Fundamental Laws of France

1. Hereditary succession via Salic law (male-only primogeniture).

That is to say succession by males to the exclusion of females. This was invoked by Philip V of France to exclude his niece Joan of Navarre.

2. Male Collaterality.

This means male succession only through the male line. This concept is also often equated with the Salic law, as it is the logical consequence of the Salic law. This was invoked by Philip VI of France to counter the claim of Edward III of England via his mother Isabella. The logic used is that a person cannot pass on a claim that one does not possess for oneself.

3. Continuity of the Crown.

With the death of the previous king, the heir immediately becomes king. This is why the pretenders of France are considered de jure kings and are given regnal names and numbers, despite not being in actual possession of the throne.

4. Inalienability (unavailability) of the Crown.

The crown is not the property of the king. In general, the king cannot appoint his successor, renounce, or abdicate.

5. Catholicism.

The king must be Roman Catholic. Added by Arrêt Le Maistre of 1593, which ended the French Wars of religion. There is debate about whether Catholicism is a prerequisite to being in the line of succession or whether conversion is allowed. Considering the rigidity of the fundamental laws, I favour the former and think it is a prerequisite.

6. The king must be French.

An exact date for this requirement is not entirely known, but likely emerged in the 16th century, though it is possible it emerged earlier. The aforementioned Arrêt Le Maistre of 1593 states:

JUDGMENT of the sitting parliament in Paris which annulls all treaties made or to be made which would call to the throne of France a foreign prince or princess, as contrary to the salic law and other fundamental times of the state.

Paris, June 28, 1593

The court, on the above remonstrance made to the Court by the Attorney General of the King and the subject matter of deliberation, said court, all the assembled chambers, having, as it never had other intention other than to maintain the catholic, apostolic and roman religion and the state and crown of France, under the protection of a good king very Christian, catholic and French,

Ordered and ordered that remonstrances will be made this afternoon by Master Jean Lemaistre President, assisted by a good number of advisers in the said court, to the Duke of Mayenne, Lieutenant General of the State and Crown of France, in the presence of the princes and officers of the crown, now being in this city, that no treaty be made to transfer the crown into the hands of prince or princess foreigners;

That the fundamental laws of this kingdom be kept and the judgments given by the said court for the declaration of a Catholic and French king executed; and that it is necessary to employ the authority which has been committed to him to prevent that, under pretext of religion, be transferred in foreign hands against the laws of the kingdom; and to provide as quickly as possible for rest at the relief of the people, for the extreme necessity in which it is reduced; and yet, at the present time, said court declares all treaties made and to be made hereafter for the establishment of null foreign prince and princess and of effect and value, as done to the prejudice of the Salic law and other fundamental laws of the state. [Emphasis added]

Conclusion

In 1883, with the death of the last French Bourbon, Henri V (Count of Chambord), only one candidate met all of the requirements of the fundamental laws. That was Philippe VII, the Count of Paris.

See also:

Refuting Anjouist Arguments

Refuting Anjouist Arguments

Click here for the Fundamental Laws of the Kingdom of France.

1. The Spanish Bourbons are ethnically French or French by blood.

This is just false. Like most royal families at the time, the French and Spanish families married princesses from other royal houses across Europe. The blood and ethnicity of the Royal House of Spain, and France before it, was mixed.

To put it frankly, by blood, the Royal Family of France was “less French” than the common French peasant*. The same could be said for the Spanish Royal Family and just about every crowned family of Europe.

[*This is not to say that the Royal House of France is “less French” because of their blood status. On the contrary, despite their blood status, the Royal House of France is very much French, just like how the Spanish Bourbons are very much Spanish. As stated before, Frenchness is not based solely on blood.]

Let us examine the wives and mothers of the Spanish Royal Family following the War of Spanish Succession.

Philip V, the first Bourbon Monarch of Spain married Elisabeth Farnese of Parma. This marriage produced Charles III.

Charles III married Maria Amalia of Saxony. This marriage produced Charles IV.

Charles IV married Maria Louisa of Parma. This marriage Produced Ferdinand VII and Infante Carlos of Carlist fame (Carlos V).

Infante Carlos (de jure Carlos V) married Infanta Maria Francisca of Portugal. This produced Juan, Count of Montizon.

Juan, Count of Montizon claimed headship of both the Royal Houses Spain and France after the death of the Count of Chambord in 1883.

Most Legitimists, however, recognised the claim of Philippe of Orleans (Philippe VII).

2. The Spanish Bourbons have French heritage.

So what? Lot’s of people have French heritage. I have Norman, Irish, and German heritage. But I’m neither Irish, German, nor Norman.

And since the Spanish Bourbons are of mixed blood, they are likewise of mixed heritage.

3. Don Luis is the senior agnate of the House of Bourbon.

This is true, and I don’t know anyone who argues otherwise. That said, all the Fundamental Laws are equal and male only primogeniture is not the only requirement for eligibility.

