A Full House!

Tags

Alexandra of Denmark, Aragon, Chalres V, Charles I of England, Charles II of England, Elizabeth of York, England, France, Henry VIII of England, Holy Roman Empire, Louis XIV of France, Nicholas II of Russia, Sofia of Spain, Spain, United Kingdom

We often see in fairy tales that a future king, or a king himself, will marry a princess who is the daughter of a king herself. The reality is that this scenario is not always played out in the history of royalty. The last time it happened in the British monarchy was when Prince Albert Edward, the Prince of Wales and future King Edward VII married Princess Alexandra of Denmark the daughter of King Christian IX of Denmark. Well, technically her father wasn’t the king just yet when they married. Albert-Edward and Alexandra were married March 10, 1863 at St George’s Chapel, Windsor Castle while her father, Christian IX, didn’t become king until November 15, 1863 when King Frederik VII died that same year. Although she missed it by a few months I will count it.

You have to go back to King Charles II of England and Scotland when he married Catherine of Braganza, on May 15, 1662 to find a king (or future king) that married the daughter of a king. Catherine was the daughter of King João IV of Portugal. I guess you could also count Queen Anne of Great Britain who married Prince George of Denmark and Norway, Duke of Cumberland in 1683 for he was the son of King Frederik III of Denmark and Norway. However, for this post I am concentrating on women who were the daughters of kings.

When examining the genealogy of a daughter of a king that married another king this made these woman often connected to many other relatives who wore a crown. Today I want to look at four women who were very royally connected.

1. Elizabeth of York (1466-1503). She was the daughter of a king (Edward IV of England), the sister of a king (Edward V of England), the niece of a king (Richard III of England), the wife of a king (Henry VII of England), the mother of a king (Henry VIII of England), the mother-in-law of a king (James IV of Scotland), and the grandmother of two kings (Edward VI of England and James V of Scotland) and the grandmother of two queens (Mary I and Elizabeth I of England). Although I am not counting consorts per se, Elizabeth of York was also the mother of two queen consorts of Scotland and France.
3. Catherine of Aragon (1485-1536) She was the daughter of two sovereign monarchs (Isabella I of Castile and Fernando II-V of Aragon and Castile), she was the sister and sister-in-law to two sovereign monarchs (Juana of Castile and Felipe I of Castile, Archduke of Austria), she was the aunt of two Emperor-Kings (Carl V of the Holy Roman Empire who was also Carlos I of Spain, Ferdinand I Holy Roman Emperor) she was the wife of a king (Henry VIII of England) and the mother of a sovereign queen (Mary I of England) and mother-in-law/great aunt of a king (Felipe II of Spain and King of Portugal, Archduke of Austria).
5. Henrietta-Maria de Bourbon of France (1609-1669). She was the daughter of a king (Henri IV of France and Navarre), she was the sister of a king (Louis XIII of France and Navarre), she was the aunt of a king (Louis XIV of France and Navarre), she was the wife of a king (Charles I of England and Scotland), she was the mother of two kings (Charles II and James II-VII of England and Scotland) she was the grandmother of a king and two sovereign queens (William III of England and Scotland, Staholder of the Netherlands, Mary II of England and Scotland, Anne of England and Scotland/Great Britain).

   Alexandra of Denmark (1844-1925). She was the daughter of a king (Christian IX of Denmark), the sister to two kings (Frederik VIII of Denmark and George I of Greece), the aunt of three kings and an emperor (Christian X of Denmark, Haakon VII of Norway, Constantine I of Greece and Emperor Nicholas II of Russia), the mother of a king (George V of the United Kingdom), mother-in-law of a king (Haakon VII of Norway) and the grandmother two kings (Edward VIII of the United Kingdom and George VI of the United Kingdom).

   Sofia of Greece and Denmark (1938-). She is the daughter of a king (Paul of Greece), she is the sister of a king (Constantine II of Greece), the sister-in-law of a queen (Margrethe II of Denmark), she is the wife of a king (Juan-Carlos of Spain) and the mother of a king (Felipe VI of Spain).

Those are some good royal connections! I am certain there are more and I will post more in the future!

Queen Sofia of Spain, princess of Greece and Denmark.

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: Prussia Part IV

Tags

Conservative, Frankfurt Parliament, Frederick William IV of Prussia, French Revolution, German Empire, Habsburg, Holy Roman Empire, Liberal, Nicholas I of Russia, Prussia

When the 1848 revolutions swept Germany many Liberals sought to unify Germany under a liberal constitution. However, King Friedrich-Wilhelm IV of Prussia was not sympathetic toward the revolutionaries. The king initially moved to repress it with the army, but on March 19 the king had a change of heart and recalled the troops and place himself at the head of the revolutionary movement.

The king committed himself fully to the ideal of German unification. The king formed a liberal government, convened a national assembly, and ordered that a constitution be written. It would seem the conservative Prussian king had become a liberal. Or had he? These actions did calm the tensions in the State and once his position was more secure again, however, he quickly had the army reoccupy Berlin and in December dissolved the Liberal assembly.

Although the king’s change from conservatism to liberalism was a ruse to keep order, He did, however, remain dedicated to unification for a limited period of time. In reality his support for German Unification was paper-thin. When the moment came to unify Germany as a Liberal state, the king blinked. On April 3rd, 1849, the Frankfurt Parliament offered Freidrich-Wilhelm IV the Imperial Crown of Germany. The King flatly refused saying that he would not accept “a crown from the gutter”.

It is interesting to note that the king did not want to unify Germany under his Hohenzollern dynasty. The King had romantic aspiration were to re-establish the medieval Holy Roman Empire, comprising smaller, semi-sovereign monarchies under the limited authority of a Habsburg emperor. Therefore Friedrich-Wilhelm IV would only accept the imperial crown if he had been elected by the German princes, as per the former empire’s ancient customs. He would not accept the crown from German politicians whom the king did not believe had the authority to create an emperor. He expressed this sentiment in a letter to his sister the Empress Alexandra Feodorovna of Russia (wife of Emperor Nicholas I of Russia), in which he said the Frankfurt Parliament had overlooked that “in order to give, you would first of all have to be in possession of something that can be given.” In his eyes, only a reconstituted College of Electors (consisting of princes of the Empire) could possess such authority.

After the failure of the Frankfurt Parliament even King Freiedrich-Wilhelm IV began considering a Prussian-led union where all German states, excluding those ruled by the Habsburgs, would be unified under Hohenzollern authority. However, Friedrich-Wilhelm IV abandoned the idea of German Unity after the Punctuation of Olmütz on November 29, 1850, in the face of renewed Austrian and Russian resistance to the notion of a Hohenzollern controlled German Empire. The German Confederation remained the common government of German Europe.

One of the benefits of these failures was that Friedrich-Wilhelm IV promulgated a new constitution that created a Parliament of Prussia with two chambers, an aristocratic upper house and an elected lower house. The lower house was elected by all taxpayers, but in a three-tiered system based on the amount of taxes paid, so that true liberal principle of universal suffrage was denied. The constitution also reserved to the king the power of appointing all ministers, reestablished the conservative district assemblies and provincial diets, and guaranteed that the civil service and the military remained firmly in the hands of the king. This was a more liberal system than had existed in Prussia before 1848, but it was still a conservative system of government in which the monarch, the aristocracy, and the military retained most of the power. This constitution remained in effect until the dissolution of the Prussian kingdom in 1918.

After 1850, the increasingly depressed king withdrew from the public eye and began surrounding himself with advisers who preached absolute orthodoxy and conservatism in religious and political matters. In 1857 a stroke left the king partially paralyzed and largely mentally incapacitated, and his brother (and heir-presumptive) Prince Wilhelm served as regent from 1858 until the king’s death in 1861, at which point the regent acceded to the throne himself as Wilhelm I of Prussia.

Next week. German unification under Wilhelm I and Chancellor Bismark.

Survival of Monarchies: Prussia part III

Tags

Baden, Bavaria, Confederation of the Rhine, Congress of Vienna, German Confederation, Germany, Holy Roman Empire, Napoleon, Prussia

After the fall of the Holy Roman Empire the question of German unity became inevitable. But how to unify such a patchwork quilt of nation states? Prior to the end of the empire some states within its boundaries were elevated in rank. Bavaria, Saxony, and Württemberg became Kingdoms under the influence of Napoleon. Baden became a Grand Duchy and after the Napoleonic wars, Hanover also became a kingdom. The real question was would it be Prussia or Austria to gain the upper hand and unit Germany under their authority?

From 1806 until 1813 the German States formed the Confederation of the Rhine without the inclusion of Austria and Prussia. The Confederation was to be run by common constitutional bodies, but the individual states wanted unlimited sovereignty. This loose confederation suffered some of the same problems the old Holy Roman Empire suffered from and that is there was not a strong central government.

The Holy Roman Emperor had at its head an Emperor. The Confederation, since it was not considered an empire was ruled by Karl Theodor von Dalberg, the former Arch Chancellor of the Holy Roman Empire and he carried the of a Prince-Primate of the confederation. This made him President of the College of Kings and presided over the Diet of the Confederation, designed to be a parliament-like body though it never actually assembled. The President of the Council of the Princes was held the Prince oef Nassau-e. At its heart the Confederation was a conservative minded military alliance. As mentioned, this body was under the influence of Napoleon who elevated many of the states to Kingdom status. During its short existence the members of the confederation found themselves more subordinated to Napoleon than they had been to the Habsburgs.

The Confederation of the Rhine collapsed in 1813, with the aftermath of Napoleon’s failed campaign against the Russian Empire. Many of its members changed sides after the Battle of Leipzig, when it became apparent Napoleon would lose the War of the Sixth Coalition. In 1814 the major European powers gathered in Vienna for the Congress of Vienna which redrew the map of Europe after the defeat of Napoleon. German unity did not come at this juncture but instead we saw the creation of the German Confederation with both Austria and Prussia included. The Habsburg Emperor of Austria was its nominal head, holding the title of President of the Confederation.

This Confederation, which was basically the old Holy Roman Empire in all but name, lasted until 1866 when Prussia began to consolidate its power among the German states and began the path of unification without Austria. Prior to that, in 1848, there was an attempt to create a more liberal unified German Empire. That is what we will look at in depth next week.

Survival of Monarchies: Prussia Part II

Tags

Brandenburg, Cleves, Constitutional Monarchy, Frederick the Great, Holy Roman Emperor, Holy Roman Empire, Kingdom of Prussia, Mark, Pomerania, Ravensberg

It was during the reign of Friedrich II “The Great” that we see the rise in militarism and the consolidation of Hohenzollern lands into the great state of Prussia. Many of the traditions that were started by Friedrich were continued throughout the monarchy as each Hohenzollern king or emperor tried to emulate their ancestor. To be honest The House of Hohenzollern never did produce a leader as effective as Friedrich the Great. Now in this survey of how monarchies survived into the 21st century I cannot do the reign of Friedrich the Great justice. What I will do is establish how he consolidated the Prussian state and how that was carried on, at least in spirit, with his successors.

When Friedrich II came to the throne in 1740 his lands were strewn throughout the Holy Roman Empire and the Kingdom of Poland. His Brandenburg lands were part of the Holy Roman Empire. The entire Prussia state consisted of scattered territories, including Cleves, Mark, and Ravensberg in the west of the Holy Roman Empire; Brandenburg, Hither Pomerania, and Farther Pomerania in the east of the Empire; and the former Duchy of Prussia, outside of the Empire bordering the Polish-Lithuanian Commonwealth. It was through a series of wars with Austria and Russia, annexing portions of Poland, that made Prussia the top military state and one of the most powerful nations in Europe.

By 1772 Friedrich II was able to call himself King of Prussia without any protests from Holy Roman Emperor Joseph II. With Prussia a solid European power and a strong military power to back it up, the Hohenzollern kings and the military became not only the actual power behind the throne but the symbolism of the military was steeped in Prussian culture. Every Prussian prince joined the military, if only nominally, at the age of 10 or 11. During the 19th century fancy court dress was replaced by military uniforms as the proper attire for a prince or king.

The rise and strengthening of Prussia during the reign of Friedrich II was also a nail in the coffin of the Holy Roman Empire. From 1648 until the end of the reign of Friedrich II in 1786 all the states in the Empire were, for the most part, autonomous, but none were considered powerful. With Prussia we see the rise of a new nation-state that could rival Austria. Although the Holy Roman Empire would limp on for another 20 years before it was dissolved in 1806. In reality the Empire disappeared as Prussia and Austria grew as rivals and began to compete over the future of the German states and the two also became the strong central powers in Europe.

Forged out of War and conquest Prussia was a mighty military state. After the dissolution of the empire in 1806 Austria looked to dominate the Confederation of the Rhine, the state that took its place, however, Prussia could no longer sit under the thumb of Austria. In the early and mid part of the 19th century when the unification of the German lands became the central issue the question of under whose leadership would Germany be unified; Prussia or Austria? Also, as the Liberal Revolutions of 1848 spread across German lands the question then became would Germany be united as a Liberal or Conservative state?

That is what we will examine next week.

The Fall of Louis XVI of France and Navarre: Part V

Tags

Austria, Emperor Leopold II, Friedrich Wilhelm III of Prussia, Holy Roman Empire, Leopold II, Louis XIV of France, Louis XVI of France, Marie Antoinette, Tuileries Palace

Part V

Despite the Kings flight from the Palace the Legislative Assembly still favored a constitutional monarchy. After a new Constitution was written and Louis agreed to swear an oath to uphold it, there was still a chance the monarchy could survive. What most people often think is that that the Enlightenment ideals were against a monarchy because the French Revolution came so quickly on the heels of the American Revolution where the former British Colonies said “No” to being ruled by a king. That is not the case. The Enlightenment ideals supported many types of government as long as it was the will of the people and that they had a say in the process of government. While an absolute monarchy, which was the type Louis XVI inherited, was not congenial to Enlightenment principles but a constitutional or limited monarchy was favorable because it limited the powers of the monarch and allowed for elected officials that represented the populace.

However, it seems with what transpired next, it wasn’t so much that a constitutional monarchy was against the Enlightenment or the Revolution, it seems that those in the French government grew tired of Louis. One of the events that lead to the toppling of Louis and his crown was the war between France and the Holy Roman Empire in April of 1792. At this time Marie-Antoinette’s brother, was Leopold II, the Holy Roman Emperor. Leopold, along with King Friedrich-Wilhelm III of Prussia and French Émigrés issued the Declaration of Pillnitz, which declared that in the interest of the all European monarchs of Europe that the well-being of Louis and his family was essential, and threatened vague but severe consequences if anything should befall them. Shortly after this deceleration the Legislative Assembly, with the support of Louis, ironically, declared war on the Holy Roman Empire.

This war solidified many factions within the Revolution. To these revolutionaries this war was not about the protection of the Royal Family but against French sovereignty itself. When the leader of the Prussian-Austrian army Prince Carl-Wilhelm-Ferdinand, Duke of Brunswick issued a proclamation called the Brunswick Manifesto on July 25, 1792, written by Louis’s émigré cousin, Louis Joseph de Bourbon the Prince de Condé, declaring the intent of the Austrians and Prussians to restore the king to his full powers and to treat any person or town who opposed them as rebels to be condemned to death by martial law, this was the final blow for Louis.

Paris mobs had reached their boiling point. With foreign powers threatening to give Louis his full absolute powers and threatening French sovereignty, Paris mobs marched on the Tuileries Palace where both the Royal Family and the monarchist members of the Legislative Assembly had taken refuge. On August 13, 1792 Louis XVI and his family were formally arrested. The Legislative Assembly was replaced by a National Assembly which formally abolished the Monarchy on September 21, 1792.

It is difficult to evaluate Louis’ actions and figure where did he go wrong? One of Louis’ problems was that he was a kind man yet indecisive. If he had been a powerful presence would the outcome have been the same? I really don’t know. It seems even with a powerful ruler the Revolution was larger than one man. In the light of the revolution many of Louis’ actions are understandable.

As a prisoner in the Tuileries Palace he had but little choice but to go along with the revolutionary government. I don’t think all of his actions with the government were insincere. While he was an absolute monarch at heart he did show some level of willingness to work with the government. I do not really think Louis would have objected to a role as a Constitutional monarch. I do see the radical nature of the Revolutionary assemblies as having much to do with Louis’ downfall. It was not all of his fault.

He did, however, play a role. The two largest issues seem to be his flight from the Tuileries Palace and his plotting with foreign powers to end the revolution and to be restored to his full powers. I do think those were the two major points that brought Louis down. However, I can have empathy for him. I do not blame him for trying to regain power. Who wouldn’t have under those circumstances? Plus after a couple of years being a prisoner in his own palace, I can’t blame him for trying to flee that condition.

For myself, I think the larger problem was the absolute monarchy itself. The seeds were sown and the threads for its downfall were laid in the times of Louis XIV. His hunger for power, territory and war was something his successor Louis XV strived for. In some lesser extent so did Louis XVI. Another key ingredient was by placing the court at Versailles and isolating the King from his people, the monarchy lost touch with the common man and his sufferings. That was the true issue that brought down the monarchy.

The Fall of Louis XVI of France and Navarre: Part II

Tags

Ancien Régime, Austria, Encyclopédie, Franz I, French Revolution, Holy Roman Emperor Franz I, Holy Roman Empire, Louis XVI of France, Maria Theresa, Marie Antoinette, Rousseau, The Enlightenment

On May 10, 1774 King Louis XV of France and Navarre died after a reign of 59 years leaving the throne to his grandson who became King Louis XVI of France and Navarre. Tracking the fall of Louis XVI isn’t always easy because proving that one event caused another can be rather difficult to prove. However, there were a few things that do weight heavily in the direction of Louis’ downfall.

Louis came to the throne amidst many changes in Europe and France in particular. This was the Age of Enlightenment when things such as tradition and religion were being questioned in favor of reason, individualism and along with the scientific method were being explored with the goal of changing society. Skepticism and intellectualism were being praised as logic and empiricism was now the yardstick in measuring knowledge and wisdom. In France, the Enlightenment ideas were discussed in salons all over Paris and larger cities which culminated in the great Encyclopédie (1751–72) edited by Denis Diderot (1713–1784) and Jean le Rond d’Alembert (1717–1783). This historic tome was developed with contributions by leading intellectuals, notably Voltaire (1694–1778), Rousseau (1712–1778) and Montesquieu (1689–1755).

The ideals heavily influenced Louis’ early reign and he attempted reforms that agreed with these principles. These reforms included efforts to abolish serfdom, remove the taille, and increase tolerance toward non-Catholics. The reaction by the more tradition bound and conservative French nobility angrily opposed their implementation with great success. The failure to enforce his reforms increased discontent among the common people who felt that Louis should have been bold in his leadership when confronting the French Nobility.

During the early part of his reign came the American Revolution from Great Britain, France’s long time enemy. The American Revolution was also influenced by Age of Enlightenment ideals which Louis supported. From 1776 Louis XVI actively supported the North American colonists, by supplying troops, food and money. The French were very instrumental in assisting the colonies in their war for independence which was realized in the 1783 Treaty of Paris. Although the French were triumphant against Britain, the ensuing debt and financial crisis contributed to the unpopularity of the Ancien Régime which culminated at the Estates-General of 1789 for the first time in over one hundred years.

Although Louis was favorable toward Enlightenment ideals he was still an absolute monarch and the principles of absolute monarchy were also well instilled within him and his queen, Marie-Antoinette. I could do a whole series on Marie-Antoinette and in the future I am sure I will. Louis married Marie-Antoinette when she was only 15 and he was 16. I am that placing these strangers together at such a young age contributed to their development. Part of the Palace system was living in isolation at court which helped them live lives cut off from the common people and their circumstances.

