Idea of the Day

Dynasties survive through various means. Their success, however, is directly related to five specific goals of a dynasty:

• The ability to retain inherited titles;
• The ability to expand and elevate titles;
• The ability to produce male heirs;
• The ability to maintain lines of male heirs; and 
• The ability to remain high in the public conscience.

If any of these goals fail, the future of the dynasty is in doubt. A monarch incapable of retaining inherited titles loses public face and thus encourages challengers (e.g., War of the Roses). A monarch incapable of expanding or elevating titles threatens stagnation and a lack of public respect for the monarch (e.g., the Kingdom of Hanover). A monarch incapable of producing male heirs will pass the dynasty on to a rival line, one that may not be of the same dynasty (e.g., Stuart succession). A monarch incapable of maintaining male lines threatens the success of the dynasty if the senior line fails (e.g., Bourbon succession). And a monarch incapable of remaining high in the public conscience, even if all other factors are retained, may still be overthrown simply due to a lack of respect.

His Highness's Royal Opposition (Anti-Monarchs)

An interesting breed of pretender has plagued certain types of monarchical governments over the years. While succession wars can break out between various claimants, it is generally rare for a title to go to two separate people legally. Yet the specific system of electoral monarchies—such as those of the Roman Catholic Papacy and the Holy Roman Empire—is often wrought with difficult-to-determine successions. During the Investiture Crisis of the 12th and 13th centuries and the Western Schism of the 14th and 15th centuries, antipopes and antikings became commonplace within the papacy and Holy Roman Empire. The two crises, indeed, aided in the Protestant Reformation and the dissolution of imperial power in Germany. So today, we shall look at some of these colorful individuals to determine just what makes a pope or king...anti.

The UnElect
To become an antipope one has to split the College of Cardinals down the middle. In the earliest days of the papacy, the College did not exist so a popular candidate for pope would just have to make a ruckus and have the populace elect him. If that didn't work, get the Byzantine Emperor—technically the secular head of the church at the time—to elect him. Felix II, Laurentius, and John XVI were all antipopes elected by Byzantine Emperors. Antipopes who claimed popular election, though, were often guilty of election fraud.

They also sometimes were guilty of nothing other than being the victims of court intrigue. Many early antipopes were popularly elected by either died before being able to do anything or were undermined by a local secular power. In the former case, the successor would brand his predecessor an antipope, thereby strengthening his own position. In the latter, the secular power may or may not have motives in denying the pope power, but without it, the pope becomes nothing and the clergy or College choose another.

Once the College of Cardinals was formed, things should have become simpler. The College convenes and votes until a single candidate wins. Majority rules! But sometimes the College is divided or members are not able to attend and another candidate gets an equal or strong second to the winner. In these cases, that second candidate may choose to forego the status quo and seek the papacy regardless of canon law. Support by a strong patron, such as the Holy Roman Emperor, may also lead a strong papal contender to challenge the incumbent. Whereas in monarchies, it is generally a pretender or usurper who attempts to claim another's title, with the papacy it is generally one who had strong support buy failed in the last round of voting.

With the Holy Roman Empire, a similar situation arose. Squabbles between imperial candidates was common but the College of Electors generally had the final say. Being only seven members, it was hard to not have a majority. But it was not unheard of. Like the papacy, electors could be absent or abstain their vote, thereby leading to ties and challenges. Papal support often encouraged imperial candidates to seek the throne, violently if necessary. This could result in antikings. They are antikings because the Holy Roman Emperor does not gain that title until he is crowned by the pope (or, in later days, acknowledged by the pope). Prior to that coronation, they are simply the King of Germany.

The Investiture Controversy
I will not go into details of the crisis, but in summary, the role of the Holy Roman Emperor over clerical appointments (investitures) was in question and the Empire and the Papacy were butting heads. In 1075, Pope Gregory VII issued a statement saying that only the papacy could appoint bishops and only the pope had the power to depose monarchs. Emperor Henry IV responded by denouncing Gregory VII. Gregory countered by excommunicating Henry and deposing him as King of Germany. In 1077, Rudolf, duke of Swabia, was elected by a group of German nobles to replace Henry.

Emperor Henry IV requesting mediation.

Henry IV, meanwhile, sought forgiveness and apologized to the pope. His country was in rebellion and another man was parading around as Holy Roman Emperor. Rudolf threw a cog in Henry's plans and the true emperor subsequently had his own pope elected, Clement III, in 1080. He then invaded Italy. Gregory called on the Normans of Sicily to help—and help the Normans did!—but Gregory was nonetheless defeated and died soon after.

Antipope Clement III (center) with Henry IV (left)

The crisis did not end for another generation. Herman of Salm succeeded Rudolf as Antiking but did not last long. He was weak and Henry's military was growing. Herman's death in 1088 secured the Empire for three decades. The papacy, however, was not as secure. Clement III remained the predominant antipope to the legitimate popes until he died in 1100. Two lesser antipopes, Theodoric and Adalbert, followed after but both were quickly deposed by the legitimate pope Paschal II.

The papacy continued to struggle against Imperial-supported antipopes until 1122. Sylvester IV and Gregory VIII were supported by Emperor Henry V, the son of Henry IV. Both were deposed by the legitimate popes and placed in monasteries after all their followers had dissolved. In 1122 the Investiture Controversy was finally put to rest.

The Hohenstaufen Plight
A brief schism occurred in the late 12th century soon after the rise of the House of Hohenstaufen to the Imperial throne. The issue was over supremacy: was the pope superior to the emperor, or vice versa? What resulted was a whole slew of antipopes. Victor IV was the first of these popes, followed by Paschal III and Callixtus III. None of them did much in the way of papal work and were seen largely as Imperial pawns. Emperor Frederick Barbarossa finally came to terms with the legitimate pope, Alexander III, and most was forgotten for the time being. Interestingly, though, the Imperial antipapacy continued with Antipope Innocent III, a feeble man who was soon arrested and incarcerated for the rest of his life by the true pope. For 150 years, the papacy finally had peace in its succession.

Holy Roman Emperor Frederick II Hohenstaufen

The Hohenstaufens had a different problem, though. Considering the issues that developed between Emperor Frederick II and the papal states, it is interesting to note that Frederick first became Holy Roman Emperor via election by the pope in opposition to the true emperor, Otto IV. Nonetheless, Frederick II fought the papacy, mostly over land, so frequently that he was excommunicated four times, called the Antichrist by one angry pope, and had not one but two people rise against him as antikings. Between 1246 and 1247, Henry, landgrave of Thuringia, fought a losing battle against Frederick II. He was elected in opposition following one of Frederick's many excommunications and died quickly as a rebel and traitor.

Antiking William of Holland

William, count of Holland, lasted much longer. William was elected Holy Roman Emperor following Henry of Thuringia's death. He was not a strong emperor but he had resources and options. He fought against first Frederick, then his son Conrad IV, and then his grandson Conrad V. In the end, he achieved little. The Hohenstaufen line ended somewhat abruptly and a power vacuum developed. William of Holland was long dead by that point.

The Unexpected Interregnum
The centuries of fighting since the fall of the Carolingians in 911 had caused the only real interregnum in the empire's history. Conrad IV died in 1254. Conrad V was young and never was recognized as Holy Roman Emperor or even King of Germany despite his numbering. For two years, from 1254 to 1256, William, count of Holland, was the only Holy Roman Emperor in Germany, though most did not recognize his legitimacy.

Antiking Alfonso of Castile

William's successor was the unlikely Richard, earl of Cornwall, a Crusader and brother of King Henry III of England. Richard purchased the election from four of the Electors, while Alfonso X, king of Castile, purchased the other three Electors. What resulted was a political stalemate that lasted almost 15 years. Richard only went to Germany four times during his career as King of Germany. Alfonso preferred to work through his Italian contacts and never traveled north of the Alps. This pretentious war continued until 1272 when Richard died, Rudolf von Habsburg was elected, and Alfonso renounced his titles. The Holy Roman Empire was restored again and never again would it see such a crisis within the College of Cardinals.

The Pope's Last Infight
The Papacy was not so lucky. The Western Schism developed in 1378 over the election of a successor to Pope Gregory XI. The French and Italian groups within the College of Cardinals had grown to dangerous levels. When Gregory died, the Roman populace demanded a Roman pope. Thus Urban VI, not Roman but still Italian, was elected. The French cardinals rebelled and elected Clement VII. Since he was in opposition to the majority, Clement VII had to flee and settled at the papal estates in Avignon, France. When Urban died, instead of electing the already-chosen Avignon pope, the remaining cardinals elected Boniface IX. Meanwhile, the successor of Clement was Benedict XIII. Boniface died and Innocent VII and then Gregory XII succeeded him.

The Western Schism divided the Catholic world

At this time, in 1409 the Council of Pisa was called which sought to reunify the papacy. Instead, the leader of the movement was elected Pope Alexander V, a role he hoped would bring unity to the papacy. Instead, it just added a third claimant to the papal seat. Alexander died within the year and John XXIII was chosen as his successor. The Pisan popes are considered antipopes but retain some legitimacy within Catholic circles, as opposed to the Avignon popes which are universally regarded now as antipopes. In any case, Pope Gregory XII and Antipope Benedict XIII agreed to renounce their claims to the papacy in favor of a shared successor. Gregory lived on for two years, during which time no successor was named and no pope sat on the papal throne. In 1417, Gregory finally died and Martin V was elected to succeed him. The Pisan Pope John XXIII renounced his titles. The Avignon Pope Benedict XIII, however, did not. While the Western Schism was officially over and the Catholic Church was united again, a small splinter group of the Avignon papacy lived on for a few years yet

Pope Martin V

Benedict XIII moved into the Pyrenees for protection. He died in 1423 and three of his loyal cardinals elected Clement VIII as the Avignon successor. But a fourth cardinal, who was absent at the election, chose instead Benedict XIV. Upon his death in 1429, the cardinal, Jean Carrier, elected himself pope and used the same regnal name and number, Benedict XIV, as his predecessor. Carrier died in captivity and the Avignon papacy finally came to an inglorious end.

Conclusion
The history of the papacy and the Holy Roman Empire is rife with examples of pretension and intrigue, but the role of the antipope and antiking to history is fairly unique to elective monarchies. Where in most countries there is little doubt to the legal successor, in elective monarchies things can be doubted, ballots can be forged, and strings can be pulled. For three centuries, the Catholic Empire in Central Europe was being continuously shaken by these intrigues and that led to the decline en masse of Catholic control over Europe. In other words, Martin Luther was only making obvious what four hundred years of history had already pointed out.

To Have a Son (Henry VIII and the Tudors)

Today we discuss one of history's most tragic dynasties: the Tudors. Dying off after only three generations and barely a century of rule, indeed, hardly constitutes a dynasty at all. Had not Mary and Elizabeth ruled, I'd go so far to say that the Tudors were simply a ruling house—an interregnum between the successful Plantagenets and the somewhat successful Stuarts. In any case, no 118 period in English history was more turbulent than the Tudors, though the War of the Roses preceded it and the English Civil War came soon after.

The dynasty began with hope and ended with a long defeat. But the major error the the dynasty was the failure to arrange successful marriages. From Henry VIII's failed six marriages to Edward VI's and Elizabeth I's lack of marriages, the Tudors failed in the marriage game miserably. Their only success was in the marriages of those who never themselves became rulers. The failure of the Tudors to establish successful marriages doomed the dynasty within the first generation. Thus, despite Henry VII's triumphant victory over Richard III at Bosworth Field, which heralded the end of England's medieval experience, England did not enter the new area with a secure dynasty.

The Lancastrian Inheritance
Henry Tudor, 2nd earl of Richmond (later King Henry VII) was the son of Edmund Tudor and Margaret Beaufort. Neither of these people had a claim to the English throne. The Tudors were an upstart Welsh family that only achieved fame through the affair and marriage of Owen Tudor to Catherine of Valois, the French widow of King Henry V. This placed their son, Edmund, in the curious position of having no claim to the English throne but being the legitimate half-brother of King Henry VI. His Lancastrian loyalty when the War of the Roses broke out was through this.

Henry VII Tudor, king of England

Meanwhile, the Beaufort family was equally from a strange background. The House of Lancaster descended from John of Gaunt, duke of Lancaster, the fourth son of King Edward III. His son, Henry IV, deposed King Richard II and claimed the throne for himself despite others having a stronger claim. The Beauforts were half-siblings of Henry IV through John of Gaunt's affair with Catherine Swynford, a Flemish Lady. Although the entire family was later declared legitimate, they were barred from inheriting the English throne due to their ancestry. Margaret Beaufort, the mother of Henry VII, was the daughter of John Beaufort, duke of Somerset, the son of John Beaufort, the earl of Somerset. She was the only child of the eldest line of the Beauforts and, therefore, the most senior member of the House of Lancaster, although that claim was through an illegitimate line of descent.

Thus Henry VII officially had no claim to the throne against Richard III, who he deposed, especially considering that Richard III descended from the senior-most line of Edward III. Sure there were people with a better claim than Richard (Edward, earl of Warwick, was his nephew through an elder brother. Edward had a sister, Margaret, as well.), but Richard was the eldest among them if nothing else.

Elizabeth of York, queen consort of England

The Reign of Henry VII
Henry VII negotiated his succession by marrying the Yorkist heiress Elizabeth, the eldest daughter of King Edward IV. Officially, this was his only legitimate claim to the throne, but he downplayed her status throughout his reign. The marriage was loveless at best. It was arranged between Henry, Margaret, and Elizabeth Woodville, the girl's mother. It was fruitful, though. Henry and Elizabeth produced four surviving children, two sons and two daughters. His eldest, Arthur, died at the age of fifteen only six months after marrying Catherine of Aragon, the daughter of Ferdinand and Isabella of Spain. After Arthur died, Catherine insisted that the marriage was never consummated, a statement that justified her marriage to Henry, Arthur's brother, eight years later.

Catherine of Aragon, queen consort of England and Ireland

The marriage of Arthur to Catherine was part of a strategy to ally with Spain against French aggression. Meanwhile, Henry VII attempted to pacify the Scottish by marrying his eldest daughter to King James IV in 1503. James was killed in battle ten years later, leaving Margaret in charge of the young James V. Margaret abandoned her position as regent when she married Archibald Douglas, earl of Angus, the next year. With Archibald, Margaret produced a daughter, Margaret Douglas, who will enter into this story later.

Henry VII attempted to marry his younger daughter, Mary, off to many different individuals but died before she was even betrothed. In 1514, the fifth year of Henry VIII's reign, Mary was wedded to Louis XII of France as part of a peace settlement. He was thirty years her senior and died three months after the wedding. Mary returned to England and resumed her courtship by Charles Brandon, duke of Suffolk. They married in secret in March 1515 and publicly, after paying a hefty fine, in May. Their marriage was more fruitful. The couple had two surviving daughters, Frances and Eleanor. Frances was married to Henry Grey, later duke of Suffolk. This family, too, will reenter the story later.

Henry VIII and his Many Wives
In England, Henry VII passed leaving the throne to Henry VIII. The new Henry was young and rash. He married his brother's widow reluctantly and was haunted by fears that Catherine of Aragon had consummated her marriage to Arthur. Still, the couple produced one daughter, Mary, in 1516. Meanwhile, Henry began a long life of adultery and intrigue. Mary became little more than a political tool throughout his life, much to her and Catherine's dismay.

Henry VIII, king of England and Ireland

His first public affair was with Elizabeth Blount, the daughter of a knight. This affair proved fruitful in proving that Henry was, in fact, capable of producing a son. His illegitimate son, named Henry FitzRoy, was publicly recognized and created duke of Richmond and Somerset. He lived to the age of seventeen before dying of an unknown sickness.

Henry's affair with Mary Boleyn soon after received much more attention. Mary, too, was the daughter of a knight, though a more prestigious one. Henry and Mary's affair lasted for nearly a decade and may have produced up to two children, Catherine and Henry Carey, though both were never acknowledge and both accepted as children by William Carey, Mary's husband at the time. In any case, the most important aspect of Henry and Mary's affair was his introduction to Anne, Mary's sister, which singlehandedly destroyed the Tudor dynasty.

Anne Boleyn, queen consort of England and Ireland

Although a devout Catholic, Henry strongly sought an annulment from his wife, Catherine of Aragon, since she had failed to provide him with sons and he had ceased being attracted to her. The pope at the time, Clement VII, refused his requests leaving Henry with few options. Henry, therefore, broke ties with the Catholic Church, was excommunicated by the pope, divorced Catherine of Aragon, and married his long-time love interest. The couple married in January 1533 before receiving formal clearance of divorce from the new head of the Church of England, Thomas Cranmer. Anne was pregnant within days and when the baby was born in September of that year, it was a girl. For another two years the couple attempted to produce a son, but Henry had grown tired of Anne and her tricks and began an affair with another young courtier, Jane Seymour. Meanwhile, Catherine of Aragon died, leaving all taint of illegality behind him. Another stillbirth by Anne finalized Henry's plans to annul the marriage. He accused Anne of adultery and incest (with her brother) and treason. These charges required the death penalty. Anne was beheaded on 19 May 1536, leaving a daughter, Elizabeth.

Jane Seymour, queen consort of England and Ireland

Henry moved fast to marry Jane Seymour. Within months of their marriage, Jane conceived and nine months later a son was born and Jane was dead by childbed. The son, Edward, remained a sickly child his whole life and, although he outlived his father, he never got a chance to truly rule England.

Anne of Cleves, queen consort of England and Ireland

Henry was out another wife. He decided to arrange a marriage rather than pursue another courtier. He found himself attracted to a portrait of Anne of Cleves, a German princess, during his research. He had her sent to England and, when they met, he found her less-than-appealing. They were forced to wed but apparently Anne also lacked skills in the bedchamber as they never consummated their marriage. The marriage was annulled six months later with Anne being awarded a generous settlement.

Catherine Howard, queen consort of England and Ireland

Again he sought and found a wife in the beautiful Catherine Howard, an English noblewoman. Catherine came from a Catholic family and it is possible that her family manipulated her into catching the eye of Henry in order to restore a Catholic status to England. In any case, it failed. Catherine was pregnant by the time Henry's marriage to Anne was annulled. They were married within a week afterwards. Henry was no longer attractive, however, and the young Catherine became repulsed. She began an affair with another courtier. Through a two-year intrigue, it became known to Henry and he promptly brought charges of adultery and treason against his wife. He annulled his marriage with Catherine Howard in November 1541 and she was executed for a law passed ex post facto in February of the next year.

Catherine Parr, queen consort of England and Ireland

Henry waited a whole year before finding his final wife, Catherine Parr. Yet another noblewoman, he finally found someone with the ability to outlive him. Catherine never produced a child by the king but stayed with Henry to the end of his days and then silently passed into history, the last of Henry VIII's six wives.

Edward VI, king of England and Ireland

The Failure of the Tudor Dynasty
The last four monarchs of the Tudor dynasty all failed in their bid to continue the dynasty. Three were the surviving children of Henry VIII while the fourth was one of Henry VII's great-granddaughters. England fell to the regency of Edward VI which was headed first by his uncle, Edward Seymour, duke of Somerset, but later by John Dudley, duke of Northumberland. During this time, the descendants of Mary Tudor, Henry VIII's younger sister, sought a dynastic union.  Mary's daughter, Frances, was too old to rule and already married, but her youngest daughter, Jane Grey, was just slightly older than Edward VI. The plan fell apart, however, when Edward Seymour was removed from the council and replaced with John Dudley. To make things worse, Edward VI was dying. John, seeing an opportunity, married his son, Guildford Dudley, to Jane, thereby placing his own son as, if nothing else, the head of a future English dynasty. Edward approved a writ disinheriting his sisters from the throne and soon after died in 1553. The stage was set for one of the shortest-lived royal coups in history.

Jane, queen of England and Ireland

Jane was proclaimed queen of England by the regency council but many quickly turned to Mary I, the eldest surviving daughter of Henry VIII. By the thirteenth day, Jane was arrested by Mary and placed in the Tower of London. She remained there for a year until her father with others staged the Wyatt Rebellion targeting Jane as their preferred royal candidate. With little other choice, Mary had her cousin beheaded, thereby stabilizing the English throne under her rule. The Suffolk claim to the English throne continued through first Jane's youngest sister and then through the line of her aunt, but never came to fruition. Fate had other plans for the English succession.

Mary I, queen of England and Ireland

Mary I ruled England for five years from 1553 until 1558. In that time Catholicism was resorted and Protestantism pushed out of the limelight. She was unwed and nearly 40-years-old at the time of her succession. She found a husband in her first cousin-once removed Prince Philip of Spain (king from 1556 to 1598). Philip, who was eleven years her junior, proved to be unloving, distant, and uninterested in his new wife. Philip, nonetheless, was crowned king of England & Ireland, the only king consort in the history of England. Even still, Philip returned to the continent and visited rarely. Her inability to conceive a child forced her to accept the inevitable and acknowledge Elizabeth as her heir. Mary died, Protestantism returned, and Philip found a "reasonable regret" that his wife had died.

Elizabeth I, queen of England and Ireland

Indeed, Philip actually saw opportunity. The younger and more attractive Elizabeth was approached soon after her coronation by a delegation from Spain seeking her hand for King Philip II. Elizabeth I rejected this request multiple times over the next few years and the relationship between England and Spain soured. Elizabeth eventually ceased seriously considering suitors entirely, leaving the entire Tudor succession in doubt.

The Solution
Legally, the line of Suffolk had the best claim to the throne after Elizabeth, but Elizabeth refused to validate that claim and even imprisoned the heiress when she wed another claimant from a parallel line without permission. The Catholic world supported Mary I, queen of Scots, the only child of James V, the son of Margaret Tudor. Mary solidified her claim by marrying Henry Stewart, the son of Margaret, the daughter of Margaret Tudor through her second marriage to Archibald Douglas. Thus Mary and Henry shared the first and second senior-most claim to the English throne. Scottish politics proved to be Mary's undoing when a Protestant consortium forced her to abdicate after she arranged the death of Henry Stewart. Her infant son, James VI, became king. Mary continued to pursue her claim to the English throne through intrigue while imprisoned in England. This frustrated Elizabeth I to the point that she had Mary executed. James VI, thereby, became the prime heir, a Protestant with a senior and double claim, and no ghosts in his past. Though the law of Henry VIII's denied his elder sister's line from inheriting the English throne, politics at the time of Elizabeth I's death in 1603 said otherwise. James's succession would bring about a new era in English politics, uniting England once and for all with its northern rival Scotland.

James VI & I, king of Scotland, England and Ireland

Conclusion
A long but interesting story of intrigue and plotting by the best known, but least dynastically important, English royal family. The Tudors act as a bridge between a two-hundred year span of dynasties that failed to leave a strong dynastic impact on English history. The Tudors passed their claims through an eldest daughter of the first monarch of the dynasty just as the Stuarts passed the claim through a younger daughter of the first monarch of the dynasty. It was not until the House of Hanover that things became straightforward again in English dynastic politics.

Rebirth of the Disney Empire (Disney Films: Part III)

I've waited quite a while since the first two posts, much like the gap between Toy Story 2 and Toy Story 3, but it's finally time to finish up my dynastological view of the last decade of Disney animated features. While it was not a strong decade for monarchical films, it also could have been much worse. In any case, the past three years especially have shown that the monarchical tendencies of Disney continue to this day. Let's move on...


40. The Emperor's New Groove (2000) – Disney's first monarchical film of the new millennium tells the tale of the young Incan emperor, Kuzco, who is turned into a llama by his chief advisor. Despite starring an emperor as its main character, there is very little in the way of monarchical commentary in this film other than a glaringly obvious one: greed. Kuzco is a very greedy and wealthy emperor and he wants to build a new summer retreat on the site of a peasant's home. The peasant, Pancha, and the emperor-turned-llama then go on a long adventure to turn the emperor back into a llama and humble him a bit. Again, not a lot on the way of monarchical commentary. The emperor turns out to be a better man in the end and everyone lives happily ever after, except the chief advisor. There is no mention of parents, marriage, or children, and even discussion over the empire itself is kept to a minimum. In other words, this is a fun Disney comedy with little in the way of dynasticism.

41. Atlantis: The Lost Empire (2001) — In contrast, Atlantis proved to be all about monarchy. Like The Emperor's New Grove, Atlantis takes place in an empire, albeit an underwater one. Atlantis is ruled by an ancient king who has lived since the empire sank beneath the waves. "Empire" is a loose term in this film since Atlantis is no larger than a volcanic island in the middle of a molten sea far beneath the Earth's surface. Still, the king's daughter, Kida, helps an expedition that discovers Atlantis. She and the expedition's chief scientific advisor, Milo, fall in love and Milo helps decipher Atlantean text so the lost knowledge of Atlantis can be relearned. In the process, though, the militant contingent of the expedition turns greedy and tries to use the knowledge to become rich. Kida becomes an imprisoned heir, trapped within an ancient jewel. Milo, with the help of some of the expedition members and the now-ailing king, rescues the imprisoned princess and restores Atlantis to its former glory. The story has many twists and, though it seems at times like a damsel-in-distress story, it proves to be quite different. It is the heiress, imbued with the power of her ancestors, who saves Atlantis. The king lives on, but it is strongly implied that his daughter and heir, Kida, will be the one that restores the glory of Atlantis, and Milo will be there all along the way as the royal consort to the Queen. A rich film with dynastic depth, Atlantis: The Lost Empire is perhaps one of Disney's best animated features though it is also one of its darkest.

49. The Princess and the Frog (2009) — The first Disney princess film since Beauty and the Beast, this unique biography of a 1920s New Orleans African-American waitress is interesting all on its own. Tiana has a dream to create her own restaurant along the riverfront. Meanwhile, Prince Naveen of Maldonia is a penniless, unskilled daydreamer seeking to find a wealthy bride in the American South. Where Maldonia is is never stated, but it is said that his father does not want a beggar for a son. Like most Disney movies, Tiana becomes a princess through marriage. Naveen is the true-born prince, the son of the King of Maldonia. When the film nears its conclusion, the couple are still frogs who miss their chance to kiss at midnight, thereby remaining frogs. Their failure to kiss seems to suggest that their love and marriage at the end of the film will be rather Shrek-like. Yet upon their marriage kiss, Tiana "becomes" a princess and the curse finally lifts. I found this a bit anticlimactic because they had decided they were content with being frogs yet they still were cured. Sure that meant Tiana and Naveen could open their own restaurant, but the underlying message—"be content with who you are or become"—seems lost. Also, while it is never entirely clear if Naveen is the heir, it seems certain that he will never become king since he remains in New Orleans, the co-owner of a popular restaurant. Nevertheless, this film ends up being a rather fun twist on the usual princess formula, while still following the standard dynastic patterns of Disney films.

50. Tangled (2010) — Returning back to the roots of Disney, Tangled, formerly known as Rapunzel, tells the tale of a true-born princess stolen by an evil woman while still an infant. The reason she was taken was a special property in her hair which allowed her to heal the sick and injured. To maintain this power, though, Rapunzel could never cut her hair. The woman, Gothel, imprisoned the princess in a tower and raised Rapunzel as her own daughter, never telling her of her parents. Meanwhile, her parents annually hold a festival of mourning during which they release thousands of lighted candles into the air in the hope that Rapunzel may one day see them and return to her parents. Rapunzel can see these from her tower and wishes to see them up close, not knowing their purpose, but Gothel refuses. After a long story known as the plot, Rapunzel loses her hair but saves her new boyfriend, Flynn. She is reunited with her parents, who seem to have not produced any other children other than Rapunzel. The film then jumps ahead a number of years to show Rapunzel and Flynn getting married, thereby making Flynn the prince-by-marriage. Disney did some unusual things in this film. First, it is only the second film where there is a prince-by-marriage. In all the other films where there is a true-born princess except Aladdin, the true-blood princess ends up finding a true-blood prince. The only other formula thus far was the non-royal woman marrying the true-blood prince. Secondly, the woman has a magical power. To my knowledge, no other Disney princess has a magical power, except perhaps Pocahontas who can talk to nature. In other respects, the film is fairly similar to Sleeping Beauty and Snow White and the Seven Dwarfs, with a princess-in-exile not knowing her parents. This film was definitely an interesting flick with new songs and decent graphics.

As for other films during this time, there is not much in the way of monarchy. Like Oliver & Company, Disney's Treasure Planet (2002) does not take place in a monarchical universe but derives from a story written in a monarchical universe, namely Hanoverian Great Britain. The author of the original story, Robert Louis Stevenson, wrote during the reign of Queen Victoria, but the story takes place during the reign of King George II in the mid-1700s. Disney's other films produced during the 2000s—Fantasia 2000 (1999), Dinosaur (2000), Lilo & Stitch (2002), Brother Bear (2003), Home on the Range (2004), Chicken Little (2005), Meet the Robinsons (2007), Bolt (2008), Winnie the Pooh (2011), Wreck-It Ralph (2012)—all lack any obvious connection to monarchies. Dinosaur contains some latent paternal tribalism, but nothing more serious. Disney's 2013 film, The King of the Elves, suggests that Disney has not yet given up on its monarchical aspirations and is progressing in a similar vein as it has for the past eighty years. Thus monarchies remain an important and even integral part of the animators' and story-tellers' canon.

To Defend the Faith (Linchpin Monarchs)

One of the many roles of a monarch has always been to defend the faith of the country in question. In some cases, that simply means upholding the traditions of the past, while in other countries the monarch is literally the head of the church. The Queen of the United Kingdom, Elizabeth II, still holds this position over the Church of England, though most of her powers are delegated to the Archbishops of Canterbury and York.

Still, there have been moments in history that are so important to the future of that country that the monarch not only defies the faith he or she is supposed to uphold, but downright changes the faith. These linchpin monarchs are often remembered fondly after their deaths, though at the time they are often criticized and earn many enemies. Four such individuals from Classical times deserve our notice, for they changed the course of history as we know it. A further six will be mentioned in brief for the respective influence they had on our current state of religious affairs in Europe.

Ashoka the Great, Emperor of India
I start this simple study with a non-Western monarch both for chronological reasons and to emphasize that this phenomena is not unique to Europe. Indeed, many monarchs throughout history have changed their state religions, but India is the second-largest country to do so and also the earliest known case. Ashoka was of the Maurya dynasty and ruled an area encompassing much of modern-day India, Pakistan, Afghanistan, Bhutan, Nepal, Sri Lanka, and Bangladesh.

Ashoka began his rule as an mean-spirited emperor intent on conquering the sub-continent of India from its current thralldom. But when he conquered the region of Kalinga on the northeast coast of modern-day India near Bangladesh, he converted to Buddhism. Legend has it that when he saw the ruins of capital of Kalinga, he stated:

What have I done? If this is a victory, what's a defeat then? Is this a victory or a defeat? Is this justice or injustice? Is it gallantry or a rout? Is it valor to kill innocent children and women? Do I do it to widen the empire and for prosperity or to destroy the other's kingdom and splendor? One has lost her husband, someone else a father, someone a child, someone an unborn infant.... What's this debris of the corpses? Are these marks of victory or defeat? Are these vultures, crows, eagles the messengers of death or evil?

