Monarchy Forum
Register Latest Topics
 
 
 


Reply
  Author   Comment   Page 4 of 6      Prev   1   2   3   4   5   6   Next
Ethiomonarchist

Avatar / Picture

Registered:
Posts: 5,090
Reply with quote  #46 
Peter

I am very sorry to hear about your medical issues.  I hope you make a quick and full recovery.

Contra Terrentum EQR

In reading your posts in this thread I've become quite curious about your stand on the throne of France.  You've made it clear that you reject the Count of Paris as heir to France, yet you also pointedly infer that you do not believe His Majesty King Felipe VI and his father (or any of the Isabelline royals of Spain) are really Bourbons at all, which would thus exclude Don Luis Alfonso (claimed Duc D'Anjou) from the French throne as well.  If the Isabelline royals of Spain are not Bourbons, then wouldn't the Count of Paris with his unquiestionably Bourbon blood be the rightful heir to France after all?  If not, who do you regard as the rightful heir to France since the Carlist line and the elder French line are extinct?

__________________
The Lion of Judah hath prevailed.

Ethiopia stretches her hands unto God (Quote from Psalm 68 which served as the Imperial Motto of the Ethiopian Empire)

"God and history shall remember your judgment." (Quote from Emperor Haile Selassie I's speech to the League of Nations to plead for assistance against the Italian Invasion, 1936.)
royalcello

Avatar / Picture

Moderator
Registered:
Posts: 6,787
Reply with quote  #47 
Sorry to hear that Peter! Hope you feel better as soon as possible.

Solomon, I was going to ask CTEQR the same thing, but you beat me to it. I don't understand how one can reject Felipe VI but affirm "Louis XX." (In order to allow Contra to answer I will temporarily lift the prohibition against disputing the legitimacy of currently reigning monarchs for this thread only.)
ContraTerrentumEQR

Avatar / Picture

Registered:
Posts: 1,026
Reply with quote  #48 
Quote:
Originally Posted by Ethiomonarchist
You've made it clear that you reject the Count of Paris as heir to France, yet you also pointedly infer that you do not believe His Majesty King Felipe VI and his father (or any of the Isabelline royals of Spain) are really Bourbons at all, which would thus exclude Don Luis Alfonso (claimed Duc D'Anjou) from the French throne as well.


Indeed.  I do not believe that they are Bourbons through patrilineal descent, due to the well-known and quite public infidelities of Isabella II (called "Isabella the Whore" to this day by many Carlists).  Scarcely anybody believes that Alfonso XII was the son of Francisco de Asís -- nor did people disagree at the time.  

The immediate counterargument is that biological paternity does not matter -- legal paternity does, and Francisco de Asís recognised Alfonso as his son.  But, considering that he was trying to maintain a usurpatory government, one can easily cancel that argument out by pointing out the obvious conflict of interest and the extreme legal irregularity of the claim given the political circumstances.  That is a definitive argument, I think.  If somebody were to take control from those currently reigning (or, say, Franco chose somebody else), the only thing their case would have to stand on was the recognition of Francisco de Asís, which is belied by the irregular circumstances that make a mockery of that claims legal purchase and stability.

Now, the other problem is the paternity of Francisco de Paula, who was apparently considered to have an indecent resemblance to his mother's alleged lover.  In fact, that, too, was something of an open secret.  The consensus of Spanish and French sources are that Francisco de Paula was almost certainly not the son of Carlos IV.  And his paternity is belied by the circumstances of the French Revolution and the possibility of the throne being overturned.

I believe in the blood royal.  I think that it takes precedence over claims of legal paternity, since those are almost always certainly done to cover up a heinous crime against the integrity of the throne or protect a person who is endangers it.

As such, the true King of France is and always will be the Eldest of the Capetians.  There are three possible candidates, in my mind :

First, if both Francisco de Asís and Francisco de Paula were conceived in adultery and were not Bourbon men, which seems likely, then Carlos, Count of Caserta is the King of France (assuming the Lost Dauphin did not die and had legitimate issue).  Pedro, Duke de Noto would thus be the Dauphin.

Second, some male descendant of the Lost Dauphin (if he survived, had issue, etc.).

Third, if Francisco de Paula was the true son of Carlos IV, then Francisco de Borbón y Escasany, Duke of Seville.


Quote:
If the Isabelline royals of Spain are not Bourbons, then wouldn't the Count of Paris with his unquiestionably Bourbon blood be the rightful heir to France after all?  If not, who do you regard as the rightful heir to France since the Carlist line and the elder French line are extinct?


Oh, there are plenty of legitimate Bourbons descending from Felipe V before we get to the House of Orléans.  If the Lost Dauphin survived and etc., of course his descendants would be the King, being descendants of Louis XV.  If not, there are still some fifty or so members of the Bourbon-Two Sicilies and Bourbon-Parma branches that precede the House of Orléans.

__________________

PAX CHRISTI IN REGNO CHRISTI

Ethiomonarchist

Avatar / Picture

Registered:
Posts: 5,090
Reply with quote  #49 
Thank you CTEQR for your thorough explanation.  I certainly don't agree with you about who the King of France should be, but I understand your arguments. 
__________________
The Lion of Judah hath prevailed.

Ethiopia stretches her hands unto God (Quote from Psalm 68 which served as the Imperial Motto of the Ethiopian Empire)

"God and history shall remember your judgment." (Quote from Emperor Haile Selassie I's speech to the League of Nations to plead for assistance against the Italian Invasion, 1936.)
Wessexman

Registered:
Posts: 1,037
Reply with quote  #50 
CTEQR,

I too agree that hereditary right is important. It establishes stability and continuity, amongst other things. But are not prescription, use, and incumbency also important? Now, there is no hard and fast rule for determining when the incumbency of line on the throne establishes its right over those who might have a more strict hereditary right. But surely there does become a time where the possession of the throne in a particular line of succession gives that line preference, even over better hereditary claims.

I would for this on the grounds of stability and good governance. But I would also suggest that such a view, whilst it defends the importance of hereditary succession, and certainly doesn't imply a democratic view of the relationship of the monarch to the nation and people, does imply an organic relationship and unity between King and country, whereas absolute hereditary principle seems to imply the ownership of the nation by the monarchy, which is not the proper relationship in my view.

Personally, whilst I am a Jacobite as far as 1689-1760  goes (though, except perhaps for Dutch William, I don't actively denigrate the titles of the de facto British rulers in this period - I still would refer to Queen Anne or George II, for example), but I don't recognise Franz, Duke of Bavaria as King now, and wouldn't even if he claimed the throne. Indeed, the descendants of George, Duke of Clarence, brother of Edward IV, would, if absolute hereditary right were observed above all else, seem to have an even greater claim than Franz. But I would not support them over her majesty, despite my Yorkist sympathies and general dislike of the Tudors. Perhaps, even, there are descendants of the House of Cerdic, aside those in one of the lines already mentioned, who have an even better claim than these other lines. And, like most Englishmen (who pay it and history in general any heed), whatever my feelings about later monarchs descended from the Normans, I consider Hastings a black day for the nation, but I would still support her majesty nonetheless.

Also, would not your view imply a position similar to Filmer's? That Kingship descends from the father to son right back to the beginnings of the race?

I suppose the issue of the French line is different. France being a republic, it could be argued that some of these issues can be revisited more freely.
royalcello

Avatar / Picture

Moderator
Registered:
Posts: 6,787
Reply with quote  #51 
I am quite sure that Louis XVII (1785-1795) did not survive. I knelt at his heart in St Denis on Saturday.
Peter

Moderator
Registered:
Posts: 6,726
Reply with quote  #52 

I agree with some but by no means all of Wessexman’s arguments. It is better of course if the sovereign is inarguable heir of preceding sovereigns, by lineage and law alike. However, if a sovereign’s rule is so tyrannical and lawless or incompetent as to be unconscionable, I believe it is not unlawful to overthrow them in favour of some other person of the royal lineage. Certainly in England this became established from earliest times, and on these grounds I believe that the depositions of Edward II, Richard II, Henry VI and James II and VII and the overthrow of Richard III were just and right, though not those of Edward V and Charles I.

It is also a principle of English law, already ancient by the time of the Glorious Revolution, that disposition of the succession is ultimately in the hands of Parliament. So I regard William III and II and Mary II, Anne and Georges I and II as being lawful sovereigns just as much as all their successors, their claim resting on the authority of Parliament and the assent of the people rather than either Papal approval or some earlier tracing of blood.  William III and II was not the most attractive of personalities (though neither was James II and VII, coward, hypocrite, would-be tyrant and habitual liar and oathbreaker), but was I believe unlike his uncle/father-in-law a capable and effective ruler who governed within the law, and that is what counts.

I discount entirely the self-serving lies of Clarence and Gloucester regarding the paternity of their brother Edward IV and the legitimacy of his children, and do not regard the theoretical claim of Clarence’s heir of line (currently the 15th Earl of Loudoun, an Australian citizen) as having any merit whatsoever. There are incidentally people who regard the accession in England of James I and VI as invalid, and all his heirs whether by lineage or law as usurpers. This is on the grounds that his accession violated the then current succession law. As a matter of fact it did, but for me his proclamation by Parliament and acceptance by the people overturned that.

In any case I, like Wessexman, regard even an inarguable usurpation as being validated by the mere passage of time; for example, that of William I. And I go further and do not consider usurpation to be in itself sufficient grounds for a succession war; only wicked and tyrannical or blatantly incompetent rule can justify that.

As I believe in the primacy of law, though I am willing to be pragmatic about it, I regard Isabel II and her successors as Spain’s lawful sovereigns. The law re-establishing male-preference primogeniture passed by the Cortes and signed by Carlos IV, then promulgated late in the reign of his son Fernando VII, on promulgation was the law so far as I am concerned, and though I understand Don Carlos’s disappointed hopes I do not condone his rebellion against his lawful sovereign and niece, still less the cycle of bloodshed he began (and I also happen to think that had Don Carlos triumphed the Spanish monarchy would no more be around today than the French one is).

Since I regard Isabel II as validly Queen I do indeed view the acknowledgement of paternity as sufficient to make Alfonso XII and his successors her legitimate heirs. As for his biological paternity, while I admit there are grounds for doubting it there is no direct evidence that his biological as well as legal father was anyone other than his mother’s consort Infante Francisco de Asis, and this is the view that I take in my charts and personally.

When succession is Salic or semi-Salic I can see why people would take a sterner view of dubious paternity, since it is paternity alone that generally speaking determines the right to succeed. In this connection I will mention that there seems to be at least a partial consensus among historians today that accusations against the fidelity of Queen Maria Luisa arose from unfounded and malicious contemporary gossip. She was unpopular because of the leading role she played in government, her husband Carlos IV being both unfitted by nature and disinclined to direct affairs, but there is no actual evidence that she was anything but a faithful wife or that she had affairs with Godoy or anyone else. And going by portraits I would say that the resemblance between Infante Francisco de Paula and Godoy was zip, and his resemblance to Carlos IV considerable.

However that may be, I regard the lines of Spain (including the Seville cadet branch and senior future Franco branch), the Sicilies and Parma as excluded by the law of France, which unlike that of Spain has never changed since the implementation of the Treaties of Utrecht, from the succession to its currently dormant throne. I therefore view the comte de Paris and whichever Prince Napoléon you favour (the father in my case, though I have nothing against the son) as the only lawful pretenders, naturally preferring the far more ancient claim to the kingdom(s) over that to the empire.

I’m sure I’ve overlooked responding to something but that will do for now, except to thank everyone again for the kind wishes and offered prayers. I learned today that I will be reassessed for surgery on July 8th and depending on a favourable outcome, i.e. that I have recovered sufficient health and that there is no significant benefit in waiting for further natural healing, should be operated on shortly thereafter. I can’t wait, which may sound strange but this one-handed business rapidly got and remains old. I am though with assistance coping OK, and continuing to recover day by day.

DutchMonarchist

Registered:
Posts: 831
Reply with quote  #53 
Great to hear you are improving Peter! 

I would say that if only the bloodline counts and not legal parenthood you open a monarchy up to all kinds of gossip on infidelity. You can never be 100% sure about that issue, unlike legal parenthood, so if it is the only principle I think it weakens the monarchy. 
KYMonarchist

Avatar / Picture

Registered:
Posts: 1,368
Reply with quote  #54 
And then there's that whole "undetected adultery" problem in genealogy to get around. We saw a rather unexpected example of this when they proved Richard III's bones were his. And found undetected adultery in the bloodline![eek]
Peter

Moderator
Registered:
Posts: 6,726
Reply with quote  #55 
I think it is perfectly reasonable to regard the remains reposing in Leicester Cathedral as those of Richard III, but I do not feel that the identification has been proven beyond doubt. The discrepancy you refer to is between a Y chromosome taken from a current member of the Somerset family, agnatically Plantagenets according to their recorded lineage, and one taken from the remains before interment. As the Y chromosome does not recombine and is passed unchanged down the generations, subject to mutations which can be allowed for, the two Y chromosomes should have matched. They didn't, for which there are three possible explanations:

1) The remains are not after all those of Richard III
2) A non-paternity event in the Somerset lineage
3) A non-paternity event in Richard III's lineage

