# Confederate memorials vs. UK memorials **URL:** \ **Category:** Factual Questions\ **Created:** [August 14, 2015, 9:05pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/confederate-memorials-vs-uk-memorials/727868 "2015-08-14T21:05:36Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 12\ **Page:** 3
**Author:** ![up\_the\_junction](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/u/f1d935/32.png) [@up\_the\_junction](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/up_the_junction)\ **Post date:** [August 17, 2015, 10:29am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/confederate-memorials-vs-uk-memorials/727868/41 "2015-08-17T10:29:49Z")
If the OP is asking has there even been a reaction to symbols of oppression (which is how I understand the current confederate flag issue) then we’d need a symbol to work with. If you’re Irish, the statue of O. Cromwell in Parliament Square seem to fit the bill but it’s not, literally, waved in the face of those it oppressed - which I suspect that was a large part of the problem in the US. Nor is it celebrating a lost society and culture so it’s not a sentimental rallying point for the hard of thinking. ---
**Author:** ![Really\_Not\_All\_That\_Bright](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/r/e8c25b/32.png) [@Really\_Not\_All\_That\_Bright](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Really_Not_All_That_Bright)\ **Post date:** [August 17, 2015, 1:36pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/confederate-memorials-vs-uk-memorials/727868/42 "2015-08-17T13:36:12Z")
> [@Lumpy](#): > > Erm… while there might be a VERY indirect line of descent, I’m pretty sure dynastically the Norman kingship is considered long extinct. The _House of Stuart_ is extinct, but there’s a [fairly easy](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_the_English_line_of_succession) line of dynastic succession to follow. Things are a bit murky when you get to George I, because you have to go “up” a couple of generations, but they’re still lineal descendants of William I. If you don’t require lineal descent then you can go even beyond William, since he was a maternal relation of Edward I. ---
**Author:** ![Claverhouse](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/c/13edae/32.png) [@Claverhouse](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Claverhouse)\ **Post date:** [August 17, 2015, 7:59pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/confederate-memorials-vs-uk-memorials/727868/43 "2015-08-17T19:59:02Z")
The House of Stuart is not extinct in any way, any more than the House of Hohenzollern or the House of Braganza. Under primogeniture there is always someone who is the only legitimate heir. Even if that person is lost to sight in the lowest rungs of society. Which is not the case for the Duke of Bavaria, Head of the Houses of Wittelsbach, Stuart, Gonzaga, Cerdic, Modena etc. ( no matter how uninterested he may be in seeking his thrones ). He’s kinda wealthy. The present Windsors have to latch on to their Stuart ancestors to claim descent from William I, etc., but there is no doubt they are legitimately descended from him. As are very many people, without that making them ‘royal’. Loads of men and women are descended from Edward III, Charlemagne and Genghis Khan, which doesn’t make any of them kin to those men. I assume you mean Edward the Confessor as being William’s relation; Edward I Hammer of the Scots was his descendent. Saxon naming being not unconfusing ( as with the later Kingdoms in Spain during the High Middle Ages ), the new regime decided to start over with regnal names. ---
**Author:** ![Captain\_Amazing](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/c/6de8d8/32.png) [@Captain\_Amazing](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Captain_Amazing)\ **Post date:** [August 22, 2015, 2:22am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/confederate-memorials-vs-uk-memorials/727868/44 "2015-08-22T02:22:25Z")
> [@Claverhouse](#): > > The House of Stuart is not extinct in any way, any more than the House of Hohenzollern or the House of Braganza. Under primogeniture there is always someone who is the only legitimate heir. Even if that person is lost to sight in the lowest rungs of society. The House of Stuart is extinct in the primary male line, though, which is generally what they mean by a house being “extinct”. Franz, who would also be King of Bavaria, if there were still Kings of Bavaria, and who’s the generally recognized Stuart pretender, is descended from Charles I’s daughter Henrietta, and, while he may have a claim to the British throne that way, he’s not a member of the House of Stuart. He’s a member of the House of Wittlesbach. The last actual member of the House of Stuart was Henry Stuart, and being a Catholic Cardinal, unmarried, prudish, and, in all likelihood, homosexual, he didn’t have any sons. ---
