Death of King William IV of the United Kingdom Of Great Britain and Ireland, King of Hanover.

Tags

History, King William IV of the United Kingdom, Kings, Kings and Queens of England, kings and queens of Scotland, kings and queens of the United Kingdom, Queen Victoria of the United Kingdom

June 20, 1837: His Majesty King William IV of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Ireland, King of Hanover died at Windsor Castle. He was 71 years old. Since The King died childless his niece Her Royal Highness Princess Alexandrina-Victoria of Kent ascended the British throne after him. After her proclamation as Queen she announced she wanted to simply be known as Victoria. The throne of Hanover governed by the Salic Law could only be held by a man, and so it went to the new Queen’s uncle HRH Prince Ernest Augustus, The Duke of Cumberland became King Ernst August of Hanover.

#KingWilliamIV #QueenVictoria #DukeofCumberland #TodayInHistory

Advertisements

Royal Grief: Part III

Tags

Death, Duke of Saxe-Coburg-Gotha, grief, King Edward VII of Great Britain, Nellie Clifden, Prince Albert, Queen Victoria, United Kingdom

With the death of Prince Alfred, reigning Duke of Saxe-Coburg and Gotha on July 30, 1900, his older brother, Prince Albert-Edward, The Prince of Wales, slipped into a depression over the death of his brother. Six months later would come an even larger and more life changing loss. On January 22, 1901 the Prince of Wales’ mother, Queen Victoria, passed away after a reign of 63 years  making him King of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Ireland.

I could find no recording of the grief he must have felt at the time. Was he conflicted? The new king, aged 59, had waited his entire life for this moment. On the one hand it was his mother that died. On the other hand he now could assume the role for which he was born into, which he had been waiting all of his life. I am sure the moment was bitter sweet.

Their relationship, mother and sun, was not easy. Queen Victoria had an almost worshipful view of her Husband, Prince Albert, and had hoped and expected that her son and heir would be a carbon copy of esteemed husband. She was very disappointed in him. In 1861, shortly before his death, Prince Albert confronted his son, the Prince of Wales, after his affair became public.

The Prince of Wales attended manoeuvres in Ireland, during which he conducted a three-day affair with actress, Nellie Clifden. Prince Albert, clealrly ill, was angered and disgusted with his sons behavior and visited Albert-Edward at Cambridge to reprimand him. Two weeks after the visit Albert died on December 14, 1861. Queen Victoria was inconsolable, wore mourning clothes for the rest of her life and blamed her son, Albert-Edward for his father’s death.  She wrote to her eldest daughter, Crown Princess Victoria of Prussia, “I never can, or shall, look at him without a shudder.”

Though relations did improve between mother and son, she was was very relieved when the Prince of Wales recovered from a bout of typhoid (which took the life of Prince Albert) in 1871, but she often refused to give her son proper work as heir to the throne feeling that he was not up to the task.

Upon succeeding to the throne Prince Albert-Edward chose to reign under the name Edward VII, instead of Albert Edward the name his mother had desired him to use^. declaring that he did not wish to “undervalue the name of Albert” and diminish the status of his father with whom the “name should stand alone”.

Part IV tomorrow! I promise!!

 

Royal Grief…Part I

Tags

British Royalty, Conspiracy Theories, Duke of Edinburgh, Duke of Saxe-Coburg-Gotha, Edward VII, Emperor of Russia, grief, Hereditary Prince Alfred, History, Queen Victoria

 

With my interest in royalty I often peruse genealogy charts and biographies to look at the history and events in people’s lives to see if I can capture an accurate picture of who these people were and the times in which they lived. That is what I do when I wear the hat of an historian. I also have a background in psychology and despite having these high and lofty titles they are still human and can and do suffer all the ills associated with the human condition and that includes grief.

When I examine genealogy charts and notice that there are deaths that come close after one another I realize that certain royal family members may be caught up in grief. Often their biographies may detail their grief, as the case with Queen Victoria of the United Kingdom, however, there are times when nothing is mentioned. This past July I noticed that King Edward VII of the United Kingdom went through many losses in one year. I envision that it may have been a very difficult time for him.

