Speaking of Emperors
#1
Pray for these men (and, in two cases, women), if you believe in Primacy and Authority, and rendering unto Caesar.

They arent all Catholic, so pray for their conversion and that of the people of their empires and associated realms.

Some of the successions are disputed, so pray that those be resolved or reconciled into one throne, so there may be Twelve.

Some houses seem to have slipped into such obscurity, I cannot even find a picture of the current pretender, pray for their crown of imperial dignity.

And pray especially that the supremacy of the Supreme Authority in the universe, Whom they image, might be recognized on Earth as it is in Heaven.

<meta http-equiv="Content-Type" content="text/html; charset=utf-8"><meta name="ProgId" content="Word.Document"><meta name="Generator" content="Microsoft Word 12"><meta name="Originator" content="Microsoft Word 12">
[-]
  •
Reply
#2
The Bonapartists were usurpers, plain and simple. The only man who can claim legitimate sovereignty of France is Prince Louis Alphonse de Bourbon- His Most Christian Majesty Louis XX. May he someday be crowned and annointed with the Chrism delivered by the Holy Ghost to St. Remigius at the baptism of his great ancestor Clovis. Vive le Roi!

Oh, and the German Protestant House of Hohenzollern never legitimately held the office of German (Holy and Roman) Empire either. The last reigning claimant to that throne was His Most Imperial and Royal Apostolic Majesty, Karl I, Emperor of Austria and King of Hungary, Bohemia, Croatia, Illyria, ect. ect. who died in 1921, and otherwise know as Blessed Karl of Austria.
Reply
#3
Caesar Wrote:The Bonapartists were usurpers, plain and simple. The only man who can claim legitimate sovereignty of France is Prince Louis Alphonse de Bourbon- His Most Christian Majesty Louis XX. May he someday be crowned and annointed with the Chrism delivered by the Holy Ghost to St. Remigius at the baptism of his great ancestor Clovis. Vive le Roi!

Does he have a son named Henry or Charles, by any chance?
Reply
#4
Quote:The Bonapartists were usurpers, plain and simple. The only man who can claim legitimate sovereignty of France is Prince Louis Alphonse de Bourbon- His Most Christian Majesty Louis XX.

France, perhaps, though I dont necessarily agree. But the Western Roman crown is a different question.

The Pope did crown Napoleon emperor. I think it devolved back to Austria basically the Napoleons lost power, but they did establish some claim, which I think it would be best to reconcile or join somehow instead of simply ignore.

Quote:May he someday be crowned and annointed with the Chrism delivered by the Holy Ghost to St. Remigius at the baptism of his great ancestor Clovis. Vive le Roi!

Is the chrism still extant?

Quote:Oh, and the German Protestant House of Hohenzollern never legitimately held the office of German (Holy and Roman) Empire either. The last reigning claimant to that throne was His Most Imperial and Royal Apostolic Majesty, Karl I, Emperor of Austria and King of Hungary, Bohemia, Croatia, Illyria, ect. ect. who died in 1921, and otherwise know as Blessed Karl of Austria.

Well, I think they certainly had the weakest claim of the three.

But the legacy of Charlemagne...always in some sense had French, German, and Austrian elements and descendants. Not to get too mystical with the temporal crowns...but with the dissolution in 1806...it seems what we witnessed was a splitting or fracturing of those three elements into three claims of Empire, and maybe all three got a piece of the broken crown, as it were. Again, I think it would really be best to get them to reconcile or re-join somehow instead of just picking one as legitimate and ignoring the others.

Of course, there are some cases where I would be fine simply ignoring one of the claims. If Britain doesnt want to claim India anymore, that was a colonialist venture anyway, and I'd be perfectly fine seeing just the Mughal emperor. And I'm not a strict legitimist in any sense. Dynasties often have changed or been conquered or usurped, succession laws changed or ignored, and the new authority does rule by right of accomplished fact. If some of these places had a strong ruler who was going to set up a totally new dynasty, I'd be fine with that too. I'd totally recognize Putin as Tsar of Russia, for example, if he wanted to claim it. Better than nothing. Though I think it is preferable to try to establish some continuity with pre-existing claimants in such cases (through marriages or whatever). And several of these (including the Holy Roman) were supposed to be elective anyway.
Reply
#5
CrusaderKing Wrote:
Caesar Wrote:The Bonapartists were usurpers, plain and simple. The only man who can claim legitimate sovereignty of France is Prince Louis Alphonse de Bourbon- His Most Christian Majesty Louis XX. May he someday be crowned and annointed with the Chrism delivered by the Holy Ghost to St. Remigius at the baptism of his great ancestor Clovis. Vive le Roi!

Does he have a son named Henry or Charles, by any chance?
Actually Prince Louis Alphonse does not yet have a son (though both he and his wife are still quite young, and good Catholics, so its only a matter of time!), but he does have a young daughter. However, according to the French laws of succession a woman cannot take the throne, so his current heir is his first cousin Juan Carlos, the King of Spain.

