French royal claimant cannot call himself Bourbon, court rules

Henri d'Orleans, count of Paris and rival pretender to the throne of France, is banned from using the ancient royal name of Bourbon because it was abandoned by his family in the 17th century, France's high court of appeal ruled.

The decision scuppered Orleanist hopes of reclaiming the dynastic title, which will now remain with the senior branch of the royal house -- represented by Louis Alphonse de Bourbon, duke of Anjou and the other contender for the throne.

The Cour de Cassation confirmed a lower court answer to a plea lodged by the 70 year-old count of Paris shortly after he inherited his position in 1999, in which he asked for the right to call himself Henri de Bourbon.

Both courts found that the name had been dropped by Henri's ancestor Philippe d'Orleans, the younger son of King Louis XIII, who was born in 1640. Henri had "no proven legitimate interest in reclaiming possession of the name of Bourbon," the judges said Thursday.

The Orleans and Bourbon families have conducted a bitter and fruitless contest for the right to claim the throne of France ever since the last king -- the Orleanist Louis-Philippe -- lost power in 1848.

While the Orleans line comes through Louis XIII's younger son, the Bourbons pass through the elder -- Louis XIV -- whose descendants ruled till Louis XVI's execution in the revolution. After the restoration Louis XVI's brother Charles X, who reigned from 1824 to 1830, was the last Bourbon king of France.

And "most serious French historians" are definitely ultra-leftists liberals, whose definition of success cannot be used to judge Chambord. He did not misread the French public, as he did not try to "read" them at all. He simply refused to be used as a tool, a figurehead, to placate the conservatives while the liberals ran the show. He had principles which he refused to give up just to wear a crown and live in a palace.

If your definition of success is to simply gain position and prestige, yes he got it all wrong. That's why "smart" politicians have no principles, are middle-of-the-road and try to be as vague as humanly possible. They can try to look like all things to all people that way. Chambord refused to play that game.

Chambord stood by his beliefs, which is always a 'damned foolish' thing to do if you are trying to curry favor with the masses. To be popular, you have to make everyone think you are on 'their' side regardless of what side of the fence they are on. Chambord made it clear that if they wanted him to be king he would act as his conscience and principles demanded, regardless of if it was popular or not.

A political leader with convictions--no wonder he is dismissed by the liberal elites of today.

The late Roger Williams, whom I knew well, was no ultra-liberal leftist. A classical liberal perhaps, but no Marxist nutcase.

However, be that as it may, it seems that things worked out for the best: Chambord stood by his principles and the French got the Third Republic and didn't have to toss Chambord out in a repeat of the July Revolution of 1830.

Some of us are monarchists of a less absolutist sort, thinking a moderately conservative constitutional monarchy on the lines of the English monarchy might have been a good thing for the French and Europe. But, of course, there was no claimant to the French throne who could accept that, so it didn't happen. Chambord was a damned fool, who put his absolutism ahead of any notion of duty towards his putative subjects. I'd say the French were quite lucky to have missed his reign.

You can hurl insults at Chambord until you're blue in the face, the fact is he was a man who stood by his convictions. BTW, if you would *read* my post, I never called Williams an ultra-liberal, I said most serious historians, which is true. In fact, most of the intellectual elite of any subject are liberals.

Chambord was also not absolutist (just like Charles X was not), it seems you are buying into the liberal lie that any monarch who wishes to actually have a viable role in government is an absolutist. Which, by the way, is why the British monarchy is certainly not my ideal as a monarchist. No British sovereign has vetoed an act of Parliament since the reign of Queen Anne. Britain has become more and more liberal all the time because the monarch is powerless to act in all but the most extremely rare circumstances. This is what Chambord refused to do. He was not going to be king and just sit in on state meetings with nothing to say and no power to act.

My views of both Charles X and Chambord were framed by Roger Williams, one the the 20th centuries most distinguished American historians of 19th century France, who was not, as I have said, a leftist.

I grant you Chambord's courage of his principles, such as they were, but am convinced there was no way a man of such principles could succeed as a French monarch in the last quarter of the 19th century, let alone any other time after 1789. By your own statement in an earlier post, Chambord sought a traditional, conseravtive and Church-based monarchy in the old style. That is saying he sought an absolutist monarchy along the lines of Louis XIV. That's no liberal lie, it's just the fact.

History give Chambord an opportunity to restore the French monarchy, albeit on terms not precisely to his liking. Chambord chose not to restore the monarchy on those terms. The French chose not to respre the monarchy on Chambord's terms. No one compromised. Some historians, among whom I number myself, think the French might well have been better off had Chambord been more flexible and a constitutional monarchy been established. You obviously don't think so, rather you seem to think there should have been a return to the pre-revolutionary monarchy. Fine. It didn't happen either way. History is full of might have beens, and Chambord will be right there with the Young Pretender and the Emperor Norton.

