The Royal Forums Coat of Arms


Join The Royal Forums Today
Reply
 
Thread Tools Search this Thread Display Modes
 
  #141  
Old 07-09-2013, 07:09 PM
Lady Daly's Avatar
Gentry
 
Join Date: Aug 2012
Location: Sherwood, United States
Posts: 71
I watched the Althorp documentary Sunday and considering the program was a little less than an hour, it is interesting what Earl Spencer chose to include. I enjoyed the various stories including one about a previous Earl Spencer (Charles' grandfather?) snatching away Winston Churchill's cigar as he was smoking it in the Althorp library. The close connection between the Spencer family and their neighbors, George Washington's ancestors, including their falling on hard times and receiving assistance from the Spencers. The architectural history and recent restoration was also very interesting esp. the story surrounding the leaking roof and Charles's father leaving him the task of replacing it as well as replacing the tile façade which covered the original red bricks. The Althorpe Estate is very beautiful and despite some of the controversy over Charles Spencer (private life, etc) he seems to be fulfilling the family legacy by keeping the Althorp Estate "alive". Glad I watched, I learned something:)
__________________

__________________
Reply With Quote
  #142  
Old 07-09-2013, 07:12 PM
cepe's Avatar
Heir Apparent
 
Join Date: Mar 2012
Location: London, United Kingdom
Posts: 4,322
Quote:
Originally Posted by Queen Camilla View Post
...Seeing Althrop had 90 rooms and 31 bedrooms, I can understand why Diana was disappointed with Highgrove & Kensingston Palace. It probably felt like she had married down.
Not for ONE MINUTE did Diana or her family think they were marrying down. And she certainly wasn't. How on earth can anyone think that marrying the heir to the throne be marrying down??
.
__________________

__________________

This precious stone set in the silver sea,......
This blessed plot, this earth, this realm, this England,
Reply With Quote
  #143  
Old 07-13-2013, 03:41 PM
Mermaid1962's Avatar
Heir Apparent
 
Join Date: Sep 2007
Location: NearTheCoast, Canada
Posts: 5,131
This is discussed in Sarah Bradford's biography about Diana. The Spencers and people of their political ilk (Whigs) were responsible for getting George I on the throne of England. Therefore, the British Royal Family are indebted to them for their current position. Also, families like the Spencers are old English aristocracy from centuries before the Royal Family--descended from the German-speaking George I--came to England.
__________________
Reply With Quote
  #144  
Old 07-13-2013, 03:48 PM
Heir Apparent
 
Join Date: Jun 2007
Location: Toronto (ON) & London (UK), Canada
Posts: 5,261
The Hanovarians might have come to England from Germany, but their claim to the throne is due to their legitimate Protestant descent from the Stuarts.
__________________
Reply With Quote
  #145  
Old 07-13-2013, 05:30 PM
Serene Highness
 
Join Date: Jun 2012
Location: Los Alamos, United States
Posts: 1,034
You are right NGalitzine about the Hanoverian descent coming from the Stuarts, who sent Stuart marriage partners to Europe. I am not familiar with all of them but I know King James I/VI's daughter Elizabeth married a German royal, I think of Heidelberg.

It is ironic that the Stuarts were known to be pretty avid Catholics in the period before King James I/VI. So it was hard, I presume, as others have said, to find a legitimate Protestant descendant of the Stuarts. Today, still, the Stuart pretender lines are Catholic.
__________________
Reply With Quote
  #146  
Old 07-13-2013, 05:55 PM
Ish's Avatar
Ish Ish is online now
Heir Presumptive
 
Join Date: Feb 2013
Location: Vancouver, Canada
Posts: 2,039
James VI/I's daughter Elizabeth married Frederick V, Elector Palatine and King of Bohemia.

The Stuarts were avid Catholics prior to James IV/I, but that wasn't really uncommon. The Protestant Reformation only began in 1517, James was born in 1566.

I wouldn't say that finding a Protestant heir was hard so much as they had to exclude a lot of Catholics first (50+), who were higher in the succession. Sophie of Hanover was actually the granddaughter of the Elizabeth that you mentioned.
.
__________________
Reply With Quote
  #147  
Old 07-13-2013, 06:40 PM
Serene Highness
 
Join Date: Jun 2012
Location: Los Alamos, United States
Posts: 1,034
Thanks, Ish for further info on Elizabeth Stuart.
When I spoke of the Stuarts having been ardent Catholics I realized that everyone was "Catholic" prior to the reformation. What I meant was just a feeling that there was a "Stuart" party in Scotland/England which was more devoted than average to supporting abbeys and churches, and sending some of their children to monastic life. It's just a a feeling I got from books I've read, that the Stuarts were pretty devout. One of the books I got this from was "Normans in Scotland" by Graeme Ritchie, written in the 1950's. It is a fascinating book which shows the ethnic variety of the "Normans" in Scotland, who were a combination of Gaelic, Celtic, "Norman", Fleming, and Saxon, even though their culture was mostly Norman.
__________________
Reply With Quote
  #148  
Old 07-16-2013, 04:12 AM
Aristocracy
 
Join Date: Oct 2011
Location: Makati, Philippines
Posts: 131
Quote:
Originally Posted by Ish View Post
...I wouldn't say that finding a Protestant heir was hard so much as they had to exclude a lot of Catholics first (50+), who were higher in the succession. Sophie of Hanover was actually the granddaughter of the Elizabeth that you mentioned.
true.. but it should also be noted that Electress Sophia was not the senior most protestant descendant of King James I.. the eldest surviving child of Elizabeth Stuart was Charles I Louis, Elector Palatine.. therefore, the senior most protestant heir to King James I was Raugravine Karoline of the Palatinate and not her aunt Electress Sophia of Hanover.. also, based on this, George I should have not been king, but rather it was Raugravine Karoline's daughter, Frederica Mildmay, Countess of Mértola who should have been queen.. so if we would follow this line, the current monarch of the UK until early this year would have been Diana Miller, 11th Countess of Mértola or Queen Diana so to speak.. lol.. here is the line..

James VI of Scotland and I of England
Elizabeth Stuart, Queen of Bohemia
Charles I Louis, Elector Palatine
Raugravine Karoline of the Palatinate
Frederica Mildmay, Countess of Mértola
Robert Darcy, 4th Earl of Holderness
Amelia Osborne, Marchioness of Carmarthen
George Osborne, 6th Duke of Leeds
Lady Charlotte Mary Anne Georgiana Osborne
Sackville Lane-Fox, 12th Baron Conyers
Marcia Pelham, Countess of Yarborough
Sackville Pelham, 5th Earl of Yarborough
Diana Miller, 11th Countess of Mértola

also, i guess its just right to mention the Diana is also a legitimate descendent of Elector Charles Louis I through her grandmother Lady Cynthia Hamilton, Countess Spencer..

such things have happened before.. remember, King James I would have never been king based on the will of Henry VIII and the Third Succession Act which barred the descendants of Margaret Tudor, Queen of Scots to inherit the English throne.. Upon the death of Queen Elizabeth I, the heir presumptive to the English throne was Anne Stanley, Countess of Castlehaven, daughter of Alice Spencer, herself daughter of Sir John Spencer of Althorp..
.
__________________
Reply With Quote
  #149  
Old 07-16-2013, 04:28 AM
Aristocracy
 
Join Date: Oct 2011
Location: Makati, Philippines
Posts: 131
Many Spencers have almost sat the English/British throne..

First was Anne Stanley, Countess of Castlehaven, granddaughter of Sir John Spencer of Althorp, who was the heir presumptive to the English throne upon the death of Queen Elizabeth I according to the will of Henry VIII and the Third Succession Act..

Then we had the first Lady Diana Spencer who almost married Frederick, Prince of Wales.. Lady Diana was at the top of the list of eligible high society brides due to both her looks and her closeness to the tremendously rich Dowager Duchess of Marlborough.. Among her suitors were the grandson of the Duke of Somerset, the Viscount Weymouth, the Earl of Shaftesbury and the Earl of Chesterfield who noted that "The person, the merit and the family of Lady Diana Spencer are objects so valuable that they must necessarily have..." the marriage to the Prince of Wales was vetoed by the prime Minister and the King preferred a European match..

