Talk:Succession to the Spanish throne

I just added the Duke of Calabria (of the elder line) as the potential heir after Juan Carlos's descendants, since he's the first in line who's not the descendant of a renunciation. But I wonder about our statement that it it impossible to tell who is next in line after the King's descendants. It seems to me that there are essentially three possibilities: 1) only the king's descendants are in the line of succession; 2) the king's eldest sister comes next after his descendants, because all renunciations were invalidated by the new constitution; 3) the renunciations are valid, and the Duke of Calabria is next in line. While it is, perhaps, impossible to judge which of these positions is correct, and it is unlikely to ever have to be determined, I see no reason not to list these three as the only real possibilities (unless there are others that I'm not aware of?) john k 21:34, 27 July 2005 (UTC)

It is absurd to speak about rights of succession of the Infantas Pilar and Margarita, and much more of the Duke of Calabria that the people do not even know it, so then if any of the 10 was not acceding to the throne with rights, the monarchy would be ended in Spain. There would be before a III Republic that a monarchy under the Calabria or people like that.--Joanot 01:32, 7 November 2005 (UTC)

Here is not the place for fortune-telling... СЛУЖБА (talk) 08:25, 12 December 2011 (UTC)

The fact that the practical succession of anyone not descended from Juan Carlos is unlikely does not mean that there is not a legal question of who comes after Irene Urdangarin in the order of succession to the Spanish Throne. I'll ask again, to others who are interested in pedantic legalism - are there any possibilities beyond

1. Irene is last in the order of succession, because nobody besides Juan Carlos's own descendants is in line;
2. All renunciations made under the old constitutions are invalid under the current one, so Juan Carlos's eldest sister is next in line; or
3. All renunciations made under the old constitutions are still valid, and the Duke of Calabria is next in line.

I say again, if those are the three possibilities, we should mention that those are the three possibilities. john k 03:37, 5 November 2006 (UTC)

On whose authority? The Spanish Crown has, presumably, declined to publish an order of succession because it does not know or does not wish to commit itself to an interpretation of the succession law beyond the present king's issue. I think that the "fourth option" is most likely: if don Juan Carlos's descendants become extinct or ineligible, the Cortes will have to vote on who, if anyone, is the rightful successor -- probably after a court case initiated by the descendants of his sister(s) or those of Infante don Carlos. The unique wording of the Spanish Constitution's succession clause has been much discussed. Its reference to "the historic dynasty" implies that others of that dynasty may be potential "successors" to the crown (whence future lawsuits), but it is too vague to crown anyone unambiguously (whence future Cortes votes). Besides, Infanta doña Pilar is believed to have reproached the King for raising their cousin don Carlos to the rank of infante in 1994 when that title was withheld from her popular late husband, so we can only imagine the dynastic quarrel that would ensue from conferring Spain's crown upon don Carlos knowing that his eldest son has wed a commoner without the consent of the King (as have all but one of his sisters) and against his father's wishes -- since marriage to commoners was the grounds for exclusion of don Juan Carlos's sisters and aunts, and their descendants. The article currently shows don Carlos as first in a "presumed" line of successors after don Juan Carlos's descendants, while casting doubt on that status for the King's sisters, which strikes me as an unjustified over-statement. I see nothing wrong, however, with changing the heading from "Presumed" to "Possible" lines of heirs, and adding the three speculative lines of descent, if justified by an appropriate source or stated in a way that does not imply official recognition (I don't know that Wiki should "presume", otherwise). Lethiere 21:17, 28 November 2006 (UTC)

Revert

I reverted an edit which said that the second child of Felipe and Letizia is a girl. If this is true, please add a source. Thanks. Prsgoddess187 01:08, 28 November 2006 (UTC)

I found a source, and reverted the edit back. Prsgoddess187 12:10, 28 November 2006 (UTC)

The line of succession to the Spanish throne is clear

The Crown Prince, Felipe de Borbón y Grecia, is the legal successor to the Spanish Crown. The Spanish constitution (1) is the highest law degree within the legal system of Spain.The "Repeal Provision" point 3 of Spanish Constitution said that "Also repealed any provisions contrary to the provisions of this Constitution.". So, form the approval of the Constitution is the 1st Law on the Spanish Legal Order. Any law contrary to the Constitutions has been repeal. The art. 57.2 of the Spanish Constitution, talking about the Crown Prince "2. The Crown Prince, from his birth or the occurrence of the event giving rise to the call, have the dignity of Prince of Asturias and the other titles traditionally held by the heir to the Crown of Spain". Felipe de Borbón y Grecia (son of the Spanish King Juan Carlos I) is Crown Prince since the proclamation of his father as King on November 22, 1975, received November 1, 1977 the title Prince of Asturias, together with the Prince of Girona and Prince of Viana, corresponding to the firstborn of the Kingdoms of Castile, Aragon and Navarre, whose union formed in the sixteenth century the Spanish monarchy. He holds also the titles of Duke of Montblanc, Count of Cervera and Lord of Balaguer [2], and On 30 January 1986, at the age of 18, he swore allegiance to the Constitution and to the King in the Spanish Parliament, fully accepting his institutional role as successor to the Crown as order the art. 61 of the Spanish Constitution [3].

No, the line of succession is not clear. Nobody has ever disputed that the children of Juan Carlos I are the first heirs in Spain's line of succession -- and that Felipe and his lawful descendants are first among those. What remains in question, as noted in the discussion of john k and Lethiere above, is who would inherit the throne if all of Juan Carlos's descendants died out? Since the present constitution is silent on that point, interpretations based on previous constitutions, laws, or traditions cannot "contradict" it, and therefore are not, ipso facto, moot. See also the discussion of this at Monarchy of Spain's talk page. FactStraight (talk) 19:16, 7 August 2011 (UTC)

It is very clear, and perhaps, the most important thing to consider is the Repeal Provision of the Spanish Constitution. Every Law before to the Spanish Constitution of 1978 is valid ever this law no has any provision contrary to the Constitution. So, if a Law or agreement has any provision contrary to the Constitution is not valid, is repeal (derogada tácitamente). You had to consider only the Constitution of 1978 (you can hear if the Spanish "Ley Salica" is on o repeal or look back to other laws but the reality is the Spain has a hit point with Constitution as Primer Law of the legal System). The Constitution of the 1978 says

"Article 57.

1. . The Crown of Spain shall be inherited by the successors of S. M. Don Juan Carlos I de Borbón, the legitimate heir of the historic dynasty. Succession to the throne shall follow the regular order of primogeniture and representation, the line always having preference over subsequent lines, in the same line, the closer grade over the more remote, in the same grade, the male to female, and the same sex, the older the less.
2. The Crown Prince, from his birth or the occurrence of the event giving rise to the call, have the dignity of Prince of Asturias and the other titles traditionally held by the heir to the Crown of Spain.
3. Extinguish all lines designated by law, the Cortes Generales shall provide for the succession to the Crown in the manner that best suits the interests of Spain.
4. Those persons with right of succession to the throne who marry against the express prohibition of the King and Parliament, remain excluded from succession to the Crown, and their descendants.
5. The abdication and renunciations and any doubt in fact or law that occur in the order of succession to the Crown shall be settled by an organic law."

Consequently If all of children and grandchildren of the Juan Carlos I dies, we need look the art. 57.1; if the "father's Juan Carlos I" line of succession (Juan de Borbón) has this children:

1. - HRH Pilar, 1st Duchess of Badajoz (born 1936)
2. - Juan Carlos I, King of Spain (born 1938)
3. - HRH Margarita, 1st Duchess of Soria, 2nd Duchess of Hernani (born 1939)
4. - HRH Alfonso of Spain (Alfonso Cristino Teresa Angelo Francisco de Asis y Todos los Santos) (1941–1956)

It's clear, can't be HRH Pilar, sister older of the Juan Carlos because she renounced her right of succession upon marriage; this renounces, before constitution, is valid because it isn't contrary to the Spanish Constitution. Neither can be HRH Margarita. Same situation of her sister. Renounces her right of succession upon marriage before constitution.

So, go back to the grandfather of Juan Carlos, and see the children of King Alfonso XIII... remember, Juan de Borbón was the Head of the House of Borbon after the renounces of his brothers Alfonso and Jaime. HRH Beatriz and her sister HRM Maria Cristina renounced upon marriage too; so the nephews of Juan de Borbón are vetted to have renounced the throne their parents.

The only line of succession to the throne available, if they die all the descendants of King Juan Carlos I, would be descediente of the brothers of Alfonso XIII. In fact, The first person called to be King of Spain would HRH Carlos of Spain, Prince of the Two Sicilies, Duke of Calabria, KOGF, KGCHS (Carlos Maria Alfonso Marcel de Borbón-Dos Sicilias y de Borbón-Parma) (born 16 January 1938 in Lausanne) son of Don Alfonso of Bourbon-Two Sicilies, Duke of Calabria (1901–1964) and Princess Alicia of Bourbon-Parma (born 1917), grandson of Infante Alfonso, Duke of Calabria (born 30 November 1901 in Madrid, Spain;[1] died 3 February 1964 in Madrid, Spain) was one of two claimants to the title of the head of the House of Bourbon-Two Sicilies from 1960 until his death in 1964. Alfonso was the son of Prince Carlos of Bourbon-Two Sicilies (1870–1949) and his wife Mercedes, Princess of Asturias (1880–1904), sister of Alfonso XIII of Spain.

I agree with you that the current Spanish constitution can be interpreted so that Infante Carlos of Bourbon-Two-Sicilies, Duke of Calabria would inherit the throne if all of Juan Carlos's legitimate descendants died before him. But that is not the only way to interpret the constitution, therefore the succession after Juan Carlos's descendants is unclear. I also agree that the important constitutional clause is Article 57.1, but you interpret that article to mean "the 'father's Juan Carlos I' line of succession (Juan de Borbón)". And then you conclude that because the daughters of Juan de Borbón (Don Juan, Count of Barcelona) renounced their succession rights in exile to marry non-royal men, the line of succession reaches back one more generation to Alfonso XIII of Spain, who had no brothers, but whose elder sister, Mercedes, Princess of Asturias, has a living, dynastic heir, Infante Carlos, Duke of Calabria. The problem is that Article 57.1 actually says "The Crown of Spain shall be inherited by the successors of His Majesty Don Juan Carlos I de Borbón, the legitimate heir of the historic dynasty." It does not mention Don Juan, nor the siblings of Alfonso XIII. The word "successors" is non-specific, and must be interpreted to be enacted. You say the only correct interpretation makes Infante Carlos the heir-eventual after Juan Carlos I's descendants. I agree that is the best interpretation -- but it is not and has never been the only interpretation. The most common interpretation seems to be that if Juan Carlos I's descendants become extinct, the Cortes would have to choose the successor to the Crown according to the constitutional clause "...any doubt in fact or law that occurs in the order of succession to the Crown shall be settled by an organic law", because only the Cortes can pass laws. The second most popular interpretation of 57.1 seems to be that the throne would go the sisters of Juan Carlos I according to seniority (first Infanta Pilar de Borbón y Borbón and to her descendants, then to Infanta Margarita de Borbón y Borbón and to her descendants). That is because prior to the 1978 monarchical constitution, Spain had no law which permitted dynasts to unilaterally renounce their succession rights for themselves or their descendants -- neither during the Spanish Republic when the infantas signed their renunciations, nor during the Bourbon monarchy under the 1876 constitution, which permitted the heir to the throne to renounce the crown only if the Cortes passed a law to that effect. By this interpretation, since the infantas' renunciations have not been validated by the post-1978 Cortes, they are void. That fact gives rise to yet a third interpretation: since unilateral dynastic renunciations have never been valid, those of Alfonso XIII's first-born son, Infante Jaime de Borbón y Battenberg, Duque de Segovia, have also never been legal. Therefore, if Juan Carlos's descendants become extinct, as the senior agnate of "the historical dynasty", his grandson and heir, Don Luis-Alfonso de Borbón y Martínez-Bordiú dit Duc d'Anjou would become Spain's rightful king. So there are several plausible interpretations, and no authoritative declaration by the Spanish government as to which option would apply. FactStraight (talk) 22:53, 19 August 2011 (UTC)

Louis Alphonse, Duke of Anjou.

If King Juan Carlos I's sisters are included in the Line_of_succession_to_the_Spanish_throne#Presumed_lines, than why is Louis Alphonse, Duke of Anjou not? СЛУЖБА (talk) 07:43, 12 December 2011 (UTC)

Leandro Alfonso Luis de Borbón y Ruiz Moragas

Leandro Alfonso Luis de Borbón y Ruiz Moragas was not in line? --YOMAL SIDOROFF-BIARMSKII (talk) 22:27, 18 June 2016 (UTC)

Religious requirements

Do they have to be Catholic? 62.64.152.154 (talk) 21:50, 24 July 2016 (UTC)