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.


Orleans Redux: Who is the real Legitimist?




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.” 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 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.


Legitimism is the idea that the laws of 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



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.

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.

The Case for Henri d’Orleans



If you google “who is the rightful King of France,” you will undoubtedly have Louis-Alphonse de Bourbon as your first, and likely only, result. Likewise, many sites erroneously state the false “Duke of Anjou” as France’s rightful head of state.

But for people who study the issue, and for most French Royalists, the answer to the above question is not Louis-Alphonse, but Henri d’Orleans, Count of Paris.

Origin of the dispute

The origin goes back to the War of Spanish Succession. Charles II of Spain, the country’s last Habsburg ruler, died without issue. In his will, he named Philip, Duke of Anjou as his successor.

The Habsburgs, who ruled the Holy Roman Empire (i.e. most of the German states/central Europe), were naturally angered. They saw Spain as theirs, so they declared war on France and Philip’s Spain.

Britain, likewise, did not fancy the possibility of Spain and France being united behind a single monarch in the future. Thus, they declared war on France and Philip’s Spain.

This is where the Peace of Utrecht comes in. Philip V of Spain agreed to renounce his claim to the throne of France, and Louis XIV accepted the renunciation.

There is, however, one tiny hiccup: The Fundamental Laws of French succession don’t allow the King to change the order of succession. So, is Utrecht valid?

The validity of the Peace of Utrecht

Yes, Utrecht is valid.

The first duty of the King is the protection and security of the realm. Surely everyone can agree to this.

While France and Philip were winning the war, France’s estimated casualties were between 115,000 and 140,000 men, far more than any other state in the war. Was Louis XIV supposed to just say ‘screw it’ and risk the lives of more Frenchmen when the road to a perfectly amicable and desirable peace was right in front of him? Of course not! To say so would not only be lunatic but downright immoral! The cost of the war was an estimated 400,000 to 700,000 dead!

Louis XIV accepted Philip’s renunciation in a good faith attempt to protect and secure France. The War of Succession constituted a force majeure. Protecting France was a higher priority than respecting the laws of succession. Therefore, the provisions of Utrecht supersede laws of succession.

Keep in mind, this doesn’t render the Fundamental Laws null and void, but was merely a temporary adjustment because of a force majeure. Therefore, despite the change in the order of succession, the Fundamental Laws remain intact and valid.

This is why, when the last French Bourbon, the Count of Chambord, died without issue, most Royalists turned to the House of Orleans in the person of Philippe, Count of Paris. That is why today, most French Royalists support Philippe’s descendant–Henri d’Orleans, Count of Paris–as the rightful King of France.

Don Louis’s disqualifications

With Philip V of Spain’s renunciation being valid, Philip’s descendants lost all rights to the French throne. That should go without question. Therefore, Louis-Alphonse is simply not in the line of succession to the French Throne.

Furthermore, the Spanish Bourbons are not French. They stopped being French the moment Philip V’s renunciation was accepted and the Peace of Utrecht was entered into the National Register of France.

A foreigner cannot become King of France. This has been a rule since at least the 16th century:

Charles Dumoulin, the greatest French jurist of the 16th c., wrote in his Coutumes de Paris (1576 edition): “Le bon sens exige que les princes du sang, devenus étrangers soient écartés du trône au même titre que les descendants mâles des princesses. L’exclusion des uns et des autres est dans l’esprit de la coutume fondamentale qui ne méconnaît le sang royal dans les princesses que pour ne jamais laisser le sceptre aux étrangers.” (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. Note: this is the text cited by Coutant de Saisseval La Légitimité monarchique, but I have been so far unable to locate the source of this citation.)

Louis-Alphonse is not a French prince. He is, first and foremost, a Spaniard. Further, the Spanish Bourbons left France with no intention of returning. Therefore, according to the laws of France at the time, they would have likewise been considered foreigners even if the Peace of Utrecht were considered invalid.

While it is true that Louis-Alphonse has French citizenship through his grandmother, this does not magically restore him to the line of succession to the French throne. Because of Salic law (the main purpose of which was to keep foreigners from ruling France), only the male line is used to determine succession. And even if Salic law weren’t used, the Spanish Bourbons had already been removed from the line of succession because of their foreignness prior to their marriage to a French woman.

Therefore, once again, the Royal House of France is the House of Orleans, and the heir if the Bourbon Monarchy survives in the person Henri d’Orleans, Comte de Paris.

ADL and other left-wing Lie Groups


Surprise, surprise. The the worthless subhuman scum at the ADL have called the so-called “alt-lite” a “hate movement.”

Much like the SPLC, the ADL is a worthless, radical leftist organisation that calls all opposition “hate groups” as a way to poison the well and spread their agenda.

The ADL previously labelled Pepe the Frog as a “hate symbol.”

And the SPLC have associated Kekistan — a parody of identity politics — with white nationalism.

It doesn’t matter to the SPLC that Kekistan is a satire of the identity politics that the left and the alt-right love so much. No, in the minds of these idiots, everyone who isn’t a radical leftist is “alt-right.”

Just look at how they lie:

The banner’s design, in fact, perfectly mimics a German Nazi war flag, with the Kek logo replacing the swastika and the green replacing the infamous German red. Alt-righters are particularly fond of the way the banner trolls liberals who recognize its origins.

In recent weeks, alt-right marchers at public events planned to create violent scenes with leftist antifacist counterprotesters have appeared carrying Kekistan banners. Others have worn patches adorned with the Kek logo.