Longest Direct Line of Succession - Page 2 - Historum

**gaius valerius** · June 11th, 2010, 02:45 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by sylla1

Not exactly.
The imperial Habsburg line extended from Rudolph I (1218-1291) to Charles VI (d. 1740) & his daughter Marie-Thérese (d. 1780); her husband Francis I and the following emperors of the HRE & Austria until Karl I (1918) were actually from the House of Lorraine (conveniently styled of Habsburg-Lorraine).

Well I'd personally would say that a queen in the mix doesn't mess the descendance from father to son up, it just changes it to father-daughter-son.

**gaius valerius** · June 11th, 2010, 02:46 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by pablo668

Pity it's supposed to be Father-son or brother only.

The Stuarts were rulers of either Scotland or England from about 1567 (Robert II of Scotland) with a brief break for Mary Queen of Scots until 1688 with James II of England and Scotland being deposed....or fleeing and leaving his throne vacant.

317 years. Not a bad stretch.

The Emperor of Japan claims a very long descent but I'm unsure of how accurate it is, especially when it gets to the Sun Goddess Amaterasu.

Where does 317 years come from?

**Ri Fhionngaill** · June 11th, 2010, 09:21 AM

The Stewarts ruled Scotland from the middle of the 1300s, actually. And there was a Stewart queen on the throne in 1707, although there was another king in between.

And they were not the rulers of Scotlandor England. They were the rulers of both, and neither.

**Ri Fhionngaill** · June 11th, 2010, 09:21 AM

The Stewarts ruled Scotland from the middle of the 1300s, actually. And there was a Stewart queen on the throne in 1707, although there was another king in between.

And they were not the rulers of Scotlandor England. They were the rulers of both.

**Edratman** · June 11th, 2010, 09:40 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by gaius valerius

Well I'd personally would say that a queen in the mix doesn't mess the descendance from father to son up, it just changes it to father-daughter-son.

I concur.

pablo668 · June 12th, 2010, 05:24 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by gaius valerius

Where does 317 years come from?

Er, I looked at the dates and scribbled it out on a notepad, I probably forgot to carry a one or something.

pablo668 · June 12th, 2010, 05:28 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Ri Fhionngaill

The Stewarts ruled Scotland from the middle of the 1300s, actually. And there was a Stewart queen on the throne in 1707, although there was another king in between.

And they were not the rulers of Scotlandor England. They were the rulers of both.

We're getting caught up in semantics here.

The Stuarts ruled in Scotland from the mid 1300's like you said and England as well from James VI onward.

I just phrased it all very badly.

sylla1 · June 12th, 2010, 08:23 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by gaius valerius

Well I'd personally would say that a queen in the mix doesn't mess the descendance from father to son up, it just changes it to father-daughter-son.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Edratman

I concur.

You may, but you can't change the obvious fact that the dynastic name transmission is patrilineal, as required by the OP.

Under that same yardstick, virtually all European monarchs ever would have been considered as a big single dynasty, coming down from the biblical Adam himself

.

**sturm** · June 12th, 2010, 11:03 PM

Palaiologan dynasty (1261-1453) from the Byzantine empire was kind of long, for the standarts of the empire, where dynasties were changed almost on every 10 years or so. The last known Palaiologan - Andreas Palaiologos died in 1502 its possibile however that the same dynasty countinued to exist, but maybe the next generation was unaware of there noble birth and the past of there family.
And even if they were aware of there family history, Andreas sold his titles and royal imperial rights to Ferdniand II of Aragon and Isabela I of Castile.

**Efendi** · June 12th, 2010, 11:09 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by sturm

Palaiologan dynasty (1261-1453) from the Byzantine empire was kind of long, for the standarts of the empire, where dynasties were changed almost on every 10 years or so. The last known Palaiologan - Andreas Palaiologos died in 1502 its possibile however that the same dynasty countinued to exist, but maybe the next generation was unaware of there noble birth and the past of there family.
And even if they were aware of there family history, Andreas sold his titles and royal imperial rights to Ferdniand II of Aragon and Isabela I of Castile.

Istanbul falled to Turks, Byzantine days ended at that time. Ferdinand and Isabela seem to be cheated.

I don't understand what does it means to selling tittle, It usually come from royal blood. Tittle is more than brand value, and patent rights.

I wonder the future of Byzantine family, many of them turned to Turk.