THE ROYAL HOUSE OF THE TWO SICILIES
REAL CASA DELLE DUE SICILIE

The Two Sicilies Succession

 by Guy Stair Sainty

The succession to the Two Sicilies Crown is established by Chapter IV, Art 70 of the last Constitution of the Kingdom, first proclaimed on 10 Jan 1848 and reinforced by Royal Proclamation 28 Jun 1860. This read: “The solemn Act for the order of succession to the Crown of the August King Charles III of 6^th October 1759, confirmed by the August King Ferdinand I in Article 5 of the law of 8^th December 1816, the Sovereign Acts of 7^th April 1829 and 12^th March 1836, and all the Acts relating to the Royal Family, remain in full force.” The Sovereign Acts of 1829 and 1836 are concerned with marriages of members of the Royal House, and provide that marriages of a dynast contracted without the permission of the King exclude the contracting Prince or Princess from the succession. In determining who is the successor to the Crown, or  since the death of the last King in 1894, the Headship of the House, it is necessary only to look at the Pragmatic Decree issued by King Charles VII of Naples and Sicily, also then Charles III of Spain, on 6^th October 1759. 

This solemn act covers not only the succession to the Two Sicilies Crown but also provides for that to the Spanish, requiring that these two Sovereignties never be united in the same person. It was drawn up in accord with the provisions of an international treaty, the Treaty of Naples of 3^rd October 1759 (article II), which in turn executes the provisions of the Treaties of Vienna of 1736-39. The purpose of these treaties, as the King stated in the third paragraph of this act, was to preserve the balance of power in Europe, and to prevent the King of Spain from being able to rule directly in Italy. The first point it addressed, however, was the exclusion of the King’s eldest son, Filippo, Duke of Calabria, who, in the King’s words, suffered from “mental imbecility”. After placing this question before his most senior councilors,[1] he was advised that he could legally exclude this Prince and pass his rights on to the next in line. The young Prince pre-deceased his father and left no issue. 

He next addressed the issue of who was to succeed him as King of Spain. Charles himself had been Heir Presumptive to Spain during the entire reign of his childless elder brother, Ferdinand VI, while reigning himself as King in Naples. Hence there was no reason to suppose that being King of the Two Sicilies would lead to the forfeiture of one's eventual Spanish rights. The international treaties cited above simply prohibited their union, and required that when Charles became King of Spain he should abdicate the “Italian States and Properties” to the next in line. The senior throne was that of Spain, and so it was his second son “by nature” to whom was delegated in 1759 the position of “first born” and the title of Prince of the Asturias. To his third born son “by nature” but actually “second-born” by delegation, the Infante Ferdinand, he conferred the Sovereignty of his Italian States, while he himself would remain King of Spain.[2] He continued by “emancipating him from paternal control”, establishing a Council of Regency for his infant son, and providing that he would achieve his majority at the age of sixteen years. There then followed the most important part of the Decree, the regulation of the succession. This has three key provisions: first that the succession must pass by male primogeniture succession among the descendants of the new King Ferdinand;[3] second that failing such male descendants it would pass to each of his next sons in turn, all of them Infants of Spain;[4] and third, failing their male heirs, it would pass to the nearest female heiress to the last King.[5] Failing such an heiress it would pass to the heirs of his brothers the Infante don Felipe, Duke of Parma, or, failing them, the Infante Don Luis. This paragraph ends with a prohibition against the sovereignty of “the Italian States and Properties” from being combined with the Crown of Spain, and specifically requires that if the King of Spain then or in the future, or the Prince of the Asturias, inherited the Italian sovereignty, it must be renounced immediately to the next Prince in line.[6]  

One may draw two important conclusions from this document: first the system of succession was by male primogeniture; secondly there was no prohibition against being an Infante of Spain, nor from enjoying a right of succession to the Throne of Spain, and also having an eventual right to the “sovereignty of the Italian States and Properties”. Since Charles III clearly envisaged the possibility of such a union, this was only because the Two Sicilies dynasts enjoyed a right to the Spanish throne and vice-versa. If Carlos, Prince of the Asturias, Charles III’s eldest son had  predeceased his father, Ferdinand (who was second in line from 1759-71, and 1774-80) would have become Prince of the Asturias and, as such, would have had to have abdicated the “Italian States and Properties” to the next male in line, the Infante Don Gabriel. We know that the descendants of those other Infants named who married equally (as required in Spanish law from 1776), and left legitimate issue, were all Spanish dynasts; we also know from this Decree that they were also Two Sicilies dynasts. 

