Germanic Ancestry of the House of Windsor

PetticoatLane said:

By that logic then, what is the ancestry of the Germanic peoples? How far back do you take this? Those Germanic peoples would've originally come to Germany from elsewhere.

I'm no expert here, but are we not all descendants of homo erectus who originated in Africa a couple of million years ago?

Click to expand...

During the times of the Roman Empire, wasn't most of the Western European lands Gaul?

Even going back a bit sooner than Lucy, if my history is correct, William the Conqueror came from Normandy and for years before the Germanic influence of the Hanovers, the British court was held in France and all the aristocracy and those close to the court spoke French. I believe this continued through the Plantagenet era.

What is "German"? 45 days ago I was in Paris with my husband. We were in Montmartre, sitting outside a cafe and drinking hot chocolate (it was a bit cold). Suddenly a man said to us that we were sitting on his place. At first we did not pay him much attention but he continued talking to us. He told us he had arrived in Paris very early that morning and had sat at our place for many hours before. He asked us where we were from and told us he was German. Then he asked if we had ever been to Germany. I told him my husband had never been there but I had been to Munich (oktober fest ) many years ago. He laughed and said Munich was not in Germany. I looked at him and said that it was in Bayern, not Prussia, but it sure was in Germany.
Anyway, I was very surprised by his line of thought. I guess his mind was still in the XVIII century or earlier.
I think what defines nationality is first and foremost language and culture. It has nothing to do with where you were born or what your genetic inheritance is.

cmbruno said:

I think what defines nationality is first and foremost language and culture. It has nothing to do with where you were born or what your genetic inheritance is.

Click to expand...

English language is a Germanic language for example...if you search for it in google you will find it why...

Nationality generally refers to what country you are a citizen of (Canadian, German, American, Japanese), but one can argue with that as there are different theories about it...

Ethnicity vaguely refers to what "original" socially and linguistically-coherent group of people one is descended from. This is different from nationality since while most people living in Germany and Austria are citizens of their respective countries claiming their respective nationalities, for the most part, they all belong to one German ethnic group sharing a pretty common culture and language (while many immigrant groups live in these countries and can claim German or Austrian nationality, they aren't ethnically German).

Marc23 said:

This is not a thread about how you consider yourself,I consider myself,but what you are...ancestry is not something determined by our will how to consider ourselves based on our life circumstances,but something that we are already born with...

Click to expand...

Ah, okay, that's what you mean..(which by the way is a very different idea from the beginning of this thread, hence the confusion)
So basically, that what you are born with, what's in your blood, in you're DNA..

In that case you should look much further than only a couple of hundred years, because that's pretty much impossible to determine; like for instance Q.Alexandra who you state has almost all german ancestors, but is that really true when you look 500 or 1000 years backwards?

And depending on your religion, aren't we basically all decended from ancient tribes in Africa or from Adam and Eve (or one of the various other origins)?

Lee-Z said:

Ah, okay, that's what you mean..(which by the way is a very different idea from the beginning of this thread, hence the confusion)
So basically, that what you are born with, what's in your blood, in you're DNA..

In that case you should look much further than only a couple of hundred years, because that's pretty much impossible to determine; like for instance Q.Alexandra who you state has almost all german ancestors, but is that really true when you look 500 or 1000 years backwards?

Click to expand...

It's not something I state,but what her genealogy states I was watching her nearest 126 ancestors which means that I "went back" even up to 1590 and checked the origin of all those families from the list and except those 4 persons mentioned,every family had it's origins in Germany...

Ok,as you suggested,I now decided to go further generations back and check her 864 nearest ancestors and out of all those persons,only 38 of them were not Germans...which means that only less than 5% of her 864 ancestors were not from German families...

Lee-Z said:

And depending on your religion, aren't we basically all decended from ancient tribes in Africa or from Adam and Eve (or one of the various other origins)?

Click to expand...

Lol,interesting question If you take a look at Queen Elizabeth II's genealogy,you could see that she also descended even from the Emperors of China or from Prince Vlad Dracul,father of the famous "Count Dracula",so everything is possible

I love genealogy and somewhere on this forum I posted the lines both from Chinese Emperors and Vlad Dracul to Queen Elizabeth II and it is very interesting to follow it and see

Marc23 said:

It's not something I state,but what her genealogy states I was watching her nearest 126 ancestors which means that I "went back" up to 1590 and checked the origin of all those families from the list and except those 4 persons mentioned and every family had it's origins in Germany...

I decided to go even further back and check her 864 nearest ancestors and out of all those persons,only 38 of them were not Germans...

Click to expand...

Love genealogy (unfortunately my own consists completely of "peasants", so pretty hard to find out after about 500+ years), but above is exactly my point:
if you go back to the nearest 864 ancestors and "only 38 were not Germans", you can probably only look at where they were at their time...
The 864 could all have lived in Germany (or the part of the world that is now Germany), but that doesn't mean that their DNA was german and that's what matters, right?

