Survival of Monarchies: Prussia, Part VI

Tags

Baden, Bavaria, Frederick III, Frederick III of Germany, German Empire, Hesse, Kingdom of Prussia, North German Confederation, Otto von Bismark, South German Confederation, Württemberg, Wilhelm I of Germany

On January 18, 1871 the Prussian army occupied the Hall of Mirrors in Versailles Palace and King Wilhelm I of Prussia was proclaimed German Emperor. The title “German Emperor” was carefully chosen by Bismarck after heated discussions even up to and after the day of the proclamation. Wilhelm I grudgingly accepted this title grudgingly but he would have preferred “Emperor of Germany” which, however, was unacceptable to the federated monarchs, and would also have signaled a claim to lands outside his realm (Austria, Switzerland, Luxembourg etc.) and also superiority over the other monarchs within the Empire. The title “Emperor of the Germans”, as proposed in 1848, was ruled out as he considered himself chosen “by the grace of God”, not by the people as in a republic. Wilhelm I also viewed his Kingship of Prussia as much more important than the title of German Emperor. He complained to his son, Crown Prince Friedrich about having to exchange “the radiant Prussian crown for this filth-crown.”

With this ceremony, the North German Confederation united with the South German Confederation and was transformed into the German Empire (“Kaiserreich”, 1871–1918). This Empire was a federal state; the emperor was head of state and president (primus inter pares – first among equals) of the federated monarchs (the kings of Bavaria, Württemberg, Saxony, the grand dukes , Mecklenburg, Hesse, Baden, as well as other principalities, duchies and the senates of the free cities of Hamburg, Lübeck and Bremen).

Bismarck describes Wilhelm I as an old-fashioned, courteous, infallibly polite gentleman and a genuine Prussian officer, whose good common sense was occasionally undermined by “female influences”. This was a reference to Wilhelm’s wife, (Princess Augusta of Saxe-Weimar-Eisenach 1811-1890. the second daughter of Carl-Friedrich, Grand Duke of Saxe-Weimar-Eisenach and Maria Pavlovna of Russia, a daughter of Emperor Paul I of Russia and Sophie Dorothea of Württemberg) who had been educated by, among others Johann Wolfgang von Goethe and was intellectually superior to her husband. She was also at times very outspoken in her opposition to official policies as she was a liberal. Wilhelm however, had long been strongly opposed to liberal ideas. Despite possessing considerable power as Kaiser, Wilhelm I left the task of governing mostly to his chancellor and limited himself to representation, embodying the dignity of the state and approving Bismarck’s policies.

Here we have, in the relationship between Kaiser and Chancellor, the seeds of a limited Constitutional Monarchy. Yes, the German Empire did have a Constitution but it gave the monarch considerable power. Wilhelm I was content to allow Bismark to rule in his name. When Wilhelm won the Imperial Crown he was 74 years old an advanced age for the 19th century. He would continue to rule until 1888 when he died at the age of 91. With the precedent of allowing the Chancellor to wield the power, and the Crown Prince Friedrich being Liberal, things looked promising for the Empire to evolve into a similar system to that of Great Britain.

Sadly, it was not meant to be. In 1888 when Kaiser Wilhelm I was nearing the end of his life, his son the Crown Prince, was also near the end of his as he was dying from throat cancer. When Kaider Wilhelm I died in March of 1888 the new Emperor, Friedrich III, ruled for only 99 days and kept Bismark on and was not able to implement any of his liberal policies. The premature demise of Friedrich III is considered a potential turning point in German history; and whether or not he would have made the Empire more liberal if he had lived longer is still discussed.

Friedrich III was succeeded by his very conservative and bombastic son, as Kaiser Wilhelm II, and he would lead the German Empire to its downfall.

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.