Has anybody ever been head of state/government of two different countries?

[Schnitte]

I don't mean individuals who, by virtue of an office, function as heads of state or government in two countries, such as the British monarch holding the crowns of many Commonwealth realms, or the French president being one of the princes of Andorra. I'm not referring to constellations of mergers (two states merge, and the head of state of one country becomes head of the newly formed country afterwards) or dissolutions (a state breaks up, and the former head of the old state becomes head of one of the two successors), either. What I mean is: Has any individual ever ruled or governed two distinct nations, simultaneosly or successively, by fulfilling the constitutional requirements for being vested with this office, independet of each other?

[SCSimmons]

Originally Posted by Schnitte

I don't mean individuals who, by virtue of an office, function as heads of state or government in two countries, such as the British monarch holding the crowns of many Commonwealth realms, or the French president being one of the princes of Andorra. I'm not referring to constellations of mergers (two states merge, and the head of state of one country becomes head of the newly formed country afterwards) or dissolutions (a state breaks up, and the former head of the old state becomes head of one of the two successors), either. What I mean is: Has any individual ever ruled or governed two distinct nations, simultaneosly or successively, by fulfilling the constitutional requirements for being vested with this office, independet of each other?

There are quite a few examples that arose out of marriages between younger members of royal families, where progeny eventually became the heriditary monarch for both thrones. One that pops to mind is King James VI of Scotland, who became King James I of England after Queen Elizabeth I passed away, and thus King James I of the United Kingdom ...

[Antinor01]

James VI. He was king of Scotland by virtue of being the son of Mary, Queen of Scots and also succeeded Elizabeth I as King of England as James I.

ETA - Drat, there weren't any replies when I started this. ::sniffle::

[RealityChuck]

Henry of Valois. He was elected King of Poland/Lithuania in 1573. Two years later, on the death of his brother, he went home and ruled France as Henry III.

While she didn't rule, Mary, Queen of Scots, was Queen of France before becoming Queen of Scotland (where she did sort-of rule).

[SCSimmons]

Sorry! You'd have looked more original if I'd gone with my actual first thought, Emperor Charles V of the Holy Roman Empire, but I couldn't get my thoughts straight on all of the kingdoms & titles he held ...

[Antinor01]

Originally Posted by SCSimmons

Sorry! You'd have looked more original if I'd gone with my actual first thought, Emperor Charles V of the Holy Roman Empire, but I couldn't get my thoughts straight on all of the kingdoms & titles he held ...

Who was my second thought, but I already had the bit about James typed out when I saw your reply. Let's say we just chalk it up to great minds and all that.

[SCSimmons]

Originally Posted by RealityChuck

While she didn't rule, Mary, Queen of Scots, was Queen of France before becoming Queen of Scotland (where she did sort-of rule).

Does that count, though? Queen Consort is more like the First Lady than an actual head of state ...

(Although, had her husband, King Francois II survived & they had had children, their heir would have ended up as the monarch of France, England, and Scotland. Fun hypotheticals to trace there, let me tell you ...)

[naita]

Sigismund III Vasa was elected king of Poland (and Grand Duke of Lithuania) and later inherited the throne of Sweden.

[Chronos]

I don't mean individuals who, by virtue of an office, function as heads of state or government in two countries, such as the British monarch holding the crowns of many Commonwealth realms

Could you clarify this? It sounds like this "exception" would rule out anyone who could possibly be the answer to the question.

[RealityChuck]

Originally Posted by SCSimmons

Does that count, though? Queen Consort is more like the First Lady than an actual head of state ...)

I'm just throwing out possibilities; it's up the OP to determine if that counts.

However, Henry III clearly fits the OP. He did rule in two different countries, and there was no union or other connection between the two. He went to rule in Poland because at the time they elected their king, and Henry didn't expect to have a shot at being King of France.

[CalMeacham]

Well, he wasn't quite the ruler of two countries, but Sam Houston was head of the independent country of Texas, and also served as governor of Tenessee, and later as governor of Texas. He was also a congressman.





Pu-Yi was the Last Emperor of China (and has two films made about him under that title), and was also the puppet ruler of the Japanese-administered Manchkuo.

[MikeS]

I recalled things like this happening in Scandanavia quite a bit, historically; in the process of refreshing my memory, I discovered that Wikipedia has a list as long as your arm of personal unions, the fancy name for the type of arrangement the OP is talking about. However, the list does include the "codified" unions that the OP was less interested in, such as Elizabeth being, say, the Queen of Canada by virtue of holding the office of Queen of England.

[Telemark]

Depending on how you consider the way he achieved office, Simon Bolivar could fit the description.

[CalMeacham]

According to the Wikipedia article, the Hapsburg Maximilian was, at different times:

Titles Maximilian held from birth, in chronological order:

His Imperial and Royal Highness Archduke Maximilian of Austria, Prince of Hungary and Bohemia (6 July 1832 – 10 April 1864)
His Imperial Majesty Maximilian I, Emperor of Mexico (10 April 1864 – 19 July 1867)

He was also regent in Vienna and a Viceroy.

[Polycarp]

Augustus III the Strong was simultaneously and separately Elector of Saxony and King of Poland, having inherited Saxony and been elected to the latter office by the Sejm.

William III of England, Scotland, and Ireland (three separate crowns united in one monarchy) was also and separately Stadtholder of the United Provinces (i.e., hereditary head of state and government of the Dutch Republic).

Georges I, II, and III of Great Britain and of Ireland, and Georges III and IV and William IV of the United Kingdom, were also and separately Elector of Hanover. Both titles, though, came hereditarily, but the governments were kept fully distinct.

Napoleon was of course briefly head of state of Elba (I'm not sure what specific title was hung on him) between his two stints as Emperor of the French.

Leopold II, King of Belgium, was also owner of a "corporate state," the Congo Free State, which he held through owning the company which ran it. This was very carefully kept distinct from his role as the monarch of Belgium -- until his mismanagement of it caused the Belgian government to take it over from him as what became the Belgian Congo.

[pravnik]

Norton I served simultaneously as Emperor of the United States and Protector of Mexico.

[TV time]

A cheating way to get your answer, but Rt. Hon. Don Stephen Senanayake, was the head of state for both Ceylon and Sri Lanka. OK, OK you said in the OP not to do things similar to this, but I happened to know this because I was on island for the change over, and it confused passport officials for months afterwards.

They would say, "But sir, you don't have an exit stamp for Ceylon.,"

I would agree, and try to explain, then they would say I had a point, but restated their point that I couldn't be let into their country until I had officially left Ceylon. That it was no longer in existance didn't seem to suffice as a reason. I would attempt to point out that I didn't have an entrance stamp for Sri Lanka either, but they would just say that Sri Lanka's laxness in keeping track of who entered their country was of no interest to them.

[Lemur866]

Originally Posted by Chronos

Could you clarify this? It sounds like this "exception" would rule out anyone who could possibly be the answer to the question.

This doesn't count, because whoever is the head of state of the United Kingdom automatically becomes head of state of Canada, Australia, and assorted riff-raff. So it's not that Elizabeth wrangled herself a job as queen of the UK, and then weaseled into becoming queen of Canada. There's one job, queen of the commonwealth, and whoever is queen of the commonwealth is queen of the UK, Canada, and so forth. Otherwise we could say that Betsy is queen of Northern Ireland, Queen of Scotland, and Queen of England, nevermind that they are united into one kingdom. So this isn't a case of one person holding many posts, it is a case of one post that covers multiple countries.

[Chronos]

Well, yes, but for every case like that now, it had to originate somewhere. One of Lizzy's ancestors who was already monarch of England and other places added "monarch of Canada" to es list of titles. Likewise for Australia, and (Northern) Ireland, and Wales, and Scotland, and all the rest of the Commonwealth.

