Who do you believe is the rightful Carlist Claimant?

[Parx]

Nobody, because half of France could have a claim. Half of europe too, probably.

[The Blaatschapen]

Nobody, because half of France could have a claim. Half of europe too, probably.

In that case.

Blaat for king. The only valid exception to my anti-monarchism stance.

[Exalted Inquellian State]

Nobody, because half of France could have a claim. Half of europe too, probably.

A good chunk of France has morganatic marriages.

[Dogmeat]

Nana is Spanish, right?

I nominate her.

[Heloin]

Nobody, because half of France could have a claim. Half of europe too, probably.

In that case.

Blaat for king. The only valid exception to my anti-monarchism stance.

This is why we should abolish all monarchies, half of NS would claim the throne for themselves…

Nana is Spanish, right?

I nominate her.

And the other half would claim the throne for someone else.

[The Blaatschapen]

In that case.

Blaat for king. The only valid exception to my anti-monarchism stance.

This is why we should abolish all monarchies, half of NS would claim the throne for themselves…

Yes, but those other claims are meritless.

[Heloin]

This is why we should abolish all monarchies, half of NS would claim the throne for themselves…

Yes, but those other claims are meritless.

I’ll support your claim to the Spanish throne if you support my claim to the French.

[The Blaatschapen]

Yes, but those other claims are meritless.

I’ll support your claim to the Spanish throne if you support my claim to the French.

But I also have a claim to that.

The only one that is available is Belgium. You can have that.

Wait, no. Albert II of Belgium... we might indeed all have claims to all thrones.

[Vana Ptang]

Yeah, they're mostly split between traditionalists led by a guy who met with other far-right leaders in Vienna and serves as their regent(with some calling him King), while others follow a monarcho-socialist party based on titoist federalism.

What the hell, that last sentence sounds incredibly insane. I've never expected the word "monarcho-socialist" and "Titoist" in the same positive sense. It sounds like something straight out of /pol/.

This is why this is so interesting. Sure it is not relevant to political life, but it is interesting in the abstract. I first read about it a few years ago and tired to look up more information about it, like what is Titoism? and more details on the family reunion where the grenade was thrown. I found nothing then.

[Nanatsu no Tsuki]

Nana is Spanish, right?

I nominate her.

Please, no. The Spanish royal family likes eating their own, produced the Duchess of Alba, I don’t want to marry an underage cousin with three eyes and I lack an extra long chin either way.

[Vana Ptang]

Nobody, because half of France could have a claim. Half of europe too, probably.

A good chunk of France has morganatic marriages.

I think that you are confusing morganatic marriages with unequal marriages. There is a difference. What is really important is if it is dynastic.

Morganatic marriages are, as far as I know, not legally possible anymore, and the children inherit nothing. A nation that allows unequal marriages, would not allow inheritance to the children of a morganatic marriage.

Furthermore, different nations have treated unequal marriages differently. It used to be that as heads of state, the heads of houses could legally prevent a marriage. In the few cases where they couldn't, they have removed the dynastic rights of the offending prince. Usually today, a unequal marriage is simply seen as non dynastic, and the children are excluded from the succession, but not the prince or princess.

Strictly speaking, France never had morganatic marriages and they were rare in Spain. The question is, did the head of house approve it.

[Exalted Inquellian State]

A good chunk of France has morganatic marriages.

I think that you are confusing morganatic marriages with unequal marriages. There is a difference. What is really important is if it is dynastic.

Morganatic marriages are, as far as I know, not legally possible anymore, and the children inherit nothing. A nation that allows unequal marriages, would not allow inheritance to the children of a morganatic marriage.

Furthermore, different nations have treated unequal marriages differently. It used to be that as heads of state, the heads of houses could legally prevent a marriage. In the few cases where they couldn't, they have removed the dynastic rights of the offending prince. Usually today, a unequal marriage is simply seen as non dynastic, and the children are excluded from the succession, but not the prince or princess.

Strictly speaking, France never had morganatic marriages and they were rare in Spain. The question is, did the head of house approve it.

I mean, I mentioned before that its possible they were fine until the people were close in the line of succession, which is how it may be possible to unite the pretenders of brazil with the Carlist cause. So it might be fine until the 1930's.

[Azania-]

There's really only one way to settle this:

Have a royal rumble (see what I did there) with every Carlist claimant in the ring at the same time, and the last man standing will be declared the rightful claimant.

[Exalted Inquellian State]

There's really only one way to settle this:

Have a royal rumble (see what I did there) with every Carlist claimant in the ring at the same time, and the last man standing will be declared the rightful claimant.

I think Felipe VI was in the olympics, so even if it was the sailing team, he certainly has some muscle. Sixtus is 81, and the brazillian claimant is older, so I guess it'd be down between Filipe VI and Louis XX of France, since the later is the youngest.

Edit: Okay, apparently Louis XX received military training, so all hail Luis II or Louis II(idk) of Spain.

[Azania-]

There's really only one way to settle this:

Have a royal rumble (see what I did there) with every Carlist claimant in the ring at the same time, and the last man standing will be declared the rightful claimant.

I think Felipe VI was in the olympics, so even if it was the sailing team, he certainly has some muscle. Sixtus is 81, and the brazillian claimant is older, so I guess it'd be down between Filipe VI and Louis XX of France, since the later is the youngest.

Edit: Okay, apparently Louis XX received military training, so all hail Luis II or Louis II(idk) of Spain.

Solved a centuries-old succession dispute in literally a few minutes.

I get that this probably isn't a very practical solution, but honestly the entire debate over succession, not least of all the succession of a realistically dead claim, just seems so dumb. Spain has a king, and they seem happy with him, so why not leave it at that?

[Vana Ptang]

Said pretenders are disqualified due to their failure in fulfilling the requirements of Bigger Army Diplomacy, and do ascend the throne from time to time if they successfully conformed to the principle.

I mean, if they were defeated, by that logic they'd shut up and let the monarch who won rule. But they keep persisting, and occasionally succeed, not always through wars. Napoleon III ascended democratically, and after he was overthrown, the Orleanists and Legitimists didn't just start a civil war. They tried negotiating for a united succession, and nearly succeeded before they got into a hissy fit over a flag.

Edit: Also, where do you think they get the support of the army? The only truly local monarchs who reigned in the past 300 years were the Obrenovic, Karadordevic, Russian, Bonapartist, Ottoman, and maybe the Savoy dynasties. It ridiculously hard to establish yourself as a royal without already being part of a family.

Russia was ruled by Germans. The Bonapartes were Italian, the Savoy dynasty claimed descent from a Duke of Saxony, and Savoy is now in France.

[Exalted Inquellian State]

I mean, if they were defeated, by that logic they'd shut up and let the monarch who won rule. But they keep persisting, and occasionally succeed, not always through wars. Napoleon III ascended democratically, and after he was overthrown, the Orleanists and Legitimists didn't just start a civil war. They tried negotiating for a united succession, and nearly succeeded before they got into a hissy fit over a flag.

Edit: Also, where do you think they get the support of the army? The only truly local monarchs who reigned in the past 300 years were the Obrenovic, Karadordevic, Russian, Bonapartist, Ottoman, and maybe the Savoy dynasties. It ridiculously hard to establish yourself as a royal without already being part of a family.

Russia was ruled by Germans. The Bonapartes were Italian, the Savoy dynasty claimed descent from a Duke of Saxony, and Savoy is now in France.

Okay, see, even less local monarchs. And even then, thats counting the ones who were reigning. The ones who actually ascended were the Serbian dynasties and thats it.

[Exalted Inquellian State]

I think Felipe VI was in the olympics, so even if it was the sailing team, he certainly has some muscle. Sixtus is 81, and the brazillian claimant is older, so I guess it'd be down between Filipe VI and Louis XX of France, since the later is the youngest.

Edit: Okay, apparently Louis XX received military training, so all hail Luis II or Louis II(idk) of Spain.

Solved a centuries-old succession dispute in literally a few minutes.

I get that this probably isn't a very practical solution, but honestly the entire debate over succession, not least of all the succession of a realistically dead claim, just seems so dumb. Spain has a king, and they seem happy with him, so why not leave it at that?

Yeah, Carlism basically died after Franco ascended, from disputes between claimants, Franco being dictator and carefulyl pushing them away, along with naming Juan Carlos king. The carlists, as mentioned, are monarcho-socialists or hardline conservatives now. But it's still fun to discuss who their rightful claimant is.

