Will Kürlich Kerl
Banned
What happens if Louis XV dies from measles in 1712 along with the rest of his immediate family?
WI: Louis XV dies in 1712
- Thread starter Will Kürlich Kerl
- Start date
I think a deal would be made during the Peace of Utrecht (or its ATL equivalent) to make the youngest son of Louis le grand dauphin, Charles, Duke of Berry, the heir. Philip would be the rightful heir, but there's no way that the other powers would agree to a united France and Spain. And "switching kingdoms" so that Philip is king of France and Charles king of Spain is unprecedented (to my knowledge) and kind of unlikely. Charles, who would be Charles X here, died from injuries sustained in a hunting accident, so that's easily butterfly-able.
wiki's wrong on this, it Philip renounced his (and his heir's) rights to France forever, the line of succession of Philip, Charles, other Charles was if Philip died with out heirs.
Plus I read the title wrong, didn't see that it was 1712, which is too far for going back, so the Duc of Berry inherits France great.
interesting side note, in OTL on his death bed Louis XIV legitimized his two favorite sons (who he felt were the smartest and best of his children) Louis Auguste, Duke of Maine and his younger brother Louis Alexandre, Count of Toulouse, making them princes of the blood, and in the line of succession after all legitimate lines of the House of Bourbon, in OTL Louis XIV went so far as to make the Duke of Maine co-regent with Philippe II, Duke of Orléans over the young Louis XV, Orleans managed to cut Maine out and rule alone, but….. what might happen if Philip II is the heir (say something happened to Charles) would Louis let his line die and lose the crown to his Nephew and the house of Orleans?
That's irrelevant. The legitimisation of his bastards was one thing, but making them heirs was deeply illegal and it was broken right after his death.
It wouldn't have been accepted, if it comes to that.
I'm not saying it'd work, because you're right it wouldn't, but what Louis XIV did for Maine and Toulouse was extreme in OTL he made then Princes, put them in line of the throne (8th and 9th) and making the Duke of Maine Co-rengent equal in rank and power to the heir to the throne Philippe d'Orléans, who kicked them out of the line because of course, the laws of the French monarchy say the senior most legitimate male heir descending from Hugh Capet is King by right, given that the brothers were legitimization…. you see the issue for Philip, not that the French nobility would allow it, but any ways my point isn't a King Maine, its that I think Louis XIV loved his boys and thought so highly of them that in OTL he broke every rule to try to get them what he felt they deserved and in TTL he might go farther still for them, not again that it'd work, a King's power dies with him and no doubt that Maine ether wouldn't even try to reign or would find quickly every one proclaiming Philip King and no one even trying to say he was King
He would probably do the same.
Teeths are going to grind a lot, but unless he thinks his sons would be particularly disadvantaged by this decision, he would stick to this OTL decision would it be only to allow them to participate to the court decisions and to not give anyone a supplementary lever to not include them.
Teeths are going to grind a lot, but unless he thinks his sons would be particularly disadvantaged by this decision, he would stick to this OTL decision would it be only to allow them to participate to the court decisions and to not give anyone a supplementary lever to not include them.
No, No, No.
Philip V of Spain is the heir to the throne of France.
Charles Duke de Berry had been named in the will of Charles II of Spain as the heir to the Crown of Spain ONLY with an immediate renunciation of his brother Philip Duke of Anjou to the Spanish Succession.
The Duke de Berry has therefore no right to succeed his brother as King of Spain at a later time.
With the death of Louis (XV) from measles in february-march 1712 along with the rest of his immediate family, change the conditions of the Treaty of Utrecht (Signed 11 April 1713).
«The Fundamental Laws of the Kingdom» (Les Lois Fondamentales du Royaume: Ce sont des lois qui «tendent à la conservation du royaume») are the only legitimate source of transmission of the Crown and makes seniors Capetians, the Bourbons of Spain, the heirs to the throne.
«The unavailability of the Crown» («l’indisponibilité de la Couronne»), the Crown is not the personal property of the king. The king can not appoint his successor or waive the Crown or abdicate. These laws were necessary at all, starting with the king, who could neither ignore nor change since it is they that held the Crown. At the origin of the French monarchy, they are the foundation of any right to the throne of France.
Philip V had not right to dispose of the Crown of France, either for himself or for his descendants. A possible waiver is not legitimate, it can not have legal force.
After the death of Louis (XV), presumably in March 1712, Philip V of Spain becomes heir to the throne of France through to the «collatéralité masculine»: in the absence of a male son, the Crown returns to the closest male relative of the King.
On 1 September 1715, at the death of Louis XIV, Philip V of Spain becomes «Philippe VII de France» and his eldest son Luis Felipe (25 August 1707 – 31 August 1724), Prince of Asturias, becomes «Dauphin de France», through to the «continuité de la Couronne» (ou instantanéité de la Couronne: «Le roi est mort; vive le roi!»): when the king dies, his successor as soon as king «the king (the government) never dies» (« le roi [l’État] ne meurt jamais»).
Were different, however, the laws of succession in Spain: Philip V of Spain abdicates the throne of Spain in favor of his son the Infante Philip Peter Gabriel (7 June 1712-29 December 1719), who reigns as Philip VI of Spain under a Council of Regency.
http://fr.wikipedia.org/wiki/Querelles_dynastiques_fran%C3%A7aises
http://fr.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lois_fondamentales_du_royaume_de_France
http://www.chivalricorders.org/royalty/bourbon/france/success/sucprt1.htm
http://www.chivalricorders.org/royalty/bourbon/france/success/sucprt2.htm
Philip V of Spain is the heir to the throne of France.
Charles Duke de Berry had been named in the will of Charles II of Spain as the heir to the Crown of Spain ONLY with an immediate renunciation of his brother Philip Duke of Anjou to the Spanish Succession.
The Duke de Berry has therefore no right to succeed his brother as King of Spain at a later time.
With the death of Louis (XV) from measles in february-march 1712 along with the rest of his immediate family, change the conditions of the Treaty of Utrecht (Signed 11 April 1713).
«The Fundamental Laws of the Kingdom» (Les Lois Fondamentales du Royaume: Ce sont des lois qui «tendent à la conservation du royaume») are the only legitimate source of transmission of the Crown and makes seniors Capetians, the Bourbons of Spain, the heirs to the throne.
«The unavailability of the Crown» («l’indisponibilité de la Couronne»), the Crown is not the personal property of the king. The king can not appoint his successor or waive the Crown or abdicate. These laws were necessary at all, starting with the king, who could neither ignore nor change since it is they that held the Crown. At the origin of the French monarchy, they are the foundation of any right to the throne of France.
Philip V had not right to dispose of the Crown of France, either for himself or for his descendants. A possible waiver is not legitimate, it can not have legal force.
After the death of Louis (XV), presumably in March 1712, Philip V of Spain becomes heir to the throne of France through to the «collatéralité masculine»: in the absence of a male son, the Crown returns to the closest male relative of the King.
On 1 September 1715, at the death of Louis XIV, Philip V of Spain becomes «Philippe VII de France» and his eldest son Luis Felipe (25 August 1707 – 31 August 1724), Prince of Asturias, becomes «Dauphin de France», through to the «continuité de la Couronne» (ou instantanéité de la Couronne: «Le roi est mort; vive le roi!»): when the king dies, his successor as soon as king «the king (the government) never dies» (« le roi [l’État] ne meurt jamais»).
Were different, however, the laws of succession in Spain: Philip V of Spain abdicates the throne of Spain in favor of his son the Infante Philip Peter Gabriel (7 June 1712-29 December 1719), who reigns as Philip VI of Spain under a Council of Regency.
http://fr.wikipedia.org/wiki/Querelles_dynastiques_fran%C3%A7aises
http://fr.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lois_fondamentales_du_royaume_de_France
http://www.chivalricorders.org/royalty/bourbon/france/success/sucprt1.htm
http://www.chivalricorders.org/royalty/bourbon/france/success/sucprt2.htm
Last edited:
Philip renounced his rights to the French crown in 1700 and by 1712 had been out of the country (in Spain) for 12 years, in OTL he turned down returning to France as heir, there was at the time only a sick 2 year old between him and being Dauphin, he said no, regardless of the letter of the law, there's the political realities to think about, he renounced the throne, he has no party at court, the allies would NEVER allow a crown union between France and Spain no matter what, maybe he could switch with Charles but I don't see it, and I don't see Louis XIV letting him back in
The problem is precisely this: they have more value of international treaties or laws of a state? («la question est donc de savoir si un traité de droit international [toujours en vigueur] est une norme supérieure aux lois fondamentales»).
The Parliament of Paris experienced such waivers, as well as the parliaments of French provinces.
The answer is that the «Lois Fondamentales du Royaume de France» are ABOVE the King himself and the parlements.
The Foreign Powers had no right to dispose of the Crown of France.
Louis XIV had no right to dispose of the Crown of France.
Philip V had no right to dispose of the Crown of France, either for himself or for his descendants. The waiver is not legitimate, it can not have legal force.
Philip V, meanwhile, has never recognized the validity of waivers signed under duress of England. In 1726, he wrote to the Parliament of Paris to be proclaimed King, «in case of death of the King of France his nephew, ordering him as successor to the crown by right of birth and by the fundamental laws of the State, until he can take possession of the kingdom» («en cas de mort du roi de France son neveu, lui ordonnant comme successeur de la couronne par le droit de sa naissance et par les lois fondamentales de l'État, en attendant qu'il puisse aller prendre possession du royaume»).
Philip V of Spain is the heir to the throne of France.
It is not a matter of having a party to the Court that supports him or satisfy the desires of the Foreign Powers. The rights of Philip V were sacrosanct.
In this hypothesis, in which Louis (XV) dies from measles in february-march 1712 along with the rest of his immediate family, the hypothetical Treaty of Utrecht would have been different: Philip V of Spain at that time already had two sons and Queen Maria Luisa of Savoy was pregnant for the fourth time.
The Foreign Powers would probably have recognized his rights of succession to the Crown of France on condition that he had abdicated the Crown of Spain in favor of his second son (possible for the laws of succession of the Spanish kingdoms).
Today there is still a «Querelles dynastiques françaises».
Today, the rights to the Crown of France claimed by alleged Bourbon-Orlèans, are anything but real. In fact they are not direct descendants of Louis XIII, but they have at most one female offspring from the branch of Condé.
In fact Louis Philippe Joseph d'Orléans (1747-1793), known as "Philippe Egalité", was the son of a cocher!
«Vous savez bien, Mirabeau, que ces titres de prince et d’altesse ne me conviennent pas, que je les ai reniés depuis longtemps, et que, depuis longtemps; je ne rougis plus de Montfort le cocher» [see Journal des débats and Barnave of M.Jules Gabriel Janin].
Recommended by an old friend of shady dealings, Louis Pierre Manuel (which was so important in the difficult day on the 10th of August and we remember directly or indirectly to the death of the Marquis de Mandat, head of the National Guard who was in defense of the Tuileries Palace), but presumably for cowardice, the self-styled Duke of Orleans, having before their eyes the abyss toward which had led the King and his family, on September 15, 1792, obtained from the Commune de Paris, the act he himself had requested that a new name, Egalite:
«Sur la demande de Louis-Philippe-Joseph, prince français,[...] le procureur de la commune entendu, arrète que Louis Philippe Joseph et sa postérité porterons désormais le nom de famille Égalité[...] signé Boulo, Président, Colombeau, Tallien secrétaire».
On the same day (or other sources for February 10, 1793), rising in the tribune of the Jacobins, wearing a red cap, said:
«Je dois le jour aux liaisons impudiques de ma mère avec un valet (le cocher LEFRANC), le feu duc d'Orléans, père de celui qui semble être le mien, n'a jamais voulu me reconnaitre, et mes inclinaisons de sans culotte me persuadent que ce n'est pas le sang des Bourbons qui coule dans mes veines, je demande un nom qui me replace dans la classe du peuple», namely that he recognized his adulterous birth, due to relationship that his mother had had with the valet/groom LEFRANC, and that his attitudes as sans-culottes and the lack of similarity between father and son, had convinced him that it was not the blood of the Bourbon that flowed in his veins!
The alleged illegitimate birth is also legitimacy from the chronicles of the time on the loose morals of the Duchess of Orléans, Louise Henriette de Bourbon-Conti; she had all the audacities of vice and tried her lovers among the servants, indifferent to all the scandals, imperturbable all the insults.
At her death on February 9, 1759, was found a sort of testament with her seal: it contained a list of her lovers, and for each a compendium of their "quality" (Mémoires de la Marquise de Créquy).
The same duchess has written:
"Monseigneur d'Orléans,
"Vos prétendus enfants,
"Sont l'objet du mépris
"De tout Paris!"
To substantiate the hypothesis of a bastard birth there are also the memoirs of the Baroness d'Oberkirch, that writing about Louise Marie Thérèse Bathilde, Duchess de Bourbon and Princess of Conde, sister of Philippe Egalité, confided that «Je suis tout Condé et je n'ai rien d'Orléans...».
Finally, Philippe Egalité has publicly renounced for himself and his descendants, to any rights to the French throne, as he himself stated in a letter written in his own handwriting, the newspaper Moniteur on December 7, 1792:
«Je déclare que je déposerai sur le bureau ma renonciation formelle aux droits de membre de la dynastie régnante, pour m’en tenir à ceux de citoyen français. Mes enfants sont prêts à signer de leur sang qu’ils sont dans les mêmes sentiments que moi».
But at the time of this release there was a Constitution duly approved, which was to replace the millenarian «Lois Fondamentales du Royaume de France», as the new constitutional monarchy was going to replace the millenary absolute monarchy.
The Parliament of Paris experienced such waivers, as well as the parliaments of French provinces.
The answer is that the «Lois Fondamentales du Royaume de France» are ABOVE the King himself and the parlements.
The Foreign Powers had no right to dispose of the Crown of France.
Louis XIV had no right to dispose of the Crown of France.
Philip V had no right to dispose of the Crown of France, either for himself or for his descendants. The waiver is not legitimate, it can not have legal force.
Philip V, meanwhile, has never recognized the validity of waivers signed under duress of England. In 1726, he wrote to the Parliament of Paris to be proclaimed King, «in case of death of the King of France his nephew, ordering him as successor to the crown by right of birth and by the fundamental laws of the State, until he can take possession of the kingdom» («en cas de mort du roi de France son neveu, lui ordonnant comme successeur de la couronne par le droit de sa naissance et par les lois fondamentales de l'État, en attendant qu'il puisse aller prendre possession du royaume»).
Philip V of Spain is the heir to the throne of France.
It is not a matter of having a party to the Court that supports him or satisfy the desires of the Foreign Powers. The rights of Philip V were sacrosanct.
In this hypothesis, in which Louis (XV) dies from measles in february-march 1712 along with the rest of his immediate family, the hypothetical Treaty of Utrecht would have been different: Philip V of Spain at that time already had two sons and Queen Maria Luisa of Savoy was pregnant for the fourth time.
The Foreign Powers would probably have recognized his rights of succession to the Crown of France on condition that he had abdicated the Crown of Spain in favor of his second son (possible for the laws of succession of the Spanish kingdoms).
Today there is still a «Querelles dynastiques françaises».
Today, the rights to the Crown of France claimed by alleged Bourbon-Orlèans, are anything but real. In fact they are not direct descendants of Louis XIII, but they have at most one female offspring from the branch of Condé.
In fact Louis Philippe Joseph d'Orléans (1747-1793), known as "Philippe Egalité", was the son of a cocher!
