How to get more parvenu dynasties in Europe?

How to get more dynasty founders in Europe who do not have any royal or noble blood?



One way of achieving it is through a shorter feudal period. Pre-feudal Europe has seen many persons of humble background became Roman Emperors. In China, arguably the most fertile land for parvenu dynasties, commoner-to-emperor rag-to-riches stories only became common once Shih Huang Ti abolished the feudal system and replaced it with centralised government.

The feudal system gives nobility much power. Weakening the feudal structure will create a more powerful gentry class. Hence, more possibility of a parvenu dynasty.

The reason parvenu dynasties did not become commonplace in Europe after the feudal system weakened OTL is because the society quickly moved to modern nation states in which absolute monarchies were replaced by constitutional monarchies and republics. On the other hand, China endured 2000 years of imperial rule after Shih Huang Ti abolished the feudal system and many parvenu dynasties were founded in this period. Maybe a longer transition period between the weakening of feudal structure and the ascendancy of modern nation states could do the trick?
 
I suppose if the Visconti had been successful in their ambitions rather than it falling to pieces after a generation, would they count? Other options include the Tudors (admittedly, Henry VII had "royal" blood, but it was technically tainted from being from the wrong side of the blanket), the Bonapartes, the Vasas, the Bernadottes, the Murats, the Sforza, the Medici, the Mazarin-Mancini...

IDK if these meet your criteria, since there was a loophole in many of the cases (the Visconti, Bonapartids and Bernadottes held power only for a generation or two, and IDK if Tuscany, Milan etc are on the scale of China)
 
I don't think Henry VII counted as a parvenu. The Bonapartes & the Bernadottes were the two dynasties which I had in mind when I mentioned the transition period between feudal system and modern nation states. If the transition period had been longer I think more could follow their footsteps.
 
Napoleon's victory should do the job. Some of his marshals could start new dynasties, or Murat is more lucky and keeps Naples after fall of Bonaparte, so Bernadotte is not the only one that remained on the throne.

And there are Balkan ruling houses of peasant origin like Obrenović or Karađorđević in Serbia, so maybe Greece and/or Bulgaria could also raise it's own "peasant" dynasty in addition?
 
Last edited:
I don't think Henry VII counted as a parvenu. The Bonapartes & the Bernadottes were the two dynasties which I had in mind when I mentioned the transition period between feudal system and modern nation states. If the transition period had been longer I think more could follow their footsteps.
Henry was certainly of Royal blood, even if he was in the backwaters. Part of why the Tudors were so brutal to keep away people with better claims. Also, the Bonapartes were mild nobility in Corsica, or had been at some point. The Bernadotte King was adopted by the childless Swedish King, which was a method used by plenty of dynasties in Asia and back in the times of Rome in order to provide good heirs.

Also, I imagine that the House of Oranje should count as parvenus, though they had lands outside of the Netherlands that they lost. Lot of republics in Italy also ended up with usurpers, but I think they usually needed to be from families with a dynasty controlling important points before becoming Dukes. Ended up with most of those got replaced or coopted by the Habsburgs and Bourbons.
 
A posibility could lie in the Reformation related turmoils and especially the Bauernkrieg in the Holy Roman Empire. If somehow successful it is likely that they would have elected their most charismatic military leader as king. he would probably be a landless knight, so parvenue enough imo. This is all rather implausible though, so I agree that a napoleonic victory is the best chance. On the other hand you could have a lot of such monarchies in the New World, if the USA had not become a Republic.
 

PhilippeO

Banned
did China really had that many Parvenu dynasties ? the definition is very problematic. Han and Ming is the one who are very obvious have low status. But other dynasties ? they often founded by very high-ranking general, so they technically could be "noble". Five dynasty and Sung for example have many founder whose grandfather 'raised' by Tang, the use of Li family name by Tangut is obvious prove of this. the main problem is China have different definition of nobility than Europe. Capet and Habsburg equivalent in China would be military jiedushi, regional governor, which would eliminate many dynastic founder family after Han and Tang collapse.
 
I suppose if the Visconti had been successful in their ambitions rather than it falling to pieces after a generation, would they count? Other options include the Tudors (admittedly, Henry VII had "royal" blood, but it was technically tainted from being from the wrong side of the blanket), the Bonapartes, the Vasas, the Bernadottes, the Murats, the Sforza, the Medici, the Mazarin-Mancini...

IDK if these meet your criteria, since there was a loophole in many of the cases (the Visconti, Bonapartids and Bernadottes held power only for a generation or two, and IDK if Tuscany, Milan etc are on the scale of China)

The Visconti, as their name implies, are descendants of the Viscount of Milan, at least one of them in the 11th c., so they are one of the least "parvenu" italian dynasties, not like with these low-born Medici. In Medieval and Early modern Europe, having noble blood is a prerequisite for military leadership, so it would be difficult to see non-nobles rising to power in absence of a paradigm-shifting revolution (be it religious or political).

Noble families of low standing had a better chance, especially in the marginal spaces of Europe where a crown could be picked at the tip of the sword : the Hauteville in southern Italy are a good example of a fast-track social climbing. Another example are the families of papal origin, as many Early modern popes gave estates to their nephews or even their sons even if they were not from high noble families. But only the Della Rovere in Urbino, the Farnese in Parma, the Ludovisi and the Boncompagni in Piombino ascended to real independent rulership.Many other families had a longer ascension allowing them, mainly through clever marriages, to assume rulership : the Stewarts, the Romanov, the Albret...
 
Do the Romanovs count?
Not really. The first Czar was a young guy from a family related to some other leaders and apparently didn't want the position but all the other nobles made him by saying it was the decision of God. If you have all the nobles demanding it, then your dynasty lasts for centuries, plus you already were noble... Yah, I suppose a part of this is about how minor nobility someone is, if they had no land but still a blood relation to monarchs and thus distance right of succession, that sort of thing. If they didn't, then trying to go the monarchist route might backfire for them since they would be seen as usurpers, while trying to get a republic going or making alliances and getting a regency might be better. Though in areas with entrenched nobility, they might hate the non-noblemen no matter what they do, so why not go all out?
 
Henry was certainly of Royal blood, even if he was in the backwaters. Part of why the Tudors were so brutal to keep away people with better claims. Also, the Bonapartes were mild nobility in Corsica, or had been at some point. The Bernadotte King was adopted by the childless Swedish King, which was a method used by plenty of dynasties in Asia and back in the times of Rome in order to provide good heirs.

Also, I imagine that the House of Oranje should count as parvenus, though they had lands outside of the Netherlands that they lost. Lot of republics in Italy also ended up with usurpers, but I think they usually needed to be from families with a dynasty controlling important points before becoming Dukes. Ended up with most of those got replaced or coopted by the Habsburgs and Bourbons.

The house of Orange-Nassau isn't Parvenu. The house of Nassau was founded in 1093, count Dudo-Heinrich von Laurenburg, his son Ruprecht was the first count of Nassau. The Ottonian line of the house of Nassau (Nassau-Breda) gained the Principality of Orange in 1530, it passed to Willem of Nassau-Dillenburg AKA William the Silent in 1544.
 
Not really. The first Czar was a young guy from a family related to some other leaders and apparently didn't want the position but all the other nobles made him by saying it was the decision of God. If you have all the nobles demanding it, then your dynasty lasts for centuries, plus you already were noble... Yah, I suppose a part of this is about how minor nobility someone is, if they had no land but still a blood relation to monarchs and thus distance right of succession, that sort of thing. If they didn't, then trying to go the monarchist route might backfire for them since they would be seen as usurpers, while trying to get a republic going or making alliances and getting a regency might be better. Though in areas with entrenched nobility, they might hate the non-noblemen no matter what they do, so why not go all out?

It certainly helps your case when your father is also the Patriarch of the church.
 
I think the main difference between (Catholic/Protestant) Europe and well most of the rest of the world, are that Europe tended to have a focus on a high degree of legitimacy in succession, you needed claim, there wasn't a tradition for people without a claim to power overthrowing the monarch. Look at both Cromwell and Orange, they didn't declare themselves kings instead they took other title, which was easier to push as legitimate claim. Napoleon was pretty much the exception, but even he started with another title and then took a princely title. Sometimes the claim was weak like the Vasa, but a legitimate way to power existed. In much of the rest of the world coup was accepted a legitimate, if the new sovereign had the force to stay in power.
 

raharris1973

Gone Fishin'
Donor
Monthly Donor
I like that you brought this up.

In many ways, it seems that Europe had a stricter hereditary caste system than China, India or the Muslim world in terms of who was eligible to rule.
 
Top