Monarchy Forum
Sign up Latest Topics
 
 
 


Reply
  Author   Comment   Page 10 of 10     «   Prev   7   8   9   10
Peter

Moderator
Registered:
Posts: 7,534
Reply with quote  #136 

The aforementioned Infanta Catalina Micaela was the second of the two daughters that were the fruit of Felipe II’s third marriage, to Elisabeth of Valois, eldest daughter of Henri II of France by the famous Catherine de’ Medici (some would say infamous). Her elder sister Isabella Clara Eugenia lived to 67 but had no children that survived infancy. Catalina Micaela died aged just 30 but was survived by no fewer than nine children. The tenth, a daughter, was stillborn, resulting complications causing her mother to soon follow her.

Four of these children themselves had descendants alive at the qualifying date, and it is these descendants who are listed in post #3 of Murtagon’s thread, apart from the children of le Grand Dauphin, descended through their mother, who had already appeared on account of descent through their father from Catalina Micaela’s half-brother Felipe III. That maternal descent was through Vittorio Amadeo I of Savoy, second-born of the nine and second son, but his elder brother died childless aged 18.

Vittorio Amadeo’s eldest child to survive and have issue was his successor Carlo Emanuele II, who had but one child himself, his own successor Vittorio Amadeo II, husband of Anne-Marie d’Orléans who appears in Murtagon’s first post. Next to feature is Vittorio Amadeo II’s first cousin Maximilian II Emanuel of Bavaria, son of Carlo Emanuele II’s next sister to have surviving issue. This was Adelaïde Henriette of Savoy, wife of Ferdinand Maria of Bavaria.

Maximilian II Emanuel (who incidentally plays a somewhat villainous role in an online novel I recently edited) is followed in the list by his own son the later Emperor Karl VII then three further sons and a daughter. Not that it matters for the purposes of the thread, but of these only Karl VII would himself have issue. Then we have a brother and sister of Maximilian II Emanuel. The Grand Dauphin’s children should come between those last two, but that would be double counting.

So now we move to the descent of Tommaso, Prince of Carignano, Catalina Micaela’s ninth child and fifth son but the two intervening brothers were childless. Three of his children, his eldest daughter (and child) and the first and fifth of his sons, had surviving descent at the key date. We lead off with that eldest son, Emanuele Filiberto. He survived himself until 1709, and is followed in the list by his own two sons and two daughters. Next up is their cousin Luigi Tommaso, a son of that long-dead fifth son, Eugene Maurice, who inherited the title of Count of Soissons from his mother. Luigi Tommaso’s son Tommaso Emanuele is next, followed by his two younger brothers and two sisters (of whom only one each brother and sister appear in the Genealogics link, though Wikipedia lists the others).

Then we have Luigi Tommaso’s younger brother the great and famous general Prince Eugene of Savoy (who also makes an appearance in the aforementioned novel*) and two sisters of theirs. Rounding off the descent of Tommaso is the also great though perhaps not as famous general Ludwig Wilhelm, Margrave of Baden-Baden (who gets a brief mention in the linked chapter), and his son and daughter (the latter is shown by Genealogics as already dead at the qualifying date, though Wikipedia has her living until 1702). Ludwig Wilhelm's descent was through his mother Princess Luisa of Savoy-Carignano, Tommaso’s daughter.

But while we may be done with Tommaso we are not yet with Catalina Micaela, with the descent of two of her daughters to come. The first of these, Margherita, was wife to Francesco IV, Duke of Mantua. Their descent survived only through their daughter Maria, wife of Charles II, Duke of Rethel, head of a cadet line of the Gonzagas of Mantua. Two of their children had children in turn, the first of these being Carlo IV of Mantua, who inherited the duchy both as male-line heir and cognatic heir through his mother. His only child was Ferdinando Carlo, last Gonzaga Duke of Mantua and the next person in Murtagon’s list.

His aunt Eleonora, second of those children of Charles and Maria Gonzaga, was married to the Emperor Ferdinand III as his third wife (his first had been Maria Anna of Spain, second of the daughters of Felipe III whose descent is covered in the first part). They had four children together but only their daughter Archduchess Eleonora of Austria had children herself. After a childless marriage to Michael Wisníowecki, elected King of Poland, her hand was awarded by her half-brother Emperor Leopold I to Charles V of Lorraine, one of the heroes of the 1683 siege of Vienna. Four of their children were alive at the qualifying date, the first of these being their son Leopold, who succeeded his father as Duke of Lorraine and married Elisabeth Charlotte d’Orléans. Their one child living at the requisite date therefore appears in the first part.