There are other laws that evolved and were added over time. One of those laws was that the king must be French.

In 1883, with the death of Chambord (de jure Henri V), Philippe d’Orleans was the most senior agnate who happened to meet all the qualifications under the Fundamental Laws. Thus, the House of Orleans became the Royal House of France.

4. The Orleans are excluded because of their past treasons.

This is probably the easiest claim to refute (likely due to the fact that this is a weak claim).

There is no corruption of blood exception to the Fundamental Laws.

There is no doubt that Philippe Égalité was a traitor and Louis-Philippe was a traitor and a usurper.

The same thing could be said for the future Henri IV, when he was leading Protestant troops against Henri III’s Royal and Catholic Army during the Wars of Religion.

Despite this, Henri III still acknowledged Henri IV as his heir.

Quite honestly, the past actions of the Orleans appears to be the reason the Anjous have any support at all. The vast majority of the Blancs d’Espangne (Spanish Whites, those who supported the Anjous) likely did so because of their hatred of the Orleans. Considering the then-recent actions of the Orleans, it was an understandable desire to not see them on the throne. However, the Fundamental Laws are clear. With the ineligibility of the Spanish Bourbons, the throne rightfully passed to the House of Orleans.

Even if the corruption of blood claim were true, it would not restore the Spanish Bourbons to the French throne. Instead, the throne would pass to the family next in line.

5. The Utrecht renunciations were conditional.

It is claimed by the Anjouists that the renunciation of Philip V of Spain was conditional and dependent upon the continuation of the semi-Salic law of Spanish succession.

While it is true that the renunciations were intended to be conditional, such a thing is illegal and void.

I’ve previously written about why I think Utrecht is valid. I stated that it was valid because the War of Spanish succession created a force majeure. Quite simply, the security of the state superseded the Fundamental Laws (since the existence of said state is necessary for the existence of the Fundamental Laws). The renunciations were the price of peace, and France needed peace. Thus, the renunciation of Philip V was a permissible violation of the Fundamental Laws.

A conditional renunciation, however, is not permissible. While a simple renunciation was necessary for peace, a conditional renunciation was not. In other words, there was no force majeure for a conditional renunciation.

Violations of the Fundamental Laws must be kept to a minimum. That means one should not stray beyond what is permissible. While a simple, flat, permanent renunciation was permissible, a conditional renunciation was not.

It appears likely that the Fundamental Laws do not allow for mutable renunciations. The logical consequence of the Fundamental Laws is that removal from the line of succession is permeant.

Under normal circumstances, a flat renunciation is not allowed. However, there may be loopholes to this rule. One such being the aforementioned force majeure caused by the War of Spanish Succession. Another would be religion.

Let’s suppose, hypothetically, that the Dauphin (let’s call him Charles) has no desire to become king. Knowing that the king must be Catholic, Charles becomes a Protestant. So, when his father dies, Charles’s younger brother (Francis) becomes king.

Now let us suppose that Charles becomes Catholic again. Does this mean that Francis should be removed from the throne? A clear answer should be no. What of Charles’s future children, should they be ahead of Francis’s children? To say yes opens the door for civil war. The logical conclusion is that any removal from the line of succession must be permanent.

Now let’s take the case of the Spanish Bourbons. Here we have a house that renounced the French throne and moved to Spain to rule a foreign land. For generations the Royal House of Spain resided and raised its children in Spain. In other words, they became Spanish.

In 1830, Ferdinand VII of Spain issued the Pragmatic Sanction of 1830, which purported to revoke the semi-Salic law of Spanish succession. In the minds of Anjouists, this negated the renunciation of Philip V.

So, in Anjouist reasoning, the line of succession to the French throne should be determined by the succession laws of Spain. Such logic is a total affront to the Fundamental Laws of France, some of which were created to specifically maintain the independence and sovereignty of France against foreign powers.

In defence of their reasoning, Anjouists love to quote the Usurper Louis-Philippe, the purported “King of the French”:

It is not only as French that I take him an interest in this question, It is also like father. In the case, indeed (which will never happen in my time) where we would have the misfortune to lose The Duke of Bordeaux, without leaving a child, the crown will return to my eldest son, provided that the Salic law is maintained in Spain, for, if it was not, the renunciation of Philip V to the throne de France, in his name and in the name of his male descendants, would be struck with nullity, since it was only in act of this renunciation that the descendants of this prince acquired an incontestable right to the crown of Spain, but If this right is taken away from them, they may claim the right given to them by the French Salic law to the inheritance of Louis XIV, and as grandson of Louis XIV,they pass before my children.

For reasons stated previously, Louis-Philippe’s reasoning is flawed. To allow for conditional renunciations not only opens the door for unnecessary succession disputes (and potential war), but, in this case, grants the Royal House of Spain the power to determine the line of succession to the French throne.

