Awaiting a Royal Birth

An article in Le Salon Beige links to Royauté, the website devoted to news about the House of Bourbon. There we learn the welcome news that Prince Louis de Bourbon, duke of Anjou, and his wife Marie-Marguerite are expecting twins next spring. The couple already have one daughter, Her Royal Highness Princess Eugénie (left), born on March 5, 2007.

Turn to this web page for the Latin text of the prayers being offered during the pregnancy of Marie-Marguerite. The page opens with these words:

On November 25, 2009, the Secretariat in France of Monseigneur le Duc d'Anjou confirmed through an official communiqué the rumor that Princess Marie-Marguerite is expecting a happy event. The birth of twins has been announced for late Spring 2010. While awaiting this birth, we are publishing the text of a prayer to obtain for Princess Marie-Marguerite a problem-free pregnancy and, if it please God, the birth of a Dauphin.

The image of the Black Madonna (below), featured on the web page cited above, is from the altar of the church of Notre-Dame-du Puy, in Le-Puy-en-Velay. Those interested can click here for another website administered by a superb photographer named Timothy McCoy, and work your way to the page of photographs of Black Madonnas in France. I counted 15 different statues, each one fascinating in its strangeness and exoticism. Check out his other photos too - truly amazing photography.


A lively debate at Le Salon Beige erupted on news of the future royal birth. It is impossible to translate all the comments, but most of them are jubilant. And everyone hopes and prays for at least ONE boy. But as of now, no one knows if the sex of the babies is known. As you would expect, the debate centers on the issue of legitimacy and the claims of the House of Orléans vs those of the Bourbons. Most LSB readers tend towards the Bourbons:

- It all depends on what you mean by "legitimate heir". The so-called "dynastic quarrel" is mostly about an antagonism between two types of monarchy. It's an either/or situation: either you restore the most Christian monarchy, with its principles, its rules and the one designated by those rules: the eldest Capetian, Louis de Bourbon; or you establish a different monarchy, in the form of a compromise with modern principles, and then, you can put whomever you like at its head. No need to point out to which side coherency and experience push us.

- Bravo!!! Hurray!! I hope it's two boys! After the deaths of François de Bourbon in 1982, Prince Alphonse de Bourbon in 1989, and Prince Gonzalve de Bourbon in 2002, Prince Louis de Bourbon is the only prince of the eldest branch of the Bourbons (after him come the Bourbons-Spain, the Bourbons-Seville, the Bourbons-Sicily, the Bourbons-Parma, the Bourbons-Luxembourg, then "last and least" the house of Orléans). Two boys would ensure the continuity of the legal and legitimate heirs of Prince Henri de Bourbon, Count of Chambord, grandson of Charles X, the last legitimate and consecrated king.

All my wishes to the Royal House of Bourbon. Long live the eldest Capetians. Long live French Christian France!

- (...) The antagonism between Orleans and Legitimists is still as alive as ever, because it is based, as it was in the 19th century, on the antagonism between heteronomy and autonomy, that is, on the recognition (or not) in theory AND in practice of the reign of God over society.

Note: The author goes on to explain how the Orleans dynasty accepts the political autonomy of the Nation, its sovereignty and its national representation, as well as universal suffrage, etc...

All these things come directly from the Revolution, and have always been contrary to God and to the King, in the four corners of the globe.

So, the antagonism is indeed that of two monarchies, an antagonism that is as alive and as well-founded as ever.

Note: Very briefly "heteronomy" refers to the notion that laws are not made by man, but by a higher being, while "autonomy" means that the nation acts in a self-sufficient way, makes its own laws, without reference to God. Hence the Monarchy is "heteronomous" and the Revolution (including all entities that support it, even some monarchies) is "autonomous" - not beholden to God. It's much more complex than that, of course, but for purposes of brevity, that seems to be the issue. Some LSB readers insist Jean d'Orléans has nothing to do with his family's revolutionary past, but others disagree:

- (...) I don't know how old you are, but personally, I have lived long enough to know that this argument is brought out with each new generation: the latest Orleans is fine, better than his father, nothing like his ancestors, etc... (...) At any rate, that is not the question, because if we are all royalists, we are faithful to the principle that we do not choose our king, but we recognize the one who is designated as heir by the basic laws of succession. This heir, as you know, is Louis de Bourbon, the eldest Capetian, the head of the Royal House of Bourbon, the head of the House of France. It is an incontestable biological and juridical fact: he was born first, he's the eldest through the legitimate male line. To debate this principle by referring to foreign or revolutionary rights, is to undermine the very foundation of the monarchy, and to be no longer a royalist.

Long live the most Christian king, the queen, and the twin princes who, I hope, will be handsome boys!

Well, I don't know if any of this is incontestable. And we won't know for a while if there is one prince, two princes, or (Heaven forbid!) no prince, but two princesses. But it is something I love to talk about, however futile or frivolous it may seem to some.

It occurred to me, as I read through this, that when we speak with ardor about "restoring France's sovereignty", we are actually speaking of a REVOLUTIONARY value, not a monarchichal one. A sovereign nation is autonomous, hence does not accept God as the maker of the laws of the Nation. We should, instead, speak of restoring the belief in the reign of God over society. I suppose that in the absolute sense only God is sovereign. The king is God's lieutenant, while the Nation lives in humble deference to the king, who in turn is beholden to God. We speak of "sovereign" today in terms of breaking away from Brussels, but in 1789, it meant breaking from the divine right of kings, and ultimately, breaking with God.

At top, the grand royal coat of arms of France.