Talk:Legitimists

Divine Right of Kings vs Democracy
According to the french légitimisme, some legitimists are in favour of democracy. So they're not into "chosen by God" or monarchy of "divine right". -> I removed that from the intro. --FvdP 22:27, 9 Nov 2004 (UTC)


 * That's totally false. Legitimists are against the 1789 French Revolution (see René Rémond's classic studies on the 3 right-wing families in France). Tazmaniacs 21:29, 7 May 2006 (UTC)

There seem to be a couple of issues here. Before 1883, legitimists were those who believed that the revolution of 1830, like that of 1789, was unlawful, and that the senior branch of the House of Bourbon remained rightfully kings until their extinction. But this issue died with Chambord in 1883, because at that point the senior branch of the House of Bourbon did become extinct. The supposed legitimist line which emerged after 1883 is based on a completely different issue - was Philip V's renunciation of the French throne legal? It seems to me quite clear that before 1830, both Louis XVIII and Charles X recognized that Orleans would be the next heir after Charles's descendants died out (which was expected to happen rather soon until Chambord's birth, and was not an unreasonable possibility even afterwards). It ought to be noted that most legitimists of 1882, who believed that Henri V was the rightful king, were supporters of the Comte de Paris in 1884, and believed that the throne had passed rightfully to him. Only an embittered minority, who felt that the great-grandson of the Regicide Philippe Egalité and the son of the usurper Louis Philippe could not possibly be King of France, who turned to the Carlist line. john k 15:57, 13 August 2005 (UTC)


 * This article lists as pretenders people accepted as the pretender by only a minority of legitimists. The vast majority accepted the Orleanist pretender as being also, from the death of the Comte de Chambord. The list should reflect that. FearÉIREANN [[Image:Map of Ireland's capitals.png|15px]]\(caint)  20:06, 7 May 2006 (UTC)


 * The Orleanist are not legitimist. Again, see René Rémond. If you have doubt, see fr:René Rémond and the french article about his book. Tazmaniacs 21:30, 7 May 2006 (UTC)

That is not what I said. I said that since the death of Chambord the Orleanist pretender has also been accepted as being the Legitimist candidate-bearer by the vast majority of legitimists. Only a small number of legitimists regard anyone else as the legitimist pretender. That is a fact of history and has been since the 1890s. FearÉIREANN \(caint) 22:23, 7 May 2006 (UTC)


 * I think that this disagreement reflects the fact that "legitimist" needs more clarification in definition. At present, the disambig page grants use of the word, without qualification besides capital L, to French legitimists, and uses other terms for those of other countries. But legitimist, both historically and today, only makes sense as a term in contrast to a competing kind of monarchist, either one who supports an incumbent sovereign, or who advocates for a different pretender than that of the legitimists. Historically, the legitimist pretender has been more identified than his rival with absolutism in politics, clericalism in religion, and traditionalism in national culture. That is what French legitimism, Jacobitism, Carlism and Portuguese Miguelism have in common. Absent a rival on their left, legitimists are just royalists.


 * Therefore, I agree with your statement that "...since the death of Chambord the Orleanist pretender has also been accepted as being the Legitimist candidate-bearer by the vast majority of legitimists", if one adds "alive at that time." Lacking any poll, it appears that from 1883 some French legitimists supported the Orléans, some abandoned political advocacy, and a small percentage gave their support to the Carlist pretender, the Duke de Madrid. But that last fraction is the group who have retained holdof the title "Legitimist" in the French context. So the Orléanist princes added to the article's list of pretenders are not considered "Legitimist" candidates for restoration in France today -- indeed, the only thing today's surprisingly vocal Legitimists loathe more than French republicans are Orleanists! Orleanists consider themselves monarchists and, perhaps, royalists, but not Legitimists. I'd suggest that this all be clarified in the article (along with clearer acknowledgement of the fact that there are other kinds of legitimists than French).Lethiere 09:19, 12 May 2006 (UTC)


 * According to René Rémond, most of them abandoned political advocacy. Tazmaniacs 13:50, 12 May 2006 (UTC)

POV
"As of 2006, they remain strongly attached to the traditionalist wing of the Catholic Church and are particularly encouraged by the theological conservatism of Pope Benedict XVI." What is that suppossed to mean? This is extremely ambiguous and lacks of seriousness

Co-Princes of Andorra
Boris Skossyreff argued the case for the co-prince of Andorra being the heir to the French monarchy, rather than the President of France. Is this a valid argument?

Jackiespeel 16:48, 14 May 2007 (UTC)

Why do "legitimists" skip this senior line (1883-today)?
If you look at the below list from Loius XIII to Henri, Count of Chambord of the senior descendents of Henry IV of France, you'll find that in 1883 many of the lines of descendents are extinct. However, the descedents of Louis XV of France (who had 10 children) were still alive via his daughter Princess Louise-Élisabeth of France's descendents, in following order from her to the modern day are;


 * Ferdinand, Duke of Parma 1759-1802
 * Louis of Etruria 1773-1803
 * Charles II, Duke of Parma 1803-1883
 * Robert I, Duke of Parma 1883-1907 (at the time of Henri, Count of Chambord's death)
 * Henry, Duke of Parma 1907-1939
 * Joseph, Duke of Parma 1939-1950
 * Elias, Duke of Parma 1950-1959
 * Robert II, Duke of Parma 1959-1974
 * Xavier, Duke of Parma 1974-1977
 * Carlos Hugo, Duke of Parma 1977-today

The "hardline legitimists" for some unexplained reason skip out the descendants of Louis XV of France and go further back to Louis XIV of France "The Sun King" and the descendants of his son Louis, Dauphin of France (1661–1711) (via Philip V of Spain). Why is this? - Bourbonist (talk) 18:52, 18 July 2008 (UTC)


 * The succession to the French throne is governed by Salic law (as mentioned in the first sentence of the article). This means that daughters and their descendants have no succession rights.  The alternate succession you suggest is non-existent. Louis Alphonse, Duke of Anjou, is the senior male-line legitimate Capetian. Noel S McFerran (talk) 21:53, 18 July 2008 (UTC)

not only in France
Legitimism is not limited to France. See e.g. de:Legitimisten. SyP (talk) 19:35, 16 October 2008 (UTC)

Charles XII?
Certainly this de jure monarch was Alphonse I? Frederick T (talk) 15:59, 21 August 2010 (UTC)

Nope, he went by Charles XII. john k (talk) 16:24, 21 August 2010 (UTC)

It's just that the page on Alfonso XIII refers to him as having been "Alphonse II", and the Legitimist de jure Monarch who died in 1989 is referred to in his article as having been recognised by Legitimists as "Alphonse III". Furthermore, the Duke Jaime is referred to in separate Wikipedia articles as either "Jacques II" or "Henri VI". The Regnal Chronologies site uses Alphonse I, II and III and Jacques II. If one searched the web one would find BOTH "Jacques II" and "Henri VI", including separate Wikipedia articles! I ask as some sort of consistency would be very nice. Frederick T (talk) 17:13, 3 September 2010 (UTC)

Salic law v/s Fundamental laws of the Kingdom
Hi, I'm a young french legitimist (pardon my bad english) and I'm quite surprise to see that this article only refers to the Salic law, as we French royalists almost never refer to it. In France, we would rather refer to what is called the "Fundamental laws of the Kingdom", among which there is rules that concern the transmission of the crown. There are the rules that you refer to as "Salic law" (male-line & primogeniture), but there is other rules that doesn't exist in Salic law : for instance, "catholicity" (the King has to be catholic), "indiponibility" (the King cannot disinherit one of his son, and cannot abdicate) or "continuity" (as soon as the King is dead, the successor becomes King ; hence "le roy est mort, vive le roy"). —Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.124.222.131 (talk) 15:15, 8 January 2011 (UTC)

List of Legitimist-Orleanist Claimants since 1883?
Sorry, but this is plain ridiculous. There is a List of Legitimist Claimants since 1883...and there is a List of Orleanist Claimants since 1883. But these are two totally different things. There is a separate Orleanism page. No Legitimist would recognise anyone in this so-called "Legitimist-Orleanist" List. Why is it there? Perhaps a mention that some Legitimists went over to the Orleanist cause after Chambord died, but true Legitimist support would have passed to Count of Montizon. If no one can present an argument why this obvious Orleanist branch is on the Legitimist page, it should be removed.

There is a similar problem with the Jacobite succession article, which has frankly bizarre supposed "Jacobite Claimants" Lists, that are clearly there just to confuse and divide. A small mention that some misinterpretation of Legitimist succession could lead people down these paths is required, but not the "Lists". —Preceding unsigned comment added by 41.133.47.188 (talk) 15:38, 19 May 2011 (UTC) --Yopie (talk) 21:20, 19 May 2011 (UTC)--Yopie (talk) 21:20, 19 May 2011 (UTC)

Er??? That IS a suggestion about the improvement of the article. I have no idea whatsoever what the purpose was in adding that banner, none at all. The point is that under the definition of what a Legitimist is(and is mentioned in the introductory paragraph), NONE of those so-called "Legitimist-Orleanist" claimants qualifies. Likewise that entire section is completely UNSOURCED. Thus, in order to improve the article it would be best to remove from the article something which is a)factually inaccurate), b)contradictory to the introduction(and the remainder of the article) and c)unsourced. Good luck finding a WP:RS that states that any of this particular line make a claim to be the Legitimist heir. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 41.133.47.188 (talk) 15:11, 20 May 2011 (UTC)


 * If anonymous want improve the article, he can use proper tags first. Deletion of parts of article without correct procedure can be considered as vandalism.--Yopie (talk) 15:17, 20 May 2011 (UTC)

What proper tags? And does that mean that anyone can go around adding nonsense to articles, and then if someone removes that then THEY are the vandals? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 41.133.47.188 (talk) 15:21, 20 May 2011 (UTC)

Strange wording and claims
Someone accused me of "vandalism" for removing a contentious statement that "Chambord recognized The Count of Paris as his heir" or words to that effect. Likewise, there was a misunderstanding over a heading and section in the article. I refer to the most excellent Guy Stair Sainty's website(and Mr Star Sainty is a widely-respected and known historian. I am unsure of the author of the source provided by my critic)

http://www.chivalreicorders.org/royalty/bourbon/bourbon.htm

http://www.chivalricorders.org/royalty/bourbon/france/franlegt.htm

http://www.chivalricorders.org/royalty/bourbon/france/success/sucprt6.htm

http://www.chivalricorders.org/royalty/bourbon/france/success/failed_restoration1873.htm

This site http://my/raex/com/~obsidian/pretends.html#France-Legit

http://my.raex.com/~obsidian/pretends.html#France-Orleans

(the latter 2 being parts of a longer piece)

The Legitimist website http://www.royaute.org/

The Orleanist website http://www.maisonreoyaledefrance.org/

There was never any dispute that some Legitimists recognised The 'Orleanist claimant after 1883. However, having done so, they ceased to be Legitimists and became Orleanists. Likewise, many Jacobites in Britain switched allegiance to the House of Hanover after a time. However they did not therefore become Jacobite-Hanoverians.