In determining who is the successor to the last King, Francis II, the genealogical position is clear. He died in 1894 without surviving issue (a daughter had predeceased him), whereupon his next surviving brother, Alfonso, Count of Caserta, succeeded as head of the House. This Prince was married equally, in accordance with the law, to his cousin Princess Antonietta of the Two Sicilies (daughter of the Count of Trani), and had a number of sons of whom the eldest, Ferdinand Pius (1869-1960) succeeded at his death in 1934. Ferdinand-Pius, married equally to a Princess of Bavaria, had had issue an only son, Roggero, who died aged 13 in 1914, and several daughters. At Ferdinand-Pius's death in 1960, the next in line was his brother Carlo, but Carlo had died in 1949 leaving in turn an only surviving son by his first wife (Infanta Mercedes, Princess of the Asturias), Alfonso, Infante of Spain, who was genealogically next in line and duly proclaimed himself head of the House, Duke of Calabria, Count of Caserta and Grand Master of the Royal and Dynastic Orders.  

Those who objected to the succession of the Infante Alfonso did so on two principal grounds. They alleged firstly that the Pragmatic Decree established a total incompatibility between being both an Infante of Spain and having a right of succession to the Two Sicilies. They argued that it is impossible to enjoy dynastic rights to both successions because the two Houses, they claimed, are entirely independent. The precedent of Charles III’s own succession is clear, however; even though he was King of the Two Sicilies, he could still succeed to Spain, but with the provision that he must transfer the Italian Sovereignty to the next in line after the immediate heir, which is exactly what happened. The supporters of the junior line ignore the many precedents in other royal Houses,[7] and the evidence to the contrary in the actual text of the Decree and in several acts of successive Kings of Spain and the Two Sicilies.  

The Spanish Constitution of 1876 specifically conferred a right of succession to the Spanish Throne upon all the descendants of the brothers and sisters of Ferdinand VII, who included the Infanta Isabel, wife of Francis I of the Two Sicilies and ancestress of all the surviving lines of the House.  By virtue of this status and the opportunity it afforded them, several of the sons of the Count of Caserta sought and received Spanish citizenship and titles and gained employment in the Spanish army. The Kings of the Two Sicilies had firmly stated their rights to the Spanish throne in their two protests against the Pragmatic Sanction of 1830/33, which repealed Salic law in Spain.[8] When Francis I protested against the Pragmatic Sanction of 1830 he was at the time eighth in line of succession to the Spanish throne; with the introduction before him of the many descendants of the daughters of Charles IV his relative position changed dramatically. Francis I wrote to King Ferdinand VII of Spain on March 29, 1830, complaining that the Pragmatic Sanction had affected the “rights of my descendants, because it deprived them of the eventual succession to the throne of Spain which they had been assured by the pre-cited law of Philip V”. He continued that he desired that his “male posterity would continue to conserve these rights that had been transmitted to them” by Philip V.  It is inconceivable that Francis I and Ferdinand II would have asserted their rights to the Spanish throne so determinedly (breaking off diplomatic relations for more than eleven years from 1833) if they had not actually enjoyed such a right. One must therefore dismiss altogether the assertion by the opponents of the senior line that it is impossible to enjoy a right of succession to both thrones. 

These opponents allege secondly that a document signed by Prince Carlo of the Two Sicilies on 14^th December 1900, shortly before his marriage to the Infanta Mercedes, and known as the “Act of Cannes”, was a definitive and final renunciation of his rights to the Two Sicilies throne and Headship of the House and Orders, binding upon him and his descendants in perpetuity. This Act is actually divided into two halves; the first is concerned with the future succession to the Crown and properties in Italy, the second with the properties and investments bequeathed by Francis II that Prince Carlo would no longer need because of his future wife’s fortune. It is worth considering the text in some detail.[9] “Here present is His Royal Highness Prince Don Carlo our dearest loved Son and he has declared that he shall be entering into marriage with Her Royal Highness the Infanta Doña Maria Mercedes, Princess of the Asturias, and assuming by that marriage the nationality and quality of Spanish Prince, intends to renounce, and by this present act solemnly renounces for Himself and for his Heirs and Successors to any right and rights to the eventual succession to the Crown of the Two Sicilies and to all the Properties of the Royal House found in Italy and elsewhere and this according to our laws, constitutions and customs of the Family and in execution of the Pragmatic Decree of King Charles III, Our August ancestor, of the 6^th October 1759, to whose prescriptions he declares freely and explicitly to subscribe to and obey”. In considering this we should look at the actual wording of the Act; to the laws under which it purports to have been made in execution; at its legality in Two Sicilies law; at the circumstances that led to its creation; and finally at the aftermath. 