Maria Antonia Josepha was born an Archduchess of Austria, was Dauphine of France from 1770 to 1774 and Queen of France and Navarre from 1774 to 1792. She was the fifteenth and penultimate child of Holy Roman Empress Maria Theresa, Archduchess of Austria and Holy Roman Emperor Franz I. Was she the villain revolutionaries made her out to be? Was she a victim of her times? That is a question for another blog entry. The French people initially fell in love with the young princess from Austria, but after a few scandals and rumors of her extravagant lifestyle she became very disliked among the French population. As we shall see in the final chapter her greatest ‘sin” is that helped her husband and herself in their own downfall was the principles of absolute monarchy which helped place her and Louis so out of touch with the people and their times.

What makes a Kingdom?

Tags

Adolph of Luxembourg, Baden, Holy Roman Empire, Kingdom, Luxembourg, Napoleon, Reichsdeputationshauptschluss, the Netherlands, Württemberg, Willem III of the Netherlands

This entry is more about examining some unanswered questions than and observations. Throughout European history many kingdoms have come and gone. What has intrigued me is the decisions for some of these realms to be a kingdom while some held lower titles. The thing that intrigues me is that there are no hard, set-in-stone, criteria for what state or territory should be called a kingdom. Geographical size and population do not seem to matter. Here is a dictionary definition of a kingdom.

king·dom  [king-duhm]
noun
1. a state or government having a king or queen as its head.
2. anything conceived as constituting a realm or sphere of independent action or control: the kingdom of thought.
3. a realm or province of nature, especially one of the three broad divisions of natural objects: the animal, vegetable, and mineral kingdoms.
4. Biology . a taxonomic category of the highest rank, grouping together all forms of life having certain fundamental characteristics in common: in the five-kingdom classification scheme adopted by many biologists, separate kingdoms are assigned to animals (Animalia), plants (Plantae), fungi (Fungi), protozoa and eucaryotic algae (Protista), and bacteria and blue-green algae (Monera).
the spiritual sovereignty of God or Christ.

Here is the definition of a realm from Wikipedia.

A realm ( /ˈrɛlm/) is a community or territory over which a sovereign rules; it is commonly used to describe a kingdom or other monarchical or dynastic state.

The Old French word reaume, modern French royaume, was the word first adopted in English; the fixed modern spelling does not appear until the beginning of the 17th century. The word supposedly derives from medieval Latin regalimen, from regalis, of or belonging to a rex, (king).[1]
“Realm” is particularly used for those states whose name includes the word kingdom (for example, the United Kingdom), to avoid clumsy repetition of the word in a sentence (for example, “The Queen’s realm, the United Kingdom…”). It is also useful to describe those countries whose monarchs are called something other than “king” or “queen”; for example, the Grand Duchy of Luxembourg is a realm but not a kingdom since its monarch holds the title Grand Duke rather than King.

From my research it seems who holds the title of a king or queen is pretty arbitrary. I have read that only an emperor can grant the title of king or queen. However, that doesn’t seem to be true. The Congress of Vienna created the Electorate of Hanover a kingdom in 1814 and I do not think any emperor granted that title. In 1830 Belgium became a sovereign state and decided upon a constitutional monarchy and chose Leopold of Saxe-Coburg-Gotha to be their king. They could have just as easily have called Belgium a Grand Duchy although I don’t think Leopold would have been happy with a lesser title.

Speaking of separation of states and titles, in 1890, when King Willem III of the Netherlands died, he was also the Grand Duke of Luxembourg, but because Luxembourg went by the Salic Law which barred women from ruling in their own right, the throne of the Netherlands went to Willem III’s daughter, Queen Wilhelmina, while Luxembourg went to the the nearest male relative, Adolphus of Nassau-Weilburg. I always wondered, with Luxembourg now separate from the Netherlands could they have elevated their rulers title to that of king?

One of the more curious discrepancies (from my point of view) over the creations of a kingdom and its arbitrary nature is between the states of Baden and Württemberg. For a long period of their respective histories within the Holy Roman Empire both Baden and Württemberg were duchies. However, it must be noted that during that portion of their history Baden was not unified and several lines of the House of Zähringen ruled over Baden. It became unified under Duke Carl-Friedrich of Baden-Durlach after the death of August-Georg of Baden-Baden in 1771 without heirs.

