# Which British Monarch Came From Furthest Down The List? **URL:** \ **Category:** Factual Questions\ **Created:** [July 14, 2011, 2:17pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/which-british-monarch-came-from-furthest-down-the-list/589013 "2011-07-14T14:17:44Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 20\ **Page:** 4
**Author:** ![yabob](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/yabob/32/2821_2.png) [@yabob](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/yabob)\ **Post date:** [July 15, 2011, 7:13pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/which-british-monarch-came-from-furthest-down-the-list/589013/61 "2011-07-15T19:13:00Z")
> [@merrick](#): > > I’m fairly sure that’s false - every English monarch since William the Conqueror has been his descendant, so they are all proveably related to each other, and likewise every British monarch since James I has been descended from the Scottish royal family. > > The only way it could be true would be to go back to Harold Godwinson and the pre-Conquest Danish kings, but I don’t think their descendants are known with any accuracy (after 900 years it’s likely either pretty much everyone’s descended from them or no-one is). Descent of Elizabeth II from William I: [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Descent\_of\_Elizabeth\_II\_from\_William\_I](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Descent_of_Elizabeth_II_from_William_I) What I think is being referred to is the fact that, while she is related to, she is not directly descended from some of them, including some who actually had children - most of the Stuart line, for instance: [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Descent\_of\_Elizabeth\_II\_from\_William\_I#Genealogical\_relationships\_to\_Elizabeth\_II](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Descent_of_Elizabeth_II_from_William_I#Genealogical_relationships_to_Elizabeth_II) She is directly descended from the first Stuart king, James I, but not from the rest of the line through Queen Anne. However: > [@](#): > > Prince William, Duke of Cambridge, if he becomes king, will add lines to Charles II and James II, from whose illegitimate children he is descended through his mother Diana, Princess of Wales. ---
**Author:** ![Guinastasia](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/guinastasia/32/5751_2.png) [@Guinastasia](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Guinastasia)\ **Post date:** [July 15, 2011, 11:31pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/which-british-monarch-came-from-furthest-down-the-list/589013/62 "2011-07-15T23:31:45Z")
> [@merrick](#): > > No, I meant (sorry for that unclear “his”) that every post-Conquest English monarch has been a descendant of William the Conqueror (or, for you pedants, the man himself). Therefore anyone who is related to one of them is related to all of them. Yeah, I thought what you meant to say was that every monarch since William the Conqueror was an ancestor of the current Prince William. No big deal. Well, we’re both right. They’re all related somehow. (Although there’s a good chance of a few bastards in there. ;)) **DrDeth** , to make it simple, ever hear the expression, “The King is dead, long live the King!”? Well, that’s the basic way to describe it. The old guy’s gone, now let’s wish the new guy a long full life. ---
**Author:** ![DrDeth](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/b487fb/32.png) [@DrDeth](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/DrDeth)\ **Post date:** [July 16, 2011, 2:04am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/which-british-monarch-came-from-furthest-down-the-list/589013/63 "2011-07-16T02:04:15Z")
> [@septimus](#): > > I realize that inheritance rules were ambiguous in 1066, but William the Bastard had no descent from English royalty. His genealogical claim was based, IIRC, on Emma ‘the Flower’, wife of two Kings of England, mother of two Kings of England, and herself a Regent Queen. But Emma wasn’t William’s ancestor anyway; she was his great-aunt. Did such relationships have any validity for throne inheritance, even in those days? > > Moreover, William the Bastard was a … bastard. That may have been almost the norm for inheriting Normandy, but what about England? When did bastards become ineligible there? > ! Bastard, son, primogeniture, or whatever: really it came down to election and acclamation. Some AS kings were the Uncles, brothers, etc of the previous king, they ignore “oldest son” if said said was a complete wank - or more often if “oldest son” was still a youngster. This is why they ignore Edgar. Too young to be King no mtter how good his claim was otherwise. Actaully fairly good way to run things. ---
**Author:** ![DrDeth](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/b487fb/32.png) [@DrDeth](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/DrDeth)\ **Post date:** [July 16, 2011, 2:05am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/which-british-monarch-came-from-furthest-down-the-list/589013/64 "2011-07-16T02:05:48Z")
> [@Guinastasia](#): > > Y > > **DrDeth** , to make it simple, ever hear the expression, “The King is dead, long live the King!”? Well, that’s the basic way to describe it. The old guy’s gone, now let’s wish the new guy a long full life. Who was King of France after Louis Philippe I? Who is the current Tsar of all the Russias? ---
**Author:** ![Northern\_Piper](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/northern_piper/32/5304_2.png) [@Northern\_Piper](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Northern_Piper)\ **Post date:** [July 16, 2011, 5:00am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/which-british-monarch-came-from-furthest-down-the-list/589013/65 "2011-07-16T05:00:42Z")
I wasn’t aware that either of those dudes were British monarchs, which is the topic of this thread. ---
**Author:** ![Mississippienne](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/d2c977/32.png) [@Mississippienne](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Mississippienne)\ **Post date:** [July 16, 2011, 9:57am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/which-british-monarch-came-from-furthest-down-the-list/589013/66 "2011-07-16T09:57:20Z")
> [@merrick](#): > > The only way it could be true would be to go back to Harold Godwinson and the pre-Conquest Danish kings, but I don’t think their descendants are known with any accuracy (after 900 years it’s likely either pretty much everyone’s descended from them or no-one is). Every English monarch since Edward III has been descended from Harold Godwinsson, through his daughter Gytha (of dubious legitimacy; her mother was his Saxon lover Edith ‘Swan-neck’). After Harold’s death in 1066, Gytha and her brothers fled to the court of their kinsman, King Sweyn of Denmark. A few years later, when Vladimir Monomakh, the ruler of Kievan Rus, came around looking for a bride, Sweyn saw a perfect opportunity to make both an alliance with Kiev and get rid of a freeloading relative, and so married Gytha to Vladimir. Over the next few centuries, Gytha’s descendants took a roundabout path through Europe, before ending back up in England in the person of Isabella of France, wife of Edward II and mother of Edward III. The genealogy is as so: Harold Godwinsson + Edith ‘Swan’s neck’ Gytha of Wessex, m. Vladimir Monomakh Mstislav (Harold) Vladimirovich I of Kiev, m. Lyubov Dmitrievna Eufrosina Mstislavovna of Kiev, m. King Géza II of Hungary Béla III of Hungary, m. Agnes of Antioch András II of Hungary, m. Yolande de Courtenay Jolánta of Hungary, m. King Jaime I of Aragon Isabel of Aragon, m. King Philippe III of France Philippe IV of France, m. Queen Jeanne of Navarre Isabella of France, m. Edward II of England Edward III ---
**Author:** ![merrick](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/58956e/32.png) [@merrick](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/merrick)\ **Post date:** [July 16, 2011, 11:43am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/which-british-monarch-came-from-furthest-down-the-list/589013/67 "2011-07-16T11:43:17Z")
Thank-you **Mississipienne** , I did not know that. A quick Googling suggests that the direct line from Canute is extinct, but that the modern Danish royal family is descended from Sweyn Forkbeard via Canute’s sister Estrid. In that case, every British royal since George V (probably earlier) is demonstrably related to (though not a necessarily a direct descendant of) all previous English monarchs. ---
**Author:** ![APB](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/a/8e8cbc/32.png) [@APB](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/APB)\ **Post date:** [July 16, 2011, 12:10pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/which-british-monarch-came-from-furthest-down-the-list/589013/68 "2011-07-16T12:10:47Z")
> [@Mississippienne](#): > > When George of Braunschweig-Lüneburg was born in 1660, it was by no means a forgone conclusion that he would become king of Great Britain someday. Charles II, his mother’s cousin, had recently been restored to his throne and was producing litters of illegitimate children, and was expected to make some legitimate heirs as well (this did not occur). Charles II’s brother, the future James II, married Anne Hyde in 1660 and produced several children (only the future queens Mary II and Anne survived). There was even a younger brother, Henry, duke of Gloucester, who died before the year was out. > > In the next few decades, Charles II would die without legitimate heirs; his brother James II would be deposed, and his Catholic son from his second marriage disinherited; Queen Mary II would die without surviving children; her husband and cousin William III would likewise die without having remarried and produced heirs; and Queen Anne’s large brood of offspring would all sadly predecease her. Really, it took a fairly remarkable series of circumstances to end up with a pack of ineligible Catholics and, finally, George as the next king in 1714. But it was far, far more improbable than that. In 1660 Charles II’s sisters, Mary and Henrietta, were still alive and Mary had already produced a son, the future William III. But, more to the point, George’s grandmother, Elizabeth of Bohemia, who was herself still alive, had been astonishingly prolific. George’s mother, Sophia, was the youngest of five daughters and also had eight brothers. In 1660 there were already eleven of Elizabeth’s descendants ahead of Sophia in the British line of succession. Moreover, most of those had been born Protestant. Had not so many members of this branch of the Wittelsbachs acquired the habit of converting to Catholicism, George’s claim would have been no less remote even with the introduction of a ban on Catholic successors. ---
**Author:** ![Martin\_Hyde](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/47e85d/32.png) [@Martin\_Hyde](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Martin_Hyde)\ **Post date:** [July 16, 2011, 2:29pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/which-british-monarch-came-from-furthest-down-the-list/589013/69 "2011-07-16T14:29:46Z")
> [@Malthus](#): > > I’d go for Henry VII. He was far down-and-out as a kid - only a most bizzare concatination of circumstances (plus of course winning in war) made him king - and even then there were lots of folks with better claims: the Tudors spent some time murdering off the better claimants … 😉 > > George I is another, but those with better claims were in fact barred by act of parlement from succession. Right, the most removed person to attain the throne through “normal means” was Victoria and she was still the grandchild of a King, not exactly someone who no one would ever expect in a million years to attain the throne. Under the normal procedure it is _always_ going to be one of the King’s grandchildren who eventually are on the throne at some point unless something very out of the ordinary happens. In Victoria’s case it was the fact that her father’s older brothers did not have heirs so she succeeded George III’s two sons. ---
**Author:** ![Polycarp](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/p/82dd89/32.png) [@Polycarp](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Polycarp)\ **Post date:** [July 16, 2011, 2:45pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/which-british-monarch-came-from-furthest-down-the-list/589013/70 "2011-07-16T14:45:09Z")
> [@Martin\_Hyde](#): > > Right, the most removed person to attain the throne through “normal means” was Victoria and she was still the grandchild of a King, not exactly someone who no one would ever expect in a million years to attain the throne. Under the normal procedure it is _always_ going to be one of the King’s grandchildren who eventually are on the throne at some point unless something very out of the ordinary happens. In Victoria’s case it was the fact that her father’s older brothers did not have heirs so she succeeded George III’s two sons. Well, “always” if the King (or Queen) has legitimate children and grandchildren who survive. Given that William II, Richard I, Richard II, Edward V, Edward VI, Mary I, Elizabeth I, Charles II, William III, Mary II, William IV, and Edward VIII had no legitimate children, and that the legitimate children of Henry VI, Richard III, Anne, and George IV all predeceased them, I think the caveat is more than a nitpick. ---
**Author:** ![Elmer\_J.Fudd](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/elmer_j.fudd/32/1211_2.png) [@Elmer\_J.Fudd](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Elmer_J.Fudd)\ **Post date:** [July 16, 2011, 2:52pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/which-british-monarch-came-from-furthest-down-the-list/589013/71 "2011-07-16T14:52:10Z")
> [@Martin\_Hyde](#): > > Under the normal procedure it is _always_ going to be one of the King’s grandchildren who eventually are on the throne at some point unless something very out of the ordinary happens. . Well, there was James I, who was no closer than great- great grandson ( to Henry VII). Henry had three grandchildren on the throne but they all died childless and James’ parents ( both great- grandchildren of Henry) died before James’ predecessor, Elisabeth I. ---
**Author:** ![Martin\_Hyde](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/47e85d/32.png) [@Martin\_Hyde](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Martin_Hyde)\ **Post date:** [July 16, 2011, 2:56pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/which-british-monarch-came-from-furthest-down-the-list/589013/72 "2011-07-16T14:56:24Z")
> [@Elmer\_J.Fudd](#): > > Well, there was James I, who was no closer than great- great grandson ( to Henry VII). Henry had three grandchildren on the throne but they all died childless and James’ parents ( both great- grandchildren of Henry) died before James’ predecessor, Elisabeth I. Which would be out of the ordinary I would think… ---
**Author:** ![Guinastasia](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/guinastasia/32/5751_2.png) [@Guinastasia](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Guinastasia)\ **Post date:** [July 17, 2011, 3:04am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/which-british-monarch-came-from-furthest-down-the-list/589013/73 "2011-07-17T03:04:21Z")
> [@DrDeth](#): > > Who was King of France after Louis Philippe I? Who is the current Tsar of all the Russias? We’re not talking about monarchies that were overthrown – (there ARE pretenders out there, you can look them up.) In the case of the Romanovs, given that a good percentage of them were murdered, that’s up for debate. The point is, it doesn’t matter if one is crowned or not. They’re still a monarch. That’s how it works in the U.K. Period. (Otherwise, why would Edward V and Edward VIII even be numbered as such?) And not all monarchies even HAVE coronations. For those that do, there’s usually a waiting period of a year after succession, to mourn their their predecessor. ---
**Author:** ![Polycarp](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/p/82dd89/32.png) [@Polycarp](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Polycarp)\ **Post date:** [July 17, 2011, 5:18am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/which-british-monarch-came-from-furthest-down-the-list/589013/74 "2011-07-17T05:18:24Z")
> [@Elmer\_J.Fudd](#): > > Well, there was James I, who was no closer than great- great grandson ( to Henry VII). Henry had three grandchildren on the throne but they all died childless and James’ parents ( both great- grandchildren of Henry) died before James’ predecessor, Elisabeth I. But first cousin once removed to his immediate predecessor, Elkizabeth … and that only because Henry VIII had no legitimate grandchildren. For all the [del]wives[/del] trouble he went through, his line died out with her, the last of his three children. George I, second cousin to Anne, seems to be the most distant relative to inherit after the Conquest – and that owing to all the ineligible Catholics who would have been ahead of him but for their ineligibility owing to the Act of Settlement. Harold Godwinson was in fact part of a cadet branch of the House of Cerdic; he was fourth cousin four times removed of Edward the Confessor. It lines up like this (using five hyphens to separate the two lineages, regnal dates for kings and birth/death dates for others): Ethelwulf, King of Wessex (839-856) Alfred, King of Wessex (871-899) ----- Ethelred I, King of Wessex (865-871) Edmund I, King of England (939-946) ----- Ethelhelm, Ealdorman of Wiltshire (c. 859-898) Edgar, King of England (959-975) ----- Ethelfrith, Ealdorman of Wessex (c. 900-927) Ethelred II, King of England (979-1016) ----- Eadric of Washington, in Wessex Edward the Confessor, King of England (1042-1066) ----- Ethelweard the Historian ----- Athelmar Cild ----- Wulfnoth Cild, Thegn of Sussex (c. 983-1015) ----- Godwin, Earl of Mercia (c. 1001-1053) ----- Harold Godwinson ---
**Author:** ![Tamerlane](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/tamerlane/32/7602_2.png) [@Tamerlane](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Tamerlane)\ **Post date:** [July 17, 2011, 6:13am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/which-british-monarch-came-from-furthest-down-the-list/589013/75 "2011-07-17T06:13:39Z")
> [@Polycarp](#): > > ] > Harold Godwinson was in fact part of a cadet branch of the House of Cerdic; he was fourth cousin four times removed of Edward the Confessor. Maybe. Frank Barlow was credulous but cautious with that pedigree in his The Godwins: _The Rise and Fall of a Noble Dynasty_. It’s a clever reconstruction, but their are some potential pitfalls built into it and it requires a couple of speculative leaps to get there. Much to my surprise there is actually a [wiki](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ancestry_of_the_Godwins) on this topic\*. - Just found it while trying to figure out if Lundie Barlow and Frank Barlow were direct relatives. ---
**Author:** ![DrDeth](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/b487fb/32.png) [@DrDeth](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/DrDeth)\ **Post date:** [July 17, 2011, 7:54am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/which-british-monarch-came-from-furthest-down-the-list/589013/76 "2011-07-17T07:54:53Z")
> [@Guinastasia](#): > > We’re not talking about monarchies that were overthrown – (there ARE pretenders out there, you can look them up.) In the case of the Romanovs, given that a good percentage of them were murdered, that’s up for debate. > > The point is, it doesn’t matter if one is crowned or not. They’re still a monarch. That’s how it works in the U.K. Period. (Otherwise, why would Edward V and Edward VIII even be numbered as such?) > > And not all monarchies even HAVE coronations. For those that do, there’s usually a waiting period of a year after succession, to mourn their their predecessor. Then why is Lady Jane Grey NOT included in the list? EdV was never King as he (according to the ruling of the courts) was illegitamate. Thus, Richard III became King upon death of Ed IV. The only reason why they include EdV was to make Henry Tudors claim a little stronger. EdV was never King. The thing is, there really is no such thing as “kingons”. The heir does not really become King upon the death of the King. Sometimes (as with Charle I & II) there a gap. \*No one \*was King of England during the English Interregnum. Charles II did NOT become King upon the death of ChI. Since EdV did not have a valid claim to the throne, he did not become King upon the death of EdIV. RIII _did._ Or RIII was never King at all. But if you include RIII, then EdV was not King. ---
**Author:** ![Polycarp](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/p/82dd89/32.png) [@Polycarp](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Polycarp)\ **Post date:** [July 17, 2011, 8:53am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/which-british-monarch-came-from-furthest-down-the-list/589013/77 "2011-07-17T08:53:52Z")
**Tamerlane** : I cadged that from the Royal Family website, which generally is not terribly credulous, trying for a Burke/Debrett’s level of documentation, so I assumed it to be better proven than you indicate. Thanks for the correction. **Dr Deth** : You have a point, but it’s my understanding that, with the whole edifice of Parliamentary government built on the theoretical foundation that there is always a monarch, that sovereignty vests in the heir at the moment the preceding monarch dies, that retroactivity is not applied in these cases – just as in theory Mary I and Elizabeth I could not both have been queen, since each would have to have been illegitimate for the other to have a valid claim to the throne – Edward V became king when his father died, and ceased to be king when he was officially declared illegitimate – even though in Tudor times that was reversed and Richard III treated as an usurper. I suspect you’ll find that the argument about Jane Grey is that Mary was her brother’s heiress and he, being a minor, could not unilaterally change the succession in favor of Jane – even Tudor absolutism had its limits. But I’ll await an expert on that one. However, the principle is, whenever a monarch dies, at thaqt instant the crown passes to the new monarch – even if, as happened in 1952, the king dies in his sleep and his heiress is asleep in a treetop resort suite at the moment she becomes queen. ---
**Author:** ![Malthus](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/85f322/32.png) [@Malthus](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Malthus)\ **Post date:** [July 18, 2011, 1:10pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/which-british-monarch-came-from-furthest-down-the-list/589013/78 "2011-07-18T13:10:48Z")
Heh, an argument could be made that Cromwell is furthest - true he was a “protector” and not a king in name, but he was for all intents and purposes a king. 😉 ---
**Author:** ![Giles](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/giles/32/60_2.png) [@Giles](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Giles)\ **Post date:** [July 18, 2011, 1:24pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/which-british-monarch-came-from-furthest-down-the-list/589013/79 "2011-07-18T13:24:01Z")
> [@Malthus](#): > > Heh, an argument could be made that Cromwell is furthest - true he was a “protector” and not a king in name, but he was for all intents and purposes a king. 😉 He was head of state, but, while he was Lord Protector, England was not a monarchy – it was a republic – and so he was not a king. You might as well say that Barack Obama is “for all intents and purposes a king”. ---
**Author:** ![Malthus](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/85f322/32.png) [@Malthus](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Malthus)\ **Post date:** [July 18, 2011, 2:53pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/which-british-monarch-came-from-furthest-down-the-list/589013/80 "2011-07-18T14:53:56Z")
> [@Giles](#): > > He was head of state, but, while he was Lord Protector, England was not a monarchy – it was a republic – and so he was not a king. You might as well say that Barack Obama is “for all intents and purposes a king”. Not quite. Do you address Obama as “your Highness”? Is Obama ruler “for his life”? Does he rule by his sole will alone? Can he pass the Presedency on to his kid? 😉 The title of ‘Lord Protector’ wasn’t Cromwell’s original invention - it was originally intended for an individual regent during minority - and from there, the step to being King oneself was a short one (for example, the title was held by the future Richard lll). Where there was no actual monarch-in-waiting, the title was indistinguishable from that of a king, as was recognized at the time when Cromwell passed it on to his son: > [@](#): > > The 1653 Instrument of Government (republican constitution) stated that; > > Oliver Cromwell, Captain-General of the forces of England, Scotland and Ireland, shall be, and is hereby declared to be, Lord Protector of the Commonwealth of England, Scotland and Ireland, and the dominions thereto belonging, for his life. > > The replacement constitution of 1657, the Humble Petition and Advice, gave ‘his Highness the Lord Protector’ the power to nominate his successor. Cromwell chose his eldest surviving son, the politically inexperienced Richard. This was a non-representative and de facto dynastic mode of succession, with royal connotations in both styles awarded, even a double invocation 16 December 1653 - 3 September 1658 “By the Grace of God and Republic Lord Protector of England, Scotland and Ireland” and many other monarchic prerogatives, such as awarding knighthood. > **[Lord Protector](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lord_Protector)** > > Lord Protector (plural: Lords Protector) is a title that has been used in British constitutional law for the head of state. It was also a particular title for the British heads of state in respect to the established church. It was sometimes used to refer to holders of other temporary posts; for example, a regent acting for the absent monarch. > The title Lord Protector was originally used by royal princes or other nobles exercising a role as protector and defender of the realm, while also sitti... Really, the only thing preventing Cromwell from being considered a “king” is form of words, not substance. In substance, his powers were the same, if not greater. [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/which-british-monarch-came-from-furthest-down-the-list/589013.md?page=3) [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/which-british-monarch-came-from-furthest-down-the-list/589013.md?page=5)