The Future of the British Monarchy 1: 2018 - 2022


If you have answers, please help by responding to the unanswered posts.
Status
Not open for further replies.
Why do you put so much meaning to things like coronations, crowns etc. Look at monarchies like the Netherlands or Norway, they don't do that and don't care about this stuff yet the monarchies there remain strong. Majority of the people still see something in this institution so they carry on.

"For everything to stay the same, everything must change"
So it's up to the monarchy's ability to adapt to changes in the socio-political sphere and to respond to the people's needs and desires, to survive.


Well, in the Netherlands the ermine and the insignia of State (crown, orb, sceptre, sword-of-state etc.) are still very much in use for an Investiture: https://www.ppe-agency.com/500px/May2013/PPE13060542.jpg


And the Investiture was a quite ceremonial affair, not really a difference with the UK.
 
Last edited:
Are there any reasons known, why this is the case?

It reminds me of this story, that the English monarchs were Emperor of India too, but prefered the title King (?)/Queen of England. It was at some time discussed here in the forums - I believe in the Queen Victoria thread...

Not sure why the Scottish crown is never worn. It was used to crown Scottish monarchs.

The title Emperor of India was only used within the Indian Empire as far as I'm aware. It was a deliberate political attempt to establish some sort of continuity with the previous Mughal rulers. It was not considered a higher title than king anyway, just an alternate name for a monarch. British/English attitudes towards imperial styles are different from many continental traditions.
 
Last edited:
The monarchy has survived since 1066. I don't see it being brought down with recent scandals. What might bring it down is immigration - I saw people who'd immigrated from other countries saying that England was a multicultural country and that it had no real history of its own. It's up on a youtube video. Now if the majority of the country doesn't feel England has any history of any importance they might think the monarchy doesn't have any importance and get rid of it.


But that would be far into the future. And there would have to be a large influx of people who felt no ties to the UK.

I wouldn't believe everything you see on you tube. Plenty of people in England who love their history & their land in a non showy quiet way.
 
Unlike now, where as Elizabeth II is half Scottish, Victoria was not half Indian. The reason why she is queen of Scotland is because a Scottish king became King of England.
 
There's a lot of rubbish on You Tube! I have never, ever heard anyone say that the United Kingdom hasn’t got any history. Every single day, thousands, and at the weekends more like millions, of people, both from the UK and abroad, visit historic sites. The National Trust, English Heritage and its counterparts in Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland, and privately-owned sites are huge organisations. Anyone who's ever waited in a queue to get into a palace on a Bank Holiday can testify to that :) .

Immigration isn't going to bring down the monarchy – there’ve been waves of immigration for centuries and centuries. Why would the monarchy not be compatible with being a multicultural country? The monarchy represents everyone. I think it's actually quite dangerous to suggest that people would not be loyal to the monarchy because they have an immigrant background - it sounds as if whoever made that video was trying to stir up trouble.

The title of Empress/Emperor of India was partly about prestige, partly an attempt to show some sort of continuity with the Mughals, as Durham said … and also, depending on what you believe, possibly because Queen Victoria had got the needle that her daughter was going to be Empress of Germany (although TBH I can’t imagine her being childish enough to worry about that!). It was also first used at a time of great competition between rival powers – Britain always suspected Russia of wanting to invade India, and there was a lot of competition between Britain, France, and, increasingly, Germany, in Asia.
 
Last edited:
Unlike now, where as Elizabeth II is half Scottish, Victoria was not half Indian. The reason why she is queen of Scotland is because a Scottish king became King of England.
Elizabeth II is half-Scottish and half-German, while Victoria was purely German by ethnicity. Just like the DoE, which means Charles and his siblings are 3/4 German and 1/4 Scottish/Scottish and English. Funny thing with the ethnicity of royal families, though not uncommon thing in the past to have a foreign dynasty on the throne.
 
Last edited:
Not that it is really that pertinent anymore but the British Isles have had migrations there since time immemorial. The Celts, the Anglo-Saxons, the Danes, the Iceni and the Picts among many others. That's without the Roman influence too.

Stonehenge is a very big draw for tourists among many other places that reflect on the UK's history far back into ancient times. When we really think about it, all of us have come from somewhere else at sometime in history. :D

The monarchy as it is known today has survived many, many changes, many upheavals and many changes to its overall society through the years and I don't see that going away any time soon.
 
Elizabeth II is half-Scottish and half-German, while Victoria was purely German by ethnicity. Just like the DoE, which means Charles and his siblings are 3/4 German and 1/4 Scottish/Scottish and English. Funny thing with the ethnicity of royal families, though not uncommon thing in the past to have a foreign dynasty on the throne.

How is Elizabeth II 'half-German'? If you're talking about ethnicity, given that it is mainly about nationality, religion, language, customs etc, isn't it more accurate to say that Elizabeth II is half-English, half-Scottish and 100% British? She was born & grew up here. Both of her parents and all four of her grandparents were born in the UK. The birthplace, nationality, religion & language of British monarchs has been English since George III.
 
Lilyflo, I meant only ethnicity. I'm not saying you have a German queen. That would be silly. But two of her grandparents had grandparents who had grandparents, and so on, you'll find at some point that were all German "born and raised". Well, almost all, cause there were some Hungarians, Danes... But generally, they were of German origin. Not Anglo-Saxon nor Scottish, that's for sure. Same for the DoE - German by ethnic origin (with Danish, Czech and Polish exceptions).


So, what I wanted to say is that the Saxe-Coburg and Gotha (aka Windsor) family's (and the Oldenburgs's) origins are in Germany, as were the Hanovers's (even more!). Except for their blood links to the Scottish Stuarts and English Tudors, of course, from which they derive their position on the throne. Fun fact here is that when George Louis of Hanover acceeded to the British throne as George I, there were several dozens of people who were closer relations by blood to his predecessor than he was.
 
The Tudors were originally Welsh, not English, if you want to be accurate :) . However, that was in the 15th century. And the Queen Mother's mother was English, not Scottish … and indeed had distant Dutch ancestry through an ancestor who came over with William of Orange. And Prince Philip's grandmother was Russian, although the Romanovs had been intermarrying with German royal families for generations before she was born.

I'm not sure how any of this is relevant to the future of the monarchy, though, and I do think it's very dangerous to label someone as "foreign" because of where their grandparents or great-grandparents or umpteen-times-great-grandparents came from. Surely any question about the future of the monarchy relates to some people thinking (wrongly, IMHO!) that having a hereditary head of state is anachronistic, not to immigration.
 
The Tudors were originally Welsh, not English, if you want to be accurate :) . However, that was in the 15th century. And the Queen Mother's mother was English, not Scottish … and indeed had distant Dutch ancestry through an ancestor who came over with William of Orange. And Prince Philip's grandmother was Russian, although the Romanovs had been intermarrying with German royal families for generations before she was born.

I'm not sure how any of this is relevant to the future of the monarchy, though, and I do think it's very dangerous to label someone as "foreign" because of where their grandparents or great-grandparents or umpteen-times-great-grandparents came from. Surely any question about the future of the monarchy relates to some people thinking (wrongly, IMHO!) that having a hereditary head of state is anachronistic, not to immigration.
It's all really fun facts. Genealogy.

The Nassaus, from whom William of Orange was, were actually also a German dynasty, with some French origin too. The Romanovs, too, were ethnically distant from the Russian people. They hailed from, surprise, Germany! :D So, Prince Philip's grandmother was a Russian royal princess, was Orthodox and even spoke Russian (but as her first language?) but had only a small drop of Russian in her blood.
That's clearly offtopic, though still interesting.
 
Yep, those German dynasties got everywhere! Portugal and Brazil. Belgium. Greece, via Denmark. Romania. Bulgaria. All over :) !
 
The Tudors were originally Welsh, not English, if you want to be accurate :) . However, that was in the 15th century. And the Queen Mother's mother was English, not Scottish … and indeed had distant Dutch ancestry through an ancestor who came over with William of Orange. And Prince Philip's grandmother was Russian, although the Romanovs had been intermarrying with German royal families for generations before she was born.

I'm not sure how any of this is relevant to the future of the monarchy, though, and I do think it's very dangerous to label someone as "foreign" because of where their grandparents or great-grandparents or umpteen-times-great-grandparents came from. Surely any question about the future of the monarchy relates to some people thinking (wrongly, IMHO!) that having a hereditary head of state is anachronistic, not to immigration.

