Misplaced Pages

Talk:History of the French line of succession: Difference between revisions

Article snapshot taken from[REDACTED] with creative commons attribution-sharealike license. Give it a read and then ask your questions in the chat. We can research this topic together.
Browse history interactively← Previous editNext edit →Content deleted Content addedVisualWikitext
Revision as of 15:49, 14 November 2011 editAgricolae (talk | contribs)Extended confirmed users, Pending changes reviewers31,009 edits So-called 'Legitimist' claims: new section← Previous edit Revision as of 14:39, 17 November 2011 edit undoReigen (talk | contribs)Extended confirmed users2,502 edits So-called 'Legitimist' claimsNext edit →
Line 54: Line 54:


The Line of Succession is a legal function that does not encompass all of the claims to the throne made by everyone. It is a legal function. Were the king to die who does law dictate should be the next king (not who do you think should be the next king). If the royal carriage crashes and kills the king and heirs A, B, and C, who would law dictate should succeed. If an asteroid strikes Paris and kills the king and heirs A-H, who does the law dictate should succeed. If we start giving alternative opinions, there are no end to these alternative opinions - you would need the Navarrist claimant, the Plantagenetist claimant - heck, probably even the Carolingianist claimant. And if you get to the point where no law exists to further define who was next, that is where you stop. ] (]) 15:49, 14 November 2011 (UTC) The Line of Succession is a legal function that does not encompass all of the claims to the throne made by everyone. It is a legal function. Were the king to die who does law dictate should be the next king (not who do you think should be the next king). If the royal carriage crashes and kills the king and heirs A, B, and C, who would law dictate should succeed. If an asteroid strikes Paris and kills the king and heirs A-H, who does the law dictate should succeed. If we start giving alternative opinions, there are no end to these alternative opinions - you would need the Navarrist claimant, the Plantagenetist claimant - heck, probably even the Carolingianist claimant. And if you get to the point where no law exists to further define who was next, that is where you stop. ] (]) 15:49, 14 November 2011 (UTC)
:It is on the basis of that very law you speak of that we cannot determine with certainty the actual successor to the throne of France. The kingdom of France had been terminated before the rightful successor - Legitimist or Orleanist - could be determined. Which is why, the page should not be limited to the Orleanist view. Legitimists consider the Treaty invalid, since the fundamental laws of the kingdom does not allow anybody to control the succession. There is no Navarrist claimant, since the Kingdom of Navarre had merged with France since the reign of Louis XIII; there is no Carolingianist claimant, since the Carolingian dynasty had long been extinct in the legitimate male line; the Plantagenet claim to the French throne contravenes the principle of agnatic primogeniture, and thus, unacceptable. ] (]) 14:39, 17 November 2011 (UTC)

Revision as of 14:39, 17 November 2011

Sources? Also there is a format issue. Charles Matthews (talk) 11:21, 8 September 2008 (UTC)

I am not sure if it is right to not include the line of the spanish Bourbons in this orders of succession, you're ignoring legitimist and traditionalist views on succession, you may also have another little mistake in the line after Louis XIV's death as he made some arrangements in order to include his illegitime issue in the line, I know may be you'll argue that the congress derogued this some days after Louis XIV's death, however this lines are supposed to represent the condition immediatelly after the death of the reigning monarch. Lefairh (talk) 06:13, 11 December 2008 (UTC)

I am wondering if may be we can inclue a section of "alternate succession issues" including the spanish branch, explaining that in this section we consider the rennunciation of Philip V in the Treaty of Utretch as null and void. I'll be willing to do it if there is some consensus among experts in this topic. Lefairh (talk) 06:19, 11 December 2008 (UTC)

"Grandson of France"

In the succession list for Charles VI, it is noted that some of his nephews were "Grandsons of France". Does this title refer to anyone who is a grandson of *any* king or the *current* king. Thanks. DavidRF (talk) 04:38, 25 January 2009 (UTC)

The title "Grandson of France" is held by any male-line grandson of any King of France. Emerson 07 (talk) 20:36, 18 August 2010 (UTC)

History of the Bourbon Line's place in the succession

It might be interesting to note how far down the Bourbon cousins are at each point. Before Louis XI, they are nowhere to be seen. Several lines had to die out before they climbed the ranks of the succession. DavidRF (talk) 15:52, 25 January 2009 (UTC)

