Oldest to Newest Monarchy?

[Iain]

The British monarchy only came into being in 1707 and the first British Monarch was Queen Anne. Before that Scotland and England were independent countries and the Scottish monarchy was founded by King Fergus Mor who died in 501 AD. King Kenneth MacAlpin was the first king of a united Scotland (Scots and Picts) The monarchy of a United England was founded in 927 AD, 69 years after the death of King Kenneth MacAlpin.

[Duc_et_Pair]

The current Dutch monarchy stems from 1813 but the very same dynasty held the highest office of state since 16th C, with the Netherlands called a "republic" but without something like an electorate and with offices declared hereditary, making it a de facto monarchy (= a form of state in which the highest office is fulfilled by hereditary succession). The first King of the Netherlands was a son of the last Stadtholder, so it was just a continuation from father on son.

[Ish]

Originally Posted by Iain

The British monarchy only came into being in 1707 and the first British Monarch was Queen Anne. Before that Scotland and England were independent countries and the Scottish monarchy was founded by King Fergus Mor who died in 501 AD. King Kenneth MacAlpin was the first king of a united Scotland (Scots and Picts) The monarchy of a United England was founded in 927 AD, 69 years after the death of King Kenneth MacAlpin.

Fergus Mor is a legendary King. Claiming that he was the founder of the Scottish monarchy is a bit of a stretch... Furthermore, while Fergus Mor may have been the first King of Dál Riata (or may not have; again legendary), Dál Riata was not Scotland. Parts of it became parts of Scotland, and parts of it became parts of Ireland, but neither is a clear predecessor to the kingdoms that followed.

Cináed mac Ailpín, or Kenneth MacAlpin, became King of the Picts in 843, and is according to myth attributed with being the first King of Scotland. In the Pictish Chronicles go back to the legendary Drest I, who began his rule in 412, while other lists go back to Vipoig whose rule is attributed to having began in 312.

The Wessex conquest of England was completed in 927, under the first King of England Æthelstan, but much like Kenneth MacAlpin had his predecessors so did Æthelstan. Alfred the Great was King of the Anglo-Saxons - ruling all parts of England not conquered by the Danes - as early as 886, and 40 years earlier his grandfather, Egbert of Wessex, was briefly the first King to rule over all of England.

The Kingdom of Wessex, from which the Anglo-Saxon kings of England came from, can be traced back to Cerdic, in 519, although much like with Kenneth MacAlpin there is a degree of myth around Cerdic's life. None of the Anglo-Saxon kingdoms predate the 5th century (which makes sense, as the Anglo-Saxon conquest/migration occurred in the 5th century).

The Welsh, of course, have the Kingdom of Dyfed, which has its legendary origins in King Anwn, around 357.

[Iain]

"There is also Scotland, who had their own kings, before being conquered by the English. - Only to retaliate by King James taking over from Queen Elizabeth. Some Scotch, may object to Scotland not being included on the list."



Scotland was never conquered by England, in fact, it has never been conquered by anyone, not even the Romans. And yes, Scots would object to not being included. I remember a friend wrote to a royalty magazine which had included the list of oldest monarchies and she pointed out that Scotland wasn't included. They wrote back saying that Scotland couldn't be included as she wasn't an independent country. My friend asked why, if that was the case, had they included England which is also not an independent country. They never replied.

[Asdrubal Kalos]

Originally Posted by XeniaCasaraghi

I'm surprised Spain is so new. I tend to ignore Spanish history but is their date when Aragon and Castile were joined?

http://i68.tinypic.com/21dhdlu.jpg

[Feologild]

Originally Posted by BritishRoyalist

For the last couple Days I been making a list of the Oldest to Newest Monarchy that still exist in the World Today:

1. Japanese Monarchy 600 BC-Present 2,600 Years
2. Cambodia Monarchy 69-Present 1,444 Years
3. Oman Monarchy 751-Present 1,262Years
4. British Monarchy 800-Present 1,200 Years
5. Norway Monarchy 862-Present 1151 Years
6. Luxembourg 922-Present 1,081 Years
7. Denmark Monarchy 935-Present 1068 Years
8. Sweden Monarchy 970-Present 1,043 Years
9. Thailand Monarchy 1238-Present 775 Years
10. Andorra Monarchy 1278-Present 735 Years
11. Brunei Monarchy 1363-Present 650 Years
12. Spain Monarchy 1479-Present 534 Years
13. Monaco Monarchy 1604-Present 409 Years
14. Liechtenstein Monarchy 1627-Present 386 Years
15. Bhutan Monarchy 1650-Present 363 Years
16. Kuwait Monarchy 1718-Present 295 Years
17. Saudi Arabia Monarchy 1744-Present 269 Years
18. Swaziland Monarchy 1780-Present 233 Years
19. Bahrain Monarchy 1783-Present 230'Year
20. Netherlands Monarchy 1815-Present 197 Years
21. Lesotho Monarchy 1822-Present 191 Years
22. Belgian Monarchy 1831-Present 182 Years
23. Tonga Monarchy 1875 138 Years
24. Qatar Monarchy 1868 Present 142 Years
25. Jordan Monarchy 1921-Present 92 Years
26. Malaysia Monarchy 1957-Present 58 Years
27. United Arabs Emirates Monarchy 1971-Present 42 Years

These are by the Date they were Founded/Formed. Some might be wrong off a little but I tried to get them as right as possible.
For example I have Read that the British Monarchy is somewhere between 1200-1500 Years old depending if you start with the Anglo Saxon Kings.

Its 872 not 862.

[norenxaq]

Hello:

a few problems with your list.

japan and cambodia's foundation dates are mythical. the former can be traced reliably to the 3rd or 4th century ad. the later to around 450 ad. there were older kingdoms that later became part of the latter, however, there does not seem to be a generation by generation genealogy connecting them to the mythical founder. also, most of your dates add to 2013 and are inconsistent in that regard. they should all add up to 2017

[Tatiana Maria]

BritishRoyalist posted in 2013.

More on the myth of the 2,600-year-old Japanese monarchy:

Originally Posted by ChiaraC

There are soooo many myths being repeated constantly about Japan´s imperial family although historical science has already proven them to be clearly wrong. For example, you often read in the media things like: “a dynasty that has lasted for more than two thousand years”. This – I am saying it while being aware that I will probably have to repeat it again and again - is clearly a legend. Empirical evidence indicates that the monarchy in Japan originated around the fifth century A.D.. Nevertheless, the (still) official genealogy of the imperial house claims that the first tenno, Jimmu, founded the monarchy in 660 B.C. This 660 B.C. date is very obviously made up. The authors of Japan´s first historical records, the “Kojiki” (712 A.D.) and the “Nihongi” (720 A.D.), quite simply used Chinese astrological and genealogical tables, calculating that 1260 lunar years had passed since the reign of the first (Chinese) emperors. (Imperial China was at the time the much-admired great role model of the budding Japanese monarchy.) Taking 600 A.D. as their starting point and subtracting 1260, they concluded that, to be on a par with the Chinese monarchy, the first Japanese emperor ought to have ascended the throne in 660 B.C. So, they just maintained that he had...

To put it differently: a lot of the so called historical facts about Japan´s imperial house have been made up or manipulated in order to serve political purposes. That was the case in the 7th century when Emperor Temmu ordered the writing of Japan´s first history “with its goal the enhancement of a glorious emperor-centered past” (Jerrold M. Packard), and that happened again during the Meiji restoration at the end of the 19th century. As Kenneth Ruoff wrote, “the imperial institution constructed during the Meiji era was as much a cultural and ideological invention as a political-legal system. Virtually all aspects of the monarchy were reinvented and modernized. New imperial “traditions” or practices “which seek to inculcate certain values and norms of behaviour by repetition, which automatically implies continuity with the past,” were invented, and old traditions manipulated to suit the modern age.” (The People´s Emperor, page 20)

What is worse, this tendency to believe and maintain whatever seems useful or desirable, is not a matter belonging to the past. Conservative politicians like former trade minister Takeo Hiranuma assert even today that Japan´s mythical first emperor, Jimmu, began his reign 2,672 years ago although, as I already stated, this is a legend, and, what is more, a legend that cannot under any circumstances be true. (For more concerning Japan´s invented traditions and the dislike of the IHA for scientific historical research please see this blog.)

[ByronTomas]

Originally Posted by kelly1994

Even if you take away the presumed legendary emperors; Japan is still the oldest monarchy in the world.

660 BC - present
or
98 BC - present

Firstly this is an excellent thread, still ranking on Google after 4 years.

Kelly1994 is correct, the bottom-line is Japan has the oldest continuous hereditary monarchy in the world even with the legendary Emperors greyed out.
With that said, I think it's equally fascinating to discuss legendary kings from around the world. The real founders of civilisations will always predate our records.