Welcome to City-Data.com Forum!
U.S. CitiesCity-Data Forum Index
Go Back   City-Data Forum > General Forums > History
 [Register]
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
View detailed profile (Advanced) or search
site with Google Custom Search

Search Forums  (Advanced)
Reply Start New Thread
 
Old 04-03-2014, 11:48 PM
 
244 posts, read 359,980 times
Reputation: 253

Advertisements

Was there any practical difference when Napoleon called himself Emperor instead of King?

Also, was it established that if Napoleon died, someone from his house would legally take over as his successor?
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message

 
Old 04-04-2014, 12:35 AM
 
31,598 posts, read 26,449,195 times
Reputation: 24423
Quote:
Originally Posted by violent by design View Post
Was there any practical difference when Napoleon called himself Emperor instead of King?

Also, was it established that if Napoleon died, someone from his house would legally take over as his successor?
Napoleon declared himself "Emperor of the French" and not merely of France, suggesting the greatness of not only himself, but that the country was a "global power" with lands, territories and dominions beyond traditional borders.

Napoleon got busy creating a dynasty soon after making himself emperor. He got short of Empress Josephine and married Archduchess Marie Louise of Austria, grand niece of Marie-Antoinette who gave him a son Napoléon François Charles Joseph Bonaparte .

Upon his abdication Napoleon tried to do so in favour of his heir, but the victorious powers would have none of it and thus the thing was made unconditional. Napoleon II - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Napoleon really did love Josephine, and were circumstances different he probably would not have divorced her, however age was against the empress. It was clear her baby making days were over and the emperor needed to consolidate his gains. There is no point in starting a new dynastic monarchy if you don't have dynasts.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 04-04-2014, 08:04 AM
 
14,780 posts, read 43,477,989 times
Reputation: 14621
Quote:
Originally Posted by BugsyPal View Post
There is no such thing as "choosing" abdication of the British crown, indeed the process does not formally exist. When a demise occurs in the crown the next heir (of Electress Sophia of Hanover), becomes monarch at once.

In the case of Edward VII Parliament created a "demise" and thus the next heir Prince Albert of York became George VI as the former king was simply treated as dead for dynastic purposes. If the POW had married and produced that child would have inherited ahead of his uncle, provided it met the other requirements.

Parliament and the crown did *NOT* like making this decision and it haunts the Windsor family to this day especially the Queen. There was a chance the whole apple cart would have been upset with the monarchy simply done away with instead. Edward VII let the "family firm" down in failing to do his duty and thus you'll never see that sort of thing again.
This was my understanding as well. It's also not solely the UK Parliament that must affirm any such "deviation" but each of the Commonwealth nations as well. During the Edward VIII debacle, there was a legitimate concern that some of the Commonwealth nations may not accept the abdication do to their own unique laws on the matter.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 04-04-2014, 04:23 PM
 
31,598 posts, read 26,449,195 times
Reputation: 24423
Quote:
Originally Posted by NJGOAT View Post
This was my understanding as well. It's also not solely the UK Parliament that must affirm any such "deviation" but each of the Commonwealth nations as well. During the Edward VIII debacle, there was a legitimate concern that some of the Commonwealth nations may not accept the abdication do to their own unique laws on the matter.
Problems with the Commonwealth is also why changes to the laws of succession to remove primogeniture took so long to pass. IIRC they still may not have been but since Prince William's consort produced a boy it didn't much matter.

When the Cameron government pushed through gay marriage it only applies to the original crown of England (Ireland and Wales), but not Scotland.

Long story short as one stated previously there was a great fear about opening up the abdication process for Edward VII. The world had just come out of a horrible war that swept many of the crowned heads from their thrones. Fear of losing his was enough to keep George V from offering the Russian Czar and his family asylum.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.

Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.


Reply
Please update this thread with any new information or opinions. This open thread is still read by thousands of people, so we encourage all additional points of view.

Quick Reply
Message:


Over $104,000 in prizes was already given out to active posters on our forum and additional giveaways are planned!

Go Back   City-Data Forum > General Forums > History
Similar Threads

All times are GMT -6.

© 2005-2024, Advameg, Inc. · Please obey Forum Rules · Terms of Use and Privacy Policy · Bug Bounty

City-Data.com - Contact Us - Archive 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30, 31, 32, 33, 34, 35, 36, 37 - Top