Post by Pierre Aronax
They were members of the Royal house before being excluded by the
So they were legitimate members of the Royal house excluded for conjonctural
The treason, usurpation and waging of civil war against his
Sovereign -- who was also his wife, niece and charge - were deemed
good and sufficient reason to exile Infante Dom Miguel de Braganca,
and for the Constitution of Portugal to strip him and his future issue
of succession rights to the throne.
Indeed, I don't say the contrary. But it was not a general rule that
excluded them, it was an ad hoc rule. The succession in exile made some
years after the end of the monarchy did not go against the general
tradition, only again this specifical exclusion.
Post by Pierre Aronax
And what rights do you contend are,
ipso facto, retained under "the previous state of fact" by the
Miguelists to Portugal's throne?
I note that my question, above, has been left unanswered.
See above. Or have I not understand the question?
Post by Pierre Aronax
But if their rights somehow persisted, the
Miguelist claim would today come after that of Maria II's surviving
female-line heir -- the Margrave of Meissen!
They are excluded for nationality reason, as are other descendants of Maria
II. I know, the same could be objected against the Duke of Braganza, but his
ancestors were in exile, which is rather different.
Why is the Braganza line exempt from the nationality requirement,
since the exile was imposed by monarchist law for crimes against the
kingdom, i.e. civil war?
They were obliged to exile: it was a punishment, not a choice.
Anyway, that does not explain on what legal grounds you apply the
Portugese nationality requirement to exclude the Margrave of Meissen
from the succession, but refuse to apply the law excluding the
Miguelists from the Portugese succession? Both requirements are in
For the same reason. And I don't "refuse" to do so: the Portuguese
monarchists do, and I find their position relatively coherent. Clearly, the
exclusion of the posterity of Don Miguel was an emergency mesure, which has
nothing to do with the substance of the Portuguese tradition, when the
exclusion of foreigners is part of this traditions since the eviction of the
Spanish and the restoration of the Portuguese monarchy in the 17th century.
The Braganza were not foreigners, they were exiled.
Article 98 - "The collateral branch of ex-Infante Dom Miguel and all
his descendants are perpetually excluded from the succession."
Article 100 - "No foreigner may succeed to the Crown of Portugal."
(BTW, although this constitution required the Sovereign and heir to
swear to maintain Portugal as a Roman Catholic state, nothing in it
required that the Sovereign, heir or dynasts be RC, nor that they
descend in the dynastic line exclusively through RC marriages.
Interesting point. But not related to the question.
constitution remained in effect for the duration of the monarchy).
Consistency and fairness require that if you don't apply 98, thereby
allowing the Miguelists to succeed, you cannot apply 100, which means
the Margrave must be inserted into the Portugese succession ahead of
I admitt there is a difficulty here. Nevertheless, I maintain that the
exclusion of the Miguelists was a particular mesure, not a general one: it
was not part of the Portuguese tradition that the Miguelists should be
excluded. It was part of this tradition that the foreigners would be
excluded. When the Portuguese branches of the royal house agree to the
succession, the Miguelists were the last to be more or less Portuguese. To
make them the heir, there was only to neglect ad ad hoc part of the
constitution, which has no more political reason, and which was not accepted
by part of the Portuguese at the time.
The exclusion of morganauts in the Saxony case is not an ad hoc mesure taken
after a civil war now forgoten. Would an article of the Saxony constitution
said that the crown can go to everybody except the Afif, would Alexander
[Afif] be the last relative of the Margrave to qualify for the succession
under the rules if he was not excluded by this specific article, would the
exclusion of morganauts not be part of the German tradition and, above all,
would the Saxony have a Royal tradition of its own going back in the past
long before its constitution (as is the case for Portugal), perhaps the
question of Saxony can be seen otherwise.
But the only proper thing to do, according to your commitment to
strict succession law, is to apply both clauses, which then excludes
the Margrave and the current Duke of Braganza.
No, since 1) the Portuguese royal tradition can not be reduced to a 19th
century constitution (the Saxonian royal tradition can: there was no kingdom
of Saxony before) and 2) The exclusion of foreigners is a general rule, the
exclusion of Don Miguel and his descendancy a peculiar rule.
Post by Pierre Aronax
Duarte-Nuno and his son, Duarte (b.1945), have represented the claim
to Portugal's dynastic heritage since 1932 purely by mutual agreement
of the last non-reigning head of house with other male-line
Who were members of the Royal House and were not introduced in it for the
No. After the law of banishment of 1834 and under the monarchist
constitution of 1838, the Miguelists were no more members of the
Portugese royal house than you claim the Afifs are members of the
Saxon royal house.
