A Medley of Potpourri

Wednesday, August 14, 2024

Order of succession

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Order_of_succession

An order, line or right of succession is the line of individuals necessitated to hold a high office when it becomes vacated, such as head of state or an honour such as a title of nobility. This sequence may be regulated through descent or by statute.

Hereditary government form differs from elected government. An established order of succession is the normal way of passing on hereditary positions, and also provides immediate continuity after an unexpected vacancy in cases where office-holders are chosen by election: the office does not have to remain vacant until a successor is elected. In some cases the successor takes up the full role of the previous office-holder, as in the case of the presidency of many countries; in other non-hereditary cases there is not a full succession, but a caretaker chosen by succession criteria assumes some or all of the responsibilities, but not the formal office, of the position. For example, when the position of President of India becomes vacant, the Vice-President of India temporarily carries out the functions of the presidency until a successor is elected; in contrast, when the position of President of the Philippines is vacant, the Vice-President of the Philippines outright assumes the presidency itself for the rest of the term.

Organizations without hereditary or statutory order of succession require succession planning if power struggles prompted by power vacuums are to be avoided.

Overview

It is often the case that the inheritance of a hereditary title, office or the like, is indivisible: when the previous holder ceases to hold the title, it is inherited by a single individual. Many titles and offices are not hereditary (such as democratic state offices) and they are subject to different rules of succession.

A hereditary line of succession may be limited to heirs of the body, or may also pass to collateral lines, if there are no heirs of the body, depending on the succession rules. These concepts are in use in English inheritance law.

The rules may stipulate that eligible heirs are heirs male or heirs general – see further primogeniture (agnatic, cognatic, and also equal).

Certain types of property pass to a descendant or relative of the original holder, recipient or grantee according to a fixed order of kinship. Upon the death of the grantee, a designated inheritance such as a peerage, or a monarchy, passes automatically to that living, legitimate, non-adoptive relative of the grantee who is most senior in descent (i.e. highest in the line of succession, regardless of age); and thereafter continues to pass to subsequent successors of the grantee, according to the same rules, upon the death of each subsequent heir.

Each person who inherits according to these rules is considered an heir at law of the grantee and the inheritance may not pass to someone who is not a natural, lawful descendant or relative of the grantee.

Collateral relatives, who share some or all of the grantee's ancestry, but do not directly descend from the grantee, may inherit if there is no limitation to "heirs of the body".

There are other kinds of inheritance rules if the heritage can be divided: heirs portioners and partible inheritance.

Monarchies and nobility

In hereditary monarchies the order of succession determines who becomes the new monarch when the incumbent sovereign dies or otherwise vacates the throne. Such orders of succession, derived from rules established by law or tradition, usually specify an order of seniority, which is applied to indicate which relative of the previous monarch, or other person, has the strongest claim to assume the throne when the vacancy occurs.

Often, the line of succession is restricted to persons of the blood royal (but see morganatic marriage), that is, to those legally recognized as born into or descended from the reigning dynasty or a previous sovereign. The persons in line to succeed to the throne are called "dynasts". Constitutions, statutes, house laws, and norms may regulate the sequence and eligibility of potential successors to the throne.

Historically, the order of succession was sometimes superseded or reinforced by the coronation of a selected heir as co-monarch during the life of the reigning monarch. Examples are Henry the Young King and the heirs of elective monarchies, such as the use of the title King of the Romans for the Habsburg emperors. In the partially elective system of tanistry, the heir or tanist was elected from the qualified males of the royal family. Different monarchies use different rules to determine the line of succession.

Hereditary monarchies have used a variety of methods and algorithms to derive the order of succession among possible candidates related by blood or marriage. An advantage of employing such rules is that dynasts may, from early youth, receive grooming, education, protection, resources and retainers suitable for the future dignity and responsibilities associated with the crown of a particular nation or people. Such systems may also enhance political stability by establishing clear, public expectations about the sequence of rulers, potentially reducing competition and channeling cadets into other roles or endeavors.

Some hereditary monarchies have had unique selection processes, particularly upon the accession of a new dynasty. Imperial France established male primogeniture within the descent of Napoleon I, but failing male issue the constitution allowed the emperors to choose who among their brothers or nephews would follow them upon the throne. The Kingdom of Italy was designated a secundogeniture for the second surviving son of Napoleon I Bonaparte but, failing such, provided for the emperor's stepson, Eugène de Beauharnais, to succeed, even though the latter had no blood relationship to the House of Bonaparte. Serbia's monarchy was hereditary by primogeniture for male descendants in the male line of Prince Alexander I, but upon extinction of that line, the reigning king could choose any among his male relatives of the House of Karađorđević. In Romania, on the other hand, upon extinction of the male line descended from Carol I of Romania, the constitution stipulated that the male line of his brother, Leopold, Prince of Hohenzollern, would inherit the throne and, failing other male line issue of that family, a prince of a "Western European" dynasty was to be chosen by the Romanian king and parliament. By contrast, older European monarchies tended to rely upon succession criteria that only called to the throne descendants of past monarchs according to fixed rules rooted in one or another pattern of laws or traditions.

Vertical inheritance

In hereditary succession, the heir is automatically determined by pre-defined rules and principles. It can be further subdivided into horizontal and vertical methods, the former favoring siblings, whereas vertical favors children and grandchildren of the holder.

Male-preference (cognatic) primogeniture

In male-preference primogeniture (in the past called cognatic primogeniture) the monarch's eldest son and his descendants take precedence over his siblings and their descendants. Elder sons take precedence over younger sons, but all sons take precedence over daughters. A female member of a dynasty can succeed to the throne if and only if she has no living brothers and no deceased brothers who left surviving legitimate descendants. Children represent their deceased ancestors, and the senior line of descent always takes precedence over the junior line, within each gender. The right of succession belongs to the eldest son of the reigning sovereign (see heir apparent), and next to the eldest son of the eldest son.

This is the system in Spain and Monaco, and was the system used in the ancient kingdoms of England and Scotland and later, the Kingdom of Great Britain and finally, the United Kingdom and the Commonwealth realms (although, during the Middle Ages, Scotland also supported tanistry and proximity of blood, both through the male and female lines, due to the intermingling of Pictish and Gaelic succession rules).

With respect to hereditary titles, it is usually the rule everywhere in Scotland and baronies by writ in the United Kingdom, but usually these English baronies by writ go into abeyance when the last male titleholder dies leaving more than one surviving sister or more than one descendant in the legitimate female line of the original titleholder. In England, Fiefs or titles granted "in tail general" or to "heirs general" follow this system for sons, but daughters are considered equal co-heirs to each other, which can result in abeyance. In the medieval period, actual practice varied with local custom. While women could inherit manors, power was usually exercised by their husbands (jure uxoris) or their sons (jure matris). However, in Scotland, Salic law or any of its variations have never been practised, and all the hereditary titles are inherited through male-preference primogeniture, where in the extinction of a male line, the eldest sister automatically receives the titles, and rules in her own right, not in the right of her son. A famous example of this is Marjorie, Countess of Carrick, mother of Robert the Bruce, who was the Countess of Carrick in her own right.

It was also practised in many of the kingdoms of the Indian subcontinent from the Middle Ages to the Indian independence movement. In many of these kingdoms, adoption was allowed from a relative if a monarch did not have children, and the adopted child could succeed to the throne at the death of the monarch. An example of a king who was adopted was Rajaram II of Satara, who was adopted by Shahu I (Rajaram II in turn adopted a son, Shahu II who ruled as the next king). Often, the wife or mother of a childless king were allowed to succeed to the throne as well and allowed to rule as queen regnants in their own right, until their death, after which the throne passed to the next closest relative. An example of this Queen Didda of Kashmir, who ascended the throne of Kashmir in 980 CE after the death of her grandson and ruled until 1003 CE. Another example is Qudsia Begum who became the Nawab of Bhopal in 1819 CE after the death of her husband and ruled until 1837 CE. Other famous queens include Rudrama Devi, Keladi Chennamma, Ahilyabai Holkar and Velu Nachiyar. Razia Sultana was a rare example of a queen who succeeded her father even when her brothers were alive. She ruled the Delhi Sultanate from 1236 to 1240 CE.

Absolute cognatic primogeniture

Absolute primogeniture is a law in which the eldest child of the sovereign succeeds to the throne, regardless of gender, and females (and their descendants) enjoy the same right of succession as males. This is currently the system in Sweden (since 1980), the Netherlands (since 1983), Norway (since 1990), Belgium (since 1991), Denmark (since 2009), Luxembourg (since 2011), and in the United Kingdom and the Commonwealth realms (since 2013).

Agnatic succession (Salic law)

The Salic law, or agnatic succession, restricted the pool of potential heirs to males of the patrilineage, and altogether excluded females of the dynasty and their descendants from the succession, unless there were no living males to inherit. The Salic law applied to the former royal or imperial houses of Albania, France, Italy, Romania, Yugoslavia, and Prussia/German Empire. It currently applies to the house of Liechtenstein, and the Chrysanthemum Throne of Japan.

In 1830 in Spain the question whether or not the Salic law applied – and therefore, whether Ferdinand VII should be followed by his daughter Isabella or by his brother Charles – led to a series of civil wars and the formation of a pretender rival dynasty which still exists.

Generally, hereditary monarchies that operate under the Salic law also use primogeniture among male descendants in the male line to determine the rightful successor, although in earlier history agnatic seniority was more usual than primogeniture. Fiefs and titles granted "in tail male" or to "heirs male" follow this primogenitural form of succession. (Those granted to "heirs male of the body" are limited to the male-line descendants of the grantee; those to "heirs male general" may be inherited, after the extinction of the grantee's male-line descendants, by the male-line descendants of his father, paternal grandfather, etc.)

Agnatic-cognatic succession

Agnatic-cognatic (or semi-Salic) succession, prevalent in much of Europe since ancient times, is the restriction of succession to those descended from or related to a past or current monarch exclusively through the male line of descent: descendants through females were ineligible to inherit unless no males of the patrilineage remained alive.

In this form of succession, the succession is reserved first to all the male dynastic descendants of all the eligible branches by order of primogeniture, then upon total extinction of these male descendants to a female member of the dynasty. The only current monarchy that operated under semi-Salic law until recently is Luxembourg, which changed to absolute primogeniture in 2011. Former monarchies that operated under semi-Salic law included Austria (later Austria-Hungary), Bavaria, Hanover, Württemberg, Russia, Saxony, Tuscany, and the Kingdom of the Two Sicilies.

If a female descendant should take the throne, she will not necessarily be the senior heiress by primogeniture, but usually the nearest relative to the last male monarch of the dynasty by proximity of blood. Examples are Christian I of Denmark's succession to Schleswig-Holstein, Maria Theresa of Austria (although her right ultimately was confirmed in consequence of her victory in the War of the Austrian Succession launched over her accession), Marie-Adelaide and Charlotte of Luxembourg, Anne of Brittany, as well as Christian IX of Denmark's succession in the right of his wife, Louise of Hesse.

Matrilineal succession

Some cultures pass honours down through the female line. A man's wealth and title are inherited by his sister's children, and his children receive their inheritance from their maternal uncles.

In Kerala, southern India, a custom known as Marumakkathayam was practiced by the Nair nobility and royal families. Through this system, descent and the inheritance of property were passed from the maternal uncle to nephews or nieces. The right of the child was with the maternal uncle or the mother's family rather than the father or the father's family. Through this bloodline, surnames, titles, properties, and everything of the child are inherited from his uncle or mother. Almost all the monarchs in Kerala practised this system, including the monarchs of the Kingdom of Travancore, Sammothiris who were the monarchs of the Kingdom of Calicut, monarchs of the Kingdom of Cochin as well as the Kolathiris, the kings of Kolathunadu as well as in the Kingdom of Valluvanad. The Arakkal kingdom followed a similar matrilineal system of descent: the eldest member of the family, whether male or female, became its head and ruler. While male rulers were called Ali Rajah, female rulers were known as Arakkal Beevis. Usually after one king, his nephew through his sister succeeded to the throne, and his own son receives a courtesy title but has no place in the line of succession. In the absence of nephews, nieces could also succeed to the kingdom, as in the case of Queen Gowri Lakshmi Bayi who was the queen regnant from 1810 to 1813. Since Indian Independence and the passing of several acts such as the Hindu Succession Act (1956), this form of inheritance is no longer recognised by law. Regardless, the pretender to the Travancore throne is still determined by matrilinear succession.

The Akans of Ghana and the Ivory Coast, West Africa have similar matrilineal succession and as such Otumfuo Nana Osei Tutu II, Asantehene inherited the Golden Stool (the throne) through his mother (the Asantehemaa) Nana Afia Kobi Serwaa Ampem II.

Ultimogeniture

Ultimogeniture is an order of succession where the subject is succeeded by the youngest son (or youngest child). This serves the circumstances where the youngest is "keeping the hearth", taking care of the parents and continuing at home, whereas elder children have had time to succeed "out in the world" and provide for themselves.

Proximity of blood

Proximity of blood is a system wherein the person closest in degree of kinship to the sovereign succeeds, preferring males over females and elder over younger siblings. This is sometimes used as a gloss for "pragmatic" successions in Europe; it had somewhat more standing during the Middle Ages everywhere in Europe. In Outremer it was often used to choose regents, and it figured in some of the succession disputes over the Kingdom of Jerusalem. It was also recognized in that kingdom for the succession of fiefs, under special circumstances: if a fief was lost to the Saracens and subsequently re-conquered, it was to be assigned to the heir in proximity of blood of the last fief-holder.

In Scotland, Robert de Brus tried to claim the Scottish crown by order of proximity. He was not successful, but his grandson later successfully claimed the crown as Robert I of Scotland.

Partible inheritance

In some societies, a monarchy or a fief was inherited in a way that all entitled heirs had a right to a share of it. The most prominent examples of this practice are the multiple divisions of the Frankish Empire under the Merovingian and Carolingian dynasties, and similarly Gavelkind in the British Isles.

Horizontal inheritance

Seniority

In seniority successions, a monarch's or fiefholder's next sibling (almost always brother), succeeds; not his children. And, if the royal house is more extensive, (male) cousins and so forth succeed, in order of seniority, which may depend upon actual age or upon the seniority between their fathers.

Rota system

The rota system, from the Old Church Slavic word for "ladder" or "staircase", was a system of collateral succession practised (though imperfectly) in Kievan Rus' and later Appanage and early Muscovite Russia.

In this system, the throne passed not linearly from father to son, but laterally from brother to brother and then to the eldest son of the eldest brother who had held the throne. The system was begun by Yaroslav the Wise, who assigned each of his sons a principality based on seniority. When the Grand Prince died, the next most senior prince moved to Kiev and all others moved to the principality next up the ladder.

Tanistry

The Tanistry is a Gaelic system for passing on titles and lands. In this system the Tanist (Irish: Tánaiste; Scottish Gaelic: Tànaiste; Manx: Tanishtey) is the office of heir-apparent, or second-in-command, among the (royal) Gaelic patrilineal dynasties of Ireland, Scotland and Mann, to succeed to the chieftainship or to the kingship.

Historically the tanist was chosen from among the heads of the roydammna or "righdamhna" (literally, those of kingly material) or, alternatively, among all males of the sept, and elected by them in full assembly. The eligibility was based on descent from a king to a few degrees of proximity. Usually descent from the male lines of a king was the norm, however in Scotland, descent through the female lines of a king was also accepted, possibly because of an intermingling with the Pictish succession rules. An example of this is King Eochaid who claimed the Scottish throne as the son of the daughter of Kenneth I.

The composition and the governance of the clan were built upon descent from a similar ancestor. The office was noted from the beginning of recorded history in Ireland, and probably pre-dates it. A story about Cormac mac Airt refers to his eldest son as his tanist. Following his murder by a member of the Deisi, another roydammna, Eochaid Gonnat, succeeded as king.

The royal succession in Celtic Scotland was limited to the elective succession of the male descendants of Siol Alpein (House of Alpin) until the accession of King Malcolm II in 1005, who introduced the concept of hereditary monarchy in Scotland. He did so to try to eliminate the strife caused by the elective law, which encouraged rival claimants to fight for the throne. The earlier Pictish kingdoms had allowed female-line succession to the throne and in middle age Scotland, Pictish and Gaelic succession rules were intermingled. Since Malcolm had only daughters, the throne passed to his grandson through his eldest daughter and later, their descendants. The Irish monarchies, for their part, never at any stage allowed for female line succession.

Elective succession

Appointment, election, tanistry, and rotation

Order of succession can be arranged by appointment: either the incumbent monarch or some electoral body appoints an heir or a list of heirs before vacancy occurs. A monarchy may be generally elective, although in a way that the next holder will be elected only after it becomes vacant.

In history, quite often, but not always, appointments and elections favored, or were limited to, members of a certain dynasty or extended family. There may be genealogical rules to determine all who are entitled to succeed, and who will be favored. This has led sometimes to an order of succession that balances branches of a dynasty by rotation.

It currently applies, with variations, to Andorra, Cambodia, Eswatini, the Holy See, Kuwait, Malaysia, the UAE, and Samoa. It is also used in Ife, Oyo and the other subnational states of the Yorubaland region.

Lateral succession

Lateral or fraternal system of succession mandates principles of seniority among members of a dynasty or dynastic clan, with a purpose of election a best qualified candidate for the leadership. The leaders are elected as being the most mature elders of the clan, already in possession of military power and competence. Fraternal succession is preferred to ensure that mature leaders are in charge, removing a need for regents. The lateral system of succession may or may not exclude male descendants in the female line from succession. In practice, when no male heir is mature enough, a female heir is usually determined "pragmatically", by proximity to the last monarch, like Boariks of the Caucasian Huns or Tamiris of Massagetes in Middle Asia were selected. The lateral monarch is generally elected after the leadership throne becomes vacant. In the early years of the Mongol empire, the death of the ruling monarchs, Genghis Khan and Ögedei Khan, immediately stopped the Mongols' western campaigns because of the upcoming elections.

In East Asia, the lateral succession system is first recorded in the pre-historical period starting with the late Shang dynasty's Wai Bing succeeding his brother Da Ding, and then in connection with a conquest by the Zhou of the Shang, when Wu Ding was succeeded by his brother Zu Geng in 1189 BC and then by another brother Zu Jia in 1178 BC.

A drawback of the lateral succession is that, while ensuring a most competent leadership for the moment, the system inherently created derelict princely lines not eligible for succession. Any scion of an eligible heir who did not live long enough to ascend to the throne was cast aside as not eligible, creating a pool of discontented pretenders called Tegin in Turkic and Izgoi in Rus dynastic lines. The unsettled pool of derelict princes would eventually bring havoc to the succession order and dismemberment to the state.

Succession crises

When a monarch dies without a clear successor, a succession crisis often ensues, frequently resulting in a war of succession. For example, when King Charles IV of France died, the Hundred Years War erupted between Charles' cousin, Philip VI of France, and Charles' nephew, Edward III of England, to determine who would succeed Charles as the King of France. When the crown of Scotland became vacant in September 1290 on the death of the seven-year-old Queen Margaret, 13 claimants to the throne came forward. Where the line of succession is clear, it has sometimes happened that a pretender with a weak or spurious claim but military or political power usurps the throne.

In recent years researchers have found significant connections between the types of rules governing succession in monarchies and autocracies and the frequency with which coups or succession crises occur.

Religion

In Tibetan Buddhism, it is believed that the holders of some high offices such as the Dalai Lama are reincarnations of the incumbent: the order of succession is simply that an incumbent is followed by a reincarnation of himself. When an incumbent dies, his successor is sought in the general population by certain criteria considered to indicate that the reincarnated Dalai Lama has been found, a process which typically takes two to four years to find the infant boy.

In the Catholic Church, there are prescribed procedures to be followed in the case of vacancy of the papacy or a bishopric.

Republics

Presidencies
Part of a series on Orders of succession
Argentina Austria Brazil Colombia China DR Congo Egypt Finland France Germany India Indonesia Israel Italy Ireland South Korea Mexico Pakistan Peru Philippines Poland Portugal Romania Sri Lanka Taiwan United States Uruguay Vietnam
v t e

In republics, the requirement to ensure continuity of government at all times has resulted in most offices having some formalized order of succession. In a country with fixed-term elections, the head of state (president) is often succeeded following death, resignation, or impeachment by the vice president, parliament speaker, chancellor, or prime minister, in turn followed by various office holders of the legislative assembly or other government ministers. In many republics, a new election takes place some time after the "presidency" becomes unexpectedly vacant.

In states or provinces within a country, frequently a lieutenant governor or deputy governor is elected to fill a vacancy in the office of the governor.

Example of succession

If the President of the United States is unable to serve, the Vice President takes over if able to serve. If not, the order of succession is Speaker of the House, President pro tempore of the Senate, Secretary of State, and other cabinet officials as listed in the article United States presidential line of succession.
In Republic of Korea, If the president is unable to serve, the prime minister takes over if able to serve. If not, the order of succession is the minister of Economy and Finance, minister of Education etc. There is no vice president, and a new president has to be elected if the president dies or resigns.
In Finland, the president's temporary successor is the prime minister and then the ministers in the order of days spent in office, instead of in order of ministry. There is no vice president, and a new president has to be elected if the president dies or resigns.
In Israel, the president's temporary successor is the Speaker of the Knesset (the Israeli parliament), with the new president being elected by the parliament if the president dies or resigns.

Pretender

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

A pretender is someone who claims to be the rightful ruler of a country although not recognized as such by the current government. The term may often be used to either refer to a descendant of a deposed monarchy or a claim that is not legitimate.

In addition, it may also refer to that of a deposed monarch, a type of claimant referred to as head of a house. In addition, it may also refer to a former monarchy.

Queen Anne popularized this word, using it to refer to her Roman Catholic half-brother James Francis Edward Stuart, the Jacobite heir, in an address to Parliament in 1708: "The French fleet sailed from Dunkirk ... with the Pretender on board."

In 1807 the French Emperor Napoleon complained that the Almanach de Gotha continued to list German princes whom he had deposed. This episode established that publication as the pre-eminent authority on the titles of deposed monarchs and nobility, many of which were restored in 1815 after the end of Napoleon's reign.

Etymology

The noun "pretender" is derived from the French verb prétendre, itself derived from the Latin praetendere ("to stretch out before", "to hold before (as a pretext)", "to extend [a claim] before"), from the verb tendo ("to stretch"), plus the preposition prae ("before, in front"). The English, French and Latin words have prima facie no pejorative connotation, although one who pretends to a position with no plausible claim or with an entirely false claim, may be differentiated as a "false pretender", see for example Perkin Warbeck.

Roman Empire

Ancient Rome knew many pretenders to the offices making up the title of Roman emperor, especially during the Crisis of the Third Century.

These are customarily referred to as the Thirty Tyrants, which was an allusion to the Thirty Tyrants of Athens some five hundred years earlier; although the comparison is questionable, and the Romans were separate aspirants, not (as the Athenians were) a Committee of Public Safety. The Loeb translation of the appropriate chapter of the Augustan History therefore represents the Latin triginta tyranni by "Thirty Pretenders" to avoid this artificial and confusing parallel. Not all of them were afterwards considered pretenders; several were actually successful in becoming emperor at least in part of the empire for a brief period.

Greek pretenders

Byzantine Empire

Successions to the Roman Empire long continued at Constantinople. Most seriously, after the fall of Constantinople to the Fourth Crusade in 1204, and its eventual recovery by Michael VIII Palaiologos, there came to be three Byzantine successor states, each of which claimed to be the Roman Empire, and several Latin claimants (including the Republic of Venice and the houses of Montferrat and Courtenay) to the Latin Empire the Crusaders had set up in its place. At times, some of these states and titles were subjected to multiple claims.

Cypriot pretenders

Following the defeat and death of King James III King of Cyprus in 1474, his younger and illegitimate brother, Eugène Matteo de Lusignan, also styled d'Arménie (died 1523) removed to Sicily, then to Malta. He was acknowledged as rightful heir to the thrones of Cyprus, Armenia, Jerusalem, and Antioch, although he never made serious efforts to pursue the claims. The title of "Barone de Baccari" was created in 1508 for Jacques Matteo (sives Eugene Matteo) d'Armenia with the remainder to his descendants in perpetuity. Eugene, illegitimate son of King Jacques II of Cyprus, had, when his family were exiled, first gone to Naples, then Sicily, then settled on Malta, marrying a Sicilian heiress, Donna Paola Mazzara (a descendant of the Royal House of Aragon of Sicily and Aragon), with issue.

Modern Greece

The claimant to the throne of the last Greek kingdom is Pavlos, Crown Prince of Greece. He belongs to the House of Schleswig-Holstein-Sonderburg-Glücksburg, the senior branch of the House of Oldenburg. His designated heir is his son Prince Constantine Alexios of Greece and Denmark.

French pretenders

The establishment of the First Republic and the execution of Louis XVI in 1793 led to the king's son becoming pretender to the abolished throne, styled as Louis XVII. As Louis XVII was a child and imprisoned in Paris by the revolutionaries, his uncle, the Comte de Provence, proclaimed himself regent in his nephew's name. After Louis XVII died in 1795, the Comte de Provence became pretender himself, as Louis XVIII.

Louis XVIII was restored to the throne in 1814, and was succeeded by his brother Charles X in 1824. Charles X was, however, forced into exile by the July Revolution. Charles X and his son, Louis-Antoine, Duke of Angoulême, abdicated their claims in favor of Charles's grandson, Henri, Count of Chambord; however, their cousin the Duke of Orléans, a descendant of Louis XIV's younger brother, mounted the throne as Louis Philippe I, King of the French.

For most of the July Monarchy, the legitimists, as supporters of the exiled senior line came to be known, were uncertain of whom to support. Some believed the abdication of Charles and his son legal, and recognized the young Chambord as king, while others maintained that abdication was unconstitutional in France of the ancien régime, and continued to recognize first Charles X and then Louis-Antoine, until the latter's death in 1844. On his uncle's death, Chambord claimed the crown, but lived in exile and upon his death in 1883, the direct male-line of Louis XV became extinct.

In 1848, Louis Philippe was himself overthrown by the February Revolution, and abdicated the throne in favor of his young grandson, Philippe, Comte de Paris. However, a republic was proclaimed, leaving Paris, like his cousin Chambord, merely a pretender to a no longer existing crown. Over the next several decades, there were several attempts at a so-called "fusion", to unite both groups of monarchists in support of the childless Chambord as king, who would recognize the Count of Paris as his heir. Those efforts failed in the 1850s, but after the establishment of the Third Republic in 1870, when a royalist majority was elected to the Chamber of Deputies, fusion again became the monarchist strategy. As a result, in 1873 the Count of Paris withdrew his own bid for the throne and recognized Chambord as legitimate pretender to the French crown. In spite of this apparent unity among royalist forces, restoration of the monarchy was not to be; Chambord refused to accept the Tricolor flag, which rendered him unacceptable to most Frenchmen as a constitutional king. The monarchists hoped that after Chambord's death they could unite and crown the Orléanist candidate. But Chambord lived until 1883, while France's royalists had lost their majority in parliament by 1877. The erstwhile Orléanist Adolphe Thiers thus called Chambord "The French Washington", i.e. the true "founder" of the Republic.

By 1883 most French monarchists accepted the Count of Paris as head of royal house. A minority of reactionaries, the so-called Blancs d'Espagne ("Spanish Whites"), continued to withhold support from the House of Orléans and chose instead Juan, Count of Montizon, the Carlist pretender to the Spanish throne, who also happened to be the senior male descendant of Louis XIV.

The arguments are, on one side, that Louis XIV's younger grandson, Philip de Bourbon, Duke of Anjou renounced any future claim to the French throne when he left France to become king of Spain as Philip V in 1700 (the renunciation was ratified internationally by the Treaty of Utrecht), ostensibly leaving the Dukes of Orléans as heirs to the throne of France in the event of extinction of descendants of Louis XIV's elder grandson Louis, Duke of Burgundy, which occurred in 1883. On the other side, Anjou's renunciation is held to be invalid because prior to the revolution it was a fundamental tenet of the French monarchy that the crown could never be diverted from the rightful (senior line) heir of Hugh Capet. Moreover, although the Orléans volunteered to defer their rival claim to the throne after 1873, the regicidal vote of their ancestor Philippe Égalité in 1789 and the usurpation of Louis Philippe in 1830 are alleged to have extinguished all rights to the throne for the Orléans branch. The schism has continued to the present day, with supporters of the senior line reclaiming the title of "Legitimist", leaving their opponent royalists to be known, once again, as "Orléanists". The current representative of the senior line is Louis Alphonse, Duke of Anjou, the senior legitimate living descendant of Hugh Capet (and of Philip V d'Anjou of Spain) who was born and raised in Spain. The Orléanist line, which returned to live in France when the law of banishment was repealed in 1950, is represented by Prince Jean, Duke of Vendôme, senior male-line descendant of King Louis Philippe.

In addition to these two claims to the historic royal throne of France, there have also been pretenders to the imperial throne of France, created first by Napoleon Bonaparte in 1804 and recreated by his nephew Emperor Napoleon III in 1852 (abolished 1870). This claim is today disputed between Jean-Christophe, Prince Napoléon and his own father, the self-avowed republican Prince Charles Napoléon (deemed to be excluded from the succession due to a non-dynastic re-marriage), both descendants of Napoleon I's youngest brother, Jérôme Bonaparte.

Russian pretenders

There is much debate over who is the legitimate heir to the Russian throne, and bitter dispute within the family itself. Grand Duchess Maria Vladimirovna is considered by some to be the legitimate heir. She is the only child of Grand Duke Vladimir who died in 1992, a great-grandson of Tsar Alexander II, whom some considered the last male dynast of the House of Romanov. Some of her opponents believe she is ineligible to claim the throne because she was born of a marriage that would have been deemed morganatic under Russia's monarchy, which was abolished in 1917. Others oppose her for reasons similar to those of the anti-Orleanist rationale: her grandfather's perceived disloyalty and dynastic ambition are seen as removing any rights which might otherwise have belonged to her branch of the former dynasty.

Still others maintain that the restrictive, pre-revolutionary marital rules of the Romanovs leave no one who can claim to be rightful heir to the dynasty's legacy. Others recognized Nicholas Romanov, Prince of Russia as head of the family, being a descendant of Emperor Nicholas I and the elected president of the Romanov Family Association, which consists of most living male-line descendants of the Romanov emperors. Neither he nor his younger brother, Prince Dimitri Romanov, had sons and since their deaths no new claims have been advanced by this branch.

Anna Anderson attempted to prove she was Grand Duchess Anastasia Nikolaevna of Russia, the lost daughter of Nicholas II, but DNA testing on her remains eventually proved her to be an impersonator. Although she did not claim the throne, per se, as women could not succeed to the Russian throne so long as any male dynast survived, she became more famous than any of the various Romanov claimants to the throne.

Prince Karl Emich of Leiningen (born 1952), who converted to the Eastern Orthodoxy in 2013, is the latest pretender to the Russian throne under the name of Prince Nikolai Kirillovich of Leiningen. He is the grandson of Grand Duchess Maria Cyrillovna of Russia, (sister of Vladimir, and aunt of Maria Vladimirovna), and great-grandson of Cyril Vladimirovich, Grand Duke of Russia. The Monarchist Party of Russia supports Prince Nikolai as the heir of the Russian throne, since they are of the opinion that Maria Vladimirovna Romanova and Nicholas Romanov are not dynasts. In early 2014, Nikolai Kirilovich declared himself Emperor Nicholas III (successor to Nicholas II).

In 2007 Nicholas married Countess Isabelle von und zu Egloffstein and in 2010 had a son, Emich.

Spanish pretenders

The Carlist line has claimed the throne of Spain after Ferdinand VII was succeeded by his daughter Isabella II instead of his brother Infante Carlos María Isidro, Count of Molina. Their claim was defended in several wars during the 19th centuries. Following the death of the last senior-line claimant, Infante Alfonso Carlos, Duke of San Jaime in 1936, Prince Xavier of Bourbon-Parma became regent and later claimed the throne as Javier I. However, following the death of Xavier in 1977, the Carlist succession was in disarray as the heir, Prince Carlos Hugo of Bourbon-Parma, held left-wing socialist views that were viewed as incompatible with Carlism, and thus an incompatible claimant, leaving his younger, more conservative brother the Duke of Aranjuez as a rival claimant. As of 2024, the two legitimate claimants to the Carlist succession are Prince Sixtus Henry of Bourbon-Parma, Duke of Aranjuez and his nephew Prince Carlos, Duke of Parma and Piacenza.

British pretenders

England, Scotland and Ireland

After the execution by the English Parliament of Stuart King Charles I in 1649, his son Charles II was proclaimed king in Scotland (where he was crowned in 1651) and Ireland; but those two countries were invaded by English forces and annexed to the Commonwealth of England under Oliver Cromwell in 1653. Thus, Charles II was pretender to the throne of England from 1649 to the restoration of 1660, and exiled/deposed King of Scots and King of Ireland, 1653 to 1660. He died in 1685 and his brother James II and VII came to the throne. He had converted to Catholicism but this only became a worry when his second wife bore a son who would precede his two Protestant daughters. James was thus deposed by his elder daughter and his son-in-law (who was also his nephew, son of his sister Mary) during the Glorious Revolution in December 1688; they were formally offered the English and Scottish thrones by their respective parliaments a month later – which was still 1688 in England (where New Year's Day was 25 March until 1752) but was already 1689 in Scotland (which adopted 1 January as New Year's Day in 1600). James made several attempts to regain the throne before his death in 1701, the most important of which was an effort he made with Irish support – that country having not yet acceded to the succession of William and Mary – which led to the Battle of the Boyne and the Battle of Aughrim, and set the stage for the subsequent Jacobite risings (or rebellions). These were a series of uprisings or wars between 1688 and 1746 in which supporters of James, his son ("The Old Pretender") and grandson ("The Young Pretender") attempted to restore his direct male line to the throne.

James Francis Edward Stuart, the Roman Catholic son of the deposed James II and VII, was barred from the succession to the throne by the Act of Settlement 1701. Notwithstanding the Act of Union 1707, he claimed the separate thrones of Scotland, as James VIII, and of England and Ireland, as James III, until his death in 1766. In Jacobite terms, Acts of Parliament (of England or Scotland) after 1688 (including the Acts of Union) did not receive the required royal assent of the legitimate Jacobite monarch and, therefore, were without legal effect. James was responsible for a number of conspiracies and rebellions, particularly in the Highlands of Scotland. The most notable was the Jacobite rising of 1715–16.
Charles Edward Stuart ("Bonnie Prince Charlie"), James Francis' elder son and the would-be Charles III, who led in his father's name the last major Jacobite rebellion, the Jacobite rising of 1745–46. He died in 1788 without legitimate issue.
Henry Benedict Stuart (best known as the Cardinal-Duke of York), the younger brother of Charles Edward and a Roman Catholic Cardinal, who took up the claim to the throne as the would-be Henry IX of England, though he was the final Jacobite heir to publicly do so. He died unmarried in 1807.

After 1807, the line of James VII and II became extinct. The Jacobites had ceased to have much political significance after the failure of the 1745 uprising, and the movement essentially became completely dormant after Henry's death. Genealogically, the next most senior line to the English and Scottish thrones was through James II's youngest sister, Henriette Anne, whose daughter had married into the House of Savoy. To the very limited extent that Jacobitism survived the death of Cardinal York, they supported the claims of this line. Its current representative is Franz, Duke of Bavaria, though he himself does not claim the title, his secretary having announced once that "HRM (sic) is very content being a Prince of Bavaria".

Other pretenders to the throne have included:

Lambert Simnel (c. 1477 – c. 1525) was a pretender to the throne of England. His claim to be Edward Plantagenet, 17th Earl of Warwick in 1487 threatened the newly established reign of King Henry VII (reigned 1485–1509).
Perkin Warbeck, a Fleming who claimed to be Richard of Shrewsbury, Duke of York, and tried twice to invade England and capture the throne in the late 15th Century.
Simon Abney-Hastings, 15th Earl of Loudoun, (1974- ) Australian Peer & head of the House of York. Member of the Abney-Hastings family; also known as King Simon I.

Wales

Owain Glyndŵr (1349–1416) is probably the best-known Welsh pretender, though whether he was pretender or Prince of Wales depends upon one's source of information. Llywelyn ap Gruffydd ap Llywelyn, who died in 1282, was the only Prince of Wales whose status as ruler was formally recognised by the English Crown, though three of the four men who claimed the throne of Gwynedd between the assumption of the title by Owain Gwynedd in the 1160s and the loss of Welsh independence in 1283 also used the title or similar. Madog ap Llywelyn also briefly used the title during his revolt of 1294–95. Since 1301, the title of Prince of Wales has been given to the eldest living son of the King or Queen Regnant of England (subsequently of Great Britain, 1707, and of United Kingdom, 1801). The word "living" is important. Upon the death of Arthur, Prince of Wales, Henry VII invested his second son, the future Henry VIII, with the title. The title is not automatic, however, but merges into the Crown when a prince dies or accedes to the throne, and has to be re-conferred by the sovereign.

Nevertheless, it is Glyndŵr whom many remember as the last native Prince of Wales. He was indeed proclaimed Prince of Wales by his supporters on 16 September 1400, and his revolt in quest of Welsh independence was not quashed by Henry IV until 1409. Later, however, one of Glyndŵr's cousins, Owain Tudor, would marry the widow of Henry V, and their grandson would become Henry VII, from whom the current British monarch is descended (through his daughter Margaret Tudor, who married James IV of Scotland).

The various minor kingdoms that came together to form what is today known as the Principality of Wales each had their own royal dynasty. The most important of these realms were Gwynedd, Powys and Deheubarth. After 878 the ruling dynasties in these kingdoms each claimed descent from the sons of Rhodri Mawr who had conquered them or otherwise achieved their thrones during his reign. Merfyn Frych, the father of Rhodri Mawr, had come to power in Gwynedd because the native dynasty, known as the House of Cunedda had expired. Merfyn was descended from royalty through his own father Gwriad and claimed ancestors from among the rulers of British Rheged (in particular Llywarch Hen). It was acknowledged by all of the realms of Wales after the time of Rhodri Mawr that the House of Gwynedd (known as the House of Aberffraw) was senior and homage should be paid by each of them to the king of Gwynedd. After the reign of Owain ap Gruffudd of Gwynedd the realm began to merge with the concept of a Principality of Wales. This was realised by Owain's descendant Llywelyn ap Gruffudd in 1267. It was not to last and this new Wales was invaded by England and dismantled between 1277 and 1284. All of the descendants of Llywelyn "the last" and his brothers were either imprisoned or killed.

Irish pretenders

The business of Irish pretenders is rather more complicated because of the nature of kingship in Ireland before the Norman take-over of 1171. In both Ireland and early Gaelic Scotland, succession to kingship was elective, often (if not usually) by contest, according to a system known as Tanistry.

