History of the Kingdom of Greece: Conclusion

Tags

Abolished Monarchy, Constitutional Monarchy, House of Glucksburg, House of Wittelsbach, King Constantine II of the Hellenes, Kingdom of Greece, Kingdom of the Hellenes, Plebiscite, Restoration

I began this series back on January 19th after the death of Constantine II the last King of the Hellenes. I knew the Greek Kingdom had a tumultuous history and I wanted to a survey of the reign of each King. I knew the monarchy was unstable so it was fascinating to see just how unstable the monarchy was.

Here is a list of each monarch and how each reign ended.

Otto – deposed
George I – assassinated
Constantine I (first reign) – deposed
Alexander – died tragically young
Constantine I (second reign) – abdicated
George II (first reign) – deposed

A referendum on becoming a republic was held in Greece on April 13, 1924. It followed the catastrophic outcome of the Asia Minor Campaign. On March 1924 the Second Hellenic Republic was proclaimed by Parliament.

On November 3, 1935, almost 98% of the reported votes supported restoration of the monarchy with a rigged plebiscite.

George II (second reign) – fled German invasion

German Occupation; George II led government in exile

George II (third reign) – died on throne
Paul – died on throne
Constantine II – exiled and deposed

Junta – overthrown, democracy restored
Monarchy abolished

It is difficult to conceive that the Greek monarchy will ever be restored. Most Greeks consider both the reign of the sole King from the House of Wittelsbach and the reigns of the Kings from the House of Glücksburg as foreign rulers and non-Greek aliens imposed on them by foreign powers. This is an accurate view. With it’s perception of being a foreign dynasty the monarchy never established the firm cultural roots within the Greek nation.

As I reviewed the reigns of each King, one issue of the Greek monarchy is readily apparent; none of the kings of the Hellenes ever behaved as a constitutional monarch and held too much political power and influence. Personally, I believe that the role of the monarch as a symbol of national unity they need to remain politically neutral. One of main reasons most of the surviving European monarchies are still with us is due to the ability of it’s monarchs to remain neutral and to be above partisan politics. The Greek monarchy is a prime example of what happens when that political neutrality is not adhered to.

One of the sad issues with the failure of the Greek monarchy, especially with the collapse of the reign of King Constantine II, is that he was a good, kindly family man who loved Greece and desired a peaceful reign with all Greek citizens living peacefully amongst one another. This makes his record as a monarch was an unfortunate one. .

I believe that King Constantine II did have good intentions. He desired to keep his throne and to avoid Greece becoming a military dictatorship. Sadly, his actions when he acted unconstitutionally did destabilize the country, helping pave the way for the Colonel’s Coup which he then legitimated. However good a man King Constantine II may have been (and I believe he was a good man), he is forever associated by Greeks with not only the mistakes he made but also with a dark time in their history to which no one wants to return.

I am not only an historian, I am also a Monarchist. I firmly believe in and support the principals and concepts of a Constitutional Monarchy. My desire and dream, no matter how unrealistic, is to see the restoration of all deposed and extinct monarchies.

However, the Greek monarchy is an exception. History has shown that a monarchy and the Nation of Greece, are incompatible. I believe Greece is best served by being a Republic.

January 17, 1991: Accession of King Harald V of Norway.

Tags

Constitutional Monarchy, Constitutional Role, Harald V and Queen Sonja of Norway, King Harald V of Norway, King of Norway, Queen Elizabeth II of the United Kingdom, Queen Sonja of Norway

Harald V (born February 21, 1937) is the King of Norway.Harald was the third child and only son of King Olav V and Princess Märtha of Sweden. He was second in the line of succession at the time of his birth, behind his father. His paternal grandparents were King Haakon VII and Queen Maud of Norway; his maternal grandparents Prince Carl and Princess Ingeborg of Sweden; King Leopold III of Belgium; Queen Mary and King George VI of the United Kingdom; and Crown Princess Ingrid of Denmark. His parents already had two daughters, Princess Ragnhild and Princess Astrid. The King is a second cousin of Queen Elizabeth II of the United Kingdom as they are both great-grandchildren of King Edward VII of the United Kingdom.

Harald V of Norway

At the time of Harald’s birth, he was 2nd in line of succession to the Norwegian throne following his father, Crown Prince Olav; and also was 16th in line of succession to the British throne as a descendant of Queen Victoria through his paternal grandmother, Queen Maud.In 1940, as a result of the German occupation during World War II, the royal family went into exile. Harald spent part of his childhood in Sweden and the United States.

He returned to Norway in 1945, and subsequently studied for periods at the University of Oslo, the Norwegian Military Academy and Balliol College, Oxford.Following the death of his grandfather Haakon VII in 1957, Harald became crown prince as his father became king. A keen sportsman, he represented Norway in sailing at the 1964, 1968, and 1972 Olympic Games, and later became patron of World Sailing.

Harald married a commoner, Sonja Haraldsen, at Oslo Domkirke in Oslo on August 29, 1968. The pair had dated for nine years, but Olav was reluctant to allow his son to marry a commoner. Olav only relented when Harald told his father that if he was not allowed to marry Sonja he would not marry at all. This would have ended the reign of his family and the Norwegian monarchy, as Harald was the sole heir to the throneThe couple had two children, Märtha Louise and Haakon.

Harald became King of Norway upon the death of his father, King Olav V, on January 17, 1991. He became the first Norwegian-born monarch since Magnus VII abdicated in 1343, a gap of 648 years. Harald is the sixth King of Norway to bear that name, and the first in 855 years. The five other kings who have borne the name are Harald Fairhair, Harald Greycloak, Harald Bluetooth, Harald Hardrada, and Harald Gille. Harald Bluetooth is usually not given a number in the Norwegian list of kings, therefore Harald is ‘only’ numbered as Harald V.

While the Constitution vests the King with executive power, he is not politically responsible for exercising it. This is in accordance not only with provisions of the Constitution, but with conventions established since the definitive establishment of parliamentary rule in Norway in 1884. His acts are not valid without the countersignature of a member of the Council of State (cabinet)–usually the Prime Minister–and proceedings of the Council of State are signed by all of its members.

Although he nominally has the power of veto, no Norwegian king has exercised it since the dissolution of the union with Sweden in 1905. Even then, the king’s veto power is suspensive, not absolute as is the case with British monarchs. A royal veto can be overridden if the Storting passes the same bill following a general election.

While the Constitution nominally vests the King with the power to appoint the government, in practice the government must maintain the confidence of Parliament. The King appoints the leader of the parliamentary bloc with the majority as prime minister. When the parliamentary situation is unclear, the king relies on the advice of the President of Parliament and the sitting prime minister. Unlike some monarchs, Harald does not have the power to dissolve Parliament; the Constitution does not allow snap elections

.The King meets with the Council of State at the Royal Palace every Friday. He also has weekly meetings with the Prime Minister and the Minister of Foreign Affairs. He receives foreign envoys, and formally opens parliament every October delivering a speech from the throne during each opening. He travels extensively throughout Norway and makes official state visits to other countries, as well as receiving and hosting guests.The reign of King Harald has been marked by modernization and reform for the Norwegian Royal family.

The King has cooperated closely with Queen Sonja and the Crown Prince in making the royal household more open to the Norwegian public and the Norwegian media. King Harald’s decision to accept two more commoners into the royal family, Crown Princess Mette-Marit and Ari Behn, has been interpreted as a sign of modernization and adjustment.

Louis Philippe II , Duke d’Orléans (Philippe Égalité). Part II.

Tags

Absolute Monarchy, Constitutional Monarchy, French Revolution, Jacobins, King Louis XVI of France, Louis Philippe II of Orleans, Marie Antoinette, Philippe Égalité, Second Estate, Tennis Court Oath, Third Estate

Liberal ideology

Philippe d’Orléans was a member of the Jacobin faction,(Republican and anti-monarchical group) and like most Jacobins during the French Revolution, he strongly adhered to the principles of Jean-Jacques Rousseau and was interested in creating a more moral and democratic form of government in France. As he grew more and more interested in Rousseau’s ideas, he began to promote Enlightenment ideas, such as the separation of church and state and limited monarchy. He also advocated and voted against feudalism and slavery.

Philippe was also a strong admirer of the British constitutional monarchy. He strongly advocated for France’s adoption of a constitutional monarchy rather than the absolute monarchy that was present in France at the time.

Palais-Royal

As the new Duke of Orléans, one of the many estates Philippe inherited from his father was the Palais-Royal, which became known as the Palais-Égalité in 1792, because he opened up its doors to all people of France, regardless of their estate (class).

Leadership in the Estates-General

Philippe d’Orléans was elected to the Estates-General by three districts: by the nobility of Paris, Villers-Cotterêts, and Crépy-en-Valois. As a noble in the Second Estate, he was the head of the liberal minority under the guidance of Adrien Duport. Although he was a member of the Second Estate, he felt a strong connection to the Third Estate, as they comprised the majority of the members in the Estates-General, yet were the most underrepresented. When the Third Estate decided to take the Tennis Court Oath and break away from the Estates-General to form the National Assembly, Philippe was one of the very first to join them and was a very important figure in the unification of the nobility and the Third Estate. In fact, he led his minority group of 47 nobles to secede from their estate and join the National Assembly.

