British Royal Family Genealogy

[Ish]

Also, is The Queen descended from Georgiana Cavendish, Duchess of Devonshire? I know that she is the Princess of Wales' 4x great-aunt though, but I want to know about if The Queen is descended from her.

I'm currently learning about the Earls Bessborough. Are any members of the BRF descended from them? Specifically Diana, Princess Michael or The Queen.

The Queen is not descended from Georgiana Cavendish. She is related to her, albeit distantly; Diana is also related, a bit more closely.

Georgiana Cavendish was the daughter of John Spencer, 1st Earl Spencer. Diana's father, John Spencer, 8th Earl Spencer, was the 1st Earl's 3x great-grandson. The 1st Earl's 2x great-grandfather, Henry Spencer, 1st Earl of Sunderland, was a common ancestor of the Queen, through her mother's family.

Georgiana's father-in-law, William Cavendish, 4th Duke of Devonshire, was also an ancestor of the Queen's through her mother.

Interestingly, Diana is descended from Georgiana's lover, Charles Grey, 2nd Earl Spencer. He and his wife were the 3x great-grandparents of Diana's father. He is not an ancestor of the Queen.

The Spencers are descended from the 1st Earl of Bessborough through a younger son. The Queen and DoE are not descended from any of the Ponsonbys as far as I know. I've never been interested in Princess Michael enough to research her ancestry, although from what I understand her family was from the Continent and therefore I wouldn't expect her to be descended from many British noble houses, at least not recently.

 

[QueenElizabeth2Fan]

The Queen is not descended from Georgiana Cavendish. She is related to her, albeit distantly; Diana is also related, a bit more closely.

Georgiana Cavendish was the daughter of John Spencer, 1st Earl Spencer. Diana's father, John Spencer, 8th Earl Spencer, was the 1st Earl's 3x great-grandson. The 1st Earl's 2x great-grandfather, Henry Spencer, 1st Earl of Sunderland, was a common ancestor of the Queen, through her mother's family.

Georgiana's father-in-law, William Cavendish, 4th Duke of Devonshire, was also an ancestor of the Queen's through her mother.

Interestingly, Diana is descended from Georgiana's lover, Charles Grey, 2nd Earl Spencer. He and his wife were the 3x great-grandparents of Diana's father. He is not an ancestor of the Queen.

The Spencers are descended from the 1st Earl of Bessborough through a younger son. The Queen and DoE are not descended from any of the Ponsonbys as far as I know. I've never been interested in Princess Michael enough to research her ancestry, although from what I understand her family was from the Continent and therefore I wouldn't expect her to be descended from many British noble houses, at least not recently.

The 1st Earl of S. was a common ancestor of The Queen & Diana?
And, someone said, on a different post here, that Princess Michael is of the Austrian nobility (she's a Baroness by birth; her mother was a Countess (I believe), and her grandmother, a Princess), and they say Prncss. Michael "has more royal blood" than the Windsors.

 

[Ish]

The Queen Mother's family descends from the 1st Earl of Sunderland. I don't remember the line off the top of my head, but I can get it for you later.

Anyone who says that Princess Michael (or Diana for that matter) has "more royal blood" than the Queen or DoE is wrong.

The Queen is the daughter and granddaughter of Kings. She can trace her lineage back to almost every single British/Scottish/English monarch that had surviving children. She can trace her ancestry back to most European royal families, and she doesn't have to go back lots of generations to do so.

The Queen's father was a King. Her paternal grandfather was a King. Her paternal grandmother was born a German princess. Her paternal grandfather's parents were a King and (at birth) a Danish princess.

Prince Philip has even more royal ancestry. While the Queen's ancestry mostly comes from her paternal side and Prince Philip's direct descent is a generation removed (he is the grandson of a King, but not the son of one), he has close royal ancestry on both his paternal and maternal sides.

The DoE's father was born a Greek and Danish prince; his parents were a King and (at birth) a Grand Duchess of Russia. The DoE's mother was born a German princess, whose parents were both German royals, and who was a great-granddaughter of Queen Victoria.

Princess Michael... her family was Austrian nobility, but not in a comparable way. Her maternal grandmother was a Princess of Windisch-Grätz... but it's hard to say that a woman descended from a lesser Austrian princely house is somehow more royal than a woman whose father was a king.

 

[Lee-Z]

Without going into all the details, but i don't think i'm far wrong in saying that Princess Michael isn't even the one with the "most royal blood" in her household...Prince Michael her husband has more royal ancestors afaik

 

[Ish]

Very true!

Prince Michael's ancestry is actually a mix of the a Queen and DoE's - his paternal ancestry is the same as the Queen's (their fathers were brothers), and his mother was a cousin of the DoE.

 

[Marc23]

Princess Michael... her family was Austrian nobility, but not in a comparable way. Her maternal grandmother was a Princess of Windisch-Grätz... but it's hard to say that a woman descended from a lesser Austrian princely house is somehow more royal than a woman whose father was a king.

She never said that in the first place!

Her great-grandfather Prince Alfred III zu Windisch-Grätz was Prime-Minister of Austria-Hungary at the end of 19th century.

 

[Marc23]

And, someone said, on a different post here, that Princess Michael is of the Austrian nobility (she's a Baroness by birth; her mother was a Countess (I believe), and her grandmother, a Princess), and they say Prncss. Michael "has more royal blood" than the Windsors.

Plaese, be more precise when you try to interpret someone's words.

She never said that she has "more royal blood than the Windsors", but that she "has most royal blood of all members that married into the family since Prince Philipp."

And those two statements are not the same.

And to put it more simply, she is right about it. She indeed has. She never said that she is more royal than members of the Windsor dynasty by birth.

 

[Ish]

Plaese, be more precise when you try to interpret someone's words.



She never said that she has "more royal blood than the Windsors", but that she "has most royal blood of all members that married into the family since Prince Philipp."



And those two statements are not the same.



And to put it more simply, she is right about it. She indeed has. She never said that she is more royal than members of the Windsor dynasty by birth.

Marc, please be more precise when you try to interpret someone's words.

Neither I nor QueenElizabeth2Fan have said that Princess Michael herself has made any such claims - my comment was in response to QueenElizabeth2Fan's comment, and QueenElizabeth2Fan's comment referenced something others have said, not Princess Michael herself. And it has been erroneously reported that she is more royal than the Queen - which is something that has been reported so much that Princess Michael herself has addressed it in interviews.

 

[Marc23]

Marc, please be more precise when you try to interpret someone's words.

Neither I nor QueenElizabeth2Fan have said that Princess Michael herself has made any such claims - my comment was in response to QueenElizabeth2Fan's comment, and QueenElizabeth2Fan's comment referenced something others have said, not Princess Michael herself. And it has been erroneously reported that she is more royal than the Queen - which is something that has been reported so much that Princess Michael herself has addressed it in interviews.

No.

QueenElizabeth2Fan said "And, someone said, on a different post here....and they say Prncss. Michael "has more royal blood" than the Windsors."

I was writing about this "most royal blood after Prince Philipp" thing on another thread about Princess Michael, so when you read these kind of things out of context it looked like someone(and that's me) said that Princess Michael said that "she has more royal blood that Windsors."

And she said that she has "most royal blood" out of all members who married into the family since Prince Philipp , which is true.

Those kind of sentences are very prone to twisting by just changing one or two words and it gets out of context.

 

[QueenElizabeth2Fan]

No.

QueenElizabeth2Fan said "And, someone said, on a different post here....and they say Prncss. Michael "has more royal blood" than the Windsors."

I was writing about this "most royal blood after Prince Philip" thing on another thread about Princess Michael, so when you read these kind of things out of context it looked like someone(and that's me) said that Princess Michael said that "she has more royal blood that Windsors."

And she said that she has "most royal blood" out of all members who married into the family since Prince Philip , which is true.

Those kind of sentences are very prone to twisting by just changing one or two words and it gets out of context.

True.
And I think her having "more royal blood since Prince Philip" is a matter of opinion. Why do you think it's true?

 

[JR76]

True.
And I think her having "more royal blood since Prince Philip" is a matter of opinion. Why do you think it's true?

Just the fact that her maternal grandmother was a Windish-Graetz makes her close degree ancestry more illustrious than any other person whos married a Windsor after Philip did so.

 

[Marc23]

Just the fact that her maternal grandmother was a Windish-Graetz makes her close degree ancestry more illustrious than any other person whos married a Windsor after Philip did so.

True. I agree with that. It was an "equal" family, unlike any closely related family of other persons married into the family since Prince Philipp.

 

[Marc23]

True.
And I think her having "more royal blood since Prince Philip" is a matter of opinion. Why do you think it's true?

Because it is true

It's not a matter of what I think or what anyone thinks...

Genealogy says so, not me. And that is based on former royal rules book(Almanach de Gotha) which families are equal and which are not.

And other than Princess Michael, no member that entered the family since Prince Philipp, has none of equal families in his/her recent ancestry.

For example, Lady Diana's nearest equal ancestor was Elector Ernst August von Hannover (1629-1698), father of King George I. And that is very far away, plus the fact that she is his descendant through his illegitimate daughter Countess Sophie Charlotte von Platen-Hallermund.

Incomparable with Princess Michael whose grandmother came from equal family and thus bringing illustrious ancestry...

 

[QueenElizabeth2Fan]

Just the fact that her maternal grandmother was a Windish-Graetz makes her close degree ancestry more illustrious than any other person whos married a Windsor after Philip did so.

I'm not well versed in other countries' noble families besides British ones. So I wouldn't know.

 

[QueenElizabeth2Fan]

Because it is true

It's not a matter of what I think or what anyone thinks...

Genealogy says so, not me. And that is based on former royal rules book(Almanach de Gotha) which families are equal and which are not.

And other than Princess Michael, no member that entered the family since Prince Philipp, has none of equal families in his/her recent ancestry.

For example, Lady Diana's nearest equal ancestor was Elector Ernst August von Hannover (1629-1698), father of King George I. And that is very far away, plus the fact that she is his descendant through his illegitimate daughter Countess Sophie Charlotte von Platen-Hallermund.

Incomparable with Princess Michael whose grandmother came from equal family and thus bringing illustrious ancestry...

Why is it the former royal rule book? Which one is the unwritten royal rule book now?

 

[JR76]

I'm not well versed in other countries' noble families besides British ones. So I wouldn't know.

Windish-Graetz is a mediatised Austro-Hungarian family. Being mediatised means that they once ruled over a small principality & when they lost it they still retained their status as a sovereign family which made them suitable marriage partners for the ruling Royal houses. That said many of the great ruling families frowned upon their most important members marrying someone from these families.

 

[Ish]

Why is it the former royal rule book? Which one is the unwritten royal rule book now?

Back when equal marriages were a thing, the Almanach was established to clearly define which of the German principalities/grand duchies/etc were "equal" enough to marry into other families.

Basically, if the son of the King of England marries the daughter of the King of France it's clear that it's an equal marriage. If the King of England's son is marrying the daughter of the ruling Prince of Saxe-Coburg, however, it's less clear. So the Almanach was established. It's a fairly big thing in the historic marriages of European royalty (and therefore in the genealogy), and is one of the reasons why so many royal families now have a lot of German heritage (when you don't want to just marry your kid to your brother's kid, but you can't marry into half the other major houses because they're the wrong religion, the kids in the lesser Germanic houses who are "equal" because of the rules become more appealing as prospective spouses).

Now, there isn't a rule book, because equal marriages aren't a thing - there aren't the same "rules" about who can marry into a royal family.

 

[Marc23]

I'm not well versed in other countries' noble families besides British ones. So I wouldn't know.

All European monarchies followed the rules of this "Almanach de Gotha".

Here is what Prince Nicholas Romanov of Russia said about marriage prospects for some male Grand Duke of the Imperial family:

"Russia, with its very Germanic notion of dynastic propriety, found itself accepting all the Almanach de Gotha rulings.

And so if some unfortunate Russian Grand Duke wanted to marry a Princess Obolensky, descendant of the Grand Dukes of Kiev, who reigned in Russia, at the time his Romanov ancestors were probably still lurking in the woods, draped in pelts or wading through the marshes of East Prussia or Pomerania, he would have had to change his plans.

That marriage would have been impossible, but an Austrian lady, say a daughter of an Illustrious Highness, Count von Harrach zu Rohrau und Thannhausen, lord of the county of Rohrau, Freiherr zu Prugg und Pürrhenstein, lord of Starkenbach, Jilenice, Sadowa & Storckow, would have been acceptable!"

They all simply followed those rules which were written in the book and based on these kind of rules Princess Michael indeed has "most royal blood" of all members that married into the family since Prince Philipp.

Hope this makes it a bit more clear how and why, just like posts from our fellow members

 

[Marc23]

Windish-Graetz is a mediatised Austro-Hungarian family. Being mediatised means that they once ruled over a small principality & when they lost it they still retained their status as a sovereign family which made them suitable marriage partners for the ruling Royal houses. That said many of the great ruling families frowned upon their most important members marrying someone from these families.

I'm not well versed in other countries' noble families besides British ones. So I wouldn't know.

Archduchess Elisabeth, Granddaughter of Austrian Emperor Franz Joseph and daughter of unfortunate Crown Prince Rudolf married Prince Otto zu Windisch-Graetz, from this same family.

And this Prince Otto was 2nd cousin 3x removed of Princess Michael of Kent.

 

[JR76]

Archduchess Elisabeth, Granddaughter of Austrian Emperor Franz Joseph and daughter of unfortunate Crown Prince Rudolf married Prince Otto zu Windisch-Graetz, from this same family.

And this Prince Otto was 2nd cousin 3x removed of Princess Michael of Kent.

Elisabeth was one of the reasons I mentioned how many of the great houses was reluctant in approving marriages between their more prominent members & members of mediatized houses. Elisabeth had to beg her grandfather for permission to marry her princeling & IIRC the future Emperor Charles was denied permission to marry a Hohenlohe.

 

[QueenElizabeth2Fan]

Back when equal marriages were a thing, the Almanach was established to clearly define which of the German principalities/grand duchies/etc were "equal" enough to marry into other families.

Basically, if the son of the King of England marries the daughter of the King of France it's clear that it's an equal marriage. If the King of England's son is marrying the daughter of the ruling Prince of Saxe-Coburg, however, it's less clear. So the Almanach was established. It's a fairly big thing in the historic marriages of European royalty (and therefore in the genealogy), and is one of the reasons why so many royal families now have a lot of German heritage (when you don't want to just marry your kid to your brother's kid, but you can't marry into half the other major houses because they're the wrong religion, the kids in the lesser Germanic houses who are "equal" because of the rules become more appealing as prospective spouses).

Now, there isn't a rule book, because equal marriages aren't a thing - there aren't the same "rules" about who can marry into a royal family.

Okay.
I definitely already understood the difference between morganatic and equal marriages though.
So how did it grow, from just being Germanic to comprising ALL royal houses? I actually have a copy of the 2013 Almanach.

 

[QueenElizabeth2Fan]

Archduchess Elisabeth, Granddaughter of Austrian Emperor Franz Joseph and daughter of unfortunate Crown Prince Rudolf married Prince Otto zu Windisch-Graetz, from this same family.

And this Prince Otto was 2nd cousin 3x removed of Princess Michael of Kent.

Didn't Otto live to be 90-something? Or am I thinking of someone else?
And Franz Joseph aka Franz Ferdinand?

 

[QueenElizabeth2Fan]

All European monarchies followed the rules of this "Almanach de Gotha".

Here is what Prince Nicholas Romanov of Russia said about marriage prospects for some male Grand Duke of the Imperial family:

"Russia, with its very Germanic notion of dynastic propriety, found itself accepting all the Almanach de Gotha rulings.

And so if some unfortunate Russian Grand Duke wanted to marry a Princess Obolensky, descendant of the Grand Dukes of Kiev, who reigned in Russia, at the time his Romanov ancestors were probably still lurking in the woods, draped in pelts or wading through the marshes of East Prussia or Pomerania, he would have had to change his plans.

That marriage would have been impossible, but an Austrian lady, say a daughter of an Illustrious Highness, Count von Harrach zu Rohrau und Thannhausen, lord of the county of Rohrau, Freiherr zu Prugg und Pürrhenstein, lord of Starkenbach, Jilenice, Sadowa & Storckow, would have been acceptable!"

They all simply followed those rules which were written in the book and based on these kind of rules Princess Michael indeed has "most royal blood" of all members that married into the family since Prince Philipp.

Hope this makes it a bit more clear how and why, just like posts from our fellow members

I definitely understood the whole anti-German sentiment regarding World War 1 and royalty. I feel, though, that there was a lot of xenophobia; (this is what I'd be thinking, if I was a royal living in the time period) if I can't marry someone because I'm German, what does that make the person/people who established these unwritten rules?
And it does all make sense now! Thank you to everyone who posted little nuggets of history for me to learn about. Royalty has always fascinated me! I know a lot more about the British Royal Family, as well as some British noble families--I know exact dates of the births of Princess Di, the Duke & Duchess of Cambridge, Prince Harry, Prince Charles, The Queen, Prince Philip, and The Queen Mother, like the back of my hand.

 

[JR76]

I definitely understood the whole anti-German sentiment regarding World War 1 and royalty. I feel, though, that there was a lot of xenophobia; (this is what I'd be thinking, if I was a royal living in the time period) if I can't marry someone because I'm German, what does that make the person/people who established these unwritten rules?
And it does all make sense now! Thank you to everyone who posted little nuggets of history for me to learn about. Royalty has always fascinated me! I know a lot more about the British Royal Family, as well as some British noble families--I know exact dates of the births of Princess Di, the Duke & Duchess of Cambridge, Prince Harry, Prince Charles, The Queen, Prince Philip, and The Queen Mother, like the back of my hand.

It was actually because of WWI that King George & Queen Mary decided to allow marriages between their children & British aristocrats.

 

[JR76]

Didn't Otto live to be 90-something? Or am I thinking of someone else?
And Franz Joseph aka Franz Ferdinand?

Franz Joseph was Emperor of Austria & King of Hungary. After the suicide of his son Rudolf in 1889 his heir was his nephew Franz Ferdinand. Franz Ferdinands murder in Sarajevo 1914 triggered WWI. When Franz Joseph died in 1916 he was succeeded not by a son of Franz Ferdinand (who had married a Czech Countess for love & because of this morganatic marrige his children werent in the Line of succession) but by his great-nephew Charles I who was the father of Archduke Otto (1912-2011) mentioned by our fellow poster earlier.

 

[QueenElizabeth2Fan]

It was actually because of WWI that King George & Queen Mary decided to allow marriages between their children & British aristocrats.

Interesting! Why would they have to allow it? It should have been a given, considering Queen Victoria's father was an aristocrat/military veteran with a title, no?

 

[JR76]

Interesting! Why would they have to allow it? It should have been a given, considering Queen Victoria's father was an aristocrat/military veteran with a title, no?

Queen Victorias father was the son of a king & brother of three more so he was by far no ordinary aristocrat.

 

[Iluvbertie]

Interesting! Why would they have to allow it? It should have been a given, considering Queen Victoria's father was an aristocrat/military veteran with a title, no?

Queen Victoria's father was the fourth son of George III - HRH The Prince Edward, Duke of Kent.

George V wasn't the first to allow marriage to British subjects as Victoria had allowed her daughter Louise to marry a British lord (Lord Lorne) but it wasn't a successful marriage.

Edward VII's eldest daughter had also married into the British aristocracy.

It was the decision to allow the sons to marry into the aristocracy that George V did that broke with previous monarchs but he would have baulked at people like Sarah Ferguson and Kate Middleton but not Diana. He still expected that 'Lady' title to be there.

After WWI there weren't that many non-German princesses around for his sons to marry. The Russians were gone. The Germans and Austrians were the enemy. The ages in Scandinavia weren't right so there weren't that many eligible princesses for his sons anyway so George had to allow marriages into the British aristocracy or have his sons marry very late - when the eligible non-German princesses were old enough. Remember that any Catholic Princess was out on religious grounds so no Belgian, Spanish or Italian princess was on the cards.

George was also determined to have his family clearly identified with the British people and so it was to the British aristocracy that he allowed his sons to turn to woo their spouses.

There was a lot of opposition to Philip on the grounds of his foreign birth and his German relations even though he had many British born relatives as well. The King and Queen constantly paraded eligible British aristocrats in front on Elizabeth for her to consider but she had made up her mind and Philip was the one.

Interestingly, since Diana, the British royals have been moving towards the middle class rather than the aristocrats for their spouses or even overseas to the former colonies so far.

Other royal houses are also looking outside their own and other nations royal houses and aristocracies (certainly the reigning royal families - the non-reigning ones seem to stick to the old rules which always strikes me as being pretentious).

 

[Marc23]

Elisabeth was one of the reasons I mentioned how many of the great houses was reluctant in approving marriages between their more prominent members & members of mediatized houses. Elisabeth had to beg her grandfather for permission to marry her princeling & IIRC the future Emperor Charles was denied permission to marry a Hohenlohe.

Maybe it was denied due to the fact that he would one day be the Emperor.

He didn't deny his cousin Archduchess Henriette to marry Prince Gottfried zu Hohenlohe, or other members of the Imperial family to marry equally to the mediatized houses like Stolberg-Stolberg, Waldburg-Zeil, Salm-Salm or Waldbott-Bassenheim...

And later as Emperor, Charles allowed his brother to marry a Hohenlohe Princess...

 

[JR76]

Maybe it was denied due to the fact that he would one day be the Emperor.

He didn't deny his cousin Archduchess Henriette to marry Prince Gottfried zu Hohenlohe, or other members of the Imperial family to marry equally to the mediatized houses like Stolberg-Stolberg, Waldburg-Zeil, Salm-Salm or Waldbott-Bassenheim...

And later as Emperor, Charles allowed his brother to marry a Hohenlohe Princess...

Thats exactly the reason Ive read - a Hohenlohe wasnt deemed ebenbürtig enough for a future emperor but was good enough for less prominent members of the family.
I have a feeling well get told off soon for not staying on topic lol