Misplaced Pages

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by 82.54.225.151 (talk) at 14:56, 28 September 2006 (Reverted edits by 195.93.21.7 (talk) to last version by Mike Rosoft (Talk | contribs)). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

Template:Order of Succession (Pretender) A Pretender is a claimant to an abolished or already occupied throne. Deposed monarchs are not seen as pretenders, as the term only applies to those who have never occupied the throne. The papal equivalent is the antipope.

Modern pretenders

Pretenders in the Roman Empire

Ancient Rome knew many pretenders to the office of Roman Emperor, especially during the crisis of the Third Century, the number of pretenders and/or usurpers ran exceptionally thick.

These are customarily referred to as the Thirty Tyrants, which was an allusion to the Thirty Tyrants at Athens some five hundred years earlier; although the number is questionable, and the Romans were separate aspirants, not (as the Athenians were) a Committee of Public Safety. The Loeb translation of the appropriate chapter of the Augustan History therefore represents the Latin triginta tyranni by "Thirty Pretenders" to avoid this artificial and confusing parallel. Not all of them were afterwards considered pretenders; several were actually successful in becoming Emperor (at least in part of the Empire), although most of those were slain after holding the office for a brief period.

The Byzantine Empire

Disputed successions to the Empire continued at Constantinople. Most seriously, after the fall of Constantinople to the Fourth Crusade in 1204, and its eventual recovery by Michael VIII Palaeologus, there came to be three Bysantine successor states, each of which claimed to be the Roman Empire, and several Latin claimants (including the Republic of Venice and the houses of Montferrat and Courtenay) to the Latin Empire the Crusaders had set up in its place. There were sometimes multiple claimants to some of the inheritances, as well.

Cypriot pretenders

Following the defeat and death of King Jacques III of Cyprus in 1474, his younger and illegitimate brother, Eugene Matteo de Armenia (c1485-1523) had moved to Sicily, then Malta. He was acknowledged as Heir to Cyprus, Armenia, Jerusalem and Antioch, though never took it seriously. From a genealogical point, Eugene Matteo (de Lusignan) de Armenia was created a Sicilian title and worked as a Jurat in Malta and in Sicily.

French pretenders

Following the death of the childless legitimist pretender "Henry V", Comte de Chambord, grandson of King Charles X of France in the 1880s, the majority of French monarchists accepted the Comte's selection as heir, his distant relative, the Orleanist pretender, the Comte de Paris, grandson of King Louis-Philippe (who descends from King Louis XIII) as the pretender to the French throne. A small minority refused to accept this designation, and chose instead a descendant of Louis XIV and the Spanish line.

The arguments are, on one side, that Philip V of Spain renounced any future claim to the French throne when he became King of Spain, and that the Dukes of Orleans were therefore recognized as the next heirs before the French Revolution. On the other side, that this renunciation was invalid and impossible, and (in some cases) that Philippe Égalité and Louis-Philippe forfeited any remaining right to the crown for disloyalty. Hence there are two pretenders to the French throne; though the Orleanist pretender, the present Comte de Paris, is accepted by most French monarchists as the pretender, as the list above shows.

There is also a pretender to the imperial throne of France, in the person of Charles Bonaparte, descendant of the Prince Napoléon.

Russian Pretenders

There is much debate over who is the legitimate heir to the Russian throne. George of Russia, son of Maria Vladimirovna of Russia, is considered by some to be the legitimate heir, being the grandson of a cousin of Czar Nicholas II of Russia. Unequal marriages have made tracking a legitimate heir to the Russian throne very difficult, and some believe there is no legitimate heir at all. Nicholas Romanov, the president of Romanov Family Association, a junior male descendant of the imperial family, is regarded by some as the head of the family, but he is born of a morganatic marriage and therefore not entitled to inherit the throne under strict Russian succession law. Those who impersonated the murdered daughters of Nicholas II were not pretenders to the throne, as women could not succeed to the Russian throne while a male dynast was alive. The last male dynast, Grand Duke Vladimir, did not die until 1992. There was also a woman named Anna Anderson who attempted to prove she was the lost daughter of Nicholas II, Anastasia, but DNA testing on her alleged remains seemed to prove her claim false.

English, Irish, Scottish, Welsh and British pretenders

Pretenders to the thrones of the United Kingdom and its predecessor realms, as well as the other historical jurisdictions that are modernly England, Ireland, Scotland, and Wales, were essentially taken care of by making the Irish and English (and subsequently, British) monarchies purely statutory institutions. Ireland further precluded any and all possible pretenders by declaring itself a republic in 1949.

Prior to the Norman Conquest of 1066, Anglo-Saxon England used a system of elective kingship. England originated, in fact, about the year 802, as an amalgam of several kingdoms (Wessex, Sussex, Kent, Mercia, East Anglia, etc.) under the transnational leadership of Egbert of Wessex. The Witenagemot (pronounced "WEE-tun-aye-yuh-mut" in Old English), had the final say in who would or would not be "King of all Engla Land." The Norman Conquest eliminated elective kingship in England - for a few centuries - by replacing the Witegenot with the Norman institution known as the King's Council, while The Thing simply disappeared. Gradually, however, the Normans became English; and modern forms of the old Anglo-Saxon institutions began to re-emerge. To this day, the form of Coronation contains vestigial elements of the consent of the people. In time, the new "Parlement" began to re-assert its ancient predecessor's right to choose the king, culminating in an Act of 1649, without the Royal Assent of Charles I, on the morning of his execution. However, the power is now held to be vested in the Crown in Parliament, so that an Act was necessary to effect the abdication of King Edward VIII in 1936. It is arguable whether or not the Sovereign has the right to withhold either the Sovereign's Consent to consider such a Bill, or the Royal Assent to such an Act)

The change was first noticeable in England following the accession of Henry VIII, after a long period of strife and civil wars that began when Henry IV deposed Richard II. When Henry drafted his deed of succession - naming, first, his son, Edward, to succeed him; then, his two daughters, Mary and Elizabeth, in birth order - he submitted the document to Parliament for approval. When the regents for Edward then tried to change the succession to skip the teenage king's sisters, in favour of his cousin Lady Jane Grey - (in fact, Edward's cousin Mary Stewart/Stuart, the girl Queen of Scots was the next heir after Elizbeth and before Jane) - Edward signed the document but it did not have the approval of Parliament. Jane is still counted England's first queen regnant, but she only reigned nine days before Mary Tudor arrived from Lincoln. Mary was instantly recognised as Queen without fuss or question.

Attempts to disrupt the statutory nature of the monarchy in England were made by some of the Stuart monarchs, who had not experienced the English checks on royal power when they ruled in Scotland. The Act of Settlement 1701 took care of that problem, and the Act of Union 1707 essentially extended the Act of Settlement to Scotland. The Act of Union 1800 subsequently extended the Act of Settlement to Ireland, but the Irish monarchy had already been made a statutory institution when Henry VIII of England was named King of Ireland by the Irish Parliament in 1542. Previously, the English kings had been styled Lord of Ireland.

Nevertheless, there have been some great pretenders over the centuries. A few famous ones are noted here, and a few passive claims are still made.

James Francis Edward Stuart was the Roman Catholic son of the deposed King James VII and II, forever eclipsed in the succession to the throne by the Act of Settlement 1701. Notwithstanding the Act of Union 1707, he claimed the separate thrones of Scotland, as James VIII, and of England and Ireland, as James III, until his death in 1766.

James's sons carried on their own claims. Charles Edward Stuart, the would-be Charles III, still famously known as Bonnie Prince Charlie, died in 1788. He is unquestionably the most famous pretender in British history, if not world history. His younger brother, Henry Benedict Stuart, took up the mantle after his death, if only symbolically, as the would-be Henry IX of England. He died in 1807.

James VIII & III was commonly called "the King over the water", because he was resident in France (across the Channel) and is also known as The Old Pretender. (As no Jacobite monarch since has resided in Britain, Jacobites ever since have toasted 'the King/Queen over the water'.) Bonnie Prince Charlie is also called The Young Pretender. See Jacobitism and the related category for more information including the current Jacobite "pretender".

Owain Glyndŵr (1349-1416) is probably the best-known Welsh pretender, though whether he was pretender or Prince of Wales depends upon your source of information. Officially, Llywelyn ap Gruffydd ap Llywelyn, who died in 1282, was the last native and arguably greatest Prince of Wales. Since 1301, the Prince of Wales has been the eldest living son of the King or Queen Regnant of England (subsequently of Great Britain, 1707, and of United Kingdom, 1801). The word "living" is important. Upon the death of Arthur, Prince of Wales, Henry VII invested his second son, the future Henry VIII, with the title. The title is not automatic, however, but merges into the Crown when a prince dies or accedes to the throne, and has to be re-conferred by the sovereign.

Nevertheless, it is Glyndŵr whom many remember as the last native Prince of Wales. He was indeed proclaimed Prince of Wales by his supporters on 16 September 1400, and his revolt in quest of Welsh independence was not quashed by Henry IV until 1409. Later, however, one of Glyndŵr's cousins, Owain Tudor, would marry the widow of Henry V, and their grandson would become Henry VII, from whom the current British monarch is descended (through his daughter Margaret Tudor, who was married off to James IV of Scotland). So, in a way, Glyndŵr might be said to have had the last laugh.

The business of Irish pretenders is rather more complicated because of the nature of kingship in Ireland before the Norman take-over of 1171. In both Ireland and Scotland, succession to kingship was elective, often (if not usually) by contest, according to matrilineal descent. That is, the head of state of any kingdom, sub-kingdom, high kingdom, etc., was always a king, but the king always inherited the crown through his mother, as a ranking princess royal, not through his father. (See, e.g., The Lion in the North: A Personal View of Scotland's History, by John Prebble ISBN 0-14-003652-0 ; among other works.)

Thus, you, as king, would not be succeeded by your own son but would normally be succeeded by your mother's other sons; then by your sisters' sons; then, your maternal aunt's sons; and so on, traveling through the female line of the royal house. This combination of male succession through matrilineal descent produced a cumbersome system under which the throne passed cyclically from brother to brother, then uncle to nephew, and then cousin to cousin, before starting over as brother to brother, uncle to nephew, etc. {See, e.g., The Lion in the North: A Personal View of Scotland's History, by John Prebble; among other works.} In Ireland, however, the high king from the time of Maelsheachlainn I (died 862) exercised a measure of control over the country. He belonged to the Ui Neill dynasty and under the Brehon laws, succession was open to any kinsman up to and including second cousin. His dynasty is today represented by the O'Neill family who would regard their head as the pretender. The O Conor dynasty provided two high kings and the head of the family, the O Conor Don, would also be considered a pretender to the Irish throne. The descendants of Brian Boroimhe are represented by Lord Inchiquin, who is also regarded as a claimant. In addition, pretenders or claimants exist to the localised kingdoms of Breifne, Fermanagh, Tyrconnel and Leinster. The O'Neills would also be regarded as claimants to the throne of Aileach and Lord Inchiquin to the throne of Thomond.

In Scotland, Malcolm II tried to get around this system by killing off all of the heirs between himself and his grandson, Duncan; except for Prince Lulach of Moray, who was just five years old at the time and - more importantly - was successfully rumoured to be half-witted (thus, he survived). Duncan I did become king, but Lulach's step-father, Maelbeth -rendered "Macbeth" in English - successfully claimed the throne in his own right and on Lulach's behalf.

Duncan I's son, Malcolm III 'Canmore', ultimately returned from exile in England and took the throne from Maelbeth and Lulach (the latter reigning 1057-1058, after the death of Maelbeth in battle against Malcolm). Malcolm was succeeded by his brother, as Duncan II, but then by four of his own sons - one of whom, Edgar (1097-1107), changed the official language of Scotland from Gàidhlig (then, still a Scottish dialect of Old Irish) to Scots (then, a language similar to English but missing the Saxon element that has always been part of standard English). Gaelic dominance of Scotland ended during the reign of Alexander I (1107-1124), and the old Celtic system of matrilineal kingship finally ended and was replaced by a system of primogeniture.

Such a transition never happened in Ireland, but civil war and the imposition of Anglo-Norman rule intervened. Although Ireland had been culturally unified for centuries, it was not politically unified, even as a tribal nation. The Romans having ignored the big green island west of Britain, the Gaels themselves were the last people to successfully invade Ireland and, notwithstanding 750 years of English rule, it is very arguable whether the Norman English ever truly conquered Ireland. (They controlled Ireland, certainly, but that is not all there is to conquest.) So, even serious coastal encroachments by the Vikings a millennium after their arrival did not prompt the Gaels of Ireland to see a need for political unity even to build a concerted national defence. When a people believe they and their country are immune from invasion, it takes a while for them to realise how vulnerable they actually are.

The High King of Ireland was essentially a ceremonial, pseudo-federal overlord (where his over-lordship was even recognised), who exercised actual power only within the realm of which he was actually king. In the case of the southern branch of the Uí Niall, this would have been the Kingdom of Meath (modernly the counties of Meath, West Meath and part of County Dublin). High Kings from the northern branch of the family ruled various kingdoms in what eventually became the province of Ulster.

Nevertheless, the Uí Niall were apparently powerful in ceremony if not in politic, so that political unification of Ireland was not aided by the usurpation of the high kingship from Mael Sechnaill II and the southern Uí Niall in 1002 by Briain ‘Boruma’ mac Cennédig, of the Kingdom of Munster. This was the third of the so-called "Three Usurpations of Brian Boru."

Brian Boru was a strong king who could have unified Ireland politically, and there is some suggestion he intended to make himself High King of Scotland as well. But he was killed in the Battle of Contarf in 1014, and twelve years as High King was not long enough to unify the island politically. Mael Sechnaill II was restored to the High Kingship but he died in 1022, too soon to undo the damage done by Brian's "coup." From 1022 through the Norman take-over of 1171, the High Kingship was held by "Kings with Opposition" - that is, whoever was strong enough to overthrow the High King of the day and take the Hill of Tara simply did so. This 150-year period of regnal unrest between families now called O'Brian, O'Conner, McLoughlin/O'Melaghlin, and others, was eventually immortalised in the children's game called "King of the Hill." The game is still popular among American children, who take turns trying to push each other off a low stool, chair, or other make-shift hill while arguing, "I'm king of the hill!" "No! I'm king!"

Because the native Irish high kingship never transitioned to a system of nation-state kingship primogeniture but simply faded into an oblivion of civil war between competing Irish royal families, there are literally as many as a million or more people who can make a claim to the ancient high kingship of Tara that is as equally valid as anybody else's under the old system disrupted by what may be called Brian Boru's "coup de tribe." Indeed, as a reputed descendant of Brian Boru and of the Uí Niall Dynasty both through his late grandmother, the current heir to the statutory throne that includes Northern Ireland, Prince Charles, could be considered a viable pretender to the high kingship of Ireland, especially as he would be making the claim through the female line of his ancestry. {The British Royal Family has publicly claimed descent from Brian Boru through the late Queen Elizabeth, the Queen Mother, and from other ancestors associated with the Ui Niall Dynasty - usually via marriage through the Royal Family's Scottish ancestry; see the history section of the Royal Family's website for bloodlines and timelines.) But see the remarks above regarding existing native dynasties, whose claims are more valid than those of the current British royal family.

Interestingly, there was some talk right after the 1916 Easter Rising in Ireland about inviting the Kaiser's son, Prince Joachim of Prussia, to be King of Ireland. This was obviously anti-English sentiment following the execution of the leaders of the rebellion (except for Eamonn De Valera, who was an American citizen - born in New York City). Paradoxically, Irish public opinion was against the Easter Rising and the leaders were spat upon when they surrendered - but when the government executed them instead of just sending them to prison, public opinion swung completely the other way, against Britain and for independence - except in the northeast, where the majority of people were (still are) an ethnic mix of Scots-Irish, Anglo-Irish, Norse-Irish, and native Irish minorities.

Insomuch as the whole of Ireland was a province of United Kingdom in 1916, Prince Joachim would never have become King of Ireland even if he had wanted the job. But if he had become king, and Ireland still had subsequently become a republic, Joachim's grandson, Franz, would be an Irish pretender; and, afterward, his son, George of Russia, would be an Irish as well as a Russian pretender. But if the Irish could not put up with the constitutional monarchs of Britain, it's highly unlikely they would ever have put up with the absolute monarchs of Germany and Russia.

Some sources suggest that Alice, Duchess of Calabria, is a pretender to the throne of England. This is because she is the senior descendant of King Edward the Confessor.(See, ). However, this is debateable - firstly, because the kingship of England in the Anglo-Saxon period was elective; secondly, because Edward had no children and, thus, cannot possibly have any living descendants; and, thirdly, senior descandant means she is the eldest living representatives of Edward the Confessor, rather than the closest living relation.

On the first point, when Edward the Confessor died, the Witenagemot convened the next day and selected Harold Godwinson to succeed him as king. Except by election by the Witenagemot, no person could be pretender to the throne of England who was not at least somehow related to Harold II Godwinson.

On the second point, Edward the Confessor had no children. His nearest blood relatives were William II of Normandy (later William I "The Conqueror" of England), and the rest of the Norman royal family. Edward - through his mother, Emma - was a grandson of Richard I of Normandy, while William was a great-grandson of Richard I. Edward and William's father were thus first cousins, making Edward and William first cousins once removed. Edgar Atheling, however, as the son of Edward the Exile, who was the son of Edmund Ironside - elder half-brother of Edward the Confessor - would have been a nearer relative than William II of Normandy. But this becomes a moot point, since Edgar's sister, Margaret, married Malcolm III of Scotland, and their descendants include the current monarch, Queen Elizabeth II.

The third point requires no real elaboration. The dowager Duchess of Calabria is the "senior representative" of living relatives of Edward the Confessor because she was born in 1917, very likely making her the eldest of the living relatives of Edward the Confessor.

Ottoman pretenders

Eldest son during the reign of his father, Mehmet the Conqueror claimed the Sultanate although he was defeated in battle months later by his eldest brother (by birth) Bayezid II. He fled to Rhodes Island then eventually to the Papal Territories. His descendants claimed Cem rights until Malta defeated the Ottomans in the 16th century.

Iraqi pretenders

There are two claimants to the throne of Iraq:

• Prince Ra'ad, Head of the Royal House of Iraq
• Sharif Ali bin al-Hussein, leader of the Iraqi Constitutional Monarchy party

False pretenders

Some well-known impostors who claimed to be genuine pretenders include:

• Various impersonators of Grand Duchess Anastasia of Russia, notably Anna Anderson, who some still believe was authentic.
• The fake Baldwin I of Constantinople, whose real name probably was Bertrand of Rais
• Lambert Simnel, who claimed to be Edward, Earl of Warwick
• Perkin Warbeck, who claimed to be Richard, Duke of York
• Yemelyan Pugachev, who claimed to be Peter III of Russia
• The three false Dimitris of Russia
• Eugenio Lascorz who claimed connection to the Byzantium
• Karl Wilhelm Naundorff, one of over 30 pretenders who claimed to be Louis XVII of France
• Alexis Brimeyer who claimed connections to various European royal houses
• Pierre Plantard who claimed descent from Merovingian King Dagobert_II
• Michel Lafosse, who claims to be the Jacobite heir to the Scottish throne.

Notes

1. Note that the French word prétend, a source of the English word "pretend", simply means "claim", with no implication of falsity, and that for the present purpose the English word retains the sense of the French word and not the modern English definition. In the context of the modern languages, they are, therefore, false friends, because the two words have noticeably different meanings in the two languages despite being almost identical (except for the acute accent in the former, bearing in mind that French has adopted the use of diacritical marks only since the French Revolution). Therefore a pretender, whether to a throne or anything, as the phrase meant in the past, is simply a claimant. Indeed in the cases of pretenders to a throne, they would not be a serious problem if there were no hint of validity to the claim. Contrariwise, persons with a potential claim to a throne automatically become pretenders, whether they press their claim or not, and this has led such persons to take extraordinary measures, such as emigrating to a foreign country under an assumed name, to preserve their safety against threats from other claimants or their allies.

• Pretenders