The Spencer Family, Ancestry and Althorp 1: Ending Aug. 2023

[cepe]

...Seeing Althrop had 90 rooms and 31 bedrooms, I can understand why Diana was disappointed with Highgrove & Kensingston Palace. It probably felt like she had married down.

Not for ONE MINUTE did Diana or her family think they were marrying down. And she certainly wasn't. How on earth can anyone think that marrying the heir to the throne be marrying down??
.

 

[Mermaid1962]

This is discussed in Sarah Bradford's biography about Diana. The Spencers and people of their political ilk (Whigs) were responsible for getting George I on the throne of England. Therefore, the British Royal Family are indebted to them for their current position. Also, families like the Spencers are old English aristocracy from centuries before the Royal Family--descended from the German-speaking George I--came to England.

 

[NGalitzine]

The Hanovarians might have come to England from Germany, but their claim to the throne is due to their legitimate Protestant descent from the Stuarts.

 

[Mariel]

You are right NGalitzine about the Hanoverian descent coming from the Stuarts, who sent Stuart marriage partners to Europe. I am not familiar with all of them but I know King James I/VI's daughter Elizabeth married a German royal, I think of Heidelberg.

It is ironic that the Stuarts were known to be pretty avid Catholics in the period before King James I/VI. So it was hard, I presume, as others have said, to find a legitimate Protestant descendant of the Stuarts. Today, still, the Stuart pretender lines are Catholic.

 

[Ish]

James VI/I's daughter Elizabeth married Frederick V, Elector Palatine and King of Bohemia.

The Stuarts were avid Catholics prior to James IV/I, but that wasn't really uncommon. The Protestant Reformation only began in 1517, James was born in 1566.

I wouldn't say that finding a Protestant heir was hard so much as they had to exclude a lot of Catholics first (50+), who were higher in the succession. Sophie of Hanover was actually the granddaughter of the Elizabeth that you mentioned.
.

 

[Mariel]

Thanks, Ish for further info on Elizabeth Stuart.
When I spoke of the Stuarts having been ardent Catholics I realized that everyone was "Catholic" prior to the reformation. What I meant was just a feeling that there was a "Stuart" party in Scotland/England which was more devoted than average to supporting abbeys and churches, and sending some of their children to monastic life. It's just a a feeling I got from books I've read, that the Stuarts were pretty devout. One of the books I got this from was "Normans in Scotland" by Graeme Ritchie, written in the 1950's. It is a fascinating book which shows the ethnic variety of the "Normans" in Scotland, who were a combination of Gaelic, Celtic, "Norman", Fleming, and Saxon, even though their culture was mostly Norman.

 

[Sangre_Real016]

...I wouldn't say that finding a Protestant heir was hard so much as they had to exclude a lot of Catholics first (50+), who were higher in the succession. Sophie of Hanover was actually the granddaughter of the Elizabeth that you mentioned.

true.. but it should also be noted that Electress Sophia was not the senior most protestant descendant of King James I.. the eldest surviving child of Elizabeth Stuart was Charles I Louis, Elector Palatine.. therefore, the senior most protestant heir to King James I was Raugravine Karoline of the Palatinate and not her aunt Electress Sophia of Hanover.. also, based on this, George I should have not been king, but rather it was Raugravine Karoline's daughter, Frederica Mildmay, Countess of Mértola who should have been queen.. so if we would follow this line, the current monarch of the UK until early this year would have been Diana Miller, 11th Countess of Mértola or Queen Diana so to speak.. lol.. here is the line..

James VI of Scotland and I of England
Elizabeth Stuart, Queen of Bohemia
Charles I Louis, Elector Palatine
Raugravine Karoline of the Palatinate
Frederica Mildmay, Countess of Mértola
Robert Darcy, 4th Earl of Holderness
Amelia Osborne, Marchioness of Carmarthen
George Osborne, 6th Duke of Leeds
Lady Charlotte Mary Anne Georgiana Osborne
Sackville Lane-Fox, 12th Baron Conyers
Marcia Pelham, Countess of Yarborough
Sackville Pelham, 5th Earl of Yarborough
Diana Miller, 11th Countess of Mértola

also, i guess its just right to mention the Diana is also a legitimate descendent of Elector Charles Louis I through her grandmother Lady Cynthia Hamilton, Countess Spencer..

such things have happened before.. remember, King James I would have never been king based on the will of Henry VIII and the Third Succession Act which barred the descendants of Margaret Tudor, Queen of Scots to inherit the English throne.. Upon the death of Queen Elizabeth I, the heir presumptive to the English throne was Anne Stanley, Countess of Castlehaven, daughter of Alice Spencer, herself daughter of Sir John Spencer of Althorp..
.

 

[Sangre_Real016]

Many Spencers have almost sat the English/British throne..

