"This is my great grandfather, Louis" "This is my grandfather, Louis" "This is my brother, Louis" "This is also my brother, Louis" "And I am-" "Let me guess, Louis?" "I'm Charles"
Reminds me of that scene in My Big Fat Greek Wedding! "This is my brother and his children Anita, Diane and Nick. This is my cousin and his children Anita, Diane and Nick. Nick, Nick, Nick, Nick, Nick..."
You know it's funny you mentioned Elizabeth II being a potential heir to the throne of France as the whole reason french succession is based on a strict partilineality, is because of the "salic law" an ancient Frankish law which was brought back to rule out descendants of Isabella of France from French succession AKA Edward III of England. So the Patrilineality isn't so much a "no girl allowed" as it's a "no Brits allowed".
Seeing that dauphin means "dolphin" (and yes I've read the comments and saw that it originated with the nickname of Guigues IV, Count of Viennois), I am so disappointed that the British monarchy doesn't call their heir apparent Prince of Whales. I'll see myself out…
Seeing as "Prince of W(h)ales" was the example given here as a similar title to the France's dolphin (screw those detractor comments, it's canon), I agree
Hahaha. (Not really though - if we are going to redraw the whole French dynastic tree according to Male preference principles, Edward would still be on a junior branch - he had a lesser claim to the crown than the male descendents of Joan of Navarra, who was his first cousin (eventually that lines lands back on Henry IV, Louis XIV's gramps).
she can't be queen of France, she is not even english, the windsors are a german nazi house. France always had French kings while england always had foreigners monarchs
Some Brit: "OUR aquatic mammal emblem is bigger than YOUR aquatic mammal emblem, you frog!" Countered by: "I wave my private parts at your aunties, you tiny-brained wipers of other peoples' bottoms!"
The 3rd Republic was already proclaimed (in 1870) when Henri was a candidate and the restauration of the monarchy a realistic option. And, also the Bonaparte family agreed to the candidature of Henri. The monarchists were the largest political camp in the early 3rd republic. But since the early 20th century the possibility of a restauration is actually impossible. Although some claim that the then Count of Paris (Head of the Orleans family) had a chance after the 2nd world war. The case with the new legitimist contender goes back to 1936 and had also to do with the carlist branch of the spanish Bourbons
Want a 13th Vendémiaire with canons and gun powder? French are not different from other people of earth they need disciplines like Germans/Russians/Japaneses
The interesting thing about China is their firm belief in the Mandate of Heaven and the rule of ousted dynasties are not allowed to reclaim their title. If however you want to go by the descendants of the last imperial dynasti, the Qing, you would have to follow the line of Aisin Gioror Pu Yi's brother, since the last emperor himself never bore any children.
The main problem with Louis Alphonse is that he mostly grew up in Spain. He does speak French but with a fairly strong accent. But most importantly, he served in the Spanish army and pledged allegiance to Spain. It would be weird to have a French king being honor bound to a foreign country.
@@Tania-ql8ji it's because YOU don't know what a monarchy realy represent . it's way better than a Republic , which is illegitimate in the country , and was imposed using violence
I think that's not a problem. 1. the aristocrats in the german countries spoke no German but french and 2. the emperor of Austria was the king of Hungary at the same time and Karl V. for an example was even king of Spain too and 3. in our united Europa that should not matter 🇪🇺
An interesting side note: Louis-Philippe d'Orleans, the heir of King Louis-Philippe, served as a captain in the Union Army during the American Civil War and was a veteran of the 1862 Peninsular Campaign. He later wrote an encyclopedic history of the Civil War and was greatly admired on the west side of the pond.
@@christophermichaelclarence6003 I think so. His brother, the Duke of Chartres, served with him. Both were commissioned as captains. I personally wrote a screenplay regarding them and an encounter with the Union general who both shines and stank -- Major General Ben "Silverspoons" Butler. He was a lousy general, a thief (he habitually stole silverware in restaurants, hence the nickname) and all around repugnant man -- but he did hate slavery so much that he came up with the legal pretext of "contraband" to seize slave-owners' property -- slaves -- and set it free. This led to the Emancipation Proclamation. The brothers were every girl's idea of what a prince should be. Meanwhile, Napoleon III was running France. Imagine how different history would would have been if it were Louis-Philippe II leading the French armies against the Prussians at Sedan in 1870... Most likely, however, he wouldn't have allowed Bismark to provoke him into a war that was not in the interests of France. Cheers!
@@scottadler great connection between Butler and the Royals especially because the Confederate city Butler ruled over was New Orleans-Formerly a French Territory, it would be interesting to see what feelings they harbored towards butler for wronging the French creole community of New Orleans…
@@lalouisianecreole4883 The people of New Orleans HATED Butler. After pro-Confederate women insulted Union soldiers, he issued a decree that any woman who did so in the future would be arrested as a "woman of the town" e.g. a prostitute. That enraged the population so much that they painted his picture on the bottom of their chamber pots so that they could literally **** on his face!
Like the bleu blanche rouge, it s in fact bleu blanc rouge. but no offense, you made a really good job, plus french is not exactly a simple language. Congrats
@@peytongorshavitzki6933 absolutly not, "La" is feminine pronoun and it uses to complete a feminine noun like "Chaise" => la chaise. But here, "Dauphin" is a masculine noun "Le dauphin". It's why "Le petit dauphin" is correct. Paul R has reason !
I’m related to this line and the matrilineal lines for Scot/Wales/England. It’s been such a gift seeing your videos. You all have an incredible talent at visual storytelling and it’s personally impacted how I understand the history before me. Thank you ☺️
Yes, Dauphin literally translates to dolphin but if Heirs to the french throne are called DAUPHIN, that doesn't refer to the animal at all. It refers to a region in south east France, near Switzerland, that is called LE DAUPHINÉ and its capital is the city of Grenoble. King of France Philippe VI (The 1st Valois) was given this land as payment of a debt and gave it to his 1st born son, the future king Jean II. Jean II gave it to his heir Charles (who later would reign as Charles V, the Wise). So Prince Charles was the 1st to be called "Dauphin" meaning he ruled over the Dauphiné
English King: "So the French heir is literally called 'dolphin'?" Advisor: "Yes your Majesty.." English King: "Majestic.. What's more majestic then a dolphin?" Advisor: "A.. Whale?.. I suppose your Majesty.." English King: "Then our heir shall be called the Prince of Whales!"
I feel like, if one follows Edward III of England's claim to the throne of France, it doesn't actually go to Queen Elizabeth. Her ancestors, the Hanoverians, only inherited the throne of Great Britain because they were Protestants, not because they had the best claim to the throne through primogeniture. In fact, about fifty people with a better claim got skipped when Sophia of Hanover was declared Queen Anne's heir! The throne of France, which has no such requirement for Protestantism, would have followed the line of James II after he was deposed from the throne of England. This Jacobite succession today leads to Franz, Duke of Bavaria.
Not quite right! None of the kings of France married Protestant princesses, but some royal princes did and their wives had to convert to Catholicism. A particularly interesting example is Philippe, Duke of Orléans, brother of Louis XIV whose first wife, Princess Henrietta of England, daughter of King James I of England and Princess Henrietta Maria of France, baptized according to the rites of the Church of England, but then brought up in France according to those of Catholicism. After her death in 1670, Philippe Duc of Orléans married the Protestant Elisabeth Charlotte of the Palatinate who had to convert to Catholicism.
this was my thought exactly. either that rule would never have existed or at some point the Catholic heir would move to France and the English line would have been the same
Since the time of James II, Parliament has, unofficially, controlled the accession to the British throne. As a rule, Parliament has respected the rule of primogeniture, but not if that meant putting a Catholic on the Throne. They conveniently declared that James had abdicated by fleeing to France and put his daughter and her husband on the throne. They decided to make Sophia the heir after that. And her son after her. They made David abdicate for marrying that gorgon, Mrs. Simpson. British monarchy is all about a family desperately trying to stay on the good side of Parliament.
@@francinesicard464 I think Phiendish Phlox may have meant that the French crown did not require the royal family to be Protestant as the English one did. In fact, as you say, it obviously did require its members be Catholic.
I can't agree. The line of the throne of France is not identical with that of Jacobite claimants. The throne of France, if we are following its customary Salic law, could not be claimed by the Duke of Bavaria, because his Stuart descent is through the female line. His Stuart descent derives from Henrietta of England, Charles II's sister, wife of the Duc d'Orleans. On the other hand, Jacobite succession, like the succession of the English crown, follows a Semi-Salic line, and permits this, but Salic law does not. And the line of James II cannot be taken far as it died out with his grandsons, Charles Edward (Bonnie Prince Charlie) and his brother James Cardinal Duke of York, neither of whom had legitimate descendants. It is often claimed that there were fifty Catholic heirs passed over to make George I king. But actually, at the time of Queen Anne's death there were only six people who had a closer claim to her throne than George I, and one of them was his mother Sophia of Hanover. Three (Catholic) descendants of the aforementioned Henrietta were alive (Anne's first cousin and her two daughters), and three descendants of Charles I's Protestant sister Elizabeth Queen of Bohemia. Two of these three were Catholic granddaughters of Elizabeth, and the third was Elizabeth's Protestant daughter Sophia of Hanover. Sophia, who was Anne's first cousin, once removed, nearly became Queen of England herself, as she died only shortly before Queen Anne died herself. .
Wow, very nice video! House of Orleans has the strongest claim in my point of view. I feel lucky to say that I happen to know Jean's auntie (what I just now realise thanks to your video), and she is the sweetest lady. I'm looking forward for more videos!
FUN FACT So many kings of France were called Louis as an homage to the first king of France who was called Clovis. Back in the day there was no difference between V and U as curves were too hard to carve so CLOVIS became LOVIS
The likelihood is that he just used that as an excuse. Henri V didn’t really want to be king, and he used the flag as an excuse to refuse the throne. In his youth he had as a matter of fact designed a “compromise” flag, which was the tricolour, but with the royal arms in the centre
Interesting fact, if the brazilian monarchy still exists using the system of no male preference, Jean would be the Emperor of Brazil today, because his great mother was the eldest child of Princess Isabel
As a french I want to tell you that this video is one of (if not the) best about this subject. It's clearly explained even if the subject is really complcated. Therefore you should speak about illegitimates Napoléon Ier descendants (he has two who were ministers under Napoléon III's rule). Sorry for my bad english, but congratulation about this awesome video ! ❤
The title of Dauphin comes from the sale of the Dauphiné, a region right above my home region of Alpes-Maritimes, to the king of France in 1349 under the condition that the King’s heir would be named the Dauphin from now on. Little anedocte. Great video Matt! Happy to have taken part in this collab with you and merde! PS: You do pronounce the “s” in Fleur-de-Lys - I know, French is annoying :)
That’s very interesting! I thought it was the opposite, that the Dauphiné (Delfinado in my language) was like a private fief of the Heir to the Throne, and so was named after the title of Dauphin. Like a Kingdom named after a King or a Khanate is named after a Khan.
@@fluffytom82 The title dauphin comes from being the count of Dauphiné traditionally given to the crown prince of France. The custom started when king Philippe the VI bought the county and gave it to his grandson Charles V "the wise"
@@fluffytom82 What is said didn't contradict you "The title dauphin comes from being the count of Dauphiné", Meaning the crown prince is the Dauphin because he is the count of Dauphiné, i was just giving a bit more context on when it became attached to the crown prince of France.
@@a2kvarnstrom80 yes, the video title says king, but useful charts SPECIFICALLY says Emperor when taking about the Bonapartist. So the only way you'd be confused is if YOU WERE NOT LISTENING.
The Bonapartist line is more interesting than i thought... good list of ancestors. I think that Napoleon would be happy with the idea of having Habsburg and specially Bourbon blood in one of his successors, because he knew in his early days as emperor that a measure of attachment to the Bourbon France was convenient and necessary for his own legitimacy (e.g. the restablishment of the marshalls of France). That argument can still be said since pragmatically Napoleon could almost be confused with a dictator - having royal blood would refute this. As for the others, Louis Alphonse makes a good Bourbon candidate but the treaties are weights against him, unless repealed; and the Orleanist line is strong, although Louis Philippe I was a weak and liberal. Anyway, all this is very nice to watch.
Napoleon wasn't the world's first dictator. Anyone who says that is uneducated regardless of their qualifications. To be that he can't have royal blood, he has to be hated by his subjects, and gain power through a coup. He did everything legit. Only uneducated Christans call him that cause they hate he took his crown from the Pope. Also, he called himself emperor. Dictators don't do that. The first real dictator with modern connotations like Mussolini was Charles X, and he didn't last long.
Interestingly, the current Prince Napoleon is a direct descendant of Louis Philippe through, I believe, his eldest daughter. I always believed an Emperor of the French was superior to Kings. Emperor Napoleon III had a successful reign despite him losing a war against the Wilhelm I of Germany. Charles X and Louis Philippe had terrible reigns, and Bonaparte had more better reigns and was more competent.
The greatest advantage of the Kings of France was their deeply-rooted historicity, which is a much more stable and peaceful source of legitimacy than warmongering and force alone (although this is still the ultimate driving force between societies - anyway). The Kings of France of course expanded their power through war, but in a sense, at least it wasn't by a massive maelstrom of violence in a short period of time. Napoleon I was indeed a warmonger above all and dictator, and Napoleon III was a curious blend of successfull opportunist and populist, but the current Bonaparte Prince is beyond all that in a way that even Napoleon would surely be surprised and satisfied. Interestingly enough, by the same present realities, the Bourbon Prince is in a much less strong position. It's as if the Napoleons reinforced their legitimacy even after 1871, while that of the Bourbons was progressively weakened.
