Monarchy Forum
Sign up Latest Topics
 
 
 


Reply
  Author   Comment   Page 4 of 5      Prev   1   2   3   4   5   Next
Peter

Moderator
Registered:
Posts: 7,500
Reply with quote  #46 
My figures, which I don't think quarrel with Windemere's, though in one or two cases you could interpret a relationship differently. They are in two parts as the table is too long for the forum to accept in one part. One thing I notice which I hadn't before is that the Queen is the first ever straightforward case of a daughter succeeding a father (in England, in Scotland there is their Mary I). There was a previous case, Mary II, but straightforward it was not.

 

Monarch

Relationship of successor

Total number of occurrences


 

 

 

 

 

 

 

1

William I

Younger son

1

 

 

2

William II

Brother

5

 

 

3

Henry I

Nephew

1

 

 

4

Stephen

Cousin

7

 

 

5

Henry II

Eldest surviving son

7

 

 

6

Richard I

Brother

 

 

 

7

John

First-born son

10

 

 

8

Henry III

First-born son

 

 

 

9

Edward I

Eldest surviving son

 

 

 

10

Edward II

First-born son

 

 

 

11

Edward III

Grandson

2

 

 

12

Ruchard II

Cousin

 

 

 

13

Henry IV

Eldest surviving son

 

 

 

14

Henry V

First-born son

 

 

 

15

Henry VI

Cousin

 

 

 

16

Edward IV

First-born son

 

 

 

17

Edward V

Uncle

1

 

 

18

Richard III

Cousin

 

 

 

19

Henry VII

Eldest surviving son

 

 

 

20

Henry VIII

First-born son

 

 

 

21

Edward VI

Sister

2

 

 

22

Mary I

Sister

 

 

 

23

Elizabeth I

Cousin




Peter

Moderator
Registered:
Posts: 7,500
Reply with quote  #47 
Part II:

 

Monarch

Relationship of successor

Total number of occurrences

Total occurences





 

 

 

24

James I

Eldest surviving son

 

 

 

25

Charles I

Eldest surviving son

 

 

 

26

Charles II

Brother

 

 

 

27

James II

Daughter & son-in-law

1

Younger son

1

28

William III &

Cousin

 

Brother

5

29

Mary II

Husband

1

Nephew

1

30

Anne

Cousin

 

Cousin

7

31

George I

First-born son

 

Eldest surviving son

7

32

George II

Grandson

 

First-born son

10

33

George III

First-born son

 

Grandson

2

34

George IV

Brother

 

Uncle

1

35

William IV

Niece

1

Sister

2

36

Victoria

First-born son

 

Daughter & son-in-law

1

37

Edward VII

Eldest surviving son

 

Husband

1

38

George V

First-born son

 

Niece

1

39

Edward VIII

Brother

 

Daughter

1

40

George VI

Daughter

1

Total successions

40

BaronVonServers

Avatar / Picture

Registered:
Posts: 11,993
Reply with quote  #48 
Quote:
Originally Posted by Peter
The Queen hasn't been succeeded by anyone yet, so Windemere took the count as far as it could go.


I was reading it as the Queen succeeded George VI (though not as a eldest first born son) bring the number of successions to 41 (not the 40), sorry....

__________________
"In necessariis unitas, in dubiis libertas, in omnibus caritas"

I am NOT an authorized representative of my Government.

Learn more about the Dominion of British West Florida at http://dbwf.net
Peter

Moderator
Registered:
Posts: 7,500
Reply with quote  #49 
I might have confused you, as there were a couple of mistakes in the table summary, now corrected I hope. The table was easy to do, in Excel to save me exercising my flaky arithmetic; the figure for first-born son for example is the result of =countif(C3:C43,C9), which trust me is a better way than me adding up. It was however a nightmare to get onto the board, which feeble as it may be is my excuse for not noticing the mistakes before. The Queen was included in Windemere's count and mine, but not mentioned in the lists of monarchs as she is a successor but not yet (and may the day be long delayed) a succeeded to.
Peter

Moderator
Registered:
Posts: 7,500
Reply with quote  #50 
Quote:
Originally Posted by Windemere

Of 40 English monarchs from William the Conqueror to George VI, only 10 ( John, Henry III, Edward II, Henry V, Edward IV, Henry VIII, George I, George III, Victoria, George V ) were succeeded by eldest first-born sons.  An additional 8 were succeeded by eldest surviving sons. ( These included Henry IV whose eldest son died in infancy and Charles I whose eldest son was stillborn.)  Twenty-two were succeeded by siblings, daughters, grandsons, or other relatives. There were only two consecutive father to eldest first-born son successions ( John was succeeded by his eldest son Henry III, who in turn was succeeded by eldest son Edward I ).

