The BRF Family Tree and the different dynasties.

[Thistle]

Yes, I believe she's mentioning baby George because he's a son of William (nothing to do with Kate in this case, she's still considered a commoner).  For example, if Harry had a child he/she would have been mentioned too because he would be a grandchild of Diana too

George is a descendant of William, that is a descendant of Diana, that is a descendant of Charles II. The children of Charles and Diana (and Andrew/Fergie) kind of united two lines of descendants of British Kings.

[NoviceDisher]

^^ Thanks Thistle..

The fact that Duchess Camilla is a Charles II descendant too is rather intriguing. 

[Kristallinchen]

The Hanoverians gained the throne through an Act of Parliament - called the Act of Settlement.

This came about because the son of Queen Anne - the Duke of Gloucester aged about 10 died so Anne had no living children and that meant no direct protestant heir.

The Parliament then looked for the FIRST protestant in the line of succession - and that was Sophia of Hannover - so they past the Act of Settlement that put the Electress Sophia and her descendants on the throne. There were around 56 people with a better 'blood claim' excluding the descendants of James II, but they were all either Roman Catholic or married to a Roman Catholic.

There was no usurpation at all. It was done via legislation and was done AFTER James II and his son had been disbarred. At that time the parliament expected that either Mary, Anne OR William of Orange through a second marriage, would have a legitimate child and that child would inherit the throne. It was only after that possibility ended with the death of Anne's last child that the parliament had to look for a protestant in the line of succession and Sophia was the first such person.

Had they allowed a Roman Catholic to inherit then the Hanoverians wouldn't have gained the throne at all - but having already removed James II and his son because they were Roman Catholic they weren't about to go back on that decision.

In 1688 the line of succession was Mary, Anne, William of Orange in his own right. The agreement with William of Orange and Mary to be joint monarchs was also clear regarding the succession - they ruled jointly and then William would remain as King if Mary died first (as happened) to be succeeded by their children (but they didn't have any), then the throne would pass to Anne and her children. If William remarried any child of that marriage would come AFTER Anne and her children. The intention in 1688/89 was to have the line pass through one of those three - Mary, Anne or William.

Thanks for taking the time to write such a lengthy answer.

Maybe I've been unclear - to voice it out differently - why did they chose to ban James and all Catholics from the throne at all? They (the parlament etc.) must've known that with Mary/Anne both remaining childless, there was a possibility off a foreign power taking over the country (don't know, if is put to dramatically) - but after all the Hannoverians were foreigners, who didn't speak one word of English.
I'm not saying the Stuarts would've been the better alternative, but still to me this is kind of strange.

[luvcharles]

In the late 1600s religion was still a major issue for the people's of Europe and having broken ties with the Roman Catholic church there was no way at that time they were going to allow a Roman Catholic back on the throne. They had expelled James II and his son simply because of their religion. Part of the declaration made at the time goes as follows "it hath been found by experience that it is inconsistent with the safety and welfare of this Protestant kingdom to be governed by a papist prince". That was the view at the time. Remember that even today a Roman Catholic can't be the monarch of the UK. It would be hard to be the Supreme Governor of the Church of England and a Roman Catholic at the same time. No one would accept a Church of England member as Pope so the same thing operates in reverse.

Henry VIII had broken with Rome to establish the Church of England and there were a range of laws against Roman Catholics (some were passed AFTER the expulsion of James II and not repealed until the 1820s - the Catholic Emancipation Acts). For instance Roman Catholics couldn't hold certain ranks in the military, couldn't sit in the House of Commons, couldn't attend Oxford or Cambridge. It was felt that Roman Catholics had a divided loyalty - to Rome and the Pope first.

The decision to go with Mary and Anne was made when both women were still seen as young enough to have children and Anne did have a number of children. From 1688/9, when they expelled James until 1701 when the Duke of Gloucester died they really didn't think there would be a problem with the succession. The same year that James II was expelled/overthrown Anne was married, had already had a number of pregnancies and went on to have another 11 in the next decade with most of them either stillborn or miscarriages. She had already had 6 still born or miscarried children by 1688. She was in her prime child-bearing years. They really did expect her to have a child or more than one that would have survived her.

The British monarchy, by 1701 was already well on the way to being the constitutional monarchy we have today. That process began in 1660 when Charles II was invited back by parliament - the very body that had executed his father - and there was a clear understanding that parliament would be in control.

The advantage of George I and his lack of English also included the fact that the position of Prime Minister was developed. George II spoke English, with a heavy accent of course as did all the later Hanoverians.

[nihonbutterfly]

What's also cool to me is that Philip's lineage makes him an heir to the Brit throne too. Last I checked he was like 817th or something. Man's gotta have a dream!

[luvcharles]

If I may add three points:

1. My earlier post that mentioned George as a descendant of Charles II was badly worded - as it implied that was through his mother but in fact it was, in his case, through his grandmother, Diana and not his mother Kate. William, Harry, Beatrice and Eugenie are descendants through their mothers.

2. Even though Diana was Lady Diana and a descendant of Kings, she like Sarah, Camilla, Kate and Sophie was also a commoner when she married. Even today Kate is still a commoner - a royal but still a commoner as she isn't a peer of the realm in her own right. The British have three 'types' of people in this sort of discussion - the monarch, peers of the realm and commoners. If you aren't the monarch or a peer of the realm you are a commoner despite what other 'title' or 'style' you might have e.g. William is a peer of the realm as the Duke of Cambridge but Harry is a commoner as a mere prince of the realm. He will, no doubt, be promoted at some point in the future but for now he is still a commoner. The following royals are peers of the realm: Philip, Charles, William, Andrew, Edward, Richard and Edward - the Dukes of Edinburgh, Cornwall and Rothesay, Cambridge, York Gloucester, Kent and the Earl of Wessex. James is still a commoner because the style 'Viscount Severn' is a courtesy title as his father is still the substantive holder of that title.

3. Philip's claim to the throne comes through his descent from Queen Victoria's second daughter, Alice. He is therefore behind all the descendants of her sons, of Vicky - the Princess Royal, any sons of Princess Alice and then any sons of his own grandmother, another Victoria. He was around the 400s at one stage I remember and he will drop further as his own descendants and others have babies along with the change that will bring those married to Roman Catholics back into the line of succession at some point in the not too distant future e.g. Prince Michael of Kent and Ernest of Hanover.

[cordtx]

^^ Thanks Thistle..

The fact that Duchess Camilla is a Charles II descendant too is rather intriguing. 

Camilla's great-grandmother , Alice Keppel, was also the mistress of a Prince of Wales!!! ( later a King Edward VII)
Tackiness runs in the family, apparently 😞

[nihonbutterfly]

Ah yes the famous "our ancestors boinked sl how about it" phrase.  At least camill has balls and confidence. Cang imagine kate doing that.

[Kristallinchen]

In the late 1600s religion was still a major issue for the people's of Europe and having broken ties with the Roman Catholic church there was no way at that time they were going to allow a Roman Catholic back on the throne. They had expelled James II and his son simply because of their religion. Part of the declaration made at the time goes as follows "it hath been found by experience that it is inconsistent with the safety and welfare of this Protestant kingdom to be governed by a papist prince". That was the view at the time. Remember that even today a Roman Catholic can't be the monarch of the UK. It would be hard to be the Supreme Governor of the Church of England and a Roman Catholic at the same time. No one would accept a Church of England member as Pope so the same thing operates in reverse.

Henry VIII had broken with Rome to establish the Church of England and there were a range of laws against Roman Catholics (some were passed AFTER the expulsion of James II and not repealed until the 1820s - the Catholic Emancipation Acts). For instance Roman Catholics couldn't hold certain ranks in the military, couldn't sit in the House of Commons, couldn't attend Oxford or Cambridge. It was felt that Roman Catholics had a divided loyalty - to Rome and the Pope first.

The decision to go with Mary and Anne was made when both women were still seen as young enough to have children and Anne did have a number of children. From 1688/9, when they expelled James until 1701 when the Duke of Gloucester died they really didn't think there would be a problem with the succession. The same year that James II was expelled/overthrown Anne was married, had already had a number of pregnancies and went on to have another 11 in the next decade with most of them either stillborn or miscarriages. She had already had 6 still born or miscarried children by 1688. She was in her prime child-bearing years. They really did expect her to have a child or more than one that would have survived her.

The British monarchy, by 1701 was already well on the way to being the constitutional monarchy we have today. That process began in 1660 when Charles II was invited back by parliament - the very body that had executed his father - and there was a clear understanding that parliament would be in control.

The advantage of George I and his lack of English also included the fact that the position of Prime Minister was developed. George II spoke English, with a heavy accent of course as did all the later Hanoverians.

Very interesting - thanks. 

[NoviceDisher]

LuvCharles,

Thank you for taking the time to answer my questions and the detailed answers.

If I may impose on you a bit more please..

1. You said "From 1701 Britain was on the way to constitutional monarchy". So the sovereign did not have absolute control but shared power with parliament ? How much power did they really have vs QEII today ? I would imagine much less right..

2. I am not exactly sure what being "peer of the realm" means. I went and googled it and landed in Wikipedia.  It was confusing and clear as mud. Can you please give a brief explanation please.

3. speaking of peer of the realm, Harry is not one ?  . Royal Prince Harry, grandson of a Queen, son, brother and uncle of future kings is not a peer of a realm whatever that means ?  How ?   

Any information will be greatly appreciated.

Thanks.

[Herzogin91]

Is it true that Kate is a descendent of Mary Boleyn? And also some King maybe?

[Molly2101]

Is it true that Kate is a descendent of Mary Boleyn? And also some King maybe?

