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:
She is directly descended from the first Stuart king, James I, but not from the rest of the line through Queen Anne. However:
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.
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.
Who was King of France after Louis Philippe I? Who is the current Tsar of all the Russias?
I wasn’t aware that either of those dudes were British monarchs, which is the topic of this thread.
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
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.
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.
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.
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…
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.
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
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 on this topic*.
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.
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.
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”.
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:
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.