Three brothers of Leopold also were alive at this time, though none were productive of issue or indeed ever wed. Now we pass from the descent of Margherita, Duchess of Mantua to that of the last child of Cataline Micaela to be considered, this being Isabella, Hereditary Princess of Modena. Married to the future Alfonso III of Modena, she never became Duchess herself as she died during the lifetime of her father-in-law Cesare d’Este. The devastated Alfonso never remarried, and they having had fourteen children together certainly would have felt no need from the dynastic point of view.

Fortunately from my point of view, and probably that of anyone still reading this, only three of these children had issue themselves that requires to be shown. To save wearying myself and anyone else further, I will just link the remaining posterities. First comes that of Francesco I of Modena, which includes the Old Pretender to Britain’s thrones and takes us from no. 32 to no. 46 in Murtagon’s list. Second is the descent of Margarete, Duchess of Guastalla as wife of Ferdinando III Gonzaga, which advances us to no. 51.

And third, taking us all the way to no. 65, is the descent of Anna, Duchess of Mirandola as spouse of Alessandro II Pico de Mirandola. Too soon to heave a sigh of relief, though, there is a lot more to come, featuring the very prolific descent of Catalina Micaela’s great-uncle the Emperor Ferdinand I. So prolific, in fact, that even quite a few Protestants get in. I doubt any of them ever considered themself a candidate for the throne of a very Catholic Spain, but listed they must be and Murtagon has been so doing. I’ll catch up with him one day.



* Which I ought to mention is a gay historical romance, though nothing very explicit occurs in the chapter linked.

Murtagon

Avatar / Picture

Registered:
Posts: 225
Reply with quote  #137 
Quote:
Originally Posted by Peter
Too soon to heave a sigh of relief, though, there is a lot more to come, featuring the very prolific descent of Catalina Micaela’s great-uncle the Emperor Ferdinand I. So prolific, in fact, that even quite a few Protestants get in. I doubt any of them ever considered themself a candidate for the throne of a very Catholic Spain, but listed they must be and Murtagon has been so doing. I’ll catch up with him one day.


Prolific is an understatement. When you wrote that Ferdinand I was an universal ancestor, you weren't joking in the least. While the man himself had a relatively normal number of children for the time and age, they (especially his daughters) took the Biblical advice to go forth and procreate to heart.

I also agree that the Spanish would have been unlikely to have tolerated a Protestant prince on the throne(s).

At the beginning, I thought that I would have to list less than 200 people. Well, without spoiling too much, I am more than halfway through the project. I'm sadly aware that not only are not all genealogic records perfect, but there may be contradictory information on Wikipedia and Genealogics. Still, I don't think that the true number of heirs would change dramatically, if all those I've missed (consciously or not) are not taken into account.

Thanks, Peter, it's good to know that someone is actually checking my work! I look forward to the next such post of yours.


Peter

Moderator
Registered:
Posts: 7,534
Reply with quote  #138 

You’re welcome, and I’m glad you don’t think I’m ‘crowding’ on your territory. I would add that to date the work has been flawless, and I have every expectation that it will continue so. Not moving on just for a moment, as rather than go forward to post #4 on Murtagon’s thread I want to briefly return to #3. Stifle the groans, I said briefly!

And just for the purpose of covering who was the first person to descend from all four of Catalina Micaela’s children with a surviving posterity. This I believe was Ferdinand, duc d’Orléans and Prince Royal of France as heir to his father King Louis-Philippe, born in Palermo on 3rd September 1810. Here is his father’s ancestry to great-great-great-great-grandparent level, on the paternal side of which Tommaso, Prince of Carignano can be seen, tracing through Ludwig Wilhelm of Baden. And on the maternal side, fairly near the bottom, so can Isabella, Hereditary Princess of Modena, tracing through her grandson Rinaldo III of Modena.

Two down, two to go. For these we turn to Prince Ferdinand’s mother’s ancestry, one further generation to great-great-great-great-great-grandparent level this time. Isabella incidentally can also be found here, but it’s not her we want. The required names are first Vittorio Amadeo I of Savoy, who appears 13 down and one to the left. Then a lot further down is the other name needed, Margherita, Duchess of Mantua, all the way to the right and 16 down on the maternal side of the ancestry. Which completes the set.

Why I believe Ferdinand was the first is because Carignano descent was very rare in royal families of the time, basically being possessed only by the Carignanos themselves and the Orléans. The other three were, if not quite two-a-penny, getting there, but I can’t see that the entire four were ever combined previously. Though as always I would be happy to be proved wrong.

And I guess that wasn’t so brief after all. Oh well. I will now move on to post #4 linked above, which opens by lamenting for a change a paucity of descents. Specifically from the Emperor Karl V, since it turns out (as I could have advised in advance) that tracing the legitimate descendants of his son Felipe II at the qualifying date does the job for Karl V too. It’s not that there isn’t another way of tracing legitimate descent from him, there is, but it promptly disappears down an inbreeding rabbit hole.

Karl V married only once, to his first cousin Isabella of Portugal. They had seven children altogether but only three survived to adulthood, Felipe II himself and his younger sisters Archduchesses Maria and Juana. The brother we have covered, and while the younger sister married, to her double first cousin João III of Portugal, and had one child this was Sebastião of Portugal, who died unwed in battle with the Moors of Morocco.

Sadly, so much for Juana. But what of Maria? She also married, to her first cousin (though only once this time) the Emperor Maximilian II, and had as many as 16 children with him, of whom eight lived to adulthood (nine if you count 17 as adult). But, and remarkably, legitimate descent survived from only one even of the eight. This was Archduchess Anna of Austria, who for a change did not marry a first cousin, single or double. Instead she married her uncle Felipe II, as his fourth wife, and was the source with him of all the descents shown in Murtagon’s post #1.

So much then for Maria too, and we must turn now to Karl V’s only brother the Emperor Ferdinand I for the next batch of descents. And the next, and the next …. But before looking at the rest of post #4 I want to point out another line of descent from Karl V, albeit not legitimate and therefore not shown in the thread, shared by some few of those who have featured in posts to date. This is through his natural daughter Margaret, Duchess of Parma.

It can be seen here that her descent extended to Ranuccio II of Parma, her great-great-grandson, who married (successively, while the Church of the day evidently wasn’t too troubled about the prohibited degrees it did balk at bigamy) the sisters Isabella and Maria d’Este, themselves daughters of Francesco I of Modena, for whom see the end of my previous post. Subsequent to the thread’s key date this descent spread far and wide through Europe’s Catholic royalty.

OK, Ferdinand I. Murtagon dealt with only a brief batch of his descendants in post #4, and as I type this I have no idea of the rationale for their selection. So let’s find out … ah, I see. But I feel a severe headache coming on even thinking about trying to explain it, even though it makes perfect sense and is entirely correct, so I’ll quit for now and tackle it another day. Which I suppose means this entire long post was just a digression, taking us no further forward. C’est la vie, not to mention par for the course with me.

Peter

Moderator
Registered:
Posts: 7,534
Reply with quote  #139 

Well, Murtagon has been hard at work while I’ve been idle, and yesterday completed his labours with an awesome 485 descendants of the Catholic Kings alive on 1st November 1700 and theoretically in line for the combined thrones of Castile and Aragón. At this rate it might be one day in 2021 that I catch up, but let’s at least make a start with that post #4, linked above.

The Emperor Ferdinand I, grandson of the aforementioned monarchs, had altogether 15 children from his marriage with Anna Jagiellon, in whose right he became elected King of Bohemia, Hungary and Croatia prior to his further election as King of the Romans and eventual accession as Emperor. The children consisted of four boys and no fewer than eleven girls, one each boy and girl dying young. That leaves three boys to be considered first, rapidly reducing to one. That remaining boy was Karl II, Archduke of Austria, and his entire descent eligible for listing is contained in post #4, just six names in all – this due not to paucity of descent, there was any amount of it, but to intermarriage introducing more senior lines.

But before we look at that process let’s look at what happened to the two (elder) boys. The first of them was the Emperor Maximilian II, and as explained above his sole legitimate descent was through his daughter Anna and her marriage to Felipe II of Spain, whose line was senior to that of his cousin and brother-in-law Maximilian. That disposes of him but not the next brother, who was Ferdinand II of Tyrol and Further Austria.

And who had descent from two wives, but descent from the first was doubly problematic, being morganatic in the first generation and illegitimate in the second, and from the second no longer surviving by the thread key date. So now we can return to Karl II and his posterity. He also had 15 children, six boys and nine girls this time, but was not as fortunate as his parents in that two each boys and girls died in childhood. Of the remaining 11, we must consider the four boys first.

The eldest of these to survive was the future Emperor Ferdinand II. He married twice but had a mere seven children from the first marriage, four boys and three girls, and none at all from the second. The first two boys died young and the fourth left a remarkable legacy as an art collector (1614) but none of flesh and blood, never marrying. That leaves the third, who succeeded his father as Emperor Ferdinand III.

He married three times and had issue each time, but the first marriage was to a daughter of Felipe III of Spain, a senior line. The second was to a daughter of the above-mentioned Ferdinand II of Further Austria, a senior line, and anyway produced only one child, a son who was himself childless. And the third marriage? To Eleonora Gonzaga, discussed in post #136 above and from a senior line. Forget Ferdinand III then, and we already dealt with his brothers so now let’s look at his three sisters instead.

The eldest of these died young. The second was wed to her first cousin Maximilian I of Bavaria, and they had two children together, both boys. Of which the elder, Ferdinand Maria of Bavaria, married Adelaïde Henriette of Savoy and had children but hers was a senior line, as discussed above in post #136 again. And with the second we have paydirt! He was Maximilian Philip Hieronymus, Duke of Bavaria-Leuchtenberg. He did marry, did not have children but, living to 1705, after all the above is the very first name to feature in the post #4 list.

Nothing eventuates from the last sister, Cecilia Renata, who married Władisław IV of Poland but had only one child, a son who died aged seven. OK, if you haven’t been keeping up I don’t blame you, but we have now dealt with the entire descent of the Emperor Ferdinand II, producing that one eligible person who had not been previously covered. We still have to find another five to finish Karl II’s qualifying descent, for which we turn first to Ferdinand II’s three younger brothers, sons like him of Karl II of Austria.

They won’t detain us long. The first, Maximilian Ernst, was a Teutonic Knight and so could not marry. The second, Leopold, married and had children and further descent besides. However, at the thread date his only surviving legitimate descendant was Ferdinando Carlo of Mantua who was, you guessed it, of senior line and is discussed in post #136. And the third, Karl, was a bishop and subsequently Grand Master of the Teutonic Order and could be lawfully married in neither capacity.

So now we turn to their sisters, the seven daughters of Karl II that survived infancy. The eldest of these, Anna, married Zygmunt III August of Poland and had children but no descent surviving by the time 1st November 1700 rolled round. The second, Maria, was wed to Sigismund Báthory of Transylvania but had no children. The third, Katharina, died unmarried aged 23. The fourth was Eleonora, a nun. The fifth, Margaret, was wife to Felipe III of Spain, a senior line.

We are whistling through, nor will the sixth, Constance, provide much of a hold-up. She married Zygmunt III August of Poland after he was widowed from her elder sister Anna, and like Anna had children but no surviving descent at the key date. But with the seventh, Maria Magdalena, we hit paydirt once more, accounting for the next five names in post #4, and the remaining eligible descent of her father Karl II of Austria.

Her husband was Cosimo II, Grand Duke of Tuscany, and their children numbered eight, five boys and three girls, of whom one boy died unwed at the age of 19. The eldest girl did also, though attaining the slightly greater aged of 22, leaving four boys and two girls to be considered. But in fact the eldest boy, Grand Duke Ferdinando II, accounts for all five names remaining, beginning with his son Grand Duke Cosimo III and three grandchildren through him, Grand Prince (title as heir apparent) Ferdinando, Grand Duke Gian Gastone, as famous for his excesses as his father had been for gloomy piety, and Anna Maria Luisa, last of the Medici, who left the incomparable family art collection to the people of Tuscany in perpetuity.

The last and sixth name is that of Francesco Maria, younger brother of Cosimo III. He had an ecclesiastical career, attaining the cardinalate, but late in life was dispensed from his vows and married in an ultimately futile attempt to produce the Medici heir that plainly was never going to be provided by either of his nephews.

We are done then with Karl II, and must now look for the source of the remaining four names listed in post #4. But first we must account for the three remaining sons and two daughters of Cosimo II and Maria Magdalena. Of the boys, first comes Gian Carlo, a bishop, then Matteo, who had a distinguished career both governmentally and militarily but remained a bachelor lifelong, and finally Leopoldo, a cardinal who continued as such to the end of his days.

The girls were first Margherita, who married Odoardo I of Parma and in fact is through their union the sole conduit for descent from her parents to the present day. However she provides nothing for the list, as all her descendants living at the key date had other and more senior lines from the Catholic Kings. And secondly Anna, who married and had children and even grandchildren, but her descent was entirely extinct by that date.

So, wherefrom do the remaining four names arise? If you remember, and it’s understandable if you don’t, we have now dealt with all the sons of the Emperor Ferdinand I and therefore look next to his daughters. The eldest of these to have issue was Anna, Duchess of Bavaria as consort of Duke Albrecht V. She again had a very abundant posterity by the thread date, much of which was again eliminated by the introduction of more senior lines. Our remaining names consist of the first few that weren’t. Albrecht and Anna had six sons and one daughter between them, of whom one son died in infancy. And those vexed four names were all descendants of the eldest son to survive, Wilhelm V of Bavaria.

But having listed them Murtagon gave up until the next post, which continues with the further descent of Wilhelm V and the other qualifying descendants of Anna, eldest daughter of Ferdinand I. And I think I too will give up until my next post, having covered only 60% of the short post #4 list in this long post of mine. So next time will begin with eligible descendants of Wilhelm V and siblings, starting with that missing 40% and continuing into post #5.

Murtagon

Avatar / Picture

Registered:
Posts: 225
Reply with quote  #140 
Quote:
Originally Posted by Murtagon


Still, I don't think that the true number of heirs would change dramatically, if all those I've missed (consciously or not) are not taken into account.



And it didn't. I had originally noted 477 people (or something like that), but during the actual typing process, I discovered some deviations, which meant that the final (?) number had to be slightly amended.

