A Defence of the Royalist Hand Sign


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.


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


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.” 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.

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 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.