In 1892 he lost his eldest son and heir, Prince Albert Victor, Duke of Clarence and Avondale (1864-1892) to pneumonia. It has been reported that Prince Albert Victor’s mother, Princess Alexandra, Princess of Wales (at that time) never fully recovered from her son’s death and kept the room in which he died as a shrine. This was typical of those in the Victorian era that made grief seem like an Olympic sport. I suspect that the future King Edward VII also never recovered from the death of his son…what parent ever truly recovers from such a tragedy?

However, it is the year 1899 that we turn to in examining the difficult year for Edward VII. On February 6, 1899 came the death of his nephew, HRH Alfred, Hereditary Prince of Saxe-Coburg and Gotha (October 15-February 9, 1899), the only son and  heir of HRH Prince Alfred, reigning Duke of Saxe-Coburg-Gotha and Duke of Edinburgh and brother of King Edward VII. The Hereditary Prince’s mother was, Grand Duchess Maria Alexandrovna of Russia the fifth child and only surviving daughter of Emperor Alexander II of Russia and his first wife Princess Marie of Hesse and by Rhine.

The Hereditary Prince was aged 24 and his death was under circumstances still not entirely clear.Was it due to health reasons such as consumption or was it suicide? He is alleged to have secretly married Lady Mabel Fitzgerald, granddaughter of the 4th Duke of Leinster, and it has been claimed that this caused friction between young Prince Alfred and his parents and was the cause of his suicide. One report is that Alfred shot himself with a revolver while the rest of the family was gathered for the anniversary celebration of his parents marriage, January 23rd 1899. Prince Alfred survived the initial self-inflicted gun shot and was taken to Schloss Friedenstein in Gotha for three days before being sent to the Martinnsbrunn Sanatorium in Gratsch in the South Tyrol (Austria, now part of Italy). Alfred died there at 4:15 pm on February 9, 1899.

Technically this part of the story belongs more to the grief of the Duke and Duchess of Saxe-Coburg-Gotha than to Edward VII himself, after all, it wasn’t his son that died. I only relay this story here because it was the start of a string of deaths in the British Royal Family that would run from 1899 until August of 1901 that would have had an emotional impact on the future Edward VII.

In keeping my desire to have these posts be not too length and therefore easily digestible, I will stop here and post the next entry next Friday.

 

Limits of Power for Exiled Royal Families: Conclusion

Tags

Abdication, King Edward VIII of the United Kingdom, King Michael of Romania, Prince George Friedrich of Prussia, Prince Louis-Ferdinand of Prussia, Royal Marriages Act of 1772, The Kingdom of Portugal, The Prince of Prussia

On December 30, 2007, King Michael signed a new Statute of the Royal House, called Fundamental Rules of the Royal House of Romania. These new House Laws were implicitly based on European Union type of legislation, specifically those laws which addresses the European Convention on Human Rights, which, however, does not guarantee any right to reign as a monarch of any country, and also on the values of the Romanian society. The document clarifies the order of inheritance of King Michael’s fortune and rights to the Romanian throne. This new Statute, thought by some to be undemocratic because it was not approved by any Parliament, is mostly symbolic but it does attempt to replace the old 1884 Statute Law. According to this new Statute, the first in line of succession is King Michael’s eldest daughter, newly titled “Crown Princess of Romania” and “Custodian of the Romanian Crown,” Princess Margarita. In 1997 King Michael had already designated her as successor to “all” his “prerogatives and rights”, indicating his desires for a gender-blind succession to the throne.

The argument has been made that Crown Princess Margarita will only become head of the royal family because King Michael, as a constitutional monarch, is unable to alter the old and inoperative succession laws which had excluded females and their descendants. King Michael was not and is not an absolute monarch who could rule via the strength of his will. It is only the Romanian Parliament that could ameliorate these laws along with the Constitution where these precepts had been included. Also, the Romanian Parliament will not alter the succession to a monarchy that no longer exists. In order to legally alter the succession the monarchy would need to be restored. There is however, an alternative view which finds that Michael is able to alter these succession laws alone, effectively making him an absolute monarch. This view stems from the rreality of the fact that during his second reign, Michael neither was sworn into office by any Parliament, nor did he take any oath to any Constitution. Instead King Michael was instead anointed king by the Romanian Orthodox Church. The second opinion ignores the fact that Michael never personally claimed to be an absolute monarch, nor had he acted as such, and he always supporting democracy and the constitutional monarchy.

During the week this came in over the news….This is copied from Royal Central…

“In a statement released yesterday, Romania’s King Michael has withdrawn his grandson’s royal title. The former Prince Nicolae of Romania, once third in succession to the throne, and only grandson of the ninety-three-year-old king will now be known as Mr. Nicholas Medforth-Mills. He became third in line to the throne on April 1st, 2010 at the age of twenty-five.

King Michael reached this conclusion by observing his grandson’s behavior in public and in private. Ioan Luca Vlad explained further, “When you are in public, you must have a certain attitude, you must comply with certain norms. If you do this, but you are not happy with it, this won’t last long, so you must make a preventive step,”

The king is merely thinking of the future, stated the Royal House’s representatives. It isn’t a punishment for the former prince, who was in agreement with his grandfather’s decision. Mr. Methford-Mills issued his statement, “The royal life means leading my life in a way I find hard to accept,” he said. “For this reason, I accept with a lot of pain in my heart the decision of His Majesty King Michael for me.”

I have given it some great thought. One problem, as I already stated it, is that these House Laws/Constitutions were written at a time when these thrones were extant. This forever sets them in stone and there is no legal means to change them. If these families were still reigning there would be a legal means of altering the House Laws.

In the majority of these former ruling families, most holding their titles in pretense, there is still considerable wealth and estates to consider and who should inherit these vast holdings are some of the problems the heads of these former ruling families face. In the past these issues were decided legally and while the courts today can rule on these issues they do not have jurisdiction over the claims of titles and thrones that no longer exist. There are limits.

Many of these former ruling families had strict marriages laws/requirements and rules on who was and was not a dynast. Why does this still matter? As I mentioned there is still wealth and land to be inherited but more than that, some of these former reigning families still hold places of privilege and high profile levels of service to their country. The heirs to the thrones of Romania, Serbia, Germany and Portugal all have some relationships with the government either on a national level or local level. For instance, the wedding of the pretender to the Portuguese throne was televised and attended by the Prime Minister and the President of Portugal as well as other foreign dignitaries. When the Prince of Prussia, heir to the German Empire, married in 2011 the religious wedding was broadcast live by local public television. The formal dinner, which many members of German and European royal families attended, was held in the Orangery Palace at Sanssouci Park.

There still is a lot at stake. For instance, the Prince of Prussia (Prince Georg-Friedrich) was under a lot of pressure to marry someone of equal status after his great-great grandfather, Kaiser Wilhelm II, placed a stipulation in his will that only those of equal marriage were eligible to inherit his vast wealth and headship of the Royal House. The eldest children of Prince Georg-Friedrich’s grandfather, Prince Louis-Ferdinand (1907-1994), did not marry equally so Prince Louis-Ferdinand named his grandson (born of an equal marriage) as heir to the estate and the Headship of the Royal House. This was contested in the courts by Prince Georg-Friedrich’s uncles and although he eventually won, he too, had to marry equally. His wife, the current Princess of Prussia, was born Her Serene Highness Princess Sophie of Isenburg. Although the court could rule on the inheritance it could not rule on the Headship of the Royal House because the monarchy was no longer existing so it had no jurisdiction over pretense to titles.

Times have changed and monarchies in order to survive also need to change with the times. In 1936 King Edward VIII of the United Kingdom of Great Britain had to abdicate in order to marry the woman he loved. This caused great scandal. Today, attitudes on divorce and equal marriage have changed. When the Prince of Wales married his former mistress in 2005 it was accepted by most. When Crown Prince Haakon of Norway married a woman that had had a child from a previous relationship, it was accepted although it did cause a minor uproar. If these former ruling families want to stay relevant and not disappear into the dust bins of history I think they need to be allowed to change and adapt.

I don’t think old House Laws and Constitutions need to tie the hands of these Heads of former reigning Houses. For practical reasons they should not. As we have seen issues and problems do come up in these families and they do need to be addressed and I think the Heads of former reigning Houses need to have some freedom to address these problems and change the Laws as the times change.