[Vana Ptang]

Ok, I read up on it. Strictly speaking, the Carlist claim was that the revocation of salic law was invalid. Now, I am usually partial to legitimatist claims, but in this case an old law is being restored. So I disagree with the Carlist legal argument there. However, the question is not, is Carlism legitimate, but who is the pretender? That is a little more tricky.

Strictly speaking, there is more than one Carlist claimant, by my count (3-4). Starting with the oldest line, there is Felipe VI. Now, I don't think he considers himself a Carlist, but he does occupy the throne and is heir of Alfonso XIII, recognized by some Carlists as King. However, there probably wasn't much point in being a Carlist after that if you recognized Alfonso. However, there is a second point of division.

The Carlist case against Alfonso XIII is that all the descendants of Isabella II are guilty of high treason by opposing Carlism. I find this weak, it part because I am unsympathetic to the Carlist legal argument, and I think the dispute, is at least debatable. Also because they were never tried for treason. Alfonso XIII was found guilty of treason, but I doubt the legality of that.

The other argument against the merger of the Alfonso-Carlist merger is that Alfonso XII(Isabella's son) was possibly illegitimate. This is a better argument, but I am not sure of it. Even if true, I am not sure it matters legally. However, it is enough for someone looking for a reason.

The House of Parma is a cadet branch of the Spanish Royal Family. Xavier was not the senior member when he became regent, but he was Duke of Parma when he died, and the senior male heir, after the Alfonsist. The current Duke of Parma is has the best claim out of all the Carlists and his brother just claims to be regent, but perhaps should be understood as the political leader of the traditionalist Carlist.

There is an interesting article on Carloctavism in Wikipedia. It shows the kind of political thinking that is still common in politics today. Really it is a splinter group of a splinter group.

[Tsaivao]

I think the rightful claimant to the Spanish throne is this trashcan I keep next to my desk. Hell, you could make them the next claimant to any monarchy in the world if you so desire, he's a really great guy!

[Vana Ptang]

I think the rightful claimant to the Spanish throne is this trashcan I keep next to my desk. Hell, you could make them the next claimant to any monarchy in the world if you so desire, he's a really great guy!

That's not how things work. First the question is, who is the rightful Carlist pretender? In other words, who is the rightful King of Spain according to the political faction known as Carlists. It would be like is someone asked who the leader of the Democrats is, and you said trashcan.

[Dorpatia]

Don Sixto.

[Vana Ptang]

Nana is Spanish, right?

I nominate her.

Please, no. The Spanish royal family likes eating their own, produced the Duchess of Alba, I don’t want to marry an underage cousin with three eyes and I lack an extra long chin either way.

To be fair, the Duchess looked a lot more normal when she was younger. That is mostly age and maybe plastic surgery.

https://www.india.com/news/world/duches ... 88-199688/

[Kragholm Free States]

Please, no. The Spanish royal family likes eating their own, produced the Duchess of Alba, I don’t want to marry an underage cousin with three eyes and I lack an extra long chin either way.

To be fair, the Duchess looked a lot more normal when she was younger. That is mostly age and maybe plastic surgery.

https://www.india.com/news/world/duches ... 88-199688/

Oh definitely plastic surgery, and a hell of a lot of it. She took the Bogpill for sure.

[Punished UMN]

There is no such thing as a "rightful claimant" because monarchs do not have a right to rule, nor should they. Monarchism is the worst system Mankind has ever devised, after Fascism, and belongs in history books and high fantasy settings.

If monarchism is the worst system ever devised, why did it survive virtually unscathed for most of human history and build most of the great civilizations in human history? For most of history, it was the only system that even functioned, the Greek democracies mostly collapsed into monarchies because they didn't work very well, and the Roman Republic also collapsed into a monarchy because it proved unable to govern itself. One could just as easily say that republican democracy is a bad system because it is designed for mediocrity, because it is designed to restrict its leadership from decision-making (and that includes good decision-making) and the terms of leadership are so short that elections are mostly meaningless because a person's term in office ends before their policies really take effect so you just end up with a never-ending back-and-forth between parties constantly repealing and replacing each others' legislation without any real, long-term policy change.