Talk:House of Bourbon

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to navigation Jump to search


There seems to be a superfluity of "well-beloved"s here. Were they really all called that? By whom? Vicki Rosenzweig

I think Louis XIII was called "The Just", not the "Well-Beloved". Louis XV, however, was indeed called the "Well-Beloved". At the end of his reign, though, he was so detested the French people called him the "Well-Hated". --Slugguitar 00:05, 14 Sep 2004 (UTC)

This article should certainly not be part of the "History of France series." The "History of France series," I'd add, is hardly worthy of the name at the moment. john k 18:35, 22 Jun 2004 (UTC)

Moved from article[edit]

The following was recently added with reference to Juan Carlos of Spain; I've moved it here from the article because it's not very coherent:

"- Cousin to Archiduquessa- Infanta Luciella Minouette de Borbon: Twelfth in line for the Spannish ([sic]) crown. Luciella was the only royal family member to emigrate away to the United States."

How can the reigning king be twelfth in line? or is it saying that Luciella is twelfth in line? and if the latter, how is that any more relevant than the rest of the first dozen heirs in line? If there is something relevant here that belongs either in this article or elsewhere in the Wikipedia, please "mine" it and write it up coherently. -- Jmabel 22:59, Jul 23, 2004 (UTC)

This sounds like nonsense from supporters of some imposter. Archiduquessa-Infanta Luciella Minouette de Borbon sounds deeply dubious - I've never heard of her, and that title sounds completely dubious. john k 01:16, 14 Sep 2004 (UTC)

It is utter nonsense. Firstly, the title of Archduchess is not a Spanish one, it is an Austrian one. Secondly, to be an Infanta, she must have been either a daughter of the present King of Spain, his son Prince Felipe, his late father Don Juan, or his late grandfather King Alfonso. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by (talkcontribs) 1 December 2006.

Also moved from article:

this material belongs at Saint Bartholomew's Day Massacre?:
3,000 Huguenots were killed in Paris and 20,000 Huguenots were killed elsewhere in France. Henry of Navarre was put in jail and forced to convert to Catholicism by a later date (he was still married to Margaret).

Obviously, comments like this are talk-page stuff. -- Jmabel | Talk 02:14, 12 October 2005 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Big mystery edit[edit]

This massive addition of material is from an anon. No edit summary. Is this a possible copyvio? Does it come from some other part of Wikipedia? Does anyone know what is going on here? -- Jmabel | Talk 02:18, 12 October 2005 (UTC)Reply[reply]

No one is responding, I guess I'll assume it is OK and copy edit it. -- Jmabel | Talk 06:19, 13 October 2005 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I see. Someone was trying to follow up on the proposed merge of France: Wars of Religion - Bourbon Dynasty, but instead of a proper merge they just dumped the text, without even an edit summary. -- Jmabel | Talk 06:28, 13 October 2005 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Looks like this has been through the blender in the last 24 hours. I've restored some lost material. There is probably more of this to do. I'll probably be back soon, but I won't feel poached on if someone else takes up this particular Bourbon restoration. -- Jmabel | Talk 07:08, 13 October 2005 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Ahh mystery solved didnt know where it came from either. I restored some of the basic info like see also, interwiki etc.. but obviously this needs a lot more work, almost all of the old material seems to have gone missing.. I'd help but know nothing of the subject. Stbalbach 17:35, 13 October 2005 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Maybe we should restore the old material, and start from there? john k 17:52, 13 October 2005 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I've now restored everything I think was worth restoring. The result may be a bit uneven in terms of depth of coverage, but I believe it is now far better written. This may call for some refactoring, possibly into an article (or articles) on a period (or periods) in the history of France allowing the present article to focus more on the dynasty as such. Or maybe not: I don't find articles focused on dynastic succession far less interesting than those that treat the matter as more a biography and a "life and times".

I'll bow out of this for a while now to give someone else a shot at moving forward from here. May I suggest that this is a substantive enough article that if someone wants to do drastic edits again they might put a note on the talk page saying what they intend to do? -- Jmabel | Talk 02:34, 15 October 2005 (UTC)Reply[reply]

French Bourbons[edit]

The French Bourbon line is described as "extinct" by the article. In this case - purely as an academic exercise - if the monarchy in France were to be restored today, who would have the best genealogical claim to succeed to the throne? You mention that Juan Carlos of Spain is a member of the Bourbon dynasty, so would he have any claim to the throne of France? I'm not familiar enough with the genealogy of the Bourbons to know. Walton monarchist89 11:45, 8 March 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]

