The Present King of England, Scotland and Ireland

Franz Bonaventura Adalbert Maria Herzog von Bayern, King of Bavaria, England, Scotland, and Ireland

About these ads
Published in: on May 10, 2010 at 3:31 pm  Comments (25)  

The URI to TrackBack this entry is: http://haquelebac.wordpress.com/2010/05/10/the-present-king-of-scotland-and-ireland/trackback/

RSS feed for comments on this post.

25 CommentsLeave a comment

  1. and Ireland

    Presumably only Ulster?

  2. Nope, the whole goddamn thing. But he’s Catholic, so the Irish will be happy.

  3. Behead him now and get it over with.

  4. No! No! No! Properly speaking he is King of Bavaria, if you take the claim seriously. Although Herzog von Bayern does mean Duke of Bavaria, it’s nevertheless only his name not a title.

  5. On the advice of Tiny Hermaphrodite, I have corrected the caption. A lot rides on this, the British Crown for example, so they better be right.

  6. Is Bavaria a kingdom or a Duchy?

  7. I’m not going to argue with Tiny. Bavaria is a kingdom.

    Per Wiki, it became a Kingdom when the Holy Roman Empire was dissolved by Napoleon and remained so until 1918 when it it became a Free State of Germany, which it remains.

  8. Bavaria is not a kingdom. The elevation of Bavaria to a kingdom was simply a matter of Napoleon’s will. And Napoleon had no right to make kingdoms, except that he had militarily conquered the other major powers of the time. The Wittelsbachs have an excellent claim to be Dukes of Bavaria as their ancient and hereditary title if we follow the principle that “the oldest is the best”. If we follow the principle that “might makes right (i.e., Napoleon’s army makes it right)”, then there’s really no such thing as a hereditary monarchy anyway. You can’t simultaneously claim to be a hereditary ruler (i.e. I should rule Bavaria because my family has ruled Bavaria for a long time) and use a title given to you by a military dictator (Napoleon).

  9. I’m willing to let Burritoboy and Tiny fight it out. What Bavaria is now is a Free State, as I understand. It seems to have remained a Kingdom after the defeat of Napoleon and after Bavaria joined the North German Union until the end of WWI. In 1918 Ludwig III abdicated, but there seems to be uncertainty as to whether this was a personal abdication or the dissolution of the monarchy itself. The Wittelsbachs apparently don’t assert their claim but haven’t renounced it either.

    As far as the theoretical question of whether a monarchy can be founded by a military dictator, the fact seems to be that it can be, given that the Bavarian Kingdom survived for a century. Might makes right seems to be the main method of founding hereditary monarchies, though Napoleon’s delegation of monarchy seems a bit odd.

  10. “As far as the theoretical question of whether a monarchy can be founded by a military dictator, the fact seems to be that it can be, given that the Bavarian Kingdom survived for a century.”

    All that sentence asserts is: “whatever is, is legal”.
    That’s not a plausible argument for a hereditary ruler, because that would mean that any usurper (literally anybody) could take over the throne and the rightful heir would not have a claim.

  11. Well, in actual fact legitimate claims not backed by force and diplomatic support are null. The Wittelsbachs themselves do not claim either the Bavarian or the British crown any more. Even a hereditary ruler who holds the throne only holds it as long as he can defend it. A weak ruler is a non-ruler. Various philosophers (Lao Tzu and Heraclitus for example) have pointed out that legitimacy is grounded on usurpation. Founders can’t be legitimate or they wouldn’t be founders. And it would nice to put a seal on the process and prohibit future foundings, in fact all founders do that, but these seals need to be defended too.

  12. “Founders can’t be legitimate or they wouldn’t be founders. And it would nice to put a seal on the process and prohibit future foundings, in fact all founders do that, but these seals need to be defended too.”

    You do realize this position is close to that of Carl Schmitt’s politics of the exception?

  13. yeah, but Schmitt seems to have had a lot more enthusiasm for exceptions than I do. In fact, he seemed to believe in a permanent exception.

    Historically, it now seems to me that Strauss in America was the entering wedge of Schmitt. Bush had someone whispering in his ear, perhaps young Kristol.

  14. As for the legitimacy of the kingship of the Wittelsbachs, well it seems to me that the surrounding nations and especially the four great powers (Austria, England, Prussia, Russia) did recognize the claim for kingship and didn’t try to undo it when they had the chance at the Congress of Vienna.

  15. I tend toward nominalism and relativism anyway, and the legitimacy of dynasties is one of the things about which I am most relativistic. “Legitimacy” strikes me as a useful fiction or default assumption which can get you over the small bumps but which shouldn’t be expected to do heavy work. It didn’t prevent the Civil War, and I don’t think that it should have been expected to because there was too much at stake.

    Constitutionalism is much the same.

  16. 8-)

  17. Is he King Franz? I’m assuming he’s descended from the Stuart sister of Charles I, as are the Hanover lot. But why no Wales? Did he pursue Wales, like a latter day Captain Ahab, or did he trade it for somewhere else?

    One day Britain will be ruled by goats. It was foreseen in the Bible*.

    *(I think)

  18. Franz is the Jacobite claimant, the King Over the Water. He’s not separately King of Wales for the same reason that the Welsh flag isn’t in the Union Flag and the Welsh coat of arms isn’t in the British coat of arms: the Principality of Wales is embraced within the Kingdom of England and is represented as such.

  19. Okay, if you’re so smart, perhaps you can tell me why he has no upper lip. And I really doubt he’s the number one Jacobite. He’s more likely A Jacobite claimant.

  20. It’s normal for royalty to be deformed because of the inbreeding. The Jacobites are much luckier than the Habsburgs.

  21. Franz’s chin is quite long. Though not yet absurdly so, I’m still not sure I’d use him to breed from. Besides, I just can’t see him moving to Whales.

    If you look at Otto von Hapsburg, you can see they’ve finally got their chins under control now it’s too late. He’s 98! His full name is Franz Joseph Otto Robert Maria Anton Karl Max Heinrich Sixtus Xavier Felix Renatus Ludwig Gaetan Pius Ignatius von H. Notice the “Karl Max” in the middle? It’s pretty clearly no coincidence.

  22. It doesn’t appear that there are any Jacobite splinter groups supporting a rival claimant. The Jacobite claimants were still regarded as royalty in Catholic Europe and their lineage (at least the legitimate portion) is quite well documented.

    Two further questions:

    1) Did the Jacobites ever renounce the English claim to the French crown?

    2) What do you call the kind of jacket he’s wearing? I’ve never seen one that looks like that before.

  23. Obviously these questions will be answered in blood and iron. Except for the one about the jacket, I mean.

  24. God save Queen Elizabeth II, for the United Kingdom! and God save King Franz… only for Bavaria!

  25. I dont know why you are talking about him as is was homeless and he should had never become the king. i hate the royals and i will be happy the day we stop talking about them What do they really do for us.


Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s

Follow

Get every new post delivered to your Inbox.

Join 105 other followers

%d bloggers like this: