If the French decided that having a monarchy wasn’t so bad and decided to have a coronation is the person taking the throne known?
Most likely this guy.
King Henry VII (Count of Paris) is the senior heir to the last King. The Wiki paragraph mentions other constructions.
Henri is 83 years old. His oldest son is Prince François of Orléans, Count of Clermont.
Or this one.
If France decided to change its constitution to re-introduce monarchy, they would presumably also adopt a law specifying the line of succession plus identify a new monarch, so the new monarch would be whoever the amended law says it is. I suppose your question is: Assuming that they want to make the person monarch who would be person iof the monarchy had not been abolished in the first place, i.e., who is in direct line of succession to the old royal house. That person is, of course, known; the genealogy of the House of Bourbon or the House of Bonaparte or the House of Orl’eans has not been lost in history or anything like that. That means you have to pick which family, in your hypothetical France, would be the one continuing the monarchy: Would your monarchy be a continuation of the emperors from the Bonaparte family, the last one being Napoleon III., who was deposed in 1870 and died in 1873; or the continuation of the kings from the Orléans family, the last one of which was Louis Philippe I. who abdicated in 1848 and died in 1850, or of the kings from the pre-Revolution era, the House of Bourbon, the last one of which was Henry V., who died in 1830 as king?
The claim is disputed between the Legitimiste and the Orleaniste lines. The Legitimistes claim to be the true line through direct inheritance from Charles X, who was overthrown in 1830. The Orleanistes claim their right through Louis-Philippe, who overthrew Charles X in 1830 but was himself overthrown in 1848.
There’s also the Bonapartist claim, from the Napoleonic Emperors, who were overthrown in 1871.
Here’s the Wikipedia entry on the known current successors to various abolished monarchies:
In several cases it depends who you’re going to believe about what happened before the monarchy ended.
It’s simpler than that. Or more complicated. With the death of Charles X’s grandson, the comte de Chambord, in 1883, the last of the male lines from Louis XV died out. So in the eyes of many of the Legitimists, the next in line was the Orleanist claimant, the comte de Paris, and he had been recognised as such by Chambord before his death. The two obvious rival Bourbon claims therefore merged into one.
But that required accepting Philip V’s renunciation of his claim to the French throne on becoming king of Spain. Some Legitimists refuse to do so and it is on that basis that they instead recognise the duc d’Anjou.
Don’t forget the Bonaparte claimant, who is likely Charles, Prince Napoleon, though some Bonapartists think it’s his son, Jean Christophe, and not him.
What if I want to go old school, and bring back the Merovingians?
Are there any descendants in the direct male line?
The Stuarts claim that they are not only the legitimate heirs to the British throne but also to the French throne. The current Stuart claimant is Franz Bonaventura Adalbert Maria Herzog von Bayern, Duke of Bavaria.
Crazy homeless guy in a wagon.
But that would be on account of the English monarchs had claimed the throne of France for centuries. That claim was renounced by George III in 1801, but nothing the Georges did was legit for the Jacobites, so the English claim to France continued for as long as the Stuart pretenders did.
There obviously is somebody who is the closest living heir of the Merovingian line. But any attempt to investigate the actual history is overwhelmed by conspiracy nonsense.
They have to be males in the male line.
At the moment, there’s no monarchy in France. So why assume if a monarchy was re-established it would include a Salic Law?
“No King of England if not King of France”
Henry V.
As far as I know, the monarchy of England has never formally renounced their claims on the French throne. They just stopped pushing it when France became a republic. If the monarchy resumed, so would the British claim.
Good point; with 3 exceptions (Spain, Monaco, & Liechtenstein) every surviving hereditary monarchy in Europe now uses equal primogeniture (ie no preference for male dynasts over female) and women’s rights are pretty well enshrined in France so it’s hard to imagine Salic Law would fly nowadays. Then again it’s equally hard to imagine a political situation where the French would actually restore the monarchy. If that were to ever happen if might just be due to a dictator unrelated to any of the former dynasties seizing power and deciding to follow Napoléon’s example.
In 1800 King George the Third, that guy gave up a lot of territory, renounced his claim to the throne of France as part of the Acts of Union 1800 which united Great Britton with Ireland. France had demanded he do so during treaty negotiations in 1797. Also during brief returns of the Monarchy the British never again laid claim to the throne. I suppose they could always claim they didn’t mean it but I can’t see Elizabeth II claiming to be Queen of France.