I notice that I do have a difference from Windemere, he has eight monarchs succeeded by eldest surviving sons and I have seven, which are Henry II, Edward I, Henry IV, Henry VII, James I, Charles I and Edward VII. I wonder if our difference is William I? His eldest son Robert in fact survived him but never succeeded, his younger brother William II being placed ahead of him by his father's will and then when William II died his younger brother still Henry I seizing the throne. So I listed him as a unique case of "younger son"; perhaps Windemere has him as an "eldest surviving son", which would not be quite right. I can't see where else the discrepancy would come from, anyway.

Peter

Moderator
Registered:
Posts: 7,500
Reply with quote  #51 
Possibly carried away by enthusiasm, I've now done the same thing for Capetian monarchs of France. I promise to stop there, and I stopped here with Louis XIX as the last undisputed King of France (technical and exceedingly brief reign) to have a successor (ditto). Again, will have to be in two parts. I'll mention that the sex of the four stillborn children that preceded the later Louis XIV is not known, but it's a reasonable guess that one at least was male.

 

King

Relationship of successor

Total number of occurrences


 

 

 

 

 

 

 

1

Hugues I

First-born son

13

 

 

2

Robert II

Eldest surviving son

11

 

 

3

Henri I

First-born son

 

 

 

4

Philiipe I

First-born son

 

 

 

5

Louis VI

Eldest surviving son

 

 

 

6

Louis VII

First-born son

 

 

 

7

Philippe II

First-born son

 

 

 

8

Louis VIII

Eldest surviving son

 

 

 

9

Louis IX

Eldest surviving son

 

 

 

10

Philippe III

Eldest surviving son

 

 

 

11

Philippe IV

First-born son

 

 

 

12

Louis X

First-born son

 

 

 

13

Jean I

Uncle

2

 

 

14

Philippe V

Brother

4

 

 

15

Charles IV

Cousin

4

 

 

16

Philippe VI

First-born son

 

 

 

17

Jean II

First-born son

 

 

 

18

Charles V

Eldest surviving son

 

 

 

19

Charles VI

Eldest surviving son

 

 

 

20

Charles VII

First-born son

 

 

 

21

Louis XI

Eldest surviving son

 

 

 

22

Charles VIII

Cousin

 

 

 

23

Louis XII

Cousin






 

 

 








Peter

Moderator
Registered:
Posts: 7,500
Reply with quote  #52 
Part II:

 

King

Relationship of successor

Total number of occurrences

Total occurrences





 

 

24

François I

Eldest surviving son

 

 

 

25

Henri II

First-born son

 

 

 

26

François II

Brother

 

 

 

27

Charles IX

Brother

 

 

 

28

Henri III

Cousin

 

 

 

29

Henri IV

First-born son

 

First-born son

13

30

Louis XIII

Eldest surviving son

 

Eldest surviving son

11

31

Louis XIV

Great-grandson

1

Uncle

2

32

Louis XV

Grandson

1

Brother

4

33

Louis XVI

Eldest surviving son

 

Cousin

4

34

Louis XVII

Uncle

 

Great-grandson

1

35

Louis XVIII

Brother

 

Grandson

1

36

Charles X

First-born son

 

Nephew

1

37

Louis XIX

Nephew

1

Total successions

37

Schneider

Registered:
Posts: 59
Reply with quote  #53 
Indeed, the Frenche sucession was more regular than British - Mainly because Salic law. 
KYMonarchist

Registered:
Posts: 4,853
Reply with quote  #54 
Quote:
Originally Posted by Schneider
Indeed, the Frenche sucession was more regular than British - Mainly because Salic law. 

Actually, that was because of good sperm (the kind that makes male babies) and healthy male children. Salic law had nothing to do with it. Good luck for the French kings did.

__________________
"Progress, far from consisting in change, depends on retentiveness. When change is absolute there remains no being to improve and no direction is set for possible improvement: and when experience is not retained, as among savages, infancy is perpetual. Those who cannot remember the past are condemned to repeat it." - George Santayana
BaronVonServers

Avatar / Picture

Registered:
Posts: 11,993
Reply with quote  #55 
'Good Sperm'?

I could see that if the question was one if 'live issue', but that isn't really the issue.

Good sperm is that which (in conjunction with the ovum) produces healthy children. 


Better health care, would have done a lot to 'regularize the succession'...

__________________
"In necessariis unitas, in dubiis libertas, in omnibus caritas"

I am NOT an authorized representative of my Government.

Learn more about the Dominion of British West Florida at http://dbwf.net
KYMonarchist

Registered:
Posts: 4,853
Reply with quote  #56 
Quote:
Originally Posted by BaronVonServers
'Good Sperm'?

I could see that if the question was one if 'live issue', but that isn't really the issue.

Good sperm is that which (in conjunction with the ovum) produces healthy children. 


Better health care, would have done a lot to 'regularize the succession'...

The ones carrying chromosomes that make the baby a male, given that the man is the one who determines the baby's gender.

__________________
"Progress, far from consisting in change, depends on retentiveness. When change is absolute there remains no being to improve and no direction is set for possible improvement: and when experience is not retained, as among savages, infancy is perpetual. Those who cannot remember the past are condemned to repeat it." - George Santayana
BaronVonServers

Avatar / Picture

Registered:
Posts: 11,993
Reply with quote  #57 
Are you're holding to 'good sperm' = 'produces males who live to assume the crown'?

Simply having a son, born alive even, doesn't mean the crown will pass to him.  It didn't work out for Queen Anne...
She bore sons, none lived to assume the Crown.


__________________
"In necessariis unitas, in dubiis libertas, in omnibus caritas"

I am NOT an authorized representative of my Government.

Learn more about the Dominion of British West Florida at http://dbwf.net
KYMonarchist

Registered:
Posts: 4,853
Reply with quote  #58 
Quote:
Originally Posted by BaronVonServers
Are you're holding to 'good sperm' = 'produces males who live to assume the crown'?




Better than Salic law does.

__________________
"Progress, far from consisting in change, depends on retentiveness. When change is absolute there remains no being to improve and no direction is set for possible improvement: and when experience is not retained, as among savages, infancy is perpetual. Those who cannot remember the past are condemned to repeat it." - George Santayana
Peter

Moderator
Registered:
Posts: 7,500
Reply with quote  #59 
The succession in France was regular for long periods, but when a line failed the succession was as likely as not to be by a wildly distant cousin, also an effect of Salic law. Before someone says that George I was a wildly distant cousin of Anne, he was actually her second cousin, which is not really distant at all. Henry VI and Edward IV were pretty distant, but that was an effect of two different lines of succession conflicting, not of male-preference primogeniture itself. Both systems have defects as well as advantages.

Since the discussion has turned genetic, then yes being heterogametic the male is the sex-determiner (in mammals, birds and reptiles are the other way round). This does give a genetic advantage to Salic law, though no one had an inkling of this when it took shape. The Y chromosome, inherited exclusively from the father by males only, does not recombine. The X chromosome, inherited from the mother only by males and both parents by females, does recombine, as does all other genetic material apart from mtDNA, which I will get to. That means that an heir several generations from the founder could if the line has passed through females theoretically have no genes from him at all. If it is a male line then assuming no non-paternity events, which as well as being self-explanatory is believe it or not a technical term, he will at minimum have the same Y chromosome.

Apart from turning a foetus male, which admittedly is pretty significant, the Y chromosome doesn't really do a great deal, but at least it is a guaranteed slice of shared genetic heritage. So is mtDNA, but conversely this is inherited exclusively from the mother, by males and females alike. Males have it, otherwise they could not live for even one second, but cannot pass it on. So succession through a uterine line would also guarantee a continuation of genetic heritage. This has never been a system finding much favour however, and in fact mtDNA shares another characteristic with the Y chromosome; it does one important thing, in mtDNA's case being a cellular energy source and thus sustaining life from moment to moment, and little else. The general scientific belief is that mtDNA is not even human (or animal, for that matter), but the descendant of bacteria that became symbiotic with proto-cellular life in the unimaginably distant past.

So, good sperm. While if a male heir is required Y-bearing sperm is mandatory, in almost all other respects the Y chromosome is irrelevant to the quality of genetic material. The chromosomes that determine health, appearance and inherent abilities recombine, and it is these that determine "good" gametes, whether sperm or egg. To speak of Y-bearing sperm as "good" because of that fact is unenlightened at best.
BaronVonServers

Avatar / Picture

Registered:
Posts: 11,993
Reply with quote  #60 
A granddaughter, could, in theory share no genes with grandpa, the grandson, in theory, share only those on the Y. 

Though of course, that's from 'zygote' forward, the doesn't 'change' at later stages, it just becomes more readily apparent.

The 'we are Jews' claims of certain African born peoples were strengthened when it was shown 'Hey, these guys have a Y gene remarkably like the Cohens of New York'.

__________________
"In necessariis unitas, in dubiis libertas, in omnibus caritas"

I am NOT an authorized representative of my Government.

Learn more about the Dominion of British West Florida at http://dbwf.net
Previous Topic | Next Topic
Print
Reply

Quick Navigation:

Easily create a Forum Website with Website Toolbox.