Previous Message

Interesting: never even heard of him; but then, your account explains why. One generally hears only of the success stories. Success, in turn, depends on multiple factors (e.g. chance, circumstance, politics, etc).

If it came to that, almost all dynasties are of dubious origins -- e.g. conquest, usurpation, installation by others (as their puppets), etc. And I'm not sure if wars, treaties, dowries or inheritance necessarily made any dynasty more "legitimate" in origin.

Also, most monarchies (at least in the distant past) started off elective: they turned hereditary largely by default and circumstance. So unsurprisingly, many first sovereigns of dynasties were commoners in origin. And many royals in the past had questionable ancestries (e.g. the famous Catholic monarchs of Spain, Ferdinand and Isabella). But times were different back then ... The evolution of the principle of *equal marriages*, as has been explained, was a gradual and relatively late development in European royal history.

As has been explained: at the moment, one may (legally) be a commoner. But once enthroned, one is 100% royal. Was this not the case with the first Bernadotte King (Carl XIV Johan) and Queen (Desideria) of Sweden? Of course, one can easily say this with the benefit of 20-20 hindsight: had not the house of Bernadotte survived, they would have been only a footnote in history, and nobody would really think of them as being *royal*.

As it happened with Murat, despite having reigned for c. 7 years in Naples.