Actually, you could see four (#6-9) of them under the first ten in the line of succession to Charles IV.Emerson 07 (talk) 21:12, 18 August 2010 (UTC)

Earlier lines (needs some clean-up)

The succession at the Capet-Valois border (1328)

  1. Philip VI of France, son of Charles of Valois, grandson of Philip III of France (b. 1293)
  2. John II of France, son of Philip (b. 1319)
  3. Charles II of Alençon, son of Charles of Valois, (b. 1297)
  4. Charles d'Évreux, Count of Étampes, son of Louis d'Évreux, grandson of Philip III (b. 1305)
  5. Philip III of Navarre, son of Louis d'Évreux (b. 1306)
  6. Louis I, Duke of Bourbon, son of Robert, Count of Clermont, grandson of Louis IX of France (b. 1279)
  7. Peter I, Duke of Bourbon, son of Louis I (b. 1311)
  8. James I, Count of La Marche, son of Louis I (b. 1319)
  9. Peter of Clermont, Archdeacon of Paris, son of Robert, Count of Clermont (b. 1287)
  10. Robert III of Artois, great-great-grandson of Louis VIII of France (b. 1287)

DavidRF (talk) 05:59, 14 March 2009 (UTC)

Following Salic Law

Why does each king have the "Following Salic Law" in the heading if all of them have it anyway? Why not just state it in the beginning that the line of succession to the French throne is determined by Salic Law?Emerson 07 (talk) 20:44, 18 August 2010 (UTC)

Number of Capetians

Does anyone have enough information on how many legitimate male-line Capetians were living at the death of each king? Maybe we could include that here to know the rate at which the dynasty is growing. For example, from the "Legitimist line of succession to the French throne" article, the current number of Capetians today is 124.Emerson 07 (talk) 20:44, 18 August 2010 (UTC)

Son of France

From this article, the title "Son of France" is first seen among the heirs of Philip VI. Does this mean that the Valois dynasty were the first to use the title? If so, maybe we could add this information on the "Fils de France" article as to the origin of the title.Emerson 07 (talk) 21:09, 18 August 2010 (UTC)

"Son of France" "Grandson of France"

Can anyone point to any reliable source in English which regularly translates these terms? john k (talk) 21:51, 7 September 2010 (UTC)

What do you mean by "regular"? The translation is as regular as it can be. Son of France and Grandson of France are Fils de France and Petit-fils de France in French. The French "fils" means "son" in English. "Petit" means "little"; the transliteration would be "little-son." In English, that would be "grandson", analogous to "grandfather". Emerson 07 (talk) 08:58, 7 May 2011 (UTC)

Wrong Wrong Wrong

There is sufficient evidence that Philippe and his descendants WERE still regarded as being the Line of Succession. Likewise, where are the Courtenays? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 41.133.47.188 (talk) 09:03, 15 May 2011 (UTC)

So-called 'Legitimist' claims

The Line of Succession is a legal function that does not encompass all of the claims to the throne made by everyone. It is a legal function. Were the king to die who does law dictate should be the next king (not who do you think should be the next king). If the royal carriage crashes and kills the king and heirs A, B, and C, who would law dictate should succeed. If an asteroid strikes Paris and kills the king and heirs A-H, who does the law dictate should succeed. If we start giving alternative opinions, there are no end to these alternative opinions - you would need the Navarrist claimant, the Plantagenetist claimant - heck, probably even the Carolingianist claimant. And if you get to the point where no law exists to further define who was next, that is where you stop. Agricolae (talk) 15:49, 14 November 2011 (UTC)

It is on the basis of that very law you speak of that we cannot determine with certainty the actual successor to the throne of France. The kingdom of France had been terminated before the rightful successor - Legitimist or Orleanist - could be determined. Which is why, the page should not be limited to the Orleanist view. Legitimists consider the Treaty invalid, since the fundamental laws of the kingdom does not allow anybody to control the succession. There is no Navarrist claimant, since the Kingdom of Navarre had merged with France since the reign of Louis XIII; there is no Carolingianist claimant, since the Carolingian dynasty had long been extinct in the legitimate male line; the Plantagenet claim to the French throne contravenes the principle of agnatic primogeniture, and thus, unacceptable. Emerson 07 (talk) 14:39, 17 November 2011 (UTC)
Talk:History of the French line of succession: Difference between revisions Add topic