British Royal Family Genealogy


If you have answers, please help by responding to the unanswered posts.
Thats exactly the reason Ive read - a Hohenlohe wasnt deemed ebenbürtig enough for a future emperor but was good enough for less prominent members of the family.

For the Prussians Hohenlohe family was "good enough". Also for the British(Princess Alexandra of Edinburgh became a Hohenlohe-Langenburg)

Was reading about it when it was Prussia/Schleswig-Holstein marriage discussed and Hohenlohes(mother of the Empress) were described as "good enough", while Schleswig-Holsteins were a problem because of their Danneskiold-Samsøe ancestry.

Btw, Danneskiold-Samsøe were Counts, illegitimate line of the House of Oldenburg that ruled in Denmark.
 
Last edited:
All European monarchies followed the rules of this "Almanach de Gotha".

That's not entirely accurate. For starters not all European monarchies had strict, formalized rules about equal marriages - some had very formal rules about equal marriages that essentially prevented its members from being able to enter into morganatic marriages while maintaining succession right. Others only had rules about requiring permission for a marriage to take place - that permission typically was only granted if the marriage was equal, but in these countries there were no formal rules requiring the marriage itself to be an equal one.

Furthermore, the Almanach didn't actually create any rules. It recorded information about every reigning and formerly reigning house in Europe. It recorded who was of a reigning house and who was of a mediatized house. The marriage rules happened well before the Almanach came around, as did the mediatization.

Okay.
I definitely already understood the difference between morganatic and equal marriages though.
So how did it grow, from just being Germanic to comprising ALL royal houses? I actually have a copy of the 2013 Almanach.

All houses have long had marriage rules, with preference being given towards other royal houses over "commoners". The Germans didn't make the rules, they just wrote down who was acceptable and who wasn't - and it make sense that it was the Germans who did so, because the German princely states were considerably more complicated post-Holy Roman Empire than other monarchies.

Again - it's really obvious who's "equal" and who isn't in say 18th century France or Great Britain; either you're the King or you're not. It's more complicated in Germany because there wasn't one unified state. So the Germans went and wrote a book that listed who was who.

I definitely understood the whole anti-German sentiment regarding World War 1 and royalty. I feel, though, that there was a lot of xenophobia; (this is what I'd be thinking, if I was a royal living in the time period) if I can't marry someone because I'm German, what does that make the person/people who established these unwritten rules?

WWI, the anti-German sentiments that came with it, and the mass abolishment of many continental European monarchies following WWI and WWII is actually a major part of the large abandoment of equal marriages in Europe; there were fewer reigning families existing, the Germans were the "enemy", and there was more of a rise of the middle class and a push for monarchies to reflect the people that they reigned over.

In Britain, there was never actually any formal rule requiring equal marriages, and you do see some willy-nilly marriages among the English and Scottish monarchs prior to the Hanovers (more so the Scots, but Henry VIII wouldn't have married most of his wives if he'd only married equally). The Hanovers did have to enter into equal marriages to maintain succession rights to Hanover, but not Britain itself, and George III did get the Marriage Act passed so that he could dictate the marriages of his children.

Most of Queen Victoria's children married German royals, but her eldest son (Edward VII) married a Danish princess, and one of her daughters (Louise) married a British aristocrat. Of the children of Edward VII, only one of them entered into an "equal" marriage by the old rules - Maud married a Danish prince who became the King of Norway (Haakon VII). His eldest daughter (also Louise) married a British aristocrat, his middle daughter (Victoria) never married, and his son... well, George V married Mary of Teck; Mary's father was of the German nobility and was born as the result of a morganatic marriage. That would not have been in line with the rules that other houses were looking at.
 
Most of Queen Victoria's children married German royals, but her eldest son (Edward VII) married a Danish princess...

Danish Princess who was born Her Highness Princess von Schleswig-Holstein-Sonderburg-Glücksburg.

