charles iv of spain


Prognathism is well recorded as a trait of several historical individuals. The most famous case is that of the House of Habsburg, among whom mandibular prognathism was a family trait; indeed, the condition is frequently called “Habsburg Jaw” as a result of its centuries-long association with the family. Among the Habsburgs, the most prominent case of mandibular prognathism is that of Charles II of Spain, who had prognathism so pronounced he could neither speak clearly nor chew as a result of generations of politically motivated inbreeding.

anonymous asked:

Assuming something drastically changed and France went back to being a monarchy, who would be the legitimate heir of the throne of current day France?

Well, doesn’t that depend on who you ask. What it comes down to today are essentially three competing branches: the Legitimists, the Orleanists, and the Bonapartists. Each branch saw at least one of its line rule France for varying periods of time, and consequently each thinks its descendants are the rightful rulers of France today.

The Legitimists are the followers of the senior male line of the Bourbon dynasty. The Bourbons had ruled France from the time of Henry IV to the French Revolution, in which Louis XVI died. In 1814, when the monarchy was restored, the dead king’s next-youngest brother took the throne as Louis XVIII (recognizing Louis XVI’s young son, who had died in poor conditions in prison, as “Louis XVII”). He, having no children, was in turn succeeded by his younger brother, who ruled as Charles X until the July Revolution of 1830 finally ousted the Bourbons from power. Charles himself had two sons - the extremely short-reigning (a disputed 20 minutes!) Louis XIX and the younger, the Duke of Berry - and while the elder had no children, the Duke of Berry’s wife had a posthumous son, acclaimed by Legitimists as Henry V. The Count of Chambord, as he preferred to be known, was the last legitimate, male, male-line descendant of King Louis XV of France; unfortunately for the hopes of the Legitimists, Henry died childless in 1883.

This is where things started to get rather more complicated. For the Legitimists, the new heir was Juan, Count of Montizón. If he sounds Spanish, that’s because he was: Juan was the younger son of Carlos, Count of Molina, second son of King Charles IV of Spain. His French connection came from Juan’s great-great-grandfather, Philip V of Spain, who had been born a French prince and grandson of Louis XIV. Charles II, the tragically inbred last Habsburg King of Spain, had nominated his great-nephew to be his heir, and the Treaty of Utrecht in 1713 confirmed him as King of Spain. For the Legitimists, the unwritten fundamental laws of the French crown meant that the next legitimate male-line male heir of the Bourbon line had to be the King of France, no ifs, ands, or buts about it; with all the eligible heirs of the first son of Louis Le Grand Dauphin (only legitimate son of Louis XIV) gone, the next king had to come from the line of the second son - that is, Philip V. Juan, as the senior male male-line descendant of Philip V, was therefore the heir (and, according to some, the heir to Spain as well, but that’s Carlism and that’s it’s own separate complicated subject). The Carlist pretenders to the throne of France continued until 1936, when the last male of the legitimate male line, Alfonso Carlos, died without children. The French claim then passed to the deposed Alfonso XIII of Spain, the heir of Charles IV’s third son, and then to his second son, Jaime, Duke of Segovia. Since 1989, the heir along this Legitimist line has been Jaime’s grandson Louis Alphonse, the self-styled Duke of Anjou (and, if he were to reign, Louis XX). 

For the Orleanists - descendants of Louis XIV’s younger brother, Philippe, Dule of Orleans - the Spanish branch of the Bourbon family should never have come into the equation. Under the terms of the Treaty of Utrecht, Philip V was required to surrender his rights to the French throne as a condition of keeping the Spanish one. To the Orleanists, this meant that Philip and his descendants had surrendered any right to claim the crown later, what’s more, in the eyes of the Orleanists the Spanish Bourbons become foreigners, with no intention of returning to France or subjecting themselves to the French king’s laws, and therefore unacceptable as candidates to the French throne. They, the next heirs of Louis XIII after the line of Louis XIV died out or was excluded, would be the rightful kings of France (and indeed, the Count of Chambord seemed to agree, calling the Orleans princes “my sons” and recognizing himself as the last of Louis XIV’s line).

