The Royal Forums Coat of Arms


Join The Royal Forums Today
Reply
 
Thread Tools Search this Thread Display Modes
 
  #161  
Old 07-18-2013, 01:38 AM
Ish's Avatar
Ish Ish is offline
Heir Presumptive
 
Join Date: Feb 2013
Location: Vancouver, Canada
Posts: 2,362
Quote:
Originally Posted by Sangre_Real016 View Post
...it is true that the Windsors also descend from the Kings of France and Holy Roman Emperors.. but those individuals are way back into their ancestry...
I'm going to have to give to your superior knowledge on this subject and take your word on it, at least for now.

I'm thinking that my next project is going to be tracing the descent of Prince William, which will educate me more thoroughly on the lineage of the Spencers.
__________________

__________________
Reply With Quote
  #162  
Old 07-18-2013, 04:00 AM
Aristocracy
 
Join Date: Oct 2011
Location: Makati, Philippines
Posts: 131
Quote:
Originally Posted by US Royal Watcher View Post
...but if her ancestor was a child of Charles II and had the title HRH...
hmmm.. i don't think that concept applies to the British Royal family.. you see, the unlike their mainland European cousins, don't really practice the concept of morganatic marriage.. it mainland Europe, there is a strict adherence to these rules which revolves in a royal marrying only another royal and any marriage of a royal with someone of lower rank is deemed unequal or morganatic..

if we would follow that concept then Prince Philip who's parents were HRH Prince Andrew of Greece and Denmark and HSH Princess Alice of Battenberg (herself a product of a morganatic union) is MORE ROYAL than Queen Elizabeth II who's parents were HM King George VI and The Lady Elizabeth Bowes-Lyon, a daughter of a mere earl..

also for the Spencers, their ancestor the great John Chruchill, 1st Duke of Marlborough was created a sovereign Prince of Mindelheim in the Holy Roman Empire.. this basically makes her daughter, Lady Anne, officially a princess with a complete title of HSH Princess Anne of Mindelheim, Countess of Sunderland who later married Charles Spencer, 3rd Earl of Sunderland.. Churchill died without a male heir so his imperial titles were forfeited.. but if only the empire allowed his imperial titles be pass down to his female heirs (his ducal title was passed down to the Spencers) then the Spencers might now be enjoying legitimate royal status in their own right.. not sure though.. :)
.
__________________

__________________
Reply With Quote
  #163  
Old 07-18-2013, 07:37 AM
Courtier
 
Join Date: May 2012
Location: Washington, United States
Posts: 852
Very interesting and I do understand your point of view. I don't agree with it though. To answer your (and Ish's point) the Queen Mother was granted a HRH title when she married King George, therefore, in my opinion, Queen Elizabeth was born 100% royal.

The fact is that the emperor did not allow his imperial titles to be passed down to his female heirs. I don't think any European royal families did (but I could be wrong). Whether someone is a HRH is a matter of law rather than genes.

Perhaps it may be accurate to say that the Spencers had more prominent ancestors before 1800 (or whenever). But the issue is which date is selected. The Windsor family in the last two hundred years has been more prominent (royal) than the Spencer family.
.
__________________
Reply With Quote
  #164  
Old 07-18-2013, 12:47 PM
Ish's Avatar
Ish Ish is offline
Heir Presumptive
 
Join Date: Feb 2013
Location: Vancouver, Canada
Posts: 2,362
Quote:
Originally Posted by Sangre_Real016 View Post
...their ancestor the great John Chruchill, 1st Duke of Marlborough was created a sovereign Prince of Mindelheim in the Holy Roman Empire...
Even if Anne Spencer had been granted the ability to succeed to her father's titles (which was a very rare possibility), the modern-day Spencers wouldn't have been royal for a few reasons.

One is that the Dukes of Marlborough (and presumably the theoretical Princes of Middelheim) descended from Anne's elder son, Charles, the ancestor of Winston Churchill, while Diana's family descends from Anne's younger son, John. I'm not sure how many descendants HSH goes into but I doubt that 300 years later a junior line would still have it.