First was Anne Stanley, Countess of Castlehaven, granddaughter of Sir John Spencer of Althorp, who was the heir presumptive to the English throne upon the death of Queen Elizabeth I according to the will of Henry VIII and the Third Succession Act..

Then we had the first Lady Diana Spencer who almost married Frederick, Prince of Wales.. Lady Diana was at the top of the list of eligible high society brides due to both her looks and her closeness to the tremendously rich Dowager Duchess of Marlborough.. Among her suitors were the grandson of the Duke of Somerset, the Viscount Weymouth, the Earl of Shaftesbury and the Earl of Chesterfield who noted that "The person, the merit and the family of Lady Diana Spencer are objects so valuable that they must necessarily have..." the marriage to the Prince of Wales was vetoed by the prime Minister and the King preferred a European match..

Third was the most previous Lady Diana Spencer who in 1981 did marry the Prince of Wales but the marriage sadly ended in divorce and her untimely death..

still, the second in line to the British throne is half Spencer..
.

 

[Ish]

Many Spencers have almost sat the English/British throne..

I'm not sure what the significance of the Spencer's who almost made it to the throne is...

The Spencer's are an old, aristocratic family. That was part of the appeal that Diana had as a potential bride for Charles. One would assume that a family that had been aristocratic (in various forms) for as long as the Spencer's have would have had a number of near brushes with merging with the BRF, or would have even entered into it at some point.

 

[NGalitzine]

Many Spencers have almost sat the English/British throne..
..

We are not playing horseshoes. Close and almost do not count.

 

[US Royal Watcher]

Prince William is a member of the Spencer family and, if the monarchy survives, he will become King.

I think this discussion started when someone erroneously posted that the Spencers have more royal blood than the royal family, which is not true. The Spencer have more pure English blood than the royal family, but that is because royal families throughout history have sacrificed their personal feelings to dutifully marry into foreign royal families.

The purpose of these strategic marriages was to benefit their subjects by encouraging trade and preventing war. It also should be noted that the royal family does not just represent England, so I don't think that the percentage of actual English blood running through their veins is a good indicator of whether they are the best family to represent the United Kingdom.

 

[Sangre_Real016]

I think this discussion started when someone erroneously posted that the Spencers have more royal blood than the royal family, which is not true. The Spencer have more pure English blood than the royal family, but that is because royal families throughout history have sacrificed their personal feelings to dutifully marry into foreign royal families.

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"..

 

[Ish]

I still don't follow how you think the Spencer's are more royal than the Windsors.

Do you honestly think that the Windsors aren't also descended from kings of France, Holy Roman Emperors, and so on? You trace the descent of the Spencer's to Henry VII of England and imply that it's through there (and similar means) that the Spencer's get their royal ancestors... But the Windsors are descended from Henry VII as well. I wasn't aware that the Spencer's descended from the Catholic (and illegitimate) line of James II, although I do know that they descend from Charles II, which is where they one up the Windsors; the only Stuart monarch the Windsors descend from is James I.

That said, the Windsors have as much (if not more) of a royal ancestry as the Spencers, and given as the Windsors are actually royal while the Spencers (at least Diana's line) are merely Earls... I would think that William gets his royal pedigree from his father, sorry.

 

[Sangre_Real016]

I still don't follow how you think the Spencer's are more royal than the Windsors.

i never said that.. i said that one can contest that remark.. what i said that the Spencer has more kings and emperors in their ancestry than the Windsors who's ancestors were mostly sovereign dukes and kings that descended from dukes..

Do you honestly think that the Windsors aren't also descended from kings of France, Holy Roman Emperors, and so on?

never said that as well.. it is true that the Windsors also descends from the Kings of France and Holy Roman Emperors.. but those individuals are way back into their ancestry.. for example, the Windsors descends from Charles VI of France who ruled in 1380 and Henry VII, Holy Roman Emperor who ruled in 1308.. if you can see, these kings and emperors were from such a distant relation unlike the Spencers who descends from King Henry IV of France who ruled in 1572 and Ferdinand I, Holy Roman Emperor who ruled in 1526.. now from that we can say that the Spencers descends from all kings of France and Holy Roman Emperors before Henry IV and Ferdinand I, and that is 200 years or royal descent from kings and emperors compared to the Windsors..

You trace the descent of the Spencer's to Henry VII of England and imply that it's through there (and similar means) that the Spencer's get their royal ancestors... But the Windsors are descended from Henry VII as well.

no.. i never denied the fact that the Windsors also descend from Henry VII, but it was not true Henry VII were the Spencer got most of their royal ancestry, in fact he is among the least contributor of royal genes to the Spencers.. most of the royal descent of the Spencers came from Charles II and James II, who's mother was Henrietta Maria of France, daughter of Henry IV and Marie de' Medici.. also, via Lady Cynthia Hamilton, the Spencers are legitimate descendants of Charles I Louis of the Palatinate.. and so on and so forth.. the Windsors can't lay claim to these line of descent simply because they are not descended from Henrietta Maria of France..

I wasn't aware that the Spencer's descended from the Catholic (and illegitimate) line of James II, although I do know that they descend from Charles II, which is where they one up the Windsors; the only Stuart monarch the Windsors descend from is James I.

not only that, since Charles II and James II were grandchildren of Marie de' Medici, the Spencers can lay claim as descendants of the Dukes of Milan from the line of of the Viscontis and Sforzas.. as well as from Henry IV, they descends from King Almeric II of Jerusalem and Cyprus, etc..

That said, the Windsors have as much (if not more) of a royal ancestry as the Spencers, and given as the Windsors are actually royal while the Spencers (at least Diana's line) are merely Earls... I would think that William gets his royal pedigree from his father, sorry.

royal descent is often subjective.. again, it all goes down to who do you think has more royal ancestors.. but it is true that the Windsors are first hand royals, while the Spencers have always been members of the nobility.. but i think, its at-least safe to say the the Spencers are heirs body to a once sovereign family, the Churchills, who ruled as the sovereign Prince of Mindelheim.. also i believe, we are contesting who has more royal ancestors, not who if truly royals.. coz, by that category, the Windsors wins hands down..

 

[US Royal Watcher]

Very interesting Sangre_Real16. Obviously you've done a lot of research. However, I am not sure that I agree that royal descent is often subjective. Isn't it a matter of law? I haven't gone through Princess Diana's ancestors, but if her ancestor was a child of Charles II and had the title HRH but married someone who was not an HRH, then the grandchild became half royal. Unless the grandchild married a member of the royal family, any children became a quarter royal and the percentage of royal blood decreased through generations.

To take a more recent example, I would say that Zara Phillips is half royal because her mother was royal but her father was not. Her child will be one-quarter royal and the percentage of royal blood will decrease with each passing generation, unless one marries into a royal family. Her descendants will have royal blood, but the percentage after a hundred years or so will be minimal.

 

[Ish]

I see where you're going here, but I'm not certain of my thoughts on it.

I will say though that Diana's descent from Charles II is through an illegitimate line; the child of Charles that leads to the Spencers was one of his many bastards. I don't believe he had any surviving children.

 

[NGalitzine]

...I haven't gone through Princess Diana's ancestors, but if her ancestor was a child of Charles II and had the title HRH but married someone who was not an HRH, then the grandchild became half royal...

Charles II 's offspring were the result of relationships with his many mistresses. While he took his duties as "father of the nation" seriously none of his children were HRH. Diana, like Camilla & Fergie, descended from his various illegitimate children.
.

 

[US Royal Watcher]

I see where you're going here, but I'm not certain of my thoughts on it.

I will say though that Diana's descent from Charles II is through an illegitimate line; the child of Charles that leads to the Spencers was one of his many bastards. I don't believe he had any surviving children.

I didn't really look up Diana's actual ancestors, I was using Charles II as a hypothetical example. If the child was illegitimate and didn't have the HRH title, I would say that child was half royal and his child would be a quarter royal.

ETA: I just realized that Charles II had no legitimate children, which I probably knew at one point but forgot. I maintain that although the descendants of his illegitimate children can claim royal blood, unless they married a person with an HRH, the percentage of royal blood is small. Therefore, I would argue that it is incorrect to say that Diana had more royal blood that Prince Charles.

 

[Ish]

I thought about what you've said here and have a response now.

I think being royal is more about belonging to a royal family. You can be descended from royals and not actually be royal - the Phillips have royal blood, but they themselves are not royal.

Diana may have royal ancestry, that's indisputable, and in many ways she may have more royal or more more closely related royal ancestry than Charles does, but that didn't make her more royal than he is, on the grounds that he belonged to a royal family and, outside of her marriage, she didn't.

If you try to get into %s it gets tricky; if the Phillips are half royal because their mother is a royal, but their father wasn't then what does that make the Waleses or Yorks?

...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.

 

[Sangre_Real016]

...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..
.

 

[US Royal Watcher]

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.
.

 

[Ish]

...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.
.

 

[KittyAtlanta]

I think it was Burkes who said that Diana was more English than Charles, not descended from more royalty.

 

[NGalitzine]

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.
.

 

[Mustela]

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.

 

[Warren]

I do think a documentary should be made on Althorp...

There has been, broadcast on PBS in July, and it's pretty good.
Here is the PBS link [not available in some countries]
→ Video: Secrets of Althorp - The Spencers | Watch Secrets of the Manor House Online | PBS Video

 

[Dman]

Yes, I've seen it. It was about time a documentary was made about the estate.

 

[QueenElizabeth2Fan]

Quick question... Was Princess Diana related to Maria Theresa, the Austrian queen?
The same goes for Elizabeth II--was she as well?

 

[Ish]

...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.
.

 

[Ish]

^^^ 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.