The BRF Family Tree and the different dynasties.

[getafix]

 

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. 

Please don't forget that other branch of the family that includes MEdiana as her first cousin 10000th removed on her mother's side but her father's father's side.

 :star:JAS

G

[Herzogin91]

According to wikipedia, Kate does have an ancestry from Edward III. Of course, this source is not 100% reliable.

[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. 

Please don't forget that other branch of the family that includes MEdiana as her first cousin 10000th removed on her mother's side but her father's father's side.

 :star:JAS

G

MEdiana is also her sister four times removed.  

[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..

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 ? 

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.


[/quote]

Thanks LuvCharles for the very informative post. Understand better now. Your explanations are clearer and better than Wikipedia. 

[Herazeus]

On their engagement, everybody who marries into the royal family has their lineage published. No matter how remote a connection, they dig until they find it, and it is published.

Kate's lineage, on both sides of the family was published on her engagement. She's one of the rare ones who can't connect to the royals since most English people can find a connection no matter how remote.

This new effort to connect her is simply to elevate her because apparently it's not a good thing for the mother of a future King to be an out and out peasant. It's all just PR.

If she was remotely connected to Ed 3, it would have been known at her engagement or sooner since the press and the board that is in charge of these things had 8yrs to find a connection.

[LaFolie]

Hey all!  First time poster - long time reader (love this forum!)
Wanted to address question of distinction between "peers" and "commoners." 
I do not believe that Harry is technically or legally a commoner - and would specifically the various royal patents (most importantly Geroge V's in 1917 conferring the title HRH and all honors on male-line grandchildren of the Sovereign). 

All peerages derive from royal patents (Sovereigh - font of all honours - whether bestowed in 1400 or 1917). 
This is further reflected in Harry's role as Counsellor of State, and the fact that his passport would identify his as HRH Prince Henry of (Wales? the United Kingdom? whatevs) as opposed to Henry Mountbatten-Windsor.

The distinction between peers and commononers (ie: seat in the House of Lords) in British common law does not neatly correlate to identification within the Royal Family. 

Bottom line: legally Harry, Beatrice et al are pears of the Realm by virtue of the 1917 Letters Patent - even though they are not peers in the House of Lords.

My two cents.     

[luvcharles]

delete

[Herazeus]

Hey all!  First time poster - long time reader (love this forum!)
Wanted to address question of distinction between "peers" and "commoners." 
I do not believe that Harry is technically or legally a commoner - and would specifically the various royal patents (most importantly Geroge V's in 1917 conferring the title HRH and all honors on male-line grandchildren of the Sovereign). 

All peerages derive from royal patents (Sovereigh - font of all honours - whether bestowed in 1400 or 1917). 
This is further reflected in Harry's role as Counsellor of State, and the fact that his passport would identify his as HRH Prince Henry of (Wales? the United Kingdom? whatevs) as opposed to Henry Mountbatten-Windsor.

The distinction between peers and commononers (ie: seat in the House of Lords) in British common law does not neatly correlate to identification within the Royal Family. 

Bottom line: legally Harry, Beatrice et al are pears of the Realm by virtue of the 1917 Letters Patent - even though they are not peers in the House of Lords.

My two cents.     

No, no, no. You misunderstand what these letters are designating.

Luvcharles's explanation is correct. The letters you are quoting set out who can and cannot be a prince and be an HRH. Nothing to do with peerages or commoners.

During George V's time, there were lots of HRH and princ(es) of the realm by virtue of being related to the royal family eg Fat Mary's daughter Mary who later married George V was a princess despite being Victoria's second cousin once removed!!

Those letters patent were George's version of streamlining the royals like Charles is doing. He therefore restricted who could be an HRH and who could be a Prince. The letters restrict them to child/grandchild of the monarch in the male line and no one else in the family even if they are blood. This is why you don't see the kids of Gloucesters, Kents with the style of Prince which they would have been able to call themselves prior to the letters being written.

This restriction had to be extended by Lizzy for PGtips + siblings because it did not cover GREAT grandchildren. If she hadn't extended it, PGtips would be Lord George Of Cambridge.

The same reason is why Gloucesters and Kents are Princes, but their kids are not. The Gloucesters are George V's grandchildren so they are all Princes ie Princess Alexandra, Prince Richard (Duke of Gloucester), Prince Michael and Prince Edward (Duke of Kent)

As the letters set out this designation in the male line, no female can extend this to their descendants unless the Monarch specifically decides to grant it. Therefore Anne's kids have no titles and aren't HRH or Princes because she can't pass them on, being female.

Further, the Queen's own father had to write a special dispensation to make *her* kids HRH + Princes despite the fact that Lizzy was going to be the monarch eventually.

Edward Wessex's kids may go by his lesser titles, but as grandkids of the monarch, they are automatically and legally HRH + Princes.

Beatrice, Eugenie, James, Louise, William and Harry, being grandchildren of the monarch, descended from the MALE line, are automatically HRH + princes.

Finally, being a peer of the realm excludes the ruling family. Until the recent reforms, being a peer gave one automatic seat in the house of Lords.

As LuvCharles has explained, Harry, Michael, Beatrice, Eugenie, Anne aren't peers and therefore can't take up seats in the house.

As for Harry's passport, his style is HRH + Prince in the same way that one would be Mr or Miss or Mrs or Ms. His name is Henry. Since he has no last name, he adds his father's dominion house ie 'of Wales'. Mountbatten - Windsor isn't a surname. It's a dynasty name. For the purposes of legal documents where a dominion house designation won't do eg when William sued the french paps, then they use Mountbatten - Windsor, but otherwise they all use their dominion name. Eg Charles's kids are 'of Wales' or Harry Wales for short. And Andy's kids are 'of York' or Beatrice York for Short. And Edward's kids prefer Windsor, but we don't know yet whether that will stay when/if they are elevated to 'of Edinburgh'

[LaFolie]

   Thanks for correcting me, Herazeus.   

[Herazeus]

  Thanks for correcting me, Herazeus.   

Sorry I came on too strong. Let's just say I keep having this conversation with people out here in real life so i've developed a hammer like reaction. Sorry.

[LDJJ]

Great thread.  I don't mind the hammer Herazeus because I'm learning so much!

[Thistle]

Welcome LaFolie!

[LaFolie]

Thanks!   Glad to be here!

[Lady Alice]

Some minor corrections and commentary, dear Herazeus… and I apologize, LaFolie, for hijacking the responses and hope they’re not overwhelming.

During George V's time, there were lots of HRH and princ(es) of the realm by virtue of being related to the royal family eg Fat Mary's daughter Mary who later married George V was a princess despite being Victoria's second cousin once removed!!
Mary Adelaide’s daughter was a princess – a very minor one in a morganatic Wurttemburg line – but not by virtue of being a great-grandchlid of George III via her mother; she was one because she was the daughter of HSH Francis, Duke of Teck. It did, however, apply to other male-line great-grandchildren of George III (i.e. the children of George of Cumberland/Hanover) and also of Queen Victoria.

Side note: Mary Adelaide was Victoria’s first cousin, the daughter of Victoria’s youngest uncle; Princess (later Queen) Mary was therefore Victoria’s first cousin, once removed. George and Mary were to each other second cousins, once removed.

Those letters patent were George's version of streamlining the royals like Charles is doing planning to (he's not in charge yet!). He therefore restricted who could be an HRH and who could be a Prince. The letters restrict them to child/grandchild of the monarch in the male line and no one else in the family even if they are blood. This is why you don't see the kids of Gloucesters, Kents with the style of Prince which they would have been able to call themselves prior to the letters being written.
This is correct. That’s why today we have Lady Gabriella and Lord Frederick and all those other cousins-removed of the queen surnamed Windsor. Otherwise, with the drop in infant mortality and rise in life expectancy, there’d be a swarm of UK princes and princesses in recent generations. Check out the Austrian Hapsburgs – you practically trip over archdukes and archduchesses because they never limited the titles/usages.


This restriction had to be extended by Lizzy for PGtips + siblings because it did not cover GREAT grandchildren. If she hadn't extended it, PGtips would be Lord George Of Cambridge.
Not quite. He’d have been Lord George (Mountbatten-? Still a gray area)Windsor, or perhaps known by William’s lesser title of Earl of Strathearn (colloquially as Lord Strathearn, much like James is referred to occasionally as Viscount Severn). Since Liz squashed that, we’ll never know how George would have been known in the lesser sense. If Harry marries in Liz’s lifetime, I wouldn’t be surprised to see her do a specific LP just for him and his progeny because they’ll eventually be children/grandchildren of a sovereign. We’ll see.

The same reason is why Gloucesters and Kents are Princes, but their kids are not. The Gloucesters are George V's grandchildren so they are all Princes ie Princess Alexandra, Prince Richard (Duke of Gloucester), Prince Michael and Prince Edward (Duke of Kent). Correct.

As the letters set out this designation in the male line, no female can extend this to their descendants unless the Monarch specifically decides to grant it.
It never did before the LP of 1917. Until the recent gender-blind succession law, the throne(s) of England/Scotland/Wales/Great Britain/United Kingdom have been male primogeniture (other than by right of conquest) since at least the time of the Conqueror. In the same vein, British royal titles have ONLY descended through the male line, and going to females only when the male line fails. Take the case of the former Princess Elizabeth, where her own father (George VI) had to make her children specifically HRHs/princes, as Charles and Anne were direct heirs.

I know King Edward VII dusted his female line Fife granddaughters with the royal glitter, but that was still an era of arranged royal marriages and he wanted them to be eligible in that market... but that was before WWI obliterated it once and for all. It was a nice trinket for them, but didn't do anything for them in the end.


Therefore Anne's kids have no titles and aren't HRH or Princes because she can't pass them on, being female. No. Anne’s kids have no titles because she and Mark declined the offer from her mother when they were married. If the LP for a title specifies, females can inherit and pass along titles (see Mountbatten of Burma, or Marlborough), but generally, no.

You are correct re HRH/princes/royal titles, though: Anne = female line = no HRH/Prince(ss) for descendants.

Further, the Queen's own father had to write a special dispensation to make *her* kids HRH + Princes despite the fact that Lizzy was going to be the monarch eventually.
Correct; see above. Notice that neither George VI nor Liz amended the actual original LP, but set out exceptions in separate, succeeding LPs.

Beatrice, Eugenie, James, Louise, William and Harry, being grandchildren of the monarch, descended from the MALE line, are automatically HRH + princes. Correct.

Finally, being a peer of the realm excludes the ruling family. Until the recent reforms, being a peer gave one automatic seat in the house of Lords.
Depends on what you consider “recent.” The reforms began back in 1999, and continue to evolve. But even before the 1999 changes, the royal dukes hadn’t voted on anything in a long time, so it was really not a big loss, but just a formality. The practice for the royal family to abstain from party politics, started in Victoria’s reign as LuvCharles said, made this move a logical one anyway.

As LuvCharles has explained, Harry, Michael, Beatrice, Eugenie, Anne aren't peers and therefore can't take up seats in the house.
Correct, but not because of the recent reforms. None of them would have seats under the old laws either, not just because of the lack of titles, but because "peers of the realm" as a definition generally excludes the royal family.

[luvcharles]

This restriction had to be extended by Lizzy for PGtips + siblings because it did not cover GREAT grandchildren. If she hadn't extended it, PGtips would be Lord George Of Cambridge.

Not quite. He’d have been Lord George (Mountbatten-? Still a gray area)Windsor, or perhaps known by William’s lesser title of Earl of Strathearn (colloquially as Lord Strathearn, much like James is referred to occasionally as Viscount Severn). Since Liz squashed that, we’ll never know how George would have been known in the lesser sense. If Harry marries in Liz’s lifetime, I wouldn’t be surprised to see her do a specific LP just for him and his progeny because they’ll eventually be children/grandchildren of a sovereign. We’ll see.

Small correction:

Under the 1917 LPs the eldest son of the eldest son of the Prince of Wales would also have been HRH Prince xxx

George would have been a Prince from birth under the 1917 LPs but the new sibling would be Lord/Lady yyyy Mountbatten-Windsor until Charles became King.

The 2012 LPs of QEII extended the HRH to all of William's children not just his eldest son.