Thursday, 18 January 2018

New Monarchist Think Tank in the US!

There's a new kid on the block! The Center (sic) for the Study of Monarchy, Traditional Governance, and Sovereignty, of  The International Strategic Studies Association.


Here is a link to their home page. I strongly suggest my readers take a look at it.

The Center (sic) for the Study of Monarchy, Traditional Governance, and Sovereignty

They also have  a 'Resource Page' with a great deal of useful information. Take a look!

Resources

They also have pages on Websites of Royal Houses and Websites of Monarchist and Royalist Organizations (sic).

Be warned, however! Whilst they do list the site of  L’Institut de la Maison de Bourbon , an organisation dedicated to the restoration of His Most Christian Majesty Louis XX to the Throne of his forefathers, I can find no listing for a site on the 'Royal Houses' page. On the other hand, they not only list the usurping, revolutionary, Freemasonic House of Orleans, they list the websites of several groups dedicated to depriving the Legitimate King of his Throne in the event of a restoration in France, and replacing him with a Freemason.


Memes of the Day



Wednesday, 17 January 2018

The Inevitable Collapse of Feminist Societies

A powerful video! The 'F word' occurs once, and is drawn (mispelt) once, but it's worth watching!

Based on the work by J.D. Unwin,  Sex and Culture (1934). Unwin studied 80 primitive tribes and 6 known civilisations through 5,000 years of history and found a positive correlation between the cultural achievement of a people and the sexual restraint they observe. Aldous Huxley described Sex and Culture as "a work of the highest importance".

According to Unwin, after a nation becomes prosperous it becomes increasingly liberal with regard to sexual morality and as a result loses its cohesion, its impetus and its purpose. The effect, says the author, is irrevocable.



Object Thrown at Francis

Someone threw 'an object of clothing' at Francis during his trip to Chile.


On a forum I frequent, someone asked it the thrower was excommunicated, since Canon Law provides that 
Can. 1370 §1. A person who uses physical force against the Roman Pontiff incurs a latae sententiae excommunication reserved to the Apostolic See; if he is a cleric, another penalty, not excluding dismissal from the clerical state, can be added according to the gravity of the delict.
'Latae sententiae', means that excommunication is automatic, needing no judicial verdict for it take effect.

A friend posted this reply to the question,
Only if they intended and caused physical harm to the Pope.
For instance if you happened to, in devotion to His Holiness toss a copy of the Summa as a gift at him as he passed, and hit him in the head, it wouldn't be an excommunication. You were acting out of devotion and love, perhaps a bit misguided, but you weren't trying to hurt him.
Along those lines, perhaps someone will want to gift him with a copy of the Catechism of the Councii of Trent or a Denziger . I suspect he may not have access to a copy. In fact it seems like the library copy might last have been borrowed by Pius XII, and he must have misplaced it before he died.
For those who are not familiar with the two works cited, the Catechism of the Council of Trent, or Roman Catechism, is the official exposition of the Catholic Faith, ordered by the Ňícumenical Council of Trent, and probably still the best explanation of the Faith available. Denziger, or the Enchiridion symbolorum, definitionum et declarationum de rebus fidei et morum, (Handbook of creeds, definitions, and declarations on matters of faith and morals) is  a compendium of all the basic texts on Catholic dogma and morality since the Apostolic Age. Commissioned by Blessed Pope Pius IX, it has been in use since 1854, and has been regularly updated since.

My friend is implying the obvious, that Popes since Pius XII, and especially Francis, have forgotten the basics of Catholic doctrine.

Integralism in Three Sentences

I prefer to call it 'integrism' and call myself an 'integrist', but 'integralism' and 'integralist' work, too!



From The Josias (Link in sidebar).

Catholic Integralism is a tradition of thought that rejects the liberal separation of politics from concern with the end of human life, holding that political rule must order man to his final goal. Since, however, man has both a temporal and an eternal end, integralism holds that there are two powers that rule him: a temporal power and a spiritual power. And since man’s temporal end is subordinated to his eternal end the temporal power must be subordinated to the spiritual power.

Organic, Sustainable Ant Extermination!

Just a bit of humour to lighten up a cold winter day!ūüėÜ

Memes of the Day



Tuesday, 16 January 2018

Chevalier Charles Coulombe on 'Fascism'

An excellent video, in which the Chevalier puts paid to the leftist canard that the Old European Right was 'fascist'.


