Hi ya'll.. sorry, i was not able to reply earlier.. i just revisited this thread and saw the previous post so i opted to possible defend what i said..
Since discussing this with Sangre_Real016 I've looked into both the Windsor and Spencer line extensively, and I still disagree with his overall conclusions. His previous posts do leave doubt to the matter as they're based on this narrow assumption that the Windsors' ancestors are mostly dukes and the like, instead of kings, and that the Spencers are from more royal houses than the Windsors. This isn't true, as it's doesn't comprehend what being a sovereign Duke was - he treats the Germanic ancestors of the Windsors as if they were mere peers, when that isn't what happened, they were sovereign lords. He also acts as though this all happened around the same time; that while the Spencers were marrying into the Medici family, the Windsors were marrying mere dukes. This isn't an accurate representation of things at all.
Diana's royal ancestry all predates the 18th century. Charles' not only continues to the present day, but also goes back as far and as varied as Diana's. Given as both of his parents descend from Royal Houses it's a hard argument to say that Diana's family holds more royal ancestors.
i never actually said that i only considered them as mere peers of the realm, or anything remotely close to that understatement.. here is what i said earlier, and i quote:
"As i said earlier, i never said that Diana has more royal blood in her than the queen.. I said it all goes down to preference and personal opinion.. If you think that the Queen who descends from actual rulers since the 10th century and is related to the Kings of England, Scotland, Prussia, Denmark, Saxony, Hanover, Wurttemberg, Grand Dukes of Mecklenburg, Dukes of Ernestine Duchies, etc. is more royal, then its all good.. or if you think an aristocratic Lady that came from a hereditary titled family since the 10th century and is related to Holy Roman Emperors, Austrian Emperors, Kings of England, Scotland, France, Spain, Bavaria, Ancient Gaelic Kingdoms, Electors of the Palatinate, Grand Dukes of Tuscany, Dukes of Milan, etc has more blue blood in her, then its okay too.. "
-and-
"well one contest that honestly.. it all depends what one defines royal blood.. the Queen paternally belongs to the House of saxe-Coburg and Gotha, a branch of the House of Wettin, and has ancestors which includes the Dukes of Saxe-Goburg and Gotha, the Electors of Saxony, the Landgraves of Thuringia, the Margraves of Meissen, the Counts of Wettin, Kings of Denmark who were originally Dukes of Schelswig-Holstein, Dukes of Wurttemberg, Landgraves/Electors/Grand Dukes of Hesse and from her Hanoverian descent, her ancestors include the Electors of Hanover, Dukes of Brunswick, Duke of Mecklenburg, etc.. Prince Philip on the other hand descends from the Kings of Denmark via the Dukes of Schelswig-Holstein, Count of Oldenburg and the Emperors of Russia via again, the Dukes of Schelswig-Holstein.. and yeah, of course, from the Kings of England and Scotland.. so yeah, without doubt, they are of royal blood..
but what about the Spencers then? the Spencers are of royal descent via what people call, "on the left side of bed".. but the Spencers are not to be blamed for their ancestors' mistakes and illegitimate or not, the products of this union are still of so called "royal blood" per se.. because of the union of Albert Spencer, 7th Earl Spencer (a legitimate descendant of King Henry VII) and Lady Cynthia Hamilton (who is a legitimate descendant of Elector Charles I Louis of the Palatinate), the Spencers enjoy a wide array of royal ancestors.. from their descent from King James II, the Spencers are descended from the Kings of France, Kings of Castile, Kings of Leon, Kings of Aragon, Kings of Naples, Kings of Sicily, Kings of Jerusalem, Kings of England, Kings of Scotland, Kings of Navarre, Kings of Portugal, Kings of Hungary, Kings of Cyprus, Kings of Denmark, Kings of Poland, Kings of Bohemia, Holy Roman Emperors, Byzantine Emperors, Tsars of Bulgaria, Grand Dukes of Tuscany, Electors of the Palatinate, Dukes of Swabia, Duke of Bavaria, Dukes of Savoy, Dukes of Lorraine, Duke of Saxony, Dukes of Milan, Dukes of Burgundy, Dukes of Aquitaine, Dukes of Carinthia, Counts of Foix, etc..
the Windsors may enjoy more royal ancestors in the more previous generations but the Spencers actually have more royall ancestors of nominally higher rank in the more later generations.. why is that you may ask? well probably because the Spencers' have had more ancestors who were Kings and Emperors while the Windsors' royal ancestors includes mostly Dukes, Landragves and Counts.. we'll i guess it all goes to what one actually defines as "royal".."
in my defense, never did i say that they were mere peers or remotely being just titular nobles, as i said, they were sovereign ruler.. what i pointed out is that they were sovereign of nominally lower rank that of kings and emperors.. plus i have numerously mentioned that they were questionably royals.. that is what i meant to say..
IIRC, Sangre_Real016, was comparing Diana's Spencer's ancestry to the Queen's Windsor ancestry completely ignoring the Queen Mother's ancestry.
i never focused on that part of the Queen's heritage since were are mostly referring to her royal heritage, but it does not mean i blatantly ignored Lady Elizabeth Bowes-Lyon's royal heritage.. like what i said, and i quote:
"i never denied the fact that the Bowes-Lyons are also quite aristocratic.. the Bowes-Lyons descended from John Lyon, Lord of Glamis who married Princess Johanna, daughter of Robert II of Scotland and Elizabeth Mure.. but this does not really say much as Diana herself also descends from Robert II of Scotland and Elizabeth Mure through Diana's descent from Mary, Queen of Scots..
Sangre_Real016 also assumed or stated things that were not proven and those that have seen been proven incorrect.
The Spencer line does not descend from the Despencer line.
well, those were quite some accusations.. i never assumed of anything.. i presented the Spencer family tree as what the Spencer family itself believes it do.. so saying that it was i who made the assumptions are quite hurtful and without a shadow of a doubt incorrect.. now, if those lines of descent were fabricated somewhere along the line, i think i shouldn't be blamed for it now do i? besides, i have already acknowledge its questionable origins in the first place in an another thread with a very respectable and knowledgeable member.. Here is the link of our discussion regarding the Spencer family's descent from the ancient Despensers..
http://www.theroyalforums.com/forum...dynastic-laws-and-marriage-rules-34148-2.html (note: it;s the second to the last post on that page)
Sangre_Real016 also included illegimate lines and assumed children were born to people when no such children existed.
Diana's ancestry cannot be traced as far as Sangre_Real016 stated and as such Diana's ancestry does not include as many Kings and Queens as listed.
hmmm??? funny, as far as i know, all the natural begot of royal personas that i listed actually existed and there are documents supporting those facts.. i cannot give all theline of descent for every single royal ancestor of the Spencer, i assure everyone that those people actually existed.. show me a certain person that i listed which actually did not exist, this referring to Diana's ancestry who some people say does not include as many Kings and Queens as i listed..
I also want to add that when Sangre-Real016 tried to make an argument he only focused on certain lines that seemed to prove his argument. The fact that Diana's family came from an older family than Prince Philip's - assuming that the Despencers became the Spencers - was a heavy part of the argument, even though Prince Philip'd ancestry can be traced just as far back through a number of lines. Similar can be said of the Queen.
i actually focused their direct paternal lines.. i didn't include the others for it would overwhelm the thread.. the Queen, prince Philip and Diana has so much royal ancestry in both lines that it would be overwhelming to discuss them all.. if that is what's bothering you, i apologized simply because, i was actually refferng more to the antiquity of their agnatic lines of descent above all..
He also asserted that the Queen's paternal ancestors were essentially all German, ignoring the fact that her paternal grandmother was born in Britain to a British mother, one paternal great-grandmother was a Danish Princess, and her most famous paternal great-grandmother was a Queen who not only was born in Britain, but also spent the vast majority of her life there.
again, i never said that, and i quote myself once more..
"I said that because the most, if not Queen's patrilineal ancestors were of German origin.. in my defense, i never said that the Queen is German, i only said, most of the royal blood that flows in her veins are from German royals.."
