Monarchy Forum
Sign up Latest Topics

  Author   Comment   Page 3 of 3      Prev   1   2   3

Avatar / Picture

Posts: 225
Reply with quote  #31 
Matrilineal Musings (Part Two)

Let's have a look at another uterine line, this time from a more distant female monarch.

Original line:
  1. Maria Theresa (1717 - 1780), mother of...
  2. Archduchess Maria Anna of Austria (1738 - 1789), sister of...
  3. Maria Christina, Duchess of Teschen (1742 - 1798), sister of...
  4. Archduchess Maria Elisabeth of Austria (1743 - 1808), grandaunt of...
  5. Princess Amalie of Saxony (1794 - 1870), grandaunt of...
  6. Princess Therese of Bavaria (1850 - 1925), fourth cousin once removed of...

First cadet branch [Descended from Maria Theresa through her daughter, Maria Carolina of Austria]:
  1. Princess Mathilde of Saxony (1863 - 1933), sister of...
  2. Princess Maria Josepha of Saxony (1867 - 1944), second cousin once removed of...

Second cadet branch [Descended from Maria Leopoldina of Austria through her daughter, Princess Francisca of Brazil]:
  1. Princess Margaret of Denmark (1895 - 1992), mother of...
  2. Queen Anne of Romania (1923 - 2016), mother of...
  3. Margareta of Romania (b. 1949).
As the Empire of Austria employed agnatic primogeniture of the semi-Salic kind, I would imagine that Princess Margareta does have some theoretical inheritance rights. In practice, however, she's not in the Austrian line of succession.

In addition, just like last time, these women and their female line descendants should belong to mtDNA haplogroup H.

Avatar / Picture

Posts: 225
Reply with quote  #32 
Royal Commoners

It is practically a truism that a Caucasian Westerner would be able to trace his or her descent from Charlemagne. One just needs to find the right gateway, so to speak.

Below, you will find two royal (well, one of them is not quite to that level, but still) descents of American actress Brooke Shields. Why her? Because she has relatively recent noble ancestry, mostly Italian, as you can see.

By the way, "m." stands for "married".

Spain [Step One; Step Two]:

1) Philip II of Spain (1527 - 1598) m. Elisabeth of Valois (1545 - 1568) and had...
2) Catalina Micaela of Spain (1567 - 1597) m. Charles Emmanuel I, Duke of Savoy (1562 - 1630) and had...
3) Thomas Francis, Prince of Carignano (1596 - 1656) m. Marie de Bourbon, Countess of Soissons (1606 - 1692) and had...
4) Emmanuel Philibert, Prince of Carignano (1628 - 1709) m. Maria Angela Caterina d'Este (1656 - 1722) and had...
5) Victor Amadeus I, Prince of Carignano (1690 - 1741) m. Maria Vittoria of Savoy (1690 - 1766) and had...
6) Louis Victor, Prince of Carignano (1721 - 1778) m. Princess Christine of Hesse-Rotenburg (1717 - 1778) and had...
7) Princess Leopoldina of Savoy (1744 - 1807) m. Andrea IV Doria-Pamphilj-Landi, 13.Principe di Melfi (1744 - 1820) and had...
8) Don Luigi Doria-Pamphili-Landi, Principe di Valmontore (1779 - 1838) m. Donna Teresa Orsini (1788 - 1829) and had...
9) Donna Leopoldina, Principessa Doria-Pamphilj-Landi (1811 - 1843) m. Don Sigismondo, Principe Chigi della Rovere Albani (1798 - 1877) and had...
10) Donna Teresa, Principessa Chigi della Rovere Albani (1831 - 1884) m. Don Giulio Torlonia, 2.Duca di Poli e di Guadagnolo (1824 - 1871) and had...
11) Marino Torlonia, 4th Prince of Civitella-Cesi (1861 - 1933) m. Mary Elsie Moore (1889 - 1941) and had...
12) Marina Torlonia di Civitella-Cesi (1916 - 1960) m. Frank Shields (1909 - 1975) and had...
13) Francis Alexander Shields (1941 - 2003) m. Teri Shields (1933 - 2012) and had...
14) Brooke Shields (b. 1965).

Monaco [Step One; Step Two]:

1) Honoré II, Prince of Monaco (1597 - 1662) m. Ippolita Trivulzio (1600 - 1638) and had...
2) Ercole, Marquis of Baux (1623 - 1651) m. Maria Aurelia Spinola (1625 - 1670) and had...
3) Giovanna Maria Grimaldi (1645 - 1694) m. Andrea Imperiali, 2.Principe di Francavilla (1647 - 1678) and had...
4) Aurelia Imperiali (1678 - 1770) m. Fabrizio Carafa, 10.Duca di Andria (1673 - 1707) and had...
5) Don Ettore Carafa, 11.Duca di Andria (1701 - 1764) m. Francesca de Guevara (1710 - 1795) and had...
6) Eleonora Carafa (1727 - 1765) m. Giannandrea Doria-Pamphilj-Landi, 7.Principe di Melfi (1705 - 1764) and had...
7) Andrea IV Doria-Pamphilj-Landi, 13.Principe di Melfi (1744 - 1820) m. Princess Leopoldina of Savoy (1744 - 1807), which is the same as the seventh line above.

Despite these splendid descents, Mrs Shields does not actually seem to be in either line of succession. They do make her, however, a close relative of some European monarchs and pretenders. Here's how she's related to Simeon II of Bulgaria: seventh cousin.
Of course, she's related to practically all of them, due to her descent from H.R.E. Ferdinand I.

Further inspection of the above lines reveals many other curiosities. Until next time!

Posts: 7,534
Reply with quote  #33 

Here’s a rather nearer relationship between Ms Shields and a European royal family member. I chose Prince Léopold as my example because he is closest in age among his siblings* to Princess Elisabeth of Belgium, and it is therefore his clear duty to court and marry her, keeping an ancient royal house on Belgium’s throne for one more generation at least. I am sure all here will heartily agree with my proposal, and urge Prince Léopold to start planning for his. [smile] [smile]

*Leaving out his twin sister Princess Charlotte, doubtless a delightful individual but she wouldn't really do for my nefarious plan.


Avatar / Picture

Posts: 225
Reply with quote  #34 
That is a very good proposal indeed, Peter!

You know, I'm semi-active in some monarchist groups on Facebook and there was a similar idea a couple of weeks ago. The groom was supposed to be Archduke Ferdinand-Zvonimir of Austria, though.

Now, this makes me wonder. Are today's royals explicitly (or implicitly) warned/advised to not marry within their own circle? After all, it's not impossible for a Princess to fall in love with a Prince, right?

Anyway, I would gladly welcome such a marriage, you can rest assured! :)

Avatar / Picture

Posts: 225
Reply with quote  #35 
Heirs of Europe

Bianca Maria Visconti (1425 - 1468) was the illegitimate daughter of Filippo Maria Visconti (1392 - 1447) and Agnese del Maino (c. 1411 - 1465). The only child of the last Duke of Milan from the House of Visconti, Bianca married a member of the House of Sforza (who became Duke of Milan) and it is with him that the descent below begins.

Duchy of Milan:
  1. Francesco I Sforza (1401 - 1466), father of...
  2. Galeazzo Maria Sforza (1444 - 1476), father of...
  3. Gian Galeazzo Sforza (1469 - 1494), father of...
  4. Francesco Sforza (1491 - 1512), brother of...
  5. Bona Sforza (1494 - 1557), mother of...
  6. Sigismund II Augustus (1520 - 1572), brother of...
  7. Sophia Jagiellon, Duchess of Brunswick-Lüneburg (1522 - 1575), sister of...
  8. Anna Jagiellon (1523 - 1596), aunt of...
  9. Sigismund III Vasa (1566 - 1632), father of...
  10. Władysław IV Vasa (1595 - 1648), half-brother of...
  11. John II Casimir Vasa (1609 - 1672).
If my sources are correct, then than would be it. True, the Duchy followed agnatic primogeniture, but the male line was long extinct before 1672.

I think that Bona Sforza does have descendants today, they just aren't from any legitimate lines.

Avatar / Picture

Posts: 106
Reply with quote  #36 
Wladyslaw Konstanty Vasa 1635 - 1698 was the illegitimate son of Wladyslaw IV and his mistress Jadwiga Luszkowska, I wonder does he have any descendants today ? Sigismund II Augustus had an illegitimate daughter Barbara by his mistress Barbara Gizanka , I wonder are there any descendants today ?

Avatar / Picture

Posts: 225
Reply with quote  #37 
Hello there!

Unfortunately, I don't have an answer to your first question, which has apparently been bothering you since 2013[wink]

I suppose Peter's reply from that time would still be the same.

Anyway, although I didn't have enough time to note it yesterday, I do think there's some possibility of there being a living heir general of Duke Francesco I. His son, Filippo Maria Sforza, appears to have had a daughter with his wife, Costanza Sforza (a cousin of his). I've no idea what happened to her and if she had any (legitimate) progeny of her own.

As for Bona Sforza, this post by Peter was rather illuminating. So Bona may not have any descendants today at all

Posts: 7,534
Reply with quote  #38 
I don't know for sure, it was rather a while ago, but I suspect that assertion by me about Bona Sforza was based on Genealogics showing no further descent from her after the fourth generation. Certainly it's an absolute fact that no legitimate descent exceeded that level, but I perhaps shouldn't have been quite so dogmatic about any descent, since Genealogics' information isn't necessarily complete, nor do they always show descents that are known. Having said all that, I personally have never come across evidence of any descent surviving, even through illegitimate lines.

No, I don't think I could add anything to my seven-year-old reply to Vasaborg. I don't know whether it is possible to trace a legitimate line from Francesco I Sforza and Bianca Maria Visconti and frankly am not that bothered since tracing an illegitimate line is easy as pie. Cosimo I of Tuscany is an ancestor many times over of the Kings of Spain and Belgium, the Grand Duke of Luxembourg and the Prince of Liechtenstein, and several times of the Duke of Cambridge for good measure, and was a great-great-grandson of the Sforza/Visconti union.

This was through his paternal grandmother the redoubtable Caterina Sforza, herself an illegitimate daughter of Galeazzo Maria Sforza, second name in your list above. It's possible that the Prince of Monaco may also be descended from Caterina through one or another of her marriages, there are many lines from her in Italian nobility which may have reached the Grimaldis, but it would take a bit of an effort before I could be certain either way.

Avatar / Picture

Posts: 225
Reply with quote  #39 
I should firstly apologize to Peter for speaking on his behalf. [smile]

Now, Caterina Sforza certainly had interesting descendants. Unfortunately, I have been unable to verify Peter's theory that she's an ancestress of the Prince of Monaco. One thing's for sure, though, Holy Roman Emperor Ferdinand I was not descended from her. Neither was King Henry VII of England, for that matter. I suppose that shouldn't really come as a surprise. Ms Shields from last week's post would appear to be such a person, however. Good for her.

As for Francesco I Sforza of Milan, I just wanted to note how unusual it was that it's not readily possible to connect him to someone, anyone, living today in a purely legitimate manner. Yeah, it's not the most important representation or anything, but just as a curiosity, like many of the others I've covered so far. 

Posts: 7,534
Reply with quote  #40 

I didn’t mind at all. Not sure I entirely agree with your last paragraph, though. I don’t believe it’s especially unusual to have a monarch of one kind or another whose descent is known only through illegitimate lines. Let’s see, I can think of two Kings of Scotland and one of England, then a further two of both, and then one of Great Britain without working up too much of a mental sweat. Moving over the Channel, a King of France and both the country’s regnant Emperors come to mind, then we can duck down to Iberia for one King apiece of Portugal and Aragón.

Travelling over to Italy, we find six Popes and a regnant Duchess of Parma, then heading north to Germany there’s a Duke of Württemberg and an Elector of Saxony, both celebrated in their different ways, also an Elector of Bavaria. North a bit more and we find two Kings of Sweden and one of Norway, then back south to the Netherlands for a famous Prince of Orange. A bit of a whirlwind tour and by no means exhaustive, but should be enough to show my point.

I still haven’t looked and don’t particularly plan to, but it’s not so much that I think Albert II actually is descended from Caterina Sforza as that she lived long enough ago and has widespread enough descent outwith royal lines that he might be, so I wasn’t going to rule it out without checking.


Avatar / Picture

Posts: 225
Reply with quote  #41 
Originally Posted by Peter

I don’t believe it’s especially unusual to have a monarch of one kind or another whose descent is known only through illegitimate lines.

It isn't. You've misunderstood me, although it's not due to any actual fault of your own. When I write my posts, I always read what I've actually written at the very end and may change this or that. Anyway, sometimes a sentence may sound well in my head, but other people may come to conclude something else. 

The sentence in question was "As for Francesco I Sforza of Milan, I just wanted to note how unusual it was that it's not readily possible to connect him to someone, anyone, living today in a purely legitimate manner". How idiotic of me. What I meant at the time, and what did not seemingly translate well, was that his legitimate line of descent lasted for about two centuries after his death and then either went extinct or just became obscure to follow. That was unusual.

From the examples you give, I'll mention the following:

1) King Henry IV of England's legitimate line lasted until the death (murder) of his grandson, King Henry VI of England. The former died in 1413 and the latter in 1471. Nothing odd here, apart from the possibility (which you've mentioned) that Antigone, another grandchild, was actually legitimate.
2) King Charles II of England, Scotland and Ireland - he didn't have any legitimate descendants. True. However, he wasn't what I'd call a "starting point", as he was after all the heir general of William I of England and of Robert I of Scotland and was simply succeeded by his younger brother...
3) King James II and VII of England, Scotland and Ireland - the legitimate line of his ended in 1807. So what? The Jacobites simply moved on to the next heir general.
4) King William IV of the UK - much like Charles II, he didn't have luck with his wife. However, after his death, he was duly succeeded by his niece and brother in the UK and Hanover, respectively.

Napoleon could have been featured, if it wasn't for the fact that his only legitimate child died a little more than a decade after him. Napoleon III got it even worse in that regard.
I'm not even going to discuss the Popes.

So there, that's why I thought that the case was unusual: because Francesco I was the new starting point and the passage of the two centuries after his death had not guaranteed the continuation of his legitimate line. 

I really hope I've been understood this time! [wink]

EDIT: Turns out that Charles I of England did have legitimate descendants after all. Could you believe it? [biggrin]
When I said that I read my posts before I actually post them, I didn't mean that I actually comprehended their contents. 
Anyway, I saved you one further remark. [smile]

Posts: 7,534
Reply with quote  #42 
Actually, I could have got in in time, but decided to refrain. [smile] I didn't really think you meant that, but still it was what you said, so I responded to that. I haven't yet thought of a comparable case to that of Francesco I Sforza now you've set it out in full, but if I do you can be sure I'll let you know. A small confession; the Elector of Saxony I was thinking of was Moritz, but I forgotten that he had legitimate descent through one of his granddaughters, as well as (only) illegitimate descent from her full brother Maurits, the Prince of Orange I mentioned. So I mentally switched to Johann Georg IV, also an Elector of Saxony though hardly celebrated, with descent surviving only through the remarkably sordid love affair which led indirectly to his early death. Which perhaps he ought to be at least infamous for, but isn't. Anyway, I was wrong initially but have now owned up. The rest still seem OK to me, though none of them would do as a Francesco I comparison.

Avatar / Picture

Posts: 225
Reply with quote  #43 

Your reply made me remember that I had some trouble with establishing the heir general of the rather infamous Charles I of Anjou (1226/7 - 1285). While there is certainly legitimate descent from him, the connections were kind of awkward, although I did succeed in the end... although the precise person isn't known with certainty, due to lack of accurate information about the birth order of Amadeus IX's daughters.

Anyway, the relevant descent starts with Charles' grandson, Robert, King of Naples (1276 - 1343). As his only legitimate son to reach adulthood had predeceased him, Robert was succeeded by his granddaughter instead: Joanna I of Naples (1326/7 - 1382). She died without any surviving issue. However, the Queen was not actually succeeded by her niece, Joanna, Duchess of Durazzo (1344 - 1387), and the latter was thus similarly not followed by her sister, Agnes of Durazzo* (1345 - 1388). Her own sister, Margaret of Durazzo (1347 - 1412), did give birth to an actual Neapolitan monarch, Ladislaus of Naples (1377 - 1414). He sadly failed his dynastic duty and was duly succeeded by his sister, Joanna II of Naples (1371 - 1435), who was also childless at her death. As Wikipedia notes, that was the end not only of the Capetian House of Anjou, but also of the legitimate posterity of King Robert, which lasted for nearly a century after his death.

For some reason, when Joanna I died, she was succeeded (against her wishes) by none other but very soon-to-be Head of the House of Anjou himself, Charles III of Naples (1345 - 1386). He's a less notable example of what I've been attempting to prove as his own issue was also his only legitimate progeny. In case that's confusing, he was married to the above Margaret of Durazzo, so the claims were joined, I suppose.

* Although she may have already died in 1383.

EDIT: I seem to imply that Robert was Charles I's successor. Nope, that was Charles II of Naples.
Previous Topic | Next Topic

Quick Navigation:

Easily create a Forum Website with Website Toolbox.