Ish
Moderator Emeritus
- Joined
- Feb 11, 2013
- Messages
- 4,112
- City
- Vancouver
- Country
- Canada
But George I would never have been King either. George I came to the throne through not 1 but 2 females. He got his claim to the British throne by being a great-grandson of James I. But through James' daughter Elizabeth who was the mother of George's mother Sophia. And the Stewarts came to the throne through not 1 but 2 females as well (Mary queen of Scots and her paternal grandmother who was a sister of Henry VIII). After Edward VII died, the throne would never have passed to either sister or his father's sisters and their lines. But then again Henry VII got his claim through his mother, and it was strengthened by his wife's claim.
The question here becomes what was the purpose of the original question? Was it who is the proper heir/monarch under Salic law, or who is the proper head of the current house under Salic law?
Determining the proper monarch under Salic law for Britain and the Netherlands is pretty impossible, and pointless given as neither country ever had Salic law. It's also a challenge with Denmark because of how many people are excluded due to marriage or being foreign monarchs.
Determining who is the proper head of the current house under Salic law is easier for Britain, as it's the Duke of Gloucester (The DoE and his male line descendants belong to the House of Mountbatten-Windsor, itself a cadet branch of the House of Glücksburg). But it's still rather challenging to establish for the Netherlands and Denmark.