The Royal Forums

The Royal Forums (https://www.theroyalforums.com/forums/)
-   General Royal Discussion (https://www.theroyalforums.com/forums/f12/)
-   -   Oldest to Newest Monarchy? (https://www.theroyalforums.com/forums/f12/oldest-to-newest-monarchy-35253.html)

BritishRoyalist 06-10-2013 11:43 AM

Oldest to Newest Monarchy?
 
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.

Muhler 06-10-2013 12:35 PM

The Danish monarchy is considerably older than AD 935. It has been officially decided that the Danish line of kings starts there, because a stone was raised commemmorating the fact that Denmark was one nation under one king. (*)
But Danmark was de facto a nation under one king long before that, which is evident by border fortifications and road building which required funding and organisation on a nationwide scale.
The current Queen Margrethe is not the first female Regent, she was preceeded not only by the formidable Queen Margrethe I, but long before that by the equally formidable Queen Thyra, who was instrumental in keeping the approaching Carolingians at bay, both by ways of diplomacy and by constructing border fortifications.
That was way before King Gorm the Old, who is officially considered the first king in the current line starting in 935.

King Gorm the Old's body was recently dug up, examined and reburied, with QMII's permission. - It turns out that he wasn't that old.

On top of that. The King who raised the stone I keep referring to, Harald Bluetooth, may have been Christian. His son, Svend Forkbeard was not! He wanted a reversal to the good old days where you raided your neighbors in the time honored fashion of the Vikings. However, his son, Knud the Great in England better known as King Canute was very much a Christian king, and king of England, Norway and Danmark at the same time. So in a way he belongs on the list of English monarchs, who reigned before William the Conqueror. But being a king of a multinational empire, it is perhaps questionable whether you can label him a pure English king. ;)

(*) That stone, raised by King Harald Bluetooth, son of King Gorm the Old, was also very much a foreign political statement since it basically stated that Denmark was a Christian nation and big daddy here is in control, - so no excuse for Carolingian crusades going up here, thank you!

Muhler 06-10-2013 01:22 PM

Looking at your list there are a number of things that makes it difficult to say when a country became a monarchy.
Do you define a contemporary monarchy as one being ruled by a king since XX, or by the length of the current line of monarchs?
Because practially all European monarchies, and I'd say all other monarchies as well, were ruled by minor kings before they became a nation under one uniting king. And that point is often shrowded in legend and very unclear to define historically.

The origins of the Japanese monarchy is somewhat shrowded in legend.
Luxembourg is not a monarchy per se, but a principality, - which for a period belonged under the German Leaque. and before that was a part of the German Roman Empire.
Sweden was ruled by ethnic Swedish as well at ethnic Danish and Norwegian kings, before they got their first genuine Swedish king in the 1200's. - Incidently after a rebellion against their king at that time, who was Danish.

The current line of British monarchs go back to 1066, that is if you overlook the period in the 1600's where England wasn't a monarchy. But more a kind of dictatorship under Cromwell.

Norway is even more complicated. It has been ruled by Norwegian, Swedish and Danish kings. - And then there is the question of the Nordic Union in 1300's, where Denmark, Sweden and Norway joined up to become a federation of three kingdoms under one ruler.

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.

- It's a complicated task you have embarked on... :tongue:

BritishRoyalist 06-10-2013 01:52 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Muhler (Post 1562453)
Looking at your list there are a number of things that makes it difficult to say when a country became a monarchy.
Do you define a contemporary monarchy as one being ruled by a king since XX, or by the length of the current line of monarchs?
Because practially all European monarchies, and I'd say all other monarchies as well, were ruled by minor kings before they became a nation under one uniting king. And that point is often shrowded in legend and very unclear to define historically.

The origins of the Japanese monarchy is somewhat shrowded in legend.
Luxembourg is not a monarchy per se, but a principality, - which for a period belonged under the German Leaque. and before that was a part of the German Roman Empire.
Sweden was ruled by ethnic Swedish as well at ethnic Danish and Norwegian kings, before they got their first genuine Swedish king in the 1200's. - Incidently after a rebellion against their king at that time, who was Danish.

The current line of British monarchs go back to 1066, that is if you overlook the period in the 1600's where England wasn't a monarchy. But more a kind of dictatorship under Cromwell.

Norway is even more complicated. It has been ruled by Norwegian, Swedish and Danish kings. - And then there is the question of the Nordic Union in 1300's, where Denmark, Sweden and Norway joined up to become a federation of three kingdoms under one ruler.

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.

- It's a complicated task you have embarked on... :tongue:

The Norman Conquest was in 1066 but you can go further back. I have seen some sites go back to Alfred the Great in 802ad like The Royal Family History website. The British Monarchy Website go back to the Anglo Saxon Kings in 602ad

Muhler 06-10-2013 02:04 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by BritishRoyalist (Post 1562467)
The Norman Conquest was in 1066 but you can go further back. I have seen some sites go back to Alfred the Great in 802ad like The Royal Family History website. The British Monarchy Website go back to the Anglo Saxon Kings in 602ad

Oh, yes, but what I'm saying is that the current monarchies were often monarchies before the historical markers that often define their origins. In the case of Denmark, King the Gorm the Old and 940.

As you know Alfred the Great's kingdom consisted of a few square kilometres of marshland, before his rebellion against King Guthrum (who was Danish).
In a sense you can say King Guthrum was also an English king. - But in contrast to William the Conqueror, to whom he can be compared, he lost the final battle - and became Guthrum the Loser, instead of Guthrum the Conqueror. :tongue:

NGalitzine 06-10-2013 02:17 PM

I must say some of those dates seem rather arbitrary so I would like to know the standard being used. The Grimaldis date their rule in Monaco to 1297 under various titles and protectors. The UAE was made up of monarchic sheikdoms before uniting into the UAE. Saudi Arabia was part of the Ottoman Empire so again under monarchic governments prior to its constituent parts being united under Saud after WW1 and actually becoming Saudi Arabia.

cepe 06-10-2013 02:23 PM

I think what is a level benchmark is what each Monarchy/country states. The first king of England is generally held to be Alfred - so 802.

Baron Brockdorf 06-10-2013 02:27 PM

there are a few things which I disagree with. first of all the kingdom of england and scotland(britain) was formed in 1707
the first kings of sweden ruled in the year 90AD this was before the unification of sweden, they were called the kings of the suiones meaning that before the 1200's sweden was consisted of several smaller kingdoms just like england and denmark. however when speaking in terms if one unified country, the kingdom which has the longest and continuous monarchy in europe is that of denmark followed by sweden. the monarchy in england was abolished during the reign of charles the 1st and restored by charles the 2nd in 1649.

Muhler 06-10-2013 02:41 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by cepe (Post 1562486)
I think what is a level benchmark is what each Monarchy/country states. The first king of England is generally held to be Alfred - so 802.

Indeed, Alfred the Great, "reconguered" England from Guthrum. A nice marker.
Only complicated later on by the fact that King Canute wasn't English. William the Conqueror wasn't English. King James was Scottish. Charles I lost his head. William of Orange was imported and the Georgian kings were German. - Oh my head. :argh:

Most other monarchies have similar problems. At times they were conquered, united with other kingdoms, became temporary republics and so on.
There is a tendency towards stretching the difinition of when a particular monarchy became a monarchy very wide based on nationalist reasons rather than historical. And that of course makes it difficult to pinpoint exactly when a monarchy became a monarchy.

In Japan for example they include more or less mythological kings, who may only have ruled smaller parts of Japan.

Ish 06-10-2013 03:30 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by BritishRoyalist (Post 1562467)
The Norman Conquest was in 1066 but you can go further back. I have seen some sites go back to Alfred the Great in 802ad like The Royal Family History website. The British Monarchy Website go back to the Anglo Saxon Kings in 602ad

Quote:

Originally Posted by Muhler (Post 1562474)
As you know Alfred the Great's kingdom consisted of a few square kilometres of marshland, before his rebellion against King Guthrum (who was Danish).
In a sense you can say King Guthrum was also an English king. - But in contrast to William the Conqueror, to whom he can be compared, he lost the final battle - and became Guthrum the Loser, instead of Guthrum the Conqueror. :tongue:

Alfred the Great wasn't a King of England; at the time of his rule, England was still a vague concept and was instead ruled over by various smaller kingdoms - Alfred's was Wessex. Even a single Dane didn't rule over all of "England". The first English king - a king who ruled over all of England - was Æthelstan. He was also the first individual who styled himself as King of the English, in 927.

