Monarchy Forum
Sign up Latest Topics
 
 
 


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

Moderator
Registered:
Posts: 7,030
Reply with quote  #91 

In the 1952 to the present day thread I have posted an addendum to the Heirs chart, explained therein (post #42). As also explained in that post, this was as a result of completing the reposting of affected charts, keys and tables (which was just about all of them, though a few tables were OK and thus were left alone, even though they are in a different style to that I now use) and to address one of the more disagreeable compromises I had to make in order to get that done.

The work is complete only for the nineteen threads in the extended series proper, still to do are the three Blood Royal threads, La Belle Époque and indeed this thread, plus of course the complete historical introductions for three of the threads in the extended series. I don’t suppose anyone cares if I ever do the last, but I will eventually as I do care, even if only a little bit. But first it’s back to cleanup duties, for another couple of weeks at least.

Peter

Moderator
Registered:
Posts: 7,030
Reply with quote  #92 

The recent happy event in Monaco, the birth of the twin children of Prince Albert II and Princess Charlene, was said by me elsewhere in the forum to be the first birth of twins in direct line of succession to a throne in being since 16th October 1430, on which day the future James II of Scotland and his elder brother Alexander, Duke of Rothesay, were born, and also only the second instance ever that I knew of. Well, now I know of a third. Twin boys, sons of a well-known monarch of a major country and from birth eventual heir apparent and third in line respectively, why would I not have known about them before?

The sad answer is that neither lived to be much more than a year old. Infante Carlos Francisco de Paula and Infante Felipe Francisco de Paula were born on 5th September 1783 to the future Carlos IV of Spain, then Prince of Asturias, and his wife Maria Luisa of Parma. The couple had already had six children but of these only three daughters (all of whom lived to adulthood) survived at this date, their first two sons and another daughter having died aged two, three and four respectively. Under Spain’s succession law at the time the succession had there been no surviving male issue would have gone to the Bourbon-Sicily line rather than to the eldest daughter, so the birth was an event of some significance.

But, on 18th October 1784 Infante Felipe died, and on 11th November Infante Carlos followed him to the grave. Four days before the younger twin died Infante Fernando had been born, and he would survive to become Fernando VII and have children of his own, from two of whom the present King of Spain descends. So young Fernando was born fourth in line, at four days old became third and before his first month was done second and heir apparent after his father. A melancholy tale, but all too common in those days of high infant mortality. Since my interest is in children who survive to have children themselves and form new connections between royal lines, it is not surprising that I was unaware of the tragic twins, and it was quite by chance that I came across them.

There may very well be other such instances, though I certainly don’t plan to search for them. Three such births in 584 years is rare enough and if it turned out to be five or six the extreme rarity would remain. While writing, yesterday I finished cleaning up La Belle Époque and the day before this thread, so the repair work is complete at last and I can get on with more writing, the outstanding historical introductions. I intend however to take a break first, which I think I have earned.

Peter

Moderator
Registered:
Posts: 7,030
Reply with quote  #93 

I have often thought of doing a thread for 1848, the year that revolutions rocked thrones across Europe, but was always deterred by the complete unconnectability of Oscar I of Sweden and Norway. However, not feeling like working on the outstanding historical introductions yet, I have finally succumbed. The absence of a monarch means that the thread cannot go into the original series; that rule was relaxed for the extended series, but 1848 would hardly fit into that either.

Instead the thread will stand alone, rather like La Belle Époque, though unlike that it will have full statistics and a note on posterities. I have actually done all the charts, and the relationships have some interesting features which I will no doubt be pointing out, though I certainly don’t plan to write a lengthy introduction. Anyway, before I proceed further I will give a list of the monarchs on the chosen date, which is 22nd February when the revolution against the July Monarchy began in France, sparking off all the rest. If anyone feels I have missed a monarch, please say. Otherwise, I expect I will be posting the thread in a day or two’s time.

