Talk:Legitimists

There is a legitimate (no pun intended) contention between the two branches of Legitimists, those who support the French line (Orleans) and those who support the Spanish line (Bourbon/Anjou).

The contention is over nationality. ^[1] The Spanish Bourbons left France with no intention of returning and did not maintain their French nationality. If the interpretation of Arrêt Lemaistre that the King of France must be French, then we must conclude that the Spanish Bourbons are not in the line of succession to the French Throne. See: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/French_dynastic_disputes#Vice_de_pérégrinité_and_Catholicity:_Arrêt_Lemaistre

The definition of Legitimist or legitimism depends on the dictionary in question, but many indicate, as the etymology and root of the word would suggest -- that it is someone who supports legitimate authority.^[2][3][4]

Arrêt Lemaistre states that the King must be French. All of the supposedly "foreign" Kings of France brought up by supporters of the Spanish line maintained their French nationality. They did this either through letters-patent ( Henri III) or by maintaining their residency in France (Henri IV). The earlier examples are from before Arrêt Lemaistre and the Hundred Years' War, when the issue of nationality was likely irrelevant.^[5]

It is no surprise, therefore, that most Legitimists supported the House of Orleans after the death of the Count of Chambord.^[6] This did not make such supporters "Orleanists." They most likely considered themselves Legitimists because they saw the House of Orleans as the rightful claimants to the French Throne according to the rules of succession, which, in their view, required the king to be a French national. Likewise, it is unlikely that they viewed the July Monarchy as Legitimate.

To flatly say that a person is not a Legitimist because they support the House of Orleans is a No True Scotsman fallacy. These people call themselves Legitimists because, in their view, the House of Orleans are the rightful heirs to the Kings of France according to the Fundamental Laws of France.

CSBurksesq (talk) 03:05, 1 January 2018 (UTC)CSBurksesq

I should add that by failing to recognise the split, the article lacks a netural POV and is misleading.

Other articles recognise the Legitimist split:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_French_monarchs#Later_pretenders https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Legitimists#Dynastic_arguments See last paragraph. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/French_dynastic_disputes#Legitimists_and_Carlists

CSBurksesq (talk) 03:41, 1 January 2018 (UTC)CSBurksesq

This issue has been a source of contention for the past decade and the page as it exists embodies the hard-fought compromise between those Bourbon/Orléans parties. My position is governed by the following:

Arrêt Lemaistre:

• Remember the purpose of Parliament: to maintain the Catholic, Apostolic and Roman religion and the state and crown of France, under the protection of a good king most Christian, Catholic and French.

"Christian, Catholic and French", the House of Bourbon is ethnically French.

• Ordered that no treaty is to be passed to transfer the crown to foreign princes

No argument.

• Recall that the fundamental laws must be observed to declare a Catholic and French king

No argument.

• Remember that religion should not be an excuse to transfer the crown to foreign hands in a manner contrary to the fundamental laws

No argument.

• Remember that although the relief of the people must be sought because it is in a state of extreme necessity, treaties for the establishment of foreign princes would be null and void if they are made to the prejudice of the Salic law and other fundamental laws.

Constitutional succession is patently nullified.

Chambord widow supported Anjou Legitimism

After Henri's death on 24 August 1883, Maria Theresa and a minority of Henri's supporters held that Juan, Count of Montizón, as senior male descendant of Louis XIV, was his successor. Juan's wife was Maria Theresa's sister, Maria Beatrix.^[7][8]

Nationality does not apply to the Sovereign

Nationality is a legal relationship between an individual person and a state. Nationality affords the state jurisdiction over the person and affords the person the protection of the state. What these rights and duties are varies from state to state.

According to feudal tradition, the monarch or Sovereign guarantees the statehood of his kingdom, the land is his possession and his ownership as king defines the land as a kingdom. All subjects of the king hold nationality while he exists as the foundation of society.

