Talk:Succession to the former French throne (Orléanist)

[Untitled]

Are Henri's youngest son, Eudes, duc d'Angoulême (b. 1968) and his son Pierre (b. 2003) not included? Morhange 04:57, 26 October 2006 (UTC)

Are the Orleans-Braganza and Orleans-Galliera definitely considered to not be in line? john k 22:26, 30 November 2006 (UTC)

The Orleans-Braganza was not a full renuncition, it was ceding priority: they promised not to press their claim until all (French) branches are exhausted. And, I never heard anything of a renunciation on the part of Montpensier-Galliera; and you see, any ceding priority would not make sense as their doing, because they are already bottom-feeders of the list. Now, the big question is the order between Orleans-Braganza and Galliera: did the Orleans-Braganza meant to give priority also to the Galliera, or are they all actually in the order they would anyway be. (There exists no longer any "French" dynast) between Orleans-Braganza and Gallera, contrary to what existed in the said occasion of "ceding priority". Marrtel 23:08, 30 November 2006 (UTC)

Given that the Orleans-Braganza deferral was presumably on the basis that they were marrying foreigners, it would seem odd for the Galliera to succeed ahead of them. So I'd say to put it in the natural order of genealogical seniority. john k 23:52, 30 November 2006 (UTC)

Umm, it was because Orleans-Braganza were to be pretenders of another throne, whereas the Galliera were never and are not that close. Marrtel 03:10, 1 December 2006 (UTC)

They were very close at the time of the marriage. Indeed, given Francisco's sexual tendencies, it was quite strongly expected at the time of the marriage that Antoine and Louisa's child would inherit the Spanish throne - Isabella trumped that by her infidelities. john k 05:50, 1 December 2006 (UTC)

Exactly. The grounds for the renunciation of the Comte d'Eu is that he was immigrating to Brazil permanently. The grounds for the current exclusion from the Orleanist line of succession of Eu's descendants is that he did immigrate. The Orleans-Braganzas and Gallieras are not last in the Orleanist succession -- they aren't in it at all. The Family Pact implicitly acknowledged that the Orleans-Braganzas are not considered dynasts by the Orleanist pretenders, but they do consider themselves dynasts -- after all other dynastic lines (and the Orleanist pretenders did not recognize the Gallieras as dynasts when the Pact was signed by nearly all agnates, nor were the Gallieras invited to sign the Pact). Both the Orleanist pretenders and the Brazilian pretenders consider the Orleans-Braganzas a distinct princely house, with precedence for the Pedro de Alcanatara branch based on their kinship to the Orleans dynasty, and for the Luis line based on their pretendership to Brazil. Lethiere 19:38, 1 December 2006 (UTC)

---

I don´t get it! Why the Orleans-Braganza are in the line of succession? Isabelle, the late countess of Paris, wife of the late Head of the Royal House of France said in her autobiography that indeed the Orleans-Braganzas are not french princes. And let´s not forget that she is also daughter of Pedro fo Orleans-Braganza, eldest son of Gaston, the count of Eu.

For anyone still in doubt about it, I recomend the fllowing link, it explains the situation very well:

http://www.heraldica.org/topics/france/pacte1909.htm

- Lecen (I have an account in the portuguese Wikipedia, not the english one, sorry) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 189.12.125.35 (talk) 20:05, 12 March 2008 (UTC)

François vs. JeanAT

Shouldn't we mention this issue in the article? I'd think that there'd be a strong strain of monarchist opinion which would dispute that François can be passed over, especially as he is presumably not mentally competent to renounce his rights. Is the intention that Jean will himself become pretender upon his father's death, or that he will become head of the house, acting in his brother's name (along the lines of Prince Elias of Bourbon-Parma, say, who was effective head of the House of Bourbon-Parma from his father's death in 1907, but who only became official head after the deaths of his two older brothers in 1939 and 1950)? At the very least, I'd imagine there'd be some controversy over this. john k (talk) 14:05, 21 August 2010 (UTC)

Orleans-Braganza are not in the French line of succession

Gaston, the Count of Eu, who married Isabel, heir of Emperor Pedro II of Brazil, not only renounced his French citizenship but also any claims to any throne. The 1909 Pacte did not say that the Orleans-Braganza were in the line after all the other braches. What it said was that the Orleans-Braganza would not advance any claim as long as any branch of the French Royal House existed. In case the French Royal house becomes extinct the Orleans-Braganza could claim the French throne ... as well as anyone else. The pacte was signed not to establish a place of the Orleans-Braganza in the line, but instead, it was a commitment made by them to stop claiming. --Lecen (talk) 13:59, 17 December 2010 (UTC)

Surely it's kind of both, though? That being said, Orleans-Braganza shouldn't be on here, as I think talk page consensus suggests. I'm going to take them out again. john k (talk) 16:21, 17 December 2010 (UTC)

No, Lecen is right: The 1909 pact neither asserts nor acknowledges any claim to the French throne on behalf of the Orleans-Braganzas. Rather, it codifies the agreeement of the Orleans-Braganzas with the senior Orleans line to cease and desist the claims they had been making since 1889 for restoration of their places in the line of succession to the French throne (pragmatically, only once this was agreed to by the Orleans-Braganzas did they obtain clear title to the château d'Eu and vast surrounding property). It is important that the article clarify this per the 1909 pact because it has been so widely misstated and misinterpreted. This also applies to the Borbon-Orleans (Montpensier) branch of Spain, although they signed no pact explicitly acknowledging their forfeiture of French dynasticity -- they have simply never asserted it. FactStraight (talk) 23:12, 17 December 2010 (UTC)

Unsourced opinions

Repeated insertions of unsourced personal interpretations of factors affecting the Orleans line of succession have been challenged and removed. Please attribute aany and all interpretations to proper sources before changing the text of the article. This and related articles are here to present factual history about these matters: Unsourced personal opinions may be plausible or even correct, but have no place in this article unless they have been previously published in a reputable source, and unless footnotes accompany the insertions, when they are added, which document what the exact source is and on what page of the source the allegation can be independently verified. Generic "references" will be challenged and deleted if given as sources for specific assertions. Otherwise, this article and talk page are likely to devolve into debating forums on the merits of Legitimism vs Orleanism -- which is expressly what the article and its talk page are not intended by Wikipedia to be. FactStraight (talk) 11:36, 14 November 2011 (UTC)

No sources for individual places in the Line

The Legitimist Line of succession article has been ripped to shreds because individual sources for every specific person were not posted. Thus, the same thing should happen to this article, no? 41.135.172.84 (talk) 12:07, 16 November 2011 (UTC)

Indeed and Im taking care of that Lefairh (talk) 00:01, 28 November 2011 (UTC)

Petit Gotha gives the line of succession. - dwc lr (talk) 04:01, 28 November 2011 (UTC)

The authors of Petit Gotha must have had astonishing mental powers if they were able to list the line of succession as of November 2011, including children born in 2003, 2003 and 2009, in a publication that appeared in 2002. In fact, these children seem to be completely unsourced and may well have been made up. Hans Adler 08:20, 28 November 2011 (UTC)

The latest edition of the Petit Gotha that is listed on Amazon is the 2002 edition cited in the article. Did you use a more recent edition, or was your edit summary "Actual line of succession is given in Petit Gotha as cited in article" a counter-factual statement? Hans Adler 08:23, 28 November 2011 (UTC)

Yes that is the only Petit Gotha, the children could be made up but in fact are real and a reference could be used to verify this. - dwc lr (talk) 13:44, 28 November 2011 (UTC)

Guys, please do not do this! Given what just happened here, if you persist you are likely to be swiftly and permanently blocked on the grounds of pointy misbehavior. FactStraight (talk) 04:53, 28 November 2011 (UTC)

I believe it is fair to say that there are no WP:RS setting out the Orleanist Line of Succession. While it may not be RS< and something of OR, anyone reading monarchist message boards discovers the Orleanists themselves are unclear over issues as whether certain people are removed by handicap, or whether the Brazillian stem are in the Line of Succession. Since there is no clear up-to-date, Reliably Sourced way to know the Line of Succession without using a huge amount of WP:OR, I hereby suggest that this article be redirected into the Orleanism article. I see someone has already done that, but it would be better to first discuss it. Since this article deals specifically with the Line of Succession(as the title says), having no actual Reliably Sourced, up-to-date Line of Succession renders it strange. All relevant information is in the Orleanism article. 41.135.172.84 (talk) 07:10, 2 December 2011 (UTC)

I felt I may need to add this before anyone responds to the above. There are clearly many WP:RS stating the principle of Orleanist succession and claims. However, there are no specific WP:RS referring to the Line of Succession, which is after all what the article is about. 41.135.172.84 (talk) 12:29, 2 December 2011 (UTC)

A redirect to the Orleanist article would be a bad move as the two articles seem to cover different aspects of the Orelanist claim. This article looks at the succession and the Orleanist article looks more at the general history of the movement. So a redirect makes no sense. - dwc lr (talk) 14:16, 2 December 2011 (UTC)

How about we remove those born after 2002? Since they are being challenged, they need to have a separate citation. Emerson 07 (talk) 00:11, 10 December 2011 (UTC)