And I'm not quite certain that "monarch of the Commonwealth" is all one title, either. It's my understanding that Canada, say, could in principle change the succession rules for the monarchy of Canada, without the approval of any of the other places Lizzy is Queen of. It just so happens that they all currently have the same monarch, and the same succession rules so they'll keep with the same monarch, but that's not an essential feature of the arrangement.

[Hypnagogic Jerk]

Originally Posted by Chronos

It's my understanding that Canada, say, could in principle change the succession rules for the monarchy of Canada, without the approval of any of the other places Lizzy is Queen of.

I think so too, but it's disputed. There was a debate about this between Northern Piper and another poster at some point; I'll try to find it if I can.

[Bryan Ekers]

Idi Amin; dictator of Uganda and King of Scotland.

[Otto]

Originally Posted by pravnik

Norton I served simultaneously as Emperor of the United States and Protector of Mexico.

And his widow has since ascended the thrones.

[Polycarp]

Originally Posted by SCSimmons

One that pops to mind is King James VI of Scotland, who became King James I of England after Queen Elizabeth I passed away, and thus King James I of the United Kingdom ...

This is an exceptionally snitty nitpick, but one that really should be made in the interests of accuracy:

James Stuart was never James I of the "United Kingdom," except in describing their hereditary monarchy retroactively. The "United" there refers to the union of the crowns of Great Britain and of Ireland, formerly a legally separate nation whose government was basically imposed from London. The United Kingdom of Great Britain and Ireland was only around from 1800 to 1922, following which, with Irish Home Rule and the independent Republic of Ireland save for six Ulster counties, it became "the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland," the name it's held since.

What James was, was James VI of Scots and James I of England. What he often called himself was James, D.G. Britanniae Magnae Rex -- i.e. "King of Great Britain," meaning that he was the sole king over that island. It didn't become a unified country until 104 years later, under his great-granddaughter Anne in 1707.

[Hypnagogic Jerk]

Okay, this is what I was talking about. (See the thread linked to in this post.)

[APB]

The other, less obvious example of a king of Poland who ruled elsewhere would be Stanisław I Leszczyński, who, after his second abdication, became duke of Lorraine.

And that was possible only because the existing duke, François-Etienne I, agreed to swap Lorraine for succession to the grand duchy of Tuscany, thus becoming another example for the OP. (Whether the fact that, as the husband of Maria Theresa and as Franz I Stephan, he went on to become the co-regent of the Habsburg hereditary lands and Holy Roman Emperor also qualifies is, I suppose, more debatable.)

[Nava]

Originally Posted by SCSimmons

Sorry! You'd have looked more original if I'd gone with my actual first thought, Emperor Charles V of the Holy Roman Empire, but I couldn't get my thoughts straight on all of the kingdoms & titles he held ...

I don't have all of them, since he had a pile of titles taller than me, but just in Spain he was Carlos I de Castilla, Carlos I de Aragón-Dos Sicilias and Carlos IV de Navarra. He inherited the first from his mother Juana I, the other two from his maternal grandfather Fernando I; his claim to the Empire came from his father.

His son Felipe II had even more titles, adding Portugal by marriage. Unlike the other three kingdoms of the Iberian peninsula, that one got re-separated pretty fast.

[psychonaut]

The only modern example I know of is Simeon II, who was the tsar of the Kingdom of Bulgaria from 1943 until 1946 when the monarchy was abolished. The state was succeeded by the People's Republic of Bulgaria, in which Simeon had no role. Following the breakup of the Soviet Union in the 1990s, Bulgaria became the Republic of Bulgaria, and Simeon was elected prime minister in 2001. This marks the only time a deposed monarch has become head of government through democratic elections.

[pravnik]

Originally Posted by Otto

And his widow has since ascended the thrones.

I did not know that. God save the Queen!

[Polycarp]

Originally Posted by psychonaut

The only modern example I know of is Simeon II, who was the tsar of the Kingdom of Bulgaria from 1943 until 1946 when the monarchy was abolished. The state was succeeded by the People's Republic of Bulgaria, in which Simeon had no role. Following the breakup of the Soviet Union in the 1990s, Bulgaria became the Republic of Bulgaria, and Simeon was elected prime minister in 2001. This marks the only time a deposed monarch has become head of government through democratic elections.

How about Cambodia -- before Pol Pot, Lon Nol, and other odd names, Norodom Sihanouk was at various times Prince Regent, King, Prime Minister, and President. I'm not sure of the fairness of any elections, nor of the intricate constitutional history that led to this, but I do recall him being four different kinds of head of state/government over his career.

[Freddy the Pig]

Originally Posted by Polycarp

The "United" there refers to the union of the crowns of Great Britain and of Ireland, formerly a legally separate nation whose government was basically imposed from London.

No, it refers to the union of England and Scotland. The Treaty of Union of 1706 uses the phrases United Kingdom and United Kingdom of Great Britain many times; all the union with Ireland did was make GB into GB&I. Any monarch from Anne forward is properly styled "of the UK"--but not of course James I, who reigned long before the Union.

[Polycarp]

Originally Posted by Freddy the Pig

No, it refers to the union of England and Scotland. The Treaty of Union of 1706 uses the phrases United Kingdom and United Kingdom of Great Britain many times; all the union with Ireland did was make GB into GB&I. Any monarch from Anne forward is properly styled "of the UK"--but not of course James I, who reigned long before the Union.

Fair enough, given that it's a nitpick of my nitpick. But I'll note that in lists of laws, titles of nobility, etc., the nation that existed between 1707 and 1800 is (apparently always) shorthanded as "Great Britain" or "GB," and the one that succeeded it with the incorporation of Ireland in 1800 is (likewise apparently always) shorthanded as "the United Kingdom" or "UK."

[APB]

Originally Posted by Freddy the Pig

No, it refers to the union of England and Scotland. The Treaty of Union of 1706 uses the phrases United Kingdom and United Kingdom of Great Britain many times; all the union with Ireland did was make GB into GB&I. Any monarch from Anne forward is properly styled "of the UK"--but not of course James I, who reigned long before the Union.

No, no, no.

(I've done this several times before, but here we go again anyway.)

There is a big difference between 'the United Kingdom of Great Britain' and 'the united kingdom of Great Britain'. Just because the texts of the 1706 Treaty and both the 1707 Acts used the phrase with initial capital letters does not mean that this is how it was meant to be read. After all, in common with most official documents of that period, those texts used initial capital letters for most nouns and adjectives. Simply citing that phrase in isolation therefore proves nothing. Only by considering other evidence can the reading that was intended be established.

Fortunately, those documents themselves clarify the point. Consider Article 1.

I. That the Two Kingdoms of Scotland and England, shall upon the 1st May next ensuing the date hereof, and forever after, be United into One Kingdom by the Name of GREAT BRITAIN...

It even puts the phrase entirely in capital letters just to make sure that the form of the name is unambiguous.

Plenty of other evidence can be cited to show that this was how contemporaries understood these documents. As it happens, the royal style is the most clear-cut example. Every British monarch between 1707 and 1801 was formally, properly and routinely styled 'King/Queen of Great Britain, France and Ireland'. For that reason, historians actually do describe them as being 'of Great Britain', which is also the name they use for the country over which those rulers ruled. Anything else would be blatantly anachronistic.

True, that 'the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Ireland' was adopted as the new name after 1801 was clearly influenced by the wording of the 1706-7 documents. But the fact that the 1800 Acts were so obviously modelled on those earlier documents only underlines the crucial difference. Consider the 1800 Article 1.

That it be the first Article of the Union of the Kingdoms of Great Britain and Ireland, that the said Kingdoms of Great Britain and Ireland shall, upon the 1st day of January which shall be in the year of our Lord 1801, and for ever after, be united into one Kingdom, by the name of The United Kingdom of Great Britain and Ireland...

http://ds.dial.pipex.com/town/terrac...nd/1801act.htm

The parliamentary draftsmen knew precisely what they were doing and what that was was changing the country's name. Needless to say, it was only at that point that the royal style was changed to 'of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Ireland'.

[Elendil's Heir]

A nitpick: Elizabeth II isn't "Queen of the Commonwealth," she's the "Head of the Commonwealth." Some of the Commonwealth nations are republics, and others have their own monarchs: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Head_of_the_Commonwealth

[Northern Piper]

Mr. Speaker, a follow-up question for APB - how come Her Majesty's own web-site refers to the monarchs in this wise:

Kings and Queens of England (to 1603)

Kings and Queens of Scotland (to 1603)

Kings and Queens of the United Kingdom (from 1603)

I'm not disagreeing with your analysis, but I'm wondering why HM & Co are using this terminology? is it common in the UK government?

[Little Nemo]

Well, he wasn't quite the ruler of two countries, but Sam Houston was head of the independent country of Texas, and also served as governor of Tenessee, and later as governor of Texas. He was also a congressman.

Sanford Dole followed a similar path. He was President of the Republic of Hawaii and was then appointed Governor after Hawaii was annexed by the United States.

[Northern Piper]

Originally Posted by severus

I think so too, but it's disputed. There was a debate about this between Northern Piper and another poster at some point; I'll try to find it if I can.

Huh. People actually (a) read my posts, and (b) remember them.

[TheLoadedDog]

Originally Posted by Elendil's Heir

A nitpick: Elizabeth II isn't "Queen of the Commonwealth," she's the "Head of the Commonwealth." Some of the Commonwealth nations are republics, and others have their own monarchs: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Head_of_the_Commonwealth

Very true. Her Maj could just as easily be head of NATO, ASEAN, or The Under 13s Soccer Club. She is Queen of Australia and Queen of Canada, and these are separate crowns entirely to the British one. It is theoretically possible that the UK could become a republic and sack the Royals, yet QEII could remain as head of state and monarch of those other countries that chose to keep the old girl.

[mbh]

by CalMeacham
. . . . the Hapsburg Maximilian was, at different times: . . . . . . .

His Imperial and Royal Highness Archduke Maximilian of Austria, Prince of Hungary and Bohemia (6 July 1832 – 10 April 1864)
His Imperial Majesty Maximilian I, Emperor of Mexico (10 April 1864 – 19 July 1867)

He was also regent in Vienna and a Viceroy.

I don't believe that this qualifies.

The actual head of state in Austria-Hungary was the "Hereditary Emperor of Austria and Apostolic King of Hungary" (also, by the way, King of Bohemia, among many other titles).

"Archduke", in this context, merely means "a child of the Emperor", and "Prince" merely means "a child of the King".

A viceroy is always subordinate to a monarch.

I don't know what "regent" means in this context, but it usually means someone acting on the behalf of the actual monarch, not an actual monarch in his own right.

[WF Tomba]

Do conquests count as "mergers"? What about Canute?

[Declan]

Originally Posted by Schnitte

I don't mean individuals who, by virtue of an office, function as heads of state or government in two countries, such as the British monarch holding the crowns of many Commonwealth realms, or the French president being one of the princes of Andorra. I'm not referring to constellations of mergers (two states merge, and the head of state of one country becomes head of the newly formed country afterwards) or dissolutions (a state breaks up, and the former head of the old state becomes head of one of the two successors), either. What I mean is: Has any individual ever ruled or governed two distinct nations, simultaneosly or successively, by fulfilling the constitutional requirements for being vested with this office, independet of each other?

While you did say Countries , I wonder if Kurt Waldheim would fit the bill. Originally SecGen of the UN , and then President of Austria.

Declan

[APB]

Originally Posted by Northern Piper

Mr. Speaker, a follow-up question for APB - how come Her Majesty's own web-site refers to the monarchs in this wise:

I'm not disagreeing with your analysis, but I'm wondering why HM & Co are using this terminology? is it common in the UK government?

And that proves what exactly? Actually what it shows is something becoming ever more common in the UK government circles, namely an overcompensation for Scottish sensibilities. Whoever compiled that section of the website presumably realised that a list of 'Kings and Queens of England' (or 'of Scotland') could not just be continued after 1603, but then assumed that 'United Kingdom' would do.

Contrast with the Scottish Parliament's website.

...Scotland [after 1707] remained substantially a distinct and unique part of Great Britain (and of the United Kingdom, following the further Union with Ireland in 1800-1).

http://www.scottish.parliament.uk/co...devolution.htm

[Krokodil]

How about Emperor Baldwin I? Count of Flanders, Emperor of "Romania" (i.e. the Latin Empire of Byzantium during the Fourth Crusade). While Count is a lesser title, he had a lot more money and power in the lesser gig than as Emperor (which mainly consisted of pleading for legitimacy and cash from the Pope and various heads of state). All his squabbling heirs wanted the Flemish title a lot more than the Byzantine one.

Victoria and Mussolini were Empress of India and Emperor of Ethiopia, respectively, but didn't exactly leave Europe to pursue these sidelines.

Chaing Kai-Chek was President of China, and then President of Taiwan, although the separateness of those two entities has always been a little hinky.

[CalMeacham]

I was just reading last night that Queen Victoria was crowned Empress of India in 1876, while she was, of course, Queen of the UK and leader, by extension, of all those other places.

On the other hand, she wasn't exactly elected or chosen by the people of India, so I think this ultimately fails the OP's criteria.

[Schnitte]

Originally Posted by Chronos

Could you clarify this? It sounds like this "exception" would rule out anyone who could possibly be the answer to the question.

What I meant was to exclude automatism. I'm interested in people who perform the feat of becoming head of state twice; it's part of a fascination of mine for people with unusual biographies who excel in different fields(which is why I'm particularly interested in republican instances of this). The case of Andorra, for example, was excluded because every French president is ex officio one of the heads of state of Andorra, so that's nothing special.

[Tully Mars]

Originally Posted by CalMeacham

Well, he wasn't quite the ruler of two countries, but Sam Houston was head of the independent country of Texas, and also served as governor of Tenessee, and later as governor of Texas. He was also a congressman.

He came close, though. He was the leading choice to be the next U.S. presidential candidate when the scandal occurred with his new wife, Liza(?) Allen. Although, I guess one could argue that had he gone on to become the U.S. president, he would not have drifted to Texas and would not have been President of Texas.

[Governor Quinn]

Marthinus Wessel Pretorius was President of both the Orange Free State and the South African Republic (commonly called the Transvaal).

[Grimme]

I've found 3 examples of ruling two countries. Napoleon Bonaparte created his brother Joseph, King of Naples (which effectively consisted of southern Italy) from 1806-1808. Then Joseph was persuaded to leave Naples and become the King of Spain from 1808 to 1813.

Brazil's independence from Portugal in the 1820s was a messy affair within the royal family. When Napoleon was defeated, the King of Portugal returned from exile in Brazil (which he had made a co-equal kingdom with Portugal), leaving his heir as regent. This heir declared Brazil independent and himself as Emperor Pedro I of Brazil from 1822 to 1831. When his father the King of Portugal died, Emperor Pedro I came to Portugal and also became King of Portugal for a few months in 1826 before yielding to the throne to his underage daughter and a regency.

Emperor Pedro I's son succeeded him as Emperor Pedro II of Brazil. HIs daughter became the Queen of Portugal.

The 3rd example was Adolphe, the duke of Nassau from 1839 to 1866. He lost his country and his throne when Nassau backed Austria against Prussia in the Austro-Prussian war and was annexed, However, he became the ruler, as the next eligible heir, as Grand Duke of Luxembourg when that nation split away from the Netherlands because a female, at that time, could not become a ruler of Luxembourg. Adolphe ruled Luxembourg from 1890 to 1905.

[Northern Piper]

More recent thread on topic: Has anyone ever led two different governments in their life?