Monarch

Realm

From

To

Monarch

Realm

From

To

Wilhelm I

Württemberg

1816

1864

Maria II

Portugal

1834

1853

Ludwig I

Bavaria

1825

1848

Ferdinand I

Austria

1835

1848

Nicholas I

Russia

1825

1855

F August II

Saxony

1836

1854

Louis-Philippe I

France

1830

1848

E August I

Hanover

1837

1851

Ferdinando II

Sicilies

1830

1859

Victoria

Britain

1837

1901

Carlo Alberto

Sardinia

1831

1849

F Wilhelm IV

Prussia

1840

1861

Léopold I

Belgium

1831

1865

Willem II

Netherlands

1840

1849

Otto

Greece

1832

1862

Frederik VII

Denmark

1848

1863

Isabel II

Spain

1833

1868

    
Peter

Moderator
Registered:
Posts: 7,030
Reply with quote  #94 

Forum owner Theodore Harvey’s most recent blog post concerns a visit to St Louis (a place I have never been, though I have friends from there). It contains the statement that St Louis is ‘the leading American city named for a king’, which I would take mild issue with. There is more than one possible definition of ‘leading’, of course, but if size is the criterion than St Louis is actually down the list, being third after New York or second after Louisville, depending on how you look at it. The following table shows all the US cities in the top 200 ranked by population that were named after royalty of any kind:

#CityStateRankEponym
1New YorkNew York1James II of England (as Duke of York)
2CharlotteNorth Carolina16Duchess Charlotte of Mecklenburg-Strelitz (consort of George III of Great Britain)
3LouisvilleKentucky28Louis XVI of France
4New OrleansLouisiana51Philippe II, Duke of Orléans
5St LouisMissouri58Louis IX of France
6AugustaGeorgia119Princess Augusta of Saxe-Gotha (consort of Frederick Lewis, Prince of Wales)
7CharlestonSouth Carolina200Charles II of England

Theodore’s next most recent post, on the other hand, I cannot disagree with at all.

KYMonarchist

Avatar / Picture

Registered:
Posts: 1,368
Reply with quote  #95 
You know, I just thought of something. The common ancestors given on each chart in the pinned year threads. They could use a notice of when they lived (dates, to be specific) so we can see how far back these relationships go. Is that possible, Peter?
Peter

Moderator
Registered:
Posts: 7,030
Reply with quote  #96 
You're referring I presume to the names in the keys. These are all automatically generated along with their stats by formulas. If I had put dates with the names to begin with they would be there, but I didn't, and it would be an immense labour to go back and add them all now, besides producing a rather cluttered appearance. As all names are linked if you do want to know their dates then one click will get them for you, of course. So the answer is no on this occasion, but please don't be deterred from making any further suggestions that occur to you.
Peter

Moderator
Registered:
Posts: 7,030
Reply with quote  #97 

The 1558 chart was the first I ever did, and there is a lot I have learned since and didn’t know then, plus the tools available have become considerably more powerful. Like all the charts prepared early on the 1558 one has been made more accurate and to display far more information than it originally did, but there was one aspect of the chart which remained untouched.

This was the relationships of Gustav I of Sweden, shown in a separate table and treated as examples due to their remoteness and the impracticability of establishing and verifying actual nearest relationships. The set of relationships shown established the Swedish monarch as a relative in some degree of all his fellow sovereigns, and that would have to suffice.

It mostly still does have to, but I have improved it. I seem to have spent a lot of time lately poking around early Scandinavian royal ancestries, and in the course of this work became uneasily aware that some early names could be remembered from Gustav I’s ancestry, and that perhaps I should be taking another look at the set of relationships compiled so long before.

Not so long after 1558 descent from the early Scandinavian royalty I mention became widespread, then universal. This however was through descent from Christian I of Denmark and Norway, and at this date only two monarchs possessed this, Christian I’s grandson Christian III and his great-great-granddaughter Mary I of Scotland. For these two I found linked, verifiable eighth cousinhoods with the Swedish monarch, tracing from Birger Magnusson, Jarl in Sweden, who while never himself King was ancestor of nearly all future Swedish sovereigns.

The majority of the others had been connected through Valdemar I of Denmark. I tried seeing if closer connections were available through his son Valdemar II, but as far as I can see only the Swedish, Danish and Scottish monarchs of the day were descendants, whereas Valdemar I was an ancestor of nearly all. That said, I could see that some of the relationships given were wrong, even as examples. Gustav I was a 10 x great-grandson of Valdemar I, so all relationships through him should be as eleventh cousin at whatever degree of removal (unless someone else was more nearly descended, which none of them were).

