Historians date the reign of King Charles I's successor from 1660, not 1649 -- despite the fact that the son had clearly obtained his majority by the time of his father's death. As such, "Le roi est mort; vive le roi" clearly did not apply there.
As for France ... the history of the monarchy there is extremely messy, with the country vacillating between abolition and restoration (not unlike Spain since the 19th century). Throw into the mix the Orléans and the Bonapartes, to add to the confusion ... in Spain, the only challenge came from the Carlists, basically a non-entity today.
Which is not to say that the Spanish monarchy is an entirely stable institution: it is teetering on the balance, and I think it safe to say that SHOULD it be abolished, it will NEVER again be restored. 1975, in fact, might be the last restoration in overall history -- and it happened in Spain only through the fiat of Generalissimo Francisco Franco (not through a vote or popular referendum).
I think that Louis XVII was a quite different thing. France was a republic since 1792, so he was never King, neither were Louis XIX. It was because the Bourbons didn't recognize the republic that they used these regnal numbers. But Louis XVIII became King in 1814/15, not in 1795 when "Louis XVII" died.
I think that Edward V of England is more relevant here.
Indeed, he may have been king in NAME only; but he was nevertheless the rightful king after the death (by guillotining) of his father, Louis XVI. Otherwise, why are subsequent kings and pretenders called Louis XVIII, Louis XIX?
I agree with Jane. If a Monarch's reign only counts from the day he reached adulthood, then Edward V was never King of England.
But facts are facts: King Louis XIV of France inherited the throne at the age of four. So he was the rightful sovereign from that age: the said throne did not belong to his mother, anymore than it did to Cardinal Mazarin.
If there were changes to calculating reigns on the basis of time on the throne from majority, it would open up a can of worms. In the first place, there are differences in the age of legal adulthood, from place to place. Secondly, what of persons who were under regency because of mental or physical disability?
Consider King Otto of Bavaria, who was 38 years old when succeeding his older brother, King Ludwig II, on the throne. But he was never allowed to rule: his entire reign was under a regency.
Wilhelmina personally chose to mark her anniversaries on the basis of her legal majority and enthronement: but the fact is that coins and stamps were minted in her image from her accession in 1890. The same was said of Otto from the year 1886.
Well maybe it's about time to change that. I like this Danish version where you count the days one individual acted as head of state.
Minors don't act as head of state they are usually represented by a regent.
the Dutch Queen Wihlemina always counted her reign from 1898 the moment she was invested. Otherwise she would have had her golden jubilee in 1940 instead of 1948 and it would have been in november of 1940 (yes several months into German occupied Netherlands) instead of august/september 1948. Wilhelmina's birthday was august 31st so she turned 18 at august 31st 1898 and was invested on september 6th.
This way of counting would make the actual reign of Louis XIV shorter but he did not really reign for all those years himself. His mother was regent for a certain period and both he and his mother were very much under the control of Cardinal Mazarin during his minority and start of his personal reign.
King Christian IV may have been only a minor; but his reign technically began when he ascended the throne. After all, the reigns of other European monarchs who succeeded as minors are always dated from their accessions -- not their actual enthronements.
So one must be consistent, and calculate his reign as lasting 60 years -- just as the reign of the famous Sun King Louis XIV of France is calculated as 72 years. That of his successor (King Louis XV) is calculated as 59 years; Queen Wilhelmina of the Netherlands reigned for 58 years; Mary, Queen of Scots reigned for (nearly) 45 years, etc.
With 18,811 days on the throne, Queen Margrethe has today become the longest reigning monarch in Danish history. She beats the old record held by Christian IV (1577-1648), counting from the time of his coronation on 29 August 1596. Actually he inherited the throne as a minor already in 1588, but a regency governed the country until he was old enough to take over in 1596. Yesterday, Queen Margrethe celebrated the milestone with a private dinner at Koldinghus Castle, which was partly built by - Christian IV. His portrtait hangs in the banqueting hall, and Queen Margrethe must have been sitting right in front of it.
306
Message Thread
« Back to index