Anjouists claim that Princes of the Blood have a blood right that supersedes the requirement that the king be French or that Princes of the Blood are automatically French because they have the “blood of France.”
We have already presented the legal arguments for the Unionist case, but in this article it is our aim to present the Unionist case from Tradition, a belief that the state and its laws are of divine origin.
Up to now, in the mouths of our Kings, we have not put this maxim, which supposes that a Prince is incapable of succeeding to a crown to which the voice of [62v] nature calls him because he is born or remains in a foreign country. It has been well argued that the right of aubaine must take place against the sovereigns themselves, when they wished to collect a particular succession opened in this Kingdom, and Mr. Dupuy, who was the great advocate of this opinion, with little success in the cause of Mantoüe, is himself forced to confess that this maxim is new, that it was born at the earliest under the reign of Charles, and that before that time, we find several examples of the opposite.
It is true that the idea of excluding foreigners from the crown was relatively “new” to France but so too was the concept of the Fundamental Laws, which emerged in the 16th century.
Like the rest of the rules that came about to make up what became the Fundamental Laws, the nationality rule came about by history and custom. This particular rule came about following the Hundred Years’ War, which was fought the keep the kingdom out of English hands.
All of the rules that made up the Fundamental Laws were “new” at some point. The exclusion of women was new to the 14th century. The Salic law was rediscovered in the 15th century, and Catholicism was added in the 16th century. Being new does not make a law any less valid.
It is empirically true that the Fundamental Laws came about by history and precedent, but it is wrong to only have an empirical view of them. They are not simply made by man. No, they are made organically under the guiding hand of Divine Providence. The Fundamental Laws are of divine origin. They are the sacred laws by which God calls a prince to the throne of France:
By me kings reign and lawgivers establish justice; By me princes govern and nobles; all the rulers of the earth.1.
We have already stated before that the Salic law was justified as keeping the kingdom out of “Foreign hands.” Likewise the Judgment of Le Maistre states that putting the throne in “Foreign hands” is “against the laws of the kingdom” and that giving the throne to a foreign prince is “contrary to the Salic law.” Thus, it is impossible for the divinely ordained Salic law to call a foreigner to the throne of France.
Ultimately, however, Anjouism is based on a blood argument. They say that the Spanish Bourbons are “French by blood” or have the “Blood of France” — that is to say the blood of the House of France.
The problem with Anjouism is that it is not the blood itself that is important. Blood is a vehicle. Regal and noble qualities are not based in blood, but are transferred through the blood.2.
It is true that God calls the destined king to the throne, but this is done by hereditary principles because the law, which God ordained, says so. It is not the blood itself which grants any right to anyone, nor does the blood grant regal qualities. Such qualities come from God and are merely transferred through the blood.Ibid.
Further, there is the traditional understanding of the nation. While blood is important it is the spiritual component that matters the most. The spirit supersedes the blood Ibid..
And while the nationality rule may have been “new” to France, it was not a new idea in general. In fact it was a rather ancient idea:
When you have come into the land which the Lord, your God, is giving you, and have occupied it and settled in it, should you then decide to have a king over you like all the surrounding nations, you shall set that man over you as your king whom the Lord, your God, chooses. He whom you set over you as king must be your kinsman; a foreigner, who is no kin of yours, you may not set over you.3.
While blood is important to determining who is a Jew, the spiritual quality supersedes. It is possible to convert, as evidenced by the conversion of Ruth and the conversions mentioned in Esther:
And many of the peoples of the land embraced Judaism, for they were seized with a fear of the Jews.4.
This spiritual component mattered because foreigners practised foreign ways and worshiped foreign gods and were idolaters.
Just as in the case of Israel there was a spiritual quality of who was or wasn’t French.
A Frenchman who permanently left France could be considered a foreigner. This is because they left “sans esprit de retour” (without the spirit of return). The use of the word “esprit,” often translated as “intent” in this context, is important.
It shows recognition of a French spirit — that is to say that there is a spiritual quality to who is or isn’t a Frenchman. A person who permanently left France, was quitting the French spirit. The French spirit being the customs, mores, and ways of France. This falls under the definition of “spirit” because they are intangible and immaterial.
This is further evidenced by the use of jus soli to determine if someone was French. A person born in France was more likely to be raised in France. This means they would be of the French spirit. And if they permanently left, of course, they would cease to be of the French spirit and would be foreigners.
This means when the Spanish Bourbons permanently left France, and came to reside and be born in Spain, they left and quit the French spirit and became foreigners. This means, under the Salic law and the Fundamental Laws of the kingdom, the supernatural element which calls princes to the French throne is absent from the blood of the Spanish Bourbons. Therefore, the right to the French throne does not flow through the bloodline of the Spanish Bourbons.
Further, it must be said that Anjouism is a blood-obsessed, anti-Traditional ideology.
1. Proverbs 8:15-17 New American Bible (Catholic Study Bible) 2nd Edition. 2006.
2. Julius Evola. Revolt Against the Modern World. 57 (Chapter 9)
3. Deuteronomy 17:14-15.
4. Esther 8:17