«Vous savez bien, Mirabeau, que ces titres de prince et d’altesse ne me conviennent pas, que je les ai reniés depuis longtemps, et que, depuis longtemps; je ne rougis plus de Montfort le cocher» [see Journal des débats and Barnave of M.Jules Gabriel Janin].
Recommended by an old friend of shady dealings, Louis Pierre Manuel (which was so important in the difficult day on the 10th of August and we remember directly or indirectly to the death of the Marquis de Mandat, head of the National Guard who was in defense of the Tuileries Palace), but presumably for cowardice, the self-styled Duke of Orleans, having before their eyes the abyss toward which had led the King and his family, on September 15, 1792, obtained from the Commune de Paris, the act he himself had requested that a new name, Egalite:
«Sur la demande de Louis-Philippe-Joseph, prince français,[...] le procureur de la commune entendu, arrète que Louis Philippe Joseph et sa postérité porterons désormais le nom de famille Égalité[...] signé Boulo, Président, Colombeau, Tallien secrétaire».
On the same day (or other sources for February 10, 1793), rising in the tribune of the Jacobins, wearing a red cap, said:
«Je dois le jour aux liaisons impudiques de ma mère avec un valet (le cocher LEFRANC), le feu duc d'Orléans, père de celui qui semble être le mien, n'a jamais voulu me reconnaitre, et mes inclinaisons de sans culotte me persuadent que ce n'est pas le sang des Bourbons qui coule dans mes veines, je demande un nom qui me replace dans la classe du peuple», namely that he recognized his adulterous birth, due to relationship that his mother had had with the valet/groom LEFRANC, and that his attitudes as sans-culottes and the lack of similarity between father and son, had convinced him that it was not the blood of the Bourbon that flowed in his veins!
The alleged illegitimate birth is also legitimacy from the chronicles of the time on the loose morals of the Duchess of Orléans, Louise Henriette de Bourbon-Conti; she had all the audacities of vice and tried her lovers among the servants, indifferent to all the scandals, imperturbable all the insults.
At her death on February 9, 1759, was found a sort of testament with her seal: it contained a list of her lovers, and for each a compendium of their "quality" (Mémoires de la Marquise de Créquy).
The same duchess has written:
"Monseigneur d'Orléans,
"Vos prétendus enfants,
"Sont l'objet du mépris
"De tout Paris!"
To substantiate the hypothesis of a bastard birth there are also the memoirs of the Baroness d'Oberkirch, that writing about Louise Marie Thérèse Bathilde, Duchess de Bourbon and Princess of Conde, sister of Philippe Egalité, confided that «Je suis tout Condé et je n'ai rien d'Orléans...».
Finally, Philippe Egalité has publicly renounced for himself and his descendants, to any rights to the French throne, as he himself stated in a letter written in his own handwriting, the newspaper Moniteur on December 7, 1792:
«Je déclare que je déposerai sur le bureau ma renonciation formelle aux droits de membre de la dynastie régnante, pour m’en tenir à ceux de citoyen français. Mes enfants sont prêts à signer de leur sang qu’ils sont dans les mêmes sentiments que moi».
But at the time of this release there was a Constitution duly approved, which was to replace the millenarian «Lois Fondamentales du Royaume de France», as the new constitutional monarchy was going to replace the millenary absolute monarchy.
Last edited:
I was under the impression that it was a rumor Égalité took up as a way of proving that he was one of the "people". But, his paternal grandfather did refuse to acknowledge the legitimacy of his grandchildren because of his daughter-in-law's "slutty" behavior.
Although, I recall that at least at first Égalité's parents' marriage was very sexually charged, as they would often ask for the host's bedroom to be put at their disposal if they attended a party.
Although, I recall that at least at first Égalité's parents' marriage was very sexually charged, as they would often ask for the host's bedroom to be put at their disposal if they attended a party.
According to the Wiki of a Million Lies only descendents of Louis IX counted. The French House of Courtney (descendents of Louis VI) weren't called Princes du Sang and were left out of the succession specified by the 1662 Treaty of Montmartre.