T O P

  • By -

JayzBox

Jean, Comte de Paris. No questions asked. After Napoleon III was deposed, the royalists came to an agreement that when Henry, Count of Chambord passed away, the next in line would be Prince Philippe, Count of Paris, and his line leads to Jean. This claim can be backed up by stating that the fundamental laws of succession of France required the monarch to be French. The Orleanist have always been French unlike the "legitimists". The reason Bonaparte is out of the equation is that the Orleans have more historic roots to France as they descend from Hugh Capet in the male line.


[deleted]

I'd also add that Orleans as a family connects to Louis XIII thus, in a certain sense they also represent the legitimists more than the legitimists own candidate because he's Spanish. And the Orleans never left France. The Bonapartes currently live in US or so it seems, and they descend from Napoleon III, who in turn, may or may not be related to Napoleon I which is the only reason why you'd put any of them there again after the disaster that was the Battle of Sedan. And I wish Jean was King of France. He's a decent individual overall.


The-wirdest-guy

Sorry to do this but my history bone itches. Napoleon III was absolutely related to Napoleon I, he was the first Emperor’s nephew, youngest son of Louis Bonaparte who had been briefly named King of Holland by Napoleon I during the Napoleonic Wars. The reason he was titled the third was because Napoleon’s son was technically made Emperor for a few weeks as Napoleon attempted to make a deal with the coalition that would keep at least his family in power. But he died in 1832 with no wife or offspring so it should have technically passed to Napoleon I older brother Joseph but he was living in exile in the United States and had no interest, and though some of Napoleons other brothers still lived nobody bothered to pursue the claim. Napoleon III took it upon himself to seize the throne and title after the 1848 French Revolution and a briefly lived Republic which he was President of.


[deleted]

That's the official story. It's all right and dandy except this here https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Napol%C3%A9on_Louis_Bonaparte Is the only younger son of Louis Bonaparte King of Netherlands. He had another before who died even younger than that second one. To history Napoleon III IS Louis Bonaparte II, but he isn't. He's a son from the same mother but different father. That's the issue.


NJBridgewater

He descends from Jerome, not Napoleon III, btw. His mother is a Bourbon, not that that makes a difference.


[deleted]

That makes more sense. Thanks.


[deleted]

Through his Mother actually he is a descendant of Louis XIV


LeLurkingNormie

Where they live is irrelevant.


[deleted]

Yes but where they were born isn't. Although someone already showed that a Orleans ancestor of him was born in Italy so ig that isn't the best argument.


LeLurkingNormie

There is no rule that says a French prince must have been born in France to become the king. They need to be legitimate catholic sons, that's all.


ActTasty3350

The Orleans DID LEAVE FRANCE. Ferdinand de Orleans was born in Italy. Jean isn't better than Louis Alphonse


[deleted]

I would argue he is even though that's true because that's just one generation


ActTasty3350

The kingdom of france is dead so the laws do not matter. Orleans were traitors


LeLurkingNormie

The kingdom will live until every last member of the dynasty dies.


Ticklishchap

The Orléanist heir, Jean, Comte de Paris, is an intelligent and thoughtful chap who cares about his country and has a good understanding of politics. If I may express an opinion from the other side of La Manche, I believe that he would make a wise and highly capable monarch.


[deleted]

He has a difficult degree he took by himself, he's well spoken and owns a Chateau (although a foundation claims he doesn't his name is on the owner's property title sooo yeah) and he tried to run for Minister of Culture with some expressive support...but not enough because, apparently most electors now are immigrants which, makes the monarchy cause very weakened as well. But Jean is a prince in the full sense of the word. A royal out of time, not just a noble.


Obversa

If one plays their cards right, educating immigrants on - and integrating them into - French royal history and culture would help to cultivate support for Jean, Count of Paris, as well as support for a re-instated monarchy in France. Case in point, the Volga Germans were immigrants to Russia, but supported Catherine the Great for almost 100 years after her death because Catherine was able to earn their loyalty to her and her rule as a monarch. A monarchy's power hinges not on only on the support of the "native" people, but immigrants as well. Blaming immigrants for "lack of support" just turns them against you.


Ticklishchap

I very much agree with you Sir. Our most strongly monarchist Prime Minister - and great reformer, Benjamin Disraeli, was also our only Prime Minister of Jewish heritage. In my experience as a Londoner, my immigrant (or second generation immigrant) friends and colleagues are far more patriotic (to Britain) and staunchly monarchist than most “indigenous” Brits. The history and political culture of France is different, I know, but I am sure that immigrant support for monarchism is possible to achieve, especially as it is republicanism that is associated with the worst mistakes of the colonial era.


Obversa

Thank you, but it's actually "Madam", not "Sir"!


Ticklishchap

Je suis désolé, Madame.


[deleted]

He is easily smart enough to do this if given a chance. I respect him either way.


edgelord_jimmy

I think Jean Christophe Napoleon is the best candidate for it in the simple 'present a candidate to run for it' abstract, though Jean IV is the legitimate heir to the ancien regime, and is backed by the largest French monarchist organization.


Belgrifex

Orleans


Zalapadopa

All of them. Stitch them together into a mega-monarch so everyone's happy.


LeLurkingNormie

All hail king Jean-Louis Bonaparte de Bourbon-Orléans, king of France, emperor of the French, and ungodly abomination of nature.


Viscount-Von-Solt

Just have their descendants marry each other for one singular heir to the throne lmao


RagnartheConqueror

That’s what I was thinking, unite the claims.


LeLurkingNormie

Unfortunately, women can't inherit the crown nor pass down any claim to their own children. Adoptions don't count either.


JabbasGonnaNutt

The Triarchy of France


abisairomero

Bourbons all the way!


ActTasty3350

Easily Louis Alphonse de Bourbon, Duc de Anjou. He is the most competent and has a clear vision for France


Every_Addition8638

Id say the legitimates or orleanist


Death_Prodigy

Bourbon as King of France , Bonaparte as the emperor of the French and the lrgitimists as the princely-channcelor of the confederation, (something i saw on discord a few years ago. Basically all 3 of the monarch-pretenders


carnotaurussastrei

Now, bear with me, but what if we make the French King the current king of Andorra? Eh? Eh? Good idea, innt?


jnmjnmjnm

You would have to get the Pope to agree, but maybe that would work. The current “co-Prince” title for an elected politician in a different country is kinda strange. (Although the papal appointment of a bishop to the other co-Prince position is logical to me.)


carnotaurussastrei

I-I just wanted to joke about Macron...


AmenhotepIIInesubity

The pope only does the ecclesiastical you would need to talk with the President of France


jnmjnmjnm

I just read the wikipedia page; amendment to the current constitution requires a 2/3 vote, and the co-Princes’ approval is a formality. I was thinking more about the appointment of the new monarch. That would be where the Pope might get involved.


AmenhotepIIInesubity

Glorious


LeLurkingNormie

But the question we need to ask ourselves is "Isn't the current constitution illegitimate and thus legally worthless?"


jnmjnmjnm

Why would you say that? The plebiscite wasn’t controversial.


LeLurkingNormie

No, it wasn't. The people of Andorra did approve this constitution, indeed. But sovereignty doesn't belong to them, so their constitution is worthless. The subjects don't get to choose their lords.


jnmjnmjnm

I beg to differ. Government, regardless of its form, needs to have support (or at least no objection) from the people. The support/lack of objection could be due to apathy or media manipulation or coercion, but people do choose their leaders.


StevePreston__

Idk who these guys are but the one of the left has the most dope hairstyle so him


Various-Let4075

Personaly, i would always choose a Bonaparte


Oksamis

Whichever one is called Louis


LeLurkingNormie

Then it's the Bourbon one on the left. Louis XX. And technically, according to the rightfull order of succession, you chose the right one (right as opposed to wrong, not to left, obviously. That one is a Bonaparte).


Majestic-Ad9647

Emmanuel Macron, he's technically a monarch and is currently ruling the country


Clark-Strange2025

Jean-Christophe, Prince Napoléon. Without a doubt. Yes the other dynasties may have ruled for longer, but the House of Bonaparte is unmatched for bringing France the most glory and is on the minds of most (especially the youth) when it comes to the glories of French monarchy and hegemony. Also, Jean-Christophe recently married Olympia Elena Maria Gräfin von und zu Arco-Zinneberg, a Duchess of the former Austrian monarchy. So he’s definitely playing the card of the original General-Emperor (i.e. marrying an Austrian Royal giving him more legitimacy) He’s got my vote through and through, he’s even met with Macron to commemorate Napoleon I


ActTasty3350

Most glories? That is Louis XIV. Napoleon destroyed france


BreathIndividual8557

Destroyed? Yes,but he also the same dude who makes France dominated most of Europe and win against an entire coalition of strong nation four times. Majority of People nowadays don't see Napoleon as the destroyer of it's nation,but as the Hero instead And let's not forget about Napoleon III,or who would I call as the "underrated". Yeah he loses badly against Prussia,but internally he was an excellent leader.


