Jump to content

Talk:Louis Alphonse de Bourbon/Archive 3

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 1Archive 2Archive 3

Title of pretence

There seems to be cofusion about use of titles for persons who belong to dethroned dynasties, including Louis Alphonse de Bourbon. Historically, a person recognized by supporters, governments and/or scholars as the object of a right, movement or tradition of monarchical restoration based on his/her lineage may be known publicly by an alias called a "title of pretence". Duc d'Anjou is such a title, attributed by French legitimists to Louis Alphonse de Bourbon, and often used in society, in publication and by the man himself to refer to that hereditary position. Originally, titles of pretence allowed foreign courts and society to interact with ex-kings and wannabe crown princes of indisputably dynastic gravitas (not False Dmitriy, Alexis Brimeyer, Anna Anderson or other impostors) without affording them the sovereign honours their adherents proclaimed for them but which were awkward and impolitic once they became homeless refugees. These titles are part of a convention applied to exiled members of European dynasties reachng back to the Crusades, e.g. Prince of Antioch, Duke of Naxos, Prince of Tyre, Marquis of Bodonitsa, Prince of Taranto, Countess of Albany, Prince of Vasa, Prince of Montfort, Count of Chambord, Count of Barcelona and Duke of Calabria. Whether borne by a former ruler or the heir of a banished one, these are neither intended to be titles of nobility (they're borne by persons of royal blood openly, rather than as incognito) nor legal hereditary titles. Contrary to what's been implied, in 1989 the French court carefully avoided formally ruling on the current status of the title attributed to Louis Alphonse, but mentioned in explaining its official finding, that the title, borne by Louis XIV's grandson Philippe de Bourbon (who renounced his claim to the French crown {validly or not} to become King Felipe V of Spain in 1700) had been abolished in 1790 during the French Revolution and there is no evidence it was ever re-granted to anyone (the court also mentioned in passing, that the title was nonetheless on Louis Alphonse's valid French passport). But the only binding decision the court rendered was dismissal of the lawsuit of the Orleanist claimant, Henri, comte de Clermont against Louis Alphonse, on the grounds that since Henri failed to establish that he had a right to the title duc d'Anjou, Henri lacked standing to challenge Louis Alphonse's use of it -- regardless of whether such usage was permissable in law. Morevoer, the court found that Louis Alphonse never claimed or pretended to anyone that the title was his by legal right -- he simply uses it, as did his late father, to indicate his legitimist dynastic position. Duc d'Anjou is not a "monarchist" title -- legitimists consider his proper title to be "Henri XX" -- and most publications and authors which call him duc d'Anjou do not consider him a "king" or even necessarily the rightful claimant to any crown (I certainly don't) -- whether he is an active or a passive pretender. So stating in these kinds of articles that titles of pretence are not usually inherited under law is appropriate, and should be done in this case. But withholding the title, or stressing that it is not legal beyond the degree to which reputable publications typically do, so would be improperly POV in the face of a convention long-established by history and common in encyclopedias. FactStraight (talk) 07:48, 23 August 2011 (UTC)

This article gets 8,000 page views a month as if the subject was a world leader. Even on the rare occasions when a French newspaper refers to the French pretender, they mean Henri d'Orleans, not this guy. Louis Alphonse is a Spanish banker who lives in Venezuela. "Louis Alphonse, BNP banker" would make more sense than "Louis Alphonse, Duke of Anjou." His "movement or tradition of monarchical restoration" consists of four Web sites. He is nobody off Wikipedia. Somewhere in the article that needs to be pointed out. Kauffner (talk) 09:28, 23 August 2011 (UTC)
Thanks for this comment. Now I know that the Duke of Anjou gets more page views than the Count of Paris.Emerson 07 (talk) 03:43, 9 November 2011 (UTC)

Duke, "per tradition"

Is there some RS that says that says the subject is duke of Anjou "per tradition"? Certainly no source is given. The subject's grandfather gave himself this title in 1946, his father used it, so now he uses it. That's the "tradition." The French duke of Anjou title is equivalent to the British duke of York title. So it is not something the could be inherited, even if the title wasn't abolished and all. The article implies that France doesn't recognize the duke of Anjou title only because it is a republic, but many traditional titles are recognized. Kauffner (talk) 00:20, 9 November 2011 (UTC)

Yup, that's the tradition. Since he is "king", he can virtually use any title he wishes to use. Could you give examples of traditional titles recognized by the republic?Emerson 07 (talk) 03:29, 9 November 2011 (UTC)
French Wiki has a list of noble families here. Any title confirmed after 1789 is still legally recognized. This list also includes titles recognized by ANF, the French nobility association. Kauffner (talk) 04:51, 9 November 2011 (UTC)

"The claims of Orléans"

This part was deleted, as is unsourced and some statements are untrue. For example, is stated, that "Bourbons of Spain bear the full arms of France", but Coat of arms of the King of Spain is with bordure gules. About various lawsuits - see Lawsuit brought by Francisco Maria de Borbon y Castellvi against the duc d'Orléans (1897) - won by Orléans. Lawsuit brought by the comte de Clermont against the duc d'Anjou (1987-89) was dismissed by Court on basis, that it does not behoove a court of the Republic to adjudicate the dynastic rivalry.--Yopie (talk) 07:24, 3 November 2011 (UTC)

Bourbons of Spain does not necessarily refer to the King of Spain, but the Spanish branch of the House of Bourbon, which includes the King of Spain only as a junior member. Remember that Louis Alphonse is the Head of the House of Bourbon; he belongs to the Spanish branch of the House, as a descendant of Philip V of Spain; he is not the King of Spain, since one of his ancestors had renounced the throne of Spain (which, however, does not affect his right of succession to the throne of France). At the extinction of the senior line of the House of Bourbon (1883), seniority passed to the Carlist claimant to the Spanish throne, not to the King. Seniority of the house was briefly reunited with the King of Spain in the person of Alfonso XIII, but went a separate way again thereafter. The lawsuit of Borbon y Castellvi was irrelevant, since he was not the most senior member of the House of Bourbon; he himself does not have a right to bear the plain arms (under the old rules), but may do so since heraldry is no longer regulated. You are correct to state that the court refused to adjudicate the dynastic rivalry; the court notes that with the establishment of the republic, the arms of France, which was tied to the Kings of France, disappeared with the title; however, the court agreed, that under the old customs, the plain arms of France belonged to the senior line, while the Orleans line are required to add a label argent. Emerson 07 (talk) 16:20, 3 November 2011 (UTC)

FactStraight, you are too concerned with the actual ruling of the French court. Surely, being a Frenchman, Henri d'Orleans expected that he would not get an actual ruling in his favor. This side comment of the court, answering the fundamental question of "Who would be the rightful bearer of the plain arms of France under the old customs?" is the greatest thing Henri could ask for, if only it had been in his favor. Like, if the court refused to make a ruling on the dynastic rivalry, but commented that, "Henri d'Orleans is the rightful bearer of the arms of France, since his ancestors are all Frenchmen, while the senior branch had been Spanish for many years." Yet under the old customs, the plain arms passes by seniority, not by nationality or any other qualification.Emerson 07 (talk) 12:26, 11 November 2011 (UTC)

