Talk:Orléanist

message: I'm going to move this to Orléanist. Unless someone objects. Piet 09:41, 24 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Done. Piet 21:10, 6 March 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Orléanist 

message: This article could use some subsections and a picture or two.-- Mystman666  (Talk) 19:11, 24 February 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Wikification 

message: Sorry. this does NOT directly relate to improving the article, but some information should be implemented regardless.
1)Louis-Philippe's grandson/heir name was also Louis-Philippe. His article states that he succeeded his grandfather in 1848(following Louis-Philippe I's abdication)as Louis-Philippe II. yet he is listed here as Philippe VII?
2)His successor's name was also Louis-Philippe. Thus he should have been Louis-Philippe III. Even if we accept that he took the Regnal name of "Philippe", he should still only have been Philippe VII not "VIII".
3)Why are the claimants from 1940-present Henri VI and Henri VII? Surely they should be(under Orleanist reasoning anyway) Henri V and Henri VI? The only Henri V was the Legitimist claimant from 1844-1883. This corresponded with the de jure reign of Louis-Philippe I, and claimed reign of Louis-Philippe II(or Philippe VII, or whatever his supporters are calling him now). Orleanists never had a Henri V. or do they recognize Legitimist claimants as valid?
:Henry V was childless. The Orleanists, ever expectant of inheriting/usurping the throne, recognized Henry, Count of Chambord, as Henry V of France. In return, they asked Henry to recognize them as his heir. Fortunately, the monarchy was overthrown, preventing a permanent, effective takeover of the throne by the House of Orleans. I don't know why it was done, but the style Dauphin was denied to the heir of the King of the French. Most importantly, royal princes and princesses were simply "of Orleans", not "of France", or "of the French". The designation "of France", was reserved for the senior-surviving Bourbons, the descendants in male line of Louis XIV - the Spanish Bourbons. Emerson 07 (talk) 13:55, 29 June 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: Source?--Yopie (talk) 11:07, 30 June 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  Names and Numbers 

message: Edits today have been reverted as extreme violations of NPOV because they insert the contention that Orleanists believe, in general, that "international treaties" may alter France's order of succession to the throne. This is biased because it assigns undue influence to a single historical incident in defining the political philosophy of Orleanists -- it has been asserted here more as an accusation than an objective statement. No Orleanist would describe his own political philosophy in this way. The fact is that most nations have accepted that losing a war, or the prospect of imminent loss in war, can generate upheaval which has extra-legal effects on that nation's fate and governance. Such was the War of the Spanish Succession which was ended by the Treaty of Utrecht, and which was negotiated, signed, ratified and adhered to by France's diplomats, lawful king (Louis XIV), Parliament, peiole and soldiers precisely as the only means left to end a war they could no longer wage pursuant to their king's ambition to retain for the House of Bourbon the crowns of both the French and Spanish Empires. England did not pretend that William I obtained the crown by lawful inheritance or national consent when, in fact, he obtained it by conquest -- as the crown of nearly every nation has been seized at one time or another. England simply acknowledges that this happened. Legitimists seek to ignore the fact that in 1789 the authority of the Crown and the separation by class of the Estates General were  overturned by irresistable and irreversible events -- a fact that, by 1830, everyone else in France had finally accepted and, when the Comte de Chambord tried in the 1870s to turn back the clock on the French Revolution to the legitimist principles of the ancien regime, the nation -- even though monarchist and willing to hand the Crown to him -- refused to undo the French Revolution to do so. Yes, the Orleans accept that Utrecht was a game changer, and so was the Revolution. The fact is, most historians, jurists and Frenchmen do. Orleanism cannot be written here from the view of Chambord and the few Legitimists who turned to Spain's Carlist pretender as their rightful king when Chambord died in 1883. That is a fascinating and coherent perspective, but it is an extremely atypical POV. Additionally, the present Orleans pretender has repudiated his father's claim to have the right to deprive dynasts of their succession rights, so that assertion is outdated. What remains is the un-repudiated right to approve dynastic marriages from the outcome of the 1635 case of the forbidden marriage of Louis XIII's younger brother [[Gaston to Marguerite of Lorraine -- a monarchical principle which long pre-dates, but has historically been accepted by, Orleanism. FactStraight (talk) 03:58, 12 October 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  POV edits 

message: The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page has been nominated for deletion:
* 
Participate in the deletion discussion at the . —Community Tech bot (talk) 22:52, 21 January 2019 (UTC)
thread_title:  A Commons file used on this page has been nominated for deletion 

message: The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for speedy deletion:
* 
You can see the reason for deletion at the file description page linked above. —Community Tech bot (talk) 21:38, 12 January 2022 (UTC)
thread_title:  A Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for speedy deletion