I think there is some misunderstanding in the responses to my original post: I wasn't focusing on younger sons (or daughters) per se. Rather, it was specifically on those princes who GREW UP as SECOND sons -- and if you will, as "spares" in the royal successions.
The inspiration was Prince Harry, in light of the news he has been making with all his shenanigans: he has spent his whole life under the shadow of his older brother.
The point is that unless one is the heir (and in particular, a direct heir), he does not expect to inherit the throne -- even if he is a second son: this has always been true, past and present. And in this day and age, he doesn't even have a (reasonable) chance of succeeding: look at how a number of British royals close in the succession to the throne got displaced, since the 20th century.
But in the more distant past, the chances of youngers sons (in particular, second sons) becoming reigning monarchs were not entirely unreasonable -- for several reasons: (1) death rates have historically been very high (especially those of children); (2) succession laws have traditionally been restricted to male lines (the British isles and the Iberian peninsula being exceptions); (3) the greater likelihood of *fluke* factors (e.g. abdications, renunciations, assassinations, wars, revolutions); (4) the branching out of dynasties: until World War I, the hereditary monarchy was the normal form of government throughout the world. We have seen, the varying degrees of success, how the Habsburgs, Bourbons, Coburgs, and Glücksburgs acquired multiple thrones.
None of this applies today, however: so poor Harry has found himself in a deep hole -- as the sibling with no clear role to play in the monarchy. William was brought into the world with his destiny clearly mapped out, while his younger brother was brought into the world to serve as the "backup" to turn to, in case things didn't go as planned or envisioned.
That's why I was interested in (male) royals of the past who had likewise grown up as "spares", in the shadow of older brothers -- who specifically in each case had only ONE: you may have had just a single older brother -- but that still was enough to relegate you to a *second-class* status.
It's just that in a number of past historical cases, princes in some such situations unexpectedly succeeded -- something unlikely to happen in the case of Harry.
England: Numerous examples.
Anglo Saxons:
Kings Edmund I, Eadred, Eadwig and Edgar the Peaceful were the 2nd, 3rd, 4th and 5th sons of King Edward the Elder.
Ethelred II the Unrhaed was the 2nd son of Edgar the Peaceful and succeeded his elder half-brother Edward the Martyr.
Anglo-Danes:
Harthacanute succeeded his elder half-brother Harold I Harefoot.
Anglo-Saxons (cont.):
Edward the Confessor was the 2nd son of Ethelred II (his older half-brother Edmund II Ironside had reigned briefly as king.
Normans:
William II and Henry I were the 2nd and 4th sons of William I (the Conqueror).
Blois:
Stephen was the 4th son of his parents Count Stephen of Blois and Adela of Normandy (sister of the above).
Plantagenet:
Richard I and John were the 2nd and 4th adult sons of Henry II.
York:
Richard III was the 4th adult son of Richard Plantagenet, Duke of York.
Tudor:
Henry VIII was the 2nd son of Henry VII (his elder brother died as a teenager).
Elizabeth I was the 2nd adult daughter of Henry VIII.
Stuart:
Charles I was the 2nd adult son of James VI & I.
James II & VII was the 2nd adult son of Charles I.
Anne was the 2nd adult daughter of James II & VII.
UK:
Hanover:
William IV was the 3rd adult son of George III and 2nd surving son at time of accession.
Saxe Coburg & Gotha:
George V was the 2nd adult son of Edward VII.
Windsor:
George VI was the 2nd adult son of George V.
Message Thread | This response ↓
« Back to index