The lineage given in the World Almanac has always shown two apparent breaks in the royal lineage: one with Harold, or his brother-in-law, as the last Saxon king and blood descendant of Egbert, followed by the Norman, William the Conqueror; and the other, with James I of England (James VI of Scotland) and his immediate predecessor on the throne of England. Can anyone tell me where the links are, that would show that Prince Charles, as heir apparent, is a blood descendant of Egbert? Thanks very much.
[list=1][li]Harold II (Godwinson) was not, and didn’t purport to be, a member of the West Saxon royal line (a descendant of Egbert). His brother-in-law, Edward the Confessor, was (at least notionally) a member. The descent, FWIW, runs: Egbert, Ethelwulf, Alfred, Edward the Elder, Edmund, Edgar, Ethelred II the “Unready”, Edward the Confessor. All of the above were kings of something (where Wessex ends and England begins, historically speaking, is disputed; suffice to say that Egbert was definitely king of Wessex, and Edward the Confessor was definitely king of England).[/li]
William I the Bastard^H^H^H^H^H^H^HConqueror was related to the West Saxon royal line, sort of: his great-aunt, Emma, was Edward the Confessor’s mother. A weak claim, you think? Yes, mitigated by:
[list=1][li]Edward apparently promised him the throne,[/li][li]He really didn’t want to be remembered to history as “William the Bastard” (joke), and[/li][li]He won at Hastings.[/li][/list=1]
The real dynastic link is that his son, Henry I Beauclerc, married Edith-Matilda, great-grandniece of Edward the Confessor, and all subsequent English monarchs (with one exception) are descended from her.
[li]James I and VI was the great-grandson of Margaret Tudor, elder surviving daughter of Henry VII Tudor. Henry VII was the son of Margaret Beaufort, which definitely made him a descendant of Edward III, although it can be questioned whether that descent really made him royal, as Maggie’s grandfather John Beaufort was born illegitimate, only subsequently legitimized, and supposedly barred from the throne by his half-brother, Henry IV (although again, Henry Tudor won a battle at Bosworth Field, which pretty much settles questions about claims to the throne). In any case, Margaret Tudor was the daughter of Elizabeth of York, in her turn the eldest surviving daughter of Edward IV; if Henry wasn’t the legitimate claimant, she was.[/list=1][/li]
“Kings die, and leave their crowns to their sons. Shmuel HaKatan took all the treasures in the world, and went away.”
Thanks, Akatsukami. 
Get it from the horse’s mouth:
http://www.royal.gov.uk/history/trees.htm
If you are asking that Charles has a claim on the throne strictly by virtue of his pedigree, it ain’t so:
http://www.royal.gov.uk/acs/success.htm
Andrew Warinner
So I found it interesting that, after the line of the Tudors ended, apparently with Queen Anne, the throne went to the Elector of Hanover, George I–a German–who didn’t speak a word of English! And until the time of George VI, the father of Elizabeth II, the British sovereigns were almost totally German–which implies that the British royal lineage was carried on in–or from–the wrong country! But Charles and his sons are British indeed–and so was the late and lamented Lady Diana Spencer, aka Princess Di. 
The line of the Tudors ended with Elizabeth I. Anne was the last of the Stuarts.
George I, however, was the legitimate heir to the Stuarts, provided that (as the law required) all Catholics were skipped.
It isn’t really correct to say that the Hanovers were German. It is true that they mostly married Germans, but that is because it is customary for royalty to marry royalty (not mere nobility), and there were a lot more German royalty around to marry, since Germany didn’t become a united country until Bismarck. At any rate, after George I, their main interests were in the UK, and since women couldn’t inherit the throne of Hanover, Victoria and her descendants had no continental interests at all.
John W. Kennedy
“Compact is becoming contract; man only earns and pays.”
– Charles Williams
Ignoring all the (apparently breakable) rules of royal inheritance isn’t it true that all of the British monarchs since 1087 have been direct descendants of William the Conqueror?
Depends on what you mean by “direct.” But yes, they can all eventually trace their ancestry back to William the Conqueror.
“East is east and west is west and if you take cranberries and stew them like applesauce they taste much more like prunes than rhubarb does.” – Marx
Read “Sundials” in the new issue of Aboriginal Science Fiction. www.sff.net/people/rothman
By direct, I mean that if William the Conqueror had been childless, none of them would ever have been born.
that’s right - but as Akutsakmi hints at, there was one King who did not have a claim from the Anglo-Saxon line, only through the Norman line. that was King Stephen, who followed King Henry I.
Stephen was William I’s grandson, by William’s daughter Adela. He managed to get the throne on Henry I’s death, which eventually triggered a leisurely civil war with Henry I’s daughter, the Empress Matilda, Stephen’s cousin. Stephen kept the throne, but his son Eustace pre-deceased him (good thing - King Eustace?!), and Matilda’s son, Henry II, succeeded Stephen. Since all subsequent monarchs have been descended one way or another from Henry II, who was the grandson of the Saxon princess Edith-Matilda, wife of Henry I, they have all had the claim based on the Anglo-Saxon line.
oh, by the way, Dougie, it gets worse. If my memory serves me correctly, if you go by strict primogeniture and ignore the ban on Catholics that John mentions, then the current heir of the Stuart line is the Duke of Bavaria.
Here’s a subsidiary question: Does the heir apparent take the first name (Edward, George, Elizabeth, for example) that he or she was born with as a “sovereign name,” if that’s the right word? For example, if Prince Charles becomes king, will he be King Charles III, or does he have to take some other name, like the Pope does? (Granted, we wouldn’t have a Pope Karol…)
Most British monarchs go by their Christian names. The numbers are added to prevent confusion with their predecessors. Prince Charles will be Charles III. I seem to remember reading that Victoria’s son, the crown prince, was named after his father, Alfred, and was known to the familiy as “Alfie”. However, when he became king he became Edward VII.
BTW - the numbers only count as far back as William I. There were plenty of Edwards who ruled England before Edward I.
Makes sense, Ursa. It might seem strange if a modern king were to take the name Edmund II…
True. Edward VII had a first name of Albert, but he refused to use that because his mother, Queen Victoria, wished that no king have the same name as her beloved husband.
“East is east and west is west and if you take cranberries and stew them like applesauce they taste much more like prunes than rhubarb does.” – Marx
Read “Sundials” in the new issue of Aboriginal Science Fiction. www.sff.net/people/rothman
And Edward VIII went by his Christian name of “David” before he came to the throne.
And Edward VIII went by his Christian name of “David” before he came to the throne.
and the stars o’erhead were dancing heel and toe
jti,
Not to be too picky, but the book I’m currently reading lists Stephen’s cousin and adversary as Maude. His wife was Matilda. Perhaps that’s where the confusion came from.
They were all quite a crew, including Maude’s husband Geoffrey, who traced his ancestry to a daughter of the devil, according to family legend.
thirdwarning: In that era, the names Matilda and Maud were interchangeable.
Hi, thirdwarning.
as Ruadh mentioned, the names are interchangable - the entry in Chambers’ Biographical Dictionary begins: “Matilda, called ‘The Empress Maud’”
Are you reading “The Pilgrim of Hate” by any chance, by Peters? I found it confusing at first for the reason you mention - references to the Empress Matilda and the Queen Matilda, with Stephen in the custody of the Empress Matilda, and the Queen Matilda striving to free him…