I was just reading some French history and noticed that the Capet Dynasty ran from 987 to 1316 with every king being succeeded by his son - a run of thirteen kings over 329 years. Most dynasties have one or two breaks where a brother, nephew, or grandson succeeds the prior king.
Is the Capet line the longest unbroken line of father to son successions in history?
Anyone?
No cites handy, but my recollection is that the Scots had a history of something like five centuries of father-to-son dynasties, many of which were managed by regencies. That is, time and again, the king would perish in battle, usually with the English, but leave behind an infant son. This son would mature, take a wife, produce an heir, come into conflict, usually with the English, and perish. Lather, rinse, repeat. But this, as I recall, was the state of the Scottish kingdom when James VI ascended to the English throne upon Elizabeth’s demise without an heir.
The Scottish chain of father-to-son successions ran from Robert I (accession 1306) to James V (died 1542), which, at 236 years, falls well short of the Capetian example.
But if we relax the rules to parent-to-child succession, that can extended to 343 years (stopping at the death of Charles I), or even, if the Interregnum is ignored, to 379 years (to the death of Charles II). The one daughter/mother to interrupt the regular father-son succession was, of course, Mary, Queen of Scots.
I had heard that the Japanese emperors have had a remarkedly long run of direct descendence.
More Wikipedia paraphrasing:
According to the following Wikipedia quote, these two empresses bookended an all male succession of emperors:
I don’t have any other cite, but theoretically, it’s an 859 year run of father-son succession. Wikipedia talks of special circumstances such as adoption as being allowed in the line of succession, but doesn’t elaborate on breaks in direct father-son succession. I’m sure some Doper with real information will wander through and explain if this isn’t the case.
I got nothing on actual blood-line dynasties.
But when you define a dynasty as: the ruler or his advisors appoints the successor, then I think the Papal dynasty is a winner. Two thousand years, and even more if you count in the number of popes, as they are usually old and don’t rule long.
Not true. There were several examples of emperors being succeeded by their brothers in this period. Emperors Goichijo and Gosuzaku in the 11th Century, for example. Both were sons of Emperor Ichijo.
Has Monaco’s royal family been all father-to-son? I know they’ve been ruling since the thirteenth century or so.
APB, I stand corrected. Somehow it had become my understanding that RtB was a lineal descendant. (WTF does “the Bruce” mean, anyway?) Cursory research quickly confirms that I was mistaken. Teaches me right for posting from memory without cites.
It’s just his family name - though a controversial one at the time in terms of his claim to the throne. John Barbour’s 14th century poem The Brus no doubt helped fix the usage in later centuries.
That he’s usually called Robert the Bruce rather than Robert Bruce in modern English does also help avoid confusion with the other family members of the same name.
No. In fact, they don’t even have an unbroken descent in a male line, with the succession having twice passed via daughters, most recently when Prince Rainer succeeded. Their website even has a section on ‘A Series of Controversial Succession Issues’.
Sorry to be so negative. The question is a good one, but personally I can’t think of any example to beat Little Nemo’s original suggestion.
Not when you factor in the antipopes and the Western Schism. Counting from the last debated papacy of Gregory XII ending in 1415, the papal dynasty has lasted less than 600 years, and I’m not sure that I would really count this as a dynasty in the OP’s sense.