Ina addition, there is no Reliable Source that expressly proves that Chambord recognized Paris as his heir. There is much information in a doctoral thesis written by an early 20th century Duke of Parma that I will look for that shatters this myth.

And none of this is "forum talk" or "vandalism". It is most definitely a suggestion to improve an Encyclopedia Article. Since this article is entitled Legitimists it should include all relevant information about Legitimists. Since those Legitimists who recognized Paris ceased to be Legitimists, they are not directly related to this article. Certainly there should be information that some Legitimists switched allegiance to Paris(and there are many Reliable Sources for that), but the suggestion to improve the article was to remove entirely the so-called "Legitimist-Orleanist Line" as that is an oxymoron. Likewise, the suggestion to improve the article would be to remove fantastic claims such as "Chambord naturally recognized Paris as his heir". If these suggestions were implemented, I sincerely believe the article WOULD be greatly improved, and much more closely resemble a respected encyclopedia than an Orleanist fansite. 41.133.47.188 (talk) 17:51, 20 May 2011 (UTC)

Tags have been added(hope they're the right ones...)
Alright, I have now added tags. Since I received no assistance, i can only hope they are the correct ones. The issues are that

a)Since this is the Wikipedia article on Legitimism, why include A list of Orleanist claimants? And that list is on the relevant article.

b)As Legitimism and Orleanism are two entirely opposing viewpoints, the terms "Legitimist-Orleans" and "Legitmist-Anjou" are in effect meaningless, and not encyclopedic. There should again be the one and only Legitimist Claimants. Orleanist claimants belong on the Orleanist article.

c)There is no Reliable Source stating that the Legitimist claimant the Count of Chambord ever formally recognized The Orleanist claimant (Louis-)Philippe, the Count of Paris as his heir-presumptive. I attempted to remove this yet was warned for I believe "defamation". Certainly the onus of proof should be on the person adding claims, not the one removing unsourced material?

d)There was never any disagreement that certain Legitimists did indeed switch allegiance to the Count of Paris following the death of the Count of Chambord. However, using WP:COMMON SENSE, they thus became Orleanists. Hence the absurdity of the term Legitimist-Orleanist.

e)the inclusion of this material makes the article, and thus Wikipedia, look below the standards of a Reliable Encyclopedia. It should thus be removed/amended accordingly. There should definitely be mention of those Legitimists who went over to the Orleanist camp in 1883, however, once again, following the accepted definition of "Legitimist", they thus followed Orleanist ideology, and this List of Claimants is irrelevant to this article. 41.133.47.188 (talk) 18:32, 20 May 2011 (UTC)


 * Legitimist-Orleanists were royalists, who believe in Royal line till Henri, Count of Chambord - and thus are Legitimists - and after him they were bounded to Philip, Count of Paris as his heir (not as heir of Louis Philip - so they were not "Orleanists"). --Yopie (talk) 17:35, 23 May 2011 (UTC)

A Legitimist is one supports the rule of a legitimate dynasty or its senior branch . (emphasis mine).

There can be no doubt that after 1883, the Senior Branch was represented by the descendants of Philippe, Duke of Anjou, NOT the descendants of Philippe, Duke of Orleans.

Also, also with the defenders of "Carlos V" and "Isabella II" in Spain, it is about more than just a certain candidate. The Legitimist belief is that the Throne can not be diverted away from the Rightful heir by any Act or Treaty. As an analogy, the legitimate line of the British king James II and VII is extinct, yet there are still Jacobites who support the senior genealogical heir of Charles I, while retaining the name Jacobites. As stated above, "Legitimists" were not people who supported Henri V because they liked his views, they supported him because he was the senior agnatic descendant of Hugues Capet. And that is why the term "Legitimists" was applied to them. When he died the senior heir became Juan, Count of Montizon, thus he and he alone was the Legitimist heir and claimant.

The term Orleanist is described as someone who embraces the political philosophy of the Orleanists. And that philosophy(as one of the links above states) is that the crown can be diverted by Treaty, which is completely opposite to the political philosophy of the Legitimists. Thus, if someone someone supported Henri V in 1882 they were a Legitimist. if after he died they switched allegiance to "Philippe VII" they became an Orleanist. And NOT a "Legitimist-Orleanist".

As an analogy(sorry for the forum-like post here, but it's the only way some people can 'get it')....There are two separate Christian Denominations...Anglican and Catholic. It is impossible to simultaneously be both(as many Royals have discovered and shown!) Each has there own Head of Church(the British Monarch for Anglicans and The Pope for Catholics). Now, hypothetically speaking, let's say someone is born Catholic. They live their many years as a Catholic. Then, for whatever reason, they choose to convert to the Anglican Church. They are thus simply and Anglican. They do NOT become a "Catholic-Anglican", and their conversion does most certainly NOT give the reigning British Monarch the right to identify themselves as the Head of the Catholic Church. Some supporters of one faith have abandoned that faith, and joined a rival competing faith, thus severing all ties with their former allegiance.


 * Again, sorry for getting into a forum-like rant, but I am reinserting that tag, and hopefully, soon, it will be deemed acceptable to remove the quite frankly ludicrous "Legitimist-Orleanist" paragraph entirely. 41.132.178.85 (talk) 14:06, 24 May 2011 (UTC)


 * Please, dont push your personal and subjective opinion. I understand, that in your view, is hard to understand that someone can be Legitimist and Orleanist too, but this was happens. WPedia is not about "world of  ideas", but we describe world as is. This term is used in article about monarchist flags,  article about 1871 elections, The Eighteenth Brumaire of Louis Bonaparte by Karel Marx etc. So we have proven, that this group exist and is notable. BTW - Marx says (personally I dont like him), that "When Henry V. recognized the Count of Paris as his successor--the only success that the fusion could at best score..". Encyclopaedia Britannica says "After the Count de Chambord's death without heirs in 1883, most Legitimists switched their support to the Orleanist pretender, Louis-Philippe-Albert, Count de Paris." and "When the Count de Chambord died (1883), most French Legitimists acknowledged the Count de Paris as the heir to the throne." This mean "Legitimist" acknowledged Count of Paris, not "Legitimist became Orleanist". BTW: Your tag was wrongly placed, as "Legitimist-Orleanist" line is not side topic. --Yopie (talk) 23:28, 24 May 2011 (UTC)

It is not my personal and subjective opinion. The Oxford dictionary defines a Legitimist as someone who "supports a senior line" while an orleanist is someone who follows "the philosophy of Orleanism".

And again, nobody has EVER disputed that "...in 1883...Legitimists switched their support to the Orleanist pretender. Note the use of the word SWITCHED'''. Some of the definitions from

http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/switch

3. an exchange or swap

12. to shift, change, turn aside, or change the direction

14. to change from one (railway) track to another

19.to change direction or course

20.to exchange or replace something with another.

In other words, having been Legitimists they switched' to the Orleanist position.

Some of the links I posted earlier state that the Legitimist position is one where the crown is inalienable and therefore only inheritable by successive eldest stems of the House of Capet, regardless of who they otherwise are, whereas the Orleanists regard the crown capable of being abdicated and take the position that the King must be of French nationality. Since Henri V was the eldest stem AND "of French nationality", he was the Legitimist heir. However, when he died the Head of the eldest surviving stem was Spanish. Thus some Legitimists switched to the French "Philippe VII", thereby embracing the ideology of Orleanism, and abandoning the Legitimist'' ideology of "regardless of who they otherwise are" and "only by successive eldest stems.

As for Henri recognizing Philippe, are we really going to have to go through this?

http://www.chivalricorders.org/royalty/bourbon/france/success/failed_restoration1873.htm

Legitimist and Orleanist are two previously established positions. Of course, some people may switch from one to the other, but thus they have taken up the new position. 41.132.178.85 (talk) 06:56, 25 May 2011 (UTC)


 * There was never any dispute that some Legitimists recognised The Orleanist claimant after 1883. However, having done so, they ceased to be Legitimists and became Orleanists.
 * I don't buy this. The issues became different.  While Chambord was alive, to be an Orleanist was to believe that a junior line could usurp authority over a senior line.  However, once the line of Louis XV had died out, one could support the comte de Paris simply by believing that Philip V's renunciation of his rights was valid.  This seems quite consistent with Chambord-era legitimism to me.  --BlueMoonlet (t/c) 14:19, 20 July 2011 (UTC)
 * the Legitimist position is one where the crown is inalienable and therefore only inheritable by successive eldest stems of the House of Capet, regardless of who they otherwise are, whereas the Orleanists regard the crown capable of being abdicated and take the position that the King must be of French nationality.
 * These were the issues after Chambord's death. It seems anachronistic to me to define Chambord-era legitimism so narrowly.
 * On the other hand, I do agree with the complaint that 1) a legitimate content dispute is being treated as if it were vandalism, and that 2) the article could use much better sourcing, especially given that it is controversial. --BlueMoonlet (t/c) 14:48, 20 July 2011 (UTC)

But certainly if a junior line claims the throne, while a senior one remains extant, then it is seen as usurpation, regardless of the circumstances? Remember we are not dealing with some business arrangement, the Legitimists were largely hardcore Catholics and traditionalists who believe(d) that the King was placed on the throne by God Himself, and that no one and no act could alter the God-determined Line of Succession. In other words, a true 'Legitimist' (as defined by the dictionary definition, and reliable sources) is one who would always support the agnatic Head of the House of Capet, regardless of who- or what- ever he may otherwise be. I will try to find a link for the 1791 Constitution which states that no one can renounce rights. Likewise, during the Treaty of Utrecht era there are existing letters from Louis XIV, his family, as well as both French and British peers stating that it is irrelevant whether Felipe V signed, as the renunciation would be completely contrary to French Law. I believe Guy Sainty's site has links?

An Orleanist meanwhile follows the descendants of the Duc de Orleans. Even the "French Nationality" clause falls flat, as both lines are descended from Henri IV(who was not a Frenchman, but become King of France after the death of the childless Henri III). It is quite clear that "Legitimist-Orleanist" is an oxymoron. Unless someone can provide reliable sources that Orleanists can claim the Legitimist position, then that entire paragraph/section should be removed, which will greatly improve the article. 41.135.149.217 (talk) 15:14, 20 July 2011 (UTC)


 * You're making a reasonable case as to why you think your viewpoint is correct, but that is not our task here. Our job is to accurately represent all reasonable viewpoints without necessarily settling the debate.  Might a legitimist believe that the successors of a King of France should keep his word, even if he didn't intend to do so?  Also, it would seem to me that the 1791 constitution is ex post facto and thus irrelevant.
 * But really, the point here should be reliable sources. Does Sainty's website count as a reliable source?  I believe self-published websites are presumptively not reliable, but consensus of the relevant community of WP editors could say otherwise in this case.  Are there reliable sources showing that Chambord supporters who followed Orleans after Chambord's death still considered themselves to be legitimists?  If so, even if Anjou supporters dispute the label, that should be enough for their inclusion in this article, which already makes it clear that there is a dispute.  --BlueMoonlet (t/c) 18:53, 20 July 2011 (UTC)


 * Again and again. After death of Comte de Chambord many Legitimists can stayed Legitimists and recognised Comte de Chambord as King, but as his successor they recognised Prince of Orleans. They were called Unionists or Fusionists, see Alexis de Tocqueville here . So my proposal is to rename "unionists" in the article to "fusionists"--Yopie (talk) 19:18, 20 July 2011 (UTC)
 * BTW Wiki is not soapbox or judge. We only describe things, no more, no less. As Fusionists / Unionists were in France notable political party (see Tocqueville above), we must describe this group.  --Yopie (talk) 19:26, 20 July 2011 (UTC)


 * This is a good source, and should be added to the article, perhaps after the phrase "Legitimists in the Assembly agreed that, should Chambord die childless, Philippe d'Orléans would succeed him as king." This article by Tocqueville was written in 1855 and indicates that that was indeed the expectations of Chambord's supporters at the time.  No mention is made of the Carlists.
 * Yopie, please assume good faith on the part of our IP colleague. I still see a good chance of this discussion being ultimately productive.  --BlueMoonlet (t/c) 19:55, 20 July 2011 (UTC)

I am very strapped for time now, but these links from Stair Sainty's site







[http:www.chivalricorders.org/bouron/france/success/d44-46.pg.htm]

provide the contemporary views of both Legitimists and Orleanists. Although someone may say these are "Self-published" sources, the fact is THEY ALL HAVE LINKS TO PUBLISHED BOOKS BY RESPECTED PUBLISHERS. It would just take someone with the time and patience to type that all out. Note that the Orleanists themselves in the 1840's regarded the Renunciations and the Treaty of Utrecht itself as null and void. Again, when I have time I can put that all here(or maybe someone else can?) Although it's not a "Reliable Source" whenever I have met anyone who espouses the Orleanist viewpoint the Renunciation of Felipe V is never mentioned. It is rather that the "Comte de Paris" is a Frenchman whereas "Luis Alfonso" is a Spaniard. 41.135.149.217 (talk) 08:06, 21 July 2011 (UTC)


 * Again, understand, that we not decide, who is rightful heir, we only describe things. Do you deny existence of Fusionists? --Yopie (talk) 09:51, 21 July 2011 (UTC)

Sigh. No one denies that when Henri V died, some Legitimists switched allegiance to the Orleanist claimant. However, that meant they were not Legitimists any more. There is obviously lots of Reliable Sources showing that some Legitimists switched allegiance to the Orleanist position. No one has ever denied this ever. However, the dictionary definition of "Legitimist" shows that that meant they aren't Legitimists. I have no problem with a "List of Fusionist claimants since 1883" ON ANOTHER ARTICLE. This article deals with the Legitimists and should only have the Legitimist claimants. 41.135.149.217 (talk) 10:47, 21 July 2011 (UTC)

Do you have a WP:RS that states that those people after 1883 who supported the claimants from "Philippe VII" through to "Henri VII" are called Legitimists? No one is denying that there are "Fusionists" or "Unionists" or former-Legitmists-turned-Orleanists. However there are no Reliable Sources that state that these people are called "Legitimists" as all reliable Sources only use the term "Legitimist" to refer to those who follow the Senior Line(obviously). 41.135.149.217 (talk) 10:50, 21 July 2011 (UTC)


 * Perhaps this document, already cited in the article, is what you have just asked for? --BlueMoonlet (t/c) 13:40, 21 July 2011 (UTC)


 * The problem with this excerpt is that the French version actually uses the word "royalist" rather than "Legitimist". It has generally been presumed that most French Legitimists switched to the Orléans (as monarchists they had to "switch" to some other claimant, since the comte de Chambord was dead), albeit unenthusiastically. Guy Stair Sainty cites a scholarly interpretation of evidence to the revisionist effect that this presumption is erroneous, and that instead most Legitimists abandoned restoration politics rather than bow the knee to the Orléans, contributing to the shrinkage (since 1876) of the monarchist movement in France. Meanwhile the rump which remained politically and literarily active as monarchists switched their support to the Carlist pretender, the Conde de Montizón, on Salic grounds, assertively sustaining (and therefore retaining -- right up to the present) the label "Legitimist". While Sainty's source may be credible, and he is an erudite and indefatigable authority on these issues, because he is unabashedly Legitimist, his website's advocacy for this interpretation must be cited cautiously in the article. Likewise, the complaints made in this thread and the one above by 41.135.149.217 seem also to reflect the view of a Legitimist advocate more than of a Wikipedia contributor seeking article objectivity, precisely because he ignores that 1. Legitimism has always been divided into camps, some of which do not accept the so-called premier ainé ("first-born") principle that the only criterion for becoming Legitimist king of France is seniority in male descent from Hugh Capet (if literally true, the comte de Bourbon-Busset would be Legitimism's claimant): in 1883 many Legitimists believed the rightful claimant must also be Catholic, legitimately born of a Catholic marriage, a Frenchman, etc. 2. After Chambord's death a substantial portion of prominent and rank-and-file royalists acknowledged the validity of the claim of the Orléans (because Montizón was an avowed Spaniard) -- yet never considered or called themselves anything but French Legitimists. Still, I must agree that since the 20th century the term "Legitimist" has predominantly acquired the meaning in French politics and society of advocacy for the Spanish branch of the Bourbons now represented by Louis Alphonse, duc d'Anjou. Therefore, I concur with 41.135.149.217 that the article's section entitled "List of Legitimist-Orleanist Claimants to the French throne since 1883" misleadingly suggests that the Orléans are considered Legitimist claimants (as distinct from "legitimate claimants") since 1883 -- a largely obsolete POV -- and should be deleted. FactStraight (talk) 06:53, 25 July 2011 (UTC)


 * Thank you, FactStraight, for this very helpful analysis. I wanted to provide some background on the page's history.  A listing of the Chambord-to-Orleans line has been part of the page almost since the beginning, dating from this 2006 diff.  However, when the line of Louis XV and the Carlist line were put into a prominent tabular form in 2008 (this diff and this diff), the Orleanists were left out.  This was "rectified" in 2010 with this diff.  One question is whether we should 1) keep the status quo, 2) remove the Orleanist line entirely, or 3) revert the last diff I cited, returning the Orleanist line to simple text.  Thoughts on that?  --BlueMoonlet (t/c) 15:34, 26 July 2011 (UTC)

The replies above are both very well-written and intelligent, yet ignore the dictionary definition of what a "Legitimist" truly is. I will not pretend that I do not consider the claims of Louis Alphonse and his supporters to be the correct one. However, that is irrelevant to the issue at hand. The article deals with Legitimism, and (among other things)the Legitimist claimants. No one has ever objected to showing that after 1883 many former Legitimists switched allegiance to the Orleanist cause! After all there are multiple Reliable Sources! The central complaint has always been that supporters of the Orleanist Line should be referred to as Legitimists, and their line should be called Legitimist-Orleanist, which is something of an oxymoron. As far as the article's history, well perhaps it has just not been seen, and now is the time to rectify things? As far as the Bourbon-BussetLine, well they are illegitimate, and therefore possess no claim whatsoever. The word "Legitimist" is after all related to the word "Legitimate". All anyone needs to do is read the dictionary definition of what "Legitimism" is, and this whole discussion would be shown to be rather silly. The central problem here does appear that some person advocating the Orleanist position(and thus to be treated with care) that someone can simultaneously hold two rival claims. Getting into POV/OR territory here, but the whole idea of "Legitimist-Orleanist" does seem to stem from the fact that people pushing the Orleanist POV acknowledge that they support a Junior Line, yet want to claim the Legitimist ground as well! I still think the best idea is for the article to be about Legitimism(which is pretty straightforward), but for a paragraph illustrating the Fusionist/Unionist breakaways to be definitely included. As far as the table/list, well only the Legitimist Line(and there can only ever be one Legitimist Line) be included. 41.135.200.212 (talk) 18:03, 26 July 2011 (UTC)

The Orleanist "Legitimists"
Has this discussion just died? Has anyone found any WP:RS which specifically refer to the Orleans branch as being the Legitimist claimants to the French throne? If (as seems certain) not, then perhaps it would simply be best to remove the paragraph entirely. Any thoughts? 41.135.200.13 (talk) 17:20, 25 August 2011 (UTC)


 * See reference in the article. --Yopie (talk) 19:56, 25 August 2011 (UTC)
 * Following the advice of FactStraight, I have retained mention of this viewpoint but significantly downgraded its prominence, given that this is an article on Legitimism per its modern understanding. --BlueMoonlet (t/c) 01:48, 26 August 2011 (UTC)