It is for this reason that I fully approve of what you are doing, Peter, as your efforts help verify my work. Thank you and take your time!

Something else I wanted to note, because I am quite sure that Peter will not mention it, is the identity of the husband of Maria Euphrosyne of Zweibrücken (1625 - 1687), a sister of King Karl X Gustav of Sweden. She was married to a Swedish nobleman by the name of Magnus Gabriel De la Gardie (1622 - 1686). He apparently served as the inspiration for the titular character of the short story Count Magnus (1904), which was written by the English writer and antiquarian M. R. James. It should be noted, however, that the fictional Magnus is to the real one as Bram Stoker's Dracula (1897) is to Vlad the Impaler. Worth a read, though.

The above mentioned Princess was one of the relatively few people of the time, who had dared to marry below their social level. A far cry from what is happening nowadays...

Once again, thank you, Peter, and until the next project of mine, which, I assure you, will be much, much shorter... but it doesn't mean that there aren't any complications with it. Not coming soon, though, as I need a break. [smile]
Peter

Moderator
Registered:
Posts: 7,534
Reply with quote  #141 
Congratulations on completion of your initial project, which I know required a lot of very hard and very careful work. Were it not for the at times quasi-incestuous web of intermarriage spread throughout this posterity the project would have been reasonably straightforward, but as things were fiendishly complex and difficult is a much more applicable description. I know how hard it has been for me to replicate the work and how many blind alleys I have been led down before finding the straight path, and I am sure your experience must have been similar.

I will resume sometime soon and aim to at least get Wilhelm V and his progeny out of the way. I am in fact familiar with the De La Gardie family, here is one previous post of mine on them and here another. You will see that the latter post notes the marriage you mention, and even touches on its social acceptability. No mention of M. R. James, though, nor would there have been when I do eventually come to this particular union in your thread. While I have certainly heard of the author, the story I had never come across before.
Murtagon

Avatar / Picture

Registered:
Posts: 225
Reply with quote  #142 
Quote:
Originally Posted by Peter
Congratulations on completion of your initial project, which I know required a lot of very hard and very careful work. Were it not for the at times quasi-incestuous web of intermarriage spread throughout this posterity the project would have been reasonably straightforward, but as things were fiendishly complex and difficult is a much more applicable description. I know how hard it has been for me to replicate the work and how many blind alleys I have been led down before finding the straight path, and I am sure your experience must have been similar.


Thanks again!

The "incest" was both a blessing and a curse. On the one hand, it meant that there wouldn't be that many people that I would have to list, at least theoretically, and I also wouldn't have to stray into "uncharted territory" much. On the other hand, however, the likelihood for making an error and skipping someone was greater, as you constantly have something like deja-vu and wonder if you've covered a line or not.
Murtagon

Avatar / Picture

Registered:
Posts: 225
Reply with quote  #143 
Let me share some further thoughts about my latest project...

I couldn't help but notice that Maria Luisa of Parma (1751 - 1819) was the mother of Carlota Joaquina of Spain (1775 - 1830). What's so strange about that? Not much, apart from the fact that both women were accused of cheating on their respective husbands, Charles IV of Spain and John VI of Portugal, with other men. 

One may often read that the paternity of Infante Francisco de Paula of Spain was under question, but less appears to be said about that of Miguel I of Portugal, for instance. To be honest, I'm not sure what to believe here. From what I've been told by a couple of Portuguese monarchists last year, there was something like a travel record, which showed when and how much the King and the Queen of Portugal visited each other (or something like that). According to that theory, they weren't together when the Queen (Crown Princess at the time, actually) fell pregnant for her last few pregnancies, which should logically mean that the then-future Miguel I (amongst others) was not the biological son of Prince John. Of course, it could have simply been later propaganda by the Anti-Miguelists, but I don't know that. What I do know, however, is that there is the following saying: When the facts speak, the gods are silent.

While on the topic of Portugal, here is how Henry Stuart was most closely related to Maria I of Portugal (1734 - 1816), who reigned from 1777 to her death and was infamously married to her own uncle, Peter III of Portugal (1717 - 1786), who reigned together with her until his death: second cousin once removed.

Now, about Monaco. I had actually forgotten that the tiny Principality did not actually exist at the time. Anyway, the interesting thing is that "Henry IX and I" was indeed closely (not really) related to the Monegasque claimant. Here's the closest relationship to Honoré IV, Prince of Monaco (1758 - 1819): sixth cousin once removed.

Yet another thing is that (if I'm not mistaken) there were no people in the theoretical Jacobite line of succession in 1807 who could have benefitted from being descendants of both lines from King James I of England. 

Finally, I did not expect that Henry would turn out to be a "third cousin three times removed" with almost everyone (although that wasn't always the nearest relationship, I admit). My explanation is that James II of England was relatively old when the "Old Pretender" was born and Henry Stuart was in his 80s in 1807, unlike the mostly young monarchs of the time.

That's it for now!
Peter

Moderator
Registered:
Posts: 7,534
Reply with quote  #144 

I didn’t comment on the project except privately to you, but you can be assured that I followed it with interest and enjoyment. With regard to your first two points, as I understand it professional genealogists always accept acknowledgement of paternity at face value in their public work, whatever doubts they may privately have. I don’t consider myself a genealogist of any sort, but observe this approach in my own work here unless I feel morally certain that the legal and biological parentages are different.

Feeling that biological paternity might well be a bit questionable doesn’t cut it. For example with the children of Isabel II I do feel that, but still trace relationships through their legal father Infante Francisco de Asis as much as their mother (actually relationships except to very immediate family are the same either way as they were double first cousins, but I still would trace through either were that not so).

With the two you mention actually I don’t feel too many qualms. The general view of historians seems to be that the accusations against Queen Maria Luisa were slander arising from resentment of her powerful position in Spain’s government, and certainly to me portraits of Infante Francisco de Paula bear no particular resemblance to those of Godoy and a quite sufficient resemblance to Carlos IV. Not that children have to look like either biological parent anyway, they may do but due to the arcane workings of recombination they also may not.

Infanta Carlota Joaquina is a different matter. A conscienceless plotter and manipulator who left about as bad a name behind her as could be imagined, it is easy to envision her as betraying her husband in the bedchamber as much as she did in every other way, including quite possibly having a hand in his eventual murder. But while she was a vile, horrible woman she wasn’t stupid, and to let herself get pregnant in circumstances where her husband the Prince Regent would have known he wasn’t the father would have been very stupid indeed, handing him the perfect excuse to bundle her back to Spain or into a convent in disgrace.

Besides that, nine months is a rule of thumb only, successful pregnancies can be up to two months shorter or a week or two longer, also conception can take place as long as two days after coition. So I don’t give too much credence to these ‘logs’ of royal movements, also because their accuracy is by no means guaranteed anyway.

Moving on, I was momentarily confused by your saying the Principality of Monaco ‘didn’t exist’, when it dated from approaching two centuries earlier. But then realised that you were referring to the principality’s happily temporary abolition and annexation by Revolutionary France.

Finally, I concur that ‘there were no people in the theoretical Jacobite line of succession in 1807 who could have benefited from being descendants of both lines from King James I of England’. There had been, but weren’t then, and wouldn’t be again until 1816, as I see things. Legitimate descent from James I is traceable through each of four grandchildren, his son Charles I’s daughter Henrietta, duchesse d’Orléans and his daughter Elizabeth, Queen of Bohemia’s sons Karl I Ludwig, Elector Palatine and Eduard, Count Palatine of Simmern, and daughter Sophia, Electress of Hanover.

Genealogical seniority of line goes in the order of the names. But due to the operation of the Bill of Rights, Claim of Right, Act of Settlement and Acts of Union, succession rights to England, Scotland and Ireland were transmitted only through the most junior line, that of Sophia. Descendants of the first three lines were excluded originally because they were all Catholic, and later because of that and also the specific limitation to descendants of Sophia in the Acts of Settlement and Union.

Nowadays any Catholic royalty of major family is going to be descended from all four* (the Duke of Bragança being an exception, with just the first three). But that was not so then, with far fewer generations having passed for mixing to take place. And it is not so now with Protestant royalty; my Blood Royal III thread on the second page shows the situation changing in the course of the last century, but still while Protestant royalty of major family will certainly be descended from Sophia, multiply at that, they usually are not from any of the other lines; for example, none of Elizabeth II, Margrethe II, Carl XVI Gustaf, Harald V and Willem Alexander are, which would seem to be the totality of Protestant monarchs reigning in Europe today.

The reason as one would assume is the religious divide, which as I demonstrated in the Disputatio thread below has affected European royal relationships literally since the very dawn of the Reformation. But the divide, if viewed as a dam, is more porous in one direction than it is from the other. For Catholic princesses to marry non-Catholics is very, very rare indeed. For Protestant princesses to marry Catholics is still rare, but markedly less so. So there is a large reservoir of royal ancestry that is near-exclusively found among Catholics, but the corresponding Protestant ancestry has over time made its way into Catholic lines.

But, as I said before, in 1807 there hadn’t been a lot of time in terms of human generations. Still, a child had been born back in 1790 descended from all three children of Elizabeth. And another such child was born in 1801. But the first lived only for little more than a year, and the second not even for a day. And as both were first children and the mothers of both, who had brought descent from Sophia to add to their fathers’ descents from Karl I Ludwig and Eduard, died from childbed fever shortly after the birth, in 1807 there was no living person descended from both the junior but only legally qualifying line and any of the three senior lines.

As far as I can see the next person born fulfilling the criteria, who was also the first to be so while living to a full age and having issue and a continuing line, was Archduchess Maria Theresia of Austria, daughter of the famous general Archduke Karl, Duke of Teschen, and by marriage to Ferdinando II Queen of the Two Sicilies. Felipe VI is her descendant, though none of the other Catholic monarchs are. She has though a very numerous descent besides, both within and without Catholic royalty. And was born as said above in 1816, so a bit late to confound Murtagon’s contention.

Maria Theresia again had descent from all three children of Elizabeth, though none from Henrietta. Which is not too surprising considering that the fathers of her short-lived predecessors were two brothers of her own father, the descent from Sophia of course coming through her mother.

That first child, Archduchess Ludovika Elisabeth of Austria, had been born on 18th February 1790, dying on 24th June 1791. Her father was the later Emperor Franz II, who later still became Franz I of Austria, and her mother Duchess Elisabeth of Württemberg. And the second child was Archduchess Alexandrine of Austria, who was born and died on 9th March 1801. Her father was Archduke Joseph of Austria, Palatine of Hungary and a younger brother of Franz II, and her mother was Grand Duchess Alexandra Pavlovna of Russia, a niece of Duchess Elisabeth.

And finally Archduchess Maria Theresia, born on 31st July 1816 and dying in Rome on 8th August 1867, was as said a daughter of Archduke Karl, who came between Franz II and Archduke Joseph. Her mother was Princess Henrietta of Nassau-Weilburg. All three ancestries linked above go to eight generations, and while they don’t take long to load are a bit tiresome to pick through.

To make things slightly easier, for the first ancestry Karl I Ludwig and Sophia can be found in the seventh generation and Eduard in the eighth. For the other two, Karl I Ludwig is still in the seventh generation but both Eduard and Sophia are in the eighth. While the ancestries don’t prove I am right about these three being the first, second and third qualifying persons to be born (though I am confident that I am), they do at least demonstrate that all three did qualify.



* Little good though it does them, since they are Catholic still.

Murtagon

Avatar / Picture

Registered:
Posts: 225
Reply with quote  #145 
Thank you for the very detailed answer, Peter!

I had forgotten to mention something and you (not so) accidentally reminded me about it.

It's something very sad, actually. It has to do with child mortality. I suppose that it must have been very difficult for a parent to have had to bury their own child, especially with the knowledge that all hope had been set on that person. I speak in the past tense, but it's a phenomenon that still hasn't left us. Fortunately, the latest project included relatively few such cases.

On a "happier" note, I must say that I'm not entirely convinced about Carlota Joaquina. If you say that she wasn't stupid to get impregnated by men who weren't her husband, then what about Princess Caroline Matilda of Great Britain or Princess Wilhelmine of Baden? Were they so stupid, that even Genealogics doesn't bother showing one or more of their children as having been sired by their respective husbands?

However, I do admit that both cases involved children being born after the succession had been set... which would have also been the case with Dom Miguel, as he had an elder brother (although Portugal employed MPP, so a male heir wasn't exactly essential, but still). It would have been quite risky, though. Just imagine if Frederik VI had had a brother, instead of a sister...

Anyway, thanks again for the support! I'll probably try to present some minor projects over the summer months; we'll see.
Peter

Moderator
Registered:
Posts: 7,534
Reply with quote  #146 

Belatedly responding to the above, absent DNA testing, unlikely to happen, we can rarely be absolutely sure about these things. Now and again we can, for example the infamous Philippe Égalité, more formally Louis Philippe II, duc d’Orléans, claimed himself that he was the son of a stableman rather than his putative father Louis Philippe I. The poor reputation of his mother makes this seem all too credible, until that is you look at side-by-side portraits of the two Louis Philippes. Then it becomes laughable, the resemblance is so marked that they could have been stamped out by the same machine.

But generally speaking unless we are going to accept acknowledgement of paternity unconditionally, a perfectly valid and indeed the mainstream approach, we have to look at the evidence critically and see whether it is beyond reasonable doubt that the legal paternity is a legal fiction. Which is also rare, and usually the conclusion will be that there might be reason to question the legal paternity but there is insufficient data to disprove it and therefore it will be accepted without further quibble.

Sometimes you can go a bit further and say that while not morally certain that biological and legal paternities are the same you believe they are, which is my position with the children of João VI and his execrable Queen. For the reasons I gave these ‘logs’ don’t interest me. And despite the examples you give, to which I would add Queen Marie of Romania, I still think my other reasoning is sound.

Caroline Matilda was a foolish, love-crazed young woman and Christian VII insane and basically kept under lock and key. Wilhelmine was a mature woman, long separated from her husband Ludwig II on account of his own infidelities, who set up house with a handsome minor nobleman and began raising a second family, acknowledged as his by her estranged husband to avoid open scandal. And Marie was a young woman neither foolish nor love-crazed but unable to see why if her husband could do as he pleased with regard to mistresses she could not with lovers.

And such was her charm and force of personality that she got away with it, though I admit she might not have if there hadn’t been an heir already, born nine months almost to the day after the wedding so paternity hardly in doubt. It might fairly be said that the same applied to the warring Portuguese pair, which you did indeed suggest. Except that it didn’t really, the future Pedro I/IV was not a first but a fourth child and his paternity was also whispered about.

Anyway, Carlota Joaquina was nothing like Caroline Matilda, Wilhelmine or Marie, nor was João VI anything like Christian VII, Ludwig II or Ferdinand I, and the poisoned crucible of their marriage in no way resembled the relationships, such as they were, of the other couples. I know that none of my arguments here and before constitute proofs of paternity, but for me they are indicative enough that I believe in as well as accept it.

Now for what I came here to do, which won’t take long at all. My previous post dealt with the question of who was first to have descent from one or more of the senior lines from James I (through his grandchildren Henrietta, duchess d’Orléans, Karl I Ludwig, Elector Palatine and Eduard, Count Palatine of Simmern) and the junior but for British succession sole qualifying line, through his other grandchild with a legitimate posterity, Sophia, Electress of Hanover.

The question then naturally occurs, well it does if you’re weird like me, who was the first person born to descend from all four grandchildren. And the answer as far as I can see is Luigi, Count of Trani, born 1st August 1838 and, in an entire non-coincidence, first-born child of the star of that previous post, Archduchess Maria Theresia of Austria. His ancestry is again shown to eight generations, which actually isn’t quite sufficient but that’s the furthest you can go in one hit. From the top right, about 12 pairs down you will see Karl I Ludwig, so that’s one done. Go on another 13 pairs or so and you have Benedikte Henriette, Countess Palatine of Simmern and daughter of the aforementioned Eduard, as you will see by clicking on her name.

Just six pairs later Princess Anne Marie d’Orléans appears, a daughter of the above-mentioned Henrietta, as you will see by clicking on her name. Three done, one to go. And you have to go around another 25 pairs before you come to George I of Great Britain and Ireland. If anyone interested enough to read this feels a need to verify that George I was Sophia’s son I shall be surprised, but go ahead and click if you want to.

So that’s the full set. As before, this doesn’t demonstrate that Prince Luigi was the very first person born descended from all four, though I believe this to be the case. It does however show that he did, so at least by 1838 it had happened.

Murtagon

Avatar / Picture

Registered:
Posts: 225
Reply with quote  #147 
Quote:
Originally Posted by Peter

...if you’re weird like me...



I'm weird, unlike you! [wink]

Anyway, that's a great reply (as usual). Had you ever wondered about this before, Peter? Who had been the first person to be descended from all four lines, I mean.

On a very incidental note, I finally got around to reading "Foxy Ferdinand" by, uh, Stephen Constant. Read it in two days.

While it's a pity that Tsar Ferdinand cannot view this forum and sub-forum (or can he?), I must say that my opinion of him has somewhat improved. I get the impression that he was a larger-than-life character, which probably explains why Zhivkov and Borisov are/were adored. [rolleyes]

Having said that, it was almost as if Ferdinand was the only person in the world with those ancient descents. The utter cheek! [tongue]

Again, thanks for the reply and for "making" me read the book. I don't regret it.




Peter

Moderator
Registered:
Posts: 7,534
Reply with quote  #148 
Not especially, but that's the great thing about dialogue; it sparks ideas that can then be followed up. I also was irritated by the passage you mention, but from a somewhat different perspective. The author seemed to regard Ferdinand's claimed descents from figures such as Peter of Courtenay as fanciful, as if he were claiming descent from Julius Caesar or King Arthur or some such. But this is a perfectly well-documented descent and the claim not in the slightest outlandish, indeed it was merely a statement of verifiable fact. Though it is true there was nothing special about having the descent, almost anyone with European royal blood could claim it, the author's condescending disbelief still grated.

But if, like me and like you and like others here, you are interested in royal genealogy for its own sake and have made the effort to learn something about it, you will encounter such things all the time and had best get used to them. There are few subjects, it seems to me, that people are more ready to pontificate on in the entire absence of expertise. A tribute I suppose to the glamour of royalty, that people will drag them into unrelated discussions to add a bit of spice and colour, but I wish they'd research their remarks at least half as thoroughly as they would anything said on their actual topics. Glad you liked the book anyway.
Previous Topic | Next Topic
Print
Reply

Quick Navigation:

Easily create a Forum Website with Website Toolbox.