De Jure Succession to the Throne of France

Standard

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)

Advertisements

Arrêt Le Maistre: The French Question

Standard

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

A Defence of the Royalist Hand Sign

Standard

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.

hand of justice

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.

Prince Jean is NOT the Dauphin!

Standard

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?

Standard

Grand_Royal_Coat_of_Arms_of_France

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_don_Carlos,_by_Vicente_Lopez

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.

legitimist division

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.

Don’t Trust the LGBTLMNOPQR;XYZ Community

Standard

dont-trust-lgbt

It should be obvious to anyone who’s ‘red pilled,’ but sadly, many simply aren’t. There are plenty of gay kids growing up now who might find themselves indoctrinated with the insane ideology of the new left. Whether it’s called feminism, social justice, social constructionism (they oppose the scientific method), whatever — is immaterial. It’s all cancer. For simplicity, I’ll just call them SJWs.

We’ve seen it time and again: the SJW assault against masculinity. Paradoxically this happens in the gay community all the time. It may seem counter-intuitive that I call it paradoxical, but it is. Gay men tend to — or used to — worship masculinity.

For many, the ideal man was something akin to a Greco-Roman statue, someone who looks like an Apollo. The person is fit and is masculine with muscle-tone. They embody the ideal form of ‘maleness.’

While there have always been gay men who dress up as women, i.e. drag queens, it is only with the rise of the SJW ideology that we see the paradoxical hatred of men and masculinity. The left rambles on about ‘toxic masculinity,’ many say that gender doesn’t exist, or that it’s merely a ‘social construct.’

The goal should be obvious: to confuse boys and ultimately destroy maleness. It’s no wonder we see the rise of so-called ‘transgender’ children or children who are ‘gender creative’ or ‘gender fluid.’ It’s all to destroy maleness. These boys are told or coerced into wearing girl’s clothes. Sometimes they are given puberty blockers or other drugs to help them transition into whatever monstrosity the SJW parent has in mind.

All of this goes on and is cheered by the mainstream gay community. They do this while still worshipping the male form. They will oodle over images of hot, straight celebrities. But at the same time, they will demand that these celebrities toe the line. They have to condemn masculinity. They must sacrifice their maleness to the feminist god and spew the leftist nonsense or be blacklisted. Dare to disagree and you’re a bigot of some kind, a ‘transphobe,’ ‘homophobe,’ ‘Cissexist,’ etc. SJWs have become clever with their buzzword ad hominems.

This past year I found a gay Youtuber whose videos I generally enjoy. I don’t want to name names or identify this person. The man is masculine, to say the least. He looks like the all-American boy. He works out, has a Southern accent, wears cowboy boots. He is definitely a masculine male.

I have to give him credit for not swallowing the SJW creed in its entirety. Ironically, he has put the word masculinity in quotes, despite being one of the most masculine gay men I’ve ever seen on the web. He implies in more than one video that masculinity doesn’t really exist. This is clearly nonsense. We all know masculinity when we see it. Maleness is something largely driven by biology. It is engrained in human nature, just like femininity.

This isn’t the only disturbing thing to come out of the gay community. The most SJW-minded support something known as polyamory. It’s really just code for being promiscuous. It’s a degenerate lifestyle where one becomes a slave to one’s sexual appetites. It’s the kind of thing the classical philosophers would have staunchly opposed because it encourages vice at the direct expense of virtue, true happiness, and health.

Further, the SJWs demand that this degenerate lifestyle not only be tolerated but totally accepted as equally legitimate as (or even superior to) traditional monogamy. They demand that insurance companies cover PrEP, a drug to help prevent HIV. In other words, they demand the rest of the insurance pool subsidise their risky lifestyle. Anything else is simply ‘homophobic.’

The gay (now LGBT[insert the rest of the alphabet]) agenda is no longer about equal rights. It’s no longer about the struggle to not be beaten up. It’s no longer about the right to marry. No, it’s about control and domination. The gay agenda has been hijacked by radical leftists who wish to impose their agenda on everyone, by force.

This is why they oppose free speech. This is why the Big-LGBT lobby demanded that Canada change its laws to make it illegal to ‘misgender’ someone, i.e. not use the right pronouns — including made-up gender neutral pronouns. A similar bill has been proposed in California to apply to nursing homes.

The radical leftist agenda of the Big-LGBT lobby is not your friend. Do not support them. Do not give them money. Speak out against them whenever you can. Refuse to be silent. Do not cower to them. Cower, and they win. Be silent, and they win.