There are two possible claimants each with good claims: Henri d'Orleans, Comte de Paris, Duc de France (Henri VII as king)is the senior male-line heir to Louis-Philippe I, King of the French. Louis-Philippe was not, however; legitimately the rightful French King. The true heir was his young cousin the Duke of Bordeaux, who chose to style himself Henri, Comte de Chambord. Chambord was offered the throne after the overthrow of Louis-Philippe and Napoleon III by the National Assembly recognized by all even Louis-Philippe's grandson and heir the young Count of Paris. The Comte de Chambord in return recognized the Count of Paris as his heir as he had no sons. Upon Chambord's death the seniority of the House of Bourbon passed to the Spanish line and today is held by Luis de Borbon, self-styled Duc d'Anjou (Louis XX as King.) The first Spanish Bourbon King Philippe V, gained the Spanish thrown only after renouncing forever all his rights of inheritance to the throne of France. The Orleans line is generally considered to have the better claim due to its being codified in a written Constitution, the renouncing of rights of Philippe V of Spain and Henri, Comte de Chambord recognizing him as his heir. Most importantly, the Orleans line are the only truly French line of the family. They are the only ones who have consistently had ties to France from the reign of Louis XIV to the present day. Louis Capet
The commentary above is very subjective and made by a supporter of the count of Paris. So I will correct it with another subjective view. There is one claimant with a perfect historic and legitimate claim, Louis XX, Duc of Anjou. To explain this claim, you have to be a bit of a specialist in French royal constitutional law. His claim is the oldest one, he is the most direct descendant of the Capetian dynasty. He stand for a society that is not based on the principles of the French revolution, and everything that came with it. His rival claimant is the count of Paris. His forefather signed the deathwarrant of King Louis XVI, to be executed. Afterwards they assended to the throne. Their claim is an offront to true monarchist. The want to collaborate with the republican values, as a sort of unelected president, accepting the French revolutionary principles. --Stijn Calle (talk) 20:36, 28 July 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]
The article is ambiguous and/or erroneous in describing the French Bourbons as "extinct", and should be corrected. It's true that there is no currently reigning "King of France" or "King of the French". Nor is there an undisputed heir to the title King of France, but there are two claimants.
The one most widely known and, arguably, viewed as the frontrunner for that throne were it to be restored today is Henri, Comte de Paris, Duc de France, born in 1933. He is the direct descendant and heir-male of King Louis-Philippe of the French who ended his reign in exile in 1848. Since the death in 1888 without issue or siblings of the last French Bourbon claimant acknowledged in this article, Henri, comte de Chambord (by a unique and not always honored custom, the titles of claimants to the French royal crown are not translated from French into English, nor is he addressed, as are others of his family, as "Your Royal Highness", but simply as "Monseigneur" and his consort as "Madame"), most French monarchists have recognized the head of the Orleans branch of the Capetian dynasty as rightful claimant. Certainly the French government did: The French Republic banished the heads of houses that had reigned over France in 1886. That law was enforced against the primogeniture heads of the Orleans branch (and against the heads of the Bonapartes), but not against any other Bourbon claimants, some of whom lived in France free of official molestation during the 1930s. Whereas Orleans claimants were jailed and/or exiled whenever the government found them on French soil. The Orleans claimant and his immediate family also re-patriated to France as soon as the law was lifted, and have lived there for the last 56 years.
The correct and full title by which you would formally style Henri, Comte de Paris, Duc de France is Son Altesse Royale Monseigeur de le Prince Henri d'Orleans, Comte de Paris, Duc de France. Only a member of the royal family or the nobility would ever address him as solely as Monseigneur (My Lord). Louis Capet
On the other hand, the Orleans are not legally Bourbons in France, as determined by court ruling in a lawsuit between the rival claimants' branches in 1987. They do not descend in male-line from Louis XIV as do all other legitimate Bourbons, but from the Sun King's younger brother Philippe I, Duke of Orléans, whose title the courts have ruled they must continue to bear as surname. The Orléanist claimant is not, therefore, the legitimate, male-line primogeniture heir of Louis XIV or of the subsequent Kings of France. Rather, he is the primogeniture heir of the nearest branch which 1. Never renounced its claim to the French throne, and 2. Has remained consistently French, even when in exile.
The claimant who is the senior descendant in legitimate, male-line of the Kings of France is Louis-Alphonse de Borbón y Martínez-Bordiú, born in Madrid in 1974 and known to his supporters, the French Legitimists, as Monseigneur the Duc d'Anjou. He is the eldest surviving son of His late Royal Highness Don Alfonso de Borbón Dampierre, Duque de Cadiz; who was the eldest son of HRH the Infante Jaime of Spain, Duke of Segovia; who was the eldest surviving son of ex-King Alfonso XIII of Spain; who became the undisputed senior "legitimate" male-line representative of King Louis XIV after the extinction of the Carlist Borbóns in 1936.
The Spanish throne is currently occupied by a grandson of King Alfonso XIII through his younger son, Don Juan de Borbon, Count of Barcelona. The elder line of Infante Jaime was excluded from the Spanish throne by a combination of Jaime's 1933 renunciation due to deafness; 1935 marriage to the non-royal Emanuelle de Dampierre; and the 1969 designation by El Caudillo Francisco Franco of Don Juan's son, Juan Carlos I of Spain, as eventual successor to the throne. Although Cadiz wed Franco's granddaughter in 1972 and was legally eligible to be designated heir to Spain's crown, when Franco stuck with Juan Carlos Cadiz gradually shifted his focus to his Legitimist claim to France. He had divorced Carmen Martínez-Bordiú y Franco, asserted his rights as paterfamilias of the House of Bourbon under the title Duc d'Anjou, and had just become engaged to an Austrian archduchess when he was accidentally killed in 1989.
It is Cadiz's son, Louis-Alphonse, who has inherited leadership of the Legitimists. The dispute between he and his Orleans cousin hinges upon two issues: 1. The Orleanists maintain that the 1713 renunciation of Louis XIV's younger grandson, the original Duc d'Anjou, to the throne of France in exchange for the throne of Spain was valid and remains binding, as it was ratified by France in the 1713 Treaty of Utrecht, which Louis XIV and the Parlement of Paris were compelled to accept to obtain peace from the Great Powers against which France had waged war. 2. Anjou renounced not only his French succession rights, but his French citizenship in order to accept the throne of Spain, over which he reigned as Felipe V and which his descendants retain to this day. Moreover, Louis XIV retracted the letters patent he had issued in 1700 allowing Anjou to retain French citizenship while reigning in Spain.
Essentially, the 1713 treaty amended the unwritten constitution of Ancien Régime France which, until then, was deemed to allow neither renunciations nor amendments of any kind. Nonetheless, Orleanists insist that Anjou's line was excluded from the French throne forever by this "amendment". Legitimists object that the treaty was invalid ab initio by 1. the fact that France had been defeated in war and was coerced into an unconstitutional change in their traditional rules of succession, and 2. Because Louis XIV, the Parlement of Paris, and Anjou as King of Spain took ultra vires action, violating France's constitution, in terminating the claim to France's throne of any of Anjou's future descendants.
Orleanists point out that Louis XIV initiated a war of aggression, lost, yet kept France and his grandson was allowed to keep Spain. Nor has any ratified treaty ever been recognized internationally as invalid on grounds that one of the contracting parties later declared the treaty ultra vires: France cannot accuse its King and Parlement of exceeding their treaty-making authority because Utrecht's terms were the necessary price of ending a war France could no longer fight. The force majeure here was exercised by the Great Powers who, in effect, compelled France to make an exception to its succession rules for the purpose of excluding one man and his descendants from the prospect of combining the thrones of France and Spain to the detriment of the peace of Europe. Treaties could never conclude wars if the losing party could simply claim later that they had no choice but to agree to illegal peace terms. Nor did the Kingdom of France ever repudiate the treaty.
Moreover, it was a tenet of France's pre-revolutionary constitution that foreigners could not inherit the French throne. Since Anjou and his descendants became foreigners, reigning over Spain for the next 300 years, Orleanists consider them excluded from the French succession even if the Treaty of Utrecht was unconstitutional, according to Orleanists.
Legitimists (who have undergone something of a revitalization in monarchist circles since Cadiz separated the French from the Spanish dynastic claims in the 1980s) contend that Utrecht simply could not amend an unamendable constitution, France's ancient line of succession could not be lawfully altered by any process, especially foreign force, and that the constitutional exclusion of foreigners from the French throne does not preclude a rightful claimant from choosing French nationality when the claim actually devolves upon him.
Although Louis-Alphonse currently lives in Venezuela where his wife, María Margarita Vargas y Santaella, is a native, by right of his paternal grandmother, Emanuelle de Dampierre, he and his father were born French citizens (although neither ever lived in France). So there is no impediment to the validity of his current claim to the French throne from a Legitimist perspective, even though Alfonso XIII and Infante Jaime did not apply for French citizenship when the Legitimist claim devolved upon them in 1936 and 1941 respectively.Lethiere 04:10, 9 March 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Very confusing passage[edit]

He failed and after the capture of the fortress of Gaeta (February 13, 1861) his kingdom was incorporated in the Kingdom of Italy but only on March 17, 1861 because two other fortress Messina and Civitella del Tronto surrendered on March 12, 1861 9 p.m.(Messina) and only on March 20 Civitella. (to be true when the magg. Ascione was convinced to surrender from the order of his King, there was still a group of soldier contrary to the surrender led by the heroic sgt. Massinelli and the friar Leonardo Zilli. The former commander, Ascione, however, succeeded to make to penetrate the enemy piemontesi in the morning of March 20. They shoot the heroes Massinelli and Zilli and so fell the last fortress of the Kingdom of the Two Sicilies.)

Will someone who knows (1) the English language, (2) the relevant history, and (3) the meaning of NPOV please clean this up? (I lack item 2, or I'd do this myself). - Jmabel | Talk 19:24, 26 March 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I wonder if its possible to add a large family tree diagram here? 02:32, 17 April 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]

His Majesty: Juan Carlos contact details???[edit]

Can anybody provide me with Juan carlos' e-mail adress? I need to contact his majesty URGENTLY. I will be happy with any contact details. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by (talkcontribs) 17:19, 3 December 2006 (UTC).Reply[reply]

Try a postcard  ;-))

Aubisse 18:46, 3 December 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Charles of Bourbon[edit]

The section on the War of Three Henrys linked Cardinal de Bourbon with Charles II, Duke of Bourbon - that does not seem correct, so I have changed - but where should it link ? -- Beardo 06:53, 10 December 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]


I spent a few hours drawing up this tree of the Spanish Bourbons and their relationships to the house of Habsburg Lorraine. Obviously it's very rough at the moment and will be tidied up. Does anyone have any suggestions?


-Lec CRP1 15:07, 6 December 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Spent a few hours doing the proper version (see bottom right). Oh, the pain
-Lec CRP1 05:20, 11 December 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]


I think it would be great if there was a map of Bourbon domains in the late 18th century so show the political influence of this family. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by (talkcontribs) 18 January 2007.

Indian connection[edit]

Perhaps someone could verify these?

thanks for the help, STTW (talk) 12:27, 6 March 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]

It seems strange, but the Bourbon's of Bhopal, MP India, have had an old claim.
See the discussion at:


It's pretty much impossible for them to be legitimate Bourbon offshoots. One article claims that the entrepreneur was a 'nephew' of Henry IV - but Henry had no legitimate nephews, and I don't know about illegitimate (but any illegitimate children would have no right to the name anyway). Nor would anyone cousin of Henry IV named 'Jean de Bourbon of Navarre' have ever existed - his Bourbon cousins had no claim on Navarre (Antoine de Bourbon, Henry's father, had married the Navarro heiress). And it is simply impossible for these people to be 'true heirs of France' - since the entire range of Bourbon and Orleans direct male descendants stand genealogically in their way (look at it this way: the Merovingians would have a better claim, because they could claim to have been overthrown by usurpers. This line, if it is legitimate - which is very unlikely, if they are truly of Bourbon descent - doesn't even have that). Michael Sanders 00:49, 12 March 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Please see:

--Malaiya 00:51, 12 March 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]

1) says "The family descended from Jean Philippe Bourbon, a collateral of King Henry IV of France, and the son of the Constable of Bourbon who was supposedly killed at the siege of Rome in l527 by Benvenuto Cellini (amazing?)." - a 'collateral of King Henry IV of France'? More to the point, Charles III, Duke of Bourbon (Constable de Bourbon) had no legitimate children. That's why he launched his rebellion against Francis I - if he'd had legitimate offspring, they'd have inherited his wife's estates. 2) Offers no sort of proof. I could spin out the same sort of thing in half an hour to claim I was descended from a union between the Louis XVII and a grand piano. 3) "Cette famille descendrait soit 1) de Jean-Philippe de BOURBON-BUSSET (disparu en mer vers 1580), soit 2) d'un fils du Connétable de BOURBON qui, ayant dû s'exiler à la suite d'un duel, fut pris en mer par des pirates puis débarqué en Egypte d'ou il passa en Inde, soit 3) d'un autre fils du Connétable et d'Alaique, Princesse Mongole qui aurait échoué dans la conspiration d'Amboise et serait parti pour l'Inde. L'hypothèse la plus vraisemblable est la deuxième" - no evidence of any of these suggestions, makes it clear it is entirely unsure who the father might be (1 is an illegitimate Bourbon line, 2 is Constable de Bourbon again, 3) ... Constable de Bourbon. again. Involving various implausible tales involving kidnappings, pirates, and Mongolian Princesses, all of which is more appropriate to the Thousand and One Nights than sober history. It also seems to be claiming Charles of Montpensier didn't die in 1527, which is just plain wrong). 4) "But I did turn up a Jean Philippe de Bourbon, said to be a "naturalny" son, i.e., legitimate?, of Charles de Bourbon-Montpensier, later Charles III, duc de Bourbon (and of the mysterious Mongolian princess, Alaique, and this Jean Philippe evidently had a connection with Bophal and India" - 'natural son' means illegitimate. And how exactly would Charles of Montpensier ever have met a Mongolian Princess? And of course, the writer comments at the end - "I suppose he might, after all, have been a mere adventurer." - which is the general explanation when someone claims descent from a mythical union between a famous French troublemaker a Mongolian Princess. Michael Sanders 01:10, 12 March 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Please note that the Bourbons of India had no direct benefit in claiming the descent in a region where very few had heard of the House of Bourbon. Their claim is an old one.--Malaiya 02:50, 12 March 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]
There is an old saying in India: the king's (biological) son carries water and the water carrier's (biological) son sits on the throne. Where does a certain European prince get his red hair? Who knows? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Malaiya (talkcontribs) 03:00, 12 March 2007 (UTC).Reply[reply]
And Pierre Plantard had no direct benefit in claiming descent from the Merovingians. He still did it, and it was still sheer rubbish. I also don't see what the point of the saying about Aquarii is. Are you suggesting that the 'Indian Bourbons' are true descendants of the Bourbons, and that the French royal family are bastards? Michael Sanders 03:24, 12 March 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]
You have raised some interesting questions. Perhaps a DNA test will resolve some of them? My apologies if I have offended anyone, I was just reminded of the old Hindi saying. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Malaiya (talkcontribs) 03:28, 12 March 2007 (UTC).Reply[reply]
I doubt anyone's offended; it is simply unlikely, considering sober evidence, that they are Bourbon descendants (and near impossible that they are legitimate descendants. And IMPOSSIBLE that they are, as Michael of Oldenburg claims, the rightful heirs to the French throne). But yes, I would presume a DNA test taken against a member of the Bourbon family (anyone with a Y-chromosome and a direct descendant of Robert of Clermont) would prove or disprove the claim. Michael Sanders 03:37, 12 March 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Are there any reliable sources on this? The existence of an illegitimate son of Constable Bourbon, at least, should be easily verifiable? john k 03:43, 12 March 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]

The family is mentioned in: "India and Its Native Princes: Travels in Central India and in the Presidencies of Bombay and Bengal By Louis Rousselet, Charles Randolph Buckle", 1875.

--Malaiya 19:52, 12 March 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Is any mention of a connection, or possible connection, between them and the French Bourbons made? Michael Sanders 21:41, 12 March 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Mapping the Bourbon lines[edit]

Would this article benefit from a graphic showing the branches of the house?

For instance:

  • House of Bourbon
  • House of Bourbon (Bourbon-France, Bourbon-proper)
  • Spain (Bourbon-Spain)
  • Naples & Sicily/Two Sicilies (Bourbon-Sicily/Bourbon-Two Sicilies)
  • Parma (Bourbon-Parma)
  • Luxembourg
  • House of Orléans (Bourbon-Orléans)
  • House of Orléans-Braganza
  • Brazil

Of course, I have only shown the lines I can remember at this point. Charles 00:14, 18 August 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Orléans-Galliera (genealogically the most junior) should be on there. There's also the line of the Dukes of Seville (junior to the Kings of Spain, but senior to the House of Bourbon-Two Sicilies). john k 05:22, 18 August 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]

