The point in all this is that but for acquiring thrones elsewhere, younger sons in a number of houses might never have become reigning monarchs (e.g. Prince Carl of Denmark, who became King Haakon VII of Norway), as time progressed and medicine improved. Gone were the days when brothers fought succession wars and younger sons usurped thrones (e.g. King John of England).
That being said, not all princes have been all that terribly ambitious: if I understand correctly, the throne of Bulgaria was originally offered to Prince Valdemar of Denmark (youngest son of King Christian IX), who declined.
So his characterization as "the prince who would not be king" needs to be taken with a grain of salt: this obviously was not a case of sour grapes for a prince who had no chance in the world of succeeding to a throne -- that is, his father's throne. If not the king of Denmark, he could have become the sovereign of Bulgaria.
As it was, Prince Alexander of Battenberg reigned briefly but got deposed. The house of Coburg had better luck, but in the end could not prevail.
Message Thread | This response ↓
« Back to index