Legitimist criteria
I've edited the critera for kingship recently listed in the article for accuracy, and I expect them to be edited by others. Because there is disagreement, each criterion will need to be precisley cited to one or more reliable sources and we should all proceed to do so. The thing about French legitimism is that it is unique: it claims not to have been legislated, but to have been "found" or "discovered" or "revealed" over the centuries. It is not fixed but cannot be changed: It has evolved and may evolve, but none of the criteria, once accepted, may be altered in any way. Thus, criteria may, theoretically, be added (somehow) but not deleted. The process for evolution has never been agreed upon, but must be consistent with the process by which the fundamental law has evolved in the past. So the contradiction recently noted in the edit notes is real: between the death of the last Valois king in 1589 and the conversion of Henri IV to Roman Catholicism four years later, Legitimism is unclear about who was rightful king. This is addressed by French Legitimists using a retroactive legal fiction -- because there is no other option: If, when the throne was vacated by Henri III, the last Valois, the genealogical heir of Hugh Capet (Henri IV) was not Roman Catholic, then he could not be deemed King by Legitimist reasoning (which is why one cannot say that Legitimism applies "simple" Salic law: 1st, Salic law is not a French concept in origin and has never been synonymous with the French succession. It's just shorthand for "primogeniture in the male line, to the exclusion of females". 2nd, Salic law does not apply a religious {or any other test} than genealogy, gender and legitimate birth, whereas French Legitimism adds other criteria). The nearest Catholic dynast, Charles, Cardinal de Bourbon, should have become king automatically (and had many supporters), but he did not. Nor was he ever the genealogical heir male of Hugh Capet. This is one of the problems posed by Legitimism. What makes it fascinating is its unique, ancient uncompromising rationale. That's also what makes it a difficult concept to write about lucidly. FactStraight (talk) 19:39, 11 October 2011 (UTC)


 * These are some excellent observations. By the way, I corrected "Henry II" to "Henry III", as I am sure that is what you meant.
 * I would like to see a section like the one we're talking about be taken more directly from sources, rather than written from whole cloth by WP editors. On my talk page, User:Emerson 07 pointed to this page as such a source.  But he also said he was thinking of scrapping the section and instead adding a translation of part of this page from French Wikipedia.  And it appears now that he has done so.  --BlueMoonlet (t/c) 20:25, 11 October 2011 (UTC)

The connection between the French royalty and the Catholic religion is very old, dating back to the Merovingians. The King of France is "the Most Christian" (Rex Christianissimus), and France is "the eldest daughter of the Church". Succession to the throne is attributed in part to the grace of God. Emerson 07 (talk) 03:21, 12 October 2011 (UTC)

Once a precedent has been established, it becomes fundamental. The earliest principle to be acquired was heredity; the founder of the house, Hugh Capet, was an elected king, who maintained the crown within his family through the concept of co-kingship. Philip V successfully limited the succession to males. In contest with his niece Joan, Philip argued that all monarchs of France had been male. The sacredness of the office supported Philip's claims, since there are coronation instruments that women are forbidden even to touch. Philip VI retained the crown despite the protests of Edward III of England: Edward claimed that as a male descendant of Philip IV (through his mother Isabella of France), his claim was superior to Philip VI, a descendant of Philip III. Jurists were ready to thwart him, however, by saying that since women do not have a right to the succession, they cannot transmit such right to her children. Emerson 07 (talk) 03:21, 12 October 2011 (UTC)

The succession of Henry IV provided numerous additions to the fundamental law. First and foremost, it added the requirement that the king must be Catholic. Second, the immediacy of the crown: although the king’s succession was only recognized by most people after he converted to Catholicism, his reign is dated in 1589, the year when Henry III, his immediate predecessor, died, not in 1593, when he converted, nor in 1594, when he was crowned. Third, we are given an instance of the inalienability principle: If there are some forces that bar the rightful king from succeeding to the throne (such as religion), it does not exclude him from the succession, but deprives him only of recognition until such time that problem is resolved (by conversion to Catholicism). Emerson 07 (talk) 03:21, 12 October 2011 (UTC)

The nationality requirement is an attempt by Orleanists to add to the fundamental principles of succession. The foreign nationality of a Capetian dynast has never been raised in an actual succession. The animosity to the succession of a foreigner applied to non-agnatic descendants of the Capetian dynasty, such as Edward III of England, and Isabella Clara Eugenia, who was Spain’s alternative to Henry IV. It may be further argued that the animosity to their succession is not because they are foreigners, but because they are non-agnatic descendants (which bar them from the succession, according to the fundamental principles) of Hugh Capet. The male line descendants of Hugh have a special place in the French monarchy: they are Princes of the Blood, wherever they are. If, however, in some future time, the nationality requirement becomes a canonical addition, then it will be dealt in a similar way as the Catholic requirement: meaning, 1) if a person is an agnatic descendant of Hugh Capet, he does not lose his right of succession by virtue of some ancestors not being French, since the right of succession cannot be lost or gained – one is born with it; 2) such a person, or a dynast who is not French, becomes king of France the moment his predecessor dies; in order to get general acclaim, however, he must be naturalized. Emerson 07 (talk) 03:21, 12 October 2011 (UTC)


 * It is apparent that the nationality requirement is an Orleanist attempt to undermine the claims of their Legitimist rivals. Only the descendants of Philip V of Spain stood between the House of Orleans and their universal recognition as the proper heirs to throne of France. By strict application of this "law", all descendants of Philip V would become ineligible for the succession, having had Spanish ancestors in the male line. Orleanists hope to turn the Legitimist belief in fundamental principles by striving to add a criteria of their own invention. Thus, I am of the view that the nationality requirement is not a Legitimist principle. If you believe it deserves a place in Wikipedia, it should be on the Orleanist page, not on this page. This page ought to present the Legitimist side of the story.Emerson 07 (talk) 03:39, 12 October 2011 (UTC)
 * It does. Most monarchists in France post-Napoleon II sought the "fusion" of the Comte de Chambord with the House of Orleans, recognized that he would be succeeded by the Orleans if he died without dynastic descendants, and accepted -- albeit grudgingly -- that the Orleans succeeded as rightful heirs to the defunct French crown upon Chambord's death in 1883. So from 1883 most Legitimists gradually merged with the Orleanists, abstained henceforth from French politics, or accepted republicanism. The few Legitimists who insisted upon organizing a French political party to champion a Spanish Bourbon instead were so small a minority as to be politically negligible, although it is indisputable that their view now constitutes prevalent Legitimist theory. But only some of these allege that French nationality is not a condition of kingship -- most accept that it is, but argue that it can be assumed post-accession. Your insistence that nationality has never been considered one of the conditions for succession by French jurists of the ancien regime is atypical and ahistorical, as the cited texts demonstrate. Therefore, the nationality requirement deserves to be in the article as supported by reliable sources cited. Nobody's making up the French citizenship requirement to thwart Legitimists -- it's always been in French monarchichal jurisprudence, as attested in the sources. We are editing a 2011 encyclopedia article on Legitimism -- not re-fighting their intellectual and moral feud with the Orleanists. With all due respect, this article cannot be written from the POV of (some, not all) Legitimists and comply with Wikipedia's neutrality requirement. FactStraight (talk) 04:31, 12 October 2011 (UTC)
 * Henry V, comte de Chambord, does not have the right choose among his heirs. The principle of inalienability makes that clear. Also, your insistence on including the nationality requirement in untenable. Those Legitimists who decided to switch their allegiance to the House of Orleans (on the issue of nationality) after the death of Chambord are now known as the Legitimist-Unionists; they have long been assimilated into the Orleanist side, that's why we have all this confused talk about Legitimist-Orleanist-Unionist-Fusionist or something. When the senior line of the House of Bourbon (the Spanish branch) regained popularity, they gained the right to use the unqualified designation of "Legitimist", not "Legitimist-Anjou" or "Legitimist-Anjou-Spain". My point being, that this page speaks from the point of view of the Legitimist supporters of the senior line of the House of Bourbon; that at one time in the past, Legitimists (of the now-extinct senior line of the House of Bourbon descended from Louis XV) coexisted with Orleanists; past circumstances made some Legitimists transfer their allegiance to the House of Orleans, others transferred their allegiance to the more senior Spanish branch of the House of Bourbon. Thus, the Legitimists were split in two at some point in their history. In current parlance, however, now that the Legitimists of the senior Bourbon line had regained some support, "Legitimist" referred to them, not to the Legitimist-Orleanist-Unionists. Emerson 07 (talk) 06:10, 12 October 2011 (UTC)
 * We agree that most of those now called Legitimists support the Spanish over the Orleans lines. We disagree about your exclusion from the article that "Nationality" has historically been recognized by French jurists of the ancien regime as a requirement to wear the French crown. My understanding is that most Legitimists don't deny this juridical history, they simply deny that Nationality is required prior to accession, arguing that, like Henri IV's Catholicism, it can be "re-claimed" subsequently. If that is acknowledged in the article, my objection is withdrawn. By contrast, the Orleanist argument is that the crown passes to a French dynast through French dynasts, bypassing others. Since none of the Spanish Bourbons was a Frenchman son of Frenchmen when Chambord died in 1883, the Orleans arguably inherited the claim, justifying the majority of French Legitimists in their switch of allegiance. This article must be neutral, not unduly favoring the theory of one branch of Legitimism. The jurist Dumoulin's assertion of the nationality requirement was published in Coutumes de Paris in 1576, so your charge of Orleanism can't be sourced against him. You have been repeatedly requested to cite reliable sources in support of your "nationality-never-required" case. Where are the cites, please? FactStraight (talk) 07:23, 12 October 2011 (UTC)

The Legitimist criteria here written are derived from the nature of fundamental laws: such a law cannot be broken. They are not meant to be created - a hypothetical scenario does not make a fundamental principle. Fundamental laws only take precedents into account. No heir to the throne of France had ever been barred from succeeding because of nationality. Thereby, no such principle had been cemented among the fundamental laws. This requirement is similar to the requirements of masculinity and Catholicity: all kings of France had been male (therefore, no female may succeed); all kings of France had been Catholic (therefore, non-Catholics may not be recognized as king). Similarly, no foreigner had ever been king of France. This issue, however, has not yet arisen in an actual case. Barring foreigners from succeeding is a hypothetical response of some jurists, but it can only become a fundamental law - an unbreakable precedent - once an actual succession dispute has been decided. Emerson 07 (talk) 06:51, 12 October 2011 (UTC)


 * Legitimists claim that the requirements for birth in legitimate marriage and birth in a Catholic marriage are fundamental succession laws, yet no succession dispute regarding these matters has ever arisen in French history, so nationality is on the same footing. Thank you for acknowledging that French jurists have recognized nationality as a requirement. That's why I put it in. And sourced it. You are entitled to your perssonal logic about Legitimism's tenets, but you have been deleting sourced info from the article based on that, without citing sources. Please desist. At this point, article insertions absent such cites must be treated as personal opinion rather than as reliably sourced contributions to the article. FactStraight (talk) 07:23, 12 October 2011 (UTC)
 * From http://www.chivalricorders.org/royalty/bourbon/france/frenlegt.htm - E. The nationality of a dynast does not affect his right of succession to the Crown.
 * Some excerpts - "If, however, foreign nationality was sufficient to exclude a dynast then a simple remedy to have settled the issue of the legality or otherwise of the renunciations of 1712 would have been to deprive Philip V of his French nationality upon becoming Spanish King. If foreign nationality was all that was required to exclude a dynast, there did not need to be any renunciations and no-one would have bothered to argue about the legality or otherwise of the means used. Indeed neither would there have been any further discussion of the rights of the Spanish line"... "The grant of nationality is a civil act, and one which (certainly until modern times) could be easily reversed or revoked. When the Third French republic was confronted with powerful monarchist movements, the Law of Exile was passed in 1886 to inhibit monarchist activity, but how much more effective would it have been to revoke the nationality of the various claimants and thereby exclude them and their descendants forever!". Look at that. The only thing the French government has to do is to deprive all agnatic descendants of Hugh Capet of their French nationality, and BAM! No more pretenders. Every pretender to the throne of France is in the mercy of the French government's whim. I will be deleting the nationality requirement soon, unless someone can make a argument. Alternatively, I will move it down, under the separate category of Legitimist-Orleanist. Emerson 07 (talk) 08:28, 12 October 2011 (UTC)
 * Please do not delete or move the nationality argument unless you first obtain a consensus on this page to do so: it is considered a serious breach of editing propriety to delete reliably sourced material. On the other hand, the material you have uploaded as the tenets of Legitimist succession have not been properly sourced and are therefore subject to immediate deletion, although I and others have so far refrained from doing so in hopes of working out a compromise, based on sourced content, on this talk page. Please cite a reliable source which explains how a theory about the requirement for French nationality to be French king can be classified as a "Legitimist-Orleanist" argument when it was published in 1576 (and not for the first time!). Guy Stair Sainty is a present-day, ardent, prolific advocate for Legitimism. He does not, however, suffice to rebut a renowned French constitutional jurist publishing on the nationality requirment centuries before the Orleans/Bourbon feud began. Sainty's argument is circular: it can't be constitutionally so easy to strip a dynast of inalienable succession rights because then they wouldn't be inalienable. But it is Legitimists who maintain that all the fundamental laws governing the succession must be complied with simultaneously -- not in isolation -- or no king may be recognized. So the law stipulating the "inalienability" of the Crown is no more or less a requirement than the law requiring a dynast's parents to have wed according to Roman Catholic rites. Nationality is just another requirement that cannot be dispensed with. Moreover, this argument misunderstands what the requirement for "nationality" was: it is not mere "citizenship", but the taking up of residence outside of France with no intention of returning to live. Being exiled or stripped of citizenship involuntarily does not meet that test, whereas choosing to accept for oneself and one's descendants the throne of a foreign nation -- and then moving to that nation and occupying its throne for 300 years -- does. Finally, Sainty's arguments on his website are merely regurgitations of one side of a Usenet debate that he engaged in with Velde over a period of years. (Velde had both sides of the argument on his website for years, but took it down from Heraldica.org in recent years). Every point Sainty makes to deny the validity or applicability of the nationality requirement is met with a logical counter-argument backed up with judicial citations by Velde, as here. You can't simply declare Sainty the victor and then expunge from this article the arguments he was trying -- seldom successfully -- to rebut. FactStraight (talk) 09:35, 12 October 2011 (UTC)
 * "Guy Stair Sainty is a present-day, ardent, prolific advocate for Legitimism" - if someone is an ardent Legitimist, then, shouldn't he be a credible source for an article about "Legitimists"? What you're advocating for is Orleanism. This tenet of nationality is either non-applicable, or like that of Catholicity, so easy to circumvent (by naturalization) that it wouldn't have mattered. I gave a source, and you gave yours; what makes your source more credible than mine? The author of your source is an ardent Orleanist (http://www.heraldica.org/topics/france/orl-leg0.htm); what makes him more credible than an ardent Legitimist? One cannot give an objective stance on this point; ardent believers cling to their views as if it was their religion. Anyway, the source for this section we've been editing for a time is the French Wikipedia article, Querelles dynastiques françaises; read the section on Les lois fondamentales du royaume de France. I believe that the French should be more knowledgeable about this than any of us, that's why I bothered copying that section here. The "Legitimacy of birth" was my own addition; you added "Nationality"; both those things are not present in the original. Emerson 07 (talk) 15:51, 12 October 2011 (UTC)
 * Also, if I had never read this article before, I would be confused as to why the Legitimist-Anjou claimaints still have a claim to the throne, even though the "Fundamental Laws" include "nationality" as a requirement. I propose, therefore, that I will indicate that such a requirement is disputed, a point of contention between Legitimists and Orleanists and within Legitimists and the Legitimist-Unionists. Only then can we give fresh readers a more "objective", non-POV way. I think your appeal to consensus may be disappointed; most of the previous posts here are of the opinion that Orleanists should not even appear in this page.Emerson 07 (talk) 16:08, 12 October 2011 (UTC)
 * "it is Legitimists who maintain that all the fundamental laws governing the succession must be complied with simultaneously -- not in isolation -- or no king may be recognized". Assuming that there is a nationality requirement, it must be applied in harmony with the other principles. Through inalienability, the rightful heir of Hugh Capet cannot be deprived of his succession rights to the throne of France. Q: Who is the rightful heir of Hugh Capet? A: His senior, living, legitimate male agnatic descendant. That is why, the Protestant Henry IV became king of France; the conversion to Catholicism is not strictly necessary (yet he needed it to acquire popular consent) since religion was not considered in inheritance. Jurists do not have the power to deprive the rightful heir of his patrimony on the basis of nationality, since the right of succession is inalienable. Nationality cannot be likened to the bar against the succession of the issue of females; the two things are of entirely different orders. The status of nationality is mutable, acquirable. One, however, cannot change who one's parents are; he is born to a father and a mother whom he did not choose, and there is no power that can change that fact. Parentage is absolute, nationality is not. It is rather a flimsy ground upon which the deprivation of the right to succeed can be justified. Emerson 07 (talk) 17:03, 12 October 2011 (UTC)

I might suggest that we leave off debating what the law of Ancien Regime France might have said about these various issues. Rather, we report what the subjects of this article say, without judging whether or not they are right. It seems to me that Emerson07 has a point that this is an article about Legitimists and should reflect what Legitimists think, but (per FactStraight's objection) we should also be careful to present their arguments only as their arguments, and not necessarily as a faithful (or unfaithful) representation of so-called "fundamental laws of the kingdom of France". Might something along those lines satisfy the concerns of both of you? --BlueMoonlet (t/c) 19:30, 12 October 2011 (UTC)

Edit wars
If you want to stop edit wars put more references and citations in, and tag contentious statements with Petebutt (talk) 04:36, 23 November 2011 (UTC)

Having searched the article history, it seems that all tags are simply removed with claims of "it's all in there somewhere!" — Preceding unsigned comment added by 41.135.172.84 (talk) 08:25, 23 November 2011 (UTC)

"...the subsequent succession of the Orleanist branch" in the lead
This is quite clearly POV. Only someone espousing the Orleanist ideology would take it as fact that there even WAS a "subsequent succession of the Orleanist branch". The lead needs to say simply that Legitimists always support the senior stem of the House of Capet, and that following the death of Chambord in 1883, the senior stem was represented by the descendants of Felipe V. The addition of this "subsequent succession of the Orleanist branch" makes it sound as though it's a given fact that the Orleanist "branch" DID de jure succeed in 1883, and that "present-day Legitimists"(however valid the pre-1883 claim) are clearly wrong for not recognising this "succession". I have removed it, and hopefully this deliberately POV-wording will not be reinstated. 41.132.117.241 (talk) 20:14, 2 December 2011 (UTC)


 * How paranoid can it get? Please look up what an action nominal is; the use of a noun like "succession" in a sentence like this in no way grammatically implies that any such succession was valid; claiming that it does is just absurd. The text was never making the claim that there "was" a succession. However, it *is* a fact (obviously) that such a succession of the Orleans branch was claimed, by others, and that present-day legitimists define themselves through their opposition to it. The point of that passage is to make the reader understand how and why legitimism is still an *issue* today, and in order to understand that, we need to know not only what legitimists are for, but also what they are against. Fut.Perf. ☼ 20:47, 2 December 2011 (UTC)

Well then how about also adding that Legitimists also reject the succession of the Naundorffs? After all they claim such a succession, and not recognising the Naundorfs is a key element of Legitimism? How about in the lead? All the introduction needs to say is that Legitimism(as per any dictionary definition) is the belief that the representative of the senior stem must be the de jure Monarch, with no exceptions. Adding in even the idea of this "Orleanist succession after 1883" completely confuses the issue for the newcomer to the concept, as well as deliberately creates a false impression. There is no reason to include this 1883 'succession' in the lead as under Legitimism(what the article is about) this "succession" could never occur. Certainly include some information about the 1883 claims in the article itself, but not in the lead.

Oh, yeah "Legitimist-Orleanist" is an impossibility. Like saying "Christian Aetheist" or something similar. Certainly state that in 1883 with Chambord's death many Legitimists recognised "Philippe VII", however a)this does not make this branch 'Legitimists', 'Legitimist-Orleanists' or any term with the word 'Legitimist' in it b)this is utterly irrelevant as far as the lead paragraph is concerned. 41.132.116.81 (talk) 06:28, 3 December 2011 (UTC)

Are there any people in favor of restoring a French monarchy?
I see that there is a lot of discussion here about who the true heir is and the various factions supporting each claimant, but realistically how many people are in this movement? Is it more than 10 people? Are there hundreds of you? What motivates your desire to bring back a king? Even if you think that monarchy is a superior form of government why not choose someone new to be king? I think that answering these questions would make the article interesting. Remember that this is the English language Wikipedia and that most readers are American. The idea of a king seems like something from many hundreds of years ago, not something relevant. It is just as much fantasy as elves and dragons. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.34.239.79 (talk) 20:36, 14 April 2012 (UTC)


 * I have added back the 'fact' and 'who' tags that I placed a few months ago for just this reason. I think this article is badly written and extremely problematic in that it treats what is actually a hypothetical fantasy position of hobbyists (and there's nothing wrong with being a hobbyist and enjoying hypothetical fantasy) as if this is an actual movement with actual (and notable) adherents.  We would be well served to either find actual notable adherents and quote them, or to honestly report the truth.  And truth is that to say that "Legitimists are royalists in France who adhere to the rights of dynastic succession of the descendants of the elder branch of the Bourbon dynasty, which was overthrown in the 1830 July Revolution" is a sentence with a non-existent subject.  (I note with amusement that there is a classic philosophical  puzzle around the phrase  'Present King of France'!)
 * Let me be a bit more bold: I think there is no such thing as a "Legitimist" in reality. No one actually thinks that the descendents of the elder branch of the Bourbon dynasty have a rightful and legal claim to the throne and should be restored as such.  Note that even the alleged King of France according to these non-existent legitimists styles himself "Duke of Anjou", not "King of France".
 * What is lacking here is any legitimate source which identifies any notable people who believe this theory. I think this article could still exist, possibly, but only if it is recast as being an article about a hypothetical line of thought that has (if it does) notability by virtue of being discussed in sources.  It should not pretend that advocates exist who do not exist.--Jimbo Wales (talk) 13:59, 22 June 2012 (UTC)
 * Is your issue just with the present tense of the verb "is" in the lead sentence? Because there can hardly be doubt that royalists in general, and legitimists in particular, were a notable political force in France in the 19th and early 20th century. It does appear that in the latter half of the 20th century they have become even more marginal, but they are still occasionally mentioned in works about the political far right in France. There seems to be something of interest in René Chiroux (1972), L'extrême-droite sous la 5e République, and in Roland Gauchier (1997), Les Nationalistes en France: La montée du Front, 1983-1997. The current "pretender" family also gets its modest share of press attention from time to time, like here . But I agree the article as it stands now puts too much emphasis on the internal ideological logic of this belief system (evidently because it has been far too much affected by a small number of overt agenda editors), and that it would profit from a rewrite that presents it first and foremost as an historical topic, with whatever present adherents are left added only as a minor issue. Fut.Perf. ☼ 15:05, 22 June 2012 (UTC)
 * What Future Perfect said.
 * As a minor point, the fact that current claimants style themselves "Duke of Anjou" etc. does not negate their claim that they "have a rightful and legal claim to the throne and should be restored as such".  Henri, Count of Chambord did the same, and was very nearly restored.  --BlueMoonlet (t/c) 01:50, 23 June 2012 (UTC)


 * Sorry, Jimbo, Legitimists who believe in the rights of the seniormost Bourbon (however they define him) to wear the Crown of France do exist: I have met a few on different occasions, heard their advocacy and queried their rationale. And I have read a great deal more about and by them, increasingly since the Internet has magnified their ability to find and communicate with one another, as it has every other scial grouping.. They have symbols, apologists, meetings, leaders, publications and, above all, passionately held convictions. Most of the article "Legitimists", as currently written, is obviously written by an unabashed Legitimist who monitors it closely to prevent monarchical "heresy". How many of them are there? I have no more idea of the answer to that than if the question were posed "How many believers in republicanism (or theocracy or socialism or libertarianism) are there -- as distinct from organizations which claim to speak for them? But I think that the answer is "vanishingly few", although I suspect that there are more today than in 1972 or 1992, but that's merely a guess based on publications, blogs, events, etc. Do they seriously believe in and advocate for the restoration of the French throne? Ah, that I think is a shrewd question, to which my answer would be "no": they seem far less interested in Restoration than in ideological coherence and purity. Above all, they are commmitted to debunking any claim of the House of Orleans both to the French throne in terms of historical legality and to leadership of French monarchists in terms of political allegiance. They would, I suspect, much rather guillotine the Orleans pretender than crown his Legitimist rival. That's why their arguments always come down to "Are you a Legitimist or an Orleanist?", as if those are the only choices in either historical or current France, and the only criterion for determining if one's edits may stay or must go in this article. Just as everything looks like a nail to a hammer, everything looks like an Orleanist conspiracy to a Legitimist. Still, that simply means they're acutely partisan -- not that they don't exist. Nor do I understand why their numbers or lack thereof should dictate this article: their history and philosophy suffice to merit coverage. It's our very tough job to ensure that coverage is objective. FactStraight (talk) 09:53, 23 June 2012 (UTC)

Not far right
The three main monarchist factions were right wing, in the context of French parliamentary tradition [though not necessarily right wing as understood today]. But they could never be said to "thus, they progressively became a far-right movement". Far right is another political viewpoint altogether.Royalcourtier (talk) 23:36, 23 December 2015 (UTC)

Orleanist claimants are NOT Legitimists
With the death of Chambord in 1883, the next Legitimist claimant to the French throne was Montizon. This is undeniable and unambiguous. All explained here:http://www.chivalricorders.org/bourbon/france/frenlegt.htm While it is true that some Legitimists switched allegiance to the Orleanist cause in 1883, by doing this they ceased to be Legitimists.

Look at it like this: If someone has been pro-Bernie Sanders becoming the Democratic Presidential Nominee, but after Sanders' loss to Hillary Clinton, that Sanders supporter switches allegiance to Donald Trump....then would that make Donald Trump the Democratic candidate? Of course not. The fact that some people who had been Legitimists switched allegiance to the Orleanist cause in 1883, doesn't suddenly make the Orleanist cause the same thing as the Legitimist cause. There was still a Legitimist claimant heir from 1883...Montizon, and the only current Legitimist heir is Louis XX. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 197.88.60.117 (talk) 11:50, 3 July 2016 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Legitimists. 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/20100613004735/http://chivalricorders.org/royalty/bourbon/france/frenlegt.htm to http://www.chivalricorders.org/royalty/bourbon/france/frenlegt.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) 14:48, 13 May 2017 (UTC)

Split in Legitimist Branches
There is a legitimate (no pun intended) contention between the two branches of Legitimists, those who support the French line (Orleans) and those who support the Spanish line (Bourbon/Anjou).

The contention is over nationality. The Spanish Bourbons left France with no intention of returning and did not maintain their French nationality. If the interpretation of Arrêt Lemaistre that the King of France must be French, then we must conclude that the Spanish Bourbons are not in the line of succession to the French Throne. See: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/French_dynastic_disputes#Vice_de_pérégrinité_and_Catholicity:_Arrêt_Lemaistre

The definition of Legitimist or legitimism depends on the dictionary in question, but many indicate, as the etymology and root of the word would suggest -- that it is someone who supports legitimate authority.

Arrêt Lemaistre states that the King must be French. All of the supposedly "foreign" Kings of France brought up by supporters of the Spanish line maintained their French nationality. They did this either through letters-patent ( Henri III) or by maintaining their residency in France (Henri IV). The earlier examples are from before Arrêt Lemaistre and the Hundred Years' War, when the issue of nationality was likely irrelevant.

It is no surprise, therefore, that most Legitimists supported the House of Orleans after the death of the Count of Chambord. This did not make such supporters "Orleanists." They most likely considered themselves Legitimists because they saw the House of Orleans as the rightful claimants to the French Throne according to the rules of succession, which, in their view, required the king to be a French national. Likewise, it is unlikely that they viewed the July Monarchy as Legitimate.

To flatly say that a person is not a Legitimist because they support the House of Orleans is a No True Scotsman fallacy. These people call themselves Legitimists because, in their view, the House of Orleans are the rightful heirs to the Kings of France according to the Fundamental Laws of France.

CSBurksesq (talk) 03:05, 1 January 2018 (UTC)CSBurksesq

I should add that by failing to recognise the split, the article lacks a netural POV and is misleading.

Other articles recognise the Legitimist split:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_French_monarchs#Later_pretenders https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Legitimists#Dynastic_arguments See last paragraph. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/French_dynastic_disputes#Legitimists_and_Carlists

CSBurksesq (talk) 03:41, 1 January 2018 (UTC)CSBurksesq

This issue has been a source of contention for the past decade and the page as it exists embodies the hard-fought compromise between those Bourbon/Orléans parties. My position is governed by the following:


 * Arrêt Lemaistre:
 * Remember the purpose of Parliament: to maintain the Catholic, Apostolic and Roman religion and the state and crown of France, under the protection of a good king most Christian, Catholic and French.
 * "Christian, Catholic and French", the House of Bourbon is ethnically French.
 * Ordered that no treaty is to be passed to transfer the crown to foreign princes
 * No argument.
 * Recall that the fundamental laws must be observed to declare a Catholic and French king
 * No argument.
 * Remember that religion should not be an excuse to transfer the crown to foreign hands in a manner contrary to the fundamental laws
 * No argument.
 * Remember that although the relief of the people must be sought because it is in a state of extreme necessity, treaties for the establishment of foreign princes would be null and void if they are made to the prejudice of the Salic law and other fundamental laws.
 * Constitutional succession is patently nullified.


 * Chambord widow supported Anjou Legitimism
 * After Henri's death on 24 August 1883, Maria Theresa and a minority of Henri's supporters held that Juan, Count of Montizón, as senior male descendant of Louis XIV, was his successor. Juan's wife was Maria Theresa's sister, Maria Beatrix.


 * Nationality does not apply to the Sovereign
 * Nationality is a legal relationship between an individual person and a state. Nationality affords the state jurisdiction over the person and affords the person the protection of the state. What these rights and duties are varies from state to state.
 * According to feudal tradition, the monarch or Sovereign guarantees the statehood of his kingdom, the land is his possession and his ownership as king defines the land as a kingdom. All subjects of the king hold nationality while he exists as the foundation of society.

The succession laws guide us to our conclusions, but we should take ready notice that this division is the product of treason, regicide, fratricide, gross defamation, exploitation, and common murder – truly the most treacherous and depraved behavior. Yes, Unionism is the acceptance of the Orleanist claimant by a Legitimist. The Unionist maintains Salic precedence over constitutional succession and thus remains a Legitimist, but this does not permit the Orleanist claimant to Legitimist pretendence. The House of Orléans maintain their acceptance of the Revolution and constitutional succession of Louis Philippe d'Orléans (they espouse Salic Law when it benefits their claim). You are welcome to mention Unionism on this page but the Orleanist claimants remain Orleanist. - Conservatrix (talk) 04:26, 1 January 2018 (UTC)

All of the Fundamental Laws apply to the Sovereign

All of the Fundamental Laws, which require the King to be French, apply to the Sovereign. If the King were to renounce the Catholic faith in violation of the Fundamental Laws, would he not cease to be King? The whole point of the Fundamental Laws is to determine who is eligible to be King.

A person may have different interpretations of what the Fundamental Laws mean. You stated ethnicity, while Legitimists in support of the House of Orleans use nationality, and Anjouists interpret it to mean a French dynast.

Honestly, I find the ethnicity interpretation very dubious. Like most royals, both the French and Spanish Bourbons intermarried with other royals of different ethnicities. So really, they are of mixed ethnicity.

Regardless, the Fundamental Laws state that the King must be French. One may disagree about what they meant by "French," but the contention still stands.

The Countess Chambord's support for the Spanish Bourbons is irrelevant. Most Legitimists supported the House of Orleans, presumably because they viewed the Orleans as French and they viewed the Anjous as Spanish.

"Yes, Unionism is the acceptance of the Orleanist claimant by a Legitimist. The Unionist maintains Salic precedence over constitutional succession and thus remains a Legitimist, but this does not permit the Orleanist claimant to Legitimist pretendence."

The debate is over what we call their supporters, not the personal beliefs of the claimants themselves.

Thus, as you have admitted, some Legitimists support the House of Orleans, while others support the Spanish Bourbons. This is a split.

CSBurksesq (talk) 16:25, 1 January 2018 (UTC)CSBurksesq

Patrilineal ancestry determines the Bourbons to be French. No being in the right to inherit the Bourbon name would otherwise be anything else.

This is a split but not between equals within the context of Legitimism. The Orléans maintain recognition of constitutionalism and revolutionary reforms that directly contradict the Fundamental Laws, and are thus not in accordance with the Arrêt Lemaistre. Are you to make Legitimism complicit with constitutionalism? This would be contrary to the practice upholding the pre-1789 state of monarchy. I await the input of other users. - Conservatrix (talk) 19:29, 1 January 2018 (UTC)

My Patrilineal ancestry would make me "Irish," but would an Irishman consider me Irish? Likewise, many French Legitimists rejected the Spanish Bourbons because they were no longer seen as French.

There is no need to try and mix constitutionalism with Legitimism. The House of Orleans are either the heirs or they are not. The House of Orleans, according to the Legitimists who support them, have a valid (and better) claim based on the Fundamental Laws that Legitimists support.

The "Unionism" in question is coming together of support for a candidate, but their support for said candidate is based on vastly different reasons — i.e. the Fundamental Laws. These Legitimists reject constitutionalism and reject the validity of the July Monarchy and do not recognise Louis Philippe as "King of the French." While a Unionist might accept the Orleanist candidate, they reject Orleanism. Hence why some might reject the term Orleanist because it causes confusion.

CSBurksesq (talk) 22:48, 1 January 2018 (UTC)CSBurksesq

If common practices were applied to the monarchy, then Louis XVI would indeed have been "Louis Capet" as his tribunal recognized him. We must acknowledge our place beneath the princes of the Capetian dynasty.

"A person may have different interpretations of what the Fundamental Laws mean. You stated ethnicity, while Legitimists in support of the House of Orleans use nationality, and Anjouists interpret it to mean a French dynast." '''My interpretation of ethnic qualification aligns with Anjouist Legitimism. All legitimate sons of Hugh Capet through patrilineal succession are indelibly French.'''

The Orléans have committed terrible crimes against their Bourbon cousins. I have sparsely encountered equally severe stories of treachery between royal family members, save for Elizabeth Tudor beheading Mary Stuart, Richard Plantagenet and his nephews, or similar Medieval tales. How can any man of good faith excuse either Philippe Egalité or Louis Philippe d'Orléans? The pursuit of power spared not the women of this House, who knowingly and willfully financed insurrection against the King, gifted property for use by republican insurgents, or took direct action to ensure the continuity/survival of their investment in opportunistic treason; though exceptional recognition is due to Maria Amalia of Naples and Sicily for her privately held rejection of her husband's constitutional regime. What more can be said of this family?

Regardless, opinions cannot influence page content. - Conservatrix (talk) 00:12, 2 January 2018 (UTC)
 * Question Do reliable secondary sources offer divergent opinions on the legitimate line of succession? If so then this needs to be reflected in the article. The purpose of this talk page is not resolve the lines of succession. It is to help improve the article in accord with our policies and guidelines. -Ad Orientem (talk) 14:49, 4 January 2018 (UTC)


 * "Legitimist, French Légitimiste, in 19th-century France, any of the royalists who from 1830 onward supported the claims of the representative of the senior line of the house of Bourbon to be the legitimate king of France. They were opposed not only to republicans but also to the other monarchist factions: to the Orleanists, royalist adherents of the house of Bourbon-Orléans, who at the July Revolution of 1830 recognized Louis-Philippe as king of France; and to the Bonapartists, who favoured a restoration of the French Empire. The Legitimist position was theoretically unassailable as long as the Count de Chambord, whom they recognized as Henry V of France, was alive. The Count de Chambord’s intransigence, however, precluded a coalition between the Legitimists and Orleanists even when the collapse of the Second Empire (1852–70) seemed to make a restoration of the monarchy possible. After the Count de Chambord’s death without heirs in 1883, most Legitimists switched their support to the Orleanist pretender, Louis-Philippe-Albert, Count de Paris." (Source: Encyclopedia Britannica) - Conservatrix (talk) 15:16, 4 January 2018 (UTC)


 * ''"Orleanist, French Orléaniste, any of the constitutional monarchists in 18th- and 19th-century France who favoured the Orléans branch of the house of Bourbon (the descendants of Philippe, duke d’Orléans, younger brother of Louis XIV). Its zenith of power occurred during the July Monarchy (1830–48) of Louis-Philippe (duke d’Orléans from 1793 to 1830). The Orleanists, enormously rich, had long been the centre of opposition to the encroachment of Bourbon royal power. After the outbreak of the Revolution, Philippe, duke d’Orléans, took the name Philippe Égalité to express his extreme revolutionary views; and his son Louis-Philippe fought, as duke de Chartres, under the republican Tricolor. Executed or exiled during the later Revolutionary and Napoleonic years, the Orleanists returned at the restoration of Louis XVIII and were identified with liberal and bourgeois principles. It is true that Louis XVIII had been induced to grant a constitutional charter, but he and his successor, Charles X, claimed to rule by divine right and to confer liberties upon their subjects of their own will. The difference between the Legitimists and the Orleanists was thus fundamental. So was that between the Orleanists and the Bonapartists; the former aimed at securing political liberty, in addition to equality, before the law and in social life, whereas the latter aimed at subjection to a military despotism. The July Revolution of 1830 brought Louis-Philippe and the Orleanists into power. Their foremost representatives were Casimir Perier, Jacques Laffitte, Adolphe Thiers, François Guizot, and Albert, duke de Broglie. Eventually the Orleanists split into the conservative Parti de la Résistance (Perier, Guizot), standing for the consolidation of the dynasty and limitation of the franchise, and the more liberal Parti du Mouvement (Laffitte), advocating the spread of liberalism abroad and progressive extension of the franchise. The latter, under the leadership of Odilon Barrot, became after 1831 the “dynastic left” in the Chamber of Deputies. The Orleanists supported Louis-Philippe’s grandson and heir, Louis-Philippe-Albert, count de Paris, after the fall of the July Monarchy in 1848 and during the Second Republic and Second Empire. The demise of the Second Empire, in 1870, offered another chance for a restoration of the monarchy, but the Third Republic was born while the Orleanists and Legitimists were still arguing over a candidate. After the direct male line of the elder Bourbons died out in 1883, most of the Legitimists joined the Orleanists in fruitlessly supporting the count de Paris for the throne."'' (Source: Encyclopedia Britannica) - Conservatrix (talk) 16:37, 4 January 2018 (UTC)

If we are to accept Orléans onto this page, then I must demand that the succession from 1883 be divided into two columns titled "Anjouist" and "Unionist". This ruptures any notion of nationality and promotes general objectivity. - Conservatrix (talk) 17:25, 4 January 2018 (UTC)
 * Please don't make demands. This is a collegial project and we operate on consensus. I have posted an invitation for further input at WT:ROYAL. -Ad Orientem (talk) 17:54, 4 January 2018 (UTC)

Labelling the split into "Anjouist" and "Unionist" would make a lot of sense. It would avoid confusion because not everyone who supports the Orleans is a supporter of "Orleanism" (constitutional succession, etc). A Unionist would reject July Monarchy and constitutional succession in favour of the Fundamental Laws. It should be noted, I think, that the reason Legitimists supported the elder branch of the Bourbons prior to Chambord's death was because they were the legitimate kings. After Chambord's death, many Legitimists no longer saw the Spanish Bourbons as French, which, if true, would make them illegitimate. So this was less of a "switch" and more of a shift do to legal circumstances -- i.e. the French senior Bourbon line becoming extinct, and because of a nationality requirement, Orleans became the Bourbons' heirs.

An Anjouist would obviously reject the the July Monarchy as illegitimate, and recognise the Spanish Bourbons as heirs, having a different interpretation of what the Fundamental Laws mean by "French."

Honestly, I don't think the terms Legitimist and Orleanist are very good at conveying the reality of the dispute. When someone hears the term "Orleanist," it sounds like someone who would support the July Monarchy or who would base their support for the Orleans off a continuation of the July Monarchy. I'm not sure many royalists would be supporters of Orleanism, even if if they support the Orleans. Likewise, calling an Orleans supporter a "Legitimist" could also cause confusion because most naturally assume that a Legitimist only supports the Spanish Bourbons, but there has already been acknowledged a split in French Legitimism, i.e. Blancs d'Espagne ("Spanish Whites") as the supporters of the Spanish Bourbons were called, and the Blancs d'Eu or ("Unionists").

CSBurksesq (talk) 21:54, 4 January 2018 (UTC)CSBurksesq

The page has been modified to reflect this Anjouist/Unionist split, but I remain opposed to the Orléans residence on this page. - Conservatrix (talk) 04:55, 6 January 2018 (UTC)

Are you English, ? What ethnicity are the members of the House of Windsor? A vast majority of the English public and certainly all native intellectuals would answer that the Windsors are German. This is commonly known to have been an issue during the Great War. The same logic applies to explain how the Bourbon Kings of Spain are French. The bloodline is governed exclusively by patrilineal succession. - Conservatrix (talk) 19:10, 6 January 2018 (UTC)

During the Revolution of 1789, Philippe Egalité publicly claimed that his real father was not his mother's husband at all but instead a coachman at the Palais-Royal. - Conservatrix (talk) 00:52, 9 January 2018 (UTC)

I'm American. The House of Windsor is of mixed ethnicity, like most royal families. They may be descendants of Prince Albert of Saxe-Coburg, but the younger ones are descendants of Prince Philip, who was a prince of Greece and Denmark of the House of Glücksburg. However, Windsors' ethnicity is not relevant to France.

All that's relevant is what do the Fundamental Laws mean when they say "French." Henri III, as previously mentioned, had letters-patent that specifically allowed him to keep his French nationality after becoming King of Poland. If French nationality were unimportant, why did Henri III do this?

It should seem obvious that this rule was created after the Hundred Years' War to further invalidate the English claims to the French throne. This is in addition to the Salic Law. While not patrilinial, the Plantagenets were largely ethnically French. It appears, then, that the French wanted some standard by which to judge the Frenchness of a potential claimant. Hence why a person who leaves France with no intention of returning would no longer be considered French. This would explain Henri III's letters-patent maintaining his French nationality.

CSBurksesq (talk) 22:29, 10 January 2018 (UTC)CSBurksesq

My logic was flawed in that the English extend succession rights to female agnates. Is the term used to reference Henri's "Frenchness" nationality? I would appreciate a verbatim copy of this passage. - Conservatrix (talk) 23:56, 10 January 2018 (UTC)

I would say yes, though I doubt they would use the term "Frenchness." I just think it's a good term to convey the point about nationality. As far as I know, there is not evidence of a non-Frenchman (someone not of French nationality) taking the throne after the 16th century.

Anjouists cite examples of "foreigners" becoming King, but that is either before 16th century, when such a rule didn't exist or the person maintained French nationality. I don't think there's any evidence of Francis II leaving France with no intention of returning. After all, being Dauphin would make such intentions unlikely. As far as I can tell, Scotland was basically ruled from France or by proxy with Mary of Guise as regent, much to the chagrin of many Scots.

We've already mentioned Henri III, who had letters-patent allowing him to keep his French nationality.

Henri IV, despite being King of Navarre, maintained his residency in France and still participated in French politics.

"Let's begin with the favorite example, Henri de Bourbon, king of Navarre. He was French as son of Antoine de Bourbon, who clearly did not lose his nationality when he married Jeanne d'Albret in 1548, because he did not leave France without intent of return; he continued to live part, perhaps even most of his time in France, hold office in France, and be involved in French affairs. The same goes for his son Henri, although born in Béarn in 1553, but a peer in Parlement, holder of military and civil offices, "Premier Prince du Sang" after 1584. That was possible because Navarre, albeit a sovereign kingdom, was a small and neighbouring state, and a very minor part of Henri's estates; being king of Navarre was almost ceremonial, and he did not have to leave France to be king of Navarre." See citation number 5.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by CSBurksesq (talk • contribs) 02:51, 11 January 2018 (UTC)

CSBurksesq (talk) 02:52, 11 January 2018 (UTC)

It would do all involved in this discussion good to review this 2015 exchange: https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:French_dynastic_disputes#Article_written_from_a_pro-Legitimist_POV - Conservatrix (talk) 02:56, 11 January 2018 (UTC)

On the matter of letters patent: In 1573 the King, Charles IX, and nine princes of the blood all signed a declaration assuring Charles' brother Henry, Duke of Anjou, who was about to assume the crown of Poland, that his rights to the French throne would not lapse, nor those of any children he may have, even though they were to be born outside France. The blood right in this instance overcame the law of aubain by which foreign-born heirs forfeited their rights of succession; that is to say, being "capable of the crown" was a unique kind of birthright which transcended all usual legal regulations. Blood heirs no matter where they were born or resided were to be regarded "tout ainsi que s'ilz estoient originaires et regnicoles." This was recorded in letters patent in Parliament. Similar letters were issued for Philip, Duke of Anjou, when he was about to assume the crown of Spain (1700). But in his case, the letters were later withdrawn (1713) due to pressure from other European powers.

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) - Conservatrix (talk) 16:36, 11 January 2018 (UTC)

MY POSITION AT CURRENT: - Conservatrix (talk) 16:36, 11 January 2018 (UTC)
 * 1) The Capetian dynasty is goverened exclusively by patrilineal succession, as such all legitimate sons of Hugh Capet through partilineal descent are indelibly French by birthright. Thus, the Bourbon maintain adherence to the Arrêt Lemaistre (1593).
 * 2) The Orléans' failure to publicly reject constitutional succession (or the treason of Philippe Egalité and Louis Philippe d'Orléans) as well as the modern use of the tricolor flag on their crest directly contradicts the Legitimist rejection of constitutionalism and republican iconography.
 * 3) The Treaty of Utrecht was invalid ab initio and irremediably, that Louis XIV as Sovereign of France considered it both invalid and non-binding, 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 believing the treaty constituted a modification of the Fundamental Laws.
 * 4) The simple issuance or revocation of letters patent is not enough to grant or deprive succession rights, such act constitutes an ability for the monarch to change the line of succession to the throne, an illegal act under the Ancien Régime.

The letters patent didn't change the order of succession, and they don't grant nationality. All they did was allow Henri III to keep his nationality, and thus, his succession rights. I believe Louis XIV tried giving succession rights to some of his bastards. Ultimately, this was rejected after the Louis' death and the letters patent were revoked. Those letters changed the order of succession, but those allowing a person to keep their nationality did not.

I don't think it's correct to say the Capetian dynasty is governed exclusively by patrilineal succession. The laws require the king to be (Roman) Catholic and French. I think we all know what a Roman Catholic is, the question is over what they mean by "French."

Philippe Egalite was guillotined by the same regime he helped create. I think he got what he deserved. Louis Philippe spent his days in exile, much like Charles X. This, too, seems to be fair. I think it's pretty clear that the July Monarchy was illegitimate. That said, I'm not an expert on the rise of the July Monarchy.

As for Utrecht... I believe it was registered by the Parlement, which considered itself the guardian of the Fundamental Laws. On it's face, however, (absent any historical context) the treaty would be invalid. The only argument that I can think of for it's validity is saying it constitutes a force majeure. Basically that the survival of the state, and thus the Fundamental Law, depended on peace. Certainly there is an argument that the king's first duty is the protection and security of the state.

There is another argument that because it is a treaty it supersedes the Fundamental Laws. This is poppycock. Arrêt Lemaistre specifically states that treaties which violate the Fundamental Laws are invalid. Thus, the force majeure argument is the only one that makes any sort of sense. Because the survival of the state/crown is necessary for the existence of the Fundamental Laws.

I have no idea if Utrecht was made in bad faith. It seems to me, and probably the Parlement at the time, that it was the price of peace. Did the king not have a moral duty to secure the nation and not waste the blood of French soldiers when there was a path to peace that would have left the Kingdom of France no longer surrounded by Habsburgs?

The validity of Utrecht, however, would need to be decided by some sort of Parlement or successor body. While it may be in the best interests of Count of Paris to argue in favour of Utrecht, I think it is a moot point. The Spanish Bourbons are either French or they are not. I also don't think it's the best starting argument for the Unionist cause.

CSBurksesq (talk) 22:57, 11 January 2018 (UTC)


 * As I wrote above in 2011, "Most of those now called Légitimists support the Spanish over the Orleans lines...The Orleanist argument is that the crown passes to a French dynast through French dynasts, bypassing others. Since none of the Spanish Bourbons was a Frenchman son of Frenchmen when the last undisputed Legitimist heir Henri, Count of Chambord, died in 1883, the Orléans arguably inherited the claim, justifying the majority of French legitimists in switching allegiance." While I agree that there is a plausible argument that the Orléans are the rightful claimants to the French crown based on Légitimist theory, that after 1883 most of Chambord's supporters switched allegiance to the Orléans claimant without embracing Orleanism, and that they continued to consider themselves Légitimists, I also observe that since the 20th century the term "Légitimist" has predominantly acquired the meaning in French politics and society of advocacy for the Spanish branch of the Bourbons -- now represented by Louis Alphonse de Bourbon, duc d'Anjou. Therefore, it is misleading to suggest that the Orléans are considered Légitimist claimants (as distinct from "legitimate claimants") since 1883 -- a largely obsolete POV -- and that although the "Unionist" interpretation of Legitimism should be mentioned in this article, the Orléans pretenders themselves should be removed to their own page. FactStraight (talk) 03:51, 25 January 2018 (UTC)

I certainly acknowledge that such movements are organic and can change over time. How many people consider themselves Legitimists who support the Orleans candidate? More research would have to be done to understand.

Either way, the historical split and the Unionist should be acknowledged in some way. I would recommend a section discussing Unionists after 1883 with the Unionist line of succession and a basic overview of the Unionist arguments. Such as those found on French dynastic disputes, particularly section 3.2. CSBurksesq (talk) 20:42, 26 January 2018 (UTC) - NOTICE: Participating users:, , This page will revert to its original state on 1 February 2018, unless a non-participating user weighs in favor of the current Anjouist/Unionist change. Discussion surrounding a text-only section of this page being dedicated to Unionism should be reopened in a new thread and will not count toward halting the scheduled revert. Thank you. - Conservatrix (talk) 12:03, 29 January 2018 (UTC) -- ✅ - Conservatrix (talk) 03:47, 1 February 2018 (UTC)

The problem of Isabella II and Señor Puigmoltó
It is widely ackloweged that Isabella II of Spain was involved in sexual relations with a number of individuals who were not her husband Francisco de Asís, Duke of Cádiz and that her children are from men other than him. The biological father of Alfonso XII is widely considered to have been Enrique Puigmoltó y Mayans, a captain of the guard active at Isabella's court. That means everyone from Alfonso XIII to Louis Alphonse de Bourbon listed here as "Legitimist Pretenders" are not actually Bourbons but descend from the Puigmoltó. This problem is not discussed in the article, we should have a section on it. Torchist (talk) 19:26, 21 February 2022 (UTC)


 * This would need proper sourcing, although there may be a legal presumption that a child's father is the mother's husband. PatGallacher (talk) 16:54, 2 May 2024 (UTC)

Henry IV
It was discussed earlier, but I am not sure if we properly resolved the issue of whether the principle that the king has to be a Catholic conflicts with the succession of Henry IV. PatGallacher (talk) 16:54, 2 May 2024 (UTC)