**Author:** ![Claverhouse](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/c/13edae/32.png) [@Claverhouse](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Claverhouse)\ **Post date:** [August 22, 2015, 4:57am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/confederate-memorials-vs-uk-memorials/727868/45 "2015-08-22T04:57:45Z")
The Line had been broken several times _before_ Charles I, yet the Line goes on, just as it does in any house, including yours and mine until there was an utter extinction. The Romanovs are now Hohenzollern-Romanovs — they were mostly German anyway — it is the _nearest_ relative by primogeniture who is always the Head and heir-general. I have no idea why you would believe that extinction in the male line extinguishes a family. If I leave property to ‘my nearest heir’ then it goes to the person most nearly related: not having sons, nor daughters wouldn’t mean anything. Even most aristocratic and gentry families of the utmost unimportance have had breaks in the male line, yet still they remain. Property doesn’t go back in a big pot for anyone to grab when the male line is extinct. The pitiful Windsors ( although admittedly only holding a mere parliamentary monarchy, bowing and scraping to their masters ) are far more removed from the line, going back a generation to James I & VI, yet obviously they have Stuart blood, and would be in line for the House if about 30,000 people died instantaneously ahead of Elizabeth Windsor. Cardinal Henry recognized the transmission to his heir general, the then King of Sardinia. Being a priest, which he was in addition to being a Cardinal [it wasn’t necessary], and being homosexual ( or more likely asexual ) was no more important in his being King, than race or age or anything in the world except ancestry. And all three types have frequently fathered children. ---
**Author:** ![Captain\_Amazing](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/c/6de8d8/32.png) [@Captain\_Amazing](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Captain_Amazing)\ **Post date:** [August 22, 2015, 12:23pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/confederate-memorials-vs-uk-memorials/727868/46 "2015-08-22T12:23:03Z")
Very few Catholic priests in the 18th century fathered legitimate children, though. And “House of” is usually used to refer to the male line, which is why it’s called the “House of Stuart” and not “House of Bruce”, Robert I’s claim to the Scottish throne coming from his mother, who was the daughter of Robert the Bruce. ---
**Author:** ![Claverhouse](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/c/13edae/32.png) [@Claverhouse](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Claverhouse)\ **Post date:** [August 22, 2015, 3:27pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/confederate-memorials-vs-uk-memorials/727868/47 "2015-08-22T15:27:48Z")
Are you under the impression, following your frankly _unique_ logic, that Victoria was not the heir general of George I as regards the British throne, when she succeeded her uncle William IV and the male line, her other uncles, were relegated to Hannover ? Do you maintain Elizabeth is not the heir general of the House of Windsor — and also of George I — because her father died the last of the male line of Windsor ? [Yeah, his brother lived past that, but had been force-abdicated by their masters, and was himself childless.] If you are looking for a direct line, you may consider adhering to the cause of Michael of Albany, who has as much right to the throne as the Windsor, and claims to be Head of the House of Stuart. _Belges Wha Hae !_ ---
**Author:** ![Captain\_Amazing](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/c/6de8d8/32.png) [@Captain\_Amazing](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Captain_Amazing)\ **Post date:** [August 22, 2015, 8:52pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/confederate-memorials-vs-uk-memorials/727868/48 "2015-08-22T20:52:20Z")
No. That’s what I’m saying. I’m saying that Victoria’s son Edward was not a member of the House of Hannover. Victoria was the last member of the House of Hannover on the British throne. Her son was a member of her husband’s house, and hence was the first British king of the house of Saxe-Coburg-Gotha, which changed its name to Windsor during the anti-German hysteria during World War I. Strictly speaking, if Charles is king after Elizabeth, he would be the first British king of the house of Mountbatten, and Elizabeth’s kids use the name “Mountbatten-Windsor”. ---
**Author:** ![Horatio\_Hellpop](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/h/e5b9ba/32.png) [@Horatio\_Hellpop](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Horatio_Hellpop)\ **Post date:** [August 22, 2015, 9:37pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/confederate-memorials-vs-uk-memorials/727868/49 "2015-08-22T21:37:58Z")
> [@slash2k](#): > > Actually, the Confederate flag really only became a widely-known and used symbol DURING the Civil Rights era; Georgia, for example, added the Southern Cross to the state flag in 1956, and the Confederate flag started flying over the South Carolina statehouse in 1961. It became a symbol of opposition to civil rights, a way to show white resistance to the emerging reality of the end of discrimination. Hard to prove this one way or the other. It seems to me the Confederate Battle Flag was featured in lots of old movies (like _The General_ and _My Old Kentucky Home_) that predated the Civil Rights era. I suspect it was quite familiar in the South and not unfamiliar in the North prior to WWII but don’t have any strong cites. > [@Hari\_Seldon](#): > > Why don’t you simply admit that it has become a symbol of racism? Last time I was in SC, I saw a small panel truck adorned with confederate flags and slogans like “Impeach Obama”. There were other racist displays. It is KKK under a different symbol. > > Now Richmond (and doubtless many other places) has a statue of Robert E. Lee. I don’t see that as primarily (or even significantly) racist, but it does honor a traitor. See tomorrow’s