Who Was heir to the Most Kings of One Country in History?

MAGolding

Ad Honorem
Aug 2015
2,659
Chalfont, Pennsylvania
#11
Niall of the nine sausages has to be up there.
Except that if - repeat if - Niall of the Nine Hostages - not sausages - lived, he would have lived at the beginning of Irish history as opposed to legend, so that all his ancestors were legendary and not historical. My question asks for the heir of the most kings, not the person the most kings were descended from.

there is a gap of 5-600 years in the chola lineage that will probably never be filled. as for niall, he may or may not be real.

these would disqualify both
Yes. But another and even better reason for disqualifying Niall is that I asked for the heir of the most kings. Someone can only be the heir of their ancestors. Since Niall lived at the beginning of Irish history, if not generations before it, all his ancestors are even less certain to have lived than he is. Thus they can't be counted as historical kings that someone could be the heir of.

Well, the french kings from 987 to 1792 was an unbroken line of inheritors from the capetian dynasty according to the Salic Law (althought some where rather distant like the whole quaffaffle about the hundred years war, some families did change their names or were named different to differentiate them (such as the Valois, Anjoy and Bourbon family). I think it's like 29 kings if you don't include those that died in childhood, 32 including them (Louis XVII, Jean I, Francis II) or 31 if you don't include Louis XVII (the next monarch did indeed recognise him, so there is some debate here.
In my post number 5 above I discuss the Capetian kings. I say:

Henry, Count of Chambord was the heir by agnatic primogeniture of 36 or 37 french monarchs. Since his ancestor King Henry IV of France was also the heir of Queen Joan II of Navarre, Henry Count of Chambord was the heir general of 21 or 22 French kings as well as being the agnatic heir of 36 or 37 French Kings.

When Henry Count of Chambord died without children the descendants of his sister became the heirs general to 21 or 22 kings of France, while the Spanish Bourbons and the Orleans Bourbons disputed the claim to be the agnatic heirs of 36 or 37 French Kings
So the record to beat for being the heir by male preference or cognatic primogeniture would seem to be 21 or 22 kings,.

And the record to beat for being the heir by agnatic primogeniture would seem to be 36 or 37 kings.

Also, what exactly is a dynasty in this context? We can define it as either a proper family with the same surname/name or descendant from the same person/founder?
I didn't ask about dynasties in the title or body of my question. I asked about the person who was the genealogical heir (not merely the descendant, since many present day people are descended from over a hundred kings) according to some succession rule or another, of the greatest number of kings of any one country (that limitation to one country is to make things simpler and the numbers lower). The kings of a country that someone is the genealogical heir of do not have to be limited to members of one dynasty.

If we're talking about emperors, I think Japan takes the cake on that one with some 115 emperors or something...?
I created a separate thread for emperors. Who was the Genealogical Heir of the Most Emperors?

And see what I wrote about Japanese rulers in post number 5 above. And in post number 1 of the thread Who was the Genealogical Heir of the Most Emperors?
 
Last edited:
Dec 2009
574
#12
Well, if I find a genealogy of the Cholas or other long lasting southern Indian dynasties I may try to figure that out. but in the meantime I suspect that the Cholas were more like the Quraysh of Mecca, a clan which included many separate, partially chronologically overlapping, and competing dynasties like the Omayyads, Abbassids, Fatamids, etc. etc. than a single dynasty.
Vijayalya the founder of the medieval Chola Dynasty produced 21 successors who were all related to him as his Dynasty lasted from the 9th to 13th century.