The reign of King Charles III of the United Kingdom

Politics & Elections
1724

Really?

Here’s summary of how far back you have to go to get to a direct ancestor in the royal line who was born in Hanover:

Charles III: born Buckingham Palace, London, England

Mother: Elizabeth II, born Mayfair, London, England (1926)

Grandfather: George VI, born York Cottage, Norfolk, England (1895)

Great-Grandfather: George V, born Marlborough House, Westminster, England (1865)

Great-Great-Grandfather: Edward VII, born Buckingham Palace, London, England (1841)

Great-Great-Great Grandmother: Victoria, born Kensington Palace, London, England (1819)

Great-Great-Great-Great Grandfather: Edward, Duke of Kent and Strathearn, born Buckingham House, London, England (1767)

Great-Great-Great-Great-Great Grandfather: George III, born Norfolk House, London, England (1738)

Great-Great-Great-Great-Great-Great Grandfather: Frederick, Prince of Wales, born Hanover, Holy Roman Empire (1707)

Great-Great-Great-Great-Great-Great-Great Grandfather: George II, born Herrenhausen Palace, Hanover (1683)

So the most recent ancestor in the direct royal line born in Hanover was Frederick, Prince of Wales, born in 1707. That’s 317 years ago.

Every direct ancestor in the royal line since then has been born in England, starting with George III (1738), 287 years ago, who “gloried in the name of Briton”.

The last direct ancestor of Charles who was King of Hanover (but never visited) was George III, who died in 1820, 204 years ago.

The last time someone in the direct line married someone from Germany was Victoria, who married Albert of Saxe-Coburg and Gotha (not Hanover) in 1840, 186 years ago. Every spouse since then has been born in England, except for Alexandra of Denmark (spouse of Edward VII)

Yup, they’re basically Hanoverians, no disguising it.

Tell me, if you met someone in England, the US or Canada today whose last ancestor born in Hanover was in 1707, whose direct line has been born in England, the US or Canada ever since, and whose last German ancestor was from 1840, would you say that they’re basically Hanoverians, not English, Americans or Canadians?

1725

Hah! I can do a lot better! My mother was born in Hannover in 1930.

1726

So clearly you’re a Hannoverian, right? doesn’t matter where you were born.

1727

Jahwohl!

1728

Wow. You go!

1729

Thanks for the link to my Staff Report, Northern_Piper.

Even earlier - try 1917: House of Saxe-Coburg and Gotha - Wikipedia

1730

I’m just saying the line from Sophia to Charles is unbroken.

The Plantangenet dynasty ended with Richard III, the Tudors with Elizabeth I, the Stuarts with Anne. The Hanovers just changed their names a couple of times (to Saxe-Coburg and Gotha because of Prince Albert and then Windsor because German name bad). But the line is pretty direct.

1731

Don’t mention the war!

1732

And the line from Edward III Plantagenet is direct: From Edward III to John of Gaunt to Henry VII Tudor a few generations later. Henry VII strengthened his Plantagenet links by marrying the daughter of Edward IV Plantagenet, so Henry VIII was the direct grandson of Edward IV Plantagenet. The name changed to Tudor because of a marriage, but the Tudors were direct descendants of the Plantagenets.

The Stuart claim to the throne was from the Tudors: Margaret Tudor, daughter of Henry VII and brother of Henry VIII, married James IV Stuart. So still a direct line from the Plantagenets, with another name change due to a marriage.

Sophia Stuart became Sophia of Hanover, due to a marriage, but she too was in direct line from the Plantagenets.

Victoria married into the House of Saxe-Coburg and Gotha, so another name change due to a marriage, but she was in direct line from Edward III Plantagenet. That was followed by George V re-naming his family (“but let’s not mention the war!”).

So, either name changes due to marriages don’t count, and then Charles is a Plantagenet, or they do count, and Charles is a Windsor, not a Hanoverian.

1733

Sure. But you have to go through a lot of not kings and queens to get from Edward III to Henry VII, and from Henry VII to James I, and from James I to George I, which is why all of those are considered dynastic changes. The line from George I to Charles is almost all kings and queens (off the top of my head I think the only exceptions are Frederick, Prince of Wales, and Edward Duke of Kent).

Victoria was the last Hanover monarch; her son was a Saxe-Coburg and Gotha. The Windsors may be a new house, but I wouldn’t call them a new dynasty.

The broader point is that the various royal houses of Europe tended to get pretty mixed up with each other. Also I’m tired and I think I forgot the point I was making…

1734

Lots of countries have elected presidents for that, separate from their PMs e.g. Ireland.

Isn’t a lot of that calculation counting people coming to see physical sites like Buck Palace?
How many visitors to Versailles vs BP?

1735

Charles is not fluent in Welsh. He can (and does) read speeches in Welsh, but you can tell from those that he’s not fluent. I think it’s fair to say that he speaks Welsh, though, which is more than most people in Wales, so I am not denigrating him at all, just assessing.

1736

I suspect that might have been adapted from Hyacinth Bouquet (from before the mobile phone era)

1737

I think it’s funny that from a certain point of view, William and Cathy’s kid will be the first true Anglo-Saxon monarch since Edward the Confessor.

1738

You mean the future George VII?

1739

Just hedging my bets. They have three children; chances are, at least one of them will ascend to the throne.

1740

That’s true, Charles speaks German fluently, but with a discernible British accent. He held a speech in German at the Bundestag on his last state visit to Germany. His father though spoke German with almost no accent at all.

1741

Heh. I speak Russian. When I spoke with a Russian friend’s family, I was informed that I spoke with a Moscow accent, as opposed to their Leningrad (as it was known then) accent. Ohhh-kay. Well, they could still understand me, so that was okay.

1742

But from a different point of view, the Hanoverians were themselves ‘Saxon’ - after all, Hannover is now the capital of Lower Saxony - and they made much of this after 1714. Also, if you go back far enough, the same could be said of the assorted Oldenburgs, Hesse, Coburgs etc. in the Royal Family’s ancestry. So you could just as meaninglessly say that Charles III is already ‘Anglo-Saxon’.

1743

Ha, I know no Tok Pisin at all, but I understand that whole thing! Or am I being whooshed?