And, despite the intentions of a conditional renunciation (as implied in the first paragraph*), Philip V’s actual renunciation was in perpetuity, according to the text*:

With my own movement, my free, frank and pure will, me Don Philip, by the grace of God King of Castile and Leon … etc … etc … I renounce, by the present act, forever and for ever, for myself and for my heirs and successors, to all claims, rights and titles that I or some of my other descendants have from now on, or may, have at any time that it may be the future, to the succession of the crown of France. I abandon them, and forsake them for myself and for them, and I declare myself and exclude myself and myself, and my children, heirs and descent, perpetually … from the right to succeed to the crown of France.

I want and consent, for myself and for my descendants, that from now on as then, this right be regarded and considered as passed and transferred to the Duke of Berry my brother, to his children and descent male, born in legitimate marriage. And, in the absence of his masculine lines, to the Duke of Orleans, my uncle and his children and male descent, born into a legitimate marriage; and, in the absence of his lines, to my cousin the Duke of Bourbon and his children and descent, born in lawful marriage; and, successively, to all the princes of the blood of France, their children and descent men, forever and ever, according to the rank and order in which they will be called to the crown by the right of their birth.

Further, the Pragmatic Sanction of 1830 was an illegal act of tyranny, making it void. This so-called “Pragmatic” Sanction effectively disinherited Infante Carlos and retroactively denied him his pre-existing right to the Spanish throne. The Pragmatic Sanction of 1830 was never ratified by the Cortes, making the Sanction an illegal act of tyranny. It is true that the Cortes approved a similar Sanction in 1789, but it was never published, making it void.

Therefore, Infante Carlos (Carlos V), not Isabella, was the rightful and de jure monarch of Spain.

It clearly makes no sense why the illegal actions of a foreign monarch should determine the line of succession to the French throne.

6. There is no nationality requirement.

This is appears untrue and ahistorical. Further, many Anjouists seem to misunderstand what is meant by foreign. Many erroneously believe that possessing foreign titles or being king of a foreign state makes that person foreign.

Thus, they cite the case of Henri III who became King of Poland. Henri III was a French peer and a Prince of the Blood. He was granted letters-patent ensuring his succession rights (this is a sign that he didn’t not leave France without intention of returning, which would have put his succession rights in doubt).

Henri IV, despite being King of Navarre (via his mother), was a French peer and the son of a French peer, Antoine de Bourbon. Neither Henri nor Antoine left France with no intention of returning. Antoine actually died in France and Henri IV actively participated in French politics and was active in the aforementioned Wars of Religion.

Anjouists also like to cite examples of foreigners becoming King of France, but these all happened prior to the 16th century. It was in the 16th century (after the Hundred Years’ War) that the idea that no foreigner could take the throne arose.

In fact, the justification for the use of Salic law was that it kept France out of foreign hands:

And the first speciatie that I find good there is that the kingdom goes by male succession, without being able to fall into the hands of a woman, according to the law that the French call “salic”, which is a very good thing. Because, falling in a feminine line, it comes into the hands and power [it can come into power] of a man of strange nation, which is pernicious and dangerous thing: yet that which comes from such a strange nation [the one who comes from strange nation]is other food and condition and has other mores, other language and other way of living than those of the country where it comes to dominate. [Translated from French. Claude de Seyssel: The Monarchy of France, I, 7 (Paris, 1961, page 112-3)]

In 1593 Arrêt Le Maistre decreed that no foreigner could take the French throne, and since Le Maistre was issued in the lifetime of Henri IV and affirmed his rights to be king, the Parlement of Paris did not consider him to be a foreigner.

7. Don Luis is a French citizen / Nationality can be granted.

It is true that Don Luis is a French citizen through his grandmother. This, however, does nothing to restore any succession rights to the French throne.

As I’ve previously argued, once lost, succession rights are lost in perpetuity. The Count of Montizon (de jure Juan III of Spain), the supposed Anjouist pretender, was not a Frenchman. Thus, despite claiming otherwise, he had no right to the French throne.

Interestingly enough, a French court has previously ruled that the Spanish Bourbons are no longer French. Anjouists reject this because the court was of the illegitimate French Republic. This is ironic since it is by the laws of the illegitimate French Republic that make Don Luis a French citizen.

Further, with the Count of Montizon being a foreigner, the throne of France passed to Philippe d’Orleans (Philippe VII), making the House of Orleans the Royal House of France. Why should the Royal House of France be displaced because another person gains French citizenship half a century after the fact?

Anjouists also like to argue that nationality granted by civil act would be sufficient to restore a person to the line of succession. As stated above, this is false. Further, the Judgment of Le Maistre specifically nullifies “all treaties made or to be made which would call to the throne of France a foreign prince or princess, as contrary to the salic law and other fundamental times of the state.”

Keep in mind that the definition of a treaty included not only international treaties but any legal agreement. The wording here indicates that being French is a prerequisite to being in the line of succession. Otherwise, a foreigner could be declared “French” and given the throne, which put the crown of France into foreign hands. Maistre specifically declares such an agreement is void.

8. Why was nationality never used to justify excluding Philip V or settling the question of legality of his renunciation to the French throne?

Guy Sainty writes:

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. [E, final paragraph.]

While this appears true on the surface, a quick exploration of history and the behaviours of Louis XIV, the French monarch who agreed to Utrecht, reveals that the Sun King cared little for the Fundamental Laws. At one point, he even issued letters patent recognising his bastards as Princes of the Blood, a direct violation of the Fundamental Laws. These were later revoked after Louis’ death.

It is no surprise that Louis intended to leave open the possibility of a union of the crowns of Spain and France, a thought that terrified the other crowned heads of Europe. This, of course, is what started the War of Spanish Succession in the first place. The other European power didn’t not want a potential union of the crowns.

If Louis XIV and his ministers had definitively stated that Philip V and his descendants would lose their succession rights by moving and residing abroad, then it would have settled the issue, something Louis XIV didn’t want. Prior to the war, Louis issued letters patent confirming Philip’s succession rights and those of his descendants. These were revoked after the war.

Since Louis XIV cared little for the legal question behind this, the last thing he wanted was for the issue to be settled in the minds of his subjects. He always wanted the future possibility of a union of the crowns open, legal or not.

9. The Constitution of 1791.

Kingship is indivisible and delegated hereditarily to the race on the throne, from male to male, by order of primogeniture, to the perpetual exclusion of women and their descendants.

(Nothing is prejudged on the effect of renunciations in the race on the throne.)

Anjouists claim that this shows that Utrecht is invalid or somehow restores the Spanish Bourbons to line of succession.

Firstly, the question was far from unanimous and was hotly debated. Secondly, the Parlement of Paris, not the National Assembly, was the guardian of the Fundamental Laws. It had no authority to make judgments as to the Fundamental Laws, nor did it have the authority to alter the Fundamental Laws.

Notice this purported “law” of succession mentions nothing about the other Fundamental Laws. There is nothing requiring the king to be Catholic and French, nothing about the unavailability of the crown.

Then there is Title III, Chapter II, Section I, Article 5:

If, one month after the invitation of the legislative body, the king shall not have taken this oath, or if, after having taken it, he retracts it, he shall be considered to have abdicated the throne.

And Article 7:

If the king, having left the kingdom, should not return after the invitation which shall be made to him for that purpose by the legislative body and within the period which shall be fixed by the proclamation, which shall not be less than two months, he shall be considered to have abdicated the throne.
The period shall begin to run from the day when the proclamation of the legislative body shall have been published in the place of its sittings; and the ministers shall be required under their responsibility to perform all the acts of the executive power, whose exercise shall be suspended in the hands of the absent king.

These supposed “laws” of succession are invalid and fly in the face of the Fundamental Laws and everything they stand for. No legitimist in his right mind would consider this so-called “constitution” legitimate. Keep in mind that Louis XVI was forced to agree to it. And, in the end, the revolutionaries still killed him and his family.

It may be the case that many Anjouists are merely citing the Constitution of 1791 to demonstrate that Utrecht was thought to be invalid. But that would require them to accept the judgment of revolutionaries who rebelled against their king (some of whom played a role in his murder). Again, these same people had no authority to make such a judgment.

Conclusion

Philip V made a valid and irrevocable renunciation to the French throne for himself and his descendants, made legal by a force majeure (the War of Spanish Succession).

There was no force majeure to allow a conditional renunciation, something repugnant to the Fundamental Laws, and the Pragmatic Sanction of 1830 was illegal and void.

Philip V descendants resided and lived in Spain, becoming foreigners. The Count of Montizon, thus, was a foreigner and not in the French line of succession. His descendants, likewise, are not in the line of succession.

With the death of the Count of Chambord in 1883, the House of Orleans became the Royal House of France because Philippe d’Orleans was the senior agnate who met all the qualifications under the Fundamental Laws. From that moment, the House of Orleans was and remains the Royal House of France, which is headed by Henri d’Orleans, Comte de Paris (de jure Henri VII).

De Jure Succession to the Throne of France

As I have previously stated on other posts, following legitimist principles and adhering to all of the fundamental laws (unlike the Anjouists), that the July Monarchy of Louis-Philippe as “King of the French” was invalid.

Thus, I present the de jure line of succession following the French Revolution and the illegal overthrow of Louis XVI and his subsequent murder by the Jacobins. The dates included are those of reign/pretense.

Louis XVII (1793-1795)

Louis XVIII (1795-1824)

Charles X (1824-1836)

Louis XIX (1836-1844)

Henri V (1844-1883)

Philippe VII (1883-1894)

Philippe VIII (1894-1926)

Jean III (1926-1940)

Henri VI (1940-1999)

Henri VII (1999-present)

Arrêt Le Maistre: The French Question

Original French

Here we have an English translation of Arrêt Le Maistre of 1593:

JUDGMENT of the sitting parliament in Paris which annulls all treaties made or to be made which would call to the throne of France a foreign prince or princess, as contrary to the salic law and other fundamental times of the state.

Paris, June 28, 1593

The court, on the above remonstrance made to the Court by the Attorney General of the King and the subject matter of deliberation, said court, all the assembled chambers, having, as it never had other intention other than to maintain the catholic, apostolic and roman religion and the state and crown of France, under the protection of a good king very Christian, catholic and French,

Ordered and ordered that remonstrances will be made this afternoon by Master Jean Lemaistre President, assisted by a good number of advisers in the said court, to the Duke of Mayenne, Lieutenant General of the State and Crown of France, in the presence of the princes and officers of the crown, now being in this city, that no treaty be made to transfer the crown into the hands of prince or princess foreigners;

That the fundamental laws of this kingdom be kept and the judgments given by the said court for the declaration of a Catholic and French king executed; and that it is necessary to employ the authority which has been committed to him to prevent that, under pretext of religion, be transferred in foreign hands against the laws of the kingdom; and to provide as quickly as possible for rest at the relief of the people, for the extreme necessity in which it is reduced; and yet, at the present time, said court declares all treaties made and to be made hereafter for the establishment of null foreign prince and princess and of effect and value, as done to the prejudice of the Salic law and other fundamental laws of the state. [Emphasis added]

Basic Background

Henri IV of France

Henri IV, a Protestant, became the nominal King of France.

Many Catholics naturally opposed having a Protestant king. Thus many supported other claimants. One being Infante Isabella.

Unable to win militarily, Henri announced his intent to convert to the Catholic faith. The Parlement of Paris then issued the aforementioned judgment. [Note: the Parlement was a judicial body, not a legislative one.]

Analysis

Four times the judgment states the crown is not to be given to foreigners (or to that effect). Twice the judgment describes the king as French. Salic law is mentioned twice, and the fundamental laws (or times) are mentioned thrice.

Clearly, the main objection to Isabella and the other claimants was that they were foreign.

Notice also the preamble:

JUDGMENT of the sitting parliament in Paris which annulls all treaties made or to be made which would call to the throne of France a foreign prince or princess, as contrary to the salic law and other fundamental times of the state.

The phrase “as contrary” clearly indicates a belief that foreigners were already to be excluded from the throne by the fundamental laws.

Take another look at the final paragraph of the judgment:

That the fundamental laws of this kingdom be kept and the judgments given by the said court for the declaration of a Catholic and French king executed; and that it is necessary to employ the authority which has been committed to him to prevent that, under pretext of religion, be transferred in foreign hands against the laws of the kingdom…

The phrase “against the laws of the kingdom” once again indicates that it was already contrary to the fundamental laws to give the crown to a foreigner.

Was Henri IV a foreigner?

No*. Despite being born in (and being King of) Navarre, Henri was not a foreigner. He was the son of a French Peer, Antoine de Bourbon, who participated in French politics.

[While one might describe him as a foreigner in the since that he was King of Navarre (as the Anjouists love to point out and say it disproved the point entirely) Henri was not foreign in the context used in Le Maistre. Foreign titles and nationality has nothing to do with this. What matters is whether the person in question is French.]

Henri, likewise, participated in French politics. Never did Henri or his father leave France with no intention of returning. In fact, both died in France. Thus, neither ever became a foreigner.

It is clear, then, that the fundamental laws require the king to be a Frenchman.

What is a Frenchman?

This may seem like an easy question, but it isn’t. Many people believe, as I do, that there is something more to what is commonly called “nationality” than a legal status.

In a purely legal sense, anyone can potentially become a “national” or “citizen” of another country. But let’s face reality: Plopping a German in the middle of Paris and proclaiming him a French citizen does not make him a Frenchman by his nature. His nature is, and always will be, German.

There is something that transcends the legal qualifications of nationality. Each nation has its own culture, its own spirit (for lack of a better term). A German simply would not possess the French spirit. Thus, by his nature, he is a German.

This is why I, and many others, will never consider the Spanish Bourbons to be French (even if Luis Alfonso de Borbón has French citizenship through his grandmother). The Spanish Bourbons stopped being French years ago.

Legally, a person lost their French nationality upon leaving France with no intention of returning.

In 1883, after the death of the Comte de Chambord (de jure Henri V), the Count of Montizón became the senior agnate of the House of Bourbon.

But Don Juan, Count of Montizón was a Spaniard, not a Frenchman. Don Juan was the great-great-grandson of Philip V of Spain. Don Juan was the result of multiple generations of Spaniards. Don Juan, and his direct ancestors, were raised in Spain. Don Juan was of the Spanish spirit, not of the French spirit. He was not, in any any sense of the word, a Frenchman.

