there are many in history that tried to get a throne by acting like someone else (for instance a long dead son)
but did any of them actually get the throne?
but did any of them actually get the throne?
-
We have updated our Community Code of Conduct. Please read through the new rules for the forum that are an integral part of Paradox Interactive’s User Agreement.
We probably wouldn't know if there were. Either they were exposed as frauds and their rebellions failed, or their rebellions succeeded and they got the chance to write the history books.
Treason never prospers, for if it doth prosper none dare call it treason.
So, undoubtable, some 'heir' was false but the official records would expunge any hint of impropriety and he ruled happily until the end of his days. Surely, somewhere in history this exists.
But, thinking back, I believe there was a case with a Prince and a Pauper exchanging identities that turned out well for everybody concerned.
So, undoubtable, some 'heir' was false but the official records would expunge any hint of impropriety and he ruled happily until the end of his days. Surely, somewhere in history this exists.
But, thinking back, I believe there was a case with a Prince and a Pauper exchanging identities that turned out well for everybody concerned.
There's some question over the identity and background of one Assyrian ruler. Possible scenarios are that he may have been the legitimate heir, and took his father's name/identity upon the death of the king, or that he was a general who did so, or that he may actually have been the king, suffered some kind of scandal and gave up the throne, and later returned to the throne with a "cleaned" record. The whole timeline as recorded makes no sense, so it's probable that everything was rewritten after the fact to cover up whatever happened at the time.
Considering that most history books were sponsored by the person on the throne, it's unlikely that a fake heir or usurper, or his heir, would allow even the slightest reference to it to be included.
Considering that most history books were sponsored by the person on the throne, it's unlikely that a fake heir or usurper, or his heir, would allow even the slightest reference to it to be included.
Ruling elites during most of history tended to be quite small so unless you purge them, a pretense would be difficult to pull off.
You can probably find guys like Lui Bei claiming to be distant cousins to past emperors by the boatloads. But that's not "really" anything I'd count.
In Japan and some other countries, adoptions were pretty common, and I think with some that were adopted as heirs basically people went "oh yeah sure, he's the son of this and that famous guy..." when there seemed rumors/evidence/suspicions that they might have been from a less prestigious line or somesuch (son of a mistress or...), but again that's not quite the same.
So I don't know any cases, just lesser ones. I'd say those are common. The more extreme and immediate versions seem kinda hard to pull off. I'd be more willing to buy some of the "they escaped and their death was faked/it was pretended they were killed" theories (so like the reverse), since often both parties had interest in keeping potential survival quiet.
In Japan and some other countries, adoptions were pretty common, and I think with some that were adopted as heirs basically people went "oh yeah sure, he's the son of this and that famous guy..." when there seemed rumors/evidence/suspicions that they might have been from a less prestigious line or somesuch (son of a mistress or...), but again that's not quite the same.
So I don't know any cases, just lesser ones. I'd say those are common. The more extreme and immediate versions seem kinda hard to pull off. I'd be more willing to buy some of the "they escaped and their death was faked/it was pretended they were killed" theories (so like the reverse), since often both parties had interest in keeping potential survival quiet.
I wouldn't say that exactly. After all, just look at the insane machinations going on with the False Dimitrys in Russia. What you have is a case of: a person from obscure origins claiming to be a believed-dead prince, rise to the top of a massive rebellion, only to then finally be executed by the authorities - only for another person to appear and claim to be the same prince, and he also did everything the previous pretender did, became the new focus of rebellion, and finally be captured. This happened multiple times.
Last edited:
I didn't know about those. Heck, the first one should count - he actually got the throne. Only for a few months, but still.
I was just going to post this if no one had beaten me to it. This happened once at least and the guy ruled for 1 year before being ousted; it is on official historical record.
Does Tokugawa Ieyasu count since he claimed that his family was related to the Imperial family through the Minamoto family?
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tokugawa_Ieyasu#Growing_political_influence
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tokugawa_Ieyasu#Growing_political_influence
Pretty much every Japanese warlord of note who wasn't Toyotomi Hideyoshi did this though. Nobunaga claimed ancestry from the Taira, for instance.
That is true but not many of them were appointed to be a shogun. Ieyasu was appointed to be a shogun because of his claimed family connection to the Minamoto family.
Not something you could find out easily since they had the power to re-write history.
The only example I can think of that's anywhere near this is Paris Alexander of Troy but he didn't really get any throne as he fled the city. And it is usually accepted that he was actually the lost son of Priamus that some sources don't even buy the "he was abandoned" narrative and just accept that he was always Priamus' kid living with the family.
The only example I can think of that's anywhere near this is Paris Alexander of Troy but he didn't really get any throne as he fled the city. And it is usually accepted that he was actually the lost son of Priamus that some sources don't even buy the "he was abandoned" narrative and just accept that he was always Priamus' kid living with the family.
He never claimed that, their own allies didn't believe it and officially, he didn't take the throne, so...
Does Henry of Trastámara (aka Henry II) count? He did claim being son of king Alfonso XI, but since it was no official marriage, we can never be too sure.
The old powerful families guard their blood more than they guard their treasure so I doubt it. This is a general weakness of working class families that much more often abandon their familiar bonds or lose track of them, never being able to form the kind of networks the elite do.
And don't even get me started on millenial nonsense views on family and independence.
Thus it's also easy for them to track who is who. I don't know of a single instance like this, though there are plenty of bastards and people claiming / pretending to be of some ancient lineage taking the trone, just as there are people like Napoleon who simply made themselves emperor.
But no, never heard of anyone succeeding in the long run to fool an established family WITH a grip on power of something like this.
And don't even get me started on millenial nonsense views on family and independence.
Thus it's also easy for them to track who is who. I don't know of a single instance like this, though there are plenty of bastards and people claiming / pretending to be of some ancient lineage taking the trone, just as there are people like Napoleon who simply made themselves emperor.
But no, never heard of anyone succeeding in the long run to fool an established family WITH a grip on power of something like this.