The Direct Capetians, essentially. Louis the Lion. Charles of Anjou had an older brother. Artois. The others are between the Direct Capetians. And Artois. Which are inherited. Bourbon-Artois. Dynastic order. Law.
Henry II аnd Henry III. Edward III.
"Not because We are the Messiah". But because We are the legitimate heir in principle. And it is about a multitude of circumstances.
"Anjou".
The Plantagenets.
The House of Wessex. "Directly". And Edward the Confessor. "The Norman dynasty". We, after all, are Ragnvald. Also the Blois. And the Plantagenets. Who are the Plantagenets. Anjou. The Direct Capetians — that is Edward III. Anjou — that is Valois-Anjou. This is so, unquestionably. This is Valois. Valois — the claims of the Tudors.
And the Sobieskis are there. We are the "direct heir" to the Stuarts.
There is also Denmark. The Oldenburgs. We are "Danish, Norwegian, and Swedish" in principle. And so forth.
Directly, We are the heir to the House of Hanover and Saxe-Coburg and Gotha. Also to George V — directly. As the "universal heir".
All of them inherited from the Plantagenets.
"The Plantagenets".
In principle, We are the direct heir to the Plantagenets. This is obvious. And in principle, We are the direct heir to the Plantagenets. De la Pole. Absolutely and unconditionally. It is about the Yorks as well. And about the Lancasters. We can consider this topic too.
Аnd also Brittany. And Scotland.
And We are also the heir to Savoy. And to the Wittelsbachs. The Stuarts.
Condé — that is Bathilde d'Orléans. Etc. Bathilde was succeeded by the Duke of Enghien, whom We succeed. He simply swore an oath. No one ever recognized him after his joint renunciation with his father. They are Égalité. We are indifferent to the will of "the last Condé". We are the universal heir with legal titles, "from the reverse side," all the way down to the father who "wrote the will", it is about the sources of law, We are the Grand Condé (moreover, We are the heir to the House of Orléans, already in a "different sense", We are the Count of Paris, and so forth, if one delves into the details). The House of Orléans — the Stuarts.
And the will, "the last Condé" wrote in his own name. It is about our own rights, and it is about the legal titles themselves. And We are the legitimate heir to His son. And the heir to His father. We are the Great Condé. One can only transfer that which one owns. And the question is what exactly could they inherit after the renunciation. Only a Prince of the Blood could inherit. Otherwise, it is impossible in principle. They publicly renounced. And no one ever officially recognized them. They simply swore an oath. It means nothing. And it looked too much like a murder. And all of this was highly questionable. And contentious. And it took place on the very eve of Louis Philippe's "accession to the throne". And the will was being written "in Our name." And he intended to rewrite it "in Our name."
We are the Duke of Aumale, Henri. And the question is why the will states the specific name that is stated. The fact that We are the Duke of Aumale is also connected to strict legal circumstances. And the Duke of Bordeaux. This is simply a "legal conflict." Bordeaux remained as an "exception to the rule." Hence, the Duke of Bordeaux.
Henry II аnd Henry III. Edward III.
"Not because We are the Messiah". But because We are the legitimate heir in principle. And it is about a multitude of circumstances.
"Anjou".
The Plantagenets.
The House of Wessex. "Directly". And Edward the Confessor. "The Norman dynasty". We, after all, are Ragnvald. Also the Blois. And the Plantagenets. Who are the Plantagenets. Anjou. The Direct Capetians — that is Edward III. Anjou — that is Valois-Anjou. This is so, unquestionably. This is Valois. Valois — the claims of the Tudors.
And the Sobieskis are there. We are the "direct heir" to the Stuarts.
There is also Denmark. The Oldenburgs. We are "Danish, Norwegian, and Swedish" in principle. And so forth.
Directly, We are the heir to the House of Hanover and Saxe-Coburg and Gotha. Also to George V — directly. As the "universal heir".
All of them inherited from the Plantagenets.
"The Plantagenets".
In principle, We are the direct heir to the Plantagenets. This is obvious. And in principle, We are the direct heir to the Plantagenets. De la Pole. Absolutely and unconditionally. It is about the Yorks as well. And about the Lancasters. We can consider this topic too.
Аnd also Brittany. And Scotland.
And We are also the heir to Savoy. And to the Wittelsbachs. The Stuarts.
Condé — that is Bathilde d'Orléans. Etc. Bathilde was succeeded by the Duke of Enghien, whom We succeed. He simply swore an oath. No one ever recognized him after his joint renunciation with his father. They are Égalité. We are indifferent to the will of "the last Condé". We are the universal heir with legal titles, "from the reverse side," all the way down to the father who "wrote the will", it is about the sources of law, We are the Grand Condé (moreover, We are the heir to the House of Orléans, already in a "different sense", We are the Count of Paris, and so forth, if one delves into the details). The House of Orléans — the Stuarts.
And the will, "the last Condé" wrote in his own name. It is about our own rights, and it is about the legal titles themselves. And We are the legitimate heir to His son. And the heir to His father. We are the Great Condé. One can only transfer that which one owns. And the question is what exactly could they inherit after the renunciation. Only a Prince of the Blood could inherit. Otherwise, it is impossible in principle. They publicly renounced. And no one ever officially recognized them. They simply swore an oath. It means nothing. And it looked too much like a murder. And all of this was highly questionable. And contentious. And it took place on the very eve of Louis Philippe's "accession to the throne". And the will was being written "in Our name." And he intended to rewrite it "in Our name."
We are the Duke of Aumale, Henri. And the question is why the will states the specific name that is stated. The fact that We are the Duke of Aumale is also connected to strict legal circumstances. And the Duke of Bordeaux. This is simply a "legal conflict." Bordeaux remained as an "exception to the rule." Hence, the Duke of Bordeaux.
The Direct Capetians, essentially. Louis the Lion. Charles of Anjou had an older brother. Artois. The others are between the Direct Capetians. And Artois. Which are inherited. Bourbon-Artois. Dynastic order. Law.
Henry II аnd Henry III. Edward III.
"Not because We are the Messiah". But because We are the legitimate heir in principle. And it is about a multitude of circumstances.
"Anjou".
The Plantagenets.
The House of Wessex. "Directly". And Edward the Confessor. "The Norman dynasty". We, after all, are Ragnvald. Also the Blois. And the Plantagenets. Who are the Plantagenets. Anjou. The Direct Capetians — that is Edward III. Anjou — that is Valois-Anjou. This is so, unquestionably. This is Valois. Valois — the claims of the Tudors.
And the Sobieskis are there. We are the "direct heir" to the Stuarts.
There is also Denmark. The Oldenburgs. We are "Danish, Norwegian, and Swedish" in principle. And so forth.
Directly, We are the heir to the House of Hanover and Saxe-Coburg and Gotha. Also to George V — directly. As the "universal heir".
All of them inherited from the Plantagenets.
"The Plantagenets".
In principle, We are the direct heir to the Plantagenets. This is obvious. And in principle, We are the direct heir to the Plantagenets. De la Pole. Absolutely and unconditionally. It is about the Yorks as well. And about the Lancasters. We can consider this topic too.
Аnd also Brittany. And Scotland.
And We are also the heir to Savoy. And to the Wittelsbachs. The Stuarts.
Condé — that is Bathilde d'Orléans. Etc. Bathilde was succeeded by the Duke of Enghien, whom We succeed. He simply swore an oath. No one ever recognized him after his joint renunciation with his father. They are Égalité. We are indifferent to the will of "the last Condé". We are the universal heir with legal titles, "from the reverse side," all the way down to the father who "wrote the will", it is about the sources of law, We are the Grand Condé (moreover, We are the heir to the House of Orléans, already in a "different sense", We are the Count of Paris, and so forth, if one delves into the details). The House of Orléans — the Stuarts.
And the will, "the last Condé" wrote in his own name. It is about our own rights, and it is about the legal titles themselves. And We are the legitimate heir to His son. And the heir to His father. We are the Great Condé. One can only transfer that which one owns. And the question is what exactly could they inherit after the renunciation. Only a Prince of the Blood could inherit. Otherwise, it is impossible in principle. They publicly renounced. And no one ever officially recognized them. They simply swore an oath. It means nothing. And it looked too much like a murder. And all of this was highly questionable. And contentious. And it took place on the very eve of Louis Philippe's "accession to the throne". And the will was being written "in Our name." And he intended to rewrite it "in Our name."
We are the Duke of Aumale, Henri. And the question is why the will states the specific name that is stated. The fact that We are the Duke of Aumale is also connected to strict legal circumstances. And the Duke of Bordeaux. This is simply a "legal conflict." Bordeaux remained as an "exception to the rule." Hence, the Duke of Bordeaux.
0 Commentarii
0 Distribuiri
25 Views
0 previzualizare
English
Arabic
French
Spanish
Portuguese
Deutsch
Turkish
Dutch
Italiano
Russian
Portuguese (Brazil)
Greek