The High King of Ireland (Ard Rí) was essentially a ceremonial, federal overlord, who exercised actual power only within the realm which was his dynastic seat. Because of the laws of succession, there could not be a pretender to this title in the sense it is normally understood. From the 5th century onwards the kingship tended to remain within the dynasty of the Uí Néill until Brian Boru of Munster wrested control of much of Ireland from Máel Sechnaill mac Domnaill in 1002. Following his death in 1014 and that of Máel Sechnaill in 1022, the struggle for dominance resulted in Norman intervention from Henry II of England in 1171.

There were later attempts by Irish rulers fighting against the Normans to revive the High Kingship such as in 1258 when Brian Ua Néill of Cenel Eoghan was so acknowledged, in 1262 when the crown was offered to Haakon IV of Norway and in 1315 when an offer was made to the Scottish Edward Bruce. Effectively, the title fell into abeyance. Apart from the coronation oath, the title was not even used by the Kings of England, each of whom styled himself Lord of Ireland. In 1542 Henry VIII, styled himself "King of Ireland".

Some Irish rebels discussed offering the Irish throne to Prince Joachim of Prussia (son of Kaiser Wilhelm II) before the 1916 Easter Rising. After the failure of the Rising, the royalists were a minority among the rebels, and so the offer was never made. According to Hugo O'Donnell, 7th Duke of Tetuan, Éamon de Valera raised the idea of an Irish monarchy with his great-grandfather Juan O'Donnell.

Ottoman pretenders

Cem Sultan, eldest of the sons of Mehmet the Conqueror born during his reign, claimed the Sultanate after the death of his father; he was defeated in battle months later by his eldest brother (by birth) Bayezid II. He fled to the island of Rhodes, then eventually to the Papal States. His descendants claimed his rights until the Knights Hospitaller defeated the Ottomans in the 16th century. After the Ottoman Empire was abolished and the Republic of Turkey came into power, the successive heads of the Ottoman family claimed the throne of the Ottoman Empire. The latest pretender to the Imperial House of Osman is Harun Osman, since 18 January 2021.

Kingdom of Jerusalem

The Emperors of Ethiopia held the title of "King of Zion" through their claim of descent from the Biblical House of David through his son King Solomon. Menelik II dropped the use of this title. The Ethiopian Emperors continued to use the honorific of "Conquering Lion of the Tribe of Judah" up until the monarchy ended with the fall of Emperor Haile Selassie in 1974.

Since the fall of the Kingdom of Jerusalem, many European rulers have claimed to be its rightful heir. None of these, however, have actually ruled over a part of the former Kingdom. Today there are several potential European claimants on the basis of the inheritance of the title. None of the claimants have any power in the area of the former Kingdom.

Asian pretenders

Japan

In the fourteenth century, two lines of the Imperial clan, Northern Court and Southern Court, claimed the throne. Their rivalry was resolved in 1392: while every emperor of the Southern Court enthroned prior to 1392 was established as legitimate, the throne was determined by Emperor Go-Komatsu of the Northern Court and his successors.

Since 1911, the Japanese government has declared the southern claimants were actually the rightful emperors despite the fact that all subsequent emperors including the then-Emperor Meiji were descended from the Northern Court, reasoning the Southern Court retained possession of the Three Sacred Treasures, thus converting the emperors of the former Northern court into mere pretenders. In other words, six former emperors of the Northern Court have been counted as pretenders instead since then. As a result of this compromise, the present Japanese Imperial Family is descended of the Northern Court Emperors.

Kumazawa Hiromichi publicly challenged Emperor Hirohito, disputing the legitimacy of his bloodline. Kumazawa claimed to be the 19th direct descendant of Emperor Go-Kameyama, the last Emperor of the Southern Court.

Singapore

Sultan Hussein Shah of Johor ceded the territory of Singapore to the British in the 19th century, but their descendants lived in the former royal palace until expelled by the government. They now live in obscurity.

Heraldry

Pretence is demonstrated in heraldry by placing on the shield of the pretender an inescutcheon of the arms of the former holder of the title pretended to, known as an "inescutcheon of pretence". As well as being used by royalty, the inescutcheon of pretence is also used by English aristocratic and gentry families where a husband of an heraldic heiress (i.e. a daughter with no brothers) will display his wife's paternal arms on an inescutcheon placed within his own coat of arms. Following the husband's death the couple's son and heir will remove the inescutcheon and show it instead as a quartering.

False pretenders

Throughout history people have claimed fraudulently to be displaced monarchs or heirs who had disappeared or supposedly died under mysterious circumstances. Some of them were look-alikes. Such false pretenders include:

Bertrand of Rais (or Ray), who claimed to be Baldwin I of Constantinople
Thomas the Slav, who claimed to be the blinded Byzantine Emperor Constantine VI
Lambert Simnel, who claimed to be Edward Plantagenet, 17th Earl of Warwick
Perkin Warbeck, who claimed to be Richard of Shrewsbury, 1st Duke of York
Gabriel de Espinosa, one of four people who claimed to be Sebastian of Portugal
Yemelyan Pugachev, who claimed to be Peter III of Russia
False Dmitry I, actually reigned as Tsar of Russia for nearly a year before he was killed in a riot
- False Dmitry II
- False Dmitry III
Kaspar Hauser, who was claimed to be the stillborn son of Karl, Grand Duke of Baden
False Margaret, who claimed to be Margaret, Maid of Norway
Bou Hmara, who claimed to be a Sultan of Morocco

William of Ockham

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/William_of_Ockham

William of Ockham OFM
William of Ockham depicted on a stained glass window at All Saints' Church, Ockham
Born	1287 Ockham, Surrey, England
Died	9 April 1347 (aged 59–60) Munich, Duchy of Bavaria, Holy Roman Empire
Education	Greyfriars, London
Alma mater	University of Oxford
Notable work	Summa Logicae

Era	14th-century philosophy Medieval philosophy
Region	Western philosophy
School	Scholasticism Occamism Nominalism Theological voluntarism
Main interests	Natural philosophy metaphysics epistemology theology logic ontology politics Theological voluntarism
Notable ideas	Occam's razor Nominalism Empiricism

William of Ockham or Occam OFM (/ˈɒkəm/ OK-əm; Latin: Gulielmus Occamus; c. 1287 – 10 April 1347) was an English Franciscan friar, scholastic philosopher, apologist, and Catholic theologian, who is believed to have been born in Ockham, a small village in Surrey. He is considered to be one of the major figures of medieval thought and was at the centre of the major intellectual and political controversies of the 14th century. He is commonly known for Occam's razor, the methodological principle that bears his name, and also produced significant works on logic, physics and theology. William is remembered in the Church of England with a commemoration on the 10th of April.

Life

William of Ockham was born in Ockham, Surrey, in 1287. He received his elementary education in the London House of the Greyfriars. It is believed that he then studied theology at the University of Oxford from 1309 to 1321, but while he completed all the requirements for a master's degree in theology, he was never made a regent master. Because of this he acquired the honorific title Venerabilis Inceptor, or "Venerable Beginner" (an inceptor was a student formally admitted to the ranks of teachers by the university authorities).

During the Middle Ages, theologian Peter Lombard's Sentences (1150) had become a standard work of theology, and many ambitious theological scholars wrote commentaries on it. William of Ockham was among these scholarly commentators. However, William's commentary was not well received by his colleagues, or by the Church authorities. In 1324, his commentary was condemned as unorthodox by a synod of bishops, and he was ordered to Avignon, France, to defend himself before a papal court.

An alternative understanding, recently proposed by George Knysh, suggests that he was initially appointed in Avignon as a professor of philosophy in the Franciscan school, and that his disciplinary difficulties did not begin until 1327. It is generally believed that these charges were levied by Oxford chancellor John Lutterell.The Franciscan Minister General, Michael of Cesena, had been summoned to Avignon, to answer charges of heresy. A theological commission had been asked to review his Commentary on the Sentences, and it was during this that William of Ockham found himself involved in a different debate. Michael of Cesena had asked William to review arguments surrounding Apostolic poverty. The Franciscans believed that Jesus and his apostles owned no property either individually or in common, and the Rule of Saint Francis commanded members of the order to follow this practice. This brought them into conflict with Pope John XXII.

