Who has rightful claim to the French throne?

Hohenzollern

damn....

Neither have any legitimate claim as actual rulers, but the Bourbons probably have a tiny claim as figurehead monarchs

Fucker on the left even LOOKS like old Nappy. Those are some powerful genes.

The man on the right looks so Italian.

Napoleon has the most aesthetic fave I've ever seen.

*face

Bourbon for sure.

He's 'the great grandson of the King of Spain.

...

Bonapate by right of conquest. Bourbon still has claim by descent, but it depends on how you work the primacy.

This. In the end legitimacy is just a matters of enforcing your claim.

Jokes aisde though, the real dilemma beset on monarchists here is whether to back the Bourbon claim (Capetian descendancy) or Orléans claim (also Capetian).

Picture related.

They all have a rightful claim to the guillotine

No one, as there is no French throne. Imperialism is a mental illness that results in delusional thinking, and causes those suffering from it to fail to understand basic human relations.

>not valois

me.

Napoleon for sure.

All Valois are dead retard, that's why they are not on the throne anymore

This

They both look like CHAD.
REEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEE

Merovingians

Ubermensch genes

>Bourbon or Bonaparte

you guys don't have to chose, Jean-Christophe is son of Charles, Prince Napoléon and Princess Béatrice of Bourbon-Two Sicilies

he is both a Bonaparte and a Bourbon

Bourbon

There is no such thing as a rightful claim to a throne, because there is no such thing as a legitimate monarch.

Bourbon of course.

Him then, honestly. It would be nice if only because it would be good to read long after the fact.

Check out Napoleons family, the fact the French didn't make this man their emperor following WW2 is a travesty.

He is considered the heir to Napoleon but Bourbon-Two Sicilies is a cadet branch to the spanish Bourbons who have renounced all claims to the throne

Bourbons all the way.
Fuck all you rebel fucks who don't respect long dynastic bloodlines.

Daily reminder that Bourbons did nothing wrong and plebs don't deserve cakes.

>Daily reminder that Bourbons did nothing wrong and plebs don't deserve cakes.
No one's disputing that. We're just talking pragmatism here. Bonaparte has right of conquest.

is that justin trudeau on the left?

All original Napoleons genes are dead.
All the rest Bonapartes are larpers like the third one who was cucked by Big Bismarcks Country.

>t. loyalist scum

>t. pleb who fell for a manlet scheme to become false monarch.
how botato are you?

>t. anglo revisionist

Doesn't matter.
I mean hell, none of it matters too much. It'd always come back to whomever can take and hold it. The Bonapartes are just the latest, and thus the more recent claim.

>false monarch.
In what way?

The Crown of France only passes to and through the agnatic descendants of Hugh Capet.

Until it doesn't.

We need a new dynasty desu

Ad preferably a Catholic Sedevacantist or an Orthodox

>an Orthodox

>Catholic
>Sedevacantist
Pick one.

Still, it grants him *some* extra degree of legitimacy.

The French Revolution fundamentally reformed the character of France, though.

kys desu

Sedevacantists have the greatest birthrate among the whites, and they're doctrinally pure

>en.wikipedia.org/wiki/David_Somerset,_11th_Duke_of_Beaufort

Why the Maison d'Anjou would be claiming the French throne ?

>Sedevacantists have the greatest birthrate among the whites,
Which is lovely.
>and they're doctrinally pure
Lolno. It is by every definition a heresy.

What I'm more curious about more than anything is why multiple European countries haven't reinstated their monarchies already. I know that wars were fought to get rid of many of them, but at this point in time it's not like they'd have any power at all, they'd simply be figure heads. I mean if you think about it from an economic point of view, having a royal family and things associated with them would bring it a great deal of money, especially if you turn everything related into a tourist trap. Americans/Chinese ect. would suck that shit up like they do with most other royals. Is it even doable?

Three guesses why (((not))).

This

He's like a real life Aragorn, he's the heir of Isildur(Capet)

he must reclaim the throne and drive out the evil marxist hordes

The Bastard is already in place.

Killing their king is a huge part of French identity and the French revolution is seen as the birth of France as a nation.

Napoleon I doesn't really count .because he was kinda like a Caesar figure, who fought for the Revolution/enlightenment.

Napoleon assumed power as a military leader and the leader of the French Consulate. He didn't gain power through a claim to the throne or any sort of attachment to the old regime (if he did, a significant amount of the people would probably revolt including military leaders). The creation of the French Empire was a response to the Jacobins and Bourbon loyalists who opposed him.

Despite this, he was crowned Emperor of France with the proper coronation procedures and was later crowned King of Italy with the Iron Crown of Lombardy. He definitely has claim to French rule based on these events taking place without formal opposition.

The Bourbons would have a claim to their dynasty's former control of the Kingdom of France/France under the Bourbon Restoration kings, and the Bonapartes would have a claim based on the First and Second French Empires. The Bonapartes would have a stronger claim based on being the most recent ruling monarchy, but the Bourbons would have a stronger claim based on dynastic achievement and dynastic length.

The July Monarchy's ruling family established by Louis Philippe I (Bourbon cadet branch member, son of the Duke of Orléans) would also have a claim to the throne of France, but it would definitely be weaker than either of these claims.

>being a papist

Of course they are Chads, Chads are born and bred to rule. You'd rather have some incel neckbeard ruling the nation?

Better than being a Sedevacantist. Literally Cognitive Dissonance: The Sect.

The first kings gained power by military might also. But after the first king won right of conquest the others inheireted, so Napoleon's descendants are just as legitimate as the Bourbon.

With Bourbons in power, Spain went downhill with no breaks. They didnt do nothing but living their own lives while the country lost his empire, and suffered civil wars during XIX and the one of XX century.

So, i would choose Bonapartes.

The Bonapartes have a tendency to not be fucking retards, and getting to power through the will of the people.

Anyone can be emperor of the French, no Bonaparte family member would ever claim they have a blood right or a dynastic right to the throne.

>being a Catholic
>being a papist

Choose any two.

>Bonaparte are more legitimate than Capetians

Kys

>muh we are the real christians the pope is an imposter and an antichrist we get to cherrypick which ecumenical councils are legit
Sedevacantism is literally protestantism.

napoleon looks remarkably like the original
bourbon looks like an arab

If you put it like that, every fucking eresy is protestantism.

>we get to cherrypick which ecumenical councils

implying

Sedevacantists just stayed true to the Sacred Doctrine while "Catholics" are heretics and follow a council that recognize freedom of religion, human's right, and that kikes and mudshits are bros

Anyway the "catholic" church is dying from this kike poison and soon only the Sedevacantists will remain

>every fucking protestantism is heresy
Fixed