I'm keeping you all on your toes by saying 2002 instead of 2022 for the late Queen's death. Perhaps it is wishful thinking that we were back in 2002, I was a baby-faced student in the middle of my PhD and newly engaged to be married. When I misspeak when recording, it just proves I am a real, fallible person and not just an AI bot - and usually in need of a holiday!
no worries i didn’t even notice ‘til i saw this comment. well ok i was also driving while listening so that may have had something to do with it. Nevertheless I didn’t catch it.😄
What a nice treat for my gardening break this afternoon! Please note, I'm watching from Austin, TX. Gardening here is an extreme sport and requires cooling off/rehydrating. 😂
Well now we can put paid to the disparaging lines Queen Mary was supposed to have said about Philip in the series "The Crown"! "A royal line of carpet-baggers and parvenus that dates back what? A hundred years?" With your extensive research you have proven that Queen Mary never would have said such a thing! Turns out; Phillip's royal line was just as illustrious as Elizabeth II's and possibly more so with kings and dukes going back just as far but without all the bloodshed regicide and turmoil of the War of the Roses! I applaud you! A very worthy subject and an interesting topic! Great video! Thank you!
It's even more ridiculous when you consider that Queen Mary's own husband, George V, and all their descendants, ALSO can directly trace their descent to the house of Glucksburg through Queen Alexandra (her husband's mother)!
@@geoffreypiltz271what about Monaco i had heard as an American that they can only stay as Monaco if they have a son each generation? maybe it’s not the same. again as an American I totally acknowledge that i don’t understand all the royal succession stuff. Since I am pro equal individual freedom and anti royalty. Nevertheless, I am also a fan of history and very much enjoy learning of all the games of thrones through the centuries.
You could also trace his origins via the house of Guelph after all Albert was merely a consort and Victoria was the reigning monarch and she was from the house of Guelph of which the house of Hanover was a cadet branch. Guelphs were a Frankish family who settled in north eastern Italy specifically in the town of Este near Padua. One may find the grave of the earliest member of this house in front of the monastery of Vandagizza near Este. From Este the Guelphs moved to Germany to the Weingarten area near Lake of Constance-there are many prominent Guelph graves in the Weingarten abbey. From there it was to Bavaria and Brunswick. They scored a Holy Roman emperor in the person of Otto IV and thereafter inherited a number of principalities including Hanover from which they got their British designation. One Guelph even briefly became Russian Tsar in the person of the boy Ivan VI. The university town of Guelph in Ontario, Canada is named after Guelph, Victoria's reigning house.The Guelfi also gave their name to one of the perennial political parties that fought it out in the interminable struggles between Guelphs and Ghibellines in medieval Italy.Guelphs became associated with the pro papal sector who were for independence of the cities and free trade while the Ghibellines named for another one of the German dynasties represented the more conservative feudal and monarchic element in politics.
Thanks, Allan, for a fine lesson in geneology. We live near the Oldenburg in Oldenburg, and it's a vibrant city, well worth a visit. I did get a little confused, however, as there also is an Oldenburg in Schleswig-Holstein with lots of connections to Denmark. But you pulled everything together. Of course, I would be happy to offer our family name to King Charles, should he be shopping around. All the best to you.
Ha, Allan, I spotted the slip, but am utterly in awe of your staggering through the rest of the names so successfully! The automatic subtitles make quite a hash of them...and you've given us another gem of descriptive naming with Christian the Quarrelsome! Thank you for a fascinating video.
Saxe Coburg Gotha on his mother's side Battenburg on his father's side. The Hanover Kings started with George 1st who was about 44th in line to the English (British) throne. He was the first protestant. The Stuarts were in fact the direct line to the throne.
Why not. They’re ok with and have been ok with successive German monarchs since they decided to just hand the crown over to Sophia, Electress of Hanover and her subsequent heirs. The whole notion of ‘Windsor’ was to cowardly disassociate with German relatives on the continent after one of Victorias grandchildren (Kaiser Wilhelm II) lost his fucking mind amidst the chaos of Franz Ferdinand’s assassination and decided he wanted to conquer the world. So George V didn’t like some of the implications In newspapers about his being more German than English (completely true btw, as he had 0% English blood) and so he thought renaming the royal house ‘Windsor’ would fool everyone - he obviously didn’t put much stock into the intelligence of his people…and he was right because they bought it lock stock and barrel. He literally pulled a ‘I got your nose…’ on the British people and instead of act incredulous in the face of this, the British people went ‘aww come on, give it back, I need that nose’.
Ironic that within 2 years of Charles III, patrilineally of the House of Oldenburg becoming King of the UK, the new King of Denmark is not patrilineally of the same house. Do the Danes give the same attention to royal house that the Brits do? if so, what do they consider the Royal House to be today? Monpezat?
"Mountbatten" is merely an anglicised version of Battenberg, Perhaps Oldenburg should be anglicised as "Oldcastle"?! Which sounds silly. The "Mountbatten-Windsor" solution strikes me as messy - some of the family are called by this surname and others aren't. It would make more sense for all of the late Queen's descendants in the male line to be called by this surname
The British royal dynasties have changed more often than one might expect. Counting the cadet branches of the Plantagenets there have been well over a dozen. Working backwards from Charles we have: Charles III Windsor, being an assumed cadet of the House of *Oldenburg* Founded with Elimar being created Count of Oldenburg in 1091 prior to which the territory and castle were the possessions of the Archbishopric of Bremen. Elizabeth II, George VI, Edward VIII, George V, Edward VII Windsor, being an assumed cadet of Saxe-Coburg and Gotha, itself a cadet of the House of *Wettin,* descendants of Theodoric of Wettin, c920-976, Saxony-Anhalt. Victoria, William IV, George IV, George III, George II, George I Hanover, a cadet of *Guelph* or Welft, founded by Welf I, Duke of Bavaria, 1070, a cadet of the house of Este, itself a cadet of the House of *Obertenghi* founded by Oberto Count of Milan in 951. William III Orange-Nassau, cadet of the House of *Nassau,* founded by Dudo of Laurenburg c1090 Mary II, James II & VII, Charles II, Charles I, James I & VI *Stuart,* Stewart of Darnley, aka Stewart of Lennox, cadet of Fitz Alan, founded by Alan fitz Flaad Seneschal of Dol-de-Bretagne. Philip *Habsburg.* senior male line descendant of Radbot of Klettgau, builder of Habsburg Castle, c1020. Elizabeth I, Mary I, Edward VI, Henry VIII, Henry VII *Tudor,* from Tudur ap Goronwy, d1311, son of Goronwy ab Ednyfed, c1205-1286, seneschal to Llywelyn the Great. Richard III, Edward V, Edward IV *York,* cadet of Plantagenet, from Edmund 1st Duke of York, son of Edward III. Henry VI, Henry V, Henry IV *Lancaster,* cadet of Plantagenet, from John 1st Duke of Lancaster, son of Edward III Richard II, Edward III, Edward II, Edward I, Henry III, John, Richard I, Henry II *Plantagenet* Cadet of the House of *Anjou,* itself cadet of Gâtinais, cadet of *Perche* Stephen *Blois,* founded by Theobald the Elder, c890-c940 Henry I, William II, William I *Normandy,* founded by Rollo, 1st Count of Rouen, 911-927. Edgar Ætheling House of *Wessex* Harold II *Godwin,* a cadet of the Wulfnoth of *Sussex.* Edward the Confessor *Wessex* Harold Harefoot Cnut House of *Denmark* Edmund Ironside Æthelred the Unready *Wessex* Sweyn Forkbeard *Denmark,* scion of the House of *Gorm,* c934. Eadred, Edgar, Eadwig, Eadred, Edmund, Æthelstan, Ælfweard, Edward the Elder *Wessex,* founded by Cerdic of Wessex, 519. SCOTLAND Seumas VI Stiùbhairt *Stuart* or Stewart of Darnley, cadet of Fitz Alan High Steward of Scotland, founded by Alan fitz Flaad Seneschal of Dol-de-Bretagne Màiri Stiùbhairt, Seumas V, Seumas IV, Seumas III, Seumas II, Seumas I, Robert III, Robert II *Stewart* of Dundonald, cadet of Fitz Alan High Steward of Scotland. David II, Robert I *Bruce,* founded by Robert de Brus, 1st Lord of Annandale, c1090 John *Balliol,* Founded by Guy, Seigneur of Bailleul-en-Vimeu, Normandy, c1080 Margaret *Sverre,* founded by Sverrir Sigurðarson, c1180. Alexander III, Alexander II, William I, Malcolm IV, Alexander I, Edgar, Duncan I, Donald III, Lulach, Macbeth, Duncan I House of *Dunkeld.* founded by Crínán hereditary abbot of Dunkeld, c1020 Malcolm II, Kenneth III, Constantine III, Kenneth II, Amlaíb, Cuilén, Dubh, Indulf, Malcolm I, Constantine II, Donald II, Eochaid, Giric, Áed, Constantine I, Donald I, Kenneth I MacAlpin *Alpin,* founded by Alpín mac Echdach, King of Dál Riata, c800
@@ffotograffydd Philip had the crown matrimonial by Act of Parliament and Mary I insisted on all royal acts being recorded as joint with him so there's little doubt as to his claim to have been king of England. Matilda on the other hand, while she _should_ have been queen never managed to be crowned, never really ruled - just ran around the country trying to avoid battles - and by the Treaty of Wallingford Steven and Henry II essentially side-lined her. Had she been on the throne in any meaningful way she'd be listed under Normandy with her father Henry I.
@@calmeilles Edward VIII was never crowned either, but he’s still recognised as being King. Matilda was the rightful heir and recognised as Queen by many people. Stephen knew he was a usurper which is why he made Matilda’s son his heir.
I have mot been aware of the fact that the grand-fathers of King Charles III have almost without an exception been German. Thanks for your excellent work of putting this all together for us. Honestly I have hope the King will not change the name of the dynasty. Windsor or Windsor-Mountbatten are the only ones that sound correct to me and a legacy to his late parents. ♥️🇬🇧😊
If the King were to change the name of the Royal House there is only one possible name and that is Mountbatten. Just as when Queen Victoria ascended the throne she was of the House of Hanover. When she married Prince Albert who was from the House of Saxe-Coburg-Gotha, the Royal House was still Hanover until such time as a person who was an issue of that marriage ascended the throne. That happened when their eldest son became King Edward V11 and the House then became Saxe-Coburg-Gotha. It was changed in 1917 by his son King George V because of the embarrassing German connection during the First World War and Gotha Bombers were bombing England, to The House of Windsor, a totally manufactured name thought up by the King's Private Secretary Lord Stamfordham. I do not think His Majesty will consider changing the name because Windsor was the obvious preference of the late Queen.
If the King were to change the *de jure* name to the *de facto* name of our Royal House there is only one possible name and that *is not* Mountbatten. The late Prince Phillip *was not* a member of the House of Mountbatten. Agnatically Phillip was from the House of Glucksberg, which is a cadet branch of the House of Oldenburg. Noble and Royal Houses descend agnatically.
Judging as how the descendants and members of the greek royal family are not only despised but also controversial, I doubt that it would make him any favours. Not only that, but the point of the british Crown is tradition as a constant through change. Changing the name now would not be beneficial or serve any purpose in my opinion. Do not forget, that the entire bunch was exiled AND made stateless. Maybe sticking with the name is not a bad choice.
Interesting screen name for someone so anti-Greek (well, the royals anyway). A nation with no family eminent enough to be declared the royal family, so outsiders must be invited in? And then have the throne yanked away for a bunch of military clowns? A nation more famous now for scamming tourists than for any cultural accomplishments? Embarrassing.
Wonderful Vid, It would be interesting to see Prince Philip's Naturalisation paperwork, as full-blooded Greek royal he didn't need a surname but on becoming a British citizen he had to renounce all his foreign titles and would have by legal default become Philip Schleswig-Holstein-Sonderburg-Glucksburg. It is now when he began to use the anglicised version of his mother's maiden name (Mountbatten), did he ever formally change his name? but his British dukedom -given to him on his wedding day made this academic. I have always suspected whether or not the Mountbatten-Windsor proclamation would have stood up to legal challenge as a 'change of name', as it was only intended for those descendants who did not have or use a royal or aristocratic title.
Really interesting Alan. I find it hard to get mt head around. I thought it was interesting that Princess Eugenie's son is called August. I thought it was one of those fad names, but having watched this realised that August was a name in the royal line. Thanks again ❤
🎉 fascinating, thank you. Excellent video. 7.21 Haakon = Hawk-on, because aa = awwww sound, now written as å in modern Norwegian. The Danes stuck with aa spelling, but awwww pronunciation. Å is pronounced as low to high then down a bit, what with the language being tonal an' all, just as when we respond to juicy gossip with 'well I never.' It's also the mating call of the eider duck. Yes, really.
@@philippbobkaufmann4004 WOW, that’s a little harsh. I’m American and can only pronounce the Germanic words because my mother came from Germany, but don’t ask me to pronounce French words. So how are you at speaking Chinese or Sandawe (African click language) ??
It seems like younger sons were becoming "dukes" several times in this history, even if they didn't inherit their father's lands. Can you explain how this worked? I would have expected that only the eldest son would become a duke, unless his father owned multiple duchies and they each were inherited by a different son. But that wouldn't last across multiple generations of younger sons.
Hats off to your bravery in tackling the labyrinthine royal lineages of Europe, even from these margins. I've always found it strange that some would like to follow particular strings of a large family tree and not other strings, equally valid in terms of genetic links but far more numerous, if less prestigious. All nonsense - vive la republique!
The study of genetics is such a new thing though - in the past it was descent and bloodlines that mattered. The truth is that if you go back twenty odd generations every individual has millions of ancestors, but still particular bloodlines mattered. Human beings are quite odd aren’t they?
intresting video, maybe you can do a video about the forgotten tudor and plantagenet palaces... also king louis capet of the english 1216 to 1217... the french dauphine, who later became LOUIS VIII.. & his wife blanche of castille.. grandaughter to henry II & duchess queen eleanor of aquitaine... via their daughter eleanor of england * queen of castille...
Since "father" and "grandfather" are the names for the first two generations, going back, then if Egilmar I is 24 generations back from Charles III, surely he must be Charles' " grandfather"?
No, not really, dynastic names usually go down the male line, not the distant female line. He is very remotely related to the Stuart dynasty, whereas this is his father’s immediate family.
As I'm living in Schleswig-Holstein, I prefer Windsor for King Charles III. I feel pity for everyone getting a knot in his tongue while trying to pronounce Schleswig-Holstein Sonderburg Glücksburg correctly.
But Phillip Duke of Edinburgh was born into the family of Schleswig-Holstein-Sonderburg-Gluksberg, so that is the correct name rather than Mountbatten. Given the change of dynasty in Denmark which is now the house of Monpezat, the greek royal family are the only ones left with the Danish name, and the English too. As a historian having the same surname in perpetuity is not ideal, as dynastic names are good for describing different groups of monarchs.
In British usage, is there a fifference between House and Dynasty? I would have thought the current royal family would still be considered the senior branch of the Hanoverian Dynasty, even though they are the House of Windsor or Oldenburg-Schleswig-Holstein-Glucksborg or whatever. And lets not get started on the whole Hesse Battenburg Mountbatten thing.
Forgive me if I'm wrong but the House name is not a surname, is it? I did read at one stage that George V had someone look into what would be his surname, and they came to the conclusion it was likely to be Guelph or more probably Wettin. I believe that once upon a time, you could actually go and look at birth records, but that was changed at some stage in the last 60 years.
What I want to know is when are they going to stop recycling the boring names of George, William, and Edward. When are we going to see a King Egilmore sitting on the British throne? 🤣🤣
I’d love to see a Queen Fredigundis. There was a Visigothic queen of that name and I’ve loved it ever since I first read Gibbon. So much so that I even named one of my cows after her🙂
@@mountbatten2222 I think he is speaking of the British Monarchy. There is no Christian in the British line to The Throne who is anywhere near a possible succession. There is a William, George, Charlotte, and Louis for starters.
Why don't the British remind their own ancestry? Most of them came from what is now northern Germany and West-Denmark: the Angles, the Jutes, and the Saxons, dominating the autoctonous, celtic Britons!
King Charles III is also descended from the Scottish Stuart dynasty through King James IV who became James I of England the first King of all Britain. He is also descended from both Alfred the Great and William the Conqueror. Charles son, the future King William will be even more British as will his son the future King George IIII as both have English mothers. Also surnames were only introduced into England by the Normans for taxation pruposes. At that time, a rich man could have lots of sons all with completely different surnames. Their surname were connected to their estates not their ancestors. Therefore, it would be quite acceptable for Charles to name his dynasty after any of his Royal estates, including Windsor, just as his ancestors did previously for generations passed. A Royal dynasty is not confined to the name of the previous estates of his ancestors in any particular century.
If we know anything, it is this: the present King has the greatest respect for his late mother. Her use of Windsor or Windsor-Mountbatten is controlling. I encourage you to do a video on the ancestors of George V and VI, and the late Queen mother.
I love your reseach but I wonder. What do you know of the claim that Richard the 4th being illegitimate? I saw a interresting documementry by Tony Robinson on Real Royalty on the subject. Additionally, they state that a Michael Hastings from Australia should be included on the tree. Thank You
@@detangers I didn't watch the whole video yet, so I guess I'll find out when I do. I did see the doc that claimed that one of the royal children from mqny centuries ago could not be legitimate and which traced the "rightful" monarch to that Australian guy, although some say it was debunked, but I haven't seen that myself. But I cannot remember who it was and which king and queen it was about now. Lol.
King Christian IX wife Louise of Hesse-Kessel was a great granddaughter of King Fredrick V of Denmark so she had a much better claim to the throne then her husband.
But Windsor is their real name. Has been for a century. When regular people change their surname or first name in the official documents, it is considered to be their real name, not the old one.
Don't miss the point - that is just a hook to talk about his patrilineal ancestry. With respect to official documents, there is actually no official document, except the 1917 letters patent, which changed the dynastic name of Saxe-Coburg-Gotha to Windsor - it didn't anticipate the change of dynasty that occurred in 2022. The late Queen expressed her opinion on the name of her successors, but as so often she enshrined nothing in formal legislation, so that those successors were free to make their own mind up. Charles as sovereign is quite at liberty to use his father's surname, as the name of his royal house, as all other sovereigns have done before him. Whether he will is a different and unrelated matter.
not legally binding super duper caught my ear at the beginning there. as an American and a fan of history anywhere, I was somewhat aware, one might even say more than the average American, 😅 somewhat aware of the name change. However I’d not even considered whether or not it would be legally binding or not. Why not legally bind it starting now? And look I realize it doesn’t really matter. Ayeee but it would matter if he changed his house name back yah? therefore I as an American fantasize about and hope that he changes it back to the original because i got my popcorn ready and, it would be hilarious from my American perspective to watch all the media’s and social media’s ridiculous and irrational reactions to it. Dah well, just a fantasy, I grant.
Queen Alexandra was born Alexandra of Schleswig-Holstein-Sonderburg-Glucksburg. However, at that time, her father was not, in fact, in the line of succession to the Danish throne. He was also rather hard up. So she worked as a waitress to help out financially. Then her father became King of Denmark. It was all to do with the “Schleswig-Holstein Question” which was very complicated, but the answer to the question was “Glucksburg” and not ‘Augustenburg”. Prince Philip’s father had the same surname, because, when the Greek throne fell vacant (because the Bavarian King went potty) the European Royal families decided that Greece should have a Danish King instead (it never occurred to anyone that they might have a Greek King!) because the Danish Royal Family claimed to have Greek ancestry, in that they claimed descent from no fewer than five Roman Emperors who were, of course, at the time, Greek not Roman, including Titus Andronicus so, they had some vague Greek connection. So, Queen Alexandra and the Duke of Edinburgh both have distant Greek ancestry and so King Charles III is descended from Imperial Roman ancestors but he doesn’t mention it because it is rather vulgar to be descended from Titus Andronicus (if you have read Shakespeare you will know why.
"Worked as a waitress" gives a very false impression. The fact is, Alexandra's family was indeed not well off, so they economized on servants---meaning Alexandra and her sisters helped with serving the meals, not that she was employed at Waffle House!
James I and II and William III had two different numerical titles because England and Scotland were still two separate kingdoms. After 1707, they were not anymore, so they just go with the number which makes more sense for both. There was already an Elizabeth I in England, but neither had Elizabeth II, so this makes sense to use II.
No, because had the thrones remained separate she’d have been the only Elizabeth of Scotland. So the same reason why Queen Mary is referred to as Mary Queen of Scots not Mary I of Scotland. And also why Elizabeth I was only referred to as such once Elizabeth II came along, until then she was referred to as Queen Elizabeth. In Scotland she was usually just referred to as Queen Elizabeth, not Queen Elizabeth II, the QEII cypher wasn’t used in the same way as usual, it doesn’t appear on post boxes for example.
@@ffotograffydd Actually Scotland had its second Queen Mary at the same time as England did. She was Mary II for both kingdoms. It is interesting that Mary, Queen of Scots isn't called Mary I considering this.
@@Marmite-and-Molasses Fair enough, Mary II is often forgotten about as she’s usually only referred to as “and Mary”, if Parliament could have got away with sidelining her completely in favour of her husband they would have done. The point still stands though, Queen Elizabeth II was usually referred to as Queen Elizabeth in Scotland. Check out the post boxes, etc, no QEII cypher.
@@ffotograffydd That isn't the point you made though at all. You answered their question with "no" and then used Mary as an example of why, but it doesn't apply because there were two Queens of the Scots called Mary, although it is true that Mary II is often forgotten, but that doesn't change the facts or how a Queen is titled.. I think the person is referring to their legal titles though, not what people in a particular country in the UK call them.
An interesting video, could you do a follow-up using the female line? Female royals are usually forgotten about unless they ‘accidentally’ become Queen, which is why so many Brits don’t realise that both ‘Dutch’ William III and ‘German’ George I were direct descendants of James VI &I and so didn’t simply steal the throne. Going back further even bad old Edward I had some claim to the Scottish throne via the female line. European Royal families are far more intertwined than most realise via the Princesses, and sometimes Queens, that were used as bargaining chips. The Useful Charts channel did an interesting series about it.
Thank you. I always thought Hanover a more fitting last name than Windsor because it went back from Queen Victorias genealogy line which was actually on the throne of England. Windsor/Hanover …Hanover more true and fitting. QE2 always wanted to honor Her husband Prince Philip by throwing in the Mount-Batten name. All so silly. The Royal House name should stay with the family name that ascended through the monarchy. Hanover is more TRUE. ……AND no double or triple barrels!
The problem with the Hanover and Saxe-Coburg and Gotha (Sachsen-Coburg und Gotha) surnames is that they're very much not British which is why it was all changed to Windsor (after the town of Windsor, Berkshire and not the castle) in 1917. There's also a problem with Mountbatten - it's an Anglicised version of Battenberg (German noble family from Hesse). There's no escaping it; the Royal family are Germans.
Agustus Nero Germanicus Marcus Tiberius Meniscus Publius, by Gods divine rite, King of Britan, Scotland, and Ireland, protector of Uganda, do hereby say call me King Chuck.
Except it hasn't been since 1917, and even if the name hadn't been changed in 1917 by George V, the last member of the House of Saxe-Coburg-Gotha was Elizabeth II. Do watch the video!
Loads of Brits say that. Apparently they haven't studied the royal lineage past Victoria's marriage. Odd how HER wedding changed the name but Elizabeth's somehow didn't, eh?
@@Marmite-and-Molasses That's because she became queen while unmarried and still a Hanover. I don't know if any official declarations were made about the royal house's name after she married. But her son, Edward VII, was the first Saxe-Coburg-Gotha sovereign.
@@ladydamiana6841 That is true, but I was referring to the fact that the house didn't change upon her marriage. For Elizabeth II, I think it's because George and Mary and likely others carefully selected Windsor and did not want to change an English surname which was now their established English name which carried on after George V because remember why they changed it. Mountbatten wasn't Phillip's name either. I think it was about stability and maybe Georege V's legacy. That's my personal understanding of why Queen Mary and Churchill (allegedly) ensured that the name would not be changed to Phillip's adopted surname, which was his mother's family's anglicised Battenberg suname, which was actually changed at the same time as SCG was changed to Windsor. It is also when George ordered his relatives in the UK to stop using their German titles and when Phillip's maternal family did just that and began using the newly received British peerage titles and subsequent courtesy titles.
@@SafetySpooon that isn't mostly. It is half, and her mother likely was not 100 percent Scottish anyway as most people are not 100 percent anything. But she married a man of mostly German ethnicity (not nationality or the nations of which he had royal status), bringing back more German blood into the family again. Even Scots and English folk are of mixed ancestry - French, German, Dutch, Scandanavian, Celtic, etc.
Most of the German line was part Scottish too, just via the female line. George I was a direct descendant of James VI & I via his mother. The same for William III, his mother was a Stuart. And even with William I, his claim to the English throne was there, just via the female line. Strange that people always forget the women…
@@ffotograffydd but the Scottish was further off by that point. Elizabeth, The Winter Queen was his grandmother. Still there, but in a much smaller percentage than the German by that point.
![Lp. Сердце Вселенной #60 РОЖДЕНИЕ ЛОЛОЛОШКИ [Финал] • Майнкрафт](http://i.ytimg.com/vi/YoR0pAV9FVQ/mqdefault.jpg)
I'm keeping you all on your toes by saying 2002 instead of 2022 for the late Queen's death. Perhaps it is wishful thinking that we were back in 2002, I was a baby-faced student in the middle of my PhD and newly engaged to be married. When I misspeak when recording, it just proves I am a real, fallible person and not just an AI bot - and usually in need of a holiday!
@@allanbarton Enjoy that holiday you deserve it!
❤❤❤❤❤
no worries i didn’t even notice ‘til i saw this comment. well ok i was also driving while listening so that may have had something to do with it. Nevertheless I didn’t catch it.😄
Twenty years or so is the blink of an eye in historical terms. 😉
@@PresidentSquigglyMiggly it is, but in a human lifetime, crumbs!
What a nice treat for my gardening break this afternoon! Please note, I'm watching from Austin, TX. Gardening here is an extreme sport and requires cooling off/rehydrating. 😂
You are warm in Texas, it is freezing here in the UK!
Thanks for rolling up your sleeves and producing this fascinating story
Well now we can put paid to the disparaging lines Queen Mary was supposed to have said about Philip in the series "The Crown"! "A royal line of carpet-baggers and parvenus that dates back what? A hundred years?" With your extensive research you have proven that Queen Mary never would have said such a thing! Turns out; Phillip's royal line was just as illustrious as Elizabeth II's and possibly more so with kings and dukes going back just as far but without all the bloodshed regicide and turmoil of the War of the Roses! I applaud you! A very worthy subject and an interesting topic! Great video! Thank you!
“The Crown” is total trash nothing but Hollywood drivel.
It's even more ridiculous when you consider that Queen Mary's own husband, George V, and all their descendants, ALSO can directly trace their descent to the house of Glucksburg through Queen Alexandra (her husband's mother)!
So this is purely a patrilineal line of descent? Absolutely fascinating to read and see all the names. Thankyou Allan!
Yes indeed, and unbroken in the male line since 1060. Extraordinary really.
Known as agnatic succession. The only modern royal house to strictly employ this is Lichtenstein.
@@geoffreypiltz271what about Monaco i had heard as an American that they can only stay as Monaco if they have a son each generation? maybe it’s not the same. again as an American I totally acknowledge that i don’t understand all the royal succession stuff. Since I am pro equal individual freedom and anti royalty. Nevertheless, I am also a fan of history and very much enjoy learning of all the games of thrones through the centuries.
Monaco's succession laws were reformed in 2002 as the then 41-y.o prince hereditary Albert had only has daughters until that point
You could also trace his origins via the house of Guelph after all Albert was merely a consort and Victoria was the reigning monarch and she was from the house of Guelph of which the house of Hanover was a cadet branch. Guelphs were a Frankish family who settled in north eastern Italy specifically in the town of Este near Padua. One may find the grave of the earliest member of this house in front of the monastery of Vandagizza near Este. From Este the Guelphs moved to Germany to the Weingarten area near Lake of Constance-there are many prominent Guelph graves in the Weingarten abbey. From there it was to Bavaria and Brunswick. They scored a Holy Roman emperor in the person of Otto IV and thereafter inherited a number of principalities including Hanover from which they got their British designation. One Guelph even briefly became Russian Tsar in the person of the boy Ivan VI. The university town of Guelph in Ontario, Canada is named after Guelph, Victoria's reigning house.The Guelfi also gave their name to one of the perennial political parties that fought it out in the interminable struggles between Guelphs and Ghibellines in medieval Italy.Guelphs became associated with the pro papal sector who were for independence of the cities and free trade while the Ghibellines named for another one of the German dynasties represented the more conservative feudal and monarchic element in politics.
I have un paused your magazine. I thought I had to this month but now know I didn’t have to. I just adore your magazine
thank you Liane, I am so glad you like. I really do love producing it and I am grateful for such lovely feedback.
Thanks, Allan, for a fine lesson in geneology. We live near the Oldenburg in Oldenburg, and it's a vibrant city, well worth a visit. I did get a little confused, however, as there also is an Oldenburg in Schleswig-Holstein with lots of connections to Denmark. But you pulled everything together. Of course, I would be happy to offer our family name to King Charles, should he be shopping around. All the best to you.
Thank you, Allen. Fascinating content.