She became Princess of Denmark only when she was 9 years old.
 
Schleswig-Holstein was a Danish-German duchy held for most of its history by the Danish monarch. The family became more German when it passed into the junior branch, but Christian IX was born in the Danish part of the Duchy and Alexandra was born in Copenhagen. The family was also vehemently anti-German long before it was trendy to be anti-German, largely because of the issue of Schleswig-Holstein (which Denmark thought should be entirely in Denmark post-German Confederation, and Germany thought should be in Germany).

Saying that they were German royals is a gross over simplification of the issue, and goes in contrast to how they would have identified themselves or been identified as by their contemporaries.
 
Schleswig-Holstein was a Danish-German duchy held for most of its history by the Danish monarch. The family became more German when it passed into the junior branch, but Christian IX was born in the Danish part of the Duchy and Alexandra was born in Copenhagen. The family was also vehemently anti-German long before it was trendy to be anti-German, largely because of the issue of Schleswig-Holstein (which Denmark thought should be entirely in Denmark post-German Confederation, and Germany thought should be in Germany).

Saying that they were German royals is a gross over simplification of the issue, and goes in contrast to how they would have identified themselves or been identified as by their contemporaries.
The whole issue of nationality was much more complex back then than it is today (and even today its no walk in the park) so its very tricky to impose our modern view of it on people living only 60-70 years ago. For example the language of the Danish court was German up until the late 18th century when it was replaced by French, Polish speaking noblemen praised their homecountry Lithuania while claming descent from the Sarmatians, in the Balkans few of the Greeks were actually Greek speaking since according to the customs of the time all members of the orthodox faith was seen as Greek etc...
 
Last edited:
Well put. I'd add too that you have to remember that the borders have changed over the centuries. And not just in the more obvious places like Africa, Eastern Europe, the Middle East, which have had political turmoil in the last century. A great example of this is the border between France and Germany, which changed fairly regularly up until the end of WWII.
 
Schleswig-Holstein was a Danish-German duchy held for most of its history by the Danish monarch. The family became more German when it passed into the junior branch, but Christian IX was born in the Danish part of the Duchy and Alexandra was born in Copenhagen. The family was also vehemently anti-German long before it was trendy to be anti-German, largely because of the issue of Schleswig-Holstein (which Denmark thought should be entirely in Denmark post-German Confederation, and Germany thought should be in Germany).

I was discussing here only genealogy , as the thread is about that. And that is something you were born with and can't change it.

I was not discussing their intimate and private views of themselves, because it leads to another thing which is not called genealogy.

The fact is that they were members of the German dynasty(Oldenburg) which later ruled in Denmark, no matter where they were residing, born or "played cards"...

They had almost exclusively German ancestry, also married Germans for centuries, so based on their genealogy one can not deny that.

So, saying that they are not German is not so true, no matter what they thought of themselves and how much they hated "them", just because of the politics.

The other thing is how they felt personally about it and did they have issues with this based on the politics of the day, wars etc. which resulted their personal opinions, feelings and how THEY considered themselves.

For example, the irony is that German Empress Augusta Viktoria, who was from the other branch of the same dynasty, had more Danish blood than Queen Alexandra and still considered herself German from top to toe.

Saying that they were German royals is a gross over simplification of the issue, and goes in contrast to how they would have identified themselves or been identified as by their contemporaries.

I never said that they were "German royals". And as they ruled in Denmark, they must be Danish royals. But, they were Danish royals who were Germans. Danish ruling family of German ancestry and ethnicity, just like the British one.

The fact that they changed their family name to Windsor in 1917 can't hide facts that for centuries they were Germans, who ruled in jointly Great Britain and Hanover.

Nothing more or less. I am not going into how they privately felt about it or not, just genealogy facts.
 
Last edited:
And as we speak about genealogy, for example, out of Queen Alexandra's 128 nearest ancestors, only 2 were not from German dynasties, that being Eléonore Desmier d'Olbreuse and Eleonore Elizabeth de La Cave.
 