The wording is significant as it clearly differs from the wording of the second half, which was an immediate and definitive renunciation of his rights to any of the properties of the family established to support the royal family in exile.[10] The dynastic portion, however, uses the word “intends” and declares that he promises to obey the “laws, constitutions and customs” of the Family, “in execution” of the Decree of 1759 “to whose prescriptions he declares freely and explicitly to subscribe to and obey”. The use of the word “intends” is surely consistent with the view that he would only actually renounce the Crown should the circumstances envisaged in Two Sicilies law require this. This conclusion becomes even more certain when we consider the Constitution (whose wording is cited above) and the Decree of 1759, from which we also quote here. The words Two Sicilies are not even used by Charles III when he states this incompatibility; he refers instead to the “Spanish and Italian Power,” the “Italian Sovereignty”, or the “Italian States and Properties”. Clearly the issue of being Head of the House of a non-existent State did not fall within these prohibitions.  

Was it legal in Two Sicilies law for a Prince to renounce his rights in circumstances not envisaged in either the Constitution or any other law? The decision of the Count of Caserta to demand a renunciation from his son was surely an arbitrary one, as the circumstances did not in fact warrant it. In determining the legal jurisdiction which applied to the Act of Cannes one must consider the (a) domicile of the parties, (b) the place where it was drawn up and signed, and (c) the place where the rights or properties renounced were situated. Both the Count of Caserta and Prince Carlo were Italian citizens at the time and the application of the Italian Civil Code of 1865 (revoked in 1942, but still valid in the Vatican City) to the Act of Cannes must be examined first. Article 12 stated that whatever the provisions of the law or decisions of a foreign state, the prohibitions in Italian law concerning the person, properties or acts would apply.[11] Article 9 of the same code required that acts between living persons must be determined according to the laws of the place in which they are made.[12] Thus, one must look at the provisions of the French Civil Code (that of 1806 was still in force in 1900) as the Act was signed in France.[13] Book III, on successions, Chapter IV “des successions irrégulières”, Title I, Section II, “De la renonciation aux successions”, Article 791, reads: “On ne peut, même par contrat de mariage, renoncer à la succession d’un homme vivant, ni aliéner les droits éventuels qu’on peut avoir à cette succession”. Title II, Section III, of Chapter II (“Des conditions essentielles pour la validité des conventions”) continued: “Les choses futures peuvent être l’object d’une obligation. On ne peut cependant renoncer à une succession non ouverte, ni faire aucune stipulation sur une pareille succession, même avec le consentement de celui de la succession duquel il s’agit.” Title V, Chapter I “Du contrat de mariage et des droits respectifs des époux”, Article 1389: “Ils ne peuvent faire aucune convention ou renonciation dont l’objet serait de changer l’ordre légal des successions, soit par rapport à euxmêmes dans la succession de leurs enfants ou descendants, soit par rapport à leur enfans entre eux”. These various articles could hardly be more explicit in their invalidation of any renunciations of future successions. 

Since the issue is the succession to the Two Sicilies Crown, one must also consider the civil code of that Kingdom, albeit it had ceased to apply as a matter of law to the parties to the Act, who were Italian citizens domiciled in France. This provided that one could not renounce, even for a contract of marriage, to the future succession of a living person, nor alienate the eventual rights which one could have to such succession.[14] Furthermore one could not renounce a succession not yet open nor make any other stipulations regarding it.[15] Neither could one make any convention or renunciation whose object was to alter the legal order of succession, nor for the succession of ones children or descendants, nor to individual children among them, nor could one sell such an inheritance even with consent.[16] Like the Italian Civil Code, that of the Two Sicilies also provided that Two Sicilies nationals resident abroad are subject to the laws of that state in regard to the capacity of individuals.[17] So whether one considered the exile in France of the Two Sicilies princes voluntary or not, the French and Two Sicilies codes contained equal prohibitions against renunciations.  

Since there was nothing in Two Sicilies dynastic law to suggest that these circumstances warranted a renunciation, and the Civil Codes of the Two Sicilies, Italy and France all prohibited such renunciations, by what legal right could the Head of the Dynasty impose an entirely new condition? The original prohibition had been made to preserve the balance of power in Europe, in the words of Charles III “the spirit of the treaties of this our century, that Europe desires, when it is possible to do so without opposing justice, the division of the Spanish and Italian power.”[18] In 1900 the Two Sicilies Crown did not exist, hence the issue of dividing the “power” did not even arise, while to impose such a renunciation was surely “opposing justice” as well as illegal in civil law.  

