What dynasty would reign in Poland - make the best case ?
- Thread starter Grey Wolf
- Start date
The Polish Estates could elect any king they wanted, but naturally many of their kings (and plenty of Poles, followers of current political thought) were unhappy with that. So the real question is, which king of Poland would be successful, powerful, or convincing enough to con (or force) the Sejm to make his succession hereditary?
I'd like it to be the Vasa, but don't mind me, I'm just a fanboy.
I'd like it to be the Vasa, but don't mind me, I'm just a fanboy.
Dr Pervez Hoodbhoy
Banned
They elected their kings from wherever they wanted to. Historic kings and claimants after 1569 included Vasas, Saxons, a Bathory, a Valois, a Habsburg, a Portuguese, a Bavarian, an Este, a Prince de Conti, the last Jagiellons, and all sorts of Polish nobles (Sobieski, his son, Louis XV's father-in-law, one of Catherine the Great's lovers, the son of a famous commander).
Last edited:
Grey Wolf
Donor
They elected kings but the obvious strongest contender was often the son or heir of the previous king, leading to rival dynasties of which the strongest would be the Vasa, the Electors/Kings of Saxony (Wettin) and the House of Poniatowski. By the end of the 18th century the question of succession was basically alternating between these two rival dynasties, whilst the kingdom itself was being torn apart - that is IIRC, which is always a good question at the moment, it being a while since I read about this.
One note in addition is that of course the LAST King of Poland legally speaking was the Russian Tsar who was created King of Poland under the Congress of Vienna, and who held it as a subsidiary title until the kingdom was dissolved in, I think 1830 as a result of widespread rebellion - I think this makes Nikolai I the last legal King.
Additional to this note, is that the last CLAIMANT was one of the leaders of this revolution, and who lived in exile in Paris afterwards addressed formally by everyone (at least in the West of Europe) as de jure King of Poland.
Best Regards
Grey Wolf
One note in addition is that of course the LAST King of Poland legally speaking was the Russian Tsar who was created King of Poland under the Congress of Vienna, and who held it as a subsidiary title until the kingdom was dissolved in, I think 1830 as a result of widespread rebellion - I think this makes Nikolai I the last legal King.
Additional to this note, is that the last CLAIMANT was one of the leaders of this revolution, and who lived in exile in Paris afterwards addressed formally by everyone (at least in the West of Europe) as de jure King of Poland.
Best Regards
Grey Wolf
Dr Pervez Hoodbhoy
Banned
I wouldn't quite say alternating, there was Augustus III the Corpulent (the last of the 2 Saxons, 1734-1763) and Stanislaw Poniatowski (the only one from his family, 1764-1795), then Poland got divided.
Grey Wolf
Donor
Ah, I was also factoring in the Saxon ruler of the Grand Duchy of Warsaw...
Again, its a lesson for me to check my facts before typing, and I accept that, sorry.
I need to check on the chap in Paris - was he a Poniatowski or a descendant of one with a different surname ? I think he was something like that
Best Regards
Grey Wolf
ninebucks
Banned
I think then, that if the Rzeczpospolita were to survive to the current day, the trend would be away from hereditary monarchs, not towards it. The Sejm was powerful and more than capable of maintaining that power (at least internally), and I don't think they would ever consent to the creation of a hereditary dynasty. Indeed, I think by 2007 the system would be much more democratic, with a representative Sejm electing a sort of King-President hybrid (perhaps for a term, or perhaps for life).
Abandoning all their powers forever to a foreigner seems foolish and unlikely.
Abandoning all their powers forever to a foreigner seems foolish and unlikely.
Dr Pervez Hoodbhoy
Banned
Well "Rzeczpospolita" actually means "republic" (though only used for Poland), so ultimately it's having a king that's really weird.
Thande
Donor
If you can have a kingdom with an empty throne, then why not a republic with a filled one?
You could perhaps argue semantics, calling the Polish 'kings' something more like 'president-for-life elected by very limited suffrage'...
Max Sinister
Banned
It wasn't that limited... the Polish nobles made up 15% of the population. Even if you have to halve that number because women weren't allowed to vote, it's still more than in some "real" 19th century democracies.
Dr Pervez Hoodbhoy
Banned
Channeling Molobo?
That's because "commonwealth" ("wealth" or "weal" originally meant "well-being") is a close translation of the Latin "res publica" ("public matter"), of which "Rzeczpospolita" is a calque. A calque is a word-for-word translation, so "republic" is more accurate.
I suspect "commonwealth" is used more often to parallel the fact that the Poles only use "Rzeczpospolita" to refer to their own state state (whether under a king or president), while other republics are "republika".
Edit: Is it just me or are we having a lot of threads about Poland lately?
Last edited:
Max Sinister
Banned
I'm not making this up. Independent sources state that percentage of nobles, and 19th century Italy had at one point 2.2% of the people as voters (the election reform increased the percentage to 6.8%). And Britain had the rotten boroughs.
Yes, in some ways, Poland was farther progressed before the divisions - but they lost all, because of the liberum veto.
Yes, in some ways, Poland was farther progressed before the divisions - but they lost all, because of the liberum veto.
Grey Wolf
Donor
Regarding the percentage of Polish population allowed to call themselves noble this was because there was no land qualification, and no diminution of noble status over generations. IIRC all sons of a noble were noble, and thus all sons of their sons were noble and so on. I remember it being explained to me that a lot of the Polish nobles worked tiny farms liked the smallest peasant, but were still proud of their noble status
Best Regards
Grey Wolf