Ha, Allan, I spotted the slip, but am utterly in awe of your staggering through the rest of the names so successfully! The automatic subtitles make quite a hash of them...and you've given us another gem of descriptive naming with Christian the Quarrelsome! Thank you for a fascinating video.
Glad you enjoyed it ☺️
What a fascinating video. I find genealogy such an interesting topic. Thank you.
Glad you enjoyed it!
Saxe Coburg Gotha on his mother's side Battenburg on his father's side. The Hanover Kings started with George 1st who was about 44th in line to the English (British) throne. He was the first protestant. The Stuarts were in fact the direct line to the throne.
I'm sure the English would LOVE the renaming of the House of Windsor to Schleswig-Holstein-Sonderburg-Glucksburg.
Why not. They’re ok with and have been ok with successive German monarchs since they decided to just hand the crown over to Sophia, Electress of Hanover and her subsequent heirs. The whole notion of ‘Windsor’ was to cowardly disassociate with German relatives on the continent after one of Victorias grandchildren (Kaiser Wilhelm II) lost his fucking mind amidst the chaos of Franz Ferdinand’s assassination and decided he wanted to conquer the world. So George V didn’t like some of the implications In newspapers about his being more German than English (completely true btw, as he had 0% English blood) and so he thought renaming the royal house ‘Windsor’ would fool everyone - he obviously didn’t put much stock into the intelligence of his people…and he was right because they bought it lock stock and barrel. He literally pulled a ‘I got your nose…’ on the British people and instead of act incredulous in the face of this, the British people went ‘aww come on, give it back, I need that nose’.
@@VynylFantasyBecause we understand female lines are not inferior. Both William III and George I were descendants of James VI & I via their mothers.
@@VynylFantasy. The future royal line will come back to England anyway through Prince George,son of William and Catherine.
Yet again another beautiful, wonderful video. X
Thank you very much.
Ironic that within 2 years of Charles III, patrilineally of the House of Oldenburg becoming King of the UK, the new King of Denmark is not patrilineally of the same house. Do the Danes give the same attention to royal house that the Brits do? if so, what do they consider the Royal House to be today? Monpezat?
They still use Glucksburg.
Love the genealogy, even when you’re telling of old churches. This was rather fascinating! Thanks!
Fascinating to see where royal lines appear from. Thank you
A pleasure Chris. I wish I could get my own family tree as far back as the eleventh century!
@@allanbarton indeed I got mine back to 1700 then it stopped
@@christopherwiles9097 yes, mine was to about the same - they were cutting reeds in the fens, not living in castles. 😂
@@allanbarton mine ex sailor aged and in Wisbech workhouse
All my family came from that neck of the woods too!
"Mountbatten" is merely an anglicised version of Battenberg, Perhaps Oldenburg should be anglicised as "Oldcastle"?! Which sounds silly. The "Mountbatten-Windsor" solution strikes me as messy - some of the family are called by this surname and others aren't. It would make more sense for all of the late Queen's descendants in the male line to be called by this surname
Informative and entertaining. Thank you for sharing!
Very interesting. Thanks for sharing, Allen.
Wonderful as ALWAYS ❤😊
The British royal dynasties have changed more often than one might expect. Counting the cadet branches of the Plantagenets there have been well over a dozen. Working backwards from Charles we have:
Charles III
Windsor, being an assumed cadet of the House of *Oldenburg*
Founded with Elimar being created Count of Oldenburg in 1091 prior to which the territory and castle were the possessions of the Archbishopric of Bremen.
Elizabeth II, George VI, Edward VIII, George V, Edward VII
Windsor, being an assumed cadet of Saxe-Coburg and Gotha, itself a cadet of the House of *Wettin,* descendants of Theodoric of Wettin, c920-976, Saxony-Anhalt.
Victoria, William IV, George IV, George III, George II, George I
Hanover, a cadet of *Guelph* or Welft, founded by Welf I, Duke of Bavaria, 1070, a cadet of the house of Este, itself a cadet of the House of *Obertenghi* founded by Oberto Count of Milan in 951.
William III
Orange-Nassau, cadet of the House of *Nassau,* founded by Dudo of Laurenburg c1090
Mary II, James II & VII, Charles II, Charles I, James I & VI
*Stuart,* Stewart of Darnley, aka Stewart of Lennox, cadet of Fitz Alan, founded by Alan fitz Flaad Seneschal of Dol-de-Bretagne.
Philip
*Habsburg.* senior male line descendant of Radbot of Klettgau, builder of Habsburg Castle, c1020.
Elizabeth I, Mary I, Edward VI, Henry VIII, Henry VII
*Tudor,* from Tudur ap Goronwy, d1311, son of Goronwy ab Ednyfed, c1205-1286, seneschal to Llywelyn the Great.
Richard III, Edward V, Edward IV
*York,* cadet of Plantagenet, from Edmund 1st Duke of York, son of Edward III.
Henry VI, Henry V, Henry IV
*Lancaster,* cadet of Plantagenet, from John 1st Duke of Lancaster, son of Edward III
Richard II, Edward III, Edward II, Edward I, Henry III, John, Richard I, Henry II
*Plantagenet* Cadet of the House of *Anjou,* itself cadet of Gâtinais, cadet of *Perche*
Stephen
*Blois,* founded by Theobald the Elder, c890-c940
Henry I, William II, William I
*Normandy,* founded by Rollo, 1st Count of Rouen, 911-927.
Edgar Ætheling
House of *Wessex*
Harold II
*Godwin,* a cadet of the Wulfnoth of *Sussex.*
Edward the Confessor
*Wessex*
Harold Harefoot
Cnut
House of *Denmark*
Edmund Ironside
Æthelred the Unready
*Wessex*
Sweyn Forkbeard
*Denmark,* scion of the House of *Gorm,* c934.
Eadred, Edgar, Eadwig, Eadred, Edmund, Æthelstan, Ælfweard, Edward the Elder
*Wessex,* founded by Cerdic of Wessex, 519.
SCOTLAND
Seumas VI Stiùbhairt
*Stuart* or Stewart of Darnley, cadet of Fitz Alan High Steward of Scotland, founded by Alan fitz Flaad Seneschal of Dol-de-Bretagne
Màiri Stiùbhairt, Seumas V, Seumas IV, Seumas III, Seumas II, Seumas I, Robert III, Robert II
*Stewart* of Dundonald, cadet of Fitz Alan High Steward of Scotland.
David II, Robert I
*Bruce,* founded by Robert de Brus, 1st Lord of Annandale, c1090
John
*Balliol,* Founded by Guy, Seigneur of Bailleul-en-Vimeu, Normandy, c1080
Margaret
*Sverre,* founded by Sverrir Sigurðarson, c1180.
Alexander III, Alexander II, William I, Malcolm IV, Alexander I, Edgar, Duncan I, Donald III, Lulach, Macbeth, Duncan I
House of *Dunkeld.* founded by Crínán hereditary abbot of Dunkeld, c1020
Malcolm II, Kenneth III, Constantine III, Kenneth II, Amlaíb, Cuilén, Dubh, Indulf, Malcolm I, Constantine II, Donald II, Eochaid, Giric, Áed, Constantine I, Donald I, Kenneth I MacAlpin
*Alpin,* founded by Alpín mac Echdach, King of Dál Riata, c800
You missed out Matilda, yet included Philip of Spain? An interesting choice.
@@ffotograffydd Philip had the crown matrimonial by Act of Parliament and Mary I insisted on all royal acts being recorded as joint with him so there's little doubt as to his claim to have been king of England. Matilda on the other hand, while she _should_ have been queen never managed to be crowned, never really ruled - just ran around the country trying to avoid battles - and by the Treaty of Wallingford Steven and Henry II essentially side-lined her. Had she been on the throne in any meaningful way she'd be listed under Normandy with her father Henry I.
@@calmeilles Edward VIII was never crowned either, but he’s still recognised as being King.
Matilda was the rightful heir and recognised as Queen by many people. Stephen knew he was a usurper which is why he made Matilda’s son his heir.
I have mot been aware of the fact that the grand-fathers of King Charles III have almost without an exception been German. Thanks for your excellent work of putting this all together for us. Honestly I have hope the King will not change the name of the dynasty. Windsor or Windsor-Mountbatten are the only ones that sound correct to me and a legacy to his late parents. ♥️🇬🇧😊
Great video. I was also a bit surprised to learn that the late Queen's maternal line is descended from Anne Boleyn's sister Mary.
That would make a fascinating video!
@@allanbarton Can't wait!
Hi Allan! I may have to watch this video a couple of more times. The family line meanders a bit indeed. Interesting as always.
How fabulously fun and informative!
If the King were to change the name of the Royal House there is only one possible name and that is Mountbatten. Just as when Queen Victoria ascended the throne she was of the House of Hanover. When she married Prince Albert who was from the House of Saxe-Coburg-Gotha, the Royal House was still Hanover until such time as a person who was an issue of that marriage ascended the throne. That happened when their eldest son became King Edward V11 and the House then became Saxe-Coburg-Gotha. It was changed in 1917 by his son King George V because of the embarrassing German connection during the First World War and Gotha Bombers were bombing England, to The House of Windsor, a totally manufactured name thought up by the King's Private Secretary Lord Stamfordham. I do not think His Majesty will consider changing the name because Windsor was the obvious preference of the late Queen.
If the King were to change the *de jure* name to the *de facto* name of our Royal House there is only one possible name and that *is not* Mountbatten. The late Prince Phillip *was not* a member of the House of Mountbatten. Agnatically Phillip was from the House of Glucksberg, which is a cadet branch of the House of Oldenburg. Noble and Royal Houses descend agnatically.
Judging as how the descendants and members of the greek royal family are not only despised but also controversial, I doubt that it would make him any favours. Not only that, but the point of the british Crown is tradition as a constant through change. Changing the name now would not be beneficial or serve any purpose in my opinion. Do not forget, that the entire bunch was exiled AND made stateless. Maybe sticking with the name is not a bad choice.
Interesting screen name for someone so anti-Greek (well, the royals anyway). A nation with no family eminent enough to be declared the royal family, so outsiders must be invited in? And then have the throne yanked away for a bunch of military clowns? A nation more famous now for scamming tourists than for any cultural accomplishments? Embarrassing.
'The Quarrelsome' 22 x great-grandfather, and 23 x later, we have the Ginger one.
Wonderful Vid, It would be interesting to see Prince Philip's Naturalisation paperwork, as full-blooded Greek royal he didn't need a surname but on becoming a British citizen he had to renounce all his foreign titles and would have by legal default become Philip Schleswig-Holstein-Sonderburg-Glucksburg. It is now when he began to use the anglicised version of his mother's maiden name (Mountbatten), did he ever formally change his name? but his British dukedom -given to him on his wedding day made this academic. I have always suspected whether or not the Mountbatten-Windsor proclamation would have stood up to legal challenge as a 'change of name', as it was only intended for those descendants who did not have or use a royal or aristocratic title.
Really interesting Alan. I find it hard to get mt head around. I thought it was interesting that Princess Eugenie's son is called August. I thought it was one of those fad names, but having watched this realised that August was a name in the royal line. Thanks again ❤
Thank you, Allen.
My pleasure!
Early part all new to me so VERY interesting. Thank you. Regards. John.
Glad you enjoyed it!
Thank you, Dr. Barton.
Great history show ; thanks from old New Orleans 😇
Glad you enjoyed it
I think that he should change the name of the house to "of Great Britain, Greece and Denmark", just to see what happens. Call it a reverse Brexit
Schleswig-Holstein-Sonderburg-Glücksburg!!!
I am glad we don't have to say that with any regularity.
🎉 fascinating, thank you. Excellent video.
7.21 Haakon = Hawk-on, because aa = awwww sound, now written as å in modern Norwegian. The Danes stuck with aa spelling, but awwww pronunciation. Å is pronounced as low to high then down a bit, what with the language being tonal an' all, just as when we respond to juicy gossip with 'well I never.' It's also the mating call of the eider duck. Yes, really.
@@allanbartoncan you tell me why the Germans have such long hyphenated names ?
@@loislewis5229 they are in essence territorial titles, every time they are given a property they add it to the name.
@@philippbobkaufmann4004 WOW, that’s a little harsh. I’m American and can only pronounce the Germanic words because my mother came from Germany, but don’t ask me to pronounce French words. So how are you at speaking Chinese or Sandawe (African click language) ??
It seems like younger sons were becoming "dukes" several times in this history, even if they didn't inherit their father's lands. Can you explain how this worked? I would have expected that only the eldest son would become a duke, unless his father owned multiple duchies and they each were inherited by a different son. But that wouldn't last across multiple generations of younger sons.
You note when he carefully said "styled himself" - basically they made it up.
More to the point, they got away with it.
Fascinating. Thank you.
Hats off to your bravery in tackling the labyrinthine royal lineages of Europe, even from these margins. I've always found it strange that some would like to follow particular strings of a large family tree and not other strings, equally valid in terms of genetic links but far more numerous, if less prestigious. All nonsense - vive la republique!
The study of genetics is such a new thing though - in the past it was descent and bloodlines that mattered. The truth is that if you go back twenty odd generations every individual has millions of ancestors, but still particular bloodlines mattered. Human beings are quite odd aren’t they?
Great topic
intresting video, maybe you can do a video about the forgotten tudor and plantagenet palaces...
also
king louis capet of the english 1216 to 1217... the french dauphine, who later became LOUIS VIII..
& his wife blanche of castille.. grandaughter to henry II & duchess queen eleanor of aquitaine... via their daughter eleanor of england * queen of castille...
Whew! I'm rather hoping that Charles III sticks with Windsor!
Me too!
Since "father" and "grandfather" are the names for the first two generations, going back, then if Egilmar I is 24 generations back from Charles III, surely he must be Charles' " grandfather"?
Indeed so - it is a staggering twenty six generations - adding up was never my strong suit!
Interesting! Thank you! 😃👍
Glad you enjoyed it, thanks for watching!
He could also call himself Stewart which is also a direct line and closer than any of the others you mention.
No, not really, dynastic names usually go down the male line, not the distant female line. He is very remotely related to the Stuart dynasty, whereas this is his father’s immediate family.
Amazing video
As I'm living in Schleswig-Holstein, I prefer Windsor for King Charles III. I feel pity for everyone getting a knot in his tongue while trying to pronounce Schleswig-Holstein Sonderburg Glücksburg correctly.
It is a really tricky one - Windsor is so much easier!
There's a G and S style song to be written here
So very true!!!
Bonkers, but fun!
Glad you appreciated this!
Great vidoe!
But Phillip Duke of Edinburgh was born into the family of Schleswig-Holstein-Sonderburg-Gluksberg, so that is the correct name rather than Mountbatten. Given the change of dynasty in Denmark which is now the house of Monpezat, the greek royal family are the only ones left with the Danish name, and the English too. As a historian having the same surname in perpetuity is not ideal, as dynastic names are good for describing different groups of monarchs.