What is wrong with saying "German Royals"?

This isn't 1917.

HM has a fraction of German blood, OK, a hefty serving of that orderly pie, but maybe it is the German blood that has made her so perfect as an imperturbable monarch.

It's not from her mother. Prince Charles jokes about his "Scottish cheapness", implying that the Bowes Lyon heritage instilled some sort of admirable penny-pinching gene of thrift. Tell that to the former soldiers who now are charged with hauling his organic Highgrove produce and dairy to Birkhall, over hill and over dale, worrying if they will be late.

Being thought of German ... that's nothing.
 
I think Prince Charles's joke referred more to stereotypes of the Scots held by English people for centuries, moths flying out of sporrans, that sort of thing. Whether or not the Bowes Lyons were particularly 'cheap' I don't know. However, I don't think the Queen Mother's lifestyle, especially in her widowhood, screamed thrift and penny pinching!

I agree that until the Duke of York married Lady Elizabeth Bowes Lyon British sovereigns and their consorts were of mainly German blood, however they regarded themselves. Before the Hanovarians there was more of a mixture, Spanish, French etc, but the Georges kept to their homeland for their wives. If posters on a Royal forum of this sort discuss the BRF in fifty years time, however, they certainly won't be able to say that.
 
Last edited:
Curryong, thank you for not being a big Monty Python foot on my posts.
 
What is wrong with saying "German Royals"?

This isn't 1917.

HM has a fraction of German blood, OK, a hefty serving of that orderly pie, but maybe it is the German blood that has made her so perfect as an imperturbable monarch.

Being thought of German ... that's nothing.

This is thread about genealogy, not about politics or their thoughts, views etc.

In genealogy terms, for someone whose 126 out of 128 nearest ancestors were from German families, saying that isn't German just because she didn't like Germans and she didn't feel German because of the politics of the day is absurd.

How she felt, how she dealt with various things is for the thread about her personally, but in genealogy there isn't such thing, as we explore something you were born with, not something you can change through your life depending on circumstances.
 
I agree that until the Duke of York married Lady Elizabeth Bowes Lyon British sovereigns and their consorts were of mainly German blood, however they regarded themselves.

More interesting fact is that Elizabeth Bowes has also descended from various German families through her Bentinck ancestors.

Those ancestors were Counts von Oldenburg-Delmenhorst(same dynasty as Prince Philipp), Counts von Bentheim, Counts von Sayn, von Götterswick, von Münster, von Bodelschwingh, von Lüdinghausen and so on...
 
Yes, that's so. However, Hans Bentinck came over to England with William of Orange (III), which was some time ago now, and since then the Dukes of Portland and Cavendish-Bentincks have mostly married fellow Britons and certainly the Queen Mother's paternal line married Scots and English brides and grooms. I don't think you could honestly say that the Queen Mother's ancestry was primarily German.
 
Last edited:
I don't think you could honestly say that the Queen Mother's ancestry was primarily German.

Certainly not :shifty:

But we were discussing ancestry of Queen Alexandra, for whom everybody likes to say that she wasn't German.

She was Princess of Denmark when she married Edward, Prince of Wales, but she was born as German Princess von Schleswig-Holstein-Sonderburg-Glücksburg, which was her official title until the age of 9.

If Frederick VII had a legitimate son, she would stay Princess von Schleswig-Holstein-Sonderburg-Glücksburg.
 
Last edited:
I'm staying out of this argument.
 
Last edited:
Certainly not :shifty:

But we were discussing ancestry of Queen Alexandra, for whom everybody likes to say that she wasn't German.

She was Princess of Denmark when she married Edward, Prince of Wales, but she was born as German Princess von Schleswig-Holstein-Sonderburg-Glücksburg, which was her official title until the age of 9.