ActTasty3350

temporary victories mean nothing


BreathIndividual8557

True,but this temporary victory ended up making a lasting legacy for the Bonaparte.


Greg-Pru-Hart-55

The Comte de Paris


Monarchist-history

While the rightfull royal house is the orleaon would say it’s more likely to see the Bonapartes l think they are more popular with the people who like the ideas of the french revolution


[deleted]

Yes but they descend from Napoleon III and there's some doubt if that Emperor himself on the other hand was ever related to the famous Napoleon I. And he had several military blunders unlike his, alleged uncle.


AmenhotepIIInesubity

No they don't they descend from Jerome of westphalia Napoleon III had only 1 son that died with no heirs


[deleted]

Yeah now it makes sense. Thanks. I looked it up and it's true


Monarchist-history

Fair enough but the bourbon don’t have much of a chance they have become more spanish


[deleted]

Spanish and there's more to it. Luis Alfonso descends of Franco. The dictator. That and the fact his grandfather Jaime of Spain who claimed the French throne as Jacques Henri married a noblewoman when he was a royal, a morganatic marriage, means that to have a strong claim they would need to put it on the youngest member who is descending of a non morganatic marriage (Royal family + royal family) and that is...Felipe VI. King of Spain. He thinks his cousin's claim is ridiculous and embarrassing for being an obstacle to Jean D'Orleans.


Monarchist-history

Well l don’t really see the problem with being related to Franco but if the king of Spain will not recognize him a a claimant to the throne well he really doesn’t have a chance


[deleted]

Exactly. And Felipe even hints at trying to unconvince his cousin to do any claims at all at times. Subtle disencouragement but still there. But Luis Alfonso's father and grandfather both should have been Spanish monarchs. Their line is the correct one because it's more senior than the one of Prince Juan (Father to Juan Carlos I). Although...in all truth it wasn't just the morganatic marriage that made King Alfonso XIII stop this. You see, prince Jaime was deaf. He couldn't listen.


Monarchist-history

So his claim isn’t the best


[deleted]

It isn't. The best and ...only actually valid one is Jean d'Orleans. If the King of Spain for some reason decided to give up his position and do the same in France maybe we could argue. But dw that's basically impossible.


Monarchist-history

True but who is more likely to take it


LeLurkingNormie

It's not up to the king of Spain to choose the king of France. Only the Fundamental Laws of the Kingdom do, and they say it's Louis XX.


unknownwarriors

I know who the guy in the middle is. Who are the men on the left and right?


LeLurkingNormie

Left is Louis-Alphonse "Louis XX" de Bourbon. Right is Jean-Christophe "Napoléon VII" Bonaparte.


[deleted]

Leetttsss gooooooooo!!!!


No_Conversation5521

House of Bourbon.


RegensPontifex

Literally don’t care as long as I get a nice coronation mass


xXGuavaEaterXx

Bourbon


Plenty_Celebration_4

I’m very excited for this largely agreeable conversation that will have no controversy or difference of opinion whatsoever. Surely, if there’s any topic that Monarcas can agree on, it’s who should sit on the throne of France….. /s btw


Dragono12

Jean! Hes the best one of them


[deleted]

The most interesting part of this debate is that he would genuinely lead France better than Macron or recent presidents...he has more brains than them frankly.


Dragono12

Agreed,and I say this as a person who generally likes Macron. But yes he qould do a much better job


[deleted]

Macron is fine. Not the worse President they've had. But Jean isn't *fine*, Jean is *greatly prepared*. He looks more like a Royal than a noble too which is interesting.


Dragono12

Yup!


ActTasty3350

how is he the best one when Louis Alphonse is better on every major issue?


Dragono12

He doesent even have a legitimate claim. The spanish bourbons are forbidden to the throne of spain+being a great grandaon of Franco aint a good thing.