Due to the liberal ideology that separated Philippe d’Orléans from the rest of his royal family, he always felt uncomfortable with his name. He felt that the political connotations associated with his name did not match his democratic and Enlightenment philosophies, thus he requested that the Paris Commune (French Revolution) allow his name to be changed, which was granted. Shortly after the September Massacres in 1792, he changed his surname to Égalité, (“equality” in English). As one of the three words in the motto of the French Revolution (Liberté, Égalité, Fraternité), he felt that this name better represented him as a symbol of the French people and what they were fighting for.

Relationship with King Louis XVI

Although a relative of King Louis XVI, Philippe d’Orléans never maintained a positive relationship with his cousin. Upon inheriting the title of Duke of Orléans, Philippe also became the Premier Prince du Sang – the most important personage of the kingdom after the king’s immediate family. Therefore, he would be next in line to the throne should the main Bourbon line die out. For this reason, many supposed that Philippe’s goal was to take his cousin’s throne.

Philippe and the King’s wife, Marie Antoinette, also detested each other. Marie Antoinette hated him for what she viewed as treachery, hypocrisy and selfishness, and he, in turn, scorned her for her frivolous and spendthrift lifestyle. The King’s reluctance to grant Philippe a position in the army after his loss at the Battle of Ushant is said to be another reason for Philippe’s discontent with the King.

One of the most astounding events occurred when Philippe took a vote in favor of King Louis XVI’s execution. He had agreed among close friends that he would vote against his execution, but surrounded by the Montagnards, a radical faction in the National Convention, he turned on his word, to the surprise of many. A majority (75 votes) was necessary to indict the King, and an overwhelming amount of 394 votes were collected in favor of his death. The King was especially shocked by the news, stating:

“It really pains me to see that Monsieur d’Orléans, my kinsman, voted for my death.”

On April 1, 1793, a decree was voted for within the Convention, including Égalité’s vote, that condemned anyone with “strong presumptions of complicity with the enemies of Liberty.” At the time, Égalité’s son, Louis Philippe, who was a general in the French army, joined General Dumouriez in a plot to visit the Austrians, who were an enemy of France.

Although there was no evidence that convicted Égalité himself of treason, the simple relationship that his son had with Dumouriez, a traitor in the eyes of the Convention, was enough to get him and the members of the Bourbon family still in France arrested on April 7, 1793. He spent several months incarcerated at Fort Saint-Jean in Marseille until he was sent back to Paris. On November 2, 1793, he was imprisoned at the Conciergerie. Tried by the Revolutionary Tribunal on November 6, he was sentenced to death, and guillotined the same day.

The Kingdom of Ireland: Part IV

Tags

Constitution, Constitutional Monarchy, Irish Free State, King Edward VIII of the United Kingdom, King George VI of the United Kingdom, Kingdom of Ireland, President of Ireland, Republic of Ireland, United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland.

Under the constitution of the Irish Free State The King of the United Kingdom was the their Head of State as that constitution established the Irish Free State as a constitutional monarchy. However, with the new constitution of 1936 until April 1949 it was unclear whether the Irish state was a republic or a form of constitutional monarchy and (from 1937) whether its head of state was the President of Ireland or King George VI.

The exact constitutional status of the state during this period has been a matter of scholarly and political dispute. The Oireachtas removed all references to the monarch from the revised constitution in 1936, but under statute law the British monarch continued to play a role in foreign relations, though always on the advice of the Irish government. The state did not officially describe itself as the Republic of Ireland until 1949, when it passed legislation giving itself that description.

Background

The state known today as Ireland is the successor-state to the Irish Free State which was established in December 1922. The Irish Free State was governed, until at least 1936, under a form of constitutional monarchy. Under the Free State’s constitution the King had a number of nominal duties, including exercising the executive authority of the state, appointing the cabinet and promulgating the law. However, all of these were delegated to the Governor-General of the Irish Free State, and in 1927 the King’s title within Great Britain and Northern Ireland was changed by proclamation under the Royal and Parliamentary Titles Act passed by the Westminster Parliament to “George V, by the Grace of God, of Great Britain, Ireland and the British Dominions beyond the Seas King, Defender of the Faith, Emperor of India”.

King’s title in the Irish state

The King’s title in the Irish Free State (1922–1937) and in Ireland (1937–1949) was the same as it was elsewhere in the Commonwealth, being:
* 1922–1927: By the Grace of God, of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Ireland and of the British Dominions beyond the Seas King, Defender of the Faith, Emperor of India
* 1927–1948: By the Grace of God, of Great Britain, Ireland and the British Dominions beyond the Seas King, Defender of the Faith, Emperor of India
* 1948–1949: By the Grace of God, of Great Britain, Ireland and the British Dominions beyond the Seas King, Defender of the Faith.

Edward VIII and the abdication crisis

Edward VIII, King of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Ireland, Emperor of India

In January 1936, George V died and was succeeded by his eldest son, who became Edward VIII. The new King’s reign lasted only eleven months, and he abdicated in December of that year and was succeeded by his brother Prince Albert, Duke of York, who took the name George VI. The parliaments of independent members of the British Commonwealth were required to ratify this change in monarch, and the pro-republican government of the Irish Free State decided to use this opportunity to drastically change the constitution.

Immediate post-abdication reforms (1936–37)

The day after the abdication was announced on December 12, 1936, the Free State constitution was amended to remove all mention of the King and abolish the office of governor-general. The following day, a separate statute permitted the King to sign international treaties and to accredit diplomatic representatives, where authorised by the Irish government.

In 1937 a new Constitution was adopted establishing the monarch’s diminished role, transferring many of the functions performed by the King until 1936 to a new office of President of Ireland, who was declared to “take precedence over all other persons in the State”. However, the 1937 constitution did not explicitly declare that the state was a republic, nor that the President was head of state, and it allowed for the King to have a role in the state’s external affairs. The state’s ambiguous status ended in 1949, when the Republic of Ireland Act ended the King’s remaining role in external affairs and declared that the state was a republic.

The status of the Head of the Irish State from 1936 to 1949 was largely a matter of symbolism and had little practical significance. This was because the roles of both the King and the President of Ireland were merely ceremonial, being exercisable only “on the advice” of the government (Cabinet). However, one practical implication of explicitly declaring the state to be a republic in 1949 was that it automatically led to the state’s termination of membership of the then British Commonwealth, in accordance with the rules in operation at the time.

Constitution of 1937

The Constitution of Ireland, adopted in 1937, filled the gap left by the abolition of the governor-general by creating the post of a directly elected president. The President of Ireland was henceforth responsible for the ceremonial functions of dissolving the legislature, appointing the government, and promulgating the law. Unlike most heads of state in parliamentary systems, the President was not even the nominal chief executive. Instead, the role of exercising executive authority was explicitly granted to the government—in practice, to the Taoiseach. The constitution also, like the 1922 constitution that preceded it, contained many provisions typical of those found in republican constitutions, stating, for example, that sovereignty resided in the people and prohibiting the granting of titles of nobility.

George VI, King of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Ireland, Emperor of India

Nonetheless the government of Éamon de Valera, despite its long-term goal of republicanising the Irish state, consciously chose not to declare a republic and decided to name the state simply Éire (or Ireland), rather than the “Republic of Ireland” or the “Irish Republic”. Thus the new constitution did not explicitly declare that the President would be head of state, providing merely that he would “take precedence over all other persons in the State”. Nor did the new document mention the word republic. Most crucially, Article 29 of the new constitution mirrored Article 51 of its predecessor, by permitting the state to allow its external relations to be exercised by the King.

Nonetheless from 1936 until 1949 the role of the King in the Irish state was invisible to most Irish people. The monarch never visited the state during that period and, due to the abolition of the office of governor-general, had no official representative there. The President, on the other hand, played a key role in important public ceremonies.
Asked to explain the country’s status in 1945, de Valera insisted that it was a republic.

Republic of Ireland Act

The Republic of Ireland Act 1948, which came into force on April 18, 1949, the 33rd anniversary of the beginning of the Easter Rising, was remarkable in that it purported to reform the state into a republic without making any change to the constitution, the ambiguous provisions of which remained unaltered. The Republic of Ireland Act contained three major provisions; it declared that: the External Relations Act was repealed, the state was a republic, and the external relations of the state would henceforth be exercised by the President. The act also had the effect of automatically terminating the state’s membership of the Commonwealth.

Soon after President Seán T. O’Kelly signed the act into law, he commemorated his new status as the clear and unambiguous Irish head of state with state visits to the Holy See and France. A visit to meet George VI at Buckingham Palace was also provisionally planned, but timetabling problems with the President’s schedule prevented the meeting.

Outside the Irish state, “Great Britain, Ireland” was not officially omitted in the royal title until 1953 in the reign of Elizabeth II. Then, each Commonwealth realm adopted a unique title for the monarch. No mention of Ireland was made in any except in the title within the United Kingdom and its dependent territories: it was changed from “of Great Britain, Ireland and the British Dominions beyond the Seas, Queen” to “of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland and of Her other Realms and Territories, Queen”.

In 1962 the Republic of Ireland officially repealed Crown of Ireland Act of 1542.

Elizabeth II, Queen of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland and of Her other Realms and Territories.

Announcing a new series: A History of Styles & Titles

Tags

Charles II of England and Scotland, Constitutional Monarchy, Franz Joseph of Austria-Hungary, German Emperor, German Empire, Holy Roman Emperor, Holy Roman Empire, Kings and Queens of Great Britain, Kings of france, Monarchy, styles, titles

After doing my post on the styles of the Dutch monarch I’ve decided to do a history of titles and styles for the following monarchies.

The United Kingdom
(England, Scotland & Ireland)
France
Germany
(Holy Roman Empire, German Empire)

Before I commence with the histories of the titles and styles for each country I’d like to distinguish between a styles and a title.

His Majesty King Charles II of England, Scotland and Ireland.

Styles

A style of office, honorific or manner/form of address, is an official or legally recognized form of address, and may often be used in conjunction with a title. A style, by tradition or law, precedes a reference to a person who holds a post or political office, and is sometimes used to refer to the office itself. An honorificcan also be awarded to an individual in a personal capacity. Such styles are particularly associated with monarchies, where they may be used by a wife of an office holder or of a prince of the blood, for the duration of their marriage. They are also almost universally used for presidents in republics and in many countries for members of legislative bodies, higher-ranking judges and senior constitutional office holders. Leading religious figures also have styles.

His Imperial and Royal Apostolic Majesty, Franz-Joseph I, The Emperor of Austria, Apostolic King of Hungary and Bohemia, King of Dalmatia, Croatia, Slavonia, Galicia and Lodomeria and Illyria; King of Jerusalem etc., Archduke of Austria; Grand Duke of Tuscany and Cracow, Duke of Lorraine, of Salzburg, Styria, Carinthia, Carniola and of Bukovina; Grand Prince of Transylvania; Margrave of Moravia; Duke of Upper and Lower Silesia, of Modena, Parma, Piacenza and Guastalla, of Oświęcim, Zator and Ćeszyn, Friuli, Ragusa (Dubrovnik) and Zara (Zadar); Princely Count of Habsburg and Tyrol, of Kyburg, Gorizia and Gradisca; Prince of Trent (Trento) and Brixen; Margrave of Upper and Lower Lusatia and in Istria; Count of Hohenems, Feldkirch, Bregenz, Sonnenberg, etc.; Lord of Trieste, of Cattaro (Kotor), and over the Windic march; Grand Voivode of the Voivodship of Serbia.”

Titles

Title
Prefix or suffix added to someone’s name in certain contexts

A title is one or more words used before or after a person’s name, in certain contexts. It may signify either veneration, an official position, or a professional or academic qualification. In some languages, titles may be inserted between the first and last name (for example, Graf in German, Cardinal in Catholic usage (Richard Cardinal Cushing) or clerical titles such as Archbishop). Some titles are hereditary.
For other uses, see Title (disambiguation).

Types

Titles include:
* Honorific titles or styles of address, a phrase used to convey respect to the recipient of a communication, or to recognize an attribute such as:
* Imperial, royal and noble ranks
* Academic degree
* Other accomplishment, as with a title of honor
* Title of authority, an identifier that specifies the office or position held by an official

Traditional rank amongst European royalty, peers, and nobility is rooted in Late Antiquity and the Middle Ages. Although they vary over time and among geographic regions(for example, one region’s prince might be equal to another’s grand duke), the following is a reasonably comprehensive list that provides information on both general ranks and specific differences.

Sweden: The Instrument of Government was adopted on June 6, 1809

Tags

Absolute Monarchy, Constitutional Monarchy, Instrument of Government 1809, King Carl XIII of Sweden, King Carl XVI Gustaf of Sweden, King Gustaf III of Sweden, King Gustaf VI Adolph of Sweden, Kingdom of Sweden, Riksdag

Also on this date in Swedish history. The Instrument of Government (Swedish: 1809 års regeringsform) was adopted on June 6, 1809 by the Riksdag of the Estates and King Carl XIII, was one of the fundamental laws that made up the constitution of Sweden from 1809 to the end of 1974.

King Carl XIII of Sweden and Norway

The Instrument of Government came about after the Coup of 1809, when the disastrous outcome in the Finnish War led Swedish nobles and parts of the Army to revolt, forcing King Gustaf IV Adolf to involuntarily abdicate and go into exile.

For half a century, starting with the Instrument of Government of 1719, often referred to as the Age of Liberty, Sweden had enjoyed parliamentary rule under the Riksdag of the Estates, but in 1772 that was ended by a coup d’état perpetrated by Gustaf III. The coup enabled Gustav III to rule as an enlightened despot, in other words, an absolute monarch. Gustaf III’s son, Gustaf IV Adolph, succeeded him but proved a less charismatic ruler, and the change of sides of Russia in the Napoleonic wars prompted the disastrous Finnish War and the loss of Finland, settled in the Treaty of Fredrikshamn. This provided momentum for the Swedish nobility and other forces to depose the king and restore political power to the Estates.

The aged and childless brother of Gustaf III, Carl XIII was made king in 1809, but he was a mere puppet in the hands of the Estates and the question of his successor had to be solved. The election, by the Riksdag of the Estates, of the French Marshal and Prince of Pontecorvo Jean-Baptiste Bernadotte in 1810, provided not only a successor, but also a vital regent and a new dynasty. The rights of Bernadotte’s successors to accede to the Swedish throne were codified in an amendment to the constitution in the form of the Act of Succession (1810).

