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.

Advertisements

Spain is Making a Mistake

Standard

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

Standard

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

Standard

henri7

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

Standard

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.

Monarchy and the Modern World

Standard

Anyone who is an astute observer of the internet can see the growth of a minority political opinion: monarchy.

Many will question why it has grown, but I think the answer is simple: people don’t like the present system. They are fed up with the false promises of modernity. This has led to some to revolt completely. Some even reject all elements of democracy and go about as far right as they possibly can.

I, however, am not one of them. While I certainly agree that democracy is not the god that many on the left view it to be (so long as that democracy accepts their conclusions), I think a democratic element within the governing apparatus is necessary.

Aristotle believed that the best government was a constitutional government, i.e. a mixture of oligarchy and democracy. I have to agree. Too often democracy is viewed as a sacred cow by the left and even the right.

Democracy is an important element, don’t get me wrong. I like to think of it as a pressure valve. It is a way of placating the masses, lest they revolt against the public order. However, democracy must be checked, lest it destroy the nation.

Undemocratic Democracy

But how democratic are our democracies? Are they democratic in the right ways?

The answer, in my eyes, is a definite no. Most countries, particularly the United States, uses first-past-the-post or plurality voting. This leads to a two-party system that has left many disillusioned and angry (I am one of them).

People feel as if their voices aren’t heard and their concerns aren’t addressed, and they’re absolutely right. There’s no real need for the politicians to address the concerns of the people because the plurality voting system allows politicians to win elections without even getting a majority of the votes.

In fact, the majority can even vote for everyone other Person A and Person A could still win the election. Let’s say that Person A receives 33.4% of the vote while Persons B and C receive 33.2% each. Despite 66% voting against him, Person A wins. That isn’t democratic.

A proportional representation system is far superior, but even in the countries that uses such systems, they find a way to make people feel as if their voice doesn’t count.

Take Germany. While they use a mixed-member proportional system, they have draconian laws against so-called “hate speech.” And we all know what that really is: speech the political class doesn’t like. Dare to criticise Islam—hate speech. Think immigration policy is too loose—hate speech. Think immigrants should assimilate into society—hate speech.

Unfortunately, there is no one-size-fits-all solution to these problems. Countries are different. They have different cultures and different values. But there are solutions.

1. Constitutional (Hereditary) Monarchy

While many countries are constitutional monarchies, very few, if any, do it right. The closest to doing it right are probably Lichtenstein and Monaco.

The problem with most constitutional monarchies is that the monarch has too little power. Don’t get me wrong, I don’t think the monarch should run the country or decide day-to-day policy, but the monarch is there for a reason—to ensure good governance. The monarch should be a check against the power of politicians.

A monarch, however, cannot be a real check on government abuse if he is powerless. At the very least, the monarch should have the de facto and de jure power to veto laws (though this is something that should be rarely done), grant titles of nobility, award honours, and do the traditional things a monarch does.

But a person may rebut: Couldn’t an elected head of state do these things?

As far as veto laws and be the fount of honour, yes. But an elected head of state is still a politician and, thus, cannot be a check against the political class running amok because he is of the political class.

2. A Proper Legislature

During American constitutional convention, many were afraid of a too powerful federal government, and history has shown that these concerns were well-founded and justified. To curb these fears, Congress consisted of two chambers, the House of Representatives and the Senate. The House is elected by the people, and the Senate was originally elected by the state legislatures to prevent the federal government from ignoring the needs of the individual states.

But then came the 17th amendment, which mandated the popular election of US Senators. This severed the tie between the state governments and the Congress. No longer did the state governments have say over one half of the Congress. Now the Congress can bully, bribe, and extort states to do the bidding of an ever-growing federal government.

For a large country, history is clear: a portion of the legislature must answer to more local governments, lest the central government grow too powerful.

This is important for the sake of individual freedom. If one finds the laws of the city too burdensome, it is easier to leave the city than the county. Likewise, it is easier to leave the county that to leave the state, and it is easier to leave the state than it is to leave the country. But the farther one must one must go to leave a regulation, the more difficult it is. National laws, therefore, are more restrictive than state laws, state laws are less restrictive than county laws, county laws are less restrictive than city laws, and city laws are the least restrictive.

Therefore, a portion of the legislature must be selected by the people (preferably by a proportional method), while another should be selected more local governments to prevent the national government from growing too powerful.

And while I’m on the topic of legislatures, I think it is important to have a small minority of legislators who represent a special class—the scientists, philosophers, and other persons of merit. Too often are these people ignored.

3. Aristocracy

The original meaning of the word aristocracy was rule of the best. Today, however, it refers to nobility or sometimes people of wealth and social standing.

While I don’t think aristocrats should rule, they are an important part of society. Every society has a de facto nobility. Only by having a de jure system of nobility, may the aristocracy be regulated.

For some reason, people have rejected aristocracy in favour of super-egalitarianism. This was a mistake. While I don’t think nobles should have special legal privileges, it is important to recognise people of merit. And what better way to reward someone of merit than with a title of nobility? This is why the United Kingdom grant peerages to certain people in the arts and sciences, or anyone else who shows some form of merit.

A de jure system of nobility can also be used to hold aristocrats to a higher standard of ethics and virtue. Depending on the system in question, nobles would be attainted for committing high crimes or treason. In other words, their titles could be revoked.

4. Checks and Balances Between the Monarchy and the Legislature

Just as a judiciary should check the legislature, the must be a check between the monarchy and the legislature.

I recommend a body selected by professional organisations of scientists, engineers, businessmen, etc. For lack of a better term, I will call this group the Council of State. They would serve as a privy council and advise the monarch on various matters.

For example, the Council of State could recommend the veto of a bill passed by the legislature, and only the Council of State could overturn the monarch’s veto. This prevents the monarchy from abusing power and backs up the monarch when he needs to veto a bill that isn’t in the best interests of the nation.

5. Executive Power

The downside to the parliamentary system is that the chief executive, the person who executes the laws, is a “creature of the legislature,” as the late Supreme Court Justice Antonin Scalia put it. This means that the prime minister, chancellor, or whoever is determined exclusively by the legislature.

This is the one benefit the presidential system has over parliamentary system. This creates gridlock, preventing the chief executive, controlled by the legislature, from mandating its will upon the nation.

Obviously, a presidential system isn’t exactly consistent with a constitutional monarchy. This is why a recommend a semi-parliamentary system. In other words, the executive is elected by the people, separately from legislature.

Conclusion

It seems obvious to me, and I hope to many, that the problem with the modern world is one of dysfunctional thinking about government and what the governing structure should be. People are more concerned about the things they want than how the government should function. They care too much about the minutiae of mundane public policy while ignoring the constitutional structure of the government itself.

They worship false idols like democracy and irrational reject good things like aristocracy and monarchy because they seem antediluvian. It’s a pure emotional reaction reject these things outright without giving them serious consideration.

My challenge to everyone is to consider all the things I’ve brought up, to question what the governing structure should be. Only by asking these questions, the fundamental questions about government itself, can we even begin to fix the problems which plague the modern world. It just might be that the problem with the modern world is that it tries to be modern, everything else be damned.

#CNNBlackmail – The Assault Continues

Standard

Fake News Network CNN have continued their assault against sanity and the American President. This time, however, the casualty is a Reddit user known only as HanAssholeSolo.

CNN have blackmailed the Reddit user by threatening to dox him:

CNN is not publishing “HanA**holeSolo’s” name because he is a private citizen who has issued an extensive statement of apology, showed his remorse by saying he has taken down all his offending posts, and because he said he is not going to repeat this ugly behavior on social media again. In addition, he said his statement could serve as an example to others not to do the same.

CNN reserves the right to publish his identity should any of that change. [emphasis added]

CNN have tried to claim they did’t blackmail the Reddit user, but many aren’t buying it:

A plain reading of CNN’s article, however, contradicts what the network and Kaczynski are saying. If CNN really intended to withhold HanAssholeSolo’s information regardless of what he did, then why didn’t the news organization say it was withholding his private information simply because he’s a private citizen? Why did it go on to add all the conditions about his behavior? And why did it say it could release the private information with an explicit condition tied to his behavior?

Personally, if I reported this story, it would have been pretty straightforward: “CNN is not publishing ‘HanAssholeSolo’s’ name because he is a private citizen.” Period. The rest of the information in that paragraph is unnecessary, because a media organization simply shouldn’t release a private citizen’s personal information. He shouldn’t have his private information threatened just because the president picked up one of his Reddit shitposts, which he made with the expectation that he would be kept anonymous. (Though it is a truly bizarre turn of events that it’s even possible to write this sentence.)

This comes after and undercover research by Project Veritas shows the Russia-Trump collusion story to be fake news.