The Royal Forums Coat of Arms


Join The Royal Forums Today
Reply
 
Thread Tools Search this Thread Display Modes
 
  #421  
Old 05-17-2017, 12:35 AM
Ish's Avatar
Ish Ish is offline
Super Moderator
 
Join Date: Feb 2013
Location: Vancouver, Canada
Posts: 4,026
Quote:
Originally Posted by QueenElizabeth2Fan View Post
Also, is The Queen descended from Georgiana Cavendish, Duchess of Devonshire? I know that she is the Princess of Wales' 4x great-aunt though, but I want to know about if The Queen is descended from her.

I'm currently learning about the Earls Bessborough. Are any members of the BRF descended from them? Specifically Diana, Princess Michael or The Queen.
The Queen is not descended from Georgiana Cavendish. She is related to her, albeit distantly; Diana is also related, a bit more closely.

Georgiana Cavendish was the daughter of John Spencer, 1st Earl Spencer. Diana's father, John Spencer, 8th Earl Spencer, was the 1st Earl's 3x great-grandson. The 1st Earl's 2x great-grandfather, Henry Spencer, 1st Earl of Sunderland, was a common ancestor of the Queen, through her mother's family.

Georgiana's father-in-law, William Cavendish, 4th Duke of Devonshire, was also an ancestor of the Queen's through her mother.

Interestingly, Diana is descended from Georgiana's lover, Charles Grey, 2nd Earl Spencer. He and his wife were the 3x great-grandparents of Diana's father. He is not an ancestor of the Queen.

The Spencers are descended from the 1st Earl of Bessborough through a younger son. The Queen and DoE are not descended from any of the Ponsonbys as far as I know. I've never been interested in Princess Michael enough to research her ancestry, although from what I understand her family was from the Continent and therefore I wouldn't expect her to be descended from many British noble houses, at least not recently.
__________________

Reply With Quote
  #422  
Old 05-17-2017, 09:59 AM
Aristocracy
 
Join Date: May 2010
Location: Freehold, New Jersey,, United States
Posts: 110
Quote:
Originally Posted by Ish View Post
The Queen is not descended from Georgiana Cavendish. She is related to her, albeit distantly; Diana is also related, a bit more closely.

Georgiana Cavendish was the daughter of John Spencer, 1st Earl Spencer. Diana's father, John Spencer, 8th Earl Spencer, was the 1st Earl's 3x great-grandson. The 1st Earl's 2x great-grandfather, Henry Spencer, 1st Earl of Sunderland, was a common ancestor of the Queen, through her mother's family.

Georgiana's father-in-law, William Cavendish, 4th Duke of Devonshire, was also an ancestor of the Queen's through her mother.

Interestingly, Diana is descended from Georgiana's lover, Charles Grey, 2nd Earl Spencer. He and his wife were the 3x great-grandparents of Diana's father. He is not an ancestor of the Queen.

The Spencers are descended from the 1st Earl of Bessborough through a younger son. The Queen and DoE are not descended from any of the Ponsonbys as far as I know. I've never been interested in Princess Michael enough to research her ancestry, although from what I understand her family was from the Continent and therefore I wouldn't expect her to be descended from many British noble houses, at least not recently.
The 1st Earl of S. was a common ancestor of The Queen & Diana?
And, someone said, on a different post here, that Princess Michael is of the Austrian nobility (she's a Baroness by birth; her mother was a Countess (I believe), and her grandmother, a Princess), and they say Prncss. Michael "has more royal blood" than the Windsors.
__________________

Reply With Quote
  #423  
Old 05-17-2017, 11:07 AM
Ish's Avatar
Ish Ish is offline
Super Moderator
 
Join Date: Feb 2013
Location: Vancouver, Canada
Posts: 4,026
The Queen Mother's family descends from the 1st Earl of Sunderland. I don't remember the line off the top of my head, but I can get it for you later.

Anyone who says that Princess Michael (or Diana for that matter) has "more royal blood" than the Queen or DoE is wrong.

The Queen is the daughter and granddaughter of Kings. She can trace her lineage back to almost every single British/Scottish/English monarch that had surviving children. She can trace her ancestry back to most European royal families, and she doesn't have to go back lots of generations to do so.

The Queen's father was a King. Her paternal grandfather was a King. Her paternal grandmother was born a German princess. Her paternal grandfather's parents were a King and (at birth) a Danish princess.

Prince Philip has even more royal ancestry. While the Queen's ancestry mostly comes from her paternal side and Prince Philip's direct descent is a generation removed (he is the grandson of a King, but not the son of one), he has close royal ancestry on both his paternal and maternal sides.

The DoE's father was born a Greek and Danish prince; his parents were a King and (at birth) a Grand Duchess of Russia. The DoE's mother was born a German princess, whose parents were both German royals, and who was a great-granddaughter of Queen Victoria.

Princess Michael... her family was Austrian nobility, but not in a comparable way. Her maternal grandmother was a Princess of Windisch-Grätz... but it's hard to say that a woman descended from a lesser Austrian princely house is somehow more royal than a woman whose father was a king.
Reply With Quote
  #424  
Old 05-17-2017, 11:17 AM
Lee-Z's Avatar
Heir Presumptive
 
Join Date: Jun 2012
Location: Heerlen, Netherlands
Posts: 2,715
Without going into all the details, but i don't think i'm far wrong in saying that Princess Michael isn't even the one with the "most royal blood" in her household...Prince Michael her husband has more royal ancestors afaik
__________________
Wisdom begins in wonder - Socrates
Reply With Quote
  #425  
Old 05-17-2017, 12:11 PM
Ish's Avatar
Ish Ish is offline
Super Moderator
 
Join Date: Feb 2013
Location: Vancouver, Canada
Posts: 4,026
Very true!

Prince Michael's ancestry is actually a mix of the a Queen and DoE's - his paternal ancestry is the same as the Queen's (their fathers were brothers), and his mother was a cousin of the DoE.
Reply With Quote
  #426  
Old 05-17-2017, 05:42 PM
Serene Highness
 
Join Date: Dec 2008
Location: philadelphia, United States
Posts: 1,401
Quote:
Originally Posted by Ish View Post
Princess Michael... her family was Austrian nobility, but not in a comparable way. Her maternal grandmother was a Princess of Windisch-Grätz... but it's hard to say that a woman descended from a lesser Austrian princely house is somehow more royal than a woman whose father was a king.
She never said that in the first place!

Her great-grandfather Prince Alfred III zu Windisch-Grätz was Prime-Minister of Austria-Hungary at the end of 19th century.
Reply With Quote
  #427  
Old 05-17-2017, 05:49 PM
Serene Highness
 
Join Date: Dec 2008
Location: philadelphia, United States
Posts: 1,401
Quote:
Originally Posted by QueenElizabeth2Fan View Post
And, someone said, on a different post here, that Princess Michael is of the Austrian nobility (she's a Baroness by birth; her mother was a Countess (I believe), and her grandmother, a Princess), and they say Prncss. Michael "has more royal blood" than the Windsors.
Plaese, be more precise when you try to interpret someone's words.

She never said that she has "more royal blood than the Windsors", but that she "has most royal blood of all members that married into the family since Prince Philipp."

And those two statements are not the same.

And to put it more simply, she is right about it. She indeed has. She never said that she is more royal than members of the Windsor dynasty by birth.
Reply With Quote
  #428  
Old 05-17-2017, 09:05 PM
Ish's Avatar
Ish Ish is offline
Super Moderator
 
Join Date: Feb 2013
Location: Vancouver, Canada
Posts: 4,026
Quote:
Originally Posted by Marc23 View Post
Plaese, be more precise when you try to interpret someone's words.



She never said that she has "more royal blood than the Windsors", but that she "has most royal blood of all members that married into the family since Prince Philipp."



And those two statements are not the same.



And to put it more simply, she is right about it. She indeed has. She never said that she is more royal than members of the Windsor dynasty by birth.


Marc, please be more precise when you try to interpret someone's words.

Neither I nor QueenElizabeth2Fan have said that Princess Michael herself has made any such claims - my comment was in response to QueenElizabeth2Fan's comment, and QueenElizabeth2Fan's comment referenced something others have said, not Princess Michael herself. And it has been erroneously reported that she is more royal than the Queen - which is something that has been reported so much that Princess Michael herself has addressed it in interviews.
Reply With Quote
  #429  
Old 05-18-2017, 03:33 PM
Serene Highness
 
Join Date: Dec 2008
Location: philadelphia, United States
Posts: 1,401
Quote:
Originally Posted by Ish View Post
Marc, please be more precise when you try to interpret someone's words.

Neither I nor QueenElizabeth2Fan have said that Princess Michael herself has made any such claims - my comment was in response to QueenElizabeth2Fan's comment, and QueenElizabeth2Fan's comment referenced something others have said, not Princess Michael herself. And it has been erroneously reported that she is more royal than the Queen - which is something that has been reported so much that Princess Michael herself has addressed it in interviews.
No.

QueenElizabeth2Fan said "And, someone said, on a different post here....and they say Prncss. Michael "has more royal blood" than the Windsors."

I was writing about this "most royal blood after Prince Philipp" thing on another thread about Princess Michael, so when you read these kind of things out of context it looked like someone(and that's me) said that Princess Michael said that "she has more royal blood that Windsors."

And she said that she has "most royal blood" out of all members who married into the family since Prince Philipp , which is true.

Those kind of sentences are very prone to twisting by just changing one or two words and it gets out of context.
Reply With Quote
  #430  
Old 05-19-2017, 07:54 AM
Aristocracy
 
Join Date: May 2010
Location: Freehold, New Jersey,, United States
Posts: 110
Quote:
Originally Posted by Marc23 View Post
No.

QueenElizabeth2Fan said "And, someone said, on a different post here....and they say Prncss. Michael "has more royal blood" than the Windsors."

I was writing about this "most royal blood after Prince Philip" thing on another thread about Princess Michael, so when you read these kind of things out of context it looked like someone(and that's me) said that Princess Michael said that "she has more royal blood that Windsors."

And she said that she has "most royal blood" out of all members who married into the family since Prince Philip , which is true.

Those kind of sentences are very prone to twisting by just changing one or two words and it gets out of context.
True.
And I think her having "more royal blood since Prince Philip" is a matter of opinion. Why do you think it's true?
Reply With Quote
  #431  
Old 05-19-2017, 10:10 AM
JR76's Avatar
Royal Highness
 
Join Date: Jan 2012
Location: Malmö, Sweden
Posts: 1,845
Quote:
Originally Posted by QueenElizabeth2Fan View Post
True.
And I think her having "more royal blood since Prince Philip" is a matter of opinion. Why do you think it's true?
Just the fact that her maternal grandmother was a Windish-Graetz makes her close degree ancestry more illustrious than any other person whos married a Windsor after Philip did so.
Reply With Quote
  #432  
Old 05-19-2017, 12:06 PM
Serene Highness
 
Join Date: Dec 2008
Location: philadelphia, United States
Posts: 1,401
Quote:
Originally Posted by JR76 View Post
Just the fact that her maternal grandmother was a Windish-Graetz makes her close degree ancestry more illustrious than any other person whos married a Windsor after Philip did so.
True. I agree with that. It was an "equal" family, unlike any closely related family of other persons married into the family since Prince Philipp.
Reply With Quote
  #433  
Old 05-19-2017, 12:12 PM
Serene Highness
 
Join Date: Dec 2008
Location: philadelphia, United States
Posts: 1,401
Quote:
Originally Posted by QueenElizabeth2Fan View Post
True.
And I think her having "more royal blood since Prince Philip" is a matter of opinion. Why do you think it's true?
Because it is true :-)

It's not a matter of what I think or what anyone thinks...

Genealogy says so, not me. And that is based on former royal rules book(Almanach de Gotha) which families are equal and which are not.

And other than Princess Michael, no member that entered the family since Prince Philipp, has none of equal families in his/her recent ancestry.

For example, Lady Diana's nearest equal ancestor was Elector Ernst August von Hannover (1629-1698), father of King George I. And that is very far away, plus the fact that she is his descendant through his illegitimate daughter Countess Sophie Charlotte von Platen-Hallermund.

Incomparable with Princess Michael whose grandmother came from equal family and thus bringing illustrious ancestry...
Reply With Quote
  #434  
Old 05-20-2017, 09:09 PM
Aristocracy
 
Join Date: May 2010
Location: Freehold, New Jersey,, United States
Posts: 110
Quote:
Originally Posted by JR76 View Post
Just the fact that her maternal grandmother was a Windish-Graetz makes her close degree ancestry more illustrious than any other person whos married a Windsor after Philip did so.


I'm not well versed in other countries' noble families besides British ones. So I wouldn't know.
Reply With Quote
  #435  
Old 05-20-2017, 09:10 PM
Aristocracy
 
Join Date: May 2010
Location: Freehold, New Jersey,, United States
Posts: 110
Quote:
Originally Posted by Marc23 View Post
Because it is true :-)

It's not a matter of what I think or what anyone thinks...

Genealogy says so, not me. And that is based on former royal rules book(Almanach de Gotha) which families are equal and which are not.

And other than Princess Michael, no member that entered the family since Prince Philipp, has none of equal families in his/her recent ancestry.

For example, Lady Diana's nearest equal ancestor was Elector Ernst August von Hannover (1629-1698), father of King George I. And that is very far away, plus the fact that she is his descendant through his illegitimate daughter Countess Sophie Charlotte von Platen-Hallermund.

Incomparable with Princess Michael whose grandmother came from equal family and thus bringing illustrious ancestry...
Why is it the former royal rule book? Which one is the unwritten royal rule book now?
Reply With Quote
  #436  
Old 05-20-2017, 09:14 PM
JR76's Avatar
Royal Highness
 
Join Date: Jan 2012
Location: Malmö, Sweden
Posts: 1,845
Quote:
Originally Posted by QueenElizabeth2Fan View Post
I'm not well versed in other countries' noble families besides British ones. So I wouldn't know.
Windish-Graetz is a mediatised Austro-Hungarian family. Being mediatised means that they once ruled over a small principality & when they lost it they still retained their status as a sovereign family which made them suitable marriage partners for the ruling Royal houses. That said many of the great ruling families frowned upon their most important members marrying someone from these families.
Reply With Quote
  #437  
Old 05-20-2017, 09:32 PM
Ish's Avatar
Ish Ish is offline
Super Moderator
 
Join Date: Feb 2013
Location: Vancouver, Canada
Posts: 4,026
Quote:
Originally Posted by QueenElizabeth2Fan View Post
Why is it the former royal rule book? Which one is the unwritten royal rule book now?


Back when equal marriages were a thing, the Almanach was established to clearly define which of the German principalities/grand duchies/etc were "equal" enough to marry into other families.

Basically, if the son of the King of England marries the daughter of the King of France it's clear that it's an equal marriage. If the King of England's son is marrying the daughter of the ruling Prince of Saxe-Coburg, however, it's less clear. So the Almanach was established. It's a fairly big thing in the historic marriages of European royalty (and therefore in the genealogy), and is one of the reasons why so many royal families now have a lot of German heritage (when you don't want to just marry your kid to your brother's kid, but you can't marry into half the other major houses because they're the wrong religion, the kids in the lesser Germanic houses who are "equal" because of the rules become more appealing as prospective spouses).

Now, there isn't a rule book, because equal marriages aren't a thing - there aren't the same "rules" about who can marry into a royal family.
Reply With Quote
  #438  
Old 05-21-2017, 01:50 PM
Serene Highness
 
Join Date: Dec 2008
Location: philadelphia, United States
Posts: 1,401
Quote:
Originally Posted by QueenElizabeth2Fan View Post
I'm not well versed in other countries' noble families besides British ones. So I wouldn't know.
All European monarchies followed the rules of this "Almanach de Gotha".

Here is what Prince Nicholas Romanov of Russia said about marriage prospects for some male Grand Duke of the Imperial family:

"Russia, with its very Germanic notion of dynastic propriety, found itself accepting all the Almanach de Gotha rulings.

And so if some unfortunate Russian Grand Duke wanted to marry a Princess Obolensky, descendant of the Grand Dukes of Kiev, who reigned in Russia, at the time his Romanov ancestors were probably still lurking in the woods, draped in pelts or wading through the marshes of East Prussia or Pomerania, he would have had to change his plans.

That marriage would have been impossible, but an Austrian lady, say a daughter of an Illustrious Highness, Count von Harrach zu Rohrau und Thannhausen, lord of the county of Rohrau, Freiherr zu Prugg und Pürrhenstein, lord of Starkenbach, Jilenice, Sadowa & Storckow, would have been acceptable!"

They all simply followed those rules which were written in the book and based on these kind of rules Princess Michael indeed has "most royal blood" of all members that married into the family since Prince Philipp.

Hope this makes it a bit more clear how and why, just like posts from our fellow members :)
Reply With Quote
  #439  
Old 05-21-2017, 01:56 PM
Serene Highness
 
Join Date: Dec 2008
Location: philadelphia, United States
Posts: 1,401
Quote:
Originally Posted by JR76 View Post
Windish-Graetz is a mediatised Austro-Hungarian family. Being mediatised means that they once ruled over a small principality & when they lost it they still retained their status as a sovereign family which made them suitable marriage partners for the ruling Royal houses. That said many of the great ruling families frowned upon their most important members marrying someone from these families.
Quote:
Originally Posted by QueenElizabeth2Fan View Post
I'm not well versed in other countries' noble families besides British ones. So I wouldn't know.
Archduchess Elisabeth, Granddaughter of Austrian Emperor Franz Joseph and daughter of unfortunate Crown Prince Rudolf married Prince Otto zu Windisch-Graetz, from this same family.

And this Prince Otto was 2nd cousin 3x removed of Princess Michael of Kent.
Reply With Quote
  #440  
Old 05-21-2017, 02:07 PM
JR76's Avatar
Royal Highness
 
Join Date: Jan 2012
Location: Malmö, Sweden
Posts: 1,845
Quote:
Originally Posted by Marc23 View Post
Archduchess Elisabeth, Granddaughter of Austrian Emperor Franz Joseph and daughter of unfortunate Crown Prince Rudolf married Prince Otto zu Windisch-Graetz, from this same family.

And this Prince Otto was 2nd cousin 3x removed of Princess Michael of Kent.
Elisabeth was one of the reasons I mentioned how many of the great houses was reluctant in approving marriages between their more prominent members & members of mediatized houses. Elisabeth had to beg her grandfather for permission to marry her princeling & IIRC the future Emperor Charles was denied permission to marry a Hohenlohe.
__________________

Reply With Quote
Reply

Tags
ancestry, british royal family, china, corbyn, countess of errol, crusades, descent, duke of edinburgh, edward iii, elizabeth ii, genealogy, haldane, marie bonaparte, napoleon, prince philip, prince william, queen elizabeth (the queen mother), queen elizabeth the queen mother, royal monarch line of succession heirs, stewart, tang dynasty


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
"chinese gordon" aif antony armstrong-jones biography british royal family camilla canada clothes commonwealth games corruption current events daughter daughters duke of york emma extramarital affairs fashion germany harry and meghan hereditary prince alois history interesting facts iñaki urdangarín jacobite juan carlos king felipe vi king willem-alexander liechtenstein meghan markle nobel 2017 norwegian royal family osborn piromallo porphyria prince charles prince charles; biographies; tom bower prince harry prince harry of wales princess beatrice princess eugenie prince william public opinion pyrmont queen letizia queen mary of teck queen mathilde queen maxima royal royal ancestry royal ancestry; oscar and sophia royal family royal geneology royal ladies royal wedding sarah ferguson siblings soldier spain state visit sweden swedish royal family the crown titles uk styles tony armstrong-jones video games visit from spain waldeck wedding windsor castle working visit



Copyright 2002- Social Knowledge, LLC All Rights Reserved.

All times are GMT -4. The time now is 07:29 AM.

Social Knowledge Networks

eXTReMe Tracker
Powered by vBulletin
Copyright ©2000 - 2018
Jelsoft Enterprises