The official British royal website sites its origins in both England and Scotland as starting somewhere are 400 A.D., however the first monarchs that they list are Offa (England, 757) and Kenneth (Scotland, 843)

Foss 12-08-2013 10:37 AM

Actually Gregor of Tours mentions a man named Hugleik from 515 AD. as the earliest danish king.

kelly1994 12-29-2013 02:10 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Muhler (Post 1562453)
The origins of the Japanese monarchy is somewhat shrowded in legend.

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

CrownPrincessJava 12-29-2013 03:27 AM

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. Bhutan Monarchy 1907 - Present: 106 years
26. Jordan Monarchy 1921-Present 92 Years
27. Malaysia Monarchy 1957-Present 58 Years
28. United Arabs Emirates Monarchy 1971-Present 42 Years

Added another....

XeniaCasaraghi 12-29-2013 05:45 PM

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

Ish 12-29-2013 07:30 PM

Pretty much, yeah. The history of monarchy in Spain is older than that. On those grounds, the English monarchy dates are a bit misleading - it wasn't until the end of the 9th century that the Wessex monarchs began to rule the whole of England.

LadyGabrielle 12-29-2013 09:18 PM

Um, excuse me but, are we forgetting the ancient monarchy of Hawaii? Older than 600 b.c. According to the ancient text of creation, Hawaiians were the Adam and Eve of creation. It may not be well known but if you read about it, you will see. The text I am speaking of is called the Kumulipo.

Ish 12-29-2013 10:09 PM

The problem there is that the Kumulipo is a source of oral history and integrates history and mythology. Therefore we can't actually date when the Hawaiian monarchy originated in the pre-contact era.

Blog Real 12-29-2013 11:09 PM

And the Portuguese monarchy?

Ish 12-29-2013 11:14 PM

The Portugese monarchy was from 1139 to 1910, according to Wikipedia. So, 771 years.

Blog Real 12-29-2013 11:20 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Ish (Post 1629280)
The Portugese monarchy was from 1139 to 1910, according to Wikipedia. So, 771 years.


Thank you very much. The British monarchy is the oldest in Europe?

Ish 12-29-2013 11:51 PM

I would say the British and the Norwegians are tied.

Wikipedia dates the Norwegians to about 872, with the unification of Norway and the rule of Harald Fairhair.

The English monarchy became clearly English around the same time with the reign of Alfred the Great and, more importantly, his son Edward the Elder - so between about 880 and 925. Their family had ruled Wessex since (according to the Anglo-Saxon Chronicle) the reign of Cedric in 519.

The first Scottish monarch, however, was Kenneth MacAlpin whose reign began around 858. Given that the current British monarchy is the result of a union between the English and the Scottish kingdoms (and the English kingdom is in many ways the result of the Wessex conquest of the rest of England...) it's kind of hard to say just when the British monarchy began. And that's without getting into the Dukes of Normandy, from whom the Queen's claim to the throne descends. William the Conqueror didn't arrive on the scene until 1066, but his house had ruled Normandy since 911.

Foss 01-09-2014 11:47 AM

Again acording to Gregor of tours the first danish monark is Chochillaicus (a latin form of Hugleik) from 515 AD. Which means that the danish monarchy i 1499 years old.



Gregor af Tours Historia Francorum III.3 [= "Gregorii Historia Francorum" in Monumenta Germaniae Historica: scriptores rerum Merovingicarum vol.1, Hannover, 1885]

Marengo 01-09-2014 12:08 PM

I believe that usually Japan is recognised as the eldest monarchy, since emperor Jimmu in 660 AD of the Yamato dynasty. Denmark is usually considered the oldest European monarchy, starting in the 9th century.

I don't think that you can regard the present Norwegian monarch as a successor to the medieval monarchs. Neither was the king of Italy a continuation of the Roman emperors for example. Instead I think that Norway can be considered the youngest monarchy in Europe, followed by Belgium (1830) and The Netherlands & Luxembourg (1815). Though the Benelux countries did belong to the Habsburg monarchs and earlier to the French kings and German kings/emperors.

Technically the pope is also a monarch so that would beat all the others.

Nawfal Kinana 01-11-2015 05:33 PM

The oldest monarchies
 
Now that we are in 2015, the age of the Moroccan Monarchy is 1227 years old but you didn't mention it at all. NOw its the Alaouite dinasty that is reigning from 1666 and the current king is the king Mohamed VI and this dinasty is from the strain Messenger of Allah Mohamed peace be upon him.

Duc_et_Pair 01-11-2015 06:00 PM

The Netherlands are a monarchy since 1813/1815 but the same dynasty was already a monarchy de facto since 1585 when a son of Willem I of Nassau, Prince of Orange ('The Silent') succeeded him as Stadtholder (Maurits, and then subsequently followed by Frederik Hendrik, Willem II, Willem III, etc.)

In 1674 the Lords States-General declared the office of Stadtholder hereditary for Willem III of Nassau, Prince of Orange (and King of England, Scotland and Ireland) and for his male descandants. So since then it was a monarchy de jure. The Stadtholder however died without issue.

In 1747 the Lords States-General declared the office of Stadtholder hereditary for both the male and the female issue of Johan Willem Friso of Nassau-Dietz, Prince of Orange. So since then it was a monarchy de jure again. Today's royal family directly stems from this Prince.

As a monarchy means a system in which the highest function of State is delivered by hereditary succession, we can say that the Netherlands, despite the disguising name "Republic" has been a monarchy for the longest time.

Meraude 01-11-2015 06:12 PM

If counting monarchies that no longer exist, don't forget Egypt and its pharaohs, from a united Egypt under Menes in 3150 BCE, it existed until 30 CE, the death of Cleopatra VII, a total of three millennia. There were kings before Menes in Upper Egypt and Lower Egypt so its history as a monarchy is even longer.

haha 03-16-2015 08:11 PM

what about the british monarchy?????? and also I think it is the oldest because it was formed in 400ad

Meraude 03-18-2015 06:51 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by haha (Post 1759089)
what about the british monarchy?????? and also I think it is the oldest because it was formed in 400ad

There were several separate kingdoms on the British isles, one of them was the kingdom of Wessex, going back to 519, but the first one who is considered to be a king of England was Alfred the Great in 871, and it was his grandson Æthelstan who was the first with the title King of the English in 927.

Also Denmark and Sweden got their first historically acknowledged kings about the same time, Denmark in 940 and Sweden around 970, but there had been several semi-historical kings in both countries a couple of hundred years before that, the first known by name Danish king in 515, and legend names a king in Sweden at the time of emperor Augustus in Rome (63 BC - AD 14).

Chubb Fuddler 06-22-2015 07:34 PM

01 Japan -0660
02 Cambodia 0069
03 Oman 0751
04 Great Britain 0800
05 Norway 0862
06 Denmark 0935
07 Sweden 0970
08 Thailand 1238
09 Andorra 1278
10 Brunei 1363
11 Spain 1479
12 Monaco 1604
13 Liechtenstein 1627
14 Kuwait 1718
15 Saudi Arabia 1744
16 Swaziland 1780
17 Bahrain 1783
18 Luxembourg 1815
19 Netherlands 1815
20 Lesotho 1822
21 Belgium 1831
22 Canada 1867
23 Qatar 1868
24 Tonga 1875
25 Australia 1901
26 Bhutan 1907
27 New Zealand 1907
28 Jordan 1921
29 Vatican City 1929
30 Malaysia 1957
31 Jamaica 1962
32 Samoa 1962
33 Barbados 1966
34 United Arab Emirates 1971
35 Bahamas 1973
36 Grenada 1974
37 Papua New Guinea 1975
38 Solomon Islands 1978
39 Tuvalu 1978
40 Saint Lucia 1979
41 Saint Vincent and the Grenadines 1979
42 Antigua and Barbuda 1981
43 Belize 1981
44 Saint Kitts and Nevis 1983

I've included all the Commonwealth Realms because they are independent monarchies, and if Andorra is included, so should all other monarchies without a resident monarch. The Vatican City is in a sense the continuation of the Papal States (751 AD), but I think the unification of Italy disrupted things enough, and left the Pope with so little, that the Vatican City should be dated from 1929. I've put in Samoa because I think the jury is still out on what sort of state it is. I once asked the Samoan Police Commissioner if the Ao o le Malo is best described as a monarch or a president. He said neither, the Ao o le Malo is best described as a head of state. But he did go onto say that the current Ao o le Malo will probably remain in office for the rest of his life, and that future heads of state will always come from either the Malietoa or Tupua chiefly families.

Iluvbertie 06-22-2015 08:04 PM

Based on the fact that each of the states of Australia had to pass the Succession to the Crown Act it could be argued that each of the states are separate monarchies as well which would add to the list e.g. NSW from 1788.

Chubb Fuddler 06-23-2015 12:00 AM

Yes, that would bring in a whole new category. There's also the Malaysian state monarchies, and the monarchies within republics (e.g. the Ugandan kingdoms, the Indonesian and Nigerian sultanates etc. etc.) I'm not sure where the Canadian Provinces come into it though.

Dangerous Liaisons 10-17-2015 02:52 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Chubb Fuddler (Post 1795146)
Yes, that would bring in a whole new category. There's also the Malaysian state monarchies, and the monarchies within republics (e.g. the Ugandan kingdoms, the Indonesian and Nigerian sultanates etc. etc.) I'm not sure where the Canadian Provinces come into it though.

In Canada, each province is also a monarchy. Canada has been officially continuously a monarchy since 1534. In Canada we inherited the French, English, British and Canadian crowns. King Louis XIV is officially recognised as the longest reigning monarch of Canada. Canada is the only country in the world which recognises the French, English and British monarchs.

Quote:

Since 1534, when the King of France claimed possession of what is now Canada, the history of our country has been marked by the reigns of an uninterrupted succession of monarchs, both French and British, who have had a significant influence on our country's development.
Source: Parliament of Canada

Quote:

When the Queen became Canada’s sovereign, she inherited a tradition of the Canadian Crown that includes the French as well as British empires. That means there’s one French monarch, officially a Canadian sovereign, who still beats her record: Louis XIV, who reigned for 72 years in the 17th and 18th centuries.
Source: QUEEN ELIZABETH II: THE MATHEMATICS OF THE MONARCHY

Mbruno 10-17-2015 07:08 AM

If one counts Danish and Swedish kings as part of a continuous Norwegian monarchy, shouldn't Burgundian, Soanish, Austrian and Dutch rulers be also counted as part of a continuous Belgian monarchy ? Using similar criteria, I would say the current Norwegian monarchy dates back to 1905 only and is actually the youngest in Europe.

Dangerous Liaisons 10-17-2015 04:42 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Mbruno (Post 1830095)
If one counts Danish and Swedish kings as part of a continuous Norwegian monarchy, shouldn't Burgundian, Soanish, Austrian and Dutch rulers be also counted as part of a continuous Belgian monarchy ? Using similar criteria, I would say the current Norwegian monarchy dates back to 1905 only and is actually the youngest in Europe.

The formula the thread uses seem to be based on continuous monarchy. For example, the United Kingdom was formed in 1707, but Great Britain has been a monarchy longer than that. I don't know about Norway but using their criteria, Canada should be listed as the 12th oldest monarchy because it was established as New France in 1534 and we officially recognise the French kings as sovereigns of Canada.

Also, why is Spain listed as #11? Spain is not a continuous monarchy, it was a republic several times, Spain lost most of its colonies because of this (the Spanish Empire going bankrupt from civil wars), and it was a dictatorship, the monarchy was restored in the 1975.

sandratatiana 10-17-2015 04:55 PM

Is Luxembourg really a monarchy? Or is is just a principality, I hope I
translate this correctly

Ish 10-17-2015 05:02 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by sandratatiana (Post 1830203)
Is Luxembourg really a monarchy? Or is is just a principality, I hope I
translate this correctly


A monarchy is a realm with a monarch. There are several different forms of monarchs and realms - Kings and Queens rule kingdoms, Princes and Princesses rule principalities, Emperors and Empresses rule empires.

Luxembourg is a realm in the form of a grand duchy with a monarch in the form of a Grand Duke.

sandratatiana 10-21-2015 05:28 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Ish (Post 1830205)
A monarchy is a realm with a monarch. There are several different forms of monarchs and realms - Kings and Queens rule kingdoms, Princes and Princesses rule principalities, Emperors and Empresses rule empires.

Luxembourg is a realm in the form of a grand duchy with a monarch in the form of a Grand Duke.

Thank you, I didnt know that

House of Your Dad. 11-12-2015 03:32 AM

There are many factors that can criticise this list. For example, Tonga has been an absolute monarchy up until 2007/8 if memory serves me correctly. The House of Tupou was created in 1875 (140 years ago) as King Siaosi (George) wanted to adopt an English style monarchy. But before then he was a Tu'i Kanolupolu, which is one of the three lineages of Tongan royalty. The Tu'i Kanolupolu started their rule around 1600, thus the lineage of the House of Tupou has been around for 415 years give or take. Before that though, there were two more royal lineages prior to the ruling of the Tu'i Kanolupolu, the Tu'i Ha'atakalaua ruled from 1470 to 1600 when the Tu'i Kanolupolu took over. Prior to the Tu'i Ha'atakalaua though, there was the Tu'i Tonga who ruled from 950AD to 1470 give or take a few years. So how is this list determined? Tonga didn't become a united nation until 1875. Do we start count from there? Or do we become more technical and say Tonga's monarchy started in 950AD?

House of Your Dad. 11-12-2015 04:45 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by House of Your Dad. (Post 1838021)
There are many factors that can criticise this list. For example, Tonga has been an absolute monarchy up until 2007/8 if memory serves me correctly. The House of Tupou was created in 1875 (140 years ago) as King Siaosi (George) wanted to adopt an English style monarchy. But before then he was a Tu'i Kanolupolu, which is one of the three lineages of Tongan royalty. The Tu'i Kanolupolu started their rule around 1600, thus the lineage of the House of Tupou has been around for 415 years give or take. Before that though, there were two more royal lineages prior to the ruling of the Tu'i Kanolupolu, the Tu'i Ha'atakalaua ruled from 1470 to 1600 when the Tu'i Kanolupolu took over. Prior to the Tu'i Ha'atakalaua though, there was the Tu'i Tonga who ruled from 950AD to 1470 give or take a few years. So how is this list determined? Tonga didn't become a united nation until 1875. Do we start count from there? Or do we become more technical and say Tonga's monarchy started in 950AD?


Sorry there's a spelling error. It's Tu'i Kanokupolu.

JR76 11-12-2015 05:03 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Mbruno (Post 1830095)
If one counts Danish and Swedish kings as part of a continuous Norwegian monarchy, shouldn't Burgundian, Soanish, Austrian and Dutch rulers be also counted as part of a continuous Belgian monarchy ? Using similar criteria, I would say the current Norwegian monarchy dates back to 1905 only and is actually the youngest in Europe.


Atleast from 1814 Norway was an independent country with its own constitution, parliament, flag etc... It was never a part of or subjugated to Sweden. In practice of course Sweden took the lead in the union and made many attempts to weld the two countries together even more but Norway was still to all intents a sovereign nation with a King who just happened to be the King of Sweden too.


Sent from my iPhone using The Royals Community mobile app

Iain 02-13-2017 06:57 PM

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 02-13-2017 07:11 PM

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 02-13-2017 09:43 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Iain (Post 1961068)
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 02-14-2017 07:50 AM

"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 04-21-2017 08:18 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by XeniaCasaraghi (Post 1629218)
I'm surprised Spain is so new. I tend to ignore Spanish history but is their date when Aragon and Castile were joined?

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

Feologild 05-12-2017 09:31 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by BritishRoyalist (Post 1562424)
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 05-13-2017 03:55 AM

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 05-13-2017 03:44 PM

:previous:

BritishRoyalist posted in 2013. :flowers:

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

Quote:

Originally Posted by ChiaraC (Post 1381379)
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 :hamster:- 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... :lol:

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 09-10-2017 11:08 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by kelly1994 (Post 1629056)
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.


All times are GMT -4. The time now is 10:28 PM.

Powered by vBulletin
Copyright ©2000 - 2021
Jelsoft Enterprises