The Instrument of Government of 1809 replaced the Instrument of Government of 1772. It established a separation of powers between the executive branch (the king) and the legislative branch (the Riksdag of the Estates). The King and Riksdag possessed joint power over legislation (article 87, constitutional law in articles 81-86), while the Riksdag had sole power over the budget and state incomes and expenses (articles 57-77) including military burdens (article 73). While the king’s power was somewhat reduced compared to the enlightened absolutism of Gustaf III, the new document enabled the king to take a more active role in politics than during the Age of Liberty.

The liberals won a decisive victory in 1917, but Gustaf III tried to appoint another conservative ministry. However, it could not garner nearly enough support in the Riksdag. It was now obvious that the king could no longer pick a government entirely of his choosing, nor could he keep it in office against the will of the Riksdag. Gustaf yielded and appointed a liberal-social democratic coalition that effectively arrogated most of the crown’s political powers to itself.

At that time, it was definitively established that ministers were politically responsible (not just legally) to the Riksdag. From then on, while ministers were still formally appointed by the king, convention required him to ensure they had the support of a majority in the Riksdag and to act on his ministers’ advice. Although the Instrument’s statement that “the King alone shall govern the realm” (article 4) remained unchanged, it was understood that he was to exercise his powers through the ministers, who did most of the actual work of governing.

King Carl XVI Gustaf of Sweden

During the period when it was in force several important reforms took place without affecting its status. In 1866 the Four Estates were replaced by a bicameral parliament, and in 1876 the office of the Prime Minister of Sweden was introduced. In the early 20th century universal suffrage was introduced and the country became a de facto parliamentary monarchy. In 1970 the parliament was transformed from a bicameral legislature to a unicameral one.

In 1975, it was replaced by a new Instrument of Government, which stripped the king of even nominal political power and made Sweden a de facto crowned republic.

On this date in History: May 17, 1814. The signing of the Norwegian Constitution and the brief reign of King Christian-Frederik of Norway.

Tags

Carl XIII of Sweden, Christian VIII of Denmark, Christian-Frederik of Norway, Constitution, Constitutional Monarchy, Haakon VII, Haakon VII of Norway, King Edward VII of the United Kingdom of Great Britain, Kingdom of Norway, Norway

Christian VIII and his consort Caroline Amalie of Augustenborg during his anointing on June 28, 1840 in Frederiksborg Palace Chapel.

On this date in History: May 17, 1814. The signing of the Norwegian Constitution and the brief reign of King Christian-Frederik of Norway who would later ascend the throne of Denmark as King Christian VIII on December 8, 1839.

King Christian-Frederik of Norway

Christian VIII (September 18, 1786 – January 20, 1848) was born at Christiansborg Palace in Copenhagen. He was the eldest son of Hereditary Prince Frederik of Denmark and Norway and Duchess Sophia Frederica of Mecklenburg-Schwerin (only daughter of Duke Ludwig of Mecklenburg-Schwerin and Princess Charlotte Sophie of Saxe-Coburg-Saalfeld). His paternal grandparents were King Frederik V of Denmark-Norway and his second wife, Duchess Juliana Maria of Brunswick-Wolfenbüttel (daughter of Ferdinand-Albert II, Duke of Brunswick-Wolfenbüttel and Antoinette of Brunswick-Wolfenbüttel).

Since 1397, with the The Kalmar Union which United the three Scandinavian Kingdoms of Denmark, Norway and Sweden (Sweden left the union in 1523, when Gustav Vasa was elected as king of Sweden), Norway remained united to the Kingdom of Denmark. Then in 1814 a crack in the union occurred.

In May 1813, as the heir presumptive of the kingdoms of Denmark and Norway, Christian-Frederik was sent as stattholder (the king’s highest representative in Norway) to Norway to promote the loyalty of the Norwegians to the House of Oldenburg, which had been very badly shaken by the disastrous results of Frederik VI’s adhesion to the falling fortunes of Napoleon I of France.

Christian-Frederik did all he could personally to strengthen the bonds between the Norwegian people and the royal house of Denmark. Though his endeavours were opposed by the so-called Swedish party, which desired a dynastic union with Sweden, he placed himself at the head of the Norwegian party of independence folowing the defeat of Napoleon’s troops at the Battle of Leipzig in October 1813, the Treaty of Kiel had forced King Frederik VI to cede Norway to King Carl XIII of Sweden. The most likely goal of the young Crown Prince was reunification with Denmark. His initiative was successful, and a national assembly at Eidsvoll was called. The assembled representatives were elected by the congregations of the state churches throughout Norway, and by military units.