The question of ethnicity within the BRF is very important to some people who would use it to further their political agenda. George V understood its importance when he changed the family name from a German one to an English one, to reflect the family's nationality & loyalty. It's vital that the monarch reflects what it is to be British in its religion, language, nationality & customs. It's also vital that they show respect to the cultures of immigrants too. The Queen is excellent at doing both and it appears that Prince Charles will be too.

Amongst all the talk of heritage & origins, it's also worth pointing out that the last British monarch to be born outside of England was George II in 1683 - almost 350 years ago.
 
Last edited:
The question of ethnicity within the BRF is very important to some people who would use it to further their political agenda. George V understood its importance when he changed the family name from a German one to an English one, to reflect the family's nationality & loyalty. It's vital that the monarch reflects what it is to be British in its religion, language, nationality & customs. It's also vital that they show respect to the cultures of immigrants too. The Queen is excellent at doing both and it appears that Prince Charles will be too.

Amongst all the talk of heritage & origins, it's also worth pointing out that the last British monarch to be born outside of England was George II in 1683 - almost 350 years ago.

I really think this "The RF are Germans" Is a bit sily and wildy outdated..Yes they were of German origin in part but they have all been born in the UK as you say for the last couple of hundred years. .
 
How a Crown that has had British born Monarchs since Geo lll can be described as 'German' l don't know.. how long must a family wait to be 'naturalised' in 'anyone's book' ?
 
How a Crown that has had British born Monarchs since Geo lll can be described as 'German' l don't know.. how long must a family wait to be 'naturalised' in 'anyone's book' ?
It depends on one's politics I suppose. For my Jacobite ancestors (whose heritage was Celtic & Norman) no amount of time would have sufficed to accept the Hanovers. I suspect my English ancestors had a shorter time-scale but only when it suited them. When Lady Diana Spencer married in to the BRF, her father delighted in telling the press that the Spencers were a much older English family than the Windsors. Mostly though, it seems to me that (outside of this forum) those who persist in the "German Royal Family" label are republicans who perhaps seek to paint the BRF as not really British anyway.
 
The same could be said about the Jacobites :) :

James II and VII, son of Henrietta Maria of France, grandson of Anne of Denmark.
James Edward - either the Old Pretender or James III and VIII, depending on your viewpoint, son of Mary Beatrice of Modena, grandson of Henrietta Maria of France, great-grandson of Anne of Denmark.
Charles Edward … can't be bothered typing it all out again, but he was the son of Maria Sobieska of Poland.

How very rude of Earl Spencer! His family would still have been farming sheep if they hadn't got close to the later Stuarts and the Hanoverians.
 
Nationality and ethnic identity is different in different societies. Take the immigrant nations, like the US or Canada, for example. There, you can be easily American (no one would ever question that) and Jewish, Irish, Polish or German at the same time. And being Irish or Polish or Chinese does not make you less American.

Things are different in monoethnic states like Finland, Japan, where 90-sth% of the population have common ethnic background. A child of, let's say African immigrants is not so easily and fully considered fellow member of one's nation, even when born and raised here. Of course, he or she is in a way Finnish or Japanese, but of foreign extraction.

I don't think the British people consider their royal family as foreign. Most of them don't even know of their German origins.

As for the Jacobites, their Catholicism made them to search for brides outside Germany, I think. Hence Italy, Poland...
 
Last edited:
No i don't think that people think of the RF as "foreign" exacly but the rather tired old !"The RF are German" is still repeated.
 
I agree. As an American whose own ancestors were European immigrants, I'm baffled by the claim that the BRF is German. You could say most Americans aren't American.
 
Last edited:
Gawin, exactly 13.26% of Americans reported German ancestry in 2017's census.
Yet being "German" does not mean the same in the US and here in Europe outside Germany.

So, while you can easily say someone is German American or simply German (when American is included by default) in America and no one would question his or her Americaness (what other word should I use?), when you say the Windsors are Germans you explicitly undermine and question their Britishness.
 
Being German has changed over the decades too..my late MIL was born in the early 20's, her mother's family was all German and due to the era none of the kids were allowed to speak German or taught German. Nowdays it wouldn't even raise an eyebrow if you teach your kids German.

I think most Americans (and evidently ppl from other countries too) have no earthly idea about the genetic makeup of the BRF ...they likely read something in a history book back in the 8th grade or saw a documentary talking about how they changed their name to look less German and that's about all they know.


LaRae
 
I am sorry not just in North America but if you go far enough back in any family tree you likely find at least one other nationality in your blood. Just reality. Doesn’t change what you are. Does the fact 5/8 of my great grandparents were born in the British isles make me British and not Canadian (though that’s spread through Ireland, Wales and England) and what about my German? Or the fact two great grandparents were here for so many generations we don’t know what there origin was (though some Dutch blood in there).

Honestly after first generation born in the UK calling you anything but British seems pointless. Philips kids are half Greek yes. His grandkids have Greek heritage but aren’t Greek. The fact that the queens great great grandfather Albert was born in Germany doesn’t make her German.

Do other royal families face this??? Are Frederick and Joachim not considered Danish enough as dad was French?? What about Christian whose father is half French and mother is Australian??

Yes there are some families whose blood may seem more English. But then again they had people who married into them who were immigrants as well.

The Windsor’s may not have had the strongest claim but they are connected to more then simply the Tudors and Stuart’s. Unfortunately due to the anti catholic issue, George was the nearest choice.
 
How a Crown that has had British born Monarchs since Geo lll can be described as 'German' l don't know.. how long must a family wait to be 'naturalised' in 'anyone's book' ?

Its funny we don't hear the Spanish Bourbons being referred to as 'French' even though the Bourbons were a French Ducal House.
 
That's so true, Bourbons of Spain are a fine example. Even better than the Windsors (though there is/was no antiFrench sentiment there, like there was antiGerman in most of Europe). Felipe Vi has no Spanish blood in the nearest grades of his descent. It's almost entirely half-French and, a surprise, German. Yet no one considers him and his family aliens. On the contrary.
As I said, we are discussing here ethnic origins only, not questioning the Royals' ...ness in their realms.

Actually, Philip is Greek only nominally. In his case, it's not much less than a title and rights to the throne as he grew up abroad and then adopted British nationality. I don't believe he spoke Greek as his first language. The Greek royal family hails from the Danish one, which again hails from Oldenburg in, what a surprise, Germany. The Glucksburgs lived literally on the Danish German border and intermarried mostly with German princesses, including from their own family, which as we all know was not uncommon. Again, it doesn't mean he's not English.

All this does and does not matter at the same time. Monarchs come to their thrones either by conquer, election or inheritance. And it usually inheirted, which means direct blood relations determine rights to this inheritance. So what made George I a king was his relation to the Stuarts, who in turn derived their rights from the Bruce ancestors in Scotland and Tudors in England, and so on and so on...
 
Lilyflo, I meant only ethnicity. I'm not saying you have a German queen. That would be silly. But two of her grandparents had grandparents who had grandparents, and so on, you'll find at some point that were all German "born and raised". Well, almost all, cause there were some Hungarians, Danes... But generally, they were of German origin. Not Anglo-Saxon nor Scottish, that's for sure. Same for the DoE - German by ethnic origin (with Danish, Czech and Polish exceptions).
.
Well, to be precise, the Angles and the Saxons (and the Jutes) were immigrants to Britain from what is now Germany in the 5th century (Saxony anyone?) They conquered and assimilated the existing inhabitants ("Welsh" comes from an Anglo-Saxon word for "foreigner") and then of course the Normans (originally "North-men" or "Norsemen" i.e. "Vikings") who had conquered the northern part of France - conquered and later assimilated THEM in 1066. And of course there were Danish Vikings in Yorkshire.

The English monarchy after 1066 was made up of persons of mostly Norman/French extraction as the Kings tended to marry French princesses (Anjou, Provence, Valois, Aquitaine etc.) In fact, the only dynasties who married "English" wives until the 20th century were the Yorks and the Tudors (and Elizabeth Wydville's mother came from Luxembourg.) The Scottish Kings married mostly French wives right up to Mary and Lord Darnley. (And James VII and II - but he was not the king and was in exile when he married Anne Hyde.) Then the Hanoverians came, and after that it was back to foreign spouses but this time of German origin right up until Lady Elizabeth Bowes-Lyon, Lady Alice Montague-Douglas-Scott and their successors came along and brought British brides back in vogue.

George III "gloried in the name of Briton." George V said during World War I "I may be uninspiring, but I’ll be damned if I’m alien!” and "I've been abroad and it's horrible!" The current British Royal Family IS British in every way that really counts and now thanks to Lady Elizabeth, Lady Diana, and Miss Middleton the future monarchs, William and his successors, carry more "British blood" than at any time since Elizabeth I.
 
Last edited:
Its funny we don't hear the Spanish Bourbons being referred to as 'French' even though the Bourbons were a French Ducal House.


From 1589 onwards, the Bourbons were the French royal house.


Well, to be precise, the Angles and the Saxons (and the Jutes) were immigrants to Britain from what is now Germany in the 5th century (Saxony anyone?) They conquered and assimilated the existing inhabitants ("Welsh" comes from an Anglo-Saxon word for "foreigner") and then of course the Normans (originally "North-men" or "Norsemen" i.e. "Vikings") who had conquered the northern part of France - conquered and later assimilated THEM in 1066. And of course there were Danish Vikings in Yorkshire.

The English monarchy after 1066 was made up of persons of mostly Norman/French extraction as the Kings tended to marry French princesses (Anjou, Provence, Valois, Aquitaine etc.) In fact, the only dynasties who married "English" wives until the 20th century were the Yorks and the Tudors (and Elizabeth Wydville's mother came from Luxembourg.) The Scottish Kings married mostly French wives right up to Mary and Lord Darnley. (And James VII and II - but he was not the king and was in exile when he married Anne Hyde.) Then the Hanoverians came, and after that it was back to foreign spouses but this time of German origin right up until Lady Elizabeth Bowes-Lyon, Lady Alice Montague-Douglas-Scott and their successors came along and brought British brides back in vogue.

George III "gloried in the name of Briton." George V said during World War I "I may be uninspiring, but I’ll be damned if I’m alien!” and "I've been abroad and it's horrible!" The current British Royal Family IS British in every way that really counts and now thanks to Lady Elizabeth, Lady Diana, and Miss Middleton the future monarchs, William and his successors, carry more "British blood" than at any time since Elizabeth I.


Marrying foreign princesses was the norm for most European kings or future kings well into the 20th century. The Kings of Denmark, France, the Netherlands, Portugal, Spain, Sweden, etc. consistently had foreign wives. Based on that criterion, almost all royal families in Europe would be "foreign" then.
 
Last edited:
Lilyflo, I meant only ethnicity. I'm not saying you have a German queen. That would be silly. But two of her grandparents had grandparents who had grandparents, and so on, you'll find at some point that were all German "born and raised". Well, almost all, cause there were some Hungarians, Danes... But generally, they were of German origin. Not Anglo-Saxon nor Scottish, that's for sure. Same for the DoE - German by ethnic origin (with Danish, Czech and Polish exceptions).


So, what I wanted to say is that the Saxe-Coburg and Gotha (aka Windsor) family's (and the Oldenburgs's) origins are in Germany, as were the Hanovers's (even more!). Except for their blood links to the Scottish Stuarts and English Tudors, of course, from which they derive their position on the throne. Fun fact here is that when George Louis of Hanover acceeded to the British throne as George I, there were several dozens of people who were closer relations by blood to his predecessor than he was.

The Anglo-Saxons were Germans so anyone claiming to be Anglo-Saxon is claiming to be German as well.

The Tudors were Welsh, not English. However Henry VII's ancestry includes French etc so not 'pure' Welsh either.
 
Its funny we don't hear the Spanish Bourbons being referred to as 'French' even though the Bourbons were a French Ducal House.

And preceded as rulers of Spain by the Austrian Habsburgs!

Royal families have, until recently, married members of other royal families, not their subjects. It was just the way it went. It doesn't make anyone "foreign" to their own country.
 
The Anglo-Saxons were Germans so anyone claiming to be Anglo-Saxon is claiming to be German as well.

The Tudors were Welsh, not English. However Henry VII's ancestry includes French etc so not 'pure' Welsh either.
And Henry VII's great-grandmother Isabeau of Bavaria was German so we're right back where we started.... [emoji3526]
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top Bottom