In A History of Modern France, by Alfred Cobban, a book that presents a general introduction to, well, the history of France, which is to say that it moves quickly, skips details and doesn’t provide citations, the following is found:
In 1733 Augustus, Elector of Saxony and elective King of Poland, died, leaving as his heir Augustus III of Saxony. The dispossessed Stanislaus of Poland [the father of the queen of France] saw in this situation his opportunity; with the backing of a strong French party he proceeded to Warsaw, where a Diet of Polish nobles restored him to the throne. As was usual in Poland, an opposition was immediately formed which chose Augustus III as anti-king. Russia and Austria supported Augustus; and an invading Russian army chased Stanislaus from Warsaw and placed his rival on the Polish throne.
Just what is an “anti-king”? Is this Cobban’s term? How much of a tradition was it? He doesn’t go into detail at all, unfortunately. This certainly isn’t what Negri had in mind when he talked about “dual sovereignty,” that much I am sure of.
2 Comments
The reference is to the term ‘antipope’, I’d assume.
I assumed he was drawing a parallel to an antipope, but, as mentioned, he provides no reference or discussion of the “antiking” or its Polish “tradition.” What is with the Poles such that they had a tendency to elect two kings?
Post a Comment