What’s the Cure for Ailing Nations? More Kings and Queens, Monarchists Say


From the New York Times

This is an excellent article, except for the obligatory left-wing quoting of the snarky, treasonous head of 'Republic' a fringe group of anti-British traitors, and its dismissive description of Chevalier Charles Coulombe as 'a former stand-up comic and a monarchist', without mentioning his hundreds of published articles, numerous books, his Tumblar House YouTube channel, or his Papal Knighthood. Oh, and its gratuitous reference to UKIP as a 'far right' Party. You'd think with Trump retweeting tweets from the true British far right, they might know better. But wait! This is the New York Times, coddler of Stalinists. I guess I should know better. To be honest, I'm amazed that they published this article.



OXFORD, England — From the comfort of his country estate in Oxford, a distant relative of the Russian literary giant Tolstoy says he has the perfect solution for what ails the United States.

America, he declares, needs a monarchy.

In fact, Count Nikolai Tolstoy says, more kings, queens and all the frippery that royalty brings would be not just a salve for a superpower in political turmoil, but also a stabilizing force for the world at large.

“I love the monarchy,” Count Tolstoy, 82, said as he sat in his lush garden behind an expansive stone house. “Most people think the monarchy is just decorative and filled with splendor and personalities. They do not appreciate the important ideological reasons for a monarchy.”

The count is not the only voice advocating rule by royalty. An author and a conservative politician who holds dual British and Russian citizenship, he leads the International Monarchist League and is part of a loose confederation of monarchists scattered across the globe, including in the United States.

Their core arguments: Countries with monarchies are better off because royal families act as a unifying force and a powerful symbol; monarchies rise above politics; and nations with royalty are generally richer and more stable.

Critics say such views are antiquated and alarming in an era when democracies around the globe appear to be imperiled. The count and his band of fellow monarchists, however, are determined to make their case at conferences, in editorials and at fancy balls.

A recent study that examined the economic performance of monarchies versus republics bolsters their views. Led by Mauro F. Guill√©n, a management professor at the Wharton School at the University of Pennsylvania, the study found “robust and quantitatively meaningful evidence” that monarchies outperform other forms of government.

A recent study that examined the economic performance of monarchies versus republics bolsters their views. Led by Mauro F. Guill√©n, a management professor at the Wharton School at the University of Pennsylvania, the study found “robust and quantitatively meaningful evidence” that monarchies outperform other forms of government.

Mr. Guill√©n says he was “shocked” by the results, which have not yet been published. “Most people think monarchies are something anachronistic,” he said. “They think that modern forms of government are superior and have trouble accepting that monarchies have advantages.”

When he presents his findings, “there is more skepticism in the room than with the average paper,” said Mr. Guill√©n, who is not a monarchist. “It’s been an uphill battle.”

His findings come as no surprise, however, to monarchists, who aim to preserve existing monarchies and to support royals who live in exile. They believe that countries with exiled royals should return them to the throne, and that nations without monarchies should consider a switch.

“We support the retention and restoration of monarchies anywhere in the world,” Count Tolstoy said. “Our goal is to persuade people.”

History books, of course, are replete with examples of monarchies that became symbols of repression and rapacious, cloistered wealth. Some were ousted by bloody rebellions (the American and French Revolutions) or collapsed in ruins (the Hapsburg Empire), and many have ruthlessly marginalized whole classes of people.


Constitutions, Not Absolute Control

But Count Tolstoy insists that monarchists are not pining for the days of absolute rulers and the divine right of kings, when Henry VIII of England could order up the execution of unwanted wives and political foes.

Instead, his group advocates constitutional monarchies, in which a king or queen is head of state and the real power rests with an elected Parliament — much like those in Belgium, Britain, Denmark, Japan, the Netherlands, Norway and Spain (although demonstrators in 2014 demanded a referendum on the Spanish royal family after King Juan Carlos abdicated).

All of those countries, the monarchists note, have relatively strong economies.

Mr. Guill√©n’s study shows that since 1900, 22 countries have abandoned royal leaders, while 35 others adopted them. Forms of constitutional monarchies took root, at least for some time, in emerging economies like Malaysia and Thailand.

Still, the study noted that some current monarchies lack basic democratic freedoms, including in Brunei, Oman, Qatar, Saudi Arabia and Swaziland.

After the Arab Spring, some analysts noted that monarchies like Morocco, Jordan and the Gulf States demonstrated much more stability than countries like Iraq, Libya and Egypt.