If Frederick VII had a legitimate son, she would stay Princess von Schleswig-Holstein-Sonderburg-Glücksburg.
The thing is its not as easy as saying Alexandra was German period. The House of Schleswig-Holstein had for centuries ruled over Schleswig, a part of the Danish dominion since the early Middle-ages and with a Danish speaking majority up until the early 19th century. Both her parents were raised in Copenhagen & the generations before them had married as much among themselves, into the BRF as with German families. Most of them were German by descent yes but nationality is as much about self-perception as about fact.
 
The thing is its not as easy as saying Alexandra was German period. The House of Schleswig-Holstein had for centuries ruled over Schleswig, a part of the Danish dominion since the early Middle-ages and with a Danish speaking majority up until the early 19th century. Both her parents were raised in Copenhagen & the generations before them had married as much among themselves, into the BRF as with German families. Most of them were German by descent yes but nationality is as much about self-perception as about fact.

Oldenburg dynasty was/is German dynasty which ruled and still rules in many countries.

In genealogy terms it doesn't matter where they rule as genealogically they are still German dynasty that married almost only Germans for centuries, either from Germany or from German dynasties that ruled in other countries.

In genealogy terms, will I be Chinese if I am born and raised there and don't have a drop of Chinese blood? Maybe I would have citizenship which will for sure determine me as a person and shape my feelings, but in genealogy terms I stay who I am and who my ancestors were, because genealogy is not subjective thing, but exact as we are already born with it and can't change it, just like we can always easily change cities, countries or our passports based on our circumstances.
 
Last edited:
If one really had to nitpick about ancestry, all of these people above whether from most areas of Western Europe, descend from the Gallic people of antiquity. :D
 
Please review my British Monarch Family Tree

Hello everyone ?, I'm a web programmer, I am currently building an interactive family tree of the British monarch at my site,
HTML:
<a href="http://www.scienic-data.com/force-layout-british-monarch-family-tree/" target="_blank">here</a>
it is.

This is based on data from
HTML:
<a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Family_tree_of_the_British_royal_family" target="_blank">wiki source</a>
.

Since a family tree will look better with pictures, I'm trying to embed pictures/photos of the monarch family members into the tree nodes. As the wiki source above did not came with pictures, I must find them by googling. Now, the more famous/important member of the family tree will have their pictures easier to find, however some of the family members pictures seems nowhere to be found, even by googling.

Currently, I'm trying to find pictures of Feodora von der Horst(1905 - 1991) and Maria Reindl(1908 - 1996), both were spouses of Johann Leopold (1906 - 1972). Also, does anybody has picture of the adult Johann Leopold? What i currently display on the tree is him as child, i want to change that, if i can...

And i've recently notice that the wiki source does not actually display very complete family members. Upon inspecting on Johann Leopold
HTML:
<a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Johann_Leopold,_Hereditary_Prince_of_Saxe-Coburg_and_Gotha" target="_blank">wiki page</a>
, i came to notice that he has a younger brother that does not displayed on the wiki tree : Hubertus (1901 - 1943). Is there any particular reason for this, or it is just a mere wiki error? Should i displayed him on my interactive tree as well?

Are there any other family members that i haven't diplay yet on my family tree?

And also please confirm did I use every pictures correctly? Or do you see any error? Please look at the family crest emblems, are those properly placed? And about persons, I particulary a litle concern about the picture of Caroline Mathilda (1912 - 1983), is it the correct picture of her, or another person who coincidentally have the same name?

Hint(s) :
  • You can use the 'Search' box to find a certain family member in the tree.
  • Zoom with mouse scrooll button.
  • You can drag the tree to adjust position.
  • Use 'Reset' button to reset tree position.

Thank you for your time.
 
I have one as well! At dawnpiercy.com ...bet we are related ?
 
The Royal Arms of the British Royal Family

Hello,

I am currently completing an online Heraldry Course with the IHGS, Cantebury, with a view to sitting The Heraldry Society's examinations in 2018.