In British usage, is there a fifference between House and Dynasty? I would have thought the current royal family would still be considered the senior branch of the Hanoverian Dynasty, even though they are the House of Windsor or Oldenburg-Schleswig-Holstein-Glucksborg or whatever. And lets not get started on the whole Hesse Battenburg Mountbatten thing.
Forgive me if I'm wrong but the House name is not a surname, is it? I did read at one stage that George V had someone look into what would be his surname, and they came to the conclusion it was likely to be Guelph or more probably Wettin. I believe that once upon a time, you could actually go and look at birth records, but that was changed at some stage in the last 60 years.
The video is about the name of the House. If they need a surname they tend to use Mountbatten-Windsor.
@@allanbarton yes, they do now courtesy of Philip.
It would be interesting to see King Charles line back to the House Of Wessex.
It would, and it would be very convoluted too.
I hope Queen Hedwig ruled by sending owls, to various parts of Denmark.
😂😂😂😂
What I want to know is when are they going to stop recycling the boring names of George, William, and Edward. When are we going to see a King Egilmore sitting on the British throne? 🤣🤣
YOU WILL HAVE A KING CHRISTIAN SOON !
I’d love to see a Queen Fredigundis. There was a Visigothic queen of that name and I’ve loved it ever since I first read Gibbon. So much so that I even named one of my cows after her🙂
@@mountbatten2222 I think he is speaking of the British Monarchy. There is no Christian in the British line to The Throne who is anywhere near a possible succession. There is a William, George, Charlotte, and Louis for starters.
Why don't the British remind their own ancestry? Most of them came from what is now northern Germany and West-Denmark: the Angles, the Jutes, and the Saxons, dominating the autoctonous, celtic Britons!
King Charles III is also descended from the Scottish Stuart dynasty through King James IV who became James I of England the first King of all Britain. He is also descended from both Alfred the Great and William the Conqueror.
Charles son, the future King William will be even more British as will his son the future King George IIII as both have English mothers. Also surnames were only introduced into England by the Normans for taxation pruposes. At that time, a rich man could have lots of sons all with completely different surnames. Their surname were connected to their estates not their ancestors. Therefore, it would be quite acceptable for Charles to name his dynasty after any of his Royal estates, including Windsor, just as his ancestors did previously for generations passed. A Royal dynasty is not confined to the name of the previous estates of his ancestors in any particular century.
If we know anything, it is this: the present King has the greatest respect for his late mother. Her use of Windsor or Windsor-Mountbatten is controlling. I encourage you to do a video on the ancestors of George V and VI, and the late Queen mother.
I love your reseach but I wonder. What do you know of the claim that Richard the 4th being illegitimate? I saw a interresting documementry by Tony Robinson on Real Royalty on the subject. Additionally, they state that a Michael Hastings from Australia should be included on the tree. Thank You
Richard the fourth? Did you mean 3rd ir second because there has never been a 4th Richard of Enkgand or GB or UK.
@@Marmite-and-Molasses Hello. He might have said 3. I know very little about British history honest.
@@detangers I didn't watch the whole video yet, so I guess I'll find out when I do. I did see the doc that claimed that one of the royal children from mqny centuries ago could not be legitimate and which traced the "rightful" monarch to that Australian guy, although some say it was debunked, but I haven't seen that myself. But I cannot remember who it was and which king and queen it was about now. Lol.
Oops. He said Edward1V
@@detangers That explains it! 😄
Their real name is : Sachsen-Coburg und Gotha-Schleswig-Holstein-Sonderburg-Glucksburg
What a royal houses only game of scrabble these regal names would make….
King Christian IX wife Louise of Hesse-Kessel was a great granddaughter of King Fredrick V of Denmark so she had a much better claim to the throne then her husband.
Take a drink every time he says "grandfather of Charles the Third"
I did, as I was recording it.
Ok or he chose the Battenberg/ Mountbatten option and transform Glücksburg into House „Castle Happiness“ 😂😂😂😂
Queen Elizabeth died in 2022 not 2002. I thought was experiencing the Mandela Effect & had to google real quick. 🤓
Without a question a slip of the tongue given all my coverage of such things! Slips of the tongue prove I'm not AI and a human being!
@@allanbarton and a fabulously entertaining and erudite one at that!
@@julzy3 thank you. At least I manage to avoid spoonerisms, I'm quite adept at those!
Of course the name is 'Windsor'!
What's the big fuzz???
Well, the King could change his family name to Glucksburg, if he so wishes.
Mountebank would be a more appropriate dynastic name change.
But Windsor is their real name. Has been for a century. When regular people change their surname or first name in the official documents, it is considered to be their real name, not the old one.
Don't miss the point - that is just a hook to talk about his patrilineal ancestry. With respect to official documents, there is actually no official document, except the 1917 letters patent, which changed the dynastic name of Saxe-Coburg-Gotha to Windsor - it didn't anticipate the change of dynasty that occurred in 2022. The late Queen expressed her opinion on the name of her successors, but as so often she enshrined nothing in formal legislation, so that those successors were free to make their own mind up. Charles as sovereign is quite at liberty to use his father's surname, as the name of his royal house, as all other sovereigns have done before him. Whether he will is a different and unrelated matter.
Schwellig-Holstein-Glücksburg-Sondenburg-Sachs-Coburg-Gotha 😮😮😮 or simply Mountbatten-Windsor😅😅😅
The latter is easier!!!!
Oldenberg.
🤺💐
That's what I would favour, it has a nicer ring to it than Schleswig-Holstein-Sonderburg-Glücksburg!
@@allanbarton oldenberg is older ?
To me, German is harsh ugly to listen to.
The prettiest - female french,
romantic - male italian.
🤺💐
Oldenburg, please.
Burg means castle, berg means mountain. Big difference!
@@andreakaradeniz1350 stone - altar
Altar people
🤺💐
not legally binding super duper caught my ear at the beginning there. as an American and a fan of history anywhere, I was somewhat aware, one might even say more than the average American, 😅 somewhat aware of the name change. However I’d not even considered whether or not it would be legally binding or not. Why not legally bind it starting now? And look I realize it doesn’t really matter. Ayeee but it would matter if he changed his house name back yah? therefore I as an American fantasize about and hope that he changes it back to the original because i got my popcorn ready and, it would be hilarious from my American perspective to watch all the media’s and social media’s ridiculous and irrational reactions to it. Dah well, just a fantasy, I grant.
Queen Alexandra was born Alexandra of Schleswig-Holstein-Sonderburg-Glucksburg. However, at that time, her father was not, in fact, in the line of succession to the Danish throne. He was also rather hard up. So she worked as a waitress to help out financially. Then her father became King of Denmark. It was all to do with the “Schleswig-Holstein Question” which was very complicated, but the answer to the question was “Glucksburg” and not ‘Augustenburg”. Prince Philip’s father had the same surname, because, when the Greek throne fell vacant (because the Bavarian King went potty) the European Royal families decided that Greece should have a Danish King instead (it never occurred to anyone that they might have a Greek King!) because the Danish Royal Family claimed to have Greek ancestry, in that they claimed descent from no fewer than five Roman Emperors who were, of course, at the time, Greek not Roman, including Titus Andronicus so, they had some vague Greek connection. So, Queen Alexandra and the Duke of Edinburgh both have distant Greek ancestry and so King Charles III is descended from Imperial Roman ancestors but he doesn’t mention it because it is rather vulgar to be descended from Titus Andronicus (if you have read Shakespeare you will know why.
"Worked as a waitress" gives a very false impression. The fact is, Alexandra's family was indeed not well off, so they economized on servants---meaning Alexandra and her sisters helped with serving the meals, not that she was employed at Waffle House!
I doubt anyone would make a fuss about being descended from Titus Andronicus. Romans definitely brought the ick factor to the world
💎 The House of Cher 💅 👠 🎤
Should Elizabeth II be called Elizabeth I and II? Elizabeth I wasn't Queen of Scotland (as with James I and V)
James I and II and William III had two different numerical titles because England and Scotland were still two separate kingdoms. After 1707, they were not anymore, so they just go with the number which makes more sense for both. There was already an Elizabeth I in England, but neither had Elizabeth II, so this makes sense to use II.
No, because had the thrones remained separate she’d have been the only Elizabeth of Scotland. So the same reason why Queen Mary is referred to as Mary Queen of Scots not Mary I of Scotland.
And also why Elizabeth I was only referred to as such once Elizabeth II came along, until then she was referred to as Queen Elizabeth.
In Scotland she was usually just referred to as Queen Elizabeth, not Queen Elizabeth II, the QEII cypher wasn’t used in the same way as usual, it doesn’t appear on post boxes for example.
@@ffotograffydd Actually Scotland had its second Queen Mary at the same time as England did. She was Mary II for both kingdoms. It is interesting that Mary, Queen of Scots isn't called Mary I considering this.
@@Marmite-and-Molasses Fair enough, Mary II is often forgotten about as she’s usually only referred to as “and Mary”, if Parliament could have got away with sidelining her completely in favour of her husband they would have done.
The point still stands though, Queen Elizabeth II was usually referred to as Queen Elizabeth in Scotland. Check out the post boxes, etc, no QEII cypher.
@@ffotograffydd That isn't the point you made though at all. You answered their question with "no" and then used Mary as an example of why, but it doesn't apply because there were two Queens of the Scots called Mary, although it is true that Mary II is often forgotten, but that doesn't change the facts or how a Queen is titled.. I think the person is referring to their legal titles though, not what people in a particular country in the UK call them.
An interesting video, could you do a follow-up using the female line?
Female royals are usually forgotten about unless they ‘accidentally’ become Queen, which is why so many Brits don’t realise that both ‘Dutch’ William III and ‘German’ George I were direct descendants of James VI &I and so didn’t simply steal the throne.
Going back further even bad old Edward I had some claim to the Scottish throne via the female line.
European Royal families are far more intertwined than most realise via the Princesses, and sometimes Queens, that were used as bargaining chips. The Useful Charts channel did an interesting series about it.
excellent
So a bunch of younger sons soldiers, lucky Phillip!
A convocation of genealogists couldn’t sort out that family’s roots.
great history.
So Prince Archie is a Windsor but his children would be Mountbatten- Windsor. A bit of a mess surely?
Yes, that is technically correct. Prince Edward's children are Mountbatten-Windsor as they are not using the title and style they are entitled to.
There is no "Prince Archie", nor is there a "Princess Lilibet".
Well they are prince and princess now that Charles is king.Right by birth
@@cathydrinkwater1099
The "children" of Harry do not exist and Harry is a Spencer, so it would not matter, even if they did.
Family surnames change all the time, the Royal Family is no more messy in that sense than the rest of us.
Thank you. I always thought Hanover a more fitting last name than Windsor because it went back from Queen Victorias genealogy line which was actually on the throne of England. Windsor/Hanover …Hanover more true and fitting. QE2 always wanted to honor Her husband Prince Philip by throwing in the Mount-Batten name. All so silly. The Royal House name should stay with the family name that ascended through the monarchy. Hanover is more TRUE. ……AND no double or triple barrels!
The problem with the Hanover and Saxe-Coburg and Gotha (Sachsen-Coburg und Gotha) surnames is that they're very much not British which is why it was all changed to Windsor (after the town of Windsor, Berkshire and not the castle) in 1917. There's also a problem with Mountbatten - it's an Anglicised version of Battenberg (German noble family from Hesse). There's no escaping it; the Royal family are Germans.
William is more English than Charles, thanks to Diana. That would be a whole other video!
Native Spanish speaker here, pronounce Schleswig requires some training on the brain and command of the tongue😂
It does for the English speaker too - I am glad we don't have to refer to the house Schleswig-Holstein-Sonderburg-Glücksburg!
Agustus Nero Germanicus Marcus Tiberius Meniscus Publius, by Gods divine rite, King of Britan, Scotland, and Ireland, protector of Uganda, do hereby say call me King Chuck.
Saxe-Coburg. That is the REAL last name. There, you"re welcome.
Except it hasn't been since 1917, and even if the name hadn't been changed in 1917 by George V, the last member of the House of Saxe-Coburg-Gotha was Elizabeth II. Do watch the video!
Loads of Brits say that. Apparently they haven't studied the royal lineage past Victoria's marriage. Odd how HER wedding changed the name but Elizabeth's somehow didn't, eh?
@@ladydamiana6841 It didn't change the name of the House because Queen Victoria is known as the last Hanovarian monarch, not Saxe-Coburg-Gotha.
@@Marmite-and-Molasses That's because she became queen while unmarried and still a Hanover. I don't know if any official declarations were made about the royal house's name after she married. But her son, Edward VII, was the first Saxe-Coburg-Gotha sovereign.
@@ladydamiana6841 That is true, but I was referring to the fact that the house didn't change upon her marriage. For Elizabeth II, I think it's because George and Mary and likely others carefully selected Windsor and did not want to change an English surname which was now their established English name which carried on after George V because remember why they changed it. Mountbatten wasn't Phillip's name either. I think it was about stability and maybe Georege V's legacy. That's my personal understanding of why Queen Mary and Churchill (allegedly) ensured that the name would not be changed to Phillip's adopted surname, which was his mother's family's anglicised Battenberg suname, which was actually changed at the same time as SCG was changed to Windsor. It is also when George ordered his relatives in the UK to stop using their German titles and when Phillip's maternal family did just that and began using the newly received British peerage titles and subsequent courtesy titles.
Windsor. Because the King said so.
Without question it is what the king says it is! It is fun to speculate.
@@joebutterman3084 vines of the zars - Caesar
🤺💐
Keep the name as it is
Isn't it ironic that the English royalty is descended from German roots???
windsor
BOB,FRANK, HUMPHREY, WINSTON, ENGLEBERT, WINTHROP, !! Anything but KING SUE or QUEEN SUSIE 🇨🇦😂
Von Battenberg
Good to confirm what I knew all along, that our current monarchy is steeped in German history.
And yet, the late queen was MOSTLY Scottish - 50%!
@@SafetySpooon that isn't mostly. It is half, and her mother likely was not 100 percent Scottish anyway as most people are not 100 percent anything. But she married a man of mostly German ethnicity (not nationality or the nations of which he had royal status), bringing back more German blood into the family again. Even Scots and English folk are of mixed ancestry - French, German, Dutch, Scandanavian, Celtic, etc.
Most of the German line was part Scottish too, just via the female line. George I was a direct descendant of James VI & I via his mother.
The same for William III, his mother was a Stuart. And even with William I, his claim to the English throne was there, just via the female line.
Strange that people always forget the women…
@@ffotograffydd but the Scottish was further off by that point. Elizabeth, The Winter Queen was his grandmother. Still there, but in a much smaller percentage than the German by that point.
@@Marmite-and-Molasses DNA is DNA mate, it’s still there. All the European Royals are related, more often via female lines.
It’s Windsor. don’t dead name them
Their real name is Sax Corburg Gotah !
No.
Windsor they descended from germans
Mountbatten
Saxe Cobourg Gotta
Oldenburg.