Monarchy Forum
Register  |   |   |  New Posts  | Chat
 
 
 


Reply
 
Author Comment
 
DavidV

Registered: 02/24/11
Posts: 1,650
Reply with quote  #1 
As we know, the House of Palaiologos as the last ruling house of the Byzantine Empire (or East Rome) also ruled the Margravate of Montferrat in Italy until the 16th century. The last Palaiologos ruler, Giovanni Giorgio, left illegitimate issue, a son named Flaminio. Two of Flaminio's sons it appears had descent lasting to the 20th century, and one of them possibly up to now. But is there any verifiable records of this beyond the link I've shown?
Schneider

Registered: 07/09/11
Posts: 59
Reply with quote  #2 
The Greek throne was proposed to the King Peter I/IV as descendent of Commeno, but he declined - A conversion to Orthodox Church was needed. Therefore, the House of Holstein-Gottorp was choosen because they´re descendents accepted to convert - Wittelsbach was an option, but they also didn´t accept. 
bator

Registered: 11/05/06
Posts: 169
Reply with quote  #3 

Quote:
Originally Posted by Schneider
The Greek throne was proposed to the King Peter I/IV as descendent of Commeno, but he declined - A conversion to Orthodox Church was needed. Therefore, the House of Holstein-Gottorp was choosen because they´re descendents accepted to convert - Wittelsbach was an option, but they also didn´t accept. 


to which king peter and what year?
DutchMonarchist

Registered: 02/06/10
Posts: 520
Reply with quote  #4 

As far as I know the house of Wittelsback did accept the throne, right? King Otto was only desposed and replaced by the house of Holstein-Gottorp in the 1860s. So I assume Schneider is either referring to the 1830s or the 1860s?

Schneider

Registered: 07/09/11
Posts: 59
Reply with quote  #5 
@bator: The King Peter was the first Emperor of Brazil, and he was also King of Portugal.
@DutchMonarchist: The Otto´s heir, King Ludwig of Bavaria did an oath at this marriage renouncing to the Greek throne.  
bator

Registered: 11/05/06
Posts: 169
Reply with quote  #6 

well according to this the heirs and descendants should be the hapsburgs : http://my.raex.com/~obsidian/pretends.html#Byzantine

jovan66102

Avatar / Picture

Registered: 11/14/08
Posts: 2,284
Reply with quote  #7 
Quote:
Originally Posted by bator

well according to this the heirs and descendants should be the hapsburgs : http://my.raex.com/~obsidian/pretends.html#Byzantine



Yep, thru' Andronikos II's son, who became Lord of Monferrat.

__________________
'Monarchy can easily be ‘debunked;' but watch the faces, mark the accents of the debunkers. These are the men whose tap-root in Eden has been cut: whom no rumour of the polyphony, the dance, can reach - men to whom pebbles laid in a row are more beautiful than an arch. Yet even if they desire equality, they cannot reach it. Where men are forbidden to honour a king they honour millionaires, athletes or film-stars instead: even famous prostitutes or gangsters. For spiritual nature, like bodily nature, will be served; deny it food and it will gobble poison.' C.S. Lewis

God save Her Majesty Elizabeth the Second, by the Grace of God of the United Kingdom, Canada and Her other Realms and Territories Queen, Head of the Commonwealth, Defender of the Faith, etc.!

Vive le Très haut, très puissant et très excellent Prince, Louis XX, Par la grâce de Dieu, Roi de France et de Navarre, Roi Très-chrétien!
Peter

Moderator
Registered: 07/27/08
Posts: 5,427
Reply with quote  #8 
It's meaningless, as bator's link acknowledges, to speak of an heir to Byzantium. The link is also correct in saying that as far as we know the posterity of Zoe, youngest daughter of Thomas Palaelogus and second wife of Ivan III of Russia, is entirely extinct. However if one is seeking a genealogical heir to the later Palaelogi it is not necessary to go all the way back to Theodore, younger son of Andronicus II and heir to Montferrat through his mother, his father's second wife.

Andronicus's heir was an elder son from his first marriage, Michael IX. He was followed by his son, Andronicus III, and he by his, John V, whose son and successor was Manuel II (notable for having visited England). Manuel was succeeded by his elder son John VIII (if you're wondering what happened to Johns VI and VII, I've ignored the odd detour in the succession and just followed the main line) and he, being childless, by his brother Constantine XI, the last Emperor and also childless. Their younger brother Thomas however was not, being the father of the aforementioned Zoe, or Sophia as she was renamed on marriage.

Also of two sons, from neither of whom is there known descent, and of an elder daughter Helena, who married Lazar II Brankovic, Despot of Serbia. They had no sons but three daughters. There is no traceable descent from the eldest daughter Maria, last Queen of Bosnia, but there is from the other two. One, possibly the elder though sources differ, was Jerina, who married John Castrioti, son of the great Scanderbeg. Many lines descend from that marriage to the present day; you can go here to see the lineage from Thomas Palaelogus, then here to follow further descents for yourself. For descents from the other daughter, Milica, go here.

Zoe being regarded as in some sense heiress, which she wasn't at all really, is due to her marriage and the Russian claim to have inherited the mantle of Byzantium, though I feel that that was rather more in the sense of being spiritual successors as Orthodox sovereigns than any claim to lineal inheritance. Helena wasn't heiress either, but she was Zoe's full sister, elder to boot, and while Zoe's posterity is extinct hers is abundant. So why her existence and her many descendants always get totally ignored in these discussions is beyond me.

The point of reciting the succession from Andronicus II was to show just how junior the Montferrat line was, and I really don't see why an heir through females from them would be preferred to an heir through females from Thomas. The not exactly well-regulated Byzantine succession was not semi-Salic, the only basis on which a Montferrat heiress could be preferred. It's rather hard to say what it was exactly; an eldest son had a good chance of succeeding his father is about as systematic as it got, and that most definitely did not apply in all cases. If you'd suggested the succession spinning off to a remote cousin, as can happen with more orderly systems, the Byzantines when they stopped laughing would have picked a much nearer relative of the previous Emperor, or quite possibly started a new dynasty altogether. The Montferrats would not have been in contention, and their heir through a female still less so.
BaronVonServers

Avatar / Picture

Registered: 07/22/06
Posts: 11,935
Reply with quote  #9 
One must be close enough to the throne to take it.
Or have others take it for you.

(suggested additions to the system of succession).


__________________
"In necessariis unitas, in dubiis libertas, in omnibus caritas"

I am NOT an authorized representative of my Government.

Learn more about the Dominion of British West Florida at http://dbwf.net
clark

Avatar / Picture

Registered: 02/05/07
Posts: 1,062
Reply with quote  #10 
The Byzantine throne only really worked on genetic descent when the family in question was strong enough to keep hold of the Empire. One could have been made Emperor by acclamation of the army (like in its distant Roman past), by birth, proclaimed so by the Patriarch (with the military's support as well of course), or simply by just taking it (like Basil I did). They didn't have a system of inheritance. Generally the son of the Emperor would be elevated to Caesar (until that title was abolished) and then eventually Co-Emperor when he got old enough. If he was lucky and an ambitious general didn't seize power before he was old enough, then he became sole Emperor. So it is interesting to discuss the idea of heirs to the Palaiologoi, their current heir to head of the family would not have any solid claim to the Imperial throne.
Peter

Moderator
Registered: 07/27/08
Posts: 5,427
Reply with quote  #11 
Exactly. The first Palailogos Emperor, Michael VIII, encapsulates the process. A powerful court official of the Nicaean Empire, when Theodore II Laskaris died leaving a seven-year-old heir, John IV, his path to succession was crystal clear. Within a few days Michael had mounted a coup, seizing joint guardianship of the boy-Emperor with the Patriarch. The next year, 1259, the joint guardian became joint Emperor. Then in 1261, Michael's position bolstered by the recapture of the City from the Latins, John IV was blinded and shipped off to a monastery. The deed was actually done on the child's eleventh birthday, if anything were needed to magnify the enormity of this abominable piece of cruelty and betrayal.

Which was the foundation of the Palailogoi as the last and longest-reigning dynasty of Imperial Byzantium, and was in fact if not quite par for the course not altogether out of line with the way some earlier dynasties had ascended. One difference with the Palailogoi was that they did at least have abundant descent from earlier dynasties, rather than appearing out of nowhere as for example the great Macedonian dynasty did. But they could quite feasibly have been replaced by such a new dynasty at one point or another, and had their reign endured beyond 1453 perhaps would have been.

I have been making desultory efforts to find a line from the Castrioti and therefore Thomas Palaiologos into mainstream royalty rather than Italian aristocracy, but had failed to look in the obvious places, as the Wikipedia article on the Palaiologoi gave me the clue I needed (though I then followed a different path from the one Wikipedia had set me on):

Thomas Palailogos, Despot of Morea
Helena Palailogina m Lazar II Brankovic, Despot of Serbia
Jerina Brankovic m Gjon Castrioti, Duke of San Pietro in Galatina
Ferrante Scanderbeg-Castrioti, 3rd Duke of San Pietro in Galatina
Erina Scanderbeg-Castrioti m Pietro Sanseverino, 4th Prince of Bisingnano
Vittoria di Sanseverino m Fernando di Capua, 4th Duke of Termoli
Pietro di Capua, 5th Duke of Termoli
Vittoria di Capua m Francesco Pignatelli, 2nd Duke of Bisaccia
Carlo Pignatelli, 3rd Duke of Bisaccia
Nicola Pignatelli, 5th Duke of Bisaccia
Maria Francesca Pignatelli m Leopold Philippe d'Arenberg, 4th Duke of Arenberg
Charles Marie Raymond d'Arenberg, 5th Duke of Arenberg
Princess and Duchess Leopoldine d'Arenberg m Joseph Niklas, Count of Windisch-Graetz
Countess Sophie Luise of Windisch-Graetz m Karl, 5th Prince of Loewenstein-Wertheim-Rosenberg
Constantine, Hereditary Prince of Loewenstein-Wertheim-Rosenberg
Princess Adelheid of Loewenstein-Wertheim-Rosenberg m Miguel I, sometime King of Portugal and the Algarves

The King of the Belgians, the Grand Duke of Luxembourg and the Prince of Liechtenstein are all descended from this last union, which should be mainstream enough. Obviously Dom Miguel has the descent, as does Victor Emmanuel and as do the children of King Michael of the Romanians. And as did Archduke Otto and therefore his heir Archduke Karl, which brings us back to where we started.

The Wikipedia information that got me started was that a Princesse d'Arenberg married a Pfalzgraf of Zweibruecken, bringing descent from Thomas Palaiologos to the Dukes of Bavaria. While this is not very far off gibberish, I was able to translate it as meaning that Maximilian Joseph, Duke in Bavaria was a descendant through his mother. Widespread though descent from him is, though, that from the sometime Miguel I which I noticed while following the trail spreads wider still. The chain to Maximilian Joseph:

Charles Marie Raymond d'Arenberg, 5th Duke of Arenberg as above
Prince and Duke Louis Marie d'Arenberg
Princess and Duchess Anna Luise d'Arenberg m Pius August, Duke in Bavaria
Maximilian Joseph, Duke in Bavaria
BaronVonServers

Avatar / Picture

Registered: 07/22/06
Posts: 11,935
Reply with quote  #12 
See, this is the stuff of 'greatness' in genealogies....



__________________
"In necessariis unitas, in dubiis libertas, in omnibus caritas"

I am NOT an authorized representative of my Government.

Learn more about the Dominion of British West Florida at http://dbwf.net
Peter

Moderator
Registered: 07/27/08
Posts: 5,427
Reply with quote  #13 
Thanks, but not really. Someone else discovered the link, even though they evidently struggled to express themselves in any human language (I have no problem with Pfalzgraf of Zweibruecken, Princesse d'Arenberg or Dukes of Bavaria, but the combination in the context was just all wrong). I then capitalised on this unknown's work. I did feel quite pleased about it all, though.
BaronVonServers

Avatar / Picture

Registered: 07/22/06
Posts: 11,935
Reply with quote  #14 
All discoveries are of some "unknown's" works - the credit goes to the one who can express it, does so first.

__________________
"In necessariis unitas, in dubiis libertas, in omnibus caritas"

I am NOT an authorized representative of my Government.

Learn more about the Dominion of British West Florida at http://dbwf.net
Previous Topic | Next Topic
Print
Reply

Quick Navigation:

Powered by Website Toolbox - Create a Website Forum Hosting, Guestbook Hosting, or Website Chat Room for your website.