History questions not worth their own thread IV

[Arakhor]

Which nation has been a monarchy for the longest period of time? Got curious after reading an article on San Marino.

Denmark and Japan have the longest uninterrupted monarchies around. If it wasn't for some chap called Cromwell, the British monarchies would be up there too.

 

[Cutlass]

Denmark and Japan have the longest uninterrupted monarchies around. If it wasn't for some chap called Cromwell, the British monarchies would be up there too.

Cromwell gets a cookie then.

 

[Lord Baal]

Denmark and Japan have the longest uninterrupted monarchies around. If it wasn't for some chap called Cromwell, the British monarchies would be up there too.

I actually thought Denmark might be it, but hadn't thought of Japan at all until it was mentioned. Anything reliable on when both became monarchies? I don't trust Wiki on anything that old, and I certainly don't trust the Japanese on anything remotely nationalistic.

 

[ParkCungHee]

Define "became monarchies".

 

[say1988]

I actually thought Denmark might be it, but hadn't thought of Japan at all until it was mentioned. Anything reliable on when both became monarchies? I don't trust Wiki on anything that old, and I certainly don't trust the Japanese on anything remotely nationalistic.

As far as I am aware, Japan has had the emperor for all of recorded history and nobody really knows where myths ends and history begins.

Though there is one thing I am curious about. Wiki says the Danish Monarchy is the fourth oldest monarchy. Japan is first, but who are second and third?

 

[Arakhor]

Well, the English monarchy is typically dated from Alfred the Great, beating the Danish monarchy by over 60 years, but we did have a short gap in the middle.

 

[say1988]

Maybe I should be more clear, it says it is "the fourth oldest continual monarchy in the world still existing today" so Britain and it's constituents are out.

 

[Arakhor]

Well, given that Wikipedia is a trove of unreliable trivia, why not see what else you turn up there?

 

[LightSpectra]

The English monarchy did not begin with Alfred of Wessex. He contributed to the unification of Anglo-Saxon lands to a place that can nebulously be called "England", but there's several issues in tracing the monarchy all the way back to him. Firstly, he wasn't the first king from the House of Wessex, and I can see no reason to discount anybody prior to him other than because Alfred was considered a glorious king and there's some precedent in arbitrarily beginning lists with likeable people. Secondly, the Anglo-Saxon monarchy was indisputably annihilated in AD 1066 during the Norman invasion, and the dynasty of kings beginning with William can in no way be considered part of the same monarchy. Thirdly, in addition to Cromwell, the preexisting English monarchy was basically eliminated during the Revolution of 1688, since William of Orange wasn't the legitimate throne-holder; James II was.

 

[Arakhor]

So, William III marrying James' daughter was completely irrelevant in "restoring" the monarchy? You'll also notice that I said 'typically'.

 

[privatehudson]

I thought that the question was supposed to be about "which nation has been a monarchy for the longest period of time?" Changes in ruling houses, or the usurpation of the throne by a lesser claimant is hardly evidence of the country not being a monarchy. I can see the point that Britain was not a monarchy during Cromwell's time, or that before a certain date the country of England did not in any meaningful sense exist though.

That said the question is somewhat vague and open to interpretation.

 

[W|M]

It was illegal for Catholics to rise to the English and Scottish throne by the late 17th Century, AFAIK.

 

[Arakhor]

The Act of Succession barred Catholics from the throne in 1704 or so, I think. That was the law that dictated that the Protestant offspring of the Electress Sophia, granddaughter of James VI & I, would be considered to be the rightful heirs to the throne and that was why Georg Ludwig of Hanover became George I of Great Britain.

 

[LightSpectra]

So, William III marrying James' daughter was completely irrelevant in "restoring" the monarchy? You'll also notice that I said 'typically'.

Yes, because the monarchical line can only be considered legitimate if the next person to become king is the person that would've become king anyway. So an eldest son deposing his father is acceptable, if you want to say that the dynasty is the same and the monarchical line consistent, but not uncle and nephew when the uncle has children who have precedence in the royal line.

 

[privatehudson]

I was listening to an audiobook on the Lusitania today which mentioned something briefly. Apparently it was only in 1915 that they got around to stripping the Order of Garter from the German Kaiser. I was wondering if anyone knew about any of the other positions and ranks he might have held in foreign countries, and when/if they were removed. For example I seem to recall him having a Royal Navy rank of some sort, but don't really know the details.

 

[LightSpectra]

I was listening to an audiobook on the Lusitania today which mentioned something briefly. Apparently it was only in 1915 that they got around to stripping the Order of Garter from the German Kaiser. I was wondering if anyone knew about any of the other positions and ranks he might have held in foreign countries, and when/if they were removed. For example I seem to recall him having a Royal Navy rank of some sort, but don't really know the details.

Every significant order and award held by Wilhelm II:

Honorary Knights Grand Cross of the Royal Victorian Order, Knights Grand Cross of the Military Order of Maria Theresa, Knights Grand Cross of the Military William Order, Knights Grand Cross of the Order of Saint Stephen of Hungary, Knights Grand Cross of the Order of the Netherlands Lion, Knights of Justice of the Order of St. John, Knights of the Elephant, Knights of the Garter, Knights of the Golden Fleece, Knights of the Order of the Most Holy Annunciation, Knights of the Order of the Norwegian Lion, Iron Cross, Military Order of Max Joseph, Order of St. Andrew, Order of the Black Eagle, Royal Victorian Chain.

You'd have to individually research each one to see if he was stripped of anything.

 

[privatehudson]

Yes, because the monarchical line can only be considered legitimate if the next person to become king is the person that would've become king anyway. So an eldest son deposing his father is acceptable, if you want to say that the dynasty is the same and the monarchical line consistent, but not uncle and nephew when the uncle has children who have precedence in the royal line.

That is merely evidence showing that specific monarchical line has not been restored, it is not evidence that the country is not a monarchy, or does not have a monarch whatever their role is.

Also the whole concept of there being an obvious successor throughout the current monarch's reign has not necessarily always held true, making it often difficult to determine who "would have become king anyway" in many cases. By today's rules for example neither William II or Henry I should have ruled England.

 

[Arakhor]

Yes, because the monarchical line can only be considered legitimate if the next person to become king is the person that would've become king anyway. So an eldest son deposing his father is acceptable, if you want to say that the dynasty is the same and the monarchical line consistent, but not uncle and nephew when the uncle has children who have precedence in the royal line.

I wasn't aware that you were a Jacobite sympathiser. Parliament may well have been in the wrong to declare that James had abdicated and to invite William to take the throne, but they were the victors and they carried the day. Mary was unquestionably a Stuart and was crowned Queen in her own right.

 

[LightSpectra]

That is merely evidence showing that specific monarchical line has not been restored, it is not evidence that the country is not a monarchy, or does not have a monarch whatever their role is.

I'm not arguing against that. I'm talking about a specific (yet qualitatively vague) "English monarchy", not all of the monarchies that have ruled England.

Also the whole concept of there being an obvious successor throughout the current monarch's reign has not necessarily always held true, making it often difficult to determine who "would have become king anyway" in many cases. By today's rules for example neither William II or Henry I should have ruled England.

Yes, I'm aware, which are further complications to the matter. But nevertheless, this is basically how dynastic law has worked in post-antiquity western European monarchies. It's considered the same royal line if and only if the monarch in question has both legal and military validity. After 1688, those were separate people, thus it's a different monarchy altogether (one that existed through Parliamentarian consent rather than in equilibrium with it), albeit over the same geographical area.

I wasn't aware that you were a Jacobite sympathiser. Parliament may well have been in the wrong to declare that James had abdicated and to invite William to take the throne, but they were the victors and they carried the day.

Well if you would like to go by Parliamentarian accreditations as opposed to the actual dynastic laws in place, you'd have to tell me if Simon de Montfort or Henry III was the legitimate ruler of England, to the mutual exclusivity of the other.

I'm not saying William wasn't the King of England. I'm just saying that it's ludicrous on several counts to trace the current English monarchy past 1688 as if it were the same entity.

 

[privatehudson]

I'm not arguing against that.

Oh, I don't really see the point of raising it then since that was the question under discussion. No matter though.