Talk:Legitimists

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

	France Portal Legitimists is within the scope of WikiProject France, an attempt to build a comprehensive and detailed guide to France on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please join the project and help with our open tasks.
???	This article has not yet received a rating on the quality scale. Please rate the article and then leave a short summary here to explain the ratings and/or to identify the strengths and weaknesses.

According to the french fr:légitimisme, some legitimists are in favour of democracy. So they're not into "chosen by God" or monarchy of "divine right". -> I removed that from the intro. --FvdP 22:27, 9 Nov 2004 (UTC)

That's totally false. Legitimists are against the 1789 French Revolution (see René Rémond's classic studies on the 3 right-wing families in France). Tazmaniacs 21:29, 7 May 2006 (UTC)

There seem to be a couple of issues here. Before 1883, legitimists were those who believed that the revolution of 1830, like that of 1789, was unlawful, and that the senior branch of the House of Bourbon remained rightfully kings until their extinction. But this issue died with Chambord in 1883, because at that point the senior branch of the House of Bourbon did become extinct. The supposed legitimist line which emerged after 1883 is based on a completely different issue - was Philip V's renunciation of the French throne legal? It seems to me quite clear that before 1830, both Louis XVIII and Charles X recognized that Orleans would be the next heir after Charles's descendants died out (which was expected to happen rather soon until Chambord's birth, and was not an unreasonable possibility even afterwards). It ought to be noted that most legitimists of 1882, who believed that Henri V was the rightful king, were supporters of the Comte de Paris in 1884, and believed that the throne had passed rightfully to him. Only an embittered minority, who felt that the great-grandson of the Regicide Philippe Egalité and the son of the usurper Louis Philippe could not possibly be King of France, who turned to the Carlist line. john k 15:57, 13 August 2005 (UTC)

This article lists as pretenders people accepted as the pretender by only a minority of legitimists. The vast majority accepted the Orleanist pretender as being also, from the death of the Comte de Chambord. The list should reflect that. FearÉIREANN\^(caint) 20:06, 7 May 2006 (UTC)

The Orleanist are not legitimist. Again, see René Rémond. If you have doubt, see fr:René Rémond and the french article about his book. Tazmaniacs 21:30, 7 May 2006 (UTC)

That is not what I said. I said that since the death of Chambord the Orleanist pretender has also been accepted as being the Legitimist candidate-bearer by the vast majority of legitimists. Only a small number of legitimists regard anyone else as the legitimist pretender. That is a fact of history and has been since the 1890s. FearÉIREANN\^(caint) 22:23, 7 May 2006 (UTC)

I think that this disagreement reflects the fact that "legitimist" needs more clarification in definition. At present, the disambig page grants use of the word, without qualification besides capital L, to French legitimists, and uses other terms for those of other countries. But legitimist, both historically and today, only makes sense as a term in contrast to a competing kind of monarchist, either one who supports an incumbent sovereign, or who advocates for a different pretender than that of the legitimists. Historically, the legitimist pretender has been more identified than his rival with absolutism in politics, clericalism in religion, and traditionalism in national culture. That is what French legitimism, Jacobitism, Carlism and Portuguese Miguelism have in common. Absent a rival on their left, legitimists are just royalists.

Therefore, I agree with your statement that "...since the death of Chambord the Orleanist pretender has also been accepted as being the Legitimist candidate-bearer by the vast majority of legitimists", if one adds "alive at that time." Lacking any poll, it appears that from 1883 some French legitimists supported the Orléans, some abandoned political advocacy, and a small percentage gave their support to the Carlist pretender, the Duke de Madrid. But that last fraction is the group who have retained holdof the title "Legitimist" in the French context. So the Orléanist princes added to the article's list of pretenders are not considered "Legitimist" candidates for restoration in France today -- indeed, the only thing today's surprisingly vocal Legitimists loathe more than French republicans are Orleanists! Orleanists consider themselves monarchists and, perhaps, royalists, but not Legitimists. I'd suggest that this all be clarified in the article (along with clearer acknowledgement of the fact that there are other kinds of legitimists than French).Lethiere 09:19, 12 May 2006 (UTC)

According to René Rémond, most of them abandoned political advocacy. Tazmaniacs 13:50, 12 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] POV

"As of 2006, they remain strongly attached to the traditionalist wing of the Catholic Church and are particularly encouraged by the theological conservatism of Pope Benedict XVI." What is that suppossed to mean? This is extremely ambiguous and lacks of seriousness

[edit] Co-Princes of Andorra

Boris Skossyreff argued the case for the co-prince of Andorra being the heir to the French monarchy, rather than the President of France. Is this a valid argument?

Jackiespeel 16:48, 14 May 2007 (UTC)