The limits of power of monarchs in exile: Part II

Tags

Austria, Austria-Hungary, Constitutional Monarchy, Karl von Habburg, King Michael of Romania, Otto von Habsburg, Romania, SalicLaw

 Last week I wrote of the controversy surrounding the disputed successor to the Headship of the Royal House of Saxony. This raises the question of does the head of these former ruling houses have the power to change centuries old house laws? With so many disputes after the head of the house dies, I guess the consensus is that they do not have that power or right. I think what may be closer to the truth is that the heads of these former ruling dynasties is that they have no power to make their new laws or ruling stick past their tenure as head of the house.

The Imperial House of Austria has been somewhat more successful in changing their house laws. They had had very rigid marital laws and when the now head of the house, Archduke Karl (Emperor Karl II to his supporters) married in 1993 to Baroness Francesca Thyssen-Bornemisza. The marriage received the dynastic authorization of Karl’s father, Archduke Otto who was then head of the House of Habsburg, despite objections from some members of the dynasty because the brides family was not aristocratic enough. Baroness Francesca is the only daughter of Baron Hans Heinrich Thyssen-Bornemisza de Kászon, a European industrialist, and his third wife, Fiona Campbell-Walter. The Thyssen-Bornemisza family is of the nobility of pre-republican Hungary and Transylvania, but since they did not descend in the canonically legitimate male line from a family of dynastic, mediatised or alter Adel status, many former Habsburg family members protested the marriage. Since that time Otto amended the rigid marriage rules to allow marriages into noble families that would not have been deemed acceptable during the times when the dynasty ruled.

Romania is another case. King Michael was ousted in 1946 (many say illegally) and he leaves no male heir. His eldest daughter is Princess Margarita and in 2007 the king designated her as his heir with the titles of “Crown Princess of Romania” and “Custodian of the Romanian Crown.” This is technically against the Romanian kingdom’s last democratically approved constitution of 1923 which was in effect while the monarchy was extant. That constitution stated that upon the death of King Michael, and should he have no sons, the claim to the Crown devolves once again upon the Hohenzollern-Sigmaringen family from which the Romanian royal family descends.

The Constitution of 1923 provides for an agnatic primogeniture (basically the “Salic law”) which means males only may inherit the throne, barring females, and females may not pass succession rights to their children. However, the 1923 Constitution is no longer in affect but many feel that the traditions behind those ancient laws still carry the rule of the day. Under the old constitution the next in line to the Romanian throne are the descendants of Friedrich Wilhelm, Prince of Hohenzollern (1924-2010).

These are the Hohenzollern members in line to the throne under the old Constitution.

1. Karl Friedrich, Prince of Hohenzollern (b. 1952)
2. Alexander, Hereditary Prince of Hohenzollern (b. 1987)
3. Prince Albrecht of Hohenzollern (b. 1954)

4. Prince Ferdinand of Hohenzollern (b. 1960)
5. Prince Aloys of Hohenzollern (b. 1999)
6. Prince Fidelis of Hohenzollern (b. 2001)

The Romanian situation is complex and so I will continue with this next week and then give my overall opinion on if a former monarch or head of a former ruling dynasty does have the right to change their house laws.

Who was the first King of Norway?

Tags

Earl, Harald Fairhair, Harald I of Noray, Jarl, King Harald I of Norway, Kingdom of Norway, Weichsel glaciation

Of all the origins of the kingdoms we have studied in this series the origins of Norway goes way back into antiquity. There are remnants of civilizations in Norway extending into pre-historic periods. The first inhabitants of Norway were the Ahrensburg culture (11th to 10th millennia BC), which was a late Upper Paleolithic culture during the Younger Dryas, the last period of cold at the end of the Weichsel glaciation.

It wasn’t until what historians call the migrations period after the fall of the Roman Empire in the 5th century do we see more permanent settlements, consisting of tribes springing up around Norway. By the 9th century each of these small states had things, or tings (local or regional assemblies), for negotiating and settling disputes. The thing meeting places, were usually situated on the oldest and best farms, which belonged to the chieftains and wealthiest farmers. The regional things united to form even larger units: assemblies of deputy yeomen from several regions. In this way, the lagting (assemblies for negotiations and lawmaking) developed. The Frostating was the assembly for the leaders in the Trondheimsfjord area; the earls Jarls of Lade, near Trondheim, seem to have enlarged the Frostatingslag by adding the coastland from Romsdalsfjord to the Lofoten Islands.

Although there is much we know about how people lived in these times thanks to archeology, historians do have a difficult time figuring who was the first king of Norway. Many names of the kings are mythological with no historical evidence to support their kingship. Even the first king historians can name with some certainty still has very little historical evidence behind his reign.

The first King of Norway which most historians agree actually existed was Harald I Fairhair c. 850- c. 932. According to traditions in Norway and Iceland in the twelfth and thirteenth centuries, Harald reigned from c. 872 to 930. Despite historians agreeing that Harald Fairhair actually existed, the majority of what is known about his life remains uncertain, since the extant accounts of his life in the sagas were set down in writing around three centuries after his lifetime. What does exist are a few remnants of skaldic praise poems attributed to contemporary court poets which seem to refer to Harald’s victories against opponents in Norway. The information supplied in these poems is inconsistent with the tales in the sagas in which they are transmitted, and the sagas themselves often disagree on the details of his background and biography. Two of his sons, Eric Bloodaxe and Haakon the Good, succeeded Harald to become kings after his death.

Who was the first King of Denmark?

Tags

Christian I of Denmark, Christian II of Denmark, Christian IX of Denmark, Christopher of Bavaria., Eric VII of Pomerania, Gorm the Old, King Harald V of Norway, King of Denmark, Queen Margrethe II of Denmark.

Now we direct our attention to the three Scandinavian countries of Denmark, Norway and Sweden. Like England and Scotland much of the early history of these monarchies are shrouded in myths and legends. We have many names for these per-histtorical kings but many are legendary and may not have existed at all.

Denmark is such a country shrouded in these myths. For example, Gyrd and Gnupa were alleged kings of Denmark and ruled during part of the 10th century according to King Sweyn II of Denmark and Adam of Bremen. They were the sons of the Swedish chieftain Olaf the Brash who was said to have conquered Denmark, ruling jointly, according to Swedish tradition. Did they actually exist?

King Gnupa is mentioned on the two Sigtrygg Runestones found near Schleswig by his wife Asfrid for their son Sigtrygg. Also, a Danish king Chnuba is named by Widukind of Corvey in his Saxon Chronicles as having been defeated and was forced to accept Christian baptism at the hands of King Gnupa in 934. There is a saga by Olav Tryggvasson’s that tells of Gnupa’s defeat by Gorm the Old. The problem with this claim is that it contradicts the chronology of Adam of Bremen, who places the succession and subsequent defeat of Sigtrygg during the tenure of Archbishop Hoger of Bremen (909-915/7). These conflicting dates influenced Gesta Danorum of Saxo Grammaticus who names a nobleman, Ennignup, who allegedly served as a guardian for a young king Canute I at some time prior to accession King Gorm the Old and it has been suggested this may be confused representation of King Gnupa.

With all of that confusion Gorm the Old is the first historically recognized King of Denmark, reigning from c.  936 to his death c.  958. He ruled from Jelling, and made the oldest of the Jelling Stones in honor of his wife Thyra. Gorm was born before 900 and died c.  958. King Gorm is the reported to be the son of semi-legendary Danish king Harthacnut. Chronicler Adam of Bremen says that Harthacnut came from Nortmannia to Denmark and seized power in the early 10th century. He deposed the young king Sigtrygg Gnupasson, reigning over Western Denmark. When Harthacnut died, Gorm ascended the throne.

Conflicting reports mention Gorm taking at least part of the kingdom by force from Gnupa, and Adam himself suggests that the kingdom may have divided prior to Gorm’s time. Gorm is first mentioned in extant documents as the host of Archbishop Unni of Hamburg and Bremen in 936. Despite the historical certainty of Gorm as King of Denmark it is recorded that Denmark was not completely unified during his reign. According to the ancient Jelling Stones it was Gorm’s son, Harald Bluetooth, brought together the various tribes in Denmark under one rule. This leads historians to speculate that Gorm only ruled Jutland from his seat in Jelling.

As in the other nations in this series I have looked at what the exact titles were in the past and Denmark will be no exception. The monarchs of Denmark have a long history of royal and noble titles. Historically Danish monarchs also used the titles ‘King of the Wends’ and ‘King of the Goths’ along with the title King of Denmark. Here is a select list of titles born by the kings of Denmark.