Yopie, I believe you are confused by the term "Bourbons of Spain". Bourbons of Spain refers to all agnatic descendants of Philip V, King of Spain. It does not, however, mean that all of them are the rightful bearers of the plain arms (under the old rules). The Bourbons of Spain has several branches, such as Seville, Two Sicilies and Parma. Under the old rules, only the most senior person, the Head of the House, can bear the plain arms. Because Ferdinand VII chose to abandon the Salic law, the throne of Spain was no longer guaranteed to the senior male heir of Philip V - hence, the Carlist pretenders to the Spanish throne. The decision was made in 1989. Going back a hundred years, that would be 1889. The Senior Bourbon by then, the rightful bearer of the plain arms of France, judging by the seniority of descent from the Kings of France, would be Carlos, Duke of Madrid, the Carlist pretender to the Spanish throne, and not the King of Spain, Alfonso XIII (yet). In time however, the male line of Carlos, Duke of Madrid, ran out. Alfonso XIII became the senior male heir of Philip V, and in his person, the Senior Capet was again the rightful King of Spain (although by that time, he had already been dethroned). It was, however, a brief reunion. For the seniority would pass to the oldest son, Jaime, Duke of Segovia, deaf, mute, deemed unfit for the kingship of Spain, and whose unequal marriage assured his descendants little, if any, strong claim on the Spanish throne; the heir to the throne of Spain was the younger son Juan, Count of Barcelona, the father of Juan Carlos I. Thus, it is rather right for Juan Carlos to use a bordure gules on his version of the arms of France. Louis Alphonse is the Head of the House, and Juan Carlos, despite being the King of Spain, is merely a cadet member of the dynasty. Genealogically, the Head of the Spanish House of Bourbon is no longer synonymous with who sits on the throne of Spain. What you should look at is not the arms of Juan Carlos, a mere cadet, but the arms of Louis Alphonse, the head.Emerson 07 (talk) 12:26, 11 November 2011 (UTC)

Head of the House of Bourbon

L'Institut de la Maison de Bourbon is "a cultural institution of public utility recognized by a decree of the Council of State in April 23, 1997". Its objectives, as specified in its statutes, is "to promote knowledge of the history of France and the rule of the Royal House," "the conservative traditions" and "transmit the values ​​that have made France in the unwavering loyalty to the eldest of the Capetians." The website of L'Institut de la Maison de Bourbon is not a personal website; The Duke of Anjou has no direct control over it. These people actually know their history, and they have determined that Louis Alphonse is the Head of the House of Bourbon. There are some editors out there who say that the position of the Head of the House of Bourbon is disputed. Yet they fail to name who are the ones who dispute the position. With such failure, their claim that "the headship of the House of Bourbon is obviously disputed" is baseless. Emerson 07 (talk) 08:14, 27 November 2011 (UTC)

The "Institut de la Maison de Bourbon" is a partisan organization set up with the explicit goal of promoting the Legitimist cause. It is founded and controlled by the Anjous themselves, and as such counts as a Self-published source. (It's status as a tax-exempt organization is obviously quite irrelevant for assessing its status as a source here.)
You made a very specific claim: that his status as head of the "House of Bourbon" is uncontroversial, i.e. that it is recognized even by those who reject his status as claimant to the French throne. Logically, this is only possible to the extent that the "House of Bourbon" and the "House of France" are two different things, because headship of the "House of France" is clearly claimed also by Henri d'Orleans. So, what you need to provide to justify your claim is sources that:
(a) are published through reputable academic channels
(b) are independent of any of the partisan factions
(c) unambiguously speak of the "House of France" and the "House of Bourbon" as two separate, independent entities
(d) unambiguously call him head of the latter.
I haven't yet seen any sources to that effect. Fut.Perf. ☼ 08:36, 27 November 2011 (UTC)
Historically the House of Bourbon had been the same with the House of France, as the House of Bourbon became the senior line of the Capetian dynasty. However, the claim is that he is Head of the House of Bourbon (undisputed), not of the French Royal House (disputed; stated in the article clearly as a Legitimist claim). Henri d'Orleans does not claim to be the Head of the House of Bourbon; he is the Head of the House of Orleans, and logic follows that he thinks that the House of Orleans should be the new ruling house of France. Emerson 07 (talk) 09:50, 27 November 2011 (UTC)
Start providing references to reliable publications, at last, or talking with you is utterly useless. Fut.Perf. ☼ 09:54, 27 November 2011 (UTC)

To clarify:

  • The Capetian dynasty is the House of France. Note that this only suggests the origin of the family, and not necessarily whether the Capetians are the ruling dynasty of France
  • The House of Bourbon is a cadet branch of the Capetian dynasty; the House of Orleans, in turn, is a cadet branch of the House of Bourbon
  • The House of Bourbon became the eldest of the Capetians starting with Henry IV
    • At that point, the House of Bourbon = House of France = French royal house
  • The death of the Count of Chambord led to a dispute on who is the King of France (Head of the French Royal House)
    • Blancs d'Eu: The House of Orleans = House of France (cadet) = French Royal House
    • Blancs d'Espagne: The Bourbons of Spain = House of France (eldest of the Capetians) = French Royal House
  • At no point can the Head of the House of Orleans claim to be the Head of the House of Bourbon, since the Bourbons of Spain are still extant and prominently bear the name
  • So
    • Louis Alphonse de Bourbon - Head of the House of Bourbon
    • Henri d'Orleans - Head of the House of Orleans
  • And finally,
    • The dispute is on who is the Head of the French royal house. Depending on who you ask, that would be the Head of the House of Bourbon, or the Head of the House of Orleans.
    • Thus, there is no dispute whatsoever on who is the Head of the House of Bourbon. Emerson 07 (talk) 12:26, 27 November 2011 (UTC)
When will you finally learn? STOP arguing your own opinions here. Start giving references to reliable publications, or shut up and go away. Fut.Perf. ☼ 12:29, 27 November 2011 (UTC)
Please cite any reference showing that 1) the Head of the House of Bourbon is disputed and 2) who they consider to be the Head instead. Without this, there is essentially no dispute, so this claim could stand by itself. Emerson 07 (talk) 07:50, 28 November 2011 (UTC)
No -- once challenged it cannot "stand by itself." Yet again, please understand: information must be attributed to a specific, reliable source to remain in a Wikipedia article whenever legitimately challenged. A "legitimate" challenge is one raised by someone who has a right to edit Wikipedia (i.e., who is not blocked or editing with sockpupppets), and whose challenge is not tendentious (e.g. disruptive, disguised advocacy, or done to make a point). By contrast, information may be deleted from a Wikipedia article simply because it lacks attribution to a reliable source, provided that the deletion is legitimate, i.e. done by someone entitled to edit Wikipedia and not done tendentiously. The record will show, on these Legitimist-related articles, that for weeks now I have called for sources only for those of your edits which seemed to reflect novel reasoning or points of view that I doubt are reflected in reliable sources. It is only your tendency to ignore those requests that has made me concerned enough about the bases of your edits to start reverting them when you ignore requests for sources. Wikipedia's verifiability policy does not require that every datum be sourced, but it does require that every datum be source-able. When you consistently ignore or side-step requests for sources and consistently fail to supply them, you must expect that such behavior will elicit more such requests -- not render them irrelevant. "[over-wrought comment removed by the author, with apology.]" FactStraight (talk) 11:01, 28 November 2011 (UTC) 02:35, 30 November 2011 (UTC)

Closure on Head of House

Can we put something in on this now explaining why Juan Carlos isn't? I think that's what most people want to know since SFAICT they have similar descent from Alfonso XIII and another Bourbon. I'm sure there's a reason or rationale and that's what readers are going to want to see, please excuse if it's there and I've missed it. 72.228.189.184 (talk) 20:46, 1 September 2012 (UTC)

