Monarchy Forum
Register Latest Topics
 
 
 


Reply
  Author   Comment   Page 2 of 4      Prev   1   2   3   4   Next
Vasaborg

Avatar / Picture

Registered:
Posts: 102
Reply with quote  #16 
In "Royal Highness: Ancestry of the Royal Child" 1982 by Sir Iain Moncreiffe , there is the following , Magnus III - Sigurd I - Kristin ( Christina) married Sigurd II - Cecilia (half sister of  Haakon II)  married Jarl Baard Guttormson - Jarl Skule - Margaret Skulesdotter married Haakon IV - Magnus VI - Haakon V from whom Christian I is descended.
Peter

Moderator
Registered:
Posts: 6,676
Reply with quote  #17 

Thanks for bringing this up. He does indeed say that in the book, and it would be nice if it were true, as Sigurd I 'the Crusader' was a notable monarch. Unfortunately, he remains a notable monarch from whom there is no known surviving descent. Skule Bårdsson was the son of Bård Guttormsson by Ragnfrid Erlingsdatter, not Cecilia Sigurdsdatter. Her son by Bård was King Inge Bårdsson, who was one of the monarchs who reigned between Haakons III and IV that I didn't trouble to mention in my long post introducing the topic. Incidentally, while Kristin Sigurdsdatter, daughter of Sigurd I, did marry Sigurd II Munn and had a son Harald by him, she does not appear to have been the mother of Cecilia Sigurdsdatter anyway, so Sir Iain was doubly mistaken about this descent.

Peter

Moderator
Registered:
Posts: 6,676
Reply with quote  #18 

Another descent from an early Norwegian king, Magnus I ‘the Good’, who was king of Denmark also. An illegitimate son of Olaf II, I referred to him in an earlier post as the predecessor of Harald III in Norway and Sweyn II in Denmark, but had not looked to see whether he had any posterity himself. It turns out he did, through his illegitimate daughter Ragnhild.

His Wikipedia article mentions a granddaughter Sunniva who was herself the grandmother of the Danish king Erik III.  Genealogics does not seem to recognise the existence of Sunniva, but does show continuing descent from Ragnhild in the Scottish nobility. It seemed a reasonable guess that the line from her would extend to James VI and I, from whom descent can be traced to all present-day European sovereigns bar Albert II of Monaco, and so it did (stage 1: stage 2).

Erik III had an illegitimate son, Magnus, but there does not appear to have been any posterity either from him or from any sibling of Erik himself or his father Hakon, the mysterious Sunniva’s son, so I am taking it that James VI and I was in fact the route back into European royalty for the blood of Magnus the Good, albeit only a faint, remote trace of it by then. Albert II by the way shares the descent through his Scottish aristocratic ancestry (stage 1 as above: stage 2, stage 3).

That will probably be enough of Norway for a while, unless Vasaborg or anyone has more points to raise. Personally I have found the last few posts an illuminating exercise and feel I have a far better handle on Norway’s bloodstained, complex succession than I ever did before, and I hope at least a few others feel the same. Next up is a succession less bloody but no less complex, that of the Rhenish Palatinate.

Peter

Moderator
Registered:
Posts: 6,676
Reply with quote  #19 

Our friend Windemere’s recent post in the discussion thread about the princely house of Löwenstein reminded me of some reading around I did a while back on the succession of the Palatinate, mainly so that I could gain some understanding of all the Wittelsbach branches that inherited it in turn, but with vague thoughts of writing about it here.

Windemere’s post crystallised those thoughts, though it has taken some time for me to realise them on paper. The result is very long indeed, and I will post it in three parts in the hope that that will make it more digestible. I had no thought of the final part when I began, and consider that I have made an interesting discovery, which I will get to in due course. Anyway, the first two parts now follow, with the third to come later.

The origins

Windemere’s statement in his post that the House of Löwenstein is the most senior surviving Wittelsbach branch was of course correct, though the Löwensteins are without dynastic rights so far as the Wittelsbach territories of Bavaria and the Electoral Palatinate are concerned, due to the morganatic marriage of their remote forefather Friedrich I, Elector Palatine. It is thus the head of the only other surviving branch, the considerably junior House of Zweibrücken, who is Duke of Bavaria and claimant to the Bavarian kingdom, which included the territories of the Palatinate.

The present (8th) Prince of Löwenstein-Wertheim-Freudenburg claims only that title, despite being the most senior person in male line today from Otto I, first Wittelsbach Duke of Bavaria, and his son Ludwig I, first Wittelsbach Count Palatine of the Rhine, territories the family would rule for 738 and 704 unbroken years respectively.

The Wittelsbachs appear to have been a native Bavarian line, with their first certainly known ancestor being Otto I, Count of Scheyern in southern Bavaria, who died in 1072. Otto I, Duke of Bavaria, who lived 1117-1183, was his great-grandson and the son of Otto IV, Count of Wittelsbach, the first of the family to hold the eponymous lordship. Count Palatine of Bavaria for its Welf Duke Heinrich der Löwe, Henry the Lion in English, the fiery-haired (and fiery-tempered) Otto was a famous warrior and a loyal and trusted supporter of another redhead, his first cousin once removed the Emperor Friedrich I Barbarossa. Three years before his death he was rewarded with the enfeoffment of Bavaria, of which Duke Heinrich, over-proud and over-mighty in the Emperor’s view, had been deprived.

The Palatine inheritance

It began to look as though the Wittelsbachs were making a habit of taking lands and offices from the Welfs, as on the childless death in 1214 of Heinrich VI, Count Palatine of the Rhine, grandson of Heinrich der Löwe by his eldest son Heinrich V, also Count Palatine, Otto’s son Ludwig I, second Wittelsbach Duke of Bavaria, became also the first Wittelsbach Count Palatine. In fact the situation was a little different; Heinrich V held the title on account of his marriage to Agnes von Hohenstaufen, daughter and heiress of Conrad, the first hereditary Count Palatine.

The office had been in existence since the 6th century but, although its succession often appeared quasi-hereditary, was in theory appointive. Conrad, the younger half-brother of Barbarossa, was the first officially hereditary Count. In turn, a daughter of Agnes and Henry V, also named Agnes, was the wife of the future Otto II of Bavaria, son of Ludwig I, and it was on account of this marriage that hereditary rule of the Palatinate came to the Wittelsbach line.

Or that is what you will read. Apart from the peculiar feature of the second Agnes’ father-in-law becoming Count Palatine rather than her husband, at this date neither relationship existed. Otto, who was only eight years old, was not married to her, or anyone. He could have been, in those days, but wasn’t. Agnes, who was thirteen, was likewise unmarried, and remained so until 1222, when aged twenty-one she married the now sixteen-year-old Otto (I have also seen 1225, which as their first child was born in 1227 is perhaps more likely to be correct).

Further, while her mother Agnes had been only surviving child of Count Conrad, her several brothers all having died young and childless, the second Agnes was neither the only nor the eldest child of her parents. Her older sister Irmengard was very much alive, and would in 1217 or 1219, depending on where you read it, marry Hermann V, Margrave of Baden-Baden. They had four children together, all of whom lived to adulthood and had children themselves; in fact, her line survives to this day. So I don’t think the Wittelsbach acquisition of the Palatinate was as straightforward a case of hereditary succession as it is made to appear.

Otto was an only child, and while he had been engaged to the second Agnes since 1212 the fragility of young life in those days made the engagement a slender reed to hang a great inheritance on. What I believe is that, although they were not married until 1217/1219, Irmengard was probably in 1214 already engaged to Hermann V, as her sister Agnes was to young Otto. When the engagements were made there was no thought of the Palatinate passing through them, as Heinrich VI was still alive. Born in 1195, he would have been seventeen when Agnes was engaged, as Irmengard, the elder daughter, probably had been already, and could reasonably be expected to marry soon and have children of his own.

Instead he died aged nineteen, still single, and the question of who would inherit arose. The Duke of Bavaria was frankly a much more important person than the Margrave of Baden-Baden, and further had only recently returned to the Hohenstaufen allegiance from his support of the Welf Emperor Otto IV, another son of Heinrich der Löwe.

The last Hohenstaufen Emperor Friedrich II sought I believe to secure his ally’s loyalty with this notable addition to his territories, carrying what is more the traditional role of an Imperial Elector, and so gave the Palatinate directly to the Wittelsbach duke as his and his family’s possession. Had Otto died before having children by Agnes that would have left Ludwig heirless anyway, and then perhaps Irmengard and her children would have come into the picture. Or Agnes could have been married instead to someone else the Emperor wished to placate with the promise of inheriting the Palatinate after Ludwig.

A Sicilian digression

All speculation, but it makes sense to me of the confused and tangled events around the acquisition of the Palatinate by the dynasty that would rule it for so many centuries to come. And happily Otto lived, married Agnes and they produced five children together. Three of these were to have children, their two sons Ludwig and Heinrich and their eldest daughter Elisabeth. Heinrich inherited Lower Bavaria but his line soon failed, his territories reverting to the first Wittelsbach Emperor, Ludwig IV, of whom more anon. Elizabeth married the German King Conrad IV and was mother of the doomed and tragic Conradin.