The succession laws guide us to our conclusions, but we should take ready notice that this division is the product of treason, regicide, fratricide, gross defamation, exploitation, and common murder – truly the most treacherous and depraved behavior. Yes, Unionism is the acceptance of the Orleanist claimant by a Legitimist. The Unionist maintains Salic precedence over constitutional succession and thus remains a Legitimist, but this does not permit the Orleanist claimant to Legitimist pretendence. The House of Orléans maintain their acceptance of the Revolution and constitutional succession of Louis Philippe d'Orléans (they espouse Salic Law when it benefits their claim). You are welcome to mention Unionism on this page but the Orleanist claimants remain Orleanist.
- Conservatrix (talk) 04:26, 1 January 2018 (UTC)

All of the Fundamental Laws apply to the Sovereign

All of the Fundamental Laws, which require the King to be French, apply to the Sovereign. If the King were to renounce the Catholic faith in violation of the Fundamental Laws, would he not cease to be King? The whole point of the Fundamental Laws is to determine who is eligible to be King.

A person may have different interpretations of what the Fundamental Laws mean. You stated ethnicity, while Legitimists in support of the House of Orleans use nationality, and Anjouists interpret it to mean a French dynast.

Honestly, I find the ethnicity interpretation very dubious. Like most royals, both the French and Spanish Bourbons intermarried with other royals of different ethnicities. So really, they are of mixed ethnicity.

Regardless, the Fundamental Laws state that the King must be French. One may disagree about what they meant by "French," but the contention still stands.

The Countess Chambord's support for the Spanish Bourbons is irrelevant. Most Legitimists supported the House of Orleans, presumably because they viewed the Orleans as French and they viewed the Anjous as Spanish.

"Yes, Unionism is the acceptance of the Orleanist claimant by a Legitimist. The Unionist maintains Salic precedence over constitutional succession and thus remains a Legitimist, but this does not permit the Orleanist claimant to Legitimist pretendence."

The debate is over what we call their supporters, not the personal beliefs of the claimants themselves.

Thus, as you have admitted, some Legitimists support the House of Orleans, while others support the Spanish Bourbons. This is a split.

CSBurksesq (talk) 16:25, 1 January 2018 (UTC)CSBurksesq

Patrilineal ancestry determines the Bourbons to be French. No being in the right to inherit the Bourbon name would otherwise be anything else.

This is a split but not between equals within the context of Legitimism. The Orléans maintain recognition of constitutionalism and revolutionary reforms that directly contradict the Fundamental Laws, and are thus not in accordance with the Arrêt Lemaistre. Are you to make Legitimism complicit with constitutionalism? This would be contrary to the practice upholding the pre-1789 state of monarchy. I await the input of other users.
- Conservatrix (talk) 19:29, 1 January 2018 (UTC)

My Patrilineal ancestry would make me "Irish," but would an Irishman consider me Irish? Likewise, many French Legitimists rejected the Spanish Bourbons because they were no longer seen as French.

There is no need to try and mix constitutionalism with Legitimism. The House of Orleans are either the heirs or they are not. The House of Orleans, according to the Legitimists who support them, have a valid (and better) claim based on the Fundamental Laws that Legitimists support.

The "Unionism" in question is coming together of support for a candidate, but their support for said candidate is based on vastly different reasons — i.e. the Fundamental Laws. These Legitimists reject constitutionalism and reject the validity of the July Monarchy and do not recognise Louis Philippe as "King of the French." While a Unionist might accept the Orleanist candidate, they reject Orleanism. Hence why some might reject the term Orleanist because it causes confusion.

CSBurksesq (talk) 22:48, 1 January 2018 (UTC)CSBurksesq

If common practices were applied to the monarchy, then Louis XVI would indeed have been "Louis Capet" as his tribunal recognized him. We must acknowledge our place beneath the princes of the Capetian dynasty.

"A person may have different interpretations of what the Fundamental Laws mean. You stated ethnicity, while Legitimists in support of the House of Orleans use nationality, and Anjouists interpret it to mean a French dynast."
My interpretation of ethnic qualification aligns with Anjouist Legitimism. All legitimate sons of Hugh Capet through patrilineal succession are indelibly French.