The simple answer is that Louis Alphonse descends from the elder son of Alfonso XIII, Jaime, Duke of Segovia, while Juan Carlos descends from the younger son Juan, Count of Barcelona. For several reasons, which I will not repeat here, Jaime and his descendants were deemed ineligible to succeed to the Spanish throne, clearing the way for the succession of Juan Carlos. Details can be found on the article on Jaime, Duke of Segovia. Of course, the succession in Spain does not affect in any way the theoretical Legitimist succession in France.
A House, by the traditional definition, consists of agnates descended from a common patrilineal ancestor. The laws of the house or the realm states which members are considered "dynastic"; the senior eligible dynast is the Head. With regards to the House of Bourbon as it was conceived by the Legitimists, this person is Louis Alphonse. Reigen (talk) 03:42, 2 September 2012 (UTC)
Looks like we are closing on closure. Is there no supranational House of Bourbon, distinct from the House of France? It was this I presumed the current Duc d'Anjou was head of not just France. Besides that, the rule of shortest descent is sufficient in this case for me as better than both nothing and an delving into dynastic rule sets. It's unclear how a political faction in one country could determine a family with a presence in several. 72.228.189.184 (talk) 10:35, 2 September 2012 (UTC)
Current text makes this clear. It doesn't make clear the situation with the larger house of Bourbon-Parma but based on the main article, that appears indeterminate. 72.228.189.184 (talk) 10:54, 2 September 2012 (UTC)
Theoretically, as the most senior male of the Capetian dynasty, Louis Alphonse is the overall head of the entire House of Bourbon (which includes the rival House of Orleans). However, this status is not recognized even by some of the descendants of Philip V, such as Juan Carlos and Sixtus Henry. Reigen (talk) 12:58, 2 September 2012 (UTC)
To clarify, the rule is primogeniture rather than "shortest descent", which is proximity of blood. On the dynastic rules, you can read either [1] or [2]. The two main points of contention are: 1) whether a prince can renounce his rights of succession to the throne; 2) whether or not the prince or his line has to remain French. Reigen (talk) 13:17, 2 September 2012 (UTC)
OK, thanks, per your statement I've removed the bold emphasis and replaced it with ordinary string quotes. The other was misleading to a counterfactual you've just explained isn't the case. 72.228.189.184 (talk) 19:10, 3 September 2012 (UTC)
Counterfactual? That would be a very strong word, outright rejecting this simple claim. I believe no other person claims (or could claim) to be Head of the House of Bourbon in its entirety (Bourbon specifically, as a distinct entity from the Royal House of France or Spain). But I have no problems with the string quotes. Reigen (talk) 22:44, 4 September 2012 (UTC)

Head of the House of Bourbon 2

The sources are Velde and Opfell, and both of them also feature the claims of other pretenders. Velde is undoubtably an Orleanist supporter, but he nevertheless recognizes the seniority of the elder Bourbons and the headship of that House by the Duke of Anjou (purely a matter of genealogy). In her book, Opfell discusses both the Legitimist and Orleanist claims, as well as the claims of nineteen other pretenders. If there are no more objections, these sources, so unjustly removed, will be restored back on the page. If these sources are unreliable, please state why they are so; refrain from arbitrarily declaring the unreliability of sources. Emerson 07 (talk) 15:47, 20 December 2011 (UTC)

Look up WP:Reliable sources, at last. Velde is a hobbyist who writes a website. We need academic publications. It's as simple as that. Fut.Perf. ☼ 20:47, 10 January 2012 (UTC)
Velde is an excellent source who is respected by anyone who knows anything about the subjects he writes about. If Wikipedia's reliable source policy does not allow him to be considered a reliable source, that is a failure of Wikipedia policy, not a sign that Velde is a bad source. And, indeed, there is a problem with wikipedia's reliable source policy, because it basically allows anything that is published by any print publisher, no matter how bad, to qualify as a reliable source while disallowing virtually everything published on a website, no matter how good, from qualifying. john k (talk) 05:24, 4 September 2012 (UTC)
Is there a Wikipedia procedure on evaluating a specific source? Reigen (talk) 22:48, 4 September 2012 (UTC)

I just noticed the link to his son Prince Louis, Duke of Burgundy in the info box is incorrect. Currently the link redirects back to this page, I'm not sure if this is intentional but it seems to be a mistake. 70.51.28.175 (talk) 02:31, 5 February 2014 (UTC)

Legitimist pretender section

This entire section has nothing to do with Louis Alphonse directly. It is basically a summary of every pretender before him and doesn't state anything about how he is advancing his claim or what he himself has done as the Legitimist pretender. I'm removing it since it is just basically fluff material. --The Emperor's New Spy (talk) 00:04, 5 June 2014 (UTC)

What a fine collection of names!

