British Royal Family Genealogy

[Marc23]

Weren't prince Charles of wales and princess Diana cousins in some way ?

Yes,they are 7th cousins once removed as they both descended from William,Duke of Devonshire(died in 1775)...

They are also both descendants of King James I from the Stuart dynasty...

 

[Marc23]

It is also interesting that Charles and Camilla are 9th cousins once removed as they are both descendants of Henry Cavendish,Duke of Newcastle(1630-1691),while Camilla is 7th cousin to Diana,as they are both descendants of Charles Lennox,Duke of Richmomd(1672-1723),who in turn was son of King Chalres II and Frnech noblewoman Louise de Kérouaille,Duchess of Portsmuth(1649-1734).

This makes Camilla more closely related to her stepson William than to her husband ;-)

It is also interesting that Louise's sister Henriette Mauricette de Penancoët de Kérouaille is an ancestor of Counts of Bourbon-Busset whose descendant Madeleine married Bourbon-Parma(grnadmother of the Present Duke).Henriette is also ancestress of Philip Herbert,7th Earl of Pembroke...

The other interesting fact is that Louise and Henriette's aunt Renée Mauricette de Ploeuc de Timeur is a great-grandmother of Marquis de Sade...

This makes Diana and Camilla also related to Carlos,present Duke of Bourbon-Parma and Marquis de Sade...

 

[pacomartin]

UK vs France for geneology links

This makes Camilla more closely related to her stepson William than to her husband ;-)

While Great Britain did not reach 5 million population until early 17th century, France was already at 5 million early B.C.E. .
Given the fact that UK and France are now comparable in size, and the spread of people of British descent, it should not be shocking that so many people should have a common ancestor born in the last 500 years. Among the people with pedigrees, it is pretty common (like Camilla and William) to have one born in the 18th century.
-----------
If there was any way to prove it, it would be a statistically rare find, to meet someone who is English who was NOT descended from a medieval monarch (William I TO Richard III). Scientists believe that there descendants now number in the hundreds of millions.
====
A random American, like Barack Obama is 17th cousins to Prince Charles.

 

[pacomartin]

Balian Ibelin (1143-1193),seigneur d'Ibelin was portrayed by Orlando Bloom in the somewhat fictional Kingdom of Heaven. He is the ancestor of Queen Elizabeth II by at least 2,550 different bloodlines ranging from 23 to 32 generations.

It is a fascinating connection taking the royal family to the Kingdom of Jerusalem, the Crusades, the Knights Templar. From marriages into the family, the Queen's descent from Armenian Kingdoms, Moslem Kingdoms near present day Tehran, and on back to Emperor Su Tsung (T'ang) of the 8th century (roughly 41 generations).

At the end of 1186, Saladin, the Sultan of Egypt and Damascus fought in the Battle of Hattin which largely destroyed the Kingdom of Jerusalem, and was responsible for the start of the 3rd or King's Crusade that takes Richard the Lionheart away from England for most of his reign.

YouTube - Kingdom of Heaven Trailer

 

[EmpressRouge]

I remember her saying that her title--as a daughter of Earl Spencer--was older than Philip's, who was made Duke of Edinburgh on his wedding day. I can't see how the Windsors could possibly have less Royal blood than the Windsors, given that non-royals didn't marry into the Royal Family until George V gave the o.k. for his children to marry British aristocrats. Whereas the Spencer's Royal connections go back to mistresses of the Stuarts.

I remember one commentary that alluded to something along those lines when analyzing Earl Spencer's eulogy at Diana's funeral. It wasn't that the Spencers were more royal than the Windsors; it was that they were more British. The commentator pointed out that the tone of the Earl's speech seemed to suggests that the Windsor were German intruders on the British throne (even though the Queen Mum was very British). His use of the term "your [William and Harry's] blood family" was a like big jab at the Windsors: "Not only did Diana have the British people's hearts but we Spencers have British ancestry that you Windsors lack."

 

[Madame Royale]

I remember her saying that her title--as a daughter of Earl Spencer--was older than Philip's, who was made Duke of Edinburgh on his wedding day. I can't see how the Windsors could possibly have less Royal blood than the Windsors, given that non-royals didn't marry into the Royal Family until George V gave the o.k. for his children to marry British aristocrats. Whereas the Spencer's Royal connections go back to mistresses of the Stuarts.

Philip (if all this is infact true) referred to the title which was acquired by marriage. In this, Diana was quite right in what she said.

Her title was older than Philip's being she was bound by birth to be styled as The Honourable and to become The Lady Diana in due course, which she did upon her fathers accession in 1975. Philip's title was created, not inherited as we know.

That he was born a Prince is of no consequence as he became a naturalised British subject and renounced his royal titles, previously held.

In any case I'm sure that retort, which was quite fabulous imo, left a rosey mark on the Dukes pride. She certainly put him back in his place if he did infact make that threat, and good for her!

But that's just my opinion


Added: EmpressRouge further elaborates on the subject rather well in the above post.

 

[Mariana Pazza]

The Spencers are direct descendants of all Kings and Queens of England and Scotland who have left descendants (maily the Tudors and the Stuarts, and also France Kings, the Habsburgs and others), (not including, of course, the Windsors "German Kings and Queens"). The Spencers girls were no doubt the most beautiful guests (Lady Kitty Spencer):
http://img.thesun.co.uk/multimedia/archive/01301/guests_1301485a.jpg
http://3.bp.blogspot.com/-QExVtJxsx...1600/C%C3%B3pia+de+Lady-Kitty-Spencer-31a.jpg

 

[HM Queen Catherine]

While Great Britain did not reach 5 million population until early 17th century, France was already at 5 million early B.C.E. .
Given the fact that UK and France are now comparable in size, and the spread of people of British descent, it should not be shocking that so many people should have a common ancestor born in the last 500 years. Among the people with pedigrees, it is pretty common (like Camilla and William) to have one born in the 18th century.

And we should not forget that the Black Death in the 14th century wiped out at least a third of the European gene pool.. across the board. It was also a factor on and off for many years afterwards.

Originally Posted by Marc23
This makes Camilla more closely related to her stepson William than to her husband ;-)

Actually, Camilla could be much more closely related to Charles if the rumors are true about her grandmother. Sonia Rosemary Keppel was widely believed to have been the illegitimate daughter of Edward VII.. and if that is the case, Camilla would be Charles' first cousin twice removed (of the half blood, of course).

 

[Kataryn]

Many of those in the British nobility can trace their royal ancestry to women (primarily those who were royal mistresses). Since many of these children later married others who had similiar backgrounds (they often married other nobles rather than royals), it's not really surprising that people like Princess Diana had more royal blood than the royals. The royal blood line was kept in the family by these marriages. I would also bet that this is true in other countries as well.

Three of the oldest Royal Houses of Europe are the Welfs (Guelphs), Wittelsbachs and Oldenburgs. They all were souverain reigning Houses before William the Conqueror came to Britain. George I. was the heir of the Guelfs and son of a Wittelsbach-princess of the Palatinate (the oldest electoral House in Germany). From him in direct Royal line is Elizabeth II. descended - her only non-Royal blood came from her mother's side who had the same rank as Lady Diana Spencer, so according to your theory the Queen Mother had a lot of Royal blood as well even though she was only a lady from the nobility.

Queen Elizabeth's husband and father of her children is a male-line prince from the House of Oldenburg (rulers of Denmark & Greece branch). His only slightly non-Royal blood (but princely) comes from his mother's side whose father had been a male-line prince from a princely side-branch of another ancient Souverain House of Germany (Granddukes of Hesse) while her mother was a direct descendant of the main and reigning branch, daughter of the reigning Grandduke and his wife, British princess Alice, a daughter of queen Victoria.

So when I count the Royals in Prince Charles' lineage, I find that only a grandmother and a great-great grandmother were not Royal, but both daughters of an Earl and Count respectively. And all Royals came from the right side of the blankett and of equal marriages.

Now please explain to me how Lady Diana Spencer could have had more Royal blood than her husband?

 

[NotAPretender]

...Now please explain to me how Lady Diana Spencer could have had more Royal blood than her husband?

I believe that the author of the post to which you are referring, refers to Diana and the British aristocracy's English or British royal blood. There is no doubt that the present Royal family has a healthy serving of German royal blood. In fact, wasn't that a perceived problem for quite a bit of time?

 

[Kataryn]

I believe that the author of the post to which you are referring, refers to Diana and the British aristocracy's English or British royal blood. There is no doubt that the present Royal family has a healthy serving of German royal blood. In fact, wasn't that a perceived problem for quite a bit of time?

I believe that the author of the post to which you are referring, refers to Diana and the British aristocracy's English or British royal blood. There is no doubt that the present Royal family has a healthy serving of German royal blood. In fact, wasn't that a perceived problem for quite a bit of time?

Hm... that is something I don't understand. With the Glorious Revolution/Bill of Rights the British aristocracy who ruled at that time through out the legitimate Stuart heir due to the fatc that he was catholic and they wanted a protestant Royal family. We heard about Diana's claim that her family was involved in making this decision. But once this decision was made, it had to be a Germanic Royal family with female descent from the Stuarts as there were not other options available.

Take Queen Mary II. and her husband William of Orange - the House of Nassau-Orange is of course a German House, deriving from the region of Nassau in Hesse,
If these two had children, these would have reigned due to their double descent from Stuart-princesses: Mary, Princess Royal, daughter of James I/VI. was the mother of William of Orange who married his cousin Mary, daughter of James II./VII. But the dynasty would have been named after William of Orange: Nassau-Orange.

Next in line was Queen Anne, second daughter of James II. and sister of Mary II. She was married to Prince George of Denmark and all her children (which died in childhood) were prince/princess of Denmark and Norway in addition to the British titles acquired by them due to the Bill of Rights of 1689, which established Anne's and her children's claim to the throne. In case her son William of Gloucester had survived, he would have become king of the Uk after Anne's death. With him the dynasty would have become the House of Oldenburg, another Royal House with German origins.

After Anne, next in the protestant line of the House of Stuart were the protestant descendants of Princess Elizabeth Stuart, daughter of James I/IV.

All other Stuart descendants with a better claim (through king Charles I.) to the throne were Catholics, including the direct male-line heirs of James II. and the descendants of the sister of Charles II and James II., Henriette Anne who had married the Catholic Duke d'Orleans (brother of Louis XIV. of France) and left only daughters who had married into Catholic dynasties of Italy.

To understand the situation better one should know that in these days it was very normal and very easy to switch faith. Eg. the children of Elizabeth Stuart, queen of Bohemia and electress of the Palatinate.

Elizabeth Stuart had married into the senior, electorial line of the House of Wittelsbach on marrying the Prince Elector of the Palatinate. This line of the House of Wittelsbach was (rather newly) protestant, making the Prince Elector the senior German protestant prince. So when the Bohemians decided to become Protestants on splitting from the Catholic Habsburg rulership, they offered their crown to Elizabeth Stuarts husband. He became king of Bohemia and she his queen, but only for one winter. Then he had not only lost his kingdom but the Palatinate and his electorship as well, which was taken over by the Bavarian Catholic Wittelsbachs, turning them into the Premier Prince Electors of Germany. The Electress Sophia was their youngest daughter.

Her eldest brother (a protestant) inherited his father's claims to the Palatinate and succeeded in restoring his reign there but was only given a newly-created Electorate. He had only one legitimate son (who did not survive his father for long and had no children) and one daughter, who had married the Duke of Orleans after the death of his first wife. So both wifes of the Duke of Orleans lost their and their descendants claim to the Crown of the UK because of marriages to that Catholic Duke.
Other brothers of Sophia served in England as true paladins of their cousin king Charles I. but left no (legitimate) children. Another brother married Princess Anna Gonzaga and became Catholic, so his daughters had no claim to the British Crown as well. Two sisters became abbesses, interesting enough one a Catholic Abbess in France, the other a Protestant Abbess in Prussia.

All that left Sophia as the only child of Elizabeth Stuart with protestant children. The Wittelsbach-princess Sophia of the Palatinate, princess of Bohemia had married the heir to the Electorate of Hanover, the senior prince of the Royal House of Welf (Guelph). And after her, there simply were no other protestant Stuart-descendants available in Europe, only Catholic princesses who had married into other Catholic dynasties.

And they couldn't go up the lineage of the Stuart family, because James I./VI. was the only child of Mary Queen of Scots and Lord Darnley, and both Mary and her father had been the only legitimate children of their parents, so besides him there were no other Stuarts with a Tudor claim to the throne of England.

So the Hanoverans were the only protestant claimants to the thrones of the Stuarts and the Tudors. As the British parliament wanted a protestant dynasty, they had to take them.... In any case, even the Catholic alternatives which could have been seriously considered ended with the death of Bonnie Prince Charlie and later his brother Catholic Cardinal Henry Stuart without legitimate children in 1808.

From then on it was the Protestant Hanoverans or the Catholic House of Savoy with Charles Emanuel of Sardina as the other choice. No wonder the British parliament stuck with the Hanoverans...

So when we consider the current Royal's claim to the thrones of England (via Margaret Tudor, aunt of Elizabeth I and Scotland (via James VI./I., son of Mary Queen of Scots) then it's difficult to say how you could be closer related (that is, have more "Royal blood") if you don't go for the Catholic Duke of Bavaria whose direct claim goes via Margaret Tudor for England and Charles I. for Scotland and that only is one generation: as Elizabeth Stuart, the current queen's ancestress, was Charles I.'s sister. And if we take illegitimate blood, then we end up with just another generation, as Diana could claim descent from Charles II, son of Charles I. and nephew of Elizabeth Stuart In addition there are several illegitimate lines of descent from Elizabeth Stuart's sons, notably through Prince Rupert, Duke of Cumberland and his daughter Ruperta.

BTW: did you know that Charles Spencer wrote a biography on this Prince?

 

[PrincessKaimi]

Fascinating thread. I especially enjoyed the connection between Camilla and Will - very interesting.

I too marvel at how Queen Elizabeth II has managed to arrive on the throne - defying any number of supposed rules that kept other women from the throne. Certainly, the royal landscape changed dramatically with the ascension of Mary and then Elizabeth I. But the fact that there were Tudors on the throne is such an intriguing set of puzzles, in itself.

 

[Irish King Tom]

Family History

Does anyone know of a good source where a person could do research on a who's who of the British ROyal family. I know it can be done on Wikipedia, but as that can be easily changed it is not the most reliable of sources. I would like to look especially into the family of the likes of Lady Diana, Sarah Ferguson, Edwards wife, Anne's Husbands etc and their family history and go back as far a is possible. I know some of them are related etc and that many of them come from illegitimate children by one of the Kings. I want to do this as i am aware that Diana's family (on her mother's side) came from an area not too far from me, they may have moved to an area where i have family connections and may be related to her in some way, but way out.

 

[NGalitzine]

Well you could look at Burkes Peerage, or perhaps ancestry.com
The King that both Diana and Sarah descend from is Charles II through his many mistresses.

 

[Mermaid1962]

If you have any interest in finding living relatives, genforum.genealogy.com and ancestry.com have forums where you can ask for information or give information to other people. I've heard this way from distant relatives who have been able to "fill in the blanks" for me.

 

[Sangre_Real016]

Now please explain to me how Lady Diana Spencer could have had more Royal blood than her husband?

that is probably because Lady Diana is a direct descendant of most of the Sovereign Houses of Europe though most know that it is through a illegitimate line.. Lady is a direct descendant of the House of Normandy (from William the Conqueror), House of Plantagenet (from Mathilde, Holy Roman Empress), House of Tudor (from Mary Tudor), House of Stuart (from James IV and I of Scotland and England), House of House of Wittelsbach (from Frederick V, Elector Palatine and King of Bohemia), House of Oldenburg (from Christian III of Denmark), House of Bourbon (from Henrietta Maria of France), House of Hanover (from Ernest Augustus, Elector of Brunswick-Lüneburg), House of Hesse (from Elizabeth of Hesse), House of Nassau (from William I, Prince of Orange), House of Mecklenburg (from Anna of Mecklenburg-Schwerin), House of Wettin (from Christine of Saxony, Landgravine of Hesse), House of Valois (from Jeanne d'Angoulême, Countess of Bar-sur-Seine), House of Medici (from Cosimo I de' Medici, Grand Duke of Tuscany), House of Sforza (from Francesco I Sforza, Duke of Milan) and a distant relative of the House of FitzJames (Dukes of Berwick) and House of Toledo (Dukes of Medina Sidonia and the original Dukes of Alba) and so one and so forth..

most people tend to connect Diana's royal bloodline through the illegitimate line which she descends, but people must also know that Diana descended through a legitimate yet morganatic line of Frederick V, Elector Palatine and King of Bohemia who was also apparently the father of Sophia of Hanover, the direct ancestor of the current British Royal Family..

here is the line..

Frederick V, Elector Palatine and King of Bohemia (married Princess Elizabeth of Scotland and England, daughter of King James IV and I of Scotland and England) >>> Charles I Louis, Elector Palatine >>> Karoline von der Pfalz, Duchess of Schomberg >>> Lady Federica Schomberg >>> Lady Caroline D'arcy >>> Lady Louisa Kerr >>> Charles Lennox, 4th Duke of Richmond >>> Charles Gordon-Lennox, 5th Duke of Richmond >>> Lady Cecilia Catherine Gordon-Lennox, Countess of Lucan >>> Rosalind Bingham, Duchess of Abercorn >>> Cynthia Hamilton, Countess Spencer >>> John Spencer, 8th Earl Spencer >>> Lady Diana, Princess of Wales

through this legitimate yet morganatic line, Lady Diana is a legitimate descendant of the all the Royal Houses that Charles can muster in his maternal line (from the line of King George VI) and far more aristocratic ones compared to that of Lady Elizabeth Bowes-Lyons.. and unlike Prince Charles, Lady Diana can boast ancestry to the Kings of France, Grand Dukes of Tuscany, Dukes of Milan and even to the most powerful aristocratic family of the Dukes of Alba, leading all the way to the House of Capet of the Capetian Dynasty..

Prince Charles may have more royal ancestors from the more recent history, but Lady Diana though only came from a much humbler aristocratic background, can boast ancestry from also every single Royal House in Europe since time immemorial.. and thanks to his mother, Prince William can lay claim relation to this ancestors.. and most interestingly, through his mother, Prince William of Wales descends from Arsakes Vologaeses V Dikaios Epiphanes Philhellen, Sacral King of Parthia, of the Parthian Royal House of Arsaces who ruled Persia (Iran), Mesopotamia and Babylon.. the Parthian kings in turn claimed descent from the earlier Achaemenid Dynasty.. if true, that relationship would make Prince William a descendant of Cyrus the Great and establish a blood link with classical Greece..

 

[Warren]

Personal genealogical enquiries have been moved to the Help With Family Histories thread in Members' Corner.

 

[Sangre_Real016]

Prince Philip was born a Prince of Greece and Denmark, and Denmark has Europe's oldest monarchy. Therefore, Philip's original title was older than Diana's. I agree with you about Sir Winston Churchill. He was a great man.

yes.. Prince Philip himself was born a Prince of Greece and Denmark and is a member of the House of Schleswig-Holstein-Sonderburg-Glücksburg which itself in turn descends from the older House of Oldenburg..

Diana saying those words may have meant Philip's tittle of Duke of Edinburgh which was granted to him by King George VI on 1947 while Diana's status on a "Lady" stretches back on 1783..

STILL, going by Diana's words, tracing both their lineages, the lineage of the Spencer family is way older than that of the House of Oldenburg where Prince Philip patrilineally descends from..

you see, the founder of the House of Oldenburg was Elimar I, Count of Oldenburg.. he is the direct ancestor of Prince Philip hence as well as of Prince Charles, William and Harry.. I believe it is widely known that the Kingdom of Denmark is the oldest monarchy in Europe, leading all the way back to Gorm the Old, BUT the House of Oldenburg does not descend from Gorm the Old.. the first Danish king from the House of Oldenburg was Christian I of Denmark who was elected to the vacant Danish throne upon the death of King Christopher of Denmark, Sweden and Norway in January 1448..

here is Prince Philip's descent from Elimar I, Count of Oldenburg..

• Elimar I 1101–1108
• Elimar II 1108–1143
• Christian I the Quarrelsome 1143–1168
• Maurice I 1168–1211
• Otto I 1209–1251
• Christian II 1211–1251
• John I 1244–1272
• Christian III 1272–1278
• Otto II, Count of Oldenburg-Delmenhorst 1272–1301
• John II 1278–1305
• Christian IV 1302–1323
• John III 1305–1345
• John IV 1331–1356
• Conrad I 1345–1368
• Conrad II 1368–1386
• Maurice II 1386–1420
• Christian V 1368–1398
• Dietrich, Count of Oldenburg 1398-1440
• Christian I of Denmark 1426-1481
• Frederick I of Denmark 1471-1533
• Christian III of Denmark 1503-1559
• John II, Duke of Schleswig-Holstein-Sonderburg 1545–1622
• Alexander, Duke of Schleswig-Holstein-Sonderburg 1573–1627
• August Philipp, Duke of Schleswig-Holstein-Beck 1612-1675
• Frederick Louis, Duke of Schleswig-Holstein-Sonderburg-Beck 1653-1728
• Peter August, Duke of Schleswig-Holstein-Sonderburg-Beck 1697-1775
• Karl Anton August, Prince of Schleswig-Holstein-Sonderburg-Beck 1727-1759
• Friedrich Karl Ludwig, Duke of Schleswig-Holstein-Sonderburg-Beck 1757-1816
• Friedrich Wilhelm, Duke of Schleswig-Holstein-Sonderburg-Glücksburg 1785-1831
• Christian IX of Denmark 1818-1906
• George I of Greece 1845-1913
• Prince Andrew of Greece and Denmark 1882-1944
• Prince Philip, Duke of Edinburgh 1921-Present

meanwhile, Lady Diana's lineage stretches far back than Prince Philip's.. you see the House of Oldenburg only stretches as far back as 1101 while Lady Diana's lineage can be traced back as far back as 920..

here is Lady Diana's descent from ancient Norman Nobility..

• Raoul de Tancarville, 920-?, son of a "Tancrède de Norvège", who came to France with Duke Rollo
• Gérard de Tancarville, ?-?
• Gerard "Dapifer" de Tancarville, 1015-?
• Amaury d'Abetot, Norman nobleman, tenants of the lords of Tancarville in Normandy, ca 1066
• Robert Despenser, died after 1098, Royal Steward of King William II of England
• Wlliam Despenser, of Elington, Lincolnshire, born ca 1090
• Thurston le Despencer, born ca 1122
• Hugh Despencer, of Rhyale, Rutland, 1152-1199
• Thomas Despencer, of Elington, Lincolnshire, born 1169 (his fourth son was Hugh le Despenser I whose son Hugh was the ancestor of the medieval Despencer family).
• Geoffrey le Despencer, of Defford, Worcestershire, 1185-1242
• John le Despencer, 1235-1251
• William Spencer, of Defford, Worcestershire, (fl.c.1330), he changed his surname from the original french Le Despenser to the english Spencer
• John Spencer, of Defford, born 1310
• Nicholas Spencer, of Defford, born ca 1340
• Thomas Spencer, of Defford, born 1366
• Henry Spencer, of Badby, Northamptonshire, 1392-1476
• John Spencer, of Hodnell, 1420-?
• William Spencer, of Rodburn, Warwickshire, ?-1485
• Sir John Spencer, Kt. of Snitterfield & Althorp , 1447-1522
• Sir William Spencer, Kt. of Wormleighton & Althorp, 1483-1532, married Susan, daughter of Sir Richard Knightley, of Fawsley, Northamptonshire
• Sir John Spencer, Kt. of Wormleighton & Althorp, 1517-1586
• Sir John Spencer, Kt. of Wormleighton & Althorp, 1550-1599 married Mary, daughter of Sir Robert Catlyn
• Robert Spencer, 1st Baron Spencer of Wormleighton 1570-1627
• William Spencer, 2nd Baron Spencer of Wormleighton 1591–1636
• Henry Spencer, 1st Earl of Sunderland 1620–1643
• Robert Spencer, 2nd Earl of Sunderland 1640–1702
• Charles Spencer, 3rd Earl of Sunderland 1675–1722
• The Honorable John Spencer 1708-1746
• John Spencer, 1st Earl Spencer 1734-1783
• George Spencer, 2nd Earl Spencer 1758-1834
• Frederick Spencer, 4th Earl Spencer 1798-1857
• Charles Spencer, 6th Earl Spencer 1857-1922
• Albert Spencer, 7th Earl Spencer 1892-1975
• John Spencer, 8th Earl Spencer 1924-1992
• Lady Diana Spencer, Princess of Wales 1961-1997

i remember reading a book where it was stated that Diana always reminds William that his Spencer forefathers can be traced back for a thousand years..

 

[Sangre_Real016]

Not to mention, the Queen is a direct descendant of not only British, English and Scottish ones (those who left descendants, at any rate), but also of native Princes of Wales, High Kings of Ireland, and Anglo-Saxon Monarchs.

Diana came from illustrious family, but to say that it's older, more aristocratic or noble than the reigning royal family of the United Kingdom is simply not true.

yes, the Queen is all you say she is.. but so to speak, as is Diana.. the Queen's patrilineal ancestry makes her a member of the House of Saxe-Coburg and Gotha which was changed by King George V to the House of Windsor in 1917.. the Queen's nearest English born ancestor, patrilineally, was Princess Elizabeth Stuart, daughter of King James I, who married Frederick V, Elector Palatine, and who's daughter was Sophia of Hanover.. the Queen's matrilineal ancestors were mostly Scottish kings and nobles, as well as Dutch ancestry from her descent from the Dutch House of Bentick.. King George V has himself referred to before as "more German than the Kaiser" seeing how his nearest ancestors were all of German origins (Ansbach, Mecklenburg, Brunswick, Saxe-Coburg and Gotha), as well as his consort Princess Mary of Teck, who is patrilineally a member of the German House of Teck..

Diana's ancestry connects her with most crown heads of Europe.. she is a direct descendant of the French kings through her descent from King Henry IV of France as well as of the powerful Italian House of Medici.. through Henry IV, Diana can further trance her ancestry to the early Capetian kings all the way back to the Merovingian kings.. Diana is also related to almost every French noble houses.. Diana also descended from ancient noble and royal Gaelic families of Ireland from her mother's side. From her maternal great-great grandfather, Edmond Roche, 1st Baron Fermoy, Diana descends from both the O'Donovan family who ruled the Kingdom of Desmond until the 13th century and became semi-sovereign princes of Carbery from the line of Donal IV O'Donovan, Lord of Clancahill, the De Barry family, an ancient family of Cambro-Norman origins who descends from Rhiwallon ap Cynfyn, a Welsh prince and the O'Shaughnessy family, a family which descends from Guaire Aidne mac Colmáin, King of Connacht.. and most interesting enough is that Lady Diana is also a descendant of Arsakes Vologaeses V Dikaios Epiphanes Philhellen, Sacral King of Parthia, of the Parthian Royal House of Arsaces who ruled Persia (Iran), Mesopotamia and Babylon.. the Parthian kings in turn claimed descent from the earlier Achaemenid Dynasty.. if true, that relationship would make Lady Diana and her sons, Princes William and Harry, descendants of Cyrus the Great and establish a blood link with classical Greece..

the Queen, as i said earlier is from the House of Saxe-Coburg and Gotha, who itself descends from the House of Wettin.. the founder of the House of Wettin was Dietrich I, Count of Wettin who died on 976.. as such, the House of Wettin may have probably been found somewhere during the early 900 to 920.. Here is Queen Elizabeth's descent from Dietrich I, Count of Wettin..

• Dietrich I, Count of Wettin, d. 976
• Dedi II, Count in the Hessegau, 946 - 1009
• Dietrich II, Margrave of Lower Lusatia, 991 - 1034
• Thimo I, Count of Wettin, d. 1099
• Conrad, Margrave of Meissen, 1098–1157
• Otto II, Margrave of Meissen, 1125–1190
• Dietrich I, Margrave of Meissen, 1162–1221
• Henry III, Margrave of Meissen, c. 1215 - 1288
• Albert II, Margrave of Meissen, 1240–1314
• Frederick I, Margrave of Meissen, 1257–1323
• Frederick II, Margrave of Meissen, 1310–1349
• Frederick III, Landgrave of Thuringia, 1332–1381
• Frederick I, Elector of Saxony, 1370–1428
• Frederick II, Elector of Saxony, 1412–1464
• Ernest, Elector of Saxony, 1441–1486
• John, Elector of Saxony, 1468–1532
• John Frederick I, Elector of Saxony, 1503–1554
• Johann Wilhelm, Duke of Saxe-Weimar, 1530–1573
• John II, Duke of Saxe-Weimar, 1570–1605
• Ernest I, Duke of Saxe-Gotha, 1601–1675
• John Ernest IV, Duke of Saxe-Coburg-Saalfeld, 1658–1729
• Francis Josias, Duke of Saxe-Coburg-Saalfeld, 1697–1764
• Ernest Frederick, Duke of Saxe-Coburg-Saalfeld, 1724–1800
• Francis, Duke of Saxe-Coburg-Saalfeld, 1750–1806
• Ernest I, Duke of Saxe-Coburg and Gotha, 1784–1844
• Albert, Prince Consort, 1819–1861
• Edward VII of the United Kingdom, 1841–1910
• George V of the United Kingdom, 1865–1936
• George VI of the United Kingdom, 1895–1952
• Elizabeth II of the United Kingdom, 1926 -

Diana's family ancestry meanwhile can be traced back as early as 920, as shown here..

• Raoul de Tancarville, 920-?, son of a "Tancrède de Norvège", who came to France with Duke Rollo
• Gérard de Tancarville, ?-?
• Gerard "Dapifer" de Tancarville, 1015-?
• Amaury d'Abetot, Norman nobleman, tenants of the lords of Tancarville in Normandy, ca 1066
• Robert Despenser, died after 1098, Royal Steward of King William II of England
• Wlliam Despenser, of Elington, Lincolnshire, born ca 1090
• Thurston le Despencer, born ca 1122
• Hugh Despencer, of Rhyale, Rutland, 1152-1199
• Thomas Despencer, of Elington, Lincolnshire, born 1169 (his fourth son was Hugh le Despenser I whose son Hugh was the ancestor of the medieval Despencer family).
• Geoffrey le Despencer, of Defford, Worcestershire, 1185-1242
• John le Despencer, 1235-1251
• William Spencer, of Defford, Worcestershire, (fl.c.1330), he changed his surname from the original french Le Despenser to the english Spencer
• John Spencer, of Defford, born 1310
• Nicholas Spencer, of Defford, born ca 1340
• Thomas Spencer, of Defford, born 1366
• Henry Spencer, of Badby, Northamptonshire, 1392-1476
• John Spencer, of Hodnell, 1420-?
• William Spencer, of Rodburn, Warwickshire, ?-1485
• Sir John Spencer, Kt. of Snitterfield & Althorp , 1447-1522
• Sir William Spencer, Kt. of Wormleighton & Althorp, 1483-1532, married Susan, daughter of Sir Richard Knightley, of Fawsley, Northamptonshire
• Sir John Spencer, Kt. of Wormleighton & Althorp, 1517-1586
• Sir John Spencer, Kt. of Wormleighton & Althorp, 1550-1599 married Mary, daughter of Sir Robert Catlyn
• Robert Spencer, 1st Baron Spencer of Wormleighton 1570-1627
• William Spencer, 2nd Baron Spencer of Wormleighton 1591–1636
• Henry Spencer, 1st Earl of Sunderland 1620–1643
• Robert Spencer, 2nd Earl of Sunderland 1640–1702
• Charles Spencer, 3rd Earl of Sunderland 1675–1722
• The Honorable John Spencer 1708-1746
• John Spencer, 1st Earl Spencer 1734-1783
• George Spencer, 2nd Earl Spencer 1758-1834
• Frederick Spencer, 4th Earl Spencer 1798-1857
• Charles Spencer, 6th Earl Spencer 1857-1922
• Albert Spencer, 7th Earl Spencer 1892-1975
• John Spencer, 8th Earl Spencer 1924-1992
• Lady Diana Spencer, Princess of Wales 1961-1997

the House of Wettin is probably as old as the Spencer family itself.. as for the Spencer family being more aristocratic, it all goes down to one's opinion i think.. seeing how the Queen descends primarily from German royals with a hint of Danish, Scottish and Dutch, while Diana's ancestry is primarily English, descending from most if not all of "true" British kings and nobles as well as of French, Italian, Spanish and even some German royal/noble blood flowing in her veins..

to say the least, Diana lacks the German royal connection the Queen has which makes her related to most royal houses (Wettin, Hanover, Hohenzollern, Oldenburg, Mecklenburg, Ascania, Zahringen, Saxe-Coburg, Saxe-Meiningen, Saxe-Weimar, Saxe-Altenburg, etc.) on the other hand, Diana and the Spencer family has blood connection with most of French and Italian, and other Catholic royal houses which the Queen lacks (Merovingian, Capetian, Bourbon, Medici, Sforza, Habsburg, Wittelsbach, Savoy, Orsini, Burgundy (Castile), Alba, etc.).. this is because, after the Glorious Revolution, no British monarch had married into any Catholic Royal family, confining their descent to German royal houses..

 

[Sangre_Real016]

It's not that easy. Karoline of the Palatinate, in case she was recognised in the UK as legitimate, would have been higher up the line of sucession than her aunt Electress Sophie, because her father was Sophie's elder brother. As she had a son at the time of the decision on the Hanoveran succession and was married to a then British duke, I guess she was not deemed legitimate enough to inherit her grandmother Elizabeth Stuart's right to the British thrones. While her aunt Sophia was.

one great reason why Karoline was not chosen and was passed over for Sophia is because, Karoline was long dead by that time.. also, their marriage was done in Europe where the practice of morganatic marriage is strictly followed.. this would make their children legitimate, but does not possess any dynastic right to their father's claim.. i believe that the reason why Electress Sophia of Hanover was chosen because she's the senior most protestant relative of King James I.. but your are right, that Electress Sophia was not the senior most cognatic descendant of King James I to be protestant.. i believe it was Frederica Mildmay, Countess of Mértola, granddaughter of Charles I Louis of the Palatinate via her daughter Karoline of the Palatinate..

Electress Sophia being chosen as the heir is the best thing they can thing off.. despite of legitimate birth, Federica would be considered to low in rank to succeed Queen Anne.. plus, powerful countries such as the France, Spain, Modena and the Papal States still contest that James Francis Edward Stuart is the legitimate king.. declaring a mere countess of morganatic birth and who possessed no territorial power despite being of legitimate birth would weaken the claim for a new monarch.. Opposing countries would have a field day if parliament would chose Feredica as queen.. also, 56 people who had more legitimate hereditary claims were bypassed in favor of Sophia..

Because of the Act of Settlement, ensuring the Protestant Succession, on the death of Queen Anne on 12 Aug 1714, she was succeeded by the Elector of Hanover. This succession bypassed more than fifty people then living who had better claims to the throne according to primogeniture. The following chart will show those people, and only those who are relevant to this issue are included. Those living at Queen Anne's death are in capital letters:

King James I & VI of England and Scotland (156601625) and his wife Anne of Denmark (1574-1619) had the following relevant issue:
1. King Charles I of England and Scotland (1600-1649); m.Henriette Marie of France (1609-1669)
1.1. King Charles II of England & Scotland (1630-1685); m. Caterina of Braganza (1638-1705)
1.2. King James II & VII of England & Scotland, deposed 1688/9 by William & Mary; (1633-1701); m.1st Anne Hyde (1637-1671); m.2nd Maria Beatrice d'Este of Modena (1658-1718)
1.2.1. JAMES EDWARD Stuart, "The Old Pretender" (1688-1766); m.1719 Clementina Sobieska (1702-1735)
1.2.2. Queen Mary II of England and Scotland (1662-1695); reigned 1689-95; m.King William III (below)
1.2.3.Queen Anne of Great Britain (1665-1714); m.Pr George of Denmark
(1653-1708)
1.3. Mary (1631-1660); m.Pr Willem II of Orange-Nassau, Stattholder of the Netherlands (1625-1650)
1.3.1. King William III of England and Scotland, etc (1650-1702); reigned
1689-1702; m.Queen Mary II (above)
1.4. Henrietta (1644-1670); m.1661 Philippe, Duc d'Orleans (1640-1701)
1.4.1. ANNE d'ORLEANS (1669-1728); m.1684 King Vittorio Amedeo II of Sardinia (1666-1732)
1.4.1.1. VITTORIO AMEDEO OF SAVOY, Prince of Piedmont (1699-1715)
1.4.1.2. King CARLO EMANUELE III OF SARDINIA (1701-1773)
1.4.1.3. Marie Adelaide of Savoy (1685-1712); m.Louis, Dauphin of France
(1682-1712)
1.4.2.1. LOUIS, DAUPHIN OF FRANCE [later, King Louis XV] (1710-1774)
1.4.3. Maria Luisa of Savoy (1688-14 Feb 1714); m.King Felipe V of Spain
(1683-1746)
1.4.3.1. LUIS, INFANTE OF SPAIN [later, King Luis I] (1707-1724)
1.4.3.2. INFANTE FELIPE OF SPAIN (1712-1719)
1.4.3.3. INFANTE FERNANDO OF SPAIN [later, King Fernando VI] (1713-1759)
2. Elizabeth (1596-1662); m.Friedrich V, Elector Palatine, King of Bohemia
1619-21 (1596-1632)
2.1. Karl I Ludwig, Elector Palatine (1617-1680); m.1st 1650 (div 1657)
Landgravine Charlotte of Hesse-Cassel (1627-1686); m.2nd 1658 Baroness Marie Luise von Degenfeld
(1634-1677)
2.1.1. LISABETH CHARLOTTE (1652-1721); m.Philippe, Duc d'Orleans (1640-1701)
2.1.1.1. PHILIPPE II, DUC d'ORLEANS (1674-1723); m.Francoise Marie of France (1677-1749)
2.1.1.1.1. LOUIS [later, Duc] d'ORLEANS (1703-1752)
2.1.1.1.2. LOUISE d'ORLEANS (1695-1719); m.Charles, Duc de Berry (1686-1714)
2.1.1.1.3. MARIE ADELAIDE d'ORLEANS (1698-1743)
2.1.1.1.4. CHARLOTTE d'ORLEANS (1700-1761); m.1720 Francesco III d'Este, Duke of Modena (1698-1780; below)
2.1.1.1.5. ELIZABETH d'ORLEANS (1709-1742); m.1723 King Luis I of Spain
2.1.1.2. ELIZABETH d'ORLEANS (1676-1744); m.1698 Duke Leopold of Lorraine (1679-1729)
2.1.1.2.1. LEOPOLD OF LORRAINE (1707-1723)
2.1.1.2.2. FRANCIS STEPHEN OF LORRAINE (1708-1765); as of 1745 he was the EMPEROR FRANZ; m.1736 Archduchess Maria Theresia of Austria (1717-1780)
2.1.1.2.3. CHARLES OF LORRAINE (1712-1780)
2.1.1.2.4. ELIZABETH THERESE OF LORRAINE (1711-1741); m.1737 King Carlo Emanuele III of Sardinia (1701-1773)
2.1.1.2.5. ANNE CHARLOTTE OF LORRAINE (17 May 1714-1773)
2.1.2. Karoline, Raugraefin (1659-1696); m.1683 Meinhard von Schomberg, Duke of Leinster (1641-1719)
2.1.2.1. Lady Mary Schomberg ( - ); m.CtDegenfeld; she was probably alive at Anne's death, and may have had living kids, but I have no further details
2.1.2.2. LADY FREDERICA SCHOMBERG (d.1751); m.1st Robert D'Arcy, Earl of Holdernesse (d.1722); m.2d 1724 Benjamin Mildmay, Earl Fitzwalter (d.1756)
2.2. Eduard, Ct Palatine von Simmern (1625-1663); m.1645 Anna Gonzaga
(1616-1684)
2.2.1. Luise Marie, Css Palatine von Simmern (1647-1679); m.1671 Fst Karl
Theodor zu Salm (1645-1710)
2.2.1.1. PRINCE LUDWIG OTTO ZU SALM (1674-1738); m.1700 Pss Albertine Johannette of
Nassau-Hadamar (1679-1716)
2.2.1.1.1. PRINCESS DOROTHEA FRANZISKA AGNES ZU SALM (1702-1751); m.1719 Prince Nikolaus Leopold zu Salm-Salm (d.1770)
2.2.1.1.2.Pss ELISABETH ALEXANDRINE CHARLOTTE ZU SALM (1704-1739); m.1721 Pr Claude Lamoral de Ligne (d.1766)
2.2.1.1.3. Pss CHRISTINE ANNA LUISE OSWALDINE ZU SALM (1707-1777); m.1st 1726 Pr Joseph of Hesse-Rheinfels-Rotenburg (d.1744); m.2d 1753 Fst Nikolaus Leopold zu Salm-Salm (d.1770)
2.2.1.2. Pss ELEONORE CHRISTINA ZU SALM (1678-1737); M.1713 Conrad, Duc d'Ursel (d.1738); they may have had a kid before Anne's death, but I don't know for sure
2.2.2. ANNE, Css PALATINE VON SIMMERN (1648-1723); m.1663 Henri Julius, Pr de Conde (1643-1709)
2.2.2.1. LOUIS III, DUC DE BOURBON, PRINCE DE CONDE (1668-1710); m.1685 Louise Francoise de Bourbon (1673-1743)
2.2.2.1.1. LOUIS IV HENRI, DUC DE BOURBON, PRINCE DE CONDE (1692-1740); m.1713 Marie Anne de Conty (below)
2.2.2.1.2. CHARLES DE CONDE, PRINCE DE CHAROLAIS (1700-1760)
2.2.2.1.3. LOUIS DE CONDE, COMTE DE CLERMONT (1709-1771)
2.2.2.1.4. MARIE ANNE DE CONDE (1690-1760)
2.2.2.1.5. LOUISE ELIZABETH DE CONDE (1693-1775); m.1713 Louis Armand II, Pr de Conty (d.1727; below)
2.2.2.1.6. LOUISE ANNE DE CONDE (1695-1758)
2.2.2.1.7. MARIE ANNE DE CONDE (1697-1741); m.ca 1719 Louis de Melun, Duc de Joyeuse (d.1724)
2.2.2.1.8. HENRIETTE LOUISE DE CONDE (1703-1772)
2.2.2.1.9. ELIZABETH ALEXANDRINE DE CONDE (1705-1765)
2.2.2.2. MARIE THERESE DE CONDE (1666-1732); m.1688 Francois Louis, Pr de Conty (d.1709)
2.2.2.2.1. LOUIS ARMAND II, PR DE CONTY (1695-1727); m.1713 Louise Elizabeth de Conde (above)
2.2.2.2.2.MARIE ANNE DE CONTY (1689-1720); m.1713 Louis IV Henri, Pr de Conde (above)
2.2.2.2.3. LOUISE ADELAIDE DE CONTY (1696-1750)
2.2.2.3. ANNE LOUISE DE CONDE (1676-1753); m.1692 Louis Auguste de Bourbon, Duc de Maine (d.1736)
2.2.2.3.1. LOUIS II AUGUSTE, DUC d'AUMALE (1700-1755)
2.2.2.3.2. LOUIS CHARLES, PRINCE DE DOMBES (1701-1775)
2.2.2.3.3. LOUISE FRANCOISE, Mlle DU MAINE (1707-1743)
2.2.2.4. MARIE ANNE DE CONDE (1678-1718); m.1710 Louis Joseph de Bourbon, Duc de Vendome (d.1712)
2.2.3. BENEDIKTE HENRIETTE, Css PALATINE VON SIMEMRN (1652-1730); m.1668 Duke Johann Friedrich of Brunswick-Lueneburg (1625-1679)
2.2.3.1. Charlotte (1671-1710); m.1696 Rinaldo III d'Este, Duke of Modena
(1655-1737)
2.2.3.1.1. FRANCESCO III, DUKE OF MODENA (1698-1780); m.1720 Charlotte d'Orleans (above)
2.2.3.1.2. GIOVANNI FEDERIGO d'ESTE (1700-1727)
2.2.3.1.3. BENEDETTA d'ESTE (1697-1777)
2.2.3.1.4. AMALIA d'ESTE (1699-1778)
2.2.3.1.5. HENRIETTA d'ESTE (1702-1777); m.1st 1728 Antonio Farnese (d.1731); m.2d 1740 Ldgve Leopold of Hesse-Darmstadt (d.1764)
2.2.3.2. HENRIETTE OF BRUNSWICK-LUENEBURG (1672-1737)
2.2.3.3. WILHELMINE AMALIE OF BRUINSWICK-LUENEBURG (1673-1742); m.1699 Emperor Josef I (d.1711)
2.2.3.3.1.Archduchess MARIA JOSEFA OF AUSTRIA (1699-1757); m.1719 Elector Friedrich August II of Saxony, King of Poland (1696-1763)
2.2.3.3.2.Archduchess MARIA AMALIA OF AUSTRIA (1701-1756); m.1722 Elector Karl Albert of Bavaria, who became Emperor Karl VII (1697-1745)
2.3.Sophie of the Palatinate (1630-18 Jun 1714); m.1658 Elector Ernst August of Hanover (1629-1698)
2.3.1.ELECTOR GEORGE OF HANOVER -- became KING GEORGE I OF THE UNITED KINGDOM

we are talking about playing a game of thrones.. not all legitimate descendants are able to take their hereditary rights.. Wilhelm Karl, Duke of Urach was the legitimate heir to the throne of Monaco, but was passed over for his illegitimate niece Charlotte.. Alfonso de la Cerda, ancestor of the Dukes of Medinaceli is the legitimate heir to the throne of Castile, but was usurped by his uncle Sancho IV.. saying that her being of illegitimate line is the reason why she was debarred from the line of succession would be too absurd seeing there are other criteria to consider and Sophia fits the job perfectly..

 

[Kataryn]

This succession bypassed more than fifty people then living who had better claims to the throne according to primogeniture. The following chart will show those people, and only those who are relevant to this issue are included.

The point is that all these people were Catholics. And the Catholic claim lay with the Stuart pretenders. No other Catholic had a better claim than the Stuarts.

 

[Sangre_Real016]

The point is that all these people were Catholics. And the Catholic claim lay with the Stuart pretenders. No other Catholic had a better claim than the Stuarts.

true enough.. but there is no other descendants from morganatic marriage too.. Catholics were debarred from the line of succession.. children of morganatic marriages does not inherit dynastic rights.. the Stuarts are out of the picture.. catholic relatives are also removed from the line of succession.. there is one close protestant relative but with obscure origins since she is a product of an unequal marriage.. so all bets goes to the nearest Protestant relative with unquestionable royal pedigree.. plus the fact that Sophia is a crowned ruler add more in the criteria.. given all the facts, Sophia is the best candidate.. but does that prove Karoline's illegitimacy? the answer is no..

 

[Warren]

Questions about Princess Anne's title of Princess Royal have been moved to the British Styles & Titles thread in the British Forums.

 

[Kataryn]

and unlike Prince Charles, Lady Diana can boast ancestry to the Kings of France, Grand Dukes of Tuscany, Dukes of Milan and even to the most powerful aristocratic family of the Dukes of Alba, leading all the way to the House of Capet of the Capetian Dynasty..

Prince Charles may have more royal ancestors from the more recent history, but Lady Diana though only came from a much humbler aristocratic background, can boast ancestry from also every single Royal House in Europe since time immemorial.. ..

This is all well said, but I don't believe that Charles does not have similar ancestry and having such Royal ancestry does not make you a Royal.

The closest link in my family tree to the nobility are two noble great-great-grandmothers, who due to the French revolution and two lost World Wars first married into the wealthy bourgeoise out of France who lconsequently ost their money bit by bit till we are now well-educated but very normal people. While the Heads of these families today still own their chateaux and estate. Lucky cousins!

Their families had thrived on good marriages, while the basic familes were not that noble (Barons and Counts), they served their kings and overlords (like the Guise-family) and were rewarded with heiresses of exceptionally good bloodlines. Thus I can trace my line through several daughters and sons of Charlesmagne, William the Conqueror, Alfred the Great of Wessex, the first Habsburg and Hohenzollern Counts, the Zaehringen, the great dukes of Saxony, to the Billungs of the North, numerous German emperors from Otto The Great, Frederick Barbarossa or the Luxembourg emperors Bohemian lines... Lorraine, Bar, Hainault, Champagne, Bourgogne, Bretagne, Acquitaine, Savoy of Piedmont, Tuscany - name it, a connection is there.
And I just started to look for it. So I don't wonder that Lady Diana Spencer probably had a much better access to these close-knit Royals up to the 16th century.

One thing I learned from my research was: it is just a matter of luck or fate who you are descended from, nothing to feel special about. It's what you make out of your life that counts. And Charles did a great job in creating him into today's "Prince of Wales". And anyone else has a chance to so in his own circumstances. A nice touch, though that you can get help from the Prince of Wales when living in the Uk. This is much more than what you get from the most noble Lord the Earl Spencer who shares Diana's noble ancestry but not Charles' nobility of spirit. IMHO, of course.

 

[Dman]

True, Diana's blood was bluest.

 

[NGalitzine]

.

Now please explain to me how Lady Diana Spencer could have had more Royal blood than her husband?

I have read the numerous posts on Diana's ancestry and havent quite figured that one out myself. It all sounds like a rather liberal interpretation of "royal" in order to somehow boost Diana up and demeen her former husband which seems rather pointless since her former husband is a future King with a rather long traceable history throughout the royal families of Europe. The fact remains that the Windsors are the royal family and the Spencers are your basic garden variety English noble family.

 

[Dman]

I don't see the reason why anyone will try to put Charles's ancestry down. Both Charles & Diana came from blue blooded families.
.

 

[Spheno]

I don't see the reason why anyone will try to put Charles's ancestry down. Both Charles & Diana came from blue blooded families.

Charles came from royal family, Diana came from noble family.

 

[Dman]

Charles came from royal family, Diana came from noble family.

Right, but their families are still blue bloods.

 

[Marc23]

It all sounds like a rather liberal interpretation of "royal" in order to somehow boost Diana up and demeen her former husband which seems rather pointless since her former husband is a future King with a rather long traceable history throughout the royal families of Europe. The fact remains that the Windsors are the royal family and the Spencers are your basic garden variety English noble family.

It sometimes sounds as a consolation for not being born a royal or at least mediatized to be treated as equal...

The truth is that she descends further from various royal and prominent families,but it is also the truth that in 17th,18th and 19th century marriage concept her status of a daughter of an Earl would not be enough for any reigning or most mediatized families...