Re: Ducs de Châtellerault

In medio alt.talk.royalty aperuit "Al" <alcohol@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx> os suum:
On 19 Feb, 15:13, François R. Velde <v...@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
wrote:
In medio alt.talk.royalty aperuit "Turenne" <richard.licht...@xxxxxxxxxx> os
suum:

There seem to have been several creations of the dukedom of
Chatellerault. The current Dukes of Abercorn and Hamilton still claim
the title. Does the dukedom still exist, and if so, who is the duke?

See
http://www.heraldica.org/topics/france/scotfr.htm#arran


I thought of your excellent site when I saw the question.

However I'm still not quite clear on the law here. Are you saying the
title was confiscated (i.e. the creation extinguished) in c16 or only
the property of the duchy. You talk of a transfer of the title to the
Montpensier family, is that possible or do you mean a new creation?

The gift in 1563 to Diane is listed by Père Anselme as a new creation, and I
presume the gift to the Montpensier in 1583 was too, though one would have to
see the text of the letters patent to be sure. It appears the title was created
once more in 1730. The opinion given in the Annuaire de la noblesse, linked by
Radu, that the property was confiscated but the title survived, is untenable.

Is the crown able to recognise a holder (even when reversing that
confiscation above) who would not be the heir under the original
terms. Did NIIIs decision have precedent in other similar actions by
recent monarchs. Setting aside the Conseil des sceaux decision for a
moment was such a change legal in your opinion?

I think it's difficult to make sense of the phrase "maintained and confirmed for
the duke of Hamilton the title created in 1548", used by Napoleon III in his
decree, given that the duke of Hamilton was neither heir general nor heir male
of the grantee of 1548, and given that the title had been confiscated and
recreated in the meantime. The Conseil d'Etat's cop-out does not help.

What remains is that, as of 1864, the title was inexistant in France. Napoleon
III was certainly free to (re)create it. It would have helped if he had made
clear with what remainder. Claiming that this was a confirmation of the 1548
title only confuses matters, since the 1864 grantee was not the heir of the 1548
title under the original remainder (setting aside the issue of forfeiture). But
this confusion only becomes a problem in 1895, when the male issue of the
beneficiary of 1864 dies out.

You say the "Conseil d'État accepted the argument that the title was
not recreated in abstracto in the Hamilton family" yet if the Conseil
d'État rejected the request to adjudicate the decision it being the
role of the Conseil des sceaux can the Conseil d'État's statements be
considered to be a legal statement? Would it not need to come from the
CdS?

Recourse to the CdS was pointless, since the CdS, when it resolves doubts
concerning the origin of a title, exercises the executive's prerogatives, and
that prerogative had already been exercised, after consultation of the CdS, by
the Emperor in his decree of 1864. Abercorn no doubt knew this, and merely
tried the Conseil d'Etat as his only hope.

The anonymous comment in the Annuaire de la noblesse linked by Radu expresses
doubt about that legal opinion, but I think it has become part of the
jurisprudence. Courts can only enforce the rights attached to clearly devolved
title, e.g. protect them from misuse and usurpation, force the authorities to
use and recognize them when appropriate, etc. If the title itself is in doubt
or dispute, then it's back to the sovereign for decision: there is no strictly
judicial forum to adjudicate such disputes. But then, is it not the case in
Britain as well?

Does not French law have a presumption. i.e. a confirmation will have
a same remainder as the original creation unless otherwise specified.
If it was a new creation does the law assume heirs male unless
otherwise specified?

Modern nobiliary law assumes heirs male. I would assume the same for the 1864
creation/recreation/confirmation, unless the text of the decree said otherwise.
It would be interesting to see the actual decree, as well as the opinion given
by the conseil du sceau in 1864. Perhaps I will look it up someday in the
National Archives.
--
François Velde
velde@xxxxxxxxxx (replace by "heraldica")
Heraldry Site: http://www.heraldica.org/
.