Third was the most previous Lady Diana Spencer who in 1981 did marry the Prince of Wales but the marriage sadly ended in divorce and her untimely death..

still, the second in line to the British throne is half Spencer..
.
__________________
Reply With Quote
  #150  
Old 07-16-2013, 04:47 AM
Ish's Avatar
Ish Ish is online now
Heir Presumptive
 
Join Date: Feb 2013
Location: Vancouver, Canada
Posts: 2,039
Quote:
Originally Posted by Sangre_Real016 View Post
Many Spencers have almost sat the English/British throne..
I'm not sure what the significance of the Spencer's who almost made it to the throne is...

The Spencer's are an old, aristocratic family. That was part of the appeal that Diana had as a potential bride for Charles. One would assume that a family that had been aristocratic (in various forms) for as long as the Spencer's have would have had a number of near brushes with merging with the BRF, or would have even entered into it at some point.
__________________
Reply With Quote
  #151  
Old 07-16-2013, 09:53 AM
Heir Apparent
 
Join Date: Jun 2007
Location: Toronto (ON) & London (UK), Canada
Posts: 5,261
Quote:
Originally Posted by Sangre_Real016 View Post
Many Spencers have almost sat the English/British throne..
..
We are not playing horseshoes. Close and almost do not count.
__________________
Reply With Quote
  #152  
Old 07-16-2013, 10:25 AM
Courtier
 
Join Date: May 2012
Location: Washington, United States
Posts: 749
Prince William is a member of the Spencer family and, if the monarchy survives, he will become King.

I think this discussion started when someone erroneously posted that the Spencers have more royal blood than the royal family, which is not true. The Spencer have more pure English blood than the royal family, but that is because royal families throughout history have sacrificed their personal feelings to dutifully marry into foreign royal families.

The purpose of these strategic marriages was to benefit their subjects by encouraging trade and preventing war. It also should be noted that the royal family does not just represent England, so I don't think that the percentage of actual English blood running through their veins is a good indicator of whether they are the best family to represent the United Kingdom.
__________________
Reply With Quote
  #153  
Old 07-17-2013, 04:47 AM
Aristocracy
 
Join Date: Oct 2011
Location: Makati, Philippines
Posts: 131
Quote:
Originally Posted by US Royal Watcher View Post
I think this discussion started when someone erroneously posted that the Spencers have more royal blood than the royal family, which is not true. The Spencer have more pure English blood than the royal family, but that is because royal families throughout history have sacrificed their personal feelings to dutifully marry into foreign royal families.
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"..
__________________
Reply With Quote
  #154  
Old 07-17-2013, 02:37 PM
Ish's Avatar
Ish Ish is online now
Heir Presumptive
 
Join Date: Feb 2013
Location: Vancouver, Canada
Posts: 2,039
I still don't follow how you think the Spencer's are more royal than the Windsors.

Do you honestly think that the Windsors aren't also descended from kings of France, Holy Roman Emperors, and so on? You trace the descent of the Spencer's to Henry VII of England and imply that it's through there (and similar means) that the Spencer's get their royal ancestors... But the Windsors are descended from Henry VII as well. I wasn't aware that the Spencer's descended from the Catholic (and illegitimate) line of James II, although I do know that they descend from Charles II, which is where they one up the Windsors; the only Stuart monarch the Windsors descend from is James I.

That said, the Windsors have as much (if not more) of a royal ancestry as the Spencers, and given as the Windsors are actually royal while the Spencers (at least Diana's line) are merely Earls... I would think that William gets his royal pedigree from his father, sorry.
__________________
Reply With Quote
  #155  
Old 07-17-2013, 03:25 PM
Aristocracy
 
Join Date: Oct 2011
Location: Makati, Philippines
Posts: 131
Quote:
Originally Posted by Ish View Post
I still don't follow how you think the Spencer's are more royal than the Windsors.
i never said that.. i said that one can contest that remark.. what i said that the Spencer has more kings and emperors in their ancestry than the Windsors who's ancestors were mostly sovereign dukes and kings that descended from dukes..

Quote:
Originally Posted by Ish View Post
Do you honestly think that the Windsors aren't also descended from kings of France, Holy Roman Emperors, and so on?
never said that as well.. it is true that the Windsors also descends from the Kings of France and Holy Roman Emperors.. but those individuals are way back into their ancestry.. for example, the Windsors descends from Charles VI of France who ruled in 1380 and Henry VII, Holy Roman Emperor who ruled in 1308.. if you can see, these kings and emperors were from such a distant relation unlike the Spencers who descends from King Henry IV of France who ruled in 1572 and Ferdinand I, Holy Roman Emperor who ruled in 1526.. now from that we can say that the Spencers descends from all kings of France and Holy Roman Emperors before Henry IV and Ferdinand I, and that is 200 years or royal descent from kings and emperors compared to the Windsors..

Quote:
Originally Posted by Ish View Post
You trace the descent of the Spencer's to Henry VII of England and imply that it's through there (and similar means) that the Spencer's get their royal ancestors... But the Windsors are descended from Henry VII as well.
no.. i never denied the fact that the Windsors also descend from Henry VII, but it was not true Henry VII were the Spencer got most of their royal ancestry, in fact he is among the least contributor of royal genes to the Spencers.. most of the royal descent of the Spencers came from Charles II and James II, who's mother was Henrietta Maria of France, daughter of Henry IV and Marie de' Medici.. also, via Lady Cynthia Hamilton, the Spencers are legitimate descendants of Charles I Louis of the Palatinate.. and so on and so forth.. the Windsors can't lay claim to these line of descent simply because they are not descended from Henrietta Maria of France..

Quote:
Originally Posted by Ish View Post
I wasn't aware that the Spencer's descended from the Catholic (and illegitimate) line of James II, although I do know that they descend from Charles II, which is where they one up the Windsors; the only Stuart monarch the Windsors descend from is James I.
not only that, since Charles II and James II were grandchildren of Marie de' Medici, the Spencers can lay claim as descendants of the Dukes of Milan from the line of of the Viscontis and Sforzas.. as well as from Henry IV, they descends from King Almeric II of Jerusalem and Cyprus, etc..

Quote:
That said, the Windsors have as much (if not more) of a royal ancestry as the Spencers, and given as the Windsors are actually royal while the Spencers (at least Diana's line) are merely Earls... I would think that William gets his royal pedigree from his father, sorry.
royal descent is often subjective.. again, it all goes down to who do you think has more royal ancestors.. but it is true that the Windsors are first hand royals, while the Spencers have always been members of the nobility.. but i think, its at-least safe to say the the Spencers are heirs body to a once sovereign family, the Churchills, who ruled as the sovereign Prince of Mindelheim.. also i believe, we are contesting who has more royal ancestors, not who if truly royals.. coz, by that category, the Windsors wins hands down.. :)
__________________
Reply With Quote
  #156  
Old 07-17-2013, 04:23 PM
Courtier
 
Join Date: May 2012
Location: Washington, United States
Posts: 749
Very interesting Sangre_Real16. Obviously you've done a lot of research. However, I am not sure that I agree that royal descent is often subjective. Isn't it a matter of law? I haven't gone through Princess Diana's ancestors, but if her ancestor was a child of Charles II and had the title HRH but married someone who was not an HRH, then the grandchild became half royal. Unless the grandchild married a member of the royal family, any children became a quarter royal and the percentage of royal blood decreased through generations.

To take a more recent example, I would say that Zara Phillips is half royal because her mother was royal but her father was not. Her child will be one-quarter royal and the percentage of royal blood will decrease with each passing generation, unless one marries into a royal family. Her descendants will have royal blood, but the percentage after a hundred years or so will be minimal.
__________________
Reply With Quote
  #157  
Old 07-17-2013, 04:29 PM
Ish's Avatar
Ish Ish is online now
Heir Presumptive
 
Join Date: Feb 2013
Location: Vancouver, Canada
Posts: 2,039
I see where you're going here, but I'm not certain of my thoughts on it.

I will say though that Diana's descent from Charles II is through an illegitimate line; the child of Charles that leads to the Spencers was one of his many bastards. I don't believe he had any surviving children.
__________________
Reply With Quote
  #158  
Old 07-17-2013, 04:33 PM
Heir Apparent
 
Join Date: Jun 2007
Location: Toronto (ON) & London (UK), Canada
Posts: 5,261
Quote:
Originally Posted by US Royal Watcher View Post
...I haven't gone through Princess Diana's ancestors, but if her ancestor was a child of Charles II and had the title HRH but married someone who was not an HRH, then the grandchild became half royal...
Charles II 's offspring were the result of relationships with his many mistresses. While he took his duties as "father of the nation" seriously none of his children were HRH. Diana, like Camilla & Fergie, descended from his various illegitimate children.
.
__________________
Reply With Quote
  #159  
Old 07-17-2013, 04:35 PM
Courtier
 
Join Date: May 2012
Location: Washington, United States
Posts: 749
Quote:
Originally Posted by Ish View Post
I see where you're going here, but I'm not certain of my thoughts on it.

I will say though that Diana's descent from Charles II is through an illegitimate line; the child of Charles that leads to the Spencers was one of his many bastards. I don't believe he had any surviving children.
I didn't really look up Diana's actual ancestors, I was using Charles II as a hypothetical example. If the child was illegitimate and didn't have the HRH title, I would say that child was half royal and his child would be a quarter royal.

ETA: I just realized that Charles II had no legitimate children, which I probably knew at one point but forgot. I maintain that although the descendants of his illegitimate children can claim royal blood, unless they married a person with an HRH, the percentage of royal blood is small. Therefore, I would argue that it is incorrect to say that Diana had more royal blood that Prince Charles.
__________________
Reply With Quote
  #160  
Old 07-18-2013, 01:29 AM
Ish's Avatar
Ish Ish is online now
Heir Presumptive
 
Join Date: Feb 2013
Location: Vancouver, Canada
Posts: 2,039
I thought about what you've said here and have a response now.

I think being royal is more about belonging to a royal family. You can be descended from royals and not actually be royal - the Phillips have royal blood, but they themselves are not royal.

Diana may have royal ancestry, that's indisputable, and in many ways she may have more royal or more more closely related royal ancestry than Charles does, but that didn't make her more royal than he is, on the grounds that he belonged to a royal family and, outside of her marriage, she didn't.

If you try to get into %s it gets tricky; if the Phillips are half royal because their mother is a royal, but their father wasn't then what does that make the Waleses or Yorks?
__________________

__________________
Reply With Quote
Reply

Tags
diana princess of wales, diana's family, earl spencer, genealogy, princess diana


Currently Active Users Viewing This Thread: 2 (0 members and 2 guests)
 
Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are Off
Pingbacks are Off
Refbacks are Off





Additional Links
Popular Tags
abdication birth charlene chris o'neill crown prince frederik crown prince haakon crown princess letizia crown princess mary crown princess mette-marit crown princess victoria current events fashion grand duchess maria teresa grand duke henri habsburg hohenzollern infanta elena infanta sofia jordan king abdullah ii king carl xvi gustav king felipe king felipe vi king harald king juan carlos king philippe king willem-alexander luxembourg ottoman palace pom prince albert prince albert ii prince carl philip prince constantijn prince felipe prince felix prince floris prince laurent prince pieter-christiaan princess princess aimee princess alexia (2005 -) princess anita princess ariane princess beatrix princess catharina-amalia princess charlene princess claire princess laurentien princess letizia princess mabel princess madeleine princess margriet princess marie princess mary queen letizia queen mathilde queen maxima queen paola queen rania queen silvia queen sofia royal russia spain state visit sweden wedding william


Our Communities

Our communities encompass many different hobbies and interests, but each one is built on friendly, intelligent membership.

» More about our Communities

Automotive Communities

Our Automotive communities encompass many different makes and models. From U.S. domestics to European Saloons.

» More about our Automotive Communities

RV & Travel Trailer Communities

Our RV & Travel Trailer sites encompasses virtually all types of Recreational Vehicles, from brand-specific to general RV communities.

» More about our RV Communities

Marine Communities

Our Marine websites focus on Cruising and Sailing Vessels, including forums and the largest cruising Wiki project on the web today.

» More about our Marine Communities


Copyright 2002-2012 Social Knowledge, LLC All Rights Reserved.

All times are GMT -4. The time now is 04:02 PM.

Social Knowledge Networks

eXTReMe Tracker
Powered by vBulletin
Copyright ©2000 - 2014
Jelsoft Enterprises

Royal News Delivered to your Email!

You can get the latest Royal News right in your inbox.

unsusbcribe at anytime with one click

Close [X]