Talk:Legitimists

message: Boris Skossyreff argued the case for the co-prince of Andorra being the heir to the French monarchy, rather than the President of France. Is this a valid argument?
Jackiespeel 16:48, 14 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Co-Princes of Andorra 

message: If you look at the below list from Loius XIII to Henri, Count of Chambord of the senior descendents of Henry IV of France, you'll find that in 1883 many of the lines of descendents are extinct. However, the descedents of Louis XV of France (who had 10 children) were still alive via his daughter Princess Louise-Élisabeth of France's descendents, in following order from her to the modern day are;
* Ferdinand, Duke of Parma 1759-1802
* Louis of Etruria 1773-1803
* Charles II, Duke of Parma 1803-1883
* Robert I, Duke of Parma 1883-1907 (at the time of Henri, Count of Chambord's death)
* Henry, Duke of Parma 1907-1939
* Joseph, Duke of Parma 1939-1950
* Elias, Duke of Parma 1950-1959
* Robert II, Duke of Parma 1959-1974
* Xavier, Duke of Parma 1974-1977
* Carlos Hugo, Duke of Parma 1977-today
The "hardline legitimists" for some unexplained reason skip out the descendants of Louis XV of France and go further back to Louis XIV of France "The Sun King" and the descendants of his son Louis, Dauphin of France (1661–1711) (via Philip V of Spain). Why is this? - Bourbonist (talk) 18:52, 18 July 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: The succession to the French throne is governed by Salic law (as mentioned in the first sentence of the article).  This means that daughters and their descendants have no succession rights.  The alternate succession you suggest is non-existent. Louis Alphonse, Duke of Anjou, is the senior male-line legitimate Capetian. Noel S McFerran (talk) 21:53, 18 July 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Why do "legitimists" skip this senior line (1883-today)? 

message: Legitimism is not limited to France. See e.g. :de:Legitimisten#Österreich. SyP (talk) 19:35, 16 October 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  not only in France 

message: Certainly this de jure monarch was Alphonse I? Frederick T (talk) 15:59, 21 August 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Charles XII? 

message: Hi, I'm a young french legitimist (pardon my bad english) and I'm quite surprise to see that this article only refers to the Salic law, as we French royalists almost never refer to it. In France, we would rather refer to what is called the "Fundamental laws of the Kingdom", among which there is rules that concern the transmission of the crown. There are the rules that you refer to as "Salic law" (male-line & primogeniture), but there is other rules that doesn't exist in Salic law : for instance, "catholicity" (the King has to be catholic), "indiponibility" (the King cannot disinherit one of his son, and cannot abdicate) or "continuity" (as soon as the King is dead, the successor becomes King ; hence "le roy est mort, vive le roy").  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.124.222.131 (talk) 15:15, 8 January 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  Salic law v/s Fundamental laws of the Kingdom 

message: Sorry, but this is plain ridiculous. There is a List of Legitimist Claimants since 1883...and there is a List of Orleanist Claimants since 1883. But these are two totally different things. There is a separate Orleanism page. No Legitimist would recognise anyone in this so-called "Legitimist-Orleanist" List. Why is it there? Perhaps a mention that some Legitimists went over to the Orleanist cause after Chambord died, but true Legitimist support would have passed to Count of Montizon. If no one can present an argument why this obvious Orleanist branch is on the Legitimist page, it should be removed.
There is a similar problem with the Jacobite succession article, which has frankly bizarre supposed "Jacobite Claimants" Lists, that are clearly there just to confuse and divide. A small mention that some misinterpretation of Legitimist succession could lead people down these paths is required, but not the "Lists".  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 41.133.47.188 (talk) 15:38, 19 May 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: If anonymous want improve the article, he can use proper tags first. Deletion of parts of article without correct procedure can be considered as vandalism.--Yopie (talk) 15:17, 20 May 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  List of Legitimist-Orleanist Claimants since 1883? 

message: Someone accused me of "vandalism" for removing a contentious statement that "Chambord recognized The Count of Paris as his heir" or words to that effect. Likewise, there was a misunderstanding over a heading and section in the article. I refer to the most excellent Guy Stair Sainty's website(and Mr Star Sainty is a widely-respected and known historian. I am unsure of the author of the source provided by my critic)
http://www.chivalreicorders.org/royalty/bourbon/bourbon.htm
http://www.chivalricorders.org/royalty/bourbon/france/franlegt.htm
http://www.chivalricorders.org/royalty/bourbon/france/success/sucprt6.htm
http://www.chivalricorders.org/royalty/bourbon/france/success/failed_restoration1873.htm
This site  http://my/raex/com/~obsidian/pretends.html#France-Legit
http://my.raex.com/~obsidian/pretends.html#France-Orleans
(the latter 2 being parts of a longer piece)
The Legitimist website http://www.royaute.org/
The Orleanist website http://www.maisonreoyaledefrance.org/
There was never any dispute that some Legitimists recognised The Orleanist claimant after 1883. However, having done so, they ceased to be Legitimists and became Orleanists'. Likewise, many Jacobites in Britain switched allegiance to the House of Hanover after a time. However they did not therefore become Jacobite-Hanoverians.
Ina addition, there is no Reliable Source that expressly proves that Chambord recognized Paris as his heir. There is much information in a doctoral thesis written by an early 20th century Duke of Parma that I will look for that shatters this myth.
And none of this is "forum talk" or "vandalism". It is most definitely a suggestion to improve an Encyclopedia Article. Since this article is entitled Legitimists it should include all relevant information about Legitimists. Since those Legitimists who recognized Paris ceased to be Legitimists, they are not directly related to this article. Certainly there should be information that some Legitimists switched allegiance to Paris(and there are many Reliable Sources for that), but the suggestion to improve the article was to remove entirely the so-called "Legitimist-Orleanist Line" as that is an oxymoron. Likewise, the suggestion to improve the article would be to remove fantastic claims such as "Chambord naturally recognized Paris as his heir". If these suggestions were implemented, I sincerely believe the article WOULD be greatly improved, and much more closely resemble a respected encyclopedia than an Orleanist fansite. 41.133.47.188 (talk) 17:51, 20 May 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  Strange wording and claims 