I don't know about that but if it's true I bet she milked it!  Most of them are all distantly related.  Sophie was Edward's 10th cousin or something ridiculous like that.  Who bothers to try and work that out?

[luvcharles]

LuvCharles,

Thank you for taking the time to answer my questions and the detailed answers.

If I may impose on you a bit more please..

1. You said "From 1701 Britain was on the way to constitutional monarchy". So the sovereign did not have absolute control but shared power with parliament ? How much power did they really have vs QEII today ? I would imagine much less right..

The English monarchs ceased weren't autocrats from 1215 when they were forced to sign Magna Carta as that put some limits on their powers although later monarchs were able to push back a bit at the limits. The first parliament was called in 1399 and from then on they had to have parliaments approval for many decisions. Any pretence at being an autocrat ended on the 30th January, 1649 when Parliament executed the King.

When Charles II was re-instated it was at the invitation of the parliament. Parliament took complete control of the money situation for instance although the monarch still had some powers. Further restrictions were obvious when Parliament forced James II off the throne and again when they decided, by legislation, who would succeed Queen Anne.

The monarch's powers were increasingly limited to those articulated by Bagshot in the 1800s - to consult, to warn and to be advised ... but the degree to which they each exercised those rights changed. The early George's were quite active in those roles and often actively supported one political party over the other and so when one King was on the throne it was harder for the 'opposition' to form the government and then the throne would move to the son and the government would often change sides again between the Whigs and Tories but it must also be remembered that these groupings weren't as tight as modern political parties with many politicians moving from one side to the other on individual issues.

The last monarch who political views were clearly knows was Queen Victoria who took action to stop Lord Melbourne from being replaced as PM by Robert Peel in the Bedchamber Affair. Once she married Albert she became far more the modern constitutional monarch we see today with her successors rarely interfering in party politics.

2. I am not exactly sure what being "peer of the realm" means. I went and googled it and landed in Wikipedia.  It was confusing and clear as mud. Can you please give a brief explanation please.

Peers of the realm are men or women who hold substantive or real titles. They used to be the people who automatically had seats in the House of Lords, before the reforms of 1999. They are the head of the aristocratic families. In the UK only the title holder is regarded as a 'peer of the realm'. Back in the middle ages these were the advisers to the Kings.

Currently in the British Royal family the following are peers: Philip, Charles, William, Andrew, Edward, Richard and the other Edward.

James will become a peer of the realm when his father dies and he inherits his father's titles.

Other notable peers are: The Duke of Norfolk (Earl Marshal of England - who plans coronations and funerals etc - an hereditary position held by the Dukes of Norfolk since the middle ages), the Duke of Wellington - whose famous ancestor was given all five levels of the peerage - Duke, Marquis, Earl, Viscount and Baron - as a result of his actions against Napoleon. The Dukes of Marlborough gained their peerage through the efforts of the first duke at the battle of Blenheim. Others have been promoted to the peerage more recently include Margaret Thatcher's husband who was given a peerage instead of his wife so she could continue to sit in the House of Commons.

In the future it is anticipated that only senior royals will be given hereditary peerages - so one more in the next 20+ years - Harry and then we will have to wait for George's marriage and maybe the second child, if a boy. More recently peerage titles have been life peerages only - so when the title holder dies so does the title.

[quote[3. speaking of peer of the realm, Harry is not one ?  . Royal Prince Harry, grandson of a Queen, son, brother and uncle of future kings is not a peer of a realm whatever that means ?  How ?  [/quote]

Harry is only a prince. He is a commoner but ... he will probably be promoted to a peerage when he gets married and gets a title he can pass on such as Duke of Sussex.

Being royal does not make a person a noble or a peer of the realm. Most male royals are either peers in their own right or in line to become a peer but  until given a substantive title he is a commoner with the style of HRH Prince and not a title.

The Peers hold titles such as Dukes of Edinburgh, Cornwall and Rothesay, Cambridge, York, Gloucester and Kent.

There are three Princes who aren't peers of the realm - George, Harry and Michael. Both George and Harry will probably become peers at some point in the future - George when he is the heir apparent will do so automatically when he becomes Duke of Cornwall and Rothesay - assuming he hasn't been given some other title in his own right earlier than that. Harry, again when he marries. Michael - a grandson of a King and cousin to the Queen will, in all likelihood never be a peer of the realm as his older brother, The Duke of Kent, has sons and grandsons ahead of him in the line of succession to that Dukedom.

I hope that helps.

[just a serf]

Is it true that Kate is a descendent of Mary Boleyn? And also some King maybe?

Yes, and cousin of Rapunzel twice removed through her great great great great fourth cousin thrice removed Lady Galadriel.

[pixiecat]

Is it true that Kate is a descendent of Mary Boleyn? And also some King maybe?

Yes, and cousin of Rapunzel twice removed through her great great great great fourth cousin thrice removed Lady Galadriel.

 
She's also a Habsburg.  She's her own cousin and grandfather.