My own ancestors for the last 500 years have lived in the Low Lands (won't say netherlands because that wasn't the same then as it is now), basically in a range of 100 km from where I was born (yes all of them, I know, very uneventful ); but it is almost certain that my blood is not from the particular area, because that wasn't inhabited 1000-2000 years prior to that...
And ofcourse (as my own family loves to point out ) you can only tell by the parents that are officially entered in the baptism or birth registers, but that doesn't give you a 100% certainty that they were actually the birth parents... (at which point my cousins still keep hope that we descend from a Spanish knight or Viking warrior)

And for the person who was amused by a german man making the distinction between Munich/Bavaria/Germany:
ofcourse he was wrong in Bavaria not in Germany, probably (as you said) figured Germany equals Prussia,
however: I myself am from the Netherlands but not from Holland. Even though it's confused a lot (even by dutch people), if i'm in the mood, i actually correct people when they tell me I'm from Holland, so that's probably the same sentiment the german guy was going for...

Lee-Z said:

Love genealogy (unfortunately my own consists completely of "peasants", so pretty hard to find out after about 500+ years), but above is exactly my point:
if you go back to the nearest 864 ancestors and "only 38 were not Germans", you can probably only look at where they were at their time...
The 864 could all have lived in Germany (or the part of the world that is now Germany), but that doesn't mean that their DNA was german and that's what matters, right?

Click to expand...

No The main criteria is the first document of the family and the area where they originated from...

The House of Oldenburg is always a North German dynasty,no matter where they actually ruled or reigned by the coincidence of fate(intermarriages and dynastic rules) and can't be considered Icelandic,for example,just because they happened to rule in Iceland...

Just like the House of Wittelsbach is not Hungarian,but German dynasty from Bavaria...

What makes the British? | Oxford Today

Genetic inheritance doesn't make all that diference nowadays. Saddly, still, just physical appearance does. But language, culture, custom are what define nationality. When people share the same way of living within the same space.
Here in Brazil, a large majority of self declared Blacks (we don't use the term Afro-descendent), when asked to define their ancestry, chose "Brazilian" instead of African.
Going back to the German ancestry of the British Royal Family, I say that from the moment the first Hanoverian (George III) had English as his first language, they became British. And as for genetic inheritance, I don't think that their DNA is much more different than the one of the major (western?) European population.

There has never been an "english" dynasty. The windsors/coburgs and hanoverians were german, the stuarts scottish of french origin, the tudors were welsh, the plataganets and normans were french while the kings before them were anglo saxon ie german. But then most of the population are of angle saxon descent with a bit of celtic and in some places a huge chunk of viking. So all together it makes the german ancestry of the royal family irrelevant. They are as british as the rest of the population.

fearghas said:

But then most of the population are of angle saxon descent with a bit of celtic and in some places a huge chunk of viking. So all together it makes the german ancestry of the royal family irrelevant. They are as british as the rest of the population.

Click to expand...

True,Anglo-Saxons were Germanic tribes and the English language is in fact Germanic language...

You are right,with all that having in mind,most people in Britain in fact do have Germanic roots,not just their Royal family...

The Franks were "German"
The Celts originated from Halstatt (Austria) 600BC so "German" as well.
The Vikings, Goths, Visigoths, Ostrogoths were also German.

cmbruno said:

The Franks were "German"
The Celts originated from Halstatt (Austria) 600BC so "German" as well.
The Vikings, Goths, Visigoths, Ostrogoths were also German.

Click to expand...

Well,it seems that the vast majority of the British population have Germanic ancestry,not only the Royal family...

cmbruno said:

The Franks were "German"
The Celts originated from Halstatt (Austria) 600BC so "German" as well.
The Vikings, Goths, Visigoths, Ostrogoths were also German.

Click to expand...

The Celts are Celts and nothing else. They might originate from what today is called Austria but at the time there wasn't a German insight anywhere near.


Sent from my iPhone using The Royals Community mobile app

JR76 said:

The Celts are Celts and nothing else. They might originate from what today is called Austria but at the time there wasn't a German insight anywhere near.

Click to expand...

"An introduction of language"(1993) by Victoria Fremkin and Robert Rodman:

"Romans invaded Britain in the first century AD and dominated Germanic Celts, the previous conquerors of Britain.Britain's northern tribes, the Scots and Picts were attacking the Celtic invaders at the time that the Romans arrived, but Rome prevailed.And as the power of Rome declined in the fifth century, the Romans left Britain.

The Celts then sent for Germanic Jutes(Teuton mercenaries) to repel their old enemies, the Scots and and the Picts.In 449 AD., the Jutes helped to defeat the Scots and the Picts and having won, decided to dominate their cousins the Celts with the help of other German tribes, the Angles and Saxons.It is from an Angles and Saxons and the linguistic soup already present in British Isles that English was born."

"Elizabeth the Second, by the Grace of God, of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland and of Her other Realms and Territories Queen, Head of the Commonwealth, Defender of the Faith".

You can’t get more British than that, really.

Yet as the Queen prepares for another state visit to Germany, idle minds again turn to questions about the connections between our two countries, and not least the Teutonic heritage of the Royal Family.

So, to put it in a nutshell, how German is the Queen?

Click to expand...

More: How German is the Queen? - Telegraph

BeatrixFan said:

------------------------------------------​

Officially (and luckily for the British Royal Family), nationality is determined by jus soli. Therefore all Monarchs since Queen Victoria at least, have been British.​

What do you all think? ​

Click to expand...

Nationality is not determined by jus soli in the UK. A person born in Britain whose parents are both non-British is not British. Conversely, a person who is born overseas, but has at least one British parent can obtain British nationality. At least that is what I thought. Has the law changed lately ?

Mbruno said:

Nationality is not determined by jus soli in the UK. A person born in Britain whose parents are both non-British is not British. Conversely, a person who is born overseas, but has at least one British parent can obtain British nationality. At least that is what I thought. Has the law changed lately ?

Click to expand...

But what determines if a person's parents are British?

George III was born in Britain to parents who were not born in Britain. His son, Prince Edward, Duke of Kent, was born in Britain to a father who was also born in Britain and a mother who was not. Edward's daughter, Victoria, was also born in Britain with similar parentage, and her son, Edward VII, was born in Britain to a mother born in Britain but a father born outside of it. George V was born in Britain to a British-born father and married a woman, Mary, who was born in Britain to parents who were not born in Britain although her mother had a British born father. George VI was born in Britain to this British born couple, married a British born wife, and had a daughter who was born in Britain.

By that same argument, the DoE was born in Greece to a mother who was born in Britain, and her mother, and grandmother, great-grandmother (Victoria), great-great-grandfather (Edward), and great-great-great-grandfather (George III) were all born in Britain.

Ish said:

But what determines if a person's parents are British?

George III was born in Britain to parents who were not born in Britain. His son, Prince Edward, Duke of Kent, was born in Britain to a father who was also born in Britain and a mother who was not. Edward's daughter, Victoria, was also born in Britain with similar parentage, and her son, Edward VII, was born in Britain to a mother born in Britain but a father born outside of it. George V was born in Britain to a British-born father and married a woman, Mary, who was born in Britain to parents who were not born in Britain although her mother had a British born father. George VI was born in Britain to this British born couple, married a British born wife, and had a daughter who was born in Britain.

By that same argument, the DoE was born in Greece to a mother who was born in Britain, and her mother, and grandmother, great-grandmother (Victoria), great-great-grandfather (Edward), and great-great-great-grandfather (George III) were all born in Britain.

Click to expand...

The British posters can answer your questions much better than I. My understanding, however, is that there is a law (or there used to be a law) according to which all descendants of Sophia of Hanover, no matter where they were born or who their parents were, were entitled to British nationality.

^^^ The Sophia Naturalization Act passed in 1705, gave in perpetuity the right of British citizenship to Sophia of Hanover's non-Catholic descendants.

The Act was repealed by section 34 of, and Part II of Schedule 4 to, the British Nationality Act 1948

If we are talking blood...then the current grandchildren and great-grandchildren are the most British the Royal Family has been in years. The Queen is half Scottish thanks to her mother. You must all remember up until recently in the 40 years or so the Nobility looked down upon the Royal Family and called them "Those Germans". Even Diana allegedly used that phrase as well when she was upset with them. Putting aside where a person was born, the current two generations are the most British ever if we are talking about blood as opposed to birth place.

Mbruno said:

The British posters can answer your questions much better than I. My understanding, however, is that there is a law (or there used to be a law) according to which all descendants of Sophia of Hanover, no matter where they were born or who their parents were, were entitled to British nationality.

Click to expand...

But that's not the argument you were making. You said that a person's British citizenship depends on their parents (which isn't entirely accurate itself), so I questioned at what point are the parents in question British?

Disregarding the Sophia Naturalization Act, every British monarch since George III has been British citizens at birth on the grounds that they were born in Britain to an individual who was either a British citizen or someone who was legally settled in the UK.

Yes, I went to the UK government website on British citizenship to figure this out.

Lady Marmalade said:

If we are talking blood...then the current grandchildren and great-grandchildren are the most British the Royal Family has been in years. The Queen is half Scottish thanks to her mother.

Click to expand...

True,but if we talk about blood,Diana is also a descendant of the House of Hanover through Countess Sophia Charlotte von Platen-Hallermund,daughter of Elector Ernst August von Hannover and Clara Elisabeth von Meysenburg...

Lady Marmalade said:

You must all remember up until recently in the 40 years or so the Nobility looked down upon the Royal Family and called them "Those Germans". Even Diana allegedly used that phrase as well when she was upset with them. Putting aside where a person was born, the current two generations are the most British ever if we are talking about blood as opposed to birth place.

Click to expand...

Well,who looked down on whom is very debatable as the Gotha I and II "circle" didn't want to intermarry with British nobility in the first place which was a "punch in face" to them...so,a phrase could be only a reaction to something they didn't already like...

Mbruno said:

Nationality is not determined by jus soli in the UK. A person born in Britain whose parents are both non-British is not British. Conversely, a person who is born overseas, but has at least one British parent can obtain British nationality. At least that is what I thought. Has the law changed lately ?

Click to expand...

People who were born in the UK before 1 January 1983 are British citizens. https://www.gov.uk/types-of-british-nationality/british-citizenship

BeatrixFan said:

Lol. Very true. According to most sources, they did marry. If they didn't, it's very easy to disregard her because she didn't give him any children or contribute to the Royal line in any way.

Do as Mary did and delete her!

Click to expand...

am I reading this right??? what sources say that Jane Grey and Edw VI married? NONE. she was married to Guildfrod Dudley. where as these sources?

I highly doubt that Beatrix fan will reply as she last posted on this site in 2012.

It is often a problem when people refer to sources when they don't check the a) the date of the post and b) when the poster last posted.

If a poster hasn't posted for 4 years there is usually a good chance that they have left the board altogether.

Speaking as someone who is technically second generation of a diaspora community (as far as the English are considered a diaspora community in NZ) I've never been comftable with the implication that there is something wrong about the RFs German heritage as it overlooks the assimilation process that immigrant families (and the RF are an immigrant family - in fact they are Britans most successful and well integrated) undergo when they choose to go to a new country. The fact they have been there for 200 years and showed where their loyalty was in two world wars against their ancestral home (always a painful experience) says a lot. Most of this xenophobic muck is really about the fact that too many in the uk are in denial about the amount of inward migration that has come into the UK over the centuries and the fact that there really is no such thing as "native English" let alone British. Long standing ties to Germany, the Low Countries and Scandinavia would also need to be overlooked along with the UKs history of mass emigration for this logic to work as well. I consider the families ancestry to be a positive and a strength not a shameful thing to be hidden. They should be more proud of their roots as it shows that the UK can absorb inward migration with success and that ties to Europe are a strength not a drawback. Because if people can say such horrid things about the first family of Britain and its most prominent immigrant clan, than what does that say for other people who may have migrated in? maybe its the fact I'm from a country that was built on immigration means that it's less shocking to me than it is for those where ideas of blood and soil still hold water that it does not bother me? I could also say the same about Europes other royal families as well.

There is clearly nothing wrong with their German ancestry in 2016, but there was something wrong with it in 1916

It's just in 2016 they don't identify as being German, but I don't think they are embarrassed by it.

Rudolph said:

There is clearly nothing wrong with their German ancestry in 2016, but there was something wrong with it in 1916

It's just in 2016 they don't identify as being German, but I don't think they are embarrassed by it.

Click to expand...

My beef isn't with the RF themselves - it's with the way it gets talked about as if it's some skeleton in the families closet by people looking to score points and wanting to show off. It was unfair that things got as bad as they did in 1916 - anti German hysteria was very bad in those days - it was probably worse out in the colonies, I know for a fact it was very bad in NZ and lead to a great deal of un-necessary suffering. It also playes into the bogus view of WWI a royal family feud that got out of hand - the reasons were mostly about nationalism, instability in the Balkans and Germany's unifaction throwing the European state system out of whack, in other words social and economic forces and actions of politicians - but you would be hard pressed to guess from the innuendo that comes up about the RF as a possible fifth colum for Germany in both world wars.

Rudolph said:

There is clearly nothing wrong with their German ancestry in 2016, but there was something wrong with it in 1916

It's just in 2016 they don't identify as being German, but I don't think they are embarrassed by it.

Click to expand...

Of course, by now they are quite "British" thanks to the marriages in the past century. Lady Elizabeth Bowes-Lyon was Scots and English so the current Queen is at least 50% British by ancestry. The Duke of Edinburgh is nearly fully German by ancestry, although a Prince of Greece and Denmark, making The Prince of Wales about 25% British by ancestry. Lady Diana Spencer was English, Irish, Scots, and American, making Prince William nearly 75% British by ancestry. And now of course Catherine Middleton is entirely British, making Prince George the most British heir since the future Edward VI.