Please read here on how to use images on RoyalDish. - Please read the RoyalDish message on board purpose and rules.
Images containing full nudity or sexual activities are strongly forbidden on RoyalDish.


Pages: [1] 2 3 ... 5   Go Down
  Print  
Author Topic: The BRF Family Tree and the different dynasties.  (Read 26848 times)
0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.
NoviceDisher
Banned
Warned
Small Member
****

Reputation: 142

Offline Offline

United States United States

Posts: 538





Ignore
« on: February 11, 2015, 08:01:48 PM »

So I have been delving deeper into the history of the BRF because the ancestors seem a lot more fascinating than the current lot  .

I assumed it was one long unbroken like. But in my very brief foray, I discovered the current BRFs are the house of Windsor. Prior to that it was called Saxe-Coburg-Gotha from the time of Queen Victoria because she was married into it (?) and was changed during WWI because of anti-German sentiments. This I get.

The dynasty she was born into was called the Hanovers ? Before that they were called Tudors of which Henry VIII and Elizabeth I were members ?

My question:
My basic assumption of the BRF is that they are one long unbroken family line and all are related (i.e) Henry VIII is related to QEII in addition to being the father of QEI. True or False ?

I always assumed names of a royal family changed if the ruling family changed through war or because they were conquered. The BRF seem to change their family name throughout history. Why ? How does it work ?

TIA !
Logged
Clara
Board Helper
Most Exalted Member
************

Reputation: 2531

Offline Offline

Spain Spain

Posts: 12193





Ignore
« Reply #1 on: February 11, 2015, 08:10:59 PM »

When a woman inherited the throne her descendants took the name of the father's family. So Victoria belonged to the Hanover dynasty but her children were known as members of Albert's Saxe-Coburg-Gotha. This basically explains all the name changes you mentioned, when someone inherited the claim to the throne through their mother/grandmother...they were considered to belong to another house, and voila, name change.

Logged

editorathome
Board Helper
Most Exalted Member
************

Reputation: 2007

Offline Offline

Bouvet Island Bouvet Island

Posts: 14381





Ignore
« Reply #2 on: February 11, 2015, 08:13:07 PM »

My basic assumption of the BRF is that they are one long unbroken family line and all are related (i.e) Henry VIII is related to QEII in addition to being the father of QEI. True or False ?
A very brief answer:
QEII is related to Henry VIII, but she is not a direct descendant. The Windsors are direct descendants of HVIII's older sister, Margaret (via Mary, Queen of Scots and her son James I; and from them, the Hanoverians and the House of SCG). So, QEII is a direct descendant of HVII but not of HVIII.
Logged
evilgrapefruit

Baby Member
*

Reputation: 35

Offline Offline

United Kingdom United Kingdom

Posts: 71





Ignore
« Reply #3 on: February 11, 2015, 08:25:55 PM »

QEII is a descendant of Henry 8th's sister. They are all related as far as I am aware (apart from any false paternity we don't know about) but many people in Britain are descendants of former kings and queens.

The House of Tudor ended when QEI died with no heirs, so the Stuarts were the next. I think the Stuarts ended when the law was changed to ban Catholics from inheriting the throne. At that point the next Protestant heir was a Hanover. Then we have Prince Albert marrying Queen Victoria and making it the House of Saxe-Coburg-Gotha. I believe there was no appetite to have a House of Mountbatten when QEII married Prince Philip. Here is the family tree: http://www.britroyals.com/royaltree.htm
Logged
Elissa

Most Exalted Member
************

Reputation: 2254

Offline Offline

France France

Posts: 10289





Ignore
« Reply #4 on: February 11, 2015, 08:30:23 PM »


My basic assumption of the BRF is that they are one long unbroken family line and all are related (i.e) Henry VIII is related to QEII in addition to being the father of QEI. True or False ?



The line was not unbroken, but there are different branches of the same (big!)family.

Henry VIII had three children and all of them ruled England (Edward VI, Mary I and Elizabeth I). But none of them had children. The succession line then went to the Stuarts, through Henry VIII's sister Margaret, who had married the King of Scotland James IV Stuart : her great-grandson James VI (of Scotland) succeeded to QEI as King James I in England.

From James to QEII, the relation is unbroken but not always through monarchs actually!
When James's last direct descendant died childless (Queen Anne I), her successor was George of Hannover. George was a great-grandson of James through his daughter Elizabeth, Queen of Bohemia.

The Hannovers ended with Queen Victoria whose children's names were Saxe-Coburg-Gotha after Victoria's husband Prince Albert...

But Saxe-Coburg-Gotha being a German name, it didn't fit well in UK when WWI began....So it was decided to change the name into a brand new British one : Windsor.


I hope it's clear enough  Blush Royal genealogy is fascinating but can be somewhat hard to follow!



Logged

Royalfan 72

Gigantic Member
*********

Reputation: 529

Offline Offline

Germany Germany

Posts: 3571





Ignore
« Reply #5 on: February 11, 2015, 08:38:40 PM »

QEII is a descendant of Henry 8th's sister. They are all related as far as I am aware (apart from any false paternity we don't know about) but many people in Britain are descendants of former kings and queens.

The House of Tudor ended when QEI died with no heirs, so the Stuarts were the next. I think the Stuarts ended when the law was changed to ban Catholics from inheriting the throne. At that point the next Protestant heir was a Hanover. Then we have Prince Albert marrying Queen Victoria and making it the House of Saxe-Coburg-Gotha. I believe there was no appetite to have a House of Mountbatten when QEII married Prince Philip. Here is the family tree: http://www.britroyals.com/royaltree.htm


As far as I know, Philip's uncle, Lord Mountbatten would have loved a house of Mountbatten. But it was decided to keep the name Windsor. The deal was that the last name of the Queens and DoE descendents is Mountbatten-Windsor.
Logged
NoviceDisher
Banned
Warned
Small Member
****

Reputation: 142

Offline Offline

United States United States

Posts: 538





Ignore
« Reply #6 on: February 11, 2015, 10:21:00 PM »

Thanks for the replies everyone.

Evilgrapefruit..Thank you to the link to the BRF family tree. Lots of genealogy to dive into. I might just disappear for days 

Any recommendations on interesting/pivotal monarchs to concentrate on, good and bad ? I know of Henry VIII, QEI, Queen Mary of Scots, Queen Victoria. I have no idea of anyone else who is pivotal or important.


Once again, thank you very much for indulging my curiosity and providing answers so promptly. Very much appreciated !
Logged
Kristallinchen

Humongous Member
**********

Reputation: 836

Offline Offline

Austria Austria

Posts: 6087





Ignore
« Reply #7 on: February 11, 2015, 10:46:27 PM »

Here you can play a quiz on the monarchs http://www.jetpunk.com/qu...english-monarchs-quiz.php
« Last Edit: February 11, 2015, 11:28:19 PM by Kristallinchen » Logged
Duchess of Verona

Gigantic Member
*********

Reputation: 1051

Offline Offline

United States United States

Posts: 3495





Ignore
« Reply #8 on: February 11, 2015, 10:50:57 PM »

QEII is a descendant of Henry 8th's sister. They are all related as far as I am aware (apart from any false paternity we don't know about) but many people in Britain are descendants of former kings and queens.

The House of Tudor ended when QEI died with no heirs, so the Stuarts were the next. I think the Stuarts ended when the law was changed to ban Catholics from inheriting the throne. At that point the next Protestant heir was a Hanover. Then we have Prince Albert marrying Queen Victoria and making it the House of Saxe-Coburg-Gotha. I believe there was no appetite to have a House of Mountbatten when QEII married Prince Philip. Here is the family tree: http://www.britroyals.com/royaltree.htm


As far as I know, Philip's uncle, Lord Mountbatten would have loved a house of Mountbatten. But it was decided to keep the name Windsor. The deal was that the last name of the Queens and DoE descendents is Mountbatten-Windsor.
Only the descentantts not directly in line to the throne are Mountbatten-Windsor. Charles' line is just Windsor. That decision was made many years after all 4 of QEII's children were born
Logged
Kristallinchen

Humongous Member
**********

Reputation: 836

Offline Offline

Austria Austria

Posts: 6087





Ignore
« Reply #9 on: February 11, 2015, 10:57:08 PM »

Thanks for the replies everyone.

Evilgrapefruit..Thank you to the link to the BRF family tree. Lots of genealogy to dive into. I might just disappear for days 

Any recommendations on interesting/pivotal monarchs to concentrate on, good and bad ? I know of Henry VIII, QEI, Queen Mary of Scots, Queen Victoria. I have no idea of anyone else who is pivotal or important.


Once again, thank you very much for indulging my curiosity and providing answers so promptly. Very much appreciated !


My "heroes" in this are the early monarchs like Richard the Lionheart, his brothers, his mother Eleanor (Alienor) of Aquithane or later on the Woodwilles.
Logged
Kristallinchen

Humongous Member
**********

Reputation: 836

Offline Offline

Austria Austria

Posts: 6087





Ignore
« Reply #10 on: February 11, 2015, 11:07:48 PM »


My basic assumption of the BRF is that they are one long unbroken family line and all are related (i.e) Henry VIII is related to QEII in addition to being the father of QEI. True or False ?



The line was not unbroken, but there are different branches of the same (big!)family.

Henry VIII had three children and all of them ruled England (Edward VI, Mary I and Elizabeth I). But none of them had children. The succession line then went to the Stuarts, through Henry VIII's sister Margaret, who had married the King of Scotland James IV Stuart : her great-grandson James VI (of Scotland) succeeded to QEI as King James I in England.

From James to QEII, the relation is unbroken but not always through monarchs actually!
When James's last direct descendant died childless (Queen Anne I), her successor was George of Hannover. George was a great-grandson of James through his daughter Elizabeth, Queen of Bohemia.


The Hannovers ended with Queen Victoria whose children's names were Saxe-Coburg-Gotha after Victoria's husband Prince Albert...

But Saxe-Coburg-Gotha being a German name, it didn't fit well in UK when WWI began....So it was decided to change the name into a brand new British one : Windsor.


I hope it's clear enough  Blush Royal genealogy is fascinating but can be somewhat hard to follow!





Queen Anne I wasn't the last direct descendants - there was still her father James II and the Stuarts supporters (and are there today). Basically the Hannovers usurped the throne. How they managed to do it and especially why they were allowed to has been kind of speculation ever since. It's also from this time that the - No, Catholic may ever become or marry into the Royal family - rule derives from.
Logged
luvcharles

Gigantic Member
*********

Reputation: 1235

Offline Offline

Australia Australia

Posts: 3223





Ignore
« Reply #11 on: February 12, 2015, 12:19:09 AM »

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.
Logged
luvcharles

Gigantic Member
*********

Reputation: 1235

Offline Offline

Australia Australia

Posts: 3223





Ignore
« Reply #12 on: February 12, 2015, 12:25:44 AM »


My basic assumption of the BRF is that they are one long unbroken family line and all are related (i.e) Henry VIII is related to QEII in addition to being the father of QEI. True or False ?


Queen Elizabeth is a direct descendant of many Kings/Queens of England/GB/Scotland but not all of them.

Going backwards through Britain and then England - she is a direct descendant of:

George VI, George V, Edward VII, Victoria, George III, George II, George I, James I, Henry VII, Edward VI, Edward III, Edward II, Edward I, Henry III, John, Henry II, Henry I, William I

She is not a direct descendant of:

Edward VIII, William IV, George IV, Anne, Mary II and William III, James II, Charles II, Charles I, Elizabeth I, Mary I, Edward VI, Henry VIII, Richard III, Edward V, Henry VI, Henry V, Henry IV, Richard II, Richard I, Stephen, William II

Someone will probably be able to add the Scottish Kings but I don't know them all that well.

Princes William, George and Harry AND Princesses Beatrice and Eugenie will be able to add descent from the Charles' through their mothers.
Logged
rosella
Banned
Banned
Gigantic Member
*********

Reputation: 840

Offline Offline

Australia Australia

Posts: 3339





Ignore
« Reply #13 on: February 12, 2015, 04:09:20 AM »

Elizabeth II also descends from James I of Scotland who married Joan Beaufort  ( and then James's II, III and IV) down to James V, who fathered Mary, Queen of Scots.
Logged
NoviceDisher
Banned
Warned
Small Member
****

Reputation: 142

Offline Offline

United States United States

Posts: 538





Ignore
« Reply #14 on: February 12, 2015, 05:34:28 PM »


My basic assumption of the BRF is that they are one long unbroken family line and all are related (i.e) Henry VIII is related to QEII in addition to being the father of QEI. True or False ?


Queen Elizabeth is a direct descendant of many Kings/Queens of England/GB/Scotland but not all of them.

Going backwards through Britain and then England - she is a direct descendant of:

George VI, George V, Edward VII, Victoria, George III, George II, George I, James I, Henry VII, Edward VI, Edward III, Edward II, Edward I, Henry III, John, Henry II, Henry I, William I

She is not a direct descendant of:

Edward VIII, William IV, George IV, Anne, Mary II and William III, James II, Charles II, Charles I, Elizabeth I, Mary I, Edward VI, Henry VIII, Richard III, Edward V, Henry VI, Henry V, Henry IV, Richard II, Richard I, Stephen, William II

Someone will probably be able to add the Scottish Kings but I don't know them all that well.

Princes William, George and Harry AND Princesses Beatrice and Eugenie will be able to add descent from the Charles' through their mothers.


LuvCharles, a clarification if I may.

I know you said from your previous post on another thread Princes W&H and Princesses B&E are descended from Charles II because of Princess Diana and the Duchess of York.

But you mention George too ? George as in baby Prince George, son of W & K ?  Confused. That would make Kate not a commoner ?  Thinking

TIA !
« Last Edit: February 12, 2015, 05:52:38 PM by NoviceDisher » Logged
Pages: [1] 2 3 ... 5   Go Up
  Print  
 
Jump to: