The Complex History of the Bulgarian Empires (Bulgaria)

The dynastic history of Bulgaria is something I had not intended but was compelled to do following a series of short conversations with a Bulgarian work-and-travel co-worker of mine. Quite a while ago, I inventoried in my royal genealogical files the tsars of Bulgaria, a series of monarchs who ruled periodically from the 10th to the 20th century in some fashion or another. To my surprise, my Bulgarian co-worker expressly denounced any such monarchy on two occasions, despite the fact that I had researched it fairly deeply many years ago. Thus, the basis for today's long-awaited dynastology  is established.

Indeed, Bulgaria has a most interesting dynastic history and one that should not be overlooked. Despite its modern placement in the far-south-eastern corner of Europe — between European Turkey, Greece, Macedonia, Serbia, Romania, and the Black Sea — it once spanned an empire that encompassed most of the Ukraine. The Bulgars historically were people of probably Turkic origin infused with a heavy dose of Persian.  Over time, the dominant Slavic migratory groups supplanted first the proto-Bulgarian languages and later the ethnicity itself. Thus, all Bulgarians today descend primarily from Slavs though they may retain some ancient Bulgarian blood. The modern region of Bulgaria was a nexus of Greek, Roman, Gothic, Hun, Slavic and Celtic cultures and thus elements of all can be found in modern Bulgarian society. Of the original Bulgar invaders, it is thought that they consisted of a relatively small group who mostly interbred with the native population.

Dulo Dynasty (681 – 753) & the First Bulgarian Empire
The history of Bulgaria begins with the ruler, Asparuh, who founded the First Bulgarian Empire around 681 CE. While he is often titled "khan", the Turkic title for king, it is unlikely he or his successors took that title. Asparuh was the second son of a Bulgar ruler, Kubrat of the Dulo clan, who ruled a large kingdom called Great Bulgaria in the Ukraine. After his death, his eldest son ruled for a short while before the region fell to the Khazars in 668. After this point, Bulgaria became associated solely with the region on either side of the Danube River from roughly modern-day Belgrade to the Black Sea. This immigration pushed into previously Byzantine lands. The Byzantines were distracted by attempted to fight back, but failing morale in 681 led to a treaty that was later seen as the establishment of the Bulgarian state in the Balkans.

The Foundation of the Bulgarian Empire

Kubrat was the first Orthodox Christian Bulgarian monarch. While it is unknown whether Asparuh was Christian, his son, Tervel, certainly was. Tervel allied with the Byzantine emperor, Justinian II, and helped him reclaim his throne from the usurpers Leontius and Tiberius III. In exchange for this, Justinian crowned Tervel Kaisar (Tsar) of Bulgaria, making Tervel the first foreign monarch to ever receive the Roman title. In addition, Justinian ceded additional lands to Bulgaria. Despite problems between the two countries, they banded together in 718 and routed the Arabs during the Siege of Constantinople. For this aide, Tervel was added the title "Saviour of Europe" by contemporary historians. Since Byzantine histories are the primary sources for early Bulgarian history, it is thought that the Dulo Dynasty maintained a relative peace after 718. Kormesiy succeeded his father, Tervel, around 721 and little is known about him, though he may have been deposed. Sevar, his son, succeeded him but was also later deposed. Following his deposition, the Dulo Dynasty fell and was replaced by the Vokil Dynasty.

Vokil Dynasty (753 – 762)
Kormisosh was the first ruler of the Vokil Dynasty and he began a long period of political instability in the First Bulgarian Empire. The Byzantine Empire had decided to defend its western borders with Bulgaria by moving Armenians and Syrians into nearby Thrace. Kormisosh was so enraged by this obvious threat that he invaded the Empire and laid a short siege to Constantinople which unfortunately backfired on the Bulgarians as they were defeated and forced to flee, ultimately ending with Kormisosh's death through a palace coup which replaced the ruler with his kinsman, Vinekh. Vinekh held his ground against the Byzantines but ultimately failed to win the day. Though Vinekh managed to finally defeat the Byzantine army, he failed to pursue the fleeing army and, in response, was killed with his entire family by the Bulgarian nobility.

Non-Dynastic Period (762 – 803)
A period of intense confusion followed the end of the Vokil Dynasty. Telets, a member of the Ugain clan, claimed the leadership of the Bulgarian Empire for three years during which time Bulgaria lost a battle to the Byzantines and the nobles, in turned, lynched Telets for his defeat. His successor, Sabin, was a relative of the Dulo Dynasty and attempted to make peace with the Byzantines. However, when this peace offer was discovered, the Bulgarian nobility rebelled and Sabin fled to Constantinople. His successor, Umor of the Vokil Dynasty, lasted only 40 days before also fleeing to the Byzantine Empire to find sanctuary. Toktu adopted, instead, a hostile policy against the Byzantines but was murdered before ever being able to implement it. His successor, Pagan, tried again for peace but was betrayed by the Byzantines and also murdered after the Byzantines penetrated to the middle of the Bulgarian Empire. With the Byzantines now on the offensive, Telerig sued for peace and succeeded, but was forced to flee to Constantinople just as his peaceful predecessor had, later being baptized and renamed Theophylaktos prior to marrying a relative of the Byzantine Emperor. The instability of Bulgaria ultimately ended in the reign of Kardam, who took the mantel of leadership in 777. Between 791 and 792, the Bulgarians decisively defeated the Byzantine Empire multiple times and the Bulgarians pressed their advantage, forcing tribute to be paid. A palace coup in Constantinople ended further aggression to the Bulgarian Empire for a short time and allowed a restoration of the Dulo Dynasty through the nephew of Kardam, Krum.

Dulo Dynasty (803 – 977)
The Dulo Dynasty was restored upon the death of Kardam and the empire thrived during this time. The empire expanded northward to encompass all of modern Romania, Moldova, and most of Hungary. Indeed, for a short while the empire shared a border with the Frankish Empire of Charlemagne. Interestingly, Bulgaria was also under constant attack from the Byzantines. This allowed Krum his greatest victory: over the many invasions, Krum successfully killed or forced the deposition of three Byzantine emperors. Nikephrous I was killed in battle. Staurakios was injured in that same battle and later died. Michael I was forced to abdicate and became a monk. Meanwhile, Krum died a natural death, passing the throne to his son, Omurtag.

The Empire under Krum of Bulgaria

The Baptism of St. Boris I of Bulgaria

The next three monarchs expanded the empire's borders and the laws of the land. Omurtag became famous for his persecution of the Christians, while Malamir and Presian I were ineffectual leaders who nonetheless furthered their ancestor's laws and expansions. It was Boris I, however, that ultimately became the most famous of the Bulgarian monarchs. Boris was ruler in a time of great conflict. East Francia, the Byzantine Empire and Serbia all pressed in, yet Boris succeeded in defeating them all. In 866, somewhat out of nowhere, Boris was baptized into the Orthodox church under the Christian name Michael. Soon after, the Bulgarian Orthodox Church, an autocephalous (autonomous) part of the Eastern Orthodox Church, was founded. In addition, Boris adopted the Cyrillic alphabet and Slavic language as official for Bulgaria. Boris abdicated in favor his son, Vladimir, but after a short pagan revival, Vladimir was deposed and replaced with another son, Simeon I. Boris I was later sainted by the Eastern Orthodox Church.

Bulgaria thrived under the reign of Simeon I the Great. He was proclaimed Tsar of Bulgaria and established the first Orthodox patriarchate outside of the antique Pentarchy. His son, Peter I, was likewise made tsar and even married the granddaughter of the Byzantine Emperor Romanos I. Despite military and political setbacks during his reign, he was highly revered and was sainted soon after his death. Boris II, his son, did not fare so well. Soon after his elevation, his lands were conquered by the Kievan Rus. He was coerced into fighting the Byzantines and lost badly. Southern Bulgaria was taken while pieces of the rest of the empire were parched between neighbors. The empire ultimately fell to the Byzantines in 971, though Boris tried desperately to reclaim it in 977, an attempt that ended his life. His brother, Roman, survived the affair and claimed the throne but was captured in 791 and died in prison. The Dulo Dynasty had finally met its end.

Cometopuli Dynasty (997 – 1018)
The tsardom passed to Samuil, a general under Roman who served as regent during the captivities of his predecessors. Samuil was successful in conquering back lands from Serbia, the Byzantine Empire, and Hungary – indeed he controlled the majority of the Balkan Peninsula north of Greece – but  he was unable to hold them.  He is widely considered the last monarch of the First Bulgarian Empire despite the fact that a son and nephew both ruled parts of the empire for another four years. Gavril and Ivan, though, were not able to hold back the Byzantine armies and the empire inevitably fell. Two members of the dynasty claimed the throne during the 167 years of Byzantine rule — Peter II and Peter III — but neither were able to retake the empire. The Bulgarians still remained an important part of the region, though, as three Byzantine emperors married Bulgarian princesses.

Asen Dynasty (1187 – 1396) & the Second Bulgarian Empire
After so many years as a tributary state of the Byzantine empire, the Second Bulgarian Empire rose from a revolt left by Theodore and Ivan Asen, two men from Moesia of probable Cumen origin who were otherwise unknown individuals. After three years of revolt, Emperor Issac II finally recognized the new Bulgarian entity in 1187. Peter IV was chosen as the new tsar, though he co-crowned his brother as Ivan I in 1189. Ivan was later murdered and his youngest brother was crowned as Ivan II in 1196.

The Empire under Ivan II of Bulgaria


Ivan II, better known as Kaloyan, was a successful general who expanded the Second Bulgarian Empire to its maximum limits. He successors continued maintaining the empire's size despite internal and neighborly intrigues. For the first time in Bulgarian history, the threat of Byzantium was minimized by the overthrow of the monarchy by the Latin Crusaders who created a new empire based in Constantinople. The Byzantine nobility fled and focused their efforts on retaking their capital rather than attacking the Bulgarians. Boril did little during his reign but his cousin, John II, brought the second empire to its height. John established an alliance with a Byzantine splinter-state, Epirus, but Epirus betrayed them and Bulgaria successfully defeated and annexed the small empire into its lands. The battle between the Latin Empire and the Empire of Nicaea, unfortunately, proved to be John's undoing. He could not choose a side so lingered in the south as the Mongol Horde invaded his northern lands. Though John died prior to the Mongol's ultimate victory, his son, Kaliman I, was forced into subservience to the Mongols under Batu Khan. Michael I was able to buy off the Mongols, but had an ineffectual reign. His nephew, Kaliman II, murdered Michael II and became tsar but died soon after through his own murder. Mitso, a kinsman of the family, tried to claim the throne, the nobles elected another man, Constantine, and Mitso fled to the Nicaean Empire.

The Asen dynasty had ended by this point, and Constantine was a scion of a Serbian family of Bulgarian nobles. He led the country poorly and saw it piecemeal away. By the time of his death, the empire had shrunk to half its size and the peasants were revolting. Ivan III, a son of Mitso, ruled for a very short time before fleeing to Constantinople with the royal treasury.

The Empire under George I of Bulgaria

Terter Dynasty (1280 – 1292, 1300 – 1322)
Ivaylo, the leader of the peasant revolt, took the empire over for a short while before being forced to flee to the Golden Horde of the Mongols in 1280. He was later murdered by his very protector, Nogai Khan. Mongol raids continued into Bulgaria during the reigns of the next four monarchs. George I, the first monarch of the Terter Dynasty, eventually had to flee, though he returned to Bulgaria more than a decade later durning the reign of his son. Smilets was ineffectual and ruled during the height of Mongol control over Bulgaria. Indeed, the next monarch was the son of Nogai Khan, Chaka, who was later deposed then strangled to death in 1300. With Chaka's death, the Terter Dynasty resumed under the leadership of Theodore, who was finally able to rest control of Bulgaria away from the Mongols as well as Thrace from the Byzantines. He later made peace with both neighbors and caused the Second Empire to enter a new age of expansion. His son, George II, took advantage of Byzantine intrigue to expand the empire further, but died before any significant gains coalesced.

The Empire under Theodore of Bulgaria

Shishman Dynasty (1323 – 1396)
When George II died, a descendant of the Asen Dynasty took control in the form of Michael III Shishman. Shishman is noted for many important "lasts" for the Bulgarian Empire. He was the last tsar to actively seek to rule the Balkan Peninsula. He was the last to attempt to seize Constantinople. And the dynasty was the last to rule the Second Empire. He died while fighting the increasingly dominant Serbs in 1330. His successor, Ivan Stefan, faced opposition on all sides and abdicated without ruling a year. Ivan Alexander, the next tsar, was nephew to Michael III Shishman and ruled the Second Empire into a second Golden Age. But the end of Bulgaria as an independent entity was already in sight. The Ottoman Empire was growing around the Byzantine Empire, hoping to entrap it, and the Bulgarian Empire was in the way. Elsewhere, to the north, the Magyar Hungarians were seeking new lands in Bulgarian Wallachia. And the Black Death was spreading its death across all of Europe. In an attempt to fight off this triple threat, Ivan Alexander divided his tsardom into two realms each ruled by a son. In the end, though, this only made its demise easier, separating resources and splitting armies. Ivan Shishman, Alexander's fourth son, held onto central Bulgaria until 1393 and remained alive for two years longer before falling under the Ottoman's axe. Alexander's third son, Sratsimir, lasted decided to ignore the pleas of his brother resulting that brother's fall. A year later, the Ottomans came for Sratsimir too, and the tsar was captured and strangled in 1396, thereby ending the Second Bulgarian Empire. Sratsimir's son, Constantine II, tried desperately to hold onto a few remaining lands of the Bulgarian Empire and was widely recognized as tsar, but failed to reclaim his heritage and died an exile at the Serbian court in 1422. The empire never revived and no independent state of Bulgaria re-emerged until 1878.

The Principality and Kingdom of Bulgaria (1878 – 1946)
Europe had greatly changed since Bulgaria fell so many centuries earlier. The German dynasties ruled most of Central and Eastern Europe and the Ottoman Empire was falling to pieces. When, in 1878, Bulgaria was allowed to become an autonomous monarchy within the Ottoman Empire, the Russian czar encouraged the Ottomans to choose his nephew as prince. And so, on 29 April 1879, Prince Alexander of the House of Battenberg assumed the long-vacant throne of the Bulgarian monarchy. Soon after his elevation and due to Russian intervention, Alexander rebelled and overthrew the new constitution to become an absolute ruler. While his coup was reversed two years later, Alexander lost the support of the Russians. War with Serbia lost Alexander any remaining support in Bulgaria and he was deposed in 1886.

His replacement was Ferdinand I of the Wettin sub-house of Saxe-Coburg-Gotha-Koháry. Prior to his election, the throne had been offered to princes from across Europe in an effort to avoid Russian control of the new principality. His election was unexpected but his reign was unusually successful. On 5 October 1908, he declared the independence of the Kingdom of Bulgaria from the Ottoman Empire and proclaimed himself king. He soon after joined the other Balkan states in destroying Ottoman control of the Balkans. With World War I starting in 1914, Bulgaria joined the Central Powers to gain lands from Serbia but lost the war. Alexander abdicated in favor of his son, Boris III, and went into exile where he died in 1948.

 
The Kingdom of Bulgaria after World War I and World War II

Boris III was a reluctant leader who saw the fortunes of Bulgaria turn from bad to worse. He allied with the Axis during World War II in order to take back Macedonia from Greece and Yugoslavia. Boris became a hero to many Jews by not extraditing his 50,000 strong Jewish population to Poland for processing, though he did condemn those Jews living in lands conquered by Bulgaria. Boris also refused to declare war on Russia due to the strong pro-Russian sentiment of many Bulgarians. This rift ended when Boris died a few months later in 1943 due to heart failure.

Prime Minister Simeon, formerly Simeon II of Bulgaria

His son, Simeon II, became the final Bulgarian monarch. He was six at the time and unable to rule, and thus his uncle, the prime minister, and the head of the military took over as a triumvirate regency. In 1944, Bulgaria was overrun by Soviet troops and the regency was ended. Two years later, a plebiscite ended the monarchy in favor of a Soviet/communist republic. Simeon II went into exile having never ruled under his own power. Though Simeon attempted many times to form a government-in-exile, no such entity came about. However, in a strange turn-of-fate, Simeon was issued a new Bulgarian passport in 1990 upon the fall of the communist government. Lands and property taken from the pretender four decades earlier were returned to him and his family. In 2001, he announced the creation of a new political party called the National Movement Simeon II (NMSII). The party won a majority of seats in Parliament and Simeon II became Prime Minister, becoming one of the only former monarchs in history to later become head-of-state of a democratic republic.


Thus ends the dynastic history of Bulgaria, and a long history it has indeed seen. For whatever reason, I still do not know why my co-worker believes Bulgaria has never had a monarch. Indeed, it is the only country I can think of that elected its former monarch as Prime Minister! In any case, Bulgaria remains a developing republic today, but its rich dynastic history remains a memory for most, though not all, of its people.

One Emperor to Rule them All! (The Holy Roman Empire)

 
Banner of the Holy Roman Empire

Of all the great and powerfully misunderstood political entities in history, few are as confusing as the political monstrosity now known as the Holy Roman Empire. Indeed, many who know little about European History have heard of this strange empire, sometimes wondering when and where it was, why it was Holy and Roman, and if it was even an empire. Well it has been long in coming but let us explore what was, for a while, one of the most powerful empires in the western world.

The Frankish Empire
Let us begin with the FIRST Holy Roman Empire, or at least the original empire that would become, through twists and turns, that empire. The original empire was much larger, actually, than the one that reached its height around the year 1600 in the modern state of Germany. Historians now call the earlier empire the Frankish Empire, or the Carolingian Empire. Neither are really correct, though, since it was not always ruled by Franks nor by Carolingians. Nonetheless, the coronation on December 25th, 800 as Roman Emperor of Charles the Great, Roman Emperor Charles I, Charlemagne, heralded a new age for Europe. Starting from this date, the Holy Roman Empire claimed a 1006 year heritage from its founding in 800 until its demise in 1806 under the overwhelming occupation of Napoleon I Bonaparte of France. It established the precedent of the Germanic emperors being "Roman Emperors" for, indeed, the Carolingian emperors from whence the empire claims its foundation was built upon control over Rome and the defeat of the Lombards by Charlemagne in 774. Thus the Holy Roman Empire was indeed based upon a true empire that included Rome.

The Frankish Empire showing its maximum extent and its 843 divisions

In addition, Pope Leo III who crowned Charlemagne Roman Emperor did not feel that he was stealing the title. Rather, he felt he had a legitimate right to place such a title upon Charles' head. First and foremost, he did not recognize the legitimate Roman Emperor in Constantinople. Constantine VI, the legitimate emperor, had been overthrown in 797 by his mother, Irene, who claimed the title Roman Empress, the first female to ever hold the imperial throne. Since there was no precedent for such a title, Leo III felt the throne had become vacant and, as the senior patriarch of the Christian church, took the initiative and crowned his savior, Charles, as an anti-emperor to Irene. Despite Irene's death in 802, Byzantium's replacements proved unworthy and the papacy continued to support its own line of Roman Emperors. Secondly, the Lombards who had controlled Rome were defeated and their Iron Crown captured by Charles. Charles was already, then, King of the Lombards and thereby King of Rome, and so he was the only logical candidate for the imperial title.

What happened next is why the Holy Roman Empire is considered separate from the Frankish Empire of Charlemagne. Charles' grandsons divided up the empire with the eldest son taking the title of Roman Emperor. But, in exchange, the eldest son was also placed in the worse condition, being ruler of a narrow strip of lands stretching from the Netherlands south through Burgundy to Tuscany and Italy. His younger brothers controlled the more centralized lands of Francia and the more warmongering lands of Germania. Quickly, the imperial title was abandoned and minor rulers in Italy fought for it. Berengar I was the last such emperor and died in 824. The Frankish Empire was dead.