Doonesbury cartoon (we get the Sunday cartoons on Saturday) for an effective reply to the common misconception that secession was about anything other than slavery. Monument Ave. in Richmond has a bunch of statues, mostly of Confederate generals… and one of tennis player Arthur Ashe. That’s the array of celebrity Richmond has produced. One day, a statue of GWAR may grace that hallowed boulevard. I’d like to address the “Robert E. Lee = traitor” comment. The line I hear a lot is that he was a traitor for waging war on the Federal government; people who say this have a great misunderstanding of the significance of the Federal government before the Civil War vs. after it. It was a much smaller institution before the war, one less inclined to involve itself in the affairs of individual states, and its supremacy had not yet been established. Lee’s primary allegiance had always been to Virginia. There was no precedent for his seeing Virginia invaded by federal troops, or for having his (literal) back yard seized and turned into Arlington Cemetery. ---
**Author:** ![Claverhouse](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/c/13edae/32.png) [@Claverhouse](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Claverhouse)\ **Post date:** [August 22, 2015, 9:42pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/confederate-memorials-vs-uk-memorials/727868/50 "2015-08-22T21:42:56Z")
That would be Guelph-Wettin Saxe-Coburg-und-Gotha. Albert was a Wettin, same as the Saxon Royal House, Prince of the Saxe-Coburg-und-Gotha junior line. _In the late 19th century, Queen Victoria charged the College of Heralds in England to determine the correct personal surname of her late husband, Prince Albert of Saxe-Coburg and Gotha—and, thus, the proper surname of the royal family upon the accession of her son. After extensive research they concluded that it was Wettin, but this name was never used, either by the Queen or by her son or grandson, King Edward VII and King George V; they were simply called ‘Saxe-Coburg-Gotha’._ [**Wiki Wettin**](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/House_of_Wettin) Later: _By Order in Council, the name of the British royal family was legally changed to Windsor, prospectively for all time._ Victoria was not Head of the House of Guelph-Hannover; but she was Head of the House of Guelph-Britain, and sole heir general to George I in Britain _whether she married or not_. She retained all his claims on the thrones, such as they were. In countries which permitted female succession, such as England ( compared to say France ) the daughter, inheriting all ( compared to legal succession which shared an inheritance amonst all sisters ), was now the Head of the House and her marriage ( or not in the case of Elizabeth I ) did not subject her to her husband’s House ( as when Mary I married Philip of Spain ). A new House may be born, but it inherits the entire rights and styles of the old House(s) from which it sprang. And thus the House, the line and the monarch never dies. Prince Philip, the current one, is a Mountbatten [English backformation from Battenberg] of the House of Schleswig-Holstein-Sonderburg-Glücksburg. But was forbidden by their masters to pass on his name to his wife or children. Germans love their compound words… His and her children are **Windsors** , It is only descendants of them who are _not_ Highnesses who will be **Mountbatten-Windsors**. It is like so many things here a hastily cobbled together mess to prevent people looking too closely. Like pretending it is a monarchy. Had her rather awful sister inherited ( if the elder had died ) her surname might be Windsor-Armstrong-Jones, but she would have been the new Head of the House of Windsor, and not of the new Royal House of Jones. ---
**Author:** ![Chronos](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/chronos/32/134_2.png) [@Chronos](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Chronos)\ **Post date:** [August 22, 2015, 11:31pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/confederate-memorials-vs-uk-memorials/727868/51 "2015-08-22T23:31:07Z")
> [@](#): > > Quoth **Horatio Hellpop** : > I’d like to address the “Robert E. Lee = traitor” comment. The line I hear a lot is that he was a traitor for waging war on the Federal government; people who say this have a great misunderstanding of the significance of the Federal government before the Civil War vs. after it. It was a much smaller institution before the war, one less inclined to involve itself in the affairs of individual states, and its supremacy had not yet been established. Lee’s primary allegiance had always been to Virginia. There was no precedent for his seeing Virginia invaded by federal troops, or for having his (literal) back yard seized and turned into Arlington Cemetery. The supremacy of the American federal government over the states was established in the Constitution, which Virginia ratified. ---
**Author:** ![Bijou\_Drains](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/bijou_drains/32/2814_2.png) [@Bijou\_Drains](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Bijou_Drains)\ **Post date:** [August 22, 2015, 11:37pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/confederate-memorials-vs-uk-memorials/727868/52 "2015-08-22T23:37:05Z")
Also Lee spent 30 years in the US Army which would seem to prove he supported the Federal government. [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/confederate-memorials-vs-uk-memorials/727868.md?page=2)