You might be thinking of Henri d'Orleans, the Orleanist clamaint (as opposed to Prince Louis, the Legitimiste claimant). He is a Freemason and takes his claims not from the last ruling King of France, the pious Charles X, but his revolutionary cousin who siezed power in a coup, Louis-Philipe, the "King of the French".
Reply
#6
Quote: Is the chrism still extant?

The Chrism was in the Holy Ampulla, kept in the Cathedral of Rheims, and used in the coronations of all the Kings of France. During the Revolution a mob stormed the cathedral and broke the Ampulla, but a quick-thinking priest saved some of the oil and it was used in the coronation of Charles X. I am not sure what has become of it now.

Quote:
The Pope did crown Napoleon emperor. I think it devolved back to Austria basically the Napoleons lost power, but they did establish some claim, which I think it would be best to reconcile or join somehow instead of simply ignore.

And Napoleon had to sack Rome and kidnap the Pope to get him to do so. Subsequent Popes actively denounced the revolution.

Quote:
Well, I think they certainly had the weakest claim of the three.

How so? The Catholic Habsburgs ruled the Holy Roman Empire for 500 years, while the Protestant Hohenzollerns of Prussia coerced the other German states into a confederation and declared themselves Emperors after their victory in the Franco-Prussian War. The so-called "German Empire" was short-lived, lasting from 1870 to 1918.
Reply
#7
Caesar Wrote:The Bonapartists were usurpers, plain and simple.

Not so plain and simple, when Napoleon I was anointed with the same Reims formula used for the kings... but by Pope Pius VII himself. And the Second Empire was the protector of the Papal States until the Franco-Prussian War.

All that being said, the titles "King of France" and "Emperor of the French" are different concepts, and it's possible for them to co-exist at the same time.

Quote:Oh, and the German Protestant House of Hohenzollern never legitimately held the office of German (Holy and Roman) Empire either. The last reigning claimant to that throne was His Most Imperial and Royal Apostolic Majesty, Karl I, Emperor of Austria and King of Hungary, Bohemia, Croatia, Illyria, ect. ect. who died in 1921, and otherwise know as Blessed Karl of Austria.

Karl I and Wilhelm II certainly recognized each other as legitimate. They were allies in the First World War.
Reply
#8
Quote:And Napoleon had to sack Rome and kidnap the Pope to get him to do so. Subsequent Popes actively denounced the revolution.

But Napoleon wasnt the Revolution. He was a reaction to it, not a restoration of the ancien regime, but certainly a return to ideas of church-state interaction, order, authority, etc

There is a line, it exists, it has supporters, and we cant ignore that he was clearly de facto emperor in terms of his conquest of Europe, and even crowned by the Pope.

I like the Habsburg claim best too (though, as I've said, it should be elective again). But it would be best to reconcile these claims through marriages, adoptions, mutual agreements of retained perogatives in exchange for renouncing claims, etc.

As I've said, I see Charlemagne's legacy as sort of an imperial crown broken into its three constitutive elements (French, German, Austrian) after 1806, and it would be best to rejoin them.

Quote:How so? The Catholic Habsburgs ruled the Holy Roman Empire for 500 years, while the Protestant Hohenzollerns of Prussia coerced the other German states into a confederation and declared themselves Emperors after their victory in the Franco-Prussian War. The so-called "German Empire" was short-lived, lasting from 1870 to 1918.

No, that's what I meant: the German Empire had the weakest claim, and the Habsburgs the strongest.
Reply
#9
The_Harlequin_King Wrote:Not so plain and simple, when Napoleon I was anointed with the same Reims formula used for the kings... but by Pope Pius VII himself. And the Second Empire was the protector of the Papal States until the Franco-Prussian War.
Napoleon II propped up Bl. Pius IX not out of any filial devotion for the Pope, but because many influential French Catholics were amongst those who put him in power. He himself was quite revolutionary, and supported Sardinia-Piedmont in it's war with Austria and the gradual conquest of Italy. The French battalions in the Papal States were pulled right before the Italians invaded.

Quote:All that being said, the titles "King of France" and "Emperor of the French" are different concepts, and it's possible for them to co-exist at the same time.

Perhaps.

Quote:Karl I and Wilhelm II certainly recognized each other as legitimate. They were allies in the First World War.


Yes, but the question is, who could legitimately claim the Holy Roman Empire (if we are to understand the Empire less as a historical state and more of a concept)?
Reply
#10
Quote:Yes, but the question is, who could legitimately claim the Holy Roman Empire (if we are to understand the Empire less as a historical state and more of a concept)?

Neither and both. Three constitutive elements need to be rejoined, it seems.
Reply




Users browsing this thread: 1 Guest(s)