The Royal Forums Coat of Arms

Go Back   The Royal Forums > Royal Highlights > Royal Genealogy

Join The Royal Forums Today
Reply
 
Thread Tools Search this Thread Display Modes
 
  #21  
Old 10-15-2004, 01:25 AM
Humera's Avatar
Super Moderator
Picture of the Month Representative - Brunei, Malaysia & Dubai
 
Join Date: Nov 2003
Location: , Canada
Posts: 6,679
Doesnt the present British monarchy have more German blood than English, or even British for that matter? According to several of the documentaries I've seen, the name "Windsor" is more of an alias. The German name was dropped because of war.
__________________

__________________
Reply With Quote
  #22  
Old 10-15-2004, 06:41 AM
hillary_nugent's Avatar
Heir Apparent
 
Join Date: Nov 2003
Location: , Australia
Posts: 3,048
Quote:
Originally Posted by ~*~Humera~*~
Doesnt the present British monarchy have more German blood than English, or even British for that matter? According to several of the documentaries I've seen, the name "Windsor" is more of an alias. The German name was dropped because of war.
YEah i heard about this as well...something about their previous surname beig German or sounding too German or something on those lines...and because they were fighting the Germans during WWI it didn't seem a good name to have...
__________________

__________________
I came. I saw. I posted.
Reply With Quote
  #23  
Old 10-15-2004, 07:07 AM
Veram98's Avatar
Courtier
 
Join Date: Feb 2004
Location: at different places, Germany
Posts: 676
Quote:
Originally Posted by ~*~Humera~*~
Doesnt the present British monarchy have more German blood than English, or even British for that matter? According to several of the documentaries I've seen, the name "Windsor" is more of an alias. The German name was dropped because of war.
The British Royal family is part of the German House of Saxe Coburg Gotha (by Prince Albert, the husband of Queen Victoria. Q. Victoria herself was the last member of the German house Hanover on the British throne). Prince Philip is a Greek prince, but the Greek dynastie was also German (Glücksburg; his mother was a Battenberg, that was translated into Mountbatten). Other branches of the Saxe Coburg Gotha are the Belgian and the former Bulgarian Royal families.
The princely house of Hanover (Princess Caroline of Monaco married the actual head) is one of the oldest European noble families. They started as "Welfen" in the 8th century and were in the 9th century kings of Burgundy.
__________________
Reply With Quote
  #24  
Old 10-15-2004, 07:18 AM
Veram98's Avatar
Courtier
 
Join Date: Feb 2004
Location: at different places, Germany
Posts: 676
Quote:
Originally Posted by ~*~Humera~*~
isnt the moroccan royal family quite old as well?
The Hashemites of Jordan are of course one of the newest monarchs but the family goes way back to Prophet Muhammad (SAW)
the Maroccan Alaouites (the ruling dynasty) are sherifs or ashrafs: descendants of Prophet Muhammad by his older grandson Hassan. They became sultans of Marocco (since the 1950s kings) in the 17th century.
The Hashemites of Jordan (also sherifs) have been ruling this country since 1921, but were before for more than 1000 years the rulers of Mecca and part of the Hejaz as emirs and "sherifs of the sherifs".
__________________
Reply With Quote
  #25  
Old 10-16-2004, 12:49 AM
Humera's Avatar
Super Moderator
Picture of the Month Representative - Brunei, Malaysia & Dubai
 
Join Date: Nov 2003
Location: , Canada
Posts: 6,679
Thanx for the info Veram
I've often heard that Prince Phillip's uncle lord Mountbatten was looking forward to the British royal house being called the House of Mountbatten when Princess Elizabeth married Phillip. Mountbatten must've been quite the ambitious man. Im sure he was disappointed when Queen Elizabeth took the name Windsor instead.
__________________
Reply With Quote
  #26  
Old 10-16-2004, 04:05 PM
Aristocracy
 
Join Date: Oct 2002
Posts: 127
Talking

Humera, I've often thought the exact same thing. Actually, the Queen effected a compromise after some years, in which the name for her descendants becomes Mountbatten-Windsor. I've never been sure if this begins with her own immediate children or with the grandchildren -- some posts I've read have said it begins with the grandchildren according to her Letters Patent, other people have pointed to the fact that Princess Anne signed the marriage register at her first wedding as "Anne Mountbatten-Windsor". But then Diana would announce herself on the phone as "Diana Windsor" so why do some still use only Windsor and not the full new name? It seems they pick and choose and do what they want.
__________________
Reply With Quote
  #27  
Old 10-16-2004, 07:44 PM
Royal Highness
 
Join Date: Oct 2004
Location: Dallas, United States
Posts: 1,505
Well I believe that the royal family members other than Charles and his descendants take on the name Mountbatten-Windsor out of courtesy and respect for P. Philip. But Charles and his descendants take on just Windsor to keep the family name going. I heard this from soemwhere a long time ago. I am not sure if it is true, but it makes sense to me.
__________________
*Under Construction*
Reply With Quote
  #28  
Old 10-16-2004, 10:04 PM
wymanda's Avatar
Serene Highness
 
Join Date: Oct 2003
Location: Perth, Australia
Posts: 1,426
Prince Edward used the name "Edward Windsor" when he was making the Crown & Country series. Perhaps it was just that a single name would attract less attention than a double barrelled name like Mountbatten-Windsor? In Diana's case I would say it would depend on who she was phoning - If she was wanting to keep a visit low key she might use Windsor but if official I would assume she wouldn't phone herself anyway and a secretary or similar would announce her as HRH.
__________________
Everything I write here is my opinion and I mean no offence by it.
Reply With Quote
  #29  
Old 10-16-2004, 10:53 PM
Humera's Avatar
Super Moderator
Picture of the Month Representative - Brunei, Malaysia & Dubai
 
Join Date: Nov 2003
Location: , Canada
Posts: 6,679
Prince Edward's daughter also has Mountbatten as part of her name. I dont think Princes William and Harry do though, not sure about Prince Andrew's daughters.
__________________
Reply With Quote
  #30  
Old 10-16-2004, 11:21 PM
Courtier
 
Join Date: Nov 2002
Location: Houston, United States
Posts: 853
Anne only signed Anne. The MW was filled in by an official. The decree says that the male-line descendants who aren't entitled to be HRH are MWs, so Anne is technically a Windsor, regardless of what Philip likes to think.

Louise is entitled to be HRH, but is styled as a non-HRH. She is, according to the strictest interpretation of the decree, just Windsor. The first true MWs (following the decree to the letter) would be William's children (except for the eldest son, who will be HRH) and Harry's kids. Of course, EIIR will probably grant HRH to all of William's kids, so it would probably end up being Harry's kids.

Despite the fact that Charles, according to the decree, is clearly just Windsor, Clarence House referred to Diana as Diana MW, even though she couldn't have been MW because Charles isn't. It's ridiculously confusing, and hopefully they'll drop the M and just keep W. This changing of names to please a crochety old man is stupid.
__________________
Kelly D
Reply With Quote
  #31  
Old 10-17-2004, 12:23 AM
Aristocracy
 
Join Date: Oct 2002
Posts: 127
The change of name to Mountbatten-Windsor happened in the late fifties, so the Duke of Edinburgh was hardly any crotchety old man then. William's children will all be HRH unless they opt to do what Prince Edward did, ditto Prince Harry's. If Lady Louse is only Windsor and not M-W then likewise any daughters of William's or Harry's will also be only Windsor assuming they are not born styled as princesses. Assuming of course all that happens only after Charles succeeds.
__________________
Reply With Quote
  #32  
Old 10-17-2004, 12:58 AM
wymanda's Avatar
Serene Highness
 
Join Date: Oct 2003
Location: Perth, Australia
Posts: 1,426
Following the idea that only "male line descendants" retain the name Windsor, Anne is clearly M-W as she is a female line descendant!
Does anyone know where a copy of the Letters Patent could be found?
__________________
Everything I write here is my opinion and I mean no offence by it.
Reply With Quote
  #33  
Old 10-17-2004, 12:59 AM
Aristocracy
 
Join Date: Oct 2002
Posts: 127
I forgot about Edward and that series. Yes, he used just Windsor and it seems that generation are only using that and not the M-W. It's interesting he preferred Windsor while at the same time his wife was still working as Sophie Wessex.
__________________
Reply With Quote
  #34  
Old 10-17-2004, 01:10 AM
wymanda's Avatar
Serene Highness
 
Join Date: Oct 2003
Location: Perth, Australia
Posts: 1,426
Found it! In 1952, Queen Elizabeth II confirmed her grandfather's decision that the royal family's surname would continue to be Windsor. Her Majesty declared on 9 April 1952 that it was:

her Will and Pleasure that She and Her Children shall be styled and known as the House and Family of Windsor, and that Her descendants other than female descendants who marry and their descendants shall bear the name of Windsor.

A few years later, HM The Queen modified this statement by issuing Letters Patent in February 1960 which stated in part:

while I and my children will continue to be styled and known as the House and Family of Windsor, my descendants, other than descendants enjoying the style, title or attributes of Royal Highness and the titular dignity of Prince or Princess, and female descendants who marry and their descendants, shall bear the name Mountbatten-Windsor.

Did this mean that the name of some members of the royal family changed from "Windsor" to "Mountbatten-Windsor"? Some people contend that the goal of this declaration was meant to not only change the surname of the children of HM The Queen but those of her male-line descendants as well. At Princess Anne's wedding in November 1974, Anne signed the marriage register 'Anne', without a surname. It was the registrar who filled in her names as 'Anne Elizabeth Alice Louise Mountbatten-Windsor'. According to a Buckingham Palace statement issued in October 1975, the specific addition of the surname 'Mountbatten-Windsor' was "the Queen's decision that this should be done". Further, HM The Queen consulted with the acting Prime Minister to confirm whether all her children would have the surname Mountbatten-Windsor. She received the following reply:

"The effect of Your Majesty's Declaration is that all the children of Your Majesty who may at any time need a surname have the surnames of Mountbatten-Windsor."
(Prince Philip: A Biography, by Denis Judd, London: Michael John, 1980, page 196)

It would seem that the surname of HM The Queen's children is whatever HM wishes. Legally and constitutionally, however, the Queen cannot do as she wishes. The surname of the Queen's children is Mountbatten-Windsor in practise and has appeared three times: at Princess Anne's first marriage in 1974, on Prince Andrew's marriage register in 1986, and when the banns were read prior to Princess Anne's second marriage to Commander Laurence in 1992. (When the Prince of Wales married in 1982, he signed the register as "Charles P" and the registrar filled in his name as "His Royal Highness Prince Charles Philip Arthur George The Prince of Wales".) Nonetheless, the family name remains legally Windsor because there hasn't been any modification or clarification to the Letters Patent of 1960.
__________________
Everything I write here is my opinion and I mean no offence by it.
Reply With Quote
  #35  
Old 10-17-2004, 02:01 AM
Humera's Avatar
Super Moderator
Picture of the Month Representative - Brunei, Malaysia & Dubai
 
Join Date: Nov 2003
Location: , Canada
Posts: 6,679
The Queen seems to have changed her mind several times about this issue.
__________________
Reply With Quote
  #36  
Old 10-17-2004, 03:43 PM
Courtier
 
Join Date: Nov 2002
Location: Houston, United States
Posts: 853
Quote:
Originally Posted by Julian
The change of name to Mountbatten-Windsor happened in the late fifties, so the Duke of Edinburgh was hardly any crotchety old man then. William's children will all be HRH unless they opt to do what Prince Edward did, ditto Prince Harry's. If Lady Louse is only Windsor and not M-W then likewise any daughters of William's or Harry's will also be only Windsor assuming they are not born styled as princesses. Assuming of course all that happens only after Charles succeeds.
As of right now, only the eldest son of the eldest son of the Prince of Wales will be styled HRH automatically (the LP issued by George V). So, unless EIIR alters this, only William's eldest son will be HRH and the other children will be MWs. Harry's children will be MW unless Charles is on the throne. They will be the male-line great-grandchildren, and will be just like Lord Freddie in terms of style.

The MW use only began occuring in the 70s, by which time Philip was a crochety old man.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Wymanda
Following the idea that only "male line descendants" retain the name Windsor, Anne is clearly M-W as she is a female line descendant!
Anne is a child of EIIR, so her surname is Windsor, legally. Her children are female-line descendants. The gender of the individual doesn't alter whether they are male or female-line, the gender of the parent does.

For example, my brother and sisters and I are female line descendants of our maternal grandfather because we descend from him through a female (our mother). We are male line descendants of our paternal grandfather because we descend from him through a male (our father). The fact that three of us are female and one is male doesn't affect whether we are male or female line descendants. The gender of the parent we trace the descent through is all that matters.
__________________
Kelly D
Reply With Quote
  #37  
Old 10-17-2004, 10:01 PM
Aristocracy
 
Join Date: Oct 2002
Posts: 127
Smile

Quote:
Originally Posted by kelly9480
As of right now, only the eldest son of the eldest son of the Prince of Wales will be styled HRH automatically (the LP issued by George V). So, unless EIIR alters this, only William's eldest son will be HRH and the other children will be MWs. Harry's children will be MW unless Charles is on the throne. They will be the male-line great-grandchildren, and will be just like Lord Freddie in terms of style.
That's what I'm talking about, is what they will be styled when Charles is on the throne. The LP of George V is what allowed the younger son of the late Duke of Kent and his daughter to be Prince and Princess of the U.K., as is also the reason why the present Duke of York's daughters are also. Even if William and/or Harry have children during their grandmother's lifetime, and William's younger and Harry's are styled only Lord/Lady or whatever you are alluding to, once Charles succeeds, William is elevated to heir and Harry's children as grandchildren of the new monarch become princes/princesses of the U.K. by right under those LP of GV.

The question mark over all this is the unfortunate one that Edward "Wessex" has created with his choice of (a) waiting for a royal dukedom to be recreated later for him by Charles, supposedly the Edinburgh dukedom and (b) the choice not allow Louise to be styled as a princess of the U.K. albeit she's the daughter of a son of the present monarch and fully entitled to be so. Will this approach create some kind of low key model that Harry for instance will feel forced to follow with his own children? What about Louise herself? It makes no sense to me that she is being called not only not a princess but also only "Lady Louise Windsor" when in fact she's Lady Louise Mountbatten-Windsor, being of the generation when this surname comes into effect. And what about when her own father is elevated to a royal dukedom? Still only "Lady" and still refusing to use "Princess", even though her cousins Eugenie and Beatrice are? Finally, if they really want to be modern, then why not recreate the Edinburgh title so it can be inherited by females as well in case Louise is an only child? There are inconsistencies being created at this point IMO which began with Edward refusing the title of a royal duke at his wedding, and have grown with the choice of styling for his daughter. (I know there can be made a case for her being only "Lady" since she's also the daugher of an earl, but that's the lesser title, and it's unusual at least in the RF to choose to go by a lesser title). All just my perspective of course, and I tend to be surprisingly traditional on this issue!
__________________
Reply With Quote
  #38  
Old 10-17-2004, 10:47 PM
wymanda's Avatar
Serene Highness
 
Join Date: Oct 2003
Location: Perth, Australia
Posts: 1,426
Julian,
I agree with you!
I hope that when the Edinburgh dukedom is recreated for Edward that a "special remainder" be created so Louise can inherit
__________________
Everything I write here is my opinion and I mean no offence by it.
Reply With Quote
  #39  
Old 10-17-2004, 10:59 PM
Courtier
 
Join Date: Nov 2002
Location: Houston, United States
Posts: 853
It's likely that both W&H will be married fathers before EIIR passes on, so most ppl like to speculate on what will happen then. Sorry for thinking that's what you were talking about.

I don't know that Ed refused. Supposedly, it was made known to EIIR that the public didn't want another dukedom. Who make that known and what they based it on is beyond me, but that's the rumor going around. Either way, it was felt that since Ed is the only male descendant who bothers with the Award Scheme, and the Award should have a Duke of Edinburgh heading it, Ed should eventually get the Edinburgh title. It was a convenient way of getting around the issue, though it does make me wonder about precedence (dukedoms that leave the royal house have a place in the table of precedence, earldoms do not).

Over at ATR, there's a new school of thought that the press release where EIIR granted her consent that the Wessex spawn be known as Earl's kids has the same effect as an LP. Apparently, any document EIIR issues on titles has the same weight as an LP, despite not being on fancy paper. If that's true (and it's just speculation right now), Louise isn't entitled to be HRH because EIIR said she wanted them styled as Earl's kids. This school of thought cites Blair's making of policy by press release as evidence that EIIR can do it as well. I didn't read all the back and forth on the issue, but if you google the archives, it should be the next most recent time it's been brought up (someone brought it up a day or so ago and was told to google, so that should be the most recent).

I remember reading about Beatrice and Eugenie being "encouraged" to drop their HRHs when they come of age. It was in the Telegraph and Sarah made it clear she intended for her daughters to remain princesses.

If the UK moves to the kind of monarchy where only children of the sovereign and heir-apparent carry out duties, it would make sense to force Harry's kids into permaneny non-royal status. The UK public doesn't like it when RHs are in the commercial world, so if they're to be in the commercial world (and Charles fully intends to shed ppl), they'll need to drop the HRH status. Of course, all of this is up in the air until EIIR dies.
__________________
Kelly D
Reply With Quote
  #40  
Old 10-18-2004, 03:03 PM
Aristocracy
 
Join Date: Oct 2002
Posts: 127
Talking

Firstly, it is verboten around here to mention other websites. If you don't believe me, I can PM you the messages I got from [moderator] Josefine which went on and on about the exact forum you have just referred directly to above. The funny part is, now that you've brought up a ludicrous argument being made there about the Queen, the PM (politics is supposedly also not allowed here, btw) and how the Queen makes announcements, it goes back to my original point months ago about "consider the source" regarding that newsgroup. Why anyone on this latest occasion would reach the wild conclusion that the Queen is taking her cues from Blair's methods on how she makes her decisions regarding styles and titles in her own family, is beyond me. The nicest I can say is, it's very faulty logic. As you may gather, I never google their archives and I prefer to take my information from credible sources.
__________________

__________________
Reply With Quote
Reply


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


Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
Royal, Princely and Noble Families of Germany & Austria 2 Dulce Elena Royal Families of Germany and Austria 232 06-22-2014 05:57 PM
Princely and Noble Families of Hungary and Bohemia Adrienna Royal Families of Germany and Austria 37 01-04-2014 03:53 PM
Italian Noble and Princely Families 2: July 2007- Warren Royal Families of Italy 509 09-20-2013 11:11 AM
Italian Noble and Princely Families 1: June 2004 - July 2007 Lord Williams Royal Families of Italy 206 07-20-2007 05:48 AM




Additional Links
Popular Tags
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 diana engagement fashion grand duchess maria teresa grand duke henri hohenzollern infanta cristina 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 pom prince albert prince albert ii prince carl philip prince constantijn prince felipe 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 elisabeth princess laurentien princess letizia princess mabel princess madeleine princess margriet princess marie princess mary princess of asturias queen letizia queen mathilde queen maxima queen paola queen rania queen silvia queen sofia royal russia spain state visit 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 05:11 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]