message: Has this discussion just died? Has anyone found any WP:RS which specifically refer to the Orleans branch as being the Legitimist claimants to the French throne? If (as seems certain) not, then perhaps it would simply be best to remove the paragraph entirely. Any thoughts? 41.135.200.13 (talk) 17:20, 25 August 2011 (UTC)
replies: text:  Following the advice of FactStraight, I have retained mention of this viewpoint but significantly downgraded its prominence, given that this is an article on Legitimism per its modern understanding.  --BlueMoonlet (t/c) 01:48, 26 August 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  The Orleanist "Legitimists" 

message: If you want to stop edit wars put more references and citations in, and tag contentious statements with Petebutt (talk) 04:36, 23 November 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  Edit wars 

message: This is quite clearly POV. Only someone espousing the Orleanist ideology would take it as fact that there even WAS a "subsequent succession of the Orleanist branch". The lead needs to say simply that Legitimists always support the senior stem of the House of Capet, and that following the death of Chambord in 1883, the senior stem was represented by the descendants of Felipe V. The addition of this "subsequent succession of the Orleanist branch" makes it sound as though it's a given fact that the Orleanist "branch" DID de jure succeed in 1883, and that "present-day Legitimists"(however valid the pre-1883 claim)  are clearly wrong for not recognising this "succession". I have removed it, and hopefully this deliberately POV-wording will not be reinstated. 41.132.117.241 (talk) 20:14, 2 December 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: How paranoid can it get? Please look up what an action nominal is; the use of a noun like "succession" in a sentence like this in no way grammatically implies that any such succession was valid; claiming that it does is just absurd. The text was never making the claim that there "was" a succession. However, it *is* a fact (obviously) that such a succession of the Orleans branch was claimed, by others, and that present-day legitimists define themselves through their opposition to it. The point of that passage is to make the reader understand how and why legitimism is still an *issue* today, and in order to understand that, we need to know not only what legitimists are for, but also what they are against. Fut.Perf. ☼ 20:47, 2 December 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  "...the subsequent succession of the Orleanist branch" in the lead 

message: The three main monarchist factions were right wing, in the context of French parliamentary tradition [though not necessarily right wing as understood today]. But they could never be said to "thus, they progressively became a far-right movement". Far right is another political viewpoint altogether.Royalcourtier (talk) 23:36, 23 December 2015 (UTC)
thread_title:  Not far right 

message: With the death of Chambord in 1883, the next Legitimist claimant to the French throne was Montizon. This is undeniable and unambiguous. All explained here:http://www.chivalricorders.org/bourbon/france/frenlegt.htm While it is true that some Legitimists switched allegiance to the Orleanist cause in 1883, by doing this they ceased to be Legitimists. 
Look at it like this: If someone has been pro-Bernie Sanders becoming the Democratic Presidential Nominee, but after Sanders' loss to Hillary Clinton, that Sanders supporter switches allegiance to Donald Trump....then would that make Donald Trump the Democratic candidate? Of course not. The fact that some people who had been Legitimists switched allegiance to the Orleanist cause in 1883, doesn't suddenly make the Orleanist cause the same thing as the Legitimist cause. There was still a Legitimist claimant heir from 1883...Montizon, and the only current Legitimist heir is Louis XX.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 197.88.60.117 (talk) 11:50, 3 July 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  Orleanist claimants are NOT Legitimists 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified one external link on Legitimists. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20100613004735/http://chivalricorders.org/royalty/bourbon/france/frenlegt.htm to http://www.chivalricorders.org/royalty/bourbon/france/frenlegt.htm
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 14:48, 13 May 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: It is widely ackloweged that Isabella II of Spain was involved in sexual relations with a number of individuals who were not her husband Francisco de Asís, Duke of Cádiz and that her children are from men other than him. The biological father of Alfonso XII is widely considered to have been Enrique Puigmoltó y Mayans, a captain of the guard active at Isabella's court. That means everyone from Alfonso XIII to Louis Alphonse de Bourbon listed here as "Legitimist Pretenders" are not actually Bourbons but descend from the Puigmoltó. This problem is not discussed in the article, we should have a section on it. Torchist (talk) 19:26, 21 February 2022 (UTC)
replies: text: This would need proper sourcing, although there may be a legal presumption that a child's father is the mother's husband. PatGallacher (talk) 16:54, 2 May 2024 (UTC)
thread_title:  The problem of Isabella II and Señor Puigmoltó 

message: It was discussed earlier, but I am not sure if we properly resolved the issue of whether the principle that the king has to be a Catholic conflicts with the succession of Henry IV. PatGallacher (talk) 16:54, 2 May 2024 (UTC)
thread_title:  Henry IV