Who established the Jehovah's Witnesses?

Jehovah's Witnesses originated as a branch of the Bible Student movement, which developed in the United States in the 1870s among followers of Christian Restorationist minister Charles Taze Russell. Bible Student missionaries were sent to England in 1881 and the first overseas branch was opened in London in 1900. The group took on the name International Bible Students Association and by 1914 it was also active in Canada, Germany, Australia and other countries. The movement split into several rival organizations after Russell's death in 1916, with one—led by Russell's successor, Joseph "Judge" Rutherford—retaining control of both his magazine, "The Watch Tower", and his legal and publishing corporation, the Watch Tower Bible and Tract Society of Pennsylvania.

History of Jehovah's Witnesses

Under Rutherford's direction, the International Bible Students Association introduced significant doctrinal changes that resulted in many long-term members leaving the organization. The group regrew rapidly, particularly in the mid-1930s with the introduction of new preaching methods. In 1931, the name "Jehovah's witnesses" was adopted, further cutting ties with Russell's earlier followers. Substantial organizational changes continued as congregations and teaching programs worldwide came under centralized control. Further refinements of its doctrines led to the prohibition of blood transfusions by members, abandonment of the cross in worship, rejection of Christmas and birthday celebrations and the view of the biblical Armageddon as a global war by God that will destroy the wicked and restore peace on earth. In 1945 the Watch Tower Society, which Russell had founded as a publishing house, amended its charter to state that its purposes included preaching about God's Kingdom, acting as a servant and governing agency of Jehovah's Witnesses and sending out missionaries and teachers for the public worship of God and Jesus Christ.

The denomination was banned in Canada in World War I, and in Germany, the Soviet Union, Canada and Australia during World War II; members suffered widespread persecution and mob violence in some of those countries and in the United States. The group initiated dozens of high-profile legal actions in the United States and Canada between 1938 and 1955 to establish the right of members to sell literature from door to door, abstain from flag salute ceremonies and gain legal recognition as wartime conscientious objectors. Members of the denomination suffered persecution in some African countries in the 1960s and 1970s; since 2004 the group has suffered a series of official bans in Russia.

About 1869 17-year-old Russell attended a meeting in Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania of a group he called "Second Adventists" and heard Advent Christian preacher Jonas Wendell expound his views on Bible prophecy. Wendell, influenced by the teachings of William Miller, rejected traditional Christian beliefs of the "immortal soul" and a literal hell and interpreted scriptures in the books of Daniel and Revelation to predict that Christ would return in 1873. Russell became convinced that God would reveal his purpose in the last days of the "Gospel age" and formed an independent Bible study group in Pittsburgh. He rejected Adventist teachings that the purpose of Christ's return was to destroy the earth and instead formed the view that Christ had died to pay a "ransom price" to atone for sinful humans, intending to restore humans to Edenic perfection with the prospect of living forever. Like Wendell, he rejected the concept of "hellfire" and the immortal soul. In the mid-1870s, he published 50,000 copies of a pamphlet, "The Object and Manner of Our Lord's Return" explaining his views and his belief that Christ would return invisibly before the battle of Armageddon. He later acknowledged the influence of Adventist ministers George Storrs (who had earlier predicted Christ's return in 1844) and George Stetson in the formation of his doctrines; author James Penton claims he also strongly reflected the teachings of Philadelphia Lutheran pastor Joseph Seiss.

In January 1876 Russell read an issue of "Herald of the Morning", a periodical edited by Adventist preacher Nelson H. Barbour of Rochester, New York, but which had almost ceased publication because of dwindling subscriptions. Barbour, like other Adventists, had earlier applied the biblical time prophecies of Miller and Wendell to calculate that Christ would return in 1874 to bring a "bonfire"; when this failed to eventuate he and co-writer J.H. Paton had concluded that though their calculations of the "timing" of Christ's return were correct, they had erred about its "manner". They subsequently decided that Christ's return, or "parousia", was invisible, and that Christ had therefore been present since 1874. Russell "rejoiced" to find that others had reached the same conclusion on the "parousia" and decided their application of Adventist time prophecies — which he said he had "so long despised" — merited further examination. He met Barbour, accepted his detailed and complex arguments on prophetic chronology and provided him with funds to write a book that combined their views.

The book, "Three Worlds and the Harvest of This World", was published in early 1877. It articulated ideas that remained the teachings of Russell's associates for the next 40 years, many of which are still embraced by Jehovah's Witnesses: it identified a 2520-year-long era called "the Gentile Times", which would end in 1914, and broke from Adventist teachings by advancing Russell's concept of "restitution" — that all humankind since Adam would be resurrected to the earth and given the opportunity for eternal perfect human life. Russell claimed it was the first book to combine biblical end-time prophecies with the concept of restitution. It discussed the concept of parallel dispensations, which held that there were prophetic parallels between the Jewish and Gospel ages, and suggested the "new creation" would begin 6000 years after Adam's creation, a point in time he believed had been reached in 1872. It also revealed the authors' belief that Christ had left heaven in 1874 to return to earth and their expectation that God's "harvest" of the "saints" would end in early 1878, when they would all be taken to heaven. Russell, Barbour and Paton began traveling to hold public meetings to discuss their beliefs. For Russell, it was not enough: "Noticing how quickly people seemed to forget what they had heard, it soon became evident that while the meetings were useful in awakening interest, a monthly journal was needed to hold that interest and develop it." He provided Barbour with additional funds to resurrect "The Herald of the Morning". Russell severed his relationship with the magazine in July, 1879 after Barbour publicly disputed the concept of the ransom. He began publishing his own monthly magazine, "Zion's Watch Tower and Herald of Christ's Presence" (now known as "The Watchtower"), which he sent to all the subscribers of the "Herald", disputing Barbour's teaching.

In 1881, Zion's Watch Tower Tract Society was formed as an unincorporated administrative agency for the purpose of disseminating tracts, papers, doctrinal treatises and Bibles, with "Pastor" Russell, as he was by then called, as secretary and William Henry Conley as president. Three years later, on December 15, 1884, Russell became the president of the society when it was legally incorporated in Pennsylvania. He said the corporation was "not a'religious society' in the ordinary meaning of this term," explaining: "This is a business association merely... a business convenience in disseminating the truth." Russell began to write a stream of articles, books, pamphlets and sermons, which by his death totaled 50,000 printed pages, with almost 20 million copies of his books printed and distributed around the world. In 1886, he wrote "The Divine Plan of the Ages", a 424-page book that was the first of what became a six-volume series called "Millennial Dawn," later renamed "Studies in the Scriptures," which established his fundamental doctrines. (As a consequence, the Bible Students were sometimes called "Millennial Dawnists".)

The first study groups or congregations were established in 1879, and within a year more than 30 of them were meeting for six-hour study sessions under Russell's direction, to examine the Bible and his writings. The groups were autonomous "ecclesia", an organizational structure Russell regarded as a return to "primitive simplicity". In an 1882 "Watch Tower" article he said his nationwide community of study groups was "strictly unsectarian and consequently recognize no sectarian name... we have no creed (fence) to bind us together or to keep others out of our company. The Bible is our only standard, and its teachings our only creed." He added: "We are in fellowship with all Christians in whom we can recognize the Spirit of Christ." Two years later he said the only appropriate names for his group would be "Church of Christ", "Church of God" or "Christians". He concluded: "By whatsoever names men may call us, it matters not to us; we acknowledge none other name than 'the only name given under heaven and among men' — Jesus Christ. We call ourselves simply Christians." In 1895, discussing the best form of meeting to study his writings, Russell warned: "Beware of organization. It is wholly unnecessary. The Bible rules will be the only rules you will need. Do not seek to bind others' consciences, and do not permit others to bind yours."

Elders and deacons were elected by congregations and Russell tolerated a great latitude of belief among members. He discouraged formal disciplinary procedures by congregation elders, claiming this was beyond their authority, instead recommending that an individual who continued in a wrong course be judged by the entire ecclesia, or congregation, which could ultimately "withdraw from him its fellowship". Disfellowshipping did not mean the wrongdoer was shunned in all social circumstances or by all Bible Students.

In 1894 Russell introduced the role of "pilgrim" workers, men chosen for their maturity, meekness and Bible knowledge, who would visit congregations for up to three days when requested, giving talks. The pilgrims, who initially served part-time but later became full-time workers, also delivered talks at conventions.

From 1895, he recommended that congregations study his "Studies in the Scriptures" paragraph-by-paragraph to learn the "truth" he had discovered, and in 1905 he recommended replacing verse-by-verse Bible studies with what he called "Berean Studies" of topics he chose.

Russell advertised for 1000 preachers in 1881, and encouraged all who were members of "the body of Christ" to go forth as "colporteurs" or evangelizers and preach to their neighbors in order to gather the remainder of the "little flock" of saints before they were called to heaven. Colporteurs (renamed "pioneers" in the 1930s) left householders with a copy of Russell's 130-page booklet "Food For Thinking Christians" and a sample copy of "Zion's Watch Tower" and returned days later to retrieve the book or accept a payment for it. The workers received a commission on the sale, but Russell warned them to concentrate less on the money than on the task of spreading the truth.

When a Pittsburgh newspaper's publication of the full text of Russell's 1903 debates with Methodist minister Dr E. L. Eaton resulted in a huge demand for copies, several newspapers began printing weekly sermons by Russell. By 1907 21 million copies of his sermons were being printed a year in 11 U.S. newspapers. Russell entered a contract with a newspaper syndicate to give his sermons wider coverage and by December 1909 they were appearing in 400 papers to a weekly readership of 2.5 million. By 1910 his sermons were supplied to more than 1000 newspapers, some of which billed him as "the people's favorite preacher", and a peak of 2024 papers in the U.S., Canada, Britain, South Africa and Australia was reached in 1913. The publicity, including press coverage of annual overseas tours between 1908 and 1913, gave Russell a measure of international celebrity, prompting letters of concern by Bible Students over his supposed ostentatiousness, which in turn led Russell to defend his mode of transport and accommodation.

In 1914 Russell released an eight-hour-long film, "The Photo-Drama of Creation", that attempted to portray chronologically the history of the world from creation to the millennial reign of Christ. The film, accompanied by a gramophone soundtrack, was screened for free in two four-hour sittings around the world, attracting more than 1.2 million patrons in Britain in 1914 alone. The cost of the production and screenings was so high it created financial difficulties for the society, but by Russell's death it was reported that the film had been seen by more than nine million people.

Two missionaries were sent to England in 1881 and overseas branches were opened in London (1900), Germany (1903) and Australia and Switzerland (1904). The Watch Tower Society's headquarters were transferred to Brooklyn, New York in 1908.
In 1910 Russell introduced the name "International Bible Students Association" as a means of identifying his worldwide community of Bible study groups. The name was also used when advertising and conducting conventions of Russell's followers.

The first foreign-language edition of "Zion's Watch Tower" was published in 1883 when Russell produced a sample copy in Swedish and in 1885 the magazine was also translated into German for German-speaking Pennsylvanians.

By 1904, Russell's doctrinal development was almost complete. His sixth and final part of "Studies in the Scriptures", "The New Creation", established that Revelation 7 spoke of two heavenly classes of Christians — 144,000 who would serve as a royal priesthood with Christ and a Great Company who would be brought to perfection on a lesser plane, similar to that of angels, serving the 144,000. He believed that 1878 marked the "fall of Babylon", when God officially judged that Christendom had proven unfaithful. He believed the "time of the end" in Daniel 12 ran from 1799 to 1914, that Christ had returned to earth in 1874, began his reign in 1878 and that from that date the anointed had been resurrected to heaven at their death. He initially taught that Armageddon had begun in 1874, which would culminate in worldwide anarchy and the overthrow of all political rulership in 1914 at the conclusion of the "times of the Gentiles", but by 1897 began to teach that Armageddon would instead begin in 1914. The earthly part of God's kingdom would be administered from Jerusalem in a re-established nation of Israel and under the control of the resurrected ancient Jewish prophets. All of mankind would over time be resurrected to earth in reverse order of death, Adam and Eve being the last, and be given the instruction and guidance necessary to prove themselves obedient to God in order to attain eternal life. Early in the resurrection, "ancient worthies" including Abraham, Isaac and Jacob would be raised to occupy positions of overseers and representatives of the invisible heavenly government ruling from Jerusalem. The Millennial Age, which he believed had begun in 1874, would run to 2874 or 2914 AD, when a test of earth's inhabitants would decide their ultimate destinies, to life or everlasting death.

In 1905 Paul S. L. Johnson, one of the traveling "Pilgrim" speakers and a former Lutheran minister, pointed out to Russell that his doctrines on the New Covenant had undergone a complete reversal: until 1880 he had taught that the New Covenant would be inaugurated only after the last of the 144,000 anointed Christians had been taken to heaven, but since 1881 he had written that it was already in force. Russell reconsidered the question and in January 1907 wrote several "Watch Tower" articles reaffirming his 1880 position—that "the new covenant belongs exclusively to the coming age"—adding that the church had no mediator, but that Christ was the "advocate". He also taught that Christians making up the 144,000 would join Christ as a "joint heir" and assistant mediator during the millennium.

On October 24, 1909 former Watch Tower Society secretary-treasurer E.C. Henninges, who was by then the Australian branch manager based in Melbourne, wrote Russell an open letter of protest trying to persuade him to abandon the teaching, and calling on Bible Students to examine its legitimacy. When Russell refused, Henninges and most of the Melbourne congregation left Russell's movement to form the New Covenant Fellowship. Hundreds of the estimated 10,000 U.S. Bible Students also left, including pilgrim M. L. McPhail, a member of the Chicago Bible Students, and A. E. Williamson of Brooklyn, forming the New Covenant Believers.

Russell died on October 31, 1916, in Pampa, Texas during a cross-country preaching trip. For the next 10 years, the Watch Tower Society continued to teach the view that he had fulfilled the roles of the "Laodicean Messenger" of Revelation 3:14–22 and the "Faithful and Wise Servant" of Matthew 24:45.

At the corporation's annual general meeting on January 6, 1917, Joseph Franklin Rutherford, the Society's legal counsel, was elected as Russell's successor, with new by-laws passed to strengthen the president's authority. Within months, four of the Society's seven directors claimed he was acting without consulting the board and described him as "dogmatic, authoritarian and secretive". A directors' meeting in June proposed returning control of the Society to the board, but at a stormy five-hour meeting on July 17, 1917, Rutherford announced he had appointed four new directors to replace the four who had opposed him, claiming they had no legal status on the board because of conflict with Pennsylvania law. At the same meeting Rutherford surprised the headquarters staff and most of the directors by announcing the release of the book "The Finished Mystery", dealing with the prophecies of the books of Revelation and Ezekiel and based on Russell's writings. The book, written by Bible Students Clayton J. Woodworth and George H. Fisher, was described as the "posthumous work of Russell" and the seventh volume of "Studies in the Scriptures". It was an immediate best-seller and was translated into six languages.

Rutherford and the ousted directors published a number of newsletters through 1917 and 1918 attacking each other and some congregations split into opposing groups of those loyal either to the president or those he had expelled. Rutherford staged a purge within the Brooklyn headquarters to force out those not wholeheartedly on his side and required those who remained to sign an oath of allegiance to him. He was re-elected as president in 1918 with a big majority, but by mid-1919 about one in seven Bible Students had left, forming such groups as The Stand Fast Bible Students Association, Laymen's Home Missionary Movement, Dawn Bible Students Association, Pastoral Bible Institute, Elijah Voice Movement and Eagle Society. Subscriptions to "The Watch Tower" also fell from 45,000 to fewer than 3000 between 1914 and 1918.

Rutherford introduced a vast advertising campaign to expose the "unrighteousness" of religions and their alliances with "beastly" governments, expanding on claims in "The Finished Mystery" that patriotism was akin to murder. The campaign provoked anger among the clergy and governments in North America and Europe, where Bible Students began to be arrested, mobbed and tarred and feathered. On February 12, 1918 "The Finished Mystery" was banned by the Canadian government for what a Winnipeg newspaper described as "seditious and antiwar statements". On February 24 in Los Angeles Rutherford gave the first of his talk series "Millions Now Living May Never Die" (the title of the talk was changed five weeks later to "Millions Now Living Will Never Die") in which he attacked the clergy, describing them as "the most reprehensible men on earth for the great war that is now afflicting mankind". Three days later the Army Intelligence Bureau seized the Society's Los Angeles offices and on March 4 the US government ordered the removal of seven pages of "The Finished Mystery" if distribution was to continue. In early May 1918 US Attorney General Thomas Watt Gregory condemned the book as dangerous propaganda and days later warrants were issued for the arrest of Rutherford and seven other Watch Tower directors and officers on charges of sedition under the Espionage Act amid claims they were conspiring to cause disloyalty and encouraging the refusal of military duty. On June 21 seven of them, including Rutherford, were sentenced to 20 years' imprisonment. They were released on bail in March 1919 after an appeals court ruled they had been wrongly convicted and in May 1920 the government announced all charges had been dropped.

On his release from prison, Rutherford began a major reorganization of Bible Student activities. The Watch Tower Society set up its own printing establishment and in 1919 Rutherford founded the magazine "The Golden Age" (now "Awake!"), which the Bible Students began distributing publicly in response to an increasing emphasis by the Brooklyn headquarters on door-to-door preaching. Brooklyn appointed a "director" in each congregation in 1919, and a year later directed all congregation members who participated in the preaching work to report weekly on their witnessing activity. As the Bible Students' preaching work expanded, Rutherford moved to take greater control over their message in a bid to unify the message and become the spokesman for the organization.

Major annual conventions were organized from 1922 and 1928, which were as much publicity events as spiritual gatherings. At an eight-day assembly at Cedar Point, Ohio in 1922 he launched a series of international conventions under the theme "Advertise the King and Kingdom", attracting crowds of up to 20,000, who were urged to "herald the message far and wide". "Behold the King!" Rutherford told conventioners. "You are his publicity agents." He stressed that the prime purpose of all Bible Students was to preach publicly in fulfillment of Matthew 24:14, especially in the form of door-to-door evangelism with the Society's publications, rather than prayer, meditation or Bible study. The traditional Bible Student prayer and testimony meetings were divided into two parts with one becoming a "service meeting", devoted to promoting public preaching. In 1924 he expanded his means of spreading the Watch Tower message with the start of 15-minute radio broadcasts, initially from WBBR, based on Staten Island, and eventually via a network of as many as 480 radio stations. A 1931 talk was broadcast throughout North America, Australia and France, but the virulence of his attacks on the clergy was strong enough to result in both the NBC and BBC radio networks banning him from the airwaves. Later still, in the late 1930s, he advocated the use of "sound cars" and portable phonographs with which talks by Rutherford were played to passersby and householders.

The new preaching methods brought an influx of members through the early 1920s, but attendance at the Bible Students' yearly Memorial fell sharply again, dropping from 90,434 in 1925 to 17,380 in 1928. Rutherford dismissed their defection as the Lord "shaking out" the unfaithful. Author Tony Wills, who analyzed attendance and "field worker" statistics, suggests it was the "more dedicated" Bible Students who quit through the 1920s, to be replaced by newcomers in larger numbers, creating what author Robert Crompton described as one of the most significant of the movement's breaks with its early history.

At a convention at Columbus, Ohio on July 26, 1931, Rutherford made a psychological break with the large number of disaffected Bible Students by proposing the adoption of the name "Jehovah's witnesses", based on the scripture at Isaiah 43:10, "Ye are my witnesses, saith the Lord". "The Watch Tower" said the new, distinctive name was designed to exalt God's name and end public confusion caused by the proliferation of groups carrying the name "Bible Students". It explained: "It will be a name that could not be used by another, and such as none other will want to use."

In 1932, he eliminated the system of congregations electing bodies of elders, claiming the office of elder was unscriptural; in 1938, he replaced the earlier system of congregational self-government with a "theocratic" or "God-ruled" organizational system in which the Brooklyn headquarters would make all appointments in congregations worldwide. "Consolation" magazine explained: "The Theocracy is at present administered by the Watch Tower Bible and Tract Society, of which Judge Rutherford is the president and general manager." Rutherford, who had shown an earlier interest in politics, applied terms to the organization that were more common in politics and business: "organization" replaced "congregation" when referring to the worldwide community of believers, while "companies" denoted individual congregations. He pushed for more "field service" and "campaigns" of kingdom "advertising" in "territories", with "publishers" working under the direction of a field service "captain".

Under Rutherford, Jehovah's Witnesses grew from about 44,000 in 1928 to about 115,000 at the time of his death on January 8, 1942.

Rutherford's term as president was marked by a succession of changes to doctrines, with many of Russell's teachings altered or abandoned and many new teachings introduced. "The Finished Mystery" declared that God would destroy churches "wholesale" and church members by the millions in 1918, and that all earthly governments would be destroyed in 1920, resulting in anarchy. Expectations remained strong that the change of the "saints" and completion of the "body of Christ" in heaven was imminent. A "Watch Tower" report on the 1918 Brooklyn convention said there was good reason to believe the gathering "might be the last in this vicinity, before the great convention beyond the veil". Disregarding Russell's rejection of 1925 as a year of importance, Rutherford announced in 1920 that Christ's thousand-year reign would begin in that year, bringing the restoration of an earthly paradise and the resurrection to earth of the ancient Jewish prophets referred to as "the ancient worthies" (such as Abraham and Isaac). Jerusalem would become the world capital, and the "princes" would communicate with all humankind by radio. The pronouncements prompted many Bible Students to give up their businesses and jobs and sell their homes, while Bible Student farmers in Canada and the US refused to seed their spring crops in 1925 and mocked members of their movement who did. Rutherford had a luxury villa, Beth Sarim, built in San Diego, California, in 1930 to house the biblical "princes" who were expected to be resurrected before Armageddon. Watch Tower publications made no admission of error over the predictions for 1925, but Rutherford gave apologies at IBSA conventions.
Armageddon was redefined in 1925 as a battle between God and Satan, resulting in the overthrow of human governments and false religion and a 1926 "Watchtower" article introduced a new emphasis on the importance of the name "Jehovah". From 1926 publications began discrediting earlier teachings on the importance of Christian "character development" or personal "sanctification" and a year later they discarded the teaching that Russell had been the "faithful and wise servant" of Matthew 24:45–47. By then the Watch Tower Society had rejected the belief that Russell alone had been the sole channel of scriptural enlightenment. In 1927 the Society disposed of remaining copies of Russell's "Studies in the Scriptures" and "The Finished Mystery" and ceased printing the books. A year later Russell's teaching that the natural Jews would be restored to Palestine and hold a prominent place in the earthly part of God's kingdom was dropped. Christmas celebrations ceased in 1928 after a radio broadcast and "Golden Age" articles on their pagan origins.

In 1929 Rutherford announced that the vindication of God's name—which would ultimately occur when millions of unbelievers were destroyed at Armageddon—was the primary doctrine of Christianity and more important that God's display of goodness or grace towards humans. By 1933, the timing of Christ's "parousia" and the start of the "last days" had been moved from 1874 to 1914 with the principles of parallel dispensations retained to place Christ's enthronement 3½ years later in 1918. In 1935 a new interpretation of the "great company" of Revelation 7 placed them on earth as survivors of Armageddon rather than in heaven and from that point converts to the movement were generally identified as those who, if worthy, would qualify for life on a paradise earth. The same year, Witnesses were told they should refuse to salute the flag, stand for the national anthem, or accept alternative service provided for those who had conscientious objection to military service. Reference to the cross and crucifixion in Watch Tower publications ceased in 1936 when it was asserted that Christ had actually died on a tree. By 1939 Watch Tower publications explained that only those who were part of God's "organization" would be spared at Armageddon.

From 1927 Bible Students were urged to extend their door-to-door preaching to include Sundays. The move quickly attracted opposition from the clergy and the following year Bible Students began to be arrested in the U.S. for breaching local by-laws on Sabbath observance. Rutherford challenged the laws in courts, ultimately fighting hundreds of cases in New Jersey alone as he insisted the preachers were not selling literature, but distributing it for a contribution to Society funds.

In 1935, Witnesses were told they should refuse to salute national flags, stand for national anthems, or accept alternative service provided for those who had conscientious objection to military service. In late 1936 U.S. schools began expelling Witness children who refused to salute the flag. When the U.S. Supreme Court affirmed the right of schools to expel non-conforming children in June 1940, many states began passing laws requiring compulsory flag salute and similarly expelling children. The Supreme Court decision prompted a wave of violence against U.S. Witnesses, mostly in small towns and rural areas, where they were beaten, castrated, tarred and feathered and in some cases killed. More than 2500 cases were reported from 1940 to 1944 and hundreds of Witnesses were arrested and charged with crimes including sedition. The Witnesses responded with campaigns of mass witnessing, descending on hostile towns in their hundreds, and organizing "information marches", some long, in which members wore sandwich boards and held placards and banners.

In Germany, preaching activity was banned and the Watch Tower Society headquarters seized and closed. Thousands of Witnesses were arrested on peddling charges from 1922; in 1933, following the rise to power of Adolf Hitler, government restrictions were tightened, prompting the public distribution of more than two million copies of a Declaration of Facts in which the Witnesses protested at their treatment and requested the right to preach. It had little effect: Witnesses were fired from their jobs and about 2000 were imprisoned in concentration camps. Jehovah's Witnesses were the first Christian denomination to be banned and the most extensively persecuted Christian group during the Nazi era.

Witnesses in Japan were imprisoned and tortured, while members in the U.S., Canada, Australia and Britain were also imprisoned as conscientious objectors. The Witnesses were banned in Germany in 1936, Canada in July 1940 and Australia in January 1941. Under Rutherford's leadership, a legal staff was developed to establish their right to preach and their right to refrain from nationalistic ceremonies. Between 1938 and 1955 the Watch Tower Society won 36 out of 45 religion-related court cases. These legal battles resulted in significant expansions in freedom of speech and religion in both countries.

Writers including American essayist Barbara Grizzuti Harrison, William Whalen, Alan Rogerson and William Schnell have claimed the group was complicit in its own victimisation in the United States, often goading authorities with cartoons and books that ridiculed and denigrated church and state and provocative mass assemblies in which the Witnesses flooded towns with preachers. They claim a deliberate course of martyrdom served to attract society's dispossessed and oppressed members and also provided apparent validation of the "truth" of the Watchtower cause as evidenced by the level of opposition from the outside world as they struggled to serve God.

Rutherford was succeeded by Nathan Homer Knorr. Knorr's tenure as president was notable for the transfer from individual to corporate leadership. None of the Society's publications after 1942 acknowledged authorship, and were instead attributed to an anonymous Writing Committee. From about 1944, the term "governing body" began to be used with a measure of frequency, with the term initially applied to the Watch Tower Society's seven-man Board of Directors. Knorr began a campaign of real estate acquisition in Brooklyn to expand the organisation's world headquarters, expanded printing production throughout the world, and organized a series of international assemblies that dwarfed those of Rutherford in the 1920s. In 1958, more than 253,000 Witnesses gathered at two New York City venues, Yankee Stadium and the Polo Grounds, for an eight-day convention where more than 7000 were baptized. Other large conventions were held in the US, Canada and Germany.

He instituted major training programs, including the Watch Tower Bible School of Gilead to train missionaries, and the Theocratic Ministry School to give instruction in preaching and public speaking at the congregational level. He commissioned a new translation of the Bible, which was released progressively from 1950, before being published as the complete "New World Translation of the Holy Scriptures" in 1961. Also produced were a Greek-English New Testament interlinear ("The Kingdom Interlinear Translation of the Greek Scriptures") and a Bible encyclopedia ("Aid to Bible Understanding"). The offices of elder and ministerial servant (deacon) were restored to Witness congregations in 1972, with appointments being made from headquarters.

Knorr's vice-president, Frederick William Franz, became the leading theologian for the group and the pace of doctrinal change slowed. Blood transfusions were prohibited for Witnesses from 1945 and in 1961 the eating of blood in meat was also proscribed, "The Watchtower" instructing Witnesses to check with their butcher whether the animals and fowl he sold had been properly drained of their blood. Birthday celebrations were described as "objectionable" in 1951 because of their pagan origins and other explicit rules regarding acceptable conduct among members were introduced, with a greater emphasis placed on disfellowshipping as a disciplinary measure.

Adult male Witnesses in the US, Britain, and some European countries were jailed for refusal of military service in the post-war years, with particularly harsh treatment meted out in Spain, Greece, East Germany and Romania. Wide-scale persecution of Witnesses in several African nations was launched between 1967 and 1975, with as many as 21,000 fleeing Malawi to refugee camps in Zambia after a series of murders and beatings in 1972, and 7000 Mozambiquean members of the denomination were arrested in 1975 to be sent to communist re-education camps.

During Knorr's presidency, membership of Jehovah's Witnesses grew from 108,000 to more than two million.

From 1966, Witness publications heightened anticipation of Christ's thousand-year millennial reign beginning in late 1975. Repeating the 1925 cycle of excitement, anticipation and then disappointment, Witness publications and convention talks intensified focus on 1975 as the "appropriate" time for God to act, with statements that "the immediate future is certain to be filled with climactic events... within a few years at most the final parts of the Bible prophecy relative to these 'last days' will undergo fulfillment". The September 15, 1971 issue of "The Watchtower" warned that "all worldly careers are soon to come to an end", and advised youths that they should not "get interested in ‘higher education’ for a future that will never eventuate." A chart in a 1971 "Awake!" indicated the "thrilling hope" of a "grand Sabbath of rest and relief" in the mid-1970s at the close of 6000 years of human history. Some Witnesses sold businesses and homes, gave up jobs, deferred medical procedures and set aside plans to start a family in anticipation of Armageddon's arrival. The May 1974 issue of the Watch Tower Society's newsletter, "Our Kingdom Ministry", commended Witnesses who had sold homes and property to devote themselves to preaching in the "short time" remaining.

Watch Tower literature did not state dogmatically that 1975 would definitely mark the end, and the buildup was tempered with cautions that there was no certainty that Armageddon would arrive in 1975, but magazines warned that "time is running out rapidly" and that "only a few years, at most" remained before Armageddon. Circuit assemblies in 1970 held a public talk entitled "Who will conquer the world in the 1970s?" and in a speech in Australia in 1975 the society's vice-president Frederick Franz went so far as to name a precise date—September 5, 1975—as the "end of the present wicked system". Witnesses were also urged that they should not be "toying with the words of Jesus that 'concerning that day and hour nobody knows'... to the contrary, one should be keenly aware that the end of this system of things is rapidly coming to its violent end." The number of baptisms soared from about 59,000 in 1966, to more than 297,000 in 1974, but membership declined after expectations for the year failed. In 1976 "The Watchtower" advised those who had been "disappointed" by the failure of the predictions for 1975 to adjust their viewpoint because their understanding had been "based on wrong premises", but four years later, after several proposals by Governing Body members to apologize to Witnesses were voted down, the Watch Tower Society admitted its responsibility in building up hope regarding 1975.

The leadership structure of Jehovah's Witnesses was reorganized from January 1, 1976, with the power of the presidency passed to the Governing Body of Jehovah's Witnesses and the establishment of six committees to oversee tasks such as writing, teaching, publishing and evangelizing work. At this time, Watch Tower Society publications began using the capitalized name, "Jehovah's "W"itnesses". Subsequent presidents of the Watch Tower Society after Knorr's death in 1977 have been Frederick William Franz, Milton George Henschel and Don A. Adams.

A purge of senior Brooklyn headquarters staff was carried out in April and May 1980 after it was discovered some at the highest ranks of the hierarchy dissented with core Watch Tower Society doctrines, particularly surrounding the significance of 1914, and wished to propose adjustments as "new understandings" to continue the century-long tradition of changes in doctrines. Unease at the chronology doctrines had in fact surfaced within the Governing Body earlier that year. In February, three Governing Body members – aware that those who had been alive in 1914 were rapidly dwindling in number despite the teaching that their generation would be alive to see Armageddon—had proposed a radical change in Watch Tower doctrines to require that the "generation" that would see the arrival of Armageddon had been alive only since 1957, the year of the launch of the Russian space satellite Sputnik. The proposal, which would have extended the deadline for Armageddon by 43 years, failed to gain a majority vote. Internal dissatisfaction with official doctrines continued to grow, however, leading to a series of secret investigations and judicial hearings. Among those expelled from the Witnesses was former Governing Body member Raymond Franz. Many of those expelled were labelled by Governing Body members as "spiritual fornicators", "mentally diseased" and "insane". The purge resulted in a number of schisms in the movement in Canada, Britain, and northern Europe, and prompted the formation of loose groups of disaffected former Witnesses. The Watch Tower Society responded to the crisis with a new, hardened attitude towards the treatment of defectors and expelled Witnesses.

In 2000, members of the Governing Body resigned from positions on the boards of the Watch Tower Society and its subsidiary corporations in order to focus on doctrinal matters. Beginning in 2004, various Watch Tower Society properties in Brooklyn were sold in preparation for the establishment of a new world headquarters in Warwick, New York, completed in 2016.

In 1995, changes regarding their understanding of Jesus' comments regarding "this generation" (from Matthew 24:34) were published. Throughout the previous four decades, Jehovah's Witnesses had taught that the generation that saw the events of 1914 would not die out before Armageddon came. The understanding of the "generation" was again adjusted in 2008, to refer to the remnant of the anointed. In 2010, the definition of the generation was changed again, wherein the lives of anointed individuals living in 1914 overlap with a second group alive in the present day. Jehovah's Witnesses continue to teach that Armageddon is imminent.Four official histories of Jehovah's Witnesses have been published by the Watch Tower Society. The first two are out of print. The most recent one is available online.


When was the French Constitution first written?

The short-lived French Constitution of 1791 was the first written constitution in France, created after the collapse of the absolute monarchy of the Ancien Régime. One of the basic precepts of the revolution was adopting constitutionality and establishing popular sovereignty.

French Constitution of 1791

The National Assembly began the process of drafting a constitution. The Declaration of the Rights of Man, adopted on 27 August 1789 eventually became the preamble of the constitution adopted on 3 September 1791. The Declaration offered sweeping generalizations about rights, liberty, and sovereignty.

A twelve-member Constitutional Committee was convened on 14 July 1789 (coincidentally the day of the Storming of the Bastille). Its task was to do much of the drafting of the articles of the constitution. It included originally two members from the First Estate (Champion de Cicé, Archbishop of Bordeaux and Talleyrand, Bishop of Autun); two from the Second (the comte de Clermont-Tonnerre and the marquis de Lally-Tollendal); and four from the Third (Jean Joseph Mounier, Abbé Sieyès, Nicholas Bergasse, and Isaac René Guy le Chapelier).

Many proposals for redefining the French state were floated, particularly in the days after the remarkable sessions of 4–5 August 1789 and the abolition of feudalism. For instance, the Marquis de Lafayette proposed a combination of the American and British systems, introducing a bicameral parliament, with the king having the suspensive veto power over the legislature, modeled to the authority then recently vested in the President of the United States.

The main controversies early on surrounded the issues of what level of power to be granted to the king of France (i.e.: veto, suspensive or absolute) and what form would the legislature take (i.e.: unicameral or bicameral). The Constitutional Committee proposed a bicameral legislature, but the motion was defeated 10 September 1789 (849–89) in favor of one house; the next day, they proposed an absolute veto, but were again defeated (673–325) in favor of a suspensive veto, which could be over-ridden by three consecutive legislatures.

A second Constitutional Committee quickly replaced it, and included Talleyrand, Abbé Sieyès, and Le Chapelier from the original group, as well as new members Gui-Jean-Baptiste Target, Jacques Guillaume Thouret, Jean-Nicolas Démeunier, François Denis Tronchet, and Jean-Paul Rabaut Saint-Étienne, all of the Third Estate.

Their greatest controversy faced by this new committee surrounded the issue of citizenship. Would every subject of the French Crown be given equal rights, as the Declaration of Rights of Man and Citizen seemed to promise, or would there be some restrictions? The October Days (5–6 October) intervened and rendered the question much more complicated. In the end, a distinction was held between active citizens (over the age of 25, paid direct taxes equal to three days' labor) which had political rights, and passive citizens, who had only civil rights. This conclusion was intolerable to such radical deputies as Maximilien Robespierre, and thereafter they never could be reconciled to the Constitution of 1791.

A second body, the Committee of Revisions, was struck September 1790, and included Antoine Barnave, Adrien Duport, and Charles de Lameth. Because the National Assembly was both a legislature and a constitutional convention, it was not always clear when its decrees were constitutional articles or mere statutes. It was the job of this committee to sort it out. The committee became very important in the days after the Champs de Mars Massacre, when a wave of revulsion against popular movements swept France and resulted in a renewed effort to preserve powers for the Crown. The result is the rise of the Feuillants, a new political faction led by Barnave, who used his position on the committee to preserve a number of powers for the Crown, such as the nomination of ambassadors, military leaders, and ministers.

After very long negotiations, the constitution was reluctantly accepted by King Louis XVI in September 1791.
Redefining the organization of the French government, citizenship and the limits to the powers of government, the National Assembly set out to represent the interests of the general will. It abolished many “institutions which were injurious to liberty and equality of rights”. The National Assembly asserted its legal presence in French government by establishing its permanence in the Constitution and forming a system for recurring elections. The Assembly's belief in a sovereign nation and in equal representation can be seen in the constitutional separation of powers. The National Assembly was the legislative body, the king and royal ministers made up the executive branch and the judiciary was independent of the other two branches. On a local level, the previous feudal geographic divisions were formally abolished, and the territory of the French state was divided into several administrative units, Departments ("Départements"), but with the principle of centralism.

The Assembly, as constitution-framers, were afraid that if only representatives governed France, it was likely to be ruled by the representatives' self-interest; therefore, the king was allowed a suspensive veto to balance out the interests of the people. By the same token, representative democracy weakened the king’s executive authority.

The constitution was not egalitarian by today's standards. It distinguished between the propertied "active" citizens and the poorer "passive" citizens. Women lacked rights to liberties such as education, freedom to speak, write, print and worship.

Keith M. Baker writes in his essay “Constitution” that the National Assembly threaded between two options when drafting the Constitution: they could modify the existing, unwritten constitution centered on the three estates of the Estates General or they could start over and rewrite it completely. The National Assembly wanted to reorganize social structure and legalize itself: while born of the Estates General of 1789, it had abolished the tricameral structure of that body.

With the onset of war and the threat of the revolution's collapse, radical Jacobin and ultimately republican conceptions grew enormously in popularity, increasing the influence of Robespierre, Danton, Marat and the Paris Commune. When the King used his veto powers to protect non-juring priests and refused to raise militias in defense of the revolutionary government, the constitutional monarchy proved unworkable and was effectively ended by the 10 August insurrection. A National Convention was called, electing Robespierre as its first deputy; it was the first assembly in France elected by universal male suffrage. The convention declared France a republic on 22 September 1792.

In 1791 the French National Assembly drew up a new, written Constitution to which the King gave his assent, and which governed France for the last year of the 18th century monarchy. For the first time it was necessary to define formally, as a matter of statutory constitutional law, the system of succession, and the titles, privileges and prerogatives of the Crown. In debating the succession to the Crown the contemporary understanding of the law of succession was publicly clarified. It rebutted the assertion by some that the claim by the Spanish line is a late construct, made to satisfy the ambitions of princes deprived of other claims. Indeed, it is evident that the issue of the rights of the Spanish line to the French crown remained an important constitutional issue.

Succession to the French throne

This article covers the mechanism by which the French throne passed from the establishment of the Frankish Kingdom in 486 to the fall of the Second French Empire in 1870.

The Merovingians were a Salian Frankish dynasty that came to rule the Franks in a region (known as Francia in Latin) largely corresponding to ancient Gaul from the middle of the 5th century.

Clovis I was the first Germanic ruler to convert to Roman Catholicism. The Franks began to adopt Christianity following the baptism of Clovis, an event that inaugurated the alliance between the Frankish kingdom and the Roman Catholic Church. Even so, the Merovingian kings were largely beyond the control of the Pope. Because they were able to worship with their Catholic neighbors, the newly-Christianized Franks found much easier acceptance from the local Gallo-Roman population than did the Arian Visigoths, Vandals or Burgundians. The Merovingians thus built what eventually proved the most stable of the successor-kingdoms in the west.

Following Frankish custom, the kingdom was partitioned among Clovis' four sons, and over the next century this tradition of partition continued. Even when several Merovingian kings simultaneously ruled their own realms, the kingdom — not unlike the late Roman Empire — was conceived of as a single entity. Externally, the kingdom, even when divided under different kings, maintained unity and conquered Burgundy in 534. After the fall of the Ostrogoths, the Franks also conquered Provence. Internally, the kingdom was divided among Clovis' sons and later among his grandsons which frequently saw war between the different kings, who allied among themselves and against one another. The death of one king created conflict between the surviving brothers and the deceased's sons, with differing outcomes. Due to frequent warfare, the kingdom was occasionally united under one king. Although this prevented the kingdom from being fragmented into numerous parts, this practice weakened royal power, for they had to make concessions to the nobility to procure their support in war.

In each Frankish kingdom the Mayor of the Palace served as the chief officer of state. From about the turn of the eighth century, the Austrasian Mayors tended to wield the real power in the kingdom, laying the foundation for a new dynasty.

The Carolingians consolidated their power in the late seventh century, eventually making the offices of mayor of the palace and "dux et princeps Francorum" hereditary and becoming the "de facto" rulers of the Franks as the real powers behind the throne.

To legalize the power already being exercised by the mayors of the palace, Pepin requested and received from the pope a decision that whoever exercised the actual power in the kingdom should be the legal ruler. After this decision the throne was declared vacant. Childeric III was deposed and confined to a monastery.

According to ancient custom, Pepin was then elected King of the Franks by an assembly of Frankish nobles, with a large portion of his army on hand (in case the nobility inclined not to honor the Papal bull). Although such elections happened infrequently, a general rule in Germanic law stated that the king relied on the support of his leading men. These men reserved the right to choose a new leader if they felt that the old one could not lead them in profitable battle. While in later France the kingdom became hereditary, the kings of the later Holy Roman Empire proved unable to abolish the elective tradition and continued as elected rulers until the Empire's formal end in 1806. In 754 the pope reaffirmed the election of Pepin by crossing the Alps and personally anointing the new king in the Old Testament manner, as the Chosen of the Lord.

Behind the pope's action lay his need for a powerful protector. In 751 the Lombards had conquered the Exarchate of Ravenna, the center of Byzantine government in Italy, were demanding tribute from the pope, and threatened to besiege Rome. Following Pepin's coronation, the pope secured the new ruler's promise of armed intervention in Italy and his pledge to give the papacy the Exarchate of Ravenna, once it was conquered. In 756 a Frankish army forced the Lombard king to relinquish his conquests, and Pepin officially gave Ravenna to the pope. Known as the "Donation of Pepin," the gift made the pope a temporal ruler over the Papal States, a strip of territory that extended diagonally
across northern Italy.

The greatest Carolingian monarch was Charlemagne, who was crowned Emperor by Pope Leo III at Rome in 800. His empire, ostensibly a continuation of the Roman Empire, is referred to historiographically as the Carolingian Empire.

The Carolingians followed the Frankish custom of dividing inheritances among the surviving sons, though the concept of the indivisibility of the Empire was also accepted. The Carolingians had the practice of making their sons (sub-)kings in the various regions (regna) of the Empire, which they would inherit on the death of their father. Though the Carolingian Empire may have several kings, the imperial dignity was accorded only to the oldest son.

Charlemagne had three legitimate sons who survived infancy: Charles the Younger, King of Neustria, Pepin, King of Italy, and Louis, King of Aquitaine. In the "Divisio Regnorum" of 806, Charlemagne had slated Charles the Younger as his successor as emperor and chief king, ruling over the Frankish heartland of Neustria and Austrasia, while giving Pepin the Iron Crown of Lombardy, which Charlemagne possessed by conquest. To Louis's kingdom of Aquitaine, he added Septimania, Provence, and part of Burgundy. But Charlemagne's other legitimate sons died – Pepin in 810 and Charles in 811 – and Louis alone remained to be crowned co-emperor with Charlemagne in 813. Pepin, King of Italy, left behind a son, Bernard. On the death of Charlemagne in 814, Louis inherited the entire Frankish kingdom and all its possessions (the concept of successional representation was not yet well-established). But Bernard was allowed to retain control of Italy, the sub-kingdom of his father.

Following the death of Louis the Pious, the surviving adult Carolingians fought a three-year civil war ending only in the Treaty of Verdun, which divided the empire into three regna while imperial status and a nominal lordship was accorded to Lothair I.

The Carolingians differed markedly from the Merovingians in that they disallowed inheritance to illegitimate offspring, possibly in an effort to prevent infighting among heirs and assure a limit to the division of the realm. In the late ninth century, however, the lack of suitable adults among the Carolingians necessitated the rise of Arnulf of Carinthia, a bastard child of a legitimate Carolingian king.

The Carolingians were displaced in most of the regna of the Empire in 888. They ruled on in East Francia until 911 and they held the throne of West Francia intermittently until 987. Though they asserted their prerogative to rule, their hereditary, God-given right, and their usual alliance with the Church, they were unable to stem the principle of electoral monarchy and their propagandism failed them in the long run. Carolingian cadet branches continued to rule in Vermandois and Lower Lorraine after the last king died in 987, but they never sought thrones of principalities and made peace with the new ruling families.

From 977 to 986, Hugh Capet, son of Hugh the Great, Duke of the Franks, allied himself with the German emperors Otto II and Otto III and with Archbishop Adalberon of Reims to dominate the Carolingian king, Lothair. By 986, he was king in all but name. After Lothair's son Louis V died in May 987, Adalberon and Gerbert of Aurillac convened an assembly of nobles to elect Hugh Capet as their king.

Immediately after his coronation, Hugh began to push for the coronation of his son Robert. Hugh's own claimed reason was that he was planning an expedition against the Moorish armies harassing Borrel II of Barcelona, an invasion which never occurred, and that the stability of the country necessitated two kings should he die while on expedition. Ralph Glaber, however, attributes Hugh's request to his old age and inability to control the nobility. Modern scholarship has largely imputed to Hugh the motive of establishing a dynasty against the claims of electoral power on the part of the aristocracy, but this is not the typical view of his contemporaries and even some modern scholars have been less skeptical of Hugh's "plan" to campaign in Spain. Robert was eventually crowned on 25 December 987. A measure of Hugh's success is that when he died in 996, Robert continued to reign without anyone disputing his rights, but during his long reign actual royal power dissipated into the hands of the great territorial magnates.

Thus, the early Capetians made their position "de facto" hereditary by associating their eldest sons to the kingship while they still live. By the death of Philip I, this hereditary feature had become established in custom. Even though Philip refused to have his son crowned during his lifetime, Louis succeeded with little trouble. Yet the association of the eldest son to the kingship continued for two more generations, with Philip II Augustus being the last king so crowned.

Henry I became sole ruler on his father's death in 1031. The succession, however, was hotly contested by his younger brother Robert. Constance of Arles, Henry’s mother, preferred to place her younger son, Robert, on the throne. She allied herself with one of the more powerful counts of the time, Odo II, Count of Blois.

This alliance was particularly worrisome for Henry I. Odo II of Blois was a very powerful lord and had warred against Henry’s father throughout his reign; he had enlarged his possessions to the point of encircling the royal demesne. With his alliance, the queen mother and her son Robert managed to expel King Henry from his own demesne lands, forcing him to seek refuge at the court of the duke of Normandy, Robert.

King Henry formed an alliance with the powerful duke of Normandy, Robert, by granting him the French Vexin, or the lands between the rivers Epte and Oise. Although this has been debated by modern scholarship, the fact remains that Robert fought alongside the king. Henry also managed to gain the alliance of another powerful count, Baldwin IV of Flanders.

Finally, Henry added Emperor Henry II to his camp. The emperor had personal issues with Odo II. He wished nothing more than to rid himself of a powerful foe and troublesome neighbour. Odo had invaded Henry’s lands in Burgundy and took many castles and places. Henry and his allies recovered the royal lands that had been lost to the usurpers. The conflict didn’t end there; there was still a chance for Robert to win the throne. Henry, to guarantee his brother’s submission, granted him the vast duchy of Burgundy, which had been added to the royal demesne by Robert II.

Odo found himself in Imperial Burgundy against Henry II. At the battle of Bar-le-Duc, Odo was killed in battle in the year 1037. His lands and properties were divided amongst his sons, ending a threat against the Capetian monarchy.

Henry I had managed to maintain his royal title and dignity, but the price was great. The greatest problem to have arisen from the crisis was the growth in independence of the lords and castellans in the lands of the royal demesne. This had the effect of weakening royal authority even further. Secondly, Henry I lost a great deal of territory and land in suppressing the revolt. The French Vexin was granted away to the duke of Normandy, the duchy of Burgundy, a substantial part of the royal demesne, was given away to Robert, the king’s younger brother.

An appanage is a fief conceded to a younger son or a younger brother of the king. In France, the origin of the appanage can be found either in the old Frankish custom of dividing the inheritance between the sons (a custom which feudalism replaced with the "partage noble" in which the eldest son received most of the estates); or in the fact that, at its origins, the Capetian monarchy was relatively weak, and the principle of succession by the eldest son was not secure until the late 12th century.

The first such appanage in the history of the Capetian monarchy was the duchy of Burgundy, which Henry I ceded to his younger brother Robert. Later, Louis VII gave Dreux to his son Robert, in 1137, Philip Augustus gave Domfront and Mortain to his younger son Philip Hurepel (who had also become count of Boulogne by marriage). The last two cases were not under the same kind of duress, but probably reflect the same desire to ward off quarrels.

The original appanages, just like other feudal fiefs, could pass through the female line. As the monarchy became more powerful, they began to restrict the transmission of appanages in the male line, although this did not become standard for some time. The greatest example is the Duchy of Burgundy, which may have been illegally confiscated by Louis XI after the death of the last male duke. After Burgundy, the restriction to male heirs became standard (it is mentioned in an ordinance of Charles V in 1374), but was not formalized until the Edict of Moulins in 1566.

The Capetians also conceded fiefs to daughters or sisters in the form of dowry, although this practice became less and less common over time.

The Salic Law (Lex Salica) is a code of law written around the time of Clovis I for the Salian Franks, in Latin mixed with Germanic words. It deals mainly with monetary compensations (wehrgeld) and also with civil law with respect to men and land. Clause 6 in title 59, which deals with inheritance rules for allodial lands (i.e. family lands not held in benefice) specifies that in "concerning salic lands (terra Salica) no portion or inheritance is for a woman but all the land belongs to members of the male sex who are brothers." A capitulary of Chilperic, ca. 575, expands this by admitting inheritance by a daughter in the absence of sons: "if a man had neighbors but after his death sons and daughters remained, as long as there were sons they should have the land just as the Salic Law provides. And if the sons are already dead then a daughter may receive the land just as the sons would have done had they lived." The monarchy is nowhere mentioned. The Salic Law was reformulated under Charlemagne and still applied in the 9th century, but it slowly disappeared as it became incorporated into local common laws. By the 14th century it was completely forgotten.

From 987 to 1316, every king of France was fortunate to have a son to succeed him. This state of affairs lasted over three hundred years, spanning 13 generations. The Capetians did not even have to deal with the question of successional representation; Hugh Magnus, eldest son of Robert II, and Philip, eldest son of Louis VI, did not leave behind children of their own when they predeceased their respective fathers. Thus, for such a long time, the succession to the throne was undisputed, so that there was no reason for the peers of the realm to elect a new king. Since 987, the Capetians had always passed the crown to their eldest surviving son, and this birthright became itself a source of unquestionable legitimacy. Louis VIII was the last king acclaimed before the sacred unction (last remnant of the original election). From St. Louis, in 1226, King was acclaimed after the anointing. The voice of the barons was no longer necessary in determining the king.

Philip the Fair was not concerned about the lack of male heirs. He had three sons, well married, and a daughter, Isabella of France, Queen of England by her marriage to Edward II of England. The eldest son, Louis the Quarrelsome, was King of Navarre and Count of Champagne since the death of his mother. He would, at the death of his father, become King of France and Navarre. His wife, Margaret of Burgundy had given him a daughter, but she was young and he could expect her to give him a son later. As for his two other sons, Philip, Count of Poitiers and Charles, Count of La Marche, they had married the two daughters of Otto IV, Count of Burgundy and Mahaut, Countess of Artois, Joan and Blanche. The king could believe his succession was assured.

Everything collapsed in the spring of 1314, when the affairs of the daughters-in-law of the king were discovered (also known as the Tour de Nesle Affair). Somewhat neglected by their husbands, the princesses entertained themselves without them. The lover of Margaret of Burgundy was a young knight named Gauthier d'Aunay. Gautier's brother, Philippe d'Aunay, was meanwhile Blanche's lover. Without participating in the adventures of her sister and her sister-in-law, Joan knew everything and kept silent. Royal reaction was brutal. The Aunay brothers were tried and executed summarily; Margaret of Burgundy died of cold in the tower of Chateau Gaillard; Blanche of Burgundy was imprisoned for ten years before ending her days in Maubuisson Abbey, near Pontoise.

The dynastic succession was jeopardized. Margaret's death would allow Louis to remarry. But for the summer of 1314, the future king of France had no wife and no son. He only had a daughter, Joan, who could not be denied the inheritance of Navarre (which allowed female inheritance). This girl was suspected of illegitimacy, because of her mother's adultery with Gauthier d'Aunay, which could be dangerous for the crown of France, given the risk of particularly serious political crises because of suspicions of illegitimacy. Any rebellious vassal, to legitimize his rebellion, could accuse the future queen of bastardy.

Louis X died on June 5, 1316, having just had time to marry again, after a reign of eighteen months, leaving his new wife Clementia of Hungary pregnant. Philip of Poitiers was at Lyon at the day of the death of his brother. The prince took the regency of both France and Navarre. Joan's claim was supported by her maternal grandmother, Agnes of France, and her uncle, Odo IV, Duke of Burgundy. The arguments they invoked in favor of Joan were in full conformity with feudal law which has always authorized a daughter to succeed to the fief in the absence of sons. Indeed, female succession was a reality in France. Aquitaine had been ruled by a duchess, Eleanor, and countesses had ruled Toulouse and Champagne, as well as in Flanders and Artois. Mahaut, Countess of Artois, belonged to the Court of Peers since 1302. Outside the realm, women have played a role in the devolution of the English crown as well as the crown of the Latin Kingdom of Jerusalem. And Joan I of Navarre had brought her kingdom of Navarre to her husband Philip the Fair. The idea that a woman would become queen of France was in itself nothing shocking to the barons. Indeed, at the death of Louis VIII, the kingdom was governed by a woman — Blanche of Castile — regent in the name of her young son Louis IX.

The regent made a treaty with the Duke of Burgundy. It was agreed that if Queen Clementia of Hungary gave birth to a son, Philip will maintain the regency until his nephew's majority. In the event that the queen gave birth to a daughter, Philip undertook to renounce Navarre and Champagne in favor of the princesses, if they renounced the crown of France at the age of consent. If not, their claim was to remain, and "right was to be done to them therein"; but Philip would no longer renounce Navarre and Champagne.

On November 15, 1316, Queen Clementia gave birth to a son, John the Posthumous. Unfortunately, the child lived only five days, and the kingdom remained without a direct heir. By his treaty with the Duke of Burgundy, Philip would only rule the two kingdoms as regent or governor, until Joan reached the age of consent. But Philip had himself crowned at Rheims, on January 9, 1317. Opposed by the Duke of Burgundy, and his own brother, Charles, Count of La Marche, it was thought prudent to shut the gates of the town during the ceremony. Back at Paris, an assembly of prelates, barons and burgesses acknowledged Philip as their sovereign, and asserted that "women do not succeed to the French throne."

The Duke of Burgundy championed his niece's rights. Philip won him over by giving him his daughter, Joan of France, with the promise of the counties of Artois and Burgundy. The princess Joan, daughter of Louis X, was given an annuity of 15,000 pounds. In return, Joan of Navarre must, at her twelfth year, ratify the treaty which disinherited her, not only of her claim to France, but also of her unquestionable right to Navarre and Champagne.

In 1322, Philip V the Tall died after a reign of six years. He left only daughters. Thus, his younger brother, Charles of La Marche, would become king under the name of Charles IV the Fair. Despite two successive marriages with Marie of Luxembourg and Joan of Évreux, Charles the Fair, as his brother Philip the Tall, left only daughters when he died in 1328. Thus, in less than fourteen years, the three sons of Philip the Fair, Louis X the Quarrelsome, Philip V the Tall and Charles IV the Fair, had died.

However, like his brother Louis X, Charles IV the Fair left his wife pregnant. Before dying, the youngest son of Philip the Fair designated as regent his cousin, Philip of Valois. He was the eldest son of Charles of Valois, brother of Philip the Fair. A few months later, Queen Joan of Évreux gave birth to a daughter, Blanche. Philip of Valois, a grown man and prominent lord, had no trouble being proclaimed king by another assembly of lords and prelates in Vincennes and crowned on May 29, 1328.

King Charles IV is no longer. He has no male descendants. He is the youngest son of Philip the Fair. The situation in 1328 is unlike that of 1316. In 1316, a king's son was competing with a brother and a younger child. In 1328, Philip of Valois is not the closest in the line, or the more direct, because the last Capetians girls left now have husbands. But the Count of Valois was the closest male relative in the male line, and he is 35 years old. He is the eldest male of the family.While the peers of France deliberate which of these two powerful lords will ascend the throne, a letter arrived from across the Channel. In this letter, Isabella claimed the crown of France for her young son Edward III, King of England, and he would be regarded as the third contender:The peers and the lawyers are studying this question: can Isabella of France transmit a right she does not have? Can her son Edward claim the crown of the Capetians?

Isabella of France had a horrible reputation. Nicknamed the "She-Wolf of France", she joined the English nobles against her husband, King Edward II, who was defeated and captured. After putting her husband to death, she displayed herself in public with her lover, the regicide Roger Mortimer. All of this was well known in France. Also, her son Edward III belonged to the House of Plantagenet, a dynasty that had long been in conflict with the French crown.

But Isabella's reasoning was flawed by a detail as it were negligible: if, as a woman, Isabella could transfer that right to the crown although she cannot have it for herself, then by primogeniture the true heir would have been Philip of Burgundy, a grandson of Philip V of France. Isabella of France may have simply forgotten that her brothers had left daughters of their own.

However, no one thought of nominating one of the daughters of three kings; to do so would recognize the right of women to the throne, and would be de facto considering the reigns of Philip V the Tall and Charles IV the Fair as nothing but a theft at the expense of Joan of France, daughter Louis X the Stubborn. Nor did they nominate the young Philip of Burgundy, the senior living male heir of Philip IV.

The peers did not want to risk giving the throne to a bastard. And, instead of proposing a daughter of Philip V or Charles IV, they decided that women should be excluded from succession to avoid endless squabbles of law.

The famous Salic law will be rediscovered in 1358, to be used in a propaganda fight to defend the rights of Valois against the claims of the English king. Thus, whatever the legal twist, the rights of Edward III were very questionable.

The day after the funeral of Charles IV of France, the great nobles convened. Valois has already taken the title of regent, and used it already, while his cousin was dying. The assembly can only bow to the facts. Having postponed for a moment the question of the legitimacy of excluding women from succession, the will to rule out the English king was stronger. Edward III was thus ousted from the competition, but there remained two claimants to the throne, Philip of Valois and Philip of Évreux.

An agreement was reached to satisfy everyone. Philip of Évreux and his wife Joan received the kingdom of Navarre and other territorial compensation in exchange for which they would recognize Philip of Valois as King of France.

The kingdom of Navarre belonged to the King of France since the marriage of Philip IV and Joan I of Navarre, Countess of Champagne and Brie. Louis X had inherited Navarre from his mother and in 1328 his daughter Joan was finally recognized as Queen of Navarre, despite the suspicions of illegitimacy (the late return was not in the least prevented Philip the Tall and Charles the Fair, who officially called themselves Kings of France and Navarre). In addition, Philip of Valois, not being himself a descendant and heir of the kings of Navarre as were his predecessors, could restore the kingdom of Navarre without regret to Joan, the rightful heir, in exchange for her giving up the crown of France. The kingdom of Navarre will not return to the kings of France until much later, when Henry of Navarre, the future Henry IV, accedes to the throne of France, thus establishing the Bourbon dynasty. Thereafter, the French kings will again bear the title "King of France and Navarre."

Soon after, Philip of Valois was proclaimed King of France under the name of Philip VI of France by the peers of the realm. The Valois took power following the direct Capetians.

The last royal election dates back to Louis VIII the Lion in 1223. The royal power was weakened and so was the legitimacy of the Count of Valois, for it was not as unassailable as that of his predecessors on the throne. They were expecting their generous gifts, great concessions from the new king. Edward III came to pay tribute to French king, hoping also for some territorial compensation. Philip VI did not understand the danger that threatened him and did nothing to protect himself.

The succession to Charles IV the Fair, decided in favor of Philip VI, was used as a pretext by Edward III to transform what would have been a feudal struggle between himself as Duke of Guyenne against the King of France, to a dynastic struggle between the House of Plantagenet and the House of Valois for control of the French throne.

The conflict, known as the Hundred Years War, dragged on for decades. England won several famous military victories, but was unable to fully overcome French resistance. Yet in the aftermath of the Battle of Agincourt, Henry V of England, great-grandson of Edward III, became the heir to the French throne in accordance to the Treaty of Troyes. He would marry Catherine, daughter of King Charles VI of France, while Charles' son, the Dauphin Charles was declared illegitimate and disinherited.

Yet Henry V would predecease Charles VI, and it was his infant son who would become "King of France". The Dauphin still had his supporters, and became Charles VII. Eventually, the tide would turn in favor of the French, and the English were driven out. The Treaty of Troyes, which had been ratified by the Estates-General of France, was never repudiated, but the military victory of Charles VII rendered its provisions moot. The Kings of England would thereby continue to call themselves "Kings of England and France", dropping the nominal claim to France only in 1800.

Thus emerged the principle of the unavailability of the crown — no person or body could divert the succession from the lawful heir. The throne would pass by the sheer force of custom, not by the testament of the king, or by any edict, decree, or treaty, or by the generosity of any person. By this principle, the French do not consider Henry VI of England as a legitimate king of France.

The House of Valois had secured the principle of agnatic succession following their victory in the Hundred Years War. When the senior line of the Valois became extinct, they were followed by the Valois-Orléans line descended from Louis I, Duke of Orléans, younger brother of Charles VI, and then, by the Valois-Angoulême line descended from a younger son of Louis I.

Henry II of France was succeeded by his sons, none of whom would succeed in producing a male heir. The sons of Henry II would be the last heirs male of Philip III of France. Right after them ranked the Bourbons, descended from a younger brother of Philip III.

Thus, with the death of François, Duke of Anjou, younger brother of King Henry III of France, the heir presumptive became the Head of the House of Bourbon, Henry III, King of Navarre. Since Henry was a Protestant, most of Catholic France found him unacceptable. By the Treaty of Nemours, the Catholic League attempted to disinherit the King of Navarre by recognizing Charles, Cardinal de Bourbon, Navarre's uncle, as heir. Navarre had been excommunicated by Pope Sixtus V.

On his deathbed, Henry III called for Henry of Navarre, and begged him, in the name of Statecraft, to become a Catholic, citing the brutal warfare that would ensue if he refused. In keeping with Salic law, he named Navarre as his heir.

On Henry III's death in 1589, the League proclaimed the Cardinal de Bourbon king, while he was still a prisoner of Henry III in the castle of Chinon. He was recognized as Charles X by the Parliament of Paris on 21 November 1589. With Henry III's death, custody of the Cardinal fell to Navarre (now Henry IV of France), the Cardinal's nephew. When the old Cardinal died in 1590, the League could not agree on a new candidate. The Catholic League had great hopes for Charles, Duke of Guise, whom they considered to elect as king. However, the Duke of Guise declared his support for Henry IV of France in 1594, for which Henry paid him four million livres and made him Governor of Provence. Some supported Infanta Isabella Clara Eugenia of Spain, the daughter of Philip II of Spain and Elisabeth of France, eldest daughter of Henry II of France. The prominence of her candidacy hurt the League, which became suspect as agents of the Spanish.

For a time, Henry IV attempted to take his kingdom by conquest. For this, he had to capture Paris, which was defended by the Catholic League and the Spanish. Despite the campaigns between 1590 and 1592, Henry IV was "no closer to capturing Paris". Realizing that Henry III had been right and that there was no prospect of a Protestant king succeeding in resolutely Catholic Paris, Henry agreed to convert, reputedly stating "Paris vaut bien une messe" ("Paris is well worth a Mass"). He was formally received into the Catholic Church in 1593, and was crowned at Chartres in 1594 as League members maintained control of the Cathedral of Rheims, and, skeptical of Henry's sincerity, continued to oppose him. He was finally received into Paris in March 1594, and 120 League members in the city who refused to submit were banished from the capital. Paris' capitulation encouraged the same of many other towns, while others returned to support the crown after Pope Clement VIII absolved Henry, revoking his excommunication in return for the publishing of the Tridentine Decrees, the restoration of Catholicism in Béarn, and appointing only Catholics to high office.

With the success of Henry IV, the principles of the French succession were kept inviolable. The kingship of Charles, Cardinal de Bourbon, as Charles X, was delegitimized, having been contrary to these principles. A new requirement to the French succession was recognized: the King of France must be Catholic. Yet since religion could be changed, it could not be the basis for permanent exclusion from the throne.

Louis XIV, grandson of Henry IV, was the longest-reigning king in European history. Louis XIV had only one son to survive to adulthood, the Dauphin Louis. The Dauphin, in turn, had three sons: Louis, Duke of Burgundy, Philip, Duke of Anjou, and Charles, Duke of Berry.

In 1700, Charles II of Spain died. His heir, in accordance to cognatic primogeniture followed in Spain, would have been the Dauphin Louis. However, since the Dauphin was the heir to the French throne, and the Duke of Burgundy was in turn the Dauphin's heir, Charles II settled his succession on the Duke of Anjou in order to prevent the union of France and Spain.

Most European rulers accepted Philip as King of Spain, though some only reluctantly. Louis XIV confirmed that Philip V retained his French rights despite his new Spanish position. Admittedly, he may only have been hypothesizing a theoretical eventuality and not attempting a Franco-Spanish union. However, Louis also sent troops to the Spanish Netherlands, evicting Dutch garrisons and securing Dutch recognition of Philip V. In 1701, he transferred the asiento to France, alienating English traders. He also acknowledged James Stuart, James II's son, as king on the latter's death. These actions enraged Britain and the United Provinces. Consequently, with the Emperor and the petty German states, they formed another Grand Alliance, declaring war on France in 1702. French diplomacy, however, secured Bavaria, Portugal and Savoy as Franco-Spanish allies.

Thus, the War of the Spanish Succession began. The war, over a decade long, was concluded by the treaties of Utrecht (1713) and Rastatt (1714). The allies were bent on removing Philip V from the succession to the French throne; he only agreed to this after the semi-Salic law was successfully enacted in Spain.

However, the fact remained that the Treaty of Utrecht had disregarded the French principles of succession. Indeed, taking advantage of the power vacuum caused by Louis XIV's death in 1715, Philip announced he would claim the French crown if the infant Louis XV died.

The validity of the renunciations were not debated in public until the French Revolution, when the National Assembly first addressed this issue in a three-day session beginning on 15 September 1789. After many debates, the Assembly voted on a final text of a statement defining the succession to the Crown. This read: "The crown is hereditary from male to male, by order of primogeniture, with the absolute exclusion of women and their descendants, without prejudging the effect of renunciations". The Spanish Ambassador, the Count of Fernan Nuñez wrote to the Spanish Prime Minister, the Count of Floridablanca, that same date: "All the clergy and the major part of the nobility and also of the Third Estate has pronounced for the resolution favorable to the House of Spain… by 698 votes to 265 the majority had concluded the question in a sense again most advantageous for us..."

When the issue of the rights of the Spanish line arose, the Assembly voted to include a phrase in the article on the succession that implicitly protected their rights. That this was the purpose of the clause seems certain: hence the phrase in Title III, Chapter II, article I:

Louis XV had ten legitimate children, but there were only two sons, only one of whom survived to adulthood, Louis, Dauphin of France. This did not help dispel the concerns about the future of the dynasty; should his male line fail, the succession would be disputed by a possible war of succession between the descendants of Philip V and the House of Orléans descended from the younger brother of Louis XIV.

The Dauphin Louis predeceased his father but left behind three sons, Louis Auguste, Duke of Berry, Louis Stanislas, Count of Provence and Charles Philippe, Count of Artois. The Duke of Berry succeeded his grandfather as King Louis XVI.

Louis XVI would be the only French king to be executed, during the French Revolution. For the first time, the Capetian monarchy had been overthrown. The monarchy would be restored under his younger brother, the Count of Provence, who took the name Louis XVIII in consideration of the dynastic seniority of his nephew, Louis, from 1793-1795 (the child never actually reigned). Louis XVIII died childless and was succeeded by his younger brother, the Count of Artois, as Charles X.

Compelled by what he felt to be a growing, manipulative radicalism in the elected government, Charles felt that his primary duty was the guarantee of order and happiness in France and its people; not in political bipartisanship and the self-interpreted rights of implacable political enemies. He issued the Four Ordinances of Saint-Cloud, which was intended to quell the people of France. However, the ordinances had the opposite effect of angering the French citizens. In Paris, a committee of the liberal opposition had drawn up and signed a petition in which, they asked for the ordonnances to be withdrawn; more surprising was their criticism "not of the King, but his ministers" – thereby disproving Charles X's conviction that his liberal opponents were enemies of his dynasty. Charles X considered the ordonnances vital to the safety and dignity of the French throne. Thus, he did not withdraw the ordonnances. This resulted in the July Revolution.

Charles X abdicated in favor of his 10-year-old grandson, Henri, Duke of Bordeaux, (forcing his son Louis Antoine to renounce his rights along the way) and naming Louis Philippe III, Duke of Orléans Lieutenant General of the Kingdom, charging him to announce to the popularly elected Chamber of Deputies his desire to have his grandson succeed him. Louis Philippe did not do this, in order to increase his own chances of succession. As a consequence, because the chamber was aware of Louis Philippe's liberal policies and of his popularity with the masses, they proclaimed Louis Philippe, who for eleven days had been acting as the regent for his small cousin, as the new French king, displacing the senior branch of the House of Bourbon.

The House of Orléans took the throne in defiance of the principles of the Capetian monarchy, and could be viewed as a separate institution altogether.

Upon his accession to the throne, Louis Philippe assumed the title of King of the French – a title already adopted by Louis XVI in the short-lived Constitution of 1791. Linking the monarchy to a people instead of a territory (as the previous designation King of France and of Navarre) was aimed at undercutting the legitimist claims of Charles X and his family.

By an ordinance he signed on 13 August 1830, the new king defined the manner in which his children, as well as his sister, would continue to bear the surname "d'Orléans" and the arms of Orléans, declared that his eldest son, as Prince Royal (not Dauphin), would bear the title Duke of Orléans, that the younger sons would continue to have their previous titles, and that his sister and daughters would only be styled Princesses of Orléans, not of France.

The government of Louis Philippe grew increasingly conservative over the years. After ruling for 18 years, the 1848 wave of revolutions reached France and overthrew Louis Philippe. The king abdicated in favor of his nine-year-old grandson, Philippe, Count of Paris. The National Assembly initially planned to accept young Philippe as king, but the strong current of public opinion rejected that. On 26 February, the Second Republic was proclaimed.

Napoléon Bonaparte (1769-1821) came to power by a military coup on Nov 10, 1799. The regime he put in place was headed by three Consuls, and he was the First Consul. He became Consul for Life in 1802, and then transformed the regime into a hereditary monarchy in 1804. The rules of succession as set down in the constitution are:

At the time the law of succession was decreed Napoleon I had no legitimate sons, and it seemed unlikely he would have any due to the age of his wife, Josephine of Beauharnais. His eventual response was an unacceptable one, in the eyes of Catholic France, of engineering a dubious annulment, without papal approval, of his marriage to Josephine and undertaking a second marriage to the younger Mary Louise of Austria, with whom he had one son, Napoleon, King of Rome, also as Napoleon II and the Duke of Reichstadt. He was not married and had no children, thus leaving no further direct descendants of Napoleon I.

The law was proclaimed on May 20, 1804. No contradiction was seen between France being a Republic and it being governed by an Emperor. Indeed, until 1809, French coins bore "République Française" on one side and "Napoléon Empereur" on the other, pursuant to a decree of June 26, 1804; the legend on the reverse was replaced by "Empire français" by decree of October 22, 1808). This was a return to the Roman use of the word Emperor (Augustus was officially only the First Citizen, rather than monarch, of the Roman Republic).

In 1852, Napoleon III, having restored the Bonapartes to power in France, enacted a new decree on the succession. The claim first went to his own male legitimate descendants in the male line.

If his own direct line died out, the new decree allowed the claim to pass to Jérôme Bonaparte, Napoleon I's youngest brother who had previously been excluded, and his male descendants by Princess Catharina of Württemberg in the male line. His descendants by his original marriage to the American commoner Elizabeth Patterson, of which Napoleon I had greatly disapproved, were excluded.

The only remaining Bonapartist claimants since 1879, and today, have been descendants of Jérôme Bonaparte and Catherina of Württemberg in the male line.

In 1870, royalists became the majority in the National Assembly. There were two claimants to the French royal legacy: Henri d'Artois, Count of Chambord, and Philippe d'Orléans, Count of Paris. The former were supported by the Legitimists, supporters of the elder line of the Bourbons, and the Orléanists, liberal constitutional monarchists that had supported Louis Philippe and his line. Since the Count of Chambord was childless, and was expected to remain so, the Orléans line agreed to support the Count of Chambord.

Raised however, by his grandfather Charles X of France, as if the Revolution never happened, the Count of Chambord insisted that he would only take the crown if France would abandon the tricolour flag in favor of the white fleur de lys flag. He refused to compromise this point, which upset the restoration of the monarchy. The Orléans did not oppose him, and did not make an immediate claim to the throne while the Count of Chambord lived. The Count of Chambord lived, however, longer than expected. At the time of his death, the impetus behind the monarchical restoration had been lost.

Thus, after the death of the Count of Chambord, the Orléans line had two distinct claims to the throne of France: the right derived from Orléanist theory, as heirs of Louis Philippe; and the right derived from Legitimist theory, as heirs of Hugh Capet.

The death of the Count of Chambord split the Legitimists in two camps. Most acknowledged the House of Orléans as the new royal house. Yet a party, with a hatred for that house, recognized the Carlists of Spain, then the eldest descendants of Philip V of Spain. The Orléanist party derisively called them the Blancs d'Espagne (Spanish Whites), for having supported a Spanish prince over a French prince. In later times the Orléanist and Legitimist claims of the House of Orléans was merged into the name of Orléanist, as the pro-Spanish party assumed the name of Legitimists.

The unacceptability of the House of Orléans to the Blancs d'Espagne stems from the actions of two ancestors of that house — Louis Philippe II, Duke of Orléans, also known as Philippe Egalite, and his son Louis Philippe, later King of the French. According to Charles Dumoulin, a French jurist of the sixteenth century, treason is one case wherein a person of the royal blood could be deprived of his succession to the throne. Philippe Egalite had voted for the abolition of the monarchy, the guilt of Louis XVI of France, and the death sentence for that unhappy monarch. His son, Louis Philippe, restored in royal favor following the Bourbon Restoration, appointed lieutenant-general of the kingdom during the final days of the reign of Charles X of France, overthrew the senior line by accepting kingship for himself.

The Legitimist stand is that the succession to the throne is based on customs and precedents thereafter unalterable. The heir to the throne, according to those customs, is the heir of Louis XIV, who cannot be excluded. The Orléanist stand is that the laws of succession could be altered, and that among those customs and precedents is the requirement that the heir must be French. The heir to the throne, according to them, is the Orléans line, since not one of Philip V's descendants was French when the succession opened in 1883.

In the Treaty of Utrecht, Philip V of Spain renounced his right of succession to the French throne on the condition that the semi-Salic law of succession should be instituted in Spain. For Legitimists the treaty is void ab initio, since the succession law cannot be altered in this way. Further, assuming arguendo that the treaty is valid, the repeal of semi-Salic law in Spain had broken the condition of the renunciation; the purpose of the treaty — the separation of the crowns of France and Spain — has been served, since the King of Spain is not the heir to France. For Orléanists the treaty is a valid alteration to the French law of succession. Further, Louis Philippe was the last official "First Prince of the Blood", who were, by tradition, immediate heir to the throne after the royal family itself.

The second point of contention between the Legitimists and the Orléanists is the nationality requirement. For Orléanists, foreign-born heirs forfeit their right of succession to estates in France by the law of aubain. Foreigners include, apart from the usual definition, those Frenchmen who left "without intent of returning." They also cite the opinion of Charles Dumoulin, a French jurist of the sixteenth century:
Common sense requires that princes of the blood who have become foreigners be excluded from the throne just as the male descendants of princesses. The exclusion of both is in the spirit of the fundamental custom, which overlooks the royal blood in princesses only to prevent the scepter from falling in foreign hands.
For this reason, Orléanists also exclude the Orléans-Braganza (Brazilians) and Orléans-Galliera (Spanish), junior descendants of Louis Philippe, King of the French, from the succession to the French throne.

Legitimists and Orléanists cite numerous examples and counter-examples of foreigners included and excluded in the French line of succession. There is no clear precedent on whether foreigners ought to be included or excluded. But in 1573, the Duke of Anjou, the future Henry III of France, who was elected King of Poland, had been assured by letters patent that his rights to the French throne would not lapse, nor those of any children he may have, even though they were to be born outside France. Similar letters patent were issued for Philip V of Spain, but later withdrawn. In these instances, the French court had shown themselves ready to recognize that the Capetian blood right overcame the law of aubain. For Orléanists, the function of the letters patent was to preserve the French nationality of Philip V and his descendants, and with those letters patent withdrawn, they ceased to be French.

Supporters of the Orleans cite the text of the letters patent in question for their evidence that the purpose of the letters was to preserve the French status of Henry III and his heirs, stating that they would remain "original and régnicoles." A "régnicole" was someone who was naturally French or "every man who was born in the kingdom, country, lands and lordships of the obedience of the King of France."