A course assignment on which I am currently working requires me to discover the personal differences used by members of the Royal Family on their personal coats of arms. The research is proving very enjoyable, but I'm coming across some contradictory information and am looking for expert advice. My specific queries are:

1. I have read that coats of arms are not awarded until an individual member of the Royal Family attains the age of 18 years. However, I have seen evidence of arms being awarded at a much younger age. Would it be fair to say that arms are 'typically' awarded at the age of 18?
2. Are all coats of arms of members of the Royal Family awarded by the Queen, including consorts, or does the Queen does issue arms to children and grandchildren?
3. I assume that, in the event of divorce from a Royal Family member, any coats of arms awarded to the 'non-royal' spouse are nullified (e.g. Captain Mark Phillips).

Any help that forum members can provide will be much appreciated.
 
1. I have read that coats of arms are not awarded until an individual member of the Royal Family attains the age of 18 years. However, I have seen evidence of arms being awarded at a much younger age. Would it be fair to say that arms are 'typically' awarded at the age of 18?

I believe the standard of being granted a coat of arms is something that's only happened with the Queen's grandchildren; her children and cousins all received them at a variety of ages.


2. Are all coats of arms of members of the Royal Family awarded by the Queen, including consorts, or does the Queen does issue arms to children and grandchildren?

I don't know who does the actual awarding, but the Queen, her children, grandchildren, and cousins all have arms (excluding the Wessex children). The Duke of Edinburgh and the wives of the above all have arms as well; in the case of the wives, the arms are that of their husbands' impaled with that of their father's.


3. I assume that, in the event of divorce from a Royal Family member, any coats of arms awarded to the 'non-royal' spouse are nullified (e.g. Captain Mark Phillips).



Nope. The arms of an ex-wife would change, but the arms of an ex-husband are unaffected.

When Mark Phillips married a coat of arms was granted to his father, and as his father's son he used those arms with a differentiation. When his father died he inherited his father's arms. Peter and Zara's arms are based on their father's.

When Diana was married to Charles, her arms where her husband's impaled with her father's. When they divorced, her arms became a variant of her father's arms. Sarah's arms follow this as well.
 
Speaking of BRF genealogy, have any genealogists been able to prove that Queen Charlotte had African ancestry?
And has it been proven that Mary Boleyn is Henry Carey's mother? Wikipedia believes it's supposed.
 
Last edited:
Speaking of BRF genealogy, have any genealogists been able to prove that Queen Charlotte had African ancestry?
And has it been proven that Mary Boleyn is Henry Carey's mother? Wikipedia believes it's supposed.

Regarding Charlotte: the idea that Charlotte of Mecklenburg-Strelitz had African ancestry is based on the research of one person (Mario Valdes) who makes several errors in his research, and ignores the fact that Charlotte's alleged African ancestor lived 500 years before her, is something like 15 generations removed, and was actually of unknown ethnicity; she may have been North African, she may not have been. Suggestions that the ancestor was North African didn't come up until 400 year after she'd died, and suggestions that Charlotte was somehow African as a result of it are hugely unsubstantiated.

Regarding Henry Carey: I've never seen any suggestion that anyone other than Mary Boleyn was his mother. There is a rumour that Henry VIII may have fathered one or both of Mary's elder children (Catherine and Henry Carey), but that can't really be proven. While we know when Mary's children were born, we don't know for sure when Mary was Henry VIII's mistress, and even if we did we don't know exactly when she was having sex with Henry VIII and when she was having sex with her husband, and we're not likely to ever know that. So, really the only way to ever prove that anyone other than William Carey (the acknowledged father of both Catherine and Henry Carey) fathered the children would be to do DNA testing. Which would require exhuming 400 year old corpses.
 
I do remember seeing a picture of Catherine Carey and thinking she looked an awful lot like Henry VIII ....


LaRae
 
Back
Top Bottom