They were members of the Royal house who were dedynastized by the
Constitution. The Afifs were never members of the House of Wettin.
And even if they were "members" of the Royal House, what meaning does
that have? It is the right to represent the legal claim to the throne
that you keep asserting is the only dynastic legacy that is not
"meaningless" and worthy of consideration here. Yet the Dukes of
Braganza's position as Portugese dynastic claimants since 1932 is
purely by mutual agreement of the last non-reigning head of house with
other male-line descendants.
Or, there is an other way to see the situation: one can consider that he
represents the pre-1838 Royal Portuguese tradition. I agree that he can not
have right under the 1838 Constitution, but nobody can, so this tradition is
dead. But hopefully the Kingdom of Portugal was not created in 1838. On the
contrary, the Kingdom of Saxony has no pre-constitutional history.
That agreement violated the terms of the monarchical constitution and
supercedes the rights of persons with a better succession claim under
strict monarchist law.
Who were these persons?
In this thread, you have insisted, "I think the only coherent point of
view is to follow the rules that existed in periods during which the
monarchy actually existed."
Yes, note the plural, "periods": in the Portuguese case, I agree that it is
not possible to find an heir under the last succession rules. But it is
possible according to previously existing rules.
You also asserted today, ".Spain was a Constitutional monarchy, and
his constitution made prescriptions about succession, so a change of
constitution can perfectly legaly implies a change of these rules.
France never had a constitution of that kind: its succession can only
be ruled by royal tradition."
But Portugal from 1834 is a constitutional monarchy, so you should
apply the same principle as in Spain: its succession is governed by
the constitution, not by "tradition," and can be changed completely
and permanently if done legally.
Indeed, that is true. But under the said constitution there are no heirs at
all. So, it is necessary to look for an older tradition. That is complitely
different anyway from creating new absolutely new rules in a vacuum, like
the Afif case.
So it is not possible under
monarchist law for Dom Miguel's direct descendant to legitimately
claim the Portugese throne, according to your own principle of
Not possible according to the rule of the Constitutional monarchy, but there
is no Constitutional heir, and Dom Miguel's descendants can be heir heirs
under the pre-constitutional rules. Probably, if Spanish some day had no
more heirs according to the Constitutional rules, we will have to look for a
Carlist claimant. But such is not the case. Anyway, and again, it is quite
different from creating new rules of succession AFTER the end of the
monarchy, without any legal basis.
Yet you have expressed no objection to the Miguelist claim
-- in fact, you defend it.
I am moderetly engaged in present Portuguese political life you know.
Nonetheless, a better claimant to Portugal's throne than the Duke of
Braganza is Dom Pedro José Folque de Mendoça Rolim de Moura Barreto,
Duque de Loulé (b.1958), direct descendant and heir general of Infanta
Ana de Jesus de Bragança's 1827 marriage to Nuno José de Mendoça Rolim
de Moura Barreto, 1st Duque de Loulé. Although younger than her
brother, Dom Miguel, she was not ousted from the royal dynasty and the
intervening descendants between her and the present duke have all been
Portugese (and apparently Roman Catholic).
Interesting. I didn't know that and I will check.
What Dom Pedro José apparently lacks is any interest in the claim, any
public recognition of his line's dynasticity by the head of house, and
any agreement with other descendants of Portugal's kings that the
Dukes of Loulé should represent the dynastic claim.
A preference for the Miguelists contrary to these known facts does not
substantiate your devotion to law above all other factors in dynastic
It was not a known fact until now for me.
Most of us accept the legitimacy of the Duke of Braganza's claim
because of his blood descent from Portugal's kings,
If you mean male-line blood descent, that is irrelevant for the Portuguese
ancestor is known to have been recognized as heir by the last
ex-monarch, and because no other interested claimant demonstrates a
stronger claim. But you explicitly reject these grounds for your
validation of the Duke of Braganza's claim.
Indeed, I thought they were no other dynasts with a legitime claim.
Well, there is another possible reason for support of Braganza's
claim, one that is consistent with the other principles you have
expressed -- endorsement of what the Miguelists (and Carlists,
I certainly never endorsed the Carlist point of view of the Spanish
Blancs) stood for in monarchism: resistance to accountability, to
secularism, to female-line succession,
Which was absurd considering the story of the Portuguese tradition.
to constitutionalism - in
short, resistance to all change. The fact that the Miguelists are
treated differently from the Afifs despite non-compliance with strict
monarchist law in the claims of both, proves that the standards being
applied are varied to support the type of claimant that is preferred.