Her descent endures from the children of her second marriage, to Meinhard II, Duke of Carinthia. Their son Otto III had a daughter, also Elisabeth, who married Peter II of Sicily. A daughter of the Duke of Carinthia was not the most obvious match for the King of Sicily, and I have wondered whether perhaps her being the half-niece of Conradin, Sicily’s rightful king until his judicial murder by the Angevin usurper Charles I, might have been a factor in the choice.

However that might be, the couple’s daughter Leonore married Pero IV of Aragón. Through her they were ancestors of Marie of Anjou, wife of Charles VII of France.  In the 1453 and 1492 notes on posterities Charles and Marie are shown to be universal ancestors of today’s sovereigns, and so then are all the people mentioned in this digression as Leonore’s ancestors. In the next part I will return to the topic, and people will be happy to hear that I manage to stick to it from now on.

Peter

Moderator
Registered:
Posts: 6,676
Reply with quote  #20 

Back to the Palatinate

Returning to the Wittelsbachs, their story continued with Ludwig II, eldest son of Otto II and Agnes of the Palatinate, which along with Upper Bavaria was his inheritance. Ludwig had his first wife, Marie of Brabant, beheaded on a mistaken accusation of adultery. Perhaps fortunately he had had no children by her, but did by his second wife Anna of Glogau. Their daughter however became a nun and their son Ludwig died childless in a tournament accident, which would have left the elder Ludwig heirless except that he already had four children by his third wife, Matilde von Habsburg, the first of many Habsburg-Wittelsbach matches.

Matilde was the daughter of the German King Rudolf I, whose election Ludwig had supported. They had two daughters and two sons, Rudolf and another Ludwig (curiously given the same name as his older half-brother, even though the first Ludwig still had eight years to live when the second was born). It was from Rudolf and his full brother Ludwig that the division of the senior Palatine and junior Bavarian lines of the dynasty stemmed.

Ludwig, the younger of the surviving brothers, was evidently a man of considerable gifts and remarkable acquisitive instincts. He obtained election as German king, later being crowned Emperor as Ludwig IV, and used his powers as Emperor and a judicious marriage policy to obtain lordship over territories stretching from the Alps to the North Sea. Including all of Bavaria and the Palatinate, dispossessing his brother Rudolf of his share of the former and exclusive possession of the latter.

The later Dukes and then Electors of Bavaria were sprung from Ludwig IV, descending from his second son Stefan II, Duke of Lower Bavaria. Stefan's son Johann II was father of Ernst I, father of Albrecht III, father of Albrecht IV, who on the extinction of all other lines from his great-great-great-grandfather the Emperor became in 1503 sole ruler of a united Bavaria. His son Wilhelm IV we will return to, on account of his marriage to a descendant of the senior Palatinate branch.

Which flourished still, and ruled the Palatinate as well as a part of Bavaria, which became known as the Upper Palatinate due to its long association with the territory by the Rhine. In 1329 Ludwig IV had relented and returned these territories to the sons of his brother Rudolf, the latter having died since his 1317 dispossession from his lands. Rudolf’s eldest son Adolf had also died, but left a son Rupprecht, the progenitor of all Wittelsbach branches that survive today. It was not Rupprecht though that immediately received the return of the territories, but rather his father’s younger brother Rudolf II, followed by the next brother Rupprecht I. On the latter’s death the younger Rupprecht finally became Rupprecht II and Elector Palatine.

Kurfürst von der Pfalz

The Emperor Karl IV’s famous Golden Bull of 1356 had laid down the rules for all future Imperial elections, and conferred the title of Elector on those lords, secular and clerical, who were by tradition empowered to vote. Rupprecht I had been the first to assume the title of Elector rather than Count Palatine.

Rupprecht II then was the second Elector Palatine, and his son Rupprecht III obtained a greater office still, becoming the second Wittelsbach to be elected German king. Rupprecht III’s first two sons lived to their twenties but died childless, so his third son Ludwig inherited the Palatinate as Ludwig III. The various Löwenstein branches descend from him, as did a number of further Electors Palatine. Rupprecht III's fifth son Stefan, Count Palatine of Simmern and Zweibrücken, was male line ancestor of the other surviving Wittelsbach branch and eventually of the Kings of Bavaria, as well as of three more branches that ruled the Palatinate in turn but became extinct.

Stefan’s elder brother Ludwig III had three sons, of whom two followed him as Elector, Ludwig IV and Friedrich I. Ludwig IV died aged just twenty-five, but leaving a one-year-old son, Philipp. Philipp’s uncle Friedrich adopted him, undertook never to marry so that Philipp would be his heir, and proclaimed himself rather than his young nephew Elector Palatine. The Emperor Friedrich III objected to this and tried to do something about it, but failed. Friedrich was a talented military strategist and able also at forming alliances, and was able to retain his position until his death in 1476.

Philipp then, who might have become Elector aged one, instead did so aged twenty-seven. He apparently bore his uncle no ill will for his usurpation (which perhaps had been justified by the precedent of Rupprecht II’s uncles inheriting before him), instead holding him in great affection. He had evidently released Friedrich from his promise never to marry, because around 1472 he did so. His wife however was a commoner, the court singer Clara Tott who had for long been his mistress and had borne him two sons. The younger of these, Ludwig, was made Count of Löwenstein by Philipp in 1492, and all branches of the Löwensteins descend from him.

Philipp married a daughter of Ludwig IX of Bavaria, a member of a different branch to that which eventually reunited the Bavarian lands. They had altogether fourteen children, including nine sons. Nevertheless within two generations Philipp’s male line had failed. In fact the only posterity at all from his sons after that second generation was through Margaretha, an illegitimate daughter of Philipp’s son and successor Ludwig V, whom he made Countess of Lützelstein and who married Count Ludwig XVI of Oettingen.

There is surviving posterity today from her, which I will get to (much) later, and legitimate descent from Philipp through three of his daughters, the eldest of whom was Elisabeth. She married twice but only had one child that lived to adulthood, Marie Jakobaa, daughter of Elisabeth’s second marriage, to Philipp I, Margrave of Baden. She married the above-mentioned Wilhelm IV, Duke of Bavaria, and their son Albrecht V conceivably might have claimed the Palatinate in right of his mother when in 1559 the male line of Philipp expired.

He did not. Marie Jakobaa was undoubtedly heiress of line to Rupprecht III, and before him to Agnes of the Palatinate, but I have argued above that the Palatinate came to the Wittelsbachs not by marriage but by the grant of the Emperor Friedrich II, and was theirs to transmit in male line. Whether for that reason or simply respecting the tradition of male inheritance in the family, Albrecht made no claim and the Palatinate passed to the Elector Friedrich III. Friedrich and his successors will be covered in the third and final part.

Peter

Moderator
Registered:
Posts: 6,676
Reply with quote  #21 

The line of Simmern

Friedrich III was the first Elector of the Simmern branch, and a convert to Protestantism. His line went back to Rupprecht III through his father Johann II, son of Johann I, son of Friedrich I, son of Stefan, Count Palatine of Simmern and Zweibrücken, mentioned above as Rupprecht III’s fifth son.

Originally a Lutheran, Friedrich became a Calvinist, and imposed this severe faith on the Palatinate. He did not however succeed in imposing it on his son Ludwig VI, who reverted the territory to Lutheranism. It was back to Calvinism once more when Ludwig’s son Friedrich IV succeeded, and his son Friedrich V maintained this in his reign, which must have been a relief to the by now somewhat confused citizens of the Palatinate. Less of a relief were the Elector’s Bohemian adventures, which led to the conquest of the Palatinate by Spanish forces and the reimposition of Catholicism.

The Upper Palatinate and the Electoral dignity were transferred to Bavaria, where they both remained. There was never in fact a Bavarian Electorate, it was the original Palatine Electorate, and Elector Palatine is what the Electors of Bavaria should properly have been called. They were not, as a second Palatine Electorate was created for Karl I Ludwig, son of Friedrich V, and to avoid confusion the use of the style Elector of Bavaria became accepted.

After the conquest the Palatinate lands, less the Upper Palatinate, were transferred to Wolfgang Wilhelm, a convert to Catholicism, Count Palatine of Neuburg and, by inheritance from his mother, Duke of Jülich and Berg. He was the son of Philipp Ludwig, a devout Lutheran who was deeply distressed by his son’s defection from the faith.

He in turn was son of Wolfgang, Count Palatine of Zweibrücken, son of Ludwig II, son of Alexander, son of Ludwig I, son of the aforementioned Stefan, Count Palatine of Simmern and Zweibrücken, and the younger brother of Friedrich I, progenitor of the Simmern Electors.

Wolfgang Wilhelm’s son Philipp Wilhelm would inherit the Palatinate and the junior electoral dignity now attached to it, but not for some time. The aforementioned Karl I Ludwig, son of Friedrich V, had managed to regain the original Palatinate, though the Upper Palatinate remained with Bavaria, and had been granted a new Electoral title as said.

Karl Ludwig married three times and had many children. However, the thirteen from his second marriage did not count, as the marriage was both bigamous and morganatic. The third marriage managed not to be bigamous but was still morganatic, and in any case the only child of the union, a son, died young. Even had that not been so the heir would have been the Elector Karl II, son of his father’s first marriage, but when he died childless that left his sister the redoubtable Elisabeth Charlotte as heiress, all her half-brothers being excluded.

That is how the French monarch Louis XIV saw it, anyway, and he went to war on behalf of his sister-in-law, second wife of his brother Philippe, Duke of Orléans. There was of course no basis for any claim by or on behalf of Elisabeth Charlotte, and ultimately Louis was unsuccessful in his aims, the Palatinate passing to Philipp Wilhelm of Neuburg as previously stated.

The line of Neuburg

Philipp Wilhelm had many children and several of his daughters made brilliant matches, his descent thus spreading through the major Catholic lines. His sons were less prolific, only his eventual heir Karl III Philipp having legitimate issue, five daughters and a son (Philipp Wilhelm’s elder son and immediate successor Johann Wilhelm had illegitimate children, but descent if any from them is not known). The son however died on the day of his birth, and four of the daughters also died young.

The one who lived, Elisabeth, was the child of Karl III Philipp’s first marriage, to a Radziwill heiress, and was married herself to Joseph Karl, Count Palatine of Sulzbach. He would have become Elector Palatine on his father-in-law’s death, but was already dead himself, and his three sons had all died young.

Reunification: Sulzbach and Zweibrücken

The Palatinate therefore passed to his nephew Karl Theodor, son of Joseph Karl’s younger brother Johann Christian. They were sons of Theodor Eustach, Count Palatine of Sulzbach, son of Christian August, son of August, second son of the previously mentioned Philipp Ludwig, Count Palatine of Neuburg, and a younger brother of Wolfgang Wilhelm, father of Philipp Wilhelm who inherited the Palatinate from Karl II of the Simmern branch (a look at the ancestry of Joseph Karl's daughter Maria Franziska may make things clearer – note that her paternal and maternal lines both begin with Philipp Ludwig).

Karl Theodor, Elector Palatine, reunited all the Wittelsbach territories, inheriting Bavaria from Maximilian III Joseph, last of the male line of Emperor Ludwig IV. He had eight children altogether, but unfortunately the only one that was by his wife, another daughter of Joseph Karl and Elisabeth and therefore his first cousin, died the day after he was born.

The combined territories therefore passed on Karl Theodor’s own death to his kinsman Maximilian Joseph, who as Maximilian I became the first King of Bavaria. His father was Friedrich Michael, Count Palatine of Zweibrücken-Birkenfeld, son of Christian III, son of Christian II, son of Christian I, son of Karl I, Count Palatine of Zweibrücken, son of Wolfgang, Count Palatine of Zweibrücken, and the younger brother of Philipp Ludwig above, Count Palatine of Neuburg and progenitor of the three Neuburg and sole Sulzbach Electors Palatine. The descent from Wolfgang can be seen in graphical form here, with Philipp Ludwig’s name appearing alongside that of his brother Karl I in the first generation.

Maximilian I’s mother was the Maria Franziska of Sulzbach whose ancestry is linked above. He therefore did have descent from Neuburg Electors and close kinship with the sole Sulzbach Elector, but of course his inheritance of these great territories, which he governed with wisdom and magnanimity, becoming widely beloved by his people, depended strictly on his agnatic descent.

The chain of blood

He was in fact descended from no Elector of Bavaria, though he was from its Dukes up to Wilhelm V, son of the previously mentioned Albrecht V. It was Wilhelm V’s son Maximilian I that acquired the original Palatine Electorate, and descent survives from his son the Elector Ferdinand Maria, and from his son Maximilian II Emanuel, and from his son the Emperor Karl VII, father of the aforementioned Maximillian III Joseph.

Ferdinand Maria’s daughter married Louis, known as ‘Le Grand Dauphin’, only legitimate child of Louis XIV to live to adulthood, and was mother of Felipe V of Spain and grandmother of Louis XV of France, while Karl VII’s daughter Maria Antonia married Friedrich Christian, Elector of Saxony, and was foremother of the Saxon kings.

But none of that mattered. Bavaria went first to Karl Theodor and then to Maximilian I, its first King. The very last Wittelsbach to rule the lands the family possessed for seven centuries, Ludwig III, King of Bavaria, was son of the Prince Regent Luitpold, son of Ludwig I, son of Maximilian I.

He was descended through his mother from Karl VII, making this final ruler a descendant of all Dukes and Electors of Bavaria with surviving legitimate posterity (the reason for the qualification will become apparent), and also from Karl I Ludwig, last of the Simmern Electors Palatine to leave a surviving posterity. Legitimate descent from the long-ago Elector Philipp and his father Ludwig IV came through the Dukes of Bavaria, as discussed previously.

That leaves only Philipp’s uncle Friedrich I, son Ludwig V and remote successor Karl Theodor to cover. While the Löwensteins, descended from Friedrich I’s son Ludwig, were without Wittelsbach dynastic rights they acquired Imperial Immediacy and equal marriage status of their own, so there was no bar to their blood spreading through Europe’s royal houses. I will not lengthen this piece still further by linking the routes, but I have satisfied myself that all current sovereigns have Löwenstein ancestry. I will link this route, which takes Friedrich I’s blood as far as Ludwig III’s grandfather Ludwig I, which should be far enough.

This route takes us from Ludwig V’s illegitimate daughter Margaretha all the way to Ludwig III himself. And from Karl Theodor? Alas for the perfect picture, while he has a substantial posterity today from his illegitimate children Ludwig III was unsurprisingly not a descendant, nor have any of his successors in claim been.

Nevertheless, heir of the Electors Palatine, Ludwig III was descended from every single Elector with legitimate surviving descent. Amazingly, he was the first heir who could say as much since Friedrich I’s brother Ludwig IV, who died in 1449. The considerably more recent Ludwig III’s line continues and is held in great respect in Bavaria, where there is more monarchist sympathy than in any other part of Germany. It is hard to imagine that the Wittelsbachs will ever be restored to the territories they governed for so long, but still it is a pleasant imagining.

Well, that wraps up the story. I know some parts of it have been a little stodgy and tedious, but it is a very complex history and it is not easy to be succinct about it. I hope that in any case people will have found some enjoyment and illumination in at least one of the three parts.

Peter

Moderator
Registered:
Posts: 6,676
Reply with quote  #22 

I prefer not to make unsupported assertions, especially where royal descents are concerned, so have after all prepared a table showing Löwenstein ancestry for nine of the ten current sovereigns. The tenth, Albert II of Monaco, is covered by Löwenstein ancestry being shown for his father Rainier III – you can only have up to twelve generations in these links, and Albert II is in the 13th generation from his nearest male Löwenstein ancestor.

Their own nearest male Löwenstein ancestor is who is traced to for the other nine sovereigns, except in three cases where it is the next nearest, as I preferred to trace to Karl, 5th Prince of Löwenstein-Wertheim-Rosenberg rather than his son Constantin, who was Hereditary Prince but predeceased his father. Where there is more than one route of equal length to that nearest or next nearest ancestor the one has been taken by which the Löwenstein blood first entered the dynasty in question. Finally, I have traced the three Löwenstein ancestors used back to their forefather Friedrich I, Elector Palatine.

Elizabeth II of the United Kingdom to Eucharius Kasimir, Count of Löwenstein-Wertheim-Virneburg
Margrethe II of Denmark to Eucharius Kasimir, Count of Löwenstein-Wertheim-Virneburg
Carl XVI Gustaf of Sweden to Eucharius Kasimir, Count of Löwenstein-Wertheim-Virneburg
Juan Carlos I of Spain to Eucharius Kasimir, Count of Löwenstein-Wertheim-Virneburg
Hans-Adam II of Liechtenstein to Karl, 5th Prince of Löwenstein-Wertheim-Rosenberg
Harald V of Norway to Eucharius Kasimir, Count of Löwenstein-Wertheim-Virneburg
Henri of Luxembourg to Karl, 5th Prince of Löwenstein-Wertheim-Rosenberg
Rainier III of Monaco to Ferdinand Carolus, Count of Löwenstein-Wertheim-Rochefort
Willem-Alexander of the Netherlands to Eucharius Kasimir, Count of Löwenstein-Wertheim-Virneburg
Philippe pf Belgium to Karl, 5th Prince of Löwenstein-Wertheim-Rosenberg
Eucharius Kasimir, Count of Löwenstein-Wertheim-Virneburg to Friedrich I, Elector Palatine
Karl, 5th Prince of Löwenstein-Wertheim-Rosenberg to Friedrich I, Elector Palatine
Ferdinand Carolus, Count of Löwenstein-Wertheim-Rochefort to Friedrich I, Elector Palatine
Peter

Moderator
Registered:
Posts: 6,676
Reply with quote  #23 

Quiz question: which two current European sovereigns are descended from the 14th-century King Christopher II of Denmark? The quiz answers are to be found in the second stages below – if anyone says they knew the answers without looking I will believe them, and be impressed. Stage 1 is the same for both (though it needn’t have been, as there are several different routes for these descents).

