In the long shadow cast by the Revolution of 1789 and the final fall of the monarchy in 1870, one of the more curious aspects of modern French history is the persistence of royalist claims in a country firmly committed to republicanism. Though the tricolor flag flies over the Élysée Palace and France remains one of the world’s most firmly secular democracies, in the background, quiet but stubborn debates persist among monarchists over a question that has no legal standing but a great deal of symbolic and historical weight: if France were to restore the monarchy, who would be king? The answer is anything but straightforward, for it leads immediately into a centuries-old rivalry between three great dynasties, the Bourbons, the Orléans, and the Bonapartes, each of whom lays claim to the throne through different interpretations of legitimacy, law, and historical precedent.
At the center of the Legitimist claim stands Louis Alphonse de Bourbon, Duke of Anjou, born in Madrid in 1974 and descended in the male line from King Louis XIV through his grandson Philip V of Spain. Louis Alphonse, a great-grandson of Spain’s General Francisco Franco through his mother, is considered by Legitimists to be the rightful king of France, a claim rooted in the strict principles of Salic Law that governed French succession for centuries. This interpretation asserts that the throne must pass through the male line, unbroken, and unaltered by political compromise. The complication lies in the Treaty of Utrecht in 1713, which forced Philip V to renounce his rights to the French throne to prevent a union between France and Spain. To Legitimists, however, this renunciation was invalid. They argue that foreign treaties or political necessity could not change French succession laws. The French crown, they insist, is not a prize to be traded or surrendered by treaty. In their view, Louis Alphonse is not merely a descendant of kings; he embodies the legitimate continuity of the ancient monarchy. To his supporters, he is already Louis XX.
In stark contrast to the Legitimists, the Orléanist faction traces its claim not through the main Bourbon line, but through a cadet branch that played a leading role during the constitutional experiments of the nineteenth century. Their preferred candidate is Jean d'Orléans, the Count of Paris, born in 1965 and a descendant of Louis-Philippe I, who reigned as King of the French from 1830 to 1848. This title, King of the French, was no minor semantic change. It was chosen deliberately to break with the absolutism of the past and signal a more populist, constitutional style of monarchy. Orléanists argue that Louis-Philippe’s rise to the throne represented a legitimate continuation of the monarchy, adapted to the liberal currents of the time. They also contend that the Bourbon main line, having accepted the Spanish crown and having lived for generations outside of France, effectively abandoned their claim. For Orléanists, nationality and proximity to the French people matter as much as blood. Jean d'Orléans has embraced this interpretation of royal duty. He has been active in French public life, defending Catholic values and even engaging in legal efforts to reclaim family property and restore the public presence of the royal heritage. His vision of monarchy is not the absolutism of Versailles but the constitutional monarchy of a modern, democratic France. Among his followers, he is known as Jean IV.
Further complicating this dynastic competition is the presence of a third claimant, one who does not descend from the House of Capet but whose name once ruled over all of Europe in the early nineteenth century. The Bonapartists, heirs to the imperial tradition of Napoléon I and Napoléon III, look to Jean-Christophe Napoléon as their rightful head. Born in 1986, Jean-Christophe is the great-great-great-great-nephew of the original Emperor Napoléon and the designated heir of his grandfather, Prince Louis Napoléon, who controversially bypassed his son in favor of the younger man. Educated at HEC Paris and Harvard Business School, Jean-Christophe has pursued a career in international finance, remaining largely apolitical but carefully cultivating the legacy of his imperial ancestors. His supporters, who are fewer in number than the other royalist factions, see him as Napoléon VIII. They argue that the Bonapartist tradition offers an alternative leadership model based on merit, order, and national strength rather than hereditary entitlement. It is a vision rooted in the dramatic rise and reign of Napoléon I, who seized power through his talents and redefined European politics. Jean-Christophe's recent marriage to Countess Olympia von und zu Arco-Zinneberg, a descendant of the Habsburg dynasty, symbolically united two historic European houses, adding a touch of dynastic legitimacy to a line often viewed as revolutionary usurpers by traditional monarchists.
These figures, Louis Alphonse de Bourbon, Jean d’Orléans, and Jean-Christophe Napoléon, represent not just competing claims to an empty throne, but three distinct and compelling visions of what monarchy means in the modern era. For the Legitimists, monarchy is sacred, unchangeable, and rooted in divine and historical law. For the Orléanists, it is constitutional, popular, and adaptable. For the Bonapartists, it is dynamic, meritocratic, and anchored in national glory. These claims come with historical burdens and ideological commitments, offering a rich tapestry of diverse historical perspectives.
While the Republic remains firmly entrenched and the prospect of a restored monarchy may seem more romantic than realistic, the conversation about the French monarchy continues. It is a topic of interest in monarchist circles, academic debates, and the cultural memory of a nation still haunted and fascinated by its royal past. France may have executed its last king over two centuries ago, but the throne, empty, disputed, symbolic, remains very much alive in the minds of those who believe that history has not yet had its final say.
Add comment
Comments