@@TheGrenadier97 I agree with you. Louis XIV said I am the state without really building a truly what we consider a nation-state with the function of a state. I believe Napoleon clearly defined the state by its people and not by its ruler. Even the tricolor is a great symbolic sign of French nationality where, whereas before the royal standard, there was no differentiation between state and king. Napoleon strengthened the French nation by making France a liberal constitutional with the code of Napoleon, a new honors system, secularized education, and promoted social mobility. Napoleon III had successful campaigns with Britain and the Ottoman Empire to prevent Russia's growing expansionism. I believe Napoleon III surpassed his uncle on the account that he reigned for over two decades, the economy became a free capitalist market, and he did public works projects that brought France to an industrial cosmopolitan center. The only problem is over time, he ran into deficits later on in his reign, which caused inflation and unemployment, but this problem was due to a lack of government regulating trade and commerce enough. Bourbon has never been a favorite Royal Dynasty as they tended to be anti-progressive. I agree the Orleanist and Anjou lines do not have any persuasive agreement to rule again besides long historical ties.
Sometimes i wonder what Europe would have been if Louis XVI had enough support and personal strength as Gustav III of Sweden to found a "popular absolutism" against nobility. Not a full reform of the heavy and increasingly slow french State, but at least conducive to proper reforms without so much bloodshed.
@@SirKarlIsTheMod That just shows how insanely crazy the french revolution was, and it still blows my mind that France uses the flag and the anthem from the revolution.
Great video! Just adding a couple of precisions: Napoleon didn't turn the 1st republic into an empire: the Republis was already abolish and replaced by a several things: first, a "Directoire", lead by 10 "directeurs", and then, a roman-inspired system,, the "consulat", with 5 "consuls". Napoleon was one of the five. Napoleon II never had this title, he left France as a toddler, to live in Austria with his mother (who was austrian), in 1815, and died rather young. Durig the "Restauration" from 1815 to 1848, many Bonapartists hoped he would come back to restaure his father's empire. When Louis Napoleon Bonapart turned the 2nd republic into the 2nd empire, he took the name Napoléon III to please the bonapartists side. What's more: you have to understand that bonapartists and royalists completely disagree. they were two opposite parties, as different from one another than republicans. So if Monarchy was retablished in France, the Napoleonic side would never be an option. In France restoration of Monarchy is not a serious option anyway. They are some monarchists circles who dream of a return of kings (divided between orléanistes and légitimistes), and some nostalgics of Napoléon, but none of these think of a return of Napoleon descendents. And I love your accent when you pronounce french names
There was 5 directors in the directory, and 3 consuls in the french consulate. Not 10 and 5 respectively. It wouldn't be right to say Napoleon was one of the five consuls, he was the first consul (of 3). Unlike the directory, not all consuls were created equal. The republic was not abolished and replaced with the directory and then french consulat, that was still considered the republic. Napoleon II did have this title. A few other things were wrong but I think people should just take your whole reply with a grain of salt.
Quelques corrections : Napoléon Bonaparte a eu un seul fils avec Marie Louis d'Autriche qui s'appela Napoléon François Bonaparte et non Louis Napoléon Bonaparte. Ainsi, Napoléon François Bonapart fut bien à son tour reconnu empereur, régnant sous le nom de Napoléon II, du 4 au 6 avril 1814 et du 22 juin au 7 juillet 1815 (son père ayant abdiqué en 1814 puis en 1815). C'est son père lui-même qui proclama son fils sous le titre de Napoléon II, proclamation approuvée d'ailleurs par le Parlement, la chambre des représentants et de la chambre des pairs. Concernant la première république, qui n'est autre que la République française, correspond littéralement au régime instauré en France après la monarchie. Donc dire que la République a été abolie est dans le fond inexact. Plusieurs régimes ont été instaurés au sein même de la première république à commencer non pas avec le directoire, mais la convention national avec la chute de Robespierre et la fin des terreurs, le directoire et enfin le consulat période ou Napoléon Bonaparte est nommé premier consul il est donc ainsi chef de l'executif. Donc que l'auteur stipule que Bonaparte a profondément changé la Première République n'est pas faux tant il a instauré la paix au sein même de cette république, Il met fin aux insurrections dans l'Ouest de la France, il permet aux clergés de revenir sur le territoire national alors chassé depuis la révolution, il a apporté de nombreux changement autant dans le service publique et a largement rééquilibrés le budget de la France. Voilà
Ninguno de los tres puede ser Rey, porque si se investiga a fondo Luis XIII no tuvo hijos, tanto Luis XIV como su hermano son hijos bastardos de la Reina Ana, y los Bonapartes son unos simples plebeyos arribistas. ..Si hacen un examen de ADN encontraran la verdad, es conocido que Luis XIII era un gay de Closet.
Fun fact, Louis Alphonso de Borbón is actually the son of the granddaughter of Generalism Francisco Franco, an Spanish dictator. She married with Jaime's son, who was deaf and renounce to the rights of the throne of Spain, Alphonso.
@@hieratics yeah, he is the heir to the duchy of Franco, but "Franco" it's a common surname in Spain. Francisco Franco was not a nobleman, he was militar. The duchy of Franco was created by his succesor, king Joan Charles I, to his daughter, Carmen Franco.
@@Krugster He might have been German/Austrian but he was born and lived in Belgium. And he was more Burgundian than German. Anyway I only made the comment as a joke. Spain and France have rivaled a lot in history. Especially back then.
@@lecapetien3223 Not all Spanish wanted a Bourbon, many wanted to continue under the House of Habsburg. Even the Dutch, Germans, English and Portuguese fought in favour of a Habsburg Spain.
@@aitornavarro6597 of course, not ALL the population, but the majority spain wanted Philippe as their king, as stated in Charles II testament. the Germans wanted to continue the Hasburg Monarchy, the english wanted to protect their colonies in the american continent.
Only French Monarchists love that. The vast majority of French people don't care the slightest who claims to be the true heir to a royal family that was defeated 200 years ago by their own people and lost all legitimacy forever.
@@monsieurg8256 Maybe they will allow the return of a monarchy. But that particular family will forever be the one that was chased out of the throne by the people. As long as the only argument for choosing the king is which is best member of that failed family, they won't get over that disgrace. Wannabee Kings/Queens of France need to prove their own worth to the people as an individual regardless of their origins.
@@christianbarnay2499 Even among the monarchists, an orléanist on the throne would not be really well accepted since one of their ancestors, Philippe-Égalité, had vote for the death of Louis XVI.
Bro! Imagine if Balthazar also has Timur's and Genghiz's blood in him. That's like, Zuko's hundred years accumulated internal conflicts, but you know, times 6, at least (don't quote me on the timeline).
Oh, times 8, actually. I did the math. Bro, Imagine if it was France who was the one who colonized India in the past. Would they just sit idly knowing that the Indian (supposed) House of Bourbon lineage was still surviving there?
For people wondering, Napoleon I’s bloodline didn’t die out! He had two LEGITIMATE children with mistresses, (one which was a Minister of the Second French Empire with Napoleon III / his cousin and the other who was a soldier and a hobo) which have descendants till this day meaning Napoleons blood still runs through their veins 😮
By definition a child with a mistress is illegitimate unless you get a papal pronouncement or something. Also, Alexandre was publicly acknowledged as the son of Count Athanasius at the time. It took modern DNA treating to confirm what were previously just rumors.
Please explain to me how a man at that time could have a legitimate child out of wedlock. And even though it is less of a problem in the present time, most monarchies still have strict rules against bastards inheriting the title.
@@apveeningtechnically Louis XIV managed to make a law that made all of his countless bastards legitimate considering his last heir was his great grandson very ill zt the time. But eventhen in the regency they got rid of that reeal quick
You mean "illegitimate", right? A Mistresses' kids are considered bastards in Monogamous societies like France (on paper). So only kids from a legal Wife are considered Legitimate. Yeah, Napoleon III's line didn't end & he still has true biological descendants. They're technically just not "legitimate".
It would be nice to see a "who would be king of Mexico" or "who would be king of Brazil", people seem to forget both of this countries once were monarchies at some point.
"King" of Brazil would imply that Brazil was still the territory of a kingdom, so it'd be the King of Portugal. Brazil as an independent country had an Emperor instead. And to answer the question, there are two lines, one from a renounced title (as usual, someone felt like marrying someone who was not royalty), and one that renounces said renouncement. Most families accept the Vassouras line (whose heir apparent is Prince Bertrand) as the legitimate claimant, making Dom Luiz (aged 83) the current Emperor.
So we have this: A Spaniard where his grandfather renounced the throne to his granduncle A guy that happens to be a heir to Louis Phillipe Heir of French Empire Duke of Parma (pretty sure he's an italian) The Great Napoleon from holy land of I N D I A And then there's Britannia
1:54 I love that this could be taken to mean that the title Prince of wales was actually meant to mean prince of whales (not the region in the UK) and that western European monarchies just had a thing for aquatic mammals.
Very well explained, thank you. Two important notes, however: 1. If the rule of male preference had applied, it would not have benefitted Isabelle, daughter of Philippe IV le Bel (and her son the King of England), but instead Jeanne de Navarre, only surviving child of Louis X le Hutin -the first son of Philippe IV-, and the kings of Navarre after her. The Salic law preventing women from inheriting or transmitting the crown was actually specifically designed to exclude her in favor of her uncles... The kings of English did indeed lay claim to the French throne through Isabelle, however, and abandoned the title of King of France from their titles only recently. Note that Blanche de France (daughter of Charles IV) would also take precedence over Isabelle, if the law of male preference had been applied. 2. The two key arguments which -at least according to the Legitimists- make the case for Louis XX the strongest are the following: - The renunciation contained in the Treaty of Utrecht of 1713 is considered invalid on the grounds that French kings do not have the power to decide who inherits the crown, as it is automatically transferred to the oldest male descendant through the oldest male branch. Louis XIV could therefore have signed all the treaties he wanted, the Crown was not his to dispose of, according to the legitimists. - The entire Orleanist branch comes down from Louis Philippe I, but more importantly from his father Philippe d'Orleans, who opportunistically renamed himself Philippe-Egalité during the revolution. He was on the roll call to determine the fate of Louis XVI after his trial, and voted for the death penalty. For the legitimists, this makes him -and all his descendants- one of the murderers of Louis XVI and therefore ineligible to the French throne. Final note, just to make things more complicated: in 1986, the Catholic Church annulled the religious marriage of the parents of Louis XX -they had been separated since 1979-. Some claim that this technically makes Louis XX the illegitimate child of a marriage that never existed, therefore automatically transferring the French crown to Juan Carlos (former king of Spain, who is still alive although in exile after a corruption scandal)...
I totally agree about the Treaty of Utrecht. French kings can't name an heir, can't abdicate or abandon their claim on the throne. The only thing that matters is lineage...
For information on why there have been so many "Louis" in France's (or more precise, Frankish) history: The first ruler to unite the Frankish tribes into the Frankish kingdom was "Clovis I", Louis is a romanticised version of that name. Clovis -> Lovis -> Louis. The first "German" king, the grandson of Charlemagne, was also called Louis II the German, Germanized into "Ludwig II", son of Louis the pious, Emperor of Francia. His 3 sons then got each a part of it, West Francia, which became France, East Francia, which became Germany or more precise the mess that was the Holy Roman Empire, which was neither Holy, nor Roman, nor an Empire ^^, and Middle Francia, which became the reason of over a millennium of conflict and wars between Germany and France, because both consider the region in between their respective countries as theirs and, from a feudal point of view, both were right and wrong the same. History, the more you know :)
In fact the name Clovis is itself a latinised version of Germanic Hlodwig. Germanic initial Hl- more easily becomes L in spoken Romance, hence the French Louis. The latinised version of Louis still has the DW part of HloDWig: Ludovicus.
Charlemagne was not german he was germanic or precisely frankish, and since french have frankish decent, frankish history is a part of french history, just for clarify...
@@-zipfelkltsch3r-348 let's go even furder saying that there was actually 2 frankish tribes : the ons from northern france and the ones from the rhins. And yes they are both germanic but one tribe (the francs rhénants (from the rhin river)) are more germans and the others are more frenchs (clovis is one of them). So we can"t say that the franks where germans, french but yes they where germanic*
You mean you knew all about the last 3 french dynasty and all of its history since Louis XIV? Damn im a french guy fan of history but that doesnt mean i know all about that
The white flag - with the gold fleur de lys (The banner also flown by St Joan of Arc) represents service of the Kingship of Christ. The tri color itself has no interest in Heaven - although devout Christians too have to put up with it (as least, until the prophesied Great Monarch Henri comes to the throne - soon, hopefully+ ).
@@randombrit4504 To my opinion (as a French person), when our current flag was adopted soon after the first revolution (1789-~1792), the idea was to get rid of the holy power of the king (not necessarily the king himself at the time) and have a republic. Therefor, our flag is not only our country's flag but a symbol of the republic too. So it would have been a complete non sense to have a monarchy symbol on it since the monarchy is kind of the opposite to the republic. I hope I made it clear :)
12:13 fun fact: Queen Beatrix abdicated in 2013 actually and if you abdicate in the Netherlands, your title will pass on and you will once again become a prince or princess, which means that 'Queen Beatrix' actually has been Princess Beatrix since 2013 and everybody calls her that way now too. The more you know 😁
In Belgium king Albert II also stepped down the throne, but he kept his titles. So now we technically have two kings: Albert II and Filip. Oh and I hope one day the royal households of Belgium and the Netherlands will join, if the next in line are marrying each other.
UK: Lol, imagine naming your heir after a dolphin like France. France: It's better than naming them after whales. UK: It's spelt Wales >:( and it's a place not an animal.
The title "Dauphin" has its origins in the Dukedom of Dauphiné in southern France. In medieval times, the rulers of this area had a coat of arms with a dolphin on it (the one that is shown in the video). Therefore, they simply became known as "le Dauphin". The Dauphiné and the title "Dauphin" eventually ended up in the hands of the Kings of France; it then became a tradition to provide the heir to the throne with the revenues of the Dauphiné - therefore, the french crown princes were named "Dauphins". (Much like the english/british crown prince is known as the "Prince of Wales", which wasn't an english title originally).
I would just like to see the a constitutional monarchy in France, with the monarch as Head of State but not involved in politics. Either the legitimist or the orleanist claimant would be acceptable. There's such a rich history of monarchy in France. I'd love to see it resurrected if enough of the public wanted it back.
That would just be another reason for us to complain. Though it sounds OK I think the public has gone too long under republics to accept what would be for most a total stranger at the head of their country. If queen Elisabeth for example has such devout following it's because she represents an unbroken like of royal history of over 400 years. The French monarchy would be too sudden and fresh
It's actually just "Dolphin" - they only needed the title Great and Little Dolphin because everyone had to have a title or a style in the flourishing family of Louis XIV... His brother was simply '"Monsieur" and I believe that one's daughter was 'la grande Mademoiselle'. Very confusing (and we're not even talking about the mistresses, hidden second wive and so on). Anyways Louis the XIV survived almost all of them, including his own grandson and even one of his great-grandsons. Louis the XV was the sole survivor (because his nanny put her foot down and stopped the doctors who wanted to 'treat' him - very different kind of medicine back then).
That would actually be kind of epic. King of France handles executive decisions, king of the French acts as a mediator and counterweight to the parliament to deal with demagogues, and emporer of the French be the most superior figurehead that handles constitutional matters and as a tiebreaker when the kings disagree
@@germinalmtn5674 nah... Louis XVI was all but threatening, and hes the one king who died in revolution, the rest gave up beforehand, the population is the dangerous one here, during a revolution be the ennemy of a popular revolutionary and you can expect hell
@@Freedmoon44 Actually when the revolution started no one even imagined the King would have to go (let alone be tried and beheaded). To be honest he did quite a bad job of navigating those very complicated times. I don't blame him. It would have taken an exceptional genius and great sense of history, which he did not have. But ending up plotting with your cousins against your own country and constitutional order, which you had sworn to protect, was not a very smart move.
Pour le duc de Chambord, le tricolore (un composé du lanc de la Royauté et du bleu-rouge de Paris) était le symbole de la Révolution de 1789-1794 qui avait coûté la vie à la famille royale et à beaucoup de personnes encore (rien qu'à Paris, plus de 1500 guilotinnés). Ce serait infiniment mieux d'avoir un royaume appelé FRANCE, que cette république que l'on appelle la République Francaise. Quelquefois on dit "Le Président de la République" et cela tente vraiment de demander "laquelle?".
@@jeanghika7653 "Sometimes we say "The President of the Republic" and it really tries to ask "which one?" Of the Republic of France, you royalist twit.
@@TheGirard62 yes but for me there is just one bonaparte , the first , the only one and true Napoleon Bonaparte ! nobody can match with him !! vive l empereur !!
Le seul héritier du royaume de France, c'est la pique sur laquelle on plantera la tête de celui qui réclamera le trône... A ça ira, ça ira!!! :D :D :D (The only rightful heir of France is the spike on which will be stiked the head of the one who will claim the throne...)
A constitutional monarch does wonders for a country. It removes all the ceremonial baggage from political figures so they can focus on the task at hand. They also provide a national focal point which keeps people's patriotism focused in a benign place.
I mostly agree. Although us dutch always complain anout the budget awarded to our royalty. the British royalty actually owns valluable land which they loan to the UK government at a low price, meaning that the British royalty is actually financially profitable for the UK.
Yes but that s only the case for certain country, it may work in England but will never work in France. Simply because french people dont want another monarchy and are actually proud of the fact that they have no kings.
DIY Miracle agreed. I mean if the Plantagenets or Lancaster would have held France maybe no war of the roses or an even bigger war of the roses. There’s just so many posibilites with that and so many different English lines that could claim it .
@@frankavila4968 yeye of course, and that'd be why the author didn't go into that in this video because it is legitimately a very nuanced topic, and he only really covered renaissance and later too.
I guess the claim of the Hanovers when titling themselves Kings of France until 1801 was that like catholic Ireland, France must have been ruled by a protestant too. Actually, if you consider the English claim valid, then, would the French throne had not been occupied by usupers (the Valois), France would have followed the Anglican Reformation. The two remaining part of France still under the control of their rightful king (the English one) at the time of the Reformation, did in fact followed it (talking about Calais and the Channel Islands). When Henri VIII split up with Rome he was King of England and France. He couldnt split up and be excomunicated for one kingdom and not for the other one. So from the English claim perspective, France is "de jure" a protestant country occupied "de facto" by catholic usurpers.
@@christianjob The Valois were not usurpers. And no, if the Lancasters (who were usurpers in England) won the Hundred Years Wars, there would not have been an Anglican Reformation. Henry VI would have been known as Henri II de France, and would have reigned where the bulk of his Kingdom was: France. Just like most of the Plantagenets when they ruled parts of it as vassals of the King of France. No War of the Roses, no battle at Bosworth Field, no Tudors, no Anglican Reformation, and England would have a catholic monarch. But you're right, it would have been much better...
One big caveat is that if male preference is followed then Edward's claim is still moot: Louis X had a daughter who had sons afterwards, and those would get the throne before any English King. So in that light the Navarrese Capetians would be the most senior and the legitimate heirs.
Wonderful indeed! I am partial to Henri VI d'Orleans, who was the Count of Paris from 1940 until his death in 1999. Fascinating figure. Was deceived and treated badly by de Gaulle. Someone should make a film about his life.
There could be a 8th Monarch You see the House of Plantagenet had 4 braches:York and Lanchester became the House of Tudor who are extingt. But the 4th House, the House of Beaufort is still active and so the 12th Duke of Beaufort Henry could be King of France
There was a claimant to the throne of France in small town Ontario. I believe his case was based on the story of Louis VXII not being the boy who died in prison. So the DNA test (which I learned about here) put an end to that claim.
The members of The House of Orléans-Braganza are the current claimants to the Brazilian throne since 1921 as part of the Imperial House of Brazil. The house is also the second in the Orleanist line of succession to the French royal throne.
so the possible unification of France and GB during WW2 would have theoretically restored the Capetian line, interesting...love these what if scenarios
If France 🇫🇷 were to accept a monarch again (theoretically speaking), (s)he would reign (not rule!) as a constitutional monarch, one whose powers are clearly limited by law and where real power is held by the elected representatives of the people. The eight monarchies in Europe and Japan are examples of constitutional monarchies.
Matt, a nugget for you; although you may already know this given your wealth of knowledge. The Count of Paris - not this one still living - recounted in his memoir that, at his urging, Charles de Gaule considered restoring the monarchy in France and was about to order an opinion poll to check the public pulse when the 68 student protests flared up and with that the project was halted.
As a French lawyer just a quick note : at the beginning you ask who'd be King if... for some reason France decided to restore the monarchy. The French consitution explicitly states that the single and only thing that can never be changed in the future, by law, by referendum or even by a new constitution altogether, is the republican form of government. By enacting this provision, the French people has therefore given up forever the idea of being ruled by a monarch. ;)
@@tjs114 Vth Republic ... so 5 changes of Constitution. The current is the result of De Gaulle's being called to duty to replace the leftist Republic and incapable of resolving France's problems, being the main the Algerian War. The current constitution was tailored to his demands resulting in a "presidential monarchy" roughly along the US model. The trend in EU, and most democratic regimes, is to decouple the Head of State from government and political parties. Monarchy by birth was originally instituted to avoid the quarrels and civil wars of factions in elective monarchy that was destroying the Germanic Kingdoms that established themselves in the different provinces of the Roman Empire. A Monarch's legitimacy (in the West) is based on bloodline, regardless that he may live in another country ... many monarch's where born in different territories from the ones they would reign. The British found themselves with a German king, George of the house of Hannover, who did not speak English.
@@santoriniblue8413 "The British found themselves with a German king, George of the house of Hannover, who did not speak English." And that was no real problem as both he and the British nobility (and most of the upper class politicians) spoke French.
After taking a look at the French royal succession in 2020, I also came to the conclusion that Jean, Count of Paris, is also the most suitable candidate if the French monarchy is restored. Most importantly, he has also produced five (5) viable heirs to succeed him, if we also count girls. His firstborn is a boy, Prince Gaston, Count of Clermont. In 2009, Prince Jean married Philomena, Countess of Paris, an aristocrat of Spanish-Austro-Hungarian noble descent. Philomena is the daughter of Don Alfonso de Tornos y Zubiría (b. 13 October 1937), of noble Basque ancestry, and his wife (married Vienna, 18 September 1976) Maria Antonia Anna Zdenka, Edle von Steinhart (b. 1944), of Austro-Hungarian ancestry. Philomena has a sister named Maria Magdalena (b. 1980), married to Count Jean d'Haussonville d'Andlau de Cléron d'Haussonville, director of the EPIC (public company), which manages the Château de Chambord, and a brother, David (b. 1982). Her paternal grandparents are Don Juan de Tornos y Espelíus (former head of the personal secretariat of Infante Juan, Count of Barcelona, grandfather of the current King of Spain) and Doña María del Carmen Zubiría y Calbetón, daughter of Don Luis de Zubiria y Urizar, 2nd Marquis de Yanduri. Her maternal grandparents were Dr. Ferdinand, Edler von Steinhart (1910-1998) and his wife (married September 1939) Gabriele Felicitas Murad von Werner (1913-1994), paternal granddaughter of Murad Effendi. Prince Jean and Philomena are also distantly related, both being descendants of Count Jaroslav Borzita von Martinitz (1582-1649) who served as Imperial Governor of Bohemia, and his first wife, Countess Maria Eusebie von Sternberg (1584-1634). Prince Jean and Philomena have five (5) children, with the eldest son and heir being Prince Gaston Louis Antoine Marie d'Orléans, Count of Clermont (born 19 November 2009 in Paris), who will soon turn 11 years old. Prince Gaston will inherit the titles of His Royal Highness Prince Gaston d'Orléans, fils de France, Duke of Vendôme, Count of Paris, as well as “[King] Gaston I”. With France, if the monarchy were ever re-instated, then it would likely be a constitutional monarchy, much like that of the United Kingdom.
Hello, your video is awesome! I congratulate you for all this work! I am a French Royalist, and I really appreciated the rigor and respect that transcended your video. Just one thing: the white flag was dotted with lilies, not a blank.
There was actual plans in the early chaos of WW2 to unite the British & French Empires, with the house of Windsor holding the dual crowns of both Britain & France with Paris as the Capital & London as the financial centre of this Anglo Franco Union.
Luis Alfonso de Borbón is in fact a direct descendant of Alfonso XIII, king of Spain. But he is also in fact a direct descendant of of the spanish dictator Francisco Franco. Also he has done a buch of illegal activities on Swizerland and Venezuela for which he is not being judged, that's because he is also a kind of successful businessman
@@pendarpr I do not know. Do you think there is a legitimate heir after Pedro de Alcântara resigned his claim to the throne of Brazil? His son thought so but his grandsons all declared themselves republicans. It could be argued that Brazil was much better off and more stable under Pedro II than it has ever been since the monarchy was removed. What do you think?
Actually, Louis X of France and Navarre had one daughter: Joane of Navarre, who heird the throne of Navarre after the death of Charles IV of France, because there was not problems to the succesion of a woman in that kingdom. That way, both kingdoms would be united. A fun fact, the kingdom of Navarre, or their rights because Spain conquered it in the year 1512, passed by marriage to Antony I who was father of Henry III of Navarre and...IV OF FRANCE! He inherit the throne of France after Navarre. So, the Borbon House would take the throne anyway!
I recently posted a question online asking if Philip IV was an ancestor of Louis XVI. Everyone said no as he wasn’t the progenitor of the bourbon family tree. However, by tracing his granddaughter Joan as your brought out I found her descendants go all the way down to Henry IV through his mother. Pretty cool to find someone else who’s dug into that.
This was the most scenic and scientific of all the videos of project France. I really love it. Thank you Matt for giving us such an option to view an alternate world. Best wishes from Bhubaneswar
Ugh. An Invalid who cannot produce heirs? I don't care what witchcraft he possesses; Make him Master of Whispers, if you want. Aegon VI needs to retrieve his balls from his dead aunt/lover, ride Drogon, and take what is his by right!
Hi, thanks for your video, it was very interesting ! However, there's a mistake. The word "Dauphin" which is used for the heir of the king, doesn't come from the animal. It comes from the country of Dauphiné, situated on the South-East of France.
