The Kings Of The Hellenes

[Fireweaver]

Pictures aren't necessarily good sources. Changing a name doesn't necessarily mean anything. King Olav of Norway's birth name wasn't Olav.

 

[Sean.~]

He never converted, Moody. I've studied royal geneology for years. You can also ask published scholars such as Marelene Koenig, Guy Stair Sainty, William Adams Reitweisner, or any biographer on the Greek RF. The children were all raised Orthodox as their mother was Orthodox. You can see the Danish Encyclopedia (Salmonsens Konversationsleksikon, 1920), which is one of many sources which states King George remained Lutheran all his life. I can provide others. He, unlike Otto of Bavaria, did however learn the rites and practices of the Orthodox church. If he did convert, there would be a record. There isn't one.


And it isn't sufficient to always blame the politicians. You said that he solved Greece's problems. He didn't solve them all, obviously.

With repsect to Tatoi, all of the sources that I've come across over the yeas state that the estate was paid for by Queen Olga's ( substantial) dowry). Can you provide a source stating otherwise? I'm curious now.

Thanks,

Sean

 

[laskaris]

I think the word 'converted'is wrong!Someone is converted to Inddooism to Islam,but He is not 'converted" from Christian to Christian as Loutherans and Orthodox!!He simply "JOINED" the Orthodoxs after the Archbishop and the Patriarch gaved Him a Bless!But all these are of no significance nowadays!The Man was Borned to reign in Justice,and to serve The Good !!!Any religion would like to have Him as a Member!!!!!!

As far as I know,he bought Tatoi on His personal fund,with money that he brought from Denmark,as for Queen's Olga dowery I don't think that it was envolved in that!!!!!!

 

[Fireweaver]

No, if you go from one Christian denomination to another, you convert.
Then you "join" the congregation of the new church. But there is a convertion.

 

[Sean.~]

Originally posted by laskaris
I think the word 'converted' is wrong

There is a conversion involved. As I've said before he did not convert and he remained a life long member of the Lutheran church. This was okay by the Greeks, providing that his progeny were Orthodox. This is why he married an Orthodox Grand Duchess. Moreover, one can respect the tenets of another denomination/faith without actually converting. This was the case with William/Georg I.

A similar comparison can be made with Ferdinand of Bulgaria. Although he remained a Catholic he respected the Orthodox traditions of his subjects. Moreover, his son, Boris, was raised as an Orthodox. This was a huge deal at the time because his wife (Maria Luisa) was a Catholic and, at the time of marriage, he had promised her father Roberto, Duke of Parma, that all children would be raised in the Catholic faith. Thw pope even got involved (IIRC, Ferdinand was ex-communicated) and Maria Louisa ended up leaving for a while. Although Ferdinand's daughters were were raised as Catholics, this was because their mother was one. Conversely, Olga Constantinova of Greece was an Orthodox. Thus so were her children.
(In case anyone is wondering, today Simeon of Bulgaria and his two eldest sons are Orthodox. The rest of the family are Catholics.)

With respect to Tatoi, AFAIK, it was purchased with funds from Olga Constantinova's dowary. The Russian Imperial family (particularly the Constantinovichi branch) were very wealthy and Grand Duchesses were given a lump sum at the time of marriage. Just look at some of the jewels they took with them -- the emerald tiara (Greece), the ruby parure (Greece), Elisabeth Mihalovna's Tiara (Luxembourg), Anna Pavlovna's contributions to the Dutch collection, Anastasia Mihailovna's contributions to the Dansih royal jewels (via her daughter Alexandrine of Mecklenburg), etc.

Conversely, William/Georg I's family was not wealthy at all. His sisters used to sew their own clothes, and his his father did not even attend his own daughter's wedding to Alexander Alexandrovich because he was afraid he would have been expected to give to the largesse.

Sean. ~

 

[moody]

:woot: Maybe the father of Georgios A!wasn't wealthy,His son brought to Grece the land and the sea of the seven Islands so when Greece said WELCOME to her new king she automatically grew one more time!The money for TATOI were personal funds of GEORGIOS A' {not GeorgeTHAT IS FINAL!!!}Jewlery is not dowry is personal belongings!!!The real dowery of queen Olga,is that she gave to her ancestors a line of succesion on the Russian throne!!!That is all!!!!!!

 

[Sean.~]

Um, actually, jewelry can be (and has been throughout history) a part of dowaries. And William/George/Georgios didn't have substantial personal funds. His immediate family was poor by royal standards. This is a known fact. This isn't to say he didn't bring any money with him, but that it was most likely not a substantial amount. Conversely, Queen Olga's father was known to be very wealthy and all Russian Grand Duchesses received substantial settlements at the time of marriage. So I don't think we can rule out that Tatoi was, at least in part, purchased with some of these funds. Moreover, IIRC, when the former King Constantine (or Constantinos or whatever you want to call him) launched his lawsuit against the Greek government it came out that Tatoi was,at least in part, purchased by with funds brought to Greece by Olga Constantinova (and yes, I know Constantine's website says that the the funds came from Denmark).

And I don't understand the rest of your post.

 

[laskaris]

Jewelery,is something personal that passes from mother to daughter....I dont know who is wilhem/George....I only know King Georgios A' maybe he was' poor 'from a' poor 'family but rich enough to buy 10 Tatoi Estates of that era!!So the dowery was not invested on that!!

As for things you dont want to understand let me be clear and loud!!!Queen's Olgas Grand Children and Grand Grand Children {thus succetion line} AL have rights on the Russian Throne!!!

 

[Fireweaver]

no, actually, they don't. House rules make that clear.

 

[Prince de Montalban]

Prince William chose the name George/Giorgos I, because "Giorgos" was more a Greek name then "William".

He also chose this name because he want to honour the British, who made it possible that William was elected king in 1863. So he choose the very British name George, that also was a good name for a GREEK king.

 

[Sean.~]

Has anyone else read "No Ordinary Crown", the biography of Paul I. Or what about "The Royal House of Greece" (lots of pics)?

 

[betina]

Georgios I's Danish name was Vilhelm and not William.

 

[ChevalieurduCiel]

Danish or Greek,

I guess He was The Man that any country would choose for a Leader!! One I know that He loved Greece and died for her!May God rest His soul!!

 

[iannis]

A Greek paradox: Heir to his younger brother

I thought that it would be interesting to share this paradox that took place in the Greek royal history and find out whether similar occurences have happened in other European or worldwide royal houses.
I'm referring to the fact that King George II, the first born child of King Constantine XII had to wait and see his younger brother Alexander come to the throne before him. Moreover, after Alexander's death, George saw his father reigning again and he only took the Greek throne after his father's abdication.
That happened due to the dramatic conditions in Greece after the end of WWI and the Asia Minor catastrophe and its consequences but it is still a fact that the first born Prince became a King after his younger brother and his father for the second time.
King George II must have been a man with patience!
Has this or something similar happened in other royal houses?

 

[Stefanie]

Well, my example is not the same but in Russia Czar Nicolas II only became Czar because his elder brother died. And we all know how this all ended.....
And in Great Britain the Queen mother never excused her brother-in-laws´ behaviour of marrying Wallis Simpson because therefore her husband had to become king and wasn´t prepared at all. Obviously one reason why he got sick with cancer and died quite early. So Elizabeth didn´t have enough time for her children and this is one reason why Charles is the man he is and he had an affair with Camilla and married Diana and both became unhappy a.s.o......

 

[COUNTESS]

Nicholas II was the eldest child of Alexander III. It was Alexander III, whose older brother died, his name was Nicholas, too. They were the sons of Alexander II.
King George got cancer, because he smoked heavily and directly caused his own problems. Whether Queen Elizabeth the Queen Mother blamed him or not. The rest is silly.

 

[sinulord]

Jewelery,is something personal that passes from mother to daughter....I dont know who is wilhem/George....I only know King Georgios A' maybe he was' poor 'from a' poor 'family but rich enough to buy 10 Tatoi Estates of that era!!So the dowery was not invested on that!!

As for things you dont want to understand let me be clear and loud!!!Queen's Olgas Grand Children and Grand Grand Children {thus succetion line} AL have rights on the Russian Throne!!!

Jewelry is also passed down from mother to sons (especially eldest son) in royal and noble families for their consorts. It this way, it's assured that the jewels, a valuable family asset, stays within the family.

And Queen Olga's descendants are certainly not in the line of succession to the Russian throne.

 

[loveyoupavlos]

Someone should mention that before George I there was Otto,husband of Queen Amalia of Oldenburg. Unfortunately they did not have children (Amalia suffered the Mayer-Rokitansky Syndrome) so George became king after him..
He was the king that mostly loved Greece.

(by Wikipedia:
Otto, King of Greece (Greek: Όθων, Βασιλεύς της Ελλάδος, Othon, Vasilefs tis Ellados) (1 June 1815–26 July 1867) was made the first modern king of Greece in 1832 under the Convention of London, whereby Greece became a new independent kingdom under the protection of the Great Powers (the United Kingdom, France and the Russian Empire).
The second son of the philhellene King Ludwig I of Bavaria, Otto ascended the newly-created throne of Greece while still a minor. In 1837, Otto visited Germany and married the beautiful and talented 17 year old, Duchess Amelie of Oldenburg (21 December 1818–20 May 1875).)

 

[claypoint2]

How very sad. I didn't realize that Queen Amalia suffered from Mayer-Rokitansky-Kuster-Hauser syndrome, which -- in addition to the dynastic implications -- can be so psychologically devastating for a woman.

My impression is that the memory of King Othon and Queen Amalia is still beloved in Greece.... I once worked with a Greek young man whose parents named him Othon, and his only sister was Amalia!

I think the word 'converted'is wrong!Someone is converted to Inddooism to Islam,but He is not 'converted" from Christian to Christian as Loutherans and Orthodox!!He simply "JOINED" the Orthodoxs after the Archbishop and the Patriarch gaved Him a Bless

There is a conversion involved. As I've said before he did not convert and he remained a life long member of the Lutheran church.

You're both right in a sense, and wrong in a sense. The word "conversion" is usually reserved for a change from one religion to another, and not for a change in Christian denominations. In that case, a person would be "received" into the new denomination. However, a "reception" presupposes that the baptism and confirmation in the original denomination (in this case, Lutheran) are recognized as valid by the second denomination (in this case, Orthodox).

For Roman Catholics and the Orthodox (and, to some extent, for Anglicans) the central question is one of Apostolic Succession -- whether a denomination's bishops can trace their consecration back to the 12 apostles in an unbroken line. The concept is very much like a geneaology... a priestly lineage, if you will.

As it turns out, the Orthodox would not have recognized a Lutheran baptism (because most Lutheran ministers do not claim apostolic succession), so the King would have indeed been required to be baptized again according to the Orthodox rite if he were joining that denomination. Although I don't have first-hand knowledge of this case, it's very hard to imagine that a record of this baptism would not have been kept, if it had taken place.

 

[loveyoupavlos]

It's usual for greek people giving their children names of their kings.. For example names such as Olga,Amalia,Othon,Alice,are not greek names but they became common,after the princes and kings with those names..
There are lots of women in Greece named Frederika,which is a very unusual name for greeks,after queen Frederika (pr.Pavlos' grandmother), who built many institutions for orphans of the WWII..

 

[Blog Real]

List of Kings of Greece:
1832–1862 Otto
• 1863–1913 George I
• 1913–1917 and 1920–1922 Constantine I
• 1917–1920 Alexander
• 1947–1964 Paul
• 1964–1973 Constantine II

 

[Mbruno]

How very sad. I didn't realize that Queen Amalia suffered from Mayer-Rokitansky-Kuster-Hauser syndrome, which -- in addition to the dynastic implications -- can be so psychologically devastating for a woman.

My impression is that the memory of King Othon and Queen Amalia is still beloved in Greece.... I once worked with a Greek young man whose parents named him Othon, and his only sister was Amalia!





You're both right in a sense, and wrong in a sense. The word "conversion" is usually reserved for a change from one religion to another, and not for a change in Christian denominations. In that case, a person would be "received" into the new denomination. However, a "reception" presupposes that the baptism and confirmation in the original denomination (in this case, Lutheran) are recognized as valid by the second denomination (in this case, Orthodox).

For Roman Catholics and the Orthodox (and, to some extent, for Anglicans) the central question is one of Apostolic Succession -- whether a denomination's bishops can trace their consecration back to the 12 apostles in an unbroken line. The concept is very much like a geneaology... a priestly lineage, if you will.

As it turns out, the Orthodox would not have recognized a Lutheran baptism (because most Lutheran ministers do not claim apostolic succession), so the King would have indeed been required to be baptized again according to the Orthodox rite if he were joining that denomination. Although I don't have first-hand knowledge of this case, it's very hard to imagine that a record of this baptism would not have been kept, if it had taken place.

I don't know the Orthodox position, but the Roman Catholic church recognizes both Anglican and Lutheran baptisms, i.e. a former Lutheran or Anglican who is received in the Catholic Church doesn't have to (in fact, must not) be baptized again.



The Roman Catholic church, however, does not recognize the validity of ordinations in any other Christian denomination other than the Eastern Orthodox churches. Hence, former Anglican priests who join the Roman Catholic church need to be "re-ordained".