It isn't the law that is being defended here, but a conviction that
royalty is not of man's making, that princes are created by immutable
forces, divine action or ancient sanction, and must be kept free from
modernity's taint and deals born of convenience.
And if you go taking a good cold shower? I'm sure that will be good for you.
You gave yourself away in another thread when you recently objected to
someone describing Sweden's current dynasty, the Bernadottes, as
"prestigious": Your arguments showed that you confound the notion of
dynastic "prestige" with that of "venerability", ignoring the
achievement in rapid rise and the triumph of survival.
Yes, genealogical prestige is founded on venerability in the exercice of
sovereign prerogative. On what else? If rapid rise is concerned, I suppose
the Bush are the more "prestigious" dynasty in the world at the present
There's nothing unusual about having a bias in matters of such
esoteric interest (I certainly have mine and blind spots in logic
because of them). But the pretension that the standards you apply are
rigorously objective and consistent while those of others are
frivolous needs to be dropped.
You are completely wrong about me, which is not surprising since you don't
know me. I suggest you avoid such personal attacks: they are stupid.
Post by Pierre Aronax
You abandon the injunctions of legitimism when other principles help
make your case (Juan Carlos's legitimacy as king comes purely from
a 1970s vote, not monarchist tradition)
You say I am legitimist, I don't. I apply legitimists rules when dealing
with a legitimist tradition, which French tradition is (even for orleanists
who pretend now to be called legitimists). Spanish traditions are different
from French traditions and always have admitted renunciations. Beside, Spain
was a Constitutional monarchy, and his constitution made prescriptions about
succession, so a change of constitution can perfectly legaly implies a
change of these rules. France never had a constitution of that kind: its
succession can only be ruled by royal tradition.
Spain's monarchist tradition operated within a constitutional
framework to whatever extent that was understood, and the 1876
constitution plainly did not permit unilateral renunciations by heirs.
Jaime Segovia's renunciation was illegal, nor did it dispose of any
dynastic claims of his issue.
I completely agree with that! But the Spanish monarchists thought, or made
as if the thought the renunciations were valid.
Nonetheless the perception that the tradition mooted their claims was
prevalent and obviously influenced the chain of events that placed the
crown on Juan Carlos's head instead of on that of the Duque de Cadiz.
This chain of events can only be explained because John Charles was the son
of the man regarded as their claimant by almost all monarchists. And, at the
time when John Charles was chosen as his successor by Franco, his father can
not have based his right on the Pragmatica, but only on the renunciations of
the Duke of Segovia (this renunciations had no value, but that is an other
question entirely). So, the Pragmatica is irrelevant to what happened to the
Spanish succession between 1931 and 1975, both actually and theoretically.
You can come up with other ways that what happened could have happened
anyway, but the history's already transpired, whatever is said about
Post by Pierre Aronax
and retreat to them when all
else fails (Miguel's line had the legitimist claim to Portugal,
No, I don't think Miguel and his descendants had not a leigitimist claim to
the crown of Portugal, since salic law was never part of the succession of
Portugal (there is nevertheless the argument that Peter I of Brazil had
become a foreigner, and so his daughter, but I will leave that). What I say
is that they were legitim dynasts (at least before they were excluded by a
legislation ad hoc), according to pre-Saxe-Coburg rule, and so that, when
the last King chose the Duke of Braganza as his successor, he chose somebody
who was a dynast according to tradition, and did not make a dynast of a
relative in female line who could not have been according to this tradition.
I guess this is where you retreat from your previous insistence that
only monarchical law can determine dynastic claims.
Where did I retreat that?
Since the Dukes of
Braganza don't have law on their side and you're unwilling to abandon
their cause, Presto! a new standard is introduced - "tradition".
I see: you oppose tradition to law. I don't: for existing monarchies, last
written laws first. And if the laws are no more appliable, then tradition,
which is laws before laws were written. But some monarchies have no
preconstitutional tradition, that's all.
tradition is privileged to be an exception to the succession laws,
it was not intended to be an "exception" to the succession laws, rather an
other claim to consider. In the Portuguese case, if somebody is indeed the
heir according to the 1838 Constitution, as you said it is, then of course
he must be considered before the Duke of Braganza. I must check that.
the deliberations of the head of house and dynasts are not remains a
They have no legal value, except if the Constitution gives them some.