So, like this?
  • House of Bourbon
  • House of Bourbon (Bourbon-France, Bourbon-proper)
  • Spain (Bourbon-Spain)
  • Naples & Sicily/Two Sicilies (Bourbon-Sicily/Bourbon-Two Sicilies)
  • Bourbon-Seville
  • Parma (Bourbon-Parma)
  • Luxembourg
  • House of Orléans (Bourbon-Orléans)
  • House of Orléans-Braganza
  • Brazil
  • Orléans-Galliera
From your description of Seville being junior to the Kings of Spain but senior to the Two Sicilies, it makes me think that it is descended from the Kings of Spain. Charles 06:43, 18 August 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Indeed. But the Kings of Naples and the Dukes of Parma were also d escended from the Kings o f Spain. The first Duke of Seville was the younger brother of King Francisco, Queen Isabel II's husband, and thus a grandson of Carlos IV. john k 18:04, 18 August 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Louis XIII, King of France and Navarre
  • Louis XIV, King of France and Navarre
  • Louis, Dauphin
  • Louis, Duke of Burgundy --> from him descends the senior line of the Bourbons, which became extinct in 1883
  • Felipe V, King of Spain
  • Luis I, King of Spain
  • Fernando VI, King of Spain
  • Carlos III, King of Spain
  • Carlos IV, King of Spain
  • Fernando VII, King of Spain --> his daughter Isabel II married her cousin Francisco de Assis, see below.
  • Carlos, Count of Molina --> from him descended the Carlist line, extinct in 1936
  • Francisco de Paula, Duke of Cadiz
  • Francisco de Assis, King-Consort of Spain, who married Fernando VII's daughter Isabel II
  • Alfonso XII, King of Spain
  • Alfonso XIII, King of Spain
  • Alfonso, Prince of Asturias
  • Jaime Enrique, Duke of Segovia --> from him descends the current legitimist line for the throne of France.
  • Juan, Count of Barcelona --> from him descends the current Spanish royal house
  • Enrique, Duke of Seville --> from him descends the line of Dukes of Seville
  • Ferdinando I, King of the Two Sicilies -->from him descends the two Sicilies line
  • Infant Gabriel of Spain --> from him descends a line which became extinct in 1979
  • Filippo, Duke of Parma
  • Ferdinando, Duke of Parma
  • Lodovico, King of Etruria
  • Carlo II, Duke of Parma
  • Carlo III, Duke of Parma
  • Roberto I, Duke of ParmaFe
  • Henri, titular duke of Parma
  • Joseph, titular duke of Parma
  • Élie, titular duke of Parma
  • Robert II, titular duke of Parma
  • Prince Sixte of Bourbon-Parma
  • Xavier, titular duke of Parma --> from him descends the current line of Dukes of Parma
  • Prince Felix of Bourbon-Parma --> from him descends the current grand ducal house of Luxembourg
  • Prince René of Bourbon-Parma --> has descendants
  • Prince Louis of Bourbon-Parma --> has descendants
  • Philippe I, Duke of Orléans
  • Philippe II, Duke of Orléans
  • Louis, Duke of Orléans
  • Louis Philippe I, Duke of Orléans
  • Louis Philippe II Joseph, Duke of Orléans
  • Louis Philippe I, King of the French
  • Ferdinand Philippe, Duke of Orléans --> from him descends the current senior Orléanist line
  • Louis, Duke of Nemours
  • Gaston, Count of Eu --> from him descends the Orléans-Braganza line of Brazil
  • Ferdinand, Duke of Alençon --> his line became extinct in 1970
  • François, Prince of Joinville --> his line became extinct in 1919
  • Henri, Duke of Aumale
  • Antoine, Duke of Montpensier --> from him descends the Orléans-Galliera line.


Thanks, that makes much more sense. I wonder though if there is a way to map this without necessary showing all of the intervening individuals, such as indication linearly or nested some way that one branch started at a later generation from another off of the main line. Naples-Sicily/Two Sicilies, Parma and Seville are all branches of the Spanish Bourbon main line, although from more than one king. Likewise, Orléans-Braganza/Eu and Orléans-Galliera are branches of the main Orléans line, but at different generations. Charles 03:30, 19 August 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]

New Bourbon Tree[edit]

I did a really great family tree (I did also the one shown in this page) however the new one contains almost all lines of the current Bourbons, including modern ones, however I can not upload it since it contains modern pictures that may be deleted because of rights issues. If someone wants to see it, pls contact me, It is awesome, or if you wonder a way to upload and avoid being deleted, it would be great, it is huge and very illustrative. May be we can claim it is fair use Lefairh (talk) 16:08, 27 August 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Spanish Borbóns[edit]

Should not the Spanish Borbons be written as it is in Spanish? Borbón? I've just visited the official Spanish Royal Family website and they reder to de Borbón in the Spanish language version and de Borbon in the English language version. ♦Drachenfyre♦·Talk 05:33, 20 May 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]

It depends on the english language policy for translating foreing royal names/houses. But the name of the King is Juan Carlos de Borbón. In Spain there is a clear manner of "translating" foreign king names, they always take the spanish language equivalent, Henry VII would be Enrique VII, Louis XVI as Luis XVI, Alaric as Alarico, etc. If there is no equivalent in spanish anthroponomy, then they mantain the original name, so for example Hassan II of Morocco would still be named Hassan in spanish. I don't know the english rule for this, but it should be applied to the article too.--Infinauta (talk) 20:54, 13 September 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Y-chromosome of the House of Bourbon[edit]

Wouldn't it be interesting to find out if the current members of the House of Bourbon are "true" agnatic descendants of Hugh Capet? They almost certainly are descendants of Hugh, by cognatic descent, for the man lived more than 1000 years ago. However, in Salic law, only the male line is important. Surely science can reveal to us what centuries of indiscretion had kept hidden? It would be interesting to find out how many of these people came from non-paternity events. Emerson 07 (talk) 13:15, 11 May 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I come from a family that is directly descended from King Louis IX. That is, I come from the same line of the Chaput family as Archbishop Charles J. Chaput and I've also done a DNA test with 23andMe. I have the same Y-DNA type as King Louis XVI. This suggests that at least Louis XVI was a proper Bourbon.

-- (talk) 23:54, 6 May 2015 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Head of the House of Bourbon[edit]

Could we agree that Louis, Duke of Anjou is the Head of the House of Bourbon? Even if you're an Orleanist, you should recognize him as such, and refrain from impulsive edits. Emerson 07 (talk) 14:02, 21 June 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]

On the other hand, you could name Henri, Count of Paris as Head of the House of Orleans. Naming him the Head of the House of Bourbon would just be a pure lie. Emerson 07 (talk) 14:21, 21 June 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I think the Orleanist believes the main House of Bourbon went extinct with Henri, comte de Chambord and the Duke of Anjou is merely the head of the Spanish House of Bourbon.--The Emperor's New Spy (talk) 00:43, 12 September 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Alfonso XIII[edit]

About renunciation of his claim to France, see:"Lo anterior concierne exclusivamente a España, que es de lo único que me he ocupado, pero desde hace bastante tiempo se está queriendo complicar estos asuntos familiares con Francia y esto lo considero grave por las consecuencias que pueda ocasionar. No cabe la menor duda de que desde la muerte del Conde de Chambord y de los últimos Reyes de la rama carlista, corresponde a nuestra rama, o sea la de Borbón-España, la primogenitura. No es que crea sea muy factible o probable una restauración en Francia, pero por seriedad me parece muy mal que se eivindiquen títulos sonoros Fanceses por miembros de la Familia Real española. Cuando a mi Padre le fueron a buscar unos «legitimistas» franceses para que se levantara bandera, se negó rotundamente y creo recordar dijo esta frase o algo parecido: «Suprimir el cerco de gules a nuestras gloriosas flores de lis comprometería las buenas relaciones entre España y Francia, y por lo tanto no pienso recabar nada de ese lado.» Se refiere, naturalmente, a la orla roja que rodea nuestro escudo.

Hablando con mi hijo nos ha parecido a los dos peligroso que se esgriman nuevamente estos seudo-derechos, sobre todo cuando está claro que se pretende obtener, por mi hermano y sobrino, por el lado francés, lo que por el lado español no les corresponde. Si a pesar de los antecedentes que te expongo de nuestra familia, considerando que los deseos del Rey mi Padre fueron de no aceptar las proposiciones de los legitimistas franceses con el sentido de patriota y español que siempre inspiró su conducta, considero que si tanto les gusta lo francés deberían nacionalizarse en Francía, cuyo Trono pretenden."

Source:Documents relating to the Spanish Succession it is letter of Count of Barcelona to Antonio de Oriol, minister of Justice. --Yopie (talk) 15:11, 29 September 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Even if true, the general Legitimist view is that abdications and renunciations of this kind are not valid; the king cannot relinquish the throne, since he is king not by choice, but by birth. Should he refuse to exercise his duties (but this occurred during the time of the republic, so there is none), a regent serves in his name. Another view is that abdications and renunciations are valid; however, this affects him only, and not his descendants. Emerson 07 (talk) 13:31, 25 November 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Southern Italy[edit]

Why just Southern Italy? Parma is northern Italy and Etruria is central Italy. --The Emperor's New Spy (talk) 00:39, 12 September 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Dukes of Galliera[edit]

I don't see how they can be considered morganatic. Wouldn't Spain's Pragmatic Sanction of 1776 been override by the Pragmatic Sanction of 1830? And do we know anything about it's criteria on marriages? Also the Galliera's are still of the descendants of the House of Orleans, which didn't have concepts of morganatic marriage (maybe marriages which were strongly disapproved and shunned but not automatically because of rank as was the case in Germany). I thought they merely lost their titles because they became too distantly related to the reigning monarch or the pretender to continue to bear the titles of Infante of Spain or Princes of Orleans. --The Emperor's New Spy (talk) 10:32, 12 September 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Picture worth a thousand words[edit]

Instead of focusing solely on the people, the article should also examine the extent of their reign. A few simple color-coded maps for key years would suffice. -- (talk) 16:54, 15 February 2015 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Two Sicilies[edit]

In the family tree section, shouldn't the monarchs and pretenders of the Two Sicilies be mentioned? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2601:241:300:36C8:21E:52FF:FE82:CC43 (talk) 22:33, 10 April 2016 (UTC)Reply[reply]


Is the removed supplement "Rutger Corné Heinsius and Linde Irmgard Heinsius nowadays are a rare species out from the Houses of Bourbon, Habsburg, Arragon, Heinaut and Hohenstaufen." not in the line of this article?

