Monarchy Forum
Sign up Latest Topics
 
 
 


Reply
  Author   Comment   Page 4 of 4      Prev   1   2   3   4
royalcello

Avatar / Picture

Moderator
Registered:
Posts: 6,830
Reply with quote  #46 
Quote:
Originally Posted by jkelleher




I do not believe in hereditary guilt.  The Fifth Republic does not "inherit" the taint of regicide from the First any more than the latter-day House of Orleans inherits such a stain from its own ancestor. 


This analogy does not work, because while members of the House of Bourbon-Orleans have explicitly distanced themselves from the despicable actions of their ancestor, the Fifth Republic openly and officially celebrates the events that led to the creation of the First and shares its rhetoric and symbols.  No, it doesn't go around slaughtering nobles and royalists, but it (inevitably) chooses to identify itself with the Revolution and is therefore rightly hated by opponents of that Revolution.  Just as the current republican government of Germany (not that I recognize its legitimacy either) would never dream of identifying itself with the Third Reich, it ought to be just as unacceptable to praise or celebrate the French Revolution.  That said, there is nothing the French Republic could do to earn my approval other than dissolve itself in favour of the monarchy, whether it's Henri VII or Louis XX.  Nothing else is acceptable and nothing else ever will be.  I oppose not only this French Republic but any French Republic and always will.
DavidV

Registered:
Posts: 5,100
Reply with quote  #47 
Quote:
Originally Posted by royalcello
Quote:
Originally Posted by jkelleher




I do not believe in hereditary guilt.  The Fifth Republic does not "inherit" the taint of regicide from the First any more than the latter-day House of Orleans inherits such a stain from its own ancestor. 


This analogy does not work, because while members of the House of Bourbon-Orleans have explicitly distanced themselves from the despicable actions of their ancestor, the Fifth Republic openly and officially celebrates the events that led to the creation of the First and shares its rhetoric and symbols.  No, it doesn't go around slaughtering nobles and royalists, but it (inevitably) chooses to identify itself with the Revolution and is therefore rightly hated by opponents of that Revolution.  Just as the current republican government of Germany (not that I recognize its legitimacy either) would never dream of identifying itself with the Third Reich, it ought to be just as unacceptable to praise or celebrate the French Revolution.  That said, there is nothing the French Republic could do to earn my approval other than dissolve itself in favour of the monarchy, whether it's Henri VII or Louis XX.  Nothing else is acceptable and nothing else ever will be.


You've got a good point there. Gerald Warner put it well in his 2008 piece about Bastille Day. It's also why I have a good deal of disdain (as decent people should) for the present "Communist" regime in China which, despite having abandoned orthodox Marxism, still officially celebrates Mao and has his portraits on banknotes. It's why the Putin regime in Russia is similarly distasteful because it has not explicitly repudiated the Soviet legacy and still adheres to a dishonest view of history, while Eastern Europenan nations that had Communism imposed on them explicitly repudiated it.

Interestingly, when the Third Republic fell in 1940, many people who weren't even royalists at all actually cheered its collapse...
Peter

Moderator
Registered:
Posts: 7,534
Reply with quote  #48 
John has contacted me, in a very friendly way (well, he did call me a cabbage, but he did it in French so that's alright), to say that he has not vacated the field. He has just been too busy to write a considered reply, but expects to be able to do so within the next few days. So, there are battles yet to fight in this rekindled War of the French Succession, or Hundred Threads War as it is otherwise known. I await the event with mingled trepidation and interest.
Peter

Moderator
Registered:
Posts: 7,534
Reply with quote  #49 
Royalcello's latest blog post inks to an old (1985) article on French monarchism. He points out certain genealogical errors in it, but does not refer to its interesting suggestion that Hugh Capet was the first King of France. His title was actually King of the Franks, but as there is historical continuity this can be treated as interchangeable with King of France, and I won't quibble about that. I think though that Hugh Capet himself would be startled at the suggestion of his having founded the then already ancient French monarchy, as would his grandfather Robert I, and his 5x great-grandfather (possibly, depending upon the identity of the maternal grandmother of Henry the Fowler) Charlemagne. Clovis I, living five hundred years before the election of Hugh Capet, might perhaps have also taken some umbrage, and even he is not necesarilly counted as the first.

What Hugh Capet did do was begin the process by which the succession to France became for eight centuries bound to his line, with only two attempts to break it in all that time, both eventually unsuccessful. But not only was he not the first King of France, or the Franks, he was not even the first of his particular family, but the third. I am not sure either where the article gets its figure of 40 Kings of France from. I count 36 Capetians, 37 if you count Louis Philippe, 39 if you throw in the titular Louis XIX and Henri V. That's close enough to 40, but what about the 12 Carolingians, two Robertians, one Bosonid and 15 or so Merovingians (depending on which ones you count as kings of all France rather than a part of it) that came before? All this of course relates to the more recent of my super-long earlier replies on the thread, and forms an important part of my argument.
Peter

Moderator
Registered:
Posts: 7,534
Reply with quote  #50 

While awaiting John’s further reply, I have been reading around and have a few points. They are as much queries as counters, so rather than save them up I will set them out now so he can deal with them in his reply, if he wishes. I have bestirred myself to actually read that portion of the 1791 constitution which deals with the monarchy, though (schoolboy French not being up to the task) it had to be in machine translation.