The Norwegian Constituent Assembly

The election of Christian-Frederik as King of Norway (Kristian Frederik in Norwegian) was confirmed by the Norwegian Constituent Assembly convoked at Eidsvoll on April 10. During five weeks in the the spring of 1814, the constitution was written. The constitution was ratified by the assembly on May 16, and on May 17 the constitution was signed by Christian-Frederik. The date of the signing is now celebrated as the Norwegian Constitution Day.

The Norwegian constitution was inspired by the United States Declaration of Independence in 1776 and the French revolutionin 1789 and the subsequent U.S. and French constitutions. The authors Christian Magnus Falsen and Johan Gunder Adler were also influenced by the Spanish Constitution of 1812. A deviation from the republican constitutions of France and the USA was the retention of the Monarchy. Importing republicanism was seen as an attempt to emulate the French and Americans directly in a country that had over a thousand years of the tradition of a monarchy. Emulating the United States or France was something the lawmakers at Eidsvoll sought to avoid. The choice of monarchy as state form would also facilitate reunification of Denmark-Norway, something the Crown Prince Christian-Frederik was not alone in seeking.

King Christian-Frederik of Norway (King Christian VIII of Denmark)

The new Norwegian King Christian-Frederik next attempted to interest the great powers in Norway’s cause, but without success. On being pressed by the commissioners of the allied powers to bring about a union between Norway and Sweden in accordance with the terms of the treaty of Kiel, and then return to Denmark, he replied that, as a constitutional king, he could do nothing without the consent of the parliament (Storting), which would not be convoked until there was a suspension of hostilities on the part of Sweden. In the Constitution the king’s power was however severely curtailed. His absolute veto over laws was removed. In a Europe where almost all countries were ruled by absolute monarchy, a Constitutional Monarchy was still seen as extremely radical.

Sweden refused Christian-Frederik’s conditions and a short military campaign ensued in which the Norwegian army was defeated by the forces of the Swedish crown prince Carl-Johann. The brief war concluded with the Convention of Moss on August 14, 1814. By the terms of this treaty, King Christian-Frederik transferred executive power to the Storting, then abdicated and returned to Denmark. The Storting in its turn adopted the constitutional amendments necessary to allow for a personal union with Sweden and on November 4 elected Carl XIII of Sweden as the new King Carl II of Norway.

King Carl XIII-I of Sweden and Norway

It wouldn’t be until 1905 when Norway gained independence and Prince Carl of Denmark was elected King of Norway taking the name Haakon VII. Former King Christian-Frederik was a great-grand-uncle to Haakon VII. He was the second son of (the future) King Frederik VIII of Denmark and his wife Louise of Sweden. He was also a younger brother of Christian X, a paternal grandson of King Christian IX of Denmark, and a maternal grandson of King Carl XV of Sweden (who was also King Carl IV of Norway). Haakon VII married his first cousin Princess Maud of Wales, youngest daughter of the future King Edward VII of the United Kingdom and his wife, Princess Alexandra of Denmark, eldest daughter of King Christian IX of Denmark and Princess Louise of Hesse-Cassel.

The Norwegian Constitution of 1814 is still in effect today.

King Haakon VII of Norway.

When Monarchs ruled.

Tags

2012. Parliament, Absolute Monarchy, Age of Enlightenment, Charlemagne, Classical Liberalism, Constitutional Monarchy, Edward I of England, Louis XIV of France and Navarre, William the Conqueror

When I began my interest in royalty I was at first solely concerned in learning their particular genealogies. As I delved into the history of each country I began to be interested in the reigns of each monarch. I learned how monarchies survived going from periods of absolute power to the constitutional form we have today. Somewhere in the process I became a monarchist myself. With all the political infighting that occurs among politicians I think it is beneficial to have a figurehead as the Head of State. A Head of State that is symbolic of the nation and is above the petty partisan politics of the day. I think there are many beneficial aspects of having a Head of State being politically impartial for that gives them the opportunity of serving all the people and not just members of a particular party.

I need to be honest though, I do miss the days when Monarchs actually ruled and held some power. It is one of the things I enjoy about reading the history of these countries that were or are monarchies. For me it is an issue of power. In life some people have power and some do not. It is fascinating to read how those that held power used that power. So I find that the days when monarchs actually held power to be fascinating. Those times are even more interesting when a larger-than-life figure such as when Charlemagne or William the Conqueror or Louis XIV held power. I am sure I am romanticizing things because I know life was not all puppies, rainbows and roses under these monarchs. Yet things were not always terrible for there were monarchs that held power that did good for their country.