In 1803 came the Reichsdeputationshauptschluss which was a redistribution and restructuring of the empire which resulted in the secularization of ecclesiastical principalities and mediatisation of numerous small secular principalities and Free Imperial Cities. This act created more imperial electors (those in charge of electing the emperor) and the rulers of both Baden and Württemberg were made electors of the empire.

However, this new reorganization of the empire was short lived for within three years the empire itself was dissolved. As the empire was dissolving in those early years of the 19th century, the rulers of Baden and Württemberg sided with Napoleon who had his carving knives out eager to incorporate former German territories into his empire. For their support of Napoleon both of their territories were expanded and titles were elevated. This is where the arbitrary nature of the what constitutes a kingdom come in. Baden became a Grand Duchy while Württemberg became a kingdom. Even though Württemberg was the larger territory, although not by much, both states had been a duchy and then briefly an electorate within the empire. The same situation existed in Saxony. It too, became a kingdom after having been an electorate and this state was even smaller than Baden. So why was Württemberg and Saxony elevated to kingdom status while Baden became only a Grand Duchy? I have never found an answer to that question. I wonder if it was ever considered to raise Baden to the kingdom?

Questions like these make history fun for me. History often talks about what happened I like to find out why things happened the way they did.

 

 

The German System.

Tags

Confederation of the Rhine, Emperor Karl IV, German Empire, German titles, Hesse-Cassel, Holy Roman Emperor, Holy Roman Empire, King, Kingdom of Prussia, Landgrave, Margrave, World War ii

German Titles.

Other than the British Royal Family the German monarchies hold a very great interest for me. Germany has a very rich monarchical history that stretches far back into history. When I tell people that I love German history they look at me as if I am obsessed with World War II and Hitler. I think many Americans fail to realize that German history did not begin with World War II!

The titles and system of the German monarchy is more complex than the British system. So it may take me a while to cover all I want to cover. This will be a brief overview and not as detailed as I would like it to be. For one thing all systems of titles evolved and Germany was no exception. Through the years from the kingdom of the Franks through the period of the Holy Roman Empire, The Confederation of the Rhine and the German Empire the system solidified and also adapted to the changing times. Therefore for the sake of brevity I will cover the titles as they were from the time of the Golden Bull of Karl IV in 1356 which changed the way the Holy Roman Emperor was elected. This system remained in effect until the end of the First German Reich in 1806 and even afterward to some extent.

One of the key points to remember when examining the German system was that it was a feudal system. A top down system (in theory anyway) where the Emperor was supreme and all who held land and titles held them by the grace and authority of the Emperor. Also, those titled nobles were supposed to support the emperor in times of war. This was all in theory for we shall see in practice things worked out differently. Staying with the feudal system for as long as they did left Germany as a loose confederation of states that did not really have a strong centralized government.

Through the next few Tuesdays for this continuing series I will look not only the hierarchy of titles but such concepts and equal marriage and the Higher and Lower Nobility.

Here is the hierarchy of titles:

Emperor
King*
Elector#
Grand Dukes@
Dukes
Margraves
Landgraves
Fürst**
Princes

* Kings were around in the formation of Charlemagne Empire but as the Holy Roman Empire progressed there were no kings ruling within the empire, with the exception of Bohemia which was generally ruled by the Habsburg emperor.

#Electors came into being in 1356 and remained until the empire was dissolved in 1806. One family, the House of Hesse-Cassel, was allowed to retain the title of Elector after the collapse of the Holy Roman Empire and into the period of the Confederation of the Rhine. In 1866 when Germany was in the process of unification they lost this title when their land was annexed to Prussia.

@Grand Dukes also came into being after the Holy Roman Empire and were part of the system of rulers during the Confederation and German Empire Period.

**Fürst is a title similar to a prince but it also was higher than a prince. There is no correct English translation and generally is translated as prince in English.

One of the things I also want to mention and this is what separates the German system from the British system is that the owners of these titles generally held sovereignty and ruled a territory. For example the Duke of Brunswick actually ruled over their small patch of land. However, in Britain, the Duke of Devonshire was not sovereign and his title did not indicate he ruled over any land.