(Spanish: Luis Alfonso Jaime Marcelino Manuel Víctor María de Borbón y Martínez-Bordiú, French: Louis Alphonse Gonzalve Victor Emmanuel Marc de Bourbon …)

Why do Jaime Marcelino María have no French form, and Gonzalve Marc have no Spanish form? —Tamfang (talk) 09:11, 18 March 2015 (UTC)

Sectioning

I have no idea, having checked the source code, why the "Distinctions" section heading doesn't currently show up correctly. Chicbyaccident (talk) 15:04, 5 February 2017 (UTC)

Luis Alfonso, of what?

Hallo: the head of the genealogy site 'Geneanet', Joseph Guijarro, located in Paris, stated that most deliveries from Elizabeth, supposedly born from the so called: 'Fernando VII el indeseable', had the autorship of one of his relatives, with the surname 'Sutton', count of Clonard.

Isabel was forced to marry his double cousin Francisco de Asís, an exclusive homosexual, union made with the open refusal of both. It was said that none of the kids attributed to the self-proclamed: 'Carlos IV', upstream in the line, was truly his, but coming from infidelities, so, if no male blood continuity exists from Carlos IV to Luis Alfonso, and the marriage of Isabel and 'Francisquito' never existed, a forced marriage (By whom?) lacks any legal value, the use of the surname 'Bourbon' by Louis Alphonse is, to be kind: 'questionnable'.

PMID 20940110 Lalueza-Fox, 2011; and PMID 23283403, Charlier P, 2012, both in: For Sci Int Gen; address the peculiar genetics of the 'Y', or 'male chromosome' of Bourbons, a truncated form of it. Some genetic data may exist from a man called Leandro Alfonso Luis de Borbon Ruiz, previsouly known with the 'Ruiz Moragas' surnames, who requested using the Borbon surname, and also being included in the 'sucession line'.

The issue is close, but of deeper implications, to the 'concession', by the Vatican religious authority, absolutely out of their scope of powers, of the head of the Order of the Golden Fleece, to 'the king of Spain', la 'Toison d'or', el 'Vellocino de oro', that is a private distinction of the house of Burgundians. Why is Luis Alfonso, descendant of general Franco, accepted with no problem in France and elsewhere, while there is, in Spain, a hunt for those who refuse or refused to damn, curse, general Franco and his regime? An engima wrapped in a mistery, or a sardine wrapped in a sheet of the 'Pravda' newspaper. Please, someone to add data. btw: who has ever seen a Germanic man with furry arms? Aufwiedersehen. Gesund +--Hijuecutivo (talk) 20:07, 9 November 2017 (UTC)

Duke of Franco

Is it correct that he "was expected to succeed to the Dukedom of Franco, held by his grandmother Carmen Franco and through his mother"? Surely the title would go to his grandmothers son, not daughter. Furthermore it is unlikely that the first duchess would be able to "bequoth" a title.Royalcourtier (talk) 06:38, 17 August 2016 (UTC)

The Spanish nobiliary law as changed in 2006 makes the grandmother's eldest daughter the next in line to the Dukedom (her son has already inherited a marquessate).In fact,the law there pressures those with multiple titles to break them up among their children.12.144.5.2 (talk) 04:15, 4 January 2018 (UTC)

Genealogical confusion

It is my understanding that the French crown cannot be inherited through the female line, yet it appears that Louis Alphonse descends from Louis XIV through Queen Isabella II of Spain. Either I'm mistaken about something, or some French legitimists have been looking the other way from their own principles....Anyway, the article could use clarification of this point. Kevin Nelson 09:36, 17 February 2007 (UTC)

Yes, this principle is called Agnatic succession (See Salic law). It means succession to the throne going to an agnate of the predecessor; for example, a brother, a son, or nearest male relative through male line (collateral agnate branches, for example cousins, very distant cousins included). Chief forms are agnatic seniority and agnatic primogeniture. The latter, which has been the most usual, means succession going to the eldest son of the monarch; if the monarch had no sons, the throne would pass to the nearest male relative through male line. Stijn Calle 18:36, 17 February 2007 (UTC)
In the 1870s the rival Orleanist and Legitimist claimants agreed, for the sake of the French Monarchy, to end their rivalry. The comte de Paris accepted the prior claim to the throne of the comte de Chambord. Chambord, who remained childless, in turn acknowledged that the comte de Paris would claim the right to succeed him as heir. Since then, a new rift between Legitimists and Orleanist originated, which exists untill today. However, the more ardent Legitimists argued that the renunciation of the French throne by Philip V of Spain, second grandson of Louis XIV, was invalid, and that in 1883 the throne had passed to his male heirs, as follows:
So, to answer your question, Isabella (so called II) of Spain, comes into it, because she married Francis of Spain, and he was the male primogeniture of the Bourbons, and so his male descendants (which are also the descendants of Isabella), were rightfully pretender (not hers), i.c. Alphonse I, king of France. Stijn Calle 18:44, 17 February 2007 (UTC)
Thanks for the quick and informative response! I would like to suggest that some more of the information you give above could be put in the article. This raises another question, though. If Louis Alphonse's claim to the French throne rests on the theory that one cannot renounce a royal inheritance for one's descendants, then it seems one could argue that Louis Alphonse's own grandfather could not have properly renounced the Spanish throne...and Louis Alphonse has just as good a claim to the Spanish throne as to the French--maybe even better! Incidentally, did Alphonso XIII of Spain ever make any sort of claim on the French throne as the above list indicates he could have? It is certainly news to me that _anyone_ ever considered him as a French royal claimant. Kevin Nelson 16:48, 18 February 2007 (UTC)
1. Alphonse I of France did claim to be the legitime pretender to the French throne.
2. Within the salic law, if a male primogeniture pretender renounces, he only renounces for himself on a personnal level. If his renouncement would automatically mean a renouncement of his male heirs, this would de facto change the system, which cannot be allowed. So the bloodline continues with the next male primogeniture. And therefore Jacques II of France / Henry VI of France could not renounce for his male children on June 23 1933. He only renounced for himself. So H.R.H. Louis XX de France indeed got a claim to the Spanish throne that is superior to the actual, constitutional, (so called) king Juan Carlos. But as far as I know he has never publicly stated this claim. Problably for tacticle reasons in order not to 'insult' the other branch. It is a fact that they never accepted the declaration of Philip V of Spain, that one person could never be king of Spain and France at the same time. Stijn Calle 18:24, 18 February 2007 (UTC)
Correction. H.R.H. Louis Alphonse has also got a (theoretical) claim, besides to the French throne, to the Spanish throne. But I do not think he transformed this theoretical claim into a practical claim, in order not to threaten his theoretical and practicle claim to the French throne. There could be a possibility of invalidity perhaps if the two thrones were to be combined in one head. Stijn Calle 14:22, 25 February 2007 (UTC)
The Spanish and French thrones are two different kingdoms. While France does not allow the renunciation of succession rights for one's descendants, Spain does. Prince Louis' grandfather, Infante Jaime, Duke of Segovia, was a deaf-mute; some kingdoms don't like disabled people to become king.Emerson 07 (talk) 07:39, 11 May 2011 (UTC)

Kevin, the Utrecht renunciation is totally invalid, even a king of France cannot refuse the crown for himself, he can only refuse acting as a king, if this happened there would be a regency or any other government. King Charles X did not abdicate, he named his cousin "Lieutenant-Général du Royaume", and his cousin managed to be named "king of the French" (in this way, one can sustain it was not an usurpation, as he didn't pretend succeeding to his cousin, but instore a new monarchy; he renounced to his arms, etc. If Utrecht renunciation had been valid (what none legist admitted, I think, anyway fortunately, the États-Généraux were not called, this was a success from Louis XIV who knew that id would make any change in succession order invalid), as their text precise very clearly, all descendents of king Philip V of Spain would be excluded from the French crown. Orléans princes, as well as Napoléon princes, do descend from Philip V, so the Utrecht renunciation, if valid would exclude them too. TR, 8 June 2007

International treaties are of course valid. A king of France can perhaps not refuse the Crown, but if a person is excluded he nor his descendants an heirs can become king of France in the first place. The Peace of Utrecht continues to have historical consequences.so that is neither here nor there... Gerard von Hebel (talk) 13:38, 18 May 2020 (UTC)

Louis Alphonse as claimant to French throne?

So is the section that mentions Louis as "rightful claimant to the French crown, being the senior agnatic descendant of King Louis XIV of France (ruled 1643–1715) through his grandson King Philip V of Spain." meant to indicate that some people think he'd be a rightful claimant to the throne or is it meant to indicate that he IS a rightful claimant to the throne? Because as a member of the Spanish Bourbons and indeed a descendant of Philip V he would have no claim to the French throne due to the Treaty of Utrecht requiring Philip V and all of his descendants to permanently renounce their claims to the French throne. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2001:56A:7789:E100:84F5:177:77D1:52B2 (talk) 04:37, 14 March 2019 (UTC)

This seems like a potential WP:BLP problem. I saw some friends posting this in the wild ( https://twitter.com/dreamoforgonon/status/1266747591942983684 ) where people rag on this guy for advocating for a royalist coup. If he really has claimed that the Republic should be overthrown and he should become King, then there should be some better sources for it than a 1992 book on genealogy, which is where the current article's line "He is considered the rightful pretender to the French throne by adherents of the Legitimist movement" is sourced to. I'm pretty sure there is no Legitimist movement in France whatsoever, and this is a historical curiosity. SnowFire (talk) 03:26, 31 May 2020 (UTC)

France is a republic. There is no French throne to claim, much less pretend to claim. Why does this guy have "Duke of Anjou" in his Wikipedia article title if he's not actually a Duke of anything! Axem Titanium (talk) 06:37, 31 May 2020 (UTC)
France, today is a Republic. Yesterday and the day before yesterday, it was a Monarchy. It will become a monarchy again in the future. The republic will be just an abnormality in the history of FranceStijn Calle (talk) 13:37, 31 May 2020 (UTC)
That's nice, but I'm asking specifically if the Duc de Anjou himself thinks he's a Duke and actually advocates for the overthrow of Macron so he can save the French people. Or if there is a viable political movement (not a wedding invitation & fancy dinners society) in favor of enthroning him. If the answer is no to both, he isn't a pretender, or at least an active one. SnowFire (talk) 16:28, 31 May 2020 (UTC)
@Stijn, even if we take the nonsense you just spouted as true, there's no guarantee it will be the same monarchy that you're evidently pining for, nor is it guaranteed that Louis Alphonse will be the Duke of Anjou under it (cf. WP:CRYSTAL). @SnowFire, his personal belief about his dukedom doesn't really matter since the title of Duke of Anjou has been abolished. Unlike, say, the Spanish or British monarchal systems, the French monarchy simply doesn't exist anymore. It holds no land and no members of this purported royal house govern anything. De facto, he is not a duke and there's no throne for him to stake a claim on, legitimate or otherwise, because the land (and people) of France is not administered by a throne. Axem Titanium (talk) 18:04, 31 May 2020 (UTC)
I entirely agree, of course, but occasionally there is an WP:ABOUTSELF / WP:COMMONNAME argument to be had (e.g. Emperor Norton, Queen Latifah, etc.), where it'd be okay to say he runs around calling himself Duc d'Anjou on Twitter ( https://twitter.com/louisducdanjou?lang=en ). I don't think it's sufficient here, just saying it's at least something to consider. SnowFire (talk) 19:22, 31 May 2020 (UTC)
Sure, I see the argument for those two examples, but here it's a claim to a nonexistent title, not a stage name or done in jest (mental illness, for Norton's case?). So-called royals are just human like anyone else and don't deserve special privileges, and in Louie's case, he's not even one of those. Axem Titanium (talk) 23:00, 31 May 2020 (UTC)
Retrieved from "http://en.wiki.x.io/w/index.php?title=Talk:Louis_Alphonse_de_Bourbon/Archive_3&oldid=1264994635"