I look at King Edward I of England (1272-1307) as a good example. Historians report that the king could be a frightening individual and that he had a reputation because of his intimidating fierce temper also with a domineering physical presences. There is an anecdotal story about when the Dean of St Paul’s, who desired to confront the king about his broad level of taxation, was so intimidated by the king that he collapsed and died instantly the moment he was brought into the King’s presence. That sounds crazy to our modern scientific minds but it could be plausible that the stress of meeting this intimidating King could lead to sudden cardiac arrest. There was also a report that when the Prince of Wales (future Edward II) petitioned and pressured his father to grant an earldom for his personal favorite and friend, Piers Gaveston, the King grew impatient with his sons demands and the King exploded in anger and purportedly tore out handfuls of his son’s hair!

Edward is also known for the establishment of the Model Parliament. Parliament gathered on a fairly regular basis during his reign. In 1295 the king brought about some significant changes. At this point in history the English Parliament contained the secular (the nobility) and ecclesiastical lords (Priests and Bishops). In 1295 Edward also summoned two knights from each county and two representatives from each borough. These two representatives from the boroughs planted the seed for what eventual lead to the development of the House of Commons. Although having commoners sit in Parliament was not exactly new, the precedent setting status of these commoners was the fact that they were given, by the king, authority (plena potestas) of their communities, to give assent to the decisions made in Parliament. No longer were these commoner representatives there to give a rubber stamp and to simply assent to decisions already made by the upper magnates, they now met in Parliament with the full authority nobility and ecclesiastical lords had. This structure eventually became the standardized formation for later Parliaments.

Edward I was a mixture of being a good king with some bad personality issues. Now I do support Classical Liberal ideals of the democratic principles that came of age during the Enlightenment period where we have a right to select those that rule over us. However, I do enjoy reading about these monarchs such as Edward I who did hold power and also, with his creation of a more egalitarian Parliament, demonstrated that many times they could be effective and efficient rulers. While it is best to now have the monarchs as being above partisan politics you really cannot blame a monarchist for missing the good old days when they held actual power.

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 Sweden.

Tags

Constitutional Monarchy, Eric the Victorious, First King of Sweden, House of Fairhair, House of Ynglings, King Eric XIV of Sweden, Kingdom of Sweden

The kingdom of Sweden is another European kingdom who’s origins are shrouded in mystery. Many historians believe there has been kingdoms within Sweden since prehistoric times. However, the order of succession to the Swedish crown is also shrouded in mystery and legend.

It is not known when and how the kingdom of Sweden came into existence and although it is believed that there were kings stretching far into antiquity, the majority of historians believe that the kingdom begins with the merging of two separate kingdoms, Svealand (Sweden) and Götaland (Gothia). Both the nation of Sweden and Gothia were two separate nations long before their unification. It is not known how long they existed as separate entities. The epic poem Beowulf describes semi-legendary Swedish-Geatish wars that occurred in the 6th century.

Götaland mainly included the provinces of Östergötland (East Gothia) and Västergötland (West Gothia). The island of Gotland was disputed by other than Swedes. There were times when Danish, Hanseatic, and Gotland-domestic were warring factions amongst one another. Småland was at that time of little interest to any party due to the deep pine forests, and only the city of Kalmar was of importance due to its strategically placed castles.

We also must remember during these ancient times that a king was not the strong rukler of a nation state that they were later to become. At this juncture of history a Swedish king had combined powers limited to that of a war chief, a judge and a priest at the Temple at Uppsala. There were two notable Swedish dynasties The Ynglings and the Skioldungs. The Ynglings were the oldest known Scandinavian dynasty and were from the clans of the Scylfings (Old Norse Skilfingar). Ynglings also refers to the Fairhair dynasty, who were descended from the kings of Oppland, Norway. According to surviving early sources, such as the Ynglingatal and Íslendingabók, the Fairhair kings were descended from the Swedish Scylfings of Uppland, Sweden.

The earliest kings of this dynasty that historians generally agree are historical are Erik the Victorious and Olof Skötkonung. Eric the Victorious (945?-c. 995) was the first Swedish king (reign c. 970-995) about whom anything definite is known. Now whether he actually qualifies as the first King of Sweden has been debated by historians for it was his son, Olof Skötkonung was the first ruler documented to have been king over a unified Sweden.

The numbering of Eric the Victorious creates some problems. As my old post on numbering Swedish kings suggests, many of the ordinal numbers for Swedish kings were the invention of a dreamy eyed chronicler. https://europeanroyalhistory.wordpress.com/2012/05/18/97/

Sometimes, Eric the Victorious is referred to as either King Eric V or VI, and this is a modern inventions based on counting backwards from Eric XIV (1560–68). King Eric XIV adopted his numeral according to a fictitious history of Sweden. Whether or not there were any Swedish monarchs named Eric before Eric the Victorious is disputed, with some historians claiming that there were several earlier Erics.

That concludes this series!! It is interesting to see that the First king of many nations is lost to history and those kings we can point to with some certainty may not have been the first king after all.