Talk:Succession to the French throne

Pro-Legitimist pov

This article starts from an assumption of the validity of the Legitimist interpretation of the rightful claim to the French crown, minimizing other monarchist points of view. Or it distorts alternative theories by viewing them predominantly through the Legitimist lens so as to shift the heaviest burden of proof to Orleanism and Bonapartism, rather than explaining the rationale of each monarchist theory/history/law on its own terms. It assumes that the Treaty of Utrecht was invalid ab initio and irremediably, that Louis XIV as France's head of state considered it both invalid and non-binding, thus committed France to its adherence in bad faith, and that this act of bad faith provided no valid recourse for parties, domestic or foreign, who deemed the treaty substantially valid and acted upon it in good faith (i.e., Louis XIV and France got peace and Louis's son Philip got to keep {and to this day retains} the crown of Spain-- rather than that, e.g., the treaty constituted a modification of France's fundamental laws at a constitutional level or a one-time carve out concerning Philip V of Spain and his male-line descendants. It treats the language and implications of letters patent issued/revoked concerning the preservation of specific princes' dynastic rights (e.g. Henri III of France as King of Poland in 1573, Philippe, Duc d'Anjou as King of Spain in 1700 and 1713) as if the Legitimist pov is the correct, the Orleanist the wrong pov. It elides apparent contradictions (e.g., how France's "fundamental laws" applied in 1590 to determine and identify France's king at that point); or European international principles as they were understood at the time of the Treaty of Utrecht with regard to unilateral repudiation of executed treaties (e.g., the 1911 Encyclopedia Britannica's article "Treaties", in listing the 7 characteristics of a valid treaty, notes at #6, "It is sometimes said that a treaty must have a lawful object, but the danger of accepting such a statement is apparent from the use which has been made of it by writers who deny the validity of any cession of national territory...", relevant since treaties to end wars have usually done so by establishing binding international agreements about changed boundaries -- or some other change forbidden by national law); or the post-ancien régime constitutionality of the "un-amendable" nature of any monarchy's laws ("...Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed, That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it"). In short, there are many issues relevant to "Succession to the French throne" which are not addressed at all or are addressed from a pro-Legitimist bias in this article. Thus I tag it POV.

I already addressed this exact same block paragraph in Talk:French dynastic disputes. It fits that page more than this one, so I contest this POV; I hope more specific tags could be placed on the relevant sections. Reigen (talk) 03:24, 21 April 2015 (UTC)

Thanks for addressing some of the issues raised above. It seems to me that they are relevant to the contents of both articles. Not all of these issues have been addressed, however, and until they are the article seems to reflect a biased historical and legal pov. I have enumerated the issues at considerable length above and look forward to seeing them gradually resolved. FactStraight (talk) 09:00, 21 April 2015 (UTC)