--Previous Message--
: I think it's incorrect to call him the last
: heir. As the monarchy in Turkey was
: abolished in 1922 he could not have been
: heir to the throne. After that date they
: were only heirs to being head of the dynasty
: by age of which there are many members today
:
: --Previous Message--
: I still don't understand the relevance of
: the
: abolishment of the Caliphate. If he hade
: been born in 1923, would that have made him
: the last heir to the throne?
:
: --Previous Message--
: It wouldn't as the Caliphate was abolished
: in
: 1924 and he was born in 1930.
:
: --Previous Message--
:
:
: --Previous Message--
: I wonder why the article headline describes
: him as "the last heir" when he was
: born after the dissolution of the empire,
: and there are clearly further dynasts?
: Unless he was born before the abolition of
: the caliphate, which would have been around
: the time of his birth?
:
:
: Yes, it's strange. There are plenty of
: dynasts. How is the abolition of the
: caliphate relevant here?
:
:
:
:
:
:
:
1
Message Thread
« Back to index