Oldest Royal and Noble Families

[Mbruno]

That's absurd. Women don't mean it's a new family, it's just a new House.

Saying that the British Royal Family isn't an unbroken line because of female inheritance is absurd. The BRF traces it's claim to William the Conqueror. Queen Elizabeth II is the direct descendant of William the Conqueror.

The Spanish house of Bourbon has a direct paternal line going back to the Middle Ages, specifically to Hugh Capet . Queen Isabel II didn't break the line since her husband was also a patrilineal Bourbon. Unfortunately, Leonor will break the line unless she also marries another member of the dynasty.

I believe the Belgian Coburgs may also have a direct paternal line going back to the medieval house of Wettin in Saxony. Again, however, with the decision to switch to equal primogeniture, the line will probably be broken by Elisabeth's descendants even though it will continue to exist if princes Gabriel, Emmanuel, Aymeric or Nicolas have male issue.

 

[Duc_et_Pair]

Pushkin wasn't a count. He didn't have a title. He was from landed gentry.

I stand corrected. Pushkin was indeed of untitled nobility. There are Counts Mushin-Pushkin but apparently with no relation to the famous Pushkin, I think.

 

[Tatiana Maria]

The thread title is oldest royal and noble families.

The original post asked

what royal/noble families have the oldest traceable ancesty.also is the massimo descent from an ancient roman general(maximus i believe) genuine.i find this fascinating so any info or input is much appreciated.

i forgot to mention that it does not matter wheather it is male or female line descent.

[...]

One family is considered by male agnates...if a female was transmitter of the family,no royal and noble family would ever die out.

If a woman succeeds it's a start of a different family.

So, here we discuss oldest noble and royal families,which means unbroken male line,as that determines noble families in general and determines how old the family is.

Simple.

That is not the case worldwide, e.g., certain Native American monarchies were matrilineal.

While children in Europe normally belonged to their father's house, there were many exceptions.

The Spanish royal family traces its name to Beatrice, Lady of Bourbon rather than her husband Robert, Count of Clermont (son of King Louis IX of France), who is the unbroken male line ancestor of Felipe VI de Borbón, King of Spain.

The children of Queen Maria II of Portugal and King Fernando, Prince of Saxe-Coburg and Gotha, were "de Bragança Bourbon", not "de Saxe-Coburgo-Gotha" or "de Bragança Saxe-Coburgo-Gotha". Here is the marriage contract of Infanta Maria Anna. http://books.google.pt/books?id=UXUMAAAAYAAJ&pg=PA4&focus=viewport&hl=pt-PT

[...] e Sua Alteza a Serenissima Senhora Princeza Dona Maria Anna Fernanda Leopoldina Michaela Gabriela Carlota Antonia Julia Victoria Praxedes Francisca de Assis Gonzaga de Bragança Bourbon, Infanta de Portugal e dos Algarves, Duqueza de Saxe Coburgo Gotha, Filha mais velha de Sua Magestade, Dom Fernando, Rei de Portugal e dos Algarves, Duque de Saxe Coburgo Gotha, e de Sua Magestade, já fallecida, Dona Maria II, Rainha de Portugal e dos Algarves, etc, etc, etc, e Irmã de Sua Magestade Fidelissima El-Rei Dom Pedro V, etc, etc, etc; [...]

 

[Mbruno]

The children of Queen Maria II of Portugal and King Fernando, Prince of Saxe-Coburg and Gotha, were "de Bragança Bourbon", not "de Saxe-Coburgo-Gotha" or "de Bragança Saxe-Coburgo-Gotha". Here is the marriage contract of Infanta Maria Anna. http://books.google.pt/books?id=UXUMAAAAYAAJ&pg=PA4&focus=viewport&hl=pt-PT

The name "Braganza-Saxe-Coburg and Gotha" is used mostly by non-Portuguese historians and genealogists who adhere to the patrilineal rule. Within Portugal itself, the descendants of Queen Maria II continued to style themselves as members of the House of Bragança only.

A possible parallel is the patrilineal descendants of Queen Elizabeth II being considered part of the House of Windsor, rather than the House of Mountbatten-Windsor.

 

[Stefan]

What is normally done in those cases is to use a hyphenated name indicating both the paternal and maternal houses, e.g. Habsburg-Lorraine, Braganza-Saxe-Coburg and Gotha, Orléans-Braganza, etc. Likewise, the descendants of Queen Elizabeth II and Prince Philip could be technically referred to as the House of Mountbatten-Windsor.

But why was this then not done in the UK. It could have then become the House of Hannover (or more correct Guelf)-Wettin after 1901.

 

[Duc_et_Pair]

But why was this then not done in the UK. It could have then become the House of Hannover (or more correct Guelf)-Wettin after 1901.

In some European peerages the closest relative of a last agnate of a dynasty can request to add the surname of the last agnate (often their mother) to their father's surname. For an example, the last Princesse de la Trémoïlle married a Prince de Ligne. Their descendants belong to the princely House De Ligne but have a different surname: prince (princesse) de Ligne de la Trémoïlle.

The same happened in the Netherlands but not consequently. The very last Prince zur Lippe-Biesterfeld died in 2014 (Prince Bernhard), leaving 4+2 daughters. In reality the current Fürst zur Lippe is genealogically a Lippe-Biesterfeld too but the main branch is known as Lippe, not as Lippe-Biesterfeld, so that name would become extinct. The children of Prince Bernhard's grandson Maurits have the surname Van Lippe-Biesterfeld van Vollenhoven, to keep the surname going on. Alike the example of De Ligne de la Trémoïlle.

The "problem" with Hannover and Von Sachsen-Coburg und Gotha is that neigher Victoria nor Elizabeth II are last agnates at all. The situation is not alike De la Trémoïlle or Zur Lippe-Biesterfeld.

 

[Tatiana Maria]

In Germany, the Hanoverian house law dictated that Queen Victoria and the British branch were no longer members of the Royal House of Hannover when the crowns of Great Britain and Hannover became separate.

Succession laws in the House of Braunschweig

§. 3.
Mitglieder des Königlichen Hauses sind :

Die Königin, Gemahlin des Königs
die Königlichen Wittwen;
alle im Königreiche Successionsfähige, nicht regierende Prinzen und Prinzessinnen der Königlich-Hannoverschen Linie, für den Fall aber, dass eine Trennung der Kronen von Grossbritannien und Hannover einträte, nur in so fern als sie ihren Wohnsitz im Königreiche Hannover nehmen und in den Haus verband dieses Königreichs vom Könige aufgenommen sind; übrigens ohne Beeinträchtigung der Successionsrechte der Mitglieder des Gesammthauses;
die ebenbürtigen, hausgesetzlich vermählten Gemahlinnen der Prinzen des Königlichen Hauses und die Wittwen derselben.

 

[Duc_et_Pair]

In Germany, the Hanoverian house law dictated that Queen Victoria and the British branch were no longer members of the Royal House of Hannover when the crowns of Great Britain and Hannover became separate.

Succession laws in the House of Braunschweig

That is a formalization of the longstanding practice. The same happened between the Netherlands and Luxembourg. With the death of King Willem III of the Netherlands, Grand-Duke of Luxembourg, his only surviving child was Princess Wilhelmina. She did succeed him in the Netherlands but -like in the UK-Hannover union- in Luxembourg the throne went to the closest male agnate.

Since then Princes (Princesses) of the Netherlands have no succession rights anymore in the Grand-Duchy of Luxembourg. Exactly like the Princes (Princesses) of the United Kingdom have no succession rights anymore in Hannover.

 

[Tatiana Maria]

The ruling houses of the Netherlands and Luxembourg have indeed no rights to each other's crowns at present, though they did not adapt their respective succession laws until 1922 and 1907. However, was Queen Wilhelmina no longer a member of the Grand-Ducal House of Luxembourg since 1890?

 

[Duc_et_Pair]

The ruling houses of the Netherlands and Luxembourg have indeed no rights to each other's crowns at present, though they did not adapt their respective succession laws until 1922 and 1907. However, was Queen Wilhelmina no longer a member of the Grand-Ducal House of Luxembourg since 1890?

By my knowledge the title "Prince (Princess) of Luxembourg" was not used during the personal union of the two crowns under the Dutch Kings. The head of the House of Orange-Nassau was the King Grand-Duke (Le Roi Grand-Duc), and that was it. There was no "Grand-Ducal House" during the personal union, by my understanding, but I can be wrong anyway. Also in the three super-thick biographies on the Kings Willem I, II and III there was no mention of "Prince (Princess) of Luxembourg" for themselves or their relatives. Would be interesting to learn about that. In the Constitution of Luxembourg of 1868 only the House of Nassau (Article 3) is mentioned, and "princes du sang royal" (article 42). A Prince of the blood royal - which was the Dutch Royal House back then.

http://mjp.univ-perp.fr/constit/lu1868.htm

 

[Duc_et_Pair]

Anyway, the original question: the oldest royal or noble families. I think those who can claim to come from Rome's patriciate have a strong card, but it is very difficult to objectify such claims. It is nearly impossible to trace any noble lineage back much before 800. Let us say: when a dynasty can trace unbroken nobility in male lineage to 1000, then it is a very, very old one. The House of Capet (the Bourbons in Spain and Luxembourg) and the House of Guelph (the Windsors and the Of Belgiums) are the two best contenders, I think.

 

[Marc23]

That is not the case worldwide, e.g., certain Native American monarchies were matrilineal.

While children in Europe normally belonged to their father's house, there were many exceptions.

The Spanish royal family traces its name to Beatrice, Lady of Bourbon rather than her husband Robert, Count of Clermont (son of King Louis IX of France), who is the unbroken male line ancestor of Felipe VI de Borbón, King of Spain.

The children of Queen Maria II of Portugal and King Fernando, Prince of Saxe-Coburg and Gotha, were "de Bragança Bourbon", not "de Saxe-Coburgo-Gotha" or "de Bragança Saxe-Coburgo-Gotha". Here is the marriage contract of Infanta Maria Anna. http://books.google.pt/books?id=UXUMAAAAYAAJ&pg=PA4&focus=viewport&hl=pt-PT

Of course, I know that there are matrilineal monarchies, but changing name doesn't determine family, it can determine new House, maybe new monarchy, but not a family.

Here almost everyone mixes the terms monarchy, dynasty and family...

In 1901 King Edward VI was head of the British royal family and he belonged to the ruling dynasty of Britain, but did not belong to the same family as his mother to whom he succeeded on the throne...So, he did succeed the throne, but did not belong to the same House.

And in this thread the title is "Oldest royal and noble families", and all noble families are determined by male descent. I am not talking about royal dynasties.

We have today British royal family, royal House and it's members belong to 2 families.

Duke of Kent, Prince of Kent and Duke of Gloucester belong to Saxe-Coburg-Gotha family, while Prince Charles and Prince William belong to Schleswig-Holstein family, while all of them technically belong to the House of Windsor.

So, we are here talking about families which have survived in an unbroken male line, which makes them extant...as that determines how old one House is.

If the contrary would be the case, then all royal and noble families would have never been extinct.

 

[Tatiana Maria]

I am aware that you were talking about male line descent, however, the original post asked about families' traceable ancestry in female line and male line.

what royal/noble families have the oldest traceable ancesty.also is the massimo descent from an ancient roman general(maximus i believe) genuine.i find this fascinating so any info or input is much appreciated.

i forgot to mention that it does not matter wheather it is male or female line descent.

hi. let me start by saying that i have already asked this question in a different part of this forum,but recieved no reply. what royal/noble families have the oldest traceable lineage. also are the roman descents of the massimo, orsiniand antici-matei(sorry about the spelling)families genuine.thanks in advance.

 

[Duc_et_Pair]

The oldest traceable descent is a complete different question than the oldest royal or noble houses.

For sure is that for all the current reigning monarchs the closest shared ancestor is Johan Willem Friso of Nassau, Prince of Orange, Stadtholder of the United Netherlands. His genealogical House however became extinct in the Netherlands in 1962, became extinct in Luxembourg in 1985 and will be completely extinct when the very last (legitimate) male agnate (a German countess) will pass away.

But in the end the question of the longest ancestry is a bit useless if we are free to hopping from male to female, from family to family, like we are using the Metro of Paris. After all we seem to descend from the first man created, if we may believe the stories told in the biblical book Genesis.....

The most close comes a traceable and recorded lineage from father on son, in an unbroken descendance. But even then it is difficult because we have no DNA and is indeed the infant in that cradle born from his legal father's seed and not from an extramarital affair or a swap with someone's child for political reasons?

 

[Countessmeout]

If you find it useless feel free to leave the thread

You didn't create this thread. This thread, and what was being discussed was set by another poster. It clearly states that.

You are free to hold to your only males should ever rule thoughts. And we have every right to discus maternal lineage. That is what the thread is about. Some of are interested in an entire family tree, not simply male. Obviously the poster who started the thread thought do.

 

[Duc_et_Pair]

If you find it useless feel free to leave the thread

You didn't create this thread. This thread, and what was being discussed was set by another poster. It clearly states that.

You are free to hold to your only males should ever rule thoughts. And we have every right to discus maternal lineage. That is what the thread is about. Some of are interested in an entire family tree, not simply male. Obviously the poster who started the thread thought do.

It is useless because:
- a - it can not be substantiated
- b- Christians believe we were created by a Creator

So ultimately all descendance is equally old. Your descendance is as old as that of Elizabeth von Sachsen-Coburg und Gotha and mine is as old as that of the Earl of Farthing.

Take the example of the princely house of Monaco. The Prince's paternal great grandmother was a relatively undocumented daughter of a laundress working for the Prince. The prince's maternal ancestors came from Ireland. It is almost impossible to trace them since they were no high- and wellborn ladies and gentlemen with extensive recordings of their lives. Does that makes the descendance of the Prince of Monaco less older than that of his grandfather Pierre from the most noble and well-documented House de Chalencon de Polignac?

 

[Tatiana Maria]

But in the end the question of the longest ancestry is a bit useless if we are free to hopping from male to female, from family to family, like we are using the Metro of Paris. After all we seem to descend from the first man created, if we may believe the stories told in the biblical book Genesis.....

I am doubtful that your descent from the first man or woman is a traceable lineage.

i forgot to mention that it does not matter wheather it is male or female line descent. [...] what royal/noble families have the oldest traceable lineage.

 

[Marc23]

I am aware that you were talking about male line descent, however, the original post asked about families' traceable ancestry in female line and male line.

Ok, but that is completely stupid.

If you trace every line, almost all royal and noble families can trace their ancestry from few same persons.

If that is so, what is the difference as almost all of them would be the same by that criteria.

By that Catherine, Duchess of Cambridge, Sophie, Countess of Wessex and Queen Elizabeth II are equal as all of them can trace their ancestry from Kings of England, who also trace their descent from etc. etc. etc.

Maybe even I am descendant of the Kings of England

So, what is the point of this kind of comparation then?

 

[Duc_et_Pair]

That is what I meant. As I am no native English speaker I can sometimes not come to what I meant. Thanks for the crisp and clear post.

 

[Mbruno]

Ok, but that is completely stupid.

If you trace every line, almost all royal and noble families can trace their ancestry from few same persons.

Yes, but not all of them trace their ancestry in male line to those same few persons. That is the point some of the posters here are trying to make.

 

[Tatiana Maria]

If you trace every line, almost all royal and noble families can trace their ancestry from few same persons.

Who are these persons? I am doubtful that the Senge family of Japan has a traceable and recorded descent from the oldest traceable ancestor of the Spencer family of England.

 

[Marc23]

Who are these persons?

If you count maternal descent of most royal or noble families,almost every noble person by this criteria has descended from William the Conqueror on this or that way and going further down.

I am doubtful that the Senge family of Japan has a traceable and recorded descent from the oldest traceable ancestor of the Spencer family of England.

You can doubt, but you might never know.

For example, when Queen Elizabeth II visited China in 1986 she got as a present her ancestry from Chinese Emperors.

Chinese Emperors married their daughters to Mongols(Genghis Khan and his family), Mongols migrated to Europe and intermarried with ancient Hungarian nobility who again intermarried with almost all other noble families of Europe.

As for Spencer family, by your criteria, Diana as a Spencer can trace her ancestry to Hannover dynasty and Stuart dynasty and they can trace their ancestry again to almost same people, so what is the point as everything leads to just few persons.

But,if we count just male descent Spencer family can be compared with almost every other family, as the first documented male is the founder of one noble family and the last documented male is last one before family is considered extinct.

And the first documented male determines how old one noble family is, not first female.

 

[Marc23]

That is what I meant. As I am no native English speaker I can sometimes not come to what I meant. Thanks for the crisp and clear post.

Me neither,but I completely understood your point and I am backing it up because it is the only comparable thing considering the thing "how old ONE family is, not 2 or 3 families."

And how old one noble family is is determined by first documented MALE who appeared at certain point etc.

That is comparable.

By using this criteria we can compare two families...for example Reibnitz family(family of Princess Michael of Kent) and Spencer family(family of Lady Diana):

As first recorded male member(or founder) of Reibnitz family dates back to 1288 and first recorded male(founder) of Spencer family dates back to 1478 one can easily say that Reibnitz family is the older noble family.

So, for me that is the only criteria which can be comparable.

It also reminds me of the fact that Queen Carola of Saxony was prior to her marriage called "the last Vasa Princess", while in reality she was the member of Holstein-Gottorp dynasty and had almost nothing to do with Vasa family that died out few centuries ago.

 

[Tatiana Maria]

You can doubt, but you might never know. [...]
And the first documented male determines how old one noble family is, not first female.

I agree that it is not known if the Senges descend from William the Conqueror, but my point was that kcc, who created this thread, asked about traceable (known and documented) lineages in female and male line.

 

[Marc23]

I agree that it is not known if the Senges descend from William the Conqueror, but my point was that kcc, who created this thread, asked about traceable (known and documented) lineages in female and male line.

Ok, but then kcc as a thread starter should say ancestry in general, but that is paradoxical as ancestry in general(both through male and female) can't determine oldness of one noble family.

If you want to compare something you must give one criteria and based on that compare. And the only criteria of oldness of one noble and royal family is when first documented male ancestor appeared. End of story.

 

[Tatiana Maria]

Which family has the oldest documented lineage is what kcc meant, I believe.

And the only criteria of oldness of one noble and royal family is when first documented male ancestor appeared. End of story.

Even in matriarchal and matrilineal societies?

 

[Lee-Z]

the first post was from almost 13 years ago, but imo it's intention was more "how far can a family lineage be traced back at all", for instance can it be traced back to roman times, more than the traditional royal genealogy tracing of "name genealogy" or "house genealogy"

I know there are families who can trace their lineage back to the time of Charlemagne, but are there any families who can trace back to roman times at all?

 

[Osipi]

When we really think about it, when it comes to the British Royal Family and the House of Windsor, Charles' descent from the House of Saxe-Coburg and Gotha and Queen Victoria comes to him from both of his parents. Both Elizabeth and Philip are great great grandchildren of Victoria.

The thread is about the oldest and noble families, its different from discussing the Houses themselves and their different prerequisites for descent and denoting the head of the household. In this regards you have as many branches as you do on a tree.

I find this discussion interesting but will be the first to admit I'm a beginner.

 

[Countessmeout]

The point if this thread was to discus lineage, plain and simple. Whose lineage could be traced furthest back.

If you are only interested in sperm contribution I am sure there are other threads. If not start one. Contrary to what some posters think, they don't have to take over every thread. If you aren't interested in lineage (which included both sides) choose another thread.

The popularity of sites like ancestry.com tells thet people are indeed interested in lineage, knowing where one comes from. And that extends to royals.

 

[Marc23]

Which family has the oldest documented lineage is what kcc meant, I believe.

Well, if the case is "noble and royal families", that is decided mostly by the male founders of the family.

Even in matriarchal and matrilineal societies?

If the criteria is maternal ancestry, like among Jews, where mother transmits almost everything than matriarchal.