The Orleanists had themselves briefly enjoyed the rule of France when, in 1830, Louis Philippe, Duke of Orleans, was acclaimed King of the French and accepted the crown after Charles X had been overthrown. Louis Philippe’s father had been the infamous Philippe Egalite, the First Prince of the Blood whose eager support for the French Revolution led him to vote for the death of his cousin Louis XVI (which didn’t in the end save his own head from the guillotine). For these two deeds, as you might suspect, die-hard Legitimists would never forgive the House of Orleans, and while early in the Third Republic the Legitimists and Orleanists in the Assembly were willing to come to a sort of compromise (the Orleanists recognizing the Count of Chambord as King of France, with the childless Count then naming the Count of Paris, the head of the House of Orleans, as his heir), the Count’s own refusal to assert his rights on anything but his own terms (particularly the restoration of the old royalist flag over the revolutionary tricolor) meant that true fusion between the two lines foundered. Still, when the Count died, the majority of Legitimists recognized the Count of Paris as the rightful heir to France. The current Orleanist pretender today is Henry, Count of Paris, the great-great-great grandson of Louis Philippe.

The third branch of French pretenders today are the Bonapartists, whose founder needs no introduction. Napoleon’s only legitimate son, the King of Rome, died childless, a prisoner of his Austrian cousins, but the Emperor’s nephew Louis-Napoleon Bonaparte (yes, he who had possibly the most farcical invasion attempt in French history) eventually restored the “imperial dignity” of France with himself as Emperor Napoleon III. He was in turn overthrown in 1870, the last monarch France ever saw, and when he died three years later his son Louis was acknowledged by Bonapartists as Napoleon IV. Unfortunately, “Lou-Lou”, as his father had affectionately called him, died childless after a skirmish with Zulus in 1879. His will named his second cousin Victor - the son of Prince Napoleon and grandson of Jerome Bonaparte, the youngest of the General’s brothers - as his heir (infuriating Prince Napoleon in the process). More disputes arose when Victor’s son, the so-called Napoleon VI, died in 1997 and his will revealed that he nominated as his successor his grandson, Jean-Christophe Napoleon, over his son Charles - despite the latter’s furious protestations that he is still the rightful successor to the “moral heritage” of the Bonaparte line. 

If this all seems a lot of flummery, given that France hasn’t had a monarch in almost a century and a half and doesn’t look to be welcoming one anytime soon … well, it is. But monarchists need something to keep themselves occupied when there are no more kings around.

General reactions when people read about the Habsburg dynasty

Charles V (I in Spain)

People who are dazzled by his achievements on the battlefield:

Heretic people:

Philip II

Spanish ladies:

Turkish, portuguese, heretic and communist people: 

Philip III

Yes, normally, nobody gets excited reading about him.

Philip IV

People who thinks that all he did in life was to go to the brothel:

People who knows that he was interested in government issues too (and go to the brothel):

Charles II

The first time you see his portrait:

The second time you see his portrait:

The rest of times you see his portrait:


As were the following: 

  • Emperor Franz Joseph and Elisabeth in Bayern

  • Charles V holy roman emperor and Isabella of Portugal 

  • Charles IV of Spain and Maria Louisa of Parma 

  • Christian VII of Denmark and Princess Caroline Mathilda of Wales

  • Christian VIII of Denmark and Duchess Charlotte Frederica of Mecklenburg Schwerin

  • Francis II, Holy Roman Emperor and Princess Maria Theresa of Naples and Sicily (double cousins actually) - after that he married his other cousin Maria Ludovika of Austria
  • William II of Prussia and Elisabeth Christine of Brunswick-Wolfenbüttel (also double first cousins)

  • Olav V of Norway and Princess Märtha of Sweden

  • George I of Great Britain and Duchess Sophia Dorothea of Brunswick-Celle
  • George IV of the United Kingdom and Princess Caroline of Brunswick-Wolfenbüttel

  • Haakon VII of Norway and Princess Maud of Wales

  • Queen Victoria of the United Kingdom and Prince Albert of Saxe-Coburg and Gotha

  • Isabella II of Spain and Francis, Duke of Cádiz

  • John II of Portugal and Eleanor of Viseu

  • John III of Portugal and Catherine of Austria 

  • Nero Ceasar and Julia
-Leopold I
  • Holy Roman Emperor and Margarita Teresa of Spain

  • Napoleon Louis Bonaparte and Charlotte Napoléone Bonaparte

  • William III of the Netherlands and Princess Sophie of Württemberg

  • William III of England and Mary II of England

  • etc

Up until early 20th century this happened ALL THE TIME. It was normal and accepted. These are examples of famous european royals only and there are so many more. it can get boring so I left it at the european royals but the Japanese and Chinese did it too and there are non Royal examples: Darwin was married to his cousin, and Igor Stravinsky too. 

You know, some of these people hold some really beautiful love stories. Some of the greatest of their time. Some of them hated each other, some of them did not want to get married, some married for love. Yes - they fell in love with their cousin and wanted to be married, Queen Victoria proposed to Prince Albert herself, loving him for the rest of her life. 

Point is, I am a little done with everyone pretending to vomit at the idea of cousins getting married. If this disgusts you please find some other show to watch (tip: not the Borgias) cause this is Game of Thrones, set in some medieval world. There are so much more disgusting things in this show then people shipping cousins. How about a man who could have been her father forcing himself on a fifteen year old? How about what happened to Theon? How about Drogo and Dany post the sex lessons (I hated that storyline so much)? What Ramsay did to Sansa? Joffrey killing whores cause he could? That time a baby was killed cause he was Robert’s bastard? Also, aunt-nephew marriage happened much much less and they share much more DNA (looking at you JonxDany shippers) so don’t go ‘they never met before so its not that bad’ on me when I ask how you can think Jonsa is gross and still be capable of shipping Jon with his aunt. 

If you think its wrong cause they grew up together, fine, I’ll say you have a valid point there, I will accept that argument at all times (discussion for another time) but stop the bitching about the cousins thing cause it is actually pretty disrespectful to some of the people mentioned above. (I like to think I am defending JonxArya here too, despite my incapability to see that as anything but sibling love). Cousins have just 1 to 2 percent higher chance of having an unhealthy child, just to clear that up - unlike, as I have said, auntxnephew. Plus, well, considering what the Targaryens liked to do, Jon and Dany share a ridiculous amount of DNA. 

Also, Ned Stark’s parents were cousins and Tywin Lannister was married to his cousin so there is the proof you need that in Westeros, just like in Europe for many many centuries, it is perfectly ok to marry the child of your parents sibling. Don’t get me started on the Targaryens, THAT is gross. Not this:

The Balmis Expedition

Smallpox ravaged the New World for centuries after the Spanish conquest. In 1797 Edward Jenner showed that exposure to the cowpox virus could protect one against the disease, but the problem remained how to transport cowpox across the sea. In 1802 Charles IV of Spain announced a bold plan — 22 orphaned children would be sent by ship; after the first child was inoculated, his skin would exude fluid that could be passed to the next child. By passing the live virus from arm to arm, the children formed a transmission chain that could transport the vaccine in an era before refrigeration and other modern technology was available.

And it worked! Over the next 10 years Spain spread the vaccine throughout the New World and to the Philippines, Macao, and China.

The Last battle of the English Civil War was Fought in France

And, 282 years before Britain’s great evacuation during the Second World War, it made Dunkirk - the Church of the Dunes - famous.

The battle of the Dunes was fought on the 14th of June 1658, between that rarest of beasts, a 17th century Franco-British alliance, and a Spanish army supplemented by British Royalists who had fled to the continent.

A complex political situation resulted in both French and English forces fighting for both sides. When France’s Louis XIV formed an alliance with Lord Protector Oliver Cromwell, the exiled Charles II of England allied himself with Philip IV of Spain. Charles set up his headquarters in Bruges. The Spanish supplied only enough money to form five regiments. This was a disappointment for the Royalists, who had hoped to be able to form an army large enough to contemplate an invasion of the English Commonwealth. A renewal of a 1657 treaty between Cromwell and Louis XIV provided 6,000 Commonwealth infantry from the New Model Army and a fleet to aid Turenne. Along with English forces, French forces fought on both sides with Condé, a French Prince of the blood, leading a contingent of French rebels of the Fronde.

The 15,000 French supported by 6,000 troops from the English Commonwealth besieged Dunkirk. Dunkirk was Spain’s greatest base for privateers, and these privateers had wreaked havoc of English merchant shipping. It was defended by a garrison of about 3,000 in May 1658, while an English fleet of 18 ships, under Edward Mountagu, blockaded the port and prevented any reinforcement or supply by sea. The Spanish and their allies were caught by surprise as they were convinced that Turenne would attack Cambrai, while they thought Dunkirk was merely a diversion, and they responded belatedly and hastily. The approach to Dunkirk was made difficult as the inhabitants had opened the sluices and flooded the area, but Turenne persisted and opened the trenches on the night of 4/5 June.

A Spanish army under the command of Don John of Austria, consisting of about 15,000 men, moved to raise the siege. It was divided in 2 corps, the Spanish Army of Flanders on the right and centre and the small corps of French rebels, of the Fronde, on the left under the command of Condé. The Spanish army included Spanish, German and Walloon troops, and a force of 2,000 English/Irish Royalists – formed as the nucleus of potential army for the invasion of England by Charles II, with Charles’ brother James, Duke of York, amongst its commanders – was sent to relieve the town.

Leaving some 6,000 men to continue the siege, Turenne advanced to meet the Spanish army. The battle on 14 June 1658 which resulted from this manoeuvre became known as the Battle of the Dunes because the Spanish army formed their line upon a line of dunes, or sand-hills, also called the Downs, perpendicular to the sea. Napoleon described the battle as Turenne’s “… most brilliant action”. The red-coats of the New Model Army under the leadership of Sir William Lockhart, Cromwell’s ambassador at Paris in Turenne’s army, astonished both armies by the stubborn fierceness of their assault up a sand-hill 150 feet (46 m) high and strongly defended by Spanish veterans.

The Spanish army with 6,000-foot and 9,000 horse formed up with its right on the sea across the sand-hills to the canal of Furnes on the their left. The regular Spanish infantry tercios were on the right under the command of Don Juan, the English Royalist regiments under the Duke of York were on their left to the right centre, the Walloon and German tercios were in the centre and on the left were the French rebel Frondeurs and some other troops. The Spanish cavalry was drawn up in line behind the infantry. In their rush to relieve Dunkirk the Spanish had left their artillery behind.

Turenne began the battle with four or five artillery salvoes from his two unopposed batteries, and the Spanish right flank was bombarded with some harassing fire from several frigates and sloops of the English fleet. The Anglo-French army began to advance, and the Cromwellian English pressed quickly ahead against the Spanish tercio of Don Caspar Boniface deployed on a sand dune that was somewhat in advance of the rest of their army. The English charged and crossed pikes with the Spanish tercio, driving it down the hill, and, by following up, the English formation became exposed. James, Duke of York, led two cavalry charges against the Cromwellian troops’ flank, driving into the musketeers. Some Spanish cavalry from their reserve was sent forward and threatened the English but were defeated in turn by the French cavalry under Marquis de Castelneau. The French infantry consisting of the Guards, the Swiss and the regiments of Picardy and Turenne advanced on the Spanish centre, meeting little resistance. Marshal Turenne took advantage of the receding tide to concentrate most of his cavalry on his left, and its advance enveloped the Spanish right wing.

Condé on the Spanish left held off the initial attacks of the French right wing and even counterattacked them, getting unhorsed and nearly captured, but in the end he was also forced from the field. The German and Walloons of the centre retired at the onset of the French infantry, throwing the Spanish cavalry in the reserve into disorder so that it was carried away in the flight.

The battle lasted for about two hours, and by noon Turenne had a complete victory that ended with the rout of the Spanish forces. The Spanish lost about 1,200 killed, 800 wounded and some 4,000 captured while the French lost only about 400, about half of them English. Amongst the Cromwellian troops Lockhart’s regiment of foot bore the brunt of the fighting. Its lieutenant-colonel, Roger Fenwick, and two of its captains were killed, and nearly all the rest of its officers were wounded, and lost about forty or fifty other ranks killed in battle. Lillingston’s lost a captain and thirty or forty killed in battle, while the other regiments suffered only slight losses (the number of English dead rose because like Fenwick they died of wounds over the next few weeks).The French pursuit lasted until nightfall. One force of English Royalist guards[e]held out, surrendering only when they were assured they would be allowed to rejoin Charles II at Ypres. The Duke of York’s troop of guards, which charged several times with the Duke himself at its head, suffered severely, but also remained fit for further service. The King’s forces after the battle numbered less than a thousand men, probably not more than seven or eight hundred. The French corps of Frondeurs on the left under the command of Condé retreated in good order.

Spray bodice ornament of a bouquet of flowers tied with a bow, enamelled gold with diamonds, made in Spain, 1790-1800. Bouquets of flowers were a fashionable theme in jewelry during the second half of the 18th century. This one was originally owned by the Spanish noblewoman, Doña Juana Rabasa (wife of the Finance Minister of Charles IV of Spain). She gave it to the shrine of the Virgin of the Pillar at Saragossa.

“Maria Luisa of Parma (1751-1819), later Queen of Spain” (1765) (detail) by Laurent Pécheux (1729-1821).


The Museo Nacional de Arte (MUNAL) (English: National Museum of Art) is the Mexican national art museum, located in the historical center of Mexico City. The museum is housed in a neoclassical building at No. 8 Tacuba, Col. Centro, Mexico City. It includes a large collection representing the history of Mexican art from the mid-sixteenth century to the mid 20th century. It is recognizable by Manuel Tolsá’s large equestrian statue of Charles IV of Spain, who was the monarch just before Mexico gained its independence. It was originally in the Zocalo but it was moved to several locations, not out of deference to the king but rather to conserve a piece of art, according to the plaque at the base. It arrived at its present location in 1979.

The museum was founded in 1982 as the Museo Nacional de Arte, and re-inaugurated in 2000, after reopening its doors to the public as MUNAL after intense remodeling and technical upgrades to the facility. It currently focuses on the exhibition, study and diffusion of Mexican and international art from the 16th century to the first half of the 20th century. Its permanent collection contains more than 3,000 pieces and has 5,500m2 of exhibition space. MUNAL is a subdivision of theInstituto Nacional de Bellas Artes and as part of this organization is involved in projects concerning the conservation, exhibition, and study of the fine arts of Mexico. The museum also offers workshops, colloquiums, publication and other outreaches to the public. There are also volunteer opportunities such as the Voluntariado and the Amigos de MUNAL associations.

MUNAL is located in the old Palace of Communications. In the early part of the 20th century, the government hired Italian architect Silvio Contri to design and build this “palace” to house the Secretariat of Communications and Public Works, with the intention to show Mexico’s commitment to modernization. The Palace was constructed on the former site of the hospitals of San Andres and of Gonzalez Echeverria. The architectural design is eclectic, mixing elements of past architectural styles, which is characteristic of that time period. This blending would later solidify into a movement called “modernismo” both because of the tendency to use newly devised construction techniques and the tendency to use metal in the decorative aspects, to symbolize progress in the Industrial Age. The decorative elements of the building were done by the Coppedé family of Florence, who designed the door knockers, the window frames, the leaded crystal, the stonework, the furniture, lamps and ironwork among many other elements. Over the years, much of the Palace deteriorated until around 2000, when Project MUNAL restored the palace to its original look, while also adding the latest technology for the preservation of artistic works.

Royal Signatures

Currently the University of Kentucky Digital Library Services is scanning a collection of Spanish Manuscripts dating from the 11th to the 18th centuries.  So far we’ve come across the royal signature or seal for four Spanish Kings.


 Charles IV King of Spain 1797

Charles III King of Spain 1777

Phillip V King of Spain 1531

Philip II King of Spain 1578


In addition, there is this document signed and sealed by King Peter of Aragon from 1352.