3

Sigismund II Augustus was born in 1520 and crowned at age 10 in 1530, while his father Sigismund I the Old was still alive.

Could someone explain me the reason for this coronation?

Sigismund II August took the throne after Sigismund I the Old died, but he was crowned vivente rege as a king of Poland in 1530 (unfortunately not mentioned in english Wiki, but is in polish Wiki). My research gave me nothing but this date and unconvincing explanation, that it was because his mother wanted to give him a proper education

  • 3
    Cieszę się, że pan chcesz wziąć udział. However, people exepect you to do a little research (such as checking Wikipedia) before coming here, and then, report what you've found so it's not all done over again. The help center has a lot of good advice for asking questions. – Spencer Jul 6 '18 at 13:24
  • 2
    For example, the English language Wikipedia article on Sigismund II says he took the throne in 1648 when his father died, not in 1630 as you claim. If you have something to support the claim, it might make finding an answer worth the trouble. – Spencer Jul 6 '18 at 13:44
  • 1
    @Spencer Thank you for your support :) It's true, that Sigismund II August took the throne after Sigismund I the Old died, but he was coronated vivente rege as a king of Poland in 1530 (unfortunately not mentioned in english Wiki, but is in polish Wiki). My research gave me nothing but this date and unconvincing explanation, that it was because his mother wanted to give him a proper education. – Jaroslaw Matlak Jul 6 '18 at 14:05
  • 1
    Hi Jaroslaw, it's best to edit clarifications of the question into the question itself rather than reply in comments. – AllInOne Jul 6 '18 at 14:44
  • 1
    Jaroslaw, Lars Bosteen has a pretty good answer and you may want to mark it as "the" answer. Going forward, you might have better luck with your research if you do a little more digging. Following the Wikipedia links to vivente rege and then to Wolna Elekcja might have given you the answer you need. – Spencer Jul 7 '18 at 3:18
7

The practice of a king having his son crowned during his lifetime was not uncommon; perhaps the most famous example is Henry the Young King, son of Henry II of England. This was usually done in an attempt to secure the throne for the monarch's chosen heir by reducing the chances of a contested succession.

In the case of Sigismund II Augustus, his father Sigismund I the Old and his formidable Queen Bona Sforza had a particularly strong reason for having their son crowned early. Poland had a long tradition of the nobility electing the next king and, although they usually followed the hereditary principle, one of Sigismund I’s predecessors, Władysław III, had been elected to the throne against much opposition, despite being the eldest son of his predecessor.

This power to elect the king gave the nobility considerable leverage over the monarchy. According to the Wiki articles on the Jagiellonian dynasty and Bona Sforza, this power of the nobles was something which the Queen, in particular, saw as a threat to "her personal and dynastic interests". According to Jerzy J. Lersky in Historical Dictionary of Poland, Bona Sforza

had a great influence on the King and worked at strengthening the Polish royal power. She arranged the Royal election of their son, Zygmunt August, during the reign of his father and built a powerful Royal party.

The case of Sigismund II Augustus in 1530 was controversial as his parents had to persuade the nobles to break the rule of not electing a successor during a monarch’s lifetime (thus brining in Vivente rege). When Sigismund II died in 1572 without leaving an heir, the nobles adopted the Henrician Articles which, among other things, stated that the elected King’s children “had no right of inheritance with regard to the throne.”


Note: On education, the issue concerning 'proper education' which you mention in the question is indeed unconvincing. Rather, it was the nobles opposing the Queen who were blaming her for the bad education of her son. Thus, education seems not to be relevant here.

  • Interesting that they had a practice in Poland of not electing the new king during his predecessor's tenure. (I don't say "lifetime" since they presumably would not have waited for a king who had resigned to die.) The Holy Roman Empire developed the opposite custom, as the Electors found that they could leverage heavy concessions from the Emperor that way. Of course, many more people voted for the Polish monarch, which made bribing all of them somewhat less practical. – C Monsour Jul 7 '18 at 3:42
  • 1
    Thank you for the explanation. It makes a way much more sense than the explanations that I've found. – Jaroslaw Matlak Sep 8 '18 at 11:44

Your Answer

By clicking “Post Your Answer”, you agree to our terms of service, privacy policy and cookie policy

Not the answer you're looking for? Browse other questions tagged or ask your own question.