Because of the pope's attack on the Rule of Saint Francis, William of Ockham, Michael of Cesena and other leading Franciscans fled Avignon on 26 May 1328, and eventually took refuge in the court of the Holy Roman Emperor Louis IV of Bavaria, who was also engaged in dispute with the papacy, and became William's patron. After studying the works of John XXII and previous papal statements, William agreed with the Minister General. In return for protection and patronage William wrote treatises that argued for Emperor Louis to have supreme control over church and state in the Holy Roman Empire. "On June 6, 1328, William was officially excommunicated for leaving Avignon without permission", and William argued that John XXII was a heretic for attacking the doctrine of Apostolic poverty and the Rule of Saint Francis, which had been endorsed by previous popes. William of Ockham's philosophy was never officially condemned as heretical.

He spent much of the remainder of his life writing about political issues, including the relative authority and rights of the spiritual and temporal powers. After Michael of Cesena's death in 1342, William became the leader of the small band of Franciscan dissidents living in exile with Louis IV. William of Ockham died (prior to the outbreak of the plague) on 9 April 1347.

Philosophical thought

In scholasticism, William of Ockham advocated reform in both method and content, the aim of which was simplification. William incorporated much of the work of some previous theologians, especially Duns Scotus. From Duns Scotus, William of Ockham derived his view of divine omnipotence, his view of grace and justification, much of his epistemology and ethical convictions. However, he also reacted to and against Scotus in the areas of predestination, penance, his understanding of universals, his formal distinction ex parte rei (that is, "as applied to created things"), and his view of parsimony which became known as Occam's razor.

Faith and reason

William of Ockham espoused fideism, stating that "only faith gives us access to theological truths. The ways of God are not open to reason, for God has freely chosen to create a world and establish a way of salvation within it apart from any necessary laws that human logic or rationality can uncover." He believed that science was a matter of discovery and saw God as the only ontological necessity. His importance is as a theologian with a strongly developed interest in logical method, and whose approach was critical rather than system building.

Nominalism

William of Ockham was a pioneer of nominalism, and some consider him the father of modern epistemology, because of his strongly argued position that only individuals exist, rather than supra-individual universals, essences, or forms, and that universals are the products of abstraction from individuals by the human mind and have no extra-mental existence. He denied the real existence of metaphysical universals and advocated the reduction of ontology.

William of Ockham is sometimes considered an advocate of conceptualism rather than nominalism, for whereas nominalists held that universals were merely names, i.e. words rather than extant realities, conceptualists held that they were mental concepts, i.e. the names were names of concepts, which do exist, although only in the mind. Therefore, the universal concept has for its object, not a reality existing in the world outside us, but an internal representation which is a product of the understanding itself and which "supposes" in the mind the things to which the mind attributes it; that is, it holds, for the time being, the place of the things which it represents. It is the term of the reflective act of the mind. Hence the universal is not a mere word, as Roscelin taught, nor a sermo, as Peter Abelard held, namely the word as used in the sentence, but the mental substitute for real things, and the term of the reflective process. For this reason William has sometimes also been called a "Terminist", to distinguish him from a nominalist or a conceptualist.

William of Ockham was a theological voluntarist who believed that if God had wanted to, he could have become incarnate as a donkey or an ox, or even as both a donkey and a man at the same time. He was criticized for this belief by his fellow theologians and philosophers.

Efficient reasoning

One important contribution that he made to modern science and modern intellectual culture was efficient reasoning with the principle of parsimony in explanation and theory building that came to be known as Occam's razor. This maxim, as interpreted by Bertrand Russell, states that if one can explain a phenomenon without assuming this or that hypothetical entity, there is no ground for assuming it, i.e. that one should always opt for an explanation in terms of the fewest possible causes, factors, or variables. He turned this into a concern for ontological parsimony; the principle says that one should not multiply entities beyond necessity—Entia non sunt multiplicanda sine necessitate—although this well-known formulation of the principle is not to be found in any of William's extant writings. He formulates it as: "For nothing ought to be posited without a reason given, unless it is self-evident (literally, known through itself) or known by experience or proved by the authority of Sacred Scripture." For William of Ockham, the only truly necessary entity is God; everything else is contingent. He thus does not accept the principle of sufficient reason, rejects the distinction between essence and existence, and opposes the Thomistic doctrine of active and passive intellect. His scepticism to which his ontological parsimony request leads appears in his doctrine that human reason can prove neither the immortality of the soul; nor the existence, unity, and infinity of God. These truths, he teaches, are known to us by revelation alone.

Natural philosophy

William wrote a great deal on natural philosophy, including a long commentary on Aristotle's Physics. According to the principle of ontological parsimony, he holds that we do not need to allow entities in all ten of Aristotle's categories; we thus do not need the category of quantity, as the mathematical entities are not "real". Mathematics must be applied to other categories, such as the categories of substance or qualities, thus anticipating modern scientific renaissance while violating Aristotelian prohibition of metabasis.

Theory of knowledge

In the theory of knowledge, William rejected the scholastic theory of species, as unnecessary and not supported by experience, in favour of a theory of abstraction. This was an important development in late medieval epistemology. He also distinguished between intuitive and abstract cognition; intuitive cognition depends on the existence or non-existence of the object, whereas abstractive cognition "abstracts" the object from the existence predicate. Interpreters are, as yet, undecided about the roles of these two types of cognitive activities.

Political theory

William of Ockham is also increasingly being recognized as an important contributor to the development of Western constitutional ideas, especially those of government with limited responsibility. He was one of the first medieval authors to advocate a form of church/state separation, and was important for the early development of the notion of property rights. His political ideas are regarded as "natural" or "secular", holding for a secular absolutism. The views on monarchical accountability espoused in his Dialogus (written between 1332 and 1347) greatly influenced the Conciliar movement and assisted in the emergence of democratic ideologies.

William argued for complete separation of spiritual rule and earthly rule. He thought that the pope and churchmen have no right or grounds at all for secular rule like having property, citing 2 Timothy 2:4. That belongs solely to earthly rulers, who may also accuse the pope of crimes, if need be.

After the Fall he believed God had given humanity, including non-Christians, two powers: private ownership and the right to set their rulers, who should serve the interest of the people, not some special interests. Thus he preceded Thomas Hobbes in formulating social contract theory along with earlier scholars.

William of Ockham said that the Franciscans avoided both private and common ownership by using commodities, including food and clothes, without any rights, with mere usus facti, the ownership still belonging to the donor of the item or to the pope. Their opponents such as Pope John XXII wrote that use without any ownership cannot be justified: "It is impossible that an external deed could be just if the person has no right to do it."

Thus the disputes on the heresy of Franciscans led William of Ockham and others to formulate some fundamentals of economic theory and the theory of ownership.

Logic

In logic, William of Ockham wrote down in words the formulae that would later be called De Morgan's laws, and he pondered ternary logic, that is, a logical system with three truth values; a concept that would be taken up again in the mathematical logic of the 19th and 20th centuries. His contributions to semantics, especially to the maturing theory of supposition, are still studied by logicians. William of Ockham was probably the first logician to treat empty terms in Aristotelian syllogistic effectively; he devised an empty term semantics that exactly fit the syllogistic. Specifically, an argument is valid according to William's semantics if and only if it is valid according to Prior Analytics.

Theological thought

Church authority

William of Ockham denied papal infallibility and often went into conflict with the pope. As a result, some theologians have viewed him as a proto-Protestant. However, despite his conflicts with the papacy he did not renounce the Roman Catholic Church. Ockham also held that councils of the Church were fallible, he held that any individual could err on matters of faith, and councils being composed of multiple fallible individuals could err. He thus foreshadowed some elements of Luther's view of sola scriptura.

Church and State

Ockham taught the separation of church and state, believing that the pope and emperor should be separate.

Apostolic poverty

Ockham advocated for voluntary poverty.

Soul

Ockham opposed Pope John XXII on the question of the Beatific Vision. John had proposed that the souls of Christians did not instantly get to enjoy the vision of God, rather such vision would be postponed until the last judgement.

Literary Ockhamism/nominalism

William of Ockham and his works have been discussed as a possible influence on several late medieval literary figures and works, especially Geoffrey Chaucer, but also Jean Molinet, the Gawain poet, François Rabelais, John Skelton, Julian of Norwich, the York and Townely Plays, and Renaissance romances. Only in very few of these cases is it possible to demonstrate direct links to William of Ockham or his texts. Correspondences between Ockhamist and Nominalist philosophy/theology and literary texts from medieval to postmodern times have been discussed within the scholarly paradigm of literary nominalism. Erasmus, in his Praise of Folly, criticized him together with Duns Scotus as fuelling unnecessary controversies inside the Church.

Works

The standard edition of the philosophical and theological works is: William of Ockham: Opera philosophica et theologica, Gedeon Gál, et al., eds. 17 vols. St. Bonaventure, New York: The Franciscan Institute, 1967–1988.

The seventh volume of the Opera Philosophica contains the doubtful and spurious works.

The political works, all but the Dialogus, have been edited in H. S. Offler, et al., eds. Guilelmi de Ockham Opera Politica, 4 vols., 1940–1997, Manchester: Manchester University Press [vols. 1–3]; Oxford: Oxford University Press [vol. 4].

Abbreviations: OT = Opera Theologica vol. 1–10; OP = Opera Philosophica vol. 1–7.

Philosophical writings

Summa logicae (Sum of Logic) (c. 1323, OP 1).
Expositionis in Libros artis logicae prooemium, 1321–1324, OP 2).
Expositio in librum Porphyrii de Praedicabilibus, 1321–1324, OP 2).
Expositio in librum Praedicamentorum Aristotelis, 1321–1324, OP 2).
Expositio in librum in librum Perihermenias Aristotelis, 1321–1324, OP 2).
Tractatus de praedestinatione et de prescientia dei respectu futurorum contingentium (Treatise on Predestination and God's Foreknowledge with respect to Future Contingents, 1322–1324, OP 2).
Expositio super libros Elenchorum (Exposition of Aristotle's Sophistic refutations, 1322–1324, OP 3).
Expositio in libros Physicorum Aristotelis. Prologus et Libri I–III (Exposition of Aristotle's Physics) (1322–1324, OP 4).
Expositio in libros Physicorum Aristotelis. Prologus et Libri IV–VIII (Exposition of Aristotle's Physics) (1322–1324, OP 5).
Brevis summa libri Physicorum (Brief Summa of the Physics, 1322–23, OP 6).
Summula philosophiae naturalis (Little Summa of Natural Philosophy, 1319–1321, OP 6).
Quaestiones in libros Physicorum Aristotelis (Questions on Aristotle's Books of the Physics, before 1324, OP 6).

Theological writings

In libros Sententiarum (Commentary on the Sentences of Peter Lombard).
- Book I (Ordinatio) completed shortly after July 1318 (OT 1–4).
- Books II–IV (Reportatio) 1317–18 (transcription of the lectures; OT 5–7).
Quaestiones variae (OT 8).
Quodlibeta septem (before 1327) (OT 9).
Tractatus de quantitate (1323–24. OT 10).
Tractatus de corpore Christi (1323–24, OT 10).

Political writings

Opus nonaginta dierum (1332–1334).
Epistola ad fratres minores (1334).
Dialogus (before 1335).
Tractatus contra Johannem [XXII] (1335).
Tractatus contra Benedictum [XII] (1337–38).
Octo quaestiones de potestate papae (1340–41).
Consultatio de causa matrimoniali (1341–42).
Breviloquium (1341–42).
De imperatorum et pontificum potestate [also known as Defensorium] (1346–47).

Doubtful writings

Tractatus minor logicae (Lesser Treatise on logic) (1340–1347?, OP 7).
Elementarium logicae (Primer of logic) (1340–1347?, OP 7).

Spurious writings

Tractatus de praedicamentis (OP 7).
Quaestio de relatione (OP 7).
Centiloquium (OP 7).
Tractatus de principiis theologiae (OP 7).

Translations

Philosophical works

Philosophical Writings, tr. P. Boehner, rev. S. Brown (Indianapolis, Indiana, 1990)
Ockham's Theory of Terms: Part I of the Summa logicae, translated by Michael J. Loux (Notre Dame; London: University of Notre Dame Press, 1974) [translation of Summa logicae, part 1]
Ockham's Theory of Propositions: Part II of the Summa logicae, translated by Alfred J. Freddoso and Henry Schuurman (Notre Dame: University of Notre Dame Press, 1980) [translation of Summa logicae, part 2]
Demonstration and Scientific Knowledge in William of Ockham: a Translation of Summa logicae III-II, De syllogismo demonstrativo, and Selections from the Prologue to the Ordinatio, translated by John Lee Longeway (Notre Dame, Indiana: University of Notre Dame, 2007)
Ockham on Aristotle's Physics: A Translation of Ockham's Brevis Summa Libri Physicorum, translated by Julian Davies (St. Bonaventure, New York: The Franciscan Institute, 1989)
Kluge, Eike-Henner W., "William of Ockham's Commentary on Porphyry: Introduction and English Translation", Franciscan Studies 33, pp. 171–254, JSTOR 41974891, and 34, pp. 306–382, JSTOR 44080318 (1973–74)
Predestination, God's Foreknowledge, and Future Contingents, translated by Marilyn McCord Adams and Norman Kretzmann (New York: Appleton-Century-Crofts, 1969) [translation of Tractatus de praedestinatione et de praescientia Dei et de futuris contigentibus]
Quodlibetal Questions, translated by Alfred J. Freddoso and Francis E. Kelley, 2 vols (New Haven; London: Yale University Press, 1991) (translation of Quodlibeta septem)
Paul Spade, Five Texts on the Mediaeval Problem of Universals: Porphyry, Boethius, Abelard, Duns Scotus, Ockham (Indianapolis, Indiana: Hackett, 1994) [Five questions on Universals from His Ordinatio d. 2 qq. 4–8]

Theological works

The De sacramento altaris of William of Ockham, translated by T. Bruce Birch (Burlington, Iowa: Lutheran Literary Board, 1930) [translation of Treatise on Quantity and On the Body of Christ]

Political works

An princeps pro suo uccursu, scilicet guerrae, possit recipere bona ecclesiarum, etiam invito papa, translated Cary J. Nederman, in Political thought in early fourteenth-century England: treatises by Walter of Milemete, William of Pagula, and William of Ockham (Tempe, Arizona: Arizona Center for Medieval and Renaissance Studies, 2002)
A translation of William of Ockham's Work of Ninety Days, translated by John Kilcullen and John Scott (Lewiston, New York: E. Mellen Press, 2001) [translation of Opus nonaginta dierum]
Tractatus de principiis theologiae, translated in A compendium of Ockham's teachings: a translation of the Tractatus de principiis theologiae, translated by Julian Davies (St. Bonaventure, New York: Franciscan Institute, St. Bonaventure University, 1998)
On the Power of Emperors and Popes, translated by Annabel S. Brett (Bristol, 1998)
Rega Wood, Ockham on the Virtues (West Lafayette, Indiana: Purdue University Press, 1997) [includes translation of On the Connection of the Virtues]
A Letter to the Friars Minor, and Other Writings, translated by John Kilcullen (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1995) [includes translation of Epistola ad Fratres Minores]
A Short Discourse on the Tyrannical Government, translated by John Kilcullen (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1992) [translation of Breviloquium de principatu tyrannico]
William of Ockham, [Question One of] Eight Questions on the Power of the Pope, translated by Jonathan Robinson

In fiction

William of Occam served as an inspiration for the creation of William of Baskerville, the main character of Umberto Eco's novel The Name of the Rose, and is the main character of La Abadía del Crimen (The Abbey of Crime), a video game based upon said novel.

Search This Blog