The other is that during World War 1 the Brits all gave up their German titles (and the Germans were deprived of their British titles). While I can only think of examples of families that were related to the BRF, I doubt the Churchills would have been excluded (and I'm certain that having a German title would have hindered Churchill's political career at the time and afterwards). Soon after, during the inter-war period, George V also decreed that Brits could not use foreign royal titles. He also decreed during the war that only HRH would be used in Britain, but I don't know if that would apply to individuals who weren't British royals and held titles elsewhere.
.
__________________
Reply With Quote
  #165  
Old 07-18-2013, 01:27 PM
KittyAtlanta's Avatar
Heir Presumptive
 
Join Date: Dec 2009
Location: KittyLand Junction, United States
Posts: 2,982
I think it was Burkes who said that Diana was more English than Charles, not descended from more royalty.
__________________
Reply With Quote
  #166  
Old 07-18-2013, 02:54 PM
Heir Apparent
 
Join Date: Jun 2007
Location: Toronto (ON) & London (UK), Canada
Posts: 5,260
Middleheim was swallowed up by Bavaria in 1714 it had long ago ceased to be an issue/problem for the Dukes of Marlborough or descendents. Sir Winston had nothing to worry about.
.
__________________
Reply With Quote
  #167  
Old 07-30-2013, 02:32 PM
Newbie
 
Join Date: Jul 2013
Location: Dublin, Ireland
Posts: 1
Jane Crombie

Did Jane Crombie have any hint of Indian features in her face?
Jane Crombie was the granddaughter of Eliza Kewark, who was Indian, and the great-great grandmother of Princess Diana.
__________________
Reply With Quote
  #168  
Old 10-06-2013, 03:07 PM
Gentry
 
Join Date: May 2010
Location: Freehold, New Jersey,, United States
Posts: 59
Quick question... Was Princess Diana related to Maria Theresa, the Austrian queen?
The same goes for Elizabeth II--was she as well?
__________________
Reply With Quote
  #169  
Old 10-06-2013, 09:54 PM
Ish's Avatar
Ish Ish is offline
Heir Presumptive
 
Join Date: Feb 2013
Location: Vancouver, Canada
Posts: 2,362
Quote:
Originally Posted by Princess me View Post
...the Spencers trump the Windsors.
That's a cute theory you have, but it's basically fantasy.

The Queen can trace her ancestry in a direct and legitimate line to almost every English (and a good number of the Scottish) monarchs before her. The few exceptions, asides from James II, are those who either did not have children (i.e. William II) , did not have legitimate children (i.e. Charles II), or their line died out within 2 generations (either their children didn't have children or, in the case of Henry V, his grandson didn't have children). Now, yes, George I was not the closest relative to Queen Anne and he came to the throne at the invitation of parliament, BUT that doesn't make his pedigree any less royal. He was the eldest son of a grandchild of James I, and every one in between Queen Anne and his mother had been deemed an undesirable monarch for various (mostly religious) reasons.

Now, going off from there comes the question of what makes a person royal. In the modern era, a good part of it is parliament's (and the people's) will; within Britain parliament has the power to make, or unmake, a monarch, they just don't like to advertise it. They've done it a number of times, in this case with George I. But they have always looked at people who are of a certain legitimate descent and in a certain order; George I couldn't be deemed the heir until every person between him and Anne had first been determined to be undesirable - much like how Mary II and William III couldn't have been appointed monarchs until James II and his son had been deemed undesirable (btw, regarding those other undesirables, one could argue that the children of James II from his second marriage ceased to be eligible for the throne the moment James was overthrown/"abdicated," but that's another argument).

Parliament has the power to make a monarch, and therefore make a royal, but when they're not doing that (which most of the time they aren't), royals are typically at best limited to the legitimate male-line descendants of monarchs - in modern Britain this is further limited to two generations, but even waving that there's still the legitimate, male-line to contend with. Elizabeth II is a legitimately born, male line descendant of a monarch. Her children and most of her grandchildren are likewise - Peter and Zara are not royal because they are not male line grandchildren.

Likewise, the Spencers do not descend from legitimate, male-line lines. You can trace Diana's ancestry to at most 3 English/British monarchs more than the Queen, all through illegitimate lines. She descends from Charles II through two of his illegitimate children, James II through one of his illegitimate children, and from the alleged illegitimate children of Henry VIII and Mary Boleyn. She can trace her ancestry to many royal houses, but certainly not more than the Windsors can. There are a few houses and monarchies the Spencers can trace their ancestry to that the Windsors can't, but there are also a few that the Windsors can trace their ancestry to that the Spencers can't. More often the two intermingle, meeting up at some point.

What is important to note is that within more recent history, the Windsors are primarily of royal or aristocratic descent. There are very few instances between George I and George V of someone marrying into the BRF who came from recent commoners. Within the Queen's maternal lineage there are far more recent common ancestors along with a slew of noble and royal ones - even Spencer and Despencer ancestors. And if you do a comparison of Charles' lineage and Diana's, you have to also consider the DoE's lineage - and he's descended from as many of the pre-Edward VII British and Scottish monarchs as the Queen, often though multiple lines, as well as a long list of Danish (from whom the Queen also descends) and Russian monarchs.
.
__________________
Reply With Quote
  #170  
Old 10-07-2013, 01:25 AM
Ish's Avatar
Ish Ish is offline
Heir Presumptive
 
Join Date: Feb 2013
Location: Vancouver, Canada
Posts: 2,362
Quote:
Originally Posted by Princess me View Post
^^^ I am no expert and was giving my view on what it means to have royal blood and royal ancestors, but Sangre_Real016 is an expert on Diana's genealogy so I will leave it to him/her to sort it out, although his/her previous posts leave little doubt in the matter.
Is your opinion here based on you having looked into the Spencer and Windsor ancestry, or is it based on what Sangre-Real016 has said and the fact that you liked Diana more than Charles?

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.
__________________
Reply With Quote
  #171  
Old 10-07-2013, 02:21 AM
Queen Camilla's Avatar
Courtier
 
Join Date: Aug 2011
Location: Chicago, United States
Posts: 721
IIRC, Sangre_Real016, was comparing Diana's Spencer's ancestry to the Queen's Windsor ancestry completely ignoring the Queen Mother's ancestry.

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. 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.
__________________
Reply With Quote
  #172  
Old 10-07-2013, 06:31 AM
Gentry
 
Join Date: May 2010
Location: Freehold, New Jersey,, United States
Posts: 59
Diana does have Despencer ancestry though, QueenCamilla. Have you checked out the book Ancestry of The Royal Child by Iain Moncreiffe? Iain proves Diana has Despencer ancestors in that book.

One more thing: I'd be happy to give you the full line of Diana's Despencer descent as well.
__________________
Reply With Quote
  #173  
Old 10-07-2013, 07:10 AM
Ish's Avatar
Ish Ish is offline
Heir Presumptive
 
Join Date: Feb 2013
Location: Vancouver, Canada
Posts: 2,362
Quote:
Originally Posted by Queen Camilla View Post
IIRC, Sangre_Real016, was comparing Diana's Spencer's ancestry to the Queen's Windsor ancestry completely ignoring the Queen Mother's ancestry. 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. 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.
Having just re-read this thread I agree with all of your points.

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.

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.

Quote:
Originally Posted by QueenElizabeth2Fan View Post
Diana does have Despencer ancestry though, QueenCamilla. Have you checked out the book Ancestry of The Royal Child by Iain Moncreiffe? Iain proves Diana has Despencer ancestors in that book.
Diana does have Despencer ancestors, that is undeniable. So does the Queen.

What cannot be proven beyond a reasonable doubt is that the Spencers are direct, male-line descendants of the Despencers. The claim was made in the 15th century by Henry Spencer, but it's believed that these claims were fabricated. Fabricating lineage was something that happened then, particularly among those who for one reason or another felt the need to prove themselves to be of some importance. It was around the same time that Henry Spencer was trying to claim to be descended from the Despencers that Henry VII was claiming to be descended from King Arthur. Both are questionable claims at best.
__________________
Reply With Quote
  #174  
Old 10-08-2013, 12:52 PM
Warren's Avatar
Administrator
 
Join Date: Jan 2005
Location: Sydney, Australia
Posts: 15,425
Quote:
Originally Posted by Ish View Post
...Sangre-Real016 tried to make an argument...that Diana's family came from an older family than Prince Philip's...
Philip was born a Prince of Greece and Denmark with the paternal direct Danish line descending from Gorm the Old, who reigned from c936 to c958. Philip's mother's Battenberg ancestry via the House of Hesse can be traced back to at least 846, and as a descendant of Queen Victoria he can trace that line of his ancestry back to the Anglo Saxons and Egbert in 829.

If the "Spencer family is older" argument conveniently ignores Prince Philip's Hessian antecedents and bases it on the Battenberg's titular inception in 1851, it contains as much logical validity as a claim that the royal ancestry of Elizabeth II dates from 1917.

As to the question "how royal is the Queen?", from 1936 to 1947 she was the daughter and heiress of the King-Emperor and Queen-Empress. You can't get much more "royal" than that.
__________________
Seeking information? Check out the extensive Royal A-Z
Reply With Quote
  #175  
Old 10-08-2013, 03:23 PM
Ish's Avatar
Ish Ish is offline
Heir Presumptive
 
Join Date: Feb 2013
Location: Vancouver, Canada
Posts: 2,362
Quote:
Originally Posted by Princess me View Post
I didn't know this. So cool! So little Prince George of Cambridge is a direct male-line ancestor of this Gorm the Old from 958AD? I think this definitely trumps the Spencers. My apologises to Ish and others.
I see where you've made this leap, but it's not an accurate one. Prince Philip is a direct paternal descendant of Gorm the Old (among others), but not a direct male-line descendant. Being a male-line descendant means that between person X and person Y there are only men - so Prince George is a direct male line descendant of Prince Philip - the line is Philip, Charles, William, George. Being a paternal descendant means that on their father's side person X is descended from person Y, but there are female lines of descent in there as well. So, Prince Philip is a paternal ancestor of Isla Phillips - the line is Philip, Anne, Peter, Isla.

Part of the problem with Sangre_Real016's reasoning was that it only looked at the direct male-line ancestors of Prince Philip and the Queen, while it looked at multiple lines of descent for Diana. Thus people like Gorm the Old don't factor into the equation for establishing how old Prince Philip's line is.

Philip's - and the Queen's - line can be traced farther back than Gorm though, although the further back you go the more inclined to being legendary things become. They're both descended from the House of Wessex, which traces it's origins back to the most-likely real Cerdic of Wessex, who died in 534.
__________________
Reply With Quote
  #176  
Old 11-21-2013, 04:30 PM
Aristocracy
 
Join Date: Oct 2011
Location: Makati, Philippines
Posts: 131
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..

Quote:
Originally Posted by Ish View Post
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..

Quote:
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..

Quote:
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.. Royal and Noble Families: Dynastic Laws and Marriage Rules (note: it;s the second to the last post on that page)

Quote:
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..

Quote:
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..

Quote:
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.."
__________________
Reply With Quote
  #177  
Old 11-21-2013, 04:30 PM
Aristocracy
 
Join Date: Oct 2011
Location: Makati, Philippines
Posts: 131
Quote:
Part of the problem with Sangre_Real016's reasoning was that it only looked at the direct male-line ancestors of Prince Philip and the Queen, while it looked at multiple lines of descent for Diana. Thus people like Gorm the Old don't factor into the equation for establishing how old Prince Philip's line is.

Philip's - and the Queen's - line can be traced farther back than Gorm though, although the further back you go the more inclined to being legendary things become. They're both descended from the House of Wessex, which traces it's origins back to the most-likely real Cerdic of Wessex, who died in 534.
hmmm, i think there was a confusion in everything.. my purpose in showing direct agnatic line is show each family's antiquity.. as what my first post said, Prince Philip earliest recorded direct agnatic ancestor is Elimar, Count of Oldenburg, whereas for the Queen, it would be Dietrich I, Count of Wettin.. whereas for Diana, undisputable records shows a Thomas Spencer, but the family itself and others believe that it's actually Raoul de Tancarville, which apparently even the current College of Arms recognizes?, not sure though.. whether that is true or not, who knows.. and if that is the case, i should have included Robert II, Count of Worms and Rheingau and Hugh Capet as they are her direct ancestors as well..

now, i don't know if this thread had changed to "Who has more royal blood" or "Who has the most royal ancestors" or "Who has the oldest royal ancestor", but like what i said, it all goes down to what people think who is.. do we evaluate someone by what family they were actually born to, or how many royal ancestors do they have, etc..

again, i never denied anything about Prince Philip's and the Queen royal ancestors in both lines, nor blatantly said that Lady Diana is more royal than them nor does she have more royal ancestors.. i suggest, one should just research by themselves and decide on their own..

thanks :)
__________________
Reply With Quote
  #178  
Old 11-22-2013, 11:52 AM
Aristocracy
 
Join Date: Oct 2011
Location: Makati, Philippines
Posts: 131
Also, can someone please show Prince Philip's line of descent from Gorm the Old? thanks..
__________________
Reply With Quote
  #179  
Old 11-22-2013, 12:25 PM
Gentry
 
Join Date: Aug 2012
Location: Manchester, United Kingdom
Posts: 57
This is the Wikipedia page showing the descent of the Danish monarchy from Gorm The Old - User:The Emperor's New Spy/Sandbox/Descent of Margarethe II from Gorm the Old - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

No. 29, Louise of Hesse-Kassel, was the mother of both Alexandra, consort of Edward VII of Great Britain, and George I (William) of Greece (Prince Philip's grandfather).
__________________
Reply With Quote
  #180  
Old 11-22-2013, 01:25 PM
Aristocracy
 
Join Date: Oct 2011
Location: Makati, Philippines
Posts: 131
Quote:
Originally Posted by QueenElizabeth2Fan View Post
Quick question... Was Princess Diana related to Maria Theresa, the Austrian queen?
The same goes for Elizabeth II--was she as well?
the answer is yes.. they share a line of descent from Ferdinand I, Holy Roman Emperor

Ferdinand I, Holy Roman Emperor
Charles II, Archduke of Austria
Ferdinand II, Holy Roman Emperor
Ferdinand III, Holy Roman Emperor
Leopold I, Holy Roman Emperor
Charles VI, Holy Roman Emperor
Maria Theresa, Empress of Austria

upon the marriage of Albert Spencer, 7th Earl Spencer to Lady Cynthia Hamilton, Diana can boast 2 lines of descent from Ferdinand I through both Charles II and James II..

Ferdinand I, Holy Roman Emperor
Joanna of Austria, Grand Duchess of Tuscany
Marie de' Medici, Queen of France
Henrietta Maria, Queen of England and Scotland
Charles II of England
Charles Lennox, 1st Duke of Richmond
Charles Lennox, 2nd Duke of Richmond
Lord George Henry Lennox
Charles Lennox, 4th Duke of Richmond
Charles Gordon-Lennox, 5th Duke of Richmond
Cecilia Gordon-Lennox, Countess of Lucan
Rosalind Bingham, Duchess of Abercorn
Cynthia Hamilton, Countess Spencer
Edward John Spencer, 8th Earl Spencer
Diana, Princess of Wales

- - -

Ferdinand I, Holy Roman Emperor
Joanna of Austria, Grand Duchess of Tuscany
Marie de' Medici, Queen of France
Henrietta Maria, Queen of England and Scotland
James II and VII of England and Scotland
Henrietta Fitz-James, Countess of Newcastle
James Waldergrave, 1st Earl Waldergrave
James Waldergrave, 2nd Earl Waldergrave
Lady Anna Horatia Waldergrave
Sir Horace Seymour
Adelaide Horatia Seymour, Countess Spencer
Charles Spencer, 6th Earl Spencer
Albert Spencer, 7th Earl Spencer
John Spencer, 8th Earl Spencer
Diana, Princess of Wales

as for the Queen, i can't find a line of descent.. they might be related but in a far more distant line of descent.. not sure though.. main reason is because the Queen does not descent from the line of either Charles I's children who's marriage to Henrietta Maria of France through her mother Marie de' Medici links them to the Habsburg Emperors.. maybe someone can help you more re: this.. thanks..
__________________

__________________
Reply With Quote
Reply

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


Currently Active Users Viewing This Thread: 1 (0 members and 1 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





Popular Tags
birth brussels carl philip charlene chris o'neill crown prince frederik crown prince haakon crown princess mary crown princess mette-marit crown princess victoria current events engagement fashion genealogy grand duchess maria teresa grand duke henri hohenzollern infanta sofia jewellery jordan king abdullah ii king carl xvi gustav king felipe king felipe vi king harald king juan carlos king philippe king willem-alexander luxembourg nobility official visit olympics ottoman poland president hollande president komorowski prince albert prince albert ii prince carl philip prince constantijn prince floris prince maurits prince pieter-christiaan princess aimee princess anita princess astrid princess beatrix princess charlene princess laurentien princess mabel princess margriet princess mary princess mary fashion queen letizia queen mathilde queen maxima queen paola queen rania queen silvia queen sofia royal royal fashion russia sofia hellqvist spain state visit sweden the hague wedding winter olympics 2014



All times are GMT -4. The time now is 08:23 AM.

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]