Chapter II, section one, article 1 reads:

La Royauté est indivisible, et déléguée héréditairement à la race régnante de mâle en mâle, par ordre de primogéniture, à l'exclusion perpétuelle des femmes et de leur descendance. – (Rien n'est préjugé sur l'effet des renonciations, dans la race actuellement régnante.)

The first sentence is perfectly clear, I can even understand it without translation; Salic law remains in force. It is, I take it, the bracketed second sentence which John considers to have “unequivocally rejected the impact of renunciations on the French succession”. Now, my French is limited as I say, but I would not go so far. What it seems to me to be saying is that nothing is determined about whether the renunciations (plural, though there had been in fact only one) affected the succession or not, leaving the door open for a later decision one way or the other.

I always was a little sceptical about the idea of a revolutionary constitution forced on an unwilling king being drafted by a cadre of royalists concerned chiefly to retain the inviolability of the succession against all changes. Reading the material rather confirms this feeling. The second article changes the royal title from the traditional King of France and Navarre to King of the French. The third explicitly subjects the king to the law, rather than vice-versa. The fourth, fifth, sixth and seventh all deal with ways in which the king by his actions may be deemed to have abdicated (for example, by failing to swear an oath to the constitution within one month of accession), and the eighth confirms his status thereafter as a private citizen, subject to civil and criminal penalties for his acts. Not much sign there of the inviolability and unchanging nature of the succession.

Skipping over five more articles which are not germane, we move to section two of chapter II, dealing with the arrangements for a regency in the event of the king’s minority or incapacity. Article 2 declares that the regent shall be the nearest male to the succession who is aged 25 or older, natural-born French (my understanding of Français et regnicole in the following) and not heir to a foreign crown (pourvu qu'il soit Français et regnicole, qu'il ne soit pas héritier présomptif d'une autre couronne). If there is no such person, articles 3–10 provide for a regent to be elected. There are eight more articles in this section and a further two sections in chapter II, but none of these relate to the succession question as far as I can see.

The provision I gave the original text for obviously does, and I have no need to expound on that. There is though another point, too; the same National Assembly which in September 1791 adopted this constitution had in March of that year legislated for a regency in the event of the Dauphin succeeding as a minor (the constitution incidentally changed the title to Crown Prince, in another illustration of its authors’ questionable devotion to tradition). The persons nominated as regents were the comte de Provence, the king’s next brother, and, not his youngest brother the comte d’Artois, who had fled the country, but – the duc d’Orléans. Now it is true that this does not have the same significance as if it had occurred after the adoption of the constitution, but it nevertheless is evidence that members of the Assembly saw Orléans as near to the throne, and enough of them to vote through legislation, too.

This is purely speculative on my part, but I actually wonder whether ambiguity (which is how I look at it) was introduced over the renunciation as a means of keeping Orléans in check? His ambition and lack of scruple must surely have been evident to all who met him (while I have a qualified admiration for his son, everything one learns about Egalité just seems to make him even more despicable than you already thought he was). The ‘no foreign heirs’ provision would seem to turn things the other way, keeping a balance. Just a thought.

And just two more points, from the reign of Charles X. While reigning, he elevated all the Orléans princes from Serene Highness (a higher rank in France than in other countries, by the way, generally considered to have been above Highness) to Royal Highness. And upon his abdication (which I wonder if John recognises as valid) and the ensuing enforced renunciation of rights by the Dauphin, he nominated the duc d’Orléans, son of the one previously mentioned, to proclaim the young Henri V and act as regent during his minority. That is not how things worked out, and although Orléans was unquestionably ambitious I don’t necessarily blame him for it; the succession of Henri V, albeit he was a child, seems to have been seen as a continuation of the autocracy which had proved itself so unacceptable, and Orléans’ choices appear to have been to be king or to see the establishment of the Second Republic.  However that may be, those last two points are to me clear evidence that in the last universally recognised legitimate period of monarchy the nearness of the Orléans branch to the succession was tacitly if not explicitly recognised, and by the King himself.

PS I asked a French-speaking friend what his view was of article 1, section one, and he returned the following, the last sentence somewhat different from both John's reading and my guess:

Kingship cannot be divided. It is to be held in heredity within the ruling dynasty from male to male in order of primogeniture, excluding females and their issue entirely. This is not to the prejudice of the renunciation of the right to succession within the royal family.

mac

Registered:
Posts: 1
Reply with quote  #51 
Assuming the Carlist claim is correct and the direct male line is the legitimate one, can someone provide me documentation on the male heirs of Carlos V?  I apologize in advance if this question has already been addressed.  I believe legitamacy also includes that of birth, so children who were the product of divorce and remarriage would not be valid claimants due the prohibition of divorce by our Lord Mt18.
Peter

Moderator
Registered:
Posts: 7,534
Reply with quote  #52 
1) The last male agnate of 'Carlos V' died in 1936.
2) The senior agnate of Carlos IV, father of 'Carlos V', is Luis Alfonso de Borbón y Martinez. He does not claim Spain due to his grandfather Infante Jaime's renunciation.
3) The senior agnate apart from those of Infante Jaime is King Juan Carlos.
4) The Carlist claimant (any of them) has no claim to senior agnatic descent from any King of Spain, making rather a nonsense of the whole concept of Carlism.
5) This information is provided for, well, information. It is not permitted under forum rules to argue for the Carlist cause, and I would anyway no more think of doing so than I would argue for the said Luis Alfonso as the proper pretender to France.
Previous Topic | Next Topic
Print
Reply

Quick Navigation:

Easily create a Forum Website with Website Toolbox.