That doesn't solve the problem. I don't have the Petit Gotha, and so far as I know, nobody I would trust has the Petit Gotha. Someone has claimed that the line of succession is in the Petit Gotha, but the same person also claimed that this includes children who were born after it was printed. Behavioural policies prevent me from using the obvious applicable words in this context, but any trust has certainly broken down at this point. In Vienna, where I am based, neither the national library, nor the university library, nor the city library has this book. In fact, the only similarly titled thing known to Austrian public libraries is a 1968 heraldry book going by the name "Le Petit Gotha illustré". In other words, this book appears to be fringe. I am certainly not going to pay the extortionate prices starting at 40 euros that antiquarians ask for it, just to fix a few BLP violations and royalty cruft on Wikipedia. Hans Adler 11:10, 10 December 2011 (UTC)

There are lots of books in print of which I am ignorant and which, being printed in languages other than English, may not be found in the libraries to which I have access. That doesn't mean that they are "fringe". Making a point, some who claim that the Legitimist succession's coverage in Wikipedia is being unfairly truncated, state (see infra) that the Orléans succession ought to be excluded too, which has evoked citations and reverts to the contrary. While I disagree with those who contend that the Legitimist succession is not Wiki notable (if only historically) the Orléans claim -- representing France's prevalent monarchist movement -- is far more notable, and therefore it's unsurprising that its order of succession is better documented -- yet still not widely known, especially outside of France. Not only are those in the Orléans order of succession listed (on page 451) in "Le Petit Gotha" (which isn't "petite" at all, btw: it's a 989 page hardback), but they are also listed, as of 1998, in "Le Comte de Paris et sa Descendance" by Philippe de Montjouvent (page 9 of a 478 page book). Since a list of any group of living people (government officials, sports teams, accident reports) eventually becomes obsolete, and such lists on Wikipedia are especially doomed to obsolescence because they must be "published" elsewhere than online so that it is impossible for books to stay accurate about such matters, those facts don't render either the source or the list Wikipedia-verboten as "unreliable" -- it merely calls for the date on which the list was published to be provided and/or for updates/corrections per subsequent media. This particular list can be updated at least as of December 2009 when the European Royal History Journal's Issue LXXII, mentions a newborn boy on the list and how the order of succession is modified thereby, in the course of an interview with Jean, duc de Vendôme: Prince Gaston was born that year to the Duke and his wife, a fact reported fairly widely in French media at the time). FactStraight (talk) 13:11, 10 December 2011 (UTC)

I did not claim that it lists children born after the book was published. I said a reference could be used to verify their existence considering you had suggested the children could have been made up. - dwc lr (talk) 13:26, 10 December 2011 (UTC)

Wasn't me. FactStraight (talk) 13:33, 10 December 2011 (UTC)

DWC LR, it is your last edit to the article that destroyed my trust in you using sources adequately. Hans Adler 13:35, 10 December 2011 (UTC)

Yes I did not add a separate citation for the children as I did not know you were still doubting their existence. Regarding my edit summary the IP was making false claims about the book probably based on a comment I made to Emerson O7. - dwc lr (talk) 13:42, 10 December 2011 (UTC)

The IP claimed that none of the information is in the book. By reverting the way you did, you claimed that all of the information is in the book. I know that your claim was false. Given two claims of which one is demonstrably false at least in part, it is only natural to assume that the other one is closer to the truth. In case you have a scan of the relevant pages, my email address is on my homepage, which is linked from my user page. Hans Adler 15:31, 10 December 2011 (UTC)

The IP was under the false impression that the list was created from scratch using genealogical listings from a book. If this was true it would look very different to how it actually is, #1 for instance would Prince François, Count of Clermont, before I cited the book the duc d' Orleans and his line was incorrectly listed after the comte d'Evreux and his. The list (from 2002, a specific moment in time) is in the book, which FactStraight also has access to per above and has confirmed. Births and deaths could be easily cited. I have never claimed that those born after publication are listed in the book, that would be an absurd thing for me to suggest and would be rightly ridiculed. I have said that the book has the full succession list (as of 2002) and those born after could be cited to other references. - dwc lr (talk) 15:52, 10 December 2011 (UTC)

I am not going to trust you or FactStraight under the circumstances. You said the information is in the book, but apparently without any checking of the details. That's ridiculous because it's precisely the details that we must get right. There is no way I am going to trust you that you have done that in the meantime. Maybe the list of succession is in the Petit Gotha and you are just more interested in having it aligned with your ideas of what it should be than in properly reflecting the sources. Or maybe it's not there, after all, and you are just making this up so this listcruft page doesn't get deleted. Hans Adler 16:32, 10 December 2011 (UTC)

I appreciate that you don't like articles such as this (probably Wikipedia royalty coverage in general), but you should assume good faith, accusing people of making up sources is a serious accusation and if true has consequences, recalling the unjust block of User:Mr. D. E. Mophon. I know what is in the book I can go and check it right now if I wanted to, the succession list (as of 2002) is there. I don't have any ideas on what the succession list should look like I go based on what is verifiable. - dwc lr (talk) 17:04, 10 December 2011 (UTC)

The problem is, I only have your word for that, and I have learned that your word isn't worth much. Maybe you are just being too nonchalant about these things rather than outright dishonest. Regardless. Poor sourcing of BLP claims is not an "I don't like it" type problem. Hans Adler 17:24, 10 December 2011 (UTC)

You misinterpreted what I have said and done, you can be a believer or you can choose to be a non believer about what is in the book that is your choice. This is a clear case of ‘I don’t like’ because the article is sourced, yet because 'you don’t like it' you start resorting to questioning peoples integrity, trying to rubbish sources and questioning notability. - dwc lr (talk) 17:52, 10 December 2011 (UTC)

Seriously, if this entire page is built on half a page or so in a 9-year-old book of which not a single copy can be found in a public library in Austria, and nobody else has written down the information, then we have an excellent case here that WP:GNG simply does not apply. And that's even without considering the fact that the book appeared with Imprimerie Laballery, which appears to be a service for self-publishers rather than a publisher: "Madame, Monsieur, Vous souhaitez nous faire une demande de devis et avez connaissance des informations techniques relatives à la fabrication de votre livre. Notre service devis est a votre disposition pour vous répondre dans les meilleurs délais." [1] Maybe there is a sort of consensus among Wikipedia's royalty and nobility fans that this book is kind of reliable for genealogical information, but a self-published book can definitely not establish notability. Oh, and what is "An Interview with the Duke de Vendôme" doing there as a supposed source? Whoever has added it has not put it behind the specific lines which it is supposed to support, and I have severe doubts that this source has the required independence from its subject anyway. Is one of the "Duke"'s relatives on the list, by any chance? Hans Adler 16:45, 10 December 2011 (UTC)

You seem rather snobbish towards editors who are interested in topics such as this. The article is not built from one source, I count thirteen sources in total. The publication (which I am familiar with and own some issues of) that printed the interview has nothing to do with the Duc de Vendome. Even if it was published by the duke himself self published sources in some instances are allowed anyway. - dwc lr (talk) 17:15, 10 December 2011 (UTC)

You really don't understand it, do you? You can't just slap sources on a big chunk of text full of BLP claims and pretend that this is adequate sourcing. It may have worked that way 3 or 5 years ago, but we have advanced since then. That kind of thing automatically leads to the addition of unsourced information that looks as if it were backed up by the same sources. Hans Adler 17:24, 10 December 2011 (UTC)

What you quoted was an interview with the so-called Duc de Vendome. Anyone who calls himself such a fancy, anachronistic name is extremely unlikely to be an independent source on BLP claims about who is in some line of succession that has been extrapolated far beyond reason. Hans Adler 17:26, 10 December 2011 (UTC)

And yes, I know there are plenty of sources for other things than the current line. However, I strongly suspect that all that other stuff just functions as a coatrack for the last section. Hans Adler 17:31, 10 December 2011 (UTC)

The reality is the princes listed can be backed up by a source. I think the Duc de Vendome is more than capable of talking about his own family. The real issue is not sourcing as this article is very well sourced; the real issue is you don’t think there should be an article on this topic full stop. I suppose you would like this 'deleted' by the article being redirected somewhere as you imagine an AFD would fail because 'I don’t like it' is not a valid argument.. - dwc lr (talk) 17:52, 10 December 2011 (UTC)

The "Duc de Vendome" is a reliable source on who his close relations are. He is not a reliable source on whether he is Emperor of China or whether his mother-in-law is third in line for the throne of Luxembourg. Hans Adler 18:03, 10 December 2011 (UTC)

Twins

. (...) and French primogeniture historically considered the last child to emerge from the womb as senior in the order of birth to other siblings born following a single confinement, this ruling may have been compliant with the tradition of the ancien régime.

Is that true? I cannot imagine such a thing.--80.141.20.107 (talk) 13:48, 19 June 2015 (UTC)

Line of succession

Although this section does cite a few sources, they are a few years out of date, and this looks like an improper synthesis to produce a complete line of succession. PatGallacher (talk) 02:05, 11 August 2020 (UTC)

Templates/navboxes

The article does not have a chart showing every minute detail but overall there is a clear rule of order. Wouldn't this fact qualify the article for inclusion on Template:Former monarchic orders of succession and Template:Orders of succession by country? Altanner1991 (talk) 23:11, 26 August 2020 (UTC)

IMHO no, many Wikipedians are trying to delete these lines of succession to former thrones completely. PatGallacher (talk) 23:26, 26 August 2020 (UTC)

That's a delete discussion for the article and has nothing to do with the navbox while the article still exists. Altanner1991 (talk) 23:31, 26 August 2020 (UTC)

The template has now been nominated for deletion. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 73.110.217.186 (talk) 21:39, 31 August 2020 (UTC)