Answer 1 stage 1; stage 2
Answer 2 stage 1stage 2

Windemere

Registered:
Posts: 344
Reply with quote  #24 
Thanks for the quiz, and for the interesting and not very well-known early descendants of King Christopher II. I did indeed have to look at the genealogical charts.  In case anyone else wants to try, I won't venture an answer right away. But I think that one of the sovereigns currently reigns in Scandinavia, and the other in Iberia.
__________________
Dis Aliter Visum "Beware of martyrs and those who would die for their beliefs; for they frequently make many others die with them, often before them, sometimes instead of them."
Peter

Moderator
Registered:
Posts: 6,676
Reply with quote  #25 

I didn’t really expect anyone to try the quiz, it was just something else to mark the date, but I’m glad one person at least got some fun out of it. It is possible to solve it without clicking the links even if you don’t know the answer offhand. It is pretty obvious, given the day of posting, that one of the sovereigns is Felipe VI, so you’re right there. So which of the other sovereigns shares an ancestor only with Felipe VI, one through whom this kind of descent is likely to come? A look at the 2014 chart will give a pretty fair idea of who it might be, and I’ll leave anyone interested to work out the rest of the answer themself.

Looks like I’ll have to find another date for the 17th century. I did the six more, as it were, mainstream sovereigns this morning then turned to Michael I of Russia, opening the 1660 workbook to get my workings for the relationships of his son Alexis I. Unfortunately, they were all traced through his mother, the Tsaritsa Eudoxia Streshnyova. Michael I’s own Genealogics ancestry, I found, goes back a fair way on several lines, but always reaching a dead end. There is a suggestion in his Wikipedia article that he was descended through one ancestor from Princes of Tver, through whom he could no doubt have been connected. However, the Genealogics ancestry, which differs from the Wikipedia one at several points, does not feature the ancestor in question, Daniil Kholmsky.

So I really have no means at all of tracing relationships for Tsar Michael and his fellow sovereigns. I am reluctant to break my rule that unless all sovereigns can be connected, however remotely, the date in question will not feature in the series (I did break it for 1914, but as I said elsewhere that date was too important to be overlooked for any reason). So, unless I can find another suitable date, 1660 will continue to stand lonely in its century. But not entirely alone, as the next post will feature the 1632 chart, key and statistics. I might do a little commentary on the relationships later, but the introductory note I had planned on the sovereigns will now never be written. I shouldn’t think anyone will be too disappointed.

Peter

Moderator
Registered:
Posts: 6,676
Reply with quote  #26 
Relationships between the European sovereigns* following the death in battle of Gustav II Adolf of Sweden, 6th November 1632
Reigning monarchChristian IV Louis XIIIFelipe IVFerdinand IICharles IKristina
Christian IV of Denmark and Norway4c KIVP4c KIVP3c1r KIVPU FIID2c1r FID
Louis XIII of France4c KIVP2c FIH1c1r FIH3c1r FCV2c2r FIH
Felipe IV of Spain4c KIVP2c FIHN KIIA4c1r KIVP2c2r FIH
Ferdinand II, Holy Roman Emperor3c1r KIVP1c1r FIHU KIIA3c2r KIVP1c3r FIH
Charles I of England and ScotlandN FIID3c1r FCV4c1r KIVP3c2r KIVP3c FID
Kristina of Sweden2c1r FID2c2r FIH2c2r FIH1c3r FIH3c FID
* Excluding Michael I of Russia      
Key:  
FCVFIDFIH
François, Count of Vendôme (1)Frederik I  of Denmark and Norway (2)Ferdinand I, Holy Roman Emperor (5)
FIIDKIIAKIVP
Frederik II of Denmark and Norway (1)Karl II, Archduke of Austria (1)Kazimierz IV of Poland (5)
Most connections formed:FIH, KIVP (5)FID (2)Others (1)
Windemere

Registered:
Posts: 344
Reply with quote  #27 
Thanks, Peter, for the 1632 relationship chart, and for the information about problematical Tsar Michael Romanov.

Referring back to King Christopher II (Estridsen) of Denmark and his descendants (post # 23), it seems that it was when his descendant Henriette Kaas married Count (Lensgreve) Christian Conrad of Danneskiold-Samsoe, that King Christopher II's descendants began to ascend into the prominent European noble and royal families. Count Christian Conrad was an agnatic great-grandson of Christian Gyldenlove (1674-1703), who was an illegitimate son of Danish King Christian V (Oldenburg) (1646-1699).

King Christian V apparently raised two families of children simultaneously, one with Queen Charlotte, and another with his maitresse Sophie Moth. Christian and Sophie were the ancestors of the Danneskiold-Samsoe family, which is still extant in male-line, and which might today be the senior genealogical (albeit illegitimate) branch of the Oldenburg Dynasty.


__________________
Dis Aliter Visum "Beware of martyrs and those who would die for their beliefs; for they frequently make many others die with them, often before them, sometimes instead of them."
Peter

Moderator
Registered:
Posts: 6,676
Reply with quote  #28 

Those relationships turned out to be more problematic still; see the 1660 introductory note for a discussion of those of Michael’s son Tsar Alexis. It wasn’t until I was preparing the additions to the 1660 thread that I came to understand the nature and scale of the difficulties.

Actually Henriette Kaas’s husband Christian Conrad Sophus, Lensgreve of Danneskiold-Samsøe, was already himself a descendant (stage 1; stage 2) of Christopher II. Twice. (Stage 1: stage 2). The Kaas marriage did add more of these descents, but they were rife in the Danish nobility. Getting them from there into European royalty was the trick, and happened because marriages that would normally have been regarded as morganatic were for political reasons accepted and even encouraged instead.

Yes, they possibly would be agnatically senior in the House of Oldenburg, if the illegitimacy of their forebear is ignored. This shows the male-line descendants of Christian V up to the present day. Only males are shown since while daughters can obviously be male-line descendants the line cannot continue from them, so there is no point in their appearing. Frederik VI had two illegitimate sons who do not appear, but neither had children (the younger son could not really be expected to, as he died aged 15) so it doesn’t matter; any descent that may survive from his similarly illegitimate daughters obviously doesn’t come into this question.

Unfortunately matters are not quite as clear with Christian VIII and Frederik VII. Wikipedia states that the former had ten illegitimate children, whom he acknowledged and provided for. However no details of them are given, Genealogics again does not feature them, and an admittedly cursory search failed to turn up anything more. There is also a suggestion in Wikipedia that Frederik VII had an illegitimate son with descendants today, but again I have no more details. So the agnatic primacy of the Danneskiold-Samsøe line is dependent on their being no verifiable male-line descent from either of these later kings.

Vasaborg

Avatar / Picture

Registered:
Posts: 102
Reply with quote  #29 
On the  Soc.genealogy.medieval group there is a lot of doubt about the Lovenbalk descent and Erik Christoffersen, M. Sjostrom  says he is not to be found in any contemporary documentation.
Peter

Moderator
Registered:
Posts: 6,676
Reply with quote  #30 

I found and read the thread you mention, hoping that there would be a response to M. Sjostrom’s assertion, for example giving what was the earliest mention of Erik Kristoffersen and an overview of the reasons for believing in his existence, or not believing as the case may be. There was nothing of the kind, and I have to say (as probably shouldn’t) that the thread though doubtless interesting to its participants was hard and dull work for me, and I link it only for completeness, not because it is in any way helpful on the question.

The claimed existence of Erik Kristoffersen has to have a source somewhere. Being neither a historian nor a genealogist, just someone interested in the two subjects who tries to use the resources of others to make small discoveries or find and present interesting patterns and facts, I have no way of finding out what it might have been. So all I can do is note the doubt you have introduced and (genuinely) thank you for doing so – if something I say here is questionable then I want it called into question.

I will say though that since we are speaking of the 14th century the absence of contemporary documentation does not settle the matter. Surviving documentation from the period tends to be scanty on a variety of different matters, though (I am told by a professional historian of my acquaintance) it can also be surprisingly full. It is the authenticity of whatever was the original source that I would need to know about in order to form any real opinion of the authenticity of Erik Kristofferson. At the moment, I will just leave everything in place with your doubt noted, which I again thank you for.

By the way, I sent my historian friend an abbreviated version of my first Palatinate post, asking him if he would mind just reading it and giving an opinion on whether from his knowledge of the period my speculations on how the Palatinate originally came to the Wittelsbachs were reasonable or no. His reply was ‘all your speculations were reasonable and what one would expect in the Middle Ages’, which I must admit I found gratifying. Especially as this was an afterthought and I had already posted it all!

Previous Topic | Next Topic
Print
Reply

Quick Navigation: