4 ms·
The history of Luxembourg is an interesting microcosm of how the fortunes of states and dynasties have ebbed and flowed in Europe over the past thousand years.
by pavlov 3y ago
The history of Luxembourg is an interesting microcosm of how the fortunes of states and dynasties have ebbed and flowed in Europe over the past thousand years.
There was a time when the House of Luxembourg was the main rival to the Habsburgs for control of central Europe, contributing four Holy Roman Emperors:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Duchy_of_Luxemburg https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Duchy_of_Luxemburg
The dukes of this area used to be so important to European politics that Henry VIII of England married a Dutch duke's daughter for political reasons (and immediately regretted it of course, as he was wont to do).
The area of the Duchy used to be several times larger, but over centuries it was nibbled away by France, Prussia, and finally the creation of Belgium.
It has been under Spanish rule (those Habsburgs again), then invaded by the French revolutionary republic and annexed into France as a department simply called Forêts (Forests) because the revolutionaries didn't want to keep any names that honored the old nobility. After Napoleon's defeat the Congress of Vienna aimed to restore old borders and reinstate monarchies, but with multiple claims on Luxembourg, it was split and became a grand duchy whose head of state was the King of Netherlands.
It became an independent country in 1890 when the Dutch king died without a male heir. Dutch law allowed the throne to pass to a female child, but the Grand Duchy was under different laws and was inherited by a claimant rather than the new Dutch queen. (Monarchy is pretty weird in practice.)
- mcv 3y agoThe reason it was such a strategic position, is because the town was a natural fortress. It's located on top of a high, flat rock, which is riddled with tunnels for gun casemates, making the town of Luxembourg very hard to take. It was a vital part of the Spanish Road that the Spanish Habsburgs needed to move troops from their lands in Italy to the north during the 80 Years War.
- johnwalkr 3y agoIn 1867 by treaty the anything military and the fortress was required to be torn down. Kind of a shame, because just a few decades later fortresses became almost useless in war. It's a bit weird to see the ruins of a fortress and then go to the local museum and realize that it was torn down recently enough that there are tons of photographs of it. On the other hand it allowed the rest of the city centre to be built up.
- dalbasal 3y ago>> Dutch law allowed the throne to pass to a female child, but the Grand Duchy was under different laws and was inherited by a claimant rather than the new Dutch queen. (Monarchy is pretty weird in practice.) Game of Thrones, with its campy portrayal of regal titles and announcements, kind of drives this point home. European aristocracy, especially those derived from germanic and other barbarian cultures, held titles like collectibles. Lordships accrued rather than expanded. The could be dispersed and often were. If you watch Queen Elizebeth coronation, the list of titles would shame Daenerys Targaryen. It's quite surreal. Queen of Jamaica, Empress of India, Defender of the faith... Even the 20th century version was not unrelated to real politics, but as you go back, this reflected real political power and machinations. Every title had different rules, different arbiters, and disputes led to actual wars.
- pavlov 3y agoThey did love collecting titles. The kings of England also claimed the title of King of France until 1802, even though they lost the very last enclave on French soil in 1558: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/English_claims_to_the_French_throne https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/English_claims_to_the_French_t...
- pjc50 3y ago> (Monarchy is pretty weird in practice.) Friend of mine back-tested the simple "the next king is the first son of the previous king" against the past 1,000 years of English kings and found it to be true only half the time.
- NeoTar 3y agoI did the same - taking only the kings/queens of England (i.e. starting with Alfred and ending with Queen Anne, ignoring those after the unification of the United Kingdom). Son is by far the most common (21 from 50), followed by brother (6 from 50). The next two are especially interesting - 5 new monarchs were usurpers (i.e. not closely related to the previous monach) and 3 times the new monarch was also an old monarch (i.e. a previous King was returned to the throne!). There were 4 or 5 female successions (twice a daughter, twice a sister and once a daughter-but-disputed-succession [i.e. Matilda]). Only once does it looks like the succession totally jumped a generation, and a grandson succeeded. In every other situation it looks like people were in the same generation (i.e. brother, sisters, cousins) or one lower (sons, daughters, nephews). And only once did the succession 'jump back' a generation, with Richard III succeeding his nephew.
- googlryas 3y agoI was really hoping that Charles would just be king for a day and give it to William thereafter. Get some fresh blood in there, as well as a figure that didn't have 50 years of somewhat controversial behavior lined up behind them.
- gottorf 3y agoDid your friend exclude situations where the previous king had no sons?
- Andrew_nenakhov 3y ago> Dutch law allowed the throne to pass to a female child, but the Grand Duchy was under different laws and was inherited by a claimant rather than the new Dutch queen If you are confused by this, try Crusader Kings game by Paradox (I prefer ck2 to ck3) for a good taste of multiple types of inheritance and problems arising from ruling medieval realm and passing all accumulated titles to your heirs.
- dkga 3y agoWow, I wish I had your ability to synthesise a thousand-year history in a few paragraphs in such an interesting and cohesive way!