Is it true based on this, beside all the others, they also earn the title King or Queen of the Kingdom France?
Preliminary: Behaghel von Flammerdinghe -> Weber Edler von Webenau -> Frans Jozef I -> Archduke Franz Karl Joseph of Austria -> Francis II -> etc. etc. etc. — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 11:59, 24 August 2018 (UTC)Reply[reply]
They're probably lineal descendants (a consanguinous (i.e. biological) relative directly related to a person) into the mentioned families and known titles. — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 14:39, 29 August 2018 (UTC)Reply[reply]
In the line of this article, Rutger and Linde Heinsius will be named out of the king of Italy, the king of France, the king of Hungary, the king of Russia, the king of Norway, the king of Spain and Portugal and the king of etc. etc. etc.
Summarizing Rutger Corné Heinsius and Linde Irmgard Heinsius belong to the highest nobility. They earn at least two titles immediately: the Graaf/Gravin van Nassau-Livonië and the Koning/Koningin van Venetië and far more. But for more look inside the Ahnentafel. — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 09:38, 27 September 2018 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Take a look at the ahnentafel at Roger and Lynde:

A Commons file used on this page has been nominated for deletion[edit]

The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page has been nominated for deletion:

Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. —Community Tech bot (talk) 20:15, 14 February 2019 (UTC)Reply[reply]

A Commons file used on this page has been nominated for speedy deletion[edit]

The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page has been nominated for speedy deletion:

You can see the reason for deletion at the file description page linked above. —Community Tech bot (talk) 01:52, 23 August 2019 (UTC)Reply[reply]

the formatting[edit]

WTF is this formatting? There are more brackets than a Wimbledon draw... sort this shit out, for real.

Nonexistent page links[edit]

I see a number of nonexistent page links in the hierarchy and historical chronological orders of royals, from The Three Dynasties of Bourbon, onwards. These cannot be permitted. Either we editors remove the links, or create well-referenced articles on each of these royals.

Everyone is free to share their thoughts/ideas on this.

Migsmigss (talk) 16:33, 18 December 2019 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Well, they can be permitted - see WP:REDLINK. Johnbod (talk) 18:30, 18 December 2019 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Thanks for the response, Johnbod. I think I didn't say what I meant. I am all for linked texts, but I also hope these texts get articles of their own, soon. If they merit an article. I am all for Wikipedia's growth, too, and if it means having more articles from these linked texts, I support that. Thanks, and have a good day. Migsmigss (talk) 19:23, 18 December 2019 (UTC)Reply[reply]

House of Bourbon succession[edit]

Hi, I've come across this article and immediately noticed the weird formatting of the House of Bourbon#Second House of Bourbon (Bourbon-Dampierre) and House of Bourbon#Third and current House of Bourbon sections. I think this formatting should be fixed, perhaps making it more similar to the one in the First House of Bourbon section, or even placing it on its own article as it is extremely long. In any case, it should be reviewed (is it written entirely in French?) and it shouldn't be encased in code tags. As I don't really know about the subject (or wikitext formatting), I leave this notice for somebody that could help with those sections. GoodCrossing (talk) 13:26, 11 April 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Adding an extra couple of boxes to a family tree on Wikipedia[edit]

Does anyone here know how I can add an extra couple of boxes to a family tree on Wikipedia? Specifically, I want to create a separate box for John, Lord of Carency in the House of Bourbon family tree right here right next to his two brothers--James II, Count of La Marche and Louis, Count of Vendome. I also want to create a separate box right below the hypothetical box for John, Lord of Carency for the Lords and princes of Carency.

Does anyone here know how to do all of this?

Thank you.

Futurist110 (talk) 07:40, 22 October 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]

The Mysterious Disappearance of François I[edit]

Somehow, Henri II's father, François I, is missing from the family tree at the bottom of the article. This is egregiously wrong. 2601:646:4100:1E20:8821:3DC5:B306:3368 (talk) 22:31, 4 December 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]