But Sean L. Yom, a political-science professor at Temple University who studies Middle Eastern governments, said that stability might be fleeting: With some of those monarchies propped up by oil money rather than a love of any royal family, “monarchies are on their way out,” Mr. Yom said.

“Those surviving in the Middle East are the very lucky survivors of history, and it is just taking more time,” he said. “These countries look so good only because their neighbors look so bad."

                     Contesting the Throne

Finding people to reject the monarchists’ vision is not hard, even in Britain, where Queen Elizabeth II is revered by many.

A London-based grass-roots organization called Republic, which wants the country to hold a referendum on the monarchy when the queen dies, says bluntly on its website, “The monarchy isn’t fit for purpose. It is corrupt and secretive.”

The group has a clear mandate: “We want to see the monarchy abolished and the queen replaced with an elected democratic head of state,” it says.

Graham Smith, Republic’s chief executive, said that current polls showed about 20 to 25 percent of Britons to be anti-royalty, and that it had been hard to win broader support. “Our job is to keep raising that number,” he said, adding that “public opinion takes time to shift.”

As for the Monarchist League, Mr. Smith dismisses it as “a crank organization.” He said: “They are going against the general direction of history. You cannot just pluck a family out of obscurity and put them in charge of a country.”

Count Tolstoy acknowledges that the International Monarchist League had turned into a “league of eccentrics” under its former chancellor, Victor Hervey, who had been jailed for a jewel heist, worked as an arms dealer and sought tax exile in Monaco.

It was founded in 1943 on the belief that the monarchies of Eastern Europe could be a bulwark against Soviet expansion. Count Tolstoy took over in the mid-1980s, and says the current members are “sensible, run-of-the-mill people.”

Count Tolstoy has written books on ancient and postwar British history. He has also run, unsuccessfully, as a parliamentary candidate for the far-right U.K. Independence Party in four general elections.

King Willem-Alexander of the Netherlands at a celebration in the city of Lelystad in November. CreditRobin Van Lonkhuijsen/Agence France-Presse — Getty Images

King of the United States

When he considers the United States, Count Tolstoy is certain it would be better off without a presidency.

“There is an alternative,” he wrote in an opinion article for The New York Times before the 2016 election. He noted that neither candidate “appears to be a Washington or a Lincoln,” and pointed to a neighbor as an example: Canada, he wrote, “demonstrates that democracy is perfectly compatible with constitutional monarchy.” 

But being an American monarchist can be a tough sell. The country, after all, was born of rebellion against a British king.

Charles A. Coulombe of Los Angeles, a former stand-up comic and a monarchist, said, “If you say you are a monarchist, there is a strain of disloyalty or treason.”

There are no reliable estimates of how many monarchists there are in the United States. But to help disseminate their message, a Washington think tank, the Center for the Study of Monarchy, Traditional Governance and Sovereignty, opened this past year.

American monarchists also find ways to help the cause abroad. Thomas R. Hutson, a retired State Department diplomat who was posted in Belgrade, has been advocating the restoration of Alexander, the crown prince of Yugoslavia, as the monarch of Serbia.

On his own dime, Mr. Hutson has repeatedly traveled to Serbia to promote the prince, who was born in exile in London and later moved to Belgrade. But Mr. Hutson admits that he is making little headway.

“I tell people I’m a monarchist and the conversation lasts three seconds,” he said. “There is resoundingly no interest in him coming back as king. It’s a generational thing. The monarchy completely goes by young people who lack of a sense of history.”

He insists, however: “I’m not giving up.”

The Rev. Canon Kenneth W. Gunn-Walberg, the rector of St. Mary’s Anglican Church in Wilmington, Del., and leader of the Monarchist League’s chapter for the Eastern states, said the appeal of monarchies was simple.

“There is style, a mystery and ethos with a monarch,” he said. “Presidents come and go. There’s continuity, a sense of history with a monarchy.”

God Save the Tsar!

Now if only the tinpot dictator, Putin, would do the right thing and restore the Monarchy!


Too True! LOL!



Several years after I left the farm, I was home during haying. The first load I bucked bales, the second I stacked them on the wagon, the third I helped unload. The fourth? Dad sent me to the house to help the women get dinner ready! LOL! Haying is hellaciously hard work!