However I had some relationships as 11c+ and others as 12c+. Couldn’t be right, and while I was unable to find my original workings to see where I had gone wrong I did them again in a simpler way, ending up with everyone 11c+ as they should be. Except that Zygmunt II August of Poland was a straight 11c, which I thought might be within the Genealogics calculator’s scope. I tried it, and got a 10c instead through someone else entirely, Swietopelk II of Pomerelia-Gdansk.

So I now had three relationships linked and verifiable. Gustav I being a 9 x great-grandson of Swietopelk II, if other monarchs were descendants then that would form a closer relationship, even as an example, than through Valdemar I. However while I wouldn’t like to say that none were I couldn’t find that anyone else was a descendant, and I conclude that this was another descent shortly to become universal but at the precise date not yet widespread.

Finally the two sovereigns, Ivan IV of Russia and Elizabeth I of England, for whom I could not find a descent from Valdemar I and so linked though his maternal grandfather Mstislav I of Kiev. Same trouble as before, Gustav I was a 12 x great-grandson therefore 13c at whatever removal was the remotest relationship possible. I did have Ivan IV at 13c2r, but Elizabeth I at 15c. I checked the Ivan IV relationship and reduced it to a straight 13c, and having with considerable difficulty (this is where I cursed my inability to find my original workings, which would have been some sort of guide) found a descent from Mstislav I to Elizabeth I made that relationship 13c2r.

So, all done and now reposted, and while most of the relationships remained examples at least they are more accurate examples. I suppose I really ought to do all this for Karl VIII of Sweden in 1453, but looking at those they don’t seem such a poor job as this one, and I have a feeling they have had at least one check-through since first being compiled, unlike this set. I’ll have a look at them some time.

I have been very quiet for a while in this section, which is not because I’ve lost interest, it’s because I’ve been ill. I’m now recovering, I hope, and intend to soon resume work on the 1286 historical introduction, which was about half done when I fell ill. It is not going to be short and I don’t expect it’s going to be much read, but I think what I have done so far Is quite good and it will soon enough be out there for others to judge, if they wish.

KYMonarchist

Avatar / Picture

Registered:
Posts: 1,368
Reply with quote  #98 
Peter, I just caught what I think is an error in the order of the charts. When read in chronological order from bottom to top of the page, the 1914 charts are backwards. You'd come across the third of those first, instead of the first one first. They should read as 1, 2, 3, not 3, 2, 1. HTH.
Peter

Moderator
Registered:
Posts: 7,030
Reply with quote  #99 
You can read down, or up as you please. Both sequences are valid; 1215 is both end and beginning, and so too is 1952 to today. The 1914 threads form the only subset withing the sequence, and are numbered amongst themselves in the natural way, second following first and third following second. They are really just one thread, I just felt that it would be far more convenient for everybody and improve accessibility to show them as three.
Peter

Moderator
Registered:
Posts: 7,030
Reply with quote  #100 
As mentioned elsewhere on the forum, I turned out to be kidding myself in post #97 above when I said I had been ill but was getting better. That was on 11th April, and while perhaps I was feeling a little better that day I was, though I didn't know it, suffering from hypoxia consequent on double pneumonia. You don't get better from that, without medical intervention you die. Which I was probably a couple of days from when on 16th April I was admitted to hospital, the last thing I remember for several weeks. After nine weeks I was finally discharged, the pneumonia cured but very weak from the after-effects and following more than two months in bed, for two-thirds of which time I was completely bedridden and extensively plumbed in. Besides that I had necrosis to parts of the fingers and palm of my left hand consequent on ischaemia, and second-degree contact burns on my left forearm. In plainer English, a clot had interrupted the blood supply to my left hand and parts of it had died. The burns were because the clot was in the brachial artery and therefore, although the left forearm was not damaged by ischaemia, it was cold. Over-enthusiastic attempts to warm it after the clot was removed caused the severe and extensive burns.

Now, nearly three months later and two weeks after release from hospital, while I am nowhere near recovering full strength I am improving day by day. My left forearm and hand continue to be swathed in dressings, which get changed every three days by a visiting nurse, and immobilised by a splint. I am awaiting surgery which is likely to involve removal of the entire index finger and the tips of the thumb and little finger, plus skin grafts in other areas. The burns are still a nasty sight but are I am assured healing very well and unlikely to require surgery. I am also assured that after physio I should regain near-full use of the hand, though this process is likely to take months; apart from the necrosis I cannot close the hand at all at present and therefore there is no grip to speak of (and if I could exert a grip it would be very painful; the hand doesn't hurt at all unless I take the splint off for some reason then forget and try to use it, at which point I receive a sharp reminder).

The consequences for my work here are that it will be more or less on hold until I get my other hand back. While I have got reasonably adept at one-handed typing, there is a whole range of other operations which are difficult/impossible one-handed. For example, I really need to check and where necessary fix all the blue links showing descent from some particular ancestor to, typically, a proven common ancestor of present-day sovereigns. These are prone to corruption and I know that after the length of time since they were last checked a lot of them will have suffered it. The repair process would fall into the 'difficult' category, but the vast number of these links makes the project 'impossible' at present, due both to my hopefully temporary disability and to my still limited stamina. The same factors inhibit written work; while I have as I say got more used to one-handed typing that doesn't mean I fancy tackling one of my epic introductions that way. Anyway, that's it for now; I apologise for troubling people with something that has already been said in another section, but I thought there should be a notice here of the reasons for the lengthy hiatus.
Peter

Moderator
Registered:
Posts: 7,030
Reply with quote  #101 
As an update, I had an operation on Tuesday and was discharged yesterday, Friday. As expected, the left index finger was amputated entirely and the tips of the thumb and little finger on that hand removed. There was also skin grafting to the other two fingers and the palm after necrotic areas were removed. In a change of plan, the burns on the forearm were also grafted, the skin coming from the upper arm so now the entire arm is swathed in bandages, not just the lower half.

I still have no use of the hand whatsoever, as apart from the bandaging and the splint I have to wear I cannot close it or oppose the thumb, so there is no grip. I was again assured that this would be rectified after extensive physio, but that won't even start for a while as the wounds need to heal first. So there is unlikely to be anything new from me or any repair work in the section for some time. Well, there is already plenty here to be getting on with, i suppose, and I hope people will continue to use the section for reference and find things of interest and to enjoy during this period of enforced inactivity.
Windemere

Registered:
Posts: 409
Reply with quote  #102 
Take care of yourself, Peter, take time to rest, and best wishes for your physical-therapy.

Incidentally, earlier this month, Pierre Casiraghi (nephew of Prince Albert of Monaco) married Beatrice Borromeo, who derives from a family of notable Italian nobility (Counts of Arona in the province of Piedmont and Counts of Angera in Lombardy), which should provide some interesting genealogical connections. The family dates back to the 1300s, and provided several cardinals, and one saint. Pierre is only 7th in the Monegasque line of succession so it's unlikely that his potential offspring will inherit Monaco's little throne. Nevertheless, it's interesting that Pierre has made a somewhat traditional marriage into an aristocratic Italian family of ancient lineage.

__________________
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: 7,030
Reply with quote  #103 
Thanks for the kind wishes, Windemere. I don't overdo, in fact, as I said to my sister the other day, everything is an effort and if I don't have to do something I'm probably not going to. There is a lot more pain from the hand since the surgery, but that's the price of moving forward and painkillers keep it under control; the only unbearable pain I've had was immediately after the anaesthetic wore off. Liquid morphine failed to abate it, but IV paracetamol (which is a lot stronger than you'd think) swiftly reduced it to tolerable levels, and various tablets have kept it there since.

Thanks also for the interesting news. Here is Beatrice Borromeo's ancestry, which on the father's side goes back quite far. I will definitely be exploring later.
Peter

Moderator
Registered:
Posts: 7,030
Reply with quote  #104 
I have made several attempts to finish off the 1286 historical introduction, mentioned in the last paragraph of post #97, without getting very far at all. As what had been done already amounted to over 5,000 words I decided it had got far enough to be worth posting, and have done so. The thread still only has a temporary introduction, as do those for 1415 and 1215, but it is now substantially extended. Many may feel that is no benefit, but they of course don't have to read it. I hope anyone who does wade through the additional verbiage will find something there to make the effort worthwhile, and at least posting it has kept the section from becoming entirely moribund.
Peter

Moderator
Registered:
Posts: 7,030
Reply with quote  #105 

In the 1371 historical introduction, I mention that Giovanna I of Naples, a tragic, deeply interesting and in many ways admirable woman, had the distinction of being ‘as far as I know, the only heiress apparent to a royal throne in all the centuries before 1980, when with Sweden’s adoption of equal primogeniture Princess Victoria of Sweden became Crown Princess’. It now occurs to me that the date should have been 1694.

What happened in that year? On 28th December Mary II of England, Scotland, nominally France and Ireland died. The provisions made for the succession to her joint rule with her husband William III and II in both the English Bill of Rights and Scottish Claim of Right were firstly, the survivor; secondly, any issue of Mary II; thirdly, Mary II’s sister Princess Anne of Denmark and her issue if any; and finally, any issue of William III and II. These are the wordings used, the English legislation first:

The said Lords Spirituall and Temporall and Commons assembled at Westminster doe Resolve That William and Mary Prince and Princesse of Orange be and be declared King and Queene of England France and Ireland and the Dominions thereunto belonging to hold the Crowne and Royall Dignity of the said Kingdomes and Dominions to them the said Prince and Princesse dureing their Lives and the Life of the Survivour of them And that the sole and full Exercise of the Regall Power be onely in and executed by the said Prince of Orange in the Names of the said Prince and Princesse dureing their joynt Lives And after their Deceases the said Crowne and Royall Dignitie of the said Kingdoms and Dominions to be to the Heires of the Body of the said Princesse And for default of such Issue to the Princesse Anne of Denmarke and the Heires of her Body And for default of such Issue to the Heires of the Body of the said Prince of Orange. And the Lords Spirituall and Temporall and Commons doe pray the said Prince and Princesse to accept the same accordingly.

The said Estates of the Kingdome of Scotland Doe resolve that William and Mary King and Queen of England France and Ireland Be and be Declared King and Queen of Scotland To hold the Crowne and Royall Dignity of the said Kingdome of Scotland To them the said King and Queen dureing ther lives and the longest liver of them and that the sole and full exercise of the regall power be only in and Exercised by him the said King in the names of the said King and Queen Dureing ther joynt lives And after ther decease The said Croune and Royall Dignity of the said Kingdome to be to the heirs of the body of the said Queen which failing to the Princess Ann of Denmark and the airs of her body which also failing to the aires of the Body of the said William King of England

Being childlessly dead, Mary II would have no heirs (or, indeed, Heires) of the body, and while her husband continued to live and reign and could theoretically marry again and have a child, such child would be third in line after its aunt Princess Anne and her then still living son William, Duke of Gloucester, not first. And that in turn made Princess Anne heiress apparent to her brother-in-law, not presumptive, following in the footsteps of Giovanna I and preceding Crown Princess Victoria. The latter following the 2013 abdication of Beatrix of the Netherlands was joined in her status by Catharina-Amalia, Princess of Orange, and on the abdication of Albert II of Belgium later the same year by Elisabeth, Duchess of Brabant, making five heiresses apparent to royal thrones since in 1329 Giovanna of Naples became the first.

In the course of nature either Princess Ingrid of Norway or Princess Estelle of Sweden will become the sixth such, except in the unlikely event of the Princess of Asturias suddenly finding herself with a little brother, in which case the Spanish constitution would undoubtedly be amended to protect her succession. There have been Princesses of Asturias in their own right before, but they, as the current holder, were heiresses presumptive not apparent, Spanish custom being that the title is always held by the heir for the time being, male or female and apparent or presumptive, which last is the legal status of Infanta Leonor.

I also referred to the (as I then thought) unique status of Giovanna I in Blood of the Braganças part III (1848 thread page 2), in connection with the genuinely unique position of the future Maria II da Glória of Portugal. If anyone can add to the two pre-1980 heiresses apparent to royal thrones I have listed, I would be most interested to hear about it.

Previous Topic | Next Topic
Print
Reply

Quick Navigation:

Easily create a Forum Website with Website Toolbox.