The Early Roman Empire of the Germans
The Holy Roman Empire formed out of the ruins of the Germanic Eastern Empire of the Franks. The Carolingian line had died and Germany had pieced itself apart into small duchies. Bavaria and Saxony became the biggest rivals. Henry of Saxony was elected the first king of Germany in 919. He was a warrior who defeated the Magyars (Hungarians) to the east. His son, Otto, continued that war and achieved fame and renown. In 951, Otto campaigned in Italy where he aided then married the widowed queen of Italy and, as a reward, was crowned Emperor of Rome by the pope in 962. Thus Otto became the first Roman Emperor of Germany. Otto's son, Otto II, elevated his title to match that of his eastern counterpart, angering the Byzantine Empire even more. But to counter his presumption, he wed a Byzantine princess. The early Holy Roman Emperors were constantly split between loyalty to Italy, whence their titles come, and loyalty to Germany, where their hereditary lands and people resided. Thus while it can certainly be said that Holy Roman Emperors were Roman, it perhaps would have been better if they had also been German. In these early days, the empire was still hereditary in the line of Henry. That would all change when Henry II died.

The First Election and the "Holy" Empire
In 1024, Henry II of the Ottonian dynasty died leaving no heirs. The dukes and high nobles of the land, therefore, chose his successor: Conrad II of the Salian dynasty. While the line remained in the Salian dynasty for quite some time, a precedent had been unknowingly set. The fate of the empire had passed from hereditary right, as had been with the Carolingian emperors, to election by peers. And though the pope had the power to crown the emperor, the peers had the power to select the king of Germany who would be eligible for the imperial crown. Thus, a change in tides was coming though it was still long off.

The Holy Roman Empire, c. 1000

Meanwhile, Pope Gregory VII was establishing a different kind of precedent. For many centuries, the Roman Emperors had been in charge of appointing their own bishops and choosing which clergy would assist them in their day-to-day tasks. In 1075, Gregory and Henry IV excommunicated eachother, leading to a bitter struggle to determine the place of the church in government. For Henry it was a disaster. He walked to Canossa in 1077 and prostrated himself before the pope. In Germany, he had lost such face that some dukes elected a new king, Rudolf of Swabia. Henry's son, Henry V, finally resolved the conflict through the Concordat of Worms in 1122. It held the empire in check and removed the pope from it.

Following the earlier tradition, a new dynasty arose through election, the Hohenstaufens, and they used their political power to increase the "Romanness" of Italy and Germany. At every turn, they tried to fight against papal power but ultimately failed in their attempt. The pope kept the rulers in constant check by including blackmail in their elevations to emperor. Only if a king were "holy" would the pope crown them emperor over his domain. Thus the "Holy Roman" aspect of the empire became a dependent clause — if the empire wanted to be Roman, it had to be holy since the pope controlled Rome. And if it wanted to be holy, it had to be Roman since the pope lived in Rome. Thus the Holy Roman Empire, during its pre-Habsburg years, was constantly Holy and Roman, even though it was often only reluctantly both.

This problem reached its apex during the reign of Frederick II. Already many Crusades had gone out, generally with the enthusiastic support of the Holy Roman Emperors. These campaigns in the Middle East helped strengthen the claim that the empire was "Holy". But in Italy, Frederick and the papacy fought constantly. Frederick supported multiple anti-popes while Pope Innocent III long supported rival kings to Frederick II. Frederick's reign also saw the end of centralized rule in Germany. Whereas before Germany was a rather centralized Empire, it became after Frederick a decentralized empire. Frederick spent most of his efforts in Italy, specifically Sicily, giving wide-reaching freedoms to his dukes in Germany. Thus when Frederick died in 1250, the German empire literally crumbled into the confusions of history.

The Holy Roman Empire, c. 1300

The "Holy" "Roman" "Empire"
Where most of the confusion comes concerning the terminology of the HRE derives from the period from 1250 through 1806. During this time, Germany lost its control over Rome, lost its direct election by the pope, and lost the centralization required to truly be called an empire. Thus, while the HRE was at one point all three of those things, by the time history books catch up to it in 1806, it was none of those things.

An Early Image of the College of Electors

The empire dissolved after 1250. A 23-year interregnum ended with the election of Rudolf I of Habsburg as the new king and emperor-elect. The College of Electors was firmly in place by this time, having been created out of the power vacuum of the past two decades. The college became the elective body that chose the next German king. It met to discuss imperial law and was comprised of the chief dukes and archbishops of the state. In state affairs, the archbishops of Mainz, Trier, and Cologne met with the margrave of Brandenburg, count palatine of the Rhine, and the duke of Saxony. In imperial elections, the King of Bohemia, a seventh party, presided and acted as the swing-vote. In 1621, the duke of Bavaria became the eighth electorate, though it would later inherit the Palatinate. In 1692, a ninth elector was chosen—the duke of Brunswick-Lüneburg (Hanover). These people were deemed overlords of the empire under the ruling emperor, but each region was autonomous in all things save inter-territorial disputes.

The Decline of the German Empire
The decline of the empire happened gradually and over much time. Most of the post-1250 emperors were not crowned by the pope in Rome, but rather held the title "emperor-elect", which sometimes had the blessing of the pope. The emperors ruled their own lands and presided over the imperial courts. The majority of imperial funds came from their own lands except for a small tax imposed on all the other lords, which often went unpaid. Yet even as the empire dissolved into hundreds of petty states separated by rival dynasties and cadet branches, the government began to bureaucratize. Institutions sprang up, especially throughout the Renaissance after the Black Death. In 1512, the empire received its first legal name: The Holy Roman Empire of the German Nation. The concept of a centralized German state had reappeared, but centralization was but a pipe dream. The Habsburgs became the founders of a nearly-unbroken line in 1452. Charles V would be their banner-boy but he could not hold his massive empire that spanned from the New World, Spain, and Italy together. Religious strife appeared with the teachings of Martin Luther in the heart of Germany, and with it came the many wars of religion that would prove the death of a central German state until 1871.

The Holy Roman Empire, c. 1648, after the Peace of Westphalia

One-by-one, the Holy Roman Empire fell to pieces. The Peace of Westphalia which ended the Thirty Years' War in 1648 granted near-complete sovereignty to hundreds of the German states. The Dutch Netherlands rebelled from the empire while Switzerland achieved independence in 1499. Control of the empire shifted from a united entity to rival major states vying for control of the petty states. Of these, Brandenburg-Prussia, Austria-Hungary-Bohemia, Bavaria-Palatinate and Saxony became the biggest competitors. The balance of power, however, rested solely in Austria and Prussia, the two largest states in Germany.

The Holy Roman Empire, c. 1789, on the eve of the French Revolution

Only outside chaos could have ended the stalemate of the Holy Roman Empire. The French Revolution turned Prussia against many of its neighbors while Austria retreated to its heartland. In addition, the majority of the smaller states were forcibly annexed by their neighbors via French mediation. Ultimately, Holy Roman Emperor Francis II voluntarily dissolved the empire on August 6th, 1806. Napoleon took the remaining imperial lands and created the Confederacy of the Rhine, while the Austrian Habsburgs declared themselves Emperors of Austria and survived for another 112 years until their ultimate defeat in World War I. Germany reorganized into the German Confederation after Napoleon was defeated in 1815, and became the North German Confederation in 1866 when Prussia took control of Germany. The Hohenzollern king of Prussia, in 1871, declared himself King of Germany and dissolved the confederation after that, and the German Empire lasted for another 47 years before it, too, was ended in World War I.

So ends the tragic tale of the rise and fall of the First Reich of the German Empire. It rose in splendor and glory, passed through times of trial and success, and fell to lows unforeseen and unrepairable. Thus the Holy Roman Empire became, through feats of piety and subservience, Holy, through feats of strength, Roman, and through expansion and allegiance, an Empire, only to lose all three through greed and disorganization. The Holy Roman Empire's last remnant in Europe lies in Luxembourg and Liechtenstein, two petty states of the great empire that somehow survived through it all.

The Rulers of the Disney Renaissance (Disney Films: Part II)

Continuing my series on Disney dynastological analyses, today we will be reviewing the films from The Rescuers through Tarzan, which means we will be encompassing the majority of what has become known as the "Disney Renaissance". Again, any critique on the dynastological aspects of the films in no way lessens my appreciation and enjoyment of said films. This period especially is one of my favorites in Disney's history and I hope it is returning as it seems to be. Let us begin...

 
Princess Eilonwy

 25. The Black Cauldron (1985) – Often known as one of Disney's darkest and least-known films, The Black Cauldron tells the story of Taran and Princess Eilonwy, two Welsh heroes who fight to end the conquering desires of the Horned King and his minions. While the monarchical aspects of the film are generally downplayed, two different types of royalty are represented in this film. The Horned King, the evil enemy whom all must defeat, is portrayed as a tyrannical conqueror of unknown origins but who has destroyed the beautiful countryside. Princess Eilonwy, in contrast, is a legitimate princess, the daughter of a common man and a daughter of the Sea King. Little further is explained on this matter, however, and Eilonwy mostly brushes off her ancestry as burdensome to recount. In the end, the story focuses primarily on the pig, Hen Wen, and Taran rather than the monarchs and, while the defeat of the Horned King is important to the overarching story, little is discussed in relation to the future of the lands the Horned King once ruled over.

 
Princess Ariel and Prince Eric 

28. The Little Mermaid (1989) – Disney's first masterpiece in the series of films that became the "Disney Renaissance", The Little Mermaid tells of how Ariel, the daughter of Triton, King of the Oceans, fell in love with a human and forfeited her life as a mermaid for life on land with a man. Disney chose to use two blood royals in this story to place both characters on the same grounding. Ariel is the youngest daughter of the Sea King, a man who apparently has no (legitimate) sons since none are mentioned at a pageant near the beginning of the film (nor in any subsequent sequels or television episodes). Eric, the man she falls in love with, is a prince as well but nothing is discussed of his background. Whether he is a sovereign prince, as in a reigning prince, or the son of a monarch is unclear.  It is highly possible that since Eric seems to live as the ruler of a large castle on the sea with no parents ever mentioned in the film, he is the actual ruler rather than simply the child of the ruler. In either case, his hereditary royalty is never in doubt from the time of his first introduction throughout the film.

 
Belle and Beast 

30. Beauty and the Beast (1991) — A "tale as old as time", this film focuses on an imprisoned and scholarly peasant woman who is captured by an evil beast in his massive castle and inevitably falls in love with him, redeeming him in the process. The beast is in fact a prince turned monster by a sorceress. While he was yet a mid-teenager at the time of his transformation, no mention is ever given to parents in the film suggesting that the Beast was in fact a sovereign prince in charge of the castle and the lands around it. The townsfolk nearby seem to know of the beast but not of his dominion, suggesting that either the castle is much farther away than portrayed or that it does not rule the lands in which Belle once lived. In all likelihood, Cogsworth and Lumière were probably stewards and maybe even regents for the prince in his youth and continued as advisers as he reached maturity. At the time in the film, the Beast was supposed to be around 21 years old, with only one year to break the curse from his 21st birthday.

 
Princess Jasmine

 31. Aladdin (1992) — The classic tale passed down from One Thousand and One Arabian Nights, Aladdin tells the tale of a street urchin who finds the lost genie's lamp and becomes a prince. He does so through his (eventual) marriage to Princess Jasmine, the daughter of the Sultan. However, this film actually has three different forms of monarch portrayed in it. As with the previous three films, Jasmine is a legitimate princess, the daughter of the ruling monarch: Sultan. Aladdin becomes a prince jure uxorious, "by right of his wife", when he eventually marries her (which doesn't actually happen until the third film: Aladdin and the Prince of Thieves). But do not forget the Grand Vizier Jafar, who temporarily uses the power of the genie's lamp to become the Sultan of Agrabah. His claim to the throne is sheer conquest, but that is a style of succession long tried and supported. And while Jafar ultimately fails in his quest, he does manage to change succession law in Agrabah by convincing Sultan than Aladdin, as a hero, is worthy of marrying his daughter, despite the fact that Aladdin has no royal blood. In reality, royalty in Arabia has often married non-royals to cement alliances between tribes, and heroes are certainly good marriage material.

 
King Simba of the Pride Lands

 32. The Lion King (1994) — One of Disney's most remembered and loved films, The Lion King is also the one of only three films to feature a title of royalty in its title. The "Lion King" in question is Simba, initially the son of Mufasa, king of Pride Rock and the Pridelands. Mufasa is the legitimate king of the lands and that is something his younger brother, Scar, despises. Scar is eventually able to orchestrate a coup against his brother with the help of a band of hyenas. They kill Mufasa and attempt to kill his son, Simba, but eventually allow him to flee into the savannah in disgrace. Scar takes over the pride despite resentment from the lionesses while Simba settles in at a watering hole with Pumba, a warthog, and Timon, a meerkat, both outcasts of their own. Fate eventually catches up with Simba, though, and his once betrothed lioness finds him while going on a long hunt. She convinces Simba to return and challenge his uncle for control over the pride. Simba does so and wins the fight, with angry hyenas finishing the task of killing the deposed usurping Scar. The film ends the way it began, with Simba and Nala having their newborn child blessed and presented before the residents of the Pridelands. The dynasty continues.

 
 Pocahontas 

33. Pocahontas (1995) — In contrast to The Lion King, the monarchical roles in Pocahontas seem downright subtle, but they are still there. Pocahontas is a princess of an Algonquian Native American chieftain named Powhatan. Lacking a son, Powhatan is in negotiations with a mighty warrior of the tribe to wed his daughter, who is trying her utmost to make herself scarce. Eventually Pocahontas falls in love with an English explorer named John Smith, but circumstances halt their romance. The monarchy in this is a hereditary tribal chiefdom. While the chief is able to pass his claim to leadership on to his children, bravery and leadership qualities are expected of the leader. Little is explained about how the monarchy works and it remains a background topic throughout the film.

 
Hercules 

35. Hercules (1997) — One of the lesser films of the "Disney Renaissance", Hercules deals with a non-monarchical issue but one that is surrounded by monarchs. Thirteen to be exact. That is the number of gods and goddesses there are on Mount Olympus and Hades. The film is played out like a dynastic struggle for leadership of the Olympian Gods, a struggle fought mostly between Zeus and Hades, using Hercules as their tool. Hades and Zeus are brothers, but Zeus is god above while Hades god below. This angers Hades and so the underworld lord leads a rebellion by releasing their gigantic and wrathful parents, the Titans, upon the world. Hercules, through his bravery, is able to stop both the Titans and Hades' attempt at conquest by rescuing his love from what appears to be a Well of Souls. His immortality defeats Hades and Olympus is saved. Zeus became god of Olympus when he defeated the Titans the first time around, and thus this film is really about a dynastic struggle between two brothers who both feel like they should rule their siblings, a topic oddly similar to that in The Lion King.

 
The Han Emperor 

36. Mulan (1998) — Mulan follows the journey of Fa Mulan as she joins the Chinese army disguised as a man and falls in love with her captain. Two aspects of the story suggest royalty. The obvious one is that the story takes place in Imperial China during the Han Dynasty that lasted from the 3rd century BCE through the 3rd century CE. The emperor plays a fairly prominent role at the end of the film as he is  captured and nearly killed by the Hun leader, Shan Yu. The Chinese monarchy was a agnatic (Salic) primogeniture system prone to periodic succession by conquest. This film follows one of those attempts, as Shun Yu, the leader of the Huns, leads a campaign of conquest over the Great Wall and toward the Imperial City. Shan Yu is most likely a tribal chieftain who rose to his rank through deeds rather than by heredity, although some hereditary descent may have occurred. Had he conquered the Chinese capital, he would likely have adopted the manners of China as did the Mongols in the 14th century and the Manchurians in the 18th. It should be added, however, that Mulan, at no point in this story, becomes or is implied to become a princess. She remains the daughter of a soldier and marries a soldier.

Of the remaining films in this period, nearly all have a trace of monarchy in them despite the fact that no monarchs or their children appear in the films. Basil: The Great Mouse Detective (1986) and Tarzan (1999) both take place in Victorian England or with a Victorian English cast, with the former mentioning the Crimean War periodically and the latter featuring modes of Late Victorian dress in both the character of Jane and many of the slides she shows to Tarzan. The Hunchback of Notre Dame (1996) takes place during the reign of King Louis XI in the 1400s, and the king appears once in the novel but not in the film. As a stretch, The Rescuers Down Under (1990) takes place in contemporary Australia, which means Queen Elizabeth II of the United Kingdom is also the Queen of Australia via the Commonwealth of Nations. That leaves only Oliver & Company (1988) without any monarch whatsoever, either implied or otherwise, featured in the film since it takes place in contemporary New York City. Coincidentally, though, the novel upon which Oliver & Company was based, Oliver Twist by Charles Dickens, took place in London during the reign of King William IV. Thus the "Disney Renaissance" is also a period in Disney's history rich with connections to monarchs and, most surprisingly, legitimate female rulers whose husbands are the ones not royal. Indeed, only Belle from Beauty and the Beast becomes royalty through her marriage, all the rest already are royalty. A kind switch from earlier Disney films.

Royal Weddings and Curious Titles (William & Kate Wedding)

William and Kate

 It has been two weeks now since Prince William and Kate Middleton married at Westminster Abbey, yet questions continued to be raised regarding various aspects of the royal wedding and, in particular, the status of the couple in the royal hierarchy. I, therefore, hope to answer some of these persistent questions so all of us become better informed.

Why is Prince William now called the Duke of Cambridge?
Hours before the marriage ceremony, the queen endowed upon her grandson the titles of Duke of Cambridge, Earl of Strathearn and Baron Carrickfergus. Since Duke of Cambridge is the most preeminent of those titles, it is the one he thereby takes as his own.

Isn't a duke inferior to a prince?
 
William, Duke of Cambridge

 In this context, no. There has always been confusion regarding the title "prince". Technically speaking, any child of a monarch could be called a prince or princess. It is a default title denoting a recent descent from royalty. As the eldest son of the son of the reigning queen of England, William is, quite logically, a prince. However, his title doesn't really mean anything. It is a courtesy given to someone who has no other inherent titles. In contrast, his new title Duke of Cambridge is an official title in the Peerage of the United Kingdom and as such grants him certain rights and privileges. Historically, it would grant him lands, a seat in the House of Lords, and the right to attend the royal court. Now it is mostly a titular title with little power, but it is still superior to the simple title "prince". It should be noted, though, that he doesn't lose the the title "prince," it just isn't as important as "Duke of Cambridge".

As a quick aside, royal dukes hold a special place in British history. Most sons of the monarch become a duke. Charles is technically Duke of Cornwall, a title that the eldest male gets upon birth, and Andrew is the Duke of York. Edward, oddly, is styled the Earl of Wessex, but that title holds an historic legacy in Britain and is the highest earldom available to bestow in Britain. Duchies provide income from a small tax to their landowners even today.

But Charles is a prince, right?
 
Charles, Prince of Wales, Duke of Cornwall, et al.

 Prince Charles is indeed a prince, but he is a different type of prince than the courtesy title bestowed on all children of royals. Charles is the "Prince of Wales", which is an actual title. It is granted at some point to the eldest child to denote that they are next in line to the throne. Historically, the title presumed ownership of the Principality of Wales, an occupied country west of England. But during the reign of Henry VIII, Wales was permanently appended to England and the title became nothing more than that. It holds no official place in the British peerage, although the bearer of the title also is usually the Duke of Cornwall and thus the head of the peerage. Wales used to give a tax to the Prince but it no longer does since it technically doesn't exist separate from England. In any case, Charles is the Prince of Wales, technically a sovereign of a foreign land, which is very different than a royal prince.

Why is Charles' wife called Duchess of Cornwall, then? Shouldn't she be Princess of Wales?
 
Camilla, Duchess of Cornwall

Camilla is, in fact, the Princess of Wales. But out of respect for her step-children, William and Harry, and the memory of Charles' much-loved first wife, Diana, she chose (or Charles chose for her) to use a different title. The next highest title in Charles' collection is Duke of Cornwall, the place where he makes the majority of his income, so Camilla is the Duchess of Cornwall. If Charles and Camilla were to have any children, they would still be in the line of succession behind William and Harry.

So why isn't Kate a princess?
She is! Kate Middleton became a princess as soon as she was married to Prince William. Haven't you ever seen a Disney movie? There are two ways to become a prince or a princess: you can be born one or you can marry one. When Kate married William, she became Princess Catherine.

But why does everyone call her the Duchess of Cambridge?
Because that is a stronger title than princess. Just as Prince William has taken the title Duke of Cambridge, Kate has become the Duchess of Cambridge. Even for married peers, a royal duchess is better than a royal princess because it comes with benefits.

But why Cambridge?
 
Cambridge

Why not? Cambridge is a respectable town in England famous for its university. As a duchy, it was last held by the grandson of George III through his seventh son, Adolphus. The title went extinct in 1904. It had previously been granted to George Louis, who became George I of Great Britain, as well as four sons of James II, all of whom died in infancy. Cambridge was also created as a marquessate in 1917 for the queen's brother, Adolphus. That line ended in 1981 when George Francis died without issue.

And what about Strathern and Carrickfergus?
Having an English title makes William a bit too pro-England for the likes of Scotland and Ireland. And so William was also granted subsidiary titles in those two realms. He was created Earl of Strathern which was an ancient earldom in Scotland dating from around the 1130s or earlier. In recent history, it has been created into a duchy but always dependent on another duchy, usually Cumberland or Kent. The last such duchy was Connaught and Strathearn, whose last holder died in 1942. The title Baron Carrickfergus is a minor one, at best, and represents a region in Northern Ireland. The title was only used once before, from 1841 and 1883, after which it went extinct. Together, William's three tiles represent his claims to England, Scotland, and Northern Ireland, with his eventual title of Prince of Wales giving him Wales as well.

Can Kate become Queen of England?
 
 Catherine, Duchess of Cambridge

Yes and no. There has always been confusion in the United States about queens. The current ruling monarch of the United Kingdom is Queen Elizabeth II. She is queen because she has no brothers and she was the eldest child of the former king, George VI. The UK still uses male-preference primogeniture for their succession system, which favors sons, but that doesn't mean women can't rule. Kate, however, is not the eldest daughter of a son-less monarch, nor even the granddaughter. She is married to the eldest son of the eldest son of the monarch. Assuming all goes well, William will someday become King William V of the United Kingdom. Kate will then become Queen Catherine. But she will not be a ruling queen, but rather a queen consort—the spouse of the king. Her power will rest entirely in William's power, and if he predeceases her, she will become Queen Mother and their eldest son (or eldest daughter if they have no sons) will become the next monarch.

But isn't Queen Elizabeth married?
 
Prince Philip, Duke of Edinburgh

 Yes she is. She is married to Prince Philip, Duke of Edinburgh. Just like Kate, he is a prince because he married royalty. However, it was decided during the reign of Queen Anne back in 1702 that the husbands of ruling queens should not be called "king". In those days, kings had a lot of power and queens did not. Thus, if the queen wanted to rule uncontested, she had to marginalize her spouse in the realm of monarchical politics. What Anne, Victoria, and Elizabeth II all did was grant their spouses titles and jobs, maintaining them much in the same way that a king treats his queen consort. Indeed, only one "King Consort" has ever existed in England, and that was from 1555 until 1558. Queen Mary I (Bloody Mary) named her husband, Philip of Spain, king consort and delegated some powers to him, much to the dismay of England's Protestants.

Will William and Kate's children be eligible for the crown?
Of course! They are the children of a legally married royal couple. People often talk about Kate as a "commoner" but that doesn't make children ineligible in England. Most royals these days marry into the nobility, some into foreign royalty, but marring into the peasantry isn't unknown and it certainly doesn't stop people from inheriting the throne.

Why did William decide not to wear a wedding ring?
Because he didn't want to. Being in the military may have something to do with it, but royals, just like anyone else, can choose to wear or not to wear a wedding ring. Whether Kate agreed with William's decision is up in the air, but William has every right to refuse to wear a ring.


I think that will be all for now. If anyone has any further questions regarding the wedding, please feel free to comment here. I will reply as soon as possible with an answer. Until next time, cheers!

Damsels in Distress (Disney Films: Part I)

As a fun little dynastology topic that I have been putting off, I want to analyze all the canon Disney Theatrical Animated Features released since Snow White in 1937 and each film's monarchical style. I hope you enjoy and I promise, my critique of the dynastological aspects of the films do not have any baring on my enjoyment of the film. I am a huge fan of Disney's canon and hope one day to have the whole series.

This first set of analyzes will revolve around the first twenty-two episodes up through The Many Adventures of Winnie the Pooh. The majority of Disney films in this period do not have monarchical concepts, but a few do including some of the most famous princess films. Note: Numbers beside film-names represent that films sequence number according Walt Disney Animation Studios.

 
Princess Snow White

 1. Snow White and the Seven Dwarfs (1937) – The first in a long chain of Disney princess films that continue to this day, Snow White also sets the stage for one of the two modes that a "princess" becomes a princess. For Snow White, her method is ancestry. Snow White is the (apparently) only daughter of the late king. When the king died, it seems that her step-mother, called the Queen, usurped the kingdom from Snow White. All was well and good until Snow White became "fairest of them all". The Queen attempted to murder Snow White and she fled into exile. A while later, the Queen discovered Snow White still lived and, through a power struggle, both were killed. Snow White, however, was rejuvenated following the kiss of a rather mysterious man simply named Prince. Snow White and the Prince ride off toward the castle and "live happily ever after". Talk about stereotypical and unhelpful. The only thing that can be assumed at the end of this film is that the Prince is going to become the King suo uxoris—by right of his wife. That wife, it is assumed, is or will be Snow White. This is all left out, though, as is the identity of Snow White's parents and why Snow White didn't become queen after her father's death. Also, who ruled the kingdom once the evil Queen was gone? Surely some time passed and, it was assumed, that Snow White was dead either by the woodsman's axe or the Queen's poison. Surely someone would have claimed the throne since the Queen's passing. So many things left unsaid that this film, unfortunately, does upset me due to its simplicity. Other Disney films fare much better in the end. 

 
Bambi, Prince of the Forest

 5.  Bambi  (1942) – Throughout this film, Bambi is called a prince. His father is known as the Great Prince of the Forest establishing some form of monarchy. With Bambi being the Great Prince's son, he is established as the heir to the dynasty. This concept is little expanded on throughout the film, but the Great Prince does come to the rescue twice to save Bambi from danger, suggesting that Bambi is important to the continuity of the dynasty. The story ends with Bambi overlooking the birth of his children with his father, and then his father turning and walking away, suggesting that Bambi will soon be established as the next Great Prince. The dynastological undertones of this story are extremely strong, but the lack of conversation and depth in the film constricts its ability to tell its dynastological story.

 
Cinderella 

12.  Cinderella  (1950) – The direct contrast to Snow White and the Seven Dwarfs, Cinderella tells the tale of a maiden-turned-princess, Disney's other favorite form of "princess" to princess story. Basically, Prince Charming needs a wife because he currently shows no interest in getting married. The king wants a son, dosh garnit! So he invites every maiden in the kingdom to flaunt themselves in front of Charming. Dynastologically, this is already becoming improbable. Royalty-peasantry marriages are generally taboo even today and were much moreso back in the Middle Ages, when this story takes place. Even marrying nobility could be seen as damaging to the legitimacy of a dynasty, certainly marrying the gentry or peasantry was just ludicrous. Generally, that lot was reserved as mistresses or simple concubines. Anyway, Charming meets Cinderella, the wealthy heiress of a man whose widow and step-daughters treat the young woman as a common household servant. Cinderella's fairy godmother enchants Cinderella into basically becoming a noblewoman, but only until midnight! Upon her midnight flight, Cinderella leaves behind a glass shoe that Charming uses to find the young woman again. How only one woman in all of the kingdom fits Cinderella's shoe size is beyond me. Buying shoes for her must really stink. After some quarreling with the family, Cinderella finally manages to try on the show, which fits, and become a princess through her marriage to Prince Charming, a prince by blood. Thus, as Charming's father wished, Cinderella fills in the role of wife and mother to Charming and the many children she will undoubtedly have to fulfill her husband's and father-in-law's wishes.

 
The King and Queen of Hearts 

13.  Alice in Wonderland  (1951) – In Alice's imagination, she falls into the Kingdom of Wonderland, as it is eventually established. Wonderland is ruled by what appears to be a Queendom. Upon further analysis, though, there is a king and, since this was written in Victorian times, it is likely that the king was the suo jure monarch while the queen was just a heavy-handed consort. In either case, the Queen of Hearts is quite obviously the power behind the throne. The only other possibility, and it is a stretch, is that the king and queen are co-monarchs much like William III and Mary II were, but this seems unlikely. The parallels between the large Queen of Hearts and pompous Victoria and the twitchy King of Hearts and powerless Prince Albert are hard to miss. No further description of the monarchy can be found in the film.

 
Princess Aurora 

16.  Sleeping Beauty  (1959) – Disney's third foray into princess land returns the princess technique to that of Snow White: the hereditary princess. Unlike Snow White and Cinderella, however, Sleeping Beauty demonstrates a high amount of dynastological information. Aurora is born as the only child to her parents, King Stefan and Queen Leah. Soon after her birth, she is betrothed to Prince Philip, the son of King Hubert, in a dynastic alliance to unite the two kingdoms together. Thus, the story establishes that Aurora is the heiress of Stefan and implies that she will become Queen suo jure—in her own right. It also makes clear that Philip is the heir of Hubert and will become King in his own right. Thus there will become a dynastic union between the kingdoms, hopefully made permanent once the couple produce children. Years later, when the two meet, they fall in love, but Philip believes Aurora to be a peasant girl rather than the princess in exile. This suggests that the love is not meant to be, since, as mentioned in the Cinderella critique, royalty did not marry peasantry. In fact, Hubert brings this up when Philip reveals the news that he no longer wants to marry Aurora but rather this strange peasant woman. Hubert denies Philip the right to marry the peasant, for reasons mentioned above. Meanwhile, as with Snow White, Aurora is killed by a spinning wheel but may be revived if kissed by Philip. The evil fairy, Maleficent, captures and locks up Philip (why she did not just kill him, I know not). Philip escapes and kills Maleficent and then awakens Aurora, and they all live happily ever after. Out of all of Disney's princess films, this one is probably the best at properly portraying dynastic laws. There is a prearranged marriage for dynastic purposes. Hubert denies Philip the right to marry outside his class (or his betrothal). Both parties are already princes(ses) in their own rights. Frankly, I like the story too, even though Aurora is a really two-dimensional character. Definitely a well-done dynastological story.

 
Arthur, King of the Britons

 18. The Sword in the Stone (1963) – The treatment of the King Arthur story is bound to be controversial since there in all likelihood was no historical king by that name. Regardless, the story behind this version of the legend is that England is in the Dark Ages because Uther Pendragon died without naming his heir. When he died, a magical sword appeared in London embedded in a stone and anvil. The crux: who ever pulls out the sword becomes king of England. Quite an odd succession technique if you ask me. Regardless, Wart (aka Arthur) eventually pulls out the sword and becomes king. The story pretty much ends there, with a short epilogue explaining how Arthur becomes king and brings England out of the Dark Ages. Nothing is explained about his parentage (like that he is Uther's son), nothing about why he wasn't king to begin with, and nothing about his continuing legacy, except how famous he will become. Honestly, for a film about King Arthur, I would expect more regarding monarchy and less about preteen angst.

 
Mowgli and King Louie 

19. The Jungle Book (1967) – Besides the context of British India during the reign of Queen/Empress Victoria, "King" Louie is the only other monarchical figure in this allegorical story. He acts more like a kingpin—a Jabba the Hutt-like figure—rather than a literal king, making his placement in the dynastological context that of a non-dynastic leader and nothing more.

Richard I the Lionheart, King of England

 

John, Prince of England
21. Robin Hood (1973) – This film's dynastological context is quite obvious. Prince John is the little brother of King Richard the Lionheart. Robin Hood, a local outlaw, wants to ensure that Richard's rights in England are retained against the king's usurping little brother. He does this by "stealing from the rich and giving to the poor". John, whenever reminded of his mother, cries "Mother!" and sucks his thumb. Basically, all this is fun but completely contradicts history. Richard wasn't in the Holy Land by this time but imprisoned in Austria. John had usurped the regency of England in this time but the high taxes that Robin Hood fought against were because John was raising funds to ransom his brother from Austrian custody, a fact that Robin Hood would probably have known. When Richard left again in 1196, he left the government in the care of John, who he had named his heir despite the fact that John had a senior-line nephew, Arthur, the son of his elder deceased brother Geoffrey. Richard, in the end, trusted his youngest brother more than his nephew to lead England. Concerning Prince John's constant wailing about his mother, all was well and good. His mother, Eleanor of Aquitaine, was still alive and well, although quite old. She acted often as John's ambassador and served as Richard's regent prior to John usurpation. John only made a grab for the regency after his mother had left to negotiate for Richard's release in Austria.

The films 2. Pinocchio (1940), 3.  Fantasia (1940), 4.  Dumbo  (1941), 6.  Saludos Amigos  (1942), 7.  The Three Caballeros   (1944), 8.  Make Mine Music   (1946), 9. Fun and Fancy Free   (1947),  10.  Melody Time   (1948), 11.  The Adventures of Ichabod & Mr. Toad   (1949), 15.  Lady and the Tramp  (1955) , 20. Aristocats (1970) and 22. The Many Adventures of Winnie the Pooh (1977) do not appear to have any significant monarchical figures or dynastological concepts. 14.  Peter Pan   (1953) also does not show any significant concepts but initially takes place in Edwardian Great Britain (1901 to 1910) placing it in a monarchical context. Likewise, 17. One Hundred and One Dalmatians (1961) takes place during an unknown time in British history, probably sometime in the reign of George V from 1910 until 1936 but shows no other monarchical tendencies.

 
Limited Edition Thomas Kinkade painting of Peter Pan & Company soaring over Edwardian London to Neverland