Monarchy – A Study of Louis XIV by Hilaire Belloc (A Review by Roger Buck)


Hilaire Belloc
Here is a rich (and alas out-of-print) book about many things – certainly, the life story of Louis XIV, the ‘Sun King’ of France, amongst them.
Yet perhaps even more, it is also a book about the contrast and conflict between Catholic France and Protestant England and Holland, with whom Louis XIV struggled.
And, as we shall see, it is a book about capitalism and the emerging capitalist plutocracy in England and Holland, with which Louis XIV also struggled.
And, most obviously of course, it is a book about monarchy.
Now, many people coming to Hilaire Belloc today may imagine him as always a monarchist. It is an easy assumption to make: Belloc owes so very much to that late Nineteenth Century French Catholic culture he was born into.
And that French Catholic culture was not only staunchly traditional – it was also counter-revolutionary and monarchical. It resisted to the teeth the legacy of the French Revolution, which had overthrown the French monarchy.
But no, it is not true Belloc was always a monarchist.
For it is part of Belloc’s brilliance that he did not simply and unconsciously absorb the Catholic milieu he inhabited – but rather thought for himself in a profoundly original way.
And so, strange as it may seem, the young Belloc – although devoutly Catholic – began his writing career as an apologist for the French Revolution!
Enamoured of Rousseau’s Social Contract, Belloc loved human freedom and distinctly set himself apart from Catholic criticism of the 1789 Revolution.
Yet later, all this changed. The older Belloc renounced his youthful politics in favour of monarchism.
What happened? Did Belloc lose his early love of human liberty?
Arguably, the truth is quite, quite the opposite.
For Belloc never lost his love for liberty. Rather, he became convinced that the politics of his youth did not deliver freedom.
Particularly, he became convinced parliamentary democracy did not deliver freedom – it was a sham.
Rather, Belloc was persuaded that monarchy – of some kind – was more likely to preserve human freedom than parliamentary democracy.

In our culture today, this sounds absurd to many ears. We automatically and axiomatically assume that our modern forms of democracy are more representative of the will of the people than monarchy!
But let us neither be automatic nor axiomatic. Let us instead consider Belloc …
For this, dear Reader, is my real purpose for writing this review. And I must warn you what follows is not simply a book review, but something more – it is an enquiry into issues such as the evils of modern capitalism and the destruction of freedom, religion and tradition (themes which are very important to us at this website).
Given this is not a conventional book review, I will also warn you we will not be proceeding in a conventional fashion. Expect some odd digressions, even curve-balls then …

Belloc: From Revolution to Counter-Revolution



Belloc moved, as we have indicated, from being an advocate of Revolution to Counter-Revolution.

And such a move, we say, is not easy to comprehend – at least for those possessed by modern axioms regarding democracy.
Yet, unlike most of us, Belloc knew parliamentary democracy firsthand – he was twice elected as a Liberal Member of Parliament in the British House of Commons.
He was even what was then known as a radical Liberal – in other words, one of the most left-wing members of Parliament at that time.
But Parliament disillusioned him. It was above all his disillusioning experience of being a ‘representative’ of the people that convinced Belloc that parliaments – or Senates, Houses of Congress etc. – did not so much represent the will of the people – as they did the will of the banks and a capitalist plutocracy of business magnates and tycoons.
In short, Belloc became convinced that British democracy was a (bad) joke – the strings were really being pulled by hidden financial elites.
Thus, he began a crusade for decades against the power of finance – arguing that usury, the very verve of the banks, was a dreadful evil out of which only slavery could come.
The ‘Money-power’, as Belloc called it, was not only devouring human freedom – but also religion, culture and tradition.
Civilisational decay was therefore the manifest result for Belloc – a new materialistic culture with ever-decreasing standards in the ethical and intellectual arenas.
Belloc became a prophet, then, of both contemporary moral decay – and what we would now call ‘dumbing-down’.
And herein we find the reasons, he eventually embraced the Counter-Revolution …
(Continued...)


The Act of Union Is Passed By the Scottish Parliament, AD 1707

On this historic day,16 January, in 1707, the Act of Union was passed in the Scottish Parliament, merging the English and Scottish parliaments and paving the way for the new country of Great Britain.

The English Parliament passed the Act of Union on the 4th of March 1707 (Royal Assent on 6th of March) and, of course, it came into effect on the 1st of May 1707.

Pictured below are the Acts of Union are being presented to Queen Anne by the Duke of Queensbury in 1707.


I Missed the Community Supper

Last night was Monday, of course. However, since it was a Federal holiday and the Post Office was closed, my Cuter and Shorter Half did not have to work. We spent the day doing chores around the house and spending time on our computers, discussing what were were reading or watching.

I'd been lazy for a day or so, so there was a large mound of dishes to wash, and we'd finished the last of the bread Sunday evening. I did the dishes and made a loaf of Swedish rye bread with caraway seed. As the afternoon wore on, she started supper. We had some left over pasta sauce that she heated and she boiled spaghetti. My loaf of bread finished baking just before the spaghetti was ready, so we sat down to a hearty meal of pasta and warm bread with butter. As I like to say, I like some carbs with my carbs!

As I prepared to dig in to the delicious repast, I realised what day it was. I mentioned it, and, looking at the clock, she said I still had time to make it. Not likely! I wasn't passing up what was in front of me, even if it was vegetarian.

I'm sure I'll be asked about my absence when I go to the supper next week.

Fulfilment of a Promise

So how did I end up being a French Legitimist, a supporter of  le Tr√®s haut, tr√®s puissant et tr√®s excellent Prince, Louis XX, Par la gr√Ęce de Dieu, Roi de France et de Navarre, Roi Tr√®s-chr√©tien? That journey is part of the monarchist ideology that I've held as long as I can remember, except for a short flirtation with leftism in my early 20s. I posted on this topic in a short introduction to a video by my good friend, Chevalier Charles Coulombe, 'How Do People Become Monarchists?'

I have ancestral ties to the British monarchy. My Mother and my Grandmother were both Hampshire women. My Mother's Father was the son of Canadian subjects of the British Crown, and despite being an American citizen, he had enlisted in the British Army as a Gunner in the Royal Field Artillery in 1915. My male ancestors, in my Grandmother's family, had, for generations, either served in the Royal Navy, or worked in Royal Dockyard Portsmouth. I cannot remember a time in my life that I have not felt a loyalty to Her Majesty Queen Elizabeth.


Plus on my Father's side of the family, my Grandmother Weismiller was born in Sweden during the reign of HM King Oscar II. She had two brothers, one named Oscar for the King reigning at his birth, and one named Gustav for the Crown Prince, later HM King Gustav V.


However, I'm also a mediæval history buff. I even read mediæval history at university. I knew that, in the middle ages, it was not at all unusual to owe allegiance to two (or more) different lords. When I became a Traditional Catholic, as well as a monarchist, I wanted a Catholic prince. and because on my Father's side of the family, his Father's people had come from Imperial land that is now part of Germany, thanks to the protestant aggression of Otto von Bismarck, As a result of this connection, I wanted a tie to the old Holy Empire. I wrote to Otto von Habsburg, de jure, tho' not de facto, Emperor of Austria and Apostolic King of Hungary offering to swear allegiance to him. He replied that he would rather I swore allegiance to an 'United Europe'. I was already becoming suspicious of the whole EU project, so I chose a different route, tho' he and his gracious consort did, later, become Godparents to my youngest daughter.


So, with the Emperor himself out of the running, I realised that there is only one State in the world, still existing, that was a constituent part of the Holy Roman Empire, and that is still ruled by a monarch, i.e. Liechtenstein. The story of how it became a State of the Empire is fascinating in itself, and is the subject of a future post. At any rate, since I only had one choice, I took the chance and wrote  His Serene Highness Franz Josef, Prince of Liechtenstein. I offered him my allegiance, and in reply he told me that, as long as I realised that it gave me no claim on Liechtensteiner citizenship, he would be happy to accept my oath. I took the oath of allegiance and was content until he died in 1989.


At that point, I wrote to his son and successor Prince Hans Adam offering him my renewed allegiance. He replied that he wasn't interested. So I was 'Catholic prince-less' again. I had no ties to Luxembourg or Belgium. Andorra was out because one of its Co-Princes is the republican President of revolutionary France. My opinion of the Royal Perjuror on the Throne of Spain at the time was less than accepting, so I had to look in the deposed Houses. Italy was out, because in its origins the Kingdom of Italy was a Freemasonic plot to destroy the Papal States. I had no ties to Portugal, either, so I was left with the choice of France. I actually have a tenuous ancestral connection to la Belle France, tho'. That Canadian Great Grandfather I mentioned had come of mixed English and French Huguenot stock, so I looked seriously at France.






Plus, in my increasing immersion in integralist and counnter-revolutionary thought and politics and my reading in Catholic prohecy, especially of Yves Dupont's Catholic Prophecy, in which occur many prophecies regarding a Frankish King who will rule, or how the Great Monarch will come from the 'House of Lilies', the 'Fleur-de-Lis', as can be seen here. I became more and more convinced, that if the Revolution were to be defeated, it must first be defeated in France, where Satan had won his great victory.



STCM Louis XVI, 
foully murdered by
the Revolution


Because of these prophecies, it became vital to know who the Legitimate King of France, 'God's Lieutenant on earth', as the Maid of Orleans, Ste Jeanne d'Arc, called him, actually is. 


There are three families who claim the Crown, not counting the idiotic Naundorffists, the House of Bourbon, the House of Orleans, and the Bonapartes. Plus there are the 'Providentialists' who believe that 'God will choose the King'. They were the first to be dismissed, because, whilst I truly believe that God chooses kings, he chooses them by descent in the royal family.


The second to go were the Bonapartes, because I believe that Napoleon was a committed and convinced Revolutionary, who saw his mission as the completion of the Revolution and the total destruction of la vraie France, le pays reel.


That left the Bourbons and the Orleans. Both have large numbers of supporters, but the succession question is complicated. 


La Maison de Bourbon represents the Eldest line of the House of France, descended by strict Salic Law from male to male from Hugh Capet, King of the Franks from AD 987 until AD 997. In other words, this line has an unbroken line of male descent for 1020 years! It is true that the Orleans also trace their descent in an unbroken male line back to Hugh, but they have no legitimate claim to the headship of the House of France by strict Salic Law. 


La Maison d'Orleans,  is a cadet branch of la Maison de France. The Head of this junior branch of the Royal House is a direct descendant in the male line of Phillipe II, le R√©gent, le duc d'Orleans. Wikipedia has this to say about him:

«Philippe was a professed atheist who boasted to read the satirical works of Fran√ßois Rabelais inside a Bible binding during mass, and liked to hold orgies even on religious high holidays.». He was also an unrepentant sodomite who only married for reasons of state.

His son, Louis, duc d'Orleans, rebelled by being a good man and a good Catholic, but his grandson, Louis-Phillipe, duc d'Orleans, began to revert to type, though in a less perverted manner, fathering at least two bastards.

His great grandson, Louis-Philippe-Joseph duc d'Orl√©ans, is known to history as Philippe-√Čgalit√©. He was Grandmaster of the violently anti-Catholic Freemasonic Grand Lodge of France and an active supporter of the Revolution (in the hope of usurping the Throne, many think!). He voted for the murder of his cousin, His Most Christian Majesty, King Louis XVI and is thus often referred to as «the Regicide». Despite his devotion to its ideals, the Revolution turned on him and he was guillotined in November, 1793, during the reign of terror, thus surviving his cousin, the King, by only ten months.

However, his dreams and those of his forebears back to his great grandfather came true in 1830 when the Revolution succeeded in overthrowing the last Legitimate King of France and Navarre, His Most Christian Majesty, King Charles X, and replacing him on the «Throne» with Phillipe-√Čgalit√©'s son, Louis-Philippe, as le roi des francaises (King of the French, rather than of France and Navarre, the title of the true Kings of France).


The diversion came as a result of the Revolution of 1830. King Charles X had succeeded his childless brother, King Louis XVIII in 1824. When the second French Revolution (there would be a third in 1848) overthrew him, he was technically succeeded by his son, Louis, Duc d'Angoul√™me for 20 minutes. While the revolutionaries were clamouring for a Masonic government under Louis-Philippe, he abdicated in favour of his son, Henri, Duc d'Artois.


The Revolution won, however, and Louis-Philippe became the 'Citizen King', 'King of the French, by the Grace of God and the Will of the People', throwing a title 843 years old, 'King of France' out the window to pander to the mob.


Legitimists such as myself, have never accepted the forced abdication of King Charles, however, and he was still considered King until his death in 1836. He was succeeded as Legitimate King by his son as Louis XIX. On his death, eight years after his father, in 1844, he was succeeded in turn by his son, the Duke of Artois, as Henri V.



STCM Henri V

Then, in the early 1870s, as the Second Empire collapsed following its defeat in the Franco-Prussian War at the battle of Sedan on 1 September 1870, the royalists became a majority in the National Assembly. The Orl√©anists agreed to support the ageing Charles' claim to the throne, with the expectation that at his childless death he would be succeeded by their own claimant, Philippe d'Orl√©ans, comte de Paris, of the revolutionary, usurping, Freemasonic House of Orleans. Henri was then pretender for both Legitimists and Orl√©anists, and the restoration of monarchy in France seemed a close possibility. However, Henri insisted that he would accept the crown only on condition that France abandon its tricolour flag and return to the use of the white fleur-de-lys flag. He rejected a compromise, whereby the fleur-de-lys would be the new king's personal standard, and the tricolour would remain the national flag.


