Monarchy Forum
Register Latest Topics
 
 
 


Reply
  Author   Comment   Page 5 of 9     «   Prev   2   3   4   5   6   7   8   Next   »
Peter

Moderator
Registered:
Posts: 6,567
Reply with quote  #61 

I have a few things on the go at the moment, genealogically speaking. I need to do another check-over of the equal marriages charts in the original Blood Royal thread so I can declare them final as at a particular date, then I have quite an extensive and ambitious development from those charts in hand, which will probably become Blood Royal III, though it’s not likely to be seen for a little while.

Also I was struck yesterday by an idea, though I’m not quite sure what led to it. The biggest gap in the relationships threads is between 1558 and 1660, 102 years. The 17th century is also the only one with but a single chart. The fact is I just couldn’t think of another suitable date that wasn’t problematic due to one sovereign or other being completely unrelated to the rest. Until I decided to have a look at the day of the death of Gustavus Adolphus, surely a significant enough event. This is the list of monarchs I produced:

RealmMonarchAcceded
DenmarkChristian IV1588-04-04
FranceLouis XIII1610-05-14
SpainFelipe IV1612-03-31
RussiaMichael I1613-07-26
HREFerdinand II1619-08-28
BritainCharles I1625-03-27
SwedenKristina1632-11-06

It is a little exiguous, not helped by the fact that Poland was in an interregnum. Annoyingly, Władysław IV was elected on 8th November 1632 (the eccentric-looking date format in the table is by the way for sorting purposes). So if I go ahead with this, which I think I will, he will have to go into an addendum. Finally, for once in a way I want to consider the major princes of the Empire, showing their relationships with the sovereigns of the day in chart format. I consider these princes to have been:

TerritoryRulerFrom
BavariaMaximilian I1597-10-15
SaxonyJohann Georg I1611-06-23
BrandenburgGeorg Wilhelm1619-12-23
TuscanyFerdinando II1621-02-28
OrangeFrederik Hendrik1625-23-04
SavoyVittorio Amedeo I1630-07-26

The point of this post is to ask if anyone disagrees with either the list of sovereigns or the list of the princes of the Empire; to me the three Prince-Electors, the Duke of Savoy, the Grand Duke of Tuscany and the Prince of Orange (whose importance was of course not as that, but as in effect hereditary ruler of the Netherlands) seemed a reasonable selection, but I would be willing to modify it if presented with a good enough argument. If no one responds then I will most likely go ahead with these lists, though as this preparatory work is all I have done on the idea it again wouldn’t be seen for a while yet.

Windemere

Registered:
Posts: 331
Reply with quote  #62 
Thanks for the above information on equal marriage and mediatized families. Referring back to post #53, here's a lineage  for Archduke Lorenz of Hapsburg-Este from the old d'Este dukes of Modena:

Duke Ercole III d'Este of Modena married Maria Theresa Cybo-Malaspina
Maria Beatrice (d'Este) m. Archduke Ferdinand of Austria
Archduchess Maria Theresa (Hapsburg) m. King Vittorio Emanuele I of Italy
Princess Maria Theresa (Savoia) m. Duke Carlo II of Parma
Duke Carlo III of Parma m. Louise Marie of France
Duke Roberto I of Parma m. Princess Maria Antonia of Portugal
Zita of Borbone-Parma m. Emperor Karl of Austria-Hungary
Archduke Robert of Hapsburg-Este m. Margherita of Savoia-Aosta
Archduke Lorenz of Hapsburg-Este

__________________
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: 6,567
Reply with quote  #63 

The Grand Duke of Luxembourg shares that descent. The Kings of Spain and Belgium are not descendants of Ercole III, but are of his father Francesco III, through Ercole III’s sister Maria Teresa, grandmother of their mutual ancestor Louis-Philippe I of France. I happen to know that the Prince of Monaco has d’Este blood and how, but you certainly have to go back a long way to find it. None of the Protestant monarchs do that I am aware of, though I would have to dig deep into the ancestry of Maximilian I of Bavaria to be sure of that in the case of the Scandinavian sovereigns, who are all descendants of his. Of course all the Protestant monarchs have Brunswick-Lüneburg ancestry, and the Estensi and the Welfs were sprung ultimately from the same root.

The actual heir of line of Ercole III is the Duke of Bavaria, but that does not signify. The heir by law is Prince Lorenz of Belgium, Archduke of Austria-Este and in pretence Duke of Modena. That he has descent from the last of the d’Este Dukes that reigned in Modena is really a coincidence. The succession after the male line of Archduke Ferdinand, shown in your listing, had expired was in the gift of the Austrian Emperor, and the original assignee was in fact Archduke Franz Ferdinand, murdered 100 years ago yesterday. His most recent d’Este ancestor was Anna d’Este, daughter of Ercole II, who reigned 1534-1559. There had been quite a few different Dukes of Modena since then! Anna d’Este was also the most recent d’Este ancestor, or rather ancestress, of the Prince of Liechtenstein, whom I did not forget in my summary above.

Peter

Moderator
Registered:
Posts: 6,567
Reply with quote  #64 

I really shouldn’t write anything on royal genealogy here without researching it first. A belated check has revealed that the most recent Duke of Modena from whom Archduke Franz Ferdinand descended (six times, remarkably all in the same degree) was in fact Francesco I, who reigned 1629-1658, a distinct improvement on 1534-1559. The Archduke’s ancestry was then missing only four further Dukes from whom descent survives (Rinaldo  III, Francesco III, Ercole III and Francesco IV, the first Austria-Este Duke). Francesco I was also the most recent Duke to be an ancestor of Hans-Adam II.

While at it I decided to verify my assertion regarding the d’Este ancestry of Albert II of Monaco. When I said you had to go a long way back, I hadn’t remembered quite how far: stage 1, stage 2. There is another route: stage 1, stage 2, stage 3. If you look at the end of stage 1, it will be immediately apparent that this is a descent shared by all current sovereigns, Protestant and Catholic alike, also providing a third route for Albert II: stage 1, stages 2-3 x 10. Stage 1 here starts with Catharina Belgica, who can be seen at the bottom of the previous stage 1 as an aunt of Charlotte de la Trémoille.

Peter

Moderator
Registered:
Posts: 6,567
Reply with quote  #65 

People may possibly have noticed a change of name for this thread. That is not all that has changed, the actual introductory material is gone from it, moved to a new thread below, with the same name as this one originally had. The reason I did this is explained in the new thread's final post.

I have added a substantial chunk of new material to the 1660 thread, and so that the new material would be in uninterrupted sequence with what was originally posted moved two posts by Vasaborg and my replies to this thread, where they can be found on page 1. There is also a note of this at the end of that 1660 thread. As the new material required adding new posts, as usual I have had to post in every thread that should be above the 1660 one to get all the threads back in sequence. Only the 1660 posts, this and the post in what is now the Introduction thread are actually new, the others are just the old last post deleted and reposted. So as ever don’t bother reading them, just mark all read.

In the 1660 thread, as well as adding material I have amended the introductory note somewhat, having realised that there are certain problems with the relationships of Tsar Alexis that I show. The original chart is exactly as it was but there is one tiny change in the key, reflected in its footnote. The 1713 introductory note has also been changed a little, since the problems with Alexis affect his son Peter I as well.

Peter

Moderator
Registered:
Posts: 6,567
Reply with quote  #66 

Theodore had a very interesting blog post last week, which I have just read. I have been fascinated by the wholly admirable Georg II of Saxe-Meiningen ever since I first read about him, which would have been in connection with my German Realms work here, and was delighted to discover that Theodore shared my admiration. Drawing further attention to him here also allows me to make an addition to the Introduction thread without the necessity for a positioning post.

Actually I regret the necessity for such posts ever arising. In case I have not made it clear enough before, the threads below being locked is not because I don’t want people posting in them, it is because with the eccentric ordering of pinned threads at Website Toolbox-hosted forums it is the only way to keep them in position, which they need to be so that any particular year is readily findable. I would far rather have the threads unlocked and kept in order by the mere fact of being pinned, which is the more common situation.

The addition I have made is an exploration of the red links in the charts, and an explanation of the kind of use people can make of them, as they are by no means static and can be manipulated in all kinds of different ways. Here’s an example link, featuring the two nearest relationships of Grand Duke George with Archduke Karl, the first passing through Georg II and the second through his second wife, an ill-matched royal pair (as the Wikipedia article shows) who were among the Archduke’s great-great-grandparents.

Peter

Moderator
Registered:
Posts: 6,567
Reply with quote  #67 

I have decided to do a new chart thread, for 19th October 1330. This was the date of the young Edward III’s daring coup against Mortimer. I checked out the monarchs of the day on impulse, and found I could link all of them except two, Stephen Uroš III of Serbia and Ivan Stephen of Bulgaria. Actually I could link them to each other, they were uncle and nephew in fact, just not to anyone else. That still left 18 monarchs, which I decided was enough, and I felt it would be interesting to do a chart of relationships at such an early date, providing a perhaps illuminating contrast with the later ones.

It is obviously going to be a while before it is finished, but in the meantime a list follows of the monarchs reigning on the day, the above-mentioned Balkan monarchs excluded. As usual only Kings and Emperors feature (plus one regnant Queen), apart from Ivan I, Grand Prince of Vladimir (also Prince of Moscow, but Vladimir was his senior title). I included him because I have always included the Moscow princes before, and wanted a proper basis for comparison. If anyone sees any omissions from the list, please say. To save one obvious thought, there is no King of Norway listed because the King of Sweden was King of Norway also. 

RealmMonarchFromToRealmMonarchFromTo
AragónAlfonso IV13271336HungaryKároly I13121342
BohemiaJan13101346NaplesRoberto13091343
CastileAlfonso XI13131350NavarreJeanne II13281349
CyprusHugues IV13241358PolandWładysław I13201333
DenmarkChristopher II13201332PortugalAfonso IV13251357
EnglandEdward III13271377ScotlandDavid II13291371
EREAndronicus III13281341SicilyFederico II12951337
FrancePhilippe VI13281350SwedenMagnus IV13191364
HRELudwig IV13141347VladimirIvan I13251341
Peter

Moderator
Registered:
Posts: 6,567
Reply with quote  #68 

After three days’ work I have completed the chart. I ended up with 177 relationships through 56 different ancestors, and am tired. I would describe the following monarchs in these terms, ancestry-wise:

Władysław I of Poland:                 a nightmare

Hugues IV of Cyprus:                   a nightmare

Ivan I, Grand Prince of Vladimir:   a nightmare

David II of Scotland:                    a nightmare

Jan of Bohemia:                          a bad dream, at least

Christopher II of Denmark:           no picnic

Andronicus III, Eastern Emperor:   not much of one either

The other eleven were either easy or not too bad, but it was still a lot of work. There is a lot more to do in terms of splitting the chart and preparing supporting material before anything can be posted, but at least I have completed the core task of finding relationships between every one of these 18 monarchs. And since we are talking about a date 683 years ago (it might be 684 by the time I post, though I hope it will be before that), it is pretty amazing that that was possible, and says something about how ancient the web of royal relationships this section is concerned with is.

Peter

Moderator
Registered:
Posts: 6,567
Reply with quote  #69 

The 1330 historical introduction is going quite well, I feel, and I can reasonably expect to have it posted by the end of the week. In the meantime the list of monarchs follows for the next planned thread, to be dated 27th September 1371, the day of the Battle of Maritsa. Of which I expect few to have heard, it is not nearly so well-known as the later Battle of Kosovo, but as it marked the effective end of the medieval Serbian kingdom it is suitably significant for my purposes, and also fits into my overall scheme (which I will explain at a later date, when it is more complete). I imagine there will be a fair bit about Serbia in the introduction, and also Bulgaria, since this will be the only pre-20th century thread featuring a Bulgarian tsar.

I found I could link every monarch with every other, with one exception. I could find no link between Ivan Sratsimir of Bulgaria and, no, not Robert II of Scotland as you might expect, but Sratsimir's co-religionist Dmitry of Vladimir. Sratsimir and Robert II I did manage to link, though I think people will be surprised to see through whom, but he and Dmitry simply were not related in any traceable way. Still, with altogether 213 relationships found between the 19 monarchs it would be a pity to ditch the work because I wasn't able to make it 214, and I'm not going to.

People might wonder why I'm bothering to post a list at all if I've already found all the relationships. The answer is that while I have done a chart and indeed split it (on a similar basis to 1330) and also produced basic keys and statistics, I have not done the horizontal keys or combined statistics and it is those that are a nightmare to change. If someone were to point out a missed or mistaken monarch then I could quite easily correct the slip at this stage, which is where I will leave the charts for the next few days at least. Anyway, the list. There is no Poland as it was in personal union with Hungary, and no Bohemia as its king was also Emperor.

RealmMonarchFromToRealmMonarchFromTo
AragónPero IV13361387NaplesGiovanna I13431382
BulgariaIvan Sratsimir13711396NavarreCharles II13491387
CastileEnrique II13691379NorwayHaakon VI13431380
CyprusPierre II13691382PortugalFernando I13671383
DenmarkValdemar IV13401375ScotlandRobert II13711390
EnglandEdward III13271377SerbiaStephen Uroš V13551371
EREJohn V13411391SicilyFederico III13551377
FranceCharles V13641380SwedenAlbrecht13641389
HREKarl IV13461378VladimirDmitry13631389
HungaryLajos I13421382    
Windemere

Registered:
Posts: 331
Reply with quote  #70 
It will be interesting to see who turns out to be the common ancestor of Robert II of Scotland and Ivan Sratsimir of Bulgaria. Robert II's immediate ancestors, I think, were all from the British Isles. He probably had more distant ancestors from France and Germany. Ivan Sratsimir's ancestors, I think, were all from the Balkans, with more distant ancestors coming from Byzantium. It will be interesting to see who links them.

Genealogics lists Robert II's paternal grandmother as Jill de Burgh, daughter of Walter de Burgh, Earl of Ulster. Wikipedia, in it's "Robert II" article, in the section on his ancestry, lists his paternal grandmother as Cecilia Dunbar, daughter of Patrick III, Earl of Dunbar. The Wikipedia biography of King Robert II's father, "Walter Stewart", mentions both women, but states that Jill deBurgh is the correct one, and that Cecilia Dunbar is incorrect. The Wikipedia article on "James Stewart" (Walter's father) states that his wife was either Jill deBurgh or Cecilia Dunbar. And the Wikipedia article on "Patrick III, Earl of Dunbar" lists his daughter Cecilia as marrying James Stewart.

__________________
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: 6,567
Reply with quote  #71 

Interesting, thanks. You do get these kinds of doubts when dealing with such an early period, and have to decide whether the identification is a) reasonable and b) crucial. By the latter, I mean that the relationship asserted through the doubtful person is the only possible relationship between two individuals. Although I have connected Robert II and later James I several times each through Jill de Burgh, in every case other albeit more distant relationships could be found, which takes care of b).

As for a), there seems enough of a body of opinion in favour of Jill to say that the identification is certainly reasonable, and I think I will leave the relationships I have found through her in place. The name of James Stewart’s daughter is a point in favour, and so I think is the ancestry of Cecilia Dunbar (who is not on the Genealogics database, but her brother the 8th Earl is, and it is his ancestry that is shown). It seems to me that her Bruce blood was sufficient to have raised a consanguinity issue for the marriage of James’s son Walter with Marjorie Bruce. It is true that unless for political reasons the Church wanted to be difficult dispensations were usually easily obtained, but still one would have expected some mention of the question.

In addition to this, the Dunbar children were descendants of William the Lion through his illegitimate daughter Ada. Again, one might have expected some mention of the descent if it had been held by the Stewart line who became Kings of Scots themselves. This is a far from strong argument, but still is one more point in favour of Jill. Finally, the bulk of the connections through Jill are to an obscure French nobleman, Bernard IV of St Valéry. The Dunbars were descended from his sister Lorette, which clinched the question for me as it meant the relationships through the St Valéry line would be very nearly the same regardless of whether Cecilia or Jill was James’s wife.

Speaking of James, I was asked by a friend recently why quite so many Scottish kings had the name. I didn’t know but wanted to find out, did and replied with my usual over-the-top detail. I will reproduce the reply here, so that anyone else who has wondered need do so no more:

‘On the name James as regards Kings of Scotland, it appears to have been in the Stewart name pool for several generations before James I. The 5th High Steward, James I’s great-great-grandfather, looks like the first with the name, possibly from his maternal grandfather. He lived 1243-1309. One of the numerous illegitimate progeny of his grandson Robert II was also named James. James I was actually Robert III’s third son, the elder two being named David and Robert. Robert though died as an infant and David as a young man of 23, in highly suspicious circumstances with the finger pointing at Albany. However that may be, David’s death made the seven-year-old James heir. Had things gone as intended, there would have been no James I but rather David III. Similarly, had his elder son lived James I would have been succeeded by Alexander IV instead of James II.

‘The prevalence of the name therefore arose from chance originally, though both James III and James IV were first-born sons. The eldest son of James IV was also named James, but died aged one. Another child of unknown sex followed, probably a stillbirth as he/she was never named, then a boy named Arthur, presumably for his maternal uncle. He died at eight months, and finally the future James V came along. Just to complete the survey, James V had boys named James and Arthur again, both of whom died in early infancy again, and then his last legitimate child the future Mary I. He also named no fewer than three of his numerous illegitimate sons for himself. The third of them died young but the other two both grew to adulthood, the elder being a cleric and the younger the famous Earl of Moray (though not the one in the song, that was his son-in-law). Must have been a trifle confusing at family gatherings, if there ever were such.’

Finally, and nothing to do with 1371, though there is a (Frenchified) Stewart in it: seven of the monarchs of 1660 had a surviving posterity. These were the Catholics Felipe IV of Spain and his sons-in-law Louis XIV of France and the Emperor Leopold I, the Orthodox Alexis of Russia and the Protestants Frederik III of Denmark, Charles II of England, Scotland and Ireland and Karl XI of Sweden. In my note on posterities I explained that only Frederik III was a universal ancestor of today’s sovereigns, while the others apart from Charles II were each ancestors of some, and I briefly detailed who and how.

As Charles II’s descents are all through his many illegitimate children, they have largely been confined to these islands and did not extend to any current or indeed past European sovereign, though they do to a future one. The question I then raised was, is there anyone at all who is descended from all seven 1660 sovereigns, Charles II included?

I managed to identify members of the Houses of Brabant and Habsburg-Lorraine who were so descended, and have now added another dynasty to the list, the House of Zähringen. This is explained and verified by links in a PS to the note (post #4 on the thread).

Finally finally, if you want to have a go at working out the Scottish-Bulgarian connection for yourself I will give you a clue. The ancestor in question was named Henry and was a king, but of neither England nor France.

KYMonarchist

Avatar / Picture

Registered:
Posts: 1,368
Reply with quote  #72 
It's Henry the Fowler, isn't it? ISN'T IT? Now say your line....[biggrin]
Peter

Moderator
Registered:
Posts: 6,567
Reply with quote  #73 
Dunno what the expected line might be, but you're right of course. I thought about the clue being 'a character in Lohengrin', but that was too easy. Or just 'a king named Henry', but that was too hard, in that Robert II was descended from the more obvious candidates and Ivan Sratsimir wasn't, and by the time anyone interested had found these two facts out they might not have felt too fond of me. Anyway it is Henry the Fowler, and the relationship through the 10th-century German king is as you might expect very, very remote. When the thread is posted it will be fully detailed, with confirming links.
KYMonarchist

Avatar / Picture

Registered:
Posts: 1,368
Reply with quote  #74 
The expected line is "Man, you have a problem with listening today, Zim!"

Also, please resume posting on the rest of this forum or I may do something drastic to myself in protest.
Peter

Moderator
Registered:
Posts: 6,567
Reply with quote  #75 
I'm no wiser, but then contemporary cultural references, which I presume this is, usually pass me by. I have no plans for that at the moment. I don't even read the other sections any more, unless something looks like royal news. It's done wonders for my blood pressure and overall tranquility, and while I'm not saying I never will resume full participation, if I do it won't be soon.
Previous Topic | Next Topic
Print
Reply

Quick Navigation: