Monarchy Forum
Sign up Latest Topics

  Author   Comment   Page 1 of 2      1   2   Next

Posts: 7,516
Reply with quote  #1 

As discussed in the 1952 to the present day thread, in a hundred years' time work like Theodore Harvey’s pioneering efforts and my various follow-ups will be pointless, as the monarchs of the day will be about as closely related to each other as Gustaf I of Sweden was to his contemporaries in 1558 (OK, that was a bit of an exaggeration, make it Stanisław II of Poland in 1789).

Some time ago I decided to see if I could do something vaguely statistical with that, and did, producing the chart on which the following three are based. Taking the reigning monarchs of Europe on the eve of WWI as the starting point (the list of monarchs was taken from Theodore’s second chart, with Peter I of Serbia added) I analysed the number of royal, noble and commoner individuals among their 16 great-great-grandparents and gave the percentage of royals among these. Then did it for the next generation, and the next, and so on to the present day, including people yet to reign (or, sadly often, claim) that are in direct line.

The idea was to show what the trend has been, and how it has inexorably grown, towards non-royal marriages. 'Royal' was defined as 'of equal birth status' and 'noble' as 'titled, or of recent titled lineage'. 'Commoner', of course, was 'neither of these'. Also of course there were iffy cases and I used my discretion, usually leaning to the side of generosity.

In the chart I made, each succeeding generation was the next generation to or through which the crown or the claim to the crown passed. For example, Nicholas II of Russia was followed by neither his brother Grand Duke Michael nor his first cousin Grand Duke Kyril, but by Grand Duke Kyril's son Grand Duke Vladimir, since he was the person in the next generation after Nicholas II to hold the claim (the tragic Tsesarevich Alexei never did, which is why Grand Duke Vladimir was shown rather than him).

Italy and Romania were shown according to my personal view of their successions. On Italy many agree with me, and on Romania very few, but as with the classification of people of ambiguous status I exercised my own judgement. Status is the correct word; it was the status, rather than ancestry, of the 16 great-great-grandparents (duplicated ancestors were counted twice) of each individual that was classified. For example, Carl XIV Johan of Sweden and Norway was counted as royal as he was in his own right a king, despite his having no royal ancestry whatsoever. His spouse was counted as a commoner since she drew her status from him, rather than it being inherent to her. There were trickier decisions of that kind, too, which I would be happy to go into at length, but perhaps it would be better to leave that for the unlikely event of someone enquiring (though I do touch on the question later in the thread).

Having completed all the charts for individual years, I decided to extract this chart too from the original thread and present it in this section. Change may look considerable but has in fact been minimal. I used my 1914 chart (1) for the list, rather than Theodore’s, meaning the addition of the Princes of Monaco, Liechtenstein and Albania to the original, and Peter I of Serbia naturally stayed in. I decided however not to include Nikola I of Montenegro and his successors in claim, as none of them have any royal ancestry apart from their own line. I should mention that showing the House of Wied rather than that of Zogu as continuing claimants to Albania doesn’t mean that I support them over the native Zogu line. I don’t, but the latter was not reigning in 1914 and the House of Wied was. As they do have a theoretical claim, it seemed not unreasonable for them to appear.

In one or two cases in the original chart I included an heir presumptive, or eventual heir presumptive, where they seemed quite likely to succeed. Another change is that I have also now done this for Russia, where while Grand Duke George could still marry equally and have children (or, going by his family trend, a child), he has had plenty of time to do so and shown no sign of getting on with it. There has also been some updating, Prince George of Cambridge for example being added.

I did not though recheck any of my calculations and assessments, except that I wondered whether I had been consistent in applying one particular classification and found I hadn’t, leading to the upgrading of Carol II of Romania’s ancestry. However, the few additions and some reformatting led to the originally single chart having to be split, first into two and later (following a forum software change that necessitated reposting) into three, done by the 1914 accession order.

In theory I should when I first posted this thread have made a further addition, of a 6th generation after that of 1914, due to the marriage on August 31st 2013 of Andrea Casiraghi, eventual heir presumptive to Monaco. This legitimised his son Sasha, born five months previously. Due to Monaco’s unusual succession law (in most countries those legitimised after birth are disqualified from succession), it also placed the child in line after his father. However, rather than add an entire generation for the sake of one individual I just gave Sasha’s figures, which are r1 n1 c14 6%, in this introduction.

Sasha of course has since I first posted this been displaced, along with his father Andrea Casiraghi and paternal grandmother Princess Caroline, by the happy event of the birth of Prince Albert II’s legitimate children. The 5th generation heir is now Hereditary Prince Jacques rather than Andrea Casiraghi, and this is shown in the reposted table, as is the accession of Felipe VI of Spain. I still left the discussion above in because I thought it had some mild interest,

In the charts, bare names without honorific or with just a dynastic numeral are sovereigns (custom varies from country to country on whether sole examples are numbered I or not). Percentages are, as mentioned before, of royal ancestors among the individual's great-great-grandparents, and links are to Genealogics ancestries. The charts will be followed by a chart for the pretenders of 1914 and their successors in claim, which I will give a separate introduction to, and then by statistical tables, ditto. A further post will highlight the second purpose of the charts, which were not created solely to show and analyse the continuing decline in equal marriage.

Royal, noble and commoner are represented by r, n and c, and any other abbreviations used are about as glaringly obvious as these. I hope I have made everything clear, but if not don’t hesitate to ask. And, this applying to all threads in the section though I haven’t explicitly said it before, corrections, comment, criticism and debate, which in the majority of cases would have to be in the discussion thread, would all be very much welcomed.


Posts: 7,516
Reply with quote  #2 
Percentages of royal ancestors of the sovereigns of 1914 and succeeding generations: part one
Monarch as at 28 June 19141st generation2nd generation3rd generation4th generation5th generation
Franz Joseph I of Austria-HungaryArchduke OttoKarl IArchduke OttoArchduke KarlArchduke Ferdinand
r16 100%r16 100%r15 n1 94%r16 100%r11 n4 c1 69%r6 n3 c7 37.5%
Johann II of LiechtensteinPrince AloysFranz Joseph IIHans-Adam IIPrince AloisPrince J. Wenzel
r8 n8 50%r7 n9 44%r13 n3 81%r9 n7 56%r8 n8 50%r6 n8 c2 37.5%
Carol I of RomaniaFerdinand ICarol IIMichael IPrince  Karl FriedrichPrince  Alexander
r8 n4 c4 50%r10 n4 c2 62.5%r14 n2 87.5%r16 100%r16 100%r8 n6 c2 50%
Alfonso XIII of SpainInfante JuanJuan Carlos IFelipe VIInfanta Leonor 
r16 100%r13 n2 c1 81%r15 n1 94%r16 100%r8 c8 50% 
Ferdinand I of BulgariaBoris IIISimeon IIPrince  KardamPrince  Boris 
r12 n4 75%r14 n2 87.5%r11 n2 c3 69%r7 n1 c8 44%r4 n1 c11 25% 
Wilhelm II of GermanyPrince  WilhelmPrince  L. FerdinandPrince  L. FerdinandPrince  Georg FriedrichPrince Carl Friedrich
r16 100%r14 n1 c1 87.5%r15 n1 94%r16 100%r15 n1 94%r10 n6 62.5%
Wilhelmina of the NetherlandsJulianaBeatrixWillem-AlexanderPss  Catharina-Amalia 
r16 100%r16 100%r9 n4 c3 56%r5 n6 c5 31%r3 n3 c10 19% 

Posts: 7,516
Reply with quote  #3 
Percentages of royal ancestors of the sovereigns of 1914 and succeeding generations: part two
Monarch as at 28 June 19141st generation2nd generation3rd generation4th generation5th generation
Nicholas II of RussiaGD VladimirGDss MariaGD GeorgePrince Ferdinand 
r13 n3 81%r14 n2 87.5%r9 n4 c3 56%r13 n2 c1 81%r16 100% 
Albert I of MonacoLouis IIPrincess CharlotteRainier IIIAlbert IIPrince Jacques
r1 n10 c5 6%r3 n10 c3 19%r3 n2 c11 19%r2 n5 c9 12.5%r1 n4 c11 6%r1 n2 c13 6%
Vittorio Emanuele III of ItalyUmberto IIPrince  AmedeoPrince  AimonePrince  Umberto 
r16 100%r8 n1 c7 50%r14 n2 87.5%r13 n3 81%r11 n1 c4 69% 
Peter I of SerbiaAlexander IPeter IIPrince  AlexanderPrince  Peter 
c16 0%n1 c15 0%r9 n1 c6 56%r10 c6 62.5%r12 n2 c2 75% 
Haakon VII of NorwayOlav VHarald VPrince  HaakonPrincess  Ingrid 
r14 n1 c1 87.5%r16 100%r16 100%r8 c8 50%r4 c12 25% 
Gustaf V of SwedenGustaf VI AdolfPrince  Gustaf AdolfCarl XVI GustafPrincess  VictoriaPrincess  Estelle
r10 n2 c4 62.5%r14 c2 87.5%r16 100%r16 100%r8 c8 50%r4 c12 25%

Posts: 7,516
Reply with quote  #4 
Percentages of royal ancestors of the sovereigns of 1914 and succeeding generations: part three
Monarch as at 28 June 19141st generation2nd generation3rd generation4th generation5th generation
Albert I of BelgiumLéopold IIIAlbert IIPhilippePrincess  Elisabeth 
r12 n2 c2 75%r16 100%r16 100%r8 n6 c2 50%r4 n8 c4 25% 
George V of Great BritainGeorge VIElizabeth IIPrince  CharlesPrince  WilliamPrince George
r15 n1 94%r14 n2 87.5%r7 n4 c5 44%r11 n3 c2 69%r6 n7 c3 37.5%r3 n4 c9 19%
Marie-Adélaïde of LuxembourgJeanHenriPrince  GuillaumePrince/ss 
r15 n1 94%r16 100%r16 100%r8 c8 50%r5 n4 c7 31% 
Christian X of DenmarkFrederik IXMargrethe IIPrince  FrederikPrince  Christian 
r14 n1 c1 87.5%r16 100%r16 100%r8 n1 c7 50%r4 n1 c11 25% 
Constantine I of GreecePaul IConstantine IIPrince  PaulPrince  Constantine 
r16 100%r16 100%r16 100%r16 100%r8 c8 50% 
Vidi I of AlbaniaPrince CarolPrince F. WilhelmPrince CarlPrince Maximilian 
r16 100%r11 n1 c4 69%r12 n4 75%r15 n1 94%r10 n6 62.5% 

Posts: 7,516
Reply with quote  #5 

As an addendum to the original chart, I prepared a similar chart for the claimants of 1914. These were obviously few in number, with so many monarchies in being; in fact two claimants for France and one for Portugal was it. The French claimants did not include what is called the legitimist claimant, a misnomer in my view as legitimacy is exactly what the claim lacks. In fact the legitimist claimant at the time was also the Carlist claimant to Spain, but was not included as that either, since I wanted to show pretenders to vacant thrones, not challengers for occupied ones.

However, I then somewhat contradicted myself, supplementing that chart with one for the claimants to the various Italian monarchies that were annexed and combined with Sardinia and the Papal States to form the Kingdom of Italy. As Italy was a monarchy in being I originally decided against doing this, but weakened. I have kept that work, combining it with the first chart to make a single one, in contrast to the sovereigns chart which began as one chart but ended up as three. I would be more consistent if I instead did a chart for the German Empire constituent realms, but that I am afraid is more work than I am prepared to undertake.

So, here is the chart. A point to note is that my generations plan produces an absurd result for Portugal, so there just the normal succession is shown. For the Two Sicilies I don’t have a firmly settled view on the competing claims (something very unusual indeed for me), so have shown both. For the Castro (second) claim, Prince Antonio in the 5th generation is an eventual heir presumptive; Prince Carlo in the fourth, the present claimant, may yet have a son, but it doesn’t seem especially likely.

However for Parma the incumbent claimant only married in 2010 and already has a daughter of the union. As there seems no reason not to expect a son eventually, I have not shown the next generation heir presumptive (not that it is at all clear to me who that might be). For the Calabria claim to the Two Sicilies, I originally showed Prince Juan in the 5th generation, but am now showing his older brother Prince Jaime, who although born prior to their parents’ marriage seems to be regarded as the heir.

The marriage legitimised him, of course, but, as previously mentioned, normally those not born legitimate are still excluded from succession even after legitimisation. I have no idea on what grounds Prince Jaime is being treated as heir, European law regarding the rights of children born out of wedlock perhaps, but anyway am not going to take issue with the Duke of Calabria over the question, so Prince Jaime it is.*

As is also true for Archduke Sigismund (Tuscany 4th generation), the link for him is to his Heirs of Europe ancestry, the Genealogics one not showing sufficient of his maternal ancestry for my purposes. This applied to some other cases where I did not seek an alternative, but there I felt confident in assuming that ancestors not shown were all commoners. Here I did not, and rightly so as it turned out.

* However, for France I show the 3rd (next) generation heir as Prince François, the eldest son of the present comte de Paris. Officially the heir is the next oldest son, Prince Jean, father of Prince Gaston in the 4th generation. This is because Prince Francois was born mentally disabled, his mother having been suffering from toxoplasmosis while carrying him. However, reasonable as it might seem to exclude him, I don’t see that the comte de Paris has any power to; even in the days of absolute monarchy in France the king could not just change the succession by fiat, and in its last iteration the Kingdom of France was a constitutional monarchy, so he would be even less able to. Anyway while he is the lawful claimant and the undoubted Head of House, the comte is not king. So in this case I do take issue, and as far as I am concerned the titular Henri VII will be succeeded by the as titular François III, and he in turn by either Jean IV or Gaston I.


Posts: 7,516
Reply with quote  #6 
Percentages of royal ancestors of the pretenders of 1914 and succeeding generations
Realm1914 claimant1st generation2nd generation3rd generation4th generation5th generation
Kingdom of FrancePrince PhilippePrince HenriPrince HenriPrince FrançoisPrince Gaston 
 r14 n2 87.5%r16 100%r12 n4 75%r14 n2 87.5%r8 n2 c6 50% 
French EmpirePrince VictorPrince LouisPrince CharlesP Jean-Chr  
 r12 c4 75%r14 c2 87.5%r8 n1 c7 50%r7 n5 c4 44%  
Kingdom of PortugalManoel IIInfante Duarte NunoInfante D PioInfante Afonso  
 r15 n1 94%r12 n4 75%r11 n5 69%r6 n3 c7 37.5 %  
Kingdom of the Two Sicilies (I)Prince AlfonsoP Ferdinando PioInfante AlfonsoInfante CarlosPrince PedroPrince Jaime
 r16 100%r16 100%r16 100%r16 100%r14 n2 87.5%r7 n3 c6 44%
Kingdom of the Two Sicilies (II)Prince AlfonsoP Ferdinando PioP FerdinandoPrince CarloPrince Antonio 
 r16 100%r16 100%r12 n4 75%r6 n7 c3 37.5%r8 n7 c1 50% 
Grand Duchy of TuscanyA. Joseph FerdinandA. GottfriedA. Leopold FranzA. SigismundA. Leopold 
 r16 100%r16 100%r16 100%r8 n6 c2 50%r4 n4 c8 25% 
Duchy of ModenaKarl IA. RobertPrince LorenzPrince Amedeo  
 r15 n1 94%r16 100%r15 n1 94%r12 n3 c1 75%  
Duchy of ParmaPrince EnricoPrince RobertoPrince Carlo   
 r16 100%r15 n1 94%r9 n6 c1 56%   

Posts: 7,516
Reply with quote  #7 

Wanting to do a bit more than just the few additions and odd bit of updating detailed in the introduction, I thought of doing overall percentages of royal ancestors for each generation, another way of demonstrating that a downward trend exists, and has been gathering pace. The trouble with that was, if I had planned it from the beginning then the number of ancestors of each kind per individual would have been in a table as figures, and concatenated into the chart (actually I hadn’t then started using concatenation, but that still would have been the way to do it).

But I didn’t plan to do that, so the figures were all buried in text, and therefore text themselves. I could have just read through the charts and typed the figures for royal ancestors afresh, but apart from this being very laborious transcription errors would be guaranteed. I had never used Excel text functions except for the odd exercise (concatenation is a text function but I don’t in general use it, preferring ampersands as they make a shorter formula), but I knew they existed and that there was bound to be one of them that would help. Checking what was available, I tried =MID(B5,2,2), and indeed it extracted 16 from the cell for Franz Joseph I of Austria-Hungary.

A fill across and down obtained the rest of the figures, but there was still work to do on them. Single digits had an unwanted space extracted with them, easy to get rid of with search and replace, and the first two results for Serbia needed to be manually amended to zero (there were no royal ancestors, so the formula extracted the figure for noble ancestors located where the royal ancestors figure would be), again easy enough. Not quite so readily solved was that the formula's output was still text, therefore unable to be used in calculations, and reformatting it to numbers was not as straightforward as you might expect.

I copied the output as values then used error checking to change the format (Excel by default regards numbers stored as text as an error). I could have done the same thing then used a slightly elaborate pasting method instead of error checking, or there is supposed to be a way to get simply applying a number format to work, but it didn't for me. Subsequently I discovered that if you include a mathematical operation such as multiplying by one in your formula then the desired text is extracted in number format to begin with. Live and learn. Blank cells will now produce #VALUE! errors, as you are trying to perform a mathematical operation on nothing, but a formula such as =IF(ISBLANK(B5),"",MID(B5,2,2)*1) prevents these. Or there are several other ways to deal with the problem, but since I didn't learn the *1 trick until too late it is all moot.

Anyway, after all that (partly unnecessary) fiddling about, I did have all the figures as figures, cleaned up and ready for manipulation. The following tables are the result, but first I will show separately the key part of them, the overall percentages generation by generation.








1914 sovereigns







1914 pretenders







 In case it is not immediately obvious, the 1914 sovereigns/claimants are generation 0. Extracting the vital figures this way (all the others in the two tables are essentially just workings, supporting information for the overall result) allows the trend in both sets of individuals to be more readily seen and compared, and I thought would be more helpful than just presenting the tables alone.

One final thing to mention is that in the full tables ‘Max’ is the maximum number of royal ancestors that generation could have had, obtained by for example =COUNT(J4:J22)*16. The COUNT function returns the number of cells in a range that contain figures, thereby giving the number of individuals in the generation, and that multiplied by 16 gives the theoretical maximum number of royal ancestors for it. The actual number is then expressed as a percentage of that, both in the bottom line of the full tables and in the extract shown above.


Posts: 7,516
Reply with quote  #8 
Percentages of royal ancestors: summary I (sovereigns)
AH1616151611  6SER  0  0  91012 
LIE  8  713  9  8  6NOR141616  8  4 
ROM  810141616  8SWE10141616  8  4
SP16131516  8 BEL121616  8  4 
BUL121411  7  4 UK1514  711  6  3
GER161415161510LUX151616  8  5 
NETH1616  9  5  3 DEN141616  8  4 
RUS1314  91316 GRE16161616  8 
MON  1  3  3  2  1  1ALB1611121510 
ITA16  8141311        
       Total234234242213154  38
       %  77  77  80  70  51  34
Percentages of royal ancestors: summary 2 (claimants)
FRA14161214  8 TSII161612  6  8 
FRE1214  8  7  TUS161616  8  4 
POR151211  6  MOD15161512  
TSI16161616147PAR1615  9   
       Total120121996934  7
       %  94  95  77  62  5344

Posts: 7,516
Reply with quote  #9 

As mentioned in the introduction, the purpose of the charts was always twofold. In addition to showing the steady decline of percentages of royal ancestors among sovereigns and their heirs, and also pretenders and theirs, they were meant to show that, even back when there were many more extant monarchies and equal marriage was the rule, some sovereigns and heirs would always for one reason or another have comparatively recent noble and even common ancestry.

There is no general reason why this should be, but lots of specific ones, some of which I thought I’d delve into. Beginning with Karl I (IV. Károly) of Austria-Hungary, his one noble ancestor is his maternal grandmother Infanta Maria Ana of Portugal's own paternal grandmother, Princess Maria Antonia of Koháry. A great Hungarian noble family, the Kohárys were elevated to the status of Austrian Princes in 1815. However, it seems to me that this was not the same as being a Prince of the Empire and did not confer either sovereign or equal marriage status, but merely raised them in the nobility. There was in fact only one Prince of Koháry, of whom Maria Antonia was the only child and sole heiress. To a colossal fortune, which perhaps explains why no eyebrows were raised when she married Prince Ferdinand of Saxe-Coburg and Gotha, of undoubted equal marriage status himself. I nevertheless classified her as noble rather than royal.

Next, Infante Juan of Spain, Count of Barcelona and father of the present king. No one I think would dispute that he had one noble and one commoner great-great-grandparent, Count Moritz Hauke and his wife Sophie Lafontaine. However, I count two noble. The second is Baron August von Senarclens de Grancy, the actual father of Prince Alexander of Hesse and by Rhine, whose son Prince Henry of Battenberg was Infante Juan's maternal grandfather. Prince Alexander's official father was Grand Duke Louis II, but no one believed this at the time or does now. In cases of absolute certainty I follow biological parentage, and this is one. Prince Alexander himself though appears as a great-great-grandparent, of King Juan Carlos I, naturally, and also of the present Prince of Wales, and is classified royal, since that was his status as an acknowledged if not actual son of the Grand Duke.

This may be controversial, but the noble ancestor shown for Juan Carlos I himself is not; it is Countess Julie Hauke, daughter of Count Moritz and wife of Prince Alexander. She was made Princess of Battenberg in her own right but this did not confer equal status, otherwise her children would have been Princes and Princesses of Hesse and by Rhine rather than of Battenberg. I nevertheless counted her children as royal, due to the marriages some of them and their children made without anyone seeming to regard them as morganatic.

Crown Prince Wilhelm of Germany, son of Wilhelm II, has one noble and one common ancestor shown. These are Count Christian of Danneskiold-Samsøe and his wife Henriette Kaas, maternal grandparents of his own maternal grandfather, Friedrich, Duke of Schleswig-Holstein-Sonderburg-Augustenberg. Count Christian was descended in male line from an illegitimate son of Christian V of Denmark, but was unquestionably noble rather than royal. The Kaas family appear to have been distinguished but not noble. The marriage of Duke Friedrich's father Duke Christian August was not considered morganatic for political reasons: he had been encouraged into it in order to tie him and his heirs more closely to Denmark rather than Germany.

Next, Nicholas II. Three noble ancestors are shown for him, of which one was Countess Friederike of Schlieben, from a Prussian noble family with no pretensions to equal marriage status. She married Friedrich, Duke of Schleswig-Holstein-Sonderburg-Beck, and was paternal grandmother of Christian IX of Denmark, Nicholas II's own maternal grandfather. I don't know why the marriage wasn't considered morganatic, but it was not; perhaps political reasons again. Anyway I doubt anyone would dispute Countess Friederike's noble rather than royal status.

Nor would they that of Baron Cesar August von Senarclens de Grancy and his wife Elisabeth de Loriol, paternal grandparents of Nicholas II's paternal grandmother Princess Marie of Hesse and by Rhine. She was a full sister of Prince Alexander above; the then Tsesarevich, later the Emperor Alexander II, was discouraged from marrying her on account of her universally known paternity, but she was very beautiful and he in love, so he had his way. Like her brother, where she appears as a great-great-grandparent (of King Michael I of Romania, Grand Duchess Maria of Russia, the younger Prince Louis Ferdinand of Prussia, and King Peter II of Yugoslavia) she is classified as royal.

The maternal ancestry of Umberto II of Italy was all Montenegrin, his mother being a daughter of King Nikola I of that country. I didn’t, and don’t, to be honest know whether any of them should be considered noble or not, but as there were no titles shown for seven of his maternal great-great-grandparents classified them as common. The eighth was Prince Stanko Petrović-Njegoš, who as a member of the ruling line I classified as noble. Arguably it should have been royal, but in view of the unique nature of the Montenegrin principality I decided noble. Frankly, I doubt very much if a member of the family would have been accepted as of equal marriage status until Montenegro became a more regular principality, which it had by the time of the marriage of Umberto's parents. But possibly Stanko and one or two others should be reclassified, I lack the knowledge to be sure.

He is also the one noble ancestor shown for Alexander I of Yugoslavia. The nine royal ancestors shown for his son Peter II do include Kara George himself, since he can reasonably be considered a sovereign. However he was Alexander I's great- not great-great-grandfather and his own parents were inarguably commoners. Peter II's one noble ancestor is Mirko Petrović-Njegoš, son of Stanko. Although as mentioned in the 1939 thread Peter II's actual maternal ancestry differed from the official, it made no difference in my calculations: 100% royal either way.

So, having explained the perhaps unexpected presence of recent noble ancestors for a few of the more prominent figures in the charts, I’ll leave it there for the time being. Some may disagree with my classifications, and are welcome to dispute them: I may even have my mind changed, a rare event but not entirely unknown, and these are generally speaking questions of judgement not certainty. I had to exercise my judgement in order to prepare the charts at all; I hope that people have enjoyed them, and found some of the things they show of interest.


Posts: 7,516
Reply with quote  #10 

Following a question in the introduction thread I have prepared the following four charts. The first chart shows the most recent equal marriage by a Sovereign, Head of House or heir to either in each European royal house, excluding the sub-monarchies of Germany and pre-unification monarchies of Italy, while the second shows the same thing but extended to the most recent equal marriage by any member of a particular house. Of course, sometimes this is the same person as in the first chart.

The final two charts cover the most recent equal marriages in those sovereign houses of Germany and pre-unification Italy that were omitted from the previous two. I will mention that the house names I have put into the Germany chart may seem a little eccentric in places, but were all chosen for a reason.

The names of the sovereigns/heads/heirs in the first chart and dynasts in the other three are linked to their Genealogics individual pages, from which details of their spouse can also be accessed. Notional dynastic numerals have been used for heads of non-reigning houses in the first and second charts, though I have not continued this in the third and fourth. Monaco was omitted from the first chart because no Prince of or heir to Monaco has ever married a member of another royal or even a mediatised house, but Princess Caroline of Monaco is included in the second.

This seemed the most appropriate thread for the charts to appear in since, after all, equal marriage is what the thread is all about. It took several days to prepare and post them all, and in the meantime the thread was locked. I invited any corrections of material posted so far to be placed in the Introduction thread, and forum member DC kindly applied his expert knowledge of the German dynasties, far superior to mine, to suggesting several amendments. All were implemented except for a suggestion he made that the marriage of Prince Heinrich XXIV Reuss to Countess Dorothea of Castell-Castell on 21st September 2013 should be counted as the most recent equal marriage for the Princes Reuss Younger Line.

It would actually be the most recent equal marriage of all, but it would appear that her father lost dynastic status as a result of his own marriage, and therefore his children do not have it. DC rightly pointed out that I counted the marriage of Prince Ernst Friedrich of Saxe-Meiningen as the most recent equal marriage for both Saxe- Meiningen and Saxe-Coburg, and he was in a similar situation due to his own parents’ unequal marriage. However, as his son Prince Constantin is the only possible heir to the Saxe-Meiningen line I anticipate that he will be granted dynastic status, in which case it would seem unfair that his father should not be regarded retrospectively as having it too.

It’s not the strongest of arguments, and I am open to persuasion on either point, but for the moment Prince Ernst Friedrich is included and Prince Heinrich XXIV is not. The work having been completed the thread is now unlocked again, and if anyone wants to argue these points, has further corrections to add to DC’s very valued contributions or has any other comment or criticism to make, they are invited to post directly here.


Posts: 7,516
Reply with quote  #11 

Before proceeding with the charts discussed above I want to point out interesting features of one or two of the marriages they show. Duke Friedrich of Württemberg, who appears in the third chart, is the heir to Württemberg after his father. Like his father, and like all the Heads of House in the dynasty since the death of Wilhelm II, the last King, he is descended from exactly none of the Kings of Württemberg. That will not apply to his own heir Duke Wilhelm, however, who is descended through his mother from three of the four, the most that is possible.

Princess Marianne of Auersperg, who is in the same chart as the wife of Prince Ludwig of Baden, has an interesting maternal ancestry. Her mother is a Countess of Meran, descended in male line from Archduke Johann, one of the Emperor Leopold II’s many admirable sons, who married the daughter of a village postmaster. That marriage was understandably regarded as morganatic. However, Princess Marianne’s maternal grandmother was a Princess of Liechtenstein, whose own mother was Marie Fox.

A Parisian foundling, daughter of one Victoire Magny by an unknown father, she was adopted as an infant by Henry Fox, 4th Baron Holland. He was widely suspected to be her actual father, but as Marie grew into a young woman of beauty and charm, sole child of a prominent family, many other theories arose. The mystery however remains to this day. It did not deter a series of suitors for her hand, of which the successful one was Prince Ludwig of Liechtenstein. The Princely House naturally refused to accept the marriage as other than morganatic, but then, amazingly, changed their minds. Which is almost as big a mystery as who Marie’s biological father was.

Finally, the maternal ancestry of Countess Alexandra of Schönborn-Wiesentheid, who appears of the fourth chart as the wife of Prince Francesco of the Two Sicilies, is more than worthy of note. Her mother, Princess Tatiana Constantinovna Gortchakova, is from the distinguished line of the Princes Gortchakov, a Rurikid House. One of her male-line forebears, Prince Alexander Mikhailovich Gortchakov, was among the pre-eminent statesmen of the 19th century, on a level with Palmerston and Bismarck, though not enjoying the same fame today.

Princess Tatiana’s grandmother Daria Mikhailovna Bibikova had a descent which makes Prince Francesco’s children unique in the European Royal Houses, except that of Russia; from ancient Kings of Georgia, and through them from Emperors of Trebizond and Seljuk Sultans of Rum. This link traces all the way from Vakhtang VI, King of Kartli, to the children of Prince Francesco and Countess Alexandra.

Daria’s husband, Princess Tatiana’s grandfather Prince Alexander Constantinovich Gortchakov, had interesting ancestors of his own besides his illustrious grandfather Prince Alexander. His Urussova paternal grandmother was descended in male line from Khans of the Nogai Horde.  His maternal grandfather brought Romanian and Phanariot Greek princely blood, while his maternal grandmother Princess Smaragda Vogoride was herself the great-granddaughter of the 18th/19th-century Bulgarian Saint Sophronius. And all this rich and fascinating ancestry is also shared by Prince Francesco’s children.

But I will leave people to make other such discoveries for themselves, if they wish, by exploring the charts. They are something of a work in progress, and any further changes to them will be advised, as I do with the relationships charts in the threads above. I hope, though, that even in their present state people will find interest in them.


Posts: 7,516
Reply with quote  #12 
Most recent equal marriages by Sovereigns, Heads of House or heirs to either in European Royal Houses as at the date of posting
GermanyHohenzollernGeorg Friedrich ISophie of Isenburg25 August 2011
ItalySavoyP Aimone, D of ApuliaOlga of Greece16 September 2008
LiechtensteinLiechtensteinH. Prince AloisSophie of Bavaria03 July 1993
FranceBonaparteNapoléon VIIBéatrice of the Two Sicilies19 December 1978
RussiaRomanoffMaria IFranz of Prussia04 September 1976
SerbiaKarađorđevićAlexander IIMaria da Gloria of Brazil01 July 1972
GreeceOldenburgConstantine  IIAnne-Marie of Denmark18 September 1964
SpainBourbon-SpainJuan Carlos ISophia of Greece14 May 1962
FranceOrléansHenri VIIM Therese of Württemberg05 July 1957
LuxembourgBourbon-NassauJeanJoséphine of Belgium09 April 1953
AustriaHabsburg-LorraineOtto IRegina of Saxe-Meiningen10 May 1951
RomaniaHohenzollernMichael IAnne of Parma10 June 1948
BritainWindsorElizabeth IIPhilip of Greece20 November 1947
BrazilOrléans-Bragança IIPedro IVM Esperanza of the Two Sicilies18 December 1944
PortugalBragançaDuarte IIM Francisca of Brazil15 October 1942
BrazilOrléans-Bragança IPedro IIIM Elisabeth of Bavaria19 August 1937
NetherlandsOrange-NassauJulianaBernhard of Lippe07 January 1937
DenmarkOldenburgFrederik IXIngrid of Sweden24 May 1935
SwedenBernadotteH. Prince Gustaf AdolfSibylla of Saxe-Coburg20 October 1932
BulgariaSaxe-CoburgBoris IIIGiovanna of Savoy25 October 1930
NorwayOldenburgOlav VMartha of Sweden21 March 1929
BelgiumSaxe-CoburgLéopold IIIAstrid of Sweden04 November 1926
MontenegroPetrović-NjegošDanilo IJutta of Mecklenburg-Strelitz27 July 1899
The German sub-monarchies and the pre-unification monarchies of Italy are treated of separately

Posts: 7,516
Reply with quote  #13 
Most recent equal marriages in European Royal Houses as at the date of posting
GermanyHohenzollernGeorg Friedrich ISophie of Isenburg25 August 2011
GreeceOldenburgPss OlgaAimone of Savoy16 September 2008
ItalySavoyP AimoneOlga of Greece16 September 2008
AustriaHabsburg-LorraineA MartinKatharina of Isenburg17 April 2004
LiechtensteinLiechtensteinPss M IleanaCarl of Trauttmansdorff02 June 2000
MonacoGrimaldiPss CarolineErnst August of Hanover23 January 1999
FranceOrléansPss MarieGundakar of Liechtenstein22 July 1989
BelgiumSaxe-CoburgPss AstridLorenz of Austria-Este22 September 1984
LuxembourgBourbon-NassauPss MargarethaNikolaus of Liechtenstein20 March 1982
FranceBonaparteNapoléon VIIBéatrice of the Two Sicilies19 December 1978
RussiaRomanoffMaria IFranz of Prussia04 September 1976
SerbiaKarađorđevićP AlexanderBarbara of Liechtenstein02 November 1973
BrazilOrléans-Bragança IIPss M da GloriaAlexander II of Serbia01 July 1972
DenmarkOldenburgPss BenedikteRichard of Sayn-W-Berleburg03 February 1968
SpainBourbon-SpainInfante CarlosAnna of Orléans11 May 1965
NetherlandsOrange-NassauPss IreneCarlos Hugo of Bourbon-Parma29 April 1964
SwedenBernadottePss BirgittaJ. Georg of Hohenzollern25 May 1961
BulgariaSaxe-CoburgPss M LouiseKarl of Leiningen14 February 1957
RomaniaHohenzollernMichael IAnne of Parma10 June 1948
BritainWindsorElizabeth IIPhilip of Greece20 November 1947
PortugalBragançaDuarte IIM Francisca of Brazil15 October 1942
BrazilOrléans-Bragança IPedro IIIM Elisabeth of Bavaria19 August 1937
NorwayOldenburgOlav VMartha of Sweden21 March 1929
MontenegroPetrović-NjegošPss AnastasiaGD Nicholas29 April 1907
The German sub-monarchies and the pre-unification monarchies of Italy are treated of separately

Posts: 7,516
Reply with quote  #14 
Most recent equal marriages within the Royal, Grand Ducal, Ducal and Princely Houses of Germany as at the date of posting
Kingdom of BavariaWittelsbachPss AugusteFerdinand of Lippe-Weissenfeld26 December 2009
Principality of Waldeck and PyrmontWaldeckP NikolausKatharine of Hohenlohe-Langenburg29 September 2002
Electorate of HesseHesse-CasselPss IrinaAlexander of Schönburg-Glauchau30 April 1999
Duchy of BrunswickBrunswick-LüneburgP Ernst AugustCaroline of Monaco23 January 1999
Grand Duchy of OldenburgOldenburgDss EilikaGeorg of Austria18 October 1997
Principality of LippeLippe-BiesterfeldP StephanMaria of Solms-Laubach13 October 1994
Kingdom of WürttembergWürttembergD FriedrichMarie of Wied13 November 1993
Principality of Schaumburg-LippeSchaumburg-LippeP AlexanderMarie-Louise of Sayn-W-Berleburg29 August 1993
Principality of HohenzollernHohenzollern-SigmaringenPss DésireeHeinrich of Ortenburg21 September 1990
Duchy of Schleswig-HolsteinS-H-Sonderburg-GlücksburgD ChristophElisabeth of Lippe-Weissenfeld23 September 1981
Duchy of Saxe-Coburg and GothaWettinPss BeatriceFriedrich Ernst of Saxe-Meiningen11 June 1977
Duchy of Saxe-MeiningenWettinP Friedrich ErnstBeatrice of Saxe-Coburg11 June 1977
Principality of Reuss Younger LineReuß-KöstritzPss FelizitasFranz of Schönborn-Wiesentheid25 October 1974
Kingdom of SaxonyWettinPss MathildeJohannes of Saxe-Coburg15 October 1968
Grand Duchy of Saxe-Weimar-EisenachWettinPss KatharinaEmanuel of Hohenzollern25 May 1968
Grand Duchy of BadenZāhringenP LudwigMarianne of Auersperg21 September 1967
Grand Duchy of Mecklenburg-StrelitzMecklenburg-StrelitzD Carl GregorMaria of Hohenzollern18 December 1965
Duchy of AnhaltAnhalt-DessauPss AnastasiaMaria Emanuel of Saxony23 June 1962
Grand Duchy of Mecklenburg-SchwerinMecklenburg-SchwerinD Christian LudwigBarbara of Prussia05 July 1954
Principality of SchwarzburgSchwarzburg-RudolstadtPrince F GüntherSophie of Saxe-Weimar07 March 1938
Grand Duchy of Hesse and by RhineHesse-DarmstadtHGD G DonatusCecilie of Greece23 January 1931
Principality of Reuss Elder LineReuß-GreizPss HermineWilhelm II of Germany05 November 1922
Duchy of Saxe-AltenburgWettinPss CharlotteWilhelm Viktor of Prussia11 July 1919
The Prussian Royal House is treated of in the first and second charts above

Posts: 7,516
Reply with quote  #15 
Most recent equal marriages within the Royal, Grand Ducal and Ducal Houses of Italy as at the date of posting
Duchy of ParmaBourbon-ParmaP MichelMaria Pia of Savoy16 May 2003
Kingdom of the Two SiciliesBourbon-Sicily IIP FrancescoAlexandra of Schönborn-Wiesentheid02 June 2000
Kingdom of the Two SiciliesBourbon-Sicily IPss MariaSimeon of Austria13 July 1996
Duchy of ModenaAustria-EsteA LorenzAstrid of Belgium22 September 1984
Grand Duchy of TuscanyHabsburg-LorraineAdss ValerieMaximilian of Baden23 September 1966
The Royal House of Savoy is treated of in the first and second charts above
Previous Topic | Next Topic

Quick Navigation:

Easily create a Forum Website with Website Toolbox.