to reflect that consensus rather than trying to tease out its relative accuracy. And if there are no reliable sources addressing it, we shouldn't either, even if we think we can make a good argument what their true feelings were. Wikipedia is the work of editorship, not scholarship. Agricolae (talk) 17:48, 12 December 2011 (UTC)
 * I agree that, if something is not attested in reliable sources and is not self-evident, then we should not be talking about it. What edits would you suggest in light of the principles you are advocating?  --BlueMoonlet (t/c) 20:18, 12 December 2011 (UTC)

Supposing that Edward III had a nationality, he is more French than he is English. He is the son of Isabella of France, a French princess. In the male line, Edward III descended from Geoffrey V, Count of Anjou, a French nobleman. The early Angevin kings of England - Henry II, Richard I, and John - were the most powerful vassals of Louis VII and Philip II Augustus. Under John, Angevin power was diminished significantly, but his heirs continued to be Dukes of Aquitaine, and as such remained feudal vassals of the Kings of France. They had never expressed an intent to abandon France forever; when required, they (or their sons) do homage to the French king. Emerson 07 (talk) 22:34, 9 December 2011 (UTC)

Article is one big OR
Does anyone have any WP:RS detailing these various Lines at the death/abdication/whatever of the various Kings? It would be easy to find sources linking who the heir was, but up to ten people?

It is easy to trace families, showing who was whose son, etc, but actually organising them into these Lines of Succession is the very definition of WP:OR. Things get more complicated with the issue of the Treaties of Troyes and Utrecht, the fact that many people did not recognise Henry IV as heir to Henri III, and different Bonapartes not recognising the validity of each other's claims.

Again, is there one WP:RS that actually lists any Line of Succession at any point in history? It seems in order to create this article, people have had to themselves make these lists. The article also has tremendous POV, using one person's interpretation as fact. 41.132.117.121 (talk) 06:04, 9 December 2011 (UTC)

There are also no "Lines of Succession" for the first several Kings. Why? Because there is no dispute. It is only with the disputed Kings, that we then get the "Line of Succession" with the descendants of Felipe V removed. POV? An an WP:OR article with no WP:RS? What are the chances? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 41.132.228.79 (talk) 10:03, 17 January 2012 (UTC)
 * The line of succession from Hugh Capet to John I is actually uncertain; it predated the application of agnatic succession, which meant that it may have included females. If, for instance, the man whom we now know as Philip V of France was not as shrewd as he was, he may not have been able to pull off what he did in 1316. Reigen (talk) 10:34, 28 January 2012 (UTC)