We know from correspondence between the Queen Regent of Spain and the Count of Caserta over the terms of the marriage that the question of a renunciation of the Neapolitan succession was brought up and rejected as unnecessary. The Count of Caserta, as the former Chief-of-Staff of the Carlist Army was extremely unpopular with the Spanish liberals and center-left and there were protests in the Cortes against the marriage, with demands that Prince Carlo renounce his rights. If such a renunciation had been legally possible it would have been an easy matter for the government to demand it. But in response to these protests, the Minister of Justice (the Marques de Vadillo) replied: "we understand that such a renunciation is not necessary .......because it would be without any effect on the right of succession to the Crown". The debate ended with a statement by the President of the Chamber that the marriage “would take place on February 14 following, with the bridegroom obtaining Spanish nationality (which he did on February 7, 1901) and without the necessity of having to renounce any of his hereditary rights". The Minister of Justice had advised the Queen that  “His Royal Highness the Prince Don Carlo was not obliged to renounce any kind of family nor dynastic rights and, on the contrary, could make no renunciation of this type: in the first place, because dynastic rights are themselves irrenounceable …. And, in the second place, since the Crown of the Two Sicilies did not exist, it could not be renounced even as a contingency…..”  

The requirement under Spanish law (usually waived) to renounce former nationality before taking up citizenship was specifically addressed in their correspondence. Citizenship had actually been conferred by royal acts on both Ferdinand Pius and Carlo when they joined the Spanish army, but without them being asked to renounce their citizenship as was required by Article 101 of Civil Registry of 17 June 1870, declared valid in article 332 of the Civil Code of 24 July 1889.[19] This referred to article 97 of the same code, which concerned the status of the spouse and children of the person concerned. In this case, however, it was obviously essential that the citizenship of Prince Carlo and his wife and children should be beyond question, since should the sickly Alfonso XIII have died, any doubt over nationality could have prevented the succession of the next in line. Hence the Count of Caserta’s letter of 6^th December 1900, in which he wrote: “I am ready to give him my consent for him to take Spanish Nationality in making the corresponding renunciation”.[20] Caserta continued that it will be sufficient “that the Prince has a position clearly determined vis-à-vis the Spanish and vis-à-vis the Neapolitans. What need could there to be go beyond what is found already stated by the fact of the change of nationality, to guarantee the new position of the Prince and his future Spanish family, by calling into cause an engagement not required nor necessary for descendants who do not yet exist and of whom their position as Spanish Princes will be already established at their birth and by the same fact of their birth”.[21] It is evident that the engagement to which he was referring as being unnecessary was a possible dynastic renunciation. In her reply of 10^th December, the Queen Regent wrote: “I am well content to see that we are in agreement on the question of Spanish nationality of your son and I believe that the corresponding renunciation with your consent is altogether sufficient”.[22]  

What led the Count of Caserta to decide to demand that his son sign the Act of Cannes? We know that this was the result of a telephone call on 12^th December from his sister-in-law, Infanta Doña Isabel, Countess of Girgenti.[23]  In this call she told Caserta that the Spanish government had stated that his offer to award the Neapolitan Orders to Alfonso XIII and to other members of the Spanish Court must be declined, as they did not want to offend the Italian government. He was furious and the decision to draw up the Act of Cannes, made in haste, was certainly inspired by this news as he reasonably feared that should Carlo became King-Consort and later inherit the Two Sicilies claim, that the latter would be forgotten or suppressed. It is unclear what was intended other than perhaps revalidating the terms of the Pragmatic Decree of 1759 and, perhaps extending their provisions to include a prohibition against a reigning King, or King-consort, from succeeding to the Two Sicilies claim. The Decree of 1759, however, was concerned only with “sovereignty” in Italy, and to suggest therefore that a union between the Crown of Spain and the Headship of the House should be prohibited would seem an unwarranted extension of Charles III’s actual intentions.  

The couple married on 14 February 1901 and their eldest son, Alfonso, was born almost exactly nine months later on 30^th November of the same year. A second son, Fernando, was born on 6 June 1903 but he died aged two years, on 4 August 1905. Finally a daughter, Infanta Isabel, was born on 16 October 1904; this led to her mother’s death the next day when their elder son, Alfonso, became heir presumptive to the Spanish Crown with the title “Infante Heredero”. He lost this status with the birth on 10 May 1907 of the Prince of the Asturias and, with the birth of subsequent children to Alfonso XIII and his wife, moved further down in line of succession.[24]  

Prince Carlo had been created an Infante of Spain on 7^th February 1901 and retained this title throughout his life. On 16 November 1907 he married Princess Louise of Orléans, daughter of the Count and Countess (herself born an Infanta) of Paris, at Woodnorton, Worcestershire where the Orléans family were then living in exile. In all the ceremonies he was described as Prince of the Two Sicilies as well as Infante of Spain and his father presided as the head of the groom’s family. Princess Louise was created an Infanta of Spain on her marriage and the children of this alliance were accorded the titles of Prince or Princess of Borbón, with the treatment and honors of Infantes. Their only son, Prince Carlos, born on 5 September 1908 was killed in the Battle of Elgoibar on 27 September 1936, fighting in the Nationalist army. Their daughter Mercedes married Don Juan, Count of Barcelona, and is the mother of King Juan Carlos I of Spain. The children of both Prince Carlo’s marriages appear in every edition of the Almanach de Gotha until 1944 as Princes or Princesses of the Two Sicilies. Although sometimes listed just under Spain or just under Bourbon-Two Sicilies and sometimes under both, they are always described as Princes of Bourbon-Sicily with no mention of any renunciation, just the important fact of their nationality. The Heads of each House always approved these entries; had it been considered that they were not Two Sicilies dynasts it would have been easy for this to have been noted. When the Infante Don Alfonso married Princess Alice of Bourbon-Parma, his uncle Ferdinand-Pius, Duke of Calabria, who had by then succeeded as head of the Two Sicilies Royal House, presided as head of the groom’s family.  

Relations between the Spanish royal family, including Prince Carlo, and his less well-off brothers were somewhat uneasy. Although Prince Ferdinand-Pius had made a good marriage to a Princess of Bavaria, the collapse of the German economy after World War I led to the value of her dowry being almost wiped out. Ferdinand-Pius approached the Queen Regent who graciously gave him a pension and, when she died in 1927, he wrote to King Alfonso XIII telling him what the King’s mother had done and asking him to continue this subsidy. The King kindly agreed, but with his own departure for exile in 1931 he had to cut the pension off completely, thus placing the Duke of Calabria in some difficulty. In 1923 Prince Ranieri had married Countess Caroline Zamoyska, whose brother Jan was later to marry the Infante Don Alfonso’s sister, Isabel. As her mother was his own wife’s sister, the Count of Caserta decided to accept this as a dynastic match, but King Alfonso XIII refused to accept it as valid for Spanish succession purposes. This caused considerable resentment against the Spanish King on Prince Ranieri’s part. With World War II Ranieri’s wife’s dowry was lost and he also found himself in financial difficulties.  

Despite the deposition of the Spanish Monarchy and the Civil War, in 1941 Prince Carlo, who held the rank of Captain-General in the Spanish Army and had retained his Spanish estates, returned there to live. In the same year the Two Sicilies royal family decided to sell their last estates in Italy (part of the duchy of Castro, which had been inherited from the Farnese) to the Italian government. Although these were included in the “tutti i Beni della Real Casa trovantasi in Italia” to which Carlo had purportedly stated his intention to renounce in the first part of the Act of Cannes, no reference was made to the “renunciation.” The transfer and sale documents demonstrate that he took his portion along with his brothers and sisters, being named immediately after his brother Ferdinand-Pius.[25] In a letter to his brother Ferdinand-Pius dated 7 March 1941, Prince Carlo gave instructions concerning his account details for the payment of this money. It is difficult to understand why Prince Carlo participated in this sale with his brothers and sisters if they considered that he had renounced his claim! In response to a request for help from his younger brother, Prince Ranieri, Carlo generously extended Ranieri a subsidy that he continued until his death in 1949. Infante Don Alfonso inherited his father’s estate but he had to make allowance for his sisters and, with his own family to look after, declined to continue this subsidy. When he wrote the following year to Prince Ferdinand Pius, the latter did not reply and he never heard from either of his uncles again.[26]  

On 7^th January 1960 Ferdinand-Pius, Duke of Calabria, died at Lindau in Bavaria. On 6^th February the Infante Don Alfonso wrote to Pope John XXIII to inform him of his accession in a lengthy letter giving the history of the Constantinian Order. On 7^th February the Infante Don Alfonso proclaimed himself Head of the House and Duke of Calabria and wrote informing the Heads of Europe’s reigning and formerly reigning Houses. On 12^th March the Count of Barcelona replied to him stating: “I have studied the Pragmatic Decree of Charles III and the renunciation of your father at the moment of his marriage to my aunt the Princess of the Asturias, and it seems to me that your right is very clear, and by consequence you will have all my support in that which refers to your legitimate aspirations. Being given that you know uncle Raina better than me, tell me if you believe that it will do any good if I write to him giving my opinion, because it is only that in my view he demonstrates a certain belligerence because he is the only surviving brother of Uncle Nando Calabria and also because he has forged a certain illusion on the subject of inheritance. You will recall that it was two years ago that I spoke to Uncle Nando, without obtaining any result.” On 18^th March he received a letter from Roberto II, Duke of Parma saying that he had studied the relevant documents and that Infante Don Alfonso’s rights were self-evident. He heard in similar terms from the Infante Don Jaime and Dom Duarte, Duke of Braganza. Don Juan later wrote on 14^th March 1962 directly to Prince Ranieri in his capacity as Head of the Royal House of Spain and Sovereign of the Golden Fleece, of which Prince Ranieri was a knight, to try and persuade him to desist; the latter replied with a challenge to Don Juan’s claim to head that Order. On the same day, 14 March 1962, the Prince of the Asturias (now King of Spain) wrote to the Lieutenant of the Order of Malta to protest that the Grand Chancellor had accepted the Constantinian Bailiffship from Prince Ranieri, stating that the head of the Order and of the Two Sicilies dynasty is the Infante Don Alfonso, Duke of Calabria.  

The Pragmatic Decree of 1759 was promulgated by Charles III as King of Spain and of the Two Sicilies, two dynasties that were inextricably linked with each other. As King of Spain, King Juan Carlos is the successor of Charles III and he therefore considered that he alone could adjudicate on this issue. In late 1982 the King commanded five of the highest organs of the Spanish State to investigate the disputed succession.[27] They each reported that in their opinion the legitimate heir to the Headship of the Royal House of the Two Sicilies was “S.A.R. Don Carlos de Borbón-Dos Sicilias y de Borbón-Parma, Duque de Calabria” and this was transmitted to the latter in a letter from the Marquess of Mondéjar, Head of the Royal Household, dated 8^th March 1984, in which he stated: “In the interests of historical truth and with the intention of clarifying the problem of to whom pertains the Headship of the Royal House of Bourbon-Two Sicilies and the Grand Magistery of the Constantinian Order of Saint George, by order of His Majesty the King, and as Head of His Household, I have received the statements and opinions of (then names the bodies). These ….. recognize in the person of Your Royal Highness as holder of the Headship of the House of Bourbon Two Sicilies and Grand Magistery of the Constantinian Order of Saint George. Marques de Mondéjar. Madrid 8^th March 1984. To H.R.H. Don Carlos de Borbón, Duke of Calabria.”  

Don Carlos’s position was again defined in Royal Decree number  2412/1994, of 16 December “… The exceptional circumstances which coincide in (the person of) His Royal Highness don Carlos of Bourbon-Two Sicilies and Bourbon-Parma, as representative of a dynastic line historically linked to the Spanish Crown, constitute reasons for which he is judged worthy of the favor and Dignity of Infant of Spain, for which, conforming with what is established under article 3, 2, of the Royal Decree 1368/1987, of 6 November. It is decided Article One. The Dignity of Infant of Spain is granted to His Royal Highness don Carlos of Bourbon-Two Sicilies and Bourbon-Parma with the honors and titles annexed to the cited Dignity./ Given in Madrid the 16 December 1994. / Juan Carlos I / The President of the Government / Felipe González Marquéz.”[28]  The wording of this decree should be particularly noted. H.R.H. don Carlos is specifically described as being "de Borbón-Dos Sicilias" (Bourbon-Two Sicilies), evidence that his line has always been part of the Two Sicilies Royal Family, and which the junior line denies. He is also described as being "representative of a dynastic line (i.e. that of Bourbon-Two Sicilies) historically linked to the Spanish Crown". As he is unquestionably the primogeniture male descendant of this family, is described as its "representative", and is also the only person in whom these "exceptional circumstances" can coincide, this may be regarded as recognition of his Headship of this line. 

The Infante don Carlos, Duke of Calabria, is married to Princess Anne of Orléans, daughter of the Count and Countess of Paris, they have one son, Pedro, Duke of Noto (who is unmarried) and four daughters.