Friday, June 3, 2011

Mad Rant: "Theoretical Monarchists"

I have mentioned it before, I am sure, but perhaps not in detail but one of things that really gets on my nerves are what I like to call “theoretical monarchists”. In one regard, I am loathe to bring this subject up because I am a pan-monarchist and I would like nothing better than to see all monarchists supporting each other rather than tearing each other apart when we are such a scattered minority. It is for this reason that there are certain subjects I refrain from talking about here. That is the main reason why I am not as forceful on religious issues as I am normally. I do not deny my own religious beliefs (nor do I think it is much of a secret where my religious loyalties lie, the confusion of some not withstanding) and while I do not avoid the subject, I at least try to do my best to avoid offending. Similarly, I do not make an issue of disputed successions here. In at least some of the cases (there are many) I do favor a particular side. In others the cases argued are so deep in varying legal interpretations I simply have no opinion because I have not deigned to take several years to study all the details to come to an informed opinion. However, again, I try my best not to cause offense because, whether dealing with France or Italy or Russia I would regard any of the candidates as an improvement over the existing republican system.

However, there are some who are so entrenched in their views and opinions that they would rather hand victory to the republicans than see a royal they do not favor on the throne. How these people then consider themselves monarchists baffles me. What I find just as aggravating, and who I frankly refuse to deal with more often than not because of that, are those who claim that they are “monarchists” and even “more monarchist” than anyone else yet do not actually support their own monarch or monarchy. In fact, some (and I am not exaggerating) do not actually support any monarchy that currently exists in the world because they all fail to meet their rigid and lofty standards. These are the people I call “theoretical monarchists”. They may be royalists in theory but in practical terms they are really no different than the republicans they so despise. I am a simple man (probably the one thing every reader here would agree with) and I am a simple monarchist. I know I am a bit deranged, but to me, being a monarchist means you support having a monarchy; you want to maintain those that survive and restore those that have fallen. Simple as that.

Elizabeth II -actual Queen
Allow me to be as blatant as possible: if you live in a monarchy and do not support your monarch, I do not consider you a monarchist. In the past, those who fall into the “theoretical monarchist” category that I came across involved Great Britain or the British Commonwealth. I refer of course to the die-hard Jacobites, all of whom I have dealt with having been Catholics (and I don’t mean to pick on Catholics but, get ready, because the issue comes up again). They don’t support the Queen because the true monarch is Duke Francis of Bavaria. However, I have not heard much out of them lately. In my experience, most Catholics in Britain or the Commonwealth that I know of, positively go out of their way to show how their loyalty to HM Queen Elizabeth II is just and proper and totally support the monarchy. In fact, I have been rather surprised by how many Catholics are adamantly loyal to the British monarchy given how virulent and widespread anti-Catholicism remains in the UK. Despite all that has happened over the centuries, bring up the subject of Catholicism around a crowd of average Britons (even monarchists) and you can count down the seconds before “Bloody” Mary or the Spanish Armada is brought up or how long it takes for the hapless King James II to be slandered in the vilest terms. Again, given that, I’m rather impressed by how loyal most British Catholics seem to be to the monarchy.

Rather, it is another country near and dear to my heart where I have recently found the most adamant and vociferous “theoretical monarchists” and it is a peculiarly Catholic strand. I refer, of course, to the Kingdom of Spain. As I’m sure you all know, I have the Mad Monarchist Channel on YouTube and while I have only once or twice ever seen a comment on a video of the British Royal Family protesting their illegitimacy, any time I put up a video dealing with the modern Spanish Royal Family there will be a string of comments (or attempted comments anyway) slandering the King, the Royal Family and stressing that some Carlist pretender or another is the “real” King of Spain and their family the “real” Spanish Royal Family. Good Lord, saints and angels is this tiresome! Some may think me biased due to the fact that I *like* the King of Spain personally but I really fail to see any reason for such opposition and it severely tries my limited patience. As far as I can tell, contesting the rights of King Juan Carlos I makes even less sense than contesting the rights of Queen Elizabeth II and that makes no sense at all.

Juan Carlos I -actual King
I understand where the Carlists are coming from, I understand the whole origin of the Carlist Wars. Historically, I would have been on their side and I think their cause was the right one. However, every way I have looked at the Carlist line of succession I keep coming back to (gasp) none other than King Juan Carlos. This is one reason why the various factions of Carlists make less sense to me than even the die-hard Jacobites. The Jacobites at least can point to an orderly succession of heirs to the Stuart lineage. I have never come across a Jacobite or any other monarchist who did not agree that the Duke of Bavaria is the legitimate successor to the royal line of the deposed King James II. However, the Carlists have several candidates and are divided into several factions, becoming ever smaller (and they were a minority to begin with) and those they put forward have no legitimate claim, as I see it, on the throne of Spain at all. Unless there is some pertinent information I am lacking it seems that at some point they just decided to pick a prince who agreed with them on political and religious matters and declared him the “legitimate” heir.

This is not what I would consider monarchist behavior. Monarchists are (in my view) supposed to be loyal to the prince God gives them and sometimes that can be a real test. However, putting aside all of that, there is the practical issue that no Carlist claimant has ANY chance whatsoever of becoming the King of Spain. The one and only King of Spain is His Catholic Majesty Juan Carlos I and if he falls Spain will be a republic, not a Marxist Catholic kingdom (as favored by some Carlists) or a traditionalist Catholic kingdom (as favored by other Carlists). The only options in Spain today is the monarchy that exists or a leftist republic. If you support the King and the continuance of the Kingdom of Spain I consider you a monarchist. If you are Spanish and, for any reason, not loyal to the King, I do not consider you a monarchist in any meaningful sense of the term. You might as well be a republican for all the good your “theoretical monarchism” will do.

Paul VI -actual Pope
Of course, as I said, these “theoretical monarchists” (in this case) are Catholics and one would think that the issue could be settled quite simply by looking to the Holy See for guidance. Oh, but you would wrong there silly Willy! When I say these people are Catholics I should probably instead say that these people are “Catholics” because their loyalty to the Holy See is rather ‘hit and miss’ as well. Tiresome, tiresome, tiresome. Again, on the Mad Monarchist Channel I recently put up a video of His Holiness Pope Paul VI (and many of you will already know where this is going). Let me state for the record that Paul VI is definitely not going to be making “My Favorite Popes” list, but I do not write articles or post videos of only those I like. Only by the next morning of posting that video I had five or six messages slandering Paul VI, denouncing him as illegitimate or (my favorite) that he was really an imposter while the “real” Pope was kept in a secret Vatican prison.

As I said, I am not the biggest fan of Pope Paul VI, but this stuff is obviously ridiculous. Just as I would say about self-proclaimed monarchists in Britain regarding the Queen or in Spain regarding the King, it seems a simple matter to me that if you are a Catholic you are loyal to the Pope, whoever that might be. If you’re not loyal to the Pope, you’re not Catholic. I certainly do not agree with everything that every monarch does but, as a monarchist, I still support them. A Catholic may not like every thing the Pope does or says but Catholics should still support him. Regarding Paul VI, I don’t like many of the changes he presided over, I certainly don’t like the gutting of the Curia, the abolition of the Noble Guard and the Palatine Guard or his discarding of the Papal Tiara. However, none of that changes the fact that he was the Pope. If the wildest stories against him are believed it would seem obvious to me that any claim to divine protection for the Church would be sacrificed.

This is a difficult issue, I know. But monarchy is not about popularity, it is about legitimacy and traditional authority -not popular authority. Monarchists are usually fine with that as long as the monarch (usually historically) was on their side but it becomes problematic when modern monarchs do things that very traditional monarchists do not approve of. I understand that can be difficult. However, whether it is the Queen of England, the King of Spain, the Dalai Lama or the Pope, my support for them as legitimate sovereigns does not depend on whether or not I agree with them. To do otherwise does not seem at all “monarchist” to me. And seeing people who call themselves royalists yet find some fault with virtually every reigning royal in the world, baffles me. At a time when actual monarchies are such a small minority in the world, it should not be too much to ask that monarchists support those few that remain. To do otherwise simply makes one a theoretical monarchist and a practical republican. And it makes me a very … Mad Monarchist.


  1. Monarchism is a broad church, so we can accommodate all perspectives while defending the institution and principle of monarchy. Whilst Jacobitism, Carlism and French legitimism primarily concerned dynastic legitimacy, it's increasingly more about ideology. Which is also true of Orleanism and Bonapartism.

    Certain similarities between Jacobites and Carlists were their bases of support- Jacobites got support in Scotland and Ireland, whose vestiges of self-rule were gradually abolished, similarly Carlists drew significant Basque and Catalan support- because they wanted to restore home rule lost after the War of Spanish Succession. In fact, the more moderate and conservative Basque and Catalan nationalist parties (the dominant parties in those lands today) were influenced by Carlism, and remember that the abolition of the Kingdom of Navarre's separate status in 1833 contributed to the First Carlist War.

    In the Second Spanish Republic, the reaction from the monarchist right was quick and by 1933 the right took the most votes in an election. They could form a coalition with moderate republicans (led by Lerroux), because even *they* could see the horrors of the Marxist left. In 1936, the division into three blocs meant that the monarchists (both Alfonsine and Carlist) dominated the right (National Front), moderate Basque and Catalan nationalists and moderate republicans filled the centre, and the radical republicans and socialists on the left (Popular Front)- the right and centre parties won a majority of votes combined but lost the election. But you get the point- some moderate republicans were willing to work with the monarchists even then because they were rightly fearful of Communism. Would there not be a Civil War, and would the monarchy have been restored earlier had the Popular Front not won that election? We can only speculate.

    I ultimately prefer to work for restorations in places where it is realistic, as in the Balkan nations and Georgia. Elsewhere it's a longer-term project, even if the message is the same of monarchies having been unjustly overthrown and replaced by worse regimes, and present systems being utterly unfulfilling.

  2. My bone of contention is that any ideology can be advanced independent of the monarch. Jacobites or Carlists can work toward things like greater autonomy within the current framework. The French situation is a different kettle of fish. Their squabbling hurts the monarchist cause to be sure but even if they were all united they would still not be a powerful force as things stand today.

    My problem with the groups in Spain is that they actually have a monarchy, and should support it. Restorations are *extremely* rare. The last Kaiser compared it to trying to get back your virginity. Spain beat the odds, they got their monarchy back and I don't think it's outrageous to expect monarchists to unite in support of it because the only other option is a republic, not some other candidate for the throne. The same goes for Britain. The Queen is the sovereign -period. The Duke of Bavaria doesn't even want the job. The only options are the Queen or a republic; monarchists should support the Queen.

    Acceptance of monarchy is not nearly so strong and widespread to allow for the luxury of being particular about individuals. It would be lovely if that were the case, but it isn't. The way the modern mentality is, we have to be realistic and not act as though monarchist sympathy is so widespread that we can afford to waste it by making trouble for the few reigning crowned heads left to us.

  3. Oh, those crazy sedevacantists.
    You see, I would love nothing more than a restoration of the Bonapartes myself, but I would not be against the restoration of the Kings of France either.
    Such dynastic disputes are also to the detriment of monarchy however, even from the "inside".
    If I remember correctly, in 1871, the French National Assembly was majority monarchist. Despite the dynastic disputes of the Orleanists and Legitimists, they agreed to set up an Orleanist king, and upon his death, the line would turn back to the Legitimists. But unfortunately then Orleanist pretender decided he didn't want to be king under the Republican flag, and as "King of the French" instead of "King of France" (not unlike our theoretical monarchists here). So they decided to wait for him to die to restore the monarchy. Unfortunately support had waned in the time it took for that to happen.

    I can't remember if I learned that on your blog, but I don't think so.

  4. Its just a matter of supporting mediocracy or not. Supporting monarchy for the sake of monarchy is much like saying "Everything for the sake of my mother, even though she is a degenerate alcoholic prostitute". Nothing can be less catholic or traditionalist then defending a principle just for the sake of its abstract meaning: we need to see its consumation. Modern monarchies are not defined power structures: they are historical accidents preserved only for the sake of preventing social unrest or to keep a misleading idea of continuity. That way modern monarchies are more evil than modern republics: they are the covers for a political agenda that seeks to undermine the sacred remnants of the old order, the organic ages of the world, before the venom of Reform and Revolution came to poison our institutions.

    The problem with the Legitimist cause in Portugal, Spain, Italy, England, etc. is not a mere cause of historical prejudice or overheated legalism: We Traditionalists are people of Absolutes - we can only live out of the mediocracy of moderation. As the Portuguese Antonio Sardinha once said:

    "We are not conservatives - due to the passive conotation of the word. We are revivalists, with the energy and agressiveness renewals always have in human history. Our movement (Integralismo Lusitano) is one destined for war. We are destined to conquer - never to capture. We are not worried that our aspirations are irritating those who, due to their inertia, believe to be brothers to our cause"

    Realism is not an argument to the restauration of a monarchy, for the instauration of a preverted good will not make a bad situation better.

  5. True the alternative monarchist are dangerous to the monarchies, even if what they say is true sometimes, because it make the kings harders to retain theirs crowns, but there are very few in the modern europe...

    But, who knows maybe once they will resurge from they ashes?.

  6. A good case in point: If you believe that "modern monarchies are worse than modern republics" -you are not a monarchist. You may admire it in a historical context, but we don't live in the past, we live in the present and if, in the present, you think republics are better than monarchies then you are, for all intents and purposes, a republican.

    I repeat, it might be different if loyalty to the Crown was so widespread and firmly entrenched but it is not. For Spain, the ONLY options that currently exist is King Juan Carlos or a republic. I am a monarchist, I support the king. Turning Spain into a republic because the monarchy is not completely to the taste of every professed monarchist is like cutting off your nose to spite your face.

  7. I have met such people before also. Usually they are the same who call themselves royalists but say *my* country's royalty should not be there, my country should not even be there. They never will be happy with anything though, they find fault with everything. I am a royalist and I support my king and my (united) country. Leve de Koning! Vive le Roi!

  8. "But monarchy is not about popularity, it is about legitimacy and traditional authority -not popular authority."

    I very much agree. When it comes to the issue of legitimacy though, that is where our ideas can fall apart. For instance, in the case of German Monarchists, there are the - mostly Prussian-influenced - supporters of the Hohenzollern dynasty. However, in a talk to another Monarchist (formerly protestant pastor, now a Catholic seminarian), he explained that the Hohenzollern ruled illegitimately according to Imperial law: only a Catholic or a Lutheran could rule, but the Hohenzollern at some point in history became Calvinists - no longer heeding to the law of the land. In such a case, I think it is fine for me to focus more on my bloodline beign Bavarian and thus focusing more on the Wittelsbach Dynasty.
    When it comes to other Monarchies: unless the ruling party is illegitimate and thus illegal, we must support the Crown - regardless of our personals likes or dislikes. The very same principle applies to the Holy Mother Church: The Pope rules by divine right and not by popular acclamation. If we forget this, we are indeed nothing other than Republicans.

  9. Surprisingly enough, I'm a legitimist myself. The German situation I don't have a problem with because Germany is a republic -there is no monarch to support nor even any recognition of the royals or nobility. The rise of the Kings of Prussia did involve a certain usurping of power, though the Emperor and eventually the Pope came to accept it. If you want to focus on restoring the Kingdom of Bavaria, that is fine and I wish you all the best in that effort. I would not support an effort to deny Prussia to the Hohenzollerns (though Prussia no longer even exists) just as I would oppose anyone trying to deny Bavaria to the Wittelsbachs.

    In fact, in the case of Germany, it might be more realistic and more practical to put the primary focus on the states rather than at the national level so that states with a greater proportion of monarchist support can have a better chance.

    1. You make many excellent points. I agree that if you claim to be a Monarchist but are so demanding that you reject all monarch claimants and want a republic instead that you`re barely a Monarchist at all, but I don`t think that legitimists who regard the current occupant as a usurper and desire the restoration of the rightful ruler are theoretical Monarchists. I am from the Netherlads and I believe our royal family revolted against the true Spanish Monarchs and the Catholic faith. Like the Traditional Catholics from the past I don`t desire a republic but the return of Spanish Catholic Monarchical rule.

    2. The House of Orange did revolt against their Spanish monarchs, not all originally against Catholicism, several of the early Princes of Orange were still Catholic but the Spanish monarchs you regard as legitimate did make peace with the House of Orange and recognize their rule over the United Provinces and later the Kingdom of the Netherlands. You can regret that this happened, for all the good that does, but to deny its legitimacy is to deny the royal authority of the Spanish monarchs who signed the agreements recognizing the independence of the Netherlands.

  10. Just an FYI, since I've already had to delete 5 attempted posts: any comments containing personal attacks (as usual) will not be posted and, as this a monarchist blog and an "absolutist" one at that, I will allow no comments to be posted which praise republicanism at the expense of existing monarchies.

    This blog is for supporters of monarchy and enemies of republics -simple as that.

  11. I think the trap some monarchists fall into, and I find myself doing this too, is what happens when a monarchy has been overthrown and the head of the deposed house is widely unpopular or otherwise compromised.

    As a practical matter, any restoration would require overwhelming popular support from the public, leading to either a legislative action or popular referendum, and as the general public is not well versed on concepts of legitimacy and Divine Right. If they don't like the claimant, they won't support restoration. I don't know what the answer is for monarchists in those situations, but I do know any monarchy is better than any republic, so I am open to being swayed, but do find the idea troubling.

  12. I'm not as concerned about that as I am other things. In the first place, you're speaking of republics, my focus here was on monarchies that do exist. The way kingdoms have fallen in recent decades, my top priority is to stop the bleeding, shore up what is left and then work to restore others and make existing ones "better".

    As to your point, I'm actually more often troubled by royal heirs than frankly don't give a damn than I am ones that are legitimate but simply distasteful. For what it's worth, my own policy is to stick with the legitimate claimant no matter what, though I have the luxury (in thoses cases in which I am comfortable with taking a side) of knowing that no one is as yet popular enough to make a difference. If the public suddenly got behind the "other" candidate I would still consider that a step in the right direction (provided of course we are keeping it in the same family -I think I would have a problem with a totally new dynasty or a trumped up one -at least in Europe).

    The general public, I think, first has to get over the bad public image of monarchy in general. Many people have a negative image of monarchy and as long as that exists we're fighting a losing battle. Going all "Middle Ages" legalistic on a world of republican babes will accomplish nothing but putting them off monarchy altogether. Stop the bleeding, shore up what exists, and step by step put the monarchial order back together.

    Rome wasn't built in a day, and the need for public support is simply an acceptance of reality. I don't like it, but there it is, you either have to have public support or you're left with suicidal violence. The public has to be reassured, educated and (in my view) religiously converted. Then we can iron out the details ... and if the public is *properly* converted they will desire the legitimate candidate and the choice will not have to be "King X" or a republic every time.

  13. I have to agree with this post. As Monarchy is not, and never has been, about popular sovereignty, Its rather foolish to not support a King s you are a Monarchist all based upon political Ideology. Though In some cases, such as the Jacobites, I can at least understand as its less Political Ideology and roe about Legitimacy, and to an extent they are right Historically. But so are you. The House of Saxon-Goethe, now the Windsor’s, aren’t going anywhere. If there is any removal of them from the Throne, it will be to create a Republic.

    The real iron being that said Republic will usually be far worse for the counterMonarchists out there. EG, if you are Catholic and can’t stand Queen Elizabeth as she’s Protestant, then you have to ask if the Secularists who compose the Political Elite these days is really better?

    I think that the same problem that creates republicanism creates these Theoretical Monarchists. Pride. They ant everything their own way, else they cannot support it. They have never heard of Loyal opposition, and operate like Republicans, trying to bring down all that is not in full agreement with their own wishes.

    But I do wonder about what you said about Spain. How can one want a Marxist Monarchy? That does sound like an Oxymoron.

    Marxism is not exactly agreeable to Monarchism. You may as well say you are a Pro-Catholic who believes in Sola Fide, or say that you support massive social programmes but want Lower taxes.

  14. It reminds me of the words of one of my favorite monarchists, speaking of the ideologues bedeviling his country, that "They are suspicious and materialistic ... [they have] imaginary ideals without realities. They have a strong capacity for criticizing everything but they lack creative power. Also they have no will power, only the capacity for talking and talking. With the peasants they cannot like anything or anybody. Their love and feelings are imaginary. Their thoughts and sentiments pass without trace like futile words."

  15. When I see the former "Eastern Bloc" states I see countries still dealing with the awful legacies of Communism and conflict, and 20 years has shown that the existing post-Communist republics are utterly incapable of giving people what they need. Given the injustices inflicted onto Serbia, Montenegro, Albania, Romania, Bulgaria and Georgia, restorations will be the first step in undoing the mess of the last 100 years.

    In Western Europe, Portugal offers the best chance, because of Duarte Pio's popularity and the unpopularity of its political class who are failing the nation.

    I think it is self-evident to any student of history that republics do not offer anything better, after all, most Latin American nations have been republics since their independence and prided themselves on it, yet crushing poverty, corruption and human rights violations were facts of the 20th century. Some of the horrors we saw in Central and South America occurred as late as the 1980s, and a country like Guatemala is still suffering from that. I find it amazing that republicans are incapable of providing any counterpoint to this.

  16. David Votoupal: The poverty in South America is just another product of the communism and syndicalism that nowadays is dominating all my continent. When Argentina wasn't dominated by left wing politicians my country was an true world power in the economic sense but then with Peron's goverment, the guerrilla , Alfonsin's policies and now the kirchners my country is a mess and the most sad is that they have the support of the 50% of the people.

  17. It is sad when you consider that South American countries like Ecuador, Brazil, Chile and Argentina have, at times, stumbled into a prosperous system. But alas, they quickly pick themselves up, brush themselves off and hurry back toward socialism like nothing ever happened.

  18. Again, gentlemen, its not reality that matters but the narrative.

    Jesus said the Truth will make us Free, but the implication is that we don't usually live in the Truth. Todays Narrative is that Monarchy is inherently unfair and if we had a King we'd all be slaves, and that a Republic offers personal freedoms. many actually think that if a nation is a Monarchy one will have no freedom, such as Freedom of speech or press, and only Democracy allows these. Never mind how often a Republic forbids these things, they aren't "Real Democracies" or, if they are in favour at the moment, aren't that bad and what they do is needful.

    Left Wing policies have endeared themselves to South and Latin America, Mexico, and Europe, as ell as Canada and the United States, mainly because the narrative is that they bring about Progress, Social justice, and Economic Equality, and provide services for all.

    The reality is ignored as people try to justify the fantasy.

  19. For me, it is just painful to see some very beautiful countries, which suffer from corruption, poverty, and in some cases chronic malnutrition, as in Guatemala - and seeing also the inability to deal with the dreadful history of violence and human rights abuses, or address those problems. If you only elect selfish elitists or ignorant demagogues, that's what you get.

  20. Mr Monarchist,
    I assume my attempted comment was among the deleted ones. I fail to see how it contains insult or praise of republicanism, when it is just the opposite. It is unfair to silence the carlist perspective, which I wanted to offer, on some statements you have made in this post about Carlism, some of them uninformed and not entirely true.

  21. I don't allow insult to monarchies, praise to republics, insults in general, particularly when they get personal. I also don't keep track of every comment I delete, nor do I really care about what anyone thinks is "fair". Life isn't fair -deal with it. However, if you can explain how one Carlist is whining to me for not recognizing Prince Carlos Javier as king and another Carlist is whining about Prince Sixte-Henri being the "real" king even though the man actually on the throne in Madrid is the senior male descendant of King Carlos IV. If you can do that, be my guest.

    Keep in mind -I don't take kindly to anyone telling me how to run my business here. I will discuss what I like and post what I like. The only one with any rights here is 'moi'. I don't have to post anything and you don't have to read anything. Capisca?

  22. You will find that I answered this question in my original post:

    "The Carlist line is objectively the legitimate one. Briefly: in 1830 king Ferdinand VII unilaterally abolished (with a Pragmatic Sanction) semi-Salic law, a fundamental or "constitutional" law in Spain, that was passed on with the approval of the Cortes in 1713. As that was illegal, since he did not consult the Cortes, so was the succession of his daughter Isabella "II". King Ferdinand's brother, Charles V, and his male descendants were the legitimate kings until the extinction of his line in 1936. The seniormost surviving male branch at this point were the descendants of Infante Francis of Paola, younger brother of Ferdinand VII and Charles V. By his son's marriage to Isabella "II", his line was merged with the usurping one, thus taking us to Juan Carlos, who appears as legitimate succesor by virtue of this seniority. HOWEVER, by Spanish law in force in 1833 (first Carlist war), there were certain clauses of exclusion from succession (harking back to the Seven Partidas of the XIIIth century). One of them was rebellion against the king. When the first Carlist war broke out, both sides, considering themselves legitimate, excluded the other from future succession according to this. Since Charles V was the legitimate king, and since Francis of Paola took sides against him, his descendants lost any claim to succession (in fact, according to the law, they even lost their status as princes of the Royal family). When the original Carlist line died out in 1936, Carlists had to look for the seniormost descendant of Philip V that wasn't legally (not ideologically) excluded, and eventually this was found to be Francis Xavier of Bourbon-Parma, later taking the name of Xavier I (he didn't do so until 1952 since up until then it was not 100% certain that previous lines were excluded). Today, legitimate succession lies in his male descendants."

    So, the man on the throne in Madrid IS the senior male descendant of King Carlos IV, but he ISN'T the senior ABLE male descendant of King Carlos IV. This is established by law. Carlists are legitimists because they uphold that law. One can choose to disregard it in favor of supporting a better-established throne, like Juan Carlos's. That's a different discussion. But legitimacy is simply the way it is.

    As for Prince Sixtus Henry, he has never claimed to be King. He will only be King if the two sons of his late eldest brother are lawfully excluded. As of today, they are not. But neither have they taken up their role as King, nor for that matter claimed legitimacy. That is why Sixtus Henry carries out the functions of Regent, until this situation is solved.

  23. I'm sorry but I had to laugh at the opening line, "The Carlist line is objectively the legitimate one" -since there is no "Carlist line". Best as I recall there are 3 or 4. Of these, two support King Juan Carlos (one permenantly, one temporarily). What of the actual Duke of Bourbon-Parma? He has claimed leadership of the Carlist line -I covered that news right here.

    And if King Juan Carlos is excluded because distant ancestors fought against the Carlist line, why is Prince Sixte-Henri not excluded for his service in General Franco's army? Rather ironic that he would volunteer to join the army of the man who had named Juan Carlos as his successor only to later set himself against Juan Carlos himself. And he endorsed Jean-Marie Le Pen for President of France. Was that not supporting a (potential) usurper of the French throne?

    It seems odd to me, sympathetic to Jacobites and assorted legitimists that I am, for a senior, male-line descendant to be excluded, not only for their own political or religious views -but the political or religious views of their ancestors! Of course, I don't want to put words in your mouth, you may not be a legitimist as most understand the term. If you accept that a Medieval law can bar people not yet born of their rights to a throne you may then support the Orleanists rather than the Legitimists in France for much the same reason.

    It is telling that the Carlists claim to be legitimists but that any of their assorted "legitimate" candidates are only valid "if" this, this, this, that and then the other happened. They are a spent force and the antics of recent years have done no good for the memory of the cause the original Carlists fought for. They would be better advised to support their reigning monarch and focus their energy on the spiritual revival of the Spanish nation. A political revival would then naturally follow.

  24. This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.

  25. If you want to continue on with this (God knows why) you can cut the attitude. My definition of “legitimist” is one who supports the senior male heir, regardless of the laws of man, which is, I think the definition also used by French legitimists or the Jacobites (though again, most of them that I know are realistic enough to face facts). You, on the other hand, pick and choose your pretender by picking and choosing which laws to uphold and which to reject. If you’re just going by “the law” it may surprise you to know that the laws of the Kingdom of Spain say that Don Juan Carlos de Borbon y Borbon is the King. Oh, but that’s right, you only obey “legitimate” laws. So who decides which laws are legitimate and which laws are not? It must not be the Spanish government, they say the King is Juan Carlos. It must not be the Spanish courts, they say the King is Juan Carlos. It must not be the Pope in Rome because he says the King of Spain is Juan Carlos.

    I also notice you completely ignored my question about the Duke of Bourbon-Parma who has asserted his rights to the Carlist claim. After all, in 1975 Prince Xavier abdicated his rights to Carlos-Hugo. Nor did you answer as to why Prince Sixte-Henri is not harmed by the same law you invoke to invalidate the reigning king. Or, for that matter, why Carlos-Hugo or Xavier are not bound by the same regulations. How can you look at Prince Xavier and his many renunciations, abdications and numerous ‘about face’ movements and still hold that he or any of his children have any greater right than the senior male heir of the family? But no, none of that matters of course, not the bloodline, not the law (all of it), not the Pope, not Sixte-Henri being accused of some quite scandalous misdeeds and being a lifelong bachelor with no children to carry on the “legitimate” line. None of that matters, because he’s your guy! I predict that when he dies another handful of obscure justifications will be dug up to declare another ideologically suitable prince the “legitimate” heir.

  26. I do not want to continue with this. A one-sided conversation where half my answers are edited out isn't much of a conversation at all.

    I would gladly answer your questions, but it seems attitude gets in the way of reasoning. Fine definition of legitimism you have concocted. It might interest you to look up its etymology.

  27. I'm not surprised. Still can't cut the attitude and can't answer a single one of my questions. I'm not surprised ... arrogance and a 'holier than thou' attitude is what I have come to expect from those who claim everyone on earth has it all wrong besides them. You might drop the self-righteous tone and consider the sort of "legitimism" you have "concocted" wherein the senior male line descendant is rejected in favor a prince who is not even senior in his own family.

  28. A. Nicot said...

    "If I remember correctly, in 1871, the French National Assembly was majority monarchist. Despite the dynastic disputes of the Orleanists and Legitimists, they agreed to set up an Orleanist king, and upon his death, the line would turn back to the Legitimists. But unfortunately then Orleanist pretender decided he didn't want to be king under the Republican flag, and as "King of the French" instead of "King of France"."

    What a mistake! Ligitimist were in majority in monarchist fraction but to restore monarchy they needed orleanist votes. Orleanist agreed to restore Henry V Comte de Chambord but they insisted that he must accept heritage of revolution. It was legitimist King Henry V Charles Ferdinand Marie Dieudonné d'Artois, Comte de Chambord who didnt agreed to rule under revolutionary flag. Orleanist were always liberal and they had no objectons to rule with parliament, under revolutionary flag (even without gold lilies).
    Henry V also disagree to rule under revolutionary flag with gold lilies in the middle white place.
    He said beautifull words : "My person is nothing, my rule is everything".
    If monarchy can be restored is should be antiparliamentary, catholic, traditional.

  29. But in that case the fact was that such a monarchy could not be restored. I have mixed feelings on the subject. On the one hand I cannot but admire the Comte de Chambord for refusing to have any accomodation with the revolutionary mindset. He refused to compromise and usually compromise does not work anyway. On the other hand, even Pope Pius IX thought it was silly to throw away the chance of a restoration and the monarchists at least getting their foot back in the door simply over a flag. I can agree with that but I can also agree with the Count that it was not simply the flag but what the flag represented that was at issue.


Related Posts Plugin for WordPress, Blogger...