Well, how about a quasi-historical example: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rex_Nemorensis
Interesting; I’d agree with you that this breaks my rules, but intuitively it sounds like the government continuing in the normal fashion. How would you define the conditions to account for this?
Daniel
Japan might fit Chronos’s criterion: day-to-day governing was done by the shoguns, who overthrew each other regularly; but each shogun proclaimed his loyalty to the emperor. The official line was that it was merely a new administration, rather than a new state.
Most in this thread (including me) would consider each new shogunate to be a clock-stopper (most recent reset = the U.S. occupation after WW2). But, from a certain point of view, one could argue that MacArthur was merely one more shogun.
The 1911 Parliament Act in the UK stripped the House of Lords of most of its remaining power. Does moving from a bicameral legislature to a unicameral one constitute a change in Government for purposes of the OP?
It’s still a bicameral legislature, but the House of Lords is now clearly the lesser of both houses and its consent to legislation can be bypassed in some cases. Even had the House of Lords been abolished outright, I don’t see why it would have reset the clock for the purposes of the OP. The UK government only requires the confidence of the Commons, and the Lords is less important and legitimate (and this was true even before the reform). It would have been more in keeping with a slow process toward greater democracy than shown a break in government.
I do not see how Bernadotte’s ascension to the throne could be considered a coup or otherwise untoward. He was selected as crown prince by unanimous vote of the parliament.
In fact, a few years ago in a similar thread, Polycarp suggested (in this post) Sweden as having had a continuous government since Gustav Vasa (since 1523).
I would at least consider the killings of a Monarch (Gustav III in 1792) to reset the clock? Or the “squabble” between the sons of Gustav Vasa? Or the coupe that cost Sigismund the crown in 1599? Just a few examples.
The reason I choose Bernadotte was because he was the first of the current family, with the coupe de etate happening before his ascension. Maybe Charles XIII (1809) would be a better choice though, but he didn’t really do all that much.
No? I mean, he was succeeded by his son, who was not involved in the assassination. You don’t consider the US’s clock to have been reset in 1963, do you?
That, on the other hand, is a much better motivation. I don’t have a very good grasp of history, I just saw there was something wrong with characterizing Bernadotte’s ascension as a coup, and I remembered that old post so I figured I’d link it.
You are of course quite correct about Gustav 3. I just wanted to point out some bloody stuff in the generally thought to be all to peaceful history of Sweden
But I do stand by my Bernadotte.
A worthy cause. While Sweden’s been pretty peaceful recently, one shouldn’t forget that its history is still full of, you know, history :).
Well, violent succession wasn’t part of the system but was fairly accepted as legitimate in the Roman Empire. With this in mind and a whole lot of fudging later we have a winner:
The Roman Empire - 1496 years
I leave you to puzzle out what dates I’m using as the start and end.
Nope, you’re wrong–doesn’t count. I’ll leave it to you to puzzle out the disqualifying event.
Remember, according to my standard, unless the change of government is effected by an act of violence on the part of the new power, it doesn’t count.
Interesting, and Sweden may edge out Great Britain. I don’t know enough about Swedish history to say for sure, but from what y’all have said here, it sounds like the last time their clock was reset was in 1523, over 150 years earlier than GB’s.
Daniel
Nah, you need to check my post 67. I’ll leave it to you how you want to interpret it though.
If you actually have one particular event in mind, I’m happy to try.
I assumed the OP meant “oldest continuous government still in existence” but if not then I’d like to know what disqualifies the roman empire. The change from a republic to a dictatorship starting with Julius Caesar would seem to make that at least two separate periods of government anyway.
If one’s no longer ruling can count and the roman empire is split up into eras by coupes then what about the Byzantine Empire?
There was much loss and gaining of territory but there was continuous succession of emperors in Constantinople from 330 AD until it fell to the crusaders in 1204 so thats 874 years.
How about Sweden? IIRC, it should go back to Gustav Vasa in 1523, depending on how you define continuous. I’m still reading to see if the stinking Danes got uppity again after that, but I don’t recall that happening.
Check my and Sofis discussion starting in post 66
I’m quite certain there was only one page when I wrote my post. Damn you all!
As did I, and it would seem everyone who has posted in this thread until PM suggested the Roman Empire.
Well he doesn’t specifically say that, but if so I apologise for the brief hijack.