You said he was a liberal (liberals are on the left--that's how it works). You are basing your argument on information I consider inherently flawed. I do not believe that traditional and conservative is the same as absolutist. No one, even Louis XVIII, did or is advocating a complete return to the style of Louis XIV, only that the monarch should have a real and active role in running the government.

Your kind of monarchy was tried in France, and it failed completely. The liberals hated any monarchy inherently and the conservatives felt that they had been sold out in favor of the left. The revolution and all of its monstrous results must be recognized and thrown out. The Kingdom of France lasted for centuries, once it was gone look how many demi-monarchies and republics have come and gone.

And, BTW "Emperor" Norton was not a 'might-have-been', nowhere comparable to Charles Stuart, he was simply a nut with a lot friends and a sense of civic-duty and delusions of grandeur.

.....there is no subject closer to my heart than monarchy.

Well, then maybe you can answer this question.

I'm currently reading a history of the Spanish Bourbons written in 1974. I'm up to the abdication of the Spanish throne by Amadeus of Savoy and the restoration of the Bourbon line in the person of Alfonso XII.

Question: Since 1974, have there been any DNA tests to determine if Alfonso XII was really the biological son of Isabel II's allegedly homosexual husband and Bourbon cousin, Francisco de Asis, or if Alfonso XII was the biological son of Isabel II's lover, Antonio Puig Molto?

In other words, whose Y chromosome does King Juan Carlos carry? The Bourbon Y chromosome of Louis XIV or the Y chromosome of Antonio Puig Molto?

I don't think so; as far as I know this has never been resolved. Isabel II had more than one lover during that time, so who knows who the father was.

The fact that the continuation of the Bourbon male line in the Spanish royal family is doubtful is one reason why I'm inclined to support Henri, Count of Paris (who is definitely descended in the male line from Louis XIII) rather than Luis Alfonso, Duke of Anjou (Juan Carlos's cousin) as claimant to the French throne.

Which book are you reading? My favorite on this subject is Theo Aronson's A Royal Vendetta (1965).

CR: I'm actually quite pleasantly surprised to see you go that far.

G4E: While I share your theoretical belief in traditional monarchy, I'm afraid I'm firmly of the opinion that a constitutional monarchy, even a totally powerless figurehead one, is still better than a republic, and therefore I wish Chambord had been willing to compromise. Our mutual friend Charles Coulombe once wrote me, "Better a Bourbon than an Orléans, but better the latter than a republic!" and I agree. Never underestimate the importance of symbols. Queen Elizabeth II never has and never will overrule a British government, but British republicans correctly understand that her very existence denies total victory to the cause of egalitarianism; that is why they oppose the monarchy so ferociously despite its lack of power.

I think we monarchists must always be mindful of the words of Prince Philip, "most of Europe's monarchies were really destroyed by their greatest and most ardent supporters." Of course this is unfair in the sense that the monarchies never would have fallen had they not been under attack in the first place. But what I think HRH meant is that too often supporters of the throne have been willing to make the Perfect the enemy of the Good, and I think that is a mistake. (Was Tsar Nicholas II best served by those who urged him to refuse any concessions to the Duma and who understated the seriousness of the Petrograd riots in 1917?)

On the other hand, I'll say one thing in defense of Chambord's position: the fact that the French were so unwilling to give up the Tricolor suggests that a restored constitutional monarchy may not have lasted any longer than the first attempt (1830-48). In that sense you could say that Chambord was just sparing himself and his de jure subjects the trouble of yet another revolution.

As much as I remain a committed republican for These States, I do indeed think that the French would have been a lot better off under a moderate constitutional monarchy after the debacle of the Second Empire and the Franco-Prussian War: Bonapartism both early and late was an unmitigated disaster for the French, however much they liked it until the bills came due in 1815 and 1871. The French are an excitable and passionate people, and their understanding of what it takes to make a republic work has been, and remains, lamentably lacking. The very things that make the French French, stand in their way. I wish them well, but think they'd do better with a symbolic head of state upon which to lavish their passions, rather than the "grandeur" of France.

The fact that the continuation of the Bourbon male line in the Spanish royal family is doubtful is one reason why I'm inclined to support Henri, Count of Paris (who is definitely descended in the male line from Louis XIII) rather than Luis Alfonso, Duke of Anjou (Juan Carlos's cousin) as claimant to the French throne.

Which book are you reading?

"The Spanish Bourbons" by John D. Bergamini.

I've never really paid close attention to present day dynastic claims disputes and I'll have to get to the end of the book to see what the Spanish Carlist pretenders are doing right now. Up until Alfonso XII, the Carlist line appears to have kept the Bourbon Y chromosome. With Alfonso XII, there is doubt as to whether his father was actually the allegedly gay Francisco of Asis, the Bourbon first cousin of Isabell II. But even if he was, there is still a question as to whether Francisco of Asis' father, the Infante Francisco, was the illegitimate son of Manuel Godoy and Queen Maria Luisa, wife of the cuckolded Carlos IV.

In Goya's "Family of Carlos IV", the Infante Francisco, alleged illigitimate son of Manual Godoy, is the male child holding Queen Maria Luisa's left hand. The future Fernando VII, who produced no male heirs and was the father of the sexually adventurous future Queen Isabel II who marrried her uncle Fransico's allegedly gay son, is the teenager dressed in blue on the left hand side and his brother, the Infante Carlos, is the younger boy behind him.

Unless I missed something in prior chapters, by the 1870's when the Bourbon Spanish throne was restored in the person of Alfonso XII, Isabel II's son, only the descendants of the Infante Carlos, the son of King Carlos IV, could unquestionably claim male descent directly from Louis XIV.

Do you know the line of succession for the Russian throne?

You mean today? The current most widely recognized claimant to the Russian throne is Grand Duchess Maria Vladimirovna (b. 1953), daughter of Grand Duke Vladimir Kirillovich (1917-1992), son of Grand Duke Kirill Vladimirovich (1876-1938), son of Grand Duke Vladimir Alexandrovich (1847-1909), son of Tsar Alexander II (1818-1881). Maria has a son, Georgiy, b. 1981.

A rival claim to headship of the Romanov family is made by Prince Nicholas Romanovich (b. 1922), son of Prince Roman Petrovich (1896-1978), son of Grand Duke Peter Nikolaevich (1864-1931), son of Grand Duke Nikolai Nikolaevich (1831-1891), son of Tsar Nicholas I (1796-1855).

For more information, see Online Gotha: Russia

Greece?

The last King of the Hellenes, Constantine II, 63, who reigned from 1964 to 1974, lives in London. For more information, see Online Gotha: Greece

Yes, the paternity of the elder Infante Francisco was also in doubt. Aronson's book goes over much of the same material.

The original Carlist line died out in 1936. When this happened, some Carlists transferred their allegiance to the exiled King Alfonso XIII, and others backed the Bourbon-Parma family, who are unquestionably descended in the male line from Carlos III's younger brother Felipe (1720-1765) and therefore from Louis XIV. The current head of the Bourbon-Parma family is Prince Carlos Hugo, 63, formerly married to Princess Irene of the Netherlands. In the 1960s there was speculation that Franco might nominate him to the Spanish throne, but he settled on Alfonso XIII's grandson Juan Carlos instead.

Thanks for posting that picture.

If it was really as simple as it looks on the surface I would agree. However, you hit on it at the end, and I tried to point this out earlier. France had already tried having a "republican monarchy" and it did not work. Chambord was trying to force the French government to look the crimes of the revolution in the face and firmly refute the horrific nonsense. Otherwise, any 'tame monarchy' would be doomed.

You should know that I would favor most any kind of monarchy over a republic (and for the record, let me say again, traditional does not mean absolute) however, figure-heads can give repubilcans just as much ammo by being on the public payroll and not doing anything. If monarchies are nothing more than tourist attractions, there are probably much cheaper ways than that.

It is an argument that can be twisted in both directions. If monarchs say nothing or make compromises with politicians, they run the risk of having their dignity tied with the party in question. King Sihanouk is still trying to live down his cooperation with the KR. If the monarch can have some viable role in government they can at least resist such things, even if they cannot stop them.

One of the big worries I have is that, from the look of things, whenever royals start giving in to the popular opinions of the moment, they don't make the people more conservative, the people make them more liberal. Eventually you'll end up with royal heirs who want to disestablish the national church, and future queens who used to be drug addicts and everyone thinks its-all-okay.

Just another way of looking at this, from my admittedly emotional and unreasonable point of view, when I see the tricolor, like the fleur-de-lys, I don't see just a flag, but everything done under it. It was the flag of the Reign of Terror, of the regicide of the Royal Family and the near genocide of the Vendeeans.

To me, asking Chambord to reign under the tricolor would be like asking the Romanovs to accept the Soviet red banner after all the massacres, purges and oppression in that country. Now, I'm not bothered by the tricolor (it's never jumped down and attacked me), I simply cannot regard it as the 'true' emblem of France. Especially given the origins of the fleur-de-lys, I don't know if I could have ever accepted another, and I just don't think Chambord should be dismissed as a "damn fool" for not doing so either.

As I said at first, in the game of power-politics his choice makes no sense whatsoever, but I do think there are other factors that should be taken into consideration. Besides which, if France was sincere in desiring a monarchy, the powers-that-be could have established one without Chambord, though as I said, I think any such attempt would be doomed from the outset because of this very mindset and refusal to break with the revolution and face the facts of its horrific nature.

But the French Republic is still wrong, as is any republic which is the direct result of the abolition of a monarchy integral to a country's heritage. And it's interesting to note that the current Count of Paris has said he would accept the tricolor flag.

Similarly would you say that the British Republic (1620 to 1640 or thereabouts) was wrong? What about the overthrowing of the Tsar? The Hohenzollern dynasty in Prussia was barely a century old (previously they were just elctors) while the Hapsburgs ahve been in power for over a millenium. The Scandanavian royalty is a farce as is the Belgian and Dutch.

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.