Monarchy Forum
Sign up Latest Topics
 
 
 


Reply
  Author   Comment  
hubertgaston

Avatar / Picture

Registered:
Posts: 797
Reply with quote  #1 
Anyone know who are the claimants of the (hypothetical) throne of Jerusalem ?

Thank you.
Tolgron

Registered:
Posts: 195
Reply with quote  #2 
Not the expert here, but isn't the title King of Jerusalem (and Acre?) currently held by the King of Spain? Or was that rescinded during the republican periods?
Peter

Moderator
Registered:
Posts: 7,535
Reply with quote  #3 
The most generally accepted claimant is Prince Antoine-Lamoral de Ligne. The other candidate mentioned is Patrick Guinness, who actually posted here a little while back, The matter has been raised before, for example in this thread where I flounder around a bit trying to explain a very complex question from memory and getting it wrong, but eventually (in post #7) deliver a reasonable explanation of the two claims. I should though make clear that neither person actually makes a claim, it's just that they both theoretically could. The King of Spain does in fact still have Jerusalem in his full titulary, as did the Emperors of Austria, the Kings of Sardinia, later Italy, and the Kings of the Two Sicilies. In none of these cases is/was there any reasonable basis of claim, they are just examples of titles getting on the roll and never leaving, even if the reason for them being there has long since become invalid (Sardinia/Italy), or never was valid (the others). So there you are, take your pick. Prince Antoine-Lamoral has all of one claim, which I regard as the weaker of the two, and half of the other, while Mr Guinness has that remaining half of the stronger claim. One and a half outweighs a half, but on the other hand Mr Guinness is a member here, I am sure the only genuine claimant as opposed to deranged fantasist who ever has been, so sentiment might incline you to him.
Diane

Avatar / Picture

Registered:
Posts: 39
Reply with quote  #4 
And the House of Lusignan ?
__________________
http://www.allianceroyale.fr/
Peter

Moderator
Registered:
Posts: 7,535
Reply with quote  #5 
Both claims derive from it. The Brienne claim is from Mary, elder daughter of Hugh I of Cyprus, and the other from his younger daughter Isabella. Hugh also had a son, Henry I, and he one child, Hugh II. The second Hugh however died still a child, and that was the end of the First House of Lusignan. The Second House began with Isabella's son Hugh III, who as Hugh I succeeded to Jerusalem also. Mary's son Hugh of Brienne although genealogically senior was passed over for both thrones, and made little attempt to oppose this. His descendants however made a theoretical claim, again never pursuing it with any vigour. Since the other claim represents several generations of actual reigning Kings as opposed to nominal claimants I think it the stronger.
hubertgaston

Avatar / Picture

Registered:
Posts: 797
Reply with quote  #6 
The claimants to the throne of Cyprus are the same as those to the throne of Jerusalem?
Peter

Moderator
Registered:
Posts: 7,535
Reply with quote  #7 
Yes. And also (Cilician) Armenia.
Previous Topic | Next Topic
Print
Reply

Quick Navigation:

Easily create a Forum Website with Website Toolbox.