Eric VII of Pomerania: By the Grace of God, King of Denmark, Sweden and Norway, the Wends and the Goths, Duke of Pomerania.

Christopher I of Bavaria: By the Grace of God, King of Denmark, Sweden and Norway, the Wends and the Goths, Count Palatine of the Rhine, Duke of Bavaria.

The full title of the Danish sovereigns from Christian I to Christian II was: By the Grace of God, King of Denmark, Sweden and Norway, the Wends and the Goths, Duke of Schleswig, Holstein, Stormarn and Dithmarschen, Count of Oldenburg and Delmenhorst. Christian II’s successor, Frederik I, didn’t style himself King of Norway because he never visited the country. Therefore he was never crowned King of Norway, so he styled himself King of Denmark, the Vends and the Goths, elected King of Norway.

Upon her accession to the throne in 1972, Queen Margrethe II, abandoned all outdated historical titles except the title “Queen of Denmark.”

Who was the first King of Scots…

Tags

Alexander III of Scotland, Donald II of Scotland, Kenneth I of Scotland, Kingdom of Alba, Kingdom of Scots, Malcolm II of Scotland, Scorland

As we stated last week the dominant kingdoms in Scotland before the Viking Age was the northern Pictish kingdom of Fortriu on the shores of the Moray Firth, the Kingdom of Strathclyde, and the Kingdom of Dál Riata. By the 9th century, the Gaels of Dál Riata (Dalriada) were subject to the kings of Fortriu (a Pictish kingdom) of the family of Constantín mac Fergusa (Constantine son of Fergus). Constantín’s family dominated Fortriu since after 789. The dominance of Fortriu came to an end in 839 with a defeat by Viking armies. The Viking Age brought great changes in Britain and Ireland, including Scotland. By the middle of the 9th century, when Ketil Flatnose is said to have founded the Kingdom of the Isles, the Vikings had destroyed the kingdoms of Dál Riata and Northumbria, greatly diminished the power of the Kingdom of Strathclyde, and founded the Kingdom of York. The Kingdom of Strathclyde became a sub-kingdom of the Kingdom of the Picts.

One of the main repercussions of the Viking raids was that King Uen of Fortriu and his brother Bran, Constantín’s nephews, together with the Áed mac Boanta, king of Dál Riata, were killed. These deaths led to a period of instability lasting a decade as several families attempted to establish their dominance in Pictland. By around c. 848 Kenneth I MacAlpin (Cináed mac Ailpín) had emerged as the winner.

Cináed mac Ailpín defeated the rival kings, winning out by around 845-848. He is traditionally considered and counted as the first “King of Scots,” or alternatively “King of Picts and Scots.” Modern scholars point out, he was actually King of Picts, and the terms ‘King of Alba’ and the even later King Scots were not used until several generations after him. During the reign of Cínaed’s grandson, Caustantín mac Áeda (900–943), outsiders began to refer to the region as the Kingdom of Alba rather than the kingdom of the Picts, but we do not know whether this was because a new kingdom was established or Alba was simply a closer approximation of the Pictish name for the Picts.

The reign of Kenneth MacAlpin begins what is often called the House of Alpin, which is a modern concept. The descendants of Kenneth I MacAlpin were divided into two branches; the crown would alternate between the two, the death of a king from one branch often hastened by war or assassination by a pretender from the other. Malcolm II was the last king of the House of Alpin.

When did the title of these kings transform from to Rex Pictorum (“King of the Picts”) to Rex Scotie? Domnall mac Causantín (Modern Gaelic: Dòmhnall mac Chòiseim), anglicized as Donald II (died 900) was King of the Picts or King of Scotland (Alba) in the late 9th century. He was the son of Constantine I (Causantín mac Cináeda). Donald’s death is dated to 900 by the Annals of Ulster and the Chronicon Scotorum, where he is called king of Alba, rather than king of the Picts. He was buried on Iona. The change from king of the Picts to king of Alba is seen as indicating a step towards the kingdom of the Scots, but historians, while divided as to when this change should be placed, do not generally attribute it to Donald in view of his epithet. Most historians feel that by the time of King Alexander III 1249-1286 the unity of modern Scotland was complete.

So who was the first King of Scotland? Although historians cannot pinpoint when the title went from King of the Picts to King of Alba and to King of Scots it is difficult to say who was the first king. For example King David II of the Scots was also the last king of Strathclyde and he died in 1124 and as just mentioned it wasn’t until Alexander III that the unity of modern Scotland was complete. There is a good case for Kenneth I MacAlpin although historians do even question this. The theory is that the kingship of Gaels and Picts underwent a process of gradual fusion, starting with Kenneth I, and rounded off in the reign of Constantine II. Hence the change in styling from King of the Picts to King of Alba. The legacy of Gaelic as the first national language of Scotland does not obscure the foundational process in the establishment of the Scottish kingdom of Alba.

Who was the last King of the Franks? Who was the first King of France?

Tags

Austrasia, Charlemagne, Charles the Bald, Charles the Great, Clovis, Clovis I, Holy Roman Empire, Lothair I, Lothair II, Louis the german, Mayor of the Palace, Pippin the Younger, Pope Leo III, Roman Empire, Treaty of Verdun

I have touched on this before so I may be repeating some of myself here. The subject of France and the Kingdom of France/Kingdom of the Franks is complex and doesn’t fit into a tidy box of starts and stops as one may want it to. Just like we have a specific date for the founding of the Kingdom of Wessex in England, we have a specific date for the founding of the Kingdom of the Franks. And just like the transformation from the Kingdom of Wessex in to the Kingdom of England is open to interpretation, so is the transformation from the Kingdom of the Franks into the Kingdom of France. So who was the last King of the franks? Who was the first King of France?

Here is a little background information.

The Kingdom of the Franks or Frankish Kingdom (Latin: Regnum Francorum), Frankish Empire, Frankish Realm or occasionally Frankland, Francia or Frankia was a territory inhabited and ruled by the Franks, who were a coalition of Germanic tribes. The kingdom was founded by Clovis I, crowned first King of the Franks in 496. Clovis’ title in Latin was Francorum Rex. My intent is not to do a complete history of the Frankish Kingdom for this topic but I will summarize some important aspects.

At first the kingdom was small, the kingdom originally consisted of the area called Austrasia which was centered on the Middle Rhine and included the basins the Moselle, Main and Meuse rivers. It bordered on Frisia and Saxony to the north, Thuringia to the east, Swabia and Burgundy to the south and to Neustria and Flanders to the west. Under Charlemagne the territory of of the Frankish kingdom, or empire at this time, included all of modern France, the Low Countries, Germany and Northern Italy.

However, prior to Charlemagne unity of the Frankish Kingdom was not its trademark. The dynasty Clovis belonged to, the Merovingians, had the habit of dividing the kingdom among all the sons of the king. This mean Francia was often divided into sub-kingdoms such as the kingdom of Austrasia and Neustria for example. There were times when the kingdom was united but it was rare.

Eventually the Merovingians became weak monarchs and were supplanted by the Mayors of the Palace (often chief advisory to the king). In 751 Pippin the Younger, Mayor of the Palace, supplanted the Merovingians and became King of the Franks. This dynasty would become known as the Carolingians named after Pipin’s most famous son, Charles the Great, known to history as Charlemagne. Under Charlemagne the Kingdom of the Franks reached its zenith in both power and geographical extent. With Charlemagne’s support of the papacy in times of war and invasion, Pope Leo III crowned Charlemagne Emperor on Christmas Day, 800, with the notion he had restored the old Roman Empire in the West (topic of another blog post).

Charlemagne expressed his desire to separate and divide his kingdom among his three sons but with the death of all of them except Louis, the point was moot. Louis inherited the entire Frankish empire including the titles Francorum Rex and Imperator Romanorum “Emperor of the Romans.” It was Louis I called the Pious, who divided his empire in 840. However, civil war broke out among the three sons and it was with the Treaty of Verdun in 843 that settled the division.

These are the three divisions of the empire decided by the Treaty of Verdun in 843: East and West Francia and Middle Francia.