A temporary Third Republic was established, to wait for Henri's death and his replacement by the more liberal Comte de Paris. But by the time this occurred in 1883, public opinion had swung behind the Republic as the form of government which, in the words of the former President Adolphe Thiers, "divides us least". Thus, Henri could be mockingly hailed by republicans such as Georges Clemenceau as "the French Washington" — the one man without whom the Republic could not have been founded.

Henri's death left the Legitimist line of succession distinctly confused. On one hand, Henri himself had accepted that the head of the Maison de France (as distinguished from the Maison de Bourbon) would be the head of the Orl√©ans line, i.e. the Comte de Paris. However this was compltely ultra vires, since it did not lie in his power to alter the Fundamental Laws of France or the Salic inheritance of the Headship of the House of France, which is one of those Laws. This was accepted by many Legitimists, and was the default on very dubious legal grounds, for reasons I shall explain shortly; the only surviving Bourbon line more senior was the Spanish branch, which had supposedly renounced its right to inherit the throne of France as a condition of the Treaty of Utrecht. However, many if not most of Henri's supporters, including his widow, chose to disregard his statements and this law, arguing that no one had the right to deny to the senior direct-male-line male Bourbon to be the head of the Maison de France and thus the legitimate King of France; the renunciation of the Spanish branch is under this interpretation illegitimate and therefore void. Thus these Legitimists settled on Juan, Count of Montiz√≥n, who became by the Fundamental Laws, Jean III, King of France and Navarre. He issued a declaration saying, "Having become Head of the House of Bourbon by the death of my brother-in-law and cousin, the Comte de Chambord, I declare that I do not in any way renounce the rights to the throne of France which I have held since my birth". He was also, at the time, the Carlist pretender to the Spanish throne (the Salic law having been suspended in Spain, the actual king, Alfonso XII, was not the senior descendant in the male line), as their claimant to the French crown. Juan is considered by Legitimists to have been His Most Christian Majesty Jean III.



STCM Jean III

Wikipedia has a very good section on the Fundamental Laws. In fact, the entire article has a great deal of information. It can be read here, The section on the Laws says (my emphasis):

The fundamental laws concerning the royal succession. In Ancien R√©gime France, the laws that govern the succession to the throne are among the fundamental laws of the kingdom. They could not be ignored, nor modified, even by the king himself, since it is to these very laws to which he owes his succession. In the French monarchy, they are the foundation of any right of succession to the throne. They have developed during the early centuries of the Capetian monarchy, and were sometimes transferred to other countries linked to the dynasty.
  • Heredity: the French crown is hereditary. The early Capetians had their heirs crowned during their lifetime, to prevent succession disputes. The first such coronation was in favour of Robert II, in 987.
  • Primogeniture: the eldest son is the heir, while cadets only receive appanages to maintain their rank. This principle was strengthened in 1027, when Henry, the eldest surviving son of Robert II, was crowned despite the protests of his mother, Constance of Arles, and younger brother, Robert.
  • Masculinity: females are excluded from the succession. This issue was not raised until 1316, as the Capetian kings did not lack sons to succeed them for the preceding three centuries. This was invoked by Philip V of France to exclude his niece, Joan, daughter of his elder brother.
  • Male collaterality: the right of succession cannot be derived from a female line. This was invoked in 1328 by Philip VI of France, to counter the claims of Edward III of England, making the succession exclusive to the Capetian family.
  • Continuity of the Crown (or immediacy of the Crown): as soon as the king dies, his successor is immediately king because "the King (the State) never dies". Philip III, who was in Tunis when his father died, was the first to date his reign from the death of his predecessor (1270), instead of his own coronation. Orders made under Charles VI, in 1403 and 1407, anxious to avoid any interregnum, declared that the heir to the throne should be considered King after the death of his predecessor. But even after these decisions, Joan of Arc persisted in the old position by calling Charles VII, whose father died in 1422, the "Dauphin" until his coronation at Rheims in 1429
  • Inalienability of the Crown (or unavailability of the Crown): the crown is not the personal property of the king. He cannot appoint his successor, renounce the crown, or abdicate. This principle arose circa 1419, in anticipation of the Treaty of Troyes, which sought to exclude the Dauphin Charles from the succession. The succession can no longer be regulated by the king, and would rely only on the force of custom.
  • Catholicism: this principle was not specifically identified in the Middle Ages, but it was implied. Since the baptism of Clovis, the kings of France were Catholic. The Protestantism of Henry of Navarre led to a civil war wherein the king had to reestablish his legitimacy. In the famous Arr√™t Lemaistre (1593), Parlement protected the rights of the legitimate successor, Henry of Navarre, but deferred his recognition as legitimate king, pending his conversion.
It is clear that the constitution of the fundamental laws is empirical: masculinity, Catholicity and inalienability for example, have been added or rather clarified because there is uncertainty on points considered already implied by others or by custom (as was the case for masculinity, practiced with the rule of male collaterality, in 1316 and 1328 before being formulated in 1358 and formally put into effect in 1419). The 'fundamental' character of the laws was that they could be supplemented in order to clarify, but not changed, or have any or all of the basic laws ignored to change the direction of the whole. It also appears that the role of parliaments is essential in these various clarifications, the fourteenth to the eighteenth century or the nineteenth century if we add the episodes from the history of the French Capetian dynasty in 1830, 1848, 1875 and 1886.


Whether or not the operation of Salic Law in Spain was actually abolished, is of course, a bone of contention between the Carlists and the Alfonsists which has led to the three Carlist Wars plus the Spanish Civil War is considered by many Carlists to have been a fourth, but that is the topic of another post.

The entire French succession questions turns on two points. 1) Was it within the power of the Head of the House to change it and the Salic Law determining it, and 2) was the Treaty of Utrecht binding on the question. The first point is the crux of the succession problem in both France and Spain, but the Treaty of Utrecht affects only the French question, since, as I pointed out above, the actual King of Spain is not the Eldest Born of the House of Bourbon.

As I pointed out, no one, not even the King can change the Fundamental Laws ofd France, and Henri's attempt to so was ultra vires, so, in France it boils down to the Treaty of Utrecht. What is it? The Treaty of Utrecht, which established the Peace of Utrecht, is actually a series of individual peace treaties, rather than a single document, signed by the belligerents in the War of the Spanish Succession, in the Dutch city of Utrecht in March and April 1713. The treaties between several European states, including the Kingdoms of SpainGreat BritainFrancePortugalSavoy, and the Dutch Republic, which helped end the war.

The War of the Spanish Succession was caused by the Will of the last Habsburg King of Spain, Charles II, who, infirm and childless, had willed the Kingdoms of the Spains to his distant cousin, Philippe, duc d'Anjou, the son of Louis le Grand Dauphin, and grandson of Louis XIV, le Roi Soleil. The other major Powers of Europe, fearing a dynastic union of France and the Spains, objected, which led to the war.


After 13 long years of facing those parts of Spain loyal to Charles von Habsburg,  the Crown of Aragon, Austria, Great Britain (1707-1713, which had been England and Scotland until 1707), the Dutch Republic, Prussia, Portugal, Savoy, and Hanover, and having had peace for only four years after having faced much the same Coalition in the Nine Years War, France was exhausted. A condition of the peace was that King Louis and Philippe should renounce, forever, the rights of the Spanish Bourbons to the Throne of France. Most Legitimists, myself included, believe that this promise was extorted from an exhausted Kingdom that could not afford to continue the war.


Beyond the fact that this was a putative change in the Fundamental Laws, and thus ultra vires, we do not feel that an pledge included in what was, essentially, an extorted treaty is any more binding than an extorted oath or vow. As a result, having rejected the Providentialists on 'theological' grounds, the Bonapartes for their devotion to the Revolution, and the Orleanists because of their usurpation of the Throne, their Revolutionary ties, and the fact that the Fundamental Laws require the King to be Catholic (cf. Henri IV, who said 'Paris is worth a Mass', and converted so he could become King) and as Masons they are not Catholic, (in fact the current Orleanist 'claimant', a few years ago, was the founding Master of a new lodge!), I became a Legitimist.

The line from Jean III is as follows.

  • Charles XI
  • Jacques I
  • Charles XII
  • Alphonse I
  • Jacques II
  • Alphonse II
  • Louis XX, By the Grace of God, Most Christian King of France and Navarre; Count of Provence, Forcalquier and the lands adjacentDauphin of Viennois, Count of Valentinois and of Diois, Whom God Preserve!
STCM Louis XX
Vive le Tr√®s haut, tr√®s puissant et tr√®s excellent Prince, Louis XX, Par la gr√Ęce de Dieu, Roi de France et de Navarre, Roi Tr√®s-chr√©tien!