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.
Well all this ongoing marriage between various already related families showed how they saw themselves as much European as anything. Albeit a rarified caste.

A topical viewpoint tonight of all nights. Although I don't want to get into trouble for being political:whistling:
 
Last edited:
After a point don't almost all of the Royal Houses of Europe go back to Queen Victoria and King Christian of Denmark? I think except maybe Belgium?

So..none of them are really pure anything (Welsh, English etc etc) by 'genetics'.



LaRae
 
And preceded as rulers of Spain by the Austrian Habsburgs!

The male-line descendants of Queen Juana of Spain were styled as the House of Austria following the patrilineal naming convention, but to my knowledge none of them were born or raised in Austria. Queen Juana's husband and the majority of her children were, however, Dutch by upbringing.
 
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.
Yes, had some interesting experiences in that regard. While living in the States, we once met a couple at a social function that proudly told us they were Dutch (without knowing we are Dutch), so when I inquired about their Dutch language skills and passports etc, it became clear that they weren't Dutch at all. They were of Dutch descent (4th generation or so), which is very different from being Dutch...

I'd say the same applies to the royal families... If they no longer are citizen of that country nor speak the language and know little about the culture of their ancestors (from first-hand experience), they are no longer German.
 
After a point don't almost all of the Royal Houses of Europe go back to Queen Victoria and King Christian of Denmark? I think except maybe Belgium?

So..none of them are really pure anything (Welsh, English etc etc) by 'genetics'.



LaRae


The King of the Belgians is a descendant of King Christian IX via his grandmother, Queen Astrid. His father is Queen Elizabeth II's third cousin (as QEII also descends from Christian IX via Queen Alexandra).



The King of the Nerherlands is not a descendant of either Queen Victoria or King Christian IX.
 
Last edited:
The male-line descendants of Queen Juana of Spain were styled as the House of Austria following the patrilineal naming convention, but to my knowledge none of them were born or raised in Austria. Queen Juana's husband and the majority of her children were, however, Dutch by upbringing.


I believe Queen Juana's husband as well as her children were more French than Dutch. At least, French was the first language of Emperor Charles V (and of the Burgundian court) even though he probably spoke some Flemish having grown up in Belgium (standard Dutch didn't exist yet as we know it at that time).



Charles V's brother, the future Emperor Ferdinand I, was born and raised in Spain though and was probably more Spanish than Belgian or Austrian/German. Nonethetless, he became Archduke of Austria, King of Bohemia and the Holy Roman Emperor whereas Charles who, at first, apparently could only barely speak Spanish became the King of Spain.



I wonder what this thread has to do with the future of the British monarchy though.
 
Last edited:
All these info is very interesting and informative.

But as Mbruno said earlier, I was also wondering what these have to do with the future of the British Monarchy.
 
All these info is very interesting and informative.

But as Mbruno said earlier, I was also wondering what these have to do with the future of the British Monarchy.

Some of the genealogy has gone off on tangents but there is an important underlying factor IMO, which I mentioned previously. There are those (not on this forum) who wish to cast our BRF as 'foreign' for political reasons, mostly republicanism. Therefore it's important for their survival that people know how British they actually are.
 
Some of the genealogy has gone off on tangents but there is an important underlying factor IMO, which I mentioned previously. There are those (not on this forum) who wish to cast our BRF as 'foreign' for political reasons, mostly republicanism. Therefore it's important for their survival that people know how British they actually are.

Yes indeed. Always strikes me as weird that some republicans(who often consider themselves so modern& progressive) make such blatantly xenophobic comments.
 
Some of the genealogy has gone off on tangents but there is an important underlying factor IMO, which I mentioned previously. There are those (not on this forum) who wish to cast our BRF as 'foreign' for political reasons, mostly republicanism. Therefore it's important for their survival that people know how British they actually are.

While the ‘foreign’ argument could be trotted out for previous monarchs and even for future King Charles, I think that thanks to Diana Spencer and Catherine Middleton this will no longer work. Everyone knows how British Diana and Catherine’s bloodlines are:rolleyes:.
Even the staunchest republicans would be hard pressed to claim that future King George VII isn’t British enough, with Diana, Carole and Mike as 3/4 of his grandparents.
 
Yes indeed. Always strikes me as weird that some republicans(who often consider themselves so modern& progressive) make such blatantly xenophobic comments.

I think it's just an argument they exploit, rather than one they care about themselves.

While the ‘foreign’ argument could be trotted out for previous monarchs and even for future King Charles, I think that thanks to Diana Spencer and Catherine Middleton this will no longer work. Everyone knows how British Diana and Catherine’s bloodlines are:rolleyes:.
Even the staunchest republicans would be hard pressed to claim that future King George VII isn’t British enough, with Diana, Carole and Mike as 3/4 of his grandparents.

Yes I agree that in future, the 'foreign' claim will fade & republicans will drop it.
 
I think it's just an argument they exploit, rather than one they care about themselves.

I don't think such people are actually xenophobic but they don't challenge the language which is itself despicable.

I agree completely that they cynically use the argument for their own ends.
 
The king recognized as the first King of England William the Conqueror was French. So technically right from the start the British monarchy came from somewhere else.
 
The king recognized as the first King of England William the Conqueror was French. So technically right from the start the British monarchy came from somewhere else.
Though he most likely self-identified as Norman
 
The king recognized as the first King of England William the Conqueror was French. So technically right from the start the British monarchy came from somewhere else.

William the Conqueror - also known as William the bastard [he was of illegitimate birth], wasn't the first King of England.

Athelstan had most of England under his control. He added Northumbria to his kingdom. Modern historians regard him as the first King of England and one of the greatest Anglo-Saxon kings.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Æthelstan
 
Last edited:
William I wasn't the first King of England, as Wyevale said, although royal history books annoyingly often only start with him. William's wife was descended from the Anglo-Saxon kings, as was Henry I's wife.


And the Normans were originally from Scandinavia ... so it just goes on and on :) .
 
William I wasn't the first King of England, as Wyevale said, although royal history books annoyingly often only start with him. William's wife was descended from the Anglo-Saxon kings, as was Henry I's wife.


And the Normans were originally from Scandinavia ... so it just goes on and on :) .
Yep, as I said above Norman = Norsemen or North-men. :flowers: They were Vikings. :viking:

In the same vein, "Brittany" was named due to all of the British Celts who fled across the Channel to escape the Anglo-Saxons, and the Scots went across the Irish Sea from what is now Northern Ireland to assimilate the Picts. Ain't History Grand!! :writing:
 
Last edited:
The king recognized as the first King of England William the Conqueror was French. So technically right from the start the British monarchy came from somewhere else.

I thought Egbert was the first King of England.
 
He was but when people list the 'Kings of England' they start with the Normans. That is also when they start the numbering so Edward the Confessor isn't Edward I even though he was a King Edward before the later Edward I.
 
Yep, as I said above Norman = Norsemen or North-men. :flowers: They were Vikings. :viking:

In the same vein, "Brittany" was named due to all of the British Celts who fled across the Channel to escape the Anglo-Saxons, and the Scots went across the Irish Sea from what is now Northern Ireland to assimilate the Picts. Ain't History Grand!! :writing:

And, indeed, France is named after the Germanic Franks :lol:. And Russia is named after the Rus, who were probably Vikings like the Normans were.

The Queen is descended from the Anglo-Saxon Kings of England, from the Royal Houses of Scotland, from the Normans, from Brian Boru, High King of Ireland, and from the pre-conquest Princes of Wales. Not too many other people can say that about themselves!
 
Yep, as I said above Norman = Norsemen or North-men. :flowers: They were Vikings. :viking:

In the same vein, "Brittany" was named due to all of the British Celts who fled across the Channel to escape the Anglo-Saxons, and the Scots went across the Irish Sea from what is now Northern Ireland to assimilate the Picts. Ain't History Grand!! :writing:
And the Irish migrated from northern Spain [emoji23]
 
To delve even further back into the mists of time thousands of years ago, its been researched and found that the inhabitants of Neolithic Skara Brae village in the Orkney Islands of Scotland are quite similar and even bear DNA markers similar to the Dogon tribe of Mali, West Africa. This precedes dynastic ancient Egypt.

https://www.ancient.eu/books/1620555735/
 
And, indeed, France is named after the Germanic Franks :lol:. And Russia is named after the Rus, who were probably Vikings like the Normans were.

The Queen is descended from the Anglo-Saxon Kings of England, from the Royal Houses of Scotland, from the Normans, from Brian Boru, High King of Ireland, and from the pre-conquest Princes of Wales. Not too many other people can say that about themselves!

There's even conjecture (albeit disputed) that she's a descendent of the prophet Mohamed. Originally written about in Burke's Peerage 1986.
 
There's even conjecture (albeit disputed) that she's a descendent of the prophet Mohamed. Originally written about in Burke's Peerage 1986.
There's also a theory that Queen Elizabeth is descended from the Tang emperors of China.
 
After a point don't almost all of the Royal Houses of Europe go back to Queen Victoria and King Christian of Denmark? I think except maybe Belgium?

So..none of them are really pure anything (Welsh, English etc etc) by 'genetics'.
LaRae
I believe I read on another board that the most recent common ancestor of all of the current monarchs of Europe is George II of the UK - but my memory may be faulty...
 
Seems to be several proud of their knowledge of the past, but have no opinion of the future? I picked this thread to try and learn what you all think about the future of the British monarchy....am I in the wrong place?
 
Queen Elizabeth II is greatly venerated and admired. She has been on the throne for so long that nobody under the age of 70 can remember another monarch on the throne. Her heir is much less popular for various reasons, as is his wife. I do think there may well be some public questioning of the value of the British monarchy cost wise and in other ways when the Queen passes.

I feel there is an indifference towards the British monarchy in the general population that probably isn't truly reflected in surveys and polling and may increase with a less popular sovereign. That doesn't mean IMO that there will be an instant call among the public for a republic in the new reign but the attraction may fade over time in future years, especially among the young.
 
Last edited:
I think the outpouring of grief and then excitement of a coronation will keep the republicans at bay in the UK for a few years and then they will know they will get it all again within a couple of decades for William. William is a lot more popular than his father (that can change of course - just as it did for Charles who was extremely popular in the 70s and 80s).
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top Bottom