QUALITY EDUCATION / After Taullau's invitation, Merkel takes the first bus to visit Kazma's school!

 Kliko këtu për të tjera
Voxpress:

The second child is an ancient problem of monarchies

2023-01-17 17:36:07Histori SHKRUAR NGA REDAKSIA VOX
Princes Harry and William

Especially in seventeenth-century France, but even earlier, being the youngest son was never easy

The internal divisions of the British royal family, exposed in rich and detailed detail in Prince Harry's latest book, have origins far back in time and linked to many factors. Of course the publication of the book has caused some turmoil within the royal family, even if there has been no official reaction, and in some ways Prince Harry, who is the youngest son of King Charles III, can be considered a problematic member of the family, who is attacking both his father and above all his brother, the direct heir to the British throne, William.

Harry isn't the only second-born royal to cause headaches for his family. In history, younger children have often played an important role in the monarchy, sometimes because they rebelled and contested power with the eldest son, others for reasons similar to Harry's, namely personal disagreements between brothers.

As Jonathan Spangler, professor of history at Manchester Metropolitan University, points out, the tradition that the succession of a royal family goes to the eldest son dates back to the 12th century: previously, children were simply invited to fight for it, in a process almost natural selection. The strongest would win and because of his ability he would also be the ideal candidate to manage the inheritance.

In the following centuries, even if the throne rightfully fell to the eldest son, the younger sons had to prove their worth. First of all because in the Middle Ages, but also later, the first-born did not always survive and others often had the opportunity to take their place. And then because in many cases they were invited to explore new territories and conquer them, also to show that all members of the family were capable of governing. This lasted until the 16th century, when sending children across Europe began to be perceived as an avoidable risk.

However, with the younger boys around, getting to the throne and staying on it became a problem for the older boys. But the role of the second son was not easy either, who had to maintain a princely demeanor by not being too brave, overshadowing the direct heir.

Two particularly significant examples of "rebellious" second-borns can be found in France four centuries ago, at the time of the transition between the Valois and Bourbon dynasties. The first was Francis, Duke of Anjou, in the late sixteenth century. When his eldest brother became king as Henry III, he was given the title 'Monsieur', meaning second son. It was a prestigious honorary title, but in practice it had no real power. This was very disappointing for Francis, who would have liked more space to take a role in politics and the military.

According to a recent article by Spangler in 'History Today', “if he acted too well, he was seen as a threat; if he made a mistake, he was criticized for his weakness or laziness. It's a problem even the youngest children of today's kings have: if they're active, they're thought to be crossing the line; if they do nothing, they are criticized for being useless."

Around 1570, Francis formed a group of dissidents within the court, called the Malcontents. With them he attempted to plot against his brother, failing, after which, in September 1575, they left Paris and settled in the possessions of Francis, who made a formal declaration against King Henry III.

At the time, religious wars were raging between Catholics and Protestants, and Henry III feared that his brother might side with the Protestants, as he was less loyal to the Pope than he was. However, Francis was unable to muster sufficient resources to start a real rebellion against his brother, and the situation returned to November.

The 'Monsieur' of the next generation, Gaston d'Orléans, was much more problematic than Francis, who had tried anyway. Gaston was the younger brother of Louis XIII, against whom he openly rebelled several times, but never achieved anything. His allies were imprisoned or sentenced to death, while he, as the heir to the throne, could not be expelled from court or imprisoned.

The second child is an ancient problem of monarchies
Portrait of Gaston, Duke of Orleans

Perhaps the reason for Gaston's disappointment was that for many years he had been the heir to the throne himself. Louis XIII and his wife, Anne of Austria, were unable to have children, so upon the death of his brother Gaston he would have been crowned. However, eventually, when Louis XIII was almost 37 years old, his son was born, who would later become Louis XIV, the Sun King.

Meanwhile, Gaston tried to overthrow his brother more than once. The first rebellion was in 1626 with the so-called Plot of Chalais. On that occasion, a favorite of Gaston's, Marshal of France Jean-Baptiste d'Ornano, was imprisoned, while Gaston became the Duke of Orleans. Spangler writes: "A pattern emerged: after a rebellion, the prince's advisers and friends are punished, while he reconciles with the king with a significant gift." The reason was that in any case the king had to try to keep his younger brother calm, however intemperate.

The pattern was repeated at least twice more, until the Conspiracy of Amiens in 1636, when he was cleared of his many debts and given more money to keep quiet and look after the Château de Blois in the Loire Valley. Then there was one last plot in which Gaston took part, in 1642: The Plot of the Marquis Cinq-Mars, which also ended badly. Gaston was sent back to his castle.

Louis XIII reconciled with Gaston only on his deathbed, in 1643. But, knowing his brother's character, he did not entrust him with the regency of the kingdom, preferring his wife Anne of Austria, who held it until Little Louis XIV was able to rule alone. / Il Post/


Në përputhje me standarded JTI

Video

SHIKO KANALIN NE YOUTUBE
×