Middle Francia was the territory ruled by Lothair I, eldest son of Louis I, and the kingdom was wedged between East and West Francia. Lothair I took the Imperial title but only the ruled the Middle Frankish Kingdom. His three sons in turn divided this kingdom between them into Lotharingia (centered on Lorraine), Burgundy, and (Northern) Italy, known as Lombardy. These areas had different cultures, ethnicity, language and traditions which did not allow unity to take hold. This kingdom was would later vanish as separate kingdoms, (although Charles the Fat would briefly re-unite the entire Carolingian Empire in 888). Middle Francia would eventually become Belgium, the Netherlands, Luxembourg, Lorraine, Switzerland, Lombardy and the various.

East Francia was the land of Louis II the German. It was divided into four duchies: Swabia (Alamannia), Franconia, Saxony and Bavaria; to which after the death of Lothair II were added the eastern parts of Lotharingia. This kingdom eventually evolved into the Holy Roman Empire which is slated for a future blog in this topic.

In wanting to keep these blogs readable, I don’t like to read through a lot of text online, and many also feel that way, I will conclude the section on France, next Friday. However, look for other blog posts during the week!

Survival of Monarchies: Part X, Conclusions.

Tags

Charles of Austria, Constitutional Monarchy, Emperor Carl of Austria, France, Kaiser Wilhelm II of Germany, King Louis XVI of France, Royal Marriages Act of 1772, The Succession to the Crown Act of 2013, United Kingdom

This has been a very long series. Here is the conclusion. As stated in the beginning my premise for the survival of the monarchies that are extant is due to a more Liberal political view that allowed these systems to adapt and change with the times. These are also the reasons why these systems are continuing to survive. For example, the United Kingdom followed the direction the Scandinavian and Benelux monarchies have gone in regards to gender neutrality for the succession to the crown. In the future the eldest child will inherit the throne regardless of gender. For a further example, if the Duke and Duchess of Cambridge’s new baby is a girl, she will follow Prince George and become fourth in line to the throne as she would have under the old laws. However, she will not be moved down in the succession by any future younger brothers. The Succession to the Crown Act of 2013 has finally gone into affect once Australia finally approved it. Other more Liberal provisions of the Act was to repeal the Royal Marriages Act of 1772 so now only the first 6th in line to the throne have to ask permission of the sovereign to marry. The Act also restored to the order of succession those who had married Catholics. So as long as a Prince or Princess married a Catholic they will no longer lose their place in the succession. However, if a British Prince or Prince converts to the Catholic faith or is baptized into the faith they will lose their place in the succession.

We have seen that in Britain they went from an almost absolute monarchy under the Tudors to the Constitutional Monarchy they have today. Although it was a very rough road to get to where we are today the monarchy did survive because it was able to adapt to the changing political philosophies of the day. We saw the same thing in Denmark although with much less bloodshed. In Denmark the king took over the power and when the people desired a Constitution with a monarch that had lesser power it was granted easily. When King Christian IX (1863-1906) tried to wield more power than he had he was very unpopular for it and almost lost his crown. His ability to adapt to how things were helped save that crown.

Russia, Austria-Hungary and the German Empire (and France) all fell during times of war but the staunch Conservatism and the inability to change lead to the downfall of each. Both Czar Nicholas II of Russia and King Louis XVI lost their thrones and lives during revolutions. Brief periods of Constitutional Monarchy were attempted but each monarch were used to centuries of personal autocracy and the sharing of power was seen as being beneath them. Plus, these bodies (Parliaments) were not very trusting of their sovereigns either. Kaiser’s Wilhelm II and Carl I-IV lost their thrones because the people no longer wanted them. I think this point cannot be over stressed. Both Germany and Austria-Hungry clung to a type of autocracy that had fallen out of favor over a century.

I think it brings up a good point to close with. It is important that monarchies bend to the changing times for the most important lesson learned with the collapse of these more Conservative regimes is that the monarchs govern by the will of the people and if and when the people no longer desire them they will be gone. I think today’s monarchs realize this very important fact. In that context I think these monarchies do provide their countries with something the people do need. I have gone over this briefly and I will restate it here: Symbolism and Patriotism are important to any country and having a head of state that is above the partisan game playing and bickering and who is a symbol and unifying factor can be of great value to the people. As long as they can find ways to remain meaningful in the lives of their country and adapt to the changing needs of the country and remaining an anchor for stability then the people will desire to keep them around.