Ashoka was heartbroken over the ruin his conquest caused and angry that his Hinduistic ways had led him to this destruction. He decided to rule his new empire as a kindly and wise emperor from that moment onward. He adopted the Buddhist principals of the quasi-democratic Kalingas and made it the state religion around 260 BCE. Within ten years, Buddhist policy had spread outward from his empire, reaching as far west as Rome and as far east as Japan. Buddhism was established in Sri Lanka during this time, and remains a Buddhist state to this day.

Ashoka's conversion was helped by the strength of India's military and political power in the region. Following the Kalinga war, none, including Greeks from Iran and the growing Chinese Empire, could question the wisdom or power of Ashoka. His policies were deemed wise and good and convinced even Greeks living in Persia to eagerly convert from their pantheistic ways. Though India eventually turned away from Buddhism over the centuries, other countries including Nepal, Thailand, Myanmar, and Sri Lanka still look to Ashoka as one of their guides in how to properly run a Buddhist country.

Ming, Emperor of the Middle Kingdom (China)
Buddhism took hold in other countries too during this time. From India, Buddhism spread outward to China during the time of the Eastern Han Dynasty. It was during the reign of Ming that Buddhism took hold over the monarchy. Ming sent a delegation to the Indian Empire in 67 CE to ask for teachers of Buddhism, and the group returned with two, as well as an image of Gautama Buddha and his book of sutras. Ming then ordered the construction of the White Horse Temple in Luoyang, the capital.

White Horse Temple

While it is thought that Ming converted to Buddhism during this time, he never gave up the strong Confucian undertones of the Han government and continued his wars of conquest in the west. Within 100 years, China was firmly a Buddhist country with temples and statuary scattered across the Middle Kingdom. It remained the dominant religion in China for nearly 700 years before being almost utterly wiped out during the Tang dynasty by Emperor Wuzong in 845 CE. Before it was destroyed, though, it passed to Korea and Japan where it remains a dominant religion today.

Tiridates III, King of Armenia
Christianity gets a lot of hype for its religious conversions, but it took more than 200 years for a single country to convert to the religion. That country is traditionally believed to be Armenia, a sometimes tributary state of Parthian Persia located in the Caucasus Mountains north of Turkey. Tiridates began his rule as a deposed monarch, attempted to retake his native Armenian throne with the help of Rome. Tiridates was raised and educated in Rome during his minority and this allowed him to get the help he needed to retake Armenia from the Parthians.

The Baptism of Tiridates III by Gregory

The conqueror of Armenia, Anak, had a son who became known as Gregory the Illuminator after his conversion to Christianity. He felt guilty for his father's crimes and joined the Armenian crusade to retake Tiridate's throne. Soon afterwards, Tiridates, a staunch Zoroastrian, demanded that everyone in his army lay flowers down at the foot of the goddess Anahit. Gregory refused and his Christianity and parentage was revealed to Tiridates. The now-restored king imprisoned Gregory in a deep dungeon where he lived for the next thirteen years. Eventually, Tiridates was forced to call on him after his sister had a dream in which Gregory held the cure to the king's illness. Gregory was retrieved and the king was cured in the year 301 CE. In joy and thanks, Tiridates immediately converted to Christianity and declared it the state religion. Gregory was appointed the Catholicos (leader) of the Armenian Apostolic Church, a church that still thrives today in the Armenian community. For the next thirty years, Tiridates fought to establish Christianity above all others within Armenia, often at significant threat to his own life.

Constantine I the Great, Emperor of Rome
Despite the progress made by Armenia toward establishing Christian states in Europe, it took a much larger entity to convince the western world that Christianity was the way of the future. The Empire of Rome during the fourth century was vast. It encompassed directly and through tributaries everything from Britain, France and Spain in the west, to the lower half of Germany in the north, as far east as Afghanistan, and as far south as Sudan. Thus when Constantine I, a pious pantheist of Brito-Roman stock, allowed Christianity in the state that technically executed Christ, the world skipped a beat. Yet the legends of Constantine do him more justice than in truth.

First and most importantly, the 313 CE Edict of Milan, perhaps the most important legal document regarding Christianity during Roman times, did not make Christianity legal—it made all religions legal. It's specific Christian proviso was that it also restored property to disenfranchised Christians who had lost property during the reign of Diocletian.


Secondly, Constantine was never a true Christian during his reign. His mother, a Briton named Helena, was already a Christian when Constantine was born and it is likely that she influenced him into becoming a Christian throughout his life. His conversion only became public in 312 during his war with Licinius. At this time, he believed that his success was due to the Christian God. From this time forward, Constantine established and rebuilt churches throughout the empire and added Christians to his bureaucracy. But Christianity was not yet the state religion. Constantine still was the head of the Roman religion and continued to patronize temples of Apollo, Diana, and Heracles.

Still, Constantine increasingly saw himself as the head of Christianity in Europe following his conversion. He summoned the Council of Nicaea in 325 which established the Nicaean Creed and decided against the Arianist interpretation of divinity. He was only baptized on his deathbed and it was not by a Catholic but Arian bishop that he received his last rights.

It would take another sixty years and a few pagan emperors until Christianity was accepted as the prime church of Rome. Another great emperor, Theodosius I, was responsible for finally establishing Christianity as the state religion of the Roman Empire, and it is through Theodosius that the Byzantine Empire, Russia, Bulgaria, and the Catholic countries of the world claim their right to supremacy.

Clovis I, King of the Franks
It didn't take long for Christianity to spread outward from Rome into its periphery. Gaul, ruled by the Germanic Franks, was the first to convert. Clovis ruled a kingdom in the early sixth century that spanned from Germany to the English Channel, and it was luck that he converted to the correct form of Christianity. The region he occupied had until recently been controlled by Rome and the Gauls that lived there, the Gallic Celts, had sided with the Arians in the Christianity debate. Lucky for Clovis (and history) that he married a Trinitarian Christian princess from Burgundy named Clotilde.

Clovis Receiving Divine Help During the Battle of Tolbiac

His conversion may well have been political, since many of the locals in his new kingdom were Christians. The divine origins of his conversion—invoking Christ in a battle to defeat his enemy—is most probably apocryphal. Regardless, Clovis was baptized publicly at Rheims on Christmas near the end of the fifth century. His Roman subjects felt comforted that the king had chosen Trinitarian Christianity despite the prevalence of Arian Christianity among the other Germanic and Celtic groups. For the remainder of his reign, Clovis fought to control and unify all of Gaul under his dynasty and under his religion. He achieved this at the First Council of Orléans soon before his death. While the Merovingians divided their realm time and again, it was never ruled by a German pagan again.

England's First Christian King
There is no solid first Christian king of England, or indeed the British Isles. During the time that Christianity was spreading through the British Isles, there were numerous kingdoms and chiefdoms and all accepted Christianity separately. Traditionally, the first Christian monarch of Britain was Lucius who wrote a letter to Pope Eleuterus in the second century asking to be converted. It is thought that England continued to be Christians for 100 years until Diocletian suppressed the religion, after which it was revived by Constantine, who was born in York. Today, the very existence of Lucius is very much in question and his conversion to Christianity is doubtful.

Æthelbert, King of Kent

Despite that, Christianity was already present among the Romano-Britons when the Anglo-Saxons conquered much of southeastern Britain in the fifth and sixth centuries. The Anglo-Saxons were Germanic pagans who, like the Vikings, did not accept Christian doctrine. For two centuries, they mercilessly fought against the native Christians until Æthelberht of Kent, one of many kings in England, finally started the process of re-converting England to Christianity. Æthelberht was married to Bertha, the daughter of the Frankish king Charibert. By this time, the Franks were Catholics and it is assumed that Saint Augustine was sent to England by Pope Gregory I by request of Æthelberht due to his wife. Soon after Augustine's arrival in 597 CE, Æthelberht was converted. He established a church at Canterbury and placed Augustine at its head.

Æthelberht influenced his neighbor, Sæberht of Sussex, to convert as well, but attempting to convert both kingdoms proved difficult. Firstly, the local kinglets were hesitant to give up their pagan past even while accepting Christian doctrine into their lands. Secondly, the Britons did not like the sudden intrusion of Rome back into their lives after nearly 200 years of absence. During the time Rome had forgotten them, new and different traditions had developed which contradicted the Catholic teachings. Without the support of the Britons, it was almost impossible for Æthelberht to declare the state religion Catholism. This problem was very apparent at his death, as numerous pagan kings ruled Kent and the other English kinglets for the next hundred years.


The northern Scandinavian countries each had to find Christianity on their own, often through waylaid missionaries or captured monks. Harald Bluetooth, King of Denmark and Norway, was the first Viking to convert to Christianity. His grandson, Canute the Great, became a champion of Christianity and spread it to all corners of Denmark, Norway, Sweden, the Orkneys and Shetland Islands, and beyond. Meanwhile, Vladimir the Great, Grand Prince of Kiev and a descendant of Vikings himself, became the first Kievan Rus' leader to convert to Christianity. Though he was a Catholic, Russia eventually converted to Eastern Orthodoxy in order to claim succession from Rome after the Byzantine Empire fell. Finally, Mieszko I, Duke of the Poles, became the first Polish monarch to accept Christianity, and through him Poland became the northeastern extent of Catholicism in Europe.

All of these people helped establish the religious order we have today. But why, you may ask, are no Muslim or Hindu monarchs listed here? For a very simple reason: most Muslims didn't convert to Islam, they were conquered and replaced. Islam began with its first monarch: Muhammed. The Prophet then established the Caliphate which replaced virtually every monarchy it came into contact with. Conversion was an option, but retaining the throne was not. When the Caliphate finally fell, only Muslims were left in the power vacuum. On the other hand, Hinduism is not technically a religion but a mixture of religions, all native to India. Leaders in India were already Hindu when Buddhism and Islam came along, and so there was nothing in Hinduism to convert to. Finally, Judaism is only the state religion in Israel, but in ancient times it was also an established religion, just like Hinduism, of the migratory Hebrews. When they settled down, they remained Jewish (though many of their leaders adopted pagan practices as well).

The importance placed on these monarchs is obvious: virtually all of them are "the Great". But this title doesn't have to denote religious greatness. The importance of the individuals, though, is in establishing a religious tradition often upheld by their dynasty for multiple generations in a way that has a lasting effect on their domain. Sure China and India aren't Buddhist anymore but Buddhism is still a central aspect of their histories and is still present in their archaeology. More importantly, if it hadn't been for these monarchs converting to their religions, other countries in their peripheries would not have converted, many of which remain Buddhist or Christian today. Thus the power one monarch has in converting can be seen in the religions of the world today, from Catholic Peru to Buddhist Cambodia. Religion is an important part of people's lives, and the primary reason people are aware of their religion today is through a monarch converting to it many hundreds of years ago.