The Orléans have committed terrible crimes against their Bourbon cousins. I have sparsely encountered equally severe stories of treachery between royal family members, save for Elizabeth Tudor beheading Mary Stuart, Richard Plantagenet and his nephews, or similar Medieval tales. How can any man of good faith excuse either Philippe Egalité or Louis Philippe d'Orléans? The pursuit of power spared not the women of this House, who knowingly and willfully financed insurrection against the King, gifted property for use by republican insurgents, or took direct action to ensure the continuity/survival of their investment in opportunistic treason; though exceptional recognition is due to Maria Amalia of Naples and Sicily for her privately held rejection of her husband's constitutional regime. What more can be said of this family?

Regardless, opinions cannot influence page content.
- Conservatrix (talk) 00:12, 2 January 2018 (UTC)

• Question Do reliable secondary sources offer divergent opinions on the legitimate line of succession? If so then this needs to be reflected in the article. The purpose of this talk page is not resolve the lines of succession. It is to help improve the article in accord with our policies and guidelines. -Ad Orientem (talk) 14:49, 4 January 2018 (UTC)

"Legitimist, French Légitimiste, in 19th-century France, any of the royalists who from 1830 onward supported the claims of the representative of the senior line of the house of Bourbon to be the legitimate king of France. They were opposed not only to republicans but also to the other monarchist factions: to the Orleanists, royalist adherents of the house of Bourbon-Orléans, who at the July Revolution of 1830 recognized Louis-Philippe as king of France; and to the Bonapartists, who favoured a restoration of the French Empire. The Legitimist position was theoretically unassailable as long as the Count de Chambord, whom they recognized as Henry V of France, was alive. The Count de Chambord’s intransigence, however, precluded a coalition between the Legitimists and Orleanists even when the collapse of the Second Empire (1852–70) seemed to make a restoration of the monarchy possible. After the Count de Chambord’s death without heirs in 1883, most Legitimists switched their support to the Orleanist pretender, Louis-Philippe-Albert, Count de Paris."
(Source: Encyclopedia Britannica)
- Conservatrix (talk) 15:16, 4 January 2018 (UTC)

"Orleanist, French Orléaniste, any of the constitutional monarchists in 18th- and 19th-century France who favoured the Orléans branch of the house of Bourbon (the descendants of Philippe, duke d’Orléans, younger brother of Louis XIV). Its zenith of power occurred during the July Monarchy (1830–48) of Louis-Philippe (duke d’Orléans from 1793 to 1830). The Orleanists, enormously rich, had long been the centre of opposition to the encroachment of Bourbon royal power. After the outbreak of the Revolution, Philippe, duke d’Orléans, took the name Philippe Égalité to express his extreme revolutionary views; and his son Louis-Philippe fought, as duke de Chartres, under the republican Tricolor. Executed or exiled during the later Revolutionary and Napoleonic years, the Orleanists returned at the restoration of Louis XVIII and were identified with liberal and bourgeois principles. It is true that Louis XVIII had been induced to grant a constitutional charter, but he and his successor, Charles X, claimed to rule by divine right and to confer liberties upon their subjects of their own will. The difference between the Legitimists and the Orleanists was thus fundamental. So was that between the Orleanists and the Bonapartists; the former aimed at securing political liberty, in addition to equality, before the law and in social life, whereas the latter aimed at subjection to a military despotism. The July Revolution of 1830 brought Louis-Philippe and the Orleanists into power. Their foremost representatives were Casimir Perier, Jacques Laffitte, Adolphe Thiers, François Guizot, and Albert, duke de Broglie. Eventually the Orleanists split into the conservative Parti de la Résistance (Perier, Guizot), standing for the consolidation of the dynasty and limitation of the franchise, and the more liberal Parti du Mouvement (Laffitte), advocating the spread of liberalism abroad and progressive extension of the franchise. The latter, under the leadership of Odilon Barrot, became after 1831 the “dynastic left” in the Chamber of Deputies. The Orleanists supported Louis-Philippe’s grandson and heir, Louis-Philippe-Albert, count de Paris, after the fall of the July Monarchy in 1848 and during the Second Republic and Second Empire. The demise of the Second Empire, in 1870, offered another chance for a restoration of the monarchy, but the Third Republic was born while the Orleanists and Legitimists were still arguing over a candidate. After the direct male line of the elder Bourbons died out in 1883, most of the Legitimists joined the Orleanists in fruitlessly supporting the count de Paris for the throne."
(Source: Encyclopedia Britannica)
- Conservatrix (talk) 16:37, 4 January 2018 (UTC)

If we are to accept Orléans onto this page, then I must demand that the succession from 1883 be divided into two columns titled "Anjouist" and "Unionist". This ruptures any notion of nationality and promotes general objectivity. - Conservatrix (talk) 17:25, 4 January 2018 (UTC)

Please don't make demands. This is a collegial project and we operate on consensus. I have posted an invitation for further input at WT:ROYAL. -Ad Orientem (talk) 17:54, 4 January 2018 (UTC)

Labelling the split into "Anjouist" and "Unionist" would make a lot of sense. It would avoid confusion because not everyone who supports the Orleans is a supporter of "Orleanism" (constitutional succession, etc). A Unionist would reject July Monarchy and constitutional succession in favour of the Fundamental Laws. It should be noted, I think, that the reason Legitimists supported the elder branch of the Bourbons prior to Chambord's death was because they were the legitimate kings. After Chambord's death, many Legitimists no longer saw the Spanish Bourbons as French, which, if true, would make them illegitimate. So this was less of a "switch" and more of a shift do to legal circumstances -- i.e. the French senior Bourbon line becoming extinct, and because of a nationality requirement, Orleans became the Bourbons' heirs.

An Anjouist would obviously reject the the July Monarchy as illegitimate, and recognise the Spanish Bourbons as heirs, having a different interpretation of what the Fundamental Laws mean by "French."

Honestly, I don't think the terms Legitimist and Orleanist are very good at conveying the reality of the dispute. When someone hears the term "Orleanist," it sounds like someone who would support the July Monarchy or who would base their support for the Orleans off a continuation of the July Monarchy. I'm not sure many royalists would be supporters of Orleanism, even if if they support the Orleans. Likewise, calling an Orleans supporter a "Legitimist" could also cause confusion because most naturally assume that a Legitimist only supports the Spanish Bourbons, but there has already been acknowledged a split in French Legitimism, i.e. Blancs d'Espagne ("Spanish Whites") as the supporters of the Spanish Bourbons were called, and the Blancs d'Eu or ("Unionists").

CSBurksesq (talk) 21:54, 4 January 2018 (UTC)CSBurksesq

The page has been modified to reflect this Anjouist/Unionist split, but I remain opposed to the Orléans residence on this page. - Conservatrix (talk) 04:55, 6 January 2018 (UTC)

Are you English, CSBurksesq? What ethnicity are the members of the House of Windsor? A vast majority of the English public and certainly all native intellectuals would answer that the Windsors are German. This is commonly known to have been an issue during the Great War. The same logic applies to explain how the Bourbon Kings of Spain are French. The bloodline is governed exclusively by patrilineal succession. - Conservatrix (talk) 19:10, 6 January 2018 (UTC)

During the Revolution of 1789, Philippe Egalité publicly claimed that his real father was not his mother's husband at all but instead a coachman at the Palais-Royal.^[9]
- Conservatrix (talk) 00:52, 9 January 2018 (UTC)

I'm American. The House of Windsor is of mixed ethnicity, like most royal families. They may be descendants of Prince Albert of Saxe-Coburg, but the younger ones are descendants of Prince Philip, who was a prince of Greece and Denmark of the House of Glücksburg. However, Windsors' ethnicity is not relevant to France.

All that's relevant is what do the Fundamental Laws mean when they say "French." Henri III, as previously mentioned, had letters-patent that specifically allowed him to keep his French nationality after becoming King of Poland. If French nationality were unimportant, why did Henri III do this?

It should seem obvious that this rule was created after the Hundred Years' War to further invalidate the English claims to the French throne. This is in addition to the Salic Law. While not patrilinial, the Plantagenets were largely ethnically French. It appears, then, that the French wanted some standard by which to judge the Frenchness of a potential claimant. Hence why a person who leaves France with no intention of returning would no longer be considered French. This would explain Henri III's letters-patent maintaining his French nationality.

CSBurksesq (talk) 22:29, 10 January 2018 (UTC)CSBurksesq

My logic was flawed in that the English extend succession rights to female agnates. Is the term used to reference Henri's "Frenchness" nationality? I would appreciate a verbatim copy of this passage. - Conservatrix (talk) 23:56, 10 January 2018 (UTC)

I would say yes, though I doubt they would use the term "Frenchness." I just think it's a good term to convey the point about nationality. As far as I know, there is not evidence of a non-Frenchman (someone not of French nationality) taking the throne after the 16th century.

Anjouists cite examples of "foreigners" becoming King, but that is either before 16th century, when such a rule didn't exist or the person maintained French nationality. I don't think there's any evidence of Francis II leaving France with no intention of returning. After all, being Dauphin would make such intentions unlikely. As far as I can tell, Scotland was basically ruled from France or by proxy with Mary of Guise as regent, much to the chagrin of many Scots.

We've already mentioned Henri III, who had letters-patent allowing him to keep his French nationality.

Henri IV, despite being King of Navarre, maintained his residency in France and still participated in French politics.

"Let's begin with the favorite example, Henri de Bourbon, king of Navarre. He was French as son of Antoine de Bourbon, who clearly did not lose his nationality when he married Jeanne d'Albret in 1548, because he did not leave France without intent of return; he continued to live part, perhaps even most of his time in France, hold office in France, and be involved in French affairs. The same goes for his son Henri, although born in Béarn in 1553, but a peer in Parlement, holder of military and civil offices, "Premier Prince du Sang" after 1584. That was possible because Navarre, albeit a sovereign kingdom, was a small and neighbouring state, and a very minor part of Henri's estates; being king of Navarre was almost ceremonial, and he did not have to leave France to be king of Navarre." See citation number 5. — Preceding unsigned comment added by CSBurksesq (talk • contribs) 02:51, 11 January 2018 (UTC)

CSBurksesq (talk) 02:52, 11 January 2018 (UTC)

It would do all involved in this discussion good to review this 2015 exchange:
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:French_dynastic_disputes#Article_written_from_a_pro-Legitimist_POV
- Conservatrix (talk) 02:56, 11 January 2018 (UTC)

On the matter of letters patent: In 1573 the King, Charles IX, and nine princes of the blood all signed a declaration assuring Charles' brother Henry, Duke of Anjou, who was about to assume the crown of Poland, that his rights to the French throne would not lapse, nor those of any children he may have, even though they were to be born outside France. The blood right in this instance overcame the law of aubain by which foreign-born heirs forfeited their rights of succession; that is to say, being "capable of the crown" was a unique kind of birthright which transcended all usual legal regulations. Blood heirs no matter where they were born or resided were to be regarded "tout ainsi que s'ilz estoient originaires et regnicoles." This was recorded in letters patent in Parliament. Similar letters were issued for Philip, Duke of Anjou, when he was about to assume the crown of Spain (1700). But in his case, the letters were later withdrawn (1713) due to pressure from other European powers.

If the simple issuance or revocation of letters patent is enough to grant or deprive succession rights/nationality, such act constitutes an ability for the monarch to change the line of succession to the throne, an illegal act under the Ancien Regime. - Reigen (talk) 12:22, 20 April 2015 (UTC)
- Conservatrix (talk) 16:36, 11 January 2018 (UTC)

MY POSITION AT CURRENT:

1. The Capetian dynasty is goverened exclusively by patrilineal succession, as such all legitimate sons of Hugh Capet through partilineal descent are indelibly French by birthright. Thus, the Bourbon maintain adherence to the Arrêt Lemaistre (1593).
2. The Orléans' failure to publicly reject constitutional succession (or the treason of Philippe Egalité and Louis Philippe d'Orléans) as well as the modern use of the tricolor flag on their crest directly contradicts the Legitimist rejection of constitutionalism and republican iconography.
3. The Treaty of Utrecht was invalid ab initio and irremediably, that Louis XIV as Sovereign of France considered it both invalid and non-binding, committed France to its adherence in bad faith, and that this act of bad faith provided no valid recourse for parties, domestic or foreign, who deemed the treaty substantially valid and acted upon it in good faith believing the treaty constituted a modification of the Fundamental Laws.
4. The simple issuance or revocation of letters patent is not enough to grant or deprive succession rights, such act constitutes an ability for the monarch to change the line of succession to the throne, an illegal act under the Ancien Régime.

- Conservatrix (talk) 16:36, 11 January 2018 (UTC)

The letters patent didn't change the order of succession, and they don't grant nationality. All they did was allow Henri III to keep his nationality, and thus, his succession rights. I believe Louis XIV tried giving succession rights to some of his bastards. Ultimately, this was rejected after the Louis' death and the letters patent were revoked. Those letters changed the order of succession, but those allowing a person to keep their nationality did not.

I don't think it's correct to say the Capetian dynasty is governed exclusively by patrilineal succession. The laws require the king to be (Roman) Catholic and French. I think we all know what a Roman Catholic is, the question is over what they mean by "French."

Philippe Egalite was guillotined by the same regime he helped create. I think he got what he deserved. Louis Philippe spent his days in exile, much like Charles X. This, too, seems to be fair. I think it's pretty clear that the July Monarchy was illegitimate. That said, I'm not an expert on the rise of the July Monarchy.

As for Utrecht... I believe it was registered by the Parlement, which considered itself the guardian of the Fundamental Laws. On it's face, however, (absent any historical context) the treaty would be invalid. The only argument that I can think of for it's validity is saying it constitutes a force majeure. Basically that the survival of the state, and thus the Fundamental Law, depended on peace. Certainly there is an argument that the king's first duty is the protection and security of the state.

There is another argument that because it is a treaty it supersedes the Fundamental Laws. This is poppycock. Arrêt Lemaistre specifically states that treaties which violate the Fundamental Laws are invalid. Thus, the force majeure argument is the only one that makes any sort of sense. Because the survival of the state/crown is necessary for the existence of the Fundamental Laws.

I have no idea if Utrecht was made in bad faith. It seems to me, and probably the Parlement at the time, that it was the price of peace. Did the king not have a moral duty to secure the nation and not waste the blood of French soldiers when there was a path to peace that would have left the Kingdom of France no longer surrounded by Habsburgs?

The validity of Utrecht, however, would need to be decided by some sort of Parlement or successor body. While it may be in the best interests of Count of Paris to argue in favour of Utrecht, I think it is a moot point. The Spanish Bourbons are either French or they are not. I also don't think it's the best starting argument for the Unionist cause.

CSBurksesq (talk) 22:57, 11 January 2018 (UTC)

• As I wrote above in 2011, "Most of those now called Légitimists support the Spanish over the Orleans lines...The Orleanist argument is that the crown passes to a French dynast through French dynasts, bypassing others. Since none of the Spanish Bourbons was a Frenchman son of Frenchmen when the last undisputed Legitimist heir Henri, Count of Chambord, died in 1883, the Orléans arguably inherited the claim, justifying the majority of French legitimists in switching allegiance." While I agree that there is a plausible argument that the Orléans are the rightful claimants to the French crown based on Légitimist theory, that after 1883 most of Chambord's supporters switched allegiance to the Orléans claimant without embracing Orleanism, and that they continued to consider themselves Légitimists, I also observe that since the 20th century the term "Légitimist" has predominantly acquired the meaning in French politics and society of advocacy for the Spanish branch of the Bourbons -- now represented by Louis Alphonse de Bourbon, duc d'Anjou. Therefore, it is misleading to suggest that the Orléans are considered Légitimist claimants (as distinct from "legitimate claimants") since 1883 -- a largely obsolete POV -- and that although the "Unionist" interpretation of Legitimism should be mentioned in this article, the Orléans pretenders themselves should be removed to their own page. FactStraight (talk) 03:51, 25 January 2018 (UTC)

I certainly acknowledge that such movements are organic and can change over time. How many people consider themselves Legitimists who support the Orleans candidate? More research would have to be done to understand.

Either way, the historical split and the Unionist should be acknowledged in some way. I would recommend a section discussing Unionists after 1883 with the Unionist line of succession and a basic overview of the Unionist arguments. Such as those found on French dynastic disputes, particularly section 3.2.

CSBurksesq (talk) 20:42, 26 January 2018 (UTC)

- Conservatrix (talk) 12:03, 29 January 2018 (UTC)

 Scheduled Revert Complete - Conservatrix (talk) 03:47, 1 February 2018 (UTC)

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)

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)

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)