Well, that is my brief introduction to the German system starting next week I will examine each of these titles individually.

 

 

Royal Numbering ~ Germany

Tags

Charlemagne, England, Ernest Augustus, George I, George II, George III, Germany, Hanover, Holy Roman Empire, Kingdom, Kingdom of Hanover, Napoleon, Otto I the Great, Scotland, William IV

Royal Numbering ~ Germany

Germany is a unique example in the topic of monarchy and with numbering their rulers. Unlike Britain and France and other states of Europe, Germany was slow in become a centralized nation-state. For centuries Germany was more of a geographical term than a name attached to a centralized nation state. Similar to France German history has its roots in the old Kingdom of the Franks. The Treaty of Verdun in 843 divided the Charlemagne’s empire. The eastern half of the kingdom retained the imperial title and from this entity evolved the Holy Roman Empire.

Even though Charlemagne is considered the Fist Holy Roman Emperor when he was crown Emperor on Christmas Day 800CE that state was something that developed through the centuries. I remember one historian saying that Charlemagne’s empire, thought to have reestablished the Western Roman Empire, was in reality was a state without a name. In 843 when the empire was divided the monarchs of the eastern half were titled Regnum Francorum Orientalium or Francia Orientalis: the Kingdom of the Eastern Franks. This Kingdom of East Francia lasted from 843 until 911 under the Carolingian Dynasty and the rise of the Ottonian Dynasty.

The imperial title lapsed after the death of Berengar I in 924 and would not be revived until Otto I, Duke of Saxony was crowned Emperor in 962. This is when the majority of historians believe the Holy Roman Empire began. The empire was a loose conglomeration of states with their own leaders who held titles either directly or indirectly from the emperor. The monarchy was elective but in practice it did become hereditary within certain dynasties with the election become a mere formality. The Archdukes of Austria of the Habsburg Dynasty held the title the longest. As territories merged or were annexed the rulers still held their titles and a right to sit in the imperial diet even though they no longer ruled over territory. There is not any discrepancy for the numbering of the emperors but there are some minor discrepancies and inconsistencies for the lesser states.

One of the places where there is a discrepancy in numbering is the Kingdom of Hanover. Prior to its elevation as a kingdom Hanover was an Imperial Electorate within the Holy Roman Empire ruled by a cadet line of the House of Guelph that ruled the various Brunswick duchies. In 1692 Emperor Leopold I installed Duke Ernst August of Brunswick-Lüneburg as Prince-Elector of Hanover. In 1698 Elector Ernst August was succeeded by his eldest son who became Elector Georg Ludwig of Hanover. In 1714 via the provisions of the Act of Settelment in England and Scotland Georg Ludwig became King George I of England and Scotland. In Hanover and England and Scotland the numbering for these King-Electors was the same. In 1727 George I was succeeded by his son as George II and in 1760 his grandson succeeded him as George III.

In 1806 the Holy Roman Empire came to and end and Hanover became part of the Kingdom of Westphalia a puppet state founded by Napoleon. After the defeat of Napoleon the Congress of Vienna restored George III to his Hanoverian territories and elevated Hanover to a Kingdom. Instead of starting a new numbering of the Kings of Hanover George III still retained his ordinal number. In 1820 George III was succeeded by his son who became George IV of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Hanover. In 1837 George IV was succeeded by his brother William IV who was known as Wilhelm I of Hanover.

Since succession to Hanover was governed by the Salic Law which barred women from inheriting the throne the personal union between Great Britain and Hanover ended in 1837 with the death of William IV. William IV was succeeded in Great Britain by his niece, Victoria, who reigned in Britain until 1901 and gave her name to the entire era. In Hanover the crown went to another brother of William IV, Ernest Augustus, Duke of Cumberland.

This is where it gets tricky. In my view he should have been been called Ernst August II because the numbering for Hanover began with Ernst August in 1692. However, Ernst August was only an Elector in 1692 and never a King. His son, George I, was the first Hanoverian to hold the royal title of King…although he was a King of England and Scotland not a King of Hanover. So it appears that the royal numbering of Hanover follows those with the title of King regardless if the person was not a King of Hanover.