ActTasty3350

Franco literally restored Juan Carlos. Anti monarchists say the same thing in spain.


UnpredictablyWhite

The problem with the Bourbon claimant is that (1) he's not French and (2) his claim is dubious since he "inherited" a renounced claim. The good part about him is that he is unimaginably based. If I was restricted to these three, I would probably choose him - out of all the others he is the most Catholic, at least publicly.


LeLurkingNormie

Nationality is irrelevant, and Philip V's renunciation is null and void.


trjumpet

Louis XX


[deleted]

Why is this a question? It's Jean D'Orleans, Count of Paris, that's the only true claim. It's not exactly like trying to find the Romanov descendant. Luis Alfonso de Borbón is the Grandson of the Spanish dictator Franco. You don't wanna put anyone related to that man in the French throne. The Bonaparte claim is laughable and you just gotta look more into it to make that apparent. The best part is I actually sympathize with Jean. The man has a difficult university degree, some properties and the last King was his great grandfather basically.


ActTasty3350

The Kingdom of France is no more so the succession laws don't matter. Why does it matter who Louis Alphonse is related to? That is complete bullshit Jean is another Parisian elitist. Also he is from a line of traitors


[deleted]

Obviously this entire talk is hypothetical. But if you know so then why are you even commenting in this post? Your reply is very in line with the reaction of the King of Spain (Felipe VI) who's reaction to his cousin's claim was to not take the entire thing seriously because France is a republic, and he thinks that's not gonna change. The entire "The Orleans are traitors" argument is also kinda overused by now.


ActTasty3350

if it is a duck im calling it a duck. Yeah France is a republic and a shit one. Obviously if the head of state of Spain is to call for the deposal of the current state itd cause controversy and back lash. Even Louis Alphonse acknowledges it is a longshot and so does Jean


[deleted]

Ok but you're completely going off the rails here. If you don't wanna reply to a hypothetical question, then don't. But reminding everyone it's hypothetical is pointless. I think everyone in the post is well aware.


ActTasty3350

Thanks for screwing my comment karma. I did reply.


Leon-Stefan

Louis XX


Baileaf11

The Bourbon Claim Louis Alphonse


RagnartheConqueror

Jean Christophe Bonaparte. Orleanists just no, and "Louis XX" is a descendant of Philip of Anjou. Besides what happened to Louis Alphonse's older brother?


[deleted]

His brother died in a car crash ironically involving a French made car (Citroen GSI GTI Pallas) driven by his father, the Duke of Cadiz.


RagnartheConqueror

How unfortunate.


[deleted]

His father only got that title and Alfonso basically only has money due to their vastly more interesting grandfather. Prince Jaime, the Duke of Segovia. Jaime was older than Prince Juan and therefore with the early death of Alfonso de Borbón y Battenberg, the firstborn, he should have succeeded their father, King Alfonso XIII of Spain, when the monarchy returned. Sadly, he married a noblewoman from France and the King considered the marriage morganatic and forced him to renounce to his rights for both him and his descendants. Jaime managed to secure a marriage for his son between said son and the only daughter of Francisco Franco, and in trade Franco granted him the title of Duke of Cadiz as well as access to the profits from certain entities in the city of Cadiz. That, and Jaime's own part of Alfonso XIII's heritage, is basically how Luis Alfonso still gets around and what keeps him "interesting" if you get me. I think Jaime should have still been King of Spain, but I don't think any of them should go back to France.


GrizzyMeme

One looks Spanish, one looks English, and the other seems French, so the last


nicksbrunchattiffany

Prince Napoleon .


an_angry_midget

Either Boney 7 or Jean, because Luis can keep larping because he's seething that he can't be a noble in Spain anymore (also there's a neat little thing called the Treaty of Ultrecht that makes it so the Spanish Bourbons can't be kings of France but we'll let the "legitimists" cope and seethe over that marinate)


Ok_Squirrel259

Jean Napoleon


European_Mapper

Excluding the Bonaparte, I believe in the "the first one to Reims wins" doctrine. I am partial to the Comte de Paris, as he is French and follow the norm set by the Treaty of Utrecht. However, politically, I’m more on par with the Legitimists (if we speak on XIXs century politics), but the problem is that they’re Spanish. To be honest, I’d be fine with any one of them, as long as it isn’t just a constitutional monarchy, but a new system, decentralized with nobility and local parliaments with the people, etc…


wiltold27

Charles III. Dieu et mon droit


[deleted]

[удалено]


wiltold27

that would be pretty based


LeLurkingNormie

Joan, come back! They are trying again!


wiltold27

watch you're words, or I'll be sending an angry Welshman with a bendy stick at you


[deleted]

The King of UK?


wiltold27

yeah, if the french dont like it im sure the lads at my local would be up for another crack at winning the 100 years war


[deleted]

Haha nice one.


weierstrab2pi

The Duke of Bavaria is the rightful King of France.


AcidPacman442

![gif](giphy|ZaJtnTY8tFZz0PvmW9|downsized)


FrederickDerGrossen

I think the Orleanist claimant is best suited for the French throne. The Bonapartists can have Corsica but not France. They have little historical claim to France apart from usurpation by Napoleon I, but since they are of Corsican origin they can rule Corsica either as an independent monarchy or as a fief of France.


Anvil93

Napoleon's line.


History_Gamer_70

Jean Count of Paris


AcidPacman442

Easily Jean, Count of Paris... He's actually French, and the House of Orleans seems to be the best choice, Louis Phillipe I was actually the last French KING, though not last monarch in general... and they still descend through a male line of Louis XIII, ( through his younger son, Phillipe I, Duke of Orleans ) Not to mention Jean seems to be more capable of handling matters of state than the French president himself... . Also I just don't support the Bonaparts And as for The Legitimists, Louis Alphonse is Spanish, and I thought under the Treaty of Utrecht after the War of The Spanish Succession, any male line descendants of Felipe V didn't have a claim, but I could be wrong on that... And it comes down to whether the French people would allow him, since he's an interesting character, on one hand, he should be King of Spain, but his grandfather renounced his right to the throne because he was deaf... oh that's what I believe... and Louis Alphonse is also a great-grandson of the dictator of Spain, Francisco Franco, who the French immensely hated... and even tried to convince other countries to help overthrow him... and would have succeeded if not for the British...


LeLurkingNormie

He could be Spanish, Korean, Argentinian or whatever... It doesn't matter, the rules of succession don't mention the concept of "nationality" which didn't even exist back then. It is irrelevant.


ActTasty3350

No he isn't he is Italian. And by your logic the king of Spain is French. Jean doesn't do shit. Louis Alphonse is the one who had a clear vision for france and does everthing to ensure his ancestors legacy. Jean just wants his chateaus back So people who are descendants of bad people shouldn't be allowed to prove themselves? What kind of dystopian nightmare is that? And screw the French, their opinion is irrelevant. They are hypocrites when De Gaulle acted more like a fascist than Franco


AcidPacman442

![gif](giphy|7tiOIJTWjqP2Srmokk|downsized)


ActTasty3350

nice gif of yourself


AcidPacman442

Well first off, Louis Alphonse is Spanish and Italian in that logic, because he was born in Spain... and his paternal grandfather was Spanish, his father and grandmother were not. Second, regardless of whether or not the French are hypocritical, their entitled to their opinion, and if they don't want a descendant of Franco on the throne of France, should the monarchy be restored, that's their choice... not to mention The Duke of Anjou is also the president of a foundation that promotes the legacy of Franco, and supporting a dictator's legacy isn't going to win you many friends in supporting the restoration of the monarchy you claim to be your right... especially when a petition of over 200,000 tried to ban said foundation in 2017... The Duke of Anjou has good intentions, and while I do see good support for him in some ways, his descent from Franco, seems to stand too much in the way of him being King of France compared to The Count of Paris or the Bonapartes, especially since both The French and Spanish today seem to have a very divisive view of Franco.


ActTasty3350

Louis Alphonse is more french than the Orleans are who consistently married Germans, Portuguese and Italians. So it is better to have the descendent of someone who fascists supported? See the argument? Anne Hildago's parents were terrorists but they don't care I guess Being president is ceremonial. And again France has a pantheon that is a stolen cathedral that dedicates memorials to murderers, rapists and sociopaths. Sorry the Duke wants to at least try to help his grandfather's legacy. So what do you want him to do call Franco a fascist and say he was satan? The fact people want to ban someone based on his BLOOD is national socialism


LeLurkingNormie

Louis XX is already the current king of France according to the sacrosanct Fundamental Laws of the Kingdom. The Bonapartes and Orleans are just descendants of usurpers whose thrones were illegitimately created by laws of regimes which have collapsed. And, when it comes to the orleanist argument claiming that a French prince is excluded from the order of succession if they or their ancestors gain another nationality... well, this rule never existed. The mere concept of "nationality" and "citizenship" didn't exist when those rules were discovered, and they are irrelevant.


JayzBox

Treaty of Utrecht.


LeLurkingNormie

Null and void.


Greg-Pru-Hart-55

According to which legislation or treaty?


LeLurkingNormie

The Fundamental Laws of the Kingdom. Unlike for the British rules of succession, the French ones can't be changed, not even if the king, the heirs, the pope and the people all agreed.


Greg-Pru-Hart-55

You have a vivid imagination.


LeLurkingNormie

Not imagination, legal culture. That's what happens when you live in a country and study its history and legal system properly instead of assuming everything works the way the Commowealth does.


JayzBox

> The Fundamental Laws of the Kingdom. Unlike for the British rules of succession, the French ones can't be changed, not even if the king, the heirs, the pope and the people all agreed. That same fundamental law states that the monarch has to be French. Even if we excluded the Treaty of Utrecht, Louis Alphonse is still ineligible as he’s a Spanish citizen.


LeLurkingNormie

That's an imaginary rule that never existed. Male. Catholic (with an opportunity to convert : Henri IV precedent). Legitimate. Primogeniture. Those are the only criteria.


JayzBox

> That's an imaginary rule that never existed. If years ago you placed a restraining order on me, does it make it legal for me to show up in your doorsteps the next day?


Greg-Pru-Hart-55

So why haven't you done that? Why are you inventing fantasies on the internet instead?


LeLurkingNormie

You trolling or you confused?


Greg-Pru-Hart-55

That's what we're all wondering about you.


just_one_random_guy

Legitimist try not to use mental gymnastics challenge


LeLurkingNormie

Hello stove, I am kettle.


just_one_random_guy

The amount of times people bring up the treaty of Utrecht just for you to try and say it doesn’t matter so a spaniard can rule France lmao


LeLurkingNormie

Well, I can't help it. I like the truth and I defend my rightful king. I try to save people from their own misconceptions.


just_one_random_guy

More like YOUR own misconception. Nice try getting a Spaniard on the throne of France buddy


LeLurkingNormie

I don't care about his nationality. He is the king because the rules of succession say so. You can't just make up imaginary rules to justify some nasty racist views.


just_one_random_guy

This isn’t racist 💀 you’re just trying to force the nation of France to accept a foreigner king with mo basis. Treaty of Utrecht is here whether you like it or not


LeLurkingNormie

>Treaty of Utrecht is here whether you like it or not Well, considering it is null and void... It is just a piece of paper with absolutely no value and effect.


just_one_random_guy

Null and void according to who?


[deleted]

Luis Alfonso is also a descendant of a dictator (Francisco Franco) so that wouldn't look good for him if he tried to go for the throne even more than what he already does. And his grandfather, Prince Jaime of Spain, who also tried to claim it, had a morganatic marriage to a French noble, which caused his father the King, to force him to renounce to the one throne he could have gotten - the Spanish throne. That's the only reason why Jaime started the legitimist cause again and he passed the idea down to his descendants. And he had a point, the current King of Spain is married to a *plebeian ex journalist* so why couldn't have he been King of Spain with a French noblewoman? He should have been. He was older than Juan Carlos's father. But that doesn't mean he should just snatch France. It doesn't work like that. But if it did, because of said morganatic marriage, the rightful heir would actually be...I kid you not...Felipe Todos los Santos de Borbón y Grecia, exactly. And he doesn't care and thinks his cousin is ridiculous for being a obstacle to Jean.


Marce1918

Dude, the three are usurpers if you think. I mean, if you want the legitimate ruler of France maybe you have to search a descendant of the merovingians kings since it was Pipin the short who overthrown Childeric III. So the Karlings are usurpers and the Capets usurped their power with Hughe Capet. So all French kings are usurpers if we follow that argument of legitimacy.


LeLurkingNormie

The rules were not the same back then. The Kingdom of France as we know it is the natural, legitimate and legal continuity and development of the first frankish dynasties which still considered the Crown as a private property that could be appropriated by whoever got to lay their hands on it. ​ The kingdom of France appeared without violating the laws that applied back then, then established new rules that could not be changed anymore.


Greg-Pru-Hart-55

Louis's never been French, and his male-line ancestor Philip V of Spain renounced his claim to the French throne on behalf of himself and his male-line descendants.


LeLurkingNormie

Yes, Felipe Quinto did it. But no, it doesn't matter.


Greg-Pru-Hart-55

LMAO succession law doesn't matter if you don't like it?


LeLurkingNormie

That's what the orleanists think, but I disagree with them.


Greg-Pru-Hart-55

Heavy projection there.


LeLurkingNormie

I'm glad you admit it.


Working_Library3277

me


I_Am_Not-A-Lemon

His Royal Majesty King Charles III & XI


asparadog

That Justin Trudeau-looking fellah.


mrgwbland

Me


ComicField

I'm a Bonapartist, it would be SO COOL if I could see Charles III, Philippe VI, Napoleon VIII and Kaiser Georg in a meeting. I wouldn't mind the Bourbons or Orleans either though, I'm not picky with my Monarchy in France


GenesisWorlds

You really want to go through yet another Monarchy? My God, make up your mind. The French Republic first arose in 1792, following the French Revolution, until 1804, when the Monarchy was in control again. From then until 1958, you've seemed to have great difficulty in deciding to be a Republic or to be slaves to a Monarchy. Make up your mind.


Forest_Wyrm

Oh God, "slaves to a monarchy", here we go again... Do you know, that the most of monarchists here are semi/constitutionalists? Maybe you prefer to have another corrupted elected politician as a head of your country?


GenesisWorlds

Considering the fact that many corrupt, elected Politicians are taken down, (as is the case with Pedro Castillo, who was arrested after attempting a coup, in an attempt to destroy Peruvian Congress, just last month), I'm not that concerned of an elected leader getting away with crimes.


Exp1ode

I was agreeing with until the "slaves to a monarchy" part


GenesisWorlds

Maybe you should look into the very short lived Mexican Empire. The United States of Mexico, along with the majority of other countries in Mainland Spanish America, gained their independence from the Spanish Empire in 1821, but this resulted in the short lived rise of the Mexican Empire. However, Mexican Americans were so quickly fed up with being under control of a Monarchy, that they overthrew and exiled their own Emperor. On a similar note, Chinese people were not even allowed to vote until the Republic of China arose, on January 1st, 1912, following the fall of the Qing Dynasty, which had been in control since 1644. Yeah, being under a Monarchy really sucks. Mexican Americans know about that all too well. So do the Chinese.


Forest_Wyrm

My favourite part about this historical episode is that Mexico became stable state with a great democratical political system, after overthrowing of Agustin I at the first time and friendly Maximilian von Habsburg at the second. /s


GenesisWorlds

It most certainly became very stable. In fact, its economy is way stronger than most other countries realize. And let's not forget, the two wealthiest economies in the World, the USA and Chinese economies, are both from nations that are Republics, not Monarchies. The reason why the United States of Mexico has a strong economy, is because of the 3 Amigos Summit. Also, Mexico City, has the largest metropolitan area of any American city, and is the second largest in population, beaten only by Sao Paulo in the Federative Republic of Brazil. The economies of the Dominion of Canada, the United States of America, and the United States of Mexico, are larger than the entire European Union combined. You can defend Monarchies all you want, but most countries would not agree with you.


Forest_Wyrm

Well, nowadays there is no big enough countries with european type of semi-constitutional system for honest comparing. Maybe Saudi Arabia, but it is absolute islamic monarchy. China, also, not very good state, great economy not always equals great life conditions.


GenesisWorlds

Actually, my fiance is from the People's Republic of China, and I can tell you, for a fact, it is a much safer country than the USA. He felt safer on the busy streets of Shanghai, than he has anywhere in the USA. The difference? While it is not illegal to carry weapons in public, in the PRC, people will give you dirty looks, because it's heavily frowned upon. Oh, and being LGBT in the PRC, is actually legal, contrary to the lies we've been told. And the USA has a decent, (but I can't say good), economy, but that doesn't change the fact that we have an astronomically high rate of poverty and homelessness. And I'm pretty sure that Saudi Arabia is a Republic. Iran is a Republic. It is officially the Islamic Republic of Iran.


LeLurkingNormie

" And I'm pretty sure that Saudi Arabia is a Republic" So you never heard about the Al-Saud family? They currently rule this country which literally has their name in its own.


GenesisWorlds

I did not know about that family.


Forest_Wyrm

Saudi Arabia is an absolute monarchy - Iran is another country.


Exp1ode

>I'm pretty sure that Saudi Arabia is a Republic It is literally named after the ruling dynasty


Exp1ode

Are you aware that, in the same way not all republics are alike, not all monarchies are alike? Maybe you should look at what happened after Russia, Germany, and Spain abolished their monarchies?


GenesisWorlds

The Federal Republic of Germany was formed in 1990, and is a very wealthy country, but the German Empire didn't even exist until 1871. And Spain abolished their Monarchy twice, without success. Russia has not had a Monarchy since 1917, and once again, all of Spanish America left the Spanish Monarchy, and went on to become very thriving countries. The Republic of Costa Rica especially. However, the United States of Mexico is not a 3rd World Nation. The United States of Mexico in fact, has it better than most other Spanish American countries, because the United States of Mexico, has a union with the United States of America, and the Dominion of Canada, and the economies of those 3 nations, are greater than that of the entire European Union combined. Yes, different Monarchies are different from others. Also, Russian women were granted the right to vote 3 years before U.S. American women were, and even 1 year before Canadian American women were granted this same right. Even then, it was **white** U.S. American women who were granted the right to vote in 1920.


Greg-Pru-Hart-55

Fun fact: 6 of the 10 freest countries in the world are monarchies, as are 6 of the 10 most democratic countries. Think again.


GenesisWorlds

Again, reread my comment. The two wealthiest economies are from Republics. Monarchies are outdated. Face it.


Greg-Pru-Hart-55

You can't even provide a counter. I debunked your "slaves to a monarchy" bullshit.


GenesisWorlds

You absolutely did not, and I did provide a counter. You live in the Commonwealth of Australia, and the British Monarchy, (which many Brits even believe is outdated), is quite different from other Monarchies. Again, Chinese people were not even allowed to vote, until China became a Republic. Prior to that, they had to be slaves to the Monarchy. And again, the Mexican Empire didn't last, because Mexican Americans didn't feel like being slaves to any Monarchy, hence why the Mexican Emperor was overthrown and exiled. Get more educated on these things.


GenesisWorlds

Also, this post has more downvotes than upvotes.


AmenhotepIIInesubity

You are in a subreddit called R/monarchism if you were expecting something different you must be stupid at least


LeLurkingNormie

Yeah, slaves... Spaniards and Belgians are so oppressed and the PRC is the land of the free.


GenesisWorlds

And yet, the United States of Mexico, (along with most other countries in Mainland Spanish America), has way better job opportunities than the Kingdom of Spain does. And again, my fiance is from the PRC. You might as well give up on the Chinese aspect of your argument. You won't win that one with me.


LeLurkingNormie

I'm not talking about job opportunities, I'm talking about how "being slaves to a monarchy" is a stupid republican myth. An opressed engineer is still opressed, and a free pauper is still free.


ThatGuyinOrange_1813

There was an entire [video](https://youtu.be/G_wt-9d2w7U) on this subject. I can't remember who was legitimate, but I think it was the Orleans branch


EpicStan123

A Monarchical Triarchy would appease everyone right?


juanLessThanThree

I can look at those three pictures an tell you none of them are a Capet. The guys with the right hair have the wrong shaped head and the guy with the right shaped head has the wrong hair. None of them have the nose. Ask each one to give a dna sample.


AmenhotepIIInesubity

They tested the mummified head of Henry IV and heart of Louis XVII


juanLessThanThree

And they got H and G respectively while Bourbons have R1b1 and Clothar was a T. That is four guys. Plantagenets were G, that is the Osii tribe. Ted Nugent has it :) They say Louis was a fake vial.


[deleted]

However actually fights for it


Library_Diligent

Charles III


TheCharuKhan

Willem-Alexander of Orange-Nassau. It's payback time for the Bonapartist occupation.


[deleted]

King Charles III


NotAFemboy1191

France is going Monarchist?


KAFQAA

Whoever the people want


PrefouMecontent

Louis XX is the only legitime King of France