All three are possible, but due to there being so many more generations involved I would have to say, with all due respect to the Somersets, that 2) looks the most likely. The only way to get a definitive answer would be to exhume and test contemporary royal remains. Since the probability of permission being granted for this varies between no chance at all and no chance at all ever, we will never know.
royalcello

Avatar / Picture

Moderator
Registered:
Posts: 6,787
Reply with quote  #56 
Quite apart from my strong disagreement with his stances on the present British and Spanish monarchies, the main problem with CTEQR's position on France seems to me to be that there is no way of ever being sure who the rightful King of France is. No doubt he believes that Providence will make it clear someday, but historically that is not how monarchy has worked.
Queenslander

Avatar / Picture

Registered:
Posts: 591
Reply with quote  #57 
In answer to the main question: the events and activity of the past few weeks have proven that the forum is most emphatically NOT dying.

Peter, as one who over the past half decade has not had a good run of health (cysts removed, teeth mending a blood disorder detected and minor heart failure to name a few things to go wrong), I sympathise with your predicament and will encourage you to get as well as you are able to and my thoughts are with you at this time. You are a most valued person on this site and I enjoy your input and first-class scholarship (particularly in the area of Dynastic relations) enormously.

On a personal note, speaking of scholarship; I have recently obtained my first proper post nominals as I have completed a Diploma in Management, and look forward to the opportunities this learning will provide me.

__________________
Yours Sincerely Queenslander
Wessexman

Registered:
Posts: 1,037
Reply with quote  #58 
Sorry, I always forget that Henry Tudor married Edward IV's daughter. I didn't mean to actually cast aspersions on Edward IV. I accept he was probably legitimate and married legitimately, and that certainly the former doesn't matter anyway, as his father accepted him. So, yes, the descendants of Clarence do not have a superior claim. 
Peter

Moderator
Registered:
Posts: 6,726
Reply with quote  #59 

O! now, let Richmond and Elizabeth,                                                     

The true succeeders of each royal house,                                                 

By God’s fair ordinance conjoin together;                                               

And let their heirs—God, if thy will be so,—                                          

Enrich the time to come with smooth-fac’d peace,                                  

With smiling plenty, and fair prosperous days!                                        

Abate the edge of traitors, gracious Lord,                                                

That would reduce these bloody days again,                                            

And make poor England weep in streams of blood!                                 

Let them not live to taste this land’s increase,

That would with treason wound this fair land’s peace!                            

Now civil wounds are stopp’d, peace lives again:                                     

That she may long live here, God say amen!                                            

jovan66102

Avatar / Picture

Registered:
Posts: 2,530
Reply with quote  #60 
Just a thought apropos to the OP. I quit participating in this forum because of one person. I can handle Peter. I don't appreciate his gratuitous attacks on my Faith, but at least I understand where he's coming from. I could handle the Baron's attacks on early Jacobitism, his, Peter's and Ethio's attacks on French Legitimism, in favour of the Freemasonic, Revolutionary, anti-traditional Orleans. What I can't handle, and what drove me away from the forum, is KYM's constant left wing nitpicking, his almost insane insistence on HIS point of view as the only acceptable one, and (at least in the past) his attempt at using his Asperger's as an excuse for his idiocy. As I told him several times, I raised a son with Asperger's and I ain't buying his horse hockey!

His essentially calling for the banning of a member early in this thread because said member had the temerity (GASP!!!) to disagree with KYM's 'orthodoxy' is a good example.

I shall remain a member, I shall check in occasionally, but I cannot envision becoming active again as long as KYM is a member.

__________________
'Monarchy can easily be ‘debunked;' but watch the faces, mark the accents of the debunkers. These are the men whose tap-root in Eden has been cut: whom no rumour of the polyphony, the dance, can reach - men to whom pebbles laid in a row are more beautiful than an arch. Yet even if they desire equality, they cannot reach it. Where men are forbidden to honour a king they honour millionaires, athletes or film-stars instead: even famous prostitutes or gangsters. For spiritual nature, like bodily nature, will be served; deny it food and it will gobble poison.' C.S. Lewis God save Her Majesty Elizabeth the Second, by the Grace of God of the United Kingdom, Canada and Her other Realms and Territories Queen, Head of the Commonwealth, Defender of the Faith, etc.! Vive le Très haut, très puissant et très excellent Prince, Louis XX, Par la grâce de Dieu, Roi de France et de Navarre, Roi Très-chrétien!
Previous Topic | Next Topic
Print
Reply

Quick Navigation:

Easily create a Forum Website with Website Toolbox.