The royalist anthem that reopens the Habsburg-Bourbon feud

The French royalist anthem that reopens the dynastic dispute

The legitimacy of a dynasty is not decided in an anthem, but in what that dynasty did with power when it had it. A royalist chant of French origin — the one that proclaims the lineage of kings as the source of national glory — has been enough to reopen a three-century-old dispute: Habsburgs against Bourbons, with the memory of empire and the slave trade in between. The conclusion, in light of the debate, is far from unanimous. Some place the institution above any specific king. Some simply side with the Trastámara.

Were the Habsburgs better kings than the Bourbons?

The contrast raised in the thread pits Charles II against Ferdinand VII. The last Habsburg, dismissed as an incapable king, comes out better than expected: he is credited with curbing inflation and keeping the Empire intact against the pressure of Louis XIV, surrounding himself with experts regardless of their social origin. Ferdinand VII, on the other hand, bears the label of having let irreplaceable opportunities slip away. A century apart and a verdict that, curiously, runs counter to the usual narrative.

That comparison carries a corollary that appears in several parts of the exchange: an unworthy king does not invalidate the monarchical principle. The house is saved; the specific tenant, not. It is the line that allows defending the institution while tearing apart half the dynasty.

The cost of Ferdinand VII and the loss of the treasure

The criticism of the king who peine the 19th century is the harshest. It is argued that his management amounted to a historic humiliation and cost Spain a treasure that, had it been preserved, would have had no equal in Europe. Alongside that reproach appears another: the Bourbons as a dynasty of merchants, promoters of a slave trade aimed at boosting their own colonies. Both lines of attack share an axis: patrimony was administered for their own benefit, not the kingdom's. The phrase that sums up the anger is devastating, and refers to a reign that ended two centuries ago.

Why is Alfonso XII's paternity questioned?

No Spanish succession dispute is complete without a physiological rumor. The thesis is repeated that Alfonso XII was not the biological son of Francisco de Asís, but of an alleged lover of Isabella II. The defense is not short: it is argued that the genes of the house were very dominant and that the consort himself had two daughters outside marriage, which would dismantle the accusation of impotence. Proof, none. Only speculative genealogy and 19th-century spite.

Carlists, Trastámara and the search for a king without stain

Among the defenders of the throne there is a fracture. One current reserves its respect for the Carlist branch and claims for the throne a branch uncontaminated by what it calls Guasonic compromises. Another proposes going further back: the Trastámara, with Isabella and Ferdinand at the head, would be the only legitimate Spanish kings, and the great historical error would have been marrying Joanna to a German prince instead of to an Aragonese or Portuguese nobleman. The underlying argument is always the same: to seek an uncontaminated origin. Each proposed branch drags its own corpse.

The religious justification: Christ the King and the order of the cosmos

Another part of the argument is not historical, but theological. The monarchy is defended as a reflection of a hierarchical order that would govern the universe: without hierarchy, it is said, there is no order but chaos, and the king would be the earthly piece of that chain. Under that prism, all current monarchies are rotten because they mirror the humanity they represent. The coherence of the approach has a price: if any specific king falls below the principle, the defense of a particular dynasty becomes superfluous.

Freemasonry as the explanation for everything

There is a line that attributes the three great ruptures of the monarchy —1808, 1868 and 1931— to a single agent: Freemasonry, which, according to this reading, would have destroyed the institution to install governments at its service. It is a classic conspiratorial framework, without evidence to support it, and it serves to close any question about the responsibility of the kings themselves. From the other shore the response is no less crude: the kings, like any elite, were managers of their interests. Two total narratives that do not touch each other.

From reigns to the heir's physique

As usually happens, the discussion degraded. From comparing monarchs it moved to commenting on the physical appearance of a current member of the royal family, with the same tone used to discuss a technical sheet. There was also room to ridicule those who defended the royalist cause instead of refuting them. Someone summed up the state of the matter with an apt image: the ox, even to the yoke, licks. The dynastic issue fades; the joke remains.

Will the royal house continue to provide material for this in a thousand years? Probably. The years the matter has been on the table have not served to fix a shared version, and it seems there won't be one: History, when discussed with the heart, admits no arbiters. The data, the reigns and the accounts remain. And on the throne, the same question as always: how much of the glory was own merit and how much, simple inheritance. Bourbon or perdition, some summarize. With that dilemma, the conversation never closes.