Don Juan was likely the rightful King of Spain, but he had no right to the throne of France.

How rigid is the Unavailability (inalienability) of the Crown?

One of the fundamental laws is the Unavailability of the Crown – the idea that the crown is not the property of the King or anyone else. This generally means that abdications, renunciations, and arbitrary attempts to change the line of succession are void. Hence the debate over Utrecht, which I’m not getting into in this post.

Those who believe in succession based on the fundamental laws tend to hold this rule as very rigid. Anjouists (supporters of Don Luis) hold it as so rigid that they believe the Peace of Utrecht to be void.

This is clearly why Anjouists deny that there is a requirement that the king be a Frenchman. Otherwise, their candidate (Don Luis) would be illegitimate. It is their interpretation that the king simply be of male descent from the Royal House of France. Thus, they view patrilineal descendants of Philip V as automatically “French.”

I, and many others, find this line of thinking absurd. The Spanish Bourbons are not of the French spirit, nor have they been for several generations.

But, as I’ve stated, the Anjouist line of thinking is necessary for their cause.

The rigidity of the unavailability rule means that once the right of succession is lost, it cannot be regained because such a restoration would constitute an arbitrary change in the order of succession. In other words, the Spanish Bourbons are permanently outside the line of succession to the French throne.

To put the Spanish Bourbons ahead of the French Orleans would be a usurpation, the same crime committed by Louis-Philippe, the illegitimate “King of the French.”

Thus, it doesn’t matter that Don Luis has French citizenship through his grandmother. Firstly, he is not of the French spirit. Secondly, the Spanish Bourbons are permanently outside the line of succession because of the Unavailability of the Crown.

The Count of Paris, therefore, is the rightful King of France, the de jure Henri VII.

HRH Prince Henri, Count of Paris, de jure Henri VII

EDIT/UPDATE: I found this quote from Claude de Seyssel, a Savoyard jurist and advisor to Louis XII:

And the first speciatie that I find good there is that the kingdom goes by male succession, without being able to fall into the hands of a woman, according to the law that the French call “salic”, which is a very good thing. Because, falling in a feminine line, it comes into the hands and power [it can come into power] of a man of strange nation, which is pernicious and dangerous thing: yet that which comes from such a strange nation [the one who comes from strange nation]is other food and condition and has other mores, other language and other way of living than those of the country where it comes to dominate. And if it is common to advance those of his nation, and to give them the greatest and most important authority in the handling of affairs; and more preferring them to honors and profits; yet he always has more love and confidence in them, and conforms more to their mores and conditions than to those of the country where he comes again. Whose ensuing desire and dissention between those of the country and the foreigners, and indignation against the princes, as we often saw by experience and see it every day. Also, coming from the successors of male to male, the heir is always certain and if is of the same blood of those who have been before. [1557: incontinent that] the other is bankrupt, even though he is in a distant degree and there are daughters of the deceased, without there being any mutation or difficulty, as we have seen at the death of King Charles VIII and King Louis XII last deceased. And how much more than at other times before, there were great questions and disputes for such occasions (which ensued [ ensuivies ] great wars, persecutions and desolations in the kingdom), but it was more on other occasions (under the color of such quarrels, still that they were known to be frivolous and ill-founded) than for reason. And if things finally come to their righteousness and are so established that there can be no dispute or difficulty with it at any time. And I understood, in describing this Monarchy, [And, to prove and maintain what I said about the perfection of the Monarchy of France, I understood, by describing this collection,] the State of France as it is now, joining the old laws, customs and observances with the new and more recent ones.

What Seyssel called “other mores” and “other way of living” is exactly what I mean by spirit. Each nation has its own way of living. France is French and Spain is Spanish. Seyssel’s writing demonstrates that there was a clear understanding of this in the 16th century, and this understanding was used to justify the Salic law in keeping France out of foreign hands.

Seyssel’s understanding is unlikely to support giving the crown to a person of Spanish habits and mores.

It should likewise come as no surprise that the Royal Almanac of 1821 has the Houses of Bourbon-Orleans and Bourbon-Conde ahead of the Spanish Bourbons.

Royal Almanac of 1821 Page 1

Royal Almanac of 1821 Page 2

A Defence of the Royalist Hand Sign

Monarchism needs branding.

Successful (even if temporarily so) movements have good branding. Just look at the Nazis. We know their brand. The swastika is universally recognised as their symbol. Likewise, the Nazi salute is the same. Chances are, I don’t have to describe it to you. You already know what a Nazi salute looks like. Even if evil, that’s good branding. Plain and simple.

Like the Nazi salute, we need something universal, something that will be (or come to be) known as a royalist/monarchist symbol.

Thus, I propose the above image. It is the sign for R in some sign language alphabets. The letter R can not only be short for royalist, but it is commonly used as an abbreviation for the Crown.

Proposed alternatives and objections

Some have objected to the symbol on the grounds that crossing one’s finger is what one does when intending to dishonour an oath.

That argument has no merit. The symbol isn’t about taking an oath. Besides, crossing one’s fingers to dishonour an oath, is usually done behind one’s back, not out and proud and in the open. The royalist symbol is intended to be seen.

It is a simple sign that monarchists can use to show themselves. Exactly the same way Neo-Nazis use their salute at their rallies.

As I said earlier, branding is what we need. Regardless of country or dynasty being supported, a universal brand is needed.

Imagine two different rallies: one in France, the other in Brazil. The French could raise their hands and do the royalist symbol and chant “Vive le Roi.” Likewise, the Brazilians can use the symbol whist chanting “Viva o Imperador.” It can be used in Russia, Romania, Georgia, wherever. It is universal.

Others have suggested an alternative: the Hand of Justice (God) or the Eid Schwur.

These are the same symbol. And it is largely a religious, Judeo-Christian symbol, so it isn’t very good at being universal, nor does it symbolise monarchism and the royalist cause quite like the letter R does.

While most of us are mainly concerned with Europe and the West, there are other monarchies or potential/former monarchies capable of being established or restored. Iran, for example. The proposed royalist symbol would work far better in Islamic Iran than the Judeo-Christian Hand of Justice.

Further, using the Hand of Justice/God would change its meaning and significance. It would become a monarchist symbol rather than a religious one. Since many of us are Christians, that is the last thing we should want. This is exactly what happened with the swastika, and it is a travesty.

Conclusion

The proposed symbol establishes a much needed brand. It also has universality.

The Dauphin is dead.

Sadly, I awoke this morning to find that H.R.H. Prince Francis, Count of Clermont, the Dauphin of France has died. He was 56.

Prince Jean is NOT the Dauphin!

There is a problematic dispute within the French Royal Family about who is the rightful Dauphin (crown prince) of France.

Prince Jean claims that he is the rightful Dauphin. His father, the Count of Paris, disagrees and says his eldest son, Francis, is the Dauphin.

Francis’s Wikipedia page, however, states that Jean is Dauphin (without citation).

But, if you go to the Count of Paris’s page, it says that Francis is heir.

The blog of the Royal Family also recognises Francis as heir, placing him right below Henri VII, Comte de Paris (scroll to the bottom of the page).

The Fundamental Laws of Succession are clear: inalienability of the crown. The king cannot regulate or change the order of succession unless there is some force majeure, something that would supersede the laws of succession (something that threatens the survival of the state, for example).

Francis has a mental disability, but this alone does not supersede the laws of succession.

For this reason, HRH the Count of Paris declared that Prince Jean would be regent for King Francis upon the death of the Count of Paris.

Edit: The problem resulting from this should be obvious. If the Count of Paris were to die before Prince Francis, it means there will be a split not just between monarchists (those who support the House of Orleans and the illegitimate Spanish Bourbons) but also within the House of Orleans itself. We legitimists will proclaim Prince Francis as the de jure Francis III, while others will proclaim Jean as king.

Orleans Redux: Who is the real Legitimist?

Prologue

While one might call me an Orleanist for the sake of simplicity, I prefer to think of my self as a legitimist. This may sound like a contradiction, but it isn’t, and the this post explains why.

What is Legitimism?

The dictionaries differ as the definition of legitimism. Oxford’s online dictionary defines legitimism as the support of a ruler based on direct descent. Google has the same definition. Webster’s, however, defines the term as “adherence to the principles of political legitimacy or to a person claiming legitimacy.” Dictionary.com uses a mixture of both.

The website Russian Legitimist defines the term as “the notion that the laws of a dynasty or a kingdom determine the identity of the rightful king.”

Let’s examine the etymology of the word to give us a clue. Legitimism, like the word legitimate, is derived from the Latin legitimus, meaning ‘lawful.’

Based on the etymology of the word, it seems that Russian Legitimist and Webster’s appear to be on to something.

It’s not to say that the other definitions are wrong, but merely incomplete, missing a crucial piece of information. That piece of information being the law.

Let’s look at the Spanish legitimist movement: Carlism. In Bourbon Spain, prior to 1830, Spain used semi-Salic law. This generally meant succession to males in the male line.

Ferdinand VII had no issue (but his wife was pregnant with the future Isabella II) in 1830 and issued the Pragmatic Sanction of 1830, which ratified a 1789 proposed change to the rules of succession, restoring the pre-Salic system used in Habsburg Spain. This meant that Isabella, born later that year, was next in line to the throne.

Infante Carlos naturally felt deprived of his rights. From his point of view, that was clearly the case. There was nothing ‘pragmatic’ about the Pragmatic Sanction. Ferdinand had a perfectly good brother ready to take the throne. After Ferdinand died in 1833, this set off the First Carlist War.

Infante Carlos, Carlist Pretender to the Throne of Spain

The Carlist cause was based not on direct descent. Based purely on direct descent, Isabella had a better claim since she was the eldest child of the previous king. The Carlist cause was in support of the traditional legal system, semi-Salic law. The Carlist question was a legal question, not one of mere descent.

Based on the etymology and the historical example of Carlism, it appears that Russian Legitimist is right. Legitimism is about law, not just descent. In other words, the laws determine the legitimate successor.

Laws of France

The laws of succession vary by country. In addition to Salic law, France developed a custom that the king must be French:

Common sense requires that princes of the blood who have become foreigners be excluded from the throne just as the male descendants of princesses. The exclusion of both is in the spirit of the fundamental custom, which overlooks the royal blood in princesses only to prevent the scepter from falling in foreign hands.

It is understood that this law became established after the Hundred Years’ War to make the English claim to the throne of France even more illegitimate. The war started when Queen Mother Isabella (the She-Wolf of France) claimed the French throne on behalf of her Son, Edward III. The claim was invalid based on Salic law, but that didn’t stop the English from invading.

Let us be clear, being foreign does not, in and of itself, make one ineligible to the throne of France. The law merely requires that one be French, regardless of other nationality, foreign titles, or holdings.

Further (ibid):

A Frenchman lost his nationality if he left France and settled abroad “sans esprit de retour” without intent of returning. Since the early 16th c. at least, French nationality was based on jus soli and jus sanguinis: it was not enough to be of French blood, one had to reside in France.

While there was never a case of a claimant denied the throne because he wasn’t French (because such a thing hasn’t happened since the 16th century), that doesn’t make it any less a law.

Further, there is only one example of a foreigner taking the throne of France since the 16th century, and that is Henri IV, who was King of Navarre. It should be noted that Henri resided in France and participated in French politics. He even ruled Navarre from France. Thus, he never gave up his French nationality.

Ineligibility of the Spanish Bourbons to the throne of France

When Philip, Duke of Anjou became King of Spain, he left France with no intention of returning. He and his successors were thus removed from the line of succession.

The Court of Blois later ruled that: “one must deem that the duc d’Anjou, in accepting the royal crown of Spain, and settling permanently in that country as an inevitable consequence of his accession to that throne, has lost the French nationality.”

Unsurprisingly, after the death of Comte de Chambord, most French legitimists supported Prince Philippe, Comte de Paris as the rightful king. This was because they understood that the Spanish Bourbons were Spanish and not French.

From the Wikipedia page of Henri, Count of Chambord

A few thoughts on the July Monarchy

It was illegitimate.

It was rubbish. Next.

Conclusion

Legitimism is the idea that the legitimate laws of the realm determine its rightful king. It is a movement based on legal traditions, not just of descent.

The traditional laws of the Kingdom of France make the Spanish Bourbons ineligible to take the throne of France.

Therefore, the rightful legitimist claimant to the throne of France is Henri d’Orleans, Comte de Paris.

Spain is Making a Mistake

It is unfortunate that so may Catalans wish to secede from Spain. As a monarchist, and a right-winger, I think it is a mistake to leave Spain. The pro-independence side appears to be heavily left-winged*.

I have no doubt that an independent Catalonia would be bad, economically speaking, for Catalans.

All that said, Spain is making a mistake. While I think people technically should have the right to self-determination, the Spanish constitution is clear: it says Spain is indivisible. So, legally speaking, there is no need for the Spanish government to crackdown on an illegal referendum.

The crackdown will only breed resentment. Chances are those who manage to issue ballots will vote in favour. With the crackdown, I find it unlikely that No voters would turn out at all. The result will be a massive ‘victory’ for the secessionist cause.

The right solution would be for the Spanish government to have done nothing. Let them have their illegal referendum. Then, if the Yes side wins, say the referendum was illegal and the constitution is clear: Spain is indivisible.

If the Catalan government issues a declaration of independence, as they’ve said they would in the event of a Yes victory, just say the declaration is illegal. If the Catalan government begins to obstruct the national government or refuses to follow national law, that’s when you arrest their leaders. That’s when you crackdown.

Edit: *The ruling party appears to be mixed at best, not entirely left-winged.

Weimar America

Sargon has an important video on the Alt-Right and Antifa (the “Alt-Left”). The video is just under twenty-nine minutes.

I agree with Sargon that Antifa and the Alt-Right are both problematic because of their collectivist, identity-driven ideologies. They are both enemies of liberalism (classical or social), as all forms of collectivism and identity politics are.

It is unfortunate that the media refuse to expose the violence of Antifa. These people are communists, anarcho-communists, and anarcho-syndicalists. These ideologies are dangerous. Not only are they willing to use violence against anyone who disagrees with them, but their types of ideology has led to the deaths of millions of people around the world.