Yes and no. The Dauphiné is named after the Dauphin, which is a name chosen by Guillaume VI of Auvergne in honor of his grandfather Guigues IV of Albon, which was nicknamed "Le Dauphin". When the county of Dauphiné passed to the royal family, it became the land reserved for the heir to the throne, ergo the Dauphin. So the Dauphin (heir of france) is named after the Dauphiné which is named after Guigues IV, nicknamed "Le Dauphin".
Yes, exactly what I just said, Yes, Dauphin literally translates to dolphin but if Heirs to the french throne are called DAUPHIN, that doesn't refer to the animal at all. It refers to a region in south east France, near Switzerland, that is called LE DAUPHINÉ and its capital is the city of Grenoble. King of France Philippe VI (The 1st Valois) was given this land as payment of a debt and gave it to his 1st born son, the future king Jean II. Jean II gave it to his heir Charles (who later would reign as Charles V, the Wise). So Prince Charles was the 1st to be called "Dauphin" meaning he ruled over the Dauphiné
About the Treaty of Utrecht, most "Legitimists" believe it to be null and void, since according to the Kingdom of France's fundamental laws, an heir cannot renounce his rights for himself or his descendants. In other terms, if a man happens to be the heir to the throne of France, no matter what he does, he will still be the heir to the throne untill his death, notwithstanding any provisions to the contrary.
That's wrong, many princes have renounced and it didn't annoy anyone. Thing is some people hate Orléans, which is why they support some spanish losers.
May I add another candidate to the mix? Karl-Wilhelm Naundorff was a German clockmaker who claimed to be Louis XVII (the son of Louis XVI) from 1793 until his death in 1845. His descendants still claim the French throne to this day, with the current heir to this claim being Michel Henri de Bourbon, who claims the throne as "Henri VII".
The last official French monarch was Napoleon III, so in my opinion the throne should go to Jean-Christophe. Jean-Christophe also has Bourbon and Hapsburg connections, making him a very strong candidate from these aspects as well. I don't favour the Bourbon/Orleans lines simply because the French people rejected them not once, but twice, in 1789 and 1848, and the Duke of Chambord's rejection of the crown over the flag dispute also strongly invalidates the Bourbon line in my view. The other thing is that Louis Alphonse is Spanish and has no strong connections to France, and then of course the Treaty of Utrecht, still legally valid, makes his claim unlawful. The statement that the Count of Paris is the closest one to the long history of France may be correct, but we should ignore the fact the last French king, an Orleanist, Louis Philippe, was dethroned by means of a popular revolt. And I reject the statement that France's imperial period was 'a brief interlude', given that had it not been for the Franco-Prussian war the current French monarch would be a Bonaparte. However, again, when all is said and done, as in the Russian case, a direct election from the people would be the best way to settle the issue once and for all. A popular referendum should be held to decide between the lawful claimant from the Bourbon-Orleans line, Jean, and the Bonapartist claimant, Jean-Christophe.
I have an even better idea. Let them duel it out, the one who kills the other gets the throne. If both of them die during the sword fight then the children will fight to the death in their place
maybe the French should have a popular vote between the two candidates to see who should become King or Emperor of France. Both candidates should run on how pure their lineage is and how connected they are to French history, and if they'll cosplay as the Sun King on special occasions, lol
I disagree friend for me the bonapartists and republicans were the worst thing that France had, for me Napoleon I was a foreigner who didn't even have royal blood took power by force and military campaigns, he was a great general but he was a foreign usurper
French Monarchs Family Tree from Clovis to Napoleon III: ua-cam.com/video/xb2N20NdVD4/v-deo.html
I should be King of France becuse im 9.1% French Viv La France 😊😊😊
🏰👑⚔️🛡️⚜️⚜️⚜️🛡️⚔️👑🏰
@@Ben-hv4pri support this claim
@@Stuff_centeral me too i would love to see a french royal family that includes the french Queen,King,Prince and Princess
@@Stuff_centeral me too bro
"This is my great grandfather, Louis"
"This is my grandfather, Louis"
"This is my brother, Louis"
"This is also my brother, Louis"
"And I am-"
"Let me guess, Louis?"
"I'm Charles"
Well he was the 4th male child and wasn't supposed to be King, also his name was Louis-Charles, so he chosen to be Charles xD
spongebob reference lul
Reminds me of that scene in My Big Fat Greek Wedding! "This is my brother and his children Anita, Diane and Nick. This is my cousin and his children Anita, Diane and Nick. Nick, Nick, Nick, Nick, Nick..."
what about his nephews Huey and Dewey???
This is why you don't do the nasty in the pasty
As a french guy i already knew that stuff but really, Balthazar Napoleon IV was a sick plot twist.
Je n'étais clairement pas préparé à ça en regardant la vidéo
think would be very funny to have him as king of france.
@@cdubs1237 "Hehey! look, you shapeshifted into a dead guy!"
@Central Intelligence Agency I am an Orleanist myself. Does that count?
@Central Intelligence Agency Oh no ... oh NO, are you guys gonna invade France too?!
A bourbon, Bonaparte, and habsburg walk into a restaurant. The waiter says "table for one?"
Winner. Winner. 🐔🐔🐔🐔 🍽🍴🥂🥂🥂
@@mmeduplechin1577 ah yes, winner winner chicken plate fork champagne
@@pashauzan no, it's chicken chicken chicken chicken plate fork champagne champagne champagne
@@WisteriAvis no, it's winner winner chicken chicken chicken chicken plate silverware champagne champagne champagne
@@xlindsxy6128 No, it’s winner dot winner dot chicken chicken chicken chicken plate with utensils utensils champagne champagne champagne.
You know it's funny you mentioned Elizabeth II being a potential heir to the throne of France as the whole reason french succession is based on a strict partilineality, is because of the "salic law" an ancient Frankish law which was brought back to rule out descendants of Isabella of France from French succession AKA Edward III of England. So the Patrilineality isn't so much a "no girl allowed" as it's a "no Brits allowed".
@@da_big_chungus lmaooo what does racism have to do with any of this please this is ridiculous
@DaDa-ui3sw the French nobility didnt want to be ruled by an English king (who they considered inferior)
Same with excluding Catholics to this day
They are the same race. Has nothing to do with race.@@da_big_chungus
It has to do with nationalism rather.@@da_big_chungus
Of course the rightful heir is Stannis Baratheon.
I bend the knee
THE MANNIS
@@blacquejacquesshellacque6053 still better than crown a wore
How about Daenerys Targaryen? Or Jon Snow?
@@dianaolivia2947 we don't count them
Solution: Have all 3. A King of France, a King of the French, and an Emperor.
And call the country "Imperial Kingdom of the French Republic" to please everyone
I was thinking the Bourbons keep Spain, the Orleanists take France, and the Bonaparte-Bourbon-Hapsburg super child takes Italy or something.
Or better yet .....have none of them as monarchs. They are exactly were they should be.
@@luishart5279 I was thinking "The Royal Imperial Republic of Francity Francey France" but I like that we're on the same wavelength.
Sure why not?
Seeing that dauphin means "dolphin" (and yes I've read the comments and saw that it originated with the nickname of Guigues IV, Count of Viennois), I am so disappointed that the British monarchy doesn't call their heir apparent Prince of Whales.
I'll see myself out…
Seeing as "Prince of W(h)ales" was the example given here as a similar title to the France's dolphin (screw those detractor comments, it's canon), I agree
I think you're onto something...
they do ,old english spelling, wales! hahaha
Lol
Awesome XD
Also, I just think the Balthazar Napoleon IV story is hilarious, so he's my vote for rightful king.
Next is Brad Pitt ruling Congo
@@astrahasisoh so I guess Brad Pitt must have some ancestry from the Congo according to you apparently
@@noorbohamad5796 that's obvious just look at him
When a Capet-Napoleon marries a Habsburg
England: Oh God please no
Nice profile pick
)
Capet-Bonaparte-Hapsburg (edited)
@@ninjasiren it's actually Capet-Bonaparte-Habsburg
@@erenyeager6478 yup woops will change it
When I saw Queen Elizabeth II I literally said “God Damn it!”
That immortal woman somehow always wins.
she played her TRUMP card =P
Hahaha.
(Not really though - if we are going to redraw the whole French dynastic tree according to Male preference principles, Edward would still be on a junior branch - he had a lesser claim to the crown than the male descendents of Joan of Navarra, who was his first cousin (eventually that lines lands back on Henry IV, Louis XIV's gramps).
she can't be queen of France, she is not even english, the windsors are a german nazi house.
France always had French kings while england always had foreigners monarchs
@@lecapetien3223 you're a clown
@@jonniiinferno9098 liberal worst nightmare cause UK conservative party keep winning election lmao
The French call their royal heir "Dolphin".
-Let's call ours "Prince of Whales".
😄😄😄
fun part is it's probably something like that for real
Shit that's funny
ha
Some Brit: "OUR aquatic mammal emblem is bigger than YOUR aquatic mammal emblem, you frog!"
Countered by: "I wave my private parts at your aunties, you tiny-brained wipers of other peoples' bottoms!"
The 3rd Republic was already proclaimed (in 1870) when Henri was a candidate and the restauration of the monarchy a realistic option. And, also the Bonaparte family agreed to the candidature of Henri. The monarchists were the largest political camp in the early 3rd republic. But since the early 20th century the possibility of a restauration is actually impossible. Although some claim that the then Count of Paris (Head of the Orleans family) had a chance after the 2nd world war.
The case with the new legitimist contender goes back to 1936 and had also to do with the carlist branch of the spanish Bourbons
As a French, I recommand no one to take the throne, it's a very dangerous job here
:) :) :) good one!
The french monarchy will be restored, I dont know when, but it will happen and will be glorious.
@@dr.coiote4079 well yes but no
Want a 13th Vendémiaire with canons and gun powder? French are not different from other people of earth they need disciplines like Germans/Russians/Japaneses
@@dr.coiote4079 Lol we don't want
Who would be the Emperor of China today? I think that'd be an interesting vid. Love your stuff :)
The interesting thing about China is their firm belief in the Mandate of Heaven and the rule of ousted dynasties are not allowed to reclaim their title. If however you want to go by the descendants of the last imperial dynasti, the Qing, you would have to follow the line of Aisin Gioror Pu Yi's brother, since the last emperor himself never bore any children.
still xi apparently. whoever conquered China is the rightful emperor,a tradition of three thousand of years
Winnie the Pooh
I think there is a video of it already.
Looking forward on this ❤️
French history is a bit like matrix movies:
"La France"
"The french revolution"
"Emperor reloaded "
" The Monarch resurrections "
yes
🤣👏🏻
go ahead wiTh This Frensh
-revolution
Robespierre
was
also caused To deaTh
-and Napoleon was in his
Exile ... wheRE
he
died
and i woukd likeTo say
in my life
was
no
AndreaS
Hofer
farmers
revoluTion
leader.
he
was
excuTed
The main problem with Louis Alphonse is that he mostly grew up in Spain. He does speak French but with a fairly strong accent. But most importantly, he served in the Spanish army and pledged allegiance to Spain. It would be weird to have a French king being honor bound to a foreign country.
Well, french people doesn't want their country ruled by monarchy.
@@Tania-ql8ji it's because YOU don't know what a monarchy realy represent . it's way better than a Republic , which is illegitimate in the country , and was imposed using violence
I think that's not a problem. 1. the aristocrats in the german countries spoke no German but french and 2. the emperor of Austria was the king of Hungary at the same time and Karl V. for an example was even king of Spain too and 3. in our united Europa that should not matter 🇪🇺
Qu'il soit lié à l'Espagne, c'est une chose... Le problème c'est ses liens de parenté avec Franco
@@matiix7689 Bahahaha cassez vous avec vos roi là. On a déjà Macron dont on doit se débarrasser :')
France how many revolution do you want?
France: Oui
Oui
We have switched to the strike system now, it requires less organization so we can do more !! xD
@Akainu Sakazuki94 oh no, not again!
that works with england and us too
@@lecapetien3223 vive le roy
An interesting side note: Louis-Philippe d'Orleans, the heir of King Louis-Philippe, served as a captain in the Union Army during the American Civil War and was a veteran of the 1862 Peninsular Campaign. He later wrote an encyclopedic history of the Civil War and was greatly admired on the west side of the pond.
Wow that's wholesome
@@christophermichaelclarence6003 I think so. His brother, the Duke of Chartres, served with him. Both were commissioned as captains. I personally wrote a screenplay regarding them and an encounter with the Union general who both shines and stank -- Major General Ben "Silverspoons" Butler. He was a lousy general, a thief (he habitually stole silverware in restaurants, hence the nickname) and all around repugnant man -- but he did hate slavery so much that he came up with the legal pretext of "contraband" to seize slave-owners' property -- slaves -- and set it free. This led to the Emancipation Proclamation.
The brothers were every girl's idea of what a prince should be. Meanwhile, Napoleon III was running France. Imagine how different history would would have been if it were Louis-Philippe II leading the French armies against the Prussians at Sedan in 1870... Most likely, however, he wouldn't have allowed Bismark to provoke him into a war that was not in the interests of France.
Cheers!
@@scottadler great connection between Butler and the Royals especially because the Confederate city Butler ruled over was New Orleans-Formerly a French Territory, it would be interesting to see what feelings they harbored towards butler for wronging the French creole community of New Orleans…
@@lalouisianecreole4883 The people of New Orleans HATED Butler. After pro-Confederate women insulted Union soldiers, he issued a decree that any woman who did so in the future would be arrested as a "woman of the town" e.g. a prostitute. That enraged the population so much that they painted his picture on the bottom of their chamber pots so that they could literally **** on his face!
François d'Orléans, Prince of Joinville
1:59 'Petite' is feminine, so Le Petit Dauphin is correct.
Good catch.
Like the bleu blanche rouge, it s in fact bleu blanc rouge. but no offense, you made a really good job, plus french is not exactly a simple language. Congrats
its la not le... La petit Dauphin
@@peytongorshavitzki6933 absolutly not, "La" is feminine pronoun and it uses to complete a feminine noun like "Chaise" => la chaise. But here, "Dauphin" is a masculine noun "Le dauphin". It's why "Le petit dauphin" is correct. Paul R has reason !
@@BennyLaBaignoire Paul R is right. Paul R a raison. But Paul R does not "have reason".
I’m related to this line and the matrilineal lines for Scot/Wales/England. It’s been such a gift seeing your videos. You all have an incredible talent at visual storytelling and it’s personally impacted how I understand the history before me. Thank you ☺️
Several Scottish clans are directly related to this line in fact.
@@JM-gu3tx I’m a cousin of the house of Orange also. We’re inbred.
Yes, Dauphin literally translates to dolphin but if Heirs to the french throne are called DAUPHIN, that doesn't refer to the animal at all. It refers to a region in south east France, near Switzerland, that is called LE DAUPHINÉ and its capital is the city of Grenoble. King of France Philippe VI (The 1st Valois) was given this land as payment of a debt and gave it to his 1st born son, the future king Jean II. Jean II gave it to his heir Charles (who later would reign as Charles V, the Wise). So Prince Charles was the 1st to be called "Dauphin" meaning he ruled over the Dauphiné
The expression also exists in Spanish, as in "mi delfín", implying a sucession from certain power, i.e. the dolphin of a King is its legitimate heir.
The Dauphiné comes from the Dauphin, not the other way around. And just look at the coat of arms of the Dauphin, there's a litteral dolphin on it.
The House of Orange wants to know your location
@@guil7290 Well, "literal". Medieval representations of dolphins leave something to be desired.
The name of Dauphiné comes from a legend saying that dolphins are knights.
So Dauphiné comes from dolphins after all.
English King: "So the French heir is literally called 'dolphin'?"
Advisor: "Yes your Majesty.."
English King: "Majestic.. What's more majestic then a dolphin?"
Advisor: "A.. Whale?.. I suppose your Majesty.."
English King: "Then our heir shall be called the Prince of Whales!"
Dauphin is referring to the Dauphiné county
@@LePoilu and the Dauphiné's heraldic shield refers to... A dauphin! Which came first, the dauphin or the Dauphin?
"Prince of WHALES" would all be fun and games unless Prince William ended up with a bunch of very large daughters.
@@richardthomas5362Like Mr Krabs?
😂😂😂
I feel like, if one follows Edward III of England's claim to the throne of France, it doesn't actually go to Queen Elizabeth. Her ancestors, the Hanoverians, only inherited the throne of Great Britain because they were Protestants, not because they had the best claim to the throne through primogeniture. In fact, about fifty people with a better claim got skipped when Sophia of Hanover was declared Queen Anne's heir! The throne of France, which has no such requirement for Protestantism, would have followed the line of James II after he was deposed from the throne of England. This Jacobite succession today leads to Franz, Duke of Bavaria.
Not quite right! None of the kings of France married Protestant princesses, but some royal princes did and their wives had to convert to Catholicism. A particularly interesting example is Philippe, Duke of Orléans, brother of Louis XIV whose first wife, Princess Henrietta of England, daughter of King James I of England and Princess Henrietta Maria of France, baptized according to the rites of the Church of England, but then brought up in France according to those of Catholicism. After her death in 1670, Philippe Duc of Orléans married the Protestant Elisabeth Charlotte of the Palatinate who had to convert to Catholicism.
this was my thought exactly. either that rule would never have existed or at some point the Catholic heir would move to France and the English line would have been the same
Since the time of James II, Parliament has, unofficially, controlled the accession to the British throne. As a rule, Parliament has respected the rule of primogeniture, but not if that meant putting a Catholic on the Throne. They conveniently declared that James had abdicated by fleeing to France and put his daughter and her husband on the throne. They decided to make Sophia the heir after that. And her son after her. They made David abdicate for marrying that gorgon, Mrs. Simpson. British monarchy is all about a family desperately trying to stay on the good side of Parliament.
@@francinesicard464 I think Phiendish Phlox may have meant that the French crown did not require the royal family to be Protestant as the English one did. In fact, as you say, it obviously did require its members be Catholic.
I can't agree. The line of the throne of France is not identical with that of Jacobite claimants. The throne of France, if we are following its customary Salic law, could not be claimed by the Duke of Bavaria, because his Stuart descent is through the female line. His Stuart descent derives from Henrietta of England, Charles II's sister, wife of the Duc d'Orleans. On the other hand, Jacobite succession, like the succession of the English crown, follows a Semi-Salic line, and permits this, but Salic law does not.
And the line of James II cannot be taken far as it died out with his grandsons, Charles Edward (Bonnie Prince Charlie) and his brother James Cardinal Duke of York, neither of whom had legitimate descendants.
It is often claimed that there were fifty Catholic heirs passed over to make George I king. But actually, at the time of Queen Anne's death there were only six people who had a closer claim to her throne than George I, and one of them was his mother Sophia of Hanover. Three (Catholic) descendants of the aforementioned Henrietta were alive (Anne's first cousin and her two daughters), and three descendants of Charles I's Protestant sister Elizabeth Queen of Bohemia. Two of these three were Catholic granddaughters of Elizabeth, and the third was Elizabeth's Protestant daughter Sophia of Hanover. Sophia, who was Anne's first cousin, once removed, nearly became Queen of England herself, as she died only shortly before Queen Anne died herself.
.
Wow, very nice video! House of Orleans has the strongest claim in my point of view. I feel lucky to say that I happen to know Jean's auntie (what I just now realise thanks to your video), and she is the sweetest lady. I'm looking forward for more videos!
Wow! Respect!
FUN FACT
So many kings of France were called Louis as an homage to the first king of France who was called Clovis. Back in the day there was no difference between V and U as curves were too hard to carve so
CLOVIS became LOVIS
How did they carve the “o” that’s a completed curve
@@Kez150
@@Kez150 could have been a square or diamond shaped
@@Tirexo []h []kay thank y[]u
@@Tirexo L◇VIS
Henry Count of Chambord is such a diva, literally gets handed the country *_"Sorry the blue white and red don't do it for me"_*
He wanted to surrender to much lol
Such a frenchman.
The likelihood is that he just used that as an excuse. Henri V didn’t really want to be king, and he used the flag as an excuse to refuse the throne. In his youth he had as a matter of fact designed a “compromise” flag, which was the tricolour, but with the royal arms in the centre
@Jason Bailey No, the flag under the Bourbon Restauration was just plain white. The one you are referring to was used prior to the revolution.
He was OK with the white, it was the blue and red that did it.
Interesting fact, if the brazilian monarchy still exists using the system of no male preference, Jean would be the Emperor of Brazil today, because his great mother was the eldest child of Princess Isabel
Nah, the Emperor would be Dom Luis Gaston, He is the heir to the Throne.
As a fellow brazilian I say we need a video on that.
No, because the House of Bragança is quite alive and kiking in Brasil and in Portugal.
@@rickygabriel2759 using the system of no male preference...
@@lukelima would be very fun to watch
As french let me compliment you on your prononciation of the french words which is really good (even with the english accent)
As a french I want to tell you that this video is one of (if not the) best about this subject. It's clearly explained even if the subject is really complcated.
Therefore you should speak about illegitimates Napoléon Ier descendants (he has two who were ministers under Napoléon III's rule).
Sorry for my bad english, but congratulation about this awesome video ! ❤
@John Smith true lol
Contente toi de servir et payer tes taxes au Roi Emannuel le 1er
The title of Dauphin comes from the sale of the Dauphiné, a region right above my home region of Alpes-Maritimes, to the king of France in 1349 under the condition that the King’s heir would be named the Dauphin from now on. Little anedocte.
Great video Matt! Happy to have taken part in this collab with you and merde!
PS: You do pronounce the “s” in Fleur-de-Lys - I know, French is annoying :)
That’s very interesting! I thought it was the opposite, that the Dauphiné (Delfinado in my language) was like a private fief of the Heir to the Throne, and so was named after the title of Dauphin. Like a Kingdom named after a King or a Khanate is named after a Khan.
@@fluffytom82 The title dauphin comes from being the count of Dauphiné traditionally given to the crown prince of France.
The custom started when king Philippe the VI bought the county and gave it to his grandson Charles V "the wise"
@@fluffytom82 What is said didn't contradict you "The title dauphin comes from being the count of Dauphiné", Meaning the crown prince is the Dauphin because he is the count of Dauphiné, i was just giving a bit more context on when it became attached to the crown prince of France.
The Bonapartist would not be king, he'd be Emperor of the French.
He said that when introducing the Bonapartist
@@wasteland5000 bUt ThE vIdEo SaYs KiNg
@@a2kvarnstrom80 yes, the video title says king, but useful charts SPECIFICALLY says Emperor when taking about the Bonapartist. So the only way you'd be confused is if YOU WERE NOT LISTENING.
@@wasteland5000 r/woosh lol
@@feetinspector4628 sure
The Bonapartist line is more interesting than i thought... good list of ancestors. I think that Napoleon would be happy with the idea of having Habsburg and specially Bourbon blood in one of his successors, because he knew in his early days as emperor that a measure of attachment to the Bourbon France was convenient and necessary for his own legitimacy (e.g. the restablishment of the marshalls of France). That argument can still be said since pragmatically Napoleon could almost be confused with a dictator - having royal blood would refute this. As for the others, Louis Alphonse makes a good Bourbon candidate but the treaties are weights against him, unless repealed; and the Orleanist line is strong, although Louis Philippe I was a weak and liberal. Anyway, all this is very nice to watch.
Napoleon wasn't the world's first dictator. Anyone who says that is uneducated regardless of their qualifications. To be that he can't have royal blood, he has to be hated by his subjects, and gain power through a coup. He did everything legit. Only uneducated Christans call him that cause they hate he took his crown from the Pope. Also, he called himself emperor. Dictators don't do that. The first real dictator with modern connotations like Mussolini was Charles X, and he didn't last long.
Interestingly, the current Prince Napoleon is a direct descendant of Louis Philippe through, I believe, his eldest daughter. I always believed an Emperor of the French was superior to Kings. Emperor Napoleon III had a successful reign despite him losing a war against the Wilhelm I of Germany. Charles X and Louis Philippe had terrible reigns, and Bonaparte had more better reigns and was more competent.
The greatest advantage of the Kings of France was their deeply-rooted historicity, which is a much more stable and peaceful source of legitimacy than warmongering and force alone (although this is still the ultimate driving force between societies - anyway). The Kings of France of course expanded their power through war, but in a sense, at least it wasn't by a massive maelstrom of violence in a short period of time. Napoleon I was indeed a warmonger above all and dictator, and Napoleon III was a curious blend of successfull opportunist and populist, but the current Bonaparte Prince is beyond all that in a way that even Napoleon would surely be surprised and satisfied. Interestingly enough, by the same present realities, the Bourbon Prince is in a much less strong position.
It's as if the Napoleons reinforced their legitimacy even after 1871, while that of the Bourbons was progressively weakened.
@@TheGrenadier97 I agree with you. Louis XIV said I am the state without really building a truly what we consider a nation-state with the function of a state. I believe Napoleon clearly defined the state by its people and not by its ruler. Even the tricolor is a great symbolic sign of French nationality where, whereas before the royal standard, there was no differentiation between state and king. Napoleon strengthened the French nation by making France a liberal constitutional with the code of Napoleon, a new honors system,
secularized education, and promoted social mobility. Napoleon III had successful campaigns with Britain and the Ottoman Empire to prevent Russia's growing expansionism. I believe Napoleon III surpassed his uncle on the account that he reigned for over two decades, the economy became a free capitalist market, and he did public works projects that brought France to an industrial cosmopolitan center. The only problem is over time, he ran into deficits later on in his reign, which caused inflation and unemployment, but this problem was due to a lack of government regulating trade and commerce enough. Bourbon has never been a favorite Royal Dynasty as they tended to be anti-progressive. I agree the Orleanist and Anjou lines do not have any persuasive agreement to rule again besides long historical ties.
Sometimes i wonder what Europe would have been if Louis XVI had enough support and personal strength as Gustav III of Sweden to found a "popular absolutism" against nobility. Not a full reform of the heavy and increasingly slow french State, but at least conducive to proper reforms without so much bloodshed.
An Indian possibly being in the french line of Succession
TOP 10 PLOT TWISTS IN ANIME!!!!!!
Wait, it's all Naepoleon?
ALWAYS HAS BEEN
@33 SixtyNine i TOTALLY AGREE
The french would never accept an indian as king.
@33 SixtyNine the french would not. The non europians are the ones who would.
@@baltulielkungsgunarsmiezis9714 Well then i guess we'd have to rule with an iron fist.
meanwhile:
robespierre severed head:
**INTENSE SCREAMING**
his head is a beyblade right now
Robespierre was insane and rightfully received his comeuppance.
Bro there’s your 200th like but I’m dying right now
@@SirKarlIsTheMod That just shows how insanely crazy the french revolution was, and it still blows my mind that France uses the flag and the anthem from the revolution.
Robespierre is in hell right now😊
October 2020: Queen Elizabeth claims the throne of France.
the hundred years war part 2 ... this time its personal!
My king, england has declared war on us! They cite "Restoration of Union" as Casus Belli
That WOULD be a pretty hilarious note to cause the apocalypse on.
She’s even gonna claim the throne of Westeros😂
It's 2020, everything can happen! I wouldn't even be surprised anymore.
Great video! Just adding a couple of precisions: Napoleon didn't turn the 1st republic into an empire: the Republis was already abolish and replaced by a several things: first, a "Directoire", lead by 10 "directeurs", and then, a roman-inspired system,, the "consulat", with 5 "consuls". Napoleon was one of the five.
Napoleon II never had this title, he left France as a toddler, to live in Austria with his mother (who was austrian), in 1815, and died rather young. Durig the "Restauration" from 1815 to 1848, many Bonapartists hoped he would come back to restaure his father's empire. When Louis Napoleon Bonapart turned the 2nd republic into the 2nd empire, he took the name Napoléon III to please the bonapartists side. What's more: you have to understand that bonapartists and royalists completely disagree. they were two opposite parties, as different from one another than republicans. So if Monarchy was retablished in France, the Napoleonic side would never be an option. In France restoration of Monarchy is not a serious option anyway. They are some monarchists circles who dream of a return of kings (divided between orléanistes and légitimistes), and some nostalgics of Napoléon, but none of these think of a return of Napoleon descendents.
And I love your accent when you pronounce french names
There was 5 directors in the directory, and 3 consuls in the french consulate. Not 10 and 5 respectively.
It wouldn't be right to say Napoleon was one of the five consuls, he was the first consul (of 3). Unlike the directory, not all consuls were created equal.
The republic was not abolished and replaced with the directory and then french consulat, that was still considered the republic.
Napoleon II did have this title.
A few other things were wrong but I think people should just take your whole reply with a grain of salt.
Quelques corrections : Napoléon Bonaparte a eu un seul fils avec Marie Louis d'Autriche qui s'appela Napoléon François Bonaparte et non Louis Napoléon Bonaparte.
Ainsi, Napoléon François Bonapart fut bien à son tour reconnu empereur, régnant sous le nom de Napoléon II, du 4 au 6 avril 1814 et du 22 juin au 7 juillet 1815 (son père ayant abdiqué en 1814 puis en 1815).
C'est son père lui-même qui proclama son fils sous le titre de Napoléon II, proclamation approuvée d'ailleurs par le Parlement, la chambre des représentants et de la chambre des pairs.
Concernant la première république, qui n'est autre que la République française, correspond littéralement au régime instauré en France après la monarchie. Donc dire que la République a été abolie est dans le fond inexact. Plusieurs régimes ont été instaurés au sein même de la première république à commencer non pas avec le directoire, mais la convention national avec la chute de Robespierre et la fin des terreurs, le directoire et enfin le consulat période ou Napoléon Bonaparte est nommé premier consul il est donc ainsi chef de l'executif. Donc que l'auteur stipule que Bonaparte a profondément changé la Première République n'est pas faux tant il a instauré la paix au sein même de cette république, Il met fin aux insurrections dans l'Ouest de la France, il permet aux clergés de revenir sur le territoire national alors chassé depuis la révolution, il a apporté de nombreux changement autant dans le service publique et a largement rééquilibrés le budget de la France. Voilà
Ninguno de los tres puede ser Rey, porque si se investiga a fondo Luis XIII no tuvo hijos, tanto Luis XIV como su hermano son hijos bastardos de la Reina Ana, y los Bonapartes son unos simples plebeyos arribistas. ..Si hacen un examen de ADN encontraran la verdad, es conocido que Luis XIII era un gay de Closet.
Fun fact, Louis Alphonso de Borbón is actually the son of the granddaughter of Generalism Francisco Franco, an Spanish dictator. She married with Jaime's son, who was deaf and renounce to the rights of the throne of Spain, Alphonso.
And he is to become the next duke of Franco, if I am not mistaken. And the name Franco is related to France.
@@hieratics yeah, he is the heir to the duchy of Franco, but "Franco" it's a common surname in Spain. Francisco Franco was not a nobleman, he was militar. The duchy of Franco was created by his succesor, king Joan Charles I, to his daughter, Carmen Franco.
Yeah, I’m pretty sure the French would love their potential monarch being the great-grandson of a notorious fascist Spanish dictator.
@@wrightblan1501 Franco restored monarchy at Spain, so, why not?
Pedro Hoffmann By “restored” you mean Franco named Juan Carlos to succeed him after Franco ruled Spain as dictator for 35 years.
17:38
Meanwhile in 1700...
Why put a Frenchman on the throne of Spain...?
Philip V: you wouldn't get it.
17:37 Why put a Spaniard on the French throne? Same could be said about 1700 when a French was put on the Spanish throne.
@@Krugster he was burgundian like the majority of the "spanish" kings.
@@Krugster He might have been German/Austrian but he was born and lived in Belgium. And he was more Burgundian than German.
Anyway I only made the comment as a joke. Spain and France have rivaled a lot in history. Especially back then.
The Spanish asked to have Philippe of Bourbon on their Throne.
@@lecapetien3223 Not all Spanish wanted a Bourbon, many wanted to continue under the House of Habsburg. Even the Dutch, Germans, English and Portuguese fought in favour of a Habsburg Spain.
@@aitornavarro6597 of course, not ALL the population, but the majority spain wanted Philippe as their king, as stated in Charles II testament.
the Germans wanted to continue the Hasburg Monarchy, the english wanted to protect their colonies in the american continent.
i do love that those inheritance charts ALWAYS somehow end up bringing up Elisabeth II...
the British truck mechanic is on fire.
*Man, the French really love ideologies and uno reverse card.*
Only French Monarchists love that. The vast majority of French people don't care the slightest who claims to be the true heir to a royal family that was defeated 200 years ago by their own people and lost all legitimacy forever.
@@christianbarnay2499 Maybe not forever. Since the Republic is a disaster, maybe France will see the return of the King one day.
@@monsieurg8256 Maybe they will allow the return of a monarchy. But that particular family will forever be the one that was chased out of the throne by the people. As long as the only argument for choosing the king is which is best member of that failed family, they won't get over that disgrace. Wannabee Kings/Queens of France need to prove their own worth to the people as an individual regardless of their origins.
@@christianbarnay2499 Even among the monarchists, an orléanist on the throne would not be really well accepted since one of their ancestors, Philippe-Égalité, had vote for the death of Louis XVI.
@Matricx700 Pourquoi souhaiter la mort du Roi ?
You've forgotten the fusionists, they're just legitimists who became orleanists after the last non-spanish bourbon died
Awesome you did mention the fusionists
And who is the one that has the name of this branch now?
@@Normal_user_coniven it's basically the orleanist branch after the first orleaniste claimant
Usefulcharts: rules out Queen Elizabeth.
Me: ok
Also Usefulcharts: rules out Balthazar.
Me: WHAT!
I will not stand for this injustice!
Bro! Imagine if Balthazar also has Timur's and Genghiz's blood in him. That's like, Zuko's hundred years accumulated internal conflicts, but you know, times 6, at least (don't quote me on the timeline).
@@SeymoreSparda Agreed, he is the rightful ruler of humanity
Oh, times 8, actually. I did the math.
Bro, Imagine if it was France who was the one who colonized India in the past. Would they just sit idly knowing that the Indian (supposed) House of Bourbon lineage was still surviving there?
Yeah excatly, why my boy Balthazar?
For people wondering, Napoleon I’s bloodline didn’t die out! He had two LEGITIMATE children with mistresses, (one which was a Minister of the Second French Empire with Napoleon III / his cousin and the other who was a soldier and a hobo) which have descendants till this day meaning Napoleons blood still runs through their veins 😮
By definition a child with a mistress is illegitimate unless you get a papal pronouncement or something.
Also, Alexandre was publicly acknowledged as the son of Count Athanasius at the time. It took modern DNA treating to confirm what were previously just rumors.
Please explain to me how a man at that time could have a legitimate child out of wedlock. And even though it is less of a problem in the present time, most monarchies still have strict rules against bastards inheriting the title.
@@apveeningtechnically Louis XIV managed to make a law that made all of his countless bastards legitimate considering his last heir was his great grandson very ill zt the time.
But eventhen in the regency they got rid of that reeal quick
You mean "illegitimate", right? A Mistresses' kids are considered bastards in Monogamous societies like France (on paper). So only kids from a legal Wife are considered Legitimate.
Yeah, Napoleon III's line didn't end & he still has true biological descendants. They're technically just not "legitimate".
@@Freedmoon44Louis XIV was Napoleon?
It would be nice to see a "who would be king of Mexico" or "who would be king of Brazil", people seem to forget both of this countries once were monarchies at some point.
Your name is... Luis...
I'll see myself out lol
And brazil empire was amazing, chad and based.
"King" of Brazil would imply that Brazil was still the territory of a kingdom, so it'd be the King of Portugal. Brazil as an independent country had an Emperor instead. And to answer the question, there are two lines, one from a renounced title (as usual, someone felt like marrying someone who was not royalty), and one that renounces said renouncement. Most families accept the Vassouras line (whose heir apparent is Prince Bertrand) as the legitimate claimant, making Dom Luiz (aged 83) the current Emperor.
The Brazilian emperor would be Dom Luis of Orleans
Don't forget Haiti who too proclaimed itself to be an empire at some point.
So we have this:
A Spaniard where his grandfather renounced the throne to his granduncle
A guy that happens to be a heir to Louis Phillipe
Heir of French Empire
Duke of Parma (pretty sure he's an italian)
The Great Napoleon from holy land of I N D I A
And then there's Britannia
somebody mentioned the Bavarian line in another comment.
And possibly the duke of bavaria
The duke of Parma is very dutch
that would be actually Prince Carlos, son of Carlos Hugo of Bourbon Parma , and Princess Irene of tje Netherlands
Louis XIV was pre-deceased by...
That's a rather macabre way to say he outlived.
1:54 I love that this could be taken to mean that the title Prince of wales was actually meant to mean prince of whales (not the region in the UK) and that western European monarchies just had a thing for aquatic mammals.
Very well explained, thank you. Two important notes, however:
1. If the rule of male preference had applied, it would not have benefitted Isabelle, daughter of Philippe IV le Bel (and her son the King of England), but instead Jeanne de Navarre, only surviving child of Louis X le Hutin -the first son of Philippe IV-, and the kings of Navarre after her. The Salic law preventing women from inheriting or transmitting the crown was actually specifically designed to exclude her in favor of her uncles... The kings of English did indeed lay claim to the French throne through Isabelle, however, and abandoned the title of King of France from their titles only recently. Note that Blanche de France (daughter of Charles IV) would also take precedence over Isabelle, if the law of male preference had been applied.
2. The two key arguments which -at least according to the Legitimists- make the case for Louis XX the strongest are the following:
- The renunciation contained in the Treaty of Utrecht of 1713 is considered invalid on the grounds that French kings do not have the power to decide who inherits the crown, as it is automatically transferred to the oldest male descendant through the oldest male branch. Louis XIV could therefore have signed all the treaties he wanted, the Crown was not his to dispose of, according to the legitimists.
- The entire Orleanist branch comes down from Louis Philippe I, but more importantly from his father Philippe d'Orleans, who opportunistically renamed himself Philippe-Egalité during the revolution. He was on the roll call to determine the fate of Louis XVI after his trial, and voted for the death penalty. For the legitimists, this makes him -and all his descendants- one of the murderers of Louis XVI and therefore ineligible to the French throne.
Final note, just to make things more complicated: in 1986, the Catholic Church annulled the religious marriage of the parents of Louis XX -they had been separated since 1979-. Some claim that this technically makes Louis XX the illegitimate child of a marriage that never existed, therefore automatically transferring the French crown to Juan Carlos (former king of Spain, who is still alive although in exile after a corruption scandal)...
well... according to Maurice Druon, the name of Jeanne de Navarre's father is quite disputable...
I totally agree about the Treaty of Utrecht. French kings can't name an heir, can't abdicate or abandon their claim on the throne. The only thing that matters is lineage...
For information on why there have been so many "Louis" in France's (or more precise, Frankish) history: The first ruler to unite the Frankish tribes into the Frankish kingdom was "Clovis I", Louis is a romanticised version of that name. Clovis -> Lovis -> Louis. The first "German" king, the grandson of Charlemagne, was also called Louis II the German, Germanized into "Ludwig II", son of Louis the pious, Emperor of Francia. His 3 sons then got each a part of it, West Francia, which became France, East Francia, which became Germany or more precise the mess that was the Holy Roman Empire, which was neither Holy, nor Roman, nor an Empire ^^, and Middle Francia, which became the reason of over a millennium of conflict and wars between Germany and France, because both consider the region in between their respective countries as theirs and, from a feudal point of view, both were right and wrong the same. History, the more you know :)
In fact the name Clovis is itself a latinised version of Germanic Hlodwig. Germanic initial Hl- more easily becomes L in spoken Romance, hence the French Louis. The latinised version of Louis still has the DW part of HloDWig: Ludovicus.
Charlemagne was not german he was germanic or precisely frankish, and since french have frankish decent, frankish history is a part of french history, just for clarify...
@@nopseudo5828 The French arent frankish, the frankish were a germanic tribe…
@@-zipfelkltsch3r-348 let's go even furder saying that there was actually 2 frankish tribes : the ons from northern france and the ones from the rhins. And yes they are both germanic but one tribe (the francs rhénants (from the rhin river)) are more germans and the others are more frenchs (clovis is one of them). So we can"t say that the franks where germans, french but yes they where germanic*
@@nopseudo5828 Charlemagne was both French and German.
When France and Germany was once a unified Country
Me, a French girl watching a video of an English speaking man about French history I already know
Same. And here I am, writing to you in English while we are both native French speakers...
@@FF-xz9ms At least we are not talking german 🤣🤣
@Jesus Mena Guten Tag
You mean you knew all about the last 3 french dynasty and all of its history since Louis XIV? Damn im a french guy fan of history but that doesnt mean i know all about that
@@Freedmoon44 Same here, honestly I never even heard about the branches of Bourbon Bhopal
“Meet my great grandfather, Louis”
“My grandfather, Louis”
“My father, Louis”
“My brother, Louis”
“My nephew, Louis”
“My other brother, Louis”
“And me-“
“Let me guess, Louis?”
“No, Charles”
So.... a French King " fought" to keep the white flag...then gave up the throne because he couldn't keep it?
Yep, that's how stubborn and idealistic french people are!
The white flag - with the gold fleur de lys (The banner also flown by St Joan
of Arc) represents service of the Kingship of Christ. The tri color itself has no interest in Heaven - although devout Christians too have to put up with it (as least, until the prophesied Great Monarch Henri comes to the throne - soon, hopefully+ ).
@@rmp7400 we call her Jeanne d'Arc for her real name
@@rmp7400 Why not just smack the royalist flag in the white bit of the Republic's flag?
@@randombrit4504 To my opinion (as a French person), when our current flag was adopted soon after the first revolution (1789-~1792), the idea was to get rid of the holy power of the king (not necessarily the king himself at the time) and have a republic. Therefor, our flag is not only our country's flag but a symbol of the republic too. So it would have been a complete non sense to have a monarchy symbol on it since the monarchy is kind of the opposite to the republic.
I hope I made it clear :)
12:13 fun fact: Queen Beatrix abdicated in 2013 actually and if you abdicate in the Netherlands, your title will pass on and you will once again become a prince or princess, which means that 'Queen Beatrix' actually has been Princess Beatrix since 2013 and everybody calls her that way now too. The more you know 😁
That is very interesting! Love from Iran ❤
Wow really interesting but also kinda weird. Unique too.
@@selensoycan8378 otherwise you would have 2 kings or queens which doesnt make much sense so I think it is a good solution
@@stijnvroegop1876 Yeah it makes sense. Different royalties have some interesting titles. For example retired emperor. I like this title things 😅.
In Belgium king Albert II also stepped down the throne, but he kept his titles. So now we technically have two kings: Albert II and Filip. Oh and I hope one day the royal households of Belgium and the Netherlands will join, if the next in line are marrying each other.
UK: Lol, imagine naming your heir after a dolphin like France.
France: It's better than naming them after whales.
UK: It's spelt Wales >:( and it's a place not an animal.
The title "Dauphin" has its origins in the Dukedom of Dauphiné in southern France. In medieval times, the rulers of this area had a coat of arms with a dolphin on it (the one that is shown in the video). Therefore, they simply became known as "le Dauphin". The Dauphiné and the title "Dauphin" eventually ended up in the hands of the Kings of France; it then became a tradition to provide the heir to the throne with the revenues of the Dauphiné - therefore, the french crown princes were named "Dauphins". (Much like the english/british crown prince is known as the "Prince of Wales", which wasn't an english title originally).
@@reng7280 Yes, that's what I was trying to explain. :)
@@untruelie2640 the first duphin was the eldest son of jean ii valois
@@untruelie2640 To quote Shakespeare in one of his history plays "Dolphin or dogfish"
Though in French Wales has the less confusing name of Galles
I would just like to see the a constitutional monarchy in France, with the monarch as Head of State but not involved in politics. Either the legitimist or the orleanist claimant would be acceptable. There's such a rich history of monarchy in France. I'd love to see it resurrected if enough of the public wanted it back.
That would just be another reason for us to complain. Though it sounds OK I think the public has gone too long under republics to accept what would be for most a total stranger at the head of their country. If queen Elisabeth for example has such devout following it's because she represents an unbroken like of royal history of over 400 years. The French monarchy would be too sudden and fresh
You realise your next king would be Prince Charles, right?
The ruler in France needs to have a bit of power though :))
Yes, better a king than a president.
Non merci
This video might be called : "Who will be the next beheaded French after a Revolution ?"
LoL. Hahahahahaha nice one
that would be Macron, although he is no king he believes he is...
cough...emmanuel mac.... cough.
This.
We hate revolutions.
You mean to tell me England and France have a Prince of W(h)ales and the Great Dolphin?
its a set up for the next Sharknado movie
Sounds fishy to me.
Like Sturgeon and Salmond. 🤣
And the great Shark and the deadly piranha are?
It's actually just "Dolphin" - they only needed the title Great and Little Dolphin because everyone had to have a title or a style in the flourishing family of Louis XIV... His brother was simply '"Monsieur" and I believe that one's daughter was 'la grande Mademoiselle'. Very confusing (and we're not even talking about the mistresses, hidden second wive and so on).
Anyways Louis the XIV survived almost all of them, including his own grandson and even one of his great-grandsons. Louis the XV was the sole survivor (because his nanny put her foot down and stopped the doctors who wanted to 'treat' him - very different kind of medicine back then).
Lets make this simple. Louis XX, King of France. Jean V, King of the French, Jean Christophe, Emperor of the French. ⚜️🇫🇷
The Glorious Triarchy!
That would actually be kind of epic. King of France handles executive decisions, king of the French acts as a mediator and counterweight to the parliament to deal with demagogues, and emporer of the French be the most superior figurehead that handles constitutional matters and as a tiebreaker when the kings disagree
And they must vote among themselves for any course of action, for action to be taken 2 must agree on it an no one is allowed to disagree.
Perfect I’m sure nothing can ever go wrong with that
Lucas Hunskor spartas duel-monarchy lasted surprisingly long, you never know
The battle for the kingdom of France
*Queen Elizabeth II VS Balthazar Napoleon IV*
This is going to be an interesting one
why would elizabeth be involved?
Did you even watch the video?
My stone : the name Louis was written LOVIS and it was from CLOVIS name of the first King of the Francs.
Which is the Latin form of Frankian Hlodovech; from which Dutch Lodewijk and German Ludwig
@@jaapfolmer7791 In one of my books the Frankian form is "Hlo-Wig"
Chlodowig
This name is somehow have a connection to Chloe I guess???
@@antoinemozart243 need to save this as a cat name..
Me after watching this video:
There were so many revolutions in France.
Being a King in France was too dangerous....
the Kings were too dangerous
@@germinalmtn5674 nah... Louis XVI was all but threatening, and hes the one king who died in revolution, the rest gave up beforehand, the population is the dangerous one here, during a revolution be the ennemy of a popular revolutionary and you can expect hell
@@germinalmtn5674 and they cost a lot
@@Freedmoon44 Actually when the revolution started no one even imagined the King would have to go (let alone be tried and beheaded). To be honest he did quite a bad job of navigating those very complicated times. I don't blame him. It would have taken an exceptional genius and great sense of history, which he did not have. But ending up plotting with your cousins against your own country and constitutional order, which you had sworn to protect, was not a very smart move.
"I want the flag of France to be a white flag" "Are you flipping kidding? We'll never live down the jokes, okay, that's it, no more monarchy!"
.
Pour le duc de Chambord, le tricolore (un composé du lanc de la Royauté et du bleu-rouge de Paris) était le symbole de la Révolution de 1789-1794 qui avait coûté la vie à la famille royale et à beaucoup de personnes encore (rien qu'à Paris, plus de 1500 guilotinnés). Ce serait infiniment mieux d'avoir un royaume appelé FRANCE, que cette république que l'on appelle la République Francaise. Quelquefois on dit "Le Président de la République" et cela tente vraiment de demander "laquelle?".
@@jeanghika7653 "Sometimes we say "The President of the Republic" and it really tries to ask "which one?"
Of the Republic of France, you royalist twit.
@@jeanghika7653 pour répondre à ta question: la Ve, comme l'indique notre Comstitution actuelle.
Moi, une américaine : je comprend ! :)
“Why put a spaniard on the throne of france when you have a french man available?”
This feels like a quote from one of those joke history videos
This randomly showed up in my recommended feed today, and I have to say - this was a very interesting bit of history!
As a frenchman, even if i'm not a monarchist, i consider Jean, Count of Paris, the rightful heir.
i'm french too and i agree with you !
@@roms4154 as a republican if i had to choose, i would rather take a Bonaparte
@@TheGirard62 yes but for me there is just one bonaparte , the first , the only one and true Napoleon Bonaparte ! nobody can match with him !! vive l empereur !!
@Greene Bertrand je suis d accord avec toi !
Le seul héritier du royaume de France, c'est la pique sur laquelle on plantera la tête de celui qui réclamera le trône... A ça ira, ça ira!!! :D :D :D (The only rightful heir of France is the spike on which will be stiked the head of the one who will claim the throne...)
A constitutional monarch does wonders for a country. It removes all the ceremonial baggage from political figures so they can focus on the task at hand. They also provide a national focal point which keeps people's patriotism focused in a benign place.
it's just an expensive waste of public funds
I mostly agree. Although us dutch always complain anout the budget awarded to our royalty.
the British royalty actually owns valluable land which they loan to the UK government at a low price, meaning that the British royalty is actually financially profitable for the UK.
MHWdJ it’s just not true that the British royals turn a profit. Nothing supports this.
@@HaloLover115 the crown estate
Yes but that s only the case for certain country, it may work in England but will never work in France. Simply because french people dont want another monarchy and are actually proud of the fact that they have no kings.
This is the clearest explanation I’ve heard about the leadership/succession of France.
But wouldn’t England’s catholic line be the direct rulers of France and not the Protestant line from which Elizabeth claims descent
I think the answer to that was basically, "Just watch my England video", as it really is a whole can of worms on it's own
DIY Miracle agreed. I mean if the Plantagenets or Lancaster would have held France maybe no war of the roses or an even bigger war of the roses. There’s just so many posibilites with that and so many different English lines that could claim it .
@@frankavila4968 yeye of course, and that'd be why the author didn't go into that in this video because it is legitimately a very nuanced topic, and he only really covered renaissance and later too.
I guess the claim of the Hanovers when titling themselves Kings of France until 1801 was that like catholic Ireland, France must have been ruled by a protestant too. Actually, if you consider the English claim valid, then, would the French throne had not been occupied by usupers (the Valois), France would have followed the Anglican Reformation. The two remaining part of France still under the control of their rightful king (the English one) at the time of the Reformation, did in fact followed it (talking about Calais and the Channel Islands). When Henri VIII split up with Rome he was King of England and France. He couldnt split up and be excomunicated for one kingdom and not for the other one. So from the English claim perspective, France is "de jure" a protestant country occupied "de facto" by catholic usurpers.
@@christianjob The Valois were not usurpers. And no, if the Lancasters (who were usurpers in England) won the Hundred Years Wars, there would not have been an Anglican Reformation. Henry VI would have been known as Henri II de France, and would have reigned where the bulk of his Kingdom was: France. Just like most of the Plantagenets when they ruled parts of it as vassals of the King of France. No War of the Roses, no battle at Bosworth Field, no Tudors, no Anglican Reformation, and England would have a catholic monarch. But you're right, it would have been much better...
5:33 yeah I know, I watched Revenge of the Sith.
"I love democracy"
14:02 that looks like the name of a French wannabe with an edgy backstory right there
Him yes I rule France maybe?
that's a great name, Balthazar Napoleon IV , and ethnically he is South Asian
@@dariusanderton3760 Ok it's a myth
One big caveat is that if male preference is followed then Edward's claim is still moot: Louis X had a daughter who had sons afterwards, and those would get the throne before any English King. So in that light the Navarrese Capetians would be the most senior and the legitimate heirs.
Teacher: the test won't be that complicated
The test:
I think that the Count of Paris is such a wonderful title.
The count of Paris is exactly 1 (one) in France.
Wonderful indeed! I am partial to Henri VI d'Orleans, who was the Count of Paris from 1940 until his death in 1999. Fascinating figure. Was deceived and treated badly by de Gaulle. Someone should make a film about his life.
There could be a 8th Monarch
You see the House of Plantagenet had 4 braches:York and Lanchester became the House of Tudor who are extingt. But the 4th House, the House of Beaufort is still active and so the 12th Duke of Beaufort Henry could be King of France
There was a claimant to the throne of France in small town Ontario. I believe his case was based on the story of Louis VXII not being the boy who died in prison. So the DNA test (which I learned about here) put an end to that claim.
XVII not VXII
The members of The House of Orléans-Braganza are the current claimants to the Brazilian throne since 1921 as part of the Imperial House of Brazil. The house is also the second in the Orleanist line of succession to the French royal throne.
so the possible unification of France and GB during WW2 would have theoretically restored the Capetian line, interesting...love these what if scenarios
If France 🇫🇷 were to accept a monarch again (theoretically speaking), (s)he would reign (not rule!) as a constitutional monarch, one whose powers are clearly limited by law and where real power is held by the elected representatives of the people. The eight monarchies in Europe and Japan are examples of constitutional monarchies.
@@MrWilhelm1950 absutely not, all royalists in France wants a king who govern the country, not a copy of Elisabeth II
@@shildericvi4918 Well imagine, in other lifetime, The French Monarchy was still alive and join forces with the British Monarchy. That would be awsome
Matt, a nugget for you; although you may already know this given your wealth of knowledge. The Count of Paris - not this one still living - recounted in his memoir that, at his urging, Charles de Gaule considered restoring the monarchy in France and was about to order an opinion poll to check the public pulse when the 68 student protests flared up and with that the project was halted.
As a French lawyer just a quick note : at the beginning you ask who'd be King if... for some reason France decided to restore the monarchy. The French consitution explicitly states that the single and only thing that can never be changed in the future, by law, by referendum or even by a new constitution altogether, is the republican form of government. By enacting this provision, the French people has therefore given up forever the idea of being ruled by a monarch. ;)
Alright, let's form a Roman style Republic and nominate a dictateur.
I guess they have never changed their constitution ever
It only takes a single war to throw out all of the prior legal groundwork of any country. After all, France has done that how many times?
@@tjs114 Vth Republic ... so 5 changes of Constitution. The current is the result of De Gaulle's being called to duty to replace the leftist Republic and incapable of resolving France's problems, being the main the Algerian War. The current constitution was tailored to his demands resulting in a "presidential monarchy" roughly along the US model. The trend in EU, and most democratic regimes, is to decouple the Head of State from government and political parties. Monarchy by birth was originally instituted to avoid the quarrels and civil wars of factions in elective monarchy that was destroying the Germanic Kingdoms that established themselves in the different provinces of the Roman Empire.
A Monarch's legitimacy (in the West) is based on bloodline, regardless that he may live in another country ... many monarch's where born in different territories from the ones they would reign. The British found themselves with a German king, George of the house of Hannover, who did not speak English.
@@santoriniblue8413 "The British found themselves with a German king, George of the house of Hannover, who did not speak English."
And that was no real problem as both he and the British nobility (and most of the upper class politicians) spoke French.
After taking a look at the French royal succession in 2020, I also came to the conclusion that Jean, Count of Paris, is also the most suitable candidate if the French monarchy is restored. Most importantly, he has also produced five (5) viable heirs to succeed him, if we also count girls. His firstborn is a boy, Prince Gaston, Count of Clermont.
In 2009, Prince Jean married Philomena, Countess of Paris, an aristocrat of Spanish-Austro-Hungarian noble descent.
Philomena is the daughter of Don Alfonso de Tornos y Zubiría (b. 13 October 1937), of noble Basque ancestry, and his wife (married Vienna, 18 September 1976) Maria Antonia Anna Zdenka, Edle von Steinhart (b. 1944), of Austro-Hungarian ancestry.
Philomena has a sister named Maria Magdalena (b. 1980), married to Count Jean d'Haussonville d'Andlau de Cléron d'Haussonville, director of the EPIC (public company), which manages the Château de Chambord, and a brother, David (b. 1982).
Her paternal grandparents are Don Juan de Tornos y Espelíus (former head of the personal secretariat of Infante Juan, Count of Barcelona, grandfather of the current King of Spain) and Doña María del Carmen Zubiría y Calbetón, daughter of Don Luis de Zubiria y Urizar, 2nd Marquis de Yanduri. Her maternal grandparents were Dr. Ferdinand, Edler von Steinhart (1910-1998) and his wife (married September 1939) Gabriele Felicitas Murad von Werner (1913-1994), paternal granddaughter of Murad Effendi.
Prince Jean and Philomena are also distantly related, both being descendants of Count Jaroslav Borzita von Martinitz (1582-1649) who served as Imperial Governor of Bohemia, and his first wife, Countess Maria Eusebie von Sternberg (1584-1634).
Prince Jean and Philomena have five (5) children, with the eldest son and heir being Prince Gaston Louis Antoine Marie d'Orléans, Count of Clermont (born 19 November 2009 in Paris), who will soon turn 11 years old. Prince Gaston will inherit the titles of His Royal Highness Prince Gaston d'Orléans, fils de France, Duke of Vendôme, Count of Paris, as well as “[King] Gaston I”.
With France, if the monarchy were ever re-instated, then it would likely be a constitutional monarchy, much like that of the United Kingdom.
Hello, your video is awesome! I congratulate you for all this work! I am a French Royalist, and I really appreciated the rigor and respect that transcended your video. Just one thing: the white flag was dotted with lilies, not a blank.
When he pulled out Queen Elizabeth... I was dying laughing, imagining her trying to become the queen of France
The second war of 100 years.
@@Tata-ps4gy hey she does speak French...
@@kyleclare8570 The English kings did too, it's not a matter of speaking French or not
@@MW_Asura wdym it was a joke about the Queen claiming the French throne lol
There was actual plans in the early chaos of WW2 to unite the British & French Empires, with the house of Windsor holding the dual crowns of both Britain & France with Paris as the Capital & London as the financial centre of this Anglo Franco Union.
Luis Alfonso de Borbón is in fact a direct descendant of Alfonso XIII, king of Spain. But he is also in fact a direct descendant of of the spanish dictator Francisco Franco. Also he has done a buch of illegal activities on Swizerland and Venezuela for which he is not being judged, that's because he is also a kind of successful businessman
Do the: "Who would be King of Portugal today?". Please!
Dom Duarte Pio, Duke of Braganza.
@@3Angela I agree with you, ....what about the line of Brazil?
@@pendarpr I do not know. Do you think there is a legitimate heir after Pedro de Alcântara resigned his claim to the throne of Brazil? His son thought so but his grandsons all declared themselves republicans. It could be argued that Brazil was much better off and more stable under Pedro II than it has ever been since the monarchy was removed. What do you think?
@@pendarpr Prince Bertrand from the Line of Vassouras.
Actually, Louis X of France and Navarre had one daughter: Joane of Navarre, who heird the throne of Navarre after the death of Charles IV of France, because there was not problems to the succesion of a woman in that kingdom. That way, both kingdoms would be united. A fun fact, the kingdom of Navarre, or their rights because Spain conquered it in the year 1512, passed by marriage to Antony I who was father of Henry III of Navarre and...IV OF FRANCE! He inherit the throne of France after Navarre. So, the Borbon House would take the throne anyway!
I recently posted a question online asking if Philip IV was an ancestor of Louis XVI. Everyone said no as he wasn’t the progenitor of the bourbon family tree. However, by tracing his granddaughter Joan as your brought out I found her descendants go all the way down to Henry IV through his mother. Pretty cool to find someone else who’s dug into that.
nathan ballew Perhaps but there were also fairly credible (for the time) rumors that Joan was illegitimate as a result of her mother’s affairs.
CleanCapitalist ah yes the tour de nesle affair. Good point
Rafael Guerrero my head hurt
This was the most scenic and scientific of all the videos of project France. I really love it. Thank you Matt for giving us such an option to view an alternate world.
Best wishes from Bhubaneswar
16:24 The Salic law wasn't a factor in the French succession until Edward III staked his claim.
Damn they're still marrying off Hapsburgs to this day
Yes - and that goes the other way too. The Capet dynasty (987-today) has married into most royal and senior noble houses along the years.
Not to their relatives thankfully.
There are a lot of them.
@@basedkaiser5352 In the end, they ARE all relatives. That's why they have to start marrying 'commoners'.
Somehow out of all the uncertainty, Bran of House Stark will become the next King.
Ugh. An Invalid who cannot produce heirs? I don't care what witchcraft he possesses; Make him Master of Whispers, if you want. Aegon VI needs to retrieve his balls from his dead aunt/lover, ride Drogon, and take what is his by right!
@@jcons114 what does it matter if he cant produce blood heirs when he will probably rule himself for 1000 years/
After 19 minutes of trying to find a kind of France, we could just have Bran out of convenience.
@@jcons114 jon snow/aegon vi is illegitimate and is barred to the iron throne, both by aerys and by the faith.
Long love Bran the Boneless…
Hi, thanks for your video, it was very interesting !
However, there's a mistake. The word "Dauphin" which is used for the heir of the king, doesn't come from the animal. It comes from the country of Dauphiné, situated on the South-East of France.
Yes and no.
The Dauphiné is named after the Dauphin, which is a name chosen by Guillaume VI of Auvergne in honor of his grandfather Guigues IV of Albon, which was nicknamed "Le Dauphin".
When the county of Dauphiné passed to the royal family, it became the land reserved for the heir to the throne, ergo the Dauphin.
So the Dauphin (heir of france) is named after the Dauphiné which is named after Guigues IV, nicknamed "Le Dauphin".
Yes, exactly what I just said, Yes, Dauphin literally translates to dolphin but if Heirs to the french throne are called DAUPHIN, that doesn't refer to the animal at all. It refers to a region in south east France, near Switzerland, that is called LE DAUPHINÉ and its capital is the city of Grenoble. King of France Philippe VI (The 1st Valois) was given this land as payment of a debt and gave it to his 1st born son, the future king Jean II. Jean II gave it to his heir Charles (who later would reign as Charles V, the Wise). So Prince Charles was the 1st to be called "Dauphin" meaning he ruled over the Dauphiné
@@_Francis Yes, and the Dauphiné itself is named after Guigues IV of Albon which was nicknamed "Le Dauphin", specifically referring to the animal.
*Insert joke here about dolphins only being referred to as dolphins if they come from Dauphin.*
@@oscarcacnio8418 Otherwise they're just sparkling aquatic mammals!
As a Frenchman, I would GREATLY prefer an unknown Indian lawyer than a monarch of the perfidious Albion as my King lmao
@Kitchen Cook Cook Yep
About the Treaty of Utrecht, most "Legitimists" believe it to be null and void, since according to the Kingdom of France's fundamental laws, an heir cannot renounce his rights for himself or his descendants. In other terms, if a man happens to be the heir to the throne of France, no matter what he does, he will still be the heir to the throne untill his death, notwithstanding any provisions to the contrary.
That's wrong, many princes have renounced and it didn't annoy anyone. Thing is some people hate Orléans, which is why they support some spanish losers.
i had a nice french roast coffee this morning, sooo..im throwing my hat in the ring too.
Jaime is actually pronounced like we English speakers would say "hi me".
That "jay-me" got me but surprise 😅😅 after all those carefull attempts to say Louis, Alphonse, Henri, Juan etc right
KingOfSciliy if it’s in Castilian. In Portuguese, Jaime would be “Ji M”, with the “a” accentuated and the “e” silent.
It’s more like Hi meh
@@avantelvsitania3359 but prince Jaime wasn't Portuguese was he
Clara M no, but I was talking about the name, not the person. Jaime can be pronounced at least in two ways. This is one of them.
May I add another candidate to the mix?
Karl-Wilhelm Naundorff was a German clockmaker who claimed to be Louis XVII (the son of Louis XVI) from 1793 until his death in 1845.
His descendants still claim the French throne to this day, with the current heir to this claim being Michel Henri de Bourbon, who claims the throne as "Henri VII".
Their movement is known as 'Naundorffism', and it's currently supported by only a tiny fraction of French monarchists.
The British theory you posed was disproved after the 100 years war because the English lost that war to France
They lost the war but they never removed the claim until the French Revolution
If we were to eat the rich today according to royalists , who would be the appetizer, main course and dessert
The Napoleon would definitely be dessert.
Now that's what I'm talking about
The Duke of Anjou is certainly appetizing not gonna lie
But this Jean I wouldn't eat for a rolls Royce
The bureaucratic class.
The last official French monarch was Napoleon III, so in my opinion the throne should go to Jean-Christophe. Jean-Christophe also has Bourbon and Hapsburg connections, making him a very strong candidate from these aspects as well. I don't favour the Bourbon/Orleans lines simply because the French people rejected them not once, but twice, in 1789 and 1848, and the Duke of Chambord's rejection of the crown over the flag dispute also strongly invalidates the Bourbon line in my view. The other thing is that Louis Alphonse is Spanish and has no strong connections to France, and then of course the Treaty of Utrecht, still legally valid, makes his claim unlawful. The statement that the Count of Paris is the closest one to the long history of France may be correct, but we should ignore the fact the last French king, an Orleanist, Louis Philippe, was dethroned by means of a popular revolt. And I reject the statement that France's imperial period was 'a brief interlude', given that had it not been for the Franco-Prussian war the current French monarch would be a Bonaparte. However, again, when all is said and done, as in the Russian case, a direct election from the people would be the best way to settle the issue once and for all. A popular referendum should be held to decide between the lawful claimant from the Bourbon-Orleans line, Jean, and the Bonapartist claimant, Jean-Christophe.
We alreay have a popular referendum to elect a president every 5 years! No one gives a shit about these pseudo monarchs, let alone know them at all.
I have an even better idea. Let them duel it out, the one who kills the other gets the throne. If both of them die during the sword fight then the children will fight to the death in their place
@@night6724 Your lack of knowledge on the subject is clearly shown with such a bold claim.
maybe the French should have a popular vote between the two candidates to see who should become King or Emperor of France. Both candidates should run on how pure their lineage is and how connected they are to French history, and if they'll cosplay as the Sun King on special occasions, lol
I disagree friend for me the bonapartists and republicans were the worst thing that France had, for me Napoleon I was a foreigner who didn't even have royal blood took power by force and military campaigns, he was a great general but he was a foreign usurper
Great video but I have one question, who was in Paris?