Do a search for biographies of Oliver Cromwell and you’ll get a pretty complete picture of when the process of depowering (and occasionally beheading) the monarch began.
So does the royal coat of arms consist of four quarters, two of which are yellow and two pink? Is there yellow trim around the outside?
[Mr. Kipling]That would be exceedingly good[/Mr. K]
Didnt Diana have more royal blood in her than Lizzy 2?
im sorry… it should be
Didnt Diana have more royal blood in her than Lizzy II?
… i just dont know where my manners are.
The queen fitted the rules for selection of the monarch. Di didn’t. So Elizabeth is the queen and Di wasn’t.
You can argue all you like about who should really be the monarch, and such arguments have sometimes in the past resulted in bloody conflict (not suggesting that’s going to happen here).
But really, it’s like arguing that “Person X was better (in some fashion) than person Y, and so *should * have won the election”, or that “Car X outsold car Y - not fair because car Y was better (in some fashion)”. If there’s no way of changing the the outcome retrospectively, it’s a futile argument.
exceedingly so:D
And Battenburg is a morganatic branch of the Hesse Grand Ducal family-when a member of that family married a countess of noble, but not royal blood, he had to forfit the title of Hesse and the family was given the name Battenburg.
As for royal blood, keep in mind that Elizabeth also is a descendent of quite a few German royals, and the Danish Royal family. And Prince Philip is a descendent of Nicholas I of Russia and George I of Greece. There’s no question that they have more royal blood than Diana did.
Actually, Saxe-Coburg-Gotha (changed to Windsor in 1917) was the dynastic name, resulting from Prince Albert’s ancestors having been the ruling house (dukes IIRC) of the German state of that name. There’s no agreement on what the actual surname would be, with Wettin, Wipper, and Welf being possible candidates mentioned.
In point of fact, though, the name Windsor was adopted both for the house and as the “family name” by George V and that was confirmed by Elizabeth in her two proclamations.
While Prince Philip adopted the name Mountbatten when he gave up his standing as a Prince of Greece, it was his mother’s name; his father, as a member of the Greek royal house which was derived from the Danish royal house when a spare Danish prince was made George I of Greece, had the house name of Schleswig-Holstein-Sonderburg-Glucksburg. Prince Charles’s and Prince William’s paternal ancestry traces back to medieval Danish kings.
Diana did have some royal ancestry but was not herself in the line of succession. Had she lived and not been divorced, she would in fact have been Queen – but Queen Consort, like the late Queen Mother had been to George VI and Queen Mary was to George V, not Queen Regnant as Victoria was and Elizabeth II is.
The queen has quite a bit of theoretical power, but, in practice cannot really use it.
All Acts of Parliament, for example, need the Crown’s approval. In addition, IIRC, the Crown can dissolve Parliament.
However, should (in the present time) the Queen refuse an Act of Parliament, then that would probably spell the end of the monarchy. As such, she never uses the power.
I wouldn’t be surprised if there were other potent powers at her disposal that I didn’t list above.
Zev Steinhardt
So, how did they come up with the name Windsor?
They pulled random letters out of a hat until they spelled something, didn’t they?
And since they are all descendants of the Hanover’s, why don’t we call this the Hanoverian line?
One important power she retains is to give the current Prime Minister the right to act on her behalf without consulting parliament. This is called the ‘royal prerogative’, and is very relevant today, as it means Tony Blair is able to declare war (on Iraq, z.B.) without the need for parliamentary approval.
The Queen is also able to adjudicate when there is no clear result in a general election. There was a near-scandal in Feb. 1974 when she allowed Conservative leader Edward Heath to try to cling on to power with the Liberals even though Labour had won more seats.
There are moves afoot to change all this, such that parliament in effect takes over the royal prerogative.
They’re also descendents of the Kings of Leinster, all three Welsh principalities, the Capets, and a bunch of other people.
This being the West, however, where surnames are based patrilineally, and specifically the English/British tradition of male primogeniture, they aren’t the Hanovers because their last Hanoverian ancestor was Queen Victoria, who married a member of the Saxe-Coburg-Gotha line. Same reason as they aren’t the Stuarts, despite being descended from James VI and I through two female heirs.
I’m sure glad y’all got that straightened out…I don’t feel quite as ignorant now.
So, what you’re saying is YES the Royal Family has a last name. In fact several of them, but Windsor is the name presently being used.
Not to hijack, but since the OP’s been answered and I have the right people here.
HOW is the “Royal Family” historically considered to be so?
I read somewhere that the lineage includes “the House of David” (biblical reference) and also somewhere that Jesus had a child by Mary Magdalen and was brought by Joseph to Britain.
I know it’s probably a bunch of hooey, but I was curious about the genealogy of the Royals and how far back they claim ancestry.
(if this needs to be a new thread, okay…forget it)
It is complete hooey. The immediate source of their claim to the throne is the Act of Settlement, 1701, which says that the British throne is to be held by the heirs of Sophie, Electress of Hanover, so long as they are protestant. Queen Elizabeth is the current heir of Sophie, Electress of Hanover.
The Act of Settlement was given the Royal Assent by Queen Anne, who was the last Stuart monarch. The Stuarts became monarchs when the Tudor dynasty died out, the last Tudor monarch (Queen Elizabeth I) naming James VI of Scotland, a Stuart, as her heir. And so forth.
Ultimately the claim can be traced back to William the Conqueror, who obtained the throne by conquest in 1066. He based his claim on the right of conquest, and not on some spurious descent from Mary Magdalen and Jesus Christ.
I think the last bit is a modern invention. In, I think, the 19th Century a particularly loopy group of English people concluded that England was so wonderful, and played such a a large part in God’s Inexorable Plan for Mankind, that it was absolutely inconceivable that God would have become incarnate, and dwelt on earth, and not had some pretty close connection to England. So they developed the theory that Joseph of Arimathea, and Mary Magdelen, and Jesus Christ after the Resurrection but before the Ascension, all came to England. A variant of this nonsense seeks to link them all to the royal line of England.
Because Hanover is also German-although the House of Hanover’s surname was Guelph. Queen Victoria was the last Hanover monarch.
Windsor was taken from Windsor Castle.
Just to add to the fun, Elizabeth II is referred to as Elizabeth I in Scotland, since the “first Elizabeth” didn’t rein over that country.
You’re going to have to provide a cite to support that allegation. In my experience, Scottish monarchists in general (i.e. the minority) are prepared to accept her regnal number as II and the rest couldn’t give a shit.
See my earlier post, and everton’s reply for the ‘technical’ definition. The Queen is indeed “Elizabeth I of Scotland”.
Flag-waving Scottish nationalist site
Or were you after evidence that specifically Scottish monarchists view her as such (not sure if the second site I listed is a pro-monarchy site, or just pro-Scotland)…? That might be something different.
oops! Didn’t pay attention to who posted :smack:
Didn’t mean to quote your own posts, everton. :o
No, it’s Battenerg!