Post by Pierre Aronax
Beside, he chose the only convenient dynast, since he was (more or less)
Portuguess. I admit that all is not clear cut in that, but nothing was done
against the tradition. The designation of Affif will be against the
tradition, since there are still heirs which are in acceptable according to
the Saxonian constitution.
Name them, so they can be examined for compliance with all the rules
you say are applicable -- instead of ranting against consideration of
other claimants by other criteria.
As you know, any female heir or heir in female line can be considered only
at the death of the last dynast in male line. Until that point, many death
can occur, so it is difficult to say who can be the heir at the time, since
any death can change considerably the order of succession.
Assuming the treaties with the other branches of the House of Wettin are do
not aplly, and if the markgraf and all three subsisting male dynasts
(Albert, Dedo and Gero) all die in order, then (since Timo's posterity is
excluded) we have to look for the next *living* female relative of the last
male. Since Dedo and Gero have no sister, then the crown of Saxony must
revert on the head of the present Markgraf's oldest sister Maria Josepha,
who will be the first (de jure) Queen of Saxony (at least if she is still
alive): indeed, the Constitution says that, if there is no male dynast, then
the succession goes to the closest line, without consideration of sex ("geht
die Krone auf eine aus ebenbürtiger Ehe abstammende weibliche Linie ohne
Unterschied des Geschlechts über"). That seems to include the princesses
themselves, and not only their posterity. (Note that in practice the same
happens if Dedo and Gero die before Albert or before the Markgraf). Then it
becomes more complicated and more hypothetical, since we don't know who will
be still alive. If she is still alive, Anna, the widow of Robert Afif, will
succeed (but not her posterity), and then Mathilde, the last sister of the
Markgraf (but she has no surviving posterity).
At that point, the much closer female line will be the descendancy of
princess Margarete (+ 1962), married in the house of Hohenzollern (the same
is true if my above understanding of "one Unterchied des Geschlecht" is
wrong and if the Markgraf sisters have no rights for themselves, or if they
have died before the last male). Here, somebody better than me in German can
say if my interpretation is wrong or not. The text of the Constitution is:
"Hierbei entscheidet die Nähe der Verwandtschaft mit dem zuletzt regierenden
Könige, bei gleicher Nähe das Alter der Linie, und in selbiger das Alter der
Person. Nach dem Übergange gilt wieder der Vorzug des Mannsstamms in der
Primogenitur-Ordnung". My understanding is that the succession is determined
firstly by "proximity" (Nähe) of the last dynast, only then by primogeniture
of the line, and finally by age between people of the same degree in the
same line. Perhaps am I wrong but, if I read that correctly, it means that,
in the descendancy of the Saxony-Hohenzollern marriage, between two
brothers, the older will bypass the younger as heir of the Saxony claim, but
between an uncle and his nephew, son of his elder brother, the uncle will
bypass the nephew, since he is younger by line, but closer by degree of the
last Saxon dynast. So, it is virtualy impossible to say who will able to
succeed to the Saxony claim, since it will depend of who is still alive when
the last living dynast will die.
I am absolutely not sure of my interpretation, and I am interrested to see
Then explain why your chosen heirs must get priority in Saxony, but
"heirs which are acceptable according to the Portugese constitution"
don't get priority over the Duke of Braganza, who isn't
I didn't know until now they were still heirs acceptable according to the
Post by Pierre Aronax
But the fact is
that dynastic claims are a mish-mash of pragmatic, legalistic and
historical reasoning patched together to ensure that a dynasty has a
credible face (or faces) to most of those inclined to care about the
Indeed, that is a game. But it must be played seriously.
And you, not Saxony's head of house and other dynasts facing
extinction of their lineage and ancient tradition, take it seriously
-- but they don't?
Post by Pierre Aronax Post by Pierre Aronax
So, if you think otherwise, give us a single example where the
Post by Pierre Aronax
was actualy ruled according to the pragmatic sanction.
This is a favored ruse: nothing is legal and no logic is valid unless
a precedent can be cited showing that a rule has been applied
precisely the same way in the past (e.g. exclusion of a foreign agnate
from French throne, deposition of an anointed English king, accession
of a king's daughter over a brother in Bourbon Spain).
Yes, it is how tradition works.
It is how you work tradition.
Well, it seems you have decided to make that personnal. I am sorry, it is
how tradition works: nothing is legal unless a precedent can be cited.
Otherwise, we don't agree about "tradition" is.